EPA-450/2-89-019
         SO Guideline
           Appendices
                 by
           Doug Grano (EPA)
            Jill Vitas (EPA)
       Susan Templeman (Radian)
        Richard Pandullo (Radian)
         Contract No. 68-02-4392
         Work Assignment No. 44
           Radian Corporation
             P.O. Box 13000
 Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
     Air Quality Management Division
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

             October 1989

-------
       APPENDIX A
S02 GUIDELINE REFERENCES

-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.1

-------
                                                                  PN 107-83-04.21-C
t
     \    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
     ?                     WASHINGTON. O.C  254SO

                                APR  I \  1533
                                                              Offict or
                                                       AIM. MQlSC. AND 4AOIATIOM


MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:  Section 107 Designation  Policy  Summary

FROM:     Sheldon Meyers, "Director
          Office of Air Quality Planning  and Standards  (ANR-443)

TO:       Director, Air and Waste  Management Division
          Regions II-IV, VI-VIII,  X

          Director, Air Management Division
          Regions f, V, IX

     On February 3, 1983, the Agency  published a Federal Register  notice
regarding the status of all areas  designated nonattainment  under Part  D
of the Clean Air Act.  This notice indicated that  for a significant
number of nonattainment areas States  are  anticipated to be  able to
demonstrate attainment of the primary national ambient  air  quality standards.
Accordingly, for those areas, States  have been encouraged to  update  their
Section 107 designations.  In addition, a number of nonattainment  areas were
identified in the February 3, 1983, notice as  "unlikely to  attain  standards."
The Federal Register also stated that the basic existing policy will  generally
be continued for redes 1 gnat ion.  This memorandum summarizes and clarifies
existing policy for reviewing designations and provides new guidance on
processing these actions.

Policy For Reviewing 107 Designations

1.  Data:  In general, all available information  relative  to  the  attainment
status of the area should be reviewed.  These  data should  include the most
recent eight (8) consecutive quarters of quality  assured,  representative
ambient air quality data plus evidence of an implemented control  strategy
that EPA had fully approved.  Supplemental Information, including air
quality modeling emissions data, etc., should  be used to determine if
the monitoring data accurately characterize the worst case air quality
in the area.  Also, the following  Items can be considered in special
situations.

     .An attainment designation can be made using only the most recent four  (4)
quarters  of ambient data  if  an acceptable state of the art modeling analysis
(such as  city-specific EKMA  for ozone) is provided showing that the basic
SIP  strategy 1s  sound  and  that actual, enforceable emission  reductions are
responsible for  the  recent  air quality improvement.
                                         107

                                         S-l

-------
     For nonattainment designations which were originally based solely on
nodding, redesignation to attainment 1s possible even if less than four (4}
quarters of ambient data are available provided that a reference modeling
analysis considering the sources'  legal emission limits shows attainment of
the standards.  Information must also be presented showing that the sources
causing the problem are In compliance with the enforceable SIP measures.

     Although the current ozone standard Implies the need for three years
of data for attainment designations, two years of data with no exceedances
Is an acceptable surrogate.  As discussed previously, this should be
accompanied by evidence of an Implemented control strategy that EPA had
fully approved.

2.  Projected Future Violations;   Projections of future violations can
provide the basis for continuing nonattainment designations.  This
concept 1s'particularly Important  because of the current economic downturn.
Information submitted to support i*tainment redes1 gnatIons must adequately
and accurately reflect anticipates operating rates.  Areas should remain
nonattainment where such projections reveal air quality violations.

3.  Modeling;  In most 502 cases,  monitoring data alone will not be
sufficient for areas dominated by  point sources.  A small number of ambient
monitors usually 1s not representative of the air quality for the entire
area.  Dispersion modeling employing the legally enforceable SO? SIP limits
will  generally be necessary to evaluate comprehensively the sources' Impacts
as well as to Identify the areas of highest concentrations.  If either the
modeling or monitoring Indicates that SO? air quality standards are being
violated, the area should remain nonattainment.

4.  Boundaries;  Current policies  on appropriate boundaries for designation
of nonattainment areas by EPA remain in effect, i.e., generally political
boundaries such as city or county  for TSP and SO?, county as a minimum for
rural ozone, entire urbanized area and fringe areas of development for
urban ozone, and urban core area for CO.  When States redes1 gnate, EPA
will  continue to accept reasonable boundaries which are supported by
appropriate data, such as specific new monitoring and/or modeling data or
evidence of improvement due to control strategy Implementation.  Nonattain-
ment  areas for ozone should include the significant VOC sources.

5.  Dispersion Techniques;  Areas  which are projected to attain the TSP
or SO? standards because of the use of unauthorized dispersion techniques
should continue to be designated as nonattainment.
                                 107
                                 8-2

-------
Policy for Processing 107 Redeslgnations

1.  SIP Review Actions:  Section 107 designations have generally been
classified as minor actions, with only a few of the more significant
ones being processed as moderate.  In the future, redesignations of Tier II
nonattainment areas should be classified as major actions so that they
can receive a comprehensive review to help ensure regional consistency.
Redesignation of Tier I nonattainment areas should continue to be handled
as minor or moderate actions, as appropriate.

2.  "Unclassifiable" Areas;  Since EPA and the States have had nearly five
years to resolve discrepancies for nonattainment designations, it 1s now
inappropriate to redesignate any area from nonattainment to unclassi-
fiable.  There has been ample time since the first designations were made
in 1978 to thoroughly study each nonattainment area.  Sufficient data
should now exist to either make a redeslgnatlon to attainment or to keep
the nonattainment designation.

     If you have any questions, please contact Tom Helms at (FTS) 629-5525.

cc:  Regional Administrator, Regions I-X
     Chief, Air Programs Branch, Regions I-X
                                    107
                                    8-3

-------
• ^K  .
» Km  ^
isSS?;
                   UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                          Offic* of Air Quality Planning and Standards
                         Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711

                                 2 3 DEC 1983
MEMORANDUM
Subject:  Section 107 Questions and Answers
From:     G. T. Helms, Chief
          Control Programs Operations Branch (MO-15)

To:       Air Branch Chief
          Regions NX

     The April 21, 1983 memo from Sheldon Meyers on Section 107 Redes i gnat ion
Policy has generally resulted in more consistent redeslgnation packages.
However, a number of questions have developed since then and it seems
worthwhile now to share with everyone the responses that have been developed.
These questions have arisen in a number of areas.

1.   Is air quality data alone sufficient for a redesignation from
nonattainment to attainment?

Answer:  No.  Valid air quality data showing no NAAQS violations must be
supplemented with a demonstration that the eaproved SIP control strategy
which provides for attainment has been implemented.  The April 21 memo
describes the requirements  in detail.  In most cases the submittal will
Include the most  recent eight quarters of data showing attainment and
evidence of an implemented  control strategy that EPA had approved.  This
demonstration need not  necessarily be quantitative.  Rather, it need
simply confirm that the control strategy approved  in the SIP to address
the  problem has  indeed  been implemented.  Where only the most  recent  four
quarters of data  showing  attainment  are available,  a state-of-the-art
modeling analysis must  be provided which quantifies that the SIP strategy
is sound and  that actual  enforceable emission  reductions are responsible
for  the  air quality  improvements.

2.   Are  the  same requirements  discussed  in  answer  number 1  applicable to
secondary  TSP redes i gnat ions?

Answer:  Yes.   As for primary standards,  some  reason has to be  shown  for
the  improvement  in  air quality.   This  can  consist  of  an  implemented
 control  strategy, some other Federally  enforceable statewide regulations,
or a well -documented explanation  that  the  circumstances which  resulted in
the  initial  designation have changed or were  incorrect.   The integrity of
the  designation process should be preserved,  for both primary  and secondary
 pollutants.   Further, it should be noted that States  are not penalized by
 remaining secondary nonattainment.  Therefore, a control  strategy or
 other demonstration needs to be included with thes? redesignation requests.
                                        209

-------
3.  Can a control strategy that has not been approved by EPA as part of
the SIP be used -to* support a redes ignati on?

Answer:  In general, no.  However, an exception will be made if the
physical circumstances and long-term economic factors are such that the
implemented measures have the same weight as a SIP: for example, the
permanent closing of the major emitting sources, road paving to eliminate
fugitive emissions, or other irreversible measures.  Submittals including
such changes, even though not formally approved as SIP revisions, have
the practical impact of an EPA approved strategy and can be the basis for
approval of the  redes ignati on.

4.  Are the same criteria required to reduce the size of a nonattainment
area as are required for redesignating the entire area?

Answer:  In general, yes.  However, if a sound case can be made that the
State  "overdesignated" initially  •• that is, designated a larger area
than EPA required -- then the area can be reduced.  The remaining nonattain-
ment area must be compatible with EPA boundary requirements (see April 21,
1983 memo) and.it must be convincingly demonstrated that the area going
from nonattainment to attainment  should not have been designated non-
attainment.  Other than this specific kind of exception, however, boundary
changes require  the same analysis as any nonattainment to attainment
redes ignati on.   When a portion of a nonattainment area is redes i gnat ed
attainment, it would help the public if a statement was included in the
notice which explains that a nonattainment portion  remains.

5.  What criteria are used in redesignating from unclassifiable to attainment
for TSP and                                      "
Answer:   Redes i gnat ions  from unclassifiable  to  attainment  generally require
the  most  recent  eight  consecutive quarters of air quality  data demonstrating
attainment.   No  control  strategy demonstration  is required since there
would  have  been  no SIP requirement for an unclassifiable area. The $03
redes Ignati ons  will  generally continue to require dispersion modeling.

6.   What  is  required for reel assifi cat ions from unclassifiable to attainment
for  ozone,  carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxides?

Answer:   Redes ignati ons  from unclassifiable  to  attainment  do not  involve
any  regulatory  change.  If a State wishes to make such  a redes ignati on, it
should be sent  forward as a brief explanatory Federal Register notice
documenting the information.  However, the formal table containing the
designation status is not changed since the  attainment  and unclassifiable
designations are combined for these pollutants.

 7.   Is there, or has there ever been, a 50  km policy for ozone nonattainment
areas?

Answer:   No, this was only discussed'as an  option  some  years  ago but  it
 never achieved the status of Agency policy.
                                       210

-------
                                                                  issues
cc:   B. Bauman
     0. White
     R. Campbell
     S. Meiburg
     J. Ulfelder
                              211

-------
                              EPA-450/2-78-027R
Guideline On Air Quality Models
               (Revised)
         U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
              Office of Air and Radiation
         Offiea of Air Quality Planning and Standards
            Rasaarcn Triangia Park, NC 27711

                   Ju.y 1986

-------
            UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                    Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
                    Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

                              SEP 0 3  i98t
Mr. Ralph C. Pickard
Technical Secretary
Indiana Air Pollution Control Board
P. 0. Box 1964
Indianapolis, Indiana  46206

Dear Mr. Pickard:

     This is in response to your letter of July 9, 1981 to
Mr. Valdas V. Adamkus regarding the use of ambient monitoring data
in making Section 107 area designations.  I am also providing comments
on the use of modeling in setting of source emission limits.

     I am in agreement with your position that, when available, adequate
aabiert monitoring data should be given preference over modeling results
in designating areas as attainment/nonattainment under Section 107 of
the Clean Air Act (CAA).  EPA has always held this position and has
promoted this approach in the guidance we have issued on the subject.  A
model letter prepared by my staff in October 1977 that was sent by the
Regional Administrators of EPA to the various State governors or environ-
mental agency heads emphasized the use of monitoring data for designation
purposes.

     A follow-up memorandum issued on January 12, 1978 from my staff to
tns £"A Regional Offices responded to various questions regarding Part D
plan requirements.  It contained the following response to the question
of whether preference should be given to either monitored ambient data
or dispersion modeling results in designating areas under Section 107.
"If there is a conflict between adequate monitoring data and modeling
results, monitored values should be used.  However, if the monitoring
data are inadequate, the modeling results should be used."

     It is the desire of the Agency to base Section 107 designations on
the best possible data that are reasonably obtainable.  In most cases,
especially for isolated point sources, it is difficult for a few ambient
monitors to adequately reflect the true air quality conditions surrounding
the source, especially the areas of maximum impact or hotspots.  In many
such situations, dispersion modeling would be an alternative to the
total reliance upon a limited monitoring network.

-------
     With regard to the referenced Indiana designations, there is not,
in an administrative sense, a significant difference between unclassified
and attainment.  However, as I understand it, there exists in these
counties a more significant issue; that is, setting of new emission
limitations for power plan.ts.

     The use of diffusion modeling is now the accepted way of establishing
emission limits for individual sources such as power plants.  Host air
pollution control agencies have accepted modeling as the only practical
alternative of establishing emission limits for large sources such as
power plants.  The courts have also recognized the validity of using
modeling in setting emission limits even where monitoring data are also
available.  Recent data indicate that a number of nodeIs are proving
to be reasonable predictors of ambient impact.  One recent study has
shown that the EPA reference model for rural power plants, CRSTER,
appears to have no inherent bias; it neither over- nor underestimates
air quality levels routinely.

     It is EPA's belief that, in most cases, the use of models is the
most effective and efficient way to properly represent the impact of
varying meteorology.  To properly evaluate a prospective emission limit
solely by the use of monitoring, a very extensive and costly air quality
anc meteorological monitoring network would have to be established.
This network ray have to be operated for a long time to ensure that the
various meteorological conditions were actually experienced during each
cf the various operating regimes.  I do not believe the situation
surrounding the Indiana power plant emission limit changes argues for
an exception to the use for modeling contained in current EPA guidance.

     I trust this response adequately explains EPA's considerations in
b:th the Section 107 area designation process and the requirement for
mods'!ing wren- setting new emission limits.
                                             Sincerely
                                             Walter C. Bar
                                                 Director
                                      Office of Air Quality Planning
                                               and Standards
Enclosure

cc:  Mr. Harry D. Williams

-------
         UN'TED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL

                          WASHINGTON, O.C.  20460
                              SE?  1 8  J982
                                                             OFFICE Of
                                                      Am. NOISE. AND WAOIATION
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:  Milwaukee SO-Nonattainment Designation
          £x^kt*Arw ^vv^f^u^x
FROM:    Sheldon Meyers, Director
         . Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards  (ANR-443)

TO:       David Kee, Director-
          Air Management Division, Region V


     Thank you for your August 9, 1982,  memorandum to Assistant
Administrator Bennett regarding Wisconsin's request for a redesig-
r.ation to attainment of the sulfur dioxide (S02)  standard for the
Milwaukee area.

     You asked four (4) separate questions >n your memo.  Those questions
are repeated in full below along with my responses.

Q)   In nonattainment areas with no emission limits, what is required to
support a redesignation to attainment?  (It does  not appear to be
sufficient to accept eight'quarters of data showing no violations, even
if the r.snitors were located in the expected high concentration areas.)

A)   The fact that no Federally enforceable emission limits are in place
does not effect the criteria applied in determining the area's attain-
ment status.  In general, Section 107 designatio.-i changes should utilize
all available data, including both monitor-ink ?:*.d modeling data.
Whatever is available should certainly be ussrd.  Monitoring data should
be used only within the limits of being representative for a specific
geographic area.  The object of any designation should be to make the
best decision based upon the maximum amount of available information.

Q)   What is the role of modeling in redesignations?

A)   The need for dispersion modeling for Section  107 designation
purposes is especially important when dealing with areas dominated by
point sources of S02-  In  these cases, a small number of ambient air
                                   107
                                   7-1

-------
quality monitors will not be able to tell the whole story.  Modeling Is
essential to evaluate comprehensively and thoroughly the sources'
impacts as well as identify the areas of highest concentrations.  It
must be included in a redesignation analysis where feasible.

     For all other areas, if modeling already exists, it should be
considered.  However, dispersion modeling is generally not required to
be performed strictly for the purposes of Section 107 redesignation
requests for such areas.

Q)   Is a redesignation to attainment acceptable if there are eight.
quarters of monitored data showing no violations but there is modeling
that predicts violations?  (Note, this 1s not to say that the modeling
contradicts the monitoring since the modeling shows attainment at the
monitor locations, but nonattainment at other, nonmonitored locations.)

A)   There is no answer that fits all possible situations.  However,
where valid dispersion modeling has been performed, such modeling
results should set the designation status.  When the appropriateness
of the model is of some concerr  Regional Offices must exercise judgment
after considering such things as how many monitors-are in the network;
is complex terrain (terrain greater than stack height) involved; what
model is being used; is it a guideline model, if not, has it been
demonstrated to be appropriate; does the model tend to over- or under-
predict for the situation at hand?

     Again, it should be emphasized that the objective is to make the
best determination possible using all relevant information as to what
the attainment status of an area really is.

Q)   Mr. Barber's letter says that adequate monitored data are necessary.
How is "adequate" defined?  (We suggest that a determination of adequate
monitoring data involve reference modeling.  That is, monitors must be
located -in the areas of expected high concentrations, based on a
reference modeling analysis.)

A)   Your suggestion is what ideally should be required.  However,
monitors are seldom sited at the locations shown by later dispersion
modeling to be those of maximum impact.

     Again, the responsibility lies with the Regional Office to make the
necessary judgments as to whether or not the existing monitor locations
are sufficient both in number and spetial arrangement to allow them to
be representative of the air quality for the area.  Some judgment as to
whether the potential problem is of a localized or more general areawide
nature should be made.  This judgment will influence whether modeling or
monitoring should be given preference in the particular situation in
question.  How much information is needed before such a judgment can be
made is subject to the complexity of the situation.
                                 107
                                 7-2

-------
     I would like to add the following contnents regarding the particular
situation in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, as described in the background portion
of your August 9, 1982, memo.

     In a situation where an area was originally designated nonattainment
based on measured violations but subsequently has air quality measure-
ments less than the ambient air quality standard, common sense would
recognize the need for a study of the situation, including modeling.  It
could not reasonably be expected that violations would disappear by
themselves.  If a source has voluntarily made some emission reduction
changes that eliminate violations, these changes need to be embodied
into regulation and then be made part of the approved State Implementa-
tion Plan (SIP) control strategy.  The approval of such emission limits
as part of a SIP must be based on an adequate demonstration that ambient
air quality standards will be protected.  Such a demonstration must
include a dispersion modeling analysis under worst case conditions.

     If you have any other questions, please let me know.
                                    107
                                    7-3

-------
     >*
            UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                        WASHINGTON, O.C. 20460


                          rrp « - ryjr.
                                                           orncc or
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:  Redes ignat ions That Would Change, •the SIP

FROM:     Darryl D. Tyler, Director     (/i »•; MM                   v—' *"   jr  ***
             division                       >-

          Peter H. Wyckoff, Assistant General.Counsel
          Air and Radiation Division  V^ferfj. teae**^

TO:       Air Division Directors, Regions  I-X

     Our staffs recently discovered,  in  reviewing a Federal
Register package that embodied a redesignation  from nonattain-
mer.t to attainment,  that the  redesignation would have  relaxed
the relevant SIP, because the SIP specified one set of control
requirements for "nonattainraent" areas and; a  less stringent set
for "attainment" areas.  The  package, however,  treated the
redesignation merely as a redesignation  and not also as a SIP
relaxation.

     We therefore ask you in  the future  (1) to  examine each
redesignation to determine whether  it would have a .substantive
effect on the stringency of the relevant SIP  and (2)  to state
your conclusion  in  the Action Memorandum for  the Federal Register
package.  If the redesignation would  have such  an effect, you
should treat it  as  a SIP revision and draft  the package in accord-
ance with the relevant Agency guidance,  including guidance on SI?
relaxations and  attainment demonstrations.  Please forewarn your
state counterparts  that EPA will be treating  redesignations that
would affect SIP stringency as SIP  revisions.   Thank you.

cc:  Air Branch  Chiefs, Reg ions.. I-X
     Regional Counsel Regions  I-X

     Bill Seal
     Gerry  Smison
     Tom Helms
     Betsy  Home
     Joan La Rock
     Bill Pedersen
     John Topping
     John Ulfeider

-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.2

-------
                                                         MM 23-60-12-T 9-301
                                  Q£C 1 9  1S80
Honorable Jefmines Randoloh
Chairman, Comritte* on Environment
  and Public Works
United States Senate
Washington, O.C.  20510

3ear Mr. Chairman:

     Thar.it you for your letter of Octcfcer 2*. 19CH exoressirm -/our continued
interest in the Agency's definition of "ambient air."  Ourinn the tine
since Oavid Hawkins, ay Assistant Adim'nistritor for Air. Noise, and
Radiation, net with you last February, the definition nas been extensively
reviewed and debated.

     After reviewing the Issues and alternatives* I have determined that
no shanga frea the exlstlno policy is necessary,  l/a are rctainlno the
:o»1cy that tfta* exesrotlon frcn ambient air fs available only for the
stsosnneri over land owned or controlled fey the source and to which
sublic access is Drecluded by a fence or other nnysical tarri«rs.  S?."
will continue to review individual situations on a case-bv^rase basis
ts ensure that the public is adequately protected and that ther* 1s ra
attestot by sources to circumvent the reouirarent of Section 123 of the
Clean Air Act.

     I hope that this has been responsive to your needs.

                                           Sincerely yours,

                                          /s/ Douglas  it.  Costl»


                                           3ouolas f*. Cast I e

-------
                                             _
           UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
  s               Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
                Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 2771 1
                           2 7 JUL 1987


MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:  Ambient A1r Issue frooi New Jersey
          Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
FROM:     G.T. Helms, Chief
          Control Programs Operations Branch

TO:       William S. Baker, Chief
          A1r Branch, Region II

     In response to your request, we have reviewed your position with
respect to a determination of ambient air applicability In the vicinity
of the proposed EF Ken 11 worth. Inc.  (EFKI) cogeneratlon unit 1n Union
County, New Jersey.  As we understand 1t, EFKI will  build and operate the
plant on property leased (long-term lease) from Schering Corporation.  As
we see It the EFKI operator will  be completely separate from the Schering
operation and except for the land owned and operated by a different
Company.  The fact that EFKI has  entered Into a contract to supply
electricity/ steam to Schering is  not really relevant to the ambient air
Issue.

     We agree with your position  that all property outside of the property
leased and controlled by EFKI would be considered ambient air.  The word
"controlled" is emphasized since  nothing is said in either your memorandums
or New Jersey's letter to Region  II about what, if any, fence or other
physical barrier would be installed to prevent public access to the EFKI
leased property.  If such physical barrier 1s not erected, then all land
Including the leased site would have to be considered as ambient air.

     If you have any questions, please contact Sharon Reinders,
at 629-5255.

cc:  0. Tyler
     J. Tlkvart
     0. Wilson
     G. HcCutchen

-------
                                                          PN  110-83-Q3-18-063
                                 MAR 18  1983
Mr. Harry H. Hovey, JP. P.E.
Direct OP, Division of Aip
New Yoptc State Oept. of
  Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, New YOP!C  12233

Deap MP. Hovey:

     In response to your letter of January  11,  please be  advised that
there has been no major change in EPA policy with regard  to ambient  air
and the associated requirements of a  SIP  demonstration.   We have defined
"ambient air" at 40 CFR §50.1(e) to include "that portion of the atmosphere,
external to buildings, to which the general public has access."  Our general
policy is that the only exemption to  compliance with the  provisions  of
ambient air is for the atmosphere over land owned OP controlled by the
source and to which public access 1s  precluded  by a fence OP othep physical
bappieps.

     The national ambient air quality standards are designed to protect
the public health and welfare and apply to  all  ambient air which does  include
the rooftops and balconies of buildings accessible by the public. While
EPA has the responsibility to develop the air quality standards, the
States have the initial responsibility to implement them.  In effect,  the
States have the prime  responsibility.to protect public health and welfare.

     While EPA considers ambient air to include elevated  building receptor
sites, it is not practical to analyze the air quality at  every such  existing
location.  Therefore,  both EPA and the States must exercise their best
technical judgment as  to when such sites  must be evaluated so as to
protect public health  and welfare.  Thus, we do not expect States,  in
most circumstances, to evaluate the impact  on elevated building receptors.
However, if the State  has reason to believe that such an  evaluation is
necessary to protect public health and welfare, then it is incumbent upon
the State to conduct such an analysis.
                                    110
                                   63-1

-------
cc:   R. Campbell
     J. Schafcr
              you desire.

                                  Sincerely yours,
                                 Kathleen H.  Bennett
                               Assistant Administrator
                            for Air,  Noise, and Radiation
                                   110
                                   63-2

-------
                    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                            WASHINGTON. D.C. 20450
                       OFFICE OF THE GEKSRAT. COUNSEL

  yi.i.v:  September '27 ,  197JVr""'
A> • / » /«  : I i c I us :.• 1 7s .  Ji\m" £', !.'• v 1 1 o r r. r y
 /!.•/->,'.  ,-^j- cvulity and Radiation Division

 Ji.-;L:«rr-  Attainment  of  National Standards  in Open Air Tarkincj  Lots
       Conccv" nim-jn,  Chief
       Air Tree; rams Branch
       Region II
                            HEMOUAI.'DUH  OF LAW

                                   FACTS
                         •
             Your memorandum of September 1,  1972 raisen  the issue
        cf the  air pollution impact  of a proposed nports  corn p.1 c.:-:  to
        be VJjnnl.ruetcd  in  the llnc!:enn..ick fic-iidfr.-:l,-iru-r, in Nr'v; .irrscy.
        You vt.u.c- Lh'ji:  the iinnlysis  of ovnil-nblw* d.M-a  indie-"1 i.o~
        thr.t Vhe national  one-hour  stondard  for cuvbon luonnxi-.'o x\ti\
        be f:-:c'.:c:"r.id in  the parkin:?  lot of the cer?.ple>:  each t-i;nu it
        ir ur;ed for a nwijor event.

                                  QUnSTIOU

              J!s the at::nosphere above an ^open-air parking  lot v.'hich
        is part of a  sports complex "ambient air" undur  the CDunn
        Air  Act and EPA regulations?

                                    ANSWER

              Yes.  Under thi?  dcfjnit-.ion  of  ".T.rb.i'-ni: oir"  in )'VA
        rcvi-'lal:J.cp.r;,  n-.iticn.il ;T.'.b.ient  -nix-  qua'it.v  .'-i.ic'.ndarcU: *.:->uld
        arr!.y  tc  ti'at portier. :jf  the  a'.rori.-hcirc  r; ncc it i? c::tern-.-.
        to  1-uildings  and  the  general  public has  acccus to  it:.

                                  DISCUSSION

        1.    IT-A  hac  prcscrihetf the applicability of  the  nacxonal
        priv'.iry  'ind  secondary ^tr!•>.•• cnt air qiuilaty sl-.andardr; !••/
        'J-jTvi/ii-:  the  term "»'.rt:i--nt  nir."  Pitction 10  CFP. i>0.1(r>}  o:
        ni'/v i:c::;ulat:iTTT. defines "nirbicnt air"  to ;:'.c.->n "that. |-ortio:
        cf '••;!'. •:.tnc"p:ie.':o,  oxternal  to buildingr.,  \~c  wliicU '"he
        •?moral public harj  acc:c.r?r:. "   Tlior^  is  n^ q;H«r;tion l.h-'iL '".lie

-------
                            -  2 -


air which  .\j;  Lho r.uhjv-:t of y«»yr inquiry is  a portion of
the '•••trosplK-vc extern^.1  to  IniilcHnq:;.   A r.omewhat more
difficult  tjucM-Aon  » •> vho  tiic general  public is and whether
il can be  raid to Jur-.\: «-:ccer.:i IP Lhiu  facility.

2.    The dictionary t'vf incs "pMbjjc"  to mean "the people
as a  whole",  and note* that ti«-- terra may contemplate "a
grany "of people distir-julsbiul 'oy common interests or
characteristics"  (V7cbsVer ' n Third  Now .international Dic-
tionary  (1900)).   Sin-re;  J?j0.j(,;) attach?:::  the modifier
"^CRcr-ai" , it incic;iLv^  that  i :v: broader definition v:cs
in':rniJ'.»'J by thr requlotion.  Ti".»  t«rm "access"  is defined
*».- meaning "Permission,  libcrrt.y, or ability to  enter...."
 (Krb'-t-cr's Thj rd Ncv/  ] nl.otn.'.tii'M.il Dic'.:.:.onary  (1966)).
v:hilc tlic  narking  lot  in quf;: i--.i  may bo  fenced and/or
gu-".r-.?od  srj ni: to prcv-jn*; tlv  -MI: » ance o£  the general public
dui:i. TIT nil times cxcopt  .tho-i •.  L::modiatcly  preceding, during/
mv.1  iruT.^diately  follov;.|.iin ntiii .-. ; i.c cvonty,  it  is clear  that
 the  qcnc'.ral public m-ny rcacli ly  i-:iter  the  lot on foot or by
vehicle  dur.inrr  the p«»r.ir»»j oi'  iii.-jlic::t  pollution levels.   The
cs'^ntial  character  of thia  c--"- -I ox i:;  public,  and  it  is
!  ionshin v.-iUli  the  property
 cvr'^r,  or h.i.--  agents or J esr.r • ••  . ,u-c ab,lc  Lo gain entrance
 t-.o tlic  proper':-/, ».-:hilc  tlic fi-..-.)?1' t.L  public's entrance is
 p.lv/.~irr:lly barred  in soiiic  •••:;»•/.

 3.    I;.-ivi:r.j  rcnclu::c'J V'tuif. l:h • •: '• r  above:  Ll»e parking lot is
 -r'vrnt air,  i:c ?:c«  no  )».ir.i.-- t'-.-:-. ct:-:c3 ii.JJ.ncj it from coverafje
 by l lie  St'itc'rj irplcn-.r-ni-.-ir ion p*;m.   li-r-v.:  seems to be no
 Ic'.'J C.T! :l.i rfrrcnc'j  bcl"..'..-.:n r:.!.i'i' the  ; "•]»! 'Mi»ent.al:i.on plan
    p" .\CTblc  tr.  Llr.^  porkitv:- '":   t- 1  r.nkin |  i ': apply to concjcs; tod
 dc»«f; l:<:»v/n  at.'Ci'u: v.'hert* rMil»rm »-":i:>;: :.'!'_' C'vi'-c.-n'-.rat.ionr. flue  Lo
 he ;'•;/ tr,-i(' r.i'.-  cir»:  a]""o  •'» i'-''oV!i • ...   As yc;i:-  nmmorancluin  sug-
 cj'.:?; t::-. , even j t'  Uhc aLrv>v.j !::TI:  ,!-.,-•:> l.lv:  f'.ivking lot were
 not  '.'ctnbienl; ;ijr"  it v.»yiM b"  IK"  -^."rivy  ('.if uhe State'"
 ii"[)l •.•;•. '.:r. '..-.! i; ' en  ;>l«np. U'.'  c:v:iM'.''  '  ' i.-: if"'%<. . of  cm.i C~iori3  ot
 Lh"  f ••!<•• j] i.1 y r.p-.in  th«  r« :. • i.:-pu- . .  ;,,-:yoini  i.h:j lot's fence  line.

-------
                   UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                       REGION V

        UAY 1 6
SUBJECT. ^itBt Air

                . K
       : Region*1  Meteorologists, Regions X-X
                                                               •••v.-e

    7181 Joseph Tikvart,  Chief (MD-U)
       Source Receptsr Analysis Branch

       At the recent Regional Meteorologists1 neeting in Dallas, we Identified
       inconsistencies  among the  Regional Offices on what areas are to be
       considered as snoient air  for regulatory purposes.  The existing  incon-
       sistency on aaoient air is due to both the lack of clear National
       guidance and the allowed Regional Office discretion.  A standardized*
       approach is necessary both to  satisfy the consistency requirements  of
       Section 3Q1 of the Clean Air Act  and  in order for thes»
                                              "
        Regional  nodding activities  to  pro vide "effective and efficient review
        of and guidance on modeling analyses.  Accordingly, the Regional Meteor-
       ologists  have decided to address the problen at the working level
        through the use of a consistent modeling approach.

        4-0 CFR Part SO.l(e) defines arab lent air as "... that portion of the
        aTOo sphere, external to buildings, to which the general public has
        access."   A letter dated Decanter  19, 1980, from Douglas Cos tie to
        Senator Jennings Randolph, clarified this definition by stating that
        the exemption froet ambient air is  available only for the atmosphere
        over land owned or controlled by the source and to which public access
        is precluded by a fence or other physical barriers.'  The codified
        definition plus the 1980 clarification  essentially constitute the
        National policy on ambient air.

        The Regional *«teorologists propose that for modeling purposes  the air
        everywhere ojt*-:s» of contiguous plant  property to which public access
        is precluaeo :y a  fence or other effective  physical  barrier should be
        considered ir. locating receptors.  Specifically,  for stationary source
        modeling, re:s:tars should be placed anywhere  outside  inaccessible plant
        property.  For example, receptors should be included over  bodies of
        water, over  in fenced plant property, on buildings, over roadways, and
        over property owned by other sources.  -For aobile source modeling  (i.e.,
        CO modeling), receptors  should  continue to be  sited in accordance with •
        Volume 9 of  the  "Guidelines  for Air Quality Maintenance Planning*.

        Unless you dis«;ree with  our position, we will require new actions with
        modeling analyses  submitted  to  EPA after January 1,  1986,  to  conform to
        this modeling policy.   Please note that all 10 Regional Meteorologists
        have  reviewed  and  concur  with this. memo.


        cc:  Regional Meteorologists,  Regions I-X

-------
        UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
               Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
               Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
                         3 •" • •• - .
                            i ••



ECMORANDUM

SUBJECT:  Ambient A1r

FROM:     6. T. Helms, Chief A*
          Control Programs  Operations  Branch (MD-15)
TO:       Steve Rothblatt, Chief
          A1r Branch, Region V


     My staff and I have discussed the five ambient air cases which you
submitted for our review on January 16, 1987.  The following comments are
our Interpretation of the ambient air policy .   However, this memorandum
1s not a discussion of the technical  Issues Involved 1n the placement of
receptors for modeling.

     Our comments on each of the cases follow:

     Case 1 (Dakota County, NN):  This case Involves two noncontiguous
pieces of fenced property owned by the same source, divided by  a  public
road.  We agree that the road 1s clearly ambient air and that both fenced
pieces of plant property are not.

     Case 2 (UarHck County, IN):  This case Involves  two  large sources
on both sides of the Ohio River.  We agree that  receptors  should  be located
over the river since this Is a public waterway,  not controlled  by the
sources.  We also agree that the river does Indeed fora a  sufficient
natural boundary/barrier and that fencing 1s not necessary, since the
policy requires a fence or other physical  barrier.  However, some con-
ditions-must be met.  The rlverbank must be clearly posted and  regularly
patrolled by plant security.  It must be very clear that the area 1s not
public.  Any areas where there 1s any question— 1.e.,  grassy areas, etc.—
should be fenced and marked, even 1f there 1s only a very  remote  possi-
bility that the public would attempt to use this property.

     However, we also feel that;current policy  requires that receptors
should be placed 1n ALCOA and SI6ECO property for modeling the contribu-
tion of each source's emissions to the other's  ambient air.  Thus,
ALCOA'S property—regard!ess of whether 1t 1s fenced—1s  still  'ambient
air" 1n relation to SISECO's emissions and vice-versa.

-------
                                   -2-


     Case 3 (Wayne County, MI):  This-case Involves the air over the
Detroit River, the Rouge River and the short-cut Canal.  We agree that
the air over all three of these Is ambient air, since none of the companies
owns them or controls public access to them.  Note, however, that one
source's property—regardless of whether 1t Is fenced—Is the "ambient
air' relative to another source's emissions.

     Case 4 (Cuyahoga County, OH):  This cast Involves LTV Steel's Iron
and steel mill located on both sides of tht Cuyahoga River.

     We do not feel that LTV Sttel •controls" tht river traffic 1n that
area sufficiently to txcludt tht public from tht river, whether It be
rtcrtatlonal or Industrial traffic.  Tht fact that there 1s little or no
recreational traffic In that area Is not sufficient to say that all  river
traffic there 1s LTV traffic.  The public also Includes other Industrial
users of the river that are not associated with LTV.

     It 1s difficult to tell from tht map whether tht railroad line 1s a
through line or not.  If tht railroad yard stnrts only tht plant then 1t
would not be ambient air but tht railroad entrance to 'the plant would
havt to bt clearly marktd and patrolled.  However, 1f the line 1s a
through line then that would bt ambient air.  We would nttd additional
Information to make a final determination.

    The unfenced river boundaries should meet the same criteria as in
Case 2 above.

     Case 5 (Involves the placement of receptors on another source's
fences-property):  As mentioned above 1n Case 2, we feel that present
policy does require that receptors be placed over another source's property
to measure the contribution of tht outside source to Its neighbor's
ambient air.  To reiterate, Plant A's property 1s considered "ambient
air" in relation to Plant B's emissions.

     I Hope that.these commtnts are helpful to you and your staff.  This
memorandum was also reviewed by the Office of General Counsel.

cc:  5. Schnttbtrg
     P. Wyckoff
     R. Rhoads
     0. Stontfltld
     Air Branch Chiefs, Region I-X

-------
             UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    x              Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
                  Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711

                                 22JAK1936
William F. O'Keefe, Vice President
American Petroleum Institute
1220 L Street Northwest
Washington, D. C.  20005

Dear Mr. O'Keefe:

     Mr. Elk 1ns has asked me to respond to your letter of December 18, 1985,
1n which you perceive a change 1n our policy with regard to the  location of
receptors for air quality dispersion modeling.

     Let me assure you there 1s no change 1n our long-standing national
policy with regard to the definition of ambient air.   That policy  1s based
on 40 CFR Part 50.1 (e) which defines ambient air as  ". . . that portion
of the atmosphere, external to buildings, to which the general public has
access."  A letter dated December 19, 1980,  from Douglas Costle  to Senator
Jennings Randolph, reaffirmed and clarified  this definition by stating the
exemption from ambient air 1s available only for the  atmosphere  over land
owned or controlled by the source and to which  public.access  1s  precluded
by a fence or other physical barriers.  A copy  of Mr. Costle1s letter 1s
enclosed.  The codified definition plus the  1980 clarification essentially
constitute the national policy on ambient air.

     The Regional Meteorologists' memorandum to which you refer  does not
Imply any change in this national policy and simply harmonizes modeling
procedures with our long-standing policy.  It 1s Intended to  ensure con-
sistent Regional implementation of that policy  and to dispel  any questions
about pollutant concentrations at locations  where the general public has
access.

     Thus, since the Regional Meteorologists' memorandum does not  Imply any
change in our policy, I do not believe there 1s any need for  policy review
at this time.
                                          Sincerely,
                                          Cerald A. Orison
                                              D1rector
                                   Office of Air Quality Planning
                                            and Standards
Enclosure

cc:  W. Quanstrom
     C. Elkins

-------
*  af\
(mj
    -X
                                                    PN 110-87-04-30-:

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
       Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
       Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
                                         3 C *~'
           MEMORANDUM

           SUBJECT:  Ambient A1r

           FROM:     6. f. Helm,  Chief
                     Controlled Programs Operations Branch (MD-15)

           TO:       Bruce Miller, Chief
                     A1r Programs  Branch,  Region IV


                My staff and I have discussed the five situations Involving the
           definition of a*b1ent air that  you sent on December 18,  1986.   The
           following comments represent our Interpretation of the ambient  air
           policy.  However, this  memorandum 1s not a discussion of the technical
           Issues Involved 1n the  placement of receptors for modeling. Our comments
           on each scenario follow:

                Scenario One:  We  agree with you that the road and  the unfenced
           property are ambient air and could be locations for the  controlling receptor

                Scenario Two:  We agree with your determination' 1n  this case also.
                                                       •
                Scenario Three:  We agree  with" you that the road Is ambient air.
           However, Area B 1s not ambient  air; 1t 1s land owned or controlled  by the
           company and to which public access 1s precluded by a fence or  other
           physical boundary.

                Scenario Four:  We do not  think that any of the barriers  mentioned
           here are sufficient to  preclude public access so as to allow the source
           to dispense with a fence.  An- example of an unfenced boundary  that  would
           qualify 1s.a property line along a river that 1s clearly posted and
           regularly patrolled by security guards.  Any area, such as grassy areas
           that might even remotely be used by the public, would have to  be fenced
           even in this situation.  We would  not think that a drainage ditch would
           meet these criteria.

                Scenario Five:  Both fenced pieces of plant property, even though
           noncontiguous, would not be considered ambient air (see Scenario Three).
           The road, of course, would be ambient air.  Again, ownership and/or
           control of the property and public access are the keys to ambient air
           determination.

-------
                            -2-


    I hope
              ; ^'su!"*Off1ce °fto

«:  3. Schneeberg
    P. Kyckoff
    R. Rhoads
    D. Stonefleld
    Air Branch Chiefs, Regions I-x

-------
                      UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY


»usjecTOefinition of Ambient Air for>Lead
   ™°1)arryl D. Tyler, Direct or         ,
      Control Programs Development Division  (MD-15)

     TOA11yn Davis, Director
      Air  & Waste Management Division, Region VI

           This is in response to your memorandum of May 23, 1983, to
      Sheldon Meyers.  In that memorandum, you indicated that the Texas Air
      Control Board.  (TACB) believes that an ambient lead monitor in El Paso
      1s not  located in the ambient air, and therefore the data from that
      monitor should not be used to develop a control strategy for lead.

           The monitor is located at the International Boundary Water
      Commission's (IBWC) property, about 1000 feet from the edge of the property
      of ASARCO's primary lead smelter.  TACB believes that the monitor is not
      in the  ambient air because public exposure at the IBWC property wou'.d at
      most be only daily for a period of not more than eight hours, and there-
      fore no one person is expected to be at the IBWC site continuously for a
      full three months, the exposure time inherent in the lead standard.

           TACB's logic runs counter to EPA's policy on ambient air.  In
      40 CFR  50.1(e), ambient air includes "that portion of the atmosphere,
      external to buildings, to which the general public has access."  "hat
      definition does not account for any time limitation or averaging time.
      Regardless of  whether any member of the public is expected to remain at
      a particular place for a specific period of time, ambient air is defined
      in terms of public access, not frequency of access, length of stay, age
      of the  person  or other limitations.  The only exemption in EPA policy to
      compliance with the provisions of ambient air is for the atmosphere over
       land owned or  controlled by the source and to which public access" is
      precluded  by a fence or other physical barriers.  Since ASARCO does not
      own  the site of the  IBWC monitor, it clearly falls within our definition
      of ambient air.

            Furthermore,  any monitor can give only an estimate of the actual
      maximum concentration of a pollutant in the vicinity of the monitor.
      There"may  actually  be higher  concentrations of  lead in the area oetween
      ASARCO's  boundary  and the  IBWC monitor, such as  on the highway that  runs
       between the ASARCO  smelter property and the IBWC property.  The general
       public  may  have more  frequent or  longer access to this location than to
       the  IBWC  property  itself.  Therefore, the fact that the general public
       may  not be  expected  to  remain at  the  IBWC site  itself  continuously  for
       three months  is  no reason  to  disallow tne use  of the monitor's  data for
       developing a  control  strategy.
  fo.m 1320.4 (H... 3-74)

-------
 J-  Calcagni
 J.  Divita
 K.  Sreer
 T.  Helms
 J.  Silvasi
 D. Stonefield
J. Ulfelder
                                                  Ojvis1on 1f

-------
                      UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

   DATE:      DEC 1 8 198S
SUBJECT.    gpA ^f inition of Anbient Air
                                   0        /
           Bruce P. Miller, Chief  ci'  ' *f  ' '
           Air programs Branch
           Air, Pesticides & Toxics Management Division

           Tom Belns, Chief
           Control Programs Operation Branch (MD-15)


           SDMMABg

           The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management has asked
           for a clarification of ambient air in regards to a certain source
           located in North Carolina.  The Regional Meteorologist's memorandum
           dated May 16, 1985, provides that for modeling purposes receptors
           are located everywhere outside of the contiguous property of a
           plant to which the public is precluded due to a fence, -or other
           effective physical barriers.  Attached are a number of scenarios
           for the source where we request a response on whether the receptors
           at  certain locations are considered ambient air and whether the
           calculated modeling result at these receptors are to be considered
           in  establishing an emission limit if one or more of these receptors
           is  controlling.  The Region IV opinion for each scenario is provided.

           Most of the scenarios we believe are dealt with adequately in the
           May 16, 1985 memorandum, however, there is a major concern on our
           part about how to interpret the modeling results in scenario numbers
           three, four and five.

           Please provide us with a written response by January 27, 1987.  Please
           contact me or Mr. Lewis Nagler of my staff at PIS 257-2864 if you re-
           quire additional information.


           Enclosure (1)


           cc: Joseph Tikvart (MD-14)
                REP, NC
   Form 13204 («•«. 3-74)

-------
NORTH CAROLINA AMBIENT AIR SCENARIOS

Scenario One

The plant property is divided by a public road.  The portion  >f the
property on which a point source is located (Area A) is conpletely
fenced.  The property on the other side of the road (Area B) is
unfenced.

The Region IV position is that the road and the unfenced property
are ambient air and if air quality modeling locates the control-
ling receptor in Area B, the emission limit will be determined
based on the calculated concentration at that receptor*

Scenario TWO

This scenario is the same as scenario one except that Area B is
fenced except for the property along the public road.

The Region IV position is identical to that provided in scenario
one.

Scenario Three

This scenario is the same as scenario one except that *i\ of
Area B is fenced.

The Region IV position is that the road is ambient air and that
Area B should have receptors located there for modeling purposes.
We also believe that since Area B is not contiguous to that prop-
erty that is needed for plant operation, even though fencedp Area B
is ambient air.  We further believe that if a receptor located in
Area B is found to contain the controlling receptor'for establishing
the source emission rate then that receptor value must be used.

There is a concern'on our part that the May 16, 1385 .memorandum
could be interpreted to allow the Air Quality Management officials
to discard the-calculated concentrations within Area B.  We believe
a clarification of the ambient air policy on this point is needed.

-------
Scenario Pour

Area A is fenced except for the property along the public road.

The Region IV position is that Area A is anbient air unless the
source can demonstrate that the public is precluded to entry by an
effective physical barrier.  However, since a physical" barrier
other than a fence is subject to various interpretation, we are
seeking advise on what we can accept at meeting-that requirement.
For instance, a drainage ditch alongside a road with no shoulder
for parking or the use of "NO PAHONG" signs could be'considered
an effective barrier.  As you can see, the concept can be quite
subjective and we require additional guidance in.this area.

For this actual situation, would you concur or nan concur that no
parking signs in association with no shoulder to park upon consti-
tute a physical barrier?  The Region IV position is that this
situation does not constitute an effective physical barrier, but
the addition of a drainage ditch would constitute an effective
barrier.

Scenario Five (Hypothetical)

The entire plant is fenced.  As a result of the county or state's
power of eminent domain, a road is built through the property.
Does the area that is no longer contiguous to the plant operation
area lose its exemption from the anbient air definition even if
the source fences off the area taken by the road?

The Region IV position is that the area should be grandfathered in
that situation.

-------
                                                   135-34-06-11-014
            Mil l> > I \ p> i:\\ IKi>\ M|..\ | \|  ITU
                         tt \»lliMil.'»\.!).«.
                             4JNI I
MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:  Applicability of PSD  Increments  to Building
          Rooftops
FROM:
TO:
                       nnn^N
          Assistant Administrator
          for Air and Radiation

          Charles R. Jeter
          Regional Administrator, Region IV
     The following  is  in response  to your  letter  of  November 10,
1983, concerning  issues which you  felt  required review for national
consistency  relating to a new source- review  for an Alabama Power
facility in  downtown Birmingham, Alabama.

     On September 29,  1983, your office inforared  the State of
Alabama that a new  source's compliance  with  the PSD  increments
must be measured  on the tops of buildings, as  well as at  ground
level.  Since then  we  have discussed the question extensively
among ourselves and with representatives of  the State of  Alabama
and the company.  For  the reasons  that  follow, I  do  not believe
we are in a  position to definitively assert  that  PSD increments
apply to rooftops without further  information  as  to  the conse-
quences for  the PSD system as a whole.   Accordingly, I recommend
that we inform Alabama that we do  not now  require that compliance
with PSD increments be measured at the  tops  of buildings.   A
State may, of course,  adopt such an approach if it so desires.

     Between 1970 and  1983, it appears  to  have been  general EPA
practice to  determine  compliance with both NAAQS  and PSD  increments
at ground level,  not at roof level.  On March  18, 1983, however,
Kathleen Bennett, in a letter to the State of  New York, determined
that the- 'national  ambient air quality  standards  are designed to
protect the  public  health and welfare and  apply to all ambient
air which does include the rooftops and balconies of buildings
accessible by the public.*

     I believe this conclusion was correct.   Apartment balconies,
rooftop restaurants, and the like  present  a  potential for human
exposure that the primary ambient  air quality standards should  be
interpreted  to address.

-------
                            -2-
     Given this conclusion, one could argue, based on the text
of the relevant regulations and the Clean Air Act, that the PSD
increments apply wherever  the NAAQS apply, and that both must
apply throughout the "ambient air.*  However, the PSD system,
unlike the NAAQS system, does not aim at achieving.one single
goal.  Rather it represents a balance struck first by Congress
between a given level of protection against degradation and a
given potential for economic growth.  It appears that the
calculations on which that balancing judgment was based all
assumed that PSD increments would be measured at ground level.

     A number of 'State officials who are now administering PSD
have argued to me that by  measuring PSD increments on rooftops
as well as at ground level, EPA would make the PSD system
appreciably more stringent than Congress contemplated.  Although
major urban areas are all  Class II areas, this approach, it is
argued, could result in constraints on growth comparable to
those that apply in Class  7 areas - national parks and wilderness
areas.  Such an outcome would not, it is argued, be consistent
with Congressional intent.

     In these circumstances, I think that preserving the status
quo is particularly advisable because:

     •  It is likely that  Alabama did not contemplate adopting a
•rooftops* approach to PSD when it took over the PSD program.
That expectation, though not decisive, does provide some reason
not to change the situation without formal rulemaking.

     •  The consequences of an erroneous decision to consider
increment consumption on rooftops will be more severe than those
of an erroneous decision not to consider them.  The adoption of
such an approach will present at least a procedural, and, probably
a substantive obstacle to  development in urban areas, while in
its absence air quality will still be protected by the NAAOS, by
the PSD increments applied at ground level, and by the other
aspects of PSD review such as Best Available Control Technology.

     Therefore, I have concluded that since the State of Alabama
has authority under an approved implementation plan for adminis-
tering the PSD program within Alabama, it is their responsibility
to apply this principle of maintaining the status quo to this
case,, taking all the relevant facts into account.

     Please advise the State of Alabama of the Agency's position
on these .points as our response to the issues which they raised
in meetings with both of us.

-------
cc:   A. Aim
      P. Ang«ll
      T. D«vine
      G. Emison
      w. Ped«rs«n
      P. Wyckoff
      S. Mciburg

-------
                   UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
  s?R/7 5                 Office of Air Quality Planning and Scandaros
•v-'V'V--j''          '      Researcr, Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711

                                       APR 7
          MEMORANDUM

          SUBJECT:  Wyoming—Definition of Ambiefit) Ai r
          FROM:     Darryl D. Tyler, Director
                    Control Programs Development Division (MD-15)

          TO:       Irwin Dickstein, Director
                    Air and Toxics Division, Region VIII


               This memorandum confirms and clarifies our recent  conversation  on
          Wyoming's proposed change to their definition of ambient air.   After our
          conversation, my staff further reviewed the proposal  and your  office's
          assessment of it.  While we agree with the final  position you  take--viz.,
          opposition to the change--my staff believes that  several  other points
          should be made  in comments to Wyoming.

               1.  In  Christine Phillips' memorandum of March 20, 1987,  two reasons
          are given to oppose the revision.  While we agree with  the thrust of the
          first reason (ineffectiveness of exterior fencing to exclude public
          access because  of the public highway and towns  in the enclosed area),
          there may be a  problem in boldly stating the second reason.  We have
          never either flatly stated that land acquisition in general is acceptable
          or unacceptable under section 123 of the Clean Air Act.  As the memorandum
          points out,  the December 19, 1980, letter from Douglas  Costle  to the
          Honorable Jennings Randolph indicates that we will review individual
          situations on a case-by-case basis.  Therefore, I believe we should  not
          automatically categorize land acquisition as proposed in Wyoming as  a
          dispersion technique prohibited by section 123, although further analysis
          may  in fact  lead us to that conclusion.  In at least two instances,  we have
          tolerated land  acquisition to "contain" modeled violations of national
          ambient  air  quality standards.  We have, however, avoided  formulating
          criteria for acceptability of land acquisition, although such criteria
          (such as size of area and relevance to operation) were at one time  con-
          sidered.

-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3.1

-------
UMted States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-450/4-87-007
May 1987
Air
Ambient Monitoring
Guidelines for
Prevention of
Significant
Deterioration (PSD)
  RADIAN LIBRARY
  RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK. NC

-------
fl. S/. Apr- A                                40 C» Ch. I (7-l-M idllUn)

      SCMEOUU DO—PERMANENT WAIVED FROM (MTCWM CoNinots TES»—Continued
  t Ctmvf* tBfctfMl Vwlu*
                                   MM
                                   WDM
                                   KXXX
                                         MUU
                                         MUM
f
Jj
MXX   XXM
XXM I  moot
      MM
      KXXX
                 SCHEDULE O.7—NOMION VALUE OF CASH FLOWS
A. MpracMtoivkM konion v«lo».
   I MM 0*1 *)• >K
   ( OqmcMtan Ian
         _
     c TM ••*«•
     a Nmnrt aoe«i nluM
     k I MO**
     t AMrag*..
   I D«jMcMafr*M tanran vaki*
   » 1
   4
   t ToM
            il HI
            mait el
                              MXI
                              MM
                                   MM
                                   nan
                                   MM
                                   MM
                                   MM
                                   now
                                                 HonnnirMi*
                                         IMI   INI  IM3   IM4
                                         MM
                                         now
                                              MM
                                              MM
                                              XMX
                                              MM
                                              MM
                                                    KMX
                                                    MM
XMX
MM
XMX
MM
MM
                                                         XMX
                                                         MM
                                                         MM
MXX
MM
           XMX
           MM
           MM
        XMX
        MXX
        MM
        MM
        MM
                                                                    XXXX
                                                                    KXXX
  r All M
               Mf Nt AM QUAUf V
          MMVUUANCI
Sec
•1.1 Ueiliiltione.
HI Furpaec.
M.I AppHeabUlly.

      lufcpwt a— «UnMeri*fl Criteria

IS. 10 Quality aaaurance.
Mil Monltorln* method*.
M.ll Sltlns ol InalrumenU or Inatrumant
                                     Mil BLAU8melhodolosy.
                                     M.ll MonUorlns network completion
                                     MI« IReaervedl
                                     MU Byelem modlllcallon.
                                     M.M Annual SLAMS aumraary report.
                                     Mil Compliance date lor air quality i
                                        reportlns.
                                     M.M Reslonal Ollke SLAMS data acquW
                                                    I Air I
Mil Opcretlns Khcdule.
M.ll Bpeclal purpOM monllon.
                                                   (NAMS)

                                     M.M HAMS network eatabllahmenl.
                                     M.ll NAMS network description.
                                     M.II HAMS approval.
                                     M.II NAUB methodolosy.
                                     M.I4 NAUB network completion.
                                     M.ll NAM8 data lubmltlal.
                                     MM Byilem modlllcallon
      Air quality  aunreUlutc*: PUn con-
   Unl.
IS II  SLAMS nelwoik de»lf n.
                                     »S4S Index reporllnf
                                  128
                                                                                                        Af «ncy
                                                                                 8ec.
                                                                                               -Tedetell
M.M  Federal monitor)!*.
M.II  Monitoring other polluUnU.
ArriMBii A-QUALITV AIIURANC* RCQUIM-
   Mtine ro« Bran ana Local A» MOM-
   TOimg Bf atiOMi I8LAM8I
Arruoii B-Quaurv AMURAMCC RMUMC-
   H(HT* rOB  PlCTKHTIOH or  SlOlllriCAin
   DnuioUTioM (P8D) Aia MomraaiHQ
ArrnBiK C-Aunorr Aia QUAUTV MOMI-
   Toaina UITHOPOUMT
ArrnBic D— NnwoiB DnioH MB 8tan
   an* LOCAL  Aia MONITORUM  BTanom
   (8LAM8I AH» Nario*aL'Aia  MoniToaiM
   BtatlOMlNAMBt
ArrtMMi E-P»oe§  Bniira Caitaia raa
   Ajuiairr AH Quaurr MOMITOIIM
ArriMMl F— AMHUaL BLAMB Au Quautv
   liiroi MATIO*
ArrcMMB O— tlMiroiu Aia Quaurv !••*•
   ana D»ii¥ RUOBTIIM

 AUTNOIITV: Bee*. II*. MIUI. III. and II*
•f  the Clean  Air Act <4I VM.C.  f«l*.
IMI(a). 1«ll. 1*1*1.
 Bouicc 44 FR Hill. May I*.  1*1*.
oihervbe noted.
                                                                                    S«*i)pe)rf A — Oana««l
                             IM.I
                            .   As used In this part, all terms not de-
                             fined  herein have the meaning given
                             them In the Act:
                               (a) "Act" means the dean Air Act as
                             amended (49 U.8.C. 1401. et aeq.).
                                "SLAMS" means State or Local
                             Air   Monitoring   8latton(a>.   The
                             SLAMS make up the ambient air qual-
                             ity  monitoring  network which  to re-
                             quired by | M.M to be provided  for In
                             the State's Implementation plan. This
                             definition places no restrictions on the
                             use of the physical structure or  facili-
                             ty housing  the SLAMS. Any combina-
                             tion of SLAMS and any other  moni-
                             tors (Special Purpose.  NAMS.  PSD)
                             may occupy the same facility or struc-
                             ture without affecting the respective
                             definitions  of those monitoring sta-
                             tion.
                               (c)  "NAMS"  means  National Air
                             Monitoring Stattonts). Collectively the
                             NAMS are a subset of the SLAMS am-
                             bient air quality monitoring network.
                               (d> "PSD station" means any station
                             operated for the purpose of establish-
                             ing  the effect on air  quality of the
                             emissions from a proposed source for
                             purposes of prevention of significant
                              IM.I

 deterioration as required by I tl.a«(n>
 of Part 61 of this chapter.
  (e> "SO," means sulfur dioxide.
  (f) "NO," means nitrogen dioxide.
  (g) -CO" means carbon monoxide.
   "Regional Administrator" means
 the Administrator of one of  the ten
 EPA Regional Offices or his or her au-
 thorised representative.
  (I) "Stale agency" means the air pol-
 lution  control agency  primarily  re-
 sponsible for development and Imple-
 mentation of a plan under the Act,
  (m> "Local agency" means any local
 government agency, other  than the
 State agency, which la charged with
 the responslblllly  for carrying  out a
 portion of the plan.
  (n) "Indian Reservation" means any
 Federally  recognized reservation  es-
 tablished by treaty, agreement, execu-
 tive order, or act of Congress.
  (o) "Indian Governing Body" means
 the governing body of any tribe, band.
or group of Indians subject to the Ju-
 risdiction of the United States and rec-
ognised by the United  States a* pos-
sessing power of self-government.
  (p) "Storage and Retrieval of Acre-
metric Data (SAROAD) system" to a
computerised system which stores and
 reports Information relating to ambi-
ent air quality.
  (q»  "BAROAD  alt*  Identification
 ?£r"loato,^or ltw Bev«ral lon"* »
 the SAROAD system. It  to the  form
which provides a complete description
of the sit* (and Its surroundings) of an
ambient  air  quality  monitoring sta
                                                              (r) "Traceable" means  that a local
                                                            •tandard has been compared and certi-
                                                            fied, either directly or via not more
                                                            than one Intermediate standard to a
                                                            primary standard such as a National
                                                            Bureau of Standards Standard Refer
                                                            «*"  Material   (NB8  8RM)  or  a
                                                            USEPA/NBS approved Certified Ref-
                                                            erence Material 4CRM).
                                                              (s) "Urban area population" means
                                                            the population  defined  In the most
                                                                                                                  120

-------
 I Sill

 l«-ve!  of llmt monitoring tile concen-
 tration with respect to the level of the
 controlling standard. For  UIOM area*
 In  which  the  ahortterm (34-hour)
 standard U controlling- I.e.. ha* the
 hlihcil ratio, the (elective sampling
 requirements are Illiulraled In Figure
 I. If the operating agency were able to
 demonstrate, by a combination of his-.
 torical TOP data and at least one year
 of PMi. data that there were certain
 periods of  the  year where condition*
 preclude violation of the PMM 24-hour
 standard, the Increased sampling fre-
 quency for  those periods or seasons
 may be exempted by the Regional Ad-
 ministrator and revert back to once In
 six  days.  The minimum  sampling
 schedule for all other sites In the area
 would be once every  six  days.  For
 those areas In which the annual stand-
 ard U the controlling standard, the
 minimum  sampling schedule for all
 monitors In the area would be once
 every  sla  days. During  the annual
 review of the  BLAM8 network, the
most recent year of data must be con-
sidered to  estimate the  air quality
status for the controlling air quality
standard 124-hour or annual). Statisti-
 cal models such as analysis of concen-
 tration frequency distributions as de-
scribed In "Guideline for the Interpre-
tation of Oune  Air  Quality  Stand-
ards." EPA 450/411 001. U.8. Environ-
mental Protection Agency. Research
         40 CM Cli. I (7-l-M
Triangle Park.  N.C..  January  1979.
should be  used. Adjustments to the
monitoring schedule must be made on
the basis of the annual review. The
site having the highest concentration
In the most current year must be given
first consideration when selecting the
site for the  more frequent sampling
schedule. Other factors such as major
change In sources of PM» emissions or
In sampling site characteristics could
Influence the location of the expected
maximum concentration site. Also, the
use of the most  recent three  years of
data might In some cases, be Justified
In order to provide a more representa-
tive data base from which to estimate
current air quality status and to pro-
vide stability to the  network.  This
multlyear consideration would reduce
the possibility of an anamalous year
biasing a site selected  for accelerated
sampling. If the  maximum  concentra-
tion alt* based on  the most current
year ls not selected for the more fre-
quent operating schedule, documenta-
tion of the justification for selection
of an alternate site must be submitted
to the Regional Office for approval
during the annual review process. It
should be noted that minimum data
completeness  crltlerla.  number  of
yean of data and sampling frequency
for Judging attainment of the NAAQ8
are discussed In  Appendix  K of Part
BO.
|sivlro«Monlsj| Protection Agency

                      Every Sixth Day
                            fSI.M
>
f

Every Other Osy
1
L
Every Day
1
>
       0.8    .0.9     1.0      I.I        |.l       |.j        1.4
                           Ratio to Standard
144 PR mil. May 10. 1010. as amended at
II n» 141*0. July I. 10*11
• U.I4  B*«ckl
 (at Any ambient air quality monitor-
ing station other than a SLAMS or
PSD station from which the State In-
tends to use the data as part of a dem-
onstration of attainment or nonattaln-
ment or In computing  a design value
for control purposes of the National
Ambient   Air   Quality   Standards
(NAAQ8) must meet the requirements
for SLAMS described In I M.22 and.
after January I. IBM. must also meet
the requirements for SLAMS u de-
scribed In  IM.12 and Appendices A
and B to this part.
  Provide for meeting the require-
ments of Appendices A. C. D. and C to
this part.
  (c) Provide for the operation  of at
least one SLAMS per pollutant except
Pb during any  stage of an air pollution
episode aa defined In the contingency
plan.
  (d) Provide for the review of the air
quality surveillance  system  on  an
annual  basis   to  determine  If the
system  meets   the  monitoring  objec-
tives defined  In Appendix D to this
part.   Such   review   must  Identify
needed  modifications to  the network
such as termination or  relocation of
unnecessary stations or establishment
of new stations which are necessary.
                                  132
                                                                                                                     133

-------
oEPA
             United States
             Environmental Protection
             Agency
            Office of Air Quality
            Planning and Standards
            Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-450/4-8T-C:2
June 1987
             Air
On-Site Meteorological
Program Guidance for
Regulatory Modeling
Applications
                              ENVIRfci "
                                 AUG ;.«-> uo.


                               LIBRARY SERvltu

-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3.2

-------
ft. S», ..pp. A
          40 C« Ch. I (7-l-M Edlllen)
      SCHEDULE 0.6— PERMANENT WAIVER FROM INIEFNM CON mots Tesi- Continued
  • Cum* Mfcts* «*u»
                          I*
                              IOU1I
                                                                    low
                  SCHEDULE D7—HOWZON VAIUC OF CAIH Ftowt
  I. IM CM* *M
    OtpwMorvk** horiran o«ui
    lM
    ri»ui« tiki* ol IM Mv«9>
    ToUl pmrt «•*• •! IM M
C Ho.t»m Vtkj*.
                        Ini
                          •I
                              FMtortCMI
                              MM
                              MM
                              XXXX
                              MM
                                   XXXX
MM
WOW
                                   now
                                   MM
                                   MM
                                                 Horirai|Mra
                                         ie*i   itat   IMI   i»t4
                                         MOM
                                         loom
                                         MM
                                         nan
                                         MM
           MM
           MM
           MM
           XXM
           MM
           MM
                                              XMX
xxxx
XMX
XXXX
XXXX
XMX
XXM
XXM
XXM
XMX
XXXX
XXM
MM
XXXX
XMX
MM
MM
XXM
XXM
                                                                    IM*
XMX
XXM
XXM
                                                                    MM
                                                                    XMX
                                 XXXX
                                 MM
                                 XXXX
       M— AMIIENI AW QUAUf V
           IIIRVilUANCt
                    l PnvUlMW
8cc.
U.I  Dellnltfcma.
Ill  Purpose.
M.I  Applicability.

      tiAfmt •  M»«Mirfai« OUtttu

M.II Quality auurance.
III! Monltorlni melhndi.
II II Sltlni of InilrumcnU or Instrument
  Bcc.
  Mil SLAMSOMlhodolofy.
  M.M Uonllorlni network completion.
  Ml* IReservedl
  IIU System modification.
  M.M Annual BLAM8 tumnuiry teport.
  M.n Compliance date lor air quality data
     reporting.
  M.tt Regional Office SLAMS data acquUI
•I. II Operatlnt schedule.
II 14 Special purpose monitors.

         — !*•«• •** l««l Ak
           ItatfMW (UAMI)

Ilia Air quality  sunrrlllance:  Plan con-
   trnt.
II 21 8UAU8 network d«l|n.
                (MAM!)

  MM HAMS network etUbllshment.
  MII NAM8 network description.
  M.II MAMS approval.
  M.II NAMSmelhodoloiy.
  M.I4 MAMS network completion.
  Mil NAM8datesubmltlal.
  M.M System modification
     |»>p««t I—Afc Qwrflly lnrf«»

  IIII Index reporting.
                                  128
                                              lnvk*nm«nl*l f r«Uctlt>n Af •rtcy
                                                                                 Bte.
                                                                                                 ederal «U
                                              MM Federal monllorlni.
                                              M.II Monltorlni other pollutant*.
                                              ArriMMi A-Qo»tifV AatocancB
                                                 MUTTS ro« ST*TI »n» Vocu. AM Mom-
                                                 toaiHo 8T*Tiom ISLAM8)
                                              ArriHdx B-QUM.ITV AHUIUNCI Rnuiar
                                                 M»rn ro« Pkivciinoii or Biamncttn
                                                 DmaioiATioM (P8DI AM MoniToaiM
                                              Attain* C— Alma*? AM QUALITT Mom-
                                                 TOBIHQ MaTHOMIMMT
                                              ArrniMi D— Nirwoia  Otaioii ro» 0r*n
                                                 an*  VOCAL AM MOHITORIH* Sratiom
                                                 (8LAM8I AM* NATIOHAL AM MoMlwum
                                                 arATiom (NAM8I
                                              ArroiiK B-Pmoei 8itm« CaimiA  roa
                                                 AtuMHt AM Quaun MoHiToaiH*
                                              ArrciwiB f— Annual SLAMS AM QUALITY
Arra»iB O— UniroaM AM Qoaurr Inaci
   an* Daitv Rntmrin*
 Avnioairr: Sea. lit. Mllal. 111. and lit
of  the Clean  Air  Act Ml VAC.  Kit.
              SOUICK «4 FR Mill. May It. int.
            otherwbe noted.
                                                                                            A— 99M
                             IM.I  DeflnHlMM.
                               At uted In thlt part, all terma not de-
                             fined  herein have the meaning given
                             them In the Act:
                               (a) "Act" meant the Clean Air Act at
                             amended <4» O.fl.C. 1401, et teq.).
                                "8LAIIS" meant State or local
                             Air   Monitoring   SUtlorrfi).   The
                             SLAMS make up the ambient air qual-
                             ity  monitoring network which to re-
                             quired by | N.M to be provided for In
                             the State-t Implementation plan. Thto
                             definition placet no rettrlctloni on the
                             me of the phyiteal ttructure or facili-
                             ty houtlng  the SLAMS. Any combina-
                             tion of  SLAMS and any other moni-
                             tor* (Special  Purpose. HAMS. PSD)
                             may occupy the tame facility or ttruc-
                             ture without affecting  the respective
                             definition*  of thote monitoring tta-
                             tlon.
                                "PSD elation" mean* any ttatton
                             operated for the purpoce of eatablMt-
                             Ing  the effect on air quality  of the
                             emission* from a proposed touree for
                             purpose* of prevention of *lgnlfkant
                                 J.1

deterioration a* required by I 5I.J4(n)
of Part (I of this chapter.
   "CO" mean* carbon monoxide.
  (h) "O," mean* ocone.
  (I) "Plan" mean* an Implementation
plan, approved or promulgated pursu-
ant to Mctlon 110 of the Clean Air Act.
   "AdmlnUlrator" meant the Ad-
mlnlttrator of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (EPA) or hit or her au-
thorised representative.
  (k) "Regional Administrator" meant
the AdmlnUlrator of one of  the ten
EPA Regional Office* or hit or her au-
thorized representative.
  (I) "State agency" meant the air pol-
lution  control agency primarily re-
tpontlhle for development and Imple-
mentation of a plan under the Act.
  (m) "Local agency" meant any local
government agency, other than the
State agency, which to charged with
the responsibility  for  carrying  out a
portion of the plan.
  (n) "Indian Recervallon" meant any
Federally  recognised  reservation es-
tablished by treaty, agreement, execu-
tive order, or act of Congress.
  (o) "Indian Governing Body" means
the governing body of any tribe, band.
or group of Indians subject to the ju-
risdiction of the United Slate* and rec
ogntoed by the United State* at pos-
sessing power of *elf-government.
  (p) "Storage and Retrieval of Airo-
metrtc Data (8AROAD) ayttem" to a
computerised *y*lem which ttoret and
reports Information  relating to ambi-
ent air quality.
  (q) "8AROAD  tlte Identification
form"  to one of the teveral forme In
the 8AROAD ty*tem. U  to the form
which provides a complete description
of the tlte (and Its surroundings) of an
ambient air  quality  monitoring sta-
tion.
  (r) "Traceable" means that a local
standard hat been compared and certi-
fied, either directly  or via not more
than one Intermediate standard, to a
primary standard such at a National
Bureau of Standards Standard Refer-
ence  Material  (NB8  8RM)   or  a
USEPA/NB8 approved Certified  Ref-
erence Material (CRM).
  (s) "Urban  area population" means
the  population defined In  the most
                                                                                                                   129

-------
159.33

NAMS design criteria contained In Ap-
pendix D to IhU part.

• U.U  NAM8 Mclaodology.
  Each NAMS miut meet the monitor-
bit methodoloty requirement* of Ap-
pendix  C to thU part  applicable to
NAMS at the time the flatten la put
Into operation aa a NAMS.

I Mil  NAM8 Mlwork comrfelto*.
  By January 1. 1901. with the excep-
tion of Fb. which ahall  be by  July I.
1933 and  PMH tamplera. which  shall
be by 1 year after the effective date of
promulgation:
    Each NAMS must be In  oper-
ation, be sited In accordance with the
criteria In Appendix E  to  this  part,
and be located aa described In the sta-
tion's  8AROAO  site   Identification
form; and
  (b)  The quality assurance  require-
ments of Appendix A to this part must
be fully Implemented for all NAMS.
144 FR mil. May l«.  int. a* amended at
«• FR  441*4. Sept.  I.  Itll; M FR  3414g.
July I. IM1I

IM.lt  NAMS data submlllai
   Contain all data and Information
gathered during the reporting period.
         40 CM Ch. I (7-l-M i. A

                          ol  policies.
 9M.M  reeeral BMnMortag.
   The  Administrator may locate and
 operate an ambient air monitoring ate-
 Uon If the  State fall* to, locate,  or
 schedule to be located, during the Ini-
 tial network design process or as  a
 reault  of the  annual review required
 by I 19.20(4):
   (a) A SLAMS at a alte which to nec-
 essary  In the Judgment of the Region-
 al Administrator to meet the objec-
 tive* defined  In Appendix  D to thta
•put. or
   (b) A NAMS at a alte which to neces-
 aary In the Judgment of the Adminis-
 trator  for meeting EPA national date
 need*.

 9MJI  MoaMorliig other aoltotaiMs.
   The  Administrator may promulgate
 criteria similar to that referenced  tot
 Bubpart B of this part for monitoring
 • pollutant for which a National Am-
 blent Air Quality Standard does not
 exist. Such an action would b* taken
 whenever the  Administrator  deter-
 mine*  that  a nationwide  monitoring
 program  to necessary to monitor auch
 • pollutant.
 Amnaiz A— Qoaurr Aaamuwcg Ra-
    qoianinrra roa  STATB ana- LOCAL
    Aia     MoNiToaim    STATION*
    (SLAMS)

 I. General InformmUon.
  Thta  Appendli  specifies the minimum
 quality auurancc requirements applicable
 to SLAMS air monltorln* data submitted to
 BPA. States are encourai ed to develop and
 maintain quality assurance programs more
 •itenalv • than the required minimum.
  Quality assurance of air monitoring sys-
 tem* Include* two distinct and Important
 Interrelated (unctions. One (unction b the
 control  ol  the  measurement   process
through Ihe Imi
procedures,  and
other  (unction  to
quality of the i
ol the Measurement process*.  In general.
                 rrectlv*  actions.  Tiie
                the assessment ef the
                    g data line product
the greater the effort •((•cUvenco* of the
control of a given monitoring system, the
better will be the resulting quality of the
Monitoring data. The result* of data quality
assessments Indicate whether the control ef-
fort* need to be Increased.
  Documentation ol the quality assessments
of the Monitoring data to Important to data
usen.  who CM then consider the Impact of
Uis data quality hi specific applications lie*
Reference II. Accordingly, assessments  of
SLAMS data quality are required to be re-
ported to BPA periodically.
  To provide national uniformity In this as
•essment and reporting  ol data quality for
all SLAMS  networks, specific assessment
•nd reporting procedure* are prescribed m
detail  In sections 3. 4. and I ol this Appen-
dix.
  In contrast, the control  (unction encom-
pass n a variety ol policies, procedure*, spec-
ifications, standard*,  and  corrective Meas-
ure* which affect the quality ol the result-
Ing data. The selection and extent ol the
quality control  actlvllle*-** well  a* addi-
tional  quality assessment activities-used by
a monitoring agency depend on a number of
local (actor* such as the field and laborato-
ry condition*. Ut* objectives of the a*onltor-
Ing. the level of the data quality needed, the
eipertlse of  assigned personnel, the cost ef
control pfoctYfJurcsV pollute
kveb. etc. Therefor*, the quality assurance
requirements, hi section 3 of thb Appendix.
are specified In general terms to allow each
State to develop a quaHty assurance system
that b Most efficient and elfectlve (or R*
3. Quality jUinrence Jle*w(r*m*afi
 3.1 Bach State Miut develop and MM**-
Mcnt a quality assurance program consist
Ing of  policies,  procedures, spedllcallona.
standards and documentation necessary to:
 II) Provide data of  adequate quality to
Meet monitoring objectives, and
 (31 Mlnlmbe loss of air quality data due to
malfunction* or out oteonlrol conditions.
 Thb quality assurance program must b*
described In detail, suitably documented.
and approved by the appropriate  Regional
Administrator, or hb deslgnee. The Quality
Assurance Program will be reviewed during
the annual system audit described In section

 3.3 Primary euldance lor devekmme Ihe
quality assurance program to contained hi
Reference* 3 and 1.  which  also  contain
many aunested procedure*,  check*, and
control specifications. Section 3.C.* of Refer-
ence 1 describes specif k cuMance lor the de
                                                                                137

-------
ri. s§, A??. A
velopment ol a Quality Assurance Program
lor SLAMS automated analyser*. Many spe-
cific quality control  checks and specifies
lions tor manual  method* are Included hi
the respective reference method* described
In Part U ol this chapter or hi the respec-
tive  equivalent method description* avail-
able from EPA (see Reference I). Similarly.
quality control procedures related to specifi-
cally designated reference  and equivalent
analyzer* ar* contained hi the respective op-
eration and Instruction manuals associated
with those analyser*. This  guidance,  and
any  other pertinent  Information from ap-
propriate sourceii. should be used by the
Slate* In developing their quality assurance
program*.
  A* a minimum, each qualHy  assurance
program  must  Include  operational  proce-
dures for each of the following actlvHtea:
  (I) Selection til methods, analysers, ar
samplers;
  (I) Training;
  (I) Installation sf equipment;
  l«> Selection and control ol calibration
standards;
  (II Calibration:
  (•) Zero/span check* and adjustment* of
automated analysers;
  (1) Control checks and their frequency;
  (•) Control llrolte for sero. (pan and other
control check*, and respective corrective aa-
llons when such limit* are surpassed:
  (•I Calibration and aeru/span check* tor
multiple range analysrra tare Section l.« of
Appendix C ol this part):
  (!•>  Preventive  and remedial mainte-
nance;
  (III QualHy control procedure* lor air
pollution episode monitoring:
  III) Recording and validating data:
  III) Date qualHy  assessment  (precision
and accuracy K
  (U) Documentation of quslUy control In-
formation.
  II PoHalaaf  Concentration •»* **•»
JUU JMsNdants.
  1.1.1 Gaseous  pollutant  concentration
standard* (permeation device* ar cylinder*
ol compressed gs*) used to obtain test con-
centration  for CO. SO,, and NO, must be
traceable to eHher  a National Bureau at
Standards (NB8) Standard Reference Mate-
rial ISRMI or an NBS/EPA approved com-
mercially available Certified Reference Ma-
terial ICRMI. CRM'*  are described In Refer-
ence I. and a list ol  CRM sources to avail-
able from  the QualHy  Assurance Division
(MD 11). Environmental Monitoring  Sys-
tems Laboratory. U.S. Environmental  Pro-
tection Agency. Research Triangle Park. NC
 Hill.
   General guidance and recommended tech-
 niques lor eerlllylng  gaseous working stand-
 ards against an 8HM or CRM are provided
 In section * • 1 ol Relerence I  Direct use ol
 a CRM as a wurilng standard to acceptable.
         40 UR Cli. I (7-t-M MM**)

but direct use ol an NOB SRM as a working
standard Is discouraged because ol the limit-
ed supply and eipensc of SRMs.
  I.I.I Test concentrations lor O, must be
obtained hi accordance with the UV photo-
metric calibration procedure specified In Ap
pendli D of Part M of this chapter, or by
mean* of a cerlllled  ozone transfer  stand-
ard. Consult Helerences • and 1 tor guid-
ance on primary and transfer standards for
OH
  t.l.l Plow  rate measurement* must  be
made  by a flow measuring Instrument that
la traceable to an authoritative volume or
other  standard. Guidance for certifying
some type* of flowmelers la provided In Ref-
erence I.
  14  National  Performance  and System
Audit Programs
  Agende* operating  SLAMS  network sta-
tions  thall  be subject to annual EPA ays-
Ums audit* of their ambient air monitoring
program and are required to participate n
EPA'* National Performance  Audit Pro
gram. These audits are described In section
I.4.M of Reference I snd section It.ll of
Reference  I.  Por  Instruction*,  agencies
abouM contact either the appropriate EPA
Regional Quality Assurance Coordinator or
the QualHy Assurance Division (MD-11BI.
Environmental Monitoring Systems Labora-
tory,   U.S.   Environmental   Protection
Agency. Research Triangle Park. NC 17111.
I. Data Qmlily JIMSIIH«I| Jl«f Nlmncitls
  AM  ambient monitoring method* or ana-
lyser* used to SLAMS shall be toted peri
odkatly. aa described In this  section I. to
quantitatively  asses* the qualHy  ol  the
•LAMS  data  being routinely produced.
Measurement accuracy and predawn are es-
timated  for both automated and manual
methods. The Individual result* ol these
testa  lor each method or analyser shall be
reported to EPA as specified In aeetlon «.
EPA WIN then calculate  quarterly Integrat-
ed estimates of precision  and accuracy appal-
eakl*  to the SLAMS date a* described hi
•oeUon I. Date assessment result* should k*
reported to EPA only lor method* and ana-
lyser* approved lor use In SLAMS monitor-
mg under Appendix C ol  this Part.
  The Integrated data qualHy assessment es-
timate* will be calculated on the bails of
-reporting organisations." .A reporting orga-
nisation la  defined as a Stale, subordinate
organisation wlthm a Stale, or other organi-
sation that la responsible lor a set of •la-
lion*  that monitor the cam* pollutant and
for which precision or accuracy assessment*
can be pooled. Stele* must define one or
more reporting organizations  tor each pol-
lutant such Ihsl esch monitoring station hi
the State 8I.AM8 network ls Included  In
one. and only one. reporting organisation.
                                       138
invh-onmonlwl Pra
       Afjwncy
                                                                                            Each reporting organisation ahaB bo de-
                                                                                           nned aueh that precision or accuracy among
                                                                                           all atelhNM m the organisation can be ex-
                                                                                           pected to he reasonably homogeneous, aa a
                                                                                           result of common factor*. Common factor*
                                                                                           that should be considered by State* m de-
                                                                                           fining reporting organisations unhide: til
                                                                                           operation by a common team of NeM opera-
                                                                                           tors. (I) common calibration  fadHUea. and
                                                                                           tl) support by a common  laboratory  ar
                                                                                           headquarter*. Where there to uncertainly hi
                                                                                           defining the reporting organisation* or hi
                                                                                           assigning apedfie sHes to reporting organi-
                                                                                           sation*. State* shall eonsuH wHh the i
                                                                                           prlate EPA Regional Office  for
                                                                                           All definition* at reporting
                                                                                           •hall b* subject to fhial approval by the ap-
                                                                                           propriate EPA Regional Of Ike.
                                                                                            Assessment resulta ahall b* reported! aa

                                                                                           flew standards must be aa •pedfled hi aee-
                                                                                           tlon* I.I or M. In addition, working stand-
                                                                                           arda  and  aquvpmcn
                                                                                           audits must not b* Ih* i
                        PI. M. A»f>. A

•Betted by the amodaled operation or m-
•trucUon manual, a  CO  analyser maybe
                       paint aibcr lhan Ilia naviiial aampla Inlet.
                       •MovHsWnf cnaf (IM anaiyacf a vaflponaa ni naft
                       Mkely to he aHered by these devntllon* from
                       the normal ope
                       check b made hi conjunction wHh • sero or

                       such aaro or span adjuetmenla. Rjuideenhn-
                       Man of the precision check wHh respect to
                       time of day. day of week, and routine •ervtce
                       and adjustment* to encouraged where posst-
                                                        of  he
                                                                                          analysers ar analytical systems It
                                                                                          concentrations) shouM he baaed on Btakie
                                                                                          reaesnp* snej must us derived wy masna sv

                                                                                          mg syttem used to obtain the jroJhMi ato
                                                                                                  ng date is
                                                                                          and Reference I. seeUon I.v.t.l.Mdl).
                                                                                          A-l provMei a Mimmary of
             ps««n.
             )). Tahh)
                                                                                          whteh aro described
                                                                                          •omwiiig sections.
                                                                                            • i
                                                                                            S.B
                                                   ths actual coneenti
                                                   check gas and the •
                                          concentrations Indicated by ths analyser.
                                          Ths percent difference* between thess con-
                                          •BMtratfons sre used to assess ths pre^etoisn
                                          of ths BMmHoring date aa described m see-
                                          UonsM.
                                            1.1 Accuracy  at Automated  Methods.
                                          Each calendar quarter (during which ana-
                                          town are operated). audH at wast t» per-
                                          cent af ths SLAMS analysers that monHor
                                          for BO* NO*, Ob or CO such that each ana-
                                          lyser b audited at bast ones per year. It
                                          there are fewer than  tour analysers lor a
                                          pollutant  wHhto) a reporting organisation.
                                          randomly reaudH one or more analysers as
                                          that at least on* analyser lor that pollutant

                                                     'A strongly encourage* more tre-
eut at bast once every two weeks en each
automated  analyser used to measure BOk.
NO*, O,  and CO.  Ths precision check  b
mad* by chaHengmg the analyser wHh a
   Kcbton check ga* of known eoneentratbn
   ween ••» and t.lt ppm tar SO* NO*,
and O. analysers, and between • and It ppm
far CO analysers. Ts check ths preiblsn of
SLAMS  analyser*  operating  an  rang**
hhjher than • to M ppm SO* NO., and O..
ar t to Iws ppss tar CO. us* praclab*) ahscli

aa approved  by the appropriate Regional
Administrator or hto deslgnee. However, the
faauHa ant precision cnactu at concanttTBtton
leveto other than those shown show need
not b* reported to EPA. The standards f raa*
                             audHmg. up to an audit frequency of
                           per quarter for each SLAMS analyser.
                        TheaudHtomadebychalknglngtheana
                       lyssr wHh at least one audH ga* of known
                       eontBntiaUon tram  each af ths tsMewIng
                       range* thai taM wHhm ths
                       rants a* ths analyser being aw

MfeMl
1 -
1 	 — 	
t 	 	 	 	
*...__ 	

•ft.0.
•es-oai
• W-SM
• M*«t
•at-* SB

NO,
eggsas
• H-e>*
•ts-a.ei

00

Mg*
at-w
ga-at
et the •pedtlealloM of
                                                                                                                                      HOb audH gaa lor i
                                                                                                                                    NO, analyser*
                                                                                                                                    • M ppm NO.
                                                                                                                                             NO  eoncentratloM
                                                         (type
                                                                                          are obtained mu
                                                                                          section f .».
                                                                                            Except lor certain CO analysers described
                                                                                          below. analyser* must operate  m  their
                                                                                          normal sampHng mode during the prackdon
                                                                                          check, and the test atmosphere must pas*
                                                                                          through  *H filter*,  acrubbera. conditioner*
                                                                                          and other component* used during normal
                                                                                          ambient sampling and aa much of the amM-
                                                                                          enl air Inlet system a* to practicable. II per-
                                          higher than *.M ppm. a* may occur when
                                          using aome gas phase IHrallon (OPT) tech-
                                          nMjtMa» may tvad to audit cffara In CnCtnMii*
                                          mmescence  analyser* due  to  Inevitable
                                          mhwr  NO-NO, channel  Imbalance. Such
                                          error* may be atypical of routine monHor-
                                          b* •nor* to the extent that auch NO eon
                                          ccntratmna exceed typical ambient NO con-
                                          centration* at the site. These errors may be
                                          minimised by modifying the OPT technique
                                                                                                                                 139

-------
ft. 51, App. A

to lover the NO concentration* remaining
In the NO, audit gas to leveli closer to typi-
cal ambient NO concentration* at the ille.
  To audit 8I.AM8 analysers operallnt  on
range* hither than • to 1.0 ppm for SO,.
NO,, and O. or t to 100 ppm for CO. uae
audit gases of appropriately higher concen-
tration a* approved by the appropriate Be
•tonal Adrahiltlralor or hU deslgnee. The
results of audit*  at  concentration  level*
other than thoae *hown In the above Uble
need not be reported to EPA.
  The standard* from which audit ft* test
concentration* are obtained roiul meet the
•predications of  Mellon 1.1.  Working  or
Iranifer standards and equipment wed for
auditing mint not be the aame a* the stand-
ardi and equipment u*ed for calibration and
•panning, but may be referenced to  MM
*ama NBS 8RM. CUM. or primary OV pho-
tometer-  The auditor should not be the op-
erator or analyst who conduct* the routine
monitoring, calibration, and analysis.
  The audit  ihall be carried out by allowing
the analyser to analyse the audit teat  at-
monphere In H* normil sampling mode *uch
that the  leit almoiphere paate* through all
tiller*. *crubben.  conditioner*, and  other
•ample   Inlet  component*   used  during
normal ambient sampling and a* much of
the ambient air Inlet *y*tem M I* practica-
ble. The eicepllon given In Mellon 1.1 for
certain CO  analyser*  doe*  not  apply for
audit*.
  Report both the audit teal concentration*
and the corresponding concentration  mess-
uremenl* Indicated or produced by the ana-
lyser  being  tested. The percent difference!
between  Iheae  concentration* are used to
auew the accuracy of the monitoring data
a* deacrlbed  In aeetlon ».l.
  1.1  Precision of  Manual  Method*.  For
each network of manual method*, select one
or more monitoring *lte* within the report-
Ing organisation tor  duplicate,  collocated
sampling a*  follow*: for I to I rite*. Mitel I
•Ite: tor • to 10 *lte*. (elect 1 sites; and for
over 10 cite*, (elect 1 sites. Where posslbk.
additional collocated  sampling la  encour-
aged. For parlkulaU matter, a network for
meararlng PM» (hall  be separate from •
TOP  network  BHei having annual  mean
parllculate  matter concentration* among
the highest  M percent ot the annual mean
concentration* for all the tile* hi the net-
work mud be (elected or. If *uch sites are
Impractical,  alternate tltei approved by the
Regional Administrator may be selected.
  In determining the number of collocated
•Ite* required, monitoring network* tor  Pb
•hould be treated Independently from net-
works tor psrlkulale mailer, even though
the separate networks msy share one or
more common samplers. However, a  single
pair ot samplers collocated at  a common-
sampler  monitoring Mr that meets the re-
quirements  tor both a collocated lead site
          40 CfR Ch. I (7-l-M Edition)

and a collocated partlculale matter site may
serve as a collocated site for both networks.
  The two  collocated samplers must be
within 4 meters ot each other, and parllcu-
late  matter samplers must  be  at least 1
meters apart to preclude  airflow Interfer-
ence. Calibration, sampling  and  analysis
must be the same for both collocated ssm-
plers and the same as lor all other samplers
tot the network.
  For each pair ol collocated sampler*, des-
ignate one sampler as the  primary  sampler
•hose samples  will be used  to report air
quality tor the site, and designate the other
a* the duplicate  sampler. Each duplicate
•ampler must be operated concurrently with
It* assoclsled routine sampler at least once
per week. The operation schedule should be
•elected so that the sampling days are dis-
tributed evenly over the year and over the
•even day* ot the week.  The every g-day
schedule used by many monitoring agencies
I* recommended. Report the measurements
from both samplers at each collocated sam-.
pllng site.  Including  measurements falling
below the limits specified In I.I.I. The per-
cent  differences In messured concentration
(pg/ml between  the  two collocated sam-
plers are used to  calculate precision as de-
acrlbed In section 1.1.
  1.4  Accuracy  of Manual Methods. The
accuracy of manual sampling methods Is as-
sessed by auditing a portion ot the measure-
ment process. Tot parllculate matter meth-
ods,  the flow rate during sample collection
to audited. For SO. and NO,  methods, the
analytical measurement Is audited. For Pb
methods, the flow rate and analytical meas-
urement are audited.
  1.4.1 Parlkulale matter methods. Each
calendar quarter,  audit the trow rate ot at
leail M percent ot the samplers such thsl
each sampler I*  audited at kast once per
year. It there are fewer than four sampkrs
wllhin a reporting organization, randomly
reaudlt one or more  samplers so that on*
sampler I* audited each calendar  quarter.
Audit each sampler at It* normal operating
flow  rale, using a flow rate transfer stand
ard a* described In section 1.1.1. The flow
rate standard used for auditing must not be
the aame  flow rate standard used to csH-
brate the  sampler. However, both the esU
•ration standard  and the audit standsrd
•nay  be referenced to the same primary flaw
rate  standard. The flow audit should bt
scheduled so as to avoid Interference with s
scheduled sampling period. Report the audit
flow rates and the corresponding flow rales
Indicated  by the  sampler's normally used
flow Indicator. The percent differences be-
tween these flow rales are  used to calculate
accuracy as described In section 1.4.1.
  Great care must be used In auditing high-
volume parlkulate matter ssmplers having
flow regulators because the Introduction ol
                                       140
 Envlronmonlejl Protoclton Afjmcy

 resistance plate* In the audit flow standard
 device can cause abnormal flow pattern* at
 the point of flow sensing. For this reason.
 the flow audit standard should bt used with
 a normal filler In place and without resist-
 ance plate* m auditing flow regulated high-
 volume samplers,  or other steps (hould  be
 taken to assure that flow pattern* are not
 perturbed at the point of flow sensing.
   1.4.1  SO, Methods.  Prepare audit solu-
 tion* from • working aultlte-tetraehloromcr-
 curate (TCMI solution  aa described fa sec-
 tion 10.1 of the BO, Reference: Method«Ap-
 pendix A ot Part N ot this chapter). These
 audit asmplea mutt be  prepared Independ-
 ently  from the standardised Mlflte solu-
 tions used In the routine calibration proce-
 dure. Sulfltc TCM audit samples must be
 ttared between  •  and I *C and esplrt M
 day* after preparation.
   Prepare audit samples m each ol tht con-
 centration range* of 0.1-41.1.0.1-0.0. Mid 0.0-
 OJ M MX/Ml. Analyse an audit sample In
 each of Hit three  ranges at kast ones tack
 day that aamplet art analysed Mid at kast
 twice per calendar quarter. Report MM audit
 concentration* (m ft fMVml) and tht cor-

 8O,/mli.  The percent  dlffereneos between
 the** concentration* art used to calculate
 accuracy M deacrlbed hi section 1.4.1.
  1.4.1 NO, Methods. Prepare audit aoht-
 tlont from • working sodium nitrite sohiihm
 at described hi tht appropriate eqwtvaknt
 method tact Reference 4). These audit sam-
 ple* must bt prepared Independently from
 Hit  standardised nitrite solutions used fa
 Hit  roiitfat calibration  procedure. Sodium
 nitrite audU samples tsplre to 1 month*
 after preparation.  Prepare audit aampka fa
 tack of the concentration range* of 0.1-0.1.
 0.1-0 0. and 0.1-0.0 M NO./ml. Analyse MI
 audit sample to each of  tht three range* at
 kast once each  day that samples an ana-
 lysed and at kast  twice per calendar quar-
 ter. Report the audit concentrations (to M
 N0,/mll and tht  corresponding Indicated
 concentrations (to  ft NO,/ml>. Tht percent
 difference* between the** eoneentraUont
 art used to calculate accuracy aa described
 hi section 1.4.1.
  1.4.4 Pb Methods. For th* Pb Reference
 Method (Appendli Q of  Part M ot Into
 chapter!, the flow  rates  of tht high volume
 Pb samplers shall be audited a* part of Hi*
 T8P network using Hie same procedure* de-
 scribed fa Section 1.4.1. For agencies operat-
 ing both TBP and Pb networks. U percent
 of tht total number of high-volume sam-
 plers art to be audited each quarter.
  Each caknder quarter, audit tht Pb Ret
erence Method analytical  procedure using
glsss fiber filter strips containing  a known
quantity ot Pb.  These  audit sampk strips
are prepared by depositing a Pb solution on
 1.0 cm by M.I cm IK Inch by 0 Inch) unei
posed glass fiber filler strips and allowing
                         n. St. App. A

 them to dry thoroughly. Tht audit samples
 must be prepared using batches of reagents
 different from those used to calibrate the
 Pb analytical equipment being audited. Pre-
 pare audit samples In the following concen-
 tration ranges:
 •• •*<*** « It mlmm ft» 14 l_
 a* ai M»> M tic* •»<• ISM ttv.
                 mst bt eslracted using the
     i estractkm procedure used for tsposad
 titters.
  AdftlVM thrCtt ftHluMft aWlaaUklwM •• aMMtll  faff
 tht two range* each quarter samples art
 analysed. Tht  audit sampk analyse* shall
 be  distributed a* much a* possible over the
 entire calendar iiiarter. Report  the  audit
 concentration* (fa pg Pb/strlp) and the cor
 responding measured concentration* (fa M
 Pb/atripl using unit code 11. Tht percent
 difference* between the concentrations art
 used to eakulate analytical accuracy as de-
 scribed fa section 1.4.1.
  Tht accuracy of an equivalent Pb Method
 to assessed fa the same manner a* for tht
 reference method. Tht How auditing device
 and Pb analysis audit samples must be com-
 IMUMt with tht speclllc requirements of tht
 equivalent method.
 4. ffeporfiNf ftetsjlremesite
  For each  pollutant, prepare a  list of all
 monitoring  sites and their 8AROAD site
 Identification codes to each reporting orga-
 nisation and submit the list to the appropri-
 ate EPA  Regional Office, with a copy to the
 Environmental Monitoring Systems Labora-
 tory IMO-1II.  VM. Environmental Protec-
 tion Agency. Research Triangle Park. North
 Carolina  mil (EM8L/RTPI.  Whenever
 there to a change In this list of monitoring
 •lie* fa a reporting organisation, report this
 change  to  the Regional Office and to
 EMBL/RTP.
  4.1  quarterly Report*. Within  IM cakn-
 dar days after  the  end of each calendar
 quarter,  each reporting organization  shall
 report to EMSI./RTP via the appropriate
 EPA Regional Offke the results of all valid
 precision and accuracy tests H has carried
 out during the  quarter. Report all collocat-
 ed  measurements  Including  those falllnt
 below the kvek specified to section I.I.I Do
 not report results from Invalid tests,  from
 teats carried out during a lime period for
which ambient data Immediately prior or
subsequent to the tests were Invalidated for
                                                                                                                                  141

-------
PI. si. AM. A

appropriate reeaona. «r from letU ol meth-
od! or analyser* not  approved for tat hi
SlJlMB'monltorlng network* under Appen-
dli C of Ihb part.
  Quarterly report! an tpecllled herein shall
commence not later than the r»port pertain-
Ini to the lint calendlar quarter ol IM1. al
Ihouih euch reporU will be accepted begin-
nlni with the report pertalnlm to the third
calendar quarter ol I Me.
  The Information ahouM be reported In a
formal almllar to that  ehown In Figure* A-l
and A-l. The daU may be reported (II via
magnetic computer tape  according to  dato
format apeclllcatlona  provided by  the  Re-
gional Olikei. Ill by direct. Interactive com-
puter entry via • data terminal and  the
PAR8  dato entry ii'ilera.  or 111 on  the
lorroi Uliutratcd In Figure* A-l  and  A-l.
Minor  variation! of theie form* (to faclU-
talc local luel or computer-generated  (lac-
almllel forme may aH*o be uied. provided
they follow  the aam«  general format. UM
the Mme block  number*,  and are clear and
completely legible. Instruction!  for u*4ng
thcM fomuj arc ptovUted to aecllon «.I.
  WMhto Mt daye altor UM end of UM re-
porting quarter. ETA will  cakulato Integrat-
ed predawn and accuracy aueumenU for
each reporting organ ballon aa apecttkd In
•rctlon • and tetum. through the Regional
Office*. reporU of Ui*  reipectlvg uaeai-
menu to each reporting organisation.
  1.1  Annual Report*. When predawn Mid
accuiacy estimate* loir a reporting organba-
lion have been cakulaled for all tour quar-
ten of the calendar y«ar.  EPA wHI cakulale
the properly weighted probability NmMi for
precblon and accuracy for the entire calen-
dar year. Theae Hmllii will then be aaaocM-
ed with the dato lutmUlled In UM annual
SIMM repart nqulriid by I MM
  Bach reporting orgnntullon ihaH nibmlt.
along with Ma annual SLAMS report. • Hat-
ing by poMutont of nil monitoring alto* to
the reporting organtenlWB.
  41  ImtrucUoni lor Uamg Dato QuaNly
Anrumenl  Reporting  Forma.  Suggested
formi for reporting data quality assessment
Information are provided  In Figure A-l ifor
reporting accuracy data) and Figure  A-l
(lor reporting  predawn  datal. The forma
may be uaed to a "unlvenal" way to report
dsla lor dlllerent polluUnU and lor differ
ent illea on tht lami  form. Or. either  form
 may be uaed aa a slle-ipedlk or pollulant-
 ipeellk lorn (where all entrki on the  lorn
 are lor a common situ, a common pollutant.
 or bolhl by IIIHng In llhe alte or polhitonl In-
 formation  In the appropriate  boi In the
 upper kit corner ol the  form Detailed In
 •Iruclloni lor Individual block! are aa foj-
 lowi:
   Instructions common lo both forma:
          40 CM Ch. I (7-l-M tdltlon)


                     DMCI fton
If
M
a-l.


g	
•Mr DM ta» •*• SAHOAO ftato cow
ftapoMf Ckswvlon AimqMlAMCad*
 on>ono4 or Mch NoM M Mdi ot at
 IMPOCK* ropoKn* oiomuMoni
VM»: IMI km do* ol IM tttidm  r*«
                         ~   M
          Ouofto. into I. ». J. « 4 to nto M *M
                  •Mttaf  *HM, •Ndl IM dM
          Into -«- to
           » IMM OmmiMnt «|U pOMOMrf MB-
           MM. • ~tr to oitoto pirHou^r tUwa
           to! MMMmnl *U wlwi ! -*- M «
           MIM\ «f*r ****• I to M KM! k* cow
  AkM) enter the name ol the reporting orga-
ntoatlon. the date the form la mbmltted.
and (optionally I the name ol the peraon
who prepared the form on the blank* pro-
vided.
•I-M..
•4	
H-ag...
          g!K Into *<• gAWMO «••
           c*e* KkM • «•» ertrl  • •• wMM ••
           CM tomi tw to tw MM «m. tntoi *•
           •M CO* tnt •*• MMtMMM M t«
           <**m ton MIIWI el M lam MM dw*
           O* Mo«* to e>  eon*  •! •»  ko« •*
           HIM IM •ew Modn I! M II •! ft* •
                Cost  CnM  «w  I.HI.IIHK
                  d» ken IM hoc* ol IM ton
           Abo onto IM ODSuto* •r"*ot to*, grx
           CO. fgf. ok I M IM Ms* to CM toll ol
           •took N». (I • si onhM on *• torn on
                         M ••
                         eia»
                            el
                          tlto
 M M to toio M«A
    eii^lim -«- « a •*".
    f «toi •<• mar* w>t «M el •» to*
  Additional kKtructlont lor Accuracy fora*
(Figure A-ir.
M	



tttt
• Into tM M
  toed •nrnvy itanMi! UM4. »•« M M
  •rtewtof*
IM n««  into e» mN cod> run«Mr Mr»
  IM «• cod* tot on IM (arm M* •*» *•
  codMMWI AIM »nto ti I* IMI •» *•
  MM* to •» Ml of Uod II
                                       142
                                                                         on Aflwncw
                                                  4I-4F.
                                                  M-el.
                                                       f r«it IM actoal oMI
                                                       m to M« MMI ft, I
                                                      1 tn* « 01 *j««cMM| Ox IM i
                                                                    PI. M. A**. A

                                           •da arc cakulatcd Irom the reauHa of M
                                           weekly predawn check! aa apecllkd hi ace-
                                           Uon 1.1. At the end of roch calendar quar-
                                           ter, an Integrated predawn  probability In-
                                           terval  for  all 8MM8 analyaera tot the orga
                                           mutton to cakulaled for each pollutant.
                                             •.I.I  Single Analyser Freetown. The per-
                                           centage difference (d,f  lor each  prectolon
                                           •chock to calculated ualng equation I. where
                                           T, to UM concentration mdkaled by the ana-
                                           lymtr lor the I th prectolon check and X, to
                                           UM known concentration lor the I In pred
                                                                                               '  *<
                                                   J\ J^hm^^^ • •	•^•••J>1^^» f^tA dljhi, • mtmMm r»
                                                   JMMwfMlWl HMinoCtHMW tOf ITtClilOn
                                                          -ll:
                                                                                                                K  100
                                                                                                                             (1)
                                                 (Ml Coo*. Into VM MNI eta) IMMMI IN
                                                      I c*o« M •» IM to* |w* eta/ (
                                                       MMI Atot «•* M I* Ml on I
                                                     WMlyaer. In* quarterly average
                                           ley to calculated with equation >. and UM
                                           atandard  devtollon (8,1  with  equation  1.
                                           WltCft H IB tlW wMNWoWf Off pWClBlOO CwlCCeVal
                                           t*) UM kMtrvmeM made during UM calendar
                                           quarter. For eiampk. n ihouhf be • or 1 M
                                           prectolon check! are made biweekly during •
                                                                n
                                                                2
                                                                                                                     (2)
i. OskaJoHaiM/tr OaU QaaHfr/ Jiammnil   *j * A/SnllJl
  CakutotUn of tattmatoa ot Iniegtatodjtro-    *     Jf      L  *
etoton and accuracy are carried owl by BFA
according to the loMowmg proeidurea. Ho.     •.!.« Fintolin  lor
porting organisation! ahouM report UM r«-   *Mn. Fiar  eoeh poHM
fMlM*l Bssf BIBBIIIstallBBMIsftl BtWlSlCBIISIIBIBl glffjsl  BssMttsMVjklllV
Idota M apedfkd ha accUoM I and 4 oven
»•_	_ev A*>	     «  - -
                                                                                                                                 .
                                                                                                    tach  pollutant.  UM average of
                                                                                                   (Ol and UM pontod itandard devl-
                                       T.I 'rr'ictolan of Automated Methods, b-
                                      Umato* of the predawn of automated meth-
                                                                                          	n
                                                                                          whore k to the number of anal
                                          wMhtn'the  reporting organisation  for
                                                                                                                                143

-------
PI. SI, Ara>. A
                             O.i    I   -j

                                   k   J-l
                        nsdt *  ...
                                                   40 CM Ch. I (7-1-M f dlllon)
                                                        Mi-
                    nt  *  no  «  ...  *  n
                                                          (5)
                                          ...  *
Equation* 4 and I are uicd when the aame
number ol precUkm checks are  made for
each analyier. Equation* la and la are uied
to obtain a velf hied averaie and a weighted
•tuidard deviation when different number*
of precision check* are made for the analys-
er*.
  For each pollutant, the •» Percent Proba
blllty Umlt* for the precision of a reporting
organization are calculated mini  equation*
• and 7.
« ...  « iij  « ...  « nh -  •             (S*)

        1.1.1  Accuracy for  Reporting Organiza-
      tion. Por each audit concentration kvel. th*
      average ID) ol the Individual percentage dif-
      ference* Id,) for all n analysen measuring a
      given pollutant audited during the quarter
      to cakulated using equation I.
                                                          n
                                                                             (8)
                                                                |
Upper  M  Percent Probability
  Umll-D« I.N 8. ..........................
Lower  M  Percent Probability
  Uralt-D  I M 8. ..........................
                                     <•»

                                     <1>
      Por each concentration kvel. the standard
      deviation 18.) ol all the Individual percent-
      age difference*  tor  all analyser* audited
      during the quarter to calculated, for each
      pollutant, using equation ».
  11  Accuracy of Automated Method*. •*•
llmatea of the accuracy of automated meth-
od* are calculated from the result* of Inde-
pendent audlU a* described In section I.S At
the end of each calendar quarter, an Inte-
grated accuracy probability Interval for all
fil-AMS analyser* audllrd In the reportlni
uriantaallon  I* calculated for each pollut-
ant. Separate probability  HmlU are calculat-
ed for each audit concentration level In sec-
tion 11
  »1.1 Smile Analyser Accuracy. The per-
crnlace difference Id,) for each  audit con
rrnlrallon  Is cskulsted  using equation  I.
win-re Y, Is the analyzer's Indicated concen-
li niton  meaiiurement from the  I th audit
rlirrk and X, Is the ai-liiftl concentration ol
ilir audit gas used fur the I In audit check.
                                         for reporting organisations having four or
                                         tewer analysers for a partkular pollutant.
                                         only one audit to required each quarter, and
                                         the average and ilandard deviation cannot
                                         be calculated. Por such reporting organisa-
                                         tions. the audit results of two consecutive
                                         quarters are required to calculate an aver-
                                         age and a standard devlsllon. using  equs
                                         tlons •  and •. Therefore, the reporting ol
                                         probability limits shall be on a semiannual
                                         (Instead of a quarterly ) basis.
                                       144
                                                     Invtronmonlol Protoctl«Hi Atjmcy
                                                                                            Por each pollutant, the f I Pei
                                                     blllty UmlU for the accuracy of a reporting
                                                     organisation  are  cakulated at each audit
                                                     concentration kvel using equation* • and 1.
                                                       1.1  Precision of Manual  Method*. Bill-
                                                     mate* of precision of manual  method* are
                                                     calculated from the  results obtained from
                                                     collocated samplers a* described In section
                                                     1.1. Al the end of each calendar quarter. MI
                                                     Integrated precision probability Interval for
                                                     all collocated sampler* operating hi the re-
                                                     porting organisation to cakulated tor each
                                                     manual method network.
                                                       I.I.I  Single Sampler  Precision.  At tow
                                                     concentrations,  agreement  between  the
                                                     measurement* of collocated aamplen.  ••-
                                                     preased as percent differences, may be rela-
                                                     tively  poor.  Por  thto reason,  collocated
                                                     measurement pain arc aelected for  use In
                                                     the precision calculation* only when both
                                                     meeaurementa  are  above  the  following
                                                     limit*
                                                       T8P: MM/HI*.
                                                                                          NO.: MM/HI*.
                                                                                          Pb:t.ll|4/m*.and
                                                                                          Por each  selected measurement pair,  the
                                                                                          percent  difference Id,) to calculated, using
                                                                                          equation It,
                                                                                                 (Y   *
                                                                                                                  x  100
                                                                                                                           (10)
Where  y, to the  pollutant concentration
measurement obtained from the duplicate
•ampler and X, to  th* concentration meas-
urement obtained from th* primary (ampler
designated tor reporting air quality for the
alto. Por each alto. MM quarterly avarag*
percent difference t«\> at calculated  from
equation I and th* standard deviation 48,) to
calculated from  equation  1. where n-the
nunber of aelected meaMirement pain at
the alto.
  •.1.1  Precision for  Reporting Organisa-
tion. Por each pollutant, the averag* per-
centage difference ID)  and  the  pooled
•tandard deviation IS.) are calculated, using
equations 4 and I, or using equation* 4a and
la If different number* of  paired measure-
ments are obtained at the collocated  site*.
For these calculations, the k of equation* 4.
4a.  I and la to  the number of collocated
sites.
  The M Percent Probability UmlU for the
Integrated precision for a reporting organi-
sation are calculated using equations 11 and
U.
                                                       Upper  tl  Percent  Probability
                                                         Umlt - DI I.M 8./X/1	
                                                                                                                              Ill)
                                                                   ft. St, Ap». A

                                            Lower M  Percent  Probability
                                              Umlt-D  I M8./X/1	    nil
  1.4  Accuracy of Manual Methods. Esti-
mates of the accuracy of manual methods
arc calculated from the results of Independ-
ent audit* a* described In Section 1.4. At the
end of each calendar quarter, an Integrated
accuracy probability  Interval  to calculated
for each manual method network operated
by the reporting organisation.
  1.4.1   Partlculale  Matter  Samplers (In-
cluding  reference method Pb samplers).
  41) Single Sampler Accuracy. For the flow
rate audit described  m  Section 9.4.1. the
percentage difference id,) for each audit to
calculated using equation I. where X, repre-
sent* the known flow rale and Y, represent*
the flow rate Indicated by the sampler.
  4b) Accuracy /or JteporHitf  Orawnteajlton.
Por each  type of partkulate matter meas-
ured le-g, TSP/Pb). the average ID) of the
Individual percent differences for all similar
partlculate matter samplers audited during
the calendar quarter to  calculated  using
equation I. The *landard deviation 18.1 of
the percentage difference* for  all of the
similar partkulate matter samplers audited
during  the calendar  quarter to ealulated
using equation I. The  H percent probability
llmlU tor the Integrated accuracy for the re-
porting  organization  are calculated  using
equations • and 1. Por reporting organisa-
tion* having  four  or  fewer partlculate
•natter (ampler* of one type, only one audit
to required each quarter, and the audit re-
sult* of two consecutive quarters  are  re-
quired to calculate an average and a stand-
ard  deviation.  In  that case, probability
limit*   ihall  be   reported   aeml-annually
rather than quarterly.
  1.4.1  Analytical Methods tor SO,. NIX
andPb.
  la)  Single  Analysis-Day .Accuracy.  Por
each of  the audit* of the analytical method*
for 80* NO,, and Pb described In section
1.4.1.1.4.1. and 1.4.4.  the percentage differ-
ence Id,) at each concentration level to calcu-
lated using equation I. where X, represents
the known value of the audit sample and Y,
represent* the value of SO. NO,, and Pb In-
dicated  by the analytical method.
  Ib) Accuracy for Rrportinf  Orp«ni*«fio*.
for each analytkal method, the average ID)
of the Individual percent differences at each
concentration kvel for all audit* during the
calendar quarter  to cakulaled using equa
tlon •.  The standard  deviation 18.) of the
percentage differences at each  concentra-
tion level  for  all audits during the calendar
quarter  to cakulaled using equation 0. The
M percent probability limits for the accura-
cy for the reporting organisation are r»lcu
lated using equations g and 1.
                                                                                                                               145

-------
ft. St. App. A

•e/ereneee
  I. Rhode*. R.C. OuMcllne on MM Meanto*
and UM cl Preclelon Mid Accuracy Data Rt-
•jilred k>y «t CPR rut M Appendtce* A MM!
B. EPA-MO/4 M/MI. U8. Environmental
Protection Afency. Research Trlariile Park.
NC S11II. June. liu.
  •."Quality  Assurance Handbook lor Air
Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume
I-Principle*."  EPA MO/I II Ml.  Muck
Itlt. Available  Iron. UB. Environmental
Protection Aiency. CnvlronmenUI Monllor-
taK Bydeml Uborclory (MD-TII. ReMtrch
Trlwiita Pwk. NC11711.
  ». -quality AMurancc Handbook lor Air
Pollution UcMurcmcnl Byrtenu. Volurot
II-Ambient  Air 0pccllk Mclhodi." EPA
•e*/«-n-«n».  May  im. AvaHaMa  (row
VM. BnvlronmcnUl Protection Aicncy. En-
vironmental Honllorlni aytlcma laborato-
ry (UD~m  Rcotarch Trlancl*  Park. NC
mil.
         40 Cfi Cfc. I (7-l-M ItocHM AftMcy

    T«ou A-l—MMMUM Oav*
PI. M, AM». A
   e*-MwT>
   fJi
                                                                                                   Omael
                                                                                                   I OiMkeMliOj
                                                                                                     MI* e« a* ran
                    Id*In Ml
                    l*»M«-Wei
                    I. fa*
                                     Ow» *•!•«••.
                                     I On
                                     IE*

                                                                                                                                      I OK* *•*••>.
                                                                                                                                      f iaisi «*nii*»j e.
                                                                                                                                      I kioM* •*!•••.
                                                                                                                                                        •weti
                                                                                           lN»h»OO
                                                                               147

-------
W. 5t, App. A
              40 OF* Ch. I (7-l-M
cc
§
II!
  D-
t IB
      us:  B  B  0  0
       I I   I   I   I   I
       %a«  a  a  a  a
       •-a«  a  a  a  a
       'IP'
    I|O«
    II I

    I!

                       ,l
                       lilfl
            148
                                               n. u,
                        a
                        i:
                            fllMK
                        I
                             in
                           D-
                          IB
                            !
                           a I
                             !
H&

  iHFFmmnFFmFFmirm
   i mi mi mi mi INI
    nDDHlEEffl^a^B
    ifflragraB^E^ffl
                                  gfflfflffll
                                 Illlll
                                                II
                                 i
                                      149

-------
 rt. st. AP«. A
                                                 40 era di. i (M-M MM**)
[g{
       1
 91!
                iiesifiifi     iiiiiill    Sli.lliai
1111
                       !H
                           ii
                                                    «stMli
                                    ii.....    ...^...2

                                   *U
                                    2*.
          ii
          1    iiihii!!!
                                                                      B    •»

!g|    iil     iSSill.liiiil     lilSliSilliilii    I     |    3
                                     160
                                                   Invlronmontol FtolocHon Agoncy
                                                                                       Arrgnpix B-QUALITV AUUMHCB Rg-
                                                                                          «uiaui«rTa roil  PB.BVBNTION  or
                                                                                          SioNincANT DBTMIOMTIOM IP8DI
                                                                                          Ala MONITOaiNQ
                                                               rt. si.
                                                                                           lenw) to allow each organisation to develop
                                                                                           a quality control lyslem that to moat elll-
                                                                                           dent and  effective for Ha own clrcum-
  Thto  Appendla apeclllea  the
quality aiiuranc* requirements lor the con-
trol and assessment ol the quality ol UM
PSD ambient air monitoring date lubmMted
to EPA by an organtaatlon operating a net-
work ol PSD elation*. Such organtoatlam
are encouraged  to develop and  maintain
quality awurane* program*  more eitenoive
than the required minimum.
  Qusllly assurance of a'
ten* Include* two distinct  and Important
Interrelated lunctloni. On*  lunctlon b the

through the Implementation of
procedure*, and  corrective  action*.  Th*
ether  lunctlon to  the aaveaanMnt  af UM
quality of the monitoring data . Accordingly,  amssiaiiils of
PSD monitoring data quality are required to
be made and reported periodically by th*
monitoring organisation.
  To provide national uniformity m Ih* as-
         and reporting  of data quaNty
       all PSD networks, spedfto  ease**-
     and reporting procedure*  are  pre-
scribed to detail In Sections I. 4. a. end g of
thto Append!!.
  In contrail, th* control lunellon ineim
•sue* a variety of poNctea. procedurea. ape*-
ifkallona. standards,  and corrective meas-
ures which affect the quality of UM result-
Ing date. The selection and Client of the
quaNty control actlvlltea-aa well aa addi-
tional quality assessment actlvNIe*  used by
•  monitoring organisation  depend eo>  a
number of local factor* such aa th* ftoM
and laboratory conditions, th* objectives of
the monitoring, the level of the date quaNty
needed, the esperttoe of assigned personnel.
the cost ol  control procedure*, pollutant
concentration levels,  etc.  Therefore, the
quaNty assurance requirements, m Section >
ol thto Appendix, are specified m general
                                                                                                                                Pbr purpoin of thto Appendla. "ortantoa-
                                                                                                                              Uon" to delhwd aa a eource owner/operator.
                                                                                                                              a iovernment atency. or  their contractor
                                                                                                                              that operate* an ambient air pollution mon-
                                                                                                                              itoring network lor P8O purpoae*.
                                                                                                                              I. Quollly 4Maraiic* Metulremeali
                                                                                                                                S.I  Bach artantaatlon moat develop and
                                                                                                                                        i quality a**urance progr
                                                                                          atottaf of pollctei. procedure*, opedllcatlon*.
                                                                                          atandardi and documenlallon neccaaary to:
                                                                                            III Provide data ol adequate quality to
                                                                                          meet monHorlm objcellvea and quality aa-
                                                                                          aurance requirement* ol UM  permit grant-
                                                                                          Ing authority, and
                                                                                            »» Mhwmtee taa* of ate quaMty data, owe to
                                                                                            Thb ejuaNly aaturance program mwat bo
                                                                                           geatrlbcd m  detail. nritaMy documented.
                                                                                           and approved by  the  permit granting au-
                                                                                           thority. The  QuetHy  Amirance  Program
                                                                                           wtN be reviewed during the ayatem audit*
                                                                                                                                S.I  Primary guidance for developing th*
                                                                                                                              QuaNty Aaeurence Program b contained m
                                                                                                                              Reference*  I and  1. which  also  contain
                                                                                                                              many suggested  procedure*,  checks,  and
                                                                                                                              control apectlIcaUona. Section J.«.t of Refer-
                                                                                                                              ence * describes specific guidance lor the de-
                                                                                                                              velopment ol a Quality Assurance Program
                                                                                                                              for automated  analyaera.  Many  specific
                                                                                                                              quaNty control checks and apectfteatlona for
                                                                                                                              manual method* arc Included In the respec-
                                                                                                                              tive reference method* described m Part M
                                                                                                                              of thto chapter or In the respective equiva-
                                                                                                                              lent  method description*  svslIsM*  from
                                                                                                                              BPA lace Reference 41.  Similarly, quality
                                                                                                                              control procedurea  related to speetneally
                                                                                                                              designated reference and equivalent analys-
                                                                                                                              er* are contained In Inch respective oper-
                                                                                                                              ation and Instruction manual*. Thto guid-
                                                                                                                              ance, and any other pertinent knlormatton
                                                                                                                              from appropriate sources, should be used by
                                                                                                                              the organisation In developing Ha quality si
                                                                                                                              suranc* program.
                                                                                                                                Aa a minimum, each  quality  assurance
                                                                                                                              program  must Include  operational proce-
                                                                                                                              durea for each of the following activities:
                                                                                                                                III  Selection of  methods, analyaera. or
                                                                                                                                III Training;
                                                                                                                                III InotaHallon of equipment;
                                                                                                                                Ml Selection  and  control ol eaHbralkM
                                                                                                                              atandarda:
                                                                                                                                (IICallbrBllon;
                                                                                                                                (g» Zero/span check* and adjustment* of
                                                                                                                              automated analysers;
                                                                                                                           151

-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3.3

-------
... 57. Apft. A                                40 CW CM. I (7-1-M EdHleN)

      SCHEDULE D.A—PERMANENT WAIVER FROM tNIEMM CONTROLS TSST —Continued
                        U»   IM4
                              MM
                              MM
                                   MM
                                   MM
                                              MM
                                                    MM
                                                         XXX*
MM
MM
                 SCHEDULE D.7-—HORIZON VALUE or CASH FLOW*
                          M
                              MM
                              MM
                              MM
                              MM
                                   MM
                                        IMI
                                              MM
                                                    MM
                                                    MM
                                                    MM
                                                    MM
                                                         MM
                                                         MM
                                                         MM
                                                         MM
                                                         MM
                                                         MM
                                                         MM
                                                               MM
                                                               MM
                                                               MM
                                                               MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
                                                               MM
  »AII St—AMMINI AM QUAU1V
          SUiVIIUANCf

      lutfTft *  tt	••-.J.I —

Sec.
Ml  Deflnltlona.
Ml  Purpoaa.
Ill  Applicability.
                                     Sec.
                                     M.II SLAMS methodolasy.
                                     M.II Monltorlni network completion.
                                     Mil IRctcncdl
                                     Mil Syttemmodification
                                     M.M Annual SLAMS summary report.
                                     M.II Compliance dale lor air quality data
                                        rcportln*.
                                     M.M Region*! Ollloe SLAMS data aequW-
M IS Quality auurance.
M.II Monllorlns method*
M.I I SHIns of ImtruinenU or Instrument
   probe*.
Mil Operallni Khcdulc.
lilt Special purpoee monitor*.
           ftMUM (IIAMI)

Mia  Air quality lurvclllance:  PUn con
   tent.
M II  SLAMS network deilin.
                                                   (HAMS)

                                     MM HAMS network eaUblbhrnent.
                                     M.II NAM8 network description.
                                     M.1I HAMS approval.
                                     Mil NAM8 methodology.
                                     M.l« MAMS network completion.
                                     M.II HAMS data •ubralllal.
                                     M.M Syilem modllkellon.
                                                        y !••*• •*•*•**
                                     M.M Indei reportlni.
                                  128
                                                                                      Federal monitoring.
                                                                                      Monltorlnt other polli
                                                                                                        lUl
                                                                                                        Af titcy
Sec.


M.M
Mil
ArrsHMx A—Qvautr
   MSMTS roa Stats *na Local Am Mom-
   toaiHO Btatiom (8LAM8I
Arrsmix B—QUALITY Aaauaancs RsqvMS-
   Mom roa PHvsHtion or Sramncavt
   DsTasioaaiioH (PSD) Aia Monitoauw
Arrsmix C—AMaiant AM Quautv MOM-
   roaiiM MarwwouMV
ArrsMsix D—Nttwoax  Onion roa Stats
   ma Local  Ais MoniToain*  Stations
   (8LAM8I am National AM Monitoain*
   Stationa INAMS)
Arrsnsix E-Paoaa Sitine Cainaia  roa
   AMaisnt Aia Qoaurv Monnoame
Arrsmix f—Annual SLAMS AM Quaurr
                  ArrtHMX O-U»iro«M AM Quturv
                     un D*IL* ItaromiM
                   Avraoorrr: Sea. II*. MU«I. III. MM! II*
                  •f  the CfeM  Air Act Ml UAC. 1«M.
 SODMK 44 m mil. M»y I*.
otherwUe noted.
                  • Ml  DeftaHWM.
                    Ai uwd In UtU part, all Urma not de-
                  fined  herein have Ihe meanlnt tlven
                  them In the Act:
                    (•> "Act" mean* the Clean Ah* Act u
                  amended MI UJB.C. 14*1. et ieq.1.
                    
of Part 61 of this chapter.
   "SO." means sulfur dioxide.
   "NO." means nitrogen dioxide.
  (gl "CO" means carbon monoxide.
  (hi "O," meMis ocone.
  (I) "Plan" means an Implementation
plan, approved or promulgated pursu-
a.it to section 110 of the Clean Air Act.
  (|l "Administrator" means the Ad-
ministrator of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (EPA) or his or her au-
thorized representative.
  (k) "Regional Administrator" means
the  Administrator of one of the  ten
EPA Regional Office* or his or her au-
thorised representative.
  (I) "State agency" means the air pol-
lution  control agency  primarily  re-
sponsible for development and Imple-
mentation of a plan under the Act.
  (m) "Local agency" means any Meal
government agency, other  than the
State agency, which w charged with
the  responsibility  for  carrying  out a
portion of the plan.
  (n) "Indian Reservation" means any
Federally recognized  reservation  es-
tablished by treaty, agreement, execu-
tive order, or act of Congress.
  (o) "Indian Governing  Body" means
the governing body of any tribe, band.
or group of Indians subject to the Ju-
risdiction of the United States and rec-
ognised by the United States u pos-
sessing power of self-government.
  (p> "Storage and Retrieval of Airo-
metrlc Data (SAROAD) system" Is a
computerised system which stores and
reports Information  relating to ambi-
ent air quality.
  (q) "SAROAD  site   Identification
form"  to one of the several forms hi
the SAROAD system.  It Is the form
which provides a complete description
of the site (and Ite surroundings) of an
ambient air  quality monitoring sta-
tion.
  (r) "Traceable" means that a local
standard has been compared and certi-
fied, either directly  or via  not more
than one Intermediate standard, to a
primary standard such as a National
Bureau of Standards Standard  Refer-
ence  Material  INB8   SRM)  or  a
USEPA/NBS approved Certified Ref-
erence  Material (CRM).
  (s) "Urban  area  population"  means
the  population defined  In  the most
                                                                                                                  129

-------
ISI.M

NAMS design criteria contained In Ap
pendli D to thU part.

IM.M  NAM8 BMtaodology.
  Each NAM8 must meet the monitor-
Ini methodology requlremenU of Ap-
pendix C to thU part  applicable to
NAMS at the time the sUtlon I* put
Into operation at a NAMS.

IMJI  NAMB artwork complelloa).
  By January I. 1911. with the excep-
tion of Pb.  which ihall be by July I.
I Ml and Pali* sampler*, which shall
be by 1 year after the effective date of
promulgation:
    Each  NAMS must be  In  oper-
ation, be sited In accordance with the
criteria In Appendl* E  to this part.
and be located ai described In the sta-
tion's  8AHOAO  slU   Identification
form: and
  (b)  The quality assurance  requlre-
menU of Appendix A to this part must
be fully Implemented for all HAMS.

l«« PR mil. May II.  111*. a* amended a!
«• PR 44114. Sept. I.  till; M PR  34141.
July I. IM1I

• M.M  NAMS daU mibmltul
  (at The requlremenU of  this section
apply only to those  stations designat-
ed  as NAMB by the network descrip-
tion required by | 61 JO.
  (b) The Stale shall report quarterly
to the Administrator (through the ap-
propriate Regional Of flee I all ambient
air quality data and  Information speci-
fied by AUROB Users Manual (EPA-
«60/3-7f-03>. OAQPS No. I.J-030) to
be coded Into the SAIIOAD Air Qual-
ity Data forms. Such air quality daU
and Information must be submitted on
either paper forms,  punched cards, or
matnette tape In the format of the
BAROAO Air Quality DaU forms.
  (c) The quarterly  reporting periods
are January I March II. April I-June
SO. July I-September 30. and October
 I December 31. The quarterly report
must:
  (I) Be received by the National Aero-
ftietrlc DaU Bank within  130 days of
the end of each reporting period, after
 being submitted by  the  BtaUs to the
 Regional Offices for review :
  (3> Contain all data and  Information
 gathered during the reporting period.
         40 OR Oi. I (7-1-M f dHlen)

   For T8P. CO. 8O_ O.. and NO..
the first quarterly report will be due
on or before June 30.  1101. for daU
collected during  the first quarter of
1081. For Pb. the first quarterly report
will be due on December II. I Ml. for
data collected during the third quarter
of IBM.  For PM,. samplers, the first
quarterly report  will be due 130 days
afUr the first quarter of operation.
   Air quality data submitted In the
quarterly  report mutt  have  been
edited and  validated so that such daU
are ready   to  be  entered kilo  the
8AKOAD daU  files. Procedures for
editing  and  validating daU  are de-
scribed   In1 AEROB  Users  Manual
(EPA 460/3 71 02*.  OAQPS No.  13
•10).
  (f) This section does not permit a
BUU to exempt  those SLAMS which
are also designated as NAMS  from all
or any of the reporting requlremenU
applicable to SLAMS In I M.30.
144 PR 31111. Hay II.  Ill*, at amended at
41 PR 44144. Sept. I. IMI: II PR MM. Mar.
II. IIM; 13 PR 34141. July I. llsll

IM.M  BytlemmodKkalloa.
  During the annual SLAMS Network
Review   specified   In   I M.30.   any
changes to the NAMS network Identi-
fied by  the EPA and/or proposed by
the 8UU and agreed to by the EPA
will be evaluated. These modifications
should address changes Invoked by a
new census and  changes to the net-
work  due   to  changing air   quality
levels, emission  patterns,  etc.  The
BUU shall be given one  year (until
the next annual  evaluation) to Imple-
ment the approprlaU changes to the
NAMB network.

Ill PR MM. Mar. II. IIM I
             I—Air Quality
              •epertlnfl
• M.4I In*! reporting.
  (a) The  8UU shall  report  to the
general public on a dally basis through
prominent notice an air quality Index
In accordance  with the requlremenU
of Appendix O to this part.
  (b) Reporting must  commence  by
January I. !••!.  for all  urban areas
with a population exceeding 600.000.
                                    136
                        i Afewcy
                      PI. M, A»t>. A
 and by January 1. 1113. for all urban
 •real  with a population  exceeding
 300.000.
   (c) The population of an urban area
 for purposes of Index reporting to the
 most  recent VS. census  population
 figure aa defined In 1 61. 1 paragraph
 144 PR 31611. May II. 1111. as amended at
 •I PR MM. Mar. II. IIMI
 • 66.60  red*
   The  Administrator may locate and
 operate an ambient air monitoring sta-
 tion If the BUU falls  to  locate,  or
 schedule to be located, during the Ini-
 tial network design  process or as a
 result  of the annual review required
 by I ll.30(d>:
   (a) A SLAMS at a site which to nec-
 essary  In the Judgment of the Region-
 al Administrator to  meet the objec-
 tives defined  In Appendix  D to this
•part, or
   (b) A NAMS at a site which to neces-
 sary In the Judgment of the Adminis-
 trator  for meeting EPA  national date
 • 6MI  Monitoring other palluUaU.
  The Administrator may promulgaU
 crIUria  similar to that referenced In
 Subpart B of this part for monitoring
 • pollutant for which a National Am-
 bient Air Quality Standard  does not
 exist. Such an action would  be taken
 whenever the Administrator deter-
 mines that  a nationwide monitoring
 program to necessary to monitor  such
 • pollutant.


 Arrnraix A—QUALITY  ASSUKAMC* Rs-
    qDiBmnrrs roa STATS AMD LOCAL
    Aia     MONITOSINO      STATIONS
    (SLAMS)

 I. General faiSbraiafhm.
  This Appendix apedflei  In*  minimum
 quality aammnee requlremenU  applicable
 to SLAMS air monitoring daU submitted to
 BPA. 8Ulc* arc encourased to develop and
 maintain quality aaturance program*  more
 exUnilv* than the required minimum.
  Quality aaiurance of air monitoring eyt-
 Uma Include* two dbllncl and  Important
 Interrelated function*. One function I* the
 control   of  the  measurement  procea*
through the
procedure*,  a
other  function
                           of  policies.
                corrective  action*.  The
              I* the assessment  of  the
quality of the monitoring data (the product
of the measurement proccail. In general.
the greater the effort effectiveness of the
control of a given monitoring syatom, the
better will be the resulting quality of the
monitoring data. The reiulu of data quality
assessments Indicate  whether the control ef-
fort* need to be menaced.
  Documentation of the quality aawaamenU
of the monitoring data to Important to data
user*, who can then  consider the Impact of
the daU quality m apeclfle application* <*e*
Reference  II. Accordingly. a»*e*imenU of
SLAM8 daU quaHly are required to be re-
ported to EPA periodically.
  To provide national uniformity  m Mil* aa-
aetamenl and reporting of data quality for
all  SLAMS networks. specific aaaeaanent
and reporting procedures arc  prescribed tat
deUU In lection* 1. 4. and I ofthl* Appen

  la centra*!, the control function encom-
passes a variety of pollcle*. procedure*, spec-
ifications. sUnderds. and corrective Mess-
cm* which alfcct the quality of the result-
ing data. The (election and extent of the
quality control actlvHIes-es well as addi-
tional quality s«*ium»nt acthrnlec-uaed by
a monitoring agency  depend en a number of
total factors such as the field and laborato-
ry condHlon*. the ob)ecU*e* of the monitor-
big. the level of the daU quality needed, the
expertise of smlgned personnel, the east of
control procedures, pollutant concentration
level*, clc. Therefore, the quality awurane*
requlremenU. In Mctlon 3 of this Appendix.
are specified In general terms to allow each
OUU to develop a quality aaiuranc* system
that I* moat efficient and effective for IU
own circumstances.
3. Quality Autmnra Neetilrcineliis
  1.1  Bach 8UU mint develop  and Imple-
ment a quality auuranc* program  consul-
tag of pollcle*. procedures, spedflcatlona.
standard* and documenUllon necemary to:
  (I) Provide data of adequato  quality to
meet monitoring objective*, and
  (31 Minimise low of air quality dato due to
malfunction* or out ol control condition*.
  Thai quality assurance program mint be
described In detail.  uiiUbty  documented.
and approved by the approprlaU Regional
Administrator, or hi* dealgnee. The Quality
Assurance Program will be reviewed during
the annual system audit described In section

  12 Primary guidance for developing the
quality assurance program It  contained m
Reference*  3 and ».  which  also contain
many suttesled procedure*,  check*,  and
control specification*. Section l.l.l of Refer-
ence J describe* specific guidance for the de-
                                                                                137

-------
PI. »•, App. A

velopment ol a Quality Assurance Program
lot SLAMS automated analyaer*. Many ape-
elfk  quality control check* and specific*
llona lor manual method* are Included hi
th* respective reference method* described
In Part N of thto chapter or to the respec-
tive equivalent method descriptions avail-
able Irom BPA tare Reference  41. Similarly.
quality control proceduic* related to •peclfl-
eally dedgmlcd reference and  equivalent
analyaer* are contained hi Ihe respective op
eialhm and Instruction manual* amodaled
with Ihea* analyser*.  Thl* guidance, and
any other pertinent Information Irom ap-
pioprlaU aoureca. should be  need  by the
State* to developing their quality amuranc*
program*.
  A*  • minimum, each quality amuranc*
program  must Include operational proce-
dure* lor each of th* following  acllvhle*:
  II) Selection of  method*. knalyier*.  or
•ampler*;
  III Training;
  II) Installation of equipment:
  II) Selection and control of calibration
standard*;
  (II Calibration:
  I*) Zero/span check* and ad|u*tmcnte of
automated analyser*;
  11) Control check* and their frequency;
  (4» Control llmlte lor icro. apan and other
control check*, and respective corradlv* ac-
tion* when Mich limit* are *urpa**ed;
  !•) CaNbrallon and atro/apan check* for
mulllpl*  rang* analyien l*e* Section 1.4 of
Appendl* C ol thto partK
  ll«)  Prevenllv*  and  remedial  malnte
nance;
  III) Quality control proecduro*  for **r
pollution eptood* monitoring;
  III) Recording and validating data:
  till Data quaHUy isiessment lpi»ctoto*i
and accuracy K
  114) Documentation of quaHty oontrol to-
lormalloox
  1.1  PoHolanf CoMeolrolton  and  flow)
Jt*lc Standard*.
  1.1.1  Oaaeou*  pollutant concentration
atandardi lpm*M*Uon devke* or cylinder*
ol compresaed gai) used to oktato test eon-
contratkMi  lor CO. SO,, and NO. must b*
Iraoeabl* to eHher a NcHonal  *)ure*u of
Standard* INBS) Standard fteforcne* Mate-
rial I8RM) or an NBS/EPA approved com
merctaMy available Certlllcd Reference Ma-
terial ICRM). CRM'a are deacrlbed to Refer-
ence t. and a M*t ol CftM source* to avail-
able from  the Quality Assurance Division
 111. environment*! Monitoring By*
terns laboratory. If 8  Environmental Pro-
ledlm Agency. Research Trlangl* Park. NC
mil
  flrneral guMancc and recommended tech-
 niques lor cerlllyln* ganeou* worktaig stand-
 •rib a«*ln*t an 8HM or CIIM are provided
 In section I • 1 of Reference 1 Direct use ol
 a I'ltM a* a working standard to acceptable.
            40 CM Ch. I (M-ft MMton)

   but direct u*e ol an NB8 8RM a* a working
   atandard I* discouraged becauic ol the HmH-
   ed aupply and eipcnse ol SRHa.
    I.I.I  Te*l concentration* lor O, muit be
   obtained In accordance with the UV phot*
   melrk calibration procedure specified to Ap-
   pendli D ol Part 10 ol thl* chapter, or by
   mean* ol a certified otone tramfer  atand-
   ard. Commit Rclercnce* 4 and 1 lor gtiM-
   anee on primary and transfer atandardi lor
   O,.
    I.I.I  Plow  rat* meaiurcmenU muat be
   made by a Oam measuring Imlrumenl that
   to traceable to an aulhorllallve volume or
   other  standard   UuManc* lor certifying
   aome type* ol llov/mcter* I* provided to Ref-
   orence I.
    It  National  Perlormanc*  and Syatcm
   Audit Program*
    Agencle* operallnt SLAMS  network  eta-
   lion* ahall be aublect to annual EPA  aya
   tern* audit* ol their ambient air monitoring
   program and are required to ptrtklpate to)
   •PA'* National  Perlormanc*  Audit Pro-
   gram. Theae audH* are described m eecllon
   I.4.M ol Rtlerence I and aecUon l.i.ll of
   Reference  I.  Por Instruction*,  agenclea
   ahouM contact either the approprtaU EPA
   Regional Quality Aiiurance Coordinator or
   Uv* QuaHty Aaturanc* Division tMD-TIBfc
   Environmental llonHorlng 8y*Um* labor*-
   lory.    OS   Environment**   ProUcUoii
   Agency. Reaearch Triangle Park. NC mil.
   I. Data QumlUw Au*ttm**l Hnutmuut*
    All  ambient monitoring method* or ana-
   lyaera «*ed m 8LAM8 (hall be toaUd peri-
   odically, oa deacrlbed In thto aeclloii *. to
   quantitatively  awe** the quaJMy of  the
   SLAMS  data  being  routinely produced.
   Measurement accuracy and practokM are eo-
   llmated  lor both automated and manual
   method*. The Individual reeuMa of Utea*
   teat* for each method or analyaer *haM be
   reported to EPA a* •peelMed to) eecllon 4.
   BPA vjlH then calculate  quarterly Integral-
   od eolfcnatae ol procMon  and accuracy appH-
   eabt* to the SLAMS date a* deocrmed m
   Mrtlon •- Data amewmenl reaulte ahouM be
   reported to CPA only lor method* and ana
   lyaera approved fa* UK In SLAMS monitor-
   Ing under Append!* C ol  Ihl* Part.
    The Integrated data quality amemmenl **-
   Ibnale* v»UI be caJculiled on the bail* of
   -taporttoig Mgantaatloni." A reporting orga-
   nhatlon to defined a* a  State, lubordmate
   organisation v/Hhln a Slat*, or other organl-
   cation that to reiooiulble lor a art ol ata-
   ttona that inonltor the tame pollutant and
   lor »hkh prcculon or accuracy aiaemmenla
   can be pooled. State* muil delme one or
   more reporting organization* lor each pal
   Hrianl *uch that each monitoring elation m
   the Slate 8I.AM8 network to Included m
   one. and only one. reporting organtoatton.
138
  Each reporting organisation *haH b* de-
fined inch that prectolon or accuracy among
aw atotlon* to the organhaUon can b* ••-
ported to be reasonably homogmeou*. M •

thai obouM tot considered by State* to de-
fining reporting organbatton* totted*: II)
operation by a common team of ftoM opera-
tor*. Ill common calibration laeUHk*. MM!
Ill  oupoort  by • common laboratory  or
headquarter*. When there to uncertainty to
defining th* reporting organkaUon* or to
aaslgntog apeelfk *IU* to reporting organ!-
gallon*. State* chall oorwuH with the appro-
priate EPA Regional Oflko for guidance.
AU  definition* of reporting organkaUona
*h*H b* lubjcct to final approval by the ap-
propriate EPA Regional Office.
  Amemmenl reeull*  *hall b* reported a*
•podfted  to  Mdlon 4.  Concentration and
flow atandwd* muet b* a* *p«*ifl*d to Mo-
tion* S.S or 1.4. In addMlon. worktog eland-

oudH* must not b* UM
                                                                 PI. M, An*. A

                                         mHled by the amocnted operation or eft-
                                         atmctlon manual, a CO analyte* may bo
                                         temporarily  modified during the procioton
                                         check to reduce cent or purge Itowa. or the
                                         loot almoepher* may enter the analyaer al a
                                         point other  than the normal (ample Inlet.
                                         provided Wei the analjxer'a rteponat If not
                                         Hkely to be altered by theae devlatMru) I
                                         the normal operational i
analyaera or analytical gyttemg Itodkated
concenUallon*) ohould ha baaed eo ataMa
                                         check to made to conjunction wltto a **r* or


                                         Uon of the prectolon check with  reopcct to
                                         Urn* ol day. day of week, and routine aervk*
                                         and adjustment* b encouraged when poml-
                                         M*.
                                           Report th* actual concentration* of th*
                                         •Bdju^jpA^htdOd*! d)>*)ffjfM*g|l ****** Ifafroasl find*  djqffasi>gltfglfll*ll*iwaAlli*Jb*Bt
                                         concentration* Indicated by  th* analyaer.
                                         TMw ^pCfCCIM Qlf fCgTWrCCa) *vC%WVqNt (nCOT «9*Nt*
                                         otntratlon* are uaed to a***** th* prettoten
                                         of th* monitoring data aa  deacrlbed to *ee
                                         Uonl.l.
                                           I.S Accuracy of  Automated  Method*.
                                         Each calendar quarter (during which ana
                                         rjrwtr* *r* operated). audH at lead M per-
                                         cent of th* SLAMS analyaera that i
to* ayatem
monitoring data lee* Reference I. pace •*.
•ltd Reference I. aretlon l.t.M.Wdl). Table
A-l provide* a aummary of
                 Automated Method*. A
out M leaat once every two week* on each
                     fllll l\f*% •^•^AOKOMaOjlfPi dAa^b.

     O. and CO. The pi»*tol*a) ehoek to
                    g)*masi
                    WwW
                                         lor KV NOb. Ob. or CO *uch that each ana-
                                         ryotr b audited *t leaat one* per year. If
                                         there an fewer than  four analywm for •
                                         pollutant wNhto a reporting organtoatlon,
                                         randomly rciudH on* or MOT* analyicra a*
                                         that M teaot on* analyvrr for that poltatant
                                         to  OudMed  each  calendar  quarter. Whore
                                                 EPA oUongly  «ncourag»* more fre-
                                         qjMHt audttmg. up to an audN lr*qu«nty of
                                         one* per quarter for *aeh SLAMS M*Jy**r.
                                          TK*audHtomad*bych*HenglngUb***ia-
                                         lyaer wHh at Moot on* *udH ga* of known
                                         concentration tram  each of i
                                         range*  that faH wMhto th*
                                         rang* of the analyaer betas audit*
between «.M end •.!• ppm for «V *KK.
and C% analyom. and between • and It ppm
for CO analyaera. To check the prutoleu of
SLAMS  analyaera  operating  on  rangaa
higher than • to 14 ppm SO* NO*, and Ob.
or • to lot ppm lor CO. uoe prectolon check
     of appropriately higher concentration.
Admtototrator or hto dedgne*. However, th*
reauM* of prectolon check* at coneenlrallon
leveto other than  Ihoa* ohown abov* need
not h* reported to EPA. Th* *tandard* from
whkh prtclslan chock teat concentration*
ar* obtained must meet the *pecMlcaUon* of
aectlon 11.
  Except for aertato CO analyacra d**crg»td
below. aiMlyaera  must  operate  to  their

check, and  Ihe teat atmosphere muet pam
through aN liken, •crabber*. condHUnen
and other component* used during: normal
ambient MmpMng *nd M much of the ambi-
ent air Inlet system a* b practicable. If per
                                                         •OkOb
                                                         •M-ee*
                                                         *M4«
                                                         *•*-••»
                                                                   •*a-*m
                                                                   • M-*M
                                                                   • M-OOi
                                                                            00
                                                                            I*-1*
                                                                           etyp*
                                           NOb MkNt gag for cti*vjkw*vj*dn*acei
                                         NO,  analyien muat abo contain M
                                         04* ppm NO.
                                           Norr  NO  concentratlom eubatantlaHy
                                         higher than •*• ppm. a* may occur when
                                         using earn* gas phase IHrallon IOPTI tech-
                                         nlquea. may lead to audH error* to chemlnj
                                         mtoeacence analyaera  due  to  toevNabb)
                                         minor NO NO. channel Imbalance  Such
                                         error* may be atypical ol routine monitor-
                                         tog error* to Ihe client that aueh NO coo
                                         centrallon* eicced lypkal ambltnt NO eon
                                         centrallon* at the rite. Theae error* may be
                                         minimised  by modifying Ihe OPT technique
                                                                                        139

-------
PI. St. Aa>». A

to lover  the HO concentrations remaining
hi Ih* HO, audit iu to levels closer lo typi-
cal ambient NO concentrations at UK ilte.
  To audit SLAMS analyser* operating on
range* higher  than 0 to I • ppm  for SO,.
NO,, and O, of • lo 100 ppm lor  CO. use
audit gase* ol appropriately higher concen-
tration M approved by the appropriate Re-
llonal Administrator or hit detlgnee.  The
reeulU of audlU  at  concentration  kveb
other than thoie shown In the  above table
need not  be reported lo EPA.
  The standards from which audit gat tot
concentration! are obtained muil meet the
apeclHcallona of  tecllon  1.1.  Worklni or
Iranifer itandardi and equipment  tued lor
audltlni muit not be the tame at the stand-
ardi and  equipment uwd for calibration and
•panning, but  may be referenced lo  the
aame NB8 8RM. CRM. or  primary  UV pho-
tometer.  The auditor should not be the op-
erator or analyst who conduct* the routine
monitoring, calibration, and analysis.
  The audit  shall be cairled out by  allowing
the analyxer lo analyse the audit test at-
mosphere In IU normal sampling mode such
that the  teat atmosphere pasaea through all
Illlcrs. scrubbers,  conditioners, and other
sample   Inlet   component*   used  during
normal ambient sampling  and aa much of
the ambient air Inlel system aa to practica-
ble. The  eiceptkm  given In section 1.1 for
certain CO  analysers  does  not apply lor
  Report both the audit teal concentrations
and the corresponding concentration meat-
tirementa Indicated or produced by the ana-
lyser being tested. The percent differences
between  these concentrations are used to
asses* I he accuracy of the monitoring data
at described In section 1.1
  1.1  Precision  ol  Manual Methods,  for
each network of manual methods, selert one
or more monitoring altet within the report-
Ing organisation for duplicate. eoincalcd
sampling at Mlowr. lor I to I the*, select I
site; f or g to  M altet. select  } sites: and for
over M tiles, sckct 1 sites  Where possible,
additional  collocated sampling  to encour-
aged. For parllculale matter, a network for
measuring  PM. shall be  separate from •
T8P network. Sites  having annual mean
pertlcuMl* matter concentrations  among
the highest II percent of the annual mean
concentrations for all the sites In the  net-
work mutt be selected or. If such sites are
unpractical, alternate tiles approved by tha
Regional Administrator may be selected.
  In determining the number of collocated
tllet required, monitoring network! for Pb
should be treated Independently from  net-
works  for parlkulate matter, even though
the separate  networks may share  one or
more common ssmplers. However, a single
pair of samplers collocated at a common-
sampler  monitoring site that meets the re-
quirements for both  a collocated lead site
          40 CM Ch. I (7-l-M fdllUn)

and a collocated parllculale matter tile may
serve at a collocated site for both networks.
  The two  collocated samplers  must  be
within 4 meters of each other, and parlku-
lalc  mailer samplers must be at least  1
meters apart lo preclude airflow Interfer-
ence. Calibration, sampling  and  analysis
mutt be the same lor both collocated asm-
plert and the tame as for all other samplers
In the network.
  For each pair of collocated samplers, des-
ignate one sampler at the primary sampler
Whose samples will be used  lo  report air
quality for the site, and designate the other
at the duplkate sampler. Bach  duplicate
sampler mutt be operated concurrently with
IU associated routine sampler at least once
per week. The operation schedule should be
•elected to that the sampling dayt are dis-
tributed evenly over the year and over the
aeven dayt of  the week. The every (day
schedule used by many monitoring agencies
to recommended. Report the measurements
from both samplers at each collocated sam-
pling site.  Including measurements falling
below the llmlU specified In I.I.I. The per-
cent  differences In measured concentration
Ipg/m*) between  the Iwo collocated  ssm-
plers are used to calculate precision M de-
scribed In section I.I.
  1.4  Accuracy ol  Manual Methods. The
accuracy of manual sampling methods to at-
teased by auditing a portion of the measure-
ment process, fat parlkulate mailer mclh-
ods.  the flow rale  during sample collection
to audited. For SO, and NO,  methods, the
analytical measurement  to audited. For Pb
methods. Ihe flow rale and analytical mess
uremenl are audited.
  1.4.1 ParlkulaU  mailer methods.  Each
calendar quarter, audit Ihe flow rale of at
least  U percent of Ihe ssmpkrs such that
each  sampler to audited  al least once per
year. If there are fewer than four tampkrt
within a reporting organisation, randomly
naudll on* or  more samplers to thai one
sampler to audited each  calendar quarter.
Audit each sampler al IU normal operating
flow  raU. using a How rale transfer eland
ard aa described In section 11.1. The flow
rat* standard used for auditing mutt not be
the aame  flow  rale standard used lo call-
brat* Ihe  sampler. However, both the caH
•ration standard and Ihe audit standard
may  be referenced lo the same primary flow
rat*  standard.  The How  audit  should  be
scheduled to at to avoid Interference with a
scheduled sampling period. Report the audit
flow rales and the corresponding flow rale*
Indicated  by  the sampler's normally  used
flow Indicator The percent differences be
tween these How rales are used lo calculate
accuracy as described In section >.4.l.
  Great care must be used In auditing hl|l>-
volume parlkulale mailer samplers hsvmi
flow regulators because the Introduction «
                                        140
 InvbwiMwwititjl rrwlwdhi
                            •••*>cy
                          PI. St, Ap*. A
 resistance plates toi Ihe audit flow standard
 device can cause abnormal flow patUms at
 Ihe polnl of flow tenting. For Into reason.
 Mi* flow audit ttandard thould be used with
 • normal filler In place and without resist
 ance plates In auditing  now regulated high-
 volume tampler*. or other steps should be
 taken to assure that flow patient! ar« not
 perturbed al Ihe polnl of flow tensing.
   1.4.1  80, Methods.  Prepare audit  *ohi-
 Uont from • working suit lie Utrachloromer-
 eurat* ITCM) solution  at described In sec-
 tion U-l of Ih* 80, Reference Method  Mfc 11* M* fkM MM, MM

   Audi) sample* must be eatracted using Ihe
 aame extraction procedure used lor eiposed
 flllcra.
   Analyse  three audit sample* to each ef
 the Iwo range* each quarter sample* an
 analysed. The audit  sample analyse*  shall
 be distributed aa much aa possible over the
 entire calendar quarter.  Report the  audit
 concentrations (to ft Pb/strlpl and the cor-
 responding measured concentration! (to «g
 Pb/ttripl using unll  code 11. The percent
 difference* between the concentrations are
 used  to calculate analytical accuracy aa de
 scribed to tecllon 1.4.1.
  The accuracy of an equlvaknl Pb method
 to assessed In the same manner aa for lh*
 reference method. The flow auditing device
 and Pb analysis audit sample* must b*  com-
 patible with Ihe specllk requlremenU of Ihe
 equivalent  method.
 4. fteporfiiiv ftrenlnrawtjt*
  For cash pollutant, prepare a list ef all
 monitoring altet and then-  8AROAO an*
 Identification  codes to each reporting erga
 ntaatlon and submit the 11*1 to the appropri-
 ate EPA Regional Office, with a copy to Ihe
 environmental Monitoring Systems Labora-
 tory «MD-1II. OS Environmental Protec
 Uon Agency. Research Triangle Park. North
 Carolina  mil  IEMSL/RTPI.  Whenever
 there to a change to this  Hat of monitoring
 sites to a reporting organisation, report this
 change to  Ih*  Regional Office  and  to
 EMSt/RTP.
  4.1  Quarterly Report*.  WHhta IM calen
 dar dayt alter  the  end ef each  calendar
 quarter, each  reporting organisation shall
 report lo BM8L/RTP via the appropriate
 EPA Regional Office Ihe resuHa of sll valid
 precision and  accuracy teaU  It has carrkd
 out during  the quarter. Report all collocat
ed mcasuremcnU Including  those  falling
 below the levels specified to section 1.11 Do
not report  retulU from Invalid lesU. liora
tesU carried out during a lime period for
 whkh ambient data Immediately prior or
subsequent  lo  the lesu were Invalidated for
                                                                                                                                   141

-------
n.
         AS>S>. A
  appropriate reasons, or from test* of meth-
  ods or analysers not approved for use In
  BLAMB monitoring network* under Appen
  disc of this part.
    Quarterly report* us specified herein shsll
  commence not later (than the report pertain-
  ing to the first calendar quarter of IM1. al-
  though *uch reports will be accepted begin-
  ning with the report pertaining to Ih* third
  calendar quarter of I'M
    The Information should be reported to a
  formal similar to that shown to Figures A-l
  and A-I. The data may be reported III via
  magnetic computer (tape according to  data
  f01 mat specifkallomi provided  by the Re-
  gional Offices, til by direct. Interactive com-
  puter entry via • dots terminal  Mid the
  PARS data miry system,  or  III on Ih*
  form* Illustrated to Figures A-l and  A 1
  Minor variation* of these forms «lo facili-
 tate local uatl or computer generated •lac-
 simile* forms may slso be  used,  provided
 they follow the same  general  format, us*
 Ih* same Mock number*, and arc clear and
 completely  legible. Instruction* for using
 the** forms an provided to section 4.1.
   Within I4o days alter the end of Ih* re-
 porting quarter. BFA will calculate Integral
 ed precision and accuracy assessment* for
 each reporting organisation  M  specified to
 section t and return, through the Regional
 Office*, report*  of lihe respective assess-
 menl* to each reporting organisation.
  41  Annual Reports  When precision and
 accuracy estimates for a reporting organisa-
 tion have been calculated for all four quar-
 ter* of the calendar year. EPA will calculate
 the properly weighted probability MmUs for
 precision and accuracy foe Ih* entire calen-
 dar year. The** UmlU will then be associat-
 ed  with  the data submitted  In  the annual
 8I.AMS report required by | U.M.
  Each reporting organisation shall aubmtl.
 along with Ma annual 8LAM8 report. • Hot-
 tog by pollutant  of all  saonltortog  altea to
 the reporting organisation.
  41  Instructions for  Using  Daw QualMy
 Assessment   Rcporllni  Form*.  Suggested
 forms for reporting dsla quality assessment
Information  are provldlcd to Flgur* A-l Ifor
reporting  accuracy dstal and Flgur* A-l
Ifor reporting precision dstal. The forms
msy be used to a "universal"  way to report
dala tor different pollulanU and tor differ-
ent site* on the same form. Or. either form
may be used a* a site specific or pollutant-
specific form Iwhere all entries on the form
 are for a common site, a conimun pollutant.
 or bothl by filling to the site or pollutant  In
 formation to the  appropriate bos  to the
 upper kit corner ol the form Detailed In
 tliiKltons for Individual blocks arc as lot
                                                       40 CM Ch. I (7-t-M
                                             11
                                             11
                                            * r

                                            •	

                                            •  ...
lows:
  lull ruction* common to both forms:
                                                                                                                                                                   *. M. Ap*. A
                                                     SUM Iks KM **< SAHOAO SM*
                                                     HMOTHM, IkamMian A tn«M 1 *W>
                                                             s» seek SUM k>
                                                      »MOSC
                                                            C»»
                                                                                               *4-*l
                                              Asm enter the name of the reporting orga-
                                            nsmllosx the date the form  Is submitted.
                                            and (optionally! the name of the  person
                                            who prepared In* form on Ih* blank* prav
                                            ,ut~<
                                            N>W...
                                           n-n.
                                                      *••  fMsi *• SAMMO M
                                                       CMS am * «o« erfr)  • a* enMss m
                                                       ex km •**>*• Mm* sM. *MW *•
                                                       ss* eoes  **« si*  Miioinskiii • *•
                                                       •**•> Mi o»M.m wo** k>*. wok.
                                                       co. far. *K| •* CM kh>* « *M M st
                                                       ktosk Ms tl • a* •**•* e* SM km a*
                                                                                                                                               dllfereiKc  Id,* for each ayeclslos)
                                                                                                                                       check Is calculated using squat ton I. where
                                                                                                                                       T, to Ih* concentration Indicated by Ih* am-
                                                                                                                                       Irser for the I Ih prccMon chock Mid X, to
                                                                                                                                       Ih* known concentration for Ih* l-th pred
                                                                                                                                       MOM cote*!.
                                                                                                                                                              ii  100
                                                                                                                                                                            (1)
                                                                                                                                        Fwr each analyser, the quarterly average
                                                                                                                                      1*^1 to calculated wrth equation I. and the
                                                                                                                                      standard  deviation 18,1  wMh  equation I.
                                                                                                                                      where n to the number of precWon check*
                                                                                                                                      ggj the Instrument made during the calendar
                                                                                                                                      quarter. Fwr essmple. n should be • or 11f
                                                                                                                                      	 n gj • g p. •• — *--	•- — A*»A	*— SV*~-  • *
                                                                                                                                      pfTCTMOfl *.••*•.••• ".raw •—
                                                       km kM * •» it** Msemti eta*
                                                       *MB M» at** As MX* •> SM MMB st
                                                       *» to. aw IMM BM **Mi MMM II »
                                                       *>••»• km klsi*
                                                      MMM •« an "A" • e "•".
                                                     OtM: !<•• *• «MH*I SMJ «v •» SM iMt
                                                                                          .. CMrwafIon* Jtr 0*t* Qoafff • tutttmtml   fj
                                                                                            CaJewtetlon of estlmste* of tolegraled pr«-
                                                                                          ctstao) and accuracy an* carried out by EPA
                                                                                          accoidsng to Ih* following procedure*. Re-    •
                                                                                          porting organisation crtould report MM ro-   M*
                                                                                          gulla off indi»i«s».»i ——•-•--
 "i  •  *  ,2   n
  J     n  l«i  d|



*lA 1  -1 CA  '•'
                                            Addttlsnal Inatructlona for Accuracy fora
                                           lFlguroA-11:
                                                                                                                                    m
                                                                                           •.I  Procto-on of Automated Methods. •>
                                                                                           ••*••« «f «L^ ——•-*
                                                               • *M
                                                               i sudi an* ski* eMMd *•
                                                                       ••I-**MMp»t
                                                      snisf "»" I CM su* MS m eaneuck* sv
                                                    S f Mm *M OM> •*• Si IM MIK* SI IM
                                                      Mcsl frtnvv slMdve UMA  koM *M M
                                                       I CO*, f fltai CM 1.4 cod. IMMMf ksM
                                                    a>M.Wtoo) MUMI..,!
                                                    HofS k) IM Ml ol Uoct Jl

                                                        I •"* I ••"•.! "I"
                                       142
                                                                                                                                 143

-------
 f I. St. Apt*. A
                             0.1    '
                                  k   J-l
                               40 Cft Cfc. I (7-l-M IdltUn)



                                    (4)
              n,d|  »  nada  *  ...» n.d. «...  *  n^

                                  ...  * n.  •»...*  n.
                                                         (5)
     (n,  -
                                                 (*v, -
Equation* 4 and t arc used when the MOM
number ol precUlon check* are mad* lor
each analyser. Equations 4a and la arc uaed
U obUlo a weighted average and a weighted
•Undard deviation when dllfcrcnl number*
of precUlon check* arc made tor the analys-
er*.
  for each pollutant, the M Percent Proba-
bility IJmlU lor the precUlon of • reporting
organization are calculated mine equation*
• andl.
                       1.1.1  Accuracy lor Reporting Organisa-
                      tion, for each audll concentration level, the
                      average «D> ol the Individual percentage dll
                      lerence*   and  the pooled
standard deviation  18.1 arc calculated, using
equation* 4 and I. or using equations 4a and
•a U different number* ol paired measure
menu are obtained at the collocated sues.
Por these calculation*. Ih* k ol equation* 4.
4a. •  and la Is  the number ol collocated
•lie*.
  The M Percent Probability UmU* lor Ih*
Integrated precision lor a reporting organl-
sallon are calculated using equations II and
II.
                                                                                        Upper M  Percent  Probability
                                                                                          Untll-Dl I MS./V1	
                                                                                                                            (Ill
                                                                                                                                                           PI. M, A*a>. A
                                            Lower  M Percent  Probability
                                              Until-D I MeVVl	
                                                                                                                            (Ill
  •.« Accuracy  of  Manual Method*. Esti-
 mate* ol the accuracy ol manual methods
 are calculated Irom the resulu of Independ-
 ent audlU as described In Section 1.4. At UM
 and of each calendar quarter, an Integrated
 accuracy  probability Interval la calculated
 for each manual method network, operated
 by the reporting organization.
  1.4.1  Paniculate  Matter  Sampler*  (In-
 cluding reference method Pb samplers*.
  
-------
rt. st, A**. A
  I. Rhode*. R.C. OuMclln* on MM Meuilnt
end UMI o( PtecUlon end Accuracy D«U Re-
quired by «• CPU Pert M Appendfcee A *JM)
0. EPA 404/4 4J/4H. UA. bwtoonmenUI
Protection Atcncf. RcM*rch Tiltnile Park.
NC mill. June. 1111.
  •."Quality Ajeurance  HuMlbook for Ah
Pollution Measurement  Byelema, VoluoM
I -Principle."  EPA •*•/•-» tot.  Much
Itlt. Avftltabto from II B. CntlroiiaMnUl
rroUcllon Atcncy. Bivlnnmtnlal Monitor-
bi« ByittiM Ubor»tory lMD-m. ItocMch
TtUntkPuk.NCailll.
  I. -QtiaWy AMUIUW* Handbook for Air
rolluUoM UcMUICHWnl  SlmUM. VOlUlM
Il-Ambknl Ab Spccllla  Method*.- KPA-
•M/4-n-dn*. M*y l»7t. AralUM* from
OA Bnrlronmcnlkl PfOUctlon Ateney. to-
vlronmcnUI MonHotbif ByiUn* Laborato-
ry -m HcMUch TrUntto  fuk. NC
mil.
         40 Cf* Ck. I {/-I-M l«Mo«)

  4. "LM  of  DeslciMlcd Reference  *n4
Eajirrakn! Melhodi" A»»IUMe  from  UA
EnvtronnunUI Protection Afcncy.  Deport-
•MM B IMDtit. Rucwch TrUntle Puk.
NCnill.
  •. Huihu. EG. Mid J.  MuMkl. A Pioee
duit for EtUblUhlnt TrkcecMIHr  of  Q*t
Mlilurn  U CerUIn  NillontJ Bureau «|
BUndwdi 8RM-*. EPA tOt/1 tl^lt.  UA
•ntlronmenUI  ProUclioo  Ateocy.   Re
«e«rch TllMilU Put. HC mil. M*y. INI.
IJolnl HB8/EPA PuMluthml
  »  P«ur. R J uid P.P. McElroy. TeehnJea
A«l*Unc< Document for the CMIbrtllon of
Ambient Ocone Monitor*. EPA tot/4 It-
Mi. UA EnvlronmenUI ProUctlon  Atency.
ReMUch TtUrujIt P»tk. NC mil, Beptem-
bor. ltt».
  V. McBroy. PP. Trenifcr BUndvdi for
Utt Gkllbntlon of Ambient Air MonMorim
AMlywn  for Own*. EPA-40t/4-1t 444.
UA. EarlronmenUI Protection Agency. Re-
•Mtcli TrtentU Puk. NC mil. September.
IMt.
                                    146
MMM P>ej44«flMI
                                                                                                 TAM A-I-MMMUM fMM AttM
        •*-»•»«»«
                         I M* (•!-»!
                         tfKWt-MOl
                         *Mee>Me>
                        t»»el
                                                                           147

-------
n. si Aff. A
                  - t
40 CfR Cfc. 1 (M-M MM*.)



?





G
E
C
C
G
t




«

3

f
S



1
a

j






*4
1!

3


3
^









0 Q G
3 E
3 C
3 C
I 1
a G







t





-
3 3
-
i
- S -
] J




3


p
3

3 El
3
i
3
a
i





i
t
,!!,!
ijlli
11
Hi
,jj|




IB.
HI
1
i|
|

!i!
D-
IB:
1
!

«
_


L-*
i
j

'i5
«
p]
n«j
Us
i
Ld
H*
1*
X
Pi
is
r
^%JwWC|P f •• **i ^*Jr*
























































































































































































































































































Inc ~ir 1C! T t~


_






.1
1,
n_







i
i

H_






i
n

M_




i
i

N_











_








in
in




M_














liifcuuj ifeiii&i&i i&ni&i&J i&lftiftiftj m&i&ui




































n_












































H_












































n
n












































H_
























































                            148
                                                                                           149

-------
 ft. M, Apa..
M
           A                                   4fl Cfft Ck. I (7-1-li MM**)

              ii.oiiiiio     iiiiiiii    •liiiii.i
a
f  I  !"'i;!r
1  j  liilliiSl
              iSiiiiBiiBiii    liiiiiiiiiiiiei    i
                                      WlllWul
                                      MMM
                                    IRQ
                                                      ot frolocMoii Agency
                                                                                     ArrBNM* B— Qtuurv AMUMNCB R«-
                                                                                        «ui*mnrra  ro«  PiKvumon  or
                                                                                        8igMiric*Nf DnnioBATioM (PSDI
                                                                                        Am MoHiToima
                                                                                        Thta  Appendli epecMla  Ike
                                                                                      mieJHy ••imnee rowrfremenU for the con-
                                                                                      trol Mid •Mcomient of the «MlMy ot the
                                                                                      PSD MHktent eJr monllorlne *«U enkmNtetf
                                                                                      to BPA ky MI •riuilwtkm operallnt • net-
                                                                                      work ot I*8O eUllone. Such on MI!M||OM
                                                                                      •re encowrMed  to develop Mid nwlnUw
                                                                                      quality •wurMiee profrMm more eilcmlve
                                                                                      UIMI Ike required minimum.
                                                                                        Quctlty UMinutce of «lr monllorkif §re-
                                                                                      lemi Include* two dMtnct Mid Imporlint
                                                                                      kiterretaud furtctloni. One lunette* b the
                                                                                      control  of  the  mtMurtmenl
                                                                                      thratiflh the ImptemenUlkm ot
                                                                                      proeeduree. Mid corrective  teHon*. The

                                                                                      mwlHy ol the monUorin* d*U like product
                                                                                      ot the  meeoarement proeeml. In
                                                                                                                   teneraL
                                                                                                                  emw of
                                                                                      Ike meter the effort Mid etfecUvemw
                                                                                      UM contfM w • five*! iMNiitoniif •yitaM**
                                                                                      the keller wIN ke the reraHInc mwHty ot
                                                                                      Ike monHorln* eVtta. The reMrito of daU
                                                                                      ejualHy uoemmenU kidteit* wnether Ike
                                                                                      control •( lorU need to be nwreurd.
                                                                                        Documcnlatlon of the ejueJIly
                                                                                     of Ike monMorlm dale. If Important to data
                                                                                     MMM. who can then eenelder In* Impael of
                                                                                     the data ejuaMly to epeetfle appHeatmn* IOM
                                                                                     Keference II. Aecordlnily.  Motmmento ot
                                                                                     MB monltorku data ejutlky are ttinkad to
                                                                                     ke made and reported periodically ky Ike
                                                                                      To pr
                                                                                               cia
                                                                                         enl Mid reportlnt
                                                                                     amor* all  PSD network*, epedfle
                                                                                     ojent and  reportlnt  niecedure* are ore-
                                                                                     •erlked In delaN In Stctlon* I. «. •. and • of
                                                                                     Ihl* Appendli.
                                                                                      In contract. UM control function
                                                                                      ••MM
                                                                                      Nteat
                                                                                        tMM. Handard*. and corrective me**-
                                                                                     nre* whkh atleet the ejualNy ot Ik* reeuH-
                                                                                     kw data. The atketlon and eitent of the
                                                                                     •uaHty  conlrol actlvHIe*-** well a* addi-
                                                                                     tional quality awemment actlvHIoi-mwd ky
                                                                                     a monHorlnf orcanhallon depend on  •
                                                                                     number of total taetora *uek a* Ike fMd
                                                                                     and laboratory eondlllon*. the objective* ot
                                                                                     Ik* monHotlnt. the tevd ol the date «uaHty
                                                                                     ncedtd. the eipcrluc of amltned penonnet.
                                                                                     the coat of control  procedure*, poUalani
                                                                                     coneenlratlon kvek).  etc.  Therefore,  the
                                                                                     •jtmlky amurance requirement*. In Section I
                                                                                     of Ihb)  Appendli.  are apedlled m lenrral
                        n. $•. AS*. •

term* to *llow each ortantaallo* to develop
a quaMty conlrol *y*lem that k) moot ettl-
dent  and elleettve  for  II* own ebcum-
•tance*.
  Par purpoae* of Into Appendix, "ortantoa-
lion" to defined a* a *ource owner/operator.
a •overnmen! Meney. or  their contractor
that operate* an ambient ate pollution man-
Morlnt network for PSD pwrpooc*.
1. Quality Atnmmet Metulremeaif*   i
  1.1  Each ortantaallon muot develop and
Implement a quality auurance program con-
(totteif ot poUele*, procedure*, epeclflcallon*.
•tandard* and documentation necemary to:
  III Provide data of adequate quality  to
meet monkorMfl objective* and quality a*-
•urance requlremenl* of the permit trent-
Ins authority, and
  (II Mimmbe IOM of ate quaMty data due to
malfunction* or out-of-control condition*.
  Tkto quaHly aaturancc protrant muet k*
            detail.  auHaMy documented.
             ky the permJt-tranUna; an-
IkorMy. The QuaMty Amurance  Protram
wttl be reviewed durMf Iho lyetem  audit*

  1.1  Primary fukkwee far devcloplnc the
QuaMty Amur ante  Protram to contained In
Reference* I  and a. whack MM contain
••any  auaaeeted pexedurea, check*, and
control apeclfkaUoni. Section It.t ot Refer-
ence 1 deotrroe* apedlte tuldant* tor the de-
vilipmial ot a QuaHty Amurance Protram
for automated  analyaera.  Many opecMIe
quaMty control chock* and apedftealloM far
manual method* are Included In the reapec-
Mve reference mHhod» dmilbid to Part M
of Into chapter or In Iho reapecUvo nul»a
lent  method  d**cilptloiM avaMabat from
•PA laee  Reference 41. Stmllarty. quaMty

dcakmaled reference and eqwhatont analya-
ere are contained In Ihete rcapectlv* eper-
•lion and Malruetlon manual*. Thto tuM-
   e. and any olner pertinent  tolormallon
tram appropriate aource*. ahould ke uotd by
the ortanteaUon to devclopkM M* quality a<-
                                                                                                                               At a minimum, nek quality
                                                                                                                             dure* for each of the foNewkii acUvMlee:   .
                                                                                                                               Ill Selection of metnod*. analyaen. or

                                                                                                                               <>ITr*lnlnt:
                                                                                                                               ill ImUltotton of equlpnunt:
                                                                                                                               ««» Selection Mid control of calibration
                                                                                                                             atandarda;
                                                                                                                               III Calibration:
                                                                                                                               <•! Zero/apan check* MM! MUuotmenU of
                                                                                                                             automated analyaera;
                                                                                                                        1S1
                                                                                        n 111  it m

-------
  IM.X

  recent decennial U.S. Census of Popu-
  lation Report.
   (I) "TOP" (total impended partlcu-
  lates>  meuu  paniculate  matter u
  mcMuied by the method described In
  Appendix B of Part 60 of thU chapter
   (u) "PM,." meant partlculate matter
  with  an  aerodynamic diameter  leas
  than or equal to a nominal 10 microm-
 eters  as  measured by  a  reference
 method based on Appendix  J of Part
 BO of this chapter  and designated In
 accordance with Part S3 of this chap-
 ter or by an equivalent method dealt
 nated In accordance with Part S3 of
 this chapter.
  <») "Pb" means lead.
      ,.'       -    -
 41 FR lilt. Jan. JO. Ittl; || PR MM Mar
 II. 1IM; 11 FR Mill. July |. |»ii|

 lilt Furpow.
   ThU part contains criteria and
 requirements for  ambient air quality
 monitoring and requirements for  re-
 porting ambient air quality data and
 Information. The monitoring criteria
 pertain to the following areas:
  (I) Quality assurance procedures for
 monitor operation and data handling.
  (1) Methodology used In monitoring
 station*.
  <1> Operating schedule.
  (4) Biting parameters  for  Instru-
 ments or Instrument probes.
  (b) The  requirements  pertaining to
 provisions  for an air quality surveil-
 lance system In the State Implementa-
 tion Plan are contained In this part.
  (c) This part also acts to establish a
 national ambient  air quality monitor-
 Ing network for the purpose of provid-
 ing timely air quality data upon which
to  base  national  assessments  and
policy decisions. This network will  be
operated by the States and will consist
of certain  selected stations from the
Slates' SLAMS networks. These select-
 ed stations will remain as SLAMS and
 will  continue to meet any applicable
 requirements on SLAMS. The stations.
 however, will also  be designated as Na-
 tional    Air   Monitoring   Stations
 .
   This part applies to:
   (a) State air pollution control agen-
 cies.
    Any local  air pollution control
 agency or  Indian  governing body to
 which the State has delegated author-
 Ity to operate a portion of the Slate's
 SLAMS network.
    Owners or operators of proposed
 sources.

    Subpwt •— MonlUHnf Criteria)

 IM.II Quality aaturanee.
  (a) Appendix A to this part contains
 quality asiurance criteria to be  fol-
 lowed when operating the SLAMS net-
 work.
   Appendix B to this part contains
 the quality assurance criteria to be fol-
 lowed by the owner or operator of a
 proposed source  when operating a
 PSD station.

 IM.II Moaltoring »cla«*.

  Appendix C to this part contains the
 criteria to be followed In determining
 acceptable monitoring methods or In-
 struments for use In SLAMS.

 IH.lt 8Ulng «f iMlnuMnU w liulm-
  Appendix E to this part contains cri-
teria for siting Instruments or Instru-
ment probes for SLAMS.

IW.IS  Operating seaeavlc.
  Ambient air quality data collected at
any SLAMS must be collected as fol-
lows:
  (a) For continuous analysers— con-
secutive   hourly   averages   except
during:
  ( 1 > Periods of routine maintenance.
  (3) Periods  of Instrument  calibra-
tion. or
  (3) Periods or seasons exempted by
the Regional Administrator.
  (b) For manual methods (excluding
PM,. samplers)-at  least one  24-hour
sample every six days except during
      nwMiileJ Protection Agency
period* or seasons  exempted by the
Regional Administrator.
  (c)  For PM»  samplers-a  34-hour
sample must be  taken  from midnight
to midnight (local time) to ensure na-
tional consistency. The sampling shall
be conducted on the following sched-
ule* which  are  based  on either the
first year of  PMW monitoring  or  a
long-term selective PM*  monitoring
plan:
  (1» Ftnl year Mr* monitoring. The
sampling frequency for the first year
(11 consecutive  months* of ambient
PM* monitoring shall be based on the
monitoring area's SIP area grouping
(I. II.  HI) which to described In the
PM» SIP Development Guideline and
the Preamble to Part II of this chap-
ter. In general, the SIP grouping* arc
defined In  term*  of  the estimated
probability of not attaining the PM*
NAAQS. Procedures to develop these
probabilities an  found In Pace. T.. et
at. "Procedure* for Estimating Proba-
bility  of  Nonattalnment  of  a  PM*
NAAQS Using Total Suspended Par-
tlculate  or   Inhalable   Partlculate
Data." OAQP8.  U.S.  Environmental
Protection Agency. Research Triangle
Park. N. C. December !•••. The most
recent 3 calendar year* of air quality
data must be used In this determina-
tion. The SIP area grouping* are divid-
ed  Into three categoric*: Group 1—
area*  whose  probability  to  greater
than or equal to N percent:  Group
II— area* whose probability to greater
than or equal to 90 percent to lea*
than   M  percent  probability,  and
Group III— area* whose probability to
lea* than 20 percent. The use of the
term "monitoring area" a* It applies to
the required sampling  frequencies of
the "monitoring area" to a*  follows:
First, any urbanised area as defined by
the VS. Bureau of Census;  second.
any Incorporated place such as a city
or town as defined by the  U.S.Bureau
of Census or group of cities or towns;
and third, any "monitoring area" des-
ignated by the responsible air  pollu-
tion control agency. In designating
these latter "monitoring areas", the
control agency should consider techni-
cal factors such as the types of emis-
sions. their spatial distribution,  mete-
orology.  and  topography  and  how
these factors contribute to the unique
                            | Si.13

ness of the "monitoring area" thereby
distinguishing It from other designat-
ed  "monitoring  areas". The starting
date for this first year of PM,. monl
torlng may begin prior to the effective
date of promulgation of this regula-
tion.
  (I) For Group I area*, everyday PM,«
sampling to required for at least one
PM* site which must be located In the
area of expected maximum concentra-
tion.  The  remainder  require  every
•Jxth day sampling.
  (II) For Group II area*, every other
day campling  to required for at  least
one PM* site whkh must be located In
the area of expected maximum con-
centration.  The remainder require
every sixth day sampling.
  (Ill) For Group III area*, a minimum
of one In six day sampling to required.
If a monitoring site In a Group III or
Group II area later record* levels ex-
ceeding the short term (34 hour) PM*
NAAQS. a* described In Part SO Ap-
pendix K. and the monitoring frequen-
cy was leas than everyday, then every-
day sampling must be Initiated In the
area of expected maximum concentra-
tion no later than 00 day* following
the end  of the calendar quarter In
which the exceedance occurred  and
continue  for the subsequent four cal-
ender quarter*.
  (I) Long term monitoring selective
twnpling.  To be eligible  for the long
term selective sampling plan, the first
year of PM* sampling, or  Its equiva-
lent, must  be  conducted. A complete
year comprise* all four calendar quar-
ter* with each quarter containing data
from 79 percent of the scheduled sam-
pling days. The equivalent to one year
of  PM*  sampling to  be  completed
within one year of the effective date
of promulgation Is defined a* follows:
First, for everyday sampling: 3 year*
of every other day sampling or 3 years
of every sixth day sampling and I year
of every other day sampling or 3 year*
of every sixth day sampling; second.
for every other day sampling: 3 year*
of every *lxth day sampling. After one
year of PM,. monitoring or It's equiva-
lent has been obtained, the minimum
monitoring schedule for the site In the
area ol expected minimum concentra-
tion shall be  bused  on  the  relative
                                   130
                                                                                                                     131

-------
 IS..I3

 level of  (hat monltorlnc site concen-
 tration with respect to the level of the
 controlling standard.  For those area*
 In  which  the short term (14- hour)
 standard Is controlling I.e.. has  the
 highest ratio, the selective sampling
 requirement* are Illustrated In Figure
 I. H the operating agency were able to
 demonstrate, by a combination of his-
 torical TOP data and at least one year
 of PMi. data that there were  certain
 periods of  the year where  conditions
 preclude  violation of the I'M,. 34-hour
 standard, the Increased sampling fre-
 quency for those perlodii or seasons
 may be exempted by the Regional Ad-
 ministrator and revert back to onrt In
 six   days.  The  minimum sampling
 schedule  for all other  slten In the area
 would  be once  every sin  days. For
 tliorie areas In which the annual stand-
 ard Is the  controlling standard, the
 minimum sampling schedule  for all
 monitors In the area would be one*
 every  si* days. During  the  annual
 review of the SLAMS network, the
 most recent year of data must be con-
sidered to  estimate  the air quality
status  for the controlling air quality
standard  4>4-hour or annual). Statisti-
 cal models such aa analysis of concen-
 tration frequency distributions aa de-
scribed In "Guideline for the Interpre-
 tation  of Ozone  Air  Quality  Stand-
ards." ePA-450/«7g 003. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency. Research
         40 CM Ch. I (7-l-«f IdlHon)

Triangle  Park.  N.C.. January It7a
should  be used.  Adjustments to  the
monitoring schedule must be made on
the  basis of the annual review. The
site  having the highest  concentration
In the most current year must be given
first consideration when selecting  the
site  for the  more frequent sampling
schedule. Other factors such as major
change In sources of PMM emissions or
In sampling slU characteristics could
Influence the location of the expected
maximum concentration site. Also, the
use of the most recent three  years of
data might In some cases, be Justified
In order to provide a more representa-
tive data base from which to estimate
current  air quality status and to pro-
vide stability to the network. This
multlyear consideration  would reduce
the possibility of an anamalous year
biasing a alto selected for accelerated
sampling.  If the maximum concentra-
tion alto baaed on the  most current
year Is not selected for the more fre-
quent operating schedule, documenta-
tion of the Justification for selection
of an alternate alto must be submitted
to the Regional Office  for approval
during the annual review process. It
should be noted that minimum data
completeness  critleria.   number  of
yean of data and sampling  frequency
for Judging attainment of the NAAQ8
are discussed hi Appendix K of Part
                      Evary Stfttk Day
>
f

Every Other Day
1
1 1
1 Every Day
1
>
       O.I       0.9     1.0      I.I
                          Ratio to Standard
l«4 m mil. May I*. Itie. as
MPHM1M.Jolrl.IM1l


  (a) Any amMent air quality monitor*
big; station other than a  SLAMS or
PSD station from which the SUM In-
tends to uae the data aa part of a dem-
onstration of attainment or nonattaln-
ment or In computing a design value
for  control purposes of  the National
Ambient  Air   Quality  Standards
(NAAQ8) must meet the requirements
for SLAMS described hi IM.JI and.
after January I. IMS. must also meet
the requlrementa for SLAMS aa de-
scribed In IM.II and Appendices  A
and B to this part.
  (b) Any ambient air quality monitor-
Ing station other than a  SLAMS or
PSD station from which the Stale In-
tends to uae the data for SIP related
functions other than aa described In
paragraph (a) of this section Is not
necessarily required to  comply with
the requlrementa for a SLAMS station
under paragraph (a) but must be oper-
ated In accordance with *  monitoring
schedule, methodology, quality assur-
ance procedures, and probe dr Instru-
ment-siting specifications approved by
the Regional Administrator.
14«rR ««!•«. Sept. I. IMII
           C-ttato oxttf l**sj Air
                       (HAMS)
• M.M  Ah-qaoWy
  •y Jamaary I. ItM. the State ehaM
adopt and submit to the Administrator
• revision to the plan which wilt:
  (a) Provide for the establishment of
an air quality surveillance system that
eonaMa of a network of monitoring
stations designated aa State and Local
Air  Monitoring  Stations  (SLAMS)
which  measure ambient  concentra-
tions  of those  pollutanU for which
standards have been established hi
Part M of this chapter.
  (b) Provide for meeting the require-
ments of Appendices A. C. D. and B to
this part.
  (c) ProvWa for the operation of at
least one SLAMS per pollutant except
Pb during any stage of an air pollution
episode aa defined HI the contingency
plan.
  (d) Provide for the review of the air
quality  surveillance  system  on  an
annual  bash)  to determine  If  the
system meets the monitoring objec-
tives defined hi Appendix D to this
part.  Such  review   must   Identify
needed modifications to the network
such aa termination or  relocation of
unnecessary stations or establishment
of new stations which are necessary.
                                  132
                                                                              133

-------
UMted States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-450'4-87.007
Way 1987
Air
Ambient Monitoring
Guidelines for
Prevention of
Significant
                   (PSD)
  RADIAN LIBRARY
  RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK. NC

-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3.4

-------
ft. 57, App. A 40 CM Ch. 1 (7-l-M idllUn)
SCHEDULE OB— PERMANENT WAIVER FROM INTERIM CONTROLS TESI -Continued


0 CUnOnl Mb*** M*M 	
1 NM PIMM* »**
Lin*
1?
1*

1004
xxxx
xxxx
IOM
xxxx
xxxx
1000
xxxx
xxxx

ioor
xxxx
xxxx
IOM 1 1000
xxxx I xxxx
KXXX 1 KXKX
1000
xxxx
xxxx
ToW

SCHEDULE D.7— HORUON VALUE OF CASH FLOWS


A Pn»«ii«tmi *•« honian Mtuo
1 NM cMlt So» pcjKhom
». 0,»iirn»iiii ta M<*ar
• P«»i«ul»0im IP* smoikis
k U«*rMJU.roM '..'.'..'..'..'.'.
C I*I*Wkl|* 	
t D*ncMon4M Ml CMh
•on
• No**!* «ote rako*
k 1000  MMM 	

O*>«Mai>kM tatran Mk*
• DqpraaMtan m ««v•
1000

	
XXXK
XXXK
wuuc
XXXX
now
xx»
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
1000


xxxx
xxxx
mix
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
XXXX
man
XXXI
xxxx

Matron f««r«
1001
xxxx
XXXX
MUD
XXXX
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
MOW
wan



xxxx
wax
ion
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx



xxxx
xxxx
1003
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx


XKXX
xxxx
1004
xxxx
XKXX
xxxx
KXXX
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx

xxxx
xxxx
1000
xxxx
xxxx
KXXX
xxxx
KXXX
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx

xxxx
KXXX
ToW
KXXX
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
KXXX
xxxx
XKXX
xxxx
KXXX
xxxx
xxxx
                                                                                  Invfosuimentojl Prelection Agency
                                                                                  See.
  f AiT 5t—AMIIf NT AW QUAUfY
           SUIVflllANCI
Sec.
M I  Definition*.
Ill  PurpoM.
Ml  Applicability.

      lubpwf •— l
Sec.
111! SLAMS methodology.
II11 Monllorlnl network completion.
ISM IReoervedl
11.11 Syitem modification.
IS. IS Annual SLAMS oununary report.
II n Compliance dale for air quality data
   reportlns.
MIS Reskmal Office SLAMS data acqulol-
   tlon.
                     iig Critatta
II 10  Quality assurance.
IS 1 1  Monltoilns methods.
51 II  Sltlns  of Instrument* or Inolrument
   probeo.
II II  Operallns schedule.
1114  Special purpose monltora.
  lufelMMt C— II.U Md lM«l Alt

            StaMMi (UAMI)
SI 10  Air  quality  surveillance:  Plan con-
   tent
II II  8I.AMS network design.
                                       ftaaahaBhaWft BwMavMjMkaJ Ala- MaMtMsMT^Ul CCtlHsMI

                                                    (NAMI)

                                      M.M NAM8 network establishment.
                                      MII NAM8 network description.
                                      Mia NAM8approval.
                                      Mil NAM8methodology.
                                      M.M NAM8 network completion.
                                      Mil NAM8datasubmlttal.
                                      M.M System modification.


                                         t«*p«« I—Al. QwWy In4» ••ptvtbif

                                      M.4S Index reportlni.
                                                                                  M.M  Federal monitoring.
                                                                                  II II  Monitoring other pollutants.
                                                                                  Arrci»» A-QVALITV Assu«»nc«
                                                                                     M(HTO roil 8»T* «ltO> LOC4L All MONI-
                                                                                     Toama STATIONO (SLAMS)
                                                                                  ArrtMfii 8— QIMIITT AOOUBAMCC RMUIH-
                                                                                     tlDTTS foil PaCTtMTIOM or SlOHiriCAHT
                                                                                     DaroaioiATioH (PSDl Aia MOHITOIINO
                                                                                  ArriHDix C-AMSinrr Ala QuatlTf Mom-
                                                                                     TOaiNO MnHODOUMT
                                                                                  ArranDH D— NOTWOIB  DCSION roa Stan
                                                                                     *•• LOCAL A» MOMITOOIHO Snrion
                                                                                     (8LAM8> *n» MATIOIIAL Aia Momroamo
                                                                                     SIATIOM 4NAM8I
                                                                                  Arrnaix C-Paoot SITIHO CaiTiaiA  roa
                                                                                     AMOIKMT An Qo»tir» MOHITOIIHO
                                                                                  ArrxMBli F— AMITUAI. SLAMS Ala Qu.urr
                                                                                     InronuTioH
                                                                                  Armii> O— Umrom An QDALITT IHMS
                                                                                     am D*ILT Rtronina

                                                                                    ADTHoairr: Seca. IIS. lll(a». III. and lit
                                                                                  •f the Clean Air Act (41 U.8.C. Tils.
                                                                                  tMI(a>. Mil. 1SISI.
                                                                                    Sooacc 44 PR S7I7I. May IS. int.
                                                                                  othtnrbe noted.


                                                                                              A — Oenwrojl f ro)vM*iis
IM.I  DeitalllMM.
  As used In this part, all terms not de-
lined  herein  have the meanlni slven
them  In the Act:
   "Act" means the Clean Air Act as
amended (M UJS.C. 1401. et seq.).
  (b)  "SLAMS" means State or Local
Air   Monllorlnl   StatkmisK   The
SLAMS make up the ambient air qual-
ity monitoring network which Is re-
quired by 1 61.20 to be provided for In
the State's ImplentenUtlon plan. This
definition places no restrictions on the
use of the physical structure or facili-
ty housuuj the SLAMS. Any combina-
tion of SLAMS and any other moni-
tors (Special  Purpose.  NAMS. PSD)
may occupy the same facility or struc-
ture without affectlnc the respective
definitions of those monitoring  sta-
tion.
  (c)  "NAMS" means  National  Air
Monltorinf StatlonUK Collectively the
NAMS are a subset of the SLAMS am-
bient  air quality monitoring network.
  (d) "PSD station" means any station
operated for the purpose of establish-
ing the effect on air  quality of the
emissions from a  proposed source for
purposes of prevention of significant
                              IM.I

deterioration as required by 15I.J4(n)
of Part 61 of this chapter.
   "CO" means carbon monoxide.
  (h) "O," meMis ozone.
  (II "Plan" means an Implementation
plan, approved or promulgated pursu-
ant to section 110 of the Clean Air Act.
   "Administrator" means the Ad-
ministrator of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (EPA) or his or her au-
thorized representative.
   "Regional Administrator" means
the Administrator of one  of the  ten
EPA Regional Offices or his or her au-
thorized representative.
  (I) "State agency" means the air pol-
lution  control agency  primarily  re-
sponsible for development and Imple-
mentation of a plan under the Act.
  (ml "Local agency" means any local
government agency, other than  the
State agency, which Is charged with
the responsibility  for carrying  out  a
portion of the plan.
  (n> "Indian Reservation" means any
Federally  recognized reservation es-
tablished by treaty, agreement, execu-
tive order, or act of Congress.
  (o) "Indian Governing Body" means
the governing body of any tribe, band.
or group of Indians subject to the Ju-
risdiction of the United States and rec-
ognised by the United Slates as pos-
sessing power of self-government.
  (p) "Storage and Retrieval of A-iro-
melrte Data (SAROAD) system" Is a
computerised system which stores and
reports Information  relating to ambi-
ent air quality.
  (q)   "8AROAD  site  Identification
form"  Is one  of the several forms In
the 8AROAD system. It Is the form
which  provides a complete description
of the site (and lls surroundings) of an
ambient  air quality  monitoring sla-
tlon.
  (r> "Traceable"  means  that  a local
standard has been compared and certi-
fied, either directly or via not more
than one  Intermediate standard, to a
primary standard  such as a National
Bureau of Standards Standard Refer-
ence   Material  (NBS  8RM)  or  a
USEPA/NBS approved  Certified Ref-
erence Material (CRM).
  (s) "Urban area population" means
the population defined In the most
                                   128
                                                                                                                     129

-------
   PI. st.
     3.*.3.3  A bllel statement of belief con
   ccmlitfl the extent to which  the  modifica-
   tion  will or may affect the performance
   characteristics of the method; and
     II. 1. 4  Such further Information a* may
   be necessary  lo explain and lupport  the
   statement* required by sections 1111 and
   1111.
    114 Within II dayi after receiving a re-
   quest for approval under thli Kctloh 11.11
   and Mich further Informalton a* he may re-
   quest for purposes of hU decision, the Ad-
   mlnUtralor »lll  approve  or disapprove the
   modification In  question by letter to the
   reran or Mency requesting such approval.
    lit A temporary modification that will
  or ml|hl alter the performance characteris-
  tics of a reference, equivalent, or alternative
  method may be made without prior approv-
  al  under this section (3.1) It the method to
  not functlonlnc  or I*  malfunctioning, pro-
  vided that parta  necessary for  repair In ac-
  cordance  with   the  applicable  operation
  manual cannot be obtained within  41 daye.
  Unleai euch temporary modification la later
  approved under section 1 1.4. the temporari-
  ly modified method shall  be repaired In ac-
  cordance  with  the applicable  operation
  manual aa quickly as practicable but In no
  event later than 4 months after the tempo-
  rary modification waa made, unless an ex-
  tension of lime to tranled by the Adminis-
  trator.  Unless  and until the  temporary
 modification  Is approved,  air quality data
 obtained with the  method as  temporarily
 modified must be clearly Identified  as such
 when submitted In accordance with I II M
 or | M.It of this chapter  and must be ac-
 companied by a report containing the Infor-
 mation specified In section 1 1.1. A  request
 that the Administrator approve  a  tempo-
 rary modification may be  submitted In ac-
 cordance with sections 111 Ihrouih 1.14.
 In such cases the  request will be considered
 as If a request for prior approval had been
 made.
 1.0  NiMmtml  Mr  Monitoring  SfattoM
 (HAMS)
  1.1 Methods usrd In those SLAMS which
 are  also designated as  NAM8 to measure
 BO* CO. NO., or O. must be automated ref-
 erence or equivalent methods {continuous
 •nalyxers).
  4.0 Puttlcultle  Mftttt Eptiode
             40 CH Ch. I (7-l-M

     4.1.3.1  Whkh has a measuremenl rang*
   or ranges appropriate to accurately measure
   air pollution episode concentration of PMN
     4.1.3.3  Whkh has a sample period appro-'
   priate  for short-term PM,. measurements
   and                                    '
     4.1.3.1  For whkh a quantitative relation.
   •hip to a reference or equivalent method for
   PMW ha* been established at the use site.
   Procedure* for  establishing a quantitative
   •lie specifk relationship are contained In
   reference I.
     4.3  Quality  Assurance.  PM,.   methods
   other than Ihe reference method are not
   covered  under  the quality assessment  re-
   quirements  of  Appendix  A.  Therefore.
   Stales must develop and Implement  then1
   own  quality  assessment procedures  for
   those methods allowed under thb section 4.
   These quality assessment procedure* should
   be similar or analogous lo those described In
  section 1 of Appendix A for Ihe PM* refer-
  ence method.
  I.* Kt/ertneei

   •.I  Pelton. DJ. Guideline for Paniculate
  Episode  Monitoring Methods.  QEOMET
  Technologies. Inc.. Rockvllle. MD. Prepared
  lor ITS. Environmental Protection Agency.
  Research Triangle Park. NC. EPA Contract
  No. MM 1114.  EPA 4SO/4 11-00*. Febru-
  ary 1*13.

  144 PR 31*11. May 10. Ill*, a* amended at
  44  PR 31*1*. June 3*. 1*1*: 44 PR 15070.
  No*. *.  1*1*: II  PR 11*1. Mar.  I*.  IN*: II
  PR 34141. 34143. July I. 11*11


  ArrgMDix  D—NKTWOMK  DMION  ro*
     STATC AND LOCAL AIM MOHITOMINQ
     STATION* (SLAMS) AND NATIONAL
     Aia MONITOPINO STATION* (NAMS)

   .
  4 I  For  short term  measurements  of
PM..  during  air  pollution  episodes (see
| II. 181 of this chapter! the measurement
mrlliod must be:
  4.1 I   Klllter   the   "Staggered   PM,."
mrlliod or the "I'M.. Sampling (iver Short
Sampling Times" method, both ol which are
liased on the refrrence ni'lhml for PM» and
air described In reference I. or
  411   Any  othrr  method  for measuring
PM,.:
   I.  SLAMS Monitoring  Objectives  and
 Spatial Scale*
   3.  SLAMS Network Design Procedure*
   3.1  Background  Information  for  Eilab-
 llshlng SLAMS
   3.3  IReservedl
   3.3  Sulfur Dioxide (SO.) Design Criteria
 for SLAMS
   3.4  Carbon Monoxide les
    The purpose ol Ihb appendix b to de-
   scribe monitoring objectives and general cri-
   teria to be applied In esUbllshlng Ihe Slate
   tnd Local Air Monitoring Slallona (SLAMS)
   oelwork* and lor choosing general location*
   for new monitoring slallona.  It  also de-
   scribe* criteria lor determining  Ihe number
   and location  of National Air  Monitoring
   SUllona (NAMS). These criteria will also be
   used by EPA m evaluating the  adequacy ol
   SLAM8/NAM8 network*.
    The network ol itatlon* whkh comprise
   SLAMS should be designed to meet a mini-
   mum of four  back monitoring objective*.
   The** bask Monitoring objective* are: ID
 t  To determine highest concentrations ex-
   pected to occur hi the area covered by MM
   network: 13)  to determine  representative
   concentrations In area* ol high population
   density: (1) to determine the Impact on am-
   bient pollution kveb ol significant source*
   or source  categories; and 14) to determine
   general background concentration kveb.
    To a large extent, the existing State Im-
   plementation  Plan  (SIP) monitoring  net-
~;  work* have been designed with these  lour
 •  objective*  hi mind. Thua. they  can serve aa
   th* ngkal starting point for  establishing
   Ih* SLAMS network. This will,  however, re-
   quire a careful revkw ol  each  existing SIP
   ambient network to determine the principal
   objective*  ol each nation and Ihe extenl to
   whkh th* location criteria presented herein
   are being met It should be noted that Ihb
   appendix contain* no criteria lor determin-
   ing the total number ol slaUon* m SLAMS
   network*,  except that a  minimum number
   el lead SLAMS b prescribed. Th* optimum
   •be ol a particular SLAMS network Involve*
   trade olts among data needs and available
   resource* whkh EPA belkves can best be re-
   solved during the network design process.
     Thb appendix focuses on the relallonshtp
   belween monitoring objectives  and Ihe geo-
   graphical  location of monitoring stations.
   Included are a rationale and set of general
   criteria lor Identifying candidate station lo-
   cations In terms of physical characteristics
   whkh mosl closely match a specific moni-
   toring objective The criteria for more spe-
   cifically slllng Ihe monitoring station In-
   cluding spacing from roadways and vertical
   and horizontal  probe placement, are de-
   scribed In Appendix E of Ihb part.
     To clarify the nature of the  link between
   general monitoring objectives and Ihe phys-
   ical location of a particular monitoring ila
                         fl. St, Aa>*>. O

lion. Ihe concept of spatial scale of repre-
sentativeness of a monitoring station to de-
fined. The goal In siting stations to to cor-
rectly match the apallal  scale represented
by Ihe sample of monitored air with  the
spatial scale mosl appropriate for the moni-
toring objective of the station.
  Thus, spatial scale of representativeness to
described  In terms of the physical dimen-
sion* of the air parcel nearest lo a monitor-
ing station throughout whkh actual pollul-
ant concentrations are reasonably similar.
The  leak of representativeness of mosl In-
terest for the monitoring objectives defined
above are a* follow*:
  Mlcroscole-dellne* the concentrations In
air volumes associated with area dimensions
ranging from several meters up to about 100
meter*.
  •fiddle *c«le-deflnes the concentration
typical of area* up to several dty blocks hi
•be with dimension* ranging from about 10*
meter* to *.* kilometer.
  Jvefgntornood  Scale-define* concentra-
tions within some extended area ol the cHy
that ha* relatively uniform land me with dl
•tension* hi the t.l to 4.0 kilometer* ran*e.
  t/rtan Scale-define* the overall.  dlywM*
condition* with dimension* on the  order ol
4 to M kilometer*. Thto *cak would usually
require more than on* site lor definition.
  Jtrgtoaaf Scale—define* usually  a rural
area of reasonably homogeneous geography
and  extends from lens to hundreds of kilo
meter*.
  MaltoMl and Ototwf Scafn-lheae meas-
urement  scales  represent  concentration*
characterising the nation and the globe as a
whole.
  Proper siting of • monitoring station re-
quire* precise specification ol  Ihe monitor-
Ing objective whkh usually Includes a de-
cked spatial seak ol representativeness. For
example, consider the case where the objec-
tive b to determine maximum CO concen-
trations hi area* where pedestrians may rea-
sonably be exposed. Such area* would mosl
likely be located within major alreel can
yon* ol large urban areas and near traflk
corridor*. Stations located In these areas are
most likely lo have a  mkroscak ol repre-
sentativeness since CO concentrations typi-
cally peak nearest roadway* and  decrease
rapidly as the monitor b moved from the
roadway. In Ihb example, physical location
was determined  by consideration of CO
emission  pal terns, pedestrian  activity, and
physical characteristics affecting pollutant
dispersion. Thus, spatial scale of representa-
tiveness was not used In  the selection proc-
ess but was a rrtull of station location.
   In some cases,  lite physical  location of a
station b determined from Joint consider-
ation of both the bask monitoring objective.
and a desired spatial M-ale of representative
ness. For emtiniilr. In drlrrmlne t'O conrrn
                                       158
                                                                                                                                   159

-------
 ft. 51 Aa>t». 0

 be predicted by ambient mtr quality model
 tnt. a large fined nelvork of CO monitor* U
 not  required.  Long-term  CO  monltorlnt
 •hould be confined to a limited number of
 micro «nd neighborhood scale  •Ulloru In
 large metropollUn area* to measure mail-
 mum pollution level* and to determine the
 effectiveness of control strategies.
  JflcnMcafe-Measurements on  Into scale
 would represent distributions within alreel
 canyons,  over  sidewalks, and near  major
 roadways. The measurements at a particu-
 lar location In • street canyon would be typ-
 ical of one hlih concentration area which
 can  be shown  to  be a representation of
 many  more  areas throufhout  the  street
 canyon or other similar locations In • city.
 This la • scale of measurement  that would
 provide valuable Information for  devising
 and evaluating "hot spot" control measures.
  Middle Jcafe-Thls category coven dimen-
 sions  from 100 meten to O.C kilometer. In
 certain cases discussed below. It may apply
 to regions that have a total  length of sever-
 al kilometers. In many cases of Interest.
 sources and land use may be reasonably ho-
 mogeneous for long distances along a street,
 but  very Inhomogeneous  normal to  the
 street. This la the case with strip develop-
 ment and freeway  corridon. Included In
 this category are measurements to charac-
 terize  the CO  concentrations  along  the
 urban features Just enumerated.  When a lo-
 cation Is chosen to represent conditions In a
 block of street development, then the char-
 acteristic  dimensions of this scale are ten*
 of meters by hundreds of melen. If an at-
 tempt Is  made  to characterize street side
 conditions throughout the downtown area
 or along an extended stretch of freeway, the
 dimensions may be lens of  meters by kilo-
 meter.
  The middle scale would also Include  the
 parking lots  and feeder streets associated
 with Indirect sourrrs whlrh attract signifi-
cant numbers of pollutant emitters, particu-
 larly  autos. Shopping centers, stadia, and
offkr buildings are  example* of  Indirect
sources
  /vXoAoorhoorf   Srolr Measurements   In
this  category would  represent  conditions
thronalioiil some reasonably homogeneous
urban subrrglorw. with dimension* of a  few
kilometers and  griirrally  more regularly
shaped than Ihr mliMIe male. Homogeneity
 refers to CO  ronrenl ration,  but II probably
also applies to land tar. In some cases, a lo-
cation carefully rhosrn to provide neighbor-
hood  scale data, mlehl represent  not only
 the  Immediate  neighborhood,   but  also
 neighborhoods  of the name type  In other
 part*  of  the city. These  kinds of stations
 would provide   Information  relating  to
 health effects became they would represent
 conditions In arras whrre people live and
 •ork  Neighborhood  srsle dais  would pro-
 vide valuable Information  lor developing.
          «0 CM Oi. I (7-l-U CdltUn)

 testing, and revising concepts and models
 that describe the larger scale concentration
 pattern*, especially those models relying on
 spatially  smoothed  emission  fields  f0"
 Inputs. These type* of measurements could
 •lao be used for Inleroelghborhood compart-
 sons within or between cities.
  After the spatial  scale  has been deter-
 mined to meet the monitoring objectives for
 each location, the location selection proce-
 dure*, a* shown In  reference I should be
 used to evaluate the adequacy of each exlal-
 Ing CO station and must be used to relocate
 an existing station  or to  locate any new
 8LAM8 stations. The background material
 necessary for these procedures may Include
 the average dally traffic on all streets In the
 •rea, wind rose* for different hours of the
 day.  and map* showing one way  streets.
 •treat width*, and building heights. If the
 station Is to typify the area with the highest
 concentrations, the streets with the greatest
 dally traffic should be Identified. If  some
 streets are one-way, those streets that have
 the  greatest traffic during the  afternoon
 and evening houn should be (elected as ten
 tatlv* locations, because the periods of high
 traffic volume are usually of greatest  dura-
 lion through the evening  houn. However.
 the strength of the morning Inversion has
 to  be considered along with the traffic
 volume and pattern when seeking  areas
 with  the highest concentrations.  Traffic
 counten near the stations will provide valu-
 able data  tor Interpreting the observed CO
 Concentrations.
  Mention should not be placed In the vi-
 cinity of possible anomalous source areas.
 Example* of such area* Include toll gate* on
 turnpike*,  melered  freeway  ramps,  and
 drawbridge approaches.  Additional Informa-
 tion on network design may be found In ref-
 erence 1.
  1.1  Otone  to.)  Design  Criteria  for
 SLAMS
  Oaone to not directly emitted Into the at-
 mosphere but results from complex photo-
 chemical reaction* Involving organic  com-
 pounds, oxide* of nitrogen, arid solar radi-
 ation.
  The relationships between primary emis-
sions (precursors) and secondary pollutants
(O.I lend to produce large  separations spa-
 tially and temporally between the major
sources and  the areas of high oxldanl pollu-
 tion. This suggest* that the meteorological
 transport process and the relationships be-
 tween sources and sinks need to be consid-
ered In the development  of  the network
design criteria and placement of monitoring
stations, especially In measuring peak con
centrallon levels.
  The principal  spatial scales for 8I.AM8
purposes based on the monitoring objectives
are neighborhood, urban, regional, and to a
 lesser extent, middle scale.  Since ozone re
Iitvkwfimwntal PrwtoctUn Afwitcy

quire* appreciable  formation  time,  the
mixing of reactanta  and products occun
over large volume* of air. and this reduce*
the Importance  of monitoring small  scale
apatlal variability.
  Miatdf* Scale-Measurement In Ihto  scale
would represent condition* close to sources
of NO. such a* roada where H would be en-
peeled thai suppression of O.  concentra-
tions  would occur. Trees also may have a
strong scavenging effect on O. and may lend
to suppress O. concentration* m their Imme-
diate  vicinity. Measurement* at these (to-
Uons  would represent conditions over rela-
tively small portions of the urban area.
  MrlfAborftood  5cal«-Measuremenla  In
this category represenl conditions through-
out torn* reasonably homogeneous urban
•ubreghm, with dimension* of a tew kilome-
ters. Homogeneity refen to pollutant con-
centrations. Neighborhood scale data will
provide valuable Information for developing.
testing, and revising concepts and models
that describe urban/regional  concentration
patterns. They will be useful to the under-
standing  and  definition of processes thai
lake period* of houn to occur and hence In-
volve  considerable mixing and  transport.
Under stagnation conditions, a station locat-
ed In the neighborhood scale may also expe-
rience peak concentration levels within the
urban area*.
  C/rfcsK  *cef*-Measurement In this  scale
will be used to estimate concentration* over
large portion* of an urban area with dimen-
sions of several kllometen to M or more kil-
ometer*.  Such measurements  will  be  used
tor determining trend*, and designing  area-
wide control strategies. The urban scale sta-
tion*  would also be used to measure  high
concentrations downwind of the area having
the highest precursor emissions.
  Ktffiontl Seste-Thl*  scale  of measure-
ment  will be used  to typify concentration*
over large portions of a metropolitan area
and even larger area* with dimensions  of a*
much  aa hundred* of  kilometer*.  Such
measurements will be useful for assessing
the osone that I* transported Into an urban
area. Data from such stations may be useful
In accounting for the ozone that cannot be
reduced by control strategies In that urban
area.
  The location selection procedure contin-
ues after the spatial scale la selected baaed
on the monitoring  objectives. The appropri-
ate network design procedures as found In
reference 4. should be used to evaluate the
adequacy  of each  existing O.  monitor and
must be used to relocate an existing station
or to locate any new O. 8I.AM8 stallons.
The lint step In the siting procedure would
be to  collect the necessary background ma-
terial, which may consist of maps, emission
Inventories for noiunelhsne  hydrocarbons
and oxides of nitrogen INO.I. rllmalologlcal
                          ft. 51. Ap*. 0

data, and existing air quality data for oaone.
nonmethane hydrocarbons, and WVNO.
  For locating a neighborhood scale station
to  measure typical city concentration*, a
reasonably homogeneous geographical area
near the center of the region should be se-
lected which I* also removed from the Influ-
ence of major HO. sources,  for an urban
scale station to measure the high concentra-
tion area*, the emission Inventories should
be used to define the extent of the area of
Important  nonmelhane hydrocarbon* and
NO.  emissions. The  most frequent wind
speed and direction for periods of Important
photochemical activity should   be  deter-
mined.  Then the prospective monitoring
area should be selected In  a direction from
the city thai Is most frequently  downwind
during  period* of photochemical activity.
The distance from the alalton to the upwind
edge of the city should be about equal to
the distance traveled by air moving for » to
1 houn at wind speeds prevailing during pe-
riods of photochemical activity. Prospective
area*  for   locating  O. monlton  should
always be outside the area of major NO,.
  In locating • neighborhood scale station
which to to measure high concentration*.
the  same procedures used for  the  urban
scale are followed except that the station
should be located closer to the area* border-
ing on the  center city  or  (lightly further
downwind In an area of high density popula-
tion.
  For regional scale background monitoring
stations, the most frequent wind  associated
with  Important   photochemical activity
should be determined. The prospective mon-
itoring area should be upwind tor the moat
frequent direction and outside the area of
city Influence.
  Since ozone levels decrease significantly hi
the colder parts of the year hi many areas.
osone to required to be monitored al NAM8
and SLAMS monitoring site* only during
the  "osone season"  as designated In the
8AROAO files on a Slate by State basis and
described below:

   OZONE MOMTOMNO SEAgoN BY STATE
Ariion*
Color «to
Conrwetc*
Fknta
Dm*.
                              OcMMf
                              OK
                              OcHtWi
                                        162
                                                                                                                                    163

-------
   ft. M, Ayp. D

   found to  represent the  mteroscale and
   middle eea,le dimension. For area* where
   predominant lead leveb come from point
   •oaten,  the category *a> ilatlon tenerallr
   represent* the mkroscsle  or middle acale
   Impact of the point aource. However. In a
   few  caaee,  aufflclenl  mlilnf  may  occur
   dm lit* IraiMport of the emissions from the
   aource to the around to that the ealcf ory
   (at station represent* a neighborhood acale.
   The required category lb» elation muat be a
   neighborhood acale station fine* the micros-
  cale and middle acale station would not rep-
  resent the air quality over large geographi-
  cal areas  and frequently may not be located
  ki hUhlv txw.iii.i~* ..—  •• •	•  -
«« Cn Cfc. I (7-l.»i ItMMon)         tovlrwiiinwrilejl frelocHon Atency
  to highly populated areas.  It la recognized
  that In certain areas, a middle scale station
  may be located at schools  or playgrounds
  near malor  roadways. Ifowever.  In most
  eases, they are not located In such areas and
  since children  station gen-
  erally   represents  a  neighborhood  scale
  Impact of the point aource.
   To locate monitoring stations. II will be
  necessary to obtain background Information
  such as stationary and mobile source emis-
 sions Inventories, morning and evening traf-
  fic  patterns, cllmalologlcal summaries, and
 local geographical characteristics. Such In-
 formation should be used to Identity areas
 that are most suitable to  the  particular
 monitoring objective and  spatial scale of
 representativeness desired. Reference t pro-
 vides additional guidance on locating site*
 to meet specific urban  area monitoring ob-
 jectives  and must be used In locating new
 stations or evaluating the adequacy of exist-
 ing stations.
  After locating each Pb station, and. to the
 extent practicable, taking Into consideration
 the  collective Impact of all Pb sources and
 surrounding physical characteristics of the
 siting area, a spatial scale of representative-
 ness must be assigned tu each station.
  Outdance on locating  mnnllorlng'statlona
 In the vicinity of stationary lead sources I*
 lltrn In reference  10  This reference pro-
 vMes assistance In  designing  a network to
meet the monitoring nblrrtlve of determln-
In* the Impact of point  sources on ambient
Pb levels
  lg  f>U,. Dfltv* Crtlrrt* for SLAMS
  As with other pollutants measured In the
HIJtMS nelwmk, the first strp In designing
Ilir PM» network Is to collect the necessary
background   Information.  Various   stud-
Irs" " " '• " "have documented I lie major
source categories of partk-ulatc matter and
their contribution to •mblriil  levels In varl
   oui location* throughout the
   cause the sources for PM* are slmliar~Z,
   those for TOP. the procedures lor collecting
   the necessary  background Information for
   PMM are also similar.  Sources of  back
   ground Information  would be regional and
   traffic map* and aerial photograph* show
   tog  topography, settlements, major Indus
   Irk* and  highway*. These map* and photo-
   graph* would b* used to Identify area* ol
   th* type that are ot concern to the particu-
   lar monitoring objective.  After potentially
   suitable monitoring  areas for PMM  hav*
   been Identified on a map. modeling may b*
   used to provide an estimate ot PM» concen-
   tration* throughout the  area  ot Interest
  After completing the first step, exbtln*
  TOP SLAMS or other  paniculate  matter
  stations should be evaluated to determln*
  their potential as candidates  tor SLAMS
  designation. Stations meeting one or more
  of th* four basic monitoring objective* de-
  scribed to  section I of thb Appendix must
  be classified Into on* of the five scale* of
  representativeness (micro, middle, neighbor-
  hood, urban and regional) If the atatlont arc
  to become  SLAMS. In ailing and classifying
  PM» *tatlona, the procedure* In reference
  IT should be used.
   If cabling TOP samplers meet th* quality
  assurance requirements of Appendix  A. the
  PMw iltlng requirement*  ot Appendix E.
  and are located to area* of suspected maxi-
  mum concentrations are described In section
  I of Appendix D. and It the TOP leveb are
  below  the  ambient  PMn  standard*. TOP
 samplers may continue to be used a* substi-
 tutes tor PM» SLAMS samplers under the
 provisions of Section 3.1 of Appendix C.
   The moat Important spatial wales to effec-
 tively characterize the emissions ol PM»
 from both mobile and stationary source* are
 the micro, middle and neighborhood scales.
 For purpose* of establishing monitoring sta-
 tions to represent large homogenous  areas
 other than  the above scales of represents-
 tlvenea*. urban or regional scale station*
 would also be needed.
   Mlcroscale—Thta scale would typify  areas
 such as downtown street canyon* and traffic
 corridor* where the general public would be
 exposed to  maximum  concentrations  from
 mobile sources. Because of  the  very  steep
 ambient PM»  gradient*  resulting   from
 mobile sources, the dimensions of the ml-
 croscale  for  PM» generally  would  not
 extend beyond II meters from the roadway,
 but could continue the  length ot  the road-
 way which could  be several kilometers. Ml
 croscale PMN sites should be located  near
 Inhabited buildings or  locations where the
 general public  can be expected  to  be ex-
 posed to the concentration measured. Emis-
sions from  stationary  source* such as pri-
mary and secondsry smelters, power plants,
and  other large Industrial processes may.
                                                                        M, Apgt. D
 under  certain pram* condition*.  Itkewkw
 result to high ground level concentration*
 at the mtcroacale. In the latter ease, the ml-
 croacal* would represent an area Impacted
 by the plum* with dimension* extending up
 to approximately IM meter*. Data collected
 at mkroacal* stations provide Information
 tor  evaluating  and developing "hotapot"
 control measures.
   MU4U Scab-Much of MM  measurement
 of short-term public exposure  to PM» I* on
 this scale.  People moving through down-
 town area*, or living near major roadway*.
 encounter particle* that would be adequate-
 ly characterised by measurement* of thl*
 spatial icale. Thus, measurementa of thl*
 type would bo appropriate lor the •valua-
 tion of possible ihort term public health el-
 fed* of partlculal* matter pollution. Thta
 •cat* also Include* the characteristic concen-
 tration* tor other area* with dimension* of
 a taw  hundred meter* *uch a* the  parking
 lot and feeder atrcct* associated with shop-
 ping center*, stadia, and office building*. In
 the case of PMN. unpaved or seldom (wept
 parkin*  tot* associated with these  •ource*
 could b* an Important source to addition to
 th* vehicular emission* themselve*.
   WeffAvomoocT   Scale-Meamiremente  IN
 Ihb) category would represent  condition*
 throughout some  reasonably  homogeneou*
 urban  subregkm with dimension* ol a few
 kilometer* and ol generally  more  regular
 •hap*  than the middle scale. Homogeneity
 refer* to the PM«  concentration*, aa well aa
 the land use and  tend surface characteris-
 tic*. In  some case*,  a  location carefully
 chosen to provide  neighborhood acato data
 would  represent  not only th*  Immediate
 neighborhood but also neighborhood* of the
 same type hi other part* of the city. Sta-
 tion* of this kind provide good Information
 about trend* and compliance with standards
 because they often represent conditions hi
 area* where people commonly live and work
 for period* comparable to those specified to
 the NAAQ8. This category also Include* In-
 dustrial and commercial  neighborhood*, aa
 well aa residential.
  Neighborhood  *cale date  could  provide
 valuable Information for developing, testing.
 and revising models that describe the larger-
 scale   concentration  pattern*,  especially
 those model* relying on spatially smoothed
 emission fields for Input*. The neighbor-
 hood scale measurements could also be used
 tor neighborhood comparisons within or be-
 tween cities. This b the most likely acale of
 measurement* to meet the needs of plan-
 ner*.
  Urban Scale—Thta class-of measurement
 would be made to characterize the PMM con-
centration over an entire metropolitan area.
Such measurements would be useful for as-
sessing trends In city-wide air  quality, and
 hence,  the effectiveness of large scale air
pollution control strategics.
                                                                                                                     aente
  fteftonel   Scale—Theae   ___._....
would characterise condition* over area*
with dimensions ot a* much a* hundred* of
kilometer*. A* noted earlier,  using  repre-
sentative  conditions  tor an  area  Implies
come degree  of homogeneity to that area.
For thb  reason,  regional  scale measure-
ments would  b* most applicable to sparsely
populated area* with  reasonably  uniform
ground cover. Data characteristic* of Ihb
•cat*   would   provide  Information  about
larger acale  processes ol PM» emissions.
toasts and transport.
I.  /refworft DtHtn for frafloMl Air Moni-
toring Sfaf ton* (NAMSI
  The MAMS must be station* selected from
the SLAMS network with emphaab given to
urban and multbouree area*.  Area* to b*
monitored mint be (elected based on urban-
bed population and pollutant concentration
levels. Generally, a larger number ol NAM8
are needed  to more  polluted urban and
multbourc* areas. Th* network design crite-
ria  discussed  below reflect  the** concept*.
However. It should be emphasised that devi-
ation* Irom the NAM8 network design crite-
ria may be necessary to a tew  cases.  Thu*.
the**  design criteria are not a act of rigid
rule*  but  rather a guide for  achieving a
                  of monl
                                                                                 propi
                                                                                        distribution i
                                                                                                      •onltoring cite* on a
                                                                                 national acale.
                                                                                   Th*  primary objective for HAMS b  to
                                                                                 monitor hi the area* where the pollutant
                                                                                 concentration and the population exposure
                                                                                 are expected to be the highest consistent
                                                                                 wHh the averaging time of the NAAQ8. Ac-
                                                                                 cordingly, the NAM8 fall Into two catego-
                                                                                 ric*:
                                                                                   Category tafc Station* heated to areatal of
                                                                                 expected maximum concentration* (general-
                                                                                 ly mkroacate for CO. mlcroacale or mMdl*
                                                                                 •cat* lor  Pb and PM» neighborhood acale
                                                                                 for 80.. and N(K and urban arate for 
-------
ft. 3«. Aa,». D

the data Iron 8MM8 should be uaed prl
marlly lot nonatlalrtmenl decision*/ amir
•e* m specific geogiaphleal areas. Since the
NAM8 MC  stations from the 8I.AM8 net-
•oik. elation locating procedure* (or NAM8
•re part or the 8LAM8 network design proc-
CM.
  *.l  IReaenredl
  II  Sulfur Dioxide (SO.) Design  CrlterU
lor NAM8
  It to desirable to have • greater number ol
NAM8 In the more polluted  and  densely
populated urban and mulltoource area*. The
data  In  Table I  show  I he approximate
number ol  permanent Italian* needed  In
urban area* to characterize the national and
reflonai  BO, air  quality trendi and geo-
graphical pattern*. Thece criteria  require
that the number ol NAM8 In area* where
urban population* exceed 1.000.000 and con-
centration*  aUo exceed the primary  NAAQ8
may ranie  from « to  It and that In area*
where the 8O, problem I* minor, only one or
two lor no)  monitor* *r« required For lho*e
f«»fs  where more than one station to re-
quired lor an urban area, there ihouM be at
least one atatlon for category e mix ol  category (•) and ibl Malton* to
determined  on •  cue by cur  bail*. The
actual number  and location nf the MAMS-
mint  be determined by EPA neflonal Of-
fice* and the Slate atienry. >ub)ect to the
approval of EPA Headquarter* (OANfU.
 TMU 3-SO, National Ak MonHorlng Station
                 CtMeito
 >I.OMOIK
 MO age ID
  t so* «x
 itt.«o*t»
  900.000
 tin ooo M
  ttO.OO*
•-M


4 •
               l-f
                          4*

                          I •

                          t 2

                          • I
t-4


I t
         •) «•*• »t»« oral octal wi*tot over larte geographl-
                                                                               The category CM (middle acala or a»b>
                                                                             borhood ac*J*> ahould b* located to
                                                                             with a *UWe, high poputaUon denrity
                                                                             jscted eonllnulty of neighborhood at
                                                                             tor. and hl«h traffic density. The ataUm
                                                                             ahottld b* located  when no major
                                                                             chance*,  new highway*. «r new
                                                                             WfMqYtt) w BCntf COMMMVV* TIM
                                                                             ahouM b* when a algnlflcant CO MMlM
                                                                             problem ntala, but not b* unduly  taflav
                                                                             ancajd, wy ttny wno Mn* eourtf*1* lfatlMrv M
                                                                             •houM b* mow repre*entatl»* of the o**raN
                                                                             •tfoet of the aowrcea In • atanlfleant portion
                                                                             of the urban are*.
                                                                               Becati** CO to femrally aaiortaU* wttk
                                                                             heavy iraffie and popunttlon durtwa. an «*>
                                                                             bantoed area wttn • population greater than
                                                                             KM.Ot* to the principal crUertlon for McnU-
                                                                             fykMj UM urban ana* for which pain  of
                                                                             NAM8 for thto pothjtant will b* required.

                                                                             Uon* hi  urban area* with  mater HIM
                                                                             •M.wM population  would prorid* Mlflclont
                                                                             data for national analyito and nallanal ro-
                                                                             portlnt to ConfTce* Mid UM puWte. Atoo. It
                                                                             IMW (enerally been chown that ma|or CO
                                                                                      ar* found m area* ireater than
                                                                                                                                                            M. M, Act). 0


                                                                                                                                    buildup of peak O. levetowlth UM need to

                                                                                                                                    •taUan (category (b). neighborhood acatol.

                                                                                                                                                   jpaa llajf; farbwSfxMl fghff 111 at d*d*M
                                                                                                                                    tral wuabuM dtoUM along th* prtdowunw*
                                                                                                                                    •ummer/fall dayllm* wmd direction. Thto
                                                                                                                                    latter •taUon ahouM meaiwr* peak O, leveto
                                                                                                                                    wnder Hght and vartabto ar *tegn*nt wind
                                                                                                                                    condHtBn*. Two ooon* HAMS •taUon*  wtM
                                                                                                                                    •• MlffftCMfM HI MMOC VJfMMI MTMal MiKNI tsfMI*

                                                                                                                                    •harpMlwottmcrlterMpolnitante.
                                                                                                                                      *.»  HMrogen DtoxM* (HO.) Criteria far
                                                                                                                                    HAMS. HHrogen dtoxM* HAMS wm b* re-
                                                                                                                                    quired to) thoa* area* at UM country which
                                                                                                                                    ka*a  a population greater than l.aga.ap*.
                                                                                                                                    Thcat area* wm hav* two HO, MAMS. It b
                                                                                                                                    frit that Mathm* to the** major metropoli-
                                                                                                                                    tan area* would provide outflclent data for a
                                                                                                                                    national analyato of UM data, and aba bo-
                                                                                                                                          NO. problem* occur to. area* of great-
                                                                                                                                    er than l.aaa.aoa population.
                                                                                                                                      WUhto urban area* requMnt HAMS,  two
                                                                                                                                    •jaraaanant kaonltota arc auff blent. Tht flrat
                                                                                                                                    •taUon (category (at, middle acaJa ar neigh-
                                                                                                                                    borhood  *CBM> wouM be to mea*ur*  Ine
                                                                                                                                                          i ol HO. and would
                                                                                                                                                          .  t of UM nrban
                                                                                                                                    ana wher* th* imbilon denstty of MO. b
                                                                                                                                    UM naihcat. Tht aeeond otatlon (category
                                                                                                                                    (b> nrban acalai. would be to nwaoiir*  UM
                                                                                                                                    HO, produced from UM reaction of HO wHh
                                                                                                                                    O. and ahouM bo downwind of UM area of
                                                                                            PVVQKMM
                                                                                            M*.M*pi
M  Ooon*
                                                                             lalton cut oft to uaed *me* the Murcw of hy-
                                                                             drocarbon*  ar* both mobile and •Uttonary
                                                                             and ar* more dlvcrae. Atoo. beeaua* of total
                                                                             and national control otraletle* and th* com-
                                                                             plex chemical proce** of oaone formation
                                                                             and Iranoporl. more MmpHn* *UUom than
                                                                             for CO ar* needed on a national eeale  to
                                                                             better Mndentand the own* problem. Thto
                                                                             •election criterion to baaed entirely on popu-
                                                                             lation  and  wm Include thoee relatively
                                                                             highly populated area* where  moot of th*
                                                                             oiMant precursor* originate.
                                                                               Each urban area  will  generally reottke
                                                                             only two oaone HAMS, One elation would be
                                                                             representative of maimmni oaone concen-
                                                                             tration* (category (at, urban arale) under
                                                                             the wind tranrport condition* a* dbcuued
                                                                             In (ectlon t.l. The exact location ihould bal-
  >.•  lead (Pbl Dedgn Criteria for MAMS.
In ardor to achieve UM national monNortnt
abtoctlvo. two of UM SLAMS located In ur-
bantoed area* wHh poputo.tl*ni greater than
Ma.«0a wtM b* dMhmated a* HAM& On* of
Utat BilsutBiMBgl aTMaiTal. ••• •> ffaBfeMHs^Bll*% alan? •••^Llldt
acato category (a) •tattaet. tacatod adjacent
to a major roadway <>9a.*M ADD or near
UM roadway wMh th* huvett traffto votwm*
If th* vofum* to leoi than M.«aa AOT. A ml-
croocaw tocaUon to preferred, bwt a i

cat* location cannot b* found.
  TtM MCOfMl rtallttMl NMM& %• ft I
hood Mat* category ibl ataUM toaad'd In a
highly populated residential «»rtl*n of  UM
                                                                                                                                             I area where tralllc demNy b high.
                                                                                                                                     preferably oH.aoa ADT) or near UM road-
                                                                                                                                     way wHh the largeot traffic volume  M the
                                                                                                                                     volume to tea* than tMo* ADT.
                                                                                                                                       In certain nrbanbed area* greater than
                                                                                                                                     M0.M* population, pomt WMircea may have
                                                                                                                                     a rignrfkant Impact on  ak ajuaHty lead
                                                                                                                                           HI 0O0MlvltCo sVCvW. TO NMtyM*W WM
                                                                                                                                            frf tMSCtl OOMfC*7t\ OCfMi* NMtlnOTO III
                                                                                                                                     the  SLAMS network  would normally  be
                                                                                                                                       1.1  Mf.. Onion Criteria for HAMS
                                                                                                                                       Table 4 Indlralei the approximate number
                                                                                                                                     of permanent •lalloiu required  In   ban
                                       168
                                                                                                                                  ion

-------
PI. Si. A.,. 0

area* to characterize national and regional
PM»  air quality trends and geographical
pattern*. The  number of tUlloru In area*
where urban populations  exceed 1,000.000
mutt be In the ranee from J to 10 stations.
while In low  population  urban  areas,  no
more  than  two stations  are  required.  A
rtnie of monltorlni stations Is specified In
Table 4 because source* of pollutant* and
local control efforts can vary from one part
of the country  to another and therefore.
some  flexibility Is allowed In selecting the
actual number of stations In any one locale.
  ft Is recognbed that no I'M,, sampler* will
be designated  as PMn reference or equiva-
lent methods until, at the earliest, approxi-
mately six months after  promulgation of
PMM NAJIQ8 and the reference and equiva-
lent  method  requirements. Even  though
non-designated  PM,.  samplers  will  have
been  commercially available,  and a  small
number of samplers will have been In use by
EPA. other agencies,  and Industry,  there
will not be enough ambient PM,. data to de-
termine ambient PM» levels for all areas of
the country. Accordingly. EPA has provided
guidance" on  converting ambient  IP,, data
la ambient PM* data. Ambient IP., data are
data  from high volume samplers utilizing
quarts filler* or dlchotomous sampler*, both
with  Inlet* designed  to collect  particle*
nominally  It  um and  below. Also Included
In the guidance are procedures for calculat-
ing from ambient T8P data the probability
that an area will be nonattalnment for PM»
Pnr determining the appropriate number of
NAM8 per area, the converted IP,, data or
the probabilities of PM» nonatlalnment are
used In Table 4. unless ambient PM* data
are  available.  If  only one monitor  Is re-
quired In an  urbanised area.  It must be a
category la) type. Since emissions associated
with the  operation  of motor  vehicles con-
tribute to urban area parllculate matter
levels, consideration of the Impact of these
source* must  be Included In the design of
the  NAM8 network, particularly In  urban
area*  greater than  600.000 population.  In
certain urban areas parlkulste emissions
from motor vehicle dlesel exhaust currently
         40 Cm Ch. I (7-l-fl fdltlon)

Is or Is expected to be a significant source of
PMW ambient levels. If an evaluation of the
source* of PM» as described In section 2.1
Indicate* that the maximum concentration
area Is predominantly Influenced by road-
way emissions, then the category (a) station
should be located adjacent to a major road
and should be a mlcroscale or middle scale.
A mlcroscale Is preferable but a  middle scale
Is also acceptable If a suitable mlcroscale lo-
cation cannot be found. However. If the pre-
dominant Influence In the suspected maxi-
mum  concentration area Is expected to be
Industrial  emissions,  and/or  combustion
product* (from other than an Isolated single
source!, the category (a) station should be a
middle  wale or neighborhood scale.  A
middle scale exposure Is  preferable to a
neighborhood scale  In representing the
maximum concentration Impact from multi-
ple sources,  other than vehicular,  but a
neighborhood scale Is acceptable, especially
In  large residential  areas  that burn  oil.
wood, and/or coal for space healing.
  for those case* where more than one sta-
tion Is required for  an urban area, there
should be at least one station  for category
la) and one station for category Ib) neigh-
borhood  scale objectives as discussed  In Sec-
lion S. Where three or more stations are re-
quired, the mix of category la) and Ib) sla
lions  to to  be determined on a case-by-case
bash. The actual  number of  NAM8 and
their  location* must be determined by EPA
Regional Offices and the  State .agencies.
subject to the approval ol the Administrator
a* required by | >•.*>. The Administrator's
approval ta necessary to Insure  that Individ-
ual station* conform to the NAM8 selection
criteria and that the network as a whole Is
sufficient In terms of number  and location
for purposes of national  analyses.  As re-
quired under the provisions of section 1.1 of
Appendix C. all PM, HAMS that were pre-
viously designated as T8P NAM8 must con
currently collect ambient TSP and PMW
data for a  one-year period beginning when
each  NAM8 PM« sampler Is put Into oper-
ation.
InvlrwiiMiifd Prof •cfton Agency
                TAME 4-PM.. NATIONAL AM MoMiomNO STATION CRITERIA
 -.1000000
 500.000 1000.000
 JV1000 SOO.OOO
 100.000 ISO 000







Hod
ttattnlHtlan'
•-to
4-SJ
14
II
ttetfum
nmcMMon-
4 S
It
1 J
0-1

lOT
conc«n»Mo»<
*-4
1 »
SI
0
                                , al WMom p.. «« •• *»l»IMy **.,«*»«• b« tPA >^ So SIM. ^.ocy

                      "%«.. NAAUS b, JO f»cmm a mam.
Ms. k»
                                                                  n. M, A**, o

                                          • 4Ms sv sn*4M4 V« oils oonvsrtss* to PMU sfcow snsjliHi
                                          • fw (toMMir M Ml. nonoannriiint cJualiliS ftom f tf
   .
 •U» «onc»n>s»»B ••*• M tm* k> «•**: AiiMwl PM. «Ms sr smbM V. «Mi C
 0MOonfe*ftns loss ew 10 Mfconl •! flw HylM NAAOft • IM nb^aw •! ttt nM^^^k
 MM *isn CffpMonl
 • Piw**ns hr n»i«oSii| snvtonl «*, ajneonkoSons taM **« mititit rir mnamxum •> k, i
4.  Mtmtmtm                              There may also be some situation*. M dis-
 Table • show* by pollutant, all of the spa-   cussed later In Appendix E, where addltton-
                             for SLAMS   al scale* may be  allowed for NAM8 pur
Ual scales that ar* applicable for SLAMS
and the required spatial acale* for NAM&
   TABU 6—SUMMARY OF SPATIAL SCALM FOR SLAMS AND Rcoumto SCALE* FOR
                                     MAMS
laiiOi
Uta
               •0,
                     00

                                                       CO
                                                                NO.
  I. Ludwlg. P. U, J. H. 8. Kealoha. and E.
Shelar. Selecting 0IU* for Monitoring Total
Suspended Partkulatea. Stanford Research
Institute.  Menlo Park. CA. Prepared  lor
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Re-
search Triangle Park. NC.  EPA Publication
No. EPA-4M/I-T?-«U. June  1*11. revised
December 1911.
  I. Ball.  R. J. and O. E. Anderson. Opti-
mum Site Exposure Criteria for SO, Moni-
toring. The Center lor the Environment and
Man. Inc., Hartford. CT. Prepared for 114.
Environmental   Protection  Agency.  Re-
search Triangle Park. NC.  EPA Publication
No. EPA-4M/I-T1-«II. April lOTf.
  1. Ludwlg. P. L. and J. H. 8. Kealoha. Se-
lecting Sites for Carbon Monoxide Monitor-
ing.  Stanford Research  Institute.  Menlo
Park. CA. Prepared for (1.8. Environmental
Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park.
NC.  EPA Publication No. EPA-4M/S-lt-
07T. September I til.
  4. Ludwlg. P. L. and E. Shelar. Site Select.
kit for  the Monitoring of Photochemical
Air Pollutant*. Stanford Research Institute.
Menlo Park. CA. Prepared for OS. Environ-
mental Protection Agency. Research Trian-
gle Park.  NC. EPA Publication No. EPA-
4M/I 7( Oil. April 1*11.
  t.  Guideline  on Air  Quality  Models.
OAQP8,  0.8.  Environment*!  Protection
Agency.   Research  Triangle  Park.  NC.
OAQP8 No. I.*-OH. April ItTO.
  g. Control Techniques for l«ad Air Emto-
slons. OAQP8. OS  Environmental Prolee
tlon  Agency.  Research Triangle Park.  NC.
EPA 4SO/1 77 Oil. December I*T».
                                           V. Air Quality Criteria for Lead. Office of
                                          Rsatauh and Development. U.S. Environ-
                                          mental Protection Agency. Washington. DC.
                                          EPA-OM/f 7T-OI7. December ItTI.
                                           •. Johnson. D. E.. *t al. EpMendologte
                                          Study of the Effect* of Automobile Traffic
                                          on Blood Lead Level*. Southwest Research
                                          Institute. Houston. TX. Prepared for  U.S.
                                          Environmental  Protection  Agency.  Re-
                                          search Triangle Park. NC. EPA MM/1 1g-
                                          •M. August I»M.
                                           ». Optimum  Site  Exposure Criteria for
                                          Lead  Monitoring.  PEOCo Environmental.
                                          Inc.. Cincinnati. OH. Prepared for 11.8. En
                                          vtronmenUI  Protection Agency. Research
                                          Triangle Park. NC. EPA Contract No. M M-
                                          Mll. (May INI.)
                                           I*. Outdance for Lead Monitoring hi the
                                          Vicinity  of Point  Source*. Office  of Air
                                          Quality Planning and Standards, and Envi-
                                          ronmental Monitoring System* Laboratory.
                                          VJB. Environmental Protection Agency. Re-
                                          •earch Triangle Park. NC. EPA-4M/4 •!-
                                          •Og. January INI.
                                           II. Cooper. J.A.. et. al.  Summary of the
                                          Portland  Aerosol  Characterization Study.
                                          (Presented at the int Annual Ah- Pollution
                                          Association Meeting. Cincinnati. OH. A PC A
                                          fTO-14.4).
                                           IS. Bradway. RM. and  P.A. Record. Na-
                                          tional  Assessment of the Urban Paniculate
                                          Problem. Volume I. Prepared for O.S. Envi-
                                          ronmental Protection Agency. Research Tri-
                                          angle  Park.  NC.  EPA  450/1 7« 014. July
                                          int.
                                           II.    IIS.   Rwlioninenlal    Prolrrllon
                                          Agency. Air Qnsllly Criteria for Partlrulslr
                                          Matter and Sulfur Ox'ldrs. Volume 1. Envl
                                        170
                                                                                           171

-------
 «. Si.
 ronmenlal Criteria and) Awrranrnt Office
 Research Triangle  Park.  NC. December

  14 Watson. JO., el al. Analysis of Inhala-
 ble and  Fine  ParllcuhUe Mailer Measure
 menU.  Prepared lor  U.S.  Environmental
 Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park
 NC. EPA 4M/4 11-0)1. December INI.
  II. Record. P.A. and L.A. Bacl. Evaluation
 on Contribution of  Wind Blovn Dust from
 the Deiert Level* of Paniculate Matter In
 Desert Communities. OCA Technology DM
 tlon. Bedford.  MA.  Prepared lor U.8. Envi-
 ronmental Protection Aiency. Research Trl-
 anile Park. NC. EPA 450/3 M 071  Au(uit
 I *>IO.
  It. Oohtoleln. B.A. and Paly M. The Diesel
 Problem In New York City. Project on the
 Urban Environment. Natural Resources De-
 fense Council.  Inc., New York. NY. April
 I lit.
  17. Kteh. R.C. and H.E. Rector. Optimum
Network  Design and Site Exposure Criteria
for  Parlkulatc Matter. OEOMCT Techno!
otlea. Inc.. Rockvllle. MD. Prepared lor If*.
Environmental  Protection   Agency.  Re-
search Triangle Park. NC. EPA Contract
No. ••01 ISM. EPA 110/4 11001. May
 I Ml.
  II. Pace. T. et at Procedures for Estimat-
ing  Probability of NonalUlnmenl of • PM»
Data.   U.S.   Environmental   Protection
Agency. Research Triangle Park. NC EPA-
4IO/4-M-OI1. December I»N.
141  PR ai*7l. May I*. l»7r. 44 PR 73113.
Dec. 14.  1071.  aa amended at «• PR 44IM.
8-pl. *. INI; II PR Mil. Mar. It. IMg; U
 PR  11143-33744. July  I.  IM7; I* PR 37311.
July 10. 10171
  ArrgMDix E—PROM 8m NO Cuimiu
roa AMBIENT AIM QUAUTY MOMITOBIHO

  I.  Introduction
  3.  IReservedl
  I.  Sulfur Dioxide ISO.I
  II  Horlsontal and Vertical Probe Place-
ment
  I 3  Spacing from Obslniirllons
  1 3  Spacing; from trees and other ronsM-
ersilons.
  4  Carbon MonoxMr ICTM
  41  Hiwhwntal and Vertical Probr Place-
ment
  4 t  Spacing from Obstrurllois
  41  Spacing from Road*
  44  Spacing from trrr* and other consM-
eratlona.
  I  Otonc «O.I
  II  Vertical and llorrwmlsl Probe Place-
ment
  I a Spacing from Obstructions
  11 Spacing from Rosds
  t 4 Sparing from trrr* and ollrrr conild
 erallons.
          40 <*• Ch. I (M-M fdrffon)

  i.  Nitrogen Dioxide < NO.)
  •.I  Vertical and Hortsonlal Probe Place-
IfMfll
  •.a  Spacing from Obstructions
  •.a  Spacing from Roads
  •.4  Spacing from trees and other consid-
erations.
  1.  UadtPbl
  1.1  Vertical Placement
  7. a  Spacing from Obstructions
  U  Spacing from Roadways
  1.4  Spacing from tree* and other consid-
erations.
  0.  Parlfciilate Matter «PMM>
  •.I  Vertical Placement
  •.t  Spacing from Obstructions
  •J  Spacing from Roadways
  •.4  Other Considerations
  ».  Probe Material and  Pollutant Sample
Residence Time
  It.  Waiver Provisions
  11.  Discussion and Summary
  la.  References
I. fsjfnNfswflosj
  This appemtU contains probe siting ertte-
rla to be applied to ambient air quality mon-
itor* or monltor'probes after the general
station location ha* been  selected based on
the monitoring  objectives and spatial scale
of representativeness as discussed In Appen-
dli D of this part. Adherence to these siting
criteria Is necessary to ensure the uniform
collection of compatible and comparable air
quality data.
  The  probe ailing criteria as discussed
below must be  followed to the maximum
••tent possible. It b recognised that there
may be situations  when the probe siting cri-
teria cannot be  followed. If the dtlng crite-
ria cannot be met. this must be thoroughly
documented with  a written  request for a
waiver which describes how and why  Ing
siting criteria differs.  This documentation
should help to avoid later questions about
the date. Conditions  under which EPA
would consider  an applkallon for waiver
from these siting  criteria are discussed m
Section It of this appendix.
  The spatial scales of representativeness
used m thai appendli. I.e.. micro, middle.
neighborhood, urban, and regional are de-
fined  and discussed m Appendix D of this
part. The pollutant specific probe siting cri-
teria generally  apply  to  all spatial scales
except  where  noted  otherwise.  Specific
siting criteria that are  prefaced with a
"must" are defined as a requirement and ex-
ceptions  must  be approved throirgh  the
waiver provisions. However,  siting criteria
that are prefaced with a "should" are de-
fined as a goal to meet for consistency but
are not a requirement.
a. IReservedl
3. 5*V*r DlotUe tSO,t
                                                                                                                                                                 ft. M, Ape). I
  1.1 Horbontal and Vertical Prob* Pmee-
ment. A* wtthTSP monitoring, the mod de-
drabb height for an SO.  monitor Met
prob* to near the breathing height. Various
factor* enumerated before may require that
UM bust prob* b* elevated. Therefore, the
Inlet probe mud k* located 3 to II meter*
above ground level. If the Inlet prob* b k>

ahould k* located on the windward dd* of
In*  bulkMng  retotlv* to
winter wind direction. The I
•too be located more than I meter vertically   and I meter provide* adequate leeway to
or hortaonlally away from any supporting
dructura and also away from dirty, dusty
                                          ton require that the mtot probe kg higher.
                                          •sTaVkA B>SB^BOaW»a^ai' * -- St— •>-• __* Agj.— gBKl^J --- »-— *^~.
                                          Tit* ratiwrtQ itffiifvti 01 in* viici pfOM for
                                          CO >MM.4tortng to ihtrtlort 9* H m**r far •
                                          •tMCVMCqllw MW« WMctl  to • M"M|WWMtoC OtV*
                                          tween representative breathing height ami
                                          JiTqWrqilfWOwl 9t wBwQMvMM*  • iww IvCMHIIvVCtlOCv
                                          I meter rang* «f height* I* atoo a eompro-
                                          aslat to *om* extent. Por oonatotency ami
                                          an mlete at exactly the same height, but
                                                                -**>*^-*- jgi^^j-^,,* g^ava,.
                                                                PIIVIV prvvcm HIM.
  •J  Spacing (MM Obstruction*. No far-
Meg gr Indneratloa) fluea. or athar mkMr
•ouross o» SO. should b* nearby. TIM ggpa-
raAlasi sUstanesr ss dsoondant an Uia BMsiha
•f the tluea. lypa of waste qe fwal kmrxg.
and MM quality of In* fuel (aul/ur eontentl.
If the Inlet prob*  Is located 0*1 • roof at
other otructure. N mu*t b* at lead I meter
from walla, parapete. psnthouaaa. ete.
  Tho mlet probe w--'  b* located
from obstadw and bu,    lamtamTamsl Ussaml UfnV ••••«* i^iTV**^**
Ssjapllng stations that are locate*] eloosr to
obstoda* than thai criterion allow* should
not b* classified a* a neighborhood seat*.
    i the measurement* from such
                                          tion from any supporting *trveture.
                                           Ct apadng from Obstrwctlona. Airflow
                                               •too kg smreatrtcted m an ar« of at
would closely  represent mMdb scot* d*>
llon*. Therefor*, dattons not meeting UM
criterion should k* daadtled  aa  mMdto
•cab. Airflow mud  atoo k* unrestricted m
an are  of at bad  fir ground the Met
probe grid the predominant win
•Of UM ipVwMOfV) qW fPCqlvCiN (MVnM*Mlqt 4
                                                      wind direction for UM i

                                          Ual mud b* Included m the tir era. If the
                                          prob* to located on the dd* of a bunding.
                                          life*
                                           4J
                                          and traffic
Iratfan potential must b*
air are. If In* probe b located en In* dd*
of a building. I IT clearance to required. Ad-
ditional Information on SO. probe elUng ert-
teria may be found m reference II.
  1.1  Spacing from trees and other eonatd-
orallana. Trees can provlds surfaces for SO,
adsorption  and act aa  an obstruction to
normal wind flow pattern*. To muumbw Ing
        offecte of tree* on  the
SO, level*, the sampler should b* plaetd at
least at meter* from the drip line of trees.
However, m situations where tree* could b*
classified a* an obstruction. I.e.. the distance
between the IreeUI and the (ampler b leas
than twice the height that the Ireetil pro-
trudes above the sampler, the sampler mint
be placed at lead It meter* from the drip
line of the obstructing tredsl.
4. Car6oH*VonozMe«COI
  4.1 Horbonlal and Vertical Probe Place-
ment Because of the Importance of measur-
ing population exposure to CO concentra-
tions. air should  be sampled  at average
breathing heights. However, practical fae-
                          VUvOT CMI]TqMI
                  •ittUofnt f MferoMi»l*> §»•

imlHfVflOV qn UM iWi^lllqlQwtWqt 99H999 4MI UM
po flatten *xposure of  the poputaUsn. in
order to provide gam* reason«bb esmlsten-
ey and egmparaktuty ka UM ah- qwalKy data
frwm*uchdatlof«amMmumdbUnceof3
fMCiUWiV qUow •  iMftstHIIIMN *ipMl*mflOvT 91  IV
gseten from the edge of UM nearad Iraffb
ten* mud ke^mamtalned far the** CO monl-
tar Iran pttMcv. Into gMNNiM gytrv c0n0totciv
cytoth* date,  yet dltl allow fbimUMy of

  Street eanyon/corrMor tnOrreacmbl Met
probe* mud be located at lead It saetere
from an wit c i aec t Ion and preferably at •

preferable to Interaectton location* because
Intersection* represent a much smaller por-
tion of downtown apace than do the drecte
between them. Pededrian exposure to prob-
ably atoo greater In street canyon/corridors
than at Intersection*. Abo. the practical dif-
ficulty of positioning sampling Mete b teas
•t mbMock locations than at the  Intersec-
tion. However, the final siting of the moni-
tor  must meet the objective* and mtent of
Appendix D. Sections 3.4. 3. 3.3 and Appen-
dix  E. Section 4.
  In determining the* minimum separation
between a  neighborhood scale monitoring
                                                                                                                                      173

-------
Ur.ited States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
ftesearcn Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-450/4.87-007
May 1987
Air
Ambient Monitoring
Guidelines for
Prevention of
Significant
                  (PSD)
  RADIAN LIBRARY
  RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK. NC

-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3.5

-------
   States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Pain HC 27711
6PA-4 50/4-87-007
May 1987
Air
Ambient Monitoring
Guidelines for
Prevention of
Significant
Deterioration  (PSD)
 RADIAN LIBRARY
 RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK. NC

-------
ft. »,. Apr  A                                 40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-M Edition)

      STMtnuik O6--PEMMANENF WAIVCN FROM iNicmM CONIMMS TE8i-Co«Un«Md
  • CwnM Mint* nfc*
u»
ir
i»
IW4
wuu
MM
IM*
MM
MM
IM*
MM
MM
IMF
MM
MM
.Ml
MM
MM
                                                               MXI
                                                               MM
                  SCHCOUIE D.7—HomzoN VALUC OF CASH Flow*
  t Ownctatan IM Mvtngr
 Mrtrannrio*
   I
   I
4
t fIM
t foUl
         MM* •) IM M«MJI
                              MM
                              MM
                            MM
                            MM
                            MM
                              MM
                              MM
                                    MM
                                    MM
                                    MM
                                 MM
                                 MM

                                         INI   INI   ltd   l»*4   MM
                                         MM
                                         MM
                                         MM
                                         MM
                                         MM
                                            MM
                                            MM
                                            MM
                                            MM
                                            MM
                                            MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
      MM
      MM
      MM
MM
MM
                                                             (Ml
                                                             MM
                                                             MM
                                                                     law
MM
MM
                                                                     MM
                                                                     MM
  f At? S»—AMMNT AM QUAUTY
           MMVUUANCt
Btc.
M.I  Definition*.
Ill  Punxw*.
M.I  Applicability.

      ID*,*.* a—>l.iilt«iii.i CHNrfa

It I*  Qucllly auursnee.
Mil  Monitoring method*.
M.I>  Blllns ol Instrument* or Inilrumcnl
   probe*.
Mil  Operallnt tchedule.
1114  BpeclkJ purpose monllon.

  i.»»M4 C—»!•»• «•* t«««l AW M«n»»rlm
            Il.ri.ni (IIAMS)

II2O Mr quality *urvelll*nce:  Plan eon
   lent.
IIII 81>AM8 network design.
                                   M.I*  SLAMS melhodoloey.
                                   Mil  Monltorlni network completion
                                   MM  (Reserved)
                                   MM  Systemmodlllcmtlon.
                                   MM  AnniwlSLAMSlumiruuy report.
                                   M.tl  ComplUnof d*te lor *Jr quality d*U
                                      reporting.
                                   M.M  Regional OMIot 8LAM8 d*U BcquM
                                                  (NAM*)

                                   MM  HAMS network establishment
                                   M.ll  HAMS network description.
                                   M.ll  NAM8 •pprovd.
                                   Mil  NAM8 methodoloiy.
                                   M 14  HAMS network completion.
                                   MM  HAMS d*U lubmllKJ.
                                   M.M  Byilcm modllkatlon.
                                            I— Ak QwMy M»

                                   tl 40  Index reporting.
                                   128
                                                                                 Invlronin*inl*j| f r*l«dl«n
                                                                               See.
                                                                               MM Federal monllorlnc.
                                                                               M.ll Monltorlni other potluUnU.
                                                                               Arrn**iB A— Quniitr AMUMHCB RMVIM-
                                                                                  Mnm ro> 8t*T« **• Local. AM Mom-
                                                                                  TOIIMO flTAtlON* <8LAM8)
                                                                               ArraidK B-Qu*urv AUUMIIC* RMVIH-
                                                                                  Mom roa P»nt»Tio*  or 8i«ninc*NT
                                                                                  DcmioMTion (P8DI AIM MomtoRiiM
                                                                               Armmi C-Amiorr AH  QVAIITT Mom-
                                                                                  TOOIM MBTMODOMMT
                                                                               Arromc D-H«rwo»«  Dnian raa OTAIB
                                                                                  4H>  LOCAL At* MouinwiM  BrtTiom
                                                                                  (8LAM8) «•» H»f IOHM. All MoiilTOlllM
                                                                                  8T*TIOH*(NAM8>
                                                                               ArrniMB B-Pnoii SITIM C*imu MM
                                                                                  Amum AM  QIMUTT Monin»iM
                                                                               Arm»n r— Annual. SLAMS AM Qvaurr
Arrni»» a-Uniro«H AM QVMJTT Inm
   *m> DAILY RVOBTIIM
 Avraoarrr: See*. II*. Mllti. III. knd II*
of  th« Cteut  Air Act (41 U.B.C.  141*.
1MIOI. TCII. 1*l*>.
 SOVBCK 44 FR Hill. Miy I*. 1*1*.
otherwkM noted.
                             IM.I  DtftaMwM.
                               Ai UMd In thto part, all term> not de-
                             lined  herein have the  meinlni flven
                             them  In the Act:
                               (•) "Act" mearu the Clean Air Act aa
                             amended (49 UJB.C. 1401. et aeq.).
                               (b)  "BLAM8" meam  State or Local
                             Air   Ifonltorlnt   Statlonfa).   The
                             BLAIfB make up the ambient air qual-
                             ity monltorlnt network which M re-
                             quired by 1 61.10 to be  provided for to
                             the State'! Implementation plan. Thto
                             definition place* no icttrrcttona on the
                             use of the phjrelcal atructure or facili-
                             ty homing the SLAMS. Any combina-
                             tion of SLAMS and any other moni-
                             tor* (Special  Purpose. HAMS, P8DI
                             may occupy the tame facility or struc-
                             ture without affecting, the respective
                             definition! of those monitoring  sta-
                             tion.
                               (c)  "HAMS" meani  National  Air
                             Monitoring Station!!). Collectively the
                             NAMS are a subset of the SLAMS am-
                             bient  air quality monitoring network.
                                "PSD station" means any station
                             operated for the purpose of establish-
                             ing the effect on air  quality  of  the
                             emissions from a proposed source for
                             purposes of prevention of significant
deterioration as required by 18I.J4(n)
of Part »l of this chapter.
   "SO," means sulfur dioxide.
  (f I "NO," means nitrogen dioxide.
   or his or her au-
thorized representative.
  (k) "Regional Administrator" means
the Administrator of one of the ten
EPA Regional Offices or his or her au-
thorized representative.
  (I) "Stale agency" means the air pol-
lution  control  agency  primarily re-
sponsible for development and Imple-
mentation of a plan under the Act.
  (m) "Local agency" means any local
government  agency, other than the
State agency,  which Is  charged  with
the responsibility  for carrying out a
portion of the plan.
  (n) "Indian Reservation" means any
Federally recognized reservation e*>
tabllshed by treaty, agreement, execu-
tive order, or act of Congress.
  (o) "Indian Governing Body" means
the governing body of any tribe, band.
or group of  Indiana subject to the Ju-
risdiction of  the United Statea and rec-
ognized by the United States aa pos-
sessing power of self-government.
  (p) "Storage and Retrieval  of Atro
metrle Data (8AROAD) system" to a
computerized system which store* and
report* Information relating  to ambi-
ent air quality.
  4q>  "8AROAD  rite  Identification
form"  to one of the several  form* In
the 8AROAD system. It to the form
which provides a complete description
of the site (and Its surroundings) of an
ambient  air quality  monitoring  sta-
tion.
  (r) "Traceable" mean* that a local
standard has been compared and certi-
fied, either  directly or  via not more
than one Intermediate standard,  to a
primary  standard  such aa a  National
Bureau of Standards Standard Refer-
ence  Material  (NBS  8RM)  or  a
USEPA/NBS approved Certified  Ref-
erence Material (CRM).
  (si "Urban area population"  means
the  population  defined In the moat
                                                                                                                    129

-------
 ft. So, A»s>. I

 lonmenUI Cflleili end Assessment  Olllce,
 Rrsrsirh  Triangle  Perk.  NC.  December
 1*11
  H Watson. JO. cl el. Analysis ol Inhela
 Me MM!  Fine Parlkulale Miller Measure-
 menti.  Prepared  lor  US  Environment*!
 Prelection Agency. Research Triangle Park,
 NC. EPA 4M/4 II Oil. December IMI.
  la. Record. P.A.  and UA. Bacl. Evaluation
 on Contribution ol Wind  Blown Dust from
 the Desert Level* ol Parlkulale Matter In
 Desert Communities. OCA Technology Divi-
 sion. Bedlord. MA. Prepared lor U.fl. Envl
 ronmental Protection Agency. Research Tri-
 angle Park. NC. EPA 410/2 10 Oil. August
 ItM.
  Ig Ooldsleln. E.A. and Paly M. The Diesel
 Problem In New York City. Project on  the
 Urban Environment. Natural Resources  De-
 lense Council.  Inc..  New  York. NY. April
 IMI.
  II. Koch. R.C. and HE  Rector. Optimum
 Network Design and Site  Exposure Criteria
 lor  Paniculate Mailer. OEOMET Technol-
 ogies. Inc.. Rockvllle. MD.  Prepared lor US.
 Environmental  Protection  Agency.   Re-
 •earth Triangle Park. NC. EPA Contract
 No.  M 0>  1»*4.  EPA  4*0/4 gl 00*. May
 IMI
  10. Pace. T.. et al Procedures lor Estimat-
 ing  Probability ol  Nonattalnmenl ol a I'M..
 Data.   U 8.    Environmental   Protection
 Agency. Research  Tilangle Paik. NC. EPA
 460/4 00 Oil. December I0g«.

 144 FR 21111. May 10. 1010. 44 PR 12M1.
 Drc. 14.  1010. as amended al 40 PR 44IM.
 Sept 1 1001; II FR 0101. Mar  10. IOM: II
 m 14142-21144. July I. IMI. 12 PR 212M.
 July 20. 10011
  ArrcHDii E- Paoac SiTiNn CBJTIRI*
roaj AMOIEMT Ai« QUALITY MONITORING

  I.  Intiwductlon
  I  I Reserved!
  I  Sulfur Dioxide 48O.I
  II  Hortoontal and Verlkal Probe flare-
Mirnt
  II  flpaclng Irom ClbslriRllons
  II  Spacing Irom trees and other eonaM-
erellont.
  4  Carbon Monoslde tCOl
  4 I  HoiUonUI and Vertkal Probe Place-
ment
  4 I  Spacing Irom Obstructions
  4.1  Spacing Irom Roads
  44  Spacing Irom trees and other consid-
erations.
  I  Otone IO.>
  01  Veitlcal and llorlsonlal Probe Place-
ment
  11 Spacing Irom Obstructions
  11 Spacing Irom Roads
  I 4 Spacing Irom liees and other consid-
erations.
          40 CM Ch. I (7-1 M
  0.  Nitrogen Dioxide 
-------
n. sa,
station and • specific line tourer, the pre-
•umpllon  U  nude  filial  measurement*
should not be unduly Influenced by uiy one
roadway. Compulations wrrc nude to deter
mine Ihr  separation dbUnrn. end I able  I
provides the required minimum' sr|>srsllon
distance between roadwsys  siul  neighbor
hood scale station*. Sampling sUlloiu that
arc taeiled closer lo roads I lien Ihli  erlle
lion •llow« (hould not br  classified u  •
neighborhood Kilt, since lite measurement*
Irom tuch • tUlkm would closely repteienl
the middle sesle  Therefore.  stations not
meeting I III* etllerloii iliould In- russified u
middle Kile. Addition!) Inhumation on CO
probe iltlni may be loumd In reference 12.

TABU I— MMMUM SCFAMAIION OUIANCC Bt-
  IWf f N Nf KMHOflHOOO SCAIE CO StAIIONg
  AMI ROADWAYS (Eoot o» NCAREM T«A»HC
  LANC)
           •O, ttt, k««C. MhclM
usos
It WO
JOOOO
40000
MOOD
.,•000*
 II*
 II*
,U*
          40 CM Ch. I (7-1 M Edition)

(wren the obstacle* end Ibr Inlet probe to at
least twice the height that the obstacle pro-
trude* above the (ampler. Airflow muil be
unreilrkled In on «rc of at least  nr around
lh< mlet probe,  end the prrdomhwnl wind
direction lor the season of greatest pollul
ant concentration potential mint be Includ-
ed In the no* arc. It the probe li located on
the ilde of a building. 110- clearance U re-
quired.
  1.1  Spacing Irom Road*. It to Important
In the nrobe siting proceu to minimise de-
structive  Interferences • Irom  source*  of
nHrlc tsMe (NOI since NO  resdlly  reeds
with atone. Table I provide* the required
minimum  separation  distance* between
roadway*) and otone monltorlnf stations
These distances  were  baited on reeekula-
Mora ualnc the methodology In reference II
and validated mini more recent ambient
data, collected near a major roadway. Bam
pllng stations that  are  located closer lo
road* than this  criterion allow* should not
be claasllkd a* nelf hborhood or  urban scale.
•Mice  Iht measurement* Irom such stations
would moie closely represent  the middle
scale. Accordingly, such stations should be
classified M middle scale. Additional Infer
mallon on ocone probe sltlni criteria may
be found hi reference II.

TAMX f-MamwM SEMRAIION DntMsct Be-
  TWCCN  Nf HMKWHOOO AND UfftAN SCAlt
  OlONf SlAtKMW AND ROADWAYS (EDO* Of
  NEAREST TDA»W LAME)
  «.4  Spacing Irom trees and other cortsM-
erellona. Since CO to retatlvcly non-reactive.
Ihe mate*  factor concerned trees to as ob-
structions to normal wind flow patterns. For
middle  and  neighborhood  scale  stations.
trees should not  be located between the
malor source* of CO. usually vehicle* on a
heavily traveled road, and Ihe sampler. The
sampler must be al least II melers Irom the
drip line of a tree whkli to between the sam-
pler and Ihe road ami e> lends at toait I
meter*  above Ihe sampler  For mkroaeal*
stations, no trees or  shrubs should be locat-
ed between the sampling Inlel probe and Ihe
road.
I   0«onr(O.)
  11 Veitkal and Iliwlsonlal Probe Place
menl  The Inkl probe lor  ozone monitors
should br  a* ctnsr as pwislblr lo lite breath-
ing wine Tltr roinpHrslIng lartors discussed
 previously, howrver. require that the probe
 br elevated The helajit ol Ihr Ink! probe
 must br mrsted a lo II nteleit shove ground
 k«rl The probe must  slm br located more
 titan I meter verllrally or lmiir.o frimi obslarks
 • in! biillililigx  Miili  that  Ihr ilMsnrr  br
.MOOS..
uses	
MOOS	
«*.***	
ItSSB .
. |M.*S*
                                                                                  IS
                                                                                 MS
                                                                                ..MS
                                             • 4  flBOcmg Irom tree* and other consld
                                            eratlona Tree* can provide surfaces lor O.
                                            adsorption  and/or reactions  and obstruct
                                            normal wind Mow pattern*. To minimise the
                                            possible effect of tree* on  measured O,
                                            levels, the probe should be placed at least N
                                            meter* Irom the drip line of tree*. Since the
                                            scavenging  effect  of tree* Is greater for
                                            oxone than for the other criteria pollutants.
                                            strong consideration of  this effect must be
                                            given In locating the O,  Inlel probe lo avoid
                                            Ihl* problem.  Therefore, the  sampler must
                                            be at least II melers from Ihr drip line of
                                            tree* that  are located between  Hie urban
                                            rlly core area and the sampler  along the
                                                                                                        •WrV
                                         174
                                                                            day tbM wmd dsree-

                                                        •.  J»Wrs»w*)INas«*t«-
                                                        ****«. Tka  helghl of MM NO. Mel probe
                                                        ••at be I to II BMters above the ground.
                                                        This Is • esssprossls* between msaaorirn m
                                                        the breathing aone Mid avoManoa ol vandal-
                                                        •WJ*. finding sultaM* altos, etc. For NOw the
                                                        helghl does not appear to be a critical lactor
                                                        etnos Ihe NO. should b* fairly mil mlsed
                                                        aad saasewhat uniform In In* tettleal dkee-
                                                        Uom. TIM dlrtanc* of In* Inlet probe lr*m
                                                        any sispportlng  structure smsst be greater
                                                        Uiao I meter vertically or horlaonUlly.

                                                        •nd •Uiet obstacles  may possibly acaivenge
                                                        NO» la> seder to avoid Mils kmd «f Intorfer-
                                                        	 "-	'	mat be locatod v*y ••my
                                                                        i so thai the dMane* be-
                                                                                                                                                                n. M.
                                                                                                                                       TABU 1  M»»MUM ScrAstAitoH Dm AMCC
                                                                                                                                         MO,  SfATIONI AND ROAOWAVI {EOOg OF
                                                                                                                                         NlANf >T TMAmC LANt)
                                                       iirsm obstacle* and~th* Inlet probe Is •!
                                                       SMS* Iwtoe MM helghl Ihst the obsUd* pr*>
                                                       Irwdssj sbois the probe. Sampling station*
                                                       thai are located closer to obsUrtes than IMS
                                                       wtteriosi •UOM shouM stot bt classified to)
                                                       the Mlghborhood or urbasi acalea. sknt Ikt
                                                                                                                                                   [ irtas Irtet and ttntr ctflsssV
                                                                                                                                                   i can provide surf sees far NO.
                                                                                                              M bt classified at MM**
                                                                                                               reasons, •
                                                           _ t vertical waN Is i	
                                                       *Jr tMVtnf slang Uial •*•) may bs svbtoc*
                                                 	i bt unrestrieteTslr7low"1n^ii are'of al
                                                 leaat Sir around Ihe Met probe, and Iht
                                                 predammanl wind dtrerHtm for Iht season
                                                 tf greatest nellulenl uamtmralton pottsv
                                                 IMsBUst bt Included hi Iht «r art. If Ikt

                                                 ••v  QsMiTMIM mff VCGjIHsnM.
                                                  •J Spacbig irom Heads. M It

                                                 oiMasof nNrogen
                                                                                                                                       normal wind flow patterns. Tt i  	
                                                                                                                                       poastbl* acavtntjngj effect tf tree* on Iht
                                                                                                                                       Bttasured toveto of NO. the probe *houM bt
                                                                                                                                       placed al toast M meters from Iht drip MM.
                                                                                                                                       Far trees thai protruds above Iht helghl tf
                                                                                                                                       Iht probe br I meters tr more. Iht sampler
                                                                                                                                       asust b* M teas! II meters from Iht drip Hnt
                                                                                                                                       tf the trees.
                                                                                                                                       1.

                                                                                                                                                                       .
                                                                                                                                                                     ••t *4f»**
                                                                                                                                       ty hidlctlt mrge gradients wMhbt IK* Ilrs4 t
                                                                                                                                       !• 1 meton *b<
                                                                 _
                                                       tndl to alto* Urn* tor stn>*rsl*n IttttUantl
                                                       •I MO tsatoalon* to NO» Further. UM tllsets
                                                       dhat ••mSVaftmnftt* mMmfsfMtBTsB sm^BBmt aVm tmllmVmmkftlBdatI mTstaf
                                                       qnv sTVeBaVTaTV^T sv^PomTV^W VMVm*Vf> Vs^sT g^*JIIWB>lwvVlmT>vi vgy
                                                       (•anc separation distance* 1st- neighborhood
                                                       and urban tetlt stations towid hi Tab** I.
                                                                       vert baaed on  reealeult-
                                                                l Iht nMthodotogy hi relerence 19
                                                                                                        t bt S-1 meters above ground
                                                                                                                              Bk B^ShBBBt
                                                                                                                              • WimT*
                                                                                                                                       •remto* between east tt servicing the
                                                                                                                                       ptor and Iht desire to tvttd unrepres
                                                       data; collected near t ma|er roadway. The
                                                       mmbuum separation dtotonc* must also b*
                                                       •sasnUsned between an NO. probe and any
                                                       other similar volume of automotive traffic
                                                       such tt parking tots. Sampling atotmns thai
                                                       art  tooled eraser to roads than Into crite-
                                                       rion allows •hould not  generally be rtoavl-
                                                       Heel at neighborhood tr urban scale*, smct
                                                       the  measurements from such stations would
                                                                                                 Itvt ejtndMhNia dut to it-cv)lrahMnenl frtas
                                                                                                 dusty eurfaces. The upper NntH represent* a
                                                      SuchsUtlo

                                                                       uld i
                                                                                   ale
                                                                                        alto
                                                                               aHy be classified
                                                       as middle scale. Additional Information on
                                                       NO. probe siting criteria may be found hi
                                                       reference II.
                                                                                               .  	  between  the desire  to have
                                                                                            mea«urem«nU which are moot represent*-
                                                                                            Uve of population exposures and • consider-
                                                                                            alton tf the praclkal factors noted above.
                                                                                             For  middle or larger spatial scale*.  In-
                                                                                            creased diffusion result* hi vertical concen-
                                                                                            tration gradients whkh are not as great aa
                                                                                            for the  small scales.  Thus. Iht required
                                                                                            height of Ihe air Make for middle or larger
                                                                                            scales to I-II meters.
                                                                                             1.1  Spacing from Obstructions. The sam-
                                                                                            pler must he  located away from obstacles
                                                                                            such a* buildings, so Ihsl the distance  be-
                                                                                            tween obstacles and Ihe sampler to at kast
                                                                                              175

-------
PI. »•. A.p. I

twice the het«hi thai Ilic obstacle protrudes
•Hove the samplei.
  A  minimum  ol I  meters of separation
Itnm walb. parapet*, and penthouses b re-
quired lor rooftop sample**. No furnace or
Incinerator fluri  iliould be -nearby. The
height and type of lluei and the type. qual-
ity, and quantity of waste or fuel burned de
lermlne the separation dblance*. For eiam-
pie. If Ihe emissions from the chimney have
high lead content and there b • high proba-
bility that the plume would Impact on Ihe
•ampler durlni moat of the sampling period.
then other buildings/locations In Ihe area
that are  free  from  the described  aourcei
•hould be chosen for Ihe monltorlni lite.
  There must be unrestricted airflow In an
arc of at least 170* around the sampler.
Since the Intent of Ihe eatefory la> site b lo
measure Ihe mailmum concentrations from
a road or point source, there must be no sig-
nificant obstruction between a road or point
source and Ihe monitor, even though other
spacing  from obstruction criteria are met.
The predominant direction  for Ihe season
with  the iresltsl pollutant concentration
potential must be Included In the fir arc.
  It Spacing Irom  Roadways. Numbcroua
studies have shewn that ambient lead leveb
near mobile source  are a function of Ihe
ttafflc volume and are most pronounced at
ADT *M.MM within Ihe first It meters, on
Ihe downwind side of Ihe inadway*. II. It-
It) Therefore, stations hi measure Ihe peak
concentration  from  mobile  source* should
be located at Ihe dbtancr  most likely to
produce the highest concentrations, for Ihe
nilciowale station. Ihe local Ion must be be-
tween t and II meters Irom the major road-
way. For the middle scale station, a range of
acceptable distances from Ihe malor road-
way Is shown In Table I. This table also In-
clude* separation distances between a road-
way and neighborhood or larger scale sta-
tion* These distances are  based upon Urn
ilaia of refeience It wlurh  Illustrates that
lead Icveb remain falily constant after cer-
tain horlaoKtil distances from the roadway.
As depleted In Ihe above reference, thb db
lanre b a function of Ihe traffic volume.


 lAOU 4—SCrAHAtlON OlSIANCC BETWEEN P»>
   SlAIIOH* AND ROAOWAVS (EOOE Of NEAN-
   ESI TRAFFIC tANE)
  HovtMf *•*••!• <•«<»
, IOOOO

 70000
                    ,a«*» is n
          40 CFR Ch. I (7-l-M lollies))

TAOIE 4—SEPARAIION OISIANCC BE fWEEN Pa
  SlAHONS AND ROADWAYS (EDGE Of- NEAR-
  Hi TRAFFIC LAME)-Continued
                    S«f>«M»n dnunc*
                   >Mtf»*rl end MWont.
                   Mcio
                    S-IS
                                    >iet
  1.1. Spacing from tree* and other consid-
eration*. Tree* can provide surface* for dtp
oslllon or adsorption of lead particles and
obstruct normal wind flow pattern*, for ml-
eroacale and middle scale category lal road-
way sites there must not be any treefs) be-
tween the source of the lead. I e..  the vehi-
cle* on  Ihe roadway, and Ihe sampler. For
neighborhood scale category lb» sites. Ihe
•ampler should be at leaal M meter* from
the  drip line ol trees. The sampler must.
however, be placed at least I* meters from
Ihe drip line of tree* which could be classi-
fied as an obstruction. I.e.. the distance be-
Iwecn the  trceUI  and the sampler b teas
than Ihe  height  that the  tree protrudes
above Ihe sampler.
fj.  rartiCKMl* Matter II*MUI
  •.I Vertical Placement - Although  there
are limited studies on the  PM» eoncenlta
Uon gradient* around roadways  or other
ground  level sources. Reference* I. 1, 4. II
and I* of thb Appcndli show • dbllncl var-
iation In Ihe distribution of TOP and Pb
leveb near roadways. T8P. which  b greatly
affected by gravity, has large concentration
gradients, both horizontal and vertical. Im-
mediately adjacent lo roads. Lead, being
predominately sub micron  In she. behave*
more like a gas and eihlblU smaller vertical
and horbonlal gradients  than  T8P. PM*.
being Intermediate In site between these
two eilreme* eihlblls dispersion properties
of both gas ami sclllesble particulars and
doe* show  verlksl and horbontal gradl
ente." Similar to monitoring for other pol
lutanls. optimal placement of the sampler
Inlet for  PM.  monitoring should be  st
breathing height  level  However, practical
factor*  such a* prevention of vandalism, se-
curity,  and safely  precautions must also be
considered  when  siting  a  PM« monitor.
Given  these considerations, the sampl"
Inlet for mkroacale PMM monitor* must **
>-t meters  above  ground level. The lower
limit was based on a comprombe between
ease ol  aervlclng the sampler and-the deslK
to  avoid  rC>entraliimenl  from dusty sur
faces. The upper limit represent*  a compf*
mbe between the desire lo have measure
                                                                                          t»vlro4M»oirM ProlocMon Agency

                                                                                          •Mot* which arc moat representative ol pop-
                                                                                          ulation exposure* and • consideration ol the
                                                                                          practical factor* noted above.
                                                                                            For middle or larger spatial ecale*. In-
                                                                                          creased diffusion result* In vertical concen-
                                                                                          tration gradient* that an not M great as lor
                                                                                          the asJcroacalr Thu*. th* required height at
                                                                                          the ahr Intake for middle or larger acaka b
                                                                                          a-IKaeten.
                                                                                            t.l Spacing  Irom  Obstruction*-!! UM
                                                                                          sampler to located on a roof or other •true-
                                                                                          lure, then there must b* a minimum ol I
                                                                                          •Mian eeparaUon  Irom  walls,  parapet*,
                                                                                          penthouse*, etc. N* furnace er Inejnentlon
                                                                                          Ihiea ahouM be nearby. Thb aeparalkm db-
                                                                                          lanee Irom flue* I* dependent an the height
                                                                                          of the fluea. type el  watte or fuel burned.
                                                                                          and quality of the luel «ash content*. In th*
                                                                                          caa* of emiasJona Irom a chimney resulting
                                                                                          Irom natural ga* combustion. •» a precast.
                                                                                          	I least • metere Irom the chimney.
                                                                                           On the other hand. H luel od. coal, or
                                                                                         aolM waste b burned and the Mack b man
                                                                                         ctently ehort eo that the plum* conM  raa-
                                                                                         aoneMy ba eipected to bapact on the •am-
                                                                                         pler nlake a  significant part ol the time.
                                                                                         -.••„_ n-.-la.u	••	••	"-  "
                                                                                                                               dd
are Iroe Irom these types of aounm ammo
be oonoldereel  lor ((sapling.. Trecg provide
eurloom for partkulate deapoelUon and abo
reel rid  airflow. Therefore,  the (ampler
•hould be Placed at least M meten Irom Ihe
•Upline Mid mutt be It metera Irom the drt-
pUne wb*n Ihe treetel ecu a* an obstrue-
• I^K
                                                                                           The sampler must abo he located away
                                                                                         Irom obstacle* such a* buildings. *o that the
                                                                                         rtblancs between obstacle* and the (ampler
                                                                                         b at kaat twice the height that the obstacle
                                                                                         protrude*  above  the (ampler  eicept  for
                                                                                         (treet canyon rite*. Sampling elation* that
                                                                                         are located closer to obstacle* than thb cri-
                                                                                         terion allow* (houM not be classified M
                                                                                         neighborhood,  urban,  or  regional  (east.
                                                                                         rinee Ihe measuremente Irom eueh a atatton
                                                                                         __ . » &  K  ..          -   _---
                                                                                         lion*. Therefore. *taUon* not meeting the
                                                                                           	Jcted airflow In an
                                                                                        are  of  at  least »r around  th* sampler
                                                                                        CBcept  for street  canyon rile*. Sine* the
                                                                    PI. St. Apy>. I

                                           Intent of the cdrgory la) rite b to measure
                                           the maximum concentration* from a road or
                                           point MHirce. there must be no significant
                                           obstruction between a road or point aource
                                           and the monitor, even though other spacing
                                           Irom obstruction criteria are met. The pre-
                                           dominant direction for the season with th*
                                           greatest pollutant concentration  potential
                                           must be Included hi the nr arc.
                                             II  Spacing from Road* -Since emission*
                                           esaoctaled with the operation ol motor vehi-
                                           cle* contribute  lo urban area paniculate
                                           matter ambient leveb, (pacing Irom  road-
                                           way criteria are necesssry lor ensuring na-
                                           tional con*bteney hi PMw sampler riling
                                             The Intent b to locale category ta) NAMS
                                           rite* m area* of  highest  concentrations
                                           whether M be from mobile or multiple sta
                                           Uonary sources. If the area b primarily  al-
                                           lotted by mobUe sources and th* maximum
                                           concentration area**) b fudged to be a traf-
                                           fic corridor  or street canyon  location,  then
                                           the monitor* ohould be  located near road-
                                           way* with the highest traffic volume and at
                                           •eparatlon dbtance* moat likely to produce
                                           *»^ ».i_i—»	.—•  -  —
                                          the hig
                                                            trations. Por the micro*
 cole  traffic corridor Mellon, the  location
 must b* between I and II Meters from the
 malor roadway. For the mlcroacale Mreet
 canyon rite the location mini be between I
 and It meter* Irom the roadway.  For the
 middle ecale station, a  range  of acceptable
 distance* from Ihe roadway  b  shown In
 Figure I. Thb figure abo Include* separa-
 tion  distances between a  roadway   and
 neighborhood or larger scale Motion* by de-
 fault. Any station. I to  II meten high, and
 further back than the middle  scale require
 mcnte  will  generally   be neighborhood.
 urban or regional scale. For  example, ac-
 cording to Figure I. If a PMM (ampler b pri-
 marily Influenced by roadway emissions and
 that (ampler b act back II meten from a
 M.OM ADT road. Ihe station should be  claa
 rifled a* a micro ecale. If Ihe (ampler height
 b between 1 and 1 meten. II the sampler
 height b between 1 and II meten. the sta-
 tion (hould be classified a* middle (tale. II
 th* (ample b M meten Irom the same road.
 M will be classified  a*  middle wale: M II
meten. neighborhood  scale:  and  II   lit
meten. an urban scale.
                                        176
                                                                                                                                177

-------
n. si. AM». f
 »•"*

 1
                             40 Cm Oi. I (7-l-M f ditteii)
£0l  x spoon
                                                   |o AOV
                                       178
                                                                                Pratecfton Agwncy
                                                                                      dtotanee* *hown In Figure I are meaeured
                                                                                      tram the edit el (he neareet traffic tent of
                                                                                      UM roadway preaumed to h*vt the MO* In
                                                                                      fluence MI UM rile.  In general. Ihto pre-
                                                                                      •umptlon  to  MI everrimpHflcaUea) of UM
                                                                                      ueual iwbMi eettlng*  which normally have
                                                                                      •everal *tr*eU that Impact • given ilta. TIM
                                                                                      effect* af eurrounding *treeU. wind «pt«d.
                                                                                      VllMi fMftCtlMv)  aWMl •OpOfl'wVpfty MvOMMl 99
                                                                                      eoraldered along  wHh figure S before a
                                                                                      flMl deetokm to niMte MI UM meet *#aeaprl.
                                                                                      ate epallal Mate aMkjned to  UM
                                                                                                                             MtMthaveai
                                                                                                                                           nple
                        ft. SI. App. I

                   •ktrncr lime ten UIMI
                                                                                       M Other  C*
                                                                                      area* UMI are primarily mlra*need ky *to-
                                                                                      Uonary »ource tmlmlone M *ppMtd to UMl-
                                                                                                   tuMute* hi
                                                                                      •nut nwy k* Ioun4 In UM nMcMnt
                                                                                           OpUmwn Nttwwt Otrnm Mrf Uto
                                                                                              CitUtta l«r PMttMMta Htltor.**
                                                                                       Button* itevM M* M} located In M M*
                                                                                      MWMl alM Wllcai UMn li *t|CtoU*« (TMNltf
                                                                                      •erar FMT twin*. M> thai UM Impact •!
                                                                                                         I*.
                                                                                                           It to keMeved that mod •ampMng prake* ar
                                                                                                         monitor* can ke totaled to that they meet
                                                                                                         the requirement* of thto appendU. New eta-
                                                                                                         Uen* with tare CMepUon*. can be totaled
                                                                                                         wtthm UM HmH* al thto append!*. However.
                                                                                                         •em* citoUng eUllon* may not Meet theee
                                                                                                         •weaMBaVtMaWaeMaflai •••••» MAO) *at IM •!• «*jnaa*»al M*ao*fMl
                                                                                                         •TVV^WIvVllvCn**l wMflV jTC* *nlH iniPinKV "JBCifawJ
                                                                                                         data lor tome purpoee*. EPA win camrtder a
                                                                                                         written reaueet from the Stale Agency to
                                                                                                         waive an* ar more elllng  criteria for eem*
                                                                                                         monHoimg etaUom providing that the Stale
                                                                                                         can adequately demonetrale the need (pur-
                                                                                                         POM) lor monHarlng ar eetohttohhtg a moni-
                                                                                                         toring MaUan at that location. For eatab-
                                                                                                         Itohlng  a new  eUthm. • welver may  he
                                                                                                         granted only M both al the following crite-
                                                                                                         ria are eaet:
                                                                                                           The *M* can be demenetrated to ke ea rep-
                                                                                                         reMnlallM al the monitoring  area M  It
                                                                                                         wauM ha N the *Hlng criteria were hebig
                                                                                  and fMlatanl
                                                                 MIICM! Ma**
                                                                 !«••-•• iwvt
                                                                                      0.  ftoto
                                                                                      JU*W**M Tim*
                                                                                       rw UM mrthr* •••«. >-^ NO.
                                                                                                  HMterlal MM* kt
                                                                                                 keen conducted  to
                                                                                      UM MritabllHr ol Matorlato Men M n«l|pi«-
                                                                                      •FMM.  MjlycUirMIM.  MrirvtnlTMllMtfcM.
                                                                                      lr( w4*m HWM
ke ecc*pt*kle rcMam far •raitUnt a waiver.
WrMlen rtoatel* far w*4ver* muet k* *wk-
                                                                                      only aeceplakhj probe m*tiil*to I
                                                                                      big Met atmeapnerc* hi the detenahMUen
                                                                                      al reference or tquH«l*nt mtihooa. TKere-
                                                                                      lore. kareallkate gl*a*. PEP telton. ar their
                                                                                      •Mmanlwfdi*mMmt •mtgmvl  *mw> *mm*M*l  few* ***la*imTla* aUngt
                                                                                      WfwevVWenVv> eVIlaaFqi  aW •Jmva»wj|  paaaj nj*ae*wwavleqy *awW
                                                                                      new NAMS or SLAMS.
                                                                 probe Material to MtMMy. alter a period al
                                                                 nee reactive paniculate BMtler to depeeNed
                                                                 an the probe walto. Therefore. Ihe Urn* II
                                                                 lake* the gea to Iramler  from UM pi ok*

                                                                 Own* In the preeenee al NO wHI ehew **j°
                                                                 nltlcant IOOM* even hi the meel Inert prake
                                                                 material when Ihe reridenee time eicced* M
        • Other etudte." " fcxHnte that a
It Mcand ar km reridtnee lime to eeeNy
•chlcreM*. Therefore. eempHng prake* far
reaeUv* gM Monitor* al SLAMS at NAMS
nritted to the Regional Admlntolretor. Par
theee SLAMS atoa dcalgnated ea NAMS. the
reque*t wUI he lorwarded to the Admlnbtra-
tor.
II.  gUcoMfon and »ammar>
  Take* •  preeente • aummary at Ihe re-
vftNeTfniMfltel NHT pOtpf iHJIH CvfltClitt vrflll !*•*
•pect to dtotance* and hehjhte. II to appar-
ant Irani Tajkh> • thai dllleicnt elevation
dtolMirie »hove Ihe groundare ahawn lor

tell far each at the  poHutanU deecribed
reaeom far elevathig the monitor ar probe.
The dlllcrcnce* hi the opectflod range af
height* are bated an the vertical concentra-
tion gradient*. Par CO. the gradient* hi the
vertical direction are very  large let the ml-
erearaJ*. *o a *m*H rang* al  helghte he*
keen ueed. The upper Nmtt al It meter* we*
and to altaw the nee af a amiM Manifold far
MonltorlMJ more than one poHutanl.
                                                                                       •• "See Meference* al end of Into Appen-
                                                                                      «*.
                                                                                                                          170

-------
ft  St. App
                               40 C« Ch. I (/-!-•• fdltlon)

IAOIC 5 -SUMMAHV or PROM SiiwaCTOICRM
CO,
CO
NO,
                      IvMkfJpfi^
                         1 IS
                         J 15
                         1 It
                          » It
                           • I
                          2 IS
                              CkMsncs kom suvpoiknt
                                 MnjckM. mown
                               Vontto)
                                              >t
                                                           O*OI woe** cntoiio
I (houM to >W mown torn Iho *«ono tnt
 •Ml to It mown kom IM *vSno «hon IM
 k*o|i| pel *• « otokucHn
I DMoncs bsm MM ptoks to obotocls, MEli M
 bwttngs. must to M to»M kMO> As toitM IM
 aWUds praMdM «bovo IM Hoi pioto •
> MuM IMM inMtncto* wmw »Wr OIOUM Sw
 ••M pioto. •> IW » pioto •> on IM su» ol s
 btfkkns
4 N> kinoco • kMMiplol tuM otiouM to iMoikr'
I MuM to > M) mMorl kom IkoM MonocMm SIMJ
 MnuM to M • cMdbtoct  kjcokgn
t MuM to t- It IMtoll kom •»»• of IMOIOM komc
 •VMJ
  MuM toM «raoikKto4 «Mkm ISO" otounl iM
 kPMPfoto
I MuM !««• wvoMnctoil m»am t?f •ou« do
 nM p,oto. • ISO- 4 pioto • on IM oik ol s
                                                 I fhouM to >M HlMoil kom IM *o*n« «•)
                                                   Ml to It motoii kom IM a«*no IMMH M
                                                 I rMtone* kom «oM pioto to obttocto. me* M
                                                  ou**v>. muM to M kwM taws «M toi|M M
                                                                   tfotj tntal piovM*
                            1 MuM hoM Mmmctoo1 Irtov I
                             •M pioto. n (If 4 pioto • on IM so* ol S
I ShoukJ to >lt HMIOII kom
 muM to It motoii kom •» *«*ns tton IM
 ktoM od as sn skuncikio
f MUtKO kom rtol pioto to obMoCto. suck M
         MM to M IMM kn
         tamts skovo »M WM pnto*
1 MuM IMM moUKtod oMkxi t»r ,
 Wot pnto. •  IIO- t pioto is on IM ov> ot S

         m MOM «oriM Mk kolkc IMO IM*
I (houM to >lt mown kom I
 •Ml to M motoil kom tM «o*n* «*o» *M
 koolil id M on obuucwi
I DMonco kom mnitoi to skilotto. lu* P>
        MUM to PI kMM taics |M M|M M
1 MuM RSM moMikto* orffc- »»»' sraun« •*

4 No  Mnoto • kiunoisigli  SUM MMuM ks

 "*•*•'                      _^__
t MuM to * to  It HMMil kom mo)» iso*»of
I «houM to >M motors kom IM *«*• sml
 •Ml to It motoii kom IM *«*n. otan n>
                                                   k«o|i| ta M m obtkucKn
                                                   kwMnai. muM to M tooil *">» *o "** w
                                                   Mulocto piokiidM obovo *M u«pMf •
                                                 1 MuM IMM WOWKK* sMb. IW sramm SM
                                                 4  Wo lunoco

                                                 t "£%* kom raoik ..-• -*> »•"« •»* '
                                        180
                                                                                           tNVHl
                                                          froltxHofi Afljoncy                                 ft. 59,

                                                          T/uxi 9—SwmvMHv or PHOM SITINO CmitmA—Convnuod
                                                                                           *«•»....
                                                                                                                    I-M
                                                                                                                                        >f
                                                                                                                                                     Onn »)ioc«!• mini torn tl* *toln« on*
                                                                                                                       muM to W motes kom t» Ototns ««ion t«
                                                                                                                                                                 ' trr
                                                                                                                      4 N> toMco • modian IUM HiauM to m»k|
                                                                                                                      I iplilm kom HM«I wnn •*• k»me too* rtow*
                                                                                                                       4 Mcopl «0« MioM unran MM •«•<* Muot to
                                                                                                                       konlto M Moton ton •» od»o •! (to
                                                                                                                                                   •• > N HMJIiVV (MM VMjl (l^iVMI •Net
                                                                                                                                             •MM to M mown torn Ko SMptn* ««Mn •»
                                                                                                                                             kooto) od « on MMkucson
                                                                                                                                                   muM to M tooM tain !• hm|M «•
                                                                                                                                           t toon* kom 10001 <,•>•> tmk komc
                                                                                             •IMM •*• •) kxMO* OR


                                                                                             •OMme* k) «•»••>»< on Mri« •) •
                                                                                           •A « too* MnoM| IN» • to OMri •<
                                                                        I.  Bnr-A, RJ..  R J.  Oordan.  MM!  M.
                                                                      Mtnck. f^npwltvii of  Hhjh VohMM Air
                                                                      niter *a*lt» m Very to* Dtotenoc* from
                                                                      UM Aitf*lc* rrccwuy. UnlvcnHy •» South-
                                                                      tro Ckllfwnta. School ol Mcdktat. la» A»-
                                                                      tclM, CA. iPrCMnted M MUl AIUIIM! Mect-
                                                                      bw of Air Pollution CWilral AmwcbtUon.
                                                                      ChkMO. IL.. Jum M-M. 1*1*.  APCA 71-
                                                                      IM.I
                                                                        IL T«er.  B.H. Atmospheric trad Ooncmi-
                                                                      Uollon Abo*t M Urbui 8U«ct. Muter ol
                                                                      Sdcnet Thata. WMhbKton UnlvcnMr. St.
                                                                      Loul*. MO. Jumvr Itll.
                                                                        1. Brwtoair. R.M.. P.A. Record, uid W.C.
                                                                      BcNuwjcr. MonHorlnc Mid Modeltawj ol R«
                                                                      MMpended Rokxlw.r Durt New Otbkji Arte-
                                                                      tUI*. OCA Techimtoiy  DlvWon.  Bedford,
                                                                      MA. (PreMnUd »t Hit Annual Meellnf ol
                                                                      TnniporUUon Reoc.rch Bowd. Wuhlnc
                                                                      Un. DC. Jwiuwy int.t
                                                                        4. P»ce. T.O.. W.P. r>cM. «nd B.M. Allfr-
                                                                      QuutUfkatlon  of  Retatlonihlp  Between
                                                                      Monitor Height uid Meuured Pkrtlcutate
                                                                      Uveb In8e*en U.8. Urbui Areti. US  Bn*l-
                                                                      ronmenUI Protection Afency. RcMmrch Trl-
                                                                      •ncle PMk. NC. I Presented tit 7Mh Annual
                                                                      Meelln« of Air  Pollution Control Anocl.
                                                                      Uon. Toronto.  Cankda.  June M »«.  Itll.
                                                                      APCA 11 n.t.t
                                                                                                                                              •> kmt kjum*.
                                                                                                                                       ». Harriton. P.R. Conilderadora for Bltlnt
                                                                                                                                     Air Qualltr Monitor! In Urban Area*. CH»
                                                                                                                                     of ChkMO. Department of Environmental
                                                                                                                                     Control. Chlcaio. IL. iPretented at Mth
                                                                                                                                     Annual Meeting  of  Air  Pollution Control
                                                                                                                                     AModatlon. Chkaio. IL.. June M-M. Mil.
                                                                                      •. Studr ol Suapended Parltculale Meai
                                                                                     uremenU  at   Varying  HelfhU   Above
                                                                                     Ground. TCIM Stale Department ol Health.
                                                                                     Air Control Section. Auttln. TX. It7«. p.7.
                                                                                      1. Rodea. C.B. and Of. Etana. Summary
                                                                                     ol LACS Inlef rated Pollulanl Data. In: Loa
                                                                                     Anielet  Catalyat Study Sympoalum. UM.
                                                                                     EnvlronmenUI  Protection   Agency.  Re
                                                                                     tearch Triangle  Path. NC. EPA Publication
                                                                                     No. EPA MC7« 77-034. June 1*77.
                                                                                      • Lynn. D.A. rl of National Aaaeument
                                                                                     of the Urban Paniculate Problem:  Volume
                                                                                     I. National Aaseument. OCA  Technology
                                                                                     Dltrblon. Bedford. MA. U.S. Environmental
                                                                                     Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park.
                                                                                     NC.  EPA  Publication No.  EPA 4M/1-71
                                                                                     •»«. June in*.
                                                                                      ». Pace. T.O.  Impact ol Vehicle Related
                                                                                     Parllculatet on T8P  Concentration!  and
                                                                                     Rationale for Siting  III Vote to the Vicinity
                                                                                     of Roadway*. OAQP8. US. Environmental
                                                                                     Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park.
                                                                                     NC. April 1*71
                                                                                                                                  181

-------
n. St. ApP. «

  It |jid»l(.  Fl.. Jll  Kraluhi. and E.
Bltrter. Srlrcllnf 811 ti lor Monllorlnc Total
Sutpendfd Parllculnlrr Blanlord Remrch
liulllulr. Mcnlo I'srk. CA.  Prepared lor
U.S. Environmental Proimion Aiency. Re-
irarch Triangle Park. NC rPA Publlcallon
No EPA 4M/3 17 Oil.  June Itll. rcvbed
December Itll.
  II. Ball. H.J. and UE Anderson  OrHI
mum Bite Eipoeure CtllriU lor BO. Monl
lorlnc. The Center lor Ilir Eiivlronmenl and
Man. Inc.. llarllord. CT. Pirparrd lor U.S.
Environmental  Prolcrlloii   Acency.   Re-
•earch Trlanfle Park. NC EPA Publlcallon
No. EPA  «M/1 71 •!!. April 1*77.  •
  II. l.udwta. PU and Jll 8 Keatoha Be
lecllni Bllea for Carbon Monoilde Monllor-
Int. Stanford Re«>arrh Institute. Menlo
Paik. CA. Prepared for U 8. Environmental
Protection Agency, R«warrh Park. NC. EPA
Publlcallon No. EPA U071 71 077. Septem-
ber IMI.
  II. Ludwlt. PL. and E. Bhrlar. Bile Selee
tlon for the  MonlUiirlni ol Photochemical
Air PollulanU. Stanford Research Institute.
Mrnlo Park. CA. Prepared for OJI. Environ-
mental Protection Agency.  Research Trian-
gle Park. NC EPA Publication No. EPA
450/1 71  •». April ing
  U. toad  Analytln  lor Kama* CHy  and
Cincinnati.  PEUCci  Environmental.  Inc..
Cincinnati. OH. Prepared for US. Environ
mental Protection Agency. Research Trian-
gle Park. NC. EPA Contract No M M Mil.
June Itll.
  It.  Barltrap.  O.  and C.  O.  Blreraw.
Weslway Nursery Testing  Protect. Report
to  the  Oreater Uondon Council.  August
    .
  U.  Dalnea. R II.. H  Moto. and  D.  M.
 Chllko. Almosplierlc l«ad: Ita Relationship
 to Traffic Volume and Proilmlly to High-
 ways   Environ.  Bel. and  Techno!.. 4:110.
     .
   17. Johnson. D  E. tt ml EpMemlologk
 Study of the ElledU of  AulomoMte Tralfk
 on Blood Lead Levels. Southwest Research
 Institute. Houston. TX. Prepared for  US.
 Environmental  PioUcll.m  Agency.  Re-
 search Triangle Pnrk.  NC EPA gOO/l 70
 •66. August 1*70
   10  Air Quality Criteria lor l«ad Office of
 Research and Development. US  Environ-
 mental Protection Agency. Washington. DC
 EPA 000/0 77 017 December 1077.
   10 Lyman. D  R. The  Atmospheric Dlftu-
 slim of Carbon Moniol*- and Lead from an
 E«pres«»ay. PhD. IHiwrrlallon. University
 ol trlnclnnatl. Cincinnati. OH 1071.
   70  Wechlrr. 8(1. Pteparsllon of Stable
 Pollutant Oas Rlarulards Uxlng Treated Alu-
 minum Cyllnib-rs. A8TM  8TP.  t00:40 S4.
 trig
    21. WohKri.  II r. II Nrwsteln and D.
 Itaunls. Carbiin Moiioihlr and Sulfur Dlos
 Mr  Adsorption Oni and Urtcrlpllon Prom
         40 CFR Ch. I (7-1 M CsHllon)

Olass, Plaslk and Mrlal  Tubings. J. Air
Poll Con. Assoc  n 763 I tig
  11. Hfers. LA. FtrU Operating Oukfe far
Automated Air Monitoring Equipment US.
NTI8.P. 101.141.1071.
  11. Hughes. E.E. Development ol Standard
Reference Material for Air Quality  Men
urement. ISA  Transactions.  14:101 101.
1171.
  14. AlUhuller. AD. and AO  Warlburg.
The Interaction of Oume  with Plaslk and
Metallic  Materials In a  Dynamic  Plow
System.  Intern. Jour. Air and Water  Poll.
4:70 70. IMI.
  M. CPR Title 40 Part II11. July 1070.
  10. Butcher. 8.8. and RE Ruff. Effect of
Inlet Residence Tune on Analysis ol Atmos-
pheric Nitrogen Oikles and Oume.  Anal.
Chen... 41:IIM. 1071.
  17. Blowlk. A.A. and E B Sansont. DUtu-
skm Losses  of Sulfur Dtoikte In  Sampling
Manifolds J. Air.  Poll. Con. Assoc.. 14:141.
1074.
  M. Yamada. V.M.  and  R.J. Chartson.
Proper Siting ol the Sampling Inlet Una for
a Continuous Air Monitoring Station. Envl
ran. Bel. and Technol.. 1:411. IM0.
  n. Koch.  R.C. and HE  Rector. Optimum
Network Design and Site Exposure Criteria
tor Partkulsle Matter. OEOMET Technol
egka. Inc.. Rocavllle. MD. Prepared for U*
Environmental  Protection  Agency.  Re-
search  Triangle Park. NC. EPA Contract
N*. 00-01-1104.  EPA 410/4 07 OM.  May
IM7.
  M. Burton. R.M. and J.C. Suggs. PhHadcl
phla Roadway Study. Environmental Monl
torsno Systems  Laboratory. US. Environ-
mental Protection Agency. Research Trian-
gle Park. N.C. EPA-0M/4-04 070 September
IM4.
144 PR  17171. May 10. 1070; 44 PR 7MM.
Dee. 14. 1070. M amended at 40 PR 44110.
Sept. I. IMI; II PR OS00.  Mar. 10. IOM; II
PR 14144-14140. July I. 1007; It Pit «»*•.
July M. 10071
   ArrtMMl r-ANNUM. SLAMS AM
         QUALITY iHroammon

  I.  General
  I.  Required Information
  1.1  Sulfur DtoiMc »8O.I
  1.1.1 Site and Monitoring Information
  1.1.1 Annual Summary Statistics
  11  Total Suspended Parlkulates (TBPl
  1.1.1 Site and Monitoring Information
  I.I.I Annual Summary StatlsUcs
  11.1 Episode  and  Other Unscti
 Sampling Data
  1.1  Carbon Monoxide tCOl
  1.1.1 Site and Monitoring Information
  111 Annual Summary Btallslka
  1.4  Nitrogen Dioxide . UM ctiUmbj of
UM (LAMB MMMMl report rtMN k« (MrtlfM
ky UM senior ah- pollution central officer to)
UM BUM to be accurate to the best of hto
knowledge.  In addition.  UM  •MJUMT  to
which UM data wsreeoltocted must ke MTU-
IWv  !• MftwC CBnfOVIMMl
                                        •rtUusistle MCM lppm». HlghMt and aectrnd
                                        kkjhstt M-how  averagea  (J»  tppml and
                                        date* •< •ccwrence. Hlghaat and  aecond
                                        highest I how averages  (ppml MM!
                                        •MM Mid UMM III (ending howl ol
                                                                      ^hA ^fc •  MIA
                                          •»•**• •»•••••»  »»• vBt^vikvmxv vi UM  JTO*
                                          hew prlMwy NAAQ& Ul NuMber «f eieee-
                                          tfMMH e* UM I how Mcondary NAAqo. U»
                                                 «f M hew averaae caneanUmttoM
          prabe »Mln« critotta t1«M to Ap-
         A.C.aMKtoUifap*rt.Ae«tine4
           to Uito elleet niMt be
                                        •MU>»M

                                        •at» a it
                                        • n s>*M,.
 | M.MI«I. UM report iratt ke MbmHte4 ky
 July I •( each rmr for d*U eoltcctod dvrtnf
 UM perta4 jMMMry I to December II tt UM
 •rtvtousye
                                        •tta>*M..
                                        •M»aM
                                                 PA
                                              eantrol ag«
                     •lypul
                             lalrqual-
Ky ttatlstkal tusMnarka and Interpretive M-
porta. EPA encowages State i
                                          1.1  *•*•' •—TT
                                          t.11 Btto  and
 CMS to eonUsMM publkallen of aueh reparta
 and  recommends thai they be eipanded.
 •hat* appropriate, to Include analysbi of aw
 gjvaJHy  trends,  poputatlon eiposure.  and
 •olhrtant dMrlkulloM. At their dtstrsllon.
 •tote and local  agendee may wMi to kito-
 arale the 81 JIMS report mto routine agency
                                                                     Inr^matWn,
 I. Required tnfnmuHon
   Thto paragraph describes air quality
 taring Information and summary statlstka
 which must be Included m the SLAMS
 annual report. The required mlormatlon to
'Remised below ky pollutant. Throughout
 this appendix, the lime of occurrence refers
 to the ending how. Por esampk. the ending
                                        —,	. 11 Viii ••in, cwwmy imwM
                                        and atreet addrtm sit atto tocatMn. BAROAD
                                        -*•	*-  •*—»-T Tl ihttr atui .iilana.
                                          1.11 Annual Summary BtattoUca. AMMM!
                                        arttlMMUemean«M/as>lMapecWtedtaAp-
                                        avMHi K of Part M  Daaly TSP «MMM ea
                                        ceedsng UM  level  of  the  14 how  PM.
                                        NAAQ8 Mid dales  of occwrenco.  II more
                                        than 10 occurrences. Hal only UM It highest
                                        dally values Sampling schedule  waod awch
                                        M one* every eta days, once  every three
                                        daya.  ate. Number  of addMtoMl aswi>lln0
                                        days   beyond  sampUiMj  schedule  uaed.
                                        Number of  14 hour avera«e concentratlona
                                                                                                                            183
                                                                                          •tin  o st

-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3.7

-------
  (e) Provide for having a SLAMS net-
 work, description available for public
 Inspection and submission  to the Ad-
 mlnUtralor upon requeit.  The  net-
 work description must be available  at
 the  lime of plan revision  submlttal
 except for Pb which must be available
 by December  I. 1011  and for PM«
 monitor* which must be available by 8
 month* after the effective date of pro-
 raulittlon and must contain the fol-
 lowing Information for each SlJiMS:
  (II The 8AROAD  site Identification
 form for existing stations.
  (I) The proposed location for ached-
 uled stations.
  (I) The  sampling   and  analysis
 method.
  (4) The operating schedule.
  (6) The monitoring  objective  and
 spatial scale of representativeness  a*
 defined In Appendix D to this part.
  (•> A schedule for:  (I) Locating, plac-
 ing- Into operation, and making avail-
 able the SAROAO site Identification
 form for each SLAMS which Is not lo-
 cated and operating at the time  of
 plan  revision  submlltal. (II)  Imple-
 menting quality assurance procedure*
 of Appendix A to this  part for each
 SLAMS for which such procedure* are
 not Implemented at  the lime of plan
 revision  submlltal.  and (III) resiling
 each SLAMS which does not meet the
 requirement* of  Appendix B  to this
 part at  the time of plan revision sub-
 mlttal.

 144 fR mil. Msy  It. 1*11. u amended at
 41 PR 44li4. Sept. I.  1*11: la PR 1414*.
July I. IMTI

IIIII  8I.AM8 network design.
  The deilgn criteria for 81 .A MS con-
tained In Appendix D to  this part
must be used In designing the SLAMS
network. The Stale shall consult with
(he Regional Administrator during the
nr I work design  process.  The final net-
work design will to subject to the ap-
proval of the Regional Administrator.

I H.lt  HI.AMS m*lhodol«|]r.
  Eai-h SLAMS must meet I he moni-
toring methodology  requirements  of
 Appendix C to tills  part at (he time
 I In- station la put Into operation as a
SLAMS.
         40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-88 Edition)

 I M.1I  Monitoring network completion.
  By January I, 1»83. with the excep-
 tion of PMi. samplers whose probabili-
 ty of nonatlalnmenl of the PM,, ambi-
 ent standard Is greater than or equal
 to 20 percent which shall be by I year
 after the effective date of promulga-
 tion and the remaining PM,. sampler*
 which shall be by a years after the ef-
 fective date of promulgation:
  (a) Bach station In the SLAMS net-
 work must be  In operation, be sited In
 accordance with the criteria In Appen-
 dix E to this  part, and be located as
 described on  the  station's  SAROAO
 •lie Identification form, and
  (bl The  quality assurance require-
 ment* of Appendix A to this part must
 be fully Implemented.

 144 PR tllll. May 10. 1110.' as amended at
 •I PR 14140. July I. IM1I

 IM.I1 (Reserved)

 IMS* Bysteai modlflcallon.
  The State shall annually develop
 and  Implement a schedule to modify
 the  ambient  air quality  monitoring
 network to eliminate any unnecessary
 stations or to correct any Inadequacies
 Indicated by the result of the annual
 review  required  by  I Sa.3. The
 State shall consult with Ihe Regional
 Administrator during the development
 of the schedule to modify the monitor-
 Ing program. The  final schedule and
 modification* will be subject to the ap-
 proval of the Regional Administrator.
 Nothing In this  section will preclude
 the State, with the approval of the Re-
 gional  Administrator,  from making
 modifications to the SLAMS network
 for reason* other than those resulting
 from the annual review.

I 11.11 Annual SLAMS summary report.

  (a) The State shall submit to Ihe Ad-
ministrator (through the appropriate
Regional Office) an annual  summary
report of all the ambient air quality
monitoring data from  all  monitoring
stations designated Slate and  Local
Air   Monitoring  Stations  (SLAMS).
The annual report must be submitted
by July I of each year for data collect-
ed from January I to December 31 of
the previous year.
InvtronmonM Protection Agency

  (b)  The annual  aummary report
must contain:
  (I) The  Information specified In Ap-
pendix F.
  (3)  The location,  date,  pollution
aouroe, and duration of each Incident
of air pollution during which ambient
level* of  a pollutant reached or ex-
ceeded the level specified by | St.lMa)
of thl* chapter a* a level which could
cause significant harm to the health
of person*.
  (c) The  senior air pollution control
officer In the  State  or  hi*  deslgnee
•hall certify that the annual aummary
report I*  accurate to the beat of hi*
knowledge.

Ill PR Xltll. May I*. Itll. as amended at
II PR MM. Mar. It. I*MI

IM.tT  Compliance dale for air qualMy
   date reporting.
  The annual air quality data report-
Ing requirement* of 158.11 apply to
data  collected after  December II.
IMO. Data collected before January 1.
IMI. must be reported under the re-
porting procedure* In effect before the
effective  date  of Subpart C of  thl*
part.

IM.M  Regional Office BLAM8 data ac-
  The State ahall submit all or a por-
tion of the SLAMS data to the Region-
al Administrator upon his request.
          StoMons (MAMS)

IMJt  NAM8 network cetaklhlimcnC
  (a) By January I. 1910. with the ex-
ception of Pb. which shall be by De-
cember 1. IMI.  and PM»  samplers.
which  shall  be by • month* after the
effective  date of promulgation, the
State shall:
  (I) Establish, through the operation
of station* or through a schedule for
locating and placing stations Into oper-
ation. that portion of a National Ambi-
ent Air Quality Monitoring Network
which  Is In that State, and
  (1)  Submit  to  the  Administrator
(through  the appropriate  Regional
Office) a description of that Slate's
portion of the network.
                             JS8.W

  (b) Hereinafter, the portion of the
national network In any Stale will be
referred to as the NAMS network.
  (c) The  stations  In the  NAMS net-
work  must  be stations  from  the
SLAMS network required by | 58.20.
  (d) The requirement* of Appendix D
to IhU part must be met when design-
Ing the NAMS network. The process of
designing the NAMS network must be
part of the process of designing the
SLAMS network a* explained In Ap-
pendix D to this part.
144 PR mil. May 10. 1*11. a» amended at
40 PR 4414)4. Sept. 1. 1*11; 13 PR  14140.
July I. III1I

• 18.11  NAMS network description.
  The NAMS  network description re-
quired by 158.30 must contain the fol-
lowing for  all  stations,  existing or
scheduled:
  (a) The 8AROAD ilte Identification
form for existing stations.
  (b) The proposed location for sched-
uled stallons.
  (c) Identity of the urban area repre-
sented.
  (d)  The  sampling  and  analysis
method.
  (e) The operating schedule.
  (t) The monitoring  objective and
spatial scale of representativeness a*
defined In Appendix D to thU part.
  (g> A schedule for.
  (1) Locating, placing Into operation,
and  aubmlttlng the  8AROAD site
Identification  form for each NAMS
which la not located and operating at
the time of network description sub-
mlttal.
  (J) Implementing quality assurance
procedure* of Appendix A to thl* part
for each NAMS for which such proce-
dure* are not Implemented at the tune
of network description aubmlttal, and
  (3) Resiling each NAMS which doea
not meet the  requirements of Appen-
dix E to this part at the lime of net-
work description submlttal.

8M.I1  NAMS approval.
  The  NAMS  network  required by
158.30 I*  subject to Ihe approval of
Ihe Administrator. Such approval will
be contingent upon completion of the
nelwork  description as  outlined In
I 58.31 and upon conformance to the
                                   134
                                                                                135

-------
          UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
                Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
                         JUL 12 1989
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:  Boilerplates for Block Averaging  and Grandfathering
          Modeling Analyses
FROM:     Robert 0. Bauman, Chief
          SO2/Particulate Matter Programs  Branch (MD-15)

TO:       Chief, Air Branch
          Regions I-X

     Based upon EPA's June 1, 1989 denial  of NRDC's petition for
reconsideration of the use of block averaging  in an Ohio  SIP
revision  (attached), we recommend that the Regional Offices use
language  similar to the following boilerplate  in future Federal
Register  notices and/or TSD's in which the S02 averaging  method
is a relevant factor, and which involve otherwise appro vable
actions :

     The  State based the SIP revision on a  (block or
     running) interpretation of the national ambient air
     quality standards.  Under the decision in NRDC v.
             845 F.2d 1088 (D.C. Cir. 1988), the D.C
     Circuit determined that a state is free  to  submit a  SIP
     revision using either block or running averages.   As a
     result, EPA finds the State's choice to  utilize  (block
     or running) averaging to be fully acceptable.

     The EPA policy for grandfather ing modeling  analyses  is
contained in a January 2, 1985 memorandum from Joseph Tikvart,
Chief, Source Receptor Analysis Branch, to the Regional Modeling
Contact, Regions I-X.  Boilerplate to assist  in  implementing this
policy has previously been informally distributed.  However, at
this time we request that where grandf athering occurs the
Regional Office should incorporate language into the  Federal
Register and/or TSD similar to .the following:

     The modeling techniques used in the demonstration
     supporting this revision are based on modeling guidance
     in place at the time that the analysis was  performed
     (cite "old" guidance document).  Since that time, the
     modeling guidance has been changed by EPA (cite  "new"
     guidance document) .  Because the modeling analysis was
     substantially complete prior to issuance of the  revised
     guidance, EPA accepts the analysis.  If  for some reason

-------
     this, or any other, analysis must be redone in the future,
     then it should be redone in accordance with current modeling
     guidance .

     If you have any questions regarding these policies, please
contact Doug Grano of ay staff at 8-629-5255.

Attachment

cc:  Ron Campbell, OAQPS
     John Calcagni, AQMD
     Pat Embrey, OGC
     Eric Ginsburg, AQMD
     Dean Wilson, TSD
     Regional Modeling Contact, Regions X-X
bcc : *\ Grano
      J. Vitas

-------
ft. 5f. APR. A                                 40 CHt Ch. I (/-I-M Edition)

      SCHEDULE D.O—PERMAMEM WAIVER FROM INIERIM CONIROiS l£SI—Continued

lu.
« Cum* MtolS* Mb* I If
1 MM praMM wk« 	 1 1*
IM4
«»««
MM
IMI
•KM
XWUC
«M*
MM
MM
IMI
MXM
MM
I(M 1 IM»
MXX 1 «M«
MM 1 xxxx
IMO
MM
XJOUI
low

                 SCHEDULE D 7—HORIIOM VAUJC Of CASH FLOWS

                              ISnwMi A
  f Ail 5»— AMtlf NT All QUALITY
           SUIVHUANCI
8cc.
M.I  Definitions.
M.I  Purpose.
M.I  Applicability.
Beo.
Mil SLAMSmethodology.
M.ai Monitoring network compteilorL
MJI (Reserved)
M.U System modification.
M.M Annual SLAMS iiunmary report.
MM Compliance dale for air quality data
   reporting.
MM Retlonal Office 8LAM8data acquM-
Ill* Quality assurance.
Mil Monitoring methods.
M.I 1 Biting of Instruments or Instrument
   probes.
Mil Operating schedule.
M.I 4 Special purpose monitors.
  lntp.it C— (Me «•*
           IMteM (UAMI)

MM  Air quality  lurvcllluice:  Plan eon-
   Irnt.
M 21  SLAMS network deilin.
              1NAMI)

M.M NAM8 network establishment.
II II NAM8 network deicrlptlon.
ilia HAMS approval.
111! HAMS methodology.
M.ll NAU8 network completion.
M.ai NAM8 data •ubmlltal.
M.M System modification.
   fvbpw* •— Afc Q»«Mly i»4»

II 40 Inde* reporting.
                                  128
                                            lnvlr*>nment>l Protection Agency
                                            6ec.

                                                                                                    •I Metering
                                            M.M  Federal monitoring.
                                            MJI  Monitoring other pollulanU.
                                            Arru<»ii A— QUALITV ASSURING* Rmuiar
                                               luirra roa STATS AM* LOCAL Aia Mom-
                                               TOIIMO BTATIOMS 
                                            Arrusii B— QUALITT AiiuatNcs Riquiar
                                               Mum roa PHVKHTIOH or SiomriCAirt
                                               DntaioaATioH (PSDI Aia UONITOIIMO
                                            ATTBIBII C— AMiinrr AH QUAUTV lloHi-
                                               TOBINO UKTHODOUMT
                                            ArranBK D— H«rwoa« Duian MB STATS
                                               AH* LOCAL An MomnMum STATIOHI
                                               48LAM8* AH* NATIONAL An UoMiToaino
                                               STATIOM (NAM8I
                                            ArrnoiH B-Paoii SITIHO CainaiA roa
                                               AMBIBKT Aia QUALITY MomToaiM
                                            Arm»» f— AHHUAL 8LAM8 Aia QUALITT
                                               l>roaiiATio>
                                            AnranaiB O— Umroaii Aia QUAUTV biau
                                               uia OAILV RBTOBTIM
                                              AOTMOBITT: Scca. lit. MKal. ail. and *!•
                                            •f the Clean Air Act <4l UAC.  14lt.
                                            IMKal. Mia. 7«l*».
                                              SouacK 44 PR ailll. May !•. IM». unlCM
                                            olherwlM noted.
                                                                                                Omor •!
IM.I
  As used In this part, all term* not de-
fined  herein have the meaning given
them  In the Act:
  (a) "Act" means the Clean Air Act a*
amended 449 U.8.C. 7401. et seq.K
  (b) "SLAMS" means State or Local
Air   Monitoring   Statlonta).   The
SLAMS make up the ambient air qual-
ity monitoring network which Is re-
quired by 1 61.20 to be provided for In
the Stale's Implementation plan. This
definition places no restrictions on the
use of the physical structure or facili-
ty housing  the SLAMS. Any combina-
tion of SLAMS  and any other moni-
tors (Special  Purpose. NAMS. PSD)
may occupy the same facility or struc-
ture without affecting the respective
definitions  of those monitoring sta-
tion.
  (c)  "NAMS"  means  National  Air
Monitoring StatkMtU). Collectively the
NAMS are a subset of the SLAMS am-
bient air quality monitoring network.
  (d) "PSD station" mean* any nation
operated for the purpoae of ealablUh-
Ing the effect on air  quality  of  the
emlulona from a propoaed aourcc for
purpose* of prevention of •IgnKlcant
                              (M.I

 deterioration as required by I 6l.34
 of Part 61 of this chapter.
  (el "SO." means sulfur dloKlde.
  (f) "NO." mean* nitrogen dioxide.
  (g) "CO" mean* carbon monoxide.
  (h) "O." meMU ozone.
  (I) "Plan" mean* an Implementation
 plan, approved or promulgated pursu-
 ant to section 110 of the Clean Air Act.
  U> "Administrator" means  the Ad-
 ministrator of the Environmental Pro-
 tection Agency (EPA) or his or her au-
 thorized representative.
  (k) "Regional Administrator" means
 the Administrator of one of the ten
 EPA Regional Offices or hut or her au-
 thorized representative.
  (I) "State agency" mean* the air pol-
 lution control agency primarily  re-
 sponsible for development and Imple-
 mentation of a plan under the Act.
  (m) "Local agency" means any local
 government agency,  other than the
 State agency, which  Is charged with
 the responsibility for carrying  out a
 portion of the plan.
  (n> "Indian Reservation'.' mean* any
 Federally  recognized  reservation  ea-
 tabllshed by treaty, agreement, execu-
 tive order, or act of Congress.
  (o) "Indian Governing Body" means
 the governing body of any tribe, band.
 or group of Indians subject to the Ju-
 risdiction of the United States and rec-
 ognized by the United States as pos-
sessing power of self-government.
  (p) "Storage  and Retrieval of Airo-
 metrle Data (SAROAD) system" Is a
 computerized system which stores and
 report* Information relating to ambi-
ent air quality.
  (q>  "SAROAD  site Identification
 form"  h one of the several forms In
 the SAROAD system. It I* the  form
 which provides a complete description
 of the site (and Its surroundings) of an
 ambient  air  quality  monitoring  sta-
 tion.
  (r) "Traceable" means that a  local
standard has been compared and certi-
 fied, either directly  or via not more
 than one Intermediate standard, to a
 primary standard such as a National
 Bureau of Standard*  Standard Refer-
ence  Material  (NBS  SRM) or  a
 USEPA/NBS approved Certified  Ref-
erence Material (CRM>.
  (s) "Urban area population" mean*
the population defined  In  the  moat
                                                                                                                   120

-------
IM.M

NAMS design criteria contained In Ap-
pendix D to till* part.

I MM  NAMS methodology.
  Each NAMS mutt meet the monitor-
Ing methodology requlremenU of Ap-
pendix  C to thU part  applicable to
NAMS at the time the station U put
Into operation a* a NAMS.

I M.I4  NAMB atlwurk completion.
  By January I. 1081,  with the excep-
tion of  Pb.  which shall be by  July 1.
1012 and PMM aamplen. which shall
be by I  year after the effective date of
promulgation:
  (a)  Each  NAMS must be In  oper-
ation, be sited In accordance with the
criteria In Appendix  E  to this part.
and be located as described In the sta-
tion's  8AROAO  site  Identification
form; and
    The quality assurance requlre-
menU of Appendix A to this part must
be fully Implemented for all NAMS.
144 PR mil. May 14).  Ill*, a* amended at
It PR 44IS4. Sept.  I.  Illl; II  PR  14740.
July I. IM1I

IM.U  NAMS ssU tubmllUl.
  (a) The requirements of this section
apply only to those  stations designat-
ed  as NAMS by the network descrip-
tion required by 161.30.
  (b) The State shall report  quarterly
to the Administrator (through  the ap-
propriate Regional Office) all ambient
air quality data and Information speci-
fied by AERO8 Users Manual (EPA-
460/2-10-020. OAQF8 No. 1.3-030) to
be coded Into the 8 A ROAD  Air Qual-
ity Data forms. Such  air quality data
and Information must be submitted on
either paper forms, punched cards, or
magnetic tape In  the format  of the
8AROAD Air Quality Data forms.
  (c) The quarterly  reporting periods
are January 1-March 31. April I-June
30. July l-September 30. and October
1-December 31. The quarterly report
must:
  (It Be received by the National Aero-
metric Data Bank within 120 days of
the end of each reporting period, after
being submitted by the Slates to the
Regional Offices for review ;
  (2) Contain all data and Information
gathered during the reporting period.
         40 CM Ch. I (M-M EdllUn)

  (d» For T8P. CO. SO.. O,. and NOb
the first quarterly report  will be due
on or  before June 30.  IMI. for data
collected during  the first quarter of
1081. For Pb. the first quarterly report
will be due on  December 31, 1883. for
data collected during the third quarter
of 1*82.  For PM,. samplers, the first
quarterly report  will be due 120 days
after the first quarter of operation.
  (e> Air quality data submitted in Hie
quarterly  report  must   have  been
edited  and validated so  that such data
are ready   to  be  entered  Into  the
8AROAD data tiles. Procedures for
editing and  validating data are de-
scribed  In  AEROS  Users  Manual
(EPA-460/3-10-020. OAQPS No.  1.2-
030).
  (f> This section does not permit a
State to exempt  those  SLAMS which
are also designated as NAMB from all
or any of the reporting requlremenU
applicable to SLAMS In I 68.20.

144 PR  27111. May  ID. 1111. a* amended at
41 PR 44IS4. Sept. 1. IMI:  II PR MM. Mar.
It. IMS; 13 PR 24740. July  I. IM7I

061.3*  Srslcm modlficalloa.
  During the annual SLAMS Network
Review  specified  In   168.20.   any
changes to the NAMS network Identi-
fied by the EPA and/or proposed by
the State and  agreed to by the  EPA
will be evaluated. These modifications
should address changes Invoked  by a
new census and  changes to the  net-
work   due  to  changing  air  quality
levels,  emission  patterns, etc.  The
Bute  shall  be given one  year (until
the next annual  evaluation) to Imple-
ment the appropriate changes to the
NAMS network.

Ill PR  MM. Mar. II. IMII

    Swttpsut I—Air Qv*)Uly.lnde*
             ••porting

6 M.4I  lad*« reporting
  (a) The State  shall  report  to the
general public on a dally basis through
prominent notice an air quality Index
In accordance  with the requlremenU
of Appendix O to this part.
  (b)  Reporting  must  commence  by
January I.  1081. for all urban areas
with a population  exceeding 600.000.
                                    136
           »le4 PrwtecMen Agency
 and by January 1,  1083. for all urban
 area*  with  a population  exceeding
 100.000.
   (e) The population of an urban area
 for purposes of Index reporting U the
 most  recent  U.S.  census population
 figure as defined In 1 60.1  paragraph
 (a).
 144 PR aim. May It. 1171. as amended at
 •I PR MM. Mar. II. IIM)

    fcihpswt f — » Defend MenMerlng

 0I8.H Federal monitoring.
   The Administrator may locate and
 operate an ambient air monitoring sta-
 tion  If the State  falls to  locate, or
 schedule to be located, during the Ini-
 tial network  design process or as a
 result of the annual review required
 by 1 68.3(Md>:
   (a) A SLAMS at a site which Is nec-
 essary In the Judgment of the Region-
 al Administrator to meet the  objec-
 tives  defined  In Appendix  D to this
•part, or
   (b) A NAMS at a alto which la neces-
 sary In the judgment of the Adminis-
 trator for meeting  EPA national data
 needs.
 0U.II  M«*HorlMe4it*rB«NiiUs>U.
   The Administrator may promulgate
 criteria  similar to that referenced In
 Subpart B of this part for monitoring
 • pollutant for which a National Am-
 bient Air Quality Standard does not
 exist. Such an action would be taken
 whenever the Administrator deter-
 mines that 'a nationwide monitoring
 program Is necessary to monitor  such
 • pollutant.
 ArrtMDix A—QUALITY ASSVMMCB Rg-
    qoiBBMUiTS roa  STATB AND  LOCAL
    Aia    MOHITOBIHO    STATIONS
    (SLAMS)

 I. General lnA»rm««oi».
  ThU  AppendlM specific* the minimum
 quality  assurance requlremenU applicable
 to SLAMS air monitoring data nibmllted to
 EPA. Bute* are encour*sed to develop and
 maintain quality assurance prosrami more
 eileiulve than the required minimum.
  Quality assurance ol air monitoring *yi-
 temi Includes two distinct and Important
 Interrelated function*. One function Is the
 control   of  the   measurement   process
                       ft. M, AW A

 through  the  Implementation  of poUclys.
 procedure*, and  corrective actions.  The
 other function to Hie  u*eument of  the
 quality of the monltorlns dau (the product
 of the meaauremenl process*. In general.
 the greater the elforl ellecllvencH  of the
 control of a given monitoring ty*tem. the
 belter will be Hie resulting quality  of the
 monitoring data. The rcnilla of data quality
 aueumenU Indicate whether the control ef-
 forts need to be IncreMcd.
  Documentation of the quality assessments
 of the monltorlns data It Important to dau
 men. who ran then consider the Impact of
 the dau quality hi spcclllc applications  Minimise loss of air quality data due to
 malfunction* or out-ot control condition*.
  This quality assurance program must be
 described In detail, suitably  documented.
 and approved by  the appropriate Regional
 Administrator, or hi* deilgnee. The Quality
 Assurance Program will be reviewed during
 the annual system audit described In section

  a.2 Primary guidance for developing the
quality assurance program Is contained In
 References  2  and J.  which also  contain
many  suggested  procedures,  check*, and
control specification*. Section 2.0.1 of Refer-
ence 1 describes specific guidance for  the de
                                                                                                                       137

-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3.8

-------
               UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
                 Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711


  DATE:  S6P1   1981
   .' .

SUBJECT:  Ambient Monitoring Networks for Model  Evaluations
  PROM:
    TO:
Richard G. Rhoads, Director
Monitoring and Data Analysis Division

Ronald C. Campbell, Assistant Director
  for Program Operations, OAQPS

     Under favorable conditions our available air quality models  can
provide errors of from ±10 to ±40 percent.  Under unfavorable conditions
the errors can be much worse.  For these reasons, we have been consi-
dering how to use ambient monitoring data to supplement or improve
model estimates on a case-by-case basis.

     It 1s generally not feasible to establish emission limits for
point sources based solely on monitoring data.  Thfs 1s because current
programs require that emission limits be based upon a fairly rare event
(i.e., the second maximum concentration anywhere in the area, at  anytime,
and with the facility operating at full capacity) and to capture  that
event on a monitor would normally require a prohibitively large and
expensive network.

     An alternative approach is to establish a monitoring network of
reasonable size, use the resulting monitored data to evaluate the models
for applicability to those particular conditions, and then use the result-
ing "best available" model to establish the emission limitation.

     One problem with this approach is defining the "network of reasonable
size" which would be used to evaluate the models.  If the network is  too
small, the data would be inadequate to distinguish between models and the
evaluation would have no validity.  If the network is too large,  the  cost
would be excessive.

     Although our experience with evaluations of this nature is very  limited,
I have recently recommended to Region V that, for a variety of power  plants
in the Midwest, networks consisting of approximately 15 monitors  each should
be considered.  This recommendation was based upon the following  knowledge:
                                          •
          • My staff and the technical modeling staff of Region V estimate
     that, in-moderate terrain, a network of 25-30 monitors would be  desirable
     to obtain "reasonable scientific credibility."

          • The Electric Power Research Institute has conducted one phase of
     a major model evaluation study (called Plume Model Validation) around the
     Kincaid Power P'lant.  The PMV network consisted of 30 ambient monitors
     supplemented by several hundred tracer monitors for special  study's.
     «. 3.761

-------
           • The model  evaluation program around the  Westvaco  Luke Mill  1n
      Maryland 1s using nine monitors.   The  Issue at  Luke Mill  Involves  only
      one wind direction (quadrant):   If all  wind directions were pertinent,
      a  larger network  would have been  necessary.

           * The model  evaluation program around the  Ashland 011 facility In
      Kentucky used a network consisting of  18 monitors.  The  Issue Involved
      complex terrain in a valley situation.

           * The model  evaluation program around the  Simplot acid plant  in
      Idaho used a network consisting of five monitors.   The issue at Simplot
      Involved only one wind direction  and one set of meteorological conditions.

           * The model  evaluation program around the  B1g  Bend Power Plant on
      the coast of Florida used a network consisting  of eight monitors supple-
      mented by sophisticated plume measurements.  The issue at Big Bend
      involved only a single wind direction.

      Based on our experienc  with these programs  (all of-which were reasonably
successful but, with the exception of  EPRI,  none  of  which were "data rich"), I
believe that approximately 15 monitors operating  for one year is probably the
minimum network size to obtain a valid data  base  under normal circumstances.
Fifteen would probably be too few in rugged, complex terrain; fifteen would
probably be too many if the Issue Involved only a single specific location
(e.g. a single Isolated hilltop) or single meteorological condition.

      It is necessary to minimize the number  of  monitors  because the cost of i
network of 15 monitors, plus an adequate meteorological  station, plus emission.,
monitoring, could range from S300K to  over $1 million.   The wide range  in costs
is influenced primarily by the availability  of  power at  the monitoring  sites, b;
the ease of servicing  the monitors, and by the  complexity of both the terrain
and the meteorological  conditions.  Based on preliminary discussions between
Region  V staff and electric utility representatives, I believe that most large
utilities would be willing and able to bear  this  cost if they perceive  that the
evaluation would result in a relaxation of stringent emission limitations.

      In the past many  utility representatives held a strong opinion that the
CRSTER  model  (most commonly used to evaluate power plants in  level to moderate
terrain)  tended to overestimate the magnitude of  concentrations, i.e. that the
model had a strong conservative bias.   The preliminary data from the EPRI
model evaluation disprove that opinion:  the EPRI results indicate no signi-
ficant  bias (at least  In level  terrain).
                                  *
     Also the preliminary data from Westvaco (Involving  the SHORTZ model),
the results from Ashland Oil  (involving the  VALLEY model), and the results
from Big  Bend (involving the CRSTER model),  all tend to  confirm the model
predictions,  although Ashland Oil showed VALLEY to be somewhat conservative
as expected.   I would  classify the Simplot  results as "inconclusive."

-------
cc:  ^T Tikvart
     R.  Neligan
accurac/of th« -od«is or J^bll^ason.b!, c^b???^ wTtS SKt*.

-------
                   UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                           Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
                           Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
   DATE: AUG 7   1981

SUBJECT: Monitoring Around Mid-Western  Power  Plants
   FROM:  Richard G.  Rhoads,
          Monitoring and Data Analysis Division  (MD-14)

     10 :  David Kee, Director
          Air and Hazardous Materials Division,  Region V

               We have previously discussed  the  requests  of several  utilities to
          conduct air quality monitoring  around  their power plants  located  in
          Illinois, Indiana and Ohio.  The purpose  of the monitoring would  be to
          provide a data base suitable for evaluating air quality models  and to
          select the most reliable model  for setting emission limits.

               No widely accepted performance standards are available with  which
          to judge the acceptability of a single model.   Thus, to determine the
          best model for a specific application, we must  rely on a  comparison of
          the relative performance of two or more models  using a variety  of
          statistical tests.  Such an approach has  been recommended by the  American
          Meteorological Society and is incorporated in an OAQPS report entitled
          "Interim Procedures for Evaluating Air Quality  Models" that was provided
          to your staff last week (see attached  memorandum).

               These interim procedures are  the  best available basis for  discussions
          with the utilities on the monitoring programs and subsequent analyses.
          The procedures involve (1) identification of applicable models; (2) selection
          and weighting of statistical performance  measures; and (3) determination of
          an appropriate ambient monitoring  program.  I suggest that you  forward  this
          information to the utilities and  set up meetings where these issues can
          be discussed.

               At such meetings it will  be  necessary for  the utility representatives
          to propose alternative models  that they believe to be more reliable  than
          the standard EPA models.  Statistical  tests  and performance measures  must
          be agreed upon to determine  the relative  performance of the models  under
          consideration.  These performance measures must be adequate to evaluate
          the entire range of meteorological conditions which affect the source
          area, as well as appropriate averaging times.   While these meetings will
          involve highly technical issues,  management personnel may be required to
          make decisions relative to the most important evaluation tests and  the
          best measures of uncertainty.

-------
     It will be necessary to agree on an adequate air quality monitoring
network composed of continuous monitors with quality assurance meeting
the requirements of 40 CFR 58.  Although our experience with networks
for this purpose is limited, we believe that an appropriate balance
between the technical requirements of the analyses and the costs would
result in approximately 15 monitors, depending upon the type of terrain,
meteorological conditions, prior knowledge of air quality in the area,
etc.  For the specific case of the Baldwin plant which you mentioned,
it is likely that 11 monitors would be adequate 1f the monitors were
carefully located at predicted points of maximum Impact under the full
range of meteorological conditions.  (Location of the monitors at points
of maximum impact only under unstable conditions would not provide
adequate coverage.)

     It will be necessary to agree on an adequate on-site meteorological
data collection program.  As a minimum, these measurements should be
similar to those available from National Weather Service Stations and
should be consistent with the PSD Monitoring Guideline requirements.
It may be necessary to collect additional data in order to satisfy
the input requirements of proposed alternative models.

     It will be necessary to agree on an adequate program to collect
plant operating data.  Ideally, this would consist of continuous in-stack
emission monitors supplemented by routine operating characteristics.  Many
plants'are willing to install emission monitors for a variety of purposes.
However, if continuous emission monitors are considered to be too expensive,
it is usually possible to construct adequate emissions data from a carefully
planned as-fired fuel sampling program.

     We assume that the utility will be responsible for all data collection,
data reduction, and quality assurance.  Once a protocol for the specific
statistical performance measures and their weighting are established,
we further assume that the utility will also be responsible for all calcu-
lations and model evaluations.  Once the analysis is complete, we can jointly
review the results with the utility and come to a reasoned decision as to
the most appropriate model for setting emission limits for that source.
Thus, the crucial part of this exercise is establishing in a written
protocol the data to be collected, the procedures to be followed, and the
basis for judging the relative performance of the models being considered.

-------
     We must emphasize that the general procedures which are proposed
are interim.  They will evolve in future applications as we gain
experience with developing protocols.  We expect, though, that useful
and meaningful protocols can result at this time from good faith
negotiations between EPA and the utility and its consultants.  My
staff will be happy to provide you with technical support in developing
protocols and in analyzing the model comparisons.  Please contact
Joe Tikvart or me if you desire further assistance.

Attachment

cc:  W. Barber
     T. Devine
     R. Smith
     E. Tuerk
     S. Wassersug

-------
                  UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                      Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
                      Research Triangle Park,  North Carolina  27711


     DATE:   7/30/81


   SUBJECT:   Interim Procedures for Evaluating  Air Quality Models


     FROM:   Joseph A. Tikvart, Chief
            Source Receptor

       TO:   Chief, Air Programs Branch, Regions I - X

                 Attached is a report entitled "Interim Procedures for Evaluating
            Air Quality Models."  The purpose  of the report is to provide  a  general
            framework for the quantitative evaluation and comparison of air  quality
            models.  It is intended to help you decide whether a  proposed  model, not
            specifically recommended in the Guideline on Air Quality Models, is
            acceptable on a case-by-case basis for specific regulatory application.
            The need for such a report is identified in Section 7 of "Regional
            Workshops on Air Quality Modeling:  A Summary Report."

                 An earlier draft (Guideline for Evaluation of Air Quality Models)
            was provided to you for comment in January 1981.  We received  cornnents
            from four Regional Offices and have incorporated many of the suggestions.
            These comments reflected a diversity of opinion on how rigid the pro-
            cedures and criteria should be for demonstrating the acceptability  of a
            nonguideline model.  One Region maintained that EPA should establish
            minimum acceptable requirements on data bases, decision rationale,  etc.
            Others felt that we should be more flexible in our approach.  This
            report defines the steps that should be followed in evaluating a model
            but leaves room for considerable flexibility in details for each step.

                 The procedures and criteria presented in this new report are con-
            sidered interim.  They are an extension of recommendations resulting
            from the Woods Hole Workshop in Dispersion Model Performance held in
            Setpember 1980.  That workshop was sponsored under a cooperative agree-
            ment between  EPA and the American Meteorological Society.  Thus, v^hile
            some of the performance evaluation procedures may be resource intensive,
            they reflect most of the requirements  identified by an appropriate
            scientific peer group.  However, since the concepts are  relatively new
            and untested, problems may be encountered  in their initial application.
            Thus,  the report provides suggested procedures; it is  not  a "guideline."

                 We'recommend that you begin using the procedures  on  actual  situations
            within the context  of the  caveats  expressed  in  the Preface  and  in Section
            5.2.   Where suggestions are  inappropriate, the  use of alternative techniques
            to accomplish the desired  goals is encouraged.  Feedback on your experience
            and problems  are  important to  us.  After a period  of time during which
            experience  is gained and  problems  are  identified,  the report  will be
rm 12~ 6 'B»v 3-76)

-------
updated and guidance will gradually evoiua
ss^-ScSairirisf r »- -       i* the
An example of the^cetr™' p  ^oT™ t'ST K"""
oped under contact and should bV lipped ?,! SrtyfJSzI1
Attachment
                               ' X
    D. Fox
    T. Helms
    W. Keith
    M. Muirhead
    L. Niemeyer
    R. Smith
    F. White

-------
                                  EPA-450/4-84-023
Interim  Procedures for Evaluating Air
        Quality Models (Revised)
            U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
              Monitoring and Data Analysis Division
             Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
            Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

                    September 1984

-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTIONS 4.1 AND 4.2

-------
2138
Federal  Register / Vol. 54.  No. 12 /  Thursday.  January  19. 1989 / Proposed Rules
  Authority: Sees. 1-19. 48 Slat. 31. as
        : 7 L'-S.C 801-674.
  2. Section 959.229 is added to read as
 follows:

 $ 959.229  Expanse* and assessment rate.
  Expenses of $379.675 by the South
 Texas Onion Committee are authorized
 and an assessment rate of $0.055 per 50-
 pound container or equivalent quantity
 of regulated onions is established for the
 fiscal period ending July 31. 1989.
 Unexpended funds may be earned over
 as a reserve.
       : |«n!-ary 13. 1989.
 William). On ID.
 ;  s.u i ::- 0" ';;•';• 3iT*i-:tir.
      C dB-1.30 Filed 1-78-49: 8:45 an|

      COOt MlO-ia II
 DCPA3TMENT OF THE TREASURY

 31 CFH Part 103

 E ttension of Tim* for Comment* on
 P i oposed Ban* Secrecy Act
 Regulations

 AGENCY: Departmental Offices.
 ACTION: Advance notice of proposed
  •.:=iiioiving. extension of comment
 SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that
 :rv Department of the Treasury is
 •• sending the comment period on the
 A tvance Notice of Proposed
 -  iemaking Relating to Identification
   .•quircmen'.s Required to Purchase
 !' :P.R Checks. Cashier's Checks.
   i veler's Checks and Money Orders.
 L.  ,:;iished in the Federal Register on
 ' )-<:pmber 23. 1988 (53 FR 51846). The
 Ti^asury Department has determined
 •"it more time is needed for the public
 !<> review and comment on the proposal.
 DATE: Comments now will be accepted
 rhrough February 15. 1989.
 AOORCSS: Comments should be
 ••'/dressed to Amy G. Rudnick. Director.
 Office of Financial Enforcement.
 "/epartmem of the Treasury. Room 4320.
 1 500 Pennsylvania Avenue. NW..
" U .ishington. DC 20220.
 FOR FURTMf M INFORMATION CONTACT:
 Kathleen A. Scott. Attorney Advisor.
 Office of the Assistant General Counsel
 (Enforcement). (202) 566-9947.
   Unleci: January 13. 1989.
 Sdiv«tort R. MartodM.
 •• ^ 'Stan: Secretary /Enforcement).
 KR Ooc. 8B-1J04 Filfti l-ie-afc 145 amj
 9-wUWO COCK «10 M •
                         ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
                         AGENCY

                         40CFRPartS1

                         (FML-M3»-2]

                         State tmoMtmantatkMi Plan
                         Compieteneaa Review

                         AOCNCY: Environmental Protection
                         Agency (EPA).
                         ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

                         SUMMARY: This notice describes the
                         procedure for assessing whether a State
                         implementation plan (SIP) mtbmittal is
                         adequate to trigger the Clean Air Act
                         requirement that EPA review, and take
                         action the submittal. The nonce
                         describes, among other things, the
                         criteria for determining the
                         "completeness" of the submittal. EPA is
                         concerned that uncertainty and
                         excessive delays in reviewing SIPs
                         frustrate the development of an optimum
                         State/Federal partnership, cause
                         confusion for sources regarding
                         applicable regulations, and generally
                         dampen initiative in State regulatory
                         programs. Prompted by this concern.
                         EPA is instituting a wide range of SIP
                         processing reforms as described
                         elsewhere in this Federal Register. The
                         proposed ruiemaking described below is
                         one of these reforms.
                           EPA's previous SIP processing
                         procedures provided no mechanism to
                         reject or otherwise eliminate essentially
                         unrevtewable SIP subnuttals (i.e.. those
                         missing information necessary  to make
                         a reasonable decision as to their
                         procedural and environmental
                         adequacy]. Heretofore. SIP submittais
                         that lacked required basic information
                         such as evidence of legal authority or of
                         properly conducted public hearings, or
                         technical support information sufficient
                         to describe a proposed change, generally
                         went through full notice  and comment
                         ruiemaking (proposed and final) before
                         being rejected. Today's proposal
                         provides a procedure and screening
                         criteria :o enable States  to prepare
                         adequate SIP submittais. and to enable
                         EPA reviewers to promptly screen SIP
                         'submittais. identify those that are
                         incomplete, and return them to the State
                         for corrective action without having to
                         go through ruiemaking.
                           EPA believes thdt this change.
                         together with those described elsewhere
                         in this Federal Register, should enable
                         SIP submittais to be prepared and
                         processed more efficiently and. overall
                         should improve the quality of SIP
                         submittais.
                         OATC All comments should be
                         submitted to EPA at the  address shown
                         below by March 6.1989.
AOORC&5CS: Interested parties m«y
submit written comments in duam. .i!
Public Docket No. A-flfl-l<5 at: Central
Docket Section (A-130). South
Conference Center. Room 4. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Attention: Docket No. A-68-18. 401 M.
Street. SW.. Washington. DC 20460.
  Materials relevant to this rulerr.;iking
have been placed in Docket No. A-88-18
b.v EPA and ar«» a\3:!<*ble for inspection
at th*» above address r>*'ween 8:00 a.m.
an'd 3:30 p.m.. Monday th.-ough Friday.
The EPA may chsrj- a rt»,nnnr>\v fet-
ter copying.
            INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. lames Wesg-1"- Office of Air
Quality P!snr:r.2 n.-.c: S^r-dards (MD-
II). U.S. Env.rcnrrcrtcii Protection
Agency. Researcr. Triangle Park. North
Carolina 27711: Telephone (919) 541-
5642 or (FTS) 529-5642.
•UPPLCMIMTANV INFORMATION:

Background

  The 1970 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— N'AAQS) for common
pollutants. There are now standards for
6 pollutants: ozone, carbon monoxide.
sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide.
paniculate matter (PM,o. and lead.
States then develop control programs to
attain and maintain these N'AAQS.
These programs are defined by State
Implementation Plfins (SIPs) which are
approved formally by EPA  and are
legally enforceable by  the Agency.
Under section 110|a!(2;. a SIP must
demonstrate attainment, describe a
control strategy contain legally
enforceable regulations,  include an
emission inventory and procedures for
new source review, ou'.line a program
for monitoring. jn«j shov. adequ
-------
               Federal Register  /  Vol. 54. No. 12 / Thursday. January 19. 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
 disapproved, or languish while  the State
 is required (perhaps months later) to
 supply essential data. Heretofore. EPA's
 procedures did not provide in any
 comprehensive way prompt rejection for
 incompleteness. Independently,
 however, some Regional Offices have
. tned to deal with this problem,  and have
 developed procedures wherein  SIP
 submittals are judged against a set of
 completeness criteria. The purpose of
 these procedures has been to keep
 incomplete packages out of the  more
 extensive review system, thereby saving
 both EPA and the State valuable time
 and resources. Today. EPA is proposing
 to institute an EPA-wtde procedure for
  1 Null- mat section 1101 a H2I of the Of in Air AI.I
 "quires that 'The Administrator snail, within four
 "••-..-< jt'ter the 0*(e required for suumiuion of*
 '•s'i'! .i"-rcv«. or disapprove such |SIP| for each
 r ~i--n Thereof." Under me Agency s preteni
 BTOcei'inii workload, aucfl a tMM limit ta literally
 imt>o$i.,i)ie to meet for aij but We most trivial of
 •(-iions. OA maintains thai this deadline doe* not
 «fr>u 'n SIP revisions, but rather only to 'he imtui
 ^P s  >mmed after EPA promuliates a NAAQS.
    • t-jurts have supported EPA s position, other
 1   - nave n»id irui a 4-month review penoo
 •'• '-stun SlPrev.sion
completeness review of all SIP
submittals.

CompletaaeM Review

  In order to free EPA resources that
would otherwise be consumed in
processing incomplete and inherently
unapprovable SIPs, EPA has created a
completeness review process. Under this
process. EPA will review a SIP for
completeness when it is initially
submitted to determine if all the
necessary components have been
included to allow the agency to  properly
review and act oa the substance of the
SIP revision. This will be a quick screen
that will assess the reviewability of a
SIP submittai. not its ultimate
apprevability. EPA will then promptly
inform the submitting  State whether the
agency will proceed to process the SIP
revision or if it  must be modified by the
State bet  e it is incomplete.
  There are several benefits to an early
determination of completeness.  First the
State is informed promptly as to the
reviewability of the submittai a current
source of uncertainty in the SIP  process.
Second. SIP submittals that are
inadequate for processing are returned
to the State to be corrected, rather than
going through the review process only to
be disapproved because of a lack of
information. Third, unreviewable SIPs
are removed from the process early so
that resources at the Federal level are
allocated  to processing only SIPs that
are adequate for review. Finally, the
completeness criterial provide the States
with guidelines on how to prepare'
reviewable SIPs. It is expected that once
the agencies involved (State and local
EPA) become accustomed to the
completeness review process, the
number of unreviewable submittals will
diminish sharply.
  Screening criteria have been
developed that define the essential
elements of an acceptable package, that
will avoid obvious inadequacies, and
that can be applied uniformly with
limited subjective judgement and
review. The criteria were developed by
EPA Regional Offices already using a
list of criteria to determine completeness
of SIP packages in an informal way. On
March 18.1988  a policy for determining
completeness of SIP submittals was
issued by Gerald A. Emison. Director.
Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (OAQPSJ. to the Regional
Offices (a copy has been placed in the
docket as  item II-B-»). The policy
includes basic criteria for determining
completeness, and sample letters for
accepting  and rejecting SIP submittals.
This policy will be followed by EPA
until today's proposed regulation is
made final.
  As pan of this action, the
Administrator is proposing to add these
criteria for determining the
completeness of State submittals to 40
CFR Part 31 as Appendix V. In addition.
EPA proposes to modify { S1.103(a) such
that State submissions that do not meet
the criteria are not considered official
plan submissions for purposes of
meeting the requirements of Part 51. In
order to be considered as a complete SIP
submission or an official submission for
Part 51. each plan must meet the criteria
described below and in Appendix V.
The basic criteria are adaptable for use
in parallel processing of State
regulations by EPA.*
  EPA is creating this completeness
review process under the authority of
Section 301 of the Clean Air Act which
authorizes the Administrator to
prescribe such regulations as are
necessary to carry out his functions
under the Act EPA is interpreting the
terms -plan" in section 110(a)(l) and (2)
and "revision" in Section H0(a)(3) to be
only those plans and revisions that
contain all of the components necessary
to allow EPA to a adequately review
and take action on such plan or revision
under section 110 (and. where
applicable. Part D). EPA believes that
Congress would not have intended  to
require EPA to review and take action
on SIP submittals that were simply not
reviewable because they were lacking
important components. Therefore, the
Administrator concludes that Section
llOfa) requires him to act only on
complete State submittals.

Completeness  Criteria

  The criteria for determining whether a
submittai by the State is complete have
been separated Into two categories: (a)
Administrative information and (b)
technical support information.
Administrative information includes the
documentation necessary to
demonstrate that the basic
administrative procedures have been
adhered to by  the State during the
adoption process. Technical support
information includes the documentation
that adequately identifies all of the
required  technical components of the
plan submission.

Administrative Information

  The administrative information
required  by the criteria are those basic
  »Parallel processing is » procedure by which EPA
processes. «s a proposal. Suite rut« which nave not
yet been fully adopted oy the State in order to
axpetliw me final review prows*.

-------
2140
Federal  Register / Vol. 54. No.  12 / Thursday. January 19. 1989  / Proposed Rules
document! 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
designee requesting that EPA approve
the SIP revision, and evidence that the
revision 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 conformance with basic statutory
and EPA requirements. In order for EPA
to make a  reasonable decision
concerning the adequacy of a proposed
SIP revision, certain information at a
minimum must  be included in each
submittal. Therefore, for purposes of
determining the completeness of a SIP
submission the  implementation plan
revision must include an adequate
description of the:
  (aI Pollutants involved:
  (b) Source location and attainment
status of the area:
  (c) Emissions chances:
  (d) Demonstration that standards/
increments are protected;
  (c) Information used for any modeling
demonstration:
  if) Evidence of continuous emissions
controls:
  (g) Evidence of emissions limitations
ana other  restrictions necessary to
ensure emission levels:
  (h) Compliance strategies:  and
  (i) Technological and economic
justification for the change where
applicable.
  L'pon receipt  of the plan revision, the
Regional Office will objectively 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 51.103(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.
                         Hie 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 • 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 Requirement*
                           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
                         interagency 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)(7KA).
                           Section 317(a) of the Gean Air Act. 42
                         U.S.C. 7617(a). states that economic
                         impact assessments are required for
                         revisions  to 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, recordkeeping. 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 (RIA). The Agency has
determined that the SIP processing
changes announced today would result
in none of the-significant adverse
economic effects set forth in section l(b)
of the Order as grounds for a finding of
"major." The Agency has. therefore.
concluded that this action is not a
"major" action under Executive Order
12291.
  This rule was submitted to OMB for
review consistent with section 307(d) of
the Clean Air Act. A copy of the draft
rule as submitted to OMB. any
documents accompanying the draft, any
written comment received from other
agencies (including OMB), and any
written responses to those comments
have been included in the docket.
  The Regulatory Flexibility Act of I960,
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 a regulator}* flexibility
analysis for every action unless the
Administrator certifies that the action
will not have a significant economic
impact on u substantial numDer of small

-------
                Fextoral Reguter /  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.
  Date: January 9.1989.
Lee M. Thomas.
Administrator.
  For the reasons set  out in the
preamble. 40 CFR Part 51 is proposed to
be amended as follows:

PART 51-{ AMENDED]

  1. The authority citation for Part 51
continues to read as follows:
  Authority: Thi» rulemaking is promulgated
under Authority of Sections 10l(b)(l). 110.
160-69. m-178. and 301(i) of the dean Air
Act 42 U.S.C. 7401 (b)(l). 7410. 7420-7429.
7501-7506. and 7801(«).

  2. Section 51.103 is proposed to be
amended by revising paragraph (a)
introductory text to read as follows:

} 31.103 gubmieelon of psam. prettnsnary
review of psene»
  (a) The State makes an official plan
submission to EPA when the plan
conforms to the requirements of
Appendix V to this part 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 design** must submit it to EPA as
follows:
•    •     •    •     •

  3. Part 51 is proposed to be amended
by adding Appendix V to read as
follows:

Appendix V—Criteria for Determining
the Completeness of Plan Submissions.

1.0. Purpose
  This Appendix V teti  forth the minimum
criteria for determining whether a State
implementation plan submitted for
consideration by  EPA it  an official
submission for purpose of review under
{ 51.103.
  1.1. The EPA shall return to  the submitting
official any plan or revision thereof which
fails to meet  the criteria  set forth in this
Appendix V. or otherwise request corrective
dctiun. identifying the componemlsl absent
or insufficient to perform a review of the
submitted plan.
  1.2. The EPA shall inform the submitting
official when a plan submission meets the
requirements of this Appendix V. tuch
determination resulting in the plan being an
nffi'.ial submission for purposes of J 51.103.

2.0  Criteria
  The following shall be included in plan
•".^missions  for review by EPA:
  2.1. Administrative Materials
  lai A formal letter of submittal from the
Governor or his designee. requesting EPA
approval of the plan or revision trterwof
;rvi!
-------
                              EPA-450/2-78-027R
Guideline On Air Quality Models
               (Revised)
         U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
              Office of Air and Radiation
          Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
            Research Triangle Park. NC 27711

                   July 1986

-------
                        EPA-450/2-78-027R
                           SUPPLEMENT A
                             JULY 1987
         SUPPLEMENT A
              TO THE
            GUIDELINE
                ON
AIR QUALITY MODELS (REVISED)
      U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
          Office Of Air And Radiation
     Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards
    Research Triangle Park,  North Carolina 27711

-------
                                                              PN


                UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                       Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
                      Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711
                                January 2, 1985
f€HORANDUM

SUBJECT:  Regional Implementation of Modeling Guidance
FROM:     Joseph A. Tilcvart, Chief
          Source Receptor Analysis Branch, MOAO  {MD-14)

TO:       Regional Modeling Contact, Regions I-X

     Attached  for your use is information on the implementation of modeling
guidance.  Attachment 1 is an excerpt of a memorandum from J. Wilburn to 0. Tyler
(dated November 13. 1984) which identifies several issues.  Attachment Z
provides our response to these issues.

     It is our intent that the response merely reiterate the way in which we
understand modeling guidance to be routinely implemented by all Regional Offices.
however, having formalized that understanding, we believe that its circulation
is desirable.   If you have any questions, please call me.

Attachments
                                             »
cc:  Chief, Air Programs Branch, Regions, I-X
     B. Turner
   ,/D. Wilson

-------
                                Attachment 1

(Excerpt of Memorandum from J. Wilburn to D. Tyler. Dated November 13. 1984)
     As discussed in this memo, we are quite concerned as to our credibility
regarding the development and approval of SIP revisions and bubbles which
consider complicated and involved modeling.  While our Armco experience may
be viewed by some as atypical, we feel that the problem is real  enough to the
point that we request guidance on the following three .questions:

     1.  When do changes in EPA modeling procedures become official Agency
         policy?  Do such forms as informal modeling protocols and consensus
         opinions developed at meteorologist meetings and workshops constitute
         official Agency policy?  If so, how is management at the regional
         division and branch level informed of those decisions (i.e., are such
         decisions communicated by policy memorandum or must regional manage-
         ment be dependent upon regional participants at such meetings and
         workshops to accurately convey OAQPS's policy decisions)?

     2.  How do changes in Agency modeling policy affect in progress modeling
         analyses?  Do policy changes In modeling procedures invalidate
         modeling protocols which accurately reflected modeling policy at the
         initiation of ongoing modeling analyses?  If so, we would appreciate
         copies of all policy memorandums which communicated such policies.

     3.  Will it be necessary in order for Armco's bubble application to be
         concurred with by OAQPS, for Region IV to require Armco to submit a
         fourth revision to their modeling procedures which would provide an
         analysis of the 46 days with more than 6 hours of calm which have
         thus far been deleted for the submittal pursuant to the original
         protocol?  If so, we would like an explanation of the rationale for
         this requirement in light of our discussion in this inemo.

-------
                           Attachment 2


(Excerpt of Memorandum from R.  Rhoads to  J.  Wllbum,  Dated  December  24,  1984)
     Regarding your first question:   Changes  In  EPA modeling  procedures
become official Agency guidance when (1)  they are published as  regulations
or guidelines, (2) they are formally transmitted as guidance  to Regional
Office managers, (3) they are formally transmitted to Regional  Modeling
Contacts as the result of a Regional consensus on technical Issues,  or
(4) they are a result of decisions by the Model  Clearinghouse that  effec-
tively set a national precedent.  In the  last case, such  issues and  deci-
sions are routinely forwarded to all of the Regional Modeling Contacts.
In order for this system to work, the Regional Modeling Contacts must be
actively involved in all Regional modeling Issues and they must be  con-
sulted on modeling guidance as necessary  by other Regional personnel.

     Regarding your second question:  The time at which changes in
modeling guidance affect on-going modeling analyses 1s a  function of the
type of agreement under which those analyses  are being conducted.  On-going
analyses should normally be "grandfathered" if (1) there  1s a written pro-
tocol with a legal or regulatory basis (such  as  the Lovett Power Plant)  or
(2) the analysis 1s complete and regulatory action 1s imminent  or underway.
If the analysis is based on a less formal agreement and is underway, the
Regional Office should inform the source  operators of the change and deter-
mine whether the change can be Implemented without serious disruption to
the analysis.  If for some reason any previous analysis must  be redone,
then 1t should be redone in accordance with current modeling  guidance.   In
any event, consequences of falling to Implement  current guidance should  be
discussed with the OAQPS staff (Helms/Tikvart) to ensure  that Inappropriate
commitments are not made by the Regional  Office.

     Regarding your  third question:  As previously discussed with your
staff, the recent Armco modeling analysis is  technically  inadequate and
not  approvable so long  as the approximately 46 days with  calms  are
ignored.  At the time the original protocol was  developed, the  deletion
of calms was common  practice because we had no consensus  on technically
valid procedures for addressing calms.  However,  (largely due to the
assistance of RO  IV  staff In developing a technical solution to the
calms issue) this practice was discontinued by consensus  of the Regional
Modeling Contacts who recommended*immediate implementation of the new
procedures (see Joe  Tlkvart's June 13, 1983,  memo to Regional Modeling
Contacts).  The subsequent Armco analysis which ignored calms was, there-
fore, deficient since there is no rationale for "grandfather!ng" an analy-
sis which was Initiated after the new calms guidance was  disseminated.
This issue is no longer an issue since Armco has  already submitted a
reanalysis that addresses the calms Issue.

-------
                               June 7, 1988
MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT   Revised Model Clearinghouse Operational Plan
FROM:     Joseph A. Tikvart, Chief
          Source Receptor Analysis Branch (MO- 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.  Appendix 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 Clearinghouse 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.

-------
                               EPA Model Clearinghouse
                                       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 the 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  tech-
 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 of
 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 Clearinghouse is formally located in the Source Receptor Analysis Branch
 (SRAB)  of OAQPS.   However, the Air Quality Management Division (AQMD) also parti-
 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, AQMO  supports the Clearinghouse with staff  who are  also knowledgeable in
 modeling policy.   These individuals are responsible for screening SIP submittals
 and  related documents,  referring modeling issues to SRAB through the Clearinghouse
 and  documenting the final (and any significant interim)  decision on disposition of
 tne  issues.

 Communi cati on Chai n
      The Model  Clearinghouse 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.u.e EPA Regional Offices.

                                          Cl

-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 4.3

-------
                             EPA-450/2-78-027R
Guideline On Air Quality Models
               (Revised)
         U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
               Office of Air and Radiation
          Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
             Research Triangle Park. NC 27711

                   July 1986

-------
*»-
               UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                    Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
                    Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711


                            February 15, 1989
    MEMORANDUM

    SUBJECT:  Modeling Requirements  for Pennsylvania Power  and  Light
              (PP&L), Martins Creek, Pennsylvania
    FROM:     Robert D. Bauman, Chief
              SO,/Particulate Matter Programs Branch (MD-15)

    TO:       Joseph Tikvart, Chief
              Source Receptor \nalysis Branch  (MD-14)

         This is in response to a memorandum dated January 4, 1989 from
    Al Cimorelli, Region 3, to Dean Wilson of your branch.   Since this
    appears to be  more  of  a policy than a technical issue,  my branch
    agreed to prepare a response.

         Region 3  is asking  if EPA policy would allow  PP&L's modeling
    analysis  to address only the  designated nonattainment area  in
    Warren  County, New Jersey.   If  so,  it might  be  possible  to
    reclassify  the  Warren  County  area  to  attainment  without  an
    evaluation of PP&L's impact outside the Warren County nonattainment
    area.  Additionally, the Region  has asked if a redesignation for
    Warren County  could proceed  independent of  any  revision to  the
    Pennsylvania SIP, in the event the modeling analysis shows Warren
    County  to  be  attainment  but  shows   a  modeled  violation  in
    Pennsylvania.

         The Guideline on Air Quality Models  fRevised^  ( Guideline 1  on
    page 1-3 states that the current guidance should be followed in all
    air quality analyses relative to State implementation plans and in
    analyses required by EPA, State and local agency air programs. This
    policy is consistent with stack height implementation  policy and
    general guidance found  in a  January 2, 1985 memorandum from SRAB
    to the  regional modeling contacts.   Guidance contained in  the
    Guideline recommends on page  9-8  that  "all  sources expected  to
    cause a significant concentration gradient in the  vicinity of the
    source or sources under consideration for emission limit(s) should
    be explicitly  modeled."  On page 3-4,  the Guideline states that
    "Receptor  sites  for  refined  modeling  should  be  utilized  in
    sufficient  detail  to   estimate  the  highest  concentrations  and
    possible violations of a NAAQS or a  PSD  increment."

-------
     I believe  that  application of guidance noted above does not
allow  a  partial modeling analysis.   If a  modeling  analysis is
required for any reason,  that analysis must meet the requirements
of the Guideline.

     Redesignation policy is generally contained in the April 21,
1983 memorandum from Sheldon Meyers to the Regional Air Directors.
That  policy  includes   requirements  for  a  modeling  analysis
demonstrating attainment and evidence of implementation  of the
approved SIP.   As noted by Region 3, PPtL's analysis  may show
violations  at  locations outside of the designated nonattainment
area,  while demonstrating  an absence  of violations within the
nonattainment area.   In  such an event, the existing SIP  may be
judged adequate to demonstrate attainment in Warren County and an
action to redesignate the area to attainment could proceed before
the State completes the necessary effort to resolve the violations
outside the nonattainment area.   While separate rulemaJcing actions
are  possible,   it may  be   more  efficient  to  consolidate  the
redesignation and SZP revision actions whenever possible.

     I trust  that this  memorandum  is  responsive to Region 3's
concerns.  If you need any additional information, please call me.

cc:  A. Cimorelli, Region 3
    uJK^Ginsburg, OAQPS/AQMD
     D. Grano,  OAQPS/AQMD
     S. Sambol, Region 2
     D. Wilson, OAQPS/TSD

-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 4.7

-------
                             EPA-450/2-78-027R
Guideline On Air Quality Models
               (Revised)
         U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
               Office of Air and Radiation
          Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
             Research Triangle Park. NC 27711

                   July 1986

-------
REFEn£NCES FOR SECTION 5.1

-------
 2T8S2	Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 130 / Monday. July 8. 1985  /  Rules and Regulations
 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
 AGENCY

 40 CFR Part 51
 Stack Height Regulation

 AGENCY: Er.-. .ror.ner,' i! Proicr.non
 Aocr.c;. (EPA).
 ACTION: Final rulerr.akmg

 SUMMARY: Section 123 of the Clean Air
 Art. as amended, requires EPA to
 promulgate regulations to ensure that
 t.'.e aearee of emission limitation
 required for tne control of any air
 pollutant under an applicable State
 implementation plan (SIP) is not
 affected by that portion of any suck
 height which exceeds euod engineering
 practice (CEP', or by any other
 dispersion technique. A regulation
 implementing section 123 was
 prornviigstetl on February a. 1982. at 47
 FR 5664. Revisions to the regulation
 were proposed on November 9. 1964. at
 49 FR 44878. Today's action incorporates
 changes to '.he proposal and adopts this
 regulation in final form.
 iFMcnvt OATt: This regulation
 becomes effective on August 7. 1985.
 TOM njNTMffJt INFORMATION CONTACT:
 Eric O. Ginsburg. MEM 5. Office of Air
 Quality Planning and Standards. EPA,
 Research Triangle Park. North Carolina
 27711. Telephone (919) 541-5540.
, SUPPUMINTANV INFORMATION:
 Docket Stati
   Pertinent information concerning this
 regulation is included in Docket Number
 A-83-49. The docket is open for public
 inspection between the hours of 8KJO
 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.. Monday through
 Friday, at the EPA Central Docket
 Section. West Tower Lobby. Gallery
 One. 401 M Street. SW.. Washington,
 D.C. Background documents normally
 available to the public, such as Federal
 Register nonces and Congressional
 reports, are not included in the docket
 A reasonable fee may  be charged for
 copying uocumenis.

 Background

 States
   Section 123. which was added to the
 Clean Air Act by the 1977 Amendments.
 regulates the manner in which
 techniques for disperson of pollutants
 from a source may  be considered in
 setting emission limitations. Specifically,
 section 123 requires that the degree of
 emission limitation shall not be affected
 by that portion of a stack which exceeds
 CEP or by "any other dispersion
technique." It defines CEP. with respect
to stack heights as:
thi height ntc«*Mry to insure that emissions
from the tuck do not result in excesxve
concentrations of any air pollutant ia the
immediate vicinity of the source as a renult of
atmospheric downwash eddies or wakes
which may be created Sy the source itself.
nearby structures or nearby terrain obstacles
. . . (Section UBIcll
Section 123 further provides that CEP
stack height shall not exceed two and
one-halt times the heigh! of the  source
(2.5H) unless a demonstration is
performed showing that a higher stack is
needed to  avoid "excessive
concentrations." As the legislative
history of section 123 makes clear, this
reference to a two and one-half times
test reflects the established practice of
using a formula for determining the GEP
stack height needed to avoid excessive
downwash. Finally, section 123 provides
that the Administrator shall regulate
only stack height credits—that is. the
portion of the stack height used in
calculating an emission limitation—
rather than actual stack heights.
  With respect to "other dispersion
techniques" for which emission
limitation  credit is restricted, the statute
is less specific. It states only that tne
term shall include intermittent and
supplemental control systems (ICS.
SCS). but otherwise leaves the definition
of that term to the discretion of the
Administrator.
  Thus the statute delegates to the
Administrator the responsibility for
defining key phrases, including
"excessive concentrations" and
"nearby." with respect to both
structures and terrain obstacles, and
"other dispersion  techniques." The
Administrator must also define the
requirements of an adequate
demonstration justifying stack height
credits in  excess of the 2.5H formula.
Rule/rating and Litigation
  On February 8.1982 (47 FR 5864). EPA
promulgated final regulations limiting
stack height credits and other dispersion
techniques. Information concerning the
development of the regulation was
included in Docket Number A-79-01 and
is available for inspection at the EPA
Central Docket Section. This regulation
was challenged in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the D.C Circuit by the
Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund. Incj the
Natural Resources Defense Council  Inc.:
and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
in Sierra Club v. EPA. 719 F. 2d 436.  On
October 11.1983.  the court issued its
decision ordering EPA to reconsider
portions of the stack height regulation.
reversing certain  portions and  upholding
other portions. Further discussion of the
court decision is provided later in th:s
notice.
Administrative Proceedings Subseqiir-n
to the Conn Decision
  On December 19.1933. EPA held a
public meeting to take comments to
assist the Agenry m implementing the
mandate of the court. This meeting was
announced in the Federal Register on
December 8.1983. at 48 FR 54999.
Comments r*ce;ved by EPA are
included in Docket NUT.:.*: A-33-J9 On
Februar. iB. 1984. the  eiectr.c power
industry filed a petition f j: a \i nt of
cerforar with the U.S Suprem* Court
While the petition was per,.':r.g before
the court, the mandate frj.r. the U.S.
Court of Appeals was  stayed. On Juiv 2,
1964. the Supreme Cour denied the
petition (104 S.Ct. 3571). and  on July 18.
1964. the Court of Appeals mandate
was formally issued, implementing the
court's decision and requiring EPA 10
promulgate revisions to the stack height
regulations within 6 months. The
promulgation deadline was ultimately
extended to June 27.1985. in  order to
provide additional opportunities for
public comment to allow EPA to hold a
public hearing on January 8,1985. and to
provide additional time for EPA to
complete its analysis of rulemaking
alternatives.

Documents
  In conjunction with the 1982
regulation and this revision.  EPA
developed several technical  and
guidance documents. These served  as
background information for the
regulation, and are included  in Dockets
A-79-01 and A-83-49. The following
documents have been or will be placed
in the National Technical Information
Service (NTIS) system and may be
obtained by contacting NTIS at 5285
Port Royal Road. Springfield. Virginia
22161.
  (1) "Guideline for Use of Fluid
Modeling to Determine Good
Engineering Stack Height." )uly 1981.
EPA. Office of Air Quality Plannin; and
Standards. EPA-450/4-81-003 (NTIS
PB82 145327).
  (2) "Guideline for Fluid Modeling of
Atmospheric Diffusion." April 1981.
EPA. Environmental Sciences Research
laboratory. EPA-600/8-01-009 (NTiS
PB81 201410).
   (3) "Guidance for Determination  of
 Good Engineering Practice Stack Height
(Technical Support Document for the
Stack Height Regulation)." Me 1985
EPA. Office of Air Quality Planning and
 Standards. EPA-«SO/4-*)-o:3R.
   (4) "Determination  of Good
Engineering Practice Stack Height—A

-------
             Federal Register /  Vol.  50.  No. 130  /  Monday. July 8. 1985  /  Rules and Regulations
                                                                       27893
Fluid Model Demonstration Study for a
Power Plant." April 1983. EPA.
Environmental Sciences Research
Laboratory. EPA-600/ 3-83-024 (NT1S
PB83 207407).
  (5) "Fluid Modeling Demonstration of
Cood-Engineenng-Practice Stack Height
in Complex Terrain." April 1985. EPA
Atmospheric Sciences Research
Laboratory. EPA/600/3-85/022 (NTiS
PB85 203107).
  In addition, the following documents
are available in Docket A-83-49.
  "Economic Impact Assessment for
Revisions to the EPA Stack Height
Regulation." June 1985.
  "Effect of Terrain-Induced Downwash
on Determination of Good-Enginering-
Practice Stack Height"  July 1984,
Central
  The problem of air pollution can be
approached in either of two ways:
through reliance on a technology-based
program that mandates specific control
requirements (either control equipment
or control efficiencies) irrespective of
ambient pollutant concentrations, or
through aa air quality based system that
relies on ambient air quality levels to
determine the allowable rates of
emissions. The .dean Air Act
incorporates bod) approaches, but the
SIP program under section 110 uses an
air quality-based approach to establish
emission limitations for sources.
Implicitly, this approach acknowledges
and is based on the normal dispersion of
pollutants from  their points of origin into
the atmosphere prior to measurements
of ambient concentrations at ground
level
  There are two general methods for
preventing violations of the national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)
and prevention  of significant
deterioration (PSD) increments.
Continuous emission controls reduce on
a continuous basis the quantity, rate, or
concentrations of pollutants released
into the atmosphere from e source. In
contrast dispersion techniques rely on
the dispersive effects of the atmosphere
to carry pollutant emissions away from
the source in order to prevent high .
concentrations of pollutants near the
source. Section 123 of the Clean Air Act
limits the use of dispersion techniques
by pollution sources to meet the NAAQS
or PSD increments.
  Tall stacks, manipulation of exhaust
gas parameters, and varying the rate of
emissions based on atmospheric
conditions (ICS and SCS) are the basic
types of dispersion techniques. Tall
stacks enhance dispersion by releasing
pollutants into the air at elevations high
 above ground level, thereby providing
 greater mixing of pollutants into the
 atmosphere. The result is to dilute the
 pollutant levels and reduce die
 concentrations of the pollutant at ground
 level without reducing the total amount
 of pollution nleased Manipulation of
 exhaust gas parameters increases die
 plume rise from die source to achieve
 similar results. ICS and SCS vary a
 source's rate of emissions to take
 advantage of meteorologic conditions.
 When conditions favor rapid dispersion.
 the source emits pollutants at higher
 rates, aad whea conditions an adverse.
 emission rates are reduced Use of
 dispersion techniques in lieu of constant
 emission controls results ia additional
 atmospheric loadings of pollutants aad
 can iacnase die possibility that
 pollution will travel bag distances
 befora nechiag the ground
   Although ovemiiance oa dispersion
 techniques may produce edverse effects.
 some use of die dispersive properties of
. the atmosphere has loag been aa
 important factor ia air pollution control
 For example, some stack height is
 needed to prevent excessive pollutant
 concentrations near a source. When
 wind meets aa obstacle such as a hill or
 a building, a turbulent region of
 downwash. wakes, aad eddies ia
 created downwind of die obstacle as the
 wind passes over and around it This
 caa force a plume rapidly to die ground
 resulting in excessive concentrations of
 pollutants near dw source. As  discussed
 previously, section 123 TMgnirtt tiiese
 phenomena and responds by allowing
 calculation of emiesioa limitation with
 explicit consideratioa of that portion of
 a source's stack diet is needed to ensun
 that excessive concentrations due to
 downwash will not be created near die
 source. This height is called CEP stack
 Summary of tin Court Aeasmn
   Petitions for review of EPA's 1982
 regulation wen died in the D.C Circuit
 within the statutory time period
 following promulgation of the regulation.
 On October 11.1983. the court issued its
 decision ordering EPA to reconsider
 portions of the stack height regulation.
 ravening certain portions and upholding
 others. The following is a summary of
 the court decision.
   The EPA's 1982 rale provided three
 weys to determine CEP stack height
 One wey was to calculate the height by
 using a formula based on the
 dimensions of^nearby structures. The
 other two wen a dt tniniaiii height of 85
 meters, and die height determined by e
 fluid modeling demonstration or field
 study. The court endorsed the formula
 as a starting point 10 determine CEP
 height However, it held that EPA has
 not demonstrated that the formula was
 aa accurate predictor of the stack heigh
 needed to avoid "excessive
 concentrations of pollutants due to
 downwash. Accordingly, the court
 directed EPA to re-examine in three
 ways the conditions under which
 exceptions to the general rule of formula
 reliance could be justified
   Tint the 1982 rule allowed a source to
 justify raising its stack above formula
 height by showing a 40-percent increase
 in concentrations due to downwash.
 wakes, or eddies, on die ground that this
 waa Ute percentage increase that the
 formula avoided The court found this
 hiatification insufficient and reminded
 the definition to EPA with instructions
> to make It directly responsive to health
 aad welfan considerations.
   Similarly, the 1982 rule allowed a
 source  that built a stack to less than
 formula height to raise it to formula
 height automatically. Once agem. the
 court required more justification that
 such a step was needed to avoid
 advene heelth or welfan effects.
   Finally, the court directed EPA either
 to allow the authorities administering
 dM stack height regulations to require
 modeling by sources in other cases as a
 check oa possible error ia die formula.
 or explaiB why die accuracy of the
 formula made such a step unnecessary.
   The 1982 rule provided two formulae
 to calculate CEP stack height For
 sourcejs coBemcted OB or before
 January 12,1979. the date of initial
 propeaa4 of the stack height regulations.
 die applicable formula wee 24 times the
 height of die source or odier nearby
 structure. For sources constructed after
 that data, the- nde specified e newer.
 refined formula, the height of the source
 or other nearby stnictun plus 1.5 times
 die height or width of that structure.
 whichever ia lew (H+14L). The EPA
 baaed Its decision- to include two
 formulae oa die unfairness of applying
 the new formula retroactively. In its
 examination of this issue, the court
 specified four factors mat influence
 whether aa agency has a duty to apply t
 rule retroactively. They are:
   t. Whether th« new rale reprtMnis in
 abrupt departure from wtil established
 precaceor merely attempts to fill • void >n an
 UBMttibd 4tfM of 1*1 W.
   2. The extent to which the party against
 whom the new ntie ia applied relied on the
 former nil*.
   1 The degree of burden which • retroactive
 order Imposes on a parry, and
   4. The statutory interest In applying • new
 rule despite the rehejwe of a party on the oi
-------
27M4
Fadwal
/ Vol SO. No. 130 f Monday,  fury a. 1965  /  Rajes and RaguJariona
719 Fid «l 467 (citatiotu oautted).
Applying this analysis to the two
formulae, tba court upheld EPA's baste
decision.
  However, the court also held that
sources constructed on or be/ore
January 12.1979. should not be
automatically entitled to fufl credit
calculated under the Z.5H formula unless
they could demonstrate reliance on that
formula. The court remanded this
provision- for revision to tafc* actual
reliance* on the 2.5H formula into
account.
  The statute limits stack height eredH
to that needed to avoid excessive
concentrations doe ta> dowiiwssli ceased
                                                        tdthia
by "nearby" stiacturae or tetreiD
feature*. The 19K regv
"nearby* for GEPforaraia apoMeaffoae
as five tinea the lataar of striker tbe
height or projected width at the
structuio rsusing. dowawaak oat la
exceed naa self na*. Nosudi dartaaca
limitation waa placed aa structures or
terraia feature* whose effects ware
being considered in Quid -^^^-f
demonstrations or field stadias. The
court held that secuoa 123 explicitly
applies the "aearby" limitation to
demonstrations and studies aa weft aa
formate applications. sad ~*"»Hy* tha
rule to ETA to appty tha Umttatfea ia
both contexts.
  The 198T rule defined "dTspenioo
techniques" aa those techniques which
attempt to effect poflutant
concentrations ay esiBg mef portfoa of a
stack exceeding GEP. by varying
emission ratee actmdlag te> aBuueyfceih.
conditiofia or pollutant conceatretiene,
or by the eddlttoa of a fan or roaoeterto
obtain a tees suiiigiim sauseiea
limitation. The court found this
definition too narrow becaoae an*
technique "agnficandy ataOTatad ay aa)
intent to gain emissions credit for
greater dispersion" should be barred
T19 F.2d 462. As a result, the caart
directed EPA to develop nissa
disallowing credit for ail each dtsaenioa
techniques unless die Agencp
adequately jasOfied cxcepsssaa oa the
basis of administrative nai ssairy or eoa>
mmimis result
  The CEP formulae established ia tba
1982 rule do not consider pssaaa risa.«a
the ground that plume nse is not
significant under downwash conditions.
In its review of this provision, tha court
affirmed this judgment by EPA.
  The 1982 rule addressed pollutant
concentrations estimated to occur whan,
a plume impacts elevated terrain by
allowing credit for stack height
necessary to avoid ait quality vialatiooa
in such cases. However, tha caurt ruled
that section 123 did not allow EPA to
grant  credit for plume impaction in,
        setting eauaaioa
        part of the regulation.
          Tha prsasahie ta the 19«2 regukbea
        provided a 22 sooth pracaaa tar Stale
        iaaplameatatioo of tha ngulaliatt The
        court found this period to ba contrary to
        secaoa 4D64dK2> of tha Cloaa Aar Act
        and reversed it
          The regulatioa. following the statute.
        excluded stack* "ta i
                         before December 31. lam from tbe CEP
                         requirements. However, the reguietioa
                         did not prohibit seurceacoastructed
                         after December tt. 1970. fresa sacasviat
                         credit foe tying iato>pra-un stacka.
                         Although, tha court upheld EPA's
                         dsuaidoo of "ta existence." ii aatad- thai
                         EPA had faaad to addfeas taa UOHB
                         issaa. Accntrliaajy the caurt reaaaadad:
                         this issue to SPA me juaaficaaaa.
                           One other arortaioa of the isaulalsna
                         was challenged ia tha Siena C/uo suit
                         The exclusioa el flares froea tha
                         defiaiaea of "alack," Ia Ua review of that
                         previaiaa. tha caurt held that HPA baa}
                         acted properly.
                           Other proviaioaa of the stack assfbi
                         regulatioa. such, aa the da mi'nimts stack
                         height estahrfsheii iiader i SLIPMI).
                         were not chellengari in tha suit east thua
                               Lia affect.
                                       Summary of £*e> M>vew*er
                           to tha November 9k lata, aottca
                         responding, to tfn enact daciaififl,
                         propoasdtoredanaa&aambarof
        techniques,- "nearby," aasiotbat
        importaaLcoacapts. aad ptnpnsari u

                                   Tba
                         dataflDiaiotl Ga7 staak haii
                         foQowjag ia a auaiaMcy of
                         that ware proposed
          Tha Court of Appeals held that EPA
        srred la denaiag "^sosQeeaive^
        coBceasnaeoa" due taeawa.weaa.far
        purposes of justifying a ssack greater
        thaa formuU heighl aa aothiag more
        thaa a 40-oercaat iacraaaa ia poilusaat
        coacaatratBoaa ever what weald occur
        in the absence of eowawaak II
                         i to EPA to relate tba
                          defiaiaoato
                        abaoiata lawei of ear
                          ba iatsraseted to
        endanger health sad welfare.
        to be "excaaarwa."
         The EPA proposed two alternative

        concentrationa." Fleet. EPA raneaatert
        comment oa whether the ul asruaa
        speroach adapted aa pert oitba Mat
        reguladoa id feet arotecta
        dangers a> aaakb aad wekmnr

        secnoa ia. bi UMkeweat that sueb a
showmg could not be made. EPA
proposed a two-pett dafiaitioa of

the rfnwnwasi, wakas. or eddies
induced by nearby structures or terrain

level paiiataat eoocaa tattoos thak
  (») Cause or mauibute to an
exceedanee of e NAAQ5 or spptieabie

  (b) Are at least 40 percent in excess of
concentrationa projected to occur in the
absence of such structures or terrain.
features,

Definition ofGEPStudt Hnght

  EPA pcoaosed to fiod that the
traditional (UH> aad refiaed {H4-1JL)
formulae ramaued proper methods for
calculating GEP stack height except EPA
prapoaad to revise its regulation to
allow EPA. tha State or local air
pollution control agency discretion to
require a farmer demonstration, using e
flekf study or fluid modal to
demonstrate GET stack height for a
source tea case where i! waa believed
that me formats may not re&afily predict
CEP height m> the case of structures that
are porous or aerodynaau*eaQy smoother
thaa block-shaped structures. R would
require a source to demoastrate the
downwasb effects of such structures
ii«jM ( ffeJdl study orffufd model before
racaiimg credft for stack height based
OB the structures. EPA also proposed
generally to aflow sources to raise
existing, stacks up to formula GEP height
without tether damonstrarlnna with tha
exception noted above fat discretionary,
                                              Ae/iixnee oa th» iSH Formula
                                                                  Inital9«fulea,EPAi
                                                                bndt before ^sutfryUMn. the date OB
                                                                which it propesed tha reaaadi H^l A
                                                                fonaulae. to calculate their cnMstea
                                                                UmUa haaad oa the tradeaaaai 2JH
                                                                forsaula that seaatad pseviousiy. The
                                                                court approved taia dJsarMiTiao but
                                                                ruled mat it shoaid be Uautaa la soateee
                                                                that "reaed" oa the tradibaeas foraoia.
that had ciaMed craail for stacka far
taller tha» thexlanasua provMed «*id
not bo saki to have "raked" oa it.
                               ,EPA
                                                                          i far stacks ta i
                                                                January 12,1879. sourcaa <
                                                                that taay aernaUy tauad oa the 2JH
                                                                f ormaai ia tha aaaosa of their ssacaa
                                                                before recatnaa] credit aw teal keajat ia

                                                                proposakEPA la^aeaaed eaaaaeat to
                                                                what ft should eeaaadee aa aeoaassale

-------
                               / VoL 90. No. uo / Monday. July & IMS / Rule* tnd  Regulation*
  In its 196 rales. EPA allowed WUTCM
that modtlad the effects of tamio
obstacles on downwaata to iaeluda any
tirrain features in thair modal without
limiting thair distinct from the slack.
Tha court though parsuadad thai thi*
was a sansibla approach, siact it
•llowad tha modal to btst Approximate
reality, ruled that Congress had
intended • different result namely that
terrain features beyond H mile from the
stack should not  be included in tha
modal
  In response. EPA proposed, to revise
i 5U(UX3) of its regulation to limit tha
consideration of downwasa. wakes. and
eddy effects of structures and tetraia
features to theaa naturae "UMi*rf aa
batttf laaafbjr aa oafiaad ia I SLIOJ).
Under this proposal, structures and
tetraia feature* would be considered to
be "nearby-tf they occur within a
distance of not more than 04 km (H
mile): terrain features that extend
beyond waye ef
limiting terrain in the modal beyond the
proposed '*»•'•'**• limitations.
  To establish a beeetina for
comparison, two alternatives woaid
initially modal tha steck on e flat plane
with no structure or terrain influences.
To analyze downwesh effects, the first
approach would then insert nearby
terrain, with aUlerrain beyond tha
distance ttmtt "eat off" horizontally. The
second approach would gradually
smooth end slope the terrain beyond the
distance limit down to the elevetion of
the base of the stack.
  The third approach would proceed in
a somewhat different manner. A
baseline would be established by
modeling all terrain beyond the distance
limit smoothing and sloping nearby
terrain to nunimiae it* influence. To
analyse downwaah effects, the nearby
terrain would then be inserted into the
model and the dUference in effect
measured to determine appropriate
downwaah credit for stack height
Definition of "TUtpunoa TtduuquM"
  In the 1992 rale*, EPA identified two
CEP and 1CS/SC8. aa havteg no purpose
that had the result of mcreaatag
dispersion. The court oonduded that
Congress  «d intended at a *«•«—"-
to forbid my diapersinn enhancement
practice that was significantly
luotlvaenl by an intent to obtain
additional credit for greater dispersion.
and remanded the question to EPA for
                   10 IwVteW IV
  The EPA
         of "dupen
generally to tadada, a addftfen to JCS.
SCSaodstacx heights ia excess of CSP.
any tsrhnlqess nat have aa effect of
m
wherra ncffity was originally <
and i
sttaanaa or wnora ma i
with the mataDatten of additional
OOBVDlaf ywMlflf 9 0sfft fVQBCtiflB IB tOtV
imlieiiins of tha effected ooflotnat The
EPA retained excrastons Bom its
definition of prohibited dieeantoa
tecttttkfuea for smoke managamant hi
agricultural and suvteulnnl prescribed
burning programs and also proposed to
exclude episodic restrictions on
residential woodbuming and debris
burning.
Niw Sourtm Tifd into Pr+tsn Stodtt
  Section ia exempts stacks In
existence" at the end of 1970 from its
requirements, EPA's general approach to
implementing this language was upheld
by the court However, to its 1982 rale
EPA had also allowed this credit to
                                       sources built after tnat date that had
                                       tied into stack* built before that date.
                                       EPA failed to respond to comments
                                       objecting to this allowance, and so the
                                       court remanded tha question to EPA for
                                       the agency to address.
                                        Upon raaxammathm. EPA saw no
                                       convincing justification for granting
                                       credit to these sources. Consequently.
                                       for sources constructed after December
                                       31.19m with emissions ducted into
                                          dfatfaered stacks of greater than
                                      CEP I
    1 height and for sources constructed
before that date but for which major
modifications or reconstruction have
bean carried out subsequently. EPA
proposed to limit stack height credit to
only so much of the actual stack height
as conforms to CEP* Sources
constructed prior to December 31.19ra
for which modifications are carried out
that are not dasstfisd as "major" under
40 CFR Sl.lft(jXi). 31 J4(6)(2)(n. and
S1.2M0M2X1) woaid be allowed to retain
Adi credit for their existing stack
heights.

Plum* lapoctioa

  b Ha 19K rules. EPA sllowed steck
height credit far "plume hnpaetien." a
pnenosBeBon tnat is distinct from
downwaah, wakes and eddies. The
court though sympathetic to EPA's
policy position, reversed this judgment
aa beyond tha scope of the statute.
Accordingly. EPA proposed to delete the
allowance of plume impactian credit
from, its regulation ia compliance with
the  court derision  However. EPA also
                    Lin complex
                                                               t to conduct
                                                                      EPA
result from the appttcatton of revised
CEP stack henmt assumptions and if so.
how each aBowanee should be made.

Slate letpitamtatio* Plan Asoiuraewnu

  EPA's 1992 raJa* gave state* a total of
22 months to revise their rules and to
establish source emission limitations
baaed on new stack height credits. The
court found this. too. to go beyond the
language of the statute. In response.
EPA stated ia the proposal thai States
would be required pursusnt to section
405(d)(2)fb) of the dean Air Act to
review their rake end existing emission
limitettona. revising them as needed to
comply wita the new rsgaiauaa within 9
months of the date ef its promulgation.

-------
27896       Federal  Register /  Vol. 50. No. 130 / Monday. July 8.  1985 / Rules  and Regulations
Response to Public Comments on the
November A 1984. Proposal

  The EPA  received over 400 comments
during the public comment period and at
the public hearing, addressing a number
of aspects of the proposed
reguiation.These comments have been
consolidated according to the issues
raised and are discussed, along with
EPA's responses, in a "Response to
Comments" document included in the
ruiemaking docket Certain comments
can be characterized as "major" in that
they address issues that are
fundamental to the development of the
final regulation. These comments are
summarized below, along with EPA's
responses. Additional discussion of the
issues raised and further responses by
EPA can be found in the "Response to
Comments" document

I. Maximum Control of Emissions in Lieu
of Dispersion
  A central legal and policy question
addressed in this ruiemaking  was raised
in the comments of the Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC] and
the Sierra Quo. They contend that
section 123  requires all sources to install
the m«»imimi feasible  control
technology  before receiving any credit
for the dispersive effects of a  stack of
any height  or for other practices that
may enhance pollutant dispersion.
  The NRDC argument is summarized
fully in die Response to Comments
document together with EPA's response.
Very briefly. NRDC contends that
litigation prior to the 1977 Clean Air Act
Amendments had established that
dispersion can never be used as an
alternative  to emission control, and that.
this understanding was carried forward
and strengthened in the 1977 Clean Air .
Act Amendments. Accordingly, no rule
that does not require full control of
emissions ea a prerequisite to any stack
height credit would bit consistent with.
Congressional intent
  EPA disagrees. During the • years
between 1977 and NRDCa comments, a
period covering two Administrations
and three Administrators. NRDCs
position has never been either adopted
by EPA or seriously advocated before it
The pre-1977 cases cited by NRDC-do
not bar all stack credit but only credit
for stacks beyond the historical norm.
Finally, the text and legislative history
of section 123 contain essentially no
support for NRDCs "control first"
position.
II. Discussion of Other Major Issues
  The EPA's* position on the "control
first" comments provides the necessary
background against which the remaining
                                      major issues in this ruiemaking are
                                      discussed. These issues are: the
                                      definition of "excessive concentrations-
                                      due to downwash. wakes, and eddies:
                                      the definition of "nearby:" and the
                                      definition of "dispersion technique." A
                                      question that affects several of these
                                      decisions, and that is addressed where
                                      it arises, concerns the extent to which
                                      any changes made in the stack heights
                                      regulations should be applied
                                      prospectively rather than retroactively.
                                        This discussion of "excessive
                                      concentrations" is in turn divided into a
                                      discussion of the physical characteristics
                                      of downwash. followed by a discussi
                                      of the significance of those
                                      characteristics aa they pertain to the
                                      CEP formulae, to stacks above formal
                                      height to stacks being raised to formula
                                      height and to stacks at formula height
                                      being modeled at the choice of the
                                      administering authorities.
                                      Definite,  of "Excessive
                                      Concentrations''
                                        The Physical Nature of Downwash. A
                                      number of commenters. including the
                                      Utility Air Regulatory Croup (UAftG).
                                      have argued that the court decision does
                                      not obligate EPA to reviae the definition
                                      adopted in the 1982 regulation, but only
                                      directs EPA to ensure that the 40»
                                      percent criterion protects •ffg<*M*
                                      concentrations due to downwash that
                                      could be related to health and welfare
                                      concerns. They point oat that when

                                      In the wake region produced by the
                                      source itself or upwind structures and
                                      terrain features, those p-**-*"**- are
                                      brought rapidly to earth, with little
                                      dilution. T^ia» the conuncntors argue*
                                      can produce short-term peek
                                      concentrations at groundlevel that are
                                      many times greater thai the
                                      concentration levels of tba NAAQS.
                                      Because their duration is relatively
                                      short averaaini theee concent
                                      over the tones specified by the NAAQS
                                      doee not result in NAAQS violations.
                                      Nonetheless, the-conunenters argue that
                                      these concentrations should be regarded
                                      as nuisance* that section 123 was
                                      specifically enacted to avoid.
                                      Accordingly, the commenters held that
                                      EPA would be justified in retaining the
                                      40-percent criterion without requiring
                                      that such increases result in
                                      exceedances of the NAAQS.
                                        These same commenters argoed that
                                      severe hardships would result if EPA's
                                      second proposed definition of
                                      "excessive concentrations" is adopted.
                                      and that by limiting suck height credit
                                      to that just necessary to avoid
                                      exceedance of NAAQS or PSD
                                      increments, the definition would act to
                                      limit actual (tack design and
construction in a way that would
increase the likelihood of NAAQS or
PSD exceedances. This would occur.
they argue, because, by building only so
tall a stack as they can receive credit
for. sources would be eliminating a
"margin of safety" that would normally
be provided otherwise. Furthermore, it
was argued that due to the changing
nature of background air quality.
inclusion of absolute concentrations
such as the NAAQS or PSD increments
in the definition would render
determinations of CEP stack height
constantly subject to change.
  NRDC argued on the other hand that
only a violation of air quality standards
can bo considered the type of
"excessive concentration" for which
downwash credit can be justified, the
EPA had failed to specify the health or
welfare significance of the short-term
peake that it might consider as meeting
this description, and mat in any event
UARC'a attempt to show that short
stacks could cause a large number of
short-term peaks waa technically flawed
in several different ways.
  Response, Extensive discussion of the
downwash phenomenon, as well aa the
aerodynamic effects of buildings and
terrain features on windflow patterns
and tarboJeoce. is contained in the
technical and guidance documents
previously listed in this notice. To
summarize briefly, numerous studies
have shown that the region of
turbulence created by obstacles to
windflow f ''*!ff* to a height of
approximately 24 times the height of the
obstacle. Pollutants emitted into this
region can be rapidly brought to the
ground, with United dilution. Though
thia tendency decreases the higher
vertically within the downwash region
that the phone la released, because of
the highly unpredictable nature of
downwash and the lack of extensive
quantitative data, it is extremely
difficult to reliably predict plume
behavior within the downwash region.
As noted in the comments submitted.
the «ti««"sjyift«Mt| features of downwash
do not show up well over an averaging
time aa long aa 1 hour or more. Pollutant
concentrations resulting from
downwash can arise and subside very
quickly aa meteorological conditions.
              fpeed and atmospheric
stability vary. Thia can result in short-
term peaks, lasting up to 2 minutes or so.
recurring intermittently for up to several
hours, that significantly exceed the
concentrations of the 3- and 24-hour
NAAQS. Little quantitative information
is available on the actual levels of these
peaks, or on the frequency of their
occurrence since most stacks have been

-------
                                                               •
              Federal Register / Vol.  50. No. 130 / Monday. July  8. 1985 / RuJes and Regulations
designed to, avoid down wash and
because downwash monitoring ia not
typically conducted.
  A number of modeling and monitoring
studies in the record assess the
significance of downwash when plumes
are released into the downwash region.
The moat important of these are a
number of studies cited in the November
9 proposal showing that for sources with
sulfur dioxide (SOi) emission rates of 4
to a pounds per million British Thermal
Units (Ib./mmBTU). stacka releasing the
plume into the downwash region can
significantly exceed the 3-hour NAAQS.
  The utility industry submitted
monitoring results from four sites
snowing that facilities with abort stacks
(ranging from 23 to  M percent of formula
height) generated many short-term
peaks in the vicinity of dM plant at
concentrations at least X  times the
highest concentration of the 3-hour SOi
standard. Lsw 1 ppm for up to 10
minutes. Those concentrations are the-
maximun that could be recorded by the
monitors used. There ia no wey to
determine from these data the true peak
ground-level concentration*
  The NRDC. ia commenting on this
subject has argued thet dowawaaa- •  •
related concentrations are largely
theoretical since stacka have generally
been built to avoid downwash. and that
actual concentration* occur under other
meteorological conditions such as
"inversion breakup fumigations'* and
"looping plums," that can equal theee
"theoretical'' concentrations predicted
under downwaah.' The NRDC also
criticized the utility data  oa auneroa*
technical grounds.
  EPA's studies indicate  Oat. whan
stacka are significantly leaa than GBP
formula height high short-term
concentrations can  indeed occur due to
downwash  that are in the range of the
values reported by me utility industry.
Concentrations produced by the other
conditions cited by NRDC. tough high.
may be lower by an order of magnitude.
and occur less frequently by as much as
two orders of magnitude, than those
produced by downwash. * As stack *
  1 In "iavenNM breakup fuaiieotioa." M iBiemoa
layer OIMIPCCH OH* to hMuoj of Hit fomd. temai
the polkiunu Uut were trapped ia it detcead
suddenly to pound Itvti. In looping ptume*.' •
piumt •« brM«hi down to tht pauad dew 

the range and variation of<
m9lm*&^ ^J^^^^^^^jl |M ^^^^^Bfc AtaMU^^
eaten ooeerveQ IB recent sn«uea>
However, no information haa been
presented which would convince EPA to
abandon dM present CEP formulae in
favor of any alternative.
  The health aad welfare significance of
downwash concentrations that result la
violations of the ambient standards are
documented aad acknowledged in tht
standards themselves. The significance
of short-term peaks at the levels that
EPA's analyses predict la more
judgmental. However, e number of
studies cited in EPA's "Review of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
               rOovM & Hewktaa. MtDC M
WillUm r. Pedenen. lr. ORIet of General
  •MrmonndiMi from Alan H. Hvtar. ASM. »
DivKl Siont fitld. OAQPS. |UM n. IBM.
for Sulfur Oxide* Assessment of
Scientific and Technical Informs
(EPA-WO/S-82-007. November IW.,.
indicate that concentrations of one p;
sustained for durations of 5 minutes c
more can product bnmchoconstrictic
in asdunatics accompanied by
symptoms such as wheezing and
coughing. Such concentrations are we
within the range of concentrations tha
can result from downwash. When
sources meet tht ambient standards.•
frequency of occurrence for these
concentrations under me other
conditions died by NRDC Is
substantially lower than for down was
whan stacks art lest than CEP.
  GSP Formula Stock Hvght Some
mramanttra. tad tiding NRDC stated
that EPA cannot justify retention of thi
traditional (iSH) and refined (H+1.5L
CEP formulae beted simply oa their
relationahip-to dM 40-percent criterion.
and argued that tfae formulae provide
too much credit la many or moat cases.
Thia, may argue, results ia allowing
sources to obtain unjustifiably lament
emission umitations.
  Other eonanentars argued that
Cangrsss oapBdUy raafflmMd the
traditional' GEPforauaia. and that EPA
ihmild allow •M«f-M«» reiiaace on i<
(and. by kmniieadon, on UM refiner
fomda that waa subsequently der,
froatt).
  Kmponm. Tit ate of EPA's refined
formula at a suuiiusj point for
determining CEP waa not called Into
question by any Utlgant m theS/erro
Club caae. Tht court's opinion likewise
dote not quettion DM use of the formul*
at a starting point A detailed diseussio
of OM court's treatment of the formula.
showing bow it endorsed the formula's
presumptive validity, it contained tn the
Response to Comments document
  DatpUt Qua limited endorsement EP/<
migkt attd to ravittt tat formula on its
own if its ~~**m*****~ of the
"exceetivt cuni.entratitc" and modeling
Issues indicated that nM formula  dearly
and typically misstated tat degree of
stack height needed to avoid downwaih
concentrations Out caatt health or

  However, no such result haa emerged
from ourrertamtnafion Stacks below
fonnaia height art aaeooated with
downwaah-rdattd violations of the air
quality standardt thamseivea when
emiaaion rates significantly exceed the
levels specified by NSPS. Even where
emissions are low. downwesh
conditions at stacka below formula
height can be expected, unlike othe.
condition*, to generate numerous *ht.
term peaks of air pollution at high levels

-------
2789S        Federal Register  /  Vot. 50. No. 130 /  Monday. July 8. 1965  / Rules and Regulation
that niM • real prospect of local health
or welfare impacts.
  As EPA stated in the proposal, it is
impossible to rely primarily on fluid
modeling to implement the stack height
regulations, particularly under the
timetable established by the court 49 PR
44883 (November 9.1964). No
commenter other than NRDC even
suggested a different formula that in
their eyes would be better, and NRDCs
suggestions were premised on their
"control first" position, which EPA has
found inconsistent with the statute and
has rejected. EPA considers the  refined
formula to be the state-of-the-art for
determining necessary stack height
  Given the degree of presumptive
validity the formula already poetesses
under the statute and the court opinion.
we believe that this record amply
supports its reaffirmatioa.
  Stack* Abon CEP Formula Height
The EPA's 1978 stack height guidelines
(rite) imposed special conditions oa
stacks above formula height—the
installation of control technology—that
were net imposed on lower stacks.
Similarly. EPA's 1973 proposal had
made credit above formula fcught
subject to a vaguely defined "detailed
investigation" (36 FR 25700). The
legislative history of the 1977 dean Air
Act Amendments cautioned that credit
for stacks above formula height should
be granted only in rare cases, and the
Court of Appeals adopted this as oaa of
the keystones of its opinion. The court
also condnded that Congress
deliberately adopted very strict
requirements for sources locating in
hilly terrain.
   For these reasons. EPA la requiring
sources seeking credit .for stacks above
formula height and credit for any stack
height justified by terrain effects to
show by field studies or fluid THHrMng
that this height is needed to avoid a 40-
percent increase in concentrations due
to downwash and that such an increase
would result in exceedance of sir	
quality standards or applicable PSD
increments. This will restrict stack
height credit in this context to cases
where the downwash avoided is at
levels specified by regulation or by act
of Congress as possessing health or
welfare significance.
   To conduct a demonstration to show
that an absolute air quality
concentration such as NAAQS or PSD
increment will be exceeded, it is
necessary to specify an emission rate for
the source in question.* The EPA
            If *• MM Of*
           - tevotnd • aapte
        ttara •uuM b« •> aMd ta qpafy u
        rra. one* UM IBCTMM in <
believes that ia cases where greater
than formula height may be needed to
prevent excessive concentrations.
source* should first attempt to eliminate
such concentrations by reducing their
emission*. For this reeson EPA ia
requiring that the emission rate to be
met by a source seeking to conduct •
demonstration to justify stack height
credit above the formula be equivalent
to the emission rat* prescribed by NSPS
applicable to the industrial SOUR*
category. In doing this. EPA is making
the presumption that this limit can be
met by ail sources seeking to justify
stack heights above formula height
Source* may rebut this presumption.
establishing an alternative emission
limitation, oa a ease by-case basis, by
demonstrating to th* reviewing
authority mat the NSPS emission
limitation may not feasibly be mat given
the characteristics of th* particular
source.* For example, it may be poaaibi*
for a source presently emitting SO* at a
rat* of 1.8 lb,/mmBTU to show that
meeting th* NSPS rat* of 14 Ib./mmBTU
would be prohibitive in that it would
require scrapping existing scrubber
equipment for th* purpose of installing
higher efficiency scrubbers. Similarly, a
source may be able to show that due to
space constraints and plant
configuration, it ia not poaaibi* to install
the necessary equipment to meet die
NSPS •mission rat*. In th* event that a
source believ** that dowawmsk-will
continue to result in excessive
concentrations when the source-
•mission rat* is consistent with NSPS
requirements, additional stack height
credit may be justified through fluid'
modeling at that emission rate.
  A source, of course, always remain*
free to accept th* emission rat* that ia
associated with a formula height stack
rather than relying on a demonstration
under th* conditions described beta.
The third alternative mentioned in the
propose I  using the actual emission
limit for th* source  has been rejected
because, to the extent dtat limit relied
oa greater than formula height it would
amount to using a tall stack to justify
itself.
  The EPA's reliance on exceedance*.
rather than violations of the NAAQS
and PSD increments, ia deliberate. Fluid
modeling demonstrations are extremely
complicated to design and carry out
even when th* meet simple
demonstration criteria—that ia, a
percentage increase in concentration*,
rum.
  •Tht »A «tO nty M IU SMI Araibbto ftMafti
                a iwnrwnj t*r r»b>rtil«
                                       with no consideration of absolute
                                       values  are assumed. Adding
                                       consideration of an absolute
                                       concentration such ss a NAAQS or PSD
                                       increment substantially complicates this
                                       effort further and introduces the
                                       scientific uncertainties associated with
                                       predicting an exceadance of a 3-hour or
                                       24-hour standard based on 1 hour or less
                                       of modeling data. Using an hour or less
                                       of modeling values, based on one set of
                                       meteorological data, to draw the
                                       distinction between only one
                                       exctedance of the standard during the
                                       6780 hours ia a year, and the two or
                                       more that constitute s violation pushes
                                       that uncertainty beyond reasonable
                                       limits. EPA therefore does not find the
                                       additional difficulties that would be
                                       created by requiring violations instesd
                                       of exceedances to be warranted. That is
                                       particularly so here, given that the
                                       regulations require sources seeking
                                       credit above the formula to be well-
                                       controlled aa a condition of obtaining
                                       such credit
                                        Us* of an absolute concentration in
                                       the test of "excessive concentrations"
                                       can lead to problems of sdministering
                                       the program, in that it can have a
                                       "zoning" effect Since  a source can only
                                       get stack height credit to the extent that
                                       it is needed to avoid a PSD increment or
                                       NAAQS exceedance. an emissions
                                       increase in the area of that source may
                                       increase concentrations beyond the
                                       controlling limit thereby making it
                                       difficult for new sources to locate in the
                                       are*, or for sequential construction of
                                       additional emitting units at the source in
                                        tad •iMnutrM
  Thia effect cannot be avoided under
any taet for "excessive concentrations''
thai ia tied to absolute concentrations.
Howevez. that effect will be mitigated
by th* fact that the us* of this approach
ia voluntary and limited to sources
wishing' to rely on fluid modeling to
justify stack height credit Moreover, the
effects of downwash tend to occur very
near th* source, usually on fenced  .
company property. Since concentrations
measured at such locations an not used
to evaluate NAAQS attainment or PSO
increment consumption, new sources
wishing to locate in the area are less
likely to be affected.
  Sources planning sequential
construction *f new emitting units st
on* nation or contemplating future
expansion can reduce the uncertainties
noted above by initially obtaining
permits for th* total number of units
anticipated and by planning for
expansion in the calculation of
necessary physical stack height In the
latter instance, only the allowable itack
height credit would be revised as

-------
Federal  Register / Vol. SO. No.  130 / Monday. July & 19S5 / Roles and Regulations       27899
expansion is carried out—not actual
stack height
  An additional theoretical
complication is presented when an
absolute concentration is wed where
meteorological conditions other than
downwash result in the highest
predicted ground-level concentrations in
the ambient air. In such cases, a source
that has established CEP st a particular
height assuming a given emission rats.
may predict a NAAQS violation at that
stack height and emission rate under
some other condition. e.g~ atmospheric
stability Class 'A.' Reducing the
emission rate to eliminate the predicted
violation would result in stack height
credit greater dun absolutely necessary
to avoid an excessive concentration
under downwash. However, reducing
stack height places the source back ia
jeopardy of a NAAQS violation under
the other meteorological condition, and
so on. "ratcheting" stack height credit
and emission rates lower and lower. The
EPA has eliminated this "ratcheting"
potential in the CEP guideline by
providing that once CEP is established
for a source,  adjusting the emission rate
to avoid a violation under other
conditions does not require
recalculation of a new CEP stack height
  EPA is making this part of the
regulations retroactive to December 31.
1970. In  the terms of the court's
retroactivity analysis, stacks greater
than formula height represent a situation
that Congress did affirmatively "intend
to alter" in section 123. Moreover. EPA
regulatory pronouncements since 1970
have placed a stricter burden on sources
raising stacks above formula height than
on others.
  No source  is precluded from building
a stack height greater than formula
height if such height is believed to be
needed to avoid excessive downwash.
However,  the design and purpose of
section 123 prohibit SIP credit for that
effort unless a relatively rigorous
showing can be made.
  Given the ability of sources to avoid
modeling and rely on validity of the CEP
formulae and requirement for farther
control of emissions in conjunction with
stack heights in excess of formulae
height the result predicted by UARG—
exceedanees of the NAAQS or PSD
increments due to inadequate stack
height—is highly unlikely.
  The potential effect of changes in
background air quality on stack height
credit is not substantially different from
the effect that such changes in
background can have on source
emission limitations ia nonattainment
ireas. In the first case, however, sources
may be  able to address these effects
through greater stack height if such
                          changes affect the concentrations under
                          downwash. Moreover, the possibility
                          that shifting background air quality can
                          yield different calculations of CEP is
                          significantly limited by the fact that
                          consideration of background in CEP
                          calculations is restricted to those cases
                          where credit for greater than formula
                          height ia being sought or sources are
                          seeking to raise stacks to avoid
                          excessive concentrationa.
                            Raiting Stack* Mow Formula fffight
                          to Formula HtigtA b response to EPA's
                          proposal to allow automatic credit for
                          CEP formula height several i
                          have argued that EPA baa failed to
                          adequately respond to the court's
                          directive to "rei misider whether, in light
                          of its now "***">M*"""'iej of 'excessive
                          concentrationa.  demonstrations are
                          necessary before stock heights may be
                          raised, even if the final height wul not
                          exceed formula height"
                                     Raising a stack below
                                 height to formula height ia not
forma
                          in EPA's judgment subject to the same
                          statutory reservations aa building stacks
                          greater than formula height However.
                          as the court has cautioned, it may still
                          be necessary for these sources to show
                          that raising stacks is necessary to avoid
                          "excessive concentrations" that raise
                          health or. welfare concerns,
                            For theee reasons, sources wishing to
                          raise stacks subsequent to October 11
                          1983. the data of the aCdrcatt
                          opinion, moat provide evidence that
                          additional height ia necessary to avoid
                          downwaah-reiated concentrations
                          raising health ""^ welfare coocerns.
                          Theee rales allow sources to do dtis m
                          two ways.
                            The first way is to rebut the
                          presumption that the short stack was
                          built high enough to avoid dewawash
                          problems: Le, to show, by site specific
                          information such aa monitoring data or
                          citizen "irrfffliinft. that die short stack
                          had ia foot caused a local nuisance and
                          most be raised for this reason. The EPA
                          believes dut both the historical
                          experience of the industry and the data
                          on short-term peaks discussed eartter
                          show that short stacks can.caueo local
                          nuisances due to downwash. However.
                          where e source has built a short stack
                          rather than one at formula height it has
                          created e presumption that this is not
                          the case. General data on short-term
                          peaks may not be strong enough to
                          support by themselves sad ia the
                          abstract a conclusion dut the stack
                          must be raised nrevoid local adverse
                          effects. Instead, that proposition must be
                          demonstrated for each particular source
                          involved.
                            In the event that a source cannot
                          make such a showing, the second wey to
                          justify raising a suck is to demonstrate
by fluid modeling or field study an
increase in concentrations due to
downwash that is at least 40-percent in
excess of concentrations in the absence
of such downwash aad la excess of the
applicable NAAQS or PSD increments.
In making this demonstration, the
emission rate in existence before the
stack is raised must be used.
  Since raising stacks to formula height
ia not subject to the same extraordinary
reservations expressed by Congress and
the court with respect to stacks being
raiaed above formula height EPA does
not believe that the use of presumptive
"wefl-coatrejled" emission rate is
appropriate ben. Aa discussed ia EPA's
response to NRDCa "control first"
argument the basic purpose of section
123 wee to take sources as it found them
aad. baaed on those circumstances, to
aeeore that they did not avoid control
requirements through additional
dispersion. Use-of a source's actual
emission rate ia this instance is
coaaistoBt with that basic purpose and.
absent special indications of a different
iatant should be used ia suck height
calculations.
  The EPA believes dut it is moat
unlikely that any source with e current
eniseioB Umitatioo ***f failed to *!•'"»
roll formula credit for a stack of formula
••igjin  Accordingly, the question
whether a source ^u receive stack
height credit up to formula height will
involve only sources that want to
actually raise their physical stack not
sources dut simply waat to claim more
credit for a stack already ia existence. A
source will presumably not go to die
trouble of raisiag aa existing stack
widtoot some reason, ff a source cannot
show that the reason was in fact the
desire to avoid a problem caused by
downwash, thrti the inference that it
waa instead a desire for more dispersion
credtt is hard to avoid. A nuisance
caused by dowawashed emissions could
iadade dtfatea or employee complaints
or property damage. A source would be
expected to show that complaints of this
nature were reasonably widespread
before letting credit oadar this section.
  The EPA doee aot intend to make this
rule retroactive to stacks dut

modificatioes diet would raise them to
formula height prior to October 111983.
Applying the court's recroectivity
analysis, it appears:
  1-The now rale does depart from prior
practice. The EPA's 1973 proposed rule
affirmatively encouraged sources with
shorter stacks to raise them to formula

-------
27900        Federal Register  /  Vol  50. No. 130 / Monday. July 8. 1965 / Rule« and Regulation*
height 'Though EPA's 1978 guidtliot
can bt rtid M imposing a "control first"
requirtmtnt on somt suck height
increases. its general thrust gave
automatic credit for all stacks that met
the "13" times formula.* Automatic
permission was similarly set forth in the
1979 proposal in the 1981 reproposaL
and in the 1982 final rule. Only a notice
published in 1980. but later withdrawn.
departs {ram this trend, requiring the use
of field studies or fluid modeling
demonstratioos to justify stack height
increases op to CEP formula height*
Even then, the notice would have made
this policy prospective in its application.
  2. Sources that raised stacks a
reliance on this past EPA guidance
assuming the availability of dispersion
credit cannot be distinguished from the
sources, in the example approved by the
court that built stacks to the traditional
formula in an identical expectation of
dispersion credit
  3. It cannot be said mat the  raising of
stacks to formula height is a practice
that Congress "affirmatively sought to
end." It is not mentioned in the text of
the statute or its legislative history.
Further, as the court has already noted,
the statute attributes a degree of
presumptive validity to the formula on
whJcn sowcoe that raiao their stack*
will have relied.
  Attention to Aeoum FhM MooMJhf.
Several ooementers argued that EPA's
proposal to allow ageoeiea to  require me
use of fiutd •"MJ^Mnsi wae unnecessary.
since EPA haw already dossnenlBd the
validity of the GSP
that due allow
modeling the rale, rather thaa the
exception. This would reaafc tha>
ro^m^t^r ,utfc because it waa their
expectation that agenda* or
environmental groups would nearly
alwas fm^ for fluid "»«<"<
 always fm^ for fl
 demonstrations during the permit
 application and review proceea.
   Other commenters itatert that
 providing the discretion to require fluid
 modeling was appropriate, since EPA
 had failed  to demonstrate that me CEP
 formulae represented the «"*»<•""«'
 height necessary to avoid excessive
 concentrations.
   fatpotu*. The Court of Appeals
 directed EPA to reexamine whether its
 rules should allow State*, as a matter of
 discretion, to require even sources that
 iti|in««nin
               i» mcourasrt by ITA to
 to ivtwi tool MUMCM." iae n. jsrasi
   •« ft MSI (F«bnj«ry is. israk r,,,t\»\*t
 scettMM ax aim can
   • U PH 4gCT (H»» »L ISSBMndfle iHtet
                                       planned to rely on the formula to show
                                       instead by fluid modeling that a stack
                                       this high was required to avoid dangers
                                       to health and welfare caused by
                                       downwash. The court suggested that
                                       EPA should include such a provision
                                       unless it could find that the formula was
                                       so accurate, or tended so much to err on
                                       the low side, as to m*kt discretionary
                                       authority to adjust formula height
                                       downward unnecessary.
                                        The EPA believes that the court was
                                       mistaken in its conclusion that a stack
                                       at formula height is likely to generate
                                       downwash concentrations as great as 40
                                       percent only in uncommon situations. la
                                       fact EPA's observations indicate that
                                       when stacks are built to CEP formula
                                       heisat an i&creeee i& conceBttattona
                                       due to downwaaa can still be expected
                                       to occur that ia between 20 and to
                                       percent greater than the concentration
                                       that would occur in the absence of
                                       building influences.1*
                                        Nevertheless, in response to the
                                       court's remand. EPA ia mHudlng in tins
                                       final rule a provision for the authority
                                       administering these rules to require field
                                       studies or fluid modeling
                                       damoostrationa. even for stacks built to
                                       formula height in caaea when it
                                       believes that the formula nay
                                       significantly overstate the appropriate
                                       stack baigat credit"
                                        While EPA believes the formula to a
                                       reasonable nsla of thumb indicating ths>
                                       stack height aisdsd te avead sosae
                                       probability of a standard* violation and
                                       « npificaatb gnaftar probability of a
                                       local
                                        attempted to amnaiie this possibility
                                        withatehmtoofavatlabsfdetaby.
                                        identifying two partteuiar etraattoa* ia
                                        which it believes that the i
                                        rat be raoabte indicators of <
si
are
                                       which the finsaalss are baaed•
                                                              4 Corf
                                                                      Tkfcto
                                       However. EPA acknowledges that other
                                       situations, of which the Agency is not
                                       presently aware, may arise wherein tfat
                                       formulae may not be adequate.
                                        The EPA intends to "grandfather any
                                       source that relied on the formula in
                                       building its stack before the dete of
                                       EPA's 1979 proposal from the effect of
                                       this discretionary reexaminatton
                                       requirement
                                        Only in that proposal did EPA first
                                       suggest that such a discretionary
                                       reexamination provision might be
                                       included in the final rule. The
                                       retroactivity analysis set out earlier
                                       therefore supports exempting stacks
                                       built ia reliance on EPA guidance before
                                       that *^*T from discretionary
                                       reexamination. Indeed, a failure to
                                       "grandfather" these sources would lead
                                       to the paradoxical result that a source
                                       ttut had built a l-V,t> t^tck TH** the
                                       traditional EPA formula would have its
                                       direct reliance intasaeU protected by the
                                       "grandfather" provision previously
                                       upheld by the court but could then lose
                                       that "granoiathered" credit through s
                                       rasa  speriflr aesaonatmtion requirement
                                       showing that the traditional formula was
                                       somewhat inaccurate the very saason
                                       bates! the change ia me formula
                                       properly found oon-rettoeetive by EPA
                                         Gli
                      . EPA believes
                                       I9S*. Slnci EPA fanUr-a BM M«	
                                       for poraw fO«ct«M. DM rwOeiM* t> tkM nl* te
that the eflect on emissions of including
or of exdodtaf a provision for
diseretitaary determinations from this
rale to likary to be very smafl. Building
stada above fasania height and raising
stacks below *ir*^"*a height to formula
height are covered by regulatory
provisions already discussed. The only

determmations to address is the building
of stacks at formula height ia the post*
197* period. However, all major sources
built smce that ttm* are already
controled to SO* -M»
-------
             Federal Register / Vol.  SO. No. 130 / Monday. July 8.  198S / RuJts tnd Regulations       27901
  If such Murctt had to show that use
of a formula htight stack was ncedtd to
avoid txcttdances of the NAAQS or
PSD increments, that might prove
difficult for many of them. The
likelihood of such exceedances tends to
decrease as the emission rate for the
source decreases. By the same token.
the incremental emission reductions
available from the sources that are at
issue here tend to be small and among
the most expensive available. In terms
of emission reductions, little is at stake
where these sources are concerned.
  Accordingly, the rules will require
such sources, if a reviewing authority
calls for a demonstration, to the rules
show that the us* of a formula stack
height is needed to avoid a 40-percent
increase in concentrations due to
downwash. This will provide a rough
check on whether die formula, as
applied  in the particular case at issue.
produces the result it was designed to
produce.
  The EPA is not providing here for
sources  to justify their formula height
stacks by arguing that the height in
excess of that needed to avoid NAAQS
violations  is needed  to avoid a local
nuisance. The discretionary modeling
requirement is designed for application
to stacks before they were built Beyond
that there is no way to determine based
on the-ooMAc* of a local nuisance that a
formula  height stack is not too tall in
the way that me pntvtct of a nuisance
shows that a stack under formula height
in fact is too short Accordingly, there
will be no  way. aa there was with short
stacks being raised, to determine from
actual experience whether a local
nuisance would occur at a shorter stack
height Though avoiding local nuisance
is a legitimate purpose for which stacks
are built it would be very difficult to
show by modeling what stack height
was needed to avoid it
  Some  commenters have
misunderstood EPA's allowance of
discretion  to require fluid modeling aa
requiring such modeling whenever any
individual or entity called forsuch a
demonstration. This  discretion nets
explicitly with the reviewing agenda*
who have  always had the prerogative to
require more stringent analyses in tbr
SIP process.-and no obligation is implied
for these agencies to require fluid
modeling simply because it has been
called for by some individual during the
permit review process. It is EPA's
expectation that technical decisions to
require such additional demonstrations
would be based on sound rationale and
vaiid data to show why the formulae
may not be adequate in a given
situation. In any case, given the burden
of reviewing a fluid modeling
demonstration, an agency is not likely to
exercise this option absent sufficient
justification. Consequently. EPA
disagrees with the •commenters'
contention that fluid modeling will
supplant the use of the GEP formulae,
except in what EPA believes will be
unusual instances.
  Rtlianct on thf iSH Formula. In
limiting the applicability of the ZJH
formula to those cases where the
formula was actually relied upon, the
November 9 proposal defined such
reliance in terms of stack design. A
number of comments indicated diet
actual stack design and construction
may ultimately be control not by the
2JH engineering role, but by .
construction materials specifications
Consequently, while 2JH rale Bay have
provided an initial starting point in
stack design, the rale may not have
dictated final stack height In other
cases, it was argued that a number of
source owners may have constructed
their stacks in excess of what was
determined to be minimum GEP for
precautionary reasons, for process
requirements, or in anticipation of
additional growth In the area
surrounding the facility, even though
emission limitations for these sources
would heve been limited then, aa now.
to formula height Consequently, it wee
argued that EPA should allow sources to
demonstrate reliance on the formula hi
the calculation of emission limits aa well
as in the design of the stack.
  In response to EPA's request for
comments on what evidence should be
considered acceptable in determining
reliance on the 2JH formula, seaee
commenters urged EPA to consider
reconstructed evidence, ej. affidavits
from design engineers or copies of
correspondence indicating peat reliance
on EPA guidance. Other commenters
stated that "reliance" should be very
strictly construed that EPA should be
circumspect in Its review of reliance
demonstrations, and thet only
contemporaneous documentary
evidence, such as blueprints and facility
design plans, be accepted aa evidence.
  Aespent*. The EPA is in general
agreement with the view that reliance
should be considered in relation to the
emission limitation for the source, not
the design. Since section 123 specifically
prohibits EPA from regulating actual
stack heights and rather regulates stack
height credits used in setting emission
limitations, it would be illogical to
require diet  sources demonstrate
reliance on the ZJH formula for actual
stack design. Moreover, such an
approach would contradict principles of
 sound planning, in that it would penalize
 those sources that have built taller
 stacks in anticipation of facility
 expansion or other growth in the area
 that could influence GEP
 determinations.
  If a stack has been built taller than
 2JH formula provides, while the
 emission limitation has been calculated
 sssnmtng ZJH credit e convincing
        stion has been made that the
source properly relied on the formula.
Conversely, if the emission limitation for
the source is based on some other stack
     t credit such as 2JH. 3JH or some
other number, it would be difficult to
show that the GEP formula had in fact
been relied on.
  In seeee cases the tmitthm limit
information may be unavailable or
incooduaive. In such cases. EPA will
allow reliance on reconstructed
evidence of construction intent
  In comments submitted during the
public «""•»*•» period and in response
to questions raised by EPA at the public
healing held on January 8. 198S, industry
representatives repeatedly stated that
contemporaneona evidence of reliance
on the 2JH formula, such as facility
design plena, dated engineering
rarely, if ever, retained for more than a
few yean after constraction of the
facility to completed Consequently, they
argued that moat cases of legitimate
reliance would be denied if
contanporaneous evidence were
required in order to retain for the 2JH
formula.
  The EPA agrees. Additionally, credit
afforded by the Z5H formula in excess
of that resulting from the nee of the
H+tS. derivative is likely to be small
except when the building on which
stack height credit is based is
substantially ••M*» **»•• it is wide.
Finally, it to EPA's view that the court
did not intend that sources be subject to
e rigorous or overly stringent of reliance.
but only that they be eecorded a
rteeoBablt opportunity to show reliance
on the 2JH formula. For these reasons.
EPA will allow the submission of
reconstructed La. noncontemporaneous
documentary evidence to demonstrate
reliance on the ZJH formula.
  Dffiaition of "Ntaror". Comments
were submitted by UARG and others.
arguing that effectively, no limitation
should be placed on the consideration of
terrain-induced downwash.
Alternatively, some of these
commenters argued that the court
decision requires mat a limitation be
adopted that does not apply any
distance restriction of * mile in
modeling terrain effects such «• >•

-------
27902       F«torml lUgjttnr / Vol. 50. No. 130  /  Monday.  July a. 1966 / Rales and Regulations
applied to itructurae in tha use of CEP
formulae, but rathe* aOowi
consideration of tfl terrain that'results
in the MIM downwash affect u thoM
itractuiM within Vi mile of the tuck.
  Other commenters have argued that
tht court decision and legislative history
preclude EPA frooi auowing
consideration of any terrain btyond a
distance of H milt. regardless of wfatrt
itbegtaa.
  Response, for tht rtasona
summarized below. EPA dot* not acctpt
either tat interpretation that tht eawt
(MCUMOB •tttnofBM EPA to noopt •
definition baaed solely oa effect OP that
it limits eontidantton exehisrverjr to
ttmin features felling entirely within H
  Whan Congnaa diaeaaaad the
allowance of credt I far atack height to
addnaa downwaab, it stated that th»
tam "nearby" wae to bo "sMctiy
construed." noting that if tha tam
to be interpreted "to apply to nv
structures or tamin ftetutm * to V*
mil* away from tha sources or man. the
matt could bt a* opoa invitation to
raiaa stack heights to unreasonably high
elevation ad to defeat tha baric
underlying "—w**t- mtenf»«
  IB its opiniOB, thaumrt held that HPA
could not grve anttmited credit
modoJingb
                              i that
rmnlrt mnfltrt with tha rmajraaainnal
intmnHr*) tg impooo artificial limits OB
that credit The cowl wea not presented
with, and did not addreee, the queation
of what to do abomt terrain faataraa that
"Tisgaii"  niliia It aiili mil mlmiasil
outside it The approach adopted by
EPA caniad out thte i faigrsatkaisl
purpose to impose aa artificial UmM bat
at tha same time reflects tha real facts
own closely than an abaolute Vb mile
limitation.
  Unlike man-made streets
ftatnraa do not hava readily «WlinMj
dimanatona othar than haiajkt For thia
rtaaon. EPA haa dafinad "Baaroy" aa
ganarafly allowing inchirion of
consideration of tarrain faatnraa that tafl
within a distance of % nula of the atack.
EPA's definition wiO paoBtt
considaration of such temin that
extenda btyond tha M mila Omit if tha
terrain begins within % alia, ailowinf
that portion within 10 time* tha  .
          heiflht of tha feature, not to
exceed 2 miles, as described In tha
proposal
  To define when a terrain feature
"beams" within V* mila, EPA has related
terrain height at the to mila distance to
(he »M«i»ni'n« (tick height that could be
justified under tha other two methods
for daterminini CEP. Aceordinfly. EPA
will require that tarrain features reach t
height at tha ft mila distance limit of
either 28 matara (La. 83 matan divided
by 15) or 40 percent of tha stack height
determined by tha <-^*) formulae applied
to nearby buildinga.
  TnaGMnt ofNiw ramw Existing
Sourett Uadtr tht Dtfiaitua of
"Ntarby". In tha propoaaL EPA
requested comment on whether new
sources should be treated differently
from existing sources and presented two
options for addressing them.
  Few ('.liniments wart received on
these options. Several questioned tha
logic of distinguishing between new and
existing sour
          ergflaa
          uWbot
 In the regulations. One
   that new and existing
both be subject to the
•trietVti
option for aew sourcee only. Thia haa
already bean discusead under EPA'a
raspor »to comments on tha general
definition of "nearby* and la not
addressed further hat*.
  Aeaponae. New sources an initially
subject to more stringent control
requirements than many existing
sources. Consequently, it ia leea likely
that tha emission linutationa and atack
height credits for thaaa sources wilt be
affected by terrain featuree.
Furthemora, SPA beUavea that tha
                                       diatanea hmttation will be maigniflcant
                                       ana wUI reenlt only m minor ehangee hi
  >*HJL
thadefinitkMof
  EPA ia giving thia deatnitton of
"nearby rattoactiva appUoation to
Dacambav n. Iflm The oowfa <
makaa cioar ita conoiHaiosj thaift Conajnaa
afBtmattvely focuaed OB thia iaaa* and
daddad thoa making application aa of
tha ~—*TM-I data proper.
  Dtfjoitiaa of Othst Dupmiaa
r«canieuaa. Tha EPA received many
commanta oa die proper scope of tha
definition of "dispersion *~*>m4Tr*.**
and perhaps more onTthe approphata
boanda of ^h^ excluaionai Induatty
commantars generally argued that EPA
had improperly piopoeed to deny
consideration for plume enhanrp""***
effects that are "coinddentar with
techniques and practicaa routinaiy
caniad out for sound engineering and
economic reasons. They argaad that
EPA should prohibit credit only whan a
technique or practice waa decisively
motivsted by a desire for dispersion
credit Such en approach would create a
"but for* teat using the intent of tha
source owner or operator as the beats
for EPA's decisions.
                                                                               Othar eommenters argued that EPA
                                                                              must aaa a teat baaed purely on iffocu.
                                                                              prohibiting credit whan a technique or
                                                                              practice haa tha affect of enhancing
                                                                              dispersion, rtgardlaas of any othar
                                                                              justification.
                                                                               flaaponse. IB the final regulation. EPA
                                                                              haa rejected tha polar poaitiona
                                                                              diecusaad above. Tha argument that
                                                                              dispersion effect* an forbidden
                                                                              regardlaaa of motive is discussed and
                                                                              rejected aa a part of the general
                                                                              response to tha argument that only
                                                                              "well-controlled" sources can receive
                                                                              any diapanion credit
                                                                               Conversely, a pun "but for" test runs
                                                                              the risk of creating exclusions that
                                                                              effectively swallow tha rule itself. The
                                                                              EPA judge* that few, if any.
                                                                              dmrni stances an likely to arise in
                                                                              which some othar benefit or justification
                                                                              cannot he assarted aa tha basis for a
                                                                              practice, and thonfon for such an
                           Where prospective evaluation of
                         merged gaa streams, or combined
                         stacks, ia nonrarned. there is no reason
                         to assume the serious administrative
                         burden
                                                                                         itigatingsuchdi
igflt
                         entail The court directed EPA to apply
                         an intent teat "at a «•<«<«'»"''''* •««< i«ft
                         free to take an approach that may be
                         leea generous toward credit for
                         combined stacks. ^*IT* sources in the
                         fuono wul be able to plan against the
                         background of rules that define
                         patBuaaibia credits precisely. little
                         unfaimaaa reeulta from a restrictive
                                                                               Won retmapadlve application is
                         analyaai apaOad oat by tha court directs
                         that an intent-baaed teat be employed as
                         deacribad later.   '
                           Accordingly, after conaidaring tha
                         record on theae matters. EPA has
                         oetacBdned to teJta a "middle-ground"
                         approach to thia qnastton. The final
                         regulation retains tha same broad
                         prohibitton found in the proposal on
                         mcnaaiaf exhaust gaa plume rise by
                         manipulation of parameters, or the
                         <"M"'r'iT<*t of exhaust gaaaa from several
                                       jBto one stack, with
                         sevenl classes of exclusions. These
                         errhninna recognize tha existence of
                         independent justifications based on
                         «H*.««4i.g ud/or economic factors.
                           (t) DaiiMinsliarlnn of original facility
                         deaign and construction with merged
                           (2) Damonatration that merging after
                         July g, 1988 Ia part of a change in
                         optrtfjon that indwf** the installation
                         of pollution controls and results in a net
                         reduction m allowable emissions of the
                         pollutant for which credit is sought or

-------
             Federal Register / VoL SO. No. 130 / Monday. July
  (3) Demonstration that merging before
July a. 1915 was part of a chaafa to
oparatioa that included the installation
of control equipment or was carriad oat
for sound tconomic or engineering
reasons. An allowabla emissions
increase creates the .presumption that
the merging was not carried out for
sound economic or engineering
reasons.11
Of these exclusions, the first is identical
to the proposal, and the second and
third are modifications of the second
exclusion included in the itrtttMTsali with
a refinement based on prospective/
retroactive application.
  The first exclusion was retained for
the reasons suted in the proposal After
reviewing the comments submitted. EPA
determined that its previous
conclusion • ihst standard practice in
routinely includes venting emissions

multifiued stack—is correct Sound
based on costs of constructing and
maintaining separate sucks, availability
of land, and coat savings for pollution
control equipment support facility
design and construction considerations.
Even if air pollution requirements did
not exist at all sources would have
incentives to aae aa tew stacks aa
poaaibla.
  Since ioenofutg plume rise, rather
than plume rise itsaU is a "dispersion
techniqtie" and original design and
construction >'»**'* the *rft*** bees. •~*h
original design and construction of
merged gaa streams to not considered a
dispersion technique. Moreover, in
designing the facility, a source can
usually choose to build one larger unit
rather than several smaller urita.
Tnerefore. proAioitug credit for original
design generally only affect the design
of units and not the plume rise.
  Objections hava been raised to
applying this logic to sources which are
constructed over a period of time, but
use a single suck. However. uSa same
factual arguments just Usted would
apply is the same, if the original design
included provision for the additional
units in the plans for the fealty, end in
the design and construction of the stack.
In such a case, the later marts merged .
into the suck would be included within
the exclusion.
  In addition, it would be totjcalfy very
difficult to apply a mle denying eredif to
original design sucks. EPA or the State
would have to assume bow many sucks
would have been built absents desire
for dispersion credit where they would
hava bean located, and how high they
would have been. Since these
alterative sucica would be purely
hypothetical then would be no clear
way of answering dieae questions; the
answer would simply hava to be
selected arbitrarily from the wide rang*
of possible answers. This problem is
absent when existing sucks have been
COOIOlAiML
  In contrast EPA finds changaa from
the original design of a facility in order
to include merged stacks to require a
narrower judgment The EPA ooodadad
that where piuspecflve application is

available) only to sources **>v comMaa
ft^ffaf redncee allowabla omissloas of
the pollutant Car which the credit is
granted. There are obvious
                                                                            bean aOowed to increase their preview
                                                                            emissions as a result of the combining  '
                                                                            stacks. EPA does not judge the statute
                                                                            interest to be overriding in this instance.
                                                                            since the mle even to its retrospective
                                                                            version only exempts sources that can
                                                                            show a reasonable non-dispersion
                                                                            enhancement ground far combining
                                                                            stacks, and thereby implements the
                                                                            "Intent" test suggested by the court. On
                                                                            the other hand EPA has never suggested
                                                                            that combined sucks that cannot meet
                                                                            such a teat are proper. Sources whose
                                                                            actual emissions are increased or
                                                                            whose emission limitations are relaxed
                                                                            m ooBDectloB with the combining of
                                                                                    II I   ".^^ ...w WWW^^VWO^M^ »•
                                                                                    ate a strong presumption that
                                                                           the) comMnsjtton was carried out in
                                                                           order to avavo the installation of
                                                                           oaattom. Such combinations would
                                                                                            to the sUtutory
                                                                                             active application
:S=?tty=sa!^*i    tt***sss**azi«.
reduce the number of
unite thatmuat be purchaeed. m
addition, the '**•** Of tffit of poittooa.
control for the jrHretant in question
provides substantial assurance that the
purpose of the combination is not to
receive a more lenient emiaatoa omit
  However, given past EPA guidance OB
merging of stacks. EPA has concluded
that retroactive application of this tear
would not be proper. The EPA guidance
documents uniformly took the view that
merging of separate stacks into a single
suck "is generality not considered a
dispersion technique" abeeni other
factors such aa excessive use of fane or
other device*» Each docament
provided guidance to a source of a
Regional Offlce regarding the proper
treatment of merged stacks to
fai/^tfrMrtf amiaaioB Umitetfona.
Coasidermg these statements, EPA must
conaidar the tundards expressed by the
court aa previously discussed to thia
notice, m judging the propriety of a
differing standard for retroactive.
application. Given the nature and
applications of the guidance which H
issued ta the past EPA judges the first
two criteria—that la. whether the new
rule represents an abrupt departure from
weU-esttbhahed practice, and whether
the parties against whom the new rule is
applied relied on the former rule—to be
satisfied, hi addition, applying me
prospective criteria to past practice
would require significant changes in foal
and/or control equipment for parties
whose emission limits were based on
previous guidance. Finally, and
particalariy where sources have not
                                                                             Sumption* from At Definition of
                                                                           Difpmioa Ttefuuyutt. The EPA
                                                                           recaivBB numerous comments in
                                                                           fiipuuse to its request for input on what
                                                                           consideration, if any, should be given to
                                                                           excluding sources from the definition of
                                                                           Tjjsperasmi TerJiiifques  whose
                                                                                   i are below a specified level or
                                                                                     * i are leas than the d*
                                                                                              \ commenters
                                                                                                         in
                                                                           f^tt^fa ~Amm h~t M^^MUli*
                                                                           justification independent of its effects
                                                                           on Jspsratoe. and therefore ahould not
                                                                           be ganemJrf forbidden. Omar comments
                                                                           ftaflaMf ttmtfc IB coQcktMnf any racb
                                                                           •XCuMMIL aKPA awOUQ COD0OaV taM
                                                                           effect en total atmospheric loadings.
                                                                                      Some hmitatioB on the
                                                                           number of sources affected by the
                                                                           definittnB ft dispersion techniques
                                                                           necessary for EPA to carry out the stack
                                                                           height program. There are currently
                                                                           estimated to be over OJ30O sources of
                                                                           SO, to the (Mtad States with actual
                                                                           emissions exceeding 100 tons per year. It
                                                                           woold not be poaaibla for EPA or Stetes
                                                                           to review the emission limits of event
                                                                           significant fraction of thia number
                                                                           within a reasonable time period.
                                                                           Twenty-two thousand of these sources
                                                                           hava eariautans leas than MOO tons per
                                                                           year and contribute a total of less than
                                                                           13 percent of the total annual SO*
                                                                                   i."Par thn reaaon. and for
                                                                                  i of administrative aecesarty
                                                                           diseased eerier. EPA is adopting an
                                                                               option from BrohtMttons
                                                                                            i rise for fttilf Htt
                                      manipulating pta	
                                      with aUowabia SOk emtanons below
                                      RMkfalMt Atfmt m TSSB. 9M •!•• toflw *i
                                      Bvtar frM How4 Ota, OewtarC IMS. <
                                      OmrM StoMfltM » )RM** niM. fm» 9.
                               lW«M

-------
             P«d«CTl Reflate* /  Vol  SO. No.  130 / Monday. July  a. 1965  /  Rules and Regulation
5.000 tooa per year. Th« EPA believes
the efltct of this exemption on total SOi
eoiaaiooa to bo de minimi* in nature.
Evtn if these sources wen abla to
increase their emission rates as the
result of an exemption from the
definition of dispersion techniques, their
combined effect would not be
significant Indeed, because these
sources are exempt on the basis of their
annual emissions, there exists an upper
limit to the extent to which they may
obtain relaxed emission limitations. Le^
to tnmfatmii) vLcxemption. the **MTVI*
emissions of e soorce may never exceed
&000 tone per year. For these reasons.
the 5.000 ton limit passes a ov ounimii
teat even more clearly  than the as-meter
limit included without challenge in the
prior version of tola miss. Moreover. SPA
beiievea that a large majority of these
source* would not be inclined to seek
less stringent emission limitations, in
part because e substantial portion of
them an hodted by State and local hwl
use raise.
  Th*> EPA beUevee at Ola time that a
atsaeaauf snte exemption is justified
only faraourcee of SOi and that the
number of small sources for which.
                 i for other pollutants
                     i would not
support a similar exemption. The EPA
will continue to review the need for each
will
   fff.   .
  rtuatt
           them for review and
        at a bUerdata.
                  The EPA received »
credit far plume inunction be, retained
on the grounds that eHmfnafmg suds
credit would have seven impact* on
existing source*. Several approach**
wen offered for overcoming phun*
impactton effects m modeling to
determine emission limit
CEP stack height Generally, the**   „
approach** focused on modifying th*
•tack-terrain relationship repneeutsd •
the models. Several commsntan
along the** line* that th* court
recognized and approweoVof ERA'S
attempt to avoid th* efisjcts-ef phoM
impertfcm. but only dtaniprovad of
EPA's regulatory inslhsJ III sflnnliig
source* to avoid i
commenters argued that the court dfci
not preclude EPA from auowufcradtt
to avoid plum* impactioa. but euty from
allowmg credit for stack height in
excess of GZPt thia. it waa argued, could
be remedied in a way that was
consistent with the court dadaion by
incorporating impaction avoidance
within the definition of CEP. It wee_*ian
suggested the! EPA give its "interiel
•ppreval" to the use of certain rsfTnsil'
complex terrain modeia, in particular the
                                      Rough Terrain Display Model (RTDM),
                                      to calculate emission limitations for
                                      sources affected by changes to the stack
                                      height regulation.
                                        Rggpom*. Th*.EPA agrees that th*
                                      court was cognizant of me problem of
                                      plum* unpaction and noted that then
                                      was much to recommend EPA's
                                      allowance of credit for impaction
                                      avoidance. However, th* allowance of
                                      credit for plume imp*ctioo was not
                                      remanded to EPA for revision or
                                      reconsideration, but we* reversed by
                                      the court aa exceeding EPA's authority.
                                        The EPA does not egree that it would
                                      be possible to redefine GEP in a manner
                                      that allowed credit for evoidtog
                                      wake*, and eddiee. Plume impaction is a
                                      posBomonott completely onretateo to
                                      J^^^^MMMPAaW Bd^t ^Ai&^M SM A JM^MA^MMM^MM^M
                                      oownwBSB em* zuinsr. la e ooneequenc*
                                      of vffnifiil gesee being emitted at as
                                      insuffidestt height toe void their striking
                                      downwind hillsides, difla, or
                                      rr^mjjtt^rt^ii^fm ptiOt tO dUtttiOB.
                                      Manipulation or "adjustment" of
                                      modeling parameters to avoid p
                                      theoretical plume impaction where
                                      actual stacks have been constructed
                                      above CEP would be tantamount to
                                      granting the same impaction credit that
                                      wee invalidated by thai court
                                      Furthermore. gPAbeievee that the
{OF no other FM
                                                       the
undeairahle result is

  Hie EM lam tha
                                      Aoumbero/i
                                      the gridaitoe have teepaefed that EPA
                                      approve the nee of &* BUM model aa a
                                      of this Issue canoe found IB <
                                      associated with EPA's action on th*
                                      modeling guideline (Docket No, A-W-
                                      4»V Win respect to the revised stack
                                      height regulation. EPA has not reacted
                                      the uee of KTfJU. To the extent that
                                      appropriate and complete data bees*
                                       available. BPA may approve the use of
                                       RTOM on a caae-by-case basia when
                                       executed m accordance with the)
                                      applicatione of the modaL Whesi such
                                      support is received end reviewed by '
                                      EPA. consideration win be frveatp
                                      allowing more general uee of RTDM in
                                      regulatory activities such ea compHence
                                      with the (tack height rule.
                                        TlattabltforSt
                                      A number of

                            tatioa.
	iters stated that it
was not possible to conduct the
                                                                            necessary analyse* prepare and submit
                                                                            revised State rules and source-sptofic
                                                                            emission limitations within the 9-monti
                                                                            timeframe referred to in the November 9
                                                                            proposal A variety of alternative
                                                                            schedule* wen proposed by these
                                                                            coomientmfv consideration by EPA.
                                                                              Aesponae. Aa with EPA's previous
                                                                            allowance of credit far plume impection,
                                                                            the timetable tot preparation and
                                                                            submirtal of revised SIP'S was not an
                                                                            issue remanded by the court The EPA is
                                                                            in agreement that these revisions to the
                                                                            stack height regulation will require
                                                                                    it efforts by State and local
                                      agencies, individual emission source
                                      owners aad EPA Regional and
                                      Headquarters offices in order to comply
                                      within the 9*montt timeframe required
                                      by section 40B(d)(2J of the 1S77 dean
                                      Air Act Amendments. It waa based on
                                      this concern that EPA originally
                                      pro video? a two*etep process for States
                                      to follow m revising their plans  and
                                      submitting them to EPA for approval
                                      However, the court found that this effort
                                      waa explicitly contrary to section
                                      4M(dX2f end ordered EPA to follow the
                                      9«aadi schedule provided in the dean
                                      Air Act
                                                  f Tltdinto Pn-OTtt,
                                                                            Stack* As indicated eariter. in response
                                                                            tO tDO COttTt OpBMBa d*A pfOpOMG to
                                                                            deny "grandfethered" status to post-
                                                                            1870 sources tying ue»pn»197l stacks.
                                                                            . Some commanters stated that EPA was
                                                                            in no way prohibrtad from allowing
                                                                            credit far new sources ducted into pre-
                                                                            Rathar. they
                                                                            had 10
                                                                                                GBP height
                                                                                                that EPA simply
                                                                                                    forsach
                                                                                                       general
                                                                            support fl* EPA'e propoeal with respect
                                                i or datnVatioM be
                                      provided, moat notably that in addition
                                      tB BgiW aMmrf tUsll*^ MfMrflgwi MNlfWiL

                                      greater than OP stack height cndlt
                                      when tying into greater than CEP stacks.
                                        /Uspomw. ID further review of this
                                      Issue. EPA can final no convincing
                                      rationale to allow eewcee constructed
                                      after December 3L1S70, to aveid CEP
                                                    Mybydwdnf their
                                              lintoastaekthatia
                                                    'under section UX On
                                                       ant of section 123 to
                                                       E height in excess of.
                                                 i that EPA should not  allow
                                      oedtt for
                                                                                          tack height except to
                                                                                                    its made prior
                                                                            to the end of 1STO. Sources in existence
                                                                            «fter that date should be treated equally
                                                                            under the regulation and not allowed to
                                                                            avoid legitimate control requirement*

-------
             FadaraJ Register / Vol  SO, No. 130 / Monday. July 8.  1965 / Rules  and Regulations
through tha UM of "grandfathered" stack
heights.
  Sourcaa uadartakiag major
modification, or raconstructioa bacoma
subjaet to additional control
raquiramantt uadar tha Clean Air Act
and ara traatad •• "naw lourcaa" for tha
purpoaa of naw source raviaw and PSD
rtquirtme-.u. EPA finds it appropriata
that CEP requirements should ba
invoked at tha Una that othar
raquiramants for naw. modified, or
raconstructad soureaa baeoma
applicable

Summary of Modification* to SPA'»
Proposal Resulting from Paalie
tha public comment parted, EPA haa
mada a numbar of revisions to ita
propoaad regulation ia addittoa to thoaa
discussed abova. These revisions ara
summarized below.
  Settlor Sl.XhhfcXBXii) of tha
regulation has bean clarified to require
sources ""•"I*"*, gaa streams a/tar July a.
1969 to achieve a not redocdoa la
ailowabia tmrit^ifti This change) waa
mada to make tt daar that tha effects of*
merging shooid not ba need aa a way of
achieving compliance witfi present
emission Umita and to avoid peaaUztnf
sources who ara peasantry emitting at
less than allowable levels.
credit for a source that merged gas
streams ia a change of operettas) at tha
facility prior to July 8. IMS that iadadad
the installation of control equipment or
had other sound siiglneeilug or
economic reasons. Any Increase hi tha
emission limitation, or in the previous
actual emissions where no emission
limitation existed created a presumption
that those sound reasons ware not
present
  Section SLXhhMfE) has been added
to exclude from the definition of
prohibited "dispersion techniques" tha
use of techniques affecting final trhanat
gas plume rise where tha raanltlng total
allowable emissions of SOb from tha
facility do not exceed 5.000 tons par
year.
  Section SJ.l(ii)fl) has bean revised to
specify that the 63 meter dt minima
height is to be measured as in othar
determinations of CEP stack height
from the ground-level elevation at the
base of the stack. This does not
represent a substantive change in tha
rule or in its application relative to past
practices, but rather a simple
clarification.
  Section S*.l(ii)(2) has bean revised to
require that source owners demonstrate
that tha 2JH formula was relied on ia
establishing the emission limitation,
  Section 51.1(ii)(3) haa been revised aa
discussed elsewhere ia this notice to
specify mat aa emission rate equivalent
to NSPS moat ba oat before a source
may conduct fluid modattng to justify
stack height credit ia excess of that
permittad by the CEP formulae.
  Section SLXti) BOW defines -nearby"
for purposes of conducting Bald studies
or fluid modeling damonattationa aa OJ
km (H mile), but allows limited
consideration of terrain features
extending beyond that distance a* such
featm^"begm"wHhtoOJkm.aa
defined ia the regulation.
  Section tafkMJ haa bean revteed to
provida separata OjsBQasioBa 01

separata situations discussed earttar in
this preamble. As that discussion makes
daar. EPA believes that tha differing
categories of soorcaa suofect to this nla
ara boat addressed by requirements that
vary somewhat with thoaa
             This ^*****t1iTB Tfitfn<1iaa
that approach.
  Sactron SlUflt) haa baa* corrected to
provida that tha provisions of | SU2U)
shaO not apply to ttadt Aaajnci ia
existence before December 31. 1970. The
propoaal had meorrecdy stated that
     1 51.12 shall not apply to stodb
  Thia regulation does not narit tha
physical stack height of soy i
thaactaaJaae
                   IB*
                   1C
specific stack height for say i
Instead, it sets limits oa tha i
credit far stack height aad other
dispersion tachniquee to ba used hi
ambient air modeling for tha parpoea of
setting aa emiastoa limitation aad
caJculatmg the sJr quality impact of a
soorea. Source* ara modalad at their
mvtnmf physical stack height unlace that
height exceeds their CEP stack height
Tha regulation appliea to all stacks ia
existence and all dispersion techniques
implemented since December n. 1970.
                   iPlaa
  Pursuant to section 408(dK2) «**•
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977.
EPA ia requiring that all States (1)
review and revise, as necessary, their
SIP'S to include provisions that limit
stack height credits and dispersion
techniques in accordance with this
regulation and (2) review all existing
emission limitations to determine
whether any of these limitations have
been affected bv stack height credits
                               lion
abova CEP or by any other dispersia
technique*. For any limitations that
have been so affected. States must
prepare revised limitations consistent
with their revised SIF.. All SIP
revisions and revised emission
limitations moat ba submitted to EPA
within 9 ITT**** of promulgation of thit
  Ia ita proposal EPA stated that it
would oaa tha propoaad regulation  to
govara stack height credits during the
parted bate* promulgation of tha final
regulattOB. Tha EPA further stated that
aay stack height credits that are granted
baaed oa tins interim guidance would be
subject to review against tha final rules
aao ssay aaao to oa raviaad*
           f, with theee %"f rales.
EPA ia raqWmg that aay actions that
were tafcaa aa stack heights end stack
height credfta during this intern period
be re via wad aad raviaad aa needed to
ba coaasstaat with this regulation.
  Ponaaat to tha provtsiona of 5 U AC
809(0). I haraby certify that tha attached
rule win aa* have significant ecoaoaHc
impacta oa a sabataatiaJ numbar of
snail entities. Tma rale is structured to
apply OBly, to larga sewcaa: La, those
with stacks abova « matan (213 feet).
or wttBaaajaaJ SO^ aauaaioaa ia eTrcstt
of 5400 toes, as further no ted in the rule.
Based oa aa aaaJysis of impacts, electric
utility plaats aad several smelters and
pulp and paper miOs will be
sigBtficaatiy affected by this regulation.
  Und« Executive Order 12291. EPA
anal judge whether a regulation is
"mater" aad therefore subject to the
requirement of a regulatory impact
analysis. EPA's aaaJysis of economic
impacts predicts a potential coat to
emisateo source owners add operators
fTfTfng tlOO million: therefore, this is
a mater rule uadar Executive Order
12291. However, due to the promulgation
deadline imposed by the court EPA did
not have sufficient tune to develop  a fuU
analysis of coats and benefits as
required by the Execute Order.
Consequently, it is not possible to judge
tha annual effect of t&j rule on the
economy. A prattminarv economic
impact analysis and i-jrwjuent revision
were prepared and a.-' i  i* docket
  For aay facility, the a.' sn»Uiy and
economic impact of ub.« »uck height
regutafloo generally dtttr.lt on the
extent to which the sc?*;«! stack at  that
facility conforms to GET1 mck height

-------
27906
Federal Register / VoL sa No. 130 / Monday.  July  8, 1985 / Rules  and  Regulation!
Thus, when tbt regulation is applied to
large sources. La. tboM with stack
height greater than CEP and tminion*
greater than 5.000 torti per year, it will
have the potential for producing
•mission reductions and increased
control costs.
  A preliminary evaluation of the
potential air quality impacts and a cost
analysis of the regulation  wes
performed at the time of proposal The
impacts identified were established in
isolation of other regulatory
requirements. The report predicted a
range of impacts, from a "low impact"
scenario that presumed that many
potentially affected sources would be
able to justify their existing stack
heights, configurations, aad emisaioo
limitations to a "high impact" scenario
which assumed that all of the potentially
affected sources would be required to
reduce their emissions to some degree.
  In the development of its final
rulemakiag action, EPA refined its-
evaluation of potential impacts,
producing revised estimates of the
probable coats of the changes to the
regulation and expected reductions in
SOi emissions. As a result of this
refinement EPA estimates that me rale
will yield reductions in SOt emissions of
approximately 17 million teas per year.
The snrmallxed coat of achieving these
reductions will be aproximately J730
million. »»H the capital coat is expected
to be approximately $700 million.
  This regulation waa reviewed by the<
Office of Management and Budget aad
their written comments aad any
responses are contained in Docket A-
                          DsHd.-June2r.lBtl
fudidal Review

  The EPA believes that this rule is
based on determinations of nationwide
scope and effect Nothing in section 123
limits its applicability to a particular
locality. Slate, or region. Rather, section
123 applies to sources wherever located
Under section 307(b)(l) of me dean Air
Act [42 U.S.C reonbKDl judicial
review of the actions taken by this
notice is available only by the filing'of a
petition for review in the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia and within 00 days of the. date
of publication.

list of Subiecta m 44 CTR Part 51

  Air pollution control. Ozone, Sulfur
dioxide. Nitrogen dioxide. Lead.
Psrticuiata matter. Hydrocarbons.
Carbon monoxide.
                          Adaiutittntor.

                          PART 81-mOUWCMDfTS POM
                                              TON.
                          SUMNTTAI. OP mPt£MENTAT)ON
                          PLANS

                           Part Si of Chapter I Title 40 of the
                          Code of Federal Regulations is amended
                          as follows:
                           1. The authority citation for Part 31
                          continues to read aa fellows:    |
                           Amaeilrf See, no. 301(a). aad m. Oeaa
                          Air Act aa sasndsd (4» UAC Hltt 7B01(a)
                          and 7423).
                           2. Section 31.1 la amended by revisiag
                          pamgrapha (ha), (ii). (Jfl. aad (kk) aa
                          follows:
                          lit.!
                            (hhHl) "Dispersion technique" meaaa
                          any technique which attempts to affect
                          the concentration of a pollutant in the
                          ambient air by:
                            (i) Using that portion of a stack which
                          exceeds good engineering practice stack
                          height;
                            (ii) Varying the rate of emission of a
                          pollutant according to atmospheric
                          fmu^ii^ijf^ of ambient "'"^'••f* *r^*1"*v of
                          that pollutant or
                            (ill) Increaaing final exhaust gaa
                          plume riee by manipulating source
                          process parameters, exhaust gaa
                          parameters, stack parameters, or
                             ibniaff exhaust gaeea from severe!
                          existing stacks into one stack or otiMr.
                          •elective handling of exhanat gaa
                          streams so aa to increaao the exhaust  .
                          gaa plume rise.
                            (2) Tbe riri ri ting saotence doea not
                          include*
                            (i) The reneating of e gaa stream.
                          following use of a poOutioaomtroi
                          system for the purpose of returning the
                          gee to the temperature at which it waa
                          originally discharged from the facility
                            (ii) The merging of exhaust jaa
                          streams where:
                            (A) The source owner or operator.
                          demonstrates that die facility waa
                          originally designed aad constructed with
                          such merged gas streams;
                            (B) After jjy a, 1963. such merging is
                          part of a change in operation at the
                          facility that includes the tntttllal^ of
                          pollution controls and is accompanied
                          by a net redaction in the allowable
                          •missions of a pollutant This exclusion
                          from the definition of "dispersion
                          .techniques" shall apply only to die
                          '•mission limitation for the pollutant
                          affected by such change in operation: or
                            (Q Before July 8.1990. aoch mergisg
                          was part of a change in operation at the
facility that included the installation of
emissions control equipment or wss
carried out for sound economic or
engineering reasons. Where there wst
an increase in the emission limitation or.
in die event diet no emission limitation
waa ia existence prior to ue merging, an
increase ia the quantity of pollutants
actually emitted prior to die merging, the
reviewing agency shall presume that
merging was significantly motivated by
aa intent to gain emissions credit for
greater dispersion. Absent a
demonstration by the source owner or
operator diet merging was not
significantly motivated by such intent
die reviewing agency shall deny credit
for the effects of such merging ia
««Ui.u*t^f, die allowable emissions for
  (ui) Smoke management in
agricultural or suvicuitural prescribed
burning programs;
  (hr) Episodic restrictions on
residential woodbaning and open
  (v) Techniques under f 31.1(hb)(l)(iii)
which increase final exhaust gas plum*
rise where die resulting allowable
emisakma of sulfur dioxide from the
facility do net exceed 3JJOO tons per
year.
  (H) -Good eagtaoeriag practice" (CEP)
stack height means the greater oft
  (1) 68 meters, measured from the
ground-level etovetioa at the base of the
stack
  (2f(i) For stacks m existence on
Jewry <1Z 197* end for which the
owner or operator bad obtained all
applicable permits or approvals required
under 40 CPU Parts 81 aad 32.
H.-XW.
provided die owner or operator
produces evidence that this equation
waa actually relied on in establishing an
emieeiaci liaiitatioas
  (U) For all other stacka.
H.-aeoa' ii^mssrtnt pnctto* rta
    smeared froeuhe sraund-tovai
    •ievettee at the base of tha itaek.
H«heifhl of iisaiby «ractara(i) Bwaiurtd
    boat th* gBiuirl Isval «tavatton at th«
    base of tbe Mack.
L«laeaer diaMBSiae. aeiatt or profKtwi
    widttL e/ aaarby sowture(s)

provided mat the SPA. State or local
control agency may require the use of a
field study or fluid modal to verify CEP
stack height for die source; or
  (3) Tbe height demonstrated by s fluid
model or e field study approved by the
EPA State or local control agency, which
ensures diet the Maiasions from a stack
do not result  in excessive

-------
             Federal Register / Vol.  50. No. 130 / Monday. July «.  1965 / Rules and  Regulations
concentrations of any air polluttnt as •
result of atmospheric downwaah. wakes,
or tddy effects created by tbt source
itself, nearby structures or nearby
terraia features.
  (jj) -Nearby" as used in I Sl.l(ii) of
this pert is defined for a specific
structure or terrain feature and
  (1) for purposes of applying the
formulae provided in I Sl.l(ii)(2) means
that  distance up to five times the lesser
of the height or the width dimension of a
structure, but not greater than 04 km (to
mile), and
  (2) for conducting demonstrations
under 131.1(iiH3) means not greater  •
than 04 km (Vt mile), except that the
portion of a terrain feature may be
considered to be nearby which falls
within a distance of up to 10 times the
maximum height (HJ of the feature* not
to exceed 2 miles if such feature
achieves a height (HJ 04 km from the
stack that is at least 40 percent of the
CEP stack height determined by the
formulae provided in I S1.1(U)(2XU) of
this part or 28 meters, whichever is
greater, as measured from the ground*
level elevation at the base of the stack.
The height of the structure or terraia
feature is measured from the ground-
level elevation at the base of the stack.
  (kk) "Excessive concentration" is*'
defined for the purpose of determining
good engineering practice stack height
under | 5l.l(ii)(3) and means:
  (1) for sources seeking credit for stack
height exceeding that established i
i SLl(iiX2). a maximum ground-level
concentration due to emissions from a
stack due in whole or part to downwaea,
wakes, and eddy effects produced by
nearby structures or nearby terrain
restores which individually is at least 40
percent in excess of the maximum
concentration experienced in the
absence of such downwaah. wake*, or
eddy effects and which contribute* to a
total concentration due to emissions
from all sources that is greater than aa
ambient air quality standard. For
sources subject to the prevention of
                              (40
    131JM and 5Z21). an excessive
concentration alternatively means a
maximum ground-level concentration
due to emissions from a stack due in
whole or part to downwash. wakes, or
eddy effects produced by nearby
structures or nearby terraia features
which individually is at least 40 percent
ia excess of the maximum concentration
experienced m the absence of the
maximum concentration experienced in
the absence of such downwash, wakes,
or eddy effects and greater than a
prevention of significant deterioration
increment Ifee allowable emission rate
to be used m making demonstrations
under this part shall be prescribed by
the aew source performance standard
that is applicable to the source category
unlees the owner or operator
demonstrates that this emission rats is
infeaaibla. When  such demonstrations
an approved by the authority
admin)  cring the State implementation
plan, an alternative emission rate shall
be established ta consultation with the
•OUTCet OWBetf Of OpeVBtOR
  (2) for sources seeking credit after
October 1.1983. for increases m existing
stack heights up to the heights
established under 131.1(iiM2). either (I)
a *»••*•«•» grauad-levol oooftentiatton
duem whole or part to downweah,
wakes or eddy effects aa provided m
paragraph (kkXDof this section, except
that the emission rats specified by any
epplicabl* State implementation plan
(or. ia the absence of such a omit the
actual emission rats) shall be used, or
(11) the actual presence of a weal
nuisance caused by the existing stack.
aa determined by the authority
administering the State implementation
films** £Bt£
  (3) for sources seeking credit after
January U1979 for a stack height
determined-under f SLKUX2) when the
euthority administering the Stats
implementation plan requires the use of
a field study or fluid model ta verify
GBP stack height  for sources seeking
stack height credit after November 9.
1864 besed on the aerodynamic
influence of cooling towers, aad for
sources seeking stack height credit ai
December 31.1970 based on the
aerodynamic faflwra of structures not
adequately represented by the equations
in 181.1(11X2). a maximum ground-level
concentration das in whole or part to
downwash, wakes or eddy effects that
is st least 40 percent in excess of the
maxftmrm concentration experienced in
the absence of such downwash. wakes.
or eddy effects.
  3. Section SL1 Is further amended by
lemoriag paragraphs 01) sad (mm).
lltt*
  4. Section SLU is amended by

  1 Section n.UTJ) is amended by
removing "aad (fl" from the first
  •. Section SLUM ia revised as
follows:
  (k) The provisions of I S1.12(j) shall
not apply to (1) stack heights in
existence, or dispersion techniques-
implemented on or before December 31
1970, except where pollutants are being
emitted from such stacks or using such
dispersion techniques by sources, as
defined ta secttoa Ul(aK») of the desn
Air Act which wen constructed, or
reconstructed, or for which major
modifications, as denned m
                             and
                 carried out after
December 3L itm or (2) coal-fired
atsam electric generating units subject
to the provisions of Section tlf of the
Qeen Air Act. which commenced
operation before jutyVMBr. aad whose
stacks wen constructed under s
construction confract awarded before
February «, 1974.
lilts
  r. Sectien SLletl) is amended by
         "end (I)" bom the first
        i.
(FROee.!

-------
 Port SI
                                                    40 CHI Oi. I (7-1-M fdUlon)
 •AM 31-*fOUiMM«m KM PMP-
   AlATtON. ADOPTION,  AND SUB-
   MITTAl    Of    IMPIIMEN1ATION
   PtANS
                   C-f ••M*V«4l|
 Sec.
 •1.4* Scope.

             AQMA ANALTIIS

 •l.«l AQMA analysis: Bubmlttal date.
 •1.41 AQMA analysis: Analysis period.
 • I. 41 AQUA analysis: Guideline*.
 tl.44 AQMA analysis: Projection of emM
    •ton*.
 11.41 AQMA analysis: Allocation of emls
    •Ion*.
 •1.4* AQMA analysis:  Projection  of  air
    quality concentration*.
 11.47 AQMA analysis: Description of data
    source*.
•1.4* AQMA analysis. Database*.
•1.4* AQMA analyst*: Technique* descrlp-
    Uon.
•IM AQMA analysis: Accuracy factor*.
tl.lt AQMA analysis: SubmltUI  of calcula
    tkmt.

              AQMA PLAN
•Ml AQMA plan: Oeneral.
•I II AQMA plan: Demonstration of ade-
    quacy.
•I.M AQMA plan: Strategic*.
II It AQMA plan: Legal authority.
II M AQMA plan: Future strategies.
II .11 AQMA plan: Future legal authority.
tl.M AQMA plan: Intergovernmental  co-
    operation.
Ill* I Reserved I
II  M AQMA plan: Resource*
it  81  AQMA plan: Submntal lonnat.
11*1 AQMA analyst* and plan: Data avail-
    ability.
II  «3 AQMA analysis and plan: Alternative
    procedures.
                          «d|
• I IM Peflnltloni.
II 101 Stipulation*.
•1101 Public hearings
1 1. 101 Submission  of plant:  preliminary
    review of plan*.
• I 104 Revisions.
1 1 . 1 01 Approval of plan*.
 81.11*  Attainment and maintenance of na-
    tional standards.
 tl. 111  Description of control meaiurea.
 11.111  Demomtratlon of adequacy.
 II.Ill  Time  period for demonstration  of
    adequacy.
 II 114  Emission* data and protection*.
 tl. I It  Air quality data and protections.
 11.11*  Data availability.
 II 117  Additional provision* for lead.
 II III  Stack height provision*.
 tl.llt  Intermittent control system*.
 II.IM Classification of regloni for episode
    plant.
 11.111 Significant harm level*.
 II 111 Contingency plan*.
 11.111 Reevaluatlon of episode plan*.
              tvfow of New Imrsts and
  tl.lM  Legally enforceable procedure*.
  II.UI  Public availability of Information.
  II.Ill  Identification   of   responsible
    agency.
  II.UI  Administration procedure*.
  11.1*4  Black height procedure*.
  II.UI  Permit requirement*.
  II.IM  Prevention of significant deterio-
ration of air quality.
                 lAJrCMMv
II.IM Ambient air quality monitoring re-
   quirement*.
11.110  Oeneral.
•Mil  Emission report* and reoardkeeptng.
11.111  Testing.  Inspection, enforcement.
   and complaint*.
11.111  Transportation control measures.
II114  Continuous emUslon monitoring.
II.1M  Requirement* for all plans.
11.111  Identification of legal authority.
tl.Ul  Assignment  of  legal authority  to
   local agencies.
          AOENCY DUIONATION

II .140  Oeneral plan requirement*.
•1.141  Nonaltalnment  areas for  carbon
   monoxide and ozone.
• 1.141  I Reserved I
                                      712
                                                      Envlf*niii*nlal Protection A§oncy
                                                                         | SI .40
    COMTIHUIHO CONIUtTSTIOH PlOCEM
tl .141  Consultation process oblectlvea.
•1.144  Plan element* affected.
•I.14S  Organizations  and official*  to  be
   consulted.
tl.!4«  Timing.
11.147  Hearing* on  consultation process
   violations.

 RsumonsHir or PLAM TO Omca PL*miiira
       AND MANAGEMENT PBOORAM*
11.141  Coordination with other program*.
tl.M  IReservedl
tl.lM  Transmlttal of Information.
II 111  Conformity with  Executive  Order
   11371.
11.111  Summary of plan development par-
   ticipation.
11.MO  Legally   enforceable   compliance
   schedule*.
11 .M I  final compliance schedule*.
11. Ml  E*t*n«lm, beyond on* year.
HIM  Resources.
11.111  Copies of rule* and regulation*.
II.UI  Public notification.


•1.100  Purpose and applicability.
tl.101  Definition!.
•1.101  Implementation control strategies.
II .101  Exemptions from control.
11.104  Identification of Integral vista*.
11.101  Monitoring.
•MM  Long-term strategy.
•1.107  New source review.
       A» QUALITY DM* lUrosmsw   •
II.1M  Annual air quality data report.

    Somes Esiisaioiis *m> Bran ACTION
               Riro*T»a
11.111  Annual source emlstlon* and State
    action report.
•1.111  Source* sublect to emissions report-
    Ing.
•1.111  Reportable emissions data and  In-
    formation.
•I .114  Progress In plan enforcement.
11.111  Contingency plan action*.
11.110  Reportable revisions
• 1.117  Enforcement order* and other State
    actions.
11.111  IReservedl


•1.140  Request for 1 year extension.
11.141  Request for 11-month extension.
ArruiMcc* A—K-IRan«t»l
ArrCNsm  L—ExAMru  REOULATIONS  roa
   PREVENTION or A» POLLUTION EMERGEN-
   CY ErisoD**
ArriM»ix M—IRocavn)
ArrtNoix    N-EHIMION*    RtvucrioN*
   ACHIEVABLE THROUOH iNsrccrioN. MAIN-
   TENANCE ANB  RETROTIT Or L.IOHT DllTY
   VEHICLE*
ArrcHBix O-IRE*ERVED|
ArrtNBix P—MINIMUM EMIMION MONITOR
   INO REAUIREMENT*
ArrENDicE* Q-R-IRamvEDl
ArrEHDiE 8-EMISSION OTTSET lirrtursrTA
   TIVE ROLINO
ArTEHDIE T— IREtERVEDl
ArrxnBix  tl—CLEAN AIR  ACT SECTION 174
   GUIDELINE*
  AUTHORITY: This rulemaklng  • promul-
gated under authority of sections lOllbMI).
110.  IM-IIO. 171-171. and JOI(a) of the
Clean Air Act 41  Ufl.C. 740l(bMl).  7410.
7470-741*. 7IOI-7SO*. and 7*OI(a>.
  SOURCE: M PR 111*1. Nov. IS. 1*71. unless
otherwise noted.
  EDITORIAL  NOTE Nomenclature change*
affecting Part II  appear at 44 FR IH1. Feb.
I. 1*1* and II PR 4OM1. Nov. 7. IM*.
               A-C—{•otorvodl
  SOORCE: 41 PR HIM. May 1. 1*7*. unless
otherwise noted.

111.10  Be***.
  (a) Applicability.  The requirement*
of thto •ubpart  apply  to  air quality
maintenance  area*  (AQMA*)  Identi-
fied under I SI.IIOXl) and to any area*
Identified under I Bl.llOd).
  (b) AQUA 4n«lv*ig. Under thta MID-
part>  procedure* are  given  for  the
analy*!* of the air quality Impact of
•peclfled pollutant emission*  from en-
UUni lource* and embwlon* associated
with  projected trowlh  and  develop-
ment In  areas Identified under para-
iraph* (II and   AQMA Plan. Under this subpart.
the  Administrator will  require  a revi-
sion  to the State Implementation plan
for areas Identified under I 5I.IKHI) or
151.11(HU when necessary to prevent a
national  amblrnl air quality standard
                                                                                             713

-------
ISI.I17
        40 CM Ck. I (7-1-M IdttUn)
estimated amounts of  emissions and
the mniounU of such emlMlom allow-
able under  the applicable  emission
limitations or other measures.
1 11.117  AMItUul rr».Ut»M
  In addition to other requirement* In
|| SI. 100 throuth 61. !!• the following
reqiilremenU apply to  lead.  To  the
estent they conflict, there  require-
ments  are  controlling over thoae of
the proceeding section*.
  (a) Control ttratem demontlraUon.
Bach plan must contain a demonstra-
tloo showing that the plan  will attain
and maintain the standard  In the fol-
io wlnt area*:
   Area* In  the vicinity of  the fol-
lowing point aourcea of  lead: Primary
lead smelter*.  Secondary lead smelt-
era.  Primary copper ameltera. Lead
gasoline  additive  plante.  Lead-acid
storage battery manufacturing planU
that produce 2,000 or more batteries
per day.  Any other stationary aource
that actually emIU 26  or  more ton*
per year of lead or lead compound!
measured as elemental lead.
  (2) Any other area that ha* lead air
concentrations In excess  of the nation-
al ambient air quality standard con-
centration  for  lead, measured since
January 1. 1*74.
  (b) Time perio for emoiufrafioM o/
a  eouacy. The  demonstration of ade-
quacy*of the control strategy required
under  161.112 may cover a longer
period If allowed by the appropriate
EPA Regional Administrator.
   Special modeling provisions, II)
Pur urbanized areas with measured
lead concentrations  In  excess of 4.0
ji«/m*. quarterly mran measured since
January  I. 1974. the plan must employ
the modified rollback model  for the
demon*! ration of attainment as a min-
imum. but  may IMC an atmospheric
dbperslon model If desired. If a pro-
portional model Is UBCd. the air quality
rtaU should be the saire year as the
eintiulona Inventory required  under
Ihf paragraph e.
  (2l  For each poliil aource listed In
|61.U7(a>. that plan must  employ an
•Unosphertc dispersion model  for dem-
onstration o( attainment.
   (3 1 For each area In the vicinity of
•n air iiiiallly monitor that  has record-
ed lead concentrations In excess of the
lead national standard concentration.
the plan must employ  the  modified
rollback model as a minimum, but may
use an atmospheric dispersion model If
desired  for the demonstration of at-
tainment.
  (d) Mr gualltv data and projection*.
<1> Each State must submit to the ap-
propriate EPA Regional Office  with
the plan, but not part of the plan, all
lead air quality data  measured since
January  I.  1974.  This requirement
doe* not apply If the data ha* already
been submitted.
  <» The data must be submitted In
accordance  with the  procedures and
data form* specified In  Chapter >.4.0
of the "AEROS User's Manual" con-
cerning storage and retrieval of aero-
metric data (BAROAD) except where
the  Regional  Administrator  waives
thl* requirement.
  (J) If additional lead air quality data
are desired to determine lead air con-
centrations In area* suspected of ex-
ceeding the lead national ambient air
quality standard, the plan may Include
data from any previously collected fil-
ters from  partlculate  matter  high
volume samplers.  In determining the
lead content of the filter* for control
strategy  demonstration purposes, a
State may use. In addition to  the refer-
ence method. X-ray  fluorescence  or
any other method approved by the Re-
gional Administrator.
   JTmiMioiu data.  (1) The point
source Inventory on which the summa-
ry of the baseline lead emissions In-
ventory  I* based  must contain all
sources that emit five or more tons of
lead per year.
  431  Each State  must submit toad
emission* data to the appropriate EPA
Regional Office with the original plan.
The submission must  be  made  with
the plan, but not a* part of  the plan.
and must Include emissions  data and
Information related to point and area
source emissions. The emission data
and Information should Include the In-
formation Identified In the Hazardous
and Trace  Emissions  System  (HA-
TREMS) point source  coding  forms
for all point sources and  the area
source coding  forms  for  all sources
that are not point sources,  but need
not necessarily be In the formal of
those forms.
                                  728
 litvlr*iMnenl«l frotectlen Agency
                            9 51.11*
 1 61.111  Black k
  (a) The plan must provide that the
degree of emission limitation required
of any  source for control of any air
pollutant must not be affected by so
much of any source'* (lack height that
exceed* good engineering practice or
by  any  other dispersion technique.
except as provided In 1 61.1 1Mb). The
plan must provide that before a State
submits to EPA a new or revised emis-
sion limitation that I* based on a good
engineering practice stack height that
exceed*   the   height  allowed  by
161.100(11) (1) or (2). the State must
notify the public of the avaUabllty of
the  demonstration study and must
provide opportunity for a public hear-
big on It. This section doe* not require
the plan  to restrict. In any manner.
the actual stack height of any source.
  (b>  The provisions  of |6l.ll6(a)
•hall not apply to (I) stack heights in
existence, or dispersion techniques Im-
plemented on or before December II.
1970. except  where  pollutant*  are
being emitted  from such stack* or
using such dispersion  techniques by
sources, a* defined In section lll(aKI)
of the Clean Air Act, which were con-
structed.  or   reconstructed,  or  for
which major modifications, a* defined
In ||6t.l6t1.10MbK2KI)
and  62.21(bM2Kl). were  carried out
after December 31. 1970; or (2) coal-
fired Meant electric  generating unit*
•ubject to the provision* of section 111
of the  Clean Air Act. which com-
menced operation before July 1. 1967.
and  whose  stacks  were  construced
under a construction contract awarded
before February 8. 1974.

• 61.119  InlcmllUal cmitrol syslesM.
  (a) The me of an Intermittent con-
trol system (ICS) may be taken Into
account In establishing an  emission
limitation for a pollutant  under a
State Implementation plan, provided:
  (1) The ICS was Implemented before
December il.  1970. according to the
criteria specified In 1 61.1 1Mb).
  (2) The extent to which the  ICS Is
taken Into account Is limited to reflect
emission levels and associated ambient
pollutant  concentrations  that  would
result If the ICS was the same as It
was before December 31. 1970. and was
operated as specified by the operating
system of the ICS before December 31.
1970.
  (3) The plan allows the ICS to com-
pensate  only  for emission* from a
source for  which the ICS  was  Imple-
mented before December 31.1970. and.
In the event the source ha* been modi-
fied, only to the extent the emission*
correspond to the maximum capacity
of  the aource before  December  31.
1970. For purposes of this  paragraph.
a source  for which the ICS was Imple-
mented b any particular structure or
equipment  the emissions from  which
were subject to the ICS operating pro-
cedures.
  (4) The plan requires the continued
operation of any constant pollution
control  system which was In  use
before December 31.  1970. or  the
equivalent of that system.
  (6) The  plan  clearly defines  the
emission limit* affected by  the ICS
and the  manner In which  the  ICS I*
taken  Into account  In establishing
those llntlte.
  (6) The plan contains requirements
for the operation and maintenance of
the  qualifying ICS  which,  together
with the emission limitations and any
other  necessary   requirements, will
assure that the national ambient  air
quality standard* and  any applicable
prevention  of significant deterioration
Increments will be attained and main-
tained. These requirement* shall  In-
clude,  but  not necessarily  be limited
to. the following:
  (I)  Requirement*  that  a source
owner or operator continuously oper-
ate and  maintain the components of
the ICS specified at 161.ll9(bM3> (II)-
(Iv)  In a manner which assures that
the ICS Is at least a* effective as It was
before December  31.  1970. The air
quality monitors  and  meteorological
Instrumentation     specified     at
161.ll9(b> may be operated by a local
authority or other entity provided the
source has ready access to the date
from the monitors and Instrumenta-
tion.
 (II) Requirements which specify the
circumstances under which,  the extent
to which, and the procedures through
which, emissions shall be  curtailed
through the activation of ICS.
 (Ill) Requirements for recordkeeplng
which require  the owner or operator
                                                                                   729

-------
 131.153

 III.IU  R*«*aluatlo* «rf «»fa»4c pteM.
  (a)  States should  periodically  re-
 evaluate priority classifications of all
 Rrglnns or portion of Regions within
 tlielr  border*. The reevaluatlon muat
 consider the three most recent yean
 ol air quality data. If the evaluation
 Indicates a chance to  a hither priority
 classification, appropriate changes In
 the episode  plan must be made aa ex-
 pedltlously as practicable.

  Sutpori I—Review «f N«w S*vrce*
         •nd M Each plan  must set forth legally
 enforceable   procedures  that  enable
 the State or local agency to determine
 whether the construction or modifica-
 tion of a facility, building, structure or
Installation, or  combination of these
will result In-
  (1) A violation of applicable portions
of the control stratecy: or
   Interference  with attainment or
maintenance of a national standard In
 the  State   In   which the  proposed
 source (or modification) Is  located or
 In a neighboring State.
  (b)  Such  procedures must  Include
 means  by which  the State or  local
 agency  responsible for final decision-
 making on an application for approval
 to construct or modify will prevent
 such construction or modification If—
  (I) It  will  result  In a violation of ap-
 plicable portions of the control strate-
gy: or
  (1) It will Interfere with the attain-
 ment  or maintenance of  a national
standard.
  (c) The procedures  muni provide for
 the submission, by the owner or opera-
 tor  of the building, facility,  structure.
 or  Initallallon  to  be constructed or
 modified, of such Information on—
  < 1) The nature and  amounts of emis-
 sions  to be emitted by It or emitted by
 awoHated mobile sources;
  (2)  The  location,  design, construc-
 tion,  and operation  of  such  facility,
 bulletin*., structure, or Installation as
 may be necessary to  permit the State
 or local agrnry to makr I he dcterml-
         40 en Ch. I (7-1-M IdllUn)

nation referred to In paragraph (a) of
this section.
  (d)  The procedures  must  provide
that approval of any construction or
modification must  not  affect the re-
sponsibility to the  owner or operator
to comply with applicable portions of
the control strategy.
    The procedures  must  Identify
types and sires of facilities, buildings.
structures, or Installations which  will
be subject to review under this section.
The plan must discuss the basis for de-
termining which facilities will be sub-
ject to review.
  (f) The  procedures must discuss the
air quality data and the dispersion or
other  air  quality  modeling used to
meet the requirements of this subpart.

• II.UI  Public  availability of  lafenna-
  (a)  The  legally enforceable proce-
durea In 161.160 must also require the
State or local agency to provide oppor-
tunity for public comment on Informa-
tion submitted by owners and opera-
tors. The public Information must In-
clude the  agency's analysis of  the
effect of construction or modification
on ambient air quality. Including the
agency's proposed approval or disap-
proval.
   For purposes of paragraph (a) of
this section, opportunity  for public
comment shall  Include,  as  a  mini-
mum—
  U> Availability for public Inspection
In at least one location In the area af-
fected of the Information submitted
by the owner or operator and of the
State or local agency's analysis of the
effect on air quality:
  (J> A  30-day period for submlttal of
public comment; and
   of
this section would conflict with exist-
ing  requirements for acting  on re-
quests for  permission to construct or
modify, the State may submit for ap-
proval a comment period which la con-
                                    732
 Invln
Mitel PraUctUn Agency
f 51.U5
 alatent with  such  existing  require-
 ments.
  (d) A copy of the notice required by
 paragraph (b) of this section must also
 be aent to the Administrator through
 the  appropriate Regional Office, and
 to all other State and local air pollu-
 tion control agencies having Jurisdic-
 tion In the  region In which such new
 or modified Installation  will be locat-
 ed. The notice also must  be aent to
 any  other agency In the region having
 responsibility  for  Implementing  the
 procedures  required  under this sub-
 part. Por lead, a copy of the notice la
 required for all point sources. The def-
 inition of point for  lead Is given In
 I Bl.l
• 61.161  UcaUflcallosj   of
  Bach plan muat Identify the State or
local agency which will be responsible
(or meeting the requirements of this
subpart  In  each area  of the State.
Where auch responsibility rests with
an agency other than an air pollution
control agency, such agency  will con-
sult with the appropriate State  or
local air pollution  control agency In
carrying  out the provisions of this sub-
part.

• 51.161  AMakiralH-e praccatosa.
  The plan must Include the admlnls-
tratlve procedures,  which will be  fol-
lowed In making the  determination
specified In paragraph (a) of 151.160.

• 11.164 Black height BtMfdane.
  Such procedures muat provide that
the degree of emission limitation re-
quired of any source for control of any
air  pollutant must not be affected by
so much  of  any source's stack  height
that exceeds good engineering practice
or by any other dispersion technique.
except as provided In I CI.HWb). Such
procedures must provide that before a
State lusues  a permit to a source based
on  n good engineering  practice stack
height that exceeds the  height  al-
lowed by 151.100(11) (1)  or  (1).  the
State must  notify the  public of  the
availability  of   the  demonstration
study and must  provide  opportunity
for public hearing on It. This section
does not  require such procedures to re-
                             strict In any manner the actual stack
                             height of any source.

                             111.165  Permit rcaalrramria.
                              (a) State Implementation Plan pro-
                             visions  satisfying sections HMbMt)
                             and 171 of the Act shall meet the fol-
                             lowing conditions:
                              (1) All such plans shall uae the spe-
                             cific definitions. Deviations from the
                             following  wording  will be approved
                             only If  the  state specifically  demon-
                             strates that the submitted definition Is
                             more  stringent,  or  at least M  strin-
                             gent. In all respects aa the correspond-
                             ing definition below:
                              (I) "Stationary source"  means any
                             building, structure, facility, or Installa-
                             tion which emits or may emit any air
                             pollutant subject to regulation under
                             the Act.
                              (II) "Building,  structure,  facility, or
                             Installation" means all  of  the pollut-
                             ant-emitting activities which belong to
                             the same  Industrial grouping, are lo-
                             cated on one or more contiguous or ad-
                             jacent properties, and are  under the
                             control of  the same person (or persona
                             under common control)  except the ac-
                             tivities of any vessel. Pollutant emit-
                             ting activities  shall be  considered as
                             part of the same Industrial grouping If
                             they  belong to the   same  "Major
                             Group" (I.e.. which have the same two-
                             digit code) as described  In  the Stand
                             crd Indtutrial CtanWcatto* Manual.
                             t9V2. as  amended by the 1*77  Supple-
                             ment  (UA   Government  Printing
                             Office stock numbers 4101-0065 and
                             001-009 00176-0. respectively).
                              (Ill) "Potential to emit"  means the
                             maximum  capacity of  a  stationary
                             source to  emit  a pollutant under Its
                             physical and operational design. Any
                             physical or operational  limitation on
                             the capacity of the source to emit a
                             pollutant.  Including air  pollution con-
                             trol equipment  and  restrictions  on
                             hours of operation or on the  type or
                             amount of material combusted, stored.
                             or  processed, shall be treated  aa part
                             of  Its design only If the limitation or
                             the effect  It would have en emissions
                             la  federally enforceable.   Secondary
                             emissions do not count In determining
                             the potential to emit of a  stationary
                             source.
                                                                                     733

-------
    f St. II

    monitoring or  communications  por-
    tions of a contingency plan, but de-
    tailed  critiques  ol such portions  are
    provided to the State.
     (c) Where a State plan does not pro-
   vide for public announcement regard-
   ing air pollution emergency episodes
   or where the State falls  to give any
   such public announcement, the Ad-
   ministrator  will  Issue  a  public an-
   nouncement that an episode stage has
   been reached. When making such an
   announcement, the Administrator will
   be guided by the suggested episode cri-
   teria and emission control actions sug-
   gested In Appendix L of Part II of thto
   rhapter or those In the approved plan.
   117 PR 10*4*. May  II. 1*73. as amended at
  1? PR IM07. Sept. 33. 1*711

  lll.lt floarce Mrvelllaace.

    (a) Each subpart Identifies the  plan
  provisions   for   source   surveillance
  which are disapproved, and seta forth
  the  Administrator's promulgation of
  necessary  provisions  for   requiring
  sources to maintain records, make re-
  ports, and submit Information.
   (b) No provisions are  promulgated
  for  any  disapproved  State or local
 agency procedures for testing.  Inspec-
 tion,  Investigation,  or detection,  but
 detailed critiques of such portions are
 provided to the Stale.
   (c> For purpose of Federal enforce-
 ment,  the following  test procedure*
 shall be used:
   (1)  Sources subject  to plan provi-
 sions which do not specify a test pro-
 cedure and sources subject to provi-
 sions promulgated by the Administra-
 tor will be  tested by means of the  ap-
 propriate procedures and methods pre-
 scribed In  Part N of thto  chapter;
 unless otherwise specified In thto part.
  (1)  Sources subject to approved pro-
 visions of a plan wherein  a test proce-
 dure  to specified will be tested by the
specified procedure.

137 PR IM4*. May II.  1*73. as amended at
 «• PR 3*011. June 3*. 1*7*1

• It.ll  Air •nail!? MrvrUlaare; w,
    Intergovernmental cooperation.
  Disapproved portions of the plan re-
lated to  the  air quality  surveillance
system,  resources,  and Intergovern-
mental cooperation  are Identified  In
           40 CM Ch. I (7-l-f • IdMon)

   each subpart. and detailed critiques of
   such portions  are provided  to the
   State. No  provisions are promulgated
   by the Administrator.

   111.14 State ambient air avattty etand-
      aid*.

    Any ambient air quality  standard
  submitted  with a plan  which to less
  stringent than a national standard  to
  not considered part of the plan.

  • lt.ll PvMfc availability orates*.

   Bach State shall make available for
  public Inspection at least one copy of
  the phut In at  least one city  In each
  region to which such plan to applica-
  ble. All such copies shall be kept cur-
  rent.

  • Ill* Sabmlesloa to Admlalotrator.
   All  requests,  reports,  applications.
  submlttato.  and  other communications
  to the Administrator pursuant to thto
  part shall be submitted  In duplicate
  and addressed to the appropriate Re-
  gional Office of  the Environmental
  Protection Agency, to the attention of
  the  Director. Enforcement  Division.
 The Regional Offices are as follows:

 Regton I (Connecticut. Main*. Mamachu-
   selta. New Hampshire. Rhode Island. Ver-
   mont). John P. Kennedy Federal Building.
   Boston. Mae*. 03101.
 Region II (New York. New Jersey. Puerto
   Rico. Virgin Wands) Federal Office Bund-
   ing. M Federal Plan (Poley Square). New
   York. NY  1*007.
 Region HI (Delaware. DMrfct of Columbia,
  Pennsylvania. Maryland. Virginia. Wort
  Virginia)  Curtis  Building.  Sixth  and
  Walnut Streets. Philadelphia. PA 1*10*.
 Region IV (Alabama, Florida,  Georgia. afb>
  dailppl. Kentucky. North Carolina. South
  Carolina.  Tennemee)  Suite 100. 1431
  Peaehtree  Street. Atlanta. OA 3010*.
 Region  V  (Illinois.  Indiana. Minnesota,
  Ohio,  WlaoonaJn) Federal Building. S3*
  South Dearborn. Chicago. Illinois MM*.
Region  VI  (Arkamas.  Louisiana.  Ni
  UA»|MM rtfci.*.-	••«	"• --	~ •
                                             fcAens..**.. protection Agency

                                              California  Street.  San  Frandno.  CA
  __—  ..  ..— .-.i.-..  UIUHUOIW.  New
  Mexico. Oklahoma. Texas) 1*00 Patenon
  Street. Dallas. TX 7*1*1.
Region VII (lows, KanMs. Mlanuri. Nebras-
  ka) 1711 Baltimore Street. Kama* City,
  MO 0410*.
Region VIII (Colorado. Montana.  North
  Dakota. South Dakota, Utah. Wyoming)
  •I* Uneoln Towers, 1*00 Uneoln  Street.
  Denver. CO *0301.
Region IX  (Artaona. California.  Hawaii.
  Nevada. Ouara. American Samoa)  100
                                                    X  (Washington. Oregon. Idaho.
                                              Alaska) 1*0* SUth Avenue. Seattle. WA
                                              M10I.
                                             |H FR !••»•. Sept. a*, 1*71. as amended at
                                             MPRtngf.Oet.tt. 1*741

                                             IU.I7  Be.ara.Btty of areviiliaa.
                                              The provisions promulgated In this
                                             part god  the various  applications
                                             thereof are distinct and  severable.  If
                                             •ny provision of this part or the appli-
                                             cation  thereof to any person or cir-
                                             cumstances Is held Invalid, such inva-
                                             lidity shall not affect other provisions
                                             or  application of  such  provision to
                                             other personal or circumstances which
                                             can bo given of feet without the Invalid
                                             provision or application.
                                             in PR I****. Sept. 33. 1*711
                                             I till
                                              Abbreviations used tat ">ls part shall
                                             be those set forth In  t ^.t M of this
                                             chapter.
                                             IM PR II***, May 14,1*711
                                            IU.W lUtiaiia of
                                              After notice  and  opportunity for
                                            hearing m each affected State, the Ad-
                                            ministrator may revise any  provision
                                            of an applicable plan. Including; but
                                            not  limited  to  provisions specifying
                                            compliance schedules, emission Umltsv
                                            Uons. end date* for attainment of na-
                                            tional standards; If:
                                              (a) The provision was promulgated
                                            by the Administrator, and
                                              (b) The plan, as revised. wOJ be con-
                                            sistent with the act and with the re-
                                            quirement* applicable to Implement*/-
                                            Uon plan* under Pert •! of thto chap-
                                            ter.
                                            IM PR Its**. May 14.1*7*1

                                            •I M *.•% AMtamwaAwBtwrf   dwBBRsM*. Bmw?
                                              Bach  subpart  contains  a section
                                            which  specifies the  latest date*  by
                                            which national standards are to be at-
                                            tained In each region In the State. An
                                            attainment date which only refers to a
                                            month and a year (such  as July in»)
                                            shall be construed to mean the last
                                            day of the month  In question. Howev-
                                            er,  the  specification  of attainment
 dates for national standards doe* not
 relieve any State from the provisions
 of Subpart N of thai chapter which re-
 quire  all  sources and  categories of
 source* to comply with applicable re-
 quirements of the plan—
   (a) As eipedrtlously as practicable
 when  the requirement to part of a
 control strategy designed to  attain a
 primary standard, and
   (b) Within a reasonable time whet*
 the requirement Is  part of a control
 strategy designed to attain a second-
 ary standard.
 1*7 PR 1MM. Sept. 33. 1*7*. as I
 M PR MIU. Sept. M.  1*74: II FR 40*7*.
 Nov. 7.104*1
                                                                                • MJI
                  of otgaUVaat deterle-
  (a) ffm disapproval The provisions
of thto section  are applicable to any
State tanplementaUon plan which has
been disapproved with respect to pre-
vention of significant deterioration of
air quality In any portion of any State
when the existing  air quality to better
than the national ambient air quality
standards. Specific disapprovals are
listed where applicable. In Subparts B
through ODD of thto part. The provi-
sions of thto section have been Incor-
porated by reference Into the applica-
ble Implementation plans for various
States, as  provided  to  Subparts  B
through ODD of thto part. Where thto
section to so Incorporated, the provi-
sions shall  also be applicable to all
lands owned by the  Federal Cover-
ment Mid Indian Reservations located
to such State. No disapproval with re-
spect to a State's  failure to prevent
significant deterioration of air quality
•hall Invalidate or otherwise affect the
obligations of States, emission sources.
or other  person* with respect to all
portion* of plans approved or promul-
gated under thto part.
  (b) Oe/lniflons. For the purpose* of
thto section:
  (I Ml)  "Major stationary  source-
means:
  (a) Any of the following stationary
sources of air pollutants which emits,
or has the potential to emit. 100 tons
per year or more of any pollutant sub-
ject to regulation under the Act: Fossil
fuel-fired steam electric plants of more
18
                                                                                19

-------
  9 51.fl

  than MO million Britten thermal unite
  per hour heat  Input,  coal  cleaning
  plante (with thermal dryen).  kratt
  pulp  mills.  Portland cement plante,
  primary alne smelters. Iron and steel
  mill plante. primary aluminum ore re-
  duction plante. primary copper smelt-
  ers, municipal Incinerators capable or
  charting more than MO tons or refuse
  per day.  hydrofluoric,  sulfurlc.  and
  nitric  acid plante.  petroleum refiner-
  ies, lime plante. phosphate rock proc-
  essing  plante. coke   oven batteries.
  sulfur recovery  plante. carbon black
  plante (furnace process), primary lead
  smelters,  fuel conversion plante.  sin-
  tering plante, secondary metal produc-
  tion plante.  chemical process plante.
  fossil  fuel boilers  (or combinations
  thereon totaling more than MO mil-
 lion  British  thermal  unite per hour
 heat  Input,  petroleum  storage and
 transfer unite with  a  total storage ca-
 pacity exceeding SOO.OOO barrels, laco-
 nlte ore processing  plante, glass fiber
 processing plants, and charcoal pro-
 duction plante:
  (ft) Notwithstanding the stationary
 source   sice   specified In  paragraph
 (bxixl) of this section, any stationary
 source which emits, or has the poten-
 tial to emit, mo Ions per yaw or more
 of any air pollutant subject to regula-
 tion under the Act; or
  (e> Any physical change that would
 occur at a stationary source not other-
 wise qualifying under paragraph (bXI)
 of this section, as a major stationary
 source. If the changes would constitute
 a major stationary source by Itself.
   A major stationary source that Is
 major for  volatile organic compounds
 shall be considered major for own*.
  (Ill) The fugitive emissions of a sta-
 tionary source shall not be included In
determining for any of the purposes of
this section whether It Is a major sta-
tionary source, unless the source be-
longs to one of the following catego-
ries of stationary sources:
  (•» Coal  cleaning plante (with ther-
mal dryers):
  (b) Kraft pulp mills:
  (c) Portland cement plants:
  (d> Primary *lnc smelters:
  (•) Iron and steel mills;
  (/) Primary  aluminum ore reduction
 plante:
  <9> Primary copper smelters:
         40 era Ch. I (7-l-M ldMen)

  (»> Municipal Incinerators capable of
 charging more than MO tons or refuse
 Per day;
  (f)  Hydrofluoric,  aulfurlc. or nitric
 add plants;
  (/> Petroleum refineries;
  (fc) Lime plants;
  (I) Phosphate rock processing plants;
  (m) Coke oven batteries:
  (N) Sulfur recovery plants;
  (o)  Carbon  black plante  (furnace
process);
  (p) Primary lead smelters;
  <«) Fuel conversion plants:
  (r) Sintering plants;
  (•)  Secondary  metal  production
plante;
  ((> Chemical process plants;
                                        •m*
                                                                 fft.II
   (H) Fossil-fuel boilers (or combina-
  tion thereof) totaling more than MO
  million British thermal unite per hour
  heat Input;
   (»>  Petroleum storage and transfer
  unite with a total storage capacity ex-
  ceeding MO.OOO barrels;
   (is) Taeonlte ore processing plants:
   Or) Glass fiber processing plante:
   (?) Charcoal production plants;
   (•)  Fossil  fuel fired steam electric
 plante of more that MO million British
 thermal unite per hour heat Input."
 and
   (••) Any other stationary source cat-
 egory which, as or August 1. 1000. to
 being  regulated under section 111 or
 lit of the Act.
   (SMI) ••Major modification" means
 any physical change In or change to
 the method or operation of a major
 stationary source that would result m
 • significant net miilssluns Immssn of
 My pollutant  subject to  regulation
 under the Act.
  (H) Any net emissions Increase that
 to significant for volatile organic com-
 pounds shall be considered significant
 foroaone.
  (Ill) A physical change or change to
 the method of operation shall not In-
 clude:
  (a) Routine maintenance, repair and
 replacement;
  (ft) Ose of an alternative fuel or raw
 material by reason of an order under
 sections I (a) and (b) of the feiergy
Supply and Environmental Coordina-
tion Act or 1074 (or any superseding
legislation) or by reason of a natural
                                        Federal Po
             Act:
                                                                     to the
                                                 for the i
  (e) Use  of an alternative fuel by
reason of an order or rule under sec-
tion IN of the Act;
  («•> Oes of an alternative tad at a
•team generating unit to the extent
that the tad to generated from muiue-
kwl solid waste;
  (•) Use of an alternative tad or raw
sjaiertal by a stationary source which:
  (f I The souroa waa capable of MBMS-
          before January  0.  1071,
          i change would be prohlbK-
               federally enforceable
                 which
                                        Hanoi
                                                  any
     I alter January 0. 1070
to 40 CFR Oi.il or under regulations
approved punuant to 40 CFR Subpart
I or 40 CFR 11.100: or	
 (f) The source to •nprovofl is) use
nodsr any petmhtosuud under 40 CFR

pursuant to 40 CFR 01.100;
 ifl An tocrease to the hours off
atlon or m the production rate.
such  change  would  be
under   any   federally
•action, which permit to tat effect when

the particular change occurs.
  (hr) An Increase or decrease tat actual
emissions of 1111110 dioxide or parttou-
mte matter which occurs before the
applicable baseline date  to creditable
•Mft.lv 1st ftwl Inl OJ^MMOffJ^bdfl AjOj Abel sMMOJiiBMlflawMMw!


available.
  Cv) Att faflfiaaaa In actiial avafa^oni la
oredUable only to the extent that the
•aw laval of actual avilavlojna •xcaaoa
thooMtovd.
  (vl) A dteisass In actual omissions to
endttsMo only to the extent that:
  (a) The old wvd of actual i
or the eld levd of allowable <


  (ft) It b federally enforceable at and
•fter the ttose that actual constrnctlon
ontheparUcutojchajybegmcaiid
                                       bWMd after January 0. 1070.1
                                       to 40 CFR Oi.il or under i
                                       •nuiOTod pursuant to to CFR Subpart
                                       I or 40 CFR 01.100.
                                        (f 1  Any change tat ownership at a

                                        HMD   "Met   amhslens   tocreaot"
                                       means the amount by which the sum
                                       of the foUowmg exceeds
                                        (•I  Any
                                       from  a  particular physical change or
                                       change  In method of operation at a
                                       stationary source; and
                                        (ft)  Any other

                                       source that are contemporaneous wtth
                                       the particular change and are other-
                                       wise creditable.
                                        (U)  An Increase or decrease to actual
                                       emissions  to contemporaneous with
                                       the  Increase from  the  particular
                                       change only If It occurs between:
                                        (o)  The date five years before eon-
                                       atructton  on the particular  change

                                        (ft)  The date that the tocrease from
                                       the particular change occurs.
                                        (Ill) An Increase or decrease to actual
                                       emissions to creditable only If the Ad-
                                       ministrator has not relied on It In Issu-
                                     to the
                                                                                          ire as that attributed
                                                                                           from  the particular
                                     physical or operational limitation on
                                     Uio capacity of the source to emit a
                                     pollutant. Including air pollution con-
                                     trol  equipment  and restrictions on
                                     hour* of operation or on the type or
                                     amount of material combusted, stored.
                                     or prnnmatd. shall be treated as part
                                     of Its design If the limitation or the
                                     effect H  would have on  nmtoalnns  to
                                     federally enforceable. Secondary emis-
                                     sions do not count to determining the
                                     potential to  emit  of  a stationary
                                       (0) "Stationary source" means any
                                     building, structure, facility, or Instatta-
                                   20
                                                                                                                21

-------
  fS3.ll

  tlon which emit* or may emit any air
  pollutant subject to refutation under
  the Act.
    (6) "Building.  itructure.  facility,  or
  Installation" mean* all of  the pollut-
  ant emlttlnt activities which belong to
  the tame Industrial grouping, are lo-
  cated on one or more contiguous or ad-
  jacent  properties, and are  under the
  control of the same person (or persons
  under common control) except the ac-
  tivities of any vessel. Pollutant-emit'
  ting activities shall be considered as
  part of the same  Industrial grouping If
  they belong  to the  same "Major
  Oroup" (I.e.. which have the same first
  two digit code)  as  described In  the
  Standard  InduttHal  CloJ*t/1ca/lo«
  MantuO. 1972. as  amended by the 1*77
  Supplement (U. 8. Government Prlnt-
  tiig  Office stock numbers  4I01-4X)M
  and 003-40S-OOI70 0. respectively).
   (7) "Emissions unit"  means any part
  of a stationary source which emits or
  would have the potential to emit any
 pollutant  subject to regulation tinder
 the Act.
  (•> "Construction"  means any physi-
 cal change or change In the method of
 operation  (Including  fabrication, erec-
 tion. Installation,  demolition, or modi-
 fication of an emissions unit) which
 would result In  a change  In actual
 emissions.
  (» "Commence" ai applied to con-
 struction of a major stationary source
 or  major modification means that the
 owner or  operator has all  necessary
 preconstructlon approvals or  permits
 and either has:
  (I) Begun, or caused to begin, a con-
 tinuous program of actual on-slte con-
 struction of the source, to be complet-
 ed within a reasonable tune; or
  (II) Entered Into binding agreements
 or   contractual   obligations,  which
 cannot be cancelled or  modified with-
 out substantial  loss to the  owner or
 operator, to  undertake a program of
 actual construction of the source to be
completed within a reasonable time.
  (10) "Necessary  preconstructlon ap-
provals or  permits" means those per-
mits or approvals  required under fed-
eial air quality control  laws and regu-
 lations and those air quality control
 laws and regulations which are part of
the applicable Slate  Implementation
flan.
                                       I

           «0 CM Oi. I (7-1-M MHlMt)     IsjvwwMi«iit«l PratectUn Asjency
    (II)   "Begin  actual  construction"
  means.  In genersl. Initiation of physi-
  cal on-slte construction activities on an
  emissions unit which are of a perma-
  nent nature.  Such activities Include,
  but are not limited to. Installation of
  building supports  and  foundations.
  laying underground pipework and con-
  struction of permanent storage struc-  >
  tures. With respect to a  change In
  method of operations, this term refers
  to those on-slte actlvltes other than
  preparatory activities which mark the
  Initiation of the change.
   (13) "Best available control technol-
  ogy" means an  emissions  limitation
  (Including a visible emission standard)
  based on the maximum degree  of  re-  ,
  ductlon  for each pollutant  subject to
  regulation under Act which would  be  I
  emitted from any proposed  major sta-  |
  tlonary source or major modification
  which the Administrator, on a case-by-  ,
  case basis, taking Into account energy.  •
  environmental, and economic Impacts  ;
  and other costs, determines Is achieva-
  ble for such  source or modification
  through   application  of  production
  processes or available methods, sys-
 tems, and techniques. Including fuel
 cleaning  or treatment  or  Innovative
 fuel combustion techniques for control
 of such pollutant. In no event shall ap-
 plication  of best  available control
 technology result In emissions of any
 pollutant which  would exceed  the
 emissions allowed by any  applicable
 standard under 40 CFR Parts §0 and
 •1.  If the Administrator  determines
 that technological or economic limita-
 tions on  the application of  measure-
 ment  methodology  to  a  particular
 emissions unit would make the Impos-
 tlon of an emissions standard Infeasl-
 ble. a design, equipment, work prac-
 tice, operational standard, or combina-
 tion thereof, may be  prescribed In-
 stead to satisfy the  requirement for
 the  application  of best available con-
 trol technology. Such standard shall.
 to the degree possible, set forth the
 emissions reduction achievable by Im-
 plementation of such design,  equip-
ment, work practice or operation, and
shall provide for compliance by means
which achieve equivalent results.
  (13KI)   "Baseline   concentration"
means that  ambient  concentration
level which exists In  the baseline area
*t the time of the applicable baseline
date. A baseline concentration U deter-
mined for each pollutant for which a
baseline date Is established and shall
Include:
  (•) The actual emissions representa-
tive of sources In existence on the ap-
plicable baseline date, except as pro-
vided In paragraph (bM 13X11) of this
section:
  (b> The allowable emissions of major
•tatlonsry sources which  commenced
construction before January •. 1978.
but were not In operation by the appli-
cable baseline date.
  (II) The following will not be Includ-
ed In the baseline concentration and
will affect the applicable maximum al-
lowable IncreaseU):
  (•) Actual emissions from any major
stationary source on which  construc-
tion commenced after January •. 107B;
and
  (D) Actual emissions Increases and
decreases at any stationary source oc-
curring after the baseline date.
  (14X1) "Baseline date"  means  the
earliest date after August 7. 1*77. on
which the first complete application
under 40 CFR B3.31 Is submitted by a
major  stationary  source or  major
modification subject to the require-
ments of 40 CFR 63.31.
  (II) The baseline date  to established
for  each pollutant for  which Incre-
ments  or  other equivalent  measures
have been established If:
  <•) The area In which the proposed
source or modification would construct
Is designated as attainment or unclas-
sUlsble under section 107  or
(B) of the Act for the pollutant on the
date of Its complete application under
40 CFR Ba.ai; and
  (6) In the case of a major stationary
source, the pollutant would be emitted
In significant amounts, or. In the case
of a major modification, there would
be a significant net emissions Increase
of the pollutant.
  (UNI) "Baseline area"  means  any
Intrastate area (and every part there-
of) designated as attainment or unclas-
slflabte under section l07(dKl> (D) or
(B) of  the Act In  which the major
source  or major modification estab-
lishing the baseline  date  would con-
struct or  would have an air quality
Impact equal to or greater than 1 jig/
                             §3X11

m» (annual average) of the pollutant
for which the baseline date Is estab-
lished.
  (II)  Area redeslgnattons  under sec-
tion lOI(dXl) (D) or (E> of the Act
cannot Intersect  or be smaller than
the area of Impact of any mjaor sta-
tionary source or major .'-modification
which:
  («) Establishes a baseline date; or
  (6) Is subject to 40 CFR 63.31 and
would be constructed In the same state
as the state proposing the  redesigns-
tlon.
    "Allowable emissions"  means
the  emissions  rate of  a stationary
source calculated using the maximum
rated capacity  of the source (unless
the source to subject to federally en-
forceable limits which restrict the op-
erating rate, or hours of operation, or
both) and  the  most stringent of the
following:
  (I) The applicable standards as set
forth In 40 CFR Parts 60 and 01;
  (II) The applicable State Implemena-
tlon Plan emissions limitation. Includ-
ing those with  a future compliance
date; or
  (III) The emissions rate specified as a
federally  enforceable permit condi-
tion.  Including those with a future
compliance date.
  (17) "Federally enforceable" means
all  limitations  and condtUons which
an enforceable by the Administrator.
Including those  requirements devel-
oped pursuant to 40 CFR Parts 00 and
01. requirements within any applicable
State Implementation Plan, and any
permit requirements  established  pur-
suant to 40 CFR B2.3I or under regula-
tions approved pursuant to 40 CFR
Subpart I and 40 CFR •1.100.
  (10)  "Secondary
emissions which would occur  as a
result of the construction or operation
of a major stationary source or major
modification, but do not come from
the major stationary source or major
modification Itself.  Secondary  emis-
sions Include emissions from any off-
site support facility which would not
be constructed  or  Increase Ms  emis-
sions except as a result of the con-
struction or operation of  the major
stationary source or major modifica-
tion. Secondary emissions  do  not In-
clude any emissions which come  dl-
                                   22
                                                                             23
                                                                                   »IM aw

-------
  f 51.11

  rectly from a mobile aouroe. such  a*
  emlailofM from the tailpipe of a motor
  vehicle, from a train, or from a vea*el.
   (I)  Emissions from  ships or train*
  coming to or from the new or modified
  •tattonarjr aource; and
   (II) Emissions from any ofMtc tup-
  port  facility which  would  not  other-
  wise  be  constructed  or Increase  IU
  emlMloM as a result of the construc-
  tion or operation of the major station-
  ary source or major modification.
   (!•> "Innovative control technology"
  means any system of air pollution con-
  trol  that has not  been  adequately
 demonstrated In practice, but  would
 have  a   substantial  likelihood   of
 achieving  greater  continuous  emis-
 sions  reduction  than  any  control
 system  In  current   practice  or  of
 achieving at least comparable reduc-
 tions at lower cost In terms of energy.
 economics, or nonalr quality environ-
 mental Impacts.
  (M»  "Fugitive  emissions"  means
 those  emissions which could not rea-
 sonably pass through  a stack,  chim-
 ney, vent, or other functionally equiv-
 alent opening.
  Ill Ml) "Actual emissions" means the
 actual rate of emissions of a pollutant
 from an emissions unit, as determined
 In accordance with paragraphs (bMll)
  through (Iv) of this section.
  (U) In general, actual emissions as of
 a particular date shall equal the aver-
 age rate. In tons per year, at which the
 unit actually  emitted  the  pollutant
 during a two-year period which pre-
 cedes the particular dale and which Is
 representative of normal source oper-
 ation.  The Administrator shall allow
 the use of a different time period upon
a determination that It Is more repre-
sentative of  normal source operation.
Actual emissions  shall be  calculated
using  the   unit's  actual  operating
hours, production rates, and types of
materials  processed,  stored, or  com-
 busted during the selected time period.
  Oil) The Administrator may presume
 that  source-specific  allowable  emis-
 sions for the unit are equivalent to the
 actual emissions of the unit.
  (Iv)  For any emissions unit which
 has not begun normal operations on
 the particular date,  actual emissions
  shall equal the potential to emit of the
  unit on that date.
           40 era a., i (r-i-«* idMoii)

    (U) "Complete" means, m reference
  U> an application for a permit, that
  the application contains all of the In-
  formation necessary for processing the
  application.
    (Ill (I) "Significant" mean*, m refer-
  ence to a net emissions Increase or the
  potential of a source to emit  any of
  the  following pollutant*,  a  rate of
  emissions that would equal or exceed
  any of the following rates:

       foUvtmnt mtf gmOrioat Mate
  Carbon monoiMa: I** tons per vow (tpy)
  MllrotM oildcc 4* Ipr
  Bulfur dioxide: 4* tpy
  PartleulaUmatUr
   M Ipy of partlculaU matter sauestom;
   U tp> of PH. emMone
  Osono: 4* tpy of volatile orsanle oompeuiMls
  Lead: *.* Ipy
  Asbestos: 0.0*1 tpr
  Berylmua: O.M04 tpy
  Ueretuy: 0.1 tpr
  VmylehtorldKltpy
  Fluorides: I tpy
  Bulfmte add Brisk 1 tpy
  Brdroeen eulflde (HJBK 10 tpy
  Total reduced eulfur dnehtdln*- RUBfc I* tpr
  Reduced sulfur eompoundj (Ineludln* BJBfc
   10 tpr

   (U) "Significant" means, m referenc*
 to a net emissions btcrease or the po-
 tential of a source to emit a pollutant
 subject to  regulation under the  Act
 that paragraph (bXUMI) of this sec-
 tion, does not list, any emissions rate.
   (Ill)   Notwithstanding   paragraph
 (bXlIMI) of thto section, "significant"
 mean* any  emissions rate or any net
 •mission* Increase associated with a
 major stationary  source  or  major
 modification,  which would  construct
 within 10 kilometer* of a Class I area,
 and have an Impact on such area equal
 to or greater than 1  pg/m* (14-hour
 average).
  (14) "Federal Land Manager" means.
 with  respect  to any land*  In the
 United State*, the Secretary of the de-
 partment  with  authority over  such
 lands.
  (16) "High terrain" mean* any area
 having an elevation 000 feet or  more
 above  the base  of the stack  of a
source.
  (10) "Low terrain" means  any area
other than high terrain.
  (17)  "Indian  Reservation"  means
 any  federally recognized  reservation
m i, ,j,
gS)VWI
established by Treaty. Agreement, ex-
ecutive order, or act of Congress.
  (10)   "Indian  Governing  Body"
means the  governing body of any
tribe, band, or group of  Indiana sub-
ject to the Jurisdiction of the United
State* and recognized by the United
State* as possessing power of self gov-
ernment.
  (It) "Advene Impact on visibility"
means  visibility  Impairment which
Interfere* with the management, pro-
tection,  preservation or enjoyment of
the visitor's visual experience of the
Federal  Class  I area. Thto determina-
tion muat be made on a case-by-cas*
basis  taking Into account  the geo-
graphic  extent.  Intensity,  duration,
frequency and Urn* of visibility Im-
pairment, and how these factor* corre-
late with (U time* of visitor use of th*
Federal  Claa*  I area, and (1) the fre-
quency  and tuning  of natural comM-
Uons that reduce risibility.
  (c) Ambient air Increments, In area*
designated as Class  I. II or III. In-
creases bn pollutant concentration over
th* baseline concentration  shall  be
limited to the following:

      MAMMUM AIUMMBUI INCMAM
                             ISX.H

                        M-Conwwod
                             rsr
For any period other than an annual
period, the applicable maximum allow-
able Increase may be exceeded during
one auch period per year at any one m-
  (d) JmMenf air cettfuf*. No concen-
tration of a pollutant ahall exceed:
  (I)  Th*  concentration  permitted
under th* national secondary ambient
air quality atendard. or
  (X)  Th*  concentration  permitted
       th* national primary ambient
air quality standard, whichever con-
centration I* lowest for the pollutant
for a period of exposure.
  (*) Jtssfrteftoiu on an** dasrt/lca-
ttoua, (1) All of th* following area*
which wan m existence on August 7.
1077. ahall be Claas  I area* and may
not b* redeaignated:
  (I) International parka.
  (II) National wfldemes* ana* which
•xcead •,•00 acra* In *tse,
  (HI) National memorial park* which
exceed 1.000 acre* In ate. and
  (r») National  park*  which exceed
at awAaw. • nsraiai 4W saBaa*
VaVW wweTW HI wMasW*
  (1) Areas which were redeaignated a*
Ctaaa I under regulation* promulgated
                                 si
                                 •it
               CUM ai
                                 i?
                                 71
before August 7.  10T7. ahan
CAsftnV I*. tMSt sftMaJF  1M raoCeVl|tlw*toMl M
provided hi this section.
  (1) Any other area, unless othenris*
specified In  the tegtelaUon  creating
ouch  an area, to Initially  designated
Cut** II, but may be redeaignated a*
provided ui thto eectlon.
  (4) The following area* may be re-
designated only a* Class I or II:
  (I) An area which a* of August 7.
1077. exceeded 10.000 acre* in state and
was a national monument, a  national
primitive area, a national preserve, a
national recreational area, a  national
wild and scenic river, a national wild-
life refuge, a national lakeshore or sea-
shore; and'       •
  (II) A national park or national wil-
derness area established  after August
                                                                                                                    25

-------
 § srai

 7. 1977. which exceed* 10.000 acre* In
 •tee.
  (f>  fxclutfant /rom increment con-
 sumption. (I) Upon written request of
 the governor,  made after notice and
 opportunity  for  at  leaat  one public
 hearing to be held In accordance with
 procedure*  established  In  40 CFR
 61.102.  the  Administrator shall  ex-
 clude the following concentrations In
 determining compliance with a maxi-
 mum allowable Increase:
  (I)  Concentrations   attributable  to
 the Increase In emissions from station-
 ary  sources  which  hav«  converted
 from  the use of petroleum  products.
 natural gas. or both  by reason of an
 order In effect under sections 2 of the Energy Supply and Environ-
 mental Coordination  Act of 1074 (or
 any superseding  legislation) over the
 emissions from such  sources before
 the effective date of such an order;
  (II)  Concentrations  attributable  to
 the Increase In emissions from sources
 which have converted  from using nat-
 ural gas by reason of a natural gas cur-
tailment plan In effect pursuant to the
 Federal Power Act over the emissions
 from such sources before the effective
date of such plan;
  (III) Concentrations of  partlculate
matter attributable to the Increase In
emfeslona from construction or other
temporary  emission-related  activities
of now or modified sources;
  (Iv) The  Increase In concentrations
attributable to new  source* outside
 th« United States over the concentra-
 tion*  attributable to  existing source*
 which are Included In the baseline con-
centration; and
  (v>  Concentrations   attributable to
the temporary Increase In emissions of
sulfur dioxide or partlculate  matter
 from stationary sources which are af-
 fected by plan revisions approved by
 the Administrator an  meeting the cri-
 teria  specified In paragraph (fM4) of
 this section.
  (1) No  exclusion of such concentra-
 tions shall apply more than five years
 after the effective date of the order to
 which paragraph (f Ml Mil ol this sec-
 lion, refers or the plan to which para-
 graph (f Ml Mil) of this section, refers.
 whichever  Is applicable. If both such
 order and plan are applicable, no such
 exclusion shall apply  more than five
         40 CFR Oi. I (7-l-M MMon)

 year* after the later of such effective
 date*.
  (9) No exclusion under paragraph (f)
 of this section shall occur later than •
 month* after August 7. 1980. unless a
 State Implementation  Plan revision
 meeting the requirement* of 40 CFR
 Bl.lOfl ha* been submitted to the  Ad-
 ministrator.
  (4) For purposes of excluding con-
 centration*  pursuant  to  paragraph
 (fMlMv) of this section, the proposed
 plan revision shall:
  (I) Specify the time over which  the
 temporary emissions Increase of sulfur
 dioxide or partlculate matter  would
 occur. Such time Is not to exceed two
 years In duration unless a longer time
 I* approved by the Administrator,
  (II) Specify that the tune period  for
 excluding certain contribution* In  ac-
 cordance with paragraph  (fM4MI) of
 this section. Is not renewable;
  (III) Allow  no  emissions  Increase
 from a stationary source which  would:
  (•) Impact a Class I area or an area
 where  an  applicable  Increment  Is
 known to be violated; or
  (6) Cause or contribute to the viola-
 tion of a national ambient air quality
 standard;
  (Iv) Require limitation* to  be  In
 effect at the end of the  tune  period
 specified In accordance  with para-
 graph (fM4MI) of thl*  section,  which
 would ensure that the emission* level*
 from stationary source* affected  by
 the  plan revision would  not exceed
 those  level*  occurring   from  such
source*  before the  plan  revision was
approved.
  (g) Rede$tpnaUon.  (1)  All  areas
(except  a*  otherwise provided  under
paragraph (e) of this section) are des-
 ignated  das* II a* of December  6,
 1974. Redeslgnatlon (except as  other-
 wise  precluded by  paragraph  (e)  of
this section) may be proposed by the
respective State* or Indian Governing
Bodies, a*  provided below, subject to
approval by the Administrator as a re-
vision to the  applicable State  Imple-
mentation plan.
  (1) The State may submit to the Ad-
ministrator a proposal  to  redeslgnate
areas of the State Class I or Class II
provided that:
  (I) At least one public hearing has
been held  In  accordance  with  proce-
      mHontal Protection Agency

dures established In 161.103 of this
chapter;
  (II) Other State*.  Indian Governing
Bodies, and Federal Land Manager*
whose lands may be affected by the
proposed redeslgnatlon  were notified
at least 30  day*  prior  to the public
hearing;
  (III) A discussion of the reasons for
the proposed redeslgnatlon.  Including
• satisfactory description and analyst*
of the health, environmental, econom-
ic, social and energy effect* of the pro-
posed redestgnatlon. was prepared and
made available for public Inspection at
leaat JO day* prior to the hearing and
the  notice  announcing the hearing
contained appropriate notification of
the availability of auch discussion;
  (Iv) Prior to the  Issuance of notice
respecting   the  redeslgnatlon of  an
area that Include* any  Federal land*.
the State ha* provided  written notice
to the appropriate Federal Land Man-
ager and afforded adequate opportuni-
ty (not In excess of CO day*) to confer
with  the State respecting the redeslg-
nation and to submit written com-
ments and recommendation*. In redes-
Ignatlng any area with respect to
which any Federal Land Manager had
submitted  written comment* and rec-
ommendation*, the State shall have
published  a list of any Inconsistency
between such redealgnatktn and «uch
comment* and recommendation* (to-
gether with the reason* for making
nch redealgnatton against the recom-
mendation  of the Federal Land Man-
ager); and
   (v) The  State ha* proposed the re-
designation after  consultation  with
 the elected leadership of  local and
 other substate general purpose govern-
 ments In the area covered by the pro-
 posed redeslgnatlon.
   (» Any  area other than an area to
 which paragraph (e) of thl* section
 refer* may be redealgnated a* Class HI
 If-
   (I) The  redeslgnatlon  would meet
 the requirement* -of paragraph (gM»
 of this section:
   (U) The redeslgnatlon. except any es-
 tablished   by an  Indian  Governing
 Body, ha* been  specifically approved
 by the  Governor of the State, after
 consultation  with the  appropriate
 committees of the legislature. If It Is In
                                   26
                             5 SMI

 session, or with the leadership of the
 legislature.  If It  Is not In session
 (unless State law provide* that the re-
 designation  must  be specifically ap-
 proved by State legislation) and If gen-
 eral purpose unit* of local government
 representing  a majority of  the real-
 dent* of the area to be redealgnated
 enact  legislation  or pas* resolutions
 concurring In the redeslgnatlon:
   (III)  The  redeslgnatlon would not
 cause, or contribute to, a concentra-
 tion of any air pollutant which would
 exceed any  maximum  allowable  In-
 crease permitted under  the  classifica-
 tion of any other area or any national
 ambient air quality standard; and
   (Iv) Any permit application for any
 major  stationary  source  or  major
 modification, subject to review under
 paragraph  (I) of  thla section,  which
 could receive a permit under thl* sec-
 tion only If the area In queatton were
 redealgnated a* Class HI, and any ma-
 terial •ubmltted a* part of that appli-
 cation, were available Insofar aa  was
 practicable for public Inspection prior
 to any public hearing on redeslgnatlon
 of the area aa Class Hi.
   (4) Lands within the exterior bound-
 arie* of Indian  Reservations may be
 redealgnated only by the appropriate
 Indian Governing Body. The appropri-
 ate  Indian   Governing  Body  may
 submit to the Administrator a propos-
 al  to redeslgnate  area* Class I, das*
 II. or Class III: Provided. That:
   (I) The Indian Governing Body ha*
 followed procedure*   equivalent  to
 those required of a State under para-
 graph* (gx». (gMlXIII). and (gNSMIv)
 of thl* section: and
    (II)  Such redealgnatlon I* proposed
  after consultation with the Stated) In
  which the Indian Reservation la locat-
  ed and which border the Indian Reser-
  vation.
    (6)  The Administrator shall disap-
  prove, within M day* of submission, a
  proposed  redeslgnatlon of any  area
  only If  he  finds,  after notice and op-
  portunity for public hearing, that such
  redeslgnatlon doe* not meet the proce-
  dural requirements of  thl* paragraph
  or la  Inconsistent with paragraph (e)
  of this section. If any such disapproval
  occurs,  the  classification of the  area
  •hall  be that which was In effect prior

27

-------
  9 3J.JI

  to the redrslgnatlon which was dlsap-
  proved.
    (•> If the Administrator disapprove*
  any proposed redeslgnatkm. the State
  or Indian Governing Body. M appro-
  priate, may  remibtnlt the proposal
  after correcting the deficiencies noted
  by the Administrator.
    The decree of
  emission limitation  required for con-
  trol of any air pollutant under this
  section shall  not  be affected In any
  manner by—
   (I) So much of the stack height of
  any source as exceeds food engineer-
  Ing practice, or
   (II) Any other dispersion technique.
   (3) Paragraph  of this section
 shall not apply  with respect to stack
 height* In existence before December
 II. 1970. or to dispersion techniques
 Implemented before then.
     Review  a/  major  (taffentry
 •onrce* and  major  motfUlcafiotu—
 Source applicability and  exemptions,
 (I)  No stationary source or modifica-
 tion to which the  requirements of
 paragraphs (J) through (r) of this sec-
 tion apply shall begin actual construc-
 tion without a  permit which  state*
 that the stationary source or modifica-
 tion would meet those  requirements.
 The Administrator has authority to
 Issue any such permit.
  »3> The requirement* of paragraphs
  through  lr> of this st-llon shall
 apply to any major stationary source
 and any major modlflratlon with re-
 spect to each pollutant subject to reg-
 ulation under  the  Act that It would
 emit, except as this section otherwise
 provides.
  (3) The requirements of paragraph!
 through  of  this section  apply
only to any major stationary source or
major modification  that would be con-
structed In an  area designated as at-
tainment  or  unclasslflable under sec-
tion l07(dMIKD)or (B) of the Act.
  (4) The requirements of  paragraphs
(Jl through  of this section shall not
apply to a particular  major stationary
source or major modlllcatlon. If;
  (I) Construction commenced on the
source or modification before August
7. 1977. The regulations at 40 CPR
62.21 as In  effect  before August  7.
 1977. shall govern the review and per-


                                    28
          40 CM di. I (7-1-il MHton)

  mlttlng of any such source or modifi-
  cation; or
   (II) The  source or modification was
  subject to the review requirements of
  40 CTR 03.31 as In effect before
  March 1. I97S. and the owner or oper-
  ator:
   (•) Obtained under 40 CFR 83.31 a
  final approval effective before March
  1.1978;
   (ft) Commenced construction before
  March 19.1979; and
   (e) Did not discontinue construction
  for a period of !• months or more and
 completed  construction  within a rea-
 sonable time; or
   (III) The source or modification was
 subject to  40  CPR 83.31 as In effect
 before March  I. 1979. and the review
 of an application for approval for the
 stationary   source   or   modification
 under 40 CPR 83.31  would  have  been
 completed by  March 1.  1971. but for
 an extension of the public comment
 period pursuant to a request for  such
 an extension. In such a case, the appli-
 cation shall continue to be  processed.
 and granted or denied, under  40 CPR
 •3.11 as In  effect  prior to March  I.
 1979; or
  (Iv) The source or modification was
 not  subject to 49 CPR  93.31 aa hi
 effect before March  1.  1971. and the
 owner or operator!
  (e> Obtained all final Federal, state
 and local preconatructlon approvals or
 permlta  necessary under the applica-
 ble State Implementation Plan before
 March 1.1971;
  (6)  Commenced construction before
 March 19.1979: and
  (c) DM not discontinue construction
 for a period of 19 months or more and
 completed construction within a  rea-
 sonable time: or
  (v> The source or modification  was
 not subject to 40  CPR 83.11 aa In
 effect on June 19. 1978 or under the
 partial stay of regulations published
on February 8.  1980 (48 PR 7800).  and
the owner or operator
  (•) Obtained all final Federal, state
and local preconstructlon approvals or
permits necessary under  the applica-
ble State Implementation Plan before
August 7.1980:
  (6) Commenced construction  within
18 months from August 7. 1980. or any
earlier tune required under the appli-
cable State Implementation Plan; and
  (el DM  not  dhcontlnuue construc-
tion for a period of 18 months or more
and completed construction within a
reasonable tune; or
  (vl)   The  source  or  modification
would be a nonprofit health or non-
profit  educational  Institution,  or a
major  modification  would occur at
such an Institution, and the governor
of the state In which the source or
modification would be located requests
that It be exempt from those require-
ments; or
  (vtl)  The  source  or modification
would be a major stationary source or
major  modification  only  If fugitive
emissions, to the extent quantifiable.
are considered tot calculating the po-
tential to emit of UM stationary source
or modification and the source does
not belong to any of the following cat-
egorloK
  (a) Coal cleaning plants (with ther-
mal dryers);
  (») Kraft pulp mlllc
  (e) Portland cement plants;
  (d) Primary mine ametten:
  («) Iron and steel mills;
   Petroleum refineries;
  (ft) Ume plant*:
  (I) Phosphate rock processing plant*;
  (at) Coke oven batteries;
  la) Sulfur recovery plant*;
  (o>  Carbon  Mack plant* (fumaeo
  (p) Primary lead •meltem;
  (9> Fuel conversion plants;
  (ri Sintering plants;
  (•>  Secondary  metal  production
Plant*;
  (f) Chemical process plants;
  (a)  Fossil-fuel boilers (or
Uoo thereof) totaling more than MO
million British thermal unite per hour
heat Input;
  («)  Petroleum storage and transfer
unite with a total storage capacity ex-
ceeding 100.000 barrels;
  (w) Taconlte ore processing plant*;
                            fsrii

  (a) Glass fiber processing plant*;
  (y) Charcoal production plant*;
  (*> Fossil  fuel-fired steam electric
plant* of more than MO million Brit-
ish thermal unite per hour heat Input;
  (aa) Any other stationary source cat-
egory which, a*  of August 7. 1980. I*
being regulated  under section 111  or
113 of the Act; or
  (vill) The  source I* a portable sta-
tionary  source which ha* previously
received a permit under this section.
  (•) The owner or operator propose*
to relocate the aource and emlastons of
UM Bourca at the new location would
be temporary; and
  (ft) The emissions from the source
wouM not exceed  It*  allowable emis-
sions; and
  (e) The emtoaloni from the source
wouM Impact no dam I area and no
area where an applicable Increment to
known to be violated: and
  M) Reasonable notice to given to the
Administrator prior to the relocation
Identifying UM proposed new location
and  UM probable duration of oper-
ation at the new location. Such notice
•hall be given to UM Administrator
not lam than It day* In advance of UM
proposed relocation unless a different
Urn* duration to        '
by the ^
  (lx> The source or modification
not subject to 183.31. with respect to
parUcutate matter, aa In effect before
July 81.1987. and the owner or opera-
tor:
  (*) Obtained an final Federal, State.
                ruction approvals or
                 under UM appUca-
          mptementetton plan before
July It,Ll84ff^  ^ ^^

It month* after July II. 1987. or any
earlier Urn* required under UM State
l)*M9Al*BaBBi«amkflaawil4a*m omlaagm* m.*wl
  (c) DM not discontinue comtructlon
for a period of  18 month* or more and
completed  construction within a rea-
sonable period of Ume.
  (x) The aource or modification was
•object to 40 CPR 83.31. with respect
to  parUculato  matter, a* m  effect
before July II. 1987 and UM owner or
operator submitted an application for
a permit under  tflto section before that
date, and  the  Administrator subae-
                                                                              29

-------
  J 51.21

  quently  determine! that the applica-
  tion a* lubmltted wai complete with
  respect to the partlculate matter re-
  quirement* then In effect In this sec-
  tion.  Imtcad.  the  requirement*  of
  paragraph* (J) through (r) of thU aec-
  tlon that were In effect before July 31.
  1987 shall apply  to such source  or
  modification.
   (6) The requirements of paragraphs
   through (r) of this section shall not
  apply to a major stationary source or
  major modification with respect to  a
  particular  pollutant If the  owner or
 operator demonstrates that, aa to that
 pollutant, the source or modification
 Is located  In an area designated aa
 nonattalnment  under section 107 of
 the Act.
   (6) The requirements of paragraphs
 , (m) and (o) of this  section shall
 not apply to a major stationary source
 or major modification with respect to
 a particular pollutant. If the allowable
 emissions of that pollutant  from the
 source, or the net em talons Increase
 of that pollutant from the modifica-
 tion:
   (I) Would Impart no Class I area and
 no area where an applicable Increment
 Is known to be violated, and
  III) Would be temporary.
  <7> The requirement* of paragraphs
 (k). , 14-hour average:
   Beryllluin-*.0ol pg/m*. 14 hour average;
   Fluoride*-*.!! pc/m*. 14-hour average;
   Vinyl chloride—II pg/m*. 14-hour average;
   Total reduced *ulfur-IS pg/m*. 1-hour av-
 erage;
   Hydrogen culflde-• 1 pg/m* 1-hour aver-
 age:
   Reduced sulfur compound*—It  pg/m*. I-
 hour average: or

   (II) The concentrations of the pollut-
 ant In the  area that the source or
 modification  would  affect are  less
 than the concentrations listed In para-
 graph (1X8X1) of thla section, or the
 pollutant  la not luted In paragraph
 (1X8X1) of  thl* section.
   (8) The requirements for best avail-
 able control technology hi paragraph
 (J) of thl* section and  the  require-
 ment* for air quality analyses In para-
 graph (mXl) of thla section, shall not
 apply to a particular stationary source
 or modification that waa nibject to 40
 CFR Ba.ai aa In effect on June 19.
 1978. If the owner  or operator of the
 source or  modification submitted an
 application for a permit  under those
 regulations before August 7.1980. and
 the Administrator subsequently deter-
 mine* that the application a* submit-
 ted before  that date was complete. In-
 stead,  the requirement*  at 40 CFR
 Sa.ai(J) and (n) as In effect on June 19.
 1978 apply to any such source or modi-
 fication.
  (10X1)  The requirements for  air
 quality   monitoring  In  paragraphs
 (mXl) (II) through  (Iv) of this section
 shall not apply to a particular source
 or modification that waa subject to 40
 CFR Ba.ai  a* hi effect on June 19.
 1979. If the owner or operator of the
source or modification submits an ap-
plication for a permit under thla sec-
tion on or before June 8.1981. and the
                                                      »t*iocti** Agency
  •No «* minimi* air quality level to provid-
ed for owMM. However, any act merea** of
IOO ton per year or more of volatile organic
compound* subject to PSD would b* re-
quired to perform an ambient Impact analy-
•H Including the gathering of ambient air
quality data.
  Administrator  subsequently   deter-
  oUnea that the application as submit-
  ted before that  date waa  complete
  irlth respect  to  the requirements of
  this section other than thoae In para-
  graphs (mMl) (II) through (Iv) of this
  faction, and  with  respect to the  re-
:  aulremenU for such  analyses  at  40
  CTR M.ai(mxa) aa In effect on June
  |9. 1979. Instead,  the latter require-
  ments shall apply  to any such source
  or modification.
    (II) The requirement* for air quality
  monitoring In paragraph* (mXl) (II)
  through (Iv)  of this section  shall not
  •pply to a particular source or modifi-
  cation that waa not subject to 40 CFR
  |I.ai as hi effect on June 19. 1979. If
j  the owner or  operator of the aouroe or
  modification  submits  an  application
1  for a permit  under this section on or
  before June 9. 1991. and the Adminis-
  trator  subsequently determines that
  the application  aa submitted before
  that date waa complete, except with
  respect to the requi   tents In para-
  graph* (mXlHIl) through (Iv).
    (11X0 At the discretion of the Ad-
  ministrator, the  requirements for  air
  quality monitoring of PMH In para-
  graphs (mXl) (l)-

-------
  g SMI

  provide  an analysis of the Impact on
  vegetation having no significant com-
  mercial or recreational value.
    (J) The owner or operator shall pro-
  vide  an analyst*  of Ihe  air quallljr
  Impact projected  for  Ihe  area  a* a
  result cf general commercial, realden-
  llal. Industrial and other trowth aaso-
  clated with the source or modification.
   (3)  Vitibilitv monitoring.  The Ad-
  ministrator may require monitoring of
  visibility In any Federal class I area
  near  Ihe  proposed  new  stationary
  source for major modification for such
  purposes and by such  means as the
  Administrator deems  necessary and
  appropriate.
   (p) Source* impacting Federal  Class
  f area*—additional  requirement*—(1)
  Notice to Federal land managen. The
  Administrator shall provide  written
 notice of any pe.-mlt application  for a
 proposed major stationary source or
 major  modification,  the   emissions
 from which may affect a Class I  area.
 to the Federal land manager and the
 Federal official chained with direct re-
 sponsibility for management of  any
 lands within any such area.  Guch  noti-
 fication shall  Include a copy of all In-
 formation relevant to the permit ap-
 plication and  ahull  be given within 10
 days of receipt and at least 60  days
 prior to any public hearing  on the ap-
 plication  for  a penult  to  construct.
 Such  notification  shall  Include an
 analysis of  the proposed source's an-
 ticipated  Impacts on visibility In the
 Federal Class I area. The Administra-
 tor shall also provide the Federal  land
 manager  and  such  Federal  officials
 wllh a copy of Ihe  preliminary deter-
 mination  required  under  paragraph
 (q) of this section, and shall make
 available to them any materials used
 In making that determination, prompt-
 ly after the  Administrator makes such
 determination. Finally.  Ihe Adminis-
 trator  shall also notify all affected
 Federal land managers within 30 days
 of receipt of any advance notification
 of any such permit application.
  (3) Federal Land Manager. The Fed-
 eral Land Manager and Ihe Federal of-
 ficial charged  wllh  direct responsibil-
 ity  for management of  such lands
 have an affirmative responsibility to
protect the  air quality related values
(Including visibility) of such lands  and


                                   34
           40 CFR CM. I (7-l-M EdHUn)

  to consider. In consultation with the
  Administrator,  whether  a  proposed
  source or modification will have an ad-
  verse Impact on such values.
    <3I Vitibilitv anaiviit. The Adminis-
  trator shall consider any analysis per-
  formed by the Federal land manager,
  provided within 30 days of the notifi-
  cation required by paragraph  Cfoss / variances. The owner or
 operator of a proposed source or modi-
 fication may demonstrate to  the Fed-
 eral Land Manager that the emissions
 from  such source  or modification
 would  have no adverse Impact on the
 air quality related values of any such
 lands  (Including visibility),  notwith-
 standing that the change In air quality
 resulting from emissions  from such
 source or modification would  cause or
 contribute  to  concentrations  which
 would exceed the maximum allowable
 Increases for a Class I area. If  the Fed-
 eral Land Manager concurs with such
demonstration and he so certifies,  the
State may  authorize the Administra-
tor Provided, That the applicable re-
invlr»nment«l Protection Agency

qulremente of this section are other-
wise met. to Issue the permit with such
emission limitations as may be neces-
sary to assure that emissions of sulfur
dioxide  and partlculate matter would
not exceed the followng maximum al-
lowable Increases over baseline concen-
tration for such pollutants:

      MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE INCREASE
                                 •t
  (•) Sulfur dioxide variance by Gov-
ernor with Federal  Land  Manager*
concurrence. The owner or operator of
a  proposed source  or modification
which cannot be approved under para-
graph  of this section may dem-
onstrate  to the Governor  that  the
source cannot  be  constructed  by
reason of any  maximum allowable In-
crease for sulfur dioxide for a period
of twenty-four hours or teas applicable
to any Class I  area and. In the case of
Federal mandatory Class I areas, that
a variance under this clause would  not
adversely affect the air quality related
value* of the  area (Including visibili-
ty). The Governor, after consideration
of the Federal Land Manager's recom-
mendation (If any) and subject  to his
concurrence,  may. after notice and
public hearing, grant a variance from
such maximum allowable Increase. If
such variance la granted, the Adminis-
trator shall Issue  a permit to such
source or modification pursuant to  the
requirements  of paragraph  (qM7> of
this section: Provided, That the  appli-
cable requirements of this section  are
otherwise met.
  (7) Variance bt the Governor with
the Preiident'i concurrence. In any
ease where the Governor recommends
a variance In which the Federal Land
Manager  does  not concur, the recom-
mendations of the  Governor and the
Federal Land Manager shall be trans-
mitted to the President. The President
                             15Z.21

 may  approve the Governor's recom-
 mendation If he finds that the vari-
 ance  Is In the national Interest. If the
 variance Is approved, the Administra-
 tor shall  Issue a permit pursuant to
 the requirements of paragraph (qM7>
 of this section: Provided. That the ap
 pllcable requirements  of  this section
 are otherwise met.
  (•)  ffmlMlon limitation* for Preti-
 dential or gubernatorial variance. In
 the case of a permit Issued pursuant to
 paragraph (q) (5) or (•) of this section
 the   source   or  modification  shall
 comply with such emission limitations
 as may be  necessary  to  assure that
 emissions of sulfur dioxide  from the
 source  or  modification  would  not
 (during any day on which the other-
 wise applicable maximum allowable In-
 creases are exceeded) cause or contrib-
 ute to concentrations  which  would
 exceed the following maximum allow-
 able Increases over the baseline con-
 centration and to  assure that such
 emissions would not cause or contrib-
 ute to concentrations which exceed
 the otherwise applicable maximum al-
 lowable Increases for periods of expo-
 sura of 94 hours or  less for more than
 II days, not necessarily consecutive.
 during any annual period:

      MAMMUM ALLOWABLE INCHEASC
                         •i
  (q)  Public participation.  The  Ad-
ministrator shall follow the applicable
procedures of  40  CFR  Part  134 In
processing applications under this sec-
tion. The Administrator shall follow
the procedures at 40 CFR B3.31(r> as
In effect  on June  10. l*7t.  to  the
extent that the procedures of 40 CFR
Part 134 do not apply.
  (r) Source obligation. (1) Any owner
or operator who constructs or operates
a source or modification not In accord-
ance with the  application  submitted
pursuant to this section or with  the
terms of any approval to construct, or
any owner or operator of a source or
                                                                           36

-------
 f SJ.JI


 modification  subfrrl  to  this  eectton
 who commence* corutructlon after the
 effective  date of  the»e  refutation*
 without applying for and receiving ap-
 proval hereunder. shall be mibject to
 appropriate enforcement action.
  (9) Approval  to construct  ehall
become Invalid If construction to not
commenced within in month* after re-
                 »—••  " -   •
     	,-... wiinin m month* after re-
   ceipt of *uch approval. If construction
   I* discontinued for a  period of !•
   month* or more, or If construction I*
   not  completed  within  a  reasonable
   time. The AdmlnUtrator may extend
   the 11-month period upon a satlafac-
   tory showing that an extension I* JIM-
   llfled. Thl* provision doe* not apply to
   the time period between construction
   of the  approved phase* of a  phased
   construction project; each phase must
   commence  construction   within  It
   month* of the projected and approved
  commencement date.
    19) Approval to construct shall not
  relieve any owner or operator  of the
  responsibility to comply fully with ap-
  plicable provisions of the State Imple-
  mentation plan and any other require-
  ments under local, State, or Federal
  law.
   «> At such tune that a particular
  source or  modification becomes a
  major  stationary  source  or   major
  modification solely by virtue of a re-
  laxation In any enforceable limitation
  which  was established after August 7.
  I MO, on the capacity  of the source or
 modification otherwise to emit a pol-
 lutant, such a* a restriction on hour*
 of operation, then the requirements or
 paragraphs  through Is) of this sec-
 tion shall apply to the source or modi-
 fication a* though construction  had
 not yet commenced on the source or
 modification.
  (s)  Environmental  Impact slato-
 menlt. Whenever any proposed source
 or modification to suhjrct to action by
 a Federal Agency which might necessi-
 tate preparation of an environmental
 Impact statement pursuant to the Na-
 tional  Environmental  Policy Act  149
 II.S.C. 4391). review by the Adminis-
 trator conducted pursuant to this sec-
 tion shall be  coordinated with  the
 broad  environmental  reviews under
 that Act and under section JOf of the
Clean Air Act to the maximum extent
feasible and reasonable.
                               36
      (t) Ditpute* permit* or ndttiynm-
     MOM. If any Stale affected by the re-
     deslgnatlon of an area by an Indian
     Governing Body, or any Indian Gov-
     erning Body of a tribe affected by the
     redeslgnatlon of an area by a State.
    disagrees with such redeslgnatlon. or
    If a permit to proposed to be Issued for
    any major stationary source or major
    modification proposed  for construc-
    tion In any State which the Governor
    of an affected State or Indian Govern-
    ing Body of an  affected tribe deter-
    mines will cause or contribute to a cu-
    mulative  change  to air quality  In
    excess of that  allowed  tat  this part
    within the  affected Stale or  Indian
    Reservation, the Governor or  Indian
   Governing Body may request the Ad-
   ministrator to enter mto negotiation*
   with the parties Involved to resolve
   such  dispute.  If requested by  any
   State  or Indian Governing Body  In-  I
   volved. the Administrator shall make a
   recommendation to resolve the dispute  I
   and protect the  air quality related  .
   values of the tends Involved. If the
   parties Involved do not  reach agree-
   ment, the Administrator shall resolve
   the dispute and  hi* determination, or
  the  result*  of  agreements  reached  .•
  through  other mean*, shall become  '
  part of the applicable State baplemen-  '
  tatlon plan and shall be enforceable a*
  part of *ueh plan. In resolving such
  dispute* relating to area redeslgnatlon.
  the Administrator shall  consider the
  extent to which the lands Involved are
  of sufficient she to allow effective air
  quality management or have air qual-
  ity related values of such an area,
   (u) DeUtutio* o/ muOtorttf.  The
 Administrator shall have the author-
 ity to delegate hto responsibility for
 conducting source review pursuant to
 this section, to accordance with para-
 graph*  <9> and (I) of Into section.
   (9> Where the Administrator dele-
 gate* the responsibility for conducting
 •ource review under this section to any
 agency  other than a Regional Office
 of  the  Environmental   Protection
 Agency, the following provisions shall
 apply:
  (I) Where the delegate agency to not
 an air  pollution  control agency. It
•hall consult with  the appropriate
State and local air pollution control
agency prior to making any determina-
  „„.. under thto section.  Similarly.
  where  the  delegate agency doe* not
  have  continuing  responsibility  for
  managing tend use.  It shall  consult
  ylth the appropriate State and local
  agency primarily responsible for man-
  aging tend use prior to making any de-
  termination under thto section.
  Ill) The delegate agency shall aend a
 oopy of any public comment notice re-
 quired under paragraph Ir) of thto sec-
 tion to the Administrator through the
 appropriate Regional Office.
  19) The Administrator's authority
 for reviewing a aouree or modification
 located on an Indian Reservation •hall
 pot be redelegated other than to a Re-
 gional  Office of th* Environmental
 Protection Agency, except where the
 Slate has assumed jurisdiction  over
 such tend under other law*. Whan UM
 fltaffr DM A4VUOM4I alUCh JltttewavOtlQQL
 the Administrator may  delegate  hto
 authority to the State* to accordance
 with paragraph lvK9) of thto section.
  14) In the ca*e of a aouree or modUl-
•atton which proposal to construct In
                                                                            a das* III arm. emtoslons from which
                                                                            would cause or contribute to air qual-
                                                                            ity exceeding the maximum allowable
                                                                            •urea** applicable If  the area were
                                                                            designated a clam II area, and whan
                                                                            no standard under section 111 of UM
                                                                            act has  been promulgated  for aueh
                                                                            source  category,  the  Administrator
                                                                            must approve  the determination  of
                                                                            best available control  technology  a*
                                                                            set forth In the permit.
                                                                             Iv)  fnnovoMM eoMfrof  fecMotoni
                                                                            
-------
 veislon of IhU aectlon shall remain In
 effect, unless  and  until  It  expire*
 under paragraph (•> of this section or
 Is rescinded.
  (2) Any owner or operator of a sta-
 tionary  source or  modification  who
 holds a permit for the source or modi-
 fication  which  was  Issued  under  40
 CFR 62.21  as In effect on July 30.
 1087. or any earlier version of this sec-
 tion, may request that the Administra-
 tor rescind  the permit or a  particular
 portion of the permit.
  (9) The Administrator shall grant an
 application  for rescission If  the appli-
 cation shows that this section would
 not  apply to the source or modifica-
 tion.
  (4) If the Administrator rescinds a
 permit under  this   paragraph,  the
 public shall be given adequate notice
 of the rescission. Publication of an an-
 nouncement of rescission In  a newspa-
 per of general circulation In the affect-
 ed region within 00 days of the rescis-
 sion  shall  be  considered  adequate
 notice.

 [«> FH 3*403. Juttt II. ISIS, as mended at
 44 FR  »»1I. May I*.  IMS; 41 FR 12731.
 Am. 1. ISM;  41 FR 27MI. June M. IM* 4t
 FR 43Mt. Oct. M.  !••«: M FR MtM. July
 II. ISS6; II FR 40S1i. 40*77. No*. 1. IfSS: U
 FR 24714. July I. IM1; M FR 3*4*1. July
 14. IM1; »» FR a»S. Jan, *. ItSSI
• M.SZ
                    •f  mllmial •»••<
  (a) Subsequent to January II. 1079.
the  Administrator  reviewed  again
Stale Implementation plan provisions
for Insuring the maintenance of the
national standards. The review Indi-
cates that Stale plans generally do not
contain  regulations  or  procedures
which  adequately  address this prob-
lem. Accordingly, all State plans are
disapproved  with respect to  mainte-
nance because such plans do not meet
the requirements of  | SI.I2(g) of this
chapter. The disapproval applies to all
States listed In  SubparU B through
ODD of this part. Nothing In this sec-
tion  shall  Invalidate  or  otherwise
affect the obligations of States, emis-
sion sources, or other persons  with re-
spect to all portions of plans approved
or promulgated under this part.
  (b) Regulation for review of new or
modified  indirect  tourcet.   (I)  All
          40 CFR Oi. I (7-l-M IdllUn)

 terms used In this paragraph but not
 specifically defined below shall have
 the meaning given them In  162.01 of
 this chapter.
   (I) The term "Indirect source" means
 a facility, building, structure, or Instal-
 lation which attracts or may attract
 mobile source activity that  results in
 emissions of a  pollutant for  which
 there Is a national standard. Such In-
 direct sources Include, but are not lim-
 ited to:
   (a) Highways and roads.
   (ft) Parking facilities.
   (c) Retail, commercial and  Industrial
 facilities.
   ( A site plan showing the location
 of associated parking areas, points of
 motor  vehicle  Ingress and  egress to
 and  from the site  and Its associated
 parking areas,  and the location and
 height of buildings on the site.
   (e) An Identification of the  principal
 roads,  highways.'  and  Intersections
 that will  be  used by  motor  vehicles
 moving to or from the Indirect source.
                                    38
                                    39

-------
     WORKSHOP ON IMPLEMENTING THE STACK
             HEIGHT REGULATIONS
                  (REVISED)

           OCTOBER 29 TO 30,  1985
                     by

            PEI  Associates,  Inc.
      505 South  Ouke Street, Suite 503
     Durham, North Carolina   27701-319£
    CONTROL PROGRAMS DEVELOPMENT DI9ISION
OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND STANDARDS
    U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT-ieM AGENCY
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH CAROLINA  27711
                October 1985

-------
I 51.117
        40 CM Ck. I (7-l-W
estimated amounts  of  emissions and
the amounta of such emissions allow-
able under  the applicable  emlailon
limit atioua or other measures.
111.111  AMIUoMl)
  In addition to other requirements In
1161.100 through 61.116 the following
requirement* apply to  lead.  To  the
eitent they  conflict, there  require-
ments are  controlling over those of
the proceeding sections.
  (a)  Control ttratem demonttration.
Bach  plan must contain a demonstra-
tion showing that the plan will attain
and maintain the standard In the fol-
lowing areas:
  (1) Areas In the vicinity of  the fol-
lowing point sources of lead: Primary
lead smelters. Secondary  lead smelt-
era.  Primary  copper  smelter*. Lead
gasoline  additive  plant*. Lead-add
storage battery manufacturing plants
that produce 1.000 or more batteries
per day.  Any other stationary source
that actually emits 16 or more tons
per year of lead or lead compounds
measured as elemental lead.
  (1) Any other area that has lead air
concentrations In excess of the nation-
al ambient air quality standard con-
centration  for  lead, measured since
January 1.1874.
  (b> Time perio  tor emonttration of
• eaiuicy. The demonstration of ade-
quacy*of the control strategy required
under I (1.111 may cover a longer
period If allowed by the  appropriate
RPA Regional Administrator.
  tc> Special modeling provision* (1)
l>r urbanized areas  with measured
lead concentrations In  excess of 4.0
lig/m*. quarterly mean measured since
January 1. 1014. the plan must employ
the modified rollback model  for the
demonstration of attainment as a mln-
Imiun. but may use an atmospheric
dispersion model If dolled. If a pro-
Itortlonal model Is used, the air quality
data should be the same  year as the
emissions Inventory required  under
the paragraph e.
  (]) For each point source lUted In
16I.U7(a>. that plan must employ an
atmospheric dispersion model for dem-
onstration of attainment.
  (3> For each area In the vicinity of
an air quality monitor that has record-
ed lead concentrations In excess of the
lead national standard concentration,
the plan must employ  the  modified
rollback model as a minimum, but may
use an atmospheric dispersion model If
desired for the demonstration of at-
tainment.
   The data must be submitted hi
accordance with the procedures and
data forms specified In Chapter  1.4.0
of the "ACROS User's Manual"  con-
cerning storage and retrieval of aero-
metric data (BAROAD) except where
the  Regional  Administrator  waives
this requirement.
  (!) If additional lead air quality data
are desired to determine lead air con-
centrations In areas suspected of ex-
ceeding the lead national ambient air
quality standard, the plan may Include
data from any previously collected fil-
ters from  partlculate  matter  high
volume samplers. In determining the
lead content of the filters for control
strategy  demonstration purposes, a
State may use. In addition to the refer-
ence method. X-ray fluorescence or
any other method approved by the Re-
gional Administrator.
    The  provisions  of  |61.1l8(a>
 shall  not apply to <1> stack height* In
 existence, or dispersion techniques Im-
 plemented on or before December II.
 1870.  except  where  pollutant*  are
 being  emitted  from such  stacks  or
 using such  dispersion  techniques by
 sources, as defined In section lll(aMI)
 of the Clean Air Act. which were con-
 structed,  or  reconstructed,  or  for
 which major modifications,  as defined
 to IIBI.ieMaXlMvMA). Bl.lWbXlXD
 and fl.ll(bX!MI). were  carried out
 after  December 11.  1870: or (1) coal-
 fired  steam electric generating unit*
 subject to the provisions of section 118
 of  the Clean Air  Act.  which com-
 menced operation before July 1, 1887.
 and whose  stacks  were  construced
 under a construction contract awarded
 before February 8.1874.

 661.116  UUmUUnl mitral irrtciM.
  (a) The  use of an Intermittent con-
 trol system (ICS) may be taken Into
 account In  establishing an emission
 limitation for a  pollutant  under a
State Implementation plan, provided:
  (1) The ICS was Implemented before
 December 11.  1870, according to the
criteria specified In I 6l.ll8(b).
  (1) The  extent to  which the  ICS Is
taken Into account Is limited to reflect
emission levels and associated ambient
pollutant  concentrations  that  would
result If the ICS was the same as It
was before December 11. 1870, and was
operated as specified by the operating
                            IS1.I1*

 system of the ICS before December 11.
 1870.
  (1) The plan allows the ICS to com-
 pensate  only  for emissions from a
 source for which the ICS waa Imple-
 mented before December 11. 1870. and.
 In the event the source has been modi-
 fied, only to the extent the emissions
 correspond to the maximum capacity
 of  the source before  December II.
 1870. For purposes of this paragraph.
 a source for which the  ICS was Imple-
 mented Is any particular structure or
 equipment the emissions from which
 were subject to the ICS operating pro-
 cedures.
  (4) The plan requires the continued
 operation of any  constant pollution
 control  system  which was  hi  use
 before December  31.  1870.  or  the
 equivalent of that system.
  (6) The plan clearly  defines  the
 emission limit* affected  by  the  ICS
 and the manner In which the ICS Is
 taken  Into  account  In  establishing
 those limit*.
  (8) The plan contains requirement*
 for the operation and maintenance of
 the  qualifying ICS  which,  together
 with the emission limitations and any
 other  necessary   requirement*,  will
 assure  that  the national ambient air
 quality standards and  any applicable
 prevention of significant deterioration
 Increment* will be attained and main-
 tained. These  requirements shall In-
 clude, but not necessarily be limited
 to. the following:
  (I)  Requirement*  that  a  source
 owner or operator continuously oper-
 ate and maintain  the  component* of
 the ICS specified at | Bl.llttbXl) (II)-
(iv) In a manner which assures that
 the ICS Is at least a* effective a* It was
 before  December  II.  1870. The  air
quality  monitors  and  meteorological
 Instrumentation     specified     at
 161.11Mb) may be operated by a local
authority or other entity provided the
source  has ready  access  to the data
 from the  monitors and Instrumenta-
 tion.
  (II) Requirement* which specify the
circumstances under which, the extent
to which, and the procedures through
which, emissions  shall be  curtailed
through the activation of ICS.
  (Ill) Requirement* for recordkeeplng
which require  the  owner or operator
                                                                                   729

-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5.2

-------
                          EPA-450/4-80-023R
Guideline for Determination of Good
  Engineering Practice Stack Height
(Technical Support Document for the
      Stack Height Regulations)

                (Revised)
          U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
               Office of Air and Radiation
           Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
             Research Triangle Park. NC 27711

                  June 1985

-------
 r«tf si
                                                    40 CfI Ot. I (7-1-M frflrUn)
 MIT 51—IfQUMfMINTS KM HWf-
   AtAnoM,  AooriioM, AND  su§-
   MitTAL    Or    IMTLlMfNTATrON
   MANS
         !.»•«* A-C-ja.tOT.dl
 See.
•I.M Scop*.

            AQUA ANALTII*

•141 AQMA analysis: Submlttal date.
1142 AQMA analysis: Analysis period.
11.41 AQMA analysis: Guidelines.
11.44 AQMA analysis. Projection of eml*
   don*.
11.4* AQMA analysis: Allocation of eml.
   •lone.
»t t* AQMA  analysis:  Projection  of  Ur
   quality concentration*.
II 47 AQMA analysis: Description of data
•I.M  AQMA analytic Data bate*.
•1.4*  AQMA analyst* Technique* deacrip-
•I.M  AQMA analyst*: Accuracy facton.
11.11  AQMA analytic Submlttal of calcula
   Uom.

              AQMAPtAH
III!  AQMA plan: General.
IIII  AQMA plan: Demonstration of ade-
   quacy.
•I.M  AQMA plan: Strategic*.
II.M  AQMA plan: Legal authority.
II M  AQMA plan. Putur. strategic*
•1.11  AQMA plan: Putur* letal authority.
II M  AQMA plan:  Intergovernmental co-
   operation.
II M  (Reserved!
MM  AQMA plan: Resource*.
Illl  AQMA plan: Subnuttal formal.
ll«l  AQMA analyato and plan. Data avail-
   ability.
II M  AQMA analysis and plan: Alternative
   procedure*.
                         MID
II IM  Definition*.
11. lilt  Stipulation*.
• 1.101  Public hearing*.
II lit  Bubnilaaton of  plan*: preliminary
   rrvlew of plan*.
II 104  Revisions.
II 101  Approval of plant
 •I.I It  Attainment and maintenance of na-
    tional atandardi.
 •Mil  Detcrlpllon of control meaturet.
 11.111  Demonttrallon of adequacy.
 I I.I II  Time period for  demonstration of
    adequacy.
 II 114  Emissions data and projections.
 •I.III  Air quality data and projection*.
 II IK  Data availability.
 11.111  Additional provision* for lead.
 II 111  Black height provisions
 11.11 •  Intermittent control tyslems.

            -4V.»satls«j •> Air f>«*MlM
 •I.IM Classification of region* for epUode
    plan*.
 •1.1(1 Significant harm level*.
 ll.lll Contingency plan*.
 II.Ill Reevaluatlon of episode plan*.
                         Fit*
                              Ml
  11. IM  Legally enforceable procedure*.
  11.1(1  Public availability of Information.
  ll.lll  Identification   of   reapontlble
    Mency.
  •I.IM  AdmlnbiUatlon procedure*.
  •I.IM  Stack height procedure*.
  •I.IM  Permit requirement*.
  •I.IM  Prevention of slgnlltcant deterio-
ration of air quality.
   howrfj
•I.IM  Ambient air quality monitoring re-
   quirement*.
ll.lll  General.
ll.lll  Emission report* and recordkeeplng.
•1.111  Testing,  inspection,  enforcement,
   and complaint*.
ll.lll  Transportation control measure*.
tl.lU  Continuous emltslon monitoring.
                                         HIM Requirement* for all plan*.
                                         II .111 Identification of legal authority.
                                         •1.1*1 Assignment  of  legal authority  to
                                             local agencies.
          Aoancv DB*KU»TIOII

11.140  General plan requirement*.
11.141  Nonattalrunent  areas  for  carbon
   monoxide and ozone.
11.141  IReterved]
                                      712
                                                      f nvkonMonlol Protection Afjoncy
                                                                         951.40
    CONTINUING CONSULTATION Paoccss

11.141  Consultation process objective*.
•1.144  Plan elemenU affected.
11141  Organizations and official* to  be
   consulted.
•1.141  Timing.
•1.141  Hearing* on  consultation process
   violation*.

 RBLATioNSHir or Pun TO Drum PLANNINO
       AM* MAHAOnfEMT PHOOBAH*
•I .141  Coordination with other programs.
11.141  (Reserved!
I1.1M  Trantmlttal ol Information.
II 111  Conformity with  Executive Order
   11111.
tl.lll  Summary of plan development par-
   ticipation.
11.200  Legally   enforceable   compliance
   schedule*.
II.MI  Plnal compliance schedules.
•l.Ml  Extension beyond one year.
•I.IM  Reaourceax
H.ltl  Copies of rule* and regulations.
•I.MB  Public notification.
•I.IM  Purpose and applicability.
11.101  Definition*.
tl.Ml  Implementation control strategies.
•1.101  Exemption* from control.
•1.104  Identification of Integral vtatas.
•I. 10*  Monitoring.
II. MM)  Long term strategy.
(1.101  New source review.
       Aia QUALITY DAM R«TOBTI»O   (
•MM  Annual air quality data report.

    BOOBCI BMiMion Ana Srtn ACTIOH
               Rarowriira
•1.111  Annual source emission* and State
    action report.
•1.111  Source* subject to emissions report-
    Ing.
•1.111  Reportable emissions data and In-
    formation.
•1.114  Progress In plan enforcement.
•I.IM  Contingency plan action*.
•I.IM  Reportable revisions
11.111  Enforcement orders and other State
    action*.
(1.121  I Reserved I
11.141  Request for II month extension.
ArrcMDicc* A-K -IRBSEavcol
ArrcMBiv  I.- EXAMM.C  RECULATIOM*  TOO
   PBIVKNTION or Aia POLLUTION EMCROEN
   cv EricoDi*
ArrtHDix M— IRucavrol
ArrKNDix    N- EMISSIONS    RKDUCTION*
   ACHIIVABLI THBOUGH iHartcTioH, MAIH-
   TKNANCC AND RBTBOriT or LjOHT DUTV
   VKHICLIS
ArrCNDIX O— IRUCBVKDl
ArrtNoix P— MINIMUM EMISSION MONITOB
ArruiDicE* Q-R-f Racavnil
ArrtMDix S-EMimon Orrsn
   TIVK RULINO
AmMMi T-IRisxavral
ArmiMB  U— CLCAH A IB ACT SCCTIOH 114
   OUIDKLINU

  AUTHORITY-. This rulemaklng  la promul-
gated under authority of sections lOI(bMI).
110,  1M-IM. Ill-Ill, and  lOUal of the
Clean Air Act 41 U.S.C. 140l(bMI>. 1410.
1410-1411. 1601 1501. and IMIIal.
  8ouB.cc M PR MM*. Nov. ». ttll. unless
otherwise noted.
  EBITOBIAI.  Norm: Nomenclature change*
affecting Part (I appear at 44 PR Mil. Feb.
I. Itl* and tl PR 40MI. Nov. 1. IM*.
         |) — MtjInltMMnct) of NcjHonejl
                                                      11.340  Request for 1-year extension.
  SOOBCC 41 PR HIM. May 1. UK. unless
otherwise noted.

I II.M  Scope.
  (a) Applicability.  The requlremenU
of  thU gubpart  apply  to  air quality
maintenance  areas  (AQMA*)  Identi-
fied under | SI.110(11 and to any area*
Identified under 151.1IOU).
  
-------
                                              40 CM Ch. I (7-1-M IdHIm)
lll.lt  AQUA  eaabrtk sad  atsa: Data   III.IM Deflaluea*.
  (a) The State «hall retain  all de-
tailed data and calculation* used In
the preparation of  AQMA analyses
and plait*, make them available for
public Inspection, and submit them to
the Admlnlatrator at hla request.
   The detailed data and calcula
tljnk uwd In the preparation of the
AQUA analyses and plans shall not be
coDsldeted a part of the AQMA plan.

I II II  AQMA aaaljrds and •!••:  Allcraa-
  (a)  At the request of a State, or
uuiler hla own Initiative, the Admlnla-
trator, where he determines It appro-
pi late.   may   approve   alternative
AQUA analysis and plan development
procedures as allowed under  II 51.42.
51 44.  11.45.  SMC.  51.4Kb).   and
51 JOia).  He may consider all  relevant
factors Including but not limited to air
quality problems, financial and man-
power limitations, administrative  fea-
sibility. and existing commitments by
the State.
  (b) The Administrator shall act upon
4 request for modification within 45
days after  receipt of a properly  pre-
pared and filed request. Unless a State
ls notified of a denial, or the Admlnla-
trator requeata additional Information.
each  a request  la  automatically ap-
prdved on the forty-sixth day.
  (c) The Admlnlatrator shall publish
In the PBDCXAL Raoisna a description
of each modification made.
   A public hearing on an AQUA
plan does not fulfill  the public hearing
requirements of this part If. subse-
    nt to the hearing, any alternative
     lures are approved  under  this
    an.
    . II*. 111. n«(»). »•!<•>. Clcui Air Act.
     emted «4J UJJ.C. 141V. 1411. 1M4. «nd
ia»Ka)»
141 FR 161U. May I. »1«. u uncndcd •! 44
nt MI7V. June
       Subpari 1— {Ratarvad)

         f — Procedural RaejMlraaMitts
  OODBCB: II FH 406SI. N»«. 1. KM. unlm
 otlicrwUr noted.
  As used In this part, all terms not de-
fined herein will  have the meaning
given them In the Act:
  (a) "Act" means the Clean Air Act
(43 U.S.C. 7401 et teg., as amended by
Pub. U •I-M4. M Stat. I61« Pub. L.
MM. ffl Stat.. 6M and Pub. L. 95100.
•1 Stat.. 1 W.>
   "Administrator" means the Ad-
mlnlatrator of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (EPA) or an authorised
representative.
  (c) "Primary standard" means  a na-
tional  primary ambient  air  quality
standard promulgated pursuant to sec-
tion 109 of the Act.
  (d) "Secondary standard" means a
national secondary ambient air quality
standard promulgated pursuant to sec-
tion 10* of the Act.
  (e)   "National   standard"  means
either a  primary or  secondary stand-
ard.
  (f) "Owner or operator" means any
person who owns, leases, operates, con-
trols, or supervises a facility, building.
structure, or Installation which direct-
ly or Indirectly result or may result In
emissions of any air pollutant for
which a national standard la In effect.
  (g) "Local agency" means any local
government agency  other than the
State agency, which Is charged with
responsibility for carrying out a por-
tion of the plan.
  (h) "Regional Office" means one of
the ten (10) EPA Regional Offices.
  (I) "State agency" means the air pol-
lution  control  agency primarily  re-
sponsible for development and Imple-
mentation of a plan under the Act.
  (J) "Plan" means an Implementation
plan approved  or promulgated under
section 110 of 112 of the Act.
  (a) "Point source" means the follow-
ing:
  (1) For partteulate  matter, sulfur
oxides, carbon  monoxide, volatile  or-
ganic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen
dioxide—
  (I) Any stationary source the actual
emissions of which  are  In excess of
•0.1 metric tons (100 tons) per year of
the pollutant hi a region containing an
area whose 1*80 "urban place" popula-
tion, as defined by the U.S. Bureau of
                                   718
                                                                rtactUH Agency
the  Census, waa equal to or greater
than 1 million.
  (II) Any stationary source the actual
emissions of which are In  excess of
M.1 metric tons (35 tons) per year of
the pollutant In a region containing an
area whose 1950 "urban place" popula-
tion, as defined by the U.S. Bureau of
the Census, waa less than l million: or
  (1)  For  lead  or lead compounds
measured aa elemental lead, any sta-
tionary source  that actually enalta a
total of 4.5 metric tons (5  tons) per
year or more.
  (I) "Area source" means any amali
residential, governmental. Institution-
al, commercial, or Industrial fuel com-
bustion operations: onslte solid waste
disposal facility:  motor  vehicles, air-
craft vessels, or other transportation
facilities  or   other   miscellaneous
sources Identified through  Inventory
techniques similar to UIOM deaerlbed
In the  "AKROS Manual aeries. Vol. II
AEROS User's  Manual." EPA-460/t-
1«-Oa» December IfM.
  (m) "Region" means an area desig-
nated aa an air quality control region
(AQGR) under section 101(c) of the
  (n) "Control strategy" means a <
Mnatlftn of measure* designated to
achieve the  aggregate reduction of
          necessary  for  attainment
         IfUfUM^ of  national stand-
ards Including,  but not  limited  to.
measure* such aa:
  (1)1
  (» Federal or
or texes or other economic Ineenttvea
or disincentives.
  <•) Closing or relocation of real don-
Mai. commercial,  or Industrial taeUI-
  (4) Changes In schedules or I
of operation of commercial or Indawtri-
al faculties or transportation H stems.
Including, but not limited to. short-
term changes made In accordance with
standby plans.
  (5) Periodic Inspection and testing of
motor  vehicle emission  control sys-
tems, at such time aa the Administra-
tor determines that such programs are
feasible and practicable.
  (•) Emission control measures appli-
cable to In-use motor vehicles. Includ-
ing, but not limited to. measures such
as mandatory maintenance.  Installs-
                            J 51.100

 tlon of emission control devices, and
 conversion to gaseous fuels.
  (1) Any transportation control meas-
 ure  Including  those  transportation
 measures listed In section 108(f) of the
 Clean Air Act as amended.
  (5) Any variation of. or  alternative
 to any measure delineated herein.
  (•) Control or prohibition of a fuel
 or fuel additive used In motor vehicles.
 If such control or prohibition Is neces-
 sary to achieve a national  primary  or
 seconary  air quality standard and la
 approved by the Admlnlatrator under
 section 21KCM4KC) of the Act.
  (o) "Reasonably available  control
 technology" (RACT) means  devices.
 systems   process  modifications,   or
 other apparatus or techniques that are
 reasonably available  taking  Into ac-
 count  (1) the  necessity of Imposing
 such controls  In order to  attain and
 maintain a national ambient air qual-
 ity standard. (2) the social, environ-
 mental and economic Impact of such
 controls, and (I) alternative mean* of
 providing for attainment and mainte-
 nance  of  such  standard. (This provi-
 sion  defines RACT for the purpose* of
 II 51.110(cM2) and 51.»41(b> only.)
  (p) "CompUai
the date or dates by which a source or
category of  sources la required  to
comply with specific emission ItmH*-
Uons contained In an bnplementatlan
plan  and  with  any  Increment*  of
progress toward such compliance.
  (q) "Increments of progress'* aaaant
steps toward oompHanoe which will be
taken by a specific source. Including:
  O) Date of submlttal of the source's
final control plan to the appropriate
air pollution control agency;
  (1)  Date  by  which  contract*  for
•mission control systems or process
modifications will be awarded; or date
by which orders will be Issued for the
purchase of  component parta to ac-
complish emission control or process
modification;
  (I) Date of Initiation of on site con
atructlon or Installation of emission
control equipment or process change:
  (4) Dal«  by which on-slte construc-
tion or Installation of emission control
equipment  or process modification la
to be completed: and
  (5) Date by which final compliance
Is to be achieved.
                                                                                  719

-------
 191.100

   (rl "Transportation  control  meas-
 ure" means any meaaure that la direct-
 ad toward  reducing emlaalona of air
 pollutant*    from     tranaporUtlon
 source*. Such  measure* Include,  but
 are not limited to. thoae lotted In sec-
 tlon lOMf) of the Clean Air Act.
  (aMw) I Reaervedl
  (x> "Time period" mean* any period
 of time dealcnated by hour, month.
 aeaaon. calendar year,  averaging time.
 or other aultable characteristic*,  for
 which ambient air quality la eatlmated.
  (yl "Variance" meana the temporary
 deferral of a final compliance date for
 an Individual source subject to an ap-
 proved  regulation, or a  temporary
 chance to an approved regulation a* It
 applies to an Individual source.
  (a) "Emission limitation" and "emis-
sion standard" mean a requirement ee-
 Ubllshed by a State, local government.
or the Administrator which limits  the
quantity,  rate,  or concentration of
emlaatona of air pollutant* on a contin-
uous baals. Including any requirement*
which limit the level of opacity, pre-
acrlbe equipment, set  fuel apectflce-
ttotia. or prescribe operation or main-
tenance procedure*  for a aource to
aanue continuous emlnalon reduction,
    "Capacity factor" meana  the
 ratio of the average toad on a machine
or equipment for  the  period  of time
considered to the capacity rating of
 the machine or equipment.
  (bb) "Excess emlMlonir meana emto-
atona of an  air pollutant In eieeae of
an entlealon alandard.
   "Nitric  add plant" meana any
facility  producing  nitric add M to 10
percent In atrength by either the pree-
aure or atmo*pherlc pressure process.
  (dd) "Sulfurlc add plant" meana any
facility producing sulfurk add by the
contact proceaa by burning elemental
aulfur. alkylatlon  acid, hydrogen aul-
fide, or add aludge. but doe* not In-
elude facilities  where  conversion to
aulfurlc add Is utilized primarily aa a
 meana of preventing emission* to  the
 atmosphere of sulfur dioxide or other
 aulfur compound*.
     "Dispersion   technique"
means any technique  which attempt*
to affect the concentration of a pollut-
ant In the ambient air  by:
  (I) Oalng  that  portion  of a atack
which exceed* good engineering prac-
tice ateck height:
  (U) Varying the rate of emission of a
pollutant according  to  atmospheric
condition* or ambient concentration*
of that pollutant; or
  (III) Increasing final exhaust  gee
plume rise  by  manipulating  aource
proceaa  parametera, exhaust gas  pa-
rameters, atack parametera. or combin-
ing exhaust gaaee from several exist-
ing atack* Into one *tack; or other se-
lective  handling  of   exhaust   gaa
atreama so a* to Increase the exnauat
gaa plume rise.
   The preceding sentence dose not
Include:
  (I) The reheating of a gaa atream.
following use of a pollution control
system,  for the purpose of returning
the gaa to the temperature at wMch It
waa originally discharged from  the fa
dHty generating the gaa stream;
  (U)  The merging of exhaust  gaa
  (A) The aource owner or operator
demonstrate*  that  the  facility  waa
originally designed and constructed
with such merged gas streams;
  (B) Alter July t. IMft such merging
la part of a change tot operation at the
facility that Includes  the Installation
of pollution controls and to accompa-
nied by a net reduction In  the allow-
able emissions of a pollutant. This ex-
clusion from the definition of "diaper
alon technique*" shall apply only to
the etnlatlon limitation for the pollut-
InvlreiMsjenteJ ProtecHon Agency

ant affected by such change In oper-
ation; or
  (C> Before July I. IMS. *uch merg-
ing waa part of a change In operation
at the facility that Included the Instal-
lation of emissions control equipment
or waa carried out for Bound economic
or engineering  reasons. Where there
waa an Increase In the emission umttav
tton or. In the event that no emlaalon
limitation was In existence prior to the
merging, an Increase In the quantity of
pollutant*  actually emitted  prior to
the  merging,  the reviewing  agency
ahall  presume that merging waa  sig-
nificantly motivated by an Intent to
gain emtaalona credit for greater  dto-
Persian. Abeent a demonstration by
the aource owner or  operator that
merging waa not significantly motivat-
ed  by  Buch  Intent,   the  reviewing
agency ahall  deny credit for the *f-
fecte  of euch  merging la  calculating
the allowable emtaalona for the aouroe:
  (111)   "Oood  engineering  practtee-
(OEP) atack height mean* the greater
of:
  (1) M  meter*, meaaured from Uw
ground-level elevation at the baae  of
the ateck:
  <1MI> For stack* hi existence en Jan-
uary 11.1070. and for which the owner
or operator had obtained all applicable
permit* or approval* required under 40
CPR Part* SI and SI.

H.-1.BH.

provided the owner or operator pro-
ducea evidence that thto equation waa
actually  relied  on In establishing  an
emission limitation:
   The height demonatrated  by a
fluid model or a Held atudy approved
by  the  EPA State  or tocal control
agency, which ensures that the emhv
atona from a atack do not result hi ex-
ceaalve concentrattone of any ah* pol-
lutant ae a reeult  of  atmospheric
downwaah. wake*, or eddy effed* cre-
ated by the aource Itself, nearby etruc-
turea or nearby terrain feature*.
   "Nearby- aa  need hi Itl.lOOfll)
of thto part to defined for a specific
atructure or terrain feature and
  (1) For purpose* of applying the for-
mulae provided hi I Ol.MOfMKl) mean*
thai distance  up  to five ttaaea the
•Baser of Uw height  or Uw width dl-
aVMlMlOII Of 0%. aVlaTIIOliaVVe bill HOC fTTValtaSr
than 0.0 kaMHmUe). and

under I al.lOOIIlMS) means not greater
than OJ km (H mile), except that the
portion of a terrain feature may be
GOHNOtfeTMa! lO  Do) IMetfvy  WlUCll  flUM
within a dtoteme of up to 10 Umea the
maximum height <«,» of Uw feature.
not to exceed  1 mile* If euch  feature
aduevea • height (H,) 0.0 km from the
ataek that to at toaat  40 percent of the
GBP •tack height  determined by the
formulae provided  hi I •I.IOMUXINU)
of thto part or M meter*, whichever to
fiOMaMT* M MMMinra  fran uio ftrottno-
level elevation at Uw  baae of Uw atack.
TM height of Uw atructure or terram
feature to ajweeured now  Uw ground-
level elevation at the  baae of Uw ataek.
   "Exeeestv* concentration" to de-

good engineering practice atack height
under I II.IOMIIXJ) and mean*.
  Ill  For aource*  Backing credit for
atack height  exceeding   that eatab-
llehed under | ftl.lOOtllMl) a maximum
ground-level  concentration  due  to
emission* from a atack due hi whole or
part to downwaah. wake*, and eddy ef-
fect* produced Jby nearby structure* or
nearby terrain featurea which Individ-
ually to at least 40 percent In excess of
                                   720
                                                                                721

-------
(51.100

the  maximum concentration experi-
enced In the  absence ol  such down-
waah.  wakes,  or  eddy  effect*  and
which contributes to a total concentra-
tion due to emissions from all sources
that la  creater than an ambient air
quality  standard. For sources subject
to the prevention  of  significant dete-
rioration program (40 CFR SI.166 and
62.21). an excessive concentration al-
ternatively means a maximum ground-
level concentration due  to emissions
from a slack due In whole or part to
downwaah. wakes, or eddy effects pro-
duced by nearby structures or nearby
terrain  features which Individually Is
at least  40  percent  In excess of the
maximum concentration experienced
In  the  absence of  such  downwaah.
wakes, or eddy effects  and greater
than a prevention of significant dete-
rioration  Increment.  The  allowable
emission rate to be  used  In making
demonstrations under this part shall
be prescribed  by the new source per-
formance standard that  Is applicable
to  the  source category  unless the
ownei or operator demonstrates that
this emission rale Is Infeaslble. Where
such demonstrations are approved by
the authority  administering the State
Implementation plan, an  alternative
emission rate  shall be established In
consultation with the source  owner or
operator.
  (3) For sources seeking credit after
October II. 1983. for Increases In exist-
ing stack heights up to the heights es-
tablished under | 51. IO To preclude a State from employ-
 Ing techniques other than those speci-
 fied In this part for purposes of esti-
 mating  air quality or demonstrating
 the  adequacy of a control strategy.
 provided that such other techniques
 are shown to be adequate and  appro-
 priate for such purposes.
  (d) To encourage a State to prepare.
 adopt, or submit a plan without taking
 Into consideration  the  social and eco-
 nomic Impact of the control strategy
 set forth In such plan. Including, but
 not limited to. Impact on availability
 of fuels, energy, transportation, and
 employment.
  (e) To preclude a State from prCpar-
 big.  adopting, or  submitting a plsn
 which provides  for attainment  tad
 maintenance  of  a  national staMMsud
 through the application  of a vontrol
 strategy not specifically  Identified or
 described In this  part.
  (I) To preclude a State or political
subdivision thereof from adopting or
enforcing any emission limitations or
other measures or combinations  there:
of to attain and maintain air quality
better than that required by a nation-
al standard.
  (g> To encourage a State to adopt a
control slralegy  uniformly applicable
throughout a region unless there Is no
                            § 51.101

 satisfactory alternative way of provid-
 ing for attainment and maintenance of
 a national  standard throughout such
 region.

 HUM  Public bearings.

   (a) Except as otherwise provided In
 paragraph  (c) of this section. States
 must conduct one or more public hear-
 ings on the following prior to adoption
 and submission to EPA of:
   (1) Any plan or revision of  It re-
 quired by 181.104(a>.
   (8) Any Individual compliance sched-
 ule under (161.200).
   (3) Any revision under 161.104(d).
   (b) Separate hearings may  be held
 for plans to Implement primary and
 secondary standards.
   (c) No hearing will be required for
 any  change  to  an  Increment  of
 progress  In an  approved  Individual
 compliance  schedule  unless   such
 change to likely to cause the source to
 be unable to comply  with the  final
 compliance  date In  the schedule. The
 requirements of  1161.104 and 61.106
 wlU be applicable to auch schedules.
 however.
  (d) Any  hearing  required by para-
 graph (a) of this section will  be held
 only after  reasonable  notice, which
 will be considered to Include,  at least
 10 days prior to the  date of such
 heartng(s):
  (1) Notice given  to the  public by
 prominent advertisement In the area
 affected  announcing   the   date(s>.
 tlmeCa).   and    placets)   of   such
 hearlngts);
  (2)  Availability of each  proposed
 plan or revision for public Inspection
 In at least one location In each region
 to which It will apply, and  the  avail
 ability of each compliance schedule
 for public Inspection In at least one lo-
 cation In the region In which the af-
 fected source to located;
  (3) Notification to the Administrator
 (through  the  appropriate  Regional
 Office):
  (4) Notification to each local air pol-
 lution control agency  which  will be
significantly Impacted  by such  plan.
schedule or revision;
  (6)  In the  case  of  an Interstate
 region,  notification  to  any  other
Stales Included. In whole or In part. In
                                   722
                                                                                 723

-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5.3

-------
 Port SI
                                                  40 CM Ck. I (7-l-M
 FAIT SI-«iQUMfJMINTS K>t plip.
   AlAIKNi ADOPTION.  AND  SUi-
   MITTAl    Of   IMPUMiNTATrON
   HANS
Sec.
II M  Scop*.

            AQMA ANU.TSI*
•141  AQMA analyala: Submlttal daU.
II 41  AQMA analysis: Analyst* period.
1141  AQUA analyst*: Guidelines.
II 44  AQMA analyabK Projection of emle-
   •lons,
•1.41  AQMA analysis: Allocation of emis-
•I.M  AQMA analysis: Projection of  air
   qu*Uty oonceotraUoas.
II 47  AQMA analyala: Dewrtptlon of data
•I.M  AQMA analyala: Data baMa.
11.4*  AQMA analysis: Techniques deacrlp-
   Uon.
•I.M  AQMA analysts: Accuracy factor*.
•Ul  AQMA analysU: SubmltUl of calcula-
              AQMAPuui

•Ul  AQMA ptew OeneraL
•Ul  AQMA plan: Demonstration of ade-
   quacy.
II M  AQMA plan: fllratetrtca.
•I.M  AQMA plan: l««al authority.
•I.M  AQMA plan: Putur* atraletrw*.
•Ul  AQMA plan: Future lecal authority.
•I.M  AQMA plan: InUrsovemmental eo-
   operaUon.
II M  IReaervadl
II M  AQMA plan: Resource*.
•Ill  AQMA plan: Submltlal format.
IIII  AQMA analyvl* and plan: Data avail-
   ability.
II U  AQMA analyata and plan: Alternative
   procedure*.

          i»l«.*»4i  lie**r»ed|
 •I.11* Attainment and maintenance of na-
    tional standards
 II.Ill Description of control meamree.
 II 111 Demonstration of adequacy.
 II.III Time period  for demonstration of
    adequacy.
 •1114 Emissions data and projection*.
 •I.Ill Air quality data and projections.
 •I.I I* Data availability.
 II 117 Additional provision* for lead.
 II III Stack hel*ht provisions.
 11.11* Intermittent control systems.
                                         •I.IM  Claaslflcallon of ration* for episode
                                            plans.
                                         •1.1*1  Oirnlflcant harm levels.
                                         II.Ill  Contingency plan*
                                         •I.IM  Reevaluatlon of episode plaru.
                                          •I.IM U«ally<
                                                          i of New
  •1.1*1  Publk availability of Information.
  •I.IM  Identification    of    responsible
   •sency.
  •I.IM  Administration procedures.
  II.IM  Stack bclsht procedures.
  •I.IM  Permit requirement*.
  •I.IM  Prevention of al«nlflcant dsterto-
raUoo of air quality.
•I.IM  Ambient air quality monltorins re-
   quIremenU.
•l.ll*  Oeneral.
•111!
               reporta and reoardkeeplng.
                InsBwctlon.  enforcement.
•1.111  Teatlng.
   and ftffffijrlalnl
Hill  Transportation control meaaurea.
11.114  CootlniKHSiemUeloamonlUirtng.
HIM  RequlremenU for all plan*.
•I.MI  Identification of letal authority.
11.111  Assignment of lesal  authority  to
   local Mendea.
II IM  DefbiHIona.
11.1*1  Stipulations.
111*1  Public hearins*.
II l«l  HubraHaion of plans;  preliminary
   review of plans.
II IIM  Revisions.
HIM  Approval of plans.
          ADDICT DUIOHATION

11.14*  General plan requlremenU.
11141  NonalUlnment areas  for  carbon
   monoilde and oxone.
11141  IReservedl
                                     712
                                                                                                                             f 51.40
                                                         CONTINUUM CONSULTATION Paocus
                                                     II Ml  Consultation process objective*.
                                                     11144  Plan elemenU •fleeted.
                                                     II141  Oraanlzattons and officials  to  be
                                                        omuulted.
                                                     11.14*  Tlmlnc.
                                                     •1.147  Hearings  on coniulUllon  process
                                                        violations.

                                                      RlUTIONSHir or PUH TO OlMHI PLANNING
                                                            AN» UANAOSMOTT PaooaAMs

                                                     11.141  Coordination with other proa-rams.
                                                     II 141  IRcMrvedl
                                                     HIM  Tranamltlal of Information.
                                                     •I.MI  Conformity with Executive Order
                                                        11171.
                                                     •I.Ill  Summary of plan development per-
                                                     il.M«  Legally   enforceable  compllanoe
                                                                                             II Ml  final compliance schedules.
                                                                                             •I.MI  KiUnalon beyond on* year.
                                                     •I.I*
                                                     II Ul  Copies of rule* and regulation*.
                                                     II.1M  PubUe notification.

                                                                  -rv.Ndi.ii el viiii»»r
                                                     H.M*  Purpoee and applicability.
                                                     II.MI  Definitions.
                                                     II. Ml  Implementation control etratetlea.
                                                     II.MI  exemption! from control.
                                                     11.1*4  Identification of Integral vlata*.
                                                     II Ml  Monltorim.
                                                     •I.M*  Long-term atralety.
                                                     • I .Ml  New aource review.
                                                                           epe*
                                                                                                    Aia QVAUTV DAT* RsrosTtiM  .
                                                                                             •I.IM  Annual air quality data report.

                                                                                                 Somes EMISSIONS *•• STATS ACTION
                                                                                                            RsroaTiM
                                                                                             •I.MI  Annual source emissions  and StaU
                                                                                                 Action report.
                                                                                             11.111  Sources subject to emissions report

                                                                                             11.111  Reportable  emissions data and In-
                                                                                                 fortiutlofi.
                                                                                             •1.114  Progress In plan enforcement.
                                                                                             •1.111  Contingency plan action*.
                                                                                             HIM  Reportable revision*.
                                                                                             11.117  Enforcement order* and other State
                                                                                                 action*.
                                                                                             •I.IM  IReservedl
                                                                         fsteiMMHU

                                                     11.140  Request lor 1 year extension.
•1.141  Request lor II month extension.
ArriNDicu A- K--IHiucavKDl
ArrtNoix  L - Ex«Mri«  REGULATION*  roa
   pacviNTioN or Aia POLLUTION EMMGCN
   CT EruoDt*
ArrcNMx M  IHisMviol
ArrcNDiv    N EMISSIONS    RCDVCTION*
   ACHIKVASLI THaUUOH iNsriX-TION. MlIN
   TKNUNCC AND RnaoriT or IJOMT DVTT
   VlHICI^S
AmitDii O  IRuuvcol
ArruiDix P -MINIMUM EMISSION MoHrroa-
   IHO RCQUIKMCNTS
ArruiBicu Q- R-IRncavnl
ArrcMMS 8 -EMISSION Orrarr InTBuraar*.
   TIVI RULING
Arrntan T-IRnnvnl
ArroiMB  U-Cu«N  Aia ACT SCCTIOH 174
  AOTHOBITV: This rulemaklnc la promul
•atcd under authority of aecllon* lOKbNll.
II*.  IM-IW. Ill-Ill, and lOI(a) of the
Clean Air Act 42 U.8.C. 140libNI».  74 1».
747^747*. 1*01 -IftM. and 7«OI(a»
  Souacc M PR HIM. Nov. M. 1171. unless
otherwise noted.
  EDITORIAL  Note Nomenclature chance*
affectlruj Part tl appear at 44 FR 1117. Feb.
I. in* and II PR 40MI. Nov. 7. I*M.
  Sown: 41 PR HIM. May 1.  l*7«. unteas
otherwlae noted.

• 11.4*  Scope.
  (•> >tppfica6ififr  The  requlremenU
of  thU •ubpart  apply to air  quaJlly
maintenance  areu  (AQMAal Mentl-
fled under | •I.IIOdl and to any areas
Identified under I tl. 110(1).
   AQUA Analttit. Under this sub-
part,  procedures are  ilven  for  the
analysis of the air quality  Impact of
specified pollutant emissions from ex-
isting sources and emissions associated
with projected growth and develop-
ment  In areas Identified under para-
graphs  and  (II of 161.110.  This
analysis Is referred to  In this subpart
as an AQMA analysis.
   AQMA Plan. Under this subpari.
the Administrator will require a revi-
sion to the State Implementation plan
for areas Identified under I 61.110(1 lor
I 51.110411 when necessary to prevent a
national ambient air quality standard
                                                                                          71.1

-------
1*1.41
                                             40 CM Ch. I (7-l-M f4Mo»)
141.41  AQMA saab-cl* aa4  slaw  Data  (II.IN  fMlaMlMM.
  (at The State shall  retain all de-
tailed data and calculations  used In
the preparation of AQUA analyses
and plans, make them available for
public Inspection, and submit them to
the Administrator at his request.
  (b) The detailed data and  calcula-
tions used In the preparation of the
AQMA analyses and plans shall not be
considered a part of the AQUA plan.
lll.U  AQMA
                       S!MV AMtraa-
  (a) At the request of a State,  or
under his own Initiative, the Adminis-
trator. where he determines It appro-
priate.   may   approve   alternative
AQMA analysis and plan development
procedure*  as allowed under ||(l.43.
•1.44.  11.46.   ll.4«.  tl.4aib).  and
II J04a). Ue may consider all relevant
factors Including, but not limited to air
q\udlty problems, financial and man-
ppirer limitations, administrative fea-
sltttity. and existing commitments by
the State.
  (b) The Administrator shall act upon
4 Request for modification within  41
days after  receipt of a properly pre-
pared and filed request. Unless a State
Is notified of a denial, or the Adminis-
trator requests additional Information.
MKh a  request Is  automatically  ap-
proved on the (orty-slith day.
  (c) The Administrator shall publish
In the tonuu.  Raoisraa a description
Of each modification made.
   A public  hearing on an  AQUA
plan does not fulfill the public hearing
requirements of this part If. subse-
      to the hearing, any alternative
           are approved  under this


(MM tit. III. I14U). MIUI. Clcui AU Act.
M«aMndcd U1 VAC. 141*. 14*1. 1iS4. sml
IMUsllt
141 VM ISJM. M*r 1. Itl*. u uitended at 44
PK Mil*. June IS. IS1»I
       Swbpori l-lleservod)

         F— Procedure* loejulteiMiits
  aoiran. tl PR 40MI. No*. 1. INS.
 otbcrwlM noted.
  As used In this part, all terms not de-
fined herein  will have the meaning
given them In the Act:
   "Act" means the Clean Air Act
(42 UJB.C. 1401 et teg., as amended by
Pub. L. »1-404. 14 BUI. 1070 Pub. U
MM. tl Stat.. M6 and Pub. L. 00-1M).
•I Stat.. ISM.)
  (b) "Administrator" means the Ad-
ministrator of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (EPA) or an authorised
representative.
   "Primary standard" means a na-
tional  primary ambient air quality
standard promulgated pursuant to sec-
tion 10* of the Act.
  (d) "Secondary standard" means  a
national secondary ambient air quality
standard promulgated pursuant to sec-
tion 1M of the Act.
  (e)   "National   standard"  means
cither a  primary or secondary stand-
ard.
  (f) "Owner  or operator" means any
person who owns, leases, operates, con-
trols, or supervises a facility, building,
structure, or Installation which direct-
ly or Indirectly result or may result In
emissions of  any air pollutant for
which a national standard Is In effect.
   EPA Regional Offices.
  (I) "Slate agency" means the air pol-
lution  control  agency primarily re-
sponsible for  development and Imple-
mentation of a plan under the Act
  O) "Plan" means an Implementation
plan approved or promulgated under
section 110 of 171 of the Act.
   "Point source" means the follow-
ing:
  (1)  For partlculate  matter, sulfur
oxides, carbon  monoxide, volatile or-
ganic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen
dloxlde-
  (I) Any stationary source  the actual
emissions of  which are In  excess of
M.I metric tons (100 tons) per year of
the pollutant In a region containing an
area whose 10M "urban place" popula-
tion, as defined by the U.S. Bureau of
                                  718
the Census, was  equal  to or greater
than 1 million.
  (U) Any stationary source the actual
emissions of which are In excess of
19.1 metric tons (30 tons) per year of
the pollutant In a region containing an
area whose IIM "urban place" popula-
tion, as defined by the UJB. Bureau of
the Census, was less than 1 million: or
  (S)  for  lead  or lead compounds
measured as elemental lead, any sta-
tionary source that actually  emits  a
total of 4.1 metric tons (• tons) per
year or more.
  (I)  "Area source" means any small
residential, governmental. Institution-
al, commercial, or Industrial fuel com-
bustion operations; onsHv solid  waste
disposal facility:  motor vehicles, air-
craft vessels, or other transportation
facilities   or   other   miscellaneous
sources Identified through Inventory
tectiniQUM •bnllM* lo  tliQM devcrtbeo!
In the  "AEROS Man    series. VoL H
AKRO8 User's Manual." EPA-4M/t-
10-OSt December 1*70.
                                                                                      (m) "Region" means an an*
                                                                                    nated as an air quality control region
                                                                                    (AQC9R) under section  I07(e) of the
                                                                                      (•) "Control strategy" means a com-
                                                                                    bination of measures iliolginlnd to
                                                                                    achieve the  aggregate reduction of
                                                                                    ards Including,  but not  limited
                                                                                      (I) Federal or BUte <
                                                                                    or taxes or other COM
                            charges
                                                                                      (I) Closing or relocation of
                                                                                                     or Industrial faoiU-
                                                                                      (4) Changes In schedules or I
                                                                                    of operation of commercial or IndMtrt-
                                                                                    al facilities or transportetlon gyHaMi.
                                                                                    Including, but not limited to. short-
                                                                                    term changes made In accordance with
                                                                                    standby plans.
                                                                                      (•) Periodic Inspection and testing of
                                                                                    motor vehicle emission  control sys-
                                                                                    tems, at such time as the Administra-
                                                                                    tor determines that such programs are
                                                                                    feasible and practicable.  .
                                                                                      (0) Emission control measures appli-
                                                                                    cable to In-use motor vehicles.  Includ-
                                                                                    ing, but not limited to. measures such
                                                                                    ss mandatory maintenance. Installa-
                            | SHOP

 tkw of emission control devices, and
 conversion to gaseous fuels.
  (1) Any transportation control meas-
 ure Including  those  transportation
 measures listed In section 104) "Reasonably available  control
 technology" (RACT) means  devices.
 systems   process  modifications,   or
 other apparatus or technique* that at*
 reasonably available  taking  Into ac-
 count  U) the  necessity of Imposing
 •uch controls In order to attain and
 maintain a national ambient air qual-
 ity  standard.  the social, environ-
 mental and economic Impact of such
 controls, and O) alternative means of
 providing for attainment and mainte-
 nance  of  such  standard. (This provi-
 sion defines RACT for the purposes of
 II sl.UOtcMa) and il.MUb) only.)
  (p) "Compliance schedule" means
 the date or dates by which a source or
category   of  sources  la required  to
comply with specific  emission limita-
 tions contained n an ImpletaenUtton
 plan and  with  any Increments  of
 progress toward such compliance.
  (q) "Increments  of progress" moans
stops toward compliance which will be
 token by a specif te source. Including:
  41) Date of submltUI of the source's
 final control plan to the appropriate
 ah- pollution control agency;
  <» Date  by which  contracts  for
         control  systems or process
modifications will be awarded: or date
by which orders will be  Issued for the
purchase  of component parts to ac-
oompllsh  emission control or process
modification:
  (I) Date of Initiation of on site con-
struction  or Installation of  emission
control equipment or process change:
  (4) Date by which on-slte construc-
 tion or Installation of emission control
 equipment or process modification Is
 to be completed: and
  (»> Date by which final compliance
 b to be achieved.
                                                                                                                      719

-------
Hi f!ii
  l
V -*i «
   v

   -

             «
                      2
liju1!
                                          *;
                                          Ii

-------
 151.100

 the  maximum concentration experi-
 enced |n the  absence  of  iuch down-
 wash,  wake*,  or  eddy  effect*  and
 which contribute* to a total concentra-
 tion due to emission* from all source*
 that U  greater than  an ambient air
 quality  standard. For sources subject
 to the prevention  of significant dete-
 rioration program (40 CFR Bl.iaa and
 •3.31). an excessive concentration al-
 ternatively mean* a maximum ground-
 level concentration due to emission*
 from a  stack due In whole or part to
 downwaah. wakes, or eddy effect* pro-
 duced by nearby structures or nearby
 terrain  feature* which Individually I*
 at least 40  percent In excess of the
 maximum concentration experienced
 In the  absence of such  downwash.
 wake*,  or eddy effect*  and  greater
 than a prevention of ilgnlflcant dete-
 rioration  Increment.  The  allowable
emission rate to be used  In  making
demonstration* under  this part shall
 be prescribed  by the new source per-
 formance standard that I* applicable
 to the  source category  unless the
ownei or operator demonstrate* that
this emission rate I* Infeaslble. Where
iuch demonstration* are approved by
 the authority  administering the State
 Implementation  plan,  an  alternative
 emission rate  shall be established In
 consultation with the source owner or
 operator.
  (3) For sources seeking  credit after
 October II. IM3. for Increases In extot-
 tng stack height* up to the height* es-
 tablished under I SI.HXHIIHa). either
 (!) a maximum ground-level concentra-
 tion due In whole or  part to down-
 wash, wake* or eddy effect* a* provid-
 ed In paragraph (kkMI) of this section.
 except that the emission rate specified
 by any  applicable State Implementa-
 tion plan (or. In the absence of Mich a
 limit, the actual emission  rate) shall
 be used, or    "PMM"   means  partlculate
matter with an aerodynamic diameter
less than or equal to a nominal 10 mi-
crometer* ss measured by a  reference
method based on Appendix J  of Part
BO of thl* chapter  and designated In
accordance with Part  B3 of this chap-
ter or by an equivalent  method desig-
nated  In accordance with Part B3 of
this chapter.
  (IT) "PMM emissions" means finely
divided solid or  liquid material, with
an aerodynamic diameter leas than or
equal  to  a  nominal  10 micrometers
emitted to the ambient air as meas-
ured   by  an  applicable  reference
•nvlrw
           »te* PretecHe
  method, or an equivalent or alterna-
  tive method, specified In thl* chapter
  or by a test method specified In an ap-
  proved State Implementation plan.
   (ss)  "Total  suspended partlculate"
  means partlculate matter as measured
  by the method described In Appendix
  B of Part BO of this chapter.
  Ill FA 40MI. Nov. 1. ISM. ss snsndsd at It
  PR Mill. July 1.1M7I

  MUSI  Mrslaltoas.
   Nothing  In  this part will be  con-
 strued In any manner:
   (a) To encourage a State to prepare.
 adopt, or submit a plan which does not
 provide for the protection and en-
 hancement of air quality so as to pro-
 mote  the public health and welfare
 and productive capacity.
   (b) To encourage a State to  adopt
 any particular control strategy with-
 out taking Into consideration the eost-
 effecUveness of such control strategy
 In relation  to that of alternative con-
 trol strategies.
   (e) To preclude a Stale from employ-
 Ing techniques other than those speci-
 fied In this part for purposes of esti-
 mating air quality or  demonstrating
 the  adequacy  of a  control  strategy.
 provided that such  other techniques
 are shown to be adequate and appro-
 priate for auch purposes.
  (d) To encourage • State to prepare.
 adopt, or submit a plan without taking
 Into consideration the social and eco-
 nomic Impact of the control strategy
 set forth In such plan. Including, but
 not limited to. Impact on availability
 of fuels,  energy, transportation, and
 employment.
  (e) To preclude a State from prepar-
 ing,  adopting,  or submitting a (Man
 which provides for attainment end
 maintenance of a national stssMaid
 through the application of  a tMitrol
 strategy not specifically Identified or
 described In this part.
  (f) To preclude a Stale or political
 subdivision thereof  from adopting or
 enforcing any emission  limitations or
 other measure* or combination* there1
of to attain and maintain air quality
 better than that required by a nation-
al standard.
  (g) To encourage a State to adopt a
control strategy uniformly applicable
throughout a region unless there Is no
                                                                 fsi.m

                                     satisfactory alternative way of provid-
                                     ing for attainment and maintenance of
                                     a national  standard throughout such
                                     region.

                                     • •MM  f«Mk
                                       (a) Except as otherwise provided In
                                     paragraph (c) of this section.  States
                                     must conduct one or more public hear-
                                     ings on the following Prior to adoption
                                     and submission to EPA of:
                                       (I) Any plan or revision of It re-
                                     quired by |Bl.l04(a).
                                       (3) Any Individual compliance sched-
                                     ule under (I •!. 300).
                                       (3) Any revision under | •l.lO4(d>.
                                       (b) Separate hearings may be held
                                     for plan* to Implement primary and
                                     secondary standards.
                                       (c) No hearing will be  required  for
                                     any  change   to  an   Increment  of
                                     progress  In  an  approved  Individual
                                     compliance   schedule  unless   such
                                     change Is likely to cause the source to
                                     be unable to comply  with  the final
                                     compliance date In trie schedule. The
                                     requirements of  || 11.104 and  «1.10>
                                     will be applicable to auch  schedules.
                                     however.
                                      (d) Any hearing  required by para-
                                     graph (a) of this section  will be held
                                     only after reasonable  notice,  which
                                     will be considered to Include, at -least
                                     30 days prior to the  date of  such
                                     heartngU*
                                      (1) Notice  given  to the  public  by
                                    prominent advertisement  In the area
                                    affected   announcing   the  datets).
                                    timed).   and   placets)    of   such
                                    hearingis);
                                      (3) Availability  of  each  proposed
                                    plan or revision for public Inspection
                                    In at least one location In each region
                                    to. which It will apply, and the  avail-
                                    ability of each compliance  schedule
                                    for public Inspection In at  least one lo-
                                    cation In the region In which the af-
                                    fected source Is located;
                                      (3) Notification to the Administrator
                                    (through  the  appropriate   Regional
                                    Office);
                                      (4) Notification to each local air pol-
                                    lution control agency which will be
                                    significantly Impacted by  such  plan.
                                    schedule or revision;
                                      (B) In  the  case  of  an Interstate
                                    region,  notification  to   any  other
                                    States Included, In whole or In part. In
                                   722
                                723

-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5.4

-------
                                 Attachment A
                   UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                   WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
                                 APR 2 2 588
                                                                              or
                                                                            kAMAT)
MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:   Interim Policy  on Stack Height Regulatory Actions
             for A1r and Radiation  (AflR-443)
TO:        Director,  A1r Management Division
             Regions  I,  III,  I*
           Director,  A1r and  Vk^te Management Division
             Region II
           Director,  A1r,  Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division
             Regions  IV, VI
           Director,  Air and  Radiation Division
             Region V
           Director,  A1r and  Toxics Division
             Regions  VII,  VIII, X


     On January 22, 1988,  the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Issued 1ts«deds1on  in NRDC v. Thomas. 838 F. 2d 1224 (D.C. C1r.
1988), regarding the  Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) stack height
regulations published on July 8, 1985 (50 FR 27892).  Subsequent petitions
for rehearing were denied.  Although the court upheld most provisions of the
rules, three portions were remanded to EPA for review:

     1. Grandfather! ng pre-October 11, 1983 w1 thin-formula stack height
Increases from demonstration  requirements [40 CFR 51.100(kk)(2)3»

     2. .Dispersion credit for sources originally designed and constructed
with merged or tnultlflue stacks [40 CFR 5l.lOO(hh)(2)(11)(A)]; and

     3. Grandfather! no of pre-1979 use of the refined H * 1.5L formula
[40 CFR 51. 100(11) (2)].

     A number of pending State Implementation plan (SIP) and other rulemaklng
actions may be affected  by this decision 1n advance of EPA's promulgation of
further revisions of  the stack height regulations.  This Includes not only
rulemaking packages developed to respond to the 1985 stack height regulations,
but also such actions as issuance of new source review (NSR) and prevention
of significant deterioration  (PSD) permits, permit modifications, SIP revisions

-------
dealing with specific source emission limitations,  and  redesignatIons  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 1s 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 tre later
found to be affected by revisions to stack height regulations. Where  States
currently have the authority to Issue ptnrtts under fully-approved or  delegated
NSR and PSD programs, any permits Issued prior to EFA'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 then accordingly.
Where EPA has retained authority to Issue permits,  1t should also  Insert
appropriate cautionary language in 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 subarfttals on a
case-by-case basis, with the explicit caution that  they and  the sources
affected by them may need to be evaluated for compliance with  any  later
revisions to the stack height regulations, as a result  of the  litigation.
The EPA will continue to process, under normal procedures, any source-specific
actions which do not involve the remanded provisions.

     Requests for redesi gnat ion of areas from nonattalnaent  to attainment
which are affected by any of the remanded provisions  of the  stack  height
regulations will be put on hold until EPA has completed any  rulemaklng
necessary to comply with the court's remand.  This  1s due to the Issue of
whether EPA has authority to unilaterally change attainment  designations.

     During this interim period, the Regional Office  staff should  review with
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:  0. Clay
     A. Edcert
     J. Emison
     0. Grano
     J. Metsa

-------
             UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                    Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
                   Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
                              MAY 1 ? IS55
MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:  Appliwt^flfe^the Interim Policy  for Stack Height
                        lons
FROM:     JprmXaTcagiHY 01 rector
            r Quality'Management Division (MD-15)
                 e,
TO:    I/ 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  rulemaklng  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 *ore 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 Metsa
(FTS 629-5313} or Doug Grano (FTS 629-0870).

Attachments

cc:  R. Bauraan
     R. Campbell
     C. Carter
     G. McCutchen
     J. Pearson
     J. Sableski

bcc:  B. Armstrong
      P. Embrey
      G. Foote
      E. Ginsburg
      0. Grano
      N. Mayer
      J. Metsa   •
     I^SC Reinders
      R. Rocs-Collins
      SOa SIP Contacts
      Stack Height Contacts, Regions I-X

-------
                                 Attachment A


                   UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                   WASHINGTON, O.C 20460
 "«t,
                                 APR 22588
                                                                        LAMDKAMAn
MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:   Interim Policy  on Stack Height Regulatory Actions


FMH:
      I)     for A1r and Radiation (AflR-443)

TO:        Director, A1 r Management Division
             Regions I,  III, IX
           Director, A1r and Waste Management Division
             Region II
           Director, A1r,  Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division
             Regions IV, VI
           Director, A1r and Radiation Division
             Region V
           Director, A1r and Toxics Division
             Regions VII,  VIII, X


     On January 22, 1988,  the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Issued Its-decision 1n NRDC v. Thomas. 838 F. 2d 1224 (D.C. C1 r.
1988), regarding the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) stack height
regulations published on July 8, 1985 (50 PR 27892).  Subsequent petitions
for rehearing were denied.   Although the court upheld most provisions of the
rules, three portions were  remanded to EPA for review:

     1. Grandfather!ng  pre-October 11, 1983 w1thin-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 multlflue stacks [40 CFR 51.100(hh)(2)(1 i)(A)]; and

     3. Grandfathering  of  pre-1979 use of the refined H * 1.51 formula
[40 CFR 51.100(11) (2) ].

     A number of pending State  Implementation plan  (SIP) and other  rulemaking
actions may be affected  by  this decision 1n advance of EPA's promulgation of
further revisions of the stack  height regulations.  This Includes not only
rulemaking packages developed to respond to the 1985 stack height regulations,
but also such actions as issuance of new source review (NSR) and prevention
of significant deterioration (PSD) permits, permit modifications, SIP revisions

-------
dealing with specific source emission limitations,  and redes 1 gnatIons under
section 107 of the Clean A1r 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 1s 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 Statts 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 1n 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 submlttals on a
case-by-case basis, with the explicit caution that  they and the sources
affected by them may need to be evaluated for compliance with any later
revisions to the stack height regulations, as a result of the  litigation.
The 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
which 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  1s due to  the issue of
whether EPA has authority to unilaterally change attainment designations.

     During this Interim period, the Regional Office staff  should review with
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, or 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 1n NRDC v.
Thomas. 838 F.2d 1224 (D.C. C1r. 1988).   On January 22, 1988, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Issued Us  decision  affirming the
regulations in large part, but remanding three provisions  to  the EPA  for
reconsideration.  These are:

   1.  Grandfathering pre-October 11, 1983 w1thin-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 5l.lOO(hh)(2)(1i)(A)]; 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 EPA generally approves [State's] stack  height rules on
the grounds that they satisfy 40 CFR  Part 51,  the EPA also provides notice
that this action may be subject to modification when EPA completes
rulemaking to respond to the decision in NRDC  v.  Thomas. 838 F.2d 1224
(D.C. C1r. 1988).  If the EPA's response to the NRDCTemand modifies  the
July 8, 1985 regulations, the EPA will notify  the~STate of [  ]  that  its
rules must be changed to comport with the EPA's modified requTrements.
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

     "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 1n NRDC v. Thomas. 838 F.2d 1224  (D.C. C1r  1988).
The [State] and EPA will review these 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 NSR and PSO 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 PR  27892).
For this reason, EPA requires that the State Include  tht 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 EPA on July  8,  1985 (50 PR 27892).
     Portions of the regulations have been remanded by  a panel  of the  U.S.
     Court of Appeals for the O.C. Circuit In NRDC "V. Thoaas. 838 P.2d
     1224 (O.C. Cir. 1988).  Consequently, this permit  may be subject  to
     modification if and when EPA revises the regulation In response to
     the court decision.  This may result in revised  emission limitations
     or may affect other actions taken by the source  owners or  operators.'

     [State] must make an enforceable commitment to Include this  caveat in
all affected permits before the EPA can take final  action approving the
[NSR or PSO] prog&am.*


               Language for Final NSR and PSO 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 PR  27892).
Por 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 compiles with the applicable provisions of the stack
     height regulations as revised by the EPA on July 8, 1985  (50 PR
     27892).  Portions of the Regulations have been remanded by a panel of
     the U.S. Court of Appeals for the O.C. Circuit in  NRDC v.  Thomas. 838
     P.2d 1224 (D.C. Cir. 1988).  Consequently, this  penalt may be  subject
     to modification if and when the EPA revises the  regulations 1n

-------
     response to the court decision.   This may result in revised emission
     limitations or may affect  other  actions  taken by the source owners
     or operators.'

     [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
AZ/CA/NV
AZ/CA/NV
SC
MS
NJ/NY/YI
WA
MO
AR
OH
TX
LA
DE
OH
SO
CO
AQMD 1
3059
321Q
3243
3330
3418
3480
3543
3548
3570
3572
3592
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
Redes Ignati on 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

-------
           UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
|                 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
*                Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711-
                          12 NCV


  MEMORANDUM

  SUBJECT:  Incorporation  by Reference

  FROM:     G. T.  Helms, ChieM^"~
            Cont-ol  Programs Operations Branch

  TO:       Chief, A1r Branch
            Regions  I-X


       The Office of the Federal Register (OFR) has recently advised us
  that commitment  letters  are not acceptable for Incorporation by reference
  because they are not regulatory in  nature.

       Instead, the  OFR has  informed  us that the Code of Federal Regulations
  (CFR) can be amended by  adding a  new section or amending an existing section
  to add the commitment; the "Identification of Plan" paragraph should not
  be amended.

       Attached 1s an example of a  CFR page that the OFR has reviewed and
  approved and the commitment letter  from the State of Minnesota that was
  the basis for this sample  regulatory text.  Please note that the core
  paragraph from the letter  should  be quoted In the new section that 1s
  being added to the CFR.

       If you have any questions on Incorporation by reference procedures,
  call Denise Gerth  at 629-5550.  Thank you for your cooperation.

  Attachments

-------
cc:  Betty Abramson
     Walter Bishop
     Ted Creekmore
     Tom Dlggs
     Pat Embrey
     Greg Foote
     Denise 3*rth
     Dean 6111 am
     Laurie Krai
     Carol  LeValley
     Sandy  McLean
     Bob Miller
     Rich Osslas
     Carolyn Payne
    Sharon Relnders
    Julie Rose
    John Sllvasl
    Hard a Spink
    Rebecca Taggart
    Paul  Truchan

-------
40 CFR Part 52, Subpart Y,  1s amended as follows:

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

     AUTHORITY:  42 U.S.C.  7401-7642

2.   A new Section 52.1237  1s added as follows:

     §52.1237  Stack Height Regulations

     The State of Minnesota has committed to conform  to  the Stack

Height Regulations as set forth in 40 CFR Part 51. In a letter to

Mr. David Kee, EPA, dated January 14, 1987,  Mr.  Thomas J.  Kalltowskl

of the Minnesota Pollution  Control Agency stated:
     Minnesota does not currently have a stack  height  rule,
     nor do we Intend to adopt such a rule.   Instead,  we will
     conform with the Stack Height Regulation as  set forth
     in the July 8, 1985 federal  Register 1n Issuing permits
     for new or modified sources.  In cases  where that rule
     1s not clear, we will  contact U.S. EPA  Region V and
     conform to the current federal Interpretation of  the
     Item In question.

-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5.5

-------
 5864	Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 28 / Monday. February 8.1982 /Rules and Regulations
 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
 AGENCY

 40 CFR Part 51

 f AD-fRt 2010-1; Docket No. A-7V-01]

 Stack Height Regulation*

 AOKNCY: Environmental Protection
 Agency (EPA)..
 ACTION: Final rulemaJong.	

 SUMMANV: Section 123 of the Clean Air
 Act requires EPA to promulgate
 regulations to assure that the degree of
 emission limitation required for the
 control of any air pollutant under an
 applicable State Implementation Plan
 (SIP] is not affected by that portion of
 any stack height which exceeds good
 engineering practice (CEP) or by any
 other dispersion technique.  Regulations
 to implement Section 123 were proposed
 on January 12.1979 at 44 PR 2808 and
 reproposed October 7.1961  at 46 FR
. 49814. Today's action incorporates
 changes to the reproposai and finalizes
 these regulations.
 DATE These rules are effective March
 10.1982.
         : Docket A-79-01. containing
 material relevant to this action, is
 located in the Central Docket Section
 (A-130), U.S. Environmental Protection
 Agency. 401M Street SW., Washington,
 D.C 20460.
                        ICOHTACT:
 Mr. Bruce Polkowaky, MD-15, Office of
 Air Quality Planning and Standards!
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
 Research Triangle Park. North Carolina
 27711. Telephone: (919) 541-5540.
 SUPPLKMDfTAMY MKMUT1QN!

 Docket Statement
   All pertinent information concerning
 the development of these regulations is
 included in Docket No. A-79-01. The
 Docket is open for inspection by the
 public between the hours of 8.-00 eon.
 and 4.-00 pan.. Monday through Friday,
 at the EPA Central Docket Section. West
 Tower Lobby. Gallery One, 401M
 Street. SW.. Washington. D.C.
 Background documents normally
 available to the public, such as Federal
 Register notices and Congressional
 reports, are not included in the docket
 A reasonable fee may be charged for
 copying documents.

 I. Background

 A. Statute
   Section 123 was added to the Clean
 Air Act by the 1977 Clean Air Act
 Amendments. It prohibits stacks taller
 than good engineering practice (GEP)
 height and other dispersion techniques
 from affecting the emission limitations
 required-to meet the national ambient
 air quality standards (NAAQS) or
 prevention of significant deterioration
 air quality increments (PSD increments).
 Section 123 requires EPA to promulgate
 regulations which define GEP stack
 height and which restrict the use of
 other dispersion techniques, including
 intermittent or supplemental control
 techniques. This rulemaking fulfills this
 requirement In the near future. EPA
 also intends to propose rules on the use
 of intermittent control techniques.
   On January 12. 1979 (44 FR 2808), EPA
 published a notice proposing limitations
-on stack height credit and other
 dispersion techniques. The aotiea
 proposed specific rules to be used m
 determining GEP stack height for any
 source and specific requirements for
 State Implementation Plaa (SIP)
 revisions. EPA provided an extended
 period for the submission of public
 comments on these proposed
 regulations. EPA held a public hearing
 on May 31. 1879 followed by a 39-day
 period for. the submisaian of additional
 comments (44 FR 24328. April 25.1979).
 EPA provided fat comments on
 additional technical mformatiom (44 IK
 40359, July 11. 1979 and 49 FR 24696.
 May 1, 1961). Finally. EPA recently
 repronoaed the regulations with changes
                 *** ***• *""""*-*"
 received (4* FR 49814. October 7.1961).
   Forty individuals and groups
 commented OB the October 1981
 propose! EPA hae considered aD
 comments aatd- bee nmie a number of
 changes in the regulations in response to
 these comments. Moat of these changes
 simply clarify the proposed rules. The
 revisions an outlined in Section IV:
 "Changes in the Regulations from the
 October 1961 Proposal- In addition.
 EPA has prepared a document entitled
 "Summary of Comments and Responses
 on the October 7.1961 Piopueal of the
 Stack Height Regulations." This
 document has been placed in Docket A-
 79-01. and. depending upon available
 supplies, copies may also be obtained
 from: EPA Ubrary (MD-3S). US.
 Environmental Protection Agency.
 Research Triangle Park. N.C. 27711. A
 copy of this document will be  sent to all
 persons who submitted comments on the
 October 1981 proposal
 C Documents
   In conjunction with the regulations.
 EPA developed several technical and
 guidance documents. These served as
 background information for the
 regulations and all are included in
 Docket No, A-79-01. The following
documents have been placed in the
National Technical Information Service
(NTIS) system and may be obtained by
contacting NTIS at 5285 Port Royal Rd.
Springfield. Virginia 22161.
  (1) "Guideline for Determination of Good
Engineering Practice Suck Height (Technical
Support Document for Stack Height
Regulation*)." July 1961. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Office of Air Quality
PUnnrng sad Standard*. EPA-450/4-80-023
(NTIS PBBZ145301)
  (2) "Guideline for Use of Fluid Modeling to
Determine Good Engineering Practice Stack
Height" July 1961. UA Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality
PUnninf sad Standarae».BPA-«50/4-«i-oo3
(NTTSntZ 145327)    .
  PI -GaMeline far FtaM Modeling of
Atmospheric DUfuiion," April 1981. U.S.
vBflnrODDeBtu Pfotsctio& Agency.
BBvtraraeBtal'ScieneM Research
Laboratory. EPAXOO/S-et-008. (NTIS PB81
91410)

0. Program Overview

A. The Problem

  There are two general methods for
preventing violations of the NAAQS and
PSD increments. Emission controls
reduce, on a continuous basis, the
quantity, rate, or concentrations of
pollutants released into the atmosphere
from a source. In contrast dispersion
techniques rely on the dispersive effects
of the atmosphere to carry pollutant
emissions away from a source and to
prevent high concentrations of
pollutants near the source. The Clean
Air Act requires pollution sources to
meet the NAAQS and PSD increments
by complying with emission limitations
instead of relying on dispersion
techniques.1 Section 123 defines stack
height exceeding GEP as a dispersion
technique.
  Tall stacks and intermittent or
supplemental control systems (ICS or
SCS) are the two basic types of
dispersion, techniques. Tall stacks
enhance dispersion by releasing
pollutants into the air at elevations high
above ground level  increasing the
volume of air through which pollutants
must travel to reach the ground.
Releasing pollutants from a tall stack
allows a source to reduce the ambient
levels of its pollution as measured at
ground level without reducing the
amount of pollution  it releases.
Intermittent and supplemental control
systems vary a source's rate of
emissions to take advantage of
  'Sea Section* UOfaMZXB). 121 JOZfk). md 302m)
of UM Act 42 U.S.C mOfeKHB). 7423. TflOSk). >nd
TeOSmJ. The Notice of Propoeed Rulenuking
contain* a mora detailed di*cua*>on o( the Act t
preaibtttofl of the uee of diipenion technique*. Sec

-------
                             /  Vet  47. No. 26 / Monday, February 8, 1982 /  Rules and Regulation*       5B85
meteorological conditions. When
atmospheric conditions do not fevor
dispersion snd an NAAQS may be
violated, the source temporarily reduces
its pollutant emissions. When conditions
favor rapid dispersion, the source emits
pollutants at higher rates:
  Use of dispersion techniques insteed
of constant emission controls can result
in additional atmospheric loadings
which may contribute to undesirable
environmental effects. The use of tall
stacks increases the possibility that
pollution will travel long iP«*-iitT
before it settles to the groaad.
  Although dispersion techniques may
produce advene effect* some stack
height to needed to pnveotaxcessive
concentrations of pollntant emission*
created by airflow disruptions caused
by structures, terrain features, and
ground-level meteorological phenomena.
These excessive concentrations result
from interference with the plume.
Section 123 responds to this problem by
allowing EPA to give a source credit for
that portion of it* stack height needed to
prevent excessive concentrations near
the source. This H»i»h^ jg called <-m*
stack height
  The regulations promulgated today
define "excessive concentrations,"
"nearby." end other ^ippT**'** "rrti-
They also esubliahmethodj for
determining the GEP stack height for aQ
stationary sources to which these
regulations  apply.
  TheW regulations do not omit the
physical stack height of any source, nor
requin any specific stack height for any
source. Insteed. they set limits'on the
maximum stack height credit to be used
in ambient sir quality modeling for the
purpose of setting an emission limitation
and calculating the air quality impact of
a source. Sources are modeled at the
physical stack height unless that height
exceeds then- GEP stack height The
regulations apply to all stacks
constructed and all dispersion
techniques implemented since December
31.1870.
  1. Method* of Determining GEP Stack
Height. The regulations estataitob three
bssic methods of calculating a source'•
CEP stack height
  (a) De minimi* height—EPA is
adopting 65 meters as the-minimum GEP
stack height for all sources regardless of
the size or location of any structures or
terrain feature!. Sixty-five meters
represents a reasonable estimate of the
height needed to insure thst emissions
will not be affected by common ground-
level meteorological phenomena which
may produce excessive pottuUnt
coacentretions. Typio*! <
                                       phenomena include surface roughness
                                       and the temperature changes caused by
                                       the solar heating and terrestrial cooling
                                       cycle (see page 26 of the Technical
                                       Support Document).
                                         Virtually all significant sources of SO»
                                       can Justify stack height credits greater
                                       than 65 meters. Accordingly, this de
                                       minimis height will have little effect on
                                       stmospheric leadings of sulfur dioxide.
                                         (b) Mathematical Formulas—
                                       Excessive concentrations may be
                                       produced by downwash. wakes, and
                                       eddies caused by structures located
                                       the stack. EPA to adopting two formula
                                       with which to calculate the GBP stack
                                       height! One for stacks in ffr'i^T OB
                                       lanuaiy U, 1079 (the date of pubUeatioo
                                       of EPA original proposed rules), and one
                                       tot stacks constructed after that date.
                                         For •*"^« in existence on January 12.
                                       1979, EPA has adopted the traditional
                                       engineering formula of two and one half
                                       times the height of the nearby structure
                                       fH.-iSH) as the formula for
                                       determining the GEP stack height For
                                       stacks constructed after January 12.
                                       187B. EPA has established a refined
                                       formula of the height of the nearby
                                       structure plus one and one-half times me
                                       height or width of the structure,
                                       whichever is leae (rV-H+lJL) ae the
  (c) Physical Demonstration -fa some
cases, a source may need a stack Jailer
than the height predicted by the
formulas to pceieut excessive
concentrations of a pollutant due to
downwash. wakes, or eddies created by
structures or terrain obstacles. la such
cases. Section 129 provides that a source
may obtain credit for afl of the stack
height necessary to avoid excessive
concentrations provided it demonstrates
to the satisfaction of the reviewing
authority that the additional height to
accessary.
  EPA is requiring such s source to
demonstrate that mi
       rations caused by the
emissions from its proposed stack
height without consideration of nearby
structures or terrain obstacles.-will
increase by at least 40 percent when the
effects of the structures or terrain
obstacles era considered. This
difference in concentrations must be
shown either by a fluid model study
conducted in accordance with guidelines
published by EPA or by a field study
which has been approved by the
reviewing authority.
  Before a source can obtain credit for a
GEP alack height determined by a fluid
model or field study demonstration.
Section 123(c) requires that the
reviewing authority anet nottfjr the
        «faa^r«>aWlt»«f«»e. MSB
                                       demonstration study and must provide
                                       an opportunity for a public hearing.
                                        2. Method of Admitting GEP Stack
                                       Height for Elevated Terrain Areas. Aa
                                       traditionally defined, plume impaction
                                       occurs when e plume emitted from a
                                       stack interacts with terrain that is taller
                                       than the stack. The contact between the
                                       plume and the terrain can produce high
                                       pollutant concentrations. EPA is
                                       establishing a procedure which will
                                       allow sources to edfust their GEP stack
                                       height to avoidmodeled plume
                                       impaction OB elevated terrain causing
                                       one to pradkt-violation*  of the NAAQS
                                       or appucaeseJBe> increments which will
                                       not omar^fMda*ayuceUui e to explained
                                       m Section IV.O) The predicted
                                       violations wifl not occur because the
                                       physical stackheight to sufficient  to
                                       ensure mat the plume passes over the
                                       elevated terrain.
                                        Before a source can obtain credit for a
                                       GEP stack height based on allowances
                                       for terrain impaction. the reviewing
                                       authority must notify the public of the
                                       availability of the source's
                                       demonstration study v^ must provide
                                       an opportunity for a public hearing.
                                        3. Grandfathend Stack Height.  The
                                       1970 Clsan Air Act became effective on
                                           nberin. 1970. Prior  to that date
                                                  i had constructed stacks
taller than their GBP height In Section
123, Congrass-ranngnJied this and
exempted those sources' stack heights.
Section 123 allows credit for stack
••iji>i in existence on December 31.
1970. A source's steck to considered to
be "in existence" if met stack was part
of the design of a facility on which
construction commenced prior to
December 31.1970.
  4. Other Ditpenion Techniques. The
regulations prohibit the use of other
dispersion techniques to attain or
tMimaft. my NAAQS or protect s PSD
increment Those techniques include
major alteration of prune characteristics
each as the manipulation of exhaust
flow rates or temperatures for the
purpose of enhancing plume  rise. The
regulation defines three types of
dispersion techniques: (1) tall stacks. (2)
use of ICS or SCS. end (3) addition of a
fan or reheater to obtain a less stringent
emission limitation. However, the
regulations exempt (1) reheating of a ga*
stream following the us* of s pollutant
control system. (2) smoke management
in agricultural or ailvtcultural proerami.
and (3) combining exheuat gaae* from
several stacks into one *tack.
m. State I   lasser'-*— "•»

-------
           Federal Bagistar / VoL 47. No. 28 / Moaday. February 8.  1982 / Rales  and Regulations
nguiationa. All Statea i
revise. M necessary, their StPi to
include provisions that Emit stack height
credits and dispersion tachaiqiieB in
accordance with theM ngnlatioaa.
Section 406(d)(2) of the Cleaa Air Act
Amendments of 1977 requires that the**
SIP tensions be submitted witaia niae
months at pranmigaaoa of the**
regulation*.
  After EPA approves a State's suck
height rates, the State mast review
existing limit •Unas to •etsnxae
whether tfaew hmttatkms have been
affected by stack height cndH above
GEPleiukor any other dispersion
tecbaiqae-If so. the State must revise
the emission limttatfaps to be cauristmt
with its sevieadSP.

IV. Changes io the Regulations From the
October 7,1981 Proposal

  EPA has made several changes in the
proposed reguiations as a rnanft of the
public comments on the reproposed
regulations, These changes an noted
below.

A. Prospective Application of At New
GEP Formula

  On February 1* IK* HI PR 3430),
EPA published tha -Stack Height
Increase T-iis'ittna" which previdad
guidance on its poJtaf lor ta* use ef (all
stacks. Tha gaidelma pemittad audit
for stacks ap to two aad ma half toes
the height of the facility it served. OB
Novembead, 1977, after passage of the
Qeaa Airylct Ameadmeats ei 1877.
EPA proasftbjated a final ruleoaveoau
changes taats prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) program {42 FR
57450). As part of the preamble  to that
notice. EPA defined GEP as "two and
one-half times the height of tha source"
(2.SH).
  On January 12,1879 (44 FR 2006), EPA
proposed regulations to implement
Section 123 which refined tha two and
one-half times rule by tUfl"i*fl GEP
stack height as the height of a nearby
structure plus one and one-half  times tha
iesser of the height or width of the
nearby structure (H+1.5L). That
proposal and the repropoaal of that
regulation on October 7.1881 (40 FR
49814) would have made the new
iormuia retroactive to December 31.
1970.
  Four commeoters argued that EPA's
iefialtion of GEP. until January  12,1979,
had been based OB two and one-half
'..met  the building height and that
komrces in good faith had constructed
stack* in accordance wfth that
definition. Applying the new formula
retroactively would be unfair to those
sources. The rnmnmnters argued that
the new fernola should be Bppbed
  IB response to these comments, EPA
has developed twe formulas for
determining GEP stack height (l) For
stacks ta existence on January 12.1879.
the farmmk is H.-rsH; (2) for all other
stack*, the formate iaH,«H+1.5L.

B. Definition of "in ax/ateacv "

  Section 19 does not effect stack
heights Tn existence" on December 91,
19mm October 1881. EPA proposed to
define "to existence" to mean that the
owner or operator of a staek aad
obteteoti an necessary proconstrucuOB
permne or approvals raojoirad DJT
Pedenl, State or local air pathrflon
eontrai agencies, and  eflber (1J actoaBy
•fitrfllfflfftaC'ITO CODaftl^CtiOIa* O1***J VBfCTOQ
into * bf&Ao^ conunitxnffnt
  Comments on the reproposed
definition stated that this new definition
would discriminate unfairly •g«
-------
            Federal Register / Vol  47. No. 28 / Monday. February A 19B2 / Rule*  and Regulation*
Rep. No. 95-294.95th Cong. 1st Seas, at
93 (1977). Therefore. EPA has carefully
tailored impaction credit procedures to
provide only the minimum stack height
credit needed to avoid high
concentrations * produced by impaction.
These procedures are described in more
detail below.
  EPA is convinced thet its narrowly
drawn rales represent a reasonable
solution for e plume effect that closely
resemble* the phenomena of downwaah.
wakes, and eddies. Credits for plume
impaction. when carefully limited.
should not be regarded es e dispersion
technique. Although the promulgated
procedure allows for the use of some
stack height to evoid high pollutant
concentration* on elevated terrain, it
does not permit excessive dispersion
^^^-~ftteM
creaiis.

(2) Explanation offmctdunt
  EPA has developed e three-etep
procedure for determining the amount of
stack height credit appropriate for a
source with e predicted tmpactioo
concentration violating an NAAQS or
applicable PSO tn^n^m^n*
  First a source must determine its
downwash GEP height  die amount of
stack height that can be Mined based
OB downwssh. wakes. or4Mdiee«HBriBg
anyoftheAreemetnodedaecrlbedui
Section ILB. above. Using tale GEP
height die source moat show that its
plume would come into contact with •
elevated terrain (defined as terrain taller
man mis GEPfeeight) end together with
background concentrations cenee e
violation of aa NAAQS or applicable
PSD mcremesjt If the soeree cannot
show that a violation would occur, tt
cannot claim any impaction credit Its
stack height credit would be licitrd ts
the GEP height already calculated.
  If a violation is modeled, the second
step is to determine the source's
mair^mnm allowable emission limitation.
In thi*  step the source would model its
air quality impact using the previously
determined GEP height and • fuming
that the terrain feeture(s) causing
impaction is no taller than its
downwash GEP height Using the
appropriate martmum concentration
from this modeling scenario, the source
  'EPA oooddcn "Ugh eoocntntion*' to b» •
viobtioa of u NAAQS or •pplieabi* PSD
iacnmML Unllk* 'iMmhn eaeoMHttoB*-
wuMd by dcwn»«««h. Ufh eonentnttont cmtd
by plum* imp«cUon occur tm dtfitmi
BMUoniociuJ eaadtnoM thu dowawuh ud «n
long* a daraooa. Htfh coMMonoau du* to
plum* tmpKtiQB cu b* canpwwl MMty to in
NAAQS or «ppUc«bU PSD taCNMat. Thmbn.
EPA (MI ra«urad (hat tfa* caoecnmaae cniMd by
plume imp»cnon mini b« to cum* of u NAAQS or
«pplieabi« PSD mmaont t»bm •
•diujl iU
would calculate an emission limitation
which would become its «".^m«m
allowable emission limitation.
  The third step allows the source to
adjust its GEP *tacl height to account
for the plume inspection on actual
terrain features above the downwash
GEP suck height The source cannot
adjust its «"««<«»tiii> allowable vrriitirii**1
limitation. The source would model its
air quality impact again, thi* time using
actual terrain elevations, but limiting its
emissions to the rate fixed by the
emission Umitation developed in step
two. The source would increase the
height of the stack m the model to the
height at which the maximum
coocentt'eticn.ptediclad to <
elevated tenate equaled the i
ijoiifentiaUon predicted to occur i
two. This increased stack height is the"
source's maifiiinnn GEP * **gJF* to avoid

  Like die downwaah CEP height thi*
stack height will represent maximum
allowable credit The source would not
be able to data thi* credit if its physios!
(actual or proposed) stack height weee
not as tail aa its maximam creditable
height In that ease, the source would be
able to claim only its physical stack
height A source with physical stack
height lower than its allowable GBP
height would have to adjust its anilseinn
Umitation downward to prevent a
violation of aa NAAQS orappUcaUe
                                                              rfoy
(3)M6dtfi
                                         The electric otilitts
                        tested Out
EPA assume, during the Step two
modeling, that all terrain features are no
taller man ground elevation at the base
of the suck or. in other word*, that the
source is located hi absolutely flat
terrain. The utilities believe that this
assumption is necessary to ensure
equity between sources located hi
elevated terrain and sources in fiat
terrain.
  EPA has decided not to make this
change to its procedure. EPA's objective
is to provide the minimum stack height
credit needed to allow a source to avoid
high concentrations caused by plume
impaction. A source in assumed flat
terrain would obtain a less restrictive
emission limitation than a source to
terrain assumed to be as tall as its
downwash GEP height The flat terrain
assumption would thus allow a source
to obtain more stack height credit than
needed to prevent impaction. It would
also have a greater negative impact on
air quality by allowing taller stack* and
more relaxed emission limit*.
                                                                              D. Ditpenion Ttchniqu*

                                                                                EPA received numerous comment* or
                                                                              the definition of the term "dispersion
                                                                              technique.'* Most of these comment*
                                                                              stated that wording concerning the
                                                                              enhancement of plume rise wes vague.
                                                                              Comments specifically mentioned that
                                                                              many changes hi operation or equipmer.
                                                                              made for engineering purposes, to
                                                                              improve reliability or efficiency, could
                                                                              be construed ae a disperison technique.
                                                                              This is not the intent of the definition.
                                                                              EPA has changed the definition of
                                                                              dispersion technique to prevent the
                                                                              addition el a fan or refceater to obtain a
                                                                              lees stringent emission limitation. The
                                                                              purpose of this change to to prevent onh
                                                                              the installation of equipment clearly
                                                                              intended to enehance phone rise. The
                                                                              new definition should not prevent
                                                                              equipment changes intended to improve
                                                                              reliability •*"* efficiency.

                                                                              E. Definition of-Stock"

                                                                                Comments on. the January 1979
                                                                              proposal urged EPA to exempt "flare*"
                                                                              from the definition of -stack." EPA
                                                                              egresrt thai flares, wmch are designed to
                                                                              dispense heat and vent emissions
                                                                              mtermitteady for safety purposes,  dc
                                                                              not serve the same purpose as stacks;
                                                                              which are typically a source's major aoc
                                                                              BMiet constant emiesioos point EPA
                                                                              enaminffied mat it would exempt flare*
                                                                              from die stack height regulations in the
                                                                              preamble to the October 1981
                                                                              reproposaL New comments urged EPA
regulation* tbemsehr*.
potential for
                     to eliminate any
                     or
                 ID response to these
comments, EPA is incorporating a
specific exemption for flare* into the
definition of "stack."

P. Station 133 and Physical Stack
Hfight

  EPA received several comments on
the October 1981 reproposal which
indicated that the commenters'believed
that the proposed regulations would give
EPA authority to limit a source'* actual
stack height EPA did not intend to
create this impression. In fact EPA
stated in the preamble to the repropotal
that Section 123 expressly prohibit*  the
Agency from limiting physical stack
height Section 123 limits only the
theoretical stack height used in
determining a source's emission
limitation. However, to eliminate this
confusion. EPA is adding a statement U
ii 51.12U) and 51.18(1) of the regulations
stating that these regulation* do not
restrict in any H1*""** the actual height
of any stack at any source.

-------
           j*edand fcafiitg •/ Vbi 4ft Wa*» f--Mooti«y. February 8. 1982 / Rules and Reguhrtkms
C. Measurement of Stack Height

  In the proposed definition of a
"stack." EPA stated that the "stack
height is the distance from the ground-
level elevation of the plant to the
elevation of the stack outlet* Several
commenters requested clarification in
the establishing the ground-level
elevation of the plant For tnmt»nr», (he
commenters noted that where a plant
was built oh a slope the regulation could
have varying interpretations. Also, some
commenters asked whether (he entire
plant site should be included or just the
portion of the plant site considered
"nearby" the stack.

clarify tKfo point EPA d»uw from the
definition of a "stack," the statement
       I stack ^*'B^* However. EPA
clarified the methods for deter
GEP stack height by stating that aO
stack and structure heights are
measured from the grouad-tacel
elevation at the baae*«f ifce stack
  If a stack is on lop of a building, tha
grcmad-leval aievafiaa of that buikitog je
used as the base akvation. to«rdar In
appropriately •*•••• to* ie*aaHi«f  .
neaaby sttucnoae oat this) -"— Irf iglil
tfa* hetgkt ol atnwtauaa at sJaet
determined t elartire I
elevation of thai i
H. Minor Wording Quage*
  ^•MIsBfJWa^VVfVfltWPIltapBejl W^BBBBBBBsl
typographical i
minor weeding!
regulations. Tbeae and i
changes have been mad* to <
to clarify the regulations. Theae changes
did not have any significant effect «a
the regulations.

V. Impact Analysis

  "EPA has prepared a series of impact
analyses on these regak«tiena.Tteea
analyses are in Docket A-I9-M. The
analyses show the* the expected •wore*.
case" national amraaJ costs to fanfi-niel
filed power plants shoold be lees taaa
$45 miffion per year. These costs reseJt
from conservative estimates
purchases of lower sulfur coal and
estimates of required letiufM of
electrostatic precipitators at some plants
which purchase the lower snlfor cool
The worst-case analyses show that the
expected reduction in SO* emissions is
less than 20OOOO tons per year.
Nationally,  these coets could increase
ejectnc utility rate charges
approximately 0.1 to 0-2 percent
Increases for individual power company
rates could  range from 0.5 to 30 peiueaL
                                       VI Kegonrtory FfadbiBty Analysis
                                         Pursuant to the provisions of 5 LLS.C
                                       a05(b], I hereby certify that the attached
                                       rule will not have significant economic
                                       impact on a substantial number of small
                                       entities. This rule applies only to large
                                       sources. The impact assessment
                                       predicted that these regulations would
                                       not hare significant impact on any smaD
                                       suQties. Based upon our ftnpm*
                                       analysis, only electric utffity plants and
                                       possibly one smarter wul be
                                       significantly affected by these
                                       vn.
                                         Under Executive Oder 12»1. BPA
                                       must toslgowfaate a regulation is
                                       "m«tor- aael thenfas. noto* to tk.
 beoaaas) st doaei not reaoct to an i
 effect OB ska aconenry of SlOO mi
 nordemttsavvftmamajarinctMsein
 costs or BDoas Car ooaammca. FadaraL
 State, cc local governments or individual
          fa»«h«Jb«fl the eiactric powaar
               flu! this rule is tesadea
 oetermtnarkas of amtkatwide scope aad
 efiect.lZafl)2nsai8»ctIonl29BmiU!ta
* aspticabQltr w ^particular localfiyt
 State, or tattaa. OB flu eontniy, SecOon
 123 eppBes to sotaoss waarever located
' BecaoM of flw rule's "••Vmsl
 applicability. Section 3o7(b] {42 U5.C
 review of the promulgated rule be filad
 only in the United States Court of       *
 Appeals fcr toe Dblrlct of Columbia and
 within 88 daye of the date of
 (Sees. UO. 12X 301. OMB Air Act as
 amead*4 (42 TJ.&C 7Ott 7423. and 7001)
  Dated; Janaarjr 31. 19K.
 loBaW.Hsmsnitsa.il.
 AcOagAduiaiftator.

 PART 51— KEQUmEMErfTS FOft
 PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND
 SUBMTTAL OF nsTUgMBfT ATOM
 PIAMS

  Part 54 of Chapter L THl* 40 of the
 Code af Federal Kaguiationa ia amended
 as follow*:
  1* S^^*«^B 51.1 jj amended by revising
 paragraph (z) and by adding paragraphs
 (SI, (ggl. (hh). (ii). U)). (kk). (lU. and (mm)
 as follows;

 §51.1  Oeflnmona.
 t    •     •    •    •
  (z) "Emission limitation" and
 "emisnon standard" mean a
 requirement established by a State, local
 government or the Administrator which
                                       limits the quantity, rate, or
                                       concentration of emissions of air
                                       pofiutants on a continuous basis.
                                       including any requirements which limit
                                       the level of opacity, prescribe
                                       equipment set fuel specifications, or
                                       prescribe operation or maintenance
                                       procedures for a source to assure
                                       continuous emission reduction.
                                       •    .**••
                                         (fi) "Stack" means any point in a
                                       source ditsignnd to emit solids, liquids.
                                       or gases into **** *»», including a pipe or
                                       duct but not including flares.
                                         (ggj "A •*M""V in «
-------
            Federal
/ VbL If, Wo. 2*£Monday, February a. 1962 / Rule* and Regulation*      5809
reviewing agency, which ensures that
the emission* from a stack do not result
in excessive concentrations of any air
pollutant as a result of atmospheric
downwash. wakes. M eddy effects
created by the source Itself, structures.
or terrain obstacles.
  (jj) "Nearby" as used in 151.100(2) is
that distance up to five times the lesser
of me height or the width dimension of a
structure but not greater than O8 km
(one-half mile). The height of the
•ftructw is leUetmtvu 000 t*u ^pouDo*
level elevation at the base of the stack
  Ock) "Excessive concentrations" for
the purpose of determining good
mnfnmmring practice stack height hi a
fluid modal or field study means a
maximum concentration due to
downwash wakes, or eddy effects
produced by structures or terrain
features which is at least 40 percent in
excess of the maximum concentration
experienced in the absence of such
downwaah. wakes, or eddy effects.
  01) "Plume impaction" means
concentration* measured or predicted to
occur when die plume interacts with
elevated terrain.
  (mm) "Elevated terrain'' means terrain
which exceeds the elevation of die good
engtnserlni practice stank as oaiooiated
under paragraph (il)  of thie eeotion.
  2, Section 51.12 is amended by adding
paragraph* (]). (k). and 0) ** feOowc

|it«   Control s«nk>0rOeMnL
                                       pollutant must not be affected by so   _
                                       much of any source's stack height that
                                       exceeds good engineering practice or by
                                       any other dispersion technique* except
                                       as provided in §51.1200 and (!)• The
                                       plan must provide mat before a State
                                       submits to EPA a new or revised
                                       emission limitation that is based on a
                                       good engineering practice stack height
                                       that exceeds the height allowed by
                                       I Si-l(U) (1) or (2), the State must notify
                                       the public of the availability of the
                                       demonstration study and most provide
                                       opportunity for publk hearing on it This
                                       Section does not require the plan to
                                       restrict, m any «""»««^» the actual stack
                                       K»lfM nt mmm mffmgm,
                                         (k) The provisions of II51.120) and
                                       51.180) shaD not apply to (1) alack
                                       techniques implemented prior to
                                       December 91.1970, or (2) coal-fired
                                       •team electric generating unit*, subject
                                       to the provisions of Section 111 of the
                                       Clean Air Act which commenced
                                           ition Hfar* )uly 11957. and whose
                                                        ict awarded before
                                       Febreary*. 1974.
                                         (1) The good engineering practice
                                       (CTP) stack height for any
                                       •MldngcredUT
  (])Th< plan must provide mat the
degree of emission limitation required of
any source for control of any air
         •inspection which results ni
         coBcaotratiow in violation of national
         ambtent air quaiitf standards or
         •ppUcable prerenttoo of significant
         deteriorafion increments can be
         ad justed by determining me stack height
         necessary m predict the same maximum
         air pollutant concentration 00 any
         elevated terrain feature as the maximum
                                                       itratton associated with the
                                                emission limit which results from
                                                modeling the source using the CEP stack
                                                height as determined in f SM(ii) and
                                                aamiming the elevated terrain features U
                                                be equal in elevation to the CEP stack
                                                height If tins adjusted CEP stack height
                                                1s greater than the stack height the
                                                source proposes to use. the source's
                                                emission limitation and air quality
                                                impact shall be determined using the
                                                proposed stack height and  the actual
                                                terrain heights.
                                                  3. Section 51.18 is amended by adding
                                                paragraph (1) as follows:

                                                f 11.18
  (I) Such procedures must provide that
the degree of emission limitation
required of any source for control of any
air pollutant must not be affected by so
much of any source's stack height that
exceeds good engineering practice or by
any other dispersion technique, except
as provided in i 51.12(k) and (I). Such
procedures must provide that before a
State issues a permit to a source based
on a good engineering practice stack
height diet exceeds the height allowed
by | tUffi) (1) or (2). tiM State must
notify the pubUc of the availability of
the demonstration study and must
provide opportunity for public hearing
OB it This section does not require such
procedures to restrict in any manner.
the actual stack height of any source.
(PtO

-------
                                      EPA-450/2-89-019
         SO  Guideline
           Appendices
                 by
           Doug Grano (EPA)
            Jill Vitas (EPA)
       Susan Templeman (Radian)
        Richard Pandullo (Radian)
         Contract No. 68-02-4392
         Work Assignment No. 44
           Radian Corporation
             P.O. Box 13000
 Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
     Air Quality Management Division
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

            October 1989

-------
       APPENDIX A
S02 GUIDELINE REFERENCES

-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.1

-------
                                                               PN 107-83-04-El-c-


          UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                           WASHINGTON. O.C  2S450

                                APR  2  l  1533


                                                       AIM. MOlSC. AND «AOlATlON
MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:  Section 107 Designation  Policy Summary
FROM:     Sheldon Meyers,  Director
          Office of Air Quality  Planning  and Standards  (ANR-443)

TO:       Director, Air and Waste Management Division
          Regions II-IV, VI-VIII, X

          Director, A1r Management Division
          Regions f. V, IX

     On February 3, 1983,  the Agency  published  a Federal Register  notice
regarding the status of all areas designated nonattainwent under Part  D
of the Clean Air Act.  This notice indicated that  for a significant
number of nonattainment areas States  are  anticipated to be able to
demonstrate attainment of the primary national  ambient  air quality standards.
Accordingly, for those areas, States  have been  encouraged to  update  their
Section 107 designations.  In addition,  a number of nonattainment  areas were
identified in the February 3, 1983,  notice as  "unlikely to attain  standards."
The  Federal Register also stated that the basic existing policy will generally
be continued for redesignatlon.   This memorandum summarizes and clarifies
existing policy for reviewing designations and  provides new guidance on
processing these actions.

Policy For Reviewing 107 Designations

1.   Data:  In general, all available information  relative  to  the  attainment
status of the area should be reviewed.  These  data should  include the most
recent eight (8) consecutive quarters of quality  assured,  representative
ambient air quality data plus evidence of an implemented  control  strategy
that EPA had fully approved.  Supplemental Information, Including air
quality modeling emissions data, etc., should  be  used to  determine if
the  monitoring  data accurately characterize the worst case air quality
in the area.  Also, the following items can be considered in special
situations.

     An attainment  designation can be made using only the most recent four (4)
quarters of  ambient  data  if  an acceptable state of the art modeling analysis
(such as city-specific  EKMA  for  ozone) is provided showing that the basic
SIP  strategy  is sound  and  that actual, enforceable emission  reductions are
responsible  for the recent  air quality improvement.
                                      107

                                      S-l

-------
     For nonattainment designations which were originally based solely on
modeling, redesignation to attainment is possible even if less than four (4)
quarters of ambient data are available provided that a reference modeling
analysis considering the sources' legal emission limits shows attainment of
the standards.  Information must also be presented showing that the sources
causing the problem are in compliance with the enforceable SI? measures.

     Although the current ozone standard Implies the need for three years
of data for attainment designations, two years of data with no exceedances
is an acceptable surrogate.  As discussed previously, this should be
accompanied by evidence of an  Implemented control strategy that EPA had
fully approved.

2.  Projected Future Violations:  Projections of future violations can
provide the basis for  continuing nonattainment designations.  This
concept is-particularly important because of the current economic downturn.
Information submitted  to support attainment redesignations must adequately
and accurately  reflect anticipated  operating rates.  Areas should remain
nonattainment where such projections reveal air quality violations.

3.  Modeling:   In most $03 cases, monitoring data alone will not be
sufficient for  areas dominated by point sources.  A snail number of ambient
monitors usually is not representative of the air quality for the entire
area.  Dispersion modeling employing the legally enforceable S02 SIP limits
will  generally  be necessary to evaluate comprehensively the sources' impacts
as well as to identify the areas of highest concentrations.  If either the
modeling or monitoring indicates that S02 air quality staneards are being
violated,  the area  should  remain nonattainment.

4.  Boundaries:  Current policies on appropriate boundaries for designation
of nonattainment areas by  EPA  remain  in effect,  i.e., generally political
boundaries such as  city or county for TSP and S02» county as a minimum for
rural ozone, entire urbanized  area  and fringe areas of development for
urban ozone, and urban core  area for CO.  When States redesignate, EPA
will  continue to accept reasonable  boundaries which are supported by
appropriate data,  such as  specific  new monitoring and/or modeling data or
evidence of improvement due  to control strategy  implementation.  Nonattain-
mant  areas for  ozone  should  include the significant VOC sources.

5.  Dispersion  Techniques:   Areas which are projected to attain the TSP
or S02  standards  because  of  the use of unauthorized dispersion techniques
should  continue to  be  designated  as nonattainment.
                                 107
                                 8-2

-------
Policy for  Processing 107 Redesignations

1.  SIP Review Actions:  Section 107 designations have generally been
classified  as minor actions, with only a few of the more significant
ones  being  processed as moderate.  In the future, redes1 gnations of Tier II
nonattainment areas should be classified as major actions so that they
can receive a comprehensive review to help ensure regional consistency
Redesignation of Tier I nonattainment areas should continue to be handled
as minor or moderate actions, as appropriate.

2*  "Unclassifiable" Areas:  Since EPA and the States have had nearly five
years to resolve discrepancies for nonattainment designations, it is now
inappropriate to redesignate any area from nonattainment to unclassi-
.*?!?;     ere has been amp1e t1mc s1nce th« fipst designations were made
in 1978 to thoroughly study each nonattainment area.  Sufficient data
should now  exist to either make a redesignation to attainment or to keen
the nonattainment designation.

      If you have any questions, please contact Tom Helms at (FTS) 629-5525.

cc:   Regional Administrator, Regions I-X
      Chief, Air Programs Branch, Regions I-X
                                   107
                                   8-3

-------
 .,
f r£L "1            UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
V S5Z£ S                   OfflCe °f Air QualitV Planning and Standards
\ ^                  Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 2771 1
                                 2 3  DEC 1983
MEMORANDUM
Subject:  Section  107 Questions and Answers
From:     G. T.  Helms, Chief
          Control  Programs Operations Branch (MD-15)

To:       Air Branch Chief
          Regions  I-X

     The April  21, 1983  memo  from Sheldon Meyers on Section  107 Redesignation
Policy  has  generally  resulted in more consistent redes i gnat ion packages.
However, a  number  of  questions  have  developed  since then  and it seems
worthwhile  now  to  share  with  everyone the responses that  have been  developed.
These questions have  arisen  in  a number  of  areas.

1.   Is  air  quality data  alone sufficient for a redes ignati on from
n on attainment  to attainment?

Answer:  No.   Valid air  quality data showing no NAAQS violations  must  be
supplemented with  a demonstration that the  eoproved SIP  control strategy
which  provides  for attainment has been  implemented.  The April 21 memo
describes  the  requirements  in detail.   In most cases the submittal  will
 include the most recent  eight quarters  of data showing  attainment and
evidence  of an implemented  control  strategy that EPA had approved.   This
demonstration  need not necessarily  be quantitative.  Rather, it  need
simply  confirm that the  control strategy approved  in the SIP to  address
the problem has indeed been implemented. Where only the most recent four
quarters  of data showing attainment are  available, a state-of-the-art
modeling analysis must be provided  which quantifies  that the SIP  strategy
 is sound and that actual enforceable emission  reductions are responsible
 for the air quality improvements.

 2.  Are the same  requirements discussed in  answer number 1  applicable to
 secondary TSP  redesignations?

 Answer: Yes.   As  for primary standards,  some  reason has to  be shown for
 the improvement in air quality.  This can consist of an  implemented
 control strategy,  some other Federally enforceable statewide regulations,
 or a well -documented explanation that the circumstances which resulted in
 the initial designation  have changed or were  incorrect.  The integrity of
 the designation process  should be preserved,  for  both primary and  secondary
 pollutants.  Further, it should be  noted that States are not penalized by
 remaining  secondary  nonattainment.  Therefore, a  control strategy  or
 other  demonstration  needs to be included with  thes? redesignation  requests.

-------
3.  Can a control strategy that has not been approved by  EPA as  part  of
the SIP be used tff support a redesignation?

Answer:  In general, no.  However, an exception will  be made if  the
physical circumstances and long-term economic factors are such that the
implemented measures have the same weight as a SIP:  for example, the
permanent closing of the major emitting sources, road paving to eliminate
fugitive emissions, or other irreversible measures.   Submittals  including
such changes, even though not formally approved as SIP revisions, have
the practical impact of an EPA approved strategy and can  be the basis for
approval of the  redesignation.

4.  Are the same criteria required to reduce the size of  a nonattainment
area as are required for redesignating the entire area?

Answer:  In general, yes.  However, if a sound case can be made that  the
State  "overdesignated" initially  -- that is, designated a larger area
than EPA required -• then the area -an be reduced.  The remaining nonattain-
ment area must be compatible with ~ A boundary requirements (see April 21,
1983 memo) and.it must be convincingly demonstrated that  the area going
from nonattainment to attainment  should not have been designated non-
attainment.  Other than this specific kind of exception,  however, boundary
changes require  the same analysis as any nonattainment to attainment
redesignation.   When a portion of a nonattainment area is redesignated
attainment, it would help the public if a statement was included in the
notice which explains that a nonattainment portion remains.

5.  What criteria are used in redesignating from unclassifiable to attainment
for TSP and SOg?                                     "~"

Answer:  Redesignations from unclassifiable to  attainment generally require
the most recent  eight consecutive quarters of air quality data  demonstrating
attainment.  No  control strategy  demonstration  is required  since there
would  have  been  no  SIP  requirement for an unclassifiable area.  The S02
redesignations will  generally continue to  require dispersion modeling.

6.  What  is  required  for  reclassifications from unclassifiable  to  attainment
for ozone,  carbon  monoxide,  and  nitrogen oxides?

Answer:  Redesignations  from unclassifiable to  attainment do  not involve
any  regulatory  change.   If  a  State wishes  to  make such a  redesignation,  it
should be  sent  forward  as  a  brief explanatory Federal  Register  notice
documenting the  information.   However, the  formal table  containing the
designation status is  not  changed since  the  attainment and  unclassifiable
designations  are combined  for these  pollutants.

 7.   Is there,  or has there  ever been,  a  50 km policy for ozone  nonattainment
 areas?

 Answer:  No,  this was only  discussed"as  an option some years  ago but It
 never achieved the status  of Agency  policy.
                                      210

-------
that ff^^X^l?"£$ r °fP?he '""""'nt  issues
or John Calcagni  (FTS 629-5665) if Jou S  T°\  Please cal1 Bi^ Beal
on Section 107 issues.        ' " y°U have fui*ther  comments or questions
cc:   B.  Bauman
     D.  White
     R.  Campbell
     S.  Meiburg
     J.  Ulfelder
                              211

-------
                             EPA-450/2-78-027R
Guideline On Air Quality Models
               (Revised)
         U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
              Office of Air and Radiation
          Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
            Research Triangie Park, NC 27711

                   July 1986

-------
    -       UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                    Off ice of Air Quality Planning and Standards
                    Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 2771 1

                              SEP  03  1981
Mr. Ralph C. Pickard
Technical Secretary
Indiana Air Pollution Control Board
P. 0. Box 1964
Indianapolis, Indiana  46206

Dear Mr. Pickard:

     This is in response to your letter of July 9,  1981  to
Mr. Valdas V. Adamkus regarding the use of ambient monitoring data
in making Section 107 area designations.  I am also providing comments
on the use of modeling in setting of source emission limits.

     I am in agreement with your position that, when available, adequate
ambient monitoring data should be given preference over modeling results
in designating areas as attainment/nonattainment under Section 107 of
the Clean Air Act (CAA).  EPA has always held this position and has
promoted this approach in the guidance we have issued on the subject.  A
model letter prepared by my staff in October 1977 that was sent by the
Regional Administrators of EPA to the various State governors or environ-
mental agency heads emphasized the use of monitoring data for designation
purooses.

     A follow-up memorandum issued on January 12, 1978 from my staff to
ih= EPA Regional Offices responded to various questions regarding Part D
plan requirements.  It contained the following response to the question
of whether preference should be given to either monitored ambient data
or dispersion modeling results in designating areas under Section 107.
"If there is a conflict between adequate monitoring data and modeling
results, monitored values should be used.  However, if the monitoring
G'aia are inadequate, the modeling results should be used."

     It is the desire of the Agency to base Section 107 designations on
the best possible data that are reasonably obtainable.  In most cases,
especially for isolated point sources, it is difficult for a few ambient
monitors to adequately reflect the true air quality conditions surrounding
the source, especially the areas of maximum impact or hotspots.  In  many
such situations, dispersion modeling would be an alternative to the
total reliance upon a limited monitoring network.

-------
     With regard to the referenced Indiana designations, there is not,
in an administrative sense, a significant difference between unclassified
and attainment.  However, as I understand it, there exists in these
counties a more significant issue; that is, setting of new emission
limitations for power plants.

     The use of diffusion modeling is now the accepted way of establishing
emission limits for individual sources such as power plants.  Most air
pollution control agencies have accepted modeling as the only practical
alternative of establishing emission limits for large sources such as
power plants.  The courts have also recognized the validity of using
modeling in setting emission limits even where monitoring data are also
available.  Recent data indicate that a number of models are proving
to be reasonable predictors of ambient impact.  One recent study has
shown that the EPA reference model for rural power plants, CRSTER,
appears to have no inherent bias; it neither over- nor underestimates
air quality levels routinely.

     It is EPA's belief that, in most cases, the use of models is the
most effective and efficient way to properly represent the impact of
varying meteorology.  To properly evaluate a prospective emission limit
solely by the use of monitoring, a very extensive and costly air quality
arc meteorological monitoring network would have to be established.
This network may have to be operated for a long time to ensure that the
various meteorological conditions were actually experienced during each
of the various operating regimes.  I do not believe the situation
surrounding the Indiana power plant emission limit changes argues for
an exception to the use for modeling contained in current EPA guidance.

     I trust this response adequately explains EPA's considerations in
b:th the Section 107 area designation process and the requirement for
moceli^c v.^erv setting new emission limits.
                                             Sincerely v,
                                             Walter C. Bai
                                                 Director-
                                      Office of Air Quality Planning
                                               and Standards
Enclosure

cc:  Mr. Harry D. Williams

-------
Si
            UNIT^D STATES ENVIRONMENTAL

                             WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460
                                 SEP  1 6  t982
                                                                OPFICE or
                                                         AIR. NOISE. AND RADIATION
   MEMORANDUM


   SUBJECT:  Milwaukee SCLNonattainment Designation
             p^la^ficw'Tvu^-tA^.
   FROM:    Sheldon Meyers, Director
            . Office of Air Quality Planning and  Standards   (ANR-443)

   TO:       David Kee, Director
             Air Management Division, Region V


        Thank you for your August 9,  1982,  memorandum to Assistant
   Administrator Bennett regarding Wisconsin's request for  a redesig-
   r. at ion to attainment of the sulfur dioxide ($02)  standard for the
   Milwaukee area.

        You asked four (4) separate questions i-n your memo.   Those questions
   are repeated in full below along with my responses.

   Q)   In nonattainment areas with no emission  limits, what is required to
   support 2 reciesignat-ion to attainment?  (It does  not appear to be
   sufficient to accept eight'quarters of data showing no  violations, even
   if the monitors were located in the expected  high concentration areas.)

   A)   The fact that no Federally enforceable emission limits are in place
   does not affect the criteria applied in determining the area's attain-
   ment status.  In general, Section 107 designateG.-« changes should utilize
   all available data, including both monitor-ir.c ••r.d modeling data.
   Whatever is available should certainly be usfrd.  Monitoring data should
   be used only within the limits of being representative  for a specific
   geographic area.  The object of any designation should  be to make the
  .best decision based upon the maximum amount of available information.

   Q)   What is the role of modeling in redesignations?

   A)   The need for dispersion modeling for Section  107 designation
   purposes is especially important when dealing with areas dominated by
   point  sources of SO?.  In  these cases, a small number of ambient  air
                                     107
                                     7-1

-------
quality monitors will not be able to tell the whole story.  Modeling is
essential to evaluate comprehensively and thoroughly the sources'
impacts as well as identify the areas of highest concentrations.   It
must be included in a redesignation analysis where feasible.

     For all other areas, if modeling already exists, it should be
considered.  However, dispersion modeling is generally not required to
be performed strictly for the purposes of Section 107 redesignation
requests for such areas.

Q)   Is a redesignation to attainment acceptable if there are eight.
quarters of monitored data showing no violations but there is modeling
that predicts violations?  (Note, this is not to say that the modeling
contradicts the monitoring since the modeling shows attainment at  the
monitor locations, but nonattainment at other, nonmonitored locations.)

A)   There is no answer that fits all possible situations.  However,
where valid dispersion modeling has been performed, such modeling
results should set the designation status.  When the appropriateness
of the model is of some concern, Regional Offices must exercise judgment
after considering such things as how many monitors-are in the network;
is complex terrain (terrain greater than stack height) involved; what
model is being used; is it a guideline model, if not, has it been
demonstrated to be appropriate; does the model tend to over- or under-
pretiict for the situation at hand?

     Again, it should be emphasized that the objective is to make  the
best determination possible using all relevant information as to what
the attainment status of an area really is.

Q)   Mr. Barber's letter says that adequate monitored data are necessary.
How is "adequate" defined?  (We suggest that a determination of adequate
monitoring data involve reference modeling.  That is, monitors must be
located in the areas of expected high concentrations, based on a
reference modeling analysis.)

A)   Your suggestion is what ideally should be required.  However,
monitors are seldom sited at the locations shown by later dispersion
modeling to be those of maximum impact.

     Again, the responsibility lies with the Regional Office to make the
necessary judgments as to whether or not the existing monitor locations
are sufficient both in number and spatial arrangement to allow them to
be representative of the air quality for the area.  Some judgment as to
whether the potential problem is of a localized or more general areawide
nature should be made.  This judgment will influence whether modeling or
monitoring should be given preference in the particular situation in
question.  How much information is needed before such a judgment can be
made is subject to the complexity of the situation.
                                 107
                                 7-2

-------
     I would like to add the following comments  regarding the particular
situation in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, as described  in the background portion
of your August 9, 1982, memo.

     In a situation where an area was originally designated nonattainment
based on measured violations but subsequently has air quality measure-
ments less than the ambient air quality standard, common sense would
recognize the need for a study of the situation, including modeling.  It
could not reasonably be expected that violations would disappear by
themselves.  If a source has voluntarily trade some emission reduction
changes that eliminate violations, these changes need to be embodied
into regulation and then be made part of the approved State Implementa-
tion Plan (SIP) control strategy.  The approval  of such emission limits
as part of a SIP must be based on an adequate demonstration that ambient
air quality standards will be protected.  Such a demonstration must
include a dispersion modeling analysis under worst case conditions.

     If you have any other questions, please let me know.
                                    107
                                    7-3

-------
       5     UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
                          rrn
                                                           orricc OP
                                                        CCNCHAU COUNSC;
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:  Redesignations That Would Changex^he  SIP

FROM:     Darryl D. Tyler, Director
          Control Programs Development
             "Division

          Peter H. Wyckoff, Assistant ..General. Counsel
          Air and Radiation Division  f.^iri\> fcv&*••*/I/I

TO:       Air Division Directors, Regions  I~"A

     Our staffs recently discovered,  in  reviewing a Federal
Register package that embodied  a  redesignation  from nonattain-
mer.t to attainment, that the  redesignation would have relaxed
the relevant SIP, because  the SIP specified one set of control
requirements for "nonattainment"  areas and"a  less stringent set
for "attainment" areas.  The  package, however,  treated the
redesignation merely as a  redesignation  and not also as a SIP
relaxation.

     We therefore ask you  in  the  future  (1) to  examine each
redesignation to determine whether  it would have a  .substantive
effect on the stringency of the relevant SIP  and (2)  to state
your conclusion in  the Action Memorandum for  the Federal Register
package.  If the redesignation  would  have such  an effect, you
should  treat it as  a SIP revision and draft the package in accord-
ance with the relevant Agency guidance,  including guidance on SIP
relaxations and attainment demonstrations.  Please forewarn your
state counterparts  that EPA will  be treating  redesignations that
would affect SIP stringency as  SIP  revisions.   Thank you.

cc :  Air Branch Chiefs, Regions..I-X
     Regional Counsei^  Regions  I-X

     Bill Beal
     Gerry  Emison
     Tom Helms
     Betsy  Home
     Joan La Rock
     Bill Pedersen
     John Topping
     John Ulfelder

-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.2

-------
                                                         Pf!-123-80-12-19-001
                                  Q£C 1 9  1S8Q
Honorable Jennings Randoloh
Chairman, Committee on Environment
  and Public Works
United States Senate
Washington, O.C.  20510

Cear Mr. Chairman:

     Than* you for your tetter of October 2", 12Cn exoressinn -/our continued
interest in the Agency's definition of "ambient air."  Durinn the tine
since David Hawkins, :ny Assistant Administrator for Air. Noise, and
Radiation, net with you last February, the definition has been extensively
reviewed and debated.

     After r«v1ew1no the issues and alternatives, I have determined  that
no change frca the existlna policy is necessary.  We are reta1n1nn the
:o»icy  that the exemption frco -ambient air 1s available only ^or the
2t2!osnner8 over land owned or controlled i:y  the source and  to which
oublic  access is  precluded by a fence or other Physical barriers.  £?/\
will continue to  review individual situations on a case-bv-case basis
to ensure that the public is adenuately protected and that  there is  no
artaswt by sources to  circumvent the requir
-------
           UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
                Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711
                           I 7 JUL 1987


MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:  Ambient Air Issue from New Jersey
          Department of Environmental  Protection (DEP)
FROM:     6.T. Helms, Chief
          Control Programs Operations Branch

TO:       William S. Baker, Chief
          Air Branch, Region II

     In response to your request, we have reviewed your position with
respect to a determination of ambient air applicability 1n the vicinity
of the proposed EF Kenilworth, Inc.  (EFKI) cogeneratlon unit 1n Union
County, New Jersey.  As we understand 1t, EFKI will  build and operate the
plant on property leased (long-term lease) from Sc her ing Corporation.  As
we see it the EFKI operator will  be completely separate from the Schering
operation and except for the land owned and operated by a different
Company.  The fact that EFKI has  entered into a contract to supply
electricity/ steam to Schering is  not really relevant to the ambient air
issue.

     He agree with your position  that all property outside of the property
leased and controlled by EFKI would be considered ambient air.  The word
"controlled" is emphasized since  nothing is said in either your memorandums
or New Jersey's letter to Region  II about what, 1f any, fence or other
physical barrier would be installed to prevent public access to the EFKI
leased property.  If such physical  barrier 1s not erected, then all land
including the leased site would have to be considered as ambient air.

     If you have any questions, please contact Sharon Reinders,
at 629-5255.

cc:  D. Tyler
     J. Tikvart
     0. Wilson
     G. McCutchen

-------
                                                         PN 110-83-03-18-063
                                 MAR 18  1983
Mr. Harry H. Hovey,  Jr.  P.E.
Director, Division of Air
New York State Dept. of
  Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, New York  12233

Dear Mr. Hovey:

     In response to your letter  of January  II, please  be advised that
there has been no major  change in EPA  policy with  regard to ambient air
and the associated requirements  of a SIP  demonstration.  We have defined
"ambient air" at 40 CFR  §50.1(e) to  include "that  portion  of  the atmosphere,
external to buildings, to which  the  general  public has access."  Our general
policy  is that the only  exemption to compliance with the provisions of
ambient air is for the atmosphere over land owned  or controlled by the
source  and to which public access is precluded by  a fence  or  other physical
barriers.

     The national ambient air quality  standards are designed  to protect
the public health and welfare and apply to  all ambient air which does include
the rooftops and balconies of buildings accessible by  the  public.  While
EPA has the responsibility to develop  the air quality  standards, the
States  have the initial  responsibility to implement them.   In effect, the
States  have the prime responsibility. to protect public health and welfare.

     While EPA considers ambient air to include elevated  building  receptor
sites,  it is not practical to analyze  the air quality  at  every such  existing
location.  Therefore, both EPA  and the States must exercise  their  best
technical judgment as to when such  sites  must  be  evaluated so as to
protect public health and welfare.   Thus, we do not expect States,  in
most circumstances, to evaluate the  impact on elevated building receptors.
However, if the State has reason to  believe that  such  an  evaluation  is
necessary to protect public health  and welfare,  then  it  is incumbent upon
the State to conduct such an analysis.
                                    110
                                   63-1

-------
It furthTrTfTou
                                '" *""  """ il* » ""»»« « discuss


                                  Sincerely yours,
cc:   R.  Campbell
     J.  Schafer
                                Kathleen M. Bennett
                              Assistant Administrator
                           for A1r, Noise, and Radiation
                                   no
                                   63-2

-------
                    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                             WASHINGTON. D.C. 20450
                        OFFICE  OF THE  GENERAL COUNSEL

  ; )rt;,:   ?, c p t r; \\ b -1: '27,  J 9 7 ?.-—
Av/i ;«   Mich.-.::! A. J wr.".-'/';'!.'? \ttorr.c y
 /liV""•*'•'   Aii: CVuiity and Radiation Division

 .$,..;,..,,(.   Attainment of  National fjtandnrd:;  in Open  Air Parking Lots

   Tc:   Cone;;-"  Himon,  Chief
        air "rcc/ramc  Branch
        Re?ion  II
                              MEMORANDUM OF  LAV7

                                     FACTS
                           •
              Vcur  mcmornnuum of  September 1,  1972 raiser, the  i<;ruic
        of  tli1:: air pollution impact o£  a  proposed sports c:o:np] nx  to
        be  c.'?;n"'.rucV.C'l  in th^  Hnc'.;cnr,..icl:  f-ic--.w.lrv.-:liiii^r;  in Nr>v; ,Tr!.-?;cy.
        You ;:r..uc-  Lhyl:  the /mn 1 y.r.j.n of  civailoblc cl.V.'a J.nd.iC'1 l.o.".
        thv.t ihc  ri'itional onc-l':our stan«K:ircl  for cavljon iiiono:-:i'.'o ;na\
        be  r:-:c'.;c;V.:d i.n  the pai:'/:in:i lot  of th.2 cc'^.plcx each tijnu it
        ic  ur;ccl  lor a major event.

                                    QUESTIOU

              13  the adriiosphcrc above  an open-air parking  lot v:h.ich
        is  part-,  of a  sports complex  "ambient air"  under  the Clean
        Air A'.;t  and EPA regulations?

                                     ANSWER

              Y-:r;.  Under  th^  dcf j nit-.i.on  of  " ri'.i'bi'-•;•>'•.  air"   in 1'VA
         rc:-jula'.:ior.:; ,  iv.-iticn.il  ;';:f.bicnt  'r:r.-hr:rc  r. > :icc  it  is c-xterir.1.
         to  b-.iil'Jincrs  and  the  aencval public  liar;  ciccrcua to  i1.:.

                                    DISCUSS CON

         1.    ri'A  hos  prescribed' the applicability of the  n-Miional
         nr.i'".i)'y -md  secondary  t'rrb.icnt  air quality s I'.andardr;  1 ••/
         :!^j' ; :v: ir;  the  term " =v.rt:icnt air."  r-c-.ction  10 CFR  liO.Ko)  o"
         I31'/. ):;v.'ul-.'. tiopr.  dofiner; "nirbicnt air"  to P.fvn "that, fortio:.
         of  '•':'-'- .".t-.ncr,p:\c?:c , •"/itovnnl  to bui .1. din-jr. ,  l-o v.'hicU '"''r--
         cT-Mf-jral  pulij.ic  har; acfrc^n."  Tlior^  is  n^ .:•[••>( v; tion l.tMl. '-.lie

-------
                             -  2  -
air  which  i:; the  rui 1-. j :•'.-1 of  yci.n-  .inquiry  is a  portion  of
the  -'. trosphovc  cxtcvm1.1  l-.o  builc'.i.nq:;.  A  r-ornewhat: more
cnCriculL  quo;; I- ion  i •;  vlio  Liic qc-neral public is  and  whether
it.  can be  raid  to haw I--.CCXT.:-. LP  thi:; facility.

2.    'the cVi ftiinnary i>.-fines  "public" to mean "the people
a.s  d by  th-? requisition.   Ti".'  term "ucccss" is defined
••is  meaning  "J'crntinsion, libc:rt.y,  or  ability  to enter...."
 (Krb'-tcr ' s Third Nev;  J nl.otn.\LU-M.il Dic'/..:.onary  (1966)).
vchilc:  tlic  narking  lot .in  qu'-:;; .i • •.! way bo fenced and/or
gu-"T-.!od  yo  nr.  to prcv-'.-nf;  tlv "ir.» once C'l  the ycncral public
duri.n't  .ill  times cxc^p!; .tlio:. :  I:-.:ncu.lately precediny, duriny,
and ir-uTt-diaLely  follov.-.i.n't nthi: ;  ic  nvonit-j,  it is  clear  that
tiic qcncral  public  may  rcadi,'ly  t-uter the  Lot on foot or by
vchlcle  dvn.'.tnr; the  prv.io'.l ol )i i-I'.irr.t ]>on»?tion levels.   The
CK'-rntiol  clii'.vactcr of  thia  £•;••;• •l-'ix  is  public:, and   it  is
d i '.' C j cu! 'c  to .i i:;?it|inc  tiu't l^.:"1.  < -n ':':nncr'  of lumbers of  the
 co:i'."'jn.i.V.y  aU lar';o  V/IMI].^.  be  •..:•'  '.'ictocl  on  "qamr» days'1',
\;IK 1. hrv  pcr:>onr;. wiio ncv.^i  cnl'v  ^^  :io to  purchase  ti.ckcts,
 '..•d'.ch crov.-:ir. ,  or  pick  pccltevi;.    'l'h.i.a s.i tun.ti on may  be  con-
 triif;ti.:d v/ith v.lv.'t of  private; ?,-'.'$r:L-\:y outdoors x-;hcra  only
 p f j; s c n.". havinq some spoci'iT r.-.-,i .•; i onsl».i p with the property
 C'-'n"r, or  h.ir.  ayentn  or .1 (??;r.r • ••  .  ,M-C a!;»3.c to aain  entrance
 l:o  t!ic [irop-jr'.:•/,  v:h.ilc ';lie  n-.u-.-•• i.l. public's entrance  is
 r-lr/r;i.rrilly 1-avred in  sch'.-u v;ay .

 3.    n-'ivin'.; rcnc.l^::c;'j Vha!-.  !•;'.• •: ir above: Die  parking  lot  is
 _r,,,.r..,u .-,j_r> ,;c  ,.>C(,  n,_, ],,,r,j_:: <-.-;:; cixc 1 ii«.!;. nr j it  from coveracjc
 by  I h? fjtaLc's j rplrn-r-ti !-••) r inn  p'jn.  'li-r-v.:  S2t::Tis to be  no
 Ic'.'.ical cli f fr. rcnc:'.! bcv'.'-.Ti p.. -l.i'i' ' h.o  • :-'pl r:n'cnV.a<: i.on  plan
 npp1. :>.': 'iMc  tr  Llr.-;  j^rirl:-. tv:  ^f^.    ;> 1 rnlii.n) i i.  apply to comjestec!
 dc>.'j. Lov.'n  nrca:; v/hert1  f.nl>'.in r < -:i:i;:: ,')o C'j'i'-i.-u'-.rat.ionr. due to
 he  ;•••/ traffic ar<:  a.V/o a  p.^c'i.!,  .1.    An  yc;ir  inumorauduin  sug-
 cj',:.r; (::• ,  cvon ,i L tlic  al.fvi"., \\:\rc.  . !•;••••  I. IT: p,irking  lot v/cre
 •not  '.'anbicnt  air"  it v/'v\Ui l>"  iu"  •:;"fivy !<.>r Llic  State'"
  ii"t)"!••;• «.-.;-.I...: i;i t;i olaii  l.'» c:v;)'.'>'.''  '  '  i.1:  iir''''r-  .  of em.i C"iot'»3 Cit
  t.h"  C .-K-J 3 i.' y  v;p'-jn  tlT?  -> L-;..:-pii' •  .  i.oyoirJ '.M:.: lot's  fence line.

-------
                      rTED STATS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AG3iCY
                                        REGION V

        -.AY 1 6 1£E=
SUEJECT.
                     e\c  yir
       : Regional Meteorologists, Regions I-X
                                                                       • "
                                                                •••w-c

     705 Joseph Tikvart, Chief (MD-14)
        Source Receptor Analysis Branch

        At the recent Regional Meteorologists1 meeting in Dallas, we Identified
        inconsistencies among the Regional  Offices on what areas are to be
        considered &s enoient air for regulatory purposes.  The existing incon-
        sistency on ambient air is due to both the lack of clear National
        guidance and the allowed Regional Office discretion.  A standardized*
        approach is necessary both to  satisfy the consistency requirenents of
        Section 301 of the Clean Air Act and in order for those
        Regional modeling activities to provide effective and efficient review
        of and  guidance on modeling analyses.   Accordingly, the Regional Meteor-
        ologists have decided to address the problem at the working level
        through the use of a consistent modeling approach.

        4-0 CFR Part SO.l(e) defines ambient air as "... that portion of the
        atmosphere, external to buildings, to which the general public has
        access."  A letter dated Decanter 19, 1980, from Douglas Costle to
        Senator Jennings  Randolph, clarified this definition by stating that
        the exemption from ambient air is available only for the atmosphere
        over  land owned or controlled by the source and to which public access
        is precluded by a fence or other physical barriers."  The codified
        definition  plus the 1980 clarification essentially constitute  the
        National policy on ambient air.

        The Regional Meteorologists propose that for modeling purposes the  air
        everywhere  o^tsiie of contiguous plant property to which public access
        is preclufleo  :>;•• a fence or other effective physical  barrier should  be
        considered  in  locating receptors.   Specifically,  for stationary source
        modeling, rersrtors  should be  placed anywhere outside  inaccessible plant
        property.   For  example, receptors should be included over  bodies of
        water,  over unfenced  plant property, on buildings, over roadways, and
        over  property  owned  by other sources.  "For aobile source modeling (i.e.,
        CO modeling),  receptors  should continue to be sited  in accordance witto
        Volume  9  of the "Guidelines  for Air Quality Maintenance Planning",

        Unless  you  disagree with  our position, we will require new actions with
        modeling  analyses submitted  to EPA  after January 1,  1986,  to conform to
        this modeling policy.   Please  note  that all 10 Regional Meteorologists
        have reviewed and concur  with  this. memo.
         cc: Regional Meteorologists, Regions I-X

-------
                                                             r-N liC-67-0
-------
                                   -2-


     Case 3 (Wayne County, MI):  This-case Involves the air over the
Detroit River, the Rouge River and the Short-cut Canal.  We agree that
the air over all three of these is ambient air, since none of the companies
owns them or controls public access to them.  Note, however, that one
source's property—regardless of whether 1t 1s fenced—1s the "ambient
air" relative to another source's emissions.

     Case 4 (Cuyahoga County, OH):  This case Involves LTV Steel's Iron
and steel mill located on both sides of the Cuyahoga River.

     We do not feel that LTV Steel "controls' the river traffic  In that
area sufficiently to exclude the public from the river, whether  it be
recreational or Industrial traffic.  The fact that there 1s little or no
recreational traffic 1n that area Is not sufficient to say that  all  river
traffic there 1s LTV traffic.  The public also Includes other Industrial
users of the river that are not associated with LTV.

     It 1s difficult to tell from the map whether the railroad line 1s a
through line or not.  If the railroad yard serves only the plant then it
would not be ambient air but the railroad entrance to 'the plant  would
have to be clearly marked and patrolled.  However, 1f the line 1s a
through line then that would be ambient air.  We would need additional
Information to make a final determination.

    The unfenced river boundaries should meet the same criteria  as in
Case 2 above.

     Case 5 (Involves the placement of receptors on another source's
fence4-property):  As mentioned above in Case 2, we feel that present
policy does require that receptors be placed over another source's property
to measure the contribution of the outside source to Its neighbor's
ambient air.  To reiterate, Plant A's property 1s considered "ambient
air" in relation to Plant B's emissions.

     I hope that.these comments are helpful to you and your staff.  This
memorandum was also reviewed by the Office of General Counsel.

cc:  S. Schneeberg
     P. Wyckoff
     R. Rhoads
     0. Stonefleld
     Air Branch Chiefs, Realon I-X

-------
             UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                   Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
                  Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

                                 2 2 JAN 1936
Mil11am F. O'Keefe, Vice President
American Petroleum Institute
1220 L Street Northwest
Washington, D. C.  20005

Dear Mr. O'Keefe:

     Mr. Elklns has asked me to respond to your  letter of December  18, 1985,
1n which you perceive a change 1n our policy with  regard to the  location of
receptors for air quality dispersion  modeling.

     Let me assure you there 1s no  change In our long-standing national
policy with regard to the definition  of ambient  air.   That policy Is based
on 40 CFR Part 50.1 (e) which defines ambient air  as  ". .  . that portion
of the atmosphere, external  to buildings, to which the general public has
access."  A letter dated December 19, 1980, from Douglas Costle  to  Senator
Jennings Randolph, reaffirmed and clarified this definition by stating the
exemption from ambient air 1s available only for the  atmosphere  over land
owned or controlled by the source and to which public access  1s  precluded
by a fence or other physical barriers.  A copy of  Mr. Costle's letter 1s
enclosed.  The codified definition  plus the 1980 clarification essentially
constitute the national policy on ambient air.

     The Regional Meteorologists' memorandum to  which you  refer  does not
imply any change in this national policy and simply harmonizes modeling
procedures with our long-standing policy.  It 1s Intended  to  ensure con-
sistent Regional implementation of  that policy and to dispel  any questions
about pollutant concentrations at locations where  the general public has
access.

     Thus, since the Regional Meteorologists' memorandum does not Imply any
change in our policy, I do not believe there 1s  any need for  policy review
at this time.
                                          Sincerely,
                                          Gerald A. Emison
                                              D1rector
                                   Office of Air Quality Planning
                                            and Standards
Enclosure

cc:  W. Quanstrom
     C. Elklns

-------
                                                             PN  110-87-04-30-C

        UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
               Office of Air Quality Plannin'g and Standards
              Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
                               3 c /--* IS*


MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:  Ambient Air

FROM:     6. T. Helms,  Chief
          Controlled Programs  Operations  Branch  (MO-15)

TO:       Bruce MUler, Chief
          Air Programs  Branch, Region IV


     My staff and I have discussed the  five  situations Involving the
definition of ambient air that you sent on December 18,  1986.   The
following comments represent our  Interpretation  of  the ambient  air
policy.  However, this  memorandum 1s not  a discussion of the technical
Issues Involved in the  placement  of receptors  for modeling.  Our comments
on each scenario follow:

     Scenario One:  We  agree with you that the road and  the unfenced
property are ambient air and could be locations  for the  controlling receptor

     Scenario Two:  We  agree with your determination in  this case also.

     Scenario Three:  We agree with" you that the road Is ambient air.
However, Area B is not  ambient air; it 1s land owned or  controlled  by the
company and to which public access 1s precluded  by  a fence or  other
physical boundary.

     Scenario Four:  We do not think that any of the barriers  mentioned
here are sufficient to  preclude public access  so as to  allow the source
to dispense with a fence.  An- example of an unfenced boundary  that  would
qualify is. a property line along  a river  that  1s clearly posted and
regularly patrolled by security guards.  Any area,  such  as grassy  areas
that might even remotely be used  by the public,  would have to  be  fenced
even in this situation.  We would not think that a  drainage  ditch  would
meet these criteria.

     Scenario Five:  Both fenced pieces of plant property, even though
noncontiguous, would not be considered ambient air (see  Scenario  Three).
The  road, of course, would be ambient air.  Again,  ownership and/or
control of the property and public access are  the keys  to ambient  air
determination.

-------
                                   -2-
«:  S. Schnwberg
     P. Wyckoff
     R. Rhoads
     0. Stonefield
     Air Branch Chiefs, Regions  I-X

-------
                       UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                      o "^
                      w-^

 »u8JECTOefinition  of Ambient  Air  fotvlead
    FPO"Darryl  D.  Tyler,  01 rector
        Control  Programs  Development  Division   (MD-15)

      T°Allyn Davis,  Director
        Air & Waste Management  Division, Region VI

             This  is  in response to your memorandum  of May  23,  1983, to
        Sheldon Meyers.  In  that memorandum, you  indicated  that the Texas Air
        Control  Board. (TACB) believes that an ambient lead  monitor in El Paso
        1s not located In the ambient air, and  therefore the  data from that
        monitor should not be used to develop a control strategy for lead.

             The monitor is  located at the International Boundary Water
        Commission's  (IBWC)  property, about  1000  feet from  the  edge of the property
        of ASARCO's primary  lead smelter.  TACB believes that the monitor is not
        in the ambient air because public exposure at the IBWC  property wou'.d at
        most be only  daily for  a period of not  more  than eight  hours, and there-
        fore no one person is expected to be at the  IBWC site continuously for  a
        full three months, the  exposure time inherent in the  lead standard.

             TACB's logic runs  counter to EPA's policy on ambient air.   In
        40 CFR 50.1(e), ambient air  includes "that portion  of the atmosphere,
        external to buildings,  to which the  general  public  has  access."  ""hat
        definition does not  account  for any  time  limitation or  averaging time.
        Regardless of whether any member of  the public is expected to  remain at
        a particular place for  a specific period  of  time, ambient air  is defined
        in terms of public access,  not frequency  of  access, length of  stay,  age
        of the person or other  limitations.  The  only exemption in EPA policy to
        compliance with the provisions of ambient air is for  the atmosphere  over
        land owned or controlled by  the source  and to which public access'  is
        precluded by a fence or other physical  barriers.  Since ASARCO does  not
        own the site of the IBWC monitor,  it clearly falls  within our  definition
        of ambient air.

             Furthermore, any monitor can  give  only  an  estimate of the actual
        maximum concentration of a  pollutant in the  vicinity  of the  monitor.
        There" may actually  be higher concentrations  of  lead in  the  area  oetween
        ASARCO's boundary and the  IBWC monitor, such as  on  the  highway that  runs
        between the ASARCO  smelter property  and the  IBWC  property.   The general
        public may have more frequent or  longer access  to  this  location  than to
        the  IBWC property itself.   Therefore,  the fact  that the general  public
        may  not be expected to  remain at  the IB.^/C site  itself continuously for
        three months  is no  reason  to  disallow  tne use of the  monitor's data for
        developing a  control strategy.
t PA farm 1320-6 (R.». 3-74)

-------
                             t*          """ ln
cc:   J.  Calcagni
     J.  Divita
     K.  Greer
     T.  Helms
     J.  Silvasi
     D.  Stonefield
     J.  Ulfelder

-------
   DATE:
           UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
  DEC 1 8 1986
SUBJECT:
   FROM.
     TO:
EPA Definition of Anbient Air

Bruce P. Miller, Chief  C»—•** '
Air Programs Branch
Air, Pesticides & Toxics Management Division

Tom Helms, Chief
Control Programs Operation Branch (MD-15)
           SUMMARY

           The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management has asked
           for a clarification of ambient air in regards to a certain source
           located in North Carolina.  The Regional Meteorologist's memorandun
           dated May 16, 1985, provides that for modeling purposes receptors
           are located everywhere outside of the contiguous property of a
           plant to which the public is precluded due to a fence, -or other
           effective physical barriers.  Attached are a number of scenarios
           for the source where we request a response on whether the receptors
           at certain locations are considered ambient air and whether the
           calculated modeling result at these receptors are to be considered
           in establishing an emission limit if one or more of these receptors
           is controlling.  The Region IV opinion for each scenario is provided.

           Most of the scenarios we believe are dealt with adequately in the
           May 16, 1985 memorandum, however, there is a major concern on our
           part about how to interpret the modeling results in scenario numbers
           three, four and five.

           Please provide us with a written response by January 27, 1987.  Please
           contact me or Mr. Lewis Nagler of my staff at FTS 257-2864 if you re-
           quire additional information.
           Enclosure  (1)
           cc:  Joseph Tikvart  (MD-14)
                RTP, NC
 P* Fwm 1320^ (R»». 3-76)

-------
NORTH CAROLINA AMBIENT AIR SCENARIOS

Scenario One

The plant property is divided by a public road.  The portion  ^f the
property on which a point source is located (Area A) is completely
fenced.  The property on the other side of the road (Area B) is
unfenced.

The Region IV position is that the road and the unfenced property
are ambient air and if air quality modeling locates the control-
ling receptor in Area B, the emission limit will be determined
based on the calculated concentration at that receptor*

Scenario Two

This scenario is the same as scenario one except that Area B is
fenced except for the property along the public road.

The Region IV position is identical to that provided in scenario
one.

Scenario Three

This scenario is the same as scenario one except that all of
Area B is fenced.

The Region IV position is that the road is ambient air and that
Area B should have receptors located there for modeling purposes.
We also believe that since Area B is not contiguous to that prop-
erty that is needed for plant operation, even though fenced, Area B
is ambient air.  We further believe that if a receptor located in
Area B is found to contain the controlling receptor for establishing
the source emission rate then that receptor value must be used.

There is a concern" on our part that the May 16, 1985 memorandum
could be interpreted to allow the Air Quality Management officials
to discard the -calculated concentrations within Area B.  We believe
a clarification of the ambient air policy on this point is needed.

-------
Scenario Four

Area A is fenced except for the property along the public road.

The Region IV position is that Area A is ambient air unless the
source can demonstrate that the public is precluded to entry by an
effective physical barrier.  However, since a physical barrier
other than a fence is subject to various interpretation, we are
seeking advise on what we can accept as mooting • that requirement.
For instance, a drainage ditch alongside a road with no shoulder
for parking or the use of "NO PARKING" signs could be'considered
an effective barrier.  As you can see, the concept can be quite
subjective and we require additional guidance in this area.

For this actual situation, would you concur or non concur that no
parking signs in association with no shoulder to park upon consti-
tute a physical barrier?  Ttr'  Region IV position is that this
situation does not constitute an effective physical barrier, but
the addition of a drainage ditch would constitute an effective
barrier.

Scenario Five (Hypothetical)

The entire plant is fenced.  As a result of the county or state's
power of eminent domain, a road is built through the property.
Does the area that is no longer contiguous to the plant operation
area lose its exemption from the ambient air definition even if
the source fences off the area taken by the road?

The Region IV position is that the area should be grandfathered in
that situation.

-------
                                                PN  165-84-06-11-014
           i \i ii i' >i vr'> i:\\ ii;i ^ MI-.\
                             JUKI i
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:  Applicability of PSD Increments  to Building
          Rooftops
FROM:
TO:
          Assistant Administrator
          for Air and Radiation

          Charles R. Jeter
          Regional Administrator , Region IV
     The following is in response to your letter of November  10,
1983, concerning issues which you felt required review  for  national
consistency relating to a new source review for an Alabama  Power
facility in downtown Birmingham, Alabama.

     On September 29, 1983, your office  informed the State  of
Alabama that a new source's compliance with the PSD increments
must be measured on the tops of buildings, as well as at ground
level.  Since then we have discussed the question extensively
among ourselves and with representatives of the State of Alabama
and the company.  For the reasons that follow, I do not believe
we are in a position to definitively assert that PSD increments
apply to rooftops without further information as to the conse-
quences for the PSD system as a whole.  Accordingly, I  recommend
that we inform Alabama that we do not now require that  compliance
with PSD increments be measured at the tops of buildings.   A
State may, of course, adopt such an approach if it so desires.

     Between 1970 and 1983, it appears to have been general EPA
practice to determine compliance with both NAAQS and PSD increments
at ground level, not at roof level.  On March 18, 1983, however,
Kathleen Bennett, in a letter to the State of Mew York, determined
that the- "national ambient air quality standards are designed to
protect the public health and welfare and apply to all  ambient
air which does include the rooftops and balconies of buildings
accessible by the public."

     I believe this conclusion was correct.  Apartment  balconies,
rooftop restaurants, and the like present a potential  for  human
exposure that the primary ambient air quality standards should be
interpreted to address.

-------
                           -2-
     Given this conclusion, one could argue, based on the text
of the relevant regulations and the Clean Air Act, that the PSD
increments apply wherever the NAAQS apply, and that both must
apply throughout the "ambient air."  However, the PSD system,
unlike the NAAQS system, does not aim at achieving-one single
goal.  Rather it represents a balance struck first by Congress
between a given level of protection against degradation and a
given potential for economic growth,  it appears that the
calculations on which that balancing judgment was based all
assumed that PSD increments would be measured at ground level.

     A number of 'state officials who are now administering PSD
have argued to me that by measuring PSD increments on rooftops
as well as at ground level, EPA would make the PSD system
appreciably more stringent than Congress contemplated.  Although
major urban areas are all Class II areas, this approach, it is
argued, could result in constraints on growth comparable to
those that apply in Class I areas - national parks and wilderness
areas.  Such an outcome would not, it is argued, be consistent
with Congressional intent.

     In these circumstances, I think that preserving the status
quo is particularly advisable because:

     •  It is likely that Alabama did not contemplate adopting a
•rooftops* approach to PSD when it took over the PSD program.
That expectation, though not decisive, does provide some reason
not to change the situation without formal rulemaking.

     •  The consequences of an erroneous decision to consider
increment consumption on rooftops will be more severe than those
of an erroneous decision not to consider them.  The adoption of
such an approach will present at least a procedural, and, probably
a substantive obstacle to development in urban areas, while in
its absence air quality will still be protected by the NAAQS, by
the PSD increments applied at ground level* and by the other
aspects of PSD review such as Best Available Control Technology.

     Therefore, I have concluded that since the State of Alabama
has authority under an approved implementation plan for adminis-
tering the PSD program within Alabama, it is their responsibility
to apply this principle of maintaining the status quo to this
case, taking all the relevant facts into account.

     Please advise the State of Alabama of the Agency's position
on these'points as our response to the issues which they raised
in meetings with both of us.

-------
cc:   A. Aim
      P. Angell
      T. Devine
      G. Eraison
      w. Pedersen
      P. Wyckoff
      S. Meiburg

-------
_«t-1 *,f
                 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
       :                 Office of Air Quality Planning and S:andards
       '                 Researc" Triangle Park, Nonh Carc'i.-.a 27711

                                     APR 7   1987
         MEMORANDUM

         SUBJECT:   Wyoming—Definition of Ambiefit) Ai r
         FROM:      Darryl  D. Tyler, Director
                   Control  Programs Development Division (MD-15)

         TO:        Irwin  Dickstein, Director
                   Air and Toxics Division, Region VIII


              This  memorandum  confirms and clarifies our recent conversation on
         Wyoming's  proposed change to their definition of ambient air.  After our
         conversation, my staff  further reviewed the proposal and your office's
         assessment of it.  While we agree with the final position you take—viz.,
         opposition to the change—my staff believes that several other points
         should be  made in comments to Wyoming.

              1.  In Christine Phillips' memorandum of March 20, 1987, two reasons
         are  given  to oppose the revision.  While we agree with the thrust of the
         first reason (ineffectiveness of exterior fencing to exclude public
         access because of the public highway and towns in the enclosed area),
         there may  be a problem in boldly stating the second reason.  We have
         never either flatly stated that land acquisition in general is acceptable
         or unacceptable under section 123 of the Clean Air  Act.  As the memorandum
         points out, the December 19, 1980, letter from Douglas  Costle to the
         Honorable  Jennings Randolph indicates that we will  review  individual
         situations on a case-by-case basis.  Therefore,  I believe  we should not
         automatically categorize land acquisition as proposed  in Wyoming as a
         dispersion technique  prohibited by section 123,  although further analysis
         may  in fact lead us to that conclusion.   In at least two instances, we  have
         tolerated  land acquisition to "contain" modeled  violations of national
         ambient air quality standards.  We have, however, avoided  formulating
         criteria for acceptability of land acquisition,  although such criteria
         (such as size of area and  relevance to  operation) were  at  one time  con-
         sidered.

-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3.1

-------
v>EPA
             United States
             Environmental Protection
             Agency
            Office of Air Quality
            Planning and Standards
            Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-450/4-87-007
May 1987
             Air
Ambient Monitoring
Guidelines for
Prevention of
Significant
Deterioration (PSD)
              RADiAN LIBRARY
              RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK.NC

-------
ft. 57, App. A                                 40 CFR Ch. I (7-l-M Edition)

      SCHEDULE D 6—PERMANENT WAIVER FROM INTERIM CONTROLS TEST—Continued
                                          ii

1 MK»e« vohM 	
mrtmlu* 	
UM
17
II
IM4
xxxx
xxxx
IM*
xxxx
xxxx
IM*
xxxx
xxxx
IM7 1 I9«a
xxxx 1 xxxx
xxxx I xxxx
IM»
xxxx
xxxx
19*0
xxxx
xxxx
Tow

                  SCHEDULE 0.7—HORIZON VALUE OF CASH FLOWS

A. 0«pr«ci«hon-li»« hoiuon vMu*.
1 NM cult Sm» propclion*
t Pn««iJ«lion U> wring*
a DcprocMlon and vnoftu-
ftxi 	
t> Uvgk* lu riM 	
e. T«M»fae> 	
a 0*rad**oiv*M IMI cult
lorn
« Nomnd tfo*M vtfuM 	
b IMO dD>M vMuM

4 Monfort tartor 	
t Oqx*cMon4*« honion >Hu*
B Otfn&Oon M> Mvingt ov«f IM
horaonpirioa
1 0*f»K*kO. TM Mvfcigi 	
4 OMCM* hckn 	
1 PfMM Mkl* 01 H> uvnai
t lout fnmt  "PSD station" means any atatlon
operated for the purpose of eatabllsh-
Ing the effect  on air  quality of the
emissions from  a proposed source for
purposes of prevention of significant
 deterioration as required by i 61.24(n)
 of Part 61 of this chapter.
   (e) "SO," means sulfur dioxide.
   (f) "NO," means nitrogen dioxide.
   (g) "CO" means carbon monoxide.
   (h) "O," means ozone.
   (I) "Plan" means an Implementation
 plan, approved or promulgated pursu-
 ant to section 110 of the Clean Air Act.
   (J) "Administrator" means the Ad-
 ministrator of the Environmental Pro-
 tection Agency (EPA) or his or her au-
 thorized representative.
   (k) "Regional Administrator" means
 the Administrator of one of  the ten
 EPA Regional Offices or his or her au-
 thorized representative.
  (1) "State agency" means the air pol-
 lution   control  agency  primarily re-
 sponsible for development and Imple-
 mentation of a plan under the Act.
  
-------
level  of  Ihnl monitoring site  concen-
tration with respect to the level of the
controlling standard.  For those areas
In  which  the  short term  (24-hour)
standard  Is controlling I.e.,  has the
highest ratio, the selective sampling
requirements are  Illustrated In Figure
1. If the operating agency were able to
demonstrate, by a combination of his-.
torlcal TSP data and at least one year
of PM,. data that there  were certain
periods of the  year where conditions
preclude  violation of the PM,. 24-hour
standard, the Increased sampling fre-
quency for  those periods or  seasons
may be exempted by the Regional Ad-
ministrator and revert back to once In
six  days.  The minimum  sampling
schedule  for all other  sites In the area
would be once every six  days. For
those areas In which the annual stand-
ard Is the controlling standard, the
minimum sampling schedule  for  all
monitors  In the area would be once
every  six days. During the  annual
review of the  SLAMS  network, the
most recent year of data must be con-
sidered to estimate  the  air  quality
status for the controlling air  quality
standard  (24-hour or annual). Statisti-
cal models such as analysis of  concen-
tration frequency distributions as de-
scribed In "Guideline for the Interpre-
tation of Ozone  Air  Quality  Stand-
ards." EPA 450/479 003. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency,  Research
            40 CHI Ch. I (/-!-•• idlilon)

   Triangle  Park,  N.C..  January  1979
   should  be used.  Adjustments to the
   monitoring schedule must be made on
   the basis of the annual review.  The
   site having the highest concentration
   In the most current year must be given
   first consideration when selecting the
   site for the  more  frequent sampling
   schedule. Other factors such as major
   change In sources of PM,. emissions or
   In sampling site characteristics could
   Influence the location of the expected
   maximum concentration site. Also, the
   use of the most recent three years of
   data might In some cases, be Justified
   In order to provide a more representa-
   tive data base from which to estimate
   current air quality  status  and to pro-
   vide  stability to the  network.  This
   multlyear consideration would reduce
   the possibility of an anamalous year
   biasing a site selected  for accelerated
   sampling.  If the maximum concentra-
   tion  site based on  the most current
   year Is not selected for the more fre-
   quent operating schedule,  documenta-
   tion of  the  Justification for selection
   of an alternate site  must be submitted
   to the Regional  Office for approval
   during the annual  review  process. It
   should be noted  that  minimum data
   completeness  crltlerla,  number  of
   yean of data and sampling frequency
   for Judging attainment of the NAAQ8
   are discussed-In Appendix  K of Part
   50.
fnvlroiiMsntol Protection Agency

                      Every  Sixth Day
                             §58.20
>
f

Every Other Day
r

Every Day
I
>
       O.B      0.9     1.0       1.1       1.2        1.3       1.4
                           Ratio to Standard
144 FR 21611. May 10. 1*79. u amended at
IS FR S41M. July 1.1IS11
• M.I4  Special
                       •Itors.
  (a) Any ambient air quality monitor-
Ing station other than a SLAMS or
PSD station from which the State In-
tends to use the data as part of a dem-
onstration of attainment or nonattaln-
ment or  In computing a design value
for control purposes of the National
Ambient    Air    Quality   Standards
(NAAQS) must  meet the requirements
for SLAMS described  In | 68.23 and.
after January 1. 1083. must also meet
the requirements for SLAMS as de-
scribed In  168.13 and Appendices A
and B to this part.
  (b) Any ambient air quality monitor-
Ing station other than a SLAMS or
PSD station from which the State In-
tends to  use the  data for  SIP related
functions other than as described In
paragraph  (a)  of this section Is not
necessarily required to comply  with
the requirements  for a SLAMS station
under paragraph (a) but must be oper-
ated in accordance  with a monitoring
schedule, methodology, quality  assur-
ance procedures,  and probe or Instru-
ment-siting specifications approved by
the Regional Administrator.

148 FR 441S4, Sept. 3. 18811
   Swbport C—Stole and local Air
    Monitoring Stations (SLAMS)

• U.M  Air quality surveillance: Plan, con-
   tent
  By January 1, 1980. the State shall
adopt and submit to the Administrator
a revision to the plan which will:
  (a) Provide for the establishment of
an air quality surveillance system that
consists of a network of monitoring
stations designated as State  and  Local
Air  Monitoring  Stations   (SLAMS)
which  measure  ambient concentra-
tions  of those pollutants  for which
standards have been  established  In
Part 60 of this chapter.
  (b) Provide for meeting the require-
ments of Appendices A, C. D. and E to
this part.
  (c) Provide for the operation  of  at
least one SLAMS per pollutant except
Pb during any stage of an air pollution
episode as defined In the contingency
plan.
  (d) Provide for the review  of the air
quality surveillance  system  on  an
annual  basis to  determine If the
system  meets the  monitoring objec-
tives defined  In Appendix  D to this
part.   Such   review  must  Identify
needed  modifications to  the network
such as termination or relocation  of
unnecessary stations or establishment
of new stations which are necessary.
132
                                                                                   133

-------
vvEPA
             United States
             Environmental Protection
             Agency
            Office of Air Quality
            Planning and Standards
            Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-450/4-87-013
June 1987
             Air
On-Site Meteorological
Program  Guidance for
Regulatory Modeling
Applications
                               E.WIROI; •;=
                                 AUG ;.'•)
                               LIBRARY SERvItu urnti

-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3.2

-------
ft. »r, App. A
         40 CM Ch. 1(7-l-tb Edition)
      SCHEDULE D.6— PERMANENT WAIVER FROM INTERIM CONTROLS TESI — Continued
                               ISm«N«i ktankftcakon)

• Cure* uMa> vktu*
J MX f»MOTl nk*
Lira
ir
it
IM4
xxxx
xxxx
IMS
XXXX
xxxx
IM*
XXXX
xxxx
1M7
XXXX
xxxx
1M*
KXXX
XXXX
INI
XXXX
xxxx
IMO
XXXX
xxxx
Taw

                  SCHEDULE D. 7—HORIZON VALUE OF CASH FLOWS
                               ISmtv UtnMcMonl



A D*fx«cwfeon k»« hotuon valu*
1 NO c*ih tow prapclioiw
t DtftuctUtfOn ku Mv4ng«:
ft PapfscUMon and •mortu
•on 	
b MargjkW Iw f«M
c. TuMvtng* 	
3 D^x*dUkxv*M nn cuh
• Nontfml datv vtfuM 	
k 18*0 do** V«UM 	
C. Avtreo* 	
^ Human Meter 	
I OtfKKMtoftkM horiian >Mu«
B OwKteton ku Mytogi ov« to
horizon ptfiutj:
1 Otpraciikan tod KnorttMon


4 DkxxMil factor* 	
ft PliMid valM ol UN Mvmo* . .
t TaW pi*Mnl nlu* ol lu uv
^0*
C Horizon VMu* 	

Ux


01


u
09
04

04
0*
07
at
OS


10
It
12
13
14

16
It
FlnrikxKMI
t*m
tut










XXXX
xxxx
xxxx


xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx

xxxx
xxxx
IMO










xxxx
xxxx
xxxx


xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx

xxxx
xxxx
Hortton y«ar»

INI

XXXX


xxxx
xxxx
xxxx

xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx


	





xxxx
xxxx

IWJ

xxxx


xxxx
xxxx
xxxx

xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx








xxxx
xx/x

IM)

xxxx


xxxx
KXXX
xxxx

xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx








xxxx
xxxx

IM4

xxxx


xxxx
xxxx
xxxx

xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx








xxxx
xxxx

in&

xxxx


xxxx
KXXX
xxxx

xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx








xxxx
xxxx

ToW


xxxx


xxxx
xxxx
xxxx

xxxx
xxxx





xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx



  P AM M—AMMENI AIR QUALITY
           SURVEILLANCE

      Iu*»«r1 A—0******1 ProvltkMtt

Sec.
61.1  Definition*.
Ml  Purpose.
IS.)  Applicability

      lu>»«rt g—*Wnn*rinfj Criteria

at 10  Quality assurance
6811  Monitoring methods.
II11  Siting  of Instrument* or Imtrument
   probe*
6H.I3  Operating schedule.
M 14  Special purpose monitor*.

  Subpwl C—«•»• MM) l*«rf Ak NUoHwlHf
            ItalUns (6LAMS)

btt 20  Air  quality  surveillance:  Plan  con-
   tent.
&a 21  8LAMS network design
Sec.
68 U
68.23
6814
18.21
68.28
68.27
     SLAMS methodology.
     Monitoring network completion.
     (Reserved)
     System modification.
     Annual SLAMS summary report.
     Compliance date for air quality data
   reporting.
68.28 Regional Office SLAMS data acquisi-
   tion.
                I Air M««H*ring StotUM
               (NAMS)

66.30  NAMS network establishment.
68 31  NAMS network description.
68.32  NAMS approval.
68.33  NAMS methodology.
66.34  NAMS network completion.
66 36  NAMS data submlltal.
68.36  System modification
   iu»p»it I—Ak QiMrflly ln«l«

66 40  Index reporting.
                                    128
                                             Environmental Protection Agency

                                             Sec.
68.60  Federal monitoring.
68.61  Monitoring other pollutant*.
ArrtMDii A- QUALITY AISUHAHCS RKQUIMK-
   Hun* roil STATE AND LOCAL Am Mom
   TORINO STATION* (SLAMS)
ArrutDiK B—QUALITY AMUHANCC RMDIM-
   HEjm FOR PmvwTiow  or SioNincANT
   DlTKRIORATION (PSD) AlR MONITOIIHO
Arrnroix C—AHMKNT AIR  QUALITY MONI-
   TORING MCTHODOLOOV
ArrniDix D—NETWORK  DISIQN roR STATI
   AMD LOCAL AlR MONITORINO  STATION!
   (SLAMS) AND NATIONAL AIR MONITORING
   STATION* (NAMS)
ArroiDix E-PRoai SITING CRITERIA roR
   AkUiuiT AIR QUALITY MONITORING
ArrcNDix P—ANNUAL SLAMS A» QUALITY
   iNrORKATION
ArrtNDii O—UNiroRM AIR  QUALITY INDEX
   AND DAILY RETORTING
  AUTHORITY: Sec*. 110. 301C*>. 313. and 318
of the Clean Air Act  (42 U.8.C.  1410.
7601(». 7613. 7618).
  SOURCE 44 FR 37671. May 10. 1678. unles*
otherwise noted.

   Swbp«rt A—O«n«rol  PrcvUtont

1(8.1  Dcnnlllon*.
  As used In this part, all terms not de-
fined herein have the meanlnt riven
them In the Act:
  U) "Act" means the Clean Air Act as
amended (42 U.8.C. 7401. et seq.).
  (b)  "SLAMS" means State or Local
Air   Monitoring   SUtlon(s).   The
SLAMS make up the ambient air qual-
ity  monitoring network which Is re-
quired by 158.20 to be provided (or In
the State's Implementation plan.  This
definition places no restrictions on the
use of the physical structure or facili-
ty housing; the SLAMS. Any combina-
tion of  SLAMS and any other moni-
tors (Special  Purpose. NAMS. PSD)
may occupy the same facility or struc-
ture without affecting the respective
definitions of  those  monitoring  sta-
tion.
  (c)  "NAMS"  means  National  Air
Monitoring Statlon(s). Collectively the
NAMS are a subset of the SLAMS am-
bient air quality monitoring network.
  (d) "PSD station" means any station
operated for the purpose of establish-
ing the  effect  on air quality  of  the
emissions from a proposed source for
purposes of prevention of significant
                               , 3.U

deterioration as required by t S1.24(n)
of Part 51 of this chapter.
  (e) "SO," means sulfur dioxide. "
   "CO" means carbon monoxide.
   "Local agency" means any local
government agency,  other than the
State agency,  which is  charged with
the responsibility for carrying  out  a
portion of the plan.
  
-------
§59.33

NAMS design criteria contained In Ap-
pendix D to this part.

I68.M  NAMS methodology.
  Each NAMS must meet the monitor-
Ui| methodology requlrementa of Ap-
pendix  C  to thU  part applicable to
NAMS at the time the atatlon U put
Into operation as a  NAMS.

I 68,14  NAMS network completion.
  By January t. 1981. with the excep-
tion of Fb, which  aha!) be by July 1.
1982 and PM,. samplers,  which shall
be by I year after the effective date of
promulgation:
  (a)  Each NAMS must  be  In oper-
ation, be sited In accordance  with the
criteria  In Appendix E to this part.
and be located as described In the sta-
tion's  8AROAO   site  Identification
form; and
  (b) The quality  assurance  require-
ments of Appendix A to this part must
be fully Implemented for all NAMS.
141 FH 11611. May 10. 1018. u amended at
46 FR  44164. Sept. J. 1881.  52 FR 24140.
July 1. 1B811

168.36  NAM8 d«U iubmltUl.
  (a) The requirements of this section
apply only to those stations designat-
ed  as NAMS by the network descrip-
tion required by I 58.30.
  (b) The State shall report quarterly
to the Administrator (through the ap-
propriate Regional Office) all ambient
air quality data and Information speci-
fied by  AEROS Users Manual (EPA-
4(0/2-76-029. OAQPS  No. 1.2-039) to
be coded Into the SAROAD Air Qual-
ity DaU forms. Such air  quality  daU
and Information must be submitted on
either paper forms, punched cards, or
magnetic tape In  the  format of the
SAROAD Air Quality DaU forms.
  (c) The  quarterly reporting periods
are January I March 31. April 1-June
30. July 1-September 30. and October
I December 31. The quarterly report
must:
  (I) Be received by the National Aero-
metric Data Bank within 120 days of
the end of each reporting  period, after
being submitted by the Stales to the
Regional Offices for review ;
  (2> Contain all data and Information
gathered during the reporting period.
         40 CFR Ch. I (7  1-88 Edition)

  1I. May 10. 101*. as amended at
 61 FR 0688. Mar. 10.  1088)

    Swbpert F—Federal Meniterlnf

 866.60 Federal monitoring.
   The Administrator may locate and
 operate an ambient air monitoring sta-
 tion  U the  State  falls  to locate, or
 schedule to be located, during the Ini-
 tial network  design process or as  a
 result of the annual  review required
 by 158.20:
   (a) A SLAMS at a site which Is nec-
 essary In the Judgment of the Region-
 al Administrator  to meet the objec-
 tive*  defined 1;    ppendlx D to this
•part, or
   (b) A NAMS at a site which to neces-
 sary  In the Judgment  of the Adminis-
 trator for meeting EPA national  data
 needs.

 I6S.I1  Monitoring other pollutant*.
   The Administrator may promulgate
 criteria  similar to that  referenced In
 Subpart  B of this part for monitoring
 a pollutant for which  a National Am-
 bient Air Quality Standard does not
 exist. Such an action  would be taken
 whenever  the  Administrator deter-
 mines that a nationwide monitoring
 program to necessary to monitor such
 a pollutant.


 ArrcRDix A—QUALITY ASSOMANCB R«-
    OUIUCMEMTS roa STATE AND LOCAL
    AIK      MONITORING     STATIONS
    (SLAMS)

 I. Genera! Information.
  This Appendix  specifies  the  minimum
 quality assurance  requirements applicable
 to SLAMS air monitoring data submitted to
 EPA. States are encouraged to develop and
 maintain quality asturance programs more
 extensive than the required minimum.
  Quality  assurance  of air monitoring sys-
 tems  Includes two  distinct and Important
 Interrelated function*. One (unction I* the
 control  of   the   measurement  process
                       PI. St. App. A

through the  Implementation  of policies.
procedures, and  corrective actions.  The
other function Is the  assessment of the
quality of the monitoring data (the product
of the measurement process). In general.
the greater the effort effectiveness  of the
control of  a given monitoring system, the
better will be  the resulting quality  of the
monitoring data. The results of data quality
assessments Indicate whether the control ef-
forts need lo be Increased.
  Documentation of the quality assessments
of the monitoring data Is Important to data
users, who can then consider the Impact of
the data quality In specific applications (see
Reference  l>.  Accordingly,  assessments of
SLAMS data quality are required U> be re-
ported to EPA periodically.
  To provide national uniformity In this as-
sessment and reporting of data quality for
all  SLAMS networks,  specific assessment
and reporting  procedures are prescribed In
detail In sections 3. 4. and 8 of this  Appen-
dix.
  In contrast,  the control function  encom-
passes a variety of policies, procedures, spec-
ifications, standards, and corrective meas-
ures which affect the quality of the result-
ing data. The selection and extent of the
quality control activities—as well as  addi-
tional quality assessment activities—used by
a monitoring agency depend on a number of
local factors such as the field and laborato-
ry conditions, the objectives of the monitor-
Ing, the level of the data quality needed, the
expertise of assigned personnel, the cost of
control procedures, pollutant concentration
levels, etc. Therefore, the quality assurance
requirements. In section 2 of this Appendix.
are specified In general terms to allow each
State to develop a quality assurance system
that Is most efficient  and effective for Its
own circumstances.
2. Quality Atturance Requirement*
  2.1  Each State must develop and Imple-
ment a quality assurance program consist-
ing of policies,  procedures, specifications.
standards and documentation necessary to:
  (I) Provide data of adequate quality  to
meet monitoring objectives, and
  (2) Minimize loss of air quality data due to
malfunctions or out ot control conditions.
  This quality assurance  program must be
described In detail, suitably  documented.
and approved  by  the appropriate Regional
Administrator, or his deslgnee. The Quality
Assurance  Program will be reviewed during
the annual system audit described In section

  2.2  Primary guidance for developing the
quality assurance  program  Is contained In
References  2  and  3.  which also contain
many suggested  procedures,  checks, and
control specifications. Section 2.0.0 of Refer-
ence 3 describes specific guidance for the de-
                                                                                  137

-------
ft. 3«, App. A

velopmenl of a Quality Assurance Program
for SLAMS automated analyzers. Many ape
rifle quality  control checks  and specific*
llona for  manual methods are Included In
the respective reference methods described
In Part 50 of this chapter or In the respec
live equivalent method descriptions  avail-
able from EPA (see Reference 4). Similarly,
quality control procedures related to specifi-
cally  designated reference and  equivalent
analyzers are contained In the respective op-
eration and Instruction manuals  associated
with  those analyzers.  This  guidance, and
any other pertinent Information from  ap-
propriate  sources,  should be used by  the
Slates In developing their quality assurance
programs.
  Aa  a minimum,  each quality  assurance
program  must Include operational  proce-
dures for each of the following activities:
  (1)  Selection of  methods,  analyzers,  or
samplers:
  (3) Training:
  (I) Installation of equipment:
  (4)  Selection and control  of  calibration
standards;
  (I) Calibration:
  (•> Zero/span checks and adjustments of
automated analyzers:
  (1) Control checks and their frequency;
  (•) Control llmlu for zero, span and other
control checks, and respective corrective ac-
tions when such limits are surpassed:
  (9)  Calibration and zero/xpan  checks for
multiple range analyzers (see Section  It of
Appendix C of this part):
  (10) Preventive   and  remedial mainte-
nance;
  (11) Quality control procedures for  air
pollution episode monitoring;
  (11) Recording and validating data:
  (13)  Data quality aiwessmenl  (precision
and accuracy):
  (M) Documentation of quality control In-
formation.
  13   Pollutant  Concentration  and  flow
Rate Standard!.
  13.1  Gaseous   pollutant  concentration
standards (permeation  devices or cylinders
of compressed gas) used to obtain test con-
centration for CO. SO,, and NO, must be
traceable to  either a National  Bureau of
Standards (NBS) Standard Reference  Male-
rial (8RM) or an NBS/EPA  approved com
merclally available Certified  Reference Ma-
terial (CRM) CRM s are described In Refer
encr  6. and a list  of CRM sources Is avail-
able  from the Quality Assurance Division
(Ml) 77). Environmental Monitoring Sys-
tems Laboratory,  US.  Environmental Pro-
tection Agency. Research Triangle Park. NC
37711.
  General guidance and recommended tech
nlques for certifying gaseous  working  stand
arils against an SHM or CRM are provided
 In section 107 of  Reference  3 Direct use of
 a CUM as a working standaid Is acceptable.
          40 CFR Ch. I (7-l-M Edition)

but direct use of an N11S BUM as a working
standard Is discouraged because of the limit
ed supply and expense of SRMs.
  1.3.1 Test concentrations for O, must be
obtained In accordance with the UV photo
metric calibration procedure specified In Ap
pendlx D of Part SO of this chapter, or by
meana of a certified ozone transfer stand-
ard. Consult References 6 and 7 for guid-
ance on primary and transfer standards for
O,.
  I.I.I Flow rate measurements must  be
made by a flow measuring Instrument that
la  traceable to an authoritative volume or
other standard.  Uuldame  for certifying
some types of flowmetcrs (3 provided In Ref-
erence 3.
  1.4  National  Performance  and System
Audit Programs
  Agencies operating S1.AM8  network  sta
lions shall be subject  to  annual  EPA sys
terns audits of their ambient air monitoring
program and are  required to participate In
EPA's National  Performance  Audit  Pro
gram. These audits are described In section
1.4.11 of Reference 1 and section JO II of
Reference  1.  For  Instructions,   agencies
should contact either the  appropriate EPA
Regional Quality  Assurance Coordinator or
the Quality Assurance Division (MD 77B).
Environmental Monitoring Systems Labora-
tory.  US.   Environmental   Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park. NC 17711.
>. Data Quality Aiitument Requirement*
  All ambient monitoring  methods or ana
lyaers used In SLAMS shall be tested peri-
odically,  aa described In  this  section I. to
quantitatively assess the quality of  the
SLAMS  data being  routinely produced.
Meaaurement accuracy and precision are es-
timated  for both automated  and manual
methods. The Individual  resulla of these
tests tor each method or  analyzer shall be
reported to EPA as specified  In section 4.
EPA will then calculate quarterly Integrat-
ed estimates of precision and accuracy appli-
cable to the SLAMS data as described In
section I. Data assessment result* should be
reported to EPA only for methods and ana
lyzera approved for use In SLAMS monitor
Ing under Appendix C of this Part.
  The Integrated data quality assessment es-
timates will be calculated on the basis of
"reporting organizations."  A reporting orga-
nization  Is defined as a Slate, subordinate
organization within a Stale, or other organi-
zation that Is responsible for a set of sta-
tions that  monitor the same pollutant and
for which precision or accuracy assessments
can be  pooled. Stales must define one or
more reporting organizations  for each pol-
lutant such thai each monllorlng slallim In
the State  SI.AMS network Is Included In
one. and only one. report Ing organization.
                                        138
f nvlr«nm*ntal Protection Agency

  Each reporting organization ahall be de-
fined auch that precision or accuracy among
all  stations  In the organization  can be ex-
pected to be reasonably homogeneous, as •
result of common factor*. Common  factor*
that ahould be considered by Stale* In de-
fining reporting  organization* Include: (1)
operation by a common team of field opera-
tors.  (1) common calibration facilities, and
(3) support  by a common laboratory  or
headquarter*. Where there I* uncertainly In
defining the reporting organization* or In
assigning specific sites to reporting organi-
sations. States shall consult with the appro-
priate EPA  Regional Office for guidance.
All definition* of reporting organization*
•hall  be subject to final approval by the ap-
propriate EPA Regional Office.
  Assessment result*  shall be reported  M
specified In  section  4.  Concentration and
now standard* must be aa specified In sec-
tions  13 or  1.4. In addition, working stand-
ards  and equipment used  for accuracy
audits must not be the same standard* and
equipment  used  for  routine  calibration.
Concentration measurement* reported from
analyzer*  or analytical system* (Indicated
concentration* > should be based on stable
reading* and mint be derived by meana of
the same calibration curve and data proceas-
Ing system used to obtain the routine air
monitoring data (see Reference  I. pace M.
and Reference 1. section 10.a.l.ttd)). Table
A-1 provides a summary of the minimum
data   quality  assessment  requirements.
which are described In more detail  In the
following sections.
  I.I  Precision of Automated Method*. A
one-point  precision  check must  be  carried
out at least  once every two  week* on each
automated analyzer used to measure SO,.
NO,.  O. and CO. The precision check to
made by challenging the analyser  with •
precision check gas of known concentration
between 001 and 0.10 ppm for SO,. NO,.
and O« analyzers, and between • and 10 ppm
for CO analyzer*. To check the precision of
SLAMS  analyzer*  operating  on   ranges
higher than 0 to 1.0 ppm SO,. NO,, and O,.
or 0 to 100 ppm for CO, use precision check
gases  of appropriately higher concentration
a* approved by the appropriate Regional
Administrator or his deslgnee. However, the
result* of precision check* at concentration
level* other than those shown above need
not be reported to EPA. The standard* from
which precision check test  concentration*
are obtained must meet the specification* of
section 1.3.
  Except for certain CO analyzer* described
below, analyzers must  operate In  their
normal sampling mode during the precision
check, and the test atmosphere  must pass
through all  filters,  scrubbers,  conditioner*
and other components used  during  normal
ambient sampling and as much of the ambi-
ent air Inlet  system as Is practicable.  If per
                          Pt. St. App. A

milled  by the associated  operation or In
atructlon manual, a  CO analyzer  may  be
temporarily modified during the precision
check to reduce venl  or purge flow*, or the
lest atmosphere may enter the analyser at a
point other than the normal sample Inlet.
provided thai the analyzer's response la not
likely to be altered by these deviations from
the normal operational mode. If a precision
check I* made In conjunction with a zero or
•pan  adjustment. It musl be made  prior to
such zero or span adjustment*. Randomiza-
tion of  the precision  check with  respect to
time of  day. day of week,  and routine service
and adjualmenla I* encouraged where possi-
ble.
  Report the  actual concentration of  the
precision check gas and  the  corresponding
concentration* Indicated  by  the analyzer.
The percent differences between  these con
eentralkmi are used to asses* the precision
of the monitoring data a* described In sec-
tion B.I.
  I.I  Accuracy of   Automated  Methods.
Each calendar quarter (during which ana-
lyzers are operated),  audit at least 15 per-
cent of  the SLAMS analyzers that  monitor
for SO,. NO,. O,. or CO such that each ana-
lyser  to audited at lesal once per  year. If
there are fewer than four analyzer* for  a
pollutant within a reporting organization.
randomly reaudll one or more analyzer* *o
that at  leaat one analyzer for that pollutant
I* audited each calendar quarter. Where
possible, EPA strongly encourages more fre-
quent auditing, up to an  audit frequency of
once per quarter for each SLAMS analyzer.
  The audit I* made by challenging the ana-
lyser  with  at leaat one audit gas of known
concentration from each of  the following
ranges  that fall  within  the measurement
range of the analyzer being audited:


I....
t
* 	
« 	
Cone«n»Ma
SO,. 0.


DM 04S
OIO-0*0
tisnf*. ppm
NO,


OM-04S




JS-4S
•o-so
  NO, audit gas for chemllumlnescence lype
NO, analyzer* musl  also contain at  least
0.01 ppm NO.
  Note  NO  concentrations  substantially
higher than 0.00 ppm. as may occur when
using some gas phase tllratlon (OPT) tech-
niques, may lead to audit error* In chemllu-
mlnescence  analyzers  due  to  Inevitable
minor  NO-NO,  channel  Imbalance.  Such
errors may be atypical of routine monitor-
Ing errors to the extent lhal such NO con
centratlon* exceed typical ambient NO con-
centrations at  the site. These errors may be
minimized by modifying the OPT technique
                                                                                                                                     139

-------
Ft. 51, App. A

to lower  the NO concentrations remaining
In the NCh audit gu to levels closer to typi-
cal ambient NO concentration* at the site.
  To audit SLAMS analyzer* operating on
range* higher than  0 to 1.0 ppm for SO,.
NOi. and O, or 0 to 100 ppm for CO, u*«
audit gases of appropriately higher concen-
tration as approved by the appropriate Re-
gional  Administrator or  hi*  deslgnee. The
result* of audit* at concentration level*
other than those shown In the above table
need not  be reported to EPA.
  The ttandard* from which audit ga* test
concentrations are obtained must meet the
iprcltlcatlona of  section  1.3. Working or
transfer  standard* and equipment used  for
auditing  must not be the *ame a* the stand
ards and  equipment used for calibration and
•panning, but may  be referenced to the
same NBS BRM. CUM. or primary UV pho-
tometer.  The auditor should not be the op-
erator or analyst  who conduct* the routine
monitoring, calibration, and analysis.
  The audit shall be carried out by allowing
the analyzer to analyze  the audit  test  at-
monphere In Us normal sampling mode such
that the  test atmosphere passe* through all
filters, scrubbers, conditioners, and other
sample   Inlet  components  used  during
normal ambient sampling and as much of
the ambient air Inlet system as Is practica-
ble. The  exception given In section 3.1  for
certain CO analyzers  does not apply  for
audits
  Report both the audit test concentrations
and the corresponding concentration meas-
urements Indicated or produced by the ana-
lyzer being tested. The percent differences
between  these  concentrations are used to
assess the accuracy of  the monitoring data
a* described In section 5.2
  3.3  Precision  of  Manual  Methods.  For
each network of manual methods, select one
or more  monitoring sites within the report-
Ing organization for duplicate, collocated
sampling as follows: for I to S sites, select  1
site: for  • to 20 sites, select 2 sites: and  for
over 20 sites, select 3 sites. Where possible.
additional collocated sampling  Is  encour-
aged. For partlculale matter, a network  for
measuring PM»  shall  be separate  from  a
T8P network  Sites having annual mean
partlculate  matter  concentrations among
the highest 26 percent of the annual mean
concentration*  for all the site* In the net-
work must be selected or, If such sites are
Impractical, alternate sites approved by the
Regional Administrator may be selected.
  In determining the number of collocated
sites required, monitoring networks for Pb
should be treated Independently  from net
woiks  for pattlculale matter, even though
the  separate networks may share one or
more common  samplers.  However, a single
pair of samplers collocaled  at a common-
sampler  monitoring site that meets the re-
quirements for both a collocated  lead site
          40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-88 Edition)

and a collocaled partlculale matter site may
serve as a collocated site for both networks.
  The two  collocaled  samplers  must  be
within 4 meters of each other, and partlcu-
late  matter samplers must be  at leasl 2
meters apart to preclude airflow Interfer-
ence. Calibration,  sampling and analysis
must be the same for both collocated sam-
pler* and the same as for all other samplers
In the network.
  For each pair of collocaled samplers, des-
ignate one sampler as the primary sampler
whose samples will be  used to report  air
quality for the site, and  designate the other
a* the duplicate sampler. Each  duplicate
sampler must be operated concurrently with
It* associated routine sampler at least once
per week. The operation schedule should be
•elected so that the sampling days are dis-
tributed evenly over the year and over the
•even days of  the week. The  every 6-day
schedule used by many monitoring agencle*
I* recommended. Report the measurements
from both samplers at each collocated sam-
pling site.  Including measurement* falling
below the limits specified In 5.3.1. The per-
cent differences In measured concentration
(fig/in') between  the two collocated  sam
piers are used to calculate precision as de-
•crlbed In section 6.3.
  3.4  Accuracy of  Manual  Methods. The
accuracy of manual sampling methods Is as-
teased by auditing a portion of the measure-
ment process. For partlculate matter meth
ods.  the flow rate  during sample  collection
I* audited. For SO, and NO, methods, the
analytical measurement is audited. For Pb
methods, the flow rate and analytical meas-
urement are audited.
  3.4.1 Partlculate  matter methods.  Each
calendar quarter, audit  the flow rate of at
least 26 percent of the  samplers such th*t
each sampler la audited at  leasl once per
year. If there are fewer  than four samplers
within a reporting organization,  randomly
reaudlt one or  more samplers so that one
sampler Is audited each calendar quarter.
Audit each sampler at Its normal operating
flow rate, using a flow rale  transfer aland
•rd aa described In section 2.3.3. The flo«
rate standard used for auditing must not be
the same  flow  rale standard used to cali-
brate the  sampler. However, both the call
bratlon standard and  the audit  standard
may be referenced to Hie same primary flow
rate  standard.  The  flow audit  should be
scheduled so aa to avoid Interference with a
scheduled sampling period. Report the audit
flow rales and Ihe corresponding flow  rates
Indicated  by the sampler's  normally  used
flow Indicator. The percent differences be-
tween these flow rales are used to calculate
accuracy as described In section 6.4.1.
  Oreal care must be used In auditing high
volume partlculate  matter samplers having
flow regulators because  the Introduction of
                                        140
 Environmental Protection Agency

 resistance plate* In the audit flow standard
 device can cause abnormal flow pattern* at
 the point of flow sensing. For this reason,
 the How audit standard should be u*ed with
 a normal filter In place and without resist-
 ance plate* In auditing  flow-regulated high-
 volume samplers, or other steps should be
 taken to  assure that flow pattern* are not
 perturbed at the point of flow sensing.
  3.4.3  SO, Method*. Prepare  audll aolu-
 tlons from • working sulflte-lelrachloromer-
 curate (TCM) solution  a* described In sec-
 tion 10.a of the SO, Reference Method (Ap-
 pendix A of Part 60 of this chapter). These
 audit •ample* mutt  be  prepared Independ-
 ently  from the  standardised aulflte solu-
 llons used In the routine calibration  proce-
 dure. Sulllte TCM audit  samples mutt  be
 •tored between  0 and 6  *C  and expire  30
 dayt after preparation.
  Prepare audit samples In each of the con-
 centration range* of 0.1-O.3.0.8 0.«, and 0.8-
 0.» pi f3O,/ml. Analyse an audit aample In
 each of the three range* at  least once each
 day that  samples arc analyzed and at leasl
 twice per calendar quarter. Report the audit
 concentration* (In p| 8O,/ml) and the cor-
 responding  Indicated concentrations (In pg
 8Oi/ml).  The percent difference* between
 these concentration* are  used to calculate
 accuracy at described In section 6.4.3.
  3.4.3 NO. Methods.  Prepare audit solu
 lions from a working sodium nitrite solution
 at described In the appropriate equivalent
 method (see Reference 4). These audit sam-
 ples must be prepared Independently from
 the  standardized nitrite solution*  used  In
 the  routine calibration  procedure.  Sodium
 nitrite audit samples expire In  3  month*
 after preparation. Prepare audit samples In
 each of the concentration ranges of 0.2-0.3,
 06-08, and 0.8-0.0 pg NO,/ml. Analyze an
 audit aample In each of  the three ranges at
 least once each  day that samples are ana-
 lyzed and at least twice per calendar quar-
 ter. Report the audit concentrations (In pi
 NO,/ml)  and  the corresponding Indicated
 concentrations (In pi NO,/ml>. The percent
 difference!  between these  concentration*
 are used to calculate accuracy aa described
 In section 6.4.3.
  3.4.4 Pb Method*. For the Pb Reference
 Method (Appendix O  of Part 60  of this
 chapter), the flow rate* of the high-volume
 Pb (ampler* shall be audited aa part of the
T8P network using the same procedure* de-
scribed In Section 3.4.1. For agencies operat-
ing both T8P  and Pb network*.  36 percent
of the total number of high-volume sam-
plers are to be audited each quarter.
  Each calendar quarter, audit the Pb Ref-
erence Method analytical procedure  using
glass fiber filter strips containing a known
quantity  of Pb. These audit sample atrlps
are prepared by depositing a Pb solution on
1.0 cm by 20.3 cm <*. Inch by 8 Inch) unex-
posed glass  fiber  filter strips and allowing
                          Pt. 56, App. A

 them to dry thoroughly. The audit samples
 must be prepared using batches of reagents
 different from those used to calibrate  the
 Pb analytical equipment being audited. Pre-
 pare audit samples In the following concen-
 tration ranges:
ton,,.
I:::::::::.: 	 :.::::.;
H>
COncMMfS
V
100-300
•00-1000
EqumtoM
amtMrtPb
concent*
•*:**'
OS-I»
30-40
  • E4UMStom mtftrt PI, connnkMon •> M""' • b*M4
 OK IsmpHnf M I 7 m'/nwi toe 24 tain on • 203 anx2S 4
 cm (I Inchx 10 mcht guis MM, Mm

  Audit sample* must be extracted using the
 same extraction procedure used for exposed
 fillers.
  Analyze  three audll  samples In each of
 the  two ranges  each quarter samples are
 analyzed. The audll  sample analyse* ahall
 be distributed aa much as possible over the
 entire calendar luarler. Report the  audit
 concentrations (In pg Pb/slrlp) and the cor-
 responding measured concentration* (In pg
 Pb/strlp) using unit  code 77.  The  percent
 difference* between the concentrations are
 used to calculate analytical accuracy aa de-
 scribed In section 6.4.2.
  The accuracy of an equivalent Pb method
 U assessed In the same manner as  for the
 reference method. The  flow auditing device
 and Pb analysis audit samples must be com-
 patible with the specific requirements of the
 equivalent method.
 4. Reporting Requirement*
  For  each pollutant, prepare a list of all
 monitoring dies and their  SAROAD site
 Identification codes In each reporting orga-
 nization  and submit the list to the appropri-
 ate EPA Regional Office, with a copy to the
 Environmental Monitoring System* Labora-
 tory (MD-76). U.S. Environmental  Protec-
 tion Agency. Research Triangle Park. North
 Carolina  27711  (EMSL/RTP).  Whenever
 there Is  a change In thl* list of monitoring
 •lie* In a reporting organization, report this
 change  to the  Regional Office  and  to
 EMSL/RTP.
  4.1  Quarterly Reports. Within 120 calen-
 dar days after  the end of each calendar
 quarter,  each reporting organization  shall
 report to EMSL/RTP via the appropriate
 EPA Regional Office the results of all  valid
 precision and  accuracy  tests  It has carried
 out during the quarter.  Report all collocat-
 ed measurements Including  those  fslllnt
 below the levels specified In section 6.3 I Do
 not report results from  Invalid  testa,  from
 tests carried out during a time period for
 which  ambient data  Immediately prior or
subsequent to the tests were Invalidated for
                                                                                                                                     141

-------
PI. SI. App. A

appropriate reasons, or from lee la of melh
ods  or  analyzers not  approved tor use In
81 .AMS* monitoring networks under Appen-
dix Col this part.
  Quarterly report* as specified herein shall
commence not later than the report pertain-
ing to the first calendar quarter of 1981. al
thouih such reports will be accepted begin
nlni with the report pertaining to the third
calendar quarter of IB8«
  The Information should be reported In  a
formal  similar to that shown In Figures A-l
and A 2  The data may be reported (I) via
magnetic computer tape  according to  data
format  specifications  provided by  the  Re-
gional Offices. (3) by direct. Interactive com-
puter entry via a  data  terminal and  the
PARS  data entry  system,  or ()) on  the
forms Illustrated In Figures A I  and  A-2.
Minor variations of these  forms (to facili-
tate local use)  or computer generated  (fac-
simile)  forms  may also be used, provided
they follow the same general format, use
the  same block numbers, and are clear  and
completely legible.  Instructions  for  using
these forms are provided In section 4.3.
  Within J40 days after the end of the re-
porting quarter. EPA will calculate Integrat-
ed  precision and accuracy assessments for
each reporting organization as specified In
section 5 and return, through the Regional
Offices, reports  of  the  respective assess
menu to each reporting organization.
  41 Annual Reports When precision  and
accutacy estimates for a reporting organiza-
tion have been calculated for all four quar-
ters of  the calendar year. EPA will calculate
the properly weighted probability limits for
precision and accuracy for the entire calen-
dar year. These limits will then be associat-
ed  with the data submitted In  the annual
8I.AM8 report required by I 68 U.
  Each reporting organization shall submit.
along with IU annual  SLAMS report, a list-
ing  by  pollutant of all monitoring sites In
the reporting organization.
  4.1 Instructions  for Using  Data Quality
Assessment  Reporting  Forms.  Suggested
forms for reporting data quality assessment
Information are provided In Figure A-l  (for
reporting accuracy  data)  and Figure  A-l
(for  reporting  precision  data).  The forms
may be used In a "universal" way to report
data for  different pollutants and for differ-
ent sites on the same form. Or. either  form
may be used as a slle-speclllc or pollutant-
specific form (where all entries on the form
are for a common site, a common pollutant.
or both) by filling In the site or pollutant In-
 formation  In  the  appropriate box  In the
 upper  left corner of  the form. Detailed In
ilructions  for  Individual  blocks  are  as fol-
lows:
   Instructions common to both forms:
t 2
35
           40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-08 Edition)
Sltlt Ihe two ckorl SAHOAD Stele  cod*
Reporting Oigtnualiori A unique 3 dtgjl coda
  •sag"** by  ••cti Stall to each ol iU
  rerjpeckve leportHig organtialion*
Vetr  I Ml MO d>e>l» ol the  calender  yeer
  cormponcbno. lo tie quarter tpecrlied in
  Mock I
Quarter  Enlx I 2  3  or 4 to reler lo tie
  catenae!  quarter rJuring  which tie  dais
  quality tivetftmenls were obtained
Enlai "I" lot oiiginal tuessmonl data. "2"
  to revise ti*e»ameiil dala previouely tub-
  nulled. «  3  to delete previoinry eubmrl
  Md aueaiment Jala When a 3  it en
  leted.  only block* 1 lo 20 need be com
  plaled
  Also enter the name of the reporting orga
nlzatlon.  the date  the form Is submitted.
and  (optionally)  the name of the  person
who prepared the form on the blanks  pro-
vided.
 Stock ND
21-23
24	
2S-2*
                       Oeaci*>»on
SM Enler «rle  idenMealnn  In Sit
  uppef Wt coinet  ol Ih* torn) Alao check
  tie btoch m tve comer  ol the bo* and
  leave tie otvar btoikr, 10 to IS  on Sie •
  torn blank
Method  Cod*  Enlei  tie  m»uur*if
              codrjd decimal potol
             level I IndKiled  Enter tv» concert* a«uri
              rndKlWd by trt tnth/iat.  atrrBHer.  or
              metiod bemg eudned to trt tppropnaaa
              block, wkh itapect lo trt pr*cod*d deci-
              mal pant
             level J Enter tv> tcturU end mrAcMrjd con
              cenlrttont lor eudrl level 2. * SnpfctN*
             I even 1 and 4 in eppkcabte) On Ih* tecond
              kn*. enter tie ecrual *nd todJctitrl ooncen
              ttkont tor aurM level  3 and. t ut*d. euart
              knMi J
                                                         Additional Instructions for Precision form
                                                       (Figure A-3):
                                            31 32  ..
                                                                   Oeecrrptan
                                                       Ural Cad* Enter tie und cod* rrurrrber kam
                                                        tM unrl cod* M on tw lorm (me only to
                                                        codee toted) MM wnt* m trt irn» an tw
                                                        Wenk to trt Ml at block 31.
                                                       Adual or Primary Enter trt Mb* of tM
                                                        known hMl conrefieakon or Svt oonctnks-
                                                                                . the prrmrjry HmpkK to
                                                                     | aporoprujie btockt emt reaped to ti.
            IndKeWd or Oupkcsw Enler tw Mkr* ol tie
             concenetlron mttttftintnl *VJM t)kf sntV
             lyier or Ihe dupkcMe cotected Mmptar to
             tv. eppropnete brackt wrt> reeped to tie
             precoded dectmel pom)
(. Calculation! for Dala Qualify Atttumtnt
  Calculation of estimates of Integrated pre-
cision and accuracy  are carried out by CPA
according to the following procedures. Re-
porting organizations should report the re-
sults of Individual  precision and accuracy
tests as specified In section* J  and 4 even
though they may elect  to carry out some or
all  of the  calculations In this section on
their own.
  t.l  Precision of Automated Methods, es-
timates of the precision of automated melh-
                              Pt. 5t, A|*a>. A

  ods  are ralmlatrd from the results of  bl
  weekly precision checks as specified In sec-
  tion I.I. At the end of rach calendar quar-
  ter,  an Integrated precision probability In-
  terval for all SI^AMS analyzers In the orga-
  nization Is calculated foi each itollutant.
    t.l.I  Single Analyzer Precision. The per-
  centage  difference (d,)  for each  precision
 •check to calculated using equation  I. where
  Y, to the concentration Indicated by the ana-
  lyser tor the I th precision check and X, to
  the known concentration for the I Hi preci-
  sion check.
                                                                                                                     -  X;
                                                                                                                             x  100
                                                                                                                                           (1)
                                                  For each analyzer, the quarterly average
                                                (d,) to  calculated with equation 2. and  the
                                                standard  deviation  (8,>  with  equation J.
                                                where  n to the number of precision checks
                                                on the Instrument made during the calendar
                                                quarter. For example, n  should be 6 or  T If
                                                precision checks are made biweekly during a
                                                quarter.
                         n
                    ^   2   d
                    n  i=l  di
                                                                                        (2)
  •.1.1 Precision  for Reporting  Organiza-
tion.  For each pollutant,  the average of
averages  and the ponied standard devi-
ation (8.) are calculated for all analyzers au-
dited for the pollutant  during the quarter.
using either equations 4 and S or 4a and ta.
where k to the  number of analyzers audited
within the  reporting organization  for  a
tingle pollutant.
                                                                                                                                               143

-------
ft. Si, App. A

Ke/ereaces
  I. Rhode*. B.C. Guideline on the Meaning
and Use ol PrrcUlon and Accuracy DaU Re-
quired by 40 CFR Part 68 Appendices A and
B.  EPA-400/4 B3/02J. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Reaearch Triangle Park.
NC 27711. June. 1883.
  2."Quallty  Assurance  Handbook for Air
Pollution Measurement  Byatenu.  Volume
1-Prlnclples." EPA «00/» 7« COS.  March
1878.  Available  from U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Environment*! Monitor-
Ing Syitemi Laboratory  (MD-77). Reaearch
Triangle Park. NC 27711.
  >. "Quality  Assurance Handbook for Air
Pollution Measurement  Syatenu.  Volume
II-Amblent  Air  Specific  Method*" EPA
6OO/4 77 027a. May  1977. Available  from
U.8. Environmental  Protection Agency, En-
vironmental Monitoring Syatenu Laborato-
ry (MD-77),  Research Triangle Park. NC
27711.
          40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-M Edition)

  4.  "List  of  Designated  Reference  and
Equivalent Methods."  Available from  U.8.
Environmental  Protection Agency,  Depart-
ment E (MD-77). Research  Triangle Park.
NC 27711.
  I. Hughei,  E.E. and  J. Mandel. A Proce-
dure for Establishing  Traceablllty  of  Qai
Mixture*  to  Certain National  Bureau  of
Standards SRMs. EPA BOO/7-81-010.  U.8.
Environmental   Protection   Agency.   Re-
aearch Triangle Park, NC 27711. May. IMI
(Joint NBS/EPA Publication)
  8. Paur. R.J. and F.F  McElroy. Technical
Assistance Document for the Calibration of
Ambient Ozone  Monitors.  EPA 600/4 7»
067. U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency,
Reaearch Triangle Park, NC 27711. Septem-
ber, 1»7».
  7. McElroy, F.F. Transfer  Standard! for
the Calibration of Ambient Air Monitoring
Analycer*  tor  Ozone.  EPA-000/4 7B-064.
VS. Environmental Protection  Agency, Re-
aearch Triangle Park. NC 27711. September.
                                         146
|nvlr*nm«nl«l Protoctton Agency                                 Pt. SS, App. A

                    TAatc A-1— MmMuu DATA AMEMMCNT REOOIBEMENTS
    torSOtNOk.CV
    and CO
   Manual matiods
    hcajdng toad
Accuracy;
    and CO.
                                                                                              KV andNO,
                                                                                             T8P, I
                   HMponM ctMCk at
                    OS and
                    10 ffm toe CO».
                   Coaocaiad aamplani
                   RMPOM onsck at
                                                                                                            Chack ol analytical
                                                                                                                rtard aoMrons.
                                                                                                            Chat* ol samp** Row
                                                                                                              rala u tor ISP;
                                           Comma*
                                      I oM lor l-l »»M.
                                     I MM > 10 MM.
                                     (MM «•) hghMl oonc 1
                                      l.Ca
                                      t. M% ol annrnra |al
                                       laaii I).
                                                                                                                               I Each i
                                                                                                                               I M% ol »aii»
-------
                  DATA QUAUTV ASSESSMENT MEPONTING FO«M
                                      ACCURACY
- Ll 	 | _— .-JIII.B j--,,,!-^- -,• M __ -_
uMttouTtcoof
l 1 l l l 1 M l

•OUUUOT COM
rm

«•••*••
I«MI MMMMKM
11 I'l Tl
i i i • •
<•*€»•»
mV DJ.5E £-1


•••••"•
                               3

                               S

                               •*

                               >
i"" ii 11'   rm
   K> II      >l I)


"n mi M   rm


ii n 11 M 11.  rm


mi 11 M M   rm


• M n n 111   rm
E IHI]DD__
 irm rrrrum  Q
 urn  mrpm
  WM  MM  M«<
	U¥tl«
              Eniimm IIIIMM i in i m n i M i LI 111
              U Ml*   »«•  «1 M   «ft «>   • »t   U M  MM  M-ftt
                      IfVi '               LfVtL 2
B CUDDD^CDBiiiiy MJ "nun i m i m u 1111 Ll 111
                      imu >               tMt •
              MIIIIU III I I I I Ml I I 11 II Ll I I I Illl UNI
_. _______   __ _       H*'-'               UKU	
B OmPD — CDBllim ll] imuii t 111 i LI 111 1111 111 11

              Hi i i M y i n "n u u i n 11 y i iTn 11 m n

B OIDDD _ CD B HMU nTi'iiiuii i 11 M UN iTr

              S31111 u 111 Lrrrrn          ^"ll

•B rrmnn   mm
                         urn
              i! ii y 111  111 m 111
                    LlMl 1
J^_L
                                       MTU
                                                 JuLL
        JtL
                                    U««b *              ItWt •         I
                            m 111 m ii i i n i ui i i 1111 LI 111 1111 LI i 11  r
    DATA (MJAUTYASSCSSMENT REPORTING FOMM
                                                    PRECISION   ST
*MM>«M
J
•r
Q

I
•0






















«•
UH
|


UM






















«•
Ml
|


UK






















^
>•

••

•r

1




















•«
m

!•
•
r

s*
m
i




















M
cc
j

(11
em
3-
•o
Cl
B->




















«
OT
1

Ml
M
•
*O
301
•




















••*

1

1
]

1




















«•



























•»*



























...^.MM






^QLkU-
TAMT




















• •






M
O
1




















•H






IM
BO
•X




















M






90
E
1



























14






*












••







M
«







•



















a
OH
'M







• J













ni
r
h


Mi

M
1
J





















•
T
•h




NW
»•





















«
T"
•H




r
M





















""^^
m
W



•*
UMt


























<•
Mi
n
n-





















«




V9t
11
M
aa





















•




•






















•





M





















Ml
r





i
0
M





















m





)CI
U
T





















•





rut
M



























Hi
Ml



























»
ID
a





















i





M





















•
•
•I




0





















Ml
«•
Ml


























•M
Ml
Ml




41



























•
0
4



























M
Oil
(



























M
10



























im
Ml



























O1
IB
«




















i«






1
M




















H r
•





7




















••»
1
' «

























                                                                s
                                                                I

-------
Pt. 3«, App. A
40 CFR Ch. I (7-l-M Edition)
       Cii    IBSSdiilSa    iiliiili    SiiailiSl
«M
ii§
UA
                                                    mum
                           ii
                       ii!ll  u  isiltlli
               iii  s««  l!     31  f5n
               I ||!5ii!ji  1   liiliP.
               Illsillcii  J)  iiiiiiii
               iS8iS13!aSisS
                                            l^ir^i
                                            \\l\\lit\
                           II,
         a2i»t
         SfSffj
    9            2

iijliiiliiliii
                                                                 f
                                                                 i
i!5HJS5f:"i  I  I'lMuiiiiili.  ii
iiininii!!!  I  liliiTimiki!  I!
                                                                            i*
                                                                            E
                                      150
                                                                                 Environmental Prelection Agency
                                      ArrENDix  B—QUALITY ASSURANCE RE-
                                          QUIREMENTS  FOR  PREVENTION  Of
                                          SlGNiriCANT DETERIORATION (PSD)
                                          AlR MONITORINO

                                      I. General Information
                                        This Appendix  specifies the  minimum
                                      quality assurance requirements lor the con-
                                      trol and  assessment of  the quality of the
                                      PSD ambient air monitoring data submitted
                                      to EPA by an organization operating a net-
                                      work  of  PSD stations. Such  organizations
                                      are encouraged to develop  and maintain
                                      quality assurance programs more extensive
                                      than the  required minimum.
                                        Quality assurance of air monitoring sys-
                                      tems  Includes  two distinct and  Important
                                      Interrelated  functions. One function Is the
                                      control   of   the  measurement  process
                                      through  the Implementation of policies.
                                      procedures,  and corrective   actions.  The
                                      other function Is the  assessment ol the
                                      quality of the monitoring data (the product
                                      of the measurement  process). In general,
                                      the greater the effort and effectiveness of
                                      the control of a given monitoring system.
                                      the belter will be the resulting quality el
                                      the monitoring data. The results of data
                                      quality assessments  Indicate  whether the
                                      control efforts need to be Increased.
                                        Documentation ol the duality assessments
                                      of the monitoring data Is Important to daU
                                      users, who can then consider the Impact of
                                      the data quality In specific applications (see
                                      Reference I).  Accordingly,  assessments of
                                      PSD monitoring data quality are required to
                                      be made  and reported periodically by the
                                      monitoring organization.
                                        To provide national uniformity In the as-
                                      sessment  and  reporting of  data  quality
                                      among all  PSD  networks,  specific assess-
                                      ment and  reporting  procedures are  pre-
                                      scribed In detail In Sections I. 4. 5. and • of
                                      this Appendix.
                                        In contrast, the control function encom-
                                      passes a variety of policies, procedures, spec-
                                      ifications, standards,  and corrective meas-
                                      ures which  affect the quality  ol the result-
                                      ing data. The  selection and extent el the
                                      quality control activities—as  well as addi-
                                      tional quality assessment activities—used by
                                      a monitoring  organization depend  on  a
                                      number ol  local lactors such as the Held
                                      and laboratory conditions, the objectives of
                                      the monitoring, the level of the data quality
                                      needed, the expertise of assigned personnel.
                                      the cost  ol control procedures, pollutant
                                      concentration  levels,  etc. Therefore, the
                                      quality assurance requirements. In Section 2
                                      of this Appendix, are specified In general
                        PI. 51, App. »

terms to allow each organization to develop
a quality control system that Is most effi-
cient  and effective for Its  own circum-
stances.
  For purposes of this Appendix, "organiza-
tion" Is defined as a source owner /operator.
a government agency,  or their contractor
that operates an ambient air pollution mon-
itoring network for PSD purposes.
2. Quality Atiumnce Rtqutrements
  2.1  Each organization  must develop and
Implement a quality assurance program con-
sisting of policies, procedures, specifications.
standards and documentation necessary to:
  (I) Provide data  of  adequate quality  to
meet monitoring objectives and quality as-
surance requirements of the  permit grant-
Ing authority, and
  (2) Minimize loss of air quality data due to
malfunctions or out of-control conditions.
  This  quality assurance program must  be
described In detail, suitably documented.
and approved by the  permit-granting au-
thority. The Quality  Assurance  Program
will be reviewed during  the system audits
described In Section 2.4.
  2.S Primary guidance for developing the
Quality Assurance Program Is contained In
References  2  and  3.  which  also  contain
many suggested procedures,  checks, and
control specifications. Section  2.0.9 of Refer-
ence 1 describes specific guidance for the de-
velopment ol a Quality Assurance Program
for automated  analyzers. Many  specific
quality control checks and specifications for
manual methods are Included  In the  respec-
tive reference methods described In Part 60
of this chapter or In the respective  equiva-
lent  method  descriptions available  from
EPA (see Reference 4>. Similarly,  quality
control  procedures related to specifically
designated reference and equivalent  analys-
ers are contained In their respective oper-
ation and Instruction  manuals. This  guid-
ance, and any other pertinent Information
from appropriate sources, should be used by
the organization In developing Its quality as-
surance program.
  As a  minimum,  each quality assurance
program must  Include  operational  proce-
dures for each of the following activities:
  (I) Selection  ol  methods,  analyzers,  or
samplers;
  (2) Training;
  (3) Installation of equipment;
  (4) Selection  and control of calibration
standards;
  (5> Calibration:
  (0) Zero/span checks and adjustments  of
automated analyzers;
                                                                                                                             151

-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3.3

-------
PI. 57. App. A 40 Cn Ch. 1 (7-1-M Edition)
SCHEDULE O.ft— PERMANENT WAIVER FROM INTERIM CONTROLS TEST— Continued


tCun* *.*.,+*
t MMBfCMMVlIu*
Lin*
17
1*
IM4
XXXX
xxxx
IMS
xxxx
xxxx
IMS
KXXX
xxxx
IM7
xxxx
xxxx
IM*
xxxx
xxxx
IM*
xxxx
xxxx
IMO
xxxx
xxxx
ToW


SCHEDULE D.7— HORIZON VALUE of CASH FLOWS
ISrnMur «nmfc.«iion>l l« id* 	
3 t£ia££i~ "«*'" «-.
SHIM:
IMO do** >«fcm
AiH>9g 	
llomon toctai 	
[Mfii«Man.kM honran nkM
• O^.«»»on IM Mvingi OM> •»
tarnw ptnM
O«pi«o*ban and •mnrfciafcon
Itavnd M> >«•
f ^M fa«faM
IMcourtfecUn
Pwaar* v«fcj* gl Ivt Mw^k
InUI p«Mnl nkj> 0) MI uv
•*«• 	
C Itaaon V«lu>

Ln>


Ot


02
03
04
OS
04
or
M
00


10
II
It
13
14

It
It
Final kmcMi
VMX
IM*









xxxx
xxxx
xxxx


xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx

xxxx
xxxx
IMO









xxxx
xxxx
xxxx


xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx

KXXX
xxxx
Horaon y«*r«

IMI

xxxx


xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx








KXXX
XXXK

IMI

xxxx


xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx








xxxx
xxxx

IM]

xxxx


xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx








xxxx
xxxx

IM4

xxxx


xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
XKXX
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx








xxxx
xxxx

IMS

xxxx


xxxx
KXXX
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx








xxxx
xxxx

low


xxxx


KXXX
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
XKXX


	


xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx



                                                                                   CitvbwMMnlal Pr*>t*)ctl*>n Agency
                                                                                   See.
  fAII St— AMBIENT All QUAUTV
           SIMVHUANCt



Sec.
Ml  Dellnltlotu.
Ml  PurpOM.
881  Applicability.
Sec.
Mil SLAMS methodology
61 21 Moiillorlnf network completion.
It 24 (Reserved!
M.U System modulation.
68.20 Annual SLAMS lummary report.
60 21 Compliance date for air quality data
   reporting
68.20 Regional Office SLAMS data acquisi-
   tion.
6110 Quality assurance.
till Monlloilng methods
66 12 filling of Instrument* or Instrument
   probes
61 13 Operating schedule.
61 II Special purpose monitors.

  lL*f«rl C — Slat* WH< l»<«» Air M*«ft««t»sj
            II.IUM (HAMS)

6S 20 Air quality surveillance:  Plan con
   tent.
58 21 SLAMS network design
               (NAMS)

61.30 NAMS network establishment.
Mil NAMS network description.
61.12 NAMS approval.
61.13 NAMS methodology.
61.14 NAMS network completion.
6816 NAMS data submlttal.
68.10 System modification.

   fclfepwt I—Alt Quality In*** ««y.rt4.S)

68.40 Index reporting.
I860  Federal monitoring.
68 61  Monitoring other pollutants.
ArrtNDii A- QUALITY AMUIANCS RMUIIS-
   •UMTS roil STATS AI» LOCAL Aia Mom
   TORINO STATION* (SLAMS)
ArriMDix B—QUALITY AMUIANC* Rntuiac
   Mom ro* PCKVCMTIOII or SramriCAin
   DnaioaATion (PSO) An MOIUTOIIIKI
Arrsraii C—Ansion Ai* QUALITY Mom
   TOaiRO MnHODOUMT
ArrtflDix D—NiTwoa«  OOION ro« STATE
   AH* LOCAL An MONITOBIRO  STATIONS
   (SLAMS) AND NATIONAL A» MONITOIINO
   STATIOHS (NAMS)
Arrcnoix E-Pnose SITINO CHITEBIA  roa
   AJUIKHT An QUALITY MONITOIINO
Ammix P—ANNUAL SLAMS Ala QUALITY
   iHroaUATIOH
AmNBix O—UNiroMM A» QUALITY INMX
   Am DAILY RBToavrira
  AoTHoarrr: See*. 110. MUa>. 111. and Sit
of the Clew Air Act  (41 UAC. 1410.
IMI(a). 1013. 1010).
  Soimcc 44 KR 21611. May 10. 1010. unless
otherwise noted.

   SuOipsirl A—Oontirsjl Provisions

I 10.1  Definitions.
  Ao used In this part, all term* not de-
fined herein have the meaning given
them In the Act:
  (a) "Act" means the Clean Air Act a*
amended (42 U.8.C. 7401. et seq.l.
  (b)  "SLAMS" mean* State or Local
Air   Monitoring   8Utlon(»).  The
SLAMS make up the ambient air qual-
ity monitoring; network  which U  re-
quired by 168.30 to be provided for In
the State'* Implementation plan. ThU
definition place* no restrictions on the
u*e of the physical structure or facili-
ty houilnt the SLAMS. Any combina-
tion of  SLAMS and any other moni-
tor* (Special Purpose.  NAMS. PSD)
may occupy the *ame facility or itruc-
ture without affecting the respective
definition* of  those  monitoring ela-
tion.
  (c)  "NAMS" mean*  National Air
Monitoring Statlond). Collectively the
NAMS are a subset of the SLAMS am-
bient  air quality monitoring network.
  (d) "PSD station" means any station
operated for the purpose of establish-
ing the  effect  on air quality  of the
emissions from a  proposed source for
purposes of prevention of significant
                               } Ml

 deterioration as required by I Sl.J4(n)
 of Part 51 of this chapter.
  (e) "SO." means sulfur dioxide.
  (f) "NO." means nitrogen dioxide.
  (g) "CO" means carbon monoxide.
  (h) "O," means ozone.
  (I) "Plan" means  an Implementation
 plan, approved or promulgated purau-
 a.it to section  110 of the Clean Air Act.
  (J) "Administrator" mean* the Ad-
 ministrator of the Environmental Pro-
 tection Agency (EPA) or his or her au-
 thorized representative.
  (k) "Regional Administrator" mean*
 the  Administrator  of one of the ten
 EPA Regional Offices or his or her au-
 thorized representative.
  (I) "State agency" means the air pol-
 lution  control  agency  primarily re-
 sponsible for development and Imple-
 mentation of a plan under  the Act.
  (m) "Local agency" means any local
 government agency, other  than the
 State agency,  which Is  charged with
 the  responsibility  for carrying  out  a
 portion of the plan.
  (n) "Indian Reservation" means any
 Federally  recognized reservation es-
 tablished by treaty, agreement, execu-
 tive order, or act of Congress.
   "SAROAD  cite  Identification
 form"  I* one of  the several form* In
 the SAROAD system. H Is the form
 which provides a complete description
of the site (and Its surroundings) of an
ambient air  quality monitoring sta-
 tion.
  (D "Traceable" means that a  local
standard has been compared and certi-
 fied, either directly or  via not more
 than one Intermediate standard, to  a
 primary standard such as a National
 Bureau of Standards Standard Refer-
ence  Material   (NBS   8RM)  or   a
 USEPA/NBS-approved Certified  Ref-
erence Material (CRM).
  (s) "Urban area population" means
the  population  defined  In the  most
                                   128
                                                                                                                      129

-------
v 51.33

NAMS design criteria contained In Ap-
pendix D to IhU part.

IM.M  NAMS melhHMlology.
  Each NAMS must meet the monitor-
ing methodology requirements of Ap-
pendix  C  to thla  part applicable to
NAMS at the time the station to put
Into operation aa a  NAMS.

I 6S.34  NAMS network completion.
  By January 1.  1981. with the excep-
tion of Pb, which  shall be by July  1.
1982 and FMit samplers,  which  shall
be by 1 year after the effective date of
promulgation:
  (a)  Each  NAMS  must  be In oper-
ation, be alted In accordance with the
criteria  In  Appendix E to  thla  part.
and be located as described In the sta-
tion's  8AROAO  site  Identification
form; and
  (b)  The  quality  assurance  require-
ments of Appendix A to thla part  must
be fully Implemented for all NAMS.
144 PR mil. May 10. 1819. u amended  at
«• PR  441*4. Sept. 1. 1981;  62 PR 2414*.
July 1. 1M7I

I U.M  NAMS data lubmllUl.
  (a) The requirements of this section
apply only  to those stations designat-
ed  aa NAMS by the network descrip-
tion required by | 68 30
  (b) The State shall report quarterly
to the Administrator (through the ap-
propriate Regional Office) all  ambient
air quality data and Information speci-
fied by  AJOtOS  Users  Manual (EPA-
460/3 78 029. OAQPS  No. 1.3-030) to
be  coded Into the SAROAD Air Qual-
ity Data forms. Such air quality daU
and Information must be submitted on
either paper forms, punched cards, or
magnetic tape In  the  format of the
SAROAD Air Quality DaU forms.
   The quarterly reporting periods
are January I March 31. April 1  June
30. July I-September 30. and  October
1-December 31.  The quarterly report
must:
  (1 > Be received by the National Aero-
ntelrlc Data Bank  within 120 days of
the end of each reporting period,  after
being submitted by the States to the
Regional Offices for review :
  (2k Contain all dala and Information
gathered during  the reporting period.
         40 CFR Ch. I (7-l-M Edition)

  (d) For TSP. CO. SO.. O,. and NO,.
the  first quarterly report will be due
on or before  June 30, 1981, for data
collected  during the first  quarter  of
1981. For Pb. the first quarterly report
will  be due on December 31, 1982. for
data collected during  the third quarter
of 1982.  For PM.. samplers, the first
quarterly report will be due 120 days
after the first quarter of operation.
  (e) Air quality data submitted In the
quarterly  report  mast   have  been
edited and validated so that such data
are  ready  to  be entered Into the
SAROAD  data files. Procedures  for
editing and  validating data are  de-
acrlbed  In  AEROS  Users Manual
(EPA 460/2 78 028. OAQPS No. 12
039).
  (f) Thla section  does not permit  a
State to exempt those SLAMS which
are also designated as NAMS from all
or any of the reporting requirements
applicable to SLAMS In I 58.28.
144 PR 21671, May 10, 191*. ai amended at
4g PR 441(4. Sept 3. IvSI. tl PR 95M. Mar.
I*. I9M. M PR 14140. July I. 1981]

I S8.34 Svitem modification.
  During  the annual  SLAMS Network
Review  specified   In   1 68.20,  any
change* to the NAMS network  Identi-
fied by the EPA  and/or  proposed by
the  Stale  and agreed to  by the EPA
will  be evaluated.  These modifications
should address changes Invoked by  a
new census and changes  to the net-
work  due to changing   air  quality
levels, emission  patterns,  etc.  The
State  shall be given one year (until
the  next  annual evaluation) to Imple-
ment the appropriate changes  to the
NAMS network.

151 PR 9»M, Mar. 19. 19641
    fcibport E— Air Quality
              ••porting
8 68.44) Index reporting.
  (a) The Slate shall report to  the
general public on a dally basts through
prominent notice an air quality  Index
In accordance  with the requirements
of Appendix O to this part.
  (b) Reporting must commence by
January  1. 1981. for all urban  areas
with a population exceeding 500, (MX).
                                     136
 f nvIrwiMontal Protection Aflmtcy

 and by January 1. 1983. for all urban
 area*  with  a population exceeding
 300.000.
   (c) The population of an urban area
 for purposes of Index  reporting U the
 most  recent  U.S.  census population
 figure as defined  In f 58.1 paragraph
 <•).
 144 PR 21611. May 10. 1919. as amended at
 61 PR 96M. Mar. 19.19N1

    Stfbpwt F—•••Ural MUnlterlng

 868.M Federal monitoring.
   The Administrator may locate and
 operate an ambient air monitoring sta-
 tion  If the State  falls  to locate, or
 schedule to be located, during the Ini-
 tial network  design process  or as  a
 result of the annual  review  required
 by | 68.30(d):
   (a) A SLAMS al a site which to nec-
 essary In the Judgment of the Region-
 al Administrator  to meet the objec-
 tive*  defined  f   Appendix O to this
•put. or
   (b) A NAMS at a site which to neces-
 sary  In the Judgment  of the Adminis-
 trator for meeting EPA  national data
 needs.

 11841  MonlUring other polliiUnU.
   The Administrator may promulgate
 criteria similar to  that  referenced In
 Subpart  B of  this part for monitoring
 a pollutant for which  a  National Am-
 bient Air Quality Standard doe* not
 extol. Such an action  would be taken
 whenever  the Administrator  deter-
 mine* that a  nationwide monitoring
 program  to necessary to  monitor such
 a pollutant.
 ArrcMDix A—QUALITY ASSURANCE Rg-
    qoiaKMDTTS  roa STATS; AND LOCAL
    AIM     MONITOBINO     STATIONS
    (SLAMS)

 1. General Information
  This  Appendix  specifies the  minimum
 quality  auurance requirements applicable
 to SLAMS air monitoring dala lubmltled lo
 EPA. Slate* are encouraged lo develop and
 maintain quality auurance program* more
 extensive than Ihe required minimum.
  Quality  auurance of air monitoring ayi-
 lenu  Include* two distinct and Important
 Interrelated function*. One function I* Ihe
 control   of  Ihe  measurement   proceai
                       PI. M, Aftg>. A

Ihroufh  the  Implementation of pollcle*.
procedure*, and  corrective  action*.  The
other function It the aateument of  the
quality of Ihe monllorlng dala (Ihe product
of the measurement proceu). In general.
the greater the effort effectiveness oC the
control of a given monitoring lystem. the
belter will be Ihe mulling quallly of Ihe
monitoring data. The reiull* of date quality
assessments Indicate whether Ihe control ef-
fort* need lo be Increased.
  Documentation of the quality a**e**menU
of the monltorlnt dala I* Important lo dala
user*, who can then coiulder the Impacl of
Ihe dala quallly In specific application* <*ee
Reference II. Accordingly,  assessment* of
SLAMS dala quality are required to be re
ported lo EPA periodically.
  To provide national uniformity In this a*-
aeumenl and  reporting of dala quality for
all  SLAMS network*, specific  auewmenl
and reporllni procedure* are prescribed In
detail In section* 3. 4. and 6 of this Appen-
dix.
  In contrast, the control function encom-
passes a variety of pollcle*. procedure*, spec-
ification*, standards, and corrective  meas-
ures which affect the quality of  the result-
ing dala. The selection and extent of the
quallly control activities-** well as  addl-
Uonal quallly assessment activities—used by
a monitoring agency depend on a number of
local factor* such a* the field and laborato-
ry condition*, the objective* of the monitor-
ing, the level of the data quality needed, the
eipertlse of assigned personnel, the cost of
control procedure*, pollutant concentration
level*, etc. Therefore, the quality aamirance
requirement*.  In tecllon 2 of this Appendix.
are specified In general term* lo  allow each
Stale lo develop a quallly auurance *y*tem
lhat b most efficient and effective for II*
own clrcunulance*.
2. Quality Assurance Rtquirtmenlt
  2.1 Each State must develop and Imple-
ment a quallly assurance program consist-
Ing of  pollcle*. procedure*,  specifications.
standards and documentation necessary lo:
 (II Provide  dala of adequate  quality to
meet monitoring objectives, and
 (2) Minimize loss of air quality dala due to
malfunctions or out ot control condlllon*.
 Thl* quallly assurance program must be
described In detail,  suitably documented,
and approved  by Ihe appropriate- Regional
Administrator, or  hi* deslgnee. The Quallly
Auurance Program will be reviewed during
Ihe annual system audll described In section

  2.2 Primary guidance for developing Ihe
quallly  assurance program I* contained In
References  2  and 1. which also  contain
many  suggested  procedure*, check*, and
control specifications. Section 2.0.9 of Refer-
ence 3 describes specific guidance for Ihe de-
                                                                                 137

-------
Pt. 5», App. A

velopmenl ol • Quallly Assurance Program
lor SLAMS automated analyzers. Many ape
title quality control check* and specif lea
lion*  lor manual methods are Included In
the respective  reference method! described
In Part M ol thli chapter or In the respec
tlve equivalent method description* avail
able from EPA Csee Reference  41. Similarly.
quality control procedui rs related to specif!
cally  designated reference and  equivalent
analyzer* are contained In the respective op
eiatlon and Instrutllon manuals associated
•Ith  those analysers This guidance,  and
any other pertinent Information from ap-
propriate sources,  should be  used  by the
Stales In developing their  quality assurance
programs
  Aa  a minimum,  each  quality assurance
program  must  Include  operational  proce
durea lor each ol the following  activities:
  (I)  Selection ol  methods,  analysers, or
samplers;
  (31 Training;
  (I) Installation ol equipment;
  441  Selection and control of  calibration
standards;
  ((> Calibration;
  l» Zero/span checks and adjustment* of
automated analysers:
  17) Control checks and their frequency;
  (•> Control limits for zero, span and other
control check*, and respective corrective ac-
tion* when such limit* are surpassed:
  (»)  Calibration and sero/span  check* for
multiple range analyzer* (see Section 1« of
Appendix C ol this part);
   CRM's are described In Refer
ence  1. and a  Uat  ol CRM source* I* avail-
able  from  the Quality  Assurance Division
(Ml>  77). environmental  Monitoring By*
temi  laboratory.  US  Environmental Pro-
tection Agency. Research Triangle Park. NC
mil
  (irneral guldanre and recommended lech
nlques for certifying gaseous working stsnd
arrU  sgaliul an SHM or  CflM sre provided
In section 10 T of  Reference I  Direct use of
 a CUM as a working standard la acceptable.
          40 CM Ch. I (7-l-M Edition)

but direct use of an NHS 8RM as a working
standard Is discouraged because ol the limit-
ed supply and eipense of SRMs.
  2.3.1 Test concentrations for O, must be
obtained In accordsnce with the UV photo
metric calibration procedure specified In Ap
pencil» D of Part SO of this chapter, or by
mean* of a certified ozone transfer stand
ard  Consult References < and 1  for guid-
ance on primary and transfer standards for
O,
  111 Flow  rate measurement* must  be
made by a flow measuring Instrument that
la  traceable to an authoritative volume or
other  standard.  Guidance  for  certifying
some types of flowmeterc Is provided In Ref-
erence 1.
  3.4  National  Performance  and System
Audit Programs
  Agencies  operating SLAMS network  sta-
tion* ihall be subject,  to annual  EPA *y*
lent* audit* ol their ambient air monitoring
program  and are  required to  participate In
EPA'*  National  Performance Audit  Pro-
gram These audits are described In section
I.4.U of Reference 2 and section JO. 11 ol
Reference  I.  for  Instruction*,   agencies
should contact either the appropriate EPA
Regional Quality  Assurance Coordinator or
the Quality Assurance Division (MD-77BI.
Environmental Monitoring System* Labora-
tory,   US.   Environmental  Protection
Agency. Research Triangle Park.  NC 27711.
1. Mrs Qualify Aiitnmtnl fteaMlrrments
  All ambient monitoring methods or ana-
lysers used In SLAMS shall be tested peri-
odically,  a* described In  this section I. lo
quantitatively  assess the quality  of  the
SLAMS  data  being  routinely  produced.
Measurement accuracy and precision are es-
timated  lor both automated and manual
methods. The Individual results  ol these
teat* lor each method or analyser shall be
reported lo EPA  a*  specllled In  section 4.
EPA will then calculate quarterly Integrat-
ed estimates ol precision and accuracy appli-
cable lo  the SLAMS data a* described In
section I Data assessment result* should be
reported to EPA only lor method* and ana
lyaen approved for use In 8I.AM8 monitor-
Ing under Appendlk C ol this Part.
  The Integrated data quality asseaament es-
timates will be calculated on the basl* ol
"reporting organizations." A reporting orga-
nization  Is dellned as a Slate, (ubordlnate
organisation within a Slate, or other organi-
sation that la responsible lor a set of sta-
tion* that monitor the same  pollutant and
lor which precision or accuracy asseasment*
can be pooled.  States must dellne one or
more reporting organizations for  each pol
lutant such Ihat each monitoring  station In
the Stale SI.AM8 network  Is Included In
one. and only one. reporting organization.
                                        138
 fnvvrvfiamnt*! froloction Afjwncy

  Each reporting organisation shall be de-
 fined such Ihat prectolon or accuracy among
 all elation* In the organisation  can be e«-
 pected to be reasonably homogeneous, a* a
 result ol common factor*. Common  factor*
 Ihat should be considered by Stale* In de
 fining reporting organization* Include: (I)
 operation by a common team ol field opera-
 Ion. tl> common calibration facilities, and
 (11 support  by  a common laboratory or
 headquarter*. Where there I* uncertainty In
 defining the reporting organization* or In
 assigning apeclllc alte* to reporting organi-
 sations. State* (hall consult with the appro-
 priate EPA Regional Office lor guidance.
 All definition* of reporting organisations
 (hall be subject to final approval by the ap-
 propriate EPA Regional Office.
  Assessment results  shall be reported M
 specified In aecllon  4. Concentration  and
 flow standard* muat be a* specified  an sec-
 tion*  1.1 or 1.4. In addition, working *tend
 ard*  and  equipment u*ed  lor accuracy
 audit* mint not be the same standard* and
 equipment used  for  routine  calibration.
 Concentration measurement* reported Irom
 analyser* or analytical *yatem* (Indicated
 concentration*) should be baaed on stable
 readings and muat be derived by means of
 the same calibration curve and data process-
 ing lystem u*ed to obtain the routine air
 monitoring data (see  Reference I. page n,
 and Reference I. section }•• I Md». Table
 A-1 provide* a summary ol the  minimum
 data  quality  assessment  requirement*.
 which arc described  In more detail to the
 following section*.
  I.I  Prectolon of Automated Method*. A
 one-point predated check must  be  carried
 out at toast once every two week* on each
 automated analyser used lo measure 8O>.
 NO*  O. and CO. The precision check la
 mad* by challenging the analyser  with a
 precision check, gas of known concentration
 between  ••! and •.!• ppm for  SO* NO,,
 and Oi analyser*, and between I and  !• ppm
 for CO analysers. To check the precision ol
SLAMS  analyser*  operating on  range*
 higher than • to !.• ppm SO.. NO., and O».
or • to IM ppm lor CO. me prectolon check
gases of appropriately higher concentration
 a* approved  by  the   appropriate Regional
 Administrator or his deslgnee. However, the
 results ol prectolon check* at concentration
 level* other than those shown above need
 not be reported lo EPA. The standard* Irom
 which prectolon  check test  concentration*
 are obtained must meet the specifications of
section 11
  Except for certain CO analyzers described
below, analysers  must operate  In their
 normal sampling mode during the prectolon
check, and the lest atmosphere  must pas*
through  all tillers, scrubbers, conditioner*
and other components used  during normal
 ambient (Ampllng and a* much ol the amM-
enl air Inlet system as to practicable. If per-
                          ft. 5i. Apr*. A

 milled by Ihe associated  operation  or In
 •Iructkm manual, a  CO analyser  may be
 temporarily  modified during Ihe precision
 check lo reduce vent or purge flows,  or the
 test atmosphere may enter the analyser at a
 point other  than the normal sample Inlet.
 provided fAsf the analyzer's response Is not
 likely to be altered by these deviations Irom
 the normal operational mode. If • prectolon
 check to made In conjunction with a sero or
 span adjustment. It must be made prior to
 such sero or apan adjustments. Randomiza-
 tion of the prectolon  check with respect to
 time ol day. day ol week, and routine service
 and adjustment* to encouraged where possi-
 ble.
  Report Ihe actual concenlrallon*  of  Ihe
 prectolon check gas and Ihe corresponding
 concenlratloruj Indicated by the analyser.
 The percent  dlllerence* between these con-
 centration* are used lo asses* Ihe prectolon
 of the monitoring data  a* described In sec-
 tion B.I.
  3.2  Accuracy ol  Automated  Method*.
 Each calendar quarter (during which ana-
 lyzers are  operated),  audll al least 2ft per-
 cent of the SLAMS analyzers that monitor
 for SO,. NO,. Oi. or CO such that each ana-
 lyser to  audited al least once  per year. If
 there  are fewer than four analyzer* for •
 pollutant within a reporting organization.
 randomly reaudlt one or more analysers so
 that at least  one analyser for that pollutant
 to audited each calendar quarter.  Where
 possible. EPA strongly encourages more fre-
 quent auditing, up lo  an audit frequency of
 once per quarter for each SLAMS analyser.
  The audit to made by challenging the ana-
 lyser with  at least one audit gas ot known
 concentration from each of the following
 ranges that  fall within the measurement
 range of the analyser being audited:
                 SO,. 0,
                 (1*020

                 «*
                            NO.
*(9-«0*
*I*-OM
OM-O4I
                                     CO
                                      a-(
                                     It-M
  NO, audll ga* for chemllumlnescence type
NO, analysers must  atoo contain al  least
0 og ppm NO.
  NOTE  NO  concentration*  substantially
higher than 0 Og ppm. as may occur  when
using some ga* phase tltratlon (OPT* tech-
nique*, may lead lo audit error* In chemllu
mlneacence  analyser* due  to Inevitable
minor NO NO. channel Imbalance.  Such
error* may be atypical ol routine monitor-
ing errors to the eitent lhal such NO con
centratkm* exceed typical ambient NO con-
cenlrallon* al  Ihe site. These error* may be
minimized by modifying the OPT technique
                                                                                                                                   139

-------
Pi. 5«, Apt). A

lo lower  the NO concentrations remaining
In the NO, audit gas In level* clowr to typl
cal ambient NO concentrations at the site.
  To audit SLAMS analyser* operating on
ranges higher than O to 10 ppm for SO,.
NO,, and O> or 0 to 100 ppm for CO. use
audit gases of appropriately higher concen
tratlon a* approved by the appropriate Re-
gional  Administrator or  his deslgnee. The
results of audits at concentration  levels
other than those shown In the above table
need not  be reported to EPA.
  The standards from which audit gas test
concentrations are obtained must meet the
specification* of  section  2.3.  Working or
transfer standards and equipment used lor
auditing must not be the same a* the stand-
ards and  equipment used for calibration and
•panning, but may  be referenced to the
same NBS 8RM. CRM. or primary UV ph*
tomeler.  The auditor should not be the op-
erator or  analyst who conduct* the routine
monitoring, calibration, and analysis.
  The audit shall be carried out by allowing
the analyzer to analyze the audit  test at-
mosphere In It* normal sampling mode such
that the  test atmosphere passe* through all
tiller*, acrubben. conditioner*,  and  other
•ample   Inlet  component*  used  during
normal ambient sampling and a* much of
the ambient air Inlet system a* Is practica-
ble. The CKcepllon given In section 1.1  for
certain CO analysers  doe* not apply  for
audit*.
  Report both the audit te*t concentrations
and (he corresponding concentration  meas-
urement* Indicated or produced by the ana-
lyser being tested. The percent differences
between  these  concentrations are used lo
assess  the accuracy of the monitoring data
a* described In section 6.1.
  1.1 Precision  of Manual Methods. For
each network of manual methods, select one
or more  monitoring sites within the report-
ing  organisation for duplicate, collocated
sampling u follows:  for I U> I site*, select  I
site; for t to M sites, select 1 sites: and for
ovei 20 tile*, selecl 1 site* Where possible.
additional collocated campling  I*  encour-
aged. For parlfeulale matter, a network for
measuring PM»  shall  be separate  from  a
T8P network  Site* having annual  mean
paniculate  matter  concrntrallons among
the hlghesl 16  percent of the annual mean
concentrations  for all the sites In the net-
work must be selected or. If such sites are
Impractical, alternate tiles approved by the
Regional AdminUlralor may be selecled.
  In determining the number of collocated
•lie* required, monitoring networks for Pb
should be treated Independently  from net-
work*  for parllculale matter, even though
the separate networks may share one or
more common  samplers. However, a  single
pair of samplers collocated at a common
sampler  monitoring  site that meets the re-
quirements  for both a  collocated lead site
          40 Crt Ch. I (7-l-M Edition)

and • collocated parllculale matter site may
serve as a collocated site for both networks.
  The two  collocated  samplers must  be
within 4 meters of each other, and parllcu
late  matter samplers  must be  at least  2
meters apart to preclude airflow Interfer-
ence. Calibration,  sampling and analysis
must be  the same for both collocated sam-
plers and the same as for all olher samplers
In ihe network
  For each pair of collocated samplers, des
Ignate one sampler as Ihe primary sampler
whose sample* will be used to report  air
quality for the  slle. and designate the other
a* the duplicate sampler. Each duplicate
sampler must be operated concurrently with
II* associated routine sampler at least once
per week. The operation schedule should be
•elected so thai Ihe sampling days are dls-
trlbuled  evenly over the year and over the
seven days of  the week. The  every 0 day
schedule used by many monitoring agencies
I* recommended. Report  the measurements
from both (ampler* at each collocated sam-
pling slle.  Including measurement*  falling
below the limits specified In S.I  I. The per
cent differences In  measured concentration
(|ig/m')  between Ihe two collocated sam-
plers are used to calculate precision as  de-
scribed In section 6.J.
  1.4  Accuracy  of  Manual  Method*. The
accuracy of manual sampling methods Is as
seated by auditing a portion of Ihe measure-
menl process. For parllculale mailer meth
ods,  Ihe  flow rale  during sample collection
Is sudlled. For SO, and  NO, method.. Ihe
analytical measurement Is audited. For Pb
methods. Ihe flow rale  and analytical meas-
urement are audited.
  1.4.1 Paniculate  mailer method*.  Each
calendar quarter, audit the  flow rate of at
least M percent of the samplers such thai
each  sampler I* audited si  least once per
year. If there are fewer than four samplers
within a reporting organization, randomly
rcaudll one or  more samplers so that one
sampler  Is audited each calendar quarter.
Audit each sampler al  IU normal operallng
flow rale, using a flow rate  transfer stand
ard as described In section 11.1. The How
rale standard used for auditing must not be
the same flow  rale standard used lo call
brale ihe (ampler.  However, both the call
brallon standard and  the audll standard
may be referenced to Ihe same primary Ho*
rale standard.  The flow audit  should be
scheduled so as lo avoid Inlerference with a
scheduled sampling period. Report the audit
flow rates and the corresponding flow rates
Indicated by the sampler's  normally used
flow Indicator.  The percent  differences  be-
tween these How rates are used to calculate
accuracy as described In section 5.4.1.
  Orcal cafe must be used In auditing htfn
volume paniculate  matter samplers havlnf
flow regulators because the  Introduction ol
                                        140
 Environmental Protection Agency

 resUUnce plate* In the audll flow standard
 device can cause abnormal flow pattern* at
 the point of flow sensing. For this reason.
 the How audll standard should be used with
 a normal filler  In place and without reslsl-
 ance plates In auditing now-regulated high-
 volume samplers, or  other steps should be
 taken lo  assure that How patterns are not
 perturbed at the point of now sensing.
   1.4.2  SO, Methods.  Prepare  audit solu
 lions from a working sulflte tetrachloromer-
 curate (TCM) solution as described In sec-
 tion 10.2 of the SO, Reference Method (Ap-
 pendli A of Part 60 of thl* chapter). These
 audit samples must be prepared Independ-
 ently  from the  standardized aulflle solu-
 tions used In the routine calibration proce-
 dure. Sulflle TCM audit  samples must be
 stored between  0 and i  *C  and expire M
 days after preparation.
   Prepare audit samples In each of the con-
 centration ranges of 0.2-4.1. 0.0-0.0. and 0.0-
 00 ft BOi/ml. Analyse an audit sample In
 each of the three ranges at least once each
 dsy that samples are analysed and at least
 twice per calendar quarter. Report the audit
 concentrations tin fig 8O>/ml) and the cor-
 responding Indicated  concentrations (In ft
 8O,/ml).  The percent differences between
 these concentrations  are  used to calculate
 accuracy as described In section 1.4.1.
  1.4.1 NO, Methods. Prepare audit solu-
 tions from a working sodium nitrite solution
 as described In  the appropriate equivalent
 method (see Reference 4). These audll sam-
 ples must be prepared Independently from
 the  standardised nitrite solutions used In
 the  rojllne calibration procedure. Sodium
 nitrite audit samples  expire  In  1  months
 after preparation. Prepare audit samples In
 each of the concentration ranges of 0.2-O.1.
 O.B-0.0. and 0.0-0.0 M NO,/ml. Analyse an
 audit sample In each of the three ranges at
 least once each  day that  samples are ana-
 lysed and al least twice per calendar quar-
 ter. Report the audit concentrations (In pg
 NO>/mll and  the corresponding Indicated
 concentration* (In pg NO,/ml». The percent
 difference*  between  these  concentrations
 are used to calculate  accuracy as described
 In section 1.4.2.
  1.4.4 Pb Methods. For the Pb Reference
 Method (Appendix O of Part 60  of this
 chapter), the How rates of the high-volume
 Pb samplers shall be audited as part of  the
 T8P network using Ihe same procedures de-
 scribed In Section 1.4.1. For agencies operal-
 lng both TSP and Pb network*. 26 percent
 of Ihe lotal number  of high-volume sam-
plers are to be audited each quarter.
  Each calendar  quarter, audit the Pb Ref-
erence Melhod analytical procedure  using
glass liber filter strips containing a known
quantity  of Pb.  These audit sample atrip*
are prepared by depositing a Pb solution on
 1.0 cm by  203 cm IK Inch by 0 Inch) unex-
po*ed glass  liber filter strips  and allowing
                          Pt. St. App. A

 them lo dry thoroughly. The audit sample*
 must be prepared using batches of reagents
 different from those used lo calibrate the
 Pb analytical equipment being audited. Pre-
 pare audll samples In Ihe  following concen-
 tration range*:
                          IOO-300
                         •00-1000
OS-IS
30-SO
 •nsvnstnaM I 7 mVmn te> 24 Mus on • 203 cm«J54
 a* (• nch » 10 rent gttu Mm MMT

   Audll samples must be extracted using the
 same extraction procedure used for exposed
 fillers.
   Analyze  three  audit samples In each of
 the two ranges  each quarter samples are
 analysed. The audll sample analyses shall
 be distributed as much as possible over the
 entire calendar quarter. Report  the audit
 concentrations  and the cor-
 responding measured concentrations (In pg
 Pb/strlp) using unll code 77. The percent
 difference* between the concentrations  are
 used lo calculate analytical accuracy as de-
 scribed In section 6.4.2.
  The accuracy of an equivalent Pb method
 Is assessed  In the same manner as for  the
 reference method. The flow auditing device
 and Pb analysis audll samples must be com-
 patible with the specific requirements of the
 equivalent method.
 4. Jteporfinv Requirement
  For  each pollutant, prepare a 11*1 of all
 monitoring sites and  their  8AROAO site
 tdenllflcallon codes In each reporting orga-
 nisation and submit Ihe list to the appropri-
 ate EPA Regional Office, with a copy  to the
 Environmental Monitoring Systems Labora-
 tory (MD-76). U.8. Environmental Prolec-
 tlon Agency. Research Triangle Park. North
 Carolina  27711  (EMSL/RTP).  Whenever
 there U a change In this list of monitoring
 sites In a reporting  organisation, report this
 change lo  Ihe  Regional Office  and  lo
 EMSL/RTP.
  4.1  Quarterly Reports. Within 120 calen
 dar  days after the end of  each calendar
 quarter,  each reporting organization shall
 report to EMSL/RTP via  the appropriate
 EPA Regional Office the result* of alt valid
precision and accuracy tests  It has carried
out during the quarter. Report all collocat-
ed  measurements Including  those falling
below the levels specified In section 6.1 I Do
not report  result* from Invalid lest*, from
tests carried out  during a  time period for
which  ambient data Immediately  prior  or
subsequent to Ihe tests were Invalidated for
                                                                                                                                     141

-------
   PI. 51, At>|>. A

   appropriate reasons, or from leal* of melh
   od*  or analyzer* not  approved for use  In
   BLAM8 monitoring networks under Appen
   din C ol thb part.
    Quarterly report* as specified herein shsll
   commence not later than the report pertain
   Ing to the first calendar quarter of  1087. al
   though luch report*  will be accepted begin-
  ning with the report  pertaining to the third
  calendar quarter of IM6.
    The  Information ahould be reported In a
  format similar lo that shown In Figures A I
  and A-J  The data may be reported (I) via
  magnetic computer tape  according  to  data
  f01 mat specifications provided  by the  Re-
  gional Office*.  or  computer generated (fac-
  simile) form* may also be used, provided
  they  follow the  same general format, use
  the same block number*, and are clear and
 completely  legible. Instructions for using
 these form* an provided In section 4.1.
   Within 240 days after the end of  the re-
 porting quarter. EPA will calculate Integrat-
 ed precblon and accuracy assessment* for
 each reporting organization as specified In
 section  S and return, through the Regional
 Office*, report*  of the respective  aaseai-
 menta to each reporting organization.
   41  Annual Report*. When precblon and
 accuracy eatlmales  for a reporting organiza-
 tion have been calculated for all four quar-
 ter* of the calendar year. EPA will calculate
 the properly weighted probability limit* for
 precision and accuracy for the entire calen-
 dar year. These limit* will then be asaoclat
 ed with the data submitted In  the annual
 8I.AM8 report required by I 6l.2f.
   Each reporting  organization shall submit.
 along with II* annual SLAMS report, a list
 Ing by pollutant  of all monitoring site*  In
 the reporting organization.
  43  Instructions for Using Data Quality
 Aaseaament  Reporting  Forms.   Suggested
forms for reporting data  quality assessment
Information are provided In Figure A-l (for
reporting accuracy  dalal and  Figure A-J
(for  reporting precision  data)  The  forms
may be uaed In a "universal" way to report
data for different pollutants and  for differ-
ent vltea on the same form. Or. either form
may be used as a site specific or  pollutant
apeclflc form (where all entries on the form
are for a common site,  a common pollutant.
or both) by filling In the site or pollutant In
 formation  In the appropriate  bos In the
upper  left corner  of the  form IVtallrd In
dilution! for Individual  block!  are aa lol
Iowa:
  Instructions common to bottt lorins.          33


                                         142
    Block No
   I 2
   3 S
             40 Cm Ch. I (7-l-M edition)
   SUM  Iho hvo fk|p1 SAflOAD Sloto codo
   nopomna O0aw«licM> A UHKIUO 3 dqpl codo
    olttgnod by ooch Slilo lo ••eft ol *•
    fotpockvo foporfcng ofponu aliani
   Vow  (Ml IW> *»'• •» do fOtondbl V0*f
    conMpondkng lo do  ouoftoi  niocdWd o»
                                              Invlrwnp)i«nlol frolwctton
             Ouonoi Em* I. 1. 3. n 4 to lokv to do
              rolondoi laioitoi *««ig  «rticn  do data
              ojMkly OMOtomonli voio obkvnod
             fnta  I • ta onpnot ououmonl dolo. "2"
              to iOtf*a OMottmonl dolo piOMOuoly o^-
              IMMd. OJ "3" to 
              tod MMunwil lUla Whon a "I' • on-
              Mod. only Uockt I u 2* nMd bo ax*
    Also enter Hie name of the reporting orga
  ntzatlon. the date  the form  Is  submitted.
  and (optionally) the name of  the person
  who prepared the form on the  blank* pro-
  vided.
                                                                               Oo»ci»ikuii
               lonl l AduoJ Entot do octuat conconkMon
                doloiiijiod ken d> oi^l ManiHn) to do
                opp.upn.» btocki ««i IOOJMCI to do oio-
                cododdooo
                                                         btocko Md roopoet to do atocadod doet-
                                                         Ml port
                                                        LOM! 2 Emw do actual ond marnn can
                                                      •  eonookona far aud» toool 2. * on* otto
                                             3441     I lo>*k) 3 ond 4 *) oookcobtol On do oooonol
                                                         kno. ontoi do octool ond oidirolirl ooncon-
                                                         Hokono tof •«•• «—•  •"-'  -
                            fl. M, A*>|». A

 od*  are  calrulaled from the  results of  bl
 weekly precision checks as specified In sec
 lion 3.1.  At the end of each calendar quar-
 ter,  an Integrated precision probability In-
 terval lor all SLAMS analyzer* In the orga
 nlzallon I* calculated for each pollutant.
  t.l.l  Single Analyzer  Preclalon. The per-
 centage difference  (d,l  tor each  precision
 check b calculated using equation I. where
 Y, I* the concentration Indicated by the ana-
 lyzer for  the I Ih precision check and X,  b
 the known concentration for the l-th precl
slon check.
                                              Additional Instruction! for Precision form
                                            (Figure A »>:
                                                                                                                          x  100
                                                                                                                                        (1)
   Mock No
 14
 MM
                        Dotcnpkon
 S«o EnMf do SAHOAO Mo idoiikbtokmi
   coat tfm * <*»'• only) II ol onktot on
   do ton* 010 tof do 101110 MO. ontof do
   MO cod. and  MO •tonbficooon in da
   i4¥Mf to! cornw of do term Atoo OMCk
   do stock n do conn ol do  bm ond
   tooM do odd  btocM 10 M II on do
   ton*btonk
 Modod  Coda Enloi  do  immi iin»<
   modod codo kom do  bock ol do ton*
   Abo ontoi do poojom lymbol (oa. SO,.
   CO ISP. olc ) on do btar* u do loll ol
   btock No  21 I oS onkm on do ton* oro
   tof do  oomo mdod. ontot  do codo.
   oymboi ond modod >l»*fc.»U»< n do
   too* bo* n do 1(901  loll corn* ol do
   ton* AMo chock do btock •> do comoi at
   do bo. and too»o do odo> btocM 21 to
   13 on do tarn btonk
 Flocodod •«* On -A" or 0  f
 Ooto Entoi  do mond md doy ol do tool
  Additional Instructions for Accuracy form
(Figure A  I):
 Slock Ho
30



31 32
   Enloi  "I" 4 lio fopurhng Ofgonuikon
  conductod do ««ki ond ohx> nrkkod do
  ouM uwxted uMd ontoi  2  i nm Ivor1
  ng oiaonuokon coxluctad do  muM bill
  «na ofaani>«kcin
S EnM do oodo lonoi ol do KUCO ol •»
  tout primon/ Mmdord UMd kom do tol
  on do lorm
um cod.  EM«i *. uri cod* <».<>«, kon
  d« i»^ coo* ktl on lh« loim (UM only d*
  com Iflod) Alto OTIU « •« urM on •«
  "«^ u do ton ol Uict 31
 f*caoVI wifh • Q • ot • | •
                                                                                           For each analyzer, the quarterly average
                                                                                         (d,» b calculated with equation I. and the
                                                                                         standard deviation  (8,1  with  equation  1,
                                                                                         where n b the
                                                          	 _..., muouon  z, and the
                               	   standard deviation (S,) with  equation 3,
             UM Codo Entot do loot cooo numbot ion   where n b the number of precblon check*
              do »M codo lot on do km* M* on* do   on the Instrument made during the calendar
              COON kuod) AIM onto « do MM on do   quarter.  For example, n should be 4) or 7 If
              stank to do to* oi buck 3i              precision check* are made biweekly during a
             Actual of p«™,.  Frojr do  MOJO *>  do   quarter
              knoMi to»'     <*okon ot do ogncomta-
                                                                       a Ouokrato. Em
                                                                 oonconbokon »Mli.omonl ban do ana
                                                                 *Mf at do dwkcoto coSoctod mi»lli to
                                                                 do onf»o|»nto btocki wd ni>icl la do
                                    	                           n
                         M do onmiiy btmptat to                      I    .               f y \
              do approofioM stocks Mn foapoc* to do               -      J'/d          *£'

                                                                 n  i=l  df


                                                                                      (J)
                                	         .   /    r«               ^       n
 • Cmlcmlmlioiu for Data Qualltt 4iteiiment   $« •  A/STlliii   I   -  ^  '.*   *|'*|
   Calculation of estimates of Integrated pre-    '     V      L1         "1*1      J
 cblon and accuracy are carried out by  EPA
 according to the following  procedure*. Re-     ••'•> Precblon for  Reporting  Organtza-
 porttng organizations should report the re-    "«>  for each  pollutant, the average of
 rail* of Individual precblon and accuracy    averages (D) and the pooled standard devl
 tests a* specified In section* J and 4 even   •««*» <8.l are calculated for all analyzers au
 though they may elect lo carry out some or   dlled for  the pollutant during  the quarter.
 all of the calculation* In  thb section on   mine either equation* 4 and S or 4a and 5a,
 their own.                                   where  k b the number of analyzer* audited
  •J  Precblon of Automated Method*. Ea-   within   the  reporting  organization  for  a
tunates of the precblon of automated melh-   alngle pollutant.
                                                                                           H3

-------
 Ft. S*. APp. A
                                        40 CH Ch. I (7-l-M Edition)



                                             (4)
nd
                ,,
                         nad2
                    n,  *
                             v-
                                                                             <4a)
                            S.
                                             (5)
                           (n, -
                                                         * (nk ' 1)Sk
                            n,  «
Equations 4 and i are used when the tame
number ol precUlon checks are made lor
each analyser. Equations 4a and 6a are used
to obtain a weighted average and a weighted
standard deviation when different numbers
of precision checks are made for the analys-
ers.
  For each pollutant, the 95 Percent Proba-
bility Utniu for the precision of a reporting
organization are calculated using equations
• and 7.
                                                               -  k
                               S 2.2  Accuracy for Reporting Organiza-
                             tion. For each audit concentration level, the
                             average (D) of the Individual percentage dif-
                             ferences (d,) for all  n analyzer* measuring a
                             given pollutant audited during the quarter
                             la calculated using equation •.
    n
1   I
n  1=1
                                                                  (8)
  Upper  M  Prrcent  Probability
    Until = U i I •« 8. ..........................
  Lower  aft  Percent  Probability
    Until »U  IMS. .........................
                             For each concentration level. Ihe standard
                        <4>   deviation (8.» of all the Individual percent-
                             age  differences for  all  analyzers  audited
                        (7)   during the quarter Is calculated, for each
                             pollutant, using equation 5.
  & 1  Accuracy of Automated Methods. Es
tlmalea ol the accuracy of automated meth-
ods are calculated from the results of Inde-
pendent audits as described In section 3.2 At
Ihr end of each calendar quaiur. an Inle
grated accuracy probability Interval  for all
SLAMS analyzers audited In the reporting
omanlzallon  Is calculated for each  pollul-
uit Separate probability limits are calculat-
ed for each audit concentration level In sec-
tion 32.
  S 2.1  Single Analyzer Accuracy. The per
crnlage difference (d,l (or each audit con
n Miration  is  calculated  using equation I.
win-re Y, Is I he analyzer's Indicated concen-
tration  measurement  from  the  l-lh audit
rhi-rk and X, Is the actual concentration of
I IK- audit nas  used lor the I Ih audit check
                             For reporting organizations having four or
                             fewer analyzers for a particular pollutant.
                             only one audit Is required each quarter, and
                             the average and standard deviation cannot
                             be calculated. For such  reporting organlza
                             lions, the audit results  of  two consecutive
                             quarters are  required to calculate  an aver-
                             age and a  standard  deviation,  using equa
                             tlonc <  and 0 Therefore,  the reporting of
                             probability limits shall be on a semiannual
                             (Instead of a quarterly) basis.
                                        144
 InvkwnaMittal Protection Agoncy

  For each pollutant, the •» Percent Proba-
 bility Umlls for the accuracy of a reporting
 organization are calculated  at each audit
 concentration level using equations • and 7.
  5.3 Precision of Manual Methods.  Esti-
 mate* of precision of manual  methods are
 calculated from  Ihe  results obtained  from
 collocated samplers as described In section
 1.3. Al the end of each calendar quarter, an
 Integrated precision probability Interval for
 all collocated samplers operating In the  re-
 porting organization  Is calculated for each
 manual method network.
  5.1.1  Single  Sampler  Precision.  At tow
 concentrations,   agreement  between  the
 measurements  of collocated samplers, em-
 pressed a* percent differences,  may be rela-
 tively  poor. For  this  reason,  collocated
 measurement pairs are selected for use In
 the  precision calculations  only when  both
 measurements  are  above the following
 limit*
  T8P:30|»g/0i*.
  80,: 45 Kg/m •.
  NO,: 30 pg/m >.
  Pb: • 15 pg/m •. and
                                                                                           For each selected measurement pair,  the
                                                                                           percent difference (d,) la calculated, using
                                                                                           equation If.
                  _
               *  Xj)/Z
                           x  100
                                                                                                                (10)
Where  y(  to  the pollutant concentration
measurement  obtained from the duplicate
sampler and X la the concentration meas-
urement obtained from the primary sampler
designated for reporting air quality for the
site. For each site,  the quarterly average
percent difference (d,) Is  calculated from
equation 2 and the standard deviation (8,1 Is
calculated  from equation  I. where n-the
number of selected  measurement pain at
the site.
  5.3.2 Precision  for  Reporting  Organisa-
tion. For each pollutant, the average  per-
centage  difference   and  the  pooled
standard deviation <8.) are  calculated, using
equations 4 and t. or using equations 4a and
6a If different numbers of paired measure-
menu are obtained at the collocated sites.
For these calculations, the k of equations 4.
4a.  I  and 6a  Is the number of collocated
sites.
  The 95 Percent Probability Umlls for the
Integrated precision for a reporting organi-
sation are calculated using equations 11 and
12.
  Upper  9&  Percent  Probability
   Umlt = Di I.MS./V2	
                                                                                                                                (Ill
                                                                                                                                                                Ft! St, App. A
                                                                                                                                         Lower  •&  Percent  Probability
                                                                                                                                          Umlt.D I.M8./V2	
                                                                                                                                                                            (12)
   6.4  Accuracy of Manual Methods. Esti-
 mates of the accuracy of  manual  method*
 are calculated from the results of Independ-
 ent audits as described In Section 3.4. Al the
 end of each calendar quarter, an Integrated
 accuracy probability Interval la calculated
 for each manual method network operated
 by the reporting organization.
   5.4.1  Paniculate  Matter  Samplers (In-
 cluding reference method Pb samplers).
   (li Single Sampler Accuracy. For the flow
 rate audit  described In Section 1.4.1. the
 percentage  difference (d,)  for each audit la
 calculated using equation I. where X, repre-
 sents the known flow rate and Y, repreaenta
 the How rale Indicated by Ihe sampler.
   (b) Accuracy /or Reporting  Organization
 For each type of particular mailer meas-
 ured 
 of Ihe Individual percent differences at each
concentration level for all audits during the
calendar quarter Is calculated using equa
tlon 5. The  standard deviation (8.) of the
 percentage  differences  at  each concentra-
 tion level lor all audits during the calendar
quarter Is rale-dialed using  equation ft. The
 B5 percent probability limits for the accura
cy for the reporting organization are calcu
 laled iisliiK equations t and  7
                                                                                                                                   145

-------
ft. St, App. A

Jte/ercncM
  I. Rhode*. R.C. Ouldcllne on the Mcuilni
and Use ol Precision and Accuracy Data Re-
quired by 40 CFR Part M Appendlcea A and
B.  EPA MO/4 U/OU. US  EnvlronmenUI
Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park.
NC 27711, June. IBB3.
  > •'Quality  AMurance  Handbook for Air
Pollution  Measurement  System*.  Volume
I-Principle*."  EPA «OO/« 7*005   March
l»7i.  Available  from U.S.  environmental
Protection Agency, Environmental Monitor
In* Systems Laboratory (UD 77). Research
Triangle Park. NC 27111.
  1. "Quality Aaaurance Handbook for Air
Pollution  Measurement  System*.  Volume
II-Ambient  Alt Specific  Method!." EPA
•00/4-n «27a. May l§7». Available from
VM. Environmental Protection Agency, en-
vironmental Monitoring Systems Laborato-
ry  77).  Research Triangle Park. NC
27711.
          40 Crt Cli. I (7-l-M C«rUn)

  4.  ' U«l  of  Oeilinated Reference  and
Equivalent Method* " Available from  (1.8.
Environmental Protection Agency. Depart-
ment E IMD 71 >. Rewarch Triangle Park
NC 27711
  t. Hughea. EE. and J  Mandel. A Proce-
dure for EilablUhlng Traceablllly of  Qai
Mlilurei  to Certain  National  Bureau of
Standard* 8RM • EPA «W/7 II 010.  Ufl
Environmental   Piolectlon  Agency.   Re
aearch Triangle Park. NC 27711. May. IMI.
(Joint NBS/EPA  Publication)
  • Paur.  R J. and F P. McElroy. Technical
AatUtance Document for the Calibration of
Ambient Otone  Monlton. EPA 600/4-7t-
067. US Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park. NC 27711. Septem-
ber, im
  7. McElroy. KK Tranifer SUndard* for
the Calibration of Ambient Air Monitoring
Analysers  for Oione  EPA-MO/4-7* OM.
UJJ Environmental Protection Agency. Re-
search Triangle Park. NC 27711. September.
1*71.
                                       146
         Af*itcy
         1 MSSMUM DATA AagcgamcNr Hcoumuf HI*
  IOM»toCO|


Cnsoonil Miami
•I


Otacksl
                                                                                                          O»ek
                                                                                                          no • to t8P.
                                                                                                        » One*
                  I IM Ml-* MM.
                  tiM>g-MM«.
                    fat*
                                                                                I f •£*
                                                                                f *Ml>
                                      Mnmum kivmqi
                                    • One* p* yMf.
                                    t E«cM cttandx 
-------
 !«»•>• imCM*
t'-HM Mill
DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT REPORTING FORM

                        W  9   9 i-:
                                                              ACCURACY   2
                                                                             vo
SSt "5? "ST
(ill I "J" "1 (Til
•• " " "


in 1 11IJ1 nil



MM MM II 11



ill! i nil



MM M Mjl


**** *»1 **"
|A| IjIMlll 1 l|ljo|(T
H »» M» ItJIUMJ
SET

1*1 'II Hi II, I ID WIT

BE

Ul 1J!| IMI 1 [[((PHI

EJCE

I*' Ml! I'll i HIM IF

EH]

ui (irnnn mRm

ELTJ
— ll«L
1 UN 1 1

1 Ui II 1

I U Ml
i*«u
1 UI 1 1 1

1 UI M 1

ILI 1 1
UWL
I U i l
LIM1
1 LI M 1

1L| 1 1
UWl
1 U M 1
, ...
II UI 1
«l M M«
M 1 UI 1
4* *l 4*«
11 1 U 1
i
1 M UI 1

M U 1

M U 1

M U i
I
II Ull

L 1 1 Hi
9
II Ml




1
















1
•
I
m


\

1

1

|l



1

U


i»>

»'
I





1

1

1

1

1
— t
UI I
M M
i
y i
i
UI 1 1
l
U 1 1
L
ui i r
k
Ui 1
L
UI If
L
LI 1
t
U 1 1
n
LI 1
,„., _
[ ! Ui 1 1 1
MM »•'
*m*
i ! r UM 11
1MU
1 M UI 1 1 1

. Cli.jjjfi

] CT..UI |l

i 1 1 If M M
•*v, , *
1 1 1 Lu 1 l ^
~i. 5
r i u 1 1 1 p
I«L>
1 1 ii U i i i _
i«i. 7^
1 II UM 1 U
                                                                            I
                    DATA OUAUTY ACSESSMfNT NCPOmWC fONM
                                           PRECISION
EMWIM
_J
»
I

J
M





















«i
>•



UI





















IMi
Ml
|


m





















Ml
»•
\
I*

•t
1




















imt
m
1

•
r
M
HI
1




















M»
M
1

•»
(•
M
a
O-l




















!•
«
|

Ml
M
*fi
w
1




















MM

I

1
1
1




















•M


























••*


























..«wt«»


^M


fQUU-
Mm




















..





Ht
e
i




















Mi





IM
n
•»




















M





N
1
a


























M
f

























M
ff







b*


















ft
en
-n







J^













••
r
S


Ml
in
i
j





















•
T-
^



Ml
!»•





















«
T-
^



r
M





















ssss.
TT1
V?



IWT

























/•
w
EO
II-





















«•



Kt
a
m
at





















M



«•






















•




»





















Ml
r
1



4
•
b*





















Ml




K1
U
T





















•




Ml
m

























M
*.<
Ml

























M
M
•
a





















t
i


Ml
M





















•
•


••
0





















Mi
UI

























•M
•i



4






















I



•
e
^


























M
Ob
4


























W
IA


























ItB
W


























a
M
41




















«
•
«



1
M




















M '
m
f
d



l»




















••)•
5
» M
























                                                                            1
                                                                            .8
                                                                            I

-------
rt. M.
W
M
       Kii
A                                    40 CFI Ch. I (7-l-M tdltlon)

   IlfifiaillSa     iililill     .liailiil
                                                                        I
                                                                        2
       iil
       .8
       'ii
       It'-
       il
       i
                 ifiSiilSla.isi     ...sls.Siliiii.    I
                     I!,    ii.,]
                                          1:t.tmm'nui
                                          leiiiiiiiihii
                                       150
                                                                                           I nvkcnmontsri f rol*>ctl«n Agjwitcy
ArrgNDix  B—QUALITY  AMUDANCC Rg>
    quiMKMBNTS  roM  PREVENTION  or
    SIGNIFICANT  DETEHIOMATION 
    AIM MONITOHINO

1. General In/ormallon
 ThU Appendix  ipecllle*  the minimum
quality assurance requirement* lor the con-
trol and  assessment of the quality of the
PSD ambient air monitoring data •ubmltted
to EPA by an organization operating a net-
work  of PSD elation*. Such organization*
arc encouraged to develop and  maintain
quality assurance program*  more extensive
than the required minimum.
 Quality aaiurance of air monitoring *ya-
lenu  Include*  two distinct  and Important
Interrelated function*. One  function  U the
control   of   the  measurement  proceat
through  the Implementation of  policies,
procedure*,  and corrective  action*. The
other  function I* the amument of  the
quality of the monitoring data (the product
of  the measurement  process).  In general.
lh« greater the effort and effectiveness of
the control of a given monitoring system.
the better will be the resulting quality of
the monitoring data. The result* of data
quality assessment*  Indicate •nether  the
control efforts need to be Increased.
 Documentation of the quality assessments
of the monitoring data Is Important to data
user*,  who can then consider the Impact of
the data quality In specific application* (sec
Reference I). Accordingly,  assessments of
PSD monitoring data quality ere required to
be made  and reported  periodically by  the
Bsonltorlng organisation.
 To provide national uniformity In the as-
sessment  and  reporting  of data quality
among all PSD networks, specific  asses*-
ment  and reporting  procedures  an pre-
scribed In detail In Sections 1. 4.1. and • of
this Appendli.
 In contrast, the control function encom-
passes a variety of policies, procedure*, spec-
ifications, standards,  and corrective  meas-
ure* which affect the quality of the result
Ing  data. The selection and eitent of  the
quality control  activities—a* well a* addi-
tional quality assessment activities-used by
a monitoring  organization  depend  on  a
number of  local factor* such a*  the field
and laboratory conditions, the ob)eetlves of
the monitoring, the level of the data quality
needed, the espertlse of assigned personnel.
the cost  of  control procedures, pollutant
concentration  levels,   etc.  Therefore,  the
quality assurance requirements. In Section 1
of  this Appendix, are specified In general
                                                                  rt. st.
terms to allow each organization to develop
a quality control system that U most effi-
cient  and  effective  for  III  own  circum-
stances.
  For purposes of this Appendix, "organiza-
tion" Is defined as a source owner/operator.
a government agency, or  their contractor
that operates an ambient air pollution mon
llormg network lor PSD purposes.
1. Qualify Atiurmnce ReoHlremeiifs
  2.1  Each organization must develop and
Implement a quality assurance program con
staling of policies, procedure*, specif (cations.
standards and documentation necessary to:
  (U Provide data of adequate quality to
meet monitoring objectives and quality as
surance requirements of the  permit grant-
Ing authority, and
  <2> Minimize loss of air quality data due to
malfunctions or out of control condition*.
  Thai quality assurance program must be
described  In  detail,  suitably documented.
and approved by the  permit granting  au-
thority. The  Quality  Assurance  Program
will be reviewed during the system audits
described In Section 2.4.
  2.2  Primary guidance for developing  the
Quality Assurance  Program Is contained In
Reference* I  and 3. which  also  contain
many  suggested procedures, checks, and
control specifications Section 2 0 1 of Refer-
ence S describes specific guidance tor the de-
velopment of a Quality Assurance Program
for automated analyzers.  Many  specific
quality control checks and specifications for
manual method* are Included In the  respec-
tive reference methods described In Part (0
of this chapter or In the respective equiva-
lent  method  description*  available from
EPA (see Reference 4>. Similarly, quality
control procedures  related to specifically
designated reference and equivalent analyz-
ers are contained In  their respective oper-
ation  and Instruction manual*.  ThU guid-
ance. and any other  pertinent Information
from appropriate sources, should be used by
the organization In developing Its quality as-
surance program.
  As a minimum,  each quality assurance
program  must Include operational  proce-
dures for each of the following activities:
  III Selection of  methods, analyzers, or
samplers;
  (21 Training;
  111 Installation of equipment;
  (4) Selection and control of  calibration
standards:
  (»> Calibration:
  <•• Zero/span checks and adjustments of
automated analyzers:

-------
 9 Ml

 recent decennial US. Census of Popu-
 lation Report.
   (t) "TOP" (total suspended partlcu-
 lates)  mean*  paniculate  matter  aa
 measured by the method described In
 Appendix B of Pan 50 of this chapter
   (u) "PM,," means partlculate  matter
 with  an  aerodynamic  diameter  less
 than or equal to a nominal  10 microm-
 eters  aa  measured  by  a  reference
 method based on Appendix J of Part
 BO of this chapter and designated  In
 accordance with Part 63 of this chap-
 ter or by an equivalent method desig-
 nated In accordance with Part 53  of
 this chapter.
  (v) "Pb" means lead.

 11*J? T"1- M*y lo- U7»  •* """"led al
 J! ™f5?* Jan  S0- IM3: 6I FR '5M- Mar.
 It. 1988; 62 FR 2473V. July 1. 1087]

 IM.S  Purpow.

  (a) This part contains criteria  and
 requirements for ambient air quality
 monitoring and requirements for  re-
 porting ambient air quality data  and
 Information. The  monitoring criteria
 pertain to the following areas:
  (1) Quality assurance procedures for
 monitor operation and data handling.
  (3) Methodology used In monitoring
 stations.
  (3) Operating schedule.
  (4) Siting parameters for Instru-
 ment* or Instrument probes.
  (b) The requirements pertaining to
 provisions for an air quality surveil-
 lance system In the State Implementa-
 tion Plan are contained In this part.
  (c) This part also acts to establish a
 national ambient air quality monitor-
 Ing network for  the purpose of provid-
 ing timely air quality data upon  which
to  bane  national  assessments and
policy  decisions. This network will be
operated by the States and will consist
of certain selected stations from the
Slates' SLAMS networks. These select-
ed stations will remain as SLAMS and
 will  continue to meet any  applicable
 requirements on SI.AMS The stations.
 however, will also be designated as Na-
 tional    Air   Monitoring   Stations
(NAMS) and will  be subject  to addi-
 tional  data reporting and monitoring
methodology  requirements  as  con-
 tained In Subpart O of this part.
  (d) Requirements  for the  dally  re-
 porting of  an  Index of  ambient  air
          40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-88 Edition)

 quality, to Insure that the population
 of  major urban  areas are Informed
 dally of local  air quality  conditions
 are also Included In this part.

 IM.3 Applicability.

   This part applies to:
   (a) State air pollution control agen-
 cies.
   (b) Any local air  pollution control
 agency  or  Indian  governing  body to
 which the State has delegated author-
 ity  to operate a portion of the State's
 SLAMS network.
   
-------
 level ol  that  monitoring  site concen-
 tration with respect to the level of the
 controlling standard. For those areas
 In  which  the short-term  (24-hour)
 standard  to controlling I.e.. has  the
 highest ratio, the selective sampling
 requirements are Illustrated In Figure
 I. If the operating agency  were able to
 demonstrate, by a combination ol  his-
 torical TSP data and at least one year
 ol PM,. data that there were certain
 periods of the year  where conditions
 preclude  violation of the PM,. 24-hour
 standard, the  Increased sampling  fre-
 quency for  those  periods or seasons
 may be exempted by the Regional  Ad-
 ministrator and revert back to once In
•Ix   days.  The minimum  sampling
schedule  for all other sites In the area
 would  be once  every six days.  For
 thofte areas In which the annual stand-
ard  Is the controlling standard,  the
minimum sampling  schedule for  all
monitors In the area  would be once
evciy  six days. During  the annual
 review of the  SLAMS network,  the
most recent  year of data must be con-
 sidered to estimate  the  air quality
 status  for the controlling air quality
 standard <24-hour or annual). Statisti-
 cal models such as analysis of concen-
 tration frequency distributions as de-
 scribed In "Guideline for the Interpre-
 tation  of Ozone Air  Quality Stand-
 ards." EPA 450/419 003. U.S. Environ-
 mental Protection Agency,  Research
         40 CW Ch. I (7-l-li Idlllon)

Triangle Park.  N.C..  January  1079
should  be  used.  Adjustments to the
monitoring schedule must be made on
the basis of the annual review.  The
site having the highest concentration
In the most current year must be given
first consideration when selecting the
site for the  more  frequent sampling
schedule. Other factors such as major
change In sources of PM,. emissions or
In sampling site characteristics could
Influence the location of the expected
maximum concentration site. Also, the
use of the most  recent three years of
data might In some cases, be justified
In order to provide a more representa-
tive data base from which to estimate
current  air quality  status  and to  pro-
vide  stability to the  network.  This
multlyear consideration would reduce
the possibility ol an  anamalous year
biasing  a site selected for accelerated
sampling. If the maximum concentra-
tion  site based on  the most current
year Is not selected for the more fre-
quent operating schedule,  documenta-
tion of  the  Justification for selection
of an alternate site  must be submitted
to the  Regional  Office for approval
during the annual  review process. It
should be noted  that  minimum data
completeness  crltlerla.  number  of
years of data and sampling frequency
for Judging attainment of the NAAQS
are discussed In Appendix  K of Part
50.
f nvIrwisMntol Protection Asjenty

                      Every Sixth Oiy
                                                                                                                                                     {M.M
>
f

Every Other Day
r

Every Day
I
>
                 0.9     r.(j       m
                 T.3       I.«
                           Ratio to Standard
144 PR TIM I. Mar 10. It7». w amended at
»> FR 141M. July 1.1 Mil

IM.I4  Special p«ra«w MMlton.
   Any ambient air quality monitor-
ing station other than a SLAMS or
PSD station from which the State In-
tends to use the data as part of a dem-
onstration of attainment or nonattaln-
ment or In computing  a design value
for control purposes of the National
Ambient  Air   Quality   Standards
(NAAQS) must meet the requirements
for SLAMS described In f 58.22 and.
after January  1. 1981. must also meet
the requirement* for SLAMS aa de-
scribed  In  168.13 and Appendices A
and E to this part.
  
-------
vvEPA
             United States
             Environmental Protection
             Agency
            Office of Air Quality
            Planning and Standards
            Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-450'4-87-OC">
May 1987
             Air
Ambient Monitoring
Guidelines for
Prevention of
Significant
Deterioration (PSD)
              RADIAN LIBRARY
              RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK. NC

-------
^ MCES FOR SECTION 3.4

-------
PI. if, App. A                                  40 CFR Ch. I (7-l-«« Edition)

      SCHEDULE O 6—PERMANENT WAIVER FROM INTERIM CONTROLS TEST -Continued
                                             Environmental Protection Agency
                                             Bee.


• Ctn«nl Mhag* v«tu« . .
7 NX PIMM vtt*
Lro
17
II
18*4 1 IMS
xxxx I xxxx
xxxx 1 xxxx
IMO
xxxx
xxxx
IM7
xxxx
xxxx
IDM
xxxx
xxxx
IM>
xxxx
xxxx
IMO
xxxx
xxxx
Taw

SCHEDULE D. 7— HORIZON VALUE OF CASH FLOWS
ISmMM ktonMuton)



A OtfnaManlnm human >Hu«
1 N*t cMh Raw pfo|»cbon« .
I D«pi»cl«>on lu nvingt
• DipiMMIan tnt imaw*
•on 	
Uvaknri l*> I*M 	
rutntnal 	
1 D*»»d*»on4M nt c»iti
Nortnd doM «riuM
IMO df**r vttJM
Av«raga 	
4 Horizon toctor 	
9 D«»*oMartkM harilon nki*
B D*f»*aMlon !•» Mvtog* o*« •<•
huiiofi (xriod:
1 Ow«c«kon «nd •mxtuton
2 ItogM ta» nu 	
3 Tan Mvtng* 	
4 Otooounl facial 	
9 PlMinl valu* ol Ua Mvinge
t ToW prMOTl v»k» ol lu u«
«9« 	
C Horizon VtkM 	

lm»


01


02
01
M

05
0(
07
0*
M


10
II
II
13
14

It
1*
Finritortcul

i*n










xxxx
xxxx
xxxx


xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx

xxxx
xxxx

IWO










xxxx
xxxx
xxxx


xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx

xxxx
xxxx
Horizon y««*

IWI

xxxx


xxxx
xxxx
xxxx

xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx








xxxx
xxxx

IM2

xxxx


xxxx
xxxx
xxxx

xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx








xxxx
xxxx

IM3

xxxx


xxxx
xxxx
xxxx

xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx








xxxx
xxxx

IW4

xxxx


xxxx
xxxx
xxxx

xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx








xxxx
xxxx

IMS

xxxx


xxxx
xxxx
xxxx

xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx








xxxx
xxxx

ToW


xxxx


xxxx
xxxx
xxxx

xxxx
xxxx





xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx



  PART St— AMMENT AW QUALITY
           SURVEILLANCE

             A— O*Mf*l PravUtom
Bee.
68 1  Definition*.
612  PurpoK.
681  Applicability

       lu*)p»rt a— M*nH»rinf Criteria

6810  Quality assurance.
68 1 1  Monitoring methods
68.12  Siting ol liutrumenU or Instrument
   probe*.
68.11  Operating schedule.
68 .14  Special purpose monitors.

  luhpvrt C— «•!• •"«) l««« Ak Mmlteriiifl
            StatUni (SLAMS)

58.20  Air  quality  surveillance:  Plan  con-
   tent
68 21  8I.AMS network design.
Sec.
68.22  SLAMS methodology.
68.21  Monitoring network completion.
68.24  I Reserved I
68.26  System modification.
68.26  Annual SLAMS summary report.
68.27  Compliance date for air quality daU
   reporting.
68.28  Regional Office SLAMS data acquisi-
   tion.
               •I AU ftUnlterinfl Stalkm
               (NAMS)

6810 NAMS network establishment.
68.11 NAMS network description.
68.12 NAMS approval.
88.11 NAMS methodology.
68.14 NAMS network completion.
68.16 NAMS data submlttal.
68.16 System modification.

   lufepwt I—Air Quality Inrf.x l«zMwtlni|

S8.40 Index reporting.
68.60  Federal monitoring.
68.61  Monitoring other pollutants.
ArrENDix A—QUALITY  ASSURANCE REQUIRE
   MENTS FOR STATE AND LOCAL AIR MONI-
   TORING STATIONS (SLAMS)
ArrENDix B—QUALITY  ASSURANCE REQUIRE
   HEHTS TOR PREVENTION  or  SIUNIFICANT
   DETERIORATION (PSD) AIR MONITORING
ArrENDix C—AMRIENT  AIR  QUALITY Mom
   TORINO METHODOUMY
ArrENDix D—NETWORK DESIGN FOR STATE
   AND  LOCAL AIR MONITORINO  STATIONS
   (SLAMS) AND NATIONAL Aia  MONITORING
   STATIONS (NAMS)
ArrENDix E-PRORE SITING CRITERIA FOR
   AmiENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING
ArrENDix P—ANNUAL SLAMS AIR QUALITY
   INFORMATION
ArrENDix O—UNIFORM AIR  QUALITY INDEX
   AND DAILY RETORTING
  AUTHORITY: Sea.  110. 101(a>. 111. and 118
of the  Clean Air Act  (42 U.8.C.  T410.
18010). 1811.10t»).
  SOURCE 44 PR 276TI. May 10.  107*. unless
otherwise noted.

   Swbport A—Oonorol Provlttaw

• M.I   Definitions.
  Aa used In this part, all terms not de-
fined herein have the meanlnt given
them In the Act:
  (a) "Act" means the Clean Air Act as
amended (42 U.8.C. 7401. et seq.).
  (b)  "SLAMS" means State or Local
Air   Monitoring   Statlon(s).   The
SLAMS make up the ambient air qual-
ity monitoring network  which Is re-
quired by I 68.20 to be provided for In
the State's Implementation  plan. This
definition places no restrictions on the
use of the physical structure or facili-
ty housing the SLAMS. Any combina-
tion of SLAMS  and any other moni-
tors (Special Purpose.  NAMS. PSD)
may occupy the same facility or struc-
ture without affecting the  respective
definitions of those monitoring  sta-
tion.
  (c)  "NAMS"  means  National  Air
Monitoring Statlon(s). Collectively the
NAMS are a subset of the SLAMS  am-
bient air quality monitoring network.
  (d) "PSD station" means any station
operated for the purpose of establish-
ing the  effect on air  quality  of  the
emissions from a proposed source for
purposes of prevention of significant
                               55«.l

 deterioration as required by | 51.24(n)
 of Part SI of this chapter.
  (e) "SO," means sulfur dioxide.
  (f> "NO," means nitrogen dioxide.
  (g) "CO" means carbon monoxide.
  (It) "O," menns ozone.
  (I) "Plan" means an Implementation
 plan, approved or promulgated pursu-
 ant to section 110 of the Clean Air Act.
  (j) "Administrator" means  the Ad-
 ministrator of the Environmental Pro-
 tection  Agency (EPA) or his or her au-
 thorized representative.
  (k> "Regional Administrator" means
 the  Administrator of one of the ten
 EPA Regional Offices or his or her au-
 thorized representative.
  (I) "State agency" means the air pol-
 lution  control agency primarily re-
 sponsible for development and Imple-
 mentation of a plan under the Act.
   "Local agency" means any  local
 government agency,  other than  the
 State agency, which Is charged  with
 the  responsibility for carrying out  a
 portion of the plan.
  (n) "Indian Reservation" means any
 Federally recognized  reservation es-
 tablished by treaty, agreement, execu-
 tive order, or act of Congress.
  (o) "Indian Governing Body" means
 the governing body of any tribe, band.
 or group of Indians  subject to the Ju-
 risdiction of the United States and rec-
ognized by the United States as pos-
sessing power of self-government.
  (p) "Storage  and Retrieval of Airo-
 metrlc Data (SAROAD) system" Is  a
computerized system which stores and
 reports  Information  relating to ambi-
ent air quality.
  (q) "SAROAD  site  Identification
 form" Is one of the several forms In
 the SAROAD  system. It Is the form
which provides a complete description
of the site (and Its surroundings) of an
ambient air  quality monitoring sta-
tion.
  (r) "Traceable" means  that a  local
standard has been compared and certi-
 fied, either directly or via not more
 than one intermediate  standard,  to  a
primary standard such as a National
 Bureau  of Standards Standard Refer-
ence  Material  (NBS  8RM)  or   a
 USEPA/NBS approved  Certified  Ref-
erence Material (CRM).
  (s) "Urban area population" means
the  population defined In the most
                                    128
                                                                                                                       129

-------
   Pi. Si, App. D

    II.).)  A bilef sUtemenl of belief con
   cemlnt the extent  to which the modlflca-
   tlon  will or may  affect the  performance
   characterlstlcs of the method; and
    i.t.S.t   Such further Information as may
   be  necessary  to explain and  support the
   statements required by sections 3.1.3.3 and
   1111
    114 Within 75 days after recelvlnt a re-
   quest for approval under this  sectloh (3.1)
   and such further Information as he may re-
  quest for  purposes of his decision, the Ad-
  ministrator will  approve or disapprove the
  modification  In  question by letter  to the
  person or agency requeuing auch approval.
    lit A temporary modification that will
  or might  alter the performance characteris-
  tics of a reference, equivalent, or alternative
  method may be made without prior approv-
  al under this section (3.1) If the method Is
  not  functioning  or Is malfunctioning, pro-
  vided that parts  necessary for repair In ac-
  cordance   with   the  applicable  operation
  manual cannot be obtained within 45 days.
  Unless such temporary modification Is later
  approved under section 3.1.4. the temporari-
  ly modified method shall be repaired In ac-
  cordance   with   the   applicable operation
  manual as quickly  as  practicable but In no
  event later than 4 months after the tempo-
  rary modification was made,  unless an ex-
  tension of  time Is granted by the Adminis-
 trator.  Unless and  until  the  temporary
 modification  Is approved, air quality data
 obtained with the  method as temporarily
 modified must be clearly  Identified as such
 when submitted In accordance with I 50.31
 or I 51.35  of this chapter and must be ac-
 companied by a report containing the Infor-
 mation specified In section 3.1.3. A request
 that  the Administrator  approve a tempo-
 rary modification may be submitted  In ac-
 cordance with sections 381 through 3.0.4.
 In such cases the request will be considered
 as If a request for prior approval had been
 made.
 10  National  Air   Monitoring   Station*
 (NAMS)
  1.1  Methods used In those SLAMS which
 are also designated as NAMS to measure
 BO., CO. NO., or O, must be automated ref-
 erence  or  equivalent  methods (continuous
 analyzers).
  40  Partlculatr Matter Episode Monitor-
 lit «r
  4 I  For   short  term  measurements  of
 PM..  during  air  pollution  episodes  (see
 151.153 of  this chapter) the measurement
mrtliod must be:
  4.1 1   Kllher   the   "Slangcred   PM,."
method or  the "I'M,. Sampling Over Short
Sampling Times" method, both of which are
tuued on the reference method for PM,. and
aie described In rrli-rcncr I or
  412  Any  other method for measuring
I'M .
             40 CFR Ch. I (7-l-M fdi«,B)      '  |B¥|ronmonlol Protection Agoncy
     4.1.3.1  Which has a measurement ran(e
   or ranges appropriate to accurately measure
   air pollution episode concentration of PM,.
     4.1.3.3  Which has a sample period appro-'
   priate for short-term PM»  measurement*
   and
     4.1.3.)  For which a quantitative relation
   ship to a reference or equivalent method for
   PM,. has been established at the use site.
   Procedures for  establishing  a  quantitative
   site-specific relationship  are contained In
   reference I.
    4.3  Quality  Assurance. PM,.  methods
   other than the reference method  are  not
   covered under the  quality  assessment re-
   quirements of   Appendix  A.   Therefore.
   States must  develop and Implement their
   own  quality  assessment  procedures   for
   those methods allowed under this section 4
  Thau «.•!»"	•
  ence method.
  5.0 Rc/ertncet
   l.l  Pelton. D.J. Guideline for Partlculate
  Episode  Monitoring  Methods.  OEOMET
  Technologies. Inc.. Rockvllle, MD. Prepared
  for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
  Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA Contract
  No.  01-03 3684. EPA  450/4 83-005. Febru-
  ary 1983.

  144 FR 37571. May 10. 1»7», as amended at
  44 FR 37118. June 30. 1970: 44 FR 15070.
  Nov. 0, 1979; 61 FR  9597. Mar. 19.  1981; 63
  FR 34741. 34743. July 1. 19871


  ArrcNDix  D—NETWORK  DESIGN  POM
     STATC AND LOCAL AIR  MONITORING
     STATIONS  (SLAMS) AND NATIONAL
     All. MONITORING STATIONS (NAM8)
   I.  SLAMS  Monitoring  Objectives  and
 Spatial Scales
   3.  SLAMS Network Design Procedures
   3.1  Background  Information for Estab-
 lishing SLAMS
   3.3  (Reserved)
   3.)  Sulfur Dioxide (SO.) Design Criteria
 for SLAMS
   3.4  Carbon Monoxide (CO) Design Crite-
 ria for SLAMS
  3.5  Ozone   (O.)  Design   Criteria   for
 SLAMS
  3.1  Nitrogen Dioxide (NO.) Design Crite-
 ria for 81.AMS
  37 Lead (Pb) Design Criteria for SLAMS
  38 PM,. Design Criteria for SLAMS
  3.  Network Design for National Air Moni-
toring Stations (NAMS)
  31  I Reserved I
  33  Sulfur Dioxide (SO.) Design Criteria
for NAMS
  33  Carbon Monoxide (CO) De.slgn Crlle
rla for NAMS
 34 Ozone (O.) Design Criteria for NAMS
 3.6 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO,) Design Crite-
ria for NAMS
 3.8 Lead (Pb) Design Criteria for NAMS
 3.7 PM,. Design Criteria for NAMS
 .4. Summary
 5. References
 I. SLAMS  Monitoring  Objectives and
Spatial Scalei
 The purpose of this appendix  Is  to de-
scribe monitoring objectives and general cri-
teria to be applied In establishing  the State
and Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS)
networks and for choosing general locations
for new  monitoring stations. It  also de-
scribes criteria tor determining the number
and location of National  Air  Monitoring
Stations (NAMS). These criteria will also be
used by EPA In evaluating the adequacy of
8LAMS/NAM8 networks.
 The network of stations which comprise
SLAMS should be designed to meet a mini-
mum  of  four basic  monitoring  objectives.
These basic monitoring objectives are: (I)
To determine highest  concentrations ex-
pected to occur In the area covered by the
network; (3) to determine representative
concentrations In areas ol high population
density: (3) to determine the Impact on am-
bient pollution levels of significant sources
or source categories; and (4) to determine
general background concentration levels.
 To a large extent, the existing  State Im-
plementation Plan (SIP) monitoring  net-
works have been designed with these four
objectives In mind. Thus,  they can serve as
the logical starling  point for establishing
the SLAMS network. This will, however, re-
quire a careful review of each existing SIP
ambient network to determine the principal
objectives of each station  and the extent to
which the  location criteria presented herein
are being met. It should be noted that this
appendix contains no criteria for determin-
ing the total number of stations In SLAMS
networks,  except that a minimum number
Of lead SLAMS Is prescribed. The optimum
size of a particular SLAMS network Involves
trade offs  among data needs and available
resources which EPA believes can best be re-
solved during the network design process.
   This appendix focuses on the relationship
between monitoring objectives and the geo-
graphical  location  of monitoring stations.
Included are a rationale and set  of general
criteria for Identifying candidate station lo-
cations In  terms of  physical characteristics
which most closely  match a specific moni-
toring objective. The criteria for more spe-
cifically  siting the  monitoring  station In-
cluding sparing from roadways and vertical
and horizontal  probe  placement, are  de-
scribed In Appendix  E of this part.
   To clarify the nature of the link between
 general monitoring objectives and the phys-
 ical location ol a particular monitoring sta
                         PI. 51, App. D

lion, the concept of spatial scale of repre-
sentativeness of a monitoring station Is de-
fined. The goal In siting stations Is to cor-
rectly match the spatial scale represented
by the  sample of monitored  air with  the
spatial scale most appropriate for the moni-
toring objective of the station.
  Thus, spatial  scale of representativeness Is
described  In  terms  of  the physical dimen-
sions of the air parcel nearest  to a monitor-
ing station throughout which actual pollut-
ant  concentrations  are reasonably similar.
The  scale of representativeness of most In-
terest for the monitoring objectives defined
above are as follows:
  •fleroica/e-defines the concentrations In
air volumes associated with area dimensions
ranging from several meters up to about 100
meters.
  Middle  Scale-defines  the concentration
typical  of areas up to several city blocks In
size  with dimensions ranging Irom about 100
meters to 0.5 kilometer.
  Neighborhood  Scale—defines concentra-
tions within some extended area of the city
that has relatively uniform land use with di-
mensions In the 0.5 to 4.0 kilometers range.
  Urban Scale-defines the overall, cltywlde
conditions with dimensions on the order of
4 to SO kilometers.  This scale would usually
require more than one site for definition.
  Regional  Scale—defines usually a  rural
area of reasonably  homogeneous geography
and  extends from tens to hundreds of kilo-
meters.
  National and Global Scalet-these meas-
urement  scales  represent concentrations
characterizing  the nation and the globe as a
whole.
  Proper  siting of  a monitoring station re-
quires precise  specification of  the monitor-
Ing  objective which usually Include* a  de-
sired spatial scale of representativeness. For
example, consider the case where the objec-
tive Is  to determine maximum CO concen-
 trations In areas where pedestrians may rea-
sonably be exposed. Such areas would most
 likely  be located within  major street  can-
 yons ol large  urban areas and near traffic
 corridors. Stations  located In these areas are
 most likely  to have a mlcroscale of repre-
 sentativeness since CO concentrations typi-
 cally peak nearest roadways and decrease
 rapidly as the monitor  Is moved from  the
 roadway. In this example, physical location
 was determined by consideration  ol  CO
 emission patterns, pedestrian activity, and
 physical  characteristics affecting pollutant
 dispersion. Thus, spatial scale of representa-
 tiveness was not used In  the selection proc-
 ess  but was a result of station location.
   In some cases, the physical location of a
 station Is determined from Joint consider
 atlon of both the basic monitoring objective.
 and a desired spatial scale of representative-
 ness. For example. 1.6 determine CO conrrn
                                        158
                                                                                                                                       159

-------
  PI. 51, App. D

  (ration* which are typical over a reuonab'ly
  broad  geographic  area  having  relatively
  high  CO concentrations,  a  neighborhood
  wale  itallon l» more appropriate.  Such  a
  •latlon would likely be located In a  reslden
  Hal or commercial area having a high over-
  all CO emission density  but not In  the Im
  mediate vicinity of any single roadway. Note
  that In  this  example, the desired scale of
  representativeness was an Important factor
  In determining  the physical location of  the
  monitoring station.
   In either case, classification of the (tatlon
  by Us Intended objective and spatial scale of
  representativeness Is necessary and  will  aid
  In Interpretation of the monitoring data.
   Table  1 Illustrates   the relationship  be-
  tween  the four basic  monitoring objective!
  and the scales of representativeness that  are
  generally most  appropriate  for  that objec-
  tive.

 TABIE  I   RELATIONSHIP AMONG MoniioniNQ
   OBJECTIVES  AND SCALE OF  HtifiESEMtA-
   riVENESS
                                      40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-M edl||0n)       environmental Protection Agency
  Monrtonng <*)|Klm
                       An»0f»i«t.l vl
MICIO.   Ira***.   ncighbortiood
 IMXIW bmm urtim)
N*gMra>>ioo4 urtwn
Micro. rnddta. nmghtxwhood
 Poputeuon
 Some* wnpacl
 GwwM/baeliground
  Subsequent sections of this appendix de-
 scribe In greater detail the most appropriate
 scales  of  representativeness and  general
 monitoring locations for each pollutant.
 2 SLAMS Ntlmork Deitfn Procedure!
  The  preceding section of this appendix
 has stressed the Importance of defining the
 objectives  for monitoring a particular pol-
 lutant. Since monitoring data are collected
 to "represent" the conditions In a section or
 •ubreglon of a geographical area, the previ-
 ous  section  Included  a  discussion  of the
scale  of representativeness of a monitoring
station The use of this physical  basis for lo-
cating stations  allows for an objective ap-
proach to network design.
  The discussion nf scales In Sections 1.2-1.6
does not Include all til the possible scales for
each  pollutant. Thr scales  vlilrh are dis-
cussed are those whirl) arc  Iclt  to be  most
 pertinent for SI.AMS network design.
  In older to cvnlualr a monitoring network
 and lo determine thr adequacy ol particular
 monitoring stations. It  Is necessary to exam-
 ine  each pollutant monitoring station  Indl
 vldually by  slating Its  monitoring objective
• nil determining Ms  spatial  scale of repre-
sentativeness  This will do more than Insure
Kioipallhlllly  among stations ol the same
 lyl'i-  It will also |iiovl>lr a I'hyslral basis lor
 Mic ln airport station In the vicinity
of the  prospective siting area will adequate-
ly reflect conditions over the area of Inter-
eat, at  least for annual and seasonal averag-
ing tunes.  In developing dala  In complex
meteorological and terrain situations, diffu-
sion meteorologists  should be consulted.
NWS atatlona can usually provide moat of
the relevant weather Information In support
of network design activities anywhere In the
country. Such Information Includes  Joint
frequency distribution* of winds and atmos-
pheric  stability (stability-wind rose*).
  The  geographical material I*  used  to de-
termine the distribution of natural feature*.
such aa forests, river*, lake*, and manmade
feature*. Useful sources of such Information
may Include road and topographical map*,
aerial photographs, and even satellite pho-
tograph*. This Information may Include the
terrain and land use setting  of  the prospec-
tive  monitor siting area, the  proximity of
larger  water bodies, the distribution of pol-
lutant  sources In the area,  the location of
NWS airport stations from  which  weather
data may be  obtained, etc. Land use and
topographical  characteristic*  of  specific
area* of Interest can be determined  from
US. Geological  Survey (U8O8I map* and
land use  map*. Detailed  Information on
urban physiography (building/street dimen-
sions, etc.) can be obtained by visual obser-
vations, aerial photography, and  also sur-
veys to supplement  the Informallon avail-
able from those sources. Such Information
could be used In determining Ihe location of
local pollutant sources In and  around the
prospective station locations
  2.1  (Reserved!
  1.1 Sulfur Dioxide  (SO.)  Design Criteria
for SLAMS
  The  spatial  scale*  for SO. 81 .AMS moni-
toring  are the middle, neighborhood, urban.
and  regional scales.  Because of Ihe nature
of BO. distributions over urban areas, the
middle scale la (he most likely scale to be
represented by a single measurement In an
urban  area, bul only If Ihe undue effect*
from local sources (minor  or  major point
sources) can be eliminated. Neighborhood
scales would be those most likely to he rep-
resented by single measurements In snbnr
ban  areas  where thr  concentration  uraHl
                          Pt. SI, App. O

enl* are lea* steep. Urban scales would rep-
resent area* where the concentration* are
uniform over a larger geographical area. Re-
gional scale measurements would be associ-
ated with rural areas.
  Middle Scale-Some data use* associated
with middle scale measurements for SO. In-
clude assessing the effect* of control strate
gles lo reduce urban concentrations  (espe
clally for the 3-hour and 24 hour averaging
time*)  and monitoring air  pollution  epl-
sodes.
  JVetoftfNtrikood Scafe-Thl* scale applies In
areas where the SO. concentration gradient
to relatively flat (mainly suburban area* sur-
rounding the urban center) or In large sec
lion* of small cities and town*. In general.
Ihese area* are quite homogeneous In term*
of SO, emission rates and population densi-
ty. Thus, neighborhood Kale measurements
may be associated with baseline concentra-
tion* In area* of  projected growth and  In
studies of population responses to exposure
to SO.. AUo concentration maxima associat-
ed with air pollution episodes may be uni-
formly  distributed over areas  of neighbor-
hood scale, and measurements taken within
such an area would represent neighborhood.
and to a limited extent, middle scale concen-
tration*.
  Urbmn Scale-Dala  from Ihls scale could
be used for  Ihe assessmenl of air quality
trend* and the effect of control strategies
on urban scale air quality.
  Jteptonaf   Scofe—Thece   measurements
would  be applicable to large  homogeneous
area*, particularly those which are sparsely
populated.  Such measurement* could pro-
vide Information on background air quality
and Interregional pollutant transport.
  After the spatial scale haa been selected to
meet the monitoring objective* for each sta-
tion location, the procedure* found In refer-
ence 2 should be used to evaluate  the ade-
quacy of each existing SO, atatlon and mint
be used to relocate an existing atatlon or to
locate  any  new SLAMS slallons. The bock-
ground  material   for  Ihese  procedure*
should consist of emission Inventories, mete-
orological data, wind  roses, and map* for
population  and topographical  character!*
Iks  of spec!Ik area*  of Inleresl.  Isoplelh
map* of SO, air quality a* generated by dif-
fusion models • are useful for Ihe general de
termination  of  a  prospective  area within
which the station Is eventually placed.
  2.4 Carbon Monoxide (CO)  Design  Crlle-
rla for SLAMS
  Micro, middle,  and  neighborhood  scale
measurement* are  necessary station claaslfl-
callons for SLAMS since most people are ex-
posed to CO concentrations In these Kales.
Carbon monoxide  maxima occur primarily
In areas near major roadways and  Intersec-
lions with high (raffle density  and poor at
ntosphcrlc ventilation.  As these maxima can
                                         100
                                                                                                                                       161

-------
 ft. 58. App. D

 be predicted by emblem sir quality model-
 Int. » large (Ued network of CO monitors Is
 not  required.  Long-term   CO  monltorlni
 should be  confined to a limited number ol
 micro  and neighborhood scale  stations In
 Urge metropolitan areas to measure maxi-
 mum pollution levels and to determine the
 effectiveness of control strategies.
  MUrotcale Measurements on  this  scale
 would  represent  distributions within street
 canyons, over  sidewalks, and near  major
 roadways.  The measurements at a particu-
 lar location In a street canyon would be typ-
 ical of one high concentration  area  which
 can  be shown to be a representation of
 many  more  areas throughout  the  street
canyon or  other  similar locations  In a city.
This to a scale of measurement  that would
 provide valuable Information for devising
and evaluating "hot spot" control measures.
  Middle Scale- This category covers dimen-
sions from 100 meters to 05 kilometer. In
certain cases discussed below. II may apply
 to regions that have a total length of sever-
al kilometers.  In many cases of Interest.
sources and land  use may be reasonably ho-
mogeneous for long distances along a street.
but  very   Inhomogeneous   normal to  the
street. This Is the case with strip develop-
ment and  freeway  corridors  Included In
this category are measurements to charac-
terize  the CO   concentrations  along  the
urban features just enumerated. When a lo-
cation Is chosen to represent conditions In a
block of street development, then  the char-
acteristic dimensions ol this scale are tens
of meters by hundreds of meters. If  an at-
tempt  Is made  to characterize street side
conditions  throughout the  downtown area
or along an extended stretch ol freeway, the
dimensions may  be lens of meters by kilo-
meter.
  The  middle scale would  also Include the
parking lots and Ireder streets  associated
with Indirect sources  which sltract signifi-
cant numbers of pollutant emitters, particu-
larly aulos. Shopping centers, stadia, and
office  buildings  are  examples  of Indirect
sources
  Neighborhood   Scale Measurements  In
this  category would  represent conditions
throughout some rrs-soniibly  homogeneous
urban subreglons. with dimensions of a few
kilometers  and  generally   more  regularly
shaped than the  middle .scale  Homogeneity
refers to CO concentration, but  It probably
also applies to Innd use In some cases, a lo
cation carefully rhoscn lo provide neighbor
hood scale data,  mlxht represent  not only
the  Immediate  neighborhood,  but  also
neighborhoods  of the same type  In  other
purl* ol tiie city These kinds  ol stations
 would   provide  Information  relating  to
 health effects because they  would represent
 conditions  In areas  where  people live and
 work   Neighborhood  scale data  would pro
 vlitc valwuhle Information  lor  developing.
          40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-88 Edition)

 testing, and revising concepts and  models
 that describe the larger scale concentration
 pattern*, especially those models relying on
 spatially  smoothed  emission   fields  for
 Input*. These types of measurements could
 also be used for Intemelghborhood compaii.
 son* within or between cities.
  After the spatial scale  has been deter-
 mined to meet the monitoring objectives for
 each  location, the location selection proce-
 dures, as shown In reference 3  should be
 used to evaluate the adequacy of each exist-
 ing CO station and must be used to relocate
 an  existing station or to  locate any new
 SLAMS stations. The background material
 necessary tor these procedures may Include
 the average dally traffic on all streets In the
 area,  wind roses for different hours of the
 day.  and maps showing one way streets
 street widths, and  building heights. If the
 station Is to typify the area with the highest
 concentrations, the streets with the greatest
 dally  traffic should be Identified. If some
 street* are one-way, those streets that  have
 the greatest  traffic during  the  afternoon
 and evening hours should be selected as ten-
 tative locations, because the periods of  high
 traffic volume are usually of greatest dura-
 tion through  the  evening  hours. However.
 the strength of the morning Inversion has
 to be considered along with the  traffic
 volume and pattern when  seeking  areas
 with  the highest  concentrations. Traffic
 counters near the stations will provide valu-
 able data for  Interpreting the observed CO
 Concentrations.
  Monitor* should not be placed In the vi-
 cinity of possible  anomalous source areas.
 Examples of such areas Include toll gates on
 turnpikes,  metered  freeway  ramps,  and
 drawbridge approaches. Additional Informa-
 tion on network design may be found In ref-
 erence 1.
  2.6  Ozone  (O.)  Design  Criteria   for
 SLAMS
  Ozone Is not directly emitted Into the at-
 mosphere but results from complex photo-
 chemical reactions Involving organic com-
 pounds, oxides of  nitrogen, and  solar radi-
 ation.
  The relationships between  primary emis-
 sions  (precursors) and secondary  pollutants
(Oil tend lo produce large  separations spa-
 tially  and  temporally between  the  major
sources and  the areas of high oxldsnt pollu-
 tion. This suggests that the meteorological
 transport process and the relationships be-
 tween sources and sinks need lo be consld
ered  In the development  of  the network
design criteria and placement of monitoring
stations, especially  In measuring  peak  con-
centration levels.
  The  principal  spatial scales for SLAMS
purposes based on the monitoring objectives
are neighborhood, urban, regional, and lo a
lesser extent,  middle scale. Since ozone re
Environmental Protection Agency

quires  appreciable  formation  time,  the
mixing  of reactants  and product*  occur*
over large volume* of air. and thl* reduces
the Importance of monitoring small scale
spatial variability.
  Middle Scale-Measurement In this scale
would represent condition* close to sources
of NO. such as roads where It would be ex-
pected that suppression of O.  concentra-
tion*  would occur. Tree* also may have a
strong scavenging effect on O. and may lend
to suppress O. concentrations In Ihelr Imme-
diate  vicinity. Measurement* at these sta-
tion*  would represent conditions over rela-
tively small portions of the urban area.
  Neighborhood  Scale-Measurement*  In
this category represent conditions through-
out come reasonably homogeneous  urban
subreglon. with dimensions of a few kilome-
ter*. Homogeneity refers to pollutant con-
centration*.  Neighborhood scale data  will
provide valuable Information for developing.
testing, and revising  concepts and models
that describe urban/region*! concentration
pattern*. They will be >•    I to  the under-
standing and  definition  of  processes that
take periods of hours to occur and hence In-
volve  considerable  mixing and transport.
Under atagnatlon conditions, a station locat-
ed In the neighborhood scale may also expe-
rience peak concentration levels  within the
urban areas.
  Urban  Scale—Measurement In this scale
will be used to estimate concentration* over
large  portions of an urban area with dimen-
sion* of several kilometer* to 50 or more kil-
ometer*. Such measurement*  will be used
for determining trends, and designing area-
wide control strategies. The urban scale sta-
tions  would also be used lo measure high
concentrations downwind of the area having
the hlghesl precursor emissions.
  Regional Scale—This  scale  of measure-
ment  will be used  to typify concentrations
over large portions of a  metropolitan area
and even larger areas with dimensions of as
much  a* hundreds of  kilometers.  Such
measurements will be useful for assessing
the ozone that Is transported Into an urban
area. Data from such stations may be useful
In accounting  for Ihe ozone that cannot be
reduced by control strategies In that urban
area.
  The location selection  procedure contin-
ues after the spatial scale Is selected based
on the monitoring objectives. The appropri-
ate network design procedures as found In
reference 4, should be used lo evaluate the
adequacy of each existing O,  monitor  and
must be used to relocate an existing station
or to locate any new O, SLAMS stations.
The first step In the siting procedure would
be to  collect the necessary background ma-
terial, which may consist of maps, emission
Inventories for nomnelhane  hydrocarbons
and oxides of nitrogen (NO,), climatologies!
                          PI. 58, App. 0

data, and existing air quality data for ozone.
nonmelhane hydrocarbons, and NO./NO.
  For locating a neighborhood scale station
to measure typical city concentrations,  a
reasonably homogeneous geographical area
near the center of the region should  be se
lecled which Is also removed from the Influ-
ence of major NO, sources.  For an  urban
scale station to measure the high concentra-
tion areas, the emission Inventories should
be used lo define the extent of the area of
Important  nonmethane hydrocarbon*  and
NO, emissions. The  most frequent  wind
speed and direction for periods of Important
photochemical  activity should be   deter-
mined.  Then  the prospective monitoring
area should be selected In  a direction from
the city thai  Is most frequently downwind
during  periods  of photochemical activity.
The distance from the station to the upwind
edge of the city should be about equal lo
Ihe distance traveled by air moving for S to
7 hours at wind speeds prevailing during pe-
riods of photochemical activity. Prospective
areas  for   locating  O, monitors should
alwaya be outside Ihe area of major NO,.
  In locating a  neighborhood scale station
which  Is to measure high concentrations.
the same procedures  used for the  urban
scale are followed excepl  that the station
should be located closer to the areas border-
ing on  the  center city or  slightly further
downwind In an area of high density popula-
tion.
  For regional scale background monitoring
stations, the most frequent wind associated
with  Important  photochemical  activity
should be determined. The prospective mon-
itoring area should be upwind for the most
frequent direction and outside the area of
city Influence.
  Since ozone levels decrease significantly In
the colder parts of the year In  many  areas.
ozone Is required to be monitored at NAMS
and SLAMS monitoring sites  only during
the "ozone season"  as designated In  the
8AROAD files on a State by Stale basis and
described below:

   OZONE MONITORING SEASON BY STATE
Stala
Alabama
Alaska
Ariiona
Arfcansat
CaMornia
Colorado
Comecfccul
fMaoara
Oiskicl ol Columbia
Flomla
Gaofgia
Hawaii
Maho
Moon
069"* monBi
March
Ap.il
January
March
January
March
Apr.
April
April
January
Match
January
Apr*
Apm
End ftiontti
NtMmba.
Oclobat
Dacambar
tlu»aii4jai
Oaten ajar
SantomMr
October
Oclobaf
October
f)eca«i
-------
 n. 5i,
   OZONE MONIIORINO SEASON BY STATE—
                 Continued
       SUM
Men*
low*    .
Kaneaa
Kentucky
lotttana
MwyUnK
MatiactiueeHa
Mchlpan
MrxmoU
Montana
N«t»l»H
Nevada
North Cacokns
Not* DekciU
Onto
Oklahoma
Oiegon.     . .

Puerto Rico .
Rhode Man!
SoutlCsiotns
South Oatote
Ion
Utah
VfcgintS
Weel V.ojr-e
WrKxmarn
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Won Wanda
Apr*
Ap,*
January
Apr*
Apr!
Apr*
Apr*
Apr*
Match
Apr*
June
Apr*
Jarvery
Apr*
Ap.*
January
Apr*
Apr*
Marcn
Apr*
Apr*
January
June
Apr*
January
Hay
Apr*
Apr*
Apr*
Apr*
Apr*
Apr*
January
January
  End morrlh


Oclobei
October
October
October
December
October
October
Oclobei
October
October

October
September
October
December
October
October
December
October
October
September
October
November
October
October
December
October
October
September
Octber
December
September
Urlobai
Oclobei
October
October
October
ivtoher
Iwembei
Decemdei
Additional discussion on I he procedure* for
•Itlnc ozone stations may be found In refer
ence 4.
  It Nllrogen Dioxide (NO,I Design Crite-
ria for S1.AMR
  The typical spalltil  scales o( representa-
tiveness  associated  with  nllrourn  dioxide
monitoring based on monitoring objectives
are middle, nrlfttibortmod. and urban Since
nitrogen dioxlrtc Is primarily formed In  the
almosplierr from Hie oxidation o( NO. large
volumes of air and  mUmr. limes  usually
reduce  the Importance  nl  monitoring  on
small scale spatial vnrlnbltlly especially  for
long averaging  limes  However,  there may
be  some situations  where NO. measure
mcnls would  be made on the middle scale
for both long  and short term avrrniies
  Middle Scale  Measurements on I hl.s srale
would  cover  dimensions from  about  100
mrters   lo 05  kilometer  These measure-
ments would  characlcrl/e the public expo
sure lo  NO. In  l>o|»ulnl«'il im-d.-,  Al'.o monl
          40 CFR Cti. I (7-l-M Mm.,,)

U>n that are  located closer to  roadways
than the minimum distances specified In
Table 3 of Appendix B of this part, would be
represented by measurements on this scale
  Ntighborhood  and   Urban  Sralei  -Th»
same considerations aa discussed In Section
2.5 for O. would also apply lo NO,.
  After the spatial scale Is selected based on
the monitoring objectives, then the siting
procedures a* found In reference 4 should
be used to evaluate the adequacy of each en
Is ting NO, station and  muni be used to relo
cale an existing station or to locale any new
NO, SLAMS slallons. The siting procedures
begin with collecting the background mate
rial. This background  Infoimallon may In-
clude the characteristics of the area and IU
sources under study, cllmatologlcal data to
determine where concentration maxima are
most likely lo be found,  and any  existing
monitoring data for NO,.
  For neighborhood or urban scales, the em
phasli  In site  selection will  be  In finding
those area*  where  long-term average* are
expected to be the highest. Nevertheless. It
should be expected that the maximum  NO,
concentrations will  occur  In  approximately
the  *ame locations as  the maximum  total
oxide*  of nitrogen concentrations. The  best
course  would be to locate  the station some
what further downwind beyond  the expect-
ed point of maximum  total oxides of nitro-
gen to  allow more time for the formation of
NO,. The dilution of the emissions further
downwind from the source should be consid-
ered along with the need for  reaction  lime
for NO. formation In  locating  stations to
measure peak concentration. It dispersion la
favorable,  maximum  concentrations  may
occur closer  to  the  emission sources  than
the  location* predicted from oxidation of
NO lo  NO. alone. This will occur downwind
of source* baaed on winter wind direction or
In area* where there are high ozone concen-
Irallon*  and high  density  NO, emission*
*uch as on the fringe of the central business
district or further downwind. The distance
and direction downwind would be based on
ozone season wind patterns
  Once the ma|or emissions areas and  wind
pallern* are known, areas of potential max!
mum NO, level* can be determined. Nllro
gen dioxide concentrations are likely to de-
cline rather rapidly outside the urban area.
Therefore,  the best  location  for measuring
NO. concentrations will  be  In neighbor-
hoods near the edge of  the city.
  27 Lead    The most
Important spatial scales lo effectively char
actrrlze Hie emissions from both mobile and
slnllniisry  sources  arc the  micro, mldille.
Environmental Protection Agency

and  neighborhood scales. For  purpose* of
establishing monitoring  station* to repre-
sent large homogeneous area* other than
the  above  scales  of  representativeness.
urban or  regional scale stations would also
be needed.
  JHicro«cafe-Thls scale would typify drew
•uch a* downtown atreet canyon* and traffic
corridor* where the general public would be
exposed to maximum  concentration* from
mobile sources.  Because of  the very steep
ambient   Pb  gradients  resulting  from  Pb
emissions from  mobile sources. i7> the di-
mension*  of the mlcroacale for Pb generally
would not extend beyond IS meter* from
the  roadway.  Emission* from  stationary
source* such a* primary and secondary lead
smellers,  and primary copper smeller* may
under fumigation conditions likewise result
In high ground  level concentration* M the
mkroccale. In the latter case, the mlcroacale
would represent an area Impacted  by the
plume with dimension* extending up to ap-
proximately loo meter*. Data collected at
mlcroscale itatlon* provide Information for
evaluating and  developing "hot-spot" con-
trol measures.
  Middle  Scdie-ThI* scale generally repre-
sent* lead air quality level*  In area* up to
several city blocks In stee with dimension*
on the order of approximately 100 meter* to
BOO  meter*.  However, the  dimension*  for
middle acale roadway  type station* would
probably  be on  the order of BO-ISO meter*
because of the exponential decrease In  lead
concentration  with  Increasing  distance*
from roadway*. The middle scale may for
example.  Include schools and playground*
In center  city area* which are close to major
roadway*. Pb monitor* In such area* are de-
sirable because  of the higher sensitivity of
children to exposures to Pb concentration*.
<7> EmUalon* from point sources frequently
Impact on area* at which (Ingle site* may be
located to  measure concentration*  repre-
sentlng middle spatial scales.
   Neighborhood Scale-The neighborhood
acale would characterise air quality condi-
tions throughout some relatively uniform
land use  areas with dimensions In the O.B to
4.0 kilometer range. Stations  of  thta acale
would provide monitoring data In areas rep-
resenting conditions where children live and
play. Monitoring In inch areas I* Important
since this segment of the population I* more
susceptible lo the effects of lead.
   t/roan Scale-Such stations would be  used
 to present ambient Pb concentration*  over
 an entire metropolitan area with dimensions
 In the  4 lo 50 kilometer range.  An urban
 scale elation  would be useful  for asseaslng
 trend* In city wide air quality and the etfec-
 llveneas of larger scale air pollution control
 strategies.
   Regional Seofe -Measurements from these
 stations would clmrnrlcrlze sir quality levels
 over sreu Imvlng itlmcnslons nl 50 to  him
                          ft. M, Ap*. 0

dred* of kilometer*. This large scale of rep-
resentativeness would be most applicable to
•paraely populated areas and could provide
Information on background air quality and
Interregional pollutant transport.
  Monitoring data for ambient Pb levels are
required In major urbanized areas, particu-
larly  where Pb level*  have been shown or
are expected  to  be  of significant  concern
such  location* are to be expected In urban
areas having high population densities and
accompanying high traffic densities. The
total  number and  type  of  stations  for
SLAMS are not prescribed but must be de-
termined on a case-by-case basis. As a mini-
mum there must be two stations In any ur-
banised area which has a population eiceed-
Ing SOO.OOO. Also, as a minimum, there must
be two  stations In any area where lead con-
centrations  currently  exceed or  have ex-
ceeded  1.B pg/rn'quarterly arithmetic mean
measured since January I. IVM. For those
areas leas than  600.000 population  where
the lead concentrations nave exceeded  l.B
pg/ra* quarterly  arithmetic mean, the Re-
gional Administrator may waive the require-
ment for establishing  SLAMS provided the
State can demonstrate that measured lead
concentrations  have   not exceeded  the
NAAQ8 for the  eight quarters preceding
the  lead monitoring  plan submlnlon  re-
quired by I M.M. For locations where moni-
tor* are not being operated at the time of
the  Pb monitoring  plan  submission, data
•howlng attainment during the final eight
quarters of operation will generally provide
the basis for the waiver. The EPA Regional
Administrator may  specify more than two
monitoring  stations If It Is found that two
stations are Insufficient to adequately deter-
mine It the Pb standard  Is being  attained
and maintained. The  Regional Administra-
tor may also specify that stallons be located
In areas outside the boundaries of the ur-
banised areas.
  Concerning the previously discussed re-
quired  minimum of  two station*, one of the
itatlon* must be a category (at type itatlon
and the second a category  station. Both
of these categoric* of station* are defined In
section 1. For areas where the predominant
lead  level*  come  from automotive source*.
the category tal station must  be a mlcros-
cale  or middle scale station located  near  a
major roadway I > 30.000 average dally traf-
fic, (ADT)l In order to measure maximum
Pb concentrations from mobile sources. In
sreas where there are no  roadways exceed
 Ing 30.000 ADT. the station should be locat-
ed near the roadway with the largest traffic
 volume. Studies  (7. 8) Indicate that  lead
 levels decrease exponentially with distance
 from roadways. Thus, the  higher concentt»
 lions are close lo the roadway and stallons
 located In such areas because of the sleep
 concentration •ts.ri'lenls.  sre  most  n«t«-r»
                                         164
                                                                                                                                          165

-------
  ft. M, App. D

  found  to represent  the  mlcroscale  and
  middle scale  dimension.  For  areas  where
  predominant  lead  level*  come (torn point
  sources, the category la) station generally
  represent* the  mlcroscale or  middle scale
  Impact of the point  source. However. In a
  few cases, sufficient  mixing  may  occur
  during transport of the emissions from the
  source to the ground so that  the category
  (a) station represents a neighborhood scale.
  The required category ib) station must be a
  neighborhood scale station since the mlcros-
  cale and middle scale  station would not rep-
  resent the air quality over large geographi-
  cal areas and frequently may not be located
  In highly populated areas. It Is recognized
  that In certain areas,  a middle  scale station
  may be located at  schools  or  playgrounds
  near major roadways. However. In most
  canes, they are not located In such areas and
 since children (7) are the segment of the
 population most susceptible to the effects of
 lead and are more likely to live and play In
 the residential section  of the  urban area.
 the category (b) station should be located In
 residential areas having a combination  of
 high population and traffic  density. In the
 case where lead levels come  primarily from
 point sources,  the category (b)  station gen-
 erally  represents  a   neighborhood  scale
 Impact of the point source.
  To locate monitoring stations. It will be
 necessary to obtain background Information
 such as stationary and mobile source emis-
 sions Inventories, morning and evening traf-
 fic patterns, climatologies! summaries, and
 local geographical characteristics. Such  In-
 formation should be used to Identify  areas
 that  are most suitable to  the particular
 monitoring objective  and  spatial  scale of
 representativeness desired. Reference 9 pro-
 vides additional  guidance on locating sites
 to meet specific  urban area  monitoring ob-
 jectives and must be used In locating new
 stations or evaluating the adequacy of exist-
 ing stations.
  After locating each Pb station, and. to the
 extent practicable, taking. Into consideration
 the collective Impart of all  Pb sources and
surrounding physical characteristics of the
siting area, a spatial  scale of representative-
ness must be assigned to eat li station.
  Guidance on  locating monllorlng'stations
In the vicinity of stationary lead sources Is
given In  reference 10  This  reference pro-
vides assistance In designing a  network  to
meet the monitoring objective of determin-
ing the Impact  of point sources  on ambient
Pb levels.
  3 8  PM,. Dfiian Criteria for SLAMS
  As with other pollutants measured In the
HI.AMS network, the first step In designing
the PM,. network Is to collect the necessary
background  Information.   Various  stud-
ies" " " '• " " have  documented the major
source categories nl  participate  matter and
their contribution to ambient levels In  varl
            40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-M

  ous locations throughout the country Be
  cause the source* for  PM,. are similar in
  those for TSP. the procedure* for collecting
  the necessary  background  Information for
  PM,.  are  also similar.  Sources of back
  ground Information would  be regional and
  traffic map* and  aerial  photograph* show
  Ing topography, settlement*, major  Indu*.
  trie* and highway*. These map* and photo
  graph* would be  used to Identify area* of
  the type that are of concern to the particu-
  lar monitoring  objective. After potentially
  suitable  monitoring areas  for  PMM  have
  been Identified on a map. modeling may be
  used to provide an eatlmate of PM,. concen-
  trations  throughout the area of Interest
  After  completing the  first step, existing
  TSP SLAMS or other  partlculale matter
  stations should be evaluated to  determine
  their potential  aa candidate* for SLAMS
  designation. Stations meeting one or more
  of the four basic monitoring objective* de-
  scribed In section  I of this  Appendix must
  be classified  Into one of the  five scale* of
  representativeness (micro, middle, neighbor-
  hood, urban and regional) If  the stations are
  to become SLAMS. In citing and classifying
 PM,. stations, the procedures In reference
  IT should be used.
   If existing TSP samplers meet the quality
 assurance requirement* of Appendix A. the
 PM» siting requirements of  Appendix E,
 and are located In areas of suspected maxi-
 mum concentration* are described In section
 3 of Appendix D. and If the TSP level* are
 below  the  ambient  PM,. standards.  TSP
 sampler* may continue to be used as substi-
 tutes for PMU SLAMS samplers under the
 provisions of Section 3.3 of Appendix C.
  The most Important spatial scales to effec-
 tively characterize the  emissions of  PM,.
 from both mobile and stationary sources are
 the micro, middle and neighborhood scales
 For purpose* of establishing monitoring sta-
 tions to represent  Urge  homogenous areas
 other than  the above scales of representa-
 tiveness, urban or regional  scale stations
 would also be needed.
  Mlcroicale-Ttilt scale would typify areas
 such as downtown street canyons and traffic
 corridors where the general public would be
 exposed to  maximum concentrations from
 mobile sources.  Because  of the very  steep
 ambient  PM,.  gradient*  resulting  from
 mobile sources, the dimensions of the ml-
croscale  for  PM»  generally  would  not
extend beyond IS meters  from the roadway.
but could  continue  the length of the road-
way which could  be several kilometers. Ml-
croscale PM,.  sites  should be located near
Inhabited  buildings or locations where the
general  public can  be expected to be ex-
posed to the concentration measured. Emis-
sions from stationary sources such as pri-
mary and secondary smelters, power plants.
and  other large  Industrial processes  may.
                                                                                        1
invtrvnmwntol Protection Agency

under  certain  plume  conditions, likewise
result In high ground level concentration*
at the mlcroscale. In the latter case, the ml-
croscale would  represent an area Impacted
by the plume with dimensions extending up
to approximately 100 meter*. Date collected
at mlcroacale stations  provide Information
for evaluating  and developing   "hoUpot"
control measure*.
  Middle Scale—Much of the measurement
of short-term public exposure to PM» I* on
this Male. People  moving through down-
town areas, or living near major roadway*.
encounter particle* that would be adequate-
ly characterized by measurement*  of this
spatial *cale. Thus, measurement*  of thl*
type would be appropriate for the  evalua-
tion of possible short-term public health ef-
fect* of partlculate matter pollution. Thl*
scale al*o Include* the characteristic  concen-
tration* for other area* with dimensions of
a few hundred  meter* such a* the parking
lot and feeder streets associated  with shop-
ping center*, itedla. and office building*. In
the case of PM», unpaved or seldom swept
parking lot* associated with  these  aource*
could be an Important source In addition to
the vehicular emissions themselves.
  Neighborhood   Scale-Measurement*  In
thl* category  would represent  condition*
throughout some reasonably  homogeneous
urban aubreglon with dimension* of a few
kilometer* and of  generally  more  regular
shape than the middle scale. Homogeneity
refer* to the PMM concentrations, aa well aa
the land use and land surface characteris-
tic*. In some cases, a location carefully
chosen to provide neighborhood acale date
would  represent  not only the  Immediate
neighborhood but also neighborhood* of the
same type In other part* of  the city. Sta-
tions of thl* kind provide good Information
about trends and compliance with standards
because they often represent conditions In
area* where people commonly live and work
for periods comparable to those specified In
the NAAQS. This category also Includes In-
dustrial and commercial neighborhood*, a*
well a* residential.
  Neighborhood  scale  date could  provide
valuable Information for developing,  testing.
and revising models that describe the larger-
scale  concentration  patterns,   especially
those model* relying on spatially smoothed
emission  fields  for  Inputs. The  neighbor-
hood scale measurements could also  be used
for neighborhood comparisons within or be-
tween cities. This Is the most likely scale of
measurement* to meet the needs of plan-
ner*.
  Urban Scale—This class-of measurement
would be made to characterize the PM,. con-
centration over an entire metropolitan area.
Such measurements would be useful for as-
sessing trends In  city-wide air quality, and
hence,  the effectiveness of large scale air
pollution control strategies.
                         ft. Si, App. D

  Regional   Scofe-These   measurement*
would characterize condition* over  area*
with dimension* of a* much aa hundred* of
kilometer*. A* noted earlier,  using repre-
sentative  condition*  for  an  area  Implies
some degree  of homogeneity In that area.
For  this  reason, regional scale measure-
ment* would  be moat applicable to sparsely
populated area* with reasonably uniform
ground  cover. Date characteristic* of this
acale would   provide Information  about
larger acale  processes of PM» emissions,
losses and transport.
I. Network Oeilon for National Air Monl-
torlng Station* i HAMS)
  The NAM8 must be stations (elected from
the SLAMS network with emphasl* given to
urban and multlsource  area*. Area* to  be
monitored must be selected baaed on urban-
ised  population and pollutant concentration
level*. Generally, a larger number of NAM8
are  needed  In more polluted urban and
multlsource areas. The network design crite-
ria discussed  below reflect these concept*.
However, It should be emphasized that devi-
ation* from the NAM8 network design crite-
ria may be necessary In a few cases. Thus.
these design  criteria are not a act of rigid
rule* but rather a guide for achieving a
proper distribution of monitoring site* on a
national scale.
  The primary objective  for  NAMS  to  to
monitor In the area* where the pollutant
concentration and  the population exposure
are expected to be the highest consistent
with the averaging time of the NAAQS. Ac-
cordingly, the NAMS fall Into two catego-
ric*:
  Category (a): Station* located In area of
expected maximum concentration* (general-
ly mlcroscale for CO. mlcroscale or middle
scale for Pb  and PM,., neighborhood scale
for SO,, and NO,, and  urban scale for O>.
  Category : Stations which combine
poor air quality with a high population den-
sity but not necessarily located In an area of
expected maximum concentration*  (neigh-
borhood scale, except urban scale for NO,I.
Category (b) monitors would  generally be
representative of larger spatial scales than
category (al monitors.
  For each urban area where NAMS are re-
quired,  both  categories  of monitoring sta-
tions must be  established. In the  case  of
TSP and SO, If only  one NAMS I* needed.
then category (a) must be used. The analy-
sis and  Interpretation of data from NAMS
should  consider the distinction  between
these types of stations as appropriate.
  The concept of NAMS Is designed to pro-
vide  data  for national policy  analyses/
trends and for reporting to the public on
major  metropolitan  areas.  It  Is not  the
Intent to monitor In every area  where the
NAAQS are  violated  bn  the other hand.
                                        166
                                                                                                                                      Ifl7

-------
PI. Si. App. D

the data from 81.AM8 should be used prl
marlly for nonattalnmcnl decisions/ analy
•es In specific geographical area*. Since (he
NAMS are stations from Ihr SI.AMS net-
work, station locatlni procedures for NAMS
are part or the SI.AMS network design proc
CM.
  3.1  IReservedl
  3.1  Sulfur Dioxide (SO.) Design Criteria
for NAMS
  It la desirable to have a greater number of
NAMS In  the more polluted  and  densely
populated urban and mulilsource areas. The
data In  Table  3  show  the approximate
number of  permanent stations  needed In
urban areas to characterize the national and
regional  SO,  air  quality trends and geo-
graphical  patterns.  These criteria  require
that the number of NAMS In areas where
urban populations exceed 1.000.000 and con
centratlons also exceed the primary NAAQS
may  range from 6 to 10 and that In  areas
where the 8O> problem Is minor, only one or
two (or no) monitors are required For those
cases  where more  than one  station  Is  re-
quired for an urban area, Ihrrr should be at
least one station for category (a) and cate-
gory  stations Is
determined on  a  case by case  basis. The
actual  number and location nf  the NAMS
must be determined by EPA Regional Of-
fices and  the Slate agency,  subject to the
approval of EPA Headquarters (OANR).

 TABIE 3—SO, National Air Monitoring Slalion
                  Criteria
      f Appronmcte numbw of tlabon. pe« •*«•) •
PnpUMon
 >ioooooc
 sooooaio
  t.ooo.ooc
 2M.OOOM
  MO 000
 luo.ooo to
           KwZlfc
• 10


4 S


14


I ?
4 S


1 *


I ?


0 I
24


I t

0-1

o
  • S«l«clion erf urtMn Mvftt mmt Arto*) nun** of .latent
DM Ma «* b. |t»nlV rfrlrtmnrd b, [PA >nd •>• SUM
•gancy
  Mftgh cortcwHrahon  eacpwfc*^ fcvH  ol lh« pnmanr
  Mftgh
NAAOS
  • M.tfcuw concanfcahmi eKrectftng 6O paiceni o* *>• tow*
 04 f* prwnanr of tOOX o( lrw» tm.onriary MAAOS
  ' I ow concert, alion M>4* HIAII 60 fN^cfnl of (he tev«l ol
 IT* P-OTMY 01 IOOX ol the vrnmlacy NAAOS

  The estimated  number of  SO,  NAMS
 which would be required nationwide ranges
 from approximately  200  (o  300.   This
 number of NAMS SO, monitors Is sufficient
 for national  trend purposes due to the low
 background SOi levels, and the fart that air
 quality  Is very sensitive to .HO,  emission
 changes. The actual number of stations  In
          40 CFR Ch. I (7-l-M Edition)

any specific area depends on local factors
such as meteorology, topography, urban and
regional air quality  gradients, and  the  po
lentlal for significant air quality Improve
menu or degradation. The greatest density
of stations should be where  urban  popula
lions  are  large and  where pollution levels
are high. Fewer NAMS are necessary In  the
western  Stales since  concentrations  are
seldom above  the NAAQS In their urban
areas.  Exceptions to this are In the  areas
where an expected shortage  of clean fuels
Indicates that ambient air quality  may be
degraded  by Increased  SO,  emissions.  In
such cases, a minimum number nf NAMS Is
required to pro- We EPA with a proper  na
tlonal  perspective on significant changes In
air quality.
  (Jke T8P. the worst  air quality In  an
urban  area I* to be used as the basis for de
lermlnlng  the required  number   of  SO,
NAMS (see Table 3). This Includes  SO. air
quality levels within populated purls of ur-
banised areas, that are  affected by one or
two point sources of SO, If the Impact of
the sourcets)  extends  over  a reasonably
broad  geographic  scale  (neighborhood or
larger). Maximum SO, air quality levels In
remote unpopulated areas should  be  ex-
cluded as a basis for selecting NAMS regard
less of the sources affecting the concentra-
tion levels. Such remote areas are more  ap-
propriately monitored by 8I.AM8  or 8PM
networks and/or characterized by diffusion
model calculations as necessary.
  3.3  Carbon Monoxide (CO) Design Crlte
rla for NAMS
  Information  Is  needed on  ambient  CO
levels In major urbanized areas where  CO
levels have been shown  or Inferred  to be a
significant concern.  At  the national  level,
EPA will not routinely require data  from as
many stations  as are required for TSP, and
perhaps, SO,,  since  CO  trend stations  are
principally needed to assess the overall air
quality progress resulting from the emission
controls required by the Federal motor vehi-
cle control program (FMVCP).
  Although  State  and local  air programs
may require extensive monitoring to docu-
ment  and measure the local Impacts of  CO
emissions  and  emission  controls,  an ade-
quate  national perspective Is possible with
as few as Iwo stations per major urban area.
The two  categories  for  which CO NAMS
would  be  required are: (a) Peak concentra
lion areas such as are found around major
traffic arteries and  near  heavily  traveled
streets In downtown  areas (micro scale); and
(b) neighborhoods where concentration  ex
posiires are significant (middle scale, neigh-
borhood scale).
  The  peak concentration  station (micro
scale) Is usually found near heavily traveled
downtown streets   (street  canyons),   but
could be found along major arlerlnl.s (rorrl
fnvlrwitmwntal rVwIwctton Agoncy

don), either near Intersections or at low ele-
vations which are Influenced by downslope
drainage patterns under low Inversion con-
ditions.  The  peak  concentration  station
should be located so that It la representative
of several similar source configurations  In
the urban area, where the general  popula-
tion haa access. Thus. It should reflect one
of many potential peak situations which
occur throughout the urban area. It Is rec-
ognised that this doea not measure air qual-
ity which represents  large  geographical
area*. Thus, a second type of station on the
neighborhood scale la necessary to  provide
data representative of the high concentra-
tion levels which  exist over large geographi-
cal areaa.
  The category (b) (middle scale or neigh-
borhood scale) should be located In  areaa
with a stable, high population density, pro-
jected  continuity of neighborhood  charac-
ter, and high traffic density.  The stations
should be located where no major xonlng
changes, new highways, or new shopping
centers are  being considered. The  station
should be where • significant CO pollution
problem exists, but not be  unduly Influ-
enced by any  one line source. Rather.  M
should be more representative of the overall
effect of the source*  In a significant portion
of the urban area.
  Because CO la generally associated with
heavy traffic and population clusters, an ur-
banised area with a population greater than
100.000 to the principal critertlon for Identi-
fying the urban  areaa  for which pairs of
NAMS for this pollutant will be required.
The criterion to baaed on Judgment that sta-
tions  In  urban areaa  with  greater  than
•00.000 population would provide sufficient
data for national analysis and national re-
porting to Congress and the public.  Also. H
haa generally been shown that major CO
problems are  found  In  areaa  greater than
MO.OOO population.
  1.4  Osone (O.) Design Criteria for NAM8
  The  criterion for selecting  locations for
osone NAMS Is any urbanised area having a
population of more than MO.OOO. This popu-
lation cut off la used since the sources of hy-
drocarbons are both mobile and stationary
and are more diverse. Also, because  of local
and national control strateglea and the com-
plex chemical process of ozone formation
and transport, more sampling stations than
for CO are  needed on  a national  scale to
better understand the ozone problem. This
selection criterion Is based entirely on popu-
lation  and  will  Include those relatively
highly populated areas  where most of the
oxldant precursors originate.
  Each  urban  area  will generally  require
only two ozone NAMS. One station would be
representative of maximum ozone concen-
trations  (category (a),  urban  scale) under
the wind transport conditions as dlscumed
In section >.B. The exarl 'oral Ion should bsl
                            . M,
ance  local factor* affecting  transport and
buildup of peak O, levels with the need to
represent population exposure. The second
station (category (b). neighborhood scale).
should be representative of  high density
population areas on the fringe* of the cen-
tral business district along the predominant
summer/fall daytime wind direction. This
latter station should measure peak O. levels
under light and variable  or stagnant wind
condition*. Two oxone NAMS station* will
be sufficient In most urban area* since spa-
tial gradients for ozone generally are not a*
•harp as for other criteria pollutant*.
  3.1  Nitrogen Dioxide (NO.) Criteria for
NAMS. Nitrogen dioxide NAMS will be re-
quired In those area* of the country which
have  •  population greater than 1.000.000.
These area* will have two NO. NAMS. It I*
fell that stations In these major metropoli-
tan area* would provide sufficient date for a
national  analysis of the  data, and also be-
cause NO. problem* occur In area* of great-
er than 1.000.000 population.
  Within urban area* requiring NAMS. two
permanent monitor* are sufficient. The first
station (category (a), middle scale or neigh-
borhood  scale)  would  be to  measure the
photochemical production of NO. and would
beat be located  In that part of the urban
area where the emission density of NO. to
the highest. The second  station (category
(b) urban scale), would be to measure the
NO. produced  from the reaction of NO with
O. and should be downwind of the area of
peak NO. emission areaa.
  3.0  Lead IPb) Design Criteria for NAMS.
In order to achieve the national monitoring
objective. Iwo  of the SLAMS located In ur-
bantaed areaa with population* greater than
•00.000 will be designated aa NAMS. One of
the stations must be a mlcroacale or middle
scale category (a) station, located adjacent
to a major roadway (>30.000 ADT) or near
the roadway with the large*! traffic volume
If the volume I* lew than 30.000 ADT. A ml
croseale location la preferred, but a middle
wale la also acceptable If  a suitable mtcros-
cale location cannot be found.
  The second  station must be • neighbor-
hood scale category (b) station located In a
highly populated residential section of the
urbanized area where traffic density to high.
preferably O30.OOO ADT) or near the road-
way with the  largest traffic volume If the
volume to less than 30.000 ADT.
  In certain urbanized areas greater than
•00.000 population, point sources may have
a significant  Impact  on  air  quality lead
levels In populated areas. To measure the
Impact of such sources, other monitors In
the SLAMS network  would  normally be
used.
  3.7  /•*»„. Datfn. Criteria far HAMS
  Table 41 Indicates the approximate number
of permanent, .station*  required tn ("ban
                                         168
                                                                                                                                        169

-------
ft. 91, App. 0

areas to characterize national and regional
PM,, air  quality trends  and geographical
pattern*. The number of stations In areu
where urban  populations exceed 1.000.000
must be In the ranee from 2 to  10 stations.
while In  low population urban areas,  no
more than  two  stations are  required. A
IT nge of monitoring stations Is specified In
Table 4 because  sources of pollutants  and
local control efforts can vary from one part
of the country to another and therefore.
some flexibility Is allowed In selecting the
actual number of stations In any one locale.
  It I* recognized that no I'M,, samplers will
be designated as PM,. reference or equiva-
lent methods until, at the earliest, approxi-
mately  six  months  after promulgation of
PM» NAAQS and the reference and equiva-
lent  method  requirements.  Even though
non-designated  PM,.  samplers  will  have
been commercially available, and  a small
number of samplers will have been In use by
EPA. other  agencies, and  Industry, there
will not be enough ambient PM,. data to de-
termine ambient PM,. levels for all areas of
the country. Accordingly. EPA has provided
guidance "on converting  ambient IP,, data
to ambient PM,. data. Ambient IP,, data are
data  from high  volume  samplers  utilizing
quarts filters or dlcholomous samplers, both
with  Inlets  designed to  collect particles
nominally It urn and below.  Also Included
In I he guidance are procedures for calculat-
ing from ambient T8P data the probability
that an area will be nonatlalnment lor PM,.
For determining the appropriate number of
NAMS per area, the converted  IP,, data or
the probabilities of PM,. nonattalnmenl are
used In Table 4. unless  ambient PM,. data
are  available. If only one  monitor Is re-
quired  In an urbanized  area. It must be a
category (a) type. Since emissions associated
with the  operation  of motor vehicles  con-
tribute to  urban area  participate matter
levels, consideration of the Impact of these
sources must be Included In the design of
the NAMS network,  particularly In urban
areas greater than 500.000 population. In
certain urban areas  partlculite emissions
from motor  vehicle dlesel exhaust currently
          40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-18 Edition)

Is or Is expected to be a significant source of
PM» ambient levels.  If an evaluation of the
sources of PM,. as described In section  2.8
Indicates that the maximum concentration
area Is predominantly Influenced by road-
way emissions, then the category (a) station
should be located adjacent to a major road
and should be a mlcroscale or middle scale.
A mlcroscale Is preferable but a middle scale
Is also acceptable  If a suitable mlcroscale lo-
cation cannot be found. However. If the pre-
dominant Influence In the suspected maxi-
mum concentration area Is expected to be
Industrial  emissions,  and/or  combustion
products (from other than an Isolated single
source), the category  station should be a
middle  scale  or  neighborhood  scale.  A
middle  scale exposure  Is  preferable to a
neighborhood scale  In representing  the
maximum concentration Impact from multi-
ple  sources,  other than  vehicular,  but a
neighborhood scale Is acceptable, especially
In  large  residential areas  that  burn  oil.
wood, and/or coal for space heating.
  For thooe cases where more than one sta-
tion Is required for an urban  area, there
should be at least one station lor category
(a) and one station for category (b) neigh-
borhood scale objectives as discussed  In Sec-
tion 3. Where three or more stations are re-
quired, the mix of category (a) and (b) sta-
tions Is to be determined  on a  case-by-case
basis.  The actual number ol  NAMS and
their locations must be determined by EPA
Regional Offices  and the  State .agencies.
subject to the approval of the Administrator
as  required by 151.32. The Administrator's
approval Is necessary to Insure that Individ-
ual stations conform to the NAMS selection
criteria and that  the network as a whole Is
sufficient In  terms of number and location
for  purposes of  national  analyses.  As re-
quired under the provisions of section 2.2 of
Appendix C. all PM- NAMS that were pre
vlously designated as T8P NAMS must con-
currently collect  ambient TSP and PM,.
data for a one-year  period beginning when
each NAMS PM,. sampler Is put Into oper-
ation.
CnvfrwiiMntol Pr»tc*HMi Agency
                                                                    Pt. M, App. 0
                 TABIE «—PM,. NATIONAL AIR MONITORING STATION CRITERIA

                            I Afipfoi*n«t« NumtMf ol Stefcont pM AIM! •
                   Papt4il»
  Low onm«i>»llun stow or* *m* tar wNdt AircJonl PM.  or omMom •>„ dM. convortort to PM. thev
   ------  IMO »on SO porcom ol HO PM. NAAQS; or t» prebsbSfr ol PM. m*Utnm*». eoHnllolod torn TSP oMt.
* IOM fun JO Mreont
  •Procodmobroriln
ol non.IMraii.nl tor PM. fan obMrvoo' TSP iMo or. provktod to rakmra IS
                                       Irom *>„ smblM ok moowromonl. or lor ..Ulrtng *w protoMHy
                                           Then may akw be some situation*. a* dis-
                                           cussed later In Appendix E, where addition-
                                           al scales may be allowed for NAMS pur
4.  Summary
 Table 6 shows by pollutant, all of the spa-
tial scale* that are applicable  for SLAMS
and the required spatial Kale* for NAMS.
   TABLE 5—SUMMARY OF SPATML SCALES FOR SLAMS AND REQUIRED SCALES FOR
                                      NAMS



•too ....
MtMt
Un>*n



80.


"


CO
•>




0.


"
;sW. tor t

NO.



ILAMS

Pk
tf
t*
*•


PM.

-------
 fl. M, App. E

 ronmrnUI Criteria and AaarKunenl Office
 Research  Triangle  Park.  NC  December

  14 WaUon. JO., el al. Analysis of Inhala
 bit and  Fine Parllrulale M«ltrr Measure
 menU.  Prepared  lor  U.8.  Envlionmental
 Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park
 NC. EPA 450/4 II 035  December 1981
  IS. Record. FA.  and 1. A Burl  Evaluation
 on Contribution or Wind Blown Dust from
 the Desert levels of Paniculate Matter In
 Desert Communities. C1CA Technology Dlvl
 •Ion, Bedford. MA. Prepared lor U.S. Envl
 ronmental Protection Agency. Research Trl
 angle Park. NC. EPA-450/2 80 078  August
 1180.
  I*. Goldstein. E,A. and Paly M. The Diesel
 Problem  In New York City. Project on  the
 Urban Environment. Natural Resources  De-
 fense Council.  Inc.. New York. NY  April
 1(86.
  17. Keen. R.C. and HE Rector. Optimum
Network  Design and Site Exposure Criteria
for  Participate Matter. OEOMET Technol-
ogies. Inc.. Rockvllle. MD. Prepared for U.S.
Environmental  Prelection  Agency,   Re-
search Triangle Park. NC.  EPA Contract
No   08 02  3584.  EPA  4SO/4 87 009  May
 1987.
  18. Pace. T.. el al. Procedures for Estimat-
ing  Probability of  Nonatlalnment of a PM»
Data.   US.   Environmental   Protection
 Agency. Research  Triangle Park. NC  EPA-
 460/4-80 017. December 1988.

144  PR 27571. May 10.  1*79; 44 PR 72592.
Dec. 14.  1979, as amended at 48 Fit 44181.
8"pt. 3. 1081; SI FR »5»7. Mar. IB. 1088; 52
 FR  24742-23744. July I. 1987; 52 FR 27288.
July 20. 10871
  ArrENDix E—PROBE SITING CRITERIA
roM AMBIENT Am QUALITY MONITORINO

  I  Introduction
  1  IHeaervedl
  1  Sulfur Dioxide (SO.)
  31  Horizontal and Vrrtlral Probe Place-
ment
  1 2  Spacing from Obstructions
  .1 J  Spacing from trees and older consid-
ers! Ions
  4  Carbon Monoxldr «T»>
  4 I  Horizontal ami Vertical Probe Place-
ment
  4 2 Spacing from Obstructions
  4 3 Spacing from Ro*n Afwncy
                             M,
  I.I HortoonUI and Vertical Probe Place-
ment As with T8P monitoring, the moat de-
sirable  height  for  an  SO. monitor Inlet
probe la near the breathing height. Various
factors enumerated before may require that
the Inlet probe be elevated. Therefore, the
Inlet probe must be located I to II meters
above ground level. If the Inlet probe la lo-
cated on  the aide  of a building, then  It
should be located on the windward side of
tha  building  relative  to  the  prevailing
winter wind direction. The Inlet probe must
also be located more than I meter vertically
or horiaontally away  from any supporting
structure and also away from dirty, dusty
area*.
  l.a  Spacing from Obstruction*. No fur-
nace or Incineration flue*, or other minor
source*  of SO. should be nearby. The sepa-
ration dlsUnee la dependent on In* height
of the flue*, type of waste or fuel burned,
and the quality of the fuel (aulfur content).
If the Inlet probe la located on • roof or
other structure. It mint be at least I meter
from walls, parapet*, penthouse*, etc.
  The Inlet probe must be located  away
from obstacle* and buildings. The distant*
between the obstacle*  and the Inlet prob*
mutt be at least twice the height  that the
obstacle protrude* above  the Inlet  probe.
Sampling station* that at* tooled closer to
obstacle* than Into criterion allow* should
not be elanlfled a* a  neighborhood scale.
since the measurement* from such  a station
would closely represent middle scale sta-
tions. Therefore, station* not  meeting the
criterion should be  classified a* middle
scale. Airflow must atao be unrestricted m
an  are  of at  least 270' around  the Inlet
probe, and the predominant wind direction
for the season of greatest pollutant concen-
tration  potential must  be Included m the
270' arc. If the probe I* located on the aide
of a building. IMV clearance to required. Ad-
ditional Information on SO. probe siting cri-
teria may be found In reference II.
  3.1  Spacing from tree* and other consid-
eration*. Tree* can provide surfaces for SO,
adsorption and  act a* an  obstruction to
normal wind How pattern*. To minimise the
possible effect*  of tree* on the measured
SO, level*, the (ampler should be placed at
least 20 meter* from the drip line of tree*.
However. In situation* where trees could be
classified a* an obstruction. I.e.. the distance
between the tree and the sampler to less
than twice the height that the I reels) pro-
trudes above the sampler, the sampler must
be placed at least 10 meter* from  the drip
line of the obstructing tree)*).
4.  Carton *fonojrf
-------
c/ERA
            United States
            Environmental Protection
            Agency
            Office of Air Quality
            Planning and Standards
            Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-450/4-87-007
May 1987
            Air
Ambient Monitoring
Guidelines for
Prevention of
Significant
Deterioration (PSD)
              RADIAN LIBRARY
              RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC

-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3.5

-------
&ER&
             UMted States
             Environmental Protection
             Agency
            Office of Air Quality
            Planning and Standards
            Researcn Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA.450/4-87-QQ7
May 1987
             Air
Ambient Monitoring
Guidelines for
Prevention of
Significant
                  (PSD)
              RADSAN LIBRARY
              RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, MC

-------
ft. S/, App A                                  40 CFR Ch. I (7-l-M Edition)

      SiMtcnnt OC--PERMANENT WAIVER FROM INTERIM CONTROLS TEST—Continued

                               ISmtfMi ktartMcttonl
   t Can* Mt.n» y»lu»
   r MM prmnl nfc*
Uw
„
K
IM4
XXXX
KXXX
IMS
XXXX
xxxx
IM*
xxxx
xxxx
IM/
XXXX
xxxx
IMS
xxxx
xxxx
IMI
xxxx
xxxx
IMO
xxxx
xxxx
Tout


                   SCHEDULE O.7—HORIZON VALUE Of CASH FLOWS

                               ISmWU. MMMMukml
A (XfnvoMavfrn honran vilu*
   2 OxneMon Un Mvino>
     k Margin*) tut CM*
     e Tu Mvtngi
              M  n* cash
     k MM tfnto
   S t>«»ii »•!•«<«» k»» Iranian nki*
S Otyjrfrlun lu MMno* (Mr t»
 horiion pviod.
   2

   4
   ft PlMonl v«Ju« ol law Mvtagl
   • ToW I»MII< nlu* ol ton wv


C Hortron VHu*

Un.

01
02
09
04
OS
M
or
M
0*
10
II
12
13
14
l»
IS
Find kncM
rM»l
I*N






XXXX
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
KXXX
IMO






KXXX
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
KXXX
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
Ifmlion yvm

Ittl
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
XXXX
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx

	

	

xxxx
xxxx

IM2
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
KXXX
KXXX
xxxx
xxxx





xxxx
XKXX

IM)
xxx«
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx





xxxx
xxxx

IM4
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
XKXX
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx





xxxx
xxxx

IMS
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx





xxxx
xxxx

ToW

KXXX
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx



xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
KXXX


  PART Si—AMMfNT AIR QUALITY
           SURVflUANCf




Bee.
if I  Definition!.
Ill  Purpose.
18.1  Applicability



II 10  Quality assurance
II 11  Monitoring methods.
11.11  Siting ol Instruments or Instrument
   probe*.
II II  Operating schedule.
11.14  Special purpose monitors.

  Su»p«rt C— *l«rt» •n* tocol Air M.ntUrfcig
            Sl.lUni (SLAMS)

SB 2O  Air quality surveillance: Plan con
    tent.
51 21  SLAMS network design.
Bee.
Mil SLAMS methodology.
M.ll Monitoring network completion.
M.14 (Reserved)
MM System modification
M.M Annual SLAMS summary report.
11.17 Compliance date lor air quality data
   reporting.
II M Regional Office SLAMS data acqulsl
   lion.
  •bfMCtl
«»•** Stan.
               (HAMS)

      NAM8network establishment.
M.ll  NAM8 network description.
M.ll  NAMS approval.
11.11  NAMS methodology.
II14  NAMS network completion.
IIII  NAMS data submlttal.
51.11  System modification.

   lukfMf* l-Alc QwriHy InJ.M l*««rM>i«j

M.40  Index reporting.
                                    128
                                              f nvlronmainlal Preloctlen Agency

                                              Sec.
                                              M.M Federal monitoring.
                                              M.ll Monitoring other pollutants.
                                              ArraKDix A -QUALITY ASSUHANCC RBQUI»-
                                                 S»NTI ropj STATI AHO LOCAL AIR Mom-
                                                 Toamo 8T»Tiont (SLAMS)
                                              ArrBfBix B— QUALITT ASIUIUIIC* RMUmr
                                                 MDrrs ro* PicvEHTioH or SiomncANT
                                                 DamioaATiOH (PSD) Am MoniTORIiia
                                              ArmrBix C— AMiinrr AIR QUALITY Mom-
                                                 tORIHO MrTHODOLOOY
                                              ArmiDim D  Nrrwoaa DCSIQH roa STATS
                                                 AMD  LOCAL AIR  MOHITORIHO STATIOHR
                                                 (SLAMS) AH» NATIONAL AIR MOMITORIIM
                                                 STATIONS (NAMS)
                                              ArrniDix E-Pnosi  SITIHO CRITERIA  roR
                                                 AMRIDIT AIR  QUALITY MOMITORIHO
                                              ArrEHDix F— AHHUAL SLAMS AIR QUALITY
                                                 IlirORMATIOII
                                              Arrn»ix O— UmroRsi AIR QUALITY Imcx
                                                 Am DAILY RaroRTina

                                               ADTMORITT: Bees. 110. 10l(s). 111. and 11*
                                              of  the  Clean Air  Act (41 VS.C. 1410.
                                              7«OI(a). 7111. 7III>.
                                               Sound 44 FR  17171. May 10. I Ml. unlew
                                              otherwise noted.
                                                         A— Own-' -•-'
IM.I
  As used In this part, all terms not de-
fined herein have the meaning given
them In the Act:
  (a) "Act" means the Clean Air Act as
amended (42 U.8.C. 7401. et seq.).
  (b)  "SLAMS" means State or Local
Air   Monitoring  Statlon(s).   The
SLAMS make up  the ambient air qual-
ity monitoring network which Is re-
quired by I 58.20  to be provided for In
the State's Implementation plan. This
definition places no restrictions on the
use of the physical structure or facili-
ty housing the SLAMS. Any combina-
tion of SLAMS and any other moni-
tors (Special  Purpose. NAMS. PSD)
may occupy the same facility or struc-
ture without affecting  the  respective
definitions of those  monitoring  sta-
tion.
  (c)  "NAMS" means National  Air
Monitoring Statlon(s). Collectively the
NAMS are a subset of the SLAMS  am-
bient air quality monitoring network.
  (d) "PSD station" means any station
operated for the  purpose of establish-
ing the effect on air quality of  the
emissions from a proposed source for
purposes of prevention of significant
deterioration as required by I 51.24(n)
of Part 61 of this chapter.
  (e) "SO," means sullur dioxide.
  ((> "NO," means nitrogen dioxide.
  (g) "CO" means carbon monoxide.
  (h) "O." RICMIS ozone.
  (I) "Plan" means an Implementation
plan, approved or promulgated pursu-
ant to section 110 ol the Clean Air Act.
  (J) "Administrator" means the Ad-
ministrator of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (EPA) or his or her au-
thorized representative.
  (k) "Regional Administrator" means
the Administrator  of one of the  ten
EPA Regional Offices or his or her au-
thorized representative.
  (I) "State agency" means the air pol-
lution  control  agency  primarily  re-
sponsible for development  and Imple-
mentation of a plan under the Act.
   "Local agency" means any local
government agency,  other than  the
State agency,  which Is  charged with
the responsibility for carrying  out  a
portion of the plan.
  (n) "Indian Reservation" means any
Federally recognized reservation es-
tablished by treaty, agreement, execu-
tive order, or act of Congress.
  (o) "Indian Governing Body" means
the governing body of any tribe, band.
or group of Indians subject to the Ju-
risdiction of the United States and rec-
ognized  by the United States as pos-
sessing power of self-government.
  (p) "Storage and Retrieval of A->ro-
metrlc Data (8AROAD) system" Is  a
computerized system which stores and
reports Information  relating to ambi-
ent air quality.
  
-------
n. 5i.
ronmental Criteria and Assessment Office.
Resr-srrh  Triangle  Park.   NC.  December
IBM
  14 Watson. JO. ti al. Analysis ol Intuit
bit and Fine  Paniculate  Mailer Measure-
ments.  Prepared  lor  US  Environmental
Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park.
NC. EPA 450/4 II 035 December I»BI.
  16. Record. P.A. and LA  Bacl. Evaluation
on  Contribution ol Wind Blown Dust Irom
the Desert Levels ol Partlculate Matter In
Desert Communities. OCA Technology Divi-
sion. Bedlord. MA.  Prepared lor U.S. Envl
ronmenlal Protection Agency, Research Trl
angle Park. NC  EPA 450/2 to 018 August
1980.
  I*. Goldstein. E A and Paly M. The Diesel
Problem In New York  City. Project on  the
Urban Environment. Natural Resources  De
lens* Council.  Inc..  New  York. NY. April
1985
  17. Koch. R.C. and HE. Rector. Optimum
Network Design and Site Exposure Criteria
lor  Partlculale Matter. OEOMET Technol-
ogies. Inc.. Rockvllle. MD Prepared lor U.S.
Environmental  Protection  Agency.   Re-
search Triangle Park. NC. EPA  Contract
No.  6« 02 3514.  EPA 450/4  81 00*. May
1*87.
  II. Pace. T . et al  Procedures lor Estimat-
ing Probability ol Nonatlalnmcnl ol a I'M,.
Data.   US   Environmental   Protection
Agency. Research Tilangle Park. NC. EPA
450/4 8« Oil. December 1088

144 FR 27671. May  IV. 1919. 44 FH 725*2.
Dec. 14. ma. as amended  at  48 PR 44188,
Sept  3 I»8I; &l FR »S«7. Mar  l».  l»8«, 52
FR 24742-23744. July  I.  1981. 52 PR 27288.
July 20. 18871
  ArrcNDix E- PROBE SITING CRITERIA
roH AMBIENT Am QUALITY MONITORING

  I.  Introduction
  1  I Reserved)
  1  Sullur DIoMlde (SO.)
  1.1  Horizontal and Vertical Probe Place-
menl
  3 3  Spacing from Obstructions
  33  Sparing Irom trees and other consld
eratlnnc.
  4  Carbon Monoxide (CO)
  41  Horizontal and Vertical Probe Place-
ment
  42  Spacing Irom Obstructions
  4.3  Spacing Irom Roads
  4.4  Spacing Irom trees and other consid-
erations.
  5  Ozone n and the  sampler to less
 than twice the height  that the treeisl pro
 trades above the sampler, the sampler must
 be placed al least 10 meters from the drip
 line of the obstructing lree(s)
 4.  Carbon Monoxide*CO»
   4.1  Horizontal and Verlkal Probe Place-
 ment.  Because  ol the Importance of measur-
  ing population exposure  to  CO concentra-
  tions,  air  should be  sampled  at average
  breathing  heights  However, practical lac-
                          PI. 5t, App. E

ton require that the Inlet probe be higher.
The required height ol the Inlet probe for
CO monitoring Is therefore 1± Vk meter for a
mlcroscale  site, which to a compromise be-
tween representative breathing height and
prevention of vandalism. The recommended
I meter range of heights  Is also a compro-
mise to some extent.  For consistency and
comparability. It would be desirable to have
all  InleU al exactly the same height,  but
practical considerations often prevent this.
Borne reasonable range musl be specified
and 1  meter provides adequate  leeway to
meet most  requirements.
  For the  middle and neighborhood scale
stations, the vertical  concentration  gradi-
ents are not as great as for the  mlcroscale
station. This to because the diffusion from
roads  to  greater  and the  concentrations
would represent  larger areas than for the
mlcroscale. Therefore,  the  required  height
of  the  Inlet probe to  3  to 15 meters  for
middle  and neighborhood  scale stations.
The Inlet probe must  be located more than
1 meter In the vertical or horizontal direc-
tion from any supporting structure.
  4.1  Spacing  from  Obstructions. Airflow
must also be unrestricted  in an arc of at
least 170*  around the Inlet probe, and the
predominant wind  direction for  the  season
of  greatest pollutant concentration  poten-
tial must be Included In the 270' arc. If the
probe to located on the side of  a building,
 180' clearance to required.
  4.3 Spacing from  Roads. Street canyon
and traffic corridor stations tmlcroscale) are
Intended to provide a measurement  of the
 Influence  of the Immediate source  on the
 pollution  exposure of the population. In
 order to provide some reasonable consisten-
 cy and comparability In the air quality data
 from auch stations, a minimum distance of 1
 meters  and  a  maximum distance  of 10
 meters from the edge of  the nearest traffic
 lane must be maintained for these CO moni-
 tor Inlet probes. This should give consisten-
 cy to the data, yet still allow flexibility of
 finding suitable locations.
   Street canyon/corridor  (mlcroacalel  Inlet
 probes must be located  at least 10  meters
 from  an  Intersection  and preferably  at a
 mldblock  location. Mldblock  locations are
 preferable to Intersection locations because
 Intersections represent a much smaller por-
 tion of downtown  space than do the streets
 between them.  Pedestrian  exposure  to prob-
 ably also  greater In street  canyon/corridors
 than al Intersections. Also, the practical dif-
 ficulty of positioning sampling Inlets to leas
 al mldblock locations than at the Intersec-
 tion. However, the llnal  siting of the moni-
 tor must  meet  Ihe objectives and Intent of
 Appendix D. Sections 2.4. 3. 3.3  and  Appen-
 dix E. Section 4.
    In determining  the minimum separation
 between  a neighborhood  scale monitoring
                                        172
                                                                                                                                       173

-------
PI. 543. App. i

station  and a specific  line source, the pre
aiimpllon  Is   made   that   measurement]
should not be unduly Influenced by any one
roadway. Compulations were made lo drier
nilne  Ihr separation distances, and  table I
provides the required  minimum* separation
dlstajire between  roadways  ami neighbor
hood  scale stations Sampling Millions that
are located closer  to roads  than this crlle
rlon allows should not be classified as a
neighborhood scale, since the measurements
Irom such a station would closely represent
the middle scale  Therefore,  stations not
meeting this criterion should lit' classified as
middle scale. Additional Infoimnllon on CO
probe tiling may be found in rrfrirnce 12

TABLE (—MINIMUM SIPAHAIION DISTANCE BE
  i witN NEKHWOHIKXXI SCAIE CO STAIIONS
  AND ROADWAYS (EoGt of NLAHEST  IRAMIC
  lANE)
 Rowtaly •v0«BOj» *scd on reealcula
lions using the methodology In reference II
and validated  using mure recent ambient
data collected  tear a major roadway. 8am
pllng  stations  Ihal are located closer  to
loads than this criterion allows sttould not
be classified as neighbor hood or urban scale.
since  the measurements from such stations
would moie closely represent the  middle
scale. Accordingly,  such stations should  be
classified as middle scale Additional Infor
nation on ozone probe slllng criteria may
be found In reference 13.

TABLE 2—MINIMUM SEPARATION DISTANCE BE-
  TWEEN NEIGHBORHOOD AND URBAN SCAIE
  OZONE STATIONS AND ROADWAYS (Eoot or
  NEAREST TRAFFIC LANE)
   SI  Vertical and  Horizontal Probe  Place
 men!  The  Inlet probe lor nzone monitors
 should be an close as possible lo the breath-
 ing zone. The complicating factors discussed
 previously,  however, require that the probe
 be  elevated The height ol live Inlet ptobe
 must bo located .1 lo 15 meters above ground
 level  The probe must also lie located more
 than I meter vertically or Imiiznnlally away
 from any support IIIK slim lure
   52  Si>ann«   liiim   <>l>sl tin lions   The
 pioltr must be Iticalfil H»av from obstacles
 HIM!  liuiltliiiKs SIM It Ilial  Ilir  ilislanrr  be
       .10.000
       IS.OOO                       I          «•
       MOOO                       |          M
       40.000
       ro.ooo
       . no.ooo
                                      MBvaHon
                                      •Mane*
                     to rt«pol»l«J t»Md on Mike So*

        54 Spacing Irom trees and otlter consld
      erallons Trees can  provide surfaces for O,
      adsorption  and/or  reactions  and obstruct
      normal wind How patterns To minimize Ihe
      possible effect  of  trees on  measured  Oi
      levels, the probe should be placed at leasl 20
      melers Irom the drip line ol trees. Since the
      scavenging  effect  of trees  Is  greater for
      ozone than for Ihe other criteria pollutants.
      strong consideration of  this effect musl be
      given In locating Ihe O,  Inlet probe to avoid
      this problem Therefore. Ihe sampler must
      be at  least 10 melers from the drip line of
      trees  thai  are located  between the urban
      city core area and the  sampler along the
                                          174
                                                         iNvtrMMwiM rrsjtsjcHwi Agency

                                                         predominant summer day time wind dlree
 •.  Attfrofv* I>iaxtaV<<•>
                                                                                                    ilS.000
                                                                                                    IS.OOO
                                                                                                    10.000	
                                                                                                    40.000 .. ..
                                                                                                    ro.oos	
                                                                                                    *1 IOOOO
                                                                                                                                    'dCunc*
                                         90
                                         30
   •.I  Spacing from tree* and other consid-
 erations. Trees ran provide surfaces for NO,
 adsorption and/or  reactions  and obstruct
 normal wind flow patterns. To minimize the
 ponlble scavenging effect of trees on the
 measured level* of NO, the probe should be
 placed at least 10 meters from Ihe drip line.
 For trees that protrude above the height of
 the probe by » meter* or more, the sampler
 must be at least 10 meter* from Ihe drip line
 of the trees.
  7.1  Vertical  Placement. Several studies
 it. H lit on the relationship between road-
 way placement of lead samplers and meas-
 ured ambient concentrations do not typical-
 ly Indicate large gradients wllhtn the first •
 lo 1  meters above ground level. Similar to
 monitoring for other pollutants,  optimal
 placement  of  the sampler  Inlet  for  lead
 monitoring should be at breathing height
 level. However, practical factors such as pre-
 vention  of  vandalism, security, and safety
 precautions must also be considered when
 siting • lead monitor. Given these consider-
 •lions. the sampler Inlet for mlcroscale lead
 monitor* must be 27  meters above ground
 level. The  lower limit  was based on a com-
 promise  between ease  of servicing the sam-
 pler and the desire to avoid  unrepresenta-
 tive condition* due lo re entralnmenl from
 dusty surfaces. The upper limit represents a
 compromise between  the desire  to  have
 measurements which  are most representa-
 tive of population exposure* and a consider-
 ation of the practical factor* noted above.
  For middle  or larger  spatial scales.  In-
 creased diffusion result* In vertical concen-
 tration gradients which are not as  grest as
 for the  small scale*.  Thus,  the required
 height of the air Intake for middle or larger
 acale* to I- II meters.
  7.2  Spacing from Obstruction*. The asm
pier musl be  located away from obstacle*
such a* buildings, so thai  the distance be-
tween obstacles and Ihe sampler Is at leasl
                                                                                               175

-------
«. M,  ABB. i

twice the hcltht  lhal the obstacle protrudes
•hove the aamplri.
  A  minimum of  2 meters  of separation
from walla, parapets, and penthouses Is re
quired lor rooftop samplers.  No furnace 01
Incinerator flues should be -nearby.  The
height and type  of fluei and the type, qua!
Uy, and quantity of waste or fuel burned de
termlne the separation distances. For exam
pie. If the emissions from the chimney have
high lead content and there Is a high proba
blllty that the plume would  Impact on the
sampler during most of the sampling period.
then other buildings/locations In the  area
that are  free from the described sources
should be chosen for the  monitoring site.
  There must be unrestricted airflow In an
•re of at least 270' around the ssmpler.
Blnce the Intent of the category <•) site Is to
measure the maximum concentrations from
a road or point source, there must be no slg
nil leant obstruction between a road or point
source and the monitor,  even though other
•paring from obstruction criteria are  met.
The predominant direction for the sesson
with the grestesl  pollutant concentration
potential must be Included In the 210' arc.
  7.3 Spacing from Roadways. Numberoua
studies hsve shown that  ambient lead levels
near mobile  source are  a function of the
traffic volume and are most pronounced at
ADT .,10.000 within the first 15  meters, on
the downwind side of  the loadways. It. 10-
 If) Therefore, stations tu measure the peak
concentration from mobile  sources should
be located at the distance  most likely to
produce the highest concentrations. For the
mkroMsle station, the location must be be
twren S and  16 meters from the major road-
 way  For the middle scale station, a range of
 acceptable distances  from the major  road
 way I* shown In Tsble 4. This table also In
 tluoVs separation distances between a road-
 way and neighborhood  or larger scale sta-
 tions These distances are  based upon the
 data of reference  It which  Illustrates  that
 lead levels remain fairly constant after cer-
 tain horizontal  distances from the roadway.
 As depleted  In the above reference, this dls
 lance Is a function ol the traffic volume.

 f ABIE 4—SEPARATION DISTANCE BETWEEN PB
   STATIONS AND HOAOWAVS (Eoot of NEAR-
   ESI TRAFFIC IANE)
          40 CFI Ch. I (7-1-M Edition)

TABLE 4—SEPARATION DISTANCE BETWEEN Pe
  STATIONS AND ROADWAYS (EDGE OF NEAR-
  EST TRAFFIC LANE)—Continued
  Headway avw«g« 4a4y
  liallN: v«hKl«« pat day
  i 10 000
   211000
 Sop*«lxo dnlanca bahMWi
ioad«*lion dnlanc*
                          and tlttora.
                           M>k*t
                           •cafe
                                          MlCIO
                                          KM*
 hood
 uban
ragional
 acala
  1 Dnlancai mould ba Mmpolawd taMd on kalkc Ham

  7.4.  Spacing from trees and other coruld
(rations. Trees csn provide surfaces for dtp
oslllon or sdsorpllon of li ad  particles and
obstruct normal wind flow patterns. For ml
croscale  and middle scale category la) road
way sites there must not be any treels) be-
tween the source of the lead.  I.e.. the vehl
cles on the roadway, and the ssmpler. For
neighborhood scale  category  (b) sites, the
sampler  should be at least 20 meters from
the  drip line  of trees  The sampler  must.
however, be placed at least 10 meters from
the drip line of trees which could be class).
fled as an obstruction. I.e.. the distance be-
tween the treels) and  the sampler Is less
than the height that  the tree  protrudes
above the ssmpler.
>5O
> J5
                 tter I f M..)
  (.1  Vertical  Placement -Although there
 are limited studies on the PM,. concentra-
 tion  gradients sround  roadways  or other
 ground level sources. References I. 2. 4. II
 and 19 of this Appendix show a distinct var-
 iation In the distribution of T8P and Pb
 levels near roadways. TSP. which  Is greatly
 affected by gravity, has large concentration
 gradients, both horizontal and vertical. Im-
 mediately adjacent  to  roads.  Lead, being
 predominately sub micron In size, behsves
 more like a gas and exhibits smaller vertical
 and horizontal gradients than TSP. PM,..
 being Intermediate  In  size  between these
 two extremes exhibits dispersion properties
 of both gas and  settlesble partlculates  and
 does  show  vertical  and horizontal  gradl
 enls." Similar lo monitoring for other  pol
 lutants. optimal  placement of the sampler
 Intel  for  PM..  monitoring should  be at
 breathing height level.  However,  practical
 factors such as prevention of vandalism, se-
 curity. and safely precautions must also be
 considered  when siting  a  PM,.  monitor
 Olven  these  considerations, the sampler
 Inlet for mlcroscale PM,. monitors must be
 2-7 meters  above ground level. The lower
 limit was based  on a compromise between
 ease  of servicing the sampler and  NAM8
 sites In  areas  of  highest concentrations
 whether It be from mobile or  multiple sta-
 tionary sources. If the area Is  prlmsrlly al-
 fected by mobile sources snd the maximum
 concentration area(s> Is judged to be a traf-
 fic corridor or street canyon location, then
 the monitors should be located  near road-
 ways with the highest traffic volume and at
 separation distances most likely to produce
 the highest concentrations. For the mlcros-
 cale traffic corridor stallon. the location
 must be between S and 15 metera from the
 major  roadway. For the mlcroscale street
 canyon site the location must be between 2
 and 10 meters from the roadway. For the
 middle scale  station, a range of acceptable
 distances  from the roadway  Is  shown  In
 Figure S.  This figure also Includes separa-
 tion distances between  a  roadway  and
 neighborhood or larger scale stations by de-
 fault. Any stallon. 2 lo IB meters high, and
 further back lhan the middle scale require-
 ments  will  generally  be neighborhood.
 urban  or  regional  scale. For  example, ac-
 cording to Figure 2. If a PM,. sampler Is pri-
 marily Influenced by roadway emissions  and
 that sampler Is set back 10 meters Irom a
 30.000 ADT road, the station should be clas
silled as a micro scale. If Ihe sampler height
Is  between 2 and 7 melers. II  Ihe sampler
height Is between 7 snd 15 meters, the sta-
tion should be clssslfled as middle scale. II
the sample Is 20 meters from the same road.
It  will  be classified as middle scale; If 40
meters, neighborhood  scale:   and  If  110
meters, an urban scale.
                                          176
                                                                                        177

-------
PI. 58, App. i
40 CfK Ch. I (7-l-M Edition)
               ~"     coi  x spooy 6uip»«v P 10V
                                         178
                                      Envnwnmwntwt Protection Agency

                                        It to Important to note that the separation
                                      dtoUncei shown In  Plfure I are meuured
                                      from the edie of the nearest traffic lane of
                                      the roadway pmumcd to have the moat In-
                                      fluence on the tile. In general, thto pre-
                                      •umptlon  to  an oversimplification of the
                                      usual urban veilings which normally have
                                      aeveral •Ireeu that Impact a tlven alto. The
                                      effect* of (urroundlni  streets, wind speed,
                                      wind direction  and topography ihould be
                                      considered  alone with Figure 1 before a
                                      final dectakm to made on the moat appropri-
                                      ate (patlal acale assigned to  the sampling
                                      station.
                                        1.4  Other  ConaMeratlom.  For   thoae
                                      areaa that are primarily Influenced by sta-
                                      Uonary source emtoalona aa oppoaed to road-
                                      way emissions,  guidance  In  locating  tlieae
                                      area* may be found In the  guideline  docu-
                                      ment Optimum  Network Design and Site
                                      Exposure Criteria for Partteulate Matter.**
                                        Stalkma should not be located In an un-
                                      paf ed area unleaa there to vegetative around
                                      cover year round, ao that the Impact of wind
                                      blown duata will be kept to a minimum.
                                      a. frabt  MmUrial  and fottutfnt Smmflf
                                      Jtetfdenc* n*M
                                        For the reactive caws. SO* NO* and O»
                                      apeclal probe material must be uaed. Stud-
                                      ies1^" have been conducted  to determine
                                      the mutability of materlato such aa polypro-
                                      pylene,  polyethylene,   polyvlnykhloride.
                                      tjrcon.  aluminum,  braai. atalnleaa  steel.
                                      copper, pyrei flass and  teflon for use as
                                      Intake  sampllni lines. Of the above materi-
                                      als, only  pyrei  (lass and teflon have been
                                      found  to be  acceptable for use  as Intake
                                      sampling lines for all the reactive gaseous
                                      pollutants.  Furthermore. EPA" ha* speci-
                                      fied boroslllcate glass or PEP teflon aa the
                                      only acceptable probe materials for deliver-
                                      ing teat atmospheres In the determination
                                      of reference or  equivalent methods. There-
                                      fore, boroslllcate glass.  PEP teflon, or their
                                      equivalent  must be used for existing and
                                      new HAMS or SLAMS.
                                        No matter how nonreaetlve the sampling
                                      probe material to Initially, after a period of
                                      use reactive partteulate matter to deposited
                                      on the probe wall*. Therefore, the time It
                                      takes the gas to transfer from the probe
                                      Inlet to the sampling device to also critical.
                                      Osone In the presence of NO will show sig-
                                      nificant losses even In the most Inert probe
                                      material when the residence time exceeds JO
                                      seconds.•* Other studies"" Indicate that a
                                      ID-second or less residence  time  to easily
                                      achievable. Therefore, sampling probes for
                                      reactive gas monitors at 81AM8 or NAM8
                         PI. 59, App. K

must have a samplr re»l(trncr time Irsa than
20 seconds.
10.  Wfiver Frovitloni
  It to believed that most sampling probes or
monitors can be located so that they  meet
the requirements of this appendix. New sta-
tions with  rare exceptions, can be located
within the limits of this appendix. However.
some existing stations may not meet these
requirements and yet still produce useful
data for some purposes. EPA will consider a
written  request from the  Slate Agency to
waive one or more siting criteria for  some
monitoring stations providing that the Stale
can adequately  demonstrate Ihe need  (pur-
pose I for monitoring or establishing a moni-
toring station at that location. For estab-
lishing  • new  station,  a waiver  may be
granted only If  both of the following  crlte
rlaaremel:
  The site can be demonstrated to be aa rep-
resentative of  the monitoring area  as It
would be If Ihe siting criteria were being
met.
  The monitor  or probe cannot reasonably
be located so aa to meet the  siting criteria
because of physical constraints (e.g.. Inabll-
lly to locate the required lype of station the
necessary distance from  roadway* or  ob-
structlons).
  However, for an existing station', a waiver
may be granted If either of the above  crite-
ria are met.
  Cost benefit*, historical trends, and other
factors may be  used to add support to the
above, however, they In themselves, will not
be acceptable reasons for granting a waiver.
Written request* for waivers must be  sub-
mitted to the Regional  Administrator. For
those SLAMS also designated as NAMS. the
request will be forwarded to Ihe Administra-
tor.
II. INscMsloii  and Summary
  Table • presents a  summary of the re-
quirement* for  probe siting criteria with re-
spect to distance* and heights. It to appar-
ent from Table S  that  different elevation
distances above the ground are  shown for
the various pollutants. The discussion In the
text for each of the pollutants described
reason* for elevating the monitor or probe.
The differences In the specified range of
height* are based on the vertical concentra-
tion gradients. For CO, the gradients In the
vertical direction are very large for the ml
croscale. so a small range of heights hss
been used. The  upper limit of IB meters was
specified tor consistency between pollutants
and to allow the uw of a ilngle manifold for
monitoring more than one pollutant.
                                                                                            " "See References at end of this Appen
                                                                                          dlx
                                                                             179

-------
ft. 5i, App. IE
                                                    40 c« Ch I (/!-$• Edition)

                           5  SUMMARY Of PROBE Sit ma CRITERIA
so,

Seal.

A*








Moo




Mddto
htogh
boitiood


Al










AS










„ 	










Mwfcfc

IXMtioud
uib*n
and
mgMKtcl





ItwgN
atxwa
a*oimj
fnala*s
] IS








3 ' %




3 IS




3 IS










3 IS










27










2 IS








Osranca kom aupporkno
Mruclua
Varkc al
,,








> \




> 1




> 1










> |










_










__








"I?1*'1
ItonionM •
> 1








> |




> |




>l










> i










>*










>1








.. . ... ...
Ottwt »p«c.ng oitofta
	 _..
1 ShouM b» >20 nwlaMt front (tM r**f*n*> •nrj
ifiutl b« 10 molwi kom ft* dnpftno wtwjn •*>•
It MUI Kl •» *n otnirucbon
2 O-wUnc* horn inM protw to otetacta. Mich M
buidangt. moajl bo M (MM IWK* MM h«gM MM
otntaKit ptotfurtM tbovw) Iht ntol pf otw *
3 MuM hava umaikiclad a««o« 270" aiound tia
nlal pioba. (« malwl kom tkaal mMMckon and
•houU ba al a nojbtotk locakon
2 MuM ba 2 10 malaii kom adga ol naaiaM kalkc
3 Mull hava umatkitlod airfloo 1*0' aiound tw
Mai pioba
I Musi hava uraaskKl«d Mmow 270* around Iha
•nM pioba. of ISO' * pioba * on ma aida ol a
tMkkng
2 Spacing kom roads vanas mm kalkc laaa laUa
\\
1 Should ba >20 riwlars kom Ilia d>«>ana and
mufti ba 10 malars kom rha di«Ana whan *ha
kaa20 malars kom da <»vana and
mufti ba 10 maMs kom Iha otvana bhan Xa
kaalsl acl as an otaskuckon
2 Dulanca kom nlal proba to obslacla. auch as
buiktngs. mual ba al kuM hnca Sia haigM •»
obslacla piokudas abova thf Hal pioba*
3 Mual hava unraskiclad akSow 2701 aiound Sia
•dal araba. or ISO' t pioba a on Iha aida ol a
kukkng
4 Snaong kom roads vaiias with kalkc (saa fatal
3|
1 Should ba >20 malarl kom na dripana and
muM ba 10 maMrs kom Iha d<-pkna whan t»
kaa(s| acl aa an obskucton
2 Olalanca kom samptar to obslacla. such a>
buddmgs. muM ba al kuM Iwica •» haigM Ha
obalada ivokudas abova Iha laiii'lai b
3 MuM hava unraskiclad arikxr 270* aiound t»
aamplai aicapl lor akaal canyon s«as
4 No luroaca or Incnaiakon Suas should ka
naarby*
S MuM ba * to 15 matars kom major roadway
1 Should ba >2O malais kom na ».*"• and
muM ba 10 malars kom •» di
kortioocl
Mtjan
•nd
nakm
acala
a) tocaUd on
*£

12£
2-7

(-IS
too.'i^ tmt
DWancam

Vartnl


-

m auppo-kng

Honiontal-
>j

>»





mual ba 10 mMaii kom na dnpkna <*an na
kaa(a| acla aa an otaakuckon
2 OkMnca kom lampta to oMMcto. auch aa
tukJkioi. mat ba al laaal kM» na halgM na
Jtnlacki piokudaf abova *
akaal canyon MM •
aamplai aicapl to akaal canyon aim
4 No kjmaca or nonatakon Huaa anouM ba naait>
5 Spacing kom loadi »«••• »«> karat (»aa F«juia
21 aicapl tor tkaal canyon trtaa which mual ba
torn 2 to 10 malaii kom na adoa ol na naaiaal
kUkclana
1 Should ba >20 mata-» kom Cw drtpam) and
muM ba 10 malait kom Iha dnpkna aman na
kaafa) acl al an otokuckon
2 Oiatann kom umplai to obauda. auch aa
kuWnga. muM ba al laaM mica !<• haight •<•
obMada piokudat abova Iha aamplat •
3 MuM hava unamcwd artow 2W aiound Xa
aamplai
4 No kjinaca ot nonaiakon Ibaa ahould ba
naaroy
S Spacing kom loadt vanaa iMti kalkc |aaa Flguia
21
me* to wah. oaiapata. of panlhouaat tocalad on •<•
                                                                                          aah or laaal con-ant) Th» la k> avod undua Muancas

                                                                                          II. Jtc/er-racu
                                                                                            I.  Bryan.  RJ.. R J.  Gordon,  and  H.
                                                                                          Menck. Comparbon  or High  Volume  Air
                                                                                          Filter  Sample* at Varylnc  Dtotancei from
                                                                                          UM Ancek* Freeway. University of South-
                                                                                          ern California. School of Medicine. U» An
                                                                                          tetea. CA. (Pre*ented at Mth Annual Meet-
                                                                                          Inc ot  Air Pollution Control AaM-clatlon.
                                                                                          Chlcaco. IL.. June >«-U. 1»7J. APCA  11-
                                                                                          IM.)
                                                                                            1. Teer. EH. Atmcwphertc Lead  Concen-
                                                                                          tration Above an Urban Street. Maoter of
                                                                                          Science The»U. WuhlniUm Unlvenlty. St.
                                                                                          LouU. MO. January |t1|.
                                                                                            1. Bradway. R.M.. PA. Record, and W.B.
                                                                                          Belancer.  Monitoring  and Modellni of Re-
                                                                                          •uipended Roadway Dust Near Urban Arte-
                                                                                          rlab.  OCA Technology DlvUlon.  Bedford,
                                                                                          MA. (PrewnUd al Itlt Annual Meetlnt of
                                                                                          TraiuporUUon Reiearch Board. Waahlnf-
                                                                                          ton. DC. January l«7t.)
                                                                                            4. Pace. T.O.. W.P.  Fteai.  and EM. Aflfy.
                                                                                          Quantification  of  Relationship  Between
                                                                                          Monitor Height and Measured Partlculate
                                                                                          Level* In Seven 11.8. Urban Areas. U.S. Envi-
                                                                                          ronmental Protection Agency. Research Tri-
                                                                                          angle Park. NC. (Presented  al 70th Annual
                                                                                          Meeting of Air Pollution Control  Associa-
                                                                                          tion. Toronto. Canada.. June  MM.  1*77.
                                                                                          APCA 77 ».«..)
                                                                                                                             • laktta acala (aaa tart)
                                                                                                                          or norrarakon Suas. lypa ol kiM or waua bunad. and quakly at luM |auHur.
                                                                                                                          	komm   "-  -
                                                                                                                                      ». Harrison. P.R. Consideration! for Siting
                                                                                                                                    Air Quality Monitors In Urban Areas. City
                                                                                                                                    of Chicago. Department of Environmental
                                                                                                                                    Control. Chicago. IL. (Presented at Mlh
                                                                                                                                    Annual  Meeting of  Air Pollution Control
                                                                                                                                    Association. Chicago. IL.. June M 38. 1(73.
                                                                                                                                    APCA 73-161.)
                                                                                                                                      6. Study of Suspended Partlculate Meas-
                                                                                                                                    urements  at   Varying   Heights   Above
                                                                                                                                    Ground. Texas Stale Department of Health.
                                                                                                                                    Air Control Section. Austin. TX. 1970. p.7.
                                                                                                                                      7. Rode*. C.E. and OF. Evans. Summary
                                                                                                                                    of LACS Integrated Pollulanl Dala. In: Los
                                                                                                                                    Angeles  Calalysl  Study Symposium.  U.8.
                                                                                                                                    Environmental  Prelection  Agency.  Re-
                                                                                                                                    search Triangle  Park. NC.  EPA Publication
                                                                                                                                    No. EPA «00/4 77 034  June 1977.
                                                                                                                                      • Lynn.  DA.  el. al  National Assessmenl
                                                                                                                                    of Ihe Urban Parllculate Problem: Volume
                                                                                                                                    I.  National Assessment. OCA Technology
                                                                                                                                    Division. Bedford. MA. U.S. Environmental
                                                                                                                                    Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park.
                                                                                                                                    NC. EPA  Publication  No. EPA «50/J 75
                                                                                                                                    024. June I97A.
                                                                                                                                      9 Pace.  TO.  Impact of Vehicle Related
                                                                                                                                    Partlculates  on  TSP  Concentrations  and
                                                                                                                                    Rationale for Siting  III Vol. In the Vicinity
                                                                                                                                    of Roadways. OAQPS.  US. Environmental
                                                                                                                                    Prolecllon Agrncy. Research Triangle Park
                                                                                                                                    NC April I97g
                                                                                                                                 181
                                                                                     J

-------
f I. 58, App. t

  10  Ludwlg. PI,. J II   Kmlolia. and  E.
Slielar Selecting Sites lor MiinUorlnit Total
Suspended Participates. Stanford Research
InslUulr. Mrnlo Park. CA  Prepared lor
US  Environmental Prolrt lion  Agency. Re
search Triangle Park. NC EPA Publication
No  El'A 450/3  17 018  June 1811. revised
l>ecember 1977
  II   Ball. H.J. and OE  Anderson.  Opll
mum Site Exposure Crllnlii  lor SO,  Monl
lorlng. The Center lor I In- Environment and
Man. Inc.. Hartford. ("I  Prepared  for US
Environmental  Prolertliin  Agency.  Re
search Triangle Park. NC EPA Publication
No EPA 450/3 77 013  April 1977
  12  l.udwlg. FL. and J IIS Kealoha 8e
lectlng Sites  lor Carbon Monoxide Monitor
Ing.  Stanford  Research  Institute. Menlo
Paik. CA. Prepared lor  U S Environmental
Protection Agency. HCM arrh Park. NC. EPA
Publication No.  EPA 460/3 76 077.  Seplem
bet 1*76.
  13. l.udwlg. F.U and E. Shclar Site  Selec-
tion for  the  Monitoring ol Photochemical
Air Pollutant*. Stanford Research Institute.
Menlo Park.  CA Prepaicd for U.S.  Environ-
mental Protection Agency. Research Than
gle Park. NC  EPA Publication  No.  EPA
450/3 78 013. April 1971
  14. l>ad Analysis  lor  Kansas City and
Cincinnati.   PEI)Co  Environmental.  Inc..
Cincinnati. OH. Prepared for (IS.  Environ-
mental Protection Agency. Research Trian-
gle Park. NC. EPA Contract No. 66 02-2515.
June 1*77.
  15   Barltrap.  O.  and  C.  O.  Slrelow.
Westway Nursery Testing Project. Report
lo  the  Greater London  Council. August
 1976
   16. Dalnes. R II.. II   Molo. and  D.  M.
Chllko.  Atmospheric  l-r«d Its  Relationship
lo Traffic Volume and Proximity  to  High-
ways  Environ. Scl.  and Technol..   4:316.
 1970
   17. Johnson.  D  E. fl al Epldemlologlc
Study of the tiler U of Automobile Traflk
on Blood Lead levels. Southwest Research
 Institute. Houston.  TX   Prepared  lor U.S.
 Environmental  Protection  Agency.  Re
 search Triangle Park.  NC  EPA 600/1 76
 055. August  1976
   16 Air Quality Criteria lor l-ead  Olflce of
 Research and  Development. US.  Environ
 mental  Protection Agency. Washington. DC
 EPA 6OO/6  77 017 Uecrmtier IB77.
   19  Lyman. 11 R The Atmospheric Dlllu
 sloii of  Carbon Monoxldr and Lead from an
 Expressway. Phi).  Dissertation. University
 of Cincinnati. Cincinnati. OH 1972
   10  Wechler. SO  Pieparallon of  Stable
 Pollutant Cits 8landar
  2.3.1  Site and Monitoring Information
  232  Annual Summary Statistics
  24  Nitrogen l>lo»ldc (NO,>
  2.4.1  Site and Mould,ring Information
                                         182
  tnvlrvnmentari Protection Agency

   242  Annual Summary Statistic*
   1.6 OaonetO.)
   31 I  Site and Monitoring Information
   1.6.1  Annual Summary Statistic*
   1.6 Lead(Pb).
   261  Site and Monitoring Information.
   1.6.1  Annual Summary Statistic*.
   1.1 Partkulale Matter IPM,.)
   1.1.1  Site and Monitoring Information
   1.1.1  Annual Summary Statistic*
   1.1.1  BpUode and Other  Unscheduled
  Sampling Data
  I.  General
   Thl* appendix de*crlbe* Information to be
  compiled and submitted annually lo EPA
  for each ambient monitoring itatton In the
  SLAMS Network In accordance with 188 24.
  The annual lumnuuir statistic* thai are de-
  acribed In aectlon 1 below shall be eorutrued
  a* only the  minimum necessary statistic*
  needed  by EPA  lo overview  national  air
  quality atalue. They will be used by EPA to
  convey Information to • variety of tolerat-
  ed partle* Including envlronmenUI  group*,
  Federal agencle*. the Congreas. and private
  dfJaena upon requeet. A* the need arlee*.
  EPA may leiue modification* lo theae mini
  mum requirement* to reflect change* hi
  EPA policy concerning the National Ambi-
  ent Abr Quality Standard* INAAQS).
   A* Indicated hi 168.26XO. the content* of
  the SLAMS annual report ihall be certified
  by the eenlor air pollution control officer hi
  the State to  be accurate to the beat of hto
  knowledge.  In addition,  the manner  In
  which the data were collected mint be certi-
  fied to  have conformed to the  applicable
 quality aaauranee. air  monitoring methodol-
 ogy, and probe siting criteria  given In Ap-
  pendlce* A. C. and E lo thl* part. A certified
 •Utement to thl* effect must be Included
  with the  annual  report.  A*  required  by
  166.20Xa>. the report must be submitted by
 July I of each year for data collected during
  the period January I to December II of the
  previous year.
   EPA recognise* that most air  pollution
 control agencle* routinely publish air qual-
  ity ataUatlcal summark* and Interpretive re-
 port*. EPA  encourage* State and local agen-
 cle*  to continue publication of inch  report*
 and  recommend* that they be  expanded.
  where appropriate, to  Include analysis of air
 quality  trend*, population exposure, and
 pollutant distribution*. At their discretion.
 Stale and local agencle* may wish to Inte-
 grate the BLAM8 report Into routine agency
 publications.
 2. Rfqvirtd In/ormflion
   Thl* paragraph describe* air quality moni-
 toring Information and summary statistics
 which must  be Included  In  the  SLAMS
 annual report. The  required Information to
" Itemtaed  below by  pollutant.  Throughout
 thl*  appendix, the time of occurrence refer*
 to the ending hour. For example, the ending
                          PI. St. App. P

 hour of an 8 hour CO average  from 12:01
 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. would be 8:00 a.m.
   For the purpose! of range assignment* the
 following rounding convention will be wed.
 The  air  quality concentration  should be
 rounded to the number of significant digit*
 used In specifying the concentration Inter-
 vals. The digit to the right of the last slgnll
 leant digit determine* the rounding procee*.
 If thl* digit to greater than or equal to S. the
 last rignlfkant digit to rounded up. The In
 significant digits are  truncated.  For exam-
 ple. 1006 ug/m* round* lo  101  ug/m1  and
 0.1246 pom round* lo 0.12 ppm.
  1.1  Sulfur Dioxide <8O,I
  1.1.1  Site  and Monitoring  Information.
 City name (when applkable). county name
 and etreet address of site location. 8AROAD
 •lie code. 8AROAD  monitoring  method
 code. Number  of  hourly  observation*. {It
 Number of dally observation*. 121
  1.1.1  Annual Summary Statistic*. Annual
 arithmetic mean (ppm). Highest and  aecond
 hhjheat  14-hour average*  «J> (ppm)   and
 dale* of  occurrence. Hlgheat and  aecond
 hlghect 1-hour average*  In i
•**•
• «*M*»I|P|»«| 	
• •>»••* 	
•osnats 	
• IJK9N) 	
• irisOM 	
• »*>*M 	
OnaMilian.M 	
NUrtMi Ol vriUN


  1.1  Tola! Suspended Paniculate* (T8P)
  1.1.1 Bite and Monitoring  Information.
City name (when applicable), county name
and itreet address of site location. 8AROAD
•lie code. Number of dally observation*.
  1.1.1 Annual Summary StatbUca. Annual
arithmetk mean (pg/m •) aa apedfled In Ap-
pendix K of Part SO.  Dally T8P value* ex
ceedlnc  the  level  of  the 14-hour  PMW
NAAQS and  dale*  of occurrence. If more
than 10 occurrence*, list only the 10 highest
dally  value*. Sampling schedule used *uch
as once every  six  days, once every  three
day*,  etc. Number  of additional aampllng
day*  beyond  sampling   achedule   wed.
Number of 24 hour average concentrations
In range*:
                                                                                                                                  183

-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3.7

-------
  (e) Provide for having a SLAMS net-
work  description available for public
Inspection and submission to the Ad-
ministrator upon request.  The net-
work  description must be available at
the time of plan revision  submltlal
except for Pb which must be available
by  December  I. 1981  and  for  PM,.
monitors which must be available by 6
months after the effective date of pro-
mulgation and must contain the fol-
lowing Information for each SLAMS:
  U> The SAROAO  site Identification
form for existing stations.
  (2) The proposed location for sched-
uled stations.
  (3)  The  sampling   and   analysis
method.
  (4) The operating schedule.
  (6)  The monitoring  objective and
spatial scale of representativeness as
defined In Appendix  D to this part.
   A schedule for:  (I) Locating, plac-
ing Into operation, and making avail-
able the SAROAD site Identification
form for each SLAMS which  Is not lo-
cated  and operating at the  time  of
plan  revision  submlttal. (II) Imple-
menting quality assurance procedures
of Appendix A to this  part  for  each
SLAMS for which such procedures are
not Implemented at  the time of plan
revision submlttal,   and  (III)  resiling
each SLAMS which does not  meet the
requirements of  Appendix E to this
part at the time of plan revision sub-
mlttal.

144 FR 27511. May 10.  IB78. u amended at
46 FR 44U4. Sept 3.  IBB1;  62 FR 14740.
July I. IBB7I

168.21  SLAMS network dr»icn.
  The design criteria for SLAMS con-
tained In  Appendix D  to  this  part
must be used In designing the SLAMS
network. The State shall consult with
the Regional Administrator during the
network design process.  The final net-
work design will be subject to the ap-
proval of  the Regional Administrator.

• 68.22  8I.AMS methodology.
  Each SLAMS must meet (he moni-
toring methodology requirements  of
Appendix C to this  purl  nt  the  time
tin- station Is put Into operation as a
SLAMS.
         40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-88 Edition)

168.23 Monitoring network completion.
  By January 1. 1983, wllli the excep
tlon of PMu samplers whose probabili-
ty of nonattalnment of the PM,. ambi-
ent standard Is greater than or equal
to 20 percent which shall be by 1 year
after the effective date of promulga-
tion and the remaining PM,. samplers
which shall be  by 2 years after the ef-
fective date of promulgation:
  (a) Each station In the SLAMS net-
work must be In operation, be sited In
accordance with the criteria In Appen-
dix E to this part, and be located as
described on the  station's  SAROAD
site Identification form, and
  (b) The  quality  assurance  require-
ments of Appendix A to this part must
be fully Implemented.

144 FR 37671, M»y 10. 1B7B. u emended at
62 FR 24740. July I. IB87I

16814 (Reserved)

168.26 System modification.
  The State shall annually  develop
and  Implement a schedule to modify
the  ambient air  quality  monitoring
network to eliminate any unnecessary
stations or to correct any Inadequacies
Indicated by the result of the annual
review  required  by  158.20(d>.  The
State shall consult with the Regional
Administrator during the development
of the schedule to modify the monitor-
Ing program. The final schedule and
modifications will be subject to the ap-
proval of the Regional Administrator.
Nothing In this section will  preclude
the State, with the approval of the Re-
gional Administrator,  from  making
modifications to the SLAMS network
for reasons other than  those resulting
from the annual review.

8 58.2S  Annual SLAMS luminary report.
  (a) The State  shall submit to the Ad-
ministrator (through the appropriate
Regional Office) an annual summary
report of all the ambient air quality
monitoring data from  all monitoring
stations designated State and Local
Air  Monitoring  Stations  (SLAMS).
The  annual report must be submitted
by July 1 of each year for data collect-
ed from January 1 to December 31 of
the previous year.
Environmontot Protection Agency

  (b)  The annual summary  report
must contain:
  (1) The Information specified In Ap-
pendix P.
  (2)  The location,  date,  pollution
source, and duration of each Incident
of air pollution during which ambient
levels of  a pollutant reached  or  ex-
ceeded the level specified by 151.16U)
of this chapter as a level which could
cause significant  harm  to the  health
of persons.
  (c) The senior  air pollution control
officer In  the  State  or his  deslgnee
shall certify that  the annual summary
report to  accurate to the best of  his
knowledge.

144 FR 27671. May  10. 1B78. as amended at
61 FR B6M. Mar. IB. IB88I

868.27  Compliance .ate  for air  quality
   data reporting.
  The  annual air quality data  report-
Ing requirements of  158.26  apply to
data  collected after  December  31.
1980. Data collected before January 1.
1981.  must be reported under  the re-
porting procedures In effect before the
effective  date  of Subpart C of this
part.

868.28  Regional Office SLAMS data ac-
   •Hltltlon.
  The  State shall submit all  or a por-
tion of the SLAMS data to the Region-
al Administrator upon his request.
                    I Air Monitoring
          Slotlont (NAMS)

8 68.36 NAMS network establishment
  (a) By January 1, 1980. with the ex-
ception of Pb. which shall be by De-
cember 1. 1981. and PM,. samplers.
which shall be by 8 months after the
effective  date of promulgation,  the
Stale shall:
  (1) Establish, through the operation
of stations or through a schedule for
locating and placing stations Into oper-
ation, thai portion of a National Ambi-
ent Air Quality Monitoring Network
which Is In thai Slate, and
  (2)  Submit  to the  Administrator
(Ihrough   Ihe appropriate  Regional
Office) a description of that Stale's
portion of the network.
                             558.37

  (b) Hereinafter,  the  portion of the
national network In any State will be
referred to as the NAMS network.
  (c) The stations In the  NAMS net-
work  must  be  stations  from  Ihe
SLAMS network required by | 58.20.
  (d) The requirements of  Appendix D
to this part must be met when design-
Ing the NAMS network. The process of
designing the NAMS network must  be
part of the process of designing the
SLAMS network as explained In Ap-
pendix D to this part.
144 FR 27671. M»y 10, IB7B. u amended at
46 FR 44164. Sept. 3, IB8I;  62 FR  24740.
July 1.1BB7I

8 68.31  NAMS network description.
  The NAMS  network description re-
quired by I 58.30 must contain the fol-
lowing for  all  stations,  existing  or
scheduled:
  (a) The SAROAD site Identification
form for existing stations.
  (b) The proposed location for sched-
uled stations.
  (c) Identity of the urban area repre-
sented.
  (d)  The  sampling   and  analysis
method.
  (e) The operating schedule.
  (1)  The  monitoring objective and
spatial scale  of representativeness  as
defined In Appendix D to this part.
  (g) A schedule for:
  (1) Locating, placing Into operation.
and  submitting the  SAROAD site
Identification  form  for  each NAMS
which Is not located and  operating at
the time of network  description sub-
mlttal.
  (2)  Implementing quality assurance
procedures of Appendix A to this part
for each  NAMS for which such proce-
dures are not Implemented at the tune
of network description submlllal. and
  (3> Resiling each NAMS which does
not meet the  requirements of Appen-
dix E to this part at the  time of net
work description submillal.

858.32  NAMS approval.
  The NAMS nelwork   required  by
| 58.30 Is subject  lo the  approval  of
the Administrator. Such approval will
be contingent upon completion of the
network  description  as  outlined  In
| 58.31 and upon conformance to the
                                   134
                                                                                 135

-------
          UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
 S              Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
                Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
                         JUL 12 1989
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:  Boilerplates for Block Averaging and Grandfathering
          Modeling Analyses
FROM:     Robert D. Bauman, Chief PC
          SO2/Particulate Matter Programs Branch  (MD-15)

TO:       Chief, Air Branch
          Regions I-X

     Based upon EPA's June l, 1989 denial of NRDC's  petition  for
reconsideration of the use of block averaging  in  an  Ohio  SIP
revision  (attached), we recommend that the Regional  Offices use
language  similar to the following boilerplate  in  future Federal
Register  notices and/or TSD's in which the SO2  averaging  method
is a relevant factor, and which involve otherwise approvable
actions :

     The  State based the SIP revision on a  (block or
     running) interpretation of the national ambient air
     quality standards.  Under the decision in  NRDC  v.
     Thomas . 845 F.2d 1088 (D.C. Cir. 1988), the  D.C.
     Circuit determined that a State is free to submit  a  SIP
     revision using either block or running averages.   As a
     result, EPA finds the State's choice to utilize (block
     or running) averaging to be fully acceptable.

     The  EPA policy for grandfather ing modeling analyses  is
contained in a January 2, 1985 memorandum from  Joseph Tikvart,
Chief, Source Receptor Analysis Branch, to the  Regional Modeling
Contact,  Regions I-X.  Boilerplate to assist in implementing  this
policy has previously been informally distributed.   However,  at
this time we request that where grandfathering  occurs the
Regional  Office should incorporate language into  the Federal
Register  and/or TSD similar to the following:

     The  modeling techniques used in the demonstration
     supporting this revision are based on modeling  guidance
     in place at the time that the analysis was performed
     (cite "old" guidance document).  Since that  time,  the
     modeling guidance has been changed by EPA  (cite "new"
     guidance document) .  Because the modeling  analysis was
     substantially complete prior to issuance of  the revised
     guidance, EPA accepts the analysis.  If for  some reason

-------
     this, or any other, analysis must be redone in the future,
     then it should be redone in accordance with current modeling
     guidance.

     If you have any questions regarding these policies, please
contact Doug Grano of my staff at 8-629-5255.

Attachment

cc:  Ron Campbell, OAQPS
     John Calcagni, AQMD
     Pat Embrey, OGC
     Eric Ginsburg, AQMD
     Dean Wilson, TSD
     Regional Modeling Contact, Regions I-X
bcc :  *   Grano
      J. Vitas

-------
fl. S7, App. A 40 CHI Ch. 1 (7-1-88 Edition)
SCHEDULE 0.6— PERMANENT WAIVER FROM INTERIM CONTROLS TEST— Continued
(Sfrwllw KJcnMcMnnl

• Cure* Mfv«0t v«lu*
1 tMOMMMb*
Lrn
H
It
10*4
KXXX
XXXX
IO*S
xxxx
xxxx
IOM
xxxx
xxxx
IM? 1 IOM
xxxx 1 xxxx
xxxx I xxxx
IMt
xxxx
xxxx
IMO
KXXX
xxxx
tow


SCHEDULE 07— HORIZON VALUE OF CASH FLOWS




A DxxuMon to hauun v«k»
1 IM caah anv ptapcfcortt
f OvraoMon U» Moingl
a DH«II,|«»IIII «nd (KKnu
4 in* 	
c TM Mvto^i
3 D^mtoMkllv*M n* CM*
a Nonm **• MIUM
k 1000 tfuMi nkM
C Av«agA
4 itonran Hcu 	
S D>|**a«bai»-fcM homan vahM
0 o«)ii«ii«fcon IM tttvinpt o««f Ow
honion (wnml
1 OipriaUnn «nd MKnuMn
t U^gv^ IAV nta
f Tf* MJutMM
4 DteounllKkn 	
S PraMrt vflAM ol UH ••Mnfl*
* Tout prmrt nki* 01 In uv
M)
C Human VIA* 	

Ux


01


02
03
04

04
0*
07
0*
00


10
II
12
13
14

It
1*
FnUKxcul
yMft
IM»










XXXX
xxxx
xxxx


xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx

KXXX
xxxx
1000










xxxx
xxxx
xxxx


xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx

xxxx
xxxx

Horuon y««fi

IMI

xxxx


KXXX
xxxx
xxxx

KXXX
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx








xxxx
KXXX

10*2

xxxx


xxxx
xxxx
xxxx

xxxx
KXXX
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx








xxxx
KXXX

1003

xxxx


xxxx
xxxx
xxxx

xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx








xxxx
KXXX

IWM

xxxx


xxxx
xxxx
xxxx

xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx








xxxx
KXXX

HWS

xxxx


xxxx
xxxx
xxxx

xxxx
KXXX
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx



	




xxxx
XXKX

low


xxxx


xxxx
xxxx
xxxx

xxxx
xxxx





xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
KXXX
xxxx



fAII 5»— AMMEN1 AW QUAUTY f*6- „ .„„ ., ^ .
UUVH11AMCC MM SLAMS methodology.
»u*iTEii.LMnvc MM Monitoring network completion.
68.34 IReaerved)
„„ 68.36 Annual SLAMS summary report.
66 1 Detlnltlona. M •" Compliance date for air quality data
661 Amicability. MM R«««onal Olllce SlJlMS data acqulal
                                                                                  Environmental Protection Agency
                                                                                  Sec
                                                                                         Subpwtf
      lu»» *tt •— «Unll*rlng &tt«wi«

6110 Quality asaurance.
61.11 Monitoring methods
M.I 2 SltUifl of UutrumenU or liutrument
   probe*.
6113 Operating achedule.
66.14 Special purpose monitors.
 |y>».rt »— M«H4>
           iKriUM (UAMt)

6820  Mr quality lurvellluice: Plan  con
   lent
M 21  SLAMS network design.
               (NAMS)

61.30 NAMS network establishment.
68.11 NAMS network description.
6t.ll NAMS approval.
68.11 NAMS methodology.
88.14 NAMS network completion.
6816 NAMS data aubmlllal.
68.18 System modification.
   Sufcpvt f — Al> QucUly loJ««

68.40  Index reporting.
                           g StoMwu
88.60  Federal monitoring.
66.61  Monitoring other pollutant*.
ArranDis A—QUALITY AMURANCB Rtauiac
   KENT* roa STATS AND LOCAL Aia Mom-
   ToaiNd STATION* (SLAMS)
ArruiDii B—QUALITY AIIUHANCC RsOjUias-
   HtHTI roa PHEVEHTIOH Of SlQHiriCANT
   DiTESioaATioN (PSD) AIR MOHITOIINO
ArrnfDix C—AMIIDTT  Aia QUALITY Mom-
   TOaiHO MlTHODOLOOY
ArrsNDi* D— NtTwoaK  Oman roa STATS
   AMD LOCAL Aia MOMITOIINO  STATION*
   (SLAMS) AMD NATIONAL Aia MOMITORIHO
   STATION* (NAMS)
ArrnioiK E—Paxwc SITING CMTUIA  roa
   AJUIKNT Aia QUALITY MONITORING
ArrsNDiK P—ANNUAL SLAMS Aia QUALITY
   iNrolHATIOH
ArrSNDix O—UNiroaw  Aia QUALITY INDCX
   AND DAILY RaroariNO
  AoTHoamr: Sec*. 110. 301
 of Part 51 of this chapter.
  (e) "SO," means sulfur dioxide.
  (f) "NO," means nitrogen dioxide.
  (g) "CO" means carbon monoxide.
  (h) "O," means ozone.
  (I) "Plan" means an Implementation
 plan, approved or promulgated pursu-
 ant to section 110 of the Clean Air Act.
  (J) "Administrator" means  the Ad-
 ministrator of the Environmental Pro-
 tection Agency (EPA) or his or her au-
 thorized representative.
  (k> "Regional Administrator" means
 the  Administrator of one of the  ten
 EPA Regional Offices or his or her au-
 thorized representative.
  (I) "State agency" means the air pol-
 lution  control  agency  primarily  re-
 sponsible for development and Imple-
 mentation of a plan under the Act.
  (m) "Local agency" means any local
 government agency,  other than  the
 State agency,  which Is charged with
 the  responsibility for carrying out  a
 portion of the plan.
  (n) "Indian Reservation'.' means any
 Federally recognized  reservation es-
 tablished by treaty, agreement, execu-
 tive order, or act of Congress.
   "Storage  and Retrieval of Airo-
 metrlc Data (8AROAD) system" Is  a
 computerized system which stores and
 reports Information relating to ambi-
 ent air quality.
  (q) "SAROAD  site   Identification
 form"  Is one of the  several forms In
 the SAROAD  system. It Is the form
 which provides a complete description
 of the site (and Its surroundings) of an
 ambient air  quality  monitoring  sta-
 tion.
  (r) "Traceable" means that  a local
 standard has been compared and certi-
 fied, either directly or via not more
 than one Intermediate standard, to a
primary standard such  as  a National
Bureau of Standards  Standard Refer-
ence  Material  (NBS  SRM)  or  a
 USEPA/NBS approved Certified Ref-
erence Material (CRM).
  (s) "Urban area population" means
the  population  defined  In  the most
                                   128
                                                                                                                     120

-------
8M.M

NAMS design criteria contained In Ap-
pendix D to llila part.

I &8.U  NAMS methodology.
  Each NAMS mufll meet the monitor-
ing methodology requirements of Ap-
pendix  C  to this  part applicable to
NAMS at the time the station U put
Into operation as a  NAMS.

I 68.34  NAMS network completion.
  By January 1,  19B1. with the excep-
tion of Pb, which  shall be by July 1.
1989 and PM,, samplers,  which shall
be by 1 year after the effective date of
promulgation:
  (a) Each  NAMS  must  be  In  oper-
ation, be sited In accordance  with the
criteria In Appendix E to this part.
and be located a* described In the sta-
tion's  8AROAD  site  Identification
form; and
  (b) The  quality  assurance  require-
ments of Appendix A to thU part must
be fully Implemented for all NAMS.
144 FR 21671. May 10. 1070. u amended at
41 PR 44IM. Sept. 1. 1881:  62 FR  14140.
July 1. 1M7]

• 68.16  NAMS data tubmiiUU.
  (a) The requirements of this section
apply only to those stations designat-
ed  M NAMS by  the network descrip-
tion required by I 68.30.
  (b) The State shall report quarterly
to the Administrator (through the ap-
propriate Regional Office) all ambient
air quality data and Information speci-
fied by AEROS  Users  Manual (EPA-
450/2-76-029. OAQPS  No. 1.2-038) to
be coded Into the SAROAO Air Qual-
ity Data forms. Such air quality  data
and Information must be submitted on
either  paper forms, punched  cards, or
magnetic tape In  the  format of  the
SAROAO Air Quality Data forms.
  (c) The quarterly reporting periods
are January 1-March 31. April 1 June
30. July 1-September 30. and October
1 December 31. The quarterly report
must:
  (1) Be received  by the National Aero-
metric Data Bank  within 120 days of
the end of each reporting period, after
being submitted  by the States to the
Regional Offices  for review :
  (2> Contain all  data and Information
gathered during the reporting period.
         40 CFI Ch. I (7-l-tt Edition)

  (d) For TSP. CO. SO,. O.. and NO,.
the first quarterly report will be due
on or  before  June 30.  1081,  for data
collected  during  the first  quarter  of
1981. For Pb. the first quarterly report
will be due on December 31. 1982, for
data collected during  the third quarter
of 1982.  For PM,. samplers, the first
quarterly report  will be due 120 days
after the first quarter of operation.
  (e) Air quality data submitted in the
quarterly  report  must   have  been
edited and validated so that such data
are ready  to be entered Into  the
8AROAD  data files. Procedures  for
editing and  validating data are  de-
scribed  In AEROS  Users  Manual
(EPA-460/2 7d 029, OAQPS  No.  1.2-
039).
   This section docs not permit  a
Slate to exempt  those  SLAMS which
are also designated as NAMS from all
or any of  the  reporting requirements
applicable to SLAMS In I 58.26.

144 FR 27671. May 10. 1(70. u amended at
41 FR 441(4. Sept. 3. 1*81; 61 FR 96S6. Mar.
1*. 19M; 62 FR 24740. July 1, 18871

I 68.34  System modification.
  During the annual  SLAMS Network
Review  specified  In   158.20.  any
changes to the NAMS network Identi-
fied by the EPA  and/or  proposed by
the State and agreed to  by the EPA
will be evaluated. These modifications
should address changes Invoked by  a
new census and  changes  to the  net-
work   due to changing   air  quality
levels, emission   patterns,  etc. The
State  shall be given one year (until
the next annual  evaluation) to Imple-
ment  the appropriate changes to the
NAMS network.

(61 FR WSa. Mar. 10. 10881

    Swbparl E—Air Quality .Index
              ••porting

158.40  Index reporting.
  (a)  The State  shall  report to the
general public on a dally basis through
prominent notice  an  air quality Index
In accordance  with the requirements
of Appendix O to this part.
  (b)  Reporting  must  commence  by
January  1, 1981,  for all  urban areas
with a population exceeding 500.000.
                                    136
 f itvlronMontal FrotocHon Agoncy

 and by January  1, 1983. for all urban
 area*  with  a  population  exceeding
 200.000.
   (c) The population of an urban area
 for purposes of Index reporting la the
 most recent  U.S. census  population
 figure as defined In I 58.1 paragraph

 144 FR 27671. May 10. 1070. as amended at
 61 FR 068*. Mar. 19. 10891

     Sobpart f—Fodorol Monitoring

 168.6* Federal monitoring.
   The Administrator  may  locate and
 operate an ambient air monitoring sta-
 tion If the State.falls to locate,  or
 schedule to be located, during the Ini-
 tial  network  design process or as a
 result of the annual review required
 by I 68.20Xd):
   (a) A SLAMS at a site which Is nec-
 essary In the judgment of  the Region-
 al Administrator to meet the objec-
 tives defined In Appendix D to this
•part, or
   (b) A NAMS at a site which Is neces-
 sary In the Judgment of the Adminis-
 trator for meeting EPA national data
 needs.

 168.61  Monitoring other pollutants.
   The Administrator may  promulgate
 criteria similar  to that referenced In
 Subpart B of this part for monitoring
 • pollutant for which a National Am-
 bient Air Quality Standard does not
 exist. Such an action would be taken
 whenever  the  Administrator  deter-
 mines that • a  nationwide  monitoring
 program Is necessary to monitor such
 • pollutant.


 ATPENDIX A—QUALITY ASSURANCE Rg
     QOlaEMENTS  FOH STATE  AND LOCAL
     Aia     MONITORING     STATIONS
     (SLAMS)

 I. General Information.
  This  Appendix  specifies the  minimum
 quality assurance requirement* applicable
 to SLAMS air monitoring data submitted to
 EPA. Stale* are encouraged to develop and
 maintain quality assurance program* more
 extensive than Ihe required minimum.
  Quality  assurance of air monitoring sys
 tenu Includes two distinct and Important
 Interrelated functions.  One function Is the
 control  of  the  measurement  process
                       Pt. SS, App. A

 through  the  Implementation of  policies.
 procedure*, and  corrective  actions.  The
 other function u Ihe assessment  of  the
 quality of Ihe monitoring data (the product
 of the measurement process). In  general.
 the greater Ihe elforl effectiveness of the
 control of a given monitoring system, the
 belter will be the resulting quality of the
 monitoring data. The results of data quality
 assessments Indicate whether Ihe control ef-
 fort* need to be Increased.
  Documentation of Ihe quality assessments
 of the monitoring data is Important to data
 users, who can then consider the Impact of
 the data quality In specific application* (aee
 Reference I). Accordingly,  assessment* of
 SLAMS data quality are required to be re-
 ported to EFA periodically.
  To provide national uniformity In this as-
 sessment  and  reporting of data quality for
 all  SLAMS networks,  specific assessment
 and reporting procedures are prescribed In
 detail In sections I. 4. and 6 of Ihls Appen-
 dix.
  In contrast. Ihe  control function encom-
 passes a variety of policies, procedure*, •pac-
 ifications, standards, and corrective meas-
 ures which affect the quality of the result-
 Ing data.  The (election and extent of  the
 quality control acllvllles-as  well as addi-
 tional quality assessment activities—used by
 a monitoring agency depend on a number of
 local factors such a* the field and laborato-
 ry conditions, the objectives of the monitor-
 Ing, the level of the data quality needed, the
 expertise  of assigned personnel, the cost of
 control procedures, pollutant concentration
 levels, etc. Therefore, the quality assurance
 requirement*.  In section 2 of this Appendix
 are specified In general terms to allow each
 Stale to develop a quality assurance system
 that I* most efficient and effective for Its
 own circumstances.
 2. Quality Auurance Requirement*
  2.1 Each  Slate must  develop and Imple-
 ment a quality assurance program consist-
 ing of  policies, procedures, specification*
standards and documentation necessary to:
  (I) Provide  data of adequate quality to
meet monitoring objectives, and
  (21 Minimize loss of air quality data due to
 malfunction* or out ol control condition*.
  This quality assurance program musl be
 described In  detail, suitably documented
 and approved by  the  appropriale Regional
 Administrator, or his deslgnee. The Quality
 Auurance Program will be reviewed during
 the annual system audit described In section

  2.2 Primary guidance for developing Ihe
 quality assurance  program  I* contained In
 Reference*  2  and  3. which also  contain
 many  suggested  procedures, checks  and
control specifications. Section 2 0 0 of Refer-
ence 3 describes specific guidance for Ihe de-
                                                                                  137

-------
REFL ;ENCES FOR SECTION 3.8

-------
                  UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                    Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
                    Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711


     DATE:  SEP 1   1981

   SUBJECT:  Ambient Monitoring Networks for Model  Evaluations


     FROM:  Richard G. Rhoads, Director
           Monitoring and Data Analysis Division

       TO:  Ronald C. Campbell, Assistant Director
             for Program Operations, OAQPS

                Under favorable conditions our available air quality models  can
           provide errors of from ±10 to ±40 percent.   Under unfavorable conditions
           the errors can be much worse.  For these reasons, we have been consi-
           dering how to use ambient monitoring data to supplement or improve
           model estimates on a case-by-case basis.

                It is generally not feasible to establish emission limits for
           point sources based solely on monitoring data.  This is because current
           programs require that emission limits  be based upon  a fairly rare event
           (i.e., the second maximum concentration anywhere in  the area, at  anytime,
           and with the facility operating at full capacity) and to capture  that
           event on a monitor would normally require a prohibitively large and
           expensive network.

                An alternative approach is to establish a monitoring network of
           reasonable size, use the resulting monitored data to evaluate the models
           for applicability to those particular  conditions, and then use the result-
           ing "best available" model to establish the emission limitation.

                One problem with this approach is  defining the  "network of reasonable
           size" which would be used to evaluate  the models.  If the network is  too
           small, the data would be inadequate to distinguish between models and  the
           evaluation would have no validity.  If the network is too large,  the  cost
           would be excessive.

                Although our experience with evaluations of this nature is very  limited,
           I have recently recommended to Region  V that, for a variety of power  plants
           in the Midwest, networks consisting of approximately 15 monitors  each should
           be considered.  This recommendation was based upon the following  knowledge:

                     • My staff and the technical  modeling staff of Region V estimate
                that, in moderate terrain, a network of 25-30 monitors would be  desirable
                to obtain "reasonable scientific  credibility."

                     * The Electric Power Research Institute has conducted one  phase  of
                a major model evaluation study (called Plume Model Validation)  around  the
                Kincaid Power Plant.  The PMV network consisted of 30 ambient monitors
                supplemented by several hundred tracer monitors for special
•"> 1320-4 (R»». 3-761

-------
           * The  model evaluation  program around the Westvaco Luke Mill in
     Maryland  is using  nine monitors.  The issue at Luke Mill involves only
     one wind  direction (quadrant):  If all wind directions were pertinent,
     a  larger  network would have  been necessary.

           • The  model evaluation  program around the Ashland Oil facility in
     Kentucky  used  a network consisting of 18 monitors.  The issue involved
     complex terrain in a valley  situation.

           * The  model evaluation  program around the Simplot acid plant in
     Idaho used  a network consisting of five monitors.  The issue at Simplot
     involved  only  one  wind direction and one set of meteorological conditions.

           * The  model evaluation  program around the Big Bend Power Plant on
     the coast of Florida used a  network consisting of eight monitors supple-
     mented by sophisticated plume measurements.  The issue at Big Bend
     involved  only  a single wind  direction.

     Based on  our experience with these programs (all of .-which were reasonably
successful but,  with the exception of EPRI, none of which were "data rich"), I
believe that approximately 15 monitors operating for one year is probably the
minimum network  size to  obtain a  valid data base under normal circumstances.
Fifteen would  probably  be too few in rugged, complex terrain; fifteen would
probably be too  many if  the issue involved only a single specific location
(e.g. a single isolated  hilltop)  or single meteorological condition.

     It is necessary to  minimize  the number of monitors because the cost of a
network of 15  monitors,  plus an adequate meteorological station, plus emissio,
monitoring, could range  from S30QK to over $1 million.  The wide range in costs
is influenced  primarily  by the availability of power at the monitoring sites, by
the ease of servicing the monitors, and by the complexity of both the terrain
and the meteorological  conditions.  Based on preliminary discussions between
Region V staff and  electric utility r presentatives, I believe that most large
utilities  would  be  willing and able to bear this cost if they perceive that the
evaluation would result  in a relaxation of stringent emission limitations.

     In the past many utility representatives held a strong opinion that the
CRSTER model (most  commonly used  to evaluate power plants in level to moderate
terrain) tended  to  overestimate the magnitude of concentrations, i.e. that the
model had  a strong  conservative bias.  The preliminary data from the EPRI
model evaluation disprove that opinion:  the EPRI results indicate no signi-
ficant bias (at  least in level terrain).

     Also  the  preliminary data from Westvaco (involving the SHORT! model),
the results from-Ashland Oil (involving the VALLEY model), and the results
from Big Bend  (involving the CRSTER model), all tend to confirm  the model
predictions, although Ashland Oil showed VALLEY to be  somewhat conservative
as expected.   I  would classify the Simplot results as  "inconclusive."

-------

cc:  ^JT Tikvart
     R. Neligan

-------

                   UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                           Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
                           Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
   DATE: AUG 7   1981

SUBJECT:  Monitoring Around Mid-Western Power Plants
   FROM:  Richard G.  Rhoads,  Di
          Monitoring  and Data Analysis Division  (MD-14)

     T0:  David Kee,  Director
          Air and Hazardous Materials Division,  Region V

               We have previously discussed  the  requests of  several utilities to
          conduct air quality monitoring  around  their power  plants  located in
          Illinois, Indiana and  Ohio.  The purpose  of the monitoring would be to
          provide a data base suitable for evaluating air quality models and to
          select the most reliable .ode!  for setting emission  limits.

               No widely accepted performance standards are  available with which
          to judge the acceptability of a single model.  Thus, to determine the
          best model  for a specific application, we must rely  on a  comparison of
          the relative performance of two or more models using a variety of
          statistical tests.   Such an approach has  been recommended by  the American
          Meteorological Society and is incorporated in an OAQPS report entitled
          "Interim Procedures for Evaluating Air Quality Models" that was provided
          to your staff last  week (see attached  memorandum).

               These interim  procedures are  the  best available basis for discussions
          with the utilities  on  the monitoring programs and  subsequent  analyses.
          The procedures involve (1)  identification of  applicable models;  (2) selection
          and weighting of statistical performance  measures;  and  (3) determination  of
          an appropriate ambient monitoring  program.   I  suggest that you forward  this
          information to the  utilities and  set up meetings where  these  issues can
          be discussed.

               At such meetings  it will  be  necessary  for  the utility  representatives
          to propose alternative models  that they believe  to be more  reliable  than
          the standard EPA models.  Statistical  tests  and  performance  measures  must
          be agreed upon to determine  the relative  performance of the  models  under
          consideration.  These performance measures  must be adequate  to evaluate
          the entire range of meteorological conditions which affect the source
          area,  as well as appropriate  averaging times.  While these meetings  will
          involve highly technical issues,  management personnel may be required to
          make decisions relative to  the  most important evaluation tests and the
          best measures of uncertainty.

-------
     It will be necessary to agree on an adequate air quality monitoring
network composed of continuous monitors with quality assurance meeting
the requirements of 40 CFR 58.  Although our experience with networks
for this purpose is limited, we believe that an appropriate balance
between the technical requirements of the analyses and the costs would
result in approximately 15 monitors, depending upon the type of terrain,
meteorological conditions, prior knowledge of air quality in the area,
etc.  For the specific case of the Baldwin plant which you mentioned,
it is likely that 11 monitors would be adequate if the monitors were
carefully located at predicted points of maximum impact under the full
range of meteorological conditions.  (Location of the monitors at points
of maximum impact only under unstable conditions would not provide
adequate coverage.)

     It will be necessary to agree on an adequate on-site meteorological
data collection program.  As a minimum, these measurements should be
similar to those available from National Weather Service Stations and
should be consistent with the PSD Monitoring Guideline requirements.
It may be necessary to collect additional data in order to satisfy
the input requirements of proposed alternative models.

     It will be necessary to agree on an adequate program to collect
plant operating data.  Ideally, this would consist of continuous in-stack
emission monitors supplemented by routine operating characteristics.  Many
plants'are willing to install emission monitors for a variety of purposes.
However, if continuous emission monitors are considered to be too exoensive,
it is usually possible to construct adequate emissions data from a carefully
planned as-fired fuel sampling program.

     We assume that the utility will be responsible for all data collection,
data reduction, and quality assurance.  Once a protocol for the specific
statistical performance measures and their weighting are established,
we further assume that the utility will also be responsible for all calcu-
lations and model evaluations.  Once the analysis is complete, we can joint"j
review the results with the utility and come to a reasoned decision as to
the most appropriate model for setting emission limits for that source.
Thus, the crucial part of this exercise is establishing in a written
protocol the data to be collected, the procedures to be followed, and the
basis for judging the relative performance of the models being considered.

-------
are interim.  Thev will \™,™ 
-------
                   UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                       Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
                       Research Triangle Park, North Carolina  27711
       DATE:  7/30/81
    SUBJECT:  Interim Procedures for Evaluating Air Quality Models
      FROM:
        TO:
Joseph A. Tikvart, Chief1
Source Receptor Analysis

Chief, Air Programs Branch, Regions I - X

     Attached is a report entitled "Interim Procedures for Evaluating
Air Quality Models."  The purpose of the report is to provide a general
framework for the quantitative evaluation and comparison of air quality
models.  It is intended to help you decide whether a proposed model,  not
specifically recommended in the Guideline on Air Quality Models, is
acceptable on a case-by-case basis for specific regulatory application.
The need for such a report is identified in Section 7 of "Regional
Workshops on Air Quality Modeling:  A Summary Report."

     An earlier draft (Guideline for Evaluation of Air Quality Models)
was provided to you for comment in January 1981.  Vie received comments
from four Regional Offices and have incorporated many of the suggestions.
These comments reflected a diversity of opinion on how rigid the pro-
cedures and criteria should be for demonstrating the acceptability of a
nonguideline model.  One Region maintained that EPA should establish
minimum acceptable requirements on data bases, decision rationale, etc.
Others felt that we should be more flexible in our approach.  This
report defines the steps that should be followed in evaluating a model
but leaves room for considerable flexibility in details for each step.

     The procedures and criteria presented in this new report are  con-
sidered  interim.   They  are an extension of recommendations resulting
from the Woods Hole Workshop  in Dispersion Model Performance held  in
Setpember  1980.   That workshop was sponsored under a  cooperative agree-
ment between  EPA  and-the American Meteorological Society.  Thus, v.hile
some of  the  performance evaluation procedures may be  resource  intensive,
they  reflect  most of the requirements  identified by  an appropriate
scientific  peer group.   However,  since  the concepts  are  relatively new
and untested,  problems  may be encountered  in their'  initial  application.
Thus,  the  report  provides  suggested  procedures;  it  is  not  a  "guideline."

      We "recommend that  you begin  using  the  procedures on  actual  situations
within  the  context of  the  caveats  expressed  in  the  Preface and in  Section
5.2.   Where  suggestions are  inappropriate,  the  use  of alternative  techniques
to  accomplish the desired  goals  is  encouraged.   Feedback on  your experience
and problems  are  important to us.   After a  period of time during which
experience is gained  and problems are identified,  the report will  be
-arm 13?C 6 'Rev 3-76)

-------
Attachment
     D.  Fox
     T.  Helms
     W.  Keith
     M.  Mini-head
     L.  Niemeyer
     R.  Smith
     F.  White

-------
                                  EPA-450/4-84-023
Interim  Procedures for Evaluating Air
        Quality Models (Revised)
            U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
              Monitoring and Data Analysis Division
             Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
            Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

                    September 1984

-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTIONS 4.1 AND 4.2

-------
2138	Federal Register /  Vol.  54. No.  12 / Thursday. January 19. 1989  /  Pi noosed Rules
  Authority. Sees. 1-19. 48 Slat. 31. as
      ci 7 U.S C. 601-674.
  2. Section 959.229 is added to read as
follows:

§ 959.229 Expenses and assessment rat*.
  Expenses of $379.675 by the South
Texas Onion Committee are authorized
=md an assessment rate of $0.055 per 50-
pound container or equivalent quantity
of regulated onions is established for the
fiscal period ending July 31.1989.
Unexpended funds may be carried over
as a reserve.
  ra;»d: Janna-y 13.1989.
William I. r>u In.
 ! s.'i .• :> £>-• ',/••:  0;r*".w. rruitcr-i!
 ',  •• •:-,•:.* !Jr si, n.
' - Uoc  89-1JSO Filed 1-1B-89; 8:45 am)
r- Department of the Treasury is
• • v 'ending the comment period on the
A  tvance Notice of Proposed
>••  iemaking Relating to Identification
'••  :quiremeni.s Required to Purchase
'  ;-* Checks. Cashier's Checks.
   .-.eler s Checks and Money Orders.
L . Wished in the Federal Register on
' i-cpmber 23. 1988 153 FR 51846). The
'! luasury Department has determined
'n.it more time is needed for the public
in review and comment on the proposal.
DATE: Comments now will be  accepted
rbrough February 15. 1989.
ADDRESS: Comments should be
••iidressed to Amy G. Rudmck. Director.
Office of Financial Enforcement.
'"Apartment of the Treasury. Room 4120.
i VX) Pennsylvania Avenue. NW..
Washington. DC 20220.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Knthleen A. Scott. Attorney Advisor,
Office of the Assistant General Counsel
I Enforcement ]. (202) 566-9947.
  Dated: January 13. 1969.
Sdlvatoi* R. MwtodM.
->5.--isran: secretary ( Enforcement /.
 KR Doc. 89-1^04 Filed l-lB-afc 8.45 am)
%wUOG COOt
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

40 CFR Part 51
IFRC-342S-8J

State Imptemerttation Plan
Completeness Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This notice describes the
procedure for assessing whether a State
implementation plan (SIP) submittal is
adequate to trigger the Clean Air Act
requirement that EPA revievv and take
action the submittal. The notice
describes, among other things, the
criteria for determining the
"completeness" of the submittal. EPA is
concerned that uncertainty and
excessive delays in reviewing SIPs
frustrate the development of an optimum
State/Federal partnership, cause
confusion for sources regarding
applicable regulations, and generally
dampen initiative in State regulatory
programs. Prompted by this concern.
EPA is instituting a wide range of SIP
processing reforms as described
elsewhere in this Federal Register. The
proposed rulemaking described below is
one of these reforms.
  EPA's previous SIP processing
procedures provided no mechanism to
reject or otherwise eliminate essentially
unreviewable SIP submittals (i.e.. those
missing information necessary to make
a reasonable decision as to their
procedural and environmental
adequacy). Heretofore. SIP submittais
that  lacked required basic information
such as evidence of legal authority or of
properly conducted public hearings, or
technical support information sufficient
to describe a proposed change, generally
went through full notice and comment
rulemaking (proposed and final) before
being rejected. Today's proposal
provides a procedure and screening
criteria ;o enable States  to prepare
adequate SIP submit'.als, and to enable
EPA reviewers to promptly screen SIP
'submittais. identify those that  are
incomplete, and return them to the State
for corrpr.tive action without having to
go through rulemaking.
  EPA believes thdt this change.
together with those described elsewhere
in this Federal Register, should enable
SIP submittals to be prepared and
processed more efficiently and. overall.
should improve the quality of SIP
submittals.
DATE: All comments should be
submitted to EPA at the address shown
below by March 6.1989.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties may
sul/mil written comments in dupiiL-i!* to
Public Docket No. A-88-18 at: Cen!rrt|
Docket Section (A-130). South
Conference Center. Room 4. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Attention: Docket No. A-68-18.401 M.
Street. SW.. Washington. DC 20460.
  Materials relevant to this rulem;iking
have been placed in Docket No. A-88-18
b.v EPA and are ava:Uble for inspection
at thf above address hp-ween 8:00 a.m.
and 3:30 p.m.. N!or.da>  through Friday.
The EPA may chsrj- a re^sonHrile fet-
ter copying
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. James Weig^d. Office of A:r
Quality P!;inr:r.2 «r,c Standards (MD-
11), U.S. Env,rcnrr:cr:ci Protection
Agency. Research Triangle Park. \or:h
Carolina 27711; Telephone (919) 541-
5642 or (FTS) 629-5642.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

  The 1970 Clean Air Act (CAAI
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. There are now standards for
6 pollutants: ozone, carbon monoxide.
sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide.
particulate matter (PMio. and lead.
States then develop control programs to
attain and maintain these NAAQS.
These programs are defined by State
Implementation Phms (SJPs) which are
approved formally by EPA and are
legally enforceable by the Agency.
Under section nO|rt)(2). a SIP must
demonstrate atUi.-ment. describe a
control strategv.  contain legally
enforceable regulations,  include an
emission inventory and procedures  for
new source re\ i«»w. ou'.lir.e a program
for monitoring, and shov. adequate
resources. In adJi'ion  there can be
many other requirements specific to the
pollutant being considered. Under
section !10!a;(3;. revisions to a SIP must
not interfere with the SIPs ability to
meet  these reuuiremer.ts. The
consequence of S'.aif» failure to get SIP
approval ma>  ••- serious: they mciudf
Federal promt:.£.iunn of control
regulations ard economic sanctions.
  Affirmative action is required by  EPA
on essentially ali aspects of every SIP
and SIP revision. Since EPA's final
decision comes after a regulation
already is adopted and implemented at
the State level, excessive delay in the
review orocess often is a major source
of friction m EPA s relations with State

-------
               Federal Register / Vol. 54. No.  12 / Thursday. January 19.  1989 /  Proposed Rules          2139
and local agencies. SIP processing at
EPA has 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
disapproved, or languish while the State
is required (perhaps months later) to
supply essential data.  Heretofore. EPA's
procedures did not provide in any
comprehensive way prompt reiection for
incompleteness. Independently,
however, some Regional Offices have
tried to deal with this problem, and have
developed procedures wherein SIP
submittals are judged against a set of
completeness criteria. The purpose of
these procedures has been to keep
incomplete packages out of the more
extensive review system, thereby saving
both EPA and the State valuable" time
and resources. Today. EPA is proposing
io institute an EPA-wioe procedure for
  • \ut'' tnat section UOUHC! of the Clean Air fVt
rfouires that The Administrator snaii. wiimn four
"••-.. -« alter the dA maintains that this deadline doe* not
»rr>tv  ''i SIP revisions, but rather only to rhe mnul
SIP s  'muted after EPA promulgates a NAAQS
•   •  -Jurti have supponed EPA » position, other
   - nave nttd Ihjt d vmonih review periixi
"'' •—= to a SIP revision
completeness review of all SIP
submittals.

Completeness Review

  In order to free EPA resources that
would otherwise be consumed in
processing incomplete and inherently
unapprovable SIP*. EPA hat created a
completeness review process. Under this
process. EPA will review a SIP for
completeness when it is initially
submitted to determine if all the
necessary components have been
included to allow the agency to properly
review and act on the substance of the
SIP revision. This will be a quick screen
that will assess the reviewability of a
SIP submittal. not its ultimate
approvabiliry. EPA will then promptly
inform the submitting State whether the
agency will proceed to process the SIP
revision or if it must be modified by the
State because it is  incomplete.
  There are several benefits to an early
determination of completeness. First, the
State is informed promptly as to the
reviewability of the submittal. a current
source of uncertainty in the SIP process.
Second. SIP submittals that are
inadequate for processing are returned
to the State to be corrected, rather than
going through the review process only to
be disapproved because of a lack of
information. Third, unreviewable SIPs
are removed from the process early so
that resources at the Federal level are
allocated to processing only SIPs that
are adequate for review. Finally, the
completeness criteria! provide the States
with guidelines on  how to prepare
reviewable SIPs. It is expected that once
the agencies involved (State and local
EPA) become accustomed to the
completeness review process, the
number of unreviewable submittals will
diminish sharply.
  Screening criteria have been
developed that define the essential
elements of an acceptable package, that
will avoid obvious  inadequacies, and
that can be applied uniformly with
limited subjective judgement and
review. The criteria were developed by
EPA Regional Offices already using a
list of criteria to determine completeness
of SIP packages in  an informal way. On
March 18.1988 a policy for determining
completeness of SIP submittals was
issued by Gerald A. Emison. Director.
Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (OAQPS), to the Regional
Offices (a copy  has been placed in the
docket as item II-B-4). The policy
includes basic criteria for determining
completeness, and  sample letters for
accepting and rejecting SIP submittals.
This policy will be  followed by EPA
until today's proposed regulation is
made final.
  As part of this action, the
Administrator is proposing to add these
criteria for determining the
completeness of State submittab to 40
CFR Part 51 as Appendix V. In addition.
EPA proposes to modify { 51.103(a) such
that State submissions that do not meet
the criteria are not considered official
plan submissions for purposes of
meeting the requirements of Part 51. In
order to be considered as a complete SIP
submission or an official submission for
Part 51. each plan must meet the criteria
described below and in Appendix V.
The basic criteria are adaptable for use
in parallel processing of State
regulations by EPA.2
  EPA is creating this completeness
review process under the authority  of
Section 301 of the Clean Air Act. which
authorizes the Administrator to
prescribe such regulations as are
necessary to carry out his functions
under the Act. EPA is interpreting the
terms "plan" in section H0(a)(l) and (2)
and "revision" in Section 110(a)(3) to be
only those plans and revisions that
contain all of the components necessary
to allow EPA to a adequately review
and take action on such plan or revision
under section 110 (and. where
applicable. Part D). EPA believes that
Congress would not have intended to
require EPA to review and take action
on SIP submittals that were simply not
reviewable because they were lacking
important components. Therefore, the
Administrator concludes that Section
110(a) requires him to act only on
complete State submittals.

Completeness Criteria

  The criteria for determining whether a
submittal by the State is complete have
been separated into two categories: (a)
Administrative information and  (b)
technical support information.
Administrative information includes the
documentation necessary' to
demonstrate that the basic
administrative procedures have  been
adhered to by the State during the
adoption process. Technical support
information includes the documentation
that adequately identifies all of the
required technical components of trip
plan submission.

Administrative Information

  The administrative information
required by the criteria are those basic
  ' Parallel processing is * procedure by which EPA
processei. at a prooosai Stale rui«s which nave not
yet Been fuliv aoooteo o>  the State in order to
expedite 'J»e imai review process.

-------
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
revision 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 conformance with basic statutory
and EPA requirements. In order for EPA
to make a reasonable decision
concerning the  adequacy of a proposed
SIP revision, certain information at a
minimum must  be included in each
submittal. Therefore, for purposes of
determining the completeness of a SIP
submission the implementation plan
revision must include an adequate
description of the:
  |a) Pollutants involved:
  jb) Source location and attainment
status of the area:
  (c) Emissions chances:
  [d) Demonstration that standards/
increments are protected;
  Ic) Information used for any modeling
demonstration:
  if) Evidence of conimuous emissions
controls:
  |g) Evidence of emissions limitations
ana other  restrictions necessary to
ensure emission levels:
  jh) Compliance strategies: and
  (ij Technological and economic
justification for the change where
applicable.
  Upon receipt of the pian revision, the
Regional Office will obiectiveiy 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 51.103(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 processmz changes and EPA
responses to significant comments, the
contents of the docket, except for
interagency 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 to 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, recordkeeping, 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 announced 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 Agency has. therefore.
concluded that this action is not a
"major" action under Executive Order
12291.
  This rule was submitted to OMB for
review consistent with section 307(d) of
the Clean Air Act. A copy of the draft
rule as submitted  to OMB.  any
documents accompanying the draft, any
written comment received  from other
agencies (including OMB), and any
written responses to those comments
have been included  in the docket.
  The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980.
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 a regulatory flexibility
analysis for every action unless the
Administrator certifies that the action
will not have a significant economic
impact on a s-bsiannai ncmoer of small

-------
                Federal  Register / Vol. 54. No. 12  / Thursday. January  19.  1989 / Proposed Rules	21 tl
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  January 9. 1989.
Lee M. Thomas,
Administrator.
  For the reasons set out in the
preamble. 40 CFR Pan 51 is proposed to
be amended as follows:

PART 51-{ AMENDED]

  1. The authority citation for Part 51
continues to read as follows:
  Authoriby: This rulemaking is promulgated
under authority of Sectioni I0l(b)(1). 110.
160-69. 1T1-178. and 301(aj  of the Clean Air
Act. 42 U.S.C 7401(b)(l). 7410. 7420-7429.
7501-7506. and 7601(a).

  2. Section 51.103 is proposed to be
amended by revising paragraph (a)
introductory text to read as follows:

§ 51.103  SubmiMion of plans, preliminary
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 is proposed to be amended
by adding Appendix V to read as
follows:

Appendix V— Criteria for Determining
the Completeness of Plan Submissions.

1.0. Purpose
  This Appendix V sets forth the minimum
crnena for determining wtietner a State
implementation plan submitted for
consideration by EPA 11 an  official
submission for purpose of review under
5 51.103.
  1.1. The EPA shall return  to the submitting
official any plan or revision thereof which
fails to meet the criteria set forth in this
Appundi* V. or otnerwise request corrective
action, identifying the components! absent
or insufficient to  perform a  review of the
•submitted plan.
  1.2. The EPA shall inform the submitting
official when a plan submission meets the
requirements of tnis Appendix V. such
determination resulting in the plan being an
'•>t~fi..,al submission for purposes of § SI. 103.
  The following shall be included in plan
kii'imissions for review by EPA:
  2.1. Administrative Materials
  'a i A formal letter of submittal from the
Governor or his destsnee, requesting EPA
approval of the plan or revision therpnf
:r.."i'dfter "the plan").
  (b) Evidence that the Slate has adopted the
plan in the State code or body of regulations:
or issued the permit, order, consent
agreement (hereafter document) in final form.
That evidence shall include the date of
adoption or final issuance as well at 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
State. 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
procedures approved by EPA. including the
date of publication of such nonce.
  (gj Certification that public heahng(s) 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.
  2-2. Technical Support
  (a) Identification of all  regulated pollutants
affected by the plan.
  (b| Identification of the locations of
affected sources including the EPA
•ttainment/nonattaiiunent designation of the
locations and the status of the attainment
plan for the affected areas(s).
  (c| Quantification of the changes in plan
allowable emissions from the affected
sources: estimates of changes in current
actual emissions from affected sources or.
where appropriate, quantification of changes
in actual emissions from affected sources
through calculations of the differences
between certain baseline levels and
allowable emissions anticipated as • result of
the revision.
  (d) The State's demonstration that the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
prevention of significant detenoration
increments, reasonable further progress
demonstration, and visibility, are protected if
the plan is approved and  implemented.
  (ej Modeling information required to
support the proposed revision, including input
data, output data, models used, justification
of model selections, ambient monitoring data
used, meteorological data used, justification
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.
  (g) Evidence that  the plan contains
emission limitations, work practice standards
and recordkeepmg/reporting requirements.
where necessary, to ensure emission levels.
  fh) Compliance/enforcement strategies
including how compliance will be determine J
in practice.
  (i) Special economic and technological
justifications required by any applicable EPA
policies.

2.3. Exceptions
  2.3.1. The EPA. for the purposes of
expediting the review of the plan, hds
adopted a procedure referred to as "parallel
processing." Parallel processing allows a
State to submit the plan prior to actual
adoption by the State snd provides an
opportunity for the State to corsider EPA
comments prior to submission of a final pidn
for final review and action. Under these
circumstances the plan submitted will n>M be
able to meet all of the requirements of
paragraph 2.1 (all requirements of paraar :ph
2.2 will apply). As s result, the followi-.:
exceptions apply to plans submitted
explicitly for parallel processing:
  (a) The letter required by paragraph ;.i i H )
shall request that EPA propose approval of
the proposed plan by parallel processing
  (b) In lieu of paragraph 2.l(b) the State
shall submit s schedule for final adoption or
issuance of the plan,
  (c) In lieu of paragraph 2.1(d| the plan shdl
include a copy of the proposed /draft
regulation or document.
  (d) The requirement* of paragraphs 2.1 u-l-
2.1(h) shall not apply to plans submitted for
parallel processing.
  24.2. The exceptions granted in paragraph
2J.1 shall apply only to EPA's determir.dtion
of proposed action and all requirements of
paragraph 2.1 shall be met pnor to
publication of EPA's final determination of
plan approvability.
(FR Doc. 89-1001 Filed 1-18-89: 6:45 am]
SWJJNO COOCUM-W-W
FEDERAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY

Federal Insurance Administration

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket No. FEMA-4M61

Proposed Rood Elevation
Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
ACTION: Prono«ed rule.

SUMMARY: Technical information or
comments are solicited on the proposed
base (100-year) flood elevations and
proposed base liood elevation
modifications listed below for_selec:t;d
locations in the nation.  These base (100-
year) flood elevations are the basis for
the floodplam management measures
that the community is required to either
adopt or show evidence of being already
in effect in  order to qualify or remain
qualified for participation in the

-------
                              EPA-450/2-78-027R
Guideline On Air Quality Models
               (Revised)
         U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
              Office of Air and Radiation
          Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
            Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

                   July 1986

-------
                        EPA-450/2-78-027R
                           SUPPLEMENT A
                             JULY 1987
         SUPPLEMENT A
              TO THE
            GUIDELINE
                ON
AIR QUALITY MODELS (REVISED)
      U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
          Office Of Air And Radiation
     Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards
    Research Triangle Park,  North Carolina 27711

-------
                                                               PN no-8?-oi-Q2-o:
                  UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                         Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
                        Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
%-s.v


                                  January 2, 1985
  MEMORANDUM

  SUBJECT:  Regional Implementation of Modeling Guidance

  FROM:     Joseph A. Tikvart, Chief
            Source Receptor Analysis Branch, MDAD  (MD-14)

  TO:       Regional Modeling Contact, Regions I-X

       Attached for your use 1s Information on the Implementation of modeling
  guidance.  Attachment 1 is an excerpt of a memorandum from J. Wilburn to D. Tyler
  [dated November 13, 1984) which Identifies several issues.  Attachment 2
  provides our response to these Issues.

       It is our Intent that the response merely reiterate the way in which we
  understand modeling guidance to be routinely implemented by all Regional Offices.
  however, having formalized that understanding, we believe that its circulation
  is desirable.  If you have any questions, please call me.

  Attachments

  cc:  Chief, Air Programs Branch, Regions, I-X
       B. Turner
     y D. Wi1 son

-------
                                Attachment 1

(Excerpt of Memorandum from J. Wilburn to D. Tyler, Dated November 13, 1984)
     As discussed in this memo, we are quite concerned as to our credibility
regarding the development and approval of SIP revisions and bubbles which
consider complicated and involved modeling.  While our Armco experience may
be viewed by some as atypical, we feel that the problem is real  enough to the
point that we request guidance on the following three .questions:

     1.  When do changes in EPA modeling procedures become official Agency
         policy?  Do such forms as informal modeling protocols and consensus
         opinions developed at meteorologist meetings and workshops constitute
         official Agency policy?  If so, how 1s management at the regional
         division and branch level Informed of those decisions (i.e.,  are such
         decisions communicated by policy memorandum or must regional  manage-
         ment be dependent upon regional participants at such meetings and
         workshops to accurately convey OAQPS's policy decisions)?

     2.  How do changes in Agency modeling policy affect in progress modeling
         analyses?  Do policy changes in modeling procedures Invalidate
         modeling protocols which accurately reflected modeling policy at the
         initiation of ongoing modeling analyses?  If so, we would appreciate
         copies of all policy memorandums which communicated such policies.

     3.  Will it be necessary in order for Annco's bubble application  to be
         concurred with by OAQPS, for Region IV to require Armco to submit a
         fourth revision to their modeling procedures which would provide an
         analysis of the 46 days with more than 6 hours of calm which  have
         thus far been deleted for the submittal pursuant to the original
         protocol?  If so, we would like an explanation of the rationale for
         this requirement in light of our discussion in this memo.

-------
                           Attachment 2
                                 *

(Excerpt of Memorandum from R.  Rhoads to  J.  Wilburn,  Dated  December 24,  1984)
     Regarding your first question:   Changes  in EPA modeling  procedures
become official Agency guidance when (1)  they are published  as  regulations
or guidelines, (2) they are formally transmitted as guidance  to Regional
Office managers, (3) they are formally transmitted to Regional  Modeling
Contacts as the result of a Regional consensus on technical  issues,  or
(4) they are a result of decisions by the Model Clearinghouse that  effec-
tively set a national precedent.  In the  last case, such  issues and  deci-
sions are routinely forwarded to all of the Regional Modeling Contacts.
In order for this system to work, the Regional Modeling Contacts must be
actively involved in all Regional modeling issues and they must be  con-
sulted on modeling guidance as necessary  by other Regional personnel.

     Regarding your second question:  The time at which changes in
modeling guidance affect on-going modeling analyses is a  function of the
type of agreement under which those analyses are being conducted.  On-going
analyses should normally be "grandfathered" if (1) there  is  a written pro-
tocol with a legal or regulatory basis (such as the Lovett Power Plant)  or
(2) the analysis is complete and regulatory action is imminent  or underway.
If the analysis 1s based on a less formal agreement and Is underway, the
Regional Office should inform the source  operators of the change and deter-
mine whether the change can be implemented without serious disruption to
the analysis.  If for some reason any previous analysis must  be redone,
then it should be redone in accordance with current modeling guidance.   In
any event, consequences of failing to implement current guidance should  be
discussed with the OAQPS staff (Helms/Tikvart) to ensure  that inappropriate
commitments are not made by the Regional  Office.

     Regarding your  third  question:   As  previously  discussed with your
staff, the recent Armco modeling analysis  is  technically inadequate and
not  approvable so long  as  the approximately 46 days with calms  are
ignored.  At the time the  original  protocol was developed, the  deletion
of calms was common  practice  because  we  had no consensus on technically
valid procedures for addressing  calms.   However,  (largely due to the
assistance of RO  IV  staff  1n  developing  a  technical solution to the
calms issue) this practice was discontinued by consensus of the Regional
Modeling Contacts who recommended*immediate implementation of the new
procedures (see Joe Tikvart's June  13, 1983,  memo to Regional Modeling
Contacts).  The subsequent Armco analysis  which  ignored calms was,  there-
fore, deficient since there is no rationale for  "grandfather!ng" an analy-
sis which was  Initiated after the new calms guidance was disseminated.
This issue is no longer an issue since Armco  has  already submitted  a
reanalysis that addresses  the calms  issue.

-------
                               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.  Appendix 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 Clearinghouse 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.

-------
                               EPA  Model  Clearinghouse
                                       Summa ry

     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 the 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 tech-
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 of
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 Clearinghouse is  formally located in the Source Receptor Analysis Branch
(SRAB) of OAQPS.   However, the Air Quality Management Division  (AQMD) also parti-
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 submittals
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.

Communication Chain
     The Model  Clearinghouse  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^e EPA  Regional  Offices.

                                          CI

-------
REF€PrVCES FOR SECTION 4.3

-------
                             EPA-450/2-78-027R
Guideline On Air Quality Models
               (Revised)
         U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
              Office of Air and Radiation
          Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
             Research Triangle Park, NC 2771'

                   July 1986

-------
32176    Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 174 / Tuesday.  September 9.  1986 / Rules  and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

40 CFR Pert* 51 and 52

I AH-m-3011-e, Docket No. A-M-M)

Requirements for Preparation,
Adoption, and Submtttal of
Implementation Plana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: On December 7.1984 (49 FR
48018] EPA proposed to amend 40 CFR
51.24 and 52^1 to substitute by
reference the  "Guideline on Air Quality
Models (Revised)," EPA 450/2-78-027R
for the April 1978 version. The guideline
lists the air quality models and data
bases required to assess impact and to
estimate ambient concentrations due to
certain sources of air pollutants. Today's
action establishes those revisions and
incorporates changes as a result of
public comment
emcnvt DATE October 9,1986. The
incorporation by reference of certain
publications listed in the regulations is
approved by the Director of the Federal
Register as of October 30.1986.
99* KMRHKft  INFORMATION CONTACT.
Joseph A. Tikvart Chief. Source
Receptor Analysis Branch, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, \J&
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina
27711; telephone (919) 541-6561 or Jawad
S. Touma. telephone (919) 541-8681.
ADOMMCS: All documents relevant to
development  of this rule have been
placed in Docket A-80-46, located in the
Central Docket Section (LE-131), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401M
Street SW- Washington. DC 20480. The
docket is available for public inspection
and copying between 8.-00 a-m. and 4:00
PJJU Monday through Friday, at the
address above. A reasonable fee may be
charged for copying.
  The "Guideline on Air Quality Models
(Revised)" (1986). Publication No. EPA
450/2-78-027R is for sale from the US.
Department of Commerce, National
Technical Information Service, 5825 Port
Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia. 22101.
This document is also available for -
public inspection at  the libraries of each
of the ten EPA Regional Offices and at
the EPA library at 401 M Street SW.,
Washington.  DC 20*60.
ftUmJEKKMTAHY INFORMATION:

Background
  Section 165(e)(3)(D) of the Clean Air
Act (CAA) requires the Administrator to
adopt regulations specifying with
reasonable particularity each model or
models to be used to comply with the
Act's prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) requirements. To
carry out these requirements, the
Guideline on Air Quality Models was
incorporated by reference in regulations
promulgated for PSD [40 CFR 51.24].
Because of its incorporation, revisions to
the guideline must satisfy the
rulemaking requirements of section
307(d)oftheAct
  In March 1980. EPA issued a notice
soliciting air quality models developed
outside the Agency for potential
inclusion in the planned revisions to the
Guideline on Air Quality Models [45 FR
20157], EPA received nearly 30 air
quality models from private model
developers. These were reviewed for
technical feasibility and for utility to
potential users. In addition to a review
by EPA for technical merit
documentation, validation, and coding,
the submitted models are also subjected
to public review and comment
  On December 7,1984 (49 FR 48018],
EPA proposed amendments to its
regulations concerning air quality
models and announced that it would
hold a public hearing on these proposed
amendments and on the revised
guideline.
  EPA also invited the public tat
participate and provide advice and
comment on the piopueed revisions to
the Guideline on Air Quality Models. On
December 20,1984 [49 FR 49484). EPA
announced the Third Conference on Air
Quality Modeling to provide a forum for
public review, A transcript of aH oral
comments received at the conference, as
well as a record of all written
comments, is maintained in Docket A-
80-40. The written comment period was
extended to April 1.1985, and the
rebuttal comment period was held open
until April 30,1985.
  Specific comments received can be
found in Docket A-60-48, in items IV-O
and FV-H. All comments were
consolidated according to the issues
raised and are discussed, along with full
EPA responses in the "Summary of
Comments and Responses on the
December 1984 Proposed Revisions to
the Guideline on Air Quality Models.
January 1986.- (Docket Item IV-G-26).
Certain comments raised significant
issues that are fundamental to the
development of this guideline. These
issues an summarized below, along
with EPA responses.

A. Consistency and Accuracy
  A number of commenters urged that
use of the most accurate models should
be promoted and that the need for
consistency was overstated. They noted
that: (1) The regulatory program should
not require use of a single model, (2) use
of a single model was based on an
arbitrary selection process, and (3) this
selection made the Agency inflexible in
allowing; use of nonguidelme models.
  EPA's position reflects Congressional
concerns that permitting different
requirements in different parts of the
country could lead to the inequitable
location of some industries. Section
185(e)(3)(D) of the CAA specifically
requires that EPA ".  . . shall specify
with reasonable particularity each air
quality model or models to be used
under specified sets of conditions. . ."
Also, section 301(a)(2)(A) of the CAA
requires EPA "to assure fairness and
uniformity in the criteria, procedures,
and policies applied by the various
regions in implementing and enforcing
the Act" EPA uses the term
"consistency" to mean that the same
model is used in determining emission
limitations for similar sources of air
pollution. The result is a uniform
approach to modeling-based decisions.
Such consistency is not however.
promoted at the expense of model and
data base accuracy. In selecting the
models Usted in Appendix A of the
revised guideline^ EPA conducted
several evaluations of model
performance using air quality monitoring
data, and peer scientific reviews of
^/yfi^ifpa techniques. The findings lead
to a conclusion that the models Usted in
Appendix A are at least as accurate as,
if not better than, other available
models, that these preferred models are
statistically unbiased, and that they are
f«m |0 the modeling community.
Every effort has been made to ensure
within the revised guideline that the
realism, flexibility, accuracy and best
technical judgments, sought by both
regulatory agencies and the regulated
community, can be provided. Suitable
    nhaniims have been provided to
 assure such accuracy, and flexibility,
 and to allow the use of alternate or new
 models.
 B, Use of Non-Guideline Models in
 Particular Anas (The Texas Models)

  Many commenters urged EPA to make
 provisions in the guideline for use of
 new models, for improvements to
 existing models, and for models that are
 otherwise more appropriate in specific
 cases. In particular, the Texas Models
 were cited as meeting EPA's criteria for
 selection  and being more economical to
 run. Concern was also expressed that
 failure to include these as preferred
 models would have an advene  effect on

-------
         Federal JLeyrtar / Vol. 51. No. 174  / Toeaday. September 9. 198ft / Rules and Regulations    32177
the consistency of PSD pemMaug
analyses in Texas when these
an currently used.
  EPA has made provision in CFR 51.24
and SZa and the gsaelaBBai taraahsg
alternative and i»pn)»a»1 •ealik. Ihe
final ndea provide that aamHfifiatlaa er
substitution of en approved model easy
occur on either a case-by-case basis or
on a generic basis within a state's
regulatory piogi an. However, EPA wifl
only give generic approval when a stale
demonstrates that generic in aye ia
appropriate under defined
circumstances. For example, a state may
be able to show that a model is
appropriate tor the entire state or aaeie
portioa thereof baaed on geographic aad
meteorological characteristics. EPA
encourages oW eee ef aheee provisions
and does not intend to piece ea eaaee
burden on states that use alternative
models, or to detey iraeUraentettaa af
scientific sri yearns taai are appeapeiaee
for regulatory use. EPA has discussed
these issues with tapmseatativat af tear
Texas Air Coated Baaed and baa
indicated that it aaay be awaaiUe fat
them to detnoBBCPat

TCM fpraiiMy with eoas
and clarification in tat BM
modds BM applied) asay
for gaaieric mse ia  tbair
anticipates that tease caooaiswtii be
teatesl by the State of Texas
protocol developed by tbam
to by EPA. U the davonsfeaaam
requirements ace saMsfiai, EPA will
announce for pablceeaaaat snsha
Federal Bagister its intentiae, to apprev*
these awdels for ganeriruaa by Texas.
For a limited ir^rrim rf**ri. re be }atojbj
agreed to by Texas aad EPA, the Tavaa
Models may ritntiniT to be aaad these
because of kng prior use baaed ca
approval under the previous veaainaaf
the guideline.

C. Urban Airshed Mode/
                                     D. BjorkJv
                                       EPA's proposed use offlu
                                     was opposed by numerous commenters.
                                     Many of these commaoten objected to
                                     the Bforkhnd and Do wen atgoriflnn on
                                     the gruuuuB that ttTras semi-empirical
                                     and that it waa insufficiently tested by
                                     EPA.
                                       EPA it withdrawing its propoeel U
                                     use the Bjorkhsad aad Bawen steck-tip
                                     downwasfa algorithm pendtoej futber
                                     evaJusdasBL BB tbe inarisa. EPA
                                     for those cases whaa the eee af eteck-tip
                                     dowawask ia >ppreariatei.
                                     £. Dcfinxooit tiycnutttoti ABfea*
                                       Many commenters said wt overestimates alt *y«^*y
                                     impact Alternatives such ae using
                                     actual emissions, highest historical ^4,
                                     three yean), or system-vide BndtaHons
                                     on load (for power plants) wea
                                     suggested.
                                     dUEZi vO eraOpt pBJBBHBOB asaflnRQBBB
                                     anelt *
                                     attaii
                                     na1
                                     stetionary sooros
                                     Stetelmplementeti
                                     ei
                                     the ^<""eyf •! rv^jfrf ** ***• -*^* *»«i««*n«
                                     limit mnA {g Beady eawcea thaLbavea
                                     j"int trnpift Thir tmiariim rttr fhr
                                      "
  Several
justification for
Airshed Model as the
               lor
                tora raqsitnlsd
               lectifliaf the Ucbea
urban area*.
  The Urban Airshed Moeal » Ihe aver
widely applied aad evaiaated
photocbeaical disaeosioa model as
existence. EPA believes tae sialialiiai
               naantsant
revised
justification for tae sdsrtinaaftbe
Urban Airshed Model as fee prfseitaj
model for the specified applications.
              dffl**^ m fiwgnidaBne.
whJd> genoraOy coBtributo onbr to the  .
background has been modffied to
indicate actual mitead of the mextennn,
rate to reflect real production or jQaiag
rate and hours of operations.
F. Length of Record

with the reqvrement for using fire yean
of nBeteoresogicai data frBB Beexvy
Na«oaal Weefter Service (NWQ
stetiens.
  The OeeaAfa- Act requites CT^te-
assure that the standards wifi be
attained and maintained. The length of
record must be sufficient to tacrad* tbe
climatetoajcal vanabiaty «eaaed to
determine eoiesioa iiiseliHnns ased to
meet the standards. EPA has pcevioaibj
presented Its analysis on the length «f
record m to 1»M Sumnary of
ComiDenta and Responses oocvsjes tu^1
G-6). Results from recent EPA reseat eh
support the position that five yean of
                                                                           meteoroloaseel •eta ts apefupUate
                                                                           nB^MV^Me^Kl *^aWIVBv0ft ^BB AOt pf9i
                                                                           fseaaa) hJuiiaiauu wbfcfc wmM lead
                                                                           EPH. to extaTTteyjeeMssL        . -
                                                                           G.U*efCtn mtt Uitttmal^ie^Data
                                                                           if one year of quality assured aasitt
                                                                           date is available, the guideline should
                                                                           require its use and eBntute the
                                                                           source's option of using the most
                                                                           beneficial result of either on-site or
                                                                           NWS data,
                                                                            EPA agrees with these suggestions
                                                                           and t»fjanmfnAf that if quality assured
                                                                          on-sfte data an available, they are
                                                                          preferable to NWS date and should be
                                                                          used.
                                       Commenters stated that EPA should
                                     incoipQEste asodel uncertainty when
                                     setting *«n*«f*'"'ti limflaflons based on
                                     estimates: "g*"^"**"" *y>"f Other iacton
                                     such as the uncertainty IB f"'»«
                                     meteorological date *ir*"** «t"mi
                                                                                                        aleo
                                                                           be considered. No viable
                                                                           rBtOniaPsMKa»t*aailaaal Oft laOUf 2ft
                                                                           this cosBBfU tveee givea.
                                                                             EPA has sponsored research on
                                                                           improving mesaaat to aasees bew
                                                                           mil isi Isliilj m>gbi bs asasl m ssl
                                                                                                   •aitiM)
                                                                           guideline et this time: such a mathod
                                                                           willhai    "
                                                                           futut»sl
                                                                           L Additional Model*
                                                                            Many commenters recommended mat
                                                                           tho getdsiliH sacasis ti
                                                                           tbe Ro^fbTOTSBi Dsfeetua Modal
                                                                           aad *e CMMsew and Ceastal Disperewa
                                                                           MedetfOCO).
                                                                             EPA eygee wtia these
                                                                           application of these Bodefe BM the
                                                                           potential to change eniseioa toBJtatj
                                                                           set far sum ous BMBgcernat models.
                                                                           EPA. *je>efefB. ia prepefng s
                                                                           supplemeejtal uettce of prvposeo
                                                                           rulemaldBj thet seeks pvbBc comment
                                                                                              p
                                                                           on incraaiee) af mwe three ne
                                                                                                         deb
                                                                           /. Other Comment*
                                                                             Then was et Isial sea comment on
                                                                           every section of die proposed revision*.
                                                                           Many comments hxve been incorporated
                                                                           in «• revised gntdaace. EPA has
                                                                           complied with Ihe request of model
                                                                           developers to withdraw their models
                                                                           from Appendix B of the guideline The

-------
          Federal Register /  Vol.  51. No.  174 / Tuesday. September 9.  1986 / Rules  and Regulations
___s«K»CPACT (SklawwL
MB8OBLUMB, and RTDM [venion 34»).
tone* not specifically addressed in the
goideJiBB. tuch M those associated with
new methods or technique* will be
investigated and future guidance issued,
subject to public comment as necessary.
K. Other Issues
  Although the December 7 proposal
solicited, in particular, advice and
comment on eight issues, several of
these topics received little or no
comment Both EPA and the commenters
found it easier to include these
comments under appropriate sections in
the guideline instead of listing these
issues separately. Responses to public
comments on the eight issues are
contained in the Summary of Comments
and Responses document (IV-G-28)  as
follows:
  (1) Specific changes to 40 CFR Parts 51
and 52 (no comment received);
  (2) Revised format of the guideline
(Chapters 1 and 3);
  (3] Recommendations for ozone
models (Chapter 6);
  (4) Proposed changes to preferred
models (Chapters 4. 5, and Appendices
AandBH
  (5) Improving performance
evaluations (Chapters 3 and 10);
  (6) Modeling uncertainty (Chapter 10)»
  (7) Degree to which State or local
regulatory agencies can have authority
to use nonguideone models (Chapters 1
and 3fc and
  (8) Degree of oversight or approval
authority retained by EPA (Chapters 1
and 3).
EO. 12291
  Under Executive Order 12291. EPA
must judge whether a rule is "maior"
and therefore subject to the requirement
of a Regulatory Impact Analysis. The
Administrator finds this rule not major
because it will not have an annual effect
on the economy of $100 million or more;
it will not result in a major increase  in
costs or prices; and there will be no
significant adverse effects on
competition, employment investment.
productivity, innovation or on the ability
of U.S.-based enterprises to compete
with foreign-based enterprises in
domestic or export markets. This
regulation will result in no significant
environmental or energy impacts. Thus,
no Regulatory Impact Analysis was
conducted.
Reguiatory Flexibility Act
  Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C
6051 a),! hereby certify that the attached
rule will not have a significant impact
on 2 substantial number of small
entities. This rule merely update*
existing technical requirements for air
quality modeling analyses required by ~~
other Clean Air Act programs
(prevention of significant deterioration.
new source review, SlP-revisions) and
imposes no new regulatory burdens.

Economic Impact Assessment

  The requirement for performing an
economic impact assessment in section
317 of the Act 42 U.S.C 7617. does not
apply to this action since the revisions
included do not constitute  a substantial
change in the regulatory burden imposed
by the regulation. However, since the
guidance includes more sophisticated
models, and addresses the use of site-
specific data (required under a different
section of the PSD regulations), an
analysis of the relative costs of using
some of the 1978 models and data bases
versus the models and data bases
specified In '.'•* 1980 updated guidance
was prepare  This report "Cost
Analysis of Proposed Changes to the Air
Quality Modeling Guideline" is
available for inspection in Docket A-60-
48 at the Central Docket Section whose
address is given above; or from the
National Technical Information Service
as NT1S No. PB 83-112177.

Paperwork Reduction Act

  This rule does not contain any
information collection requirements
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980
U.S.C 3501 et seq. EPA has submitted
this regulation to OMB for review under
Executive Order 12291 and their written
comments on the revisions and any EPA
responses  have been placed in the
docket for this proceeding.

List of Subjects

40CFRPartSl

  Administrative practice  and
procedure. Air pollution control
Intergovernmental relations. Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements. Ozone.
Sulfur oxides. Nitrogen dioxide. Lead.
Participate matter. Hydrocarbons,
Carbon monoxide.

40 CFR Part 52

  Air pollution control. Ozone. Sulfur
oxides. Nitrogen dioxide. Lead.
  This notice of final rulemaking is
issued under the authority granted by
sections 185(e) and 320 of the Clean Air
Act 42 U.S.C. 7475(e). 7620.
  Dated: August 18, 1800.
Lee M-Thssasa.
Administrator

PART 51-ftEOUIRCIIENTS FOR
PREPARATION ADOPTION AND
SUBMITTAL OF IMPLEMENTATION
PLANS

  Part 51. Chapter L Title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations, is amended as
follows:
  1. The authority citation for Part 51
continues to read as follows:

  Authority: 42 U.S.C 7475(e). 7620.

  2. Section 51.24 is amended by
revising paragraph (1) to read as follows:
C •« tt^
9 9 1«24
deterioration
  (1) Air quality models. The plan shall
provide for procedures which specify
that—
  (1) All estimates of ambient
concentrations required under this
paragraph shaH be based on the
applicable air quality models, data
base*, and other requirements specified
in the "Guideline- «ff Air Quality Models
(Revised?* tlMBffcllJkJi i* incorporated
by reference. Iris BPA»Publication No.
450/2-78-02711 and f* for sale from the
U.S. Department of Commerce. National
Technical Information Service, 5825 Per*
Royal Road. Springfield, Virginia. 2216'..
It is also available for inspection at the
Office of the Federal Register. Room
8301.1100 L Street NW., Washington.
DC This incorporation by reference was
approved by the Director of the Federal
Register on October 9.1980. These
materials are incorporated as they exist
on the date of approval and a notice of
any change will be published in the
Federal Register.
  (2) Where an air quality impact model
specified in the "Guideline on Air
Quality Models (Revised)" (1986) is
inappropriate,  the model may be
modified or another model substituted.
Such a modification or substitution of a
model may be  made on a case-by-case
basis or, where appropriate, on a generic
basis for a specific state program.
Written approval of the Administrator
must be obtained for any modification
or substitution. In addition, use of a
modified or substituted model must be
subject to notice and opportunity for
public comment under procedures
developed in accordance with
paragraph (q) of this  section.

-------
          Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 174 / Tuesday. September 9. 1986 / RUJM and Regulation!   32179
PART 52-APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN* -•.

  Part 52. Chapter I of TRte 40 of tht
Code of Federal Regulation*, if
amended as follows:
  1. The authority citation for Part 52
continues to read as follows:
  Authority: 42 U.S.C 74751 e). 7620.
  2. Section 52.21 is amended by
revising paragraph (1) to read as follows:

§ 5121 Prevention of aionificent
deterioration of air quality.
•    *    e    •    •
  (1) Air quality models. (1) All
estimates of ambient concentrations
required under this paragraph shall be
based on the applicable air quality
models, data bases; awr<
requirement* specified in the "Guideltatt
on Air Quality Models (Revissdr PWf
which is incorporated by reference, ittt
EPA publication No. 4»^7»-OZ7R an*
is for sale from the U.S. Department of
Commerce. National Technical
Information Service. 5825 Port Royal
Road. Springfield. Virginia. 22181 It is
also available for inspection at the
Office of the Federal Register. Room
8301.1100 L Street NW. Washington.
DC This incorporation by reference was
approved by the Director of the Federal
Register on October 9,1986. These
materials are incorporated as they  exist
on the date of approval and a notice of
any change will be published in the
Federal Register.
  (2) Where an air quality impact model
Qoatoy Models (Revissdr (198Ht»
inappropriate, *e model may be
modified t» aaomwmebei sne*tiftited
Such a modification or substitution of s
model mar Be made on a case-by-case
basis or. when appropriate, on a generic
basis for a specific state program.
Written approval of the Administrator
must be obtained for any modification
or substitution. In addition, use of a
modified or substituted model must be
subject to notice and opportunity for
public comment under procedures
developed in accordance with
paragraph (q) of this section.
[FR Doc 86-19488 Filed 9-8-88: &4S 
-------
 Part 51
 PART SI—REQUIREMENTS FOR PREP-
   ARATION, ADOPTION, AND  SUft-
   MOTAl    OP    IMP1EMENTATION
   PLANS
Sec.
Bt 40 Scope.

             AQMA ANAI TSI*

•1 41 AQUA analysis: SubmltUI date.
61.43 AQMA analysis: Analysis period.
61.43 AQMA analyst* Guideline*
61 44 AQMA analyst*: Projection ol emls
   •Ion*.
61.46 AQMA analysis: Allocation or emls
   •lona.
61.46 AQMA analysis:  Projection of  air
   quality concentration*
61.47 AQMA analysU:  Description or data
   aourcea.
6 1 41 AQMA analysis: DaU bane*
81 40 AQMA analyiU: Technique* deacrlp
   lion.
61.60 AQMA analyiU: Accuracy factor*.
61 61 AQMA analysU: SubmltUI of calcula
   tlon*.

              AQMA PLAN

61 63 AQMA plan: deneral.
61 63 AQMA plan: Demoiutratlon of ade-
   quacy. ,
MM AQMA plan: Strategic*.
61.68 AQMA plan: Legal authority.
61 M AQMA plan: Future strategies.
61 67 AQMA plan: Future legal authority.
61 M AQMA plan:  Intergovernmental co-
   operation.
61 6( IReaerved)
61 »0 AQMA plan: Resource*
6141 AQMA plan: SubmltUI format.
61 63 AQMA analy*!* and plan: DaU avail-
   ability.
61 63 AQMA analyst* and plan: Alternative
   piocvdure*.

          tummmwt I— (••••rv«4|
SI 100 Definition*.
61 101 Stipulations.
61 102 Public hearing*.
bl 103 BubmlMlon  of plans:  piellmlnary
    review of plan*.
»1 104 Revisions
61106 Approval of plan*.
  40 CFR Ch. I (7-14* Edition)

i»bp«r« a—i
 61.110  AtUlnment and maintenance of na-
    tional itandard*.
 61.111  Deocrlptlon of control meaaure*.
 61.111  Demonstration of adequacy.
 61 113  Time  period for demoiutratlon of
    adequacy.
 6 1 1 1 4  Emission* daU and projection*.
 61.1 16  Air quality daU and projection*.
 61116  Data availability.
 61.117  Additional provision* for lead.
 61 111  Stack height provision*.
 6 1 . 1 1 0  Intermittent control system*.

    Impart H— PravwitUn •» Ah »•*»»••
 61.160  Claulflcatlon of region* for episode
    plan*.
 61.161  Significant harm level*.
 81.161  Contingency plan*.
 61.163  Reevaluatlon of eptaode plan*.
  81.1WI  Legally enforceable procedure*.
  61.161  Public availability of Information.
  81.162  Identification   of    responsible
    agency.
  61.163  Administration procedure*.
  61.164  Stack height procedures.
  61.166  Permit requirements
  61.164  Prevention  of significant deterio-
ration of air quality.
 insjsiart J—AniblsM Ah Qmmtlf l»rvs»1«iic«

81.100 Ambient air quality monitoring re
    qulrements
61.110 General.
61.111 Emission report* and recordkeeplng.
61.211 Testing.  Inspection,  enforcement.
   and complalnU.
61111 Transportation control measure*.
61.114 Continuous emission monitoring.

        tvmmmt l—4*mmi A»«fc«tHy

81.130 Requirements for all plans
61 .231 Identification of legal authority.
61.231 Assignment  of  legal  authority to
   local agencle*.
                                                   M
          AGENCY DniONATION

81240  General plan requirements.
81.241  Nonattalnment  areas for  carbon
   monoxide and ozone.
51.241  (Reserved)
                                       712
                                                                                                 Envlronmontal Protection Agency
                                                                                                                                 § 51.40
    CONTINUING CONSULTATION PROCESS

51.243  Consultation process objectives.
81.244  Plan elements affected
81.245  Organizations  and officials  to be
   consulted.
61.246  Timing.
61.247  Hearing* on  consultation  process
   violations.

 RELATIONSHIP or PLAN TO Onus PLANNING
       AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM*

81.248  Coordination with other programs.
81.24*  (Reserved!
61.250  TransmlUal of Information.
61.281  Conformity with  Executive  Order
   12373.
61.262  Summary of plan development par-
   ticipation.
61.160  Legally   enforceable   compliance
   schedule*.
61.261  Final compliance schedule*
61.262  Extension beyond one year.

61260  Resource*
11.281  Cople* ol rule* and regulations.
61.268  Public notification.

     t+mmt P—totocttwi ml VMWHty

61.300  Purpose and applicability.
81.301  Definition*.
91.301  ImplemenUtlon control strategic*.
81.103  Exemption* from control.
61.104  Identification of Integral  vistas.
81.306  Monitoring.
81.304  bong term strategy.
61.307  New source review.
       An QUALITY DATA RKTOBTINO   ,
81.310  Annual air quality daU report.

    Bounce EMIIIION* AND STATE ACTION
               RCTOBTIHO
61.121  Annual source emission* and Slate
    action report.
61.333  Source* subject to emissions report-
    ing.
61.333  Reportable emissions daU and  In-
    formation.
81.324  Progres* In plan enforcement
81.325  Contingency plan action*.
61.326  Reportable revisions.
61.327  Enforcement order* and other Slate
    action*.
61.328  (Reserved)

          lufcpatrt ft—f nt«ml*A*

61.340  Request for 2 year extension.
61.341  Request for 18-month extension.
AFPENDICES A—K -|RE*C«VCD|
APPENDIX   L- EXAMPLE  REGULATIONS  POR
   PREVENTION or AIR POLLUTION EMERREN
   cv EPISODES
APPENDIX M- (RESERVED)
APPENDIX    H—EMISSION*    REDUCTIONS
   ACHIEVABLE THROUGH INSPECTION. MAIN
   TENANCE AND RETROFIT Or LIGHT DUTT
   VEHICLES
APPENDIX O {RESERVED!
ArrcHDix P— MINIMUM EMISSION MONITOR
   ING REQUIREMENT*
APPENDICES Q—R—(RESERVED)
APPENDIX 8—EMISSION Orpsrr INTBRPRETA
   TIVE RULING
APPENDIX T—(RESERVED)
APPENDIX  U—CLEAN AIR  ACT SECTION 174
   GUIDELINES
  AUTHORITY: This rulemaklng  I* promul-
gated under authority of section* lOI(bHI).
110.  140-16*. Ill 118. and  30Ua) of the
Clean Air  Act  42  U.8.C.  740KbKI). 7410.
7470-7479. 7601-7608. and 76OI(a>.
  Sooacc 34 PR 23304. Nov. 25. 1071. unlesn
otherwise noted.
  EDITORIAL NOTE: Nomenclature change*
affecting Part 81 appear at 44 PR (337. Feb.
8. 1610 and 51 FR 40461. Nov. 7. 1086.

      Subportt A-C—IRogorvod]

 Svbpart D—Mabitonanco of National
               Standards

  SOURCE: 41 FR 18388. May 3. 1076. unless
otherwise noted.

151.4*  Scope.
  <•) XppficaOilifV  The requirements
of this subpart  apply  to air quality
maintenance  areas  (AQMAa)  Identi-
fied under I 51.IKKI) and to any areas
Identified under I SI.110U).
  (b) AQMA Analyii*. Under this sub-
part, procedures are   given for  the
analysis of the air quality Impact of
specified pollutant emissions from ex-
isting sources and emissions associated
with projected growth and develop-
ment In  areas Identified under para-
graphs (I) and  (I)  of  151.110.  This
analysis Is referred to In this subpart
as an AQMA analysis.
   AQUA Plan. Under this subpart,
the  Administrator  will  require  a revi-
sion to the State Implementation plan
for areas Identified under I 51.1)0(1) or
I 51.110(1) when necessary to prevent  a
national  ambient air quality standard
                                                                                             713

-------
  §51.111

  lematlve control strategies, aa well as
  the costs and benefits of each such al
  tentative for attainment  or mainte-
  nance of the national standard.
   (h> The plan  shall  Identify those
  areas   (counties,  urbanized   arras.
  standard    metropolitan   statistical
  areas, et cetera) which, due to current
  air quality  and/or projected growth
  rate,  may have the potential for ex-
  ceeding any  national standard within
  the subsequent 10-year period.
   <1>  For each  such area  Identified.
  the plan shall generally describe  the
  Intended method and timing for pro-
  ducing the analysis and plan required
  by paragraph 
of I his section, and make them avail-
able for public Inspection and submit
them to  the Administrator  at his re
((111 Sl
  (4> The State shall notify the Ad
ininlstrator If an area is undergoing an
           40 CFR Ch. I (7 I-M fdlllon)

  amount of development such that It
  presents the potential for a  violation
  of national standards within  a  period
  of 20 years.
    (I) Whenever the Administrator calls
  for a  plan revision  he  may, without
  publishing the area In Part 62 of this
  chapter, require the  revision be devel-
  oped In  accordance  with the  proce-
  dures of Subpart D.

  (SI FR 40661 Nov. 1. 1186 u amended at 51
  FK 40665. Nov. 7. 1*861

  051.111  Description of control meuurei.
   Each  plan  must set forth a control
  strategy which Includes the following:
   (a) A  description  of  each  control
  measure that Is Incorporated  Into the
  plan, and a schedule for Its Implemen-
  tation.
   (b) Copies  of  the enforceable laws
  and regulations  to  Implement  the
  measures adopted In the plan.
    A description of the administra-
  tive procedures to be used  In Imple-
 menting each control measure.
   (d)  A  description  of  enforcement
 methods Including, but not limited to:
   (1) Procedures for monitoring  com-
 pliance with each of the selected con-
 trol measures.
   (2) Procedures  for  handling  viola-
 tions, and
   (3) A designation of agency responsi-
 bility for enforcement of Implementa-
 tion.

 151.112  Demonstration of adequacy.
  (a) Bach plan must  demonstrate
 that the measures, rules, and  regula-
 tions Qontalned In It are adequate to
 provide for the timely attainment and
 maintenance of the national  standard
 that It Implements. The adequacy of a
 control strategy shall be demonstrated
 by means of a proporatlonal model or
 dispersion  model or other procedure
 which Is shown to be adequate and ap-
 propriate for such purposes.
  (b) The demonstration must Include
 the following:
  <1>A summary of the computations,
 assumptions,  and Judgments used  to
determine the degree of reduction of
emissions (or reductions In the growth
of emissions) that will  result from the
Implementation of the control  strate
KV
    fnvlfonmmttel frotectton Ag«ncy

     (2) A presentation of emission levels
    expected to result from  Implementa-
    tion of each  measure of the control
    strategy.
     (3) A presentation of the air quality
    levels  expected  to result  from Imple-
    mentation of the overall control strat-
    egy  presented either In tabular form
    or aa an Isopleth map showing expect-
    ed maximum pollutant concentrations.
     (4) A description of the dispersion
   models used to project air quality and
   to evaluate control strategies.
     (5) For Interstate regions, the analy-
   sis from each constituent State must.
   where practicable, be baaed  upon the
   aame regional emission Inventory and
   air quality baseline.  '
                                951.11*
  t f I.III  TtaM period for deiMnttratlon of
      adequacy.

    (a)  The demonstration  of the ade-
  quacy of the control strategy to attain
  a  primary  standard  required  under
  I 61.111 must cover the following peri-
  ods:
   (1)  At leaat three yean  from the
  date by  which the Administrator must
  approve or disapprove the plan.  If no
  extension under Subpart R U granted.
  or
   (2) At  leaat five years from the date
  by  which the Administrator  must ap-
  prove or disapprove the plan. If an ex-
  tension under Subpart R Is (ranted.
   (b) The demonstration of adequacy
  to  attain a  secondary standard re-
  quired under 151.112 must cover the
  period of time determined to be rea-
 sonable under |S1.110(c) for attain-
 ment of such  secondary standard.

 I il.l 14 Emlwlom data and projection!.
  (a) Except for  lead, each plan must
 contain a detailed Inventory  of emis-
 sions from point  and area  sources.
 Lead requirements  are specified In
 I 61.117. The  Inventory must be based
 upon measured emissions or. where
 measured emissions are not available,
 documented emission factors.
  (b) Bach plan must contain a sum-
 mary of emission levels projected to
 result from application of the  new
control strategy.
  (c>  Each  plan  must  Identify  the
sources of the  data used In the projec-
tion of emissions.
    161.1 It  Air ajuallly data and projection..
     (a) Each  plan must contain a sum-
    mary  of data  shaping  existing  air
    quality.
     (b) Each plan must:
     (I) Contain a summary of air quality
    concentrations expected to result from
    application  of the  control strategy.
    and
     (2) Identify and describe the disper-
   sion model, other air quality model, or
   receptor model used.
     (c) Actual measurements of air qual-
   ity  must be used  where  available If
   made by  methods specified  In Appen-
   dix  C to Part 58 of this chapter. Esti-
   mated  air quality  using  appropriate
   modeling techniques may be used  to
   supplement measurements.
    (d) For purposes of developing a con-
   trol  strategy, background concentra-
   tion shall be taken Into consideration
   with respect to partlculate nutter. As
   used In  this subpart. background con-
  centration Is that portion of the meas-
  ured ambient levels that cannot be re-
  duced by  controlling emissions from
  man-made sources.
    (e) In developing  an ozone control
  strategy for a  particular  area,  back-
  ground  ozone   concentrations  and
  ozone transported Into an  sure* must
  be considered. States may assume that
  the ozone standard will be attained In
  upwind areas.
                                   726
 I (I.I I*  Data availability.
   (a)  The  State  must  retain  all de-
 tailed data and calculations  used In
 the preparation of each plan or each
 plan revision, and make them avail-
 able for public Inspection and  submit
 them to the Administrator at  his re-
 quest.
   (b) The detailed data and calcula-
 tions used In the preparation of plan
 revisions are not considered a part of
 the plan.
  (c) Each  plan   must  provide  for
 public availability of emission data re-
 ported by source owners or operators
 or  otherwise obtained by a State or
 local agency. Such emission data must
 be correlated with applicable emission
 limitations or other measures. As used
 In this paragraph,  "correlated" means
presented In such a manner as to show
the relationship between measured or
                                                                                                                       727

-------
                                  EPA-450/4-84-023
Interim  Procedures for Evaluating Air
        Quality Models (Revised)
            U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
              Monitoring and Data Analysis Division
             Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
            Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711

                    September 1984

-------
&EPA
            United States
            Environmental Protection
            Agency
           Office of Air Quality
           Planning and Standards
           Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-450/4.-85-006
July 1985
            Air
Interim Procedures
For Evaluating Air
Quality Models:
Experience with
Implementation

-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 4.4

-------
                             EPA-450/2-78-027R
Guideline On Air Quality Models
               (Revised)
         U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
               Office of Air and Radiation
          Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
             Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

                   July 1986

-------
v>EPA
             United States
             Environmental Protection
             Agency
            Office of Air Quality
            Planning and Standards
            Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-450/4-87-013
June 1987
             Air
On-Site Meteorological
Program Guidance for
Regulatory Modeling
Applications
                              EMVIRO;-: •=
                                 AU6 ur>


                               LIBRARY

-------
"EPA
           United States
           Environmental Protection
           Ageocy
         Environmental Monitoring Systems
         Laboratory
         Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-600 A-82-06C
Fet> 1983
           Research and Development
Quality Assurance
Handbook for Air Pollution
Measurement Systems:

Volume IV. Meteorological
Measurements

-------
            United States             Environmental Monitoring Systems
            Environmental Protection        Laboratory
            Agency                Research Triangle Park NC 27711

            Research and Development       EPA-600/4-82-060  Feb. 1983
v>EPA      Quality Assurance
            Handbook for Air Pollution
            Measurement Systems:

            Volume IV.  Meteorological
            Measurements
            Peter L Finkelstein, Daniel A. Mazzarella, Thomas J. Lockhart,
            William J. King, and Joseph H. White

-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 4.5

-------
                             EPA-450/2-78-027R
Guideline On Air Quality Models
               (Revised)
         U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
               Office of Air and Radiation
          Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
             Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

                   July 1986

-------
J»'
               UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                     Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
                     Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711


                                   1 6 MAR 1S8S
     MEMORANDUM

     SUBJECT:
     FROM:
     TO;
Use of Allowable Emissions for National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) Impact Analyses Under the
                   evention of Significant
Detc
               Technic
                          risiph (MD-15)

                         '.o/^*-
          Support Division (MD-14)
Thomas J. Maslany, Director
Air Management Division, Region III

William B. Hathaway, Director
Air, Pesticides, & Toxics Div., Region VI
          This memorandum is in response to recent requests from your
     offices for clarification of  the Environmental Protection
     Agency's (EPA)  policy concerning the implementation of the PSD
     air quality impact analysis under 40 CFR 51..I66(k) [also
     §52.21(k)].  Of specific concern is the question of whether the
     required analysis for new major sources and major modifications
     is  to be based  on actual or allowable emissions from existing
     background sources.   This memorandum sets forth the position that
     allowable emissions  should generally be used.  However, as
     explained below,  certain allowances may be made, primarily with
     respect to the  evaluation of  impacts on the long term NAAQS, to
     consider an existing source's actual annual operations.  This
     position best resolves the inconsistencies between previous
     written guidance for PSD and  the guidance applicable to NAAQS
     attainment demonstrations for State implementation plans (SIP's).

          The PSD regulations at 40 CFR 51.166(k) stipulate that
     "allowable emission  increases from the proposed source or
     modification, in conjunction  with all other applicable emissions
     increases...  would not cause  or contribute to air pollution in
     violation of [any national ambient air quality standard
     (NAAQS)]." (Emphasis added.)   While this provision clearly
     requires the use of  allowable emissions for the new or modified
     source,  it offers no similarly explicit requirement regarding
     emissions to be used for existing source contributions.

-------
     Nationally, States and  EPA Regional Offices have utilized
several  interpretations which have lead to a consistency problem
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 typic^.ly 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-1  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,
     ^•Emission rates for model input consist of three components:
1) the emission limit, e.g.,  1/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 l)
having 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

-------
          UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
                Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
                          3  MAY 1989
MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:  Ident^t^k^tffjof rlew Areas Exceeding  the NAAQS
FROM:     jrjWtfT CalcagnTT^DiX.ector
                             bent 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 not
          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
may 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:

     l.   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 SIP
          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 on
the above factors, we expect the proposed approval notice to
specifically identify the background source violations and
clearly state that the State retains an obligation to take action
expeditiously to correct the background violations.  The final
approval notice for the source under consideration should not: be
promulgated before the State acknowledges the background
violations and submits an acceptable schedule for corrective
action.  The schedule would then be included in the final notice
as the State's response to EPA's identification of violations.  A
SIP call pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(H) 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 with
modeling background sources using current modeling guidance need
not be as great as it potentially appears.

     The Guideline on Air Quality Models (Guideline 1 states that
the nearby (background) source inventory should be determined in
consultation with the local air pollution control agency.
Specifically, the Guideline states that "The number of
(background) sources is expected to be small except in 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 SO, 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 policy 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 basis.

     If you would like to discuss these issues further, please
call me or have your staff contact Doug Grano at extension 5255.

cc:  R. Bauman
     R. Campbell
     P. Embrey (OGC)
     E. Ginsburg
        Grano
     J. Silvasi
     D. Stonefield
     J. Tikvart
     D. Wilson
     Air Division Directors, Regions I-X

-------
f
v
             UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                   Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
                  Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 2771 1


                               OCT 1 o 1955
t€MORANDUM

SUBJECT:  Questions and Answers on Implementing  the
          Revised Stack Height Regulation

FROM:     6. T. Helms, Chieff- I U--9-' «-
          Control Programs Operations Branch  (MD-15)

TO:       Chief, A1r Branch, Regions I-X

     A number of questions have arisen in several  areas of the revised
stack height regulation since Its promulgation on  July 8.   The following
answers have been developed in response.  The questions and answers are
arranged under the general topic headings of Interpretation of the regula-
tion, State Implementation plan (SIP) requirements, and modeling analyses.
Please continue to call Sharon Relnders at 629-5526 1f you have further
comments or additional questions.

Interpretation of the Regulation

1.  Q:  What criteria should be used to determine  when a stack was 'in
existence" with respect to the various grandfather}ng  dates in the
regul ation?

    A:  The recent promulgation of revisions to  the stack height regulation
did not change the definition of "in existence."  The  definition is provided
in 40 CFR 51.1(gg) and includes either the commencement of continuous
construction on the stack or entering into a binding contract for stack
construction, the cancellation of which would result in "substantial
loss" to the source owner or operator.  The definition of what constitutes
a "substantial loss" will be the subject of future guidance.

2.  Q:  What "source" definition should be used  in determining whether tie-
ins to grandfathered stacks should be permitted  or prohibited?

    A:  The term "source" in this instance means a single emitting unit.
Thus, credit for tying a  single  post-1970 unit(s)  into a grandfathered
stack serving a number of old units is prohibited under the regulation.

-------
                                   •2-


3.  0:  What is meant in  the regulation by "facility?

    A:  For purposes of this regulation, the definition contaifled  in
40 CFR 51.301(d) should be used.   That definition essentially defines the
term as the entire complex of emitting activities on one property  or
contiguous properties controlled  by  a single owner or designee.

4.  0:  Must good engineering practice (GEP) stack height be established
separately for each pollutant?  If not, how should it be determined?

    A:  It is not necessary to calculate a separate GEP stack height for
each pollutant.  Since "SEP" is defined by Section 123 of the Clean A1r
Act as the height necessary to ensure against excessive concentrations of
any air pollutant, 1t follows that GEP should be established for each
source based on the pollutant requiring the greatest height to avoid
excessive concentrations.

5.  Q:  How should "reliance" on the 2.SH formula be determined?

    A:  First, "reliance" on the 2.5H formula applies only to stacks 1n
existence before January 12, 1979.  Credit for  "reliance" on the 2.5H
formula, can be granted under the following, cases:  (a) Where the stack
was actually built to a height less than or equal to 2.5H; (b) Where the
stack was built taller than 2.5H and the emission limitation reflects the
use of 2.SH 1n the SIP modeling analysis; or (c) Where evidence 1s provided
to show "reliance" as discussed 1n the following paragraph.  If no modeling
was used to set the emission limitation for the source, then it cannot be
argued that there was "reliance"  on the formula, since EPA's guidance was
specifically aimed at using stack height credit in establishing emission
limitations.  Once 1t is determined that the emission limitation was in
fact b&sed on estimates of dispersion from the  stack, then the source can
be said to have properly "relied" on .the 2.5H formula.   In the event that
it cannot be determined that the emission limit is based on  "reliance" on
the 2.5H formula, then the refined H *  1.5L formula must be  used.

     Where & clear relationship between  a 2.5H  stack height  and the
emission limitation cannot be shown, where the  emission limitation was
not calculated based precisely on the 2.5H. height, or where  the stack
height used in modeling cannot be verified, then additional  evidence will
be needed.  Preferred would be written  documentation, such  as  copies of
the original engineering calculations or correspondence between the State
or the «n1s$1on source owner and EPA indicating that the  2.5H  formula
should be used to derive the emission limitation.  However,  recognizing
that such evidence 1s often not retained  for more  than  a  few years,
"reconstructed" documentation may be considered, but should  only  be used
as a last resort.  This evidence should include explanations by those
individuals who were involved in designing the  facility,  calculating
emission rates, and who represented the facility in dealings with the

-------
                                   -3-


State and EPA on how the emission  11rait  was derived, including a discussion
of how the formula was originally  used  in deriving the source emission
limitation, a discussion of the  analytical method applied, and a listing
of any contacts or discussions with EPA  during that period.  This listing
will  aid EPA in searching its own  files  to find any records of communication
or correspondence that may bear  on the  Issue.

     In no case should a source  be allowed after January 12, 1979, to
obtain a relaxation in the emission limitation by arguing that it "relied"
on past EPA guidance endorsing the 2.5H  formula.  In cases where a relaxation
based on GEP formula height 1s sought 1n the future, the refined H + 1.51
formula must be used.

6.  Q:  The preamble specifically  discusses cooling towers as structures to
which the formula should not be  applied. Will the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards be specifying other structures that are not well
represented by the formula?

    A:  The discussion in the preamble  and SEP guideline is not Intended to
be all-inclusive; judgment should  be used in determining when fluid
modeling should be used to estimate the effects of structures with rounded,
domed, or tapered shapes.  Water towers  and storage tanks are additional
examples of such structures. As additional Information becomes available
on the aerodynamic effects of specific  building shapes and configurations,
we will evaluate the need to revise the GEP guidance.  'However, at present,
there are no plans to Issue a "laundry  list* of structures to which the
formulas do not apply.

SIP Requirements

7.  Q:  Should a compliance averaging time be  explicitly stated  in a
SIP revision for sulfur dioxide  (S02) emission limits that are revised to
meet  the stack height regulation?

    A:  A compliance averaging time need not be  specified  as  an  enforceable
SIP provision as long as a stack test compliance method  is in  place  in the
underlying federally approved  SIP,  EPA's  current national policy  requires
that  SIP's and permits contain enforceable  'short-terra"  emission  limits
set to limit maximum emissions to a level which  ensures  protection of the
short-term national ambient air  quality standards  (NAAQS)  and prevention
of significant deterioration (PSD) increments.  EPA  relies upon  a short-term
stack test provision in the SIP  as the  method  of determining  compliance
with the emission  limits.   In  lieu of a stack  test,  EPA  has  accepted fuel
sampling and analysis and continuous emission  in-stack monitors  (CEM's).
When compliance is to be determined from information obtained by fuel
sampling and analysis and CEM's, short-term  averaging times  should be
specified.

-------
                                   -4-
8.  Q:  Are all  States -equired  to  have  "stack height regulations"?

    A:  Limitations on creditable stack  height and dispersion  techniques
impact the SIP program in two areas—SIP emission limits for existing
sources and SIP provisions covering new  source review (NSR)/PSD permitting
procedures.  For existing sources,  State regulations limiting  credit for
stack height and other dispersion techniques (stack height regulations)
are not necessary as long as the SIP emission limits are not affected  in
any manner by so much of the stack  height as exceeds GEP, or any other
dispersion technique.  Where a State has stack height regulations, those
regulations must be consistent with EPA's regulation.  Where a SIP contains
regulations that are inconsistent with EPA's regulation, the State must
either adopt a stack height regulation that 1s consistent with EPA's or
Incorporate the EPA regulation by reference.

     For the NSR/PSD programs, 1t 1s essential that the plan contain
limitations on the amount of creditable  stack height and other dispersion
techniques.  The following cases have been developed to Illustrate what
act1on(s)  may be required of the State since promulgation of the stack
height regul atlon.

CASE AU):  A fully or partially delegated PSO program that references but
            does not define GEP  where the delegation agreement does not contain
            a date to define which  version of the PSO rule is  being "oeTegated.

ACTION:     Notify the State that all permits Issued henceforth must be
            consistent with EPA's stack  height regulation.  All permits
            previously issued must  be reviewed and revised as  necessary
            within 9 months.

CASE A(2):  A fully or partially delegated PSO program that references
            but does not define  GEP where the delegation agreement
            does contain a date  to  define which version of the PSD rule
            is being delegated.

ACTION:     Update the delegation agreement to reflect agreement  with  EPA's
            stack height regulation as of July 8, 1985.  Notify the State
            that all permits issued henceforth oust be consistent with
            EPA's stack height regulation.  All permits previously Issued
            must be reviewed and revised as necessary within 9 months.

CASE B:     The current federally approved SIP for NSR/PSO does  not
            contain a reference to GEP or dispersion techniques,  i.e.,
            provisions assuring that emission limitations will not  be
            affected by stack height in  excess of SEP or any prohibited
            dispersion techniques do not exist in the current  SIP.

-------
                                  -5-
ACTION:      Notify the  State that such provisions must be adopted and
            submitted  as  a SIP revision within 9 months.  This can be
            accomplished by adopting stack height regulations at the
            State level  or by adopting the appropriate reference and
            conrai twent  to comply with EPA's stack height regulation as
            promulgated on July 8, 1985.  Interim permitting should be
            consistent  with EPA's stack height regulation.**

CASE C:      The current federally approved SIP for NSR/PSD contains
            references  to, but does not define, SEP or dispersion techniques.

ACTION:      Notify the  State that a connltnent to comply with EPA's stack
            height regulation as promulgated on July 8, 1985, 1s required.
            If a State  1s unable to make such a cownitaent, State regulations
            must be revised to be consistent and submitted to EPA as a  SIP
            revision within $ months and interim permitting should be
            consistent  with EPA's stack height regulation.  No "grace
            period" will  be allowed for sources receiving permits between
            July 1985  and April 1986.**

CASE 0;      The current federally approved SIP for NSR/PSD contains stack
            height regulations that are Inconsistent with EPA's regulation.

ACTION:      Notify the  State that such regulations must be revised to  be
            consistent  and submitted as a SIP revision within 9 months
            and that interim permitting should be consistent with EPA's
            stack height  regulation.**

CASE E(l):  A SIP for  NSR/PSD has been submitted to EPA, or will be
            submitted  to  EPA before the due date for stack height revisions.
            The submittal  contains provisions that conflict with .EPA's
            stack height  regulation.

ACTION:      Notify the State that EPA cannot  approve the submittal  until
            it is revised pursuant to EPA's July 8, 1985, regulation.
**In the event that a State does not have legal  authority to comply with
  EPA's regulation in the Interim (e.g., because 1t must  enforce State
  rules that are inconsistent with EPA's regulation)  and  1s compelled to
  issue a permit that does not meet the requirements of the EPA revised
  stack height regulation, then EPA should notify the State that such
  permits do not constitute authority under the Clean A1r Act to commence
  construction.

-------
                                   -6-
CASE E(2):  As in Case £(1), a SIP for  NSR/PSD has been submitted to  EPA
            or will  be submitted  to EPA before the due date for stack
            height revisions.  The submittal is not  inconsistent with
            EPA's stack height regulation, but portions of the existing
            approved SIP that relate to the submittal are inconsistent.

ACTION:     Approve the SIP submittal based on a commitment by the State
            to correct the inconsistencies in its existing SIP to comport
            with EPA's July 8 regulation  and submit the corrections as a
            SIP revision within 9 months.  Interia permitting should  be
            consistent with EPA's stack height regulation.** If the exist-
            ing SIP 1s ambiguous, i.e., the SIP references but does not
            define terms relating to SEP  or dispersion techniques, the
            action steps outlined in Case C above should be followed.

CASE F:     In nonattainment areas, emission limits or permits do not always
            include mod el ins. but rather  are based on lowest achievable
            emission rate (LAER)  and offsets.

ACTION:     If no modeling is used in the Issuance of a permit, the emission
            requirements for the  source are not "affected" by stack heights
            or dispersion techniques, and no action  1s needed.  However,  1f
            modeling was used in  the process of preparing and issuing a
            permit, such as cases where offsets were obtained offslte, that
            modeling must be reviewed for consistency with the stack  height
            regulation.

9.  0:   What must all States do now that  EPA's stack height regulation is
promulgated?

    A:   States must review and revise.their SIP's as necessary to include or
revise  provisions to limit stack  height credits and dispersion techniques
to comport with the revised regulations,  and, in addition, review and
revise  all emission limitations that are  affected by stack height credit
above SEP or any other dispersion techniques.  In accordance with Section
406(d)(2) of the Clean A1r Act, States  have 9 months from promulgation to
suomit  the revised SIP's and revised SIP  emission limitations to  EPA.

     In an August 7, 1985, memo titled  "Implementation of the Revised
Stack Height Regulation-request for Inventory and Action Plan  to Revise
SIP's," Regional Offices were requested to begin working with  each  of
their States to develop States' Action  Plans.  Each  Action  Plan  should
include the following:   (1) An Inventory of  (a)  all  stacks greater  than
65 meters (m), (b) stacks at sources which  exceed 5,000 tons  per year
total allowable $63 emissions; and  (2)  A reasonable  schedule  of dates for
significant State actions to conform both State  stack  height  rules  and
emission limitations to EPA's stack height  regulation.   Schedules should
include increments of progress.  Regional Offices  should  be satisfied
that each of their States provide scnedules  for  completion  of  the tasks

-------
as outlined in the August meno  and  report the status of schedule  commitments
to them on a monthly basis.  Regional  Offices have been asked  to  forward
monthly status reports to the Control  Programs Development Division  on
the States' progress to meet scheduled commitments and also  report the
results of followup with the States on schedules that are not  met.   In
order to facilitate tracking the  States monthly progress, guidance on  a
standardized format will be issued  shortly.

Modeling Analyses

10.  Q:  Is there any restriction or  prohibition against, or demonstration
required for, raising an existing (or replacing) stack up to 65 m?

     A:  No, as long as prohibited  dispersion techniques are not  employed.

11.  Q:  Are flares considered  to be  stacks?

     A:  No, flares are excluded  from the  regulation.

12.  Q:  What load should be used for a fluid modeling demonstration?

     A:- One hundred percent load should generally be used unless there
is a compelling argument otherwise..

13.  Q:  Can new or modified sources  who have agreed to  a  case-by-case
best available control technology (BACT) emission rate be  required  to  use
this rate for fluid modeling rather than a less stringent  new  source
performance standard (NSPS) emission  rate?

     A:  As set forth in 40 CFR 51.1  (kk),  the  allowable  emission rate to
be used in making demonstrations  under this  part shall be  prescribed by
the NSPS that is applicable to the  source  category unless  the  owner or
operator demonstrates that this emission rate is.infeasibl e.

U.  Q:  Must the exceed*nce of NAAQS or PSD increment due to  d own was n, wakes,
or eddies occur at a location meeting the  definition of  ambient air?

     A:  No, the exceedance may occur at any location, including that to
which the general public does not have access.

15.  Q:  Is a source that meets NSPS  or BACT emission  Units subject to
restrictions on plume merging?

     A:  Yes.  However, 1n a majority of such cases,  there will be  no practical
effect since BACT or NSPS limits will be sufficient  to  assure attainment
without credit for plume rise enhancement.

-------
                                   -8-


     Q:  What stack parameters are to be  used in modeling when the actual
stac* height is greater than GEP height?

     A:  Where it is necessary to reduce  stack height credit below what  is •; r
existence, for modeling purposes, use existing stack gas exit parameters--
temperature and flow rate--and existing stack top diameter and model at
GEP height.

17.  0-  How should a stack that 1s less  than GEP height be modeled when
dispersion techniques are employed?

     A:  In order to establish an appropriate mission limitation where  a
source desires to construct less than a GEP stack but use dispersion
techniques to make up the difference in plune rise, two cases should be
tested.  First, conduct a modeling analysis Inputting the GEP stack
height without enhanced dispersion parameters, then conduct a second
analysis Inputting the less than GEP stack height with the Increased
plume rise.  The more stringent emission  limitation resulting from each
of the two runs should be the one specified as the enforceable limitation.

18.  Q:  How are the effects of prohibited dispersion techniques to be  exclf
for morfeling purposes?

     A:  Where prohibited dispersion techniques have been used, modeling to
exclude their effects on the mission limitation will be accomplished by
using the temperature and flow rates as the gas stream enters the stack, anc
recalculating stack parameters to exclude the prohibited techniques
(e.g., calculate stack diameter without restrictions in place, determine
exit gas temperatures before the use of prohibited reheaters, etc.).

19.  Q:  How are single flued merged stacks and multiflued  stacks to be
treated in a modeling analysis?

     A:  This is a multistep process.  First, sources with  allowable $03
emissions below b,000 tons/year may be modeled  accounting  for  any plume
merging that has been employed.  For larger sources, multiflued  stacks
are considered as prohibited dispersion techniques in the  same way  as
single flued merged gas streams unless  one of the three  allowable conditions
has been met; i.e., (1) the source owner  or operator demonstrates that
the facility was originally designed and  constructed with  such merged gas
streams; (2) after date of promulgation,  demonstrate that  such merging  is
associated with a change in operation at  the  facility that  includes the
installation of pollution controls and  results  1n  a  net  reduction  in  the
allowable emissions of the pollutant for  which  credit 1s  sought; or (3)
before date of promulgation, demonstrate  that such merging  did  not  result
in any increase in the allowable  emissions  (or, in the  event  that  no
emission limit existed, actual  emission level)  and was  associated  with  a
change in operation at tne facility that  included  the  installation  of

-------
                                   -9-


envissions control equipment OP was  carried  out  for  sound  economic  or
engineering reasons, as demonstrated  to EPA.  Guidelines  on  what constitutes
sound economic or engineering justification will be issued shortly.

     If plume merging from multiflued stacks  is not allowable,  then  each
flue/liner must be modeled as a separate source and the combined impact
determined.  For single flued merged  stacks where credit  is  not allowed,
each unit should be modeled as a separate stack located at the  same
point.  The exit parameters, I.e. velocity  and  temperature,  would  be the
sane as for the existing merged stack conditions and the  volume flow rate
based on an apportionment of the flow from  the  Individual units.

20.  0?  What stack height for point  sources  should be Input to air  quality
dispersion modeling for the purpose of demonstrating protection of the
NAAQS and PSO increments?

     A:  A discussion of the maximum  stack  height credit  to  be  used  in modelir
analyses is provided in the "Guideline for  Determination  of  Good Engineering
Practice Stack Height" and provides that the  SEP stack height should be
used as Input to the model assessment.  If  a  source is operating with a
less than GEP stack height, then the  actual stack height  should be input
to the "model.

21.  Q:  What stack height should be  used for background  sources in
modeKag analyses?

     A:  The GEP-stack height for each background  source  should
be input to the model assessment.  If a background  source is operating
with a less than GE? stack height,  then the actual  stack  height should be
input to the model.

22.  Q:  Can credit for pi me merging due to  installation of control
equipment for total suspended particulate (TSP) matter be allowed  when
setting the SOj 1imit?

     A:  To state the question another way, the concern  is what impact
the merging and installation of control equipment  have on the  emission
limit for another pollutant, and whether the  merging occurred  before or
after July 8, 1985.  After July 8,  1985, any  exclusion  from the definition
of "dispersion techniques" applies only to the  emission  limitation  for
the pollutant affected by such change in operation  and  1s accompanied by
a net reduction  in  allowable emissions of the pollutant.   For  example,  a
source tears down two old stacks and  builds one new GEP stack  with  an
electrostatic precipitator (ESP).  This  results in  a net reduction  in TSP
emissions.  This source could model using stack gas characteristics
resulting from merging the two gas streams in  setting the TSP  emission
limit, but may not  so model  and receive  the credit  for stack merging when
evaluating the SQj  emission  limit.

-------
     Before July 8, 1985, installation  of  TSP  pollution  control  equipment
generally justifies the merging of the  stacks  for TSP.   However, if a
source's emission limitation for SOj increased after  the merging,  then
credit would generally not be allowed since  it is presumed that  the
merging was to increase dispersion.

     A source with no previous SOj emission  limit that merges  stacks and
installs an ESP for TSP control may consider the effects of merging on
compliance with the TSP NAAQS but may not  use merging to justify setting
an S02 emission limit less stringent than  Its  actual  emission  rate before
the merging.

23.  Q:  If, after determining SEP stack height by fluid modeling,
dispersion modeling under other than "downwash" meteorological conditions
shows that a lower emission limit than  that  from the  fluid model  G£P
analysis 1s necessary to meet ambient air  quality constraints, should a
new stack height be defined for the source?

     A:  No.  GEP stack height is set.  Ambient air quality problems
predicted by dispersion modeling at the fluid modeled height means that  i
more stringent emission limit 1s necessary.
      *»
24.  Q:  Does EPA intend to issue additional guidance on fluid modeling
demonstrations?

     A:  See the attached memo from Joseph A.  Tikvart,  Chief,  Source
Receptor Analysis Branch, to David Stonefleld, Chief, Policy Development
Section, on guidance for a discussion of existing and additional  guidance
on fluid model  demonstrations.

Attachment

cc:  Stack Height Contacts
     Gerald Emison
     Ron Campbell
     B. J. Steigerwald

-------
                       MAR  31 1989
MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:  Application of Building Downwash in Prevention of
          Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit Analyses

FROM:     John Calcagni, Director
          Air Quality Management Division (MD-15)

TO:       William B. Hathaway, Director
          Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Division (6T)
          Region VI

     Thank you for your memorandum of March 8, 1989 in which you
urge consideration of changes to EPA's current policy of applying
building downwash to background sources in PSD modeling.   Your
memorandum describes problems associated with the collection of
building dimension data necessary for downwash modeling, and you
suggest that EPA might issue rules and provide funding to collect
this building data.  Alternatively, you believe that downwash
modeling should not be required for any background sources.

     Members of my staff are currently analyzing several
approaches for handling background sources.  This will be the
subject of a future conference call with the Regional Offices.
In the interim, some of our concerns regarding this issue and
your specific suggestions are discussed below.

     The Guideline on Air Quality Models notes that background
concentrations are an essential part of the total air quality
concentration to be considered in determining source impacts and
therefore requires certain background sources to be fully
modeled.  The Guideline indicates that "... all sources
expected to cause a significant concentration gradient in the
vicinity of the source or sources under consideration for
emission limit(s) should be explicitly modeled."  This guidance
provides considerable flexibility and requires judgment to be
exercised by the reviewing agency in identifying which background
sources should be fully modeled.  The burden of collecting
building dimension data may be mitigated somewhat by application
of this judgment.  We are exploring the development of additional
guidance to better assist in this judgment.  However, I caution
that it may not be possible to establish many objective "bright
line" tests that will eliminate the need for Regional Office
judgment in individual cases.

-------
     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. Bauraan
     D. deRoeck
     E. Ginsburg
     D. Grano
     w. Laxton
     E. Lillis
     J. Tikvart
     D. Wilson
     J. Yarbrough

AQMD:SDPMPB:DGrano:PFinch:RTF(MD-15):629-5255:3-29-89
DataTech/DOWNWASH.R6
Control Number AQMD-023       Due Date:  3-29-89

Response coordinated with New Source Review Section and Source
Receptor Analysis Branch.

-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 4.6

-------
                             EPA-450/2-78-027R
Guideline On Air Quality Models
               (Revised)
         U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
               Office of Air and Radiation
          Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
            Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

                   July 1986

-------
           UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
I r4M£? 3              Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
^^VlV^              Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711


                              February 15, 1989
SUBJECT:  Modeling  Requirements for Pennsylvania  Power and Light
          (PP&L), Martins Creek,  Pennsylvania
FROM:     Robert D. Bauman, Chief
          SO,/Particulate Matter Programs Branch  (MD-15)

TO:       Joseph Tikvart, Chief
          Source Receptor Analysis  Branch (MD-14)

     This is in response to a memorandum dated January 4, 1989 from
Al Cimorelli, Region 3, to Dean Wilson of your branch.  Since this
appears to  be  more of  a policy than a  technical  issue,  my branch
agreed to prepare  a response.

     Region 3  is asking  if EPA policy would allow PP&L's modeling
analysis  to address  only the  designated  nonattainment  area  in
Warren  County, New Jersey.   If   so,  it  might  be  possible  to
reclassify  the  Warren  County  area  to  attainment  without  an
evaluation of PP&L's impact outside  the Warren County nonattainment
area.  Additionally, the Region  has asked  if a  redesignation for
Warren County  could proceed  independent of  any revision  to the
Pennsylvania SIP,  in the event the  modeling analysis shows Warren
County  to  be  attainment  but  shows   a  modeled  violation  in
Pennsylvania.

     The Guideline on Air Quality Models  ( Revised^ (Guideline^  on
page 1-3 states that the current guidance  should be followed in all
air quality analyses relative to State implementation plans and in
analyses required by EPA, State and  local  agency air programs. This
policy is consistent with  stack height implementation  policy and
general guidance found  in  a  January 2, 1985 memorandum from SRAB
to the  regional modeling  contacts.    Guidance  contained  in the
Guideline recommends  on page  9-8   that  "all sources expected  to
cause a significant concentration gradient  in  the vicinity of the
source or sources under consideration for emission limit(s) should
be explicitly  modeled."  On page  8-4,  the Guideline states that
"Receptor  sites   for  refined  modeling  should  be  utilized  in
sufficient  detail  to   estimate  the  highest  concentrations  and
possible violations of  a NAAQS or a PSD increment."

-------
     I believe  that  application of guidance noted above does not
allow  a  partial  modeling  analysis.   If a modeling  analysis is
required for any  reason, that analysis must meet the requirements
of the Guideline.

     Redesignation policy is generally contained in the April 21,
1983 memorandum from Sheldon Meyers to the Regional Air Directors.
That  policy  includes   requirements  for  a  modeling  analysis
demonstrating attainment and evidence of implementation  of the
approved SIP.   As  noted by Region 3, PP&L's analysis  may show
violations  at  locations outside of the  designated nonattainment
area,  while demonstrating  an  absence of violations  within the
nonattainment area.   In such an event,  the existing  SIP may be
judged adequate to demonstrate  attainment in Warren County and an
action to redesignate the area  to attainment could proceed before
the State completes the necessary effort  to resolve the violations
outside the nonattainment area.   While separate rulemaJcing actions
are  possible,   it  may  be   mor ?  efficient  to  consolidate  the
redesignation and SIP revision  actions whenever possible.
     I  trust
concerns.
st that  this memorandum  is responsive  to  Region  3's
If you need any additional information,  please call  me.
cc:  A. Cimorelli, Region 3
    \_JfrT" Ginsburg, OAQPS/AQMD
     D. Grano, OAQPS/AQMD
     S. Sambol, Region 2
     D. Wilson, OAQPS/TSD

-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 4.7

-------
                             EPA-450/2-78-027R
Guideline On Air Quality Models
               (Revised)
         U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
              Office of Air and Radiation
          Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
            Research Triangle Park. NC 27711

                   July 1986

-------
REFE'  NCES FOR SECTION 5.1

-------
278S2
Federal  Register / Vol. 50. No. 130 / Monday. July 8,  1985 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGcNCY

40 CFR Part 51

IAD-FRL-2847-6I

Stack Height Regulation

AGENCY: Err. .ror.men: j! Protection
Aatr-.c:- (EPA).
ACTION: Find! ruiemaking

SUMMARY: Section 123 of the Clean Air
Art. as amended, requires EPA to
pror.r.Igate regulations to ensure that
t.-.e aearte of emission limitation
required for tne control of any air
pollutant under an applicable Slate
implementation plan (SIP) is not
affected by lhat portion of any stack
height which exceeds auod engineering
practice (GEP', or by any other
dispersion technique. A regulation
implementing section 123 was
prorr.uig.itcti on February 8. 1982. at 47
FR 5864. Revisions to the regulation
were proposed on November 9. 1964. at
49 FR 44878. Today's action incorporates
changes to  the proposal and adopts this
regulation in final form.
CPFCCTtvK OATt This regulation
becomes  effective on August 7, 1985.
POM PUHTMCft INFORMATION CONTACT:
Eric O. Gmsburg, MD-15. Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards. EPA.
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina
27711. Telephone (919) 541-5540.
SUPPIC MtNTAKY INFORMATION:

Docket Statement
  Pertinent information concerning this
regulation is included in Docket Number
A-83-49. The docket is open for public
inspection between the hours of &00
a.m. and  4.00 p.m.. Monday through
Friday, at the EPA Central Docket
Section, West Tower Lobby, Gallery
One. 401  M Street. SW.. Washington.
D.C.  Background documents normally
available to the public, such as Federal
Register nonces and Congressional
reports, are not included in the docket.
A reasonable fee may be charged for
copying cocumenis.

Background
  Section 123. which was added to the
Clean Air Act by the 1977 Amendments.
regulates the manner in which
techniques for disperson of pollutants
from a source may be considered in
setting emission limitations. Specifically,
section 123 requires that the degree of
emission limitation shall not be affected
by that portion of a stack which exceeds
GEP or by "any other dispersion
                          technique." It defines GEP. with respect
                          to stack heights as:
                          the height necessary to insure that emissions
                          from the stack do noi result in excesaive
                          concentrations of toy air pollutant in the
                          immediate vicinity of the source is a result of
                          atmospheric downwash eddies or wakes
                          which may be created by the source itself.
                          nearby structures or nearby terrain obttacles
                           .  . (Section I23|c)|
                          Section 123 further provides that GEP
                          stack height shal! not exceed two and
                          one-halt times the heigh! of the source
                          (2.5H) unless a demonstration is
                          performed showing that a higher stack is
                          needed to avoid "excessive
                          concentrations." As the legislative
                          history of section 123 makes clear, this
                          reference to a two and one-half times
                          test reflects the established practice of
                          using a formula for determining the GEP
                          stack height needed to avoid excessave
                          downwash. Finally, section 123 provides
                          that the Administrator shall regulate
                          only stack height credits—that is. the
                          portion of the stack height used in
                          calculating an emission limitation—-
                          rather than actual stack heights.
                            With respect to "other dispersion
                          techniques" for which emission
                          limitation credit it restricted, the statute
                          is less specific. It states only that the
                          term shall include intermittent and
                          supplemental control systems (ICS,
                          SCS). but otherwise leaves the definition
                          of that term to the discretion of the
                          Administrator.
                            Thus the statute delegates to the
                          Administrator the responsibility for
                          defining key phrases, including
                          "excesaive concentrations" and
                          "nearby," with respect to both
                          structures and terrain obstacles, and
                          "other dispersion techniques." The
                          Administrator must also define the
                          requirements of an adequate
                          demonstration justifying stack height
                          credits in excess of the 2.5H formula.
                          Rulemaking and Litigation
                            On February 8.1982 (47 FR 5864). EPA
                          promulgated final regulations limiting
                          stack height credits and other dispersion
                          techniques. Information concerning the
                          development of the regulation was
                          included in Docket Number A-79-01 and
                          is available for inspection at the EPA
                          Central Docket Section. This regulation
                          was challenged in the U.S. Court of
                          Appeals for the D.C. Circuit by the
                          Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund. Inc.  the
                          Natural Resources Defense Council Inc.:
                          and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
                          in Sierra Club v. EPA. 719 F. 2d 436. On
                          October 11.1983. the court issued its
                          decision ordering EPA to reconsider
                          portions of the stack height regulation.
                          reversing certain portions and upholding
                          other portions. Further discussion of the
court decision is provided later in this
notice.
Administrative Proceedings Subscque-n
to the Court Decision
  On December 19.19S3. EPA held a
publ.c meeting to take comments to
assist the Agenry m implemtntir.g the
mandate of the court. This meeting was
announced in the Federal Register en
December 8.1963. at 48 FR 54999.
Comments rpce'ved by EPA are
included in Docr.e;  Nurr.hfr A-83-49 Or,
Februar. 28. 1984. the  eiec'.r c power
industry filed a petition f j: a \-. n; of
certiorate with the L'.S  S-premr Court
While the petition was per, '.r.g before
the court, the mandate frjrr. '.ne L'.S
Court of Appeals was  stayed. On |ui>  2
1964. the Supreme Cour' denied the
petition (104 S.Ct. 3571). and  on |ul> 18
1964. the Court of Appeals' mandate
was formally issued, implementing the
court's decision and requinng EPA  to
promulgate revisions to the stack heisht
regulations within € months. The
promulgation deadline was ultimately
extended to June 27.1985. in order to
provide additional  opportunities for
public comment to allow EPA to hold a
public hearing on January 8.1985. and to
provide additional time for EPA to
complete its analysis of rulemaking
alternatives.
Documents
  In conjunction with the 1982
regulation and this revision.  EPA
developed several technical  and
guidance documents. These served as
background information for the
regulation, and are included in Dockets
A-79-01 and A-83-49. The following
documents have been or will be placed
in the National Technical Information
Service (NTIS) system and may be
obtained by contacting NTIS at 5285
Port Royal Road. Springfield. Virginia
22161.
   (1) "Guideline for Use of Fluid
Modeling to Determine Good
Engineering Stack Height." July 1981.
EPA. Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. EPA-450/4-81-003 (NTIS
PB82 145327).
   (2) "Guideline for Fluid Modeling of
Atmospheric Diffusion." April 1981.
EPA. Environmental Sciences Researcr.
Laboratory. EPA-600/8-C1-009 (NTIS
PB81 201410).
   (3) "Guidance for Determination of
 Good Engineering Practice Stack Height
 (Technical Support Document for the
 Stack Height Regulation)." i-ne 1985
 EPA. Office of Air QualiU Planning ar.d
 Standards. EPA-450/4-BO-023R.
   (4) "Determination of Good
 Engineering Practice  Stack Height—A

-------
             Federal Register /  Vol.  50. No. 130  /  Monday, July 6. 1985 / Rules and Regulations        27893
Fluid Model Demonstration Study for a
Power Plant." April 1983. EPA.
Environmental Sciences Research
Laboratory, EPA-600/ 3-83-024 (NTIS
PB83 207407).
  (5) "Fluid Modeling Demonstration of
Good-Engineering-Practice Stack Height
in Complex Terrain." April 1985. EPA
Atmospheric Sciences Research
Laboratory. EPA/600/3-85/022 (NTIS
PB85 203107).
  In addition, the following documents
are available in Docket A-83-49.
  "Economic Impact Assessment for
Revisions to the EPA Stack Height
Regulation." |une 1985.
  "Effect of Terrain-Induced Downwash
on Determination of Good-Enginering-
Practice Stack Height" July 1984.
Program Overview

General
  The problem of air pollution can be
approached in either of two ways:
through reliance on a technology-based
program that mandates specific control
requirements (either control equipment
or control efficiencies) irrespective of
ambient pollutant concentrations, or
through an  air quality based system that
relies on ambient air quality levels to
determine the allowable rate* of
emissions. The .Clean Air Act
incorporates both approaches, but the
SIP program under section 110 uses an
air quality-based approach to establish
emission limitations for sources.
Implicitly, this approach acknowledges
and is based on the normal dispersion of
pollutants from their points of origin into
the atmosphere prior to measurements
of ambient  concentrations at ground
level.
  There are two general methods for
preventing  violations of the national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)
and prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) increments.
Continuous emission controls reduce on
a continuous basis the quantity, rate, or
concentrations of pollutants released
into the atmosphere from  e source. In
contrast, dispersion techniques rely on
the dispersive effects of the atmosphere
to carry pollutant emissions sway from
the source  in order to prevent high .
concentrations of pollutants near the
source. Section 123 of the Clean Air Act
limits the use of dispersion techniques
by pollution sources to meet the NAAQS
or PSD increments.
  Tall  stacks, manipulation of exhaust
gas parameters, and varying the rate of
emissions based on atmospheric
conditions  (ICS and SCS) are the basic
types of dispersion techniques. Tall
stacks enhance dispersion by releasing
pollutants  into the air at elevations high
above ground level, thereby providing
greater mixing of pollutants into the
atmosphere. The result is to dilute the
pollutant levels and reduce the
concentrations of the pollutant at ground
level, without reducing the total amount
of pollution released. Manipulation of
exhaust gas parameters increases the
plume rise from the source to achieve
similar results. ICS and SCS vary a
source's rate of emissions to take
advantage of meteorologic conditions.
When conditions favor rapid dispersion.
the source emits pollutants at higher
rates, and when conditions are adverse.
emission rates are reduced Use of
dispersion techniques in lieu of constant
emission controls results in additional
atmospheric loading* of pollutant* and
can increase the possibility that
pollution will travel long distances
before reaching the ground.
  Although overreliance on dispersion
techniques may produce adverse effects.
some use of the dispersive properties of
the atmosphere has long been an
important factor in air pollution control.
For example, some stack height is
needed to prevent excessive pollutant
concentrations near a source. When
wind meets an obstacle such as a hill or
a building, a turbulent region of
downwash. wake*, and eddies is
created downwind of the obstacle as the
wind passes over and around it This
can force a plum* rapidly to the ground
resulting in excessive concentration* of
pollutant* near the source. As discussed.
previously, section 123 recognize* these
phenomena and respond* by allowing
calculation of emission limitation* with
explicit consideration of that portion of
a source'* stack that is needed to ensure
that excessive concentration* due to
downwash will not be created near the
source. This height t* called GEP stack
height
Summary of tht Court Decision
  Petition* for review of EPA's 1982
regulation were filed in the D.C. Circuit
within the statutory  time period
following promulgation of the regulation.
On October 11.1983. the court issued it*
decision ordering EPA to reconsider
portion* of the stack height regulation.
reversing certain portions and upholding
others. The following is a summary of
the court decision.
  The EPA'* 1982 rule provided three
way* to determine GEP stack height
One way was to calculate the height by
using a formula based on the
dimensions of, nearby structures. The
other two were a de minimis height of 85
meters, and the height determined by a
fluid modeling demonstration or field
study. The court endorsed the formula
as a starting point to determine GEP
 height However, it held that EPA has
 not demonstrated that the formula was
 an accurate predictor of the stack heigh-
 needed to avoid "excessive
 concentrations of pollutants due to
 downwash. Accordingly, the court
 directed EPA to re-examine in three
 ways the conditions under which
 exceptions to the general rule of formula
 reliance could be justified.
   First the 1982 rule allowed a source to
 justify raising its stack above formula
 height by showing a 40-percent increase
 in concentrations due to downwash.
 wakes, or eddies, on the ground that this
 was the percentage increase that the
 formula avoided. The court found this
 justification insufficient, and remanded
 the definition to EPA with instructions
• to make it directly responsive to health
 and welfare considerations.
   Similarly, the 1982 rule allowed a
 source  that built a stack to less than
 formula height to raise it to formula
 height automatically. Once again, the
 court required more justification that
 such a  step was needed to avoid
 advene health or welfare effects.
   Finally, the court directed EPA either
 to allow the authorities administering
 the stack height regulations to require
 modeling by sources in other cases as a
 check on possible error in the formula.
 or explain why the accuracy of the
 formula made such a step unnecessary
   The 1982 rule provided two formulae
 to calculate GEP stack height For
 source* constructed OB or before
 January 12.1979. the date of initial
 proposal of the stack height regulations.
 the applicable formula was 2.5 times the
 height of the source or other nearby
 structure. For sources constructed after
 that date, the rule specified a  newer,
 refined formula, the height of the source
 or other nearby structure plus 1.5 times
 the height or width of that structure.
 whichever is less (H-K1.5L). The EPA
 bated it* decision- to include two
 formulae on the unfairness of applying
 the new formula retroactively. In its
 examination of this issue, the court
 specified four factors that influence
 whether an agency has a duty to apply a
 rule  retroactively. They are:
   1. Whether the new nil* represent* in
 abrupt departure from well e«tabliihed
 pncnce or manly attampu to fill * void m an
 unsettled area of law,
   2. The extent to which tht party agimst
 whom the mw rult if applied relied on me
 former nil*.
   J. The detrM of burdin which • retroactive
 order impoMS on a party, and
   4. Th» statutory intemi in applying a new
 rule dtspite the«h«nc« of • party on the aid
 •tandtrd.

-------
 27,84       Pectoral  RagstBf / Vol 5O. No. 130 / Monday, fury 8. 1965 / Rates and Regulations
 719 F.2d at 487 (citation! omitted).
 Applying this analysis to the two
 formulae; the court upheld EPA'* basic
 decision.
   However, the court also held that
 sources constructed on or be/ore
 January 12.1979. should not he
 automatically entitled to full credit
 calculated under the 2.5H formula unless
 they could demonstrate reliance on that
 formula. The court remanded this
 provision for revision to I sire actual
 reliance on the 2.5H formula into
 account.
   The sfafate limits slack height credit
 to that needed to avoid excessive
 concentration* doe to dowirwesh caused
 by "nearby" strecturss or terrain
 fesrares. The 19*2 refutation defined
 "nearby" for CEP formula appKeatione
 as Bvs times the leaver at either fee
 height or projected widtfc of the
 structure rauaing dowowaak. not to
 exceed oaa ball cite. No suck daftaaca
 limitation was placed oa structures ar
 terrain features wbose effects wen
 being considered ia Quid •*~4^*tnfl
 demonstrations ar field stadia*. The
 court held that faction 123 explicitly
 applies tha "nearby" limitation to
 demonstration! and studies aa weE aa
 fornrata applications, and T»""~j*'f tha
 rule to EPA to apply the limitation ia
 both contexts.
   The 19BZ rule defined "dispersion
 techniques" ae those techniques which
 attempt to affect poflutant
 coneentratfems by  Ming a*t portton of a
 stack exceeding GEP. by veryinf
 emission ratee accmdiag te> aBuuspfceih.
 conditione or pollutant eoncentretiem.
 or by the •ddlttoa of e fan or reneeter to
 obtain a less stringent eauesven
• limitation. The court fomnd tkis
 definition too narrow because any
 technique "sifn»ficaittry Motivated by aa
 intent to gain eraiaaiona credit for
 greater dispersion" should be barred.
 719 F.2d 462. As a resale (he cowt
 directed EPA to develop ruts*
 disallowing credit  for all sack dispersion
 techniques onless the Agency
 adequately iosnfied excapatass oa (he
 basis of administrative naisseilji o> e <*»
 rnmimis result
   The CEP formulae es tarnished in the
 1982 rule do not consider paaaanss.«o
 the ground that plume rise is not
 significant under downwash conditions.
 In its review of thia provision, tha court
 affirmed this judgment by EPA.
   The 1982 rule addressed pollutant
 concentrations estimated to occur whan.
 a plume impacts elevated terrain by
 allowing credit for stack height
 necessary to avoid ait quality violations
 in such cases. However, the court ruled
 that section 123 did not allow EPA to
 grant credit for plume impacn'on in
setting CBMsaioa limits, and revised tkia
part oi tke regulation.
  Tha preaf&aie to toe 1982 regulation
provided a 22 sooth ptoceae lor Stale
iBoiaaentation of tha regulation. The
court found tbia period to he? contrary t»
section 406 ftovmiber * JSW.
Notice of Proposed Ralemekinf
  In Ae November 9i IMa. notice.
responding to tha court daciaioa. EPA
proposed to redaflne aaumoar of
specific tama.
techniQuea*" "nearby," anav othat
modify
oftbohaaoafer
followugiaa auBmory of tha mriaioria
that ware nmpnsari
  Tha Court of Appeals held that EPA
erred hi deftnasj "eaceaaiva
concenttationa." aaa IB eawmv
purpoaee of intiryiag a ssack
than formuU baigkL aa aothiag ntere
than a ^n***"> tocreaao ia> pnlhitsjit
coacaBtratiOBa over what wevld occur
in the aheanre of downwaae. M
remanded tkia kaua to EPA It) relate the
defimooB to sona ebeokt* bvoi of air
pollutioB that could be iassuBtatad to
endanger health and welii
to be "exeaasma."
  Tha EPA propoaod two alsamaiive
appcoackae to deruunt "exceaetve
concentranona." FMSA. EPA reqaaatod
commeat OB wbetbar the 4*>aerceast
aDproack adepied aa peat oftko MM
reguiatinB m iact prtneoe
danger* s» v—'-% end weis&ra>
enviimned by Coagreee w
sectiOB 123. !• tba»ereat tket sacs o
                           showing cooid not be nude. EPA
                           proposed a two-port defioitioa of
                           excessive rram tatrahona. reooiriiif that
                           the dflWBwvab. wakes. 0r eddies
                           induced by nearby structures or terrain
                           features rasast in incteesss in arawid-
                           level poUniam coocMtratioos thar.
                             (a) Cause or eotrthbcrte to an
                           exceedaner of e NAAQS or appHcsbhe
                           PSD memnent and
                             (b) Are at least 40 percent in excess of
                           concentrations projected to occur in the
                           absence of such structures or terrain
                           features.

                           Definition of CEP Stack Height

                             EPA ptoBossd to find that the
                           traditional (UK} and refined (H 4-1.5*4
                           formulae remained proper methods for
                           calculating CEP stack height except EPA
                           proposed to revise its regulation to
                           allow EPA the State or local air
                           pollution control agency discretion to
                           require a farther demonstration using a
                           field study or Quid model to
                           demonstrate GE** stack height for a
                           source to a ease where ft waa believed
                           that the formula may not reBaaly predict
                           CEP height In the case of structures that
                           are porous or aerodynamieaHy. smoother
                           than block-shaped structures, it would
                           require a source to demonstrate the
                           downwash effects of suck structures
                           using  a field study or fluid model before
                           receiving credit for stack heigh* baaed
                           on the structures. EPA also proposed
                           generally to aflow sources to raise
                           •yffffM (tacks up to foraula t'-^'P height
                           WfthOUt further ^mtnmt^t^»tinnm i^th (be
                           exception Pn>yf above, for diaccsnonary
                           Reliance on the 23H Formula
                             rnitsl002rulac.EPAa*awwitoarcM
                           built befss* laBuary IX MTO, mo dote oa
                           which it proposed tko rvftaed H+1.SL
                           formulae, to calculate their eniaaina
                           limttabaeefl on tko ttarisnonal U5H
                           fomula that existed praviCMsiy. The
                           court anofoved tkia dJatoctMa bwJ
                           ruled ma* it should be  tautest to SOMRVS
                           that "rested" OB tko tradiooaai foramhi.
                           suopaafiBg. fat axasapie. that sources
                           that had ckisaad credit for stacks fat-
                           taller them tb%ioTBUua provided cosld
                           not bo said to have "reiisd" ost rt.
                             to respoBso to ma> caaxt deoawo. EPA
                           proposed as rcviaa i
                           rosjuir* tkss for atacka bs 11
                           January 12. 1979. sources <
                           that tkeraetaaMy relied oa the «H
                           formmki • the dsstpt of tkasr s*seie«
                           before recsTvsBsj cfanil for taat asvesN A

                           proposes, EPA isaaesstd i
                           whatfcekoaldi
                                   lafi

-------
             Federal Register /  Vol.  so.  No. 130  /  Monday. July 8. 1988 / Rules and Regulations        27895
Definition of

  In iti 1982 rule*. EPA allowed sources
that modeled the effects of terrain
obstacles on downwash to include any
terrain features in their model without
limiting their distance from the stack.
The court, though persuaded that this
was a sensible approach, since it
allowed the model to best approximate
reality, ruled that Congress had
intended a different result, namely that
terrain features beyond H mile from the
stack should not be included in the
model
  In response, EPA proposed, to revise
i Sl.l(li)(3) of its regulation to limit the
consideration of downwash. wake*, and
eddy effects of structures and terrain
feature* to thoae feature* "'-""'•*' aa
being "nearby" as defined ia I 51.1/jj).
Under this proposal, structures aad
terrain features would be considered to
be "ne*rby"1f they occur within a
distance of not more than &8 km (Vfc
mile); terrain features that extend
beyond 04 km could be considered if. et
a distance of 0.4 km. they echieved a '
height greater than or equal to 40-
percent of the CEP stack height
calculated by applying the CEP formula
to actual nearby structures. In other
words, a terrain feature would be said to
"begin" within H mile if it reached at
least the height of nearby buildings
within that <<<«*•«"*• Such features g"»«i••«•
equal to 10 timer the maximum height of
the feature, not to nrreerl 2 mike.
  The BPA proposed two options for
distinguishing between source*
constructed before and after the date of
promulgation as* these revisions. The-
first optiosi woold treat both categories
of source* the same. The second option
would limit the conatderation of terrain
for new sources to only those portions of
terraia feature* that fall mtinly within
0.8 km. thereby removing the poaaJbiliry
of including features extending beyood
Hail*.
  Finally. EPA piopoeed thaw
alternative* for conducting Bead
modeling to evaluate the dowmsaah
effects or nearby terrain f**t*a**. The**
alternatives described venoo«,w*vs of
limiting terrain in the model beyond  the
proposed distance limitations.
  To establish a baseline for
comparison, two alternatives wovld
initially modei the stack on a flat plane
with no structure or terrain influence*.
To analyze downwash effects, the first
approach would then insert neere*
terrain, with ell terrain beyond the
distance limit "cut off" horizontally. The
second approach would gradually
smooth and slope the terrain beyond the
distance limit down to the elevation of
the base of the stack.
  The third approach would proceed in
a somewhat different manner. A
baseline would be established by
modeling all terrain beyond the distance
limit smoothing and sloping nearby
terrain to minimi** its influence. To
analyse downwash effects, the nearby
terrain would then  be inserted into the
model and the difference ia effect
measured to determine appropriate
downwash credit for stack height
Definition of "Ditpenioa Techniquet "
  Ia the 1963 mis*, EPA identified two
practices, in edditton to stacks above
CEP and 1CS/SCS, ea having DO purpose
other than to obtain a lea* stringent
tmieaion tomtetio*, Ia so doing, it
allowed credit for any other practice
that had the result of increaamg
dispersion. The court concluded that
Congress hed intended, at a •»*"••""•
to forbid any dispersion
practice that was significantly
motivated by en intent to obtain
additional credit for greater dispersion.
and remanded the question to EPA for
revxamination.
  The EPA proposed to revise it*
definition of "dispersion  techniques"
generally to incrade, ia addrtioo to ECS.
SCS. and stack heights in excess of CEP.
any tedmiqv** mat have th* effect of
          exhaoat gas ptasae ris*.
Combining eevenl existing stacks teto
on* new stack can have each en effect.
However, such coBtbiaattoa* eJeo often
hav* ouwpsnrienteconomte tod
engineering hatrfrcetkm. Aocordtegfr.
EPA r*oj***%*d co*JBieat on d*finiBg the

combining of g*s streeme should not be
conewMfed a dispersion tecfanioD*. end
propo**d to allow SOUR** to take cieult
where-e facility was originally <
ana conetrocted with merged gas
sti**9BS or where th* merging OGCVB*
with the installation of additional
controls yieiding e net teUuctlou ta total
eniecions of the effected poihrtwrt The
EPA retained excretion* from its
definition of prohibited dispersion
technique* for smoke management in
agriculture} end sitvicultnru prescribed
burning programs and also proposed to
exclude episodic restrictions on
retidentiel woodbuming and debris
burning.
New Sourctt Titd into Pn-1971 Stodu
   Section 123 exempts stacks "tn
existence" at the end of 1970 from Its
requirements, EPA's general approach to
implementing this languege was upheld
by the court However, in its 1962 rule
EPA had also allowed tnis credit to
sources built after that date that had
tied into stacks built before that date.
EPA failed to respond to comments
objecting to this allowance, and so the
court remanded the question to EPA for
the agency to eddrese.
  Upon ^examination. EPA saw DO
convincing justification for granting
credit to these  sources. Consequently,
for sources constructed after December
31.1070. with emissions ducted into
graodfathend stacks of greater than
CEP height and for sources constructed
before that date but for which major
modifications or reconstruction have
been carried out subsequently. EPA
proposed to limit stack height credit to
only so much of the actual stack height
es conforms to CEP. Sources
constructed prior to December 31.1970.
for which modifications are carried out
that are not classified as "major" under
40 CFR S1.18(])(i). 51-24W(2)(i). and
S1.21(eM2Ht) would be allowed to retain
full credit for their existing stack
heights.

Plume Impoction

  In its 1982 rale*. EPA allowed stack
height credit for "plume impaetion." a
phenomenon that is distinct from
downwash. wakes and eddies. The
court though sympathetic to EPA's
policy position, reversed this judgment
aa beyond the scope of the statute.
Accordingly. EPA proposed to delete the
allowance of plume impection credit
from, its regulation in compliance with
the court decision However. EPA also
recognaced that socrces. in cnmpte*
terram fee* additional analytical
difficult!** when aitemptsag to conduct
modeling to determine epannriat*
emieekB limitations. Cones eqentiy, EPA
requests*! comment on whether any
allowance shoold be mad* for
tmptementatio* problem* that may
result from the application of revised
CEP stack height assumptions end, if so.
how such allowance should be made.

Staff Impiemetation Plan Requirements

   EPA's 1982 rates gew states s total of
22 months to revise  their rules and to
establish source emission limitations
based on new stack height credits. The
court found this. too. to go beyond the
language of the statute. In response.
EPA stated in the proposal that States
would be required, pursuent to section
406(d)(2)(b) of the Clean Air Act.  to
review their rd*s and existing emission
limitations, revising them as needed to
comply with the n*w regnleboe within 9
months of the  date of its prwnuif auoa.

-------
27896       Federal Register / Vol. 50.  No. 130 / Monday. July 8.  1985 / Rules  and  Regulations
Response to Public Comments on the
November 9.1984. Proposal
  The EPA received over 400 comment*
during the public comment period and at
the public hearing, addressing a number
of aspects of the proposed
regulation.These comments have been
consolidated according to the issues
raised and are discussed, along with
EPA's responses, in a "Response to
Comments" document included in the
rulemaking docket. Certain comments
can be characterized as "major" in that
they address issues that an
fundamental to the development of the
final regulation. These comments are
summarized below, along with EPA's
responses. Additional discussion of the
issues raised and further responses by
EPA can be found in the "Response to
Comments" document

I. Maximum Control of Emissions in Lieu
of Dispersion
  A central legal and policy  question
addressed in this rulemaking was raised
in the comments of the Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and
the Sierra Club. They contend that
section 123 requires all sources to install
the maximum feasible control
technology before receiving any credit
for the dispersive effects of a stack of
any height or for other practices that
may enhance pollutant dispersion.
  The NRDC argument is summarized
fully in the Response to Comments
document together with EPA's response.
Very briefly. NRDC contends that
litigation prior to the 1977 Clean Air Act
Amendments had established that
dispersion can never be used as an
alternative to emission control and that
this understanding waa carried forward
and strengthened in the 1977 Qean Air
Act Amendments. Accordingly, no rule
that does not require full control of
emissions a* a prerequisite to any stack
height credit would be consistent with
Congressional intent
  EPA disagrees. During the 8 yean
between 1977 and NRDC a comments, a
period covering two Administrations
and three Administrators, NRDCs
position has never been either adopted
by EPA  or seriously advocated before it
The pre-1977 cases cited by NRDC-do
not bar all stack credit but only credit
for stacks beyond the historical norm.
Finally,  the text and legislative history
of section 123 contain essentially no
support  for NRDCs "control first"
position.
II. Discussion of Other Major Issues
   The EPA's* position on the "control
first" comments provides the necessary
background against which the remaining
major issues in this rulemaking are
discussed. These issues are: the
definition of "excessive concentrations"
due to downwash. wakes, and eddies:
the definition of "nearby;" and the
definition of "dispersion technique." A
question that affects several of these
decisions, and that is addressed where
it arises, concerns the extent to which
any changes made in the stack heights
regulations should be applied
prospectively rather than retroactively.
  This discussion of "excessive
concentrations" is in turn divided into a
discussion of the physical characteristics
of downwash. followed by a discussion
of the significance of those
characteristics as they pertain to the
GEP formulae, to stacks above formula
height to stacks being raised to formula
height and to stacks at formula height
being modeled at the choice of the
administering authorities.

Definition of "Exceative
Concentrations"
  The Physical Nature of Downwash. A
number of commenten. including the
Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG),
have argued that the court decision does
not obligate EPA to revise the definition
sdopted in the 1982 regulation, but only
directs EPA to ensure  that the 40-
percent criterion protects against
concentrations due to downwash that
could be related to health aad welfare
concerns. They point oat that whan
emissions from a soure* become trapped
in die wake region produced by the
source itself or upwind structures and
terrain features, those
brought rapidly to earth. with little
dilution. This, the commentars argue.
can produce short-term peak
concentrations at groundlavel that an
many times greater that the
concentration levels of the NAAQS.
Because their duration is relatively
short avenging these concentrations
over the times specified by the NAAQS
does not result in NAAQS violations.
Nonetiielesa. th»commenters argue that
these concentrations should be regarded
as nuisances that section 123 was
specifically enacted to avoid.
Accordingly, the commenten held that
EPA would be justified in retaining the
40-percent criterion without requiring
that such increases result in
exceedance* of the NAAQS
  These same commenten argued that
seven hardships would result if EPA's
second proposed definition of
"excessive concentrations" is adopted,
and that by limiting suck height credit
to that just necessary to avoid
exceedance of NAAQS or PSD
increments, the definition would act to
limit actual stack design and
construction in a way that would
increase the likelihood of NAAQS or
PSD exceedancea. This would occur.
they argue, because, by building only so
tall a stack as they can receive credit
for. sources would be eliminating a
"margin of safety" that would normally
be provided otherwise. Furthermore, it
was argued that due to the changing
nature of background air quality.
inclusion of absolute concentrations
such as the NAAQS or PSD increments
in the definition would nnder
determinations of GEP stack height
constantly subject to change.
  NRDC argued on the other hand that
only a violation of air quality standards
can be considered the type of
"excessive concentration" for which
downwash credit can be justified, the
EPA had failed to specify the health or
welfan significance of the short-term
peak* that it might consider as meeting
this description, and mat in any event
UARG's attempt to show that short
stacks could cause a large number of
short-term peaks was technically flawed
in several different ways.
  Response. Extensive discussion of the
downwash phenomenon, as well as the
aerodynamic effects of buildings and
terrain features on windflow patterns
and turbulence, is contained in the
technical and guidance documents
previously listed in this notice. To
mnmmmritm briefly, numerous studies
have shown that die region of
turbulence created by obstacles to
windflow extends to a height of
approximately 2J times the height of the
obstacle. Pollutants emitted into this
region can bo rapidly brought to the
ground,  with limited dilution. Though
this tendency decreases the higher
vertically within the downwash region
that the plume is released, because of
the highly  unpredictable nature of
downwash and the lack of extensive
quantitative data, it is extremely
difficult to reliably predict plume
behavior within the downwash  region.
As noted in the comments submitted.
the distinguishing features of downwash
do not show up well over an averaging
time aa long aa 1 hour or mon. Pollutant
concentrations resulting from
downwash can arise and subside very
quickly  aa meteorological conditions.
including wind speed and atmospheric
stability vary. This can result in short-
term peaks, lasting up to 2 minutes or so.
recurring intermittently for up to several
hours, that significantly exceed the
concentrations of the »• and 24-hour
NAAQS. Little quantitative information
is available on the actual levels of  these
peaks, or on the frequency of their
occurrence since most stacks have been

-------
                                                                •

              Federal Register  /  Vol. 50.  No. 130  /  Monday.  July 8. 1965  /  Rules and Regulations
designed to. a void downwash and
because downwash monitoring i* not
typically conducted
  A number of modeling and monitoring
studies in the record assess the
significance of down wash when plumes
are released into the downwash region.
The most important of these are a
number of studies cited in the November
9 proposal showing that for sources with
sulfur dioxide  (SO>) emission rates of 4
to 5 -ounds per million British Thermal
Units (Ib./mmSTU). stacks releasing the
plume  into the downwash region can
significantly exceed the 3-hour NAAQS.
  The  utility industry submitted
monitoring results from four sites
showing that facilities with  short stacks
(ranging from 23 to 80 percent of formula
height) generated many short-term
peaks in the vicinity of the plant at
concentration* at leaat 2 time* the
highest concentration of the 3-hour SOi
standard, i.e.. 1 ppm for up to 10
minutes. Those concentrations are the
maximun that could be recorded by the
monitors used. There is no way to
determine from these data the true peak
ground-level concentrations.
  The NRDC in commenting on this
subject has argued that downwash- •  •
related concentrations are largely
theoretical since stacks have generally
been built to avoid downwash. and  that
actual  concentrations occur under other
meteorological conditions such as
"inversion breakup fumigations" and
"looping plums," that can equal these
"theoretical" concentrations predicted
under downwash.' The NRDC also
criticized the utility data on numerooe
technical grounds.
  EPA's studies indicate that  when
stacks  an significantly less than CEP
formula height high short-term
concentrations can indeed occur doe to
downwash that are in  the range of the
values reported by the utility industry.
Concentrations produced by me other
conditions cited by NRDC. though high.
may be lower by an order of magnitude.
and occur less frequently by as much as
two orders of magnitude,  than those
produced by downwash.' As stack  *
  ' In inveraion breakup fuoiieauon." M i
layer diuipaut out to haauna of the ground. lamas
trie poiluunu that were tripped m it descend
suddenly to ground level. In 'looping plume*" •
pfume i« brought down to the ground dote to the,
source in the form ol intermittent paffa under vejry
unstable atmoapnene condiDOM.
  1"Comment* on Peak Ground-Level
Concaniranont Due to Building Downwath Relative
'o Pcik Conontntioni Under Aunoaphenc
Onoenton ProceiMi." Alan H. Huber and rVancu
Pooler |r. lune 10.19U.
height approaches the height determined
by the CEP formula, the expected
frequency and seventy of snort-term
peaks due to downwash becomes less
certain. This is to be expected, since it is
the purpose of a formula height stack to
avoid excessive downwash. While it
might theoretically be possible lor EPA
to revise the CEP formula-downward
(e.g.. from H+1.5L to H+1.2L or some
other value), such a revision would have
little purpose. By moving the release
point further into the downwash region.
such a change would increase the
probability of high downwash-caused
peaks. On the other hand such
relatively small changes in suck height
are not likely to appreciably affect the
emission limitation for the sooree. This
is because emission limitations are
calculated based on physical stack
height and associated plume rise under
atmospheric conditions judged most
controling for the source. Increasing or
decreasing stack height by a small
fraction will not greatly change the rate
or extent of dispersion and thus will not
affect the ground-level concentration.
Moreover, as EPA noted in its
November 9 proposal no data presently
exist on which to base e revision to the
formula.
  The NRDC submitted data to EPA
which it believed to support the
conclusions that it urged EPA to adopt
concerning short-term peak
concentrations under other
meterological conditions.' However.
these data were not presented in a fora
that could be readtty interpreted and
EPA has thus far been unable to draw
any conclusions from then.*
  In reviewing NROCs comments on
building downwash. EPA agrees that
there is great uncertainty ebout oer
present understanding of this
phenomenon, and mis is sopportesl oy
the range and variation of downwash
effects observed in recent studies.
However, no information has been
presented which would convince EPA to
abandon the present CEP formulae m
favor of any alternative.
  The health and welfare significance of
downwash concentrations that result la
violation* of the ambient standards are
documented and acknowledged In the
standards themselves. The significance
of short-term peaks at the levels that
EPA's analyses predict is more
judgmental However, a number of
studies cited in EPA's "Review of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
  •Memorandum from David C. Hawkma, NRDC to
William F. Pederaen. ]r Office of General CaunaeL
USEPA. May a. 19M.
  4 Memorandum from Alan H. Hueer. ASM. lo
David Stonefield. OAQPS. |una n. :SSS.
for Sulfur Oxides: Assessment of
Scientific and Technical Informati^-
(EPA-4SO/S-62-007. November IS
indicate that concentrations of oru  ,:
sustained for durations of 5 minutes or
more can produce bronchoconstrictior
in asthmatics accompanied by
symptoms such as wheezing and
coughing. Such concentrations are we!
within the range of concentrations tha:
can result from downwash. When
sources meet the ambient standards, thi
frequency of occurrence for these
concentrations under the other
conditions cited by NRDC Is
substantially lower than for downwash
when stacks are less than CEP.
  CEP Formula Stack H fight Some-
coounenters. inclwii^g NRDC stated
that EPA cannot justify retention of the
traditional (ZSH) and refined (H+l.Si.)
CEP formulae based simply on their
reletionsaip-to the 40-percent criterion.
and argued that the formulae provide
too much credit in many or most  case*.
This, they argue, results in allowing
sources to obtain unjustifiably lenient
emission limitations-
  Other cosamenters argued that
rnngrees explicitly reaffirmed the
traditional CEP formula, and that EPA
should allow maximum reliance on it
(aad by implication, on the refined
foranla that wee subsequently der
from It).
  ftttporu* The use of EPA's refined
formula as a starting point for
determining GO wms not called Into
question by any litigant m the Sierra
Club case. The court's opinion likewise
does not question the use of the formula
as a starting point A detailed discussioc
of the court's treatment of the formula.
showing how it endorsed the formula's
presumptive validity, i* contained in the
Response to Comments document
  Despite rfriai iitiiu*^ endorsement EPA
might need to revisit the formula on its
own if its n*v*"' of the
"excessive concentratien" and modeling
issues indicated that the formula deariy
and typically misstated the degree of
stack height needed to avoid downwash
concentrations that cause sMith or
welfare concerns.
  However, no such result has emerged
from our reexaminatioa Stacks below
formula height are associated with
downwash-relatad violations of  the air
quality standards themselves where
emission rates significantly exceed the
levels specified by NSPS. Even when
emissions are low. downwash
conditions at stacks below formula
height can be expected unlike other
conditions, to generate numerous *h
term peaks of air pollution at high le

-------
27898        Federal Register  /  Vol.  50. No. 130 / Monday. July B. 1985  /  Rulea and Regulations
that raise a real prospect of local health
or welfare impacts.
  As EPA stated in the proposal, it is
impossible to rely primarily on fluid
modeling to implement the stack height
regulations, particularly under the
timetable established by the court. 49 FR
44883 (November 9.1964). No
conunenter other than NRDC even
suggested a different formula that in
their eyes would be better, and NRDCs
suggestions were premised on their
"control first" position, which EPA has
found inconsistent with the statute and
has rejected. EPA considers the  refined
formula to be die state-of-the-art for
determining necessary stack height
  Given the degree of presumptive
validity the formula already possesses
under the statute and the court opinion.
we believe that this record amply
support* it* raafflrmation.
  Stadct Abon CEP Formula Height.
The EPA's 1978 stack height guidelines
[cite] imposed special  conditions on
•tacks above formula height—the
installation of control  technology—that
were net imposed on lower stacks.
Similarly.  EPA's 1973 proposal had
made credit above formula fctight
subject to a vaguely defined "detailed
investigation" (38 FR 25700). The
legislative history of the 1977 dean Air
Act Amendments cautioned that credit
for sucks above formula height  should
be granted only in rare cases, and the
Court of Appeals adopted this as oaa of
the keystones of its opinion. The court
also conckided that Congress
deliberately adopted very strict
requirements for sources locating in
hilly terrain.
   For these reasons, EPA Is requiring
sources seeking credit lor stacks above
formula height and credit for any stack
height justified by terrain effects to
show by field studies or fluid modeling
that this height is needed to avoid a 40»
percent increase in concentrations due
to downwash and that such an increase
would result in exceedance of air
quality standards or applicable PSD
increments. This will restrict stack
height credit in this context to cases
where the downwash  avoided is at
levels specified by regulation or by act
of Congress as possessing health or
welfare significance.
   To conduct a demonstration to show
that an absolute air quality
concentration such as NAAQS or PSD
increment will be exceeded, it is
necessary to specify an emission rate for
the source in question.*The EPA
believes that in cases where greater
than formula height may be needed to
prevent excessive concentrations.
sources should first attempt to eliminate
such concentrations by reducing their
emissions. For this reason EPA is
requiring that the emission rate to be
met by a source seeking to conduct a
demonstration to justify stack height
credit above the formula be equivalent
to the emission rate prescribed by NSPS
applicable to the industrial source
category. In doing this. EPA is making
the presumption that this limit can  be
met by all sources seeking to justify
stack heights above formula height
Sources may rebut this presumption.
establishing an alternative emission
limitation, on a case-by-case basis, by
demonstrating to the reviewing
authority that the NSPS emission
limitation may not feasibly be net, given
the characteristics of the particular
source.1 For example, it may be possible
for a sourca presently emitting SOi at a
rate of 1J Ib./mmBTU to show that
meeting the NSPS rate of 14 lb./mmBTU
would be prohibitive in that it would
require scrapping existing scrubber
equipment for the purpose of induing
higher efficiency scrubbers. Similarly, a
source may be able to show that due to
space constraints  and plant
configuration, it is not possible to install
the necessary equipment to meet die
NSPS emission rate. In the event that a
source believes that downwtsb will
continue to result in excessive
concentrations when the source-
emission rate is cqptit**irt with NSPS
requirements, additional stack height
credit may be justified through fluid
modeling at that emission rat*.
  A source, of course, always remains
free to accept the emission rat* that i*
associated with a formula height stack
rather than reiving on a demonstration
under the condition* described bat*.
The third alternative mentioned in the
proposal  -using the actual emission
limit for the source—ha* been rejected
because,  to the extent that limit railed
on greater than formula height it would
amount to using a tall stack to justify
itself.
  The EPA's reliance on excaedanca*.
rather than violation* of die NAAQS
and PSD increments, i* deliberate. Fluid
modeling demonstrations an extremely
complicated to design and carry out
even whan the most simple
demonstration criteria—that i*. a
percentage increase in concentration*.
  • la ooavwc tf *• tmt of "newt**
 concranaoM" la»uN«d • «u»pi« pcmou**
       tfa«r* would b* •> a**d la *t*aty IB
       rrt*. nut* UM laerwM in coocmnnoa
 c*n«d by downwiA to tn4«0a4*M tt iKiinni
 ratn.
  •Th* EPA wtil raly on It* Bxt Av«i«Mi lUvaflt
 TKhnolo0 CwdctSM IB wrwwiaa «« nfcumto
 and illMTUOv* WUMIOO Umiuooo*.
with no consideration of absolute
values—are assumed. Adding
consideration of an absolute
concentration such as a NAAQS or PSD
increment substantially complicates this
effort further and introduces the
scientific uncertainties associated with
predicting an exceedance of a 3-hour or
24-hour standard based on l hour or less
of modeling data. Using an hour or less
of modeling values, based on one set of
meteorological data, to draw the
distinction between only one
exceedance of the standard during the
8760 hours in a year, and the two or
more that constitute s violation pushes
that uncertainty beyond reasonable
limit*. EPA therefore does not find  the
additional difficulties that would be
created by requiring violations instead
of exceedances to be  warranted. That is
particularly so here, given that the
regulation* require sources seeking
credit above the formula to be well-
controlled a* a condition of obtaining
such credit
  Use of an absolute concentration in
the test of "excessive concentrations"
can lead to problem*  of administering
the program, in that it can have a
"zoning" effect Since a source can only
get stack height credit to the extent that
it I* needed to avoid a PSD increment or
NAAQS exceedance. an emissions
increase in the ana of that source may
increase concentration* beyond the
controlling limit thereby making it
difficult for new source* to locate in the
area, or for sequential construction of
additional emitting unit* at the source in
question.
  This effect cannot be avoided under
any teat for "excessive concentrations"
that ia tied to absolute concentrations.
However, diat effect will be mitigated
by the fact that the use of this approach
i* voluntary and limited to sources
wishing to rely on fluid modeling to
justify stack height credit Moreover, the
effect* of downwash tend to occur vary
mar the source, usually on fenced  ,
company property. Since concentrations
measured at such location* are not used
to evaluate NAAQS attainment or PSD
increment consumption, new sources
wishing to locate in the are* are less
likely to be affected.
  Sourca* planning sequential
construction ef new emitting units at
one location or contemplating future
expansion can reduce the uncertainties
noted above by initially obtaining
permit* for the total number of units
anticipated end by planning for
expansion in the calculation of
necessary physical stack height In the
latter instance, only the allowable stack
height credit would be revised as

-------
              Federal Register  /  Vol. 50. No.  130 / Monday.  July  & 1985 / Rules  and Regulations
                                                                      27899
expansion is carried out—not actual
stack height.
  An additional theoretical
complication is presented when an
absolute concentration is u->ed where
meteorological conditions other than
downwash result in the highest
predicted ground-level concentrations in
the ambient air. In such cases, a source
that has established GEP at a particular
height, assuming a given emission rate.
may predict a NAAQS violation at that
stack height and emission rate under
some other condition, e.g.. atmospheric
stability Class 'A.' Reducing the
emission rate to eliminate the predicted
violation would result in stack height
credit greater than absolutely necessary
to avoid an excessive concentration
under downwash. However, reducing
stack height places the source back in
jeopardy of a NAAQS violation under
the other meteorological condition, and
so on. "ratcheting" stack height credit
and emission rates lower and lower. The
EPA has eliminated this "ratcheting"
potential in the GEP guideline by
providing that, once CEP is established
for a source, adjusting the emission rate
to avoid a violation under other
conditions does not require
recalculation of a new GEP stack height
  EPA is making this part of the
regulations retroactive to December 31.
1970. In the terms of the court's
retroaenvity analysis, stacks greater
than formula height represent a situation
that Congress did affirmatively "intend
to alter" in section 123. Moreover. EPA
regulatory pronouncements since 1970
have placed a stricter burden on sources
raising stacks above formula height than
on others.
  N.o source is precluded from building
a stack height greater than formula
height if such height is believed to be
needed to  avoid excessive downwash.
However,  the design and purpose of
section 123 prohibit SIP credit for that
effort unless a relatively rigorous
showing can be made.
  Given the ability of sources to avoid
modeling and rely on validity of the GEP
formulae and requirement for further
control of  emissions in conjunction with
stack heights in excess of formulae
height, the result predicted by UARG—
exceedances of the NAAQS or PSD
increments due to inadequate stack
height—is highly unlikely.
  The potential effect of changes in
background air quality on stack height
credit is not substantially different from
the effect that such changes in
background can have on source
emission limitations in nonattainment
areas.  In the fint case, however, sources
may be able to address these effects
through greater stack height if such
changes affect the concentrations under
downwash. Moreover, the possibility
that shifting background air quality can
yield different calculations of GEP is
significantly limited by the fact that
consideration of background in GEP
calculations is restricted to those cases
where credit for greater than formula
height ia being sought or source* are
seeking to raise stacks to avoid
excessive concentrations.
  Raising StacJa Mow Formula Height
to Formula Height In response to EPA's
proposal to allow automatic credit for
GEP formula height several conunenters
have argued that EPA has failed  to
adequately respond to the court's
directive to "reconsider whether, is light
of its new understanding of 'excessive
concentrations,' demonstrations are
necessary before stack heights may be
raised even if the final height  will not
exceed formula height"
  Rtspomt. Raising a stack below
formula height to formula height  ia not
in EPA's judgment subject to the same
statutory reservations as building stacks
greater than formula height However.
as the court ha* cautioned, it nay still
be necessary for these source* to show
that raising stacks is necessary to avoid
"excessive concentration*" that raise
health or. welfare concern*.
  For these reason*, sources wishing to
raise stacks subsequent to October 11.
1983. the date of the D.C Circuit
opinion, must provide evidence that
additional height I* necessary to avoid
downwaah-reUted concentration*
raising health and welfare concern*.
These rule* allow sources to do mis in
two way*.
  The first way i* to rebut the
presumption that the short stack waa
built high enough to avoid dewnwash
problem*: Us, to show, by rite-specific
information such aa monitoring data or
citizen complaint*, that the short stack
had in fact caused a local nuisance ana
must be raised for this reason. The EPA
believe* that both the historical
experience of the industry and the data
on short-term peak* discussed earlier
show that short stacks can .cause local
nuisances due to downwash. However.
where a source has built a short stack
rather than one at formula height It ha*
created a presumption that this is not
the case. General data on short-term
peak* may not be strong enough to
support by themselves and in the
abstract a  conclusion that the stack
must be raised to-a void local advene
effect*. Instead, that proposition must be
demonstrated for each particular source
involved.            ,
  In the event that a source cannot
make such a showing, the second way to
justify raising a stack is  to demonstrate
by fluid modeling or field study an
increase in concentrations due to
downwash that i* at least 40-percent in
excess of concentration* in the absence
of such downwash and in excess of the
applicable NAAQS or PSD increments.
In making this demonstration, the
emission rate in existence before the
stack i* raised mtut be used.
  Since raising stack* to formula height
i* not subject to the same extraordinary
reservation* expressed by Congress and
the court with respect to stacks being
raised above formula height EPA doe*
not believe that the us* of presumptive
"well-controlled" emission rate is
appropriate here. A* discussed in EPA's
response to NRDCs "control first"
argument the basic purpose of section
123 we* to take sources a* it found them
and. baaed on those circumstances, to
assure  that they did not avoid control
requirements through additional
dispersion. Use of • source's actual
emission rate in this instance is
conaUteot with that Baric purpose and.
absent special indications of a different
intent  should be used in stack height
calculation*.
  The EPA believe* that it ia most
unlikely that any source with • current
emi*aiOB limitation frff failed to  claim
full formula credit for a stack of formula
height Accordingly, the question
whether a source can receive stack
height credit up to formula height will
involve only sources that want to
actually raise their physical stack, not
sources that simply want to claim more
credit for a stack already in existence. A
source will presumably not go to the
trouble of raising an existing stack
without some reason. If a source cannot
show that the reason was in fact the
desire to avoid a problem caused by
downwash. then the inference that it
we* Instead a desire for more dispersion
credit i* herd to avoid. A nuiaence
caused by downwashed emission* could
include citizen or employee complaints
or property damage. A source would be
expected to  show that complaint* of this
nature were reasonably widespread
before getting credit under this section.
  The EPA doe* not intend to make this
rule retroactive to stack* that
"commenced construction" on
modification* that would nice them to
formula height prior to October It 1963.
Applying the court's recroactivity
analysis, it appears:
  1. The new rule does depart from prior
practice. The BPA's 1973 proposed rule
affirmatively encouraged sources with
shorter stack* to raise them W formula

-------
27900        Federal Regiatar  /  Vol.  50.  No. 130 / Monday. July 8. 1985 / Rules and Regulations
height.1 Though EPA'i 1978 guideline
can be read a* imposing a "control Graf
requirement on some stack height
increases, its general thrust gave
automatic credit for all stacks that met
the "2.5" times formula.1 Automatic
permission was similarly set forth in the
1979 proposal, in the 1981 reproposal.
and in the 1962 final rule. Only a notice
published in 1980. but later withdrawn.
departs from this trend, requiring the use
of field studies or fluid modeling
demonstrations to justify stack height
increases up to CEP formula height*
Even than, the nonce wouid have made
this policy prospective in its application,
  2. Source* that raised stack* in
reliance on this past EPA guidance
assuming the availability of dispersion
credit cannot be distinguished from the
source*, in the example approved by the
court, that built stack* to the traditional
formula in an identical expectation of
dispersion credit
  3. It cannot be said that the raiting of
stacks to formula height is a practice
that Congress "affirmatively sought to
end." It is not mentioned in the text of
the statute or it* legislative history.
Further, as the court has already noted.
the statute attributes a degree of
presumptive validity to the formula on
which soereee that raise their stick*
will have relied.
  Detention to Rttpun FhM Modeling.
Several oommentas argued that EPA's
proposal to allow agenda* to require the
use of fluid modeiinsj we* uanecesseryt
sine* EPA *»"* already docnxnented *!*•
valient? of the GEP formula*:
Purtbenaare, these coBBnentere ergo*
that this allowance would make fluid
modeling the rale, rather than the
exception. This would feeaty the)
commenters state, because it wa* their
expectation that agenda* or
environmental group* would nearly
always fm^ for fluid T^^mine
demonstrations during the permit
application and review proce**.
   Other commenters stated that
providing the discretion to require fluid
modeling was appropriate, since EPA
had failed to demonstrate that the GEP
formulae represented the mfaifrmna
height necessary to avoid excessive
concenfrations.                  -
  Retpoiu*. The Court of Appeals
directed EPA to reexamine whether it*
rules should allow State*, as a matter of
discretion, to require even source* thet
  1 'Tr» DM rf «Wdt h**f*W «p » *• <•*•! of foot
 en>in««nm pncrtc* it tacour»f*d by IPA to wd«r
 10 avoid local BtuaaocM." (3S F» 11700).
  • 41 m 74S1 (Ftbntuy IS. l*7*k "niriilln
 Section M. C-Jftt Can
  • U n «S7» ftw M. USD* WKiflc dbOMtoB <>4
planned to rely on the formula to show
instead by fluid modeling that a stack
this high was required to avoid dangers
to health and welfare caused by
downwash. The court suggested that
EPA should include such a provision
unless it could find that the formula was
so accurate, or tended so much to err on
the low side, as to make discretionary
authority to adjust formula height
downward unnecessary.
  The EPA believes that the court was
mistaken in its conclusion that a stack
at formula height is likely to generate
downwash concentrations as great as 40
percent only in uncommon situations. In
fact EPA's observations indicate that
when stack* are built to GEP formula
height as incre*** in concentration*
due to downwash can still be expected
to occur that i* between 20 and 80
percent greater than the concentration
that would occur in the absence of
building influence*. '•
  Nevertheless, in response to the
court's *•««•«">, EPA is including in *Mt
final ml* a provision for the authority
administering these rule* to require field
studies or fluid modeling
demonstrations, even for stack* built to
formula height in caae* whew it
believe* that the  formula may
significantly overstate the appropriate
stack height credit"
  While EPA believe* th* formula to a
reasonable rait of thumb indteatinf the-
stack height needed to avead so**e
probability of a sunduda violation and
a significantly greater probability of •
local nuisance, actul meutts m any
          may
on specific ff^giMTyt|
                        TheBPAaa*
attempted to •*»«•«*«• this possibility
withmta*amttsof*vsBiabs*d*taby
identifying two particular attaafloa* in
which it believe* that the female* awy
not be rababie mdtaaten of GB* Poroe*
structarM and hutlrtlne* who** shape*

staple btock^haped i
which th* formeiee at* I
                               Ihfcto
                    idea of Good
|L._t4^_ •aiM^aiBk^BMi a*k
nulflaW tgHaawTMBHl •


SUMS km* Mtkem* M
ofMcttotnSardM
  "EarUwBPA
                                        for enula u»«rad itmeMNi tad eoaUai
 However. EPA acknowledges thet other
 situations, of which the Agency is not
 presently aware, may arise wherein the
 formulae may not be adequate.
  The EPA intend* to "grandfather" any
 soure* thet relied on the formula in
 building it* stack before the dete of
 EPA's 1079 proposal from th* effect of
 this discretionary reexamination
 requirement
  Only in that proposal did EPA first
 suggest that such a discretionary
 reexamination provision might be
 included in the final rule. The
 retroactivity analysis set out earlier
 therefore supports exempting stacks
 built in reliance on EPA guidance before
 that date, from discretionary
 reexamination. Indeed, a failua to
 "grandfather" these sources would lead
 to the paradoxical result that a source
 that had built a GEP stack under the
 traditional EPA formula would have its
 direct reliance intacests protected by the
 "grandfather" provision previously
 upheld by th* court but could then lose
 that "gnadfatbered" credit through a
 rs** specific demonstration requirement
 showing that th* traditional form*!* was
 somewhat inaccurate— the very teason
 behind the chant* in the formula
 property toesttt noo^revoacuv* Dy B* A
 AAMU^M
 earner,
. Given this background EPA believes
 that th* effect on emissions of Including
 of of excfadfflsj * provwioB vor
 diicrettooary deteRninetions bum this
 rale i* likely to be very smell Building
 stack* above formula height and raising
 stack* betow formula height to formula
 height ar* covered by regulatory
 provisions already discussed. Th* only
 case left for discretionary
 d*t*rmm*tions to sddress to the building
 of stack* at formula height in the post-
 1870 period. However, all major sources
 built since that time an already
 controlcd to SO* emission rates no
 greater than U rb./mmBTU— and. not
 iiK/^mimoniy much I***-— under various
 EPA regulations. AD new power plants
 on which fflnit^ntff^iffn "commenced"
 sine* 1071 must meet EPA's NSPS
                      rat* HO gTMter
 rt«Ma IPA Mil fraUmd
 ttnietum that w«n maud prtor M Novaebw Si
 1SS4. Sine* EPA guidonc* hat an«r ilhioiit o«dtt
 for poreu* menm. dM rMtttettoB la tki* rate te
 tuck wracMrw •ook« M dl i
 than thfe level That standard was
 tightened for all power plants on which
 rnrtftrtf^fat "CO*9BMBC*d" *ft*f 1079* Itt*
 addition, all "mater" source* buih sine*
 1077 in ana* subject to the Act's PSD
 requirements have had to install be*t
 avaUabi* coatrol tachaoioty. That
 technology must reaaira th* greatest
 degree of smierion coatrol that i*
 achievable coandeoni technology.
                   pr impacts.14
                                                   n. isra
                                                                                 it Qa>*a*l As*T AM flMl**s*l Ma)

-------
              Federal Register  /  Vol. 50. No. 130 / Monday.  July  8. 1985  / Rules and Regulations       27901
  If such sources had to show that use
of a formula height stack was needed to
avoid axceedances of the NAAQS or
PSD increments, that might prove
difficult for many of them. The
likelihood of such exceedances tends to
decrease as the emission rate for the
source decreases.  By the same token.
the incremental emission reductions
available from the sources that are at
issue here tend to  be small and among
the most expensive available, in terms
of emission reductions, little is at stake
where these sources are concerned.
  Accordingly, the rules will require
such sources, if a reviewing authority
calls for a demonstration, to the rules
show that the uae  of a formula stack
height is needed to avoid a 40-percent
increase in concentration* due to
downwash. This will provide a rough
check on whether the formula, aa
applied in the particular case at issue,
produces the result it was designed to
produce.
  The EPA is not providing here for
sources to justify their formula height
stacks by arguing that  the height in
excess of that needed to avoid NAAQS
violations is needed to avoid a local
nuisance. The discretionary modeling
requirement is designed for application
to stacks before they were built. Beyond
that, there ia no way to determine based
on \h* absence of a local nuisance that a
formula height stack is not too tall in
the way that the pretence of a nuisance
shows that a stack under formula height
in fact is too short Accordingly, there
will be no way. a* there was with short
stacks being raised, to determine from
actual experience  whether a local
nuisance would occur at a shorter stack
height Though avoiding local nuisance
is a legitimate purpose for which stacks
are built it would  be very difficult to
show by modeling what stack height
was needed to avoid it,
  Some commenters have
misunderstood EPA's allowance of
discretion to require fluid modeling a*
requiring such modeling whenever any
individual or entity called for such a
demonstration. This discretion nets
explicitly with the reviewing aftncies
who have always  had  the prerogative to
require more stringent analyses in the-
SIP process.-and no obligation is implied
for these agencies to require fluid
modeling simply because it has been
called for by some individual during the
permit review process. It is EPA's
expectation that technical decisions  to
require such additional demonstrations
would be based on sound rationale and
valid data to show why the formulae
may r.oi be adequate in a given
situation. In any case,  given the burden
of reviewing a fluid modeling
demonstration, an agency is not likely to
exercise this option absent sufficient
justification. Consequently, EPA
disagrees with thecommenters'
contention that fluid modeling will
supplant the use of the CEP formulae.
except in what EPA believes will be
unusual instances.
  Reliance on the 2.5H Formula. In
limiting the applicability of tha 2JH
formula to those cases whan tha
formula was actually relied upon, the
November 9 proposal defined auch
reliance in tarns of stack design. A
number of comments indicated that
actual stack design and conatruction
may ultimately be control not by the
Z.5H engineering rule, but by
construction materials specifications.
Consequently, while 2JH rale may have
provided an initial starting point in
stack design, the rule may not have
dictated final stack height In other
cases, it wtt argued that a number of
source o*  ers may have constructed
their stacks in excess of what was
determined to be ""»?'P"M" CEP for
precautionary reasons, for process
requirements, or in anticipation of
additional growth in tha area
surrounding the facility, even though
emission limitations for these sources
would have been limited than, aa now,
to formula height Consequently, it waa
argued that EPA should allow source* to
demonstrate reliance on the- formula in
the calculation of emiaaion limita a* wail
as in tha design of tha stack.
  In response to EPA's request for
comments on what evidmc* should be
considered acceptable in determining
reliance on tha ZJH formula, some
commenters urged EPA to consider
reconstructed evidence, e.f~ affidavits
from design engineers or copies of
corrmpondaaca indicating past reliance
on EPA guidance. Other eommantan
stand that "reliance" should be vary
strictly construed, that EPA  should be
circumspect in its review of reliance
demonstrations, and that only
contemporaneous documentary
evidence, such as blueprints and facility
design plans, be accepted as evidence.
  Responte. The EPA is in general
agreement with the view that reliance
should be considered in relation to the
emission limitation for the source, not
the design. Since section 123 specifically
prohibits EPA from regulating actual
stack heights and rather regulates stack
height credits used In setting emission
limitations, it would be illogical to
require that sources demonstrate
reliance on the 2.5H formula for actual
stack design. Moreover, such an
approach would contradict  principles of
sound planning, in that it would penalize
those sources that have built taller
stacks in anticipation of facility
expansion or other growth in the area
that could influence CEP
determinations.
  If a stack has been built taller than
2.SH formula provides, while the
emission limitation has been calculated
assuming 2.5H credit a convincing
demonstration has been made that the
source properly relied on the formula.
Conversely, if tha emiaaion limitation for
tha source ia basad on some other stack
height credit auch aa 24H. 3.SH or some
other number, it would be difficult to
show that tha CEP formula had in fact
been rwliad on.
  In some cas*s tha amitaion limit
information may  be unavailable or
inconduaive. In such case*. EPA will
allow reliance on reconstructed
evidence of conatruction intent
  In commenta submitted during the
public comment period and in response
to questions raised by EPA at the public
hearing bald on January ft. 198S, industry
representatives repeatedly stated that
contemporaneous evidence of reliance
on tha 2JH formula, auch aa facility
design plans, dated engineering
calculations, or decision records are
rarely, if ever, retained for more than a
few yean after conatruction of the
facility ia completed. Consequently, they
argued that moat cases of legitimate
reliance would be denied if
contemporaneous evidence wan
required in order to retain for the 2.5H
formula.
  Tha EPA agrees. Additionally, credit
afforded by tha ZJH formula in excess
of mat mulling from the uae of the
H+1.SL derivative ia likely to be small
except whan tha  building on which
stack height credit Is baaed ia
substantially taller than it ia wide.
Finally, it ia EPA'a view that the court
did not intend that sources be subject to
a rigorous or overly stringent of reliance.
but only that they be accorded a
reasonable opportunity to show reliance
on the 2.5H formula. For these reasons.
EPA will allow the submission of
reconstructed, i.e. noncontemporaneous
documentary evidence to demonstrate
reliance on the ZJH formula.
  Definition of "Nearby". Comments
wen submitted by UARG and others.
arguing that effectively, no limitation
should be placed on the consideration of
terrain-induced downwaah.
Alternatively,  some of these
commenters argued that the court
decision requires that a limitation be
adopted that does not apply any
distance restriction of H mile in
modeling terrain effecu suci as is

-------
27902       Fadarai Raster / Vol.  5ft No. 130 / Monday. )uly 8, 1968  / Rule*  and Regulations
ipplied to structure* in tin UM of CEP
formula*, but rather allowa
consideration of all terrain that' results
in the tame downwash effect as those
itructures within Vt mile of the stack.
  Other commenten have argued that
the court decision and legislative history
preclude EPA from allowing
consideration of any terrain beyond a
distance of V4 mile, regardless of where
it begins.
  Response, for the reasons
summarised below, EPA does not accept
either the interpretation that the court
decision authorize* EPA to adopt a
definition beeed solely on effect or that
it limits consideration exclusively to
terrain features falling entirely within H
mile.
  Whea Congress discaseed tb»
allowance of credit for stack height to
addnea downwash, it staled that th*
term "nearby was to b* -strictly
construed." noting that if the tern were
to be interpreted "to apply to maa-nade
structures or tsmai features to to Vfc
mil* away from die satires* or man. the
result could be an opea invitation to
raise stack heights to unreasonably high
elevations and to defeat the basic
  In its opinion, thccoort held that EPA
could not give onlimitad credit when
modeling terrain features because that
would conflict with the Pnnuassinnsl
jntfnflfm to tfflDoee artificial Units on
that credit Tb* coon we* not presented
with, and did not address, th* question
of what to do about terrain feature* that
"begem" within Vfc sail* and extended
outside it The approach adopted by
EPA carried out due congreaeioaal
purpose to impos* as artificial unit \n/m
at the same time reflects thai real facts
more closely than an absolute
limitation,
  Unlike mM"-fnt'^t structures,
features do not have readily definable
AimmnminTj^ Other *^^H height POT *****
reason. EPA has defined "nearby" aa
generally allowing inclusion of
consideration of terrain features that faD
within a distance of % mile of the stack,
EPA's definition win peorit
consideration of such terrain that
extends beyond the tt mile Omit if the
terrain begins within )t mil*, allowing
that portion  within 10 time* the  .
maximum height of the feature, not to
exceed 2 miles, as described In die
proposal.
  To define  when e terrain feature
"begms" within H mile. EPA has related
terrain height at the ft mile distance to
the maximum stack height that could be
justified under the other two methods
for determining CEP. Accordingly, EPA
will require that terrain features reach a
height at the V4 mile distance limit of
either 20 meters (La. 65 meters divided
by 15) or 40 percent of the stack height
determined by the CEP formulae applied
to nearby building*.
  Treatment of New vsnut Existing
Sources Under the Definition of
"Nearby". In the proposal EPA
requested comment on whether new
sources should be treated differently
from existing sources and presented two
options for addressing mem,
  Few comments were received on
these options. Several questioned the
logic of distinguishing between new end
existing sources to the regulations. One
commenter argued that new and existing
sources should both be subject to the
strict V% mil* limit proposed under one
option for aew eouices only. This has
already been discussed under EPA's
respona* to comments on the general
definition of "nearby and I* not
addressed further here.
  Retpoaee. New aources are initially
subject to more stringent control
requirements than many existing
sources. Consequently, it is leea likely
that the emission limitations and stack
height credits for the** sources will be
affected by terrain features.
Furthermore. EPA believes dut th*
effect of applying a more restrictive
diatafl*^ omitatioa will b* r^g"1**^"'
and will result only in minor change* •
siting, rather th*a «ff>ft«"tH reiocetioa
of eovcee* PCS? this reason. EPA he*
selected the second option, treating new
and exietmt source* Identically aadar
the definitto* of "nearby."
  EPA is giving this definition of
"nearby" retroactive application to
December n. l«ra Th* courts dectoioa
makes clear its conclusion that Coagteea
affirmatively focused on this iaau* and
decided thus making application aa of
th* **~***»» date proper.
  Defaition of Other Dispentoa
Technique*. Th* EPA received many
comments oa th* proper scope of th*
definition of "dispersion techniques."
and perhaps more otfthe appropriate
bounds of *h^ exclusions, Industry.
  '• HX RJVOA. No. 2M. Mia GJO*. lit!
turn-
commenten generally argued that EPA
had improperly proposed to deny
consideration for plume-enhancement
effects that are "coincidenur with
techniques and practices routinely
carried out for sound engineering and
economic reasons. They argued that
EPA should prohibit credit only when a
technique or practice wes decisively
motivated by a desire for dispersion
credit Such en approach would create a
"but for" test using the intent of the
source owner or operator as th* basis
for EPA's decisions.
  Other eommenters argued that EPA
must use a teat based purely on effects.
prohibiting credit where a technique or
practice has the effect of enhancing
dispersion, regardless of any other
  Response. In the final regulation. EPA
has rejected the polar positions
discussed above. The argument that
dispersion effects are forbidden
regardless of motive is discussed and
rejected as a part of the general
response to the argument the! only
"well-controlled" sources can receive
any dispersion credit
  Conversely, a pure "but for" test runs
the risk of creating exclusions that
effectively swallow the rule itself. The
EPA judge* that few, if any.
r4rfnmmtm*i/.mj gfg Hlraly (0 ftfiM U)
which some other benefit or justification
cannot be asserted aa the basis for a
practice, and therefore for such an
  Where prospective evaluation of
merged gaa streams, or combined
stacks, is concerned, there is no reason
to assume the serious administrative
burden* investigating such *t«'*«« might
entail The court directed EPA to apply
an t"*«ff* teat "at a m<«iimim»- " «n it
free to take an approach that may be
less geaaroua toward credit for
combined stacks, ^nm sources in the
future win be able to plan against the
background of rales that define
pcrmisaible credits precisely. little
unfairness results from a restrictive
appfoechm
  Wham ranaapecdve application is
coooanadt however, the retroactivity
analyst*  spelled out by the court directs
that an intent-baaed teat b* employed as
described later.
  Accordingly, after considering th*
record on the** matters, EPA has
determined to take a "niiiliTIs ground"
approach to this question. The final
regulation retains the same broad
prohibition found In the proposal on
increasing exhaust gas plume rise by
manipulation of parameters, or the
combining of exhaust gases from several
MiTflqj stacks into one stack, with
several classes of exclusions. These
excluaiona recognize the existence of
independent Justifications based on
engineering and/or economic factors.
       ,
  (1] Demonstration of original facility
 design aad construction with merged

  (2) Demonstration that merging after
 July «. 1965 la part of a change in
 operation that includes the installation
 of pollution controls and results in a net
 	1 in allowable emissions of the
 pollutant for which credit is sought or

-------
                      R»g*t*»  /  Vol. so.  No. 130  /  Monday. )uly 8. 1965  /  Rules and Regulation*
                                                                     27903
  (3) Demonstration that merging before
July 8.1965 wet part of a change in
operation that included the installation
of control equipment, or wai carried out
for aound economic or engineenng
reason*. An allowable emissions
increase creates the presumption that
the merging wes not carried out for
sound economic or engineering
reasons.u
Of these exclusions, the first is identical
to the proposal, snd the second and
third are modifications of the second
exclusion included in the proposal, with
• refinement based on prospective/
retroactive application.
  The first exclusion was retained for
the reasons stated in the proposal After
reviewing the comments submitted, EPA
determined that its previous   .
conclusion—that standard practice in
designing and constructing facilities
routinely includes venting *Ti"VTTt
from several units into a common or
multiflued stack—is correct Sound
engineering and economic reasons.
based on costs of constructing ""1
maintaining separate stacks, availability
of land, and cost savings for pollution
control equipment support facility
design and construction considerations.
Even if air pollution requirements did
not exist at all sources would have
incentives to use as few stacks as
possible.
  Since iacnatiag plume rise, rather
than phune rise itse& la a "dispersion
technique" and original design and
construction define the Initial base, such
original design and construction of
merged gas streams is not considered a
dispersion technique. Moreover, in
designing the facility, a source can
usually choose to build one larger unit
rather than several smaller units.
Therefore, prohibiting credit for original
design generally only effect the design
of units and not the plume rise.
  Objections have been raised to
applying this logic to sources which are
constructed over a period of time, but
use a single stack. However, the same
factual arguments fust listed would
apply is the seme, if the original design
included provition for the additional
units in the plans for the facility, and in
the design and construction of the stack.
In such a case, the later units merged  .
into the stack would be intruded within
the exclusion.
  In addition, it would be logically very
difficult to apply a rule denying credit to
original design stacks. EPA or the State
would have to assume how many stack*
would have been built absent a desire
for dispersion credit, where they would
have been located and how high they
would have been. Since these
alternative stacks would be purely
hypothetical, there would be no dear
way of answering these questions; the
answer would simply have to be
selected arbitrarily from the wide range
of possible answers. Tms problem i*
absent when existing stacks have been
combined.
  In contrast EPA finds change* from
the original design of a facility in order
to include merged stacks to require a
narrower judgment The EPA concluded
that where prospective application i*
concerned, the fThiT^uii should be)
available only to source* that combine
stacks reduce* allowable emissions of
the pollutant for which the credit is
granted. There are obvious economic
advanta*)** ia combioiBC stack* to

unit* that must be purchased, la
                iltMHjM a! M
addition, the '
control for the pollutant in question
provides substantial assurance thaU the
purpose of the combination is not to
receive a more lenient emission limit
  However, given peat EPA guidance OB
merging of stacks, EPA has concluded
that retroactive application of this tear
would not be proper. The EPA guidance
document* uniformly took the view that
merging of separate stacks into a single
stack "Is generally not considered a
dispersion technique" absent other
factors such as excessive use of fans or
other devices. '* Each
provided guidance to a source of a
Regional Office regarding the proper
treatment of merged stack* in
calculating emission limitations.
Considering these statements, EPA must
consider the standards expressed by (ha
court aa previously discussed in this
notice, to fudging the propriety of a
differing standard for retroactive.
application. Given the nature and
applications of the guidance which it
issued hi the past EPA judges the first
two criteria—that is, whether the new
rule represents an sbrupt departure from
well-established practice, snd whether
the parties against whom the new rule is
applied relied on the former rule—to be
satisfied, to addition, applying the
prospective criteria to past practice
would require significant change* in fuel
and/or control equipment for parties
whose emission limits were based on.
previous guidance. Finally, and
particularly where sources have not
been allowed to increase their previoai
emissions as a result of the combining of
stacks. EPA does not judge the itarutor
interest to be overriding in this instant
since the rule even in its retrospective
version only exempts sources that can
show a reasonable non-dispersion
enhancement ground for combining
stack*, and thereby implements the
"intent" test suggestsd by the court.  On
the other hand. EPA has never suggested
that combined stacks that cannot meet
such a test an proper. Sources whose
actual emissions are increased, or
whose emission limitations are relaxed
in connection with the combining of
stacks create a strong presumption that
the combination waa carried out in
order to avoid the installation of
ooDtrote. Suflh comotRetions would
indeed ma counter to the statutory
purpose* and teouspectivs application
of a test that forbids them is therefore
                                                     koa Ouryl Tytar M
                                        Rothbteft Aiywc a. rasa SM «IM tetwftwi W«K
                                        Bubv tnm Homrt Oh Ocwtorfc UBS. •
                                        Ctertd StaariWrt • Jw^fc Htnc (MM P. ISSB.
  Sxtarptfont from the Definition of
Ditpenioa Techniquet. The EPA
fecal ttd numerous comments in
response to it* request for input on what
consideration, if any, should be given to
.vi.tn/HBj Mures* from me definition of
•Disparate* T*chniquesM whose
emissiOB* are below a specified level or
whoee stacks are less than the 4*
mmnros height. Thee* commenters
argaod that eombining gar streams in
particular oftea had aa ecemomie
juatiflcation independent of it* effects
oa dtcpenloa. end Ihetefcae should not
be gecieraffy forbidden. Other comments
stated (act fa coaeldetiag any such
exclusion, BPA should consider the
effect oa tetei atmospheric loadings.
  AefnojM. Some Umitatioa on the
number of sources affected by the
definition at "dispersion techniques"
necessary for EPA to carry out the ttack
height program. There are currently
estimated to be over 2X000 sources of
SO» m the United States with actual
emissions exceeding 100 tons per year. It
would not be  possible for EPA or States
to review the emission Omits of even s
significant fraction of this number
within a reasonable time period.
Twenty-two thousand of these sources
have eodaeioa* lew than £000 tons per
year and contribute a total of less than
13 percent of the total annual SO*
emissioa." POT this reason, and for
reasons of administrative necessity
discussed earner. EPA i* adopting sh
exemption from prohibitions on
manipulating prome rise for facilities
with allowable SO* emissions below
                                                                                            few Me CiMbuq. OAQPS

-------
2790*       Psjda*«i Regular / Vol. 50.  No. 130 / Monday. July 6. 1985 / Rulet and Regulation!
5.000 ton* per year. Tha EPA believes
tha affect of this exemption on total Sd
emissions to ba de minima inaatura.
Evan if thata source* ware abla to
increafe their emission rates as tha
result of an exemption from the
definition of dispersion techniques, their
combined effect would not ba
significant Indeed, because these
sources are exempt on the basis of their
annual emissions, there exists an upper
limit to tha extent to which they may
obtain relaxed emission limitation*. La,
to m»'n**ip an.exemption, tha "r1"1^!
emissions of a source may never exceed
5.000 tons par year. For these reasons.
the 5.000 ton limit passes a da minima
teat even more dearly than tha W-matar
limit included without challenge in tha
prior version of this rale. Monovar. SPA
believes that a large majority of thaaa
sources would not ba inclined to seek
less stringent tmlftifrn limitations, in
part because a substantial portion of
them an limited by State and local fuel
usarutaa.
  Tha EPA believes at this time that a
de swam;* snta axaaptioa is justified
only for sources of SOi and that the
number of entail source* for which.
mission limitations for other poilutanta
are a significant concern would not
support a similar exemption. The EPA
will continue to review tha need for each
exaaapttone and. if deemed appropriate,
will propoaa them for review and
comment at a tatardata.
  PAime Impaction. The EPA received »
number of comments requesting that
credit far phune impaction b* retained
on the (rounds that aUmmatmf sack
credit would have severe impacts OB
existing sources. Several approacnas
ware offered for overcoming plume
impadioo effects in mnrtating to
determine emission limitations baaed on
GEP stack height Generally, thaaa  ,
approaches focuaed on modifying tha.
stack-terrain relationship represented a.
tha models. Several
along theae Unas that the court
recognized and spprovaoVof EPA's
attempt to avoid the *fhjcss,ef phone
impaction. but only itlaafaHiiisil of
EPA's regulatory methaw tn allowing
sources to avoid impactton. Thaaa
commanters argued that tha court did
not preclude EPA from allowing cradtt
to avoid plume impaction, but eniy from
allowing credit for stack height in
excess of GEP*. this, it was argued, could
be remedied In a way that waa
consistent with tha court decision by
incorporating impaction avoidance)
within the definition of GEP. It wasjjaao
suggested that EPA giva its "inters*
tpproval" to tha use of certain nftneri
complex terrain models, in particular the
Rough Terrain Display Model (RTDM],
to calculate emission limitations for
sources affected by changes to the stack
height regulation.
  Response The.EPA agrees that the
court was cognizant of the problem of
plume impaction and noted that there
was much to recommend EPA's
allowance of credit for impaction
avoidance. However, the allowance of
credit for plume impaction was not
remanded to EPA for revision or
reconsideration, but was reversed by
the court as exceeding EPA's authority.
  The EPA does not agree that it would
be possible to redefine GEP in a manner
that allowed credit for avoiding
impaction. since GEP is explicitly
denned tn terms of preventing excessive
concentrations due to duwnwesh,
wakes, and eddies. Phune impaction is a
phenomenon completely unrelated to
dowBwssh and, rather, is a consequence
of effluent gases being emitted at an
insufficient height to avoid their striking
downwind hillsides, rftfhr or
mountainsides prior to dilution.
Manipulation or "adjustment" of
modeling parameters to  avoid predicting
theoretical plume iffipa.fitwn where
actual stacks have bean constructed
above GEP would be tantamount to
granting the same tmpaction credit that •
was invalidated by tha court
Furthermore. EPA bellevee that tha
manipulation of modettag parameters
for no other reason than to avoid an
  Tha EPA Is In the peoceas at tavfinn*
   -'
A number of
the guideline have tequaatad that EPA
approve the use of fie sQDM model aa a

of this issue can be foond m documents
associated with EPA's action on tha
modeling guideline (Docket Mb. A-80-
46). With respect to the revieed stack
height regulation, EPA has not refected
the use of RTDM. To the extent that
appropriate and complete data bases
and information on modal accuracy are
available. EPA may approve the use of
RTDM on a, case-by 
-------
              F«d«r*J R«gi»t«r / Vol 50, No.  130 / Monday, July 8. 1965 / Rules and Regulation*
                                                                       27905
through the use of "grandfathered" stack
heights.
  Source* undertaking major
modification, or reconstruction become
subject to additional control
requirements under the Clean Air Act
and an treated ai "new sources" for the
purpose ;f new source review and PSD
requirer. "-:s. EPA finds it appropriate
that GEr requirements should be
invoked at the time that other
requirements for new, modified or
reconstructed sources become
applicable.

Summary of Modifications to EPA '«
Proposal Resulting from Public
Comment*

  Based oa comments received during
the public comment period. EPA haw
made a number of revisions to itt
proposed regulation in addition to thoee
discussed above. These revisions an
summarized below.
  Section Sl.
regulation has been clarified to require
sources merging fas streams after Inly s,
1985 to achieve a net reduction in
allowable emissions. This change was
made to make it dear that the effects of
merging should not be used as a way of
achieving compliance with present
emission limits sad to avoid penalizing.
sources who are presently emitting at
less than allowable levels.
  Sect/off 31.1(hhK2)(B)(iii) allow*
credit for a source that merged gas
streams in a change of operation at the
facility prior to July a, IMS that iacraded
the installation of control equipment or
had other sound engineering or
economic reasons. Any increase in the
emission limitation, or in the previous
actual emissions where no emission
limitation existed created a presumption
that those sound reasons were not
present.
  Sect/on Sl.l(hh)(2)(E) has been added
to exclude from the definition of
prohibited "dispersion techniques" the
use of techniques affecting final exhaust
gas plume rise where the resulting total
allowable emissions of SOt from the
facility do not exceed 5.000 tons per
year.
  Section Sl.lfiijfl) has been revised to
specify that  the 85 meter de minima
height is to be measured as in other
determinations of CEP stack height
from the ground-level elevation at the
base of the stack. This does not
represent a substantive change in the
rule or in its application relative to pest
practices, but rather a simple
clarification.
  Sect/on St.l(ii)(2) has been revised to
require that  source owners demonstrate
that the 2.5H formula was relied on in
establishing the emission limitation.
  Section 51.1(ii)(3) has been revised as
discussed elsewhere in this notice to
specify that an emission rate equivalent
to NSPS must be met before a source
may conduct Quid modeling to Justify
stack height credit in excess of that
permitted by the CEP formulae.
  Section Sl.l(jj) now defines "nearby"
for purposes of conducting field studies
or fluid modeling demonstrations as 04
km (* mile), but allows limited
consideration of terrain features
extending beyond that distance if such
features "begin'* within OJ km. as
defined in the regulation.
  Section 81.1 fUJ has been revised to
provide separate discussions of
"excessive concentrations" for the
separate situations discussed earlier in
this preamble. As that discussion makes
clear. EPA believes that the differing
categories of sources subject to this rule
are best addressed by requirements that
vary somewhat with those
circumstances. This definition embodies
that approach.
  Section 31.12(k) has been corrected to
provide that the provisions of 151.12(0
shall not apply to itadt heighti in
existence before December 31.1070. The
proposal had incorrectly stated that
      I 51.12 shall not apply to ttada
  This regulation doe* not limit the
physical stack height of any some, or
the actual use of dispersioa techniques
at a source, nor does it require any
specific stack height for any source.
Instead it sets limits on the maximum
credit for stack height and other
dispersion techniques to be used in
ambient air TKHHIng for the purpose of
setting an emission limitation and
calculating the air quality impact of a
source. Sources are modeled at their
actual physical stack height miles* that
height exceeds their CEP stack height
The regulation applies to all stacks in
existence  and all dispersion techniques
implemented since December 31.1870.

SUto tmpUmantsdon Plan
RaqubeoMota
  Pursuant to section 406(d)(2) of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977.
EPA is requiring that all States (1)
review and revise, as necessary, their
SIP'S to include provisions that limit
stack height credits  and dispersion
techniques in accordance with this
regulation and (2) review all existing
emission limitations to determine
whether any of these limitations have
been affected bv stack height credits
 above CEP or by any other dispersion
 techniques. For any limitations that
 have been so affected States must
 prepare revised limitations consistent
 with their revised SIP'S. All SIP
 revisions and revised emission
'limitations must be submitted to EPA
 within 9 months of promulgation of this
 regulation.
 Interim Guidance

  In its proposal. EPA stated that it
 would us* die proposed regulation to
 govern stack height credits during the
 period before promulgation of the final
 regulation. The EPA further stated that
 any stack height credits that are granted
 based on this interim guidance would be
 subject to review against the final rules
 and may need to be revised
 Consequently, with these final rules.
 EPA is requiring that any action* that
 were taken on (lack heights and stack
 height  credits during this interm penod
 be reviewed and revised as needed to
 be "*n>t*f*an* with this regulation.
 Regulatocy FisodbUtry Analysis

  Pursuant to the provision* of 5 U.S.C.
 aOB(b). I hereby certify that the attached
 rule will not have significant economic
 impacts on a substantial number of
 small entities. This rule is structured to
 apply only to large sources: Le^ those
 with stack* above 68 meters (213 feet),
 or with annual SOt emissions in excess
 of MOO tana, as further noted in the rule.
 Based  on an analysis of impact*, electric
 utility plants and several smelters  and
 pulp and paper miDs will be
 significantly affected by this regulation.
  Under Executive Order 12291. EPA
must Judge whether s regulation is
"major" and therefore subject to the
requirement of a regulatory impact
analysis. EPA's analysis of economic
impacts predicts s potential cost to
emission source owners and open tors
exceeding flOO million: therefore, this is
s major rule under Executive Order
12291. However, due to tie promulgation
deadline imposed by the court EPA did
not have sufficient tune to develop a full
analysis of costs and benefits as
lequired by the Executive Order.
Consequently, it is not possible to judge
the annual effect of th:s rule on the
economy. A preliminary economic
impact analysis and »•>':sequent revision
were prepared and s:->  n  n* docket
  For any facility, &e *: r:aliry and
economic impact of the suck height
regulation generally dtper.ii on the
extant to which the scv:»! stack at that
facility conforms to CE? mck

-------
27900
Federal  Register / Vol 50. No. 130 / Monday, July 8.  1985 / Rules and  Regulations
Thus, when the regulation ii applied to
large sources, i-e.. those with stick
height greater than CEP and emissions
greater than 5.000 tons per year, it will
have the potential for producing
emission reductions and increased
control costs.
  A preliminary evaluation of the
potential air quality impacts and a cost
analysis of the regulation was
performed at the time of proposal The
impacts identified were established in
isolation of other regulatory
requirements. The report predicted a
range of impacts, from a "low impact"
scenario that presumed that many
potentially affected sources would be
able to justify their existing stack
heights, configurations, and emission
limitations to a "high impart" scenario
which assumed that all of the potentially
affected sources would be required to
reduce their emissions to  some degree.
  In the development of its final
rulemaking action. EPA refined Its-
evaluation of potential impacts,
producing revised estimates of the
probable coats of me changes to the
regulation and expected reductions in
SOi emissions. As a result of this
refinement EPA estimates that the nde
will yield reductions in SOi emissions of
approximately 1.7 million tons per year.
The annualiiad cost of achieving these
reductions will be aproximately $750
million, and the capital cost is expected
to be approximately $700 million.
  This regulation was reviewed by the:
Office of Management and Budget and
their written comments and any
responses are contained in Docket A-
83-48.

Judicial Review

  The EPA believes that this rule is
based on determinations of nationwide
scope and effect Nothing in section 123
limits its applicability to a particular
locality. State, or region. Rather, section
123 applies to sources wherever located
Under section 307(b)(l) of the dean Air
Act [42 U.S.C 7607(b)(l)J. judicial
review of the actions taken by this
notice is available only by the filing of a
petition for review in the  United States
Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia  and within 60 days of the date
of publication.

List of Subjects in 44 C7R Part 51

   Air pollution control. Ozone. Sulfur
dioxide. Nitrogen dioxide. Lead.
Paniculate matter. Hydrocarbons,
Carbon monoxide.
                          Dated-June 27,1918.
                          Lee M. Itacaae,
                          Adminittrator.

                          PART SI-REQUIREMENTS POM
                          PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND
                          SUBMTTTAL OP IMPLEMENTATION
                            Part 51 of Chapter L Title 40 of the
                          Code of Federal Regulations is amended
                          as follows:
                            1. The authority citation for Part 51
                          continues to read as follows:    i
                            Authority: Sec, 110.301(a). and 123. Oeaa
                          Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 7410. TOl(a)
                          sad 7423).
                            2. Section S1.1 la amended by revising
                          paragraph* (hi), (ii). (jfl. end (kk) as
                          follows:
                          111.1
                            (hh)(l) ••Dispersion technique"
                          any technique which attempts to affect
                          the concentration of a pollutant in the
                          ambient air by.
                            (i) Using that portion of a stack which
                          exceeds good engineering practice stack
                          height
                            (ii) Varying the rate of emission of a
                          pollutant according to atmospheric
                          conditions or ambient concentrations of
                          that pollutant or
                            (ill) Increasing fl««i exhaust gaa
                          plume rise by manipulating source
                          procese parameters, exhaust gaa
                          parameters, stack parameters, or
                          combining exhaust gases froen several
                          existing stacks into one stack: or other
                          selective handling of exhaust gaa
                          streams so aa to increase the exhaust   .
                          gaa piusa rise.
                            (2) The preceding sentence does not
                          include:
                            (i) The reaeating of a gaa stream,
                          following use of a pollution control
                          system, for the purpose of returning the
                          gee to the temperature at which it waa
                          originally discharged from the facility
                          generating the gaa stream:
                            (ii) The merging of exhaustjaa
                          streams where:
                            (A) The source owner or operator_
                          demonstrates that the facility was
                          originally designed and constructed with
                          such merged gaa streams;
                            (B) After July 6, 1963. such merging is
                          part of a change in operation et the
                          facility mat includes the installation of
                          pollution controls and is accompanied
                          by a net reduction in the allowable
                          emissions of a pollutant. This exclusion
                          from the definition of "dispersion
                          techniques" shall apply only to the
                          emission limitation for the pollutant
                          affected by such change in operation; or
                            (C) Before July ft. 1980. such merging
                          was part of a change in operation at the
facility that included the installation of
emissions control equipment or was
carried out for sound economic or
engineering reasons. Where there wai
an increase in the emission limitation or.
in the event that no emission limitation
was in existence prior to the merging, an
increase in the quantity of pollutants
actually emitted prior to the merging, the
reviewing agency shall presume that
merging was significantly motivated by
an intent to gain emissions credit for
greater dispersion. Absent a
demonstration by the source owner or
operator that merging was not
significantly motivated by such intent.
the reviewing agency shall deny credit
for the effects of such merging in
          , the allowable emissions for
the source:
  (iii) Smoke management in
agricultural or siivicultural prescribed
burning programs?
  (tv) Episodic restrictions on
residential woodburning and open
burnings ee
  (v) Techniques under f Sl.l(hh)(lKui)
which increase final exhaust gas plane
rise where the resulting allowable
emissions af sulfur dioxide from the
facility do not exceed MOO tons per
year.
  (ii) "Good engineering practice" (CEP)
stack height means the greater of:
  (1) 68 meters, measured from the
ground-level elevation at the base of the
stack
  (2)'(i) For stacks in existence on
]enwry
-------
             Federal Register / Vol.  50. No. 130 / Monday. July 8.  1985 / Rule* and  Regulations
concentrations of any air pollutant as a
result of atmospheric downwaah. wakes,
or eddy effects created by the source
itself, nearby structures or nearby
terrain features.
  (jj) "Nearby" as used in { Sl.l(ii) of
this part is defined for a specific
structure or terrain feature and
  (1) for purposes of applying the
formulae provided in i 51.1(ii)(2) means
that distance up to five times the lesser
of the height or the width dimension of a
structure, but not greater than 0.8 km [V»
mile), and
  (2) for conducting demonstrations
under | 51.1(ii)(3) means not greater *
than 04 km (V4 mile), except that the
portion of a terrain feature may b«
considered to be nearby which falls
within a distance of up to 10 times the
maximum height (H,) of the feature* not
to exceed 2 miles if such feature
achieves a height (H,) 0.6 km from the
stack that is at least 40 percent of the
CEP suck height determined by the
formulae provided in I 51.1(Ii)(2)(ii) of
this part or 2ft meters, whichever is
greater, as measured from the ground-
level elevation at the base of the stack.
The height of the structure or terrain
feature is measured from the ground-
level elevation at the baae of the stack.
  (kk) "Excessive concentration" Is' '
defined for the purpose of determining
good engineering practice stack height
under | Sl.l(ii)(3) and means:
  (1) for sources seeking credit for stack
height exceeding that established under
I Sl.l(ii)(2). a maximum ground-level
concentration due to emissions from a
stack due in whole or part to downwash.
wakes, and eddy effects produced by
nearby structures or nearby terrain
features which individually is at least 40
percent in excess of the maximum
concentration experienced in the
absence of such downwash. wakes, or
eddy effects and which contribute* to a
total concentration due to emissions
from all sources that is greater than an
ambient air quality standard. For
sources subject to the prevention of
significant deterioration program (40
CFR 51.24 and 5121). an excessive
concentration alternatively means a
maximum ground-level concentration
due to emissions from a stack due in
whole or pert to downwash, wakes, or
eddy effects produced by nearby
structures or nearby terrain features
which individually is at least 40 percent
in excess of the maximum concentration
experienced in the absence of the
maximum concentration experienced in
the absence of such downwash. wakes,
or eddy effects and greater than a
prevention of significant deterioration
increment The allowable emission rate
to be used in making demonstrations
under this pan shall be prescribed by
the new source performance standard
that is applicable to the source category
unless the owner or operator
demonstrates that this emission rate is
infeasible. Where such demonstrations
are approved by the authority
admir  -ering the State implementation
plan. -   Alternative emission rate shall
be established in consultation with the
source owner or operator
  (2) for sources seeking credit after
October 1.1983. for Increases in existing
suck heights up to the heights
established under { 5U(ii}(2). either (i)
i m«yiminn ground-level concentration
due in whole or part to downwash.
wakes or eddy effects as provided in
paragraph (kk)(l) of this section, except
that the emission rate specified by any
applicable State implemenUtion plan
(or. in the absence of such a bait the
actual emission rate) shall be used, or
(li) the actual presence of a local
nuisance caused by the existing sUck,
as determined by the authority
administering the Sute implemenUtion
plan: and
  (3) for sources seeking credit after
January 12.1979 for a suck height
dtunninedunder I 51.1(ii)(2) where the
euthority administering the SUU
implemenUtion plan raquim the use of
a field study or fluid modal to verify
CEP suck height for sources seeking
suck height credit after November 9.
IBM baaed on the aerodynamic
influence of cooling towers, and for
sources seeking stack height credit a,
December 31.1970 based on the
aerodynamic influence of structures not
adequately represented by the equations
in | 31.1(ii)(2), a maximum gnund-levai
concentration due in whole or part to
downwash. wake* or eddy effects that
is at leaat 40 percent in excess of the
maximum concentration experienced in
the absence of such downwash. wakes.
or eddy effects.
  3. Section S1.1 is further amended  by
removing paragraphs (U) and (mm).
llttt
  4. Section 51.12 is amended by
removing paragraph (!)•
  S. Section 51.12(0 (• emended by
removing "and (1)" from the first
sentence.
  0. Section 51.12(k) is revised as
follows:
  (k) The provisions of | 51.12(j) (hall
not apply to (1) suck heights in
existence, or dispersion techniques
Implemented on or before December 31.
1970. except where pollutants are being
emitted from such sucks or using such
dispersion techniques by sources,  as
defined in section lll(a)(3) of the Clean
Air Act which were constructed, or
reconstructed, or for which major
modifications, as defined in
H lUKJMDMMi SlJ4(b)(2Ki) and
5Z21(b)(2)(l). were carried out after
December 31.1970: or (2) coal-fired
suarn electric generating units subject
to the provisions of Section 118 of the
Clean Air Act which commenced
operation before July 1.1987, and whose
sucks were constructed under a
construction contract awarded before
February «. 1974.


  7. Section 31.18(1) i* amended by
    winf "and (I)" torn *e &•*
jnt Dee fft-MOM Filed ?-*-» *« tm|

-------
 Port 51
 PART 51—REQUIREMENTS FOR PREP.
   ARAHON. ADOPHON, AND  SUt-
   MITTAl    Of   IMPLEMENTATION
   PLANS
 Sec.
 • 1.40  Scope.

             AQMA ANALYSIS

 •Ml  AQUA analysis: SubmltUI date.
 • 1.41  AQMA analysis: Analysis period.
 • 1.41  AQMA analysis: Guidelines.
 • 1.44  AQMA analyiU: Projection  of emto-
    •lona.
 •1.4B  AQMA analyiU: Allocation  of emla-
    •Ion*.
 •1.4«  AQMA analysti:  Projection  of  air
    quality concentration*.
 •1.47  AQMA analysis: Description of data
    sources.
 •1.4*  AQMA analysis: Data bases.
 • 1.4*  AQMA analysis: Techniques descrip-
    tion.
 SI 80  AQMA analysis: Accuracy factors.
 • I SI  AQMA analysis: Submlttal of calcula-
    tions.

              AQMA FLAM

 • III  AQMA plan: Oeneral.
 81.81  AQMA plan: Demonstration of ade-
    quacy.
 II.M  AQMA plan: Strategies.
 II II  AQMA plan: Legal authority.
 II M  AQMA plan: Future strategies.
 81.87  AQMA plan: Future legal authority.
 • I.M  AQMA plan:  Intergovernmental co-
    operation.
 • IB*  (Reserved!
 81 IK)  AQMA plan: Resources
 (1.01  AQMA plan: SubmllUI fonnat.
• I n  AQMA analyils and plan: Data avail-
    ability.
• I  »3 AQMA analysis and plan: Alternative
    procedure*
• I 100  Definitions.
ft! 101  Stipulation!.
11 I ni  Public hearings.
• 1.101  Submission of plans:  preliminary
   review of plaiu.
61 104  Revisions.
51 I OB  Approval of plans.
           40 CFR Ch. I (7-141 Edition)

         lufcpart O—Central Strategy

 •I.110  Attainment and maintenance of na-
    tional standards.
 BI 111  Description of control measures.
 •I.Ill  Demonstration of adequacy.
 II.III  Time  period  for demonstration of
    adequacy.
 11.114  Emissions data and projections.
 •I.Ill  Air quality data and projections.
 (1.118  Data availability.
 •I.IIT  Additional provisions for lead.
 II.lit  Stack heliht provisions.
 II.II*  Intermittent control systems.
    l»i»a«t H—rr»v»nH«t> •* Ah »•••*•»
            l«..re...cv iyh**.

 BUBO  Classification of reilons for episode
    plans.
 •l.lll  fllcnlfleant harm levels.
 81.181  Contlniency plans.
 B1.183  Reevaluatlon of episode plans.
  •1.160  Legally enforceable procedures.
  11.111  Public availability of Information.
  11.111  Identification    of    responsible
    agency.
  II.161  Administration procedures.
  11.164  Stack height procedures.
  11.161  Permit requirements.
  11.166  Prevention of significant deterio-
ration of air quality.
 in*jf«H J  AjufcUoJ Air Qoolll; I•>«»•••»•

BUM Ambient air quality  monitoring re-
   quirements.
•1.110 Oeneral.
•1.111 Emission reports and recordkeeplng.
Bl.lll Testing.  Inspection,  enforcement.
   and complaints.
11.111 Transportation control measures.
11.114 Continuous emission monitoring.
                                           •I.110  Requirements for all plans.
                                           Bl.lll  Identification of legal authority.
                                           Bl.lll  Assignment  of  legal authority  to
                                              local agencies.
 ln»»«il M—Msrajo¥snii»si»M C«ni»*t»rl«ii

           AGENCY DESIGNATION

SI.140  Oeneral plan requirements.
BI.24I  Nonattalnment areas  for  carbon
   monoxide and ozone.
SI.142  (Reserved!
                                       712
                                                                                                  Environmental Protection Agency
                                                                          §51.40
    CONTINUING CONSULTATION PIOCESS
SI.243  Consultation process objectives.
SI.244  Plan elements affected.
SI 245  Organizations  and officials to be
   consulted.
11.246  Timing.
BI.24T  Hearings  on  consultation  process
   violations.

 RELATioNSHir or PLAN TO Ornn PLANNING
        AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
11.248  Coordination with other programs.
11.240  {Reserved!
•I.ISO  Transmlttal of Information.
BI.2SI  Conformity with Executive Order
   11371.
S1.1S1  Summary of plan development par-
   ticipation.



B1.16O  Legally   enforceable  compliance
   schedules.
812*1  Final compliance schedules.
B1.261  Extension beyond one year.
                                                                                i flan Cantant
11.160  Resources.
•1.181  Copies of rules and regulations.
SI.285  Public notification.



•1.300  Purpose and applicability.
81.301  Definitions.
51.302  Implementation control strategies.
•I .101  Exemptions from control.
81.104  Identification of Integral vistas.
II. 108  Monitoring.
11.306  Long-term strategy.
11.307  New source review.
       AIR QUALITY DATA REROUTING  ,
81.320  Annual air quality data report.

    Bonnes EMISIIOMS AND STATE ACTION
               RETORTING
81.311  Annual  source emissions and State
    action report.
SI. Ill  Sources subject to emissions report-
    Ing.
81 323  Reportable emissions data and In-
    formation.
II .124  Progress In plan enforcement.
61.328  Contingency plan actions.
81.328  Reportable revisions.
81.327  Enforcement  orders and other State
    actions.
81.320  (Reserved!
SI.341  Request for 18-month extension.
ArreNDicES A—K—(RESERVED)
ArrENDix   L— EXAMrLE  REGULATIONS  FOR
   PREVENTION or AIR POLLUTION EMEHCEN
   cv EnsoDES
ArrENDIX M [RESERVED)
ArrcKDix    N-EMISSIONS    REDUCTIONS
   ACHIEVABLE THROUGH iNsrccrioH. MAIN
   TENANCE AND RCTROnT or LIGHT  DUTY
   VEHICLES
ArrEHoix O—(RESERVED)
ArrENDix  P—MINIMUM EMISSION MONITOR
   ING REQUIREMENTS
ArrENDicES Q—R—1 RESERVED I
ArrENDix  S—EMISSION Orrsrr IirrcRrRETA-
   TIVE RDLING
ArrcNDix T—(RESERVED!
ArrENDix  U—CLEAN  Am  ACT SECTION  174
   GUIDELINES
  AUTHORITY: This  rulemaklng  Is  promul-
gated under authority ol sections tOKbXI).
110.  160-160. 171-178. and  301(a> of the
Clean Air  Act  41 U.8.C. 7401. 7410.
7470-7470. 7SO1-76OB. and 7S01(a>.
  SOURCE: 16 FR 22398. Nov. IS. 1871. unless
otherwise noted.
  EDITORIAL NOTE:  Nomenclature  changes
affecting Part 81 appear at 44 FR 8137. Feb.
8. 1078 and 81 FR  40661. Nov. 7,1086.

      Subportt A-C—(Reserved|
 Subpart D—MahifenaiK«
               Standards
of National
           • y|.— — -« • — S



SI. 340 Request lor 2 year extension.
  SOURCE: 41 FR 18388. May 3, 1976. unless
otherwise noted.

151.46  Scope.
  (a) Applicability. The requirements
or  this Bubpart  apply  to air quality
maintenance  areas  (AQMAs)  Identi-
fied under | 51.110(1) and to any areas
Identified under 151.110X11.
  (b) AQMA Analviit. Under this sub-
part,  procedures  are  given for  the
analysis of the air quality  Impact of
specified pollutant emissions from ex-
isting sources and emissions  associated
with  projected growth  and develop-
ment In  areas Identified under para-
graphs U) and  (1)  of  151.110.  This
analysis Is referred to In this subpart
as an AQMA analysis.
  (c) AQMA Plan.  Under this subpart.
the Administrator will  require a revi-
sion  to the State Implementation plnn
for areas Identified under I 51.110(1) or
| 61.110(1) when necessary to prevent a
national  ambient  air quality standard
                                                                                              713

-------
jsi.nr
        40 C« Cfc. I (7-l-M Edition)
estimated amounts of emissions and
the amounts of such emissions allow-
able under  the  applicable emission
limitations or other measures.

111.117  AMItlmul provUloiu for Jc«4.
  Ill addition to other requirements In
|| 51 100 through (1.116 the following
requirements apply  to  lead. To  the
extent they conflict, there  require-
ments  are controlling over those of
the proceeding sections.
  (a) Control ttraten drmonitration.
Bach plan must contain a demonstra-
tion showing that the plan will attain
and maintain the standard In the fol-
lowing areas:
  (1) Areas In  the vicinity of the fol-
lowing point sources of  lead: Primary
lead smelters.  Secondary  lead  smelt-
ers.  Primary  copper smelters. Lead
gasoline   additive  plants.   Lead-acid
storage battery manufacturing  plants
that produce 3.000 or more batteries
per day.  Any other stationary source
that actually emits 25  or  more tons
per year  of lead or lead compounds
measured as elemental lead.
  (3) Any other area that has lead air
concentrations In excess of the nation-
al ambient air quality  standard con-
centration for lead,  measured since
January 1, 1974.
  (b) Time perto  /or  emon$tralion of
a  equacv- The demonstration of ade-
quacrof the control  strategy required
under  161.113 may  cover a  longer
period If  allowed  by  the  appropriate
EPA Regional  Administrator.
  (c) Special modeling provitlont. (I)
For urbanized areas with  measured
lead concentrations  In  excess  of 4.0
jig/m'. quarterly mean measured since
January  I. 1074, the plan must employ
the modified  rollback model for the
demondration of attainment as a min-
imum, but  may  use an atmospheric
dlaperslon model If desired. If a pro-
portional model U used,  the air quality
rial* should be the satre year  as the
emissions Inventory  required  under
Hie paragraph e.
  (2»  For each point source listed In
I 61 11KB). that plan must employ an
•Ininspherlc dispersion model for dem-
onstration of attainment.
   (3* For each area  In  the vicinity of
nn Rlr quality  monitor that has record-
ed lead concentrations In excess ul the
lead national standard concentration,
the plan must employ the modified
rollback model as a minimum, but may
use an atmospheric dispersion model If
desired for the demonstration of at-
tainment.
  (d) Air quality data and projection*.
(1) Each State must submit to the ap-
propriate EPA Regional Office  with
the plan, but not part of the plan,  all
lead air quality data measured since
January  I.  1974.  This  requirement
does not apply If the data has already
been submitted.
  (3) The data must be submitted In
accordance with the procedures and
data forms specified In Chapter 3.4.0
of the "AEROS User's Manual" con-
cerning storage and retrieval of aero-
metric data (BAROAD) except where
the  Regional  Administrator  waives
this requirement.
  (3) If additional lead air quality data
are desired to determine lead air con-
centrations In areas suspected of ex-
ceeding the lead national ambient air
quality standard, the plan may Include
data from any previously collected fil-
ters from  partlculate  matter  high
volume samplers. In determining the
lead content of the filters for control
strategy  demonstration  purposes,  a
State may use. In addition to the refer-
ence method. X-ray fluorescence  or
any other method approved by the Re-
gional Administrator.
  (e)  SmUiion* data.  (1) The point
source Inventory on which the summa-
ry of the baseline lead emissions  In-
ventory  Is based  must contain  all
sources that emit five or more tons of
lead per year.
  (3)  Each State  must  submit lead
emissions data to the appropriate EPA
Regional Office with the original plan.
The submission must  be made  with
the plan, but not as part of the plan,
and must Include emissions data and
Information related to  point and area
source emissions. The emission data
and Information should Include the In-
formation Identified In the Hazardous
and Trace  Emissions  System (HA
TREMS) point  source coding  forms
 for all  point sources  and  the  area
source coding  forms for all sources
 that are not point sources, but need
 not necessarily  be  In  the format of
 those forms.
                                   728
 Environmental Protection Agency

 I (I.I 18 Stack height provUloni.
  (a) The plan must provide that the
 degree of emission limitation required
 of any source for control  of any  air
 pollutant must not be affected by so
 much of any source's stack height that
 exceeds good engineering practice or
 by  any  other dispersion  technique.
 except as provided In |61.118(b). The
 plan must provide that before a State
 submits to EPA a new or revised emis-
 sion limitation that Is based on a good
 engineering practice stack height that
 exceeds   the  height   allowed   by
 151.100(11) (1) or (2). the State  must
 notify the public of the avallabllty of
 the  demonstration  study  and must
 provide opportunity for a public hear-
 ing on It. This section does not require
 the plan  to  restrict. In any  manner.
 the actual stack height of any source.
  (b)  The  provisions  of  |51.118(a)
 shall not apply to (1) stack heights In
 existence, or dispersion techniques Im-
 plemented on or before December 31,
 1070,   except  where  pollutants  are
 being  emitted  from such  stacks  or
 using such  dispersion  techniques  by
 sources, as defined In section llKaXS)
 of the Clean Air Act, which were con-
 structed,  or  reconstructed,  or  for
 which major modifications, as defined
 In ||51.105(aMlKvKA), 61.1M(bX2MI>
 and  63.31. were  carried out
 after  December 31.  1»70; or (3) coal-
 fired  steam electric  generating units
 subject to the provisions of section 1 IB
 of the Clean Air  Act.  which com-
 menced operation before July 1, 1957,
 and  whose  stacks  were construced
 under a construction contract awarded
 before February S. 1974.

 I tl.l I*  Intermittent control •7*Unu.
 (a) The  use of an Intermittent con-
 trol system  (ICS) may be taken Into
 account In  establishing  an emission
 limitation for a  pollutant  under a
State Implementation plan, provided:
 (1) The ICS was Implemented before
 December 31, 1970, according to the
criteria specified In | 51.119(b).
 (2) The  extent to which the ICS Is
taken Into account Is limited to reflect
emission levels and associated ambient
pollutant  concentrations  that would
result If the ICS was the same as It
was before December 31, 1970. and was
operated as specified by the operating
                            §51.119

 system of the ICS before December 31,
 1970.
  <3> The plan allows the ICS to com-
 pensate  only for emissions  from  a
 source for which the ICS was Imple-
 mented before December 31.1970. and.
 In the event the source has been modi-
 fled, only to the extent the emissions
 correspond to the maximum capacity
 of  the source  before December 31.
 1970. For purposes of this paragraph,
 a source for which the ICS was Imple-
 mented Is any particular structure or
 equipment the emissions from which
 were subject  to the ICS operating pro-
 cedures.
  (4) The plan requires the continued
 operation of any constant pollution
 control  system  which  was  In  use
 before  December 31.  1970.  or  the
 equivalent of that system.
  (5) The plan  clearly  defines  the
 emission limits  affected  by  the ICS
 and the  manner In which the ICS Is
 taken  Into   account  In  establishing
 those limits.
  <6> The plan contains  requirements
 for the operation and maintenance of
 the  qualifying  ICS  which, together
 with the emission limitations and any
 other  necessary  requirements,  will
 assure that  the national  ambient air
 quality standards and  any applicable
 prevention of significant deterioration
 Increments will be attained and main-
 tained. These requirements shall  In-
 clude,  but not  necessarily be  limited
 to, the following:
  (I)  Requirements  that a  source
 owner  or operator continuously oper-
 ate and maintain the components of
 the ICS specified at 151.119(bM3) (II)-
 (Iv)  In a manner which  assures that
 the ICS Is at least as effective as It was
before December  31,  1970. The  air
quality  monitors and  meteorological
 Instrumentation      specified      at
 I 51.119(b) may be operated by a local
 authority or other entity  provided the
source has ready access  to the data
 from the monitors and Instrumenta-
 tion.
  (II) Requirements which specify the
circumstances under which, the extent
to which, and the procedures through
which, emissions shall be  curtailed
 through the activation of ICS.
  (Ill) Requirements for recordkeeplng
 which  require the owner or operator
                                                                                   729

-------
 (31.153

 IIMU  Reeialualloii of epliode plan*.
  (a) States  should periodically  re-
 evaluate priority classifications of all
 Regions or portion of llegloita within
 tlielr borders. The revaluation  must
 consider the three most  recent  yean
 of air quality dat*. If the  evaluation
 Indicates a change to a higher priority
 classification, appropriate chances  In
 the episode  plan must be made as ex-
 ppditlously as practicable.

  Swfcpart  |—Review of New Source*
          and Modification*

  flomrc tl m 4MS9. No*.  1, 1«B9.  unless
 othcrvtar noted.

ftl.lt*  Legally enforceable procedure*.
  (a) Bach plan must set  forth legally
enforceable   procedures   that  enable
the State  or local agency to determine
whether the construction or modifica-
tion of a facility, building, structure or
Installation, or  combination of  these
will result In—
  (DA violation of applicable portions
of the control strategy; or
  (3) Interference with attainment or
maintenance of a national standard In
 the  State  In  which  the  proposed
 source (or modification) Is located  or
 In a neighboring State.
  (b) Such  procedures must  Include
 means  by which the State or  local
 agency  responsible for final decision-
 making on an application for approval
 to  construct  or modify  will prevent
 such construction or modification If—
  (1) It will  result In a violation of ap-
 plicable portions of the control strate-
 gy: or
  (2)  It will Interfere with  the attain-
 ment or  maintenance of  a national
standard.
  (c) The  procedures must provide for
 the submission, by the owner or opera-
 tor of the building, facility, structure.
 or  Initallallon  to  be constructed  or
 mortified,  of such Information on—
  (1) The nature and amounts of emis-
 sions lo be emitted by It or emitted by
 awM-lated mobile sources;
  (2) The location,  design, construc-
 tion, an.
• It.lM  UentuVailoii   of
    agency.
  Each plan must Identify the State or
local agency which will be responsible
for meeting the requirements  of this
subpart  In  each  area  of the State.
Where such  responsibility rests  with
an agency other than an air pollution
control agency, such agency will con-
sult with  the appropriate  State  or
local air pollution control agency In
carrying  out the provisions of this sub-
part.

I fl.l<3  AdiulnMnure procedure*.
  The plan must Include the xtminbu
tratlve procedures, which will  be fol-
lowed  In making the  determination
specified In paragraph (a) of 161.180.

111.1*4 Stack bright procedural.
  Such procedures must provide  that
the degree of emission limitation re-
quired of any source for control of any
air  pollutant must not be affected by
so much  of any source's stack  height
that exceeds good engineering practice
or by any other dispersion technique.
except as provided In I C1.118(b). Such
procedures must provide that before a
State lusues a permit to a source based
on iv good engineering practice stack
height that  exceeds the  height al-
lowed by 151.100(11) (1)  or (2).  the
State must  notify the  public  of  the
availability   of   the  demonstration
study and must provide  opportunity
for public hearing on It. This section
does not  require such procedures to re
                             8 51.143

strict In any manner the actual  stack
height of any source.

tftl.lt*  Permit requirement*.
  (a) State Implementation Plan pro-
visions  satisfying  sections  172(bX6)
and 173 of the Act shall meet the fol-
lowing conditions:
  (1) All such plans shall use the spe-
cific definitions. Deviations  from the
following  wording  will be  approved
only If the state specifically demon-
strates that the submitted definition Is
more stringent, or  at  least as strin-
gent. In all respects as the  correspond-
ing definition below:
  (I) "Stationary source"  means any
building, structure, facility, or Installa-
tion which emits or may emit any air
pollutant subject to regulation under
the Act.
  (ID "Building, structure, facility, or
Installation" means  all of the pollut-
ant-emitting activities which belong to
the same Industrial grouping, are  lo-
cated on one or more contiguous or ad-
jacent properties, and  are under the
control  of the same person (or persons
under common control) except the  ac-
tivities  of any vessel.  Pollutant-emit-
ting activities shall be considered as
part of the same Industrial grouping If
they  belong  to  the  same  "Major
Group" (I.e.. which have the same two-
digit code) as described In the Stand-
ard Industrial Cla»*ificaUon  Manual,
/f 72, as amended by the 197? Supple-
ment  (U.S.  Government  Printing
Office stock numbers 4101-0066 and
003-005 001760. respectively).
  (Ill) "Potential to  emit"  means the
maximum capacity  of  a  stationary
source to emit a pollutant under  Its
physical and operational design. Any
physical or operational limitation  on
the capacity of  the source to emit a
pollutant. Including  air pollution con-
trol  equipment and restrictions  on
hours of operation or on the type or
amount of material combusted, stored.
or processed, shall be treated as part
of Its design only  If the limitation or
the effect It would have on emissions
Is federally enforceable.  Secondary
emissions  do not count In determining
the potential to emit of a stationary
source.
                                                                                                                             733

-------
   J 51.1 J

   monitoring  or  communications  por-
   tion* of a contingency plan, but de-
   UUed critiques  oj  such portions are
   provided to the State.
    (e) Where a State plan does not pro-
  vide for public announcement regard-
  ing  air pollution emergency  episodes
  or where the State falls to give any
  such public  announcement,  the Ad-
  ministrator  will  Issue  a  public an-
  nouncement that an episode stage has
  been reached. When making  such an
  announcement, the  Administrator will
  be guided by the suggested episode cri-
  teria and emission control actions sug-
  gested In Appendix L of Part 51 of this
  chapter or those In the approved plan.
  (IT FR 10040.  May SI. im. as amended at
 IT PR 10SOT. Sept. it. IS72I

 ltl.lt  Sonrce surveillance.
   (a) Each subpart Identifies the plan
 provisions   for  source   surveillance
 which are disapproved, and sets forth
 the Administrator's  promulgation of
 necessary  provisions  for  requiring
 sources to maintain records, make re-
 ports, and submit Information.
   (b) No  provisions are  promulgated
 for any  disapproved  State  or  local
 agency procedures for testing. Inspec-
 tion.  Investigation,  or  detection, but
 detailed critiques of such portions are
 provided to the Stale.
   (c)  For purpose of Federal enforce-
 ment, the following test procedures
 shall  be used:
  (1)  Sources subject to  plan provi-
 sions which  do not specify a test pro-
 cedure and  sources subject  to provi-
 sions promulgated by the Administra-
 tor will be tested by means of the ap-
 propriate procedures and methods pre-
 scribed In  Part  60 of this chapter;
 unless otherwise specified In this part.
  (2) Sources subject to approved pro-
 visions of a plan wherein a test proce-
 dure la specified will be tested by the
specified procedure.

137 FR 1OS40. May  31.  1*72, M amended at
 40 PR 38032. June 20. I01M

I M.I 3  Air quality surveillance; resources;
    Intergovernmental cooperation.
  IMsapproved portions of the plan re-
 Ut*J  to  the air  quality  surveillance
system,  resources,   and  Intergovern-
 mental cooperation  arc  Identified In
           40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-M Idlllon)

  each subpart. and detailed critiques of
  such  portions  are  provided to  the
  State. No provisions are promulgated
  by the Administrator.

  IM.I4  State ambient air  quality  stand-
     ards.

   Any  ambient air  quality  standard
  submitted with a plan which Is less
  stringent than a  national standard Is
  not considered part of the plan.

  I •!.!•  FvMIc availability of plan*.
   Each State shall make available for
  public Inspection  at least one copy of
  the plan  In  at least one city  In each
  region to which such plan Is applica-
  ble. All such copies shall be kept cur-
  rent.

  I IS.IO Submission  to Administrator.
   All  requests,  reports,  applications.
  submlttals. and other communications
  to the Administrator pursuant to this
  part shall be submitted  In  duplicate
  and addressed to the appropriate Re-
  gional Office of  the Environmental
 Protection Agency, to the attention of
 the Director, Enforcement  Division.
 The Regional Offices are as follows:

 Region I (Connecticut, Maine.  Massachu-
  setts. New Hampshire. Rhode Island. Ver-
  mont). John P. Kennedy Federal Building.
  Boston. Mass. 01203.
 Region II (New York.  New Jersey, Puerto
  Rico, Virgin Islands) Federal Office Build-
  ing. M Federal Plaza (Poley Square). New
  York. NT 10007.
 Region III (Delaware. Dtotrlct of Columbia.
  Pennsylvania. Maryland. Virginia.  West
  Virginia)  Curtis  Building. Sixth   and
  Walnut Streets. Philadelphia. PA 19100.
 Region IV (Alabama. Florida. Georgia. Mis-
  sissippi. Kentucky. North Carolina. South
  Carolina.  Tennessee)  Suite  300.  1421
  Peachtree Street. Atlanta. OA 3030*.
 Region  V  < Illinois.  Indiana. Minnesota,
  Ohio,  Wisconsin) Federal Building. 230
  South Dearborn. Chicago. Illinois 00000.
 Region  VI  (Arkansas. Louisiana.  New
  Mexico. Oklahoma,  Texas) l«00 Patenon
  Street. Dallas. TX 7B30I.
 Region VII (Iowa. Kansas. Missouri. Nebras-
  ka) 1738 Baltimore Street.  Kansas  City,
  MO 04100.
Region  VIII (Colorado. Montana. North
  Dakota. South Dakota. Utah. Wyoming)
  010 Lincoln Towers. liiO Lincoln Street.
  Denver. CO 00303.
Reston  IX  I Arizona, California, Hawaii.
  Nevada. Ouun. American  Samoa)   100
lavw*MN*ntwl rrwtectlwn Agency

 CoUfornte  Street. Ban  Francisco.  CA
 M       (Washhwton. Oregon. Idaho.
 Alaska) 1300 Sixth Avenue. Seattle. WA
 MIOI.
Ill FR Iteot. Sept M. im, as amended at
WFR "007. Oct. 31. 10741

I U.IT  Bstw/awBMy W srwvtsUns.
 The provisions promulgated In this
put  and  the  various   application
thereof are distinct and aeverable. If
any provision of this part or the appli-
cation thereof to  any person or cir-
cumstances Is held Invalid, such Inva-
lidity shall not affect other provisions
or application of such  provision  to
other persona or circumstances which
can be given effect without the Invalid
provision or application.
137 FR latOO, Sept. M. 10731
               dates for national standards does not
               relieve any State from the provisions
               of Subpart N of this chapter which re-
               quire all sources and categories of
               sources to comply with applicable re-
               quirements of the plan—
                 (a)  As expedltlously as practicable
               where the requirement Is part of a
               control strategy designed to attain a
               primary standard, and
                 (b)  Within a reasonable time where
               the requirement Is part  of a  control
               strategy designed to  attain a  second-
               ary standard.
IU.lt
  Abbreviations used In this part shall
be those set forth ID Part M of this
chapter.
IM FR 130M. stay 14.10731
IIS.lt  Revlstoa wf
by AwsataMra-
  After notice and opportunity  for
hearing In each affected State, the Ad-
ministrator  may  revise any provision
of an  applicable plan. Including  but
not  limited to  provisions specifying
compliance schedules, emission limita-
tions, and dates for attainment of na-
tional standards: If:
  (a) The provision waa promulgated
by the Administrator, and
  (b) The plan, as revised, will be con-
sistent with the act and with the re-
quirements applicable  to Implementa-
tion plans under Part 61 of this chap-
ter.
(U FR 13000. May 14.10731

HIM  Attainment  slates for  national
  Each  subpart  contains  a  section
which specifies the  latest  dates  by
which national standards are to be at-
tained In each region In the State.  An
attainment date which only refers to a
month and a year (such as July lt7B)
shall be construed to  mean the  last
day of the month In question.  Howev-
er,  the  specification   of  attainment
               137 FR 10000. Sept. 33. 1073, as I
               M FR 34«3». Sept. 30. 1074: tl FR 400TO.
               NOV.I.IOM]
ItUl  lYevwfttta* ef significant wcterl*.
    ratto«Wau-q»aUty.
  (a) Plan disapproval The provisions
of this section are applicable to any
State Implementation plan which has
been disapproved with respect to pre-
vention of significant deterioration of
air quality In any portion of any State
where the existing air quality Is better
than the national ambient air quality
standards.  Specific  disapprovals are
listed where applicable. In Subparts B
through ODD of this part. The provi-
sions of this section have been Incor-
porated by reference Into the applica-
ble Implementation  plans for various
States, as provided In  Subparts  B
through DDD of this part. Where this
section Is so Incorporated,  the provi-
sions shall also  be  applicable to all
lands  owned by the Federal Oover-
ment and Indian Reservations located
In such State. No disapproval with re-
spect to a State's failure to prevent
significant deterioration of air quality
shall Invalidate or otherwise affect the
obligations of States, emission sources,
or other  persons with respect to all
portions of plans approved or promul-
gated under this part.
  (b) Definition*. For the purposes of
this section:
  (1HI)  "Major   stationary  source"
means:
  (a) Any of the following stationary
sources of air pollutants which emits.
or has the potential to emit. 100 tons
per year or more of any pollutant sub-
ject to regulation under the Act: Fossil
fuel-fired steam electric plants of more
                                     18
                                                                              19

-------
  9 57.11

  than 260 million British thermal units
  per  hour  heat Input, coal cleaning
  plants (with  thermal dryers), kraft
  pulp  mills, Portland  cement  plants..
  primary nine smelters. Iron and steel
  mill plants, primary aluminum ore re-
  duction plants, primary copper smelt-
  ers, municipal Incinerators capable of
  charting more than 360 tons of refuse
  per day.  hydrofluoric, sulfurlc. and
  nitric acid  plants, petroleum  refiner-
  ies, lime planU. phosphate rock proc-
  essing  plants,  coke  oven  batteries.
  sulfur recovery plants, carbon  black
  plants (furnace process), primary lead
  smelters,  fuel  conversion  plants, sin-
  tering plants, secondary metal produc-
  tion plants, chemical process plants,
  fossil  fuel  boilers  (or  combinations
  thereof) totaling more than 250 mil-
 lion  British thermal  units  per hour
 heat  Input, petroleum storage and
 transfer units with a total storage ca-
 pacity exceeding 300.000 barrels, taco-
 nlte ore processing plants, glass fiber
 processing  plants,  and charcoal pro-
 duction plants;
  (6) Notwithstanding the stationary
 source sice  specified  In  paragraph
 (bMlKI) of this section, any stationary
 source which emits, or has the poten-
 tial to emit. 260 torn per year or more
 of any air pollutant subject to regula-
 tion under the Act; or
  (c> Any physical change that would
 occur at a stationary source not other-
 wise qualifying under paragraph (bMl)
 of this section, as a major stationary
 source. If the changes would constitute
 a major stationary source by Itself.
  (II) A major stationary source that to
 major for  volatile organic compounds
shall be considered major for ozone.
  (Ill) The fugitive emissions of a sta-
tionary source shall not be Included In
determining  for any of the purposes of
this section whether It Is a major sta-
tionary source, unless the source be-
long* to one of the following catego-
ries of stationary sources:
  (a) Coal  cleaning  plants (with  ther-
mal dryers);
  (6) Kraft pulp mills;
  (c) Portland cement plants;
   Hydrofluoric, sulfurlc, or  nitric
  acid plants;
    O> Petroleum refineries:
    (k) LJme plants:
    (I) Phosphate rock processing plants;
    (m) Coke oven batteries;
    (n) Sulfur recovery plants;
    (o)  Carbon  black plants (furnace
  process);
    (p) Primary lead smelters;
    (a) Fuel conversion plants:
    (r) Buttering plant*;
    (*)  Secondary   metal  production
  plants:
    (O Chemical process plant*:
    (M) Fossil-fuel boilers (or combina-
  tion thereof)  totaling  more than 260
  million British thermal units per hour
  heat Input:
   (o)  Petroleum storage and transfer
  units with a total storage capacity ex-
  ceeding 300.000 barrels;
   (to) Taconlte ore processing plants;
   (x> Olass fiber processing plant*;
   (y> Charcoal production plants;
   (*)  Fossil  fuel-fired  steam electric
  plant* of more that 260 million British
  thermal  units per hour heat Input."
 and
   (o«) Any other stationary source cat-
 egory which, as of August  7. 19M. Is
 being regulated under  section 111 or
 112 of the Act.
   (2X1)  "Major modification" means
 any physical change In or  change In
 the method  of operation of a major
 stationary source that would result In
 a significant net emission* Increase of
 any pollutant  subject  to regulation
 under the Act.
  (II) Any net emissions Increase that
 Is significant for volatile organic com-
 pounds shall be considered significant
 for ozone.
  (Ill) A physical change or change In
 the method of operation shall not In-
 clude:
  (a) Routine maintenance, repair and
 replacement;
  (6) Use of an alternative fuel or raw
 material  by reason of an order under
sections 2 (a) and (b) of the Energy
Supply and Environmental Coordina-
tion Act  of 1974 (or any superseding
legislation) or by reason of a natural
i..,hei»aei*.l rrevecrtew Aa^ncy

gas curtailment plant pursuant to the
Federal Power Act;
   An Increase ta  actual nmtortnna to
creditable only to the extent that the
new level of actual emission* exceed*
theoMleveL
  (vl) A dturea** ta  actual emissions to
creditable only to the extent that:
  <«) The old level of actual emissions
or the old level of allowable emissions,
whichever to tower, exceed* the new
level of actual emissions;
  (») It to federally enforceable at and
after the ttae that actual construction
on the particular change begins; and
  (c) It ha* approximately the aame
qualitative  significance  for   public
health and welfare  a*  that attributed
to the  Increase  from  the particular
change.
  (vU) (Beaervedl
  (vUl) An Increase that result* from a
physical change at a source occurs
when the emsanon* unit on which oon-
atructlon occurred become* operation-
al and begin* to emit a particular pol-
lutant Any replacement unit that re-
quire* shakedown become* operational
only after a reasonable shakedown
period, not to exceed 100 day*.
  (4) "Potential to emit" mean* the
maximum  capacity  of a stationary
source to emit a pollutant under Its
physical and operational  design. Any
physical or operational limitation on
the capacity  of  the source to emit a
pollutant. Including ah- pollution con-
trol equipment  and restriction*  on
houn of operation  or on  the type or
amount of material combusted, stored,
or processed, shall be treated a* part
of It* design  if the limitation or the
effect It would  have on emtoalon*  to
federally enforceable. Secondary emis-
sion* do not count ta determining the
potential  to   emit   of  a  stationary
source.           .
  (6) "Stationary source" means any
building, structure, facility, or Install*
                                    20
                                                                                                                  21

-------
  gsxai

  tlon which emits or may emit any air
  pollutant subject to regulation under
  the Act.
    (6) "Building,  structure,  facility, or
  Installation" means all of  the pollut-
  ant-emitting activities which belong to
  the same Industrial grouping, are lo-
  cated on one or more contiguous or ad-
  jacent properties, and are  under the
  control of the same person (or person*
  under common control) except the ac-
  tivities  of  any vesoel. Pollutant-emit-
  ting activities shall be considered as
  part of the same  Industrial grouping If
  they belong  to  the  same "Major
  Group" (I.e.. which have the same first
  two digit code)  as  described In  the
  Standard  Industrial   CloJli/lcaflon
  Manual, 1972. as amended by the 1077
  Pufiplement  (D) or
(E) of the Act for the pollutant on the
date of Its complete application under
40 CFR 82.21; and
  (6) In the case of a major stationary
source, the pollutant would be emitted
In significant amounts,  or. In the case
of a major modification, there would
be a significant net emissions Increase
of the pollutant.
  (16X1) "Baseline area"  means any
Intrastate area (and every part there-
of) designated as attainment or unclas-
slflable under section 107(dMl> (D) or
(E) of the Act  In  which the major
source  or major  modification estab-
lishing the baseline  date  would con-
struct or  would  have an air quality
Impact equal to or greater than 1 fig/
                             §5X21

m1 (annual average) of  the pollutant
for  which the baseline  date Is estab-
lished.
  (II)  Area redeslgnatlons under sec-
tion 107(dXI) (D) or (E) of the Act
cannot Intersect  or  be  smaller than
the area of Impact of any mjaor sta-
tionary source or major .'-modification
which:
  (a) Establishes a baseline date; or
  (ft)  Is subject to 40 CFR 82.21 and
would be constructed In the same state
as the state proposing the redeslgna-
tlon.
  (16) "Allowable emissions"  means
the  emissions  rate  of  a stationary
source calculated  using  the maximum
rated capacity  of the source (unless
the source to subject to federally en-
forceable limits which restrict the op-
erating rate, or hours of operation, or
both) and the most stringent  of the
following:
  (I) The applicable standards as set
forth In 40 CFR Parts 00 and 91;
  (II) The applicable State Implemena-
tlon Plan emissions limitation. Includ-
ing those with a future compliance
date; or
  
-------
  { 52.21

  recUr from a mobile source, such a*
  emissions from the tailpipe of a motor
  vehicle,  from a train, or from a vessel.
    (I)  Emissions from ships or  trains
  coming to or from the new or modified
  stationary source; and
    (II) Emissions from any offalte sup-
  port  facility which would  not other-
  wise  be  constructed  or Increase  Its
  emissions as a result of the construc-
  tion or operation of the major station-
  ary source or major modification.
   (19) "Innovative control technology"
 means any system of air pollution con-
 trol  that has not been  adequately
 demonstrated In practice, but would
 have   a   substantial   likelihood   of
 achieving greater  continuous  emis-
 sions   reduction   than  any   control
 system  In  current  practice  or  of
 achieving at least  comparable reduc-
 tions at lower cost In  terms of energy.
 economics, or nonalr  quality  environ-
 mental Impacts.
  (30)  "Fugitive  emissions"   means
 those  emissions which rould  not rea-
 sonably pass through a stack, chim-
 ney, vent, or other  functionally equiv-
 alent opening.
  (JIKI) "Actual emissions" means the
 actual rate of emissions of a pollutant
 from an emissions unit, as determined
 In  accordance with  paragraphs (bXJI)
 (II) through (Iv) of this section.
  (II) In general, actual emissions as of
 a particular  date shall equal the aver-
 age rate. In tons per year, at which the
 unit actually  emitted  the  pollutant
 during a  two-year  period which pre-
 cedes the particular date and which  Is
 representative of normal source oper-
 ation.  The Administrator shall allow
 '.he use of a different time period upon
a determination that It Is more repre-
sentative  of  normal source operation.
 Actual  emissions  shall  be  calculated
 using  the  unit's  actual   operating
 hours, production rates, and types of
 materials  processed, stored,  or com-
 busted during the selected time period.
  (Ill) The Administrator may presume
 that  source-specific allowable  emis-
 sions for the unit are equivalent to the
 actual emissions of the unit.
  (Iv)  For any emissions unit which
 has not begun normal operations on
 the particular  date, actual  emissions
  •hall equal the potential to emit of the
  unit on that <|H!P
           40 CFR Oi. I (7-1-tt MHUn)

    (32» "Complete" means. In reference
  to an  application for a permit, that
  the application contains all of the In-
  formation necessary for processing the
  application.
    (23X1) "Significant" means. In refer-
  ence to a net emissions Increase or the
  potential of a source to emit any of
  the  following pollutants,  a rate of
  emissions that would equal or exceed
  any of the following rates:

       ffoUtttoiK and gmtottoiu Kate
  Carbon raonoilde: 100 ton* per rear (tpr)
  Nitrogen oxide*: 40 tpr
  Sulfur dloxMe: 40 toy
  Partlculatc matter
   W tpr of paniculate matter emMon*:
   It tpr of PM» emlMloni
  OHNM: 40 tpr of volatile organic compounds
  Lead: 0.0 tpr
  Asbestos: 0.007 tpr
  Beryllium: 0.0004 tpr
  Mercury: O.I tpr
  Vinyl chloride: I tpr
  Fluorides: * tpy
  Suit uric add mitt: 1 tpr
  Hydrogen sulflde (HJB): 10 tpr
  Total reduced sulfur (Including HjBI: 10 tpr
  Reduced nilfur compound! (Including HJB):
   10 tpr

   (II) "Significant" means. In reference
 to a net emissions Increase or the po-
 tential of a source to emit a pollutant
 subject to regulation under the  Act
 that paragraph (bX33XI> of this sec-
 tion, does not list, any emissions rate.
   (Ill)  Notwithstanding   paragraph
 (bX33XI> of this section, "significant"
 means any emissions rate or any net
 emission*  Increase associated  with a
 major  stationary  source  or  major
 modification,  which  would  construct
 within 10 kilometers of a Class I area.
 and have an Impact on such area equal
 to or greater than 1 pg/m', (34-hour
 average).
  (34) "Federal Land Manager" means,
 with  respect to  any  lands In  the
 United States, the Secretary of the de-
 partment  with  authority over  such
 lands.
  (35) "High terrain" means any area
 having an elevation 900 feet or more
 above  the base  of  the  stack of a
 source.
  (39) "Low terrain"  means  any  area
other than high terrain.
  (37)  "Indian  Reservation"  means
any  federally reoonnlr-ed reservation
environmental Protection Agoncy

established by Treaty. Agreement, ex-
ecutive order, or act of Congress.
  (38)   "Indian   Governing   Body"
means the  governing  body  of any
tribe, band,  or group of Indians sub-
ject to the Jurisdiction of the United
States and recognized by the United
States as possessing power of self gov-
ernment.
  (29) "Advene Impact on  visibility"
mean* visibility   Impairment  which
Interferes with the management, pro-
tection, preservation or enjoyment of
the visitor's visual experience of the
Federal Class I area. This determina-
tion  must be made on a case-by-case
basis  taking Into  account  the geo-
graphic  extent.  Intensity,  duration,
frequency and time  of visibility  Im-
pairment, and how these factors  corre-
late with (1) times of visitor use of the
Federal Class I area, and (2) the fre-
quency and timing of natural condi-
tions that reduce visibility.
  (c) Ambient air Increment*. In areas
designated as Class I, II or  III. In-
creases In pollutant concentration over
the baseline concentration shall  be
limited to the following:

      MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE (NCKEASC
                                                                 9 52.21

                                    MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE INCREASE—Continued
               CLAM I
   TSP. mnmt r-V
   1ST.(4-to mB*iun.
   140*
                                tt
                                17


                                10
                                •I
                               SI2
TSP. <
TSP.;
                                                                                     ?«hr
                                  tJ
                                  n
                                                                                                                     40
                                                                                                                    1*7
For any period other than an annual
period, the applicable maximum allow-
able Increase may be exceeded during
one ouch period per year at any one lo-
cation.
  (d) Ambient air ceiHnp* No concen-
tration of a pollutant shall exceed:
  (1)  The  concentration  permitted
under the national secondary ambient
air quality standard, or
  (2)  The  concentration  permitted
under the national  primary ambient
air quality standard, whichever con-
centration to lowest for the pollutant
for a period of exposure.
  (e) JteslHcMons on area cfas*
-------
 9 52.21

 7. 1077. which exceeds 10.000 acres In
 size.
  (I) Exclusions from increment con-
 tump/ion. (1) Upon written request of
 the governor,  made after notice and
 opportunity for at  least one  public
 hearing to be held In accordance with
 procedures  established  In  40  CFR
 81.102.  the  Administrator  shall  ex-
 clude  the following concentrations In
 determining compliance with a  maxi-
 mum allowable Increase:
  (I) Concentrations  attributable  to
 the  Increase In emissions from station-
 ary  sources  which  have  converted
 from the  use of petroleum products.
 natural  gas. or  both by reason  of an
 order In effect under sections 2(a) and
 (b) of the Energy Supply and Environ-
 mental Coordination Act of  1974 (or
 any superseding legislation) over the
 emissions  from  such sources before
 the effective date of such an order:
  (II) Concentrations  attributable  to
 the Increase  In emissions from sources
 which have converted from using nat-
 ural gas  by reason of a natural gas cur-
 tailment plan In effect pursuant to the
 Federal  Power Act over the emissions
 from such sources before the effective
 date of such plan;
  (III)  Concentrations  of  partlculate
 matter attributable to the Increase In
 emissions from  construction or other
 temporary emission-related  activities
 of nsw or modified sources;
  (Iv) The Increase  In  concentrations
 attributable  to  new sources outside
 the United States over the concentra-
 tions attributable to existing sources
 which are Included In the baseline con-
centration; and
  (v) Concentrations attributable to
the temporary Increase In emissions of
sulfur  dioxide  or participate  matter
 from stationary sources which are af-
 fected by plan revisions approved by
 the Administrator as meeting the cri-
 teria specified  In paragraph (f)(4) of
 this section.
  (2) No exclusion of such concentra-
 tions shall apply more than five years
 after the effective date of the order to
 which  paragraph (f)(!)(!) of this sec-
 tion, refers or the plan to which para-
graph  (fMlXII) uf this section, refers,
whichever Is applicable. If both  such
order and plan are applicable, no such
exclusion shall  npply more than  five
          40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-99 billion)

 years after the later of such effective
 dates.
   (3) No exclusion under paragraph (f)
 of this section shall occur later than B
 months after August 7. 1980. unless a
 State  Implementation  Plan revision
 meeting the requirements of 40 CFR
 81.160  has been submitted to the Ad-
 ministrator.
   (4) For purposes  of  excluding con-
 centrations  pursuant  to  paragraph
 (fKlXv) of this section, the proposed
 plan revision shall:
   (I) Specify the time over which the
 temporary emissions Increase of sulfur
 dioxide or  partlculate matter would
 occur. Such time Is  not to exceed two
 yean In duration  unless a longer tune
 Is approved by the Administrator.
   (II) Specify that the tune period for
 excluding certain  contributions in ac-
 cordance with paragraph (fM4KI> of
 thta section. Is not renewable:
   (111)  Allow  no  emissions Increase
 from a stationary source which would:
   (a) Impact a Class I area or an area
 where  an  applicable   Increment  Is
 known to be violated; or
  (6) Cause or contribute to the viola-
 tion of a national ambient air quality
 standard;
  (Iv)  Require  limitations  to be  In
 effect at the end of the tune period
 specified  in  accordance with  para-
 graph , and (gX3Xlv)
of this section: and
  (II) Such  redeslgnatlon Is proposed
after consultation with the 8tate(s) hi
which the Indian  Reservation la locat-
ed and which border the Indian Reser-
vation.
  (5) The Administrator shall disap-
prove, within 90 days of submission, a
proposed redeslgnatlon of any area
only If he finds,  after notice and  op-
portunity for public hearing, that such
redeslgnatlon does not meet the proce-
dural requirements of this paragraph
or Is Inconsistent with paragraph (e)
of this section. If any such disapproval
occurs, the classification of  the area
shall be that which was In effect prior
                                    26
                                                                                                                      27

-------
  § 52.31

  to the redrslgnallon which was disap-
  proved.
   (6) If the Administrator disapproves
  any proposed redeslgnatlon. the State
  or Indian Governing Body, as appro-
  priate,  may  resubmll  the proposal
  after correcting the deficiencies noted
  by the Administrator.
   (h) Stack  height*. (1) The degree of
 emission limitation required for con-
 trol  of  any air pollutant under this
 section  shall not  be  affected In any
 manner by—
   (I) 80 much of the stack height of
 any source as exceeds good engineer-
 Ing practice, or
   (II) Any other dispersion technique.
   (J) Paragraph (h)(l) of this section
 shall not apply  with respect to stack
 heights  In existence before December
 31. 1970. or to dispersion techniques
 Implemented before then.
   (I)   Review  of   major  itattonary
 fourcri  and  major  modification*—
 Source applicability and exemption*.
 (I) No stationary source or modifica-
 tion  to  which the  requirement*  of
 paragraphs  through (r) of this sec-
 tion apply shall begin actual construc-
 tion  without a  permit which  states
 that the stationary source or modifica-
 tion would meet those requirements.
 The  Administrator has  authority  to
 Issue any such permit.
  (2) The requirements of paragraphs
  through  (r) of  thin section  shall
 apply  to any major stationary source
 and  any major inodlllc-allon with  re-
 npect to each pollutant subject to reg-
 ulation under  the  Act that It would
 emit, except  as this section otherwise
 provides.
  (3) The requirements of paragraphs
(J) through (r) of  this section  apply
only to any major stationary source or
major modification that would be con-
structed  In an area designated as at-
tainment or  unclasslflable under sec-
tion 107(l> as In effect before
  March 1. 1978. and the owner or oper-
  ator:
    Obtained under 40 CFR SJ.21 a
  final approval effective before March
  1.1978:
   <6) Commenced construction before
 March 19.1979: and
   (c) Did not discontinue construction
 for a period of 18 months or more and
 completed construction within  a rea-
 sonable tune; or
   (111) The source or modification was
 subject to 40 CFR 62.21 as hi effect
 before March I. 1978, and  the review
 of an application for approval for the
 stationary  source   or   modification
 under 40 CFR 62.21 would  have been
 completed by  March 1. 1978. but for
 an extension of the public comment
 period pursuant  to a request for such
 an extension.  In such a case, the appli-
 cation shall continue to be processed.
 and granted or denied,  under 40 CFR
 62.31 as In effect  prior to March  1.
 1978; or
  (Iv) The source or modification was
 not  subject  to 40  CFR 82.21  as  In
 effect before  March  1.  1978. and the
 owner or operator
  (•) Obtained all final Federal, state
 and local preconstructlon approvals or
 permit* necessary under the  applica-
 ble State Implementation Plan before
 March 1.1978;
  (6)  Commenced construction before
 March 19.1979: and
  (c) Did not discontinue construction
 for a  period of 18 months or more and
completed construction  within a rea-
sonable time; or
  (v)  The source  or modification was
not subject to 40  CFR 62.21 as  In
effect on June 19. 1978 or under the
partial  stay of regulations  published
on February 6, 1980 (46 FR 7800). and
the owner or operator:
  (a) Obtained all final  Federal, state
and local preconstructlon approvals or
permits necessary under the applica-
ble State Implementation Plan before
August 7. 1980;
  (6) Commenced construction within
18 months from August 7. 1980. or any
f nvlr*nm«ntol f rotoctlon Agency

earlier time required under the appli-
cable State Implementation Plan: and
  (c) Did  not dlscontlnuue  construc-
tion for a period of 18 months or more
and completed construction within a
reasonable time; or
  (rl)   The  source  or  modification
would  be  a nonprofit health or non-
profit  educational  Institution, or  a
major  modification  would  occur at
such an Institution, and the governor
of the state  In which the source or
modification would be located requests
that It be exempt from those require-
ments; or
  (vll)  The  source  or  modification
would be a major stationary source or
major  modification  only If fugitive
emissions, to the extent quantifiable.
are considered In calculating the po-
tential to emit of the stationary source
or modification and the source does
not belong to any of the following cat-
egories:
  (a) Coal cleat   nianU (with ther-
mal dryers);
  (b) Kraft pulp mills;
  (c) Portland cement plants;
  (d) Primary zinc smelters;
  (e) Iron and steel mills;
  (/) Primary aluminum ore reduction
plants;
  (9) Primary copper smelters;
  (M Municipal Incinerators capable of
charging more than 260 tons of refuse
per day;
  (I) Hydrofluoric, sulfuric, or nitric
add plants:
  U) Petroleum refineries;
   IJme plants;
  (I) Phosphate rock processing plant*;
  (m> Coke oven batteries;
  (n) Sulfur recovery planta;
  (o>  Carbon  black plants  (furnace
process);
  (p> Primary lead smelters;
  («) Fuel conversion plants;
  (r) Sintering plants;
  (f)   Secondary  metal   production
plants;
  (I) Chemical process plants;
  (*>  Fossil-fuel boilers  (or combina-
tion thereof) totaling  more than 260
million British thermal units per hour
heat Input:
  (D)  Petroleum storage and transfer
units with a  total storage capacity ex-
ceeding 300.000 barrels;
  (u>) Taconlte ore processing plants;
                             9 52.11

  (x) Glass fiber processing planta;
  (y) Charcoal production plants;
  («) Fossil  fuel-fired  steam  electric
plants of more than 360 million Brit-
ish thermal units per hour heat Input:
  (aa) Any other stationary source cat-
egory which, as of August 7.  1980, Is
being regulated under section 111 or
112 of the Act; or
  (vlll) The  source la a portable sta-
tionary  source which  has previously
received a permit  under this  section.
and
  (a) The owner or operator proposes
to relocate the source and emissions of
the source at the  new location would
be temporary; and
  (6) The emissions from the source
would not exceed  Its allowable emis-
sions; and
  (c) The emission* from the source
would Impact no Class I  area and no
area where an applicable  Increment la
known to be violated; and
  (it) Reasonable notice la given to the
Administrator prior to the  relocation
Identifying the proposed new location
and  the probable duration of oper-
ation at the new location. Such notice
shall be given to the Administrator
not leas than 10 days hi advance of the
proposed relocation unless a different
time duration  la previously approved
by the Administrator.
  (lx> The source  or modification was
not subject  to 162.21. with  respect to
paHlculate matter, aa In effect before
July 91. 1M7. and  the owner or opera-
tor:
  (•> Obtained all  final Federal. State.
and  local preconstructlon approvals or
permits necessary under  the  applica-
ble State Implementation plan before
July 11,1987;
  (6) Commenced  construction within
18 months after July 31.  1»87. or any
earlier time required under the State
Implementation plan; and
  (c) Did not discontinue  construction
for a period of 18 months or more and
completed construction within a rea-
sonable period of tune.
  (x> The source or modification was
subject to 40 CFR 62.21.  with respect
to  partlculate matter, aa  In effect
before July  II. 1987 and the owner or
operator submitted an application for
a permit under tnla section before that
date, and  the Administrator subse-
                                    28
                                                                                                                     29

-------
  9 51.21

  quently  determines that the applica-
  tion as submitted  was complete with
  respect to the paniculate matter re-
  quirements then In effect In this sec-
  tion.  Instead, the requirements of
  paragraphs (J) through (r) of this sec-
  tion that were In effect before July 31.
  1087  shall  apply to such  source or
  modification.
   (6) The requirements of paragraph*
  (j) through (r) of this section shall not
  apply to a major stationary source or
  major modification with respect to a
  particular  pollutant If the owner or
 operator demonstrates that, as to that
 pollutant, the source or modification
 Is located  In  an area  designated as
 nonattabunent under  section 107 of
 the Act.
   (6) The requirements of paragraphs
 (k).  and (o) of this section shall
 not apply to a major stationary source
 or major modification with respect to
 a particular pollutant. If the allowable
 emission* of that pollutant from  the
 source, or the net  emissions Increase
 of that pollutant from the modifica-
 tion:
   (I) Would Impart no Class 1 area and
 no area where an applicable Increment
 Is known to be violated, and
   Would be temporary.
  <7> The requirement* of paragraphs
 (k).  (m) and (o) of this section aa they
 relate  to  any maximum allowable In-
 crease for a Class  II area  shall not
 apply to a major modification at a sta-
 tionary source that  was In existence
 on March 1.1918. If the net Increase In
 allowable emissions  of each pollutant
 subject to regulation under  the  Act
 from the  modification after the appli-
 cation  of best available control tech-
 nology would be leu than SO tons per
 year.
  <8> The  Administrator may exempt a
stationary source or  modification from
the requirements of paragraph (m) of
this section, with  respect to monitor-
Ing for a particular pollutant If:
  (I) The emissions Increase of the pol-
lutant  from the new source or the net
emissions  Increase  of  the pollutant
from the modification would cause. In
any area,  air quality Impacts less than
the following amounts:
Carbon monoxide—B75 pc/m'. (-hour aver-
  as*:
Nltrocen dioxide -M pf/m*. annual avrrace:

                                    30
          40 CFM Ch. I (7-1-M Edition)    Cnvtronm*ntal Protection Agency
  Paniculate matter:
   10 pg/rn' of TOP. 34-hour average;
   10 p«/m« of f»M,.. 24 hour average;
  Sulfur dioxide—1} pg/m*. 34-hour average;
  Oxone; •
   Lead-4.1 ps/m*. 1 month average;
   Mercury-O.38 ps/ro". M-hour average:
   Berylllum-0.001 pg/m', 34-hour average;
   Fluoride*—0.3t tig/in*. 34-hour average;
   Vinyl chloride—15 pg/m'. 34-hour average;
   Total reduced sulfur—10 pg/m* 1-hour av-
  erage;
   Hydrogen sulflde—4.3 pg/m*. 1-hour aver*
  age;
   Reduced sulfur eompound»-10 pg/m'. I-
  hour average: or

   (II) The concentrations of the pollut-
  ant In  the area that  the  source or
  modification  would affect  are  less
  than the concentrations listed In para-
  graph (IK8KI) of this  section, or  the
  pollutant la not  listed In paragraph
  0X8X1) of this section.
   (9) The requirements for best  avail-
 able control technology In paragraph
 (J)  of  this  section and the require-
 ments for air quality analyses In para-
 graph  as In effect on June
19,  1878. Instead,  the latter require-
ments shall apply  to any such source
or modification.
  —
(Iv).
  (U) The requirement* for air qulallty
monitoring pf  PMM  In  paragraph*
(mxl). (II) and (Iv) and (mX3) of this
section shall  apply to  a particular
source or modification If the owner or
operator of the source or modification
submit* an application for  a permit
under this section after June 1. 1988
and no later  than December 1.  1988.
The  data  shall  have been  gathered
over at least the period from February
1. 1988 to the date the application be-
comes otherwise complete In accord-
vice with  the provisions set  forth
under paragraph (mXlKvtll) of  this
section, except that If  the Admlnlstra-
                             9 sa.li

tor determines that a  complete and
adequate analysis can be accomplished
with monitoring  data over  a shorter
period (not to be less than 4 months).
the data that paragraph (mXIXIll) re-
quires shall have been gathered over a
shorter period.
  (J) Control technology review. (DA
major  stationary source   or  major
modification shall meet each applica-
ble emissions  limitation under the
State Implementation Plan and each
applicable  emissions  standard  and
standard  of  performance  under  40
CFR Part* 80 and 81.
  (2) A new  major stationary  source
•hall apply best available control tech-
nology for each  pollutant subject  to
regulation under the Act that It would
have the potential to emit  In signifi-
cant amount*.
  (3) A major modification shall apply
best available control technology for
each  pollutant subject  to  regulation
under  the Act for  which  It would
result In a significant net emissions In-
crease at the source. This requirement
applies to each  proposed  emissions
unit at which a net emission* Increase
In the  pollutant  would  occur a* a
remit of a physical change  or change
In the method of operation In the unit.
  (4) For phased construction projects,
the determination of  best  available
control technology shall be reviewed
and modified a* appropriate at the
latest reasonable tune which occur* no
later  than 18  month*  prior to com-
mencement of construction of each In-
dependent  phase  of the project. At
such tune, the owner or operator  of
the applicable  stationary source may
be required to demonstrate the ade-
quacy of any  previous  determination
of best available  control technology
for the source.
  (k)  Source  impact  analytic.  The
owner or operator of  the  proposed
source or modification  shall demon-
strate  that  allowable  emission  In-
crease*  from the proposed  source or
modification. In conjunction with all
other applicable emissions Increases or
reductions (Including secondary emis-
sions), would not cause or contribute
to air pollution In violation of:
  (1) Any national ambient air quality
standard In any  air quality control
region: or
                                                                                                                  31

-------
  9 53.71

   (2) Any applicable maximum allow-
  able Increase over the baarllne concen-
  tration In any area.
   (I) Air quality modelt. (I) All  esti-
  mates of ambient concentration* re-
  quired under this paragraph Khali be
  baaed  on the  applliable air quality
  models, data bases, and other require-
  ments specified In the  "Guideline on
  Air Quality Models (Revised)" (1086)
 and  Supplement A (1081) which are
 Incorporated by reference. The guide-
 line  (EPA publication  No.  460/2-78-
 027R)  and Supplement A  (1987) are
 for sale from the U.S.  Department of
 Commerce. National  Technical Infor-
 mation Service, 6825 Port Royal Road,
 Springfield.  Virginia  22161.  They are
 also  available for Inspection at  the
 Office  of the Federal Register Infor-
 mation  Center.  Room  8301. 1100  L
 Street. NW., Washington. DC 20408.
 Thla Incorporation by reference  was
 approved by the Director of the Feder-
 al Register on February 6. 1988. These
 materials  are  Incorporated  as  they
 exist on  the date  of approval and a
 notice of any change will be published
 In the FKDKKAL REOISTCH.
  (2) Where an  air  quality  Impact
 model specified In the "Guideline on
 Air Quality  Models (Revised)" (1988)
 and Supplement A (1987) are Inappro-
 priate, the model may be modified or
 another model   substituted.  Such  a
 modification  or  substitution  of  a
 model may be made on a case-by-case
 basis or. where  appropriate, on a ge-
 neric basis for  a specific state pro-
 gram. Written approval of the Admin-
 istrator  must  be  obtained  for  any
 modification or substitution.  In addi-
 tion,  use of a modified or substituted
 model must  be  subject to notice and
opportunity for public comment under
procedure*  developed  In accordance
with paragraph  of this section.
  (m) Air quality analvilt—(1) Preatt-
 plicalton analv»lf.  Any application
 for a permit under this section shall
contain  an  analy*ln  of ambient  air
 quality In the arm I hat ttir major sta-
 tionary source or major modification
 would aftrcl for each of the  following
 pollutants:
  (a) For the source,  each pollutant
 that  It would  have the potential to
 omit In a significant amount;
          40 CFt Oi. I (7-141 Edition)    environmental Protection Agency
   (6) For the modification, each pol-
 lutant for which It would  result In a
 significant net •••nlnslons Increase.
   (II) With respect to any such pollut-
 ant  for  which no  National Ambient
 Air Quality Standard exists, the analy-
 sis shall contain such air quality moni-
 toring data as the Administrator de-
 termines Is necessary to assess ambi-
 ent air quality for that pollutant In
 any  area that the emissions of that
 pollutant would affect.
   (Ill) With respect to any such pollut-
 ant (other than  nonroethane  hydro-
 carbons) for which such a standard
 does exist, the analysis shall contain
 continuous air quality monitoring data
 gathered for purposes of determining
 whether  emissions of that pollutant
 would cause or contribute to a viola-
 tion of the standard or any maximum
 allowable Increase.
   (I*) In general, the continuous air
 quality  monitoring data, that Is re-
 quired shall have been gathered over a
 period of at least one year and shall
 represent at least the year preceding
 receipt of the application, except that.
 If the Administrator determines that a
 complete and adequate analysis can be
 accomplished  with  monitoring  data
 gathered over  a period shorter than
 one year (but not to be less  than  four
 months),  the  data  that  Is required
 shall have been gathered over at least
 that shorter period.
  (v)  For any  application which  be-
 comes complete, except as to the re-
 quirements of  paragraphs (mMl) (III)
 and (Iv) of this section, between June
 8. 1981. and February 9. 1982. the data
 that paragraph (mMlKIII) of this sec-
 tion, requires shall have been gathered
 over at least the period from February
 9. 1981. to the date the application be-
 comes  otherwise   complete,  except
 that:
  (a)  If  the source or  modification
 would have been major for that pollut-
 ant under 40 CFR S2.21 as In effect on
June  19,  1978,  any monitoring data
shall have been gathered over at least
 the period required by  those regula-
 tions.
  (b> If the Administrator determines
 that a complete and adequate analysis
can be accomplished with monitoring
data over a shorter period (not to be
less than four months), the  data that
paragraph (mXIMill) of this  section,
requires shall have been gathered over
at least that shorter period.
  (c) If the monitoring  data would
relate exclusively  to ozone and would
not have been required under 40 CFR
SI 31 as In effect on June  19. 1978. the
Administrator may  waive the other-
wise applicable  requirements of this
paragraph (v) to the extent that the
applicant shows that  the monitoring
data would be unrepresentative of air
quality over a full  year.
  (vt) The owner or operator of a pro-
posed stationary  source or modifica-
tion of vtolalUe  organic  compounds
who satisfies all conditions of 40 CFR
Part 61 Appendix 8. section  IV  may
provide post-approval monitoring data
for  ocone In lieu of providing precon-
structlon data as requried under para-
graph (mXl) of this section.
  (vll)  For any application that be-
comes complete, except as to the re-
quirements of paragraphs (mMl) (III)
and (Iv) pertaining to PM«. after De-
cember  1.  1988  and  no  later  than
August  1. 1989 the data that para-
graph  (mXIXlll)  requires shall  have
been gathered over at lerst the period
from August 1. 1988 to the date the
application becomes otherwise  com-
plete, except that  If the Administrator
determines that a complete and ade-
quate analysis  can be accomplished
with monitoring data over a shorter
period (not to be less than 4 months),
the data that paragraph (mMlKill) re-
quires  shall  have  been gathered over
that shorter period.
  (vlll) With respect  to any  require-
ments  for air quality monitoring of
PMM under paragraphs (1X11) (I) and
(U) of this sectlonm the owner or oper-
ator of  the source or  modification
shall use a monitoring  method ap-
proved by the Administrator and shall
estimate the ambient concentrations
of  PMM using  the  data  collected by
such approved  monitoring  method In
accordance with estimating procedures
approved by the Administrator.
  (2)   Post-construction   monitoring.
The owner or operator of a major sta-
tionary source  or major  modification
shall, after construction of the station-
ary source  or  modification,  conduct
such ambient monitoring as the Ad-
ministrator determines Is necessary to
                             9 59.91

determine the effect emissions from
the stationary source or modification
may have, or are having, on air quality
In any area.
  (3)  Operations of monitoring  sta-
tions. The  owner or  operator of a
major stationary  source  or  major
modification shall meet the require-
ments of Appendix B to Part 68 of this
chapter during the operation of moni-
toring stations for purposes of satisfy-
ing paragraph (m) of this section.
  (n)  Source information. The owner
or operator of a proposed source or
modification shall submit all Informa-
tion necessary to perform any analysts
or make any determination required
under this section.
  (1) With respect to a source or modi-
fication to which  paragraph* (J). (1),
(n) and (p) of this section apply, such
Information shall Include:
  (I) A description of the nature, loca-
tion, design  capacity, and typical oper-
ating schedule of the source or modifi-
cation.  Including  specifications  and
drawings showing Ite design and plant
layout;
  (II) A detailed  schedule for construc-
tion of the source or modification;
  (III) A detailed description as to what
system of continuous emission reduc-
tion Is planned for the source or modi-
fication, emission estimates, and any
other Information necessary to deter-
mine that best available control tech-
nology would be applied.
  (2) Upon request of the Administra-
tor, the owner or operator shall also
provide Information on:
  (I)  The air quality  Impact  of the
source or modification. Including me-
teorological and topographical  data
necessary to estimate such Impact; and
  (II) The air quality Impacts, and the
nature and extent of any or all general
commercial, residential. Industrial, and
other growth which has occurred sine*
August T. 1977. In the area the source
or modification would affect.
  (o) Additional Impact anafiwe*. (1)
The owner  or operator shall  provide
an analysis  of the Impairment  to visi-
bility, soils  and  vegetation that would
occur as a result of the source or modi-
fication and general commercial, resi-
dential.  Industrial and other growth
associated with the source or modifica-
tion. The owner or operator need not
                                   32
                                                                           33

-------
  9 51.21

  provide an analysis of the  Impact on
  vegetation having no significant com-
  mercial or recreational value.
   (2) The owner or operator shall pro-
  vide an analysis  of the air quality
  Impact projected  for  the  area  as a
  result  cf general commercial, residen-
  tial. Industrial and other growth asso-
  ciated  with the source or modification.
   (3) Viability  monitoring.  The  Ad-
  ministrator may require monitoring of
  visibility In  any Federal class I area
  near  the proposed new  stationary
  source for major modification for such
  purposes and by such  means as  the
 Administrator  deems  necessary and
 appropriate.
   (p) Source* impacting Federal Clot*
 I area*—additional  requirement*—(I)
 Notice  to Federal land  manager*. The
 Administrator shall provide  written
 notice of any pe;mlt application for a
 proposed major stationary  source  or
 major  modification,   the   emission!
 from which may affect a Class I area,
 to the  Federal land manager and the
 Federal official charged with direct re-
 sponsibility for  management of any
 lands within any such area. Cuch noti-
 fication shall  Include a copy of all In-
 formation relevant to the permit ap-
 plication and  shall be given  within 30
 days of receipt and  at least 60 days
 prior to any public hearing on the ap-
 plication  for  a penult  to  construct.
 Such notification  shall  Include  an
 analysis of the  proposed source's an-
 ticipated Impacts on visibility In the
 Federal Class I area. The Administra-
 tor shall also provide the Federal land
 manager  and such Federal  officials
 with a  copy of the preliminary deter-
 mination  required  under paragraph
 (q) of  this section,  and shall  make
available to them any materials  used
In making that determination, prompt-
ly after the Administrator makes such
determination. Finally,  the  Adminis-
trator shall also  notify all  affected
Federal  land managers within 30 days
of receipt of any advance notification
of any such permit application.
  (2) Federal Land Manager. The Fed-
eral Land Manager and the Federal of-
ficial charged  with direct responsibil-
ity for  management of  such lands
have an affirmative responsibility  to
protect  the air quality related values
(Including visibility) of such lands and

                                   34
          40 CM Ch. I (7-1-M Edition)     fnvlronmwilol Protection Ag«ncy
  to consider. In consultation  with  the
  Administrator, whether  a  proposed
  source or modification will have an ad-
  verse Impact on such values.
    (3) Vliibilltv analyii*. The Adminis-
  trator shall consider any analysis per-
  formed by the Federal land manager,  i
  provided within 30 days of the notifi-
  cation required by paragraph (PX1) of
  this section, that shows  that a pro-
  posed new major stationary source or
  major modification may have an  ad-
  verse Impact on visibility In any Feder-
  al Class I area. Where the Administra-
  tor finds that such an analysis does
  not demonstrate to the satisfaction of
  the  Administrator that  an adverse
  Impact on visibility will result In the
  Federal Class I area, the  Administra-
  tor must. In the notice of public  hear-
  ing on the permit application, either
  explain his decision or give notice as to
 where  the  explanation  can be ob-
 tained.
   (4) Denial—impact on air quality re-
 lated value*.  The Federal land Man-
 ager of  any such  lands may demon-
 strate to the Administrator that the
 emissions from a proposed source or
 modification  would have  an adverse
 Impact  on  the  air quality-related
 values (Including  visibility)  of  those
 lands,   notwithstanding   that   the
 change In air quality resulting from
 emissions from such source or modifi-
 cation would  not cause or contribute
 to concentrations which would exceed
 the maximum allowable Increases for
 a Class  I  area. If the Administrator
 concurs   with such  demonstration.
 then he shall not Issue the permit.
  (5) Cla»i I variance!. The owner or
 operator of a proposed source or modi-
 fication may demonstrate to the Fed-
 eral Land Manager that the emissions
 from such  source  or  modification
 would have no advene Impact on the
 air quality related values of any such
 lands (Including  visibility), notwith-
standing that the change In air quality
resulting  from emissions from  such
source or modification would cause or
contribute to  concentrations which
would exceed the maximum allowable
Increases for a Class I area. If the Fed-
eral Land Manager concurs with such
demonstration and he so certifies, the
State may authorize the Administra-
tor: Provided,  That the applicable re-
quirements of this section are other-
wise met. to Issue the permit with such
emission limitations as may be neces-
sary to assure that emissions of sulfur
dioxide  and partlculate matter would
not exceed the followng maximum al-
lowable  Increases over baseline concen-
tration for such pollutants:

     MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE INCREASE
  in. raftiun...
                                  I*
                                  17
                                 tl
                                 315
  (6) Sulfur dioxide variance by Gov-
ernor with Federal  Land  Manager'!
concurrence. The owner or operator of
a  proposed source  or modification
which cannot be approved under para-
graph (qM4) of this section may dem-
onstrate  to the Governor  that  the
source  cannot  be  constructed  by
reason of any  maximum allowable In-
crease for sulfur dioxide for a period
of twenty-four hours or less applicable
to any Class I  area and. In the case of
Federal mandatory Class I areas, that
a variance under this clause would not
adversely affect the air quality related
values of the  area (Including visibili-
ty). The Governor, after consideration
of the Federal Land Manager's recom-
mendation (If  any) and subject  to his
concurrence,  may.  after notice and
public hearing, grant a variance from
such maximum allowable Increase. If
such variance Is granted, the Adminis-
trator shall Issue  a permit to such
source or modification pursuant to the
requirements  of paragraph  (qM7) of
this section: Provided, That the  appli-
cable requirements of this section are
otherwise met.
  (7) Variance ay the Governor with
the Pnttdent'* concurrence. In any
case where the Governor recommends
a variance In which the Federal Land
Manager  does  not concur, the recom-
mendations of the Governor and the
Federal Land Manager shall be  trans-
mitted to the President. The President
                             § 52.21

may approve  the Governor's recom-
mendation If he  finds that the vari-
ance Is In the national Interest. If the
variance Is approved,  the Administra-
tor shall  Issue a permit pursuant to
the requirements of paragraph 
of this section: Provided, That the ap-
plicable requirements of this section
are otherwise met.
  (8) ffmlMlon limitation* for Presi-
dential or gubernatorial variance In
the case of a permit Issued pursuant to
paragraph (q) (6) or (6) of this section
the  source  or  modification  shall
comply with such emission limitations
as may be necessary to assure that
emissions of sulfur dioxide  from the
source  or modification  would  not
(during any day on which the other-
wise applicable maximum allowable In-
creases are exceeded) cause or contrib-
ute to concentrations  which  would
exceed the following maximum allow-
able Increases over the baseline con-
centration and to  assure  that such
emissions would not cause or contrib-
ute to  concentrations which exceed
the otherwise applicable maximum al-
lowable Increases for periods of expo-
sure of 24 hours or  less for more than
18 days, not necessarily consecutive,
during any annual period:

     MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE INCREASE
               . im cut*
                           N
                           130
 •t
221
  (q)  Public  participation.  The  Ad-
ministrator shall follow the applicable
procedures of 40  CFR Part  124 In
processing applications under this sec-
tion. The Administrator shall  follow
the procedures at  40 CFR B2.21(r) as
In effect  on June 19, 1979,  to  the
extent that the procedures of 40 CFR
Part 124 do not apply.
  (r) Source obligation. (1) Any owner
or operator who constructs or operates
a source or modification not In accord-
ance with the application submitted
pursuant to this section or with  the
terms of any approval to construct, or
any owner or operator of  a source or
                                                                            35

-------
    9 5121

    modification subject to  this section
    who commences roiutructlon after the
    effective date  of  these regulation*
    without applying for and receiving ap-
    proval  hereunder. shall be subject to
    appropriate enforcement action.
     (3)  Approval  to  construct  shall
    become  Invalid  If construction Is not
    commenced within ID months after re-
   ceipt of inch approval. If construction
   Is  discontinued  for  a  period of  IS
   month* or more, or If construction to
   not  completed  within  a  reasonable
   time. The Administrator  may extend
   the 19-month period  upon a satisfac-
   tory showing that an  extension Is Jus-
   tified. This provision does not apply to
   the time period  between construction
  of the  approved phases  of a phased
  construction project; each phase must
  commence  construction  within  It
  months of the projected and approved
  commencement date.
    <3) Approval to construct shall not
  relieve any owner or operator of the
  responsibility to comply fully with ap-
  plicable provisions of the State Imple-
  mentation plan and any other require-
  ments under local. State,  or  Federal
  law.
   (4) At such  time that a particular
 source  or  modification  becomes  a
 major  stationary  source  or  major
 modification solely by virtue of a re-
 laxation In any enforceable limitation
 which was established after August 7.
 1980. on the capacity of the source or
 modification otherwise to emit a pol-
 lutant, such as a restriction on hours
 of operation, then the requirements or
 paragraphs (J) through (») of this sec-
 tion shall apply to the source or modi-
 fication as though construction had
 not  yet  commenced on the source or
 modification.
  (s)   Environmental  impact   itate-
 mentt. Whenever any proposed source
or modification Is subject to action by
a Federal Agency which might necessi-
tate  preparation of an environmental
Impact statement pursuant to the Na-
tional Environmental  Policy Act (42
IIBC. 4321). review by the  Adminis-
trator conducted pursuant  to this sec-
tion  shall be  coordinated with  the
broad  environmental  reviews  under
that Act and under section 30V of the
Clean Air Act to the maximum extent
feasible and reasonable.
      (I) Disputed permit* or  redetigna-
     lion*. If any State affected  by the re-
     deslgnatlon of an area by  an Indian
     Governing Body, or any Indian Gov-
     erning Body of a tribe affected by the
     redeslgnatlon  of an  area by a State,
    disagrees with such  redeslgnatlon. or
    If a permit to proposed to be  Issued for
    any major stationary source or major
    modification  proposed  for  construc-
    tion In any State which  the  Governor
    of an affected State or Indian Govern-
    ing  Body of an affected tribe deter-
    mines will cause or contribute to a cu-
    mulative  change  In  air quality  In
    excess of that allowed  In  this  part
    within the  affected State or  Indian
    Reservation, the Governor or  Indian
   Governing Body may request the Ad-
   ministrator to enter Into negotiations
   with the  parties Involved to resolve
   such  dispute.  If requested  by  any
   State or Indian Governing Body In-  ,
   volved, the Administrator shall make a  j
   recommendation to resolve the dispute  I
   and protect the air  quality  related  i
   values of the lands Involved. If  the
   parties Involved do  not reach agree-
   ment, the Administrator shall resolve
   the dispute and his determination, or
  the  results  of  agreements   reached  :
  through  other  means,  shall  become  '
  part of the applicable State tanplemen-  '
  tatlon plan and shall be enforceable as
  part  of such plan. In  resolving such
  disputes relating to area redeslgnatlon.
  the Administrator shall consider the
  extent to which the lands Involved are
  of sufficient atee to allow effective air
  quality management or have air qual-
  ity related values of such an area.
    and (3) of this section.
   C2> Where the  Administrator dele-
 gates the responsibility for conducting
 source review under this section  to any
 agency other than a Regional  Office
 of  the  Environmental   Protection
 Agency, the following  provisions shall
 apply:
  (I) Where the delegate agency  to not
 an air  pollution  control agency. It
shall consult  with the  appropriate
State and  local air pollution  control
agency prior to making any determlna-
                                   36
   Ijon  under  this section.  Similarly.
   where the delegate agency  does not
   have  continuing  responsibility  for
   managing  land use.  It shall consult
   trith  the appropriate State and  local
   •gency primarily responsible for man-
   iglng land use prior to making any de-
   termination under this section.
    01) The delegate agency shall send a
   copy of any public comment notice re-
   quired under  paragraph (r) of this sec-
   tion to the Administrator through the
   sppropriate Regional Office.
    (S)  The  Administrator's authority
   for reviewing a source or modification
   located on an Indian Reservation shall
   not be redelegated other than to a Re-
   gional  Office of the Environmental
   protection Agency, except where the
  State  has assumed Jurisdiction  over
  such land under other laws. Where the
  State  has assumed such  jurisdiction.
  the Administrator may delegate  his
  authority to the States In accordance
  with paragraph (vN2) of this section.
   (4) In the case of a source or modifi-
  cation which proposes to construct In
  a class III area, emissions from which
  would cause or contribute to air qual-
  ity exceeding the maximum allowable
  Increase applicable If  the area were
  designated a class II area,  and where
  no standard under section  111 of the
  act has been  promulgated for such
  source  category,  the  Administrator
  must approve the determination  of
  best available  control  technology  as
 set forth in the permit.
   (v) Innovative control  technology.
 (1) An owner or operator of a proposed
 major  stationary  source  or  major
 modification may request the Adminis-
 trator In  writing no  later than the
 close of the comment period under 40
 CFR 124.10 to approve a system of In-
 novative control technology.
   (J) The  Administrator shall, with
 the consent of  the governors) of the
 affected stated), determine that the
 source or modification may employ a
 system of Innovative control technolo-
 gy. If:
  (I)  The  proposed  control  system
 would not  cause  or contribute to  an
 unreasonable risk to  public health.
 welfare, or safety In Its operation or
 function;
  (II) The owner or operator agrees to
achieve a level of continuous emissions
                                                                                                               9 52.11
   reduction equivalent  to that  which
   would have been required under para-
   graph (JK2) of this section, by a date
   specified by the Administrator. Such
   date shall not be  later  than 4 years
   from the time of startup or 7 years
   from permit Issuance;
    (III) The  source or  modification
   would meet the requirements of para-
   graphs (J)  and (k) of  this  section.
   based on the  emissions rate that  the
   stationary  source  employing   the
   system of Innovative control technolo-
   gy would be required to meet on  the
   date specified by the Administrator:
    (Iv)  The  source  or  modification
  would not before the date specified by
  the Administrator
    («) Cause or contribute to a violation
  of an applicable national ambient air
  quality standard; or
    (o) Impact any Class I area; or
    (e) Impact any area where an appli-
  cable Increment Is known to be violat-
  ed; and
   (v> All other applicable requirements
  Including those for public partldpa-
  lion hsMf*B been met.
   (I)  The Administrator shall with-
  draw any approval to employ a system
  of Innovative control technology made
  under this section. If:
   (I) The proposed system falls by the
 specified date to achieve the required
 continuous emissions reduction  rate;
 or
   (II) The proposed system falls before
 the specified  date so as to contribute
 to an unreasonable risk  to  public
 health, welfare, or safety; or
     The Administrator deckles  at
 any time that the proposed system to
 unlikely to achieve the required level
 of control or to protect the  public
 health, welfare, or safety.
   (4) If a source or modification falls
 to meet the required level of continu-
 ous emission  reduction  within  the
 specified time period or the approval
 to withdrawn In  accordance with para-
 graph  
-------
 552.22

 veislon of this section shall remain In
 effect,  unless and until It  expires
 under paragraph (s) of this section or
 Is rescinded.
  (3) Any owner or operator of a sta-
 tionary source or modification who
 holds a permit for the source or modi-
 fication which was Issued under 40
 CFR  62.31 as In  effect  on July  30.
 IB87. or any earlier version of this sec-
 tion, may request that the Administra-
 tor rescind the permit or a particular
 portion of the permit.
  (3) The Administrator shall grant an
 application for rescission  If the appli-
 cation shows  that  this section would
 not  apply to  the source  or modifica-
 tion.
  (4) If the Administrator rescinds a
 permit  under this  paragraph,  the
 public shall be given adequate notice
 of the rescission. Publication of an an-
 nouncement of rescission In a newspa-
 per of general circulation In the affect-
 ed region within 00 days of the rescis-
 sion  shall be considered  adequate
 notice.

 t4S FR 38403. June II. 1*78. a* amended at
 44 PR  37871. May 10. 1MB;  45 FR 83738,
 Aut. 1. 1080: 47 FR 37561. June IS.  INI; 41
 FR 43308. Oct. 38. 1084; 50 FR 31560. July
 13. 1085; SI FR 40875. 40877. Nov. 7.  1888: S3
 FR 34714. July  I. 1887; 53 FR 38401. July
 14. 1087; 51 FR 308. Jui. 8. 10881

 853.32   Maintenance  of nalkmal (tan*-
   aHi.

  (a) Subsequent to January 31, 1973,
 the  Administrator  reviewed  again
 State  Implementation plan provisions
 for Insuring the maintenance  of the
 national standards. The review Indi-
 cate* that State plans generally do not
 contain  regulations  or  procedures
 which  adequately  address this prob-
 lem. Accordingly, all State plans are
 disapproved  with respect to mainte-
 nance  because such plans do not meet
 the requirements of |SI.I2(g) of this
chapter. The disapproval applies to all
States listed  In Subparts B through
DDD of this part. Nothing In this sec-
 tion  shall  Invalidate  or  otherwise
affect  the  obligations of States, emis-
sion  sources, or other persons with re-
spect to all portions of plans approved
 or promulgated under this part.
  (b) Regulation for review of new or
 modified  indirect  tourers.  (1)  All
          40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-M Edition)

 terms used In this paragraph but not
 specifically defined below shall  have
 the meaning given them  In f 82.01 of
 this chapter.
   (I) The term "Indirect source" means
 a facility, building, structure, or Instal-
 lation which attracts or  may attract
 mobile source activity that results In
 emissions of a pollutant for which
 there ls a national standard. Such In-
 direct sources Include, but are not lim-
 ited to:
   (a) Highways and roads.
   (b) Parking facilities.
   (c) Retail, commercial and Industrial
 facilities.
   (if)  Recreation,  amusement, sports
 and entertainment facilities.
   («) Airports.
   (S) Office and Government building*.
   (0)  Apartment  and  condominium
 buildings.
   (A) Education facilities.
   (II) The term "Administrator" means
 the Administrator of the Environmen-
 tal Protection Agency or his designat-
 ed agent.
   (Ill)  The  term "associated  parking i
 area"  means  a  parking  facility or fa- '
 cllltlea owned and/or operated In  con- I
 junction with an Indirect source.
  (Iv)  The  term "aircraft  operation" I
 means an aircraft take-off or landing.
  (v> The phrase  "to commence  con-
 struction" means to engage In a  con-
 tinuous program of on-slte construc-
 tion Including site  clearance, grading,
 dredging, or  land  filling specifically
 designed  for  an  Indirect  source In
 preparation for the fabrication, erec-
 tion,  or Installation of the building
 components of the Indirect source. For
 the purpose of  this paragraph. Inter-
 ruption* resulting  from act* of Ood.
 strikes, litigation,  or other  matters
 beyond the control of the owner shall
 be disregarded In determining whether
 a  construction  or  modification  pro-
 gram Is continuous.
  (vl) The phrase "to commence modi-
 fication" means  to engage In a contin-
 uous program of on-slte modification.
Including   site  clearance,  grading,
dredging, or land filling In preparation
for a specific modification of the Indi-
rect source.
  (vll)  The  term  "highway section"
means  the development proposal of a
highway of substantial length between
              Protection Agoncy
logical termini (major crossroads, pop-
ulation centers, major traffic  genera-
tor*, or similar major highway control
elements)  as  normally Included In a
ilnfle location study or  multi-year
highway Improvement program a* set'
forth In 33 CFR 770.201 (38 FR 31677).
  (vlll)  The term  "highway  project"
means all or  a portion of  a highway
section which would result  In a specif-
ic construction contract
  (U) The term "Standard Metropoli-
tan Statistical Area (8MSAV meads
such areas as designated by the  U.8.
Bureau of the Budget In the following
publication: "Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Area." Issued In 1M7. with
subsequent amendments.
  (I) The requirements of this  para-
graph are applicable to the following:
  (I) In ah 8M8A:
  (a)  Any new parking  facility,  or
other new Indirect source with an as-
sociated  parking area,  which has a
new parking capacity of  1.000 cars or
more; or
  (b) Any modified parking facility, or
any modification of an  associated
parking area, which  Increases parking
capacity by 500 cars or more; or
  (c) Any new highway project with an
anticipated average annual dally  traf-
fic volume of 20.000 or more  vehicle*
per day within ten years of construc-
tion; or
  (if) Any modified highway project
which  will Increase average annual
dally traffic volume by 10,000 or more
vehicle* per day within ten year* after
modification.
  (U) Outside an 8MSA:
  (a) Any new  parking  facility,  or
other new Indirect source  with an  as-
sociated  parking  area, which ha* a
parking capacity of 2.000 can  or more;
or
  (b) Any modified parking facility, or
Miy modification  of an associated
parking area, which Increase* parking
capacity by 1,000 cars or more.
  (Ill) Any airport, the construction or
general   modification   program  of
which Is expected to result In the fol-
lowing activity within ten year* of con-
struction or modification:
  (a) New airport: 50,000 or more oper-
ations per year by regularly scheduled
air carriers, or  use by  1.600.000 or
more passengers per year.
                             851.22

  (b)  Modified  airport:  Increase  of
80.000 or more operations per year by
regularly scheduled  air carrier* over
the existing volume  of operations, or
Increase of 1,600.000 or more passen-
gers per year.
  (Iv) Where an  Indirect source Is con-
structed  or modified  In  Increment*
which Individually are not subject to
review  under  this  paragraph, and
which are  not part  of a program of
construction   or  modification   In
planned Incremental phases  approved
by  the Administrator, all  such Incre-
ments commenced after December 31.
1974. or after the latest approval here-
under, whichever date Is most recent.
•hall be added together for determin-
ing the applicability of this paragraph.
  (3) No owner or operator of an Indi-
rect source subject to this paragraph
•hall commence construction or modi-
fication of such source after December
31. 1974.  without first obtaining  ap-
proval from the Administrator. Appli-
cation for approval  to construct or
modify  shall be by  means prescribed
by  the Administrator, and  shall  In-
clude a copy of any draft or final envi-
ronmental Impact  statement  which
has been prepared pursuant to the Na-
tional Environmental Policy Act  (42
O.8.C. 4321).  If not Included In such
environmental Impact statement, the
Administrator may request the follow-
ing Information:
  (I) For all Indirect source* subject to
this  paragraph, other than  highway
project*:
  (o) The name and address of the ap-
plicant.
  (b) A map showing the location of
the site of Indirect source and the to-
pography of the area.
  (c) A description of the proposed use
of the site. Including the normal hours
of  operation  of the facility, and  the
general types of activities to be operat-
ed therein.
  <
-------
     WORKSHOP  ON IMPLEMENTING THE STACK
            HEIGHT REGULATIONS
                  (REVISED)

           OCTOBER 29 TO 30,  1985
                     by

            PEI  Associates,  Inc.
      505 South  Duke Street,  Suite 503
     Durham, North Carolina   27701-3196
    CONTROL PROGRAMS DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND STANDARDS
    U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT!OH AGENCY
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH CAROLINA  27711
                October 1985

-------
151.117
        40 CFI Ch. I (7-1-M IdhSon)
e«tunat«d amounts of emissions  and
the amounU of such emissions allow-
able under  the  applicable emission
limitation* or other measures.

I f 1.117  AMIUonal protbloM for )ca«.
  In addition to other requirements In
|| SI. 100 through 61.116 the following
requirements apply to  lead. To  the
extent they conflict,  there require-
ments  are controlling over those of
the proceeding sections.
  (a) Control itralem demonstration.
Each plan must contain a demonstra-
tion showing that the plan will attain
and maintain the standard In the fol-
lowing areas:
  (1) Areas In  the vicinity  of the fol-
lowing point sources of lead: Primary
lead smelters.  Secondary  lead  smelt-
ers.  Primary  copper  smelters. Lead
gasoline   additive  plants.   Lead-acid
storage battery manufacturing  plants
that produce 3.000 or more batteries
per day.  Any other stationary source
that actually emits 36  or  more tons
per year of lead or lead compounds
measured as elemental lead.
   Any other area that has lead air
concentrations In excess of  the nation-
al ambient  air quality standard con-
centration for  lead,  measured since
January 1.1074.
  (b) Time perlo for  emonttratton of
a eguacif. The demonstration of ade-
quac/'of the control strategy required
under  151.113 may  cover a  longer
prilod If  allowed by  the  appropriate
RPA Regional Administrator.
  (c) Special modeling provision*. (1)
For  urbanized areas with measured
lead concentrations In  excess  of  4.0
1*8/01*. quarterly mean measured since
January  1, 1074, the plan must employ
the modified rollback model for the
demonstration of attainment as a min-
imum, hut  may  use  an atmospheric
dispersion model If deslted. If a  pro-
IHirtlonal model Is used, the air quality
data should be the same year  as the
emissions Inventory  required  under
the paragraph e.
  (2) For each point source listed In
 | B1.117(a>.  that plan must employ an
atmospheric dispersion model for dem-
onstration of attainment.
  (3) For each area In the vicinity of
an air quality monitor that has record-
ed lead concentrations In excess of the
lead national standard concentration,
the plan must employ the modified
rollback model as a minimum, but may
use an atmospheric dispersion model If
desired  for the  demonstration  of  at-
tainment.
  (d) Air Qualify data and pro/ection*.
(1) Each BUte must submit to the ap-
propriate EPA Regional Office with
the plan, but not part of the plan, all
lead air  quality data measured since
January  1.  1074.  This  requirement
does not apply If the data has already
been submitted.
  (3) The data must be submitted In
accordance with the  procedures and
data forms specified In Chapter 1.4.0
of the "AEROS User's Manual" con-
cerning storage and retrieval of aero-
metric data (8AROAO) except  where
the  Regional  Administrator  waives
this requirement.
  (3) If additional lead air quality daU
are desired to determine lead air con-
centrations In areas suspected  of ex-
ceeding the lead national  ambient  air
quality standard, the plan may Include
data from any previously collected  fil-
ters from  partlculate  matter  high
volume  samplers. In determining the
lead content of the filters for control
strategy  demonstration  purposes,  a
State may use. In addition to the refer-
ence method. X-ray  fluorescence  or
any other method approved by the Re-
gional Administrator.
  (e)  emission* data.  (1) The point
source Inventory on which the summa-
ry of the baseline lead emissions  In-
ventory  Is based  must  contain  all
sources that emit five or more tons of
lead per year.
  (3>  Each State  must  submit lead
emissions data to the appropriate EPA
Regional Office with the original plan.
The submission must  be made with
the plan, but not as part of the plan,
and must Include emissions data and
Information related to point and area
source emissions. The emission data
and Information should Include  the In-
formation Identified In the Hazardous
and Trace  Emissions System  (HA-
TREMS) point  source coding  forms
for  all  point sources and  the area
source coding  forms for all sources
that are not point sources, but need
not necessarily  be  In  the format of
those forms.
                                   728
 •environmental Protection Agency

 I (1.118 Stack height provisions.
  (a) The plan must provide that the
 degree of emission limitation required
 of  any source for control of  any air
 pollutant must not be affected  by so
 much of any source's stack height that
 exceeds good engineering practice or
 by  any  other dispersion technique,
 except as provided In |51.118(b). The
 plan must provide that before a State
 submits to EPA a new or revised emis-
 sion limitation that Is based on a good
 engineering practice stack height that
 exceeds   the  height   allowed  by
 161.100(11) (1) or <3>. the State must
 notify the public of the avallabllty of
 the demonstration study  and  must
 provide opportunity for a public hear-
 ing on It. This section does not require
 the plan  to restrict. In any  manner.
 the actual stack height of any source.
    The  provisions  of  |B1.118
 shall not apply to (1) stack heights In
 existence, or dispersion techniques Im-
 plemented on or before December 31.
 1070.   except  where  pollutant*  are
 being  emitted from such stacks or
 using such  dispersion  techniques by
 sources, as defined In section llKaMI)
 of the Clean Air Act, which were con-
 structed,  or  reconstructed,   or  for
 which major modifications, as defined
 In ||61.166. 81.1««HbX3XI>
 and 83.31(bX3XI). were  carried out
 after  December 31. 1070;  or <3> coal-
 fired  steam electric  generating  units
 subject to the  provisions of section  118
 of  the Clean Air  Act.  which  com-
 menced operation before July 1,  1967,
 and whose  stacks were  construced
 under a construction contract awarded
 before February 6.1074.

 I (I.I It  Intermittent control systems.
  (a) The  use  of an Intermittent con-
 trol system  (IC8) may be taken Into
 account In  establishing  an emission
 limitation for a pollutant  under a
State Implementation plan, provided:
  (1) The IC8 was Implemented before
 December 31.  1070. according to the
criteria specified In | 6l.ll»(b).
  (3) The  extent to which the ICS Is
taken Into account Is limited to reflect
emission levels and associated ambient
pollutant  concentrations that would
result If the  ICS was the same  as It
was before December 31, 1070. and was
operated as specified by the operating
                            951.119

 system of the ICS before December 31.
 1070.
  (3) The plan allows the  ICS to com-
 pensate  only for emissions  from  a
 source for which the ICS was Imple-
 mented before December 31. 1070. and.
 In the event the source has been modi-
 fied, only to the  extent the emissions
 correspond to the maximum capacity
 of  the source before  December 31.
 1070. For purposes of this paragraph.
 a source for which the ICS was Imple-
 mented Is any particular  structure or
 equipment the emissions  from which
 were subject to the ICS operating pro-
 cedures.
  (4) The plan requires the continued
 operation of any constant pollution
 control  system   which  was  In  use
 before  December 31.  1070.  or  the
 equivalent of that system.
  (8) The plan  clearly  defines  the
 emission limits affected  by the ICS
 and the  manner  In which the ICS Is
 taken  Into  account  In  establishing
 those limits.
  («) The plan contains requirements
 for the operation and maintenance of
 the  qualifying ICS  which,  together
 with the emission limitations and any
 other  necessary   requirements,  will
 assure  that  the national  ambient air
 quality standards and any applicable
 prevention of significant deterioration
 Increments will be attained and main-
 tained. These requirements shall In-
 clude,  but not necessarily be limited
 to. the following:
  (I)  Requirements   that  a source
 owner  or operator continuously oper-
 ate and  maintain the components of
 the ICS specified at | B1.110(bX3> (II)-
 (Iv)  In a manner which assures  that
 the ICS Is at least as effective as It was
 before  December 31.  1070.  The air
quality  monitors and meteorological
 Instrumentation     specified     at
 | fil.H9(b> may be operated by a  local
authority or other entity provided the
source  has ready access  to the  data
 from the monitors and Instrumenta-
 tion.
  (II) Requirements which specify the
circumstances under which, the extent
to which, and the procedures through
which, emissions  shall be curtailed
through the activation of ICS.
  (Ill) Requirements for recordkeeplng
which require the owner  or operator
                                                                                    729

-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5.2

-------
                          EPA-450/4-80-023R
Guideline for Determination of Good
  Engineering Practice Stack Height
(Technical Support Document for the
      Stack Height Regulations)

                (Revised)
          U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
               Office of Air and Radiation
           Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
             Researcn Triangle Park. NC 27711

                  June 1985

-------
 fort 51
 PART 51— IfQUMEMfNTS FOR PREP-
   ARATION, ADOPTION,  AND SIM.
   MfTTAl   OF    IMPIIMENTATION
   PtANS
Sec.
• 1.40 Scope.

             AQUA ANALYSIS

• 141 AQMA analysis: SubmltUI date.
61 42 AQMA analysis: Analysis period.
5141 AQMA analytic Guideline*.
61.44 AQMA analysis: Projection of eml*
    •Ion*.
61.46 AQMA analysis: Allocation of emla-
    •Ion*.
61.441 AQMA analyila:  Projection  of air
    quality concentration*.
61.47 AQMA analysis: Description of daU
    sources.
61.41 AQMA analyst*: DaU base*.
61 4* AQMA analysis: Techniques deacrlp^
    Uon.
61.60 AQMA analytic: Accuracy facton.
61 61 AQMA analyal*: SubmltUI of calcula-
    tion*.

              AQMA Pun
61.62 AQMA plan: General
61.63 AQMA plan: Demonitratlon of ade-
    quacy.
6164 AQMA plan: Strategies.
61.66 AQMA plan: Legal authority.
61M AQMA plan: Future strategies.
61.67 AQMA plan: Future legal authority.
61 68 AQMA plan: Intergovernmental co-
    operation.
616* (Reserved)
61M AQMA plan: Resource*.
61(1  AQMA plan: SubmllUl format.
6161 AQMA analyila and plan: Data avail-
    ability.
1181 AQMA analysis and plan: Alternative
    procedure*.
61 IM  Definition*.
61 111!  Stipulation*.
61.101  Publk hearings.
61 101  Submission  of  plan*;  preliminary
   review of plan*.
61 104  RevUlon*.
&l 105  Approval of plan*.
          40 CFR Ch. I (7.141 Edition)

        Svfcswri O—Central Strategy

61.110 Attainment and maintenance of na-
    tional standard*.
61.111 Description of control measures.
51.113 Demonstration of adequacy.
51.111 Time period  for demonstration of
    adequacy.
61.114 Emission* data and projection*.
61.116 Air quality  data and projection*.
61.11* Data availability.
61.117 Additional provision* for lead.
61.11* Stack height provisions.
61.119 Intermittent control systems.
                       i •» Air PctMtM
 61.160  Classification of region* for epUode
    plan*.
 61.161  Blgnlllcant harm level*.
 61.162  Contingency plan*.
 61.161  Reevaluatlon of epbode plan*.
  61.1(0  Legally enforceable procedure*.
  61.1*1  Public availability of Information.
  61.1*2  Identification   of    responsible
    agency.
  61.163  Administration procedure*.
  61.1*4  Stack height procedure*.
  61.1*6  Permit requirement*.
  61.18*  Prevention of significant deterio-
ration of air quality.
61.190 Ambient air quality monitoring re-
   quirement*.
61.110 General.
61.211 Emission report* and recordkeeplng.
61.212 Testing.  Inspection,  enforcement.
   and complaint*.
61.211 Transportation control measure*.
61.214 Continuous emission monitoring.
                                          61.23*  Requirement* for all plan*.
                                          61.231  Identification of legal authority.
                                          61.212  Assignment  of legal  authority to
                                             local agencies.
                                                                  •••I CMm«M«ttM
          AGENCY DESIGNATION

81.240  General plan requirements.
61.241  Nonattalnment  areas  for  carbon
   monoxide and ozone.
51.242  IReservedl
                                       712
                                                                                                 Environmental Protection Agoncy
                                                                                                                                 §51.40
    CONTINUING CONSULTATION PROCESS
51.243  Consultation process objectives.
61 244  Plan elements affected.
61.245  Organizations and officials to be
   consulted.
61248  Timing.
61.247  Hearings  on  consultation  process
   violations.

 RELATIONSHIP or PLAN TO OTHER PLANNING
        AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS

61.248  Coordination  with other programs.
61.24V  I Reserved)
61.250  Transmlttal of Information.
61.261  Conformity with  Executive Order
   12172.
61.252  Summary of plan development par-
   ticipation.
61.280  Legally   enforceable   compliance
   schedules.
61.281  Final compliance schedules.
61.282  Extension beyond one year.

              issj<«lr«Rj*iits

61.280  Resources.
61.2*1  Copies of rule* and regulations.
61.286  Public notification.

     iiRir-arl P-tolKNM s4 VltMtty

61.300  Purpose and applicability.
61.301  Definition*.
51.302  Implementation control strategies.
61.301  Exemption* from control.
61.104  Identification of Integral vista*.
61.106  Monitoring.
61.10*  Long-term strategy.
61.307  New source review.
       Aia QUALITY DATA RITO*TINO  ,
51.320  Annual air quality data report.

   SODS.CS EMISSIONS AND STATE ACTION
               RtronTiNo
51.321  Annual source emission* and State
   action report.
61.322  Source* subject to emissions report-
   Ing.
51.121  Reportable emissions  data  and In-
   formation.
61.124  Progress In plan enforcement.
51.326  Contingency plan actions.
61.12*  Reportable revisions.
61.327  Enforcement orders and other State
   actions.
51.328  IReservedl

          Sufcawt  •—txUnsum

51 340  Request for 2 year extension.
51.341  Request for 18 month extension.
APPENDICES A — K -(RESERVED)
ArrcNnix   I,- EXAMPLE  REGULATIONS  ro*
    PREVENTION or Am POLLUTION EMERCEN
    CY EPISODES
APPENDIX M—{RESERVED)
APPENDIX    N- EMISSIONS    REDUCTIONS
    ACHICVASI.I THROUGH INSPECTION.  MAIN-
    TENANCE AND RETHOPIT OP  LIGHT  DUTY
    VEHICLES
APPENDIX O (RESERVED!
APPENDIX P—MINIMUM  EMISSION MONITOR
    INC REQUIREMENTS
APPENDICES Q—R-(RESERVED)
APPENDIX S—EMISSION  Orrsrr INTERPRETA-
    TIVE RULING
APPENDIX T—(RESERVED)
APPENDIX  O—CLEAN  AIR  ACT SECTION  174
    GUIDELINES
  AUTHORITY: This rulemaklng I*  promul-
gated under authority of sections lOKbMl).
110. 1W-1M.  171-178,  and  30l(a) of  the
Clean Air  Act  42  U.8.C.  7401(bXl). 7410.
7470-747*. 7S01-7SO*. and 7«Ol(al.
  SOURCE 1* PR 22388,  Nov. 25. IOT1. unless
otherwise noted.
  EDITORIAL NOTE: Nomenclature  change*
affecting Part 51 appear at 44 FR 8237. Feb.
I. 1»7» and 51 FR 400*1. Nov. 7. 108*.

      Subport* A-C—(Rosorvod)

Support U— Molntononco of Notional
               Standard*

  Sooner 41 FR 183*8, May 3, 1*76. unless
otherwise noted.

151.4* Scoot.
  (a) Applicability- The requirements
of  this subpart  apply  to air quality
maintenance  areas  (AQMAs)  Identi-
fied under 151.110X1) and to any areas
Identified under | 51.110X1).
  (b) AQMA Analvti* Under this sub-
part,  procedures  are   given for the
analysis of the air quality  Impact  of
specified pollutant emissions from  ex-
isting sources and emissions associated
with projected growth and develop-
ment In  areas Identified under para-
graphs (I) and  (I)  of  151.110.  This
analysis Is referred to In this subpart
as an AQMA  analysis.
  (c) AQMA Plan.  Under this subpart.
the Administrator will  require  a revi-
sion to the Slate Implementation plan
for areas Identified under I 51.110(1) or
| 51.110(1) when necessary to prevent a
national ambient air quality standard
                                                                                              713

-------
                                              40 C« Ch. I (7-1-il EdHlon)
I II. «  AQMA  analjriU  end plan: Data
   aTallaMlltr.

  (•) The State shall retain all  de-
tailed data  and calculations uaed  In
the preparation of  AQMA  analyses
and plarui. make them available  for
public Inspection, and submit them to
the Administrator at his request.
  (b) The detailed  data  and calcula-
     u*rd In  the preparation of the
       analyses and plans shall not be
considered a part of the AQMA plan.

Ill 41  AQMA anal;*!* and plan: Allcrna-
  (a)  At the request of a  State, or
uuder his own Initiative, the Adminis-
trator, where he determines It appro-
pi late,   may   approve   alternative
AQUA analysis and plan development
procedures as  allowed under II 61.42,
01.44,   61.46.   61.48.  61.48(b>.   and
(I.*0. He may consider all relevant
factors Including but not limited to air
quality  problems, financial  and  man-
power limitations,  administrative fea-
sibility. and existing commitments by
the State.
  (b) The Administrator shall act upon
a request for  modification  within 45
days after receipt of a properly pre-
pared and filed request. Unless a State
Is notified of a denial, or the Adminis-
trator requests additional Information.
•och  a request Is  automatically  ap-
prdved on the forty-sixth day.
  (c) The Administrator shall publish
In the FnntAL RMISTC* a description
of each modification made.
  (d)  A public hearing on an AQMA
plan does not fulfill the public hearing
requirements  of this part  If.  subse-
    nt to the hearing, any alternative
      lures  are approved under this
    an.
    . IIS. 111. I74p«rt F— Procedural tequlremmti

  OODKCI: SI FR 40891. Nov. 7. 1988. unlru
nllierwtar noltd
• BUM  Definition*.
  As used In this part, all terms not de-
fined herein will  have the  meaning
given them In the Act:
  (a) "Act"  means the Clean Air Act
(42 U.S.C. 7401 et teg., as amended by
Pub. L. 91-604. 84 Stat. 1676 Pub. L.
06 06. 91 Stat.. 686 and Pub. L. 06-100.
01 Stat.. 1>»0.)
   only.)
  (p) "Compliance schedule"  means
 the date or dates by which a source or
category  of sources  Is required  to
comply with specific emission limita-
tions contained In an Implementation
 plan and  with  any  mcremenU  of
 progress toward such compliance.
  (q) "Increments of progress" means
steps toward compliance which will be
 taken by a specific source. Including:
  (1) Date of submlttal of the source's
 final control plan to the appropriate
 air pollution control agency.
  (3) Date  by which contracts  for
 emission  control systems  or  process
 modifications will be awarded;  or date
 by which orders will be Issued  for the
 purchase  of component parts to ac-
 complish  emission control or  process
 modification;
  (J) Date of Initiation of on site con-
struction  or Installation of emission
control equipment or process change;
  (4) Dal<  by which on-slte construc-
 tion or Installation of emission control
equipment or process  modification Is
 to be completed; and
  (6) Date by which final compliance
 Is to be achieved.
                                                                                                                         719

-------
 I 31.100

   «r) "TrmruporUtlon control meas-
 ure" means any measure that Is direct-
 ed toward  reducing emissions of air
 pollutants    from    transportation
 sources. Such measures  Include, but
 are not limited to. those  listed In sec-
 tion I08(f> of the Clean Air Act.
  (sMw) (Reserved!
  (x) "Time period" means any period
 of time designated by hour, month.
 season, calendar year, averaging time.
 or other suitable  characteristic*,  for
 which ambient air quality Is estimated.
  (y) "Variance" means the temporary
 deferral of a final compliance date for
 an Individual source subject  to an ap-
 proved  regulation, or a temporary
 chance  to an approved regulation as It
 applies to an Individual source.
  (•) "Emission limitation" and "emis-
 sion standard" mean a requirement es-
 tablished by a State, local government,
 or the Administrator which limits the
 quantity, rate,  or concentration of
emission* of air pollutants on a contin-
 uous basis. Including any requirements
which limit the level of opacity, pre-
scribe equipment,  aet fuel  specifica-
 tions, or prescribe  operation or main-
tenance  procedure*  for  a source to
assure continuous emlralon reduction.
   "Poanll fuel-fired steam genera-
 tor" means a fumance or bloler used
 In the process of burning fossil fuel for
 the  primary  purpose of producing
 steam by henl transfer.
         40 Cri Ch. I (7-1-88 edition)

   "Stack"  means any point In a
source designed to emit solids, liquids.
or gases Into the air. Including a pipe
or duct but not Including flares.
  (gg)  "A stack In  existence" means
that the owner or  operator  had (I)
begun,  or caused to begin, a continu-
ous program of physical on site con-
struction of the stack or (2) entered
Into binding agreements or contrac-
tual obligations, which could not  be
cancelled or modified without substan-
tial loss to the owner or operator, to
undertake a program of construction
of the stack to be completed within a
reasonable time.
  (hhXl)  "Dispersion   technique-
means any technique which attempts
to affect the concentration of a pollut-
ant In the ambient air by:
  (I) Dslng  that  portion of  a  stack
which exceeds good  engineering prac-
tice stack height:
   The reheating  of a gas  stream.
following use of  a  pollution  control
system, for the purpose  of  returning
the gas to the temperature at which It
was originally discharged from the fa-
cility generating the gas stream:
  (II)  The merging  of  exhaust gas
streams where:
  (A) The source  owner  or operator
demonstrates that  the  facility was
originally designed  and  constructed
with such merged gas streams;
  (B> After July a. 1086 such merging
Is part of a change In operation at the
facility  that Includes the Installation
of pollution controls and Is accompa-
nied by a net reduction In the allow-
able emissions of a pollutant. This ex-
clusion from the definition of "disper-
sion  techniques" shall apply  only  to
the emission limitation for the pollut-
fnvlrviimontsil Protection Afoncy

ant affected by such change In oper-
ation: or
  (C) Before July B. 1986. such merg-
ing was part of a change In operation
at the facility that Included the Instal-
lation of emissions control equipment
or was carried out for sound economic
or engineering reasons. Where  there
was an Increase In the emission limita-
tion or. In the event that no emission
limitation was In existence prior to the
merging, an Increase In the quantity of
pollutants  actually emitted  prior to
the  merging,  the  reviewing agency
shall presume that merging was Sig-
nificantly motivated by an Intent to'
gain emissions  credit for greater dis-
persion.  Absent a  demonstration by
the  source owner  or operator that
merging was not significantly motivat-
ed  by  such  Intent,  the  reviewing
agency shall  deny credit for the ef-
fects of  such  merging In calculating
the allowable emissions for the source;
  (III) Smoke management In agricul-
tural or sllvtcultural prescribed  burn-
Ing prograrm
  (Iv) Episodic restrictions on residen-
tial woodburnlng and open burning; or
  (v>       Techniques        under
f Vl.loofhhKlxill)   which   Increase
final exhaust gas plume rise when the
resulting allowable emissions of sulfur
dioxide from the facility do not exceed
6,000 tons per year.
  (U> "Good  engineering  practice"
(OEP) stack height means the greater
of:
  (1) 86  meters,  measured  from the
ground-level elevation at the base of
the stack:
  (2X1) For stacks In existence on Jan-
uary It, 197V. and for which the owner
or operator had obtained all applicable
permits or approvals required under 40
CPR Parts 81 and 52.

H.-2BH.

provided the owner or operator pro-
duces evidence that this equation was
actually  relied  on In establishing an
emission limitation:
  Oil For all other stacks.

H.-H + I 6L
where
H.^tood engineering practice stack height.
   mruured from  the ground-level eleva-
   tion «l the bane of thr sUck.
                            J51.IOO

H = height or nearby structured) mewured
   from the ground level elevttlon «l the
   bate of the *Uck.
L-toner  dimension, height or projected
   width, of nesrbr structured)

provided that the EPA. State or local
control agency may require the use of
a field study or fluid model  to verify
OEP stack height for the source; or
  (3) The height  demonstrated by a
fluid model or a field study approved
by the EPA  State  or local control
agency, which ensures that the emis-
sions from a stack do not result In ex-
cessive concentrations of any air pol-
lutant as  a  result of atmospheric
downwash. wakes, or eddy effects cre-
ated by the source Itself, nearby struc-
tures or nearby terrain features.
  (JJ) "Nearby" as used In 161.100X11)
of this part  Is defined for  a specific
structure or terrain feature and
  (1) Ptor purposes of applying the for-
mulae provided In 161.MMKIIX3) means
that distance up to five times  the
lesser of the height or the width di-
mension of a structure, but not greater
than 0.8 km (H mile), and
  (2)  For conducting demonstrations
under 161.100(11X1) means not greater
than 0.1  km (H mile), except that the
portion of a terrain feature may be
considered to be  nearby which  falls
within a distance of up to 10 tunes the
maximum height (H«> of the feature.
not to exceed 2 miles If such feature
achieves m height (H,) 0.8 km from the
stack that Is at least 40 percent of the
OEP stack height determined by  the
formulae provided In 161.100X11X3X11)
of this part or 26 meters, whichever Is
greater, as measured from the ground-
level elevation at the base of the stack.
The height of the structure or terrain
feature Is measured  from the ground-
level elevation at the base of the stack.
  (kk) "Excessive concentration" Is de-
fined for the purpose  of determining
good engineering practice stack height
under 161.100(11X3) and means.
  (I)  For sources seeking credit  for
stack  height exceeding  that  estab-
lished under 161.100X11X2) a maximum
ground-level   concentration  due  to
emissions from a stack due In whole or
part to downwash, wakes, and eddy ef-
fects produced .by nearby structures or
nearby terrain features which Individ-
ually Is at least 40 percent In excess of
                                    720
                                                                                  721

-------
gsi.ioo

the  maximum concentration experi-
enced In the  absence of such down-
waah.  wakes,  or eddy  effects  and
which contributes to a total concentra-
tion due to emissions from all sources
that Is  greater than an ambient air
quality  standard. For sources subject
to the prevention of significant dete-
rioration program (40 CFR 51.106 and
52.21). an excessive  concent ration al-
ternatively means a maximum ground-
level concentration  due  to emissions
from a stack due In whole or part to
downwash, wakes, or eddy effects pro-
duced by nearby structures or nearby
terrain  features which Individually Is
at least  40  percent  In excess of  the
maximum concentration  experienced
In  the  absence  of  such  downwash.
wakes,  or eddy  effects  and greater
than a prevention of significant dete-
rioration  Increment. The  allowable
emission rate to be used In making
demonstrations under this part shall
be prescribed  by the new source per-
formance standard that  Is applicable
to  the  source  category unless  the
ownei or operator demonstrates that
this emission rale Is Infeaslble. Where
such demonstrations are approved by
the authority administering the State
Implementation plan, an  alternative
emission rate shall  be established In
consultation with the source owner or
operator.
  (2> For sources seeking credit after
October I1. 1983. for Increases In exist-
ing stack heights up to the heights es-
tablished under  I 51.100(11X2). either
(I) a maximum ground-level concentra-
tion due  In  whole or part  to down-
wash, wakes or eddy effects as provid-
ed In paragraph (kkXD of this section,
except that the emission rate specified
by  any applicable State Implementa-
tion plan (or.  In the absence  of such a
limit, the actual emission rate) shall
be used, or (II) the actual presence of a
local nuisance caused by the existing
•tack, as determined by  the authority
administering  the Stale  Implementa-
tion plan; and
  (8) For sources seeking credit after
January 12. 1079 for a stack height de-
termined under  | 51 100dlM2) where
the authority administering  the State
Implementation plan requires the use
of a field study or fluid motlel to verify
OKP stack helfthl. lor sources seeking
         40 CFR Ch. I (7-141 Edition)

stack height credit after November 9,
1984 based on the aerodynamic Influ-
ence of cooling towers, and for sources
seeking stack  height  credit  after De-
cember 31, 1970 based on the aerody-
namic Influence of structures not ade-
quately represented by  the  equations
In I 51.100(11X2), a  maximum ground-
level  concentration due In  whole or
part to downwash,  wakes or eddy ef-
fects  that Is  at least 40 percent In
excess of the maximum concentration
experienced In  the absence of  such
downwash. wakes, or eddy effects.
  (IIMmm) (Reserved]
  (nn) Intermittent  control  system
(IC8)  means  a dispersion  technique
which varies the rate  at which pollut-
ants are emitted to the atmosphere ac-
cording to  meteorological conditions
and/or ambient concentrations of the
pollutant. In order to  prevent ground-
level concentrations In excess of appli-
cable ambient air  quality standards.
Such a dispersion technique Is an ICS
whether used alone, used with other
dispersion  techniques, or used  as a
supplement to  continuous  emission
controls (I.e., used  as a supplemental
control system).
  (oo) "Partlculate matter" means any
airborne finely divided solid or liquid
material with an aerodynamic diame-
ter •mailer than 100 micrometers.
  (pp) "Partlculate matter emissions"
means all finely divided solid or liquid
material,   other  than  uncomblned
water, emitted to  the ambient air as
measured  by   applicable  reference
methods, or an  equivalent or alterna-
tive method, specified In this chapter.
or by a test method specified In an ap-
proved State Implementation plan.
  (qq)  "PMU"  means  partlculate
matter with an  aerodynamic diameter
less than or equal to a nominal 10 mi-
crometers as measured by a reference
method based on Appendix  J of Part
50 of  this chapter and designated In
accordance with Part 63 of  this chap-
ter or by  an equivalent method desig-
nated In accordance  with Part  63 of
this chapter.
  (rr>  "PM» emissions"  means finely
divided solid or liquid material, with
an aerodynamic diameter less than or
equal  to  a nominal  10 micrometers
emitted to  the  ambient air as meas-
ured  by   an  applicable  reference
 Environmental Protection Agency

 method,  or an equivalent or alterna-
 tive method, specified In this chapter
 or by a test method specified In an ap-
 proved State Implementation plan.
   (ss) "Total suspended partlculate"
 means partlculate matter as measured
 by the method described In  Appendix
 B of Part 60 of this chapter.
 Itl FR 40M1. Nov. 1. IWM. u amended at 81
 PR 2471 I.July I. 1987)

 1(1.1(1 Stlpalatlonr
  Nothing  In this  part will be con-
 strued In  any manner:
  (a) To encourage a State to prepare.
 adopt, or  submit a plan which does not
 provide for the protection and en-
 hancement of air quality so as to pro-
 mote  the public health  and welfare
 and productive capacity.
  (b) To  encourage a State  to adopt
 any particular control strategy with-
 out taking Into consideration the cost-
 effectiveness of such control strategy
 In relation  to that  of alternative con-
 trol strategies.
  (c) To preclude a State from employ-
 ing techniques other than those •peel-
 fled In this part for purpose* of esti-
 mating air  quality or demonstrating
 the  adequacy of a control  strategy.
 provided  that such other techniques
 are shown to be adequate and appro-
 priate for  such purposes.
  (d) To encourage a State to prepare.
 adopt, or submit a plan without taking
 Into consideration the social  and eco-
 nomic Impact of the control strategy
 set forth  In such plan. Including, but
 not limited  to. Impact on availability
 of fuels,  energy, transportation, and
 employment.
  (e) To preclude a State from prepar-
 ing,  adopting, or submitting a  plan
 which  provides  for  attainment tad
 maintenance of a  national tUttdard
 through the application  of a -control
 strategy not specifically  Identified or
 described In this part.
  (f) To preclude a State or political
subdivision  thereof  from adopting or
enforcing  any emission limitations or
other measures or combinations there:
of to attain and maintain air quality
better  than  that required by a nation-
al standard.
  (g> To encourage a State to adopt a
control strategy uniformly applicable
throughout  a region unless there Is no
                             951.102

 satisfactory alternative way of provid-
 ing for attainment and maintenance of
 a national standard  throughout such
 region.

 (5I.IM  Public hcaringm.
   (a) Except as otherwise provided In
 paragraph (c) of this section.  States
 must conduct one or more public hear-
 ing* on the following prior to adoption
 and submission to EPA of:
   (1) Any plan or revision of It  re-
 quired by 151.104(a).
   <2> Any Individual compliance sched-
 ule under <| 61.290).
   (3) Any revision under | 61.104(d).
   (b) Separate hearings may be held
 for  plans  to Implement primary and
 secondary standards.
  (c) No hearing  will be  required  for
 any  change  to  an Increment  of
 progress  In an  approved  Individual
 compliance  schedule  unless   such
 change Is likely to cause the source to
 be unable to comply with the final
 compliance date In the schedule. The
 requirements of  1161.104 and  81.106
 will  be applicable to such schedules.
 however.
  (d) Any hearing required by para-
 graph  (a) of this section  will be held
 only after reasonable notice,  which
 will  be considered to  Include, at-least
 30 day* Prior  to the date of  such
 heartng(s):
  (1) Notice given to the  public  by
 prominent advertisement In the area
 affected    announcing  the  date(s>.
 tlmets).    and    placets)    of    such
 hearlng(s);
  (2) Availability of  each proposed
 plan or revision for public Inspection
 In at least one  location In each region
 to which  It will apply, and the avail
 ability of  each compliance schedule
 for public Inspection In at least one  lo-
 cation  In the region In which the  af-
 fected source Is located;
  (3) Notification to the Administrator
 (through   the  appropriate Regional
 Office):
  (4) Notification to each local air pol-
 lution  control  agency which  will  be
significantly  Impacted by  such  plan.
schedule or revision;
  (5)  fn the case of  an  Interstate
 region,  notification  to  any   other
States Included. In whole or In part.  In
                                   722
                                                                                                                        723

-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5.3

-------
 Part 51
                                                    40 CM Ch. I (7-l-M
 PART 51—•fQUWIMENTS KM PtlP-
   AlATtOM,  AOOtntON, AND  SU«-
   MIHAl    OP    IMPlIMfOTATtON
   PIANS
                      (IUMrv««|
8ec.
•I M  Scop*.

            AQUA AntiTaia

1141  AQUA analysis: SubmUUI date.
•I 41  AQUA analyal*: Analyal* period.
•1 4*  AQUA analytic: Guideline*.
•I 44  AQMA analyate: Projection of emla-
   •lon*.
•>.«•  AQMA analyala: Allocation of emls-
   •Ion*.
(1.44  AQMA analysis:  Projection of  air
   quality- oonoentraUoo*.
ol 41  AQMA analyala:  Description of data
   aourcea.
II .41  AQMA analyala: Data baaea.
11.4*  AQMA analyate Technique, deacrlp-
   Uon.
II M  AQMA analytic Accuracy factor*.
11.11  AQMA analytic SubmltUI of calcula-
   tion*.

              AQMAPuui
11.11  AQMA plan: General
IIII  AQMA plan; DnnonatraUon ol ade-
   quacy.
II M  AQMA plan. Strategic*.
II M  AQMA plan: Legal authority.
II M  AQMA plan: Future atratecte*.
•1.11  AQMA plan: Future lecal authority.
II .M  AQMA plan:  Intergovernmental  co-
   oneraUon,
II W  IReaervedl
II M  AQMA plan: Reaourcea.
II f I  AQMA plan: Bubmlttal format.
IIII  AQMA analyaU and plan: Data avail-
   ability.
II U  AQMA analyala and plan: Alternative
   pTOOMtllFM.
ftl 100  Definition*.
II 101  Stipulation*.
11.101  Public hearing*.
II 1O1  Rubrolaalon of  plan*;  preliminary
   review of plan*.
II 104  RevUlon*.
II till  Approval of plan*.
 11.110  Attainment and maintenance of na-
    tional atandard*.
 •I.Ill  Description of control measure*.
 11.111  Demonitrallon of adequacy.
 •I.IIS  Time period  for demonstration of
    adequacy.
 II 114  Emissions data and projections
 •I.Ill  Air quality data and projection*.
 till*  Data availability.
 11.11T  Additional provisions for lead.
 II.Ill  Stack helcht provision*.
 11.111  Intermittent control *y*tem*.
                      i *« A* PeaMtM
               "•••nr
II IM Claaaltlcatlon of region* for eplaode
   pfauns.
•I.Ill Significant harm level*.
•I.lit Contingency plan*.
II .111 Revaluation of eplaode plan*.
  II. IM  Legally enforceable procedurea.
  II 111  Public availability of Information.
  II 111  Identification   of   reaponalble
   Mency.
  II 111  Admlnlatratlon procedure*.
  II. 1*4  Stack height procedurea.
  II.IM  Permit requirement*.
  II.IM  Prevention of significant deterio-
ration of air quality.
II.IM  Ambient air quality monltorini re-
   quirement*.
IIII*  Oeoeral.
•Mil
                eporta and reeerdkeeplnc.
II 111  Testing.  Inspection,  enforcement,
   and complaint*.
11.111  Tranaporlatlon control meaium.
II114  Contlnuou* emlaalon monitoring.
                                         II ISO Requirement* tor all plan*.
                                         11.111 Identification of lecal authority.
                                         II.Ml Aaalcnraent of lecal  authority to
                                             local acencte*.
          AOKHCV Danm*TiOH

11140  General plan requirement*.
II141  Nonattalnment  area*  for  carbon
   monoxide and ozone.
11.141  I Reserved I
                                      712
                                                                                                Environmental PretectUn
    CONTIMUIHC CONSULTATION PBOCCS*
11.143  Contultatlon procea* objective*.
SI 144  Plan element* affected.
II 141  Orcanlzallon*  and official*  to  be
   cotuulted
1114*  Ttmlnc.
•1.141  Hearing* on  coniullatlon procei*
   violation*.

 RauTioitiHir or PLAH TO Onm PUHIMIMO
       *HD MAHAOCMCHT PBOOMM*
II .141  Coordination vlth other program*.
II 141  (Recervedl
11.190  Tranunlttal of Information.
•I. Ml  Conformity with  Executive  Order
   11111.
11.111  Summary of plan development par
   Uclpatlon.
                  •P*
II.MO  Legally   enforceable   compliance
   schedule*.
II.Ml  Plnal compliance achedulea.
II.Ml  Eilcnilon beyond one year.
                                                                              i Ma* C«MiM
•I.MO  Reaourcea.
II.HI  Coplea of rule* and reguUUon*.
II.UI  Public notification.
                       i«4VWMBfy
II100  Purpoae and applicability.
•I.MI  Definition*.
SI.M1  Implementation control itratecle*.
• I .Ml  exemption* from control.
II.M4  Identification of Integral vtotaa.
II101  Monitoring.
HIM  Lone-termitrategy.
II.Ml  Mew aource review.
       Aia QOAUTV DATA Rcromira   .
HIM  Annual air quality data report.

   Sooacc EaiiHioiia *HD STATB ACTIOII
               RcroiTino

11.111  Annual aource embalona and State
   action report.
11.111  Source* nibject to emUakma report-
   Ing.
II 111  Reportable emUalona data and  In-
   formation.
11.114  Progrei* In plan enforcement.
11.111  Contingency plan action*.
HIM  Reportable revtelon*.
61111  Enforcement order* and other Stale
   action*.
II. 321  IRewrvedl



SI.340  Kequcsl for lyear extension.
                                $51.40

11.141  Requeil for 18 month entenalon.
ArrCHDicu A  K  IKescftveol
ArrtNDix  I. EKAur-LE  HecuutTiOH*   ron
   PKEVCHTIDH or Ai* I'OLHITIOH EMEHCEM
   cv Erisoots
ArrcNDix M  IHisenvrul
ArrtHDix    N  EMISSIOWS    RmucTiom
   ACHIEVACLI TllllOUCH INSPECTIOH, M4IH-
   TCHANCK  AND RcTHOriT or IjOHT  DUTY
   VtMIClIS
ArrwDix O  IRuuvcol
ArriNDix  P  MINIMUM KHIMIOH MOHITOI
Arruinicu Q - R - 1 Rueavco 1
ArrtNDix 8  EMISSION  Orrsrr
   TIVI RUtINO
ArruiDix T-IRumvcol
ArrcKDix  U-CLCAH Aia  ACT SCCTIOH  114
   GUIDELINE*
  AUTHOBITV: Thl* rulemaklng  I*  promul-
gated under  authority of aecllon* tOKbXl).
110.  IM-IOO.  Ill-lit,  and  lOKal  of  the
Clean Air Act 41  U.8.C.  140l(bKll. 1410.
1410-141*. 1SOI 1508. and IMI(a).
  Souacc M PR 1»M. Nov. IS. 1*11. unle**
otherwbe noted.
  EDITO*IAL  NOTE: Nomenclature  chance*
affectlnc Part SI appear at 44 FR l»1. Peb.
I. 1*1* and SI PR 40681. Nov. 1. I»M

      Subawto A-C— |lwga>rv*>«l)
D— Mainte
                        ce of N.M*MM|
               Standard*

  Sooiicc 41 PR 1I1M. May 3. 1*1*. unleai
otherwlae noted.

161.4*  Seep*.
  (fc> Applicability. The requlremenU
o(  this subpmrt apply  to air quality
maintenance  areas  (AQMA*)  Identi-
fied under I 51.1 HMD and to any areas
Identified under | Sl.llfKI).
  (b) AQMA Analvti*. Under this  sub-
part,  procedures  are   given tor  the
analysis of the air quality  Impact  of
specified pollutant emissions from ex-
isting sources and emissions associated
with  projected growth and develop-
ment In  areas  Identified  under para-
graphs  and (I)  of   151.110.  This
analysis Is referred to In this subpart
as an AQMA analysis.
   when necessary to prevent a
national  ambient  air quality standard
                                                                                            713

-------
1*1.41

III.U  AQMA  ana|r«k and  plan: Date
   •TaUaMllly.

  (a) The State shall retain all de-
tailed data and calculation* used In
the preparation of  AQMA  analyses
and plans, make them  available for
public Inspection, and submit them to
the Administrator at his request.
  . He may consider all relevant
factors Including but not limited to air
cfueJIty problems, financial and man-
power limitation*, administrative  fea-
sfbbtty. and existing commitment* by
the State.
  (b) The Administrator shall act upon
a fcquest for modification within 45
day* after receipt of a  properly  pre-
pared and filed request. Unless a State
I* notified of a denial, or the Adminis-
trator request* additional Information.
•ttch a  request I* automatically ap-
prdved on the forty-sixth day.
  (c) The Administrator shall publish
In the rtoaua. Raoisra. a description
of each modification made.
   A public hearing on  an AQMA
plan doe* not fulfill the public hearing
requirement*  of this part  If.  subse-
      to the hearing, any alternative
               approved under  this
(•MS. 110. HI. 174(a). MKa). Clean Air Act.
M emended (43 UBC. 1410. 1411. 1504. and
141 nt MM*. May 1. 1*1*. ai amended at 44
nt nn». June it. m»i
       ftwbpwt I— (Reserved)

         f— Procedural Requirements
  Boimcm: 61 PR 40*61. Nov. 1. 1986. unleu
 otherwUe noted
         40 CM Ch. I (7-1-88 IdlrUn)

• 6I.IM  Definition*.

  As used In this part, all terms not de-
fined herein will  have the meaning
given them In the Act:
  (a)  "Act"  means the Clean Air Act
(43 U.8.C. 7401 et teg., as amended by
Pub.  L. 91-404. 84 Stat. 1679 Pub. U
•6 98. 91 stat.. 686 and Pub. U 96-190.
91 Stat.. U99.)
  (b)  "Administrator" means the Ad-
mlnlatrator of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (EPAl or an authorised
representative.
  (c) "Primary standard" means a na-
tional primary  ambient  air  quality
standard promulgated pursuant to sec-
tion 10* of the Act.
  (d)  "Secondary standard" means a
national secondary ambient air quality
standard promulgated pursuant to sec-
tion 109 of the Act.
  (e)   "National  standard"   mean*
either a primary or secondary stand-
ard.
  (f) "Owner or operator" mean* any
peraon who own*, leases, operate*, con-
trol*, or •upervise* a facility, building.
structure, or Installation which direct-
ly or  Indirectly result or may result In
emission* of  any  air  pollutant for
which a national standard Is In effect.
  (gl  "Local agency" mean* any local
government  agency other than the
State agency, which I* charged with
responsibility for carrying  out  a por-
tion of the plan.
  (hi  "Regional Office" mean*  one of
the ten (101 EPA Regional Offices.
  (I) "State agency" mean* the air pol-
lution control agency  primarily  re-
sponsible for development and Imple-
mentation of a plan under the Act.
  (J> "Plan" means an Implementation
plan  approved  or promulgated under
section 110 of 173 of the Act.
   "Region" mean* an  area  deslg-
 natod a* an air quality control region
 (AQCR) under section 107(c) of the
  (n) "Control strategy" mean* a eom-
Mnatlon of measure* designated to
achieve the  aggregate reduction of
emissions  oeceesary  for  attainment
and  maintenance  of national stand-
ard* Including,  but  not  limited  to.

  (1) Emission limitations.
  (I) Federal or State emission charge*
or tax** or other econoamlc Incentive*
  (•) Closing or relocation of residen-
tial, commercial,  or Industrial
  (4) Change* hi schedules or I
of operation of commercial or I
al facilities or transportation i
Including, but not  limited to.  abort-
term change* made In accordance with
standby plan*.
  (6) Periodic Inspection and testing of
motor  vehicle emission control  sys-
tems, at such time as the Administra-
tor determines that such program* are
feasible and practicable.  .
  (6) Emission control measures appli-
cable to In-use motor vehicles. Includ-
ing, but not limited to. measures such
as mandatory maintenance.  Installa-
                            •51.100

 tlon of emission control devices,  and
 conversion to gaseous fuels.
  (7) Any transportation control meas-
 ure Including  those   transportation
 measures listed In section 10B(I) of the
 Clean Air Act as amended.
  (8) Any variation o(. or  alternative
 to any measure delineated herein.
  (0) Control or prohibition of a  fuel
 or fuel additive used In motor vehicle*.
 If such control or prohibition I* necea-
 aary to achieve a national  primary or
 •econary  air quality standard and  la
 approved by the Administrator under
 section lll(cM4KC) of the Act.
  (o> "Reasonably available   control
 technology"    mean*  device*.
 systems   process  modifications,   or
 other apparatus or technique* that are
 reasonably available  taking Into ac-
 count  (1) the  necessity of Imposing
 such controls In order to  attain  and
 maintain a national ambient air qual-
 ity  •tandard. (2) the  social, environ-
 mental  and economic  Impact  of such
 control*, and (3) alternative mean* of
 providing for attainment and mainte-
 nance of  *uch *tandard. (This provi-
 sion define* RACT for the purpose* of
 II »l.ll(KcX» and 81.341(0) only.)
  (p)  ••Compliance schedule"  mean*
 the date or date* by which a source or
 category  of  sources  I* required to
 comply with specific emission limita-
 tion* contained hi an Implementation
 plan  and  with  any  tncremenU  of
 progress toward men compliance.
  (q) "Increment* of progress" mean*
•ten* toward compliance which will be
 taken by a specific source. Including:
  (1) Date of submlttal of the  source'*
 final control plan to the appropriate
air pollution control agency.
  (3)  Date  by  which  contract*  for
emission control systems  or  process
modification* will be awarded; or date
by which orders will be Issued for the
purchase  of  component part* to ac-
complish  emission control or process
 modification;
  (3) Date of Initiation of on site con-
struction  or Installation of  emission
control equipment or process change;
  (4) Date by which on site construc-
 tion or Installation of emission control
 equipment or process  modification Is
 to be completed: and
  (6) Date by which flna! compliance
 1s to be achieved.
                                                                                                                        710

-------
 191.100

  it > '"li•importation  control  meas-
 ure" means any measure that Is direct-
 ed toward  reducing,  emissions or  air
 pollutants    from     transportation
 sources. Such  measures  Include, but
 are not limited to. those  tinted In sec-
 tion I08XO of the Clean Air Act.
   {Reserved]
  (i) "Time period" means any period
 or  tune designated by hour, month.
 season, calendar year, averaging  time.
 or  other suitable characteristic*, for
 which ambient air quality Is estimated.
  (y) "Variance" means the temporary
 deferral or a final compliance date for
 an  Individual source subject to an ap-
 proved  regulation, or a temporary
 change to an approved regulation as It
 applies to an Individual source.
  <•> "Emission limitation" and "emis-
 sion standard" mean a requirement es-
 tablished by a State, local government.
 or the Administrator  which limits the
quantity,  rate,  or concentration  of
emissions or air pollutants on a contin-
 uous basis. Including any requirements
 which limit the level or opacity, pre-
scribe  equipment, set  fuel  specifica-
 tions, or prescribe operation or main-
 tenance  procedure*  for  a  source to
 assure continuous emission reduction.
  (aal  "Capacity  factor" means the
 ratio or the average load on a machine
 or equipment for the period or tune
 considered to the capacity  ratine or
 the machine or equipment.
   "Excess emissions" means  emis-
sions of an  air  pollutant In excess or
 an emission standard.
   "Nitric  acid plant" means any
 facility  producing nitric acid 30  to 70
 percent In strength by either the pres-
sure or atmospheric pressure process.
  (dd) "Sulfurlc acid plant" means any
 facility  producing sulfurlc acid by the
contact process by burning elemental
sulfur, alky 1st Ion acid, hydrogen sul-
 ride. or add sludiie.  but  does  not  In-
 clude facilities whrre conversion to
 sulfuric acid Is utilized primarily as a
 means of preventing emissions to the
 atmosphere of sulfur dioxide or other
 sulfur compounds.
   "A stack In existence"  means
that  the owner or operator had (I)
begun, or caused to begin, a continu-
ous program of physical on site  con-
struction of the stack or (3) entered
Into binding agreements or contrac-
tual obligations, which could not be
cancelled or modified without substan-
tial loss  to the owner or operator, to
undertake a program or construction
or the stack to be completed within  a
reasonable time.
  (hhXl)  "Dispersion   technique"
means any technique which attempts
to affect the concentration of a pollut-
ant In the ambient air by:
  (I) Using  that  portion or a stack
which exceeds good engineering prac-
tice stack height:
  (U) Varying the rate of emission of  a
pollutant according  to  atmospheric
conditions or ambient concentrations
or that pollutant; or
  (111)  Increasing  final  exhaust  gas
plume rise  by manipulating source
process parameters,  exhaust gas pa-
rameters, stack parameters, or combin-
ing exhaust gases from several exist-
big stacks Into one stack; or other se-
lective   handling  or  exhaust  gas
streams so as to Increase the extiaust
gas plume rise.
  <» The preceding sentence does not
Include:
   The reheating or a gas stream.
following use  of  a pollution control
system, for the purpose of returning
the gas to the temperature at wftlch It
was originally discharged from the fa-
cility generating the gas stream;
  (II)  The merging  of  exhaust  gas
streams where:
  (A)  The source  owner or operator
demonstrates  that the  facility  was
originally designed  and  constructed
with such merged gas streams:
    After July i. I"85 such merging
Is part or a change In operation at the
facility that Includes the Installation
of pollution controls and Is accompa-
nied by a net reduction In the allow-
able emissions or a pollutant. This ex-
clusion from the definition of "disper-
sion techniques"  shall apply only to
the emission limitation for the pollut-
fnvkwwNmM Protect!** Af ency

ant affected by such change In oper-
ation: or
  (C) Before July 8. 1986. such merg-
ing wss part of a change In operation
at the facility that Included the Instal-
lation of emissions control equipment
or was carried out for sound economic
or engineering reasons. Where  there
was an Increase In the emission limita-
tion or. In the event that no emission
limitation was In existence prior to the
merging, an Increase In the quantity of
pollutants  actually emitted prior to
the  merging,  the  reviewing  agency
shall presume that merging  was sig-
nificantly motivated by an Intent to
gain emissions credit for greater dis-
persion.  Absent a  demonstration by
the  source owner  or  operator that
merging was not significantly motivat-
ed  by  such  Intent, the reviewing
agency  shall  deny  credit for  the ef-
fects of such  merging In calculating
the allowable emissions for the source;
  (111) Smoke management In agricul-
tural or sUvtcuUural pi escribed  burn-
ing programs;
  (Iv) Bplsodlc restrictions on residen-
tial woodbumlng and open burning; or
  (V)      Techniques
MI.IOMhhNlHlll)   which
final exhaust gas plume rise where the
resulting allowable emissions or sulfur
dioxide from the facility do not exceed
•.000 tons per year.
  (U> "Good  engineering  practice"
(OEP) stack height means the greater
or:
  (I) M meters,  measured front the
ground-level elevation at  the base of
the stack:
  ONI) For stacks In existence on Jan-
uary I >. in*, and for which the owner
or operator had obtained all applicable
permits or approvals required under 40
CPR Parts 51 and 59.

H.-1.MI.
provided the owner or  operator pro-
duces evidence that this equation was
actually relied on In establishing an
emission limitation:
   For all other stacks.

H.-H +  I M.
where
H.-(ood enslneerlnc practice lUck height,
   meanired from the (round level eleva-
   tion at the hue of the ilmrk.
                            J 51.100

H-helshl of nearby •tructureo) measured
   from the (round level' elevation aC the
   base of the atack.    .
L-leaser  dimension, helsht or projected
   width, of nearby structured)

provided that the EPA.  State or local
control agency may require the use or
a field study or fluid model to verify
OEP stack height for the source; or
  (» The height demonstrated by a
fluid model or a field study approved
by  the EPA State  or   local control
agency, which ensures that the emis-
sions from a stack do not result In ex-
cessive concentrations or any air pol-
lutant as  a  result or atmospheric
downwaah. wakes, or eddy effects cre-
ated by the source Itself, nearby struc-
tures or nearby terrain features.
  (jj)  ••Nearby" aa used In 161.100(11)
of this part Is defined  for  a specific
structure or terrain feature and
  (1) For purposes of applying the for-
mulae provided In I SI.100(11X3) means
that distance  up to rive times the
lesser or the height or the width di-
mension of a structure, but not greater
than 0.1 km (H mile), and
  (1)  for conducting demonstrations
under I BI.IOO means not greater
than 0.0  km (H mile), except that the
portion of a terrain feature may be
considered to  be  nearby which falls
within a distance of up to 10 time* the
maximum height 
-------
} 51.100

the maximum  concentration  experi-
enced In the absence of such down-
wash,  wakes,  or  eddy  effects  and
which contributes to a total concentra-
tion due to emissions from  all  sources
that Is greater than  an ambient air
quality standard. For sources  subject
to the prevention of significant dete-
rioration program (40 CFR  51.166 and
69.21). an excessive concentration al-
ternatively means a maximum ground-
level concentration due to emission*
from a stack due In whole  or  part to
downwash. wakes, or eddy effects pro-
duced by nearby structures or nearby
terrain features which Individually Is
at least 40  percent In excess of the
maximum concentration experienced
In the  absence of such   downwash.
wakes, or eddy effects  and  greater
than a prevention of significant dete-
rioration  Increment.  The   allowable
emission rale to be used  In  making
demonstrations under this  part shall
be prescribed by the  new source per-
formance  standard that Is applicable
to the  source  category  unless the
ownei or  operator demonstrates that
this emission rate Is Infeaslble. Where
such demonstrations are approved by
the authority administering the State
Implementation  plan,  an  alternative
emission rate shall be established In
consultation with the source owner or
operator.
  (» For  sources seeking credit after
October 11.  1981. for Increases In exist*
big stack heights up to the  height* es-
tablished  under I 51.100(11 M 3). either
(I) a maximum ground-level concentra-
tion due  In whole or part to down-
wash, wakes or eddy effects as provid-
ed In paragraph 4kkMI> of this section.
except that  the emission rate specified
by any applicable State Implementa-
tion plan (or. In the absence of such  a
limit, the actual emission  rale) shall
be used, or (II) the actual presence of a
local nuisance caused by the  existing
stack, as determined by the authority
administering the State Implementa-
tion plan; and
  (I) For  sources seeking credit after
January 12. 1979 for a stack height de-
termined  under  151.10OUIX2) where
the authority administering the State
Implementation plan  requires the use
of a field study or fluid model to verify
QKP stark  lielnl\t. for sources seeking
         40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-M fdlHen)

stack height credit after November 9.
1984 based on the aerodynamic Influ-
ence of cooling towers, and for sources
seeking  slack  height  credit  after De-
cember  31. 1970 based on the aerody-
namic Influence  of structures not ade-
quately  represented by  the  equations
In | 6I.1(MKIIX3>. a maximum ground-
level  concentration due In  whole or
part to  downwash. wakes or eddy ef-
fects  that Is  at least 40 percent In
excess of the maximum concentration
experienced In  the absence of  such
downwash, wakes, or eddy effects.
  (IIMmm) {Reserved!
  (nn)  Intermittent  control  system
(IC8) means  a  dispersion  technique
which varies the rate at which pollut-
ants are emitted to the atmosphere ac-
cording  to meteorological conditions
and/or ambient  concentrations of the
pollutant. In order to prevent ground-
level concentrations In excess of appli-
cable ambient air quality standards.
Such a dispersion technique la an IC8
whether used alone, used with other
dispersion  techniques, or used  as a
supplement to  continuous emission
controls (I.e., used as a supplemental
control system).
  (oo) "Paniculate matter" means any
airborne finely divided solid or liquid
material with an aerodynamic diame-
ter smaller than  100 micrometers.
  (pp) "Partlculate matter emissions"
means all finely  divided solid or liquid
material,   other  than   uncomblned
water, emitted to  the ambient air as
measured  by   applicable  reference
methods, or an  equivalent or alterna-
tive method, specified In this chapter,
or by a  test method specified In an ap-
proved State Implementation plan.
  (qq)  "PM»"   means  partlculate
matter with an aerodynamic diameter
less tluui or equal  to a nominal 10 mi-
crometers as  measured by a reference
method based on Appendix  J of Part
60 of this chapter and designated In
accordance with Part 63 of  this  chap-
ter or by an equivalent method desig-
nated In  accordance  with Part  63  of
this chapter.
  (rr) "PMM  emissions"  means finely
divided  solid or liquid material, with
an aerodynamic diameter less than or
equal to  a nominal  10  micrometers
emitted to the  ambient air as  meas-
ured by  an  applicable  reference
 tnvlrs*MiMfits)l Protection Af sitcy

 method,  or an equivalent or alterna-
 tive method, specified In this chapter
 or by a test method specified In an ap-
 proved Stale Implementation plan.
   (as) "Total  suspended partlculate"
 means  partlculate matter as measured
 by the method described In Appendix
 B of Part 60 of this chapter.
 (•1 PR 40MI. No*. 1. ISM. M amended at IS
 PR 1471 J.  Julr I. 1*87)

 1(1.161  8UrslatloM.
  Nothing  In this  part will  be con-
 strued In  any manner:
  (a) To encourage a State to prepare.
 adopt, or  submit a plan which does not
 provide for the protection and en-
 hancement of air quality so as to pro-
 mote the public health  and welfare
 and productive capacity.
  (b) To  encourage a State to adopt
 any particular control strategy with-
 out taking Into consideration the cost-
 effectiveness of such control strategy
 In relation  to that  of alternative con-
 trol strategies.
  (c) To preclude a State from employ-
 Ing techniques other than those speci-
 fied In  this part for purposes of esti-
 mating  air quality or demonstrating
 the adequacy of a control strategy.
 provided  that such other techniques
 are shown to be adequate and appro-
 priate for such purposes.
  (d) To encourage a State to prepare,
 adopt, or submit a plan without taking
 Into consideration the social and eco-
 nomic Impact of the control strategy
 set forth  In such plan. Including, but
 not limited to. Impact on availability
 of fuels,  energy, transportation, and
 employment.
  (e) To preclude a State from prepar-
 Ing,  adopting,  or submitting  a  plan
 which provides for  attainment  fend
 maintenance of a  national stsMMard
 through the application  of « UMttrol
strategy not specifically  Identified or
described In this part.
  (f) To preclude a State or political
subdivision  thereof  from adopting or
enforcing  any emission limitations or
other measures or combinations there1
of to  attain and maintain air  quality
better than that required by a nation-
al standard.
  (g) To encourage a State to adopt a
control strategy uniformly applicable
throughout a region unless there Is no
                             ft 51.102

 satisfactory alternative way of provid-
 ing for attainment and maintenance of
 a national  standard throughout such
 region.

 lil.Uf  Public fearing*.

   (a) Except as otherwise provided In
 paragraph  (c) of this section.  States
 must conduct one or more public hear-
 ings on the following prior to adoption
 and submission to EPA of:
   (1) Any plan  or revision of It re-
 quired by 151. !04(a>.
   (2) Any Individual compliance sched-
 ule under (161.200).
   (» Any revision under I 6l.l04(d).
   (b) Separate hearings may be held
 for  plans to  Implement primary and
 secondary standards.
   (c) No hearing  will  be required for
 any  change  to an   Increment  of
 progress  In an  approved Individual
 compliance  schedule   unless   such
 change Is likely to cause the source to
 be unable to comply  with the final
 compliance date  In the schedule. The
 requirements  of  1161.104 and  61.106
 will  be applicable to  such schedules.
 however.
  (d) Any  hearing required by para-
 graph (a) of this section will be held
 only after  reasonable notice,  which
 will  be considered to Include, at feast
 M days prior to the date of  such
 hearlngd):
  (1) Notice given to the public by
 prominent advertisement In the area
 affected  announcing   the  datots).
 tlme(s>.   and   place
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5.4

-------
                                 Attachment A
        r
        *i
         8         UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
       jg                          WASHINGTON, D.C 20460
  ^/    C*"



                                 APR 2 2  SB8
                                                                       ADLANDIADUTK
MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:   Interim Policy on Stack Height Regulatory Actions
FROM:   t~ J' C.ra19 Poster
         " Assistant Adminis
             for Air and Radlati

TO:        Director, Air Management Division
             Regions I,  III,  IX
           Director, Air and  Waste Management Division
             Region II
           Director, Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division
             Regions IV, VI
           Director, Air and  Radiation Division
             Region V
           Director, Air and  Toxics Division
             Regions VII, VIII,  X


     On January 22, 1988, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia issued its.decision  in  NRDC v. Thomas. 838 F. 2d 1224 (D.C. Cir.
1988), regarding the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) stack height
regulations published on July 8, 1985 (50 FR 27892).  Subsequent petitions
for rehearing were denied. Although the court upheld most provisions of the
rules, three portions were remanded to EPA for review:

     1. Grandfather!ng pre-October 11, 1983 within-formula stack height
increases from demonstration  requirements [40 CFR Sl.lOO(kk)(2)3;

     2. Dispersion credit for sources originally designed and constructed
with merged or multiflue stacks  [40 CFR 5l.lOO(hh)(2)(1i)(A)3; and

     3. Grandfather!no of pre-1979 use of the refined H + 1.5L formula
[40 CFR 51.100(H)(2)3.

     A number of pending State implementation plan  (SIP) and other  rulemaking
actions may be affected  by this  decision in advance of EPA's promulgation of
further revisions of the stack height regulations.  This includes not only
rulemaking packages developed to respond to the 1985 stack height regulations,
but also such actions as issuance of new source review (NSR) and prevention
of significant deterioration  (PSD) permits, permit modifications, SIP revisions

-------
dealing with specific source emission limitations,  and  redes1gnat1ons 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 penults 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 the* accordingly.
Where EPA has retained authority to issue permits,  it should  also Insert
appropriate cautionary language in 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 them may need to be evaluated for compliance with any later
revisions to the stack height regulations, as a result  of the litigation.
The 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
which 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  1s due to  the Issue of
whether EPA has authority to unilaterally change attainment  designations.

     During this interim period, the Regional Office  staff should review with
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 FT3 629-0870 or Janet  Metsa at FTS 629-5313.

cc:  D. Clay
     A. Eckert
     J. Emison
     0. Grano
     J. Metsa

-------
             UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                    Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
                   Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
                              MAY 1 V iScS
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:  Applipatlc^f^the Interim Policy  for Stack Height
FROM:     JjprfnvCaTcagjMV 01 rector
           (ir Quality'Management Division  (MD-15)
          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  rulemaklng 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 Metsa
(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
      D. Grano
      N. Mayer
      J-^etsa
    i^SC Reinders
      R. Roos-Collins
      502 SIP Contacts
      Stack Height Contacts, Regions I-X

-------
                                 Attachment A


                   I'NITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                   WASHINGTON, D.C 20460
                                 APR 2 2 B88
                                                                          omcxor
                                                                       AB.AMDIADU.TK>
MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:

FROM:



TO:
Interim Policy on Stack Height Regulatory Actions

J. Craig Potter
Assistant Admi nisi, ami  (\        i\
  for Air and Radiation  (CTR-443)

Director, Air Management Division
  Regions I,  III, IX
Director, Air and Waste Management Division
  Region II
Director, Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division
  Regions IV, VI
Director, A1r and Radiation Division
  Region V
Director, Air and Toxics Division
  Regions VII, VIII,  X
     On January 22,  1988,  the  U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia issued its-decision in NRDC v. Thomas, 838 F. 2d 1224 (D.C. Cir.
1988), regarding the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) stack height
regulations published on July  8,  1985  (50 FR 27892).  Subsequent petitions
for rehearing were denied.  Although the court upheld most provisions of the
rules, three portions were  remanded to EPA for review:

     1. Grandfathering pre-October 11, 1983 w1thin-formula stack height
increases from demonstration requirements [40 CFR 51.100(kk)(2)3;

     2. Dispersion credit  for  sources  originally designed and constructed
with merged or multiflue stacks [40 CFR 51.100(hh)(2)(1i)(A)]; and

     3. Grandfathering of  pre-1979 use of the refined H + 1.5L formula
[40 CFR 51.100(11) (2) J.

     A number of pending State implementation plan  (SIP) and other  rulemaking
actions may be affected by  this decision in advance of EPA's promulgation of
further revisions of the stack height  regulations.  This Includes not only
rulemaking packages  developed  to  respond to the 1985 stack height regulations,
but also such actions as issuance of new source review (NSR) and prevention
of significant deterioration  (PSD) permits, permit modifications, SIP revisions

-------
dealing with specific source emission limitations,  and  redes1gnat1ons  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 1s 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 1f  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 'i 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 them may need to be evaluated for compliance with  any  later
revisions to the stack height regulations, as a result  of the litigation.
The 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
which 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  1s due to the issue of
whether EPA has authority to unilaterally change  attainment designations.

     During this interim period, the Regional Office  staff should  review with
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:  0. Clay
     A. Eckert
     0. Emison
     D. Grano
     J. Metsa

-------
                               Attachment B

     The following boilerplate, or 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, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued Us  decision  affirming the
regulations in large part, but remanding three provisions  to  the EPA  for
reconsideration.  These are:

   1.  Grandfathering pre-October 11, 1983 w1thin-formula  stack height
       increases from demonstration requirements  [40 CFR 51.10Q(kk)(2)];

   2.  Dispersion credit for sources  originally designed and  constructed
       with merged or multiflue stacks [40 CFR 51.100(hh)(2)(11)(A)]; 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 EPA generally approves [State's]  stack  height rules on
the grounds that they satisfy 40 CFR  Part 51,  the EPA  also provides notice
that this action may be subject to modification when EPA completes
rulemaking to respond to the decision in NRDC  v.  Thomas, 838  F.2d 1224
(D.C. C1r. 1988).  If the EPA's response to the NRD(Tremand modifies  the
July 8, 1985 regulations, the EPA will notify  the~3t"ate of [  ] 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

     "The EPA 1s not acting on	sources (identified 1n table form or by
asterisk) because they currently receive credit under  one  of  the provisions
remanded to the EPA 1n NRDC v.  Thomas. 838 F.2d 1224 (D.C. Ci r  1988).
The [State] and EPA will review these 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 NSR and PSO 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 PR 27892).
For this reason, EPA requires that the State Include the following caveat
in all potentially affected permit approvals until  the EPA completes  Us
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 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 O.C. Circuit 1n NRDC '<.  Thomas. 838 F.2d
     1224 (D.C. Cir. 1988).  Consequently, this permit may be subject to
     modification if and when EPA revises the regulation in  response  to
     the court decision.  This may result 1n revised emission limitations
     or may affect other actions taken by the source owners  or  operators.'

     [State] must make an enforceable commitment to Include this caveat in
all affected permits before the EPA can take final  action  approving the
[NSR or PSO] progcam."


               Language for Final NSR and PSO 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, 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 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  v.  Thomas, 838
     F.2d 1224 (D.C. Cir. 1988),  Consequently, this permit  may be subject
     to modification if and when the EPA revises the regulations 1n

-------
                                     3

     response to the court decision.  This  may  result  in  revised emission
     limitations or may affect  other  actions  taken  by  the source owners
     or operators.'

     [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
AZ/CA/NV
AZ/CA/NV
SC
MS
NJ/NY/VI
WA
MO
AR
OH
TX
<-A
DE
OH
SO
CO
AQMD I
3059
3210
3243
3330
3418
3480
3543
3548
3570
3572
3592
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 •
Redes1gnat1on of Gall a County to
Attainment
Administrative Rules
Negative Declaration
Disposition
HQ
RO
RO
RO
RO
HQ
RO
HQ
HQ
HQ
HQ
HQ
Hold
RO
RO

-------
          UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
3                Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
                 Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
                          12 NCV \g\


  MEMORANDUM

  SUBJECT:   Incorporation  by Reference

  FROM:      S.  T.  Helms, Chief^—
            Cont-ol  Programs Operations Branch

  TO:        Chief, A1r Branch
            Regions  I-X


       The  Office  of the Federal Register (OFR) has recently advised us
  that commitment  letters  are not acceptable for Incorporation by reference
  because they  are not regulatory in nature.

       Instead, the  OFR has  informed us that the Code of Federal Regulations
  (CFR)  can be  amended by  adding a new section or amending an existing section
  to add the commitment; the "Identification of Plan" paragraph should not
  be amended.

       Attached is an example of a CFR page that the OFR has reviewed and
  approved  and  the commitment letter from the State of Minnesota that was
  the basis for this sample  regulatory text.  Please note that the core
  paragraph from the letter  should be quoted in the new section that is
  being added to the CFR.

       If you have any questions on incorporation by reference procedures,
  call Denise Gerth  at 629-5550.  Thank you for your cooperation.

  Attachments

-------
cc:  Betty Abramson
     Walter Bishop
     Ted Creelcmore
     Tom Dlggs
     Pat Embrey
     Greg Foote
     Denlse Sjfrth
     Oean Sill am
     Laurie Krai
     Carol  LeValley
     Sandy  McLean
     Bob Miller
     Rich Osslas
     Carolyn Payne
    Sharon Relnders
    Julie Rose
    John S11vas1
    Marcia Spink
    Rebecca Taggart
    Paul  Truchan

-------
40 CFR Part 52, Subpart Y,  is amended as  follows:

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

     AUTHORITY:  42 U.S.C.  7401-7642

2.   A new Section 52.1237  is added as follows:

     §52.1237  Stack Height Regulations

     The State of Minnesota has committed to  conform  to the Stack

Height Regulations as set forth in 40 CFR Part 51. In  a  letter to

Mr. David Kee, EPA, dated January 14, 1987, Mr. Thomas  J.  Kalitowskl

of the Minnesota Pollution  Control Agency stated:
     Minnesota does not currently  have a  stack  height  rule,
     nor do we intend to adopt such a rule.   Instead,  we will
     conform with the Stack Height Regulation as  set forth
     in the July 8, 1985 Federal  Register in issuing permits
     for new or modified sources.   In cases  where that rule
     is not clear, we will  contact U.S. EPA  Region V and
     conform to the current federal  interpretation of  the
     item in question.

-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5.5

-------
5864	Federal Register  /  Vol. 47. No. 26 / Monday. February 8.1982 /Jlules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

40CFRPart51

[AO-fRL 2010-1; Docket No. A-79-01]

Stack Height Regulation*

AOEMCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rulemaking.

SUMMARY: Section 123 of the Clean Air
Act requires EPA to promulgate
regulations to assure that the degree of
emission limitation required for the
control of any air pollutant under an
applicable State Implementation Plan
(SIP) is not affected by that portion of
any stack height which exceeds good
engineering practice (GEP) or by any
other dispersion technique. Regulations
to implement Section 123 were proposed
on January 12.1979 at 44 PR 2608 and
reproposed October 7,1961 at 46 FR
49814. Today's action incorporates
changes to the reproposal and finalizes
these regulations.
DATE These rules are effective March
10.1962.
      is: Docket A-79-01. containing
material relevant to this action, is
located in the Central Docket Section
(A-130), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401M Street SW.. Washington.
D.C. 20480.
FOftPU
Mr. Bruce Pslkowsky, MD-15. Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina
27711. Telephone: (919) 541-5540.
SUPPLEMENTARY MKMWATKMr

Docket Statement
  All pertinent information concerning
the development of these regulations is
included in Docket No. A-79-01. The
Docket is open for inspection by the
public between the hours of 8:00 aon.
and 4:00 p.m.. Monday through Friday.
at the EPA Central Docket Section. West
Tower Lobby, Gallery One, 401 M
Street SW.. Washington. D.C.
Background documents normally
available to the public, such as Federal
Register notices and Congressional
reports, are not included in the docket
A reasonable fee may  be charged for
copying documents.

I. Background

A. Statute
  Section 123 was added to the Clean
Air Act by the 1977 Clean Air Act
Amendments. It prohibits stacks taller
than good engineering practice (GEP)
height and other dispersion techniques
 from affecting Ibe emission limitations
 requiracUo meet the national ambient
 air quality standards (NAAQS) or
 prevention of significant deterioration
 air quality increments (PSD increments).
 Section 123 requires EPA to promulgate
 regulations which define GEP stack
 height and which restrict the use of
 other dispersion techniques, including
 intermittent or supplemental control
 techniques. This rulemaking fulfills *h<«
 requirement  In the near future. EPA
 also intends to propose rules on the use
 of intermittent control techniques.
 B. Rulemaking
   On January 12,1979 (44 FR 2608). EPA
 published a notice proposing limitations
-on stack height credit and other
 dispersion techniques. The jnotiee
 proposed specific rules to be used in
 determining GEP stack height for any
 source and specific requirements for
 State Implementation Plan (SIP)
 revisions. EPA provided an extended
 period Tor the submission of public
 comments on these proposed
 regulations. EPA held a public hearing
 on May 31.1979 followed by a 39-day
 period for the submission of additional
 comments (44 FR 24328. April 2fc. 1979).
 EPA provided foe comments on
 additional technical informatiom (44 1R
 40359, July 11.1979 and 48 FR 24596.
 May 1.1981). Finally. EPA recently
 reproposed the regulations with changes
 mad* fcrtapeoMto the commeata
 received (44 PR 4W14, October 7.1981).
   Forty individuals and groups
           OB the October 1981
 proposal EPA hae considered aQ
 comments and has made a number of
 changes in the regulations in response to
 these comments. Most of these changes
 simply clarify the proposed rules. The
 revisions are outlined in Section IV:
 "Changes in the Regulations  from the
 October 1981 Proposal" In addition,
 EPA has prepared a document entitled
 "Summary of Comments and Responses
 on the October 7,1981 Proposal of the
 Stack Height Regulations." This
 document has been placed in Docket A-
 79-01. and, depending upon available
 supplies, copies may also be obtained'
 from: EPA Library (MD-35). U.S.
 Environmental Protection Agency.
 Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711. A
 copy of this document will be sent to all
 persons who submitted comments on the
 October 1981 proposal

 C. Documents
   In conjunction with the regulations.
 EPA developed several technical and
 guidance documents. These served as
 background information for th'e
 regulations and all are included in
 Docket No. A-79-01. The following
documents have been placed in the
National Technical Information Service
(NTIS) system and may be obtained by
contacting NTIS at 5285 Port Royal Rd..
Springfield. Virginia 22161.
  (1) "Guideline for Determination of Good
Engineering Practice Stack Height (Technical
Support Document (or Stack Height
Regulation*}." July 1981. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Office of Air Quality
planolag and Standards, EPA-450/4-8Q-023
(NTIS PB82145301)
  (2) '•Guideline for Use of Fluid Modeling to
Determine Good Engineering Practice Stack
Height" July 1981. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality
Pluming and Staadards.£PA-450/4-«l-003
(NITS KB 145327]    .
  P) "Guideline for Fluid Modeling of
Aknospberic Diffusion." April 1961. U.S.
Bavironmraul Protection Agency.
EttvironmenUl'Science* Research
Laboratory. EPA-eoo/fr-81-009. (NTIS PBfil
201410)

IL Program Overview

A. The Problem

  There are two general methods for
preventing violations of the NAAQS and
PSD increments. Emission controls
reduce,  on a continuous basis, the
quantity, rate, or concentrations  of
pollutants released into the atmosphere
from a source. In contrast dispersion
techniques rely on the dispersive effects
of the atmosphere to carry pollutant
emissions away from a source and to
prevent high concentrations of
pollutants near the source. The Clean
Air Act requires pollution sources to
meet the NAAQS and PSD  increments
by complying with emission limitations
instead of relying on dispersion
techniques.1 Section 123 defines stack
height exceeding GEP as a  dispersion
technique.
  Tall stacks and intermittent or
supplemental control systems (ICS or
SCS) are the two basic types of
dispersion techniques. Tail stacks
enhance dispersion by releasing
pollutants into the air at elevations high
above ground level increasing the
volume of air through which pollutants
must travel to reach the ground.
Releasing pollutants from a tall stack
allows a source to reduce the ambient
levels of its pollution as measured at
ground  level without reducing the
amount of pollution it releases.
Intermittent and supplemental control
systems vary a source's rate of
emissions to take advantage of
  •SM Softool MOdtUKB). 123. »2(k). and SOU ml
of tfal Act 42 U.S.C 7410)«H2)(B). 7423. 76021k). and
78021.81). Th* Notice of PnpoMd Rulemaking
contain* a mort d«uU*d ducuMion of the Act i
prohibition of to* UM of dupcrtion techniques  Set
44 FR 280S-JB10.

-------
             Fadasml tteyater / V»I. 47. No. 26 / Monday. February 8. 1982  / Rules  and Regulations      58S5
 meteorological conditione. When
 atmospheric condition* do not favor
-dispersion and an NAAQS may be
 violated the source temporarily reduces
 its pollutant emissions. When conditions
 favor rapid dispersion, the source emits
 pollutants at higher rates:
   Use of dispersion techniques instead
 of constant emission controls can result
 in additional atmospheric i"-^'"gt
 which may contribute to undesirable
 environmental effects. The us* of tall
 stacks increases the possibility that
 pollution will travel long rfi •«•!»-•«
 before it settles to the ground.
   Although dispersion techniques may
 produce advene effects, some stack
 height is needed to prevent excessive
 concentrations of pollutant emissions
 created  by airflow disruptions caused
 by structures, terrain features, and
 ground-level meteorological phenomena.
 These excessive concentrations result
 from interference with the plume.
 Section 123 responds to this problem by
 allowing EPA to give a source credit for
 that portion of its stack height needed to
 prevent  excessive concentrations  near
 the source. This height is called GEP
 stack height
   The regulations promulgated today
 define "excessive concentrations."
 "nearby." and other important concepts.
 They also establish methods for
 determining the GEP stack height  for all
 stationary sources to which these
 regulations  apply..           " ""
 B. Tf^ Program                 -
   Thfee regulations do not Bmit the
 physifal stack height of any source, nor
 require any specific  stack height for any
 source. Instead, they set limits on  the
 maximum stack height credit to be used
 in ambient air quality modeling for the
 purpose  of setting an emission limitation
 and calculating the air quality Impact of
 a source. Sources are modeled at the
 physical stack height unless that height
 exceeds  their GEP stack height The
 regulations apply to all stacks
 constructed and all dispersion
 techniques implemented since December
 31.1870.
   1. Methods of Determining GEP Stack
 Height. The regulations establish three
 basic methods of calculating a source's
 GEP stack height.
   (a) De minimi* height—EPA is
 adopting 85 meters as the-minimum GEP
 stack height for all sources  regardless of
 the size or location of any structures or
 terrain features. Sixty-five meters
 represents a reasonable estimate of the
 height needed, to insure that emission*
 will not be affected by common ground-
 level meteorological phenomena which
 may produce excessive pollutant
 concentration*. Typical i
 phenomena include surface roughness
 and the temperature changes caused by
 the solar heating and terrestrial cooling
 cycle (see page 26 of the Technical
 Support Document).
   Virtually all significant sources of SOt
 can justify stack height credits greater
 than 65 meter*. Accordingly, this de
 minimis height will have little effect on
 atmospheric loadings of sulfur dioxide.
   (b) Mathematical Formulas—
 Excessive concentrations may be
 produced by downwash. wakes, and
 eddies caused by structures located near
 the stack. EPA is adopting two formula*
 with which to calculate the GEP stack
 height: One for stacks in yjt****ce on
 January U. 1879 (die date of publication
 of EPA original proposed rules), and one
 for stacks constructed after that date.
   For stacks in existence on January 12,
 1078. EPA has adopted the traditional
 engineering formula of two and one-half
 times the height of the nearby structure
 (Hf-iSH) as the formula for
 determining the GEP stack height For
 stacks constructed after January 12.
 1078, EPA has established a refined
 formula of the height of the nearby
 structure plus one and one-half times the
 height or width of the structure,
 whichever is leu (H.«H-mL) as the
. formula for determining the GEP stack
 height
   (c) Physical Demonstration—In some
 case*, a source may need a suck taller
 than the height predicted by the
 formulas to prevent excessive
 concentrations of a pollutant due to
 downwash. wakes, or eddies created by
 structures or terrain obstacles. In such
 cases. Section 123 provides that a source
 may obtain credit for all of the stack
 height necessary to avoid excessive
 concentrations provided it demonstrates
 to the satisfaction of the reviewing
 authority that the additional height is
 necessary.
   EPA  is requiring such a source to

 concentrations caused by the source's
 emissions from its proposed stack
 height  without consideration of nearby
 structures or terrain obstacles,-will
 increase by at least 40 percent when die
 effects  of the structures or terrain
 obstacles are considered. This
 difference in concentrations must be
 shown  either by a fluid model study
 conducted in accordance with  guidelines
 published by EPA or by a field study
 which has been approved by the
 reviewing authority.
   Before a source can obtain credit for a
 GEP stack height determined by a fluid
 model or field study demonstration.
 Section 123(c) requires that the
 reviewing authority »uet notify *°*^^.
demonstration study and must provide
an opportunity for a public bearing.
  2. Method of Adjusting GEP Stack
Height for Elevated Terrain Anas. As
traditionally defined, plume impaction
occurs when a plume emitted from a
stack interacts with terrain that is taller
than the stack. The contact between the
plume and the terrain can produce high
pollutant concentrations. EPA is
establishing a procedure which will
allow sources to adjust their GEP stack
height to avoid modeled plume
impaction on elevated terrain causing
one to predict violation* of the NAAQS
or appHcaUaJSeVmcremTOti which will
not mini plila>aiiii i iliin is explained
m Section IV.Q) The predicted
violations wiH not occur because the
physical stack-height is sufficient to
ensure that the plume passes over the
elevated terrain.
  Before a source can obtain credit for a
GEP stack height based on allowances
for terrain impaction. the reviewing
authority must notify the public of the
availability of the source's
demonstration study and must provide
an opportunity for a public hearing.
  3. Grondfathend Stack Height The
1070 Clean Air Act became effective on
Deeember'31.1070. Prior to that date
some sources had constructed stack*
taller than their GEP height In Section
123. Congress recognized this and
exempted those sources' stack heights.
Section 123 allows credit ior stack
height in existence on December 31.
1070. A source's stack is considered to
be "in existence" if that stack was pan
of the design of a facility on which
construction commenced prior to
December 31.1070.
  4. Other Dispersion Techniques. The
regulations prohibit  the use of other
dispersion techniques to attain or
maintain any NAAQS or protect a PSD
increment Those techniques include
major alteration of plume characteristics
such as the manipulation of exhaust
flow rates or temperatures for the
purpose of enhancing plume rise. The
regulation defines three types of
dispersion techniques: (1) tall stacks. (2)
use of ICS or SCS. and (3) addition of a
fan or reheater to obtain a res* itringent
emission limitation. However, the
regulations exempt (1) reheating of a gas
stream following the use of a pollutant
control system. (2) smoke management
in agricultural or silvicultural programs.
and (3) combining exhau*t gase* from
several stacks into one stack.
m. State ImaJeaeeBtstioo Plan  .
  EPA. i*

-------
            Fedeol atagtater / Vol. 47. No. 2g  /  Monday. February a 1982  /  Rales and Regulations
reguiaiJona. All States aiMt ievie» aaal
revise, n necessary, tier SIPs to
include provisions that toot stack height
credits end dispersion techniques in
accordance with these regnlatiaa*.
Secoon 408(d)(2) of the Oean Air Act
Amendment! of 1877 requires that these
SEP revisions be tubmitted within niae
months of promulgation oi these
regulations.
  After EPA approves a State's stack
height rotes, tie State oust review
existing lianrtatioan to detarmne
whether these limitations have been
affected by stack height credit above
GEP levels or aoy other dispersion
tecnniqae. If so, the State must revise
the emission iimrtations to he consists a*
with its «vieed SH».

IV. Changes in (he Regulations From the
October 7,1981 Proposal
  EPA has made several changes in the
proposed regulations as a mantl «f the
public comments on the raaroposed
regulations. These changes are noted
below.

A. Prospective Application of the New
CEP Formula

  On February IB, 107ft fil HI 7450).
EPA published the •Stack Hoigai
Increase guideline" which provided
guidance on its  potter for the use «f tall
stacks. The guideline permitted credit
for stacks ap to two aad net atilf I
the height of the facility it served. On
Novemheal. 1977. after passage of the
Clean Aizytot Ameadaieats of 1077,
EPA promsJgsted a final rule oaveoaM
changes t*mtnri argued that
thenewiatmala should be aapfced
prospecnveiy.
  la reapome to these comments, EPA
has developed two formulas for
determining GEP stack height (1) For
stacks in existence on January 12.1979.
the formala is H,-2.5rt (2) for all other
stacks, me formula is H.-H+1.5L.

B. Definition of "in ex/stance **

  Section 123 does not affect stack
heights "In existence" on December 31,
1970. to October 1981. BPA proposed to
define "in existence' to mean that the
owner or operator of a stack had
obtaned an necessary precons (ruction
perflnta or aajjiuvals required by
Federal State or focal air pviMon
eonlful agencies, and eMier fl) ecnaBy
commenced constnction. or fZ/ entered
into a bfaufing commitment for'
  Comments on the renroposed
definition stated that mis new definition
would discriminate unfairly against
sources located m the few Stales or
local Jurisdictions which required
construction permits for air poBuflon
sources m 1970. (There were so Federal
permit programs In 1970.) EPA agrees
that the repropoaad I**^"fn°n might
operate uuXairry. EPA nas deleted the
requirement for snch approvals or'
permits in determining, whether, a
source's stack is "la existence" as of
December 31. M70.
  However, the regulations now apply
the two and ana-half times, formula for
HoKrmininp C1LJP only JQ *iaf]rm M|g
existence" on January 12.1879. federal
requirements for praconstructkm
permits for air pollution sources were
effective well before 1979, Accordingly.
EPA is retaining the permit requirement
for sources which want to claim credit
for stacks "in "rif **•!••?" aa of Jaauary
12.1979. EPA has changed } Sl.lf.ii).
which defines GEP, to require sources
wishing to use the two and one'half
times formula to show that they had
obtained, prior to January 12.1979, all
precoasroction permits required by 40
CFR Parts SI and S2.
  The remaining portions of the
definition of "in existence" an identical
to the October 18*1 proposal.

C Impaction CrwSt

  Many comments on the January 1979
proposal asked EPA to provide stack
height credit for a source which
experiences plume impaction. Plume
impaction occurs when a plume emitted
from a stack interacts with a terrain
feature that is taller than the stack. The
contact between the plume and the
terrain feature can predace high
pollutant concentraboas. espeaafiy
under stable atmospheric conditions tn
which the phuae disperses slowly.
  EPA decided that sources should
receive stack height credit when
impaction produces concentrations high
enough to violate an NAAQS or
applicable PSD increment EPA included
in its October 1981 reproposal a
procedure for determining the amount of
credit needed to prevent plume
impaction.
  EPA has received three types of
comments on the proposed impaction
credit Environmental groups  claimed
that Section 123 doe* not authorize
impaction credits, Several industrial
commenters askecHBPA to clarify the
proposed procedures for impaction
credits. Finally, some industrial
commenters asked EPA to modify a
portion of Its proposed procedures. To
respond to these comments. EPA is
presenting below a brief description of
its rationale and procedures for
impaction credits. EPA i» also providing
a brief explanation of its reason for
declining to make procedural
modifications.

(1) Rationale
  Prame impaction resembles
downwash. wakes, and eddies.  In all of
these events, structures or terrain
features interfere with plume  dispersion.
If me Interference occurs relatively close
to the stack, before the plume has had
adequate opportunity to disperse, high
concentrations of pollutants can occur.
  In enacting Section 123, Congress
decided that sources should be allowed
•nffiriant ftack height credit to prevent
HioK pollutant concentrations  caused by
downwash. wakes, and eddies.
Congress called this height "good
engineering practice." Any additional
stack height was to be regarded as a
dispersion technique that might allow a
source to relax its emissions limitations
Section 123 does not mention  impactioc.
However, neither the language of the
statute nor the legislative history show
that this omission was deliberate. EPA
considers impaction to be enough like
downwash that the same rationale
should apply. GEP stack height should
include credit needed to evoid high
concentrations caused by impaction.
Accordingly. EPA has decided to
exercise general rulemaking authority to
establish stack height credit needed to
prevent high concentrations caused by
plume impaction.
  EPA recognizes Congress did not
want the stack height rules to grant too
much credit to sources locating  in
complex terrain, for "the result could be
an open invitation to raise stack heights
to unreasonably high elevations." HR.

-------
            Federal  Register / Vol. 47. No.  28 / Monday.  February A 19B2 / Rulei and Regulation      58£
 Rep. No. 95-294. 95th Cong, lit Sett, at
 93 (1977). Therefore, EPA hat carefully
 tailored impaction credit procedures to
 provide only the minimum stack height
 credit needed to avoid high
 concentrations ' produced by impaction.
 These procedures are described in more
 detail below.
  EPA is convinced that its narrowly
 drawn rules represent a reasonable
 solution for a plume effect that closely
 resembles the phenomena of downwash.
 wakes, and eddies. Credits for plume
 impaction. when carefully limited
 should aot be regarded as ajiispenion
 technique. Although the promulgated
 procedure allows for the use of some
 stack height to avoid high pollutant
 concentrations on elevated terrain, it
 does not permit excessive dispersion
 credits.
 (2) Explanation of Procedure*
  EPA has developed a three-step
 procedure for determining the amount of
 stack height credit appropriate for a
 source with a predicted impaction
 concentration violating an NAAQS or
 applicable PSD increment
  First a source must determine its
 dowowash GEP height—tbe amount of
 stack height that can be Justified based
 on dowowash, wake*, or eddies  ntlng
 any of the three methods described in
 Section &B. above. Using this GBP
 height the source most show that its
 plume would come into contact with
 elevated terrain (defined as terrain taller
 than this GEMeighr) and together with
 background concentrations cause a
 violation of aa NAAQS or applicable
 PSD increment If the source cannot
 show that a violation would occur, it
 cannot claim any impaction credit Its
 stack height credit  would be limited to
 the GEP height already calculated.
  If a violation is modeled, the second
 step is to determine the source's
 maximum allowable emission limitation.
 In this step the source would model its
 air quality impact using the previously
 determined GEP height and assuming
 that the terrain featured) causing
 impaction is no taller than its
 downwash GEP height Using the
 appropriate maximum concentration
from this modeling scenario, the source
  'EPA coiuiden "high concentntiont" to be «
violation of «o NAAQS or applicable PSD
increment Unlike '•xetMh* concentrationi"
cau*ed by downwcth. tugb eenomtnboni cauted
by plume Mnpection occur to different
meteorological condition* thu downwuh and are
longer IB duration. High conccotnoou due to
plum* impuctioo can be compared miry to an
NAAQS or applicable PSD mcrwnut. Therefor*.
EPA h*i required that the coecentnoon cauaed by
piume impaction muti be IB exec** of an NAAQS or
Applicable PSD increoMnt before a aource oaa
ediuii it» CEP itack beujnt
 would calculate an emission limitation
 which would become its maximum
 allowable emission limitation.
   The third step allows the source to
 adjust its GEP stack height to account
 for the plume impaction on actual
 terrain features above the downwash
 GEP stack height The source cannot
 adjust its IT"""""" allowable emission
 limitation. The source would model its
 air quality impact •j»
  Tbe electric utilities requested that
 EPA assume, during the Step two
 modeling, that all terrain features are no
 taller than ground elevation at the base
 of the stack or, hi other words, that the
 source is located in absolutely flat
 terrain. Tbe utilities believe that this
 assumption is necessary to ensure
 equity between sources located in
 elevated terrain and sources in flat
 terrain.
  EPA has decided not to make this
 change to its procedure, EPA's objective
 is to provide the minimum itack height
 credit needed to allow a source to avoid
 high concentrations caused by plume
 impaction. A source in assumed flat
 terrain would obtain a less restrictive
 emission limitation than a source in
 terrain assumed to be as tall as its
 downwash GEP height The flat terrain
 assumption would thus allow a source
 to obtain more stack height credit than
 needed to prevent impaction. It would
 also have a greater negative impact on
 air quality by allowing taller stacks and
 more relaxed emission limits.
D. Dispersion Technique

  EPA received numerous comments or
the definition of the term "dispersion
technique." Most of these comments
stated that wording concerning the
enhancement of plume rise was vague.
Comments specifically mentioned that
many changes in operation or equipmer
made for engineering purposes, to
improve reliability or efficiency, couid
be construed as a disperison technique.
This is not the intent of the definition.
EPA has changed the definition of
dispersion technique to prevent the
addition of a fan or rehealer to  obtain a
less stringent emission limitation. The
purpose of this change to to prevent only
the installation of equipment deariy
intended to enchance piume rise. The
new definition should  not prevent
equipment changes intended to improve
reliability and efficiency.

E> Definition of "Stack"

  Comments on the January 1979
proposal urged EPA to exempt "flares"
from the definition of "stack." EPA
agreed that flares, which are designed to
dispense heat and vent emissions
intermittently for safety purposes, do
not serve the same purpose as stack*,
which are typically a source's major &
moat constant emissions point EPA
announced that it would exempt flare*
from die stack height regulations in the
preamble to the October 1981
reproposal New comments urged EPA
to include this exemption in the
regulations themselves to eliminate any
potential for confusion or
misunderstanding. In response to these
comments, EPA is incorporating a
specific exemption for flares into the
definition of "stack."

F. Section 123 and Physical Stack
Height

  EPA received several comments on
the October 1961 reproposal which
indicated that the commenten "believed
that the proposed regulations would give
EPA authority to limit a source's actual
stack height EPA did not intend to
create this impression. In fact EPA
stated in the preamble to the reproposal
that Section 123 expressly prohibits the
Agency from limiting physical stack
height Section 123 limits only the
theoretical stack height used in
determining a source's emission
limitation. However, to eliminate this
confusion. EPA is adding a statement to
{ § 51.12U) and 51.18(1) of the regulation
stating that these regulations do net
restrict in any manner the actual height
of any stack at any source.

-------
           •l*edend Reyftef / Vol 4ft Tfc.*» f "Monday. February 6.  1982 / -Rides and Reguhrtkms
C. Measurement of Slack Height

  In the proposed definition of a
"stack." EPA stated that the "stack
height is the distance from the groond-
level elevation of the plant to the
elevation of the stack outlet." Several
commenters requested clarification in
the establishing the ground-level
elevation of the plant For instance, the
commenters noted that where a plant
was built oh a slope the regulation could
have varying interpretations. Also, some
commenters asked whether (he entire
plant site should be included or )ust the
portion of the plant site considered
"nearby" the stack.
  EPA is <*anging the regulations to
clarify rt"« point. EPA ^»Mf^ from the
definition of a "tlaok." rt»«> statexacBl
        stack hgjght Hflwevet,EPA
clarified the methods for determining
GEP stack height by stating that aU
stack and structure heights an
measured from the ground-level
elevation at the bas*H»f tee stack,
  If a stack is on top of a taiiiriina. the
ground-level elevates* of the hmtrlsag is
used as the base elevation. sa«rdar to

neaxby structuxee OB thie stack hetjM..
the. height of struonues to alee
determined relative !
elevation of the i
                           cksrirytB*
H. Minor Wording Change*
typographical i
minor wntdhig nhnngee <
regulation*. These and <
changes have been mad* to (
to clarify the regulations. Tone changes
did not have any significant effect «n
the regulations.

V. Impact Analysis

  EPA has prepared a series of impact
analyses on these regvJatieae. These
analyses are in Docket A-TO tl. The
analyses show that the expected "mint-
case" national annual cost* to fsnfi-nie!
fired~power plants should be ten nan
$45 miBioa per year. These costs resell
LTtim conservative estimates of fte^tRred
purchases of lower sulfur coal and
estimates of required retrofit of
electrostatic precipitators at some plants
which purchase the lower snlfor coal.
The worst-case analyses show that me
expected reduction in SO* emissions is
less than 200400 tons per year.
Nationally, these costs could increase
ejectnc utility rate charges
apprcrjmatery 0.1 to 0.2 percent.
Increases for individual power company
rates could range from 0.5 to 90 peiueut
                                       VL Rafufannry FfoxfbiBty Analysis
                                         Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
                                       aosfb), I hereby certify that the attached
                                       rule win not have significant economic
                                       impact on a substantial number of small
                                       entities. This rule applies only to large
                                       sources. The impact assessment
                                       predicted that these regulations would
                                       not hart significant impact on any small
                                       entities. Based upon our impact
                                       analysis, only electric otffity plants and
                                       povsfoiy one smeiter wiD be
                                       significantly effected by these
                                       regulations.
                                       V1L PasuiUve Ocder 12281
                                         Under Executive Order 122*1. EPA
                                       must JeaLje wuesbsa a regulation is
                                       "ȣ''ǥ* theretoe sabjeot to the
                                       resjBB^eansKt of~a Kegus'tory isspact
                                       ^ns«>sis This regaletioB is not -BKJOT"
                                       beosnee st does not leeult m an asraial
                                       effect oa eke eoonemy of $100 minion.
                                       nor dees it seevit in e major incteese in
                                       costs or BBoee Car oooeiunecs. Federal
                                       State, at local governments or individual
                                                 "^"^"^ the electric power
                                         •EPA oeXevH that this rale is based ea
 effect Ifeihlag In Section 123 Hmlts Its
              a. particular locality,
 State, or ragfon. On the contrary. Section
 123 appOes to sources wherever located
' Because of '9* rule's national
 applicability. Section 307(b) (42 U.S.C.
 TB07(b)) reaaanM thai ay petiboei ior
 review of the promulgated ruj* be filed
 only in the United States Court of      *
 Appeals for the District of Columbia and
 within 60 daya of the date of
 {/uuH^Auvo.
 (Sees. 100, 123. 301. dean Air Act ti
 •mead** (s2 TJ.&C 7Oa 7423. and 7BOI)
  Dated Jannwy 31. 1882.
 |nhn W Ilamsniles IT
 Acting Adninittmtnr.

 PART 51-HEQUIREMENTS FOR
 PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND
 SUBMTTTAL OF IMPLEIJBfTATION
 PLANS

  Part 51 of Chapter I Title 40 of the
 Code of Federal Regulations is amended
 as follows;
  1. Sortifni ?i-l is amended by revising
 paragraph (z) and by adding paragraphs
 (ff). (gg). (hh). (u). (Ji). (kk), (11), and (mm)
 as follows:
                                       §51.1
                                         (z) "Emission limitation" and
                                       "emission standard" mean a
                                       requirement established by a State, local
                                       government, or the Administrator which
                                        limits the quantity, rate, or
                                        concentration of emissions of air
                                        pollutants on a continuous basis,
                                        including any requirements which limit
                                        the level of opacity, prescribe
                                        equipment set fuel specifications, or
                                        prescribe operation or maintenance
                                        procedures for a source to assure
                                        continuous emission reduction.
                                        •   .**••
                                          (ff) "Stack" m»?n« any point in a
                                        source ^•«»g««H to emit solids, liquids.
                                        or gases into the ait. including a pipe or
                                        duct but not ^"fy^rm flares.
                                          (gg) "A stack in-asaslence" means that
                                        the owner or njiassjior had (1) begun, or
                                        caused to beguv*4VDtinuous program
                                        of physical on-eite.flonjtruction of the
                                        stack or (2) eoteced into binding
                                        agreements or contractual obligations,
                                        which could not be cancelled or
                                        modified without substantial less to the
                                        owner or epezator. to undertake a
                                        progcam of cansttuctian of the stack to
                                        be completed io e reaaenable time.
                                          (hh) "DispeBwoa technique" means
                                        any tec&nfcpia which attempts to affect
                                        the concentration of a peUutant in the
                                        ambient air by assng that portion of a
                                        (task wtaoB, exoeeae good engmaenag
                                        practice aterlr hsijht. varying the rate of
                                        eioieaiM4*! a fwiliitaatf aAcaedtaa te
                                                                              concentmMeae ef then BoUuMM. or by
                                                                              addition erf aiea or raaeeier to obtaiat a
                                                                              less strtagent Bisiseinn amiterUa The
                        Dt indade: (1)
The Bihaeitseg of a gee stnem, rbllewiBg
use of a pollsuiea eaotroi systam. for the
purpose of raenrnissj the gas to the
temperature at which it was eaginaiiy
discharged frees, tec ieaUty geneeatiBg
the gas etreanc (2) the aae of smoke
manaaement in eanctiltnrel or
silviculhiral programs; or (S) combining
the exaauet sases from several stacks
into one •*a*^
  (Ml "Good engineering practice (GEP)
stack hshgBt" meens me greater of:
  U) 65 laaiais.
  (2)(i) For stacks m existence on
January 12, M79 and for which the
owner or operator had obtained ati
applicable preooastmcnon pemats or
approvals required  oader tins Parts 51
and K of this Title 4O. H,-i5H
  (ii) for ell other stacks.
H.—H+1.SL when
H.»good engineering practice tudc height.
   niaasur6
-------
                              / Vol ».:Ha at £M°pd*y-  February 8. 1962 / Rule*  «nd Regulations       5869
reviewing agency, which ensure* that
the'emissions from a stack do not result
in excessive concentrations of uy air
pollutant ti a result of atmospheric
downwash, wakes-or eddy effect!
created by the source itself, structures.
or terrain obstacles.
  UJ) "Nearby" as used in I Sl.l(ii)(2) is
that distance up to five time* the lesser
of the height or the width dimension of a
structure but not greater than 0.8 km
(one-half mile). The height of the
structure is measured from the ground-
level elevation at the base of the stack,
  (kk) "Excessive concentrations'' for
the purpose of determining good
engineering practice stack height in a
fluid model or field study means a
mmrimiim concentration due to
downwash wakes, or eddy effects
produced by structures or terrain
features which is at least 40 percent in
excess of the maximum concentration
experienced in the absence of such
downwash. wakes, or eddy effects.
  (11) "Plume inspection" means
concentrations measured or predicted to
occur when the plume interacts with
elevated terrain.
  (mm) "Elevated terrain" means terrain
which exceeds the elevation of the good
engineering practice stack as aaiotdated
under paragraph (ii)  of this section.
  2. Section 01.12 is amended by adding
paragraphs (J). (k)< «nd (1) as foOow*:

Mttt  Control strategy: tenant
  (j) The pla» must provide that the
degree of emiasion limitation required of
any source for control of any air
 pollutant must not be affected by so  -
 much of any source's stack height that
 exceeds good engineering practice or by
 any other dispersion technique, except
 as provided in I 51.1200 ud (1). The
 plan must provide that before a State
 submits to EPA a new or revised
 emission limitation that is based on a
 good engineering practice stack height
 that exceeds the height allowed  by
 I Sl.l(ii) (1) or (2). the State must notify
 the public of the availability of the.
 demonstration study and must provide
 opportunity for public hearing on it This
 Section does not require the plan to
 restrict in any manner, the actual stack
 height of any source.
  (k) The provisions of II 51.120) and
 51.180) shaH net apply to (1) stack

 techniques implemented prior to
 December 91,1970, or (2) coal-fired
 steam electric generating units, subject
 to the provisions of Section lid of the
 Clean Air Act which commenced
 operation Y -fore July 1.1857, and whose
 stacks wen, constructed under a
 construction contract awarded before
 February* 1074.
  (1) The good •mr'n««-infl pnotice
 (CEP) stack height for any source
 seeking credit because of plane
•inspection which results to
 concentrations in violation of national
 ambient air quality-standards or
 applicable prevention of «<|pifi*»tit
 deterioration increments can be
 adjusted by determining the stack height
 necessary to predict the same maximum
 air pollutant concentration on any
 elevated terrain feature as
concentration associated with the
emission limit which results from
modeling the source using the CEP stack
height as determined in I Sl.l(ii) and
assuming the elevated terrain features to
be equal in elevation to the GEP stack
height If this adjusted CEP stack height
is greater than the stack height the
source proposes to use, the source's
emission limitation and air  quality
impact shall be determined using the
proposed stack height and the actual
terrain heights.
  3. Section 51.18 is amended by adding
paragraph (1) as follows;

|S1.1s  Review  of new atfcureee and
  (1) Such procedures must provide that
the degree of emission limitation
required of any source for control of any
air pollutant must not be affected by so
much of any source's stack height that
exceeds good engineering practice or by
any other dispersion technique, except
as provided in I S1.12(k) and (1). Such
procedures must provide  that before a
State issues a permit to a source based
on a good engineering practice stack
height that exceeds the height allowed
by i 51.1(U) (1) or (2). the State must
notify the public of the availability of
the demonstration study and must
provide opportunity for public hearing
on it This section does not require suck
procedures to restrict in any manner,
the actual stack height of any source.
(FR Dec H-JOU W«l J

-------
                                                             PN 123-85-10-28-010
              UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                    Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
                   Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
«oi*cV

                          OCT  2 8 1985


 MEMORANDUM

 SUBJECT:   Determining Stack  Heights  "^Existence"  Before December 31, 1970
                                     //     /
 FROM:      Darryl D.  Tyler, Director//^,;'.-ST
           Control Programs Development Di*4sTon  (MD-15)

 TO:       Director,  Air Management Division
           Regions I-X

      The following guidance is provided to'describe how  the definition of
 "in existence" should be implemented and  to assist  States and emission
 source owners and operators  in providing  appropriate evidence of  commitments
 to undertake stack construction on or  before December 31, 1970.   Please
 note that this is guidance;  States may submit  alternative demonstrations
 in support of grandfathering claims, if they feel the circumstances
 warrant.

      We intend to rely on the general  provisions of this guidance to
 determine eligibility for grandfathering  exemptions from certain  other
 provisions of the revised stack height regulations:  restrictions on  the
 use of GEP formulae for cooling towers, use of the  refined GEP  formula,
 fluid modeling to justify GEP formula  stack height, credit for  merged
 stacks, credit for new sources tied  into  grandfathered stacks,  and credit
 for stacks raised to GEP formula height.

 Background

      Section 123 of the Clean Air Act, as amended,  contains  a grandfather
 clause intended to exempt stack heights and techniques for pollutant
 dispersion that were in existence on or before December  31,  1970, from
 general provisions of Section 123 restricting  the degree to  *hich emission
 limitations may be affected by dispersion.   When EPA promulgated  stack
 height regulations pursuant to Section 123  in  1932, it adopted  a  definition
 of "stack heights in existence before  December 31,  1970."  This definition
 allowed the grandfathering of stacks on which  construction had  not yet
 commenced, but  for which binding contracts  had been signed that could not
 be modified or cancelled without substantial  loss to the owner  or operator.
 The EPA's definition was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for  the  D.C.
 Circuit in Sierra Club  v. EPA. 719 F.2d 436,  and has not been modified  in
 any way by the  rule  revisions promulgated on Ju.ly S, 1935, except to
 restrict  its applicability to facilities that  have  not undertaken major
 modifications or  reconstruction, and have  not ducted the effluent gas
        s fron pcst-1970  units  into pre-1971  stacks.

-------
     Subsequent to the recent revisions, questions have been raisea  about
how the definition should be implemented, i.e.,  what EPA should  consider
to be a binding contract, and what should constitute a "substantial  loss"
for determining whether a stack should be grandfathered.

General Provisions

     The burden of proof for showing that a stack 1s eligible for
grandfathering exemption lies with either the State or the  source owner or
operator, as appropriate, and documentation in support of exemptions must
be made available for public review during the rulemaking process.   In the
event that no case for exemption under this provision is made, or that
satisfactory support for such a request is not provided,  the stack is
presumed not to be grandfatnered, and therefore subject to  the requirements
of Section 123 and the stack height regulations  promulgated by EPA.

     Grandfathering exemptions may be supported in one of three  ways:  by
showing that the stack was completed or was physically in existence  prior
to December 31, 1970; by showing that actual on-site continuous  stack
construction activities began on or before December 31, 1970; or by  showing
that a binding contract'for stack construction was executed on or before
tnat date.

Documenting Stack Construction

     In cases where a stack was completed prior to December 31,  1970,  the  ,
State may make a summary determination that the stack 1s grandfathered,
but must provide an explanation of the reasons for its determination.
One way in which it can be documented that the'stack was physically  in
place before December 31, 1970, 1s to provide a copy of the 1970 Federal
Power Commission report Form 67, which includes stack height,  among  other
information.  Evidence that may be submitted to support the date of
commencement of stack construction can include virtually any contemporaneous
documentation that clearly indicates that construction activities were under
way as of December 31, 1970.  This could consist of building inspection
records, construction materials delivery receipts, correspondence,
inter-office memoranda, photographic records, or news clippings.  In the
event that documentation is lacking or weak, EPA will consider  affidavit
wnich include detailed descriptions of efforts that ware undertaken  to
ODtain contemporaneous supporting documentation.

Documenting Contractual Obligations

     The date of signature on a contract for stack construction will be
acceptable for applying grandfathering exemptions 1f the contract itself
meets certain minimum qualifications.  A "binding contract," under the
previously-discussed provisions is considered to be one that commits the
source owner or operator financially to  undertake stack construction and
that did not have in effect on December 31, 1970, an "escape" provision
that allows cancellation by the owner or operator without penalty.
                               »

-------
     In the event that a contract contains  provisions  for  assessing
penalties for modification or cancellation by the owner or operator,  and
those provisions were*in effect on December 31,  1970,  then the  provisions
must be reviewed to determine whether the penalties and other costs of
cancellation would have imposed a "substantial  loss" on the owner or
operator.  For new facilities, EPA will  presume that a substantial loss
would have resulted where the penalties  exceed  ten percent of the project
cost.  Where the project involves only stack construction  or replacement,
EPA will review claims on a case-by-case basis.

     If a contract does not contain provisions  which impose financial
obligations on the owner or operator for contract modification  or
cancellation, then any determinations of whether liability to the owner
or operator resulting from such modification would constitute substantial
losses must be made on a case-by-case basis.  In general,  EPA's rule  of
thumb relying on ten percent of the project cost will  be used.

     If you have any questions regarding application of this guidance in
specific instances, please contact Eric  Ginsburg at (FTS)  629-5540 or
Sharon Reinders and (FTS) 629-5526.

-------
             UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    1              Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
    ;             Research Triangle Pane. North Carolina 27711


                               OCT 1 0 I9S5
KE.HORANDUM

SUBJECT:  Questions and Answers  on  Implementing the
          Revised Stack Height Regulation

FROH:     S. T. Helms, Chiefr' L *•*•**-*•
          Control Programs  Operations Branch   (MD-15)

TO:       Chief, A1r Branch,  Regions  I-X

     A number of questions  have  arisen in  several  areas  of the revised
stack height regulation since its promulgation on  July 8.   The following
answers have been developed in response.   The questions  and answers are
arranged under the general  topic headings  of  interpretation of the regula-
tion, State Implementation  plan  (SIP) requirements,  ami  modeling analyses.
Please continue to call Sharon Reinders at 629-5526  if you have further
ccnnnents or additional questions.

Interpretation of the Regulation

1.  Q:  What criteria should  be  used  to determine  when a stack was "in
existence" with respect to  the various grandfathering  dates in the
regul ation?

    A:  The recent promulgation  of  revisions  to the  stack height regul atio
did not change the definition of "in  existence."   The  definition 1s provid
in 40 CFR 51.1(gg) and includes  either the commencement  of continuous
construction on the stack or  entering Into a  binding contract for stack
construction, the cancellation of which would result in  "substantial
loss" to the source owner or  operator. The definition of what constitutes
a "substantial loss" will be the subject  of future guidance.

2.  Q:  What "source" definition should be used  1n determining whether  tie-
ins to grandfathered stacks should  be permitted  or prohibited?

    A:  The term "source" in  this instance means  a single emitting unit.
Thus, credit for tying a single post-1970 unit(s)  Into a grandfathered
stack serving a number of old units is prohibited  under the regulation.

-------
                                   -2-


3.  Q:  What is meant in the regulation  by  "facility?

    A:  For purposes of this regulation, the definition contai-ned  in
40 CFR 51.301(d) should be used.   That definition essentially defines the
term as the entire complex of emitting activities on one  property  or
contiguous properties controlled  by a single owner or designee.

4.  Q:  Must good engineering practice (SEP) stack height be established
separately for each pollutant?  If not,  how should it be determined?

    A:  It is not necessary to calculate a  separate 6EP stack height  for
each pollutant.  Since "SEP* is defined  by  Section 123 of the Clean A1r
Act as the height necessary to ensure against excessive concentrations  of
any air pollutant, it follows that GEP should be established for each
source based on the pollutant requiring  the greatest height to avoid
excessive concentrations

5.  Q:  How should "reliance" on  the 2.5H formula be determined?
                                                          •
    A:  First, "reliance" on the  2.5H formula applies only to stacks  in
existence before January 12, 1979.  Credit  for  "reliance" on the 2.5H
formula, can be granted under the  following  cases:  (a) Where the stack
was actually built to a height less than or equal to 2.5H; (b) Where  the
stack was built taller than 2.5H  and the emission limitation reflects t
use of 2.5H in the SIP modeling analysis; or (c) Where evidence 1s provioe
to show "reliance* as discussed in the following paragraph.  If no model 1nc
was used to set the emission limitation  for the source, then it cannot  be
argu-ed that there was "reliance"  on the  formula, since EPA's guidance was
specifically aimed at using stack height credit 1n establishing emission
limitations.  Once it is determined that the emission limitation was  in
fact based on estimates of dispersion from  the  stack, then the source can
be said to have properly "relied" on .the 2.5H formula.   In the event that
it cannot be determined that the  emission limit is based  on  "reliance"  on
the 2.5H formula, then the refined H * 1.5L formula must  be  used.

     Where a clear relationship between  a 2.5H  stack height  and the
emission limitation cannot be shown, where  the  emission limitation was
not calculated based precisely on the 2.5H  height, or where  the stack
height used in modeling cannot be verified, then additional  evidence  will
be needed.  Preferred would be written documentation, such as copies  of
the original engineering calculations or correspondence between the State
or the emission source owner and  EPA Indicating that the  2.5H formula
should be used to derive the emission limitation.  However,  recognizing
that such evidence is often not retained for more than  a  few years,
"reconstructed" documentation may be considered, but should  only be used
as a last resort.  This evidence should  include explanations by those
individuals who were involved in  designing  the  facility,  calculating
emission rates, and who represented the  facility in dealings with  the

-------
                                   -3-


State and EPA on how the emission  limit was derived, including a discussion
of how the formula was originally  used in deriving the source emission
limitation, a discussion of the  analytical method applied, and a listing
of any contacts or discussions with EPA during that period.  This  listing
will aid EPA in searching its own  files to find any records of communication
or correspondence that may bear  on the issue.

     In no case should a source  be allowed after January 12, 1979, to
obtain a relaxation in the emission limitation by arguing that it  "relied"
on past EPA guidance endorsing the 2.5H formula.  In cases where a relaxation
based on GEP formula height is sought in the future, the refined H * 1.51
formula must be used.

6.  Q:  The preamble specifically  discusses cooling towers as structures to
which the formula should not be  applied.  Will the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards be specifying other structures that are not well
represented by the formul a?

    A:  The discussion in the preamble and SEP guideline is not Intended to
be all-inclusive; judgment should  be used in determining when fluid
modeling should be used to estimate the effects of structures with rounded,
domed, or tapered shapes.  Water towers and storage tanks are additional
examples of such structures.  As additional Information becomes available
on the aerodynamic effects of specific building shapes and configurations,
we will evaluate the need to revise the GEP guidance.  However, at present,
there are no plans to Issue a "laundry list" of structures to which the
formulas do not apply.

SIP Requirements

7.  Q:  Should a compliance averaging-time be explicitly stated  in a
SIP revision for sulfur dioxide  (S02) emission limits that are revised to
meet the stack height regulation?

    A:  A compliance averaging time need  not be specified  as  an  enforceable
SIP provision as long as a stack test compliance method 1s in place  in the
underlying federally approved SIP.  EPA's current national policy requires
that SIP's and penults contain enforceable  "short-tern" emission  limits
set to limit maximum emissions to  a level which ensures protection of the
short-term national ambient air  quality  standards  (NAAQS)  and prevention
of significant deterioration (PSO) Increments.  EPA relies upon  a short-term
stack test provision in the SIP as the method of determining  compliance
with the emission  limits.   In lieu of a  stack test,  EPA has  accepted fuel
sampling and analysis and continuous emission  in-stack monitors  (OEM's).
When compliance  is to be determined from Information  obtained by fuel
sampling and analysis and CEM's, short-term averaging times  should be
specified.

-------
                                   •4-
8.  Q:  Are all States required to have "stack height  regulations"?

    A:  Limitations on creditable stack height and dispersion  techniques
impact the SIP program in two areas—SIP mission limits for existing
sources and SIP provisions covering new source review  (NSR)/PSD permitting
procedures.  For existing sources, State regulations limiting  credit for
stack height and other dispersion techniques (stack height  regulations)
are not necessary as long as the SIP emission Units are not affected  in
any manner by so much of the stack height as exceeds SEP. or any other
dispersion technique.  Where a State has stack height  regulations, those
regulations must be consistent with EPA's regulation.  Where a SIP contains
regulations that are inconsistent with  EPA's regulation, the State must
either adopt a stack height regulation  that is consistent with EPA's or
Incorporate the EPA regulation b.<  reference.

     For the NSR/PSO programs, 1t 1s essential that the plan contain
limitations on the amount of creditable stack height and other dispersion
techniques.  The following cases have been developed to Illustrate what
action(s)  may be required of the State  since promulgation of the stack
height regulation.

CASE All):  A fully or partially delegated PSO progran that references but
            does not define SEP where the delegation agreement does not contain
            a date to define which version of the PSO  rule  is  being "deTegated.

ACTION:      Notify the State that all permits Issued henceforth must be
            consistent with EPA's stack height regulation.  All permits
            previously issued must be reviewed and revised  as  necessary
            within 9 months.

CASE A(2):  A fully or partially delegated PSO program that references
            but does not define SEP where the delegation agreement
            does contain a date to define which version of  the PSO rule
            is being delegated.

ACTION:      Update the delegation agreement .to reflect agreement with  EPA's
            stack height regulation as  of July 8. 1985.  Notify the State
            that all permits issued henceforth must be consistent with
            EPA's stack height regulation. All permits previously issued
            must be reviewed and revised as necessary  within 9 aonths.

CASE B:      The current federally approved SIP for NSR/PSO  does not
            contain a reference to SEP  or dispersion techniques, i.e.,
            provisions assuring that emission limitations will not be
            affected by stack height in excess of SEP  or any prohibited
            dispersion techniques do not exist in the  current  SIP.

-------
                                   -5-
ACTION:     Notify the State that such provisions must be adopted and
            submitted as a SIP  revision within 9 months.  This' can be
            accomplished by adopting stack height regulations at the.
            State level  or by adopting the appropriate reference and
            comraittnent to comply with EPA's stack height regulation as
            promulgated on July 8,  1985.  Interim permitting should be
            consistent with EPA's stack height regulation.**

CASE C:     The current federally approved SIP for NSR/PSO contains
            references to, but  does not define, GEP or dispersion techniques.

ACTION:     Notify the State that a comnltaent to comply with EPA's stack
            height regulation as promulgated on July 8, 1985, 1s required.
            If a State 1s unable to make such a commitment, State regulations
            must be revised to  be consistent and submitted to EPA as a  SIP
            revision within 9 months and Interim permitting should be
            consistent with EPA's stack height regulation.  No "grace
            period" will be allowed for sources receiving permits between
            July 1985 and April 1986.**

CASE D;     The current federally approved SIP for NSR/PSO contains stack
            height regulations  that are Inconsistent with EPA's regulation.

ACTION:     Notify the State that such regulations must be revised to be
            consistent and submitted as a SIP revision within 9 months
            and that interim permitting should be consistent with EPA's
            stack height regulation.**

CASE E(l):  A SIP for NSR/PSD has been submitted to EPA, or will be
            submitted to EPA before the due date for stack height revisions.
            The sucrfttal contains  provisions that conflict with EPA's
            stack height regulation.

ACTION:     Notify the State that EPA cannot approve the submittal  until
            it is revised pursuant  to EPA's July 8, 1985, regulation.
**In the event that a State does not have legal  authority to comply with
  EPA's regulation in the Interim (e.g., because It must enforce State
  rules that are inconsistent with EPA's regulation)  and is compelled to
  issue a permit that does not meet the requirements of the EPA revised
  stack height regulation, then EPA should notify the State that such
  permits do not constitute authority under the  Clean A1r Act to commence
  construction.

-------
                                   -6-
 CASt  £(2):  As in Case E(l), a SIP for NSR/PSO has  been  submitted to EPA
            or will be submitted to EPA before the  due date for stack
            height revisions.  The submittal  is not Inconsistent with
            EPA's stack height regulation, but portions  of the existing
            approved SIP that relate to the submittal  are inconsistent.

 ACTION:     Approve the SIP submittal based on a commitment by the State
            to correct the inconsistencies in Its existing SIP to comport
            with EPA's July 8 regulation and submit the  corrections as  a
            SIP revision within 9 months.  Interim  permitting should be
            consistent with EPA's stack height regulation.** If the exist-
            ing SIP is ambiguous, 1.e.v the SIP references but does not
            define terms relating to fi£P or dispersion techniques, the
            action steps outlined in Case C above should be followed.

 CASE F:     In nonattalnment areas, emission limits or permits do not always
            Include modeling, but rather are based  on  lowest achievable
            emission rate (LAER) and offsets.

 ACTION:     If no modeling is used 1n the issuance  of  a  permit, the emissiori
            requirements for the source are not "affected" by stack heights
            or dispersion techniques, and no action is needed.  However, 1f
            modeling was used 1n the process of preparing and issuing a
            permit, such as cases where offsets were obtained offslte,  that
            modeling must be reviewed for consistency  with the stack height
            regul ation.

9.  0:  What must all States do now that EPA's stack height regulation  is
promulgated?

    A:  States must review and revise.their SIP's as necessary to Include or
revise provisions to limit stack height credits and dispersion techniques
to comport with the revised regulations, and, in addition, review and
revise all emission limitations that are affected by stack height credit
 above SEP or any other dispersion techniques.  In accordance with Section
4Q6(d)(2) of the Clean A1r Act, States have 9 months from promulgation  to
submit the revised SIP's and revised SIP emission limitations to EPA.

     In an August 7, 1985, memo titled "Implementation of the Revised
Stack Height Regulation—Request for Inventory and  Action Plan to Revise
SIP's," Regional  Offices were requested to begin working with each of
their States to develop States' Action Plans.  Each Action Plan should
include the following:  (l) An inventory of (a) all stacks greater than
65 meters (m), (b) stacks at sources which exceed 5,000  tons per year
total  allowable S02 emissions; and (2) A reasonable schedule of dates for
significant State actions to conform both State stack  height rules and
 emission limitations to EPA's stack height regulation.  Schedules should
 include increments of progress.  Regional Offices should be satisfied
that each of their States provide scnedules fcr completion of the tasks

-------
                                   -7-


as outlined in the August memo  and  report the status of schedule  commitments
to them on a monthly basis.   Regional Offices have been asked to  forward
monthly status reports to the Control Programs Development Division on
the States' progress to meet scheduled  commitments and also report the
results of followup with the States on  schedules that are not met.  In
order to facilitate tracking the  States monthly progress, guidance on a
standardized format will be  issued  shortly.

Modeling Analyses

10.  Q:  Is there any restriction or  prohibition against, or demonstration
required for, raising an existing (or replacing) stack up to 65 m?

     A:  No, as long as prohibited  dispersion techniques are not  employed.

11.  Q:  Are flares considered  to be  stacks?

     A:  No, flares are excluded  from the regulation.

12.  Q:  What load should be used for a fluid modeling demonstration?

     A:- One hundred percent load should generally be used unless there
is a compelling argument otherwise..

13.  Q:  Can new or modified sources  who have agreed to a case-by-case
best available control technology (BACT) emission rate be required to use
this rate for fluid modeling rather than a  less stringent new source
performance standard (NSPS)  emission  rate?

     A:  As set forth in 40  CFR 51.1  (klc),  the allowable emission rate to
be used in making demonstrations  under  this  part shall be prescribed  by
the NSPS that is applicable  to the  source category unless the owner  or
operator demonstrates that this emission rate is infeasible.

14.  Q:  Must the exceed
-------
                                   -8-


     Q:  wnat stack parameters are to be used  in modeling when  the actual
stack neignt is greater than G£P height?

     A:  Where it is necessary to reduce stack height credit below what  is  in
existence, for modeling purposes, use existing stack gas exit parameters--
temperature and flow rate—and existing stack top diameter  and  model  at
GEP height.

17.  Q:  How should a stack that 1s less than GEP height be modeled when
dispersion techniques are employed?

     A:  In order to establish an appropriate emission  limitation where  a
source desires to construct less than a GEP stack but use dispersion
techniques to make up the difference 1n plume rise, two cases should  be
tested.  First, conduct a modeling analysis Inputting the GEP stack
height without enhanced dispersion parameters, then conduct a second
analysis inputting the less tJu  GEP stack height with  the  increased
plume rise.  The more stringent emission limitation resulting from each
of the two runs should be the one specified as the enforceable  limitation.

18.  Q:  How are the effects of prohibited dispersion techniques to be excludes
for modeling purposes?

     A:  Where prohibited dispersion techniques have been used, modeling to
exclude their effects on the emission limitation will be accomplished by
using the temperature and flow rates as the gas stream  enters the  stack, and
recalculating stack parameters to exclude the prohibited techniques
(e.g., calculate stack diameter without restrictions in place,  determine
exit gas temperatures before the use of prohibited reheaters, etc.).

19.  Q:  How are single flued merged stacks and multiflued  stacks  to  be
treated in a modeling analysis?

     A:  This is a multistep process.  First,  sources with  allowable  S02
emissions below 5,000 tons/year may be modeled  accounting  for  any  plume
merging that has been employed.  For larger sources, multiflued stacks
are considered as prohibited dispersion techniques in the  same  way as
single flued merged gas streams unless one of  the three allowable  conditions
has been met; i.e., (1) the source owner or operator demonstrates  that
the facility was originally designed and constructed with  such  merged gas
streams; (2) after date of promulgation, demonstrate that  such  merging is
associated with a change in operation at the facility that  includes  the
installation of pollution controls and results 1n  a net reduction  in  the
allowable emissions of the pollutant for which credit  is  sought; or  (3)
before date of promulgation, demonstrate that such merging did  not result
in any increase in the allowable emissions (or, in the  event  that  no
emission limit existed, actual  emission level)  and was  associated with a
change in operation at the facility that Included  the  installation of

-------
                                   -9-


missions control equipment OP was  carried out  for  sound  economic  OP
engineering reasons, as demonstrated to EPA.  Guidelines  on  what constitutes
sound economic OP engineering justification will be issued shortly.

     If plume merging fpom nultiflued stacks  is not allowable,  then  each
flue/liner must be modeled as a separate source and the combined impact
determined.  For single flued merged stacks where credit  is  not allowed,
each unit should be modeled as a separate stack located at the  same
point.  The exit parameters, I.e. velocity and  temperature,  would  be the
same as for the existing merged stack conditions and the  volume flow rate
based on an apportionment of the flow from the  Individual units.

20.  Q:  What stack height for point sources  should be Input to air  quality
dispersion modeling for the purpose of demonstrating protection of the
NAAQS and PSD increments?

     A:  A discussion of the maximum stack height credit  to  be  used  in modeling
analyses is provided in the "Guideline for Determination  of  Good Engineering
Practice Stack Height" and provides that the  6EP stack height should be
used as input to the model assessment.  If a  source 1s operating with  a
less than SEP stack height, then the actual stack height  should be input
to the "model.

21.  Q:  What stack height should be used for background  sources in
modeling analyses?

     A:  The SEP-stack height for each background source  should
be input to the model assessment.  If a background  source is operating
with a less than GEP stack height,  then the actual  stack  height should be
input to the model.

22.  Q:  Can credit for plume merging due to  installation of control
equipment for total  suspended partlculate (TSP) matter be allowed  when
setting the SOj 1irait?

     A:  To state the question another way, the concern  is  what impact
the merging and installation of control equipment have on the emission
limit for another pollutant, and whether the  merging  occurred before or
after July 8, 1985.  After July 8,  1985, any  exclusion from the definition
of "dispersion techniques" applies only to the  emission  limitation for
the pollutant affected by such change in operation  and 1s accompanied  by
a net reduction in allowable emissions of the pollutant.   For example, a
source tears down two old stacks and builds one new GEP  stack with an
electrostatic ppecipitatop (ESP).  This results in  a net  reduction  1n TSP
emissions.  This source could model using stack gas characteristics
resulting from merging the two gas streams in setting the TSP emission
limit, but may not so mode! and receive the credit  for stack merging when
evaluating the S02 emission limit.

-------
                                   -10-
      Be'ore July 8, 1985, Installation of TSP pollution control  equipment
 generally justifies the merging of the stacks for TSP.  However,  if a
 source's"emission limitation for SOj increased after the merging,  then
 crecit would generally not be allowed since  it is presLined that  the
 merging was to increase dispersion.

     A source with no previous S02 emission  limit that merges  stacks and
 installs an ESP for TSP control may consider the effects of merging on
 compliance with the TSP NAAQS but may not use merging to justify setting
 an S02 emission limit less stringent than its actual emission  rate before
 the merging.

 23.  Q:  If, after determining GEP stack  height by fluid modeling,
 dispersion modeling under other than "downwash" meteorological conditions
 shows that a lower emission limit than that  from the fluid model  6EP
 analysis is necessary to meet ambient air quality constraints, should a
 new stack height be defined for the source?

     A:  No.  GEP stack height is set. Ambient air quality problems
 predicted by dispersion modeling at the fluid modeled height means that a
more stringent mission limit is necessary.

 24.  Q:  Does EPA intend to Issue additional guidance on fluid modeling
demonstrations?

     A:  See the attached memo from Joseph A. Tikvart, Chief,  Source
 Receptor Analysis Branch, to David Stonefleld, Chief, Policy Development
 Section, on guidance for a discussion of  existing and additional  guidance
on fluid model  demonstrations.

Attachment

cc:  Stack Height Contacts
     Gerald Enrison
     Ron Campbel 1
     B. J.  Steigerwald

-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5.6

-------
82$
                                                                        I
                                                                       S
                                                                       p

-------
1*1.41
                        40 CM CM. I (7-l-W MM**)
• 4I.U  AQUA
and fUms  Date  1(1.100  Danalus**.
  (a) The BUte shall retain  all de-
tailed data and calculation* used In
the preparation of  AQUA analyses
and plans, make them available for
public Inspection, and submit them to
the Administrator at his request.
  (b> The detailed data and calcula-
tions used In the preparation of the
AQUA analyses and plans shall not be
considered a part of the AQUA plan.

1 11.41  AQUA aaalyib mm4 plan:  AUema-
  (al At the request of a State, or
under his own Initiative, the Adminis-
trator, where he determines It appro-
priate,   may   approve   alternative
AQUA analysis and plan development
procedures as allowed under  II61.4 J.
a   44.  I1.4B.   (1.4*.  S1.4«b>.   and
  .M A public heating on an AQUA
•Jso does not fulfill the public hearing
requirements of this part If. subse-
      to the hearing, any alternative
           an approved  under
     II*. 111. I14UI. Mils*. Clean Air Act.
          <41 VAC. 7410. 1411. !*•«. and
141 VM ISM*. May *. IMS. u mended at 44
HI Mil*. June It. 1*1*1
               I— (t*Mrv*d)

          — froeoaW*! Raajwlraaiaith)
  Bomcr tl FK 406SI. Nov. 1. IMS. unleu
 othcrtvUc noted.
                  As used In this part, all terms not de-
                fined  herein  will have the meaning
                given them In the Act:
                  (a) "Act" means the Clean Air Act
                (42 UJB.C. 7401 et teg., as amended by
                Pub. U OI-004. M Slat. 1071 Pub.  U
                M-M. 01 Stat.. M6 and Pub. L. OB-IOO.
                •1 Stat.. 1300.)
                  (b> "Administrator" means the Ad-
                ministrator of the Environmental Pro-
                tection Agency (EPA) or an authorised
                representative.
                   "Primary standard" means a na-
                tional  primary ambient air  quality
                standard promulgated pursuant to sec-
                tion 10> of the Act.
                  (d) '•Saoondary  standard"  means  a
                national secondary ambient ah- quality
                standard promulgated pursuant to sec-
                tion IM of the Act.
                  (e>   "National  standard"  means
                either a primary or secondary stand-
                ant
                  (ft "Owner  or operator" means any
                peraon who owns, leases, operates, con-
                trols, or supervises a  facility, building.
                structure, or Installation which direct-
                ly or Indirectly result or may result In
                emissions  of  any  air pollutant for
                which a national standard Is In effect.
                  (g> "Local agency"  means any  local
                government agency  other  than the
                State  agency, which  Is charged  with
                responsibility for carrying out a por-
                tion of the plan.
                  (h) "Regional Office" means one  of
                the ten (10) EPA Regional Offices.
                  (I) "State agency" means the air pol-
                lution  control  agency primarily re-
                sponsible for  development and Imple-
                mentation of a plan under the Act.
                  (J) "Plan- means an Implementation
                plan approved or promulgated under
                section II* of 173 of the Act.
                  (k) "Point source" means the follow-
                ing:
                  (I) for  partlculate matter, sulfur
                oxides, carbon monoxide, volatile or-
                ganic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen
                dloxMe-
                  (I) Any stationary source the actual
                emissions  of  which are In  excess  of
                •0.7 metric tons (100  tons) per year of
                the pollutant In a region containing an
                area whose 10*0 "urban place" popula-
                tion, as defined by the U.S.  Bureau of
                                   718
              •VotecMos) Agoncy
 the Census, was equal to or greater
 than 1 million.
  (II) Any stationary source the actual
 emissions of which are In excess of
 13.1 metric Ions (31 Ions) per year of
 the pollutant In a region containing an
 area whose 1NO "urban place" popula-
 tion,  as defined by the UJB. Bureau of
 the Census, was less than 1 million; or
  (3)  For  lead or  lead compounds
 measured as elemental lead, any sta-
 tionary source that actually emits a
 total  of 4.1 metric tons (ft tons)  per
 year or more.              .  L
  (I)  "Area source"  means any small
 residential,  governmental. Institution-
 al, commercial, or Industrial fuel com-
 bustion operations; onaite aolld waste
 disposal  facility;  motor  vehicles, air-
 craft  vessels, or other transportation
 faculties   or  other   miscellaneous
 sources Identified through Inventory
 techniques similar to those described
 In toe "AEROS Uanual aeries. VoL U
 AERO8  User's Manual." EPA-4a*/3-
 70-01* December 107*.
  (m) "Radon" means an are* desig-
 nated M an air quality control region
 (AQCR) under section  107(c) of the
  (•) "Control strategy"
Mnatlon of measures
achieve tho  aggregate


arda *~««"i»'"g.  but not
  (I) Emission Ik
  (3)*NMralor1
  (•> dosing or relocation of
                  * Industrial
  44) Changes In schedules or
of operation of commercial or mdavtri-
al facilities or tranaportatloa *y*k
including, but not limited to.
tern changes made In accordance with
standby plans.
  (•) Periodic Inspection and testing of
motor  vehicle emission  control sys-
tems, at such time as the Administra-
tor determines that such programs are
feasible and practicable.
  (0) Emission control measures appli-
cable to In-use motor vehicles. Includ-
ing, but not limited to. measures such
as mandatory maintenance,  Installs-
                            151.100

 twn of emission control devices,  and
 conversion to gaseous fuels.
   (7) Any transportation control meas-
 ure  Including  those  transportation
 measures listed In section IM(f) of the
 Clean Air Act as amended.
   (•) Any variation of. or alternative
 to any measure delineated herein.
   (•) Control or prohibition of a  fuel
 or fuel additive used In motor vehicle*.
 If such control or prohibition la neces-
 sary to achieve a national primary or
 seoonary air quality standard and  la
 approved by the Administrator under
 aectlon 31l(cK4MC)of the Act.
  (o)  "Reasonably available   control
 technology"  (RACT)  means  devices.
 systems   process  modifications,  or
 other apparatus or technique* that are
 reasonably available  taking Into ac-
 count (I) the  necessity of
such controls In order to attain and
Maintain a national ambient air qual-
ity standard. (3) the social, environ-
mental and economic Impact of such
controls, and (3) alternative means of
providing for attainment  and mainte-
nance of such standard.  (This provi-
sion defines RACT for the purpose* of
II •I.HO(cN3> and B1.341(b> only.)
  (p>  "Compliance  schedule"  means
the date or dates by which a source or
category of source* la  required to
comply with specific emission limita-
tions contained In an Implementation
plan  and  with  any  Increment* of
progreas toward such compliance.
  (q) "Increments of progress)" means
steps toward compliance which will b*
taken by a specific source. Including:
  (1) Date of submlttal of the souree's
final control plan to the appropriate
•Ir pollution control agency.
  13)  Date  by  which  contract* for
emission control systems or preceas
modifications will be awarded; or date
by which orders will be Issued for the
purchase of component parts to ae
  (I) Date of Initiation of on site eon
structton or Installation  of emission
control equipment or proceas change-
  (4) Date by which on-slte construc-
tion or Installation of emission control
equipment or proceas modification Is
to be completed: and
  (•) Date by which final compliance
Is to be achieved.
                                                                                                 710

-------
 151.100

   "Variance" mean* the temporary
 deferral of a final compliance date for
 an Individual aource subject to an ap-
proved  regulation, or a  temporary
chance to MI approved regulation H It
applies to an Individual aource.
  <•) "Emission limitation" and "emis-
sion standard" mean a  requirement es-
tabllahed by a State, local government.
or the Administrator which UmlU the
quantity,  rate, or concentration  of
anils»li>ns of air polluUnU on a eontln-
 woua basis. Including any requirement*
 which limit the level of opacity, pre-
scribe equipment, set fuel specifics-
 tlona, or prescribe operation or main-
 tenance  procedures  for a  source la
assure continuous emission reduction.
  (aa)  "Capacity factor"  means  the
 ratio of the average load on a machine
or equipment for the period of time
considered to the capacity rating of
 the machine or equipment.
  (bb) "Excess emissions" mean* emto-
atons of an  air pollutant In excess of
an emission standard.
   "Stack" means any point In a
source designed to emit solids, liquids.
or gases Into the air. Including a pipe
or duct but not Including flares.
    "A stack In existence"  means
that the owner or operator had  (I)
begun, or caused to begin, a continu-
ous program of physical on-alte con-
struction of the stack or (J) entered
Into binding agreements  or contrac-
tual obligations, which could not be
cancelled or modified without substan-
tial loss  to ths owner or operator, to
undertake a program of construction
of the stack to be completed within a
reasonable time.
    "Dispersion   technique-
means any technique which attempts
to affect the concentration of a pollut-
ant In the ambient air by:
  (U Using that  portion  of a stack
which exceeds good engineering prac-
tice stack height:
  (M) Varying the rate of emission of a
pollutant according  to  atmospheric
conditions or ambient concentrations
of that pollutant; or
  (III)  Increasing final exhaust  gas
plume  rise  by manipulating source
process parameters,  exhaust gas pa-
rameters, stack parameters, or combin-
ing exhaust gases from several exist-
ing stacks Into one stack; or other se-
lective   handling  of   exhaust  gas
streams so as to Increase the extiaust
gas plume rise.
  in The pfT^ntirg sentence does not
  (!) The reheating of a gas stream.
following use of a pollution control
system, for the  purpose of returning
the gas to the temperature at which It
waa originally discharged from the fa-
cility generating the gas stream;
   The merging  of exhaust  gas
streams where:
  (A) The source owner or operator
demonstrates  that  the facility  was
originally designed and constructed
with such merged gas streams;
  IB) After July 0. IOU such merging
to part of a change In operation at the
facility that Includes  the Installation
of pollution controls and Is  accompa-
nied by a net reduction In the allow-
able emissions of a pollutant. This ex-
clusion from the definition of "disper-
sion techniques" shall apply only to
the emission limitation for the pollut-
•NvweNmeiifeJ PretecMen Agency

ant affected by such change In oper-
ation; or
  (C) Before July 0. 1000. such merg-
ing was part of a change In operation
at the facility that Included the Instal-
lation of emissions control equipment
or was carried out for sound  economic
or engineering reasons. Where there
waa an Increase In the emission umlla-
tlon or. In the event that no c mission
limitation was In existence prior to the
merging, an Increase m the quantity of
pollutanU  actually  emitted  prior to
the  merging,  the reviewing  agency
shall presume that merging was sig-
nificantly motivated by an  kttent to
Oaks amtoslonB credit for greater dfs>
psrstosi. Absent a demonstration by
the  source owner or  operator that
msrglng was not significantly saotlvat-
•d  by  such  Intent,  the isvtswlug
agency  shall  deny credit  for  the ef-
fects of such  merging In calculating
the allowable emissions for the source;
  (III) Smoke management n agricul-
tural or sUvte.il  --JU
Ing programs;
  (tv) Dttoodte restrictions on i
Ual woodbumlng and open burning; or
  (v)       Techniques       under
Hl.lOOdthXlxlll)   which   Increase
final exhaust gas plume rise when the
resulting allowable emissions of sulfur
dioxide from the facility do not exceed
0.000 tons per year.
  (II) "Good  engineering  practice"
(OEP) stack height means UM greater
of:
  (I) 00 •Mtera. measured from  UM
fftHsVMI-ICVH CICVMilOll «M UM IMsW Off
UM alack:
  (XNI) For stacks hi existence on Jan-
uary la. 1070. and for which UM owner
or operator had obtained all appHoabto
pennlU or approvals required under 40
CPR Parts II and S3.
B.-I.SB.
provided the owner or operator pro-
duces evidence that Into equation was
actually relied on In establishing an
emission limitation:
  411) Por all other stacks,
H.-H »  I.»L
                                                                fSt.tOs)
H..fOod enslneerlrw practice Mack hetsht.
   ncMtired from the  •round level «!*»•
   Uon »l the l»w ol the «Uck.
H« height of nearby rtnietureUt
   from the ground level elevation ft
   MM of the MM*
I*™ ICAVCI*  ONIMIMlOffl, nCIf it*  Of
   width, of nearby Mructuredl

provided that the CPA. SUte or local
control agency may require the use of
a field study or fluid model to verify
GBP stack height for the aource; or
  (» The height demonstrated by a
HuM model or a field study approved
by the EPA Stale  or local  control
agency, which ensures that the emis-
sions from a stack do not result In ex-
cessive concentrations  of any  air pol-
lutant as  a result  of  atmospheric
downwash. wakes, or eddy effects' cre-
ated by the source Itself, nearby struc-
tures or nearby terrain features.
  (JJ> -Nearby- aa used hi tOI.IOOflO
of tltto part to defined for a  specific
structure or terrain feature and
  (I) for purposes of applying UM for-
      provided In | sl.tOOdlxa) •Beans
     dtaUnee  up to  five  tunes  the
      of the height or the width dl-
        of a structure, but not greater
than 0.0 km 
-------
 151.100

 the maximum  concentration  experi-
 enced In  the absence of such down-
 wash, wakea.  or  eddy  effect*   and
 which contribute* to a total concentra-
 tion due to emissions from all source*
 that  Is greater than  an ambient air
 quality standard.  For sources subject
 to  the prevention of significant dete-
 rioration program (40 CFR 51.IM and
 02.21 >. an  excessive concentration al-
 ternatively means a maximum around-
 level  concentration due to emissions
 from a stack due  In whole or part to
 downwash. wake*, or eddy effect* pro-
 duced by nearby structures or nearby
 terrain feature* which Individually I*
 at  least 40 percent In excess  of  the
 maximum  concentration experienced
 In  the absence  of  such  downwash.
 wake*, or  eddy  effects and  greater
 than  a prevention of significant dete-
 rioration  Increment.  The  allowable
 emission rate to be  used In  making
 demonstrations under this part shall
 be  prescribed by the new source per-
 formance  standard that I* applicable
 to  the source  category unless   the
 owiiei or operator demonstrate*  that
 this emission rale  I* Infeaalble. Where
 such demonstration* are approved by
 the authority administering the State
 Implementation  plan, an  alternative
 embwlon rate shall be established In
 consultation with the source owner or
 operator.
  (I) for sources seeking credit after
 October U.  1»«3. for Increase* In eitot-
 tng stack height* up to the height* es-
 tahllshed  under I SI. 100(11X3).  either
 (I) a maximum ground-level concentra-
 tion due In whole or part to  down-
 wa»h. wake* or eddy effect* a* provid-
 ed In paragraph (kkMI > of this section,
 except that  the emission  rate specified
 hy  any applicable State Implementa-
 tion plan (or. In the absence of such a
 limit, the actual emission rate) shall
be used, or (II) the actual presence of a
local nuisance caused by the existing
•tack, as determined by the authority
administering the State Implementa-
tion plan: and
  (I) for sources seeking credit after
January 13. 1*79 for a stack height de-
 termined  under I 51KXMIIMJ)  where
 the authority administering the Slate
 Implementation plan requires the use
 of a field study or fluid model to verify
 QEP slmrk helglil. lor sou ices seeking
          40 CM Oi. I (7-l-M MM**)

 stack height credit after November 0.
 1984 based on the aerodynamic Influ-
 ence of cooling towers, and for source*
 seeking stack height credit after De-
 cember 31. 1970 based on the aerody-
 namic Influence of structure* not ade-
 quately represented by the equations
 In 161.IOOOIM2). a maximum ground-
 level concentration due  In whole or
 part  to downwash. wake* or eddy ef-
 fect* that  I* at least  40 percent In
 exce** of the maximum concentration
 experienced In  the absence of such
 downwash. wakes, or eddy effect*.
  (UMmm) IRawrvedl
  ie rate at which pollut-
 ant* are emitted to the atmosphere ac-
 cording to meteorological conditions
 and/or ambient concentration* of the
 pollutant. In order to prevent ground-
 level concentration* In exceas of appli-
 cable ambient  air  quality standards.
 Such a dispersion technique to an ICB
 whether used alone, used with other
 dispersion techniques, or used  a* a
 supplement  to  continuous  emission
 control* (I.e.. used a* a supplemental
 control system).
  (oo) "Partlculate matter" mean* any
 airborne finely divided solid or liquid
 material with an aerodynamic diame-
 ter smaller than 100 micrometer*.
  (pp> "Partlculate matter emissions"
 mean* all finely divided solid or liquid
 material,   other  than   uncomblned
 water, emitted to the ambient air a*
 measured  by  applicable reference
 methods,  or an equivalent or alterna-
 tive method, specified In this chapter.
 or by a teat method specified In an ap-
 proved State Implementation plan.
  (qq>  "PM,."   mean*  partlculate
 matter with an aerodynamic diameter
 teas than or equal to a nominal 10 mi-
crometers a* measured by a reference
 method baaed on Appendix J of Part
•0 of thto chapter and designated In
accordance with Part 63 of thto chap-
 ter or by an equivalent method desig-
nated In accordance with Part S3 of
thto chapter.
  (rr) "PM,. emissions" means finely
divided solid or  liquid material,  with
an aerodynamic diameter less than or
equal to  a nominal  10  micrometer*
emitted to the ambient air as meas-
 ured  by   an  applicable reference
   few*******!** Protect!** Af)»iKy

   method, or an equivalent or alterna-
   tive method, specified In thto chapter
   or by a teat method specified In an ap-
   proved State Implementation plan.
    (as)  "Total  suspended partlculate"
   mean* partlculate matter as measured
   by the method described In  Appendix
   B of Part M of thto chapter.
   1*1 FR 40*81. No*. 1. IM*. at smmdsd at M
   PR Milt, July I. IMl)
  • 6l.lt!
   Nothing to thto part will  be con-
  strued to any manner.
   (a) To encourage a State to prepare.
  adopt, or submit a plan which does not
  provide  for  the  protection and  en-
  hancement of air quality so ss to pro-
  mote  the  public  health and  welfare
  and productive capacity.
   (b) To encourage a State to adopt
  any particular control strategy  with-
  out taking Into consideration the eost-
  effectlveness of  such control strategy
  to relation to that of alternative con-
  trol strategies.
   (c) To preclude a Stale from employ-
  tag techniques other than those speci-
  fied to thto part for purposes  of esti-
  mating air quality or demonstrating
  the adequacy of a control strategy.
 provided that such other technique*
 an shown  to be adequate and appro-
 priate for such purposes.
   (d) To encourage a State to prepare.
 adopt, or submit  * pun without taking
 toto consideration  the social and eco-
 nomic Impact of the control strategy
 set forth to such plan. Including, but -
 not  limited to. Impact on availability
 of fuels,  energy, transportation, and
 employment.
  (e) To preclude a State from prepar-
 ing,  adopting,  or submitting a {Man
 which  provides  for  attainment  Mod
 maintenance of  a  national stsJMfcrd
 through the application of  a ventral
 strategy not specifically Identified or
 described to thto part.
  (f) To preclude a State or political
 subdivision thereof from adopting or
 enforcing  any emission limitation* or
 other measure* or combinations there1
 of to attain and  maintain ah- quality
 better than that required by a nation-
al standard.
  (g) To encourage a State to adopt a
control  strategy uniformly applicable
throughout a region unless there to no
                                   722
                               isi.ioa

   satisfactory alternative way of provid-
   ing for attainment and maintenance of
   a national standard throughout such
   region.

   • 61.1*1 PiiMIc bearings.

    (a) Except as otherwise provided to
   paragraph (c>  of thto section. Bute*
   must conduct one or more public hear-
   ing* on the following prior to adoption
   and submission to EPA of:
    (1) Any plan or revision  of It re-
  quired by | BM04(a).
    (3) Any Individual compliance sched-
  ule under (| 61.3*0).
    (3) Any revision under 161.1O4(d>.
    (b) Separate  hearings may  be  held
  for plans  to  Implement primary end
  secondary standard*.
    (c) No hearing will be required for
  any  change   to  an  Increment  of
  piogiea*  to  an approved Individual
  compliance  schedule'  unless  such
  change to likely to cause the source to
  be unable to comply with  the final
  compliance date to the schedule. Tbe
  requirements  of 1161.104 and 81.106
  will be applicable to such schedules,
  however.
   (d> Any  hearing  required by para-
  graph (a) of  thto section will be held
  only  after reasonable  notice,  which
  will  be considered to Include, at least
  M days prior to the  date of such
 hearing**):
   (I)  Notice given  to the  pubuc by
 prominent  advertisement to  the area
 affected   announcing  the   dateta).
 time**),   and   placets)   of   such
 hearing**);
   (3)  Availability of each proposed
 plan or revision for public Inspection
 to si least one location to each region
 to which It will  spply. and the avail-
 ability  of  each  compliance schedule
 for public Inspection to si least one lo-
 cation to the  region to which the af-
 fected source to located;
  (3) Notification to the Administrator
 (through the  appropriate  Regional
 Office):
  (4) Notification to each local ah- pol-
 lution control  agency which will be
 significantly Impacted by such plan.
 schedule or revision:
  (B)  In the  case of  an  Interstate
 region,   notification  to  any   other
States Included, In whole or In part. In
                                                                                                                      723

-------
Monday
July 8, 1985
Part II

Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 51
Stack Height Regulation; Final Rute

-------
27892       Federal Regiatar / Vol. SO. No.  130 / Monday. July 8.  1985 / Rulei  and  Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

40CFRPtft51
technique.* K defines CEP. with respect
to stack hiBgaa as:
Stack Might Regulation

AOKMCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTXMC Final rulemaking. _

SUMMAMV: Section 123 of the Clean Air
Act. aa amended requires EPA to
promulgate regulation! to enaure that
the degree of emission limitation
required for the control of any air
pollutant under an applicable State
implementation plan (SIP) it not
affected by that portion of any stack
height which exceeds good engineering
practice (CEP) or by any other
dispersion technique. A regulation
implementing section 123 was
promulgated on February 8. 1982. at 47
FR SM4. Revisions to the regulation
were proposed on November 9. 1984. at
49 FR 44878. Today's action incorporates
changes to the proposal and adopta this
regulation in final form.
WMCMVI OATC This regulation
becomes effective on August 7, 198S.
fo* WSTTHSJI HSVOMMATIOM CONTACT-
Eric O. Cinaburg, MD-15, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, EPA.
Research Triangle Pack. North Carolina
27711. Telephone (919) SO-*MaX
          TAUT OtPOMMATIOSC
Docket StetsiMBl
  Pertinent information concerning this
regulation is included in Docket Number
A-43-49. The docket is open for public
inspection botmei die BOW* of lets
a.m. and 4:00 p.m~ Monday through
Friday, at the EPA Central Docket
Section. Weat Tower Lobby. Gallery
One. 401 M Street SW.. Washington.
D.C. Background documents normally
available to the public, such aa Federal
Register notices and Congressional
reports, are not included in the docket
A reasonable fee may be charged for
copying documents.

Background

Statuta
  Section 123. which was added to the
Clean Air Act by the 1977 Amendments.
regulates the manner in which
techniques for dispcrson of pollutants
from a source may  be considered in
setting emission limitations. Specifically,
section 123 requires that the degree of
emission limitation shall not be affected
by that portion of a stack which exceeds
CEP or by "sny ether dispersion
the height necessary to insure that essJssions
from iht itsck do not result in excesetoe
concentrations of any air pollutant ia> KM
immediate vicinity of the source as a nsull ef
•tmotphenc downwash. eddies or weaas
which may be created by the source itaeat
nesrby structures or nesrby terrain aoatodos
. . . (Sectioa 123(c)|.
Section 123 further provides thai CEP
stack height shall not exceed two sava*
one-half times the height of the save*
(2.5H) unless a demonstration ia
performed showing that a  higher stack •
needed to avoid "excessive
concentrations." Aa the legislative
history of section 123 makes clear, taaa)
reference to a two and one-half law*
teat reflects the established anonce of
using a formula for detennottaf tja> GaV
stack height needed to avoid exooooiue
downwash. Finally, tactic* 123 [
that the Administrator shal tcgaifaat
only stack height credits  fto* rs. oat
portion of the stack height used la
calculating an emission limitation—
rather than actual stack heights*
  With respect to "other disparate
techniques" for which emission
limitation credit la reatricted. the statute
is lesa specific It states only that *Jt*
term shall ioebsd* intermittent aval
supplemental control systems (ICS,
SCS), but otherwise leaves the definition
of that term to the discretion of the
Adnuntatra toe.
  The* (fee statute deiegatea to aW
Administrator the responsibility tot
eWkMOf key phraves. including
'exxeoaiv* coaicentrations" and
"nearby," with reepect to  both
atructuree and  tsjcrain obstacles, and
"other dispersion techniques." The
ArirBJaietTalig nuat also define the
requirements of an adequate
demonstration justifying stack haagfct
credita in excess of the 2.5H forsnia,
RuItmoJung and Litigation
  On February 8.1982 (47 FR MB*). EPA
promulgated final regulations lisaiting
stack height credits and other diapansoB
techniques. Information concerning tbe
development of the regulation wo»
included in Docket Number A-Tt-Ol and
is available for inspection at the EPA
Central Docket Section. This regulation
was challenged in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit by the
Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund. lac; the
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc4
and the Commonwealth of Peruwylvana
in Siena Club  v. EPA. 719 F. 2d 438, Om
October 11.1983. the court issued Ha
decision ordering EPA to  reconasrfer
portions of the stack height regulation.
reversing certain portions and uiifmsrling
other portions. Further discussicai of the
covt decision is provided later in this
BDtJCC.

Administrative Proceedings Subsequent
a» the Court Decision

  On December 19.1983. EPA held a
public meeting to take comments to
   ist the Agency in implementing the
   ndate of the court. This meeting was
         1 in the Federal Regiatar on
         • 8.1963. at 48 FR 54999.
Comments received by EPA are
bduded in Docket Number A-43-49. On
February 28.1984. the electric power
aaduatry filed a petition for a writ of
esrtiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court.
Wkila the petition was pending before
the cassn the  mandate from the U.S.
Court of Appeals was stayed. On July 2,
MM. the Supreme Court denied the
petition (104 S.Ct. 3571). and on July 18.
19M. the Court of Appeals' mandate
VSJB formally  issued, implementing the
court's decision and requiring EPA to
promulgate revisions to the stack height
sofjilationa within 4 months. The
promulgation deadline was ultimately
extended to June 27.1985. in order to
provide additional opportunities for
potlic comment to allow EPA to hold s
pofalic hearing on January 8.1985. and to
provide additional time for EPA to
complete its analysis of nilemaking
alternatives,
Documents
  SB conjunction with the 1982
leojotatson and this revision. EPA
developed several technical and
gaudance documents. These served as
background information for the
rapilation. and are included in Dockets
A-79-01 and A-83-49. The following
documents have been or will be placed
• the National Technical Information
Service (NTIS) system and may be
obtained by contacting NTIS at 5285
Part Royal Road. Springfield. Virginia
22161.
  (1) "Guideline for Use of Fluid
Modeling to Determine Good
BBjineering Stack Height" July 1981.
EPA. Office of Air Quality Planning and
          EPA-4SO/4-81-003 (NTIS
     145327).
  (2) "Guideline for Fluid Modeling of
Atmospheric Diffusion." Apnl 1981.
EPA. Environmental Sciences Research
Laboratory. EPA-oOO/8-41-009 (NTIS
PB81 201410).
   (3) "Guidance for Determination of
Good Engineering Practice Stack Height
(Technical Support Document for the
Suck Height Regulation)." June 1985.
EPA. Office of Air Quality Planning and
"Isaileuts EPA-450/4-80-023R.
   (4) "Determination of Good
Engineering Practice Stack Height—A

-------
              Federal Register / Vol. 50. No.  130 / Monday. July 8.  1985 / Rules and Regulations        27893
Fluid Model Demonstration Study for a
Power Plant." April 1983. EPA.
Environmental Sciences Research
Laboratory. EPA-600/3-43-024 (NTIS
PB83 207407).
  (5) "Fluid Modeling Demonstration of
Good-Engineenng-Practice Slack Height
m Complex Terrain.'' April 1965. EPA
Atmospheric Sciences Research
Laboratory. EPA/600/3-35/022 (NTIS
PB85 203107).
  In addition, the following documents
are available in Docket A-43-49.
  "Economic Impact Assessment for
Revisions to the EPA Stack Height
Regulation." fune 1985.
  "Effect of Terrain-Induced Downwash
on Determination of Good-Enginering-
Prtctice Stack Height" fuly 1984.

Pretnm Overview

General
  The problem of air pollution can be
approached in either of two ways:
through reliance on a technology-based
program that mandates specific control
requirements (either control equipment
or control efficiencies) irrespective of
ambient pollutant concentration*, or
through an air quality baaed system  that
relies on ambient air quality levels to
determine the allowable rates of
emissions. The .Clean Air Act
incorporates both approaches, but the
SIP program under section 110 uses an
air quality-based approach to establish
emission limitations for sources.
implicitly, this approach acknowledges
and is based on the normal dispersion of
pollutants from their points of origin into
the atmosphere prior to measurements
of ambient concentrations at ground
level.
  There are two general methods for
preventing violations of the national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)
and prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) increments.
Continuous emission controls reduce on
a continuous basis the quantity, rate, or
concentrations of pollutants released
into the atmosphere from e source. In
contrast, dispersion techniques rely  on
the dispersive effects of the atmosphere
to carry pollutant emissions awey from
the source m order to prevent high .
concentrations of pollutants near the
source. Section 123 of the Clean Air  Act
limits the use of dispersion techniques
by pollution sources  to meet the NAAQS
or PSD increments.
  Tall stacks, manipulation of exhaust
gas parameters, and  varying the rate of
emissions based on atmospheric
conditions (ICS and SCS) are the basic
types of dispersion techniques. Tall
stacks enhance dispersion by releasing
pollutants into the air at elevations high
above ground level, thereby providing
greater mixing of pollutants into the
atmosphere. The result is to dilute the
pollutant levels and reduce the
concentrations of the pollutant at ground
level, without reducing the total amount
of pollution released. Manipulation of
exhaust gas parameters increases the
plume rise from the source to achieve
similar result*. ICS and SCS vary a
source's rate of emissions to take
advantage of meteorologic conditions.
When conditions favor rapid dispersion.
the source emits pollutants at higher
rates, and when conditions are adverse.
emission rates are reduced. Use of
dispersion techniques in lieu of constant
emission controls results in additional
atmospheric loadings of pollutants and
can increase the possibility that
pollution will travel long distances
before reaching the ground.
  Although overrtiiance on dispersion
techniques may produce advene affects.
some use of the dispersive properties of
the atmosphere has long been an
important factor in air pollution control.
For example, some stack height ia
needed to prevent excessive pollutant
concentrations near a source. When
wind meets an obstacle such aa a hill or
a building, a turbulent region of
downwash. wakes, and eddies ia
created downwind of the obstacle aa the
wind passes over and around it This
can force a plume rapidly to the ground
resulting in excessive concentrations of
pollutants near the source. Aa discussed.
previously, section 123 recognizes these
phenomena and responds by allowing
calculation of emission limitations with
explicit consideration of that portion of
a source's stack that ia needed to ensure
that excessive concentrations due to
downwash will not be created near the
source. This height ia called CEP stack
height

Summary of tht Court Decision
  Petitions for review of EPA'a 1982
regulation were filed in the D.C Circuit
within the statutory tine period
following promulgation of the regulation.
On October It. 1983. the court issued its
decision ordering EPA to reconsider
portions of the stack height regulation.
reversing certain portions and upholding
others. The following is a summary of
the court decision.
  The EPA 11982 rule provided three
waya to carerraine CEP stack height
One way was to calculate the height by
using a formula based on the
dimensions o^nearby structures. The
other two were a de mimmis height of AS
meters, and the height determined by a
fluid modeling demonstration or field
study. The court endorsed the formula
as a starting point to determine CEP
height However, it held that EPA has
not demonstrated that the formula was
an accurate predictor of the stack heigm
needed to avoid "excessive
concentrations of pollutants due to
downwash. Accordingly, the court
directed EPA to re-examine in three
ways the conditions under which
exceptions to the general rule of formula
reliance could be justified.
  First the 1982 rule allowed a source to
justify raising its stack above formula
height by ahowing a 40-percent increase
in concentrations due to downwash.
wakes, or eddies, on the ground that this
was the percentage increase that the
formula avoided. The court found this
justification insufficient and remanded
the definition to EPA with instructions
to make it directly responsive to health
and welfare considerations.
  Similarly, the 1982 rule allowed a
source that built a stack to less than
formula height to raise it to formula
height automatically. Once again, the
court required more justification that
such a step was needed to avoid
advene health or welfare effects.
  Finally, the court directed EPA either
to allow the authorities administering
the stack height regulations to  require
modeling by sources in other cases as a
check on possible error in the formula.
or explain why the accuracy of the
formula made such a step unnecessary
  The 1982 rule provided two formulae
to calculate CEP stack height For
sources constructed on or before
January 12.1079. the date of initial
propoeaJ of the stack height regulations.
tile applicable formula was 2.3 times the
height of the source or other nearby
structure. For sources constructed after
that date, the rule specified a newer.
refined formula, the height of the source
or other nearby structure plus 1.5 times
the height or width of that structure.
whichever is leaa (H-M.SL). The EPA
baaed ita decision- to include two
formulae on the unfairness of applying
the new formula retroactively. In its
examination of this issue, the court
specified four factors that influence
whether an agency has a duty to apply s
rule retroactively. They are:
  1. Whether the naw rule represents «n
abrupt departure from wail established
practice or manly attempts to fill a void man
unsettfed area of law.
  2. The extent to which the party against
whom the new rule ia applied relied on tne
former rule.
  J. Tha detTM of burden which a retroactive
order impoaas on a party, and
  4. The statutory interest In apply'"* • new
rule dwpite the reliance of a perry on rfte nd
standard.

-------
 27J94       Federal Regis*** / Vol 50. No. 13O / Monday. July B. 1965 / R«fe» and Regulations
 719 fid at 48? (citation* omitted).
 Applying this aoalyus. to the two
 formulae. the court upheld EPA's bane
 decision.
   However, the court also held that
 sources constructed on or before
 January IZ 1973. should not be
 automatically entitled to fuil credit
 calculated under the Z.5H formula unless
 they could demonstrate reliance on that
 formula. The court remanded this
 provision for revision to take actual
 reliance on the 2.5H formal* otto
 account.
   The starate limits site* height eredtt
 to that needed to avoid excemiv*
 concentration* doe to downwaeik caused
 by "nearby" strectune or terrain
 festare*. Tee 19*2 reguiatfea defined
 "nearby" far CEP formate sppKeatioM
 as five tima* the lesser al erther fee
 height or projected wtdta of the
 structun caueina, dowowesk oat to
 exceed HIM half nit*. Na such ejrtuc*
 limitation waa placed aa structures or
 terrain features waose effects wen
 being considered in Ouid •~Wi«tt
 demonstration* or field studios. Tb*
 court held that section 123 explicitly
 applies the "nearby" limitation to
 demonstrations and studies aa weE aa
 formula applications, and remanded the
 rule to EPA to apply the limitation in
 both contexts.
   The  198T rule defined "dispersion
 techniques" ae those techniques which
 attempt to affect poflutant
 concvfHrotioRS by using (act portfon of a
 stack exceeding GEP. by varying
 emission mtee accordia* tv atauepheik.
 conditions or-pollutant eonceittretiens.
 or by the oddltio* of e fan or refceeter tv
 obtain e lees suingtiil eaueeiea
• limitation. The court found *is
 definition too narrow because any
 technique -si§r»*caittty motivated by a*
 intent to gain enisaiona credit for
 greater dispersion" should be bami
 719 F.2d 462. As a result the comrt
 directed EPA to develop ruts*
 diMllowiaf credit for all saca diapersioa
 technique* unless die Agency
 adequately justified excapMaav oa the
 basis of administrative nacsssrty or sot
 rr:nimis result
   Tbe CEP formulae estabtiafaed in the.
 1962 rule do not consider pcsssa rue. «•
 the ground that plume rise is not
 significant under downwash conditions.
 In its review of this, provision, the court
 affirmed this judgment by EPA.
   The  1982 rule addressed r^""'*T"
 concentrations estimated to occur whan,
 a  plume impacts elevated temin by
 auowmg. credit for stack height
 necessary to avoid air qualify violations
 .n such cases. However, the court ruled
 that section 123 did not allow EPA to
 grant credit for plume inspection in.
setting elusion uarfc. and reversed this
part of the regulation.
  TaepraaaBbiete the 18U refukoon
provided a 22 south process for State
iBplsoentatioa of the regulation. The>
court found tfai» period to be> coatiwy to
secnan 406(d)(2} of the OMB Air Ad
and reversed it
  The regulation. foUowinf the statute.
excluded stack* "i» exatance" oa or
before  Oecanber 31. iva froet the- CEP
requirements. However, the reguiabaai
did not prohibit source* constructed
after December 31. 1970. freaai receiving
credit for tying into pre-1971 f*fuT
Although, the court upheld EPA's
defiaitioo of "is existence." it ao4e« tbe4
EP A had faaVad to addieaa tket tte-ia
issae. Acconisagly. the court resBead*4
this issue M EPA for juatifiaatieB.
  One  other proviatoa of the rafuieanai
waa challenged is the. Siena Ouo iuifc
The evduainsi of uarea froaa the
defiainon of "aUck."u»Ua review afthie
prmviaiao, the court held thM HP A h*si
acted properly.
  Other pro vuMau of the stack heigiu
regulatiaa aucha« the, oeavmaMe stack
height eattbiisAed under I SLUiiHlK
were not challenged  in Ik* suit aid th«*
remain in effect.
Summary oftti* ftovmint  9
  fa Ae November 9k UBe. node*
responding to the court daoaioa, EPA
proposed to redefine a. amber of
gptcific tasma. 'T^'HP*^ "exceaai«a
techniquBe," "Bearby." aaatolha*
important, concept*, aad propoaari ta
modify SABA of tbe haaee, tot
itmtmrtnirtiwt^ Crf3* StaCkbei^L
foOowiig ia a auoaary of the i
that were proposed
  The Court of Appeals held that EPA
erred Is defifiiflaj ^DSDeaat^^
concenoation*" erne taeawmwe«kvfai
purpoaee of justifying * stack gteetea
than formul* aeigak aa nothiic OMT*
thaa a «H>efcaat increaae, ia pnllnlaaX
coocaotratoca over waal weald occur
in the shsenre of dowvweaa, It
remaodedi uua. ieaua to EPA M ratal* tbs>
dafiaiao* to soau ebaokt* level of ear
pollutioa that couid be lateraeetad to
endanger health and welfare, aad thaa
to be "exraesiiia."
  The EPA irapoeed twe- aisataalive
appnacaa* to deruunf "eacaaeive
concentranona," FitakEPA reojeeated
conimeni oo whether the 4A-Mroee*
appraeca adopted aa port oitk* MM
njjiiliitisi IB fsnpiiiisiia aawael  Thai
danger* k> *-—"^ and welaare
enviaiosttd by Coocreee wkeat it'
sectioa 123. !• ta*ev«H thai s«di •
 shovrmg caa£d not be made. EPA
 proposed a two-part defiaftioo of
 excessive coacemtranooe. reoamnf ths i
 the dowmwatft,  wakaa. or eddies
 induced by nearby structuree or terrem
 featune reaaft ia inaseses in grvud-
 level polhttant concetilrarioae thai:
  (*) Ceuee or cotrtribofe to an
 exceedanee- of e rVAAQS or apptieathe
 PSO mereffient end
  (b) Are at least 40 percent in excess of
 concentration* projected to occur in the
 absence of such structures or terrain
 features.

Definition of CEP Stack Hfigfit

  EPA pnaoood to find tiuM the
 traditional (ZSH} and refined (H-f.l.5L)
formulae remained proper methods for
calculating CEP stack height except EPA
proposed to revise its regulation to
 allow EPA  the State or local air
 pollution control agency discretion to
 require a farther demonstration using a
 field study or fluid model to
 demonstrate CEP stack height for a
 source to a case when it waa believed
 that the rbrnrda may not refiafiiy predict
 CEP height Ia the case of structures that
 are porous or sarodynamicaHy smoother
 thaa block-shaped structures, it would
 require a source to demonstrate the
 downwash effects of suca structures
 using a field study or fluid model before
 receiving credit for stack height baaed
 oa the structures. EPA also proposed
generally to aflow sources to raise
 existing, stacks up to fbnaula CEP height
 without ftirtnar damooatratioaa with the
 excepttoo noted abort fat diacratianary
R» lionet on tht iSH Formula

  Ia it» latZ nine. EPA aaowwi wore**
built eefere {aauary 12. MW, the date OB
which it proposed tbe reneed H-t-l^L
formulae, to calcalate their araMBioa
limit! hasaii oa tke> trarialanal X5H
forssula tkat aviated pMnouely. Toe
court approved taia distinctiaa, bw)
ruled that it sboald be Ueutoe to sowrcee
that "reaed" oa tae mdittaaas forauia.
nifljarriag, for axaa^iie. that sources
that bad ciaiaied creok for stacks far
taller thaa th*.iorawi« providosi cc«U
not be said, to haw* "relied" oa rt.
  to response to tka coot deaawo. EPA
propoeed te reviaa rte ngeJeOoa «•

January It 1879. sources eaeaonetrete
that tberaetaalrf relied ca tbe 13H
foramss ia the daaiss> of taesr stacirs
before recernog cradM far taatleiaM »

proposei, EPA reeawssee) caaeaaeat en
whatitaaaaldi
        i el anea reaaoee.

-------
             F*d*r*J Ragbtar /  Vol. 50.  No. 130 / Monday.  July 8. 1965  /  Rules and Regulations
                                                                      2789£
DtfinitiofofNfartry"

  In iti 1982 rules. EPA allowed sourcaa
that modeled the effects of terrain
obstacles on downwash to include any
terrain features in their model without
limiting their distance from the stack.
The court though persuaded that this
was a sensible approach, since it
allowed the model to best approximate
reality, ruled that Congress had
intended a different result, namely that
terrain features beyond tt mile from the
stack should not be included in tha
model.
  In response, EPA proposed to rtviae
i 5U(U)(3) o/itt regulation to limit the
consideration of dowawasa. wakes, aod
eddy effects of structure* aad tarraia
features to those feature* "'"-'"^ aa
being "nearby"  as defiaed ia | Stlfjj).
Under  this proposal structure* aad
terrain feature* would be considered to
be "n*arby"1f they occur within a
distance of not more than O4 km (V4
mile]; terrain feature* that extend
beyond U km could be considered it at
a distance of 041 km. they achieved a '
height greater than or equal to 40-
percent of the CEP stack height
calculated by applying the CEP formula
to actual nearby structures. la other
words, a terrain feature would be said to
"begin- within V4 mile if It reached at
leest the height  of nearby buildings
within  that *timtmtu^ ftvi^» features
be considered only out to
equal to 10 times the •••»•»«•» h*«jtit of
the feature, not to exceed 2 mile*.
  The EPA proposed two options for
diitinguiabing between source*
constructed before aad aftar the date of
promuigattoa of the** revision*. The
first opted wodd treat both categoric*
of source* the same. The second option
would limit the cooaideradoo of tarraia
for new source* to only those portiooa of
terrain feature* that fall entuv/r within
0.8 km. thereby removing th* p inability
of indudiag features exteadiag beyoad
  Finally. EPA proposed
alternatives for conductiaf fhrid
modeling to evaluate the <
effects or oaarby tetraia fe
altemativee d**cnb*d varioo*,w»ye of
limiting terrain in th* modal beyond the
proposed d'«*"f*« limitations.
  To establish a baseline for
comparison, two alternative* would
initially model the stack on a flat plane
with no structure or terrain influences.
To analyze downwash effects, the first
approach would then ineert nearby
terrain, with ell terrain beyond th*
distance  limit "cut off" horizontally The
second approach would gradually
•moot*) and slope the terrain beyond the
distance limit down to the elevation of
the base of the stack.
  Th* third approach would proceed in
a somewhat different manner. A
baseline would be established by
modeling all terrain beyond the distance
limit smoothing and sloping nearby
terrain to minimise its influence. To
analyse downwash effects, the nearby
terrain would then be inserted into th*
model and the difference ia effect
measured to determine appropriate
downwash credit for stack height
Definition of "Ditptnioa Technique*"
  Ia th* 19B2 rale*. EPA Identified two
practices, ia addition to stack* above
CEP aad ICS/SCS. a* having no pvrpoa*
otber than to obtaia • IMS stringaut
emtssioB iimitatto*, to so doing, it
allowad credit for any other practice
that had the remit o/increasing
dispersion. The court concluded that
Congress had intended, at a "»•"'"""•
to forbid any dispersion enhancement
practice that was significantly
motivated by aa intent to obtain
additional credit for greater dispersion.
and remanded the question to EPA for
reexamination.
  The EPA proposed to revise It*
definition of "dispersion tsehaiqoes"
generally to Indod*. to sddMoa to ICS.
SCS. aad stack height* ia sneaee of CEP.
any terhniip** that hav* IB* effect of
Combining
                                                       alt
                         stacks it
             can hav* each aa effect
                           ejeooftea
How*ver.
haws I
          I b.«4IJk^*4«^  AJ^^^M|^»A|M
           jimnmoon. Aoconangnr.
                       » *-m '   ** —
                       on neiiiniBj me
dii'istnlein*s andar wUcata*
combining of gas stream* sfcovU not b*
gy^^^fag^fl m jMafl^MH^M fM^MiM^A Mw4
proDOMo to allow source* as taw credit
in ensiessoei ozBttatioas ror soch ^fgtff
wherre facility we* origmafly designed
aad cowtrocted with 0j*rg*d gas
*)*M*BMBBS*1 A*l ~ •- --- •*--     '       -
*f leTWaBel Or WlffJIw Ukw UlVIgUa^ vfJdW
witkttw hwtallatiOB of additional
coatrois yi*idiag a B*t redaction ia total
emissions of tav affected poflntant The
EPA retained excrasioas from it*
definition of prohibited dispersion
technique* for smoke management ia
agneultnrar and stiviculturai prescribed
burcmg programs and also proposed to
exciude episodic restrictions oa
residential woodburning aad debris
New Sounm Tied into Prt-tan StocJu
  Section 123 exempts stacks "la
existence" at the end of 1970 from its
requirements. EPA't general approach to
implementing this language was upheld
by the court However, in its 1982 nils
EPA had also allowed thir credit to
sources built after that date that had
tied into stacks built before that date.
EPA failed to respond to comments
objecting to this allowance, end 10 the
court remanded the question to EPA /or
the agency to addresa.
  Upon reexamination. EPA saw no
convincing justificetion for granting
credit to these sources. Consequently.
for sources constructed after December
31.1970. with emissions ducted into
grandfathered stacks of greater than
CEP height and for sources constructed
before that date but for which major
modifications or reconstruction have
been carried out subsequently. EPA
proposed to limit stack height credit to
only so much of the actual suck height
as conforms to CEP. Sources
constructed prior to December 31.1970.
for which modifications are carried out
that are not classified es "major" under
40 CFR Sl.laXJ}(i). 5U4(8)(2J(i). snd
51-a(«H2Mi) would be allowed to retain
roll credit for their existing stack
heights.

Plutnt latpectiott

  IB its 1982 rules. EPA allowed stack
height credit for "plume impart on." a
phenomenon met is distinct from
downwash. wakes aad eddies. The
court though sympathetic to EPA's
policy position, reversed this judgment
as beyond the scope of the statute.
Accordingly. EPA proposed to delete the
allowance of H"**"1 impacttoa credit
from.its regulation ia compliance with
the court d*rj»lnp However, EPA also
recogaicsd that aouca*tn complex
terram fee* additional analytical
.jifK'-iM— whan altemfCBBf to conduct
modciiat to d*t*emia* appscrist*
cauMioB liautationa. Coneaeoendy. EPA
request**! eoanMcrt on whether eny
allowance saoold b* mad* for
imoi*B*at*oon problem* that may
result from the application of reviaed
CEP stack height assumptions end. if so.
how such allowance should b* msde.

Statt UnpitoHtation flan Rt^utnatena

  EPA's 1982 ndes geve states a total of
22 months to revise  their rules and to
establish source emission limitation
based on new steck height credits. The
court found this. too. to go beyond the
language of the statute. In response.
EPA stated ia the propose! that States
would be required, pursuant to section
406(d)(2)(b) of the Clean Air Act. to
review their rde* end existing emission
limitations, reviaing them aa needed to
comply with the new regBiabM within 9
month* of tha date of its

-------
27896       Federal Register / Vol. 50. No.  130 / Monday. July 8. 1985 / Rules and Regulations
Response to Public Comments on the
Novembers. 1984. Proposal
  The EPA received over 400 comment!
during the public comment period and at
the public hearing, addressing a number
of aspects of the proposed
regulation.These comments have been
consolidated according to the issues
raised and are discussed, along with
EPA's responses, in a 'Response to
Comments" document included in the
rulemaking docket Certain comments
can be characterized as "major" in that
they address issues that are
fundamental to the development of the
final regulation. These comments are
summarized below, along with EPA's
responses. Additional discussion of the
issues raised and further responses by
EPA can be found in the "Response to
Comments" document

I. Maximum Control of Emissions in Lieu
of Dispersion
  A central legal and policy question
addressed in this rulemaking was raised
in the comments of the Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and
the Sierra Club. They contend that
section 123 requires all sources to install
the maximum feasible control
technology before receiving any credit
for the dispersive effects of a stack of
any height or for other practices that
may enhance pollutant dispersion.
  The NRDC argument is summarized
fully in the Response to Comments
document together with EPA's response.
Very briefly, NRDC contends that
litigation prior to the 1977 Clean Air Act
Amendments had established that
dispersion can never be used as an
alternative to emission control and that
this understanding waa carried forward
and strengthened in the 1977 Clean Air
Act Amendments. Accordingly, no rule
that does not require full control of
emissions as a prerequisite to any stack
height credit would be consistent with.
Congressional intent
  EPA disagrees. During the I yean
between 1977 and NRDCa comments, a
period covering two Administrations
and three Administrator*. NRDCs
position has never been either adopted
by EPA or seriously advocated before it
The pre-1977 cases cited by NRDC-do
not bar all stack credit but only credit
for stacks beyond the historical norm.
Finally, the text and legislative history
of section 123 contain essentially no
support for NRDCs "control first"
position.
II. Discussion of Other Major Issues
  The EPA • position oa the "control
first" comments provides the necessary
background against which the remaimng
major issues in this rulemaking are
discussed. These issues are: the
definition of "excessive concentrations"
due to downwash. wakes, and eddies:
the definition of "nearby:" and the
definition of "dispersion technique." A
question that affects several of these
decisions, and that is addressed where
it arises, concerns the extent to which
any changes made in the stack heights
regulations should be applied
prospectively rather than retroactively.
  This discussion of "excessive
concentrations" is in turn divided into a
discussion of the physical characteristics
of downwash. followed by a discussion
of the significance of those
characteristics as they pertain to the
CEP formulae, to stacks above formula
height to stacks being raised to formula
height and to stacks at formula height
being modeled at the choice of the
administering authorities.
Definition of "Excessive
Concentrations"
  The Physical Nature of Downwash. A
number  of commenten. including the
Utility Air Regulatory Croup (UARC).
have argued that the court decision doee
not obligate EPA to revise the definition
sdopted in the 1982 regulation, but only
directs EPA to ensure that the 40-
percent criterion protects again*
concentrations due to downwash that
could be related to health and welfare
concerns. They point oat that when
emissions from a source become  trapped
in the wake region produced by the
source itself or upwind structures aad
terrain features, those MP^f'Tft  are
brought  rapidly to earth, with little
dilution. This, the comoentars argue.
can produce short-term peak
concentrations at groundlevoi that are
many times greater that the
concentration levels of the NAAQS.
Because their duration is relatively
short averaging these concentrations
over the times specified by the NAAQS
does not result in NAAQS violations.
Nonetheless, the- commenten argue that
these concentrations should be regarded
as nuisances that section 123 was
specifically enacted to avoid.
Accordingly, the commenten held that
EPA would be justified in retaining the
40-percent criterion without requiring
that such increases result in
exceedancas of the NAAQS
  These same commenten argued that
seven hardships would result if  EPA's
second proposed definition of
"excessive concentrations" is adopted.
and that by limiting stack height credit
to that just necessary to avoid
exceedance of NAAQS or PSD
increments, the definition  would act to
limit sctual stack design and
construction in a way that would
increase the likelihood of NAAQS or
PSD exceedances. This would occur.
they argue, because, by building only so
tall a stack as they can receive credit
for. sources would be eliminating a
"margin of safety" that would normally
be provided otherwise. Furthermore, it
was argued that due to the changing
nature of background air quality.
inclusion of absolute concentrations
such as the NAAQS or PSD increments
in the definition would render
determinations of CEP stack height
constantly subject to change.
  NRDC argued on the other hand that
only a violation of air quality standards
can be considered the type of
"excessive concentration" for which
downwash credit can be justified, the
EPA had failed to specify the health or
welfare significance of the short-term
peaks- that it might consider as meeting
this description, and mat in any event
UARG's attempt to show that short
stacks could cause a large number of
short-term peaks was technically flawed
in several different ways.
  Response. Extensive discussion of the
downwash phenomenon, as well as the
aerodynamic effects of buildings and
terrain features on windfiow patterns
and turbulence, is contained in the
technical and guidance documents
previously listed in this notice. To
summarize briefly, numerous studies
have shown that the region of
turbulence created by obstacles to
windflow extends to a height of
approximately 2J times the height of the
obstacle. Pollutants emitted into this
region can be rapidly brought to the
ground, with limited dilution. Though
this tendency decreases the higher
vertically within the downwash region
that die plume la released, because of
the highly unpredictable nature of
downwaah and the lack of extensive
quantitative data, it is extremely
difficult to reliably predict plume
behavior within the downwash region.
As noted in the comments submitted.
the distinguishing features of downwash
do not show up well over an averaging
time aa long aa 1 hour or more. Pollutant
concentrations resulting from
downwash can arise and subside very
quickly aa meteorological conditions.
including wind speed and atmospheric
stability vary. This can result in »hon-
tenn peaks, lasting up to 2 minutes or so.
recurring intermittently for up to several
hours, that significantly exceed the
concentrations of the 3- and 24-hour
NAAQS. Little quantitative information
is available on the actual leveis of these
peaks, or on the frequency of taeu*
occurrence since mast itacks have been

-------
              Federal Register  /  Vol. 50.  No. 130  /  Monday. July 8. 1985 /  Rules and Regulations
designed to. a void downwash and
because downwash monitoring is not
typically conducted.
  A number of modeling and monitoring
studies in the record assess the
significance of downwash when plumes
are released into the downwash region.
The most important of these are a
number of studies c:ted in the .Vovember
9 proposal showing that for sources with
sulfur dioxide (SOt) emission rate* of 4
to 3 rounds per million British Thermal
Units (Ib./mmBTU). stacks releasing the
plume into the downwash region can
significantly exceed the 0-hour NAAQS.
  The utility industry submitted
monitoring results from four sites
showing  that facilities with short stacka
(ranging from 23 to tt percent of formula
height) generated many short-term
peaks in  the vicinity of the plant at
concentrations at least 2 times the
highest concentration of the 3-hour SOt
standard. i.a~ l ppm for up to 10
minutes.  Those concentrations are the-
maximun that could be recorded by the
monitors used There is no way to
determine from these data the true peak
ground-level concentrations.
  The NRDG la commenting on this
subject has argued that downwash- •  •
related concentrations are largely
theoretical, since stacka have generally
been built to avoid downwash. and that
actual concentrations occur under other
meteorological conditions such as
"inversion breakup fumigations" and
"looping plums." that can equal these
"theoretical" concentrations predicted
under downwash.' The NRDC also
criticized the utility data on numerous
technical grounds.
  EPA's studies indicate that, when
stacks are significantly leas than CEP
formula height high short-term
concentrations can indeed occur dm to
downwash that are in the range of the
values reported by the utility industry.
Concentrations produced by me other
conditions cited by NRDC though high.
may be lower by an order of magnitude.
and occur less frequently by as much as
two orders of magnitude, than those
produced by downwash.' As stack.'
  ' In mvtnion braaAup fumiaauon.' *• UIVOTM
liytr diiaipatti due 10 hMunc of tftf ground. lamas
the aoiiuiaruj that wtra trappad in it dncaod
luddtflly to ireund Itvtl. In "looping plumaa.* •
p.'umt ii brought down to tna> trouod cloo to th»
lourci in lha form of iniafnmtaw p*Jh under wry
unitablt atmoapnarie eondtMM.
  1 Commtnti on Ptak Cround-Lcvtl
Concentration* Out to Buildinf Downwaab ftalauva
10 Pejk Conotnmnoni Undar Atmoaphane
D icenion Proctia**." Alan K Hubcr and Prancii
»oo!«r.  fr JUM 10.1M.
height approaches the height determined
by the CEP formula, the expected
frequency and severity of short-term
peaks due to downwash becomes iasa
certain. This is to be expected, since it is
the purpose of a formula height stack to
avoid excessive downwaah. While it
might theoretically be possible for EPA
to revise the CEP formula downward
(e.g.. from H+UL to H+14EL or some
other value), such a revision would have
little purpose. By moving the release
point further into the downwash region.
such a change would increase the
probability of high downwash-caused
peaks. On the other hand such
relatively small changes in stack height
are not likely to appreciably affect the
emission limitation for the sourest Tola
is because emission limitations are
calculated based on physical stack
height and associsted plume rise under
atmospheric conditions )udg*d moat
contrr sg for the source. Increasing or
decre*i ..-if stack height by a email
fraction will not greatly change the rate
or extant of dispersion and thus will net
affect the ground-level concentration.
Moreover, ae EPA noted in its
November 9 proposal no data presently
exist on which to base a revision to the
formula.
  The NRDC submitted data to EPA
which it believed to support the
conclusions  that it urged EPA to adopt
concerning short-term peak
concentrations under other
meterological conditions.'However.
these data were not presented In e font
that could be nadir/ interpreted and
EPA has thus fa/ been anabJa to draw
any conclusions from then.'
  In reviewing NRDC* comments on
building downwaaa, EPA agrees that
there is grant uncertainty about our
present understanding of this
phenomenon, and this is supported by
the rang* and variation of downwash
effects observed in recent stadias.
However, no information has beta
presented which would convince EPA to
abandon the present CEP formulae m
favor of any alternative.
  The health and welfare significance of
downwaah concentrations that result in
violations of the ambient standards are
documented and acknowledged in the
standards themselves. The significance
of short-term peaks at the levels that
EPA's analyses predict is more
judgmental.  However, a number of
studies cited in EPA's "Review of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
 for Suiftir Oxides: Assessment of
 Scientific and Technical Information
 (EPA-WO/3-42-007. November 1967).
 indicate that concentrations of one ppm
 sustained for durations of 5 minutes or
 more can produce bronchoconstriction
 in asthmatics accompanied by
 symptoms such as wheering snd
 coughing. Such concentrations are well
 within the range of concentrations that
 can result from downwash. When
 sources matt the ambient standards, the
 frequency of occurrence for these
 concentrations under the other
 conditions cited by NRDC Is
 substantially lower than for downwash
 whan stacks are kss than CEP.
   CEP Formula Stack Hmight, Some
 commaotan, '"•'v^i-'g NRDC stated
 that EPA cannot justify retention of the
 traditional (Z5H) and refined (H+1.5L)
 CEP formulae based simply on their
 relaoonahip-to the 40-percent criterion.
 and argued that the formulae provide
 too much credit in many or moat cases.
 This, they argue, results in allowing
 sources to obtain unjustifiably lament
 tfniteifjB limitations.
   Other coauneoters argued that
 rnngraas explicitly reaffirmed the
 traditional CEP formula, and that EPA
 should allow maximum reliance on it
 (and by implication, on the refined
 foranda that was subsequently denvted
 from it).
   Asseons*. The use of EPA's refined
 formula as a starting point for
 determining CEP was not called Into
 question by any litigant m the Sittra
jCJub case. The court1 s opinion likewise
 does not question toe use of the formula
 as a starting point A detailed discussion
 of the court's treatment of the formula.
 showing how it endorsed the formula's
 presumptive validity, is contained in the
 Response to Comments document.
   Despite this limited endorsement EPA
 might need to revisit the formula on its
 own if its nmamtnarton of the
 "excessive concentration" and modeling
 issues indicated that me formula cieariy
 and typically misstated the degree of
 stack height needed to avoid downwash
 concentrations that causa sjMtiia or
 welfare i
  'Mtmofandum from Oavtd G. Hawkma. NRDC to
William F Ptdanan. jr. Offlca of Gtntnl Counaot
L'SEPA, Mar »• 1MB.
  •Vtemonn4um from Aim H Hubar. ASM. M
David Slontfieifl. OAQP1 !
   However, no such result baa emerged
 froaa oar reexaminatioa. Stacka below
 formula height are associated with
 downwaah-relatad violations of the air
 quality standards themselves where
 emission rates significantly exceed the
 levels specified by NSPS. Even where
 emissions are low. downwash
 conditions at stacks below formula
 height can be expected unlike other
 conditions, to ewerste numerous short-
 term peeks of air pollution et high leve/»

-------
27896
Federal  Register / Vol. 50. No.  130 / Monday. July a.  1985 /  Rules and Reaulations
that raiM a real prospect of local health
or welfare impacts.
  As EPA stated in the proposal, it is
impossible to rely primarily on fluid
modeling to implement the stack height
regulations, particularly under the
timetable established by the court. 49 FR
44883 (November 9.1964). No
conunenter other than NRDC even
suggested a different formula that in
their eyes would be better, and NRDCs
suggestions were premised on their
"control first" position, which EPA has
found inconsistent with the statute and
has rejected. EPA considers the refined
formula to be toe state-of-the-art for
determining necessary stack height
  Given the degree of presumptive
validity the formula already poaaesaea
under the statute aad the court opinion.
we believe that this record amply
supports its reaffirmation.
  Stadu Abovm CEP Formula Height.
The EPA's 1978 stack height guidelines
[cite] impoeed special conditions on
stacks above formula height—the
installation of control technology—that
were ne>t imposed on lower stacks.
Similarly.  EPA's 1973 proposal had
made credit above formula height
•object to a vaguely defined "detailed
investigation" (38 FR 25700). The
legislative history of the 1077 dean Air
Act Amendments cautioned that credit
for stacks above formula height should
be granted only in rare cases, and the
Court of Appeals adopted this as one of
the keystones of its opinion. The court
also condaded that Congress
deliberately adopted very strict
requirements for sources locating in
hilly terrain.
  For these reasons,  EPA la requiring
sources seeking credit for stacks above
formula height and credit for any stack
height justified by terrain effects to
show by field studies or fluid modeling
that this height is needed to avoid a 40-
percent increase in concentrations due
to downwash and that such an increase
would result in exceedanee of air	
quality standards or applicable PSD
increments. This will restrict stack
height credit in this context to cases
where the downwash avoided is at
levels specified by regulation or by ect
of Congress as possessing health or
welfare significance.
  To conduct a demonstration to show
that an absolute air quality      ___
concentration such as NAAQS or PSD
increment will be exceeded, it Is
necessary to specify an emission rate for
the source in question.' The EPA
                          believes that in cases where greater
                          than formula height may be needed to
                          prevent excessive concentrations.
                          sources should first attempt to eliminate
                          such concentrations by reducing their
                          emissions. For this reason EPA is
                          requiring that the emission rate to be
                          met by a source seeking to conduct a
                          demonstration to justify stack height
                          credit above the formula be equivalent
                          to the emission rate prescribed by NSPS
                          applicable to the industrial source
                          category. In doing this. EPA is making
                          the presumption that this limit can  be
                          met by all sources seeking to justify
                          stack heights above formula height
                          Sources may rebut this presumption.
                          establishing an alternative emission
                          limitation, on a case-by-case basis, by
                          demonstrating to the reviewing
                          authority that the NSPS emission
                          limitation may sot feasibly be met given
                          the characteristics of the particular
                          source.'For example, it may be possible
                          for s source presently emitting SO» at a
                          rate of 1.8 Ib./mmBTU to show that
                          meeting the NSPS rate of 1.2 Jb./mmBTU
                          would be prohibitive in that it would
                          require scrapping existing scrubber
                          equipment for the purpose of '"«»fi['"g
                          higher efficiency scrubbers. Similarly, a
                          source may be able to show that due to
                          space constraints and plant
                          configuration, it is not possible? to install
                          the necessary equipment to meet the
                          NSPS •mission rate. In the event that a
                          source believes that downwasar will
                          continue to result in excessive
                          concentrations when the i
                          emission rate ia consistent with NSPS
                          requirements, additional stack height
                          credit may be justified through fluid
                          modeling at that emission rat*.
                            A source, of course, always remains
                          free to accept the •""frfrH* rate that ia
                          associated with a formula height stack
                          rather than relying on a demonstration
                          under the conditions described ban.
                          The third alternative mentioned in the
                          proposal" using the actual emission
                          limit for the source  has been rejected
                          because, to the extent that limit relied
                          on greater than formula height it would
                          amount to using a tall stack to justify
                          itself.
                            The EPA's reliance on exceedancas.
                          rather than violations of the NAAQS
                          and PSD increments, is deliberate. Fluid
                          modeling demonstrations are extremely
                          complicated to design and cany out
                          even when the most simple
                          demonstration criteria—that is, a
                          percentage increase in concentrations.
  • la CMWMC if tk* IMI at -
 concfmnoaM"  la»oK»a « «••!•
 ina-MM. ib«r« «auk) b« ma •*•* to
 fffllMIPB r*tl. tOlOt tlM IICTMM IB OOBCnntM*
                          OHM* by dovnwuk i» indcpadMt of mtaiM*
                          mm.
                            •Th* EPA will raly on It. Bni Avcibbto ftmoflt
                          TKfcaoMfjr GiudcHM IB rvruwiaf 4ay rabMUl*
                          tnd •Ittnuovt (OUMIOO UaiwnoiM.
with no consideration of absolute
values—are assumed. Adding
consideration of an absolute
concentration such ss a NAAQS or PSD
increment substantially complicates this
effort further and introduces the
scientific uncertainties associsted with
predicting an exceedanee of a 3-hour or
24-hour standard based on 1 hour or less
of modeling data. Using an hour or less
of modeling values, based on one set of
meteorological data, to draw the
distinction between only one
exceedanee of the standard during  the
8760 hours in a year, and the two or
more that constitute s violation pushes
that uncertainty beyond reasonable
limits. EPA therefore does not find the
additional difficulties that would be
created by requiring violations instead
of exceedances to be  warranted. That is
particularly so here, given that the
regulations require sources seeking
credit above the formula to be well-
controlled as a condition of obtaining
such credit
  Use of an absolute concentration in
the test of "excessive concentrations"
can lead to problems  of administering
the program, in that it can have a
"zoning" effect Since a source can only
get stack height credit to the extent that
it is needed to avoid a PSD Increment or
NAAQS exceedanee. an emissions
increase in the area of that source may
increase concentrations beyond the
controlling limit thereby making it
difficult for new sources to locate in the
area, or for sequential construction of
additional emitting units at the source in
question.
  This effect cannot be avoided under
any test for "excessive concentrations"
that ia tied to absolute concentrations.
However; that effect will be mitigated
by the fact that the use of this approach
is voluntary and limited to sources
wishing to rely on fluid modeling to
justify stack height credit Moreover, the
effects of downwash  tend to occur  very
near the source, usually on fenced  .
company property. Since concentrations
measured at such locations are not used
to evaluate NAAQS attainment or PSD
increment consumption, new sources
wishing to locate in the area are less
likely to be affected
  Sources planning sequential
construction of new emitting units  at
one location or contemplating future
expansion can reduce the uncertainties
noted above by initially obtaining
permits for the total number of units
anticipated and by planning for
expansion in the calculation of
necessary physical stack height. In the
latter instance, only the aflowable stack
height credit would be revised as

-------
             Federal Register / Vol.  50. No. 130 /  Monday. July g.  1985 / Rules and  Regulations
                                                                     27899
expansion is carried out—not actual
stack height
  An additional theoretical
complication is presented when an
absolute concentration is wed where
meteorological conditions other than
downwash result in the highest
predicted ground-level concentrations in
the ambient air. In such cases, a source
that has established CEP at a particular
height, assuming a given emission rate.
may predict a NAAQS violation at that
stack height and emission rate under
some other condition, e.g.. atmospheric
stability Class 'A.' Reducing the
emission rate to eliminate the predicted
violation would result in stack height
credit greater than absolutely necessary
to avoid an excessive concentration
under downwash. However, reducing
stack height places the source back in
jeopardy of a NAAQS violation under
the other meteorological condition, and
so on. "ratcheting" stack height credit
and emission rates lower and lower. The
EPA has eliminated this "ratcheting"
potential in the CEP guideline by
providing that once CEP is established
for a source, adjusting the emission rate
to avoid a violation under other
conditions does not require
recalculation of a new CEP stack height
  EPA is making this part of the
regulations retroactive to December 31.
1970. In the terms of the court's
retroactivity analysis, stack* greater
than formula height represent a situation
that Congress did affirmatively "intend
to alter" in section 123. Moreover. EPA
regulatory pronouncements since 1970
have placed a stricter burden on sources
raising stacks above formula height than
on others.
  N.o source is precluded from building
a stack height greater than formula
height if such height is believed to be
needed to avoid excessive downwash.
However, the design and purpose of
section 123 prohibit SIP credit for that
effort unless a relatively rigorous
showing can be made.
  Given the ability of sources to avoid
modeling and rely on validity of the CEP
formulae and requirement for further
control of emissions in conjunction with
stack heights in excess of formulae
height, the result predicted by UARG—
exceedances of the NAAQS or PSD
increments due to inadequate stack
height—is highly unlikely.
  Tht potential effect of changes in
background air quality on stack height
credit is not substantially different from
the effect that such changes in
background can have on source
emission limitations in nonattainment
areas. In the first case, however, sources
may be able to address these effects
through greater stack height if such
changes affect the concentrations under
downwash. Moreover, the possibility
that shifting background air quality can
yield different calculation* of CEP is
significantly limited by the fact that
consideration of background in CEP  '
calculation* is restricted to those cases
where credit for greater than formula
height is being sought or source* are
seening to raise stacks to avoid
excessive concentration*.
  Raising Stada Btlow Formula Height
to Formula Htight. In response to EPA'*
proposal to allow automatic credit for
CEP formula height several commenters
have argued that EPA has failed  to
adequately respond to the court's
directive to "reconsider whether, in light
of ita new understanding of 'exeeeaive
concentrations,' demonstration* are
necessary before stack height* may be
raised even if the final height will not
exceed formula height"
  Attporut. F using a stack below
formula heigi to formula height is not
in EPA's judgment subject to the same
statutory reservations as building stack*
greater than formula height However.
as the court has cautioned it may still
be necessary for these sources to show
that raising stacks i* necessary to avoid
"excessive concentration*" that raiee
health or. welfare concern*.
  For these reasons, source* wishing to
raise stack* subsequent to October 11.
1963. the date of the D.C Circuit
opinion. mu*t provide evidence that
additional height ie necessary to avoid
downwa*h-reiated concentration*
railing health and welfare concern*.
Theee rule* allow sources to do thi* in
twoweys.
  The first wey I* to rebut the
presumption that the short stack was
built high enough to avoid dswnwaah
problem*: La. to show, by eite-epedflc
information such a* monitoring data or
dozen complaint*, that the short stack
had in fact caused a local nuisance and
muet be rai*ed for thi* reason. The EPA
believe* that both the historical
experience of the industry and the data
on short-term peak* discussed earlier
show that short stacks can cause local
nuisances due to downwash. However,
where e source has built a short  stack
rather than one at formula height it ha*
created a presumption that thi* i* not
the cave. General data on saorMera
peak* may not be strong enough to
support by themselves and in the
abstract a conclusion that  the stack
must be raised to-a void local adverse
effect*. Instead that proposition must be
demonstrated for each particular source
involved            .
  In the event that a source cannot
make such a showing, the second way to
justify raising a stack is to demonstrate
by fluid modeling or field study an
increase in concentrations due to
downwash that i* at least 40-percent in
excess of concentration* in the absence
of such downwesh and in exec** of the
applicable NAAQS or PSD increments.
In making thi* demonstration, the
emission rate in existence before the
•tack i* raited muet be used
  Since raising stacks to formula height
i* not cubject to the same extraordinary
reservations expnceed by Congress and
the court with respect to stacks being
rai*ed above formula height EPA does
not believe that the use of presumptive
"well-controlled" emission rate is
appropriate here. A* discussed in EPA's
response to NRDC* "control first"
argument the basic purpose of section
123 we* to take sources a* it found them
and based on those circumstances, to
aaaure that they did not avoid control
requirements through additional
dispersion. Use of a source's actual
emission rate in thi* butane* i*
con*i*tent with that basic purpose and
absent special indications of a different
intent should be used in stack height
  The EPA believe* that it is meet
unlikely that any source with a current
emission limitation ha* failed to claim
full formula credit for a stack of formula
height Accordingly, the question
whether a source can receive suck
height credit up to formula height will
involve only source* that want to
actually raise their physical stack not
sources that simply want to claim more
credit for a stack already in existence. A
source will presumably not go to the
trouble of railing an existing stack
without some reason. If a source cannot
•how that the reason was in fact the
desire to evoid a problem caused by
downwash. then the inference that it
we* inateed a desire for more dispersion
credit i* hard to evoid A nui*ance
caused by downwashed emissions could
include dtixen or employee complaints
or property damage. A source would be
expected to show that complaints of this
nature wen reasonably widespread
before getting credit under this section.
  The EPA doe* not intend to make this
rule retroactive to stacks that
"commenced con*tructioei  on
modification* that would raise them to
formula height prior to October It 1983.
Applying  the court's retroactivity
analysis, it appears:
  1. The new rule does depart from prior
practice. The EPA1* 1973 proposed rule
affirmatively encouraged sources with
shorter stack* to raise them to formula

-------
27900        Federal Regiatar /  Vol. 50. No. 130  /  Monday.  )uly 8. 1965 / Rules  and Regulations
height. 'Though EPA'i 1976 guideline
can be read aa imposing a "control Erst"
requirement oa some stack height
increase!, its general thrust gave
automatic credit for all stacks that met
the "2.5" times formula.' Automatic
permission was similarly set forth in the
1979 proposal, in the 1961 reproposal.
and in the 1982 final rule. Only a notice
published in 1980. but later withdrawn.
departs from this trend, requiring the use
of Raid studiea or fluid modeling
deaonamnooa to justify stack height
increases up to CEP formula height*
Even then, the notice would have made
thia policy prospective in its application.
  2. Sources that raiacd stack* in
reliance on thia paat EPA guidance
assuming the availability of dispersion
credit cannot be rtisfinsiiishfl from the
source*, in the example approved by the
court that built atacka to the traditional
formula in aa identical expectation of
dispersion credit
  3. It cannot be said that the raising of
stacks to formula height ia a practice
that Congreca "affirmatively sought to
end" It ia not mentioned in the text of
the statute or ita legislative history.
Further, aa the court has already noted,
the statute attributes a degree of
presumptive validity to the formula on
which sources that raise their atacka
will have relied.
  Ditentiaii to flecum FhMMbdffinj.
Several commenten argued that EPA'a
proposal to allow ageaciee to require the
use of fluid •»~*»H»»J waa unnecessary.
since EPA had1 alnsurjr documented tha
validity of the GEP foramina.
Furthermore, these coaaaenten argot
that thia allowance would nuke find
modeling tha rale, rather than tha
exception. Thia would raeuiV tha
commanters state, because it waa their
expectation that agendas or
environmental groups would nearly
always call for fluid >*~<«ll"f
demonstrations during tha permit
application and review procaaa.
  Other commentera stated that
providing the discretion to require fluid
modeling was appropriate. since EPA
had failed to demonstrate that the GEP
formulae represented tha
 height necessary to avoid excessive
 concentrations.
  Rotpontf. The Court of Appeals -
 directed EPA to reexamiae whether ita
 rules should allow States, aa a matter of
 discretion, to require even sources that
  ' "Th» UM of MM* hMftn «p • *• (•*•! of food
 enginwnni pnctte* n cncaumpfd by OA • i
 to *vo>dlocalBUMOCM.' (Mf*isnat
  '41 m 7481 (Ftbnury IS, ISTSk "mrlrHr-
 Scetton B.I. Clftt CJIZJ.
  • U r* 42P9 nu* M. ISSOfc tftetKe tUmmo* W
 nick taa*t o«* t* Miraonia *i *a«-».
planned to rely on tha formula to show
instead by fluid modeling that a stack
this high was required to avoid dangers
to health and welfare caused by
downwash. Tha court suggested that
EPA should include such a provision
unless it could find that the formula was
so accurate, or tended so much to err on
the low side, as to make discretionary
authority to adjust formula height
downward unnecessary.
  The EPA believes that the court was
mistaken in its conclusion that a stack
at formula height ia likely to generate
downwash concentrations as greet as 40
percent only ia uncommon situations. In
fact EPA'a observations indicate that
whan stacks are built to CEP formula
height aa increase in concentrations
due to downwash can still be expected
to occur that ia between 20 and 80
percent greater than the concentration
that would occur in tha absence of
building influences. '•
  Nevertheless, ia response to the
court's remand EPA is including in this
final rule a provision for the authority
•dminiatariag these rules to require field
studies or fluid modeling
demonstrations, even for stacks built to
formula height ia cases where it
believes that the  formula may
significantly overstate the appropriate
stack height credit.11
  While SPA believes the formula to a
reasonable rule of thumb indicating the
•tack height aeeded to avead soame
probability of a standarda violation and
a signincandy greater probability of a

given ease-may vary eaaanhnl based .
on specific circumstances. The EPA has
attempted to aunianxe this possibility
within the hmita of eveslabae data by
identifying two particular atraaooa* ia
which it believes mat the fonaaiae aaay
notberahabia mdtaetora of Ga» Poraea

                           rmaa'oo
which me roraaJae are besed"
tote
 '"Qwti
SUMS an* MtSMit* M
 whwioBiMrt to rauadtrt mount aliowWitoM*
 for ecrwla upmd luvaunt «od cooUaa t
 "GuuMfc» tar DMMMflM of Go* f
 fimaOtf Stock rMsfet.- Wr 1SSS •» JS-a* SOT ft*
     . B?A •Ul snmlbaMr «r mm far •*
 itruenim IMI «r«r« aruud prior M NovcBftar-e,
 1M4. Siaot EPA fiudiuwe h«* MMT IUNM4 oradll
 for poroui tnenm. di* rn«eam In thl* rate tar
 »udi uraatnm «o»*
            31.1STEL
 However. EPA acknowledges thai other
 situations, of which the Agency is not
 presently aware, may arise wherein the
 formulae may not be adequate.
  The EPA intends to "grandfather" any
 source that relied on the formula in
 building its stack before tha date of
 EPA's 1079 proposal from the effect of
 this discretionary ^examination
 requirement
  Only in that proposal did EPA first
 suggest that such a discretionary
 reexamination provision might be
 included in the final rule. The
 retroactivity analysis set out earlier
 therefore supports exempting stacks
 built in reliance on EPA guidance  before
 that data, from discretionary
 reexamination. Indeed a failuca to
 "grandfather" these sources would lead
 to tha paradoxical result that a source
 that had built a GEP stack under the
 traditional EPA formula would have its
 direct reliance intmets protected by the
 "grandfather" provision previously
 upheld by tha court but could then lose
 that "graadfathered" credit through a
 caaa specific daaaonstration requirement
 showing that tha traditional formaia waa
 somewhat inaccurate— the very mason
 baattad tha change ia the formula
 pioperiy faend nonretroactive by EPA
 earner.
. Given this background EPA believes
 that tae effect oa emissions of including
 or oe eHBrBPfnsj a provision for
 diacraniDoary determinations from tnis
 rale ia likarjr to be vary small Building
 stacks ebore formula height and  raising
 stacks below formaia height to formula
 height, are covered by regulatory
 provisions already discussed. The only
 caaa left for flii^pTfT'^r^
 determmations to address la the building
 of stacks at formula height In the post-
 197* period However, ail major sources
 built since that time are  already
 controled to SOa emission rates no
 greater than L2 IbVamBTU— and act
                             varioue
 EPA regulations. Afl new power plants
 on which construction "commenced"
 since 1971 must meat EPA's NSPS
 mandating an miisiHrn rate no greater
 than thia level That standard was
 tightened for afl power plants on which
 construction "conaDanced" after 1979. la-
 addition. all "ma^or" sources built smce
 1977 ia,araaa subject to the Act's PSO
 reqainanaata have had to install best
 available control technology. That
 technology atuet require the greatest
 degree of emission control that ia
 achievable coaatdeang technology.
 econonucs, end energy impacts."

-------
             Federal Register /  Vol. 50.  No. 130  /  Monday. July a 1983 /  Rules and Regulations        27901
  If such sources had to show that use
of a formula height stack was needed to
avoid exceedances of the NAAQS or
PSD increments, that might prove
difficult for many of them. The
likelihood of such exceedances tends to
decrease as the emission rate for the
source decreases. By the same token.
the incremental emission reductions
available from the sources that are at
issue here tend to be small and among
the most expensive available.  In terms
of emission reductions, little is at stake
where these sources are concerned.
  Accordingly, the rules will require
such sources, if a reviewing authority
calls for a demonstration, to the rules
show  that the use of a formula stack
height ia needed to avoid a 40-percent
increase in concentration* due to
downwash. This will provide a rough
check on whether the formula, a*
applied in the particular case at isiue.
produces the result it was designed to
produce.
  The EPA ia not providing here for
sources to justify their formula height
stacks by arguing that the height in
excess of that needed to avoid NAAQS
violations ia needed to avoid a local
nuisance. The discretionary modeling
requirement ia designed for application
to stacks before they were built Beyond
that, there is no way to determine baaed
on the absence of a local nuisance that a
formula height stack ia not too tail in
the way that the pretence of a nuisance
shows that a stack under formula height
in fact ia too short Accordingly, there
will be no way. aa than waa with short
stacks being raised, to determine from
actual experience whether a local
nuisance would occur at a shorter stack
height Though avoiding local nuisance
is a legitimate purpose for which stacks
are built it would be very difficult to
show  by modeling what stack height
was needed to avoid it
  Some commenters have
misunderstood EPA s allowance of
discretion to require fluid modeling aa
requiring such modeling whenever any
individual or entity called foreuch e
demonstration. This discretion reels
explicitly with the reviewing agencies
who have always had the prerogative to
require more stringent analyses in thr
SIP process.-and no obligation is implied
for these agencies to require fluid
nadeiing simply because it has been
cabled for by some individual during the
permit review process. It is EPA's
expectation that technical decisions to
require such additional demonstrations
would be based on sound rationale and
vaiid data to show why the formulae
may not be adequate in a given
situation. In any case, given the burden
of reviewing a fluid modeling
demonstration, an agency ia not likely to
exercise this option abstnt sufficient
justification. Consequently. EPA
disagrees with the commenters'
contention that fluid modeling will
supplant the use of the CEP formulae.
except in what EPA believes will be
unusual instance*.
  Reliance on the 2.5H Formula. In
limiting the applicability of the 2.SH
formula to those cases where the
formula was actually relied upon,  the
November 9 proposal defined such
reliance in terms of stack design. A
number of comments indicated that
actual stack design and construction
may ultimately be control, not by the
Z-5H engineering rule, but by
construction materials specifications.
Consequently, while 2JH rule may have
provided an initial starting point in
stack design, the rule may not have
dictated final stack height In other
cases, it was argued that a number of
source owners may have constructed
their stacks in exceaa of what waa
determined to be minimum CEP for
precautionary reasons, for process
requirement*, or in anticipation of
additional growth in the art*
surrounding the facility, even though
emission limitations for these aourca*
would have been limited then, aa now.
to formula height Consequently. It waa
argued that EPA should allow source* to
demonstrate reliance on the formula in
the calculation of aaiaaion limita aa well
aa in tha daaiga of the stack.
  In reeponae to EPA'a requeet far
comment* on what evidence should be
conaidered acceptable in determining
reliance on the 2JH formula, some
commenters urged EPA to conaider
reconstructed evidence, e.g.. affldavita
from decign engineers or copiee of
cormpondeace indicating past reliance
on EPA guidance. Other conunraten
stated that "reliance" should be very
strictly construed, that EPA should be
circumspect in its review of reliance
demonstrations, and that only
contemporaneous documentary
evidence, such as blueprints and facility
design plan*, be accepted aa evidence.
  Rnponie.  The EPA is in general
agreement with the view that reliance
should be conaidered in relation to the
emission limitation for the source, not
the  design. Since section 123 specifically
prohibits EPA from regulating actual
stack heights and rather regulate* stack
height credit* used in setting emission
limitation*, it would be illogical to
require that sources demonstrate
reliance on the 2.5H formula for actual
stack design. Moreover, such an
approach would contradict principles of
 •ound planning, in that it would penah:
 thoae sources that have built taller
 stacks in anticipation of facility
 expansion or other growth in the area
 that could influence CEP
 determination*.
  If a stack ha* been built taller than
 2.5H formula provide*, while the
 emiaaion limitation ha* been calculated
 assuming 2.5H credit a convincing
 demonstration ha* been made that the
 source properly relied on the formula.
 Conversely, if the eniaaion limitation for
 the source is baaed on some other stack
height credit such as 2JH. 3.5H or some
other number, it would be difficult to
show that the CEP formula had in fact
been relied on.
  In some caaea the emiaeion limit
information may be unavailable or
inconclusive. In such caaea. EPA will
allow reliance on reconatructed
evidence of conatruction intent
  In comment* submitted during the
public comment period and in response
 to quMtion* raised by EPA at the public
hearing held on January 8. 1985, industry
 representative* repeatedly stated that
contemporaneou* evidence of reliance
on the 2JH formula, such a* facility
dealfn plan*, dated engineering
 calculation*, or dediion record* are
rarely, if ever, retained for more than a
few year* after conatruction of the
facility la completed. Coaaequently. they
argued that meet caaea of legitimate
reliance would be denied If
 coBtemporaneou* evidence were
required in order to retain for tha 2.5H
formula.
  The EPA agree*. Additionally, credit
afforded by the 2JH formula in excess
of that resulting from the uae of the
H+1.5L derivative i* likely to be small
 except when the building on which
 •tack height credit ia baaed i*
 substantially >•!!•> ^f it ia wide.
 Finally. It ia EPA'a view that the court
 did not intend that sources be subject to
 a rigorous or overly •tringent of reliance.
 but only mat they be accorded a
 reasonable opportunity to show reliance
 on the iSH formula. For these reasons.
 EPA will allow the submission of
 reconstructed. La, noncontemporaneous
 documentary evidence to demonstrate
 reliance on the 2JH formula.
  Definition of "Nearby". Comments
 were submitted by UAP.G and others.
 arguing that effectively, no limitation
 should be placed on the consideration of
 terrain-induced downwaah.
 Alternatively, some of the**
 commenters argued  that the court
 decision require* that a limitation be
 adopted that doe* not apply any
 distance restriction of H mile in
 modeling terrain effects such a* is

-------
27908        Federal Register /  Vol. SO. No. 130 /  Monday. July a. IMS / Rules  and Regulations
applied to itcuctum in tht UM of CEP
formulae, but rather allows
consideration of aH terrain that'results
in the Mm* downwath affact u tboac
structures within tt mila of the stack.
  Other commenters have argued that
the court decision and legislative history
preclude EPA from allowing
consideration of any terrain beyond a
distance of V* mile, regardless of where
it begins.
  Response. For the reasons
summarized below. EPA does not accept
either the interpretation that the court
decision authorizes EPA to adopt a
definition beeed solely on effect or that
it limits consideration exclusively to
terrain features falling entirety within H
mile.
  When Congreee dieeasaed the
allowance of credit for stack height to
addnsa dowawaah. it staled that the
term "nearby waa to be -strictly
construed.'' noting that If the tern
to bo amrpretad "to apply to ma.
strucrurea or ttrraitt ftetunt % to H
miia away front the sourcas or mote, the
result could be an opaa invitation to
raise stack heigfata to unreasonably high
elevation* and to defeat the basic
underlying committee infant" **
  In iU opnuc*. thejxwrt held that EPA
could not ghre aniimitad credit whan
modeling terrain faatnrae because that
would confliet with the Congraaaaoaai
intention to impose artificial limits OB
that credit Tho cowl waa not presented
with, and did not adriraaa. the oueeooa
of what to do aboat tamia featuree thai
••bsejea" witbsa * auie aad extended
outside it The approach adopted by
EPA carried out tbia rim grass keul
purpose to impose aa artificial limit bat
at the eame time reflects tha real facts
more doaeiy than aa abaoluta % arik*
limitation.
  Unlike man-made structures, turaia
feature* do not hava readily definable
Aimmnmiemp QthtT than height. FOT **^
reason. EPA has defined "nearby" aa
generally allowing •••"•fr'ftn of
consideration of terrain faaturea that faO
within a distance of Vs mila of the stack.
EPA's definition wiO psxaft
consideration of such tacrain that
extends beyond the H mile Omit if the
terrain begins within H mila. allowing
that portion within 10 time* the ,
maximum height of the feature, Hot to
exceed Z miles, as  described In tha
proposal
  To define when a terrain feature
"begins" within H mile, EPA has related
terrain height et the H mile distance to
the maximum stack height that could be
justified under the other two methods
for determining GEP. Accordingly. EPA
will require that terrain features reach a
height at tha Vfc mile 'ti«t or the
                                        combining of exhaust gases from i everai
                                        existing, stacks into one stack, with
                                        several classes of exclusions. These
                                        exclusions recognize the existence of
                                        independent justifications based on
                                               ring and/or economic factors.
                                            include?
                                          (1) Demonstration of original facility
                                        design aad construction with merged
                                        gas stream;
                                          (2] Demonstration that merging after
                                        July S, IMS ia part of a change in
                                        operation that includes the installation
                                        of pollution controia and results in i net
                                        reduction m allowable emissions of the
                                        pollutant for which credit is  sought cr

-------
              Fedejral Reggae-  I Vol. 50.  No. 130 / Monday. July a, 1988 / Rules end Relations
                                                                                                            27902
  (3) Demonstration that merging be/ore
July & 18*5 was part of • change ia
operation that included the installation
of control equipment or wat earned out
for sound economic or engineering
reasons. An allowable emissions
increase creates the .presumption that
the merging was not carried out for
sound economic or engineering
reasons."
Of these exclusions, the first is identical
to the proposal, and the second and
third are modifications of the second
exclusion included in the proposal with
a refinement based on prospective/
retroactive application.
  The first exclusion was retained for
the reasons stated in the proposal After
reviewing the comments submitted. EPA
determined thai its previous
conclusion—that standard practice in
designing and constructing facilities
routinely includes venting emissions
from several units into a common or
multiflued stack—4s correct Sound
engineering and economic reasons,
based on costs of constructing and
maintaining separate stacks, availability
of land, and cost savings for pollution
control equipment support facility
design and construction considerations.
Even if air pollution requirements did
not exist at all sources would have
incentives to use as few stacks aa
possible.
  Since iaenoting plume rise, rather
than plume rise itsait is a "dispersion
technique" and original design and
construction define the initial base, such
original design fn4 construction of
merged gas streams is not considered a
dispersion technique. Moreover, in
designing the facility, a source can
usually choose to build one larger unit
rather than several smaller units.
Therefore, prohibiting credit for original
design generally only effect the design
of units and not the phase rise.
  Objections have been raised to
applying this logic to sources which are
constructed over a period of tana, but
use a single stack. However, the same
factual arguments just listed would
apply is the same, if the original design
included provision for the additional
units in the plans for the facility, and in
the design and construction of die stack.
In such a case, the later units merged  .
into the stack would be included wtthta
the exclusion.
  In addition, it would be logically very
di,*Sculf to apply a rale denying emttf to
o.-Hnal design stacks. EPA or the State
    ld have to assume how many stacks
                       UaH txtmd for <
would have been built absent a desire
for dispersion credit where they would
have beta located and how high they
would have been. Since these
alternative stacks would be purely
hypothetical then would be no clear
way of answering these questions: the
answer would simply have to be
selected arbitrarily from the wide rang*
of possible answers. This problem is
absent when existing stacks have baa
combined.
  In contrast EPA finds rhsnsss from
the original deaJga of a facility ia order
to include merged stacks to require a
narrower judgment The EPA concluded
that where prospective application is
concerned, the exclusion should be
available only to aoareas that combtae
stacks reduces allowable emissions of
the pollutant for which the credit is
grantee* Tnere are obvious ecoaoauc
advantage* ia «"»^'"^g stacks to
reduce the number of emiaaina control
units that nun be purchased. Ia
addition.   * ***•*•*** n^g gf pfllhitiCTi
control for U» pollutant ia question
provides substantial assuraaos that thai
purpose of the combination ia not to
receive a more lenient emission ttatit
  However, given past EPA f^-ft oa
merging of stacks. EPA has i
that retroactive application of this tear
would not be proper. The EPA guidance
documents uniformly took the view that
merging of separate stacks into a single
stack "Is generally not considered a
dispersion technique" absent other
factors such aa excessive use of fans or
other devices. '* Each
provided guidance to a source of a
Regional Office regarding the proper
treatment of merged stacks ia
i*mimi»tfnm emission limitations. •
Considering these statements. EPA must
consider the standards expressed by (he
coot as previously discussed ia this
notice, m Judging the propriety of a
differing standard for retroactive .
application. Given the nature and
applications of the guidance which It
issued in the past EPA judges the first
two criterie—that is. whether the new
rule represents an abrupt departure from
well-established practice, and whether
the parties against whom the new rule ia
applied relied on the former rale— to be
satisfied to addition, applying the
prospective criteria to past practice
would require significant changes ia niel
and/or control equipment for parties
whose emission limits were baaed oa
previous guidance. Finally, and
particularly where sources have not
 been allowed to increase their previoa
 emissions as a result of the combining
 stacks. EPA don not judge the itstutor,
 interest to be overriding in this instance.
 since the role even in its retrospective
 version only exempts sources that can
 show a reasonable non-dispersion
 enhancement ground for combining
 stacks, and thereby implements the
 "latent" test suggested by the court. On
 the other hand EPA has never suggested
 that combined stacks that cannot meet
 such a te*t are proper. Sources whose
 actual emissions are increased, or
 whose emission limitations are relaxed
 ia connection with the combining of
 stacks create a strong presumption that
 the combination waa carried out in
order to avoid toe installation of
controls. Such combinations would
Indeed run counter to the statutory
purpoee. and raB'uspsctivs application
of s test that rbrbid* them is therefore
proper.
  Sxfmptfotu ftwn th» Definition of
Ditptnion Ttchmquu. The EPA
received numerous comments in
 response to its request for input on what
consideration. If any. should be given to
 excluding sources from the definition of
 "Dispenses) Techniques" whose
*"*f***"f are below a specified level or
 whew stacks an Jess than the dt
etadtnn height These commenters
 anjaad mat cuinbining gar stresms in
particular ofhm had aa economic
justification independent of its effects
oa dUpetsean. and Ibererbn should not
 be gaejanfly rororaden. Other comments
 staled filet m ooastderiag any such
 exduston. EPA should consider the
 effect oa Mai atmospheric loadings,
                (timitatios oa the
number of sources affected by the
definition at "dispersion techniques''
necessary tar EPA to carry out the stack
height program. There are currently
estimated la be over 2X000 sources of
SO* m toe United States win actual
emissions exceeding 100 tons per year. It
would aot be possible for EPA or States
to review the emission limits of even a
• igniflcant fraction of this number
within a reasonable time period
Twenty-fwo thousand of these sources
have emis*tons leu than 5.000 tons per
year and contribute a total of less than
13 percent of ta* total annual SO*
emissioa. "For (Bis reason, sad for
reasons of ednrinistrstive necessity
discussed earter. EPA is adopting sii
exemption from prohibitions on
manipulating plume rise for facilities
with allowable SO* emissions below
             Stm Pirrri Tj-lw TT
RoihMfft A««K m It
fartar Inm Itumttt Ote Omtar e. ISB
D««d StmwMd »*•••* H*M. ftatff.
                                                                                          i fro* Me CiMbvt, OAQW '•>
                                                                                          . •SBMfleiMi of SO, Po«t

-------
27904       Fadarai  Refistar / Vol. 50. No. 130 / Monday. July a. 1965 / Rules and  Regulation
5.000 toai par year. The EPA believe*
the affect of this exemption on total SO»
emiuioBi to be da minions in nature.
Even if these sourcej were able to
increase their emission rates as the
result of an exemption from the
definition of dispersion techniques, their
combined effect would not be
significant Indeed, because these
sources  are exempt on the basis of their
annual emissions, there exists an upper
limit to the extent to which they may
obtain relaxed emission limitations. i.e«
to maintain an,exemption. the annual
emissions of a source may never exceed
5.000 tone per year. For these reasons.
the 5.000 ton limit passes a r'f auiuaia
teat even more clearly  than _* M-meter
limit included without challenge in the
prior version of this rule. Monovar. EPA
believes that a large majority of these
sources  would not be inclined to seek
lesa stringent emission limitations. In
part because a substantial portion of
them an baited by State and local fuel
usemiea.
  The- EPA believes at this time that a
drmmimii size exemption is justified
only for source* of SO» and that the
number of ssneJl sources for which
ealseimi limitations for other pollutants
an a f^gntflnrrt concern would not
support  a similar exemption. The EPA
will mnrtmie to review the need for such
exssBpttona and. If deetaed appropriate.
will propose then for review and
consent at a tatar^data.
  Phuu ZmpoctroA The EPA received »
number of comments requesting that
credit for plume iapactioa ba retained
on ^i^ grounds that eUnifnathv each
credit would have seven impacts oat
existing source*. Several approachee
wen offend for overcoming plume;
impactton effects in modeling to
determine emission limitations based on
CEP stack height Generally, theee  ,
approaches focused on modifying the)
stack-terrain relationship represented to
the models. Several crnnmanters argued.
along theee Unas that the court
recognized and approweaYaf DtA's
attempt to avoid the eflptoaf phone
inspection, but only iflaajpyiiiisj of
EPA's regulatory nislhaa In sllnwliig
sources to avoid imr*"*4Tt Thee*
commenters argued that the court did
not preclude EPA from allowing credit
to avoid plume impactioa, bat esuf from
allowing credit for stack height la
excaae of CEP: this, it waa argued, could
be remedied in a way that waa
consistent with the court decision by
incorporating impaction avoidance)
within the definition of CEP. It wat*bo
snggeeted that EPA give its "Intent
approval" to the use of certain nfTienl'
complex terrain models, in particular the
Rough Terrain Display Model (RTDM).
to calculate emission limitations for
sources affected by changes to the stack
height regulation,
  Response The.EPA agrees that the
court wu cognizant of the problem of
plume impaction and noted that then
waa much to recommend EPA's
allowance of credit for impaction
avoidance. However, the allowance of
credit for plume impaction waa not
remanded to EPA for revision or
reconsideration, but was reversed by
the court as exceeding EPA's authority.
  The EPA does not agree that it would
be possible to redefine CEP in a manner
that allowed credit for evoiding
impaction. since CEP Is explicitly
denned in terms of preventing excessive
coflftrntr^^iy^ff doe to* uuwnwaen.
wakes, and eddies. Prom* impaction is a
phenomenon completely unrelated to
downwaah and, nther, la a consequence
of effluent gaaea being emitted at an
insufficient height to avoid their striking
downwind hillside* cliffs, or
mountainsides prior to dilution.
Manipulation or "adjustment" of
modeling parameters to avoid predicting
theontical plume impaction when
actual stadia have been constructed
above ^rKH would be tantamount to
granting the same impaction credit that
waa Invatidatad by the court
Furthermore. EPA believes that the
manipulation of modeling pareme tan
for no other naaon than to avoid ss
undertnblt result la tadnacafly

  The EPA is in the
iti "Guideline oa Air
A number of
the guideline have eaojMsted that EPA
approve the uae of ma ODM model aa a
Jifir
   of nvistas}
  .. kaw^l.l. «
of this laeuecaabe found IB documents
associated with EPA's action oo tfaa
modeling guideline (Dockat Kb. A-ao-
<•). With nspact to the revised stack
height ngnlatiocu EPA has not rejected
the use of RTDM, To the extent that
appropriate and complete data bases
and utfbaaation on modal accuracy an
available. EPA may approve the uae of
RTDM oa a. caae-by-caas baaia when
executed m accordance with the
guideline nquinaaaats.  Sponsors of
RTDM and presently developing Don
extensive support for broader
appUcatioaa of the modal When such
support la received and reviewed by
EPA. conaidantioo will be given to
allowing mere general use of RTDM in
regulatory activities such aa compliance
with the suck height rale.
  Tlaiftobh for Stoat tapbatatatioa.
A number of comaentan stated that it
was not possible to conduct the
 necessary analysea. prepare and submit
 revised State rules and source-ipecif c
 emission limitations within the 9-month
 timaframa referred to in the November 9
 proposal A variety of alternative
 schedule* wan proposed by these
 commenters for consideration by EPA
  Re$poM*. As with EPA's previous
allowance of credit for plume impaction.
the timetable for preparation and
lubmittal of revised SIFs was not an
issue remanded by the court The EPA is
in agreement that these revisions to the
stack height regulation will require
significant efforts by State and local
agencies, individual emission source
owners and EPA Regional and
Headquarters offices in order to comply
within the 9-monm timafraae required
by section «6(d)(2J of the 1977 Clean
Air Act Amendments. It waa based on
ft^jf concern that EPA originally
pro video* e two-step process for States
to follow aa revising their plans and
submitting them to EPA for approval
However, the court found that this effort
waa explicitly contrary to section
«M(dX2f and ordered EPA to follow the
9-month schedule provided in the Clean
Air Act
  Afar Stares* Tifd into Pn-lfTK
Stack*. As indicated earlier, in response
to die court opinion. EPA proposed to
deny "grandfathered" status to post'
1970 sources tying into pre-1971 stacks.
Some cnmreenters stated that EPA was
in no way prohibited from allowing
end*! far new sources ducted into pre-
1971 stacks exceeding CEP height
Rather, they indicated that EPA simply
had to provide justification for such
                                  i Indicated general
                support for EPA'a proposal with respect
                to new sourcee tying into grandfathered
                stacks, bat suggested that several

                provided, meet notably that in addition
                to new and ma for i
                T"^>ir^i?Mt*T'f sourcee not be allowed
                greater than CEP stack height oadit
                when tying into greater than CEP stacks.
                  Aasponea. la further review of this
                issue. EPA can Bad no convincing
                rationale to allow saurces constructed
                after December a, taTQ, to avoid CEP
 "grand*
              ply by dactiag their
               stack
                          into a stack that I*
                        thend" under section US. On
                the contrary, ta intent of section 123 to
                limit credit for stack height in excess of.
                CEP suggests that EPA should not allow
                credit for such stack height except to
                honor financial commitments made prior
                to the end of 1970. Sources in existence
                after that dale should be treated equally
                under the regulation and not allowed to
                avoid legitimate control requiremeeta

-------
              Federal  Repsur / VoL 50. No. 130 /  Monday, fuly a. 1965 / Ruiet  and Regulation*
                                                                                                              27905
through tht UM of "grandftthered" alack
heights.
  Sources undertaking major
modification, or reconstruction become
subject to additional control
requirements under the Clean Air Act
and are treated ai "new sources" for the
purpose of new source review aad PSD
requirements. EPA finds it appropriate
that CEP requirements should be
invoked at the tine that other
requirements for new. modified, or
reconstructed sources become
applicable.

Summary of Modifications to EPA 'i
Proposal Resulting from Public
Comment!

  Based on comments received during
the public comment period, EPA ha*
made a number of revisions to ita
proposed regulation in addition to thoae
discussed above. These revtstons an
summarized below.
  Stction SUfMXWBXii} of the
regulation has been clarified to require
sources merging gas streama after July a,
1983 to achieve a net reduction la
allowable emissions. This change was
made to make it dear that tat effects of
merging should not be need aa a way of
achieving compliance witft present
emission limits and to avoid penalizing,
sources who are presently emitting at
leu than allowable levels.
  Sect/off SUCMMXBXiii) allow*
credit for a source that merged gas
streams in a change of operation at the
facility prior to Jury 8.1988 that induced
the installation of control equipment or
hed other sound engineering or
economic reason* Any increase in the
emission limitation, or in the previous
actual emissions where no emission
limitation existed created a presumption
that those sound reason* were not
present
  Section 31.l(hh)(2)(E) has been added
to exclude from the definition of
prohibited "dispersion techniquea" the
use of techniques  affecting final exhaust
gas plume rise where the resulting total
allowable emissions of SO* front the
facility do not exceed 5.000 ton* per
year.
  Section 31.1(ii)(ll has been revised to
specify that the OS meter deminimis-'
height i« to be measured, as in other
determinations of CEP stack height
from '£e ground-level elevation at the
base s' the stack.  This does not
represent a substantive change in the
rule " in its  application relative to past
practices, but rather a simple
clarification.
  Section St.l(ii)(2) has been revised to
require that source owners demonstrate
that the 2.5H formula we* relied on in
establishing the emission limitation.
  Section 51.1(ii)(31 ha* been rtviaed aa
discussed elsewhere in this notice to
specify that aa emission rat* equivalent
to NSPS must be met before a source
may conduct fluid modeling to justify
stack height credit in excess of that
permitted by the CEP formulae.
  Section 51.1(jj) now define* "nearby"
for purposes of conducting field studie*
or fluid modeling demonstrations a* (U
km (V* mile), but allows limited
consideration of terrain feature*
extending beyond that distance if neb
features "begin" within 04 km, aa
defined in the regulation.
  Section Sl.l(ki) ha* been revised to
provide} separate diacaaaiona of
"excessive concentrations" for the
separate situations discussed earlier in
this preamble. As that discussion make*
dear. EPA believes that the differing
categories of eoarea* subject to this rale
are beet addressed by requirements that
vary somewhet with those
circumstances. This definition embodies
that approach.
  Section Sl.lSflt) ha* beta coittcled to
provide that the provisions of 151.12(0
shall not apply to ttadc hoighti in
existence before December 311970. The
proposal had Incorrectly stated that
     ISL12 shall not apply to ttodo
  This regulation doee not limit the
physical stack height of any source, or
the actudw of dispersion tachniqnee
at a source, nor doee it require any
specific stack height for any i
Instead it sat* limit* on the i
credit for stack height and other
dispersion technique* to be used la
ambient air i^rWtg for the purpoee of
setting an emission limitation and
calculating the air quality impact of a
source. Source* are modeled at their
actual physical stack height unices that
height exceed* their CEP stack height
The regulation applies to all stack* in
existence and ail dispersion techniques
implemented since December 31. 1070.
State tmpleeaeotatioa Plan
  Pursuant to section 406(dK2) of the
dean Air Act Amendments of 1977,
EPA i* requiring that all State* (1)
review and revise, a* necessary, their
SIP'S to include provisions that Unit
stack height credits and dispersion
techniques in accordance with this
regulation and (2) review all existing
emission limitations to determine
whether any of these limitations have
been affected by stack height credits
 above CEP or by any other dispersion
 technique*. For any limitation* that
 have been so affected State* must
 prepare revised limitations consistent
 with their revised SIP'S. All SIP
 revision* and revised emission
 limitation* must be submitted to EPA
 within 9 month* of promulgation of this
 regulation.
 Interim Guidance

  In it* proposal EPA stated that it
 would  uae the proposed regulation to
govern stack height credits during the
 period  before promulgation of the final
regulation. The EPA further stated that
any stack height credits that are granted
based oa this interim guidance would be
subject to review against the final rules
 and may need to be revised
 Consequently, with theee final rules.
EPA is requiring that any actions that
were taken oa stack heights and stack
height  credits during this interm period
 be reviewed aad revised ae needed to
 be nonaWem with this regulation.
 Regulatory FIsadMBty Aaarrei*
  Pursuant to the provision* of 5 U.S.C.
608(b), I hereby certify that the attacked
 rule will aot have •fr"'*"*"*  economic
 JHiTMfti on a subetantial number of
 •aull entities. Tata rule is structured to
 apply only, to large) sources; La- those
 with stack* above U meters (223 feet).
 or wita aaaual SOi e&isaione in excess
 of &000 teas, a* further noted in the rule.
 Baaed on aa analysis of impacts, electric
 utility plant* and several smelters and
pulp y**f paper *«*n« will be
 significantly affected by this regulation.
 Executive Order U2S1

  Under Executive Order 12291. EPA
 must fudge whether a regulation is
 "major" and therefore subject to the
 requirement of a regulatory impact
 analysis. EPA'* analysis of economic
 impacts predicts a potential coat to
 emission source owner* aad  operators
 exceeding ROD million: therefore, this is
 a major rule under Executive Order
 12291. However, due to the promulgation
 deadline Imposed by the court EPA did
 not have sufficient time to develop s full
 analyst* of coat* and ber.efits as
 required by the Executive Order.
 Consequently, it is not possible to judge
 the annual effect of this rule  on the
 economy. A preliminary economic
 impact analysis and *••!. sequent revision
 were prepared and a.-' i  .ie docket
  For any fadliry, the * :  ruliry and
 economic impact of the suck height
 regulation generally cVper. Js on the
 extent to which the sc'Md.' stack st that
 facility conforms to CEr < .*ck

-------
2790S        Fedorai Register / VoL SO.  No. 130 / Monday.  July 8. 1963 / Rules  and  Regulation*
Thus, when the regulation ii applied to
large sources. ie~ thoae with stack
height greater than CEP and emissions
greater than 3.000 ton* per year, it will
have the potential for producing
emiuion reduction and increased
control cost*.
  A preliminary evaluation of the
potential air quality impacts and a cost
analysis of the regulation was
performed at the time of proposal The
impacts identified were established in
isolation of other regulatory
requirements. The report predicted a
range of impacts, from a "low impact"
scenario that presumed that many
potentially affected sources would be
able to justify their existing stack
heights, configurations, aad emission
limitations to a "Ugh impact" scenario
which  assumed that all of the potentially
affected sources would be required to
reduce their emissions to some degree.
  In the development of its final
rulemaking action. EPA refined Its
evaluation of potential impacts,
producing revised estimates of the
probable costs of the changes to the
regulation and expected reductions in
SOi emissions. As a result of this
refinement EPA estimates that the rde
will yield reductions in SOi emissions of
approximately 1.7 million tons per year.
The aanualized cost of achieving these
reductions will be aproximately 1730
million, and the capital coat is expected
to be approximately STOP million.
  This regulation waa reviewed by the
Office  of Management and Budget, and
their written comments and any
responses are contained in Docket A-
KM8.

Judicial Review

  The EPA believes that this rdi 1.
based on determinations of nationwide
scope and effect Nothing in section 123
limits its applicability to a particular
locality. State, or region. Rather, section
123 applies to sources wherever located.
Under  section 307(b)(l) of die Clean Air
Act [42 U.S.C. r607(b)(l); judicial
review of the actiona taken by this
notice  is available only by the filing of a
petition for review in the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia and within 80 days of the date
of publication.

List of  Subjects in 4t CFR Part 31

  Air pollution control. Ozone. Sulfur
dioxide. Nitrogen dioxide. Lead.
Paniculate matter. Hydrocarbons.
Carbon monoxide.
Dated- June 27. »
Adminutmtor.

PA*T SI-ftEOUWEMCMTS FOP)
PREPARATION, ADOPTION. AND
SUBMITTAL OF IMPl£MCffTATION
PUNS

  Part 31 of Chapter L Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
  1. The authority citation for Part 51
continues to read as follows:    j
  Authority: Sec 110. Wife), and 129. OMB
Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C 7410. reoi(s)
and 7423).
  2. Section S1.1 is amended by revising
paragraphs (ha), (ii). (Jfl. and (kk) as
follows:
111.1
  (hh)(l) "Dispersion technique" i
any technique which attempts to affect
the concentration of a pollutant in the
ambient air by:
  (i) Using that portion of a stack which
exceeds good engineering practice stack
height
  (ii) Varying the rate of emission of a
pollutant according to atmospheric

that pollutant or
  (ill) Increasing final exhaust gaa
plume rise by manipulating source
proceee parameters, exhaust gaa
parameters, stack parameters, or
combiniag exhaust gases froaa several   •
existing stacks into MM stack: or other
selective handling of axhauat gaa
streams so aa to increase the exhaust   .
gaa pliUM rise.
  (2) The preceding sentence does not
include:
  (i) The reheating of a gas stream.
following use of a pollution control
system, for the purpose of returning the
gaa to the temperature at which it waa
originally diacharged from the facility
generating die gaa stream:
  (ii) The merging of exhaust jas
streams where:
  (A) The source owner or operator.
demonstrates that the facility waa
originally designed and constructed with
such merged gas streams:
  (B) After July 8.1963. such merging is
part of a change in operation at the
facility that includes die installation of
pollution controls and is accompanied
by a net reduction in the allowable
emissions of a poUutaaa, This exclusion
from the definition of "dispersion
.techniques" shall apply only to the
emission limitation for the pollutant
affected by such cbsnge m operation: or
  (C) Be/ore July & i960, such merging
was part of a change in operation at the
facility that included the instsilation of
emissions control equipment or wss
carried out for sound economic or
engineering reasons. Where there w«i
an increase in the emission limitation 01
in the event diet no emission limitation
was in existence prior to the merging. «r
increase in the quantity of pollutants
actually emitted prior to the merging, the
reviewing agency shall presume that
merging was significantly motivated by
an intent to gain emissions credit for
greater dispersion. Absent s
demonstration by the source owner or
operator that merging was not
significantly motivated by such intent.
the reviewing agency shall deny credit
for the effects of such merging in
calculating the allowable emissions for
the source;
  (ill) Smoke management in
agricultural or silviculture! prescribed
burning programs:
  (iv) Episodic restrictions on
residential woodbuming and open
burning? e#
  (v) Techniques under f 3l.lfhh)(l)(iii)
which increase final exhaust gas plume
rise where the resulting allowable
^fffffr^j of sulfur dioxide from the
facility do not exceed &000 tons per
year.
  (ii) "Good engineering practice" (CEP)
stack height means the greater of:
  (1) 68 meten, measured from the
ground-level elevation at the base of the
stack:
  (2) (i) For stacks in existence on
JaooarytZ isn, and for which the
owner or operator had obtained all
applicable permits or approvals required
under 40 GFR Parts 51 and 32.
H.-JJH.
provided the owner or operator
producea evidence that this equation
waa actually relied on in establishing an
emiaeiao limitations
  (ii) For all other stacks.
H.-M+1JL.       •
                                       H,«food eagmeerlni practice tuck height.
                                           measured from the irouad-levei
                                           elevation at the base et the *uck.
                                       H-hmjht of aearby structured) measured
                                           from the ground-level eievstion it the
                                           boss of fap stack*
                                       l«loeoor ^ <•>••»«<«'•>  belgftt or projected
                                           width, of oearby •tracmred)
                                       provided that the EPA. State or local
                                       control agency may require the use of s
                                       field study or fluid modal to verify CEP
                                       stack height for the source: or
                                         (3) The height demonstrated by a fluid
                                       model or a field study approved by the
                                       EPA State or local control ag«ney. wnich
                                       ensures that the emissions from s itsck
                                       do not result in excessive

-------
             Federal Register /  Vol.  50. No. 130 / Monday. July 8.  1985 / Rules and  Regulations
                                                                                                            2790-
concentrations of any air polluttnt as a
rtsull of atmospheric downwwh. wakes,
or eddy affects created by the source
itself, nearby structures or nearby
terrain features.
  (JJ) "Nearby" as used in f 5M(ii) of
this part is defined for a specific
structure or terrain feature and
  (1J for purposes of applying the
formulae provided in f 51.1(ii)(2) meana
that distance up to five times the leaser
of the height or the width dimension of a
structure, but not greater than 0.8 km (H
mile), and
  (2) for conducting demonstrations
under | 31.1(ii)(3) meana not greater  '
than 04 km (Vt mile), except that the
portion of a terrain feature may be
considered to be nearby which falls
within a distance of up to 10 times  the
maximum height (HJ of the feature* not
to exceed 2 mile* if such feature
achieves a height (HJ 04 km from the
stack that is at leeat 40 percent of the
CEP stack height determined by the
formulae provided in I 31.1(il)(2)(ii) of
this part or 28 meters, whichever is
greater, as measured Cram the ground-
level elevation at the baae of the stack.
The height of the structure or terrain
feature is measured from the ground-
level elevation at the baae of the stack.
  (kk) "Excessive concentration" ia' *
defined for the purpose of determining
good engineering practice stack height
under f Sl.l(ii)O) and meana:
  (1) for sources seeking credit for  stack
height exceeding that established under
151.1(ii)(2). a maximum ground-level
concentration due to •miMiqnf from a
stack due in whole or part to downwaah.
wakes, and eddy effects produced by
nearby structures or nearby terrain
features which individually is at least 40
percent in excess of the maximum
concentration experienced in the
absence of such downwash. wake*, or
eddy effects and which contributes to a
total concentration due to emissions
from all sources that is greater than an
ambient air quality standard For
source* subject to the prevention of
significant deterioration program (40
CFR 51.24 and SZ21). an excessive
concentration alternatively meana a
maximum ground-level concentration
due to emission! from a stack due ia
whole or pert to downwash, wakes, or
eddy effects produced by nearby
structures or nearby terrain features
which individually is at least 40 percent
in excess of the maximum concentration
experienced in the absence of the
maximum concentration experienced In
the absence of such downwaah, wake*.
or eddy effects and greater than a
prevention of significant deterioration
increment The allowable emission rate
to be used in making demonatrationa
under thia part ahall be prescribed by
the new source performance standard
that ia applicable to the source category
unless the owner or operator
demonstrates that this emission rate ia
in/easible. When  such demonstration*
era approved by the authority
administering the State implementation
plan, an alternative emiaaion rate ahall
be established in consultation with the
source owner or operator;
  (2) for sources seeking  credit a/tar
October 11983. for tncreeaee in existing
stack heights up to the height*
established under f 51.1(0X2). cither (1)
a •»•""""• ground'!*
                            atratic
due ia whole or pan to downwaah,
wakes or eddy effects aa provided hi
paragraph (kkMD of this section, except
that the emission rate specified by any
applicable State implementation plea
(or. ia the absence of such a limit the
•cruel emiaaioH rate) shall be used or
(ii) the actual presence of e local
nuisance caused by the exiating stack.
a* determined by the authority
admiaiateriag the State implementation.
plan: and
  (3) for source* seeking credit after
January 12.1979 for a stack height
determiaeduader 15U(ii)(2) when the
enthority adminiateriag the State
implementation plan requires the use of
a field study or fluid model to verify
CEP suck height, for source* seeking
                                       stack height credit after November 9.
                                       1884 baaed on the aerodynamic
                                       influence of cooling towers, and for
                                       sources seeking stack height credit after
                                       December 31.1970 based on the
                                       aerodynamic influence of structures not
                                       adequately represented by the equations
                                       in | Sl.l(iJ)(2). a maximum ground-level
                                       concentration due in whole or part to
                                       downwaah. wake* or eddy effects that
                                       ia at leeat 40 percent in excess of the
                                       maximum concentration experienced in
                                       the absence of such downwaah. wakes.
                                       or eddy effects.
                                        3. Section Sl.l ie further amended by
                                       removing peragrapha (II) and (mm).
                                       Mitt
                                        4. Section 31.12 is amended by
                                       removing paragraph (1).
                                        5. Section 51.12(j) is amended by
                                       removing "and (1)" from the first
  ft. Section 91.12(k) is revised as
follow*:
  (k) Toe provisions of f 51.12(j) shall
not apply to (1) stack heights in
existence, or dispersion technique*-
implemented on or before December 31.
1970, except when pollutants are being
emitted from such stacka or using such
dispersion technique* by sources, as
defined to section 111(*X3) of the Clean
Air Act which wen constructed, or
reconstructed, or for which major
modification*, as defined ia
II SL18fJXlX»X«). 3U4(bH2Xi) and
SX21(bK2XO. were carried out after
December 31.197ft or (2) coal-fired
steam electric generating unit* subject
to the prevision* of Section 118 of the
dean Air Act which commenced
operation before Jury 1.1987. and whoee
stack* wen eonaovcted under e
construction contract awarded before
February* 1974.
                                       |lt18 It
                                         7. Section 31.18(1) ia amended by
                                       removing "and (I)" from the first
                                       (Fit Dec aa-teOM filed 7-e-Sfc S.-43 «mj

-------
                          EPA-450/4-80-023R
Guideline for Determination of Good
  Engineering Practice Stack Height
(Technical Support Document for the
      Stack Height Regulations)

               (Revised)
          U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
               Office of Air and Radiation
           Office of Air Quality Planning and Standaros
             Researcn Triangle Par*. NC 27711

                  June 19S5

-------
                                                            PN  123-85-10-28-009
             UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
     j               Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
                   Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711


                          OCT 2 8  198S


MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:  Implementation of Stack Height .Regulations - Presumptive NSPS
          Emission  Limit for Fluid Mod€Tl/»g StacK "Above Formula GEP Height
FROM:     Darryl D. Tyler, Director
          Control Programs Development Division (MD-15)

TO:       Director, Air Management Division
          Regions I-X

     The following guidance is provided to explain the general  emission
control requirements for sources conducting fluid modeling to justify stack
height in excess of that provided by the GEP formulae.  While some of the
discussion and examples contained herein focus on utility sources, the
procedures outlined in this memorandum are generally applicable to all
stationary source categories.  Please note that this 1s guidance.  States
may  present  any other demonstrations that they may feel are warranted in
individual circumstances.

Background

     .The revised stack height regulations published on July 8,  1985, define
three methods for determining good engineering practice (GEP) stack
height.  These methods include:

     1- a 65 meter de minimis GEP height;

     2- the  height determined by using an applicable formula based on the
        dimensions of nearby buildings; and

     3- the  height  necessary to avoid excessive concentrations due to
        downwash as shown  using a field study or fluid modeling
        demonstration.

     As the  preamble  to  the  regulations points out, the revised definition
of "excessive  concentrations,"  a 40-percent Increase in concentrations
due to  downwash  resulting  in a  NAAQS or PSD increment  exceedance,
necessitates that  an  emission rate be specified for purposes of evaluating
fluid modeling.  The  regulations require  that  a presumptive emission rate
equivalent  to  the  new source performance  standards  (NSPS) be established
for the source in  question before modeling may be conducted to determine

-------
stack height needed to avoid excessive concentrations due to downwash.*
This emission nte is described as "presumptive" because it is EPA's
presumption that all sources seeking to justify stack heights exceeding
those provided by the GEP formulae are capable of controlling their
emissions to NSPS levels.  However,, the regulations also allow source
owners or operators to rebut this presumption, establishing an alternative
emission rate that represents the most stringent level  of control  that
can feasibly be met by that source in excess of the NSPS level.  In the
preamble to the regulations, EPA Indicated that it will rely on the
"Guidelines for Determination of Best Available Retrofit Technology for
Coal-Fired Power Plants and other Existing Stationary Facilities,
EPA-450/3-80-009b" (SART Guidelines) whan reviewing these rebuttals.

     If it is infeasible for a source to control Its emissions to  NSPS
levels, then an alternative limit representing the lowest feasible emission
limit must be met before obtaining credit for stack height in excess of
GEP formula height.  Sources may consider such factors  as remaining plant
life and the cost of modifying existing equipment when  determining NSPS
feasibility.

Procedures

     The general procedure that is described in the BART Guidelines for
analyzing control alternatives should be followed to identify and  evaluate
alternatives for sources seeking credit for stack heights In excess of
those produced by the applicable GEP formulae.  Because the guidelines
were originally written to address visibility impairment, however, not all
of the analytical steps or applicability criteria—such as analysis of
visibility impairment or exemptions for power plants below 750 megawatts--
will be appropriate, and need not be addressed.

     General steps in the analysis described 1n Section 2.0 of the
guidelines can be summarized as follows.

     1.  Identify a range of control alternatives, including both  pre- and
post-combustion controls.  In this regard, several fuel substitution and
alternative fuel blends should be considered, as well as technological
alternatives, such as coal cleaning and flue gas desulfurization.

     2.  Calculate t-.e cos", emissions, and other environmental and energy
impacts of the alternatives  ^including those meeting NSPS objectives).

     3.  Select the  alternative that represents the most stringent level
of emissions control feasible.
     *Where  the  HS?S  nas  been  subject to revision, and the source in
question  is  not  subject to  the revised NSPS, the earliest standard will be
applied;  e.g., for  po*er  plants  a  rate of 1.2 Ib/mm3tu would be used.

-------
     In perform.}ng these analyses,  it Is Important to keep in mind that
EPA's presumption is that the NSPS  emission limit is feasible unless
demonstrated otherwise.  When carrying out evaluations, source owners or
operators may consider such factors as remaining useful plant life,  the
remaining life of any equipment affected by revised emission rates
(including any control equipment),  the cost of modifying boilers,  control
equipment, and fuel handling facilities, and the cost of modifying or
cancelling existing fuel supply contracts (remaining useful  plant  life,
if a significant factor in determining NSPS feasibility, may necessitate
restrictions on the period of applicability of less stringent emission
limits).  Finally, it  is important  to analyze, not only a range of alter-
native controls, but several combinations of alternatives, since such
combinations may yield a greater and more cost-effective degree of
emissions control.

     Since determinations of the adequacy of any rebuttals of the  NSPS
emission limit and the reasonableness of control alternatives considered
must be made on a case-by-case basis, and will be subject to public  review
and comment during the rulemaking process, all technical and economic
analyses, as well as any claims of  infeasibility, must be fully documented
and supported by any information that may be available.

     If you have any questions regarding the application of this guidance
in a particular set of circumstances, please contact Eric Ginsburg at
(FTS) 629-5540 or Sharon Reinders at (FTS) 629-5526.

-------
           UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
                Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
                                 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 modeiina.

-------
     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
must 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 demonstration    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

bcc:  Robert Bauman, AQMD                    Pat Embrey, OGC
      Jesse Baskerville, Region  III          Eric Ginsburg, AQMD
      John Calcagni, AQMD                    Doug Grano, AQMD

SDPMPB:DGrano:DataTech/PROCTOR2:PFinch:RTP(MD-15):629-5255:4-4-89
Control Number OAQPS-46-      Due Date:   4-3-89

-------
                   BISHOP. COOK, PURCELL 6. REYNOLDS

                              WOO L STREET; N.W
                           WASHINGTON. D.C. 2OOO5-35O2
                                (202) 37I-570O
WOlTCR S OIBCCT DI»U                         23, 1989                TELEX 44OS74 INTLAW Ul

                                                           TELECOPIER: Boa) 37I-59SO
     William K. Reilly
     Administrator
     United States Environmental
       Protection Agency
     401 M Street, S.W.
     Washington, D.C.  20460

     Dear Mr. Reilly:

         The purpose of this letter is to request EPA's
     concurrence with a conclusion reached by this firm
     pertaining to the setting of emission limitations for
     existing sources that receive credit for stack height  above
     Good Engineering Practice ("GEP") stack height.

         Specifically, I am seeking your concurrence with the
     following conclusion:  that a facility which uses a Best
     Available Retrofit Technology ("BART") emission rate in a
     fluid model to determine GEP stack height may ultimately
     receive a different operating emission rate as long as that
     rate is demonstrated by a dispersion model as being
     consistent with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
     ("NAAQS") ..  EPA's consideration of this issue and response
     is extremely important since the Agency's position will have
     an immediate and long-term economic impact on one of our
     client's operations.  As pertinent here, our client must
     make a major business decision regarding equipment
     purchases, a possible shutdown of operations and technical
     operating requirements.  That decision is inextricably
     linked to the stack height issues; it will be primarily
     determined and affected by your response to this query.

         For purposes of this discussion and request, I am
     setting forth our analysis and position below as to what
     legally appropriate procedures must be followed in
     establishing operating emission rates pursuant to
     Section 110 of the Clean Air Act for facilities receiving
     credit for stack height above GEP formula height.  In  brief,
     I believe this analysis supports our position that a
     facility is not required to conduct a dispersion modeling
     study that uses the same emission rate for a particular
     pollutant that was used by the facility in justifying  stack

-------
William X.  Re illy
February  23,  1989
Page 2

height above GEP formula  height;  i.e.,  fluid and dispersion
modeling  emission  rates are  to be developed and applied
independently.  Thus,  a state may authorize an emission rate
for a particular pollutant at a facility as long as the
emission  rate  is demonstrated by  a dispersion model as being
consistent  with the  attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
Our analysis  follows:

    (a)   In order  to receive credit for stack height above
GEP formula height,  a  facility must conduct fluid modeling
studies to  analyze the effects of terrain obstacles on
downwash, and  to show  that the additional height is needed
to avoid  "excessive  concentrations"; i.e., a 40 percent
increase  in concentrations due to downwash that cause or
contribute  to  an increase or.an exceedance of air quality
standards or PSD increments.

    (b)   To complete the  fluid modeling studies and to show
that there  will be excessive concentrations, a facility must
obtain a  BART  emission rate  from  the applicable state agency
for each  source.   Although EPA's  stack height regulations
initially require  a  source seeking to conduct a fluid
modeling  study to  use  an  emission rate equivalent to that
New Source  Performance Standards  ("NSPS") applicable to the
industrial  source  category ("presumptive NSPS emission
limit"),  a source is  permitted to rebut the applicability
of the presumptive NSPS emission  limit.

    (c)  The sole  basis for  conducting a fluid modeling
study, and  for obtaining  an  alternative emission rate to
complete the study,  is to justify credit for stack height
above GEP formula  height.    The  rate is but one aspect of
justifying  stack height above GEP formula height, and GEP
stack height is but  one aspect in determining an appropriate
operating emission rate.  See Section 123(a)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, 42 U.s.C. § 7423(a)(1).    In short, there is
nothing in  either  the  Clean  Air Act or the implementing
regulations that requires or advises the states to use or
rely upon the  BART emission  rate, used for a fluid modeling
!/  40 C.F.R. § 51(kk).

2/  50 Fed. Reg. 27892, 27898  (July 8, 1985).

3/  50 Fed. Reg. 278P2, 27898  (July 8, 1985).

I/  In this section, Congress  limits the degree to which tall
    stacks may be considered in setting emission limitations.  As
    is apparent from the statutory language used in Section 123,
    Congress intended  to allow the states to consider other
    factors, in addition to stack height, in setting emission
    limitations.

-------
William K. Reilly
February 23, 1989
Page 3

study, in conducting a dispersion study to determine an
appropriate operating emission rate.

    (d)  States are required to ensure the attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS by establishing emission
limitations for facilities within their boundaries.
Moreover, with respect to existing sources, states have the
discretionary authority to determine and enforce whatever
mix of emission limitations it deems best for these sources,
as long as the overall effect is compliance with the NAAQS.
Train v. N.R.D.C.. 421 U.S. 60,79 (1974).

    We believe our analysis and conclusion are supported by
the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals' recent
decision in N.R.D.C. Inc. v. Thomas. 838 F.2d 1224 (D.C.
Cir. 1988) in which the court reviewed EPA's stack height
regulations and the NRDC's argument that a source must apply
all available emission controls before it may justify a
stack height above GEP formula height.  The Court of Appeals
rejected NRDC's "control-first" argument fid, at p. 1235)
because it recognized that BART (stack height) emission
rates and source-related emission limitations have
independent purposes:  "Although the record does not allow
us to infer exactly the impact of the baseline emissions
rate on the emissions rate that would emerge  (after the
stack height credit were calculated and then used to
determine the permissible emissions), all parties agree that
the impact is substantial.  Indeed,  that is what the issue
is all about.  If Congress in Section 123 prescribed the use
of such a baseline emissions rate, with all its implications
for ultimate emission ceilings, it did so in a remarkably
cryptic way."  Id. at p. 1236.

    As is evident, the Court of Appeals recognized that
operating emission limitations are to be determined after
stack height credit has been calculated pursuant to
Section 123 of the Act.  This conclusion is supported by the
Court's consideration of the following facts.  First, the
Court observed that Congress imposed technology-based
emission limitations (including NSPS, BACT, LAER, RACT and
BART)  in a variety of situations, and that EPA has the
authority to mandate a specific technology-based emission
limit (e.g., the presumptive NSPS limit) for GEP fluid
modeling demonstrations (id. at p. 1241) used for
calculating stack height credit.  Second, the Court noted
that a "* * * * fluid modeling demonstration has no
significance apart from showing whether the source qualified
for credit under the stack height guidelines than in
effect.'" (emphasis in original).  Id. at p. 1249.  As
pertinent here, the Court's analysis supports the conclusion
that a specific technology-based emission rate used by a
facility in a fluid modeling demonstration is significant
only tc the extent that it demonstrates whether a source

-------
William K. Reilly
February 23, 1989
Page 4

should receive credit for stack height above GEP formula
height.  A different conclusion; i.e., that the emission
rate used to calculate stack height (either a BART rate or
the presumptive NSPS rate) should be used by a facility,as
its operating emission rate, is contrary to the Court's
holding which rejected the "control-first" argument.

    Please be advised that an EPA staff person, contacted by
our firm, appears to have reached a different conclusion.
Specifically, we have been advised by this staff member that
an existing source is required to operate at the lowest
emission rate resulting either from the stack height
demonstration or dispersion study — even though another
(i.e., higher) emission rate will assure compliance with the
NAAQS.

    It is our opinion that this position is inconsistent
with Sections 110 and 123 of the Clean Air Act, the stack
height regulations, and existing case law.  Therefore, we
are requesting EPA's analysis of this issue and official
agency position.  We would appreciate your prompt review of
t.iis issue due to the impact that your response will have on
our client's operations and financial planning.

    If you have any questions regarding this issue, please
feel free to contact me directly.  Also, I have enclosed an
extra copy of this letter and a stamped, self-addressed
envelope.  Would you please stamp this extra copy and return
it to me for our files.

                                            Sincerely,
JPP:cas
                                            John P. Proctor

-------
             UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                   Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
                  Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711


                               OCT 1 0 I9S5
MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:  Questions and Answers on  Implementing the
          Revised Stack Height Regulation

FROM:     G. T. Helms, Chieff- L \W—*-
          Control Programs  Operations  Branch   (MD-15)

TO:       Chief, A1r Branch,  Regions  I-X

     A number of questions  have arisen in  several  areas  of  the  revised
stack height regulation since Its promulgation on  July 8.   The  following
answers have been developed 1n response.   The  questions  and answers  are
arranged under the general  topic headings  of interpretation of  the regula-
tion, State implementation  plan (SIP)  requirements,  and  modeling analyses.
Please continue to call Sharon Reinders at 629-5526  if you  have further
comments or additional questions.

Interpretation of the Regulation

1.  Q:  What criteria should  be used  to determine  when a stack  was 'in
existence" with respect to  the various grandfatherlng dates in  the
regul at ion?

    A:  The recent promulgation of  revisions to the  stack  height regulatio
did not change the definition of "in  existence."   The definition is  provid
in 40 CFR 51.1(gg) and includes either the commencement  of continuous
construction on the stack or  entering  Into a binding contract for stack
construction, the cancellation of which would  result in  "substantial
loss" to the source owner or  operator. The definition of  what  constitutes
a "substantial loss" will be the subject  of future guidance.

2.  Q:  What "source" definition should be used in determining  whether  tie
ins to grandfathered stacks should  be permitted or prohibited?

    A:  The term "source" 1n  this instance means  a single emitting unit.
Thus, credit for tying a single post-1970 unit(s)  Into  a grandfathered
stack serving a number of old units is prohibited  under  the regulation.

-------
                                   -2-


3.  Q:  What is meant in the regulation  by  "facility?

    A:  For purposes of this regulation, the definition contai-ned  in
40 CFR 51.301(d) should be used.   That definition essentially defines the
term as the entire complex of emitting activities on one property  or
contiguous properties controlled  by a single owner or designee.

4.  Q:  Must good engineering practice (GEP) stack height be established
separately for each pollutant?  If not,  how should it be determined?

    A:  It is not necessary to calculate a  separate SEP stack height  for
each pollutant.  Since "SEP" is defined  by  Section 123 of the Clean Air
Act as the height necessary to ensure against excessive concentrations  of
any air pollutant, it follows that SEP should be established for each
source based on the pollutant requiring  the greatest height to avoid
excessive concentrations.

5.  Q:  How should "reliance" on  the 2.5H formula be determined?

    A:  First, "reliance" on the  2.5H formula applies only to stacks  1n
existence before January 12, 1979.  Credit  for "reliance" on the 2.5H
formula, can be granted under the  following  cases:  (a) Where the stack
was actually built to a height less than or equal to 2.5H; (b) Where  the
stack was built taller than 2.5H  and the emission limitation reflects th
use of 2.5H 1n the SIP modeling analysis; or (c) Where evidence 1s proviv.  .
to show "reliance" as discussed in the following paragraph.  If no modellnc
was used to set the emission limitation  for the source, then it cannot  be
argued that there was "reliance"  on the  formula, since EPA's guidance was
specifically aimed at using stack height credit in establishing emission
limitations.  Once it is determined that the emission limitation was  in
fact based on estimates of dispersion from  the stack, then the source can
be said to have properly "relied" on the 2.5H formula.  In the event that
it cannot be determined that the  emission limit is based on "reliance"  on
the 2.5H formula, then the refined H + 1.5L formula must be used.

     Where a clear relationship between  a 2.5H stack height and the
emission limitation cannot be shown, where  the emission limitation was
not calculated based precisely on the 2.5H  height, or where the stack
height used in modeling cannot be verified, then additional evidence will
be needed.  Preferred would be written documentation, such as copies  of
the original engineering calculations or correspondence between the State
or the emission source owner and  EPA indicating that the 2.5H formula
should be used to derive the emission limitation.  However, recognizing
that such evidence is often not retained for more than a few years,
"reconstructed" documentation may be considered, but should only be used
as a last resort.  This evidence should  include explanations by those
individuals who were involved in  designing  the facility, calculating
emission rates, and who represented the  facility in dealings with  the

-------
                                   -3-


State and EPA on how the emission  limit  was derived, including a discussion
of how the formula was originally  used in  deriving the source emission
limitation, a discussion of the analytical method applied, and a listing
of any contacts or discussions with EPA  during that period.  This  listing
will  aid EPA in searching its own  files  to find any records of communication
or correspondence that may bear on the Issue.

     In no case should a source be allowed after January 12, 1979, to
obtain a relaxation in the emission limitation by arguing that 1t  "relied"
on past EPA guidance endorsing the 2.5H  formula.  In cases where a relaxation
based on GEP formula height is sought in the future, the refined H + 1.51
formula must be used.

6.  Q:  The preamble specifically  discusses cooling towers as structures to
which the formula should not be applied.  Will the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards be specifying other structures that are not well
represented by the formul a?

    A:  The discussion in the preamble and GEP guideline Is not intended to
be all-inclusive; judgment should  be used  1n determining when fluid
modeling should be used to estimate the  effects of structures with rounded,
domed, or tapered shapes.  Water towers  and storage tanks are additional
examples of such structures.  As additional Information becomes available
on the aerodynamic effects of specific building shapes and configurations,
we will evaluate the need to revise the  GEP guidance.  'However, at present,
there are no plans to Issue a "laundry list" of structures to which the
formulas do not apply.

SIP Requirements

7.  Q:  Should a compliance averaging-time be explicitly stated in a
SIP revision for sulfur dioxide (S02) emission limits that are revised to
meet the stack: height regulation?

    A:  A compliance averaging time need not be specified  as  an enforceable
SIP provision as long as a stack test compliance method is in place  in the
underlying federally approved SIP.  EPA's  current national policy  requires
that SIP's and permits contain enforceable "short-tern" emission limits
set to limit maximum emissions to  a level  which ensures protection of the
short-term national ambient air quality standards  (NAAQS)  and prevention
of significant deterioration (PSD) Increments.  EPA relies upon  a  short-term
stack test provision in the SIP as the method of determining  compliance
with the emission limits.  In lieu of a stack test,  EPA has  accepted fuel
sampling and analysis and continuous emission  in-stack monitors  (CEM's).
When compliance is to be determined from information  obtained by  fuel
sampling and analysis and CEM's, short-tern  averaging times  should be
specified.

-------
                                   -4-


8.  Q:  Are all States required  to  have  "stack height regulations"?

    A:  Limitations on creditable stack  height and dispersion techniques
impact the SIP program 1n two areas—SIP mission limits for existing
sources and SIP provisions covering new  source review (NSR)/PSD permitting
procedures.  For existing sources,  State regulations limiting credit "for
stack height and other dispersion techniques (stack height regulations)
are not necessary as long as the SIP emission limits are not affected  in
any manner by so much of the stack  height as exceeds G£P, or any  other
dispersion technique.  Where a State has stack height regulations, those
regulations must be consistent with EPA's regulation.  Where a SIP contains
regulations that are inconsistent with EPA's regulation, the State must
either adopt a stack height regulation that 1s consistent with EPA's or
Incorporate the EPA regulation by reference.

     For the NSR/PSD programs, 1t is essential that the plan contain
limitations on the amount of creditable  stack height and other dispersion
techniques.  The following cases have been developed to illustrate what
action(s)  may be required of the State since promulgation of the  stack
height regul ation.

CASE All):  A fully or partially delegated PSD program that references but
            does not define GEP  where the delegation agreement does not conta.,
            a date to define which  version of the PSD rule is being oeTegated,

ACTION:     Notify the State that all permits issued henceforth must be
            consistent with EPA's stack  height regulation.  AIT permits
            previously issued must  be reviewed and revised as necessary
            within 9 months.

CASE A(2):  A fully or partially delegated PSD program that references
            but does not define  GEP where the delegation agreement
            does contain a date  to  define which version of the PSD rule
            is being delegated.

ACTION:     Update the delegation agreement to reflect agreement  with  EPA's
            stack height regulation as of July 8, 1985.  Notify the State
            that all permits issued henceforth must be consistent with
            EPA's stack height regulation.  All permits previously Issued
            must be reviewed and revised as necessary within 9 months.

CASE B:     The current federally approved SIP for NSR/PSD does not
            contain a reference  to  GEP or cispersion techniques,  i.e.,
            provisions assuring  that emission limitations will not be
            affected by stack height in  excess of GEP or any prohibited
            dispersion techniques do not exist in the current SIP.

-------
                                  -5-
ACTION:     Notify the State that such provisions must be adopted and
            submitted as  a  SIP revision within 9 months.  This can be
            accomplished by adopting stack height regulations at the
            State level  or  by adopting the appropriate reference and
            commitment to comply with EPA's stack height regulation as
            promulgated on  July 8, 1985.  Interim permitting should be
            consistent with EPA's stack height regulation.**

CASE C:     The current federally approved SIP for NSR/PSD contains
            references to,  but does not define, 6EP or dispersion techniques.

ACTION:     Notify the State that a commitment to comply with EPA's stack
            height regulation as promulgated on July 8, 1985, is required.
            If a State 1s unable to make such a commitment, State regulations
            must be revised to be consistent and submitted to EPA as a  SIP
            revision within 9 months and Interim permitting should be
            consistent with EPA's stack height regulation.  No "grace
            period" will  be allowed for sources receiving permits between
            July 1985 and April 1986.**

CASE D;     The current federally approved SIP for NSR/PSD contains stack
            height regulations that are Inconsistent with EPA's regulation.

ACTION:     Notify the State that such regulations must be revised to be
            consistent and  submitted as a SIP revision within 9 months
            and that interim permitting should be consistent with EPA's
            stack height  regulation.**

CASE E(l):  A SIP for NSR/PSD has been submitted to EPA, or will be
            submitted to  EPA before the due date for stack height revisions.
            The submittal contains provisions that conflict with EPA's
            stack heigot  regulation.

ACTION:     Notify the State that EPA cannot approve the submittal until
            it is revised pursuant to EPA's July 8, 1985, regulation.
**
  In the event that a State does not have legal  authority to comply with
  EPA's regulation in the interim (e.g.,  because 1t must  enforce State
  rules that are inconsistent with EPA's  regulation)  and  is  compelled to
  issue a permit that does not meet the requirements  of the  EPA revised
  stack height regulation, then EPA should notify the State  that such
  pern-its do iot constitute authority under the  Clean A1r Act to commence
  construction.

-------
                                   -6-
CASE £(2):  As in Case 1(1) t a SIP for NSR/PSD has  been  submitted to  EPA
            or will be submitted to EPA before the  due date  for stack
            height revisions.  The submittal  is  not Inconsistent with
            EPA's stack height regulation,  but portions  of the existing
            approved SIP that relate to the submittal are inconsistent.

ACTION:     Approve the SIP submittal  based on a commitnent  by the  State
            to correct the inconsistencies  in its existing SIP to comport
            with EPA's July 8 regulation and submit the  corrections as a
            SIP revision within 9 months.  Interim  permitting should  be
            consistent with EPA's stack height regulation.** If the exist-
            ing SIP is ambiguous, i.e., the SIP  references but does not
            define terms relating to SEP or dispersion techniques,  the
            action steps outlined in Case C above should be  followed.

CASE F:     In nonattainment areas, emission limits or permits do not always
            Include modeling, but rather are based  on lowest achievable
            emission rate (LAER) and offsets.

ACTION:     If no modeling is used 1n the Issuance  of a  permit, the emission
            requirements for the source are not  "affected" by stack heights
            or dispersion techniques, and no action 1s needed.  However, 1f
            modeling was used 1n the process of  preparing and issuing a
            permit, such as cases where offsets  were obtained offsite, that
            modeling must be reviewed for consistency with the stack  height
            regul ation.

9.  0:   What must all States do now that EPA's stack height  regulation is
promulgated?

    A:   States must review and revise.their SIP's as necessary to include or
revise provisions to limit stack height credits  and dispersion techniques
to comport with the revised regulations, and, in addition, review and
revise all mission limitations that are affected by stack height credit
above G£? or any other dispersion techniques. In accordance with Section
4Q6(d)(2) of the Clean A1r Act, States have 9 months from promulgation to
submit the revised SIP's and revised SIP emission limitations to EPA.

     In an August 7, 1985, memo titled "Implementation of the Revised
Stack Height Regul ation-.Request for Inventory and  Action Plan  to Revise
SIP's," Regional  Offices were requested to  begin working with each  of
their States to develop States' Action Plans. Each Action Plan  should
include the following:  (l) An inventory of (a)  all stacks greater  than
65 meters (m), (b) stacks at sources which  exceed 5,000  tons per year
total  allowable 563 emissions; and (2} A reasonable schedule of dates for
significant State actions to conform both State  stack height rules  and
emission limitations to EPA's stack height  regulation.   Schedules  should
include increments of progress.  Regional Offices  should be  satisfied
that each of tneir States provide schedules for  completion of the  tasks

-------
                                   -7-


as outlined in the August memo  and  report the status of schedule  commitments
to them on a monthly basis.   Regional Offices have been asked to  forward
monthly status reports to the Control Programs Development Division on
the States' progress to meet scheduled  commitments and also  report the
results of followup with the States on  schedules that are not met.  In
order to facilitate tracking the  States monthly progress, guidance on a
standardized format will be  issued  shortly.

Modeling Analyses

10.  Q:  Is there any restriction or  prohibition against, or demonstration
required for, raising an existing (or replacing) stack up to 65 m?

     A:  No, as Long as prohibited  dispersion techniques are not  employed.

11.  Q:  Are flares considered  to be  stacks?

     A:  No, flares are excluded  from the regulation.

12.  Q:  What load should be used for a fluid modeling demonstration?

     A:- One hundred percent load should generally be used unless there
is a compelling argument otherwise..

13.  Q:  Can new or modified sources  who have agreed to a case-by-case
best available control technology (BACT) emission rate be required to use
this rate for fluid modeling rather than a less stringent new source
performance standard (NSPS)  emission  rate?

     A:  As set forth in 40  CFR 51.1  (kk), the allowable emission rate  to
be used in making demonstrations  under  this  part shall be prescribed  by
the NSPS that is applicable  to the  source category unless the owner  or
operator demonstrates that this emission rate is infeasible.

14.  Q:  Must the exceeddnce of NAAQS or PSD increment due to downwash, wakes,
or eddies occur at a location meeting the definition of ambient  air?

     A:  No, the exceedance  may occur at any location, including that to
which the general public does not have  access.

15.  Q:  Is a source that meets NSPS  or BACT emission Units subject to
restrictions on plume merging?

     A:  Yes.  However, in a majority of such cases, there will  be no practical
effect since BACT or NSPS limits  will be sufficient to assure  attainment
without credit for alume rise enhancement.

-------
                                   -8-


     Q:  What stack parameters are to be  used  in modeling when the actual
stack neicnt is greater than G£P height?

     A:  Where it is necessary to reduce  stack height credit below what is  in
existence, for modeling purposes, use existing stack gas exit parameters—
temperature and flow rate—and existing stack  top diameter and model at
GEP height.

17.  Q:  How should a stack that 1s less  than  GEP height be modeled when
dispersion techniques are employed?

     A:  In order to establish an appropriate  emission limitation where a
source desires to construct less than a GEP stack but use dispersion
techniques to make up the difference in plume  rise, two cases should be
tested.  First, conduct a modeling analysis inputting the GEP stack
height without enhanced dispers* ?n parameters, then conduct a second
analysis inputting the less than GEP stack height with the increased
plume rise.  The more stringent emission  limitation resulting from each
of the two runs should be the one specified as the enforceable limitation.

18.  Q:  How are the effects of prohibited dispersion techniques to be  excluded
for modeling purposes?

     A:  Where prohibited dispersion techniques have been used, modeling  to
exclude their effects on the emission limitation will be accomplished by
using the temperature and flow rates as the gas stream enters the stack,  and
recalculating stack parameters to exclude the  prohibited techniques
(e.g., calculate stack diameter without restrictions in place, determine
exit gas temperatures before the use of prohibited reheaters, etc.).

19.  Q:  How are single flued merged stacks and multiflued stacks to be     •
treated in a modeling analysis?

     A:  This is a multistep process.   First,  sources with allowable $03
emissions be'tow b,000 tons/year may be modeled accounting for any plume
merging that has been employed.  For larger sources, multiflued  stacks
are considered as prohibited dispersion techniques in the same way  as
single flued merged gas streams unless one of  the three allowable conditions
has been met; i.e., (1) the source owner  or operator demonstrates that
the facility was originally designed and  constructed with such merged gas
streams; (2) after date of promulgation,  demonstrate that such merging  is
associated with a change in operation at  the  facility that includes  the
installation of pollution controls and  results in  a net  reduction  in  the
allowable emissions of the pollutant for  which credit 1s  sought; or (3}
before date of promulgation, demonstrate  that such merging did  not  result
in any increase in the allowable emissions  (or, in the  event  that  no
emission limit existed, actual emission level) and was  associated  with  a
change in operation at the facility that  Included  the  installation  of

-------
                                   -9-


enissi'ons control equipment or was  carried out for sound economic  or
engineering reasons, as demonstrated  to  EPA.  Guidelines on what constitutes
sound economic or engineering justification will be issued shortly.

     If plume merging from multiflued stacks  is not allowable,  then each
flue/liner must be modeled as a separate source and the combined impact
determined.  For single flued merged  stacks where credit is not allowed,
each unit should be modeled as a separate stack located at the  same
point.  The exit parameters, i.e. velocity and temperature, would  be the
same as for the existing merged stack conditions and the volume flow rate
based on an apportionment of the flow from the Individual units.

20.  Q:  What stack height for point  sources  should be Input to air quality
dispersion modeling for the purpose of demonstrating protection of the
NAAQS and PSD increments?

     A:  A discussion of the maximum  stack height credit to be  used in modeling
analyses is provided in the "Guideline for Determination of Good Engineering
Practice Stack Height" and provides that the  GEP stack height should be
used as input to the model assessment.   If a  source is operating with  a
less than GEP stack height, then the  actual stack height should be input
to the "model.

21.  Q:  What stack height should be  used for background sources  in
modeling analyses?

     A:  The GEP-stack height for each background source should
be input to the model assessment.  If a  background source is operating
with a less than GEP stack height,  then  the actual stack height should be
input to the model.

22.  Q:  Can credit for plume merging due to  installation of control
equipment for total  suspended paniculate (TSP) matter be allowed  when
setting the SOj 1irait?

     A:  To state the question another way, the concern  is  what impact
the merging and installation of control  equipment have on the  emission
limit for another pollutant, and whether the  merging  occurred  before  or
after July 8, 1985.  After July 8,  1985, any  exclusion from the definition
of "dispersion techniques" applies  only  to the  emission  limitation for
the pollutant affected by such change in operation  and 1s accompanied  by
a net reduction in allowable emissions of the pollutant.  For  example, a
source tears down two old stacks and  builds one new  GEP  stack  with an
electrostatic precipitator (ESP).  This  results in  a net  reduction in TSP
emissions.  This source could model using stack gas  characteristics
resulting from merging tne two gas  streams in setting the TS?  emission
limit, but may not so nodel and receive  the credit  for  stack merging when
evaluating the SC>2 emission limit.

-------
                                   -10-
     Before July 8, 1985, installation  of TSP pollution control equipment
generally justifies the merging of the  stacks for TSP.  However,  if  a
source's emission limitation for SOj increased after the merging, then
credit would generally not be allowed since it is presumed that the
merging was to increase dispersion*

     A source with no previous SOj emission limit that merges stacks and
installs an ESP for TSP control may consider the effects of merging  on
compliance with the TSP NAAQS but may not use merging to justify  setting
an S02 emission limit less stringent than its actual emission rate before
the merging.

23.  Q:  If, after determining GEP stack height by fluid modeling,
dispersion modeling under other than "downwash" meteorological conditions
shows that a lower emission limit than  that from the fluid model  GEP
analysis is necessary to meet ambient air quality constraints, should a
new stack height be defined for the source?

     A:  No.  GEP stack height is set.  Ambient air quality problems
predicted by dispersion modeling at the fluid modeled height means that  a
more stringent emission limit is necessary.

24.  Q:  Does EPA intend to issue additional guidance on fluid modeling
demonstrations?

     A:  See the attached memo from Joseph A. Tikvart, Chief, Source
Receptor Analysis Branch, to David Stonefleld, Chief, Policy Development
Section, on guidance for a discussion of existing and additional  guidance
on fluid model  demonstrations.

Attachment

cc:  Stack Height Contacts
     Gerald Emison
     Ron Campbell
     B. J.  Steigerwald

-------
                                                         PN 123-85-09-19-006
              UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                     Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
                    Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 2771 1

                             September 19, 1985
MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:  Guidance ci Fluid Model Demonstrations for Detemining GEP
          Stack Height in Complex Terrain

FROM:  „  Joseph A. Tikvart, Chief
          Source Receptor Analysis Branch, MDAD

TO:       David Stonefield, Chief
          Policy Developaent Section, CPDD

     The  recently promulgated stack, height regulation requires that a source
that wishes  to receive credit for the effects of wakes, eddies and downwash
produced  by  nearby terrain for the purpose of calculating GEP stack height
must conduct a fluid model demonstration or a field study.  Recent guidance
for fluid modeling these terrain effects is contained in Section 3.6 of the
"Guideline for Determination of GEP Stack Height (Revised)," EPA 450/4-80-023R,
June 1985, available from NTIS as PB 85-225-241.  In addition, the report
"Fluid Modeling Determination of Good Engineering Practice Stack Height in
Complex Terrain," EPA 600/3-85-022, available from NTIS PB 85-203-107,
provides  an  actual case of how EPA conducted a GEP determination, abort of
performing the "excessive concentration" criteria teat.  Requests to conduct
field studies in lieu of fluid modeling demonstrations" will be evaluated on
a case-by-case basis; refer to pp. 46-47 of' the GEP Guideline.

     Previously, EPA published three documents which form the basis for
conducting fluid model demonstrations, particularly in flat terrain
situations:  (1) "Guideline for Fluid Modeling of Atmospheric Diffusion,"
EPA 600/8-81-009, April 1981, available from NTIS aa PB 81-201-410; (2)
"Guideline for Use of Fluid Modeling to Determine Good Engineering Practice
Stack Height," EPA 450/4-81-003, July 1981, available from NTIS aa PB 82-145-
327; and  (3) "Determination of Good-Engineering-Practiee Stack Height:  A
Fluid Model  Demonstration Study for a Power Plant," EPA 600/3-63-024, April
1983, available from NTIS aa PB 83-207407.

     Lastly, EPA conducted a 4-day workshop on fluid modeling and GEP
determination at the Fluid Modeling Facility at RTF in February 1981,
attended  by  ataff from each Regional Office.  Although some attendees are
no longer with the Agency, we believe at least one person in each Region
who attended is still "on board," except for Regions II and VIII, and could
serve as  a resource person.  At the Regional Workshop on the Stack Height
Regulation next month, we will poll the attendees concerning the need for

-------
another fluid modeling workshop for Regional Office and State technical
•taff.  If a need is expressed and specific attendees can be identified, we
will request the Meteorology and Assessment Division, ASRL, to present such
a workshop at RIP within the next few months.

     The above documents together with staff that have some knowledge of
fluid modeling should enable most Regions to provide initial technical
assistance to the States and enable the States to increase their own level
of expertise.  Note that document (2) contains a report checklist in Section
5, outlining what a fluid model report should contain.  Additional items
explicitly related to complex terrain studies may be required on a case-by-
case basis, especially after reviewing EPA's example study carefully.  More
detailed procedures for implementing the excessive concentration criteria
calculations, using data from a fluid model demonstration, are being developed
and will be provided at the upcoming Regional Workshop.

     Should technical questions arise regarding GEP determinations or fluid
model demonstrations, please contact Jim Dicke or Dean Wilson of my staff,
FTS 629-5681.  We assume the Regional Office staffs will attempt a first-cut
resolution of technical issues before requesting our assistance.

cc:  S. Reinders
     R. R&oads
     F. Scaleneier
     D. Wilson

-------
United State*
{Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-450/4-B1-003
July 1981
Air
Guideline for Use of
Fluid Modeling to Determine
Good Engineering Practice
Stack Height
         ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
             AGENCY

           OCT 30 1981
                      UBftARY SERVICES OFFICE

-------
UMrtotf Statav      Environmental SeiancM Raaaarcfi
     •refaction  Laboratory
          Haaaarcn Triangle Park NC 27711
                       EPA-eoO/3-83-024
                       April 1983
Rtsaarch and Oavtlopmant
Determination of
Good-Engineering-
Practice Stack
Height
    •
A Fluid Model
Demonstration
Study for a  Power
Plant

-------
               United States                 EPA-600/8-81-009
               Environmental Protection            April 1981
               Agency
&ERA        Research and
               Development
                                           OCT 3u 1981
               Prepared for

               Office of Air Quality
               Planning and Standards
               Prepared by


               Environmental Sciences Research
               Laboratory
               Research Triangle Park NC 27711
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
     AGENCY
               Guideline for              ^y^ sa^os OFFICE
               Fluid Modeling of
               Atmospheric Diffusion

-------
     Protection
          *»»«»reh Trwnvto Par* HC 2771 1
Fluid Modeling
Demonstration of
Good-Engineering-
Practice Stack
Height in Complex
Terrain
    NATIONAL
    INFORMATION
TIONAL TECHNICAL   \ \
DRMATION SERVICE   / S
•i ttufmn v cMmncf   / ^
 9*m**^ ^T ^

-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5.7

-------
                                                              PN  123-85-10-28-008
 ,i  if
°     *
       .         UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
       3              Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
       *              Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 2771 1
  ~*

                               CCT 2 * J98S
   MEMORANDUM

   SUBJECT:  Implementation of Stack Helgjtf^Regulatljyis -  Exceptions From
             Restrictions on Credit  for

   FROM:     Darryl D. iyler, Director
             Control Programs Developm

   TO:       Director, A1r Management Division
             Regions I-X

        This guidance has been prepared  to  address  two Issues pertaining to
   credit for merged stacks prior  to July 8, 1985.  It establishes a procedure
   that should be used to prepare  and to review justifications for merging gas
   streams for economic or engineering reasons,  and to address the presumption
   that merging was significantly  motivated by an Intent to gain credit for
   Increased dispersion.   Please note that this  1s  guidance; States may submit
   alternative demonstrations 1n support of merged  stack exemptions 1f they
   feel the Individual circumstances warrant.

   Background

        Recent revisions  to EPA's  stack  height regulations place certain
   restrictions on the degree to which stationary sources  may rely on the
   effects of dispersion  techniques  when calculating  allowable emissions.
   One such restriction 1s provided  for  the merging of gas streams, or
   combining of stacks.  Several exemptions have been provided 1n the regula-
   tion, however.   More specifically, 40 CFR Part 5l.l(hh)(2)(11) allows
   credit under circumstances where:

        A.  The source owner or operator demonstrates that the facility was
   originally designed and constructed with such merged gas streams;

        B.  After July 8, 1985, such merging 1s part  of a  change 1n operation
   at the facility that Includes the Installation of  pollution controls and 1s
   accompanied by a net reduction  1n the allowable  emissions of a pollutant.
   This exclusion from the definition of "dispersion  techniques" shall apply
   only to the emission limitation for the  pollutant  affected by such change
   1n operation; or

        C.  Before July 8, 1985, such merging  was part of  a change 1n operation
   at the facility that Included the Installation of  emissions control equip-
   ment or was carried out for sound economic  or engineering reasons.  Where
   there was an Increase  1n the federally-approved  emission limitation for any

-------
pollutant or, 1n the event that no emission limitation was 1n existence
prior to the merging, an Increase 1n the quantity of any pollutants actually
emitted from existing units prior to the merging, the reviewing agency
shall presume that merging was significantly motivated by an Intent to gain
emissions credit for greater dispersion.  Absent a demonstration by the
source owner or operator that merging was not significantly motivated by
such an Intent, the reviewing agency shall deny credit for the effects of
such merging 1n calculating the allowable emissions for the source.

General Requirements

     Figure 1 Illustrates a framework for evaluating claims for merged
stack credit.  Because merged gas streams are generally regarded as  prohibited
dispersion techniques under the regulations, 1t 1s Incumbent on the State
or the source owner or operator to demonstrate that such merging was conducted
for sound economic or engineering reasons, and was not significantly motivated
by an Intent to avoid emission controls.  Consequently, the first step
should entail a review of State and EPA files to determine the existence of
any evidence of Intent on the part of the source owner or operator.
Information showing that merging was conducted specifically to Increase
final exhaust gas plume rise serves as a demonstration of dispersion Intent
that justifies a denial of credit for merged gas streams.  Demonstrations  that
merging was carried out for sound economic or engineering reasons are
expected to show that either the benefits of merging due to reduced
construction and maintenance costs outweigh the benefits relating to lower
emission control costs or that relevant engineering considerations showed
the merging to be clearly superior to other*conf1gurat1ons.

Demonstration Requirements

     Several exemptions from prohibitions on gas stream merging are provided
for existing sources 1n the stack height regulations:

     1- where sources constructed their stacks before December 31, 1970,

     2- where the total facility-wide emissions from the source do not
exceed 5,000 tons per year,

     3- where the facility was originally designed and constructed
with merged gas streams, and

     4- where the merging was part of a change 1n facility operation that
Included the Installation of pollution control equipment and resulted 1n
no Increase 1n the allowable emissions of any pollutant.*  Where there
was an Increase in emissions 1n conjunction with the merging and Installation
of control equipment, the regulations require that source owners also make
an affirmative demonstration that the merging was not motivated by dispersive
Intent.

     *Where there was no federally-approved emission limit prior to merging
gas streams, there must be no Increase 1n the actual emissions of any
pollutant.  Moreover, 1t 1s Incumbent on the State to demonstrate that there
was a logical relationship between the merging of existing gas streams and
the Installation of controls.

-------
     Sources that are not covered under these criteria may still  qualify for
exemption if they can show that merging was conducted for sound economic
or engineering reasons.  Such demonstrations should Include justifications
for having replaced existing stacks.   This may be done, for Instance,  by
documenting through maintenance records, correspondence, or other
contemporaneous evidence, that the existing stacks had reached the end of
their useful life, were prematurely corroded, had sustained other damage
making them unservlcable, were of a height less than that regarded as
good engineering practice, thereby causing downwash problems, or  that  the
addition of new units at the facility necessitated additional stacks and
Insufficient land was available.  The absence of any evidence supporting
the need for stack replacement creates a strong presumption that  merging
was carried out specifically to avoid the Installation of pollution
controls, I.e., was "significantly motivated by an Intent to gain emissions
credit for Increased dispersion."

No Increase 1n Allowable Emissions

     Once this Initial criterion 1s satisfied, demonstrations may show
that merging was based either on sound economic or sound engineering
reasons.  Claims based on strict engineering justifications may be more
difficult to show, since the existence of more than one reasonable
engineering solution generally leads to a decision based on economics.
However, 1f 1t can be documented that the merged stack configuration was
clearly superior to other stack configurations for purely engineering
reasons, without consideration of cost, then credit for merging may be
granted.

     In order to most reliably Implement the provisions of the regulations
regarding the merging of gas streams for sound economic reasons,  1t would
be necessary to ascertain the actual Intent of the source owner or operator
at the time the decision was made to merge gas streams.  Recognizing that
the difficulty of doing so was the basis for EPA's rejection of an "Intent
test" 1n the rule, the following approach provides a surrogate demonstration
of Intent.  This approach 1s summarized 1n Figure 2.

     Because the potential savings attributable to the avoidance  of
pollution controls can significantly Influence decisions to merge stacks,
one way to show the absence of dispersion Intent 1s to conduct an analysis
of the annual1zed capital and maintenance costs for merged stacks and  for
Individual stacks, and compare the results to the compliance costs (fuel
and operation and maintenance of any control equipment) calculated based on
the emission limitations derived with and without merged stack credit.  If,
when the difference 1n capital and maintenance costs 1s compared  with  the
difference 1n compliance costs over the period of capital amortization, the
capital and maintenance cost saving 1s greater than the compliance cost
saving, then merging can be accepted as having a sound economic basis.

     In establishing this rule of thumb, we are aware that a benefit  of as
little as 10-20 percent could be considered "significant" 1n the  context of
the court's holding on this matter—I.e., such a benefit could  have been
considered to be a relevant factor 1n decisions to construct merged stacks.

-------
However, recognizing that documentation of cost analyses after an extended
period of time— up to 15 years—Is likely to be limited, we believe that
the 50 percent test articulated above would constitute a more reasonable
basis for Initial determinations (that 1s, a level at which we believe that
there was likely a significant Incentive to merge stacks to avoid control
requirements).

Affirmative Demonstrations of Nond1spers1on Intent

     In some Instances, a State or emission source owner may not  be able to
make a demonstration as described above, or believe that sound economic
reasons existed for merging stacks, regardless of the relationship between
financial savings attributable to reduced emission control  requirements
versus lower stack construction cost.  In such cases, an opportunity should
be provided to affirmatively demonstrate that merged stacks were  not
"significantly motivated by an Intent to obtain emissions credit  for
Increased dispersion."  The burden of proof rests solely with source owners
or operators attempting to make *i1s showing.

     Demonstrations may rely on any relevant evidence, Including  but not
limited to the following:

     • construction permits, or permits to operate from pollution control
       agencies
     • correspondence between the source owner or operator and government
       agencies
     - engineering reports relating to the facility
     - facility records
     - affidavits
     • any other relevant materials

     For Instance, such a demonstration could be made by submitting
documentary or other evidence (e.g., Internal company memoranda presenting
the alternative construction opportunities available to the company) that
indicates the Intent of the source owner or operator and shows that
consideration of dispersion advantages was conspicuously absent.

     Alternatively, 1t night be shown that either action by the State 1n
approving a revised emission limit followed actual merging sufficiently
later 1n time to suggest that dispersion credit was not considered by the
source at the time of merging or the State approved limit was unrelated to
the merging.

     In attempting to make demonstrations, source owners or operators
should present as much evidence as can be located, with the understanding
that demonstrations based on any single category of evidence (such as
affidavits)  presented 1n Isolation are less likely to constitute  acceptable
showings than demonstrations based on cumulative bodies of evidence.
        discussed below, affirmative showings will be required of sources
whose merged stacks were associated with an Increase 1n allowable emissions
as well as some sources whose mergers were not associated with such

-------
Increases.  However, EPA expects sources whose emission limits Increased
subsequent to the merging to present stronger showings than those with no
Increase, since the regulatory definition of "dispersion technique" views
such increases as an explicit Indication that the merged stacks were
significantly motivated by an Intent to gain credit for Increased disper-
sion.  Sources who do not Increase their emissions, but who have difficulty
making other demonstrations, such as the Installation of pollution controls,
or merging for sound economic or engineering reasons convey a more Implicit
Indication of dispersion Intent that must be rebutted; for such sources,
however, the presumption of Intent 1s not as compelling.

Increases 1n Allowable Emissions

     As stated above, 1n cases where the allowable emissions of any
pollutant Increased 1n conjunction with the merging of gas streams, such
an Increase provides even stronger circumstantial evidence that merging
was not carried out for sound economic or engineering reasons, but was
"significantly motivated by an Intent to gain emissions credit for greater
dispersion."  This presumption may be rebutted by making one of the
following demonstrations.

     1- by showing that the cost savings associated with reduced compliance
costs for merged stacks are less than 50 percent of the total savings  due to
merged stacks (I.e., annual compliance savings plus annual 1 zed capital
and maintenance savings), and by making an affirmative showing, as described
above, that there was no significant motivation to gain credit for the
Increased dispersion provided by merged stacks; or

     2- by showing that alternatives to stack merging were reasonably
precluded strictly for engineering reasons, and by affirmatively demon-
strating the absence of significant dispersion Intent, as noted above.

     In the absence of such a showing, 1t should be presumed that avoidance
of emissions control was a significant factor 1n the decision to merge gas
streams, and credit should be denied.

     If you or your staff have any questions regarding the application of
this guidance 1n specific Instances, please contact Eric Glnsburg at
(FTS) 629-5540 or Sharon Relnders at (FTS) 629-5526.
Attachments

-------
                                    FIGURE 1
GUI
Credit
Granted
fTeTl
Credit
Grantad
                                   Pre- 7/8/85
                              Retrofit Merged Stacks
                                 Record of Intent
                                  for Dispersion
                                    Pur oses
                                             l"TeT
                No
              Credit
                                        El
                                   Installed
                                Pollution Controls
Increased
Emissions
      Qes
     Affirmative
      Showlng
        No
  Reason to
Replace Stacks
run
Credit

E
R
nrn

Cng^
Rea«
No 1 Merg-

neerlng
sons make
Ing Clearly
Credit I No I Superior


ngl neerlng
easons for
Mergl ng


Increased
Emissions



rr<
t^^V
                                                      I
                                                                 Economic
                                                               Reasons for
                                                                 Merglng
                                                                   See
                                                                 Figure 2
No
Credit
                                                       Engineering Reasons
                                                       to Preclude Alternatives
                Credit
                Granted
                              Granted
                                         Yes
                                                                  LNOJ
                                      ftffirmative
                                       Showlng
                          No
                          Credit
                                                    No
                                                  No
                                                  Credit

-------
       Figure 2
Economic Justification
  for Merged Stacks
Savings due to Avoidance
of More Stringent
Emission Limit
Less than 50* of Total
Savings due to Merged
Stack Construction
Exceed 50% of Total
Savings due to Merged
Stack Construction
No Increase
In Emissions
Credit
Granted
Affirmative
Showing
Increase
In Emissions
Affirmative
Showing
No
Credit

-------
                                                  4* CM Ck. I (7-l-M MM**)
 rAII SI—UQMUMINfS KM Plir-
   AiAnoM, AoornoM, AND tuft-
   MOTAl   O»    IMftlMfNTAflON
   MANS
                A-C-|*Uaer»*|-
II.M

            AQUA Aauu.f si*
1141  AQUA analyala: Submit Ul dale.
11.41  AQHA analysis: Analysis period.
•I 41  AQMA analysis: Ouldallnas.
II 44  AQUA analysts: Projection at
II 4*  AQMA analysis. Allocation of
IIM  AQItA analysis:  Projection a( ato-
ll 41  AQUA analysis: Description of data
II U  AQItA analysis: Data bases.
II 4*  AQMA analysts:  Technique* •aterlp-
II H  AQMA analysts: Accuracy factors.
Mil  AQMA snsljraVj: Bubmtllslolcatoila-
              AQMA FLU

III!  AQMA plan: General.
•141  AQMA nkMt: Demrmetnllnn ol ads-
II M  AQMA plan: MratesM*.
II M  AQMA plan: UcaJ authority.
II M  AQMA plan: PuUirsstreUde*.
II n  AQMA paw Putun M«al sutborHy
IIM  AQMA plan: UI*r«o**m*MaUI ca-
ll
II M  AQMA plan: Resources
III!  AQMA plan: aubasUlal formal.
IIII  AQMA snslrsi* and «>*•«; OMa •*•!!-
   •UIMy.
II •*  AQMA UMly^i tod pteit AlUnuUi*
          I *»!!»•  U«I»>V«4I
II ion  Ocllnltlom.
II 101  8tl|iuUUecUoni
                                         •l.ll* DataavallabUlty
                                         •1111 AddlUonal provWon* for toad.
                                         II III Mtaek helcbt provUlon*.
                                         •1.11* laiaraUtUot control ty.l IBM.
                                                             i«IAh
                                        •I.IM
                                                        on of ractom for ipamd«
                                        •1.111  •kmlitcant harm !•«•»*
                                        •I IM  CttnUrxenry plan*.
                                        •I.IM  lUnaluaUon of epUod* plan
                                          HIM Admkttetr
                                          HIM
                                          •I. IN Puramli raqulrcmenta.
                                          •I.IM PnvmUon of
                                        niton of air ««iaUty.
                                                              proeeduna.
                                        II 111 Transportation control i
                                        •l.lll OnrtHnuTHSi emission ato
                                        HIM  RcqulremenU (or
                                        II Ul  UatilUkaUoa of le«*J *uUu>rlty.
                                        •I HI  ••ljTi»«Hi-ii  HccuuTiOHa  roa
   PIKVKIITIUH or Aia PULLUTIUH Enaaoan
   cv Cri«M»*
ArrcNBin M  IKi&»viul
ArriHBix    N  KHIUIUM*     RnoctioiM
   AcHiivxif TMIUUBH ln»rumoii. M*m
   TBH4MCC «HD RCTBOriT or UOHT DVT*
   VKMICLU
ArruiMi O  IHuu»u>l
ArravDii P  MINIMUM CatiMioM Momroe
   lav RK4uiau»nr*
ArwmicuQ- R-IRuBavavl
ArrsMii 8  EMIKIOM Omn  Itrraran*-
   TIV« RULIHO
ArrauMi T  IRuuvavl
Armmi  U -CLUH  Aia ACT Bmmom 114
   OUIMXIHU

  AvnK»iTV  Thl» rulemaklnc  la promul
gated Hmier authority ol aecttona KKbKU.
III.  IM-IM. Ill 111.  and JOKal of Ihe
Clean Air Act 41 U8C.  14«libNl). 1411.
14W-141*. 1MI 1MM. and IMIlal.
  SouacK M PH HIM. Nov. U.  1*11. unleai
other* Ue noted.
  EaiToaiu.  Nora:  Nomenclature chance*
affectlni Part II appear at 44 PR IU1. Pck.
«. in* and H PR 4OMI. Nov. 1.  IM«.
                                                                                                                                                    A  C— (•
                                                                                             II 340 Rel fur 1 year edeiulon.
  Booarc 41 PR HIM. May 1. ini. unleaa
oUterwUe noted.

• II.M  Scope.
  <•> Applicability  The requlremenU
of Ihla lubpart apply to air  quality
maintenance area*  (AQUAa) Mentl-
lled under | M.IIMIl and to any areM
IdcnllCled under I ft 1.110(11.
  -
Utlnc aource* and emlaalona aooclated
wllh protected irowlh and develop-
ment  In area* Identified under para
•rapru   and «l)  of I SI  110  ThU
analysis U referred  to In this subpart
as an AQMA analysis.
  (c) AQHA  Han  Under this subpart.
the  Administrator will require a rev!
slon to the State Implementation plan
for areas Identified under I M IKXDor
I SI  110(1) when ntrceBsary to prevent a
national ambient air quality ttanclard

-------
1*1.41
        40 CM CM. I (7-l-M IdMeo)
III41  AQMA eaalrsls sad plsa:  Data   MI.IM PsflsHlsas.
  fa) TIM BUte ahall  retain all  de-
tailed data and calculation* uaed In
the preparation ol AQUA  analyse*
and plan*,  make them  available  for
public Inspection, and »ubinU then to
UM Administrator at hU requeat.
  (b> The d«UUed daU and calcula-
Uoos need In UM preparation of  the
4 QIC A analyses and plan* shall not be
oMuMtred a part of the AQMA plan.

HIM  AQUA aMb-sts a*4 »*»•:
   At  the requeat  of  a Bute, or
unte hi* own Initiative, the Admtnls-
UaAor. where he determine* It appro-
priate,   may   approve   alternative
/£&!A analysis and plan development
praeadures aa allowed under II •!.«>.
•1.44.  §1.4*.  g|.40.  il.4*4b>.  and
II JMa). Be  may consider all relevant
factor* Including but not limited to air
quality problem*, financial and man-
                     inistrative lea-
    *y. and eilatlng commlUnenU by
the State.
  (h> The Administrator shall set upon
A request  for modification within 41
ottyi after receipt of a properly pre-
pared Mid fUed requeat. Unlem a BUto
to notified of a denial, or the  Admuthv
trator requests additional Information.
•web  a  requeat to automaUcally ap-
proved on the forty-oJith day.
  (cl The  Administrator ahall publlah
m the PBBOUU. Roawm a deacripikm
of each modi Hti< ton »«"*•
  <«) A  public hearing oti an AQUA
•Ian <»oea not fulfill the public hearing
requlremenU of thl*  part  If. aubee-
      to the hearing,  any alternative
               approved under
     II*. 111. I14«B>. Ml««). Ctewi Air Act.
          141 VM.C. 141*. 1411. 1»44. sad
141 m laiM. Ma* I. IM*. M anunded at 44
nt Mil*. June I*. IM»I
               i—  "Administrator" mean*  the Ad-
mlnlatrator of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (EPA) or an authorteed
representative.
  (c> -Primary *Undard" mean* a na-
tional  primary ambient air quality
•Undard promulgated pursuant to aec-
Uoo 1*0 of the Act.
  (d) "Secondary  alandard"  meant a
national *eeondary ambient air quality
•Undard promulgated pursuant to •ac-
tion 1M of UM Act.
     "National  aUndard"   mean*
either a primary or Meondary •Und-
ard.
  (f) "Owner  or operator" mean* any
peraon who own*, lessee, operate*, con-
trols, or •upervtoe* a facility, bulhflng.
alructure. or Inrt alia! Ion whteh direct-
ly or IndlrecUy remilt or may reauM In
tmlttfffiit  of  any  air  pollutant for
which • national atandard I* In effect.
  (g) "Local agency"  mean* any local
government agency other  than the
            , which  to charged with
          ty for carrying out a por-
tion of UM plan.
  4h> -Regional Office" mean* one  of
UM ten (It) BPA Regional Offlcea.
  (II "BUto agency" mean* the air pol-
lution  control  agency primarily  re-
aponalhle lor  development and Imple-
mentation of a plan under the Act.
   "Plan* mean* an ImplemenUUon
plan approved or promulgated under
•action II* of 111 of the Act.
   "Point aource" mean* the follow-
ing:
  (I) For  partkuUle matter, nilfur
oildea, carbon  monoilde. volatile  or-
ganic compound*  and nitrogen
dktilde-
  (I) Any aUUonary aource the actual
emlaalon*  of  which are In  eicea*  of
•01 metric ton* < 100 torn) per year of
the pollutant In a region containing an
area whoee IMO "urban place" popula-
tion, a* defined by the US Bureau of
                                  718
 the  Cenau*. wai equal  to or greater
 than I million.
  4U> Any (Utlonary aource the actual
 innlmlon* of which are In eicem of
 ta.t metric ton* (M tonal per year of
 the pollutant In a region containing an
 area whoa* IMO "urban puce" popula-
 tion, aa defined by the OA Bureau of
 UM OHMIM. waa lew than 1 million; or
  (»  for  load  or load ~M-|Mnindi
 measured a* elemental Irad. f*r rta
 Uonary aouro* that actually emIU  a
 total of 4.» metric ton* (• ton*) per
                                                                                     (I) "
      nttal. governmental. Institutlon-
             , or IndiMtrlal fuel com-
        OfMfoVUotMC OflMflte BOwatf Wwsatte
       I factlltr. motor vehicles, air-
craft  viMsla. or other transportation

•oureea Identified through Inventory

• the "AKROB Manual •eric*. Vol. Q
AKROB Oaw/g  Manual." KPA-if*/*-
1*~*»a n-~rr-Ktr 1*1(1.
   "Region" moan* an area
noted a* an air quality control
(AQCB) under  MoUM l*T(c)  of
  <•) "Control atrategy" i

achieve UM  aggregate
                    for
                 of
 <•> CVMlng or relocation
  (4) Changes M schedules or :
of operation of commercial or I
al faeUltlea or transportation
fcirhidlng. but not limited to.
ton* change* made In accordance with
•tandby plan*.
  (•) Periodic Inspection and testing of
motor  vehicle  emission control *y»-
tema. at ouch time as the Administra-
tor determine* that such program* arc
feasible and practicable.
  (*) Emission control measure* appli-
cable to In-use motor vehicles. Includ-
ing, but not limited to. measures such
as mandatory maintenance.  Installa-
                                                                | SI.I0t

                                      lion of emission control device*,  and
                                      conversion to gaseous fuels.
                                       (1) Any transportation control rneaa-
                                      ure  Including  those  transportation
                                      measures listed In section I0»tf) of the
                                      Clean Air Act as amended.
                                       (•) Any variation ol. or  alternative
                                      to any measure delineated herein.
                                       (•) Control or prohibition of a  fuel
                                      or fuel additive uaed In motor vehicle*.
                                      If such control or prohibition U neceo-
                                      •ary to achieve a national  primary or
                                      •econary air quality standard and la
                                      approved by the Administrator under
                                     •action 3IUCX4MC) of the Act.
                                       (o)  "Reasonably available  control
                                     technology"  (RACT)  mean* device*.
                                     •ystems  process  modification*,   or
                                     other apparatus or technique* that ar*
                                     reasonably available  taking Into ac-
                                     count  (I) the  necessity of Imposing
                                     such controls in order to  attain  and
                                     maintain a national ambient air qual-
                                     ity atandard. (1) the  social, environ-
                                     mental and economic  Impact of wen
                                     control*, and (*) alternative mean* of
                                     providing for attainment and mainte-
                                     nance  off ouch  atandard. (Thl* provi-
                                     sion define* RACT for the purpooe* of
                                     II il.l IMexa) and »I.S41(b) only.)
                                      

"Compliance achedule" mean* UM date or date* by which a aource or category of aouroc* le required to comply with specific -inleshm Hmlta tlon* nontalnod In an l*nplmMinUtl*u plan and with any Increanente of toward au (q) "Incremente of progreoe" mran* •ten* toward onmpHaa»* which wtUbo taken by a specific aoureo. btdudlng: 41) Date of •ubmlttal of the oouro*-* final oonlrol plan to the approprMto ah- pollution control ageneyT^^^ (I) Dato by which contract* for emission control lyotewM or^McaZ •»»*|leatlon* will be awarded; or date --— S*^*111 "• *~« lo*™ of component part* to *c- «. *lte con or InstallaUon of emission eo/l'*?Le'|U!Plnent or procea* change: •»» which or process modification Is to be completed; and <•> Date by which final compluuice Is to be achieved. 719


-------
 ISI.IM

    "Transportation  control  meas-
 ure" means any measure thai la direct-
 ed  toward reducing emissions of  air
 pollutants    from    transportation
 sources. Such measures  Include, but
 are not limited to, lhaee  listed In see-
 Uoa 10*n of the Clean Air Act.
  (»Mw) I Reserved)
  (i) "Time period" mean* any period
 of time designated by hour,  month,
 season, calendar year, averaging  time.
 or other aultable  characteristic*,  tor
 which ambient air quality to estimated.
  tyl "Variance" mean* the temporary
 deferral of a final compliance date for
 an Individual aouroe subject to an  ap-
 proved  regulation, or a temporary
chance to an approved refutation a* It
 applies to an Individual source.
  (•I "Emission limitation" and "emis-
sion standard" mean a requirement •*-
 UbUahed by a Slate, local government.
or UM Administrator which UmlU the
quantity,  rate, or concentration of
•missions of air pollutanU on a contin-
uous basis, Including any requirement*
 which limit the level of  opacity, pre-
scribe equipment, act  fuel  spedflea-
 Uons. or prescribe operation or maln-
Unancc procedure* for  a aource to
arxu« conUniKNM emUalon reduction.
  (mat "Capacity  factoi" means the
 ratio of UM average load on a machine
 or equipment  for  the period of Urn*
considered to  the capacity  rating of
 Ut* machine or equipment.
   "Excess emissions" mean*  emto-
•toe* of an air pollutant In excess of
SB. avilaalon stxmdard.
  foe) "Nitric acid  plant" meant any
 radUtr producing nitric add M  to 71
percent In strength by either the pres-
sure or atmospheric pressure process.
  
"Sulfuric acid plant" means any facility producing •ullurlc add by UM contact process by burning elemental sulfur, alkylatton acid, hydrogen aul- Mde. or add sludge, but does not In- clude facilities where conversion to sulf uric add Is utilised primarily as a means of preventing emissions to the atmosphere of sulfur dioxide or other sulfur compounds. "Ftoesll fuel fired sleam genera- tor" means a furnance or bloler used In the process of burning fossil fuel for the primary purpose of producing •Iran by heat transfer 40 CM CM. I (7-1- "Stack" means any point In a source designed to emit solids, liquids. or gases Into the air. Including a pipe or duct but not Including flares. (ggl "A stack In exUtenoe" means that the owner or operator had (I) begun, or caused to begin, a continu- ous program of physical on-slte con- struction of the stack or (II entered Into binding agreements or contrac- tual obligations, which could not be cancelled or modified without substan- tial loss to the owner or operator, to undertake a program of construction of UM stack to be completed within a reasonable time. "Dispersion technique- means any technique which attempts to affect the concentration of a pollut- ant m the ambient air by: (I) Using that portion of a stack which exceeds good engineering prat- tles stack height Varying the rate of smtoslnii of a pollutant according to atmospheric conditions or ambient concentrations of that pollutant; or (Hit Increasing final exhaust gas plume rise by manlf—««»* ant affected by such change In oper- ation: or (0 Before July I. IM*. such merg- ing was part of a change In operation at the faculty that Included the Instal- lation of emissions control equipment or was carried out for sound fmonornlc or engineering reasons. Where there was an Increase m th*< lion or. to the event that no i UmltaUon was In existence prior to the merging, an Increase In the quanUty of pollutant* actually emitted prior to the merging, the reviewing agency shall presume that merging was sJg- nUlcantly motivated by an mteat to gam emissions credit for greater dto- Absent * desaonstraUon by owner or operator that t was not signlfteantly mottvatr ed by such Intent. UM reviewing •goaty shall deny credit for the ef- fects of ouch merging to calculating UM allowable missions for UM souros; (111) Smok* rfmnagcmcnt m •grtcul- lural or sllvlcultural | Sl.ltt H-hetsht •! nearby Mnictureisl i from Ihe (round level elevation at UM taseof IhecUck L-fewer Mmeiulon. hetsht or protect** •loth, ol ncmrby •ttvcturds) provided that the EPA. State or tonal control agency may require the use of a field study or fluid model to verify OEP stack height for the source: or (II The height demonstrated by a fluid model or a field study approved by UM EPA State or local control agency, which ensure* that UM emto- i from a stack do not result m ex- Ive concentrations of any air pol- • result of atmospheric wakes, or eddy effects cre- ated by the source Iteelf. nearby struc- tures or nearby terrain feature*. (U) "Nearby" as used to |H.|gOtMI of thto part to defined for a specific structure or terrain feature and (I) fvjr purposes of applying UM for- provided ta III.ll04UMa> means distance up to five times UM of UM height or the width ex- pa re meters, exhaust gas pa- rameters, stack parameters, or eombln- log exhaust gssas from several extot- Isctlre handling sf exhaust streams so as to Increase UM * gas plume rise. ()> The prsnsrtlng sentence (!) The reheating of a gs following use of a pollution control sjatsm. for UM purpose of returning UM gas to UM temperature at which It was originally discharged from UM fa- dlHy generating the gas stream: (Ml The merging of exhaust gas streams where: (A> The source owner or operator demons!rate* that the fadltty was originally designed and constructed with such merged gas streams; (B) After July •. IMS such merging to part of a change In operation at the facility that Includes the Installation of pollution controls and to accompa- nied by a net reduction HI the allow- able emissions of a pollutant. This ex- duslon from the definition of '•disper- sion techniques" shall apply only to the emlMlon limitation for the pollut Ual woodbumlng and open burning; or (v) Techniques undsr tll.lMthhMlMHI) which Increase final exhaust gas plume rise where tht resulting allowable emissions of sulfur dioxide from the faculty do not exceed •.go* tons per year. (HI "Oood engineering practtos" stock height mnens UM greater oT. (II W meters, measured from UM ground-lev*! elevation at UM bats of UM stock: (INI) For stacks fen sxtotenee *• Jan- uary IS, Iflf. and for which UM i or operator had obtained all a| permits or approvato required i CFH Parts!I andII. sl.-a.Mi. provided the owner or operator pro- duces evidence that this equation was actually relied on In establishing an emission limitation: 1II> for all other stacks. H.-H » ML H,-rood enslncerlns pnctln lUek hri«M, mtimmd from (he (round level eleva- tion *1 (he bwe or the *Uck. i of a structure, but not greelsr than 0.1 km (H mile), and (II For conducting demonstrations under I ll.loatuxSt means not greater than l.l km (* mile), except that UM portion of a terrain feature may be considered to be nearby which falto within a distance of up to II times the height (H.) of the feature. to exceed a mile* If such feature achieve* a height (H,) l.l km from UM that to at least «• percent of the i height determined by UM formulae provided te lll.HMUxaxil) of thto part or M meters, whichever to greater, as measured from the ground- levet elevation at the base of UM stack. The height of the structure or terrain feature to measured from the ground- level elevation at the base of UM stack. (kk> "Excessive concentration- to de- fined for the purpose of determining good engineering practice stack height under III.IMMIIM» and means. (II for sources seeking credit for •tack height exceeding that estab- lished under | II.IOMIIM1) a maximum ground-level concentration due to emissions from a stack due In whole or part to downwash. wskes. and eddy ef- fects produced .by nearby structures or nearby terrain features which Individ- ually to at least 40 percent In excess of 720 121

-------
191.100

the  maximum  concentration experi-
enced |n the absence of such down-
wa*h.  wake*,  or  eddy  eflecU  and
which contribute* to a total concentra-
tion due to emlMloiu from all sources
that Is  greater than  an ambient air
Quality  standard.  For sources subject
to the prevention of significant dete-
rioration program (40 CFR SI.IM and
I).3D. an excessive concentration al-
ternatively means a maximum ground-
level eoncentratlon due to emissions
flora a stack due  In whole or part to
downwash. wakes, or eddy effects pro-
duced by nearby structures or nearby
terrain  features which Individually la
at least 40  percent In excess of  UM
•wubuura concentration experienced
In the  absence  of such downwash.
wakes, or eddy  effects  and greater
Utan a prevention of significant dete-
rioration  Increment.  The  allowable
emission rate to  be used In making
demonstrations  under this part shall
be pieeeribed by the new source per-
formance  standard that Is applicable
to  the  source  category  unless  the
ownei or operator demonstrates that
Into emission rate Is Infeaslble. Where
such demonstrations are approved by
the authority administering the State
Implementation plan, an alternative
emission rate shall be established In
consultation with  the source owner or
operator.
  (» For sources  seeking credit after
October II. I9U. for Increases In exist-
ing stack heights up to the heights es-
tablished  under  1 SI.IOOUIM3). either
(l> a maximum around-level concentra-
tion due In whole or part  to down-
wash, wakes or eddy effects as provid-
ed In paragraph  of this section,
except that the emission rate specified
by  any applicable State Implementa-
tion plan (or. In the absence  of such a
limit, the actual  emission rate! shall
be used, or (ll> the actual presence of a
local nuisance caused by the existing
stack, as determined by  the authority
administering the Stale Implementa-
tion plan; and
  (I) For sources seeking credit after
January II. 1MB for a slack height de-
termined  under  I 6I.IOOOIM3I where
the authority administering  the State
urplrmenUllon plan requires the use
ot a field study or fluid model to verify
QEP slack height, for sources seeking
         40 Cn CK. I (7-1-00 IdMeii)

stack height credit after November 9.
IM4 based on the aerodynamic Influ-
ence of cooling towers, and for sources
seeking  stack height credit after De-
cember SI. 1970 based on the aerody-
namic Influence of structures not ade-
quately  represented by the equations
In | II.10O(IIM3). a maximum ground-
level  concentration  due In whole or
part to  downwash. wakes or eddy ef-
fects  that  Is at least  40  percent In
excess of the maximum concentration
experienced In the absence of such
downwash. wakes, or eddy effects.
  (IIMmm) {Reserved!
  Inn) Intermittent  control system
(ICB) means a dtapendon  technique
which varies the rate at which pollut-
ants are emitted to the atmosphere ac-
cording  to meteorological conditions
and/or amMdnt concentrations of the
pollutant. In order to prevent ground-
level concentrations In excess of appli-
cable ambient air quality standards.
Such a dispersion technique Is an ICB
whether used alone, used  with other
dispersion  techniques,  or  used as •
supplement to continuous  emission
controls (I.e.. used as a supplemental
control system).
  (ool "Partlculate matter" means any
airborne finely divided solid or liquid
material with an aerodynamic diame-
ter smaller than 100 micrometers.
  (ppt "Partlculate matter emlsaloM"
means all finely divided solid or liquid
material,  other  than unoombtned
water, emitted to the ambient air a*
           by  applicable  reference
         or an equivalent or alterna-
tive method, specified In this chapter.
or by a test method specified In an ap-
proved BUte Implementation plan.
    "PM»"   means   parOculate
matter with an aerodynamic diameter
less than or equal to a nominal 10 mi-
crometers as measured by a reference
method based on Appendix J of Put
•0 of this chapter and designated m
accordance with Part IS of this chap-
ter or by an equivalent method desig-
nated In accordance with  Part M of
this chapter.
  (rr) "Paf»  emissions" means finely
divided  solid or liquid  material, with
an aerodynamic diameter leas than or
equal to a nominal 10 micrometers
emitted to the ambient air  as meas-
ured  by  an  applicable  reference
  •*vw*4MM«tal fretectWn Agency

  method, or an  equivalent or alterna-
  tive method, specified In this chapter
  or by a test method specified In an ap-
  proved State Implementation plan.
     'Total suspended partlculate"
  means partlculate matter as measured
  by the method  described In Appendix
  B of Part M of this chapter.
  HI tit 4MWI. NO«. i. IMS. as amended at M
  m Mill. July I.

  • 11.191
   Nothing In this  part  will be con
 •trued In any manner
   (a> To encourage a Stale to prepare.
 adopt, or submit a plan which does not
 provide for the protection  and en-
 hancement of air quality so M to pro-
 mote  the public health  and  welfare
 and productive capacity.
   (b) To encourage a State to adopt
 any particular control strategy with-
 out taking Into consideration the eoat-
 effecUveness of  such control  strategy
 In relation to that  of alternative con-
 trol strategies.
    To preclude a State from employ-
 Ing techniques other than those speci-
 fied In this part for purposes of esti-
 mating air  quality or demonstrating
 the  adequacy of a control strategy.
 provided  that such other techniques
 are shown to be adequate and appro-
 priate for such purposes.
  (d) To encourage a State to prepare.
 adopt, or submit a plan without taking
 Into consideration the social and eco-
 nomic Impact of the control strategy
 set forth  la such plan. Including, bat -
 not limited  to. Impact on availability
 of fuels,  energy, transportation, and
 employment.
  (e) To preclude a BUte from p
tog,  adopting, or submitting a ,».
which provides  for  attainment  tad
maintenance  of  a national stawflard
through the  application of « vttUrol
strategy not specifically Identified or
described to this part,
  (f) To preclude a State or political
subdivision thereof from adopting or
enforcing any emission limitations or
other measures or combinations there:
of to atteln and  maintain air quality
better than that required by a nation-
al standard.
  (g> To encourage a Slate to adopt a
control strategy uniformly applicable
throughout a region unless there Is no
                             | SI.IM

  satisfactory alternative way of provid-
  ing for attainment and maintenance of
  a national standard throughout such
  region.

  MUM Public atari.!*.
   (al Bxcepi as otherwise provided In
  paragraph (c) of this section. States
  must conduct one or more public hear-
  ings on the following prior to adoption
  and submission to EPA of:
   (l> Any plan or revision of It re-
  quired by |Bl.l04(ai.
   (» Any Individual compliance ached-'
  ule under (| 01.300).
   <>» Any revision under I 01.104(d>.
     Separate hearings may be held
  for plans  to Implement primary and
 gecondary standards.
   (c) No hearing will be  required  for
 any  change  to  an   Increment  of
 progress  In  an  approved  Individual
 compliance  schedule  unless  ^trh
 change la likely to cause the source to
 be unable to comply  with  the  final
 compliance date In the schedule. The
 re«iilremente of  1111.104 and si |M
 will be applicable to such schedules.
  (d) Any hearing required by pan-
 graph (a) of this section will be held

 "J" *• considered to Include. 'at'lei*
 M days prior to the  date of such
 hearuigtsk
  (1) Notice given to the  public  by
 prominent advertisement hi the are*
 •«*eted   announcing  the  del*.).
 umetsi,   and  placets)   of   BIM^II
 boarlngts);                     ^^
  (3> Availability  of each  proposed


 %5»w-H5i5S
                            oahedule
         the region In which the af-
fected source Is located;     "«•«•»

                   th* Aa-nlntotralor
               appropriate  Regional
  <[J»Notlflcallon to each local air pol-
"V^?  control agency  which  will be
•tenlflcanlly Impacted  by such  plan.
schedule or revision:
  (»)  In the  case  of  an Interstate
region,  notification  to   any  other
Steles Included. In whole or In part. In
                                  722
                                                                               723

-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5.8

-------
     WORKSHOP ON IMPLEMENTING THE STACK
             HEIGHT REGULATIONS
                  (REVISED)

           OCTOBER 29 TO 30,  1985
                     by

            PEI  Associates,  Inc.
      505 South  Duke Street, Suite 503
     Durham, North Carolina   27701-3196
    CONTROL PROGRAMS DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND STANDARDS
    U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT!6M AGENCY
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH CAROLINA  27711
                October 1985

-------
                                                            PN 123-87-10-09-Cl-i
              UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                     Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
                     Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
                             9  OCT 7987

      MEMORANDUM

      SUBJECT:  Processing of Stack Height Negative Declarations
     FROM:      G.  T.  Helms, Chief
                Control  Programs Operations Branch

     TO:        Chief, Air Branch
                Regions  I-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 23,
     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 grandfatheri 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 1 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.  -or example, the Delaware table in Attachment
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

-------
                      /?'
                             Table 1
       A suisaary of 4ppl«able sources 4nd the Ststes review.

  S». of eo^nv            .      Cr.nd;Ith.r.dl  m,  Sgsa!s&iSiien

  '•ii-T.ir.stcn Finishing Company               x
  2ei.T.arva  Power t  Light
                                           X
                                           X
      Unit *3
      unit M
      Unit iS

 Delaware City

 Indian  River
      Unit *1
      Unit *2
      Unit f3
      Unit *4

Tupcr.t  Seaford

Texaco
 Sulfur  Recovery Hnit
 "luid Ccker

 Crude Unit

 Catalytic Cracker

Sun Olin Chemical Co.
 Bciler Stack
Allied Corporation
 Boiler Stack'East
Delaware "rust Building
Aaerican International' Building
                                           X
                                           X
                                           X
                                           X

                                           X

                                           X
X


X


X
            3F£RC  report     ^
             FERC  report  1S€£
             State Air Permit

             FERC report  1956
                  report 1957
             FERC report 1959
             ISRC reP°rt 1970
             State Air Perait

             Craving dated
             1939

             State Air Perr.it
             Craving dated
             12/2/55
             Craving dated
             9/28/55
             Craving dated
             5/10/60

             Purchase  order
             4/6/61
                                                      Craving  dated
                                                      9/28/59

                                                      Craving  dated
                                                      1/12/59

                                                      Drawing  da.ted
                                                        10/8/65
•
  Stack was in place or binding contract before 12/31/70.

-------
                                                        2
                                                               L
     Actual
i!°i2!!t   GBP
                    Grand-
                    jathered
Description of
G'fatherlng     Post-70
Documentation   Modi floation
                                                               Mo. t
                                                               Modeled
Stack raised to
  ate  whlch formula waa used
  ^e  whether modeling waa done at GEP
                                       on
 'donee of reliance on 2.5,1 provided
xlelcd at GEP
A .-7
-------
                                                                             DRA.-T
                        Sources emitting over 5000 tons  per year
                      Other OT's                             Need for Stricter
 c    Merged Stacks    used         Modeled   Grandfathered    Controls
 planatory Codes

 's in  existence on 12/31/70

 iginal design merged stacks

 istalled  pollution control equipment

 >und economic reasons

 >und engineering reasons

 .1 credit  taken for merging

odeled  without merged stack credit

tedit taken  for DT's
 = Dispersion Technique

-------
                                                           PN 123-86-02-11-012
      -t        UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
      ;               Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
      f               Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:  Clarification of Existing Guidance on Dispersion
          Modeling Requirements for PlpU With "Tall  Stacks
          and Other Prohibited Dispersion Techofques
                                                            H
FROM:     Darryl D. Tyler, Di recto ri
          Control Programs Development Dy^Uion  (MD-15)

TO:       Director, Air Division, Regions I-X
     I !
     The purpose of this memo is to clarify EPA's  guidance on the dispersion
analysis requirements that are necessary to implement  the revised stack
-eight regulations (see EPA's Stack Height Workshop Manual  dated October
1985) and, second, to respond to questions on whether  dispersion modeling
is required in the context of checking for prohibited  dispersion credit
if a source's emission limitation was not developed by means of a case-
specific dispersion analysis.

     In cases where stac'k height credit and/or dispersion credit changes
and a dispersion analysis has been performed in any context, that
analysis must to be reviewed to determine if the model  inputs reflect
credit for stack heignt(s) above good engineering  practice (GEP) or any
otner prohibited dispersion technique(s).(Review of  the model inputs
applies to botn the specific source(s) for which the analysis is conducted
and nearby point sources as performed for a new or renewed-permit, a new
source review/ prevention of significant deterioration national ambient
air quality standard attainment or increment analysis, a State plan to
propose revision of its federally approved State implementation plan
(SIP) emission limitations, justification of the current SIP limitations,
or any attainment/nonattainment redesignation(s),  etc.)

     If the analysis reflects credit for prohibited dispersion techniques,
tnen the source(s) need to be remodeled without the prohibited credit(s)
and revised emission limitation established in tne event that the analysis
shows an attainment or increment problem.  If a source's emission limit
was established by ambient air quality considerations  such as rollback,
moaeling is required to demonstrate consistency with the stack height

-------
                                   -2-
regulation because credit for prohibited dispersion techniques  is  reflected
in the monitored value.   If a source has never been analyzed for dispersion,
then it is' not necessary to conduct a dispersion analysis  now.

     It is a State responsibility to demonstrate (!) that  the SI? limit
does not consider the results of dispersion analyses, (2)  that  the source
has never been evaluated for dispersion credit, or (3)  that existing  or  new
analyses are consistent with guidance.  Regions are encouraged  to  provide
assistance to States in this endeavor if the impacted agency so desires.
It is always appropriate for an individual  State or Region to request  or
initiate a modeling analysis where one does not exist if there  is  reason
to believe that a source's emission limitation is inconsistent  with the
stack height regulations.  However, EPA is  not calling  for an across  the
board modeling analysis from every source.

     Please pass this information along to  your States.  If you have  any
questions on implementing this cjidance, please call Sharon Reinders  at
FTS 529-5526 or Eric Ginsourg c, FTS 629-5540.

cc:  Regional Administrator, Regions I-X            G.  Emison
     Chief, Air Branch, Region I-X                  T.  Helms
     Regional Stack Height Contact, Regions I-X     D.  Rhoads
     R. Brenner                                     B.  J.  Steigerwald
     R. Campbell                                    J.  Tikvart
     C. Carter                                      P.  Wyckoff
     C. Elkins

-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5.9

-------
            Federal Register  / Vol. 53. No. 4.  /  Thunday.  January 7. 1988 /  Rules and Regulation
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

40CFRP»rtS1
Stack Herifht Emiaaiona Balancing
Final Policy

AOIMCV: EnvirotunentaJ Protection
Agency (EPA).
Acnoic Final policy statement
        r Reproduced below 1* a
fflemonndum which MU forth EPA'*
oational policy authorizing u«e of
"emiasion* k*i»***»r (EB) for
compliance with the Agency's reviaed
•tack heiffat regulation promulgated July
8. 1965 (50 FR 27868). Tbia policy
provide* aa alternative compliance
option which can remit in substantial
coat saving* to electric utility or other
sources affected by theae regulations or
to their customers. while aaaurinf
equivalent or greater environmental
benefit!. It makea final and reiponda to
major comment* on a policy propoaed
December 23. 1885 (SO FR $2418). .
MMCTIVI DATK Thia policy ia effective
on January 7, 1901.
ro* nmTMO) **pomiATiOM COWTACR
For information concerning the policy
issues addreeaed herein, contact J.
David Foatar. Office of Air and
Radiation. (202) 479-8900. For
information concerning implementation
and precesaing of emiaaiona balancing
state implementation plan reviaiona,
contact C.T. Helms. Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standard*. (919)
541-5527.
Docket Statement
  Pertinent information concerning thia
policy la included In Docket Number A-
85-05 which has been eatabliahed aa the
record of theee proceedings. Thia Docket
is maintained in EPA'* Central Docket
Section. South Conference Center. Room
94. 401 M Street SW. Waattagton. DC
and may be inspected between 8*0 a.m.
and 4.-00 pja. on weekday*. A
reasonable fee may be chaffed for
copying materials in thia Docket

L Introduction and Summary
  The stack height regulation revisions
promulgated on July ft. 1989 (SO FR
ZT8S2! implement the previsions of
tect.on 123 of the Geaa Air Act which
recvires that the degree of emission
Limitation required  for control of any sir
pollutant under an applicable state
irrp'f mentation pian (SIP) shall not be
affected by (1) tfack heights In cxcett of
     engineering practice (CEP,, or (2)
any other dispersion technique. For
more detailed discussion, see the July 8.
1965 notice.
  Stationary sources of air pollution are
subject to emission limitations to assure
attainment of the national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS) and to
protect prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) increment*. These
limitations are derived from prediction*
of ground-level pollutant concentrations
that will occur in the area of majdmua
impact as a result of pollutant emission*
from one or more sources. Dispersion-
enhancing practices, ir^Hing
excessively tall stacks, lower the
predicted ground-level concentrationa
and may result in -rr'fHn limitation
which allow sources to emit greater
total amounts of pollution than if such
practices were not employed.
  Under the reviaed stack height
regulation, some sources «ay be subject
to emission limitation* which are more
stringent than those which currently
apply. Today's final policy has been
developed in consideration of the fact
that emission reductiona mandated by
the stack height regulation may be
obtained more coat-effectively by
allowing  such a source to secure theae
reduction* at (another sourcefs). la lien
of reducing emiaaiona at it* own facility.
For purposes of thia policy, the source
which is subject to more stringent
emission limit* ia called tht "affected
source": the source which provides the
emission reduction* needed to satisfy
such limits ia called the "providing
source**. Thia joint satisfaction of aa
emission reduction obligation ia referred
to aa aa "emission* balance."
  Under dean Air Act section 110 and
40 CTR Part 9t a SIP reviaioa
establishing emission limit* for affected
sources moat provide for full
implementation of (La. ultimata
compliance with) any required emission
reduction a* cxpeditiously aa
practicable but not later than 3 yean
from the  data EPA approve* the SIP
revision.
  Emission* balance* will also be
approved through this SIP revision
process. To allow sufficient time for
arranging balance* while assuring
prompt ultimate compliance, the final
policy requires EB SIP reviaiona to be
•ubmitted to EPA within 9 month* after
EPA final approval of the stack height
SIP revision for the relevant affected
source. Use of sn emission balance will
not be permitted to delay compliance
beyond 3 yean from the date EPA
approve* the relevant (tack height sip
revision.
  The EPA it limiting the period during
which emission balances can be
submitted to avoid delays in compliance
with CEP emission limitations.
Depending on the extent of required
emission reduction*, significant lead
time may be necessary before sctual
compliance can be achieved. If a source
sought to apply for an emission balance
later than 9 months after receiving a
reviaed emission limitation, it might not
be poasible for the balance SIP revision
to be approved and for the providing
source to reduce it* emissions within the
USB* required for ultimate compliance
with the CEP emission limitation.
  To ensure that balances will have
environmental effect* equivalent to
atack-by-etack compliance with the July
• regulation, EPA ha* concluded that in
tight of potential complexities involved
la the stack height regulation, the
asniaaioo reductiona from the providing
source must be greater than the
reduction* required of the affected
aourea by the stack height regulation. In
order to facilitate prompt approval of
sound application* for emiasion
balances, without the potential delay
that might otharwiae result from
mtanaive verification of baseline and
other factor* bearing on equivalent
emission reduction*, the final policy
3ulna 20 percent more emission
   action* from the providing source
than would have been required from the
originally affected aourea (La. a
"balancing ratio" of 1 to 1.2). on an
annual average basi*.
  The proposal would have barred
balance credit from shutdowns or
production curtailment*. The final policy
similarly does not allow general us* in
balance* of emission reductions from
plant shutdowns or operation
curtailment*, but authorise* their
conaideration ia individual eases
employing "lower emissions dispatch"
(LED) where stated criteria arc met The
concept  of LED. which explicitly couples
the curtailment of operations at high
emitting fadlltiea with tfa* increased use
of well-controlled facilities, ia currently
being analyzed by various state* under
EPA's State Add Rain (STAR) grant
program, in part to determine whether
that approach could be generally
authorized in future Agency action*.
However, because EPA doe* not yet
know bow reductions from LED could be
 adequately calculated, monitored, and
 enforced, this approach can only be
 considered on a case-by-case basis in
 which applicants fully demonstrate that
 these concerns will be satisfactorily
 addressed. As stated at C3 in the final
 policy, sources must submit a
 contingency plan that could take effect
 If the LCD prooosal is disapproved.
 Applicants who elect tc pursue this
 c*»e-by-case approach »houio be awar?

-------
            Federal  Register  / Vol. S3.  No. 4.  / Thursday. January 7. 1988  /  Rules and Regulations
that inquiries needed to satisfy such
concerns may add delays to an already
tight timetable, aad that m no case will
these delays be considered a
(unification for extending the 3-year
ultimate compliance deadline.
  EPA's December 23. 1965 proposal
considered placing Units on the relative
difference in stack heights of the
providing and affected sources. The
Agency has subsequently determined
that arty such limit would both
unnecessarily increase the policy's
complexity and decrease the
effectiveness of the program. The final
policy therefore imposes no constraints
based on actual or effective suck height
differences.
  Because of potential administrative
and enforcement difficulties with
balances that transcend a singje state's
jurisdiction, today's policy generally
limits balance* to facilities within state
boundaries. However, this policy
recognize* a specific exception in the
case of interstate air quality control
regions (AQCR's). In such interstate
areas, states have already developed
enforceable interstate processes  for
attaining and maintaining ambient air
quality standards. Therefore, this policy
also allows the balancing of amiaaion
reductions among sources within an
interstate air quality control region.
  In brief, today's policy allows aa
affected source to meet more stringent
emission limitations required by  the
revised stack height regulation by
securing emission reductions from
another source or sources within the
same state or interstate AQCR. subject
to a "tv«|««nim ratio" of 1 to
other safeguards (sac sections A and B
of the policy) desifned to assure that
reductions at least equivalent to those
expected from ttack-by-stack
compliance will be obtained.
  Analyse* of the likely effects of such
emissions K*H**H^g have consistently
indicated that it will produce equal or
greater emission reduction* at
substantial]* IMS eect than conventional
compliance without
  EPA received 24 comments addressing
the proposed policy. Minor comments
have bean irsaeiriiilsieii accordjeg to the
uuue* raised and are summarized along
with EPA's responses in a detailed
response to flnrnrpent* document
mended ta the docket Comments whrch
addressed hurae* fandaaeataJ to
dexUipuiem of the finaj policy are
briefly summarized and responded to
below.

A. Legality
  Three commenters asserted that use
of emissions balancing would not square
with the statute, claiming that section
123'* bar on crediting "excess" stack
height (La. stack height exceeding CEP)
when developing applicable SIP
emission limit* also requires compliance
with those limits at (ha specific stack.
They additionally died Sierra Chib v.
EPA. 719 F Jd 436 (D.C Or. Utt). which
did not addreaa the issues, bare but
generally cautioned EPA to interpret
section 123 m a manner which errs oa
the side of pratecUai public health.
  EPA diaagree* with these
commeaten, It is quite true that excess
suck height may ao< be taken into
account when developing SIP emission
limits; these limits must treat such
sucks exactly as though they wan not
excessively "tall." However, these
comments ignore the fact that once such
limits an property developed, the
requirements of section 123 an fulfilled.
Resulting, emission limits an thereafter
no different than any other SIP emission
limiutton under dean Air Act section
110. and may generally be satisfied in
the same broad range of way*.' That is
particularly true whan. M hare.
balance* may oaly be used in ana*
which have either atuiaed aad an
mainulning the relevant NAAQS aad
PSO i"cr*wiantT or an *i"
EPA-approved plan* for doiag so (see
today's policy section AJ). Section 123
was not written or intended to
physically elimiaate all dispersion of
pollutant*, but nthar to eliminate
reliance oa undue dispanioa when
calculating necessary level* of emisainn
control Thus, beyond the aaed to assure
the prelection of public health aad
welfare from actual air quality level* la
excess of the NAAQS or PSD
increment*, than la no need to nquin
site-specific control since, la conjunction
with the stack height regulation, the
policy aevure* that BO aadae reliance oa
dispanioa exist*.
  No different mult is mjuiieU by some
commeoten  rebeace OB statutory aad
regulatory Language prohibiting emission
limitations that are " affected m any
manner" by "so much of the stack height
of any source" that exceed* CEP.
Section 123 toctf reran to "the degree of
emission limitation* required for control
of any air poOutnt under aa applicable
implementation plan.* not for eoatrol of
any air pollutant emitted by a specific
source under soea a plan. Moreover, the
         Mto v* IT/Chew £0m
K7. Inc. AufBH 1MB. OottM hm >IV-A>1.
  1 Co mam 14. Hn*! Ea
II m 4M14 (OK. 4. IBM).
i Trvtfnf Policy.
cited passages uniformly refer to the
process by which initial SIP limitation.
must be developed under section 123—
process which is necessarily source-
specific, since it turn* on such factor* a
the individual source's stack height.
plume rise, and interpley with emission
from other nearby source*. See. e.g.. 40
CFR S1.12TJ) (1985). These provisions
simply dp not nach the question of ho*
such limits, once properly set msy be
satisfied. Once those limit* an properly
eel eninioB balance* change neither
the overall degree of emission limits tioc
nor the amount of total reduction
required under the applicable plan.
ether than to provide greater reduction,
  Nor 1* • different result required by
comment* that "grandfathered" suck*
not subject to section 123 should not fcx
allowed to provide reduction* for
emi**ion* balance*. That Congress
nfused to mandate further restriction*
oa *Ucxt constructed before 1871 sayt
nothing about their ab&tty to voluntarily
reduce emiaaion* further a* part of an
emie*ift*t beJence. lasted* securing
further, coat-effective reduction* from
exempted stack* constitute* an
additional hirtificatton for allowing
these aoarcea to be providing sources in
aa eflBfteeioaa balance.

B. Eeusueet Balancing Ratio

  The propoeed poncy leijuetud
comment on a range of ntio* between 1
to U end 1 to 2. noting without
explanation that EPA "piefened" the
higher ntio. Two comment* supported
thi* 1 to 2 ratio. Tea comment*
•upportod a 1 to 1 ntio, aaeerting that
EPA leeked  authority to require more
than equivalent enuaaioa redaction*.
Three commenter* eupparted 1 to 1J.
•uting that thi* ntio should provide
mon than adequate- emiiunuentaJ
equivalence end that any higher ntio
would denoenge balance* and coald
therefore mult to tee* overall
environmenUJ benefit Sevea
eommenter* *uggested other ntio* or
ntioing technique*.
  Providing aoveefa) an* reduce
emieiioM of the eame poDetant.
calculated OB en enaoml average basis,
to en extent U time* (U, twenty
percent mon than) the cBBsaion
reduction required of the effected source
(or U time* that portion of the required
reduction fbrwUcfa the effected atmrce
is seeking an emieeran* beiaace).
Becaoeofthei'-rrrrMlj abort time
available to dtukje. appimt. and
hnpleojent uiiiaena beJance* ender the
three-year deadline, and the potentii!
delay* produced by die detailed
examination needed to aasure
equivalence. EPA believes tr.at the 1 to

-------
4J2        Federal  Register / Vol. S3. No. 4. / Thursday. January 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations
1.2 ratio if needed to help ensure overall
environmental results at least
equivalent to those which would result if
all emission reductions had occurred at
the affected source. Given that NAAQS
•nd PSD increments are required to be
attained, that real reductions from a
lower-of-tctuals-or-SIP-allowables (or
remodeled SIP allowables, if remodeling
is required) emissions baseline are
required from each providing source.
and that the policy contains other
safeguards. EPA believes that a 1 to 1.2
ratio provides adequate assurance of
equivalence and that DO higher ratio is
required The 1 to 1.2 ratio would also
yield the least costly reductions from the
range of ratios evaluated

C. Credit for Shutdown*. Curtailments
or Lower Emission* Dispatch (LED)

   The proposed policy would have
barred balancing credit for these
possible emission-reducing actions at
providing sources, noting potential
monitoring and enforcement problems. It
further noted that assuming constant
demand reduced electricity production
at one providing facility could result in
parallel increases elsewhere.
   Eleven of thirteen conunenters of this
issue recommended that emissions
balance credit be given for reductions
derived from lower emissions dispatch
or some other form of enforceable
curtailment of operations at high
emitting facilities. One commenter
suggested that such credit be given on a
case-by-case basis, and one commenter
supported the proposed policy.
   "Lower emissions dispatch" is the
term used in this policy to describe a
utility company, holding company, or
powerpool management strategy to
control emissions by decreasing.
electricity production at higher emitting
(e.g.. higher Ibs/10 • Btu) power plants.
and increasing electricity production at.
lower emitting (cleaner) power plants.
rather than distributing (dispatching)
electricity production solar/ oa the basis
of least  coat
  Creditable emission reductions in this
section 123 context depend  not so much
on the production level at a given
facility as on a detailed analysis of the
change in emissions resulting from the
transfer of production from one facility
with one set of controls to another
facility with another set of controls.
Without detailed enforctsble provisions
relating not only to the curtailment of
production at a high emitting facility, but
also to the transfer of production to and
emission l:auU  at an identified second
facility,  reductions claimed from i-ET>
would not. in general b« sufficiently
reliable.
  None of the commenters
demonstrated how these emission
reductions could be reliably enforced.
Without assurance that emission
reductions derived from curtailments at
high emitting facilities would be
enforceabiy coupled with increased
production at low  emitting facilities, or
would otherwise assure equivalent or
lower emissions. EPA cannot generally
authorize emissions balances relying
upon curtailment EPA presently does
not know how to calculate reductions
from or how to adequately enforce LED.
However. EPA will review such
proposed methods of achieving
reductions for an emissions balance oa
a case-by physical stack height plus plume
rise) of the providing source be at least
equal to that of the affected source.
Eighteen comments supported no stack
height restriction.  One commenter
advocated the meet stringent option
requiring equal or greater effective stack
height citing concerns that hilinring
might otherwise increase long range
transport
  The final policy does not restrict the
relative stack heights of affected and
providing sources. The thrust of section
123 is to limit reliance oa undue
dispersion when calculating appropriate
levels of emissions control No
restriction on relative stack height
appears necessary to effectuate mat
purpose, and such restrictions would
likely result in fewer and more costly
emission reductions that balances could
otherwise secure. EPA analyses suggest
that emissions balancing without
additional stack height restrictions
could secure up to 30.000 tpy more SO»
reduction (with savings up to $50 million
per year more)  than balancing with
additional stack height restrictions.1
  EPA concludes  that balances with no
restrictions on relative stack height are
likely to provide greater emission
reduction* and  cost savings, as well as
being eatieft to implement and enforce
compared to the other alternatives
evaluated.
£. Geographical Boundaries

  The proposed policy would have
limited balances to sources within the
same state or same interstate AQCR.
Twelve comments were received
discussing the geographical boundaries
app'ropriate for emissions balancing.
Five urged interstate balances with few.
if any restrictions. Three favored
allowing balances in bordering states as
well as within the same state. One
favored the EPA proposal. Others
suggested limiting balances to a single
state, or to a geographic area defined to
assure that benefits were obtained in
the airshed of the affected source.
Several of these comments were besed
on assumptions regarding localized
ambient concerns or specialized
transport concerns which are not
relevant here.
  The final policy allows balancing as
proposed The language of section 123
refers to  "Jtjhe degree of emission
limitation required •  • • under an
applicable implementation plan *  *  *."
(underlining added). EPA believes that
authorizing emissions balancing within
a single state or within a single
interstate AQCR will appropriately
maintain the policy's environmental and
compliance usefulness without
sacrificing administrative feasibility.
More than half the potentially affected
sources are located within interstate
AQCR's  and many others offer potential
balances within single states. Allowing
full interstate balancing with no
restrictions as to state lines could result
in undue administrative and
enforcement problems because many
states may not be able to enforce and
implement an interstate balance in a
timely manner. Conversely, limiting
balances to a single AQCR or part of a
state could severely limit the  use and
environmental benefits of the policy.
That approach would sharply reduce the
number  of potential providing sources.
and could therefore limit the speed and
ease with which an affected source
could meet the conditions of this policy
 and of the revised stack  height
regulation.
F. Emissions Balancing SIP Revision
Deadline
   The proposal requested comment on
 the appropriateness of an October 8.
 1986 proposed deadline  for submittal of
 emission balancing (EBJ SIP revisions as
 well as  alternative approaches. Eleven
 comments were received on  *-hn topic.
 Ten asserted that the October 8.1966
  deadline for lubmittal 10 EPA of EB SIP

-------
            Federal Register  /  Vol. 53.  No. 4. / Thursday. January  7, 1988 / Rules  and  Regulations
revisions was too short to be met in light
of past experience with the SIP revision
process. One eommenter supported th*
proposed deadline. Several of these
comments supported a deadline of nine
months after final policy promulgation.
They further requested clarification that
balances need not be submitted with the
initial stack height SIP revisions and
that this deadline was not for actual
source compliance, but only for SIP
submittal.
  EPA has concluded that sufficient
time for development of balances can be
accommodated without delaying
compliance, in a  manner different than
that suggested in the proposal To
provide adequate time for development
approval and implementation of
emission balances, states will be
allowed nine months from toe date of
EPA final approval of the relevant stack
height SIP revision to submit the
emissions balancing SIP revision. EB SIP
revisions need not be submitted with the
stack height SIP revisions. However, in
order to assure that required emission
reductions are known, a stack height SIP
revision for an affected source moat be
submitted prior to or coincident with an
EB SIP revision for that source. EPA
agree* that the nine month deadline
only applies to snbmittal of aa EB SIP
revision, not to actual scarce
compliance, which is not later than three
years from the date that EPA approves
the affected source's stack height SZP
revision.
  This approach  will not delay ultimate
compliance, since the date by which an
affected source must meet its revised
emission limits will not change aa a
result of emissions balancing- EPA
encourages states to submit EB SIP
revisions expeditiously. to provide
affected sources  sufficient time to
comply with these requirements.

C. Source Compliance Dots

  Two commenters generally stated that
the compliance deadline for a source
should be determined on a case-by
-------
464	Federal  Register / Vol. S3. No. 4  / Thursday.  January  ?. 19B8 / Ruies and ReguJalions
enforceable schedule for compliance
w.:.i all applicable federally-approved
SIT requirements:
  • Ail NAAQS for the pollutants
involved in the balance must either be
attained and maintained within the area
of the emissions balance, or that area
must be implementing an EPA-approved
SIP providing for such attainment and
maintenance:
  • PSD increments must be protected:
  • Any applicable SIP requirements for
visibility protection must be met: and
  • State* and/or EPA must assure the
adequacy of emission limitations for the
affected and/or providing source(s).
This may necessitate case-by-ease re-
evaluation of emission limitations to
protect NAAQS or PSD increments. If
any remodeling is required to ensure
protection of NAAQS or PSD
increments, as part of this re-evaluation.
it must conform with EPA's current
modeling guidelines *. except that the
affected source shall be remodeled using
its actuaJ stack height and current SIP
(not new CEP) limits. This remodeling is
not intended to allow relaxation of the
affected source's allowable SIP limits.
  6. In addition to any emissions limits
needed to ensure protection of NAAQS
and PSD increments, sources must
demonstrate the following. If the  •
providing source is used to cover the full
emission reduction required by
application of the stack height
regulation to the affected source, that
reduction  must equal 1.2 times the tons
per year of reduction required at the
affected source absent the emissions
balance.1  Possible ways to achieve this
are by placing an enforceable annual
"cap" on the production level of the
affected source, together with a "floor"
on the production level (i.e.. a minimum
production level) on the providing
source: or by use of a weighted roiling
annual average emission limit for the
affected and providing source*
combined, etc. Because of the long
averaging time (annual) involved in
emissions balancing, special can should
be taken to assure  that enforceable
means of monitoring compliance are
included in the EB SIP revision.
  7. The emissions balance must not
cause or contribute to adverse impacts
on the air quality-related values of any
  1 Cuidflint en Air Quality Meatl* f
EPA/490/2-7S4T7K. U.S. EPA. Rwe.reh Tn«n*l«
Pan. North drol.ru )u»y 19SS lor laitr vdinont|
  1 Th«»e m r»dueiionj over end beyond «fly
prewired (or the purpoM of proi*ctm| VAAQS or
PSD incfrmwiu. See Section U Policy Oi*cuuion in
the find EB policy memorandum far rt»e r*Cuir*4
loni per yt*r tmittion redustion tet I j»«t«l
b. 11 net Guidance which *adm»e* deitiied
ciiCu:«non  el •miuion reduction* *nd "SiD«" «ill
be proviflrd luotequeni 10 puBucii.on o: th:«
class 1 area. The Federal Land Manager
of the class 1 area shall receive timely
formal notification of any emissions
change that may affect management of
such lands.
  8. Sources involved in an emissions
balance, like all other sources, may later
be required to make further emission
reductions as a result of future SIP
revisions determined necessary to attain
or maintain NAAQS or PSD increments.

B. Calculation of Emissions Balances
  1. The baseline from which emission
reductions may be credited at the
providing source must be the lowest of
actual current SIP allowable or
remodeled SIP allowable emissions, if
remodeling is needed, and shall be
determined using procedures consistent
with those in the EPA Emissions Trading
Policy (51 FR 43814. Dec. 4, 1986). Actual
emissions are determined by averaging
the emissions of the providing source
over the most recent representative two
calendar yean' unless circumstances
(c.g~ the recent installation of a
permanent control device) warrant a
different period of record. Allowable
emissions are those emissions allowed
by a federally enforceable SIP limit
preconstnictioo permit, or other
equivalent document which is currently
approved by EPA as sufficient to
provide for attainment and maintenance
of NAAQS and PSD increments.
  2. Reductions from the providing
source(s) must be obtained through use
of control equipment, lower-emitting
process changes, or cleaner fuels.
Emission reductions from intermittent or
supplemental control strategies, or any
other strategy inconsistent with the
stack height regulation arc nol
acceptable for emissions balances.
  3. If at some later data, (a) providing
source(s) shuts down or curtails its
operations in ways which breach the
terms of sn emissions balance, the
emissions balance will be totally or
partially negated, and the affected
source must make up the difference by
reducing its own emissions and/or by
arranging an emissions balance with
another source, as explained in C3
below.
  4. The emission reductions from (a)
providing source(s)  in an emissions
balance may not be derived from a
control measure: (1) Which is alreedy an
approved part of a SIP. [2] for which a
commitment for reductions has been
approved as a part of a SIP. (3) which
  ' The firni poltcv ctunfei the •ctuil rmntion*
 jreratinf period from Ihrw ytan 10 i»o vttn 10 be
 conmiFTM with ihe EPA Modeling Guideline* ind
 the Emutioru Tr>d
-------
             Federal Register / Vol.  53.  No. 4. /  ThursJ.tx. jdiiuary  '.  liWo1 /  Ruii.-s  .mj  Kcyulciiinn»
thnn 3 years after approval of the su-.k
height SIP revision. Emission* onl-many
proposals must be open to public
scrutiny. 4.nd ihe proi.csi mas; promi*
for full public participation 43 p«rt of
normal SIP revision procedures. To
expedite EB SIP approval. stntps *T~
encouraged to use the SIP paral!*!
processing procedures explained at p.
270T3 of th« June 33.1082 Federal
Register.
  2. Any new emission limitations
needed to ensure protection of NAAyS
and PSD increments or limiuiiur.s
needed to ensure that th» required tor-./
year emission reduction is achieved by
Ihe source in an emissions balance will
be enforceable SIP limits. The balance
must be  incorporated into the SIP with
an explanation of the interrelationship
of these  emission limitations. The
providing source may not be relieved of
its obligations under the emission
balance  except through the pnv>»«< of*
subsequent SIP revision.'
  • I (met n. t wtwniw*" SIP r~v.+»r K MM
ft»«d«d if tS» a SIP (vmmn KM «in«4v~4 M
«IU>» lh» pfcmdtiM Mwre'i pflr.imM -»»«»••«
limiu Ki bKom* *ft*cm-« »pun fnipw ixii»» M ti-r
IUM and O>A if Uwt •H«i.-t«d wmnx Ul«r »*»t«
down, or ih» b*Uma n trmuv«ii*il For ilw pr>**.int:<
limit* r»»<;tiii»il liv
  hei)• l*»0
        ••ill
  J. The SIP '
  pplirjiion of tr»o
  xiri for .
     in in th» Sii1 «< i.oniir.ji>ni ••r.-'.s<>>.»'.
      lh.ii vv:ll b..-i or.i- *-.!.;m.i::- .i">
          nJ itnforr.MMbin «2«ir.<; ihi-
         SOurci* if the prumii't^ «nur> >•
shuts liuACi or ik<> !^lj«i « is i^.m.n.«:».l
hy the suur>.i>« •>? !r. lt>(» si.i':;.
CoR»«NCjuni!>. 'r)ft SI? nv.>; .-.oi::.i:;i rf
<:i>n*:n:jttn«.y p!.m f«ir ..*n jili!<::mi kOu;. ••
to r««Jut.A its cmiMiur.s :o the limits
rr»;nir'.fl by th« s:.icx height SII1 revision
uric** i«r.d unt:! Mnu'hitr «mis»ions
b«liincft uin b« -irunufd and apprevod.
Thit contin^ftntTj' pUn could consikl of «
m«asun* such us thi> surxtiiution of
lownr cjlfor fui*!.
  4.  Kmission ntdui:tions by 4 providing
sour-.-e which are currently used to meet
any other ntquirentf r\U 01* the Act shall
not tx» cn»vJitiil)l»« for an «>mtssion«
hnUnce.
  3.  Emission reductions fiom •
providing nource will not be cn>di>4blr ilexJli.te for cmissic-
r»«Js»i ::-jn» .11 ihc jfi".:; led source urn!
pi'rni;in>;nt miMP.i of compliance L.I" b
4i.hii'\i*d: hDwuvisr. the i«rnpor:ir>
ii.il.ini-e woi.'ld have to be fully
.ippn>\ ril .ir.'J imp!.>.iented by in*
iihiiin.il uini|)|..i.ic^ il^ie for ih» j .*"-•. i.
                    0. FJT;>i.t of fm» Policy

                       I*h»> emissions balancing pol:i.*> »•*!!
                    out general principles for approving
                    individual balances affording affected
                    •mine more flexible, cost-effective
                    «v«j s to meet the requirements of EPA
                    revised stack height regulation. As *
                    policy statement, it neither sllers
                    applicable legal requirements nor
                    mublisne* conclusively how EPA will
                    determine individual applications or
                    cases. ETA will process any EB SIP
                    revision submitted by a state as a SIP
                    revision under the provision* of Sectio;
                    110 of the CAA. and 40 CFR Pan Si.
                    Interested parties will have full public
                    opportunity to scrutinize application of
                    tri«»e principles in specific cases and i;
                    MteL subsequent judicial review if ir.'
                    when FPA lakes final action on a
                    particular E3 SIP revision.
                    |FR 0.x. SA-1M rued 1-«-*t 8:45 «n|

-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTIONS 6.1 AND 6.2

-------
                                         EPA-450/2-89-014
     Analysis of State and Federal
Sulfur Dioxide Emission Regulations
 for Combustion Sources (Revised)
                      by
                 Jill B. Vitas (EPA)
              Richard F. Pandullo (Radian)
               Dorothy Pickett (Radian)

               Contract No. 68-02-4392
               Work Assignment No. 43
                 Radian Corporation
                  P.O. Box13000
        Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709
         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
        Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
           Air Quality Management Division
       Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

                September 1989

-------
                             EPA-450/2-78-027R
Guideline On Air Quality Models
               (Revised)
         U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
              Office of Air and Radiation
          Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
            Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

                   July 1986

-------
                                                         PN
                L'MTED STATES ENVIRONMENfAL PROTECTION AGENCY
\ -V1   f                       * ASH INCTON. D.C. 20460

                                                            AH
    Ms..  Nancy  Maloley
    Commissioner,  Department
       Environmental  Management
    Suite  319
    311  West Washington  Street
    Indianapolis,  Indiana  46204

    Dear Ms

         I enjoyed our recent meeting and I have received your
    followup letter  of April 28, 1986 requesting clarification of
    the  Environmental Protection Agency's policy on use of 30-day
    averaging  as a compliance method for the Indiana State
    Implementation Plan  (SIP) for sulfur dioxide (SC>2).  In this
    connection, you  raised the question of the use of a statistically-
    based  method such as the one approved by EPA in the Arizona
    SC/2  SI? for smelters and upheld in Ramp v. Hernandez, 752 F.2d
    1444 (9th  Cir. 1985) .

         I understand the importance of this issue to th-e coal
    industry in your state, and of the concern that the significance
    of coal variability  be factored into the establishment of emission
    limitations and  appropriate compliance methods.

         As you know, the current National Ambient Air Quality
    Standard (NAAQS) for SC>2 has both short term (i.e. 3-hour and
    24-hour averages) as well as annual average components.  Because,
    under  the  Clean  Air  Act, State Implementation Plans (SIPs) must
    demonstrate-attainment of these short-term standards, EPA has
    had  a  long-standing  policy to require emission limitations to be
    enforceable on a short-term basis to protect the short-term
    N'AAQS.  In recent years, EPA has not approved S02 30-day averaging
    as a compliance  method, unless accompanied by a short-term SC>2
    limit  established by a reference dispersion modeling analysis.

         The Agency  cur-ently is in the process of reviewing the
    NAAQS  for  SC>2' incl-ding consideration of a statistical .revised
    standard.  As  part of thai review, EPA also is reviewing the
    feasibility of using alternative, statistically-based demon-
    strations  related to any such.revised S02 standard.  Because
    urry  change in  our policy on methodology would have nationwide

-------
                             -  2 -
implications for NAAQS  attainment, we do not expect to chance
the current position, if  at  all, prior to our completion cf
the NAACS review.

     You specifically have asked for our position on whether
multipoint rollback or  other statistical techniques cou-ld be
used to justify approval  of  30-day averaging.  As a general
matter, we require analytical techniques that are technically
and scientifically sound  and that are practical and consistently
applied in similar circumstances.  Based on my current under-
standing, it appears that multipoint rollback itself would
not be applicable for the type of situation presented by the
Indiana SIP.  You should  be  aware that EPA approved the
multipoint rollback SIP in Arizona several years ago only
after expending considerable time and effort on the particulars
of each Arizona smelter.  Although in most circumstances EPA
considers the rollback  approach to be technically less sound
than approved modeling  methods, the Agency finally approved
that approach for Arizona as a result of a wide range of
factors stemming, from the very unusual nature of the smelter
emission problems.  As  you know, the problems of smelters
have proven particularly difficult, as demonstrated by  .
Congress' own special treatment of smelters in section 119
•* s - u » •/"*CP«» i^r irfc
^ - *. i c \. _ c c .. .-.. i nc • .

     The Arizona s-nelters are isolated and are characterized
?y extreme variations in  emission levels, resulting from the
particular characteristic of the smelting process, tr.e chemical
composition of the ores,  and other factors.  Use of traditional
modeling methods for these sources was complicated by the
presence of associated  fugitive emission sources and complex"or
mountainous terrain.  Due to these limitations on the use of
standard modeling techniques, the State turned to the Arizona
rtlloack approach, which  included, for example, collection cf
additional -nonitoring -and emission data, additions to the
existing monitoring network, study and commitment to a State
fugitive emission control program, 80-90 percent emission
control, and running 3-hour average compliance determined by
continuous emission monitors (CEMs).

     My understanding is  that the Indiana SIP for SC>2, in
contrast, is .dominated  by utility power plants and large
industrial boilers, whose emissions do*not vary nearly so
much as smelters and which do not have large associated
fugitive emissions sources or complex terrain.  Approved models
already exist and have  been used nationally to account for
multiple source interactions and stack height adjustments
(w-here stack heights greater than GEP must be discounted).
The existing air quality modelling methods for establishing
emission limitations have been used successfully in different
state SI?s which have sources similar to Indiana.

-------
     At this point, I cannot give you much encouragement  on
trying to use the multipoint rollback approach or  a  similar
method for the Indiana SIP.  Any attempt to develop  a  statistical
approach, as demonstrated by the Arizona experience, would
require significant time and resource commitments  from both
the state and EPA for activities such as data development
and analysis and program review.  However, extensive attempts
in the past to develop an alternative- statistical  approach
to-utility power plant attainment demonstrations did not
produce an acceptable technique, so success is unlikely.
The end result of any analysis still must be a successful
demonstration of compliance with short-term standards  wj-.e-r.
coal sulfur content exceeds th*» average limit.  We prafar
that develop'--*5:-', of a possible statistical approach" not be
attempted on an ad hoc basis because of the significant
nationv.-i.1-* Implications and the possible relat :••••" s'lip  with
the SC>2 standard review.  We also are concerned that there
not be further delay in the time when Indiana will have a
federally approved SIP.

     The most straightforward way of resolving this  issue
woul-f. be for the state to remove the 30-day averaging  nrethod
from the state S02 rule.  Any subsequently developed compliance
srrr-.ac'-.  ••:''.- :.-"r s;.:J3-.i tted as a source specific SI? revision
•-.-..ler the alternative compliance method provision of the
applicable Indiana regulation.  Short-term SI? limitations
for each source should be consistent with methods contained
in EPA reference guidelines, using source test metho'ds to
-easjre compliance as specified in 40 CFR Part 60 Method  6.
The EPA's policy and modeling guidance with regard to  the
requirements for approvable attainment demonstrations  is
contained in its Guideline on Air Quality Models.

     As a final note, I want to point out a factor which,
although unrelated to-the merits of the methodology  questions,
is of concern to me and also should be of csncsrn to your
state.  A new bill to establish acid rain control plans,  H.R.
4567, was recently introduced in Congress with 150 co-sponsors.
The Administrator t-st-: "; -vl on the bill, opposing  its  passage,
while arguing a restrained approach to controls, based on the
present uncertainties in our knowledge of acid precipitation.
One of the principal reasons advanced by the Administrator
for deferring action is that current evidence suggests that
SC'2 emissions in the midwest ar«j staMe.  Thus, we have
t ;.ne for the required further research without the need for
?.*citional SO? controls at this time.  It would be unfor-
tunate i", because of methodology changes or other reasons,

-------
                             -  4  -
some states were perceived  to significantly increase
emissions so that overall 502 emissions in th*  ":-..-,-st
were to begin to trend upward/ since su^h a trend would
support those in Congress who are pressing for  additional
S02 controls before the facts are in.  I am sure you are
as concerned acoct this as  I am.

     I stand ready to discuss these matters further, or to
assist you in any way I can to resolve the Indiana SC>2 SIP
tssue.  I an sorry that I cannot be no.-:* encouraging on the
particular approach used for Arizona smelters, but I hope
:;.st at least I have clarified EPA's current policy.  Please
*.i not hesitate to call r>n ne if I can V- ci ;.i-:..*-r service

                           Sincerely,
                           J. Craig Potter
                        Assistant Administrator
                         for Air and Radiation

-------
                                                            PN  165-86-11.24-015
                             NOV24TS66
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:  Need for A Short-term Best Available Control Technology (BACT)
          Analysis for the Proposed William A. Zlmmer Power Plant

FROM:     Gerald A. Emison, Director
          Office of A1r Quality Planning  and Standards (MD-10)

TO:       David Kee, Director
          Air Management Division, Region V (5AR-26)

     This is in response to your November 17, 1986, memorandum, in which
you requested comment on Region V's belief that prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) permits must contain  short-term emission limits to
ensure protection of the applicable national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) and PSD increments.  I  concur with your position and emphasize to
you that this position reflects our current national policy.  Consequently,
I recommend that you continue to identify this apparent deficiency to the
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency and  seek correction of the draft
permit for the William A. Zlmmer Power Plant.

     The PSD regulations clearly require  that the application of BACT
conform with any applicable standard of performance under 40 CFR Part 60
at a minimum.  However, this should not be taken to supersede any additional
limitations as needed to enable the source to demonstrate compliance with
the NAAQS and PSD increments.  In the case of sulfur dioxide (S02), source
compliance with the 30-day rolling average emission limit under subpart Da
does not adequately demonstrate compliance with the short-term NAAQS and
PSD Increments.  Consequently,  enforceable limits pertaining to the
performance of the flue gas desulfurizatlon system on a short-term basis
must also be established.  Note, however, that the short-term limits can
result from either BACT analyses or the need to protect air quality.
Therefore, the short-term limit could be more stringent than the BACT
limit.

-------
     I recognize that the sulfur variability issue tends to complicate
the setting of short-term SOg emission limits, but such limits must  be
defined nevertheless.  Continuous emission monitoring data from comparable
sources can be used in order to estimate worst-case short-term $03
emissions that could occur at the plant.  The modeling techniques  used to
determine compliance with the short-term NAAQS and increments should
employ the enforceable short-term SOg emission limits which the permitting
agency establishes.

-------
 Part 51
                                                    40 CFR Ch. I (7-l-M fdlllen)
 PART SI—REQUIREMENTS FOR PREP-
   ARATION,  ADOPTION,  AND  SUi-
   MITTAl    OP    IMPLEMENTATION
   PLANS
Sec.
61 40 Scope.

            AQUA ANALYSIS

61.41 AQUA analysis: SubmltUI date.
11.41 AQUA analysis Analysis period.
11.4} AQUA analysis: Guideline..
•1.44 AQUA analysis: Projection at emis-
   sions.
11.41 AQUA analysis: Allocation of emls
   •Ion*.
II. 4( AQUA  analysis:  Projection  of  air
   quality concentratloBa.
il.47 AQUA analysis: Oeacriptlon of data
II a  AQUA analysis: Data bases.
•I 4t  AQUA analyala: Techniques descrip-
   tion.
II M  AQUA analysis: Accuracy factors.
111!  AQtManalyateSubmllUl of calcula-
   tions.

              AQUA PLAN

Ilia  AQUA plan: General.
11.11  AQUA plan: Dentonatratlon of ade-
   quacy.
II M  AQUA plan: Strategies.
II M  AQUA plan: Legal authority.
II M  AQUA plan: Future strategies.
II. IT  AQUA plan: Future legal authority.
II U  AQUA plan: Intergovernmental co-
   operation.
Ill*  (Reserved!
II M  AQUA plan: Reaourcea.
III!  AQUA plan: Subulttal format.
ll.«2  AQUA analysis and plan: Data avail-
   ability.
II 83  AQUA analysis and plan: Alternative
   procedurea.

          fcifceaH §— (•m«m*|
11.100  Deflnltlona.
II 101  Stipulation*
11102  Public hearing*
II.IDS  Submission of  plan*;  preliminary
   review of plan*.
II 104  Revisions.
51.106  Approval of plan*.
 11.110  Attainment and maintenance of na-
    tional itandard*.
 •I.I 1 1  Description of control meuure*.
 SI. Ill  Demonstration of adequacy.
 11.111  Time  period for demonitratlon  of
    adequacy.
 11.114  Emlailon* data and projection*.
 •I.I II  Air quality data and projection*.
 11.11*  Data availability.
 11.117  Additional provisions for lead.
 II. Ill  Stack height provlilon*.
 11.1 It  Intermittent control •yitem*.
    tuajiart »— 4>r«v*itMM •«
            ••msjiiuy lpl««d«i

 11.110  Claulflcatlon of region* for epUode
    plan*.
 11.111  Significant harm level*.
 11.151  Contingency plan*.
 11.111  Reevaluatlon of episode plan*.
    iufcpart I—••vltw .f I
  •I.1M  Legally enforceable procedure*.
  11.1(1  Public availability of Information.
  •MM  Identification   of   reaponalble
    agency.
  •1.1M  Administration procedures.
  •1.1(4  Stack height procedurea.
  •MM  Permit requirement*.
  •MM  Prevention of significant  deterio-
ration of air quality.
•MM Ambient air quality monitoring re-
   quirement*.
•MM General.
•I .111 Emission report* and recordkeeplng.
11.111 Teatlng.  Inspection, enforcement.
   and complaint*.
•1.111 Transportation control meanire*.
11.314 Continuous emlailon monitoring.
                          MM*?
11.110  Requirement* for all plan*.
51 MI  Identification of legal authority.
Bl.Ua  Alignment  of  legal authority  to
   local agencle*.
                                                        ITSNWS
          AGENCY DESIGNATION
11.140  General plan requirement*.
51.141  Nonattalnment  area* for  carbon
   monoxide and ozone.
51.141  IReaervedl
                                      712
                                                       Environmental Protection Agency
                                                                          (51.40
    CONTIHUINO CONSULTATION PROCESS

 II 143 Consultation process objective*.
 II .144 Plan element* affected.
 11.145 Organization* and  official* to be
    consulted.
 11.141 Timing.
 11.147 Hearing*  on consultation  process
    violations.

 RELATioHSHir or PLAM TO OTHER PLAMHIHO
        AND UAHAOEMEHT PROGRAMS

 II .141 Coordination with other program*.
 •I.14B [Reserved]
 11.150 Transmltlal of Information.
 II.HI Conformity with Executive Order
    11372.
 11.111 Summary of plan development par-
    ticipation.
11.180 Legally   enforceable  compliance
    schedules.
11.211 Final compliance schedules.
11.2(2 Extension beyond one year.
                                                                               > Ha« Ceafant
II. 160 Resources.
II 111 Copies of rules and regulations.
II.3U Public notification.

      lusiaarl f— TiatacHaa •« VltssBry

11.100 Purpose and applicability.
•1.301 Definitions.
51 101 Implementation control strategies.
•1.303 Exemptions from control.
•1.304 Identification of Integral vistas.
11.105 Uonltorlng.
I1.10A Long-term strategy.
•1.307 New source review.
       All QDALITT DAT* RaroaTmo  •
51120 Annual air quality data report.

    Somci EMISSIONS AMP STATC Acrioit
               RsTOITIHa
51.121 Annual source emissions and State
    action report.
11.322 Source* subject to emissions report-
    Ing.
11.323 Reportable  emissions data and In-
    formation.
•I 1 .124 Progress In plan enforcement.
11.321 Contingency plan actions.
11.328 Reportable revisions.
51.327 Enforcement orders and other Slate
    actions.
51.328 (Reserved!
51.341  Request for 18-month extension.
ArrcNDiccs A—K-IRcscavcD)
ArrtNDix  L-ExAMFLt  REGULATIONS  roa
   PREVENTION or AIR POLLUTION EMKROCN-
   cv ErisooES
ArrCNDIX M-IRESERVEDl
ArrsNDix    N EMISSIONS    REDUCTIONS
   ACHIEVABLE THROUGH lusrixmoN, MAIN
   TENANCE AND RcTROriT Or L.IGHT DlITT
   VEHICLES
ArrENDIK O— IRESERVCDl
ArrcNoix P— MINIMUM EMISSION MONITOR-
   IHG REQUIREMENTS
ArrEHoicEs Q— R— IRESEMVED]
ArrEHDix 8— EMISSION Orrsrr iNTnrRETA-
   TIVE RULING
ArriNDix T— (RESERVED]
ArrENDix  U— CLEAN Aia  ACT SECTION 174
   GUIDELINES
  AUTHORITY: This rulemaklng Is  promul-
gated under authority of sections IDKbKl).
110.  1(0-180. k7l 178. and  30l(a> of the
Clean Air Act 42 U.8.C.  740KbMI>.  7410.
7470-747*. 7501-7508. and 7(OI(a).
  SOURCK 36 PR 223»8. Nov. 25. 1*71. unless
otherwise noted.
  EDITORIAL  Nurr Nomenclature  changes
affecting Part 61 appear at 44 PR 1237. Feb.
I. 1MB and 51 FR 40M1. Nov. 7. 1B88.
           Subawt •— f M

 51.340  Request for 2-year extension.
                A-C— (Rwiorvod)
 Swbpart D— Maintenance of National
               Standard*

  BooRcr 41 FR 18388. May 3.  1978. unleas
otherwise noted.

ttl.4(  Scope.
  (a) Applicability  The  requirements
of  this subpart apply to air  quality
maintenance  areas  (AQMAs) Identi-
fied under I 5I.I10XI) and to any areas
Identified under i 51.110(1).
  (b) AQUA Analvsi*.  Under this  sub-
part,  procedures are  given  for  the
analysis of the air quality  Impact  of
specified pollutant emissions from ex-
isting sources and emissions associated
with  projected growth  and  develop-
ment In areas  Identified under para-
graphs (I) and  (I)  of 151.110.  This
analysis Is referred to  In this subpart
as an AQMA analysis.
  (c) AQMA Plan. Under  this subpart.
the Administrator will require a revi-
sion  to the State Implementation p'an
for areas Identified under | 51.110(1) or
I 51.110(1) when necessary to prevent a
national ambient air quality standard
                                                                                             713

-------
 §51.111

 tentative control slrateglea. as well as
 the coats and benefits of each such al-
 ternative  for  attainment or  mainte-
 nance of the national standard.
   (li>  The  plan shall  Identify  those
 uress   (counties,   urbanized  areas,
 itandard   metropolitan    statistical
 areas, et cetera) which, due to current
 air  quality and/or projected growth
 rate, may have  the potential for ex-
 ceeding any national standard within
 the subsequent 10-year period.
   (1) For  each  such area Identified,
 the plan shall generally describe the
 Intended method and timing for pro-
 ducing the analysis and plan required
 by paragraph  of this section.
   (2) The area Identification and  de-
 scription of method and timing  re-
 quired by this paragraph shall be sub-
 mitted no later than May 10.1074.
   (3) This paragraph covers only plans
 to attain and  maintain  the  national
 standards   for  part leu late   matter.
 aulfur oxides, carbon monoxide, ozone.
 VOCS. and nitrogen dioxide.
   (I) Based on the Information submit-
 ted  by the State  pursuant to para-
 graph (e) of this section, the Adminis-
 trator will publish by August 31.  1975.
 a  list of the areas which shall  be sub-
 ject to the requirements of paragraph
 (g) of this section.
  (J) For each  area Identified  by the
 Administrator pursuant to paragraph
 U> of this section, the State shall
 submit an air quality analysis and. If
 called for by the Administrator, a plan
 revision  following  the  procedures of
 Sulipart D.
  (k XI) For all areas of tile State, the
 State Implementation  plan shall, by
 May 3.  1978. provide for  a procedure
 for the continual acquisition of Infor-
 mation used In projecting emissions.
  (2) The plan shall provide that at In-
 terval* of no more  than 6 years, all
 ar*-M of the Stale shall  be assessed to
determine If any areas are In need of
plan revisions.
  (3) The State shall retain  the  data
gathered and the written assessment
made under paragraphs (hMl) and (2)
of this section, and make them avail-
able  for public Inspection and submit
 them to  the  Administrator at  hid re-
quest.
  <4> The State shall notify the Ad-
 ministrator If an area Is undergoing an
          40 CM Ch. I (7-1-M button)

 amount of development such that It
 presents the potential for a violation
 of national standards within a period
 of 20 years.
   (I) Whenever the Administrator calls '
 for a plan revision  he may.  without
 publishing the area In Part 62 of this
 chapter, require the revision be devel-
 oped  In  accordance with  the proce-
 dures of Subpart D.

 (tl PR 40961 Nov. 7. 10BI as amended at 51
 m 40M6. Nov. 7. !»««)

 I Cl.l 11  Description of control meaaure*.
   Each plan must set forth a control
 strategy which Includes the following:
   (a)  A description  of each  control
 measure that Is Incorporated Into the
 plan, and a schedule for Its Implemen-
 tation.
    Copies of the  enforceable laws
 and  regulations  to Implement  the
 measures adopted In the plan.
   A description of the administra-
 tive procedures to be used In Imple-
 menting each control measure.
  (d)  A description  of  enforcement
 methods Including, but not limited to:
  (1) Procedures for  monitoring  com-
 pliance with each of the selected con-
 trol measures,
  (2) Procedures  for handling viola-
 tions, and
  (3) A designation of agency responsi-
 bility for enforcement of Implementa-
 tion.

 I tl.lll DemoiutrathMi of adequacy.
  (a) Each plan  must  demonstrate
 that the measures, rules, and regula-
 tions ©ontalned In It are adequate to
 provide for the timely attainment and
 maintenance of the national standard
 that It Implements. The adequacy of  a
 control strategy shall be demonstrated
 by means of a proporatlonal model or
 dispersion model or other  procedure
 which Is shown to be adequate and ap-
 propriate for such purposes.
  (b) The demonstration must Include
 the following:
  (DA summary of the computations,
assumptions,  and  Judgments used to
determine the degree of reduction of
emissions (or reductions In the growth
of emissions) that will result from the
Implementation of the control strate-
gy.
   environmental Pratoctfwi Agency

     (2) A presentation of emission levels
   expected to result from Implementa-
   tion of  each measure  of  the control
   strategy.
     (3) A presentation of the air quality
   levels expected to result from  Imple-
   mentation of the overall control strat-
   egy presented either In tabular form
   or as an Uopleth map showing expect-
   ed maximum pollutant concentrations.
    (4) A description of  the dispersion
   models used to project air quality and
   to evaluate control strategies.
    (6) For Interstate regions, the analy-
  sis from  each constituent State must,
  where practicable, be baaed upon the
  same regional emission  Inventory and
  air quality baseline.

  I ll.lll HIM period for ttmumttnOom of
     afeauacjr.
   (a) The demonstration of the ade-
  quacy of the control strategy to attain
  • primary  standard required  under
  181.112 must cover the following peri-
  ods:
   (1) At least three years from the
  date by which the Administrator must
  approve or disapprove the plan.  If no
  extension under Subpart R Is granted.
  or
   (2) At least five yean from the date
  by which  the Administrator must ap-
 prove or disapprove the plan. If an ex-
 tension under Subpart R Is granted.
    The demonstration of adequacy
 to attain  a  secondary  standard re-
 quired under | SI.112 must  cover the
 period of time determined to be rea-
 sonable under |51.110(c) for attain-
 ment of such secondary standard.
                               531.11*

   I (I.I IB  Air qualltr 4aU and projection*.
     (a) Each plan must contain a sum-
   mary of  data showing existing  air
   quality.
    (b) Each plan must:
    (1) Contain a summary of air quality
   concentrations expected to result from
   application of  the control strategy.
   and
    (2) Identify and describe the disper-
   sion model, other air quality model, or
   receptor model used.
    (c) Actual measurements of air qual-
   ity must be used where available If
   made by methods specified In Appen-
   dix C to Part M of this chapter. Esti-
   mated air quality using appropriate
   modeling techniques may  be used to
  supplement measurements.
    (d) For purposes of developing a con-
  trol  strategy,  background concentra-
  tion shall be taken Into consideration
  with respect to partlculate matter.  A*
  used In this subpart, background con-
  centration Is that portion of the meas-
  ured ambient levels that cannot be re-
  duced by  controlling emissions from
  man-made sources.
   (e) In developing an ozone control
  strategy for a particular area, back-
  ground  ozone  concentrations   and
  ozone transported  Into-an area must
  be considered. States may assume that
  the ozone standard will be attained In
  upwind areas.
 I Cl.l 14  E»luk>iu «ata mat projection*.
  (a) Except for lead, each plan must
 contain  a detailed  Inventory of emis-
 sions  from point  and area sources.
 Lead  requirements are specified  In
 I 51.117. The Inventory must be based
 upon  measured  emissions  or,  where
 measured emissions are not available,
 documented emission factors.
  (b) Each plan must contain a sum-
 mary of emission levels projected  to
 result  from application of the  new
control strategy.
  (c)  Each  plan must Identify  the
sources of the data used In  the projec-
tion of emissions.
                                   726
 lil.lU  Data avallaMNIr.
   (a) The State  must  retain all de-
 tailed data  and calculations used In
 the preparation of each plan or  each
 plan revision,  and make  them avail-
 able for public Inspection and submit
 them to the Administrator at his re-
 quest.
   (b) The detailed data and calcula-
 tions used In the  preparation of  plan
 revisions are not considered a part of
 the plan.
  (c) Each  plan  must  provide   for
 public availability  of emission data re-
 ported by source owners or operators
 or  otherwise obtained by  a State or
 local agency. Such emission data must
 be correlated with applicable emission
 limitations or other measures. As used
 In this paragraph,  "correlated" means
presented In such a manner as to show
the relationship between measured or
                                                                                                                       727
                                                                                        20 1M  O

-------
          UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
                Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

                              JUL 2 9 1987
MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:  State Implementation  Plans  for Sulfur  Dioxide
FROM:     Gerald A. Emlson,  Direct
          Office of A1r Quality Planning  and'Standards  (MD-10)

TO:       Director, A1r Management  Division
            Regions I, III,  V,  IX
          Director, Air and  Waste Management  Division
            Region II
          Director, Air, Pesticides,  and  Toxics  Division
            Regions IV, VI
          Director, A1r and  Toxics  Division
            Regions VII, VIII,  X


     A number of sulfur dioxide (S02) State  implementation  plan  (SIP)
revision rulemaking actions  with potential problems  have  recently been
submitted for SIP processing.  Several  of these  rulemaking  actions
establish S0£ emission limitations  but  lack enforceable S02 compliance
test methods and procedures.

     The Environmental Protection Agency  (EPA) requires that $03 SIP
emission limitations be established consistent with  the short-term 3-hour
and 24-hour S02 national ambient air  quality  standards  (NAAQS).   When a
State adopts an SOg emission limitation for'its  SIP  without a stated
averaging period associated  with 1t,  EPA  has  accepted a Method 6 stack
gas test as the SIP compliance  test method.   The EPA also accepts continuous
emissions monitoring and short-tern fueling  sampling and  analysis (3-hour
and 24-hour) as S0g SIP test methods.  The EPA will  accept  separate
emission limitations with approved  test methods  associated  with  each
limitation.

     As a minimum, make sure that there is a  stack gas  compliance test  in
the State's plan when you review and  forward  $03 ruleraaking packages for
Headquarters approval.  If the  action 1s  an S02  SIP  revision, 1t may
reference the underlying EPA approved SIP for compliance  test methods.
If so, make sure the underlying SIP contains  acceptable test methods and
that the methods have been approved by EPA in the SIP.

cc:  Air Branch Chief, Regions  I-X
     John Seitz, SSCD
     Darryl Tyler, CPDD

-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 6.3

-------
                                                 PN 113-88-03-31-049
            UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                          WASHINGTON, D.C 20460
                              MAR 3 I 1988
                                                          omaor
                                                        AIB AND lAMATlON
MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:

FROM:
TO:
Implementation of Rule Effectiveness Studies
John S. Seitz, Director
Stationary Source CompliarfS'lTivision
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

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
    This memorandum transmits the final rule effectiveness
protocol and requests that you implement the protocol beginning
in FY 89 in your region.

    The protocol is the result of several months of development
through discussions with many regional, state and local air
pollution control personnel and incorporates the study concepts
and procedures that are being used successfully in Region IX
and California.

    As many of you are aware, we initially  proposed this
procedure as a part of the ozone strategy and it-was  to be
used in large part as the rebuttal for an eighty percent
effectiveness for all new ozone SIPs.  However, we have made

-------
                             -2-

the decision to implement this protocol independent of the
ozone strategy because of the general applicability of the
proceduzJifcfcnd the protocol's usefulness as a logical follow
on to the|Q&anning and implementation process of any SIP.

    I am requesting that each region commit to at least one
rule effectiveness evaluation in an ozone non-attainment area
for FY 89.  The FY 89 regional stationary source budget
allocates 15 FTE for 12 evaluations.  In addition we earmarked
Section 105 monies for the state's use in participation of
these studies.

    We have not identified a rule or category of sources for
evaluation, however, we do recommend that you select a part
of the SIP in the nonattainment area that either has suspected
problems or contributes at least 5% of the emission reductions
of the SIP strategy.  I urge you to work closely with your
states to identify that part of the program with the highest
potential payback.

    Lastly, I direct you  attention to the national overview
section on page three of the protocol.  Please forward your
proposed final protocol to the national overview manager for
comment before going final with a specific study and feel
free to consult the manager as questions or issues arise
during development of a final study.

Attachment

cc: Jerry Emison
    John Calcagni
    Air Branch Chiefs

-------
                                                       March 24, 1988
                        Rule Effectiveness Study Protocol
 (1)  Purpose  and Goals
     The purpose of  this protocol is to provide the States and EPA with criteria
and procedures  for conducting a rule effectiveness study.  Za the context of
this protocol,  "rule effectiveness" means the extent to which a rule actually
achieves  (or has the capability of achieving) desired emission reductions, both
in terms of the reductions projected for that rule, as well as the reductions
that would ordinarily be achieved if the rule were properly implemented.

     Principal  goals of a rule effectiveness study conducted according to this
protocol are:   (1) to determine the effectiveness of rules for a specific source
category in a specific nonattainment area according to the quantitative criteria
set forth in this protocol, and (2) to identify specific implementation problems
that should be  addressed by the State and EPA to achieve greater rule effective-
ness in the future.

(2)  Application

     A State or EPA  may use this protocol at its own initiative to evaluate a
rule, and to take or require corrective action based on that evaluation.  If a
State wishes to claim new emissions reduction credits in its SIP based upon
corrective action in response to a rule effectiveness study, these credits must
first be verified in a subsequent study.

     This protocol may not be used to justify a relaxation of minimum program
implementation  requirements (including, for example, the frequency and quality
of inspections, timely enforcement, and the correct application of rules through
testing, permitting  and other source specific determinations).

(3)  General Approach

     Any rule effectiveness study conducted by the State or EPA must be conduct-
ed in accordance with the provisions of this protocol.

     Each study will occur in two phases:  a field inspection phase, in which
inspections arsv conducted (after a selective file review) and compliance deter-
minations are made (to the extent possible) for a representative sample of
sources in a nonattainment area; and an office investigation phase, in which
further analysis is  undertaken of program implementation elements that are not
susceptible to  comprehensive evaluation in a field inspection study.

     Field inspections will be used to calculate or measure emissions at  sources
included in the sample, and to determine the percentage effectiveness of  the
regulations involved by comparing the actual to the allowable emissions at each
source.  A separate  program effectiveness determination will also be made by
comparing the State's projected reductions for the source category  to  the
reductions actually  achieved.

-------
                                                       *ule Effectiveness Study Protoc
                                                       March 24, 1988
                                                       Page 2


     A follow-up office investigation will supplement field inspections for the
purpose of identifying specific program  implementation problems that should be
addressed by the State and/or EPA.  The  following potential program problem
areas will be evaluated in both phases of the study»  regulatory standards,
regulation enforceability, permits, variances, inspection procedures, compliance
determinations,  enforcement procedures,  source and emissions inventories, source
files and data management, training, and agency resources management.

     This protocol requires that detailed criteria and procedures be developed
for conducting each area of evaluation.  Example checklists and guidelines for
developing these criteria and procedures are included as attachments to the
protocol.  All detailed criteria and procedures developed as a part of a speci-
fic study will be incorporated in the protocol.

(4)  Coordination between the State and  EPA

     Whenever the State or EPA has decided to conduct a rule effectiveness
study, the following coordination shall  occur.

      (a)  Opportunity to Participate

     An opportunity to participate in the study shall be given to all non-
initiating agencies with jurisdiction over the nonattainment area.

      (b)  Preliminary Notice and Meeting

     The initiating agency shall notify  other affected agencies of the decision
to conduct the study and identify the purpose of the study, the source cate-
gory (s) and rule(s) affected, and the anticipated study schedule.  At the
election of any  affected agency, a preliminary management level meeting may be
called to discuss the study.

      (c)  Final  Protocol Preparation and Review

          1.   Preparation of Proposed Final Protocol

     Whenever a  rule effectiveness study will be conducted by the State or EPA,
the initiating agency shall prepare and  submit to the other agency(s) for prior
review a propossvt final protocol including the detailed procedures and criteria
that will be faQowed when conducting the study.  These criteria and procedures
shall address eeiefa element of this protocol and shall incorporate, at a minimum,
the criteria and procedures included in  Attachments A-G, which may be modified
as necessary to  incorporate unique considerations that apply to the specific
State.

     The reviewing agency shall review and respond to the proposed  final proto-
col within two weeks of its receipt.  Zn the response, the  reviewing agency
shall indicate all areas of disagreement or areas warranting clarification and
specify areas where the proposed criteria and procedures are considered defec-
tive.  The initiating agency should then confer with the reviewing  agency  to
resolve all areas of potential disagreement and take appropriate  corrective
steps to ensure  the validity of the study.

-------
                                                       Rule Effectiveness Study Protoc
                                                       March 24, 1988
                                                       Pag* 3
           2.   national Overview
     Rule effectiveness  study overview will be conducted by the Compliance
Monitoring Branch of EPA's Stationary Source Compliance Division.  The overview
objective will be to promote rule effectiveness study quality and consistency on
a national level through protocol review and comment.

     Following the completion of a proposed final protocol (including all
revisions resulting from prior review), the initiating agency shall forward the
protocol to the National Rule Effectiveness Study Overview Manager.  The Over-
view Manager will provide written comments, if any, within two weeks of receipt
of the proposed final protocol.  He will also forward the protocol to selected
State and EPA reviewers, who based on their experience and knowledge may also
provide additional verbal or written comments.

     Correspondence concerning national overview should be addressed to the
National Rule Effectiveness Study Overview Manager, Stationary Source Compliance
Division (EN-341), U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington, O.C., 20460.

          3.   Final Protocol

     the initiating agency is responsible for the development of a final proto-
col that ensures the validity of a rule effectiveness study.

     A State's failure to correct protocol deficiencies identified during
protocol review may restrict the use of study results as support for emission
reduction credits.  Likewise, EPA's failure to correct protocol deficiencies may
restrict the use of study results as a justification for requiring corrective
action by the State.

     A protocol may be revised or amended during a study by agreement of the
initiating and reviewing agencies.  Following adoption by the initiating agency,
a copy of the final protocol, and any revisions or amendments, shall be for-
warded to the National Rule Effectiveness Study Overview Manager.

     (d)  Additional Areas Requiring Prior Coordination and Review

     The following areas, in addition to those indicated in subparagraph 4(c),
require coordination and review prior to initiating the study.

          1.   Study Team Identified.  The initiating agency shall identify its
study team, and provide  a description of the background and qualifications of
the lead investigator; the specific inspectors included in the study shall also
be identified.

          2.   All Regulations and Policies Identified.  All regulations and
policies affecting the study should be identified and clearly defined  in terms
of their applicability to sources included in the study.  For example,  all
express or implied exemptions should be specifically indicated;  compliance test
procedures should also be specified, along with applicable averaging  tines, and

-------
                                                       Rule Effectiveness study Protc
                                                       March  24,  1988
                                                       Pag* 4


all limitation* tff acting source  compliance.  In addition, all  legal require-
ments limiting fcapection and enforcement activities should be  specified.

          3.   Sources Identified.  Sources selected for the  field study shall
be named, and the reviewing agency  shall be given an opportunity  to propose
further sample stratification to  ensure that the sample is representative.

     (e)  Conflict Resolution

          1.   During the Investigation

     If a conflict occurs during  the  study regarding the interpretation of
agency policies, regulation requirements, inspection procedures,  compliance
determination criteria, file data,  and similar matters, the issue shall be
immediately raised to EPA and State managers for resolution.  If  the conflict
must be resolved to complete a  specific investigation, the specific investiga-
tion shall stop until agreement between the State and EPA is  reached.  In such a
case EPA and State managers shall seet to resolve the conflict  within 48 hours.
Zf after 48 hours the conflict  is still unresolved, the conflict  shall be
presented for resolution to the highest level agency managers with direct
program implementation responsibility (the EPA Regional Administrator and the
State Department Director).

          2.   After the Investigation

     If an unresolvable study team  conflict occurs after completion of the
investigation phase regarding specific findings and conclusions,  and the con-
flict affects the final percentage  effectiveness determination, the conflict
shall be resolved in one of two manners t  (1) EPA and State managers may resolve
the iSE   ay agreement, without further evaluation; or  (2) the  study team may
conduc-  .. additional evaluation  to resolve the conflict.

(5)  Study Team Selection

     The study team may include members of the local, State and Regional agen-
cies with jurisdiction over the specific nonattainment area.  However, the teas
shall include a lead technical  investigator, who will be responsible for all
technical finding*.  To the extent  possible, the lead technical investigator
should have no osrrent responsibility for inspecting sources  included in the
study.

     The lead investigator shall  be highly skilled and experienced in the  imple-
mentation of the rule selected  for  study.  Qualifications shall include the
capability to conduct all levels  of inspection and compliance analysis, includ-
ing the ability to conduct emissions  testing.  Qualifications shall also include
significant, recent field inspection  txperience for all or most types of facili-
ties subject to the regulation, and should include enforcement  case development
experience.

     To ensure an effective evaluation of the State's field  inspection proce-
dures,  the study team .should include  the inspector normally  responsible  for  in-
specting each source selected as  a  part of the  field  study.

-------
                                                        Rule Effectiveness  study Protocc
                                                        March 24,  1988
                                                        Page S
 (6)   Source Category Selection
      An agency may select any source  category for a rule effectiveness  evalua-
 tion using this protocol.  Zf an agency wishes to study a limited number of
 source categories to support a.SZP call,  SIP  revision,  or other agency  action
 related to a need for additional VOC  reductions,  the selection  of these cate-
 gories should be based on the following criteriai

      o    Categories representing the largest quantities of emission credits in
           the existing SZP.

      o    Categories where known or suspected implementation  deficiencies are
           correctable and will provide significant emission reductions.

      o    Categories where implementation deficiencies  are identifiable and
           measurable with a reasonable commitment of agency resources based on
           the study approach selected.

      o    Categories where study findings will be transferable to other similar
           categories.

 (7)   Source  Selection

      The  following source selection procedure is  intended to  ensure that a
 representative sample of  sources is selected  for  the purpose  of quantifying the
 percentage effectiveness  of specific  regulations.

      (a)   Sample Selection

      Utilizing the best available source  inventory for  the selected category,
 select a  sample of sources that  is representative for the category, unless  a
 representative sample cannot be  obtained.   In the latter case,  select all
 sources in the inventory.  See Attachment A.   This selection  will be used for
 the purpose  of quantifying emissions  and  calculating a  percentage effectiveness.

      (b)   Sample Review

      Review  the>'source sample prior to initiation of the study  to determine
whether major problems throughout the  source  category have been excluded from
consideration.   Zf so,  redesign  the sampling  procedure  to include the additional
stratification required to ensure appropriate consideration of  major problem
areas.  Zn such a case, the  initiating and  reviewing agencies should agree  on
the modified  selection procedure.   See  Attachment A.

 (8)  Preliminary File  Review

     The study team should collect and  review all relevant State and EPA regula-
tory  information relating to sources  included in  the sample.  This includes all
regulations,  permits,  variances,  enforcement  agreements, etc.,  that establish
specific requirements.  The  study team  should also collect and  review all State
and EPA regulation interpretation guidelines  that apply to each source, as  well

-------
                                                       Rule Effectiveness Study Protoc
                                                       March 24, 1988
                                                       Pag* 6


as procedures  tnet.policies governing  inspections, compliance testing, and
enforcement.

(9)  Field Inspection Phase

     Each source included in the sample will be inspected by the Study Team.  If
conditions at  the source prevent an inspection during normal operating conditions,
this should be noted in the inspection report, but the best inspection that is
reasonable under the circumstances should occur in any case.

     All inspections should be unannounced and designed to apprehend ongoing viola-
tions  (especially those susceptible to operator control during an inspection).
Exceptions may be justified to ensure that a source is operating, to allow for
necessary preparation at the source,  to ensure that key plant personnel or records
will be available, etc.  In such a case, prior communication with the source should
be made as close in time as possible  to the actual inspection.

     During the field inspections, the study team shall conduct the following
evaluations.

     (a)  Rule Application Evaluation

          1.   Deviations from State  Requirements

     The team  shall determine whether the State regulatory requirements that shoulr
apply to a facility do in fact apply, or whether they have been applied in a mannt
that results in less or greater than  the anticipated control.

          2.   Deviations from Federal Guidelines

     Where the State requirement is different from the Federal guideline  (where,
for example, the State requirement is more stringent, or the State interprets its
requirement so that it is less stringent than EPA's interpretation), the  team shall
also determine the extent to which the State requirement, as applied, results in
less or greater than the control that would be achieved if the Federal guideline
applied.

     (b)  State Inspection Procedures Evaluation

     Inspectors) should be asked to conduct a normal inspection, or if a normal
inspection would not be adequate for  the study, to describe how the inspection  is
normally conducted at each facility.  The lead investigator will observe  the
inspection, but take the necessary steps to ensure that the inspection  is adequate
to achieve the field inspection study objectives.

     The team  shall determine whether the normal State inspection procedures  are
adequate to identify actual or potential violations.  Specific  failures should  be
documented and evaluated in terms of  potential excess emissions.  Failures related
to faulty agency guidelines or policies, faulty rules, or faulty procedures  con-
ducted at a specific site should be clearly differentiated.

-------
                                                             Effectiveness  Study Protoe
                                                        March 24,  1988
                                                        Page 7
      (c)  CompllJMC* Determinations
     The  study team shall determine  the  compliance  status  of the facility with th«
 SIP, differentiating between procedural  requirements  and emission requirements.   If
 the SIP is  inconsistent with Federal policy on SZP  content,  the  study teas shall
 also determine whether the facility  would be  in  compliance if the SIP were consis-
 tent with Federal policy.

     Each SZP  violation shall be  separately identified  and documented.  The study
 team may  use its  discretion in  conducting or  requiring  stack testing;  however, a
 decision  not to require stack testing  (where  relevant)  shall be  clearly supported
 in each inspection report.

      (d)  Emissions Quantification

     The  actual and allowable emissions  shall be calculated  (to  the  extent pos-
 sible) for  all sources inspected  during  the study,  according to  the  detail-
 ed criteria and procedures reflected in  the final study protocol. Allowable
 emissions shall be defined by the SZP.   Zf the SZP  is inconsistent with Federal
 policy on SZP  content, the study  team  shall also calculate the emissions  that would
 be allowable if the SZP were consistent  with  Federal  policy.

     Zf the study team wishes to  identify other  reducible  emissions  for the purpose
 of documenting potential additional  emission  reduction  credits,  these emissions
 shall also  be  calculated according to  the procedures  reflected in the final study
 protocol, and  shall be clearly  supported by field inspection results.

      (•)  Quality Assurance

     Effective quality assurance  procedures shall be  observed in all emissions
 calculation and measurement related  activities and  shall be  included as a part of
 the detailed criteria and procedures included in the  final protocol.

      (f)  Inventory Evaluation

     Operating and emissions data in the EPA  and State  source/emission inventories
 shall be  verified by an actual, on-site  investigation,  and discrepancies  shall be
 clearly identified.  Discrepancies affecting  the State's attainment strategy  shall
 also be clearly; indicated.

 (10)  Office Investigation Phase

     (a)  Follow-up to Field Investigations

     Deficiencies identified in the  field that are  related to agency procedures  and
 policies  should be confirmed by an office review of the appropriate written docu-
ments and by interviews with agency  managers  responsible  for the development and
 implementation of the procedures  and policies.

      (b)  Minimum Program Implementation Requirements

     The  detailed criteria and  procedures included  in the  final protocol  shall
 address EPA's  minimum program implementation  requirements.  Where continuing

-------
                                                       Rule Effectiveness Study Protc
                                                       March 24, 1968
                                                       Page a


deficiencies artr identified, specific corrective measures shall be proposed in the
final study report.

     If EPA initiates the study, EPA may elect to rely on the most recent National
Air Audit as a basis for identifying program implementation deficiencies.  If the
State conducts the study, the State may propose to rely on the most recent National
Air Audit.  However, EPA may elect, instead, to conduct a new audit; and if EPA so
elects, the latter audit will be controlling.

     The State may use this study, if the results so indicate, as- support for
proposing the modification of EPA minimum program implementation requirements
applicable to that State and submit a proposal to that effect as a part of the
study report.

     Zt is essential that a State meet minimum EPA program implementation require-
ments whether or not additional emission reduction credits are justified based on
the results of a field study conducted pursuant to this protocol.

(11) Inventory Accuracy Demonstration

     An inventory accuracy demonstration for the selected source category shall be
conducted as a part of the rule effectiveness study.  This demonstration shall
include the following elements:

     (a)  Field Investigation Follow-up

     Where the field investigation resulted in inventory discrepancies, the State
shall taXe the following actions.

          1.   Reconciliation

     Reconcile the individual discrepancies and, if appropriate, revise the emis-
sions inventory to reflect this reconciliation.

          2.   Representativeness Evaluation

     Determine whether the discrepancies represent a more extensive problem with
the inventory far other sources not included in the sample.  If so, taJce one of the
following corrective actions:

     o    identify and resolve each individual source discrepancy* or

     o    adjust the inventory baseline and revise the SIP in accordance with EPA
          guidelines to reflect the reconciliation, assuming that the  discrepancies
          are representative of the entire source category.

     (b)  Search for Potentially Omitted Sources

          1.   Survey of Exempt Sources

     Conduct * letter survey of exempt sources to determine whether  the grounds  for
exemption still apply.  For a large source category, an initial  survey may be

-------
                                                       Rule Effectiveness Study Protoco
                                                       March 24,  1988
                                                       Page 9


conducted  for a smll  sample of the sources.  Zf the response indicates a need for
general agency follow-up  (i.e., exemptions are unwarranted in other than an un-
usual, isolated case), a  complete survey of all exempt sources shall be undertaken.

           2.   Ground  Survey

     Conduct a ground  survey in a sample grid of the study area to determine
whether unregistered sources exist.

           3»   Other Measures

     Conduct a comparison of alternative source lists and take other appropriate
steps to determine whether unidentified sources or emissions exist.

           4.   Results

     Zf the ground survey sample indicates that one percent or more of the real
emissions  have been omitted from the inventory base for that area, the State shall
increase the entire inventory baseline by the percentage identified and revise the
SZP in accordance with EPA guidelines.  All new emissions identified by the letter
survey of  exempt sources, the ground survey, and other measures shall be included
in the State's emissions  inventory.

(12) Corrective Action

     (a)   Minimum Program Implementation Requirements

     Where the study identifies implementation problems that are  inconsistent with
EPA minimum program implementation requirements, the problems shall be corrected
whether or not they may result in additional emission reductions.

     (b)   Correctable  Problems

     The study team should determine and identify which problems  are clearly
correctable, and propose  feasible corrective action options, with comments on the
advantages and disadvantages of each option.  Specific consideration should be
given to the relative  costs and benefits of each option to the agency.  Specific
consideration sboold also be given to options requiring the adoption of more
effective  control requirements, and to regulation changes that will alleviate
compliance monitoring  and enforcement constraints  (for example, improved record
keeping and reporting  requirements).

     The study team should calculate the emissions reduction that can  be achieved
by the recommended corrective action, if possible, and state the  assumptions upon
which this calculation is based.

     (c)   Uneorreetable Problema/Correctability Onknown

     Zf problems are known not to be correctable, or  if the correctability of  a
problem cannot be determined,  this should be clearly  indicated  along with  the  basis
for that determination.

-------
                                                       Rule Effectiveness Study Protoco'
                                                       March 24, 1988
                                                       Page 10
     (d)  Study IMIn* up
     The study shall include a planned follow-up audit within on* year after its
completion to determine if corrective actions were implemented and whether the
actions resulted in the improvements anticipated.

(13)

     (a)  Inspection Summary Report

     A separate sunanary report shall be completed for each source inspection.  This
report should include a summary of specific findings and recommendations, and all
compliance or emissions calculations with supporting data.  See Attachment P..

     (b)  Final Study Report

     A final study report shall be completed which identifies the percentage
effectiveness of each regulation evaluated in the study, and which describes all
source compliance and agency implementation problems that were identified, whether
they are correctable or not, the proposed corrective action, any other required or
proposed program implementation improvements, a summary of reasons for why other
problems are not (or may not) be correctable, and a summary of reducible emissions
associated with specific corrective action and other implementation improvements.
The final study report shall also include the schedule for a planned follow-up
audit.  See Attachment G.

     Any deviations from the study protocol should be identified and explained in
the final study report.

     Members ?f the study team may provide nonconcuring opinions which will be
included as -~  attachment to the report.


Attachments

Attachment A:  Source Inspection Selection Procedures

Attachment B:  iBavple Field Inspection Procedure Checklists — Graphic Arts
Attachment C:  Ixawple Compliance Determination and Emissions Calculation
               Checklists — Graphic Arts

Attachment D:  Percentage Effectiveness Calculation Guideline

Attachment E:  Minimum Program Implementation Requirements

Attachment F:  Example Inspection Summary  Report Checklist  — Graphic Arts

Attachment G:  Example Final Study  Report  Outline

-------
                                                  March 24, 1988
                        Rale Effectiveness Study Protocol

                             SUMMARY OF ATTACHMENTS



Attachment At  Source Inspection Selection Procedures

     This attachment describes procedures for selecting a statistically repre-
sentative sample of sources in each category.  Zt is expected as a part of the
final protocol development and review process that the initiating and reviewing
agencies will agree on the final selection as "representative"' for the purposes
of each study.


Attachment B;  Example Field Inspection Procedure Checklists — Graphic Arts

     This attachment provides checklists for use by a lead investigator in
evaluating the adequacy of inspection procedures at facilities covered by CTG's.
In addition to outlining compliance evaluation checks* the checklists also
provide for an evaluation of agency source files* previous regulation applica-
bility determinationsi exemption status* inventory adequacy* and other deter-
minations useful to the overall study.


Attachment C:  Example Compliance Determination and Emissions Calculation
Checklists — Graphic Arts

     This attachment summarizes accepted EPA methods for measuring emissions and
determining compliance for the graphic arts CTG categories as an example to be
followed in protocols for other source categories.  Only compliance test methods
approved as part of a SIP.or promulgated by EPA may be used to measure emissions
and determine compliance status as part of a rule effectiveness study.  These
methods should be clearly identified prior to initiating any field investiga-
tions and should be incorporated within the final study protocol.


Attachment Dt  gmrcentage Effectiveness Calculation Guideline
     This attacs^sat outlines the procedure and assumptions for calculating the
overall percentajg* effectiveness of a rule as a result of a rule effectiveness
study conducted pursuant to this protocol.


Attachment E;  Minimum Program Implementation Requirements

     This attachment provides guidance on how to  identify relevant EPA minimum
program implementation requirements for purposes  of a rule effectiveness study.

-------
                                                  Staaary of Attachment*
                                                  March 24, 1988
                                                  Page 2


Attachment T:  BMJBJlt Inspection Suaanary R«port Checklist — Graphic Arts

     This attachasnt provide* an outline of the report for each inspection
conducted during the study.  The graphic arts category is used for illustration.


Attachment Ct  Exaaple Final Study Report Outline

     This attachment provides a generic outline of a final rule effectiveness
study report.

-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 6.4

-------
Wednesday
November 2, 1983
Part V



Environmental

Protection Agency

Compliance With the Statutory Provisions
of Part D of the Clean Air Act, Final
Rule

-------
50686     Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 213 / Wednesday. November 2,1983 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 51 and 52

IAD-FRL 2432-3, Docket A-«3-011

Compliance With the Statutory
Provisions of Part D of the Clean Air
Act

AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final action on rulemaking
proposals and announcement of policy.

SUMMARY: On February 3.1983 (48 FR
4972 and 48 FR 5022) the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) published two
rulemaking proposals relating to
implementation of the primary national
ambient air quality standards under the
Clean Air Act. The first package
proposed to disapprove State
implementation plans and impose
construction bans in nonattainment
uruas that were required to attain the
standards by December 31,1982. but
were still experiencing violations. This
package also proposed to disapprove
plans and impose bans in nonattainment
areas that had not received full EPA
approval for plan revisions due in 1979.
  The second package proposed action
on implementation plans submitted in
1982 by nonattainment areas that had
obtained extensions of the 1982 deadline
for the carbon monoxide or ozone
standards. EPA proposed to impose
bans in all areas where it was proposing
K> disapprove 1982 plans.
  After evaluating the comments
submitted in response to its proposal.
KPA has rfiviscd its views as to the legal
c:n:isr>q-.!(>nces of a failure to meet the
19U2 deadline. Today's notice contains
two  final actions reflecting these
rhansed views. In addition, in Section
IV of this notice EPA sets out a general
policy for correcting all of the problems
identified in both of the proposals
published on February 3.
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 2.1983.
ADDRESSES: Background material for
this  jr.tion is located in Docket No. A-
83-01. West Tower Lobby. Gallery 1.
I'.S. Envi-or.nrenta! Protection Agency.
Ortr:»l Dorke!  Section. 401 M Street.
S U .. VUsriinston. D.C. 20460. Tho
il. '. M't Tirtv b* examined between H:00
.: —. Hr.i! -TIM: p.m. or. weekdays. A
;i  •-,(•".'•'••• fi>p may be ch.-!r«."ci fur
   •• . i; A d'.j"! p:jv copy of the do' *H
. - ,iv HiiV.;.: jr. p;irh EPA R»?};iunul
Uifv.v
FOR  FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
U,:-vMiS',mef'uid. Chief. Policy
Development Section. Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (MD-
15), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park. North
Carolina 27711. (919) 541-5540.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction
  On February 3,1983. EPA published
two large rulemaking proposals relating
to implementation of primary national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)
under the Clean Air Act. See 48 FR
4972-5021 and 5022-5149. One package
spelled out how EPA planned to treat
"nonattainment"  areas that were to
have been free of violations of the
relevant primary  NAAQS by the end of
1982. but are still experiencing them.
The heart of this package was a
proposal to impose a ban on new
construction in such areas, even if EPA
previously had approved the State
implementation plan (SIP) that the State
had devised for attainment by the end of
1982. The other package consisted of
proposals to approve or disapprove
numerous implementation plans for
another class of nonattainment areas.
those that have an extension of the 1982
attainment deadline for the carbon
monoxide or ozone standards.
  EPA here is taking final action on
portions of the first package only. In the
main, it is revising its view as to the
legal consequences of a failure to meet
the 1982 deadline. EPA is not taking any
action here on the proposals in the other
package, but it sets out  the significance
of this new view for nonattainment
areas that have extensions. Action on
those proposals will appear in
individual Federal Register notices over
the next several months.
  The balance of this notice gives the
background to the first February 3
package, outlines the proposals in that
package and the bases for them.
summarizes the voluminous comments
EPA received in response to the
proposals, describes EPA's new
interpretation of the Act elaborates on
that view in the form of a policy for all
SIP deficiencies in nonattainment areas.
and. finally, specifies the final actions
EPA is taking today. This notice, it
should be emphasized, focuses only on
implementation of primary NAAQS.
II. Background
A. 19T7 Amendments to the Clncn Air
Act
  IP many areas  of the country, the first
SiPs failed to brina nbout att.iinrm-nt
within the original deadlines established
under the 1970 Clean Air Act
amendments. In 1976. EPA found these
plans to be inadequate  under Section
110(a)(2)(H) and called  for  SIP revisions-.
See. 6.3.. 41 FR 28642 (July 13.1976). EPA
later announced that the Act contained
a ban on new source construction that
would apply in any area that failed to
meet the deadlines EPA established for
submittal of its SIP revision. See 41 FR
55521 (December 21.1976).

1. Designations

  When Congress amended the Act in
1977. it addressed the same problem in A
similar way. First, Congress set in
motion a comprehensive, formal
inventory of the attainment status of all
areas of the country. A new Section
107(d) required each State to identify
immediately areas that were
experiencing violations of the standards.
areas that were not and areas that were
undassifiable for lack of adequate .data
The section further required EPA to
review each identification, make
necessary modifications, and
promulgate attainment status
designations for all areas by February
1978.

2. Construction Bans  and Revised Plan*

  Next Congress conditioned further
growth in each nonattainment area on
the timely revision of the SIP for the
area in accordance with strict new
requirements. Section 110(a)(2)(I)
required each State to revise its SIP to
prohibit the construction or modification
of major stationary sources of pollution
after July 1.1979 in any  nonattainment
area whose SIP did not meet the
requirements of a new Part D to Title I
of the Act Sections 171-177. Section
172(a)(l) specified that each SIP for a
nonattainment area had to "provide for
attainment of the primary NAAQS as
expeditiously as practicable, but no
later than December 31.1982. Section
172(b) detailed other  requirements Part
D plans had to meet.
  Section 172(a)(2) allowed areas th.it
demonstrated that it would be
impossible to attain either the ozone or
carbon monoxide standards by the end
of 1982 to obtain attainment date
extensions and defer compliance with
some of the requirements of Section
172(b). Section 172(c). and Section 129!< i
of the 1977 Amendments, however.
required areas that received extension
to submit, no later than July 1.1982.
supplemental SIP revisions containing
er.fr>T!.i?;iljlp measures needed to assufi
attainment no  later than Decnrnbpr .11
3. /u::.///i.w K>-*:.-\ •'
Plar. flrn.s'/i/rs
  As a further incentive to the revision
of plans for nona:t.a,inment areas.
Congress provided funding restrictions
in Section 178(a) and 316(b). Under

-------
        Federal Register  / Vol. 46. No. 233 /  Wednesday. November 2.  1983 / Rules and Regulations  50687
Section 176(a). EPA and the Department
of Transportation must restrict funding
 n an>  area where transportation
Controls are needed to provide for
attainment by the applicable deadline
»nd a State fails to submit or make
reasonable efforts to submit a plan thai
 considers" each of Hie Part D
rrqurements. Under Section 316(b). EPA
h«s discretion to limit funds for
construction of sewage treatment
facilities in any area  where a State does
net have in effect a plan that
accommodates emissions associated
with sewage treatment facilities.

4. Restrictions as Incentives for
Implementation

  Congress also sought to ensure that
SIPs for nonattainment areas, once
revised, would be implemented. Ij added
two construction bans and two tending
restrictions that apply in areas where
State or local agencies have failed to
rarry out the SIP. Section 173(4) requires
each SIP for a nonattainment area to
contain regulations that prohibit new
source construction and modification in
any area where a State or local agency
has failed to carry out its SIP. In
addition. Section 113(a)(95) authorizes
EPA to prohibit the construction of any
major stationary source in any such
area. Section 176(b) prohibits EPA from
awarding any grants under the Clean
Air Act to any such area. EPA may also
apply Section 316(b)  in such areas.

5 Calls far Plan Revisions
  Finally. Congress retained Section
no(a)(2J(H). the remedial mechanism
F.PA used in 1976. Section 110(a)(2)(H)
'•.: i rem.ires each SIP to require its own
rr\ :s.on if EPA finds that a plan is
"substantially inadequate" to achieve
time!)  attainment of the national
ambient air quality standard that it
implements. In 1977 Congress added
new language allowing EPA to call for a
revision when a plan fails to comply
with any requirement of the 1977
amendments.

B. Implementation of the 1977
Arrenaements

\ Designations

  In March 1978. EPA designated over
400 areas as nonattainment for one or
rrore primary or secondary NAAQS.  43
f'R 8W2. EPA adiusied many of these
designations in the fall of 1978. Scf. e.<:..
4.1 FR 40502 (September 12.1978).

: Construction Bans
  B> July 1.1979 almost none of the
-onattdinment areas had in effect an SIP
provision that met the requirements of
Sections llo(a}l2){I) and 173(4). As a
result, on July 2.1979 (44 FR 39471). EPA
published a regulation that inserted the
Section 110(a)U)(l) and Section 173(4)
construction bans into SIPs that lacked
them and clarified the scope of bans in
SIPs that had them. EPA described the
regulation as an "interpretive rule" that
merely implemented the requirements of
Section HO(a)(2)(I) and 173(4)
  In the same notice EPA announced
that the Section 110(a)(2)(I) ban had
gone into effect on July 1.1979 in each
nonattainment area that lacked an
approved or promulgated Part D plan.
EPA explained that the Act imposed this
ban automatically in any area that did
not have a Part D SIP in effect on that
date. EPA announced that rt would lift
the ban when it approved or
promulgated the necessary Part D
provisions.
  EPA later explained that once it had
approved a Part D plan and removed the
initial Section 110(B)f2XI) ban. new bans
would not come into effect
autom.-  sally. EPA concluded that it
would have to evaluate an approved
plan and find that it no longer satisfied
Part D before the Section 110faK2)(I)
ban couM take effect. See 4« FR 62651
(December 28.1961). EPA implied that it
would have to publish notice of its
finding before the ban would be
effective.
  hi yet another notice EPA took the
position that the Section 173(4) ban was
not automatic. That ban applies only
where EPA finds that a State or local
government is not carrying oat an
approved or promulgated Part D plan.
EPA concluded that it should propose a
finding of inadequacy and provide an
opportunity to comment on its factual
basis before imposing this ban. See 47
FR 9477 (March 2.1982).
3. Action on Revised Plans
  Also on July 2. 1979 (44 FR 38583).  EPA
announced that it would approve
"Conditionally" any Part D revision  that
contained only minor deficiencies if the
State committed to submit corrections
promptly on a definite schedule. EPA
said that it would lift the Section
110(aX2)(I) ban upon a conditional
approval and that it would disapprove
the plan and reimpose the ban upon a
failure to meet the schedule for
submitting corrections.1
  The Section 110(a)(2)(I) construction
ban still remains in effect in a few
nonattammen: areas that do not have an
attainment date extension Some of
these areas submitted Part D revisions
that EPA disapproved for failure to mep-
one or more of the Part D requirements
In other cases, areas submitted
revisions, but EPA has not yet  finally
determined whether they meet the Pan
D requirements. And in a few cases,
areas have simply not submitted all or
part of their Part D revisions.
  For the majority of nonattainment.
nonextension area, however. EPA has
approved fully or conditionally all
portions of a Part D  plan. All areas thai
received conditional approvals
committed  to fulfill their conditions by
specific deadlines. Some of these
deadlines have not been met. either
because the States have not submitted
the necessary corrections, or because
EPA has not yet determined whether the
submitted material meets the relevant
Part D requirements.
  The approval status of the
nonattainment areas that received
attainment date extensions parallel*
roughly the approval status of the
nonextension areas. As noted above
these areas had to submit Part  D
revisions m 1979 and supplemental
revisions in 1982. In a very few areas the
section 110(a)(2)(I) moratorium remains
in effect because EPA disapproved a
portion of a 1979 submission. In most
eases. EPA approved fully or
conditionally the 1979 submissions.'
  Each of the States with extension
areas has submitted at least a draft of
rts supplemental revision, and EPA has
proposed action on each submittal. Or.
February 3. EPA proposed to disapprove
plans for 17 States. See 48 5022-5148
EPA has proposed to approve the
remaining 14 submissions.

4. Funding  Restrictions

  (a) Section 176(al On April 10.T980
(45 FR 24692). EPA and the Department
of Transportation published a joint
policy- for the implementation of the
Section 176(a) funding restrictions. In
this policy, the two agencies took the
position that the restrictions would
apply only in regions that had not
submitted (or made reasonable efforts to
submit) Part D SIPs  for transportation-
related pollutants. The policy stated that
EPA would judge each region's efforts
on a case-by-case basis.
  The policy gives EPA discretion t.
determine  whether funding re«tnc::L->
should appi\ throughout an entire a;r
  ' EPA « authority lo grant condition*! approvals
has been upheld, although the US. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit ha« ruled that EPA may not
I'ft the Section llOilCKII Construction bun upon H
conditional approval. Conngctirut Fund for ttt?
£n\ imr.meni \ EPA. 6T:F.2d 9W lid Or. 1982).
implftr.entpd thfr 19?Ti p!io find that 11 States wi:r
evtrnstnn areas were net implementing vth'cie
inspection*maintenance program*. EPA propose '^
impose contraction moratoriums under Sectior
1"3|4| and fondirtf renncnona under Sectior "Sih

-------
50688  Federal Register  / Vol. 48. No. 213  / Wednesday.  November 2. 1983  / Rules  and Regulations
quality control region, or only in those
portions of the region designated
.-icmattainment for a transpoTiation-
related pollutant. If restrictions are
imposed. EPA has discretion to continue
'o award air pollution control funds to
aaencics not directly responsible for the
failure to submit a plan. The Department
of Transportation has discretion to fund
projects meeting the exemptions listed
in Section 176(a). The policy provides
additional criteria for determining which
projects should be exempt.
  The policy also sets out procedures
for imposing the restrictions, including
notice and opportunity to comment. The
policy suggests, but does not require.
that removal of the restrictions should
wak until EPA approves a revised SIP
as meeting the Pan D requirements. The
policy notes that, since Section 176(a)
requires action by the State. Federal
promulgation of a Part 0 SIP would not
justify removal of the restrictions.
  (b) Section 176(b). EPA has not issued
a formal policy for Section 176(b). which
applies when State or local agencies fail
to carry out a SIP. However. EPA has
taken positions on some issues in its
proposals to use Section 176(b). For
example, where different levels of
government share SIP responsibilities.
EPA has stated that it may continue to
fund agencies in the level of government
that is not responsible for the
implementation problem. See 47 FR 9477
(March 5.1982) and 46 FR 35312 (August
3.1983). EPA has requested comment on
alternative formulas for computing the
amount of funding that is intended for
use in the area where the SIP is not
being carried out. Under one of these
formulas. EPA would withhold the
amount of funds EPA needs to
implement the program that the State
has not implemented. See 48 FR 35312.
  Procedurally, EPA has determined
that  it should provide notice and an
opportunity to comment on both the
factual basis of its finding and the
amount of funding to be withheld. See 47
FR 9477 and 48 FR 35312. EPA will also
provide an opportunity for a hearing as
required  under Section 105(e).
   (c) Section 316(b). EPA published a
policy for Section 316(b) on August 11.
1980 (-15 FR 53362). The Policy adopts a
"reasonable efforts"  approach to judging
Suite efforts to submit and implement
Part  D plans. It also exempts  from any
T"<(r:rtions projects needed In meet
• •\<<:n$ hiMlth needs tha: will not
expand capacity by more than 1 million
jiul'ons per day. and  projects that would
irprove treatment, but not expand
capacity Thu policy  adopts the
pr:cedures developed for imposing and
 removing Section I76(a) restrictions.
C. EPA's February 3 Proposals for
Nonattainment. Nonextension Areas
1. Proposals to Disapprove and Impose
the Section 110(a)(2)(l) Construction
Ban
  On February 3.1983, EPA proposed
two sets of findings for SIPs for
nonattainment. nonextension areas.
First. EPA proposed to find as a factual
matter that many of these SIPs had
failed to meet one or more Part D
requirements. Second, EPA proposed
that the legal consequences of such
failures should be disapproval and the
imposition of a construction ban under
Section 110(a)(2)(I). EPA also solicited
comment on applying funding
restrictions.
  EPA's factual proposals addressed
three Part D planning problems.
  (a) Failure To Attain by December 31.
1982. First. EPA proposed to find that
SIPs for 111 areas, many of which had
received approval or conditional
approval of their Part D SIP revisions.
had failed to bring about attainment by
the end of 1982.' For a list of these areas.
see the first column in "Appendix D"  to
the proposal. 48 FR 5005-5021. EPA took
the position that any area that failed to
attain by 1982 could not be said \o
satisfy Section 172(a)(l). which requires
the plan for any nonextension ana to
"provide for" attainment by the end of
1982. Consequently. EPA proposed to
disapprove these SIPs and impose the
ban under Section 110(a)(2)(I).
  Following this logic, EPA also
proposed to disapprove plans for
nonattainment areas that it had
designated nonattainment after the first
round of designations in 1978 and that it
thought would continue to experience
violations after 1982. EPA announced
that  the 1982 attainment deadline would
apply even to areas it designated as
nonattainment after 1982. EPA also
stated that the Section 110(a)(2)(I) ban
would apply immediately in areas
designated nonattainment after 1982,
since the designation itself would show
that  the plan had failed to assure timely
attainment and. therefore, was not
meeting the requirements of Part D.
   EPA earlier had interpreted the Act to
allow areas designated nonattainment
after July  1.1979 one year to develop  a
Part 0 plan and six months to obtain
EPA approval before a construction ban
  "EPA based ils prrlimmnni conclusion thut th,1""
 iirc.is h.iri (ail,-d lu dtt.un hx the end ol 19K nn
 estimate*; of the likelihood th<>! !hc\  would
 experience violations after IMC. EPA. m turn, bjseti
 these estimates an (l) the most recent available
 monitoring data for each nnnatiainmem area.
 generally only data from 1981 and the first two
 quarter of 198i and 12) projections of the
 effectiveness of control measures scheduled for
 implementation in late 198:.
would apply. In 1980. EPA promulgated
a regulation postponing the application
of any moratorium in such an area for
eighteen months. See 40 CFR 52.24(k)
(1982). On February 3. EPA proposed to
revoke this regulation.
  In contrast to the above proposals
EPA proposed to exempt from
disapproval two groups of
nonattainment. nonextension areas for
which it projected violations after 1982.
One was ozone nonattainment areas
that could demonstrate that they (1)
would have attained the primary
NAAQS for ozone "but for" the impact
of ozone transported from other areas
and (2) had met all other Part D
requirements. See 48 FR 4975-4976. To
implement this exemption. EPA omitted
rural ozone nonattainment areas from
its list of areas considered not likely to
attain. EPA had previously recognized
that violations in such areas typically
are caused by ozone transported from
urban areas. See 44 FR 20372 (April 4.
1979).
  The second group of areas were those
that could demonstrate that they would
have achieved the primary NAAQS in
question "but for" emissions of a source
that had obtained a compliance date
extension beyond 1982 under Section
113 or Section 119 of the Act. These
areas also had to show that all other
sources in the area were complying with
applicable SIP requirements. EPA did
not identify any nonattainment area in
this second group.
  (b)  Failure to Fulfill Conditions. Next.
EPA proposed to find that 41 areas had
not met conditions EPA imposed while
approving their 1979 plans. For a list of
these areas, see the second column of
the chart in "Appendix D". 48 FR 5005-
5021.  EPA also proposed to disapprove
plans and impose Section 110(a)(2)(I]
bans  in these areas.
  (c) Failure To Have in Effect
Approved or Conditionally Approved
Part D Plans. Finally, EPA proposed to
find that 53 areas did not have in effect
fully or conditionally approved Part D
SIPs.  A few of these areas had never
submitted a Part D plan to EPA for
review: others had made only partial
submittals. A few areas had submitted
plan revisions that EPA had not yet
approved or disapproved. The remamiic
areas hdii sj'hrnitted plwrs  'mi' rurcivfif
disapprovals
   The Section 110(a)(2)(I) ban EPA
imposed in 1979 is still in effect in
almost all of these, areas. Consequently.
EPA was proposing to maintain the
status quo :n these areas.

-------
        Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 213 / Wednesday.  November 2.  1983 / Rules and Regulations  50689
2 Funding Restrictions and Other
Construction Bans
  In the February 3 notice. EPA solicited
comment on whether the funding
restrictions of Sections 176(a). 176(b)
ar.d 316 of the Act should apply in any
a-rn where EPA disapproved a plan for
frf.ijre to attain or failure to meet the
Purt D plar.ntng requirements  EPA also
req'.iPsied comment on whether there
might be circumstances justifying the
application of these restrictions without
prior notice and opportunity to
comment. EPA did not however.
propose to restrict funds in any area.
Similarity. EPA did not propose to
impose either the Section 173(4) ban or
the Section 113(a)(5) ban.

3. Other Issues
  (a) Requests for Attainment Date
EMensions. EPA also announced that it
would disapprove any new request for
an extension of the attainment date for
the ozone or carbon monoxide
standards for either an "original" or a
newly-designated nonattainment area.
EPA explained that Section 172(a)(2)
requires all extension requests to have
been submitted on or before January 1.
1979. EPA acknowledged that it had
approved extension requests submitted
after that date when they accompanied
an areas s original Part 0 submittaL but
asserted that Section 172(a)(2) could not
be read to permit extensions any later in
the planning process.
  (b) Pending Revisions to NAAQS.
EPA also announced that it could
provide no exemptions from
construction or funding restrictions for
any nonattainment area based on
possible changes to any of the NAAQS.
  |cj Areas Expected to Attain by
December 32. 1982. EPA's February 3
proposal also listed all nonattainment.
nonextension areas that EPA expected
to meet the December 31.1982
attainment deadline. To confirm that
these  areas had in fact attained. EPA
proposed to require each area to submit
by July 1,1984. a request for
redesignation to attainment. EPA
implied that it would disapprove the
plan for any area that could not
demonstrate that it had attained  the
standards by that time. For a list of
areas  that EPA expected to meet the
19B2 attainment deadline, see
"Acsendi.x C" of the February 3 notice.
48 FK  49:9-5003.

D  Cc--.rrer.ts on February 3 Proposals
•'" \or.c:tairment. Nonextension Areas

l. Proposed Disapprovals and
Construction Moratoriums
 . (ci) Failure to Attain by December 31.
198:.
  • General Legal Issues. Nearly all of
the commenters that addressed these
proposals protested EPA's proposal to
disapprove already approved plans and
reimpose the construction ban for failure
to attain by the end of 1982. The
commenters asserted that the purpose of
Section HO(a)(2)(I) and Part D was not
to ensure attainment by the end of 1962,
but to induce States that had missed the
attainment  dates set by the 1970
amendments to the Clean Air Act to
revise their plans.
  Some commenters. focusing on the
language and history of Section
H0(a )(2)(I)  and Part 0, pointed out that
Part D merely require* plan* to "provide
for" attainment by the end of 1982. See
Section 172(a)(l). They argued that
Congress easily could have chosen a
stronger word, such as "achieve" or
"assure." if it had meant Part 0 to
require actual attainment
  One commenter used legislative
history to show that Congress chose to
use "provide for" precisely because it is
less demanding. As originally drafted.
the  provision that became Section
172(a)(l) required Part D plans to
"assure" attainment. The sponsor of the
amendment that replaced "assure" with
"provided for" stated that he wanted  to
ensure that States would not have to
guarantee that their revised plan* would
actually bring about  attainment
(Transcript of Senate Clean Air Act
Mark-up. May 4.1977, pages 13-14.)
  Other commenters noted that Section
110(a)(2)(I)  only requires areas to "plan"
for attainment to escape the
construction ban. They asserted that the
legislative history describes the ban as
an inducement to timely planning, rather
than a penalty for unsuccessful
planning.
  Still other commenters. focusing on
prior EPA action, reminded EPA that.
when SIPs submitted under the 1970
amendments failed to bring about
attainment EPA called for SIP revisions
under Section 110(a)(2)(H) instead of
disapproving plans for failure to
"provide for" attainment under Section
110(a)(l). Moreover, at that time, EPA
interpreted the Act as prohibiting new
source construction only in areas that
failed to submit revised SIPs within the
deadlines established by EPA. These
commenters argued that EPA should
follow the same process for plans that
failed to "provide for" attainment under
Section 172(a)(l). They felt that the
existence of this alternative remedy
made it unnecessary to adopt what they
regarded as strained interpretations of
Sections 110(a)(2)(I] and 172(a)(l).
  Most commenters that urged EPA to
use Section HO(a)(2)(H) conceded that a
construction ban should apply if an area
failed to revise its plan in response to a
notice of inadequacy. A few. however
argued that EPA should promulgate piar
revisions under Section liO(c)(l")(Cl
instead of imposing a ban.
  • General factual issues. Many
commenters protested EPA s use of
projections based on monitoring data
from 1981 and 1982. They urged EPA
wait until 1983 data becomes avaiiab>
One commenter supported the propos- •
procedure, but argued that EPA had n
made sufficient allowance for unusua
meteorological conditions that might
have caused violations. A few
commenters argued that EPA had not
given enough information on its
selection of data to provide a
meaningful opportunity to comment.
  • Ozone transport issues. Many
commenters supported the proposal to
exempt ozone areas  that can
demonstrate that their continued
violations are caused by transported
pollution. Four commenters. however.
felt that it was impossible to make sucr.
demonstrations using current data and
modeling techniques. Others wanted to
expand the exemption to other
pollutants.
  • Compliance da.te extension issues.
All of the comments on  this issue
supported the idea of exempting areas
that could demonstrate  that they would
have attained but for a source  that
received a compliance date extension
beyond 1982. Many commenters urged
EPA to expand the exemptions to other
situations. One commenter felt EPA's
two-pronged test was too burdensome.
This commenter favored relaxing the
requirement that all other sources in the
area must be in compliance and
eliminating the requirement for a
demonstration that the area would have
attained but for the compliance date
extension.
  • Removal of construction ban.
Commenters responded variously to
EPA's request for comment on when to
remove construction bans. The most
common suggestion wai that EPA
should remove the ban as soon as it
approved a revised SIP  curing the
deficiency that caused EPA to
disapprove the plan. Other suggestions
included removal  upon mere submittai
or a revised plan,  removal upon
commencement of good faith efforts
toward submitting a revised plan, ar.c
removal upon submittai of a request for
redesignation to attainment. One
commenter also suggested that the ban
could be lifted when a source obtained
sufficient offsets to show a net reduction
in emissions.
  These comments addressed not or.:y
disapprovals for failure to attain, but

-------
50690  Federal Register  /  Vol.  48. No. 213 / Wednesday. November 2. 1983  / Rulea  and Regulations
also disapprovals for failure to fulfill
conditions and disapprovals for failure
to have in effect by now a-fully or
conditionally approved plan.
  b. Failure to Fulfill Conditions. No
comment addressed this issue directly.
Several commenters. however, argued
that EPA should not disapprove a plan
in an area that probably attained in
1982. even if the plan failed to meet
some of the other Part D Requirements.
Since the construction ban and the Part
D requirements do not apply in areas
designated attainment under Section
107(d). the commenters argued that EPA
should not apply them in areas where
attainment is considered likely.
  c. Failure to Have in Effect an
Approved or Conditionally Approved
SIP. Commenters generally agreed that
th'e construction ban should apply in
areas that apparently failed to attain
and that lack fully or conditionally
approved Part 0 plans. Some
commenters argued however,  that the
ban should not apply in areas which
probably attained the standards in 1982.
  d. Proposals for Newly-Designated
Nonattainment Areas. All of the
commenters that addressed this issue
objected to EPA's proposals to revoke 40
C.F.R. 52.24(k) and require areas
designated nonattainment after the first
round of designations to meet the 1982
deadline for attainment They felt that
the proposals would produce absurd
results, especially in areas designated
nonattainment after December 31.1982.
  Many of the commentera argued that
Section 107(d) and Part D do not apply
to these areas. They suggested that EPA
should issue a notice of deficiency under
Section 110(a)(2)(H) if it discovers
violations in an area designated
attainment or unclassified. A few
commenters suggested that EPA should
continue to use the time intervals
between the specific dates in Section
107(d) and Part D.

2. Funding Restrictions
  (a) General legal issues. All
commenters on this issue opposed the
use of funding restrictions in areas with
approved Part D plans that apparently
failed to attain by December 31.1982.
unless EPA could show that a State had
failed to carry out its plan. These
commenters argued that there was no
«upport in the language of Sections
".r6(a). I76(b). or 316 for applying the
restrictions in an  area that had
 r;-: -ntr.'ea an approved plan but had
iciuaJ tn at'.din. The commenters  also
asserted that the legislative history
showed that Congress intended EPA to
impose Section 176[a) only where a
State failed to suomit a plan, not where
a State failed to bring about attainment.
  (b) Procedural issues. Many
commenters argued that EPA had no
authority to impose funding restrictions
without providing prior notice and
opportunity to comment. Some
commenters added that Section 105(e)
requires EPA to provide an opportunity
for a hearing before it withholds any
grants for air pollution control programs.
Others urged EPA to follow the special
policy and procedures developed by
EPA and the Department of
Transportation for Section 176{a).
3. Other issues
  (a) Attainment date extensions for
carbon monoxide and ozone. All but one
of the commenters addressing this
provision opposed EPA's proposal to
interpret Section 172(a)(2) as prohibiting
extensions unless requests were
submitted with 1979 plan revisions.
Most of these commenters cited a 1979
policy memorandum which stated that
EPA would grant extensions later in the
planning process. They also argued that
it would be unfair to penalize areas  that
had carried out approved  plans in good
faith.
  The commenter that did not favor
extensions suggested that areas that
failed to attain should be given an
opportunity to revise their plans before
any restrictions were imposed.
  (b) Effect of pending revisions to
standards. All comments on this issue
urged EPA to refrain from disapproving
plans and imposing restrictions in
particulate matter nonattainment areas.
One commenter suggested that EPA
disapprove plans only in those areas
that would be nonattainment under  a
revised particulate matter standard.
  (c) Areas expected to attain by
December 31.1982. Several commenters
supported EPA's proposal to presume
nonattainment for any area listed in
Appendix C of the February 3 notice
that failed to submit a request for
redesignau'on by July 1,1984. One
commenter asked EPA to  relax the
deadline to October 1984.
  A fairly large number of commenters
asked EPA to clarify its policy on the
data needed to support a redesignation
request.
£ Congressional Action
  In June 1983 Congress added to the
HUD-Independent Agencies
Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 1984 a
provision which provides:
  None of the funds provided in this Act may-
be obligated or expended to impose lanctions
under the Clean Air Act with respect to any
area  for failure to attain any national
ambient air quality standard established
under Section 109 of such Act (42 U.S.C 7409)
by the applicable dates set forth in Section
172(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 7S02(a{).

  Pub. L 98-45. 97 Stat. 226 duly 12.
1983). The bill including this measure.
was passed by both houses and signed
on July 12.1983. It will limit EPA's
ability to impose construction and
funding restrictions during fiscal year
1984.
  The legislative history shows that
Congress enacted this measure largely
as a response to EPA's February 3
proposal to disapprove approved and
implemented plans that failed to bring
about attainment by the end of 1982.
See. e.g.. 129 Cong. Rec. S8818 (daily ed.
June 21.1983 (remarks of Senator
Randolph): 129 Cong. Rec. H3S06 (daily)
ed. June 2.1983) (remarks of
Representative Dingell). It also shows
that Congsess intended to prohibit only
those "sanctions" imposed for failures to
attain. Construction  bans and funding
restrictions for failures to submit plans
or carry out plans are still authorized.
See 129 Cong. Rec. S8816 (remarks of
Senator Randolph): 129 Cong. Rec.
H3503-3504, (daily ed. June 2.1983)
(remarks of Representative Waxman):
129 Cong. Rec. H3513 (remarks of
Representative Broyrull). In fact one of
the chief spokesmen for the Senate
amendment made it clear that EPA
could still limit construction and funding
in an area with an approved and
implemented Part D plan that failed to
bring about attainment if the State failed
to revise the plan within a reasonable
time. See 129 Cong. Rec. S8817 (daily ed.
June 21.1983) (remarks of Senator
Stafford).
ID. Response to Comments

  This section provides EPA's response
to the major comments on legal and
policy issues. EPA will respond to
comments on factual issues in the final
notices of inadequacy and final
disapprovals that it will publish in the
near future.
A. Proposed Disapprovals and
Construction Bans
1. Failure to Attain by December 31.
1982
  EPA has been persuaded  to change its
view on the legal consequences of
finding that a nonattainment.
nonextension area with a fully approved
and implemented Part D plan failed to
atts.n by December 31. Iff,; EPA now
agrees that the  better interpretation of
the Act is that Section liC'(a)(2)(l) and
Part D were intended to produce revised
plans that appeared to "provide for"
attainment by the"~1982 or 1987
deadlines. EPA agrees that  the language

-------
        Federal Register /  Vol. 48.  No. 213  / Wednesday.  November 2.  1983 / Rules and Regulations   50691
and legislative history of Section
172(a)(l) suggest that SIPsjvere only
expected to "provide for" attainment in
a prospective or planning sense.
Furthermore. EPA agrees  that its
decision not to apply bans immediately
in areas that missed the original
attainment deadlines is a significant
precedent. In fact. EPA has determined
that Congress quite probably endorsed
this approach in enacting the 1977
amendments.
  Moreover. EPA believes that the
legislative history of the construction
ban. while not conclusive, suggests that
the primary purpose of the ban was to
provide an incentive for submitting
revised plans that met the Part D
requirements. Imposing bans in areas
with approved plans that  missed the
1982 attainment deadline  would do little
to further this goal, because these areas
have already met the requirements of
Part D. This reasoning is set out at
greater length in an opinion of the
General Counsel dated July 12.1983.
which has been included in the docket
for this rulemaking.
  EPA is withdrawing its proposals to
disapprove plans and impose Section
110(a)(2)(I) bans in areas with approved
and implemented Part 0 plans.
Moreover, EPA is promulgating an
addition to 40 CFR 52.24(a) that will
prevent the Section 110(a)(2)(I) ban from
applying in such areas.
  EPA. however, will find that approved
Part D  plans that failed to bring about
attainment by 1982 are inadequate
under Section 110(a){2)(H). EPA will call
for plan revisions, and impose bans
under Section 173(4) and funding
restrictions under Section 176(b) in any
area that fails to submit a revision in a
timely  manner.
  EPA is retaining the exemptions for
ozone transport and compliance date
extensions that commenters favored.
EPA will not issue  findings of
inadequacy for areas that can
demonstrate that they would have
attained but  for ozone transport or
extended compliance schedule. EPA.
however, is eliminating from both
exemptions the requirements relating to
compliance by other sources. These
other requirements are not relevant to
the purpose of the exemptions. Where
other sources are not in compliance
because plans are not being carried out.
EPA may impose restrictions for failure
•o implement under the policy outlined
in Section IV of this notice.

2. Failure to Fulfill Conditions
  EPA is not changing its views on the
legal consequences of a failure to fulfill
a condition of approval, even for areas
that may have attained by 1982. So long
as an area is designated nonattainment
under Section 107(d). the Act requires
compliance with all of the Part D
requirements. EPA believes the States
should bear the burden of demonstrating
attainment. Furthermore, so long as any
doubt exists, it better serves the Act's
health protection purposes to continue
to require compliance with Part D.
3. Failure to Have in Effect an Approved
or Conditionally Approved Part D SIP
  Commenters generally supported
EPA's proposal to retain existing
disapprovals and bans in these areas.
As explained in Section IV of this
notice. EPA has decided to retain this
proposal.
4. Newly-Desigfiatfd Nonattainment
Areas
  EPA has been persuaded to retain 40
CFR S2.24(k) and allow newly-
designated nonattainment areas a
reasonable time to submit Part D plans
and provide for attainment. EPA is
convinced that Congress could not have
intended the 1979 and 1982 dates to
apply to areas designated attainment
long after the original designations in
1978. Moreover. EPA has concluded that
the best way to provide sufficient time is
to retain  the approach long established
by Section S2.24(k) and use the time
intervals suggested by Section
I10(a)(2)(i) and Part D to establish dates
for plan submittal and attainment.
B. Funding Restrictions
  After reviewing the comments. EPA
agrees that none of the funding
restrictions in the Act apply to areas
with approved and implemented Part D
plans that only missed the 1982
attainment date. Furthermore, if EPA
imposes restrictions for other reasons, it
will first  provide notice and opportunity
to comment. EPA will not restrict any
Clean Air Act funds under Sections
176(a) or 176(b) without also providing
an opportunity for  a hearing as required
by Section 105(e).
C. Other Issues
1. Attainment Date Extensions
  EPA is modifying the interpretation of
Section 172(a)(2) that it proposed on
February 3 to allow newly-designated
ncnattainmen: areas for carbon
monoxide and ozone to obtain
extensions if they submit their requests
with their first Part D submissions.
Allowing them to request extensions at
this time will be more consistent with
the practice EPA established for the
"original" nonattainment areas.
Furthermore, it is consistent with the
general approach to dates in Part D that
EPA is adopting for newly-designated
areas.
  FPA did not find that any commenters
presented a sound rationale for
expanding Section 172(a)(2) to permit
areas to request extensions later in the
process. Although the legislative historv
does not explain why Congress imposed
a January 1.1979 deadline on extension
requests, it seems likely that Congress
wanted to force States to  make
decisions on extensions early in the
planning process, to ensure that there
would be sufficient time to implement
the stringent controls needed for an area
where "reasonable measures" would not
provide for attainment. This purpose
would not be served by allowing areas
to obtain extensions after they submit
their initial Part D plans.

2. Pending Revisions  to Standards
  No  commenter offered a convincing
legal rationale that would allow EPA to
stay implementation of the existing
particulate matter standard. EPA is
considering the possibility of focusing
the particulate matter standard on small
particles. In an attempt to accommodate
the commenters' equitable concerns
EPA intends to allow States to structure
their particulate matter revisions so they
will concentrate on smaller particulates
first.

3. Areas Expected to  Attain by
December 31.1982
  Although the comments generally
supported the proposal to require
redesignation requests from all areas
considered likely to attain. EPA has-
decided to withdraw  the proposal. Some
States might wish to retain the stricter
Part D regime even in areas that come
into attainment. Section 116 of the  Act
makes it clear that States  are always
entitled to regulate more strictly than
the. Act requires. Consequently, EPA
has no clear authority to require a  State
to redesignate and give up its Part  D
program.
IV. Policy for Correction of Part D  SIPs
for Nonattainment Anas

A. Introductory Comments
  This section describes the approach
EPA wa.its States to  take to remedy SIP
deficiencies in nonattainment areas. It
addresses both the specific deficiencies
tndennfied in the February 3 proposals
and deficiencies that may be identified
in the future. Also, i:  describes EPA's
revised view of the legal consequences
of a failure to correct a deficiency.
  In most cases. EPA wants to give
States an opportunity either to show
that their SIPs are not deficient or  to
remedy their deficiencies before

-------
50692  Federal Register  /  Vol. 48.  No. 213  /  Wednesday. November 2,  1983 / Rules and Regulations
construction and funding restrictions
apply. States may show thaj SIPs are
not deficient by requesting
redesignation to attainment under
Section 107(d). States may remedy
deficiencies by either implementing or
revising their existing SIPs. EPA is
preparing comprehensive guidance for
areas that need to implement or revise
their plans. EPA expects this guidance
to be available later this fall.
  If a State neither submits a
redesignation request nor cures its SIP
deficiencies. EPA will propose
construction and funding restrictions.  If
a State commits to remedy its deficiency
by a specific date and. at the same time.
shows that it cannot possibly move any
more quickly. EPA may defer final
action until that date, unless it  learns
later that the State will not meet its
commitment. EPA does not anticipate
that any  State will need more than one
year to correct any of the SIP
deficiencies identified in the February 3
proposal.
  If a State fails to redesignate or solve
its problems within the time limits
described below. EPA will publish a
notice in  the Federal Register
announcing that appropriate
construction and funding restrictions
apply.
  If EPA  imposes construction  and
funding restrictions, it will remove them
when it approves a redesignation
request or finds that the State has cured
its deficiency. If the State must submit a
plan revision. EPA will remove
restrictions only when it approves the
State's revision or promulgates a
Federal revision. If the State must
implement an approved plan, EPA will
remove restrictions only when  it finds
that the State has completed all actions
needed to carry out the plan.
  Where a SIP is deficient because  it
lacks  needed control measures. EPA will
consider  promulgating the measures.
Resource constraints will almost
certainly make it impossible for EPA to
promulgate Federal plan revisions
immediately in all areas where they
might be  needed. Consequently. EPA
will promulgate first in those areas
where air grant funds have been
restricted and where it believes that
Federal action will be most effective.
EPA will remove construction bans if it
promulgates a plan revision that brings
t^e area  into full compliance with Part
D PromuiHatior. however, will  not
remove funding restrictions. To remove
th-vc restrictions. States will have to
 submit or implement their own plans or
 io"-.;!|l\  adopt the EPA plans as their
 ou-.. S^f eg.. 46 FR 246S»2 (April 10.
 19ifll (Section 176(a) policy).
  EPA will administer this policy in
accordance with the objectives that the
Administrator announced in his June 23.
1983 speech to the Air Pollution Control
Association. These objectives are:
  (1) Carry out the Clean Air Act.
  (2) Move the nation closer to the
health goals of the Act.
  (3) Strengthen Federal. State, and
local air pollution control programs.
  (4) Treat all parties fairly.
  (5) Provide incentives for States to
fulfill their planning and implementation
obligations rather than punishments for
failures.
  (6) Avoid unnecessary economic
disruption.

B. Policy
  EPA has classified SIP deficiencies for
nonattainment areas into the following
categories:
  1. Nonattainment areas without
attainment date extensions.
  (a) Areas with fully approved 1979
plans or portions of plans.
  (i) Areas that failed to implement.
  (ii) Areas that failed to attain by the
end of 1982.
  (b) Areas that failed to fullfill
conditions of approval on 1979 plans.
  (c) Areas lacking approved or
conditionally approved 1979 plans.
  (i) Areas that failed to submit plans.
  (ii) Areas that received disapprovals.
  (hi) Areas that submitted plans that
EPA has not acted upon.
  (d) Areas with approved and
implemented plans that are expected to
attain.
  2. Nonattainment areas with
attainment date extensions.
  (a) 1979 plans.
  (b) 1982 plans.
  (i) Plans proposed for approval.
  (ii) Plans proposed for disapproval.
  (iii) Plans not submitted.
  (iv) Areas that do not implement
plans.
  3. Newly-designated nonattainment
areas with and without extensions.
  Each nonattainment area must correct
each deficiency that applies to it. Some
areas will need to correct more than one
deficiency for the same plan. Also, since
some areas are nonattainment for more
than one pollutant, they may need to
revise more than one plan.

1. Noncttainment Areas Without
Attainment Date Extensions
  (a) Areas With Approved 19T9 Part D
Plans or Portions of Plans.
  (i) Areas that did not implement
approved plan provisions. EPA did not
propose on February 3.1983 to find that
any nonattainment. nonextension area
had failed to carry out an approved Part
D plan provision. EPA. however, may
discover that some areas failed to carry
out their plans. If EPA discovers such
problems, it will propose to find that the
area is not implementing its plan and
propose to limit construction and
funding under Sections 173(4) and
176(b). The timing of restrictions and the
remedy will vary with the type of
provision that is not being implemented.
  • Schedules for adoption of
additional control measures. EPA
approved some Part D plans containing
schedules that required areas to adopt
additional control measures needed to
assure attainment. For example, some
particulate matter nonattainment plans
require areas to study nontraditional
sources of particulate matter and adopt
additional controls.
  If IPA learns that an area has not
carried out such a schedule, EPA
promptly will propose to find that the
area is not implementing its approved
Part 0 SIP. Simultaneously. EPA will
propose to limit construction under
Section 173(4) and air pollution control
funding under Section 176(b). EPA will
provide an opportunity to comment and
an opportunity to request a heanng.
  If. during the comment period, an area
commits to a new deadline for adopting
the necessary control measures as
quickly as possible, EPA will defer its
final action until that deadline. To
ensure that areas implement their plans
expeditiously, EPA will not accept
deadlines more than one year from the
date of the proposed nonimplementation
finding.
  If an area misses its deadline for
submitting new control measures. EPA
will take final action to find that the
area has failed to implement and impose
the construction and funding
restrictions. If, however, an area submits
new control measures within its
deadlines. EPA may continue to defer
action while it evaluates the new
measures. If EPA approves the new
measures as revisions to the Part D plan.
EPA will withdraw the proposed non-
implementation finding, construction
limitations, and funding restrictions. If
EPA disapproves the measures. EPA
will impose the restrictions immediately.
  • Implementation or enforcement of
existing measures. All approved Part D
plans require areas to implement or
enforce adopted control measures. For
example, a plan  for an ozone area may
require a State or local government to
construct high-occupancy vehicle lanes
Other plan provisions may require the
State or local government to enforce
emission limitations for stationary-
sources. EPA wilLpropose
nonimplementation findings and
construction and funding restrictions for

-------
         Federal Register  / Vol. 48. No. 213 / Wednesday. November 2. 1983 / Rules and Regulations   50693
any area that has failed to carry out
either type of requirement. EPA will
proceed generally as described above in
the discussion of plans requiring the
adoption of control measures. EPA
expects however, that areas would
nef-d much less than one year to adopt
nrw policies or procedures or commit
new resources to implement existing
me dSures. consequently, it does not
anticipate that it will defer final action
ds long as it would for an area that
needs to adopt new control measures.
EPA will withdraw proposed or final
restrictions when an area shows that it
has completed all steps needed to
implement the measure thai it has
neglected.
   • Approvals with understanding. In
some cases EPA approved a Part D plan
with the understanding that an area
would  take additional  actions needed to
meet a Part D requirement. Where areas
submitted commitments to take the
additional  actions by specific dates, and
EPA noted these commitments in its
rulemakmg actions, EPA will treat a
failure to meet a commitment as a
failure to implement an approved plan
provision. If EPA discovers that areas
have failed to meet these  commitments.
it will propose nonimplementation
findings, construction limitations, and
funding restrictions as described above.
  (ii) Areas with approved plans that
did not attain by December 31.1982. On
February' 3 EPA proposed to disapprove
pUns for nonattainment. nonextension
ureas that appeared to have failed  to
attain by December 31.1982. As
explained earlier in this notice, EPA has
decided that the Clean Air Act does not
require disapprovals in such cases.
Consequently. EPA will proceed as
described below.
   • Caf! ror SIP revisions. Where a fully
dpproved Part D plan failed to bring
about attainment by the end of 1982.
EPA will treat the plan as "substantially
inadequate" to assure  attainment under
Section 110(a)(2)(H) and call for a SIP
revision. EPA will provide one year for
the subrruttal of the new revision under
Section 110(c)(l)(C). The revisions  will
have to provide  for attainment as
expeditiously as practicable and may
need to meet new requirements beyond
the scope of Part D. EPA will dis:uss
these requirements in the detailed
B'.ndrince document that it is  preparing
  EPA will treat the disapprovals  it
yrnpi".pd on February  3 as proposed
vndir.u* of inadequacy under Section
nO!d)i:j(H). The factual findings
c.onr.erning pollution levels that
supported the proposed disapprovals
«:il disc serve as bases for finding of
inadequacy. After review-ing all
comments  that addressed individual
areas. EPA will, as appropriate.
withdraw its proposed findings of
inadequacy or puolish final findings and
call for SIP revisions. EPA intends to
complete its review of comments and
act on these proposals in the near future
EPA will provide up to one year from
the date of any final finding for the
submittal of a plan.
  • Consequences of failing to submit a
SIP revision. If an area fails to meet the
deadline for submittal of its plan
revisions. EPA will propose immediately
to find that the State has failed to
implement the provision to its SIP that.
in accordance with Section 110(a)(2)(H).
requires the State to revise the SIP upon
a finding of inadequacy. At the same
time. EPA will propose construction and
funding restrictions under Sections
173(4) and l?6(b). In some cases. EPA
may also propose to impose funding
restrictions under Section 316(b).
Because it is essential to induce States
to pr  *jce plans providing for
attainment as quickly as possible. EPA
will take final action as quickly as
possible while providing an adequate.
but minimal opportunity for comment.
including an opportunity- to request a
hearing.
  If an area submits a revision before
EPA takes final action on these
nonimplementation sanctions. EPA may
defer action until it evaluates and acts
on the submirtal. EPA may. if
appropriate, propose approval of a plan
containing draft regulations and defer
final action until  the regulations are
formally adopted. If EPA approves a
revision, it will withdraw the proposals.
If EPA disapproves the plan,  it will take
final action immediately to impose the
restrictions it proposed. The disapproval
notice will explain why the Agency
rejected the new submittal.
  Once restrictions are imposed, they
will be lifted only upon approval of a
revised SIP or promulgation of a Federal
SIP revision.
  • Exceptions. On February 3. EPA
proposed to exempt from disapproval
areas that could show that they would
have attained "but for" ozone transport
or compliance date extensions. For the
reasons explained in the February 3
notice. EPA will not call for SIP
revisions in areas that can demonstrate
that  they would have attained but for
these reasons
  |S| Areas with ConditiunaHy
Azp'^ved JP.'P Pi'cr.s thai Did .Vi" M*t-t
Cor.d:::ons. On February 3 EPA
proposed to disapprove plans and
impose Section 110(a)(2)U) bans in
nonattainment. nonextension areas th.i!
had failed to fulfill conditions EPA
imposed on its  approval of 1979 plans.
EPA plans to retain these proposals, but
modify its final actions as described
below
  Many areas with conditionally
approved plans also failed to attain b>
the end of 1982. Fulfilling the condino-
may not be enough to bring about
attainment as expeditiously as
practicable. These areas will need to
submit further plan revisions following
the guidelines above for areas thai
failed to attain.
  • Review of conditions.  EPA plans to
review all outstanding conditions to
determine whether they are still
germane to attainment or maintenance
of the NAAQS or to meeting Part D
requirements. EPA  will revoke any
unnecessary conditions and withdraw
its proposals to disapprove and  impost
the construction ban. Where EPA finds
that a condition is necessan  ' it wil:
  'CPA is noi at this nm«r planning to i«tl! fur rL..
rexi«'on» 10 comply with cenair r.ondvioni.
requiring Slain lo meet new source re\irw rai<-
EPA promulgated on Augur '. 19HO '45 FR MtTb. :•
February 196- EPA signed a Miilemerr. agrremrr'
in which it  agreed to propose to revise sevp'ai i -of-.'- *
ETA. D.C Or. No. rs-ir.Z. Because of this
agreement. EPA conditionally approved sever*!
State program* which generally mei EPA 1 19AC
regulation!, but which did not meet some of ihr
rule* covered by the settlement agreement  The
condition*  require the Stem lo revise their
nonconforming ruin within one year uniesi El 'A
changes it* own rules so thai the Slate rules ».o>
be acceptable See. e.f.. 48 FR 9859 (March 9. IK
(Alabama new source wiew regulations) EPA h<
further conditioned approval of these regulations >•'•.
requiring interim implementation in coriormanr.e tc.
the Agency s current rules
  The uncertainty created by the settlement
agreement  still exists. EPA did promuisaie * rt\«nv
to its definition of "source " for nonattainmrm  a-fc>
bui th:i revision was succMsfullv chailer.Bfd ir •«.
L'.S Court  of Appeal* for the Dis'nc' tif Cui-.r.t. ,
Circuit. .Yfi/JCt Corsucr.. 683 F 2d"l8IUC: C::
1962: The  Supreme Court has accepted EPA s
pention for cenioran to review this derision In
addmpn. on Augusi 25. 1983 i«f FR .W4Vi. F.I1 -\
proposed to make several other rt\ isions
contemplated by the agreement Accordingly. KI'A
finds M appropriale to postpone callir.fi for
regulatory  changes to comply with these condiiM.p*
Howexer. State* must continue to meet all
conditions  concerning requirements for inn-rim
implementation
  EPA does noi intend lo postpone calling for
compliance with earlier condition* imposed or
areas In*:  had not yet begun 10 adopt reguidiio'i-
meeting EP*.'i 1980 new source f«»'»w rjirs V-,..
sublet? 10 these earlier conddons mcs" mw
»\i«ting d*...rthnp* fur adopting reguUvi-n*  t*i«'
c.i'-' •-• T in EPA s 1U8C rule* I: in- -t «•(.,> no •;••
F:!--\

                  ,•• -r- r^-w Droi-..r-
                  ';o-« 01 rn>-«» art---. !-.
                  »-:-r. ai. r""' ""'• ^' ""•
»r?:o\..
         EI'A ~... issue new cord..ional
        whuh deal with th- CM A port.on« .

-------
50694  Federal Register  /  Volr 48.  No. 213  /  Wednesday. November 2.  1983 / Rules and Regulations
notify the area and proceed as described
below.                 -
  EPA intends to complete its review of
conditions by the end of 1983. As part of
the review. EPA will consider all
comments on particular conditions
submitted in response to the February 3
proposed.
  • Consequences of rot meeting
germane conditions.
  —Disapprovals and Section
110(a)(2j(I) bans. EPA expects that it
will find that many areas proposed for
disapproval on February 3 will still need
to meet their conditions.
  Where the condition involves a
serious plan deficiency and is long
overdue. EPA may issue a final
disapproval and impose a Section
110(a)(2)(I) construction ban
immediately after it completes its
review of conditions. If the deficiency is
less serious, and if the area commits to
meet the condition by a new date. EPA
may defer final action until  thai date.
Areas  that want to commit to  new dates
may submit their commitments while
EPA is reviewing the conditions. In no
case does EPA expect to defer action for
more than one year after the completion
of its review of conditions.
  If a State makes a submittal intended
to satisfy the condition before EPA
disapproves the plan. EPA will continue
to defer action while it reviews the
submittal. If EPA approves the
submittal. it will withdraw the proposed
restrictions. If EPA disapproves the
submittal. it will disapprove the plan
and proceed with the appropriate
funding restriction.
  Where a ban is imposed, EPA will
remove it only when it  takes final action
fir.dins that the condition has  been met
or redcsignates the area to attainment
  —Funding restrictions for ozone,
curbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide
plans.  Where an area has failed to meet
a condition for a Part D plan for ozone.
carbon monoxide, or nitrogen dioxide.
EPA will consider restricting highway
and air pollution control funds under
Section 176(a). EPA will propose to
impose Section 176(a) restrictions where
areas have not made reasonable efforts
to fuifii! their conditions. EPA will
provide opportunity to  comment and an
opportunity for a hearing before i1 takes
final action. As described above for the
(orstrurnon ban. EPA may  defer f:nal
e"t:--n for up to one year if an area
i •'mrr.ts to a nei* date for meeting its
condition. EPA will remove restrictions
in accordance with its April 1980 policy.
  —Fur.ding resiricticrs for other
poUinc.nts. Section 176(a) does not apply
 to  plans for non-transportation related "
 pollutants. Because EPA believes it is
 essential to have all areas to meet
necessary conditions, it intends to
propose funding restrictions under
Section 176(b) and a construction ban
under Section 173(4) where areas have
not met conditions for other pollutants.
More specifically. EPA will consider its
conditional approval as the equivalent
of a finding of inadequacy and a call for
a SIP revision under Section
110(a)(2)(H). Any area which has failed
to meet the condition has failed to carry
out the provision in its SIP that requires
a revision when EPA makes a finding of
inadequacy. Accordingly, EPA will be
able to use Section 176(b) and 173(4).
which apply in areas that have not
carried out approved plans. EPA will
propose to impose these
nonimplementation restrictions a4 the
same time it disapproves or proposes to
disapprove a plan. As described above
for the Section 110(a)(2)(I) construction
ban. EPA may defer action if an area
commits to a new date for meeting its
condition. EPA will review new
submittals. impose restrictions and
remove restrictions as described above
for the construction ban.
  (c) Areas Lacking Approved or
Conditionally Approved 1979 Plans.
  (i) Plan not submitted.
  • Requirements for plan approval. All
areas designated as nonattainment in
1978 were required to have in effect by
July 1.1979 plans that met the Part D
requirements. EPA wants areas that
have not obtained approval  or
conditional approval fo their Part D
plans to do whatever is necessary to
obtain approval. In most cases, this will
require new plan revisions.
  Although it will no longer be possible
for these areas to submit plans that
"provide for" attainment by the end of
1982. EPA has concluded that it may
approve plans that "provide for"
attainment as expeditiously as
practicable while meeting all other Part
D requirements. Upon approving such-a
plan. EPA will remove the existing
Section 110(a)(2)(I) ban and withdraw
any proposed or final funding
restrictions.
  • Consequences of failing to submit
plans
  —Section 110(a)(2)(l) construction
ban. In each nonattainment,
nonextension area that has failed to
submit all or part of a 1979 Part D plan.
the Section 110(a)(2)(I) ban went into
effect on July 2.1979 and remains in
effect today. As EPA proposed on
February 3. it will leave this ban in
effect until it approves or promulgates a
plan for the area as meeting the
requirements of Part D.
  —Funding restrictions for ozone.
carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide
plans. Where an area has not made
reasonable efforts to submit a Part 0
plan for an ozone, carbon monoxide, or
nitrogen dioxide nonattainment area.
EPA will propose in the near future to
restrict highway and air pollution
control funding under Section 176fa). If
an area commits to submit a Part D plan
at the earliest possible date. EPA will
defer action on the proposal until that
date so long as the area makes
measureable progress. In no case will
EPA defer final action for more than one
year from the date it proposes to impose
funding restrictions. If. however, a State
submits a plan to EPA within one year.
EPA will continue to postpone final
action  on the restrictions until it takes
final action on the plan. If EPA approves
the plan, it will withdraw the proposed
funding restrictions. EPA will impose the
restrictions if it disapproves the plan.
  —Funding restrictions for plans for
other pollutants. EPA intends to use the
Section 176(b) funding restrictions for
areas that are nonattainment for other
pollutants. For these areas. EPA will
treat the February 3 notice as a
proposed finding of inadequacy under
Section 110(a)(2)(H). As soon as possible
after issuing this policy. EPA will
publish final findings of inadequacy and
call for plan revisions. EPA intends to
set a deadline for submittal of these
revisions within 60 days from the date of
the final finding. These plans were
originally due over four years ago:
consequently. EPA is providing the
shortest deadline suggested by Section
  If an area does not submit a Part D
plan within this 60 days. EPA will
promptly publish a propose finding of
nonimplementation. propose to restrict
funds under Section 176(b), and propose
a limit construction under Section 173(4).
If an area commits to a schedule for
submitting a revised plan. EPA will
postpone final action on the funding
restrictions for up to one year after the
date of its final finding of inadequacy. If
an area submits a plan revision on time.
EPA will defer action on the funding
restrictions as described above in the
discussion of 176(a).
  (ii) Plan disapproved. In virtually all
areas that received disapprovals on
their 1979 plans, the Section llOfalCKU
ban remains in effect.' As proposiisi on
Februarv 3. these  bans will remain ;.-
effect until EPA approves a plan as
meeting ihe requirements of Part D
  EPA intends to  follow the same p«> '.-.:
for usinjj funding restrictions to obtn:n
  '•EPA his J.scov.Tpd * few srea« wkpri- it
Ji».
-------
        Federal Register  /  Vol. 48.  No. 213 / Wednesday. November 2.  1963 / Rules and  Regulations   50695
new plans that is outlined above for
rtre«s that did not submit Pan D plans.
The rationale for approving revised
plans described in that section will also
coply to these areas.
  (in) Plar submitted but no final action
b\ EPA. For these areas, too. the Section
nO|a)l2)(I) moratorium is in effect and
will remain in effect until EPA approves
H plan as meeting the Part D
requirements.
  Before EPA and the States can take
further action on these plans. EPA must
complete its review of the submitted
revisions. EPA has proposed action on
all of these plans. It currently intends to
lake final action or. if necessary, to
propose different action no later than
December 31.1983. If EPA approves a
plan, it will remove the Section
llO(a)(2)(I) ban. If EPA disapproves a
plan, it will propose funding restrictions
as described above in the Section on
areas that did not submit Pan D plans.
  If a State chooses to withdraw a plan
before EPA takes final action. EPA will
return the plan and proceed under the
policy described above for areas that
did not submit Part D plans.
  (d) Areas  With Approved and
Implemented 1979 Plans That Probably-
Attained. EPA did not propose to
disapprove plans or impose restrictions
for these areas on February 3. EPA.
however, will continue to monitor air
quality data for these areas to determine
whether they did attain the standards. If
EPA discovers a violation of the
standard for which the area is
designated nonattamment. EPA will
propose to find the plan to be
inadequate and call for a plan revision
as described above for areas which
failed to attain.
  These areas may request
redesignation to attainment any time
that they can submit data meeting EPA's
policy requirements. For more
information  on these requirements, see
the April 21.1983 memorandum "Section
107 Designation Policy Summary", from
Sheldon Meyers to EPA Regional Air
Directors.

2 \onattainme.i! Areas With
Attainment Date Extensions
  Part D required  areas with attainment
date extensions for ozone or carbon
T-o-oxide  to submit plan revisions in
''•~° anc again in 19b^. Enher or both of
•~*se p:an revisions may be deficient.
  I  .' T*~9P!zr.Revi!-ior,s. None of
.-f-'-1. s February 3 proposals addressed
ins i£>"9 plans fur extension areas
Nevertheless, these plans may suffer
from some of the deficiencies described
above. An area may have failed to fulfill
a  condition of approval or may have
faUed to submit a portion of a plan. ETA
may have disapproved a portion of a
19~9 submittal. If EPA finds such
deficiencies, it will follow the policies
outlined above for nonextension areas
  Extension areas may also have failed
to carry out approved portions of their
19rg plans. On August 3.1983 (48 FR
35312). EPA proposed to  find that ele\cn
areas were not implementing approved
schedules for motor vehicle inspection/
maintenance programs. EPA proposed to
restrict construction and funding under
Sections 173(4) and l?6(b). EPA will
publish similar proposals if it finds other
implementation failures.
  (b) 1982 Plan Revisions. EPA has
proposed-action on all 1982 plans for
extension areas. The  second set of
notices published  on February 3
contained EPA's proposals for 27 of the
31 States that have areas with
attainment date extensions.
  (i) Plans submitted and proposed for
approval.  EPA did not propose any
construction or funding restrictions for
plans which it proposed  to approve. EPA
currently intends to consider all
comments and publish final approvals
by March  1.1984.
  In some areas. EPA may find it
necessary to change its course and
disapprove a plan. Where disapproval
will require a reproposal. EPA plans to
publish the new proposal by March 1.
EPA expects to take final action on any
reproposal by September 30.1984. If
EPA disapproves the  plan, it will
proceed as described below.
  (ii) Plans submitted and proposed for
disapproval. EPA  intends to take final
action on all proposed disapprovals
early next year. Where circumstances
warrant. EPA will issue a new proposal
and complete its action before the end
of next year. Disapproval of a 1982 plan
will trigger a construction ban under
Section 110(a)(2)(I).
  EPA wants to encourage areas where
plans are disapproved to submit  revised
plans meeting the  Part D requirements.
Accordingly. EPA will consider
restricting highway and air grant
funding under Section 176(a). EPA will
propose restrictions where it finds that
an area has not made reasonable efforts
to submit an approvable plan. If EPA
proposes restrictions, it may defer
arhon for  up to one year if an area
commits to an expeditious-schedule for
the  submittal of new revisions.
  Once EPA imposes construction and
funding restrictions, it will lift them on'y
wnen it approves  or promulgates a plsr.
as meeting the Part D requirements for
extension  areas.
  (iii) Plans not submitted. In many
cases EPA evaluated  and proposed
action on draft plans. Some States have
not  yet submitted  final plans containing
adopted control measures and officui,
commitments. EPA cannot approve
plans that do not contain adopted
enforceable measures and commitniT
If an area fails to submit its final plan
before EPA's internal deadline for fi-,.:
action. EPA will disapprove or. the
ground thut the area failed to mee! ir •
Part D requirements for 198J plans T- -
disapproval will tryut-r a construction
moratorium under Section  110|a)C)ll! l>
may also lead to funding restrictions
under Section lT6(a) as described
above.
  EPA will remove any construction or
funding restrictions when it approves  a
final submittal as meeting the applicable
Part D requirements
  (iv) Areas that do not implement
approved plans or portions of plans.
Areas with approved plans or portion^
of plans will be subject to restriction?
for failure to implement if thr\ fm! in
carry  out their plans. EPA will monitor
closely all approved schedules f
-------
50696   Federal Register / Vol. 48. No.  213 / Wednesday.  November 2. 1983  /  Rules and Regulations
extension may provide up to five
additional years to provide-for
attainment. Areas that receive
extensions will have to submit
supplemental SIP revisions no later than
four and one-half years from the date of
the designation.
  (b) Consequences of failures to submit
plans.
  • Construction ban. Under 40 CFR
52.241k). a Section 110(a)(2)(l) ban will
apply eighteen months after the date of
the designation in any area designated
nonattainment after July 1.1979, unless
the area has in effect an approved or
conditionally approved Part D plan. This
ban will apply automatically, but EPA
intends to publish in the Federal
Register a notice advising the area that
the ban has come into effect
  Approval of an initial plan as meeting
the Part D requirements will lift the ban.
Disapproval will maintain or impose the
ban. Disapproval of a supplemental
submittal for an extension area will also
maintain the ban (or impose it. if EPA
approved the initial submittal).
  • Funding restrictions for ozone,
carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide
plans. If an ozone, carbon monoxide or
nitrogen dioxide area fails to make
reasonable efforts to submit either an
original or supplemental Part D revision,
EPA will propose funding restrictions
under Section 178(a). It the area commits
to a schedule for submitting a plan
revision. EPA may postpone action on
final  restrictions for as much as one
year.
  • Funding restrictions for plans for
other pollutants. To ensure timely
submittal of plans for newly-designated
nonattainment areas for other
pollutants. EPA  will issue a notice of
inadequacy and call for a plan revision
under Sect'ion 110(a)(2)(H) at the time it
redesignates the area as nonattainment
If the area fails to submit an approvab'e
Pan D plan. EPA will be in a position to
find that the area is not implementing its
SIP and to propose funding restrictions
under Section 176(b) and construction
restrictions under Section 173(4).
  (c) Consequences of not implementing
approved plans or not attaining. If EPA
approves the Part D plan for a newly
discovered nonattainment area, but the
area  subsequently fails to implement its
plan. EPA will propose a  finding of
ror.implementation as described above
 in the discussion of 1979 plans that fails
 to implement. Similarly, if an approved
 pUr. tails to bring about attainment by
 the applicable deadline. EPA will
 propose a finding of inadequacy under
 Section 1lO(a)|2)(H).
   (d) Remedial actions for areas
 designated noncttainment after July 1,
 7S/.V. but before the publication of this
policy. A few areas were designated
nonattainment after July 1.1979. but
before the publication of this policy.
EPA intends, to the extent possible, to
put these areas on equal footing with
areas designated nonattainment in the
future. For example. EPA will approve
qualifying extension requests that
accompanied an area's first Part D
submittal. Also, where uncertainty
about this policy caused a construction
ban to come into effect because EPA
failed to act on a Part D plan submittal.
EPA will move as quickly as possible to
act on the plan. If EPA approves the
plan, it will remove the moratorium. If
the plan is disapproved, the moratorium
will continue.
  At the same time. EPA wants these
newly-discovered nonattainment areas
to face the same consequences for
failing to submit plans. Accordingly, for
nonattainment areas for non-
transportation related pollutants. EPA
will treat the February 3 proposed
disapprovals as proposed findings of
inadequacy. This will allow EPA to
issue a final finding of inadequacy and
propose construction and funding
restrictions under Sections 173(4) and
178(b) if an area misses its deadline for
submittal of a Part  D plan.
£ Other Issues

1. Definition of "Reasonable Efforts"in
Section 178(a)
  EPA's April 1960 policy states that
EPA will determine whether a State is
making "reasonable efforts" to submit a
Part D plan on a case-by-case basis. In
making such decisions. EPA will
consider the legislative history of
Section 176(a). This history suggests that
Congress did not intend the funding
restrictions to apply in areas unable to
meet the 1982 or 1987 attainment
deadlines, if those areas make
reasonable attempts  to provide for
attainment See 123 Cong. Rec. S9437-
S9439 (June 10.1977).

2. Scope of Restrictions on Clean Air
Act Funding under Sections 176(a) and
(b)
  As mentioned in Section II of this
notice, on August 3,1983 EPA asked for
comment on the idea of using funds
withheld under Section 176(b) to
implement the part of a plan that a  State
is not implementing. EPA cannot take a
final position on this issue until it
reviews all comments. If EPA decides
that this approach  is feasible under
Section 176(b), it may use a similar
approach under Section 17B(a), using
funds withheld for EPA promulgation.
3. Section 316(b) Funding Restrictions
  EPA has discretionary authority under
Section 316(b) to restrict sewage
treatment funding where an area does
not have a Part D plan in effect or is
failing to carry out its SIP. EPA may
propose to add Section 316 restrictions
in areas where further inducements to
action are needed. EPA is currently
reviewing its August 11.1980 policy [45
FR 53382) regarding implementation of
Section 316. The 1980 policy, however.
will remain in effect until revised or
rescinded. The revised policy will reflect
the current construction grants programs
and identify those types of situations
where sanctions could be imposed. Any
revision will be proposed and will seek
public comment by notice in the Federal
Register.

4. Section 113(a)(5) Construction Ban
  Section 113(a)(5) gives EPA discretion
to impose a construction ban for
nonimplementation. EPA intends
generally not to exercise this authority.
Section 173(4) coven most of the cases
that Section 113(a)(5) covers. In
addition, imposition of a ban in the
remaining cases, where the company
has received a construction permit
already, would be unnecessarily unfair,
except in extreme cases of
nonimplementation. For example. EPA
might consider using this section where
a State issues a permit in violation of a
construction ban.
5. Emissions Trading
  Current EPA policy allows existing-
source emissions trades in
nonattainment areas lacking adequate
attainment demonstrations 47 FR 15076
(April 7,1982). EPA, however, is re-
examining that policy. On August 31.
1983 (48 FR 39580). EPA requested
further comment on several issues
concerning this interim emissions
trading policy, including whether, and
under what circumstances. EPA should
approve existing-source trades in
nonattainment areas that lack fully or
conditionally approved Part D plans or
in areas with approved plans that
missed the 1982 deadline.
  EPA invited all interested persons to
submit comments before October 31.
1983. in response to the August 31.1983.
emissions trading notice. EPA will
evaluate all comments en this issue as
quickly as possible after the close of
that comment period. EPA evper'.s to
announce its position on this issue in
both the guidance for correction of Part
D SIP's and  the final emissions tradins
policy.
  In the interim, existing sources
considering trades in such areas shouid

-------
        Federal Register  /  Vol. 48. No. 213 / Wednesday.  November 2. 1983 /  Rules and Regulations  50697
be aware that EPA has requested
comment on grand-fathering issues.
However, sources that traded might
eventually be subject to additional
emission reduction requirements needed
to bruns an area into attainment.
depending upon the control strategy
      the State selects.
b Pauling Review of Standards

  F.PA must enforce all existing
standards unless and until they are
revised. However, to accommodate
concerns about the pending review of
the paniculate matter standard. EPA
will consider approving revised plans
that consist of enforceable schedules
that phase in the adoption and
implementation of controls for
paniculate matter sources. States will
be able to address sources of smaller
particles first. EPA. however, does not
intend to allow  any paniculate matter
nor.attainment area to relax existing
requirements under this policy.

V. Final Actions

  EPA is taking only two  final actions
today. First. EPA is promulgating a rule
that sets out the Agency's new view of
the legal consequences of a failure to
attain by the deadlines in Part 0.
Specifically. EPA  is amending 40 CFR
52.:4(a) to clarify  that the Section
nO(a)(2)(l) ban  does not apply in
Ronattainment.  nonextension areas with
fully approved Part D plans that failed
to attain by December 31. 1982. This
amendment also provides that the
moratorium will not apply in extension
areas with fully approved 1979 and 1982
Part D submittals.
  Second. EPA  is  withdrawing its
p-ooo'd! to amend 40 CFR 52.24(k). This
u:!l continue to postpone construction
bans for eighteen  months in areas
designated nonattainment after July 1.
1979.
  EPA regards these actions as
interpretive rules of nationwide scope
and applicability that restate some of
the Act's requirements for all
nonattainment areas. Consequently.
they are effective upon publication.
Under Section 307(b). any petition for
review of these actions must be filed in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Distnct
of Columbia Circuit within 60 days of
the date this notice appears in the
Federal Register.
VI. Miscellaneous
A. Executive Order 12291 and
Regulatory Flexibility Act
  Under Executive Order 12291. the
final actions EPA is taking today are not
"Major" because they have no
immediate impact in any area. In
addition, they limit the scope of the
construction ban under the Clean Air
Act.  T-  actions have been submitted to
the O. ,e of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review. Any comments from
OMB to EPA and any response are
available for public inspection in the
docket.
  Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 5
U.S.C 600 et seq., EPA must prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis unless the
Agency certifies that the rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. As
noted above, today's final actions do not
impose construction bans or have any
other impacts on any small entities.
Consequently, the Agency certifies that
today's action has no significant
impacts.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
  Air pollution control. Ozone. Sulfur
oxides. Nitrogen dioxide. Lead.
Paniculate matter. Carbon monoxide
Hydrocarbons.
  Authority: Sections 101. 10" 110. Uh in-
178. 301|d) and 316 of the Clean Air Ac: ,
•mended 142 U.S.C. 7401. 740". 7410 7416
7501-08.7601(8). and 7616): Section 1:9'.,! , •
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 19" 'P_-
L No 95-95. 91 Stat 685 (August 7 19"
  Dated: October 27.1983
William D. Ruckelshaus.
Administrator

PART 52—{AMENDED!

  Part 52 of Title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
  1. Section 52.24 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read  as
follows:

f 52.24  Statutory restriction on new
source*.
  (a) After June 30.1979. no maior
stationary source shall be constructed or
modified in any nonattainment area as
designated in 40 CFR Part 81. Subpar: C
("nonattainment area") to which any
State implementation plan applies, if the
emissions from such facility will cause
or contribute to concentrations of any
pollutant for which a  national  ambient
air quality standard is exceeded in such
area, unless, as of the time of
application for a permit for such
construction, such plan meets  the
requirements of Part D. Title I. of the
Clean Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C
7501 et seq-} ("Part D"). This section
shall not apply to any nonattainment
area once EPA has fully approved the
State implementation plan for  the area
as meeting the requirements of Part D
•    •     •     •    •
|KR l>« »J->-a hied 11-1-U »45 «ml
•4LLIMO CODE «MO-W-M

-------

7.1

-------
 Port 51
                                                     40 CFR Ch. I (7-l-M Edition)
 PART 51—REQUIREMENTS FOR PREP-
   ARATION, ADOPTION.  AND SUR-
   MITTAl    OF    IMPIEMENTATION
   PLANS
         l»4)»a.«S A-C-4l*MrVMl|
 Sec.
 11.40  Scope.

             AQMA ANALYSIS

 61.41  AQMA analysis: Submlttml dmte.
 61 41  AQMA analysts: Analysis period.
 it 43  AQMA analyst*: Guideline*.
 81.44  AQMA analyst*: Projection of emls
   slOM.
 61 4B  AQMA analysis: Allocation of emla-
   iloiw.
 II 48  AQMA analysis:  Projection  of air
   quality concentration*.
 Bl 47  AQMA analysis: Ocwrlptlon of data
   sources.
 (14*  AQMA analyili: Data bases
 81. <•  AQMA analyst* Technique* descrlp-
   Uon.
Bl BO  AQMA analytU: Accuracy factors.
Bl.BI  AQMA analysis. Submlttal of cakula-
   tloiia.
              AQMA PLAN
61.61  AQMA plan: General.
tl.Bl  AQMA plan: Demonstration of ade-
   quacy.
81 §4  AQMA plan: Strategic*.
81 85  AQMA plan: Legal authority.
61.66  AQMA plan: Future strategic*.
11.67  AQMA plan: Future legal authority.
61.61  AQMA plan: Intergovernmental co-
   operation.
81.8*  (Reserved)
61.60  AQMA plan: Resource*
61.61  AQMA plan: Submlttal format.
61.81  AQMA analysis and plan: Data avail-
   ability.
6103  A4)MA analyst* and plan: Alternative
   procedure*

          •vbawrl I—|t-M*rv*4|
61 100  Definition!.
61 101  Stipulation*.
61101  Public hearing*.
61.101  Submission  of plan*;  preliminary
   review of plan*.
81.104  Revblon*.
51105  Approval of plan*.
 61.110 Attainment and maintenance of na-
    tional itandard*.
 81.111  Description of control meaiurea.
 61.111 Demonstration of adequacy.
 81.111 Time period  for demonstration of
    adequacy.
 81.114  Emission* data and projections.
 •1.116  Air quality data and projection*.
 61.11*  Data availability.
 81.117  Additional provision* for lead.
 61.118  Slack height provision*.
 61.110  Intermittent control systems.
 81.180  Clarification of region* for episode
    plan*.
 61.161  Significant harm level*.
 81.181  Contingency plans.
 61.161  Reevaluatlon of episode plan*.
    lutpaft I—••vUw »f N*w


  81.100  Legally enforceable procedurea.
  61.101  Public availability of Information.
  61.101  Identification   of   responsible
    agency.
  81.10]  Administration procedure*.
  61.164  Stack height procedurea.
  11.1 OB  Permit requirement*.
  •1.100  Prevention of significant  deterio-
ration of air quality.
61.100 Ambient air quality monitoring re-
   quirement*.
•1.110 General.
61.111 Emission reports and reoordkeeplng.
•1.111 Testing.  Inspection,  enforcement.
   and complaint*.
•1.111 Transportation control measure*.
11.114 Continuous emission monitoring.
61.110  Requirement* for all plans.
81.111  Identification of legal authority.
61.131  Assignment  of  legal  authority to
   local agencies.
          AGENCY DCSIONATIOK

61.140  General plan requirement*.
81.141  Nonattalnment  areas for  carbon
   monoxide and ozone.
81.241  IReservedl
                                       712
                                                       Environmental Protection Agoncy
                                                                          5 51.40
    CONTINUING CONSULTATION Process
81.141  Consultation process objectives.
81.144  Plan element* affected.
81.248  Organizations  and officials  to be
   consulted.
81.140  Timing.
61.247  Hearings on  consultation  process
   violations.

 RELATIONSHIP or PLAN TO OTHER PLANNING
        AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM*

81.248  Coordination with other program*.
61.240  (Reserved]
81.180  Transmlttal of Information.
61.161  Conformity with  Executive  Order
   12372.
81.281  Summary of plan development par-
   ticipation.
61.100  Legally   enforceable   compliance
   schedules.
61.101  Final compliance schedule*.
61.101  Extension beyond one year.
                                                       61.260  Resource*.
                                                       •1.281  Copies of rule* and regulation*.
                                                       •1.288  Public notification.
61.300
61.101
81.101
81.103
•1.104
61.105
•1.300
•1.307
              -TratMThM et VnJHHry

       Purpose and applicability.
       Definitions.
       Implementation control strategies.
       Exemption* from control.
       Identification of Integral vistas.
       Monitoring.
       Long-term strategy.
       New source review.

           *i*»arlQ •.sasrtl

       AIR QUALITY DATA REPORTING   i

•1.130  Annual air quality data report.

   SOURCE EMISSIONS AND STATE ACTION
               REPORTING

61.111  Annual source emlaslon* and  State
   action report.
81.111  Sources subject to emlaslon* report-
   Ing.
61.323  Reportable emissions  data and  In-
   formation.
11.334  Progress In plan enforcement.
•1.326  Contingency plan actions.
61.320  Reportable revision*.
81.327  Enforcement orders  and other State
   actions.
61.328  I Reserved I
81.341  Request for 18-month extension.
ArrENDICES A— K-^IRESERVED)
APPENDIX  L— EXAMPLE  REGULATIONS  TOR
   PREVENTION or AIR POLLUTION EMEROEN-
   CT Erisoocs
APPENDIX M— (RESERVED!
APPENDIX    N— EMISSIONS    REDUCTION*
   ACHIEVABLE THROUGH INSPECTION. MAIN-
   TENANCE AND RETROFIT op LIGHT DUTY
   VEHICLE*
APPENDIX O— (RESERVED)                ,
APPENDIX P— MINIMUM EMISSION MONITOR-
   ING REQUIREMENT*
APPCNDICU Q— R— (RESERVED)
APPENDIX 8— EMISSION Orrsrr INTERPRETA-
   TIVE RULING
APPENDIX T— (RESERVED!
APPENDIX  U— CLEAN  AIR  ACT SECTION 174
   GUIDELINE*

  AUTHORITY: Thl*  rulemaklng  I* promul-
gated under authority of sections lOKbKlt.
110.  100-100. 171-170. and  301(a) of the
Clean Air Act  42  U.S.C.  740l(bMI). 7410.
7470-7470. 7801-7808. and 700IIBI.
  SOURCE: 30 FR 22308. Nov. 25. 1071. unless
otherwlae noted.
  EDITORIAL  NOTE:  Nomenclature change*
affecting Part 81 appear at 44 FR 8137. Feb.
8. 1070 and 81 FR 40001. Nov. 7. 1080.


      SuboMsrto A-C— (RotorvedJ
                                                                                                                                                                      OF PMrffOVMM
                                                                                                                                                         Standard*
                                                                                                 81.340 Request for 2-year extension.
  SOURCE 41 FR 18388. May 3. 1078. unlMS
otherwlae noted.

1 51.40  Scope.
  (»> Applicability. The requirements
of  this subpart  apply  to air quality
maintenance  areas  (AQMAa)  Identi-
fied under 1 51. 110X1) and to any areaa
Identified under f 51.1 10(1).
  (b) AQMA Analvti*. Under thlg sub-
part,  procedures  are given for  the
analysis of the air quality  Impact of
specified pollutant emissions from ex-
isting sources and emissions associated
with  projected growth  and develop-
ment In areas Identified  under para-
graphs  (I) and  (I)  of   151.110.  This
analysis Is referred to In this subpart
as an AQMA analysis.
  (c) AQMA Plan.  Under this subpart.
the Administrator will  require a revi-
sion to the State Implementation plan
for areas Identified under I 51.110X1) or
I 51.110(1) when necessary to prevent a
national ambient air quality standard
                                                                                              713

-------
  951.111

  tentative control strategies. M well M
  the costs and benefits of each such al-
  ternative  for  attainment or mainte-
  nance of the national standard.
     The  plan shall provide that at In-
 tervals qf no more than  5 years, all
 areas of the State shall be assessed to
 determine If  any areas are In need of
 plan revisions.
  (3) The State shall retain  the  data
gathered  and the written assessment
made under paragraphs (hxl) and (2)
of this section, and make them avail-
able for public Inspection and  submit
 them  to the Administrator at  his re-
quest.
  (4) The State shall notify the Ad-
 ministrator If an area Is undergoing an
           40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-M Edition)

  amount of development such  that It
  presents  the potential for a violation
  of national standards within a period
  of 20 years.
    (I) Whenever the Administrator calls
  for  a plan revision he may,  without
  publishing the area In Part 62 of this
  chapter, require the revision be devel-
  oped In  accordance  with  the proce-
  dures of Subpart D.

  161 PR 40M1 Nov. 7. IBM u amended at SI
  PR 40MB. Nov. 7. 1986]

  I Sl.lll  Description of control mtuum.
 .  Each plan must set  forth a control
  strategy which Includes the following:
   (a) A description of each  control
  measure that Is Incorporated Into the
  plan, and  a schedule for Its Implemen-
  tation.
    Copies of  the enforceable laws
 and  regulations  to  Implement  the
 measures adopted In the plan.
   (c) A description of the administra-
 tive  procedures to be  used In Imple-
 menting each control measure.
   (d)  A description of enforcement
 methods Including, but not limited to:
   (1) Procedures for monitoring com-
 pliance with each of the selected con-
 trol measures.
  (2) Procedures  for  handling  viola-
 tions, and
  (3) A designation of agency responsi-
 bility for enforcement of Implementa-
 tion.

 I (I.I IS DemomtraUoaofadesjmcy.
  (a)  Each  plan  must demonstrate
 that  the measures, rules, and regula-
 tions ©ontalned In It are adequate to
 provide for the timely attainment and
 maintenance of the national standard
 that It Implements. The adequacy of a
 control strategy shall be demonstrated
 by means of a proporatlonal model or
 dispersion  model or other procedure
 which Is shown to be adequate and ap-
 propriate for such purposes.
  (b) The demonstration must Include
 the following:
  (DA summary of the computations.
assumptions, and Judgments used to
determine the degree of reduction of
emissions (or reductions In the growth
of emissions) that will result from the
Implementation of the control strate-
gy.
    fnvlr.
                                   726
     (2) A presentation of emission levels
    expected  to  result from Implementa-
    tion of each measure of the control
    strategy.
     (3) A presentation of the air quality
    levels expected to result from Imple-
    mentation of the overall control strat-
   egy presented either In tabular form
   or as an Isopleth map showing expect-
   ed maximum pollutant concentrations.
     (4) A description of the dispersion
   models used to project air quality and
   to evaluate control strategies.
     (6) For Interstate regions, the analy-
   sis from each constituent State must.
   where practicable, be based upon the
   same regional emission Inventory and
   air quality baseline.

   If I.Ill  Time period for tkmoMtraUon of
      •dcqMcy.
    (a)  The demonstration of the ade-
  quacy of the control strategy to attain
  a  primary standard  required  under
  151.112 must cover the following peri-
  ods:
    (1) At least three  yean from the
  date by which the Administrator must
  approve or  disapprove the plan. If no
  extension under Subpart R Is granted.
  or
   (2) At least five years from the date
  by which the Administrator must ap-
  prove or disapprove the plan. If an ex-
  tension under Subpart R Is granted.
   (b) The demonstration of adequacy
  to  attain a secondary standard  re-
 quired under I SI.112 must cover the
 period of time  determined  to be rea-
 sonable under  |51.1IO  Each  plan must Identify  the
sources of the data used In the projec-
tion of emissions.
                               (51.11*

    III.I If Air «mm> data ami •roJceUmw.
     (a) Each plan must contain a sum-
    mary  of  data showing existing  air
    quality.
     (b) Each plan must:
     (1) Contain a summary of air quality
   concentrations expected to result from
   application of the  control strategy;1
   and
    (2) Identify and describe the disper-
   sion model, other air quality model, or
   receptor model used.
    (c) Actual measurements of air qual-
   ity must be used where available If
   made by methods specified  In Appen-
   dix C to Part 58 of this chapter. Esti-
   mated  air quality  using appropriate
   modeling techniques  may be used  to
   supplement measurements.
    (d) For purposes of developing a con-
   trol  strategy,  background concentra-
   tion shall be taken Into consideration
  with respect to partlculate matter. As
  used In this subpart. background con-
  centration Is that portion of the meas-
  ured ambient levels that cannot be re-
  duced by  controlling  emissions  from
  man-made sources.
    (e) In developing an ozone control
  strategy for a particular area, back-
  ground  ozone   concentrations  and
  oxone transported Into an area must
  be considered. States may assume that
  the ozone standard will be attained In
  upwind areas.

  III.Ill  Data avallaMHIr.

   (a) The State  must  retain all de-
 tailed data  and calculations  used In
 the preparation  of each plan or each
 plan revision, and make them avail-
 able for public Inspection  and submit
 them to  the Administrator at his re-
 quest.
   (b) The detailed data and  calcula-
 tions used In the preparation of plan
 revisions are not considered a  part of
 the plan.
   (c)  Each  plan must provide  for
 public availability of emission data re-
 ported by source owners or operators
 or otherwise obtained  by  a State or
 local agency. Such emission data must
 be correlated with applicable emission
 limitations or other measures. As used
 In this paragraph, "correlated" means
presented In such a manner as to show
the relationship between measured or
                                                                                                                       727

-------
 1 51.997

 •ubmltted In accordance with I Sl.oXd).
 Substantive revisions shall Include but
 are not limited to change* In stack-test
 procedure*  for  determining   compli-
 ance   with   applicable   regulation*.
 modification* In  the projected  total
 manpower need*  to carry out  the ap-
 proved plan, and all change* In respon-
 •Ibllltlea  given  to local  agencle*  to
 carry out varlou*  portion* of the  plan.

 I S1J17  Enforcement  order*  and  other
    Bute action*.

  (a) Any State enforcement order. In-
 cluding  any State  court order. mu*t be
 submitted to the Administrator within
 00 day* of Its Issuance or adoption by
 the State.
  (b)  A State enforcement order or
 other State action must be submitted
 a*  a  revision to the applicable Imple-
 mentation plan pursuant to  151.104
 and approved by the  Administrator In
 order to be considered  a revision to
 •uch plan.

 IM PR 333M. Nov. 3». 1*71. a* amended at
 •1 PR KMTI. No*. 7. 1»M1

 IIIJM  llUeervedl
  SooacK II PR 4M1I. No*. 1. MM. untas*
otlierwlse noted.

1 1144* ReaiM*tf«rt-re*reite»*le«.
  (a) The Governor of a State may. at
the time of •ubmlsslon of a plan to Im-
plement a  primary standard, request
the Administrator to  extend,  for a
period not exceeding  3 yean, the I-
year period prescribed by the Act for
attainment of the primary standard In
such region.
  (b) Any such request regarding an
Interstate  region must be  submitted
Jointly with the requests of Governors
of  all States In the  region, or shall
show that the Governor of each State
In the region has been notified of such
a request.
  (c) Any  such request regarding at-
tainment  of a primary standard must
be  submitted  together  with a  plan
which shall:
  ( 1 ) Set forth a control strategy ade-
quate for attainment of such primary
standard.
          40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-M
   (2) Show that the necessary  techo-
 logy or alternatives will not be avail-
 able soon enough to permit full  Imple-
 mentation  of such control strategy
 within such 3-year period, I.e., one or
 more emission sources or classes of
 source* will be unable  to comply with
 applicable  portion* of  the  control
 •trategy.
   (3)  Provide for attainment of nich
 primary  standard  as expedltlously as
 practicable, but In  no case later than I
 years after the date of the Administra-
 tor's approval of such plan.
   (d)  Any showing pursuant to para-
 graph A clear Identification of station-
 ary  emission  source*  or  classes  of
 moving source* which  will be unable
 to comply with the applicable portion*
 of such control strategy within a 3-
 year  period  because  the necessary
 technology or alternatives will not be
 available soon  enough to permit such
 compliance.
   (3) A clear Identification and Justifi-
 cation of any assumption* made with
 the respect to  the  time at which the
 necessary technology  or alternatives
 will be available.
   (3) A clear Identification of any al-
 ternative mean* of  attainment of such
 primary standard which were  consid-
 ered and rejected.
   (4) A showing that stationary  emis-
 sion  source*  or classes  of  moving
 sources other  than those Identified
 pursuant to paragraph (dXl) of this
 section will  be required to  comply,
 within such  3-year period, with any
 applicable portion* of such control
 •trategy.
  (6) A showing that reasonable Inter-
 im control measures are provided for
 In such plan with respect to emissions
 from the sourced) Identified pursuant
 to paragraph (dXl) of this section.

 I (1.341  Request for IS-awntli extension.
  (a) Upon request  of the State made
 In accordance with this section, the
 Administrator may. whenever  he de-
 termines  necessary,  extend,  for  a
 period not to exceed 18 months, the
deadline for submitting that portion
of a plan that Implements a secondary
standard.
                         Afwcy
   Any such request must show that
attainment of the secondary standard*
•HI  require emission reduction* ex-
ceeding those  which  can be achieved
through the application of reasonably
available control technology.
    Any such request must be sub-
mitted sufficiently early to permit de-
velopment of a plan prior to the  dead-
line In the event that such request Is
denied.

     APPENDICES A-K— (Reserved]
APPENDIX  L—EXAMPLE  RHDIATIOM
    roa PBKVKNTION or AM FOU.OTION
    EknauwMCT EPISODE*

  The example regulations presented herein
reflect generally  recognised ways of pre-
venting air pollution from reaching levels
that would cause Imminent and substantial
endangerment to  the  health of  persons.
Slates are  required under Subpart H  to
have emergency CDtoodes plans but they are
not required to adopt the regulation pre-
sented herein.
  1.9  Air poOuHon rmerpntc*. This regula-
tion Is designed  to prevent the excessive
buildup of air pollutants during air pollu-
tion episode*, thereby preventing the occur-
rence of an emergency due to the effects of
these pollutants on the health of persons.
  1.1  jTptooA criteria. Conditions Justify-
ing the proclamation of an air pollution
alert, air pollution warning, or air pollution
emergency shall be deemed to exist when-
ever the Director determines that the accu-
mulation of tlr pollutant* In any place to at-
taining or has attained levels which could. If
such level* are sustained or exceeded, lead
to a substantial threat to the health of per-
sons. In making this determination, the Di-
rector will be guided by the following crite-
ria:
   "Air  Pollution Forecast": An Internal
watch by the Department of Air Pollution
Control shall be  actuated by a  National
Weather Service advisory that Atmospheric
Stagnation Advisory  Is  In effect or  the
equivalent local forecast of stagnant atmos-
pheric condition.
  (b) "Alert": The Alert level Is that concen-
tration of pollutants at which  first stage
control actions I* to besln.  An Alert will be
                       Fort 51, As*. 1

 declared when  any one of the  following
 level* Is reached at any monitoring site:
  8O.-MO pg/m* (0.3 p.p.m.). 34-hour aver-
    age.
  Pftlw—350 jig/m*. 34-hour average.
  CO-17  rng/rn' (15 p.p.m.). 8-hour aver-
    age.
  Osone  (0.0 p.p.m.). 34-hour aver-
  age.
 PMw-430 pg/m*. 34-hour average.
 CO—14 rag/m • (W p.p.m.). g-hour average.
 Osone * (0.4 p.p.m.). 1-hour
  average.
 NOr-3.380 ft/at' (1.3 ppm )-l hour aver-
  age; BSSpg/m* (0.3 ppm). 34-hour average.
  In  addition to the levels listed  for the
 above pollutants,  meterologlcal condition*
 are such that pollutant concentrations can
 be expected to remain at the  above level*
 for twelve (13) or more hours or Inueas*. or
 m  the case of osone. the situation to likely
 to reoccur within the next  34-hours unless
• control actions are taken.
   "taergency": The emergency level In-
 dicate* that air quality to continuing to de-
 grade toward a level of significant harm to
 the health of  persons and that the most
 stringent control actions are necessary- An
 emergency will  be declared when any one of
 the following level* to reached at any moni-
 toring site:
 8Cv-3.IOO pg/m* (0.8 p.p.m.). 34-hour aver-
   age.
   PMW-500 pg/m*. 34-hour average.
 CO—40 mg/m* (40 p.p.m.). 8-hour average.
 Ozone (O.)-I.OOO pg/m* (0.5 p.p.m.). 1-hour
   average.
 NOi-3.000 |ig/m>(1.6 ppm). 1-hour average;
   750 pg/m' (0.4 ppm). 14 hour average.
   In addition to the levels listed for  the
 above pollutant*,  meterologlcal  conditions
 are such that pollutant concentration* can
 be expected  to remain at the  above level*
 for twelve (13)  or morr hours or Increase, or
 In the case of ozone, the iltuatlon I* likely
                                    772
                                                                                    773

-------
§51.103

the regions which are significantly Im-
pacted by such plan or schedule or re-
vision.
  (6) In the case of hearings on AQMA
plans:
  (I) Notification  to the  chief execu-
tives  of affected local  governments.
planning   agencies.   transportation
agencies, environmental control agen-
cies, economic development agencies.
and any other affected Stales, and
  (ID Public notice of alternative anal-
ysis and plan development procedures
approved under | 51.63.
  (e)  The State  must  prepare and
retain, for Inspection by the Adminis-
trator upon request, a record of each
hearing. The record must contain, as a
minimum, a  list of witnesses together
with the text of each presentation.
  (f) The State must submit with the
plan,  revision, or  schedule a certifica-
tion  that the  hearing  required  by
paragraph (a) of  this section was held
In accordance with the notice required
by paragraph (d) of this section.
    Upon written application by a
Slate agency (through the appropriate
Regional  Office),  the Administrator
may  approve State  procedures  for
public hearings. The following criteria
apply:
  (I)  Procedures approved under this
section shall be deemed to sallsfy Ihe
lequlrcmenl  of  this  part regarding
public hearings.
  (2)  Procedures  dlfferenl  from this
part may be approved if they—
  (I)  Ensure public participation  In
matters for  which hearings are  re-
quired; and
  (II) Provide adequate public notifica-
tion of the opportunity lo participate.
  (.1)  The Administrator  may Impose
any conditions on approval he or she
drrms necessary.

«T,I 101  SubmiMlim of plnn». preliminary
    rrvirw nl plan*.

  (a) The  Slate makes an official sub
 mission to Ihe Administrator when It
 delivers five ropies ol Ihe plan  to the
 appropriate   Regional  Office and  a
 letter ID the Administrator  Riving
 mil ice ol such act inn  The Slate must
 nilopl Ihe plan and Ihe  Ciiwernnr or
 his desience. must submit it lo Ihe Ad
 iiiinislriitiu as follows
         40 CFR Ch. I (7-l-M fdlllen)

  (I) For any primary standard, or re-
vision thereof,  within 9 months after
promulgation of such standard.
  (2) For  any secondary standard, or
revision thereof, within 9 months after
promulgation of such secondary stand-
ard or by such later date prescribed or
by such later date prescribed by  the
Administrator under Subpart R of  this
part.
  (b) Upon request of a Stale, the Ad-
ministrator will  provide  preliminary
review of  a plan or portion thereof
submitted In advance of the date such
plan Is due. Such requests must be
made In writing to the appropriate Re-
gional  Office and  must  be accompa-
nied by five copies of the materials to
be reviewed. Requests for preliminary
review do not relieve a Stale of Ihe re
sponslblllly of  adopting  and submit-
ting plans  In  accordance  with  pre-
scribed due dates.

OSI.IM  Revision*.
  (a) The plan shall be  revised from
time to time, as may be  necessary, to
take account of:
  < 1) Revisions of national standards,
  (2) The availability of Improved or
more expeditious methods of attaining
such  standards,   such  as  Improved
technology  or  emission  charges or
taxes, or
  (3) A finding by the Administrator
that the  plan  Is substantially Inad-
equate to attain  or maintain Ihe na-
tional slandard  which II  Implements.
or to otherwise comply with any appli-
cable additional  requirements  estab-
lished   under  Ihe Clean   Air  Acl
Amendments of 1977.
  (b) The Stale must revise the plan
within 60  days following notification
by the Administrator under  paragraph
(aM3> of this section, or by  such later
dale prescribed by Ihe Administrator
after consultation with the Stale.
  (c> States may  revise Ihe  plan from
time lo time consistent  with  the re-
quirements applicable to  Implementa-
tion plans under this part.
  (d) The States must submit any  revl
sion of any regulation or any compli-
ance schedule under paragraph «•> of
this section In Hie Administrator no
later than  til) (lays alter its adoption
 Environmental Protection Agency

  (e) The State must Identify and de-
 scribe revisions other than those cov-
 ered by paragraphs (a) and (d) of this
 section.
  (f) EPA will approve revisions only
 after applicable hearing requirement*
 of | 51.102 have been satisfied.
   In order for a variance to be con-
 sidered for approval ai a revision  to
 the  State Implementation plan, the
 State must  submit  It In accordance
 with the requirements of this section.

 • SI.IM Approval of plan*.
  The Administrator will approve any
 plan, or portion thereof, or any revi-
 sion of such plan, or portion thereof. If
 he or she determines that It meets the
 requirements of the  Act. Revisions of
 a plan, or any portion thereof, will not
 be considered  part of an  applicable
 plan until such revisions have been ap-
 proved by the Administrator In accord-
 ance with thi*  >,rt.
  Bounce II PR 40MS. Nov. 1. I9M. unless
otherwise noted.
I (I.I I*  Attainment  ami
  (a) Each plan must set forth a con-
trol strategy that provides the degree
of emission reductions necessary for
attainment  and  maintenance of  the
national air quality standards.  The'
emission reductions must be sufficient
lo offsel any Increases In air quality
concentrations thai are  expected lo
resull from emission Increases due to
projected growth of population. Indus-
trial activity, motor  vehicle traffic, or
other factors.
  (b) Each plan providing for the at
lalnmenl of a primary slandard or re-
vision of II musl do so as expedlllously
as practicable. The altalnmenl period
musl  nol be longer  than three years
afler the date  of the  Administrator's
approval of  the plan, unless the Stale
obtains  an extension under Subpart It
of this parl. Each plan musl also pro
vide for the maintenance of the stand-
ard after it has been attained.
  (cHI)  Kncli  plan must provide for
Ihe attainment of a secondary stand-
ard within a reasonable lime afler the
date  of  I lie Administrator's  approval
                             551.110

 of the plan, and must provide for the
 maintenance of the standard after It
 has been attained.
   (2) "Reasonable tune" Is defined In
 two ways as follows:
   (I) "Reasonable time" for attainment
 of a secondary standard must not be
 more than  three yean from plan sub-
 mission  unless the  State shows that
 good cause exists for postponing appli-
 cation of the control technology. This
 definition  applies  only  In  a  region
 where the  degree of emission  reduc-
 tion necessary for attainment of  the
 secondary  standard can be  achieved
 through the application of reasonably
 available control technology.
   "Reasonable  tune" will depend
 on the degree of emission  reduction
 needed for  attainment of the second-
 ary standard and on  the social, eco-
 nomic, and  technological problems In-
 volved In carrying; out a control strate-
 gy adequate for attainment of the sec-
 ondary standard.  This definition  ap-
 plies only In a ration  where applica-
 tion of  reasonably  available control
 technology  will not be sufficient for
 attainment  of the secondary standard
 In three years.
  (d) Bach  plan providing for the at-
 tainment of a primary or secondary
standard must specify the projected
attainment date.
  (e) The plan for each Region  must
have  adequate  provisions to ensure
that stationary sources from within
that Region will not:
  (1) Prevent attainment and mainte-
nance of any national slandard In any
portion of an interstate Region or any
other Region.
  (2) Interfere with measures required
lo be Included In the applicable Imple-
mentation plan for any such Region to
prevent significant deterioration of air
quality or lo prolecl visibility.
  (f> For purposes of developing a con-
trol strategy, data derived from meas-
urements of existing ambient levels of
a pollutant  may be adjusted lo reflect
the extent lo which occasional nalural
or accidental phenomena,  e.g..  dust
storms,  forest  fires. Industrial  acci-
dents, demonstrably affected such am-
bient levels during the  measurement
period.
  (g) During developing of the  plan.
HI "A encomaces States to identify al-
                                   T24
                                                                                   725

-------
§51.111
         40 CM Ch. I (7-l-M fdltton)
ternallve control strategies, as well aa
the coaU and beneflU of each such al-
ternative  for  attainment or mainte-
nance of the national standard.
  (h)  The plan shall  Identify those
areas  {counties,   urbanized   areas.
ulandard   metropolitan   statistical
arras, el cetera) which, due to current
air  quality and/or projected  growth
rate, may have the potential  for ex-
ceeding any national standard within
the subsequent 10-year period.
  (I)  For each such  area Identified.
the plan shall generally  describe the
Intended method  and timing for pro-
ducing the analysis and plan required
by paragraph (g) of this section.
  (2) The area Identification and de-
scription of  method  and liming  re-
quired by this paragraph  shall be sub-
mitted no later than May  10. 1974.
  (3) This paragraph covers only plans
to attain  and maintain  the national
standards  for  participate  matter.
sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide, ozone.
VOCS. and nitrogen dioxide.
  (I) Based on the Information submit-
ted by the State pursuant to para-
graph  of this section,  the Adminis-
trator will publish by August 31. 1975.
a list of the areas which  shall be sub-
ject to the requirements of paragraph
l  this seel ion. and make them avail
:ihlc  (in iMililU m:,pr< I u ii i and Milimil
I In MI  lo  the  Ailminislralm  al his re
f,u. : I
  '•I i  I he Slate shall nnlilv the  Ail
iniiir.l l :ilni i| :ni [lira is iln
  • A description of enforcement methods Including, but not limited to: (I) Procedures for monitoring com- pliance with each of the selected con- trol measures. (2) Procedures for handling viola- tions, and (3) A designation of agency responsi- bility for enforcement of Implementa- tion. * 51.112 Drmmmlrallnn «.f adcsuacjr. la) Each plan must demonstrate that the measures, rules, and regula- tions Contained In it are adequate lo provide for the timely attainment and maintenance of the national standard thai il Implements. The adequacy of a conlrol strategy shall tie demonstrated by means of a proimral lonal model or dispersion model or other procedure which Is shown to be adequate and ap- propriate for such purposes in) The demonstration must Include Ihe following (I) A summary of Ihe compulations. assumptions, and judgments used lo Iclcrmlnc Ihe decree of reduction of •missions (or reductions In the crowlh it emissions i lhal will result from I he mplemeiilalion ol Hie conliol strati- VL'li fnvtn •I afi •• w •T <2) A presentation of emission levels expected to result from Implementa- tion of each measure of the control strategy. (3) A presentation of the air quality levels expected to result from Imple- mentation of the overall control strat- egy presented either In tabular form or as an Isopleth map showing expect- ed maximum pollutant concentrations. (4) A description of the dispersion models used to project air quality and to evaluate control strategies. (5) For Interstate regions, the analy- sis from each constituent State must, where practicable, be based upon the same regional emission Inventory and air quality baseline. I il.l II Time serM tut SrawMlraUMi •* The demonstration of adequacy to attain a secondary standard re- quired under 151.112 must cover the period of time determined to be rea- sonable under 181.110(0 for attain- ment of such secondary standard. * SI. 114 EmlMlniM 4aU and rraJvrllmM. (a) Except for lead, each plan must contain a detailed Inventory of emis- sions from point and area sources. Lead requirements arc specified In I 51.117. The Inventory must be based upon measured emissions or. where measured emissions are not available. documented emission farUirs. (b) Had i plan must contain a sum mary of emission levels projected lo result from application of the new control slrnlcKV «•> K.ich plan must Identify Ihe sources ol I lie ilaln used in Ihe projec I inn of * mission-. fSI.W (a) Bach plan must contain a sum- mary of data showing existing air quality. (b) Bach plan must: (1) Contain a summary of air quality concentrations expected to result from application of the control strategy. and T (2) Identify and describe the disper- sion model, other air quality model, or receptor model used. (c) Actual measurements of air qual- ity must be used where available If made by methods specified In Appen- dix C to Part 58 of this chapter. Esti- mated air quality using appropriate modeling techniques may be used to supplement measurements. (d) For purposes of developing a con- trol strategy, background concentra- tion shall be taken Into consideration with respect to paniculate matter. As used In this subpart. background con- centration Is that portion of the meas- ured ambient levels that cannot be re- duced by controlling emissions from man-made sources. (e) In developing an ozone control strategy for a particular area, back- ground osone concentrations and osone transported Into an area must be considered. Elates may assume that the osone standard will be attained In upwind areas. MM Is Data avaltaMmy. (a) The State must retain all de- tailed data and calculations used In the preparation of each plan or each plan revision, and make them avail- able for public Inspection and submit them to the Administrator al his re- quest. (b) The detailed data and calcula- tions used In the preparation of plan revisions are not considered a part of the plan. (e) Bach plan must provide for public availability of emission data re- porlrd by source owners or operators or otherwise obtained by a Stale or local agency. Such emission dala must be correlated with applicable emission (Inflations or other measures. As used In (his paragraph, 'correlate;!" means presenteil In such a manner as lo show the relationship between measured or 727

  • -------
    REFERENCES FOR SECTION 7.2
    

    -------
    FewtM
                                                   40 CFI Ch I (7
    
                     SUBCHAPTER C—AIR  PROGRAMS
    PAIf M—MATtONAt PMMAJtY AND
      SKONOAtV AJMttiNT AM QUAL-
      ITY STANDARDS
    
    Bee.
    M.I  Definition!.
    M.I  Scope.
    M.I  Reference conditions.
    M.4  National primary ambient air quality
       standards for sulfur oxides (sulfur diox-
       ide).
    M.6  National secondary ambient air qual-
       ity standards for sulfur oxides (sulfur di-
       oxide).
    M.S  National primary and secondary ambi-
       ent air quality standards for partlculate
       matter.
    M.7  (Reserved!
    M.S  National primary ambient air quality
       standards for carbon monoxide.
    M.S  National primary and secondary ambi-
       ent air quality standards for oson*.
    M.lo  (Reserved]
    Mil  National primary and secondary am-
       bient air quality standard for nltrocen
       dioxide.
    M.ll  National primary and secondary am-
       bient air quality standards for lead.
    ArranBiB  A—RmBEBcE  Ifntio* roa nu
       DnXBBOBATIOB Of SULTDB OlOXIM M
       nu   AmosnuBS   (P«HSOS«BIUBB
       MBTHOB)
    Arraaix  B— RsnaBBCB  Mrraoa roa TUB
       DcnaMiBATioB or 8usrons» PASTICC-
       I-ATE UATTEB w nu Amosnnas (Hiasj-
       Vaunts MSTHOD)
    Arronix  C-MxAsvuMutT  PsiBciru an
       CAuaunoM  PBOCBDUBE roa TUB MXAS-
       OBBMBBT or  CASBOB MOHOXIM  M nu
       AmoanuBB  (NoB-DisrxmsrvB umuas*
       PBOTOKBTB*)
    Arrmix  D—MEASUBEMUTT  PBIBCIFLE ABB
       CAUBBATIOK  PBOCEDUBS ros nu MEAS-
       traEKBBT or Otom m nu AtMosrans
    Arronix E—RETEBEMCS MBTHOB ros DETEB-
       MIBATIOB or HYMOCABBOBS COBBXCTEB
       rOBMBTHABE
    Arramx  F—UtAsnanunr  PBIBCIFLE ABD
       CAUSBATIOB  PBOCBDUBS roa nu MEAS-
       DHIUBT or  NinooCB Dioxira  IB nu
       Amosnuas (O*s PHASS CHEMILUUIBES-
       CBMCE)
    ArrEBDix  Q—RcnacBCS  METHOD roa nu
       DETEBMIBATIOB Or LEAD IB  SOSrENDED
       PABTICOLATE  MAma COLLBCTKD raoM
       AHIIDIT Ala
    ArrEBDix  H—iBTEarBETATioH or THE NA-
       TIONAL Anaiurr Alt QUALITY STABDABDS
       roa Otom
    ArrxMDix I—(RESEBVED)
    Sec.
    ArrsMDix J—RETEBEBCE METHOD  roa  nu
       DETXBMIHATION or PABTICOLATX MATTEB
       AS PM,. In the Atmosphere
    Armpix K—iNTsarasTATioB or  nu  NA-
       TIOBAL AMBIEBT AIB QUALITY STABDABDS
       roB PABTICULATE |(ATTBB
      AUTHOSITY: Sees. 109  and  JOUa), Clean
    Air Act. as amended  (42  O.8.C. 740*.
    7Ml(a».
      SOOBCK 3S FR 113S4. Nov. 16. 1*71. unless
    otherwise noted.
    
    I M.I  Definition*.
      (a) As used In this part, all terms  not
    defined herein shall have the meaning
    given them by the Act.
      (b)  "Act" means the Clean Air Act,
    as amended (42 U.8.C.  1857-18071. as
    amended by Pub. L. 01-004).
      (c)  "Agency"  means the Environ-
    mental Protection Agency.
      (d)  "Administrator" means the  Ad-
    ministrator of the Environmental Pro-
    tection Agency.
      (e)  "Ambient air"  means that por-
    tion  of the atmosphere,  external to
    buildings, to which the  general public
    has access.
      (f)  "Reference method" means a
    method of sampling and analysing  the
    ambient air for an air pollutant that Is
    specified as a reference method In an
    appendix to  this part, or a method
    that has been designated  as a refer-
    ence method In accordance with Part
    53 of this chapter; It does not Include a
    method for which a reference method
    designation has been cancelled In  ac-
    cordance with | 53.11 or 163.10 of this
    chapter.
      (g>  "Equivalent  method" means a
    method of sampling and analyzing  the
    ambient air for an air pollutant that
    has been designated as an equivalent
    method In accordance with Part 63 of
    this  chapter;  It does  not Include a
    method  for  which  an   equivalent
    method  designation  has  been can-
    celled In  accordance  with 163.11   or
    | 53.10 of this chapter.
      (h)  "Traceable" means that a local
    standard has been compared and certi-
    fied either directly or  via not more
    than  one Intermediate standard, to a
    primary  standard such  as  a National
                                                                ProtectUn Agency
    Bureau of Standards Standard Refer-
    ence  Material  (NBS  8RM).  or  a
    DSEPA/NBS approved Certified Ref-
    erence Material (CRkf ).
    
    IM PR 2US4. Nov. 16. 1*71. as amended at
    41 FR HIM. Mar. 17. 1C7S; 41 PR M20. Jan.
    M. 1MJI
    
    IMJ  8cos«.
      (a) National primary and secondary
    ambient air quality standards under
    section  100 of the Act are set forth In
    this part.
      (b)  National primary  ambient air
    quality  standards define levels of air
    quality   which   the  Administrator
    Judges are necessary, with an adequate
    margin of safety, to protect the public
    health.  National secondary  ambient
    air quality standards define  levels of
    air quality which the Administrator
    Judges necessary to protect the public
    welfare from any known or anticipat-
    ed adverse effects of a pollutant. Such
    standards are  subject to revision, and
    additional primary  and  secondary
    standards may be promulgated as the
    Administrator deems necessary to pro-
    tect the public health and welfare.
      (c)  The promulgation  of  national
    primary and  secondary  ambient air
    quality  standards shall not be consld'
    ered In any manner to allow signifi-
    cant deterioration of existing air qual-
    ity In any portion of any State.
      (d) The proposal,  promulgation, or
    revision of national  primary  and sec-
    ondary  ambient air quality standards
    shall not prohibit any State  from es-
    tablishing ambient  air quality stand-
    ards for  that State or  any  portion
    thereof which are more stringent than
    the national standards.
    IMJ  Bcf«
      All measurements of air quality are
    corrected to a  reference temperature
    of 26* C. and to a reference pressure of
    760 millimeters of mercury  (1.013.3
    millibars).
    
    I M.4  National primary ambient air qual-
       ity standards for sulfur oxides (sulfur
       dloxMc).
      The  national  primary ambient air
    quality  standards for  sulfur  oxides
    measured as sulfur dioxide by the ref-
    erence 'method described In  Appendix
    A to this  part, or by  an equivalent
    method, are:
      (a) 80 mtcrograms per  cubic meter
    (0.03 p.p.m.)— annual arithmetic mean.
      (b> 365 mlcrograms per cubic meter
    (O.M p.p.m.)— Maximum 24-hour con-
    centration  not to be exceeded more
    than once per year.
    
    IM.C National  secondary  ambtesjl  alt
       quality  standardi  for sulfur oxides
       dulfur dioxide).
      The national secondary ambient air
    quality  standard for  sulfur  oxide
    measured as sulfur dioxide by the ref-
    erence method described In Appendix
    A to this part, or by any equivalent
    method Is  1.300 mlcrograms per cubic
    meter (0.5  p.p.m.) maximum 3-hour
    concentration not to be  exceeded more
    than once per year.
    1M FR 16481. Sept.  14. U7J1
    
    • 6M National  primary  mat  .rrsadarr
       ambient air 411811(7 standards for pa*
       ttralalc atalUr.
      (a) The level of the national primary
    and  secondary  24-hour ambient  air
    quality   standards   for   partlculate
    matter  Is  150  mlcrograms per cubic
    meter (ug/m*). 24-hour average con-
    centration. The standards are attained
    when the expected number of days per
    calendar year with a 24-hour average
    concentration above 150 i>g/m*. as de-
    termined In accordance  with Appendix
    K to this part.  Is equal  to or less than
    one.
      (b) The level of the national primary
    and  secondary annual  standards for
    partlculate  matter Is 50 mlcrograms
    per cubic meter (ug/m*>. annual arith-
    metic mean. The standards are  at-
    tained  when  the expected  annual
    arithmetic mean  concentration, as de-
    termined In accordance  with Appendix
    K to this part.  Is less than or equal to
      (c) For the purpose of determining
    attainment of the primary and second-
    ary standards, partlculate matter shall
    be  measured In  the ambient air as
    PMi.  (particles with  an aerodynamic
    diameter less than or equal to a nomi-
    nal 10 micrometers) by:
      (DA reference method based on Ap-
    pendix J and designated In accordance
    with Part 53 of this chapter, or
                                      630
                                                                                                                           631
    

    -------
                                 EPA-450/2-78-027R
    Guideline On Air Quality Models
                   (Revised)
             U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                  Office of Air and Radiation
             Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
                Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
    
                       July 1986
    

    -------
     Part SI
                                                      40 CTI C»>. I (7-l-*» I«ttrU«)
     PACT SI—MQUMIMfMTS KM Pit P-
       ASAItOH, ADOTOOM. AMD MJ»-
       MfffAi   or
       rum
    See.
    •I.M
    1141
    11.41
    •141
    11.44
       at
    • 1.41
    
    ii a
    
    • I.4T
                AQMA ASUI.TSU
          AQMA analysis: Submlttal date.
          AQMA analysis: Analysis period.
          •QMS; analysis' TTiilrtrllnei
          AQMA analysis: ProlecUoa of smls-
          AQMA analysis: Allocation ol emav
          am.
          AQMA analysis:  Projection of air
          AQUA analysis: Description of data
    II U  AQMA analysto: Data bases.
    •1.4*  AQMA analysis: Techniques deocrip-
                 AQMAPI4B
    •111  AQMA paw Oeneral
    1141  AQMA paw
    II M  AQMA ansJysav Accuracy factors.
    till  AQMAanalysis:Sufcmsltalofcmlcala-
                      Demiiiielistlou of ade-
    •144  AQMA paw Strategies.
    IIM  AQMA *»»JK Legal authority.
    II M  AQMA plaKPtture strategies.
    •IJ1  AQMA phut Puture legal authority.
    •IM  AQMA paw: lalergovernmenlal eo-
       eorratlasv
    •I.M  mesarrsdj
    IIM  AQMA plan: Resources.
    1I.M  AQMA plan: BuhmllUI format.
    •I.M  AQMA analyau and plan: Data avail
       ability.
    IIU  AQMA analysis and plan: Alternative
                    •  IBeeatvsdl
                                             •I.II* Attainment and maintenance of na-
                                                tional standard*
                                             •I.Ill Description of control mesiures.
                                             •I 111 l>monstratlon of adequacy.
                                             •I.III Time period for demomUatlon of
                                                adequacy.
                                             •I. 114 BulHlom dMa and prajectloiw.
                                             •I.III Air quality data and projection*.
                                             II.IU Data availability.
                                             •I I IT Additional provWom forlead.
                                             •MM Slack hel«bt provbloiw.
                                             •I.II* Intermittent*
                                                                 itrol •yatenia.
                                                                  >W Ah
    •I.IM  Clarification of reflona tor eptood*
    •I.Ill  «anUlcant harm levela.
    •I.IM  Contlnceney plana.
    •I.IM  ftemliuUon of epuod* plan*.
                                              •I.IM Letally mforccable proeedurei.
                                              II.Id Public availability of Information.
                                              •I.IM IdontlfkaUon   of   T~t"4r
                                               acency.
                                              •I.IM AdmlnMraUon procedural.
                                              •I.IM ataefc belcht procedures.
                                              •I.IM Permit requlreaenta.
                                              •I.IM Prevention of atjnlflranl deterio-
                                            ration of air quality.
                                            •I.IM  Ambient ak quality monitoring ro-
                                            ll.ll*
                                            II III  Baliilnii reporU and reoerdaeepln».
                                            •MIS  Tmtlnc.  Inajertlon.  enfonament.
                                               and eomplalnU.
                                            II III  TnuMportallon control meamna.
                                            •I.III  ConUnuom emlmlon monlterlaa.
                                            •I.IM
                                                    lequ
                                                              i for all planf.
                                            •I.MI  Idontlflcatlan of lecal authority.
                                            •I.U1  AmljTimimt  of legal authority  to
                                               local aaencle*.
    II IM  Defimttom).
    II !•!  atlpulalloiM.
    • I.IM  Public hearin««.
    •I.IM  Sutml^elon  of  pluw;
       review of plaiM.
    II 104  RevWom.
    II. IM  Approval of plena.
                                                      Aaavcv DaioniTioii
    
                               preliminary   11.14*  Oeneral plan requirement*
                                            • 1.141  Nonattelnmenl  area* for
                                               monoxide and ozone.
                                            11.141  IReeervedl
                                   carbon
                                         712
                                                                                                               Pretext!**) Agency
                                                                                                                                151.40
                                                            COMTIHUIMd CotMULTATIOH PaOCEM
    
                                                        11.141  Coniultatlon procew oblcctlve*.
                                                        11144  Plan element* af I ected.
                                                        •I 141  OrcanUattoni and ottlclaU  to  be
                                                           conuilted.
                                                        II 141  Ttmlnf
                                                        •I.14T  Hearino on consultation process
                                                           violation!.
                                                         RsunoMMir or Pun TO OTMSB
                                                               AH* MlMAOOiCMT PSOOSAMS
                                                        •1.14*  Coordination vlth other programs.
                                                        •1.14*  IReeervedl
                                                        HIM  Tranamlttal of Information.
                                                        •1.1*1  Conformity with Baacullvo  Order
                                                           IM11.
                                                        •I. 1*1  Summary of  plan development par
    II.1M  Legally   enforceable   compliance
                                                        •I.MI  final compliance aehedulea.
                                                        •I.MI  Bilenalon beyond one year.
                                                        •I.SM  Resources.
                                                        tl.MI  Coplee of rule* and regulations.
                                                        •I.IM  Public notification.
    
                                                             i .apart P-PMMdliii al Vli>a»(
    
                                                        HMO  Purpose and applicability.
                                                        II.MI  Definition!.
                                                        •I.MI  Implementation control strategies.
                                                        •I .MI  Exemption* from control.
                                                        •I.M4  Identlfleatloo of Integral vistas.
                                                        IIM*  Monitoring.
                                                        •IIM  Umg-termstrategy.
                                                        •I.MI  Mew wurce review.
                                                              An QOUJTV D**a RsroatMa   i
                                                        II.1M  Annual air quality data report.
    
                                                           Sooacs EHIUIOIUI »• Btrn Action
                                                                      Rsmaims
                                                        11.111  Annual source emissions and State
                                                           action report.
                                                        11.111  Sources eubject to emissions report-
                                                           ing.
                                                        II 1U  ReportaMe  emualons  date and  In-
                                                           formation.
                                                        •1.114  Progrem In plan enforcement.
                                                        II m  Contingency plan actions.
                                                        HIM  Reportable revlalons.
                                                        •LIU  Enforcement orden and other State
                                                           action*.
                                                        II.1M  IReaervedl
                                            11.341  Reaued lor I* month extension.
                                            Arrtnoicu A  K  lltciiKiivcol
                                            ArriMoiM  L  ExuurLC  RCCUUTIONS  roa
                                               PaivtMTMiM or Aia POLLUTION EMUUKM
                                               cv ErisoDi*
                                            ArrCHBii M  IKucavcol
                                            ArrsHsu    N -EMISSIONS     Raoocriom
                                               ACHISVASI.K TH«OOCH Iwsrw-riON. M*IN
                                               rsNANcs *NO RrraoriT or IJOHV Dimr
                                               VSHICUH
                                            ArraNBK O- IHcsnvcnl
                                            ArrCNoix P  MINIMUM EMission MONITOB-
    Arrui»icu Q- R -IRsscavavl
    Arranaii 8 -EMISSION Orrarr
       TIVE ROLINO
    Arm»l« T-IRaanvavl
    Arraaii U-CLavkN Aia ACT Sacrios) 114
       OUIMUNSS
      AVTMOBITV: ThU rulemaklng la promul-
    gated under authority of aecttona lOKbxl).
    II*.  IM  IM. 171 17*. and MtKal of the
    Clean Air Act 41  U.8C. 740l(bXI>.  141*.
    747*-747*. 7MI 76M. and 7MIUI.
      SoUBCC M PR HIM. Nov. ». 1*71. uiueas
    otherwise noted.
      BsjlTOSiaL  More:  Nomenclature changes
    affecting Part SI appear at 44 PR *3)7. Pen.
    *. 1*7* and II PR 4OMI. Nov. 7.  IM*.
    
    
          iufcajavts A-C— (••s*)rv«4(|
                                                                                                 11.340 Requeil for 2 year exleiulon.
                                              SooacK 41 PR 1I3M. May 1. IM«. unlem
                                            otherwlee noted.
    
                                            If I.M  Scope.
                                              4a> Applicability  The requirement*
                                            of  Uito •ubpart apply to air  quality
                                            maintenance  area* (AQUA*.) Identi-
                                            fied under I Sl.liom and to any area*.
                                            Identified under | 61.110X1).
                                               AQUA Analvitt. Under thU §ub-
                                            part.  procedure!  are  given  for the
                                            analycU of the air quality  Impact  of
                                            apeclfled pollutant emlatlorw from e«-
                                            Utlnc source*  and emUiloiu aatoclated
                                            with  projected irowth and develop-
                                            ment In  areas Identified under para-
                                            graphs (I) and (I) of | SI.110.  Thto
                                            analysis ls referred to In this subpart
                                            as an AQMA analysis.
                                              40 AQMA  Han.  Under this subpart.
                                            the Administrator  will require a revi-
                                            sion to the Slate Implementation plan
                                            for area* Identified under I 51.110(1 lor
                                            I Sl.llOd) when necessary to prevent a
                                            national ambient air quality standard
                                                                                                                                     713
    

    -------
    |si.i*s
    
    Office of Air Quality  Planning and
    Standard*. (MD-I6) Research Triangle
    Park. NC 37711.1)
       All emlHlon reduction* claimed
    a* off*et credit shall  be federally en-
    forceable;
      (F) Procedure* relating to the per-
    missible location of  offsetting  emis-
    sions shall be followed which are at
    least as stringent a* those *et out In 40
    CFR Part •! Appendix S Becllon IV.D.
      (O) Credit  for an emission*  reduc-
    tion can be claimed to the extent that
    the reviewing authority IIM not  relied
    on It In taming any permit under regu-
    lation* approved pursuant  to 40 CFR
    Part •! Subpart I or the State ha* not
    relied on  It In demonstration attain-
    ment or reasonable further progress.
      (4) Bach plan  may provide that the
    provlstons of this paragraph do  not
    apply to a source or modification that
    would be a major stationary source or
    major  modification only  If fugitive
    umlsslnii to the extent quantifiable are
    considered In calculating the potential
    to emit of the stationary source or
    modification and the source does not
    belong to  any of the following catego-
    ries:
      (I) Coal cleaning  plant*  (with ther-
    mal dryers):
      (II) Kraft pulp mills;
      till) Portland cement plants:
      (Iv) Primary sine smelters:
      (v> Iron and steel mills:
      (vl) Primary aluminum ore reduction
    plants:
      (vll) Primary copper smelters:
      (vlll) Municipal Incinerators capable
    of  charging  more  than 250 tons of
    refuse per day;
      (U) Hydrofluoric, sulfurlc. or citric
    add plants; I
      (x) Petroleum refineries:
      (xl> IJine plants;
      (xll)  Phosphate   rock   processing
    plants;
      (sill) Coke oven batteries:
      Ulv) Sulfur recovery plant*:
      Uv> Carbon  black  plants (furnace
    process):
      (xri) Primary lead smellers:
      (rril) Fuel conversion plants;
      (will) Sintering plant*
      (xlx) Secondary metal   production
     plant*;
      (xx) Chemical process plants;
             40 CHI Ch. I (7-1-M Edition)
    
      (Ml) Fossil-fuel boiler* (or combina-
    tion thereof) totaling more than 260
    million British thermal units per hour
    heat Input;
      (xxll) Petroleum storage  and trans-
    fer units with a total storage capacity
    exceeding 100.000 barrels;
      (xxlll)   Taconlte  ore   processing
    plants;
      (xxlv) Qlas* fiber processing plants;
      (xxv) Charcoal production plants;
      (xxvl) Fossil fuel-fired steam electric
    plants of more than 950 million Brit-
    ish thermal units per hour heat Input;
      (xxvll) Any other stationary source
    category which, as of August 7.1980. Is
    being regulated under section 111 or
    111 of the Act.
      (•) Bach plan shall Include enforcea-
    ble procedure* to provide that:
      (I) Approval to construct shall not
    relieve any owner or operator of the
    responsibility to comply fully with ap-
    plicable provision of the plan and any
    other requirements under local. State
    or Federal law.
      (U)  At such time that a particular
    source  or modification becomes  a
    major stationary source  or  major
    modification solely by virtue of a re-
    laxation In any enforcement limitation
    which was established after August 7.
    1MO. on the capacity of the source or
    modification otherwise to emit a pol-
    lutant, such as a restriction on hours
    of operation, then the requirements of
    regulations approved pursuant to thta
    section  shall apply to  the source or
    modification  as though construction
    had not yet commenced on the source
    or modification;
      (bXl) Each plan shall Include a pre-
    constructlon review permit program or
    Its equivalent to satisfy the require-
    ments of section UOCaxaxDXI) of the
    Act for any  new major  stationary
    source or major modification as de-
    fined In paragraphs (aMl) (Iv) and (v>
    of this section. Such a program shall
    apply to any such source or modifica-
    tion that would locate In any area des-
    ignated as attainment or unclasslflable
    for any  national ambient  air quality
    standard pursuant to  section 107  of
    the Act. when  It would cause or con-
    tribute to a violation of any national
    ambient air quality standard.
      (DA major source or major modifi-
    cation will be considered to cause  or
                                        738
     invlre«imentol Protection Agency
                                                                                                                            951.IM
     contribute to a violation of a national
     ambient air quality standard  when
     such source or modification would, at
     a minimum, exceed the following  sig-
     nificance  levels at any locality that
     doe* not or would not meet the appli-
     cable national standard:
    
    
    EuaiinK
    ath 	
    fM»
    NO. 	 „ 	
    CO
    
    
    
    ttffluf 	
    1 • M/m*
    ISM/HI*
    " ~
    
    
    M
    • PS/HI* -
    •*•"•*
    
    
    
    AMngtifl
    *
    
    
    
    S j H^fnT
    
    kMtxuM
    1
    29 M«/NI*
    
    
    
    
    
    1
    
    
    1
    f MM/HI*
    
      (I) Such a program may Include a
    provision which allows a proposed
    major source or major modification
    subject to paragraph (b) of this sec-
    tion to reduce the Impact of Its emis-
    sions upon air  quality by obtaining
    sufficient emission reductions to.  at a
    minimum, compensate for  Its adverse
    ambient  Impact where  the  major
    source or  major modification  would
    otherwise cause or contribute to a vio-
    lation  of any  national ambient air
    quality standard. The plan shall re-
    quire that. In  the absence of such
    emission reductions, the State or local
    agency shall deny the proposed con-
    struction.
      (4) The requirement* of paragraph
    (b) of thta section shall not apply  to a
    major  stationary  source  or  major
    modification with respect to a particu-
    lar pollutant If the owner or operator
    demonstrates that, as to that pollut-
    ant. the source or modification ta lo-
    cated In an area designated as nonat-
    talnment pursuant to section 107 of
    the Act
    III PR 40Mt. Mov. 1. Itss. a* amende* at U
    FR MTU. July I. IM7; II Fit SMM. Aug 7.
    1MT)
    
    I II.IM  FreTMUosj W ataHlfkasrt aMcrie-
      (aMl) Pun rewiremenfA In accord-
    ance  with  the  policy  of section
    lOKbXI) of the act and the purposes
    of section 100 of the Act. each applica-
    ble State Implementation plan shall
    contain emission limitations and such
    other measures as may be necessary to
    prevent significant deterioration of air
    quality.
      (1) «a» Aeetatons. If a State Imple-
    mentation Plan revision would  result
    hi Increased sir quality deterioration
    over any baseline concentration, the
    plan revision shall Include a demon-
    stration that It will not cause or eon-
    tribute to a violation of the applicable
    IncremenUs). If a plan revision propos-
    ing less  restrictive requirements was
    submitted after August 7. 1077 but on
    or before any applicable baseline date
    and was pending action by the Admin-
    istrator on that date, no such demon-
    stration  ta necessary with  respect to
    the area for which  a baseline date
    would  be established  before  final
    action ta taken on the plan revision.
    Instead,  the  assessment described In
    paragraph (aX4)  of thta section, shall
    review the expected Impact to the ap-
    plicable IncremenUs).
      (1) Required  plan  nvition.  If the
    State or the Administrator determine*
    that a plan ta substantially Inadequate
    to prevent significant deterioration or
    that an applicable Increment to being
    violated,  the plan shall be revised to
    correct the Inadequacy or the viola-
    tion. The plan shall  be revised within
    60 days of such a finding by a State or
    within 00 days following notification
    by the Administrator, or by such later
    date as prescribed by the Administra-
    tor after  consultation with the State.
      (4) Plan oMeMment The State shall
    review the adequacy of a plan on a
    periodic  baste and within  00 days of
    such  time  as  Information becomes
    available that an  applicable Increment
    b bring violated.
      (0) Public participation. Any State
    action  taken  under  thta  paragraph
    •hall be subject to the opportunity for
    public hearing In  accordance with pro-
    cedures  equivalent  to those  estab-
    lished In  151.103.
                                                                                                                                  739
    

    -------
     J 51.144
    
      (•) Amendment*   Any State re-
     quired  to revise IU Implementation
     plan by reason of  an amendment to
     thb Mctlon. Includlni any amendment
     adopted  simultaneously  with  thb
     paragraph,  shall adopt and submit
     •uch plan revision to the Administra-
     tor for approval within 9 months after
     the  effective date of the new amend-
     ment*.
      (lit Any revision to an Implementa-
     tion plan that would amend the  provi-
     sion* for the prevention  of significant
     air quality deterioration In the plan
     shall specify  when  and as  to  what
     source* and modifications the revision
     Is to take effect.
      (III! Any revision to an Implementa-
     tion plan that an amendment to thb
    section  required shall  take effect no
     later than the date of IU approval and
     nay operate prospectlvely.
      (b) Definition*. All state plans shall
     use  the following definitions for the
    purposes  of  this section.  Deviations
     from the following wording will be ap-
     proved  only  If the  state specifically
     demonstrates that the submitted defi-
     nition to more stringent,  or at least as
     stringent. In all respects as the  corre-
     sponding definitions below:
      <1MI>   "Major  stationary  source"
     means:
      <•> Any of the following stationary
     sources of air pollutants which emits.
     or has the potential to emit. 100 tons
     per year or more of any pollutant sub-
     ject to regulation under tin- Act:  Fossil
     fuel-fired steam electric plants of more
     than 160 million British thermal units
    per  hour heat Input,  coal  cleaning
    plants (with  thermal dryers),  kraft
    pulp mills.  Portland cement plants,
     primary alnc smelters. Iron and steel
    mill plants, primary aluminum ore re-
    duction plants, primary copper smelt-
    ers,  municipal Incinerators capable of
    charging more than ISO tons of refuse
     per  day.  hydrofluoric,  sullurlc, and
     nitric add plants, petroleum refiner-
     ies, lime plants, phosphate rock proc-
     essing  plants, coke oven  batteries.
     sulfur recovery plant*,  carbon  black
     plants (furnace process), primary lead
     smelters,  fuel  conversion plants, sin-
     tering plants, secondary metal produc-
     tion plants,  chemical  process plants.
     fossil  fuel  boilers  (or  combinations
     thereof) totaling more than 260 mll-
             40 CM Oi. I <7-|-aa feWen)
    
    lion British  thermal units per hour
    heat  Input,  petroleum  storage  and
    transfer units with a total storage ca-
    pacity exceeding 300,000 barrels. Uco-
    nlte ore processing plants, glass fiber
    processing plants, and  charcoal  pro-
    duction plants;
      (6)  Notwithstanding the stationary
    source  sbe  specified  In  paragraph
    (bMlMIKa) of this section, any station-
    ary source which emits, or has the po-
    tential to emit. 360 tons per year or
    more of any air pollutant subject to
    regulation under the Act; or
      (c) Any  physical change that would
    occur at a stationary source not other-
    wise qualifying under paragraph (bM I >
    of thb section, as a major stationary
    source If the change would constitute
    • major stationary source by Itself.
      (U) A major source that b major for
    volatile organic compounds  shall be
    considered major for osone.
      (Ill) The fugitive emissions  of a sta-
    tionary source shall not be Included In
    determining for any of the purposes of
    thb section whether It b a major sta-
    tionary source, unless the source  be-
    longs to one of the following catego-
    ries of stationary sources:
      (•) Coal  cleaning plants (with ther-
    mal dryersK
      (6) Kraft pulp mllto;
      (c) Portland cement plants:
      (4) Primary tine smelters;
      («) Iron and steel mills;
      (/) Primary aluminum ore reduction
    plants;
      («> Primary copper smelters:
      (A) Municipal Incinerators capable of
    charging more than 960 tons of refuse
    per day;
      (O Hydrofluoric,  sulfurlc. or nitric
    add plants;
      U) Petroleum refmerles;
      (*) Ume ptanUc
      (f) Phosphate rock processing plants:
      (M) Coke oven batteries:
      («> Sulfur recovery plants;
      (o)  Carbon black plants  (furnace
    process):
      (»> Primary lead smelters:
      (e) Fuel conversion plants;
      (r) Sintering plants:
      (s)  Secondary   metal   production
    plants;
      (f) Chemical process plants:
      (M)  Possll-fuel boilers  (or combina-
    tion thereof) totaling more than  260
                                       740
                                                                     | SUM
     million British thermal unlU per hour
                    •*"•••
         with a total storage eapadty ex-
         g 100.000 barrels:
         Taeonlte ore proo-slng plants;
      (*) Olaas fiber processing plants:
       ,> Charcoal production Ptontej
      <,) Possll  fuel-fired  steam electric
    Bllnts ofmore thai MO million British
    thermal units per hour heat Input:
      («e) Any other stationary source cat-
    egory which, a*  of August 7. ItM. b
    being regulated  under section 111 or
    111 of the Act.
      OKI) "Major  modification" means
    any physical change IB or change to
    the method of operation of a major
    stationary source that would result to
    a significant net emissions Increase of
    any pollutant subject to  regulation
    under the Act.   '
       Any net emissions Increase that
    b significant for volatile organic com-
    pounds shall be considered significant
    for osone.
      (ill) A physical change or change In
    the method of operation shall not In-
    clude:
      (a) Routine maintenance, repair, and
    replacement;
      (») Use of an alternative fuel or raw
    material by reason of any order
    section a (a) and (b) of
    Supply and  Environmental
    tkm Act of  1074 (or any
    legislation) or by reason of a natural
    gas curtailment  plan pursuant to the
    Federal Power Act;
      (c) Use of an alternative  fuel fey
    veAMMfc of nUi ofoev or t*ul0 Mattdttt" 900*
    Uon 116 of the Act;
      (4) Use of an  alternative fuel at •
    steam generating  unit to the extent
    that the fuel b generated from munic-
    ipal solid waste:
      (•) Use of an alternative fuel or raw
    material by a stationary source which:
      it ) The source  was capable of accom-
    modating  before  January 0.  1076.
    unless such change would be prohibit-
    ed  under any federally enforceable
    permit condition  which  was estab-
    lished after January  The source  b approved to use
    under any permit Ist-ued under 40 CPR
    62.21  or under  regulations
    pursuant to 40 CPR 61.104;
      (/) An Increase In the hours of oper-
    ation or to the production rate, unless
    such  change would  be  prohibited
    under   any   federally   enforceable
    permit  condition  which  was estab-
    lished after January 43. 1071. pursuant
    to 40 CPR 62.21 or under regulations
    approved pursuant to 40 CPR Subpart
    I or 161.144.
      (f) Any change to ownership  at a
    stationary source.
      HMD   "Net   embslons
    means the amount by  which the <
    of the following exceeds aero:
      (a) Any Increase to actual <
    from a particular physical change or
    change to the method  of operation at
    a stationary source; and
      (6)  Any other  increases anal de-
    creases  to actual  emissions at  the
    source that are contemporaneous with
    the particular change and are other-
    wise creditable.
      (U) An Increase or dtcnasc to actual
    •missions  It  contemporaneous  with
    the  menu,-  from  the  particular
    change only  If It occurs within a rea-
    sonable period (to fee specified fey the
          before the date that the to-
           from  the  particular
      (UI)Anl
              b creditable only If the re-
    viewing authorityhas not relied on ft
    In •Mutiifj ft  peflnit foe HM  oMatfov
    •note!* iTgjtuhitloiisi approved ptUsMtuii
    to thb section,  which  persslt b  to
    effect when  the Increase  to  actual
              from the particular change
      
    -------
       851.16*
    
       whichever la  lower, exceeds the  new
       level of actual emissions;
        (6) It Is federally enforceable at and
       after the time that actual construction
       on the particular chance begins; and
        (c) It has approximately the same
       qualitative  significance  for  public
       health and welfare as that attributed
       to the  Increase from the particular
       change.
        (vll) An  Increase that result* from a
       physical change  at  a source  occurs
       when the emissions unit on which con-
      struction occurred becomes operation-
      al and begins to emit a particular pol-
      lutant. Any replacement  unit that re-
      quires shakedown becomes operational
      only  after a  reasonable shakedown
      period, not to exceed 180 days.
        (4)  "Potential to emit" mean* the
      maximum  capacity of  a stationary
      source to emit  a pollutant under Its
      physical and operational  design. Any
      physical or operational limitation  on
      the capacity of the source to emit a
      pollutant. Including air pollution con-
      trol  equipment and restrictions  on
      hours of operation or on  the type or
     amount of material combusted, stored,
     or processed, shall  be treated as part
     of IU design If the limitation or the
     effect It would have on emissions Is
     federally enforceable. Secondary emis-
     sions do not count In determining the
     potential to emit  of  a  stationary
     source.
        "Bulldlcg. BJ.ruHure. facility, or
     Installation" me--ris all of the pollut-
     ant «mlttlng activities which belong to
     ti\t seine Industrial grouping,  are  lo-
     cated on one or mere contiguous or ad-
     jacent properties, and are  under the
     control of the same person (or persons
     under common control) except the ac-
     tivities of any  vessel. Pollutant-emit-
     ting activities shall  be  considered  as
    part of the same Industrial  grouping If
    they  belong  to  the same  "Major
    Group'' (I.e.. which have the same two-
    digit code) as described In  the Stand-
    out Industrial Classification Manual.
     1912. as amended by the 1077 Supple-
    ment  (U.S.  Government  Printing
               40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-88 Edition)
       Office stock numbers 4101-OOM and
       003-006-00174-0. respectively).
        (7) "Emissions unit" means any part
       of a stationary source which emits or
       would have the potential to emit any
       pollutant subject to regulation under
       the Act.
        (8) "Construction" means any physi-
      cal change or change In the method of
      operation (Including fabrication, erec-
      tion. Installation, demolition, or modi-
      fication of an emissions unit) which
      would  result In a  change In actual
      emissions.
        (0) "Commence" as applied  to con-
      struction of a major stationary source
      or major modification means that the
      owner or  operator  has all necessary
      preconstructlon approvals or  permits
      and either has:
       (I) Begun, or caused to begin, a con-
      tinuous program of actual on-slte con-
      struction of the source, to be complet-
      ed within a reasonable time; or
       (II) Entered Into binding agreements
      or  contractual  obligations,   which
      cannot be cancelled or modified with-
      out substantial loss  to the owner or
      operator, to undertake a  program of
      actual construction of the source to be
     completed within a reasonable time.
       (10) "Necessary preconstructlon ap-
     provals or permits" means those per-
     mits or approvals required under fed-
     eral air quality control laws and regu-
     lations and those air quality control
     laws and regulations which are part of
     the applicable State Implementation
     Plan.
       (11)  "Begin  actual construction-
     means. In general. Initiation of physi-
     cal on-slte construction activities on an
     emissions unit which are of a perma-
     nent nature. Such activities Include,
     but are not limited to. Installation of
     building supports and foundation*,
     laying of underground  pipework, and
     construction of  permanent storage
     structures. With respect to a change In
     method of operation  this term refers
     to those on-slte activities, other than
     preparatory activities, which mark the
     Initiation of the change.
      (19) "Best available  control technol-
    ogy" means an emissions limitation
    (Including a  visible emissions stand-
    ard) based on the maximum degree of
    reduction for each pollutant subject to
    regulation under the Act which would
                                       742
                 Preterite* Afency
    
    be emitted from any proposed major
    stationary source or major modifica-
    tion which the reviewing authority, on
    a case-by-«ase basis, taking Into ac-
    count energy, environmental, and eco-
    nomic Impacts and other costs, deter-
    mines Is achievable fpr such source or
    modification  through application of
    production  processes  or  available
    methods, systems, and techniques. In-
    cluding fuel cleaning or treatment or
    Innovative fuel  combination   tech-
    niques for control of such pollutant
    In no event shall application of best
    available control technology result hi
    emissions  of  any  pollutant which
    would exceed the emissions allowed by
    any applicable standard under 40 CFR
    Parte 80 and 01. If the reviewing au-
    thority determines that technological
    or economic limitations on the applica-
    tion of measurement methodology to a
    particular emissions unit would  make
    the Imposition  of an emissions stand-
    ard Infeaslbl*.   -. design, equipment.
    work practice, operational standard or
    combination  thereof,  may  be  pre-
    scribed Instead to satisfy the require-
    ment for the application of best avail-
    able control technology- Such stand-
    ard shall, to the degree possible, set
    forth the emissions reduction achieva-
    ble by Implementation of such design.
    equipment, work practice or operation.
    and shall provide for compliance by
    means which  achieve equivalent re-
    sults.
       (11X1)   "Baseline   concentration"
     imam  that  ambient  eoneentratlon
     level which exists hi the baseline area
     at the time of the applicable baseline
     date. A baseline concentration la deter-
     mined for each pollutant for which a
     baseline date la established and shall
     Include:
       (a) The actual emissions representa-
     tive of sources  hi existence on the ap-
     plicable  baseline date, except as pro-
     vided In paragraph (bMllXtl) of this
     section;
       (b) The allowable emissions of major
     stationary sources which commenced
     construction before  January 0. 1075.
     but were not In operation by the appli-
     cable baseline date.
       (II) The following will not be  Includ-
     ed In the baseline concentration and
     will affect the applicable maximum al-
     lowable Incresseia):
                                J51.144
    
      (a) Actual emission from any major
    stationary source on which construc-
    tion commenced after January 0. 1076;
    and
      (6) Actual  emissions Increases and
    decreases at any stationary source oc-
    curring after the baseline date.
      (14X1)  "Baseline  date" means the
    earliest date after August 7.1077. that:
      (a)  A  major  stationary source  or
    major  modification subject to 40 CFR
    69.21  submits a complete application
    under that section: or
      (b)  A  major  stationary source  or
    major modlflcatloln subject to regular
    Uons approved  pursuant to 40 CPU
    •1.108 submits a complete application
    under such regulations.
      (II) The baseline  date la established
    for each pollutant for  which Incre-
    ments or  other equivalent  measures
    have been established If:
      (a) The area In which the proposed
    source or modification would construct
    Is designated as attainment or unclas-
    •ttlable under section 107(dXl> (D) or
    (E) of the Act for the pollutant on  the
    date of Ma complete application under
     40 CFR 61.81 or under regulations ap-
    • proved pursuant to 40 CFR 61.108; and
      (6) In the caa* of a major stationary
     source, the pollutant would be emitted
     In significant amounts, or. m the caw
     of a major modification, there would
     be a significant net emissions Increase
     of the pollutant.
       (16X1) "Baseline area" means any
     mtrastate area (and every part there-
     of) designated aa attainment or uncUs-
     stflable under section 107(dXl) (D) or
     (E) of  the Act In which the major
     source  or major  modification estab-
     lishing  the baseline  date would con-
     struct or would  have an air quality
      Impact equal to or greater than I pg/
      m* (annual average)  of  the pollutant
      for which the baseline  date Is estab-
      lished.
        (II) Area redeslgnatlona under  sec-
      tion  107(dXl) (D) or (E) of the Act
      cannot Intersect  or  be smaller  than
      the area of Impact of any major sta-
      tionary source or major modification
      which:
        (a) Establishes a baseline date; or
        (b) Is subject to 40  CFR 69.31 or
      under  regulations approved pursuant
      to 40 CFR 51.166. and  would be  con
                                                                                                                               743
    

    -------
     1*1.144
    
     structed In the Mune state as the state
     proposing the ^designation.
      (16) "Allowable  emissions"  mean*
     the emissions rate  or  a stationary
     source calculated using the maximum
     rated capacity or the source (unless
     the aource U subject to federally en-
     rorceable limits which restrict the op-
     erating rate, or hour* or operation, or
     both) and the mo*t  stringent  or  the
     following:
      (I) The applicable standards as set
     forth In 40 CPU Parts 60 and 61;
      (U) The applicable State Implemen-
     tation Plan  emissions limitation. In-
     cluding those with a future compli-
     ance date; or
      (III) The emissions rate specified as •
     federally  enforceable permit  condi-
     tion.
      117) "Federally enforceable"  means
    all  limitations and condition!  which
    are enforceable by the Administrator.
     Including those requirements  devel-
    oped pursuant to 40 CFR Parts M and
     •I. requirements within any applicable
     Btate Implementation Plan,  and any
     permit requirements  established pu/-
     suant to 40 CPU M J! or under refuta-
     tions approved pumuant  to  40 CFR
     •l.UorSl.lM.
      (1*)  "Secondary emissions"  means
     efBbwIons which occur as a result of
     th« construction or  operation of  a
     mator stationary  source  or  major
     modification,  but do  not com* from
     the major stationary  aource or major
     modification lUelf. For the purposes
     of  this section, secondary emissions
     must be specific, well defined, quanti-
     fiable, and Impsrt  the same general
    area* the stationary source modifica-
     tion which causes the secondary emto-
    atons.  Secondary  emissions  Include
    emissions rrom any of Mte support fa-
    cility which would not be constructed
    or Increase Its emissions except as  •
     result of the construction or operation
    of  the major stationary  source or
     major modification.  Secondary  emis-
     sions do  rot Include any emissions
     which come directly from a mobile
     source, such  as  emissions from  the
     tailpipe  of a motor  vehicle,  from  a
     train, or from a vessel.
      (It) "Innovative control technology"
     means any system or air pallutlon con-
     trol that  has not  been  adequately
     demonstrated In practice,  but  would
             40 CM Ch. I (7-l-M Edition)
    
     have  a  substantial   likelihood   or
     achieving  greater  continuous  emis-
     sions  reduction  than  any  control
     system  In  current  practice  or   or
     achieving at least comparable reduc-
     tions at lower cost In terms or energy.
     economics, or nonalr quality environ-
     mental Impacts.
      (30) "Fugitive  emissions"  means
     those emissions which could not rea-
     sonably pass through a stack, chim-
     ney, vent, or other functionally equiv-
     alent opening.
      (31X1) "Actual emissions" means the
     actual rate or emissions or a pollutant
     from an •missions unit, ss determined
     In accordance with paragraphs (bxai)
     (II) through (Iv) of this section.
      (II) In general, actual emissions as of
     • particular date n      ,'isl the aver-
     age rate. In ton* pt i , .... at which the
     unit actually emitted  the  pollutant
     during • two-year period which pre-
     cedes the particular dale and which to
     representative of  normal source oper-
     ation.  The  reviewing authority may
     allow  the  use of  a different time
     period upon a determination that It to
     •ton representative  of normal source
     operation. Actual emissions  shall  be
    calculated using the unit's actual oper-
    ating  hours,  production rates, and
     types of materials processed, stored, or
    combusted during the  selected tune
    period.
      (Ill) The reviewing authority may
    presume that source-specific allowable
     eml  'lotta for the unit are  equivalent
     to the actual emissions of the unit.
      
    -------
       {51.164
    
        (III) National memorial parks which
       exceed 5.000 acre* In alze. and
        (lv> National  park*  which  exceed
       6,000 acre* In size.
        <» Areas which were redeslgnated a*
       Clan I under refutations promulgated
       before August 7.  1077.  shall remain
       Class I. but may be redeslgnated as
       provided In this section.
        (» Any other area, unless otherwise
      specified In the legislation creating
      such an  area. Is Initially  designated
      Clans  II.  but may be redeslgnated as
      provided In this section.
       (4) The following areas may be re-
      designated only as Class I or II:
       (I) An area which as of August 7,
      1977. exceeded 10.000 acres In stee and
      was a national monument, a national
      primitive  area, a national preserve, a
      national  recreational area,  a national
      wild and scenic river, a national wild-
      life refuge, a national lakeshore or sea-
     shore: and
       (II) A national park or national wil-
     derness area established after August
     7. 1977. which exceeds 10.000 acres In
     •tee.
       (f) Exclutiont from increment con-
     sumption. (1) The plan may provide
     that  the   following  concentrations
     shall be excluded In determining com-
     pliance with a maximum allowable In-
     crease:
       (I)  Concentrations  attributable  to
     the Increase In emissions from station-
     ary sources  which  have  converted
     from the use of  petroleum products.
     natural gas. or  both by reason of an
     order In effect under section 2 (a) and
     (b) of the Energy Supply and Environ-
     mental Coordination Act  of 1974 (or
     any superseding legislation) over the
     emlMlons  from such sources before
     the effective date of such an order;
      (II) Concentrations  attrlbuUble to
     the Increase  In emissions from sources
     which have converted from using nat-
     ural gas by reason of natural gas cur-
     tailment plan In el feel pursuant to the
     Federal Power Act over the emissions
     from such sources before the effective
    date of such plan:
      (III) Concentrations of  partlculate
    matter attributable to the Increase In
    emlanlons  from construction  or other
    temporary  emission-related  activities
    of new or modified sources;
                40 CH di. I (7-1-99 EdMton)
    
         (Iv) The  Increase In  concentrations
       attrlbuUble to  new sources outside
       the United  Slates over  the concentra-
       tions attributable to existing sources
       which are Included In the baseline con-
       centration; and
        (v) Concentrations attrlbuUble  to
       the temporary Increase In emissions of
       sulfur dioxide  or partlculate matter
       from sUtlonary sources which are af-
       fected by plan revisions approved by
       the Administrator as meeting the crl-
       terU specified In paragraph  (fM4> of
       this section.
        (1) If the plan provides that the con-
      centrations to which paragraph (fMI)
      (I) or (II) of this section, refers shall be
      excluded. It shall also provide that no
      exclusion of  such concentrations shall
      apply more than five years after the
      effective date of the order to which
      paragraph (fMIMl) of  this  section.
      refers or the plan to which paragraph
      (fXIXU) of this section, refers, which-
      ever la applicable. If both such  order
      and plan are applicable, no such exclu-
      sion shall apply more than five  years
      after the later of such effective dates.
       ()> No exclusion under paragraph (f)
      of this section shall occur later than 9
      months after August 7, I960, unless a
      8Ute  ImplemenUtlon Plan  revision
      meeting  the requlremenU of 40 CFR
      B1.1M has  been submitted to the Ad-
      ministrator.
       (4) For purposes of excluding con-
     centrations pursuant  to paragraph
     (fXIXv) of this section, the Adminis-
     trator  may approve a plan  revision
     that:
       (I) Specifies the time over which the
     temporary emissions Increase of sulfur
     dioxide or  partlculate  matter would
     occur. Such time Is not to exceed two
     yean In duration unless a longer tune
     Is approved by the Administrator;
      (II) Specifies that the lime period for
     excluding certain contributions In ac-
     cordance  with paragraph (fM4MI> of
     this section. Is not renewable;
      (111)  Allows  no  emissions  Increase
     from a sUtlonary source which would:
      (•> Impact a Class I area or an area
     where  an  applicable  Increment  Is
     known to be violated: or
      (6) Cause or contribute to the viola-
     tion of a national ambient air quality
    standard;
      ii.i Reaulres IbnlUtlons  to be  In
    .fleet intend of the time period specl-
    JJJT ta accordance with  P*rMraph
    11X4X1) of this section, which would
    Injure that the emissions levels from
              sources  affected  by  the
                 would not exceed those
    tevels occurring from  such  sources
    tLfof* the plan revision was approved.
       The plan shall
    prorid* Tulat  all areas of  the SUte
    (except as otherwise provided under
    £rag?aph <«) of this section) shall be
    designated either Class I. Class II, or
    Class III. Any designation other than
    Class II shall be subject to the redeslg-
    natlon procedures of this paragraph.
    Redestgnatlon (except  as  otherwise
    precluded by paragraph (e> of this sec-
    tion) may  be  proposed by the respec-
    tive   Slates  or  Indian  Governing
    Bodies, as provided  below, subject to
    approval by the Administrator as a re-
    vision to the applicable SUte tonple-
    menUUon plan.
      (1) The  plan may provide that  the
    SUte may submit to the Administra-
    tor a proposal to redeslgnate areas of
    the SUte Class I or Class II: Provided.
    That-
      (I)  At  least one public hearing  has
    been held In accordance with proce-
    dures established In I B1.10S.
      (U) Other SUtes. Indian Governing
    Bodies, and Federal Land  Managen
    whose lands may be affected by  the
    proposed redeslgnatlon were  notified
    at least M days prior to the public
    hearing:
      (III) A discussion of the reasons for
    the proposed redeslgnatlon. Including
    a satisfactory description and  analysis
    of the health, environmental, econom-
    ic. social,  and energy  effecU of  the
    proposed redeslgnatlon. was prepared
    and made available  for public Inspec-
    tion at least 30 days prior to the hear-
    ing and the notice announcing  the
    hearing  conUlned appropriate notifi-
    cation of the availability of such  dis-
    cussion;
      (Iv) Prior to the Issuance of notice
    respecting  the redeslgnatlon of an
    area that  Includes any Federal lands.
    the SUte  has provided written notice
    to the appropriate Federal Land Man-
    ager and afforded adequate  opportuni-
    ty (not In  excess of 60 days) to confer
    with the State respecting the redeslg-
                               551.14*
    
    nation and  to submit  written  com-
    menU and recommendations. In redes-
    Ignatlng  any  area with  respect to
    which any Federal Land Manager had
    submitted written commenU and rec-
    ommendations, the SUte shall  have
    published a list of any Inconsistency
    between such  redeslgnatlon and such
    commenU and recommendations (to-
    gether with the reasons  for making
    such redeslgnatlon against the recom-
    mendation of the Federal Land  Man-
    ager); and
      (v) The SUte has proposed the re-
    designation  after  constitution  with
    the elected leadership of local and
    other subsUte general purpose govern-
    menU In the area covered by the pro-
    posed redeslgnatlon.
      (1) The plan may provide that any
    area other than an area to which para-
    graph (e) of this section refers may be
    redeslgnated as Class III If—
      (I) The redeslgnatlon would meet
    the requlremenU of provisions  estab-
    lished In accordance  with paragraph
    (gM» of this section:
      (II) The redeslgnatlon. except any es-
    tablished  by   an   Indian  Governing
    Body, has  been specifically approved
    by  the Governor  of  the SUte, after
    consulUtlon  with  the  appropriate
    committees of the legislature. If It to In
    session, or with the leadership of the
    legislature.  If  It  to  not  In session
    (unless SUte  law  provides that such
    redeslgnatlon  must be specifically ap-
    proved by SUte legislation) and If gen-
    eral purpose unlU of local government
    representing a majority  of  the rest-
    denU of the area  to be  redeslgnated
    enact legislation (Including resolutions
    where appropriate) concurring  In the
    redeslgnatlon;
      (III) The redeslgnatlon would not
    cause, or contribute  to.  a concentra-
    tion of any air pollutant which would
    exceed  any maximum  allowable  In-
    crease permitted under the classifica-
    tion of any other area or any national
    ambient air quality standard; and
      (Iv) Any permit application for any
    major stationary  source  or  major
    modification subject  to provisions es-
    Ubllshed  In  accordance  with  para-
    graph (I) of this  section which could
    receive a pennll  only If the area In
    question  were  redeslgnated as Class
    HI. and  any  material  submitted as
                                       746
                                                                                                                            747
    

    -------
     151.1*4
    
     part  of  that  application, were avail-
     able. Insofar  a*  was practicable, for
     public Inspection prior to any public
     hearing on redeslgnatlon of any area
     as Class III.
      «> The plan shall provide that lands
     within  the exterior  boundaries  of
     Indian Reservations may be  redeslg-
     nated only by the appropriate Indian
     Governing  Body.  The  appropriate
     Indian Governing Body may submit to
     the Administrator a proposal to redes-
     tonate areas Class I. Class II. or Class
     III: Provided. That:
      (II The Indian Governing Body has
     followed  procedures   equivalent  to
     those required of a State under para-
     graphs  (9). (3XIII). and (»Nlv>  of
    thto section: and
      (H> Such  redeslgnatlon to proposed
    after consultation with the Statets) m
    which the Indian Reservation to locat-
    ed and which border the Indian Reser-
    vation.
      <•» The Administrator shall disap-
    prove, within to days of submission, a
     proposed redeslgnatlon of any  area
     only If he finds, after notice and op-
     portunity for public hearing, that such
     redeslgnatlon does not meet the proce-
     dural requirements of thto section or to
     Inconsistent with paragraph (e) of thto
     section.  If  any  such  disapproval
     occurs, the classification of the  area
     shall be that which was hi effect prior
     to the redeslgnatlon which was dtaap-
      (0) If the Administrator disapproves
    any  pioposed area  designation, the
    OUU or Indian Governing Body, as
    appropriate, may resubmlt the propos-
    al after correcting  the  deficiencies
    noted by the Administrator.
      (hi  Xtae* heightt  The plan  shall
    proride.  as  a  minimum, that  the
    degree of emission limitation  required
    for onntrol of any air pollutant under
    the plan shall not be affected In any
    manner by—
      (II flo much of a stack height, not In
    existence before December 31. 1070. as
    exceeds good engineering practice, or
      I1>  Any other dispersion technique
    not Implemented before then.
      (I)  Jtevtew  of major  tfaflonory
    sources  and major modification*—
    source appfteaoUK* end exemption*.
      (I) The plan shall provide that no
    major  stationary source  or  major
             40 CFft Oi. I (7-1-at edition)
    
     modification shall begin actual con-
     struction unless, as a mlnumum.  re-
     quirements equivalent to  those con-
     tained In paragraphs (Jl through (r) of
     thto section have been met.
      (9) The plan shall provide that the
     requirements equivalent to those con-
     tained In paragraphs (J) through (r> of
     thto section shall apply to  any major
     stationary source and any major modi-
     fication with respect to each pollutant
     subject to regulation under the Act
     that It would emit, except as thto sec-
     tion would otherwise allow.
      (I) The plan shall provide that  re-
     quirements  equivalent to those con-
     tained m paragraphs (Jl through (r) of
     thto section apply only to any  major
     stationary source or major modifica-
     tion that would be constructed In  an
     area which to designated as attainment
     or   iinrlasslf table   under  section
     107UMIHD) or (B) of the Act; and
      (41 The plan may  provide  that re-
     quirements  equivalent to those con-
     tained In paragraphs (J) through (r) of
     thto section do not apply to a particu-
     lar major stationary source or  major
     modification If:
      (I)  The  major  stationary  source
     would be a  nonprofit health or non-
     profit  educational  Institution  or  a
     major modification that would occur
     at such an Institution; or
      (II) The  source or  modification
     would be a major stationary source  or
     major  modification only If  fugitive
     emissions, to the eitent quantifiable.
     are considered In calculating the po-
     tential to emH of the stationary source
     or modification and such source does
     not belong to any following categories:
      («> Coal cleaning plants (with ther-
     mal dryers*
      (»> Kraft pulp mills:
      (c> Portland cement plants;
      (d> Primary sine smelters:
      (e> Iron and steel mills:
      (/) Primary aluminum ore reduction
    plants;
      (f > Primary copper smelters:
      (*) Municipal Incinerators capable  of
    charging more than 160 tons of refuse
    per day.
      (O Hydrofluoric,  sulfuric. or  nitric
    add plants:
      U) Petroleum refineries;
      (ft) Ume plant*
      (f) Phosphate rock processing plants;
    g,,inM«siilal fists rrtTn *gt—r
    
       Coke oven batteries:
      (•) Sulfur recovery plant*:
      tot Carbon black plants (furnace
      (•> primary lead smelters;
      «f) Puel conversion plants:
      (f) Sintering plants;     	
      (()  Secondary  metal  production
     "uiotemfcal process plant*;
      (•) Posall-fusl boilers (or
    Uon thereof) totaling more
    mUllon British thermal unite per hour
    bee* kaput;
      (•) Petroleum storage and transfer
    •an* with a total storage capacity ex-
    cMdtagNO.OOO barrels:
      (•» Taconfte ore procemlng plant*;
      (x> Glass fiber processing plant*;
      (v) Charcoal production plant*;
      (•) Porno fuel-fired steam electric
    plants of more than 9M million Brtt-
    toh Iliismsl unfta per hour heat Input;
      (M) Any other stationary source cat-
    egory which, as of August 1. 1*40. to
    bring regulated under section 111 or
    I It of the Act; or
      (HI) The source or modification to a
    portable stationary source  which
    previously received a permit r-—
               equivalent to
                               | §1.144
    
    tkm with respect to a particular pol-
    lutant If the owner or operator demon-
    strates that, as to that pollutant, the
    source or modification to located In an
    area  designated  as  nonattalnment
    under section 107 of the Act.
      (0) The plan may provide that re-
    quirement* equivalent  to  those con*
    tamed In paragraphs (k). (m). and (o)
    of thto section do not apply to a pro-
    pond  major  stationary  source  or
    major modification with respect to a
              pollutant.  If the allowable
            i of that pollutant from a new
    
    of that pollutant from a OMdWcatlon.
    would be temporary and Impact  no
    Clam I area and no area where an ap-
    plicable Increment to known to be vie-
    tamed to paragraphs (J) through (r) of
    Into section. If:
      (•) The source pioposm to relocate
    and emissions of the source at the new
    location would be temporary; and
      (ft) The emissions from UM
    would not exceed Its allowable
    •tons; and                     	
      (c) The emissions fiom UM  gounie
    would Impact no Class I area and no
    area where an applicable Inclement to
    known to be violated; and
      (d> Reasonable notice to given to the
    reviewing authority prior to UM relo-
    cation Identifying  the proposed new
    location and the probable duration of
    operation at  the new location. Such
    notice shall be given to the reviewing
    authority not less than 10 days In  ad-
    vance  of  the   proposed  relocation
    unless a different tune duration to pre-
    viously approved by the reviewing  au-
    thority.
      (•> The  plan  may provide that  re-
    quirements equivalent to those con-
    tained In paragraphs (J) through (r) of
    thto section do  not apply to a major
    stationary source or major modlftca-
      (7) The plan may provide that re-
    qutrementa equivalent to those con-
    tained hi paragraphs (k). (m). and (o)
    of thto section aa they relate to any
               allowable  Increase  for  a
        i II area do not apply to a modlfl-
           of a major  stationary source
          ma hi  existence on March  1.
    Itft, If the net Increase m allowable
             i of each pollutant subject to
               inder the Act from the
                after the application of
          available  control  technology
               i than §* tons per year.
      (•) The plan may provide that the
    icriewlng authority  may  exempt  a
    proposed major stationary source or
    major modification from UM requtre-
    saente of paragraph (m) of thto sec-
    tion, with respect to monitoring for a
    particular pollutant. If:
      (I) The emlsstom Increase of the pol-
    lutant from a new stationary source or
    UM net emissions Increase of the pol-
    lutant  from  a  modification  would
    cause, to any area, air quality Impacts
    leas than the following amounts:
      (*) Carbon monoxide—875 ug/nt'.  a.
    hour average;
      (ft)   Nitrogen  dioxide-14  ug/m»
    annual average;
      (c)  Paniculate  matter-10 M/m»
    T8P.  94-hour  average.—14)  »>•/">'
    PMM. 94-hour average.
      (d) Sulfur  dioxide-13 ug/m*. 94-
    hour average;
                                      748
                                                                                                                         749
    

    -------
     9 51.1*4
    
       Ozone;'
      (/) Lead-O.I fig/in*.  3-month  aver-
     age.
      (0) Mercury—0.25 ug/m*. 24 hour av-
     erage:
       Hydrogen *ulfide-0.2 ftg/m*. 1-
     hour average:
      (m> Reduced milfur compound*—10
     ug/m*. 1-hour average; or
       The concentration* of the pollut-
    ant  In  the  area that the source or
    modification would  affect  are  less
    than the  concentration*  lUted  In
    (IMOMI) of thl* section: or
      (III) The pollutant* I* not listed In
    paragraph (IX8MI) of thl* section.
      (») If EPA approve* a plan revision
    under  40 CFR  51.166  a* In  effect
    before  August 7.  1980. any subsequent
    revision which meet* the requirement*
    of thl* section may contain transition
    provlilon* which parallel  the transi-
    tion provisions of 40 CFR 52.21(1X0).
    (1X10)  and (mMIMv) a* In effect on
    that date, which provision* relate to
    requirement* for  be*t available control
    technology and air  quality  analyse*.
     Any such subsequent revision may not
    contain any transition provision which
     In the context of the revision would
     operate  any  less   stringently   than
     would It* counterpart In 40 CFR 52.21.
      (10) If EPA approve* a plan revision
     under I 51.166 as  In effect (before July
     )1.  10171.  any  subsequent  revision
     which meet* the requirement* of thl*
     section  may contain transition provi-
     sions which parallel the transition pro-
     visions  of 152.21 Ox 11),  and (mXl)
     (vtl) and (vlll) of this  chapter as In
     effect on that dale, these provisions
     bring related to monitoring require-
     ment*   for  participate matter.  Any
     •urh subsequent revl»lon may not con-
      •No t* minima air quality kirel U provid-
     ed fix oconc. However. any net Increaae »f
     100 tow per yew or more of volatile organic
     compound*  sub)rct to PSD would  be re-
     quited to perform and ambient Impact anal
     jrato. Includlnc the (atherlus of ambient air
     quality data.
             40 Cn Ch. I (7-l-M I4M«n)
    
     tain any transition provision which In
     the context of the revision would oper-
     ate any less stringently than would It*
     counterpart In 152.21 of this chapter.
      (J)  Control  technology  review.  The
     plan shall provide that:
      (1)  A  major stationary  source or
     major modification shall meet each
     applicable  emissions limitation under
     the State  Implementation  Plan and
     each  applicable  emission  standard*
     and standard of performance under 40
     CFR Part* 60 and 61.
      (2)  A new major stationary source
     shall apply best available control tech-
     nology for each pollutant subject to
     regulation  under the Act that It would
     have  the potential to emit  In slgnlfl-
     cant amount*.
      (*) A major modification shall apply
     best available control  technology  for
     each  pollutant subject to regulation
     under the Act for which It would be a
     significant  net emissions Increase at
     the source. This  requirement applies
     to  each  proposed  emission*  unit at
     which a net emission* Increase In the
     pollutant would occur a* a result of a
     physical  change  or change In  the
     method of operation In the unit.
      (4) For phased construction project*.
     the determination  of  best   available
     control technology shall be  reviewed
     and modified  as  appropriate at the
     least reasonable tune which  occurs no
     later  than  18 months prior to com-
     mencement of construction of each In-
     dependent  phase of the  project.  At
     such time,  the owner or  operator of
     the applicable stationary  source may
     be  required to demonstrate  the ade-
    quacy of any  previous determination
    of best available control technology
     for the source.
      (k) Source Impact analyst*. The plan
    shall provide that the owner or opera-
    tor of the proposed source or modifica-
    tion shall demonstrate that  allowable
    emission Increase* from the proposed
    source or modification. In conjunction
    with all other applicable emission* In-
    crease* or reduction (Including second-
    ary emissions) would not cause or con-
    tribute to air pollution In violation of:
      (I) Any national ambient air quality
    standard  In any  air  quality control
    region: or
    •  i i ••sirtol f— *-*»*••
    BJSJVW^^"**
         Any applicable maximum ellow-
          ewaseover the baseline concen-
               procedures which specify
    
         AII estimates of ambient concen-
         ni required under this Paragraph
         b* based on the appHcabto air
                             and other
    * based on
     models, data bases, and other
          specMk* In the "OuMe-
                          vised)"
       «taments specM    n
    £.^5? Quality Models (Revised)"
    •THoTand Supplement A Utt7> which
    are  Incorporated by reference.  The
    guideline (KPA Publication No. 450/8-
    76-42TR) and Supplement A (1M7) arc
    foe sate from the 0JS. Department of
    Commerce. National Technical Infor-
    •AsUon Service. 5828 Port Royal Road.
    Springfield.  Virginia 22161. They an
    *Jso available for  Inspection at the
    Of ftoo of the  Federal Register Infor-
    DkaUon Center.  Room  8801.  1100  L
    Street NW.. Washington. DC 20408.
    These materials are Incorporated as
     they wist on the date of approval and
     a notice of any change will be pub-
     lished m the FSMUU. Racists*.
       (2)  Where  an air quality Impact
     •node) specified In  the  "Guideline on
     Air Quality Models (Revised)- (1888)
     and Supplement A (1887) are Inappro-
     priate. the  model may  be modified or
     another  model  substituted.  Such a
     modification  or substitution  of a
     model may be made on a case-by-csse
     basis or. where appropriate, on a ge-
     neric basis for a  specific  state pro-
     gram. Written approval of (he Admin-
     istrator  must  be obtained  for  any
     modUfcaUon  or substitution. In addi-
     tion. use of a modified cr substituted
     model must  be subject to notice and
     opportunity for public  coasjnent under
      pioeeduies developed  in  accordance
      with paragraph (q) of thto section.
        (m) Air qualify  analyit«-(l) f>reap-
      pMcattoN analyst*. (I) The plan shall
      provide that  any application  for a
      permit  under  regulations  approved
      Pursuant to this section shall contain
      an analysis  of ambient air quality In
      the  area  that the major stationary
      source or major modification would
      affect tor  each of the  following pollut-
      ant*:
        nu:
        (a) For the source, each pollutant
       that It would  have the potential  to
       emit In a significant amount;
                               { 51.14*
    
      (6) For the modification, each pol-
    lutant  for which It would result In a
    significant net emissions Increase.
      (II) The plan shall provide that, with
    respect to  any such  pollutant  for
    which  no National Ambient Air Qual-
    ity Standard extol*, the analysis shall
    contain such air  quality monitoring
    data as the reviewing authority deter-
    mines  to necessary to assess ambient
    air quality  for that pollutant  to any
    area that the emissions of that pollut-
    ant would affect.
      (Ill) The plan shall provide that with
    respect to any such pollutant (other
    than  nonmethane hydrocarbons) for
    which such a standard does exist, the
     analysis shall  contain continuous air
     quality monitoring data gathered for
     purposes  of  determining   whether
     emission*   of  that  pollutant would
     cause or contribute  to a  violation of
     the standard or any maxlumum allow-
     able Incresse.
       (Iv) The plan ahall provide that. In
     general, the continuous air monitoring
     data  that to required shall have been
      gathered over a period of one year and
      •hall represent the year preceding re-
      ceipt of the application, except that. If
      the  reviewing  authority  determines
      that  a complete and adequate analyst*
      can be accomplished with monitoring
      data gathered over  a period shorter
      than one year (but not to be lee* than
      four months), the data that to required
      •hall have been  gathered over at least
      that shorter period.
        (v) The plan may provide that  the
      owner or operator of a proposed major
      stationary source or major  modifica-
      tion  of  volatile organic compounds
      who satisfies all conditions of 40 CFR
       Part 81  Appendix 8. section TV may
       provide postapprovel monitoring data
       for  ocone In lieu of providing precon-
       structlon data as required under para-
       graph (mx I) of thto section.
         (3)  Poat-con«(mc(ton  monitoring.
       The plan shall  provide that the owner
       or  operator of  a  major   stationary
       source  or  major  modification shall,
       after construction of the  stationary
       source or modification, conduct  such
       ambient monitoring a* the  reviewing
       authority determine* to necessary  to
       determine the effect emissions  from
       the stationary source or modification
                                       750
                                                                                                                             751
    

    -------
       |Sl.te*
    
       may have, or are having, on air quality
       many area.
        (» Operation of  monitoring sta-
       tions. The plan shall provide that the
       owner or  operator of a major station-
       ary source or major modification shall
       meet the  requirements of Appendix B
       to Part M of this chapter during the
       operation  of monitoring stations for
       purposes of  satisfying paragraph (m)
       of this section.
        (n  Source information. (I) The plan
      shall provide that the owner or opera-
      tor of a proposed source or modifica-
      tion shall  submit all  Information nec-
      essary  to  perform  any analysis  or
      make  any  determination  required
      under procedures established In ac-
      cordance with this section.
       <» The plan may provide that such
      Information shall Include:
       (I) A description of the nature, loca-
      tion, design capacity, and typical oper-
      ating schedule of the source or modifi-
      cation.  Including specifications  and
      drawings showing Its design and plant
      layout:
       (II) A detailed schedule for construc-
     tion of the source or modification;
       (III) A detailed description as to what
     system of continuous emission reduc-
     tion to planned by the source or modi-
     fication, emission estimates, and  any
     other Information as necessary to de-
     termine that  best  available  control
     technology  as applicable  would be ap-
     plied:
       (I) The plan shall provide that upon
     request of the State, the  owner or op-
     erator shall also provide Information
     ore
      (I) The air quality Impact  of  the
     source or modification. Including me-
     teorological and  topographical ditto
     necessary to estimate such Impact; and
      (U) The air cuallty Impacts and the
    nature and extent of any or all general
    commercial, residential. Industrial, and
    other growth which has occurred since
    August 7, 1*77. In *h« area the source
    or modification would effect.
      (o) Additional impact analyse*. The
    plan shall provide that—
      (1) The owner or operator shall pro-
    vMe an analysis of the Impairment to
    visibility,  soils,  and vegetation that
    would occur as a result of the  source
    or modification and general  coinmnr-
    dal. residential, fnduslrlal. and other
                   40 C« Oi. I (7-l-ii MM**)
    
          growth associated with the source or
          modification. The owner or operator
          need not provide an  analysis of the
          Impact on vegetation having no signifi-
          cant commercial or recreational value.
           (i) The owner or operator shall pro-
          vide an analysis of  the air quality
          Impact projected for  the area as a
          result  of general commercial, residen-
          tial. Industrial, and other growth asso-
          ciated  with the source or modification.
           

    Source* impacting Federal Clan I art**—additional requirement*—41) Notice to tPA. The plan shall provide that the reviewing authority shall transmit to the Administrator a copy of each permit application relating to a major stationary source or major modification and provide notice to the Admlnbtrator of every action related to the consideration of such permit. (» federal Land Manager. The fed- eral Land Manager and tlie Federal of- ficial charted with direct responsibil- ity for management of Class I lands have an affirmative responsibility to protect the air quality related values (Including visibility) of any such lands and to consider. In consultation with the Administrator, whether a pro- posed aource or modification would tiara an adverse Impact on such —i^faa ,— (» Denial-impact on air qualitt re- lated values. The plan shall provide a mechanism whereby a Federal Land Manager of any such lands may present to the State, after the review- Ing authority's preliminary determina- tion required under procedures devel- oped In accordance with paragraph The President may approve the Governor's recommendation If he finds that such variance Is In the na- tional Interest; and (HI) If auch a variance la approved. the reviewing authority may Issue a pcraslt In accordance with provisions developed pursuant to the requlre- ments of paragraph (qM7) of this sec- tion: Provided. That the applicable re- quirements of the plan are otherwise (7) tmiuion limitation* for Preti- dcnftel or gubernatorial variance. The plan shall provide that In the ease of a permit Issued under procedures devel- oped pursuant to paragraph (q) (•> or (•> of this section, the source or modi- fication ahall comply with emission limitations as may be necessary to assure that emissions of sulfur dioxide from the aource or modification would not (during any day on which the oth- erwise applicable maximum allowable Increases are exceeded) cause or con- tribute to concentrations which would exceed the following maximum allow- able Increases over the baseline con- centration and to assure that such emissions would not cause or contrib- ute to concentrations which exceed the otherwise applicable maximum al- ' lowable Increases for periods of expo- sure of 34 hours or less for more than 11 days, not necessarily consecutive. during any annual period: 753


    -------
      851.144
           MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE (NCMEAM
                                LOT
                                  M
                                 IM
                                      Ml
       (q>  Public  participation. The plan
     •hall provide  that-
       (I)  Tlie  reviewing  authority •hall
     notify all applicant* within a specified
     time period as to the completeness of
     the application  or any deficiency In
     the application or Information submit-
     ted. In the event of such a deficiency,
     the date of receipt of the application
     •hall be the date on which the review-
     Ing authority received all required In-
     formation.
      (» Within one year after receipt of a
     complete application,  the reviewing
     authority shall:
      (I) Make  a preliminary determina-
     tion whether construction  should  be
     approved, approved with conditions, or
     disapproved.
        Make  a final  determination
     whether  construction should be ap-
     proved, approved  with  conditions, or
     disapproved.
      (vlll) Notify the applicant In writing
     of the final determination  and make
     such notification available  for public
     Inspection at the same location where
     the  reviewing  authority made avail-
     able preconstructlon Information and
     public  comments   relating  to  the
     source.
      (r)  Source obligation.  (1)  The plan
     shall Include  enforceable procedures
     to provide that  approval to construct
     shall not relieve any owner or operator
     of the responsibility to  comply fully
     with applicable provisions of the plan
     and  any  other requirements under
     local. State or Federal law.
      <» The plan shall provide  that  at
    such time that a particular  source or
    modification becomes a major station-
    ary  source  or  major  modification
    solely by virtue of a relaxation In any
    enforceable  limitation which  was es-
    tablished after August 7. 1980. on the
    capacity of the source or modification
    otherwise to emit a pollutant, such  as
    a restriction on hours  of operation.
    then the  requirements of paragraphs
    (J) through  <•)  of  this section shall
    apply to the source or modification as
    though construction had not yet com-
    menced on the source or modification.
      (•)  Innovative control technology.
     «1) The plan may  provide  that an
     owner or operator of a proposed major
     stationary source or  major modifica-
     tion may request the  reviewing au-
     thority to approve a system of Innova-
     tive control technology.
      (1> The plan may provide that the
     reviewing authority  may. with  the
     consent of the govemoris) of other af-
     fected state and (k)
     of this section, based on the emissions
     rate that the stationary source  em-
     ploying the system  of Innovative con-
     trol technology  would be required to
     meet on the date specified by the re-
     viewing authority;
      (Iv) The  source  or  modification
     would not before the date specified by
     the reviewing authority:
      (•) Cause or contribute to any viola-
     tion of an applicable national ambient
     air quality standard; or
      (6) Impact any Class I area; or
      (c> Impact any area when an appli-
    cable Increment  to known to be violat-
    ed;
      (v) All other applicable requirements
    Including  those  for public participa-
    tion have been met.
       The plan shall provide that the
    reviewing authority  shall withdraw
    any approval to employ a system of In-
    novative  control  technology  made
    under this section. If:
      (I) The proposed system falls by the
    specified date to achieve the  required
    continuous emission* reduction rate;
                                J 51.1*0
    
      (II) The proposed system falls before
    the specified date so as to contribute
    to  an  unreasonable  risk  to  public
    health, welfare, or safety; or
      (III) The reviewing authority decides
    at any time that the proposed system
    Is unlikely  to achieve the  required
    level of control or to protect the public
    health, welfare, or safety.
      (4) The plan may provide that If a
    source or modification falls to  meet
    the required level of continuous emis-
    sions  reduction  within the specified
    time period, or If the approval to with-
    drawn In accordance with  paragraph
    (sKl) of this section, the reviewing au-
    thority may allow the source or modi-
    fication up to an additional 3 years to
    meet  the requirement for the appllat-
    tton of best available control technolo-
    gy  through  use  of a demonstrated
    system of control.
    
    (Bees.  IfMbMll. !!•. 1*0-IS*. I7I-ITS. and
    Ml(a>. Clean Air Act, a* amended (410-8.C
    740l(bMI>. 7410. 7470-747t. 7MI-7MS, and
    7MI(a»; MC.  1MU>. Clean Air Act Amend-
    ment* of  im (Pub. L. M-tS.  tl StaL Mt
    (Aug. 7. im>»
    141 PR Mill. June It. ing; 41 PR 4MIO.
    Sept. g. ir»i. a* amended at 44 PR ITMt.
    Mar 10. Hit; 4t PR S37M. Aug. 7. Ittt; 47
    PR 17MO, June M. IM1; 40 PR 41Mt, Oct.
    M. ItM: II PR M17S. Sept. I, I»M. Rcdeclg-
    nated  and amended at tl  PR 40MO. 40*71.
    Nov. 7. IOM: tl FR 14711. Julr I, IS07; II
    PR M1M. Aug. 7. Itt7; tl PR 1H. Jan. «.
    ISM)
    
    
       tufcnarl J—As*M*nt Air QwMy
                SurveNkmc*
    
      Aomoarrr Sec*, lit. MUa).  III. lit.
    Clean  Air Act (41 U.S.C. 7410. 7MI(a). 7tll.
    7«t».
    
    lil.ltO  Ambient air amlny •wnlt*rl»g
      The  requirements  for monitoring
    ambient air quality for purposes of the
    plan are  located In Subpart C of Part
    58 of this chapter.
    
    144 PR nMt. May 10. It7tl
               K — Sourc* Swrvemwtc*
                                                                                       or
                                           SoirncK SI PR 40ST1, Nov. 7. ISM. untem
                                          otherwise noted.
                                       754
                                                                                                                         755
    

    -------
    REFERENCES FOR SECTION 7.3
    

    -------
    2138	Federal Register / Vol. 54.  No. 12 / Thursday. January 19.  1989 / Proposed Rules
      Authority: Seci 1-19. 48 Slat *L w
     -mended: 7 U.S.C. 801-674.
    
      2. Section 959-229 it added to read as
     follows:
    
     § tSa.229 Expenses and aaaaaament rat*.
      Expense* of 079.675 by the South
     Texas Oakm Committee are authorised
     and an aaseaament rate of KXOS6 per 50-
     pound container or equivalent quantity
     of regulated oniona is established far the
     fiscal period ending July 31.1968.
     Unexpended fund* may be earned over
     as a reserve.
      Dated: )*M*ry  13. Haft
     WiUiaai |. Doyle.
     Associate Deputy Oinuar. Fran and
     IKR Doc. aa-12SO HM l-lA-a* MS »|
     •IU.WCOOOC it* m u
    DEPARTMENT Of THE TREASURY
    
    31 CFR Part 1«9
    
    ExtenakMi of Tin* tar CaeamenU on
    Propoeed Bank Secrecy Act
    RegulaUea»
    
    AOCNCV: Departmental Offices.
    Treasury.
    ACTON: Advance notice of preeoeed
    rulemaking. extenaaaai ef oaaunent
    period.
    
    SUIMUMV: Notice is hereby given that
    the Department of the Treasury is
    extending the comment period on the
    Advance Notice of Proposed
    F-.ilemaking Relating to Identification
    Requirements Required to Purchase
    R.ink Checks. Cashier's Checks.
     reveler's Checks and Money Orders.
    D-jblished in the Federal Register on
    December 23. 1968 (53 PR 51840). The
    Treasury Department has determined
    that more time ra needed for the public
    to review and comment on the proposal.
    DATE: Comments now will be accepted
    through February 15. 1988.
    ADONKSS: Comments  should be
    addressed to Amy C. B"^"i<-'' Director.
    Office of Financial Enforcement.
    Department of the Treasury. Room 4320.
    1500 Pennsylvania Avenue. NW..
    Washington. DC  *»ra>
            rmn INFORMATION CONTACT:
    Kathleen A. Scott. ANoraay Advisor.
    Office of the AuMtaat Genera) Counsel
    (Enforcement). (202) Mi TO47.
      Dated: (anuary 19. 1800.
    Salvalora R. MaHsuha.
    Aaiitant Secretary tEnfvnjtiiunt).
    IFF Doc. aa-iao* Bkd i-u-ajt attt as»|
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
    AGENCY
    
    40CFRParl51
    
    l«L-»43t-lJ
    Con
          v. Environmental Protection
    Agency (EPA).
    ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
    
    tmmurr. This notice describe* the
    procedure far aaatsahig whether • Slate
    implementation phin (SIP) rabmittal it
    adequate to trigger Ae dean Air Act
    requirement tart EPA review and take
    action the aateiltal. The notice
    describes, among ovkertktega, the
    criteria far detematratae
    "canaOetenese" of me eatommal. B>A ia
    concerned
    exoaaai
    frustrate the daveaeamea* «f aB
    State/Federal pamarahip. c*aae
    connwon iwaaaajvaa vaaajvdue)
    applicable fcaaiMona. and ganaraJI*
    dampen Iniliaiisi in Steaa raajaaaaory
    programs. Promntad by thia oamoaix.
    EPA ia iaaoaunng a wida ra»fea
    proceaaaftg rexoraa aa oaaccsbad
    elsewhere mtini faataalBafiaaac. The
    one of these
      EPA's ppavioos
    procedwv* aiaowidad oai
    reiect ar othenvia* efaaimte
    unreviewabte SIP aabaiittaia id and iauj>imuii»ri at
    
    
    of friction JaBWriila•"aril e*h SU*
    

    -------
                  Federal EegUter / VoL M.  No. 12
                                        i iBew I Pfonejsjsje]
    and local agencies. SIP processing at
    EPA has • Khedule goal of 5/2-5/2 for
    final action. That is, the Region
    nominally have S month* to review
    submit tali in both the proposal and
    promulgation phases; Headquarters
    nominally Kan 2 months in each phase.
    However. SIP actions often take
    considerably hanger than the total M
    month* allocated to publiah a fine!
    decision.1
      The lengthy decision pi
     ample tc
    i of ail SIP
    resulted in strong critaam from sources
    both inside and outside the EPA. to
    response, the I
    commissioned m July 1M7 a r
    task group to aaseaa the problem*
    UlAvWBt IB tfiff DfQOMM Oftfl 10
    recommend solutions. The task group
    conducted its asefssmmt and presented
    recommendations to the Deputy
    Administrator. The reoommendaiions
    were approved fully and are fhisrriherl
    in a companion notice in today's Federal
    Register. One of these ranmimenrielinns
    concerns a procedure and criteria for
    identifying a -complete" SSP psrrsp
    thereby providing States wtthgwiajece
    on preparing adequate SIP revision* end
    m -rite s rhrsrir defined uiirrtianiim
    to keep essentially unrewewabie SIP
    revisions out of the review process.
      This is important because if a Suite
    submits a SEP change without uiupmly
    ststed emission limits, legal authority or
    compliance schedules, or which
    contains; other obvious deficiencies, it
    can enter the full EPA review system.
    Such a BP either will be eventually
    disapproved, or languish while the State
    is required (perhaps months later) to
    supply essential data. Heretofore. EPA's
    procedure* did not provide in any
    comprehensive way prompt rejection for
    incompleteness. Independently.
    however, some Regional Office* have
    tried to deei with this problem, and have
    developed procedures wherein SIP
    submittals are judged against a set of
    completeness criteria. The purpose of
    these procedures has been to keep
    incomplete packages out of the more
    extensive review system, thereby saving
    both EPA snd the State valuable time
    and resources. Today. EPA is proposing
    to institute an EPA-wioe procedure for
      ' Not* UMI MCM 1KUHJ1 rf th* Ocu Air Acf
          ik*t Tto AdBMMMior •toil wife* fov
    •auhi afar tfct «•<• iwjnrad far
    (SIP). «ppfi*^or rtmpprort Midi f5ff]fof«
    until today's proposed regulation is
      In order lo free EPA
     would olfaerwiee he
               mat
     unapprovable SIPs. BRA has aeated a
                   ulsii miiieuu Under this
           , EPA will review a SB? for
                  snftfcfcattUOjr
     iiiliiiillliil In ilitennlee If si tn
     mcjededteeBowmn.
     review sjno act eut me>esjoeten0e ef me
     SIP revieion. Ttts wfi* bo e quick screen
     that will essees me revhtwubgr/ of a
     SBPtmbmMaL not its uHnueli
     spprorebflHy. EPA wfi teat promptly
     inform the sobmttttag Sorts whether the
                                          fwinoB or If it AHsfC vv flMQsWra by tut
                                          SutrbecMN It ft ioaaaplMc.
                                          Second, SIP nbadtmlf thai us
                                          inadequate fari
                                          In tin lisls tn he niaiei lee* nilmr llisn
                                          gesng uvou^h the iwiew nraoees ODQT to
                                          be diaanptoved beemsBteia lack ef
                                          mformatiDB. Thfrd. enrevjewebie SIPs
                                          are cesBoveo frooi the pvoenej enriy so
                                          that resources ai the Federal ieml are
                                          aUocated to processes* only SIP* mat
                                          are adequate far Mview. HsjnUy. the
                                          completeness criteeial pnvioe the Stales
                                          with guidelines on how to prepare
                                          reviewebie SIPs. It i» expected met once
                                          the agencies involved (Stem and local
                                          EPA) become accustomed to the
                                          completeness raview process* the
                                          number of mvevfewcble submittals will
                                          rfiininish sharply.
                                            Screening criteria have been
                                          developed that define the essential
                                          elements of an acceptable package, that
                                          will avoid obvtoee inadequacies, and
                                          that can be applied uniformly with
                                          limited subjective fndgement and
                                          review. The criteria were developed by
                                          EPA Regional Offices already using a
                                          list of criteria to determine compi
    of SIP package* in an informal way. On
    March 18.1MB a policy for determining
    completeness of SIP submittals was
    issued by Gerald A. Emiaoo, Director,
    Office of Air Quality Planing and
    Standards (OAQPSJ. to the Regional
    Offices (a copy hn been pUced in the
    docket es item B-sV4). The poficy
    iBKiudes basic, oMetaa for detemiuung
    completeneai. andvampie letters far
    accepting and rejecting SIP f"^**'^^^^
    This policy will be followed by EPA
      As part of this action, tn*
    Adnumstretor to proposing to add these
    criterUfvdetenmmnglBM
    oompletenees of State submittali to «
    am Pint 81 as Appendix V. IB addition.
    EPA propose* to modify | SU08MMe^ks(kfl a^sBa^nuuuTAnuueffi •• A VMk«me>^f4*v V
    TB»«MSC cdseria ate adaptable for use
    to paraMsl psooeesipg of State
    reguta»JonsbjrEPA.«
      EfA ie Greeting this completenesi
    review process under me eutbority of
    Section «n of the dean Air Act which
                                                       Mguietion* es are
                                          necoesury to carry out his functions
                                          under the Act. aPA is inuwuieOng the
                                                "plan" to section nafeXl) «nd (2)
                                          end "revision* m Section 110UK3} to be
                                          only those fimm mil revissani aWt
                                          contain altaf the components necessary
                                          RTaflawEPA to a adequately review
                                          and tike action em such plan or revision
                                          under section 110 (and. where
                                          applicable. Part D). EPA believe* thet
                                          Congress would not have intended to
                                          require EPA to review and take ection
                                          on SO* snbmittals that were simply not
                                          reviewable because they wen lacking
                                          important components. Therefore, the
                                          Administrator conclude* that Section
                                          note) requires him to act only on
                                          complete State submittals.
                          The criteria for determining whether a
                        submittal by the State is complete have
                        been separated into two categories: (a)
                        Administrative information and (b)
                        technical support information.
                        Administrative information includes the
                        documentation necessary to
                        demonstrate that the basic
                        administrative procedures have been
                        adhered to by the State during the
                        adoption process. Technical support
                        information includes the documentation
                        that adequately identifies all of the
                        required technical components of the
                        plan submission.
    
                        Admmistratfve Information
                                                                                       n • pnpMBl. Sun Mto «rt** tew •«
    

    -------
    2140	P«d«Ml Register / Vol.«. -Ntr-tt /•
    -------
                    Fwfetal afefiateY  / VoL 54. No. 12  / Thureday.  |>mury 19. IMP / PropoMd  Raka
                                                                                                      2141
     tntitiet. For reasons described above. I
     hereby certify that the final role will not
     have a significant impact on a
     substantial number of small entities.
       Dele: January 8. 1880.
     La*M. Thomas.
       For the reasons set out in the
     preamble. 40 CFR Part 51 is propoaed to
     be amended as follows:
       1. The authority citation for Part SI
     continues to read aa follow*
    
       Authority: This mlsmafcing is pmaanlgaiail
     under authority of Sections 101(b)m MO,
     100-68. 171-171. aad SDl(a) of Ike Own AB-
     ACI 42 V3.C. 7«n(b)tl). 7«0. 7420-7428.
     7301-7508. and 7801UJ.
    
       2. Section 51.103 is propoaed to be
     amended by revising pnnpaph (a)
     introductory text to read aa foiiowr
     151.103
    of p«ana.
       (a) The State mates an official plan
     submission to EPA whan the pian
     conforms to the requirements of
     Appendix V to this part and the State
     delivers five copies of the plan to the
     appropriate Bagicaal office. wra a totter
     giving notice of tnch action. Tha Stata
     must adopt (he plan and the Gcrvaranr or
     his desutnee must submit it to EPA aa
     follows:
     •     •     •    •    •
    
       3. Part 51 is proposed to be amended
     by adding Appendix V to read aa
     follows:
    
     Appendix V—Criteria far DetennicuBg
     the Completenaas of Plan SubuMrtuua.
    
     UO. Purpou
      Thii Appendix V **ts fortb th* »ini"»m«
     criteria for determining whether • SUM
     implementation plan submitted for
     consideration by EPA if aa official
     lubmiuion for purpoM of review under
     I 51.103.
      1.1. The EPA thall return to the submitting
     official any plan or revision thereof which
     tail* lo meet the criteria set forth in mis
     Appendix V. or otherwise request conecn>e
     action, identifying the coraponent(t) absent
    or insufficient to perform a review of the
    submitted plan.
      1.2. The EPA shall inform the submitting
    official when a pian submission meets the
    requirements of this Apptnriiw V. such
    determination leaultiaf in the plan beinf an
    official submission for purposes of I S1.103.
    
    2.0. Criuna
      The following ahaO be i~-'-"*H in plan
    submissions for review by EPA:
      2.1. Administrative Materials
      (a) A formal letter of submittal from the
    Covwncr ar his aaaajoee. Nqvertttf EPA
    approval of the pian or revision thereof
    (bersaner the pianT.
      (b) Evidence that the State ha* adopted the
     plan in the State coda or body of regulations:
     or issued the permit, order, consent
     agreement (baiaaftai donment) in final fora.
     That evidence shall mated* the dele of
     edapneej or final iaauaace as wefl aa the
     effective data of the plan tf different from the
     adopttan/iaeaaaee date.
      (c) Evidence Bat the Stale haa me
     •seesssry legal authority andar State law to
                                                                      (h) CoaapltatMie/enfareeinent itrat**j«.
                                                                    including how oampliance will be determined
                                                                    in practice.
                                                                      (i) Special economic sad technological
                                                                    iustificenon* required by any applicable EPA
                                                 (dl-
                            (d) A copy of the actual regulation, or
                                   submitted lor approval and
                                      by refareace into the plan.
                                            ef Be changes made to
    ZJ. Exception*
    
      JLU. The EPA, let the purposes of
    expediting the review of the plan, has
    adopted e procedure referred to as "parallel
    •**M*^a^a»*ki^M ** mam«B*llekJ •aMa*ev*a*MieA AfJoVM •
                          Tbe enbmmalaball be a copy of the official
                          Stats lapililliiii/il
                          Indicating that it is fully attforoaahk by the
                          State. T»e eneoBve aane of Be legeartton/
                          doemaent shall whenever possibts. he
      (a) Evidence that the Stete fallowed all of
    the procedural reeetfraa*aie e* the State's
    •V^ eUM OODaratnttOB tv OODanCttaf AOQ
    eo  ^Mto^theadoptJOB/iaauaaceoftheplatt.
      {i i CVIaMBDaT iBatt pBMK AOBBat VM
    the proposed chanaen i ii i ill »t with
                          data of
                                                                lbyBPA.iac*adingthe
                            W Certification that pobbe    	
                          aa2maceerdaaeewMidMintematiaa
                                                   end the Slate's
    |inpajBjijBwnB}> r"jMWen fii in ajpeiaiij euavwai
    State to aabort the plan prior to actaal
    adoption by •» tote and provide* en
            » tartan) State to consider EPA
    	prior to submit*ion of a final plan
    far final review ead action. Under the**
    cuTiimaianoas Be pian submitted will not be
    able to meet aVtaT the requirements of
    paragraph 2.1 (an requlraments of paragraph
    1* wtt apply). A* a result the following
    exceptions apply to plans submitted
    
      M The letter reoutoed by paragraph 2.1(«)
    ahall leqeeat that PA propose approval of
    B* propoaed pine by parallel processing.
      (W IB iiaa of paragnph »U(b) the Suit
    ahaJi submit a schedule for final adoption or
    iaMBeUOf Of thlf PaaUL
      (el a ttea of pangrapfa lifd) the plan shall
    IncMe a copy of the propoaad/draft
         -- r
    the State's i
      *ATe
      (alaJanflneaboBotallaaaililiilpoiiatMts
    affected by the plan.
       b) Identification of the loeationa of
       cted aoareas tadudio* the EPA
                            (b)
                          affect
                          locations and the status of the attainment
                          pian far the affected ersesdJ.
                            (c) Quantification of the changes to plan
                          allowable •"'— *"** bom th* afiactad
                          sourosai eetiaMlas nf rhanjsi in current
                          actaal enuasiona from aflectad sources or.
                          when eppropriata. quantifies boa of chances
                          in actual anission* from afiactad i
                          through calculations of th* i
                          between certain baaehne levels end
                          allowable emissions anticipated a* a result of
                          th* revision.
                            (d) The State's demonstration that the
                          National Ambient Air Quality Standard*.
                          prevention ef significant dotertorettoa
                          increments, reasonable further ptapass
                          demonstration, and visibility, are protected if
                          the pian is approved and implemented.
                            (e) Modeling information required to
                          support th* proposed revision, including input
                          data, output data, models need. Ratification
                          of model selectia
      (d) The lanaJrsajaili of paragraphs X.l(eK
    TIQi) ahall aal ap|M| ts aeana seiasllliil fm
    
      2X2. Th* axaaaaiaM graniad m parafrapb
    tU ahall apple only ea EPA's detaraunaoon
    of proposed •*'***»• aaviall saqviramants of
    paragraph 2.1 shall be met prior to
    publication of EPA's final determination of
    pianapprovabihty.
    (FR Doc- ga-1001 Piled l-le-a», 8:45 am]
                                              FEDERAL BaVROEtlCY
                                              MANAGEMENT AGENCY
    
                                              Federal Ireturanc* AdmMctrafion
    
                                              44CPT(Pwt67
    
                                              [Ooekat Ma. FPU Meg]
    
                                              Propoej00 Flood Cavwoon
    
                          used, meteorological data need, (unification
                          for use of offsite dele (where eaed). awdea ef
                          model* used. sesuuipUuus. and other
                          mformanec relevant to the determination of
                          adequacy of the modeling analysis.
                            (f) Evidence, where asceasary, that
                          emission limitations are based on continuous
                          emission reduction technology.
                            (gj Evidence that the plan contain*
                          emission limitation*, work practice standards
                          and feoardkeeping/reparttng requirements.
                          where eeceassry. to ensure emission leveia.
                                                     r Federal Emergency
                                              Management Agency.
                                              •cnoae Proooeed rale.	
    
                                                      r. Technical information or
                                                     ata are solicited on the proposed
                                              bese (100-year) flood elevations and
                                              propoaad  baae flood elevation
                                              modificationa listed below for selected
                                              locations in a* nation.  These base (100-
                                              year) flood atoeabons are the basis for
                                              the floedpJja» asuaagement  maaaares
                                              that the CBBaaaartty to raa)uvad to either
                                              adopt or enow evidence of being already
                                              in effect in order to qualify or remain
                                              qasJtfiad for participation in the
    

    -------
    2214
                      Federal RefMer / Vol. M. No. 12 / Thonday. fanrary 19. HW / Notice*
    C*niicu*
    dockttNo
    O87-22
    C»7-23
    CI87-24
    cw-js
    CW7-»
    C»7-Z7
    CI87-2S1
    CI87-261
    CIS7-261
    CW7-M1
    CIB7-261
    CI87-261
    CM7-261
    CI87-ZS1
    
    
    
    tfn .
    flft , „ .. . ...«. ._,,. ..__ , 	 „ ,
    no „ _.._,,..
    40.. ... r „ 11,1
    40 .. 1 mmmm -M .
    do
    DO
    40
    (JO 	 T-- 	
    tfo
    *ff
    
    00 — «_ ,m, , _, 	 , 1 IMI.I,,, mm. m.
    flft., 	 	 _. .MU.. _ 1 . . nil . , . --!
    
    rum
    MMOM
    No.
    ZT
    a
    H
    a
    »
    27
    28
    2>
    3*
    31
    32
    33
    34
    39
    
    
    
    Do.
    Do
    Do.
    Do.
    00.
    Do
    Do.
    Do
    Oft. '
    Oo
    Do
    Do.
    Do
    Do.
    
    |FR Doc. 8S-U1B Fited 1-18-Btt ft* am)
    State Imp*
    ENVITONMEItTAt. PROTECTION
    AGENCY
    rttatton Plan ProcejeaJng
    AOiMCr Environmental Protection
    Agency (EPA).
    ACTION; Notice ol procedural change*.
    
    SUMMARY: This notice detcribes changes
    being implemented in the way State
    implementation plan* fSXPs) are
    processed at EPA. The Act requires
    States to develop plans for attaining: and
    maintaining the six national ambient air
    quality standards established by EPA,
    These SIPi. including all revisions to
    such plans, are reviewed and approved
    or disapproved by EPA, This process-of
    State plan preparation, submittal to
    EPA. and subsequent EPA review has
    been very time-consuming and resource-
    intensive. The EPA is concerned that
    uncertainty and excetirve delays, i*
    processing SIPs frustrate the
    development of an optimum State/
    Federal partnership, cause confusion tor
    sources regarding applicable
    regulations, and generally dampen
    intitiative in State regulatory programs.
    Prompted by this concern, the Deputy
    Administrator called for an assessment
    by senior officials of the processing of
    SIPs at EPA. The purpose of the
    assessment was to identify problems
    and propose solutions.
      The problem* identified centered on
    an excessive- cooocn by EPA for the
    potential preoedeBt-eettiae; valae of
    incuvida*! SIP n-nmtm. ••ntfmiad by
    axoaawe
    review |
    implemented, described in detail below.
    focus an. tailoring EPA review to the
    significance of the i
    to established procedures fas ]
    SIPs within EPAJn onies to psaaptly
    identify problems with SIP submittsls
    and to geneally improve theeerteinty of
    the process itself. These cfcaaeBn
    include, enweej ethers; review of OP
    submitBSe fer«
    specific (
    modiMcetioBf et i
                           FeeanDRtyto
    EPA RegJanel Adnnaiatratoe* fer e
    range ef Sff eosse* wheds are net
    nationally sieaificeat ead imivieMig for
                                                                    eiainst
                                          the optiee to "gMndraihBi" Sff
                                          subnittais tfcat wen esepecea in good
                                          faith by • State but whkfc.na.y become
                                          deficient to some degree because of a
                                          change in EPA pottcy subsequent to
                                          State adoption.
                                            EPA believes thet these changes will
                                          produce a number of important benefits.
                                          SIP submittals should be processed
                                          more efficiently and ie»iew decisiui'is
                                          made more quickly and equitably,
                                          overall the quality of SIP submitul*
                                          should be improved. By working more
                                          dosery. relations between EPA Regional
                                          Offices and State/local agencies will be
                                          improved, enhancing the effectiveness
                                          of air quality management programs
                                          generally. Finally, the chenges shouW
                                          result in e more accessible and
                                          accountable system, enabling parties
                                          outside EPA to determine more easily
                                          the sums, of SIP snhmiltals
                                          OATce This action wiH be effective
                                          January lt.1980. AU comments should
                                          be submitted to EPA at the address
                                          shown below by MarcnA. 10M.
                                          APOMBMejaiJBttresierf parties may  .
                                          tahaiil-imiyeii umeiauids-iafJuefieeteh)
    many Sff acoeee-ami in uucai leitw;1 on   Pubbs Docket Ne. A-«B-ia et- Gentrei
                                                                                 Ehvitoaeaeeita] Protection Agency.
                                                                                 Attention: Docket No. A-88-16.401 M
                                                                                 StreeUSW. \/Vafihington. DC 2M8Q.
                                                                                   Materials relevant to this notice have
                                                                                 been placed ia Docket No. A-86-16 by
                                                                                 EPA and are available for inspection a:
                                                                                 the above address between 8-.00 a.m.
                                                                                 sad 130 pja.. Monday throiajh Friday.
                                                                                 The EPA may charge a reasonable fee
                                                                                 for copying.
                                                                                 •OMPW
                                                                                                             TACT.
            asta the
                                                                   Mr. Hows WesgeU. Office of Air
                                                                   Quality Planning and Standards (XdD-
                                                                   11). U. S. Eovironmentai Protection
                                                                   Agency. Research Triangle Park. North
                                                                   Carolina 27711: Telephone (919) 541-
                                                                   5642 or (FTS) 629-5642.
                                                                   SuePiflMtNTAKV MFONMATIOM:
    
                                                                   Background
    
                                                                     The 1970 Clean Air Act (CAA)
                                                                   established the air qualify 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. There a re now standards for
                                                                   6 pollutants: ozone (O>). carbon
                                                                   monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO:).
                                                                   nitrogen dioxide, parttcuiate matter
                                                                   (PMio). and lead. States  then develop
                                                                   control programs to attain and maintain
                                                                   these NAAQS. These programs are
                                                                   defined by State Implementation Plans
                                                                   (StPs) which are approved or
                                                                   disapproved formally by EPA and. to tht-
                                                                   extent they are approved, are Legally
                                                                   enforceable by EPA. A SIP must
                                                                   demonstrate attainment and
                                                                   metMeneAce of-theeppricable NAAQS.
                                                                   describe a control strategy, contain
                                                                   4ejwily enforceable regulations, include
                                                                   en emission UW.IMSJQ and procedure*
                                                                   for the p«~^ff~f«rnrlHrn ie»»w of new
                                                                   •otfeMen eees'ees. evtHtw-a-•program for
    

    -------
    Federal  Rageeet / Vol. <4.  No. 12 / Tatgtday. "January
                                                                                            Notices
                                   2215
    resources for the State to impleaianl the
    SIP. In addition. then can be many
    other requirements specific to the
    pollutant being considered. The
    consequence* of State failure to get SIP
    approval may be Mhoui. including
    Federal promulgation of control
    regulations and sanctions.
      Affirmative action it required by EPA
    on essentially all aspects of every SIP
    action. Since EPA's final decision comes
    after a regulation already is adopted
    and implemented at th* State level
    excessive delay in the review process
    often is a major source of frinctton in
    EPA's relations with State and local
    agencies.
      There can also be differences of
    opinion between EPA's Region! Offices
    and Headquarters.  Regions provide
    guidance and support to Slates in
    writing SIPs and  then must review them
    and recommend approval or
    disapproval. The need for flexibility in
    dealing with each State and situation is
    important to the Regions. On the other
    hand. Headquarters' offices have a
    major responsibility to entire basic
    national consistency on legal, policy,
    and technical snaes. Tins, SIP deitisons
    are under constant  pressure becaeae
    meyaa* visible and OBantitattve teats of
    the elusive  halaara isngil betwwe
    State flexibility aad the Bimiieas and
    consistency provided by national
    directives.
      More man 1600 SIP i sastiid actions
    have been processed from 1S83 to the
    preseat averaging almost 360 par year.
    Many of these involved multiple  isaues.
    About 7S percent of the actons fell into
    three categories:  attaimaent
    demonstrations, single source action*.
    and (although technically not SIP
    revisions) actions involving
    redesignadon of attainment status. Most
    of the remainder Involved new aouroe
    review actions and eanssion trade*.
      A rough assessment has b**n auo> of
    the future SIP load. With th«
    promulgation of a national aaibiont air
    quality standard for PMi*. and the
    proposed post-1967 oxone and  CO
    attainment  policy, the number of SIP
    submittals will increase significantly
    over the next few yean. About 100
    attainment  SIPs and more than 180
    "committal** type actions for PM* will
    have to be reviewed. Shortly thereafter.
    attainment  SIPs for ozone (60-70 areas)
    and for CO (mother 50-60 areas) will be
    summed Potential  revisiona.to-EPA's
    IMS stack height regulations resulting
    from the cowl deeisiM at NIUJC v.
    Thomn. 896 P. 2d.122ntIXCCit.IM6).
    of awnicipal waste conWtors will be
    o'evefar^ earing tUe ana*. The
    precadiag at* la addition to the average
    load of 3M subarittafai par year.
    
    The Cunanl Review Process al EP A
    
      A comprehensive system has been act
    up for processing SIPs at EPA. Involving
    full aonat and com merit rutamakmg.
    The major steps are summarized below.
      (1) State prepares the SIP. gets
    necessary approval under State law.
    provides justification aad
    documentation, aad submits it to the
    Regional Office for the Governor or bis
    designee. lie SIP can range in size from
    a few to hundreds of pages.
      (2) EPA Regions ceaapraheasively
    evaluate tas submittal far policy, legal
    and technical adequacy, prepare a
    Technical ftuptwrt Oscaaecu (TSD). aad
    prepare a propose a" ami rak* indicating
    appreveUr aasptamal af the action.
    The rule is aigassl by the Ragioiml
    Admuastteter. if ttisa prupueal, end
    sent on for review by EPA
    Headquarters. The-Heaa^aattin' efflces
    thereupon aaJsiiaiaen evaluation of
    the Regional Office-package, regardless
    of the Hgntftcanea of the SIP action.
      (31 The Office of Air QaaHty Planning
    and Standards fOAQPS) to Dorham.
    North Caniina manages me
    Headquarters' review, coordinating the
    technical, policy aad legal evaluation
    with all relevant Headquarters offices.
    These may Include the Office of General
    Counsel end the Office of Policy.
    Planning and Evaluation, aa well as
    several groups within the Offiaa of Air
    and Radiation (OAR).
      Each group* concurs with oosmnent. or
    nonconcurs. Negotiation with the
    Regions over SIP Issues or interpretation
    frequently is a part of Headquarters'
    review.
      (4) Proposals are sent to the Assistant
    Administrator for Air and Radiation for
    concuneiKje. Disapprovals and partial
    approvals of SIPs must undergo Office
    of Management and Budget review
    (under Executive Order 12201) before
    being sent to the Office of the Federal
    Register (OFR) for publication.
      (S) After review by the Assistant
    Administrator for OAR. all fini'
    
          equ
    limits far «a
    sources. IB
    about 36
                        go to the Administrator for signature
                        and then an seat to the OFR.
                          SIP pBBceasint at EPA hag a
                        scheduled goal of S/2-t/S far naa<
                        action. That is. i
                        havef •e*d»to<	
                        both tas proposal andj
                        lihaiirr Mr—'Tinman aiiailiMslj a as t
                                                               than the total 14 months allocated to
                                                               publish a final decision i
                                                                 The lengthy decision process has
                                                               resulted in strong criticism from sources
                                                               both inside and outside the EPA. In
                                                               response, the Deputy Administrator
                                                               commissioned in ]uly. 1987 a senior level
                                                               task group to assets the problems
                                                               inherent in the process and to
                                                               recommend solutions. The task group
                                                               conducted its assessment and presented
                                                               recommendations to the Deputy
                                                               AdmtnifltntOT.' The recommendations
                                                               wan approved ftffty and are described
                                                               herein. ItoweTai. before discussing the
                                                               steps baimjfafoa by EPA to reform its
                                                               SIP proceninf procedures, it is useful to
                                                               examine IBB approach taken by the task
                                                                   p. aad the problems uncovered.
                                                                 Tile project involved a three-level
                                                               approach. It included (1) formation of a
                                                               sentor-levei task group on SIP
                                                               Processing which met throughout the
                                                               four-month project (2) direct
                                                               discussions with staff intimately
                                                               involved in SIP processing, both
                                                               individually (or in small groups) and at a
                                                               day-tang Headquarters/Regional Office
                                                               workshop, and (3) interviews with
                                                               senior executives (Deputy Ragional
                                                               Administrators. Office Directors) now at
                                                               EPA. and former policy makers wuh
                                                               EPA and State air agencies. In addition.
                                                               a few limited analytical assessments
                                                               (e.g. historical SIP activity, number and
                                                               distribution of SIPs currently at EPA)
                                                               were done to better characterize the
                                                               issue.
                                                                 The task group consisted of senior
                                                               officials from EPA's Regional Offices.
                                                               Headquarters groups associated with
                                                               SIP processing, and State air agencies.
                                                               The group nut three  times, first to
                                                               discuss the general problem to be
                                                               addressed, agree on a course of action.
                                                               and assign special short-term projects.
                                                               The second meeting was primarily
                                                               concerned with process update and with
                                                               presentations by Regional Office and
                                                               State agency representatives to give
                                                               their unique prospective* on the issues.
      ' NoM *M Mcttoa nOUHZ! of (he O«n Air Ad
    im»im thai Th* Mmmutmur >MI. mthm (our
    •oMteatar Iht «•• raqmmi lot tftnuutn al a
    (Sin appravt. ardiHpocovt suck |S1P| for wch
    pomoo tbtno/." Under th* Astocy • pmcni
            •wttod. MM* • tlmt hmn 11 UtcnMy
                 » tar «H b* Hit man lmn«l of
         . EPA •••HIM UMI thu <*•**» »•" not
    tppr> lo SH» n»»M«i. t»i raiav <«*» la iti* irnim!
    SIT. wbmirMd altar 0R pnwnMf (tu • NAAQS.
                       1 EPA i pofilloe; olhcr
                                                               lUpon of (ka Taah Oaa^a. SIP I
                                                                    r tia* A csnU-loealad IB Om dackat i
    

    -------
     2216
    Federal Register  /  Vol.  54. No. 12 / Thursday.  January 19. 1988  / Noticet
     Finally, at the third meeting, retulu of
     analytic studies were presented, and the
     range of options for improving the
     process was discussed. These meetings
     led to the SIP processing changes that
     are being announced today.
      The work of the task group was
     reinforced by discussions with people
     directly involved with SIP review in
     order to get an operations view of the
     issues. This included a comprehensive
     one-day workshop attended by
     approximately 50 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 heads
     of State and local air programs, senior
     industry officials, several past EPA
     Assistant Administrators, and four
     current Deputy Regional Administrators.
     (The complete list of persons
     interviewed and their summarized views
     are contained in an appendix to the task
     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 ail believed that
     EPA is too cautious in making SIP
     decisions, that SIPs 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 a SIP has been
     submitted) needed to be addressed.
    
     Problems Identified
      It is clear that the process of
     reviewing and judging SIPs has been a
     constant struggle for EPA and the State*
     and is a source of increasing tension.
     Concerns 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 overzealout. 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 increase* In SIP activity over
    the next few years, particularly in the
    complex areas of ozone. CO. and PMt*.
                        In a relatively recent development, some
                        enforcement actions have been affected
                        by courts which have ruled that EPA
                        cannot enforce the current federally
                        approved SIP ag'ainst 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 (i.e.. what is the process
                        supposed to accomplish), and the
                        attitudes of the SIP reviewers. For
                        example, there is within EPA a  strong
                        concern for consistency in SIP decisions,
                        and 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 expense  of timely
                        decision fMfctnfl-
                          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, stemming in
                        large part from a fear that a  decision
                        statement or explanation concerning a
                        specific State or source may force
                        similar decisions in other States for
                        similar soorces. Although there is a need
                        for consistency at some level (e.g~
                        concerning the basic components  of an
                        ozone attainment program or a new
                        PMt* SIP), it may not be necessary for
                        the results of all decisions to be similar
                        State to State and source to source. It
                        must be remembered that SiPs are
                        intended to be tailored by the States to
                        their specific air quality problems, and
                        the mix of sources from which emissions
                        reduction can be obtained,  within the
                        constraints of the dean Air Act (such aa
                        the requirement for reasonably
                        available control technology in
                        nonattainment areas). Although it is
     important for policy and broad technical
     requirements to be applied consistently.
     it is not necessary that 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
     reviewers have been reluctant to risk
     making mistakes on any SIP change:
     this, considering the number of actions
     EPA must review, inhibits rapid review
     and decision making. There needs to be
     a greater willingness on the part of all
     concerned with the process to risk an
     occasional noncritieal mistake in return
     for more rapid processing and earlier
     identification of the outcome of the
     review.
     B. Excessive Review
       Some SIP packages deserve the full
     attention of EPA staff and management;
     as noted, certainly the basic State
     programs for post-1987 ozone attainment
     and programs to achieve the newly
     promulgated PM» ambient air quality
     standard will need such review.
     Similarly, SIP revisions for new
     programs that dictate consistent
     national implementation, or that involve
     complex and evolving policy issues.
     such aa generic bubble regulations,
     should receive review and sign-off by
     EPA Headquarters. But the same cannot
     be said for changes to an emission limit
     on a local printing plant, composition of
     State boards, or negative declarations
     under section lll(d). Under EPA's
     currant approach to SIP review, all
     changes receive Regional Office and
     Headquarters' review prior to both
     proposal and final approval (except for
     those SIPs. aobut 20 percent of the total.
     processed as direct final •). All final
     actions, no matter bow trivial currently
     are signed by the Administrator.
       There are several problems with this
     multiple review for ail actions: it
     inherently takes longer than processing
     only at the Regional Office level: it ties
     up the scarce Headquarters' resources
     available for SIP review (thus making a
     long process even longer); and by
     introducing more reviewers into the
     process, it increases the chance of
     rejection for procedural or other reasons
     which have no impact on air quality.
       There an other aspects to the
    ' excessive review problem. If a State
                       •TApublMlMttnngM
                        * ind»c»t«« uwt uw SIP
     •CMP will fa« flnalki SB 4«yi yaW u mwwttd
                 ) OpptMalaWy 10 plUVldf •OVfTtat
    
    
           . EPA HMB faliOOT Ik* MCMl SIP
    

    -------
                                        / Voi 84. No. U / Tmmday. )«ntegy 19. IMS / Notice*
    i ubmiU • SIP change without pmpedy
    stated emresioB limit, ne«j anJeJeity or
    compliance schedulea. or which
    conum ertber obvious deficiencies, tt
    can eater the system and be subject to
    complete EPA review end disapproval.
    EPA • procedaras did oot provide ia any
    comprehensive way for immediate
    repectMea for incampieteneas.
    Independently, however, some Ramanal
    Office* have fiiad to deal wtth law
    problem. For example. Region I ha*
    developed a set af comntetenaas ctilerie
    their SutM maat follow; legsna VD
    provides Statea with aa axteaaive
    checklist deectebtag ma taearmaiiaa the
    Region will laak for ia a wide mage of
    SIP actions. The purpoee it to keep
    incomplete packages oat of the more
    extensive review system.
      On the other hane, area if the
    suhmtttal is prepared oorrectiy. eoae
    ectionj team tmenilart for full rarww.
    Exampiee iaehtde mmpfe reeodificBtioa
    of regittatiaae. address g*""y«, or
    changing modaiing er stack taet ™«*h Unc9rtointy Goftctfimtf thf Outcome
                                 It might be <
                                             	.- j .-^j
                               revision to a SIP. given the EPA's years
                               of experience, would be a midy roatine
                               pracass. However, mat often is not the
                               case. The fata of a given SIP revision, in
                               terms of both the na tare and timing of
                               the ultimate decision, can be uncertain
                               for a aumber of laesoni Important
                               mformetkm aacassaiy for nacisinn
                               making may be left ant oi a SEP package.
                               or the foDiat and.hiatificas1oB.for. the
                               change nuw to dtficieaxTJus can result
                               not only from inexperience and lack of
                               framing at the State and local level but
                               also from s lack of clear policy guidance
                               from EPA and timely issue resolution.
                               Policies important to SIP preparation
                               and approval may be »•««•»-•< or poorly
                               documented. Ia same cases, there may
                               be no poHey stall to address a spedHc
                               STP issue, and the S7 process itself.
                               through the aggregation of s series of
                               similar actions, to used to evolve a
                               policy. This situation, in part derives
                               rromsporadhranuMgeBenttevorrement
                               in the SIP process. Constant attention hi
                               needed to assure that packages an
                               moved tfaromjh the system, that
                               proOaCOaf tt9 proiBptijr iQcntfficB* mo
                               thtt policy tffoet are dtaantd tad
       An overt maniieslation af aaeermiaty
     in the outcome of Sn» review is the
     moving target syndtema. Under cmreat
     practice, a SIP may be under review at
     EPA for months and eiaatuaUy be
     deemed inappropriate beeswe it doesn't
     conform teaaewry evotvtd policy, even
     though it oonfetmed «a *e poHcy m
     place whaa H was aabminad. Thn net
     only frestrate* the State but rasaks m
     confuaioB for the soeree because aattt
     the State aetaally changes its eubmittal
     it often contmoes to imnwmant the
     regulations disapproved by EPA.
       Another factor ooaMbutmg to
     uDcertsmryanddaiayismaralianoson
    
     SIPi.TaaeystmateaaraonaUyaai base
    ' characterized by i'"f*irtpg not
     fudgmenul mteracttans. Haadqaartan
     and Bamoaai Office persona*! are
     reiHctaat to mrmaMy reject packages.
     but rather try to work vim aair
     collna    avmairacaaaimi cnmn br
                               phonei
                               nagpuation.Taaij
                               reluctance to oseoaramiee eaoass that
                               may harsarte* ingaad tatrh.Aieo. ma
    doeumantation needed to support s
    more formal process os s targe number
    of 8IP actions can become so excessive
    burden. Uniortamnely. in many esses
    the informal process proiongi the review
    time substantially and results m poor
    documentation for ase at simitar
    situations. In addition, the informal
    process frequently is crin'crxed  by States
    and sources because they can't
    adequately Back the progress of th«
    change once tt gets into EPA review.
    
    Solutions Deviead
    
      Baaed an mamak group assessment
    niilHiii|iii
    -------
    2218
    Federal Register /  VoL M. No. 12 / Thumky. January 19. 1989 / Notices
    revision. This will be a quick proem
    that will look at the revtewability of an
    SIP iubmittal. not its appravability. EPA
    will then promptly inform the submitting
    State by letter whether EPA will
    proceed to process the SIP revision or
    whether it must be returned to the Slate
    because it ia incomplete.
      EPA is creating this completeness
    review process under the authority of
    Section 301 of the Clean Ah- Act which
    authorizes the Administrator to
    prescribe such regulations as are
    necessary to carry out his functions
    under the Act EPA is Interpreting the
    terms "plan" in section llOfa) (1) and (2)
    and "revision" in section UO(aX3) to be
    only those plans and revisions that
    contain all 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 submittals that
    were simply not reviewable because
    they were lacking important
    components. Therefore, the
    Administrator concludes that section
    llCKa) 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
    rulemaking. See Memorandum, Gerald
    A. Emison. Director, Office of Air
    Quality Planning and Standards, to
    Regional Office Air Division Directors.
    March 18.1988 (a copy is included in the
    docket as item U-B-4). 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 $ 5l.l03(a) to specify that State
    submissions will not be considered
    official SIP submissions upon which
    EPA is required to act under section
    I10(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 an of
    essentially no interest to the general
    public. Historically EPA has processed
    all SIP revisions through full notice and
    comment rulemaking in the Federal
                              r. For Insignificant actions of no
                        public interest, mis has been costly and
                        time nonsnnring with no apparent
                        benefit Under the new letter notice
                        procedure for such insignificant
                        revisions. EPA will simply inform the
                        State and directly effected parties by
                        letter that the submitted SIP revision has
                        been approved. The EPA may not
                        publish a notice of proposed rule making
                        and opportunity for public comment or
                        an individual notice of final rulemaking
                        in the Federal Register.
                          EPA's duties to publish, proposed and
                        final rulemaking notice* and provide
    
                        tram the Administrative Procedures'Act
                        (APA). However, the APA specifically
                        provides that an agency need not
                        provide notice of proposed rulemaking
                        or enBortunity for public comment when
                        the  gency for good cause finds that It is
                        impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary
                        to the public Intent See 5 U.S.C. section
                        653(b). EPA conclude* that it is
                        unnecessary to provide for comment on
                        Insignificant SIP revisions because they
                        an of no Interest to the general public.
                        Further, m such cases, the delays
                        associated with piuviaing for comment
                        when-none would be forthcoming
                        would be contrary to the public interest
                        In expediting SIP processing.
                          The legislative history of section 553
                        indicates that the good cause exemption
                        from- notice and comment nquiremantt
                        appropriately applies to insignificant SIP
                        revisions.  See Senate Comm. on the.
                        Judiciary. Administrative Procedure Act
                        Legislative History. S. Doc. No. 246.78th
                        Cong, 2d Sess. 200 (1946)
                        ("Unnecessary" meant unnecessary so
                        far aa the public ia concerned, as would
                        be the case if a minor or merely
                        technical amendment In which the
                        public ia not particularly interested wen
                        involved. "Public interest" supplements
                        the 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 axe not
                        required in analogous circumstances.
                        Set. «.g., National Nutritional Foodt
                        Auociation v. Kennedy, 572 F.2d 377.
                        385 (2d Or. 1978); Texaco. Inc. v. FPC
                        412 F.2d 740, 743  (3d Or. 1979): UniUd
                        States v. US. Trucking Co* 317 F. Supp.
                        80. 71 (SJ3.N.Y. 1970).
                          Although EPA will not seek comment
                        on letter notice actions or publish
                        individual notices of final rulemaking. in
                        order to keep the general public
                        informed of all SEP actions EPA will
    publish periodically in the Federal
    Register a summary list of all actions
    taken under the letter notice procedure.
    The effective date of all letter notice
    actions will however, be the date of the
    letter Itself rather than that of the
    subsequent summary Federal Register
    notice.
      EPA wul only use the letter notice
    procedun for insignificant SIP actions
    such as recodifications or minor
    technical amendments that EPA feels
    confident an of no interest to the
    general pubttoV Further discussion of the
    SIP catagsrias t» be processed under
    letter n*do> as» be found below in the
    implementation section of this notice.
    
    BVincnaswd Use of Direct Final
    
      For some time EPA has used a  SIP
    processing procedun referred to  ss
    direct final rulemaking. In the peat EPA
    has generally used this procedun
    mostly for tof'gnlrV'"'* actions that it
    considered noncontroversial and on
    which EPA did not anticipate receiving
    any adverse comment EPA is now
    expanding the use of *hif historically
    effective direct final procedure to speed
    processing for a wider range of such
    mjt"i» SIP actions.
      Under the direct final procedun EPA
    still continues to offer the opportunity
    for public comment as required by the
    APA. As before, the procedun menly
    provides a shortcut for final action
    when no comment is expected.
    Moreover, moss insignificant SIP
    actions which an truly of no interest to
    the public will now be processed under
    the letter notice procedun described
    immediately above. Further discussion
    of the potential categories of SIP» to be
    processed under the expanded use of
    direct final procedures is included
    below in the implementation section.
    
    4. SIP Decision Authority
    
      Historically, all SIP revision actions
    have been thoroughly reviewed at both
    the Regional Offices and Headquarters.
    whether or not the action involved was
    truly of national significance. This has
    led to the greatest delays in the SIP
    processing system, and the task group
    assessment indicated that overall such
    duplicative nview did not appear to
    contribute substantially to improved SIP
    content in many cases. The EPA  has
    concluded that all SIP actions that are
    not nationally significant and for which
    Headquarters has prepared guidance for
    SIP processing, will now be reviewed
    only at the Regional Offices.
    Consequently, the Administrator is
    delegating his authority under section
    llCKa)  of the Clean Air Act to act on
    such SIP submittals to the Regional
    

    -------
                       Fejd»t«l Register / VoL J4. No. U / Thursday, fmuay It,  19M / Notion
                                                                          221'
     Adfflinistraiora. Both proposed and final
     Federal Unifier notices for these
     actions will henceforth be signed by the
     Regional Administrators.
       Section 30l(a)(l) of the Act authorizes
     the Administrator to delegate any of his
     powers and duties under the Act to
     other EPA employees except "the
     making of regulations." In an early
     interpretation of this statutory provision
     EPA concluded that while proposed SIP
     rulemaking did not constitute "the
     making of regulations", any final action
     on a SIP would fall within this
     prohibition. Upon further reflection. EPA
     now concludes that the prohibition on
     delegation applies only to regulations
     initially promulgated by EPA. not to
     plans prepared by States that EPA
     merely approves or disapproves.
       The natural reading of the statutory
     phrase "the making 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 meaning of the
     section 301(a) prohibition on delegation.
     As a practical matter. EPA has
     acquiesced in tfaove judicial decisions
     holding that EPA oust follow the
     rulemaking procedures of flic
     Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 5
     U.S.C 553. when It-approves or
     disapproves State 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(t)(l) of the dean Air
     Act prohibits the Administrator from
     delegating his authority to make federal
     regulations, it does not prohibit
     delegation of his authority to act upon
     regulations made at the State level.
      The implementation section of thit
     notice contains s detailed listing of
     those categories oi 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 Headquarters
     review for the time being. These
     categories may change over time ai
     Headquarters prepares additional
    guidance and Regional Offices become
    more familiar with new issues.
    
    B. Improve Certainty ofProceti
      The second major focus of EPA's
    changes in the SIP processing system is
    to improve processing procedures to
     that individual actions can be handled
     with greater certainty. These changes
     involve Increased management control
     and clarified processing guidelines.
    
     1. Adherence to Formal Procedures
       EPA has for some time had detailed
     procedures for processing SIPs through
     the existing SIP review system. These
     procedures include time schedules.
     default provisions, and issue resolution
     mechanisms. However, for a number of
     reasons these procedures have often not
     been followed precisely in the past
     With the adoption of the processing
     reforms described herein. EPA will be
     revising its procedures 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 submittals move
     quickly through EPA's review process,
     with any major issues being raised
     promptly lor resolution.
    
     2. Grandfathering Policy
       In the past a number of States have
     submitted SIP revisions that ware
     consistent win EPA requirements
     (regulations, policies, lejtal
     interpretations, etc.) in effect at the time
     of State adoption «f the revision.
     However, in some-cases, because of
     processing delays and policy evolution.
     the applicable requirements would
     change before the revisions received
     EPA approval. The EPA's?est
     procedure was to return the plan to the
     State for revision or disapprove the
     action. Not only did this add more time
     to an already lengthy process, it also
     strained EPA/State/local agency
     relations. Moreover, there was the basic
     question of fairness involved In such
     cases, the Stste submitted the revision
     in good faith and in accordance with the
     rules and policies in effect st the time of
     submission, only to see months go by
     and find out the change was rejected
     due to factors totally beyond its control
      EPA has determined that in general it
     would better serve the States and the
     interests of the SIP processing system to
     continue to process most State
     submittals based on the requirements in
     effect at the time the State adopted the
     change to the SIP. To this end EPA
     recently issued guidance on
    grandfathering entitled "Grandfathering
     of Requirements for Pending SIP
    Revisions", sent from Gerald Emison.
    Director. OAQPS. to EPA Regional
    Office Air Division Directors, funs 27.
    1966 (a copy is included in the docket as
    item 0-8-6).
      The guidance provides a structure for
    grandfatbering pending SIP actions to
    the extent allowed by lew. The law in
    this area indicates that whenever a new
    requirement is created by Congress (vis
    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
    EPA has no authority to grandfather any
    matter from tin new ststutory
    requirements Without explicit provisions
    in the statute.'
      Whan EPA Issues new regulation*.
    they are also generally applicable unless
    the regulations themselves include
    grandfathering provisions. If
    grandfathering provisions are not
    explicit in the regulations, courts will
    apply the new rules to matter* pending
    before EPA. Thorpe v. Housing
    Authority of Durham. 393 U.S. 288
    (1969). However, en agency does have
    some flexibility to provide
    grandfathering provisions in new
    regulations. Such previsions are usually
    appropriate where they meet s four-part
    taet First the new rale represents an
    abrupt departure from well-esta bushed
    practice. Second affected parties 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. 5/erro Club v. EPA, 719
    FJZd 436 (D.C Cir 1962). cert den. 486
    U.S. 1204 (1994). In the past. EPA has
    included explicit grandfathering
    provisions in new  regulations where
    appropriate.
      An agency has brosd authority to
    decide how and when to issue new
    guidance, since as s purely legal matter
    guidance is not absolutely binding on
    subsequent proceedings. Pacific Gas
    and Electric Co. v. FTC. 506 F^d 33 (D.C
    Cir. 1974). Historically, however.  EPA
    has provided only limited
    grandfathering from significant guidance
    primarily due to the importance of the
    new guidance to EPA's control
    programs.
      EPA's expanded grandfathering
    guidance states that complete pending
    SIP actions generally should be subject
    only to the requirements in effect st the
    time the State submittal was prepared.
    However, the guidance includes a
    number of exceptions to the general
    rule. The EPA would not grandfather s
    pending aetioajvhere a court ruling hai
    changed a reonrement where a court
    has convinced EPA that a requirement U
    no longer supportable, where me
    Administrator determines that
    

    -------
    2220
    Federal Regular /  VoL Si. Na 12 / Thursday, January 18.  IflBB / Notices
    grandfathering is not appropriate, where
    an imminent and substantial advene
    environmental impact would result
    where grandfathering would foreclose
    EPA'i ability to exercise its authority
    under the Clean Air Act or where the
    State has not acted in good faith in
    submitting • pian.
      The guidance also states the EPA will
    analyze the need for grandfathering
    provisions in all new EPA requirements.
    and will include such provisions in all
    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 win
    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 assist the
    Regions in implementing the new
    programs.
      EPA will also be improving
    communications between Headquarters
    and Regional Offices, and among
    different Regfcmal Office*, to eJfcellvety
    implement the deoentraiieee'SP
    processing system, improved
    communication techniques, described in
    the implementation section, include
    identifying regional SIP contacts, the
    "regional staff expert" concept a SIP
    clearinghouse, a computerized tracking
    systefe. 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
    close 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 and external audit system.
    an expanded computerized tracking
    system, and a SIP processing deviation
    review system.
    
    Irapfeeaeatatioa of the Chang**
    
      The following discussion focuses on
    the more significant aspects of the
    implementation of the SIP preoessiag
    changes announced today; tbe£nal
    portion addresses impcovemenU in the
            flyf^* aystssB wh>oh>aKe being
    instituted to Assure the snnn>uv«d
    changes are property impieottMed.
                        A. Tatiar Review to Significant* of
                        Action
                        l. Completeness Criteria
                          Screening criteria have been
                        developed that define the essential
                        element* of an acceptable SIP package,
                        that win avoid abvigus inadecfascies.
                        and that can be applied uniformly with
                        limited subjective judgment and review.
                        The criteria were developed by EPA
                        Regional Office* already using a list of
                        criteria to determine completeness of
                        SIP package* in an informal way. The
                        benefit* of using completeness criteria
                        to refect deficient package* include
                        unproved consistency and quality in the
                        State rabmfnaJ* received for processing.
                        fewer SIPs disapproved for fundamental
                        inadequacies, more effective use of
                        limited resources at both the Federal
                        and State level and improved guidelines
                        for new State personnel on how to
                        prepare adequate SIP*. A» noted earlier,
                        an interim poticy for determining
                        completeness of 39 inbmrMais was
                        issued to the EPA Regional Offices. The
                        policy includes basic criteria for
                        determining completeness, and sample
                        letteca far aeoaptteg eaed selecting SIP
                        suboutsess.
                          In a aaejeaaehaMiee ia today's Metal
                        Register, the A rlinlntetietoi is proposing
                        to add those criteria and aeoeaidare for
                        determiaiag the oomatutensss of State
                        subnitteJ* to «XCHt Part R. EPA will
                        cootiaoe to BM the interim policy to
                        eases* SIP submrttais antil final
                        rulemaicing action is taken on today's
                        accompanying proposal
                          The. criteria for determining whether a
                        submittal by the State is ooaaplete have
                        been separated into two categories: (a)
                        Administrative information and (b)
                        technical support mfonaation.
                        AdailuiatiaU»e information includes the
                        documentation necessary to
                        demonstrate that the basic
                        administrative procedures have been
                        adhered to  by the State during the
                        adoption process. Technical support
                        information include* the documentation
                        that adequately identifies the technical
                        components of the plan submission.
                        2. Letter Notice
                          Using a letter notice for non-
                        substantial action*, which EPA will
                        begin doing after today, is a new
                        process where EPA will merely inform a
                        State and directly affected parties by
                        letter that EPA aa* approved a given SIP
                        revision. The objective of the letter
                        notice approach is to achieve prompt
                        action by EPA on non-aubetaotial
                        action* waece 
    -------
                                         /  Voi M.  No. 11 / Taanday. |ajuiiy TA, IflBQ  / Moncaa
                                                                          2221
     review time by about 50 percent Since
     its inception, many revision have been
     published ae direct anai raiee with very
     few receiving notice boot the public of
     the deaire to comment The following
     are tome type* of SDPi that have been
     proceeted successfully u direct finals:
     •  A q***tdnwntf to dafzaitioa* to cflnfan8*
        to EPA requirement*
     •  Changes io monitoring/modeling
        procedure* to reference aew EPA
        guideline*
     •  Revision* to incorporate aew teat
        method* by reiereac*
     •  Single source SJPreviaioa* mat make
        a State's requirements mote
        stringent
     *  Public svauaailiiy o£ etBieaioae data
     •  Permit fee*
     •  Compliance schedule* for section
        111(0) plan*
     •  Visibility plan*
     •  Volatile organic compound (VOQ
        consent orders
     •  Prevention of significant deterioration
        (PSD) modeling regulations
     •  Minor change* to inspection and
        maintenance (I/M) programs
     •  New opacity regulations
     •  Variance*
     •  Operating permits for lead SJPs.
     Of 1M SIP revisions proeeseed most
     recently a* ilirerI finals only two
     required reoebMaeeayaa. |
     because of public Qoeamaal. T&i      -
     of very little public rmaaianl nn direct
     final rules suggested the* EPA could «*»
     this effective Mel mete often to spssd ap-
     the SIP process.
       For this reason. EPA iaeeed a
     memerudum dated December 2X. Us?
     entitled "Expanded Use of Direct Final
     SIP Processing." from Gerald A. Emison.
     Director. OAQPS. te EPA's Regions!
     Offices (a copy is <~^-«*~< in the docket
     as item O-B-2). For taeteasoas stated
     above. >hi« memorandum refiftnunffiiried
     that the direct final nilsmalnncj
     approach could be need more frequently
     by the Regional Office*. It t» possible
     that EPA's plan to expand the
     application of the direct final rulemaking
     approach may result in an increase in
     the number of SIP* being withdrawn
     and subjected to full aetice and
     comment nilsmakiap becauee of the
     desire by the public to comment
     However, any iaaeese in the number of
     direct final actions withdraws and
     converted to proeoeal* should be
    end. the AdministBtor is tadajr
    delegating sigmaksre autharirjrfo those
    TTT rinrisiane leei •* ant nf natiaaal
    signttcaaca se-tae
      Eliminating the aariatreetaw by the
    Regional and HaBaejaarsif* oRojafof
    selected catagonavof SIP* to potentially
    the most effective recommenaatiea
    med* by the task group. Thi*
    recommendattoa to designed to delegate
    sgproval/dhaBmii si authority for fie
    «*Ai*^^*M fl^B^^h ^M flkm B^^^^^^B!
    nia|uruy os sun av ne svvgsseeu    	
    Adtninistra«omA«n**»dearmK.allSIP
                                            Oi rsnselan*tieni end O* attainment plant
                                              (iadttdlng UM pregrems)
                                           ' CO attainment plans deanng with area-
                                              wiue prooisatt.
                                           1 CO ledeeiaMUoaa e>cep( those ralating to
                                              pamt-«oare* oaly prooteau or hot spot*
    
                                                      ooas) ialaarling UMM resulting
                                                      titalSIPs
                                                        t VOC raewation* 1*4. par
                                                            . orPox-*7
    Officeanellensejimm	Isi  mthe
    put The ReftaMl OBloe woeM i
    the Stale cemmMnl eerf prepen a
                                                            IsttsimiMnt
                                                            > teaa one RsfMmst
    EPA Hi i neejensre for eaother roaneUf
    terhnirsl lepei, andeemey review.
    Except fcrmaeeOlTs.pisceeied ae
    direct finai i
    rules reoern
    and]
    thei
                                                              jorrevMngSMic-
                                                      I *lre;eaJity diesenine node*
                                                      . and S9 fevtakms b*itd on
                                              th* as* ef neo-epptwed nodeii or
                                              dsvietieB* fane BPA's eioosting
    rarely changmi *» ammi
                                            SIP i • rtslues wfceM BPA Is under * court -
                                              eiderea- stkearie (e*. Irufians SOi STP|
                                            SOi Sutewidt pian* (sU eiemenu)
                                            SPi for new feeerleftate-wide ptogmni
                                                               d to oaspty with
                           with BBuiieut
    then offset by the overall improvement
    to timely proceaeuig ef total SIP actions.
    
    4. SIP Deci*iea> AMlberUy
      A comer* too* of Ihe
    recommendation* of the SIP processing.
    taek froep is the taflermvW sewiew Jo
    Ae
    have a i
    implementatieei of i
    SUCBM!
    demonerntiag i
    standards. I
    prngrem* where a higk level efneneneJ
    consistenrytriii|isilaiil  or which
    involve oavRgHg programs
    Issue* on progrem imptetsentation may
    as yet be isBfeenlved. Such acaeas
    should receive eeei a RagieaeJ Ofltos
    anda Heada«ar«ers review: the Utter
    will ensure consistent pokey appUoaaoa
    for these nationally aignifinaai SIP*. SEP
    action* which iniaaHy will oontiaue to
    be decided by the Adauaistrator are
    listed in Table 1. laia list ead the «4her
    lists described below ate not intended
    to be psnnaaent  thst is. SIP categories
    may be shifted among them ever time.
    For example, n to EPA's-mmnOoa so
    delegate eome of the SIP categories aa
    Table 1 to the Regioaal Adauaistrators
    as experieaoe wii the newprocees i*
    gained aad policiee mature. Conversely.
    if the Regional Offices have difficulty
    with a  delegated category, each SIP
    actions may be withdrawn bom
    delegation and be subject te aal
    Headquartats review.
    TABLE 1
                                     blu
                                              Peet-arCVCOpeliey
    
                                            PaP/NSR Sg> aaaiiillsil te OBsapiy with
                                              AteaemePewer deciBioaf
                                           1 Bahblss whUi uad* eflgrewth alkmaaa
                                            VteMRr pleas that
    AayrV
    Any actiea pneostai or HQpo«ns •
                                            Aay SV isiislea. eppiovel/diMppnnral of
                                              watch weald stamlAosnur devwi* from
    RcfjimslOrfieseedl
    wtth(
                       larvae
                                            A second category of SIP revisions.
                                          listed in Table 2. are actions where
                                          some Headquarters review is deemed
                                          appropriate prior to final action. This
                                          category was developed to sddress
                                          those SIP* where guidance is relatively
                                          new and thus it is prudent for
                                          Headquarter* to monitor the decision
                                          procaas at the Regional Office level
                                          Thta category serve* as a transition
                                          between Headquarters review and
                                          Regional Office review and will provide
                                          an opportunity for Headquarter*
                                          oversight without adding a significant
                                          review requirement Although the
                                          Regional Administrator* will have
                                          deostoa aatharity for the** SIP*, the
                                          Headquarters offices will neve 30 days
                                          from the data ate SIP revision package
                                          (including tbedmft Federal Reflet"
                                          notice ami auaaart material) is received
                                          at tkaii*,eenaat J° prep«re aaa" send
    
                                                             dtD br s veto
                                                                  but ratherta
    

    -------
    2222
    Federal Regtotar / Vol. 54. No. 12 / Thunday. January 19.  19M / Notice*
    opportunity to provide comments to
    Regional Office decUtonmaker*.
    
    TABLE 2
      The following SIP actions ire delegated for
    Regional Administrator deciiior. and signoff
    (proposed and final^ut require a 30-day
    opportunity for Heao^jarters' review before
    signoff.
    • Paniculate matter emissions relaxations
    • VOC revisions with extended compliance
        schedules affecting nonattainment anas
    • CO attainment plans dealing with botspots
    • CO redesignationa relating to point-source
        only problems and hot spots
    • SOj area-wide and source-specific SIP
        revisions and redesignations. where the
        source(s) or background sources in the
        aggregate have allowable emissions of
        25.000 TPY or more (except primary
        nonferrous smelters or emission trading)
    • SOt revisions with (a) averaging times
        greater than the short-term SCVNAAQ&
        (b) revised emission limits due to
        changes in stack height credits
    • Visibility SIPs involving regional haze
    • Direct final rulemaking in categories
        identified for Administrator signoff (see
        Table 1)
    • Any other action not listed elsewhere
    
      Decision authority for all remaining
    SIPs is being delegated to the Regional
    Administrator*, with no requirement for
    consultation with Headquarters prior to
    signoff. The primary criterion u*ed to
    judge which SIPs could be delegated to
    the Regional Administrator for decision
    was the significance of the action.
    Another criterion was the availability of
    appropriate policy memoranda/
    guidance to the Regions for making
    decision* on the approvability of a SIP.
    The categories of SIPs initially to be
    delegated to the Regional Administrator
    for Final approval authority are listed in
    Table 3. Although these revisions are
    being delegated for the Regional
    Administrator's signature, the
    Headquarters SIP reviewers will be
    available for discussions with the
    Regional Offices on any of the
    categories of SIP revisions. The Regional
    Offices also have the option of sending
    SIP submissions which come under any
    of these categories to Headquarters for
    the full review, especially where the
    Regional Office reviews indicate that
    national issues may be of concern.
    
    TABLES
      The following SIP actions are delegated for
    Regional Administrator decision and signoff
    (proposed and final). Headquarters review is
    not required bat nay be requested by the
    Regional Office.
    • All other bubbles and all other singie-
        source regs.
    • VCC extended compliance. scbe4ul«
        (except those affecting noaattaiaaent
        areas)               	
    • PMw Group D and ID SIPs T9P
        redecignattons
                         • Lead attainment plane and revisions
                         • All other SO> SO*, nchjdmg
                            ndasignstiona: ambient aranitoring
                            plans: malfunction rule*: State AAQS
                         • State stack height regulations and negative
                            declarations
                         • All other PSD/NSR SIPs
                         • All other visibility plans
                         • lll(d) plans/negative declarations
                         • All other dirsct final rulemaking
                         • All letter notice actions
                           SIP iaaues (and revisions) in
                         categories of potential national
                         significance will continue to b*
                         reviewed in Headquarters and signed by
                         the Administrator. The categoriecof
                         SIPs delegated to the Regional
                         Administrator for decision and sign-off
                         are inherently localised in scope and do
                         not have potential for national impact.
                         (Obviously, an unusual SIP revision in a
                         delegated category could involve broad
                         iaaues; the changes in procedure
                         announced today provide for full
                         consultation between the Regional
                         Office and Headquarters, and even for
                         the forwarding of each an unusual
                         action for full Headquarters review.)
                         Thus, except foe unusual cases.
                         decisions made by a Rational
                         Administrator will be baaed on local
                         factors, reflect local ieaoea, and  may
                         indeed yield varying reeahs, although
                         Regional Offices wUlappiypoliciea
                         consistently. Such dsjciasQQe are*
                         therefore, intended to be noa-
                         transferabla, Lo~ do not set precedents
                         for other Regions. For example, an
                         emission limit for a particulate matter
                         source in a State may require a specific
                         value to •conform to. the State's
                         demonstration of attainment The same
                         type of plant in another State, however.
                         might have a different limit imposed
                         based on its location and site-specific
                         factor*, in abort it is expected that the
                         outcome of the decision process for
                         similar SIP actions can vary from Region
                         to Region. Each such local action must
                         be judged on its own merits. This is
                         acceptable, provided that national
                         policy and guidance applicable to such
                         action* are applied consistently by all
                         Regions involved.
                           To provide the Regional Office with
                         the necessary support EPA is
                         completing a comprehensive
                         compilation of policy statements.
                         guidance, and memoranda applicable to
                         those actions where significant
                         Headquarters review is being
                         eliminated. Moreover, to nn'"«»'"
                         oversight of this decentralized process,
                         EPA will institute more intensive
                         management systems, designed  to
                         ensure national consistency in policy
                         application (see diacuaaion on
                         Management System* later in this
                         notice).
    B. Improve Certainty of the Process
    1. Adherence of Formal Procedures
      Detailed procedures exist for
    processing and reviewing SIP revisions.
    Among other things, the procedures
    provide for firm schedule*, default
    provision*, and mechanisms for issue
    resolution. The procedures frequently
    are not following for a variety of
    reason*. In tome cases, a Regional
    Office may believe that infernally
    working/negotiating with the State
    would provide information or result in
    change* to the rthnission that would
    enable EPA to tpfhrve the plan
    revision*. TUa can occur because there
    is to inherent reluctance by reviewer*
    to disapprove a plan into which a State
    or local agency has put considerable
    effort The goal of this informal
    approach was to enhance the
    relationship with the State, although the
    ultimate effect may have been the
    opposite.
      The current guidance and procedures
    for SIP processing are being reviewed.
    modified a* necessary to stress the need
    for more formal implementation, and
    will be repubushed with a clear senior
    management directive on their
    importance. Further, the management
    system decribed below will help ensure
    that the reviewing office* follow the
    formal procedure*. This, along with
    increased management attention to the
    SIP process, should 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 grandfathering 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 reviled
    requirement* for SIPs issued by EPA.
    EPA believe* that it deal* with the
    fairness issue, will not have noticeable
    environmental impact and will
    strengthen EPA's working relationships
    with the States 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 baa bea* delegated.
      All SIP revision* potentially subject to
    grandfatherinj veil be reviewed to
    determine to what extant the submission
    complies with the new and revised
    requirement*. For such revision*. EPA
    

    -------
                                                                                         /  Notice*
     wall eddiee* the ieipeet of the
     grandiathaciae; eettetoe. (peeiawar
    befan ^y tiaaf   liuaKiniiBtedL
     negative) • the SB" raseateking
     In addition. the beess to
     future Mibnutiaii will be described ia
     new requireaieati isoeeci by EPA.
     eddressiag the impact on pisiaeeely
     approved, pesiduig, ead new)? sutuaifted
     SIPs. Such graadiatheriBg proviaioM
     generally will have effective dates
     which an 60 day* teat the data of
     sigsature to allew autM to have a
     reasonable tunt la complete preeosaiag
     and submit reviaioaa loJEPA that atey
     hi mhjert to granrtfathertag
       Although graiiftfatnefine. will ha
     considered whenever aeaaiUe. BJancmg
     equity onnsidersaons aad short  tena
     environmental imparts, it is act
     automatic and may Dot ba aepvopriete
     in ail tircumsteacea. These iadade
     •ituatioot wham:
     1. The State has not acted ta good faith
         m subnattiag a plea:
     2. A court ruliag ha« chaagad a Maod
         requireaMot or liaa uimimnd BPA
         thai a preview reqvneneni  if no
         longer supportable
     • "V nlii'iiiniiiiii  dm ..... MII iiiniii
         is not eparapaiata to ganenttaar
         endar* new BPA pause:
     4. A daciatoD in paartAthai n adil hmia
         gQ imDUDaflt and anhaouiaiai
         adver»« aovironaaaiHai hapact ar
         foradoaa tha ahiUly «f BPA t*
         axarcwe ia autborMy Mdar (ha
         Claa»Air Act (*«. apply aanctina*
         undarPartD).
     Thit gnidaBca bnalds on trirtag
     grandfatharing guidance {«.§, air qaaJity
     diipanion modaling] to attahliih the
     general nnnrnrt irfpanatiiniaiiin iiaan
     equity dictate* aoch acOao.
       Where grandfathanBf would render
     the SIP at a whole •abaaurttatiy
     inadaquata to protect the NAAQS or
     otfaerwia* to comarf with the Act
     graadfathehng m«r ha ailowad «a*y t*
     iuttified by aa iadiwdaal aaalyaia uariar
     the four-part Sierra dob teat daacribad
     eariier. and the graodfathahag action
     would have only a Mmitnd Hie (ganeeally
     two yean). Withte that ttoa. (he
     grandfatiwred iv*Mon muat terminate
     (•4, expinttoa of a taoponry
     variance), or the Stale onttt ravmtt-a
     csompiete, apaaonbla icvanon ta the SS»
     tobnngitimoraUoonpttaaoewtmaJJ
     •tatutory
             v*of «raot flna* letter
    notice to aiMrtrtuiMil actkwK and
    rignattre MrthwMr lofth* KegJonal
    Adi
                      nithiinoBce.
    far
    the
    altemabvea tee
    •yitaauthr •pannr
    between eXA Heesjettarajat
    Regi
    effective!
    more iamooaat with the Jamie
    of tne&W palest**! *
    toda*. aet oaa>i
    problems
    shared
    the Regioa>«e that
    application o£p
    be assured, Seearal^
    uaderwayia this regaai
      The existing Of tracking system "SJP
    TT fi T " rrhfrh rrtten% ajilr follow*
    SIP safaeailBBs feoea Heir recssat at
    Headquarter*, to baiag eaaenriefV to
    track a SIP submitta! fan aeceipt by tEe
    Regioaal Offios te MtH*!!! ^ dlspaaiaaB
    (see furthet olaQuatea aaoat the
    "Maaagaaisnt Systasa" below). Oat*
    coatamad ta (he system wfll bit refiaed
    aad sdtoeted as experience is gained
    under the new procedures. In parallel
    win thai becking system change,
    gieeier eiiiplieirrwflj be placed on the
    "key SV contact" peisuus In the
    Regional Om^esa. Already m piece, mete
    persoas wta have <
    respoBjsKiiDty'ee the Regional Offices do
    more of thedecis4uuiBekliBi«rSlP
     1 Improved •Cuidenee end
     Coinmnnn'jflon
    «*rtataty in SIP
    BubeaMale. R to camveted t
    frequent ate of conference cefls.
    between some or aB Regions, wffl be
    made, aad a workshop on SIP
    proceeeatj ieeeaa wui be teetitBteQ ai
    JM«M*.MW^fa^ Wflfe ^^B X(^^tfli^^^^^MJ
    GDnJUDC^wa OTI1M^BWTmo^vBBcBre/
    RegtoaalOOee acr pregraat staff
    ixnieeaaaa heat eaanjefly • fear*
    Carohaa,
      To eeeare *aat efbet*»«Bfogee-iet
    place {
                                           eetiblhmmcnt of a Regional Office SIP
                                           Council. Such a Council would be
                                           composed of Regional Office SIP review
                                           •tefl chaired on a rotating besu by one
                                           of the officet. The chair would e»ttbli»h
                                           e meeting freqoency"[1»*teJecon/erence)
                                           which could be monthly or et aome
                                           •iffiflar regular period. The purpose of
                                           the meeting* would be for each Region
                                           to dteeuaa SIP processing activities for
                                           the period, to highlight nneaual issues
                                           that arose, end to identify /resolve
                                           point* of oonieaUuB between Regions.
                                           Headquarters staff-would participate in
                                           these CoteMftjeeeAH* as adviaots and
                                           to paeride aihpsj^aeitir eel expertise.
                                           •ejmlBnnt sesiihsWeech meetings
                                           woolo'be peeled ee aa electronic
                                           bultetia board lor future reference and
                                           guidance.
                                            Other iailieaVas am hang considered
                                           Thee* include creeaon of "policy
                                           hosmae*" eateUUhmg Haedouerten
                                           experts ia versees pcogram arees to
                                           provide quick response to Regional
                                           Office inauries. As en axtansion of tnii
                                           concepL Regional Office "experts" are
                                           ii leeclad toemerge over time who
                                           would eerre the eenw fraction for their
                                           coUeafues.Altagh see rarl scope of
                                           IDpTOVeffl OOeaHaWDCelQOtlg) !<}OtflK|Wf9
                                           haeteit been MydeAaedat this time
                                           (iadaad. eheeid aevar be Baefind since
                                           commiiBsneaqa* fcw Juhei'eBtty ehooid
                                           be detune*); HM to awue of the
                                           importance «f tee faaction end is giving
                                           it high priority.
    
                                           4. SIP Proceasini Maaai
                                                                nentSyateea
    
                                                              it of the SIP
                                                             EPA, inehiduig
                                          review by both me-Regional Offices and
                                          Heedqeenars. is vitai to ensure that
                                          implamenuitioa plans sutau'Ued by
                                          Stele* are proteased expeditiousry. As
                                          pert of this action to improve SIP
                                          prnnnsiing watna 2PA. the management
                                          system is being revised to monitor the
                                          prooeeefng of implementation plan
                                          revisions nnder the changes described
                                          today. A baste goal of this revised
                                          management system is 10 ensure an
                                          appropriate degree of consistency
                                          between all leviewers in interpreting
                                          aad implementing the SIP processing
                                          guidance aad air quality msnagemeni
                                          program policy. The management
                                          system wilt also evaluate the reviewers
                                          coaronnaace to established review
                                          procedures. In addition, sn outgrowth of
                                          the maaaeement system will be the
                                          identification oftSMM and problems ia
                                          intplenonttfloa pteieutdance. policies.
                                          and proaaduna '•tieA Headquarters
                                          and RegtonetOfltoe. With each
                                          inform* boa. EPA. caa eaeuze the timely
                                          update of policy and processing
                                          guidance.
    

    -------
    2224
    Federal Tlagjittnr / VoL 84.  No. 12  /  Tinnday. January  It. 19» / Notioes
      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 development of an audit
    program. The audit piugiam to designed
    to review actions, generally after
    processing is complete and final action
    is taken, to determine whether
    processing procedure* aad program
    policy have been adhered to during the
    review of the implementation plan. It is
    not the intent of the management
    program to review, or second-guess,
    every SEP action that is processed within
    EPA.
      The frequency of program audits will
    be based upon several factors. One
    factor is the total number of
    implementation plan revisions
    processed by a particular office. This is
    important because significant processing
    deviations are more likely to result
    when the number of actions is high. A
    second factor to be considered in
    determining the frequency of the audit
    cycle is the type of actions processed—
    newly implemented programs with a
    significant level of complexity should
    receive greater attention than programs
    which are well established. Another
    element in determining the frequency of
    audits will be the prior performance o
    the reviewing office. Those that have
    demonstrated problems should receive
    greater attention and thus more frequent
    audit than areas with demonstrated
    capabilities. As a corollary, in addition
    to examining performance of specific
    organizations, the audit program will
    identify program areas where several
    organizations are demonstrating a lack
    of understanding, indicating the possible
    need for improved guidance.
      The audit program must be designed
    such that the interval between audits is
    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 process all  types of plan
    revisions are maintained; this is
    necessary even where few and/or
    routine plan revisions  are received.
                          The audit program will employ two
                        basic sowcea of information: (1) Records
                        and documents submitted or prepared
                        as part of the formal rabmittal and
                        review process; and (2) discussions with
                        the individuals in Headquarters and/or
                        Regional Offices involved with
                                  i with specific SEP actions.
                        Through review of the processing
                        documentation and the implementation
                        plan tubmittaL the auditor can
                        determine independently the procedures
    foil
    ap
                               id, hi
                              idoonfo
                 •pacific polk*
                        to national poUcy
    and guidance, etc. Discussion* with the
                        and review of SB* actions will provlda
                        information related to aafldandw that
                        exist in the processing guidance,
                        QuudMuttC IB OOBZORDMEM to DFOffTUD
                        policy for specific actions, and elements
                        r using from EPA guidance that should
                        i jceive attention at the national level
                          The Regional Offices wfll need to
                        maintain, the full documentation and
                        history of each SIP action processed. In
                        the majority of cases this will not result
                        in any extra work load since moat of
                        this information is contained in the files
                        already maintained by the appropriate
                        Regional Office, m addition to the
                        currently maintained manual records,
                        EPA intends to expand, an operational
                        mtaooanputer-baeed system for
                        maintaining the ststus of currently
                        active implementation plans. The
                        current system tracks SIP revisions for
                        maintaining the StatUS Of SIP SCtiOM
                        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 Offices
                        and Headquarters on the status of all
                        actions which are active within EPA.
                           There are two types of sudit functions
                        anticipated by this program— internal
                        and external. An internal program audit
                        involves the routine audit of the SIP
                        review process by those individuals
                        within the reviewing organization who
                        are directly responsible for the review of
                        the SIP. This internal audit will occur at
                        both Headquarters and the Regional
                        Offices on an ongoing basis. Rather than
                        mandate the procedures 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 SEP revisions processed. For
                        example, it may consist of senior staff
    familiar with the program requirements
    reviewing a selected portion of the
    revisions processed by the SEP review
    staff. The Regional Offices will focus
    their internal audit efforts on those
    actions to be signed by the Regional
    Administrators.
      The external audit is designed to
    obtain an independent overview of the
    program. This audit will be conducted
    by Headquarters individuals with
    experienoa in SIP review but who do not
    take an acfc>ijei> in the process. The
    external a*e*«p address all facets of
    the progra*i
    -------
                                        / V«l Si.  Ma. 12 f
                                                                                        ? r*»ttc«
                                                                                                               826
     actions aot eomiaf to Headquarter* and
     thus would JMt.be entered in • system
     tracking only Headquarters review.
      There are several reasons for
     maintaining such a system, tit order for
     the various Headquartacs offices
     responsible for program development to
     maintain a sense of the major SUP issues
     being addressed, a method of
     summarizing S3P actions processed is
     necessary. The development of a data
     base system that can provide such
     information will reduce the resource
     burden of soliciting input from Regional
     Offices. In addition. EPA is frequently
     asked about the specific status of
     implementation plan revisions in
     process by the public, industries, and
     members of Congress. Since the system
     will be regularly updated to contain
     information on all SO* actions, the data
     base will be more complete and.
     accurate than one solely relying on
     Regional Offices' responses to periodic
     inquiries. Overall an integrated system
     will allow EPA to determine more
     accurately the status of. and time and
     resource commitments allocated to, SIP
     review wherever it occurs.
      In addition to the basic program
    oversight an important function of the
    audit will be to Identify Otter
                  here de
    circ
                                 fr
    processing guidance here occurred
    These processing dev4atfee* will be
    examined from the perspective of the
    potential impact of the action. The
    identification of prnressen de
    could result in varying responses.
    ranging from simple improvements in
    the review process to those few cases
    expected where the State may be
    required to submit a corrective SIP
    action to resolve a deficiency. The
    specific corrective action to be taken
    will be determined on a case by-case
    besis.
      The majority of implementation plan
    revisions submitted by States are
    associated with source specific actions,
    are administrative in nature, or are in
    direct response to EPA mandates to
    incorporate explicit regulatory
    provisions or language. In most cases,
    the environmental effect of SIP
    processing deviations are expected to be
    insignificant and thus then sbouWbe
    no need to require the State to submit
    additional information or to make
    further revisions to a specific submittal
    However, for recurring problems, the
    State will be notified that a particular
    aspect of submitting impiameotation
    plan revisions should he modified to
    avoid the problem* iaeotfed.
      Mere important devistlens may
    include action where the potential
                                                                     ntal
    exists fort
    impact As pnroously stated. SIP
    action thai are likely to affect the
    program on a national basis will receive
    full EPA review and decision by the
    Administrate*. As a result the actual
    number o^ajnvironmentnlly s^nJficent
    deviations earniM be Invited.
    Nevertoeioee, the ejoot process is
    designed to identify each eitiwtions so
    that appropnmts tattoos to limit the
    impact can be taken promptly, ta then
    eases, corrective action will depend on
    the problem. For proposed actions. EPA
    may need to withdraw the proposal end
    reverse the proposed approval/
    disapproval action. Alternatively, when
    EPA ha» folly proceseed and approved a
    revision to the implementation plan, it
                                          may be necessary to iesn e modes of
                                          SEP deficiency requiring the State to
                                          submit a revision IB correct the
                                          identi* 4 problem.  The response to each
                                          ease » .e be decided feaaed epon the
                                          specific merits of toe plan stviaion
                                          involved end me potential
                                          environmental impact
      T3u docket Is ao otaanliert and
    MMflfJ*** fllf ff f || fof jSjfae/Mtrffff
    considered by EPA m the development
    of these STPoroceeatng COMSM. The
    dDcs*teadyiumtaibJeMB«MK . .-•
    material is added throughout the notice
                                          members of the public aad mdustriae
                                          involved to identify and locate
                                          documents so mat they can effectively
                                          participate in the process. Along with
                                          the statement of basts and purpose of
                                          the SIP processing rhsnges and EPA
                                          responses to significant comments, the
                                          contents of the docket except for
                                          interagency review materials, will serve
                                          as the record in case of judicial review
                                          (see dean Air Act section 307(dX7)(A).
                                          42 U5.C reond)(7MA)).
                                            The effective date of these changes is
                                          January 19, 1889.
                                            Section 317U) of the dean Air Act 42
                                          U.S.C 7ei7(a). states that economic
                                          impact assessments are required for
                                          revisions to 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 the cost as a
                                          result of complying with the changes
                                          described today is expected; moreover,
                                          the monitoring, recordkeeping. and
                                          reporting requirements have been
                                          determined to be insubstantial Because
                                          the expected economic effect of the
                                          changes is net substantial, no detailed
                                                                                         inpec
                                                                   t has been
      The taformstjon collection
    requirements of these changes are
    considered to be no different than those
    currently required by the dean Air Act
    •ad EPA procedures. Thus, the public
    leporting 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
    informatieaMieetion. including
    easjeettssjVffsfijUiicing any burden, to
    the rtorfcenratfrthe following: Chief.
    mfatmeUm Mlfci Branch. PM-223. U.S.
    bvfrwoMBtal Protection Agency. 401 M
    Stteet SW. Washington. DC 20460; and
    to the Office of Information and
    Regulatory Affairs, Office of
    u«««j««Mn« wi Budget Washington.
    DC 30603, marked "Attention: Desk
    Officer for EPA,"
      Under Executive Order 12281. EPA it
    required' to judge whether an action is
    "major" and therefore subject to the
    requirement  of a regulatory impact
    analysis (RIA). The Agency has
    determined thai the SIP processing
    rhsnges •nommnerl today would result
    in none of toe significant adverse
    eonenic effects set forth in section l(b)
    of the Order eegreuadi tea finding of
                                                                                flooBkided that mis action is not a
                                                                                "major" actiooimder Executive Order
                                                                                  TUs-nottoewas submitted to OMB for
                                                                                review consistent with section 3o7(d) of
                                                                                the dean Air Act A copy of the draft
                                                                                notice as submitted to OMB. any
                                                                                documents eccompanyiag the draft any
                                                                                written comment received from other
                                                                                egendes (including OMB), and any
                                                                                written responses to those comments
                                                                                have been included in the docket.
                                                                                  The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980,
                                                                                S V3.C. 801-612. requires the
                                                                                identification of potentially adverse
                                                                                impacts of Federal actions upon small
                                                                                business entities. The act requires the
                                                                                completion of a regulatory flexibility
                                                                                analysis for every ection unless the
                                                                                Administrator certifies that the action
                                                                                will not have a significant economic
                                                                                impact on a substantial number of imall
                                                                                entities. For reasons described above. I
                                                                                hereby certify that the final rule will not
                                                                                have a significant economic impact on s
                                                                                substantial member of small entities.
                                                                                              Med !-!»-«* *« SBi
    

    -------
                                       j V«L ML No 12  / Taueedaj, laauurv 10.  1B8C / Moticaa
    IER-Fm.-4607'lt
    
    Environmental Impact Statement*;
    Availability
    
      Responsible Agency; Office of Federal
    Activities. General Information (302)
    382-5076 or (202) 3t2-S07i
      Availability of Eavironmeatai Impact
    Statemaau Filed January 9,1969
    Through January 13. I960 Pursuant to 40
    CFR 1506.9.
    
    EIS No. 490004. Final. COE. TX.
      Applewhite Daw/Reservoir and Leon
      Creek Diversion Dare/Cake Water
      Supply Project. Penoit Application.
      bopienentatioa. Section 404 and M
      Persaits, Bear County. TX Dee
      FebnMry a. 1988, CoBUot Timothy L
      Tandy {U?) »t-a896.
    EIS No. 890006. «*et ATS, CA.
      EMocado Notional Ferest Lend awd
      Reseevee Maitaeemeiit Ptaa, Aieafcf.
      Alpine. Eldorado  and Placer Counties,
      CA, Due February ZL M89, CoeUct:
      jecaU N. Huteaios (Bit) «2a-60B1_
     EIS No. 69000*, Dreft t»A. LA,
      Missieeippi River Getf O«Uet Ooeen
      Dredged Material Diapoiel ttte
    
                          , Pjcjr
    EvaluaBuu, C«>
    MevuBiUua; Ertpnilon
      TOM fjatiee eaeieaeas the exteasiao
    nf I In  i !••••!! fieiiiul fur rnip"^-|T
    candidates for Tefnietorjr •egottation.
    The notice dsrted DewaiBer M. MSB (53
    FR MOOS) sfloeunoed the openmf of a 30
    day i leaiiiiiil period to •aejarat
    mnrtieatei fcir recnktory aejooation
    with fct Beiiiooiueaul ProsBetkm
    Aeeocy* Tnia suittoB eABoencae tkat oe
    ProtBotaDfi Ai^ncy*
    SW,
    7565.
    Regulatory
    
    Kirtz er
          > Kelly.
    Director. Offict ofSU
    Regulation*.     .
    |FR Doc aa-lJM PUad 1-ia-OR 0:45 am|
           : Federal Mine -Safety and
    Heatih Review Commission.
           f. Trie Coiiuitisakm has adopted
    a new method for ealcnlatim 4e rate of
    interest apyficaMe to monetary awards
    in dzecriirrinetion and conipeneetioe.
    cases.
    0/rntm: This action is effective for
    Commission cases in which decisions
    are rneed after November 28. 1988.
    Aoomsscs: Requests (or copies of the
    Commission's decision soould be
    addressed to Richard L. Baker.
    Executive Director. Federal Mine Safety
    and Health Review Comnissian. 1730 K
    Street NW.. fith Floor. Washington. DC
    20086.
    L Joseph Forars, General rnya«»^
    Office of the General Counsel 1730 K
    Street NW. BfhFVwr. Washington. DC
    20008. telephone 2Q2-B53-SB10 (202-666-
    2673 for TDD Relay). These aw not toll-
    free numbers.
    
    Federal Mae Safety aad rienith Review
    CoauBsat*o aas adnptnd a new raatbod
                                          for calculaliag &* rate of iaieresi
                                          applicable to atoafitary awacds to
                                          prevailing cnnpliiaanu in
                                          dischminatiea and«oapeneatioii caiea
                                          aming aader leouow tOC(e) and ill
                                          respect:-«ty of the Federal Mine Safety
                                          and Healtk Act of 1*77. This acbon was
                                          taken tnioc.V. 3274, UMWA v.
                                          Clinchfield Cool Co.. 10 FMSHRC1493
                                          (November 28.19«). pet tor review
                                          filed. No. 8S-4A73 (D.C. Or. Dec. M.
                                          1988).
                                           Section JOBiiof the Mine Act 30
                                          U.S.C lllHiTllPj*>ni'11 discrimination
                                          against sasveMpr engaging in protected
                                          activities afitSrllfe Mine Act Under
                                          seenoBS 10l(c} ft) and (31 a Biaer who
                                          has been baud le have been
                                          -tiffriminr-H egaiast is statutorily
                                          entitied-te> afpropriete nliet ieduding
                                          back pay aad ie*eteet 39 Ufi£. 8laXcj(2)
                                          and (3). Seenoa 111 of the Mine Act 30
                                          U.S.C. BZL leqeeiits -an operator to pay
                                          miners wfco han* beea idled by a
                                          withdra vat order isewd by -dw
                                          Secretary «f Labor, te a4Qoi6oBtioM
                                          arising under setiSon Itl. the
                                          Commission  also amsjea iaierest on
                                          back pay awards. CliochfieJd Cool Co,
                                          supra.
                                            In the past -the Pnaiiiiiiiiiii'i caie  ihoimm Ftdcnl
    

    -------
             UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                    Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
                    Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
    
    
                                JUN 27 IQOo               PN 110-88-06-27-095
    MEMORANDUM
    
    SUBJECT:  "Grandfathering"  of Requiremepts lor  Pending  SIP  Revisions
    FROM:     Gerald A.  Emison,  Direct
              Office of  A1r Quality ^1tnning~"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 Word 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., "grandfathering").
    
         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 grandfathering 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 NX
         Regional Counsel (Air Branch Chiefs), Regions I-X
         Don Clay
         Alan Eckert
         Hike Alushin
         John Seitz
         Robert Cahill
         John Calcagni
         Bob Wayland
         01ck Wilson
         Bill Laxton
         Charles Gray
    

    -------
    bcc:  Work Group Members
          Jack Farmer
          Rich Osslas
          Peter Wyckoff
          Bern Steigerwald
    

    -------
                          GUIDANCE ON GRANDFATHERING OF
    
                      REQUIREMENTS FOR PENDING SIP  REVISIONS
    
                                  June 1988
    Introduction
    
         EPA is expanding 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.
    
         Grandfathering 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 grandfather!ng 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 1s 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, 1985, 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.
    
    B.  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.  Grandfathering 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 Adnrinistrator 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 0 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 oust be conducted!If the analysis
    concludes that grandfathering 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.
    
                  (1)  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).
    
                  (11)  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
    time frame (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 8(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.
    

    -------
                  UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                     Office of Air Quality Planning  and  Standards
                     Research Triangle Park, North Carolina   27711
      DATE     J!IN12'380
    
    SUBJECT:   Information  Required in Federal Register Packages
      FROM:   Richard  G.  Rhoads, Director.
             Control  Programs Development Division  (MD-15)
    
        TO:   Director, Air and Hazardous Materials  Division,  Regions  I-V, and VII
    
                  An  April 29, 1980 memo from Walt  Barber asked  that  all SIP
             revisions dealing with SO- relaxations be  submitted  through the "special
             action"  procedures.  The purpose of that request was  to  allow the Agency
             to more  carefully scrutinize the nature of each  relaxation and its
             multi-regional  impact.  A copy of  this memo is attached.
    
                  In  order to allow us to assess the relative impact  of each S0?
             relaxation  more accurately, I ask  that the following  information be
             included in each action memo.
    
                  1.   Plant  name  and location.
    
                  2.   Size of the facility  (including  the  number of boilers) expressed
             in megawatts or Btu/hour firing  capacity  (design).
    
                  3.   Amount, type, and  sulfur  content  of  actual  fuel combusted
             during the  previous  year.
    
                  4.   The revised SO- emission  limit,  the  existing SIP limit,
             and the corresponding averaging  times  for  these  limits.
    
                  5.   The "paper" as well  as  actual increase  or decrease  in emissions.
    
                  The calculations  involved in  determining the  increase of emissions
             should assume status quo operating conditions of the source.   There  is
             no need to consider increased or decreased utilization of the source's
             capacity.
    
                  In addition,  because  of  the ongoing development of policy on  the
             issue of good engineering  practice (GEP) stack  height, all Federal
             Register packages addressing  the stack height issue should be suomitteti
             through the "special action"  procedures.  Furthermore,  I ask that
             your staff  inform Bob Schell  (629-5365) of my staff of  any Federal
             Register packages involving stack height  increases which are currently
             under development and projected to be forwarded for 14-day review
             within  the  next few weeks.
    

    -------
         The following information should be included in each action memo
    which involves increased stack height.
    
         1.  Height of the old stack as well as that of the new.
    
         2.  If GEP stack height is determined, the methodo.logy used to
    determine it, and the stack height considered to be GEP.
    
         Your cooperation and assistance in dealing with these sensitive
    issues are greatly appreciated.
    
    Attachment
    
    cc:  David Hawkins
         Walt Barber
         Mike James
         Ed Reich
    

    -------
    REFERENCES FOR SECTION 7.4
    

    -------
     |5I.I53
             40 CPU Ch. I (7-1-M Edition)
    III.IU  RcevaliMllon of cplMMlc phiM.
      (a)  States should  periodically re-
    evaluate priority classifications of all
    Regions or portion of Regions within
    their  borders. The reevaluatlon must
    consider the three most recent yean
    of air quality data. If the evaluation
    Indicates a change to a higher priority
    classification, appropriate changes In
    the episode  plan must be made as ex-
    pedltlously as practicable.
    
      tefcport I—l«vl*w e* New Sources
             and Modification*
    
      Sower SI nt tOMS. Nov. 1. I«M. unleoi
    othenrtoe noted.
    
    • sl.lt*  totally enfoneobk •roetointM.
        The procedures  must  provide
    that approval of any construction or
    modification  must not  affect the re-
    sponsibility to the owner or operator
    to comply with applicable portions of
    the control strategy.
      (e)  The procedures  must  Identify
    type* and sires of facilities, buildings.
    structures, or Installations which will
    be subject to review under this section.
    The plan must discuss the basis for de-
    termining which facilities will be sub-
    ject to review.
      
    nlol Protection AfMtcy
    551.1*5
     slstent with  such  existing  require-
     ments.
      U.
                                 (a) State Implementation Plan pro-
                                visions  satisfying  sections  ITXbMO
                                and 113 of the Act shall meet the fol-
                                lowing conditions:
                                 (1) All such plans shall use the spe-
                                cific definitions. Deviations  from the
                                following  wording  will be  approved
                                only If  the  state specifically demon-
                                strates that the submitted definition Is
                                more  stringent,  or  at least as  strin-
                                gent, hi  all respects  as the correspond-
                                ing definition below:
                                 (I) "Stationary source" means any
                                building, structure, facility, or Installa-
                                tion which emits or may emit any air
                                pollutant subject to regulation under
                                the Act.
                                 (II) "Building,  structure, facility, or
                                Installation" means all of the pollut-
                                ant-emitting activities which belong to
                                the same  Industrial grouping, are lo-
                                cated on one or more contiguous or ad-
                                jacent properties, and are under the
                                control of  the same person (or persons
                                under common control) except the ac-
                                tivities of  any vessel. Pollutant-emit-
                                ting activities  shall be considered M
                                part of the same Industrial grouping If
                                they  belong to the  same  "Major
                                Group" (I.e.. which have the same two-
                                digit code) as described In the Stand-
                                ard lndu$trlal Claniflcation Manual
                                m% as  amended by the 197? Supple-
                                ment  (U.8.   Government  Printing
                                Office stock numbers 4101-0085 and
                                003-405-00170-0. respectively).
                                 (Ill)  "Potential to emit" means the
                                maximum  capacity   of  a stationary
                                source to  emit  a pollutant under Its
                                physical and operational design. Any
                                physical or operational limitation on
                                the capacity of the source to emit a
                                pollutant.  Including  air pollution con-
                                trol equipment  and  restrictions  on
                                hours of operation or on the type or
                                amount of material combusted, stored.
                                or  processed, shall be treated a* part
                                of  Its design only If the limitation or
                                the effect  It would have on emissions
                                Is  federally enforceable.  Secondary
                                emissions do not count In determining
                                the potential to emit of a stationary
                                source.
                                                                                         733
    

    -------
                                                   40 Cm Oi. I (7-l-M MMwi)
      (hrXA)  "Major  stationary  source"
    mean*:
      (/) Any stationary source of air pol-
    lutants which emits, or has the poten-
    tial to emit 100 tons per year or more
    of any pollutant subject to regulation
    under the Act. or
      (2) Any physical change that would
    occur at a stationary source not quali-
    fying under paragraph (aMlMlvMAX/)
    as a major stationary source. If the
    change would constitute a major sta-
    tionary source by lUelf.
      (B) A major stationary source that to
    major for volatile organic compounds
    shall be considered major for ozone
       The fugitive emissions of a sta-
    tionary source shall not be Included to
    determining for any of the purposes of
    this  paragraph whether It Is a major
    stationary source, unless  the source
    belongs to one of the following catego-
    ries of stationary sources:
      (1) Coal cleaning plants (with ther-
    mal dryers):
      (2) Kraft pulp mills;
      (J) Portland cement plants;
      (*) Primary dnc smelters;
       Hydrofluoric. sulfurte. or nitric
    •dd plants:
      U*> Petroleum refineries;
      (fl)Ume plants;
      (fl)  Phosphate  rock   r.rocesslng
    plants;
      (f I) Coke oven butteries;
      ;
      (J«> Primary lead smelters;
      ill) Fuel conversion nlanU;
       Taconlte ore processing plants;
           lass fiber processing plants;
      (25) Charcoal production plants;
      (2«> Fossil  fuel-fired steam electric
    plants of more than 350 million Brit-
    ish thermal units per hour heat Input:
    and
      (27) Any other stationary source cat-
    egory which, as of August 7. 1080, Is
    being regulated under section 111 or
    119 of the Act.
      (vKA) "Major modification" means
    any physical change to or change to
    the method of operation  of a  major
    stationary source that would result In
    a significant net emissions Increase of
    any  pollutant subject to  regulation
    under the Act.
      (B) Any net emissions Increase that
    ta considered significant for volatile or-
    ganic compounds  shall be considered
    significant for ozone.
      (C) A physical change or change to
    the method of operation shall not In-
    clude:
      (1) Routine maintenance, repair and
    replacement;
      (2) Dse of an alternative fuel or raw
    material by reason of an order  under
    sections 1 (a) and (b> of the Energy
    Supply and Environmental Coordina-
    tion  Act of 1074 (or any superseding
    legislation) or by  reason of a natural
    gas curtailment plan pursuant to the
    Federal Power Act;
      (1) Dae of an  alternative  fuel by
    reason of an order or rule section 196
    of the Act:
      («*> 0u of an alternative fuel at a
    •team generating unit to the extent
    that the fuel Is generated from munic-
    ipal solid waste:
      (S) Ose of an alternative fuel or raw
    material by a stationary source which:
      (O The source was capable of accom-
    modating before December 31. 1070.
    unless such change would be prohibit-
    ed under any federally  enforceable
    permit condition  which  was  estab-
    lished after December 15.  1070 pursu-
    ant to 40 CFR 92.91 or under regula-
    tions approved pursuant  to 40 CFR
    Subpart I or 1 61.100. or
      «O The  source Is approved to use
    under any permit Issued under regula-
    tions approved pursuant to this  sec-
    tion:
      (•) An Increase In the hours of oper-
    ation or In the production rale,  unless
    such change Is prohibited under  any
                                        734
                                                                                                     ntol r>»tsctl»«i Afftmcy
                                                                                                                      I si. MS
    federally enforceable permit condition
    which was established after December
    91. 1070 pursuant to 40 CFR B3.J1 or
    regulations approved  pursuant to 40
    CFR Part 01 Subpart  I or  40 CFR
    61.100.
      (7) Any change  In  ownership at a
    stationary source.
      (vIKA)   "Net  emissions  Increase"
    means the amount by which  the sum
    of the following exceeds xero:
      (1) Any Increase  to actual emissions
    from a particular physical change or
    change to the method of operation at
    a stationary source; and
      (9) Any other  Increases   and de-
    creases  to actual  emissions at the
    source that are contemporaneous with
    the particular change and are other-
    wise creditable.
      (B) An Increase or decrease to actual
    emissions Is   contemporaneous  with
    the  Increase from  the  particular
    change only  If  It  occurs before the
    date that the Increase from  the par-
    ticular change occurs:
      (C) An Increase or decrease to actual
    emissions Is creditable only If:
      (1) It occurs  within  a reasonable
    period to be specified by the reviewing
    authority; and
      (2) The reviewing authority has not
    relied on It to Issuing a permit for the
    source under  regulations  approved
    pursuant to this section which permit
    to to effect when the Increase to actual
    emissions from the particular change
    occurs.
      (D) An Increase to actual emissions
    to creditable  only to the extent that
    the new level of actual emissions ex-
    ceeds the old  level.
      (E) A decrease In actual nmtoslnns to
    creditable only to the extent that:
      (J) The old level of actual emission
    or the old level of allowable emissions
    whichever Is  lower, exceeds the new
    level of actual emissions;
      (2> It Is federally enforceable at and
    after the time that actual construction
    on the particular change begins; and
      (J) The reviewing authority has not
    relied on It  In Issuing any permit
    under regulations  approved  pursuant
    to 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart I or the
    state has not relied on It to demon-
    strating attainment or reasonable fur-
    ther proffresn:
      (*) It has approximately the same
    qualitative  significance  for  public
    health and welfare as that attributed
    to the  Increase from the  particular
    change.
      (F) An Increase that results from a
    physical change  at a source  occurs
    when the emissions unit on which con-
    struction occurred becomes operation-
    al and begins to emit a particular pol-
    lutant. Any replacement unit that re-
    quires shakedown becomes operational
    only after a  reasonable  shakedown
    period, not to exceed ISO days.
      (vll)  "Emissions  unit"  means any
    part of a stationary source  which
    emits or would have the potential  to
    emit any pollutant subject to regula-
    tion under the the Act.
      (vlll)  "Secondary  emlssons"  means
    emissions which  would occur  as a
    result of the construction or operation
    of a major stationary source or major
    modification, but do not come from
    the major stationary source or major
    modification Iteelf. For the purpose of
    this section, secondary emissions must
    be specific, well defined, quantifiable.
    and Impact the same general area  as
    the stationary source or modification
    which causes the secondary emissions.
    Secondary emissions Include emissions
    from any offstte support facility which
    would not be constructed or Increase
    Its emissions except as a result of the
    construction of operation of the major
    stationary source of major  modifica-
    tion. Secondary emissions do not In-
    clude any emissions which  come di-
    rectly from a mobile source such  as
    emissions from the tailpipe of a motor
    vehicle, from a train, or from a vessel.
      (Ix)   "Fugitive   emissions"  means
    those emissions which could not rea-
    sonably  pass through a stack, chim-
    ney, vent or other functionally equiva-
    lent opening.
      (x) "Significant" means, to reference
    to a net emissions Increase ft the po-
    tential of a source to emit any of the
    following pollutions, as rate of emis-
    sions that would  equal or exceed any
    of the following rates:
    
            foUtilmnl ffmUrio* Kale
    Carbon monoxide: ISO ton* per year 
    NMrotrn oxMra: 40 tpy
    Sulfur dioxide: 40 tpy
    Ocone: 40 tpy of volatile organic compound*
                                                                                                                             735
    

    -------
     85
    
     UMtd: OS tpy
    
      (xl>  "Allowable  emissions"  mean*
     the  emissions rate  of  a  stationary
     source calculated using the maximum
     rated capacity of the source  (unless
     the  source Is subject to federally en-
     forceable limits which restrict the op-
     erating rate, or hours of operation, or
     both) and  the most  stringent of the
     following:
      (A) The  applicable  standards set
     forth In 40 CFR Part 60 or 61:
       In general, actual emissions as of
    a particular date shall equal the  aver-
    age rate. In tons per year, at which the
    unit actually  emitted  the  pollutant
    during a two-year period which pre-
    cedes the particular date and which la
    representative of normal source oper-
    ation. The reviewing authority  shall
    allow the  use of  a different  time
    period upon a determination that It Is
    more representative of normal source
    operation. Actual  emissions shall  be
    calculated using the unit's actual oper-
    ating hours,  production  rates, and
    types of materials processed, stored, or
    combusted  during  the selected  time
    period.
      (C) The reviewing  authority  may
     presume that the source-specific allow-
    able emissions for the unit are equiva-
     lent to the  actual  emissions  of the
     unit.
      (D) For any emissions unit which
     has  not  begun normal operations on
     the  particular date,  actual  emissions
     shall equal the potential to emit of the
     unit on that dale.
      dill)  "Lowest  achievable emission
     rate" means, for any source, the  more
     olrlngent rate of emissions based on
     the following:
      (A> The most stringent  emissions
     limitation which Is contained In the
             40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-M Edition)
    
    Implementation plan of any State for
    such class or category of stationary
    source, unless the owner or operator
    of  the  proposed  stationary  source
    demonstrate* that such limitations are
    not achievable; or
      (B) The most  stringent  emissions
    limitation which  to achieved In prac-
    tice  by such class or category  of sta-
    tionary sources. This limitation, when
    applied to a modification, means  the
    lowest achievable emissions  rate  for
    the  new or modified emissions units
    within  or stationary  source.  In  no
    event shall the application of the term
    permit  a proposed new  or  modified
    stationary source to emit any  pollut-
    ant In excess of the amount allowable
    under an applicable new source stand-
    ard of performance.
      <«lv) "Federally enforceable"  means
    all limitations  and conditions  which
    are enforceable by the Administrator,
    Including those requirements  devel-
    oped pursuant to 40 CFR Parts 60 and
    61. requirements within any applicable
    State Implementation  Plan,  and any
    permit requirements established pur-
    suant to 40 CFR 52.21 or under regula-
    tions approved pursuant  to  this sec-
    tion, 40  CFR  Part 51 Subpart I. or
    151.166.
      (xv) "Begin  actual  construction"
    means In general. Initiation of physical
    on-slte construction activities  on  an
    emissions unit which are  of a perma-
    nent nature. Such activities Include,
    but are not limited to, Installation of
    building  supports  and  foundations,
    laying of underground pipework, and
    construction  of  permanent storage
    structures. With respect to a change In
    method of operating this term refers
    to those on-slte activities other than
    preparatory activities which mark the
    Initiation of the change.
      (xvl) "Commence" as applied to con-
    struction of a major stationary  source
    or major modification means that the
    owner or operator  has all  necessary
    preconstructlon approvals or permits
    and either has:
      (A) Begun, or caused to begin, a con-
    tinuous program of actual on-slte con-
    struction of the source, to be complet-
    ed within a reasonable time; or
      (B) Entered Into binding agreements
    or   contractual  obligations,  which
    cannot be canceled or  modified wlth-
                                       736
    Environmental Protection Agency
                                951.165
    out substantial  loss to the owner or
    operator, to  undertake a program of
    actual construction of the source to be
    completed within a reasonable time.
      (xvll) "Necessary preconstructlon ap-
    provals or permits" means those Fed-
    eral air quality control laws and regu-
    lations and those  air quality control
    laws and regulations which are part of
    the applicable State Implementation
    Plan.
      (xvlll)  "Construction" means  any
    physical  change or  chAnge  In the
    method of operation (Including fabri-
    cation, erection. Installation,  demoli-
    tion, or modification of an emissions
    unit) which would result In a change
    hi actual emissions.
      (2) Each plan shall adopt a precon-
    structlon  review program  to satisfy
    the requirements of sections 172(bM6)
    and 173 of the Act for any area desig-
    nated nonattalnment for any national
    ambient air quality standard under 40
    CFR 81.300 et teg.  Such  a program
    shall apply to any new major station-
    ary source or major modification that
    Is major for  the pollutant for which
    the area Is designated nonattalnment.
    If the stationary source or modifica-
    tion would locate anywhere In the des-
    ignated nonattalnment area.
      (3MI) Each plan shall provide that
    for sources and modifications subject
    to any preconstructlon review program
    adopted  pursuant  to this  subsection
    the baseline for determining credit for
    emissions reductions Is  the emissions
    limit under the applicable State Im-
    plementation  Plan In effect  at the
    tune the  application to construct  Is
    filed, except  that  the offset baseline
    shall be  the  actual  emissions of the
    source from which offset credit to ob-
    tained where;
      (A) The demonstration of reasonable
    further  progress and  attainment of
    ambient air quality standards to based
    upon the actual emissions of sources
    located within a designated nonattaln-
    ment area for which the preconstruc-
    tlon review program was adopted; or
      (B) The applicable State  Implemen-
    tation Plan does not contain an emis-
    sions  limitation for  that  source  or
    source category.
      (II) The plan shall further provide
    that:
      (A) Where the emissions limit under
    the  applicable State Implementation
    Plan allows greater emissions than the
    potential to emit of the source, emis-
    sions offset credit will be allowed only
    for control below this potential;
      (B) For an existing fuel combustion
    source, credit shall be based on the al-
    lowable emissions under the applicable
    State Implementation  Plan  for  the
    type of fuel being burned at the time
    the application to construct to filed. If
    the existing source commits to switch
    to a cleaner fuel at some future date,
    emissions offset credit based on the al-
    lowable (or actual) emissions for the
    fuels Involved to not acceptable, unless
    the  permit to conditioned  to require
    the use of a specified alternative con-
    trol  measure which would achieve the
    same degree  of  emissions  reduction
    should  the source switch back  to a
    dirtier fuel at some later date. The re-
    viewing authority should ensure that
    adequate  long-term supplies of  the
    new fuel are available before granting
    emissions offset credit for fuel switch-
    es.
      
    -------
    f SI. 1*5
    
    Office of Air Quality riamiliiir  and
    Standard*. (MD-1S) Research Triangle
    Park. HC 37711.))
      (C)  All emtaalon reduction* claimed
    M offaet credit ihall be federally en-
    forceable:
      tft  Procedure* relating to the per-
    missible location of offsetting emis-
    sion*  shall be followed which are at
    least a* stringent a* those set out In 40
    CFR Part II Appendix 8 *ectlon IV.D.
      (Cl) Credit  for an  emissions reduc-
    tion can be claimed to the extent that
    the reviewing authority ha* not relied
    on It In tosulng any permit under regu-
    lation* approved pursuant to 40 CFR
    Part •! Subpart I or the State ha* not
    relied on  It In  demonstration attain-
    ment or reasonable further progress.
      (4) Bach plan may provide th«t the
    provision* of thl* paragraph do  not
    Apply to a aource or modification that
    would be a major stationary aource or
    iBikjor modification  only If fugitive
    emission to the extent quantifiable are
    eonaMered In calculating the potential
    to emit of the atatlonary aource or
    modi thai 'on and. the source doe* not
    belong to any of the following catego-
    ries
      (II Coal cleaning plant* (with ther-
    mal dryer*);
      (U) Kraft pulp mill*;
      (HI) Portland cement plant*:
      4lv) Primary sine ameltcr*;
      (») Iron and steel mill*;
      (rl) Primary aluminum ore reduction
    plaata;
      (»»!» Primary copper smelter*;
      (vlil> Municipal Inclneralots capable
    of charging  more than 350 ton* of
    refuse per day;
       Hydrofluoric,  milfurle. or citric
    add planU; t
      (x) Petroleum refineries;
       I Jrae plants;
        Phosphate  rock  proce**lng
    plants;
      (»HO Coke oven batteries;
       Carbon  black plant* (furnace
      (xvl> Primary lead smellers;
      (xvll) Fuel conversion plants;
      (xvlll) Sintering plants;
      (xlx) Secondary  metal production
     plants:
      (xx) Chemical process plants;
            40 CHI Ch. I (7-1-00 Edition)
    
      (xxl) Fossil-fuel boilers (or combina-
    tion thereof) totaling more  than  360
    million British thermal unlU per hour
    heat Input;
      (xxll) Petroleum storage and trans-
    fer unite with a total flotage capacity
    exceeding 300.000 barrels:
      (xxlll)  Taconlte  ore  processing
    planU;
      (xxlv) Olas* fiber processing planU:
      (xxv) Charcoal production plants;
      (xxvl) Fossil fuel-fired steam electric
    planU of more than 360 million Brit-
    ish thermal unlU per hour heat Input;
      (xxvll) Any other stationary source
    category which, e* of August 7.1000, U
    being regulated under section 111 or
    113 of the Act
      (0) Bach plan shall Include enforcea-
    ble procedure* to provide that:
      (I) Approval to construct shall  not
    relieve any owner or operator of  the
    responsibility to comply fully with ap-
    plicable provtolon of the plan and any
    other requlremenU under local.  State
    or Federal law.
      (U> At such time that a particular
    •ouree or  modification  become* a
    major •taUonary  aource  or  major
    modification solely by virtue of a re-
    laxation In any enforcement limitation
    which wa* established after August 7.
    1000. on the capacity of the source or
    modification otherwise to emit a pol-
    lutant «uch aa a restriction on  hours
    of operation, then the requlremenU of
    regulation* approved pursuant to thto
    section shall apply to the source or
    modification  as though construction
    had not yet commenced on the source
    or modification;
      (bMl) Bach plan ahall Include  a pre-
    construcUon review permit program or
    IU equivalent to satisfy the requlre-
    menU of section 110UM3KDMI) of the
    Act for  any new major  stationary
    source or major  modification as de-
    fined In paragraphs (aNl) (Iv) and (v)
    of thto aecUon. Such a program shall
    apply to any such aource or modifica-
    tion that would locate In any area des-
    ignated a* attainment or unclanlflable
    for any national ambient air quality
    standard pursuant to section 107 of
    the Act. when  It would cause or con-
    tribute to a violation of any national
    ambient air quality standard.
      (3) A major source or major modifi-
    cation will be  considered  to cause or
                                       738
                                                                                                Environment*! rVolectle
                                                                     951.14*
    contribute to a violation of a national
    ambient air  quality  standard when
    such source or modification would, at
    a minimum, exceed the following sig-
     nificance  level* at any locality  that
     doe* not or would not meet the appli-
     cable national standard:
    
    
    HlllilH I
    »o.
    
    NOb
    CO 	
    
    
    
    ISM/IB* 	
    1* PS/in* 	
    t •pS'1**
    
    
    
    M
    • «•/•• 	
    (£»• 	 	
    
    
    
    Am**!
    *
    
    
    
    »t*qtm'
    
    ton (taunt
    1
    Tift/m*
    
    
    
    
    
    1
    
    
    
    t Htf/ft**
    
      (» Such a program may Include a
    provision  which  allows  • proposed
    major  aource  or  major modification
    subject to paragraph (b) of thl* sec-
    tion to reduce the Impact of IU emis-
    sions  upon  air quality by obtaining
    sufficient  emission reductions to. at a
    minimum, compensate for IU advene
    ambient  Impact  when  the  major
    aource or major  modification would
    otherwise  cause or contribute to a vto-
    UUon  of  any  national ambient air
    quality •tandard.  The plan ahall re-
    quire  that.  In  the absence of such
    emission reductions, the State or local
    agency ahall deny the proposed con-
    struction.
      (4) The  requlremenU of paragraph
    (b) of thto section shall not apply to a
    major  stationary  source  or  major
    modification with  respect to a particu-
    lar pollutant If the owner or operator
    demonstrate* that, as to that poUut-
    ant, the aource or modification to lo-
    cated tai an area designated a* nonat-
    talnment  pursuant to section 107  of
    the Act
    III m 40SW. MO*. 1. IfM. at ismistd at 13
    PR Mill. July I. ten; M fR 3*100. Aag V.
    IMT)
    
    Ifl.lM  PMTMtiasj of *lgalflca«4 CtteriV
      (ax I) Plan requirement*. In accord-
    ance  with  the  policy  of  section
    lOI(bMI) of the act and the purpose*
    of section 100 of the Act each applica-
    ble SUte Implementation plan ahall
    contain emission limitations and such
    other measure* as may be necessary to
    prevent algnlflcant deterioration of air
    quality.
      (» Plan Kevitiont. If a State Imple-
    mentation Plan revision would result
    bi Increased air quality deterioration
    over any  baseline concentration,  the
    plan revtoton shall Include a demon-
    stration that It will not cause or con-
    tribute to a violation of the applicable
    IncremenU*). If a plan revision propos-
    ing tea*  restrictive requlremenU was
    submitted after August 7, 1077 but on
    or before any applicable  baseline date
    and waa pending action by the Admin-
    istrator on that date, no such demon-
    stration  to necessary with respect  to
    the area for which  • baseline date
    would  be established  before  final
    action  b taken on the plan revision.
    Instead,  the  assessment  described  In
    paragraph (aM4) of thto section, shall
    nvfew the expected Impact to the ap-
    plicable IncremenUa).
      (3) Kegnlred  plan  revitton. If the
    State or the Administrator determines
    that a plan to substantially Inadequate
    to prevent significant deterioration or
    that an applicable Increment to being
    violated,  the plan shall be revteed  to
    correct the Inadequacy or the viola-
    tion. The plan shall be revised within
    00 days of such a finding by a State or
    within 00 day* following notification
    by the Administrator, or  by such later
    date M prescribed by the Administra-
    tor after consultation with the State.
      (4) Ptmn assessment The State shall
    review the adequacy of  a plan  on a
    periodic  basis and within 00 day* of
    •uch  time  as  Information become*
    available that an applicable Increment
    to being violated.
      (» Public participation. Any State
    action  taken under  thto paragraph
    •hall be subject to the opportunity for
    public hearing In accordance with pro-
    cedures  equivalent  to  those estab-
    lished In  101.102.
                                                                                                                                 739
    

    -------
     fort SI. App. f
    
     quired report (hall Include, aa a minimum.
     the data stipulated In this appendix.
       4.3- For opacity  measurements, the sum
     mary  ahall  consist  of the  magnitude  In
     actual percent opacity of all one minute (or
     luch other time period deemed appropriate
     by the  State) averages of opacity  greater
     than the opacity standard In the applicable
     plan for each hour of operation of the facili-
     ty. Average values may be obtained by Inte-
     gration  over the averaging  period  or by
     arithmetically averaging a minimum of four
     equally (paced. Instantaneous opacity mea*-
     urernents per minute. Any  time period ex-
     empted shall be considered before determin-
     ing  the execs* averages of  opacity (e.g..
     whenever a  regulation allows two  minutes
     of opacity measurements In  excess of  the
     standard, the State ahall require the source
     to report all opacity averages.  In. any  one
     hour. In exceas  of the standard, minus  the
     two-minute exemption). If  more than  one
     opacity  standard applies, excess emission*
     data must be submitted  In relation  to all
     sucli standards
      4.1  For gaseous measurements the sum-
     mary shall consist of emission averages. In
     the  units of the  applicable  standard,  for
     each averaging period during which the ap-
     plicable standard was exceeded.
      «.«  The date and time Identifying each
     period during which  the  continuous  moni-
     toring  system was  Inoperative,  except  for
     •eio and apan checks, and the nature of
     eastern repairs or adjustments ahall be re-
     ported. The State may require proof of con-
     tinuous  monitoring  system  performance
     whenever system  repairs  or adjustment*
     have been made.
      4.1  When  no excea* emissions have  oc-
     curred  and  the  continuous monitoring
     •ystem(s) have  not been  Inoperative,  re-
     paired, or adjusted, such Information ahall
     be Included In the report.
      4.«  The Stale plan shall  require owner*
    or operator*  of affected facilities to main-
    tain a file of all Information reported In the
    quarterly summaries, and all other data col-
    lected either  by  the continuous monitoring
    system or a*  necessary to convert monitor-
    Ing data to the unit* of the applicable stand-
    ard for a minimum of two yean from the
    date of collection of such data or submission
    of such aiumnarle*.
    
              B.O  DaTA REDUCTION
    
      The State plan shall require owner* or op-
    erator* of affected facilities to use the fol-
    lowing  procedure* for converting monitor-
    Ing data to unit* of the standard where nec-
    essary.
      • 1  For fossil fuel-fired steam  generator*
    the following procedure*  shall be used to
    convert gaseous emission monitoring data In
    part* per million to g/mllllon cal (Ib/mllllon
    BTO) where necessary:
               40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-88 Edition)
    
       6.1.1  When the owner or operator of  ,
      fossil  fuel fired steam  generator   elrcu
      under paragraph 2.1.4 of this appendix t0
      measure oxygen In the flue gases, the meas-
      urements of  the pollutant concentration
      and oxygen concentration shall each be on a
      dry basis and the following  conversion pro-
      cedure used:
    
              E = CF 120 9/20 9  %O.I
    
       6.1.1  When the owner or operator elects
      under paragraph 2.1.4 of this appendix to
      measure carbon dioxide In  the  flue gases.
      the measurement of the pollutant concen-
      tration  and  the carbon dioxide  concentra-
     tion shall each be on a consistent bail* (wet
     or dry) and the  following conversion proce-
     dure used:
    
                E-CF.(IOO/%CO.)
    
       6.1.3  The values  used In the equations
     under paragraph 6.1 are derived  a* follows:
    
     E- pollutant emission, g/mllllon cal (Ib/mll-
        llon BTU).
     C- pollutant  concentration,  g/dscm (Ib/
        d*cf). determined by multiplying the av-
        erage concentration  (ppm)  for  each
        hourly period by 4.16x10 •  M g/dscm
        per ppm (1.64 x 10 • H lb/d*cf per ppm)
        where 61 - pollutant molecular weight.
        g/g-mole (Ib/lb-mole). M  - 64 for sulfur
        dioxide and 46 for oxide* of nitrogen.
     %O*  %CO.-Oxygen   or  carbon  dioxide
        volume  (expressed  a* percent)  deter-
        mined with equipment specified  under
        paragraph 4.1.4 of thl* appendix.
     F. F.-a factor representing  a ratio of the
        volume of dry flue gases generated to
        the calorific value of the fuel combusted
        (F). and a factor representing a ratio of
        the volume of carbon dioxide generated
        to the calorific value of the  fuel com-
        busted (P.) respectively. Value* of F and
        F. are given In |60.46(f) of Part 60. a*
        applicable.
    
      1.1 For sulfuric acid plants the owner or
    operator shall;
      6.1.1 establish  a conversion factor  three
    time* dally according to the procedure*  to
    160.64(b) of thl* chapter.
      6.1.1 multiply  the conversion  factor by
    the average sulfur dioxide concentration In
    the flue gases to obtain average sulfur diox-
    ide emissions  In Kg/metric  ton  (Ib/short
    ton); and
      6.2.1 report  the average sulfur  dioxide
    emission for each averaging period In excess
    of the applicable emission standard In the
    quarterly summary.
      6.1  For nitric  acid plant*  the  owner or
    operator ahall;
      6.3.1 establish a conversion factor accord-
    Ing to the procedure* of  |60.73(b) of this
    chapter;
                 I Protection Agoncy
    
     (jj multiply the conversion factor  by
    .M average nitrogen oxides concentration
    JJ, the flue gases to obtain the nitrogen
    .jldes emissions In Ihe units of the appllca-
    kje standard;
     1.3.1 report the average nitrogen oxide*
    tp>lulon for each averaging period In excess
    01 the applicable emission standard. In  the
    quarterly summary.
     1.4 Any Slate may  allow dala reporting
    0r reducllon procedure* varying from those
    iti forth In thl* appendix  If the owner or
    operator of a source show* to the  latUfac-
    tion of the SUle that hi* procedure* are at
    leasl a*  accurate as those In this appendix.
    Such procedure* may Include but are not
    limited to. the following:
      6.4-1   Alternative procedure* for comput-
    ing emission average* that do not require In-
    tegration  of dala (e.g.. some facllllles  may
    demonstrate that the variability  of their
    emission* I* sulflclenlly small to allow accu-
     rate reduction of data based upon comput-
     ing  average*  from  equally  apaced  data
     point* over the averaging period).
      6.4.1  Alternative methods  of converting
     pollutant  concentration measurement* to
     the unit* of the emission standard*.
                                                                    Part 51, App. S
    
                                              6.3  Alternative monllorlm, i i-qulremenls
                                            may be prescribed  when the Slate deter-
                                            mines that the requirement* o( this appen-
                                            dix  would  Impose  an  extreme  economic
                                            burden on the source owner or operator
                                              6.4 Alternative monitoring requirement*
                                            may be prescribed when the Slate deter-
                                            mine* that monitoring systems prescribed
                                            by this appendix cannot be Installed due lo
                                             physical limitation* at the facility.
    
                                             140 PR 46241. Oct. 6. IB75. as amended at 61
                                             PR 40676. Nov 7. 19661
    
                                                  APPENDICES  Q R— IReserve-Jl
    
    
    
                                                  APPENDIX S— EMISSION Orrsrr
                                                      INTERPRETATIVE RULING
                                           786
           6.0 BraciAL ComiDouvrtOH
     The State plan may provide for approval.
    on a case-by-ca*e baal*. of alternative moni-
    toring requirement* different from the pro-
    visions of Parts 1 tiirough 6 of thl* appen-
    dix If the provision* of thl* appendix (I.e..
    the  Installation  of a continuous  emission
    monitoring system) cannot be  Implemented
    by a aourcc due to physical plant limitations
    or extreme economic reason*.  To make use
    of  thl*  provision. State* must Include  In
    their plan ipecltlc criteria for determining
    those  physical limitation* or  extreme eco-
    nomic situations to  be considered by the
    State. In such  case*, when the Slate ex-
     empt* any aource subject  to thta appendix
     by use of this provision from Installing con-
     llnuou* emission monitoring systems, the
     State (hall  set  forth  alternative emission
     monitoring   and  reporting  requirements
     (e.g.. periodic manual stack tests) to satisfy
     the Intent of theae regulations. Example* of
     •uch special caw* Include, but are not limit-
     ed to. the following:
       6.1  Alternative monitoring requirement*
     may  be prescribed  when Installation of a
     continuous  monitoring system or monitor-
      Ing device specified  by thl* appendix would
      not  provide accurate  determination*  of
      emissions   (e.g.,  condensed,  uncomblned
      water vapor may prevent an  accurate deter-
      mination  of opacity  using commercially
      available continuous monitoring systems).
        6.1   Alternative monitoring  requirement*
      may be prescribed when the affected facility
      Is Infrequently operated (e.g., some affected
       facilities may operate less than one month
       per year).
                  .
     This appendix sets forth EPA'* Interpre-
    tative Ruling on the preconstructlon review
    requirements for  stationary source*  of air
    pollution  (not Including Indirect source*)
    under 40 CFR Subpart I and section  l« of
    the  Clean Air Act Amendment* of  1*17.
    Pub. U 66-66. (note under 41 U.8.C. 1601). A
    major new aource or  major  modification
    which would locate In an area designated In
    40 CPR 61.300 et tea, a* nonattalnment for
    •  pollutant for which the aource or modifi-
    cation would be  major may be allowed to
    construct  only If the  stringent  condition*
    act  forth  below  are met. These  condition*
     are designed to Insure that the new source's
     emissions will be controlled to the greatest
     degree possible;  that more than equivalent
     ottaetttni  emission  reduction*  ("emission
     offaeU")  will be  obtained from existing
                ^  ««.- >  it,.,.  — ni ^ Drogre**
                                                 OffaeU") Will  DC ODUuneu  ......  	
                                                 aources; and that there will be  progress
                                                 toward achievement of the NAAQ8.
                                                   For each area designated a* exceeding an
                                                 NAAQ8 (nonaltalnment  area) under  40
                                                 CFR 61.300  el  seo.. thl*  Interpretative
                                                 Ruling  will be superseded  after June  30.
                                                 1916—(a)  by precc-nslructlon review provl-
                                                 •ton* of the revised SIP. If the SIP meet*
                                                 the requirements of Part D. Title I. of  the
                                                 Act; or  by a prohibition on construction
                                                 under  the  applicable  SIP  and section
                                                  UOIaMlMI) of the  Act. If Ihe SIP dor* not
                                                  meet  the  requirement*  of Part  D.  The
                                                  Ruling will remain In effect to the extenl
                                                  not aupeneded under the Act. Thl* prohibi-
                                                  tion on major new source construction  doe*
                                                  not apply to a source whose permit to con-
                                                  struct was applied for during a period when
                                                  the SIP  was In compliance with Part O, or
                                                  before the deadline for having a revised SIP
                                                  In effect that satisfies Part D.
                                                     The requirement of this Ruling shall not
                                                   apply to any major stationary  source or
                                                   malor modification  that was not subject lo
                                                                                                                                           787
    

    -------
        Port 51. App. S
    
        the Ruling MI In rlferl on January It. IV79.
        II the owner ur opnsior
          A. Obtained  all final Federal. Stale, and
        local preconslrurthin approval* or permits
        necessary undrr Ihr aiipllcable Slali- Imple-
        mentation Plan hrlorc AuKiut 7. 1980.
         B   Commenced  roimtrurllnn  within  It
        months from August 7.  IMU). or any earlier
        lime  required under the applicable  State
        Implementation Plan; and
         ('.  Old not discontinue construction for a
       period of II months or more and completed
       construction within a reasonable lime.
    
       II. INITIAL SCBBCHING ANATLSU AMD DBTU-
        HIHATIOH or ArrLICASLt RsaUiaEMKMTS
        A. Definition* ~Fot the purposes of  this
       Ruling:
        I. "Stationary source"  mean* any build-
       ing. structure, facility, or  Installation which
       emlla or may emit any air pollutant subject
       'o regulation under the Act.
        J. "Building, structure, facility or  Installa-
      tion" means all of the pollutant emitting ac-
      tivities which belong to the same Industrial
      grouping, are located on one or more contig-
      uous or adjacent properties, and are under
      the i ontrol of  the same person lor  perrons
      under common control) except the activities
      of any vessel.  Pollutant emitting activities
      shall be considered aa part of the same In-
      dustrial grouping If they belong to the same
      "Major Group" (I.e.. which have the same
      two digit code)  aa described hi the Stanaar,
      fiufMsfrtal ClauVtcaHom  Manna* 1971. aa
      amended  by the 1077 Supplement .
                40 CM Ch. I (7-l-M Edition)
    
        (III) The fugitive emissions of a stationary
      source shall not be Included In determining
      for any of  the purposes ol this  ruling
      whether It  Is  a inilor stationary  source.
      unless the source beltings (o one of the fol-
      lowing categories of stationary sources:
        (a) Coal cleaning  plants (with  thermal
      dryers);
        (»> Kraft pulp mills:
        (<•> Portland cement plants;
        (if) Primary zinc smelters;
        (e) Iron and steel mills;
       (/)  Primary  aluminum  ore  reduction
     plants;
       (p> Primary copper smelters;
       (ft) Municipal  Incinerators  capable of
     charging more  than 250 tons of refuse per
     day;
       (O Hydrofluoric, sulfurlc. or  nitric acid
     plants;
       Ift Petroleum refineries:
       (*) LJme plants:
      (f) Phosphate rock processing plants;
      (m) Coke oven batteries;
      (*) Sulfur recovery plants;
      (o) Carbon black plants (furnace process);
      (B) Primary lead smelters;
      (v) Fuel conversion plants;
      (r> Sintering plants;
      ((> Secondary metal production plants:
      (f ) Chemical process plants:
      <•) Fossil-fuel  boilers (or  combination
    thereof)  totaling  more than JftO million
    Britis
       1. "Potential to emit" mean* the mast-
     mum capacity of • stationary source to emit
     a pollutant under  Its physical and oper-
     ational design. Any physical or operational
     limitation on the capacity of the source to
     emit a pollutant. Including air pollution con-
     trol equipment and restrictions on hours of
     operation or on the type or amount of mate-
     rial combusted, stored, or processed, (hall be
     treated as part of It* design only If the limi-
     tation or the  effect It would have on emis-
     sions 1s federally  enforceable. Secondary
     emissions do not count In determining the
     potential to emit of a stationary source.
      « III "Major stationary source" means:
      («> Any stationary wture of air pollutants
     which emIU. or has HM> potential to emit.
     100 tons per year or more of any pollutant
    subject to regulation under the Act; or
      <»> Any physical change that would occur
    at a stationary source not qualifying under
    paragraph 1.11X0!) of section  II of this ap-
    pendix as a major atatlonary source. If the
    change would constitute a major stationary
    source by Itself.
      (II) A  major stationary source that  Is
    major for volatile organic compounds shall
    be considered major for ozone.
      thereof)  totaling more than JftO  milli
      British thermal units per hour heat Input:
       <•>> Petroleum storage and transfer unlla
      with a  total  storage  capacity  exceeding
      100.000 barrels;
       (10) Taoonlte ore processing plants:
       (z) Glass fiber processing plants;
       (») Charcoal production plants;
       Is) Fossil fuel-fired steam electric plants
     of more than J60 million British thermal
     units per hour heat Input:
       (aa) Any other stationary source category
     which, aa of August 1. I Mo. is being regulat-
     ed under section II I or 1 1] of the Act."
       •.  (O  "Major  modification"  means  any
     physical change In or change In the method
     of operation of •  major stationary source
     that would result In a significant net emis-
     sion* Increase  of  any pollutant subject to
     regulation under the Act
      (II) Any net emissions Increase that Is con.
     •Mered significant for volatile organic com-
     pounds shall be considered significant for
     osonc
      (III) A physical change or change In the
    method of operation shall not Include:
      (•) Routine maintenance, repair, and re-
    placement;
      (6> Use of an alternative fuel or raw mate-
    rial by reason of an order  under section 2
    (a) and (bl of the Energy Supply and Envi-
    ronmental Coordination Act of 1(74 (or any
    superseding legislation) or  by reason of a
                                           788
                                                                        Protection Agency
                                                         natural gas curtailment plan pursuant  to
                                                         the Federal Power Act:
                                                          (el Use of an alternative fuel by reason of
                                                         m order or rule under section  I SB of the
                                                         Act;
                                                          (oft Dae of an alternative fuel  at a steam
                                                         generating unit to the extent that the fuel
                                                         fc generated from municipal solid waste;
                                                          (e) Use of an alternative fuel or raw mate-
                                                         rial by a atatlonary source which:
                                                          (I) The source was capable of accommo-
                                                         dating  before  December at. I07t, unless
                                                         such change would be prohibited under any
                                                         fcocfwuly   duorccADiG   permit   cotHllifofi
                                                         which  waa established after December 11.
                                                         int.  puruaant  to 40 CFR  U.JI or under
                                                         regulations approved pursuant  to 40 CFR
                                                         Subpart I or I ll.ltt; or
                                                          (1) The source la approved to use under
                                                         any permit Issued under this ruling;
                                                          (/) An Incitaea In the noun of operation
                                                         er  to  the  production rale, unless  such
                                                         chant* la prohibited under any federally en-
                                                         forceable permit condition which waa i
         I alter December II. 107t pursuant to
    «0 CVM 11.11 er under regulations approved
    pursuant to 4t CFR Bubpart I or | SUM;
      (*> Any change In ownership at a station-
    ary aource.
      t. (I) "Net eaolastons Increase" aaeane the
    amount by which the sum of the following
    exooodaaero:
      (a) Any Inmees In actual eesxMfana from
    • particular physical change or change In
    the method  of operation  at a stationary
    aoum;and
      <•) Any other Increases and neeriases hi
    actual emissions at the aource thai are con-
    temporaneous with the  particular change
    and are otherwise creditable.
      (II) An Increase or decrease an actual emkv
    atons la contemporaneous with the Increase
    from the particular change only If It occurs
    between:
      (a) The date five years before construc-
    tion on the  particular change commences
    and
      (•I The date that the  Increase from the
    particular change occurs.
      (Ill)  An  Increase or decrease  In  actual
    emissions to creditable only If the Adminis-
    trator  has not relied  on It hi  Issuing a
    permit  for the source under this Ruling
    which  permit la In effect  when the Increase
    In  actual  emissions from  the  particular
    change occurs.
      (Iv)  An Increase In  actual emissions  to
    creditable only to the extent that the new
    level of actual  emissions exceeds the old
    level.
      (VIA decrease In actual  emissions to credit-
    able only to the extent that:
      (a) The old level of actual emissions or the
    old level of allowable emissions, whichever
    to lower,  exceeds  the  new  level of actual
    emissions;
                            Port 51, App. S
    
      (6) It to federally enforceable at and after
    the time that  actual construction  on the
    particular change begins;
      (e) The reviewing authority ha* not relied
    en It In  Issuing any permit  under regula-
    tions approved pursuant to 40 CFR (I.It;
    and
      (4) It haa approximately the same qualita-
    tive significance for public  health and wel-
    fare aa that attributed to the Increase from
    the particular change.
      (vl) An Increase that results from a physi-
    cal change  at  a source occurs when the
    emissions unit on which construction oc-
    curred becomes operational and begins to
    emit  a particular  pollutant. Any replace-
    ment unit that requires shakedown becomes
    operational  only after  a reasonable shake-
    down period, not to exceed 100 daya.
      7. "Emlaslone unit" means  any pert of a
    atatlonary  aource  which  emits or  would
    have  the potential to emit  any pollutant
    subject to regulation under the Act.
      t. "Secondary emissions" mean* emissions
    which would oacur aa a result of the con-
    struction or operation of a major atatlonary
    aource or major modification,  but do not
    come from the major stationary source or
    asajor modification (Uelf. For the purpose
    of thto Rulbit. aecondary emtoskm* must be
    apedfte.  well  defined, quantifiable,  and
    Impact the aame general area a* the station-
    ary aource or modification which causes the
    secondary emissions.  Secondary  emissions
    Include nnkwJons from any offalte support
    faelllly which would not be constructed or
    Increase IU  emissions except a* a result of
    the construction or operation of the major
    stationary  source  or major modification.
    Secondary  emissions  do not Include any
              which  come  directly  from  a
                   uch as emissions from the
    tailpipe of a motor vehicle, from a train, or
    from a vessel.
      t. "Fugitive emissions" means those etnls-
           whteh  could  not  reasonably  pass
             a stack, chimney, vent, or  other
    functionally equivalent opening.
      It.  (I) "Significant" means.  In reference to
    • net emtaalona Increase or the potential of
    a aource to emit any of the following pollut-
    ants, a rate of emission* that  would equal or
    exceed any of the following rates:
    
           Pollutant and emissions Kate
    Carbon monoxide: 100 tons per year (tpy)
    Nitrogen oxides: 40 tpy
    Sulfur dioxide: 40 tpy
    Paniculate  matter:  2S tpy  of  paniculate
      matter emissions
    Ocone: 40 tpy of volatile organic compounds
    Lead: t.t tpy
      II. "Allowable emissions" mean* the emto-
    atom  rate  calculated using  the maximum
    rated capacity of the  aource  (unleas the
    source Is subject  to  federally enforceable
                                                                                                                                           789
    

    -------
    Port 51, App. S
    
    HmlU which  restrict the operating rate, or
    hours of operation, or both) and  the most
    •trlnient of the following:
      (I) Applicable standards aa set forth In 40
    CFR Paris 00 and 81;
      (II) Any applicable Stale Implementation
    Plan emissions limitation. Including those
    with a future compliance date: or
      (III) The emissions rale specified aa a  fed-
    erally enforceable permit condition, Includ-
    Ini thoae with a future compliance date.
      II. "Federally enforceable" means all limi-
    tations  and conditions which  are  enforcea-
    ble by  the Administrator. Including those
    requirements developed pursuant to 40 CFR
    Parts 00  and 01.  requirements within  any
    applicable State Implementation Plan,  and
    any permit requirements established pursu-
    ant to this Ruling. 40 CFR 62.31. or under
    regulations approved pursuant to 40  CPR
    Bubpartlor  I&1.I08
      13. (I)   "Actual  emissions"  means  the
    actual rate of emissions of a pollutant from
    an emissions unit as determined In accord-
    ance with paragraphs 10. (lit through -»»tng categories:
       (I)  Coal  clr» ,.  i plants (with thermal
    
      dryers):
       (1) Kraft pulp mills:
        (3) Portland cement plants;
        (4) Primary sine smelters:
        (S) Iron and steel mills;
        (6)   Primary  aluminum  ore   reduction
    
       plants;
        (1) Primary copper smelters;
        (•)  Municipal  Incinerators  capable of
       charging more than ISO tons of refuse per
    
       day:
         (•)  Hydrofluoric, sulturic. or nitric add
    
       plants;
         (10) Petroleum refineries;
         (11) Ume plants;
         (12) Phosphate rock processing plants;
         (13) Coke oven batteries;
         (14) Sulfur recovery plants;
         (15) Carbon black  plants  (furnace proc-
    
        ess):
          (10) Primary lead smellers;
          (11) Fuel conversion plants:
          (IB) Sintering planls;
     (23)'lacoiuvc»..
     (24) Olass fiber processing piama.
     (26) Charcoal production plants;
     (30) Fossil fuel-fired sleam electric plants
    of more lhan 350 million British  thermal
    units per hour heat Input,
      (31) Any oilier stationary source  category
    which, aa of August 1. USD. Is being regulat-
    ed under section III or 113 of Ihe Act.
       O. Secondary emissions. Secondary emis-
    sions need not be considered In determining
    whether the emission rates In Section IIC.
     above would be exceeded.  However.  It a
     source Is subject to this Ruling on the basis
     of the direct emissions from the source, the
     applicable conditions of this Ruling must
     also be mel for secondary emissions. Howev-
     er, secondary emissions may be exempt
      from Conditions 1 and 2 of Section IV. Also.
      since BPA's authority to perform or require
      Indirect  source review  relating   to mobile
      sources  regulated under Title  II of the Act
       (motor  vehicles and aircraft) has been re-
       • • — w. .t.tute. consideration of the In-
                                       .- -•.„.»
                sources ream...	
                (motor vehicles and aircraft) has neen i«=-
                stricted by statute, consideration of the In
                direct Impacts of motor vehicles and alrcratl
                traffic Is not required under this Ruling.
    
                 III. Souaccs LOCATING in DnioHATra dun
                    oa UNCLASsimaLC ABKAB WHICH WOOLS)
                    CAUSE oa Conmisimt TO A VIOLATION or
                    a  NATIONAL   AMBICHT   Am  QUALITY
    
                    STANDARD
                    A.  This section applies only  to  major
                  sources or major modifications which would
                  locate  In an  area  designated  In 40 CFR
                  11.300 el sec.  as attainment or unclassltlable
                  In a slate where EPA has nol yet approved
                  the state preconstructlon review program
                  required by 40 CFR 51 t«5(b). If the source
                  or  modification would exceed the following
                   significance  levels at any locality lhal does
                   nol meel the NAAQ8.
                   PotUIW*
         SO.
          NO.
          CO
    ,„ ,*/•«
    I 0 !••"•
    10 !•«"
                                                    24
                                                »(•*""'
                                                            05 rm/
                                                                                                                                             791
                                              790
                                                                                                          «> IH
    

    -------
      Port 51, App. S
    
       R. 8ourcei to »likh «hl» lection applies
      must meet Condltloiu I. 1. and 4 of Section
      IV.A. of this ruling.1 However, iiich tourer*
      may be exempt from Condition 3 of Section
      IV.A. of this ruling.
       C. Review o/ ipeclfled sources /or air gual-
      llt Impact For "stable" sir polluUnU (I.e.
     SO., paniculate matter and CO), the deter
     mutation of whether a source will cause or
     contribute to a violation of ui NAAQS gen-
     erally should  be made on a case-by-case
     basis aa of the proposed new source's start-
     up date using  the aource'a allowable emis-
     sions la an  atmoapherlc  almulatlon model
     (unleai a aource will clearly Impact on a re-
     ceptor which exceeds an NAAQS).
      For source* of nitrogen oxldea. the Initial
     determination  of  whether  a  aource would
     cause or contribute to a  violation of the
     NAAQS for  NO. ahould be made  uslnf an
     atmospheric almulatlon model assuming all
     the nitric oxide emitted Is ox Mixed to NO,
     by the tune the plume reaches around level.
     the Initial concentration estimates may be
     adjusted If  adequate data, are available to
     account for the expected oxidation  rate.
      fat oaone. sources of volatile organic com-
     pounds, locatlni outside a designated oaone
     nonattaJiunent area,  will  be presumed to
     have no significant Impact on the  designat-
     ed nonatubunent area. If ambient monitor-
     Ing Indicates that the area of source loca-
     tion  Is In fact nonattalnment. then the
     source may be permitted  under the provi-
     sions of any slate plan adopted pursuant to
     section IKXaMIMD) of the  Act until the
     area  Is  designated  nnnailalnment  and a
     State  Implementation Plan revision Is ap-
     proved. If no stale plan pursuant to section
     llMaMlND)  has  been adopted  and ap-
     proved, then this Ruling shall apply.
      Aa noted above, the determination M to
     whether • source would cause or contribute
     to • violation of an NAAQS ahould be made
    as of the new source's start-up date. There-
    for*. M • designated nonatUlnment area Is
    projected to be an attainment are* as part
    of an approved SIP control strategy by the
    new source start-up dale, offsets would not
    be required If  the new source would not
    cause a new violation.
      D. Source* locating <• "clem* arras." tat
     would ravse • new tHofatlnt o/ an NAAQS.
     If the reviewing  authority  finds that the
    emissions from  • proponed  source would
    cause a new violation ol  an  NAAQS. but
     would not contribute to an existing viola-
     tion, approval may be granted only If both
     of the following conditions are met:
              40 CFR Ch. I (7-l-M Edition)
    
      Cbnstifton I The new source Is required to
     meet a more stringent emission limitation*
     and/or the control of existing sources below
     allowable levels  Is  required  so  that the
     source  will  not cause a  violation  of any
     NAAQS.
      Condition 1. The new emission limitations
     for the new source as well as any existing
     sources affected must be enforceable In ac-
     cordance with the mechanisms set forth  In
     Section V of this appendix.
    
        IV. Bounces THAT Woou> I/ran in *
         DcaumsTBD HonATrAinMxnT ASKA
    
      A. Condition* for approval. If the review-
     Ing authority finds that the major station-
     ary source or major modification would be
     constructed In an area designated In 40 CPU
     •1.100 el see as nonattalnment for a pollut-
    ant for which the stationary source or modi-
     fication Is major, approval may be granted
    only If the following conditions are met:
      Condition I. The new source Is required to
    meet an emission Limitation*  which specl-
      •The discussion In this paragraph Is a
    proposal,  but  represents EPA's Interim
    policy until final rulemsklng Is completed.
      •If the  reviewing  authority determines
     that technological or economic limitations
     on the application of measurement method-
     ology to a particular class of source* would
     make the Imposition of an enforceable nu-
     merical emission standard Infeaslble. the au-
     thority may Instead prescribe a design, oper-
     ational or  equipment standard.   In  such
     cases, the reviewing authority shall make Its
     best estimate a* to the emission  rate that
     will be achieved and must specify that rate
     In the required submission to EPA (see Part
     V). Any permits Issued without an enforcea-
     ble numerical emission standard must con-
     lain enforceable conditions  which assure
     that the design characteristics or equipment
     will  be properly  maintained (or  that  the
     operational conditions will be properly per-
     formed) so as to continuously achieve the
     assumed dcgiee of control. Such condition*
     shall be enforceable as emission limitations
     by private parties under section 304. Hereaf-
     ter, the  tern "emlaslon limitation" shall
    also  Include such design,  operational,  or
    equipment standards.
      •II  the reviewing  authority  determines
    that technological or  economic limitation*
    on the application of measurement method-
    ology to a particular class of source* would
    make the Imposition of an  enforceable nu-
    merical emission standard Infeaslble. the au-
    thority may Instead prescribe a design, oper-
    ational  or  equipment standard.  In such
    cases, the reviewing authority shall make Its
     best estimate aa to the emission rate that
     will be achieved and must specify that rate
    In the required submission to EPA (see Part
    V). Any permits Issued without an enforcea-
    ble numerical emission standard must con-
                                    ComtlHMnt
                                           792
    Environmental Protection Agency
    
    lies the lowest achievable emission rate for
    such source.*
      Condition t. The applicant must certify
    that all existing major sources owned or op-
    erated by the applicant (or any entity con-
    trolling, controlled by. or  under common
    control with the apppllcanll In the same
    State as the proposed source are In compli-
    ance with all applicable emission limitations
    and standards under the Act (or are In com-
    pliance with an expeditious schedule which
    Is Federally enforceable or contained In a
    court decree).
      Condition 3. Emission reductions ("off-
    sets") from existing sources* In the area of
    the proposed source (whether or not under
    the same ownership) are required such that
    there will be reasonable progress toward at-
    tainment of the applicable NAAQs.'
      Only Intrapollutant  emission offsets will
    be acceptable  (e.g.. hydrocarbon Increases
    may not be offset against SO, reductions).
       Condition 4. The emission offsets will pro-
     vide a positive net air  quality benefit In the
     affected area (see Section 1V.D. below).* At-
                                                     tain enforceable  conditions which assure
                                                     that the design characteristics or equipment
                                                     will be prop"'   maintained (or  that the
                                                     operational co».n<.ions will be properly per-
                                                     formed) so as to continuously achieve the
                                                     assumed degree of control. Such conditions
                                                     shall be enforceable as emission Nmltatlons
                                                     by private parties under section 3M. Hereaf-
                                                     ter, the  term "emission limitation"  shall
                                                     also  Include such  design,  operational, or
                                                     equipment standards.
                                                        •Required only for those pollutants  fo*
                                                      whkh  the  Increased  allowable  emissions
                                                      exceed M tons per year. IOM pounds  per
                                                      day. or 100 pounds per hour, although  the
                                                      reviewing authority may addrts*  other pol-
                                                      lutants If deemed appropriate. The preced-
                                                      ing hourly and dally rate* shall apply only
                                                      with respect to a pollutant for which a na-
                                                      tional  ambient air quality standard, lor  a
                                                      period less than 14 hour* or for a 14-hour
                                                      period, as appropriate, ha* been established.
                                                        • Subject to the provision* of section IV.C.
                                                      below.
                                                         •The discussion In this  paragraph  Is  a
                                                      proposal, but  represent*  EPA's Interim
                                                      policy until final rulemaklng • completed.
                                                         • tt«nilmi only  for those pollutants f<
        HlCy IUI1.II IIIMM •«••«...»—	v	
        •Required  only for those pollutants  for
       which  the Increased  allowable  emissions
       exceed  M tons per  year. 1000 pound*  per
       day. or 100 pounds per hour, although  the
       reviewing authority  may address other pol-
       lutants If deemed appropriate.  The preced-
       ing hourly and dally rates shall apply only
       with respect to a pollutant for which a na-
       tional ambient air quality standard, for a
       period  less than  14  hours or for a 14-hour
       period, ss appropriate, has been established.
                            Part SI, App. S
    
    mospherlc simulation modeling Is not neces-
    sary for volatile organic compounds and
    NO.. Fulfillment of Condition 3 and Section
    IV.D. will be considered  adequate to meet
    this condition.
      B. exemption* from certain condition*.
    The reviewing  authority may exempt the
    following  sources from Condition I under
    Section III or Conditions 3  and 4.  Section
    IV.A.:
      (I) Resource  recovery  facilities burning
    municipal solid waste, snd (II) sources whkh
    must switch  fuels due to lack of adequate
    fuel supplies or where a source  Is required
    to  be modified ss a result of EPA regula-
    tions (e.g.. lead In fuel requirements) and no
    exemption from such regulation  Is available
    to  the aource.  Such an exemption  may be
    granted only If:
      I. The applicant  demonstrate*  that   It
    made  Its best  efforts to obtain sufficient
    emission offsets to comply with  Condition 1
     under Section III or Conditions 3 and  4
     under Section  IV.A.  and that such efforts
     were unsuccessful;
      a. The applicant has secured all available
     emission offsets: and
      I. The applicant will continue to  seek the
     necessary emission offsets and  apply them
     when they become available.
      Such an exemption may result In  the need
     to revise the SIP to provide additional con-
     trol of existing sources.
       Temporary emission source*, such as pilot
     plants, portable facilities whkh will be relo-
     cated outside of the  nonatUlnment area
     after a short  period ol  time, and emissions
     resulting from the construction phase ot a
     new source, are exempt from Conditions 3
     and 4 of this section.
        C.  Baseline /or  determining credit for
      rmUrlon and air oaolifv affteU The base-
      line lor determining credit lor emission and
      air quality  offset* will be the SIP emission
      limitation*  to effect at the time the applies
      Uon to construct or modify a aource I* filed.
      Thus, credit  lor emission  offset  purpose*
      •lay be allowable for extorting control that
      toe* beyond that required by the SIP. Emis-
      sion offset* generally should be made on a
      pounds per hour basis when all facilities In-
      volved fen  the emission offset calculations
      are operating at their maximum expected or
      allowed  production rate.  The  reviewing
      agency  should specify other averaging peri-
      od*  (e.g. ton* per  year) In addition to  the
      pounds per hour basis If necessary to carry
      out the Intent ot this Ruling.  When offset*
      are calculated on a ton* per year basis,  the
      baseline emissions  for existing sources pro-
      viding the offsets should be calculated using
       the actual annual  operating hours for  the
       previous one or two year period (or other
       appropriate  period If warranted by cyclical
       business  conditions).  Where  the SIP  re
       quires certain hardware controls In lieu of
                                                                                                                                          793
    

    -------
    Port SI, App. S
    
    an  emlulon  limitation  (e.g.. floating roof
    Unkj for petroleum storage), baseline allow-
    able emlHloiu should be based on actual op-
    eratlnt oondltlom lor the previous one or
    two year period (I.e.. actual throughput and
    vapor pressures) In conjunction with the re-
    quired hardware controls.
      1. No meaningful or  applicable SIP  re-
    quirement  Where the applicable SIP doe*
    not contain  an emlulon limitation for a
    source or  source category,  the emlulon
    offset baseline Involving such sources shall
    be  the actual emissions  determined In  ac-
    cordance with the discussion above regard-
    ing operating conditions.
      Where the SIP emission limit  allow*
    greater  emission* than  the uncontrolled
    emission rate of the source (as when a State
    has a single paniculate emission limit for all
    fuels), emission offset credit wl|l be allowed
    only  for control  below the uncontrolled
    emission rate.
      J. Combustion o/ fuelt. Generally, the
    emissions for determining emission offset
    credit Involving an existing fuel combustion
    source will  be the allowable emission* under
    the SIP for the type of fuel being burned at
    the time the  new source application I* filed
    (I e.. If the  eilsUng source ha* switched to a
    different type of fuel at some earlier date.
    any remitting  emission  reduction  lelther
    actual or allowable! shall not be  used  for
    emission offset  credit).  If the  existing
    source commit* to switch to a cleaner fuel at
    aome  future date, emission offset credit
    baaed on the allowable  emissions  for the
    fuel*  Involved to not acceptable unless the
    permit I* conditioned to require the use of a
    •pacified alternative eonlrol measure which
    would achieve the same degree of emission
    reduction should the source switch back to a
    dirtier fuel at some later date. Ttie review-
    Ing authority should ensure that adequate
    long-term supplies of the new fuel are avail-
    able before granting emission offset credit
    for fuel switches.
      «. Operating noun and* source thuUown.
    A source may be credited with emission re-
    duction* achieved by shutting down an ex-
    isting source  or permanently curtailing pro-
    duction or operating hours below baseline
    level* (*n  Initial discussion to this Section
    C)  provided,  that the work force to be af-
    fected ha* been notified of the proposed
    shutdown  or curtailment. Emission offset*
    that  Involve reducing operating hour* or
    production or source shutdowns must be le-
    gally  enforceable, as In the case for all emis-
    sion offset situations.*
      •Source shutdowns and curtailments In
     production or  operating  hours occurring
     prior to the dale the new source application
     Is filed generally may not be used for emis-
     sion offset credit. However, where an appli-
     cant can establish that It shut down or cur-
              40 CM! Ch. I (7-1-M Edition)
    
      4.  Credit for  VOC substitution.  As set
    forth In the Agency's "Recommended Policy
    on Control of Volatile Organic Compounds"
    (42 PR 353U. July 8. 1977). EPA has found
    that almost all non-methane VOCs are pho
    tochemlcally reactive and  that low reactiv-
    ity VOCs eventually form as much ozone a*
    the  highly reactive  VOCs.  Therefore,  no
    emission offset credll may be allowed for re-
    placing one VOC compound with another of
    lesser  reactivity, except  for those  com-
    pounds listed In Table 1 of the above policy
    statement.
      S. "Banking" of emUiion afftet credit For
    new sources obtaining permits by applying
    offset* after January 16. IB7>, the reviewing
    authority  may allow offset* that exceed the
    requirement* of reasonable progress toward
    attainment (Condition 3) to be  "banked"
    (I.e.. saved to provide offset* for a source
    seeking a permit In the future) for use
    tinder this Ruling. Likewise, the  reviewing
    authority  may allow the owner of an exist-
    ing source that reduce* It* own emissions to
    bank any  resulting reductions beyond those
    required by  the SIP  for  use under  this
    Ruling, even  If none of the offset* are  ap-
    plied Immediately to a new source permit. A
    reviewing  authority may allow these banked
    offset* to  be used under the preconstrucllon
    review program required by Part D. a* long
    a* these banked emissions are Identified and
    accounted for In the SIP control strategy. A
    reviewing  authority  may  not approve the
    construction of a source using banked off-
    set* If the new source would Interfere with
    the  SIP  control strategy  or If  such use
    would violate any other condition set forth
    for use of offset*. To preserve banked off-
    set*, the reviewing authority should Identify
    them In either a SIP revision or a permit.
    and establish rules a* to how and when they
    may be u*ed.
      •. Offtet credll fat nutting NSPS or NS-
    SHtPS. Where  a source  to  subject to an
    emlulon  limitation  established In a New
    Source Performance Standard (NSPS) or a
    National Emission Standard  for Hazardous
    Air  Pollutant* (NE8HAPS). U*. require-
    ment* under sections III and 111. respec-
    tively, of the Act), and a different SIP limi-
    tation, the more stringent limitation shall
    be used  a*  the baseline for  determining
    credit for emission and air quality offset*.
    The difference  In emission* between  Ihe
    SIP and the NSPS or NESHAPB. for such
                                                                                                             Protection Agoncy
                                                                                                                                                               Part 51, App. S
     tailed production after August  1. 1177. or
     leu than  one year prior to the date of
     permit application, whichever Is  earlier, and
     the proposed new  source to  a replacement
     for the shutdown or curtailment, credll for
     such shutdown or curtailment may  be ap-
     plied  to  offset  emissions  from the new
     source.
    I**—-
    Murce may not be  used as offset credit.
    However. II a source were nol subject lo an
    NSPS or NE8HAPS. lor example If It* con-
    struction had commenced prior to Ihe pro-
    lotal  of an  NSPS or NE8HAP8 for  that
    Source category, offset credit can be permit-
    ted lor tightening the SIP to the NSPS or
    NE8HAP8 level for such source.
      D. location of of/letting emiuions. In the
    cue of emission offsets Involving volatile or-
    ganic compounds (VOC), Ihe oflsel* may be
    obtained from sources located anywhere In
     the broad vicinity  of  the proposed  new
     source. Generally, offset* will be acceptable
     II obtained from within the same AQCR a*
     the new source or from olher area* which
     may be contributing to Ihe ozone problem
     al Ihe proposed  new  source  location. A*
     with  olher  pollutants. U  to  desirable to
     obtain offset* Irom source* located as close
     to Ihe proposed new source site as possible.
     If  Ihe proposed  offset*  would be  from
     sources located  al greater distances from
      the new source,  the reviewing  authority
      should Increase the  ratio of the required
      offset* and require a showing lhal  nearby
      oflsel* were Investigated and reasonable al-
      ternatives were nol available."
        Oltsel* tor NO. sources may also be ob-
      tained within the broad vicinity ol the pro-
      posed new source. This to because areawlde
      ozone and NO, levels are generally not a*
      dependent on specific VOC or NO. source
      location a* they are on overall area emis-
      sions. Since Ihe  air quality Impact of SO*
       paniculate and carbon monoxide sources to
       site dependent, simple areawlde mass emis-
       sion offsets are not appropriate. For these
       pollutants. Ihe reviewing authority should
       consider atmospheric simulation modeling
        to ensure that the emission offset* provide a
        positive net air quality benefit. However, to
        avoid  unnecessary consumption of limited.
        cosily and lime consuming modeling re-
        sources. In most case* It  can be auumed
        that If the  emlulon offsets are obtained
        from an existing source on the same prem-
        ises or In the Immediate vicinity of the new
        source,  and the pollutant* disperse  from
        substantially  the  same   effeellve stack
         height, the air quality lest under Condition
         4 of Section IV.A. of this appendix will be
         met.  Thus, when stack emlulon* are offaet
         against a ground level source at the same
         site,  modeling would be  required.  The re-
         viewing authorily may perform this analysts
          or require Ihe applicant to submll appropri-
          ate modeling result*.
           E. Reasonable  proaress  towards attain-
          ment A* long as the emlulon otlsel to great-
          er than one-for-one. and the olher criteria
          sel  forth above are  mel. EPA  does nol
    
    
            "The discussion In this paragraph to  a
          proposal,  bul  represent* EPA's Interim
          policy until final rulemaklng to completed.
    Intend to question a reviewing authority's
    Judgment as to what commutes reasonable
    progress towards  attainment as  required
    under Condition 1 In Section IV.A. of this
    appendix. This does not apply to "reasona-
    ble further progress as required by Section
    
    17J.
      P. Sourer obUpalion  Al such time that a
    particular source or modification becomes a
    major stationary source or major modifies
     lion solely by virtue of a relaxation In any
     enforceable   limitation which  was  estab-
     lished alter  August 7.  1980. on the capacity
     of the source or  modification otherwise to
     emit a pollutant, such as a restriction on
     hours  of operation, then the requirements
     of this Ruling shall apply to the source or
     modification as  though construction had
     nol yel commenced on the source or modlfl
     cation.
            V. ADMIHISTKATIVK Paoccouaca
        The necessary emission  offset* may be
      proposed either by the owner of the pro-
      posed source or by the local community or
      the State. The emission reduction commit-
      ted to  must be enforceable by authorized
                       l aencies and
    l»v ww,	
    ted to must  be  enforceable by »uiilu. ,,^u
    State and/or local agencies and under the
    Clean Air Act, and must be accomplished by
    the new source's start-up date. If emission
    reductions are to be obtained In a State thai
    neighbors the  Slate  In  which   the  new
    source to to be located, the emission reduc-
    tions commuted lo must be enforceable by
     the neighboring State and/or local agencies
     and  under  the Clean Air Act. Where the
     new  facility to  a replacement lor a facility
     thai to being shut down In order to provide
     the necessary oflsel*. the reviewing author-
     ity may allow up to 180 days lor shakedown
     ot the new facility before the existing faclll
     ly to required lo cease operation.
       A. Source Initiated  emission  offttt*.  A
     source may propose emlulon offsets which
    
      Involve:
        (1) Reductions from sources controlled by
      the source owner (Internal emlulon offsets);
      and/or (3) reductions  Irom neighboring
      •ourees (external emlulon  offset*). The
      source doe* nol have to Investigate all possi-
      ble emission offset*. A* long a* the emlulon
       offsets  obtained   represent   reasonable
       progreu toward attainment, they will be ac-
       ceptable. It to Ihe reviewing authority's re
       •ponslblllty to assure lhal Ihe emlu'on off
       set* will be a* effective a*  proposed by the
       source. An Internal emluton offset will be
       considered enforceable If It' to  made a SIP
       requirement by Inclusion a* a  condition ol
       the new source permit and Ihe permit to for-
        warded to Ihe  appropriate EPA  Reglonr*
        Office." An external emlulon otfsel will not
    
    
          "The emission  offset will,  therefore,  be
        enforceable  by EPA under section 113 as an
                                        Oifllniu-d
                                            794
                                                                                                                                           795
    

    -------
        few* SI, Apo>. U
    
        be enforceable unless the affected source**)
        providing the emission reductions Is subject
        to • new SIP requirement to ensure that IU
        emissions will be reduced  by a specified
        amosuit In a  specified  lime.  Thus. If  the
        sources) providing the emission reductions
        does not obtain the necessary reduction. It
        will be In violation of a SIP requirement and
       subject to enforcement action by EPA. the
       SUte and/or private parties.
        The form of the SIP revision may be a
       SUte or local  regulation,  operating permit
       condition, consent or enforcement order, or
       any other mechanism available to the SUte
       that Is enforceable under the Clean Air Act.
       If a  SIP revision Is  required, the public
       hearing on the revision may be substituted
       for the normal public comment procedure
       required for all major sources under 40 CPR
       11.10. The formal publication of the SIP re-
      vision approval In the  FBMOAI.  Rsaisra
      need not appear before the source may pro-
      ceed with construction. To minimize uncer-
      tainty that may be caused by theae proce-
      dures. EPA will. If requested by the State.
      propose a SIP revision for  public comment
      In the PSDSHAL  Rsnisra concurrently with
      the State public hearing process. Of course,
      any major change In the final perralt/SIP
      revision submitted by the State may require
      a reproposal by EPA.
        B. State or eommanlf* initiates1 emtsttosj
      40WU A State or community which desires
      that • aource locate In IU area may commit
      to reducing emissions from existing sources
      (Including  mobile sources)  to sufficiently
     outweigh the Impact of the  new aource and
     thus open the way for  the  new source. As
     with source-Initiated emission offsets, the
     oommltmenl must be something more than
     one-for-one. This commitment must be sub-
     mitted as a SIP revision by the State.
    
      VI. Poucr WHS»« ArrAiMknorr DATSS IUVB
                    HOT PASSSD
    
       In some eaves, the dates for attainment of   '
    primary standards  specified  In  the SIP
    under section 110 have not yet passed due to
    a delay In the promulgation of a plan under
    this section of the Act. In addition the Act
    provides more flexibility with respect to the
    dates for attainment of  secondary NAAQ8
    than  for primary standards. Rsther  than
    selling  sperlfk  deadlines, section 110 re-
    quires aeeon'lary  NAAQH to be  achieved
    within a "reasonable lime". Therefore,  In
    some esses, the dale for attainment of see-
    ondary standards specified In the SIP under
    section 110 may also not yet have passed. In
    such cases, a new source locating In an area
    designated In 40 CPR 01.1000 el teg as  mm-
    attainment (or.  where flection III of  this
     Ruling  Is applicable, a new source which
     would csuse or contribute to an NAAQ8 vio-
     lation) may be exempt from the Condition*
     of Section IV. A. so long as the new source
     meeU the applicable SIP  emissions limita-
     tions and will not Interfere with Ihe attain.
     merit date specified In the SIP under section
     110 of the Act
    
     (Sees.  lOl(bMI). 110. 100-100. 171-170. and
     WKs). Clean Air Act. as amended (43 U.S.C
     740KbMl). 7410. 7470-7470. 7SOI-7SOO. and
     7001(a)): see. I30(s>. Clean Air Act  Amend
     menU  of 1077 (Pub. L. OS-OS. 01 Slat. OOS
     (Aug.. 7.1077»)
    
     144 PR 1303. Jan. 10.1070. as amended al 41
     PR 31111. May 11. 1000: 46 PR B374I. Aug
     7.  1080; 4S PR SOI70. Sept.  II. 1000; 40 PR
     10771. Oct. 14. 1011:  47  PR 37B01. June 36
     1003: 40 PR 41310.  Oct. 30. 1004;  SI PR
    40001. 4007S. Nov. 7. IOM; S3 PR 34714. July
    I. 1007; 63 PR M300. Aug 7. 10071
    
                     T—(RtsnvKDj
                                                  Amtmix O—CLCAN Am ACT SECTION
                                                             174 OUIDBLIMU
    
                                                 OOIMBNX OH DCSieNATION Of lMU> PUIIIIIM
                                                    OaauiUATioiis   roa    NOHATTAIMMDIT
                                                    ASIA* *jn) on DRSHMINATIOH or lima-
                                                    AODICY   RsaronsiaiuTin.   Dscnsta
                                                    1077,  ISSOBB JoinrLT ST nu O.8. Emri-
                                                    •OSMaHTAL PBOTBCTION AoSXCT SMS) THS
                                                    U.S. DcrASTwurr  or  TaAHsro*TATion.
                                                    WASHIMOTON. D.C.
    
    
                                                            TABLE or CONTENTO
                                                                                                                P>.,.d.on
                                                   IS
                                                I. teuton 01 * iMd nsnrtng OtvUlMon
                                                   M CritarM to S*toc«n|  be -en.'to
    the Office of Transportation and Land Use
    Polie,  (AW-44S,.  US  Environ,^, Z£
    lection Agency. 401 M Street.  S.W.. W«.h
                                                             DC 30400.  Altenllon: Ms. Martha
                                                             Ms. Burke'* telephone number  Is
                                                       «iil 766-0670. Questions concerning specif
                                                       |;,Ute or local areas should be directed U
                                                       III* appropriate EPA regional office.
                                                                                                                                      to
                                                                                                  lh«
                                                                                                              . InnoDocrioH
                                                                                                   These guidelines are applicable to all met-
                                                                                                 moolltsn area regions or portions of regions
                                                                                                 Untie  the  national  ambient  air  quality
                                                                                                 gujidards for ocone or carbon monoxide will
                                                                                                 [Jot be stlalned by July I. 1070.
                                                        The purposes of these guidelines Include:
                                                        I. TO recommend procedures and criteria
                                                      (or determining a lead agency to be respon-
                                                      sible lor coordinating the preparation of the
                                                      Implementation plan revisions called  for by
                                                      the 1177 amendments to the Clean Air Act
                                                      (Pub. U OS-OS) In metropolitan area regions
                                                      •here carbon monoxide or osone standards
                                                      •111 not be attained by July 1070.
                                                        1. To assist state and local governments In
                                                      Identifying the Initial planning. Implemen-
                                                      tation. and enforcement responsibilities for
                                                      the plan revisions and In establishing a
                                                      process for further definition of responslbll-
                                                      Wes as development  of the revisions pro-
                                                     3. To encourage further coordination and
                                                   eomolldaUon of federally  sponsored plan-
                                                   ning programs. This Includes  the Integra-
                                                   tion of the new transportation related air
                                                   eusllty requirements under Pub. U M-M
                                                   Into the transportation planning process re-
                                                   quired by federal transportation grant stat-
                                                   utes.
                                                   It Baekoromid.
                                                     On August 7.  1077. President  Carter
                                                   signed Into taw  the first  comprehensive
                                                   amendments  to the Clean Air Act sine*
                                                   1070. Among the more Important changes In
                                                   the Clean Air Act are provisions encourag-
                                                   ing local governments and organizations of
                                                   local elected  officials to assume additional
                                                   responsibilities In  the development. Imple-
                                                   mentation, and enforcement  of  plans  to
                                                   attain national ambient air quality stand
                                                   ards. Such plans were first required under
                                                   the  1070 amendmenU to the Clean Air Act
                                                   The 1077 amendments require plan revi-
                                                   sions tor areas where standards  have  not
                                                   been attained.
                                                     The assumption  of additional responslMI-
                                                   Hies by local governments and local officials
                                                   Is specifically  encouraged  In  those areas
                                                   where ozone and  carbon monoxide stand-
                                                   ard* will not be attained  by  July  I. 1070
                                                   (section  I74(a». The first  Identification of
                                                   nonsttalnmenl areas for these and other
                                                   pollutant*  under (he requirements of the
                                                    1*77 amendments  must hsve been made by
                                                   •tslei by December 5. 1077.  The Administra-
                                                   tor of Ihr Environment*,! Protection Asjcncy
                           fort 51, Ap». U
    
    (EPA)  must publish a list of these areas.
    with any modification* he  deems necessary.
    by February 1. 1071.
      Par areas where standards for osone and
    carbon monoxide will  not be attained by
    July I, 1070. stale and local elected officials
    must jointly determine by  February 7. 1070.
    their respective responsibilities for the plan
    revisions necessary  to  attain standards by
    the new deadlines In the 1077 amendments.
    The plan element* for which responsibilities
    are to be Jointly determined encompass con-
    trol measures for sll pollutants for which
    standards have not  been attained, not lust
    osone and carbon monoxide.
      The amendmenU require that, where pos-
    sible, the Implementation  plan  revisions be
    prepared by an organization of local elected
    officials designated by agreement  of local
    governmenU. The amendmenU  strongly en-
    courage  preparation  by  the organization
    now responsible for  transportation planning
    under section 114 of Title U. U.8.C.. or for
    air quality  maintenance  planning  (or for
    both).  The designated organization  and IU
    responsibilities must be  certified  by the
    state (or sUles If an Interstate area Is In-
    volved). Where local govemmenU have not
    reached agreement by February 7.1071. the
    governor  must. In  consultation with the
    elected offldato of local govemmenU In the
    affected  area, designate an organization of
    local elected officials or a stole agency to
    prepare the plan revisions. The designation
    by the governor must be hi accordance with
    the Joint delermlnallon  of  responslMlltes
    made by state and local elected officials.
      The  governor  must, under   regulations
    which  the EPA will propose during  Decem-
    ber 1077. submit a notice to the  EPA certify-
    ing the designated  agency for  each nonal-
    Ulnment area or Identifying the organiza-
    tion that he or she has designated.  The
    notice must Include a brief summary of the
    process Involved In  selecting the designated
    agency. A more detailed documentation of
    the selection process shall be  Included as
    part of the plan revisions to be submitted to
    the EPA by January 1.1070. Evidence of the
    Involvement of state legislatures and local
    govemmenU hi required as part of the plan
    revision submltlal (section l7XbMO».
       Only organizations of local  elected offi-
    cials of general purpose governmenU certi-
    fied by the governor will be eligible for the
    granU authorized under section 176 of the
    amendmenU. In  each urban area which Is
    wholly or partially classified as  a nonattaln
    menl area, only one organization will be ell
    glble to receive a grant. The organization re-
    ceiving the grant may use the  grant funds
    to support  plsn revision acllvllks carried
    out by  other governmental organizations.
    public Interest groups, or private  consult
    ants.
                                           796
                                                                                                                                        797
    

    -------
                                                                        C.i.
                     UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                      WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
                                                                             OFFICE or
                                                                             «.KD
    S"J5JiCT:  Improving New Source Review (NSR) Implementation
    
              J. Craig Potter
              Assistant Administrator
                for Air and Radiation (ANR-443)
    
              Recional Administrator
              Recicns I-X
                      1956, I established a special task force to address
    cro^inc concerns  about the consistency and certainty of permits issued
    .-.der tne Clear. Air Act's prevention of significant deterioration and
    r.cnattairjnent area NSR programs.  Based on'the findings and reccranendations
    c:  tne t=s* force, I am today establishing certain program initiatives
    designed tc irrrove the timeliness, 'certainty, and effectiveness of these
    - - 3.- - sjrs .
    
         A great deal of effort will be required to overcome the problems
    -•-icr. have developed, but it is my belief that these problems', with your
    f.ll coopers tier,  and assistance, can be resolved so that these essential
    = :r n-ar.agenent programs can fulfill their intended roles.  Therefore,  I
    .rge each of yoc  to provide the maximum priority and resource consnitments
                        k.
    
         The outstanding concern we now face in these programs is inadequate
    i-.plerentaticn.  The Office of Air and Radiation intends to apply  its
    resource ccr7T7iit.Tier.ts so as to enhance its ability to provide technical
    support and guidance,  training, workshops, auditing, and enforcement
    i.ppcrt to the Regions and delegated programs.  The Regional Offices must
    -5
    -------
    •II -II
    if) MI
    M O
    Q 01
    O..O 1
    • rt>
    
    PI 'U
    «-l 3 ID
    O O. »1
    -. Ih
    pi O
    l -•• 1 -•• ii
    O. i h s|
    l '• f Oi
    :• pi
    • 1 rt
    fl M t->.
    :> PI 3
    > • :• io
    in • • »-•
    • D '<
    • • . i.
    1,' - IU
    l/i 3
    .* 'O O.
    - M
    00
    oi ID M
    <: IB
    fD 0 3-
    Q "I
    o. 5 3
    »• 5 In
    rt> 3 <
    o rr rt)
    it
    ID O. n
    n. c ID
    •i <:
    rt •-•• M-
    3- 3 IB
    rt) UQ C
    
    O rt 0
    Ih 3" l-h
    Mt ID
    »'• rt
    o •-••g
    th !-•• p
    o (r
    »-.. o ^-
    M Q O
    O 1 3
    C (D O
    OJ 3 rt
    1—* ft" M*
    !•• O
    rt IB
    
    
    
    
    
    iQ M
    
    
    M
    ID
    In
    •g
    O
    3 .-
    W .'•
    1-*' ?T"
    ri?
    IB M-
    Ml
    Iti IB
    O -
    £J5
    ID 3
    
    rt *-••
    I-- 3
    JB O*
    *-" *1
    '< a
    ID
    ri O,
    ID
    ?•
    
    -8
    3- P-
    IB rt
    action,
    infornat
    M- rt
    0 3-
    3 IB
    jxl
    egional
    specifi
    Po
    H* 1 h
    M Itl
    "§'
    !-••
    
    
    
    
    i •
    Hi
    in
    i.
    ft,
    •
    
    to
    1 1*
    r~i
    !-••
    "
    rt
    O
    ft
    3
    rti
    m
    •n
    i_i.
    o
    3
    Oi
    ft
    I h
    8
    o
    ;8
    a
    \f
    
    
    01
    rt
    3
    in
    i pentit
    r
    Lf"
    ID
    3
    
    in 'it
    i. ili
    b ;«
    it ri 1
    r t
    ft) i*
    ii, :r in
    in i:
    o. : i l r
    i • '1
    11 i •- l *•
    .1 •• in it
    8 In
    17. f •
    in o
    n 11.
    3 •- rt
    •n :r
    • •• m
    •1.1 3
    r. o :«i
    Jl !-• ID
    !-• C '11
    P. !'*'
    O
    3 3
    O ill P>
    9- "
    a o
    fO n 1 h
    3 ID HI
    rt l/i i ••
    v'8%
    IB 3
    M in O'
    I-'- ID
    0 0
    O. r t (O
    Oi
    3 0
    >< Ih
    pi ft
    t) 3'
    •O ID
    ri
    O ••»
    •IJ H-
    H 3
    M- n>
    pi \->
    rt
    ID 'CI
    O ID
    1 ^
    ro R
    P ir
    ft ti
    in cJ
    o
    I-**
    O
    3
    
    •i rt!
    •u o
    pi ; )'
    fi :»
    ii ri
    in i •
    o
    O HI
    •i '•'
    
    O '-
    • i< in
    1 1< .f
    in (i
    m i |
    ft ^.-
    in
    - - 0
    • M
    
    q
    I/I
    ri
    
    Oi
    0
    m
    <"
    K
    ID
    ?
    111 :.i D i"
    < PI :i 11
    1 • !-• I I .A
    ID •< III 01
    r. in • ••••ri i
    i ••• 3 rt>
    • 1 in
    ID it Oi t/l
    ,1) O. 3" f I-
    i; IB ID IT
    !•• =J n •-!
    • t 0 11 3' 1 '•
    (U 3 r: ID it
    a oi b
    in rt !-• IT rt
    ;i M •-•• ih f)
    r i pi f i i f|
    In rt !••• rt
    r- 3 .1 3'
    O 3 O !.l rti
    • htO ri l ••
    !••• 3 '.«!
    f i :_r o 'ii ID
    3 Q ID «O
    rt) ». O »'
    I-- ih O
    *~\ f t fV * 1
    ID 3- 3 M PI
    •n ID »fi 3 •-•
    rJ f c ID
    Oi »i »O 'O ih
    r I O *D K 1 h
    •-•••ii - t> i-
    op !-• o
    3 M rt • -• rt)
    I/I ID 3- n
    Q, ID Oi
    rtiVl 'n O O
    |j. . 11 M rt Q
    W 'O O Q •-•• 3
    in • «_j.'O o -0
    !•• - ID O ID »-•
    o o in ID
    3 IT rt ID '(J rt
    iu n. in ID
    'i I/I O M
    Oi
    rl
    ID
    ^~«
    1
    .0
    M-
    f *-
    » n r--
    rt ^- p
    3 3" rt pi fu
    ft IB IB iQ ft
    ti O iu H-
    O rt 3 O
    1— IP 5 3 3
    §H' F
    pi r t
    f-». |_»
    O
    
    f ^ 01 II. fl ft ••!
    1 It'll III III 1 •• III
    i i.'i) in * y n,
    1 • 1 -• fl ID  MI
    : i • -•• i -•• t • v.
    O O ni n PI 0
    in 3 3 O 3' 3 n
    • i rti 0. i •
    'IJ •'• O :-l i"
    ill in i h 1 1 •. | ' <
    H O fD HI
    f- 11 rt ih o :.i rt
    O fD 3' ID P> 3"
    O. f) ID III 1 • tO ID
    i ' rt) '« ill
    f) '•••rj O ri M Ul
    < '1 O fp
    •i ID Q T1 O i'-«Il
    ill O.'O '«! ih l h •••
    'fj O i- 0
    O o m ID ot ri 3
    •i *i IB fi •-•• 0'
    ri O. rt) 3 pi |J
    • it ip, in
    3"U O C w O
    ID M O •«•
    o ;o 3 t-i 1 1.
    H''O-*< "I !-<•
    ri ID i_i. Oi O
    ih O O O M rti
    O n i h n m
    fii rr o o.
    ft ~2. ID n pi
    r'- O H ri o
    O rt oi o rti rt
    3 i-'-TJ ID 3"
    8 g'&'S # *
    - *< w p 11 ta pi
    ft h» 3 o •»•
    IT !-•• it P- rt l h
    fD O »-•• rt 10 rt)
    3 O O. O
    VI 3 Oi ^ rl
    6O TJ - fP
    in i-».'O 0,
    a 3 rr l- r
    r>- w !••• I'-'rj
    rt rr n> p n p»
    rt IB •-• Oi 3' M
    m l h rt •••• rt
    n. 3 !-•• ti ij-
    Oi o O ID
    rt O. M 3 Oi W
    O ID
    n> >i —
    ft IV Ip ID
    Lr w rr H it •
    IB M tf W'O
    IP M- M- O *
    50 DI IB In 3 ••
    IB P Hi (V
    •0 tr o (r rt
    "• W r-> 3'
    O 3 ID ID
    3
    fc
    oi :ii o
    i() ID lit
    in Hi i h
    fl O O
    • • :i m pj
    ID P» ih
    in i • 1 •• 1 h
    I/I Ip
    ' •• O O
    O i h ID rt
    l .-• i f« in •-"
    i • .' In <
    O O rti iD
    f. ID 3
    in rt n
    O !-•• O
    fn »; PI a
    r 1 1 '• | — • ^
    rt i • C
    pi i ' rt 3
    1' O KJ-
    n :.i o
    rt> i •• oi
    3 ID -1 rt
    O O.'lJ I'-
    ll 'i O
    •-•• rt O 3
    i h o <:
    i- i'- rr
    O IB 3 IB
    P» 3 iQ rj
    rt in C
    i ••• ri •!) «D
    O " M «
    3 rt) 0 3
    'ti ft M rt
    M 3- pi tr
    p Oi 3 ID
    rt> i"*y
    0. Irt fl ID
    n n -0 M
    'i m i-* a
    ID rt ID P-
    in rti j§ rt
    IB rt
    W pi 3 M.
    C 3 rt a
    O fl. Oi «O
    -.r rt
    Oi O O iQ
    Ul O 3 ID
    .. pi . 3
    '"* »9
    Ib 1? fW
    ti ID 3
    3 »-» o,
    P- ID
    rt 1 h ft
    rt O 3*
    r«- ti IB
    f»'^
    Jj* f-**
    ID O
    3
    PI
    'O ft rt -ri o •« - -,O
    in 3' !-•• pi iD ID i •• i .
    M ID 3 1 1 1 1 f'. i «t pi
    3 ili n ri •••• i •
    •••• (n 2 PI in n i •
    ri rt O !•• i. O (i > 1
    1 1 IH IB r»i :i r i >r\ i i
    IJ- rl x 11 in
    3 ID O rt M M. PI (1 D
    «O 3" 3' ••• 1 • P' .*
    oi PI ID 3 PI > i : t i •
    "O 3 3 O 1 • m 3
    M f>.«O 'Jll M 1 • III LI O
    8 ID ip n. in
    \-> «o in (n'<: -ti
    n> O PI •'• O |l P' lit
    l/i p 3 O i- Oi i • in • i
    I/I l» O. 3 • i ft 3 in : |
    • •-• : IH o ID i.i •
    • 1 I-* ID "CJ " r t
    SID |V • ••• ID
    < Q'Q 3 Oi (l. Ii*
    IB •-•• t* il) 0. o - n
    3 ID l h '1 fD 1 1
    o »; »-•• =i i- • -.- 1 1 i •
    •••• o ••• o o
    IB O 
    
    * ^< ? '"-u 7
    f, f- Oi >1 >1 I
    3-33 pi O rp t i
    fD Hi DI mt> ifl ,11 3
    3 O «O XI ID M c •••
    ti IB 'O 3 pi l • -t»
    oi s^ J •-• n "i »i i ••
    OJ fD rt) '<' * i • PI
    ^ rt y 3 l ft ri i *
    IB M- rt n> t •• o 'O •-•
    '< O 3 in •<:
    D W rt 1/1 ID n
    3 •< in C 3 If pi
    H- O w rt IB to Oi 3
    i-* ID n M- o. n rt n.
    rt it) Si oi 3
    O ID OI O <_l Oi O rl
    3 3 3 1 1» O :.?!••
    ID O. 11 «t i-.
    rt ft i>- Ul
    I'- 7 < IT 01 ^ IB in
    W rB ij- rti O IP  |/i n fD 'rj
    »j- HI Lr »-* IB 116
    3 H- III IV 3 ID M
    «O o rr 5 IB w rl
    m s ili n. 3 f i r'
    rt ri (n pi rt
    3" 0» n> 3 M- Lr
    fp 3 fit IV ^ 1-'
    O. I-* O. ID 1-
    IB In
    3-
    : i
    in
    • i
    ID
    .',!
    
    i ,
    In
    rt
    
    1 1
    j-
    .ri
    
    rf
    o
    IT
    1 1
    i •
    
    Ml
    
    pi
    l .
    rt
    
    • 1
    o
    rt)
    ?
    ft
    in
    » •
    3
    
    a
    
    I
    3
    ri
    OJ
    rf
    O
    3
    t •
    
    
    
    
    
    , j
    3'
    
    • Ii
    ()
    
    \ -'
    9 '
    H
    
    • •*•
    i/i
    pi
    • -•
    
    in
    ft
    
    • it
    3
     |
    in K»
    '»
    ri
    i •
    1 h
    l *•
    O
    ,8
    •i
    ?!
    i ••
    01
    rt
    l ••
    ID
    in
    -»
    
    
    
    
    

    -------
    rlanr.inc as£ Standards  (OAC?S) to start work cr. tne development of  £
    o~rr.it reviev checklist fc: use oy the Regional Office during the public
    ocT.Ter.t period.  The cnecxlist '-ill also be useful ~o State and local
    ace.-.cies" as c. tool for self-audit and to understand what the Environmental
    Protection A'c-e-.cy  (I?.-.) emphasizes when reviewing a proposed penr.it.
    
         -  Review ar.y respcr.se to comments and the final permit to ensure
    that any cutstencine concerns have been resolved satisfactorily-
    
         -  Review tne-permit to operate to ensure that it is consistent with
    the preconstruction permit.
    
         -  Take prompt and appropriate action to deter the issuance or use of
    permits which fail to meet minimal Federal requirements.  I have directed
    OAQPS to work with the Office of General Counsel and the Office of Enforce-
    -ent end Compliance ycr.itorinc to develop guidance for the Regions.!
    Offices or. the ecorooriate lecj" 'mechanisms and orocecures for handlinc
         -  To the extent practicable, prior to perr.it issuance, review
    potential rdnor permit actions which exeirpt an otherwise major source  or
    •edification from a major review  (e.g.,"synthetic" minor sources, major
    sources netting out of review, end 99.9 or 249.9 tons per year sources).
    
         The rrost critical element of these initiatives is the Regional Office
    review of proposed perr.it actions during the public corarent period.  Tr^e
    ~V Ir33 national air audit showed widespread serious permit deficiencies,
    -ar.y of which could have seen corrected without interfering with  State
    and local agency processing if dealt with by E?A during the public
    ccTrent period.  3y uniformly reviewing all major source permit actions
    during the cement period, r?A is able to address deficient reviews or
    t-=r-its oefore tne final permit is issued.  This not only promotes more
    consistency in tne penrlttinc process among the States, but also  provides
    t.-.e -.irr.est decree cf certainty to the applicant that the permit  will  not
    :•= challenged by I?.-, at a later date.  Moreover, if the permit is not
    reviewed end commented on prior to issuance, the possibility of successfully
    challenging the action is greatly diminished, as is the opportunity to
    irrrprove the enforceability cf the permit.
    
         5.-.CT ^eterminaticns—Of all  tne NSR processes, 3ACT (and LASR)
    determinations are perhaps the most misunderstood'and the least correctly
    eppii'.4..  The BACT alternatives,  if presented by the applicant at all,
    are often poorly documented or biased to achieve the Decision the applicant
    desires.
    
         To bring consistency to the BACT process, I have authorized  OAQPS to
    proceed with'developing specific  guidance on the use cf the  "top-down"
    approach to BACT.  The first step in this approach is to determine,  for
    the emission source in question,  the most stringent control  available
    for a similar or identical source or source category,  if it  can  be shown
    tr.at t.-.is level of control is technically cr economically infeasible for
    

    -------
                                       - 4  -
    the source ir. question,  tr.er.  the next  most  strinoer.t  level  cf  control  is
    •ceterr.inec" and similarly evaluated.  This pro-cess  continues until  tne
    3-.ZT level under  consideration  cannot  be eliminated by  any  substantial or
    unique technical, environmental,  or  eccnorr.ic  objections.  Tnus,  tne
    "tsp^-co-T." cpproccr. shifts.tne  burden  cf proof  to  the applicant  to justify
    wr.y tne proposed  source  13  unable to apply  the  oest technology available.
    I: also differs frcrr. other  processes in that  it requires  the applicant to
    analyze a control technology  only if the applicant "opposes  that  level  of
    control; the other processes  required  a full  analysis of  all possible
    types and levels  of'control above the  baseline  case.
    
         The "top-down" approach  is essentially already required for municipal
    waste combustors  pursuant to  the June  22, 1967,  Adminis'trator's  remand to
    Region IX of the  K-?ower 3ACT decision and  the  OAQPS  June 26,  1987,
    "Operational Guidance on Control Technoiocy for New and Modified Municipal
    waste CoTiDustors  (MWC's)."  It  is also currently being  successfully
    irnple^entec by many psrr.ittine  agencies and some cf the Regional Offices
    for all sc-.rces.  I have therefore determined that it should be  adopted
    across tne board.
    
         In tne interim, w-ile  OAO.PS develops specific guidance on the
    "top-down" process, I ar, requesting  the Regional Office .to  apply it to
    tneir 5ACT deterr.inations and to strongly encourage State and  local
    agencies to do likewise.  Moreover,  when" a  State agency proposes as 3ACT
    £ level cf control thst  appears to be  inconsistent'with the'"top-down"
    concept, such as  failure to Adequately consider the more  stringent control
    options, the Regional Office  is "to provide  comment to that  agency.   A
    final -=ACT deterrrination wnich  still fails  to reflect adequate consideration
    ::' tne factors that would have  been  relevant  using a  "top-down"  type cf
    analysis snail be considered  deficient by EPA.
    
         Treininc—Sc fcrr^l training workshops specific  to NSH have been
    -.eld since 1?£0.  ."-any 5i5te  and "local agencies, as well  as the  Regional
    :ffires, have experienced £ nigh rate  of*NSR  perso.vjel  turnover  since.
    then.  M.ar.y cf the basic problems that are  occurring  in NSR iTplerrentation
    can i^e traced tc  the lac-; cf  comprehensive, continuing  training  for new
    Regicnal -Office and State agency personnel.
    
         To rectify this situetion,  in TV  1988, OAQPS  will  workron developing
    -cterials for a comprehensive training program  in  the form  cf  Regional
    •-crksnccs to be conducted in  -"if 193S.
    
         Commencing in T? 1969, biannual Headquarters-sponsored NSR  workshops
    will be conducted at eacn Regional Office with  State  and  local agencies*
    attendance encouraged,   '-torkshop topics will  cover tne  NSIR  rules'and
    policy, 3ACT and  LAIR determinations,  effective permit  writing,  how to
    review & proposed permit and  audit a permit file,  and other program areas
    as needed.  Appropriate;; -.rained Regional  staff are  to then"hold  these
    workshops at their resrvc- . ,•<= state  agencies.   The NSR  experts from
    Headquarters or NSR ex>---.- from other Regions  will be  available to assist.
    

    -------
          Ir.  acciticn,  Regicnaj.  Ozrices snouic  reserve tne tunes- necessary7  to
    send  at  least  one  -PA  staff representative to  the NSR workshops  (for ZPA
    only)  held  semiannually  a:  Denver, Colorado  (February), and Southern Pines,
    North Carolina .(July).   Attendance at  these workshops plays a  vital role
    _.-.  ent these initiatives.
    
         .Additional specific guidance on improvements in the program areas
    discussed above will be  issued in the  near future.   In the meantime, each
    Regional Office is directed to work closely with  its State and local
    agencies to ensure that  all aspects of the NSR permit programs comply
    .with  ill applicable State and Federal  program  requirements.
    
          Your coT.mer.ts and suggestions are welcome.   Please direct them to
    Gar--  y.cCutohen, -Chief, New  Source Review Section, KD-15, Research Triancle
    ?=r<,  Nort- Caroline  2"11 (FTS 629-5592).
    
    oc:   Air Division  Directors, Regions I-X
    

    -------
    v>EPA
    United States       Office of Air Quality
    ^Environmental Protection  Planning and Standards
    Agency         Research Triangle Park NC 27711
                                            EPA-450 4-87-007
                                            May 1987
                 Air
    Ambient Monitoring
    Guidelines for
    Prevention of
    Significant
    Deterioration (PSD)
                  RADIAN LIBRARY
                  RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC
    

    -------
     fart 51
                                                        40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-M Edition)
     PART 31—REQUIREMENT! KM PREP-
       ARATION.  ADOPTION,  AND  SUi-
       MITTAl    OF    IMPLIMiNTATtON
       HANS
    Sec.
    • 140 Scope.
    
                AQUA ANALYSIS
    
    (141 AQUA analysis: SubmltUI date.
    81.43 AQUA analysis: Analysis period.
    • 141 AQMA analysis: Guidelines.
    •1.44 AQUA analysis: Projection of emis-
       sion*.
    11.4k AQMA analytic Allocation of emis-
       sions.
    6I4( AQMA  analysis:  Projection  of  air
       quality concentrations.
    •1.47 AQMA analysis: Description of data
    MM  AQMA analysis: Data bases.
    •14*  AQMA analysis: Techniques descrip-
       tion.
    (1.60  AQMA analysis: Accuracy factors.
    • LSI  AQMA analysis: SubmltUI of calcula-
       tions.
    
                  AQMA PLAN
    
    Bl.tl  AQMA plan: General
    •I.M  AQMA plan: Demonstration of  ade-
       quacy.
    II M  AQMA plan: Strategies
    •I It  AQMA plan: Legal authority.
    lilt  AQMA plan: Future strategies.
    •1.17  AQMA plan: Future legal authority.
    II M  AQMA plan: Intergovernmental co-
       operation.
    6186  (Reserved!
    81.M  AQMA plan: Resources.
    IU1  AQMA plan: Bubmlttal format.
    II (2  AQMA analysis and plan: Data avail-
       ability.
    •I «  AQMA analysis and plan: Alternative
       piocedures.
    
              snaps* •—|l*Mtv«4l
     11.110  Attainment and maintenance of na-
        tional standards.
     •1.111  Description of control measures.
     61.111  Demonstration of adequacy.
     61.111  Time period for demonstration of
        adequacy.
     61.114  Emissions data and projections.
     •l.llk  Air quality data and projections.
     61.11*  Data availability.
     61.117  Additional provisions for lead.
     11.111  Stack height provisions.
     61.110  Intermittent control systems.
                          i •! Air •••MM**
    61.160 Classification of regions for episode
        plans.
    61.161 Significant harm levels.
    61.161 Contingency plans.
    61.161 Reevaluatlon of episode plans.
    
      61.1M  Legally enforceable procedures.
      61.1(1  Public availability of Information.
      61.1(1  Identification   of   responsible
        agency.
      61.1(1  Administration procedures.
      61.1(4  Stack height procedures.
      61.1(6  Permit requirements.
      11.1(4  Prevention of significant  deterio-
    ration of air quality.
                     I Ah Qomtt, 6wv
    61.160 Ambient air quality monitoring re-
       quirements.
    11.110  General.
    61.111  Emission reports and reoordkeeplng.
    •1.111  Testing.  Inspection, enforcement,
       and complaints.
    61.111  Transportation control measures.
    61.114  Continuous emission monitoring.
    61.110  Requirements for all plans.
    61.111  Identification of legal authority.
    61.111  Assignment  of  legal authority  to
       local agencies.
    M 100  Definitions.
    11.141  Stipulations.
    • 1101  Public hearings.
    • 1.103  Submission  of  plans:  preliminary
       review of plans.
    II 104  Revisions.
    61.101  Approval of plans.
              AGENCY DESIOMATIOH
    
    • 1.140  General plan requirements.
    •1.141  Nonattalnment  areas for  csrbon
       monoxide and ozone.
    61.241  I Reserved I
                                          712
                                                           Environmental Protection Agency
                                                                              951.40
        CONTINUING CONSULTATION PROCESS
    
    • 1.243  Consultation process objectives.
    • 1.244  Plan elements affected.
    • 1.246  Organizations  and officials  to  be
       consulted.
    11246  Timing.
    SI.247  Hearings on  consultation  process
       violations.
    
     RELATIONSHIP or PLAN TO OTHER PLANNING
           AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
    
    81.246  Coordination with other programs.
    81.246  [Reserved!
    •I.ISO  TransmlUal of Information.
    61.261  Conformity with  Executive  Order
       12372.
    61.262  Summary of plan development par-
       ticipation.
    61.2(0  Legally   enforceable   compliance
       schedules.
    61.2(1  final compliance schedules.
    61.2(2  Extension bryond one year.
    
       iufcpart O— M(»«ralliinsi»i Phm Csnl«nt
    61.MO  Resources.
    61.1(1  Copies of rules and regulations.
    81.1(6  Public notification.
    
         Ktp-.rt P— Pratocthm «4 VbsMMy
    
    61.100  Purpose and applicability.
    81.301  Definitions.
    61 .301  Implementation control strategies.
    61.101  Exemptions from control.
    II 304  Identification of Integral vistas.
    61.106  Monitoring.
    61.1M  Long term strategy.
    61.307  New source review.
           Aia QUALITY DATA REPOHTINO   ,
    
    61.320  Annual air quality data report.
    
        BODICE EMISSIONS AND STATS ACTION
                   REPORTING
    
    61.321  Annual source emissions and State
        action report.
    61.123  Sources subject to emissions report-
        Ing.
    81.323  Reportable emissions  data and  In-
        formation.
    61.324  Progress In plan enforcement.
    81.328  Contingency plan actions.
    81126  Reportable revisions.
    61.327  Enforcement orders and other Stale
        actions.
    S1.32R  (Reserved!
              Subsvrt •— f l
    
    51.340  Request (or 2-year extension.
    81.341  Request (or 18 month extension.
    APPENDICES A- -K- (RESERVED)
    APPENDIX  L- EXAMPLE  REGULATIONS  roa
       PREVENTION or Am POLLUTION EMERGEN-
       CY EPISODES
    APPENDIX M - ( RESERVED!
    APPENDIX     N-EMISSIONS    REDUCTIONS
       ACHIEVABLE THROUGH INSPECTION. MAIN-
       TENANCE AND RETROFIT or LIGHT DUTY
       VEHICLES                           '
    APPENDIX O  I RESERVED I
    APPENDIX P—MINIMUM EMISSION MONITOR-
       ING REQUIREMENTS
    APPENDICES Q—R-1 RESERVED!
    APPENDIX 8—EMISSION Orrscr INTERPRETA-
       TIVE RULING
    APPENDIX T—(RESERVED!
    APPENDIX  U—CLEAN  AIR  ACT SECTION  174
       GUIDELINES
      AUTHORITY: This  rulemaklng  Is  promul-
    gated under authority of sections lOKbMI).
    110.  1(0-109. 171 178.  and  301(a> of  the
    Clean  Air Act  42 U.8.C.  740l(bMl>. 7410.
    7470-7479.1501  7508. and 7«01.
      SOURCE: 3( FR 223B8, Nov. 25. 1971, unless
    otherwise noted.
      EDITORIAL NOTE:  Nomenclature  changes
    affecting Part 61 appear at 44 PR (237. Feb.
    (. 1979 and 61 FR 4M(I. Nov. 7. 19((.
    
    
          Swbparts A-C—(Reserved)
    
    
     Swbpmt D—Maintenance of National
                   Standards
    
      SOURCE: 41  FR 1(3(8. May 3. I97(. unless
    otherwise noted.
    
    fSI.M  Scope.
    
      (a) Applicability. The  requirements
    of this subpirt apply  to air  quality
    maintenance  areas  (AQMAs)  Identi-
    fied under I 51.IIOXI) and to any areas
    Identified under I 51.110(1).
      (b) AQMA Analviii. Under this sub-
    part,  procedures  are   given for  the
    analysis of the air quality Impact of
    specified pollutant emissions from ex-
    isting sources and emissions associated
    with  projected growth and develop-
    ment In  areas  Identified under para-
    graphs (I)  and  (I) of 151.110.  This
    analysis Is referred to In this subpart
    as an AQMA analysis.
      
    -------
    85I.IM
    
    Office at Air Quality  Planning and
    Standards.  Research Triangle
    Part. NC 37711.))
      (C) All emission reductions claimed
    as offset credit shall be federally en-
    foiceahle;
      (F) Procedures relating to the per-
    mlMlble  location of  offsetting  emis-
    sions shall be followed which are at
    least an stringent as those set out In 40
    CKR Part 61 Appendix 8 section IV.D.
      id) Credit  for an emissions reduc-
    tion can be claimed to the extent that
    the reviewing authority has not relied
    on It In Issuing any permit under regu-
    lations approved pursuant to 40 CPR
    Part VI Bubpart I or the State has not
    relied on  It In demonstration attain-
    ment or reasonable further progress.
      (4) Each plan  may provide that the
    provisions of this paragraph do  not
    apply to a source or modification that
    would be a major stationary source or
    major  modification  only  If  fugitive
    emission to the extent quantifiable are
    considered In calculating the potential
    to emit of the stationary source or
    modification and the source does not
    belong to any of the following catego-
    ries:
      (I) Coal cleaning  plants  (with ther-
    mal dryers);
      (U) Kraft pulp mills;
      (III) Portland cement plants;
      (Iv) Primary zinc smelters;
      (v> Iron and steel mills:
      (vl) Primary aluminum ore reduction
    plants;
      (Til) Primary copper smelters;
      <*1U» Municipal Incinerators capable
    of  charging  more  than  250 tons of
    refuse per day:
      (lx> Hydrofluoric, sulfurlc. or citric
    acid plant*; I
      (x) Petroleum refineries;
      (xl> LJme plants;
      Oil)  Phosphate   rock   processing
    plants;
      (•Hi) Coke oven batteries;
      (xtv) Sulfur recovery plantt;
      (iv> Carbon  black  plants (furnace
    pioceM);
      (xvl) Primary lead smelters:
       Furl conversion plants:
      (xvill) Sintering plants:
      (Klx) Secondary  metal  production
     plants:
      (xx) Chemical process plants:
             40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-88 Edition)
    
      (xxl) Fossil-fuel boilers (or combina-
    tion thereof) totaling more than 2SO
    million British thermal units per hour
    heat Input;
      (xxll) Petroleum storage and trans-
    fer units with a total storage capacity
    exceeding 300.000 barrels;
      (xxlll)   Taconlte  ore   processing
    plants;
      (xxlv) Glass fiber processing plants:
      (xxv) Charcoal production planU;
      (xxvl) Fossil fuel-fired steam electric
    plants of more than 250 million Brit-
    ish thermal unlU per hour heat Input;
      (xxvtl) Any other stationary source
    category which, as of August 7.1080. Is
    being regulated under section 111 or
    112 of the Act.
      (6) Each plan shall Include enforcea-
    ble procedures to provide that:
      (I) Approval to construct shall not
    relieve any owner or operator of the
    responsibility to comply fully with ap-
    plicable provision of  the plan and any
    other requirements under local. State
    or Federal law.
      (II) At such time that a particular
    source  or modification  becomes  a
    major stationary source  or  major
    modification solely by virtue of a re-
    laxation In any enforcement limitation
    which was established after August 7.
    I960, on the capacity of the source or
    modification otherwise  to emit a pol-
    lutant, such as a restriction on hours
    of operation, then the requirements of
    regulations approved pursuant to this
    section  shall apply  to  the source or
    modification  as though construction
    had not yet commenced on the source
    or modification;
      (bXl) Each plan shall Include a pre-
    constructton review permit program or
    Its equivalent to satisfy the  require-
    ments of section 1KK8X2MDXI) of the
    Act for any new  major stationary
    source or  major modification as de-
    fined In paragraphs  (aXl> (Iv) and (v)
    of  this  section.  Such a program shall
    apply to any such source or modifica-
    tion that would locate In any area des-
    ignated as attainment or unclasslflable
    for any national  ambient air quality
    standard pursuant to section 107  of
    the Act. when It would cause or con-
    tribute to a violation of any national
    ambient air quality standard.
      (2) A major source or major modifi-
    cation will be  considered to cause or
                                        738
                                                           Environmental Protection Agency
                                                                                                                                                                  551.164
    contribute to a violation of a national
    ambient  air  quality  standard when
    such source or modification would, at
    a minimum, exceed the following slg-
                                          nlflcance levels  at  any locality that
                                          does not or would not meet the appll-
                                          cable national standard:
    
    
    Poaitonl
    w\
    PMM
    NOi
    CO
    
    
    
    10 p«/lll*
    1 • fVirf
    1 0 ps/m*
    
    
    
    14
    Ipf/n*
    t PC/ID*
    
    
    
    AMratfngl
    t
    
    
    
    OSnVm*
    
    bMlhoim
    I
    25 H9/mB
    
    
    
    
    
    1
    
    
    
    t fHf/m*
    
      (I) Such a program may Include a
    provision  which  allows a  proposed
    major  source  or major modification
    subject to  paragraph (b) of this sec-
    tion to reduce the Impact of Its emis-
    sions  upon air quality by obtaining
    sufficient emission reductions to,  at a
    minimum, compensate for Its adverse
    ambient Impact  where the  major
    source or  major modification  would
    otherwise cause or contribute to a vio-
    lation  of  any  national ambient  air
    quality standard. The plan shall re-
    quire  that, In  the absence  of such
    emission reductions, the State or local
    agency shall deny the proposed con-
    struction.
      (4) The  requirements of paragraph
    (b) of this section shall not apply to a
    major  stationary  source  or  major
    modification with respect to a particu-
    lar pollutant If the owner or operator
    demonstrates that, as to that pollut-
    ant, the source or modification to lo-
    cated  In an area designated as nonat-
    talnment pursuant to section 107 of
    the Act.
    
    Itl PR 4MM. Nov. 7. IfM. as amended at U
    Fit MTU. July I. 1M7; Bl PR MMs. Auf 7.
    IM71
    
    I I1.IM  Prevention «T clgnMleant «*«crle-
       rallan of air •imllty.
      (axl) Plan requirement*. In accord-
    ance  with  the  policy of  section
    lOKbXl) of the act and the purposes
    of section 100 of the Act. each applica-
    ble State  Implementation plan shall
    contain emission limitations and such
    other measures as may be necessary to
    prevent significant deterioration of air
    quality.
      (2) Plan Revitioni. If a State Imple-
    mentation  Plan revision would  result
                                         In Increased air quality deterioration
                                         over any baseline concentration,  the
                                         plan revision shall Include a demon-
                                         stration that It will not cause or eon-
                                         tribute to a violation of the applicable
                                         Increments). If a plan revision propos-
                                         ing less restrictive requirements  was
                                         submitted after August 7. 1077 but on
                                         or before any applicable baseline date
                                         and was pending action by the Admin-
                                         istrator on that date, no such demon-
                                         stration b necessary with respect to
                                         the area for which  a baseline  date
                                         would   be   established  before  final
                                         action  to taken on the plan revision.
                                         Instead, the assessment described In
                                         paragraph  (aM4) of this section, shall
                                         review the expected Impact to the ap-
                                         plicable IncremenUs).
                                           (J) Required plan  revition.  If  the
                                         State or the Administrator determines
                                         that a plan to substantially Inadequate
                                         to prevent significant deterioration or
                                         that an  applicable Increment to being
                                         violated, the plan shall be revised to
                                         correct the Inadequacy or the viola-
                                         tion. The plan shall  be revised within
                                         60 days of such a finding by a State or
                                         within 60 days following notification
                                         by the Administrator, or by such later
                                         date as prescribed by the Administra-
                                         tor after consultation with the State.
                                           (4) Plan OMewment The State shall
                                         review the  adequacy of a plan on a
                                         periodic basis  and within 60 days of
                                         such  time  as Information  becomes
                                         available that an applicable Increment
                                         to being violated.
                                           (5) PuMic participation. Any State
                                         action  taken  under  this paragraph
                                         shall be subject to the opportunity for
                                         public  hearing In accordance with pro-
                                         cedures  equivalent  to  those  estab-
                                         lished In 151.102.
                                                                                                                                   739
    

    -------
     851.1**
    
      (•) Amendment*. (I)  Any State  re-
     quired  to revise  Its Implementation
     plan by reason of an amendment to
     this section. Including any amendment
     adopted  simultaneously  with  this
     paragraph,  shall  adopt and  submit
     such plan revision to the Administra-
     tor for approval within • months after
     the  effective date of the new amend-
     ments.
      (II) Any revision to an Implementa-
     tion plan that would amend the provi-
     sions for the prevention of significant
     air quality deterioration In the plan
     shall specify  when  and as  to what
     sources and modifications (he revision
     Is to take effect.
      (Ill) Any revision to an Implementa-
     tion plan that an amendment to this
     »"Hlon  required shall  take effect  no
     later than the date of Its approval and
     may operate prospectlvely.
      (b) Definition*. All state plans shall
     use  the  following- deflnltloni  for the
     purposes  of  this  section.  Deviation*
     from the following wording will be ap-
     proved only  If  the  state specifically
     demonstrates that the submitted defi-
     nition Is more stringent, or at least as
     stringent. In all respecla as the corre-
     sponding definitions below:
      (IXI)   "Major stationary   source"
     mean*:
       Any of the following1 nlatk>n»ry
     sources of air pollutants which emits.
     or lias the potential to  emit. 100 tons
     per year or more of any pollutant sub-
     ject to regulation under the Act: Fossil
     fuel fired steam electric plants of more
     than 260 million British thermal unlta
     per  hour heal Input,  coal  cleaning
     plants (with  thermal  dryers), kraft
     pulp mills.  Portland cement  plants.
     primary  zinc smelters.  Iron and steel
     mill plants, primary aluminum ore  re-
    duction plants, primary copper smelt-
    ers, municipal Incinerators capable of
    charging more than 250 tons of refuse
     per  day,  hydrofluoric,  sulfurlc, and
     nitric acid plants, petroleum  refiner-
     ies, lime plants, phosphate rock proc-
     essing plants,  coke  oven  batteries.
     sulfur recovery plants,  carbon black
     plants (furnace process), primary lead
     smelten, fuel  conversion plants, sin-
     tering plants, secondary metal produc-
     tion plants,  chemical  proem* plants.
     fos Primary cine smelters;
      (e> Iron and steel mills:
      (/) Primary aluminum ore reduction
    plants;
      to) Primary copper smelters;
      (M Municipal Incinerators capable of
    charging more than 260 tons  of refuse
    per day:
      (O Hydrofluoric,  sulfurlc.  or nitric
    add plants:
      O) Petroleum refineries:
      (*> Lime plants;
      (f) Phosphate rock processing plants;
      (m) Coke oven batteries;
      (n) Sulfur recovery plants;
      (o)  Carbon black  plants  (furnace
    process);
      (p) Primary lead smelters:
      («) Fuel conversion plants;
      (r) Sintering plants;
      (s)   Secondary  metal  production
    plants;
      (c) Chemical process plants:
      («•)  Fossil-fuel boilers  (or  combina-
    tion thereof) totaling more  than  250
                                       740
                  Preleclle-
    million British thermal unite per hour
                    storage and transfer
    unit, with a total storage capacity ex-
    Ceding 300.000 barrels:
    ^M»> Tsconile ore processing plants:
      ix) Glass fiber processing plants;
      («> Charcoal production plants;
      ill Fossil  fuel-fired  steam electric
    Dlants of more that 260 million British
    thermal unite per hour heat Input;
      (M) Any other stationary source cat-
    egory which, as  of August 7, 1980. Is
    being regulated  under  section 111 or
    II J of the Act.
      (2X1) "Major  modification" means
    any physical change In or change In
    the method of operation  of a  major
    stationary source that would result In
    a significant net emissions Increase of
    uiy pollutant subject to  regulation
    under the Act.
      (ID Any net emissions Increase that
    to significant for volatile organic com-
    pounds shall be considered significant
    for ozone.
      (Ul) A physical change or change In
    the method  of operation shall not In-
    clude:
      (a) Routine maintenance, repair, and
      (ft) Use of an alternative fuel or raw
    material by reason of any order under
    section  2 (a) and (b) of the Energy
    Supply  and Environmental Coordina-
    tion Act of 1*74  (or any superseding
    legislation) or by reason of a natural
    gas curtailment plan pursuant to the
    Federal Power Act;
      (c) Use of an  alternative  fuel by
    reason of an  order or rule under sec-
    tion 1 26 of the Act;
      (d> Use of  an alternative fuel at a
    steam generating unit to the extent
    that the fuel  Is generated from munic-
    ipal solid waste;
      («) Use of an alternative fwrt or raw
    material by a stationary source which:
      (f > The source was capable of accom-
    modating  before  January  •.  1VTS.
    unless such change would be prohibit-
    ed  under  any federally enforceable
    permit  condition  which was  estab-
    lished after January 4. It7f pursuant
    to 40 CFR 62.21 or under regulations
    approved punuant t=j 49 CFR Subpart
    t or 1 61.160; or
      (2) The  sourc4 Is approved to  use
    under any permit Isi-ued under 40 CFR
                                } 51.14*
    
    S2.2I or under  regulations approved
    pursuant to 40 CFR 61.164;
      (/) An Increase In the hours of oper-
    ation or In the production rate, unless
    such  change would be  prohibited
    under  any   federally   enforceable
    permit  condition  which  was  estab-
    lished after January 6. H76. pursuant
    to 40 CFR 82.21 or under regulations
    approved pursuant to 40 CFR Subpart
    I or 161.166.
      (0)  Any change In ownership at a
    stationary source.                 ,
      OKI)   "Net   emissions  Increase"
    means the amount by which the sum
    of the following exceeds sero:
      (si) Any Increase In actual emissions
    from a particular physical change or
    change In the method of operation at
    a stationary source; and
      (ft)  Any other  Increases  and  de-
    creases  In actual  emissions at  the
    source that are contemporaneous with
    the particular change and are other-
    wtoe creditable.
      (II) An increase or decrease In actual
    emissions  Is  contemporaneous  with
    the   Increase  from the  particular
    change only  If It occurs within a rea-
    sonable period (to be specified by the
    state) before the  dale that the In-
           from  the  particular change
      (III) An Increase or decrease In actual
    cmlsslnns Is creditable only If  the re-
    viewing authority has not relied on It
    m Issuing a  permit for the  source
    under  regulations approved pursuant
    to this section, which  permit Is  In
    effect  when  the  Increase  In  actual
    emissions from the particular  change
      
    -------
      5 31.166
    
      whichever Is  lower, exceed* the  new
      level of actual emissions;
       (o> It la federally enforceable at and
      after the time that actual coiutructlori
      on the particular chance begins; and
       (c) It has approximately the same
     qualitative  significance  for  public
     health and  welfare aa that  attributed
     to the  Increase from the  particular
     change.
       (vll) An Increase thai resulta from a
     phynlcal change  at a source  occur*
     when the emissions unit on which con-
     •tnictlon occurred becomes operation-
     al tuid begins to emit a particular pol-
     lutant. Any  replacement unit that re-
     quires shakedown becomes operational
     only after  a  reasonable shakedown
     period, not to exceed 180 days.
      (4) "Potential to emit" means  the
     maximum capacity  of  a  stationary
     source to  emit a pollutant  under Its
     physical and operational design. Any
     physical or  operational limitation on
     the  capacity of the source to emit a
     pollutant.  Including air pollution con-
     trol  equipment  and  restrictions  on
     hours of operation or on the type or
     amount of material combusted, stored.
     or processed, shall be treated as part
     of Its design If the limitation or the
     effect It would have on  emissions Is
     federally enforceable. Secondary emis-
     sions do not  count  In determining the
     potential  to emit  of  a stationary
     source.
      <5)  "Stationary source" means any
     building, structure, facility, or Installa-
     tion which emits ->r may  emit any  air
     pollutant subject to regulation under
     the Act.
       or
     (E) of the Act for the pollutant on the
     date of It* complete application under
      40 CFR 62.21 or under regulations ap-
      proved punmr.nl to 40 CFR 61.166: and
        (6) In the case of a major stationary
      source, the pollutant would be emitted
      In significant amount*, or. m the case
      of a major modification, there would
      be a significant net emissions Increase
      of the pollutant.
        U8MI)  "Baseline area" mean* any
      tntrastate area (and every  part there-
      of) designated as attainment or unclas-
      slflable under section 107(d)(l) (D) or
      (E)  of the Act hi which the  major
      source or major  modification  estab-
      lishing the baseline  date  would con-
      struct or  would have an  air quality
       Impact equal to or greater than 1 pg/
       m1 (annual  average)  of  the pollutant
       for  which the baseline  date Is estab-
       lished.
         (II)  Area  redeslgnatlons  under  sec-
       tion 107(dXl) (D) or (E) of the Act
       cannot  Intersect  or  be smaller than
       the area of Impact of  any major sta-
       tionary source or major modification
       which:
         (a) Establishes a baseline date: or
         (b)  Is  subject  to  40  CFR 62.21 or
        under regulations approved pursuant
        to 40 CFR  51.166, and would be con-
                                                                                                                                743
    

    -------
     fSI.IM
    
     •tructed In the same state aa the state
     proposing the redeslgnatlon.
      (10) "Allowable  emissions" meant
     the emlMtona  rate  of a stationary
     aource calculated using the maximum
     rated capacity  of the  source (unless
     the source Is subject to federally en-
     forceable limits which restrict the op-
     erating rate, or hours of operation, or
     both) and the most stringent of the
     following
      (I) The applicable standards as set
     forth In 40 CPR Parts 60 and 41;
      (U) The applicable State Implemen-
     tation Plan  emissions  limitation. In-
     cluding those  with  a future compli-
     ance date; or
      (III) The emissions rate specified as a
     federally  enforceable  permit condi-
     tion.
      (IT) "Federally enforceable" means
    all  limitations and  conditions which
    are enforceable by the Administrator.
     Including those  requirement* devel-
     oped pursuant to 40 CFR Parts M and
     •1. requirements within any applicable
     State Implementation Plan,  and any
     permit requirements established pur-
     suant to 40 CPR M.Jt or nmlcr regula-
     tions approved  pursuant  to 40 CPR
     Bl.ll or BI.I4W.
      (IS)  "Secondary  emissions" means
     missions which occur  ss a rrntilt of
     the construction or operatfon of  a
     major  stationary source or major
     modification,  but do not come from
     the major stationary source or major
     modification Itself, for the  purposes
    of  this section,  secondary emissions
     must be specific, well defined, quanti-
     fiable, and Impact the same general
    areas the stationary source modifica-
    tion which causes the secondary emis-
    sions.  Secondary emissions  Include
    emlss|ons from any offslte support fa-
    cility which would not be constructed
    or Increase Its emissions  except as  a
    result of the construction or operation
    of  the  major  stationary source  or
     major  modification. Secondary emis-
     sions do  rot Include  any emissions
     which come directly from a mobile
     source,  such  as emissions from  the
     tailpipe  of a motor vehicle, from  a
     train, or from a vessel.
      (10) "Innovative control technology"
     means any system of air pollution con-
     trol that has  not  been  adequately
     demoiMtrated In practice, but would
             40 Cri Ch. I (7-l-M edition)
    
     have  a  substantial   likelihood  of
     achieving  greater  continuous  emis-
     sions  reduction  than  any  control
     system In  current  practice  or  of
     achieving at least comparable reduc-
     tions at tower cost In terms of energy.
     economics, or nonalr quality environ-
     mental Impacts.
      (20) "fugitive  emissions"  means
     those emissions which could not rea-
     sonably pass through a stack, chim-
     ney, vent, or other functionally equiv-
     alent opening,
      (81XI) "Actual emissions" means the
     actual rate of emissions of a pollutant
     from an emissions unit, as determined
     In accordance with paragraphs (bM3l)
     (II) through (Iv) of this section.
      (II) In general, actual emissions as of
     a particular date shall equal the aver-
     age rate. In tons per year, at which the
     unit actually  emitted  the  pollutant
    during a two-year period which  pre-
    cedes the particular date and which Is
    representative of normal source oper-
    ation.  The reviewing authority  may
    allow  the  use of  a different time
    period upon a determination that It Is
    more representative of normal source
    operation. Actual emissions  shall be
    calculated using the unit's actual oper-
    ating  noun,  production rates,  and
    types of materials processed, stored, or
    combusted during the  selected time
    period.
      (Ill) The reviewing authority may
            that source-specific allowable
             for the unit are equivalent
    to the actual emissions of the unit.
      (Iv) Por any emissions unit  which
    has not begun normal  operations on
    the particular  date, actual emissions
    shall equal the potential to emit of the
    unit on that data.
      (22) "Ccmplete" means. In reference
    to an application for a permit, that
    the application contains all the Infor-
    mation necessary for processing the
    application.  Designating  an  applica-
    tion complete for purposes of permit
    processing does not preclude the re-
    viewing authority from requesting or
     accepting any additional Information.
      (29X1) "Significant" means. In refer-
     ence to a net emissions Increase or the
     potential of a  source to emit any of
     the  following  pollutants, a  rate of
     emissions  that  would equal or exceed
     any of the following rates:
                                       744
              ntwl Protection
    fwvwe*
    
          PoUotmnt »nd fmtarioM *•(*
    Carbon monosMe: IOS tons per year 
    -------
      9 51.164
    
        (III) National memorial parka which
      exceed 6.000 acres In size, and
        (Iv) National  parks  which  exceed
      4,000 acres In size.
        <2> Areas which were redeslgnated as
      Clans I under regulations promulgated
      before  August  7.  1077. shall remain
      Class I. but may be  redestgnated as
      provided In this section.
       <3i Any other area, unless otherwise
      specified In the  legislation creating
      such an area.  Is Initially  designated
      Class II. but  may be  redeslmated as
      provided In this section.
       (4) The  following areas may be re-
     designated only as Class I or II:
       (I) An area which as of August 7.
     1977. exceeded 10.000 acres  In size and
     was  a national monument,  a national
     primitive area, a national preserve, a
     national recreational area,  a national
     wild and scenic river, a national wild-
     life refuge, a national lakeshore or sea-
     shore; and
       (II) A  national park or national wil-
     derness  area established after August
     7. 1977.  which exceeds  10.000 acres In
     size.
      (f) Exclusiont from  increment con-
     numption. (1)  The plan may provide
     that  the  following   concentrations
     shall be excluded In determining com-
     pliance with a maximum allowable In-
     crease:
      (I)  Concentrations attributable  to
     the Increase In emissions from station-
     ary  sources  which have  converted
     from the use of petroleum products,
     natural gas. or both by reason of  an
     order In effect under section 2 (a) and
     (b) of the energy Supply and Environ-
     mental Coordination Act of 1974  tor
     any superseding legislation) over the
     rmlosloiLs from  such sources before
     the if fectlve date of such an  order,
      (II) Concentrations attributable  to
     the Increase In emissions from sources
    which have converted from using nat-
    ural Ran  by  reason of natural gas cur-
    tailment  plan In effect pursuant to the
    Federal Power Art over the  emissions
    from such sources before the effective
    date of such plan:
      (III) Concentrations  of part leu late
     matter attributable to the Increase  In
     emissions from construction or other
     temporary  emission-related  activities
     of new or modified sources;
               40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-M fdltlen)
    
        (Iv) The Increase  In concentrations
      attributable  to  new sources outside
      the United States over the concentra-
      tions attributable to existing sources
      which are Included In the baseline con-
      centration; and
        (v)  Concentrations attributable  to
      the temporary Increase In emissions of
      sulfur dioxide or partlculate matter
      from stationary sources which are af-
      fected by plan revisions approved by
      the Administrator as meeting the cri-
      teria specified In paragraph  (fX4) of
      this section.
       (9) If the plan provides that the con-
      centrations to which paragraph (fXD
      (I) or (II) of this section, refers shall be
      excluded. It shall also provide that no
      exclusion of such concentrations shall
      apply  more than five years after the
      effective date of the order to which
      paragraph (fXIMI)  of  this  section.
      refers or the plan to which paragraph
      (f XI KID of this section, refers, which-
      ever Is applicable. If  both such order
      and plan are applicable, no such exclu-
     sion shall apply more than five years
     after the later of such effective dates.
       (3) No exclusion under paragraph (f)
     of this section shall occur later than 9
     months after August  7, 1980. unless a
     State  Implementation Plan   revision
     meeting the requirements of 40 CFR
     61.10>  has been submitted to  the Ad
     mlnlstrator.
      (4) For  purposes of excluding con-
     centrations  pursuant  to paragraph
     (fXIXv) of this section, the Adminis-
     trator  may approve  a plan  revision
     that:
      (I) Specifies the time over which the
     temporary emissions Increase of sulfur
     dioxide  or  partlculate matter would
     occur. Such time Is not to exceed two
     yean In duration unless a longer time
     Is approved by the Administrator;
      (II) Specifies that the tune period for
     excluding certain contributions In ac-
     cordance with paragraph (fx4XI) of
     this section. Is not renewable;
      (III)  Allows   no  emissions  Increase
     from a stationary source which would:
      (a) Impact a  Class I  area or an area
     where  an  applicable  Increment  Is
     known to be violated; or
      (b) Cause or contribute to the viola-
     tion of  a national ambient air quality
    standard;
                           Afl*ncy
      iiv>  Requires limitations to be  In
    .fleet theend of the time period sped-
    J^T In  accordance with  P"««raph
    IIX4XI) of this section, which would
    insure that the emissions  levels from
    SaUonW «urces  •"ectedby ^ the
    San revision  would not exceed those
    levels occurring from such  sources
    before the plan revision was approved.
      (.Uledert of this section:
      (II) The redeslgnallon, except any es-
    tablished  by  an  Indian   Governing
    Body, has been  specifically approved
    by the Governor of the State, after
    consultation  with  the  appropriate
    committees of the legislature. If It Is In
    session,  or with the leadership of  the
    legislature.  If  It  Is  not  In session
    (unless State law provides that such
     redeslgnatlon must be specifically  ap-
     proved by State legislation) and If gen-
     eral purpose units of local government
     representing  a majority of  the resi-
     dents of the area to be redeslgnated
     enact legislation (Including resolutions
     where appropriate) concurring In  the
     redeslgnatlon;
       (III) The  redeslgnatlon  would  not
     cause, or  contribute  to, a concentra-
     tion of any air pollutant which would
     exceed  any  maximum allowable  In-
     crease permitted under the classifica-
     tion of any other area or any national
     ambient air quality standard: and
       (Iv) Any permit application.for  any
     major  stationary  source  or major
     modification subject  to provisions es-
     tablished In  accordance  with para-
     graph (I) of this section which could
     receive  a permit only If  the area In
     question  were redeslgnated as Class
     HI.  and  any material submitted us
                                       746
                                                                                                                              747
    

    -------
      951.IM
    
      part of that application, were  avail-
      able. Insofar as was  practicable,  for
      public Inspection prior to any public
      hearing on redeslgnatlon of any area
      as Class III.
       (4) The plan shall provide that lands
      within  the  exterior  boundaries  of
      Indian Reservations may  be redeslg-
      nated only by the appropriate Indian
      Governing   Body.  The  appropriate
      Indian Governing Body may submit to
      the Administrator a proposal to redes-
      Itnate areas Class I. Class II, or Class
      III: Provided, That:
      (I) The Indian Governing Body has
     followed  procedures  equivalent  to
     those required of a State under para-
     graphs   (2).  (3Hill), and UMlv)  of
     this section; and
      (II) Such  rcdeslsnatlon  to proposed
     after consultation with the Sfatrts) In
     which the Indian Reservation to locat-
     ed and which border the Indian Reser-
     vation.
       The Administrator shall disap-
     prove, within 90 days of submission, a
     proposed  redeslgnatlon of any  area
     only If he finds, after  notice and op-
     portunity for public hearing, that such
     rrcVfflgnatkm does not meet the proce-
     dural requirements of thin section or to
     Inconsistent wllh paragrnph  of this
     section.   If   any  such  disapproval
     occurs, the  classification of the area
     shall be that which was In effect prior
     to the redeslgnatlon which was disap-
     proved.
      (•> If the Administrator disapproves
     any  proposed area designation,  the
     OUte or  Indian Governing  Body, as
     appropriate, may resubmlt the propos-
     al after   correcting  the  deficiencies
     noted by the Administrator.
      (h)  Stock  height*.  The plan shall
    provide,  as   a  minimum,  that  the
    degree of emission limitation required
    frr control of any air pollutant under
    the plan  shall not be affected In any
    manner by—
      (I) Bo much of a stack height, not In
    extotence before December 31. 1970. as
     exceeds good engineering practice, or
      (J) Any other dispersion technique
     not Implemented before then.
      (I)  Review of  major  tlationary
     source*   and  major modification*—
     tource applicability and exemption*.
      (I) The plan shall provide that no
     major stationary source  or  major
               40 CFft Ch. I (7-l-M Edition)
    
      modification shall  begin  actual  con-
      struction  unless, as a mlnumum. re-
      quirements  equivalent to those  con-
      tained In paragraphs (J) through  of
      this section have been met.
        (2) The plan shall provide  that the
      requirements equivalent to those con-
      tained In paragraphs (J) through  of
      this section  shall apply to any  major
      stationary source and any major modi-
      fication with respect to each pollutant
      subject to regulation under  the  Act
      that It would emit, except as  this  sec-
      tion would otherwise allow.
       (9) The plan shall provide  that re-
      qulrements equivalent  to  those con-
      tained In paragraphs (J) through (r) of
      this section apply only to any major
      stationary source or major modifica-
      tion that would be constructed  In an
      area which to designated as attainment
      or   unclasslflable   under   section
      !07(aMI> (D) or (B) of the Act;  and
       (4) The plan may provide  that  re-
     quirements equivalent to those con-
     tained In paragraphs (J) through (r) of
     this section do not apply to a particu-
     lar major stationary source or major
     modification If:
       (I) The  major  stationary  source
     would be a nonprofit health or non-
     profit  educational  Institution or  a
     major modification that would occur
     at such an Institution; or
      (II)  The source  or  modification
     would be a major stationary source or
     major modification  only  If  fugitive
     emissions,  to the extent quantifiable.
     are  considered In calculating  the po-
     tential to emit of the stationary source
     or modification  and such source  does
     not belong to any following categories:
      («) Coal cleaning plants (with ther-
     mal dryers);
      (0) Kraft pulp mills:
      (c) Portland cement  plants;
      id) Primary sine smelters;
      (e) Iron and steel mills;
      (/) Primary aluminum ore reduction
    plants;
      (9) Primary copper smelters;
      (Ik) Municipal Incinerators capable of
    charging more than 250 tons of refuse
    per day;
      (I) Hydrofluoric,  sulfurlc, or nitric
    add plants;
      (/) Petroleum refineries:
      (ft) Lime plants;
      (I) Phosphate rock processing plants;
               ntsjl Protection Aajency
     twvws
    
       (M) Coke oven batteries;
       (M) Sulfur recovery plants;
       (0>  Carbon  black  plants  (furnace
     nmcess)*
       <£Tprtroary toad smelters:
       <«> Fuel conversion plants;
       (r) Sintering plants;       _^_41__
       <•>  Secondary  metal   production
       (l> Chemical process plants;
       <«) PossU-fuel boilers  (or eombtaa-
     tloo thereof) totaling  more than  990
     Billion Britten thermal units per hour
     heat Input;
       (•> Petroleum storage  and transfer
     •alto with a total storage capacity ex-
     ceeding 100.000 barrels;
       <•>> Taoonlte ore processtng plants:
       (x> Olass fiber processing plants;
       <•> Charcoal production plants;
        of
     this section  do  not  apply to a major
    stationary source or major modlflca-
                                 151.1*4
    
     tlon with respect to a particular pol-
     lutant If the owner or operator demon-
     strates that, as to that pollutant, the
     source or modification to located In an
     area  designated   as  nonattalnment
     under section 107 of the Act.
      (6) The plan may provide  that re-
     quirements equivalent to those con-
     tained bi paragraphs (k). (m). and (o)
     of Uito section do not apply to a pro-
     posed  major  stationary  source  or
     major modification with  respect to a
     particular pollutant. If the allowable
     i missions of that pollutant from a new
     source, or the net emissions  Increase
     of that pollutant from a modification.
     would be  temporary and Impact  no
     CUM I  area and no area where an ap-
     plicable Increment to known to be vio-
     lated.
      (7)  The  plan may provide  that  re-
     sjuiresjidits, equivalent  to those con-
     tained to paragraphs (k). (m). and (o)
     of thto  section as they relate to any
     maximum  allowable Increase for  a
     Class n area do not apply to a modifi-
     cation of  a major  stationary source
     that  was  to  existence on March 1.
     ItTt,  If the net Increase hi allowable
     •missions of each  pollutant subject to
     regulation under  the Act from  the
     modification after the  application of
     best  available control   technology
     would be less than BO tons per year.
      (•) The plan may provide that  the
     reviewing  authority  may exempt a
     proposed  major stationary source  or
     major modification from the  require-
     ments of paragraph  (m)  of thto sec-
     tion, with respect  to monitoring for a
     particular pollutant. If:
      (I) The emtortom Increase of  the pol-
     lutant from a new  stationary source or
     the net emissions  Increase of  the pol-
     lutant  from  a modification would
     cause, to any area, air quality  Impacts
     leas than the following amounts:
      («> Carbon monoxlde-575 ug/m' •-
     hour average;
      (o)  Nitrogen dioxide-14  ug/m'.
    annual average:
      (c)  Partlculate  matler-10  pg/m»
    TSP.   24-hour  average-—10  pi/m*
     PMw. 24-hour average.
      (d)  Sulfur  dloxlde-13  ug/m1.  24-
     hour average:
                                      748
                                                                                                                            749
    

    -------
     §S1.1M
    
      (e> Ozone: >
      CO Lead—O.I jig/m*.  3-month  aver-
     age.
      (0) Mercury—0.25 ug/m'. 24-hour av-
     erage;
      (A) Beryllium—0.001 pg/m*. 24 hour
     average:
      (() Fluorides—0.25 ug/m'.  24-hour
     average:
      O) Vinyl chloride-15 ug/m'. 24-hour
     average;
      (*) Total reduced  sulfur—10 ug/m1.
     1-hour average;
      (I) Hydrogen iulflde-0.2 |tg/m*. I-
     hour average:
       Any national ambient air quality
    standard In any air quality  control
    region: or
                        ax      allow-
                       iasellne concen-
    
                        The plan shall
                                                                   851.164
    
                                         (b) For the modification, each pol-
                                        lutant for which It would result In a
                                        significant net emissions Increase.
                                         (II) The plan shall provide that, with
                                        respect  to any such  pollutant for
                                        which no National Ambient Air Qual-
                                        ity Standard exists, the analysis shall
                                        contain such air quality monitoring
                                        date as the reviewing authority deter-
                                        mines  Is necessary to  assess ambient
                                        air quality for  that  pollutant In any
                                        area that the emissions of that pollut-
                                        ant would affect.
    are tocorporatea u»  ••"-	         (III) The plan shall provide that with
    guideline (EPA Publication No. 450/3-  respect to any such pollutant (other
    1»-«37R> and Supplement A (1987) arc  tnan nonmelhane hydrocarbons) for
    for sale from the U.8. Department of  wn|ch such a standard does exist, the
               «-..«„.! Technical Infor-  .naUrri, shall  contain continuous  air
                                        quality monitoring date gathered  for
                                         purposes  of  determining  whether
                                         emissions  of  that  pollutant  would
                                         cause or contribute to a  violation of
                                         the standard or any maxlumum allow-
                                         able Increase
    for sale from the u.o. mi*.......... _.
    Commerce. National Technical Infor-
    mation Service. 5828 Port Royal Road.
    Springfield. Virginia 32161. They  are
    also  available  for  Inspection at  the
    Office of the Federal Register Infor-
    mation Center. Room 8301.  1100 L
    Street NW.. Washington. DC 20408.
    These materials are Incorporated as
    they exist on the date of approval and
    a notice  of any change will  be pub-
    lished In the FnnAL RBGISTBI.
      (3) Where an  air  quality  Impact
    model specified In the "Guideline on
    Air Quality Models (Revised)"  (1986)
    and Supplement A (1987) are Inappro-
    priate, the model may be modified or
    another  model  substituted.  Such a
    modification  or  substitution  of  a
    model may be made on a case-by-case
     basis or. where appropriate,  on a ge-
     neric basis for a specific state pro-
     gram. Written approval of the Admin-
     istrator  must be  obtained  (or any
     modification or substitution. In  addi-
     tion, use of a modified cr substituted
     model must be subject to notice and
     opportunity for public comment under
      procedures developed  In accordance
      with paragraph (q) of this section.
       (m> Air gnoli(y analy*i«—<1) Preap-
      pMcatton analysis. (I) The plan shall
      provide that  any  application  for a
      permit  under  regulations  approved
      pursuant to thle section shall contain
      an analysts of ambient air  quality In
      the area that the  major  stationary
      source  or major modification  would
      affect for each of the following pollut-
      ants:
        (a) For  the source, each pollutant
      that It would have the potential to
      emit In a significant amount;
                                          Dieincreue.
                                           (Iv) The plan shall provide that. In
                                         general, the continuous air monitoring
                                         date that la required shall have been
                                         gathered over a period of one year and
                                         shall represent the year preceding re-
                                         ceipt of the application, except that. If
                                         the reviewing authority  determines
                                         that ft complete and adequate analysis
                                         can be accomplished with monitoring
                                         date gathered over a period  shorter
                                          than one year (but not to be less than
                                          four months), the date that Is required
                                          shall have been gathered over at least
                                          that shorter period.
                                            (v) The plan may provide  that the
                                          owner or operator of a proposed motor
                                          stationary  source or major modifica-
                                          tion  of  volatile organic  compounds
                                          who satisfies all conditions of 40 CFR
                                          Part 81  Appendix  8. section IV may
                                          provide postepproval monitoring data
                                           for ozone  In Ueu of providing precon-
                                           structlon date as required under para-
                                           graph (mXl) of this section.
                                             (2)  Post-construction   monitoring-
                                           The plan shall provide that the owner
                                           or  operator  of  a  major stationary
                                           source or major  modification shall.
                                           after construction of the stationary
                                           source or modification,  conduct such
                                           ambient monitoring as  the  reviewing
                                           authority determines Is necessary to
                                           determine the effect emissions from
                                            the stationary source or modification
                                                                                                                             751
                                       750
    

    -------
        551.1*6
    
        may have, or are having, on air quality
        In any area.
         (3)  Opera/Ion o/  monitoring  tta-
        tiont. The plan shall provide that the
        owner or  operator of a major station-
        ary source or major modification shall
        laeet the  requirements of Appendix B
        to Part 68 of this chapter during  the
       operation  of monitoring stations  for
       purposes of  satisfying paragraph 
       of this section.
         (n. Source  information. (1) The plan
       shall provide that the owner or opera-
       tor of a proposed source or modifica-
       tion shall  submit all  Information nec-
       essary  to  perform  any analysis  or
       make  any  determination  required
       under  procedures established  In  ac-
      cordance with this section.
        (2) The plan may provide that such
      Information shall Include:
        (DA description of the nature, loca-
      tion, design capacity, and typical oper-
      ating schedule of the source or modifi-
      cation.   Including specifications and
      drawings showing Its dunlin and plant
      layout;
        (II) A detailed schedule for construc-
      tion of the sourcs or modification;
       (III) A detailed description as to what
      system of continuous emission reduc-
      tion to planned by the source or modi-
      fication,  emission estimates, and any
     other Information as  nrcrssKry to de-
     termine  that  best available control
     technology as  applicable would be ap-
     plied;
        The plan shall provide that upon
     request of the  State, the owner or op-
     erator shall  also  provide  Information
     on:
      (I) The  air  quality  Impact of the
     source or modification.  Including me-
     teorological  and  topographical  d»ta
     necessary* to  estimate such Impact; and
      (lit The air ruallty Impacts and the
     nature and extent of any or all general
     commercial, residential. Industrial, and
     other growth which has occurred since
     August 1, 11*77. In (h- ar*a the source
     or modification would effect.
      (o) Andltlvnal impact unalyiet. The
     plan shall provide that—
      (I) The owner or operator shall pro-
     vide an analysis of the Impairment to
     visibility,  soils, and vegetation  that
     would occur  as a result of the source
    or modification and general commer-
    cial, residential, fndustrlal. and other
                 40 CFR Ch. I (7-l-M
        growth associated with the source or
        modification. The owner or operator
        need not provide an analysis  of  the
        Impact on vegetation having no signifi-
        cant commercial or recreational value.
         (3) The owner or operator shall pro-
        vide an  analysis of  the air  quality
        Impact projected for the area as a
        result  of general commercial, residen-
        tial. Industrial, and other growth asso-
       ciated with the source or modification.
         (p) Sonnet impacting Federal Clou
       I areat— additional requirement»-4li
       Notice to SPA. The plan shall provide
       that the  reviewing  authority  shall
       transmit to the Administrator a copy
       of each permit application relating to
       • major stationary  source or major
       modification and provide notice to the
       Administrator of every action related
       to the consideration of such permit.
        (2) federal Land Manager. The Fed-
       eral  Land Manager and tlie Federal of-
       ficial charged with direct responsibil-
       ity for  management of Class I  lands
      have an affirmative responsibility to
      protect  the air quality related values
      (Including visibility) of any such lands
      and to consider. In consultation  with
      the  Administrator,  whether a  pro-
      posed source or modification would
      hrve an adverse  Impact  on   such
      values.
       (*)  Denial— impact on air quality re-
      fated value*. The plan shall provide a
      mechanism whereby a  Federal Land
      Manager of  any such  lands   may
      present to the State, after the review-
      Ing authority's preliminary determina-
      tion required under procedures devel-
     oped In accordance with  paragraph (r)
     of thto section, a demonstration that
     the  emissions  from  the   proposed
     source or modification would have an
     adverse Impact  on the air quality-re-
     lated  values (Including  visibility) of
     any Federal mandatory Class I lands.
     notwithstanding  that  the  change In
     air quality  resulting from  emissions
     from  such source  or  modification
     would not cause or contribute to con-
     centrations which would exceed  the
     maximum allowable Incier-ses for a
     Class I area. If the State  concurs with
    such demonstration, the reviewing  au-
    thority shall not Issue the permit.
      (4) C7oj» / Variance*. The plan may
    provide that the owner or operator of
    a proposed source or modification may
                                                                  Pratactleii Af*ncy
      demonstrate to the Federal Land Man-
      tier that the emissions from such
      source would have no adverse Impact
      an the air  quality related values of
      ruch lands  (Including visibility), not-
      withstanding that the change  In air
      quality resulting from emissions from
      •uch source or  modification  would
      cause or contribute to concentrations
      which would exceed the maximum al-
      lowable Increases for a Class I area. If
      the  Federal  Land  Manager  concurs
      with such demonstration and n certi-
      fies to the State, the reviewing author-
      ity may: Provided, That  applicable re-
      quirements are otherwise met. tosue
      the permit with such emission limita-
      tions as may be necessary to assure
      that emissions  of sulfur dioxide and
      particular matter would not exceed
      the following maximum  allowable In-
     creases over baseline concentration for
     such pollutants:
                                 it
    
                                ' M
                                 tl
                                      752
      (•) Sulfur dioxide.variance 6» Gov-
     ernor  with  Federal  Land Manmfert
     concurrence. The  plan may provide
     that-
      (I) The owner or operator of a pro-
     posed  source  or  modification which
     cannot be approved under procedures
     developed  pursuant   to  paragraph
     (qM4> of this section may demonstrate
     to the Governor  that the source or
     modification cannot be constructed by
     reason of any  maximum allowable In-
     crease for sulfur dioxide for periods of
     twenty-four hours or less applicable to
     any Class I  area and.  In the case of
     Federal mandatory Class I areas, that
     a variance under this clause would not
     adversely affect the air quality related
     values of the  area (Including visibili-
     ty);
      (II) The Governor,  after  consider-
    ation of the Federal  Land Manager's
    recommendation (If any) and subject
    to his concurrence, may grant, after
                                 §51.1*4
    
      notice and an opportunity for a public
      hearing, a variance from such  maxi-
      mum allowable Increase; and
       (III) If such variance Is granted, the
      reviewing  authority  may  Issue  a
      permit to such source or modification
      In accordance  with provisions devel-
      oped pursuant to paragraph  (qX7> of
      thto section: Provided, That the appli-
      cable requirements  of  the plan are
      otherwise met,
       (•) Variance 6y the  Governor with
      the Prettdenft concurrence. The plan
      may provide that—
       (I)  The  recommendations  of  the
     Governor and the Federal Land Man-
     ager shall be transferred to the Presi-
     dent In any ease where the Governor
     recommends a variance hi  which the
     Federal  Land  Manager   does   not
     concur.
       (II) The President may approve the
     Governor's  recommendation  If  he
     finds that such variance to  In the na-
     tional Interest; and
       (III) If such a variance to approved.
     the reviewing  authority may tosue  a
     permit In accordance with  provisions
     developed pursuant  to the  require-
     ments of paragraph (qKT) of thto sec-
     tion: Provided. That the applicable re-
     quirements of the plan are otherwise
     met.
      (7) rrnfMto* limitation*  for Preii
     denttal or gneemetortal variance. The
     plan shall provide that In the case of a
     penult Issued under procedures devel-
     oped pursuant to paragraph (q) (B) or
     (•) of thto section, the source or modi-
     fication  shall comply with emission
     limitations  at  may  be necessary to
     assure that emissions of sulfur dioxide
     from the source or modification would
     not (during any day on which the oth-
     erwise applicable maximum  allowable
     Increases  are exceeded)  cause  or con-
     tribute to concentrations which would
     exceed the following maximum allow-
     able Increases over the baseline con-
     centration and  to  assure that such
     emissions would not cause or contrib-
     ute to  concentrations which  exceed
     the otherwise applicable maximum al-
     lowable Increases for periods of expo-
    sure of 24 hours or less for more than
     IS days, not necessarily consecutive,
    during any annual period:
                                                                                                                          753
    

    -------
     551.164
          MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE INCREASE
    
              IMtoo»«n« pm cut* MMf)
       Make a preliminary  determina-
    tion  whether construction should be
    approved, approved with conditions, or
    disapproved.
      (II) Make available In at least one lo-
    cation In each region In which the pro-
    posed  source  would  be constructed  a
    copy of  all  materials  the applicant
    submitted, a copy of the preliminary
    determination, and a copy or summary
    of other materials. If any. considered
    In making the preliminary determina-
    tion.
      (Ill) Notify the public, by advertise-
    ment In a newspaper of general circu-
    lation  In each region In which the pro-
    posed source would be constructed, of
    the application, the preliminary  deter-
    mination, the degree of Increment con-
    sumption that Is  expected from the
    source or modification,  and of the op-
    portunity for  comment at  a public
    hearing as well as written public com-
    ment.
      . Clean Air Act. ss amended (42 VAC.
    740!(bMl>. 7410. 7470-747t. 7901-7500. Mid
    700l(a»; KC. IM<«). Clean Air Act Amend-
    ments Of 1*77 (Pub. L. 95-05. 91 8UI. MB
    (Aug. 7. It77»>
    143 FR MM1. June 1*. 1071; 41 FR 40010.
    Sept. g. im, u amended U 44 FR 17460.
    May 10. 1070; 45 FR 51710. Auf . 7. HSO; 47
    FR 17500. June W. 1001: 40 FR 41100. Oct.
    M. 1084; 51 FR 11170. Sept. 0. 10M. Rede*lg-
    nated and amended at 51 FR  40000. 4M7B.
    Nov. 7. 1000: 51 FR 14711. July I.  1007; 51
    FR 30100. Auf . 7. 1057; 63 FR IM. Jan. 0.
    10MI
      Aormmmr Sees.  110, Ml(»>. 111.  110.
    Clean Air Act (41 U.8.C. 7410. 70014*). 7011.
    7010).
    
    151.190 Ambient air •v*llty  monitoring
        requirement*.
    
      The  requirements  for  monitoring
    ambient air quality for purposes of the
    plan are located In Subpart C of Part
    58 of this chapter.
    
    144 FR 17500. M*y 10. 1070)
    
    
        Subpart K — Source SurvoHlonto
    
      Sooner 51 FR 40*73, Nov. 7. 1916. unlem
    otherwise noted.
                                       754
                                                                                    755
    

    -------
                                                    ITMt
                                 NOV241S36
    MEMORANDUM
    SUBJECT:  Need for A Short-term Best Available Control Technology (BACT)
              Analysis for the Proposed William A. Ziflmer Power Plant
    
    FROM:     Gerald A. Emison, Director Original Signed By
              Office of Air Quality Planning  and Standards (MD-10)
    
    TO:       David Kee, Director
              Air Management Division, Region V  (5AR-26)
    
         This is in response to your November 17,  1986, memorandum, in which
    you requested comment on Region V's belief that  prevention of significant
    deterioration (PSD) permits must contain  short-term emission limits to
    ensure protection of the applicable national ambient air quality standards
    (NAAQS) and PSD increments.  I  concur with your  position and emphasize to
    you that this position reflects our current  national policy.  Consequently,
    I recommend that you continue to identify this apparent deficiency to the
    Ohio Environmental Protection Agency and  seek  correction of the draft
    permit for the William A. Zimmer Power  Plant.
    
         The PSD regulations clearly require  that  the  application of BACT
    conform with any applicable standard of performance under 40 CFR Part 60
    at a minimum.  However, this should not be taken to supersede any additional
    limitations as needed to enable the source to  demonstrate compliance with
    the NAAQS and PSD increments.  In the case of  sulfur dioxide (S02), source
    compliance with the 30-day rolling average emission limit under subpart Da
    does not adequately demonstrate compliance with  the short-term NAAQS and
    PSD increments.  Consequently,  enforceable limits  pertaining to the
    performance of the flue gas desulfuriration  system on a short-term basis
    must also be established.  Note, however, that the short-term limits can
    result from either BACT analyses or the need to  protect air quality.
    Therefore, the short-term limit could be  more  stringent than the BACT
    limit.
    

    -------
         I recognize that the sulfur variability Issue tends to complicate
    trie setting of short-term SOj emission limits,  but such  limits  must be
    defined nevertheless.  Continuous emission monitoring data from comparable
    sources can be used in order to estimate worst-case short-term  $03
    emissions that could occur at the plant.  The modeling techniques used to
    determine compliance with the short-term NAAQS  and increments should
    employ the enforceable short-term SO^ emission  limits which the permitting
    agency establishes.
    

    -------
    &EPA
                  United States
                  Environmental Protection
                  Agency
                 Office of Air Quality
                 Planning ara Standards
                 Research Triangle Park NC 27711
    EPA-450 4-80-031
    November 1980
                  Air
    Workbook for  Estimating
    Visibility  Impairment
                                   ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
                                        AGENCY
    
                                      FEB 13 1981
                                    U8RMT SERVICES OfflCE
    

    -------
                  UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                        Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
                       Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711
                                  JUL 5   1988
    MEMORANDUM
    
    Subject:  Air Quality Analysis  for Prevention  of
              Significant Deterioration (PSD)
    From:     Gerald A. Enrfson,  D1rectj_
              Office of Air Quality  Planning and  Standards   (MD-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 1n 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 A1r Quality Planning  and Standards guidance provided 1n 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 if the source's estimated air  quality Impact  1s Insignificant (I.e.,
    at or below defined de mini mis 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 1s 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 1f the source's
    impar* was not significant at the  predicted site of the violation during the
    violation period.  You have  indicated  that  this 1s 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 1n
    the event that a modeled violation 1s predicted.  The additional step deter-
    nines 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 ft can be demonstrated that the
    proposed source's Impact Is not "significant" 1n 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) 
    -------
                                         -3-
    
    
    violation, offsets sufficient to compensate for the source's significant
    Impact musfbe obtained pursuant to an approved State offset program consis-
    tent with SIP requirements under 40 CFR 51.165(b).   Where the source 1s
    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 PR p.26401, June 19,  1978; and
    »5 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 PSD/NSR issues
    which have a modeling component.
    
         I trust that this 1s 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 T1kvart/Ed Lillls, 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. Calcagnl
         J. Ti lev art
         E. Lillls
         G. McCutchen
         D. deRoeck
    

    -------
    REFERENCES FOR SECTION 7.5
    

    -------
    43S14
    FaoWaJ  Regista* /  VoL 51. No. 233 / Thursday.  December 4. 198ft / Notices.
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
    AGENCY
    
    [FflL-SMSMT
    
    Emissions Trading Policy Statement;
    General Principles tor Creation,
    Banking and UM of Emission
    Reduction Credits
    
    AGENCY: Environmental Protection
    Agency.
    ACTION: Final policy statement and
    accompanying technical issues
    document.
    
    SUMMARY: This Policy Statement
    replaces the original bubble policy (44
    FR 71779.  December 11. 1979) and makes
    final revision! in an Interim Emissions
    Trading Policy which was published
    April 7. 1982 (47 FR 15076) and on which
    further comments were requested
    August 31. 1983 (48 FR 39580).
      The policy describes emissions
    trading and sets out general principles
    EPA will UM to evaluate emissions
    trades under the Clean Air Act and
    applicable federal regulations.
    Emissions trading iachides bubbles;
    netting, and offsets, ss well as banking,
    (ERCs) for future uss. These aiternativss
    do- not alter overall air quality
    requirements: they give states and
    industry more flexibility to- meet thoss*
    requirements. EPA endorse* emissions
    trading and encourages its seund use by
    states and industry to Mpaeet tfce> >
    goals of the Clean Air Act more quickly
    and inexpensively.
       However. EM afaa in •q|ia« i dtaf-
    without strict accounting practices and
    other safeguards-, emissions tradeajney
    cause poteatiai environment*! hem. ~
    Accordingly, this policy provides, •ot*-
                         explicit faisteoni on baselines aeaV
                         reiatad testa, foe eaviranmeaUl  ..
                         equivalence and environmental
                         progress. It includes numerous
                         tightening and clarifications mean! to
                         assure the future environmental integrity
                         of bubbles and other trading
                         transactions.
                           Among other general steps, the potfey
                         states that the lower of actual or
                         allowable emissions must usually be
                         used as the baseline for emissions
                         trades. Divergences from this baseline
                         will be allowed only where the state or
                         applicant shows that any potential
                         increase in actual emissions will not
                         jeopardize National Ambient Air
                         Quality Standards (NAAQS). PSD
                         increments or visibility protection.
                           General showings to this effect may
                         be made only by establishing that
                         allowable values were dearly
                         incorporated in or assumed by aa
                         approved demonstration of i
                         or maintenance. Specific she
                         this effect may be made only in i
                         circumstances described1 in tnv * '. •
                         accompanying Technical Issues
                         Document
                           Other general matters addressed' snaV
                         siguiCtaiitly chniflad by this polity
                         mi lull* ii Hiiiniiiaali far air i]imiap
                         modeflny uad •ay«j»abU state gaaiBSSBv
                         bubble rslas. additional i nfiin i laaiil
                         safeguards; and additional safeguards
                         related to hubbies involving pollutants
                         listed, rasuiated> as* proposed to bar: _
                         sstaJnaBTfisnslaf Sacn'aa 11Z of thssABC -
                           This poflcy aleo-ssteJorttt new* MglHai.
                         laajnssBBsass fas babbies morimacfv
                         i»>a
    -------
                      Federal  Register /  Vol.  51.  No. 233  /  Thursday. December 4. 1966  /  Notice*
                                                                          43815
    TON FUHTMtH INFOMIAVOM CONTACT:
    Inquiries regarding the general
    implementation of this policy may be
    directed to: Barry Gilbert. Office of Air
    Quality Planning and Standards (MD-
    15). Research Triangle Park. NC 27711.
    (919) 541-5510.
      Inquiries regarding specific
    applications to use this policy may be
    directed to the appropriate EPA
    Regional Office (see Appendix A of the
    Technical Issues Document)
      Inquiries regarding the development
    and basis of this policy may be directed
    to: Barry Elman. Regulatory Reform
    Staff (PM-223). U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency. 401 M Street SW.
    Washington. DC 20460. (202) 382-2727
    
    MSVUUMMTANY mpomtATiON: Under
    Executive Order 12291. EPA must judge
    whether this action ia "major" and
    therefore subject to the requirement of a
    Regulatory Impact Analysis. This action
    is not major because it establishes
    policies, as opposed to regulations, and
    can substantially reduce the coses of
    complying with the Clean Air Act
      This Policy Statement was submitted
    to the Office of Management and Budge)
    for review. Any comments from OMB to
    EPA are available for public inspection
    in Docket G-81-2. Pursuant to U.S.C
    eoS(b). I hereby certify that this action
    will not have a significant  economic
    impact on a substantial number of small
    entities. As a policy designed to allow
    firms flexibility to meet previously
    established regulatory requirements, it
    will impose no burdens on either small
    or large entities.
      The contents of today's preamble are
    indicated in the following outline.  The
    outline is followed by the preamble
    itself, and then by the Policy Statement
    dnd accompanying Technical Issues
    Document.
    Table of Contents: Preamble
    I. Introduction
    II. Major Issues
      A. Baselines
        1. Determining Baselines—Oeneral
        Guidance
        2. Comments on Dateline* in
        Nonattainment Areas with Approved
        Demonstrations of Attainment
        3. EPA's Resolutions on Baselines in
        Nonattainment Areas with Approved
        Demonstrations of Attainment
      B. Baseline and Other Requirements for
        Bubbles in Primary Nonattainment Areas
        Which Require But Lack Approved
        Demonstrations of Attainment
        1. EPA'i Resolutions Regarding Baseline
        and Other Requirements
          a. Specific "Progress' Requirements
          b. Additional "Progress" Requirement:
        State Assurances
        Z. Basic Rationale
        3. Additional Considerations
        the Benefits of Bubbles
    III Additional Policy Changes and
        Clarifications
      A. Generic Bubble Rules
        1  Substantivt Progress Requirements
        2. Procedural Requirements
      8 Bubbles involving Haurdous or Toxic
        Air Pollutants
      C Banking Emission Reduction Credits
        (ERCsl
      D OBCRS Projections and Double-Counting
      E Improved Modeling and D» Minima
        Requirements
        \.D» Minima Levels
        2. Modeling Requirements
      f Enforcement (MUM
    
    PREAMBLE—EMISSIONS TRADING
    POLICY STATEMENT
    I. Introduction
      Today's policy makes find the
    Agency's prior guidance on general
    principles for creating, storing (banking]
    and using emission reduction credits in
    trading action* under the Clean Air Act
    This preamble responds to written
    commer   EPA received on major issues
    raised r,, as proposed emissions trading.
    policy statement (47 FR15076. AprU 7.
    1982) and subsequent request for furtaat
    comment (48 FY 39560. August 31.1983).
    It also explains the Agency's principal
    decisions on these issue*.
      Today's notice is the primaqr .scare*
    of EPA guidance on existingrsourca
    bubbles, state generic bubble rule*, and
    emission reduction banking. It replace*.
    the original bubble policy (44 FR 71779*
    December 11.1979) as well a* the
    proposed emission* trading policy
    statement, which was effective April 7,
    1982 as interim guidance. The notice
    addresses how emission reduction
    credits (ERCs)—the currency of
    trading—may be used for bubbles, as
    well as for netting or offsets. Netting
    and offsets are part of emissions trading.
    but are governed by EPA and state
    regulations for new source review.*
      Nothing in today's notice alters EPA
    new source review requirements or
    exempts owners or operators of
    stationary sources from compliance with
    applicable  preconstruction permit
    regulations in accord with 40 CFR 51.18.
    S1.24. 51.307. 52.21. 52.24. 5Z27 and 5L2&
    Interested parties should, however, b*
    aware that bubble trades an not subject
    to preconstruction review or regulation*
      1 See. f .*_ 40 CFR 3118.51.24. 31JO7 3L21. U34.
    52.27 tnd 52.38.
      On November 7.1986. EPA mtncturrd CFR Pert
    51 end renumbered many of that Parr* MCttoas (SI
    FR 4O8MI. BecauM matt reader* mil be more
    familiar with pnor deticnanana. today'* noflee
    contain* atitioni t»Md an tht ortaniutioo. of Part
    il •• it eueted before tail mmictunnt. InnrnMd
    parti** nay UM Appendix F of today'* Technical
    (HUM Document 10 convert today'* Pan 51 cUatieae
    to the corresponding ntw on**.
    where these trades do not involve
    constructioa reconstruction, or
    modification or • source within the
    meaning of those terms in the
    regulation* listed above.
      The policy announced today does not
    constitute final action of the Agency
    within the meaning of section 307(b) of
    the Clean Air Act and therefore is not
    judicially renewable. Rather, it
    establishes general guidance for
    reviewing and approving voluntarily
    submitted tnd**. EPA will implement
    this guidance in later rulemaking actions
    that will be judicially renewable.
    Applicant* for emissions  trades remain
    Ere*, following publication of today's
    notice, to advance the appropriateness
    of different trading requirements in the
    context of rulemaking action* on their
    individual trade*.
      Under today'* notice. EPA continues
    to authorize use of bubbles,-banks, and
    generic bubbht rule* in ail areas of the
    country, and provides for the fair and
    prompt processing of bubble
    application* which have been pending
    before EPA under the 1982 policy.
    However, bated on experience under
    the) 1982 policy, and in order to ensure
    the environmental integrity of future-
    emasiona trad**, today'a notice
    significantly tighten* requirements
    applicable to certain trading actions.
    particularly existing-source bubbles in
    primacy nooattainownt area* which
    require- but lack demonstrations of
    attainment It also clarifies approval
    criteria is way* which-should make
    review and approval of
    environmentally-sound trades more
    rapid and predictable. Among other
    safeguard* or safeguarding
    clarifications, it requires that:
      • Bubble* may no longer result in any
    increase in applicable net baseline
    emission* in any area, whether
    attainment or nonattainment except
    under stringent conditions which assure
    that ambient equivalence will
    neverthelea* be achieved:1
      • Baselines for sources participating
    in a bubble in any area must take into
    account all three factors relevant to
    total emissions (Law emission rate.
    capacity utilization, and hours of
    operation) in order to provide an
    accurate accounting of emissions before
    and after the trade:
      ' This dune* ooe*tiniiM • lifniflcantty more
    *tnnaB*t definition of WBM may 6* conaidewd *
    bubble under die Batewon* Trading Policy. Specific
    umoiMi teau winch anut be SMI lo qualify for an
    exception from ttat raetncaoa can be found m the
    Technical Itaue* OOOUMBL Section UU.c Action*
    which nay M lonaer b* Maud •* bubble* under
    today'* nonce r»yet b* prece**ed under general EPA
    entena applicable to SIP ravuicn*.
    

    -------
    4MXA-
    / Vol. CT. -M&T 2S9- / Tfcwsatey,  December 4 T9W / Notice*
    sress nee&n* bt* ladrjng spprowd
    demonstration* ol artewmsnt meet UK
    (he !owest^-ectu«l-SeP«lla»v»oie-or-
    RACT-allowable emissions baseline, as
    described below, for each source
    involved in (he trade:
      • Bubble* in primary aonattainment
    areas needing but lacking approved
    demonstration* must contribute to
    progress toward attainment by
    providing a 20% net reduction in
    emissions remaining after application of
    the baseline above to all sources
    involved in tfaa trade or. if the bubble ie
    being processed under a stale generic
    rule, the greater of a 20% net reduction
    or the perceal reduction which would be
    required from all controllable stationary
    sources in that area (eg- taking into
    account expected mobile source
    reductions and disregarding area-source
    contribution*) in order to achieve
    attainment
      * Bubbles in attainment areas and
    nonsttainment areas with approved
    demonstrations must use Che lower of
    actual or allowable values for each of
    the three basetine components, unless
    allowable vafaes higher than
    corresponding actual values are dearly
    used or reflected in the demonstration or
    otherwise shown not to jeopardize
    ambient standards. PSD increments or
    visibility:
      • In etf areas, emission reductions
    must be made state-enfoResbh? in order
    to qualify as ERCs and be deposited h»
    an EPA-eppfevebte bank;
       • In aft areas, bubbles' must meet
    more stringent tests far ambient
    equivalence, mcraofnf additional
    ambient significance- levels, mere-
    protective air quality modeling
    requirements, and morn conservative-
    definitions of da aanioua trades;
       • In all area*, the total of any
    incidental emissions of hazardous or
    potentially hazardous air potiutants
    associated with a criteria, potiatant in a
    bubble  trade must remain eooel or be
    decreased whether sud> hazardous
    pollutants have been rsgwiatsd,
    proposed for regulation listed, or the
    subject of a notice-of-iassnt-to-uat under
    Clean Air Act 112;
       • States must provide assurances to
    EPA that bubbles submitted tor EPA
    approval in primary nonattauunent
    areas needing but lacking approved
    demonstrations are consistent with the
    state's SIP-pianning and attainment
    objectives. For generic rules, the state
    must  make certain, assurances in
    conjunction wUh its submittai of th»
    generic rule to EPA. and certain
    additional assurances with the state's
    proposed and final approval of each
    individual bubble under that rule:
          • Bafabfes in- such primary
        nonattainmeat areas may not use eredifc.
        from reductions made before application
        to bank or trade such- credit:
          • Where sources in such1 area* seek- to
        bank credits in the future, "application
        to bank," for purposes of evaluating
        credit*! for use in bubbles, means the
        time of filing an application to make the
        proposed credits state-enforceable
        through or concurrent with use of a
        formal or informal banking mechanism;
          « Bubbles must not impede
        compliance or enforcement (e.g.. the
        policy states that compliance extensions
        may 00 longer be granted1 under generic
        rules in any nonattainnsnt ares, and
        that bubble applications do not perse
        suspend underlying SIP limits or defer
        source obligations te achieve those
        limits*
          • Generic nriwinaft areas wiH be
        subject to increased EPA oversight.
        including EPA participetion in the
        state's public notice and comment
        process prior to state approval of*
        indfvfcfcai bobbies, sabseqaent reviews-
        of individual generic approvals, and
        reviews of the-general tntpfementetiAff
        of the- rules menwetves. in ordter n*
        assure (net approved nr/es* are I
        properly implemented sad
          • EPA orstate notices of j
        and final bobble approvals, in sJFanas,
        mast cteariy indicate any changes-in
        actual as- well as allowable emissions.al
        all sources involved ia, the bubble, so
        the ambient effects of these trades may]
        be known.
        These and.other '•fraffget announced
        today will geaexally be applied to all SIP
        revision bubbles and state generic
        bubble rules that haws not been.
        approved by EPA as of this date.*
          Os June 25, IBM the Supreme Const
        unanimously ruled that EPA may allow
        states to use a single, pia&twkia
        defiorboa oi "staHoaary source" Cor new
        source review (NSR) purposes in
        nonattainmeat areas aa well as
        attainment areas, provided uae of that
        definition would not interfere with
        attainment and maintenance of national
        ambient air quality standards
        (NAAQS).4 Under the "peantwid*"
        definition, increases and decxeases
        occurring anywhere on plant property
        from emission units within the same
        two-digit SIC code are generally eligible
          • See. how«**r. dtaunon of -p»nd»nf tmbfeeW
        m SCCIMB 1C. of tod»? t Policy SteMiMiH end
        Section UU.M4S ot <***?» Teefcriol le**e»
        DocuiMBt
    for netting.* and may be tied to
    each other wttlroat tagyetinf
    precaaslructMO peoMtt reputreaenu fcr
    majoc aew sources «r modification*, so.
    long as. actual plsntwids effussion*
    would not stgnificanfty increase.
      States and sources considering the use
    of netting should, however, be aware
    that applicable New Source
    Performance Standards (NSPSt
    preconstruction review requirements
    under 40 CFR 51.18 (aHh) and (1*.
    NESHAPS, and SIP limits continue to
    apply to such modifications. EPA is
    currently developing guidance for stales
    that wish to adopt a plant-wide
    definition of "source" for nonsttainraeor
    areas into their new source review
    regulations.*
      Pending or future litigation or
    rulemaking,  particularly final resolution
    of the settlement agreement arising from
    the industry challenge to ERA'S i960
    pronwlgatfon of revised NSR rules
    (ChamfcalManufacturers Association v.
    EPH. Nb. 79-1112. D.C. CIr.. February
    1962); may alter aspects of this policy,
    especiafly regarding certain transactions
    unset EPA new source review    :
    rrprialinsa  1«e MlTt T1T1" (nuphf "
    1963}(prop*eedrevisioKs). Howeasr.
              -aatft E£A finally revises the
                       die current
                    lio in effect.
      The DsseBne for s given source is tha t
    level of emissions below which any
    additional reductions may be counted
    (credited) for use in trades. Questions
    renting to appropriate bubble baselines
    for particular emitflhg, sources or types
    of sources ur nonattainment areas
    generated the principal issues resolved
    by today's notice. EPA's resolutions
    strengthen SIP integrity and states'
    ability to make progress toward
    attainment by (a) identifying more
      • SIC Cod* mttns codu described m the
    SUndart tmjaunt C!«mftc»tton Minual. tyrz.
    untndtd 1977 (U.S. Government Pnntm; Office
    ttock numbtn «l8VODSSpind 003-OC5-otMT8-o
          • Ctormn #5.4. lixt «. /Vottvof
                    . NX S CX 277B.
        ovemMnf Notunl Resource* Dtfms* CeoncH. tne.
        v. CofXKh. *» P.2d 718. 1Z EU ZOS42 fD.C Or.
        19S2I.
      • Many IUM* carmity eaploy the u-c*Ued
    "dual d*SMttt»° al "UMuiory Marc*.* unoer win - -
    both tke>pUMudtadiemitl9igpiec»af equtpmon.
    within it ire 'lUUflOinr ssaccea.' Under !hii
    defimtioB. when eny indinduci piece of equipment
    i* larsi enough ia term* of potential emiuions 10 b>
    dettml eee "merer itttronery source." only
    increee** enrf iHu mei in eemir emnnotn from
    thet indlyidu«iet>»ir»«UsiWr M "net."
      WMte  fcetenC nemnf a ale»
    illn i •! mi Jtr •*" -***' -i~e';	Indeed, where .-o
    individu«ipec*<4*eulUaf equipment n e- maior
    itetionery tourcc." the 'duel definition  eltowt tftp
    urn*opportunely to 'n«t" >i the 'plemwide
    definitioa
    

    -------
                      Federal Raster  /  Vol SI. No. 233 / Thoraday. Dtceaber 4. 189Q / Notices
                                                                            4331
    preciwly the three factors which nuit
    be addressed in calculating baseline
    emissions: (b) reaffirming that far
    bubbles in nonattainment areas with
    demonstrations of attainment that have
    been approved and not subsequently
    found by EPA to be substantially
    inadequate to attain ambient standards.
    the baseline must be consistent with
    assumptions used to develop the area's
    demonstration or must otherwise be
    shown by appropriate ambient
    dispersion modeling to protect air
    quality standards: and (c) specifying a
    number of special "progress"
    requirements for bubbles in primary-
    nonattainment areas needing but lacking
    approved demonstrations of attainment.
    including stringent new baseline
    requirements, a ban on the use of
    reductions produced before application
    to bank or trade, and a mandatory extra
    reduction of at least 20% beyond
    applicable baseline emissions. Together
    with tightened criteria for modeled
    demonstrations of ambient equivalence,
    a well as other new requirements for
    bubbles, banks, and generic roles, these
    resolutions wUl ass ire contisvaed
    environmental progress through trades.
    1. Determining Baselines—General
    Guidance
      A source's baseline emissions an
    calculated by multipjyiag three factors:
    the source's emission rate (usually
    expressed as emissions per quantity of
    production or throughput); its hours of
    operations or hourly usage over some
    representative time period and its
    capacity utilization (e.g.,  the units of
    production per hour of use).7 All three
    factors must be addressed, since a
    source's emissions for a given period
    may vary widely despite a constant
    emission rate, depending, for example.
    on whether it is operated at low
    capacity for a small number of hours or
    utilized near full capacity for a large
    number of hours. The product of this
    baseline calculation is generally
    expressed in pounds of emissions per
    day or tons of emissions per year (TPY).
    or both.
      Today's policy clarifies EPA's original
    intent regarding appropriate methods for
    determining these three baseline factors.
    In general, in nonartainment areas with
    approved demonstrations, a source's
    baseline emissions  for bubble purposes
    must be calculated  using the lower of it
    actual emission rate or allowable
    emission limit, phis the lower of its
    actual or allowable capacity utilization
    and hours of operation. That is, baseline
    emissions m the** areas SMS! feeenily
    be calculated using lower of actual or
    allowable vsJuas far all (an* haislisu
    factors.*
      Actual values for these factors are
    based on some representative historical
    time period (generally the avenge of the
    two yean preceding the source's
    application to bank or trade).
      Howvrtr. when the state or applicant
    shows that the SIP. a soarce-speaSc
    preconstruction permit or an equivalent
    document dearly assumes or specifies
    allowable values which an higher than
    comspoadtag actual values for one or
    more baseline (acton, and that
    document post-dates the baseline
    inventory year for a SVs attainaeat
    demonstration, these values may
    replace actual values for calcvlsttag the
    bubble bamiiaa. When only oaw vaia»
    (typically the emission rate) is specified.
    the other two baseline factors must
    generally be based on actual levels.*
      Such showing* oust b* based on
    either data tram the SIP or data used i>
    SIP preparation. >• Applicants any
    alternatively perform appropriate
    modeling to denojntrsts that MM of
    allowable wJoes which an higher thaa
    actual values wiM aot delay or
    jeopardize attainment and maastaaanc*
    of ambisjot sassHiavds> protsctisn of PSD
    increments, or visibility. Upon either
    type of showiag. tbaa* allowable value*
    may bavsad."
      •Notttnfoadt
    EPA* ia»iiif>naa at « era sria, SLSL st.<
    1121. SL24. fTT-T-itlTI nirtTTratasbj tUo
    diacBaaion of baaatiM appliM only M oubbJaa.
      • Soo SoctkM LA.1 and Apoandix B of today'!
    Technical iaauaa Docmnrai for Author dooula on
    boMtiat caaaiaiUaa.
      " Th» ooaM a>chai» OBiaaaolailaa «jca •» lat
    •ceompoapio* aaianaia. or ifBdonn fcoai t
    who eonitraetod to* dmnBanbo*.
      " UM of radi Mghtr aflowobU vthin which
    niMibt jwaflod 0y Bodoilni booMM ori Himnnttnnm awat bo mtlaiiari fat
    •nbmil Impact baud on a eaawartaM of ba*a*».
      Tte apprasjcb • required becasse
    C08tr*i of axiatiBBj sovoas through
    spproved Sef anwuras is the Oa.
    Act's princfpal •tedwnism for timely
    attahunenL and  because many approvec
    demoMtralioM either do not contam
    stated assumptions regarding all three
    baseline factors, or were based on
    combinations of actual and allowable
    value* for these  factors. It recognizes
    that bubble baselines must accurately
    reflect the SIP assumptions for all three
    baseline factors  in order to maintain SIP
    integrity.
      Under this approach, determination of
    bubble baselines consistent with
    approved demonstrations is a
    sequential tiered process. That process
    was implicit ia both EPA's 1982 policy
    and its 19t3 request for further
    comment as well as actual practice in
    bubble actions under those notices. EPA
    is makiog it explicit in response to
    concerns that "paper trades" might
    uaderaune attaiomeat demonstrations
    because approved SIPs do not always
    state all assumptions on which their
    datnoastrstiostt raff. By requiring t*vat
    unstated or ambiguous values for ell
    baastia* factors Ae rmoJvtd in favor of
    lower actual raAas*. today's nones
    provides additional assarance that
    botabiM sa aoaatuinment areas with
    approved JeauHstations will not
    threaten aabieM standards. PSD
    increments, or visibility protection.
    
    2. Commaata oa Baselines in
    Noaattaiaaant Areas With Approved
    Demons tntioas of Attaioaaeat
    
      Comments on baselines in these areas
    indicated wide disagreement over where
    EPA require states to set this baseline
    level The 1982 policy noted that "In
    nonattainment areas with approved
    demonstrations of attainment, the
    basetina must be consistent with
    assumptions used to develop the area'i
    SIP." That policy generally required that
    when approved SIP demonstrations
    railed on octuaJ emission levels at
    particular sources, those actual levels
    would have to be reflected in bubble
    baselines. Whan STP demonstrations
    wen based oa aJlowablt emissions, the
    1982 policy authorized baselines
    reflecting such allowable levels, despite
    the fact that some sources' actual
    emissions an currently or historically
    lower thaa their  "allowables." "
    trado actual mitaanr and poat-crada aUowaoJ*
    OBlafia*o fia. too "want caao"], in oidar to a*aur«
    thai aoy >»laaf1«l iaoraaa* ia actual amiiiana ar*
    Idantiflod aarf iaat thair aSocu ara rontiiuni wita
    •pnttrrahlaflaaa rtir A-  1  ••-•"-• «*- —^r
    Tochaiaai laaaaa Oacuanal. Socooa LA.L«.
      '• Soo a. 13 bolom
    

    -------
    43813
    Federal  Register A" Vol. 51. No. 233 / Thursday. December  4. 1980 / Notices
      Tht great majority-of eoamenters
    supported thl» 51? foondrtno for trading
    baseline*, noting thai SIPt an the
    cornerstone of the Acfl approach to air
    quality management These commenters
    also asserted that regardless of sources'
    actual emissions, measuring reductions
    from allowable levels assumed in a
    valid SIP demonstration was entirely
    appropriate for use in trading, since the
    area would still attain ambient
    standards in a timely manner. See, e.g.,
    48 FR 39582 (August 31.1983).
      However, other commenters asserted
    this approach was either "too loose" or
    "too tight" The first group stated that
    credit should only be granted for
    reductions below current actual
    emissions, provided actual emissions
    met applicable SIP limits.1* They
    advanced various reasons for this
    position, including assertions that
    reliance on past reductions, while
    consistent with approved plans for
    attainment might not comport with
    "broader" dean air goals. Some felt that
    SIPs wen insufficentiy precise to serve
    as a basis for trading.
      A second group of comments went in
    the opposite direction, asserting that
    baselines should always be maxii
     allowable source emissions, regardless
     of assumptions used in SIP
     development These commenters noted
     that emission rates (e.gw emissions per
     volume of throughput or unit of
     production) specified in SIP emission
     limits are generally the only enforceable
     limits applicable to existing sources.
     Since existing sources can legally emit
     up to annual levels equivalent to
     maximum output and round-the-clock
     operations so long as they meet these
     SIP emission-rate limitations, these
     commenters reasoned,  companies
     should receive credit for agreeing to
     binding limits on output or hours of  .
     operations which forgo such production,
     flexibility.
      Today's notice responds In two
     principal ways to these concerns. First
     it clarifies (he components of baselines,
     how these are to be determined, and
     who bears the burden of demonstrating
     that a  proposed basetinrls consistent
     with a particular SIP. Several comments
     indicated that confusion related to the
     determination of baselines may have
     generated unnecessary concern over use
     of allowables baselines under approved
     SIPs. Second, it reiterates and further
     supports EPA's position that when S/P
                          demonstrations an approved as
                          adequate, the Clean Afr Act simply
                          requires trading to be consistent with
                          assumptions used to develop the area's
                          SIP.
                          3. EPA'a Resolutions on Baselines in
                          Nonattainment Anas With Approved
                          Demonstrations of Attainment
                            When a state has demonstrated it
                          will attain an ambient standard, and
                          EPA has approved the demonstration
                          and not subsequently found it
                          substantially inadequate to assure
                          attainment bubbles relying on baseline
                          levels used or reflected in that
                          demonstration amount to routine SIP
                          revisions. The stats then has discretion
                          to maintain its demonstration through
                          any alternative combination of emission
                          reductions, so long as these are
                          adequate for attainment and
                          maintenance of the ambient standards.
                          Since EPA cannot require states to do-
                          more than demonstrate timely
                          attainment and maintain ambient
                          standards. EPA will approve such trades
                          as long as they an enforceable and do
                          not undermine the demonstration; See,
                          e.g~ Train v. NRDC 421 UA 60,79-80
                          (1075); Union Electric Co. v. EPA. 427
                          US. 24fl'(1978>. This means that credits
                          must not be doubled-cotmtad, that they
                          must be calculated from a baseline
                          consistent with the approved
                          demonstration, and that tests of air
                          quality equivalence to the original SIP
                          emission limits must be met.
                            In short under  the Clean Air Act an
                          approved attainment demonstration
                          creates a legal and logical boundary.
                          The state has met its statutory
                          responsibility and can substitute
                          reductions not relied en in the SIP for
                          those assumed by the SIP, so long as air
                          quality impacts an equivalent Tnia
                          holds true for all  types of emission
                          reductions—whether derived from
                          process changes,  extra pollution control
                          equipment improved operating or
                          maintenance procedures, or other
                          actions—as long  as the substitute
                          reductions have not been relied on in
                          the  approved SIP.14
                            EPA accordingly reaffirms the general
                          principle that states may grant sources
                          credit for reductions below levels
                          assumed by approved demonstrations.
                          This generally means that when actual
                          values for emission nte. capacity
      " Tht 1982 policy aeeumed. but did not rpectfy.
     the component* of "actual" emrteinB*. nica u
     capacity uiaee. or number of Koun o( operation of a
     particular tourc*. IT ibo (Mumed. but did not
     expneeiy require, that actual minion level* nraat
     be reduced-to compliance lent* -before father
     reduction*-were eligible for credit
                            14 H al*o hdlda true where the Agency may
                          Miipect but ha* not formally Indicated, that a
                          previoudy approved SIP demonstration la no longer
                          adequate to inure timely attainment For reaeon*
                          of policy continuity, regulatory predictability end'
                          fair notice, until EPA make* a formal ftndinf of SIP
                          inadequacy, the epproved der*oa*tra(ioa control*,
                          See Cteen Air ACT lection HO(il(2](H). llOUXl); «
                          FR 39S82 (Augiuf 31.1983).
     utilization and hours of operation form
     the basis for an approved
     demonstration, sources proposing 3
     bubble must use the Tower of actual or
     allowable values for those factors in
     calculating baseline emissions, and that
     when an approved demonstration was
     based on allowable values which are
     higher than corresponding actual values
     for any of these baseline factors, those
     allowable values may be used for such
     factors in calculating the baseline.
    
    B. Baseline and Other Requirements for
    Bubbles in Primary Nonattainment
    Areas Which Require But Lack
    Approved Demonstrations of
    Attainment
    
      EPA's 1982 policy proposed two
     baseline mechanisms for bubbles in
     primary nonattainment areas needing
     but lacking approved demonstrations of
     attainment These anas needed
     additional emission reductions to attain
     national ambient health standards, but
     had not yet fully determined what
     amount of reductions would be
     necessary for attainment or which
     sources would be required to produce
     them. Nevertheless, that policy said.
     states could allow  existing sources in
     these areas to trade on an interim basis.
     either (I) by using baselines reflecting
     Reasonably Available Control
     Technology (RACT) provisions which
     EPA had already approved, or (2) where
     EPA had not yet approved general state
     RACT provisions, by using "negotiated
     RACT" baselines agreed to between the
     source, the state and EPA.1* Both the
     1982 policy and subsequent notices
     advanced detailed programmatic and
     environmental rationales for this
     approach, including the fact that RACT
     was the Act's most stringent general
     requirement for existing sources in
     nonattainment anas: that appropriately
     determined RACT baselines were
     consistent with current attainment
     needs: and that trades using such
     baselines could produce faster interim
     progress by providing incentives for
     sources voluntarily to define RACT.
     disclose better emissions or ambient
     data, or take other steps to do more than
     the minimum required. See. e.g.. 47 FR
     15078.15080-81;  48 FR 39582-83. 39585.
       Many commenters on the 1982 policy
     approved this "negotiated RACT'
      '• The 1982 policy alao authorized limited use of
     higher actual (rather than RACT-allowabie)
     baaeiinea in certain nonaltauunent "ixiennon"
     tree* which did not then have complete approved
     SIP*. See 47 PR 1S077.15080 (April 7.1982).
     Expiration of the July .1982 italutory deadline for
     tubmlttlnt»uch SIP* vitiated thi* third baielme
     option. See. «-|~ «S FR at 39980 *nd n.2. 39502 and
     n.7. 38504-03 (Aufiut 11.1983).
    

    -------
                      Federal  Regiater /  Vol 5t. Ns. 233 / Thursday. December 4.  1980 /  Notice*
                                                                             4381!
    approach, finding it innovative and
    acceptable. However, two groups of
    commentera again asserted that it was
    either "too restrictive" or "insufficiently
    constrained." The first group maintained
    that for reasons of administrative
    efficiency, bubbles should be based
    either on existing SIP reduction
    requirements or on actual emissions.
    without the need to negotiate new
    source-specific RACT baselines. Since
    trading sources in these areas would
    eventually be subject to RACT
    requirements in any case, they
    reasoned, no new interim baseline
    should be required. In partial support of
    this position some alluded to the one
    instance in which Congress has
    explicitly addressed such baseline
    issues—its 1977 declaration that in
    nonattainment area* without adequate
    demonstrations, existing SIP limits
    would for the next several yean be the
    baseline for offset transactions, which
    were then the only types of emissions
    trades.1*
      The second group asserted that no
    bubbles should be allowed in such
    areas, since regulators could not know
    which reductions were surplus until
    demonstrations were completed and
    approved.
      In August 1983. "in light of formal
    comments on the (1982) Policy, the
    NRDC v. Gonuch decision [since
    reversed). .  . and the need to further
    articulate the Policy's approach in this
    area." EPA requested further comment
    on certain issues relating to credit from
    plant shutdowns or production
    curtailments for use in existing-source
    bubbles, particularly bubbles in primary
    nonattainment areas requiring but
    lacking demonstrations. 48 FR 39580.
    While most comments on the 1982 policy
    supported continued use of such credits
    without further restrictions, some
    commentera  had special concerns about
    shutdowns in these areas. These
    commentera  stated that shutdowns can
    hasten attainment, and suggested that
    granting credit for shutdowns that 'might
    have happened anyway* might not be
    consistent with the Act's  requirement
    for attainment  "as expeditimieJy as
    practicable."
      '• See. e.g. Clean Air Act Amendment* of 1977.
    wction 128. codified et 41 U.S.C 7302 note 3
    Uyitlauvt Hillary of Me Clean Air Act
    <*niendintntt of 1977.  pp. 53T. 713; 44 FR Zirvrs
    (lanuary to. 1979). Thu Congmmonal mandate WM
    largely luperseded by eventual date tdopnoa of
    iupervemng SIP limn*. Under current EPA
    regulation* »uch SIP allowable eminion me* may
    ordinarily be uaed 10 compute (he baaetine far
    offiet* only where an approved SIP demonirratlon
    u*ed inventoried allowable tmtwon* in it*
    demonstration of reaionable further pragma. See
    Clean Air Act 173<1)(A). 42 U.S.C 7S03»1)|A).
      In the August 1983 notice BPA
    addressed these concerns la detail
    noting that
      . . . Unlike turphis reduction* from
    additional pollution control or leas-polluting
    process changes, shutdowns produce a total
    reduction of emissions. 100* of which aught
    benefit air quality if credit wen not allowed.
    Granting mil w partial credit far their use in
    exisung-source bubbles might reduce that
    benefit... at least where the source would
    have shut down anyway This reasoning
    (reflecting a desire to av
    -------
                      feaWri tefjeter / Vol. it. N* 28»f Tfrntgday Dumber 4.  JMO / Motroer
                                             At tne
    comments atoe suppuitui or
    acknowledged the appropriateness of a
    requirement f°r • net airqmiity
    benefit—in the range of an extra
    reductions in emissions remaining
    beyond a baseline reflecting RACT
    emission limits—from each babbie, so
    long as that requirement was objective
    and easily administered."To the extent
    they addressed  this issue, these
    comments generally opposed efforts to
    test bubbles by  examining die subjective
    motives underlying reductions."Two
    state of local agencies asked thai
    bubbles be prohibited in these areas
    until complete demonstrations were
    approved by EPA.
      Several commenting environmental
    groups asserted that EPA should not
    permit any bubbles in nonattaiomeat
    areas lacking adequate, demonstration*.
    On* argued that EPA cannot determine
    that emission reductiaaaare "surplus."
    and therefore creditable, in these area*
    because to do so would violate the
    statutory requirement to attain.
    standards "as expedftiously. as
    practicable." Moreover, this group
    claimed using RACT aa a basefiae
    wordd not solve dns problem because
    RACT limits an mniinnmr uiessuievv not
    a substitute fora SIP providing timer?
    attainment Tim?grasp ahra asaeiteJ
    that crediting shutdowns  wuulil conflict
    wi* states' daty to meet air qoaiirf
    standard* "as eirpedftioaary as-
    practicable- because, by -resoneetiiig"
    emnwmna that tevv agreed]* ceased H
    would aecosopiiae teaa sgriseioa.
    reductioB  than is practicable wjtstio- a
    given period of  time. Another groep
    asserted- that aUawioaj shetdowB cm&ex
    in these-area* wooid strain efiects to
    progress toward attainment One
    environmental group- weot a step- farther
    and urged thai opportunity few bubbles
    be restricted soiety to AtUiament areas.
    which hava already met «ian*m«t air
    quality standards.*'
      '• e.». Maa**i» H iillt nnii •ml. Catmdat
     Oapl. of Health. Air Pollute* Control Owi.ioo. Cf.
     comnwmi of Uliium EPS.
      MHOy IfKnVtTTBf CQBMMMm WHO M0Vl^VB Vnf
     ImpniiiaH iifiniiiimaiie*iaaaMalia>a»»». imaTHa
     in thaia nonattammaM ana* Sea a.a> Qnuju
     USA; Chamolin Pttroiaum.
      "E*. Bay Ana (CM Air Quality MJuugamett
     Dlrtrict Sea- aiav So«h*m Caliionnar Gn Co.
      "E.g.. Ua*aadMMtn Oeawtawnt W
     Environmnna Qoalay EagHaenic: South COM*
     (CM Ait Quality Manaojanant "••'"••>
      1 ' In oral oa wnttcn iubnuaainu IB the
     Admimiiratormad* in earty 19W whthi flnaf
     decinoiu on today i policy were tuil pending.
     represantal>Tea.o{ xyan itiie* and tha S4Ma aadi
     Terrtlohai Au Pollution Profnm .^jdnumamton
     and tha Aaaociatum otLaol Ait Pottulien Control
     Offlcan (STAPPA/ALAPCOlfimilarty urged- thaf
    individual bubbles a»SIP reviswi*
    under th*> t9tUpoth^>" raiseaV resBted
    issoes. Seven! oi these prapoaad
    bubbles were also located in primary
    nonattainment ares* which requrad bot
    lacked approved demonsfrttrons. The
    issue raised related to bubbles of two
    types: (1) Those which relied on
    reductions from shutdowns thai
    occurred long before- any application to
    bank or trade: and (2) those which ntied
    on extra redactions produced by rowtme
    installation of required control
    equipment long before application to
    bank or trade. Beth types of bubbles
    raised the larger question of whether SIP
    integrity and- environmental progress.
    might better be assured in primary
    nonattaimnent areas which requisai bed
    lack approved oviVQBvsjFeflOflK of
    attainment by allowing- no brj*W* credit
    or allowing bubble credit onfy far
    reductions* beyond ectsai emisetOR
    levels, already, achieved as aflA*. Horn
    jourcac apaJMta book or tsoda,
      The final policy strikes whatEPA
    believe* to be a i
    newreqm*
    balance. These chaagesaad&e
    rationalea TUBpnrtnttfirmtrt sat
    below.
    1. EPA's Rfsototons-R*gBrdmg;Ba
    and Other Reqmremeala
      InprB-oacyaoBMttansM
    reqvira but de not a« thv tsne of •
    bubfcle appMeeflon. harvv BRft-appttMredl
    demonstratluus: that ambient health
    standards wiD be aflaiaaibubfalaa wOL
    generally ba approved if tfiay da not raly
    on reductioaa which- ocoure4 bafon*
    apeiicatioei for credit; if they saaet other
    cirtBiia tof beaeiiBesv asaeasfla)
    eqaivahnie*. and eonsrateney wM>
    future planning efforts; and it they
    produce at least a 20% net reductioe, iat
    emission*remainingaftea nparepiislai
    baselines have been applied* Taee*
    ob|ective tests both respond to previous
    comments oa certain mdlvidus* bobbia
    application*, and ea subataatiaiy
    beyond aUeiBativa* diecuaaed UkBPA's.
    August 1983 aotica. At the saate ttaaa
    they assure greater predictability aaai
    damonitranoR »«a
    pomtion w«a (
    or
    by a
                                   •nc»
    tnvironmamat group*. Sioca thia, paairtan and
    ralatad undariying iuuaa had bean taiaad and-
                      ambimt pjuyiesfi withoafcmpQ5ing-«
                      heavy » buJeir on vohmtary bnbWe
                      trsumcnoffs* tnat tne envrronnientsJ'
                      benerTtr of such trades'are forgone. T
                      reflect the general principte rftat beea
                      such properfy-structnred tmbbles
                      provide continuing incentives for
                      sources to-deliberately overshoot
                      regunriery merits (rather than plan
                      merely to meet them), bubble trades r
                      these areas can produce interim
                      progress beyond current SIP
                      requirements, and should be approver
                        a. Specific "Progress" Requirement
                      Applications for existing-source bubb
                      in primary nonattainment areas whic.
                      require bat lack approved
                      demonstrations of attainment wilt be
                      deemed to produce a net air quality
                      benefit and will be processed for
                      approval if they:
                        (i) Use'lowert-of-actnal-SIP-
                      alfcw«fale»er-RACT-aUDwable"
                      enBseicwbaaeimes. Such baselines
                      must be ealcaiated using
                        • Either the actual emission rate, th
                      SIP or other federally enforceable
                      fmissigir fart or a RACT emieeion
                      limit whichever is loweeC for each
                      source mvorved in the trade. Ttes
                      baseatoe leetorsheU be detenrauerf m
                      the time of the source's application to
                      bajik erttadatwaicaevet is earner.
                        • The-kwuerof aeroai orailowaW*
                      capacity/ attafttxattaa and hour* of
                      opexatioa for cadi soarca involved in
                      thetrab>.n*a*baaemu factors sbsi-J
                      geaaeairy be based on- the two years.  ** Mramnwii
    operatiBiiK
      (ii)laeat tne general ambient
    eoerrabRce testa ooltined in today's
    paikjr (sceScdioa I^l.b of the
    Technicai Issues Document) unrig the
    baaehnes deecribed above and. for the
    post-bubble casev emission levels that
    reflect overall tmitnoas equivalence:
    and
      Pis) Produce a substantial net
    redoctios) in actual emissions—i e.. a
    redaction oi at leas* 20% in (he
    emissions remaining after application •
    the stringent new baselines described
    above. (A reduction of greater than 2CT
    may be required for bubbtes approved
    under generic rules in some of these
    nonattainment areas. See discussion in
    Section- QLA.l.(dI of this Preamble.
    below.)
      With issesct to scarce* which seek •
    bank emission-reductions after
    publication of today's notice.
    "applicatiea to bank," for purpose of
    evefeatine. credit for use in bubbles.
    mean* the rhnv of filmg of an
    

    -------
                      Federal  Register / Vol. 51. No.  233 / Thursday  December 4, 1986  /  Notices
                                                                          4282
    application to make such reductions
    state-enforceable through or concurrent
    with use of a formal or informal banking
    mechanism. However, in order to avoid
    needless disruption and inequitable
    retroactivity. this definition does not
    apply to reductions which sources have
    previously applied to bank. See Section
    I.A.I.b.(l) of the Technical Issues
    Document.
      b. Additional "Progress "
    Requirement: State Assurances. In
    concluding that properly-structured
    bubbles as defined above can produce
    valuable interim progress in primary
    nonattainment areas which require but
    lack approved demonstrations. EPA also
    considered whether other showings
    might be necessary to assure that
    individual bubbles do produce such
    progress. The Agency has concluded
    that few such showings, whether
    bubble-related or otherwise, are
    practicable or workable. It did. however.
    conclude that certain representations
    meant to assure each bubble's
    consistency with SIP planning goals, by
    requiring states to take a meaningful
    look at such consistency in each bubble
    approval, would help assure that
    progress is achieved.
      Under circumstances detailed in the
    final Policy and Technical Issuee
    Document today's notice therefore
    requires the appropriate state authority
    to provide the following written
    assurances to accompany each bubble
    which is approved (either directly by
    EPA as a case-by-case SIP revision, or
    by states under an EPA-approved
    generic rule) in these areas:
      1. The resulting emission limits are
    consistent with EPA requirements for
    ambient air quality progress, as
    specified in today's notice.
       2. The bubble emission limita will be
    included in any new SIP and associated
    control strategy demonstration.
       3. The bubble will not constrain the
    state or local agency's ability to obtain
    any traditional emission reductions
    needed to expeditiously attain and
    maintain ambient air quality standards.
       4. The state or local agency is making
    reasonable efforts to develop a complete
    approval SIP and intends to adhere to
    the schedule for such development
    (including dates for completion of
    emissions inventory and subsequent
    increments of progress) stated in the
    letter accompanying the bubble
    approval  or in previous such letters.
       S. The baseline used to calculate the
    bubble emission limits is consistent with
    the baseline requirements in the
    Emissions Trading Policy Statement and
    Technical Issues Document.
       Such assurances need not be verified
     by, e.g.. detailed quantifications.
    comparison with year-by-year progress
    projections, or showings that all
    reductions needed for area-wide
    progress or attainment have been
    identified and targeted for regulation.
    They are. however, expected to be
    based upon meaningful review by the
    state and to be consistent with the
    documentation supporting the bubble.
    EPA will not second-guess such state
    representations, provided they are a
    suostannal test applied by the state to
    each bubble and the state has explained
    how the proposed bubble is consistent
    with the area's projected attainment
    strategy. Nor will EPA examine, or
    expect states to examine in making such
    representations, any specific soyru's
    subjective motivation in making claimed
    reduction*. The combined effect of these
    requirements will be (a) to deny bubble
    credit for reductions which occurred
    before application for credit in
    recognition of the fact that reductiona
    pro need before  any application to bank
    or trade are unlikely to have been
    elicited in any way whatsoever by the
    opportunity to trade (b) to help assure
    that only actual reductions in current
    emissions are relied upon to satisfy
    pending control requirements in these
    areas; (c) to more systematically
    encourage efforts by sources to produce
    and permanently maintain tfjese
    additional reduction*, by granting diem
    predictable bubble credit whan
    specified baseline and other tests have
    been applied: and (d) to assure mat
    these bubbles will not interfere with
    these areas' attainment efforts; Any
    other approach would enmesh EPA and
    state agencies in lengthy, resource-
    intensive, and uncertain efforts to
    determine subjective company motive*
    for making particular claimed
    reductiona—efforts which appear
    unlikely to provide greater
    environmental protection than the
    criteria articulated here. Cf. e.g.. 40 PR at
    39584 and a 15.39585-M.
    2. Basic Rationale
      EPA believes that Congress would
    dearly have intended the Agency to
    approve bubbles that despite the lack of
    a complete attainment demonstration
    for die affected areas, nevertheless-
    produce progress toward attainment in
    those areas. Section 172(b) of the Clean
    Air Act does require states to formulate
    complete control strategies to attain the
    standards in these areas as
    expeditiously as practicable and. in the
    case of primary standards, by certain
    fixed dates. It also requires these anas
    to demonstrate reasonable further
    progress toward attainment in the
    interim. However. SIPs and attainment
    demonstrations are composed of dozens.
    if not hundreds, of regulations and
    commitments adopted at the state or
    local level following proceedings d
    often are tune-consuming and overit,
    eequence. If EPA were to wait until
    every such provision were adopted and
    submitted by the state before acting on
    any of them, substantial environmental
    benefits that would otherwise accrue
    from having each available requirement
    promptly incorporated in a binding
    manner into the SIP and made federally
    enforceable would be forgone. Such an
    "all or nothing" approach would
    produce less expeditious progress
    toward attainment than a combination
    of (a) EPA approvals of state provisions
    submitted sequentially and (b)
    appropriate use of sanctions authorized
    by the statute to effect the adoption and
    submittal of remaining necessary
    provisions. Given the strong emphases
    in the statute as enacted, it is doubtful
    that Congress would have intended the
    former, less progressive approach.21
      For these reasons. EPA has decided tc
    approve in these areas bubbles which
    individually produce progress, both
    beyond preexisting plan requirements
    and in the air itself, and which do not
    interfere with these areas' efforts to
    construct complete strategies that
    provide for attainment aa expeditiously
    aa practicable.
      Today's notice accordingly disalk
    use in bubbles of reductions made pno.
    to any application to bank or trade, but
    allows appropriate use of reduction!
    made after such application. Where a
    source voluntarily proposes to make
    creditable reductiona as part of and
    following a banking or trading
    application, the stringent lowest-of-
    actual-SIP-allowabie-or-RACT-
    allowabie baselines must be applied if a
    bubble ia involved, and that bubble
    must meet appropriate ambient tests,
    using emission level* that produce
    overall equivalence to the emissions
    baseline. The "net 20%" discount in
    r«TP«ining emissions then applies to all
    sources in the bubble, and provides an
    additional safety margin to assure
    ambient progress from bubbles in these
    areas.** Finally, the state assurances
      ••Sft. «.|. Oifmn USA v. NKDC. iupr* n 4
      •• Thto "Ml 2M" itifulivnicnt it *ito lupponed
    by twdwct iiidtcihns (bit for mo»i nttntion drta
    SIPi •ddrtMini oton* pollution—
    -------
                      Federal Raster I Vo\.  51.  No. 233 / Thursdayy DecEtabey |» ISB9 /.Notices,
    will imfleatewbetftw approval of the
    bubble is Iftery to leuime rather ffwn
    enhance any fmpx>rtaa* opportunities- to
    construct cuffrpiece erTalnflienT
    strategies.
      EPA believes (hat babble* meeting the
    special progress requirements described
    above will produce both progress
    beyond preexisting plan requirements
    and progress in the air. First with
    respect to preexisting plan
    requirements, each bubble would
    achieve » net tightening of at least 20
    percent Trades that result in a
    permanent 20 percent reduction beyond
    actual enusion levels (winch am
    a&rady betaw what the plan allows).
    would produce even greater progress
            preexisting reqairaraenta.
    Moreover, state assurances that aunt
    accompany each bubble, will help ensure
    that approval doe* not represent a step
    backward in the process. of deveJcaiaf at
    plan providing for timely attainment
      Each such bubble would also produce
    net progress in the air. since each
    increment of required contra! forgone, as
    a result of the trade would be more than.
    compensated by a greater redaction,
    which was sot required, and which may
    reasonably  be presumed to have bean
    elicited by. the trading opportunity.
    Neither EPA nor anyone else can prove
    that aD reductions which occur afier
    filing of an application for credit were
    elicited in whoie or in part by the
    trading opporrainrjr. Decisions  in the
    real world*  whether corporate or*
    otherwise, always arise front nwftpfe
    motives whicfr are* not easttf
    uisenfangKui any strand or wuiuu may
    have "tipped" the balance toward' or
    precipitated a particular action-.
    However, the Agency has concftided
    that this presumption hi reasonable.
    First, it is plausible that snefe reductions
    were elicited at least in part by (feat
    opportunity, especially where-,  as here.
    sources must affirmatively decide- to
    surrender something of wive and
    constrain purely private decisienmaldng;
    (e.g.. enforceably luuimil te> change
    production  processeaH»order to create
    a cognizable reducttB\Seoend. thie
    presumption is the eats aie> sTi  ai
    alternative  to the adaaftaistMtiveiy
    difficult and uncertain approach of
    attempting  to determine the intent and
    motives of source owneis making these
    reductions.
       EPA has  also concluded that bubbles
    meeting these new requirements wiQ not
    interfere with the statutory nandaee that
    stater attain standards as expedfrfondy
    as practicable. Bach ach bobbfe wooCd'
    produce progress m the air that for the
    reasons fast described would fffcerf not
    have been achieved absent the trading-
    opportunity.**
    
    3. Additional Caasidemtioiif Regarding
    the Butefto of Babble*
      Individual bubbles approved under
    toda/s special progress requirements
    for primary nonattamment areas which
    lack demonstrations will produce
    progress in the SIP and in the air.
    Moreover, the mere existence of the
    opportunity to trade has independent
    progressive effects.
      As some commenters suggested. lack
    of such demonstrations usually results.
    from one of two general causes: Either
    the state does not know where or aow to
    obtain sufficient further emission
    reductions* or it has identified sources of
    such reductions but is unabfe ta
    implement new regulatory requirements
    because of their cost Moreover.
    regulated firms may often be reluctant to
    disclose information- that may be used* fo.
    require further retrofits against tfism.
    Even when such information is    ' '  "  .
    obtained, ft may not be sufficiently
    precise to allow EPA asd thetstalc Jo
     Comrot" [Feb. 19M1L LeliM. Uchani A-UroO. Th«
     CoitMfvatiom Fgoodalioo. to Hon. L«« M-TVxnu.
     March 12.19*1 t'Th* trril ealcui*lio&.. molcaut lb«
     staffs aitnitventu to ti« limited control
     ponibilitim available, and app««T» to suppart their
     conclusion about the contribution RACT plu» 20
     purfot can make to anainmeni.").
           rpTi
    
                   nfl
                        ii      u
    While- a vigorous regulatory reasons*   .
    remains criticaJ in, these aceaa, t&at
    response is-IflteVy ta be aamoend by the.
    very inf osmatiaa hs**^"* that
    discouraged a  incentives for such
    managen to central emissions earlier
    thaA reqwred. Perhaps) most important
    becaNO* of their potential to eiicrt better
    information OB sources, tmissions.
    ccedrai performance aad ambient
    effects, bohbtea may enhance states'
    ahaVrji to aacare rotate reductions, if and
    when suckteehietiona ate requited. For.
    example. EPA experience has
    doeamemled eases in which bubble or
    similar tneang applications have
    improved ieaevet and" state air quality
    mavegeiecrrt eapeMtries by improving
    data on enriseioRa ambient impacts, and
    unregulateil or unfartentohed sources.17
                                    ft
    FR 39542 (August 3V 1381).
      Bubbles can, help breaksuck
    deadlocks over the feasibility of
    obtaining, fusther roductionet by.
    providing an incentive foe plan!
    managers ta find -~r"""i*^ way* to go*-
    beyond current regulatory raojUtieaeacv
    The opportunity ta trada nay alsA
    encourage sources ta come forward ia,
    order to establish the quantifiable amd
    enforceable emission limits on which
    credit must be based.
      '• The Aemcy hi* dMermimd tint (hm*
    conduion* «!M apply whan ihr p
    reducaoa oo whick tk* ippbcinl ttiim tor cnrii*
    hiopeni to be a shutdown or pradMtfra-
    eurtulmmC. BKIUM multlpt* mottvt* »imit«riy.
     clot* • ItcilUf 01 mmcl it» pradutfv*
             Out occur after i*t»
                                      nppif
     for cndii. no lei* tbea other type* oi poat-
     application reduction!, may be presumed
     reasonably (liciterf by the opportunity to (ndt Thtv
     ia p«rtic«l»»i» true bagaeee- (hat aaarie oaeiale*.
     whatever it« anteeealeni UMIIIIV. eMaaneatera
     deubaraw deoawa 10 forga aa uen *f «u eetanuaaMtaeiir
     difficuii. if ooi laooeatole. ta praMoaabfnne I*K
     oBporUKaiiy lo u^de wu tk« dturnt fene. or »
     subiecuve motive behind the shutdown, such a
     pmiimonnn n amply justified.
      ••Se«. *«. tr n isorr.oose. 48 FR 39590 and  acMai emwaioos at
    higher than RACT baaetiat leveb Uiit caQmremeni
    directly ecceterafea airquanry progress, since no
    credit can be  secured forth*difference-.
      tT7ra«le apaiHcaMa** avbnifled over the last
    jcieiea jmm t*m. enmj «H»ei Um»s. heiped
    eatablith and veofy eaaMeua* fdCJur* :o<-
    noniraeitioiul aouma. aa w*U as jrr-fc.t  J^««N.'JJ
    emitaiona profiTei oftuch sources fs«t eg
    ippBeatign ofSfceiieiigu Iron am Stevt Ca
    approveet'«»r*«lBJI fOe«emb«T2» I9nik h ..-
    providedcure** aaieaaaiia date not other*. >sc
    av«i«ibi* to EPA Uwaufb, lb> A^tocy s Nano: ^
    Emiaaioiu Data System (SO FR Z.W93. [uoe  !'  .PAS
    anat h«ve> dlfdoaed1 rher extatence of sources irnv
    lever e«e>cae«*«ien»if*pUieUth«l had been «hoiiv
    misaeri m eerrearoeaaaw at tkn  state s eamston s
    inventory. OUMt apftUcaltQM have identified «.-.c.
    reduced praviouiix unsuspected threats to PSD
    incrementr hefperf correct sabramiafdiscrp5Hn'-.»
    betweeai jananeaeiaii aaeVaciuW emisaiona. or
    betwee»SU>aiMiao*a'BN>ud aitammcni
    demonitrationaiaBtthaia»o certain alatt programs. In aaai;:ur. j
    such aiifipeullc exatnpie*. opperrunrn to -3c-
    appev* •»raekto* traeUtieirat  reeaon* for soor'et 'o
    UBeiajatMBaaai UanreiwaeionaL.resuinnf in CMiief
    invcMory aattrlaanuaijdaM.  For example.
    S4«aa««huaeiti.reo>urea,EraM  to provide ddia  r>
    i heir two rnn of highett emissions unce  Tie juria
    year of the SIP. i» order » eetebrisn a a jitv
    i naaiiesa nap niilet tin nali i vnr huhtrr rule.
    Thia requiraeaeot ha* ptodwed baseline oa'a 'or
    previously nnquantified emission vpars mr j.:~?
    source*.
    

    -------
                     F«e?»r»f Regh**r / Vol. 51. No. 233 / Thursday. December 4. ISat / Nofieg»
                                                                         43823
    Through) ail the** m*cha*isins. bubble*
    CM achieve substantial CIMMOR
    reduction* and m qiMfty planning
    benefits, even
    "pro grew" requirements.
      Nowithstanding these independent
    progressive effects. EPA believes that it
    may approve bubbles in these
    nonattainment areas only if they meet
    the specific progress requirements
    described above and do not interfere
    widi the affected areas' efforts to
    develop and implement complete
    attainment strategies. Such bobbles can
    help adjust existing inadequate
    regulations on a source-specific basis.
    help make progress toward a firil
    approved demonstration. and help
    improve air quality. without •freatag"
    inadequate SIP requirements that are
    currently in piece.
      Accordingly. EPA h** decided to
    approve "progress" bubbles which are
    consistent with the attainment needs of
    these areas, which, produce a net air
    quality benefit and which may therefore
    secure faster interim progress toward
    attainment and more rapid development
    of complete attainment plans.
    
    UL AddMeaal PMfey Ckeagaa aod
    Clarificati***
      Today's notice makes numerous*
    additional changes in response, to
    comment* oa and following the 1982
    policy. The most important of these
    changes or clarifications are discussed
    below.
    
    A. GengncBobbJ»ftuJ*t
      Today's notice recognizes, the special
    position of EPA-approved state generic
    bubble rules. Such rote* may provfdr
    clearer approval criteria and may result
    in more rapid bubble approvahr wrtfi
    reduced expenditure of EPA and state
    resources, by eliminating the need for
    case-by-case Federal rulemafcing on
    each bubbfe as an individual SIP
    revision.
      Today's policy affirms that states nay.
    continue to use generic role* to approve
    bubbles within the scope of inch rales in
    all areas of the country. including
    primary nonattainment areas needing
    but lacking approved dtoonstntion* of
    Attainment. It also establishes specific
    procedures to ensure opportmrity for
    public comment on individual generic
    actions  and for regular EPA oversight of
    state administration of all such rates;
    Finally, it spells out additional
    "progress" requirements that new
    genenc rules must satisfy to be
    approvable for primary nonattainment
    areas needing but lacking
    demonstrations of attainment.
      State  generic bubble rules approved
    hy EPA as SIP revisions have
    independent force of law and further
    Congress1 intent that "to pieventior*
    and control of air pollution at Its
    (remains! the primary responsibility of
    States and local governments." Cimw
    Air Act. | ICIfaJW EPA has approved
    or proposed to approve 10 such rales for
    9 different stales, and at-lew* 12 other*
    are being developed. Few approved
    rules currently apply to primary
    nonattainmant area* which require but
    lack approved demonstration*.
    However, today's node* requires that all
    generic nils* meet certain additional
    procedural requirements in order to
    assure effective EPA oversight of their
    adminiatratic* and to identify any
    deficianci** in individual approval* or
    state implementation procedaras before
    substantial numbers of state-approved
    bubble* m*y be pat •< n*k To tie-
    extent these requirements require
    modification of existing generic, rule*.
    they may apply to rule* effecting any
    area, not Just primary nonattainment
    areas which need but lack
    demon*tr*tion*>
      Today's policy i* meant ton
    thaeerute*'
    both no wand through any I
    tnntitinn period* without i
    the consider**** iav<
    already madaiatg
    «***•
                                           tods*1! we. ofcrnents. and will pubfe*
    will a**4 the p*ticy>*Mh*taa*j*a
    procedural oo)*ctvp**v
      Basically, tabs** appeomrf ov
    rulu before Hi* *#rclrr*dfl*ofttm
    pcticf will not be aafeoksd or misttad
    due to today* changes; BsosaMEPA*
    approved generic nle* po**es*v
    indepaarisTtr validity said stay only bat
    psangnit upon. compteooaoi specific  •
    proosdniM for aitsring SUBB SIP
    provisions (see. *.&, Clean Ait Act
    sections 110(a)(2)(H)..110(i)U state* may
    also cooapoe to opprov* bobtomm
    accord mth such rvJee. unies* and antii
    those rules are finally changed in
    response to an EPA notice raqusstinf
    and establishing  a specific timetable Car
    their modification. However, in order to
    provide maximum assurance- of SIP
    integrity and «•>"''"'*• eny need for
    future SIP cocrection*, EPA expect*
    states to assure so- far aa feasible- that
    genenc bubbles they approve are
    consistent with applicable- term* of
    today's policy as well as their generic
    roles. New or pending gentrie nth*
    must all meet the terms of today's
    notice.
      All existing generic rules which
    require modification to conform to this
    policy must as requested by EPA. be
    promptly revised. EPA will  review -such
    rules to determine their. consistency with
    •owe*    generic nfe»rs**isU emission
              reduction at  less* equal to a net 20%
              reduction in  emissions remaining after
              application of the above baaaiines. or at
              lust equal (in percentage term*} to the
              eventf •BB*mosi reduction (in
              percentage terms) needed to attain in
              the area (i.e.. at least equal to the
              source-by-soere» •mission reductions
              diet  would be required for a full
              demonstration of attainment, taking into
              account "uncontrollable" stationary
              (e-g, *J**4 aourc** and expected
              etnissicg reduction* from morxte
              sources?, whichever is larger.** This last
                                                                 it» bu*-yc*r
                                                  trj Til ti ntfin -^T ~n	" ' - "°
                                                                       .•.*.
                                           Ibl For KM pm*ct*d IIKOMMM rtir ilxfon taa:
                                            tuncl aotmM:
                                            Umutnmutttbtt MMonvr  "»«.  rmniiom
                                             IJ.MB* 1 Jt
    

    -------
    43824
    Federal Reflate* / Vol. 51. No. 233  /  Thursday, December  4. 1986 / Notices
    determination must be submitted with
    the rule, and must use the same type and
    quality of analysis required for an EPA-
    approvable SIP. In no event may the
    overall emission reduction required of
    generic bubbles in such areas be less
    than 20% of the emissions remaining
    after application of the baselines
    specified above: and
      (e) provide assurances, in conjunction
    with the state's submittal of the generic
    rule to EPA. that the state (i) is making
    reasonable efforts to develop a complete
    approvable  SIP that will achieve the
    percent emission reduction from
    controllable sources described in the
    previous paragraph and (ii) intends to
    adhere to the schedule for development
    of such a SIP (including dates for
    completion of emissions inventory and
    subsequent increments of progress), as
    stated in the letter accompanying the
    submittal or in previous letters. EPA
    believes that the numerical
    determination and progress requirement
    discussed in the previous paragraph i*
    the functional equivalent of the
    additional assurances described earlier
    in this notice (see Section HB.Lb above)
    for bubble* needing case-by-case EPA
    approval since bubbles meeting this-.
    requirement will produce attainment-
    level reductions. For that reason, EPA
    does not believe that it must require the
    state to make those additional
    assurances when it submits the generic
      Therefore the reduction* needed from
     controllable stationary source* an
     •.4SO-UOO-3.8SO tom/yr.
      And the percent tmisnon reduction required from
     controlliblt stationary source* to etui* i*
                      x  iao»M*
      Thin the net overall reduction required from eacn
     generic bubble would be 9*% (U. the reduction*
     produced by applicable baseline* (•*. application
     of * RACT emission rate) pha whatever percent
     reduction in emission* remaining after this RACT
     limit ie sufficient lo yield the 94% total).
      State* that wish to avoid case-be-caee SIP
     revision* for source* for whids RACT ha* not yet
     been defined in an approve*) SIP provieon may
     incorporate 'presumptive RACT" value* (e.g.. 90%
     reduction for VOC1 in their generic rale*. Source*
     would than have the option at accepting these
     RACT value* for generic bubble purpose*, or
     negotiating different RACT vilue* through the case-
     by-case SIP revi*on process. However, where «
     source involved in e trade i* one for which EPA ha*
     issued a CTC. but the state has not yet adopted the
     CTC-«pecifled emission rale as RACT and no RACT
     ha* yet been specified by the state for that source.
     the presumptive or negotiated RACT values for the
     trade must be at least a* restrictive as the CTC-
     ipecified emission rate for tnat source.
                          rule. However, to assure that genetic
                          approvals continue to complement and
                          do not interfere with attainment
                          planning. EPA will require the state to
                          include all of those assurances in or
                          with its notices of proposed and final
                          approval of each bubble issued under
                          the rule in such a nonattainment area.
                          Generic rules meeting these
                          requirements will assure that each state-
                          approved bubble produces reductions at
                          least equal to those which would be
                          required  under an approved
                          demonstration of attainment Their
                          availability can also  encourage states
                          and sources to take significant further
                          steps towards such demonstrations.
                          Since reductions sufficient for timely
                          attainment are all EPA can require for
                          approval of State Implementation Plans
                          under section 110 and Part 0 of the
                          Clean Air Act Train v. NRDC, supra.
                          further Agency scrutiny of individual
                          bubble reductions is  not required.
    
                          2. Procedural Requirements
                            Today's notice includes tightened
                          requirements designed to assure, with
                          minimal burdens on  states, that EPA'e-
                          responsibility to monitor the
                          implementation of all generic rule*
                          incorporated in SIPs (see sacttoar
                          110(a)t2MA)(H}) it man efficiently anoV
                          effectivery carried out EPA will fulfill
                          this responsibility by fa) examining and
                          commenting on. together with any other
                          public commenter under applicable stale
                          law. the  information-provided for
                          individual trades subject to-propoeed
                          action under generic rules,  (b)
                          conducting reviews of individual trades
                          approved under such rules; and (c)
                          periodically auditing implementation of
                          the rule itself as part of its National Air
                          Audit System investigations of state air
                          pollution control program*, including
                          indepth file audits of actions under such
                          generic rules. These activities will cover
                          state actions of disapproval aa well as
                          approval, and will examine whether
                          rules are being interpreted or applied
                          within the scope of their approval by
                          EPA.
                             To be considered  valid by EPA. a
                          trade approved under a generic rule
                          must (1) be one of a  clase of trades
                          authorized by the rule. (2) be approved
                          by the state after the rule hae been
                          approved by EPA. and (3) meet all the
                          provisions of the EPA-approved rule.
                          State approvals which do not meet these
                          requirements are not considered part of
                          the SIP and do not replace prior valid
    SIP limits, which remain enforceable
    and may make such trades the subject
    remedial action after due notice by £F
    to the state and source*
      In addition to requiring that generic
    rules or other state provisions assure
    meaningful notice to EPA by the first
    day of the public comment period on
    proposed genetic actions, and
    immediately upon final generic action
    today's policy also requires that state
    generic rules or other state provisions
    provide the general public adequate
    notice and opportunity to comment.
    including opportunity for judicial revie
    sufficient to make comment effective.
    Existing state generic rules, statutes 01
    regulations will generally satisfy this
    requirement. However, some
    jurisdictions, for example, deny judicu
    review to commenters who do not
    possess a direct financial stake in
    individual permits. Such jurisdictions
    will have to modify their generic rule.
    other provisions, to meet this
    requirement.
    
    B. Bubbles Involving Hazardous or
    Toxic Air Pollutants
       EPA reaffirms and extends its 1962
    determination that bubbler in aoy are
    must not increase emissions of
    hazardous or toxic air pollutants.
    Babbles cannot be used to meet or av
    National Emission Standards for
    Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs)
    that have been finally promulgated
    under Section 112 of the Act. Where
    NESHAPs have been proposed but no.
    promulgated for emitting sources whic
    are the subject of a bubble application
    the proposed NESHAP will generally
    serve as the baseline for determining
    creditable bubble reductions, and the
    trade must produce reductions at leas
    aa great as those which the proposed
    NESHAP would produce, if
    promulgated. Moreover, no source
    emitting a pollutant subject to such a
    proposed NESHAP may exceed
    emissions allowed under the proposec
    NESHAP as a result of the trade. Whe
    a bubble involves a pollutant which is
    fisted under Section 112. but no
    NESHAP has yet been proposed for ±
    relevant source category,  or a pollutar
    for which EPA has issued a Notice-of-
     Intent-to-List. there must be no net
     increase in actual emissions of the
     noticed or listed pollutant.3' In genert
       '• In some limited circumstances additional
     pollutants may b* trailed as listed pollutants.
     Technical Isaue* Document. Section I Bid.
    

    -------
    f Voi St. Not  239 f
                                                                        December «. If**/ Natfe*»
    all bubble* urroivfeg BHita»'oi» of
    pollutants described above mo** DM
    lower-of-«ctuakir-NESHAPv«JlowaWe
    emissions baselines, and must take
    place within a single plant or contiguous
    plants."
      Coounenters who addressed tbi* issue
    divided into two general croupe. One
    group asserted that hazardous/toxic
    restrictions should extend beyond
    pollutants currently regulated, proposed
    to be regulated, or listed under Section
    112. These comment*, generally
    maintained that restrictions should also
    apply to all pollutants the Agency is
    "actively considering" for listing, A
    second group asserted that neither
    volatile organic compound1 (VOC) i
    paniculate eotseiom should be traded
    unless there is deer evidence that
    specific substances present ia soch VOC
    or Bertfcolate enuasiona are "relatively
    innocuous."
      EPA hae determined that for ratios*
    of policy and administrative practicality
    these suggestions. whila laudable is
    latent should not b*> adopted. Bubble*
    are alternative »»««r«« of compliance
    which should ynersffr be treated no
    strategies, provided basic SIP
    requirments of consistency with ambieoi
    needs, PSD increments. end
    progress are met EPA's statutory
    authority to farther restrict trades on me.
    basis of hazardous substances which
    may be present in a particular criteria
    pollutant stream (e.g_ VOCi) and which
    may be subject to a Bating* aotice-of-
    intent-to-Ust or proposed NBSHAP. but
    ere not as yet regulated under 1 112. Is
    limited. Generalized attempt* to
    exercise such authority basWon the
    presence of substances on which me
    Agency has taken no forai actiaa
    whatever would be still sore tssnsouei
    Moreover, the inherent emofgofrr of
    such terms as "actively considering" or
    "relatively inoocaous"
    such tests. State* reaein free n» adopt
    further restrictions constoteaf wrtb hocei
    laws and needs. However, with aspect
    to national requirements EPA hm*
    concluded that dee* sbeMea pointe
    based on actions punsaosf (9 oe*
    deliberative process and.atc0rd
      ••Tit on* OCTpttaa favotrw bueehi ia
    aarplo* mdacfloBi n Oa aatmont of prilotan*
    niblcet la rMplatfon. in'uuuaaU rtfutaon. IMn* or
    Notfe»-of'-bitant-co4iat M hmrdou* cmiatraa*
    coBipaiuaH (or ieenttn a- aon-anardou*
    •auiMom. (Eg. wfecnri «owcrdvania bnanr
    tmmraiu bttow *» bnatim timaflrt aba**, in
    axdunft for umaaouodtna; tuunrnt «toawB>f» to
    • aon-hcurdoBi VOC) A* tonf » *uch a trada
    mmid not maJt ia ia tHBV» (atntartenftar
    •llowibte tmiMMM of • poUuUnl tub)** lo iho
    •p«e>«l nuncOam eMiomiij «bu»« il my i
        evidence anderfvmf «ecrJo»m
        detenninetfon* are-1* be pisfeinsl
          Interested parties shooitf be awwv.
        however, thai onder today's psjiisrate
        AdminislrsAr reserve* dlvcntkR* to
        consider on • case-by-cas* basi*
        whether bwtobie proposal* invohr*
        pollutants which, while not regulated
        listed or otbetwise noticed under section
        112. an regulated as toxic under other
        federal health-baaed statutes, aad to
        require further analysis before
        approving such proposals.
          One commsnier expressed concern
        over the 1982 policy's use of the term
        "reasonably dose" to indicate the
        distance which may be covered by
        bubbles involving poflutants listed or
        proposed to be regulated' under sactton
        112. EPA agrees this term Is amoiguoua,
        and with toe exception of bubbles which
        affiinatlf siy i/BCjeuj* ntca poftiiaasy
        below the lower^^eeteai-or-NBSMAPs-
        allowabla baaeltee. ha* *abs«ta*ss) tto
        more protective aod certuat reqearamaeit
        the* sack trade* oeca* wrtniaa ssogse
        ptast or coBtifooBj* powtsi ia orda* t*>
        aseBBe net sacB.sjvdea>dai aot*i
        advecseiheeJtkari
        effects, tadaqr'e i
        theyralyo«ryea>i
        run esU si leal m sai llee TIT i
        emiesMoaeae/th*)
        whichexes isrlovec, ia i
        noticed. ItsteeU at proposee* ta> be.
        reniailadl under aacBBn>112>
          8evet«Iofthe»epc«ja«inns nntafifj
        the proposed VBKAPa oma*u
                  aBe propOMd-mSS
        emissions cap, the- udusioa of.
        poBntano) subfecfto No(toe»«f>Bi(aat>
        to-Lnrt. end the getMnt UntfMrevtsr
        contiguoB* pnurta* arrffDweT-oAectusJ*^
        or-| tl2-*fiow*fann baaettnes
        represent rabetaatiar agiiamiug* ever
        the 1062 policy.
    
        C Banking Eminion Rrtuetiaa
          EPA-*pe«
    bank* may aUow source*) t»
    for their own furore as* ae waatar
    Today'a notice reiterate* th«t state* an
    by no maaas required to-adopt baoktag;
    procedures, but note* thaHMiaittawy
    help state* and coaounitiee laeon*
    important planning aad.anflicooisestai
    benefits." H*nif« may ancoung*.fiosaY
    to create inexpensive extra redactions
    at earlier, optimal time* (e.g« wnaav
    replacing outworn control equipment or
    deciding how to meet new lequiremeatsr
    and disclose such infonnatton to stata
    agencies. They may help ueete a Geutrai
    pool of identifiable, rewdlfy-avtatatrf*
                                           redBtlrBHS wUdrcaji rase plan*
                                           nodcrrdzafroRS or expansion], ne-w
                                           source siting; orexistmf-sonm
                                           conpnaoce. PPopeny-itrnctored ba)~—
                                           may rexftrce incentives for sources to
                                           delay, conceal or hoard acfnal cr
                                           potential reductions until an ir.-cediat.
                                           use arise*. Banks may also prot •zt
                                           other, interim environmentalv»i*fit3s
                                           sine* banked EKCs nmain on- -si thi t
                                           (although they must be treated ;'<:r SI?
                                           planning purposes as "{n the air • until
                                           used. In addition, banks can he.? suu
                                           agencies manage their permit worxiosc
                                           mot* efficiently, because paruca* of
                                          . new source  or existing*source
                                                sane* transactions may aa pre-
                                           permiOed or reviewed in advaace.
                                           Banks may also help stats*
                                           syetasseJicaUy asaara thai all uaused
                                           surplus tediictioas are treated as "in tb>
                                           air" for SIP pianning purposes, avoiding
                                           potential inroneistenoes which sight
                                           cas»e aoeemisctkiQ* 10 be tost
                                             CesnsMcM* insfcated SO*JM confusion
                                           over whether, hi adsSfleo to- meeting
                                           other ERC requtremenls, reductions
                                           must be ****** fedewffy eniorceabst to
                                           befenBeJfycfedHerfferbenkfnf: Tbe
                                           answer ira* Hbwvwr. in- order to
                                                   resBrsefon redntiioB credits
                                              fbwdspoeThjrfm'S'A-
                                                         reouctione must be
                                           mads? enrbnevbla' 0y tfn stfts.
                                           RedfeenXmeonstbs mdi enforces bib
                                           by the stsat by their titar of deposit in
                                           order. e£. (B better enure the integrity
                                           of the sAte's air quality, planning
                                           process oy/ prwrenttos^ sources Iiuiu
                                           banking reductions of emissions which
                                           their permits do aal preclude them from
                                           continuing^ tn emiL TM» reqviruncat wil
                                           also prevent undue reliance by parties
                                           or potential parties on f euseioa
                                           reductioets, which, hav* not actually
                                           occurred.'* However, because, those
    It wouM nor differ IB a«for» of raqomnwni* from •
    trad* iB»oivirn aatf non-taBrtou*
          1 SM M- 47 n 13OO-M (AprU 7,
                                               of tod«r'i BOMB. *» "<*•« of tpplleation to bini"
                                               •iff b*ttvdinrltefoarc«m»aut»«8 «ppbc»mm to
                                                                 it* at I fvmnl bank or
                                                                               .s.:ir
                                                b oAar orwa, aflt»nft aaiiiiiaB reductions
    
                                               apoBavBolt ^**^* 0aCB*jay ar^OMOa fn/orc0A5Jw
                                               by tftraaoK amiaaiom i»d»cttoiM faanfcrt th»o««h
                                               olhtr formal or informal booking mtcAaiuimi which
                                               do not «iaa» raduettma fW«a-«nfcrc«»»*» try ta
                                                              ~~           *'rn future
                                                              p mXavBuna ar* made
                                               hdarmUyanroiupitrtJ at Umrotum and tit
                                                               101 Bm raawatory piof f •r'
                                                                   (ai»m»r
                                                                             Omr
    

    -------
    43828
    Federal Regtatef / Vok 51. No. 233  /  Thursday.  December 4. 1986 / Notices
    actions merely create extra reductions
    in actual or allowable emissions which
    cannot by themselves produce any
    advene effects on air quality, they need
    not be made federally enforceable until
    used.41 Where states wish to make
    banked emission reductions federally
    enforceable at the time they are banked.
    several mechanisms may be available
    for doing so without case-by-case SIP
    revisions. States with EPA-approved
    PSD. NSR, visibility and preconstruction
    review programs can issue permits to
    credit reductions from emission units
    currently subject to these
    preconstruction permits.94 States with
    EPA-approved generic rules may also be
    able to use those rules' procedures to
    make reductions at existing sources
    federally enforceable. Since only
    reductions in applicable emission limits
    are involved at the banking stage,
    modeling should not be required.
    Moreover, these reductions should
    automatically meet the requirement  that
    changes in emission limits under generic
    rules not jeopardize ambient standards
    or PSD increments.
       Since some trades have special
    requirements, banks do not guarantee
    the validity of particular banked ERCs
    for all potential uses or for all time. For
    example, because only actual reductions
    occurring at the same major stationary
    source are eligible for netting, banked
    reductions created at other stationary
    sources cannot be used for netting
    transactions. However, banked credits
    resulting from reductions at other
    stationary sources may be used as
    offsets or in bubbles, so long as this
    notice's other requirements for
    appropriate use of credits are observed
    and applicable offset requirements are
    satisfied.
       Because of differing regulatory
    requirements, the amount of credit
    actually derived from particular
    emission reductions may also differ
    from one regulatory program to another.
    For example, in primary nonattainment
    areas needing but lacking approved
    demonstrations, the amount of credit
      Since iMtM may have to revise their regulation*
     or permit procedure! in order to unolemeni this new
     itale-enforceibtlity requirement full
     implementation will not be expected until one year
     after publication of today's nonce. However, all
     credits not made enforceable when banked during
     this interim period, together with afl credit*
     deposited prior to today's notice, should be made
     itate-enforceeble within eighteen months from the
     date of this policy.
      " a. 47 FR 15078.15QB1 el coL 2.
      '* Sane jurisdiction* may alea as* general state
     preconstrucHon review program thai have received
     EPA approval to credit reduction* «t existing
     sources if such reduction* are covered under the
     program, since requirements under these programs
     are federally enforceable.
                           available from a given reduction for
                           bubble purposes may be less than that
                           available from the same reduction for
                           netting or offset purposes, since special
                           progress requirements apply to bubbles
                           in these areas.
                             Because the use of credits will change
                           (rather than merely reduce) emission
                           levels if approved, such proposals
                           should be carefully evaluated to assure
                           they meet all of today's criteria for
                           appropriate use. For similar reasons
                           proposals to use banked credits will
                           usually require additional approval
                           procedures (e.g., additional modeling for
                           certain TSP or SO* trades), whether
                           such proposals are evaluated as case-
                           by-case SIP revisions, under EPA-
                           approved generic rules, or under EPA-
                           approved new source review programs.
                             One commenter asked how banked
                           ERCs would be treated if a
                           nonattainment area is being
                           redesignated to attainment
                           Redesignation will have no effect on the
                           banked ERCs. so long as state planning
                           considered those ERCs to be in the air
                           (I.e.. in die inventory) at the site of their
                           creation. Because local recessions or
                           shifts in industrial patterns can
                           temporarily affect air quality without
                           regard to the adequacy of state
                           emission-control efforts, EPA guidance
                           requires mat redesignation not be based
                           solely on monitored air quality. In
                           addition to considering factors such as
                           the state of the particular economy and
                           its effect on emissions. EPA may
                           consider die number, type, and state
                           inventory treatment of banked credits.
                           Such procedures will help assure that
                           reliably banked reductions an not
                           reduced or otherwise adversely affected
                           by shifts in an area's designated
                           attainment status.
                             Some commenters asserted it is overly
                           cautious to require that all banked
                           emissions be considered as "in die air."
                           One commenter asked that state
                           planning be required to include as "in
                           the air" only a portion of banked
                           emissions analogous to a "reserve
                           requirement" This comment draw
                           parallels with financial banking to
                           assume that given withdrawals and
                           deposits, a certain "float" quantity of
                           ERCs would always remain in die bank
                           and out of the air. EPA recognizes that
                           reductions placed in banks may tend to
                           keep the air cleaner through a relatively
                           constant level of deposits. However.
                           EPA cannot allow states to consider less
                           than their full amount of banked
                           deposits as "in die air." To do so could
    jeopardize air quality planning and
    attainment**
    
    D. OBERS Projections and Double-
    Counting
    
      In its August 1983 notice EPA asked
    for further comment on whether some
    SIPs' translation of general economic
    growth projections provided by OBERS
    (Department of Commerce) directly into
    projected emissions growth, left "no
    straightforward way to disaggregate the
    projections into shutdowns and new
    plant openings." Whether such SIP
    demonstrations wen  fully or only partly
    approved, die notice continued, such use
    of OBERS might make it impossible to
    distinguish which shutdowns were
    already railed on indie demonstration.
    Therefore, it might be "difficult or
    impossible for states whose SIPs rest on
    OBERS projections to grant credit from
    shutdowns for use in existing source
    bubble trades, consistent with the Clean
    Air Act" 48 FR 39501.
      Most industry and several state
    commenters asserted that where OBERS
    data were used to project needed SIP
    reductions, use of shutdown credits in
    bubbles was not a problem, since
    OBERS figures substantially
    overestimate the total amount of
    emission reduction needed to attain. For
    example, one industry commenter noted
    that "emissions growth will not be
    direcdy proportional to economic
    growth because of die installation of
    new environmentally efficient
    technologies. Therefore, SIPs which
    used "OBERS" projections already have
      " In order not to defeat banking j purpose of
    encouraging the earliest possible disclosure and
    production of potential extra emission reduction!.
    use of banked credit* for bubble purposes in
    primary nonaaauunml ana* w/iic/i lock approved
    dunottttrauoa* will continue to be allowed.
    provided these credit* meet all baseline and other
    applicable requirement* of today's notice for these
    area*. This generally include* the lowest-of-ectual-
    SIP-eBowable of-RACT-ellowable emiisions
    baseline, applied a* of the date of written
    application to the state to bank such reductions
    through a formal bank or Informal banking
    iMTTMnit«» for use in future trade*. It also includes
    that 2011 net reduction requirement and state
    aamnaces specified above, at the time such credits
    at* approved for UM in bubble*. Banked crecns
    resulting from plain thutdown or production
    airtailmeett may be uaed for bubble* in these areas
    oa the same term* as use of other banked creoits.
    provided their uee i* lubtett to stringent qualitative
    review to assure legal technical and programmatic
    consistency with SIP planning goala (e.g., avoidance
    of -shifting demand"). See today s Policy at n. 24
    and Section LA.l.c|31 of the Technical Issues
    Document (Banked credits resulting from cenam
    shutdown* or production curtailment* may.
    however, be subject to special restrictions for offset
    purpose*. See today's Technical Issues Document at
    n.14).
      The special restrictions discussed above do not
    apply under today's notice 'o use of banked creait
    for bubble purposes in other areas.
    

    -------
                      Federal PegUter  / Vol. 51. No. 233 / Thursday. December 4. 1986 / Notices
    •n inherent growth potential built into
    them, and allowing ERG* for shutdowns
    in these areas will not jeopardize a
    state's ability to demonstrate
    attainment." A local agency agreed that
    "demonstrations.  . . based on such
    emission projections would over-
    estimate attainment because some
    growth will occur from (wholly) new
    sources, new sources replacing existing
    sources, or modified existing sources.
    [all of] which would  be subject ;o. .  .
    New Source Review rules, rather than
    the less stringent [SIP] requirements
    assumed in the emission projections."
      Several state commenters also
    stressed that while use of OBERS
    projections is not widespread, the
    underlying question is whether the
    area's SIP process incorporates
    conditions sufficient to prevent double-
    counting of shutdown credits. One local
    agency recommended that shutdown
    credits be prohibited where the source
    involved is within an industrial category
    projected to go through an economic
    downturn, asserting that in such cases
    the SIP implicitly relies on the expected
    shutdowns. An environmental group
    went a step further, and urged that all
    shutdown credits for bubbles in areas
    using OBERS projections be completely
    prohibited.
      EPA has concluded that the
    requirements of the 1982 policy are
    sufficient to prevent double-counting of
    shutdown credits,  and should be
    retained without further special
    restrictions. First use of OBERS or any
    other projection is relevant only where
    an area has an approved attainment
    demonstration. Today's notice generally
    disallows bubble credit for pre-
    application reductions (including
    reductions from shutdowns or
    curtailments) in primary nonattainment
    areas which require but lack such
    demonstrations. Thus today's notice
    largely moots any issue of double-
    counting for past shutdowns, in the
    areas for which this issue has been
    raised with the greatest concern.
    Second, use of OBERS projections in
    areas with approved demonstrations
    does not appear nearly so common as
    was assumed in EPA's 1983 request for
    further commenK Even where such
    projections were used in approved
    demonstrations, they generally
    overestimate the amount of emissions
    forecast to exist in the year of protected
    attainment. They therefore tend to
    assume substantially less overall
    reductions from source turnover than
    will actually occur.'*
      Finally, even if such projections did
    not overestimate emissions, under
    today's notice the state must show that
    use in bubbles of any reductions created
    by shutdowns ia consistent with its
    attainment demonstration and that
    those reductions were not already
    assumed in its SIP. For example, the
    state must show that it did not implicitly
    or explicitly rely on a "turnover rate"
    from the difference in emissions
    between existing sources and better-
    controlled new sources for part of the
    reductions required in its SIP from that
    industrial category. Alternatively, it
    must show that if a "turnover rate" was
    assumed,  the shutdown credits used in
    aa individual trade result from
    reductions) in excess of that turnover
    rate. Where a state regulated the
    sources in a standard industrial
    classification (SIC) without explicitly
    relying on turnovers, then bubble credit
    for a *  idown within that SCI category
    woulc -ot in general be double-
    counted.'*
      These requirements should fully
    protect states and sources against
    adverse environmental or SIP effects.
    £ Improved Modeling and de Minima
    Rtquinawt*
      Bubble applicants must show that
    their proposed trades are at least
    equivalent in ambient effect to the SIP
    (or other) emission limits the bubble
    would replace. For some criteria
    pollutants (e.g. VOC or NOJ this test
    may generally be met by showing equal
    pace with projected modi la earaiajt tod/or
    tmptoynwM in tbow SIC coda*, without retard to
    eaufiBf dittnbuoon* between ntw end ajuafief,
    •ourcM. SM. t.|. 1900 OBSK& SEA Arf/ora/
    Protection*. Volumt l: Mtthodolofr. Canctpa ami
    Sla»Dota. p. (xi). US. Otpvmmt at fimiaitua
    (July «en
      " Such eradlt* muat of coor»* meet til other
    requirement* of today'i none*, including application
    of appropriate baMlina* tad othtr criteria dtfiaiae,.
    aurplu* reduction*, btfon they may be uaad la •
    bubble trade.
      SUM which nprfMly rtIM oa OBEXS
    protection* My alao tbow tint no deublt-coitntlnf
    ucuured by deoonttrttinf thai they did aot
    implicitly rtiy oa aay turnover credit*. Tbia •howmg
    should no« b* difficult ta maJta becau** OBERS
      '• Thit it to oeeaute OBEXS-bated SIP
    proifctiont attume that until of production (and
    hence tfliiinontl in particular SIC Code* wit] k*ep
    aaauBM that emittum* will evenly inert*** at each
    plant and production line, proportional* to frowth
    ia earaini* tod employment potential for that SIC
    coda. CLo.it above Thit utumption neither
    anticipate* nor rallet on tha fact that aay trnitdown
    will occur.
      Th* oa* txetption 10 th*t* general prlndpia*
    could occur whtr* a StP relied oa OBERS
    projection! for aa SIC catafory predicted to undanjo
    a quoitifitd future aconoisic downturn, without
    takins tipliat tffimwOv* ttapa to praclvd* reliance
    on that downturn, la th*M cirraawtancaa th* ttat*
    would either hav* to tbow that a propoaad
    thutdowa cndit from a Mure* withia that SIC
    category wa* not double-counted (M. ay tnowtnj
    that mort thutdown reduction* than protected for
    th* SIC cai*tary h»d tirtady occurred), or daay
    credit.
    reductions in emissions.1' For otr-er
    pollutants (e.g.. SO*. TSP or CO) it wa
    traditionally met prior to the I9fl2
    policy, through ambient dispersion
    modeling.
      The 1982 policy made available
    several alternatives to the use of full-
    scale dispersion modeling whet* »-jeh
    modeling was not needed to orcts;: air
    quality. These alternatives couliJ. i
    appropriate, carefully-limited
    circumstances, be used to demonstrate
    ambient equivalence for bubbles
    involving particulate matter or other
    pollutants whose ambient effects were
    not linearly related to emissions. They
    included oVr minima levels and the use
    of other screening criteria to identify
    circumstances ia which full-scale
    modeling was unnecessary, either for
    bubbles processed as SIP revisions or
    those approved under generic rules.
      Today's notice both tightens some of
    these screening criteria and expands the
    circumstances in which such criteria can
    be used.
      Today's notice also specifies certain
    conditions and types of case-by-case
    SIP-revision bubbles for which EPA
    Regional Offices may require additional
    technical support beyond basic
    modeling requirements, deemed
    necessary to protect NAAQS. PSD
    increments or visibility where allowabl
    values used to calculate baseline
    emissions are not clearly used or
    reflected ia an approved demonstration,
    or may not reasonably be assumed
    consistent with the need to protect PSD
    increments or visibility. See Technical
    Issues Document Section I.A.I.a.
    
    1. Oe Minimi* Levels
      Under  the 1982 policy, trades in which
    net baseline emissions did not increase
    and in which the sum of emission
    increases, looking only at the increasing
    sources, totaled less than 100 tons per
    year (TPY) after applicable control
    requirements, could be exempted from
    SIP revisions under an approved generic
    rule. The rationale for this approach was
    that EPA regulations implementing the
    Clean Air Act already allow some
    exemptions from NSR requirements for
    new sources which are not defined as
    "major"—ie- which do not have
    potential emissions greater than 100
    TPY. See e.g.. CAA section 302(j) and 40
    CFR 5Z21(b)(l) and 51.18(j)(l)(v). Thus
    trades which merely shift lesser
    amounts of emissions, snd which are
      '• latarwtad parti** tbould. how*v*r. b* twere
    that *a»bient aqulvalaae* oonndentioni wnico
    apply to SOk TSP tnd CO. at d*«cnb*d bmow. tito
    •pply to NO* trad** iavorvini nubility impacts
    from al*vat*d plum**. SM Scctioa LB.I b. of today
    Technical Utun document
    

    -------
    436aa	F»«bcd Regnler /  Vol. SI. No.  233 / Thursday. December 4. MM / Notices
    accompanied by compmmtiag
    decreases, shottld aol •• subject to man
    stringent requirement*. A* A* 1982
    notice put it "Such tradn will have at
    most a de minim is impact on local air
    quality because only minor quantities of
    emissions are involved ...  the federal
    resources required to evaluate these
    trades could best be used to  evaluate
    actions that have a potential impact on
    air quality." 47 FR at 15085."
      One commenter asserted that this 100
    TPY limitation was unnecessary, since
    the trades to which it appKed were
    already required to produce  no  net
    increase in emissions. However, four
    state and environmental commenters
    urged that de miaimia levels for such
    trades be the same as those triggering
    federally-mandated review of emissions
    increases in PSD areas. These comments
    primarily noted that EPA had already
    defined more relevant "cutoff" levels in
    its regulations for PSD, for NSR
    preconstruction permits in
    nonattainment areas, and in visibility
    permit regulation*, and that emission
    shifts of 100 TPY from one source ta
    another might still be too large to  go
    unexamined for certain type* of
    emissions and sttuaa'oaa.
      In order to ensure prosecution of
    ambient air quality, today's notice
    adopts more protective de minima
    levels—derived from those for PSD; NSR
    permits in nonattainment areas; and the
    visibility permit regulations—of MO TPY
    for CO,« TPY for SO,. 25 TPY for
    paniculate matter, and 0.6 TPY for lead.
    Because of this action, state  ambient
    evaluation of de minima trade* will no
    longer be required foe generic bubble
    rules to be approvable by EPA.*0  Trades
    involving sources of substantial size
    may still be implemented as de minimia
    under today's provisions, as long  as the
    quality of ERCs traded by these source*
    is below the levels specified above.
    
    2. Modeling Requirements41
    
       Numerous comments' wen received
    on the 1982 policy's ttose lavel  approach
      " Thi 19*B document did. Henever. MM th«l
     such "(general trade* arc still rabsecl to Mibwot
     testi |ti th« ttou level aod{ . . . thouid
     accordingly be evaluated by the sta»e under the?
     modeling icnen ... or an equivalent approach."
     47 FR ISO*! at ik?.
      40 Thii should not be eonstmed to uapt» Out n»w
     Murcea **>d moelificancau Med not met a*
     applicable requirement*, including thoee specified
     under 40 CFR 51.18 or parallel EPA-approved stale
     rule*.
      '' The f»HuwHit Jt*u»aeiuii ewamarltJM be*
     interim Jiiatuniimm made in the 19BC raedeting
     screen (**• Technical teauet DomnieM. Appendix
     C ( eWW BPA • r*)iT^*aTtM*n *O fAetfOf QOffMHBIttl OH
     modeiing istue*.
    to demonstrating aabteat
    The vast majority sought addad
    clarification, stating, for exampk. that
    the 1982 policy did "n*x adequately     X
    delineate the leva! of modeling
    necessary in each instance." Today's
    notice tightens and darifie* the
    conditions under which ambient
    equivalence may be demonstrated with
    less than full-scale modeling.
      a Level I Criteria. Under the 1982
    document no modeling was generally
    required of SOt. TSP. or similar trades
    where applicable net baseline emissions
    did not increase, sources were located
    in the same immediate vicinity
    (generally within 250 maters of each
    other), and the taller stack waa the one
    which increased its emissions. The**
    conditions were believed sufficient to
    assure that local ambient concentrations
    of the relevant criteria pollutants would
    not increase as a result of the trad*.
      EPA haa added two criteria to those
    specified in 1982, in order to provide
    additional assurance that trades
    approved under Level I will have no
    adverse ambient effect First there moat
    be no complex (e.g.. mountamons)
    terrain within 50 kilometers of tha
    trading  sources or within tha trade's
    area of  significant impact whichever is
    less. (For simplified methods of
    determining "area of significant impact"
    see today's Technical Issue* Document.
    Appendix E). Second, stacks with
    increasing baseline emissions must ba
    sufficiently tall to avoid downwash.
      Some industry commenters objected
    to the 250-meter limitation, advocating
    use of either trade ratios for source*
    beyond that distance, or an 800-metar
    limit extrapolated from unrelated EPA
    regulations.** EPA has retained the 280-
    meter limit as substantially more
    consistent with  the modeling screen's
    original intent of simplifying modeling
    requirements for trades which couki not
    jeopardize ambient equivalence.4*
      «• Saw •*. 47 FR SSM. SSSS (Pebrawy a. MB4.
      •• Trad* ratioe may already be uaeet onctar
    general provMoM Inviting- eutsw to daoajn other
    equivalent approocho* which adequately *dJiea»
    ambient ooncerna. Sew. e-g. 47 FR at ISBJT and «U.
    1SWB. However, to be approved by EPA eeck rattoa
    would generally have to be daftMd ihraeajh ar«»
    wide advene* modeting of ati were**, ae wall **
    thaee likely to trade).
      Several comment* also objected to the
    requirement that Level I tredem net ajeseeee
    emisatons from the aowee wrth the kjnei effective
    pfcsm height. The** coalmen4* no»ed that ander
    venoue condttiont s«mitar attdtt eo«M an vsrry ta
    eflMtrm ptanw hetajtrt *« nertber woeM
    conaiatentiy be "trrgtwr at "tawejr." One e)se>
    luoeatad tMt rrntttcton migiM etiu>«iage «ee e
    stacks M care tocal eJ».tei»an«aa.
      Today'a notice rctarna ttits Level! requirement
    unchanged. That two nmrcea may be vtrtuaDy
    Indiatinguiahable in effecttw stack rwi^W should
    not delay approval of Level I trade*, sine* the)
                                             TSP. CDt A and NO* {for visibility
                                             purpose*) Bay aiao bit approved throtrgii
                                             limited Level B node&ag of tht ambrent
                                             efbcU toUy o/«0uraw involved in the
                                             trade, when applicable net baseline
                                             emission* de not ncre*M aad
                                             designated ambient significance levels
                                             are not exceeded.
                                               Today's notice confirms, clarifies, and
                                             in certain cases extends various 1983
                                             improvements made to increase
                                             certainty and better assure that such
                                             Level n trades result in ambient
                                             equivalence. In particular, "significant
                                             ambient impact" may no longer be
                                             measured solely by changes at the
                                             "receptor of maximum predicted
                                             impact" before and after the trade.
                                             Instead such changes must be measured
                                             at every affected receptor for every
                                             averaging period relevant to the
                                             particular pollutant throughout the year.
                                             Under this approach no Level II trades
                                             will be approved without further
                                             scrutiny, involving full or limited Level
                                             HI modeling, if they result in a
                                             significant met ambient effect at any
                                             modeling point for any such averaging
                                             period during a modeled year.
                                               Today** notice also specifies Level  II
                                             significance levels for ail averaging
                                             periods consMesvt with all current
                                             national ambient air quality standards.
                                             not just t*M M hour averaging periods
                                             for SO* aad PM or the 8-hour averaging
                                             period for CO.44 Refined models such as
                                             MPTER and ISC must generally be used
                                             to measure change* resulting from the
                                             trade *t e*cb receptor, using the most
                                             recent fail year of meteorological
                                             data.4*
                                               These aodeling requirements assure
                                             that bubbles which pass applicable
                                             Level a tests and meet all other
                                             requirements of today's policy will
                                             result to air quafity equal to or better
                                              UmiUtion't purpoaa—preventing potentially
                                              significant Uteieeaea m ground-level ambient
                                              eoacamtnttoBa da» at shift* of emiaawm from
                                              -higher" t*> "tower" stack*—wxll mil be satiated.
                                              Mot«o«iar. *ne* such trade* cannot increase net
                                              baaeline emiaaiona, this limitation merely ensure*
                                              they wltt-mit creel* n*w ambient violation*.
                                              Paensaa odsar EPA rasjutaUon* addreea the use of
                                              exeeeaWety tali **j)oka to cure existing ambient
                                              vioiattM*. os) bsttltar rejatnclion in UM* Leve4 1
                                              requirement appear* nquired.
                                                44 For further dbeuaaion of the*e Jignificarce
                                              level* and the uma»*eij a**urarrce of
    
                                              contttBctian cask todoy'i more sopMtticated Level II
                                                    | sptirnarh aae Plackamiein. 'Modeling
                                              Chtena: Tb* Key to Major Reforms for Emissions
                                              Trade*," APCA Paper M-e&2 (San Francisco.
                                              California. )uo* 2S. 19S4).
                                                «• Under some limited conditions, conservative
                                              screening modal* may b* substituted for these
                                              refined modei*. and ia> thaa* case* a Full year of
                                              meteorotogKal del* may aot be necessary See
                                              Technical laaue* Document. Secnon I.B.I.b.l3|.
    

    -------
                      Ftofenl Rogstar / Vrrf. St. Ntr. Sto / Thursday. Dtconfaev 4.1988 / Notice*
                                                                           -2828
    thtn tint produced by pre>tr*de
    emistioo limit*. «nd nay be approved.
    Became refined model* have now been
    approved by EPA udlhcfr parameters
    may be specified with greater certainty
    and confidence, these requirements also
    provide a firmer basis for approving
    state generic rules incorporating Level
    D.««
      a Ltvtl lU Criteria. Trade* which are
    not de minima and do not satisfy Level
    I or Level D above must generally be
    evaluated by full-scale ambient
    dispersion modeling. Two air pollution
    control agencies recommended fixed
    trading ratios la lieu of each modeling,
    asserting thia would reduce coat and
    uncertainty while continuing to meet the
    goals of the Oea» Air Act EPA
    recognizes the legitimacy of thee*
    concern* but has concluded that trade*
    which do not satisfy Level 1 or D raise
    the kind* of air quality issue* which
    appropriately require full-wale
    modeling, unless such trading ratio*
    have been justified by similar area-wide
    modeling conducted hi advance of the
    trade.
      Today's notice doe*, however, modify
    Level ID to provide states and soaroesr
    more ftatibiiiry in thia regard. Warn*
    trade meet* a&oihaz criteria of Lead 0,
    but Level Q modeling ha* ehawa
    significant potential increase* at
    particular receptors. nM*m»»«i •n«ty^^
    under Level IH may under appropriate
    Hr**innitsnrts be i*""**** to a cecanaor
    area smaller than the. trade'* entire, area,
    of impact so long a* M inched**
    emissions from all source* which;
    contribute to ambient concentration* in
    that limited geographic area. Been** of
    the unique nature of each situation, IBM
    appropriate limited geographic ana
    must be detemtaad in accord wita-BPA-.
    guideline* on i"rwi*>ing •"** nis hy
    case evaluation. Thi* "hacted Level IE:
    approach may conaero ssgaiflrant
    resources, while tUowttg state* and
      «• Interacted parse* 1(10*%
     thai IMCIUM of r*plic»MM|i *'
     appiiutiaai of toy appro***)
     specific isibisni diap*ni**u
     emetic mlM may b* am* dUB
     implement Uun ruin incorporates ouly-dt ai/umii
     and Lev*! I •pproachn for SO». TSf. CO or A
     Dunn* ind (fMr iMtunc* of tftt 19B taMn» paAcy
     EPA tuff doJto* «>4 infenMllr oraltud. «i *•
     raquMt of n*i« and local ur •feacy dincton.
     model enteric ruin which providod nor* detail to
     htlp iatnvxcd item •eccottWr addme tbn*>
     COOCM. The Agavcy pUm to epdM* an«U
     ractrcuJau tfaot* «od*4 rulM u quickly u poenbte
     •/tir publication of today'i notice, ff A account**
     pejtln wtchinf IB dvrvtoe rmrie rain to OM An*
     M« mod*l> «ni worii clofely wtA ralomm
     Rtftoiml tuff. M ttaf pottntltl prebrnn oiy hi
     promptly idinnfitd «nd rmoivtd
    source* to focus on specific geographic
    area* of concern.4*
    F. Enforcement too**
      Severel commenten noted that while
    source* should, u provided in the 1962
    policy, be allowed to use bubble* to
    come into compliance, bubble
    application* might also be used to delay
    compliance or enforcement without
    compensating environmental benefit*.
    Some of these commenten alluded to
    language in the 1982 notice which, while
    not authorizing or intended to authorize
    such results, could have been
    interpreted to allow them. Such
    unacceptable delay might for example,
    ari*e where a sourc* facing u imminent
    compliance ^••/m«*> suddenly advance*
    a bubble application and asserts dial
    more time i* needed to develop and
    evaluate that application before
    compliance with original SIP limits
    should be required.
      Both bubble* end generic rule* can be
    important mean* of allowing
    environmentally-sound compliance.
    Generic rule* may be more expedHtou*
    than case-by-case SIP revision bubble*.
    They may also prsm •* the very
    opportunity to babbie whoa the time
    needed to process a ir*» by csie S9
    revision might extend beyond the
    source's original SIP compliance' data\
    At tno **3DO IBM, DaDDfe* eppncatiOBe
    shovid not become e shield against
    enforcement action* for source* whfeb
    have failed to take necesaary step* to
    meet required control obfigatfoo*
    time; Bubble* are simply ahematfrw-
    meanr of eomprying at lev* eoet They
    should be (reefed neither more nor lee*
    stringently than other, more tradttonal
    method* of compliance. Bubbles offer
    innovative ways tomeetemianoir
    reduction obligations. They should not
    become devices to avoid such
    obligations.
      Today's notice substantially clarifies
    and tighten* the 1962 policy to better
    implement these principle*. Among
    other step*, compliance extension* wiff
    no longer be granted under generic nde*
    in any nonattainment area, and may be-
      " Tod»y • nolle* alto rtqutni bubWt
    cvtuo pnm«T
    •ir quality b«o»ft." wludi ihaU emuM tt
    of i M* nduetioa in tniman*
    RACT-«ilowibli ttaatmta bi
    involvtd in th* bubbU. SM. t*.
    Thit rnuuvoMM don aotomMili
    difrinet thcaor 10 •ddiKo u *•
    tpproicbn di»cm««d •bov*. U i» OMraiy
    to (OMira th»t whtn tpprapnaw Uvcii of ouoaMnf
    iodluto Uui prncribod buciia* vdon trt net
    •uffieftnt to product 4B)bi«nt tquivtkaM.
    •ddiaonil nduetion* whicb twun inch
    tqui«>t«ne«. prior to tit am mi discount l»
    battitni cmiuton*. wilt b« nquircd.
    granted genetically i* attainment ams
    only when EPA ha* approved tha tar.e-
    extensiosj portion of to* rule a*
    consistent with relevant Clean Air net
    requirement*, tndbdiag expedition*
    attainment and maintenance of ambient
    standard*. Cf. 47 FR at 1907V col. 2. This
    will generally mean that requests for
    time extension* as part of bubble
    application* must oe separately
    reviewed u individual SIP revisions.
    subject to criteria EPA normally applies
    to such requests.
      Today'* notice also re-emphasizes
    that as a matter of law and sound
    policy, source* seeking bubbles remain
    subject to enforcement of existing (pre-
    trade) SIP limits until the bubble is
    finally approved. Sources which possess
    approved bubbles with future effective
    dates remain subject to similar
    enforcement of pra-trade limits until
    either those limits or the new ones are
    met and may wfsh to take steps
    identified in the notice, including
    accelerated compliance with bubble
    limit*, to minimiie that possibility. Se»
    Technical Issues Document, section
    LRZa.
      Under today'* notice. EPA witf not
    specifically select such sources for
    enforcement action. Nor will EPA
    withhold or-defer enforcement simply
    because-a eaoree i* seeking alternative
    emission limits through- a bubble. In
    fn Credits
        A. Creatiag Fmrtr*" Reduction Credits
        1. Surplus
        i Enforceable
        4. Quantifiable
      *• SUtn and souren *hould however. b« aware
    that uador currtnt tf* futdtnct. rach discrenon >a
    moat tftcly toavmtoMd whon • SIP-r«vition
    b«bk*> hM OMBfonmttr pwoowd for nppnv(i at
    UM fWM tovti aad EPA M*Jf luvt concluded thai u
    ap**«n approviU* under comnt EPA poiicy In
    tbn* dnmanmcn uiiU«iluri of action 10 enforce
    pra-Md* Hmti tfal wo«M aoMt b* mplaced by a
    vcM bub6*»r«eaBft*Bn0eB would Ukeiy eonaume
    Hirnu* DA artorsameat mawen to aute
    anvtroaffltnttl end.
    

    -------
    43830            Federal Register / Vol.  51, No. 233  /  Thursday, December 4. 1986 / Notices
      B. Using Emission Reduction Credits
        1. Emissions Trades Must Involve the
        Same Criteria Pollutant
        2. All Uses of ERCs Must Satisfy
        Applicable Ambient Test*
        3. Bubbles Must Not Increase Hazardous
        Pollutants
        4. ERCs From Existing Sources Cannot
        Be Used to Meet Technology-Based
        Requirements Applicable to New
        Sources
        5. States May Approve Bubbles in
        Primary Nonattainment Areas Which
        Require But Lack Approved
        Demonstrations of Attainment
        ft. Sources Need Not Be Subject to
        Binding Compliance Schedules Based on
        Current SIP Requirements
        7. States May Extend Certain
        Compliance Schedules
        6. States May Approve Bubbles Involving
        Open Oust Sources of Paniculate
        Emissions
        9. Trades Involving Lead
        10. Trades Involving ERCa Prom Mobile
        Source Measures
        11. Interstate Trades
        12. Bubbles Must Not Impede
        Enforcement
      C. Banking Emission Reduction Credits
     III. State Generic Trading Rules
     (V. Bubbles Which Require Case-by-Case SIP
        Revisions
     V. Conclusion
    
     EMISSIONS TRADING POLICY
     STATEMENT
     1. IntroductioK Baaic Elatnoot* of
     Emission* Trading
    
       This statement details EPA policy on
     emissions trading. It sets out conditions
     EPA considers necessary for emissions
     trades to satisfy the Clean Air Act It
     also clarifies and otherwise makes final
     the Interim Policy proposed on April 7,
     1982 (47 FR15076). It is accompanied by
     a Technical Issues Document which
     elaborates and provides greater detail
     on principles set forth below. Finally,  it
     addresses new issues, and incorporates
     certain additional safeguards as a result
     of past trading experience, to better
     assure the environmental integrity of
     future trades.
    
     .4. What is Emissions Trading?
    
       Emissions trading consists of bubbles.
     netting, emission offsets, and emission
     reduction banking. These steps involve
     creation of surplus emission reductions
     at certain stacks, vents or similar
     sources of emissions and use of these
     emission reductions to meet or redefine
     pollution control requirements
     applicable to other emission sources.
     Such emissions trades can provide more
     flexibility to meet environmental
     requirements, and may therefore be
     used to reduce control costs and
     encourage faster compliance. Moreover,
     by developing "generic" trading rules
    (see Section 13 below) states' may be
    able to expedite bubble approvals by
    eliminating the need for case-by-case
    SIP revisions* and by providing more
    predictable approval criteria.
    
    3. The Bubble
      EPA's bubble lets existing plants (or
    groups of plants) increase emissions at
    one or more emission sources in
    exchange for compensating extra
    decreases in emissions at other emission
    sources. Approved bubbles give plant
    managers the ability to implement less
    costly ways of meeting air quality
    requirements. To be approvable. each
    bubble must produce results which are
    equivalent to or better than the baseline
    emission levels in terms of ambient
    impact and enforceability. Thus,
    bubbles should jeopardize neither
    ambient standards nor applicable PSD
    increments and visibility requirements.
    Under EPA's bubble, emission
    reductions from existing sources can not
    be used to meet technology-based
    requirements  applicable to new or
    modified stationary sources.
      This Policy Statement replaces EPA's
    original bubble policy (December II.
    1979:44 FR 71779) and Interim Emissions
    Trading Policy (47 PR 15078V It tightens
    general bubble principle*, a* well a*
    requirements for bubbles in primary
    nonattainment area* which require but
    lack demonstrations-of attainment and
    requires bubbles in these) areas to -
    produce progress towards attainment
    beyond equivalence to stringent
    emission limits. By specifying EPA'S'
    requirements foe bubble* is all areas.
    this Policy Statement should make the
    development review and approval of
    environmentally-sound bubble* more -
    rapid and predictable.
    C Netting
       Netting may exempt "modifications"
    of existing major source* from certain
    preconstruction permit requirement*
    under New Source Review (NSR). so
    long as there  is no net emission*
    increase within the major source or any
    such increase falls below significance
    levels.* By "netting out" the
      « -Sutn" Indudm any entity property deiefeted
     authority to adauiuater relevant pert* of • SUM
     Implementation Man (SIP) under tft* Cleaa Air Act
      * "Caaa by-c«M SIP revtakm" nean* ceee by-
     caie approval by EPA aa • SIPnvMoo. Thte la the
     traditional machaauin by which bobble* ud ether
     SIP chanaM have bean approved by EPA.
      » See. «.», 10 CFR Sl.iaUHlMx). SLMftKm
     S£21(bX23). See alao today'i Technical laauea
     Document, n. 47 ud accompanyins, tent
      On Novtmber 7. isea. EPA restructured CPR Put
     31 and renumbered many of thai Put't *action»(51
     FR west). Became mod reeden win ba nora
     finuiiir with prior detignetlona. today'i notice
     contain* citattoai be**d on the orgenixatloB of Part
    modification is not considered "major"
    and is therefore not subject to
    associated preconstruction permit
    requirements for major modifications
    under 40 CFR 51.18,51.24.5Z21. 52,24,
    52J7, or 52^8. The modification must
    nevertheless meet applicable new
    source performance standards (NSPS).
    national emissions standards for
    hazardous air pollutants (NESHAPs),
    preconstruction applicability review
    requirements under 40 CFR 51.18(a)-(h)
    and (1), and SIP requirements.
      Netting's scope is determined by the
    definition of "source" for review of
    major modifications.  In general. PSD
    areas use a single, planrwide definition.
    allowing actual emission reductions
    anywhere in a contiguous plant to
    compensate  for potential emission
    increases at  individual emitting units
    within the plant Nonattainment areas
    can choose either this single, planrwide
    definition or a dual definition, so long as
    the definition selected does not interfere
    with attainment and maintenance of
    NAAQS and is consistent with progress
    towards attainment Under the
    plantwide definition, significant net
    actual increases at the plant as a whole
    will trigger new source review. Under
    the dual definition, significant increases
    at either the plant as a whole or
    individual emitting units will trigger new
    source review.
      In addition to these federal definitions
    for major new sources and
    modification*, state preconstruction
    permit* for major or minor new sources
    and modifications may be required
    under 40 CFR SV18(a), and some states
    preclude netting.
    
    D. Emission Offsets
    
      In nonattainment areas, major new
    stationary source* and major
    modifications  are subject to a
    preaconstniction permit requirement
    that they secure-sufficient surplus
    emission reductions to more than
    "offset" their emissions. This
    requirement is designed to allow
    industrial growth in nonattainment
    areas without interfering with
    attainment and maintenance of ambient
    air quality standards. It is currently
    implemented through SIP regulations
    adopted by states to meet the
    requirement* of 40 CFR 51.18{j).
       In attainment areas, some new
    sources and modifications might not
    otherwise be able to be constructed
    because their  emissions would result in
     51 a* It axiated before thi« ceatractuhns. Intamitd
     part** may u*e Appendix F of today'i Technical
     i**ue* Document to convert today'i Part 51 uutmni
     to the cormponding n*w one*.
    

    -------
                      Federal Register / Vot. 31. No.  Z33 / Thursday. December 4. 19BP / Noffces
                                                                          4381
    an iJiissiisiini at the apfhcafale PSD
    iocroMU ar a«bien» air quality
    standard, would sigritaarty contribute
    to • violation of an amasent air quality
    standard in a designated primary
    nonattauunent area; or would
    significantly contribute to viability
    impairiMOt  to a Federal Class 1 area.
    These sources may me emissions offsets
    to allow desired growth  while protecting
    that increment,  standard, or visibility.
    
    £ Emission Reduction Banking
      Firms may store qualified emission
    reduction credits (ERCa) in EPA-
    approvable banks for later use in
    bubble, offset or netting transactions.
    Depending on the bank's rules, banked
    ERCs may also  be sold or transferred to
    other firms which seek to meet certain
    regulatory requirements by use of
    emissions trades.
      BPA's revised Offset Ruling (40 CFR
    Part 51. Appendix S) allow* states to
    establish banking rules as part of their
    80%. This Policy Statement and
    accompanying Technical Issues
    Document detail die necessary
    components of a complete state banking
    rule appronbie nnder the dean Air
    Act While many areas also allow
    baaJd*g of emtsston redactions, fw
    various purposes throngs verioua formal
    or informal baafctaf mechaniaiBs. banks-
    wbidl do not meet today's criteria (e.g-
    by not BBOjdng*bsBiked emission
    reductions enforceable by the state by
    the tee the redactions are actually
    banked, ar by no* assuring tot deposit*
    are- taken expticJtry into  account for SfcP
    PISIUIJIISJ purposes} uaiuiot <(w4lfy
    emuakm reductions as ERCs. and may
    offer substantially I«M protection is  (fee
    event of future SIP corrections or
    change* in ambient attatanent sfstue
    
    F. Generic Trading Rule*
      Generic rules adopted aa part of to*
    SIP can authorise state* to approve
    certain types of individual transaction*
    without the need for case-by-caae SIP
    revisions or associated federal review
    prior to approval The first state generic
    bubble rule was approved by EPA April
    8. 1M1 (46 FR 20551). Per the current
    scope of permissibk* rasa*, see Section
    in below.
    
    G. Effect of Thii fotiey Statement
      Emissions trading is largely voluntary:
    no source is required to  trade, and no
    state is required by EPA to approve a
    particular trade or to adopt a generic
    rule. Trading merely offers states and
    stationary sources alternative ways  to
    meet regulatory requirements. For
    example, states are free to adopt generic
    rules or continue to implement trades as
    individual SIP revisions. They may
    adopt rules) which moirpeiate after any
    combination of OK above trading
    approaches.*
      This Policy Statement Is accompanied
    by a Technical Issues Document for use
    by states and industry in further
    understanding emissions trading. The
    Document offers elaboration and
    important detail on requirements and
    available options under the Clean Air
    Act
      This notice reflects the current Clean
    Air Act and existing EPA regulations. A
    policy statement cannot legally alter
    such requirements. However, this notice
    establishes EPA policy in areas not
    governed by applicable regulations and
    sets out general principles which may
    help states and industry apply those
    regulations in individual cases. Federal
    or state ralemaking ID response to. e.g..
    future- litigation or changes in ambient
    standards, attainment status, or SIP
    validity, may affect states or firms that
    plan to engage or have engaged in
    emissions trading activities.
      Nothing in today's notice alters EPA
    new source review requirements or
    exempts owners or operators of
    stationary sources' froaa compiienee wrtfr
    applicable precoostruetioo permit
    regulation* (n accord win 49 CFR 3I.»
    51.3151 JOT. 5121. 5*24, S2JT, and
    52Ja Interested pa/tier should
    howerer. be rware that bubble tads*
    are not subject to pnconstnicthn
    review or regulations where these trades
    do not involve construction.
    reconstruction. ormodiflLatiuBora
      EPA intends to apply changes mads
    by today's policy prospecttvely (e.g» not
    to action whid> ha vesdmdy been
    approved as case-by-ease SIP revisions
    or under generic rules), ff. sowever.
    ambient violations are discovered hi an
    are* where EPA has approveda trad*.
    or if other violations of dean Air Act
    requirements ar* discovered In that
    area, sources involved In the trad*
    should be aware that they ar*
    potentially subject to requirements for
    additional emission reductions, just aa
    an all other sources in the are*.
      This policy requires that substantial
    additional reductions (st least 20%) La
    trading trt not voluntary, for txuopk.
    of • oMior mm aom ormjw
                                   tea
            (4S CFR Jl.iajff •** SI. Aapaote n
    "fraotti OMifM* o/nwa ntlfOtum I* • S8?w*l<*
    it eurmiity »ppi»»«U by SPA. tm MM* mtj pra«Mi
    t»t offut* Inm SMI prow* mfrfat nter dm
    rvquMV cbvH fron dtv MTO. M MM( tM tt radttcn
    tb« nurfm •eeanUnftx. $•• Qnn Air Ad I
    173(1 MA| «id (Bl
                                           emlssiuiis remaining beyond appticablt
                                           batelhTCs be produced by future bu bb I F
                                           in primary nonattainmeaf arears wh
                                           require but lack approved
                                           demonstrations of attainment. However
                                           applications for bubbles in such areas
                                           which are still pending at EPA without
                                           formal action under the 1982 policy, or
                                           which were previously subtitted to EJV
                                           Regions under the 1982 policy but not
                                           accepted for evaluation, will be
                                           reexamined and processed for approval
                                           if they meet the requirements of the 1982
                                           policy and contribute to progress
                                           towards attainment "Progress towards
                                           attainment" means some extra reduction
                                           beyond equivalence to a lowest-of-
                                           actual-SIP-aUowable-or-RACT-
                                           allowable emissions baseline, with this
                                           baseline applied aa of the time
                                           applicants originally sought credit
                                           Pending bubbles in attainment areas
                                           and nooattainBMnt areas with approved
                                           demonstration* of attainment will be
                                           processed for approval if they meet the
                                           requirements of the 1982 policy and
                                           show that ambient standards. PSD
                                           incranexrta aod visibility will not be
                                           jeopardised.
                                             For further discussion on pendfetg  .
                                           bubbles see Section l.A.l.b.(4) of the
                                           Technical lsaoe» Document. *•
    
                                           IL Kaquirassents for Creating. Using, or
                                           nanHnt flsMeeJee Eadnrtinn fmriits'
    
                                           A. Creating Emission Reduction Credi.
    
                                             Emission redaction credits (ERCs) are
                                           the common currency of all trading
                                           activity. EBCa may be created by
                                           redactions from either stationary, area,
                                           or mobile sources. To essure that
                                           emissions trades do not contravene
                                           relevant raqiureaMirts of the Clean Air
                                           Act only reductions which are surplus.
                                           enforceebi*, permanent, and
                                           quantifiable can qualify as ERCs and be
                                           banked or used in aa emissions trade.
      •EPA inm^ijM IUIM or jourct* which
    MbMitfed bahMn that mn rerun** without
    •vahMttoa by EPA to rmbml th*ia under then
    erittfu. provided they eu doouwnt (at formal.
    ttratiy Mtaitul of to *pplicxioo to EPA m iccora
    •itk aomtl EPA ftoativ** ud fb» ih«i tnt
    iplJflttna wwrctwiMd wtthoul tviiutuoa racier
    tfua raicend ftir Mhm to «••( tin ttrmi of the
    1SK poBqr. Bob6J« (pptfeaUoM which were
    •ncaplrt for rnlnttoo* bat r»(tct«J far {itlun to
    •MI Iht 1SR peHer wM bt tmtid n new
    ippUattoH aad«r Wd»y-i netlea
      •BkcaaM tfali fatter Staummt uid
    «ccaap«nyim Ttdiaial IWUM Doeumeni refltcr
    HO«r»J Cl««nAlf Aetpruic>pl«i. «t«tet individual
    tourcn. or conuntmtn oo ipvcifle rulemakiog
    action* in frM to «aow ttitt • fcawil pnnc:ple
    do*« ott tppty M particular eircumatancai or ;ouid
    b* MHtatt uittf appnMt*o otkcr than lhatt
    datotbi* SIMM, xmrcn and eomm«nt*r» !-...•
    thi« opfton ondar cnrrtnt law. and notbtng m ihu
    Potlcy Statnuiu or UM TachniuJ IMUM Ooeumeiu
    rettrtcti ftair oppormnity to maka »uch ihowmjs
    

    -------
    43832
     F«d«rftl Rcgtitw /-VoLS1.-No. 233. / Thursday, December 4. 1986 / Notices
    ^^^^^^^^^^••^^^^•^••••^^•••^i^lMBiHMaM^B^BiBi^BH^^Bli^M^^M^^^^^H^Mi^^MMMMMBi^BHBHMMBHWB^HMHi
      1. Surplus, At roininjunvanly emission
    reductions-not required by current
    regulations in the SIP. not already relied
    on for SIP planning purposes, and not
    used by the source to meet any other
    regulatory requirement can be
    considered surplus. To determine the
    quantity of emission  reductions that are
    surplus, the state must first establish an
    appropriate emissions baseline from
    which surplus reductions can be
    calculated. Baseline emissions for any
    source are the product of three factors-
    emission rate, capacity utilization, and
    hours of operation.7
      In attainment areas, the lower of
    actual or allowable values must
    generally be used for each of these
    baseline factors. However, allowable
    values for one or more of these factors.
    when higher than actual values, may be
    used in calculating the baseline
    emissions, provided those values are
    shown to be used or  reflected in an
    approved demonstration.* The burden of
    meeting this test by written evidence
    rests with the state or applicant which
    seeks to use an allowable value.
      When allowable values for one or
    more baseline factors are not used or
    reflected in an approved demonstration,
    such values may still be used in
    calculating baseline emissions.
    However, in such cases applicants must
    perform appropriate  modeling to
    demonstrate that allowable values
    which are higher than actual values will
    not delay or jeopardize attainment and
    maintenance of ambient standards.*
      ' For further discussion of these hcton M they
     relate to baseline calculations, Mt Appendix B of
     the Technical Issues Document
      •This statement doe* not apply to netting, when
     "contemporaneous" actual emieiion* are always the
     baseline. See. e.g~ 40 CFR 51.24 PSD
                            baseline has been triggered, credit may
                            be granted consistent with the PSD
                            baseline concentration as specified in 40
                            CFR 5U4(bH13r and 5121(b)(13}. This
                            will generally require use of actual
                            values for each of the baseline factors.
                            However, states may use allowable
                            values if they show through appropriate
                            modeling I0 that attainment and
                            maintenance of neither the ambient
                            standards nor applicable PSO
                            increments will be jeopardized  and
                            quantify the amount of increment
                            consumed.
                              In nonattainment areas with approved
                            demonstration* of attainment, the
                            baseline must be consistent with
                            assumptions used to develop die area's
                            demonstration. This generally means
                            that actual values must be used for each
                            baseline factor where actual values
                            were used for such demonstrations, and
                            that higher allowable values for these
                            factors may be used where allowable
                            values were used for such
                            demonstrations.11 The burden of
                            showing that an allowable value was
                            used or reflected in the" approved
                            demonstration rest* with the state or
                            applicant which seeks to us* an
                            allowable value. In the absence of
                            written evidence to that  effect full Level
                            m modeling would be required to make
                            use of an allowable value in baseline
                            calculations."
                              hi primary nonaUainment areas
                            which need but lack approved -
                            demonstrations of attainment, stater
                            must show that bubbles  meet special
                            "progress" requirements designed to  -
                            produce a net air quality benefit This-
                            must be demonstrated by (1} using the
                            lowest-of-actual-SIP-allowable-of-
                            RACT-allowable emissions baseline for
                            each source involved in  the trade,  " (2)
                            meeting the ambient equivalence testa
                            outlined in sections  ILB.2 of this Policy
                            and LB.l.b. of the Technical Issues
                            Document and then (3) producing a
                            substantial net reduction in actual
                            emissions (i.e, a reduction of at least
                             use of such higher allowable values in attainment
                             area* under generic ru/ea. sea Technical leauc*
                             Document. aJl.
                              '•See OS above.
                              1' For netting, "contemporaneous" actual  ___
                             sensuous are always the baseline. See. s*. 40 CFR
                             SUKIMIXvt).
                              1 • Fo» further dlacuaaioe) of Lev** » modeling, see
                             Techaicai Issues Documeaa, sectiea LB.lbr*t
                              1' For purposes of today's notice, me "lowest of
                             acrual-SIP^Uoweble-or-RACr-aUowabte'
                             emissioaa baseline meana the product of (1) the
                             lowest of the actual emisaioei rat*, the SIP or other
                             federally enforceable emission limit or a RACT
                             emission Unit and (2) the lower of actual or
                             allowable capacity utiUuOon and hours of
                             operation. For further discussion of this baseline.
                             see Appendix B of today's Technical Issue*
                             Document.
    20»in the-enrisTOTM remaining aftay
    application of the baseline specified
    aboveVThe state must also provide
    assurances that the bubble is consistent
    with ambient progress1 and future air
    quality planning goals.14
      2. Enforceable. To assure-that Clean
    Air Act requirements are met each
    transaction which revises any emission
    limit upward must be approved by the
    state and be federally enforceable.
    Means of making emission limits
    federally enforceable include SIP
    revisions (see section IV below).  EPA-
    approved generic bubble rules (see
    Section III below), and new source
    preconstruction permits issued by states
    under EPA-approved SIP regulations
    pursuant to provisions of 40 CFR  51.18.
    51.24, or 91.307, as well as construction
    permits issued by EPA or delegated
    states under 5&21.1* Bubbles should be
    incorporated in an enforceable
    compliance instrument which requires
    recordkeeping based on  the averaging
    period over which the bubble is
    operating, so it may easily be
    determined over any single averaging
    period that bubble limits are being met.
      3. Permanent Only permanent
    reductions in emissions can qualify for
    credit Permanence may generally be
    assured by requiring federally
    enforceable; changes in source permits
    or applicable state regulations to reflect
    a reduced level of allowable emissions.
      4 Quantifiable. Emission reductions
    must be quantifiable both in  terms of
    estimating the amount of the reduction
    and ehmraeteening that reduction for
    future use. Quantification may be based
    on emission factors, stack tests,
    monitored values, operating rates and
    averaging times, process or production
    inputs, modeling, or other reasonable
    measurement practices.  The  same
    method of calculating emissions should
    generally be used te quantify emission
    levels both  before and after the
    reduction.
    B. Using Emission Reduction Credits
    
       ERCs may be used by sources  in
    bubble, offset or netting transactions.
    The general principles below will assure
      "Ties
    I may be found in the
    Technical Issues Deounent et LA,l.b.(3|. EPA will
    not sscoataVsM*** sue* state assurances, provided
    they eaed) A aabeuatiai u»s» applied by the stale
    to each bubble, and (2) the state ha* explained how
    the propoeed bubble I* consistent with the area i
    prelected attainment stratify. This suthohty has
    not been delegated with EPA. See dean Air Act
    section JOltaKU.** US.C. T801(aXU
      '• EPA I* also considering geoerle step* which
    woold make state operating permits federally
    enforceable. Prior to use. banlnd credits need not
    be made federally enforceable. See Section 1I.C.
    below.
    

    -------
                      Fadaral Register /  Vol. 51. No.  233 / Thursday.  December 4. 1986  / Notices
                                                                            4383:
    that til uses of ERCs are consistent with
    ambient attainment and maintenance
    consideration* under the Clean Air Act
    They are further articulated in the
    accompanying Technical laaues
    Document
      1. Emissions trades must involve the
    wne criteria pollutant. An emission
    reduction may only be  traded against an
    increase in the same criteria pollutant
    For example, only reductions of SOi can
    be substituted for increases of SO*.
      2. All uses ofERCs must satisfy
    applicable ambient tests. The Clean Air
    Act requires that all areas throughout
    the country attain and maintain national
    ambient air quality standards and meet
    applicable ambient requirements
    relating to PSD increments and Class I
    protection, including visibility. The
    ambient effect of a trade depends on the
    dispersion characteristics of the
    pollutant involved. With the exception
    of visibility for NO* dispersion
    considerations will generally not affect
    trades involving VOC or NO,, whose
    impacts occur across broad geographic
    areas. For these pollutants "pound for
    pound" trades may be treated as equal
    in ambient effect where all sources
    involved in the trade are located in the
    same control strategy demonstration
    area, or where the state otherwise
    shows such  sources to  be sufficiently
    dose that a  "pound for pound" trade
    can be justified. However, dispersion
    characteristics an important for bubble
    and offset trades of SOi, particulates.
    CO. or lead, whose ambient impact may
    vary with where the emission increases
    and decreases occur. To assure ambient
    equivalence, such trades of these
    pollutants must satisfy ambient tests
    under the modeling screen discussed in
    the Technical Issues Document or under
    a similar, equally effective approach.'•
      '• For iiaular raaaon*. bubble* at the** pollutant*
    nu*( involve MUICM which are in too MOM or
    adjacent control itntcgy dtmotumuoa tree*
    within the MOM general air baata.
      See Mction n.A.1. above tad Technical bauae
    Document Section LA. la. ragajd*^ additional
    technical aupport required lor certain trade* in
    attainment area*.
      While bubble* in primary aoaanauunent area*
    which need but lack approved demoaetnaon* of
    attainment mutt produce a net air quality benefit
    thi* doe* not entail additional ambient teat*. Such
    bubble* auai flnt meet the general teat* under the
    modelinf Kreen thowing ambient equivalence for
    bubble*, prior to producing the required additional
    reduction*. They mu«t then produce addition*!
    reduction* of at lent 29V beyond the applicable
    bat^tin* emiuion* uted to demonitrate amount
    equivelenc*. Since theee additional reduction* wrll
    nece**ahly reduce irabienl-conceatraDon* below
    equivalence a< *oaw receptor*, while continuing te
    meet the ten* for ambient equivalence at all other*.
    • net *ir quality benefit ihould occur and no  -
    additional ambient ahowinga.. beyond thote
    generally required for all bubble*, are required.
      3. Bubbles must not increase
    hazardous pollutants. Bubbles may not
    be used to meet applicable requirements
    of National Emissions Standards for
    Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs)
    promulgated under section 112 of the
    Clean Air Act to increase emissions at
    any source beyond the levels applicable
    NESHAPs prescribe, or to create any net
    increase in baseline emissions of a
    pollutant regulated under section 112.
    The applicable baseline for regulated
    sources is the lower of actual or
    NESHAPs-allowable emissions of the
    hazardous pollutant
      Where a NESHAPhaa been proposed
    but not yet promulgated for a source
    category which emits a pollutant listed
    under section 112, the proposal will
    serve aa an interim guideline for
    evaluating the effects of any proposed
    emissions trade involving a source that
    would be subject to the proposed
    standard. In general, such trades will be
    appro-. t*le with respect to the
    emissions component of the trade
    subject to the proposal so long as they
    result in emission limits at each source
    emitting the relevant pollutant which are
    equivalent to or lower than those the
    proposed NESHAP would have required
    if already promulgated.1*
      When a pollutant baa been listed
    under section 113 or where EPA has
    published a Notica-of-mtenWo-Lisfc bat
    no regulations for the source category
    involved in the trade have yet been
    proposed or promulgated,  the. trade wifl •
    generally be acceptable with respect to
    the emissions component of the trade
    subject to notice or listing, if there is no
    net increase in actual emissions of mat
    pollutant as a result of the trade. *•
      Any trade involving sources or source
    categories subject to the preceding
    subparagrapha must take place within a
    single plant or contiguous plants, and
    must credit only reductions below
    current actual or NESHAPs—allowable
    emissions, whichever is lower. But d
    generally n. 9 above and today's
    Technical Issues Document  section
    LB.LA
      Trades  which do not meet the special
    restrictions discussed in this section
    may also be approved where surplus
    reductions in the pollutants addressed
      " The allowable emiiiion raw (or a
    •ubteci to a propoMd NESHAP to the limit
    (lipulaied In the propoaai.
      '• When ETA ha* i**ued • -Notlce-oMnl*at-NeV
    to-R*ful*te" on* or more toure* cateforie* for a
    lifted pollotant. emiuion* of that pollutant from tfa*
    unrefolated >ourca catefOfjr will laniitheiaei to
    treated the aaaa* a* emotion* of any olfcar U*t*d
    pollutant. Under limited ctrcunutancaa. tioilar-
    treatment will be given to pollutant* for which a
    "Notice-oMmetM-Net-io-Uar ha* been pobtUHed.
    See the Technical IMUM Document. **cOon Lil.d. -
    above compensate for increases in r.cn-
    hazavdoua emissions of the same critr
    pollutant (e.gn benzene, a hazardous
    VOC is reduced to create credits for a.
    increase in non-hazardous VOC
    emissions.) As long as such a trade
    would not result in an increase in either
    actual or allowable emissions of a
    pollutant iubject to the preceding
    paragraphs at any source, it would not
    differ in nature or requirements from a
    trade involving only nonhazardous VOC
    emissions.
      * ERCs from existing sources cannot
    be used to meet technology-based
    requirements applicable to new sources.
    Under Clean Air Act section 111 and
    EPA implementing regulations, new
    effected facilities must satisfy
    technology-based New Source
    Performance Standards (NSPS).
    regardless of the attainment status of
    the ana in which they an located.
    Under sections 105 and 173 and EPA
    implementing regulations, new or
    modified major stationary sources must
    also satisfy technology-based control
    obligations associated with pre-
    construction permits. These
    requirements prohibit use of credits
    from existing sources to meet or avoid
    applicable  NSPS. and bar use of such
    credits to meet applicable new source
    review requirements for best available
    control technology (BACT) in PSD area:
    or lowest achievable emission rate
    control technology (LAER) in
    nonattainment anas."
      & Staler may approve bubbles in
    primary nonattainment areas which
    require but lack approved
    demonstration* of attainment, provided
    such trades meet requirements designed
    to produce a net air quality benefit and
    the state provides  certain assurances.
    See section ILA.1.  above and the
    Technical Issues Document section
    LAJ-b. Bubble* which meet these
    objective requirements will be
    processed for approval by EPA.
      A Sources need not be subject to
    binding compliance schedules based on
    current SIP requirements before they
    can apply for a bubble which would
    supersede  those requirements. Sources
    that an already subject to binding
    compliance schedules should be aware,
    however, that such schedules remain
    fully enforceable until a bubble affecting
    the schedule has been approved by EPA
    or under a state generic rule and the
      »• But et aactfeM 1C. an* LD. aawv*.
      Today'* Bode* doe* not addrve* whether or unaer
              xaneM toeJlioaw eabfect to NSPS.
     BACT or LAEX mar eurpe** applicable permit
     limit* reflecting wch requirement* In order to create
     credit* for exieOng-*ouree trade*.
    

    -------
                      Paekul  Raster / Voi 5% No. aa / Trmrtday. Dacamfcer 4. M8§ / Netices
    scbtdd«hw beemaadifiwl
    SOUKM subject ta cnmyJinncs schedules
    in adBBRistnuve orderror jadkial
    dacraea muat obtain prior aaejoval from
    EPA or the relevant cowl aa
    appropriate, to be relieved from the
    schedule contained in the order or
    decree. Sources that are subject to SIP
    requirements remain responsible for
    meeting those  requirements unless and
    until a bubble  has become effective
    under Federal  law. See section ILB.12
    below.
      7. States may extend certain
    compliance schedules. States may no
    longer grant compliance extensions
    under new or revised generic rules in
    nonattainment area*, whether or not
    such areas have demonstrations.1*
    However, states may continue to grant
    compliance date extensions under
    generic rules in attainment ana*,
    provided EPA has approved the
    extension provisions of the generic rule
    as being adequate to comply with the
    Clean Air Act including requirementa
    for attainment and maintenance of
    ambient air quality standards.
      States that wish to give sources ia
    nonattainaent areas, and sources ia
    attainment areas far which there ia no
    applicable generic SIP provnioat. moes
    time to implement bubbles, by treating
    compliance extension*, mat receive
    EPA approval of tbe extensions through
    case-by-case SIP revisions. Requests for
    such compliance date extensions,
    whether in attainment or nonattaini
    state views man aeapaneataef AW
    pcopsasd&IP revissaa as seperabn.
      « States nay opprvw oveMw
    invofring open duetsoarca of
    timev-
                          riigstior.a on
     areas, may be submitted to EPA together
     with bubbles, aa part of a single SIP
     revision package. EPA will separately
     evaluate the time extension portion of
     these SIP revision packages in accord
     with the Agency's normal criteria for
     review of time extensions, including
     consistency with the Act's requirements
     for expeditiousness. reasonable farther
     progress,  and attainment and
     maintenance. Sources should be aware
     that disapproval of such time extension
     requests may result ia disapproval of the
     entire package (i.e., both pest-trade
     limits and the time  extension) or only
     part of it. depending oa whether the.
      10 Existing generic rules spoticaMe to that anoa
     muit be revised lo comport with taia principle
     when they contain such generic exleuion
     provisions. EPA will publish Federal Register
     MHMM Kkmrfyldf any-generic atlaa-wMdi reqedre-
     formal nwaHfaatnm Pariwt to ratolve ilsfli ladles
     identifies) tat aucta a notice wthi> the piesusbed
     lime petted may mull in EPA rescinding approval
     of the existing generic rule or issuing a nouaa ef SIP
     deficiency. EPA eBpocM aMlas to <
     imeriflk to far as feasible, tfeat <
     •xienaiae» under existing,_
     granted to aoareaa located ia
     See section UI below  tad sectioB tLE.4. of Ike
     Technical Issues OOOUMM.
    pattieuiat* emagjem. based oa
    modeling demonstrations. Open dust
    trades may be approved through
    individual SIP revisions based oa
    acceptable modettng and/or monitoring
    demonstrations, provided sources agree
    to post-approval monitoring to
    determine if predicted air quality results
    have been realised and nuke an
    enforceable commitment to achieve
    necessary additional reductions if
    predicted results do not materialise.
      A Trade involving lead. Unlike other
    criteria pollutants. EPA does not
    designate nonattainment areas for lead.
    However, the Regional Administrator
    will review lead trades, as all other
    trades, to assure that they do not
    interfere with attainment and
    maintenance of NAAQS.
      10. Trade* mvoMng ERCa from
    mobile source meaning. ERCa from
    mobile source measures may be used to
    meet SIP requirements applicable to
    existing stationary sources, so long as
    such reductions are sarphu, pernaneat
    quantifiable, and enforceable.
    Reductions from certain types of mebile-
    souree measures (e.a, necaam'cai
    conversion ef existing vehicle fleets to
    cleaner fuels such as metnenol) may
    satisfy these criteria more  reedtty taaa
    those from other transport-related
    measures* However, due to possiUo
    difficultiee in determining whether
    specific mobtle-aouEeo redactions futiy
    meet these criteria, all such trades awst
    be implemented as csae by-case SB?
    revisions.
       11. Interstate trade*. Trades mvohrtng
    sources located in neighboring states
    may be approved, provided they meet
    all other requirements of today's notice.
    However, in order to avoid complex Sff
    accounting issues, where state 1
    requirements differ EPA will reaaspe <
    such trades meet  the substantive
    requirements of the more stringent state.
    In general EPA will deem ERCa created
    in one state to contribute to piugiees in
    the state where used to the extent of
    that use, provided met applicable
    ambient tests (section IL&2 above} era
    met Interstate  trades must be
    implemented through case-by-case SIP
    revisions.
       12. Bubbles must not impede
    enforcement. In general, bubbles are a
    form of SIP revision which should be
    treated neither more aor less saxssjeaery
    than other SEP revisions. Bubbles smnM
    not become a shield against
     enforcement actions far sources which
     have faded to take accessary steps te
                     uvGBat SOlTQlu
    that they remain subject to enfarrraro!
    of existing (pre-trade) SIP Knots until tne
    bubble is approved. EPA will use ore
    same piiirUptes and procedmes far
    deciding whether to initiate cufoyeeaxci
    actions in these circumstances as 'he
    Agency applies to any other source
    which is subject to a proposed or final
    SIP revision.
      Under established EPA policy.
    regulated sources mast be subject to an
    applicable, enforceable emission timit at
    all times. Accordingly, sources which
    have approved bubbles with emission
    limits effective at a future data, and
    which are not in compliance with their
    pre-trade limits prior to that effective
    data, may be subject to enforcement
    action, which could include penalties
    based on a failure to meet the pre-trade
    limits. Sources in these situations may
    wish to minimi** the chance that  capital
    expenditures may be required to meet
    pre-trade limits, either by (a) agreeing to
    post-trade cempoanca dates which are
    substantially similar to their pre-trade
    compliance dates, or (b)  accelerating
    their compliance with post-trade-limrts.
      Ia aeoard with the general principle
    that bubbles should be treated neither
    more nor less striagently than other SIP
    actions, implementation  of this Policy
    Statement will be neutral with respect to
    EPA enforcement of pie-trade emission
    limits. This rannna that EPA will not
    rneciflfaUy select for enforcement
    action aonoompiiaat sources seeking to
    use a bubble either to come into
    compliance or to restructure traditional
    compliance. However, it also means that
    EPA will not withhold or defer
    unfiMTtfr+fi* simply because a source is
    seeking alternative emission limits
    through a bubble. In exercising its
    enforcement discretion, EPA will apply
    the same considerations to
    nnnnamfKant sources which seek to
    comply through bubbles as to those
    watch do not
    C Banking Emission Reduction Credits
    
      Only eaussBaa reductions that  are
    surplus, permanent quantifiable, and
    enforceable can qualify  as SRCs  and be
    deposited in EPA-approvable banks.11
    Such aaalas offer sources legal
    recognition that qualifying reductions
    meet these ERG requirements. However,
                              reduction must
                    *y (»• **oat in order to qualify
           aae) beJiamlliJ ta EPA-eppre*abla
                              nit of a
     mducttoa caiavilneuH * smissiuns tneresfes
     «lsewhem beniea? leduutuua need net be made
                   ) Vttfl C
    

    -------
                      FedetsJ Regieter /  Vol. 51.  No. 233 / Thursday. December 4. Its* / Notice*
                                                                          43*3
    the fat thM aa EHC bM been beaked
    doeenrt relieve it from the need to meet
    •II criteria, of the specific regulatory
    program under which it it to be used.*'
    Because some trade* have speciil
    limiutions (e.g^ only reductions.
    occurring at the same major stationary
    source can be used for netting), banks
    do not guarantee the validity or specific
    amount of particular banked ERCs for
    all potential uses or for all time. To
    provide maximun protection for the
    environment and sources and to avoid
    potential legal problems, state banking
    rules may specify the types of sources
    eligible to bank ERCs and any
    additional conditions placed on
    certifying, holding or using banked
    ERCs.
      State banking rales may establish
    ownership rights. However, any such
    rights must be consistent with dean Air
    Act requirements, including the
    requirement that SIPs provide for
    expenditiena attainment and
    maintenance of ambient air quality
    standards and protect PSD increments
    and visibility. To be approvabie by EPA,
    such banking rules must also treat
    banked reductions aa current actual
    emtaaions "in the air" at the source of
    tneir creation* in order to protect toe
    integrity of future air quality planning.
    Failure to track the ambient effect* of
    such banked reductions (e.a> by not
    including them to a new or updated
    inventory used for SIP planning
    purposes, or by relying on tboea
    reductions to secure attainment
    redesignationa) would ordinarily
    preclude dwir use as ERC* due to
    double-counting. Nevertheless, states
    have considerable latitude in meeting
    these reqummeatB, and may guarantee
    banked ERCs against fefl orpertiel
    reduction in quantify, so long as that
    guarantee does not undermine
    attainment redesignations or interfere
    with progress and attainment should
    ambient standards change or additional
    emission reductions be required. The
    Technical Issues Document section
    LC9. outlines ways sues)-guarantees
    may be made effective tauaistent with
    these requirements.
      In many states, banking eouH be an
    extension of oagotnf preconetsuotiM   •
    permit ecavtUea. The stetewiss - -
    designee could accept and evaluate
    requests to certify an ERC maintain a
    publidy-evaiiable ERC registry or
    similar instrument describing the
    quaetity and typw of beaked <	
    and track transfers a*d withdnweJ* of
    ERCt                            .    .
      Because banked reductions do not
    increase emissions at any sown, they
    need not be made federally enforceable
    until used. For administrative or other
    reasons states may. however, choeee to
    make them federally enforceable upon
    deposit How die state makes a
    reduction federally enforceable for
    banking will depend on the type of
    source at which the reduction occurs. In
    some states, reductions associated with
    other modifications at a source can be
    included in federally-enforceable
    preconstniction permits issued under
    rules approved pursuant to 40CFR 9148,
    SIM or 51307. States with BPA-
    approved generic rules can use their
    rules' procedures to make reduction*-
    occurring st existing sources federally
    enforceable. See Section ID below. Since
    these transactions involve onlr
    reductions, air quality modeling ie
    generally not required to assure that
    new emission limits do not interfere
    with attainment and maintenance of
    ambient standards, protecttao of
    applicable PSD increments, or
    impairment of visibility in mandatory
    federal class 1 areas. Such reduction
    will automatically meet the generic •
    rule's test of wanner a partiodar limit to
    within  EPA's preeppruved array at
       tptabJatmuaoa limits. •
      States widwut SPA-approved <_
    rules can adopt rulee hatted to basrids*
    transactions, or ean use die standard
    SIP revision process to moist reductiejoa
    federally enforceable at exfccmff
    sources. General stale proooeotructioii
    permit or review programe that have
    received EPA approval may also be
    used for this purpose, since permits
    issued titrough such programs an
    federally enforceable. See 40 CFR SL1*
    51.24; 51J07.*4
    IT" 't lirr 1-ilritrit fir wt m i tmri fUn
    iTTlim anriaan ii jananH) raaiitad Im IfHI
    parneniar tyaa of «auMMa> M4*.
      »« fa pn»wyi.n»Brtomni«i«p»o» wtuc*m~>
    but lac*
    of dMbtoeMttnt «r
         i waick n*k tt «• tanked
                                           OL
    
                                             Use of cmissJon reduction crediis
                                           unds* «ta» regaleflomi approved br
                                           EPA as generic for identified dasae
                                           trades wilt not require individual SIP
                                           revisions for those trades. The Technir-a
                                           Issues Document explains acceptable
                                           generic procedures which stai«» may
                                           adopt to reduce toe need for ladivioual
                                           SIP reviakma.
                                             Emissions  trades rtn be approved
                                           without case-by-case SIP revtuooa if
                                           evaluated by the state under EPA-
                                           approved procedures which assure that
                                           no trade which meets their terms will
                                           interfere with timely attainment and
                                           maintenance of ambient standards.
                                           protection of applicable PSD increments.
                                           or visibility provisions. State generic
                                           rules are approvabie only if their
                                           procedures are sufficiently replicable in
                                           operation to meet this test By approving
                                           the generic rule, EPA approves in
                                           advance an array of  SIP-compatible
                                           emission limits, and no further case-by-
                                           case Federal review  or approval is
                                           required for individual trades which
                                           meet the terms of the rule.
                                             In aider t* ensure  that generic ruie*
                                           an properly ••-ru—"*-* EPA intend*
                                           to (a) examine, and coauMnt on
                                           together with aay other pwblfe
                                           commniar. the isdeneaon which ODUAI
                                           be provided foe iadhrickaa trades
                                           proposed by stales uader a generic r
                                           (b) conduct reviews of individual
                                           bubbles approved under a generic nut,
                                           and (c) trrrtolHfMUr audit the genera!
                                           ftnp'tiP^rft*tiM of generic nues. M pjxi
                                           of its Nadoaal Air Audit Systsm revuw*
                                           of state air program*.*'
                                             Any trade under a generic ruie will
                                           involve emission increases at some
                                           sources and extra emission decrease! at
                                           others. For trades to  be approvabie
                                           under a generic rale, the sum of these
                                           increases and decreases (beyond
                                                        0| •*• *•! IB *pBHc«t>on to
                                           dcpoul tht aitt«d
                                           M lb« Matt prior to *• ttmt At •tendowB/
                                           CMMilaMit ece»mt or tt»t th« tutt
                                                         l II II ITT 1 --- *- -*" — ' --- '
                                                                       oi lk«l
                                                                     '( UIMOI 1O
                                                            *« <•»• &*•*. For
                                          . *d«i»awl 4tMft«i
                                                                        in tftt** ac
                                                                        it.
                                            «• SM. (4. NkMa»i AirABdR 9y*nm GW^^H
                                           for PY ise*. Offlw af A* Q«»ii(T Plimun;
     uvdlt*. for ••prove! M SIP
                     Ih* hinfci^ tad «•»•! MBS
                                           mocomni wrtb ••» at» tormMl ><•> m
    pubiicwlw 
    -------
    43836
    Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 233 /  Thurtday. December 4. 1986 / Notice*
    applicable net boMiint emissions} must
    be zero or less. Subject to chit
    requirement states may adopt generic
    rules which exempt from individual SIP
    revisions: (1) De minimia trades where
    total increases in emissions from ail
    increasing sources (which must be
    balanced by equal or greater emissions
    decreases from other sources) are less
    than 25 tons per year (TPY) of
    participates. 40 TPY of SO*, 100 TPY of
    CO. or 0.6 TPY of lead, after applicable
    control requirements: (2) large classes of
    trades involving VOC or NO,
    emissions;** (3) trades between certain
    types of SOi sources, between certain
    types of CO sources, between certain
    types of stationary lead sources, or
    between certain types of paniculate
    sources, for which it can reasonably be
    assumed that "pound for pound" trades
    will produce ambient effects equivalent
    to those which approved air quality
    models would predict and (4) other SOi.
    CO. Pb or participate trades which do
    not increase baseline emissions and for
    which carefully defined modeling
    predicts no significant increase in
    ambient concentrations.
      States and sources should, however,
    be aware that because of replicabilhy
    problems inherent in modeling, generic
    rules which rely on preapproved
    procedures for modeled demonstrations
    of ambient equivalence may be difficult
    to draft or implement and many trades
    may not be approvable under such rules.
    For these reasons generic rules covering
    only the first three classes of trades
    above will often prove easiest to secure.
    EPA encourages states to work closely
    with EPA Regional Offices to formulate
    and adopt approvable rules or develop
    alternative approaches that equally
    assure attainment  and maintenance of
    ambient standards and protection of
    PSD increments and visibility. See
    Section II of the Technical Issues
    Document, which details criteria under
    which such generic rules may be
    approved.
      To the extent general state procedures
    for rulemaking or permit changes do not
    assure reasonable pufaate-notice of
    proposed and final limits-or effective
    opportunity for comment on proposed
    trades, states  must incorporate such
    provisions in their generic rules.
      In primary nonattainment anas
    which need but lack approved
    demonstrations, new generic rules must
    require, and existing generic rules must.
    as requested by EPA, be revised to
                          require bubbles to use lowest-of-acnMi-'
                          SIP-allowable-or-RACT-allowabU
                          emissions baselines, and produce a net
                          air quality benefit (as described below.).
                          New or revised generic rules in these
                          nonattainment areas must be
                          accompanied by certain assurances of
                          consistency with air quality planning
                          goals as weU as a commitment to make
                          certain additional assurances when the
                          state approves individual bubbles under
                          the rale. Bubbles approved under
                          existing generic bubble rules before the
                          effective date of this policy will not be
                          affected by these requirements. Because
                          EPA-approved state regulations have
                          independent legal force, future bubbles
                          submitted under existing generic rules
                          may also be approved by states in
                          accord with those rules, until such rules
                          are modified to meet the criteria
                          below."
                            Existing generic rules in these areas
                          must be modified to assure that bubbles
                          produce an overall emission reduction at
                          least equal (in percentage terms) to the
                          overall emission reduction from
                          controllable sources (in percentage
                          terms) needed to attain in the area.
                          Criteria for modifying generic rules are-
                          set forth in Section O.D. of the- Technical
                          Issues Document including a
                          requirement for- a reduction equal to the
                          greater of either the perceatagr
                          reduction required for attainment or »
                          20% reduction in emissions remaMna>
                          after application of appropriate
                          baselines. New and pending
                          applications for generic bubble rule*
                          which meet these criteria will be
                          processed for approval
                            EPA will publish Federal Register
                          notices identifying any generic rule*
                          applicable to these areas which require
                          formal modification in order to meet the
                          progress requirements above or other
                          requirements of EPA'a current Emissions
                          Trading Policy. These notices will
                          identify specific deficiences and means
                          for correcting them, and will specify »
                          schedule for submittal and review or
                          modified rules. Failure to resolve
                          deficiencies identified in these notices
                          within the prescribed time period may
                          result in EPA rescinding it* previous  •
                          approval or issuing a notice of SIP
                          deficiency.1*
      *• Where visibility impairment due to eieveted
     NO. emissions i* • concern, gtntnc tndt»
     involving NO, must ordinarily b« iubi«ct to ambient
     requirements similar to thoee applicable to generic
     trades involving TSP. SO.. CO or Pb.
                            " In the interim. EPA expect! lUte* la en*
                           far at feasible, that furore bubbles approved i
                           euaiina, generic rules in consistent with laHpnlUry
                           as well se toe terms of their EPA-appiimad i
                           States should be aware that without due or i
                           precaution*, continued approval of ouposse i
                           eusQnf generic rules containing inami fieri
                           deficiencies may create or accanOMMa pka
                           deficiencies (net asay have to be corrected et • laser
                           date or compensated for by other t
                           section II.E.4. of the Technical I
                            '• Such notices may also be issued for enattnf
                           generic rules in sttamnunt arses and nonattainmant
    IV. aubbtsa Whtefc Require Caetv? v
    fee* SIP Revision*
    
      States and sources must use iha -.-a.- »-
    by-case SIP revision process to
    implement bubbles which are not
    covered by a generic rule. Becaiua ±e
    case-by-case SIP revision process can
    take account of many more individual
    variations, numerous trades which could
    not be accomplished through gener.c
    rules or similar means may still be
    approvable as case-by-case SIP
    revisions.
      EPA will take action on generic rules
    and individual trades submitted as SIP
    revisions aa quickly as circumstances
    permit after a state has adopted a SIP
    revision and submitted the action to
    EPA. EPA encourages "parallel
    processing" of such SIP revisions, with
    EPA and the state conducting
    concurrent review so that both agencies
    can propose and take final action at
    roughly the same time. EPA will also
    publish noncontrovenial SIP revisions
    aa immediate final actions, converting
    them to proposals only if requests to
    submit adverse comments an received
    within 30 days (see 48 FR 44477.
    September 4.1981). m all bubble actions
    EPA will dearly identify (or require
    states to identify, as appropriate) both
    pre- and poet-trade actual and allowable
    emissions for each source involved in
    the trade, so .that the. ambient effects of
    each bubble may be known.
    V.Cooduatoo
      This Policy Statement sets out basic
    principles for approving individual
    trades and generic trading rules. It
    tightens many requirements in order to
    better ensure SIP integrity and
    environmental progress, while offering
    ample opportunities for use of
    approvable. environmentally-sound
    trades. EPA encourages states and
    sources to use these principles as a
    framework and refer to the
    accompanying Technical Issues
    Document for further discussion and
    examples. EPA also encourages states to
    develop other approaches which satisfy
    these principles  while meeting their
    specific needs.
    area* with approved demonstrations, if these
    generic rulaa en found to require procedural
    revision la ordar to maia them consistent with the
    current Bmisaiona Tradlnf Policy. Sea Technical
    laaoaa Oocunant sacOoa Hi*.
      EPA recogniaaa tba addUtaal ttnUmj burden-
    which may be imposed on bubble applicants in
    areas when MW generic rules cannot be or have
    not been developed to meet tba specific air quality
    benefit ieu,uiiamanu? deecrlbed sbeve. and* will
    attempt M far aa feasible, to ameliorate that burden
    la impUmeatiBf this policy. See. e.f. n.« end lection
    0-8-12. above aael related Preamble discussion, st
    0.4S and accompanying fax.
    

    -------
                      Fedarai Rsjgbtor / Vol> 81. No. 233 / Thunday. D*eemb«r 4, 1988 / No«cw
                                                                            4383T
      Aata policy nHMMt thto ejotfce doe*
    not establish conerusjNejry hwrEPA wril
    resolve iaaues to UidHWMi oaeas. EPA
    will accept public CMBMB! oo specific
    SIP changes submitted- aad«r it and will
    rtview individually each generic rule
    «nd thoee emissions trade* submitted as
    SIP revisions to determine their
    acceptability under the Clean Air Act
    Interested parties will neve fall
    opportunity to scrutinize application of
    these principles in specific cases, and to
    seek subsequent judicial review of such
    cases after EPA has taken final action
    on particular trades or generic rule*.
      Dated: November la, MSB.
           Afl^kklMV^kMMW •• - I
           •WDOMS0IIOOSK MOV I
        EmissioM of Haaudevs or Tsiite Mr
    Admuuttrator.
    Table of Contents
    L Element* of Eauaion* Trading
      A. Creating Bmiaeion Reduction Credits
        1. AD Reductions Mutt Be Surplus
         s. UM of Actual or Allowable
        Emissions as the Baseline Attainment
        Artas and Nonettatament AIMS with
        Approved OuMnaMltaaa of Attainment
        (iadadmt Rani OBMM NeoetUmneni
        Anas)
        Bubbles In Primary Nonettaiament AMM
        Which Need BM Lade Approves!
        Demonstration* of AttaiaaMnt
            (l) Objective Tests For All
        Applications
            (2) When These Special Progress
        Requirements WIB Apply
            (3) Stale AsearaiKea
            (4) Treatment of Pending Babble
        Application*
          & No Doubie-Coentiag of Redaction*
            (1) Craditiag Pre-extetinf Enumoa
        Reductions
            (2) Crediting Reductions From
        Shutdown*
            (3) UM of Banked Credit* from
        Shutdown* or Other Action* for Bubble
        Purposes
          d. Multiple UM of ERCa
          a. Reduction* from Uninventoried
        Sourcat
          2. Allemativt Pnrrr'nn Limita Must Be
        Enforceable
          3. All Reductions Meat Be Permanent
        4. All Reduction* Must Be Quantifiable
          a. Calculating the Reduction
          b. Describing (ha  Reduction
      B. Using Emi*»ion Reduction Credit*
        1. Substantive Principles for Using ERCs
          a. EBIIMIOM Trade* Must Involve the
        Same Pollutant
          b. All U*ee of ERG* Mu*t SatUfy
        Ambient Test*
            (I) De Minimi*
            (2) Uvet I
            (3) Level H
            (4) Level 10
          & Bubble* Should Not Increaie
        Applicable Net Baieltne Emitilon*
         a. [hilling Boasue Credits.Canaot Be.
        Used to Meet Applicable Technology-
        Based Requirements rar New Sources
         f. Trades Involving Open Oust
        Emissions
         g. Interstate Trades
         h. Trades near PSD Class I Areas
         !• Bfssct on Trades of Sebosoeanuy* *
        Olscovered Clean Air Act Problems:
        Reviiitstion Considentions
      1 Procedural Steps for Uatng ERCs
         a. Effect of Existing Comphance
        Schedules
         b,E*tetisJoMofCompllaocaDeedliiiea
         c* Pndii)g| EfiforcaUMflt Actions
      C Banktag Emlssten RedwtJon Credits
        1. Bankmg Rule* Musi OesifBeM an
    
        2. (My ERCs May be Banked
        1 Poaatble Umitatioas on Use of BKCs
        for New Source PenBitting
        4. Sources Should Apply to Bank Surpkas
        Reductions As Soon As They Decide to
        Make Them
        5. Procedures for Banking Surpraa
        Emiaaioa Reductions Should Be Defined
        8. Banking Role* May Establish
        Ownership Rights
        7. Bankmg Rule* Must Establish SB ERG
        Registry or tt* BqatvaJcBt
        8. Possible Adtustments to EftCa Based
        on Enforoameal CoaaideraBone
        9. Poaaibie Adtuetmenta 10 EBCa Baaed
        on Ambient Aitiinraeat Camuderarieae
         a. ERG* Cananted Prtoc to the Oesaja
        or BaaaUaa Year Could Be EDmmatad
         b. ERCs Could Be Caaraatsed Agattst
        Adlusiment
         c. Use or DeposH of ERCs CoeJd Be
        Temporarily Suspended
         d. Across the Doard Dtacoeattng
    0. Trades Covered by SbM»<
      A. General Prtnciplas for Bvi
        Generic Rules
      & Scope  of Generic Rules
        1.VOC or NO. Trades
        2. Partialate. SOi. CO or » Trade*
        3. Umiu oa Trade* Exempt From SIP
        Reviaioo* Under Generic Rules
        4. Other Gaoaric Mefhanisms ror
        Exempting Particulata. SO*. CO or P6
        Trades From Caae-by-Caaa SIP Ravistoaa
        C Enforcing Emiaaion Umtta Uader
        Generic Rules
      D. Generic Bubble Rules In Primary
        Noaanainment Areas WMch Lack
        Approved Demonstrstions of Attainment
      B. EPA Oversight of Generic Rules
        1. EPA Comment oa Trades Proposed
        Under  Generic Rulea
        2. Review* of Individual Bubble*
        Approved Under Generic Rules-
        3. EPA Audits of the Impiemeatetioa of
        Generic Rules
        4. Deficient Generic Trades
        5. Deficient Generic Rules
      F. Public Comment
      G. EPA Notification
      H. Ruiemaking on Generic Rule*
    III. Trade*  Not Covered by Stele Generic
        Rale*
      Appendix A: Regional EPA EmiMiona
        Trading Coordinator*
      Appendhi ft Defiattbm of -Aetna!.-
         'Allowable' sad "Baasliae" Sffiiuion*
        For Purpose* afleiiseioas Trading
      Appendix C Apprevabai Modeling
      Appendix & Approvable Averaging T.
        for VOC Trades
      Appendix ft Radii of Slgfrifiesnt Impact for
        Approving -Complex Terrain" PM. SO,
        and CO Trades Under Level I Modeling
        Approaches
      Appendix F: CFR Part 51 Conversion Table
    
    EMISSIONS TRADING: TECHNICAL
    ISSUES DOCUMENT
    
      This Document offers more detail on
    technical issues for firms and pollution
    control agencies seeking to implement
    indhrhtaai emissions trades or generic
    trading ndaa that meet the principles in
    EPA's final Emissions Trading Policy
    Statement II describes both the legal
    requirements for emissions trades under
    the dean Air Act and a range of legal
    options which states ' and sources may
    consider. States and firms may pursue
    •other aporoache* consistent with those
    discussed nee.
      Section I of this Docusnent explains
    general principles governing ail
    •»iT«MMif trading. Section II explains
    pramipka govesoiag state generic rules.
    Sactsoa ffl diacuaaea speoai
    considaraboaa for emissions trades
    which onsat be iapleaented as case-b
    caae SIP revisions.
      Decauee these sections reflect gen
    dean Air Act principles, states.
    individual sources or public comments.-?
    remain free to show that a general
    principle does not apply to particular
    circumstances or can be satisfied using
    another approach. States, sources and
            rters  have this option under
    conuncxrv
     current law. and nothing in the Policy
     Statement or this Document restricts
     their opportunity to make such
     showings.
      Nothing in today's notice alters EPA
     new source review requirements or
     exempts owners or operators of
     stationary sources from compliance with
     applicable precanstruction permit
     regulations  in accordance with 40 CFR
     51.11 51.24, 51.307, 5Z21. Si24. 52.27,
     and S3-CT Interested parties should.
     however, be aware that bubble trades
     are not subject to preconstruction
     review or regulations where these trades
     do not involve construction.
     reconstruction or modification of a
     source within the meaning of those
     terms in the regulations listed above.
      1 "9UW1" bKtadH «ny entity property delegated
     authority to tdmmtiltr rrfrvim ptni of a Slate
     Imptammuiion Plan (SIP) under the Clean Air A
    

    -------
    43838
    Federal Remitter / VoL 51. No. 233 / Thursday.. December 4.  198ft  /  Noticaa
    I. Baneate Of Emissions Trading.
    
      The basic element* of any emissions
    trade are the creation of an emission
    reduction credit (ERG), its use in a trade
    and its possible storage in a bank prior
    to use.
    
    A. Creating Emission Reduction Credit*
      States may grant credit only for those
    emission reductions that are surplus.
    enforceable, permanent, and
    quantifiable. Otherwise use of ERCs
    might degrade air quality, threaten the
    viability of the area's SIP. and make
    more stringent control requirements
    necessary.
    
    1. All Reductions Must Be Surplus
      At minimum, only emission reductions
    not required by current regulations in
    the SIP. not already relied on for SIP
    planning purposes, and not used by the
    source to meet any other regulatory
    requirement can be considered surplus
    and substituted for required reductions
    as part of an emissions trade.
      The first step in qualifying a reduction
    as "surplus" is to establish a level of
    baseline emissions. This baseline
    represents the level of required
    emissions beyond which reductions
    must occur for a source to be eligible for
    credit Three baseline factors—emission
    rate, capacity utilization, and hours of
    operation—must be used to compute
    and compare pre-trade and post-trade
    emission levels.*
      The baseline for each source must be
    established both on an annual basis and
    for all other averaging periods
    consistent with the relevant NAAQS
    and PSD increments. This approach ia
    necessary to protect  the ambient
    standards and PSD increments on a
    short term as well as an annual basis.
    The baseline will generally be
    determined by the attainment status of
    the area.3 by the way the state
    developed its SIP. and by whether the.
    area  is subject to PSD requirements.
       a. Use of Actual or Allowable
    Emissions as the Baseline: Attainment
    Areas and Nonattainment Areas With
    Approved Demonstration* of
    Attainment (including  rare/ ozone
    nonattainment areas/,  fa attainment
    areas, baseline emissions must
    generally be calculated using the lower
      * For further discuasion of these factor* ti they
     relate to the calculation of baeeline emission*. see
     Appendix B.
      1 Unclassified areas are treated as tttiuuneat
     areas for permitting and emissions trading purpose*.
      Unlike other criteria pollutants. EPA does not
     designate nonaltainment areas for lead. However.
     the Regional Administrator will review lead trades.
     as all other trade*, to assure that they do not
     interfere with attainment and maintenance of the
     NAAQS.
                           of actual or allowable value** fot all
                           three baseline factors. However,
                           allowable values corresponding ta one
                           or more of these factors, when higher
                           than corresponding actual values, may
                           be used in calculating baseline
                           emissions, provided those values are
                           shown to be used or reflected in an
                           approved demonstration.* The burden of
                           meeting this test rests with die state or
                           applicant Where the  State or applicant
                           cannot show by written evidence • that
                           the demonstration assumed an
                           allowable value for a given baseline
                           factor, appropriate modeling would be
                           required in order to use an allowable
                           value for that factor in calculating
                           baseline emissions for the source.7 This
                           will require a Level II modeling analysis
                           as specified in the modeling screen
                           described below, using actual emissions
                           for the pre-trade case, unless the
                           appropriate EPA Regional Office ("the
                           Region") determines that additional
                           technical support is necessary to protect
                           the NAAQS, PSD increments or
                           visibility. Additional technical support
                           may be necessary because crediting, the
                           difference between actual and
                           allowable values for even one of these
                           factors may produce a post-trade
                           increase in actual emissions sufficient to
                           jeopardize applicable standards;
                           increment! or visibility.
                             Additional technical support is not
                           necessarily limited to determining the
                           impact of the increases from the trade.
                           The Region may require such additional
                             • For the definition of "actuaT ens) -a
                           value*, and further discussion on calculation of
                           baseline eaneatoaa. see Appendix B.
                             • This statement doe* not apply to netting, whan
                           "comsmporaneoua" actual emissions an alwaye
                           the baseline. See. a*, to CFR 51 J4(bK3».
                             Bubbles in areas with c
                           soieiy OB qualitative judgement* (e.g. the 'example
                           region" approach or no technical support) ordinarily
                           may ne4 rely, without appropriate modeling, aa
                           allowable value* in calculating baseline emission*
                           However, bubble* ia mat with dameaetnttoM
                           based on rollback* or dispersion modeling may u*e
                           allowable value*) that an reflected in the)
                           demoaatratioB.
                             • For example, the denvmstrstlon calculations
                           themselves, accompanying materials, or affidavit*
                           from too** who constructed the demonstrattoo.
                             ' In certain circumstances an allowable haaeiln*)
                           value specified ia a preconstructton permit will be
                           deemed equivalent to one used or reflected ia an
                           approved demonstration. For exempts, a source ia
                           an attammtal area where a PSD baseline ha* ban
                           triggered may use allowable values coaaiitam with
                           its preconstruction permit if that source a i
                           are not reflected ia the PSD amtaieai baseline
                           concentration. (However, if ma
                            allowable.emission* predict* a PSD i
                            violation, than additional analyses must be doae t»
                            sssure that the PSD increment is protected.) A
                            source in a noaauainmtnl area may us* allowable
                            valuea consistent with its preconstrucaosi permit ta>
                            calculate ita baseline, provided that permit poet-
                            da let the nonattainment designation. SIP eatf.
                            design year, or baelina inventory year, whichever i*
                            applicable.
    technical support up to and i
    full Level 01 modulus^ as is nec«s*«n to
    assure that applicable NAAQS, PSD
    increments and visibility requirements
    will be protected. It may require the
    determination of background
    concentrations to which the imoae:i of
    possible emissions increases- that would
    otherwise fall beiow Level II
    significance values must be added.
    Background concentrations should be
    determined in a manner consistent with
    EPA's Guidelines on Air Quality
    Models.
      In attainment areas where the PSD
    baseline has been triggered, the trading
    baseline for a source must generally be
    computed using actual values for all
    three baseline factors (ie.. only
    reductions below a source's actual
    emissions can be considered surplus).
    Because 40 CFR 51.24 and 52.21 specify
    that increses in actual emissions
    occurring after the PSD baseline date
    consume PSD increment any trades
    baaed on allowable emissions which
    would potentially increase  actual
    emissions must perform at least a Level
    II modeling analysis using actual
    emissions for the pre-trade case, and
    provide additional technical support If
    deemed necessary by the Region, to
    demonstrate that they protect the
    relevant increment ceiling. NAAQS, and
    visibility.
      In nonattainment areas with approved
    demonstrations, baseline emissions for a
    source may be calculated using either
    allowable values or actual values for tin
    three baseline factors, depending on the
    assumptions used in developing the
    area's demonstration,*
      Some states relied on allowable
    values for certain sources in developing
    their SOi and TSP attainment plans. In
    these nonattainment areas, sources may
    use allowable values in calculating
    baseline emissions, to the extent the
    state used or assumed those allowable
    values as the basis for its
    demonstration. The burden of showing
    that an allowable value was used or
    reflected in an approved demonstration
    rests with the state or applicant which
    seeks to use an allowable value.'
      Other nonattainment areas either
    used inventories based on actual
    emissions, or relied on measured (and
    therefore "actual"] ambient air quality
    values, as the primary basis for
    determining SIP emission limits needed
      • This statement doe* not epply to netting, where
     "contemporaneous' actualemiaaions are always ihe
     baseline. See. *4_ 40CFR SM«|)(l|(v,| See also
     Appendix B fe* detailed discussion of '•actual 'and
     "allowable." emission*
      • Seen,Band.7 above.
    

    -------
                      Federal RefJsler  /  Vok M.  No. 233 / Thnreday. December 4. 1968  / Notices
                                                                         43839
    to demonstrate attainment b tome
    wee* SIP demonstrations were based
    merely on qualitative judgments (e.g,
    "example region" approaches). Baseline
    emissions for sources in ail these other
    areas must generally be calculated using
    the lower of actual or allowable values
    for each baseline factor. However,
    states may approve, on a case-by-case
    basis, use of allowable values in
    calculating baseline emissions, where
    they explicitly demonstrate that such
    use comports with reasonable further
    progress and will neither create a new
    ambient violation nor delay the planned
    removal of an existing violation. Such
    demonstrations require full Level in
    modeling and must be submitted to EPA
    as case-by-case SIP revisions.
      EPA deems designated Rural Ozone
    Nonattainment Amu to possess
    acceptable demonstrations-of
    attainment provided they have an
    approved new source review rule and
    require RACT controls for all major
    VOC sources for which EPA has issued
    Control Technique Guidance (CTG)
    documents. (See, e.g, 43 FR 21673 (May
    IB, 1978)). Because these areas'
    nonattainment is generally caused by
    emissions from sources in a nearby
    urban area, control of emissions from
    that area is expected to bring the meal
    area into attainment Put differently,
    EPA does not require rural areas to cure
    problems due to transport from
    pollution-generating areas which rural
    areas cannot control However. EPA
    believes that further clarifications are
    required for bubbles in these areas.
      Sources involved in such bubbles
    must use RACT emission  limits in
    calculating baseline emissions, if subject
    to Croup I or 0 CTGs under the EPA
    approved SIP for these areas. Sources
    subject to other SIP emission limits must
    use those limits in calculating baseline
    emissions.  Other baseline factors must
    also be consistent with the applicable
    SIP requirements, and will generally be
    actual historical values. Where a source
    is not regulated by the EPA-approved
    SIP its baseline will be actual emissions
    in the year EPA approved the Part D
    plan for the affected rural area In those
    approvals.  EPA presumed that controls
    for sources in the upwind urban areas.
    as well as RACT on GTC sources in the
    rural area,  would bring about attainment
    in the rural area, and that non-CTG
    sources in  the area, unless regulated by
    the SIP, could continue to emit at actual.
    non-RACT levels without interfering
    with attainment in those areas. See also
    43 FR 21673 (May 19.1978).
       b. Special Pngnat Requirements for
    Bubbles In Primary Nonattainment
    Areas Which Nted But Lack Approved
    Deawutratioai of Attainment EPA wiH
    approve bobbles which are consistent
    with the attainment needs of these
    areas, which produce a net air quality
    benefit and which therefore secure
    interim progress towards attainment10
      (1) Objective TetttForAlI
    Application. Bubble applications in
    primary nonattainment areas which
    require but lack approved
    demonstration* of attainment will be
    deemed to produce a net air quality
    benefit and will be processed for
    approval tf they:
      (a) Use lowest-of-actual-SIP-allowable
    or RACT-allowable emissions baselines.
    Such baselines are calculated using
    either
      (1) The actual emission rate, the SIP or
    other federally enforceable emission
    limit or the applicable RACT emission
    limit u whichever is lower, to compute
    the baseline for each source involved in
    the trvde. This baseline factor shall be
    date aned ss of the date of the source's
    application to bank or trade, whichever
    is earlier.
      (ii) The lower of actual or allowable
    capacity utilization and hours of
    operation to compute the baseline for
    each source Involved In the trade.
    Actual values shall generally be baaed
    on the two years of operation preceding.
    the application, to bank at, trade*, unices
    another two year period Is shown to be
    more representative of actual
    operations. Sources which shut down
    prior to the application to bank or trade
    have zero emissions, and therefore no
    credit is available.
      For sources which banked or sought
    to bank credit  in these nonattainment
    areas prior to publication of today's
    notice, the "date of application to bank"
    is the date of written application to the
    states to  bank credit through a formal
    bank or informal ^""^'nfl mechanism for
    use in future trades. For sources which
    seek to bank credit in these areas
    following publication of today's notice,
    the date of application to bank will be
    the date of written application to ac-
    etate to make a reduction ttate-
    enforceable through or concurrent with
    use of a formal bank or informal
    banking mechanism.
      (b) Using baseline emissions defined
    above, meet applicable de minima.
      '• Whlto not «ll of uxUy'i mw i imiirmatt far
    bvbbiM «th*M MM* M Mricdjr -b«Maar
    BMttn. til bwie nquinmnu for thm b»bbl««
    art MI out h«rt for linplieily. Ntw nqmrnMat*
    •IM apply to frartc bubble ralM in thm MM*.
    SM Swam ILD Mow.
      " Wtrara u •minion Unit for t iraa finotod
    (a the tndc hM not prwtaMry DMB •ppiovtd bjr
    EPA •* RACT. • biMliM nfitcttaf • MfMUMd
    RACT  notice of
    deficiency based on failure to attain or
    maintain the National Ambient Air
    Quality Standards (NAAQS). in the form
    of a SIP call or a new section 107 or
    171(2) nonattainment designation: or (2)
    a notice of  failure to implement an
    approved SIP.
      (d) Arees which received notice from
    EPA that they have failed to meet
    conditions  in  their EPA-approved SIPs.
    including commitments  to adopt
    particular regulations by specified dates.
    The one exception would occur where
    the only portion of the SIP (including the
    attainment demonstration) lacking full
    approval is the inspection/maintenance
    provision for mobile sources. In these
    circumetances. stationary-source
    bubble* will be treated as if the area
    had a folly approved SIP.
      (e) Any area that does not have an
    EPA-approved or EPA-pramulgated pi
    for lead.
    

    -------
    •Ufrtt
    FadanJ Regjmr / VoL.gfc. Na> 333 / Thorsday-. December 4». MBsW He*tos»
      (34 Sfol*.as*ureiu»si SPA> will not
    approve a bubble in primacy
    nonatuinment areas needing but lacking
    approved demonstrations unless the
    state provides assurances that the
    proposed trade will be consistent with
    its efforts to attain the ambient
    standard. The state must make the
    following representations to the EPA
    Regional Office in or with the letter
    formally submitting the bubble as a
    revision to the SIP:
      (a) The resulting emission limits are
    consistent with EPA requirement* for
    ambient air quality progress, as
    specified in Section LA.Lb-(l) above.
      (b) The bubble emission limits will be
    included in any new SIP and associated
    control strategy demonstration.
      (c) The bubble will not constrain the
    state or local  agency's ability to obtain
    any additional emission reductions
    needed to expeditiously attain and
    maintain asnbtent air quality standards.
      (d) The state or local agency is making
    reasonable efforts to develop e complete
    approvable SIP and intends to adhere to
    the schedule for such development
    (including dates for completion of
    emissions inventory ar"* subsequent
    increments of progress)-staled in or wtth
    the i***** formally «uhf»jtHiTg the ^^hH
    or previous such letters*.
      (e) The baseline used-to cdrailale the
    bubble emission limits i» consistent with
    the baseline requirements in section
    I.A.l.b.(l) above.
      These state assurances must be made
    in writing by the appropriate state or  .
    local authority (e.q.. State Air Director.
    Air Pollution Control Board, or
    Legislative-Committee^. EPA will not
    second-guess such state representations.
    provided: (1J They are a substantial test
    applied by tile state to each bubble, and
    (2) the state bee explained how the-
    proposed babble ie consistent with (b»
    area's projected attainment strategy?
    Nor wiH EPA examine, or expect state*
    to examine in making such
    representations, any specific source's
    subjective motivation  in making claimed
    reductions.
      (4) ^—'-••-* -/ °—Tifsjg ffrnVfrfa
    Applications. "Pendjatbahslsi" means-
    those which are airreatvjrpecuiiag at
    EPA Regions or HsadqisMlais. as well
    as any bubble application* which were
    formally submitted to EPA Region*
    under the 1982 policy but returned
    without action, because final bubble-
    criteria had not yet been issued. In
    primary nonattaloment areas needing
    but lacking, demonstrations, these
    bubbles sbevid contribute to progress .
    towards attainment "Progress toward*
    attainment" means s»me exiia reduction
    beyond equivalence, with
     actual-SIP-allowabie-of-RACT-
                         of Oa* HIT* anMira«rt»origBMlfrs« applicable' ^*H'n^ mmti?*imt of
                         certain bubbles in nonattainment areas
                         needing but lacking demonstrations and
                         to reconfigure those bubbles in response
                         to the reduced credit which may b*
                         allowed under the new more stringent
                         requirements). However. p**"""g •
                         bubbler which prior to final EPA
                         approval are changed to the extent that
                         they ao longer reasonably resemble me
                         original proposal quafifying for pending
                         bubbie status (e.g, those which are
                         substantially expanded: » scope or '
                         changed t* involve primarily dUfiweoft
                         souree*of emfawiea reduction credit).
                         will be considered new bubbles sublet
                         to sB of tBereqairameatB of today's • •.
                         notes.              .       ..."•,
                           Bibble-appficaaone which, wecr
                         Nbaritterf to EPAJIegtens by state* V«l
                         wotah w« withdraw, (or re*«rfedf*s
                         inadequate tmdec mat iflBZ poficy; «MV
                         not "pandas;" These- babbit* ff,   -
    meet afl iequhemeaU of
    appficable to new bubble
                                                      noOca-
                                                to oe11
                         comfdend-sophuaaemiseiasr    '
                         redaction cannot already lave been
                         cmiined ee pan 01 e demonaUatluB
                         updated eBHMtoB inventory 1
                         air qwlily plan or hav» beea-naed'ty
                         tnesottffCB) to meet auy Outer regnatDiy1
                              remeot Doubte-coontlng of
                                    •granting credit for the i
                         esRieeMO reelttCuOB. e«g* once te) tn9
                         state ee>pait of its nonaftaoanent Sf
                         demonstration or PSD baseline, and e-
                         second tmwto a source for us* in- air
                         enissioa* trade, mast be oddteeeed at
                         the following sttuatioatt.
                           (\] Crediting Pn-Bxnting Saa'ttieir
                         rttUUCtlOfiti IB JMHMfSOlfMMftf QrattS1"
                         credit generally cannot b* gimtedfer
                         emission reductions made before.
                         nomtoriag dam is oe wa» ooUeooMrfor
                         use in carrent SlPphmning. Ifccaassj   •
                         monitored ambient revels ainoof reflect
                         these emission decreases, such .
                          decrease* may have bsaii
                          ralcaletinsj d» farther red«ctiS)H»
                          needed ta attata ambfent rt
                          States most chwiy show that the-
                          axisteace of these reduciie«shaa>
                                          onaertoi
               t ccadtr ior ttesw radttctkma.
                                          The; earHss* atteptabi* UseilM date
                                          would oorowirf be thai year of me BO*
                                          recent eaasetoas in*ealarf aeed h»
                                          ptanning Part DSIP revistoiis under the
                                          Qean Air Act Amendments of 1977.'*
                                          When emisstOM inventoriee or other
                                          data are updated for tracking RPP and
                                          correction of Part D SIPs. the new
                                          inventories awst treat banked emissions
                                          reductions, sseorrent actual emission*
                                          "In the air" at the source where created.
                                          so that corrected SIPs do not
                                          raadwrteady raiy OB new prior
                                          reductions and cause men to be lost for
                                          use. If utvemlortee da not treat these-
                                          bankedeasJaesejH a»"tn the air," or if
                                          they aw ome*w*s»reUed upon for SIP
                                          planmnf parpoees. soca reductions can
                                          nn Imipi ha issrtltsrf far tniilliij ' '
                                               rtaui} HUMltuinmitat areas
                  ofa
    leducaons achkved pri
                                                                 mt. emission
                                                                 to appBcation
                                          to bank or trsJ«JwticaaTer Is earihtt)
                                          wu»Twroe- credRnt for nsrin bubfefes.
                                          See seetterCAt-bLfiy above. Regardless
                                          oi wbethsjr mny.ms»t other baseline
                                                                  mot
    leswuuHy eittflBd by; the opportunity to
    trade-to r practical, objective sense
    determined by mamc ud cannot be
    used^aaa^fcdaflnff-suufce Sg
    requlieUiMair absent r demonstration. ' *
      In attaiaaeatarfaik nducmins at
    major stationary? foaxcn which
    conuieaced'canstracooo after January
    1. 197Jmsry W aotfTB o>iaflfy for cratfit
    wBethar sucB reducttoa occurred
    before orafter tke PSpoaaellne
    triggering date. Sit* « CPR
                                     t
                                          7, 1980). Omar emission reductions
                                          af minor sources?) caanot qualify for
                                          credit where the PSD baseline date is oe
                                          hot oean triggered tod such reductions
                                          occurred prior to the triggec date, unless
                                          these reductions are act assumed in the
                                          PSD baseline*. Since banked emission
                                            "lai
                                                            •ill mlMlM riuUi IIMIII
                                                            i orpenMatnly
                                                            ekpttar a«ppBc«ian for
    

    -------
                      Federal  Reflate* / Vol. SI. No. 233 /Thursday.  December 4. 1966 / Notices
                                                                           43d
    ^duetto* credit* must be considered to
    4* ••« the sir" for ill planning purposes.
    if the baseline date is triggered before
    banked credits are actually used such
    banked credits will be considered as
    part of the baseline and will not
    consume increment when used in an
    emissions trade.
      In attainment anas when the PSD
    baseline has not been triggered as of the
    date EPA or the permitting authority
    lakes relevant final action on the trading
    transaction, reductions below current
    SIP or permit limits generally may be
    used without special restrictions in
    bubble or banking transactions.
    provided they are otherwise creditable
    end there is assurance that NAAOS will
    not be violated due to any potential
    increase in actual emissions. '•
      (2) Crediting Reduction* From
    Shutdowns. Shutdowns are generally
    treated for purposes of emissions
    trading like any other type of emissions
    reduction." For example, the same
    limitations on pre-existing reductions
    (section LA.l.c.(l). above) apply to
    shutdowns where they apply to any
    other type of •missions reduction.
    However, under current federal New
    Source Review requirements for major
    sources, shutdowns that occur prior to
    application for a new source permit can
    be used aa offsets only for equipment
    replacing oil-site productive capacity
    which waa  shut down."
      Shutdowns are of general concern
    with respect to double-counting where a
    state may have relied directly or
    indirectly on shutdowns in a SIP
    demonstration of attainment (Where a
    primary nonattainment area needs but
    lacks an approved demonstration of
    attainment the progress requirements of
    subsection  LA-l.b. above apply to
    bubbles involving shutdowns ae weH aa
    to bubbles involving other types of
    emission reductions. These requirements
    generally bar use of reductions from
    shutdowns which occurred before
    application to bank or trade.)
      In general a state may credit
    reductions from shutdowns if the SIP
    has not already assmed credit for these
    reductions  in its attainment strategy. So
    long as reductions from shutdowns have
    not already been counted in developing
    an area's attainment strategy, they are a
    potential source of surplus reductions.
      " However, reduction ai tourcoo other than
    nMjor itanonarjr tource* on which construction
    coewnenced before iamary 1.1973 nay MI be uMd
    w (Mine* >ncr»M* at wch pre-1973 maw Murcea.
      '• For UM of banked *haido*ra cndui-far
    bebbtae « primary nonallainmem ereee needhn
    but lacfclnf approved denMntrreiiena. aoe
    LA.1.43) Mow.
      " See n, 14 above.
      Some SIPs assumed a set quantity of
    reductions from the overall difference in
    emissions due to new plant openings
    and existing plant shutdowns. These
    SIPs incorporated into their attainment
    strategy a net "turnover'1 reduction in
    emissions because new sources are
    generally cleaner than those that shut
    down. Double-counting would occur if a
    specific source received credit for
    reductions from such a shutdown, since
    that reduction was already assumed in
    the SIP'S demonstration of attainment
      These states heve at bast two options
    for granting sources credit for
    shutdowns without this kind of double-
    counting. First, they may reexamine any
    "turnover" reductions relied on in their
    SIP and decide not to take credit for
    these reductions. This approach would
    require EPA approval of a revised
    demonstration of attainment or a SIP
    revision showing consistency with the
    existing demonstration. Such an action
    can be processed by EPA concurrently
    with a bubble or generic rale.
    Alternatively, these states may allow
    credit only after the total quantity of
    shutdown reductions relied on in the SIP
    has occurred.
      In all eases where net turnover
    reductions have been quantified and
    relied on as part ofittafranenf
    demoastradona. states whica seek to
    grant shutdown credit for use in trading
    maat be prepared to show dearly and
    unequivocally on the basis of SIP
    documents or tracking mat the credit
    has not been double-counted or
    otherwise relied on for SIP planning
    purposes.
      (3) Use of Banked Credit! From
    Shutdownt or Other Actions for Bubble
    Purposes. »• In primacy aonattainment
    areas which need but lack approved.
    demonstrations. ERCs intended for
    bubble purposes may generally be
    banked and used with the same towest-
    of-ectu«J-SiV-al]owable-or*RAC& ...
    allowable baseline used for other
    bubble transactions." This baseline
    should be applied as  of the time banked
    credit is or waa initially sought, with the
    20% reduction applied to both sources in
    the trade if these credits are later used
    for bubbles. The lowest-of-actuai-SlP-
    allowable-or-RACT-allowabie baseline
    plus the 20* discount will also apply to
    the source using that credit in a- bubble.
    as of the time of such subsequent bubble
    application.
      Banked credits produced by
    shutdown and curtailments may r
    need for bubbles in these areas on
    same terms as use of other banked
    credits, provided their use is subject tc
    stringent qualitative review to assure
    technical. legal, and programmatic
    consistency with SIP planning goals
    (e.g.. avoidance of double-counting anc
    "shifting demand"). This review will nc
    examine any source's motivation in
    shutting down a facility or curtailing
    production. However, the source must
    show that a written application was
    submitted to make the shutdown/
    curtailment state-enforceable through o
    concurrent with use of a formal bank or
    informal banking mechanism, prior to
    the time the shutdown/curtailment
    occurred. Submittal of such an
    application to make proposed reduction
    from s shutdown or curtailment state-
    enforceable will constitute the relevant
    definition of "application to bank" for
    timing purposes related to the
    evaluation of bubble credits in these
    nonattainment areas (see section
    LA.l.b(l) above).10 The shutdown/
    curtailment must be made federally
    enforcement when it is used in a bubble
      Use for bubble purposes of nonbanket
    credits, resulting, from current shutdown:
    or curtaiiaeata will be allowed in the**
    areas tf the loweet-of-actuaJ-SIP-
    ai)owable-or>RACF-allowable baselL
    plus the 20% additional reduction are
    applied to determine the amount of
    credit
      No special baseline or additional
    reduction requirements will apply to
    these credits in odier areas.
      d. Multiple Use of ERCs. Once surplus
    reductions are credited, states must
    prohibit their multiple use. The same
    pound of reduction must not be
    simultaneously banked by two different
    entities or used to satisfy two different
    regulatory requirements at the same
    time. To-prevent these results, stales
    must adopt an ERC registry or
    equivalent means of accounting for the
    creation, banking, transfer, or use of
    ERCs. See Section I.Cfl below. States
    must, also ensure that past reductions
    used in bubble, netting or offset
    transactions are not later credited in
    newly-established banks.
      '• BRCa uaod for anting and offtM
    (inctudinf thoea derived from bajika) 00*1
    with relevant NSM and FSB reajwraoMBla.
      )• For farther diaaueraitreiotod to the uee of
    banked credH* m these noM
    MCtMM I.C.4. below.
      '• Par source* wMcfc banked or sought to bink
    credit* turn thuldowna or curtailments in ihes*
    nooeiUinment area* pnar la publication of :oaay t
    ooticf. wntlae) evidenee mual be provided showing
    either thet aa application to depeaii the creaiis .n •
    formal bank wu suftentted lo the state pnor to ih«
    tuM-tka ae«ldbwn/cwiaiJaM«i oceorred. or thai in*
    elate iiaiiaiiiliiejail before or at the lima the
    ahetdown/cvrMitoaa)! occurred, botb the »«i«ten<
    of tial cliaidowii/eurtaitnetu. and the source i
    latent to uee Me raeeJtUil credit* in a future rr«d«.
    

    -------
                                       t Vofc
    Ssvra»». Sbnrce* rat i
    aret'sSIP eahwioii iai
    for eonsatroai rtdnclun i
    applications nay eulinau nUtfe air
    quality pianriag caoebtAm. Where
    such source* are already sabject to SIP
    emission limits, those emission limits
    must be used as the basic for
    determining emission reduction credit
    unless a more stringent baseline would
    normally be required (see sections
    LA.l.a. and LA.1.D. above)."
       In aUOMiauat anas states may graot
    bubble credit to sources regardless of
    whether they have bean included in an,
    inventory, based oa use of actual values
    for each of the three hattlint factors, so
    long as those sources an not subject to
    lower allowable values forthoee {acton..
    Allowable values, when higher than
    actual values, may alternatively he used
    in calculating the baseline, provided
    sources show that any resulting
    potential increase in actual emissions
    does not jeopardize applicable ambient
    standards. PSD increments, or visibility.
    (See 40 CFR 51.24 and 5121  for specific-
    requirements concerning PSD
    increments and visibility.)
       In nonattainment arras with approved
    demonstration* afattaiiunmt, wrteifcer
    sources* not on the  nrwitory can create*
    bttoote' credR wiff tmn on* now tnr
    approved demonstration of aRaiiunent
    was designed. Some stales firs*
    monitored ambient vamee to detemum
    required redoctioiis far the SIP; then
    required a proportionate reduction in
    emissions from certaiavgosMrei BRBf ^
    categories (i** a "rotiback") ia> order to
    attain. States may grant credit for -
    reductions from omnventorted aauraes
    in these area* ia at leaat two ways.
       (1) They could require the avacage erf
    percentage reductions imposed on all
    inventoried sources, and grant credit
    only for reductions in excess of that
    amount. In this case, baseline emission*
    should  be based on the percentage
    reduction in actual emissions for  the
    year in which the baseline data for the
    rollback was gathered. Where such
    sources are already subnet to lower SIP
    emisssion limits, those ants must be.
    used to determine  credK.
       (2) They could require the source to
    use rt RACT emission rate and the lower
      " Where a giver ~urtc v*a» tioi subject To
     miindcwy RACT refutation due to the fact that It
     was not included in the inventory (e.g.. where no
     RACT refutation for a *o«rce category wa* adopted
     bratum (he Mere, unaware ef the source, rmed •
         alMM (hat no aoerce eirined in thx tooree
          L or where an unmnn>»inii. rwn-CTG
     5c»n-« of greater then 1WTFV emi«anma n tooeted
     in on ozone e*lena»on oreal. a b»«tMiii i tflaitlrca a
     nefoniited RACT emi*aioit rate mutt be n«juad
     upon t*»'w«en the Mure*, (he MMe and H»A For MM
     uniBvnttorwd Kwrce i
    utttiiaflan aadlituw
    carcuUte'tiie baeeine. and grant <
    only for raductfone befcnv flisthaseitnei
    This RACT baseitae would haw« to
    result ia a reduction M least as gnat a*
    the percentage redaction eseamed In thr
    rollback. A» dJecussed" above, wher*
    sources, afe-ainedy stAfect to lower SIP
    emission Umita, thoee Units awist be-
    used as the basis for detensning credit
      Other areas devetopad SIP
    demonstratioaa baaed on dispersioa
    models rather than area erieh
    proportionate reduetioa*. To the extent
    these SB's demonstrated ambient
    attainment througa etdtxttoat reqau«sd
    from specific Inventoried i
    incorporated emission* firm
                                           fifeejfhfe) does prognai are*
    unisnrenloried semcer in i
    or area sonica totais. aad projected
    attaimnemt by raodelinj the effselaaf-
    those reductiOBax redvctioaa front .-
    sources. ao4oo the iatenaoty caai b*
    credited «iaaag.the to»er of -^*"*t oar
    allowable -nlmtt fas each of th«
      Inpnranaryj
    which «efd but lack aa><
    demonstratiotmf oUauurnnLAa
    progress regniifs-Mnt* of SacttemlAAk
    use credit
                 bBbhlM whirh-seeii to -
                   '•'^
    ullnwnha* erB/lPT
    baseline. When a RACT emi
    has not already been adopted, for aa> -
    uninventnriftd source, auco. a firnit jprfst.
    be agreed upon, batveao the aoucce. that..
    state and EPA before the baeefina can.
    be determined
      States which grant credit from
    uninvtnierird sources not subject to
    permits, offset requirements, or.
    enforceable production constraints
    should address me possibility tfaav
    reductions from one such source may.be
    followed by eqnal oc greater Increase*
    from similar nearby sources dna to
    shifting demand. These states must
    dearly demonstrate that ERCs from the
    uninventoried source are surplus and
    permanent Interested parties should be
    aware that some uninventoried sources
    may not readily meet these test*. For
    example, reductions resulting from
    shutdown of a dry cleaner will generally
    not be creditable, unless the stat»
    subject* such sources to offset
    requirements or other measure*
    addressing this problem. However.
    reductions due to improved control at
    such a dry cleaner would generally be-
    creditaM*. since shifting demand i* not
    implicated.
      BateJwtafor Open Dust Trade*
    Fugitive dust regulations generally
    consist of generic wotk practices and*
    fua
                                                               R jg. ejeuai ally so*
                                           possMr to rileiilJy t*e ayvfupriete-
                                           emumeiw baiseftnr fron a generaf tt*
                                                                mmUfty this
                                           requissnent. Far trades ander generic
                                           rules a compUanc* instrment cuW take
                                           the form of an agreement between me
                                           source and state, a pracanstruction
                                           permit (if one i« eeynraale). a consent
                                           decree, a state oaentmg permit or any
                                           otaer eamviienca instrument judicially
                                           enfbncanoMi by the state. To assure state
                                           enfuitaabitity.. thr gansmc rah? should
                                           stats that soaces >abiect to these
                                           instzuDUBt* are leqaired t» meat the
                                           emission limits contained therein. Such
                                           instruments would then automatically
                                           become federally enforceable via an
                                           EPA-*ppr«ved generic rale,  provided
                                           they are issued as, or part of. the
                                           compliance instrument specifically
                                           required by the generic rule.
                                             Compliance instruments must ensure
                                           that enforcement personnel  do not have
    

    -------
                     Federal Regbrter /  Vot 51, No. 283 I Tburadcy, December 4, 196B / Notices
                                                                                                                 43843
    to tee* si»uit«iieo»eljr tv«y enitatoa
    source involved in • trad*. Tfcei
    generally requires soares specific
    mission limits. However. sutts may
    us* pre-specified combinations of
    source-specific emission limits which
    •r« enforceable. States nay also use an
    overall limit that applies to a group of
    emission sources which can be
    evaluated simultaneously, where there
    is • reliable end enforceable method of
    determining compliance (e.g.. through
    production records, input factors, or
    other indirect means, or through use of a
    continuous emissions monitor.; See, e*.
    45 FR 80*24. December & 1980.
      The compliance instrument should
    also specify applicable restrictions on
    hours of operation, production rates or
    input rates: enforceable test methods for
    determining compliance: and necessary
    recordkeeping or reporting
    requirements. To be enforceable, these
    limits must state the minimum time
    period over which they will be averaged
    (e.g.. IDS /hour. Ibs/MBtu averaged over
    24 hours, production rate/day).'* Unices
    such enforceable restrictions are or have
    been placed on capacity utiitostioa and
    hours of operation, or on overall
    emissions, maximum values for eepecrrjr
    utilization and hours of operation aval
    generally be used in ^Wi
    trade emission limits and in aobiaat
    modeling of the post-trade -
    3. All Reductions Must Be Permeaent
      All emission increases in a trad* must
    be cviaveiisa ted by emission' iadditions
    that an eennenent fi.e., savored for the'
    life of the. corresponding i	
    whether unlimited or linritied in
    duration).** This requirement may
    generally be oat by enforces*!* permit
    limitations confirming the amount and
    duration of the decrease. If reductions
    with a limited life are used the-iife of
    the trade mast be limited accordingly, so
    that the trade will automatically
    terminate with expiration of those
    reductions. The date of terminatioo may
    be specified in the notice of approval
    Alternatively. source(s}nay agree to
    provide formal written neflacatfon to
    EPA and the state before such
    reductions may be diaeoarfisMod and the
    trade terminated.
      Permanence may jitesent special bot
    resolvable "shifting demand" problems
    for reductions from small  sources ooi
    subject to permits, offset requirements.
      " kfaay MM* ftimu or
    nt«d rtmmam* » imam *h»ttb»y
    n««d only ooeuf «• «
    ladtvidval inii«i «•
      "Ptfmm or otter
    limntd-dimiion md« •0*1 e*»»r»y nm i
    limui.
                                           or enfomeebfe production
                                           State* wtafcf
                                           source catffgorissj But addiea* the
                                           possibilirjr that redactiaeai from MS
                                           source may result ai equeJ or greater
                                           increases from snniUr nearby source*.*4
                                             In ordar to ISM. ta a babble trad*.
                                           emission reduction credits derived from
                                           reductions in operations beyond those
                                           consistent wf th the baseline (e.g.. a
                                           reduction from 3 to 2 worfcshifts). a
                                           source must have Its preconstruction
                                           permit or other federally enforceable
                                           compliance instrument altered to reflect
                                           the curtailment in prodection records
                                           reflecting such curtailment (iee section
                                           LA2 above).1* Future increases in
                                           production beyond the permit amount
                                           may trigger new source review or
                                           require approval of a new emissions
                                           trading application which mdadea
                                           compensating emission reductions. A*
                                           with other types of oonoompUaace, any
                                           source which exceeds penwtied
                                           production limits would be subject lo
                                           potential noncompliaaca paaaltie*
    
                                           4. All Reduetfons Musi be QnaaftrlaMe
                                             Before an emission reduction on be
                                           credited it must be quantified. This
                                           generally means the state must establish
                                           a reliable basis-far calculating the
                                           amount and rate of the reduction-emi
                                           descrifetaf iHehereetaristles.
                                             a. CeJculatitg the Reduction. To
                                           (nMltifr tin WDOttDt Oef
                                           rntiirrtnni lUgtfili is i
                                           meat be o>*oeia«Bd oetfe before end aftet
                                           the redejBoa (Le, ssevmiag the post-
                                           redoction ttmits). Alttough many
                                           different methods of "^""'"^trr are
                                           avaikble (04* emission tenon, scMk
                                           tests, aaemtored veaeaa, prediction or
                                           proeaas inpots). me same method aad
                                           averaging time should generally be used
                                           to qvaatiry emissions both before aad
                                           after the reduction."
                                                 jaj f^ft •lAttOBg) iWk fas' f
                                           preMtatu^cMilMofBIC**
                                           eunwfcMM W nek outi i
                                           franiauUt
    (U
                                           mm*. O. MCTKM LA.1* ttaov*.
                                             » Undv EPA'i NSR rtfiitetMM. fhtr
                                           off§»i poipom M prior ibuldowaft SM a 14 »bo»«.
                                             <• (a gtntnL itutm mtf not «ppn*« VOC tiuim
                                                       u t «
    d0^> riBMWW. WaVIV VuG4QBfCW Federal Class I area.
                                            The ambient effect of a trade
                                           generally depends on the dispersion
                                           ehareotarteties of the pollutant involved.
                                             VOC or NO, Trades. Trades involving
                                           VOC or NO. need consider only
                                           emissions. Since the ambient impact of
                                           these poHasantt ia area wide rather than
                                           lacettaed. one pound oHnereased
                                           emissions will be balanced in ambient
                                                                                                                  but
                                                                                               rf*
                                                                                                          i of ittiliunmt.
                                                                                        
    -------
    43344
    Federal Rsnirtar  / Vok  51. No. 233 / Thursday.  Decerabar 4. 1966 / Notictt
    •fleet by om pound of decreased
    emissions within in* same bread
    geographic area, and tht precis*
    location of those increases and
    decreases ordinarily don not matter.
    For VOC and NO, such "pound-tor-
    pound" trades may therefore be treated
    as equal in ambient effect where all
    sources involved in the trade are located
    in the same control strategy
    demonstration area or the state
    otherwise shows such source to be
    sufficiently close that a "pound-tor-
    pound" trade can be justified.1*
       Particuiate Matter. SOi. CO or Lead
    Trades. Ambient considerations are
    critical for trades involving emissions of
    sulfur dioxide, participates, carbon
    monoxide, or lead, whose air quality
    impacts may vary with where the
    emission increases and decreases occur.
    For example, one hundred pounds of
    ERCs for such a pollutant created  at one
    source may balance the ambient impact
    of a 100-pound increase at a source
    nearby, but may only balance the  effect
    of an 80-pound increase at a source
    further away. In addition to distance
    between sources, plume parameters.
    pollutant characteristics, meteorology.
    and topography will also affect the
    ambient impact of such trades.2*
       This Document authorizes the use of
    four alternative methods of determining
    ambient equivalence, with the degree of
    required modeling linked to the likely
    ambient impact of the proposed trade.
    The following sections describe use of
    these alternatives to evaluate for
    approval many bubble or offset trades
    without full scale ambient dispersion-
    modeling.30 Use of these alternatives
    under generic rules is discussed in
    section II below.
       (1) De Minimis. In general no
    modeling is needed to determine the
    ambient equivalence of trades in which
    applicable net baseline emissions do not
    increase a> and in which the sum  of the
       '• Tht discussion in this paragraph does not
     apply to NC. '.rades involving visibility impact* of
     elevated plumei.
       11 The ambient equivalence eoattderarkme
     elaborated in this and follnejissj paragraphs alto
     ipply to NO, trades involving visibility impacts of
     elevated plumes. See n. 28 above.
       "> Modeling is generally not required for new
     source netting, whose purpose it to avoid expending
     resources where adverse emission or ambient
     impacts from changes at a source are extremely
     unlikely S«e. e.g.. 45 FR 52877-T8 (August 7.1980V
       1' Interested parties should, however, be aware
     thet in some circumstance* modeling may be
     required to lusufy using certain emissions bastiiots,
     pnor to the trade. Where a bubble in a
     nonaiiainment area seeks to employ allowable
     value* greater than corresponding actual values in
     the calculation of baseline emissions, and whese
     such allowable values are not ahown to be used or
     reflected m an approved demonstration, a tull Level
     lit modeling analysis will be required. Where a
                            emissions increase*, looking only at the
                            increasing sources, total* let* than 25
                            tons per year (TPY) for particulate
                            matter, 40 TPY for sulfur dioxide, 100
                            TPY for carbon monoxide. 40 TPY for
                            NO, (where visibility impacts are of
                            concern), or 0.6 TPY for lead, after
                            applicable control requirements. Such
                            trades will have at most a de minima
                            impacts on local air quality because no
                            net increase in emissions will be
                            produced and the amount of emissions
                            being shifted  is less than designated
                            significance levels in associated EPA
                            regulations (see, e.g.. 40 CFR
                            S1.18(jHl|(x) and 51.24{b)(23)(i)).s«
                              (2) Level I.  In general no modeling to
                            determine ambient equivalence is
                            needed if:
                              (a) The trade does not result in an
                            increase in applicable net baseline
                            emissions: **
                              (b) The relevant sources are located in
                            the same immediate vicinity (within 250
                            meters of each other):
                              (c) No increase in baseline emissions
                            occurs at the  source with the lower
                            effective plume height as determined
                            under EPA's Guidelines on Air Quality
                            Modeling^
                            bubble In an attainmtet area inks to employ
                            allowable vslues greater than corresponding actual
                            values in the calcuistion of baseline emissions, and
                            where such allowable values are not show* to be
                            used or redacted in tn approved demonstratiotk a
                            Laval II modeling-analveu (tee below) mini actual
                            emission*, for the ore-bubble case will be required
                            unless, for bubbles processed as case-by-case-SIP
                            revisions, the Region determines that additional
                            technical support it necessary to protect applicable
                            standards or increments. Whet* allowable values
                            art used to calculate baseline emissions for such •
                            case-by-case-SIP revision bubble m an aiuiammt
                            area where tht) PSD baseline has been triggered, the
                            Region will require the technical support necessary
                            to protect PSD increments.
                               Where allowable values higher than actual values
                            are not shown to be used or reflected in an
                            approved demonstration, stales that wish to
                            authoria* their use in attainment areas under
                            generic babbit ru/ci must either state, or develop
                            repttcable procedures addressing, background
                            values and how they will be evaluated in
                            conjunction with the actual change* in ambient
                            concentration predicted by the Level II analysis.
                            These steps must be sufficient to protect standards
                            and increments and must be approved by EPA as
                            put of a generic rule.
                               For further-discussion regarding calculation of
                            baseline emissions snd related modeling
                            requirement*, we Section 1.A.L above and
                            Appendix B below.
                               "This paragraph should not be construed to
                            imply that ntw sources and modifications need not
                            meet all applicable requirements, including those
                            specified under 40 CFR 51.18 or parallel EPA-
                             approved stale rules.
                               " See n. 31 above.
       Id) No complex terrain •« is wirt-m _h»
    area of significant impact of the tnrae : »
    or 90 kilometer* whichever is !es«: "
       (e) Stacks with increasing baselir.a
    emissions are sufficiently tall to avoid
    possible downwash situations, as
    determined by the formula described at
    50 FR 27992 (July 0.1965) (to be codified
    at 40 CFR Part SI): and
       (f) The trade does not involve open
    dust sources.
       For such Level I trades it can
    reasonably be assumed that "pound-for-
    pound" trades will produce ambient
    effects equivalent to those which EPA-
    approved air quality models would
    predict. Therefore modeling »o
    determine ambient equivalence is not
    required.
       Trades between fugitive process
    sources and stack sources (i.e.. process-
    for-process or process-for-stack) can
    acceptably be evaluated and approved
    under Level I as long as  the maximum
    distance between any emitting sources
    in the trade is less than 250 meters and
    all other Level I criteria are met.
       (3) Level 11. Bubble trades which are
    neither de minima nor Level I may
    nevertheless be evaluated for approval
    based on modeling to determine ambient
    equivalence limited solely to the impacts
    of the specific emission sources
    involved in the trade, if there is no
    increase in applicable net baseline
    emissions.37 if the potential change in
    emissions before and after the trade will
    not  cause a significant increase  in
    pollutant concentrations at any receptot
    for any averaging time specified in an
    applicable ambient air quality
      "Complex terrain is broadly denned by EPA as
     terrain greats* In height than the physical stack
     height of a source. For bubble purposes, this
     definition it applicable only to sources with
     increasing baseline emissions.
      " For guidance on determining 'area of
     significant Impact" see Appendix E below. The
     graph in Appendix E. or EPA-approved alternative
     approaches, may be incorporated in generic rules to
     make this aspect of Level I analysis repiicabte and
     operational. See Section U below.
      " Generally, trades involving complex terrain as
     defined above may not be exempt from modeling
     under t Level 1 analysis. However. EPA will
     consider on a case-by-case basis additional criteria
     for determining whether a particular trade involving
     complex terrain, but otherwise meeting the
     requirements specified above, does not present a
     problem of potential plum* impaction and may be
     approved under t Level I analytit. These additional
     criteria would include such factors as source height
     and emission rates, distance between stacks and
     elevated features, rate of topographical rise, and
     other coneiderMtOM which may be appropriate for
     the particular geographic area. Slates are
     encouraged to work with EPA to determine where
     and how such additional criteria can be developed
     and applied to individual trade*.
       " See n. 31 above.
    

    -------
                      F«d«mi Ifrfjsjlsji  / V*. «. Na. 885 /  Thumky. December 4.  19M / Notion
                                                                             4384F
    standard" anal tf «ae* a* eosjfysfe AM*
    not predict any increase in ambient
         nitrations in • mandatory Federal
    Class I ana.** Tha ebangt in
    concentration from the before-trade caM
    to the after-trade case must in general
    be modeled using refined models such
    as MPTER and ISC for each sppropriate
    averaging time for the relevant national
    ambient air quality standards for each
    receptor, using the most recent full year
    of meteorological data.40
      (4) LevslIII. Pull dispersion modeling
    considering all sources affecting the
    trade's area of impact is required to
    determine ambient equivalence if
    applicable net baseline emissions will
    increase as a result of the trade.41 or if
    the trade cannot meet criteria for
    approval under de minima. Level I or
    Level IL
      However, a geographically limited
    Level HI analysis may be used in some
    case* where a Level 11 analysis predicts
      •• In dvtemMite. 'irgmHcm*" topact far Uvri H
    bubbh irate, uaMa may M* the fbUMrioa.
    
    potenuaJ aabiai Impact need not be further
    evaluated before appro***
      W nt/a* for ay M-now penod fbr pmrrtcntat*
    Butter
                      < p«M far pwMMriMi
      13 •«/•' for My M-how p*nod fee- SO*
      «•*«/•' for an* *-«ow parted far 3O*
      3 »«/•• for an annual pertod Car SOt
      S7» «I«/B* tar iay *-how panod far Oft
      000 */•* hr My 1-fcow partod tar COt
      See 48 PR
                 (A*JMI f.
                   I will EPA'« I
    Review regulation* la « CM 31.18 or Part 51.
    Appendix S, or paralM EPA-eppmved *t*te
    reguUttoaa. -SajMflcanr ianMO MOW « OT Pan
    51. Appeadu S ia d*fta**) a* l •«/•* aaaaal
    averag* for partieulalet. SOi or NOu I m/m* 24-
    hovr av*rag« for parttenJatea and Sd: S
    hour avcrcge for SOti and O.S ng/Hr1 S^nori
    and 2 a*/a* one-hour »v*r*g* far CO.
      " However, a bubble ordtnerirr vwy mat ba
    •ppreved under Uvel II where other evidaao*
    related to background—«.«, formally vaHdaMd
    •mtrteni air quality momlertng data or pmnaal)
    eataMlahad background veJuaa  clearly ajdieat**
    that th* bubble would mat* a new violation of aa
    ambient uandard or PSD Maraaaaat or wortd delay
    the planned removal of an Mating rtoJatina
      •• Other techniques may to apaiaiaU when
    Mure** thaw they equalrf w*ii protect NAAQ8.
    apetteabl* PSD ineremnH*. *ad vMbUlly. Per
    example, in limited i in iiaieimia* i«imi niiia
    tawnmi modeli miy be aoeeptaM* in HOT of
    MPTEX md ISC In •ocn caaw. oae of a Ml ywrof
    meteoroloyeal data ma* not ba nataiiary. 3och
    Kreenmc moddi may be iceeptaWe «*i*rr (a) Th*
    fcnenint model inow> that aU th* emitatona (row
    the Jtaek(t) «ntb tocreaaoif emiaaMmt nuaid a«t
    product exeeedaiRM of the-LrveJ U i^urfkaoc*
    vtluaa deacribvd in n. M above, or (b( tha MM±
    perimeter*ai the ttackdl with iaona«af aiiaalona
    do not eaan«e ana1 th* *cr*enjn| mo«M ibowa Ola*
    the mcra«a* in canaaiom at the Ixemwuj «taeM«|
    would n« prodno* nwedane** of inea*
    >i(Bifieaaca *alu*a.
      41 See diicuuion in l.B.l.c. below.
    wieoraMrveicaeedvioei-aftheLeveia
    sitftUflsaage vatots. While-mis euh/asr
    will be Naritad M terms of geographic
    •cope, W«»4 otherwise meet the
    modeling requirements fen Aili Lewi
    01 analysis. Indnding consideration of
    all sources affecting the United
    geographical area, In many situations
    this approach may permit the receptor
    area to be smaller than the trade's entire
    area of impact Because ef die unique)
    nature of each situation, the appropriate
    limited geographic area must be
    determined is accord with EPA
    guidelines on •*«*T".«»B. and through
    case-by-case evaluation.
      Bubble trades are approvable under
    either type of Level HI eaaiyeia  if they
    do not cause a new violation of NAAQS
    or PSD increments, significantly
    contribute to or delay the planned
    removal of an existing violation, or
    adversely affect visibility in mandatory
    Federal Claae 1 araea."
      Thit  aree-u'ered modeling approach is
    both reasonable and conservative. It
    will assure that the •mhiont impact of
    trades is at bast equivalent in effect to
    original SIP tmitfi?n limitst while
    conserving government resources and
    shortening approval tiates for many
    individual tradea.
      e. Babbitt Should N* loo***
    Applicable Nft BaMlia* Sadtuont.
    Ordinarily, bubbles may not result m an
    increase in applicable net baseline
    emissions. Such a babble would require
    e case-by-case SIP revision, and may
    only be approved baaed upon a
    combined Level O and Level n
    modeling analysis (Is, an analysis
    sufficient to show thet all applicable
    requirements of a full Level 01 analysis
    (as described above) an met and that
    the bubble would not result m any
    exceedance of significance values
    specified for e Level U analysis at any
    receptor for any averaging time
    specified in an applicable ambient air
    quality standard.4*
                                              •• Whm • U«t) m dMdelhif anajytia fttbmiltod
                                             to luupurt a *otaur» tradtaf *uiillt»Bou todtaiw
                                             an rac**daM* of a*, tobtart nqolraaM. PA •tfl
                                             review ructa ippllcatioeu on a mmmon »anaa eaae-
                                             by-ca*e bant, teckinf to encouraf* dladoam of
                                             •••^ih ••^^•^•laakJia^ au>J ••^••U HO^^Mk ^^J»*> ftM
                                             •uai vxovviuuiGijB sjnQ ijfvnj vnmv avu* of
                                             d*ctak>na on IB* tnd*. \
    protvcttoB of puouc MwtB. DM fBlcajrKy. of ts* 9V
    procaca (UMJuuiiif tna atM*'a pfaroajitfwa te
    detemunhTj how to remedy nuiiaininmiml md ta*
    pioinpl aJW cnccffva mMoy of *JTv QOfMtttoll of
    oonanatnment ta itt rertew. tfa* Ayancy wlO aUt*
    into aeoouM nek facton aa la* d*ff«* of
    axcaedano*. the conthb«tJaB of th* Mdlnf aowtM
    and tha trad* Ittatf to ft* weiaanm and <>*
    dafrw to wnleh Men MWOM «mM •• put of •*
    tolution remvdylnf (ha *xc**dane*.
      4* Whoft a propoaad bvobl* MionMalni n*t.
    baaefta* aMaaioiM cannot meet thl* l**l of amWejM
    equivalence, rt nay no) be nnj»u»ed •* a b*MM
    under the EmiHion* Tndin« Pottey. H*w*var.
       Wmm sue* a babble ts prerjesed in a
                  tana the state must
    demoMtratt AM *e trade it consist
    with tneprcgwsa dermmstra^ton under
    an ape^nrveo dsjMoitslrafion of
    aHainment retlM K> BPA-epproved
    piogrese demonetntion as part of the
    proposed SIP revision, or otherwise
    show (e.g~ by modeling and any
    necessary compensating emission
    reductions) that the proposed trade
    comports with the EPA-epproved
    emissions end ambient progress
    demonstration.
      d Bubbfa Should Not Increase
    Emissions ofHaxardota or Toxic A ir
    Pollutants. Under the Clean Air Act ail
    sources must meet applicable section
    112 (NESHAPs) requirements for control
    of hazardous air pollutants. Sources may
    neither use a bubble to meet these
    requirements, nor increase emissions
    beyond the lewis they prescribe. Where
    a source wishes to generate or use
    emission reduction credit for a criteria
    pollutant and where a NESHAPs
    pollutant is part of the criteria pollutant
    stream, the enneakms baseline for
    emissions of the hazardous potiutant
    from mat source would be the Jower-of-
    eetuel-or-NESHAJVellowable
    emissions of that pollutant, applied as of
    the tfeHM of appHeatton for credit. Where
    EPA hae^reposeo1 to regulate a source
    category for eonaakms of a pollutant
    under section 111 but has not yet  _,
    promulgated a NESHAP for that source
    category, the proposal will serve as the
    interim guideline for evaluating the
    potential effects of any proposed
    •missions trade involving sources to
    which the proposed standard would
    apply. The emissions baseline for such a
    pollutant emitted by a source subject to
    the proposed NESHAP would be lower*
    of-actnl-or-oroposed-NESHAPs-
    allowable emissions for mat pollutant.
      IngtMHvI, such  trading proposals will
    be approved so long as they (1) result in
    emission limits for eocfi source emitting
    the relevant pollutant which are
    equivalent to or less than those that the
    approved NESHAP requires or the
    proposed NESHAP would require if
    promulgated (It rely only on reductions
    benw actual or allowable levels
    (whichever Is less) of that pollutant, and
    (3) take place within a single plant or
    contiguous plants.
       When a pollutant has been listed
    under section 112 or EPA has published
    e Notiee-of-Intent-to-Ust but no
    NESHAP has been promulgated or
    proposed for a source which emits that
         I n*y ffffl MOWM ruca rwiied Mm.ti for
    approved ond*r the ^enerrf requiremenu applicable
    loSIPrevtottfte.
    

    -------
    43B46
    F«dend R-sbtac / VoL  51.  No. 233 / Thursday. December 4. 198d / Notices
    pollutant, state* may generally allew
    trades consisting of equivakot increase*
    and decreases of actual araiiaton* of
    that pollutant within a siafto plant or
    contiguous plants. Once the relevant
    NESHAP is promulgated, every source.
    regardless of any previously approved
    trade involving emissions of that
    pollutant, must meet  the requirements of
    that promulgation.
      Where EPA has decided- that one or
    more source categories which emit a
    listed pollutant do not require regulation
    solely because of limited national
    exposure, emissions, of that pollutant
    will continue to be treated the same as
    emissions of any other pollutant listed
    under section 112.
      Where EPA has issued a  formal
    Notice-of-Intent-Not-to-List a pollutant
    under section 112. that pollutant will
    ordinarily be treated as non-hazardous.
    However, where the decision not to list
    or not to regulate was based on limited
    national exposure, but the individual
    risk was sufficiently high that EPA
    committed in the announcement of its
    decision to support (through some
    formal mechanism such as a
    Memorandum of Understanding (MOU))
    state-level efforts to develop regulations.
    the pollutant will be treated as listed for
    trading purposes in order to assure that
    such state efforts are not compromised.
    The model for the intended scope of this
    classification is EPA's aoylonitrile
    decision. (50 FR 24319; June 10.1965).
      If a substance is neither listed nor
    regulated as hazardous under section
    112. nor meets any of the other
    conditions specified above, but has been
    formally listed or regulated as toxic
    under any comparable health-baaed
    federal statute, the Administrator may
    consider this fact in evaluating trade*
    which may increase emissions of that
    substance. This authority has not been .
    delegated within EPA by the
    Administrator. See Clean Air Act
    section 301(a)(l). 42 U.S.C  7801(a)(l).««
       " Trades involving —TTHI streams partially or
     wholly composed of any pgUaunti subject to
     special considerations nnaHfJUi section must meet
     iwo separate and distinct1MRi4o be approved.
     First, sich trades must be •fftvvaibt* under the
     criteria and principles which apply to all trade*, ea
     discussed throughout this policy (i.e.. such trades
     must meet baseline and other requirements for the
     relevant criteria pollutant). Second, such trades
     must be approvable with respect 10 the Hazardous
     pollutant fraction of the criteria, pollutant emisitasi
     stream. This means that there must be no net
     increase in emiasions of the pollutants addressed in
     ihis section, as a result of such trades. Where a
     NESHAP has been promulgated or proposed, (he
     baaeline for determining whether such en increase
     hai occurred i» the lower-of-actual-or-NESHAPs-
     allowaMe emissions for the hazardous component
     of the trade, fot the source wfeich emits that
     component. The promulgated or proposed NESHAP
     limn not only is used lo define the allowaole
                             Exception. Trades which invoke the
                           pollutants addressed in this section but
                           do not meet the special restrictions
                           discussed above, may also be approved •
                           where surplus reductions in those
                           pollutants compensate for increases in
                           non-hazardous emissions of the same
                           criteria pollutant. For example, a source
                           emitting benzene may trade with a
                           source emitting a non-hazardous VOC
                           without meeting these special
                           restrictions, if the benzene emissions are
                           reduced as a result of the trade (i.e..
                           "traded down"). As long as such a trade
                           would not result in an increase in either
                           actual or allowable emissions of a
                           pollutant subject to the preceding
                           paragraphs at any source, it would not
                           differ in nature or requirements from a
                           trade involving only non-hazardous
                           VOC emissions.
                             e. Existing-Source Credits Cannot B*
                           Used to Meet Applicable Technology-
                           Based Requirements for New Soarces.
                           Under Clean Air Act section 111 and
                           EPA implementing regulations, new
                           affected facilities must satisfy
                           technology-based New Source
                           Performance Standards (NSPS}.
                           regardless of the attainment status of
                           the area in which they are located
                           Under sections 165 and 173 and EPA
                           implementing regulations, new or
                           modified major source* must also satisfy
                           technology-based control requirement*
                           associated with precoMtracn'on permits.
                           These requirements prohibit use of
                           credits from existing source* to meet or
                           avoid applicable NSPS. and bar use of
                           such credits to meet applicable new
                           source review requirements for beat
                           available control technology (BACT) In
                           PSD areas, or lowest achievable
                           emission rate control technology (LAER]
                           in nonattainment areas.4*
                             However, modifications of existing
                           major sources in PSD and
                           nonattainment areas with an EPA-
                           approved "plantwide" definition of
                           source can use "contemporaneous"
                           reductions in actual emissions from
                           within the same source to "net out of
                           New Source Review.4* Under such-
                            emissions for that source, but serves aiaa absolute
                            ceiling on the. source a* well When a NESHA0 hu
                            not yet been promulgated or proposed, the hasetiae
                            for determining whether such an increase has
                            occurred ia generally actual tmisiions for the
                            tiaiardous pollutant component oi the trade. But d.
                            today's Policy Statement at n, ft
                              •• Today's notice does not address whether or
                            under what circumstancaa facilities subject to
                            NSPS BACT or LAER may surpass applicable
                            permit limits reflecting such requirements uvo
                            to create credits for txiatmg-source trade*
                              '• "Contemporaneous" means e reasonable
                            period for accumulating increases and decreases in
                            emission*, as specified by the slete. See 40 OH
                            SM8|Jl(ll(vi| and S1.24(b|(3|(bl (ii).
    "netting," sourcewide increases m
    potential emission* thai do not exceed
    designated levels of significance (tee 40
    CFR 51.1«j)(l)(x). 51 J4(b)(»). and
    Si21(b)(23H will not be considered
    "major modification*" of the source
    under 40 CFR 51.18.51.34. 51.22. 51.307.
    52.26. or 52.27. Thus, while these source
    changes must still meet applicable
    NSPS. NESHAPs. preconstruction
    applicability review requirements under
    40 CFR 51.18 (aHh) and (1). and SIP
    requirements, they are not subject to
    new source review requirements for
    major modification because they are not
    considered "major." 4T
      /. Trades Involving Open Dust
    Emissions. Trades involving open dust
    sources of participate emissions may be
    approved through case-by-case SIP
    revisions based on modeled
    demonstrations of ambient equivalence.
    Sources proposing such trades must
    commit a*part of the trade's approval,
    to (i) undertake a post-approval
    monitoring program to evaluate the
    impact of their control efforts, and (ii)
    make further enforceable reductions if
    post-trade monitoring indicates initial
    open dust controls do not produce the
    predicted air quality results.
      g. Interstate Trades. EPA will approve
    trades which involve sources located in
    neighboring states when such trade*
    meet the criteria below and all other
    approval criteria applicable under
    today's notice. Where state trading
    requirements differ. EPA will require
    that trades with increasing and
    decreasing sources indifferent states
    meet the substantive requirements of the
    more stringent state. In general, in order
    to avoid complex accounting problems.
    EPA will deem ERCs created in another
    state to contribute to progress in. the
    state where used to the extent of that
    use. Such trades must be accomplished
    through case-by-case SIP revisions.
      4* Netting also applies under the aerrower "dual
     definition' of "source" at certain circumstance]. For
     example, firms may use reductions within the plant
     to compensate for increases at several emitting
     units which, while not individually significant.
     might otherwise add up lo a significant increase
     plantwMta.
      Under current EPA regulations, if a nonaitatnmem
     area is subject to a moratorium on new
     preeonstrucuoa permit* for maior sources or
     modifications and (he aree doea not nave an
     approved New Source Review program, then the
     area automatically uses a plantwida definition. See
     40CFRS2.24.
      EPA's general expension of opportunities for
     Males to use the plantwide source definition For
     certain norauainment areas (49 FR 50760. October
     14,  IOMI «rae affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court an
     (line 23. IBS* CAewon U.S.A- Inc. i. Natural
     flmouree* flfcpense-Couna/. 104 S. Ct. 277* u ELR
     20907. overruling Natural Resource* Defense
     Council. Inc. v. Gonuctt. MS F 2d 718, 12 ELR M942
     (D.C Clr. 1M2).
    

    -------
                       Federal Regiatef / Vol.  51. No.  233 /  Thursday. December 4. 1986 / Notices
                                                                                                                         42&4
      A. Tta/stf A/ear flS0 Cfa« M/mu.
    EPA or • staff optrating under a generic
    rale must notify the Federal Land
    Manager if an emissions trade will take
    place within 100 kilometers of a PSD
    Class I area. Notification must occur
    early enough in the review process to
    allow at least 30 days for the submittal
    of comments before the trade will be
    approved by the reviewing authority.
      Where a bubble within SO kilometers
    of a PSD Class I area is submitted to
    EPA as a case-by-case SIP revision, the
    Region may call for additional technical
    support beyond the applicable
    requirements of the modeling screen
    described in section IJl.I.b. above, if
    deemed necessary to protect air quality
    in the Class I ana.
      /. Effect on Trades of Subsequently-
    Discovered Clean Air Act Problems:
    Revisitation Considerations. If ambient
    violations are discovered in an area
    where EPA has approved a trade, or if
    other violations of Clean Air Act
    requirements are discovered in that
    area, sources in the trade should be
    aware that they are potentially subject
    to requirements for additional emission
    reductions, just as are all other source*
    in the area.4*
      ••While i
                  i involved to • trede. like ail other
            ay b* Mbtoct to
                                  • tor
                           .neither preview
    tndM approved by EPA or by autea uade* 8BA-
    approved ftMric reJea, nor emiaawa redueOoa  •
    .credit* mid •• part of * babble, offset or netting
    action, should be terminated.
      Siidi lenrnnanoa could occur, for example, where
    two MUTCM in • grv*B source category were subwct
    to pre-bnbble mi
                   im
                       lino liraiti of 100 TPY Mcb
    «nd poti-bubbl* llmttt of » TPY tad ISO TPY
    mpectively. AMOOW the IUM irnpocn • ram
    category-wide nfilitiafi which would normally
    limit UIOM source* 10 40 TPY each, la ibia caea, the
    flnt source ihould be required to meet the new «•
    TPY limit (La_ it should bt required to product
    additional reduction* of 10 TPY), while the second
    source ihould be subject to • new limit of SO. TPY
    (U_ • level reflecting tht continwd existence of the
    30 TPY anriiaum rtducnon audit). Taminatle* of
    tht tmiMion reduction cndit would oecnr either by
    requiring tbt firat touret to produce additional
    cmimoB reduction* of S3 TPY (i*. more (baa ite
    current level of emisaioaie), or tb« second MMTOI to
    owet UM 40 TPY limiL Bitter of thae* reaulla would
    undermine (he purpoae af today's notice by
    eliminating the pradicuhaaty required tor
    generation or UM of QIC*. They could *!*•  penalize
    trading aource* for taking •nimianiiiililly
    beneficial mea»ur*i sooner than required, smce it
    would often be nrara difficult to «dii«v« tb« new
    nducuon* thin hid earlier voluntary nepa not bean
    taken.
      For Uteae reatont. EPA uraw *tatM not to take
    •uch ertdlt-ieminaanf acnone unleaa then ia no
    other practical wey lo tatiify the requirementf of
    the Clean Air Act
      Today'i procedum for depoail and uae of banked
    credlu already addreaa additional Mate tmiMMXi
    reduction needt in the context of banking (tee
    wcnon LC8. below I. State* ihould. however.
    account tot all pmnou* trade* and prwiou*iy
    granted rmiuion reduction eredlu In eiiirnanng
    emiHton reduction* mulling from new control
    2. Procedural Steps for Using ERC*
      Bubble trade* may bt implemented
    through individual SIP revisions or state
    generic rules. This section describes
    principles applicable to either
    procedure. General principles for
    generic rules are addressed in Section 0
    below. Special considerations for trades
    which require individual SIP revisions
    are addressed ia Section OL
      a. Effect of Eidtting Compliance
    Scheduiet. EPA's 1979 bubble policy
    required that source* be subject to
    binding compliance schedules baaed on
    original SIP emission limits before being
    eligible to apply for bubbles. Because of
    the time required to process babble
    applications as case-by-case SEP
    revisions, this requirement tended either
    (a) to discourage sources faced with
    tight milestones for the installation of
    conventional control equipment from
    pursuing bubble application*, where-
    they had agreed in good faith to SIP
    compliance schedules before
    discovering bubble opportunities, or (b)
    to discourage sources from agreeing to
    any compliance schedule until they  bad
    fully examined bubble opportunities.
      Today's policy allows an application
    to be filed though the applicant  ia not
    subject to compliance schedules baaed
    on original SIP emieaiea Bmit* so loaf
    as that appticaot agree* to«missiatv •  •
    Until* established arparfof a coaplets •
    bubble epplieattoa. Sources which are
    already subject to binding compliance.
    schedules should, however, be awer*
    that submittal or proposed approval of a
    bubble application does not suspend
    their obligation to comply with such
    schedules. Such schedules and existing
    SIP requirements remain applicable and
    enforceable until the  bubble ia finally
    approved and the schedule IMS  been-
    modified accordingly.
      Sources seeking trades should note
    that they remain subject to enforcement
    of existing (pre-trada) SIP limits until the
    bubble is approved. EPA will uae the
    same principles and procedures for
    deciding whether to initiate
    enforcements actions in these
    tirounstances as the Agency appliee to
    any other source which i* subject to a.
    proposed SIP revision.
       Under established EPA policy,
    regulated sources must be subject to an
    applicable enforceable emission limit at
    all times. Accordingly, source* which
    have approved bubbles with emission
    limits effective at future date and which
    are not in compliance with their pre-
    trade limits, may be subject to
    enforcement action, which could include
    penalties baaed on a failure to meet the
    pre-trade limita. Sources in such
    situations may wish to minimize th<
    chance that capital expenditures wn.
    required to meet pre-trade limits, either
    by (a) agreeing to post-trade compliance
    dates which are substantially similar to
    their pretrade compliance dates, or (b)
    accelerating their compliance with pest-
    trade limits.
      In accord with the general principle
    that bubbles should be treated neither
    more nor less stringently than other SIP
    actions, implementation of today s
    policy will be neutral with respect to
    EPA enforcement of pre-trade emission
    limita. This means that EPA will not
    specifically target for enforcement
    action non-compliant sources seeking to
    uae a bubble either to come into
    compliance or to restructure traditional
    compliance. However, it also means that
    EPA will not withhold or defer
    enforcement simply because a source 13
    seeking alternative emission limits
    through a bubble. In exercising its
    enforcement discretion. EPA will apply
    the same considerations to
    noncompliant sources which seek to
    comply through bubbles as to4hose
    which do not"
      b. Extensions-of Compliance
    faeyiVfnsi States may modify or exten
    compliance schedules or deadlines ft
    individual sources on a case-by-case
    basis In conjunction with bubble
    approvals. Such modifications or
    extensions must be consistent with the
    requirements of 40 CFR 51.15.
    Compliance schedules for sources in
    nonattainment areas cannot be
    extended beyond the statutory date for
    attainment and applicable compliance
    milestones must be specified and met
    for each year of the revised or extended
    compliance schedule. Because an
    extension will usually require a revision
    of the state's progress demonstration.
    such approvals must ordinarily be
    submitted ss SIP revisions.
                                               itrategie*. in order to avoid problem* due to double-
                                               counting.
      •• Partaa oantemplating bubbles involving the
    trad* of emiaaton reduction credits from one firm to
    another should be aware that when the credits
    being provided by UM drat firm are the muit of
    emiseian limit* with a future compliance date, the
    obligated to meal pre-rrad* limit* remains «nth me
    second firm (which may face enforcement action.
    indudlBjj eaan penalties, for failure to comoiy win
    Iboa* prartrad* limits! until the time jpecifieo for
    the flnt Arm to achieve the reductions necessary for
    compliance under die bubble. The first firm »failure
    to achieve required bubble reductions on act-.eduie
    may mereaflar result In enforcement acnon
    (Including cash penalties) against that firm.
    Ho*tt**r. thia paragraph should b* read in
    coniuactton with tfce general principle articulated
    above that EPA implementation of today 9 policy
    will be neutral with reaped to enforcemrnt of
    pretrad* limit*.
    

    -------
    430M
                                     • / V«L 5k-.Ntv 233. /.Thmday. O«ee»i»r 4,  Ustt / Notices
             itiam* oases. si*je» which
    wish to gtvftMutce* i
    implement bubbles I
    compliance extensions; SMS* receive
    EPA approval of the extension through
    case-by-case SIP revisions. EPA will
    evaluate the time extension portions of
    these SIP revision packages in
    accordance with the Agency's normal
    procedures for review of time
    extensions, including consistency with
    the Act's requirements of
    expeditiousness. reasonable further
    progress, and attainment and
    maintenance of ambient air quality
    standards. Sources should be aware that
    disapproval of thetism extension
    portion may result in disapproval of the
    entire package (?.*„ both post-trade
    limits and the time extension) or only
    part of it. depending OR whether the
    state 'view* these component* of m*
    p>upo*ed SIP revision a* separable,
      In attainment area*, stares may
    con tun* to grant ompsnnce extensions
    without case-by-cas* SIP revision*, as
    part of ouOwle approvals mder a generic'
    rate. Soch generic compliance date
    extension* may be granted in these-
    areas owryu^Pn h** approved. IBV "  •
    extension provision of &e gemrianl* •-
    as adequate to comply wim, **<3**B-
    Air Act
                                           they remain sabjast t« «figmai
                                           limits until such approval
                                           C Banking Eatiuion todoction Credits
                                             Emission reductions that arc surplus.
                                           permanent quantifiable and enforceable
                                           can qualify as emission reduction
                                           credits (ERCs) and be deposited in EPA-
                                           approvable banks. States may establish
                                           such banks by adopting appropriate
                                           rules to govern whether and how
                                           sources may own a«d hold surplus
                                           emission reduction credits for furore use
                                           in bubble, offset or netting
                                           transactions.*1 Such banking rules may
                                           encourage sovrces to take measures to
                                           reduce emissions in advance of specific
                                           need for ERCs. resulting in lower
                                           transaction coats for those seeking
                                           offset*, bubbles, or partners-for theee
                                           transaction*. State* should howwer. b«
                                           a ware that because an area's  sir qu^ity
                                           situation or the status «f its Sff msrjr
                                           chana* in the future. fa*iore to aeooaoA
                                           For banked credits in-enMoat
                                           inventories mmdt far yiaosnig yaspe***
                                           ra*y lesisk in-toa* oitboa* BCa-ssM-
                                           treated a* "i» ttwaaT (•«. sot facMe*
                                           isc aay toum S» Jsuranaaiy «ra i tsi • 
     presently the sotyeet ef a federal ~;
     enforcement ac€an-«r eufetaodtag
     enforcemcHt'erd«r sssteea EPA (eadi
     where neeeeswy Hie ef
                                                                                  staU'By the time they are banked."
                                                                                  However, if a source commits to '
                                                                                  prpdoc* a-speciffc reduction «ra
                                                                                  spetiBet&arfiklfe* fntara. a state may
                                                                                  allow a oauS&ntl <*4rMlt to be made.
                                                                                            ia» sirh c •lititoaaJ depociis
                                                                                  matt
     approve* the proposal and wry
     compline* schedule ffmay
     "Federal eaioreenwU acttea or*"   '• ~
     outstanding order" tadude* nottee*-*f '-
     violation cMi aettoa* Btad wuhr CM*
     Air Act section 113(b), crtaainah
     filed under section lUJc). metice*
     imposing noncoacrplisnte penatta*
    issued under i
    orders issued under sccttan 113(aK or
    citizen suit* filed u«**b**BSwe 3Mie>
    which EPA ha* «a<*s**l**)*YsUhr»a*sa
    is subject to an edflSJiBfi*ApvoT
    judicial order.                   .
      This requirement nes*.*o> pssiilad*
    bubble approvals undergeaarie nates;
    provided the rule specifies an
    appropriate m^.jiani««. fr* ,
    r*cosdia*>EPrV*
    Sowree* should.
                  _
     effective. untU appcoxadJatf: mar
       • Sw Mcttaa ftM tMtow.
                                          Racjsksr EBCs.t*k
                                          greassaa t*c*rtcai ss*asi«ii cs{
                                          to those ERCs); noti^r psospaeMv*   '   •
                                          purchasers of th* existence-of EfiCai and
                                                                                                    th* 4M* ite (OUR*
                                                                                                 IB tk* ***** to oak* •
                                                                                                    orufafMt hnkia*
                                             Emtwoit nduetfaM b«lud ihw^b •
                                           infonn«k ^•"'''"g imrhinim prior ta • data'*
                                           qulift/ far d^oMta *M EM
                                           torpte*. ptnuoMt qu
                                           ud (2) tk« SUM
                                            not ilnMiy b«m wMOMd or MfawtrtM
                                                                                             •H ••ArwdM** nlorembi* «t
                                            may b* )•• dtw Ibal iviilaMi from BM
                                            ctdneMn fo» ottoi «r
                                            thn*
    

    -------
                      Federal Register /  Vol.  51.  No. 233  /  Thursday. December 4. 1986 /  Notices
                                                                           41-a
    conpramiM the state's ability to secure
    through further regulation any future
    reduction* which may be needed.** In
    all cases the reduction must be made
    federally enforceable by the time the
    emissions trade which relies upon it is
    finally approved.
    
    3. Possible Limitations on Use ofEltCs
    for New Source Permitting
      Use of banked ERCs for new source
    permitting must be consistent with
    applicable regulations approved by EPA
    under 40 CFR Parts SI and 52. For
    example, under 40 CFR 51.ia(j)(3)(iiHc)
    shutdowns that occur prior to
    applications for a new source permit
    may ordinarily be used only as offsets
    for replacement facilities, and then only
    if the permit application was filed within
    one year after the shutdown occurred or
    if the reduction occurred after August 7,
    1977."
    
    4. Sources Should Apply to Bank
    Surplus Reductions As Soon As They
    Decide To Make Them
      For administrative simplicity and
    accurate quantification, sources should
    apply to bank reductions as soon as
    possible after they decide to make them.
    The administering agency should
    formally note the source's intent to.
    nuke a surplus reduction, ea expressed
    in the application. The state must then
    verify whether and to what extent the
    reduction actually occurred, and  must
    make the reduction enforceable by the
    time it is accepted for deposit
    
    5. Procedures for Banking Surplus
    Emission Reductions Should Be Defined
      To speed approval of trades and
    provide greater certainty for potential
    ERC creators and users, state banking
    rales should clearly specify which
    proposed emission reductions can
    qualify to be credited and banked, the
    information required of sources to
    substantiate their claim for credit sad
    any required application forms. At
    minimum, such rules must require firm*
    to maintain records (axg* production
    records and recordsnof piwvtoua
      •• SUM* have *n*rai MBtftMrofttom to
    provMf eudi tuurtnc*. Tfcey mtf.it* nutpte. bar
    condition*! dvpoatfa from tumi* caiefonea which
    are MtyM 10 pandJns refalatea. Allamattvar*.
    tJwy may allow unreatncied coadlbaBaJ daponl*
    but writ* futon refutation* in terms of KACT-
    equivalent redaction! (e.f_ an SOI reduction in
    curreat actual eaneatonal rather than in lama of
    ipeaAe control ttraiafMa or emiuton levela. Tbe
    tatter approach can avoid potnble daima by MOM
    touren thai no further control it required. wMIe
    •trenftbaBinf the atete • ability to eacouref* totter
    votuMuy reducooe* aa well at mania la needed
    onee, SOT aactton LCAb bekmr. Stale* nay adopt
    whichever aliemartva utiaAea tbeee conoma >m
    the** particular wtuetion.
      •• Sw n. 14 above.
    emission tests) adequate to determine
    the pre- and post-reduction actual and
    allowable values for emission rate.
    capacity utilization, and hours of
    operation for the source generating the
    ERC
    
    6. Banking Rules May Establish
    Ownership Rights
      To prevent two entities from claiming
    or attempting to use the same ERCs at
    the same tune, state banking rules may
    specify who can  own ERCs. For
    example, while the source creating the
    ERC will generally be its owner, the
    state could as part of its rule, reserve
    ownership of certain classes of ERCs to.
    itself or local governments. States
    considering the latter course should.
    carefully weigh whether such
    reservations an likely to increase or
    diminish future reductions and air
    quality management capabilities.
    
    7. Banking Rules Must Establish an ERC
    Registry or Its Equivalent
      An ERC registry or equivalent
    instrument allows states to track
    ownership, use. and transfer of ell
    banked ERCs. Banking rules may
    provide that no transfer of title to e
    banked ERC will take effect until the
    transaction is reflected to the registry-. .
    This tracking sys
    potential dispute* and provide e central
    list of certified ERCs whjca may be -
    available to potential purchasers. It can
    also provide useful information for
    quickly evaluating any proposed nee of
    a beaked ERC
      Information which may help evaluate
    future proposed uses of a banked ERC
    should be recorded at the time of its
    creation and entered as part of its
    banking record. This information  should
    include the location of the source
    creating the ERCs; whether the
    reduction is due to e shutdown or
    curtailment the date the reduction
    occurred or will occur (to allow future
    determination of the timing of the
    reduction with respect to the apptteeUeA
    for credit or its contemporaneity for use-
    in netting or, if a shutdown, as an
    offset); the source's stack parameters;
    the temperature and velocity of its
     rtame: particle lize; the existence of any
     lazardoua pollutants: daily and
    seasonal emission rates: and other data
    which might reasonably be deemed
    necessary under the requirements
    described in sections LA. and Lfl. above
    to evaluate future use.
      To perform these tracking and
    clearinghouse functions the ERC registry
    •usl be sccessibie to the public. Subject
    to confidentiality considerations, states
    should make copies of the ERC registry
    available at convenient locations and
    times, end nay went to publit.'i or
    otherwise issue a periodic twr.mtry r
    baaked ERCs.
    
    8. Possible Adjustments to ERCs Basec
    on Enforcement Considerations
    
      Banking rules should slate what, if
    any, changes may occur to ERC» after
    they have been banked. Once an ERC
    has been used by another sourc? to me-
    a permit or other regulatory
    requirement any violation of th«
    conditions under which that ERC was
    created should result in enforcement
    against the source producing thai ERC
    and not the source using it If a stale
    sttempted to enforce against the source
    using purchased ERCs. a complex set of
    third-party lawsuits would likely
    ensue.'*
    
    9. Possible Adjustments to ERCa Baaed
    on Ambient Attainment Considerations
    
      To assure the validity of its
    demonstration(s) of progress or
    attainment a state with a banking rule
    must assume that all banked emissions
    will ultimately be used. In evaluating
    their ability to attain national standards.
    such states must add to their emissions
    inventory or measured ambient values
    ail unused banked reductions at the site
    at which they were created. This is
    especially important for areas
    requesting redessiflcation from
    nonertauiment to attainment. Failure to
    account for banked reductions  as "in the
    air" for SIP planning purposes would
    ordinarily eliminate their use as ERCs
    following a new SIP design or inventory
    year, due to double-counting.
      Additional emission reductions may
    be required from sources because of
    their area's failure to attain ambient
    standards, because of an increment
    violation, because of existing visibility
    impairment or because new RACT
    requirements are being imposed under  a
    SIP schedule. The existence of  banked
    ERCa must not interfere with states
    ability to obtain these additional
    reductions, and a state's rules on
    treatment of banked ERCs must provide
    it the necessary flexibility to meet future
    requirements. However, state banking
    roiee may address, within this criterion.
    how banked ERCs will be treated if
      •* •t4o»ao»ar condtenai pnvaia-party aitempu 10
    •Maw ultimata mponalbiiity for required
    rtdueooaa could main th« purcfcaaad ERCi
    uMNiforctabla and rttv/t in mionnon of :he
    cruflnf *ouro» » anginal (bifharl cmiMion tirmis.
    dwtodauna that rarphia reduction* were produced
    la reilMea on swarmant ruia* implying iheir
    reaaonabk marchaaHblHty and ua*. Far thew
    naaiau irafcdnn iiarfit *Harrd i» a result of the
    creation and MM of ERCt mini remain final 
    -------
                               Ratjis*er / VoL 51. No. 239 /  Thiaada*. D*o*a»b*T 4. Wast t
    iilililiiia¥iji[is>ai linn tt» m]#mml t*
    at
    PSD increments, or improve varibiUiv.
    Available options include:..
      a. EifCi Generate*rVbr ft> tfie Design
    or Basal i 09 Year CotiW* Sfminated.
    The use of ERCs generated prior- to the
    design or baseune year is unlikely to be
    consistent with the state s
    demonstrauoa. unless the state included
    «uch ERCs as "in the air" for planning
    purposes at thai time.
       '.. ERd Cuuld be Guaranteed Against
     \d:iuuafat. The state would determine
    the necessary quantity of reductions
    from individual sources and source
    categories aad require these reductions
    fru.-n actively emitting, sources. Baaked
    credits previously created by sources
    would be fully preserved Emitting
    sources could then satisfy new
    requirement* for reduction* either by
    redueing-emvsien* directly or by usfhg
    or purchasing equivalent ERCs.
      In implementing, thie option, it would
    be particularly  unaortasU. for stataa to
    adjust douuuMacd the estinated total.
    reductiona due  ta these new regulatory
           Dent*, in order ta reflect
              - previously afhjajvpri a** a •
    result of ha«leina actioosv Alternatively.
    states could pacaae new oaairoT.
    requirement* ia tents af eqaivaleafc-
    reducrton results (eg. "SACT-
    equivaleot" cedactiaae in aonaltaiOBMUt
    areas) as weB aa specified cooAsi
    technie.uee.or emissioa levels. Under
    this appmnrh nnrpssary adiliueaal.
    control requirements would fee exawasljt
    stated in terms of adifteinn a I redaction
    responsibilities, ta be met without:
    regard to poor trades.**
      c. Use or Deposit ofERCs Could be
    Temporarily Suspended States may
    suspend either ERG use or future EEC
    deposits until the state has coeunittad in.
    its SIP to secure redactions sufficient-te>
    reestablish progress or cure an
    increment violation. Use of either type.  .
    of moratorium would be consistent wiflv
    air quality objectives while allowing
    sources to retain and eventually use
    their entire quantity effaaofced ERCs.
    However, these optioiBMHvbe
    undesirable because dftiacertainty
    regarding the moratorium-'* start
    duration, or potential interference with
    user planning. This may be especially
    true where a moratorium on ose frather
    man deposit} is  imposed after ERCs
    have been banked.
      d. Acmgt-the~Boaf(tDacouatia&
    Under thie option* the state eeoM
    discount all ERCs in the bank by the
    same factor. For example, if a 10X ..
    additional reduction ia required frooi a
    particular category at i
    SIF » nev» rlafaonsttalioB. the utata.
    would discount all cvoeMty easdessi
    ERCs  from tooec type* of some* by.
    10%. Although the quaatky a/ ERCs held
    by a firm will be reduced the overall
    supply of ERCs will decrease, while
    demand will increase. Indeed other
    sources may seek to purchase banked
    ERCs  from creating sources, in order to
    meet the 10% reduction* required of
    them.  Thus, the price per unit of
    remaining ERCs is likely in many case*
    to increase.
      This option is relatively
    straightforward (or VOC or NCv For
    SO, or particniats matter new detailed.
    source-specific modeling woalaV
    generally be reqwived to aMocs** the
    discount neceaaary te<
    attainment
      States may adopt any of I
    method* of acconinodatins posefta*'
    additional reductions. They aay alao«
    adopt any equivalent method which.  .
    achieves the same objectives."
    II Trade* Covered by State
    Rube
                                              Thrs
    develop fiPApoppfovoMe §esMfte
    under mhiiJt cleseesof
    may be eaeiopt ireai s»rfeite«a»
    requiiuinunl fin ffoheeooept 9fP
                             • •*•    -* ''id
    A. Cemenl Principle* f or EvaLtotiaf.* , ^
    Generic Rule*       •      .      . .'^ .
      A generic rose te^aontowoMa it
    asaures that emissions tra
                         -9V
    unbiT
                   y
    under state pueteitaje* t>al ao*-    ••'••••
    jeJBcieiiUy igpKcatele in uperatfasi t*.
    guarantee that emieaioB- IhuM* prudawil
    under the rule will not mtafcte wfUi  -'
    timery ambient atteinnent and-   .
      '•The preceding cDecuMion generally aeei
    the bank is tanned « an ananmnerrt em or
    Murtoinment area witk *•
    desBonemdoe. ta pnmary nee*
    which need bui lack approved
    for bubble purposes of banked shutdown
    crediM which meet relevant mjuiiemaiila
    notice well senitarrv be aUosreat. See eac*
    LAI.C.IJI dbooe. BuBbtee in t«Mee.anaai e
    be subiect te ipecuii piogteaa leneiianun
    However, in order to accommodate paasiats
    AOOlltOllari rkXltlCtfOH FV^UinniVlltS ffl OtrWFtm
    a manner cooawieat i«itb banks, siaiea a»e»
    voluniiiril* taWfi otch «•> i
    prior te the iseeancc dy EPA of any fame! aeuce ai
    SIP deflciracy mandating such requuenatua. SUtee
    may alao chouse U» some here alined? daewf Or
    specify jraetet tbee. hi I
    oAaeai at n««nsj Whise 'and
    audit  th* innleaentation of these ruies
    as-part afltsrauflne audits of other state
    air proarams. See- Section E below*,
      Straits*.on; users range of mechanisms
    toexemfi bnible trades from individual
    SIP revisJooa. WnSa several general
    mecnanisma are explained below, states
    may-submit other generic rules that
    satisfy *»»** boots atincrpte*. See
    seoflon I.B Below for sped fie
    requirenteou for generic ru4ea ia
    priaary nnaslteaBBUBt areaa which
    need- bitt, lack aynfoyed-demeftstrations.
    1. VOC or NOi Trades
      VOC or NOi teadea approved by
    states leader a generic rule that assures
    notMt imaresiBS in appiicabae baseline
    emissions mayoacor without case-by-
    caae SIP revteians.
      The ambtcBt impacts of VOC and NO,
    emission* ace aveawide rather than
    source-specific. All  such emissions
    within a broad area are conquered
    compacabla. regardless of plume berght.
    topographv-or related factors. Thus. tSe
    am Went Impact of trades involving
    emfssion* of VOC or NO, from different
    source* within MCB an area will by
    definition ee eqarve*ent to that of the
    sum of applicable beserine emission
    limits.for the sources involved in the
      ••• Srv fooiool* S9 above
     bank, il can substantially enhance/SPpleuans
     •lions md pravitle a net eir qusrtffy Imierlt bj
     reducoHj the Miuram of imiaaineii diet caav
     uliin»Kdv tie rMurned 'mat ttm bevk (•*•«•:.
      PorVOC end NO, such pound- for-
    pouott trades may therefore be treated
    under generic rules as equal in ambient
    effect where all sources involved in the
    

    -------
                                         / Voi  51. Nft. as / Tbnaday, Deoewber 4. IMft /,Noric«a
    trad* are*
    approved by EPA aajeAoi the i
    fttlc foi «to>«*f»8*«"j WJujej SOIIfCaS
    outside the demonattBlieaana are
    sufficiently close tint apound-for-paund
    trade can be justified."*
      In general generic VOC trading rules
    must require that surface coating
    emissions be calculated on a solids-
    applied basis. The rule should also
    specify the maximum time period over
    which emissions may be averaged in an
    acceptable compliance demonstration.
    For VOC that  avenging time should not
    exceed 24 how* artless theruie contains
    language approved by EPA that
    expressly aHowa a ledger areiagiug
    period. Sea AppeadU D below.
    
    2. Particular SO. CO or Pb Trade*
      Qaseaa ot iieMsnilala SO* CO
     lead (Pb) trades may also be exempt
     from SIP reviekBt if they ace approved
     under a stala generic-rule which ssauiae
     that valid SRCiieea canaM reeaoaatty
     interfere wrttr attainment and
     maintenance of airqvaKry standards or
     jeopardize PSD increments or
     visibility.*1
      D€ Miamu Tmdu* Tradea of
     perttcuiataa. SO* CO«r
     which applicable net *"r-%»»
     emissions** do not increase and in
     which tha sam of the amisaion increases.
     looking only a* the increasing source*
     totals lea* man 23 tons per year (TPYT
     for paniculate*. 4ft TPY foe suite
     dfoxide.  U»TPY forearbon rmmoxidF.
     or 06 TPY for lead fPb}. after applicable
     control requirement*, on? pnxen>
     without modeling anr*  case-by-cue Sfl*
     revisions.'3 -S"ff-h tradaa will bav* at
     moat a de auaaut unpacl oo lac**! air
     quality because they will pradaeam* mm.
     increase in emtssum* and -the •mom* of
     emissions being shifted is not significant
     in ambient effect under aaeeciated EPA
      "' DM di
     •ppl) lu certain NO, trade*>
      * ' The ambuni tout
     eUbortted in thia tna le
     
     polluiinle •ddoaead »^M meoecaon eoea be
     limned  TI iffiirrej » *«me geneni ur h*«n.  ..
      " S»» e. 31 above.
      w The oda» The embtenf hnpac* of
             particolatt.SOa.COorPb'smieaiomt
             depends on ska-epadfie acton such aa
             topography and prone height which are-
             ordinarily evaluated by embient
             dispersion modeHng. However. If
             applicable baaalna eaueewmsdb not
             increase, sources are located in tha
             sam immediate vicrtttty. and aO other
             Level 1 requirements diaeuseed in
             section L&1.B42) above an met H can
             reasonably be assumed thai "poond-fdr-
             pound" tradaa wUI produce ambient
             effects equivalent to thoee which
             currently approved air quality-eaodehi
             would predict Asa  result ttadaa
             meeting tha criteria in aacttoa LB.1JM2}
             above may be treated in the same
             manner as generic VOC and NO, trades.
             and exempted from modeling. a*d ratt-
             by-case SIP revisions.
               EPA will nonuliy approv* geaesic
             rales tha •  -fine "same immedsasa
             vicinity' »* jp to 250 meters betweair
             iodividua* emissiea  sooscae Javorsesi •
             a trade.
               Level 11 Trade*. Other paardcaanav -
             SO*. CO and Pb Mdea awy^ea h«
             exempted from i
                                                                                               *" iior*ienial yp rcvisiorts.
                                                                                      But «£ seete»?A4 ami BTbetor.
    •».       rrllims in sei line IIT1 h Qlatasmn i
    prescribed maaoer. Tha ssata's-^
    trading rule moat specify the particeia*
    refined model that wiEha empmyadiaiat.
    given sifiiarinn. at cri tana. lea lefafling..
    mnrials ia sprrifieri rirniantsncea Ta  •
    limit variability in miiilaliiiujeaiilla llis
    rale must also require atJeasia fuILyeafc
    of meteorological data, ideatiay the sitea
    for thai data, and »p*utfy pfaceduraa.fi»c..
    selecting input data (a», winrl ipearl,
    stability class, source emission ratej-
    which are sufficiently defined to iatisry
    replicabitity concerns." In some limited
    circumstances, a sufficiently
    conservative screening model could be
    specified as part of the generic rule. See
    section I.B.l.b<3) above.
       Level IH Trades. Because of the wide
    variability in data input and ose
    inherent in full-scale dispersion
    modeling. Level III trades must be
      MThu pexigrnph should oat be caaitfued la
    imply thai new sources *nd modifciilont need ad
     addmtad in a rapBcable
                                            following may not m genereibe
                                            exempted under generic nrle* from the
                                            requirement for case-by-case SIP
                                            re visions:
                                              a. Particamte. SOi CO or Pb trades
                                            requiring fall-scale dispersion modeling
                                            under Level 01 (see section I.B.l.b.(4)
                                            above);
                                              b. Particulate. SO». CO or Pb trades
                                            where complex terrain **is within the
                                            area of the source's significant impact or
                                            50 km. whichever is leu. unless the
                                            trade, does not result in a modification of
                                            effective stack heights and the trade
                                            otherwise qualifies as de minimis or
                                            Level L The area of significant impact
                                            can be determined as noted La footnote
                                            21 above and in Appendix E; (T
                                              c. Open dust trades: and
                                              d. Eevef H trades involving process
                                            fugitive particulate. SOi. CO or Pb
                                            efluaaione not discharged through
                                            stacks.**
                                              Inaddlttaat (a lhaabove. in otrier to
                                            protect tha integrity of venous SiP
                                            procaaaaa* •» (aJUwiag type* of trades
                                            may/iaatia>ga*eaai. be exempted under
                                            fliinarin rataa froea lha-requirement for
                                            case by case SIP revisions: (1) Trades
                                            involving ERCs from mobile source
                                            measure*. J2J. trades uworving emission
                                            sources which an.me subject of an
                                            enforcameBt action manifested by
                                            issuance of a  notice of violation, an
                                            administnsna order or section 120
                                            action, a the filing-of a judicial
                                            complaint, eaiaea the rule specifies an
                                                                atiramie biDolii* defined bv FPA »,
                                                      terrain greats*i» hwikt rkan (he physical .vsck
                                                      hei|t»oi«iaave«. For bvbole porpoeee. ihn
                                                      daduooo is applKahie oo<> u> sources wnih an
                                                      inereaee ever bawline enuaaiooa.
                                                        •'CenenJty. eaide From Iht exception stxipj
                                                      above. Me)ae im>ol»lii| tmnplo tvmtn a» dr^npd
                                                      above SMV not be svocoaud under gnrnr. ruin.
                                                      Howewec. aUleamsiy wtaa lodeve'oa  be^ni
                                                      and emi*aea may be  «av state. tWesa EPA ha< tc:n.M.
                                                      approved avcav addilionai-cntena (or « given
                                                      feojraviuc araai as part of a generic ruw. •.'-<,,,
                                                      moat apply the general restnetions «'ai*d ,ihov-
                                                      «vhen processlm »adv« in UHH areii undrr 'he >l::,.
    

    -------
    43852
    Federal R«gi*t*r / Vol. 51.  No. 233  / Thuraday. December 4.  1988 / Notice*
    appropriate mechanism for notifyinf
    EPA of tht source's bubble application
    prior to formal state proposal and for
    securing and recording written EPA
    concurrence that the bubble meets all
    pertinent requirements of the generic
    rule. (3) interstate trades. (4) VOC trades
    with averaging times longer than 24
    hours, unless a state generic rule
    expressly providing for longer averaging
    times has been approved by EPA. (5)
    trades involving work practice and
    equipment standards, unless a state
    generic rule containing a provision
    expressly providing for state evaluation
    of such trades in a replicable manner
    has been approved by EPA. and (6)
    trades involving negotiated RACT
    baselines. However, a state generic
    trading rule could specify "presumptive
    RACT" limits which acceptably define
    generic trading baselines where RACT
    has not otherwise been defined in the
    SIP. While RACT baselines different
    from this presumptive limit could still be
    used for specific trades, they would
    need to be approved as case-by-case SIP
    revisions. Where there is no RACT in
    the SIP. but EPA has issued a CTG for
    sources of the type involved in the trade.
    the CTG should be used as the
    presumptive RACT-component of the
    generic trading baseline.
      To the extent necessary, EPA will
    issue notices requiring that existing
    generic rules be revised to reflect these
    restrictions. See section ILE.4. below.
    4. Other Generic Mechanisms for
    Exempting Paniculate. Sd. CO or Pb
    Trades From Case-by-Case SIP
    Revisions
      EPA will approve other generic
    techniques which an demonstrated to
    equally protect ambient standard*, PSD
    increments. Class I anas, and visibility.
    For example, a state could approve a
    modeled formula for two or more
    specific emission sources which would
    satisfy ambient concerns while allowing
    firms to define specific permit limits at
    each covered emission source. Like
    other generic provision*, such a formula
    would have to be approved m part of
    the SIP. EPA encouagj* sUtes to work
    with EPA Regional OAea* when they
    seek to develop other generic
    mechanisms which meet the tests of
    replicability and ambient equivalence
    described above.
    
    C. Enforcing Emission Limits Under
    Generic Rules
    
       Alternative emission limits approved
    under generic rules are considered by
    EPA to be federally enforceable so long
    as the generic rule specifies the
    compliance instrument (permit limits,
    etc.) under which  the conditions of the
                          trade will be implemented and ail
                          substantive and procedural
                          requirements of the approved rule are
                          met Generic rules must specify that
                          such alternative limits become
                          applicable requirements of the SIP under
                          $ 110 for purposes of sections 113.120,
                          and 304 of the Clean Air Act and are
                          enforceable in the same manner as other
                          SIP requirements. To assure that EPA
                          and citizens know what emission limits
                          apply, generic rules must also specify
                          that and in what manner, EPA will be
                          informed of emission limits applicable
                          before and after the trade. (For
                          additional issue* related to
                          enforceabiliry. see section I.A.2 above.
                          For requirements related to opportunity
                          for public comment see section 1LF.
                          below).
    
                          D. Generic Bubble Rules in Primary
                          Nonattainment Areas Which Lade
                          Approved Demonstrations of
                          Attainment
    
                            Generic rule* will continue to operate
                          in primary nonattainment anas which
                          require bat lack approved
                          demonstrations of attainment, under ta«
                          following conditions:
                            1. Bubble* approved under-existing  ~
                          generic bubble-rare* prioMo thw-
                          effective date of today's pofioy wffinot
                          be affected by today's requirements*.
                            2. Kibble* submitted to states under
                          existing generic rules may continue to
                          be approved by state* in accord with
                          those rules, until such rule* an finally
                          changed, pursuant to specific formal
                          EPA request to meet the criteria listed
                          below. Such rates must however, as
                          requested by EPA. be modified to meet
                          the criteria below.**
                            3. Application* for new generic bubble
                          rule* applicable to these ana*, and
                          application* for generic rules now
                          pending before EPA. will be  approved
                          provided they meet the criteria beta*
                          and all other applicable requirements of
                          today?* policy.
                            Criteria for Approvable Generic
                          Bubble Rules. New  and revised generic
                          bubble rules applicable to primary
                          nonattainment anas which require but
                          lack approved demonstration* of
                          attainment must  for bubble* in those
                          areas:
                            " to tht interim. EPA expect* slat** to ensure. M
                           far M feasible, thai bubble* approved under
                           sxistlng generic rule* are consistent with thte policy
                           M w*U 11 with to* term* of their EPA-approved
                           rulm. Slate* should be aware that without this or
                           linilw precaution*, continued approval of bubble*
                           under existing generic ruin containing Identified
                           deficiencies may cnaw or accentual* plan
                           deficiencies which may have to be corrected at a'
                           later dale or compenMted for by other mean*. See
                           section E.4. below.
       a. Uselawest-of-actuai-SIP-allowable-
     or-RACT-allowabl* emissions baseimej
     for ail source* involved in the trade:70
       b. Using baseline emissions defined
     above, meet applicable de minima
     Level I or Level IT modeling tests for
     ambient equivalence, as appropriate:
       c. Produce an overall emission
     reduction from each bubble equal (in
     percentage terms) to the larger of a 20%
     reduction in emissions remaining after
     applicable baselines, or to the overall
     emission reduction from controllable
     stationary sources (in percentage terms)
     needed to attain in the area (i.e.. at least
     equal to the source-by-source emission
     reductions that would be required for a
     full demonstration of attainment taking
     into account "uncontrollable" area or
     other stationary sources and expected
     emission reductions from mobil
     sources).'1 This determination must be
      '• For detailed diacuaaion of theee baselines. ror**b***vaae
                                p («.»..
                                      1300
                                      1500
                                      4.000
       Total.
      Therefor* (he red
     contrattab** stationary sources are 9.450-
     Um-UMTPY
      And the percent emission reduction required from
     osjBtrolUM* sletioawry source* to attain n
                II
      Thttadwnetc
                      >do
                           i required from each
         s bubWe would be M* li.«- the reductions
    produced by applicable baselines (e.g.. application
    of a RACT eminiof) rsjte) plu* whatever percent
    tedneOoarw emt*9ip* rajtintns after this RACT
    limit to sufftbent to yield the 94% lotal).
     Stale* thai wnh to avoid SIP revision* for sources
    for which RACT haa not yet been defined in an
    approved SIP provision nay incorporate
    -presumptive RACT* Itmila («.*- 80% reduction for
    VOC) IB their generic rules. Source* would then
    have the option of accepting the** RACT limits for
    generic babble purpeea*. or nefoueJing different
    RACT llnila through the SIP reviaione process.
    However, where a source Involved m s trade \> one
    for which EPA ha* isaoad a CTG. but ihe stale has
    not yet adopted the CTG-apeafied limit as RACT
    and no RACT ha* yet been specified by the siate fot
    that souree. the presumptive or negotiated RACT
    limit for the lr*d* must be at leest a* protective as
    ihe CTC for 
    -------
                         Fed«rsJ Register / Vel  SL No. 239 / Thunday  Daenmr-, A  ~~ / v «
                       "^"^^""•"•"•••'••••»»»»»»a»»»aa»»»aaa»»»M»»aa»»aa»»»^^^ii.i^^lI___-^:^Bgr *•  *^» » ifOtlCeS
       submitted with the rule, and must us*
       the sane type and qnanty of analysis as
       that required for an EPA-approvable
       SIP; and
         d. Provide assurances, in conjunction
       with the State's submittal of the generic
       rule to EPA. that the state (i) is making
       reasonable efforts to develop a complete
       approvable SIP that will achieve the
       percent emission reduction from
       controllable sources described in the
       previous paragraph and (ii) intends to
       adhere to  the schedule for development
       of such a SIP (including dates for
       completion of emissions inventory and
       subsequent increments of progress), as
       stated.in the letter accompanying the
       submittal or in previous letters. In
       addition, to ensure that generic
      approvals  continue to complement and
      do not interfere with attainment
      planning, EPA will require the state to
      include the specific assurances listed at
      section I.A.l.b.(3) above in or with its
      notices of proposed and-final approval
      of each bubbfo issued under the generic
      rule in such a nonaruu'nmeBt area.11
    
      £ EPA Oinnight of Cymric Ruhr
        In order to ensure proper
      implementation -of EPA-approved
      generic trading rule*. EPA intends to-fal
      examine sad comment on. together with
      any other pnbffc conunenlen the
      information provided for*individual
      trades proposed under a generic rale, (b)-
      conduct reviews-of isxtfvkmal trad**  ,
      approved under such a rale, and (c)
      periodically audit the implementation of
      the generic rule itseff.
    
     1. EPA Comment en Trades ProposeeV
     Under Generic Rules
    
       When processing emissions tradas
     under generic rules, states are required
     to provide EPA and the public with
     adequate notice and opportunity to
     comment See sections ILF. and ILG.
     below. EPA will use stale procedures iar
     notice and comment to oversee the
     implementation of generic rules without
     delaying state processing of trading
     applications.
       The information wjaieh a state must
     provide to EPA by toe first day of the
     comment period (see section JLG.
     below) is generally sufficient for EPA ts>
    
      ~rThme refer  rcqvrrtmtfUi muattMinetetad Ma
    contingent pniwMm in all future gaa«fic nit*, wittt
    the comuia«a>.>  Hlggirrt M apply to IwbWta to
    nn»«—r •mwmiMMfH ara»» nhicti I
                                              determint that a trading application tr
                                              being procsasad prayaiTy. Whare this
                                              information is not sufficient EPA may
                                              request the application Ittaif. and the-
                                              state oust provide it promptly.
                                                Where EPA sleets to provide any
                                              comments on the proposed approval it
                                              will do so IB writing, by the dose of the
                                              comment period specified in the state's
                                              notice. ETA may also testify at any
                                              public heansjg held pursuant to the
                                              approval of a trading application under
                                              a generic rule. Trading applicants and
                                              state officials are strongly advised to
                                              address EPA's comments, and when
                                              necessary to incorporate an appropriats
                                              response to those comments in the final
                                             approval docui
                  B»»S
                                             2. Reviews of Individual Bubbles
                                             Approved Under Generic Rules
                                               Reviews of Individual generic bubble
                                             approvals, span from tha regaiariy
                                             scheduled reviews associated wita
                                             activities under EPA's National Air
                                             Audit System (sss section ffl » * below).
                                             may be conducted at any time by EPA hi
                                             order to promptly address identified or
                                             suspected problems ano to avon*
                                             patterns of improper approval or othar
                                             adverse effects which aught ac
     ««•*«•*« vuwiv wuicn laigllT SU4L
     before tha next biannual amfitur
     conducted:
    
     3. EPA Aanla of maCsnatal •        *
     IinpleiMntsnon of Generis Ma*
       Under tha National Air Aadtt flysiaBi.
     EPA conducts a program audit ofjsacb. ..
     state agency responsible, foe    ~       '
     implementing the SIP and dalspslasV -
     federal programs.'* Thaa* audits an .
     nimmtly mrrlart nut  iaa s htaaanal
     basis. As. part of tha National Air Audit
     System. EPA will conduct aa-in-deptk
     file audit of a representative *amat» el
     generic trading  approvals issued by. th»
     relevant stata.
    
     4. Deficient Generic Tradas
      As GisGsssso; soovs, gBttsnc rasas cast.
    expedite the approval prooaas Isr
    certain classes of amissioas tsades.
    because they aUow such- trade* to bat
    approved by states without undaigsaJig
    a subsequent federal rdeauddnr.
    process. I lowever. to be consMasssl'.
      valid by EPA. * trstis approved unaer
      teaaric rale asiat
        (1) Bvoaa of a class of trades wr
      within the scope of tha geasrc n it
        (2) Be approved'oAar the f*f>?->: P.
      has been approved by EPA. w.t
        (3) Meet all the provisions r; 'he
      generic rule as approved by E71 A .
        If a state-approved emissicr.i ;TS ae
      dots not meet all these /eqa^r-ren's it
      cannot be considered part of ±e SI? a:
      by definition cannot replace prior valic
      emission limits in the SIP. See 4«FR
      20S54-5S (April 8.1981). Should EPA
      determine, as a result of its oversight
      activities, that a state-approved trade .
      inconsistent with ths above
      requirements, it will notifiy the state ar
      tource in writing and specify any
     necessary remedial measures. In such
     circumstances. EPA may take
     appropriate reaiedial action to assure
     •ttainmani and maintenance, including
     direct snfatoament of the original SIP
     limits.™
    
      5. Deficrent Generic Rules
    
       Exaataagaaaaric rales approved undi
     praviotas EPA aoiicy and guidance JM>
     nqtsini revisaaai in order to make them
     consistent wita today's final policy. In
     sdaiMsJSL»fBSMricni*»approv«dby
     E"A naalsrlnslnsl policy may
     sobseqaMsMry be Isand- to be defies
     somasaspaft Because EPA-appro\
     generic rates hawstindapendent fore
     law. thay eaai only aa> amended upon
     camplatKNraf a formal SUP tavision
    
      m osoiar tar eitsnra mat*genetic rales
     araconsartant with tha Agency's carre
     rniisshnsj Ttsdtafftrilcy. EPA will
     publish notices tn the Fedsnl Register
     whick ioaBtify any generic rules
     reqmrmsj formal modificstioa,7* These
     noticaa witt invatify specific  deficienci >
     and means for correcting them, and wi;
     sat form a schsduis for submission anc
    review of revised rates. These notices
    will start afiBcted states to the danger
    that coatiflned professing of  trades
                                                                                   "tai
    10 a SIP c«U    M«t »» a»p»»»BB>
    •InrnimtT-aiifn i^tjf tin aanam ni» mi
                                           p*nod will oa ba
                                           mfnrrrmmi -ir miamaalns
                                           foMitf to b* ineoiMMM
                                                                                              » 9ft ouy h**« approved itati
                                                                                                   * to fcatettoMt om«r>« '
                                                                                                    -
                              fc
    S«* t+ NMMml Mr AwM OMMawAr F»
    f*n ~f 1trT)iiin l~ii *igiii
    -------
    43054
    Federal  Register / Vol. 51.  No. 233  /  Thursday, December 4.  1986 / Notices
    under these rules may create or
    accentuate plan deficiencies which may
    have to be corrected at a later date or
    compensated by other means. Where
    states fail to remedy deficiencies
    identified in the notice within  the
    prescribed  period. EPA may either
    rescind its previous approval of the rule.
    or issue a notice of SIP deficiency under
    section 110(a)(2)(H) of the Act.
    
    F. Public Comment
       For emissions trades processed under
    generic rules, existing state statutes or
    regulations will generally provide for
    adequate public notice and opportunity
    to comment, including opportunity for
    judicial review sufficient, to make
    comment effective. Under such statutes
    or regulations, after the state ha«
    reviewed a bubble application
    submitted pursuant to an approved
    generic rule, a newspaper or similar
    notice is typically published providing a
    comment period (usually thirty (30)
    days) on the proposed decision to
    approve or disapprove the application.
    This notice generally informs the public
    that the proposed approval document
    (license, order, permit, consent
    agreement, etc.). the-application itself
    (with the exception of any portion'
    entitled to confidentiality under state or
    federal law*7, and the technical analysis
    performed try the state Hi making its'
    proposed determination, are available
    for review at specified times and
    locations. The notice also offers the
    opportunity for a public hearing.
       Under today's policy, the state must
    also notify the relevant Federal Land
    Manager if an emissions trade will take
    place within 100 kilometers of a PSD
    Class I area. Notification most occur
    early enough in the review process to
    allow at least 30 days for the submittai
    of comments before-the trade  will be
    approved by the state.
       Where adequate procedures for public
    notice and comment are not already
    provided in existing state statutes or
    regulations, such procedures must be
    provided as part of an EPA-approved
    generic rules. In all progpscd and final
    generic bubble action**afMea-mu*t
    clearly and publicly iJetffiJy betrr the
    pre- and post-trade actiraf and allowable
    emissions of each source involved in the
    trade, so that the ambient effects of each
    bubble may be known.
       To ensure adequate public awareness
    consistent with 5 304 of the Clean Air
    Act. state generic rules or other existing
    state laws or regulations mast also make
    publicly available any changes to
       71 The specific poltutanti emitted by the source.
     me amount of thos* pollutants, and their amoient
     air impvct may not be deemed confidential.
                          emission limits which result from trades
                          approved under a generic rule.
    
                          G. EPA Notification
                           In addition to the above requirements
                          for public notice and comment the
                          generic rule or other state provisions
                          must require thai state*, by the first day
                          of the public comment period provide
                          the appropriate EPA Regional Office
                          (see addresses in Appendix A) with a
                          copy of the publk notice, the proposed
                          approval document, and die technical
                          analyses performed in evaluating the
                          trading application, together with any
                          summary of those analyses which is
                          available for public review.
                           State provisions must also require that
                          immediately upon issuance of a final
                          generic trading, approval, the state will
                          forward two copies of that document to
                          the relevant EPA Regional Office, and
                          will also submit to EPA any additional
                          documentation which is included in
                          comments or the post-comment record
                          and supporta-that final state approval.
                           Any notices issued by EPA to correct
                          notice and comment procedures which
                          do not meet these requirements under
                          current or future generic rules will not
                          trigger special progress requirements oc
                          otherwise affect this operation of those •
                          rules. Because of the importance of   .
                          adequate public and EPA notice.
                          affected states should, however; comet
                          deficient notice- procedures to the extent .
                          practicable, ia the interim period  before
                          formal rule revisions are submitted and
                          approved.
                          H. Rulemaking on Generic Haiti
                            EPA will process acceptable generic
                          trading rules for approval as  revisions to
                          SIPs as expeditiousiy as possible. In the
                          interim, states are encouraged to use
                          parallel-processing SIP revision
                          procedures (see 46 FR 44477; Sept. 4.
                          1981) wherever practical. Trades  may
                          not be genetically approved by a state
                          until EPA has published a notice of final
                          approval of the generic trading rule in
                          the Federal Register.
    
                          III. Trades Not Covered by State Generic
                          Rules
                            In the absence of a generic rule, statea
                          and sources must use case-by-case SIP
                          revisions to effect bubble or  external
                          offset trades. Individual trades may also
                          fall outside the scope of an approved-
                          generic rule and still be implemented as
                          case-by-case SIP  revisions. The
                          principles described in the Policy
                          Statement and this Document will be
                          used to evaluate these emission trades.
                            Because of the ability of the case-by-
                          case SIP revision process to  take
                          account of greater individual variations.
                          many trades which could not be
    accomplished under a generic rule may
    nevertheless be approved as case-by-
    case SIP revisions. Through- this SIP
    revision process, states and sources may
    also demonstrate that a general
    principle discussed in Section I above
    does not apply to their particular
    circumstances, or that such a principle
    may be satisfied in other ways.
      EPA will make reasonable efforts to
    take prompt action on SIP trading
    proposals after a state has ruled on an
    individual application and submitted it
    to the Agency. EPA encourages "parallel
    processing" of such proposals, with EPA
    and state officials conducting concurrent
    review so that both agencies can give
    public notice of proposed action at
    roughly the same time. EPA can then
    take final action after the state
    completes its proceeding*, provided the
    state does not substantially alter the
    proposal after public notice. EPA will
    also publish noncontroversial SIP
    revisions aa direct final actions.
    converting thenrto proposals only if
    request* to submit adverse comments
    are received within 30 days (see
    generally 46 FR 44477, September 4.
    1981). In all bubble actions EPA will
    clearly identify (or require states te,
    identify, as appropriate) both pre- and
    pott-trad* actual and allowable
    emissions for each source involved in
    the trade, so that the ambient effects of
    each bobble ma; be known.
    Appendix A—Regional EPA Emissions
    "Trading Coordinator*
    Region I. David Conroy (APS-2310).
      State Air Programs Branch. U.S.
      Environmental Protection Agency.
      Region I. {oho F. Kennedy Federal
      Building. Boston. Massachusetts
      02203.-(617) 505-3252: FTS 835-3252
    Region II Betty Martinovich, Air Branch.
      U.S. Environmental Protection
      Agency. Region U. 26 Federal Plaza.
      New York. New York 10007. (212) 284-
      2517: FTS 264-2517
    Region III: Cynthia Stahl. Air Programs
      Branch.  U.S. Environmental Protection
      Agency, Region III. 841 Chestnut
      Building. Philadelphia. Pennsylvania
      19101. (215) 597-6337; FTS 597-9337
    Region IV: Melvin Russell. Air Programs
      Branch. U.S. Environmental Protection
      Agency, Region IV. 345 Courtland
      Street N.E.. Atlanta. Georgia 30308
      (404) 257-2884: FTS 257-2864
    Region V:  Joe Paisie. Air Compliance
      Branch. U.S. Environmental Protection
      Agency, Region V. 230 South
      Dearborn Street. Chicago. Illinois
      80804. (312) 886-5777: FTS 888-5777
    Region Vt Bill Riddle. Air Program
      Branch. U.S. Environmental
      Protections Agency. Region VI. Pint
    

    -------
                      Federal  Register / Vol 51. No. 233 / Thursday.  December 4.  1986 /  Notices
      International Building. 1201 Elm
      Street Dallas, Texas 75270. (214) 767.
      9870: FTS 7&-9870
    Region Vlt Charles Whittnore, Air
      Support Branch. U.S. Environmental
      Protection Agency. Region VII. 324
      East llth Street. Kansas City.
      Missouri 64106. (913) 236-2896: FTS
      757-2896
    Region VIII: Dale Wells. Air Programs
      Branch. U.& Environmental Protection
      Agency. Region VIII. 1860 Uncoln
      Street Denver. Colorado 80296, (303)
      293-1773; FTS 564-1773
    Region IX: Nancy Harney. Air
      Management Division. U.S.
      Environmental Protection Agency.
      Region DC 215 Fremont Street San
      Francisco. California 94105. (415) 974-
      7858: FTS 454-7658
    Region JC David Bray, Air Programs
      Branch. ITS. Environmental Protection
      Agency. Region X1200 6th Avenue.
      Seattle. Washington 98101. (206) 442-
      4253: FTS 399-1233
    
    Appendix B—Definitions of "Actual"
    "Allowable" aad "Baseline" Fmissinns
    f«» PnqmfTr frf Emlsthms Trading
    
      As used in this document with respect
    to bubbles, a source's "actual"
    emissions equal its avenge historical
    emissions, in tons per year, for the two-
    year period preceding the source's
    application to bank or trade emission
    reduction credit Another time period
    may be deemed more representative of
    typical operations, but the applicant or
    state must show that actual emissions of
    such other period are consistent with air
    quality planning for the area. The
    definition of "actual emissions" for new
    source review purposes is somewhat
    different > See 45 FR 52745 (August 7,
    1980): 40 CFR 51.18(j)(l)(xii). 51 J4(b)(21).
    52.21(b)(21) and 52J4(f)(13).
      A soorces's "allowable" emissions in
    tons per year are calculated using the
    maximum rated capacity of the source
    (unless the source is subject to federally
    enforceable operating restrictions) and
    the most stringent ofc(a) A standard
    applicable under 40 CFR Parts 60 or 61:
    (b) any applicable SP emissions
    limitation, inrlnrHm thaisn with a future
    compliance date: orfc) an emissions
    rate set in a federally enforceable permit
    condition. See 40 CFR 51.18 (j)(l)(xi).
    51.24(b)(16). 51.21(bK16) and 52^4{f)(ll).
    The same definition of "allowable
    emissions" appears at each of these
    citations. See also 45 FR 52745 (August
    7,1980).
      For bubble*, a source's "baseline"
    emissions are equal to the product of its
      1 For instance, the calculation oriental emisaiona
    for netting pnrpoM* i* u of Iht dale of Ibt tv«it
    that bring* about iht reduction.
    (1) emotion rate ("ER"J. specified in
    terms of mass emission per unit of
    production or throughput (e.g, pounds
    SOt per million BTU or pounds of VOC
    per weight of solids applied); (2) average
    hourly capacity utilization ("CU")(e.g»
    millions of BTU per hour or weight of
    solids applied per hour): and (31 number
    of hours of operation ("H") during the
    relevant time period. I.e.. baseline
    emissions » ER x CU x H. Net baseline
    emissions for a bubble are the sum of
    the baseline emissions of all sources
    involved in the trade.
      In attainment areas and
    nonattainment anas with approved
    demonstration* of attainment, a source's
    baseline emissions for bubble purposes
    must generally be determined using the •
    lower of "actual" or "allowable" values
    for each of the three baseline factors.
    Actual values for these factors are
    determined based on the source's
    average historical valuea for the factors
    for the two-year period preceding the
    source's application to bank or trade
    emission reduction credits. As discussed
    above, another time period may be
    deemed more representative of typical
    operations, but the emissions for that
    other period must be shown to be
    consistent with air quality planning tor
    the area. A source's allowable values for
    the three baseline (actors an
    determined bawd on its lowest federally
    enforceable Qmft for those factors (i.e,
    the lowest Ifanrt specified m an
    applicable SIP. PSD or oner NSR permit
    issued under an EPA-approved program.
    compliance order, or consent decree).
    including those with a future compliance
    date.
      The actual values for any of the three
    baseline factors, when higher than
    corresponding allowable values, may
    not be used by e source in calculating
    baseline emissions (Le.. reductions
    down to compliance levels cannot
    qualify for emission reduction credit).
    The allowable values for one or more-of
    these factors, when higher than the
    corresponding actual values, may be
    used in calculating bubble baseline
    emissions for a source only in the
    following circumstances:
      • Where, in a nonattainment or
    attainment area with an approved
    demonstration, the applicant shows that
    the demonstration assumes allowable
    value(s) for the factors) in question.
    Such a showing must be based on
    written evidence.
      • Where; in an attainment area, the
    approved demonstration does not
    assume allowable value(s) for the
    baseline factorfs) in question, but the
    applicant performs satisfactory ambient
    tests to show that the use of such
    allowable value(i) will not jeopardize
    attainment and maintenance of VA '
    PSD increments or visibility. Per
    paniculate matter or SOj, this wt'
    require at least a Level II modern.,
    analysis using-actual emissions for>L
    pre-trade case.* Where such an ana.'
    is submitted to fustify allowable vahi
    fora case-by-case SlP'revisfon bubbi
    the Region may require * • u'tional
    technical suppor ' deer.»c necessar
    to protect applicable standards or
    increments. See Section I.B.I.b above.
      • Where, in a non-attainment area
    with an approved demonstration of
    attainment the demonstration does nc
    assume allowable value(s) for the
    baseline factorfs) in question, but the
    applicant demonstrates through a Lev.
    CD modeling analysis that the use of
    such allowable value(s) will not
    jeopardize attainment and maintenanc
    of NAAQS or PSD increments.
      • Where, in an attainment area or a
    nonattainment area with an approved
    demonstration, a source has a new
    source preconstruction  permit issued
    after the PSD baseline date or the base
    year of the attainment demonstration.
    such cases, the applicant may use the
    value(s) of ER. CU and  H upon which
    the new source permit was approved
      While the Emissions Trading Policy
    does permit sources to use allowable
    values for ER. CUand H in determine
    baseline emissions for bubbles und
    certain carefully prescribed conditn.
    the approach taken recognizes that SIP
    demonstrations are frequently based or
    a "hybrid" of allowable and actual
    values, and that bubble baselines in
    these areas must accurately reflect SiP
    assumptions for all three baseline
    factors, or be justified by appropriate
    modeling, to maintain SIP integrity.
      In nonattainment areas needing but
    lacking approved demonstrations of
    attainment, sources involved in a bubbl.
    must use "lowest-of-acrual-SIP-
    allowabie-or-RACT-allowable"
    emissions baselines. The ER factor for
    such baselines is based on the actual
    emission rate, the SIP or other federally
    enforceable emission limit, or a RACT
    emission limit whichever is lower, as of
    the time of the source's  applicable to
    bank or trade, whichever is earlier. The
    CU and H factors for such baselines are
    baaed on the lower of actual or
      * Where iht PSD baMline has been trgge-ea arc
    such amMion* data it available, tht pre-buoble
    ntuation for soureet which were m existence or
    commenced comtruciion prior to the PSD baseime
    dale should bt modeled using emission* consistent
    with the PSO baseline" concentration is defined m
    40CFK St.24(bl(13| and 5121(b|[13| However.
    efflitafoiu aad aisociatad parameter* msy be based
    on more recent valuta where past emissions data
    cannot readily be obtained, for related pnncipi
    M* section I A.1 c.lJI above.
    

    -------
    4385ft
    Federal  RefiateT /  VoL 51. No. 233 V Thursday. December 4. 1MB / Notices
    allowable valuee4or these fetter*
    Actual valuta for CU ami rrmaet be
    determined using the vomit avenge
    historical values for the two year period
    preceding the source's application to
    bank or trade, unless another two year
    period it shown to be more
    representative of typical operation*.
      For sources which banked or sought
    to bank credit in these nonattainment
    areas prior to publication of today's
    notice, the "date of application to bank"
    is the date of written application to the
    state to bank credit through a formal
    bank or informal banking mechanism for
    use in future trade*. For sources which
    seek to bank credit in these areas
    following publication of today's notice,
    the date of application to bank will be
    the date of written application to the
    state to make a reduction ttato-
    enforceablc through or concurrent with
    use of a formal  bank or-informal
    banking mechanism.
    
    Appendix C—Approvabla Modeling
    Approacnes
    U.S. EnviroameaUl Protection Agency
    
    Office of Air. Noise; and Radiation
    February 17.1983.
    
    Memorandum
    
    Subject Emissions Trading Poticy—
         Technical Clarification*
    From: Sheldon Meyers, Director. Office
         of Air Quality Planning and
         Standards (ANR-443)
    To: Director, Air and Waste
         Management Division. Regions B-
         IV. Vt-vm. X: Director. Air
         Management Division, Regions IV.
         IX
      The proposed emission trading policy
    was published on April 7,1982. ia the
    Federal Register. During the initial
    implementation of the proposal.
    numerous emissions trading issues have
    arisen including several  relating to the
    technical requirements of dispersion
    modeling and control strategy
    evaluations. To address these modeling
    issues, a special workshop was held to
    solicit recomendations from Regional
    meteorologists/modelers ae well as the
    various Headquarters technical staff.
    The Standing Committee on Emissions
    Trading has also considered these issues
    and the recommendations of the
    workshop group.
      This memo is intended to outline the
    results of these meetings and to provide
    interim guidance. It is effective
    immediately and will be incorporated
    into the final Agency policy when
    promulgated. The following revisions  or
    clarifications on modeling for TSP, CO.
     and SOi, are intended to supplement the
                         criteria included i& the April 7. IBtt.
                         emissions trading policy stateavent
    
                         Level I Analysit
                           • To ensure air quality equivalence
                         under Level I analysis (modeling is not
                         required), trades cannot be approved
                         when complex  terrain (terrain greater
                         than any stack with increasing
                         emissions) is within the area of
                         significant impact of the source or SO
                         kilometers, whichever is less.
                           • Stacks with increasing emissions
                         must be at least good engineering,
                         practice (GEP) to prevent dowawash.
                           • FagiUve process and stack sources
                         can be traded under Level I (La, process
                         for process, process for stack. and stack
                         for. stack) aa long ae the •»•*<•""-
                         distance between any emitting points ia
                         less than 250 meters, (This is true for
                         trades under generic rules as well aa for
                         trades impiesMnted by SIP revisions.
                         The effective stack height requirement
                         in the April policy remains.)
                           • Since trades involving open dot
                         sources an very difficult to address to a
                         replicabie Banner, they canant currently
                         be approved aider generic Level I
                         bubble regstetians.{Beitara
    -------
                     Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 233 / Thursday. December 4.  1986 / Notices
    already invested significant resources in
    • good-faith analysis based on prior
    methods of demonstrating ambient
    equivalence, (f you have specific
    questions regarding implementation of
    these policy changes, please call Tom
    Helms.
    cc: Chief. Air Branch. Regions I-X.
        Meteorologist. Regions 1-X. Mike
        Levin. Joe Tikvart. Darryl Tyler
    
    Appendix D—Approvable Averaging
    Time* for VOC Trade.
    U.S. EnvironmeotaJ Protecdoa Ageocy
    
    Office of Air Quality Planning and
    Standards.  Research Triangle Park.
    North Carolina 27711
    iMHiary 20.1984.
    
    Memorandum
    Subject: Averaging Tunes for
        Compliance With VOC Emission
        Limits—SIP Revision Policy
    From: John R. O'Connor. Acting
        Director. Office of Air  Quality
        Planning and Standards (MD-10)
    To: Director. Air and Waste
        Management Division. Regions II-
        IV. VT-VTIL X. Director. Air
        Management Division. Regions L V.
        DC.
       The purpose of this memorandum is to
    clarify the Agency's policy regarding
    emission time averaging for existing
    sources of volatile organic  compounds
    (VOCs). Numerous State
    implementation Plan (SIP) revisions.
    both broad regulations and source-
    speciftc changes, have been submitted
    which provide for compliance
    determinations by "time averaging"
    emissions of VOC for periods exceeding
    24 hours. These requests and the
    following policy on this subject were
    discussed extensively at a  recent
    meeting attended by those Regional
    Offices which have the most pending
    actions (Regions L UL IV, V); the Office
    of Air Quality Planning and Standards:
    and the Office of General Counsel. This
    policy represents the consensus of the
    meeting attendees.
       The objective of EPA's national VOC
    emissions control program is the timely
    attainment and maintenance of the
    national ambient air quality standard
    (NAAQS) for ozone. SIP revisions and
    other regulatory actions relating to VOC
    control must maintain the integrity of
    this basic objective. There should be
    assurances that VOC emission control is
    reasonably consistent with protecting
    this short-term ozone standard. Further.
    since SIP*s and associated VOC control
    programs comtemplaie the actual
    application of reasonably available
    control technology (RACT). regulatory
    actions that incorporate longer term
    averages to circumvent the installation
    of overall RACT level controls cannot
    be allowed.
      Current Agency guidance specifies the
    use of a daily weighted average for VOC
    regulations as the preferred alternative
    where continuous compliance is not
    feasible. An example might be where a
    facility operates in a batch manner with
    multiple lines and various products.
    Reference is made to the December 8.
    1980. Federal Register (copy attached)
    where can coating operators are
    allowed to "bubble" several production
    lines and average emissions over a 24-
    hour time period.
      The preferred daily weighted average
    alternative may not be feasible in all
    cases. Where the source operations are
    such that daily VOC emissions cannot
    be determined or where the application •
    of RACT for each emission point (line.
    machine, etc.) is not economically or
    tec  Ttically feasible on a daily basis,
    longer averaging times can be permitted
    under certain conditions. In determining
    feasibility, consideration might be given,
    for example, to the extent to which
    modifications can be made to testing.
    inventory, or recordkeeping practices in
    order to quantify daily emissions. Also.
    variability or lack of predictability in a
    source's daily operation might be
    considered as well as availability of
    control technology or the physical
    impediment or restriction to control
    equipment installation. In order to allow
    longer than daily averaging in SIP
    regulations, the following conditions or
    principles must be honored:
      1. Real reductions in actual emissions
    must be achieved, consistent with the
    RACT control levels specified in SIFi or
    the control technique guidelines (CTG's).
    These limits are typically expressed in
    terms of VOC per unit of production (a
    qualitative term such as Ibs VOC/gal
    coating).  When it is not feasible to
    specify emission limits in such terms.
    emission limits per unit of time can be
    approved provided that:
      a. The emission limits reflect typical
    (rather than potential or allowable)
    production rate and operating hours.
    These emission limits must truly reflect
    emissions reductions consistent with
    RACT and are not simply an artificial
    constraint on potential emissions. This
    must be supported in the SIP revision by
    historical production and operation
    data.
      b. Nonproduction or equipment
    downtime credits are not allowed in the
    emission limit calculation unless a
    Federally enforceable document
    specifically restricts operation during
    these times. Such credit must b« b;.=
    -------
    43651
    Fedarai Register / Voi tt.  No. 233  / Thursday. December 4.  1966 /  Notices
    the primary responsibility for          *
    determining the appnweorrrty at
    application requests. Hpvravsr. in order
    to assure Regional consisssacf;
    coordination with the Office of Air
    Quality Planning and Standards staff rs
    encouraged during the initial
    development of any single "time
    average" SIP revision or regulation.
    Also, all SIP revisions involving long-
    term averaging must be proposed in the
    Federal Register with an explanation of
    how the principles listed above have
    been satisfied.
      Should there be any questions  on this
    policy, please call Tom Helms  (FTS 629-
    5526) or Brock Nicholson (FTS 629-
    5516).
    
    Attachment
    cc:
      Barbara Bank off
      Ron Campbell
      Jack Farmer
      Mike Levin
      Ed Reich
      B.|. Steigerwaid
      Darryl Tyler
      Peter Wyckoff
      Chief. Air Branch. Regions I-X
      Regional Administrator. Region* I-X.
                                            Append* B-!U£i of Slfrikealb
                          for Appcwia* "&a*bn Tara** PM,
                          SOi end CO TmtH Itetar Uvd I
                          Modehaf Approaches
    
                            Appendix E indicates on its vertical
                          axis the post-trade emiseion rate for the
                          stack with increasing emissions (E). and
                          on its horizontal axis the radius of
                          significant impact (R) within which level
                          I trades may be approved despite the
                          presence of complex terrain outside that
                          radius.
                            The curves in Appendix E have been
                          generated using a normally conservative
                          screening model. VALLEY, to estimate R
                          for each E.  using the 24-hour and 3-hour
                          air quality impact significance level for
                          SOi and the 24-hour signiGcance level
                          for paniculate matter (PM] which have
                          been established for level II modeling. It
                          was assumed that the short-term
                          standards would be controlling.
                            The F-stability class was assumed.
                          and wind speed was presumed to be oae
                          meter per second for estimating the
                          radius of significant impact for the
                          three-hour period* and 1& mater*, per
                          second  for  the 24-hour cases, la.
                          developing the three-hour curve, it waa
                          assumed that F-stability and a wind
                          speed of one meter per second would
                          persist for aa •»«»* aa fourteen
                          consecutive ham. la dewetoaiosj Am M-
    hour curves; it was assumed that F-
    stability wttb a wind1 speed of 2J xeterc
    per second would occur for six hours of
    any 24-hour period. *
      This Appendix provides different
    estimates for SO* and PM because the
    significance levels for these pollutants
    are different For CO, the R value for E
    value may be determined by multiplying
    the E for SOi by twenty (20). This ie a
    conservative approach towards
    determining radii of significant impact
    for CO. Where the effective height of the
    stack with increasing emissions is not
    changed (e.g., where the only change is
    in the sulfur content of fuel burned), the
    change in the hourly  emission rate (E)
    may be used in lieu of E."
      1 The corvee in Appendix E wm derived using
    the estunptiona described above w that they could
    be used lo delaaiiai radii of rignfieMt impact for
    sources in any part of tht country. However. It if
    possible that tor tonw snas. local meteorological
    condition will be each thai alternative, lest
    eonaervativa leattoratafleat aeBamptiona can be
    employed in detarauaina theea radii. Where tute*
    can show that the oat of such alternative
    saeiiapUou ia appreartwe-for a given area, they
    devatof tllaraaait tiaiea ar farmaiaa tor
    detarminirn radM of naaifirial impact and mbiafl
    them *ar faviaw tat apptaval by EPA. either in
    contancana wrth-an IndtMdnal bubble lubmiltal or
    at part of a generic rule. Stalat ere advised to fork
    ctaealy with (aa apamsjrtm ItifMtwl OSoe <• say
    affort la aevatop mca ahanative approaahea.
    

    -------
                                                           ^J^2^TiT«jnCTS         43ST
    
          FIGURE I:
    
          Radfi of Sisniftcant Impact for PM & SO2 fo, Different Averagh,, Times
         ton  —  	
        1
    UJMQCOMl
                             45678 910       20    3040 50607080901
    
                               Radius of Significant Impact (Km)
    

    -------
    43860	Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 233  /  Thursday. December 4. 1996 / Notices
    Appendix F— CFR Part 51 Conversion
    Table
      On November 7, 1988 (51 FR 406W)
    EPA restructured CFR Part SI and
    renumbered many of that part's
    sections. Because most readers will be
    more familiar with prior designations.
    today's notice contains citations based
    on Part 51 as it existed before this
    restructuring. A detailed finding list of
    the old versus new citations can be
    found  in Table 2 of the Preamble of the
    November 7 notice. Today's readers
    may also use the following table to
    convert today's Part 51 citations to the
    corresponding new ones.
           CFR Part 51 Convtnkm Ttbto
      Old -10 CFR 11 Citation      ,V»w 40 CFR 31
                               Citation
    51.18                ' Subptrt I
    Sl.lSti)                51.16NI)
     Sl.l«j)UI(xl
     S1.1XJ)(l)(xi|
     Sl.l«i)(ll(xii|
     M.18(k|               51.16Kb)
     51.22                 51.281
     S1.24                 S1.168
                         51.18«b|U3)
              n
     51-24(bHl«l
     5V24(bM23J            51.1«8(bK23|
     [FR Doc 86-27002 Filed 12-3-8* 8:45 am}
    
     •NXMO COM MM-W-M
    

    -------
    REFERENCES FOR SECTION 8.2
    

    -------
    «< P«OV
                                                               PN 113-37-09-23-
                  UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                  SEP 2 3 1987
    MEMORANDUM
    
    SUBJECT
    
    
    FROM:
                  Review of State Implementation Plans and Revisions
                  for Enforceability and Legal Sufficiency
                  J. Craig Potter
                  Assistant Administrator   f ,4*^./<*.
                    for Air and Radiation  sf  '^J
                                        \»           \. C*«
                  Thomas L. Adams Jr. "-M**»»x**^r W. ^N^a-
                  Assistant Administrator  for Enforcement
                    and Compliance Monitoring
    TO:
                  Francis S.
                  General Counsel
                  Office of General Counsel
    
                  Addressees
            One critical function that 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. S51.281  (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 SIP  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 conformance with the Act.   Please do  not
        forward for  approval SIPs which fail to satisfy the  enforce-
        ability criteria in this memorandum.
    
        Backaround
              Recent  information  indicates  that  the attention being paid
         to  SIP  approvals  is  declining,  particularly for  enforceability.
         The Office of  General  Counsel  reviews  regulations as to their
         adequacy  under applicable  law  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  reaulation.   At the October 1986
    

    -------
                                    -2-
    
    Annapolis meeting of Air Program Directors and Regional Counsel
    Air Branch Chiefs, a number of problems in recent enforcement
    cases due to difficulty in interpreting and enforcing regula-
    tions were discussed.  With the recent werK being done to
    address the nonattainment problem, it is even more critical
    that regulations be clear and 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 submittals.  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 is better than its predecessor.
    
    Enforceabilitv Criteria
    
         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.P.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, if any, of changed con 'itions  (e.g.,
    redesignation to attainment) 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 allow for "alternate equivalent techniques'
    or "bubbles" or any other sort of variation of the normal mod-e
    of compliance must be completely and explicitly defined and must
    make clear whether or not EPA case-by-case approval is required
    to make such a method of compliance federally effective.
    

    -------
                                    -3-
    Conclusion
    
         SIP revisions should be written clearly/ with explicit
    language to implement their 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 IX
    
         Air and Waste Management Division Director
         Region II
    
         Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division
         Directors
         Regions 17 and VI
    
         Air and Radiation Division Director
         Region V
    
         Air and Toxics Division Directors
         Regions VII, VIII.and X
    
    cc:  Deputy Regional Administrators
         Regions I-X
    
         Regional Counsel
         Air Contacts
         Regions I-X
    
         Air Compliance Branch Chiefs
         Regions II,  III,  IV, 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, Director
         Stationary Source Compliance Division
         Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
    
         Alan w. Eckert
         Associate General counsel
         Air Division
    
         Michael S. Alushin
         Associate Enforcement Counsel
         Air Enforcement Division
    

    -------
              UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                     SEP
                                            1987
    MEMORANDUM
    SUBJECT
    FROM
              Review of State Implementation Plans and Revisions
              for Enforceability and Legal Sufficiency
              Michael S. Alushin
              Associate Enforcement Counsel
               for Air Enforcement
    TO:
              Alan w. Eckert
              Associate GenerkT'^ounsel
              Air and Radiation Division
              John S. Seitz, Director
              Stationary Source Complia
              Office of Air. Quality Plaft/fing
    
              Addressees
                                                 Standards
         This is to provide implementing guidance on the memorandum
    issued by J. Craig Potter/ Thomas Adams and Francis Blake
    on this date relating to review 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 to all SIP proposals which have
    not completed the state or local agency legal and procedural
    requirements for SIPs.  For 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 guidance 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 returned to "the Regions if they contain
    deficiencies which raise significant questions as  to whether
    the regulation would be enforceable.
    
    Enforceability Criteria
    
         The  notion of enforceability encompasses several  concepts.
    At the most basic  level, a  regulation must be within  the statutory
    authority of the promulgating"agency.   For example, some states
    have statutory  restrictions or  prohibitions on  the  promulgation
    of regulations  more  restrictive  than  the  federal  counterpart.
    

    -------
                                    -2-
    
    Although we should generally defer to a State's interpretation of
    the scope of its authority, when there is real doubt we
    should, at a minimum, consult the responsible State Attorney to
    be certain the issue has been considered and resolved.  When
    appropriate, an opinion letter should be obtained from the
    State Attorney General.
    
          Please ensure that the following additional issues are
    directly addressed.
    
         0 Applicability
    
        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, nonattairunent, etc.)
    and advise the reader that State administrative changes require
    a formal SIP revision.  Also, some regulations might require a
    certain percentage reduction from sources.  The regulation
    should be clear as to how 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 SIP 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 reouired date of
    compliance.  Is it upon promulgation, or approval by EPA, or a
    future date certain?  Future effective dates beyond the
    approved or proposed attainment 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.
    
         0 Effect of Changed C-mditions
    
         If changed circumstances effect an emission limit or other
    requirement the effect of changed conditions should be clearly
    specified.  However, you should not approve state regulations
    which tie the applicability of VOC control requirements to the
    nonattainment status of the 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 chance
    in the rule's applicability is submitted and approved by EPA.
    

    -------
                                    -3-
    
         0 standard of Conduct
    
         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.
    
         0 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. S52.21,
    not 40 C.F.R. 551.166, as only the former is written in a form
    imposing obligations on permit applicants.  Even then, changes
    may have to be made to take into account the difference between
    the State's situation and EPA's.
    
         0 Transfer Efficiency
    
        Some states have attempted to provide particular voc
    sources with relaxations of 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 determining compliance must be explicit
    as to when and under what circumstances a source may use improved
    transfer efficiency as a substitute for meeting the SIP limit.
    Such provisions must state whether EPA approval is required on
    a case-by-case basis.  Also, 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 noted by the NSPS auto coating TE
    table are not to be accepted at face value.
    
         0 Compliance Periods
    
        SIP 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 employed must be  sufficient to protect
    the standard involved.
    
         0 Equivalency Provisions and Discretionary Emission Limits
    
        Certain  provisions allow sources to comply via "bubbles"
    or  "alternate equivalent techniaues" or through mechanisms
    "as approved by  the Director."  These provisions must make  it
    

    -------
                                    -4-
    
    clear as to whether EPA approval of state granted alternative
    compliance techniques is reauired on a case-by-case basis in
    order for the changed mode of compliance to replace the existing
    federally enforceable requirement.  If EPA case-by-case approval
    will not be required, then specific, objective and replicable
    criteria must be set forth for determining whether the new
    arrangement is truly equivalent in terms of emission rates and
    ambient impact.  Such procedures oust be consistent with the
    control levels specified in the overall SIP control strategy
    and must meet other EPA policy requirements, including the
    "Emissions Trading Policy", 51 Fed.  Reg. 43814 (1986), in
    relevant instances.
    
         0 Recordkeeping
    
         The SIP must state explicitly those records which sources
    are required to keep to assess compliance for the time frame
    specified in the rule.  Records must be commensurate with regula-
    tory requirements, and must be available for examination on
    request.  The SIP must give reporting schedules and reporting
    formats.  For example, these rules must require daily records
    if the SIP requires daily compliance.  Additionally, the record-
    keeping must be required such that failure to do so would be a
    separate violation "in itself.
    
         0 Test Methods
    
         Each compliance provision roust list how compliance is
    to be determined and the appropriate test method to be used.
    The allowable averaging times should be explicit.  Both the
    test method and averaging times employed must be sufficient
    to protect the ambient standard involved.
    
         0  Exemptions
    
         If sources under a certain size are exempted from control
    requirements, the regulation must  identify how the size of a
    particular source is to be determined.
    
         0  Malfunction and Variance Provisions
    
         Any malfunction or variance exemptions must be clear in
    their substantive application and  in how they are triggered.
    The rule must specify what exceedances may be excused, how the
    standard is to be applied, and who makes the determination.
    
    Conclusion
    
         We appreciate your attention  to this matter and hope
    that the specific  review for enforceability will be a further
    step in improving  the overall SI?  process and structure.
    To assist you, we  have attached an enforceability checklist.
    This checklist should be included  as part of your technical
    suocort cackaces  in all future SI? oackaaes.
    

    -------
                                    -5-
    
         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-629-5526, 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, 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
    
    cc:  Deputy Regional Administrators
         Regions I-X
    
         Regional Counsel
         Air Contacts
         Regions I-X
    
         Air Compliance Branch Chiefs
         Regions II,  III, IV, 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
    

    -------
      IP APPOVABILITY CHECKLIST- ENFORCEABILITY
                                                                                          AttachmeiiL
    SIP Package No.
    Date Rec.
    Date Due
    STATE:
    Subject Matter:
    (Specific Provision and Description)
    
    Enforceability Analysis         State Submittal
                         EPA Requirement
                               Approvability (Approvable or Not
                                    (list responses)]
    1.  Applicability
    
        a.  What sources are being
            regulated?
    
        b.  What are criteria for
            exemption?
    
        c.  Is calculation
            procedure for exemption
            clearly specified?
        d.   Is emission inventory
            listed in the
            background document
            of the attainment
            demonstration?
                          Clarity
    
    
                          Clarity
                          Example calculation or
                          clear explanation of
                          how to determine
                          exemption (line by  line,
                          etc.)
                          Inventory including
                          allowable and actual
                          emissions in source
                          category should be
                          included, for enforce-
                          ment  purposes and
                          independent  of any Clean
                          Air Act  requirements,
                          in the attainment  demon-
                          stration if  such data  is
                          necessary for determin-
                          ing baselines in regula-
                          tions.
    

    -------
    Eniforceabi1ity Ana1ys is
                             State Submittal
    EPA Reouirement
                     Ajjprovabi 1 i ty (Approvable pi
        e.
        f.
    Is the averaging time(s)
    used in the rule differ-
    ent from that of the
    ambient standard?
    What are the units of
    compliance (Ibs VOC per
    gallon of solids
    applied less water,
    grains per standard
    cubic foot?)
    
    Is bubbling or averag-
    ing of any type
    allowed?  If yes,
    state criteria.
    Could a U.S. EPA
    inspector independently
    determine if the
    criteria were met?  Does
    EPA have to approve
    each case?
     Ttie averaging time in the
     rule must be consistent
     with protecting the ambient
     standard in question.
     Normally, it should be equal
     to or shorter than the
     time associated with the
     standard.  Longer term
     averaging is available
     only in limited instances
     provided that the ambient
     standard is not compromised.
     Clearly
     rule
    'ated in the
                                                             Explicit description of
                                                             now averaging, bubbling,
                                                             or  equivalency is to be
                                                             determined.  VOC* .
                                                             equivalency must be on
                                                             • "solids applied"
                                                             basis.  Any method  must
                                                             be  independently re-
                                                             producible.  Provision
                                                             must be explicit as to
                                                             whether EPA case-by-
                                                             case approval  required.
                                                             If  provision intended
                                                             to  be  "generic"  then EPA
                                                             bubble policy  must  be
    

    -------
       probability Analysis
        h.  If there is a redesigna-
            tion, will this change
            the emission limita-
            tions?  If yes, which
            ones and how?
    2.  Compliance Dates
    
        a.  What is compliance
            date?
    
        b.  What is the attainment
            date?
    3.  Specificity of Conduct
    
        a.  What test method is
            required?
    
        b.  What is the averaging
            time in compliance
            test method?
                         •
    
        c.  Is a compliance
            calculation or
            evaluation required?
            (i.e.,  daily weighted
            average for VDC).
    
        d.  If yes  to "c,"  list
            the formula, period of
    State Submittal
    EPA Requirement
                            Regulation may not
                            automatically allow for
                            self nullification upon
                            redesignation of area
                            to attainment.  New
                            maintenance demonstra-
                            tion required in order
                            to drop regulation.
                            Must not be later than
                            approved or about to
                            be approved date of
                            attainment unless
                            emission reductions not
                            necessary for attain-
                            ment.  In some cases,
                            it will be necessary
                            for the regulation to
                            specify dates in compli-
                            ance schedules that are
                            required to be submitted
                            by source to state.
                            Test method must be
                            explicitly stated.
    
                            Averaging time and
                            application of limit
                            must be explicit.
                            Formula  must be
                            exnl \r\l-
    Approvabilitv (At>   /able or No
    

    -------
    Enforceabi11ty Analysis
    State Submittal
    EPA Requi rement
    Approvability (Approvabie or Not
    4.  Incorporation by Reference
    
        a.  What is state authority
            for rulemaking?
        b.  Are methods/rules
            incorporated by
            reference in the
            right manner.
    5.  Recordkeepi ng
    
        a.  What records are
            required to determine
            compliance?
        b.  In what form or units
            (Ibs/gal, gr/dscf,
            etc.) must the
            records be kept?  On
            what time basis
            (instantaneously,
            hourly, daily)?
        c.  Does the rule affirm-
            atively require the
            records be kept?
                             Clarity
                             Records to be kept
                             must be consistent
                             with units of
                             compliance in the per-
                             formance requirements,
                             including the appli-
                             cable time period.
                             There must be a clear
                             separately enforceable .
                             provision that requires
                             records to be kept.
    

    -------
    Enforceability Analysis
    State Submittal
    FPA Reouirement
    Approvability (Approyab|e or Not)
    6.  Exempt ions
    
        a.  List any exemptions
            allowed.
    
        b.  Is the criteria for
            application clear?
    7.  Malfunction Provisions
                            Must be clearly defined
                            and distinguishable from
                            what constitutes a
                            violation.
                            Rule must specify what
                            exceedances may be
                            excused, how the
                            standard is to be
                            applied, and who makes
                            the determination.
    

    -------
    REFERENCES FOR SECTION 8.3
    

    -------
    •
    I
    ""**
      ll        UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
             ^.            WASHtNGTON. O.C. 20460
             ^.
    
                                    2 I B82
                                                          DFPICEOF
                                                     AIR. NOISE AND RAOUTIGV
    MEMORANDUM
    SUBJECT:  Definition of "Continuous Compliance"
                and Enforcement of O&M Violation*
    P«OM»     Kathleen M. Bennett
              Assistant Adrainistrator^sor Air, Noise  and Radiation
    
    TO i       Directors , Air and Waste  "nagement  Divisions
                Regions I-IV, VI-VIII end X
    
              Directors, Air Management  Divisions
                Regions V and IX
    
    
        The purpose of this memo is to provide you with  some  general
    programmatic guidance as to the meaning of the term  "continuous
    compliance" and the role of operation and maintenance  (O&M)
    requirements in assuring that continuous compliance  is maintained.
    Of course, source specific guidance  on O&M measures  which can
    assure continuous compliance is an essential part of this program
    and this memorandum is not intended  to substitute for  such
    guidance.  As you know, DSSE has undertaken a  number of
    initiatives related to the continuous compliance  effort  and  we
    hope to discuss the progress of those efforts  with you at the
    upcoming workshop at Sou*h«*£TJ ?ine*   DSSE will be forwarding  to
    you an updated summicy cf th». ,s •».ctivici«4S prior  to  the  workshop.
    However, given the cor.itRuing aiw.snt.icn being  given  to
    "continuous compliance," I think it  would be helpful to  have a
    common understanding of what that concept entails.
    
        In the strict legal sense, sources are required  to meet,
    without interruption, all applicable emission  limitations and
    other control requirements, unless  such limitations  specifically
    provide otherwise.  However, of primary concern to the Agency  are
    those violations that could have been prevented,  through the
    installation of proper control  eqv ip~.ent  aac!  the  operation and
    maintenance of that equipment in accordance with  proper
    procedures.  We believe the concept  of  continuous compliance is
    essentially the avoidance of preventable  excess emissions over
    time as a result of the proper design, operation  and maintenance
    of an air pollution source.  .This  includes  avoidance of
    preventable instances of  excess  emissions,  minimisation  of
    

    -------
    emissions during such instances, and the expeditious termination
    of any instances which do occur.
    
        In determining the appropriate enforcement responsji to a
    violation, one factor the Regions should consider is whether the
    source had in place an active program designed to maintain
    continuous compliance.'  Such a program would normally involve one
    or more of the following elements! continuous or periodic
    •elf-monitoring*of emissions; monitoring of operating parameters
    such as scrubber pressure drop, incinerator combustion temperature
    or flow rates; •lintenancc of a spare parts inventory; maintenance
    of spare control •"'•vice modules; and procedures designed to
    correct the types of violations that are most likely to occur.
    Evaluating a violator's O&M program is a necessary step in
    determining the type and degree of relief that an enforcement
    action could be expected to achieve.
    
        Documentation of avoi^tble departures from proper procedures
    as just discussed may be ~&«d not on:? is supporting evidence in
    cases involving emission limit violations, but as primary evidence
    in cases involve.„  illations of O&M requirements specified in
    permits and regulations.  As the Agency continues to place more
    emphasis on O&M requirements in the context of national standards/
    and to encourage States to develop O&M requirements, the
    enforcement program must be adapted to address violations of these
    requirements.  A violation of specified O&M requirements, even in
    the absence of documented emission limit violations, can be an
    appropriate trigger for EPA enforcement response.
    
        In conclusion, evaluation of a source's continuing compliance
    program would be useful both in determining the appropriate Agency
    response to an emission limit violation, and in assessing the
    source's compliance with specified O&M requirements-
    
        If my staff can be of assistance in evaluating specific cases,
    please feel free to call John *?j**nic e~ 382-2826.
    

    -------
                                                    PN 113-83-02-15-011
     •^         UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
     3                    WASHINGTON, O.C. 20460
                               F£3 I 5 1983
                                                          OFFICE OF
                                                     AIM. NOISE AND RADIATION
    MEMORANDUM
    SUBJECT:  Policy on Excess Emissions During Startup,  Shutdown,
              Maintenance/ and Malfunctions
    
    FROM:     Kathleen M. Bennett, Assistant Administrator
                for Air, Noise and Radiation
    
    TO:       Regional Administrators, Regions I-X
    
    
         I have been asked to clarify my memorandum of
    September 28, 1982, concerning policy on excess emissions  during
    startup and shutdown.
    
         Specifically/ I stated that  "startup and shutdown  of
    process equipment are part of the normal operation of a source
    and  should be accounted for in the design and implementation  of
    the  operating procedure for the process and control equipment.
    Accordingly/  it is reasonable to  expect that careful  planning
    will eliminate violations of emission limitations during such
    periods."  I  further stated that  "[i]f excess emissions occur
    during routine startup and shutdown of such equipment,  they
    will be considered as having resulted from a malfunction only
    if the source can demonstrate that such emissions were  actually
    caused by a sudden and unforeseeable breakdown  in the equipment."
    
         A question has been posed as to whether there can  be
    situations in which it is unreasonable to expect  that careful
    planning can  eliminate violations of emission limitations
    during startup and shutdown.  I believe that there can  be  such
    situations.   One such situation,  which was already mentioned
    in the policy, is a malfunction occurring during  these  periods.
    A malfunction during startup or shutdown is to  be handled  as
    any  other malfunction in accordance with the policy  as
    presently written.
    
         Another  situation is one in  which careful  and prudent planning
    and  design will not totally eliminate infrequent  short  periods
    of excesses curing startup and shutdown.  An example  of this
    situation would be a source that  starts up or shuts down once or
    twice  a year  and during that period there are a few  hours  when
    the  temperature of the effluent gas is too low  to prevent  harmful
    
    
                                      113
                                      17-1
    

    -------
     formation  of  chemicals which  would cause severe  damaae  to
     control  equipment -if  the  effluent were allowed to  pals  t£
     the control euiment.                             pass  th
    ar. KTherefJr6:-d?ring  this  latter situation,  if effluent oases
    are bypassed which cause an  emission limitation to be excefdeT
    this excess need not be treated as a violation it *K! «c««a«o,
    is attached.      	P°liCy conc«™i"S this issue.   A copy
    
    
    Attachment
                                  113
                                  17-2
    

    -------
                               Attachment
    
          POLICT ON EXCESS EMISSIONS DURING STARTUP, SHUTDOWN,
                     MAINTENANCE, AND MALFUNCTIONS
    Introduction
    
         Several of the existing State implementation plans (SIPs)
    provide for an automatic emission limitation exemption during
    periods of excess emission due to startup, shutdown, maintenance,
    or malfunction.*  Generally, EPA agrees that the imposition of
    a penalty for sudden and unavoidable malfunctions caused by
    circumstances entirely beyond the control of the owner and/or
    operator is not appropriate.  However,  any activity which can
    be foreseen and avoided, or planned is  not within the definition
    of a sudden and unavoidable breakdown.   Since the SIPs must
    provide for attainment and maintenance  of the national ambient
    air quality standards, SIP provisions on malfunctions must be
    narrowly drawn.  SIPs may, of course, omit any provisions on
    malfunctions.   [For more specific guidance on malfunction
    provisions for RACT SIPs, see the April 1978 workshop manual
    for preparing nonattainment plans].
    
    I.   EXCESS EMISSION FROM MALFUNCTIONS
    
         A.  AUTOMATIC EXEMPTION APPROACH
    
         If a SIP contains a malfunction provision, it cannot be
    the type that provides for automatic exemption where a malfunctior
    is alleged by a source.  Automatic exemptions might aggravate
    air quality so as not to provide for attainment of the ambient
    air quality standards.  Additional grounds for disapproving a
    SIP that includes the automatic exemption approach are discussed
    in more detail at 42 FR 58171 (November 8, 1977) and 42 FR
    21372  (April 27, 1977).  As a result, EPA cannot approve any
    SIP revisions that provides automatic exemptions for malfunctions,
      The  term  "excess emission" means an air emission rate which
      exceeds any applicable emission limitation,  and "malfunction"
      means  a sudden and unavoidable breakdown of process or
      control equipment.
                                    113
                                    17-3
    

    -------
         B.  ENFORG^1£NT DISCRETION APPROACH—SIP EMISSION
             LIMITATION ADEQUATE TO ATTAIN AMBIENT STANDARDS
    
         EPA can approve SIP revisions which incorporate the
    "enforcement discretion approach".  Such an approach can require
    the source to demonstrate to the appropriate State agency that
    the excess emissions, though constituting a violation, were due
    to an unavoidable malfunction.  Any malfunction provision must
    provide for the commencement of a proceeding to notify the
    source of its violation and to determine whether enforcement
    action should be undertaken for any period of excess emissions.
    In determining whether an enforcement action is appropriate,
    satisfaction of the following criteria should be considered.
    
         1.  To the maximum extent practicable the air pollution
    control equipment, process equipment, or processes were maintained
    and operated in a manner consistent with good practice for
    minimizing emissions;
    
         2.  Repairs were made in an expeditious fashion when the
    operator knew or should have known that applicable emission
    limitations were being exceeded.  Off-shift labor and overtime
    must have been utilized, to the extent practicable, to ensure
    that such repairs were made as expeditiously as practicable;
    
         3.  The amount and duration of the excess emissions
    (including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent
    practicable during periods of such emissions;
    
         4.  All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact
    of the excess emissions on ambient air quality; and
    
         5.  The excess emissions are not part of a recurring
    pattern indicative of inadequate design, operation, or maintenance,
    
    II.  EXCESS EMISSIONS DURING STARTUP, SHUTDOWN, AND
         MAINTENANCE
    
         Any activity or event which can be foreseen and avoided,
    or planned, falls outside of the definition of sudden and
    unavoidable breakdown of equipment.  For example, a sudden
    breakdown which could have been avoided by better operation and
    maintenance practice is not a malfunction.  In such cases, the
    control agency must enforce for violations of the emission
    limitation.  Other such common events are startup and shutdown
    of equipment, and scheduled maintenance.
                                  H3
                                  17-4
    

    -------
         Startup and shutdown of process equipment are part of the
    normal operation of a source and should be accounted for in the
    planning, design and implementation of operating procedures for
    the process and control equipment.  Accordingly, it is reasonable
    to expect that careful and prudent planning and design will
    eliminate violations of emission limitations during such periods.
    However, for a few sources there may exist infrequent short
    periods of excess emissions during startup and shutdown which
    cannot be avoided.  Excess emissions during these infrequent
    short periods need not be treated as violations providing that
    the source adequately shows that the excess could not have been
    prevented through careful planning and design and that bypassing
    of control equipment was unavoidable to prevent loss of life,
    personal injury, or severe property damage.
    
         If excess emissions occur during routine startup and
    shutdown due to a malfunction, then those instances will be
    treated as other malfunctions which are subject to the malfunction
    provisions of this policy.  (Reference Part I above).
    
         Similarly, scheduled maintenance is a predictable event
    which can be scheduled at the discretion of the operator, and
    which can, therefore, be made to coincide with maintenance on
    production equipment, or other source shutdowns.  Consequently,
    excess emissions during periods of scheduled maintenance should
    be treated as a violation unless a source can demonstrate that
    such emissions could have been avoided through better scheduling
    for maintenance or through better operation and maintenance
    practices.
                                   113
                                   17-5
    

    -------
    ....*'
                 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    
                            WASHINGTON  O C Z0*60
                                SEP
                                                             OFFICE OF
                                                        AIR, NOISE AND RADIATION
         ^C'p:   Policy on Excess  Emissions Dating Startup, Shutdown,
               Maintenance,  and  Malfunctions    ^      ,,     -77—
                                      v  L I i    '!'\   *'• i /JVK/
    FROM       Kathleen M.  Bennett   •jybt''^f*' ''   *'' "
               Assistant Administrator for Air,  Noise and Radiation
    
    TO?     '   Regional Administrators,  Regions  I-X
    
          This  memorandum is in  response to a request for a
    clarification of EPA's  policy relating to excess emissions
    during  startup,  shutdown, maintenance,  and  malfunctions.
    
          Excess  emission provisions for startup,  shutdown,
    maintenance,  and malfunctions were  often included as part of
    the original SIPs approved  in 1971  and 1972.   Because the
    Agency  was inundated .with  proposed  SIPs and had limited
    experience in processing them,  not  enough attention was given
    to  the  adequacy, enforceability,  and consistency of these
    provisions.   Consequently,  many SIPs were approved with broad
    and  loosely-defined provisions to control excess emissions.
    
          In 1978, EPA adopted  an excess emissions policy after.
    many, less effective attempts to rectify problems that existed
    with  these provisions.   This policy disallowed automatic
    exemptions by defining  all  periods  of excess emissions as
    violations of the applicable standard.   States can, of course,
    consider  any demonstration  by the source that the excess
    emissions  were due to an unavoidable occurrence in determining
    whether any enforcement action is required.
    
          The  rationale for establishing these emissions as
    violations,  as opposed to granting  automatic exemptions,  is
    that  SIPs  are ambient-based standards and any emissions above
    the allowable may cause or contribute to violations of the
    national  ambient air quality standards.  Without clear
    definition and limitations, these automatic exemption
    provisions could effectively shield excess emissions arising
    from  poor operation and maintenance or design, thus precluding
    attainment.   Additionally,  by establishing an enforcement
    discretion approach and by requiring the source to demonstrate
    the existence of an unavoidable malfunction on the source, good
    maintenance procedures are indirectly encouraged.
    

    -------
                                  -2 •
    
                  is a document stating F.PA'n pros^nc policy on
    excess emissions.  This document basically reiterates  the
    earlier policy, with some refinement of the policy regarding
    excess "missions during period? of scheduled mai n tana nee.
         A question has also been raised as to rfhdt extent
    operating permits can be used to address excess emissions  in
    cases where the SIP is silent on this issue or where the SIP  is
    deficient.  Where the SIP is silent on excess emissions, the
    operating permit may contain excess emission provisions which
    should be consistent with the attached policy.  Where the  SIP
    is deficient, the SIP should be made to conform to the present
    policy.  Approval of the operating permit as part of the SIP
    would accomplish that result.
    
         If you have any questions concerning this policy, please
    contact Ed Reich at (382-2807).
    
    Attachment
    

    -------
                              At tflohir.en i.
           *s -
        POLICY C.V EXCESS LMSSICNS Dl.'RU-"3  bTAf:T  U'• •  £t'l,"rrc'..>, ,
                    MAIHTTNANCr, ANT, f-.y. r FUNCT TO?^- .
    
         Several of the exifttiro SI..MH  urp J *?c>er -i.*': ion  plans (i.IFs>
    preside for an autcr-attc erissior  1 a n 11. «•-, t. i or. exer.'ption uurir.c
    periods of excess ernssicn due to  stfirt-ur,  shutdown,
    maintenance, or ralfunction. *  Generally,  EPA  agrees  that  ths
    imposition of a penalty for sudden  and unavoidable
    malfunctions caused by circumstances entirely  beyond  the
    control of the owner and/or operator is not  appropriate.
    However, any activity which can be  foreseen  and  avoided, or
    planned is not within the definition of a  sudden and
    unavoidable breakdown.  Since the  SIPs must  provide for
    attainment and maintenance of the  national ambient air quality
    standards, GIF provisions on malfunctions  must be  narrowly
    drawn.  EIPs may, of course, onit  any  provision  on
    malfunctions.  [For more specific  guidance on  malfunction
    provisions for RACT SIPs, see the  April 1978 workshop  manual
    for preparing nonattainment plans . ]
    
    I.   AUTOMATIC EXEMPTION APPROACH
    
         If a SIP contains a malfunction provision,  it cannot  be
    the type that provides for automatic exemption where  a
    malfunction is alleged by a source.  Automatic exemptions
    might aggravate air quality so as  not  to provide for
    attainment of the ambient air quality  standards.  Additional
    grounds for disapproving a SIP that includes the automatic
    exemption approach are discussed in more  detail  at 42  FR  58171
    (November 8, 1977) and 42 FR 21372 (April  27,  1977).   As a
    result, EPA cannot approve any SIP revision  that provides"
    automatic exemptions for malfunctions.
    
    II.  ENFORCEMENT DISCRETION APPROACH—SIP  EMISSION LIMITATION
         ADEQUATE TO ATTAIN AMBIENT STANDARDS
    
         EPA can approve SIP revisions which  incorporate  the
    "enforcement discretion approach".  Such  an  approach  can
    require the source to demonstrate  to the  appropriate  State
    agency that the excess emissions,  though  constituting a
    violation, were due to an unavoidable  malfunction.  Any
    malfunction provision must provide for the commencement of a
    proceeding to notify the source of its violation and  to
    determine whether enforcement action should  be undertaken  for
    any period of excess emissions.  In determining  whether an
    enforcement action is appropriate,  satisfaction  of the
    following criteria should be considered:
    * The term  "excess  emission"  means  an air emission rate which
      exceeds any  applicable  emission limitation,  and
      "malfunction"  means  a sudden  and  unavoidable breakdown of
      process or control equipment.
    

    -------
          i.  To  the maximum  extent  practicable  liu'  -*ir pollution
    control equipment, process  equipment,  or procossc-n were
    maintained and operated  .in  a  manner  rons i.s '•-»'•> t  'vilh goo-1
          re for minimizing  emissions:
          .?   Repairs were made  i,i  an  expeditious*  fashion when  ti>i
    operator knew or should have known  that  applicable  emission
    limit-aliens were being exceeded.  Off-shift labor and overtime
    must have been utilized,  to the extent practicable,  to ensure
    that- such repairs were made as expeditiously  as  practicable;
    
         J.  The amount and duration  of the  excess emissions
    (including any bypass) were minimized to the  maximum extent
    practicable during periods of  such  emissions;
    
         4.  All possible steps were  taken to minimize  the impact
    of the excess emissions on ambient  air quality;  and
    
         5.  The excess emissions  are not part of a  recurring
    pattern indicative of inadequate  design, operation,  or
    maintenance.
    
    III. EXCESS EMISSIONS DURING START-UP, SHUTDOWN, AND
         MAINTENANCE
    
         Any activity or event which  can be  foreseen and avoided,
    or planned, falls outside of the  definition of sudden and
    unavoidable breakdown of  equipment.  Fpr example, a  sudden
    breakdown which could have been avoided  by better operation
    and maintenance practices is not  a  malfunction.  In  such
    cases, the control agency must enforce for violations of the
    emission limitation.  Other such  common  events are  start-up
    and shutdown of equipment, and scheduled maintenance.
    
         Start-up and shutdown of  process equipment  are  part of
    the normal operation of a source  and should be accounted for
    in the design and implementation  of the  operating procedure
    for the process and control equipment.   Accordingly, it is
    reasonable to expect that careful planning will  eliminate
    violations of emission limitations  during such periods.
    
         If excess emissions  occur during routine start-up and
    shutdown of such equipment, they  will be considered  as having
    resulted from a malfunction only  if the  source can  demonstrate
    that such emissions were  actually caused by a sudden and
    unforeseeable breakdown in  the equipment.
    
         Similarly, scheduled maintenance  is a predictable event
    which can be scheduled at the  discretion of the  operator,  and
    which can therefore be made to coincide  with  maintenance on
    

    -------
    production equipment, or other soue/cr  shutdowns.
    Consequently, excess emissions during  periods  ot:  scheduled
    maintenance should be treated as a  violation  unless a souv:^
    can demonstrate that such emissions  could  not  have been
    avoided through better scheduling for  maintenance or hhcoirjh
    bet »:«'• operation and maintenance pracfices-
    

    -------
           UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                         WASHINGTON. O.C
    
                           March S, 137*
    STJ3JZC7:  Snergy Eaergency Tasfc Force? Isplesentatian of
              Section 110 (f) of the Clean -Air Act
              — ACTION H5SQSAH30H
    
    F50.1:     Assistant Adainistsatcr far S
                                                            1* yvi
              Assistant Acnini strata? for Air, Xois«
              mt uttitien
    TO:       Ti« Administrator
         5u^3aris«4 b«low is backsrounc infcrration  and  cro^csac
    ragional guidance on responding to an  energy  ececgency  under
    Section 112(f).  W« are also initiating develsr^snt  of  an
    emergency elan and iacles'-.tation guidance- (as aecroociata)
    to -ainlsiza adverse en-rir'..cental effects  which  could rescit-
    fron a gasoline shortage,  ^e will forward the gasoline
    ecergency jlra to you in the future.
    
    t.   COS/5?.*. :7orkir.c Relations
    
         The Departaent of energy  (COS) has established  an
    Snergy Saergency Center to coordinate  the  federal government
    response to crisis situations resulting froc  energy  erergsnc
    Although the center was initiated under the impetus  of  the
    c:^7 strike, it would be the coordinating  agent  in any  energy
    emergency.  £3& has also established an ad hoc  tnergy
    Zaergoncy Tasic Force to coordinate ETA's  response to a
    crisis.  E7A's- Offices of Enforceaent, Air, Noise and
    Radiation, General Counsel,, and Federal Activities are
    represented, on the task force.  E3A's  contact with CCS'a
    Snsrgy Emergency Center is Mrs. Tvonns Allen, Oirector  cf
    the Center  (202-252-5155) .  COE's contact with  S2A's Snargy
    Zsergency TasJc Force is Hs..!-!artha Prothro (alternate:
    Hr. Leiden 3lake)._of, the Division of Stationarv Source
    anforcefoent:  (DSS2 - FTS 7S5-2S23) .
    

    -------
         Ms-. Allen has advised that coal supply  information
    (quantity/ quality/ and number of days of fuel supply) wi
    be available from DOB: (1) weekly for utilities en"a State-
    wide basis (approximately 10-day-oid data)r  (2) daily for
    specific utilities that DOS has determined ta have a criti-
    cally short coal supply; and  (3) weekly for industrial cca
    burners on a State-wide basis.  In addition, DCS can advise
    EPA of State actions ta conserve and minimise- consumption c.
    the fuel in short supply and federal actions to provide for
    interconnections to assure that electrical power will be
    transferred to areas most in need.  Although this infcraa-
    tion is specific for coal, this guidance is to be used in
    any energy emergency.  Coal availability indorsation would
    be useful for sources presently burning oil or gas but whic:
    have coal burning capability in the event of a shortage of
    oil or gas.
    
         DOS has established a formal day-to-day contact in. Jac.
    Watson's office during energy emergencies in order to
    expedite the flow of information, between EPA, DOE, and the
    White House.  DOE and EPA have- also.agreed ta maintain da.il
    contact during such emergencies.
    
    XX.  Petitions for Energy Emergency Declarations under
         Section 11Q{£) or ene. Clean Aar Acr
    
         Section llQ(f) provides that emergency SX3 suspensions
    may be granted in accordance with the following:
    
         (1) de owner or operator of fuel burning- stationary
             source applies ta the state fcr relief*
    
         (2) The Governor- gives notic* and opportunity fcr
             public hearing on- the proposed, petieion.
    
         (3) She- Governor finds, thats
    
             (a)   an emergency exists in the vicinity of the s-
                   involving high levels of unemployment, or
                   loss* of necessary energy supplies fcr resi-
                   dential, dwellings; and
    
             (b)   such unemployment or loss can be totally cr
                   partiiliy alleviated by an emergency  suspes-
                   £ioa of State Implementation  Plan           -
                   applicable to that sourcs*
    

    -------
                            -3-
    
         (4) The Governor petitions the President to declare
             that a national or regional energy emergency exis^
             of such severity that:
    
             (a)   a temporary suspension of any part of the
                   applicable implementation plan may be neces-
                   sary; aad
    
             (b)   other me ins of responding to the energy
                   emergency may be inadequate.
    
         (3) Tie President determines that a national or regional
             energy emergency exists. (This authori.ty say not be
             red•legated.)
    
         (6) The Governor may issue an emergency suspension to
             the source which may take effect immediately.  Hot
             more than one such suspension say be issued to a.
             source) based on the same se.t of circumstances or en
             the basis of the same emergency.  'Suspensions are
             limited in duration by any time limit the President
             places on his determination, and in any case say
             not exceed four months.
    
         (7) SPA Administrator may raviev the Governor's suspen-
             sion and disapprove it if he determines that it
             does not satisfy the criteria set'forth in (2)
             above.  If the 2PA Administrator issues a disap-
             proval, order, he will specify therein the date on
             which the Governor's suspension shall no longer be
             effective-.
                       •
         (3) This procedure does not apply to a plan revision
             promulgated by the Administrator pursuant to
             Section 110(c) (such as for'sulfur oxides in Ohio).
             The- President^ however, nay grant up* to a four
             month suspension of a State Implementation Plan
             promulgated by the Administrator  if he makes  the
             findings in (2) and (4) above..
    
         Whenever a Governor petitions the -President for a
    declaration of an energy emergency- under Section llfl(f)^ w«
    suggest that SPA make the following  recommendations:
    

    -------
    A.   Conservation measures;
                      
    -------
    0.   Limitations on tir.e and area covered bv err.errer.cv
         declaration;                                    ~
    
         2?A should recommend that emergency declarations be as
    precise as possible, especially as to the area affected, ca
    allow boch an adequate response to true emergencies ar.d an
    adequate opportunity to reevaluate the situation as events
    develop*
    
    III. S3 A Hesoonse to SI? Suscenaions Issued bv Governors
         under Section 110 (e) or the Clean Air Act
    
    A.   Public hearines;
         <«« strongly urge- that, whenever possible,  the Regional
    Office actively participate in any public hearing hela under
    llQ(f).  SSA's participation will be. useful for two reasons.
    First, it will, help to ensure that the public health  impacts
    of alternative mitigative measured will be considered in the
    decision maJcing process.  Second , it will give  us the
    opportunity to establish on the record early in the process
    that blanket 313 suspensions throughout a State may cot be
    acceptable and that the findings recuired by
    Section 110 (f ) (2) (AJ- and (S)-of the Act must. be made  for
    each source to be coverec by the suspension.  Therefore,
    Regional Offices should testify generally that  EPA recognize
    and will cooperate in attempting to ease the impact of fuel
    shortages but that, because the health problems which could
    result frcr- suspending- air quality standards are a grave
    concern, suspensions should not be granted lightly.   The
    spokesperson should also advise that temporary  energy
    emergency suspensions should be issued on a source-specific
    basis and only where the findings required by Section
    llQ(f)(2}(A) and (3) have be-ea made.
                       •
         The purpose of the public hearing required in Section
    110(f) is, in part, to provide a factual record for  the
    Governor and EPA to use in. determining whether  temporar?
    suspension of portions of the implementation plan  are
    justified.  As a minimum , the public hearing should  cover
    the following:
    
         (1)  the nature and extent of  the energy  eaerger.cy;
    
         (2}  current and projected unemployment  impacts associ-
              ated with the energy emergency;
    

    -------
          (3)  current and projected loss of necessary energy
              supplies for residential use associated wits the
              energy emergency;
    
          (4)  alternative strategies for reducing the adverse
              impacts of the energy emergency and the conse-
              quences of these strategies on unemployment
              and on residential energy supply;
    
          (5)  amount of energy savings expected to result from
              temporary suspension of portions of the iaclemen-
              tat ion plan;
    
          (€)  to the extent possible, pollutant emission levels
              both before and after the proposed temporary
              suspension of portions of the. implementation plan;
              and
    
          (7)  to the extent possible/*preliminary assessment of
              the air quality and health effect impacts of the
              proposed temparary_suspensicn of portions of the
              implementation plan.
    
         Information- provided ca items (5) through (7) should,
    whenever possible, include source by source data, for those
    souress which, because of their location, the nature and
    quantity of their emissions, the density of peculation in
    the area, or other reasons, we might reasonably anticipate
    would have an unacceptably adverse impact on public heaiih
    should they be included under a temporary suspension ceter-
    mination,
    
         Because of the emergency nature of this process, it is
    unlikely that: the public will be given much notics (prob*blv
    less  than one weejc) prior to a bearing.  Accordingly, it
    will be useful for those Regions lively to be affected to
    begin to oreoare a position on SI? suspensions on a priority
    basis for each State within the Region.  Sfforts* should
    begin immediately to evaluate possible adverse air qua I if
    iaaacts with.in States expected to initiate the Section
    110{f) process as soon as necessary.  Clearly, any air
    cualitv analyses cone as part of this effort will be cursor/
    and can only be intended to oegin a screening process.
    Unless recant atsospneric discersion modeling analyses.ror
    particular areas or"sources has been done  for other reasons,
    simple rollback (rollforward) estimates will have to suffice
    

    -------
                         -7-
       tae oasis oc a±ert episode cays.  Source impacts saov
    be screened on the basis of size, degree of reliance on
    affected fuel, emission density, stack heights, etc.
    
         The general purpose of this analysis is to identify
    those specific areas or particular sources where a suszer,
    of the SI? would be nost likely to have severe air quality
    impacts and resultant severe public health effects.  It
    would be most desirable to coordinate this effort to the
    maximum extent possible with the appropriate State acency
    since the State will sake the initial decision on the
    case-by-case SI? suspensions*
    
    3.   Recional Resronsibilities Following SI? Suspension
         Decisions
    
         Tae Regional Office should maintain a current listing
    of all individual sources that are granted a. suspension on a
    day-to-day basis.  Each source granted a suspension should
    be contacted by the Regional Office to determine the specific
    course of action wfaicn the source intends to take in response
    to the suspension.  Such information will facilitate a
    better assessment of the potential air quality impacts that.
    can be expected.
    
         The Regional Office should ensure that every effort is
    made to process at leasr daily data front all avilable
    ambient monitoring networks in and around those areas where
    SI?  suspensions have been granted... To the extent that
    resource*"constraints limit this effort, highest priority
    should be placed on those areas that are most likely to
    reacn episode levels based upon.historical ambient air
    equality and the- number, concentration, and size of sources
    granted SI? suspensions in the area..  The Regional Office.
    should notify the Division of Stationary Source- Enforcement
    (DSSE) and the Office of. Air Quality Planning and Standards
    (OAQPS) when air pollution concentrations in areas affected
    by SI? suspensions are exceeding dangerous levels  (i.e./
    episode alert levels and higher). . It is likely that timely
                                                            303
    of the Clean Air Act or to reconssend  that  the  President
    rescind or not extend his emergency declarations  for a
    specific area..
    

    -------
                            -fi-
    
         de EPA Administrator say disapprove a suspension
    issued by a Governor only in those limited situations in
    which the suspension does not meet the requirements of
    Section 110(2)(2)(A) and (3) of the Clean Air Act (i.e
    where high levels of uneapiovraent and loss of necessary
    energy supplies for residential dwellings do not exist or
    the unemployment or loss cannot be totally or partially
    alleviated by  the SIS suspension).  In order to assure that
    suspensions apply only to sources experiencing an emergence,
    EPA should act quickly to disapprove suspensions covering
    sources for which the necessary findings cannot be-cade.
    The 'authority  to disapprove suspensions should be delegated
    to the Regional Administrators, with EPA headquarters
    concurrence, la order to assure expedited action.  (A
    delegation of  Section U0(f)(3) authority is included Li tie
    attached eeaorandua to the Regional Adninistrators for your
    signature*)
    
         Regional Offices should give'high priority ta reviewing
    any actual suspension issued by Governors to assure that
    they are consistent with the criteria set forth in Section
    110(f)(2)(A) and (8).  Reviews should focus on sources in
    those areas (and, where known, major sources) for which DCi
    has determined,, based on'available supplies and possible
    interconnections, that the emergency is less critical.  CSSZ
    will keep the  Regional Offices informed of DCE's deterr.i-z~
    tions and will request DOS determinations as necsssary tc
    enable Regional Offices to set proper priorities ccr ravi-ws
    of SI? suspensions.
    
         The memorandum attached for your signature direct each
    Regional Adainistratar to designate a, contact for energy
    emergency information.  DSSS's Regional Programs Section
    will contact Regional Office designers each- day to obtain
    information for inclusion in a daily status chart.  DSS2
    will be primarily responsible for contacting the Regional
    Offices ta request specific information, for answering any
    Regional questions, and for receiving and disseminating
    necessary data ta appropriate Regional and headquarters
    Offices.
    
    IV.  E?A Response to Inquiries frca States and Sources
    
         Generally, 'inquiries can be expected ta fall within ^a
    categories listed below.  .Suggested Regional Office respcr.sa*
    are Indicated.
    

    -------
    A.   Source inquiries about possible suspension of State
    promulgated implementation plan:
    
         Response:  Only the Governor can suspend such a sip.
    Source may petition Governor to petition the President for a
    5110(2) emergency declaration.  ESA will not ccncur in
    relaxation of environmental regulations prior to a declara-
    tion under $110(f)..
    
    B*   Source inquiries about possible suspension of federally
    promulgated SI?:
    
         Response":  The President has not delegated his aathority
    to suspend such a SIS.  Sources aay direct petitions to the
    President but should send copies to the Adainistrator and
    Regional Administrator to assure quick response.-  Source
    must present information to allov the President to determine:
    (1) that an energy emergency exists in the vicinity of the
    source of such severity that, a temporary suspension of any
    part of the SI? aay be necessary and other Beans of re-
    sponding may be inadequate; (2) that there exists is the
    vicinity of such source a temporary energy emergency in-
    volving high levels of unemployment or loss of necessary
    energy supplies for residential dwellings; and (3) that suci
    loss, or- unemployment can be totally or partially alleviated
    by a Sir suspension.  (DSSE should be notified immediately
    of any expected petitions for suspension of federally
    promulgated SI?'s.)
    
    C.   Source or State inquiries about possible suspension of
    non-512 federal air pollution control requirements (e.g.,
    Hew Source Performance Standardsr interim requirements in
    federal orders or consent decrees/ etc.):
    
         Response:  There is no statutory authority for emergency
    suspension of non-513 requirements, since SllO(f) relates
    only to S13'a.  If, however, a determination of an emergency
    has been made under SHQ(f) relative to SI3's, 2PA will
    exercise enforcement discretion  on a case-by-case basis in
    dealing with non-313 situations.  Where the findings necas-
    sary for a SI3 suspension could  not have been made  in  a
    specific case, EPA will enforce  the applicable requirements
    and "ill seek appropriate penalties.  Where those  findings
    could be made for a source subject to non-513 federal
    requirements, E3A will generally refrain from enforcing ar
    seejcing penalties based on a source's nonconclianca -here
    

    -------
                            -10-
    
    all other possible steps are being taken to comply and whe-»
    violation results from efforts to minimize the impacts of 12
    emergency on hi^h levels of unemployment or loss cf nec«ssa~
    energy supplies to residences.  A commitment not to enfcr-»""
    may be made only ia writing to a specific source and only "
    with the concurrence of the Division of Stationary Source
    Enforcement. In no event may a source be exempt from possibT£
    action under Section 303 of the Clean Air Act.  It is
    unlikely that any relaxation of incremental compliance
    schedules will be appropriate.
    
    D.   Source, or Stats inquiries about possible suspension of
    federal rec^iirements for water pollution control:
    
         Besponse:  If, based oa the provisions of Section
    110(f) of the Clean Air Act, a proclamation is made and
    petitions for relief frcm NPCES requirements, are received,
    the Regional Office should immediately contact the Office cf
    Water Enforcement for guidance.  .The following conditions
    for temporary modification of individual discharge permits
    will generally applyi
    
         1*   Oa a case-by-case- basisr ESA will review written
              applications for relief frcm individual permit
              conditions to determines
    
              a*  the specific pessit conditions which the
                  discharger wishes to have amended temporarily;
    
              b.  the specific energy savings frcm, each suspec-
                  sioa. of water treatment activity;*
              c.  additional steps the permittee is taking to
                  reduce total plant energy consumption?
    
              d«  the anticipated environmental damage which
                  will result frcm the cessation of all or
                  portions of the treatment, process;
         ««  other area wide energy conservation measures
    
    2.   Ezcept where- a balancing test would dictate a
         contrary result, written recuests will be disap-
         proved if-they petition for relief from the fcl-
         1 ff*t i -t? •
              lowing:
    

    -------
                          -li-
    
              ft.  a requirement which, if suspended, would
                  result in short-term suspension of current
                  treataent activity and which would result Is
                  lang-tera environmental damage r
    
              b.  a requirement limiting the discharge of toxic
                  substances (H5DC, etc.);
    
              c.  the construction steps which are ia their
                  compliance ached ales;
    
              d.  disinfection requirements where water is used
                  for swimming or food processing, etc.
    
         Za all cases, relief may be granted using prosecutoria
    discretion and the Regions, will issue legally enforceable
    documents, which recjuire full compliance at the end of the
    emergency period.  These documents, will, also require in-
    creased levels- of monitoring and reporting ia order ta
    safeguard the environment:.
    
    T-   Recommendation
    
         We; recommend, that you siga the attached memorandum, to
    the Regional Administrators which emphasizes that ETA's-
    respcnse to an emergency must be handled as the highest
    Agency priority.
    Marrin, B. Durning                 David G. >&awicinai
    
    Attachments
    
    cc: OGEr attaa Ms. Tvonne Allen
    

    -------
       *  UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    
                        WASHINGTON, O.C 23*60
    
    
                            March 6,  1379
    
    
                                                        TXC ACMIMIS77
    TO:       Regional Administrators, Regions Z-X
    
    Sw3JSCr:  Response to Energy Emergency; lapleaer.tation of
              Section 110 (f) of the Clean Air Act, as .\rended
    
    
         The ?.egibnii Offices should place highest priority on
    responding to any energy emergency which aay  ariaa and
    iaplesentisg E?A's responsibilities under Section 110 (f) cf
    the Clean Air Act.  Each Regional Administrator  should taks
    action to iapleraent the guidance and rscoasendaticns  set
    forth in the attached aeaorandus to ca froa Mr.  Sursiag ac-
    Mr.
         The Clean Air Act provides that I =ay di sapor ore
    51? suspension which £ determine does not ccaply vith
    Section" 110 (f) (2) (A) and  (3) of the Clean Air Act.  To
    assure that disapprovals of inappropriate suspensions are
    expedited,  I hereby delegate to the" Regional Ad-inis tracers
    isr authority under Section 110 (f ) (3) to disapprove  suspen-
    sions- issued by Governors.  This authority cay  be exercisec
    by the Regional Administrators only with the prior  concur-
    rence, of the Assistant Adninistrator for Znforcecent and
    the Assistant Administrator for Air, Xoise and  Radiation.
    Concurrence froa  the Office of Znforceaent and  the  Office cf
    Air,. 3ois«  and Radiation should be requested and will be
    given by telephone through the designated S?A headquarters
    contact.  I have  designated Ms. Martha Prothro  (FTS 7Si-252;
    of the Division of Stationary Sourca Enforcement as the E5.\
    Seadcuarters- contact on all Section 110 (f) matters.
    Us. Prothro's alternate is Mr. Weldon Slake  (FTS 755-2542).
    Each Regional Adainirtrator should designate a  regional
    contact and alternate and the contact should, call
    Ms. Frothro as soon as possible.
    

    -------
                                -2-
                   on te
    «n«r9Y emergency plan to
             the cevelocment
              environcental
     ?«oline shortage.   I
                 cuicJanceif
                                                          an
                            Couglas K. Ccatle
    Attacfaaent,
    
    cc: Decartaent of Snerey
    

    -------
    \ ^7£ I   UNITED.STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    
                                WASHINGTON. O.C 20««0
                                                                     IMC AOMIMISTJUTQft
    
                                    JUL   21379
          MEMORANDUM
          TO:         Regional Administrators, Regions I-X
    
          SUBJECT:    Supplement  to the Memorandum of March 6,  1979, Regarding
                     Implementation of Section 110(f) of the Clean Air Act
    
    
               On March 6,  1979,* I sent to the Regional Administrators guidance on
          implementing Section 110(f) of the Clean Air Act. Since that time
          headquarter's staff has clarified the informational  requirements for
          adequately addressing  Section 110(.f) issues-and .has  also developed a
          policy concerning the  use of price differentials between low and high
          sulfur, fuel oils  in Section 110(f) proceedings.  Each Regional
          Administrator should take action to implement the supplemental guidance
          and recommendations set forth in the attached memorandum to me from
          Mr.  Dunning and Mr. Hawkins.
    
               I have designated Mr. Paul Stolpman (phone: 426-2482) as the
          headquarters contact on the analysis needed to support all 110(f)
          actions.   Mr. Stolpman's alternate 1s Mr. George Suglyama
          (phone: 426-2432).  Action on the 110(f) applications remains as
          set forth 1n previous  guidance.
                                                      Douglas H. Costic
    
          Attachment
    

    -------
           UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    
                            WASHINGTON. O.C 20460
                               JUK 1 9 1979
                                                                 T»C AOMIHISTRA7C.
    
    SUBJECT:  Supplemental  Guidance  Regarding  Implementation of Section 110(f)
              of the Clean  A1r Act - ACTION MEMORANDUM
    
    FROM   :  Assistant Administrator for A1r, Noise, and
    
              Assistant Administrator for Enforcement
    
    TO     :  The Administrator
    
    
         Regional guidance  on responding to an energy emergency under Section
    110(f) was Issued on March 6,  1979.  Since that time the President has
    declared a regional energy emergency '1n Florida; Connecticut and Hew York
    have held hearings on low sulfur fuel oil availability; and the President
    has instructed EPA to use full authority to take price differentials Into
    account in making recommendations on Section 110(f) waiver requests.  Basec
    on our experience subsequent to  the Section 110(f) regional cuidancs we no
    propose the following supplemental guidance detailing 'informa.rion necsssar>
    for determining the existence  of an .energy emergency and policy  guidance en
    the extent to which price differentials are to be incorporated in a waiver
    recommendation.
    
    
    I.  Policy on Price Differentials
    
        The President, In his April  5, 1979, energy address* directed the
    Administrator to "consider unusually large increases In the price
    differential between complying and non-complying fuels as a basis for
    recommending approval of state suspension  requests" and to 'use  his
    full authority to take  into account price  differentials and to provide
    the President with information on price differential Increases when making
    recommendations to him  on such requests."  This directive does not  imply
    that states must make a price  differential case when petitioning for
    Section 110(f) waivers.  It does allow the Administrator to consider
    price differentials whenever a state makes such a case.
    
         On June 7. 1979, the State  of New York held hearings on a request  by a
    public utility for a Section 110(f) SIP suspension of the low sulfur fuel
    oil. requirement^  The issue before New York was not based on an  actual
    unavailability of complying low  sulfur fuel oil but was based on whether
    the high price of complying fuel oil relative to non-complying fuel oil
    was sufficient justification for a SIP suspension.  EPA was requested
    by Mew York to provide  policy  guidance on  this issue.
    

    -------
                                         -2-
    
         Prlce differentials between complying and non-corapTying fuel  oils ma
    provide a sufficient justification  for a SIP suspension only when  such
    differentials actually cause (or are anticipated to cause) the effects
    of an energy emergency listed in Section 110(f)(2), i.e.. high levels of
    unemployment or a loss of necessary energy supplies for residential
    dwellings and such effects could be totally or partially alleviated by
    an emergency suspension.
    
         Whenever It appears that price differentials nay become part  of the
    basis or the basis of a Governor's  petition to the President for a
    declaration of an energy emergency, Regional Administrators should make
    every effort to assure that the state develops an adequate record  en the
    impact of price differentials.  Recommendations to the President concerning
    petitions for an energy emergency shall not be based on price differentials
    in the absence of an adequate record establishing the Impact of such price
    differentials.  Further, 1n exercising the Section 110(f)(3) disapproval
    authority EPA shall examine  he price.differential impact of a SIP
    suspension to determine its continued validity and act accordingly.
    During the period of a suspension,  price differentials and the impacts
    of price differentials will be monitored by EPA to determine the continued
    validity of a price differential basis for a SIP suspension.
    
    II.  Information Hecessary to Document the Existence of An Energy  Emergen
    
         The following list of information needs Is an expansion of those gen
    items listed In  paragraph III (A) on pages 5 and 5 of the March 6, 1979,
    regional guidance.  As the record of any EPA decision or recommendation
    regarding a Section 110(f) waiver request will be primarily the state's
    record, a concerted effort should be made to assure that such record
    contains the following Information  as well as any available information
    on the Issues listed in paragraph III(A).  Although EPA should provide
    assistance 1n developing the state's record, the responsibility of provider
    this Information rests with the state and the source.
    
         1.  Identities of affected or  potentially affected parties*  including:
    
             (a)  parties claiming a shortage together with the basis of
             their claims,
    
             (b)  affected customers (ultimate users), and
    
             (c)  suppliers (potential  or actual) to parties  experiencing
             shortages or cutbacks.
    
         2.  Information concerning the amount and duration of ah expected
    shortage including:
    
             (a)  monthly demand for two calendar quarters before and aftar
             a SIP suspension,
    

    -------
                                       -3-
    
             (b)  projected  shortfall of conforming fuel for the period in
             Item (a).
    
             (c)  any circumstances affecting a shortage, such as abnormal
             weather conditions
    
             (d)  unanticipated changes in supply, demand, or availability cf
             transportation.
    
         3.  A summary of the current Inventories of the various parties
    affected, including the  following Information:.
    
             (a)  by type and sulfur content
    
             (b)  storage capacity/blending capacity
    
             (c)  historical comparison of "supplies/inventory over last
             2 years
    
             (d}  desulfurization capacity and a historical summary
             of such capability, including any recent (3 year) changes
             in desulfurization capacity.
    
         4;  Information on  alternative supplies of available conforming fuel
    and documentation of those steps taken to locate such fuels.  An adequate
    documentation will  include a list of all suppliers contacted (including
    date of contact and mode of contact), the response of each supplier
    contacted, copies of correspondence with the suppliers (including  telephone
    logs), and any other memoranda, notes, or reports evidencing the
    availability or unavailability of fuel oil.
    
         5.  Information on  the availability of other fuel supplies which
    though not conforming represent a minimal increase In sulfur levels
    (i.e., IS sulfur content versus 0.32 sulfur content).
    
         6.  A summary of the contractual arrangements between various parties,
    suppliers and users and  a description of the available options  in  the
    event of a fuel oil shortage.
    
         7.  What actions have been taken or considered  to mitigate the
    environmental, energy, and employment impacts  of the shortage situation
    or to conserve conforming  fuel  (mandatory or voluntary)?  Examples of
    such measures may be conservation measures, voltage  reductions.
    thermostat reductions, wheeling and  the  substitution of natural  gas  for
    oil.  The amount of conforming  fuel  oil  saved  by each measure -should be
    detailed.
    
         8.  Which facilities may  have  to close down as  a result of the
    shortages?  What is the  potential  impact on employment  in the area?
    
         9.'  Which facilities  can  convert  to  alternate fuels?  What is the
    lead time necessary for these  facilities  to convert?
    

    -------
         10.  How will  SIP suspensions alleviate the shortage?
              (a)  what 1s the present SIP limitation on fuel use
              (b)  what would the new requirement be if the SIP is suspended.
              (c)  how  much conforming fuel would be saved.
              (d)  can  anything within the existing SIP be done to wholly or
              partially alleviate the shortage.
              (e)  What steps will  the state undertake to mitigate environ-
              mental impacts.
              (f)  can  a fuel user blend conforming and non-conforming fuels
              to minimize any local environmental impact of using non-
              conforming fuels?
       11.    Which sources would violate NAAQS if the emissions limitations
    are suspended?  What is the present attainment status in the affected areas?
         With regard to a request for a 110(f) suspension based on price
    differentials the following additional information would be requiredr
         1.  A discussion of fuel prices, including:
             (a)  a one year history of prices paid for conforming fuel,
             under contract or on the spot market.
             (b)  the prices of non-conforming fuels by sulfur content.
             (c)  the prices of any available alternative fuels the use  of
             which would not require a suspension.
         2.  The impact of price differentials of complying fuels relative  to
    non-complying fuels (at various sulfur levels) on unemployment (e.g.* layoffs
    plant closures) and residential energy supplies, including:
             (a)  a examination of various sulfur content fuels and alternative
             fuels.
             (b)  the mitigating effects of conservation eeasures and the
             substitution of natural gas for oil.
    III.  Recotmtendation
             recommend  that you sign the attached memorandum to the Regional
     dminstrators.
                                                            -   o «A* i
    David S. Hawkins                          Marvin B. Ourning
    

    -------
    REFERENCES FOR SECTION 8.4
    

    -------
                                                    PN 113-88-03-31-048
                  UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                            WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
                                   3 1 MAR
                                                             AIR AND RADIATION
    MEMORANDUM
    
    SUBJECT:
    
    FROM:
    TO:
    Transmittal of Reissued OAQ
    
    Gerald A. Emison, Direct;
    Office of Air Quality
                                                 Standards
    Air and Waste Management Division Director
    Region II
    
    Air Management Division Directors
    Region I, III 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 (CEMS) data.  This policy was originally
    issued on July 28, 1937.  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 SC>2 CEMS 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 S02 sources subject to
    CEMS requirements.  Specifically, these sources are to be
    identified, and their compliance status determined with
    respect to CEMS 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
    CEMS 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, OAR
         Bruce Armstrong, OPAR
         Paul M. Stolpman, OPAR
         Michael S. Alushin, A ED
         Alan W. Eckert, OGC
         CEMS Technical Coordinators
    

    -------
                 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                               WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
                                  3 1 MAR 1988
                                                               OFFICE OF
                                                             Alft AND RADIATION
    SUBJECT:  GEMS Policy
    
    APPROVED: Gerald A. Emison, Direct?      _  __
              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 (CEMS) data and provides  specific guidance as to how
    that policy should be implemented.
    
    Definition
    
         CEMS 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 recordfceeping 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 CEMS, OAQPS has found  that CEMS 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 S(>2 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 C1MS
    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, 0 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, GEMS should be used to monitor the
    continuous compliance of NSPS and PSD sources in attainment
    areas.  Sources with excessive emission limit excursions
    identified by GEMS data should be targeted for follow-up
    action (on-site inspection or $114 letter).  Vtiere GEMS is
    the compliance test method, GEMS 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 GEMS data - direct
    compliance monitoring data and excess emissions monitoring data.
    Where GEMS is the compliance test method, the status of the
    source is established and documented by GEMS data.  Compliance
    status determined by GEMS 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.
    

    -------
    REFERENCES FOR SECTION 8.5
    

    -------
                                 August 25,  1988
    NOTE TO JERRY EMISON
    
    
    SUBJECT:  Gibson County, Indiana,  SOg Plan
    
    THRU:     John Calcagni
    
    
         This note is a "heads up" concerning Indiana's  S02  control  plan  for
    Gibson County.  The plan allows for delayed  compliance with the  SOg
    limitations (one limit for attainment of the primary NAAQS and a second
    limit for attainment of the secondary NAAQS  with interim milestones)  for
    Public Service of Indiana's (PSI)  Gibson Power Plant.  The plan
    also allows PSI Gibson to come in  with alternate limitations.  We concur
    with the plan for the reasons  stated in the  attached analysis.
    
         If you have any questions, I  will be happy to answer them.
                                               Bob Bauman
    
    Attachment
    

    -------
                           Gibson County,  Indiana,  S02  SIP
    
    Issue
    
         Delayed compliance schedule.
    
    Background
    
         The State plan contains the following  requirements:
    
         1.  SO? Limitations
               (Ibs/mmBtu)          Unit                 Compliance Dates
    
                  1.2                5            All times
    
                  5.1               1-4          Now to 12/31/91
    
                  3.57              1-4          12/31/91 -  12/30/93  (to attain
                                                 the primary 24-hour  NAAQS)
    
                  3.13              1-4          12/31/93 -  12/30/95
    
                  2.57              1-4          12/31/95 (to  attain  the
                                                 secondary 3-hour NAAQS)
    
         2.  PSI Gibson is required to  submit a compliance plan prior  to 12/31/88
    specifying control measures and increments  of progress.  The plan  may also
    contain alternative individual limitations  for  units 1-4.
    
         3.  The IDEM is required to present a  compliance plan  to the  Indiana
    Board prior to 11/30/89 and to submit  a Board-adopted plan  to EPA  as a SIP
    revision by 5/30/90.
    
    Analysis
    
         The date to attain the primary NAAQS (12/31/91) 1s within the 3-year
    timeframe in section 110(a)(2)(A) for  EPA's  final approval  of the  State's
    plan.  The date to attain the secondary NAAQS (12/31/95)  1s reasonable.  In
    the case of attainment of the secondary NAAQS,  section 110(a)(2)(A) requires
    that a plan specify a reasonable time  to attain.  Although  EPA has defined
    reasonable at 40 CFR 51.110(c)(2),  EPA does  not have a written policy on
    what length of time constitutes a reasonable time.   In past cases, EPA has
    deferred to the State.
    
         PSI has not selected or been required  to select the  control method  to
    achieve the limitations.  The State submittal outlines three control methods
    and estimates times as required by  section  110(a)(2)(B) to  accomplish
    compliance:  switch to low sulfur coal, install two FGD's with interim switch
    to low sulfur coal, and install one FGD with some  low sulfur coal.
    

    -------
         Indiana has provided justification which  is summarized as  follows.
    
    State Justification
    
         The compliance schedule and cost estimates  recognize  that  PSI's  existing
    coal contracts limit their ability to rapidly  substitute lower  sulfur coal
    for their existing supply.  The State has provided  for:
    
         - Sufficient time to renegotiate current  coal  contracts to the benefit
           of the utility, ratepayers, coal companies,  coal miners, and
           communities.
    
         - Sufficient time to design and construct one  or two  FGD's if necessary.
    
         - Time to thoroughly investigate emerging clean coal  technologies.
    
         - Phased-in costs.
    
         - Time for local coal companies to develop  existing coal reserves which
           could then supply compliance fuel.
    
    Conclusion
    
         Social and economic impacts are substantial and good  cause exists for
    postponing application of control  technology for more than 3 years from  plan
    submission.
    
         The degree of emission reduction (47 percent reduction), the  social  and
    economic problems involved in carrying out the control options, displacement
    of over 3 million tons of IN/IL coal or the design/construction/installation
    of two FGD's or combination thereof, the length of  time for phase-in  of
    control equipment, and the increased costs to  ratepayers warrant effort  to
    minimize impacts consistent with the requirements of the Clean  Air Act and
    justify more than a 3-year schedule.
    

    -------
                                                          PN 110-86-08-C7-
        8        UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
       - '                      WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
                              4UB-7B86
      OFFICE Of
    Alt AND »ADIAT1O*
    MEMORANDUM
    
    SUBJECT:  Policy on SIP Revisions Reouesting Compliance  Date
              Extensions for VOC Sources
    
    FROM:     J. Craig Potter
              Assistant Administrator
                for Air and Radiation
    
    TO:       Regional Administrators
              Regions I-X
                           t
    
         A number of States have asked EPA to approve  SIP  revisions
    
    granting compliance date extensions for individual VOC sources
    
    in ozone nonattainment areas.  The attached oolicy sets  forth
    
    EPA1s position on when approval of such SIP revisions  is
    
    appropriate and what the States must demonstrate in  order  for
    
    EPA to approve them.  Regional Offices should review the
    
    requests for SIP revisions for conformance to this policy.
    
    SIP revisions now pending at Headquarters will also  need to
    
    be reviewed by the Regions in light of this policy.
    
    Attachment
    
    cc: Richard H. Mays, OECM
        Gerald A. Emison, OAOPS
        Alan Eckert, OGC
        Air Division Directors, Regions I-X
        Regional Counsels, Regions I-X
    

    -------
          Policy on SIP Revisions Requesting Compliance Date
                      Extensions for VOC Sources
    
    
        In order to approve a source-specific compliance date
    extension, two tests must be met.  First, a State must
    demonstrate that the extension will not interfere with timely
    attainment (attainment by the formally established attainment
    date) and maintenance of the ozone standard and, where relevant
    "reasonable further progress" (RFP) towards timely attainment.  JY
    The attainment date will generally be December 31, 1982, or the
    date established under Section 110 where the State has adequate-
    ly responded to a request for SIP revisions under $110(a)(2)(H),
    or December 31, 1987 in ozone extension areas.  The demonstra-
    tion may be based on a comparison between the margin for
    attainment predicted by the demonstration submitted with the
    approved ozone SIP  2/ and the increased emissions that would
    result under the pronosed compliance date extension.  3/ If
    there is an adequate margin to absorb the increased emissions
    (and the extension would not interfere with RFP), then EPA
    may conclude that the compliance date extension will not
    interfere with the attainment and continued maintenance of
    the ozone standard.
    I/  The reference to a demonstration of RFP towards timely
    attainment is not intended to redefine RFP but only reaffirms
    that an RFP analysis is reauired.
    
     V  For areas where revisions to the Part D SIP are required
    (such as 1987 extension areas or SIP call areas) and those
    revisions have not been fully approved, the State would have
    to submit a demonstration the equivalent of that required
    for EPA approval of the ozone SIP.  Without an approvable
    demonstration EP\ cannot determine whether the individual
    compliance date extension will interfere with timely attain-
    ment and maintenance of the standard, or with RFP.  A
    de minimus showing would not be acceptable, since in the
    aggregate even very small sources would contribute signifi-
    cantly to ozone formation.
    
     3/  In making such a comparison it will be necessary to
    determine what, if any, portion of the margin has been utilized
    by new sources of VOCs that may have located in the area
    since the SIP was approved, as well as by existing VOC sources
    that may have already been granted compliance date extensions.
    

    -------
                                 -2-
    
    If the State or EPA believes that there has been a substantial
    chanqe in the inventory of VOC sources or total voc emissions
    since the ozone SIP was approved so- that the margin of attain-
    ment has channel siqnificantlv, a revised demonstration in
    supoort of the source-specific SIP revision should be submit-
    ted. _4/
    
         Second, time extensions also must be consistent with the
    requirement that nonattainment area SIPs provide for "imnlemen-
    tation of all reasonably available control measures as
    expeditiously as practicable*  ($172(b)(2)].  Expeditiousness
    should be demonstrated by determinina when the source was
    first put on notice of the applicable requirement (e.g.,
    adoption of the current reflation by the State) and the time
    that has elansed since then.  EPA has generally determined
    that for most voc sources this period is less than three
    years.   5/ Any source-snecific SIP revision for a compliance
    date extension within these timeframes may be presumed to be
    expeditious.  Compliance date extensions for oeriods longer
    than these timeframes, however, should be closely scrutinized
    to determine whether or not they are truly expeditious.  6/
    This should include an examination of the compliance status of
    other sources nationally in the same VOC source cateaory
    (this examination would be the responsibility of'the State),
    and the most expeditious means of compliance available (includ-
    ing add on control equipment, process chanqe, or raw material
    imorovement) irrespective of the method proposed in the SIP
     4/  Such a demonstration would be necessary* for example, in
    areas originally demonstratina attainment by 1982, but for
    which post-1982 monitoring data are indicating exceedances of
    the ozone standard or raising serious questions about the
    original prediction of attainment.
    
     5/  For three source categories  (can coatinq ooerations,
    graphic arts printing and automotive assembly plant paint
    shop operations), based on industry experience EPA has
    through policy statements concluded that expeditiousness may
    be longer than three years.
    
     6/  The same holds true for review of individual compliance
    date extensions incorporated in any area-wide ozone SI?
    revisions submitted by a State (such as those being submitted
    pursuant to an EPA SIP call under Section 110(a)(2)(H)).  Any
    change in the original deadline for an individual VOC source
    incorporated in an area-wide ozone SIP revision must be
    demonstrated to be expeditious (as well as not interfere with
    timely attainment and maintenance).
    

    -------
                                 -3-
              -s -
    
    revision.  Unless it can be shown that the original timefrane
    approved in the SIP dirt not allow sufficient time for an
    economically and technologically feasible compliance plan to
    be implemented, a SIP revision for a compliance date extension
    beyond the timeframes set forth above should be denied.
    
        In conclusion, both the demonstration of timely attainment
    (including RFP where relevant) and maintenance and the
    expeditiousness tests must be met before a State SIP revision
    can be approved.
                                     J. JSpaig Pottrfr
                                     Assistant Administrator
                                       for Air and Radiation
    
                                             /U6-7B66
    

    -------
    REFERENCES FOR SECTION 9.2
    

    -------
    Pt. M, Apt*. O
    40 CPU Ch. I (7-l-M Edition)
                                          194
    Environmental Protoctlon Agoncy
    PortoO
                                                                                                               ftm HvtBfia mummm • 9»j •»»• MMMI
    
                                                                                                   144 PR 27571. May 10. I9T9: 44 FR 66070. Nov. 9. 1979; 44 FR 72591. Dec. 14. 1979. M amend
                                                                                                   ed at SI FR 9S600. Mar. 19. IBM; 63 FR 24749. 24760. July 1. 19871
                                                                                                   PART M—STANDARDS OF PERFORM-
                                                                                                     ANCE   FOR   NEW  STATIONARY
                                                                                                     SOURCES
                                                                                                                A—General frcvblwit
                                                                                                   Sec
                                                                                                   80.1
                                                                                                   602
                                                                                                   603
                                                                                                   604
                                                                                                   605
                                                    Applicability
                                                    Definitions.
                                                    Units and abbreviations
                                                    Address
                                                    DrlrrmiiiBtlon   of   construction  <
                                                   modi heal ion
                                               60 6 Krvirw of plans
                                               60 7 Nolifii alion anil rrrnrd kerpliiK.
                                               60 8 IVrlorinnnrc Irsls
                                               60 9 Availahilll y <>f InforninlIon.
                                               60 10 Slalr niilliiitlly
                                               611 11 ('(iniiilinnrc  with   standards   an
                                                   niaiulrnanrr ti'qtiirrnirnls
                                                                                          Sec.
                                                                                          60.11  Circumvention.
                                                                                          60.11  Monllorlni requirements.
                                                                                          6014  Modification.
                                                                                          60.16  Reconstruction.
                                                                                          6016  Priority list
                                                                                          60.17  Incorporations by reference.
                                                                                          60 18  Oeneral control device requirements
                                                      Plant f*r
                                              6020  Applicability.
                                              6021  Definitions
                                              6022  Piibllcallnn  of Kiildellne rinriimenls.
                                                  emission  ituirirlliies, and final compll
                                                  anre llnii*s.
                                              6023  Adopt I'll" and  submit! al  of  Stale
                                                  plans; public hearings.
                                              fit) 24  I-:III|SN|I)II standards  and compliance
                                                  schedules
                                                                                       195
    

    -------
    r art 40
              40 CFR Ch. I (7-l-M Edition)
                                                                                                        invrr*nni*nfal l*r*t*ctr«Ni Af*ncy
    Sec.
    60.26  Emission Inventories, source survell-
        Isjice. reports.
    M 39  Leisl authority.
    80 27  Actions by the Administrator.
    M 21  Plan revisions by the Slate.
    00 2>  Plan revisions by the Administrator.
                 CsaipNaiu* Il««s
    
    0030 Scope.
    4031 Definitions.
    •0 32 Designated facilities.
    to 33 Emlulon guidelines.
    00 34 Compliance limes.
    
             D — tlwidwdt  »f  t*r1nmmmt»  fw
                   Flrwl  ffwMi  Qwiwwws  fw
        Whkfc  Cmrnx*!**  U C«wMnc*4 Aftw
               ir, HM
    00 40  Applicability  and designation ol af
        fected raclllty.
    0041  Definitions.
    00 42  Standard for paniculate matter.
    0043  Standard lor sulfur dioxide
    00 44  Standard lor nitrogen oxides.
    00 46  Emission and furl monitoring.
    0040  Test methods and pi «cedures.
    60 41  Innovative    technology    waivers:
        waiver of sulfur dlonldc standards  of
        performance for new stationary sources
        for Homer City Unit Ho 3 under section
        IIHD of the Clean Air Act for Multi-
        Steam Coal Cleaning System.
    iuhpwl D«— Stawdwds  •»  Pwf»
        Clxtrtc UtNH* SIMM ewwrwhif) IMH fw
        Wkldi  CwntrvcMwi Is CWMMIKW! After
        Scplmbw 10, l»76
    
    60 40a  Appllrablllty and designation of si
        fecled facility
    60 4 la  Definitions.
    00 42a  Standard for paniculate matter.
    60 43a  Standard for sulfur dioxide.
    60 44s  Slnndard for nitrogen oxides.
    60 45a  Cnmmrrclal  demonstration permit
    60 tea  Compliance provisions
    60 47a  Emission monitoring.
    60 48a  <'oni|>llanrc   determination  procr
        rlurrs and methods.
    6(1 49*  RriHirl IIIR requirements
    Sec.
    00.46b  Compliance and  performance test
        methods and procedures for sulfur diox-
        ide.
    00 40b  Compliance and  performance test
        methods and procedures for participate
        matter and nitrogen oxides.
    0047b  Emission monitoring  for sulfur di-
        oxide.
    00 46b  Emission monitoring for partlculale
        matter and nitrogen oxides.
    60.40b  Reporting  and  recordkeeptng  re-
        quirements.
            Mi
                                        fw lr»-
         G»iMt*Hn«) Until
    0060  Applicability  and designation of af-
        fected facility.
    6061  Definitions.
    60 S2  Standard for paniculate matter.
    60 63  Monitoring of operations.
    00.64  Test methods and procedures
    
       lufcfart •— Slmdwdi •» P«rfwiM>K« fw
              FwMand C*i«*«l *1«nls
    
    0000  Applicability  and designation of at
        reeled facility.
    •001  Deflnlllons.
    60 62  Standard for partlculale matter.
    60 63  Monitoring of operations.
    60.64  Test methods and procedures.
    
       SukfMrt 0— Stemlwdi •» P«rfwMWK» fw
                 NHtk AcM Plwili
    
    60.70  Applicability  and designation of af-
        fected facility.
    60.71  Definitions.
    •072  Standard for nitrogen oxides.
    00 73  Emission monitoring.
    00 74  Test methods and procedures.
    
    
                 folhiflc  AcM Plmli
    
    6060  Applicability  and ilrslcnallon of af
        fecled facility
    6061  Deflnlllons
    00 02  Standanl for sulfur dioxide
    60 63  Standard lor arid mist
    60 64  Emission monitoring
    60 66  Test methods anil procedures
    
              I — Slwidwdt •! f •rf«rm«nc* f*r
     611 40h  Applicability and delegation iif au
        thorlly
     R04lb  Definitions
     CO 42b  Hlandsril lor Millin ilumile
     60 41I>  Standard l"t pailii ulale mailer
     fill 44ll  SlanduHl lor nitrogen oxides
    6090  Appllrahilily  anil di'siKiiation of al
        fii'lril larilily
    fill R?  Kl.inilaul fur pa r lien hit r nialti-i
    fiO fl.'l  Trsl mt-MiiMls .'mil ptfirrdiirrs
    Sec.
       •VV0MVV 9  9*m9d&t •» w9fw9NIMi&t6 w99
    
    
    60 100  Applicability and designation or af-
        reeled raclllty.
    •0101  Definitions.
    M. 10]  Standard for paniculate matter.
    60103  Standard for carbon monoxide.
    80. 1 04  Standard for sulfur dioxide.
    60106  Emission monitoring.
    60. 106  Test methods and procedures.
                                                 Sec.
    
        •«•  V*ss*h fw
        WhMi   CwislrvcHwi.
                  i Gtmm»
                                Aflw
        1*7). w«< Prtw »• May I*. ItTI
                                                                                                   fw
                                                                                                   w
                                                                                                   II.
    •0110  Appllcablllly and deslgnallon of af
        reeled facility.
    00.111  Definitions.
    •0.112  Standard for volatile organic com-
        pounds (VOC).
    00.113  Morn •" ing or operation!.
        WMdt  Cw.
        MwJtflraHwi Gtmmu** Aftw May It,
        IW«, wtd Prtw to My M, IVM
    
    60 I lOa  Applicability and deslgnallon or ar
       reeled facility
    60 11 la  Definition*.
    60 M2a  Standard for volatile organic com-
       pound* (VOC).
    00.113a  Teillng and procedure*.
    60 114a  Alternative mean* or emission limi-
       tation.
    00 116a  Monitoring or operation*.
        s*h) fw WMcfc CwislmrHwi,
        flwi, w  Mowfkwlwi
        My 23, IfM
    
    60 I lOb  Appllcablllly and designation of af
       reeled faclllly
    601Mb  Definitions
    00 Il2b  Standard lor volatile organic com
       pounds (VCM'I
    60 I I3b  Testing and proct-durra.
    611 I I4b  Alternative means of emission Mini
       I at inn.
    60 11 M>  RccordkcrpliiK  and  report IIIK  rr
       i|iiiremenls
    60 I Itil)  Monltorlnc of i>|M-rallons
    fill M7b  l>clr(!:ilii.ii of niilliorily
                                                 •0.120 Applicability and designation of af-
                                                    recled raclllty.
                                                 •0.121 Deflnlllon*.
                                                 •0.122 Standard for partlculale matler
                                                 00123 Tesl methods and procedures.
    
                                                 WfcffdJff M—-tViWIdJoftft •! •^•ffdjmMMB fUf
                                                 60.130 Applicability and deslgnallon or af
                                                    fecled raclllty.
                                                 •0131 Definitions.
                                                 •0 132 Standard for particular matter.
                                                 60. 133 Test methods and procedure*.
                                                                                                                                                         awry favhslwM frwa> insli O>ya«pw SnwHw*
    
                                                 60 160  A|H>llcablllly and draiRiinlinn of al
                                                    frclrd facility
                                                 011.101  Di-f lull Ions
                                                 611 162 Standard lor paniculate mailer
                                                 60 16.1  Standard lor sulfur ilioxjHi-
                                                 611 164  .Slamlaril fiir visihli- emissions
                                                 60 IfiS  Monitoiiiif ol ii|irrnlioit*;
                                              196
                                                                                                                                                 197
    

    -------
    Part 40
    Sec.
    00 IM  Teal method! and procedures.
    00.170  Applicability and designation of af
        fecled facility.
    •0171  Definition*.
    •0 111  Standard lor partlculate matter.
    •0.113  Standard for lulfur dioxide.
    •0.114  Standard for vblble emission*
    •0116  Monitoring of operations.
    •0. IK  Te*t method! and procedure*.
                                                           40 CM Ch. I (7-l-M Edition)
    
                                                 Sec.
                                                 •0.221  Definition*.
                                                 •0.222  Standard for fluoride*.
                                                 •0.223  Monltorlni of operation*.
                                                 •0.224  Te*l method* and procedure*.
                                                                                                          Cnvlronmcntal Frotoctlon Afjoncy
                                                             Sec.
                                                                                                                                  twrfietUn  Ve*»eh
                                                                                                                    rted Alter Avfuit 1, I*M
                                                        W— ftattcleieds of r*ifeiaia.nia far MM
                                                        *4Mta FerrHier tnovtlry: Triple loper-
                                                80 230  Applicability and designation of at
                                                    fected facility.
                                                •0231  Definition*.
                                                •0.232  Standard for fluorides.
                                                •0.233  Monitoring of operations.
                                                60 234  Test methods and procedures.
                                                             60 270a  Applicability and designation of af
                                                                 fected facility.
                                                             60 27 la  Definition*
                                                             80 212a  Standard for partlculate matter.
                                                             60 273a  Emission monitoring.
                                                             80 274a  Monitoring of operation*.
                                                             •0.276a  Teat methods and procedure*.
                                                             80276a  Recordkeeplng  and  reporting re-
                                                                quirements.
                                                                                     r«it«o
    
                                                  See.
                                                  80.316  Reporting  and  recordkeeplng  re-
                                                      quirement*.
                                                  •0.316  Tesl methods and procedure*.
    
                                                            t*4huBbauol ••
                                                            MMPpMCT fT—
    
    60 ISO  Applicability and designation of af-
        fected facility
    60.181  Definition*.
    80 IB2  Standard for partlculate matter.
    60.183  Standard for lulfur dioxide.
    •0 1S4  Standard for vblble emission*.
    •0 186  Monitoring of operation*.
    •0181  Test method* and procedure*.
                                                                     _«. fiitm ..... f m t^f Mk^
                                                                     Or rarTOffmavKO WOT mO
    
    
                                                    Trlp4* $*•*»••**
       Support i  Slorioai* of Perf»
                                   PlonN
    60 100  Applicability and designation of at
        fected facility.
    •0101  Definition*.
    80.1*3  Standard for fluoride*.
    60 103  Standard for vblble emissions
    80 104  Monitoring of operation*.
    60.105  Test method* and procedures.
                                                •0.240  Applicability and designation of af
                                                    fected facility.
                                                60.241  Definitions.
                                                •0.242  Standard for fluorides.
                                                •0.243  Monitoring of operation*.
                                                •0.244  Test methods and procedure*.
    
                                                                                   fw CM|
    lufcpert f— Standardi of
        PKetpkato r
                                       for HM
                     riUsor HtoWttry: Wet-Preco»
        Phosphoric AcM Plants
    
    80 200  Applicability and designation of at
        reeled facility.
    60 201  Definitions.
    60 202  Standard for fluoride*.
    60 203  Monitoring of operations.
    6U 204  Test methods and procedures.
    
    Subvert U— Stand ord» of Performance lor Hi*
        Pheiahate FirrUlier  Inoutlry:  Su»«r»rie»-
              AcM Plant*
                 Prap«eatf*n Planlt
    
    60 250  Applicability and designation of at
        fected facility.
    •0251  Definition*.
    •0.252  Standards for partlculate matter.
    60253  Monitoring of operations.
    •0.254  Test methods and procedures.
    
       Si*»»rl I— SI ••dardi •! P*rfwiii«K» fw
    60210  Applirablllly and designation of si
        lected fa< Illly.
    60 21 1  Definitions
    60 212  Slandsrd lor fluorides
    60213  Monitoring of operations.
    60214  Test methods and procedures
    
    Sufcpart V— St.n4.r4>  •! Performance »•» Hi*
        Pt*9«alMle fertrHief Industry: Dlemmenrum
        Ffcetphelo Plants
    
     nn 270  Applicability  snd designation i>l «l
        (cried facility
                                                80 260  Applicability and designation of  af-
                                                    fected facility.
                                                60281  Definitions.
                                                60.262  Standard for participate matter.
                                                60.263  Standard for carbon monoxide.
                                                60.264  Emission monitoring.
                                                60.265  Monitoring of operations.
                                                60 266  Test methods and procedures
    
                                                Svba*ri  AA — Slwutordt  •!  Performance  f*r
                                                    Steal Plant*: Electric Arc  Furnecet  Cen-
                                                    tlivcted After Deleter 21. 1*74 and en er
                                                    ••fere Aufuit 17, 1961
    
                                                60.210  Applicability and deslnnallon ol  al
                                                    lectrd facility.
                                                60211  IVfinillons
                                                60 272  Standard for partlculale mailer
                                                60 273  Rmlssion monitoring
                                                6O 274  MonllorliiK ol operallniis
                                                60 215  Test methods and procedures
                                                60276  ItcconlkerpliiK   and  report Ing   re
                                                    qulrcments.
                   KivH ^ulp MWt
    
     60 280  Applicability and  designation of af-
        fected facility.
     60281  Definitions.
     •0.282  Standard for partlculate matter.
     00.281  Standard for total reduced  sulfur
        ef lull Ions
     60.302  Standards  for volatile organic com
        pounds.
    60393  Performance  test and compliance
        provisions
    60 394  Monitoring ol emissions  and oper
        nitons
                                             198
                                                                                                                                                 199
    

    -------
                                                          40 CM Ch. I (7-l-M Edition)
    Sec.
    60186 Reporting and  recordkeeplng re
       quIremenU.
    60 106 Reference methodi Mid procedure*
    •0.111 Modification*.
    •0 198 Innovative technology waiver*.
               ffcMf li.l. ••«> ftuntt
    
    to AOO Applicability and designation of af-
       fected facility.
    •0401 Definition*.
    •0 403 Standard for paniculate matter.
    60403 Monitoring of emlMlon*  and oper-
       •lion*
    60.404 Te»l methodi and procedure*.
      fcibfMrt tf— ttmmtmtt ft r
    •0 410  Applicability and designation of af-
        fected facility.
    60421  Definition*.
    00.421  Standard* for partlculate matter.
    60 421  Monltorlni of operallon*.
    00.424  Test methods and pi uc«luros.
            00—Sta
                       rd* •* f««t»i«i»»m fa*
        KM OnpMt Art* Indmlryi rvk««»Mw« ••-
        t^OTOTrrMfat
    
    60 110  Applicability and designation of af
        fecled facility.
    6O «i I  Definitions and notations
    6O.432  Standard for volatile oigank com-
        pounds.
    00411  Performance test  and  compliance
        provisions.
    60.414  Monitoring  of operations and rec-
        ordkeeplng.
    60 415  Test methods and procedure*.
        Prsiwr* *MnMv. !••» and Ufcal
    
    
     60 440  Applicability and deilfnatkm of af-
        fected facility.
     60 441  Definitions and symbol*.
     60442  Standard for volatile organic com-
        pound*.
     60441  Compliance provision*.
     •0 444  Performance lest procedure*.
     •0 445  Monitoring  ol  operations and ree
        ordkeeplng.
     •0 446  Test methods and procedure*.
     •0 447  II r port Ing requirements.
    
       $ubfwtl SS—St.nd.fd* .1 PntoffMnc. fa*
       IndvttrM twice* CMUfMj: !•>(• Ap.H.nc.t
    
      "0 450 Applicability and designation <•( nl
         lifted facility.
      A04SI Definitions
    Sec.
    80.461 Standard for volatile organic com-
        pound*.
    00.451 Performance  teal  and  compliance
        provision*
    60.464 Monltorlni of emission* and  oper-
        ation*.
    60485 Reporting  and  recordkeeplng  re-
        quirement*.
    60 456 Test method* and procedure*.
    
      l*>p*rt II—Itandwd* »f f»rl«r»«iic« to
             M*M (Ml fwfw* CMtlng
    
    60.460 Applicability and deslinallon of af-
        fected facility.
    60.461 Definition*.
    60 462 Standard* for volatile organic com-
        pound*.
    60.461 Perfomance  ted  and  compliance
        provision*.
    60.464 Monitoring of emission* and  oper-
        ation*.
    60.465 Reporting  and  recordkeeplnf  re-
        quirement*.
    •0.466 Test method* and procedures.
                                                            Hf.nd.rf). •» Pwf •IWOIKO tw A»-
                                                    •fc.lt  Pr»c.t>-lr»g  ««d  Aiphfrit  •••fin*}
    •0.470  Applicability and designation of af
        reeled facllltleg.
    •0.471  Definition*.
    60.471  Standards for partlculate matter.
    60.411  Monitoring of operations.
    60.414  Test methods and procedures.
            VV— lt.nd.rdi *f
                  |M!I* •• VOC U Mw (ynrlwHc
        Oigalt OtMik^t aUmit»ctyrfin tndmtry
    
    60.460  Applicability and deilgnallon of af-
        fected facility.
    60.481  Definition*.
    60 461 I Standard*: General.
    60.461-2 Standards: Pumps In light liquid
        service.
    60 461 1 Standard*: Compressors.
    60.4(1-4 Standards: Pressure relief devices
        In gas/vapor service.
    60.482-6 Standards: Sampling connection
        systems.
    60463 6 Standards: Open ended  valves or
        lines.
    00.4631 Standards: Valve*  In gait/vapor
        and In light liquid service.
    60.483 6 Standards: Pumps and  valves In
        heavy liquid service, pressure relief de
        vices In light liquid or heavy liquid serv
        Ire. and flanges and other connectors.
    60 481 • Standards: Delay of repair
    60482 10  Standards.  Closed vrnt systems
        and control devices.
    60 483 I  Alternative standards for valves-
        allowablr percentage ol valv<-s  leaking
                                             200
                                                                             Protection Aponcy
     See.
     •0 481 2  Alternative standards (or valve*-
        *klp period leak detection and repair.
     60.464  Equivalence of  means of  emlaslon
        limitation.
     •0.46ft  Test methods and procedures.
     60.486  Recordkeeplnt requirements.
     60.481  Reporting requirements.
     60.481  Reconstruction.
     60.486  List  of  chemicals produced by af-
        fected facilities.
                                                 Bee.
                                                 60.142 Standards for volatile organic com
                                                     pounds.
                                                 60.841 Performance  teat  and  compliance
                                                     provision*.
                                                 60644 Monitoring of operation*.
                                                 60.645 Recordkeeplng requirements.
                                                 60.646 Reporting requirement*.
                                                 60.547 Teit method* and procedures.
                                                 60.548 Delegation of authority.
      •**•***• WW
      MM 8«v*r*f« C*n iurt
                                                                                •dl
                                                                                           it
     60.480  Applicability and designation of af-
        fected facility.
     60.481  Definitions.
     60.462  Standard* for volatile organic com-
        pounds.
     •0.461  Performance teat and  compliance
        provision*.
     60.484  Monitoring of emission* and oper-
        ations.
     60.488  Reporting  and  recordkeeplnf  re-
        quirements.
     60 406  Test methods and procedure*.
                                                     ftsiilM* Vinyl MM* UraMMfM Uarlnj *nd
                                                 60.880 Applicability and designation of af
                                                    fecled facility.
                                                 60.881  Definitions and symbols.
                                                 •0.582 Standard for volatile organic com
                                                    pound*.
                                                 60 561  Test method* and procedure*.
                                                 60.584  Monitoring of operation* and rec-
                                                    ordkeeplng requirements.
                                                 •0.586  Reporting requirements.
    60 600  Applicability and designation of af
        fected facility.
    60501  Definitions.
    60601  Standard*  for   Volatile  Organic
        Compound  (VOC)  emission!  from bulk
        gasoline terminal*.
    60501  Test method* and procedure*.
    60504  (Reservedl
    60506  Reporting and  recordkeeptng.
    60506  Reconstruction.
                                                                                                                            •« VOC In rctrswn* •«.
                                                •O.MO  Applicability and designation of af-
                                                    fected facility.
                                                •8581  Definition*.
                                                60661  Standard*.
                                                60.881  Exception*.
                                                     Sn*MMc
                                                                  r *>»<.<««. ••
    60 530  Applicability and deslgnalkm of af-
        fected facility.
    60531  Definitions.
    60 531  Standard* for partlculate matter.
    60.513  Compliance and certification.
    •0 534  Test methodi and procedures.
    60 535  Laboratory accreditation.
    60536  Permanent label, temporary label.
        and owner's manual.
    60 637  Reporting and recordkeeplng.
    60538  Prohibitions.
    60.530  Hearing and appeal procedures.
    60 538a  Delegation of authority.
    60.530b  General provisions exclusions.
    
      in*jp«rt •••—Stendwdf t>f P«f*«im.ma for
        MM fhfbbor Tlr. MfMniftKivfifif Indvitr*
    
    60 540  Applicability and  designation of  af
        fected facilities
    •0541  Definitions
                                                60 600 Applicability and designation of af-
                                                    fected facility.
                                                •0601 Definitions.
                                                •0602 Standard for volatile organic com
                                                    pounds.
                                                60601 Performance  lest and  compliance
                                                    provisions.
                                                60.604 Reporting requirements.
    
                                                           SvfcfMHt M— |IU»r**d|
                                                  Impart JJJ— Svmdwdt •» fwfwfMtK* f*r
                                                          Patrawwn Dry CI««iMrs
    
                                                •0.620  Applicability and designation of at-
                                                   fecled facility.
                                                60621  Definitions
                                                60.622  Standards for volatile organic com
                                                   pounds.
                                                60621  Equivalent  equipment  and  proce-
                                                   dures.
                                                60 624  Test mel hods and procedures.
                                                60 625  KccordkreptitK rriiulrrmeiiU
                                                                                                    201
    

    -------
    9«o.i
    
    Sec.
           KKK— ttmmtmtt •«  r«rt»CR»«K« ••«
                U«ks •» VOC Fran OnsHw*
       •Mural OM PfMMtfafl «••*•
    
    80 830  Applicability and declination of af •
       leclcd facility.
    •0611  Definition*.
    M«»  Standard*.
    «a«33  Exception*
    •0.114  AlUinatlve mean* of emission llml-
       Utlon.
    •O 635  Recordkeeplng requirement*.
    (W 6»S  Reporting requirement*.
    Sec.
                                                    40 CM Ch. I (7-l-M Edition)
                 QQQ— *f $
        frisk***  IMml ••«  rrac*s»a«ei
     80.640 Applicability and designation of af-
        fected facilities.
     •0641 Definition*.
     60.641 Standard* for sulfur dioxide.
     60843 Compliance provisions.
     •0.644 Performance teal procedures.
     60 645 Performance teat method*.
     «O.«46 Monitoring of emission* and oper-
        ation*.
     60647 Recordkeeplng  and  reporting  re-
        quirement*.
     60646 Optional  procedure tor measuring
        hydrogen *ulflde In acid gas-TutwIler
        Procedure.
    
                      -NUN
      »M>p.rt OOO— ll-n«»r«l »f P
     60 870  Applicability and designation of af-
        fected facility.
     60671  Definitions.
     60 672  Standard for partlculate matter.
     60 671  Reconstruction.
     60 674  Monitoring of operation*.
     60 675  Test method* and procedures.
     60 676  Reporting and recordkeeplnf .
    
     Subpwl  PPf— »m4a*4 •! P«r»«nii««it» fat
              ri**r«4«t hwvMlaft
      60 6BO  Applicability and designation of af-
         fected facility.
      606BI  Definitions
      SO «S2  Slandaril for partlculale matter.
      •0 6f>3  Monitoring of operations.
      606K4  Kerordkccplng  and  reporting  re
         qutiements.
      •0 6S5 Test mellimls and procedure's
            l— Standards »f P»rl»nn«iK« fa» k»-
        dtntrM Swfec* CMltnf: Surface CMrtlnsj
        •I Ptoslk Paris f*t §«,!„••• MochkMt
    
    60 720  Applicability and designation of af-
        fected facility.
    •0711  Definition*.
    •0 722  Standard* for volatile organic com-
        pound*.
    60.723  Performance  le«l and  compliance
        provisions.
    •0.734  Reporting  and  recordkeeplng  re-
        quIremenU.
    •0.725  Test method* and procedure*.
    •0.726  Delegations of authority.
    ArrENDix A-Rarrantcm Manioo*
    ArrENDix B— PniroaMANci SrecmcATioHS
    ArrKHDix  C— DCTOIMINATION or  EMISSION
        RATS CHAIIOK
    ArrENDix D— REQUIRED EMISSION INVENTO
        av InroaMATion
    ArriHDix El Risen vn>)
    ArriNDix  P-QUALITY  AMURAMCI  PMOCI-
        DURCS
    ArriNDix  O— PROVIIIOIIS ro* AH ALTONA-
        TIVI METHOD or DEMONSTHATINO Conri.1-
        ANCI WITH 40  CFR  60.41  roil THE
        NEWTON Pawn STATION or CENT»AI. IL-
        LINOIS PUBLIC SERVICE COHFANY
    ArrENDix H  I RESERVED)
    ArriNDix I REMOVABLE LAIEL AND OWNER'S
        MANUAL
    
       AUTHORITY: 42 U.8.C. 7401. 7411. 7414.
     741*. and 7801.
    
       SOURCE: 38 FR 24877. Dec. 23. 1971. unlea*
     otherwise noted.
    
         Subport A— General Provisions
    
     1C*. I   Applicability.
    
       Except  as  provided In Subparts B
     and C.  the  provisions  of  this  part
     apply to the owner or operator of any
     stationary source which contains an
     affected facility,  the construction  or
     modification of which Is commenced
     after the date of publication In this
     part of any standard (or. If earlier, the
     dale  of  publication  of  any  proposed
     standard) applicable to that facility.
    
     140 FR 53346. Nov 17. 19751
    
     II 60.2  Definitions
    
        The terms used In this part are de
     fined  In the Act  or in this section as
     follows:
    Environmental Protection Agency
    
      "Act" means the  Clean Air Act (42
    U.8.C.  1857 et aeq..  as amended  by
    Pub. L. 91-604. 84 Stat. 1676).
      "Administrator" means the Adminis-
    trator of  the  Environmental Protec-
    tion Agency or his authorized  repre-
    sentative.
      "Affected facility" means, with refer-
    ence to a stationary source, any appa-
    ratus to which a standard Is applica-
    ble.
      "Alternative   method"  means any
    method of sampling and analyzing for
    an  air pollutant which  Is not a refer-
    ence or equivalent method but which
    has been demonstrated  to the Admin-
    istrator's  satisfaction  to.  In specific
    cases, produce results adequate for his
    determination of compliance.
      "Capita/ expenditure" means an ex-
    penditure for a physical or operational
    change to an  existing  facility which
    exceeds the product of  the applicable
    "annual asset  guideline repair allow-
    ance percentage"  specified  In  the
    latest  edition  of  Internal  Revenue
    Service (IRS) Publication 534 and the
    existing facility's basis, as defined  by
    section  1012 of the Internal Revenue
    Code. However, the total  expenditure
    for a physical or operational change to
    an  existing facility  must not be re-
    duced by  any "excluded additions" as
    defined In IRS  Publication  534.  as
    would be done for tax purposes.
      "Commenced"  means, with respect
    to the definition of "new source" In
    section  lll(a)(2)  of the Act.  that  an
    owner  or operator  has undertaken a
    continuous program of construction or
    modification or that an owner or oper-
    ator has entered Into a contractual ob-
    ligation to undertake and  complete.
    within a reasonable  lime, a continuous
    program of construction or modifies
    lion.
      "Conjfruc/ion"  means  fabrication,
    erection, or installation  of an affected
    facility.
      ••Continuous   monitoring   syitrm"
    means the tola! equipment, required
    under  the  emission monitoring sec-
    tions In  applicable  subparts.  used  (o
    sample  and condition (If  applicable).
    to analyze, and  to  provide a perma-
    nent record of emissions or process pa-
    rameters.
      "Equivalent  method"  means  any
    method of sampling and analyzing for
                                    5*0.7
    
    an air pollutant which has been dem-
    onstrated to the Administrator's satis-
    faction to have a consistent and quan-
    titatively known relationship to the
    reference method, under specified con-
    ditions.
      "Exitting facility" means, with ref-
    erence to a stationary source, any ap-
    paratus of the type for which a stand-
    ard Is promulgated In this part, and
    the construction or  modification of
    which was commenced before the date
    of  proposal  of that standard; or any
    apparatus  which could be altered In
    such a way as to be of that type.
      "liokinetlc lampling"  means sam-
    pling In which the linear velocity of
    the gas entering the sampling nozzle la
    equal to that  of the  undisturbed gas
    stream at the sample point.
      "Malfunction"  means  any  sudden
    and unavoidable failure of air pollu-
    tion  control  equipment   or  process
    equipment or  of a  process to operate
    In a normal  or usual manner. Failures
    that are caused  entirely or In part by
    poor maintenance, careless operation,
    or any other preventable  upset condi-
    tion or preventable equipment break
    down shall not be considered malfunc-
    tions.
      "Modification" means any physical
    change In, or change In the method of
    operation of. an existing facility which
    Increases the amount of any air pollut-
    ant (to which a standard applies) emit-
    ted Into the  atmosphere by lhat facili-
    ty or which  results In the emission of
    any air pollutant (to which a standard
    applies) Into the atmosphere not pre-
    viously emitted.
      "Afoniforinp- de-Dice" means the total
    equipment, required under the moni-
    toring of operations sections In appli-
    cable subparts. used to measure and
    record (If  applicable) process  param-
    eters.
      "Nitrogen  oxides" means all oxides
    of  nitrogen  except nitrous oxide, as
    measured by lest methods set forth In
    this parl.
      "One-hour period"  means  any 60-
    mliuite  period  commencing  on  the
    hour.
      "Opacity"  means  the   degree  to
    which  emissions reduce the transmit
    slon of light and obscure  the view of
    an object in the background
                                          202
                                                                                          203
    

    -------
      (a)  The  provision was  promulgated
    by the Administrator, and
      (b) The plan, as revised, will be con-
    sistent with the Act and with the re-
    quirements of this subpart.
    
     Subporl C—Emlislon Guidelines and
              Compliance Time*
    
      SOURCE 41 FR 6S787, Oct. 18. 1077. unless
    otherwise noted.
    
    0M.3* Scope.
      This  subpart   contains  emission
    guidelines  and complance  times  for
    the control of certain designated pol-
    lutants from certain designated facili-
    ties In accordance with section lll(d)
    of the Act and Subpart B.
    
    0*6.31  Definition*.
      Terms used but not defined In this
    subpart have the meaning given them
    In the Act  and In Subparts A and B of
    this part.
    
    I 60.32  Detlf naled faeililiea.
      (a) Sulfurlc acids production units.
    The   designated   facility   to   which
    ||60.33(a> and 60.34(a) apply  Is each
    existing   "sulfurlc  acid  production
    unit" as defined  In I SO.BKa) of Sub-
    part H.
    
    ft 60.33  Emlnlon guideline*.
      (a)  Sulfurlc acid production units.
    The emission  guideline for designated
    facilities Is 0.25 gram sulfuric acid mist
    (as measured by Reference Method B.
    of Appendix A) per kilogram of sulfu-
    rlc acid produced (0.5 Ib/ton). the pro-
    duction being expressed as 100 percent
    II.SO..
    
    0 64.34  Compliance lime*.
      (a)  Sulfurlc acid production units.
    Planning,  awarding of contracts, and
    Installation of equipment capable of
    attaining  the level of  the emission
    guideline established  under I 60.33(a)
    can be accomplished within 17 months
    after  the  affective dale of  a Slate
    emission standard for  sulfurlc acid
    mist
             40 CFR Ch. I (7-l-M Edition)
    
    Subpart O—Standard*  of  Perform-
         anco for Fo**ll-Fuel-Flrod  Stoam
         Generator* for  Which  Construc-
         tion I* Commenced After Auguit
         17, 1971
    
    I (0.40 Applicability and  designation  of
        affected facility.
      (a) The affected facilities to which
    the  provisions of this subpart apply
    are:
      (1) Each fossil fuel fired steam gen-
    erating  unit   of  more   than   73
    megawatts heat Input rate (250 million
    Btu per hour).
      (2) Bach  fossil-fuel and  wood resi-
    due-fired steam generating  unit capa-
    ble of firing fossil fuel at a heat Input
    rate of more than 73 megawatts (250
    million Btu per hour).
      (b) Any change to an existing fossil-
    fuel fired steam generating unit to ac-
    commodate the use of combustible ma-
    terials, other than fossil fuels  as  de-
    fined In this subpart, shall  not bring
    that  unit under the  applicability of
    this subpart.
      (c)  Except as provided In paragraph
    (d) of this section, any facility under
    paragraph (a) of this section  that com-
    menced construction or  modification
    after August 17, 1971, Is subject to the
    requirements of this subpart.
      (d) The  requirements' of ||60.44
    .  <5>.   (b)  and  (d).   and
    60.45(f>(4)(vl) are applicable to lignite-
    fired steam generating units that com-
    menced construction or modification
    after December 22, 1976.
      (e) Any facility  covered under Sub-
    part Da Is not covered under this sub-
    part.
    
    (42 FR 37936. July 25, 1977. as amended at
    43 FR 9278. Mar. 7. 1978: 44 FR 33012. June
    17. 19791
    
    0*0.41 Definition*.
      As used In this subpart, all terms not
    defined herein shall have the meaning
    given them in the  Act. and In Subpart
    A of this part.
      (a)  'Fossil fuel fired steam generat-
    ing unit"  means a furnace  or  boiler
    used  In the process of burning fossil
    fuel   for the  purpose of  producing
    steam by heat transfer.
                                        242
                                                                                            Environmental Protection Agency
                                                                        9*0.43
      (b) "Fossil fuel" means natural gas.
    petroleum, coal, and any form of solid,
    liquid, or gaseous  fuel  derived  from
    such materials for the purpose of cre-
    ating useful heat.
      (c) "Coal refuse" means waste-prod-
    ucts of coal mining, cleaning, and coal
    preparation operations (e.g. culm, gob,
    etc.) containing coal, matrix material.
    clay, and other organic and Inorganic
    material.
      (d)  "Fossil  fuel and  wood residue-
    fired steam generating unit" means a
    furnace  or boiler used In  the process
    of burning fossil fuel and wood residue
    for the purpose of producing steam by
    heat transfer.
      (e) "Wood residue" means bark, saw-
    dust, slabs, chips, shavings, mill trim,
    and other wood products derived from
    wood processing and forest manage-
    ment operations.
      (f) "Coal" means all solid fuels clas-
    sified as  anthracite, bituminous, subbl-
    tumlnous, or lignite by the American
    Society   and Testing and  Materials,
    Designation D388-77 (Incorporated by
    reference—see 160.17).
    
    (39 FR 20791. June 14. 1974. a* amended at
    40 FR 2803, Jan. I*. 1975; 41 FR 51398. Nov.
    22.  1976:  43 FR 9276. Mar.  7. 1978: 48 FR
    3736. Jan. 27, 19831
    
    0 60.42  Standard for paniculate mailer.
      (a) On and after  the date  on  which
    the performance test required  to be
    conducted by I 60.8 Is completed, no
    owner or operator subject to the provi-
    sions of  this subpart shall cause to be
    discharged Into the atmosphere from
    any affected facility any gases which:
      (1)  Contain  partlculate matter In
    excess of 43 nanograms per joule heat
    Input (0.10 Ib per million Btu) derived
    from fossil fuel or fossil fuel and wood
    residue.
      (2) Exhibit greater than 20 percent
    opacity   except  for  one  slx-mlnute
    period per hour of not more than 27
    percent opacity.
      (but)   On  or after December  28.
    1979. no  owner or operator shall cause
    to be discharged Into the atmosphere
    from the Southwestern Public Service
    Company's Harrington Station  #1. In
    Amarlllo. Texas, any gases which ex-
    hibit greater than 35% opacity, except
    that a maximum or 42% opacity shall
    be permitted for not more than 6 min-
    utes In any hour.
      (2) Interstate Power Company shall
    not cause to be discharged Into the at-
    mosphere  from  Its  Lansing  Station
    Unit No. 4 In Lansing, Iowa, any gases
    which exhibit greater than  32% opaci-
    ty,  except that a  maximum  of  39%
    opacity shall be  permitted  for  not
    more than six minutes In any hour.
      (3)  Omaha Public  Power   District
    •hall not cause to  be discharged  faito
    the  atmosphere  from  Its Nebraska
    City Power Station In Nebraska City,
    Nebraska,  any  gases which  exhibit
    greater than 30% opacity, except that
    a maximum  of 37%  opacity  shall be
    permitted for not more than  six min-
    utes In any hour.
    
    (39 FR 20792. June 14. 1974. a* amended at
    41 FR 51398. Nov.  22. 1976: 42 FR 6IS37.
    Dec. 5. 1977: 44 FR 76787. Dec. 26. 1979: 45
    FR 36077. May 29. I960; 45 FR 47146, July
    14. I960: 46 FR 57498. Nov. 24. 19611
    
    0 60.43  Standard for sulfur dioxide.
      (a) On and after the date on which
    the performance lest required to be
    conducted by | 60.8  Is completed, no
    owner or operator subject to the provi-
    sions of this subpart  shall cause to be
    discharged Into the atmosphere from
    any affected facility  any gases which
    contain sulfur dioxide In excess of:
      (1) 340 nanograms per joule heat
    Input (0.80 Ib per million Btu) derived
    from liquid fossil  fuel or liquid fossil
    fuel and wood residue.
      (2) 520 nanograms per joule  heat
    Input (1.2 Ib per million  Btu) derived
    from solid fossil fuel or solid fossil fuel
    and  wood residue,  except as provided
    In paragraph (e) of this section.
      (b) When different fossil fuels are
    burned  simultaneously In any combi-
    nation, the applicable standard (In ng/
    J) shall be determined  by proratlon
    using the following formula:
          PSw (y(340)  l i(S20)|/(»iz)
    where:
      I'S«,. Is the prorated standard for sulfur
       dioxide when burning different furl* •!•
       mullHiiroiisly. In  nanoframs  per Joule
       heat  Input derived from  all fossil fuel*
       fired or  from all  fossil fuels and wood
       residue fired.
      V Is the i>ercent*Re of total hral Input de
       rived from liquid fossil fuel, and
                                                                                                                               243
    

    -------
     960.44
    
      * !• the perrenlage of toUl heal Input de-
        rived from solid fossil fuel.
      (c> Compliance shall be based on the
     total heat Input  from all fossil fuels
     burned. Including gaseous fuels.
      (d) (Reserved)
      (e) Units 1 and 3 (as defined In  Ap-
     pendix O) at the Newton Power Sta-
     tion owned or operated by the Central
     Illinois Public Service Company  will
     be   In compliance   with  paragraph
     (aX2> of this section If Unit I and Unit
     2 Individually comply with paragraph
     (a>(2> of  this section or If  the com-
     bined emission rate from Units I and 2
     does  not exceed  470 nanograms  per
     joule (1.1 Ib per million Btu) combined
     hrat Input to Units 1 and 2.
     139 FR 207*2. June 14. 1974. M intended at
     41 FR 51398.  Nov. 22. 1978: S3 FR 2S9S4,
     Aug. 4. 19871
    
     I M.4I Standard  for nitrogen o«ldes.
      (5> of this section).
      (5)  340 nanograms  per  joule heat
     Input (0.80 Ib per  million Btu) derived
     from lignite  which Is mined In North
     Dakota.  South  Dakota, or  Montana
     and which Is burned In a cyclone-fired
     unit.
      (b)  Except as provided under para-
     graphs (c)  and (d)  of this section.
             40 CFR Cti. I (7-l-M Edition)
    
     when different fossil fuels are burned
     simultaneously In any  combination,
     the applicable standard (In ng/J) Is de-
     termined by  proratlon using the fol-
     lowing formula:
               B*a<0)tT<8«)l * 130) 1 2(300)
                      101 x i
    where:
    P5M»-ki the prorated standard for nitrogen
       oxldef when burning different fuels si-
       multaneously. In  nanograms  per joule
       nest Input derived from (II fossil fuels
       fired or from all  fossil fuels and wood
       residue fired;
    lo-ls the percentage of total heat Input de-
       rived from lignite:
    x~ls the percentage of total heat Input de-
       rived from gaseous fossil fuel;
    »>-to the percentage of total heat Input de-
       rived from liquid fossil fuel; and
    • -to the percentage of total heal Input de-
       rived from solid fossil fuel (except  lig-
       nite).
    
      (r) When a fossil fuel containing at
    li'ftsl  25 percent, by  weight, of coal
    reliihr Is burned In combination with
    gaseous, liquid, or  other solid fossil
    fuel or wood residue, the standard for
    nitrogen oxides does not apply.
      (d) Cyclone-fired  units which burn
    fuels containing at least 25 percent of
    lignite that Is mined In North Dakota.
    South Dakota, or  Montana remain
    subject to paragraph (aM5> of this sr.-
    tlon regardless of  the types of fur)
    combusted In combination with that
    lignite.
    
    IJ9 FR 20782. June 14. 1*74. as amended at
    41 FR SI39S. Nov. 22. 1*78; 43 FR 8278. Mar.
    7. 1*78; SI FR 427*7. Nov. 29. 19881
    
    I «8.45  EMISSION and fuel monlloring.
    
     (a) Each owner or operator shall  In-
    stall, calibrate, maintain, and operate
    continuous  monitoring  systems  for
    measuring the  opacity  of emissions,
    sulfur  dioxide  emissions,  nitrogen
    oxides emissions, and either oxygen or
    carbon dioxide except as provided In
    paragraph (b) of this section.
     (b) Certain of the continuous moni-
    toring  system  requirements  under
    paragraph (a) of this section do not
    Envtr
    Pr«t*cN4Nt Aftmcy
    apply to  owners or  operator*  under
    the following conditions:
      (I) For a fossil fuel-fired steam gen-
    erator that burns only gaseous fossil
    fuel,  continuous monitoring systems
    for measuring the opacity of emissions
    and sulfur dioxide emissions are not
    required.
      (2) For • fossil fuel-fired steam gen-
    erator that does not use ft flue gas de-
    sulfurteatlon  device,  ft   continuous
    monitoring   system  for   measuring
    sulfur dioxide  emissions  I* not re-
    quired If the owner or operator moni-
    tors sulfur dioxide emissions by  fuel
    sampling  and analysis under para-
    graph (d) of this section.
      (3)  Notwithstanding  |00.13(b>. In-
    stallation of • continuous monitoring
    system for nitrogen oxides may be de-
    layed until  after the Initial perform-
    ance tests under 160.8 have been con-
    ducted, tf the owner  or operator dem-
    onstrates during the performance test
    that emissions of nitrogen  oxides are
    lesa than 70  ,. .cent of the applicable
    standard*  In  160.44.  a  continuous
    monitoring system for measuring ni-
    trogen  oxides emissions  Is riot re-
    quired.  If the Initial performance test
    results show that nitrogen oxide emis-
    sions  are greater than 70  percent of
    the applicable standard, the owner or
    operator  shall  Install  ft  continuous
    monitoring system  for nitrogen oxide*
    within one year after the date of the
    Initial performance testa  under 160.8
    and comply with all other applicable
    monitoring  requirements  under  this
    part.
      (4) If an owner or operator doe* not
    Install any continuous monitoring sys-
    tems  for sulfur oxide* and nitrogen
    oxides,  as provided under paragraphs
    (bKl) and  or paragraph* (bM2>
    and (bH3) of this section a continuous
    monitoring   system  for   measuring
    either oxygen or carbon dioxide Is not
    required.
      (c)  For  performance  evaluation*
    under I 60.13(0 and calibration checks
    under |60.l3(d>. the following proce-
    dures shall be used:
      (I) Methods 3 or 3A. 6. 6A. 6B or 6C,
    and 1. 7A. 7C. 7D or  7E. as  applicable.
    shall  be used for conducting  relative
    accuracy evaluations of sulfur dioxide
    and nitrogen oxides  continuous emis-
    sion inoiill.orlng systrms.  Methods 3A.
                                  §40.45
    
    6C. and TB shall be used only ftt the
    sole discretion of the source owner or
    operator.
      (2) Sulfur dioxide or nitric oxide, a*
    applicable, shall be used for preparing
    calibration  gas  mixtures under Per-
    formance Specification  2 of Appendix
    B to this part.
      (3)  For  affected facilities  burning
    fossil fuel(s), the span value for ft con-
    tinuous monitoring system measuring
    the opacity of emissions shall be 80.
    80, or 100 percent and for • continuous
    monitoring system measuring culfur
    oxides or  nitrogen oxides the  span
    value shall be determined as follows:
                                         tin pMl P-
                                          SfWfl vriul tar
                                                 I'l
                                                1.000
                                                1.500
                                          i.ooor i i.500i
                             where:
                             x-lhe fraction of total heat Input derived
                                from gaseous fossil fuel, and
                             v-lhe fraction of total heat Input derived
                                from liquid fossil fuel, and
                             s-ihe fraction of total heal Input derived
                                from Mild fossil fuel.
                              (4) All span values computed under
                             paragraph  (cM3) of this section for
                             burning combinations  of fossil  fuel*
                             chad be rounded to the nearest 500
                             ppm.
                              (8) For ft fossil fuel-fired steam gen-
                             erator that simultaneously burns fossil
                             fuel and nonfossll fuel, the span value
                             of  all continuous monlloring system*
                             shall be subject to the Administrator's
                             approval.
                              (d) I Reserved!
                              (e) For  any continuous monitoring
                             system Installed under  paragraph (a)
                             of  this section,  the following conver-
                             sion  procedures shall be used to con-
                             vert  the  continuous monitoring  data
                             Into  units of the applicable standards
                             (ng/J. Ib/milllon Btu):
                              (1) When a continuous  monitoring
                             system for measuring oxygen Is select-
                             ed, the measurement of the pollutant
                             concentration and oxygen concentra-
                             tion shall each OP on a consistent  basis
                             (wot or dry). Alternative  procedures
                                        244
                                                                                                                               245
    

    -------
     8*0.45
    
     approved by  the Administrator shall
     be used  when measurements are on a
     wet basis. When measurements are on
     a  dry basis, the following  conversion
     procedure shall be used:
          E = Cn20.0/120.9-percent O.)l
     where:
     E. C. P.  and %O. are determined under
       paragraph If) of this section  .
    
      (2) When a continuous monitoring
     system for measuring carbon dioxide Is
     selected, the measurement of the pol-
     lutant concentration and carbon diox-
     ide concentration shall each be on a
     consistent  basis (wet or dry) and  the
     following conversion procedure shall
     be used:
            B= CF, (100/percent CO. I
     whrre:
     E. C, F, and %CO, are determined under
       paragraph  of this section
      (f) The values used In the equations
     under paragraphs    (1) and (2) of
     this section are derived  as follows:
      (1) E= pollutant emissions. ng/J (Ib/
     million Btu).
      (2> C= pollutant  concentration, ng/
     dscm (Ib/dscf),  determined  by multi-
     plying   the  average   concentration
     (ppm) for  each one-hour  period  by
     4.15x10*   M   ng/dscm   per  ppm
     (2 59x 10 • M Ib/dscf per ppm) where
     IH= pollutant  molecular weight,  g/g-
     mole  and  For the purpose of reports  re-
    quired  under   160.7(c).  periods  of
    excess emissions that shall be reported
    are defined as follows:
      (1) Opacity. Excess emissions are de-
    fined as any six-minute  period during
    which the average opacity of emissions
    exceeds  20  percent opacity,  except
    that one six-minute average per hour
    of up to 27 percent opacity  need not
    be reported.
      (I) For sources subject to the opacity
    standard of I 60.42(bMl). excess emis-
    sions are defined  as  any six  minute
    period during which the average opaci-
    ty of  emissions exceeds  35 percent
    opacity, except that one six-minute av-
    erage per  hour of  up to 42 percent
    opacity need not be reported.
      (II) For sources subject to the opaci-
    ty standard of |60.42(bM2).  excess
    emissions  are   defined  as  any  six-
    minute period during which  the aver-
    age  opacity  of  emissions exceeds  32
    percent opacity, except  that one six-
    minute average per hour of up to 39
    percent opacity need not be reported.
      (ill) Por sources subject to the opaci-
    ty standard of |60.42(bK3).  excess
    emissions  are   defined  as  any  six
    minute period during which  the aver
    age  opacity of  emissions exceeds 30
    percent opacity, except  that one slx-
    mlniite average per hour of up to 37
    percent opacity need not be reported.
      (2) Sulfur diojidr. Excess emissions
    for affected facilities are defined as:
                                                                                                                               247
                                                                                               •m i:n  o wi
    

    -------
        5 «>.«
    
          (I) Any  llirrc hour  period  durlnf
        which the aveianc emissions (arithme-
        tic average of three contiguous one-
        hour  periods) of  sulfur  dioxide  as
        measured by a continuous monitoring
        system exceed the applicable standard
        under I M.43.
         (3) Nitrogen oxtdei. Excess emissions
        for affected facilities using a continu-
        ous monitoring system for measuring
        nitrogen oxides are defined as any
        three-hour period during which the
       average emissions (arithmetic average
       of three contiguous one-hour periods)
       exceed the applicable standards under
       160.44.
       140 FR 443M. Oct. «. ItTBI
        EDrrom/iL Non: For FcraiUL Raoisna d-
       Ulloiu affecting I «0 45. tee the Llit of CFR
       flections Affected In the  Flndlnc Aid* sec-
       tion of till* volume.
    
       I M.4« Test melhodi and procedures.
    
        (a) The reference methods In Appen-
      dix A of this part, except as provided
      In 160.8(b). shall be used to determine
      compliance with the standards as pre-
      scribed In 1160.42. 60.43. and 60.44 as
      follows:
     .  (I) Method I  for selection  of sam-
      pling site and sample traverses.
       (2) Method 3  for gas analysis to be
     used when applying Method S, SB. 17,
     6. 7. 7A. 1C. or 7D.
       (3) Method 5.  5B. or  17 for  concen-
     tration of partlculate matter and the
     associated moisture content as  follows:
     Method 6 Is to be used at affected fa-
     cilities without wet flue gas desulfurl-
     zatlon (POD) systems; Melliini so Is to
     be used only after wet Full systems;
     and Method 17 may be  used at facili-
     ties with or without wet POO systems
     provided that the stack fas tempera-
     ture Hi the sampling locution does not
     exceed  an average temperature of 160
     *C (320 "F). The procedures of .sections
     2 I and 2.3 of Method SB may be used
     with Method 17 only If It Is used after
     wet POD systems Do not use Method
     17 after wet POD systems If the efflu-
     ent  gas Is saturated  or laden with
     water droplets.
      (4) Method 6 or 6C for concentration
     of SO,. Method 6A may be used when-
     ever Methods 6 or 6C and 3 or 3A data
     are used to determine the SO, emis-
    sion rate In n«/J  Method 6C shall be
                 40 CFR Ch. I (7-l-M E4lltl«Ni)
    
        used only at the sole discretion of the
        source owner or operator.
          (S) Method 7. 7A. 1C.  ID. or 7E for
        concentration  of  NO,.  Method 7E
        shall be used only at the sole discre-
        tion of the source owner or operator.
          (b) For Method B. SB. or 17. Method
        1  shall be used to select the sampling
        site and the number of traverse sam-
        pling points. The sampling time  for
        each run shall be at least 60 minutes.
        and the minimum sampling volume
       shall  be 0.68 dscm  (30  dscf) except
       that smaller sampling times or  vol-
       umes,  when  necessitated by process
       variables or other factors, may be ap-
       proved by the   Administrator.  The
       probe and  filter  holder  heating sys-
       tems In the sampling train shall be set
       to   provide  a  gas  temperature  of
       I60±I4"C(320±25-P).
        (c) For Melhods 6 and 7. 7A. 7C. or
       7D the sampling site shall be the same
       as that selected for Method 8. SB, or
       17.  The sampling point In the duct
      shall be at  the centrold of the  cross
      section or at a point no closer to the
      walls than 1 m (3.28 ft). For Methods 6
      and 7C or 7D. the sample shall be ex-
      tracted at a constant volumetric flow
      rate.
        (d) For  Method 6. the minimum
      sampling time shall be 20 minutes and
      the  minimum  sampling volume  0.02
      dscm (0.71  dscf) for each sample.  The
      arithmetic mean of two samples shall
      constitute one  run. Samples shall be
      taken at approximately 30 minute In-
      tervals.
       (e)  For Method  7 or 7A. each  run
     shall consist of at least four grab sam-
     ples taken at approximately IB-minute
     Intervals. The arithmetic mean of the
     samples shall constitute the run value.
     For Melhod 7C or  7D. each run shall
     consist of a I-hour sample.
       (f)  For each run  using the melhods
     specified by  paragraphs (aM3),  (aM4).
     and (aHS) of this  section,  the  emis-
     sions  expressed In  ng/J (Ib/mllllon
     Btu)  shall be determined by the fol-
     lowing procedure:
                        prrcenlO.l
    where:
      (I) E^pollutant emission ng/J (Ib/
    million Btu).
                                      248
                   ProUctUn Agency
    
       (2) C>pollutant concentration, ng/
      dscm (Ib/dscf) determined by Method
      S. 6. 6C. 7. 7A. 7C. 7D. or 7E.
       (3) Percent O,=Oxygen  content by
      volume  (expressed  as  percent), dry
      basis. Percent oxygen shall be deter-
      mined by using the Integrated or grab
      sampling and analysis procedures of
      Method  3  as applicable, or by  using
      Method 3A. Melhod 3A shall  be used
      only  at  the  sole discretion  of the
      source owner  or  operator.   Oxygen
      samples shall be obtained as follows:
       (I) For  determination of sulfur diox-
      ide  by Method 6 or 6C and nitrogen
      oxides emissions by Method 7. 7A. 1C.
      7D. or 7E. Ihe oxygen sample shall be
     obtained  simultaneously at the same
     point In the duct. For Method 7 or 7 A.
     the oxygen sample shall be obtained
     using the grab sampling and analysts
     procedures  of Melhod 3, or by using
     Method 3A.
       (II) For determination of partlculate
     emissions, the oxygen sample shall be
     obtained  simultaneously by traversing
     the duct at  the same sampling location
     used for each run of  Method 0. SB. or
     17 under paragraph (b) of this section.
     Method I shall be used for selection of
     the number of oxygen traverse points
     except that no more than  12  sample
     points are required.
      (4) F=a  factor  as determined  In
     paragraphs  (f) (4). (S) or (6) of  160.45.
      (g) When  combinations of  fossil
     fuels or  fossil fuel and wood residue
     are fired,  the  heal Input, expressed In
     walla (Btu/hr). Is determined  during
     each testing period by multiplying the
     gross calorific value of each fuel fired
     (In J/kg or Btu/lb) by Ihe rale of each
     fuel burned (In kg/sec or Ib/hr). Gross
     calorific values are determined In ac-
     cordance with ASTM  methods D20IS-
     77 (solid fuels). D240-76 (liquid fuels).
     or DI826-77 (gaseous fuels) as applica-
     ble. (These three methods are Incorpo-
     rated by  reference- see 160.17.) The
     method used  to determine calorific
     value of  wood residue must  be ap-
     proved  by  Ihe Administrator. The
     owner or operator shall determine the
     rale <>l fuels burned during each test-
     ing period by  suitable methods and
    shall confirm  the rate by a material
    balance over  the steam  generation
    system.
                                  §•0.4
    
       (h)  If  the Central Illinois Publ
      Service   Company   elects.   und<
      |60.43(e). to comply  with the con
      blned  SO* emission rate of 470 nani
      •rams per  Joule (1.1  Ib per mllllo
      Btu) of combined heat Input to Units
      and 2. the test  methods  and proc<
      dures described In Appendix O. "Prc
      visions for an Alternative  Method o
      Demonstrating Compliance  with  4'
      CFR 60.43 for the Newton  Power 8ta
      tton of Central Illinois Public Service
      Company" must be used.             ''
    
      I4C PR 462M. Oct. «. int. as amended at II
      FR 13Iff. Nov. ». int. 4S FR 1737. Jan. n.
      INI; 4* FR JiJUJ. Sept. 27.  19M: 91 FR
      HIM. June II. !••«. 51 FR  42841. Nov. M.
      ISM: M FR J»»55. Aug. 4. 1M7I
    
     IM.47  lrnio*atl*«   technology  waivers;
        waiver  of nrifur dioxide standards of
        performance   for  new   rtaltonary
        •ource* for Homer  City  Hull No.  3
        •nder section III(J> of  Ike Clean Air
        Act for Multi-Steam  Coal Cleaning
        System.
    
      (a) Pursuant to  section  lll(j) of the
     Clean Air  Act. 42 U.8.C.  741 l(J). com-
     mencing on November 13. 1981 Penn-
     sylvania Electric  Company and New
     York State Electric it Gas Corpora-
     tion shall  comply with the following
     terms and conditions for  electric gen-
     erating Units Nos. I. 2. and 3 at the
     Homer  City Steam  Electric Generat-
     ing Station. Center Township, Indiana
     County. Pennsylvania.
      (b) The  foregoing terms and condi-
     tions shall remain effective through
     November  30.  1981, and  pursuant to
     section  I IK 1KB),  shall be Federally
     promulgated  standards  of  perform-
     ance. As such. It shall be  unlawful for
     Pennsylvania  Electric Company and
     New York State Electric & Gas Corpo-
     ration to operate Units Nos. I. 2. and 3
     In violation of the standards of per-
     formance established  In  this waiver.
     Violations of the terms and  conditions
    of this waiver shall subject Pennsylva-
    nia Electric Company  and New York
    Stale Electric A  Oas Corporation to
    Federal enforcement under sections
    113 (bl and (c). 42 U.S.C. 7413 (b) and
    (c). and 120. 42 U.S.C. 7420. of Ihe Art
    as well as possible citizen enforcement
    under section 304 of the Art. 42 U.S.C.
    7604.  Pursuant to  sprllon  IIKcHI) of
                                                                                                                            249
    

    -------
     8*0.47
    
     the Act, 42 U.8.C. 74U(c)(l). at 45 FH
     3100. January 16.  1980. the Adminis-
     trator  delegated  to  the  Common-
     wealth of Pennsylvania authority to
     Implement  and  enforce  the  Federal
     Standards of  Performance  for  New
     Stationary Sources of 1.2 Ib  SO,/10*
     Btu applicable to Homer City Unit No.
     3. The SO, emission limitations speci-
     fied In this waiver for Unit No. 3 are
     new Federally promulgated Standards
     of  Performance  for  New Stationary
     Sources for  a limited  time  period.
     Thus, during the period  this waiver Is
     effective, the  delegated authority  of
     the Commonwealth of  Pennsylvania
     to  enforce the Federal  Standards  of
     Performance   for   New  Stationary
     Sources of 1.2 Ib  SO,/10* Btu applica-
     ble to Homer City Unit No. 3 Is super-
     seded  and enforcement  of the terms
     and conditions of this waiver shall be
     the responsibility of the Administrator
     •)t EPA. The Commonwealth of Penn-
     sylvania may,  and Is  encouraged to,
     seek delegation of authority, pursuant
     to  section lll(cMl). to enforce the
     temporary Federal  Standards of Per-
     formance for New Stationary  Sources
     specified In this  waiver. Should such
     authority be delegated to the State,
     the  terms  and  conditions  of  this
     waiver shall be enforceable by the Ad-
     ministrator of EPA and the Common-
     wealth of Pennsylvania,  concurrently.
     Nothing In this waiver shall affect the
     rights of the Commonwealth of Penn-
     sylvania under the  Decree filed In the
     Pennsylvania  Commonwealth  Court
     on January 28. 1981. at Docket No. 161
     C.D. 1981.
      (c) On December I.  1981, and  con-
     tinuing thereafter,  at no  time shall
     emissions of  SO,  from  Unit  No.  3
     exceed 1.2 Ib/IO" Btu of heal Input, as
     specified In 40 CFR  60.43(a>(2) (July 1.
     1979).
       On January IS. 1982. Pennsylva-
     nia Electric Company and New York
    State Elcclrlr St Gas Corporation shall
    demonstrate  compliance at  Homer
    City  Unit  No  3  with  40  CFR
    60.43(a)(2) (July I. 1979) In accordance
    with the test methods and procedures
    set  forth In 40 CFR 60.8 , (c). (d).
    (e) and (I) (July 1. 1979).
      (e> Emission limitations.  (I) Com-
     mencing  on  November  13,  1981  and
     continuing until November 30, 1981:
             40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-M Edition)
    
      (I) At no time shall emissions of SO,
     from Units Nos. 1. 2. and 3, combined.'
     exceed:  2.87 Ib SO./10* Btu  of  heat
     Input In a rolling 30-day period (start-
     ing  with the 60th day after the effec-
     tive date of the waiver); 3.6 Ib SO./10'
     Btu of heat Input In any day;' and 3.1
     Ib SO,/10* Btu of heat Input on more
     than 4  days In  any rolling 30-day
     period.
      (II) At no time shall emissions of SO,
     from Units Nos. 1. 2. and 3, combined,*
     exceed 696 tons In any day.
      (Ill) At no time  shall emissions  of
     SO, from Units Nos.  I. 2. and 3. com-
     bined,' exceed 91 tons In any discrete '
     3-hour period.
      (Iv) At no time  shall  emissions  of
     SO, from Units Nos. 1  and  2, com-
     bined, exceed 463 tons In any day.
      (v) At no time shall emissions of SO,
     from Units  Nos. 1 and  2. combined.
     exceed 61 tons In any discrete  ' 3-hour
     period.
      (f) Installation schedule. (1) Penn-
     sylvania  Electric and New York State
     Electric & Gas have selected engineer-
     Ing designs for necessary modifications
     to  the  Multl Stream  Coal Cleaning
     System (MCCS) 93B Circuit.
      (2) Pennsylvania  Electric and New
     York State Electric it Gas have placed
     purchase orders for all major equip-
     ment necessary to complete necessary
     modifications to  the MCCS 93B cir-
     cuit.
      (3) Pennsylvania  Electric and New
     York Stale Electric & Gas have com-
     pleted design engineering of the modi-
     fications to the MCCS 93B circuit.
      (4) On or before September IS. 1981.
     Pennsylvania Electric and  New York
    State Electric Si Gas shall complete
    construction of the  MCCS 93B circuit.
      (5) On or before October IS. 1981.
     Pennsylvania Electric and  New York
    Stale Electric ti Gas shall start up the
    MCCS 93B circuit.
      (g>   Monitoring   and   reporting.
    Throughout  the waiver  period  the
    Company  shall  acquire  sufficient
    quantities of emission monitoring  and
      1 A "day" (a 24 hour period) and • "dis-
    crete 3 hour period" Is defined In section
    (KMIKlv).
      ' The procedures used (or calciilallnR com
    blued SO, emissions are Riven In paragraph
    (KH5lof this srcUmi.
                                       250
    Environmental Protection Agency
                                 960.47
    fuel  analysis  data  to continuously
    demonstrate compliance with the com-
    bined emission limitations. The Com-
    pany  shall  acquire  heat  Input  and
    emission data  (sufficient  to demon-
    strate  compliance)  from  each  boiler
    during  all  operating  periods  (I.e..
    whenever fuel Is being fired). Includ-
    ing periods of process start-up, shut-
    down, and malfunction. This require-
    ment shall be  met through the use of
    continuous emission  monitoring  sys-
    tems (CEMS) (or as supplemented by
    continuous  bubbler  (CB>  systems),
    heating value  as determined by  as-
    fired fuel analysis, and coal mass feed-
    rate measurements.
      (1) Continuous Emission Monitoring
    System  (CEMS): Primary compliance
    monitoring method. (I) The Company
    shall Install, test, operate, and main-
    tain all CEMS as the primary compli-
    ance monitoring method  In such a
    manner as to result In the acquisition
    of validated data which are represent-
    ative of each boiler's 3-hour, 24-hour,
    and 30-day emission rates. (See para-
    graph (gM7> of this section.)
      (II) The validity of the emission data
    obtained with CEMS shall be  deter-
    mined  Initially by conducting a  per-
    formance specification  test  (PST).
    Subsequent  CEMS  data  validations
    shall be performed In accordance with
    paragraphs (gM6> and  (gK7> of  this
    section. All  PSTs of CEMS shall In-
    clude at least: (A) All of the specifica-
    tions and test  procedures contained In
    the January 26, 19B1 proposed  Per-
    formance Specifications 2 and 3  (Ref.
    1). 48 FR 83S2; and (B) the calibration
    error and response time specifications
    and test procedures contained In the
    October 10, 1979 proposed Perform-
    ance Specifications 2 and 3 (Ref. 2). 44
    FR S8602. The calibration error, re-
    sponse lime, and all drift tests shall be
    conducted using   calibration   gases
    which conform lo Ihe requirements of
    paragraph (g)(6XIII) of this section.
      (2) Continuous Bubbler System (CB):
    Secondary compliance tfit method. (I)
    The Company shall  use Ihe CB syslem
    as a secondary compliance monitoring
    method  lo  supplement CEMS  dala
    whenever a CEMS Is oul of service or
    Is otherwise providing dala of Insuffi-
    cient  quality  or quantity. The  CB
    technique shall also he used to periodi-
    cally assess the validity of CEMS data
    (See paragraph (g)(6)(l)(C) of this sec-
    tion).
      (II) The CB  technique for quantita-
    tively assessing SO, emissions (In  Ib/
    10* Btu) Is delineated In Appendix I of
    this waiver. This technique  10  based
    upon combining the basic wet-chemi-
    cal technique  of  EPA's Reference
    Method 6 at 40 CFR Part 60. Appen-
    dix I. July  1,  1979. (for  determining
    SO, concentrations) with the gravime-
    tric method (absorption  of  CO, onto
    ascarlte) for determining CO. concen-
    trations. Using reduced flow rates and
    Increased reagent volumes and concen-
    trations, the CB  system may be run
    for much  longer periods of time than
    Reference Method 6 at 40 CFR Part
    60. Appendix  1 (July 1. 1979). The
    Company  may  make  the  following
    modifications  to  the  CB method as
    long as  they periodically demonstrate
    that their modified CB method meets
    the performance criteria of paragraph
    (CX6KII) of this section:
      (A) Use a heated sample probe.
      (B) Use  an In-slack filler (up stream
    of the Implngers) to  remove  panicu-
    late mailer.
      (C) Eliminate Ihe Isopropanol (Ini-
    tial) Implngers.
      (D) Use a  diaphragm  pump with
    flow regulators In place of Ihe peristal-
    tic pump.
      (Ill) The  Company  shall   Initially
    demonstrate Its proficiency In acquir-
    ing 8O./CO. dala with Ihe CB melhod
    by comparing the results  obtained
    using the CB melhod  with  Ihose ob-
    tained using Reference Methods 3 and
    6   (See  Ref.   3   and   paragraph
    (g>(6MII>(B> of this section). The CB
    data shall be deemed Initially accepta-
    ble If Ihe results of this test are within
    the  limits  prescribed In paragraph
    (gX6XII) (A) and (B) of this section.
    Subsequently. Ihe CB dala shall be pe-
    riodically  re validated as per the QA re-
    quirements of paragraph (g>(6XII) (A)
    and (B) of this section.
      (3)  Requirements for  obtaining  3-
    hotir and 24-hour emission data from
    individual boilers. Using Ihe methods
    set forth In this waiver, the Company
    shall obtain Ihe following quantities of
    3-hour  and  24 hour  emission  data.
    Failure  to acquire the specified quanti-
    ty or quality nf (lain shall const Mute n
                                                                                       251
    

    -------
        I 40 47
    
        violation of the terms and condition*
        of tliU waiver.
         (I)  Data  and  calculation  require-
        ment* for continuous emission moni-
        toring system (CEMS). During normal
        operation of a CEMS (primary compli-
        ance method) to obtain emission data
        from one or more of Units Nos. I, 2,
        and 3. the Company shall obtain the
        following data from each CEMS:
         (A) 3-hour discrete averaging times
       using CEMS.—For  each  boiler,  con-
       tinuously measure and calculate eight
       discrete   3-hour  averages  each  day,
       using the three consecutive (exclusive
       of exemptions below) 1-hour emission
       averages  (each  consisting of  four
       equally spaced data points per 1-hour
       period). The only periods when CEMS
       measurements are exempted are peri-
       ods of routine maintenance (as speci-
       fied In  the Lear Slegler  Operator's
       Manual)   and  as required  for dally
      zero/span  checks  and  calibrations.
      Such exemptions notwithstanding, at
      no lime shall less than six discrete 3-
      hour averages per  day be obtained.
      Note that In calculations each  3-hour
      average one only uses the data avail-
      able from that  specific discrete aver-
      age.
         24-hour  averaging  limes  using
      CEMS. For each boiler, continuously
      measure and calculate one discrete 24-
      hour average per day. using  the avail-
      able (18 24) 1-hour emission averages
      obtained during that specific day. The
      only periods when  CEM3  measure-
      ments  are exempted  arc  |*ii The Company shall estimate the
     average  3-hour heat  Input  rate  (10*
     Btu/3-hours) for each boiler from the
     previously determined 24-hour values.
     To estimate a  3-hour  heat Input  rate
     multiply  the corresponding 24-hour
     value (10* Btu/24 hours) by  the  ratio
     of the respective 3-hour to the 24-hour
     megawatl outputs.
      (S)   Requirement* for calculating
     combined  SO, emissions.  (I)  3-hour
     averaging period: The  combined emis-
     sion  rales from Ihe operating boilers
     are equal to the  sum of the  products
     of the Individual  heal  Input rates (10*
     Btu/3-hours) and the SO,  emission
     rates (lb/10* Btu as determined for the
     3-hour period). This quantity, when di-
     vided by 2000 Ib/ton, equals  Ihe com-
    bined  Ions  of  3- hour  SO. emissions
    (see Equation I).
             M,=
                    2000
                                   940.47
                                 Equation I
      Where:
      M,.combined (e.g..  Units Nos. I and 2 or
         UnlU Nos. I. 2. and 3t emission rates for
         the operating units In tons SO., for the
         Kit averaging period (3-hour or 14-hour).
      E»- average emission rates from  the "Ith"
         unit In Ib SO,, for the Jth average period
         where J - 1-hour or 24-hour.           ,
      H.- average heat Input rates for the "Ith"
         unit In I0«  Btu per "Jlh"  averaging
         period where 1-3-hour or 24-hour.
      it-number of operating unlU.
       NOTE: Equation  1 Is to be used  for calcu-
      lating: (l> combined tons of SO.  emissions
      from Units Nos.  I and 2  and (2)  combined
      tons of SO. emissions from UnlU Nos. I. 2.
      and 1 Equation  I Is applicable to both 3-
      hour and 24-hour averaging  periods.  Fur-
      thermore. If a unit Is not combusting  fuel.
      "H." will be sero.
    
       (II) 14-hour averaging period:
       (A) The combined emissions from
     the operating boilers Is equal to  the
     gum of the products of the Individual
     neat Inputs (10* Btu/24 hour) and the
     SO. emissions  (lb/10* Btu as deter-
     mined  for the 24-hour period). This
     quantity, when divided by 2000 Ib/ton.
     equals  the combined tons of  24-hour
     SO, emissions (see Equation 1).
       (B) The combined  emissions from
     the operating boilers. In the units Ib/
     10* Btu.  Is equal to the  sum of the
     products  of the Individual heat Inputs
     (10* Btu/24 hour)  and  the SO. emis-
     sions (lb/10* Btu as determined for the
     24-hour period) divided by the sum of
     the combined heal Inputs (see Equa-
     tion 2).
               . (E.H.)
    
               r.   tt.~
    Equation 2
                                       252
    Where:
    E  combined emission rale* for the operat-
       ing units In Ib SO,/10- Btu. for the 24-
       hour averaging period.
    E, - 24-hour average emission rates from the
       "Ith" unit In IbSO./IO'Btu
    H, = 24-hour averaie heal Input rates for Ihe
       "Ith" unit In 10-Blu/34 hour.
    n number of operating units.
     NOTE: If a unit Is not combusting fuel.
    "II," will bo r.rro
    
     (III) 30 day  rolling  average:  Oner
    every day.  calculate combined 30-cal-
                                                                                                                              253
    

    -------
      J 40.47
    
      endar day emission average rates (be-
      ginning  60 days  after  the effective
      date of this waiver), using all available
      combined 24-hour emission rate aver-
      ages  (paragraph (gXSXIIXB) of  this
      section), for the moil recent 30 consec-
      utive calendar days. To make the two
      calculations for the combined  (Units
      Nos. 1. 2. and 3; Units Nos. 1 and 2)
      emission rates, add the 30 consecutive
     dally combined average emission rates
      (Ib 8O./10* Btu) and divide the sum by
      30 days.
       (6) Quality Aiturance (QA) require-
      ment*. The Company shall  validate
     the  required  emission  data  by per-
     forming at least the quality assurance
     procedures specified herein. These QA
     requirements are considered the mini-
     mum  necessary  to ensure that  the
     sampling methods employed produce
     valid data. The  performance criteria
     that are established In this section and
     that are restated In Table I are consid-
     ered both  necessary  and  reasonably
     achievable. If. for any reason, a CEMS
     system falls to achieve the  required
     specifications, the CEMS shall be Im-
     mediately taken out  of service and
     s&mpllng with a CB system  shall be
     Initiated. If.  for any  reason, a  CB
     (whlih Is being used while a CEMS Is
     out  of service) falls to meet the re-
     quired  specifications,  the Company
     shall notify the Director of the Divi-
     sion  of Stationary Source  Enforce-
     ment  (Washington.  DC)  within 72
     hours,  as per paragraph (gXSXIv) of
     this section. The Company is encour-
     aged to supplement these procedures
     to Improve the quality of the emission
     data obtained.
      (I) QA requirements, calculation pro-
     cedures, and  specification  limits for
     CEMS  At a minimum, the Company
     shall conduct  the  following  Initial.
     dally, weekly, and quarterly QA  eval-
     uations of each  boiler's CEMS  data.
     Where  designated,  the response  time
     and  calibration error test procedures
    contained In Reference 2 and the re-
    maining performance lest procedures.
    Including  those for relative accuracy.
    of the January 26. 1981 proposed Per-
    formance  Specifications 2 and 3  (Ref.
    1) shall be used.
      (A)  Daily  zero   and  calibration
    checks of  the CEMS. Conduct the fol-
    lowing  zero  and  calibration   drift
              40 CM Ch. I (7.141 Edition)
    
     checks of each CEMS at approximate-
     ly 24-hour Intervals, and use the equa-
     tions provided here to determine If the
     CEMS meets the designated drift spec-
     ifications.  All monitors that have ex-
     hibited drift during  the  previous 24-
     hour period must be adjusted Immedi-
     ately after the drift checks have been
     performed and the results have been
     recorded.
       
    a.=xero gas value (%O.)
    
      (J> 24-hour calibration drift of the
    SO. monitor  (this test Is to be  per-
    formed using 85-95% span gas):
    
    Specification limits: 10.0% of span  In any
    one 24-hour period: 2.5%  of span for any
    three consecutive 24-hour periods.
                  Equation 5
       24 hour SO.
     calibration drift
          CEMS. - Q.
    
            CEM.
    x 100
    where:
    CEMS.  monitor reading (ppm)
    O.  calibration gas value (ppm)
    CEMS.- monitor span value (ppm)
                                     Environmental Protection Agency
    
                                       (4) 24-hour calibration drift of the
                                     O. monitor:
                                     Specification limits: 2.0% O. In any one 24-
                                     hour period: 0.6% O. for any three consecu-
                                     tive 24-hour periods.
                                                   Equation 6
                                        24-hour O.
                                      calibration drift
                                        CEMS,-O.
                                                   x 100
                    where:
                    CEM8,-monllor reading (%O.)
                    O.-calbrallon gas value <%O.)
                      (B) Daily mid-ranpe checks of the
                    CEMS.  Conduct  the  following  mid-
                    range  calibration   checks   of  each
                    CEMS after performing the zero and
                    calibration drift checks. The purpose
                    for  requiring  mid-range  calibration
                    checks to to verify CEMS linearity be-
                    tween the zero and calibration values.
                    The mid-range calibration checks shall
                    be  conducted  at approximately 24-
                    hour Intervals (or more frequently),
                    and the equations provided shall be
                    used to determine If the CEMS meets
                    the designated specification limits:
    
                    24-hour mid-range drift check of the
                    SO. and the O. monitors (this test to
                    to  be  performed  using 45-55%  span
                    gas): Specification limits (same for SO.
                    and O. monitors): 10% of  mid-range
                    gas  In  any one  24-hour period  and
                    5.0%  of  mid-range gas In any three
                    consecutive 24-hour periods.
                                      SO. and O. mid-
                                        range drift
                                  Equation 7
    
                                       CEMS.
    
                                         O.
                                   x 100
    where:
    CEMS. = monitor reading t.
                                                 CB)
                                                                                                         I x  100
    where:
    CEMS-8O./O. monitor  system  reading
       (SO.Ib/10'Btu)
    CB-CB measurement results (SO. Ib/IO*
       Btu)
      (D> Initial  and  quarterly perform-
    ance specification tests of CEMS. Ini-
    tially and once each three months,
    conduct at least one 3-hour relative ac-
    curacy  test  (combined  SO.  and  O.
    channels as per Ref erence; 1 >, and a re-
    sponse time and calibration error test,
    (as per Reference 2). The calculation
    procedures provided  In  References I
    and 2 shall also be used.
    Specification llmlU:
    Relative Accuracy =. ± 20% (maximum per-
       cent difference between the CEMS and
       the  RM data In units of Ib SO./10' Btu)
    Response Time- IS minutes
    Calibration Error-8.0% (SO. and O. chan-
       nels separately)
    
      (E) Unscheduled  performance speci-
    fication tests  of the CEMS.  If for any
    reason  (other than  routine  mainte-
    nance  as  specified In the Lear Slegler
    operating manual)  the CEMS to taken
    out of service or Its performance Is not
    within the specification limits of para-
    graph  (g>(6) of this section, the Com-
    pany shall  conduct a  complete Per-
    formance Specification Test (PST) of
    the CEMS, according lo the combined
    requirements of References 1 and 2. as
    per paragraph (g)(6)(IHD) of this sec-
    tion. Whenever a  CEMS Is laken out
    of service and  a  supplementary CB
    system Is bring  used, the CEMS shall
    not replace the  CB system until such
    time that the Company has demon
    slraled lhal Ihe performance of the
    CEMS Is within all of the performance
    limits   established  by   paragraphs
    (g)(6XI) (A). (B). (C). and (D) of this
    section.
      (II)  QA requirements,  calculation
    procrduret,  and specification  limits
                                       254
                                                                                                                             255
    

    -------
       J 40.47
    
      for CB tyttenu. At a  minimum, the
      Company shall  conduct the following
      Initial, weekly, and quarterly QA eval-
      uations of  a/I  CB systems that are
      belnf used:
        < I) For any quality assurance evalua-
      tions of a CEM8; and
        (2)  Ss  the secondary compliance
      method when a  CEMS  Is out of serv-
      ice. If a  CB system does  not meet
      these specifications, then:
        (1) The  CB must  Immediately be
      taken out of service;
        (2) The Company must notify the
      Director,   Division   of  Stationary
      Source   Enforcement   (Washington,
      DC) within 72 hours after this deter-
      mination Is made; and
        (3) The Company will  be considered
      In violation  of the provisions of the
      waiver until an acceptable monitoring
      method  Is  Initiated (see paragraph
      (gXSXIII) of this section).
       (A) Initial and  weekly mid-range
      calibration  checkt  of the CB lyitem.
      Calibration checks  of the CB system.
      using mixed 8O./CO. mid-range cali-
      bration gas, shall be performed Initial-
      ly and at least once each  week thereaf-
      ter. The  calibration gas  shall be sam-
     pled by the CB system for no leas than
     2 hours at a flow rale approximately
     the same as used  during emission sam-
     pling. The following equation shall be
     used to determine If the CB meets the
     designated mid-range calibration speci-
     fication limit.
    
     Specification limit:  ld.0% (maximum per-
     cent difference between CH  value and mid
     ranee *u value).
                  Equation f
      Percent difference
      (CB M calibration
            cast
    CB
    
    (I.
    xlOO
    where:
    CR -bubbler value (SO. !»•/10* Blul
    Q.. mined RO./CO, mM taiise calibration
       •as valur (SO. Ib/IO'BUK
    
      (B> Initial and quarterly relative ac-
    curacy trtts of the CB system*. Oper-
    ate at least one of the  CB  systems
    used during the quarter for a 3-hour
    period. During the same three hour
    period, collect at least one  paired set
    of Reference Method 3 and 6 camples.
    Each paired set shall consist of at least
                              40 CM Ch. I (7-141 Mitten)
    
                      three to six 20-90 minute consecutive
                      ("bark-to back") runs.  The  following
                      equation shall be used to determine If
                      the CB meets the designated relative
                      accuracy specifications limit.
    
                      CB Specification  limit: 10.0% (maximum
                      percent difference between CB  value and
                      and RM value).
    
                                  Equation 10
       Percent difference (CB  I CB
    
             "•""'        fe
                                                    xlOO
      where:
      CB-bubbler value (SO. Ib/IO'Btu)
      RM-average value of the paired Reference
         Method 1 and • run* (SO. Ib/IO- Blu)
    
       Oil)  QA requirement* and ipecifica-
      tion limit for calibration  pates. All
      calibration   gases   used  for  dally,
      weekly, or quarterly calibration drift
      checks. CB calibration checks and per-
      formance specification tests shall  be
      analyzed  following EPA  Tract-ability
      Protocol No. I (see  reference  4)  or
      with Method 3 or «. If Method 3 or 0 Is
      used,  do  the following.  Within two
      weeks prior to Its use on a CEMS. per-
      form triplicate analyses  of the  cylin-
     der gas with the applicable reference
     method until the results of three con-
     secutive Individual runs  agree within
     10 percent of the average. Then use
     this average for the cylinder gas con-
     centration.
      (Iv) Qualify assurance- checkt for lab-
     oratory analysis. Each day that the
     Company conducts Reference Method
     6 or CB laboratory analyses, at least
     two SO! audit samples shall be ana-
     lyzed concurrently, by  the same per-
     sonnel,  and In the name manner as the
     Company  uses  when  analyzing Its
     dally emission samples. Audit samples
     must be obtained from EPA. The fol-
     lowing equation shall be used to calcu-
     late the designated specification  limit
     to determine If the Company's labora-
     tory analysis procedures are adequate.
    
      Analysis ipeclf(cation limit (for each of
     two audit samples): 5% '(maximum  percent
    difference between laboratory value and (he
    averase of (he  actual valur ol the  audit
    samples).
                                                    r
                                                         Percent difference
                                                           (laboratory vs.
                                                              actual)
                                                                 rrs)ffwclloft Afj •ncy
    
                                                                Equation II
    
                                                                       8LV
                                                                             8AV
                                                                             -I
                                                         where:
                                                         8LV-laboratory value (mg/D8CM> of the
                                                            audit sample
                                                         8AV- actual value (mg/DSCM) of the audit
                                                            •ample
    
                                                           (v)  QA  requirement*,  calculation
                                                         procedure*,  and specification limits
                                                         for 21-hour fuel tampllnp and analy-
                                                         sts. At a minimum, the Company shall
                                                         conduct  the  following  bi-weekly QA
                                                         evaluations of each  boiler's fuel sam-
                                                         pling and analysis data.
                                                           (A) Initially and  at  least bi-weekly
                                                         the Company (or  Its own contractor
                                                         laboratory) shall prepare and  split a
                                                         60 mesh (260 micron)  sample of coal
                                                         (24-hour composite) with an Independ-
                                                         ent laboratory.  The Company shall
                                                         compare the  in ''•pendent laboratory'*
                                                         heal content    
     PAY-reference value (Btu/lb)
    
       (vl) The use of more than the mint-
     mum Quantifies o/ data  to calculate
     the QA speci/icafions. Whenever  lh«
     Company supplement*,  expand*,  or
     otherwise obtains more than the mini-
     mum amount of QA data required by
    . paragraph  of  this sec-
     tion.
       (B) Documentation thai the Compa-
     ny  acquired  at leasl the minimum
     quantity and quality of valid emission
     data specified In paragraph (gX3> of
     this section.
       (C) Documentation that the  Compa-
     ny performed al least the minimum
     quality assurance checks specified In
     paragraph (gK6) of this waiver; and
      (D) Timely  and adequate reporting
     of all  data  specified In paragraph
     (gX8) of this section.
     Failure to meet any of Ihese require-
     ments constitutes a violation  of this
     waiver.
      (II) SO. emissions rate data from  In-
     dividual boilers shall  be obtained  by
     Ihe primary compliance lest  method
     (CEMS), by the secondary compliance
     tesl method (CB).  or other methods
     approved by the Administrator.  Data
     for Ihe heal Input determination shall
     be obtained by 24-hour as-fired fuel
     analysis and  24-hour coal feed rate
     measurements, or other methods ap-
     proved  by the Administrator.  Compll
                                       256
                                                                                                                            257
    

    -------
    |«0.47
    
    ance with all SO. emission limitations
    shall  be  determined  In  accordance
    with  the calculation  procedures  set
    forth In  paragraph (g>(5) of this sec-
    tion or other procedures approved by
    the  Administrator.  The  Company
    must demonstrate compliance with all
    3-hour, 24-hour, and 30-day SO, emis-
    sion limitations during all periods of
    fuel combustion In one or more boilers
    (beginning with the effective date of
    the waiver), and Including all periods
    of  process  start-up,  shutdown,  and
    malfunction.
      (Ill) If  the  minimum quantity or
    quality of emission data (required by
    paragraph (g) of this section) were not
    obtained,  compliance of the affected
    fftclllly  with  the  emission require-
    ments specified In  this waiver may be
    determined  by  the   Administrator
    using all  available  data  which  Is
    deemed relevant.
      (Iv) For the  purpose of demonstrat-
    ing compliance with the emission limi-
    tations and  data requirements of this
    waiver:
      (A) "A day" (24 hour period) begins
    at 12:01 p.m. and ends at 12:00 noon
    the following day.  The Company may
    select an alternate designation for the
    beginning and end of the 24-hour day.
    However, the Agency must be notified
    of  any   alternate  designation   of  a
    "day"   and   must   be  maintained
    throughout  the waiver  period.  Also.
    for the purpose of  reporting, each day
    shall  be  designated by  the  calendar
    dale corresponding with the beginning
    of the 24 hour period:
      (B) Where concurrent 24-hour data
    averages are required (I.e.. coal feed
    rate, fuel sampling/analysis. SO, tons/
    24 hours, and SO, Ib/IO" Blu). the des-
    ignated  24-hour period comprising a
    day shall be consistent for  all such
    averages arid measurement data: and
      (C) There are eight  discrete 3-hour
    averaging periods during each day.
      (8)  Notification   and  reporting  ee-
    quirements  (i)   Noliflcalion:   The
    Company shall provide at least 30 days
    notice to the Director. Division of Sta-
    tionary  Source  Enforcement (Wash-
    ington. DC) of any forthcoming quar-
    terly  CEMS  Performance  Specifica-
    tion Tests and CR accuracy tests.
      (II) Quarterly Compliance and Moni-
    toring  Assessment  Report  require-
             40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-M Edition)
    
    ments: The Company shall submit to
    the  Director. Division  of  Stationary
    Source   Enforcement  (Washington,
    DC) "hard copy"  quarterly  reports
    that present compliance data and rele-
    vant monitoring and process data (e.g.,
    process  output rate, heat  Input rate,
    monitoring  performance, and quality
    assurance) acquired during  the report-
    ing period. Quarterly reports shall be
    postmarked no later  than  30 days
    after the completion of every (whole
    or  partial) calendar quarter during
    which the waiver Is In effect.
    
      Nora: These requirement* do not replace
    or preclude the "Unscheduled Reporting
    Requirement*"  contained In  paragraph
    ((MIMIII) of Ihli section.
    
    The following  specific  Information
    shall be  furnished for every calendar
    day:
      (A) General information. (/) Calen-
    dar date;
      (2) The method(s). Including descrip-
    tion, used  to  determine the 24-hour
    heat Input to  each  boiler (In units of
    Btu/hour);
      (J) The "F"  factor(s) used for all  ap-
    plicable calculations, the method of Its
    determination, and  the type of fuel
    burned;
      (B) Emitiion data.  (J>  Combined
    (Units Nos. 1. 2. and 3) 24-hour aver-
    age SO. emission rate (In units of  Ib/
    MMBtu):
      (2) Combined (Units Nos.  1. 2 and 3)
    rolling 30-day  average  SO, emission
    rale (In units of Ib/MMBtu);
      (J) Combined (Units Nos.  1. 2. and 3)
    3-hour average emission rates (in units
    of tons SO,):
      (4) Combined (Units Nos.  1. 2. and 3)
    24-hour   average emission  rates  (In
    units of  tons SO.);
      (5) Combined (Units Nos.  1 and 2) 3
    hour average  emission rates (in  units
    of tons SO,): and
      (6) Combined  (Units Nos. 1 and 2)
    24-hour   average emission  rates  (In
    units of  tons SO,).
       Quality assurance check  data.
    (I) The date and summary of results
    from all (initial and repetitions) of  the
    quality  assurance checks  performed
    during the quarter.  This Includes  all
    analytical  results on EPA's SO, and
    coal audit samples.
    Environmental Protection Agency
    
      (2)     Description^)     of     any
    modification^) made to the CEMS or
    CB which could affect  the ability of
    those systems to comply with the per-
    formance specifications  In  References
    1 and 2. or the CB performance speci-
    fications established by  section (g) of
    this waiver.
      (D) Atypical operation*. (I) Identifi-
    cation of specific periods  during  the
    calendar quarter when each boiler was
    not combusting fuel;
      (2) Periods of time when 3-hour, 24-
    hour, and/or 30-day averages were ob-
    tained using continuous bubbler data:
      (J) All emission averages which have
    been  calculated using a composite of
    two or more different sampling meth-
    ods (I.e., periods when both CEMS and
    CB systems have been used) must be
    Identified    by    designating    all
    duratlon(s)  and cause(s) of data loss
    during such periods;
      (4) For each Instance when a CEMS
    has been out of service, the Company
    shall designate:
      «> Time. date, duration;
      («) Reason for such downtime;
      (iii) Corrective action taken:
      (ii>> Duration before  CB sampling
    began;
      (v>  Time.  date,  and  performance
    specification test  (summary)  results
    acquired before CEMS returned to
    service; and
      (i>O Time and date when CEMS ac-
    tually returned to service, relative to
    terminating CB sampling.
      (S> Where only a portion of continu-
    ous data from any averaging perlod(s)
    was obtained, the duration per averag-
    ing perlod(s) when data  were acquired
    and were used to calculate the emis-
    sion average(s) must be Identified;
      <«) If the  required quantity or qual-
    ity of emission data (as per paragraph
    (g) of this  section)  were not obtained
    for any  averaging  perlod(s). the  fol-
    lowing Information must also be re-
    ported for  each affected  boiler. (See
    also Unscheduled Reporting Require-
    ments, paragraph (gM7>(lv) of this sec-
    tion:
      (i) Reason for failure to acquire suf-
    ficient data;
      (ii) Corrective action taken;
      (it)) Characteristics  (percent sulfur,
    ash content, healing value, and mois-
    ture) of the fuel burned;
                                 §60.47
    
      (D) Fuel  feed rates and steam pro-
    duction rales;
      (t>i> All emission and quality assur-
    ance data available from this quarter;
    and
      (tili) Statement (signed by a respon-
    sible Company official)  Indicating If
    any changes were made In  the oper-
    ation of the boiler  or any measure- •
    ment change (±20 percent) from  the  ,|
    previous averaging period) In the type  •
    of fuel  or firing rate  during such
    period.
      (E>  Company  certifications.  The
    Company shall  submit  a statement
    (signed by a responsible Company offi-
    cial) Indicating:
      (1) Whether or not the QA require-
    ments of this waiver  for the CEMs.
    CB. and fuel sampling/analysis meth-
    ods,  or  other  periodic  audits, have
    been  performed  In  accordance  with
    the provisions of this waiver:
      (2) Whether or not the data used to
    determine compliance was obtained In
    accordance with the method and pro-
    cedures  required by  this waiver. In-
    cluding  the results of the quality as-
    surance checks;
      (31 Whether or not the data require-
    ments have been met  or. If the mini-
    mum data requirements have not been
    met due to errors that were unavoid-
    able (attach explanation):
      (4) Whether or not compliance with
    all of the  emission standards estab-
    lished   by   this  waiver  have  been
    achieved during the reporting period.
      (Ill) Unscheduled  reporting  require-
    ments. The Company  shall  submit to
    the Director.  Division of Stationary
    Source   Enforcement  (Washington.
    DC).
      (A)  Complete  results of all CEMS
    performance specification tests within
    45 days after the Initiation  of such
    tests:
      (B)  The Company  shall  report.
    within 72 hours, each Instance of:
      (/) Failure to maintain the combined
    (Units Nos. 1. 2. and 3 and Units Nos. 1
    and 2. respectively) SO, emission rates
    below  the  emission  limitations pre-
    scribed In section (e) of this waiver:
      (2) Failure lo acquire the specified
    minimum quantity of valid emission
    data: and
      (J) Failure of  the  Company's Cf)(s>
    to meet  the quality assurance checks.
                                       258
                                                                                                                           259
    

    -------
     JW.4T
       I. Standards of Performance for New Sta-
     tionery Source*: Revisions to General Provl-
     •Ion* and Additions to Appendix A. and Re-
     piopuml of Revisions tu Appendix B. 40 FR
     6162 (January M. 1031).
                                                          40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-M Edition)
    
                                                torlnc  Performance  Specifications  44 FR
                                                MM2 lOctober 10. 1*791.
                                                  3. 40 CFR Part 60. Appendix A (July I.
                                                1070).
                                                  4. Qualify Anuranct Handbook for Air
                                                Pollution  Measurement Svitemi.  Volume
      I. Proponed Standards of Performance for   III. Stationary Source  Specific Methods
     New Stationary Sources, Continuous Monl    EPA-600/4-77-027b. August IB77.
    
    
       TAOIE l-ncoumED Prm-'j'tMtNCE CmrEMA ran OUMJTV ASSUHANCE (QA) EVAIUATIONS
      mutton
    ecus
    ecus
    ecus
    
    ecus
    
    ecus
    ecus
    ecus
    
    ecus
    
    ecus
    
    CEMS
    
    ecus*
    
    CEMS
    
    CEUS
    
    CfUS
    
    (fUS
    
    ca
    
    ca
    Icbuotoiy
               •oquoncy
             Dvt,
             DO*,
             o*,
             (My
    
             (My
             My
    
    
             WMMy'
    
    
             Molond
              qu.rt.rty
             InMlxd
              qutrWrty
             kiMond
              qumrty
             InMlondbi
             Out,
      'ft*** to iix-ol Kn fptotufcon toquici
    CEUS null b> Moil oul o> MKVKO
    OA chock
    24 how ion dnn SOi
    24 how <«o  dri* (X 	
    24 how IvodXlO. 	
    24 how coM»t*on oWI
    0,
    24 how uttnMn OXH
    a
    24 haul ircdrona*
    chK* (SO.OS.,1
    24 how nwffftngo
    dwc* ISO.OtJ
    occwccy*
    ISCvo, ...*•««
    24 how c4Mj>MOn (Ml
    (SO. •«* O, > COJ
    COJ
    A«talM« accuracy
    ISO, 'CO, ci*j.-n<<
    SpM vAn*** .ys.wy.it
    •flt«V*r*
    •nttyt*
    BptCafsCtMaDn wfHH
    fODOrowtlpMl 	
    SOaMCMlpM. 	
    tlooieonljMn 	
    I00*vo»nlip«n 	
    B] nmmn. .
    20»«CMO. 	
    05p4>conia 	
    fOpweorta 	 -
    an veto
    gn vduo
    
    
    so* nrfuo
    IS mnu*M 	
    2 S fooonl ipon 	
    90« vihM
    100 p«c
    
    
    CMoutollorl
    P>OC«OWO>
    E(juoSon4
    Equolnn4
    EquotanS
    EquMonI
    EquoMnS
    equMon r
    Cquosonr
    
    
    
    1
    2
    Soo Rotoronco
    2
    SwRotwonc*
    1
    FquMan II
    EquoDon 11
    
    
                                   •w hm to b* fopMUd on* Kmo • In ta« dgtwiioM  FOMIL  Fun.
       FIRED  COMBUSTION Sonic r« <<:ONTIMU
       ons RuR>i.r* MITIIOO)
    
      (NOTE The Company may MM- I hi- method
    or Its inodifk-atlons which II  desslcanl. 6 mesh.
      3.1.2  Aacarlle. Sodium hydroxide coaled
     asbestos for absorption of CO.. 6 to 20 mesh.
    • 3.2 Sample Recovery and Analysis. The
     reagents  needed for  sample  recovery and
     analysis are the same aa for Method 6. Sec-
     tions 3.2 and 3.3. respectively.
     4. Preparation o/Collection Train.
      Measure 75 ml. of 60 percent IPA Into the
     first Implnger and 7» ml. of  IP percent hy-
     drogen  peroxide Into each of the remaining
     Implngen. Into one of the absorption tubes
     place a  one-hole stopper and glass wool plug
     In  the  end and add  ISO to 200 grams of
     drlerlte to the tube. As the drlerlte to  added
     shake the tube to evenly pack the absorb-
     ent. Cap the tube with another plug of glaas
     wool and a one-hold stopper (use this end a*
     the Inlet for even flow). The ascartte lube to
     filled In  a  similar manner, using 160-111
     grams of ascarlte. Clean and dry the outside
     of  the  ascarlte tube and  weigh (at  room
     temperalue. 20 degree* Cl to the nearest O.I
     gram. Record this Initial mass  aa M* As-
     semble  the train as shown  In  Figure I.
     Adjust  the probe heater to  a temperature
     sufficient to prevent water condensation.
      4 I.I  Sampling. The bubbler shall be op-
     erated continuously at a sampling rate suffi-
     cient to collect 70-60 liters of source efflu-
     ent during the desired sampling period. For
                                     (•0.47
    
    example, a sampling rate of O.M liter/mm.
    to sufficient for a 24-hour average and 0.40
    liter per minute for a 3-hour average. The
    sampling rate shall not. however, exceed 1.0
    llter/mln.
      4.3  Sample Recovery.
      4.3.1  Peroxide Solution. Pour the  con-
    tents of the second and third Implngers Into
    a leak-free polyethylene  bottle for storage
    or shipping.  Rinse  the two Implngen and.
    connecting tubing with detonlzed distilled]1
    water, and add the  washings  to the same
    storage container.
      4.3.3  Ascarlte Tube. Allow  the ascarlte
    tube to equilibrate  with  room temperature
    (about 10 minutes), clean and dry the out-
    aide. and weigh to the nearest O.lg In the
    same manner as In Section 4.1.1. Record this
    final mass (M.,) and discard the  used aecar-
    lle.
      4.3  Sample Analysis. The sample analysis
    procedure for SO, to Ihe same as specified In
    Method 0. Section 4.3.
    6 Calculation!.
      6.1  SO, mass collected.
    
           M,.- 33.03 (V.  V»INV«.V.
    
                               Equation Al- 1
    Where:
    M_-maao of SO. collected, mg
    V,- volume of  barium perchlorate  tltrant
       used for Ihe sample, ml (average of rep-
       licate Mirations).
    V,- volume of barium perchlorate  tltrant
       used for the Wank. ml.
    N- normality of barium perchlorate tltrant.
       mllltequlvalenU/ml
    V.M.- total volume of solution In which the
       sulfur dioxide sample  Is contained, ml.
    V.^ volume of sample aliquot titrated, ml.
      6.3 Sulfur dioxide emission rate
                                 M..II
    
                               Equation All
    Where:
    M.- Initial mass of ascarlte. grams.
    MM- final mass of ascarlle. grams.
    E^, ^Emission  rate  of  SO..  ng/J  (Ib/
       MMBtu).
    P. -Carbon  P factor  for  the  fuel burned.
       M VJ. from Method 19 (Ref. 21
    K'= 1.620x10*
                                           260
                                                                                                                                           261
    

    -------
       *0 4Aa
                                                     40 CFR Ch. I (7-l-M Edition)
                                       MCUHI |
    
                       COMINOIIOUS IIHHIF*  (so/™!  s*Nn INC TMIN
            INOII   Se« SMI ion (|K»(ii| '«'  •et«pi»bl« vodilic tl ion> nl ihr
    Swbpart  Do—Standard* *f  Paris
        one* far  EUctric  Utility  Steam
        Generatinj Units far Which Can-
        •traction  It  Commenced  Aftar
        September It. 1971
    
      Bounce  44 FR 33813. June II. 1979. unless
    othervlse  noted.
    lie 4*.  A»»llr.MIUy  .nd •t.iftn.llon of
        effectce* facility.
    
      (a)  The  affected  facility to which
    this subpart applies Is  each electric
    utility steam generating unit:
        That Is  capable of combusting
    more than 73  megawatts (250 million
    Btu/hour) heal  Input  of  fossil  fuel
    (either alone or  In combination with
    any other fuel): and
                                       262
                                                     Environmental Protection Agency
                                                                      §*0.41a
      (2) For which < (instruction or modi-
    fication Is commenced  after Septem-
    ber 18. 1078.
      (b) This subpart applies to electric
    utility  combined  cycle  gas turbines
    that are capable of combusting more
    than 73 megawatts (250 million Blu/
    hour) heat Input of fossil  fuel In the
    steam  generator.  Only emissions re-
    sulting  from combustion of fuels In
    the steam generating unit  are subject
    to this subpart. (The gas turbine emis-
    sions are subject to Subpart GO.)
       75  ng/J  (0.17  Ib/mllllon  Btu)
    heat Input for liquid fuels.
      (b) For sulfur dioxide Is determined
    under 160 48a(b>.
      (c) For nitrogen oxides Is:
      (I) 200 ng/J (0.67 Ib/mllllon Utu)
    heat Input for gaseous fuels:
      (2) 310 ng/J (0.72 Ib/mllllon  Btu)
    heat Input for liquid fuels: and
      (3) 000 ng/J (2.30 Ib/mllllon Btu)
    heat Input for solid fuels.
      "Combined cycle go* turbine" means
    a   stationary   turbine  combustion
    system where heat from  the turbine
    exhaust gases Is recovered by a steam
    generating unit.
      "Interconnected" means that two or
    more electric generating units are elec-
    trically tied together by a network of
    power  transmission  lines, and  other
    power transmission equipment.
      "Electric utility  company"  means
    the  largest  Interconnected organiza-
    tion, business, or governmental entity
    that generales electric  power for sale
    (e.g., a holding company with operat
    Ing subsidiary companies).
      "Principal  company"  means  the
    eleclrlc utility company or companies
    which own the affected  facility.
                                                                                                                               263
    

    -------
     |«0.4t«
    
      ••Neighboring company" means any
     one of those electric utility companies
     with one or more electric power Inter-
     connections to the principal company
     and which have geographically adjoin
     Ing service areas.
       •Net  intern  capacity"  means the
     sum of the net electric generating ca-
     pability (not necessarily equal to rated
     opacity)   of  all  electric generating
     equipment owned by an electric utility
     company < Including steam generating
     units. Internal combustion engines, gas
     turbines, nuclear units,  hydroelectric
     units, and all other electric generating
     equipment) plus firm contractual  pur-
     chases that are Interconnected  to the
     affected facility that has the malfunc-
     tioning  Hue   gas   desulfurlzatlon
     syitem. The  electric generating capa-
     bility of  equipment under multiple
     ownership  Is  prorated based on owner-
     ship unless the proportional entitle-
     ment to electric output Is otherwise es-
     tablished by contractual arrangement.
      "Syitem load" means the entire elec-
     tric demand of an electric utility com-
     pany's  service  area  Interconnected
     with the affected facility that has the
     malfunctioning  flue  gas  desulfurlza-
     tlon system plus firm contractual sales
     to  other  electric  utility  companies.
    Sales to other electric utility compa-
     nies (e.g.,  emergency power) not on a
     firm contractual basis may also be In-
    cluded In  the  system load  when no
    available system capacity exists In the
    electric utility  company to which the
    power Is supplied for sale.
      "Syttem  emergency reserve*"  means
    an amount of  electric generating ca-
    pacity equivalent to the rated capacity
     of the single largest electric generat-
     ing unit In  the electric utility company
     (Including  steam generating  units. In-
     ternal  combustion  engines,  gas  tur-
     bines,  nuclear  units,   hydroelectric
     units, and all ol her electric generating
     equipment) which  Is Interconnected
     with the affected facility that has the
    malfunctioning  flue  gas  desulfurlza-
    tlon system. The electric generating
    capability of equipment under  multi-
    ple ownership  Is prorated based on
    ownership  unless the proportional en-
     titlement  t The rated capacity of the power
     transmission lines between the power
     Interconnection devices and the elec-
     tric generating units (the unit In the
     principal company  that  has the mal-
     functioning flue gas  desulfurlzatlon
     system  and the unll(s) In the neigh-
     boring  company  supplying  replace-
     ment electrical  power) less the electric
     power  load on these  transmission
     lines.
      "Spare  flue   gat  de$ulfurization
     $yitem  module" means  a separate
     system of sulfur dioxide emission con-
     trol equipment capable of treating an
     amount of  flue gas equal to the total
     amount of flue  gas generated by an af-
     fected facility when operated at maxi-
     mum capacity  divided  by  the total
     number of nonspare flue gas desulfurl-
     zatlon modules  In the system.
      "Emergency condition" means that
     period of time when:
      (a) The electric generation output of
     an  affected facility with a malfunc-
     tioning flue  gas desulfurlzatlon system
    cannot be reduced or electrical output
    must be Increased because:
      (I) All available system capacity In
     the principal company Interconnected
     with the affected facility Is being oper
    atcd. and
                                       264
    tnvlr*mn«nt«l
                                §«0.41sj
      (3)  All available  purchase  power
    Interconnected with the affected facil-
    ity Is being obtained, or
      (b) The electric generation demand
    to being shifted as quickly aa possible
    from an affected facility with  a mal-
    functioning  flue gas  desulfurbtatlon
    system to one or more electrical gener-
    ating unlU held In reserve by the prin-
    cipal company or by a  neighboring
    company, or
      (c) An affected facility with  a mal-
    functioning  flue gas  desulfurlzatlon
    system  becomes  the  only available
    unit to  maintain a part or all  of the
    principal company's system emergency
    reserves  and the unit to operated In
    spinning reserve at the lowest  practi-
    cal electric generation load consistent
    with not causing significant physical
    damage to the unit. If the unit to oper-
    ated at  a higher load to meet toad
    demand,  an   emergency  condition
    would not exist unless the conditions
    under (a) of this definition apply.
      "Electric utility combined cycle fat
    turbine" means any  combined cycle
    gas turbine used for electric genera-
    tion that to constructed for the pur-
    pose of supplying more than one-third
    of Its potential electric output capac-
    ity and more  than 2S MW electrical
    output to any utility  power distribu-
    tion system for sale. Any steam distri-
    bution system that to  constructed for
    the purpose of  providing steam to a
    steam  electric generator that would
    produce  electrical power  for  sale  to
    also considered  In  determining  the
    electrical energy output capacity of
    the affected facility.
      "Potential electrical  output  capac-
    ity" to defined as 33  percent  of the
    maximum design heat Input capacity
    of the steam  generating unit  (e.g.. a
    steam generating unit with a 100-MW
    (340 million Btu/hr)  fossil-fuel heal
    Input capacity would  have a 33-MW
    potential electrical output capacity).
    For electric utility combined cycle gas
    turbines   the   potential  electrical
    output capacity Is determined  on the
    basis of  the fossil-fuel firing capacity
    of the  steam generator  exclusive of
    the heal input and  electrical  power
    contribution by the gas turbine.
       "Anthracite" means coal that to clas-
    sified as anthracite according  to the
    American Society of Testing and Ma-
    terials'  (ASTM)  Standard  Specifica-
    tion for Classification of  Coals by
    Rank O3M-77 (Incorporated by refer-
    ence-see |M.I7>.
      "Solid derived fuer means any solid,
    liquid, or gaseous fuel derived from
    solid fuel for the purpose of creating
    useful  heat and  Includes, but to  not
    limited  to.  solvent refined coal, liqui-
    fied coal, and gasified coal.          it
      "H-Hour  period" means the period
    of time between  13:01 a.m.  and 13:00
    midnight.
      "Retource recovery unit" means a fa-
    cility that combusts more than 75 per-
    cent non-fossil fuel on a quarterly (cal-
    endar) heat Input basis.
      "JvYmconftaentof area"  means  the
    State of Hawaii, the  Virgin  Islands.
    Guam,  American Samoa,  the Com-
    monwealth  of  Puerto Rico,  or  the
    Northern Mariana Islands.
      "Boiler operating day" means a 34-
    hour period during which fossil fuel to
    combusted  In a steam  generating unit
    for the entire 34 hours.
    («« FR (Mil. June II.  int. as amended st
    «g m rm. Jan. 21. itaii
    
    • *t.43a  Standard for s*rtlr«lale muUtr.
      (a) On and after the date on which
    the performance teat  required to be
    conducted  under |«0.g to completed.
    no owner or operator subject to the
    provisions of this subpart shall cause
    to be discharged Into the atmosphere
    from any affected  facility  any gases
    which contain partlculale  matter In
    excess of:
      (I) 13 ng/J (0.03 Ib/mlllkm  Btu)
    heat Input  derived from the combus-
    tion of solid, liquid, or gaseous fuel;
      (3) 1  percent of the potential com-
    bustion concentration (9* percent re-
    duction) when combusting  solid fuel:
    and
      (3) SO percent of potential combus-
    tion concentration (70 percent reduc-
    tion) when combusting liquid fuel.
      (b) On and after the date the partlc-
    ulale  matter  performance  test  re-
    quired to be conducted under  1W.g Is
    completed, no owner or operator sub-
    ject to  the  provisions  of this  subpart
    shall cause to be discharged Into the
    atmosphere from nny  affected facility
    any gases which exhibit greater than
    20 percent opacity (6 minute average).
                                                                                          265
    

    -------
     9*0.49*
    
     except  for  one 6 minute period per
     hour  of not  more  than  27 percent
     opacity.
    
     I M.43a  Standard for sulfur dioxide.
      (a) On and after the date on  which
     the Initial  performance  test required
     to  be conducted under I 60.8 Is com-
     pleted, no owner or operator subject to
     the provisions of  this subpart  shall
     cause to be discharged Into the atmos-
     phere from any affected facility  which
     combusts solid  fuel  or  solid-derived
     fuel, except as provided  under para-
     graphs (c),  (d). (f> or  (h) of this sec-
     tion, any gases which contain  sulfur
     dioxide In excess of:
      (1) 520 ng/J (1.20 Ib/mllllon Btu)
     heat Input  and 10 percent of the po-
     tential combustion  concentration (90
     percent reduction), or
      (2) 30 percent of the potential com-
     bustion  concentration  (70 percent re-
     duction), when emissions arc less than
     260 ng/J (0.60 Ib/mllllon Btu) heat
     Input.
       On and after the date on which
     the Initial performance lest  required
     to  be  conducted under | 60.8 Is com-
     pleted, no owner or operator subject to
     the provisions of  this subpart shall
     cause to be discharged  Into the atmos-
     phere from any affected facility which
     combusts  liquid  or  gaseous  fuels
     iexcept for  liquid or gaseous  fuels de-
     rive! from solid fuels and as  provided
     under paragraphs (e) or (h> of this sec-
     tion),  any gases which contain sulfur
     dioxide In excess of:
      (I) 340 ng/J (080 Ib/mllllon  Btu)
     heat Input and 10  percent of the po-
     tential combustion concentration (90
     percent reduction), or
      (2) 100 percent of the potential com-
     bustion concentration (zero percent re-
    duction) when emissions are less than
    86  ng/J  (020  Ib/mllllon  Btu)   heat
    Input.
      (c) On and after the  date on which
    the  Initial performance lest  required
    to be conducted  under { 60.8 Is com-
    plete, no owner or operator subject to
    the  provisions of this subpart  shall
    cause to be discharged Into the atmos-
    phere from any affected facility which
    combusts solid solvent refined  coal
    (SKC I)  any  gasrs  which  contain
    sulfur dioxide in excess  of 520  nK/J
    (1.20 Ib/million Bin) heal Input and 15
              40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-M Edition)
    
     percent of  the  potential  combustion
     concentration (85 percent  reduction)
     except as provided  under  paragraph
     (f) of this section; compliance with the
     emission limitation Is determined on a
     30-day rolling average basis and com-
     pliance with the percent reduction re-
     quirement Is determined on a 24-hour
     basis.
      (d) Sulfur dioxide emissions are lim-
     ited to 520 ng/J (1.20 Ib/mllllon Btu)
     heat Input from any affected facility
     which:
      (1) Combusts 100 percent anthracite,
      (2) Is classified as  a resource  recov-
     ery facility, or
      (3) Is located  In a noncontlnental
     area  and combusts solid fuel or solid-
     derived fuel.
      (e) Sulfur  dioxide emissions are lim-
     ited to 340 ng/J (0.80 Ib/mllllon Btu)
     heat  Input  from any affected facility
     which la located In a noncontlnental
     area  and combusts liquid  or gaseous
     fuels (excluding solid-derived fuels).
      (f)  The emission reduction require-
     ments under this section do not apply
     to any affected facility that Is operat-
     ed  under an SO, commercial demon-
     stration permit Issued by the Adminis-
     trator In accordance  with the  provi-
     sions of I 60.45a.
      (g)  Compliance with  the  emission
     limitation  and percent  reduction re-
     quirement* under this section are both
     determined on a 30-day rolling average
     basis except as provided under  para-
     graph (c) of this section*
      (h) When  different fuels are com-
     busted simultaneously, the applicable
     standard  la  determined  by  proratlon
     using the following formula:
      (I)  If emissions of sulfur dioxide  to
     the atmosphere are greater than 260
    ng/J (0.60 Ib/mllllon Blu> heat Input
    
     E». = 1340 x + 520 yl/100 and
    P.O. =  10 percent
    
      (2) If emissions of sulfur dioxide  to
    the atmosphere are equal  to or less
    than  260 ng/J (0.60 Ib/mllllon  Btu)
    heat Input:
    
    £„„ -  1340 x i 520 y 1/100 »nd
    Pv,.   190 x i 70y)/IOO
    where:
    fc,,., is the prorated sulfur dioxide emission
       limit (tiK/J heal Input).
                                        266
    Environmental Protection Afjoncy
    
    P.O. Is the percentage of potential sulfur di-
       oxide emission allowed (percent  reduc-
       tion required = 100  PIOI).
    x to the percentage of total heat Input de-
       rived from the combustion of liquid or
       gaseous  fuels  (excluding solid-derived
       fuels)
    jr Is the percentage of total heat Input de-
       rived from the combustion of solid fuel
       (Including solid derived fuels)
    
    I M.44a  Standard for nitrogen oxMei.
      (a) On and after the date on which
    the  Initial performance test required
    to be conducted  under 160.8 la com-
    pleted, no owner or operator subject to
    the  provisions of  this  subpart shall
    cause to be discharged Into the atmos-
    phere from  any  affected   facility,
    except as  provided under paragraph
    (b) of this section, any gases which
    contain nitrogen  oxides In  excess  of
    the following emission HmlU, baaed on
    a 30-day rolling average.
      (1) NO. emission limits.
                                 9«0.45o
    Fuaiixpa
    Gaaaoua hiahv
    CoatdanMdkialt
    Alolhafluatl
    liquid IM*
    Coal4la
    -------
      requirements  under  160.43a(c> but
      must. M • minimum, reduce SO, emis-
      sions to 30 percent of the potential
      combuitlon concentration (80  percent
      reduction) for each 24-hour period of
      •team generator operation and to leas
      than 520 ng/J (1.20  Ib/mllllnn Btu)
      heat Input on a 30-day rolling  average
      bails.
       (c) An owner or operator of  a fluid-
      lied  bed combustion electric utility
      •Uam generator (atmospheric or prea-
      •urteed) who  Is  Issued a commercial
      demonstration permit by the Adminis-
      trator Is not subject to the SO, emis-
      sion  reduction   requirement*  under
      160.43a(a) but must, as a  minimum,
      reduce SO. emissions to  IS percent of
      the  potential combustion concentra-
      tion (65 percent reduction) on a 30-day
      rolling average basis and to less than
      620  ng/J (1.20 Ib/mllllon Btu)  heat
      Input on a 30-day rolling average basis.
       (d) The owner or operator of an af-
      fected facility that combusts coal-de-
     rived liquid  fuel and who Is Issued a
     commercial demonstration permit by
     the Administrator Is not subject to the
     applicable NO. emission limitation and
     percent  reduction  under  160.44a(a>
     but must, as a minimum, reduce emis-
     sions  to less than 300 ng/J (0.70 Ib/
     million Btu) heal Input  on a  30-day
     rolling average basis.
      (e) Commercial demonstration  per-
     mits may not exceed the  following
     equivalent MW electrical generation
     capacity for any one technology cate-
     gory, and the total equivalent MW
     e'ectrlcal  generation  capacity for all
     commercial demonstration plants may
     not exceed 15.000 MW.
    Sold n>v«nl wftnwl rotf fffv.
     II
    Fli4»t«d tod cofnfeislion IptM
       Compliance provliloiM.
    
        (a) Compliance with the parllculate
      matter   emission   limitation  under
      |60.42a(aXI)  constitutes compliance
      with  the percent reduction  require-
      ments for partlculate  matter under
      I 00.42aand<3>.
        (b)  Compliance  will   .,«,•  nitrogen
      oxides  emission  limitation   under
      160.44a(a>  constitutes   compliance
      with the  percent  reduction require-
      ments under I 00.44a(aK2).
        (c) The  partlculate matter emission
      standards  under |60.42a and  the  ni-
      trogen  oxides  emission  standards
      under  160.44s, apply  at  all  times
      except during periods of startup, shut-
      down, or malfunction. The sulfur diox-
      ide emission standards  under I 00.43a
      apply at all times except during peri-
      ods  of startup, shutdown,  or when
      both emergency conditions exist and
      the procedures under paragraph (d) of
      this section are Implemented.
       (d) During emergency conditions  In
      the principal company, an affected fa-
     cility with a malfunctioning Hue gas
     desulfurlzatlon  system may be operat-
     ed If sulfur dioxide emissions are mini-
     mized by:
       (1) Operating all  operable  flue gas
     desulfurlzatlon  system  modules, and
     bringing back Into operation any mal-
     functioned module as soon as repairs
     are completed.
      (3) Bypassing  flue gases around only
     those flue gas desulfurlzatlon system
     modules that have been taken out of
     operation because they were Incapable
     of any sulfur dioxide emission reduc-
     tion or which would have suffered sig-
     nificant physical damage If they had
     remained In operation, and
      (3) Designing, constructing, and op-
     erating a spare flue gas desulfurlzatlon
     system module for an affected facility
     larger than 365 MW (1.250 million
     Btu/hr) heat  Input (approximately
     125  MW  electrical output  capacity).
     The Administrator may  at his discre-
     tion require the owner or  operator
     within 60 days of notification  to dem-
     onstrate spare module capability. To
     demonstrate this capability, the owner
     or operator  must demonstrate cornpll
     anre  with  the  appropriate require
    mrnts under paragraph  (a), (b). (d).
    (D. and (I)  under 160  43a  for  any
                                       268
                                                                                             •nvlroi
                                                                           nt«J Protect!*!! Agoncy
     period of operation lasting  from M
     hours to 30 days when:
       (I) Any one Hue gas desulfurisatlon
     module Is not operated,
       (II) The affected facility la operating
     at the maximum heat Input rate.
       (Ill) The fuel fired during the  94-
     hour to 30-day period la representative
     of the type and average sulfur content
     of fuel used  over a  typical M-day
     period, and
       (Iv) The owner or operator has given
     the Administrator  at  leaat  30 days
     notice of the date and period of time
     over which the demonstration will be
     performed.
       (e) After the Initial performance teat
     required under 160.1. compliance with
     the sulfur dioxide emission limitations
     and  percentage  reduction  require-
     ment* under 160.43a and the nitrogen
     oxides  emission   limitation!  under
     160.44a Is baaed on the average emis-
     sion rate for ."»" successive boiler oper-
     ating  daya.  A  separate  performance
     teat la completed  at the  end  of each
     boiler operating day after the Initial
     performance test, and a new 30 day av-
     erage emission rate for both sulfur di-
     oxide and  nitrogen oxldea and a new
     percent reduction  for  sulfur  dioxide
     are  calculated  to show compliance
     with the standards.
      (I) For the Initial performance teat
     required under 160.8. compliance with
     the sulfur dioxide  emission limitations
     and percent reduction requirements
     under I 60.43a and the nitrogen oxldea
     emission limitation  under |60.44a la
     based  on the average emission rates
     for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and
     percent reduction  for sulfur  dioxide
     for the first 30 successive boiler oper-
     ating days. The Initial performance
     test Is the only lest In which  at least
     30 days prior notice to required unless
     otherwise specified by the Administra-
     tor. The Initial performance test Is  to
     be scheduled so that the first boiler
     operating day  of  the  30 successive
     boiler  operating  days  Is completed
     within  60  days after achieving the
     maximum  production rate  al which
     the affected facility will be operated.
     but not later than  180 days after Ini-
     tial startup of the facility.
      (g) Compliance Is determined by cal-
    culating the arithmetic average ol all
     hourly emission rales for SO. and NO.
                                 140.47.
    
     for the M successive boiler operating
     daya. except for data obtained during
     startup, shutdown,  malfunction (NO.
     only),  or  emergency conditions (SO.
     only). Compliance with the percentage
     reduction  requirement  for SO. la  de-
     termined based on  the average Inlet
     and average outlet SO. emission rate*
     for the 30 successive boiler operating
     daya.                               ,
      (h) If an owner or operator  haa not.
     obtained the  minimum  quantity of
     emission  data  as   required  under
     160.47a of this aubpart, compliance of
     the affected facility with the emission
     requirements   under   ||60.43a  and
     60.44a of this subpart for the day on
     which the 30-day period en  For a  facility  whlrh  qualifies
    under  (lie provisions  of  |«.
                                                                                                                               269
    

    -------
      5 «0 47*
    
      sulfur dioxide emissions arc only mon-
      itored  M discharged to  the almoa-
      phere.
        (3) An "as  fired" fuel monitoring
      system (upatream of coal pulverizers)
      meeting the requirements of Method
      10 (Appendix A) may be used to deter-
      mine potential sulfur dioxide emis-
      sions In place of a  continuous sulfur
      dloxlile emission monitor at the Inlet
      to the sulfur dioxide control device as
      required  under paragraph (b)(l)  of
      this section.
        The continuous monitoring  sys-
      tems under paragraphs (b>. (c). and (d)
     of this section are operated and data
     recorded  during  all  periods of oper-
     ation of the affected  facility Including
     periods of startup, shutdown, malfunc-
     tion or emergency conditions, except
     fur   continuous  monitoring  system
     breakdowns.    repairs.    calibration
     checks,  and zero  and  span adjust-
     ments.
      (f) When emission  data are not ob-
     tained because of continuous monitor-
     ing  system breakdowns, repairs, call
     brallon checks and zero and span ad-
     justments, emission  data will be  ob-
     tained by using other monitoring sys-
     tems as approved by  the Administra-
     tor  01 the reference  methods as  de-
     dcilbtd In  paragraph    of this sec-
     tion to provide emission data  for a
     minimum of 18 hours in at least 22 out
     of 30 successive boiler operating days.
       The  I  hour averages  required
     under  paragraph  |60.l3(h>  are ex-
    pressed In ng/J (Ibs/mlllion Btu) heat
    Input and used to calculate the  aver-
    age emission rales under i 60.46a. The
     I hour averages arc  calculated using
    the   data  points  required   under
               40 CM Ch. I (7-1-18 Edition)
    
      |60.13(b).  At least two data  points
      must be used to calculate  the  1-hour
      averages.
        (h) Methods used to supplement
      continuous    emission    monitoring
      system  data to meet the  minimum
      data requirements In 160.47a(f > will be
      used aa specified below or as otherwise
      approved by the Administrator.
        (1) Methods 3 or 3A, 6 or  6C and 7.
      7A. 1C.  7D or 7E  as applicable, are
      used.  Method 0A or 6B may be used
      whenever Methods 6 and 3 data are re-
      quired to determine the SOi emission
      rate In ng/J. Methods 3A. 6C. and 7E
      are used only at the sole discretion of
      the source owner  or operator. The
      sampling locatlon(s) are the same as
      those  specified for the continuous
      emission monitoring  system.
       (2)  For Method  0 or 6A.  the  mini-
      mum sampling Is 20 minutes and the
      minimum  sampling   volume  Is  0.02
      dam'<0.71 dscf) for each sample. Sam-
      ples are collected at approximately 60-
      mlnute Intervals. Each sample repre-
     sents a  I-hour  average. Method OB
     shall  be  operated for 24  hours per
     sample,  and  the  minimum  sample
     volume Is 0.02 dsm'(0.71 dscf) for each
     sample. Each Method 6b sample repre-
     sents 24 I-hour averages.
      (3) For Method 7 or 7A, samples are
     taken at  approximately 30-mlnute In-
     tervals. The arithmetic average of
     these two consectlve samples represent
     a 1-hour  average. For  Method 7C or
     7O, each  run shall consist of a 1-hour
     sample.
      (4) For  Method  3, the oxygen or
     carbon dioxide sample  Is  to  be taken
     for  each  hour when continuous  SO,
     and NO,  data are  taken or when
     Methods 6 or 6C and  7. 7A. 7C. 7D, or
     7E  are required. Each sample shall be
     taken for  a minimum  of 30 minutes In
     each hour using the Integrated   bag
     method specified In  Method  3. Each
    sample represents a 1-hour average.
      (5) For  each 1-hour average,   the
    emissions  expressed  In ng/J  (Ib/mll-
    llon Btu)  heal Input  are determined
    and used as needed to  achieve the min-
    imum data requirements of paragraph
    (f) of this section.
      (!) The  following  procedures   are
    used to conduct monitoring  system
    performance    evaluations     under
    Environmental Prelection Agency
    
    | 60.13(c) and calibration checks under
    |60.13 of  this section  for
    burning  combinations of fossil fuels
    are rounded to the nearest 500 ppm.
      (5)  For  affected facilities burning
    fossil fuel, alone  or In combination
    with non-fossil fuel, the span value of
    the sulfur dioxide continuous monitor-
    Ing system at the Inlet to the sulfur di-
    oxide control device Is 125 percent of
    the maximum estimated hourly poten-
    tial emissions of the fuel fired, and the
    outlet of  the  sulfur dioxide control
    device Is SO percent of maximum esti-
    mated hourly  potential  emissions of
    the fuel fired.
    
    (44 PR 33013. June II. 1979. as  amended at
    47 PR 54075. Dec. I. 1982; SI  FR 21188. June
    II. 1986; 52 PR 21007. June 4. 19871
                                § 60.48.
    
    IM.48*  rxHitpllmec determination proce-
       dure! and method*.
      (a)  The  following procedures  and
    reference methods are used to deter-
    mine  compliance with the standards
    for partlculate matter under I 00.42a.
      (1) Method 3 Is used for gas analysis
    when applying Method 5. 5B, or 17.
      (2) Method 5.  SB. or 17 la  used for
    determining partlculate  matter emis-
    sions  and associated moisture content
    as follows:  Method 6 Is to  be used at
    affected facilities  without wet  FOD
    systems; Method SB Is to be used  only
    after  wet  POD  systems; and Method
    17 may be used at  facilities with or
    without wet POD systems  provided
    that the slack gaa temperature at the
    sampling location  does not exceed a
    temperature of  100  'C  (320  *F>.  The
    procedures of sections 2.1  and 2.3 of
    Method 5B may be used  In Method 17
    only If  It Is used after wet FOD sys-
    tems. Do not use Method 17 after wet
    FOD systems If the effluent la saturat-
    ed or laden with water droplets.
      (3) For Method 5. 5B. or 17. Method
    1 Is  used  to select the sampling  site
    and the number of traverse sampling
    points.  The sampling  time  for  each
    run  Is at least  120  minutes and the
    minimum sampling volume la 1.7 dscm
    (60 dscf) except that smaller sampling
    times or volumes, when necessitated
    by process variables or other factors,
    may be approved  by the Administra-
    tor.
      (4)  For  Method 5 or SB the probe
    and filter holder healing system In the
    sampling train Is set to provide an av-
    erage gas temperature of 160 *C (320
    •F).
      (5) For determination of parllculate
    emissions, the oxygen or carbon diox-
    ide sample Is obtained simultaneously
    with each run of Method 5. SB. or 17
    by  traversing the duel  al the same
    sampling location.  Method 1 Is  used
    for selection of the number of oxygen
    or  carbon  dioxide  traverse  points
    excepl  that no  more than 12 sample
    points are required.
      (6) For each run using Method 5. SB.
    or 17. the  emission  rate expressed In
    ng/J heat Input Is  determined using
    the oxygen or carbon-dioxide measure
    merits and  participate matter meas-
    urements obtained under this section.
                                      270
                                                                                                                             271
    

    -------
       I 49.49 m
    
       the dry  baste PC factor  and the dry
       bMte emtoilon rate calculation proce-
       dure contained In Method 19 (Appen-
       dix A).
        (b) The  following procedures  and
       method* are used to determine compli-
       ance with the sulfur dioxide standards
       under I 60.43a.
        (I) Determine the percent of poten-
       tial combustion concentration (percent
       PCC) emitted  to the atmosphere as
       follows:
        (I) Fuel pretreatment <% K,l Deter-
      mine the percent redurtlon achieved
      by  any fuel pretrealmrnl using  the
      procedures  In  Method  19 (Appendix
      A).  Calculate the average percent re-
      duction for fuel pretreatment  on a
      quarterly  basis using  fuel  analysis
      data. The determination of percent R,
      to calculate the percent of potential
      combustion  concentration emitted to
      the  atmosphere Is optional. For pur-
      poses of determining compliance with
      any percent reduction  requirements
      under 160.43a. any reduction In poten-
      tial  8O. emissions resulting from the
      following processes may be credited:
       (A> Fuel pretrealment (physical coal
     cleaning, hydrodesulfurlzatlon of fuel
     oil, etc.).
       (B) Coal pulverizers, and
       (C) Bottom and flyash Interactions.
       (II) Sulfur dioxide control tyttem (%
     K,):  Determine the percent sulfur di-
     oxide reduction achieved by any sulfur
     dioxide control system using emission
     rates measured  before and after the
     control system,  following  the  proce-
     dures In Method 19 (Appendix A); or.
     a combination of an "as fired"  fuel
     monitor and emission rales measured
     after the control system, following the
     procedures  In Method 19  (Appendix
     A). When the "as fired" fuel monitor
     Is used, the percent reduction Is calcu-
     lated using the average emission rate
     from  the sulfur dioxide ronlrol device
     and the average SO, Input rale from
     the "as fired" fuel analysis  lor 30 suc-
     cessive boiler operating days.
      (Ill) Overall percent reduction (%
     «.): Determine the overall percent re-
     duction using the results obtained In
     pHragmplis  (bxl) (I) and (III of this
    section  following  the  proccdiues  In
     Method 19 (Appendix A). KcsulLs are
    calculated   for  rnrh  30-day period
    using  the quarterly average (xrrrnt
                40 CFR Ch. I (7-l-fi Edition)
    
       aulfur reduction  determined for fuel
       pretreatment from the previous quar-
       ter and the sulfur dioxide reduction
       achieved by a  sulfur dioxide control
       system for each 30-day period In the
       current quarter.
         (Iv) Percent emitted (% PCC): Calcu-
       late the percent of potential combus-
       tion concentration emitted to the at-
       mosphere  using the following equa-
       tion: Percent PCC» 100-Percent R.
         (2)  Determine  the sulfur dioxide
       emission  rates  following  the  proce-
       dures In Method 19 (Appendix A).
        (c) The procedures and methods out-
       lined In Method 19 (Appendix A) are
       used In conjunction with  the 30-day
       nitrogen-oxides  emission data collect-
       ed under f 00.47a to determine compli-
       ance  with  the applicable  nitrogen
      oxides standard under I 60.44.
        (d) Electric  utility  combined  cycle
      gas turbines are performance tested
      for paniculate matter, sulfur dioxide.
      and nitrogen oxides using  the proce-
      dures of Method 19 (Appendix A). The
      aulfur  dioxide  and nitrogen oxides
      emission  rates from the gas turbine
      used In Method 19 (Appendix A) calcu-
      lations are determined when the gas
      turbine  b performance  tested under
      Subpart OO. The  potential  uncon-
      trolled  partlculate  matter  emission
      rate from a gas turbine Is defined as 17
      ng/J (0.04 Ib/mllllon Btu) heat Input.
      144 PR J3SIJ. June II. Ml*, aa amended ml
      M FR 4M42. Nov. M. 1*861
     I fMta  Rtpwtlnc retirement!.
    
      (a)  For  sulfur  dioxide, nitrogen
     oxides, and partlculate matter emis-
     sions, the performance test data from
     the Initial performance test and from
     the performance evaluation of  the
     continuous  monitors  (Including  the
     transmlasometer) are submitted to the
     Administrator.
      (b) For sulfur dioxide and nitrogen
     oxides the following Information Is re-
     ported to the Administrator for each
     24-hour period.
      (I) Calendar date.
      (2) The average sulfur  dioxide and
     nitrogen oxide emission rates (ng/J or
     Ib/mllllon Blu) for each 30 successive
     boiler operating days, ending with the
     last 30 day period In the quarter: rea-
    sons  for  non-compliance  with  I lie
                    •faction
     emission standards: and. description of
     corrective actions taken.
      (3) Percent reduction of the poten-
     tial  combustion   concentration  of
     sulfur dioxide for each 30 successive
     boiler operating days, ending with the
     last 30-day period In the quarter; rea-
     sons for  non-compliance  with  the
     standard; and, description  of  correc-
     tive actions taken.
      (4) Identification of the boiler oper-
     ating days for which pollutant or dllu-
     tent data have not  been obtained by
     an  approved method for at least  18
     hours of operation of the facility; Jus-
     tification for not obtaining sufficient
     data; and description of corrective ac-
     tions taken.
      (5) Identification of the times when
     emissions data  have  been excluded
     from the calculation of average emis-
     sion  rates because of  startup, shut-
     down, malfunction (NO. only), emer-
     gency conditions (SO, only), or other
     reasons,  and Justification for exclud-
     ing data for reasons other than start-
     up. shutdown, malfunction, or emer-
     gency conditions.
      (0> Identification of "F" factor  used
     for calculations, method of determina-
     tion. and type of fuel combusted.
      (7)  Identification  of times when
     hourly averages have been obtained
     baaed on manual sampling methods.
      (•) Identification of the times when
     the pollutant  concentration exceeded
     full span of the continuous monitoring
    system.
      (9) Description of any modifications
    to the continuous monitoring system
    which could affect the  ability  of the
    continuous  monitoring  system  to
    comply  with  Performance  Specifica-
    tions 2 or 3.
      (c) If the minimum quantity of emis-
    sion data as required by 1 60.47a la not
    obtained for  any 30 successive boiler
    operating days, the following Informa-
    tion obtained under  the requirements
    of |00.46a(h) Is reported to the Ad-
    ministrator for that 30-day period:
      (I) The number of hourly averages
    available for outlet emission rates (n.)
    and Inlet emission rates (n,) as applica-
    ble.
      (2) The standard deviation of  hourly
    averages for outlet emission rates («.)
    and Inlet emission rates   as appli-
     cable.
      (4) The applicable potential combus-
     tion concentration.
      (5) The ratio  of the upper confi-
     dence limit for the mean outlet emis-
     sion rate (E/) and the allowable em Is    .
     alon rate (£«•) aa applicable.             ,
      (d) If any standards  under |00.43a
     are exceeded during emergency condi-
     tions because of control system mal-
     function, the owner or operator of the
     affected facility shall submit a signed
     statement:
      (I) Indicating  If emergency  condi-
     tions existed  and requirements under
     |40.46a(d)  were  met  during  each
     period,  and
      <2) Listing  the  following Informa-
     tion:
      (I) Time periods the emergency con-
     dition existed;
      (II) Electrical output and demand on
     the owner or operator's electric utility
     system  and the affected facility;
      (III) Amount  of power  purchased
     from Interconnected neighboring utili-
     ty  companies during the emergency
     period:
      (Iv) Percent reduction In emissions
     achieved:
      (v) Atmospheric emission rate (ng/J)
     of the pollutant discharged; and
      (vl) Actions  taken to correct control
     system malfunction.
      (e) If  fuel  prelreatment   credit
     toward  the aulfur dioxide  emission
     standard under 160.43a Is claimed, the
     owner or operator  of the affected fa-
     cility shall submit a signed statement:-
      (I)  Indicating   what   percentage
     cleaning credit was taken for the cal-
     endar quarter, and whether the credit
     was determined In accordance with the
     provisions of  160.4Ba and  Method  19
     (Appendix A); and
      (2)  Listing the quantity,  heat con-
     tent,  and date each pretreated fuel
    shipment was  received during the pre-
     vious quarter; the name and location
    of the fuel prelreatment facility; and
     the total quantity and tola! heat con-
     tent of  all fuels received at the affect
    ed facility during the previous quarter.
      (f) For any periods for which opaci-
     ty,  sulfur dioxide or nitrogen  oxides
                                       272
                                                                                                                             273
    

    -------
    emissions data are not available, the
    owner or operator of the affected fa-
    cility ihall submit a signed statement
    Indicating If any changes were made In
    operation  of   the   emission  control
    system during the period of data un-
    availability. Operations of  the control
    system and affected facility during pe-
    riods of  data unavailability are to be
    compared with operation of the con-
    trol system and affected facility before
    and  following the period of data un-
    availability.
      (g) The owner or operator of the af-
    fected facility  shall submit a signed
    statement Indicating whether:
      (1)  The required continuous  moni-
    toring system  calibration,  span,  and
    drift  checks or  other  periodic audits
    have  or  have  not been performed as
    specified.
      (2)  The data used to show compli-
    ance  was or was not obtained  In  ac-
    cordance with approved methods and
    procedures of this part  and Is  repre-
    sentative of plant performance.
      (3) The minimum data requirements
    have  or  have not been met; or. the
    minimum d»ir> requirements have not
    been met for IT lore that were unavoid-
    able.
      (4)  Compliance with the standards
    has or has  not been achieved during
    the reporting period.
      (h) For the purposes of  the reports
    required under I 60.7. periods of excess
    emliuilons are defined  as all 6-mlnute
    periods  during  which  the  average
    opacity exceeds I h« applicable opacity
    standards under |60.42a(b>.  Opacity
    level* In  excess of the applicable opaci-
    ty standard and the date  of such ex-
    cesses are to be submitted to the Ad-
    ministrator earh calendar quarter.
      (I) The owner or operator of  an af-
    fected facility shall submit the written
    reports  required  under this  section
    and subpart A to  the Administrator
    for every calendar quarter. All quar-
    terly reports  shall be postmarked by
    the 30th day following the end of each
    calendar quarter.
             40 CFt Ch. I (7-1-18 Edition)
    
    Subpart  Ob—Standard* of  Perform-
        ance for  Indvttrial-Commercial-
        Inttltutlonal  Steam  Generating
        Units
      SOURCE: 62 FR 47842. Dec. 10. 1*87. unless
    otherwise noted.
    
    IM.40*  Applicability  and delegation  of
       authority.
      (a) The  affected facility  to which
    this subpart applies Is each steam gen-
    erating unit that commences construc-
    tion, modification, or  reconstruction
    after June 19. 1984.  and that has  a
    heat Input capacity from fuels com-
    busted In the steam generating unit of
    greater than 29 MW (100 million Btu/
    hour).
      (b) Any affected facility meeting the
    applicability requirements under para-
    graph (a) of this section and commenc-
    ing construction, modification, or re-
    construction after June 19,  1984, but
    on or before June 19.  1986.  Is subject
    to the following standards:
      (1)  Coal-fired  affected   facilities
    having a heat Input capacity between
    29 and  73  MW  (100  and 250 million
    Blu/hour). Inclusive,  are subject  to
    the partlculate  matter and  nitrogen
    oxides standards under this subpart.
      (2)  Coal-fired  affected   facilities
    having a heal Input capacity greater
    than 73 MW (250 million Btu/hour)
    and meeting the applicability  require-
    ments under Subpart D (Standards of
    performance for fossll-fuel-flred steam
    generators; f 60.40) are subject to the
    partlculate matter and nitrogen oxides
    standards under this subpart and  to
    the sulfur dioxide  standards under
    Subpart D (| 60.43).
      (3)   Oil  fired    affected   facilities
    having a heat Input capacity between
    29 and  73  MW  (100  and 250 million
    Btu/hour). Inclusive,  are subject  to
    the nitrogen oxides standards under
    this subpart.
      (4)   Oil  fired    affected   facilities
    having a heal Input capacity greater
    than 73 MW (250 million Btu/hour)
    and meeting the applicability  require-
    ments undi i Subpart D (Standards of
    performance for fossil fuel fired steam
    generators: I 60.40) are also subject to
    the nitrogen oxides standards under
    this  subparl  and  the  partlculate
    Environmental Protection Agency
    
    matter  and sulfur dioxide standards
    under Subpart D (| 60.42 and I 60.43).
      (c)  Affected  facilities  which  also
    meet  the  applicability requirements
    under Subpart J (Standards of per-
    formance  for  petroleum   refineries;
    160.104) are subject to the partlculate
    matter and nitrogen oxides standard*
    under this subpart and the sulfur di-
    oxide  standards  under  Subpart   J
    (160.104).
      (d>  Affected  facilities  which  also
    meet  the  applicability requirements
    under Subpart E (Standards of per-
    formance for Incinerators;  160.60) are
    subject to the nitrogen oxides and par-
    tlculate matter standards  under this
    subpart.
      (e> Steam generating units meeting
    the applicability  requirements under
    Subpart Da  (Standards of  perform-
    ance for electric utility steam generat-
    ing units; 160.40a) are not subject to
    this subpart.
      (f) Any change to an existing steam
    generating unit for the sole purpose of
    combusting gases containing TR8  as
    defined  under 160.281  Is not consid-
    ered a modification under  I 60.14 and
    the steam  generating unit  Is not sub-
    ject to this subpart.
      (g)  In  delegating  Implementation
    and enforcement authority to a State
    under section lll(c>  of the Act, the
    following authorities shall  be retained
    by  the  Administrator and not trans-
    ferred to a State.
      (1) Section 60.44tXf).
      (2) Section 60.44tXg>.
      (3) Section 60.49b(aM4).
    
    tM.4lb  Definition*.
      As used In this subpart, all terms not
    defined  herein shall have the meaning
    given them In the Act and In Subparl
    A of this part.
      "Annual  capacity factor" means the
    ratio between the actual heat Input to
    a steam generating unit from the fuels
    listed In   |60.42b(a).  160 43b(a>.  or
    | 60.44b(a). as applicable, during a cal-
    endar year and  the  potential  heal
    Input to  the steam  generating  unit
    had It  been operated for  8.760 hours
    during a calendar year at  the maxi-
    mum  steady  stale design  heat  Input
    capacity. In the case of steam generat-
    ing units that are rented or leased, the
    actual heat input slmll be determined
                                §«0.41I>
    
    based  on the  combined heat  Input
    from all operations of the affected fa-
    cility In a calendar year.
      "Byproduct/waste" means any liquid
    or  gaseous  substance  produced  at
    chemical manufacturing plants or pe-
    troleum refineries (except natural gas.
    distillate oil. or residual oil) and com-
    busted In a  steam generating unit for
    heat recovery or for disposal. Gaseous
    substances with carbon dioxide levels
    greater than BO  percent  or carbon
    monoxide levels greater than 10 per-
    cent are  not byproduct/waste for the
    purposes of this subpart.
      "Chemical  manufacturing  plants"
    means Industrial plants which are clas-
    sified  by the  Department of  Com-
    merce under Standard  Industrial Clas-
    sification (SIC) Code 28.
      "Coal" means all solid fuels  classi-
    fied as anthracite, bituminous,  subbl-
    tumlnous. or lignite by the American
    Society of Testing and Materials In
    A8TM D388 77.  Standard  Specific*
    lion for  Classification  of  Coals by
    Rank (IBR-see  160.17). coal  refuse.
    and petroleum coke. Coal-derived syn-
    thetlc  fuels. Including  but not limited
    to solvent refined coal, gasified coal,
    coal-oil mixtures, and coal-water mix-
    tures, are also Included In this defini-
    tion for Ihe purposes of this subpart.
      "Coal refuse" means any  byproduct
    of coal mining or coal  cleaning oper-
    allons  with  an ash content  greater
    than  50  percent, by  weight,  and  a
    heating value less than 13.900 kj/kg
    (6.000 Blu/lb) on a dry basis.
      "Combined cycle system" means  a
    system  In which a separate source.
    such as a gas turbine. Internal combus-
    tion engine, kiln,  etc., provides ex-
    haust  gas to a heat recovery steam
    generating unit.
      ••Conventional  technology"  means
    wet flue gas desulfurizatlon  (POD)
    technology,  dry PGD  technology, at-
    mospheric fluldlzed bed combustion
    technology,  and oil  hydrodesulfurlza-
    lion technology.
      "Distillate oil"  means  fuel oils that
    contain 0.05 weight percent nitrogen
    or less and comply with the specifica-
    tions for fuel oil numbers I and 2. as
    defined by  the  American  Society of
    Testing and Materials In ASTM D396
    78. Standard Specifications for  Fuel
                                       274
                                                                                      275
    

    -------
    emissions data are not available, the
    owner or operator of the affected fa-
    cility shall submit a signed statement
    Indicating If any changes were made In
    operation  of  the  emission  control
    system during  the period of data un-
    availability. Operations of  the control
    system and affected facility during pe-
    riods of  data unavailability are to be
    compared with operation of the con-
    trol system and affected facility before
    and  following the period of data un-
    availability.
       The owner or operator of the af-
    fected facility  shall submit a signed
    statement Indicating whether:
        The required continuous  moni-
    toring system  calibration,  spap.  and
    drift  checks or other periodic audits
    have  or  have not been performed as
    specified.
      (2)  The data used  to show compli-
    ance  was or was not obtained  In ac-
    cordance with  approved methods and
    procedures of this part and Is  repre-
    sentative of plant performance.
      (3) The minimum data requirements
    have  or  have  not been met; or. the
    minimum dai<» requirements have not
    been met for errors that were unavoid-
    able.
      (4)  Compliance with  the standards
    has or has  not been achieved during
    the reporting period.
      (h> For the purposes of the reports
    required under I 00.7. periods of excess
    emissions are defined as  all 0-mlnule
    periods  during  which  the  average
    opacity exceeds the applicable opacity
    standards under |00.42a(b>.  Opacity
    levels In  excess of the applicable opaci-
    ty standard and the  date  of such ex-
    cesses are to be submitted to the Ad-
    ministrator each calendar quarter.
      (I) The owner or operator of an af-
    fected facility shall submit the written
    reports  required  under  this  section
    and subparl A to (he Administrator
    for every calendar quarter. All quar-
    terly reports shall be postmarked by
    the 30th day following the end of each
    calendar quarter.
             40 CFR Ch. I (7-l-M fdllion)
    
    Svaport  Ob—Standards »f Parfarm-
        anca far  Indutlrlal-CemMcrclal-
        Initltutlonal  Slsam  Oanaratlng
        Units
      Souncr »2 FR 47(42. Dec
    otherwise noted.
                              IM7. unlru
    IM.44*  AMlksMIHr  and McgaUm  of
       avlhorllr.
        The  affected facility  to which
    this subpart applies Is each steam gen-
    erating unit that commences construc-
    tion.  modification, or reconstruction
    after  June I*. 1984.  and that has a
    heat  Input capacity from fuels com-
    busted In the steam generating unit of
    greater than 29 MW 4100 million Btu/
    hour).
      (b) Any affected facility meeting the
    applicability requirements under para-
    graph (a) of this section and  commenc-
    ing construction, modification, or re-
    construction after June 19.  1984. but
    on or before June 19. 1980.  Is subject
    to the following standards:
      (I)  Coal fired  affected   facilities
    having a heat Input capacity between
    29 and 73  MW  (100 and 250 million
    Btu/hour), Inclusive, are subject to
    the partkulate  matter and nitrogen
    oxides standards under this subpart.
      (2)  Coal-fired  affected   facilities
    having a heat Input capacity greater
    than  73 MW (350 million Btu/hour)
    and meeting the applicability require-
    ments under Subpart D (Standards of
    performance for fossll-fuel-flred steam
    generators; I (0.40) are subject to the
    partlculate matter and nitrogen oxides
    standards under this subpart and to
    the sulfur dioxide  standards under
    Subpart D (|60.43).
      (3)   OH  fired    affected   facilities
    having a heat Input capacity between
    29 and 73  MW  (100 and 250 million
    Btu/hour), Inclusive, are subject to
    the nitrogen oxides standards under
    this subpart.
      (4)   OH  fired    affected   facilities
    having a heal Input capacity greater
    than  73 MW (250 million Blu/hour)
    and meeting the applicability require-
    ments undi i Subpart D (Standards of
    performance for fossll-fuel-flred steam
    generators; |60.40) are also  subject to
    the nitrogen oxides standards under
    this   subparl  and  the  participate
    I nvlr*nm*nl«l Protection Agency
    
    matter  and sulfur dioxide standards
    under Subpart D (| 60.42 and 160.43).
      (0  Affected  facilities  which  also
    meet  the  appllcablllly requirements
    under Subpart J  (Standards  of per-
    formance  for  petroleum  refineries;
    I 60.104) are subject to the partlculale
    matter and nitrogen oxides standards
    under this subpart and the sulfur di-
    oxide  standards  under  Subpart  J
    (160.104).
      (d)  Affected  facilities  which  also
    meet  the  applicability requirements
    under Subpart K (Standards  of per-
    formance for Incinerators; 160.50) are
    subject to the nitrogen oxides and par-
    tlculale matter standards under this
    subpart.
      (e) Steam generating units meeting
    the applicability  requirements under
    Subpart Oa  (Standards of perform-
    ance for electric utility steam generat-
    ing units; 160.40a) are not subject  to
    this subpart.
      (f) Any change to an existing steam
    generating unit for the sole purpose of
    combusting gases  containing TR8  as
    defined under 160.261  Is not consid-
    ered a modification under |60.14 and
    the steam  generating unit Is not sub-
    ject to this subpart.
      (g>  In  delegating  Implementation
    and enforcement authority to  a State
    under section MHO  of the Act. the
    following authorities shall be retained
    by  the  Administrator and not trans-
    ferred to a State.
      (I)Section 60.44Mf>.
      (3) Section 60.44Mg>.
      (3) Section 60.49MaN4).
    
    • «9.4I»  DcfMUmw.
      As used In this subpart. all terms not
    defined herein shall have the meaning
    given them In the Act and In Subpart
    A of this part.
      "Annual  capacity factor" means the
    ratio between the actual heal Input to
    a steam generating unit from the fuels
    listed In   |60.42b(a>.  |«0.43b4a).  or
    I 60.44b(a), as applicable, during a cal-
    endar  year and  the  potential heal
    Inpul to  Ihe steam  generaling  unit
    had It been operaled for 8.760 hours
    during a calendar year al the maxi-
    mum  steady  state design heat  Input
    capacity. In the case of steam generat-
    ing units that are roiled or leased, the
    actual heal Input .shall be determined
                                J40.41b
    
    baaed  on the  combined  heat  Input
    from all operations of the affected fa-
    cility In a calendar year.
      "Byproduct/waste" means any liquid
    or  gaseous  substance  produced  al
    chemical manufacturing plants or pe-
    troleum refineries (except natural gas.
    distillate oil.  or residual oil) and com-
    busted In a steam generaling unit for
    heat recovery or for disposal. Oasopus
    substances  with carbon dioxide levels
    greater than 50  percent  or carbon
    monoxide levels greater than 10 per-
    cent are not  byproduct/waste for the
    purposes of this subpart.
      "Chemical  manufacturing  plants"
    means Industrial plants which are clas-
    sified  by the  Department of  Com-
    merce under Standard Industrial Clas-
    sification (SIC) Code 28.
      "Coal" means all solid  fuels classi-
    fied as anthracite, bituminous, subbl-
    luminous, or lignite  by the American
    Society of Testing and Materials In
    ASTM  D388 77.  Standard  Specifics
    lion for Classification of  Coals  by
    Rank (IBR—see  160.17).  coal  refuse.
    and petroleum coke.  Coal-derived syn-
    thetic fuels. Including but not limited
    to solvent refined coal, gasified coal,
    coal-oil mixtures, and coal-water  mix-
    tures, are also Included In this defini-
    tion for the purposes of this subpart.
      "Coal refuse" means any byproduct
    of coal mining or jtoal cleaning oper-
    ations  with  an ash content  greater
    than 50 percent, by weight,  and a
    heating value less than 13.900 kJ/kg
    (6,000 Btu/lb) on a dry basis.
      "Combined cycle system" means a
    system  In  which a  separate source.
    such as a gas turbine. Internal combus-
    tion engine,  kiln. etc.. provides  ex-
    haust gas to a heal recovery steam
    generaling unit.
      "Conventional  technology"   means
    wel flue gas desulfurteallon (POD)
    technology, dry POD technology, at-
    mospheric  fluldlzed  bed  combustion
    technology, and oil hydrodesulfurlca-
    tlon technology.
      ••Distillate oil"  means fuel oils that
    contain 0.05  weight  percent  nitrogen
    or less and comply with the specific*
    lions for fuel oil numbers I and 2. as
    defined by the  American Society  of
    Testing and Materials In ASTM P396
    78. Standard Specifications (or Fuel
                                       274
                                                                                      275
    

    -------
     Oils (Incorporated  by reference—see
     180.17).
       "Dry flue gas desulfurlzallon  tech-
     nology" means a sulfur dioxide control
     a/stem that Is located downstream of
     the  steam generating unit  and  re-
     moves sulfur oxides from the combus-
     tion Rases of the  steam generating
     unit by  contacting  the  combustion
     gases with an alkaline slurry or solu-
     tion and forming a dry powder materi-
     al.  This   definition  Includes  devices
     where the dry powder material Is sub-
     sequently  converted to another form.
     Alkaline slurries or solutions used In
     dry flue gas desulfurlzatlon technolo-
     gy Include but are not limited to lime
     and sodium.
      "Duct burner" means a  device that
     combusts fuel and that Is placed In the
     exhaust duct  from  another  source.
     such as a stationary gas turbine. Inter-
     nal  combustion engine, kiln,  etc., to
     allow the  firing of additional  fuel to
     heat the exhaust gases before the ex-
     haust gases enter  a heat  recovery
     steam generating unit.
      "Emerging technology"  means any
     sulfur dioxide control system that Is
     not defined as a conventional technol-
     ogy under  this section, and for which
     the owner or operator of the facility
     has applied to the Administrator and
     received approval to  operate as an
     emerging      technology      under
     ifl0.4Bb(aH4>.
      ••Federally  enforceable"  means all
     limitations and conditions that are en-
     forceable  by the Administrator. In-
     cluding Hie requirements of  40 CFR
     Parts 60 and 61, requirements within
     Miy applicable  State  Implementation
     Plan, «nd any permit requirements es-
     tablished under 40 CFR 52.21 or under
     40 CFR 61  18 and 40 CFK 51.24.
      "Fluldlzed bed combustion technolo-
    gy" means combustion of fuel In a bed
    ur series of beds  < Including  but not
    limited to bubbling bed units and cir-
    culating bed uiiils) of limestone aggre-
    gate (or other  soiltenl materials) In
    wlilc-h  these  materials  are   forced
    upward by  the flow of combustion air
    and  the gaseous products  of combus-
    tion.
      "Fuel prelrratmenl" means  a proc-
    ess   that removes a  |K>rlion  ol  the
    Giillur In a fuel before combustion of
    the fuel In a steam general Ing unit.
              40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-81 Edition)
    
       "Full capacity" means operation  of
     the steam generating unit at 90 per-
     cent or more of the maximum steady-
     state design heat Input capacity.
       "Heat  Input" means  heat  derived
     from  combustion of fuel  In  a steam
     generating unit and does  not Include
     the heat  Input from preheated com-
     bustion air, reclrculated flue gases, or
     exhaust  gases from other  sources.
     such as gas turbines. Internal combus-
     tion engines, kilns, etc.
       "Heat release rate" means the steam
     generating unit design heat  Input ca-
     pacity  (In  MW or Bin/hour)  divided
     by  the  furnace  volume  (In  cubic
     meters  or cubic  feet);  the  furnace
     volume Is that volume bounded by the
     front furnace wall where the burner Is
     located, the  furnace  side waterwall,
     and extending to  the level Just below
     or In front of the first row of convec-
     tion pass tubes.
       "Heat transfer medium" means  any
     material that la used to transfer heat
     from one point to another point.
       "High heat  release  rate"  means  a
     heat release rate greater than 730.000
     J/sec-m' (70.000 Btu/hour-ftM.
       "Lignite" means  a type of coal classi-
     fied as lignite A or lignite B by  the
     American Society  of Testing and Ma-
     terials  In  ASTM  D388-77. Standard
     Specification   for   Classification  of
     Coals by Rank (IBR-see I 60.17).
      "Low heat  release rate" means a
     heat release rate of 730.000 J/sec-m9
     (70,000 Btu/hour-ft*) or less.
      "Mass feed stoker  steam  generating
     unit" means a steam generating unit
     where solid fuel Is Introduced directly
     Into a retort or Is  fed directly onto a
     grate where It Is combusted.
      "Maximum  heal  Input  capacity"
     means the ability of a steam generat-
     ing unit to combust a stated maximum
     amount of fuel on a steady state basis.
    as determined by the physical design
    and characteristics of the steam gener-
    ating unit.
      "Municipal-type solid waste" means
     refuse, more than 50 percent of which
     Is  waste consisting  of a mixture of
    paper, wood, yard wastes, food wastes.
    plastics, leather, rubber,  and  other
    combustible materials, and noncom-
    bustlble materials  such as glass and
    rock.
    Environmental Protection Agency
    
      "Natural gas" means (Da naturally
    occurring mixture of hydrocarbon and
    nonhydrocarbon gases found  In  geo-
    logic formations beneath the earth's
    surface, of which the principal constit-
    uent la methane; or (2) liquid  petrole-
    um gas.  as defined by the  American
    Society  for Testing  and  Materials  In
    ASTM D1838-82. "Standard Specifica-
    tion for  Liquid   Petroleum  Oases"
    (IBR-see 160.17).
      "Noncontlnental area" means the
    State of Hawaii, the  Virgin  Islands.
    Quam.  American  Samoa, the  Com-
    monwealth of Puerto Rico,  or the
    Northern Mariana Islands.
      "OH"  means crude oil  or petroleum
    or a liquid fuel derived from crude oil
    or petroleum. Including  distillate and
    residual oil.
      "Petroleum  refinery"  means Indus-
    trial plants as classified by the Depart-
    ment of Commerce under Standard In-
    dustrial Classification (SIC) Code 29.
      "Potential  aul'«r  dioxide  emission
    rate" means the ' nroretlcal sulfur di-
    oxide emissions (ng/J. Ib/mllllon Btu
    heat Input)  that  would result from
    combusting fuel In an uncleaned state
    and without  using  emission control
    systems.
      "Process heater"  means a device
    that la primarily used to heat a mate-
    rial to Initiate or promote a chemical
    reaction In which the material partici-
    pates as a reactant or catalyst.
      "Pulverized coal-fired steam generat-
    ing  unit" means a  steam generating
    unit In  which pulverized coal Is Intro-
    duced Into an  air stream that carries.
    the coal to the combustion chamber of
    the steam generating  unit where It Is
    fired In suspension. This Includes both
    conventional pulverized  coal-fired and
    mlcropulverlzed coal-fired steam gen-
    erating units.
      "Residual oil" means crude oil. fuel
    oil numbers 1 and 2 that have a nitro-
    gen content  greater than 0.05 weight
    percent, and all fuel oil numbers 4, 5
    and 6, as defined by the American So-
    ciety of Testing  and  Materials  In
    ASTM  D396-78, Standard  Specifica-
    tions for Fuel Oils (IBR-see I 60.17).
      "Spreader  stoker  steam generating
     unit" means a steam generating unit
     In which solid fuel is Introduced to the
    combustion zone by a mechanism that
     throws  the  fuel  onto  a grate  from
                               9 «0.41b
    
    above. Combustion takes place both In
    suspension and on the grate.
      "Steam  generating  unit"  means a
    device that combusts any fuel or  by-
    product/waste to produce steam or to
    heat water or any other heat transfer
    medium. This term Includes any mu-
    nicipal-type   solid  waste  Incinerator
    with a heat recovery steam generating
    unit or any steam generating unit that
    combusts  fuel and la part of a cogen-
    eratlon  system or a combined  cycle  |f
    system.  This term does not  Include
    process  heaters as they are defined In
    this subpart.
      "Steam  generating unit operating
    day"  means  a 24-hour period between
    12:00 midnight and the following mid-
    night during which  any fuel  Is com-
    busted at any time In the eteam gener-
    ating unit. It Is not necessary for fuel
    to be combusted continuously for the
    entire 24-hour period.
      "Very low sulfur oil" means a distil-
    late oil  or residual oil that when com
    busted  without  post combustion  SOt
    control  has an SO, emission rate equal
    to or less than 130 ng/J (0.30 Ib SO,/
    million Btu).
      "Wet  flue  gas desulfurlzatlon tech-
    nology" means a sulfur dioxide control
    system  that  Is located downstream of
    the steam  generating  unit and re-
    moves sulfur oxides  from the combus-
    tion  gases of  the  steam generating
    unit by contacting the combustion gas
    with an alkaline slurry or solution and
    forming a liquid material. This defini-
    tion applies to devices where the aque-
    ous liquid material  product of  this
    contact Is subsequently converted to
    other forms. Alkaline reagents used In
    wet flue gas desulfurlzatlon technolo-
    gy Include, but are not limited to, lime.
    limestone, and sodium.
      "Wet scrubber system" means  any
    emission control device that mixes an
    aqueous stream or slurry with the ex-
    haust gases  from a steam generating
    unit to control emissions of parllculate
    matter or sulfur dioxide.
       "Wood" means  wood,  wood residue.
    bark, or any derivative fuel or residue
    thereof.  In  any form. Including, but
    not  limited  to.  sawdust,  sanderdusl,
    wood chips, scraps,  slabs, millings.
    shavings, and processed pellets made
     from wood or oilier forest residues.
                                      276
                                                                                                                           277
    

    -------
     J*0.4»
    
     I «9.m  Stalwart for miter tfloiMe.
       Fuel prctreatment results In a 60
    percent or greater reduction In poten-
    tial sulfur dioxide emissions and
      (2)  Emissions from the pretreated
    fuel (without combustion or post com-
    bustion sulfur  dioxide  control) arc
    equal  to  or less  than  the emission
    limits specified In paragraph (c) of
    this section.
      (I)  An affected facility  subject to
    paragraph (a), (b). or (c) of this sec-
    tion may  combust very low sulfur oil
    or natural gas when the. .sulfur dioxide
                                |«0.43I>
    
    control system Is not being operated
    because  of malfunction or  mainte-
    nance  of the sulfur dioxide control
    system.
    IM.4U  Standard for parti
                                    ilcr.
      (a) On and after the date on which
    the Initial performance test Is com-
    pleted or Is required to be completed
    under |60.8 of this part, whichever!
    comes first, no owner or operator of an
    affected facility which combusts coal
    or combusts  mixtures of coal with
    other  fuels, shall cause  to  be dis-
    charged Into the atmosphere  from
    that affected facility  any gases that
    contain partlculate matter In excess of
    the following emission limits:
      (1)  22  ng/J (0.06 Ib/mllllon Btu)
    heat Input,
      (I) If the affected facility  combusts
    only COA|, or
      (II)  If the affected facility  combusts
    coal and other fuels and has an annual
    capacity factor for the other fuels of
    10 percent (0.10) or less.
      (2)  43  ng/J (0.10 Ib/mllllon Btu)
    heat Input If the affected facility com-
    busts coal and other fuels and has an
    annual capacity factor for the other
    fuels  greater than 10 percent (0.10)
    and Is subject to a federally  enforcea-
    ble requirement limiting operation of
    the affected facility to an annual ca-
    pacity factor greater than 10 percent
    (0.10) for fuels other than coal.
      (3)  M  ng/J (0.20 Ib/mllllon Btu)
    heat Input If the affected facility com-
    busts coal or coal and other  fuels and
      (I) Has an annual capacity  factor for
    coal or coal and other fuels of 30 per-
    cent (0.30) or less.
      (II)  Has  a maximum heat  Input  ca-
    pacity  of  73  MW (250 million Btu/
    hour) or less.
      (Ill) Has a federally enforceable  re-
    quirement limiting operation of the af-
    fected  facility to  an annual capacity
    factor of 30 percent (0.30) or  less  for
    coal or coal and other solid fuels, and
      (Iv) Construction of the affected fa-
    cility commenced  after June 19, 1984.
    and before November 25. 1986.
      (b)  On and after the date  on which
    the performance test  Is completed or
    required to be completed under  f 60.8
    of  this part, whichever  dale  comes
    first,  no owner  or operator  of an  af-
                                       278
                                                                                                                              279
    

    -------
    S60.44b
    
    fected facility that  combusts  oil  or
    that  combusts mixtures of  oil with
    other  fuels  shall  cause  to be dis-
    charged  Into  the  atmosphere  from
    that affected facility any gases that
    contain partlculate matter In excess of
    43  ng/J  «UO Ib/mllllon Btu) heat
    Input.
      (c) On and after  the date  on which
    the Initial performance  lest Is com-
    pleted or Is required to be completed
    under 100.8 of this part, whichever
    date comes first, no owner or operator
    of an  affected facility that  combusts
    wood, or wood with other fuels, except
    coal, shall cause to  be discharged from
    that affected facility any gases that
    contain particulatc matter In excess of
    the following emission limits:
      (!)  43 ng/J (010 Ib/mllllon Blu)
    heat Input If the affected facility has
    an annual capacity  factor greater than
    30 percent (0.30) for wood.
      <2>  86 ng/J (020 Ib/mllllon Btu)
    heat Input If
      (I)  The  affected  facility  has  an
    annual capacity factor of 30 percent
    (0.30) or less for wood,
      (II) Is subject to a federally enforcea-
    ble requirement limiting operation  of
    the affected facility  to an annual ca-
    pacity factor  of  30 percent  (0.30)  or
    less for wood, and
      (III)  Has a maximum heal Input ca-
    pacity of 73  MW  (250 million Btu/
    hour) or less.
      (d)  On and after the date on which
    the Initial  performance  lest Is com-
    pleted or Is required to be completed
    under i 60.B of this part, whichever
    dale comes first, no owner or operalor
    of an affected facility that combusts
    municipal-type solid waste or mixtures
    of  municipal typo  solid  waste with
    other  furls,  shall  cause to  be dis-
    charged  into  the   atmosphere  from
    that  affected facility any gases thai
    conialn parlirulalc mailer In  excess of
    the following emission limits:
      (I)  43  HK/J (0.10  Ib/million Bill)
    deal Input.
      (I) If the alleclcd  facility combusts
    only municipal type solid waste, or
      (II)  If the affected facility combusts
    municipal type soli.I waste and  olher
    fuels   and  liar, an  anmml  rapacity
    factor for the ollu-i furls of 10 percent
    iO in) or less
             40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-S8 Edition)
    
      (2)  86  ng/J (0.20 Ib/mllllon Btu)
    heat Input If the affected facility com-
    busts  municipal-type solid  waste  or
    municipal-type solid  waste and other
    fuels; and
      (I) Has an annual capacity factor for
    municipal-type solid  waste and other
    fuels of 30 percent (0.30) or less.
      (II)  Has a maximum  heat Input ca-
    pacity of 73  MW  (250 million Btu/
    hour) or less,
      (III) Has a federally enforceable re-
    quirement limiting operation of the af-
    fected facility to an annual capacity
    factor of 30 percent (0.30) for munici-
    pal-type solid waste, or municipal-type
    solid waste and other fuels, and
      (Iv) Construction of the affected fa-
    cility commenced after June 19, 1984,
    but before November 25. 1986.
      (e) For Ihe  purposes of this section.
    the annual capacity factor Is deter-
    mined  by dividing  the  actual heat
    Input  to  the steam generating  unll
    during  the calendar year  from Ihe
    combusllon of coal.  wood, or munici-
    pal-type solid wasle. and  olher fuels.
    as applicable, by  the  potential heat
    Input to the steam generating unit If
    Ihe sleam generating unit  had been
    operated for 8,760 hours at the maxi-
    mum design heat Input capacity.
      (f) On and  after  the dale on which
    the  Initial performance  tesl  Is com-
    pleted or  is required to be completed
    under 160.8  of this parl. whichever
    dale comes first, no owner or operator
    of an  affected facility subjecl lo Ihe
    parliculale   mailer  emission  limits
    under paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of this
    section shall  cause to be  discharged
    Into the  atmosphere any  gases  thai
    exhibit greater than  20 percent opaci-
    ty (6 minute average), except for one
    6 minute period per hour of not more
    than 27 percent opacity.
      (g) The parllculate matler and opac-
    ity standards apply at all limes, exccpl
    during periods of startup, shutdown or
    malfunction.
    
    H 6(M4b Standard for nitrogen iixidea.
      (a) On and  after the date on which
    the  Initial performance  lesl  Is com-
    pleted or Is required lo be completed
    under i 60.8  of this part, whichever
    dale comes first, no owner or operalor
    of an  affected facility  that Is subject
    Environmental Protection Agoncy
    
    to the provisions of this section and
    that combusts only coal. oil. or natural
    gas shall  cause  lo be discharged Into
    the atmosphere from that affected fa-
    cility any gases thai contain nitrogen
    oxides (expressed as NO.) In excess of
    the following emission limits:
        Fud/SIMffl gmnkng untt, lypa
    (I) Nalwal OM and dtoMaM oil. aireapl (4):
      M low h*M ntoaM iato	
      (K) High hMt r«MM Ml*
    m HMdual oi:
      (V low haai idMM rate	
      m High hwi nriaata >«•	
    PI Co*
      II) MM, la*d Motet   	
      (I) Spraadai  ItoMr  and  ftuMiiM tad
       oofnbuclioft	
      (*) PuMnud cod 	
      M llgnlto. «»c*p< (v)
      |v) ligniM nwwd m North Dakota. South
       CMoU. or Montana and ccvntumd n
       a Hag Up Iwnaca	
      (vi| CoalKtacMd (yrthMic (MM	
    HI Duel bumf uud in a combinMl cyda
      (l| NaMal oaa and oMMaM at
      (>) Residual oil
     ng/J (!>/
     niton Btu|
    
    "S5SS,"
       Input
       43(0101
       ae 10201
    
       130(0301
       170 (040)
    
       210(090)
    
       HO (010)
       300(0/0)
       260 (0*0)
       340(0 BO)
       210 (090)
        •6 (0?0|
       170(040)
      (b) On and after the dale on which
     the Initial performance test Is com-
     pleted or Is required lo be completed
     under 1 60.8 of this part, whichever
     dale comes first, no owner or operator
     of  an affected facility  lhat  simulta-
     neously combusts mixtures of coal, oil.
     or  natural gas shall cause to be dis-
     charged Into the almosphere  from
     lhal  affecled facility any  gases  thai
     contain nitrogen oxides In excess of a
     limit  determined by use of the follow-
     ing formula:
                           H,.)l(EU   H.)l/
                                        280
     where:
     E. Is the nitrogen oxides emission limit (ex-
        pressed a-i NO,). ng/J (Ib/mllllon Btu)
     EL,. Is  the appropriate emission limit from
        paragraph <»MI> for combustion of nat-
        ural gas or distillate oil. ng/J (Ib/mllllon
        Blu)
     H,. Is the heal  Input from combustion of
        natural gas or distillate oil.
     EU. Is  the appropriate emission limit from
        paragraph (aM2)  for combustion of re
        sldual oil.
     H,. Is the heal Input from combusllon of re
        sldual oil.
                                 5 60.44b
    
    EL, Is the appropriate emission limit from
       paragraph (»M3) tor combustion of coal,
       and
    H, Is the heal Input  from combusllon of
       coal.
      (c) On and after the date on which
    the  Initial performance  tesl  Is com-
    pleted or Is required lo be completed
    under 160.8 of  this part, whichever
    comes first, no owner or operator of an
    affected facility lhat  simultaneously .
    combusts coal or oil, or a mixture of';
    Ihese fuels with natural gas. and wood.
    municipal-type  solid  waste,  or  any
    other fuel shall cause to be discharged
    Into the  atmosphere any gases that
    conialn  nitrogen oxides In excess of
    the emission limit for  the coal or oil.
    or mlxlure of Ihese fuels with natural
    gas combusted In the affected facility.
    as  determined pursuant to paragraph
    (a) or (b) of this section, unless the af-
    fected facility has an annual  capacity
    factor for coal or  oil, or mixture of
    these fuels with natural gas of 10 per-
    cent (0.10) or less and Is subjecl  to a
    federally   enforceable   requirement
    that limits operation of the facility to
    an annual capacity factor of 10  per-
    cent (0.10) or  less for coal, oil. or a
    mixture  of  these fuels  with natural
    gas.
      (d) On and after Ihe date on  which
    the Initial  performance  test Is  com-
    pleted or Is required to  be completed
    under 160.8 of this part, whichever
    date comes first, no owner or operator
    of an affected facility  lhal  simulta-
     neously  combusts natural gas  with
     wood, municipal-type  solid wasle, or
     olher solid  fuel,  excepl coal,  shall
     cause lo be discharged Into the atmos-
     phere from lhal affecled facility any
     gases thai conialn nilrogen oxides In
     excess of  130  ng/J (0.30 Ib/mllllon
     Blu) heal Inpul unless Ihe affecled fa-
     cility has an annual capacity factor for
     nalural gas of  10 percent (0.10) or less
     and Is subjecl  lo a federally enforcea-
     ble requirement lhal  limits operation
     of the affecled facility lo an annual
     capacity factor of  10 percent (0.10) or
     less for nalural gas.
       (e) On and after Ihe dale on which
     Ihe Initial  performance lesl Is  com-
     pleted or Is required lo be completed
     under 160.8 of this  parl, whichever
     date comes first, no owner or operator
     of  an affected facility  that slmulta-
                                                                                                                                281
    

    -------
     {«0.44t>
    
     neously combusts coal. oil. or natural
     gas with byproduct/waste shall cause
     to be discharged  Into the atmosphere
     from  that affected facility any gases
     that contain nitrogen oxides  In excess
     of an emission limit determined by the
     following formula unless the affected
     facility has an annual capacity factor
     (or coal. oil. and natural gas of 10 per-
    cent (0.10) or less and Is subject to a
    federally  enforceable   requirement
    which limits operation of the affected
    facility to an annual capacity factor of
    10 percent (0.10) or less:
                «« C« Cli. I (7-l-M Edition)
                    Protection Agency
    E.-KEU.  H.IMEU. H..II   CEI*  H.)|/
      •here:
    
      E. U the nitrogen oxldea emission limit (ex
         presned aa NO,). ng/J (Ib/nilllloii Rlu)
      •Ov. It the appropriate emission limit from
         paragraph (aXI) for combustion of nat-
         ural gas or distillate oil. ng/J (Ib/mllllon
         Btul.
      H», 1s the heat Input from combustion of
        natural gas. distillate oil and gaseous by
        product/waste. ng/J lib/million Bin).
      EU. la the appropriate emission limit from
        paragraph (aHJl tor combustion of re-
        sidual oil. ng/J  The  owner or operator of an af-
     fected facility  shall conduct perform-
     ance  tests  lo  determine  compliance
     with the percent of potential sulfur di-
    oxide emission rate (%  P.) and  the
    sulfur dioxide  emission rate (B.) pur-
    suant to I 60 42b following  the proce-
                                 IM.4M
    
     dures listed below, except as provided
     under paragraph (d) of this section.
      (I > The Initial performance test shall
     be conducted over the first 30 consecu-
     tive operating days of the steam gen-
     erating  unit.  Compliance  with  the
     sulfur dioxide standards shall be de-
     termined using a 30-day average. The
     first operating day Included  In the Ini-
     tial  performance test shall  be schedt
     uled within 30 days after achieving the
     maximum production  rate  at which
     the affected facility will be operated.
     but not  later than 180 days after Inl
     tlal startup of the facility.
      (2) If only coal or only oil  Is  com-
     busted, the  following  procedures are
     used:
      (I) The procedures In Method 19 are
     used  to  determine the hourly sulfur
     dioxide emission rate (E».) and the 30-
     day  average emission rate (E»). The
     hourly averages used to compute the
     90-day averages are obtained from the
     continuous   emission    monitoring
    system of 160.47b (a) or (b).
      (II)  The  percent of potential sulfur
    dioxide emission rate (% P.) emitted to
    the atmosphere Is computed using the
     following formula:
    % P.. too 
                                                                                                                                 % R. to the sulfur dioxide removal efficiency
                                                                                                                                    of the control device as determined by
                                                                                                                                    Method I*. In percent.
                                                                                                                                 % R, as the aullur dioxide removal efficiency
                                                                                                                                    of fuel prelreatment aa determined by
                                                                                                                                    Method I*. In percent.
    
                                                                                                                                   (3) If coal or oil Is combusted with
                                                                                                                                 other fuels, the same procedures re-
                                                                                                                                 quired In paragraph (cM2) of this sec-
                                                                                                                                 tion are used, except as provided In
                                                                                                                                 the following:
                                                                                                                                   (I) An adjusted hourly sulfur dioxide
                                                                                                                                 emission rate (E*.*) Is used In Equation
                                                                                                                                 19-10 of Method 10 to compute an  ad
                                                                                                                                 lasted 30-day  average emission rale
                                                                                                                                 (!•:..•>. The Et. Is computed using the
                                                                                                                                 following formula:
    
                                                                                                                                 E^'-IE^ E.«l   X.II/X.
                                                                                                                                 •here:
                                                                                                                                 EM* la the adjusted hourly sulfur dioxide
                                                                                                                                    emission rate. ng/J ilb/mllllon Btul.
                                                                                                                                 EM Is Ihr hourly sulfur dioxide emission
                                                                                                                                    rale. nt/J db/mllllon HMD
                                                                                                                              283
    

    -------
     9 A0.43B
    
     E. U the sulfur dioxide concentration In
        fueb) other than co»l »nd oil combusted
        In the •Heeled facility, as determined by
        the  fuel sampllni and analysis proce-
        dures In Method  19. m/J (Ib/mllllon
        Blu). The value E. for each fuel lot Is
        used for each hourly average during the
        time that the lot Is being combusted.
     X.  Is the fraction of total heat Input from
        fuel combustion derived from coal. oil.
        or coal and oil. as determined by appli-
        cable procedures In Method 19.
    
      (II) To compute the percent  of  po-
     tential sulfur dioxide emission rate (%
     P.). an adjusted % R. (% R/> Is com
     puled  from the  adjusted E..' from
     paragraph (bH3HI) of this section and
     aii   adjusted  average sulfur dioxide
     Inlet rate <£«•) using the following for-
     mula:
    
     %R.--iood o IV/E*"»
    
     To compute E**,  an adjusted hourly
     sulfur dioxide  Inlet rate  Is used.
     The EH* ls computed using the follow-
     ing formula:
    
     E./-I&.  E.II  X.)I/X,
     where:
     E,,- Is the adjusted hourly sulfur dioxide
        Inlet rale, ng/J (Ib/mllllon Blu).
     EM  Is the hourly sulfur dioxide Inlet rate.
        ng/J (Ib/mllllon Blu).
    
      (4) The owner or operator of  an  af-
     fected facility subject to  paragraph
     (b)(3) of this section docs not have to
     measure parameters E. or Xt  If the
     owner  or operator  elects to assume
     that Xk-I.O. Owners  or operators of
     affected facilities who assume X, ^ 1.0
     shall
      (I) Determine %  P. following the
     procedures In paragraph (c)(2) of this
     section, and
      (II) Sulfur dioxide emissions (E.) are
    considered  to be in compliance with
    sulfur  dioxide  (-mission  limits  under
     f 60.4 2b.
      (5) Tho ownrr or operator of an af-
    fected facility that qualifies under the
    provisions of | 60.42b(d> does not have
    to measure parameters E. or X.  under
     paragraph (b><3) of this section  If the
    owner  or operator of the affected fa-
    cility elecl.s lo  measure sulfur dioxide
    emission rales of the coal or oil follow-
     ing the fuel sampling and analysis pro-
    cedures under Method 19.
      (d) The owner or operator of an af-
     fected  facility thai roinlinsls only oil
              40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-08 Edition)
    
     emitting less than 130 ng/J (0.3 Ib/
     million Btu) SOi, has an annual capac-
     ity factor for oil of 10 percent (0.10) or
     less, and Is subject to  a  federally en-
     forceable  requirement limiting  oper-
     ation of the affected facility  to an
     annual capacity for oil of 10 percent
     (0.10) or less shall:
      (I) Conduct the  Initial  performance
     test over 24 consecutive steam generat-
     ing unit operating hours at full load;
      (2) Determine compliance with  the
     standards after the Initial perform-
     ance test based on the arithmetic aver-
     age   of  the  hourly  emissions  data
     during each steam  generating unit op-
     erating day  If a continuous emission
     measurement system (CEMS) Is  used.
     or based on a dally average If Method
     6B or fuel sampling and analysis pro-
     cedures under Method 19 are used.
      (e) The owner or operator of an af-
     fected facility subject to I 60.42b(d)(l)
     shall  demonstrate  the   maximum
     design capacity  of the steam generat-
     ing  unit by  operating  the facility at
     maximum capacity for  24  hours. This
     demonstration will be made during the
     Initial performance lest and a subse-
     quent demonstration may be request-
     ed at any other time. If  the 24-hour
     average firing rate for the affected fa-
     cility Is less than the maximum design
     capacity provided by the  manufactur-
     er of the affected facility,  the 24-hour
     average firing rate shall be used to de-
     termine  the capacity utilization rate
     for the affected facility, otherwise the
     maximum design capacity provided by
     the manufacturer Is used.
      (f) For the Initial performance  test
     required under I 60.8. compliance with
     the sulfur dioxide emission limits and
     percent reduction requirements under
     i 60 42b Is based on  the average emis-
    sion  rates and the average percent re-
    duction for sulfur dioxide  for the first
    30 consecutive steam generating unit
    operating days,  except as  provided
    under paragraph (d) of this section.
    The  Initial  performance  lest  Is  the
    only tesl for which al least  30  days
    prior notice Is required unless other-
    wise  specified by the Administrator.
    The  Initial performance test Is  to be
    scheduled so thai Ihe first steam gen-
    erating unit operating day of the 30
    successive steam generating unit oper-
    ating days Is completed within 30 days
                                       284
    Environmental Protection Agency
    
    after achieving the maximum produc-
    tion rate at which the affected facility
    will be operated,  but  not later than
    180 day* after Initial startup of the fa-
    cility. The boiler load during the 30-
    day period does  not have to be  the
    maximum design  load, but  must  be
    representative of future operating con-
    ditions  and Include at least  one 24-
    hour period at full load.
      (g) After the Initial performance test
    required under 160.8, compliance with
    the sulfur dioxide emission limits and
    percent reduction requirements under
    160.42b la based on the average emis-
    sion rates and the average percent re-
    duction for aulfur dioxide for 30 suc-
    cessive steam generating  unit operat-
    ing days, except  aa provided under
    paragraph  (d). A  separate  perform-
    ance test to completed at the end of
    each steam generating  unit operating
    day after the Initial performance test.
    and  a new  30-day  average  emission
    rate and percent reduction for sulfur
    dioxide are calculated lo show compli-
    ance with the standard.
      (h) Except as provided  under para-
    graph (I) of this section, the owner or
    operator of an affected facility shall
    use all  valid  sulfur dioxide emissions
    data In calculating % P. and E». under
    paragraph (c), of this section whether
    or not the minimum emissions data re-
    quirements    under    160.40b    are
    achieved. All valid emissions data. In-
    cluding valid sulfur dioxides emission
    data collected during periods of start-
    up, shutdown and malfunction, shall
    be used In calculating % P.  and E,,.
    pursuant to paragraph (c) of this sec-
    tion.
      (I) During periods of malfunction or
    maintenance  of the sulfur dioxide con-
    trol systems  when oil Is combusted as
    provided  under  160.42b(l>.  emission
    data are nol  used lo calculate % P. or
    E. under I 60.42b (a), (b) or (c). howev-
    er, the emissions data are used to de-
    termine compliance with Ihe emission
    limit under | 60 421X1)
    
    • «0.46b  Compliance and  performance tent
        methods and procedures for paniculate
        matter and nitrogen oxides.
      (a) The participate mailer emission
    standards and opacity limits under
    160.43b  apply  at  all times  except
    during  periods of startup, shutdown.
                                fMMofc
    
    or malfunction. The nitrogen oxides
    emission  standards  under  |60.44b
    apply at all times.
       Compliance with the partlculate
    matter   emission   standards   under
    | 60.43b shall be determined through
    performance testing  as described In
    paragraph (d) of this section.
      (c) Compliance  with  Ihe nitrogen
    oxides   emission   standards   under
    | 60.44b shall be determined through)
    performance testing  as described In
    paragraph (e) or (f) of this section.
      (d) The following  procedures  and
    reference methods are used to deter-
    mine compliance- with the standards
    for partlculate  mailer emissions under
    160.43b.
      (1) Method 3 Is used for gas analysis
    •when applying Method 5 or Method
    17.
      (2) Method 5. Method SB. or Method
    17 shall be used to measure the con-
    centration of partlculale matter as fol-
    lows:
      (I) Method 5 shall be used at affect-
    ed facilities without wet flue gas desul-
    furlzatlon (POD) systems; and
      (II) Method 17 may be used at facili-
    ties with  or without wet scrubber sys-
    tems provided  the stack gas tempera-
    ture does not exceed  a temperature of
    160 *C (320 *P). The procedures of sec-
    tions 2.1 and 2.3 of Method 5B may be
    used In Method  17 only If It  Is used
    after a wet FGD  system.  Do not use
    Method 17 after wet POD systems  If
    the effluent Is  saturated or laden with
    water droplets.
      (Ill) Method  SB Is  to be used only
    after wel FGD systems.
      (3) Method  1 Is used to select the
    sampling site and the number of tra-
    verse sampling points. The sampling
    lime for each run Is  al leasl 120 min-
    utes  and  the  minimum  sampling
    volume Is 1.7  dscm  (60 dscf) except
    that smaller sampling times  or  vol-
    umes may be approved by the Admin-
    istrator when  necessitated  by  process
    variables or other factors.
      (4) For Method 5.  the temperature
    of  the  sample gas In the  probe  and
    filler holder Is monitored and Is main-
    tained at 160 'C (320 -F).
      (5) For determination of partlculate
    mailer  emissions,  the   oxygen  or
    carbon  dioxide sample Is obtained si-
    multaneously  with   each   run   of
                                                                                       285
    

    -------
      9M.44*
    
      Method 6. Method SB or Method 17 by
      traversing the duct al  the same sam-
      pling location.
        (6) For  each run  using  Method 5.
      Method 6B or Method 17. the emission
      rat« expressed In nanograma per Joule
      heat Input Is determined using:
        (I)  The  oxygen or carbon dioxide
      measurements and par lieu late matter
      measurements obtained under this sec-
      tion.
        (II) The dry basis F factor, and
        (III) The  dry basis emission rate cal-
      culation   procedure  contained   In
      Method 19 (Appendix A).
       (7) Method 9 Is used for determining
      the opacity of stack emissions.
       (e)  To determine  compliance  with
      the emission  limits for nitrogen oxides
      required under I 80.44b. the owner or
      operator of an affected  facility shall
      conduct  the  performance lest as re-
      quired under I 00.8 using the continu-
      ous system for monitoring nitrogen
      oxides under I 60.48(b).
      (1) For the Initial compliance  lest.
      nitrogen oxides from the steam gener-
     ating unit are monitored for 30 succes-
     sive steam  generating unit  operating
     d»ys and the 30-day  average emission
     rat? Is used to determine compliance
     with  the  nitrogen  oxides  emission
     standards under I 80.44b.  The 30-day
     average emission rate Is calculated as
     the average of all hourly  emissions
     ilata  recnnled  by  thr  monitoring
     system during the 30-day lest period.
      (2) Following the dale on which the
     Initial performance lest Is completed
     or  Is required  to be completed under
     (00.B  of this part,  whichever  date
     cnmes first, the owner or operator of
     an  affected facility  which  combusts
     coal or which combusts  residual oil
     Imvlng  a  nitrogen   content greater
     than 0.30 weight percent  shall deter-
     mine compliance with the  nitrogen
     oxides  emission   standards  under
     I 60.44b on a continuous basis through
     the use  of  .1  30 dny  rolling average
     emission rale.  A now 30-day rolling av-
     erage emission rale Is calculated each
     steam  generating unit operating day
     as the average of all of the hourly ni-
     trogen oxides  emission data for  the
    preceding 30 steam generating unit op
    crating days.
      (3) Following the dale nil which the
    Initial performance tcsl Is completed
               40 OH Oi. I (7-1-88 IrfltUn)
    
      or Is required to be completed under
      180.8  of  this  part,  whichever dale
      comes  first, the owner or operator of
      an affected facility which has a heat
      Input capacity  greater  than 73 MW
      (260 million Btu/hour)  and  which
      combusts natural gas. distillate oil. or
      residual oil having a nitrogen content
      of 0.30 weight percent or less shall de-
      termine compliance with the nitrogen
      oxides  standards under  I 80.44b on a
      continuous basis through the use of a
      30-day rolling average emission rate. A
      new 30-day rolling average emission
      rate la calculated each steam generat-
      ing unit operating day as the average
      of all  of the hourly nitrogen oxides
      emission data for the  preceding  30
      steam generating unit operating days.
       (4) Following the date  on which the
      Initial  performance test  Is completed
      or required  to  be completed under
      160.8 of this part,  whichever date
      comes first, the  owner or operator of
      an affected facility which  has a heat
      Input capacity of 73 MW (250 million
      Btu/hour) or leu and which combusts
     natural  gas. distillate oil. or residual
     oil having a nitrogen content of 0.30
     weight percent or less shall  upon re-
     quest determine  compliance with the
     nitrogen  oxides   standards   under
     I 00.44b through the use of a 30-day
     performance  lest.   During   periods
     when performance  tesls  are  not re-
     quested,  nitrogen  oxides  emissions
     data     collected    pursuant    to
     f 80.48Mg XI) or 160.48b4gM2> are used
     to  calculate a 30-day rolling average
     emission rale on a daily basis and used
     to prepare excess emission reports, bul
     will not  be used to determine compli-
     ance with the nitrogen oxides emission
     standards. A new  30-day  rolling aver-
     age emission rale Is calculated each
     steam generating  unll operating day
     as Ihe average of all of the  hourly ni-
     trogen oxides  emission data  for the
     preceding 30 steam generating unll op-
     erating days.
      (5) If Ihe owner or operator of an af-
     fected facility which combusts residual
     oil does nol sample and analyze Ihe re-
     sidual oil fpr nitrogen content, as spec-
     ified  In |60.49b(e). the requirements
    of paragraph (III) of this section apply
    and Ihe provisions of paragraph (Iv) of
    Ihls section are Inapplicable.
     fNVlf>
    ntal f rotodton Agoncy
                                       286
      (f) To  determine compliance with
     the emission limit for nitrogen oxide*
     required  by  |00.44b(4>  for  duct
     burners used In combined cycle  sys-
     tems. the owner or operator of  an af-
     fected facility  shall conduct the  per-
     formance test required under  |80.8
     using Ihe nitrogen oxides and oxygen
     measurement procedures In 40 CFR
     Part 80  Appendix   A. Method   30.
     During the performance test, one sam-
     pling site shall be located as close as
     practicable to Ihe exhausl of the  tur-
     bine. as provided by section 8.1.1 of
     Method 20.  A  second sampling  lite
     shall be located at the outlet  to  the
     steam generating unit. Measurements
     of nitrogen oxides and oxygen shall be
     taken  al  both sampling sites during
     the performance lest. The nitrogen
     oxides emission rate  from the com-
     bined cycle system shall be calculated
     by  subtracting the  nitrogen  oxides
     emission rate measured at the sam-
     pling site at the outlet from the  tur-
     bine from the nitrogen oxides emission
     rate measured at the sampling site at
     the outlet from the steam generating
     unit.
    
     l«*.47b  EmlMlon monitoring for  snlfur
      (a) Excel -i •  . provided In paragraph
    (b) of this Etttion. Ihe owner or opera-
    tor of an affected facility subject  to
    the sulfur  dioxide  standards under
    1 80.42b shall  Install, calibrate, main-
    tain. and operale continuous emission
    monitoring systems (CEMS) for meas-
    uring  sulfur  dioxide  concentrations
    and either oxygen (CM or carbon diox-
    ide (COi)  concentrations  and  shall
    record the outpul of Ihe systems. The
    sulfur dioxide  and either  oxygen  or
    carbon  dioxide concenlratlons  shall
    both  be monitored at  the  Inlet and
    outlet of  Ihe  sulfur dioxide conlrol
    device.
      (b)  As an alternative  to  operating
    CEMS as required under  paragraph
    (a) of this section, an owner or opera-
    tor may elect lo determine Ihe average
    sulfur dioxide  emissions and percent
    rediicllon by:
      (t) Collecting coal or oil samples  In
    an as-fired condition at II.  '>ilet  to
    the steam generating unit i.    nalyz-
    ing Ihem for sulfur and  hc;u  mitenl
    according  lo Mel hod 19  Method  19
                                f«0.47h>
    
     provide*  procedure*  for converting
     these measurement* Into the  format
     to be used  In calculating Ihe average
     •ulfur dioxide Inpul rale, or
       (2) Measuring sulfur dioxide  accord-
     ing to Method 8B at the Inlet or outlet
     to the sulfur dioxide control system.
     An Initial •trallflcallAn lest I* required
     to verify the adequacy of the Method
     8B sampling location. The slrallflca-  ,|
     tlon tesl shall consist of  three paired  '
     run* of a suitable  sulfur dioxide and
     carbon dioxide measurement train op-
     erated at the candidate location and a
     second similar train  operated  accord-
     Ing  to  the  procedure*  In Section 3.2
     and the applicable  procedure*  In Sec-
     tion 7 of Performance Specification  2.
     Method 8B. Method 8A. or a combina-
     tion of Method* 8  and 3 or Method*
     8C and 3A  are suitable measurement
     techniques.  If Method 8B Is used for
     the  second  train, sampling time and
     timer operation may be  adjusted for
     the  slratlflcallon lest a* long a* an
     adequate sample volume  I* collected;
     however, both sampling trains are to
     be operated similarly. For the location
     to be adequate for Method 8B 24-hour
     test*, the mean of the absolute differ-
     ence  between the  three  paired run*
     must be less than 10 percent.
      (3)  A dally sulfur dioxide emission
     rate. E«. shall be determined using Ihe
     procedure described  In Method 8A.
     Section 7.8.2  (Equation   6A-8)  and
     stated In  ng/J (Ib/mllllon Blu) heal
     Input.
      (4) The mean 30-day emission rale  Is
     calculated using  Ihe dally measured
     value* In ng/J (Ib/mllllon Blu) for 30
     successive steam generating unit oper-
     ating day*  using  equation  19-20 of
     Method 19.
      (c) The owner or operator of an af-
     fected  facility shall  obtain  emission
     data for at leasl 75 percenl of Ihe op-
     erallng hours In al leasl 22 out of 30
    successive boiler operating  days. If
     this minimum data  requirement Is nol
    mel  with a  single monitoring system.
    the owner or operator of  the affecled
     faclllly  shall supplcmenl Ihe emission
    dala wllh dala  collected with  other
    monitoring  systems as approved by
    the  Administrator  or  the reference
    methods and procedures as described
     In paragraph (b) of this section.
                                                                                                                          287
    

    -------
    S 60.4lb
    
      (d> The 1-hour average sulfur diox-
    ide  emission  rates measured  by the
    CEMS  required by  paragraph (a) of
    this  section   and   required   under
    I 60 13(h» Is expressed  In ne/J or Ib/
    million Btu heat Input and Is  used to
    calculate  the  average  emission rales
    under 16.
      12) Quarterly accuracy determina-
    tions and daily  calibration  drift tests
    shall be performed In accordance with
    Procedure 1 (Appendix P).
      (3) For affected facilities combusting
    coal or oil. alone or in combination
    with other fuels, the span value of the
    sulfur dioxide CEMS at the inlet to
    the sulfur dioxide control device Is 125
    percent of  the maximum  estimated
    hourly  potential sulfur dioxide emis-
    sions of the fuel combusted, and the
    span value of  the CEMS at the outlet
    to the sulfur  dioxide control device  Is
    SO percent of  the maximum estimated
    hourly  potential sulfur dioxide emis-
    sions of Ihr fuel combusted.
    
    DK0.4Hb KmlBslon monitoring  for particu-
        lale mailer  and nitrogen iiiidt*.
      (a) The owner nr operator of an af-
    fected facility subject  to the  opacity
    standard under  i 60.43b shall  Install.
    calibrate, maintain, and operate a con-
    tinuous monitoring syslem for measur-
    ing  the  opacity  of emi.sslons  dis-
    charged to the atmosphere and record
    the output of  I he system.
      (h» Except as provided in paragraphs
    <•?> and (h) of this section,  the owner
    01 operator of an affected facility sub-
    ject to the nitrogen oxides standard of
    }8U44h For affected facilities combusting
    coal,  wood or  municipal-type  solid
    waste, the span value for a continuous
    monitoring   syslem  for  measuring
    opacity shall  be  between 60 and 80
    percent.
      (2) For affected facilities combusting
    coal, oil, or natural  gas, ihe span value
    for nitrogen oxides Is  determined as
    follows:
                              Span valum ta*
                              nrtronan OMNlas
                                 IPPMI
    NiluM gn
    Ot
    CoH
            500
            500
            1.000
    500(« i y) | I 000,
    where:
    x is tho fraction of tolal heat Input derived
       from natural gas.
    y is the 11 act Ion of tolal heal Input derived
       from oil. and
    7. Is I lie fraction of (olal heat Input derived
       from eoal.
                                        288
    Environmental Protection Agoncy
    
      (3) All span values computed  under
    paragraph  (e)(2) of  this section for
    combusting  mixtures  of  regulated
    fuels are rounded to the nearest 600
    ppm.
      (f) When nitrogen oxides emission
    data are not obtained because of con-
    tinuous  monitoring  system  break-
    downs, repairs, calibration checks and
    zero and span adjustments, emission
    data will be obtained by using standby
    monitoring   systems.   Method   7,
    Method 7A, or other approved  refer-
    ence methods to provide emission data
    for a minimum of 75 percent of the op-
    erating hours In  each steam  generat-
    ing unit operating day. In at least 22
    out of 30 successive steam generating
    unit operating days.
      (g) The owner or operator of  an af-
    fected  facility that has a heat Input
    capacity of 73 MW (250 million Btu/
    hour) or less, and which has an annual
    capacity factor for residual  oil having
    a nitrogen  content    '» 30 weight per-
    cent or less, natural gas. distillate oil,
    or any mixture of these fuels, greater
    than 10 percent (0.10) shall:
      (1 > ^Comply with the provisions of
    paragraphs (b). (c).  (d). (eM2>.  (eM3>.
    and (f) of this section, or
      (2) Monitor steam generating  unit
    operating conditions and predict nitro-
    gen oxides emission rates as specified
    In  a  plan  submitted pursuant  to
    I 80 49b(c).
       The design heat Input capacity of
    the affeclcd facility and Identification
    of the fuels lo be combusted in the af-
    fected facility.
                                § 60.49k
    
      (2) If applicable, a copy of any feder-
    ally   enforceable   requirement  that
    limits the annual capacity  factor for
    any fuel or mixture of fuels under
    |«0.43b(dMl).        |60.44b(c).
    |«043(bMaMJ).       |60.44b(d).
    |«043b(aM3MIII).     | 60.44b(ei. or
    160.43b.
    KKMStXdMlMIII),
      (3)  The annual  capacity factor at
    which the owner or operator antic!-
    pates operating the facility based on
    all fuels fired and based on each Indi-
    vidual fuel fired, and.
      (4)  Notification  that  an emerging
    technology will be used for controlling
    emissions of sulfur dioxide. The Ad-
    ministrator  will examine the descrip-
    tion of the  emerging  technology and
    will determine  whether the technolo-
    gy qualifies as  an emerging technolo-
    gy. In making this determination, the
    Administrator may require  the  owner
    or operator  of  the  affected facility to
    submit  additional   Information  con-
    cerning the  control device. The affect-
    ed facility Is subject to the provisions
    of | 60.42b(a) unless and until this de-
    termination Is  made by  the Adminis-
    trator.
      (b)  The owner or operator of each
    affected  facility subject  lo  the  sulfur
    dioxide, parllculate matter  and nitro-
    gen   oxides  emission  limits   under
    |60.42b.  |60.43b. and  160.44b.  shall
    submit to the  Administrator the per-
    formance lest  data from the  Initial
    performance test and the performance
    evaluation of the CEMS using the ap-
    plicable performance specifications In
    Appendix B.
      (c) The owner or operator  of each af-
    fected facility subject  to Ihe nitrogen
    oxides standard of I 60.44b  who seeks
    to demonstrate compliance with those
    slandards through the monitoring of
    steam generating unit operating condi-
    tions  under   the   provisions   of
    |60.48b
    -------
      §«0.49b
    
      latlonshlp  between  these  operating
      conditions and nitrogen oxides emis-
      sion rates (I.e.. ng/J or Ibs/mllllon Btu
      heat Input). Steam generating unit op-
      erating rondltlom Include, but are not
      limited to. the decree of staged com-
      bustion (I.e.. the ratio of primary air
      to secondary and/or tertiary air) and
      the  level of excess air  (I.e.. flue gas
      oxygen level);
       (2) Include the data and Information
      that the owner or operator used to
      Identify  the  relationship between  ni-
      trogen oxides emission rates  and these
      operating conditions;
       <3)  Identify   how  these   operating
      conditions. Including steam generating
      unit load, will be monitored  under
      |60.48b(g> on an hourly basis by the
      owner or operator during the period of
     operation of the affected facility; the
     quality assurance procedures or prac-
      tices that will be employed to ensure
     that the data generated by monitoring
     these operating conditions will be rep-
     resentative and accurate; and the type
     and format of the records of  these op-
     erating  conditions.  Including steam
     generating unit load,  that   will be
     maintained by the owner or  operator
     under I 60.49b(j>.
    
     If the plan Is approved, the  owner or
     operator shall maintain records of pre-
     dicted nitrogen  oxide emission  rates
     and the  monitored operating condi-
     tions. Including steam generating unit
     load. Identified In the plan.
      (d) The owner or operator of an af-
     fected facility shall record and main-
     lain records of  I he amount*  of each
     fuel combusted  during each  day and
    calculate  the  annual  capacity factor
    Individually for  real, distillate oil. re-
    sidual oil. natural gas. wood,  and mu-
    nicipal-type solid wi-ste for each calen-
    dar  quarter.  The  annual   rapacity
     (actor IK  determined  on  a 12-month
     rolling  average  basis with   a  new
    annual  capacity  factor calculated at
     the end nf eaeh calendar month.
      (e)  For affected  facilities that: (I)
    Combust residual oil having a  nitrogen
    content of 0.3 weight  percent or less;
    (2) have heal Input capacities of 73
    MW (250 null.nn Bin/hour)  or  less;
    and (3) mumi.ii  nitrogen oxides emis-
    sions or steam generating  unit operat-
    ing conditions under  }60.48b(g>.  the
    owner  or  operator  shall  maintain
               40 CFR Ch. I (7-I-M Erfttlwi)
    
      records of the nitrogen content of the
      oil combusted In the affected facility
      and calculate the average fuel nitro-
      gen content on a per calendar quarter
      basis. The  nitrogen content shall be
      determined   using  A8TM  Method
      D343I  80. Test Method for Trace Ni-
      trogen In Liquid Petroleum  Hydrocar-
      bons (IBR-see | 00.17). or fuel specifi-
      cation data obtained from fuel suppli-
      ers. If residual  oil blends  are being
      combusted,   fuel  nitrogen  specifica-
      tions may be  prorated based on the
      ratio of residual oils of different nitro-
      gen content In the fuel blend.
       (f) For facilities subject to the opaci-
      ty standard under I 60.43b. the owner
      or operator shall maintain records of
      opacity.
       (g> For facilities subject to nitrogen
      oxides standards under  |80.44b.  the
      owner  or  operator shall  maintain
      record* of the following  Information
      for each steam generating unit operat-
      ing day:
       (1) Calendar date.
       <2>  The  average  hourly  nitrogen
     oxides emission  rates (expressed  as
     NO,)  (nt/J   or Ib/mllllon  Btu  heat
     Input) measured or predicted.
       (1)  The  30-day  average  nitrogen
     oxides emission rales (ng/J or Ib/mll-
     llon Btu heat Inpul) calculated at the
     end of each steam generating unit op-
     erating day from the measured or pre-
     dicted hourly nitrogen oxide emission
     rates for the  preceding 30 steam gen-
     erating unit operating day*.
      (4) Identification of the steam gener-
     ating unit operating  days when  the
     calculated  30-day  average  nitrogen
     oxides emission rates are In excess of
     the  nitrogen  oxides  emissions stand-
     ards under |60.44b. wllh Ihe reasons
     for such excess emissions as well as a
     description of corrective actions taken.
      (5) Identification of the steam gener-
     ating unit operating days  for which
     pollutant data have not been obtained.
     Including reasons  for  nol obtaining
     sufficient data  and a  description  of
     corrective actions taken.
      (6) Identification of Ihe times when
    emission data  have  been  excluded
    from the calculation  of average emis-
    sion rates and the reasons  for exclud-
    ing data.
                                       290
    f nvkwmmntal Protection Afcncy
    
      (7) Identlll. ..nun of "F" factor <
    for calculations, method of determina-
    tion, and type of fuel combusted.
      (8) Identification of the times when
    the pollutant concentration  exceeded
    full span of the continuous monitoring
    system.
      (9) Description of any modifications
    to the continuous monitoring system
    that could affect the  ability of  the
    continuous   monitoring  system   to
    comply with  Performance  Specifica-
    tion 2 or 3.
      (10)  Results  of dally CEMS drift
    tests  and quarterly accuracy assess-
    ments as required under Appendix F.
    Procedure 1.
      (h) The owner or operator of any af-
    fected facility In any category listed In
    paragraphs (h) (I) or (2) of this  sec-
    tion Is required to submit excess emis-
    sion reports for any calendar quarter
    during which there are excess  emis-
    sions  from  the  affected facility. If
    there are no excess emission* during
    the calendar quarter, the owner or op-
    erator shall submit a report semlannu-
    ally stating that no excess emissions
    occurred during  the semiannual re-
    porting period.
      (I) Any affected facility subject to
    the    opacity     standards    under
    160.43b.
      (3)  For  the  purpose of  |60.43b.
    excess emissions are defined as  all 6-
    mlnute periods during which the aver-
    age opacity exceeds the opacity stand-
    ards under I 60.43tXf).
      (4)  For purposes of  160.48b(gKl).
    excess emissions are  defined as  any
    calculated 30-day rolling average nitro-
    gen oxides  emission  rale,  as  deter-
    mined under  i 60.46b(e).  which  ex-
                                9«0.4«%
    
    ceeds the applicable emission limits In
    160.44b.
      (I) The owner or operator of any af-
    fected facility subject to the continu-
    ous monitoring requirements for nitro-
    gen   oxides  under  160.4B(b)   shall
    submit  a  quarterly  report containing
    the Information recorded under  para-
    graph  of this section. All quarterly
    reports shall  be postmarked by the;
    30th day following the end of each cal-
    endar quarter.
      (J) The owner or operator of any af-
    fected facility subject to the sulfur di-
    oxide standards under |60.42b  shall
    submit written reports to the Adminis-
    trator for every calendar quarter.  All
    quarterly reports shall be postmarked
    by the 30th day following Ihe end of
    each calendar quarter.
      (k) For each affected facility subject
    to the  compliance  and performance
    testing  requirement* of |60.45b and
    the  reporting  requirement  In   para-
    graph tj) of this section, the following
    Information shall  be reported to the
    Administrator:
      (1) Calendar dates covered In the re-
    porting period.
      (2) Each 30-day average sulfur  diox-
    ide emission rate (ng/J or  Ib/mllllon
    Btu heal  Input) measured during Ihe
    reporting  period, ending wllh Ihe last
    30-day period In the quarter; reasons
    for noncompllance  wllh Ihe emission
    standards; and a description of correc-
    tive actions taken.
      (3)  Each 30-day average percent  re-
    duction In sulfur dioxide emissions cal-
    culated during the reporting period.
    ending with the last 30-day  period In
    the quarter;  reasons  for  noncompll-
    ance with the emission standards; and
    a  description  of   corrective actions
    taken.
      (4) Identification of the steam gener-
    ating unit operating days  that coal or
    oil  was combusted  and for  which
    sulfur dioxide  or diluent (oxygen  or
    carbon dioxide) dala have not been ob-
    tained by an approved method for at
    least 75 percent of the operating hours
    In Ihe steam generating unit operating
    day;  Justification  for nol  obtaining
    sufficient dala: and description of cor-
    rective action taken.
      (5) Identification  of  the times when
    emission!! data have  been  excluded
    from  the  calculation of average em Is
                                                                                                                            291
    

    -------
      9 *0.4»b
    
      alon rates; Justification for excluding
      data;  and description  of  corrective
      action taken If data  have been  ex-
      cluded for periods other than  those
      during which coal or oil were not com-
      busted In the steam generating unit.
        (6) Identification of "F" factor used
      for calculations, method of determina-
      tion, and type of fuel combusted.
        (7)  Identification  of  times  when
      hourly averages have  been obtained
      based on manual sampling methods.
        (8) Identification of the times  when
      the  pollutant concentration exceeded
      full span of the CEMS.
        (9> Description of any modifications
      to the CF.MS that could  affect the
      ability of  the CEMS to comply with
      Performance Specification 2 or 3.
       (10)  Results of  dally  CEMS  drift
      tests and  quarterly  accuracy  assess-
      ments  as required under  Ap|>endlx F.
      Procedure  1.
       (II) The annual  capacity  factor of
      each  fired  an  provided  under para
      graph (d> of this section.
       (I) For each affected facility subject
     to the  compliance and performance
     testing  requirements  of  16(M5IKd>
     end  (he  reporting  requirements  of
     paragraph  (J> of this section, the fol-
     lowing  Information shall  be reported
     to the Administrator:
       (1 > Calendar dates when the facility
     was In  operation during the reporting
     period;
       (2) The 24-hour average sulfur dlox-
     Me emission  rate measured  for each
     steam generating unit operating day
     during  the reporting period that coal
     or oil was  combusted, ending In the
     last 24-hour period in the quarter; rea-
     sons  for noncompliancc with the emis-
     sion  standards: and a description  of
     corrective actions taken:
      (3) Identification ol the steam  gener-
     ating unit operating days that coal or
     oil was  combusted for which sulfur di-
     oxide or diluent (oxygen or carbon di-
     oxide) data have not been obtained by
     an approved  method  for  at  least 75
     percent of the operating hours; Justifi-
    cation  for  not  obtaining sufficient
    data;  and  description of  corrective
    action taken.
      »4> Identification of  the  times when
    emissions data  have  been  excluded
    from  the calculation of average emis-
    sion rates; justification for excluding
               40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-68 Edition)
    
      data;  and  description  of  corrective
      action  taken  If data have been  ex-
      cluded for  periods other than those
      during which coal or oil were  not com-
      busted In the steam generating unit.
       (5) Identification of "F" factor used
      for calculations, method of determina-
      tion, and type of fuel combusted.
       (6)  Identification  of   times  when
      hourly averages have been obtained
      based on manual sampling methods.
       (7) Identification of  the times when
      the  pollutant concentration exceeded
      full span of  the CEMS.
       (8) Description of any modifications
      to the CEMS which could  affect the
      ability of the CEMS to comply with
      Performance Specification 2 or 3.
       (9) Results of dally CEMS drift tests
      and quarterly accuracy assessments as
      required under Appendix F, Procedure
      1.
       (m> For each affected  facility sub-
     ject  to the  sulfur dioxide  standards
     under I 60.42b for which the minimum
     amount  of   data  required   under
     I «0.47b(f) were not obtained during a
     calendar quarter, the following  Infor-
     mation Is reported to the Administra-
     tor In addition to that required under
     paragraph  The ratio of the lower confidence
     limit  for the mean outlet emission rate
     and the allowable emission rate, as de-
     termined In Method 19. Section 7.
      (n)  If a  percent  removal efficiency
     by fuel  pretreatmenl (I.e.. % R,)  Is
     used to determine the overall percent
     reduction (I.e.. %  R.) under I 60.45b.
     the owner or operator of the affected
     facility  shall  submit a signed  state-
     ment  with the quarterly report:
      (1) Indicating what removal efficien-
    cy by  fuel prctreatment (I.e.. % ft,) was
    credited for the calendar quarter;
      (2)  Listing  the quantity, heat con-
    tent,  and dale  each pretreated  fuel
                                       292
    Environmental Protection Agency
    
    shipment was received during the pre-
    vious calendar quarter; the name and
    location of the fuel prelrealment facil-
    ity; and  the total quantity and total
    heat  content of all  fuels  received at
    the affected facility  during the previ-
    ous calendar quarter:
      (3)  Documenting  the transport  of
    the fuel from the fuel pretrealment
    facility to the steam generating unit.
      <4)  Including  a signed  statement
    from  the owner or operator of the fuel
    pretreatment facility  certifying that
    the   percent   removal    efficiency
    achieved by fuel pretreatment was de-
    termined In accordance with the provi-
    sions  of Method 19 (Appendix  A) and
    listing the  heat content  and sulfur
    content of each  fuel before and after
    fuel pretreatment.
      (o)  All records required under this
    section  shall be maintained by  the
    owner or operator of the affected fa-
    cility  for a period of 2 years following
    the date of such record.
    (Approved by the Office of  Management
    and Budget  under control number 2060-
    0135)
    
    Subpart E—Standards  of Performance*
               for Incinerators
    
    ICO.M Applicability and designation  of
        affected facility.
      (a)  The  provisions of this subpart
    are applicable to each Incinerator of
    more  than 45  metric tons per day
    charging rate (50  tons/day), which Is
    the affected facility.
      (b)  Any facility under paragraph (a)
    of this section that commences con-
    struction or modification after August
    17, 1971, Is subject to the requirements
    of this subpart.
    142 PR 37*36. July 25. 19771
    
    180.51  Definition*.
      As used In this subpart, all terms not
    defined herein shall have the meaning
    given  them  In the Act  and In Subpart
    A of this part.
      (a) "Incinerator" means any furnace
    used.  In the process  of burning solid
    waste for the purpose  of reducing the
    volume of the waste by removing com-
    bustible matter.
      (b) "Solid waste" means refuse, more
    than 50 percent of which  Is municipal
                                 5*0.54
    
    type waste consisting of a mixture of
    paper, wood, yard wastes, food wastes,
    plastics,  leather, rubber,  and  other
    combustibles, and noncombustlble ma-
    terials such as glass and rock.
      (c) "Day" means 24 hours.
    
    136 FR 24677.  Dec. 23. 1971. a* amended »t
    39 FR 20792. June 14. 19741
    
    I M.62 Standard for partkulalc matter.
      (a) On and after  the date on which
    the performance test  required  to be
    conducted  by |80.8 Is completed, no
    owner or operator subject to the provi-
    sions of this  part shall cause to be dis-
    charged Into the atmosphere from any
    affected facility any gases which con-
    tain  partlculate  matter In excem of
    0.18 g/dscm (0.08 gr/dscf > corrected to
    12 percent CO,.
    
    13* FR 207*2. June 14. 1*741
    
    IM.63  Monitoring of operations.
      (a) The owner or operator of any In-
    cinerator subject to the provisions of
    this part shall  record the dally charg-
    ing rates and hours  of operation.
    
    I (0.64  Teil method*  and procedure*.
      (a) The reference  methods In Appen-
    dix A to this part, except as provided
    for In  | 60.8(b>. shall be used to deter-
    mine  compliance with the  standard
    prescribed In I 60.52 as follows:
      (1> Method 5 for the concentration
    of partlculate matter and the associat-
    ed moisture content:
      (2> Method I  for sample and velocity
    traverses;
      (3) Method 2 for velocity and volu-
    metric flow rate; and
      (4)  Method 3 for gas analysis  and
    calculation of excess air. using the In-
    tegrated sample technique.
      (b) For Method 5. the sampling time
    for each run shall be at least 60 min-
    utes and the minimum sample volume
    shall  be 0.85 dscm  (30.0 dscf) except
    that smaller  sampling times or sample
    volumes, when  necessitated by process
    variables or other factors, may be ap-
    proved by the Administrator.
      (c) If a wet scrubber  Is used, the gas
    analysis sample shall reflect flue gas
    conditions after the scrubber, allowing
    for carbon dioxide absorption by sam-
    pling the gas  on (hr scrubber Inlet and
                                                                                                                            293
    

    -------
    140.140
    
        C.-UO •MCj./S.M Metric UnlU* or
    •here:
    C»-parllculal«  emluton
       dry iludse (En«IUh unlU: Ib/ton  dry
       •ludte).
    10 '-Metricconvenloit factor, g/mg.
    WOO-CnslUh oonvenlon factor. Ib/ton.
    ll» PR tan. Mar. i. 1174; It PR IJ77«. Apr.
    11. It7«: It PR I»3M. May I. 19741
    
    $vbp*rl P—Standards •! Performance
         Is* Primary Coppar Smelters
    
      Sconce 41 PR 33M. Jan. 16. 1I7S, unleu
    otherwise noted.
    
    IM.IM  Applicability and deiif nation of
        affected facility.
      (a) The  provisions of this subpmrt
    are applicable to the following affect-
    ed facilities In primary copper smell-
    era: Dryer, roaster, smelting  furnace,
    and copper converter.
       (b) Any facility under paragraph 
    of this section  that commences con-
    struction or modification  after Octo-
    ber 16. 1914. Is subject to the require-
    ments of this subpart.
    MJ PR J7tS7. July >». It77l
    
     IM.Itl  Dcflnllloiw.
       As used In this subpart, all terms not
     defined herein shall have the meaning
     given them In the Act and In Subpart
     A of this part.
       (a) "Primary copper smelter" means
     any Installation or any Intermediate
     process engaged In the production of
     copper from copper sulflde ore concen-
     trates  through  the use of pyrometal-
     lurglcal techniques.
       (b) "Dryer" means  any facility  In
     which a copper sultlde ore concentrate
     charge Is heated In the presence of air
      to eliminate a portion of the moisture
      from the charge, provided less than 6
      percent of the sulfur  contained In IIie
      charge Is eliminated In the facility.
       (c) "Roaster" means any  facility In
      which a copper suUlde ore concentrate
      charge Is healed In the presence of air
      to eliminate a sigiiif Irani  portion (5
      percenl or more) of  the sulfur con-
      tained In Ihe charge.
        (d) "Calcine" means Ihc solid male-
       rials produced by a roaster.
        ID  "Smelling"  means  processing
       techniques (or the melting of a copper
            40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-tt Idlllmt)
    
    sulflde  ore  concentrate  or  calcine
    charge  leading  to the formation of
    separate layers of molten slag, molten
    copper, and/or copper malic.
      (f) "Smelling furnace"  means any
    vessel In which Ihe smelling of copper
    sulflde ore concenlrales or calcines Is
    performed and In which Ihe heal nec-
    essary for smelting Is  provided by an
    electric current, rapid  oxidation of a
    portion of the sulfur contained In the
    concentrate as  It  passes  Ihrough an
    oxidizing  almosphere,  or Ihe combus-
    llon of a fossil fuel.
      (g) "Copper converter" means any
    vessel   to which  copper  matte  Is
    charged and oxidized to copper.
      (h> "Sulfurlc acid plant" means any
    facility producing  sulfurlc acid by the
    contact process.
      (I) "Fossil  fuel" means  nalural gas.
    petroleum, coal, and any form of solid.
    liquid,  or gaseous fuel derived  from
    such materials for Ihe purpose of cre-
    ating useful heat.
      (J>  "Reverberatory   smelling fur-
    nace" means any  vessel In which the
    smelting  of copper sulflde ore concen-
    trates or  calcines  Is performed and In
    which the heal necessary for smelling
     Is provided primarily by combustion of
     a fossil fuel.
      (k)  "Total smelter  charge"  means
     the weight  (dry  basis) of  all copper
     sulflde ore concenlrales processed al a
     primary   copper  smeller,  plus Ihe
     weight of all other solid  materials In-
     troduced Into the roasters and smell-
     Ing  furnaces al a  primary   copper
     smelter,  except calcine,  over  a one-
     month period.
       (I) "High level of volatile Impurities"
     means a  total smelter charge contain-
     ing more than 0.2 weight percenl ar-
     senic. 0.1 welghl percenl antimony. 4.6
     weight percenl lead or 5.5 welghl per-
     cenl zinc, on a dry basis.
    
      I M.IU  Standard for aartlcolale mailer.
       (a) On and afler Ihe dale on which
      Ihe performance lesl required lo be
      conducted by  f 60.8  Is completed, no
      owner or operator subject lo Ihe provi-
      sions of  tills subpart  shall cause lo be
      discharged  Into Ihe almosphere from
      any  d;ycr  any  gases which  contain
      paniculate matter  in excess of 50 in«/
      dscm (0.022 gr/dscO.
                                         332
                              A.•.•.—-I-.
    
      IM.IM  Standard for luiriir dfeiMe.
        (a) On and after the date on which
      the performance test required  to  be
      conducted  by |60.B  la completed, no
      owner or operator subject to the provi-
      sions of this subpart shall cause to  be
      discharged Into the atmosphere from
      any  roaster,  smelting  furnace,   or
      copper converter any gases  which con-
      tain sulfur dioxide In excess of  0.065
      percent by  volume, except as provided
      In paragraphs  shall be com-
      pleted  prior to  the Inlllal performance
      test required under 160.8. During the
      performance evaluation,  the span of
      the  continuous  monitoring system
      may be set at a sulfur dioxide concen-
      tration of 0.15 percent by volume  If
     necessary  to  maintain   the system
     output between 20 percenl and M per-
     cent of full scale. Upon completion of
     the continuous  monitoring system per-
     formance evaluation,  the span of Ihe
     continuous monitoring system shall  be
     set at a sulfur dioxide concenlrallon of
     0.20 percent by  volume.
      (II) for the purpose of the continu-
     ous monitoring system  performance
     evaluation  required under |60.13(e)
     the  reference  method  referred   to
     under  the  Field Test  for Accuracy
     (Relative) In Performance  Specifica-
     tion 2 of Appendix B to this part shall
     be  Reference Method  6. For the per-
     formance evaluation, each concentra-
     tion measurement shall be of one hour
     duration.  The pollulanl  gas used to
     prepare Ihe  calibration  gas mixtures
     required under Performance Specifica-
     tion 2 of  Appendix B. and for calibra-
     tion checks under 160.13  (d). shall be
     sulfur dioxide.
      (c) Six-hour average sulfur dioxide
     concentrations shall be calculated and
     recorded dally for Ihc four consecutive
    6-hour periods of each operating  day.
     Each six hour average  shall  be deter-
    mined ILS  the arithmetic mean of (he
                                                                                                                        333
    

    -------
    9M.IM
    
    appropriate six  contiguous one-hour
    average sulfur dioxide concentrations
    provided by the continuous monitor-
    Ing system Installed under paragraph
    (b) of this section.
      .
      <2> Sulfur dioxide. All six-hour  peri-
    ods during  which the average emis-
    sions of sulfur dioxide, as measured by
    the continuous monitoring system In-
    stalled under I 60.163. exceed the  level
    of the standard.  The Administrator
    will not consider emissions In excess of
    the level of the standard for less  than
    or equal  to 1.6 percent of the six-hour
    periods during  the quarter as  Indica-
    tive   of   a  potential  violation  of
    leoil(d) provided the affected facili-
    ty. Including  air  pollution  control
    equipment.  Is maintained and operat-
    ed In a manner consistent with  good
    air pollution control practice for mini-
    mizing emissions during these periods.
    Emissions In excess of the level of the
    standard  during  periods  of startup.
    shutdown, and malfunction are not to
    be Included within the 1.5 percent.
    
    Ml FR 1IM. Jui. IV IMS: 41 FR 834*. Feb.
    M. l»1*. a* amended  al 42 FR 57I2«. Nov. I.
    1*17: 41 PR 23611. May 25. IB831
    
    IM 1(4  Test method* and procedure*.
      (a) The reference methods In Appen-
    dix A to this part, except as provided
    for In | 60.8(b). shall be used to deter-
    mine compliance  with the standards
    prescribed  In  ||  60.162.  60.163  and
    60.164 as follows:
      (1>  Method 5 for the concentration
    of participate matter and the associat-
    ed moisture content.
      <2> Sulfur  dioxide concentrations
    shall be determined using the continu-
    ous monitoring system Installed In ac-
    cordance with |60.165. One 6-hour
    average  period  shall  constitute  one
    run.  The  monitoring  system  drift
    during any run shall not exceed 2 per-
    cent of span.
             40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-M Edition)
    
      (b) For Method S. Method 1 shall be
    used for selecting  the sampling site
    and  the number of  traverse points,
    Method 2 for determining velocity and
    volumetric  flow rate and Method 3 for
    determining  the gas analysis.  The
    sampling time for each run shall be at
    least 60 minutes and the  minimum
    sampling volume shall be 0.86  dscm
    (30 dscf) except that smaller times or
    volumes, when necessitated by process
    variables or other factors, may be ap-
    proved by the Administrator.
    
    SubfHHt  Q—Standards  of  Perform-
        ance far Primary  Zinc Smarter*
    
      SOURCE 41 FR 2340. Jan. IS. 1»7«. unleu
    otherwise noted.
    
    IM.I7*  Applicability and  designation of
       affected  facility.
      (a) The  provisions  of this subpart
    are applicable to the  following affect-
    ed facilities In primary zinc smellers:
    roaster and sintering machine.
      (b) Any facility under paragraph (a)
    of this  section that commences  con-
    struction or  modification after Octo-
    ber 16. 1974. Is subject to the require-
    ments of this subpart.
    
    142 FR 37937. July 25. IV77J
    
    IM.I7I  Definition*.
      As used In this subpart. all terms not
    defined herein shall have the meaning
    given them In the Act and In Subpart
    A of this part.
      (a) "Primary  zinc  smelter"  means
    any  Installation engaged In the  pro-
    duction,  or any Intermediate process
    In the production, of zinc or zinc oxide
    from  zinc   sulflde  ore  concentrates
    through the use of pyrometallurglcal
    techniques.
      (b) "Roaster"  means any  facility In
    which  a zinc sulflde  ore concentrate
    charge is heated In the presence of air
    to  eliminate a significant  portion
    (more than 10 percent)  of the sulfur
    contained In the charge.
      (c) "Sintering machine" means any
    furnace in which calcines are heated
    In the presence of air to agglomerate
    the calcines  Into a hard porous mass
    called "sinter."
                                       334
     Environmental Prelection Agency
    
      (d> "Sulfurlc acid plant" means any
     facility producing sulfurlc acid by the
     contact process.
    
     I M.I72 Standard for partlculale matter.
      (a) On and after the date  on which
     the performance  test required to be
     conducted by | 60.8 Is completed, no
     owner or operator subject to the provi-
     sions of this subpart shall cause to be
     discharged Into the atmosphere from
     any  sintering  machine  any   gases
     which contain  partlculale  matter In
     excess of 60 mg/dscm (0.022 gr/dscf).
    
     I M.I73 Standard for «ulfur dioxide.
       On and afler Ihe date on which
     the performance  lest required to be
     conducted by I 60.8 Is completed, no
     owner or operator subject to the provi-
     sions of this subpart shall cause to be
     discharged Into the atmosphere from
     any roaster  any gases which contain
     sulfur dioxide In  excess of  0.065 per-
     cent by volume.
      (b) Any sintering machine  which
     eliminates more than 10 percent of the
     sulfur Initially contained In the zinc
     sulflde ore concentrates will be consid-
     ered as a  roaster under paragraph (a)
     of this section.
    
     I M.I74 Standard for vlilble emlralon*.
      (a) On and afler the dale on which
     the performance  teat required to be
     conducted by I 60.8 Is completed, no
     owner or operator subject to the provi-
     sions of this subpart shall cause to be
     discharged Into the atmosphere  from
     any  sintering  machine  any  visible
     emissions  which exhibit greater  than
     20 percent opacity.
      (b) On and after Ihe dale on which
     the  performance  tesl required  lo be
    conducted  by | 60.8 Is completed, no
    owner or operator subject lo Ihe provi-
    sions of this  subparl shall cause lo be
     discharged Into the atmosphere  from
     any affected  facility that uses a sulfu-
     rlc  acid  planl  lo comply  with  Ihe
    slandard sel  forlh In | 60.173. any visi-
    ble emissions which exhibit greater
     than 20 percent opacity.
    
    0 CO. 175  Monitoring of operation*.
      (a)  The owner  or operalor of any
    Primary zinc smeller  subject to  Ihe
    Provisions of this subparl shall Install
    and operale:
                                 9 40.17$
    
      (1>A continuous monitoring system
     to  monitor and record the opacity of
     gases discharged into  the  atmosphere
     from any sintering machine. The apart
     of this system shall be set  at 80 to 100
     percent opacity.
      (2) A continuous monitoring system
     to  monitor and record sulfur dioxide
     emissions discharged Into  Ihe atmos-
     phere from any  roaster  subject  lo
     I 60.173. The span of this system ahaty
     be  sel al a sulfur dioxide concentra*
     tlon of 0.20 percent by  volume.
      (I)   The  continuous   monitoring
     system   performance  evaluation  re-
     quired under  |60.13(c) shall be com-
     pleted prior lo Ihe Initial performance
     test required under | 60.8. During the
     performance evaluation, the span of
     the continuous  monitoring  system
     may be set al a sulfur dioxide concen-
     tration  of 0.15  percent by volume If
     necessary  to  maintain  Ihe  ayslem
     oulpul between 20 percent and 00 per-
     cent of full scale. Upon completion of
     the continuous monitoring system per-
     formance evaluation, the span of  the
     continuous monitoring syslem shall be
     sel at a sulfur dioxide concentration of
     0.20 percent by volume.
      (II) For Ihe  purpose of the continu-
     ous  monitoring  syslem performance
     evaluallon required under  |60.13(c>.
     the  reference  method  referred  to
     under  the  Field  Test  for  Accuracy
     (Relative)  In  Performance  Speclflca
     lion 2 of Appendix B lo this parl shall
     be Reference  Method  6. For Ihe per-
     formance evaluallon.  each concentra-
     tion measurement shall be of 1 hour
     duration. The pollutant  gas used  to
     prepare  the calibration gas mixtures
     required under Performance Specifica-
     tion 2 of Appendix B.  and for calibra-
     tion checks under f 60.l3(d>. shall be
    sulfur dioxide.
      (b) Two hour average sulfur dioxide
    concentrations shall be calculated and
     recorded daily for the 12  consecutive
     2-hour periods of  each operating day.
     Each 2 hour average  shall  be deter-
     mined as Ihe  arithmetic mean of the
    appropriate two contiguous 1-hour av-
    erage  sulfur  dioxide   concentrations
     provided by the continuous monitor
     ing syslem installed under paragraph
    (a) of this section.
      (c) For the purpose of  reports  re-
    quired  under   5tii).7(c).   periods  of
                                                                                   335
    

    -------
    J40.I7*
    
    excess emissions that shall be reported
    are defined as follows:
      (I)  Opacity.  Any (-minute  period
    during which the average opacity, as
    measured by the continuous monitor-
    ing system Installed undo paragraph
    (a) of this section, exceeds the stand-
    ard under | 60.17«(a>.
      (2)   Sulfur  dioxide.   Any   2-hour
    period, as described In paragraph (b)
    of this section, during which the aver-
    age emissions of sulfui  dioxide,  as
    measured by the continuous monitor-
    ing system Installed under paragraph
    (a) of this section, exceeds the stand-
    ard under 160.173.
    141 PR 2140. Jui. It. IMS. a* amended at 4s
    FH 11(11. May 25. IM1I
    
    IM.I7t  T«»l method* and procedure*.
      (a) The reference methods In Appen-
    dix A to this part, except as provided
    for In | 60.8
    -------
    5*0.184
    
    Itorlng system  Installed  under para-
    graph (a) of this section.
      (c) For  the purpose of reports re-
    quired  under  160.1t c>.  periods of
    excess emissions that shall be reported
    are defined as follows:
      (1) Opacity. Any six-minute  period
    during which the  average opacity, as
    measured by the continuous monitor-
    Ing system Installed under paragraph
    (a) of this section, exceeds the stand-
    ard under 160.184U).
      (2)  Sulfur dioxide.  Any   two-hour
    period,  as described In paragraph (b)
    of this section, during  which the  aver-
    age emissions  of  sulfur dioxide,  as
    measured by the continuous monitor-
    ing system Installed under paragraph
    (a) of this section, exceeds the stand-
    ard under I 80.183.
    141 PR 2340. Jan. 16. 1978. as amended at 48
     PR 3381 I.May 26. 1983)
    
     188.IM Test methods and procedures.
       (a) The reference methods In Appen-
     dix A to  this part, except as provided
     for In 180.8(b). shall be used to deter-
     mine compliance  with the  standards
     prescribed  In 1160.183. 80.183  and
     «0.184 as follows:
       (I) Method 5 for the concentration
     of participate matter and the associat-
     ed moisture content.
       (2>  Sulfur  dioxide concentrations
     shall be determined using the contlnu-
     OUH monitoring system Installed  In ac-
     cordance with |80.186(a). One 3-hour
      average  period  shall constitute one
      run.
        (b) For Method 5. Method 1 shall be
      used for selecting the sampling site
      and the  number of  traverse points.
      Method  3 for determining velocity and
      volumetric flow rate and Method 3 for
      determining  the gas  analysis. The
      sampling time for each run shall be at
      least  80  minutes and  the minimum
      sampling volume shall be  0.85 dscm
      (30 dscf) except  that smaller  times or
      volumes, when necessitated by process
      variables or other  factors, may  be ap-
      proved by the Administrator.
    
      Subpart S—Standards of Performance
          for Primary Aluminum Reduction
          Plants
    
        Souacc 4S PR 44207. June 30. 1980. unless
       otherwise noted.
             40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-88 Edition)
    
     I M.IM Applicability and detonation of
        affected facility.
      (a) The affected facilities In primary
     aluminum reduction plants  to which
     this  subpart  applies   are  potroom
     groups and anode bake plants.
      (b) Any facility under paragraph (a)
     of  this section that commences con-
     struction or modification after Octo-
     ber 33. 1974. Is subject to the require-
     ments of this subpart.
     [42 PR 37937. July 25, 1977. as amended at
     46  PR 44206. June 30. 1980]
    
     1*0.191  Definitions.
      As used In this subpart, all terms not
     defined herein shall have the meaning
     given them In the Act and In subpart
     A  of this part.
       "Aluminum  equivalent"  means an
     amount  of  aluminum  which  can  be
     produced from  a  Mg  of anodes pro-
     duced by an anode bake plant as deter-
     mined by | 60.195(g>.
        "Anode bake plant" means a facility
     which produces carbon anodes for use
     In a  primary  aluminum  reduction
     plant.
        "Potroom"  means  a building unit
      which houses a group of  electrolytic
     cells In which aluminum Is produced.
        "Pofroom group"  means  an  uncon-
      trolled potroom, a potroom which Is
      controlled Individually, or a group of
      potrooms or potroom segments ducted
      to a common control system.
        "Primary    aluminum   reduction
      plant" means any facility manufactur-
      ing aluminum  by electrolytic  reduc-
      tion.
        "Primary control system" means an
      air pollution control  system designed
      to  remove  gaseous  and   particular
      flourldes  from exhaust  gases  which
      are captured at the cell.
        "Roof monitor" means that portion
      of the roof of a potroom  where gases
      not captured at the cell exit from the
      potroom.
        "Total fluoride?"  means elemental
      fluorine and all fluoride compounds as
      measured by reference methods speci-
      fied In i 60.195 or by equivalent or •>
      ternatlve methods (see I 60 8
    -------
    i 40.92
    
    used to manufacture hot mix asphalt
    by heating and drying aggregate and
    mixing with asphalt cement*.
    let PR mat. APT. 10. 10001
    
    I M.tS  Standard for partleulale mailer.
      (a) On and alter the date on which
    the performance test required to  be
    conducted by |00.8 Is completed,  no
    owner or operator subject to the provi-
    sions of this subpart shall discharge or
    cause  the discharge Into the  atmos-
    phere  from any affected facility any
    gases which:
      (1)  Contain participate  matter  In
    excess of 90 mg/dscm (0.04 gr/dscf I.
      (2)  Exhibit JO percent opacity,  or
    greater.
    I3> PR MM. Mar. 9.  It74. M amended at 40
    PR 4t2to. Oct.  o. io7ti
    
    I M.M  Tc*t method* and procedure*.
      <•> The reference methods appended
    to this part, except as provided for In
    |60.8(b>. shall be used to determine
    compliance with  the standards  pre-
    scribed In 160.92 as follows:
      (1) Method 5 for the concentration
    of paniculate matter and the associat-
    ed moisture content.
      (2) Method I for sample and velocity
    traverses,
      <3> Method 2 for velocity and volu-
    metric flow rate, and
      (4) Method 3 for gas analysis.
      (b) For Method 5. the sampling time
    for each run shall be at least 00 min-
    utes and the  sampling rate shall be at
    least   0.9  dscm/hr (0.63   dscf/mln)
    except that  shorter  sampling times.
    when necessitated by process variables
    or other factors, may be approved  by
    the Administrator.
    Swbpcrt J—Standards of Per
           rW Patralovm ••niwrkra
    
    IM.IW  Applicability and declination of
        affected facility.
      (a>  The provisions of  till* subparl
    are applicable to the following affect-
    ed  facilities  In  petroleum refineries:
    fluid  catalytic cracking unit catalyst
    regenerators, furl  gas combustion de-
    vices, and all Clan* sulfur  recovery
    plants except Claus plants of 20 long
    tons per day (LTD) or leu. The Claus
    sulfur  recovery plant  need  not  be
             40 CM Ch. I (7-1-00 fditlwt)
    
    physically  located within the bound-
    aries of a petroleum refinery to be an
    affected facility, provided It processes
    gases produced within a petroleum re-
    finery.
       Any fluid catalytic cracking unit
    catalyst regenerator or fuel gas com-
    bustion device under paragraph (a) of
    this section which  commences  con-
    struction or modification after June
    11. 1973. or any Claus sulfur recovery
    plant under paragraph (a) of this sec-
    tion which  commences construction or
    modification after October 4. 1970. Is
    subject to  the  requirements of this
    part.
    
    143 PR  IOSM. Mar. It. 1970. ai amended at
    44 PR 01043. Oct. at. I tit I
    
    IM.I9I  Definllloiw.
      As used In this subpart. all terms not
    defined herein shall have the meaning
    given them In the Act and In Subpart
    A.
      (a) "Petroleum refinery" means any
    facility engaged In producing gasoline.
    kerosene, distillate  fuel oils, residual
    fuel oils, lubricants, or other products
    through distillation of petroleum or
    through redistillation, cracking or re-
    forming  of  unfinished petroleum de-
    rivatives.
       "Petroleum" means the crude oil
    removed from the earth and the  oils
    derived from tar sands, shale, and coal.
      (c) "Process gas" means any gas gen-
    erated by a petroleum refinery process
    unit, except fuel gas and process upset
    gas as defined In this section.
      (d) "Fuel gas" means any gas which
    Is generated at a petroleum refinery
    and which  Is combusted. Fuel gas also
    Includes natural gas when the natural
    gas Is combined and combusted In any
    proportion  with a gas generated at a
    refinery. Fuel  gas  does  not Include
    gases generated by catalytic cracking
    unit catalyst regenerators and fluid
    coking burners.
      (e> "Process  upset gas" means any
    gas generated by a petroleum refinery
    process unit as a result  of  start-up.
    shut-down, upset or malfunction.
      (f) "Refinery process  unit"  means
    any segment of the petroleum refinery
    In which a  specific processing oper-
    ation Is conducted.
                                       300
    environmental Protection Agamy
    
       "Fuel  gas combustion device"
    means any equipment, such as process
    heaters, boilers and flares used to com-
    bust fuel gas. except facilities In which
    gases are combusted to produce sulfur
    or sulf uric acid.
      (h) "Coke burn-off" means the coke
    removed from the surface of the fluid
    catalytic  cracking unit catalyst  by
    combustion In the catalyst  regenera-
    tor. The rate of coke burn-off la calcu-
    lated by the  formula specified  In
    100.104.
      (I)  "Claus  sulfur  recovery plant"
    means a process unit which recovers
    sulfur from hydrogen sulflde  by  a
    vapor-phase   catalytic   reaction  of
    sulfur dioxide and hydrogen sulflde.
      (J)  "Oxidation  control   system"
    means  an  emission  control system
    which reduces emissions from  sulfur
    recovery planU by  converting  these
    emissions to sulfur dioxide.
         "Reduction  control   system"
    means  an  emission  control system
    which reduces emissions from sulfur
    recovery plants by  converting  these
    emissions to hydrogen sulflde.
      (I)  "Reduced  sulfur compounds"
    means hydrogen sulflde (H.S). carbon-
    yl sulflde (COS) and carbon dlsulflde
    (CS.).
    130 PR Ml». Mar. S. I§74. M amended at 4)
    PR lOtSS. Mar. It. 1070; 44 PR 13411. Mar.
    12. 1070; 44 PR *I5«J. Oct. 3t. 1070; 4t PR
    7*4t3. Dec. I. IBWI
    
    I M. IM  Standard for paniculate nailer.
      (a) On and after the dale on which
    the performance lest  required  to  be
    conducted by 160.8  Is completed, no
    owner or operator subject to the provi-
    sions of this subpart shall discharge or
    cause the discharge Into the atmos-
    phere from  any fluid catalytic crack-
    Ing unit catalyst regenerator or from
    any fluid catalytic cracking unit regen-
    erator:
      (1)  Parllculate matter In excess  of
    1.0 kg/1000 kg (1.0 ID/1000 Ib) of coke
    burn-off In the catalyst regenerator.
      (2) Oases exhibiting greater than  30
    percent opacity, except for one slx-
    mlnute average opacity reading In any
    one hour period.
      (b)  Where  the gases  discharged by
    the fluid catalytic cracking unit cata-
    lyst regenerator pass through an In-
    cinerator or waste heal boiler in which
                                 { 00.104
    
    auxiliary or  supplemental  liquid  or
    solid fossil fuel Is burned, partlculate
    matter In excess of thai permitted by
    paragraph  Burn In any fuel gas combustion
    device any fuel gas which contains hy-
    drogen sulflde In excess of 230  mg/
    dscm (0.10 gr/dscf). except that the
    gases resulting from the combustion of
    fuel  gas may  be treated lo  control
    sulfur dioxide emissions provided the
    owner or operator demonstrates to the
    satisfaction of the Administrator that
    thto to as effective In preventing sulfur
    dioxide emissions lo Ihe atmosphere
    as restricting  the H. concentration In
    the fuel gas lo 230  mg/dscm  or  less.
    The combustion In a  flare  of  process
    upset gas, or fuel gas which Is released
    to the flare as a result of  relief valve
    leakage, to  exempt  from  this para-
    graph.
      (2) Discharge or cause Ihe discharge
    of any gases Into Ihe atmosphere from
    any  Clans sulfur recovery plant con-
    taining In excess of:
      (I) 0.025 percent by volume of sulfur
    dioxide al zero  percent oxygen on  a
    dry basis If emissions are controlled by
                                                                                                                            301
    

    -------
    I WIOS
    
    an oxidation control system, or a re-
    duction control system followed by In-
    cineration, or
      Oil 0.090 percent by volume of re-
    duced  sulfur compounds  and  0.0010
    percent by volume of hydrogen sulflde
    calculated as  sulfur dioxide at  zero
    pei cent oxygen on a dry basis If emis-
    sions  are controlled  by  a  reduction
    control system not followed by Incin-
    eration.
    143 FR  10M9. Mar. It. I97BI
    
    I 49.106 Emlulon monitoring.
      (a) Continuous monitoring systems
    shall  be  Installed, calibrated, main-
    tained, and  operated by the owner or
    operator as follows:
      (DA continuous monitoring system
    for the measurement of the opacity of
    emissions discharged  Into the  atmos-
    phere  from the fluid catalytic cracking
    unit catalyst regenerator.  The contin-
    uous   monitoring  system  shall  be
    spanned  at 60, 70. or 80 percent opaci-
    ty.
      (2) An Instrument for continuously
    monitoring  and recording  the concen-
    tration of carbon monoxide In gases
    discharged Into the atmosphere from
     fluid catalytic cracking unit catalyst
     regenerators. The span of this contin-
     uous monitoring system shall be 1,000
     ppm. Installation of carbon monoxide
    (CO) continuous monitoring systems Is
     not required If the owner or operator
     files a written request for exemption
     to the   Administrator and  demon-
     strates, by the exemption performance
     lest descrHied below, that the average
     CO rmUslons are less  titan  10 percent
     oi the  applicable standard listed In
     leu.lOJ. The exemption performance
     lest shall consist of continuously mon-
     itoring CO  emissions for 30 days using
     «n Instrument that meets the require-
     ments of Performance Specification 4
     of Appendix B, except the span value
     shall be  100 ppm Instead of 1000 ppm,
     and If required, the relative accuracy
     limit  shall  be 10  percent or  5  ppm.
     whichever Is greater.
       (3) A continuous monitoring system
     for the measurement of sulfur dioxide
     In the gases discharged Into the atmos-
     phere from the  combustion  of  fuel
     gases  (except where a continuous mon-
     itoring system for the measurement of
     hydrogen suKicle  Is  installed under
            40 CFR Ch. I (7-l-M Edition)
    
    paragraph (a) (4) of this section). The
    pollutant gas used to prepare'calibra-
    tion gas mixtures under Performance
    Specification 2  and  tor  calibration
    checks under I 60.13(d), shall be sulfur
    dioxide (SO.). The span shall be set at
    100 ppm.  FOr conducting monitoring
    system performance evaluations under
    160.13(0, Reference Method  6 shall
    be used.
      (4) An Instrument for continuously
    monitoring and recording concentra-
    tions of hydrogen sulflde In fuel gases
    burned In any  fuel gas  combustion
    device.     If     compliance     with
    |60.104(aMl) Is achieved by removing
    HJ3 from  the  fuel  gas  before It Is
    burned; fuel gas combustion  devices
    having a common source of  fuel  gas
    may be monitored at one location. If
    monitoring at this location accurately
    represents the concentration of H.S In
    the fuel gas burned. The span of this
    continuous monitoring system  shall be
    300 ppm.
      (5) An Instrument for continuously
    monitoring  and  recording concentra-
    tions of  SOi In the gases discharged
    Into the atmosphere from any  Claus
    sulfur recovery  plant If compliance
    with 160.104UM2) Is achieved through
    the use of an oxidation control system
    or a reduction control system followed
    by Incineration. The span of this con-
    tinuous monitoring system shall be set
    at 500 ppm.
      (6) An Inslrument(B) for continuous-
    ly monitoring and recording the con-
    centration of HfS and reduced sulfur
    compounds In the  gases discharged
    Into the atmosphere from any Claus
    sulfur recovery  plant If compliance
    with 160.104(aM2) is achieved  through
    the use of a reduction control system
    not followed  by  Incineration.  The
    span(s) of this continuous monotorlng
    system(s) shall be set at 20 ppm for
    monitoring and recording the concen-
    tration of HJS  and 600 ppm for moni-
    toring and recording the concentration
    of reduced sulfur compounds.
       (b> [Reserved]
       (c) The  average coke burn-off  rate
     (thousands of kilogram/hr) and hours
     of operation for any fluid  catalytic
     cracking unit catalyst regenerator  sub-
     ject to | 60.102 or I 60.103 shall be re-
     corded daily.
                                        302
                                                                                        Environmental Protection
       For any fluid catalytic cracking
    unit catalyst regenerator which Is sub-
    ject to 160.102 and which utilizes an
    Incinerator-waste heat boiler to com-
    bust the exhaust gases from the cata-
    lyst regenerator,  the  owner or opera-
    tor shall record dally  the rate of com-
    bustion of liquid or solid fossil fuels
    (liters/hr or  kllograms/hr)  and the
    hours of operation during which liquid
    or solid fossil fuels are combusted  In
    the Incinerator-waste heat boiler.
      (e) For the purpose  of reports under
    1 60.7(c), periods of excess emissions
    that shall be  reported are defined  as
    follows:
      (1)  Opacity. All one-hour  periods
    which contain two or  more six-minute
    periods during   which  the average
    opacity as measured by the continuous
    monitoring system exceeds 30 percent.
      (2) Carbon monoxide. All hourly pe-
    riods during which the average carbon
    monoxide concentration  In  the gases
    discharged Into the atmosphere from
    any fluid catalytic cracking  unit cata-
    lyst regenerator subject to i 60.103 ex-
    ceeds 0.050 percent by volume.
      (3) Sulfur dioxide.  (I) Any  three-
    hour period during which the average
    concentration of  H.S  In  any fuel gas
    combusted In any fuel gas combustion
    device subject to 1 60.104(aXl> exceeds
    230 mg/dscm (0.10 gr/dscf). If compli-
    ance Is achieved by removing H.S from
    the' fuel gas before It Is burned;  or any
    three-hour period during which the
    average concentration of SO.  In the
    gases discharged  Into  the atmosphere
    from any fuel gas combustion  device
    subject to |60.I04(aMl> exceeds the
    level specified In | 60.104(aXl>. If com-
    pliance Is achieved by removing SO,
    from the combusted fuel gases.
      (II) Any twelve-hour period during
    which  the average concentration of
    SO. In the gases discharged Into the
    atmosphere  from any Claus sulfur re-
    covery plant subject  to  I 60.104(a)(2)
    exceeds  250  ppm  at  zero percent
    oxygen on a dry basis if compliance
    with |60.104(b)   is  achieved through
    the use of an oxidation control system
    or a reduction control system followed
    by  Incineration:  or any  twelve-hour
    period  during  which the average con-
    centration of  H.S. or reduced  sulfur
    compounds  In the gases discharged
    Into the  atmosphere of any  Claus
                                §M.10«
    
    •ulfur     plant     subject      to
    | 60.l04(aM2Mb> exceeds 10 ppm or 300
    ppm.  respectively, at  zero  percent
    oxygen and on a dry basis  If compli-
    ance Is achieved through the use of a
    reduction control system not followed
    by Incineration.
      (4)   Any  six hour   period  during
    which the average emissions (arithme-
    tic average of six contiguous one-hour
    periods) of sulfur dioxide as measured   ,1
    by  a  continuous  monitoring system
    exceed the standard under I 60.104.
    
    lit FR (316. MM. I. 1974. as amended at 40
    FR 48259. Oct. 6. 1975: 42 FR 32427. June
    24. 1*77; 42 FR 39389. Au«  4. 1977: 41 FR
    10889. Mar. 15. 1978: 48 FR 23811. May 25.
    1983: 50 FR 31701. Au|. 5. I98SI
    
    149.104 Tut method! and procedure*.
      (a) For  the purpose  of determining
    compliance with | 60 102(a)(l). the fol-
    lowing reference methods and calcula-
    tion procedures shall be used:
      (1) For gases released to the atmos-
    phere from the fluid catalytic cracking
    unit catalyst regenerator:
      (I)  Method  SB or 5F Is to be used to
    determine  parllculate  matter  emis-
    sions and associated moisture content
    from  affected  facilities  without  wet
    FOO systems; only Method SB Is to be
    used after wet FOD systems.
      (II) Method 1 for sample and velocity
    traverses, and
      (III) Method 2 for velocity and volu-
    metric flow rale.
      (2) For  Method  SB or SF. the sam-
    pling time for each run shall  be at
    least 60 minutes and the sampling rate
    shall be at leasl O.OIS dscm/min (0.53
    dscf/mln), except that  shorter sam-
    pling times may be approved by  the
    Administrator when process variables
    or other factors preclude sampling for
    at leasl 60 minutes.
      (3) For exhaust gases from the fluid
    catalytic cracking  unit catalyst  regen-
    erator prior  to the emission control
    syslem: the  integrated  sample tech-
    niques of  Method  3 and Method 4 for
    gas analysis and moisture content, re-
    spectively; Method I  for  velocity  tra-
    verses; and Method 2 for velocity  and
    volumetric flow rale.
      (4) Coke burn off rale shall be  deter
    mined  by the following formula:
                                                                                     303
    

    -------
    SM.IM
    
    R.-OMI2    QM    <%CO.t%COM30gg
       QU io.oM4 QH i%co/a««co.«%o.i
       (Metric UnlU) or
    R.-O.OIM QM (%C0.4%CO>i«IM>3 Qu-
       0.00*1 QH I%CO/2»%C0.4%O.I (Eng
       lUh UnlU)
    
    •here:
    R.-coke  bum-off  rate,  kg/hr (English
       unlU: Ib/hr).
    0 Mil-metric unlU material balance factor
       divided by 100. kg mln/hr m >.
    OOISS-English  unlU  malerlal  balance
       factor divided by 100. Ib mln/hr ft*.
    QU'fluid catalytic cracking unit calalyit
       regenerator exhausl fan flow ral» before
       enterlni the emlulon control sy«lem. H
       determined  by  method  J.  dacm/mln
       (English unlU: dscf/mln)
    *CXJ.-perrenl carbon dioxide by volume.
       dry bull, as determined b> Method I.
    •HO* percent carbon monoxide by volume.
       dry ba*U. a* determined by Method 1.
    %O,« percent oxygen  by volume, dry basis.
       u determined by Method 3.
    IOM~melrte unlU material  balance factor
       divided by 100. k| mln/hr m'.
    O.I 303 = English  unlU  material  balance
       factor divided by 100. Ib mln/hr 11«.
    Qu-alr rale to fluid catalytic crackln* unit
       catalyst regenerator,  a*  determined
       from fluid catalytic cracking unit con-
       trol  room Instrumentation, dacm/mln
       (English unlU: dscf/mln).
    O.OM4- metric units material balance factor
       divided by 100. kg mln/hr m'.
    0.0002'English  unlU  material  balance
       factor divided by 100. Ib mln/hr If.
    
      (5) Participate  emissions (hall be de-
    termined by the following- equation:
    
         R.-«Ox 10 ')Q..C. (Metric UnlU)
       R.-(I.S7x 10- 'KJ..C. (English UnlU)
    
    where:
    
    R.- partlculale emission rate, kg/hr (Eng-
       llsh unlU: Ib/hr).
    
    MX I0~ '-metric unlU  conversion factor.
       m In kg/hr mg.
    IMxIO'1. English unlU conversion factor.
       mln-lb/hr gr.
    Q,v T= volumelrfc flow  rate  of  gases  dis-
       charged Into the atmosphere from the
       fluid catalytic cracking unit ralalyst re-
       generator following the emission control
       system, as determined  by  Method 9.
       dscm/mln (English unlU: duel /mini.
    O.  partlculale emission concentration dls
       charged Into the atmocpliere. as deter-
       mined by Method 6. mg/dscm (English
       unlU:
       (0)  For  each  run, emissions  ex-
     pressed In  kg/ 1000 kg (Kiifcllsh units:
             40 Cf t Ch. I (7-l-M Edition)
    
    Ib/IOOO Ib) of coke burn off In the cat-
    alygt regenerator shall be determined
    by the following equation:
     R.- lOOOm./R.MMelrlc or English UnlU)
    
    where:
    R.-partlculale emission  rale, kg/1000 kg
       (English unlU: Ib/IOOO Ib) of coke burn-
       off  In the fluid catalytic cracking unit
       catalyst regenerator.
    1000-conversion factor, kg to 1000 kg (Eng-
       lish units: Ib to 1000 Ib).
    RI-parllculate emission  rale, kg/hr (Eng-
       lish unlU: Ib/hr).
    R,-coke  burn-off rate,  kg/hr (English
       unlU: Ib/hr).
    
      (7) In those Instances In which auxil-
    iary  liquid or solid fossil  fuels are
    burned In an  Incinerator-waste heat
    boiler, the rate of  parllculate matter
    emissions permitted under |80.l02(b>
    must  be  determined. Auxiliary  fuel
    heat Input, expressed In millions of
    cal/hr (English units: Millions of Btu/
    hr> shall be calculated for each run by
    fuel flow rate measurement and analy-
    sis of the liquid or solid auxiliary fossil
    fuels. For each run. the rate of partlc-
    ulale   emissions   permitted   under
    |60102(b>  shall be calculated  from
    the following equation:
        R.- I.I t (0.11 H/R.) (Metric UnlU)
        R.-1.01 (0.10 H/R.) (English UnlU)
    
    where:
    R.-allowable parllculate emission rate, kg/
        1000 kg (English unlU:  Ib/IOOO Ib) of
        coke  burn-off  In  the fluid caUlytlc
        cracking unll catalyst regenerator.
    l.l-emlsslon standard. 1.0 kg/1000 kg (Eng-
        lish unlU:  1.0 Ib/IOOO Ib) of coke burn-
        off In the fluid catalytic cracking unit
        catalyst regenerator.
    Oil-metric unlU  maximum allowable  In-
        cremental rate  of partlculale emissions.
        g/mllllon cal.
    0.10« English unlU maximum allowable In-
        crements! rale  of parlkulale emissions.
        Ib/mllllon Blu.
    H = heat Input from solid or  liquid fossil
        fuel, million cal/hr (English unlU:  mil
        lion Btu/hr).
    R,-coke  burn-off  rate, kg/hr  (English
        unlU: Ib/hr).
    
      (b) For the purpose of determining
    compliance with  I 60.103. the Integrat-
    ed sample  technique  of Method  10
    shall be used. The sample shall be ex-
    tracted at a rale proportional  to  the
    gas velocity  at a sampling point near
                                        304
      Environmental Prelection Agency
    
      the centrold of the duct. The sampling
      time shall not be less than 60 minutes.
       .
     Method 6 shall be used to determine
     the concentration of SO, and Method
     15 shall be used to determine Ihe con-
     cenlallon of H.S  and reduced  sulfur
     compounds. Method ISA may be used
     as an alternative method for determin-
     ing reduced sulfur compounds.
       (1) If Method 6  Is used,  the  proce-
     dure outlined In paragraph (c)(2)  of
     this section shall  be followed except
     that each run shall span a minimum
     of four consecutive hours of continu-
     ous sampling. A  number of separate
     samples may be taken for each run,
     provided  the total sampling time  of
     these samples adds up to a minimum
     of four consecutive hours. Where more
     than one  sample Is used, the average
     SO, concentration for the run shall  be
     calculated as the lime weighted aver-
     age of the SO, concentration for each
     sample according to the formula:
                 c.
    where:
    C. -SO, concentration for the run.
    M' Number of samples.
    CM »8O, concentration for sample i.
    („.Continuous sampling time of sample i.
    T--Total continuous sampling lime of all N
       samples.
    
      (2) If Method 15 Is used, each run
    shall consist of 16 samples taken over
    a minimum of  3 hours. If Method ISA
    Is used, each run shall consist of one 3-
    hour sample or three I-hour samples.
    The sampling  point  shall be  at the
    cenlrold of  the cross section  of the
    duct If the  cross-sectional area  Is less
    lhan 5 m'  (54 ft') or at a point no
    closer to the walls than  I m (39 In.) If
    the cross-sectional area Is 5 m'or more
    and  the centrold  is  more lhan I m
    from  Ihe  wall.  For  Method  15.  to
    ensure minimum  residence lime for
    lite sample inside the sample lines, the
    sampling rate shall be at least 3 liters/
    min  (O.I  flVmln). The SO, equivalent
    for each run shall be calculated as the
    arithmetic average of the SO, equiva-
    lent  of each sample during (lie run.
                                                                                                                           305
    

    -------
    9M.no
    
    Method 4 shall be used to determine
    the  moisture  content  of  the  gases
    when using Method 15. The sampling
    point lor  Method 4 shall be adjacent
    to the sampling point for  Method IS.
    The sample shall  be extracted  at  a
    rate proportional to the gas velocity at
    the  sampling point.  Each run shall
    span a minimum of  4  consecutive
    hours  of   continuous   sampling.  A
    number of  separate samples  may be
    taken for  each run provided the total
    sampling time of these  samples adds
    up  to a minimum  of  4  consecutive
    hours. Where more than one sample Is
    used, the average moisture content for
    the run shall be calculated as the time
    weighted average of the moisture con-
    tent of each sample according to the
    formula:
                     N
                "•" JL.
    •si
    where:
    B«= Proportion by volume of water vapor
       In the |u tlream lor the run.
    N - Number of sample*.
    Bu = Pi  "Hydrocarbon" means any organ-
    ic compound consisting predominantly
    of carbon and hydrogen.
      (f>  "Condensate" means  hydrocar-
    bon liquid separated from natural gas
    which condenses due to changes In the
    temperature and/or pressure and re-
    mains liquid at standard conditions.
      (g)  "Custody  transfer" means  the
    transfer  of  produced petroleum and/
    or condensate. after processing and/or
    treating  In the  producing operations.
    from storage tanks or automatic trans-
    fer facilities to pipelines or  any other
    forms of transportation.
      (h)  "Drilling and production  facili-
    ty" means  all drilling and servicing
    equipment,  wells, flow lines, separa-
    tors, equipment, gathering  lines,  and
    auxiliary   nontransportatlon-related
    equipment used In the production of
    petroleum but does not Include natu-
    ral gasoline plants.
      (I) "True vapor pressure"  means the
    equilibrium  partial  pressure exerted
    by a petroleum liquid as determined In
    accordance with methods described In
    American Petroleum Institute Bulletin
    2517.  Evaporation Loss from External
    Floating-Roof Tanks. Second Edition.
    February 1980 (incorporated by refer-
    ence—see 160.17).
      (j) "Floating roof"  means a storage
    vessel cover consisting  of   a double
    deck,   pontoon  single deck.  Internal
    floating cover or covered floating roof,
    which rests upon and Is supported by
    the petroleum liquid  being  contained.
    and Is equipped with  a closure seal or
    seals  to  close the space between the
    roof edge and tank wall.
      (k>  "Vapor recovery system" means
    a vapor  gathering  system capable of
    collecting all hydrocarbon vapors and
    gases  discharged from  the storage
    vessel and a vapor disposal  system ca-
    pable of processing such hydrocarbon
    vapors and gases so as to prevent their
    emission to the atmosphere.
      (I) "Reid vapor pressure" is the abso-
    lute  vapor pressure of volatile crude
    oil and volatile  nonvlscous  petroleum
    liquids,  except  liquified   petroleum
    gases, as determined  by ASTM D323-
                                $60.113
    
    82  (Incorporated  by   reference—see
    160.17).
    
    (39 FR 9317. Mar. 8. 1974; 39 PR 13776. Apr.
    17. 1974, as amended at 39 FH 20794. June
    14. 1974: 45  FR 23379. Apr. 4. 1980; 48 FR
    3737. Jan. 27.  1983;  52 PR 11429. Apr. 8.
    19871
    
    IM.II2  Standard  fur   volatile  organk
       compounds (VOO.
      (a)  The  owner or operator  of  any
    storage vessel to  which this subpart
    applies shall store petroleum liquids as
    follows:
      (1) If the true vapor pressure of the
    petroleum  liquid, as stored. Is equal to
    or greater  than 78 mm Hg  (1.5  psla)
    but not greater than 570 mm Hg (11.1
    psla).  the  storage  vessel   shall  be
    equipped with a floating roof, a vapor
    recovery system, or their equivalents.
      (2) If the true vapor pressure of the
    petroleum  liquid as stored  Is  greater
    than  S70 mm Hg (11.1  psia). the stor-
    age vessel  shall be equipped  with a
    vapor recovery system or its  equiva-
    lent.
    
    (39 PR 9317. Mar. 8.  1974: 39 PR 13776. Apr.
    17. 1974. as amended at 45 PR 23379. Apr. 4.
    19801
    
    I «0.113 Monitoring of operalions.
      (a)  Except  as provided in  paragraph
    (d) of this section, the owner or opera-
    tor subject to this subpart shall main-
    tain a record of the petroleum liquid
    stored, the period of  storage, and the
    maximum  true vapor pressure of that
    liquid during the respective  storage
    period.
      (b)  Available  data  on the  typical
    Reid vapor pressure and the maximum
    expected storage  temperature of the
    stored product may be used to deter-
    mine  the maximum true vapor  pres-
    sure  from nomographs contained In
    API Bulletin 2517. unless the Adminis-
    trator specifically requests that the
    liquid be sampled, the actual  storage
    temperature determined, and the Reid
    vapor pressure  determined  from the
    sample(s).
      (c) The true vapor  pressure of each
    type  of crude oil with a Reid vapor
    pressure less than 13.8 kPa (2.0 psia)
    or whose physical properties preclude
    determination  by  the  recommended
    method is to be determined from avail
                                                                                                                         307
    

    -------
    }M.Stt
    
    case-by-case basis If the owner or oper-
    ator can demonstrate to the satisfac-
    tion of the Administrator that testing
    of representative stacks yields results
    comparable to those that would be ob-
    tained by testing all stacks.
                   W— |Rt>t«rv.«f]
             OO—Standards  *f r*rf*n»-
             f«r Stationary O«s TurMnas
     Bound 44 FR M1M.  Sept. 10.  IfT*.
    unless otherwise noted.
    
    IM.130  Applicability  •»«" designation of
       affected facfMly.
      (a) The  provisions of this subpart
    are applicable to the following affect-
    ed facilities: All stationary gas tur-
    bines with a heat Input at peak load
    equal to  or greater than  10.7 glga-
    Joules per hour, based on  the lower
    heating value of the fuel fired.
      (b) Any facility under paragraph (a)
    of this section which commences con-
    struction, modification, or reconstruc-
    tion after October 3. 1077. Is subject to
    the requirements of  this part except
    as provided In paragraphs (e) and (J)
    of 180.332.
    
    144 PR S17M. Sept. 10. Itia, as amended it
    SJ FR 41434. Nov. S. Kill
    
    I M.31I  Definitions.
      As used In this subpart. all terms not
    defined herein shall have the meaning
    given them In the Act and In Subpart
    A of this part.
       "Stationary gas turbine" means
    any simple cycle gas turbine, regenera-
    tive cycle gas turbine or any gas tur-
    bine  portion  of a  combined  cycle
    steam/electric generating system that
    Is not self propelled. It may. however.
    be mounted on a vehicle for portabil-
    ity.
      (b) "Simple cycle gas turbine" means
    any stationary gas turbine which does
    not recover heat from the gas turbine
    exhaust gases to preheat  the  Inlet
    combustion air to the gas turbine, or
    which does not  recover heat from the
    gas  turbine exhaust gases to  heat
    water or generate steam.
      (c) "Regenerative cv< Ir gas turbine"
    means  any  stationary  gas turbine
    which recovers heal from I he gas lur-
             40 CFR Ch. I (7-l-tt f dlrlon)
    
     bine exhaust gases to preheat the Inlet
     combustion air to the gas turbine.
      (d) "Combined  cycle gas turbine"
     means  any stationary  gas  turbine
     which recovers heat from the gas tur-
     bine exhaust gases to heat water or
     generate steam.
      (e) "Emergency gas turbine" means
     any stationary gas turbine which oper-
     ates  as a mechanical or  electrical
     power source only when the primary
     power source for a facility  has been
     rendered Inoperable by an emergency
     situation.
       "Ice fog" means an atmospheric
     suspension of  highly reflective  Ice
     crystals.
       "ISO standard day conditions-
     means 2M degrees Kelvin. 40  percent
     relative humidity and 101.3 kllopascals
     pressure.
      (h) "Efficiency" means the gas tur-
     bine manufacturer's rated heat rate at
     peak load  In terms of  heat Input per
     unit of power  output based  on the
     lower healing value of the fuel.
      (I) "Peak load" means 100 percent of
     the manufacturer's design capacity of
     the gas turbine at ISO standard day
     conditions.
      (j) "Base load" means the load level
     at which a gas turbine Is normally op-
     erated.
      (k) "Fire-fighting  turbine"  means
     any stationary gas turbine thai Is used
     solely to pump water for extinguishing
     fires.
      (I) "Turbines employed In  oil/gas
    .production or oil/gas transportation"
     means any stationary gas turbine used
     to provide power to extract crude oil/
     natural gas from the earth or to move
     crude oil/natural gas. or products re-
     fined from these substances through
     pipelines.
         A  "Metropolitan  Statistical
     Area" or "MSA" as defined by  the De-
     partment of Commerce.
      (n) "Offshore platform gas turbines"
     means any stationary  gas turbine lo-
     cated on a platform In an ocean.
      (o) "Garrison facility" means any
     permanent military Installation.
      

    "Oas turbine model" means a group of gas turbines having the same nominal air flow, combuster Inlet pres- sure, combuster Inlet temperature. firing temperature, turbine Inlet tem- perature and turbine Inlet pressure. 382 of this section. (2) No owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subparl shall $40.192 cause to be discharged Into the atmos- phere from any stationary gas turbine. any gases which contain nitrogen oxides In excess of: (14.4) 8TD . 0.0160 4 F Y where: 8TD-allowable NO. emissions (percent by volume at IS percent oxysen and on a " dry basis). Y-manufacturer's rated heal rale at manu- facturer's rated peak load (kllojoules per watt hour), or actual measured heal rale based on lower heallns value of fuel as measured at actual peak load for the fa- cility. The value of Y shall not exceed 14.4 kllojoules per wall hour. F-NO. emission allowance for fuel-bound nitrogen as defined In paragraph (aN» of this section. (3) P shall be defined according to the nitrogen content of the fuel as fol- lows: FMltounri f (NO. N..OOIS eaiaOZS o


    -------
    (10 mUllon Rtu/hourl but leas than or
    equal to 101.2 glgajoules per hour (100
    million Blu/liour) based on the lower
    healing value of the fuel fired, shall
    comply with the  provisions of para-
    graph UM2) of this section.
      (d) Stationary CM  turbines  with  a
    manufacturer's rated base toad at ISO
    conditions  of 30  megawatts or less
    except as provided In I 00 333 Stationary gas turbines  with  a
    heat Input at peak  load equal to  or
    greater than 10.7  glgajoulea  per hour
    (10 million Btu/hour) but less than or
    equal to 107.2 glgajoules per hour (100
    million Btu/hour) based on the lower
    heating value of  the  fuel  fired and
    that  have  commenced construction
    prior to October 3.  1082 are exempt
    from paragraph (a) of this section.
      (f) Stationary  gas  turbines  using
    water or steam Injection for control of
    NO. emissions are exempt from para-
    graph  (a) when Ice  fog Is deemed  a
    traffic hazard by the owner or opera-
    tor of the gas turbine.
      (g) Emergency gas turbines, military
    gas turbines for use In other than  a
    garrison facility, military gas turbines
    Installed for use as  military training
    facilities, and fire fighting gas turbines
    are exempt from paragraph (a) of this
    section.
      (h) Stationary gas  turbines engaged
    by  manufacturers  In research and de-
    velopment of equipment for  both gas
    turbine emission  control techniques
    and gas turbine  efficiency  Improve-
    ments  are exempt  from paragraph (a)
    on  a case-by-case basis as determined
    by the Administrator.
      (I) Exemptions  from  the require-
    ment*  of paragraph (2) of
    this section when being fired with an
    emergency fuel.
      (I) Regenerative cycle gas turbines
    with a heat Input less than or equal to
    107.2 glgajoules per  hour  (100 million
    Btu/hour) are exempt from paragraph
    (a) of this section.
    
    144 PR 62708. Sept. 10.  1079. a* amended at
    47 FR 3770. Jan. 27. 1912}
    
    I M>.333  Standard for tulfur dioxide.
      On and after the date on which the
    performance test required to be  con-
    ducted  by 160.8 Is  completed, every
    owner or operator subject to the provi-
    sion of this subpart shall comply with
    one or the other of the following con-
    ditions:
      (a) No owner or operator subject to
    the  provisions of this subpart  shall
    cause to be discharged Into the atmos-
    phere from any stationary gas turbine
    any gases which contain sulfur dioxide
    In excess of 0.015 percent by volume at
    16 percent oxygen and on a dry basis.
      (b) No owner or operator subject U>
    the  provisions of this subpart  shall
    bum In  any stationary gas turbine any
    fuel which contains sulfur In excess of
    0.8 percent by weight.
    
    I M.334  Monitoring of operations.
      (a) The owner or operator of any
    stationary gas turbine subject to tlie
    provisions of this subpart and using
    water Injection to control NO. emis-
    sions shall Install  and operate a  con-
    tinuous monitoring system to monitor
    and  record the fuel  consumption and
    the ratio of water to fuel being fired In
    the turbine. This system shall be accu-
    rate to  within 1 5.0 percent and shall
    be approved by the Administrator.
      (b) The owner or operator of  any
    stationary gas turbine subject to (l'e
                                       384
    Environmental Protection Agency
    
    provisions of this subpart shall moni-
    tor sulfur content  and nitrogen con-
    tent of the fuel being fired In the tur-
    bine. The frequency of determination
    of these values shall be as follows:
      (1) If the turbine Is supplied its fuel
    from a bulk storage tank, the values
    shall be determined on each occasion
    that fuel Is  transferred to the storage
    tank from any other source.
      (2) If the turbine Is supplied Its fuel
    without Intermediate bulk storage the
    values shall be determined and record-
    ed  dally.  Owners,  operators  or fuel
    vendors may develop custom schedules
    for determination of the values based
    on the design and operation of the af-
    fected facility and  the  characteristics
    of  the  fuel supply.  These  custom
    schedules shall be  substantiated with
    data and must be approved by the Ad-
    ministrator before they can be used to
    comply with paragraph  (b) of  this sec-
    tion.
      (c) For  the purpose  of  reports re-
    quired  under  |60.7(c>,  periods  of
    excess emissions that shall be reported
    are defined as follows:
      (1) Nitrogen  oxide*.  Any one-hour
    period  during  which   the   average
    water-to-fuel ratio, as measured by the
    continuous  monitoring system,  falls
    below the water-to-fuel ratio deter-
    mined to demonstrate compliance with
    160.332 by  the  performance  test re-
    quired In  |60.8 or  any period during
    which the fuel-bound nitrogen of the
    fuel Is greater than the maximum ni-
    trogen content allowed by the fuel-
    bound nitrogen allowance used during
    the  performance  test  required  In
    160.8. Each  report shall Include  the
    average water-to-fuel  ratio,  average
    fuel consumption, ambient conditions,
    gas turbine load, and nitrogen content
    of the fuel during the period of excess
     NO.  x (NO
                "obs
    where:
    NO.  emissions of NO. si IS percent oxygen
                                9*0.335
    
    emissions, and the graphs  or  figures
    developed under 160.335(a).
      (2) Sul/vr dioxide. Any dally period
    during which the sulfur content of the
    fuel being fired In the gas turbine ex-
    ceeds 0.8 percent.
      (3) Ice fog. Each period during which
    an exemption provided In I 60.332(g) Is
    In effect shall be reported In writing to
    the Administrator quarterly. For each
    period the ambient conditions existing^
    during the period,  the  dale and lime'
    the air pollution control system was
    deactivated, and the dale and lime Ihe
    air pollution control system was reacti-
    vated shall be  reported. All quarterly
    reports shall be postmarked by the
    30th day following the end of each cal-
    endar quarter.
      (4)  Emergency  fuel.  Each  period
    during which an exemption provided
    In |60.332(k) is in effect shall be In-
    cluded  In  the  report  required  In
    160.7(c). For each period, Ihe  type.
    reasons, and duration of Ihe firing of
    the emergency fuel shall be  reported.
    144 PR 52798. Sept 10. 1979. at amended  at
    47 PR 3770. Jan. 27. 19821
    
    0 M.33S  Teil melhodi and procedure*.
      (a) The reference methods In Appen-
    dix A to tills part,  excepl as provided
    In | 60.8(b). shall be used lo determine
    compliance  with the standards pre-
    scribed in I 60.332 as follows:
      (1)  Reference  Method 20  for Ihe
    concentration of nitrogen oxides and
    oxygen. For affected facilities under
    this subpart. the span  value shall be
    300  parts per million  of nitrogen
    oxides.
      (I) The  nitrogen  oxides emission
    level measured by  Reference Method
    20 shall be  adjusted  to  ISO standard
    day conditions by the following ambi-
    ent condition correction factor:
    NO1—. i measured NO, emissions al 15 per
       cent oxygen, ppmv
       and ISO standard ambient conditions.
                                                                                  385
    

    -------
    I40J40
    
    P—-reference  eombuster  Inlet  absolute
       prcMiire at  I9I.I kUopaacals ambient
       preamuc.
    p^.meMiired combtulor  Inlet  absolute
       preMtire at leal ambient prewure.
    H^.-*pedfk humidity ol  ambient air  at
       tat.
    e-transcendental oomtant . shall be as fol-
    lows:
      (I)  Reference Method  20 for the
    concentration  of sulfur dioxide  and
    oxygen  or
      <2MI)  AflTM D 2880 71 for the sulfur
    content of liquid furl*  ami AS I'M  D
             40 CFI Ch. I (7.141
    1072 80.  D 3031-81. O 4014-62. or D
    3240-81 for the sulfur content of gase-
    ous fuel* (these methods are Incorpo-
    rated by reference— see I 60.17). These
    methods shall also  be used to comply
    with | 60.334(b).
      (II)  The applicable ranges  of some
    ASTM methods mentioned above are
    not adequate to measure the levels of
    sulfur In some fuel gases. Dilution of
    samples prior to analysis (with verifi-
    cation of the dilution ratio)  Is allow-
    able subject to the approval of the Ad-
    ministrator.
      (c) Analysis for the purpose of deter-
    mining the sulfur content and the ni-
    trogen content of the fuel as required
    by  |60.334(b), this subpart. may be
    performed  by the  owner/operator, a
    service  contractor  retained  by  the
    owner/operator, the  fuel vendor, or
    any  other  qualified agency  provided
    that the analytical  methods employed
    by these agencies comply with the ap-
    plicable paragraphs of this section.
    
    144 PR M7M. Sept. 10. ItlB. as amended st
    4f PR 3M72. July II. IM4I
    
    Swfcpmt  MM— Standards *f ParUaa-
        •nca  fa*  Urn*  Manufacturing
        Plaints
    
      Bounce 4* PR ISOSO. Apr. M. IM4. unlen
    otherwise noted.
    
    1 60.34a  Applicability  and taigaaltoa *f
        affected facility.
    
      (a)  The provisions of  this subpart
    are applicable to each rotary lime kiln
    used In the manufacture of lime.
      (b>  The provisions of  this subpart
    are not applicable to facilities used In
    the manufacture of lime at kraft pulp
    mills.
      (c) Any facility under paragraph (a).
    of this  section  that commences con-
    struction or modification after May 3.
    1977. Is subject to the requirements of
    this subpart.
    
    1*0.341  nefiallioni.
    
      As used In this subpart, all terms not
    defined  herein  shall have the same
    meaning given them In the Act and In
    the General Provisions.
      (a>  "Mine  manufacturing  plant"
    means any plant which uses a rolsrV
                                       386
     !nvrr»nM«nt«l ProfoctUn Agency
    
     lime kiln to produce lime product from
     limestone by calcination.
      (b) "Lime product" means the prod-
     uct of the calcination process Includ-
     ing, but not limited  to. calcltlc lime.
     dolomltlc lime, and dead-burned dolo-
     mite.
      (c)  "Positive-pressure  fabric filter"
     means a fabric filler with the fans on
     the upstream side of the filter bags.
      (d)  "Rotary lime kiln" mean* a unit
     with an Inclined rotating drum that Is
     used  to produce  a lime product from
     limestone by calcination.
      (e)  "Stone  feed"  means limestone
     feedstock and mlllscale or other Iron
     oxide additives that  become part of
     the product.
    
     • M.34I  Blaadsrd for sartlcalalc Matter.
      (a) On and after the date on which
     the performance test required to be
     conducted  by |60.8 la completed, no
     owner or operator subject to the provi-
     sions of this subpart shall cause to be
     discharged Into the atmosphere from
     any rotary lime kiln any gases which:
      (I)  Contain paniculate  matter In
     excess of 0.30 kilogram per megagram
     (0.60 Ib/ton) of stone feed.
      (2) Exhibit greater  than 15 percent
     opacity when exiting from a dry emis-
     sion control device.
    
     IM.343  Monitoring of  emlMlow and •»-
       eralloai.
      (a) The owner or operator of a facili-
     ty that Is subject to the provisions of
     this  subpart shall Install, calibrate.
     maintain, and  operate  a  continuous
     monitoring system, except as provided
     In paragraphs (b) and (c) of this sec-
     tion, to monitor and record the opaci-
     ty of a  representative portion  of  the
    gases discharged Into the atmosphere
     from any rotary lime kiln. The span of
     this system shall  be set at 40 percent
    opacity.
      (b) The owner  or operator of any
     rotary lime  kiln having  a  control
    device with a multiple stack exhaust
    or a roof monitor may.  In  lieu of  the
    continuous  opacity   monitoring  re-
    quirement of 160.343. monitor visi-
     ble emissions at least once per day of
    operation by using  a certified  visible
     emissions observer who. for each site
     where visible emissions are observed,
     will perform three Method  9 tests and
                                 9M.M)
    
     record the results. Visible emission ob-
     servations shall occur during normal
     operation of the rotary lime kiln at
     least once per  day. For at least three
     6-mlnute periods, the opacity shall be
     recorded for any point* s) where visible
     emissions are observed, and the corre-
     sponding  feed  rate of  the kiln shall
     also  be recorded.  Records  shall be
     maintained of  any 6 minute average
     that Is In excess of the emissions specl- ,|
     fled In | 60.342(a) of this subpart.
      (c)  The  owner or  operator of  any
     rotary lime kiln using a wet scrubbing
     emission control device subject to the
     provision* of this subpart shall not be
     required to monitor the opacity of the
     gases discharged as required In para-
     graph (a) of this section, but shall In-
     stall, calibrate, maintain, operate, and
     record the resultant Information from
     the  following  continuous  monitoring
     devices:
      (DA  monitoring device for the  con-
     tinuous measurement of the pressure
     loss of the gas stream through  the
     scrubber. The monitoring device must
     be accurate within ±250 pascals (one
     Inch of water).
      (2) A  monitoring device for continu-
     ous  measurement  of the scrubbing
     liquid supply pressure to  the control
     device. The monitoring device must be
     accurate  within ±5  percent  of  the
     design scrubbing liquid supply pres-
     sure.
      (d)  For the purpose of conducting a
     performance lest under  |60.8,  the
    owner or operator of any  lime manu-
     facturing  plant subject to the provi-
    sions of this subpart shall Install, cali-
     brate, maintain, and  operate  a device
     for measuring  the mass rale of stone
     feed to any affected rotary lime kiln.
    The measuring device used must be ac-
     curate to within  15 percent of  the
     mass rate over Its operating range.
      (e)  For  the  purpose of  reports re-
     quired  under   160.7(c).  periods   of
    excess emissions that shall be reported
     are defined as all 6-mlnule periods
    during which  the average opacity of
    the visible  emissions from any lime
    kiln subject to paragraph  (a) of this
    subparl is greater llian  IS  percent or.
    In the  case of  wel scrubbers,   any
    period In which the scrubber pressure
    drop Is greater than 30  percent below
    the rale established  during  the  per
                                                                                  387
    

    -------
    8*0.70
    
          Stibparl 0—Standards el
      Perfemance far Nitric Acid Plant*
    
    168.7*  AppUcaMlltjr and designation of
       affected facility.
      (a) The provisions of this subpart
    are applicable to each nitric acid pro-
    duction unit, which Is the affected fa-
    cility.
      (b) Any facility under paragraph (a)
    of this  section that  commences con-
    struction or modification after August
    17, 1971. Is subject to the requirement*
    of this subpart.
    (43 FH 37*36. July 38. 1*771
    
    066.71  Definition*.
      A* used In this subpart, all terms not
    defined herein shall have the meaning
    given them In the Act and In Subpart
    A of this part.
      (a)  "Nitric  acid production  unit"
    means any  facility  producing  weak
    nitric acid by either the pressure or at-
    mospheric pressure process.
      (b) "Weak nitric acid"  means acid
    which Is 30  to 70 percent In strength.
    
    0 66.71  Standard for nitrogen oiides.
      (a) On and after the date on which
    the performance test required  to be
    conducted by 160.8 Is completed, no
    owner or operator subject to the provi-
    sions of this subpart shall cause to be
    discharged Into the atmosphere from
    any affected facility any gases which:
      (1)  Contain  nitrogen  oxides,  ex-
    pressed as NO,. In excess of 1.6 kg per
    metric ton of acid produced (3.0 Ib per
    ton), the  production  being  expressed
    as 100 percent nitric acid.
      (2) Exhibit 10 percent opacity, or
    greater.
    13* FR 307*4. June 14. 1*74. at amended at
    40 FR 46286. Oct. 6. 18761
    
    06*73  EmlsaloB monitoring.
      (a) A  continuous monitoring system
    for the  measurement  of  nitrogen
    oxides Khali be Inslallril.  calibrated.
    maintained,   and  operated  by   the
    owner or operator. The pollutant gas
    used to prepare  calibration  gas  mix-
    lures  under  paragraph 2.1.  Perform-
    ance Specification 2  and  for calibra-
    tion checks  under |60.l3(d) to this
    part shall be nitrogen dioxide (NO.).
    The span shall be set at  SOO ppm of
                40 CFR Ch. I (7-l-M Edition)
    
       NO.. Method 7. 7A. 7B. 1C. or 7D shall
       be  used  for  conducting  monitoring
       system performance evaluations under
         (b) The owner or operator shall es-
       tablish a conversion factor for the pur-
       pose of  converting monitoring  data
       Into units of the applicable standard
       (kg/metric  ton.  Ib/short ton).  The
       conversion factor shall be established
       by measuring emissions with the con-
       tinuous monitoring system concurrent
       with measuring emissions with the ap-
       plicable reference method testa. Using
       only that portion  of  the continuous
       monitoring  emission data that repre-
       sents emission  measurements concur-
       rent with the  reference  method test
       periods, the conversion factor shall be
       determined  by  dividing the reference
       method test data averages by the  mon-
       itoring data averages to obtain a ratio
       expressed In units of  the applicable
       standard to units  of  the monitoring
       data. I.e.. kg/metric ton per ppm (Ib/
       short ton per  ppm). The conversion
       factor  shall  be  reestablished  during
       any  performance test  under | 60.8 or
       any  continuous   monitoring  system
       performance     evaluation    under
       | 60.13(0.
          The  owner  or  operator  shall
       record  the dally  production  rate and
       hours of operation.
         (d) I Reserved!
         (e) For the purpose of reports  re-
       quired  under  1 60.7(c>.  periods  of
       excess emissions that shall be reported
       are  defined as  any   3-hour  period
       during which  the average  nitrogen
       oxides  emissions (arithmetic  average
       of three contiguous 1-hour periods) as
       measured by a  continuous monitoring
       system  exceed  the standard under
       | 60.72
    -------
    §40.M
    
    I M.M  EmlMloii monitoring.
      (•) A continuous monitoring system
    for the measurement of sulfur dioxide
    shall be  Installed,  calibrated, main-
    tained,  and operated by the owner or
    operator.  The pollutant  gas used to
    prepare  calibration   gas   mixtures
    under  Performance  Specification 2
    and   for   calibration  checks  under
    |«O.I3(d>.   shall  be  sulfur  dioxide
    (SO.). Reference  Method 8 shall be
    used    for   conducting   monitoring
    system  performance evaluations under
    I «0.13(c> except that only  the sulfur
    dioxide portion of the Method  8 re-
    sulU shall  be used. The span shall be
    set at 1000 ppm of sulfur dioxide.
       of this sec-
    lion from which they were computed
    (I.e.. CP. r.  and s).
      (d) Alternatively, a source that proc-
    esses elemental sulfur or an ore that
    contains elemental sulfur and uses air
    to supply oxygen  may use the follow-
             40 CFH Ch. I (7-1-88 Edition)
    
    Ing  continuous emission monitoring
    approach and calculation procedures
    In determining  SOt emission rates In
    terms of the standard. This procedure
    Is not required, but  Is an alternative
    thai would alleviate problems encoun-
    tered In the measurement of  gas ve-
    locities or production rate. Continuous
    emission monitoring  of Sd. Ot. and
    CO, (If  required)  shall  be  Installed.
    calibrated, maintained,  and operated
    by the owner or operator and subject-
    ed to the  certification procedures In
    Performance Specifications  2  and 3.
    The calibration procedure and span
    value for this SO, monitor shall be as
    specified In paragraph (b> of this sec-
    tion. The span  value for CO,  (If re-
    quired) shall be 10 percent and for O,
    shall be W.V percent (air). A  conver-
    sion factor based on process rate data
    Is not necessary.  Calculate the 8O,
    emission rale as follows:
                             I
                  0 265 0 01 WO, >  A(CO>)
    Where:
    KM.-.M emission rate,  kf/t acid (Ib/ton
       add).
    CM-H. concentration,  ks/dscm  llb/dscf)
       (see table below).
    8- Acid production rate factor.
      -Ml dscm/t acid for metric units.
      -IISOO dscf/ton acid for Bnsllsh units.
    O.-Oi concentration, percent.
    A-Auxiliary fuel factor.
      -0.00 for no fuel.
      -0.01M for methane.
      .0.0317 for natural so.
      -0.0100 for propane.
      -0.0173 for f 3 oil.
      -0.0101 for »t oil.
      -0.0140 for coal.
      -O.OIM for coke.
    Oi-CO, concentration, percent.
      NOTK II la necessary In some cases to con-
    vert measured  concentration units to other
    unlU for these  calculations:
    Use the following  table for such conver-
    sions:
    mo/tern
    ppm ISO,)
    HXilSO.1
    kg/Km
    fc'icl
         10
         10
    7MO.IO
    I 600 . 10 •
                                        298
    f nvkwiMcnlail Protection Agency
    
      (e> For the purpose of reports: under
    |00.7(c). periods  of excess emissions
    shall be all three-hour periods (or the
    arithmetic average of three consecu-
    tive one-hour  periods)  during which
    the Integrated average sulfur dioxide
    emissions exceed the applicable stand-
    ards under I 60.82.
    
    110 FR M7M. June 14. 1074. as amended at
    40 FR 40260. Oct. 0. 1076: 40 FR 93011. May
    26. 1003: 40 FR 4700. Sept.  30. 1001: 40 FR
    40000. Oct. 30. 1011)
    
    I M.M  Test methods aM procedures.
      (a) The reference methods In Appen-
    dix A to this part, except as provided
    for In 180.8(b), shall be  used to deter-
    mine compliance  with Ihe  standards
    prescribed In It 80.82 and 80.83 as fol-
    lows:
      (I) Method 8 for the concentrations
    of SO. and acid mist;
      (2) Method 1 for sample and velocity
    traverses;
      (3) Method 2 for velocity and volu-
    metric flow rale; and
      (4) Melhod 3 for gas analysis.
      (b) The moisture content can be con-
    sidered to  be zero. For Method 8  the
    sampling time for each run shall be at
    least 80 minutes and the  minimum
    sample volume shall be 1.15 dscm (40.8
    dscf) except  that smaller sampling
    times or sample volumes, when neces-
    sitated  by process variables or other
    factors, may be approved by the Ad-
    ministrator.
      (c) Acid  production  rate, expressed
    In metric tons per hour of 100 percent
    H.8O..  shall  be  determined during
    each testing period by suitable meth-
    ods and shall be confirmed  by a mate-
    rial  balance   over   the  production
    system.
      (d) Acid  mist   and  sulfur  dioxide
    emissions, expressed In g/metrte ton of
    100  percent H.SO..  shall  be  deter-
    mined by dividing the emission rale In
    g/hr by the acid  production rale. The
    emission rale  shall be determined by
    the equation:
                 t/lir-Q. xc.
    
    where:
    O. =. volumetric (low  rate of the effluent In
       dscm/hr as determined  In  accordance
       with parasrapli  (aM3> of this section.
       and
                                  j*o.ti
    
    c-acld mist and SO. concentrations In •/
       dscm as determined In accordance with
       paragraph (aH I > of this section.
    
      (e) Alternatively, a source that proc-
    esses elemental sulfur or an ore that
    contains elemental sulfur and uses air
    to supply oxygen  may  use  Ihe SO,.
    acid mist. O,. and CO,  (If required)
    measurement dala In determining SOt
    and  acid mist emission rales In  terms
    of the slandard.  Dala from the  refer-,
    ence melhod les*s as specified In (a) of,
    Ihls part are required; that Is. Method
    8 for SO, and acid mist and Method >
    for Oi and CO,. No determinations of
    production rale or total gas flow rate
    are  necessary. Calculate  the SO* and
    acid mist emission rate as described In
    |80.84(d) substituting the  acid mist
    concentration for CM, as appropriate.
    
    130 FR 30704. June 14. 1074. as amended at
    40 FR 44701. Sept. 30.  1003; 40  FR 40000.
    Oct.  30.10031
    
    Svbpawt I—Standards *>f P«rf*rnHmc«
         f*r rl*t Mix Asphalt FaclMltoo
    
    IOO.M  AorllcaMlity and  designation sf
       affected facillly.
      (a) The affected  facillly to which
    the provisions of this subpart apply Is
    each hot  mix asphalt facility. For the
    purpose of this subpart. a hot mix as-
    phalt facility  Is comprised only of any
    combination of the following: dryers;
    systems for screening, handling, stor-
    ing,  and weighing hot aggregate; sys-
    tems for loading, transferring, and
    storing  mineral  filler,  systems  for
    mixing hot mix asphalt; and the load-
    ing,  transfer, and storage systems asso-
    ciated with emission control systems.
      (b) Any facility under paragraph (a)
    of this section  thai  commences con-
    struction  or modification after  June
    II. 1973. Is subject to the  requirements
    of this subparl.
    
    143 FR 37030. July 25. 1077. as amended at
    61 FR 13125. Apr 10. 10001
    
    IM.OI  ItefmMiwM
      As used In this subpart. all terms not
    defined herein shall have the meaning
    given them In the Act and In Subpart
    A of this part.
      (a) "Hot mix asphalt facility" means
    any  facillly.  as  described In 160.00.
                                                                                                                               299
    

    -------
    REFERENCES FOR SECTION 9.3
    

    -------
    §40.13
             40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-8S Edition)
    torlng procedures or requirements of
    this part Including, but not limited to
    thi1 following:
      (1)  Alternative monitoring require-
    ments when  Installation of a continu-
    ous monitoring  system or monitoring
    device specified by this part would not
    provide accurate measurements due to
    liquid  water  or other  Interference!
    caused by substances with the effluent
    gases.
      <2>  Alternative monitoring require-
    ments when the affected facility Is In-
    frequently operated.
      <3)  Alternative monitoring require-
    ments  to accommodate  continuous
    monitoring systems  that require addi-
    tional  measurements  to  correct for
    stack  moisture conditions.
      (4)  Alternative locations for Install-
    ing continuous monitoring systems or
    monitoring devices when the owner or
    operator can demonstrate that Instal-
    lation   at  alternate  locations  will
    enable  accurate  and  representative
    measurements.
      (5)  Alternative methods of convert-
    Ing pollutant concentration measure-
    ments to units of the standards.
      (6)  Alternative procedures for per-
    forming dally checks of zero and span
    drift  that do not Involve  use of span
    gases or test cells.
      (7)  Alternatives to the A.S.T.M. test
    methods or sampling procedures speci-
    fied by any subpart.
      (8)  Alternative continuous monitor-
    Ing systems  that  do  not  meet the
    design or performance requirements In
    Performance Specification I. Appen-
    dix B.  but  adequately demonstrate a
    definite  and consistent  relationship
    between  Its  measurements and the
    measurements of opacity by a system
    complying with the requirements In
    Performance Specification 1. The Ad-
    ministrator  may require  that  such
    demonstration be perfoimed for each
    affected facility.
      (9)  Alternative monitoring require-
    ments when the effluent from a single
    affected facility or the combined efflu-
    ent from two or more affected  facili-
    ties are  released to the  atmosphere
    thiougli more than one point
       ()>  An alternative to the relative ac-
     ruiar y i«st  specified in Performance
     Specification 2 ul Appendix D may be
     reqnrbled as follows:
      (1) An alternative to the reference
    method tests for determining relative
    accuracy Is available for sources with
    emission rates demonstrated to be less
    than  50  percent of  the applicable
    standard. A source owner or operator
    may petition the Administrator  to
    waive the relative accuracy lest In sec-
    tion 7 of Performance Specification 2
    and substitute the procedures In sec-
    tion 10 If the results of a performance
    test conducted  according  to  the re-
    quirements In | 00.8 of this subpart or
    other tests  performed following the
    criteria In 100.8 demonstrate that the
    emission rate of  the pollutant of Inter-
    est In the  units of  the applicable
    standard Is less than SO percent of the
    applicable slandard. For sources sub-
    ject to standards expressed as control
    efficiency levels, a source owner or op-
    erator may petition the Administrator
    to  waive  the relative  accurancy test
    and substitute the procedures In sec-
    tion 10 of Performance Specification 2
    If the control device exhaust emission
    rate Is less than  SO percent of the level
    needed to meet  the control efficiency
    requirement.  The alternative proce-
    dures do not apply If  the continuous
    emission monitoring system Is used to
    determine  compliance  continuously
    with the applicable standard. The pe-
    tition to waive the relative accurancy
    lest shall Include a detailed  descrip-
    tion of the  procedures to be  applied.
    Included shall be location and proce-
    dure for  conducting the alternative.
    the concentration or response levels of
    the alternative RA materials,  and the
    other equipment  checks  Included  In
    the alternative procedure. The Admin-
    istrator  will  review  the  petition for
    completeness  and applicability.  The
    determination to grant a  waiver will
    depend  on the  intended use of the
    CEMS data (e.g.. data collection pur-
    poses  other than NSPS) and  may re-
    quire  specifications  more stringent
    than In  Performance  Specification  2
    (e.g.. Ihe applicable emission limit is
    more stringent than NSPS).
      (2) The waiver of a CEMS relative
    accuracy test will be reviewed and may
    be  rescinded  at such  time following
    successful completion  of  the  alterna-
    tive RA  procedure  that  the  CEMS
    data indicate the source emissions ap-
    proaching Ihe level  of the applicable
                                        228
     Environmental Protection Agency
                                  §60.14
     standard. The criterion for reviewing
     the waiver Is the collection of CEMS
     data showing lhal emissions have ex-
     ceeded 70  percent  of  Ihe applicable
     slandard for seven, consecutive, aver-
     aging periods as specified by the appli-
     cable regulation^). For  sources  sub-
     ject to standards expressed as control
     efficiency  levels, the criterion for re-
     viewing the waiver Is the collection of
     CEMS  data  showing  thai  exhaust
     emlssons have exceeded 70 percenl of
     the level needed to meet the conlrol
     efficiency requirement  for seven,  con-
     secutive, averaging periods as specified
     by the applicable  regulation^) (e.g.,
     |60.45(g> (2) and (3).  160.73(e).  and
     |60.84! notify the Adminis-
     trator within iO days of such occur-
     rence and Include a description of the
     nature  and cause  of the  Increasing
     emissions.   The  Administrator  will
     review  the notification  and  may re-
     scind  the  waiver   and  require  the
     owner or operator  to conduct a rela-
     tive accuracy  test of the  CEMS  as .
     specified In section  7 of Performance
     Specification 2.
     MO PR  46255. Oct. «. 1975; 40 FR 59205.
     Dec. 22. IBIS. U amended at 41 FR 15185.
     Auc. 20. 1878: 48 FR 13328. Mar. 30. 1983; 48
     FR 23810. May 25. 1983; 48 FR 32B88.  July
     20.  1B83; 52 FR 9783. Mar. 28. 1987; 52 FR
     17555. May  II. 1987; 52 FR 21007. June 4.
     IB871
    
     I CO. 14  Modification.
      (a) Except as provided  under para-
     graphs (e) and (f) of this section,  any
     physical or operational change to an
     existing facility which results In an in-
     crease in the emission rate to the at-
     mosphere of any pollutant to which a
    standard applies shall be considered a
     modification within the  meaning of
    section  111 of the Act. Upon modifica-
     tion, an existing facility shall become
    an affected facility for each pollutant
     to which  a slandard applies and  for
     which there is an Increase In the emis-
    sion rale lo Ihe atmosphere.
     (b) Emission rale shall be expressed
    as  kg/hr of any pollutant discharged
     Into the  atmosphere  for  which  a
     standard is  applicable. The Adminis-
     trator shall use the following lo deter-
     mine emission rate:
       (I) Emission  factors as specified In
     the latest Issue of "Compilation of Air
     Pollutant  Emission  Factors,"  EPA
     Publication No. AP 42. or other emls
     sion factors determined by the Admin
     Islralor lo be superior to AP-42 emis-
     sion factors. In  cases where utilization
     of emission  factors demonstrate thai
     the emission level resulting from the
     physical  or  operational  change  will
     either  clearly Increase  or  clearly not
     Increase.
       (2)  Material  balances,  continuous
     monitor dala. or manual emission tests
     In cases where  utilization of emission
     factors  as  referenced  In  paragraph
     (b)(l) of this section does nol demon
     slrale to Ihe Administrator's sallsfac-
     tlon whether the emission level result-
     ing from Ihe physical or operational
     change will either clearly  Increase or
     clearly  not   Increase,   or  where  an
     owner or operator demonstrates to the
     Administrator's satisfaction that there
     are reasonable grounds to dispute the
     result obtained by the Administrator
     utilizing emission factors as referenced
     In  paragraph (b)(l) of  this section.
     When the emission rate Is based on re-
     sults from manual emission tests  or
     continuous  monitoring systems, the
     procedures specified In Appendix C of
     this part shall  be  used lo determine
     whelher an Increase In emission rate
     has occurred. Tests shall be conducted
     under such conditions as the Admlnis-
     Iralor shall specify to the owner or op-
     erator  based on  representative  per-
     formance of the facility. At least three
     valid tesl  runs  must  be  conducted
     before  and at least .Ihree  afler Ihe
     physical or operational change. All op-
     erating parameters which may affect
     emissions must be held constanl to the
     maximum feasible  degree for all test
     runs.
      (c) The addition of an affected facili
     ly lo a stationary source as an expan
     sion to lhal source or as a replacement
     for an  existing  facility shall not  by
     Itself bring within the applicability of
     this part any  other facility within that
    source.
      (d) I Reserved I
                                                                                                                              229
    

    -------
     ^60.15
    
       The followlni shall not. by them-
     selves,  be  considered  modifications
     under this part:
      (1) Maintenance, repair, and replace-
     ment which the Administrator deter-
     mines to be routine  for a source cate-
     gory, subject to the provisions of para-
     graph (c) of this section and I 60.15.
      (2) An Increase In production rale of
     an  existing facility.  If that  Increase
    can be accomplished without a capital
    expenditure on that facility.
      (3) An Increase In the hours of oper-
    ation.
      (4) Use of an alternative fuel or raw
    material  If. prior  to  the  date  any
    standard under this part becomes ap-
    plicable to that source type, as provid-
    ed by 100.1. the  existing  facility  was
    designed to accommodate that alterna-
     tive use. A  facility shall be considered
    to be designed to accommodate an al-
     ternative fuel  or  raw material if that
     use could be accomplished  undrr the
     Uclllty's construction specifications as
     amended prior to the change. Conver-
     sion to coal required for energy consid-
     erations,   as  specified   In   section
     111<*>(«> of the Act. shall not be con
     sidered a modification.
       The  addition  or  use  of  any
     system  or device  whose primary func-
     tion Is the  reduction of air pollutants.
     except   when  an  emission   control
     system  Is removed or Is replaced by a
     (system  which  the Administrator deter-
     mines to be less environmentally bene-
     fUial
      i«M The relocation or change In own-
     ership of an existing facility.
      (f I Special provisions set forth under
     an  applicable siibparl of this part shall
     supersede any conflicting provisions of
     this section.
      (g> Within  180 days  of  the comple-
     tion  of any  physical  or  operational
     change subject  to thr control meas-
     ures specified in paragraph (a) of this
     section, compliance with all applicable
     standards must bo achieved.
    
     (40 PR SH4I9. IVr  16. 1975. »mrnHrd at 41
     HI 34347. AUK  3. I97»; 45 FR 5617. Jan 23.
     19801
    
     HSOI5  Kcr»nii(rurll»n.
        An existing facility, upon recon-
      struction,  becomes an affected facility.
      irrespective ol any change In  emission
      r:ite
             40 OH Ch. I (7-l-M Edition)
    
      (b)  "Reconstruction" means the re-
    placement of components of an exist-
    ing facility to such an extent that:
      (I) The fixed capital cost of the new
    components exceeds 60 percent of the
    fixed capital cost that would  be re-
    quired to construct a comparable en-
    tirely new facility, and
      (2) It Is technologically and economi-
    cally  feasible to meet the applicable
    standards set forth In this part.
      (c)  "Fixed capital  cost"  means  the
    capital needed to provide  all the de-
    preciable components.
      (d) If an owner or operator of an en-
    isling facility proposes to replace com-
    ponents, and the  fixed capital cost of
    the new components exceeds BO per-
    cent  of  the fixed capital  cost that
    would be required to construct a com-
    parable entirely new facility, he shall
    notify the Administrator of the pro-
    posed  replacements.  The notice must
    be postmarked 00 days   The Administrator  will  deter-
    mine, within 30 days of the receipt of
    the notice required by  paragraph (d)
    of this seclion and any additional  In
    formation he may reasonably require.
    whether  the  proposed replacement
    constitutes reconstruction.
      (f)  The Administrator's  determina-
    tion  under  paragraph (e)  shall  be
    based on:
                                          230
    Environmental Protection Agency
    
      (I) The fixed capital cost of the re-
    placements In comparison to the fixed
    capital cost thai would be required to
    construct a  comparable  entirely new
    facility;
      <2> The estimated life of the facility
    after  the  replacements  compared to
    the  life of a comparable entirely new
    facility;
      <3) The extent to which the compo-
    nents being replaced cause or contrib-
    ute to Ihe emissions from Ihe facility;
    and
      <«> Any economic or technical limita-
    tions on  compliance with  applicable
    standards of performance which are
    Inherent  In  the  proposed  replace-
    ments.
      
    PhotprxM Rock Pxpvmon
    Foundrrat SIM* and Gray Iron
    Potynwt* and flaunt Pdysfhyfww
    Charcoal Prorkjehon
    
    f>| f«a manufacture
    |b| SBR production
                                                                      5*0.17
    
                                         PRIORITIZED MAJOR SOURCE CATEGORIES—
                                                      Continued
                                       Mum
                                       n
                                       24
                                       2t
                                       10
                                       Jl
                                       tt
                                       M
                                       it
                                       3*
                                       M
                                       40
                                       41
                                       42
                                       4J
                                       M
                                       SI
                                       52
                                       S3
                                       M
                                       M
                                       M
                                                       Sotfcf Cutogory
                li
         By Product Cot* OMM
    
         Plywood ftMnufacftM
         tndinlngl Swi>e> CoMng
         Mnknl Swtaci Cottng
         CnOm Or) ml NMurtf GM Product**.
    
         FMMh (DMMMl
               •nd ftotifiriV Uk4M-N)Mwiwnv
               gMalad)
               and Rnm
                                            AflpfMN fVocvtwnf Muf AcylicN NooKn
                                            Brrck and IMMMl Oar ProducM
                                            Caiame Pay MaiMacliiiint (Onaiadl
                                            AmmDnum MkaM Faiaknr
                                                Borai and Baric Aad IPaMar*
                                                SWrrti
                                                                     llOaOtadl
                                            Uraa (tor kjrtaw and poVmam
                                            OMKMXI (OriMdl
                                                  Onar Sum CMaaonM
                                       laad acrd bamry manutacw* >
                                            SWronary am totam •
                                             I lav luabara haira MahaM i
                                            pnor*r. No Sdakjuprianlr
                                             JFarmarV MM -Smlarn» Oar and Fl» Ath"
                                             3Mm§ anuoa c«Hanr>. «M nctalad an M tinea an
                                            NSPS r> bana dnHmiid tot tial Muc
                                                                                                     tndu»lnt» Surlarr Coilno Mrlal f.at
     4Noi prnrSmd. anca an NSPS tor ihn major aouca
    category tan akaady baan arournlaatad
    
    147 PR tSI. Jan. •. IM2. ai amended at 47
    PR 3U7«. July n. 1982: SI PR 427M. Nov.
    25. 1986: 52 PR II42R, Apr. ». 19871
    
    * M.I7  liH-nramralloiit bjr nftrtntt.
    
      Thr materials listed below are Incor-
    porated by reference  In  the  corre-
    sponding sections noted. These Incur
    porallons by reference were approved
    by the  Director of the Federal Regis-
    ter on (lie dale listed. These materials
    are Incorporated as they exist on the
                                                                                                                                     231
    

    -------
    \ ^$SL ?     UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
     *»•.   .O                  WASHINGTON  DC .JO 4 50
      t swO^*
    
                                FES I  5  1989
    
      Mr. John W.  Boston
      Vice President
      Wisconsin Electric Power Company
      Post Offi_-e 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 documents
      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. S 7607(b).
    
           I.  CAPITAL EXPENDITURE
    
           EPA explained in its earlier determination  that  under  the
      General Proviaion* 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 C7R 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  between 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 facility 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
    -.he product of the basis and repair percentage for each facility,
    there 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 coats could encourage sources  to distort normal business
    planning.by artificially stretching out costs over time as  a
    means of-trading a finding of capital expenditure  and consequent
    NSPS coverage.*
         1     The October 13,  1988  submission was  not  received in
    time to be considered in issuing BPA's  letter  of October 14,
    1988.
    
         2 Indeed, it appears that WEPCO may have extended the planned
    length of the Port Washington life extension project for
    precisely this purpose  after being informed by EPA in the Octobr
    

    -------
         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 Childress'  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.)
    

    -------
    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).'  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 capital
    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 aaking 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.  Bad 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.
    

    -------
                                  - 5 -
    
    
     (adjusted) original basis of each affected facility shows that  a
    capital expenditure would still occur.*
    
         In making 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, 1983.3
    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 chat 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
    §§ lll(a)(2), lll(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.
    
         9    This Background Information Document  provides an
    alternative to the method prescribed in the  General Provision
    when it is difficult  to determine original costs.   The formula
    uses 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 Jus 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
         i~ .ikets) to be replaced easily. ***
    
    See, e.g., Li»t of Port Washington Projects, p. 6  (Attachment to
    April 22, 1988 letter from John W. Boston, WEPCO, 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,  froa  Mark P.
    Steinberg, WEPCO, to Dale Ziege, Wisconsin  Department of  Natural
    Resources, January 11, 1989.
    

    -------
                                  - 7 -
         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, WEPCO, January 12.
    1989.
    
         In a meeting on January 17, 1989, WEPCO related that if  it
    replaced half of the plate elements now, 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 WEPCO'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
    Washingtoa 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. * *9ueh 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 seated  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 EPA'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 testa 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  that
    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 tests 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 PSO.  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 rat* or capacity utilization  (amount of production  or
    throughput per hoar, e.g., tons of coal combusted per hour), and
    the hour*>-~«f operation  (e.g., hours per year).   In  its  prior
    determination, SPA explained that an increase  in any one of  these
    three factors, if attributable to a physical or operational
    change, can trigger an  emissions increase  for  PSD  purposes,  and
    rejected WBPCO'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.
    

    -------
                                 - 10 -
    
    
         WEPCO further i.T.plies i- its February 3. 1939 letter that
    the demonstration that uni-s 2 and 2 can operate now at r.axi-.u.-. '
    design capacity means that cher^ 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
    52.21(b)(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 ~.~e 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 fossil 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 concx,: s in the House provision with
         minor amendments.  The agreement requires  (1) that the
         standards of performance for 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 escape coverage in a manner contrary to the statutory
    purpose. •••••
    
    
         V.  THE TIMING OP THE LIFE EXTENSION PROJECT
    
         In discussions with EPA, WEPCO has challenged,  on grounds  of
    timing, BPA'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
    down 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 vaekend. 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.
                                       Sincerely,
                                       Don R. Clai
                                       Acting Assistant  Administrator
                                          for Air  &  Radiation
    

    -------
     APPENDIX B
    
    
    
    S02 CHECKLIST
    

    -------
                         SO2 Checklist
    This checklist was developed from several other
    checklists and from the SO2 Guideline  itself  for  use  in
    SIP processing oversight as required by SIP processing
    reform.  It should be used as a guide to identify
    problems when reviewing a SIP and to prevent problems
    from occuring when writing a SIP.  This checklist is an
    overview and is not intended to be comprehensive.
    Readers are encouraged to refer to the appropriate
    chapter in the SO2 Guideline for more  information.
    

    -------
                                                               sdps/jvitas
    
                                  CHECKLIST          YES NO REFERENCE
    Determining Air Quality Status of Areas
    
         *    Modeling is used in demonstration
              (see below)
    
         *    Justifies exclusion of any areas as
              not ambient air
    
         *    Demonstration that SIP is being
              implemented
    
         *    Redesignation will result in a
              change in emission limits
    
              —   Redesignatic  allows
                   emission increase
    
                   Emission increase justified
                   by SIP revision
    
         *    Monitoring includes eight
              quarters of data showing
              attainment
    
    Ambient Air Quality Monitoring and Data Usage
    
         *    Monitoring data are included
    
                   Data are quality assured
    
                   Data are part of
                   SLAMS network
    
         *    Monitors located at points
              of expected maximum ground
              level concentrations
    
    Air Quality Modeling
    
         *    Specifies version of Guideline on Air
              Quality Models  (Guideline) used
    
                   If prior to current version,
                   specifies reason for
                   grandfathering
    
         *    Specifies model(s) used
    
         *    Specifies terrain
    

    -------
    Specifies the 5-year set of
    meteorological data used
    
         If on-site data exist but were
         not used, provides rationale
    
    Outputs include 3 and 24 hour and
    annual average results
    Inputs reflect maximum allowable
    emissions for short-term analyses
    
         Justifies treatment of any
         emissions not input at
         maximum allowable
    
    Justifies stack heights input with
    respect to good engineering practice
    (GEP) requirements
    
    —   Modeling does not credit above
         formula GEP stack height
    
    Justifies any merged gas streams
    input with respect to stack height
    regulation
    
    Does not include varying
    emission rates with
    meteorological conditions
    
    Specifies background sources or
    justifies absence
    
         If background sources are
         present they are explicitly
         modeled
    
         Justifies
         background
         concentrations
         for those sources
         not modeled
    
    If actual stack height is below
    formula GEP, downwash modeling is
    provided
    
    Justifies any deviations from
    Guideline
    

    -------
    Stack Height Regulations
              Stack height negative declaration
              evaluates sources:
    
                   with stacks > 65 meters
    
                   with merged gas streams and
                   emissions > 5000 tons/year
                   grandfathered and shows date of
                   documention for grandfathering
    
    Control Strategy
    
         *    Specifies block (or running) averages
              used
    
         *    Demonstrates no exceedance of NAAQS
              and PSD increment
    
         *    Justifies rollback or multipoint
              rollback
    
    SIP Provisions
    
         *    Revision contains PSD
              analysis
    
         *    Bubbling, trading or
              balancing is included
    
                   Justifies use of above
    
                   Describes before and after
                   conditions of bubble, trade
                   or balance
    
         *    Sulfur variability is not credited
    
         *    Documents interstate and
              international impacts
    
    Implementation Enforcement Aspects
    
         *    Test method uses averaging time
              consistent with modeling
              demonstration
              Test method does not rely on 30-day
              averaging
    

    -------
    Does not allow administrative
    revisions to the rule/permit
    requirements
    
    Specifies EPA test method
    
    Rule/permit does not include an
    expiration date
    
    Rule/permit justifies any
    malfunction, startup/shutdown, or
    maintenance provision
    
    Rule/permit requires Continuous
    Emission Monitoring
    
    Units of compliance are
    specified in the rule/permit
    (e.g. Ibs/mmBtu)
    
    Justifies any mass/time
    limits
    
    Rule/permit specifies final
    compliance date
    
         compliance date does not exceed
         3 years
    
    Rule/permit specifies more than one
    emission limit for any emission point
    

    -------
                                       TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                                (Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing;
     . REPORT NO.
                                  2.
                                                                3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
    4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
    
      SO? Guideline
    5. REPORT DATE
      October 1989
                                                                6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
                                                                8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
     . PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
                                                                10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
      Radian Corporation
      Progress Center
      3200 E. Chapel Hill  Road/Nelson Highway,  PO Box 13000
      Research Triangle Park, NC  27709
    11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
      68-02-4392
      Work Assignment  No.  44
     2 SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
                                                                13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
                                                                14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
    15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
    16. ABSTRACT
      The S02 Guideline  is an integration and  clarification of policy and guidance
      information available for S02 programs.   This Guideline  is  to aid the States  and EPA
      Regional Offices,  especially in the development, review,  and enforcement of future
      S02 SIP revisions.
    
      Each chapter of  the Guideline presents a distillation of key policy and guidance for
      various subjects that are important to S02 programs.  Each  chapter also contains
      comprehensive  references to the original  material upon which the chapter is based.
      These references include relevant statutory and regulatory  requirements (i.e.,  the
      Clean Air Act  and  the Code of Federal Regulations), FR notices, EPA guideline
      documents, and Agency policy and guidance correspondence.
                                     KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                      DESCRIPTORS
                                                   b.lDENTlFlERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
                                                                              c.  COSATI Field/Group
      S02
      State implementation plan (SIP)
      Attainment
      Ambient Air
      Ambient Monitoring        N$PS
      Dispersion Modeling      Redesignation
      Stack Height              Enforcement
    18. DISTRIBUTION STATEVEN1
                                                   19. SECURITY CLASS i Ttus Report/
                                                   20. SECURITY CLASS (Tim page/
                                                                               22 PR'CE
     EPA Form 2:2C-] (R«». ^-77)   oRtv.ous ED'T:CN i s OBSOLETE
    

    -------
    -------
      t
       (3) Any applicable maximum allow-
      able Increase over the baseline concen-
      tration In any arra.
       M Air gumlltv model*.  All  estl-
      matea of ambient concentration* re-
      quired under  thU paragraph ahall be
      baaed  on the epplkaule air quality
      model*, data bases. and other require-
      menu apeclfled In the "Ouldellne on
      Air Quality Model* (Revlaed)" 
      and Supplement A (1 017)  which are
      Incorporated by reference. The fulde-
      llne  Air qualify enefMU— 41) Freaav
    pUcalton atiefvtJ*.  Any application
    for a permit under this section shall
    contain an  analysis of ambient air
    quality In the area that the major sta-
    tionary  source  or major modification
    would affrct  for each of the following
    pollutants:
       For the source, each  pollutant
    that It  would  have the potential  to
    omit In a significant amount;
              40 en CM. I (7-l-M IdHUn)
    
        (»> For the modification, each pol-
      lutent for which It  would  result In a
      significant nel ftnlmtons Increase.
        (II) With respect to any such pollut-
      ant for  which no  National Ambient
      Air Quality Standard exists, the analy-
      sis shall contain such air quality moni-
      toring date as the  Administrator de-
      termines Is necessary to assess ambl- !
      ent air quality for  that pollutant hi
      any area that  the  emissions of that
      pollutant would affect
       (III) With respect to any such pollut-
      ant (other than nonmethene  hydro-
      carbons) for  which  such a standard
      does exist, the analysis ahall contain
      continuous afar quality monitoring date
      gathered for purposes of determining .
      whether  emission* of that pollutant
      would cause or contribute to a viola- |
      Uon of the standard or any  maximum >
     allowable Increase.
       (Iv) In  general, the continuous air
     quality monitoring  data that Is re-
     quired shall have been gathered over a •
     period of at least one year  and ahall
     represent at least the year  preceding
     receipt of the application, except that
     If the Administrator determines that a
     complete and adequate analysis can be
     accomplished  with  monitoring date
     gathered  over a period shorter than
     one year (but not to be less  than four
     months),  the date  that  Is  required
     shall have been gathered over at least
     that shorter period.
      (v) For any application which be-
     comes complete, except aa to the re-
     quirement* of paragraphs (mXI)  (III)
     and (Iv) of title section, between June
     0.1MI. and February 0. IM3. the date
     that paragraph (mXlXIII) of thai  sec-
     tion, requires shall have been gathered
     over at least the period from  February
     0. IM1. to the date the application be-
     comes otherwise  complete,  except
     that:
      (a) If the aource  or modification
     would have been major for that pollut-
     ant under 40 CFR 03.31 as In effect on
    June 10.  1070. any  monitoring date
    ahall have been gathered over at least
    the period required by  those regula-
    tions.
      (ft) If the Admlnfatrator determine*
    that a complete and adequate analysis
    can be accomplished  with  monitoring
    date over a shorter period (not  to be
    less than four months), the date that
                                                                                          nlel Protection Afoncy
    paragraph (mXlXIII) of this section.
    requires shall have been gathered over
    st least that shorter period.
      (c) If the monitoring date  would
    rente exclusively to oxone and would
    pot have been required under 40 CFR
    03.31 as In effect on June 10.1070. the
    Administrator may waive  the  other-
    wise applicable  requirements of thai
    paragraph (v) to the extent that the
    applicant shows that the monitoring
    date would be unrepresentative of air
    quality over a full year.
      (vl) The owner or operator of a pro-
    posed stationary source or modifica-
    tion of  vtolatlle organic compounds
    who satisfies all conditions of 40 CFR
    Part 01  Appendix 8. section IV may
    provide post-approval monitoring data
    for  oxone In lieu of providing precon-
    strueUon data as requrted under para-
    graph (mXI) of this section.
      (vll) For any application that be-
    comes complete, except as to  the re-
    quirement* of paragraphs  (mXI) (IN)
    and (Iv) pertaining to PM* after Da-
            1.  IOM and  no later
    August 1. IOM the date that para-
    graph (mXIXlll) requires shall  haw
    been gathered over at beat the period
    from August 1. IOM to the date the
    application beeomea otherwise  com-
    plete. except that If the Administrator
    determines that a complete and ade-
    quate analysis can be accomplished
    with monitoring date  over a  shorter
    period (not to be less than 4 saonths).
    the data that paragraph (mXlKW) re-
    quires shall have been gathered over
    that shorter period.
      (vlll)  With respect to  any requtro-
    BMnte for air  quality monitoring of
    FMH under paragrapha (IXII) (I) and
     and (p) of this section apply, such
    Information shall Include:
      (I) A description of the nature, loca-
    tion, design eapacHy. and typical oper-
    attag schedule of the source or modtfl-
    caUon.  Including specifications and
    drawings showing Ma design and plant
    layout:
      (II) A detailed schedule for i
    Uon of ths source or modification:
      (IH) A detailed description as to what
    •tJFMQaM
    Uon Is
           Off COiHOMKMM '
        Is planned for the source or modi-
    other Information necessary to deter-
    some that best available control tech-
    nology would be applied.
      (3) Upon request of the Admbustra-
    tor. the owner or operator shall also
    provide Information on:
      (I) The ah-  quality hapact of the
           or modification.
                and
             'to estimate such Impact; and
      (H) The air quality Impacts, and the
    nature and extent of any or all general
                           idustrlalt and
    other growth which hi
    August 7.1077. In the area the aource
    or modification would affect
      (o) AiUltlonml fmiwef «•**••**. (I)
    The owner or operator ahall provide
    an analysis of the Impairment to visi-
    bility, soil* and vegetation that would
    occur aa a result of the source or modi-
    fication and general commercial,  resi-
    dential. Industrial  and other growth
    associated with the source or modifica-
    tion. The owner or operator  need not
                                      32
                                                                                                                   33