TO PfcEVovr S LGNi FI CANT
DETERIORATION OF AIR QUALITY
PREPARED BY OFFICE OF
TRANSPORTATION AND
LAND USE POLICY
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
JUNE, 1975
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction and
General Philosophy i
DIVISION ONE
I. Information Requirements For
Analysis Document 1
II. Intergovernmental Cooperation
and Notification 6
III. Timetable For Reclassification 11
DIVISION TWO
I. Triggers to Reclassification:
When Might a State Want to Reclassify? 15
II. Approaches to Reclassification 19
III. Determination of Boundaries and
Size of Reclassification Area 23
IV. Balancing Environmental, Economic, Social,
National, and Regional Considerations 27
V A Suggested Sample Format for Reclassification
Analysis 29
-------
APPENDICES
A. Guidelines For Determining Whether An
Area Pervasively Exceeds National
Ambient Air Quality Standards i-vi
B. References For Section IV» Balancing
Environmental, Economic, Social,
National, and Regional Considerations i-iii
C. Suggested List of State, Regional,
and Local Agencies to Consult on
Proposed Reelassifications i
D. Definition of Key Terms. i-v
E. U.S. Federal Register, December 5, 1974 i-ix
F. Amendments to the Regulations i-xv
-------
The program to prevent significant deterioration of air quality
is based on the principal that clean air is a natural resource of
great importance, a resource whose value cannot always be measured
in terms of proven health or property damage. EPA has attempted to
articulate the principle into a general policy and to translate that
policy into effective regulations in response to the May 30, 1972
Court decision, Sierra Club v. Ruckelshaus, affirmed in 1973
by the Supreme Court.1
The regulations are the result of long and full study and of
extensive public participation, including nationwide public hearings.
At the core of the regulations is the questfon of what constitutes
"significant" deterioration of clean air and the process and pro-
cedures to be used to resolve that question for any given area.
Because the program deals with air quality levels that have not been
proven to cause health or property damage, the determination of signi-
ficant deterioration must take into account factors other than air
quality alone. Economic and social effects and subjective concerns,
such as aesthetic values, must also be considered in resolving the
question of significance. Because these effects are best evaluated
by those who reside in the areas involved, EPA has developed a
regulatory framework that gives States, Federal Land Managers, and
Indian governing bodies the flexibility to decide what levels of
deterioration are significant.within the context of three "classes"
of different levels of allowable incremental increases in total
suspended particulate matter (TSP) and sulfur dioxide (S02).
Class I applies to areas in which practically any change in
air quality would be considered significant; Class II applies to
areas in which deterioration normally accompanying moderate well-
controlled growth would be considered insignificant; and Class III
applies to those areas in which deterioration up to the national
standards would be considered insignificant. All areas of the
country are designated Class II initially, but States, Federal Land
Managers, and Indian governing bodies may request redesignation of
any area to accommodate social, economic, and environmental needs.
The provisions that allow for redesignation are based on the
premises that the significance of deterioration must be determined
1 For a fuller description of the background of the regulations see:
Technical Support Document - EPA Regulations for Preventing the Significant
Deterioration of Air Quality, January 1975.
-------
partially on the basis of the practical effect of the determination
and the present or intended use of the land (e.g., pristine recre-
ational area or commercial-industrial area) and that the people in
the area for which the determination is being made should make the
determination of what level of deterioration should be considered
significant. EPA lacks the resources or knowledge to determine what
air quality deterioration would be considered significant in every
area of the country. However, the Administrator will not approve
requested designations which are arbitrary or capricious.
In order that the Administrator will have an adequate basis for
determining whether an application to redesignate an area should be
approved or disapproved, the regulations require that the necessary
information be a part of the hearing record on the proposed designation.
Specifically, the hearing record must show that the social, environmental,
and economic effects of the proposed redesignation have been evaluated
for the area being reclassified as well as for adjacent areas and that
regional and national interests have been considered. Although EPA gives
the State the primary responsibility for making reclassification determina-
tions, the Agency expects that the State will make a good faith effort to
provide EPA and the public with the fullest possible disclosure of these
interests and effects. EPA will disapprove a proposed redesignation if the
State has not properly examined the effects of the redesignation or has
arbitrarily and capriciously disregarded such effects.
The purpose of these guidelines is to give guidance on how to develop
what EPA expects will be an approvable redesignation proposal. The guide-
lines do not have the effect of a binding regulation requiring literal
compliance. They do, however, indicate the type of analysis EPA is
looking for in a reclassification proposal. Any major departures from
the guidelines will be a matter of serious concern and subject to question
by the Administrator. In meeting EPA's expectation of full disclosure of
the effects of redesignation, application of the guidelines may differ
according to the circumstances of specific redesignation situations and of
different States' analytic capabilities and available data bases. Naturally,
such differences among States and circumstances will influence the application
of the guidelines. In asking for adequate information on a variety of rele-
vant issues, EPA is not attempting to generate paperwork but to achieve the
fullest disclosure possible for informed public decision-making. Responses
to the information asked for should be clear, simple, and brief with the
emphasis on quality, not quantity.
There are two main divisions in these guidelines. The sections
in the first division set forth the criteria upon which EPA will
approve or disapprove a redesignation proposal, the information
required for the redesignation analysis documents to meet those
criteria, and the necessary procedures for involving affected govern-
mental and public entities in the decision-making process. The sections
in the second division are for information purposes only. They discuss
considerations in drawing area boundaries for a proposed redesignation,
when a State may need to reclassify, what approaches are available in
determining that need, and considerations in balancing various objectives.
As reflected in Division One, the reclassification analysis document
will form the basis for not only the State's reclassification decision,
but, along with the hearing record, for EPA's evaluation of the proposed
reclassification as well.
n
-------
DIVISION ONE
-------
INFORMATION! RFOUTRFMFIMT^ FOR ftM/\i vcjc n
bz.'dl U)UHii)ld) of the regulations states that "the
proposed redesignation is based on the record of the State's hearing,
which must reflect the basis for the proposed redesignation, including
consideration of (1) growth anticipated in the area, (2) the social,
environmental, and economic effects of such redesignation upon the
area being proposed for redesignation and upon other areas and States,
and (3) any impacts of such proposed redesignation upon regional or
national interests." EPA is including in these guidelines a
set of information requirements to guide the States in preparing
their reclassification analysis documents. Compliance with the
information requirements should provide reasonable assurance to
EPA that a State has adequately examined the environmental, social, and
economic, effects of the redesignation as well as consideration of
national and regional interests. In addition, availability of the
information should reveal to EPA any effects that are arbitrarily
or capriciously disregarded.
The information gathered and the analysis performed on them will
be useful to the States in several ways. The document will, as the
regulations state, be the subject of discussion at the public hearing
and the focal point for public participation, as discussed elsewhere
in these guidelines. It will also be useful, EPA hopes, to State
policy makers, providing them with the information they need to make
the best possible reclassification decisions. (Note: the word "State"
is used throughout this section as a convenience. We expect Federal
Land Managers and Indian governing bodies to also use this section as a
guide in preparing their analysis documents. State governments, Federal
Land Managers, and Indian governing bodies can obtain further aid in
completing their analyses from the appropriate EPA regional office.)
The questions that must be answered in the analysis document are
similar to those addressed in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). It includes
a gathering of information to describe the projected environmental, economic,
and social effects, consideration of national and regional interests, considera-
tion of alternatives to the proposed reclassification, and the reasons for the
proposal. This compilation of information and analysis should adequately
demonstrate the "need" for a reclassification and should be considered
as part of the framework for deciding what constitutes "significant"
deterioration in a particular area.
Because there is a risk of significant environmental harm associated
with a decision to reclassify a relatively clean area from a Class II to
a Class III, and because the rapid growth and uses of land associated with
the Class III reclassification choice could cause irreversible or very costly
-------
to "repair" environmental effects, the analysis of effects to change
from a Class II to Class III would likely be more extensive than the analysis
required to change from a Class II to a Class I. EPA realizes that
some economically pressed States may find the basic information require-
ments a burden on resources. However, a State is not expected to bear
the responsibility alone. States should be able to assign the task of
compiling the required information to other local or regional agencies.
In addition, where industries would benefit from a reclassification,
the State may request that they participate in supplying the data necessary
to answer the analysis questions. EPA expects there will be differences
in the level of detail required and expects variations according to
individual capabilities and circumstances. EPA requires that a State
make a good faith effort in answering the required questions. All relevant
available data should be used to surface the fullest information possible
and to raise the pertinent issues for well-informed public consideration
of the reclassisfication proposal.
EPA does not anticipate a large number of reclassifieations. The
initial Class II increment will accommodate most moderate well-planned
development while providing safeguards for air quality. Because a State,
Federal Land Manager, or Indian governing body must fully discuss the
reasons for a proposed redesignation at a public hearing, any proposal
that did not show a definite need for such redesignation or would pre-
clude economic growth throughout a State or seriously endanger valued
preservation areas would likely meet with considerable public resistance
at the public hearing. Should a State submit a proposed redesignation
without adequate justification, EPA would disapprove the proposal as
having arbitrarily and capriciously disregarded the environmental effects
of the redesignation. In developing a reclassification proposal and
analysis, EPA strongly advises that there be early and continued consultation
with the appropriate EPA regional office. The regional office can help
a State conform with the basic requirements while working with a State
to meet its particular situation and needs.
The significant deterioration regulations have great potential
impact on the nature, extent, and location of future industrial, com-
mercial, and residential development throughout the United States, and
specifically their impact on the utilization of the Nation's mineral
resources, the availability of employment and housing in many areas,
and the costs of producing and transporting electricity and manufactured
goods. On the one hand, for example, relatively minor deterioration
of the aesthetic quality of the air may be very significant in a recre-
ational area in which great pride (and economic development) is derived
from the "clean air". Conversely, in areas with severe unemployment
and little recreational value, the same level of deterioration might
very well be considered "insignificant" in comparison to the favorable
impact of new industrial growth with resultant employment and other
economic opportunities. The Administrator believes that it is most
important to recognize and consider these implications, since the con-
sideration of air quality factors alone provides no basis for selecting
one deterioration increment over another.
-------
Proposals for redesignation will be evaluated by the Administrator
using the following criteria:
1. Demonstration of need: To redesignate from a Class II there
must be an affirmative statement of the reasons for the redesignation
and why such a change is necessary. (E.g., if the need is economic,
there must be data and projections to show that the Class II could not
accommodate the desired and anticipated level of development.) To
redesignate from a Class II to a Class I a similar explanation is required.
(E.g., to preserve a pristine area, its unique or special environmental
features should be discussed as well as how the Class II might not
adequately protect those features.)
2. Adequate analysis to^support a redesignation request: There
should be a thorough examination of the environmental, social, and
economic effects, including consideration of national and regional
interests, answering the questions provided below in this section. There
should be full public disclosure of the proposal's advantages and
disadvantages so that the issues can be discussed at the public hearing.
3. No inordinate harm to the total environment: This consideration
must be part of the analysis whenever there is a proposal to redesignate to
a Class III. See III. 2, 3 and 6 below.
4. Full consideration.of inter-state effects: When a reclassification
to a Class III is proposed, attention must be given to how facility siting
plans might effect the air quality increments of neighboring states,
federal lands, and lands of Indian governing bodies. Any violation or
infringement of an adjacent area's increment would not be permitted. Thus,
any area can be redesignated but individual facilities within that area
would not be able to locate where they would violate an adjacent State's
increment. When a reclassification to a Class I is proposed, full consid-
eration must be given to the potential limiting effects of development in
adjacent areas that may not be able to use their full increment, since
they would not be permitted to violate the stricter increment of the pro-
posed Class I. Affected states and/or federal land managers and Indian governing
bodies must be given the opportunity to comment in all cases.
Disregard of any of the four criteria would be grounds for the
Administrator to disapprove a proposed reclassification. The information
requirements for the analysis document for reclassification to any class
follows:
Requirements for the Reclassification Analysis
I. Administrative and Procedural Facts
A. Responsible agency: The State should designate an agency as the
lead (i.e., responsible) agency for the proposed reclassification, and
provide its name, address, function, (e.g., air pollution control,
economic development, planning) and a contact person in the agency who
could be reached for questions.
-------
B- Explanation of Program: A brief explanation of the function and
operation of the program to prevent significant deterioration of
i..,
air quality, including a description of new source reviewed be provided.
C. Purpose of document: The purpose of the analysis should be stated
to provide background for the proposal and a focus for public participation.
D. Explanation of public participation: The procedure and timetable for
written comments, as well as the time,-date, and place of..the. public hearing should
be given. States also should show that they have considered all significant
issues raised at the public hearing.
E. Timetable for State actions: The timetable should specify
periods for circulating the analysis document, holding the public hearing,
submitting the proposal to EPA, and any other significant actions related
to the proposal.
II. Description of Proposed Action
A. Statement of reclassification action: The section should state the
proposed change from Class to Class 7~ It should explain (in terms
comprehensible to the layperson) the difference between the increment allowed
under the present class and under the proposed class. It should particularly
make clear the difference in the level of development that is permitted under
the present class and that which would be permitted under the proposed class.
B. Reasons for the reelassification: There must be an affirmative
statement of the reasons for redesignation and why such a change is necessary.
The explanation must be based on air quality considerations and how they
relate to the determination of significant deterioration that takes into
account social, environmental, and economic considerations including regional
and national interests. Include meteorological data and any other available
air quality data that demonstrate the need to reclassify in relation to the
inability to achieve the desired social, environmental, and/or economic
objectives under the present classification.
C. Proposed boundaries: Both a verbal description and a map should be
included indicating the location and boundaries of the proposed redesignation
area in the State and in relation to any adjacent States.
D. Impact on future character of area: A brief description of the
likely impact of redesignation on the future uses and development of the
area.
III. Supporting Analysis and Consideration of Alternatives
A. List of 8 questions requiring response:
1. Is the decision to reclassify consistent with historic and/or
projected growth, social and economic characteristics of the area? (This
includes, for example, consideration of resource areas, growth projections
for the 18 major industrial source categories relevant to the affected
area, and the degree of change in the area from current land uses.) If
not, explain why.
-------
2. Is the decision consistent with not only air quality considerations
but also with broad environmental concerns of the area (e.g. wa:er
supply "'"-i vi:.-::-> b'o:---J v;;:sx.e;:
3. Are there any sub-areas within the reclassification boundaries of
special value that may require additional environmental protection? (For
a proposed Class I, it would likely be the dominant portion of the area.
For a proposed Class III there may be areas within it that require some
special or additional environmental protection. This could b.e accomplished
by siting major sources in a way to minimize the impact on the sensitive area.
4. What related plans and programs affecting growth, energy facility
and industrial location, and environmental management are intended for or
are existing in the area? How are they affected by the proposed reclassifi-
cation?
5. What, if any, harmful spill-over effects would be caused in
adjacent areas and States by the proposed reclassification? (E.g., for
a change from a Class II to a III,is there a problem with long distance
transport of pollutants;for a change from a Class II to a I are there
any restrictions imposed on an adjacent area's growth and development?)
6. What are the advantages and disadvantages in terms of social,
environmental, and economic effects of the proposed reclassification?
Include disclosure of any potential irreversible effects.
7. Have national and regional concerns been taken into account
including but not limited to: 1) the critical food supply shortage and
need for agricultural land for food production; 2) the preservation of
sufficient recreational, wilderness, forests, and open space areas to
accommodate the present and future needs of an expanding population;
3) preservation of historical or archeological areas to protect a cultural
heritage; and 4) the critical energy supply situation and the need to
develop energy resources? In weighing these national concerns, as in
weighing different and sometimes competing State/regional/local interests,
it is the role of the States to balance varying needs and to decide which
factors are most critical in each area. However, where a State, Federal
Land Manager, or Indian governing body protests a redesignation to the State
proposing the redesignation and to the Administrator, the Administrator will
take an expanded role and balance the competing interests.
8. What alternatives exist to meet the desired objectives without
reclassifying? What advantages and disadvantages do these alternatives
offer?
-------
II. INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION
AND NOTIFICATION
Introduction
Under the Clean Air Act, the primary Responsibility for air pollution
control programs rests with the State. This structure provides a central
focus for air pollution control and a means of balancing the various interests
and resource needs within the State. Such balancing of different, sometimes
competing, interests is vital to the non-siginificant deterioration program,
as discussed in Section VII of these guidelines.
The non-significant deterioration program will focus at the State level.
As discussed in the section on Approaches, the program deals with the explicit
relating of land use and air quality concerns. It will affect the siting and distri-
bution of polluting facilities in some areas and preclude the construction of
certain facilities in other areas. It will require the setting of air quality
goals, with consideration given to either change from or adherence to current
land uses for the proposed area. These are issues that affect the tax base,
economic growth, employment, recreation, tourism, and other vital concerns
of local government, however. Indian governing bodies will also find themselves
faced with similar issues in carrying out their responsibilities, and Federal
Land Managers will need to make similar critical choices about the lands and
natural resources they administer.
Because of the far reaching effects of the program, it is particularly
important to involve all affected parties in the decision-making process.
This section of the guidelines spells out a precise and formal minimum pro-
cedure for consultation between those proposing reclassifications and those
potentially affected by them. It also offers suggestions for informal, more
extensive consultation procedures the State may wish to consider.
The Agency expects that the consultation process will be used by all
parties to share data and expertise. Local and regional governments have
unique knowledge about their jurisdictions and lengthy experience in estab-
lishing land use goals that address many divergent interests. Local govern-
ments also have land use and environmental protection powers upon which the
State should draw upon to the maximum extent possible. Similarly, Federal
agencies, Federal Land Managers, and Indian governing bodies have special
experience and powers within their jurisdictions that States may wish to enlist
in carrying out the program. Certainly all policy makers involved will wish to
share data to avoid duplication in data gathering.
Besides easing the data problem, the consultation process can avoid
the inequity of subjecting a local area to the requirements of a program in
whose formulation it has had no formal voice. The State, through an air
pollution control agency or other arm, will be responsible for proposing clas-
sifications, and in many cases a single-purpose air pollution control agency will
-------
perform the new source reviews that enforce the classifications. This
leaves no formal role or responsibility for local or regional general-
purpose government except through the mechanism of a formal consultation.
EPA's experience with other programs affecting land use (e.g., Indirect
Source Review, Transportation Control) has shown that no such program
succeeds without the cooperation of local government and that this coop-
eration is usually forthcoming when local government is given a full
partnership role.
The same considerations apply to Federal Land Managers and Indian
governing bodies. The consultation process establishes a similar formal
role for them as well as for concerned groups and individuals wishing to
participate in the consultation process.
EPA encourages that notification of and consultation with affected
parties should also be part of the new source review process. EPA also
expects that, as part of a notice of proposed approval, the reviewing
agency will state how much of the allowable air quality increment the
proposed source will use up and how much will remain. This will allow
affected governments to assess the impact of a proposed source on their
areas and take any steps they deem appropriate.
State Consultation with Local Governments
As soon as the State considers reclassifying an area, ifmust initiate
a process of formally notifying and requesting comments from all affected
governments and persons. For information on the timing of this process,
see the Timetable Section of these guidelines. At a minimum, the procedure
will consist of the following:
1. The State must send to all general purpose governments that may be
affected by reclassification of an area written notice that the State is
considering proposing a reclassification. It is essential that at a minimum
States are required to consult with the local elected officials of general
purpose governments. While we encourage consultation with as many groups
as possible, in Appendix C, it is essential that the local elected officials
be consulted in all cases. The notice must specify the class in which the State
wishes to place the area, the proposed area boundaries, and the timetable for
State action on the proposed reclassification. In addition, the notice must
be on public display in announced designated locations.
2. The notice must also request comments on the action. A summary
of the comments received will be included by the State in the economic,
social, and environmental analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the
proposed reclassification. (See Section III. A(6) in Information Require-
ments Section)
-------
The above represents a minimum requirement for consultation. EPA
strongly recommends that States encourage local governments to take a
full partnership role in reclassification. Local governments themselves,
however, should define the scope and nature of participation t?est suited
to their needs and resources. The following are approaches that States
and localities may wish to consider.
A. In some States (notably California) the State government has
formed an ad hoc Task Force with regional and local governments to
respond to certain EPA programs, such as Transportation Control Plans.
These Task Forces have had some success in developing local regulations
to replace the Federal ones and in many cases are being reformed or
extended to do Air Quality Maintenance planning. This approach has proven
itself effective in producing useable plans and regulations.
B. Another approach is to utilize the A-95 Clearinghouse or other
regional agencies as focal points for local participation. These regional
agencies could serve to disseminate information, coordinate local data
and comment collection, and provide a complete package of comments and
suggestions on the proposal to the State. This approach is a logical
extension of the A-95 review of reclassification proposals required by
the regulations.
C. A third approach is for the State agency itself, to hold local or
regional workshops on the reclassification process and on specific reclas-
sifications it is considering. At these workshops, the State could provide
information, discuss specific problems, and receive local and regional
comments. This approach provides the greatest direct contact between
State policy makers and those governmental entities most directly affected
by the reclassification.
In carrying out any consultation approach, EPA cannot urge strongly
enough that State and local governments involve representatives of the
general public, business, labor, and industry. No program can hope to
succeed without the cooperation of these groups.
Federal Facilities
As soon as the State considers reclassifying an area that includes
a Federal facility (e.g., a military base or a government research center),
it must initiate a process of formally notifying the facility. The minimum
8
-------
procedure the State must follow is the one detailed on page 7 of
these guidelines (i.e., notice, request for comments, and public
disclosure of summary of comments).
The General Services Administrator (GSA) has compiled a list of all
Federal facilities in the United States. States may obtain copies by con-
tacting the EPA Office of Federal Activities or the appropriate Regional
Office. It should be noted, however, that the list reflects a 1971 base
year and was not complete for that year. Therefore, other sources are
necessary for a complete listing.
Federally Administered Lands
As soon as a State considers reclassifying an area that includes
Federally administered lands, it must initiate a process of formally
notifying the Federal Land Manager of the area, both through the managing
agency's headquarters and the appropriate field or regional offices.
The minimum procedure that must be foilwed is the one detailed above as
Steps 1-2 in the State consultation with local governments subsection
(notice, request for comments, and public disclosure of comments.}
(The regulations provide that Federal Land Managers may propose
reclassifications more stringent than those proposed by the State or
promulgated by EPA for the lands they administer. As soon as a Federal
Land Manager considers such a proposal, he or she must initiate a process
of formally notifying all State, local, and Indian governmental bodies
and all persons who request such notification of the proposal. The minimum
procedure that must be followed is the one detailed above as Steps 1-2 in
the State consultation with local governments section (i.e., notice, request
for comments, and public disclosure of summary of comments).
Indian Lands
Where a State has assumed authority over Indian lands in environ-
mental matters under other laws, it has authority to propose reclassifi-
cations for these lands. In so doing, it must treat the governing body
or bodies of the Indians inhabiting the lands as "affected" governmental
bodies and include them in the notification and consultation process.
Where the State has not assumed such jurisdiction, the Indian govern-
ing body has the authority to propose reclassifications. As soon as this
body considers such a proposal, it must initiate a process of formally
notifying all affected Federal, State, and local governments and any person
who requests such notification of the proposal. The minimum procedure
the governing body must follow is the one detailed above as Steps 1-2
in the State consultation with local governments sub section (i.e., notice,
request for comments, and public disclosure of summary of comments).
-------
Note: EPA realizes that Indian governing bodies may desire assistance in
performing reclassifications. Each EPA Regional Office will have a desig-
nated Indian Affairs liaison person and will be glad to answer any questions
that an Indian governing body may have on the procedures for reclassification.
This aid may, however, be insufficient to the need. The Bureau of Indian
Affairs may wish to aid Indian governing bodies where EPA cannot.
10
-------
III. TIMETABLE FOR RECLASSIFICATION
Given the complexity of a reclassification proposal and analysis
document and given the wide range of governmental entities and citizens
who will wish to evaluate and comment on the proposal and the analysis,
the timetable for reclassification must include ample time for public
participation. EPA has designed a timetable that follows the public
hearing requirements of the Clean Air Act while incorporating lengthy
inter-agency consultation and public comment periods. The timetable,
depicted in Figure 1, is as follows:
OPTIONAL TIMING
1. As described in the Intergovernmental Cooperation Section of
these guidelines, as soon as the State considers reclassifying an
area, it must notify and request comments from those general purpose
governments potentially affected. The length of this period of
consultation, which will be concurrent with State development of
the analysis document, is not specified here because it will vary
so widely. Some analysis documents may take only a short time to
prepare; others may take a very long time. The only timing require-
ment for this section is that the State begin the formal notification
and consultation process described in the Intergovernmental Cooperation
section as soon as it considers a reclassification. It would be
appropriate, at this time, to consult with an EPA regional office.
2. The second step is the completion of the formal notification
and consultation process, where the State receives the comments
it has requested and prepares a summary for inclusion in the analysis
document under Section III.A.(6) The time necessary for this step
will also vary widely.
3. When the State has completed the consultation and analysis pre-
paration phase it may submit a proposed reclassification to EPA.
Concurrent with its submission to EPA, the State may make the docu-
ment available for public inspection and comment, prior to announcement
of the public hearing. To ensure adequate availability, the State
should place the document in at least one location in each county
in the proposed area and in each county in any other area that might
be affected by the proposed reclassification. The State should also
advise all those agencies, governments, and persons it formally
notified in Step #1 above, of the availability of the document for
inspection and comment.
4. The State should ideally make the document available to the public
for comments at least 30 days before announcement of the public hearing
Although EPA may be provided with a copy of the document, it will not
formally comment until the formal submittal and notification period
in Step 8.
REQUIRED TIMING
5. The State must publish notice of the public hearing on the
proposed reclassification at least 30 days prior to the hearing.
At this time the analysis document must also be made available
to the public (if not already done in steo 3). A oublic notice
-------
(in a newspaper) is required to announce availability of the document.
(This period, togetner with the optional 30 days in Step 3 above,
could make the document available to the public for at least 30 days
to an optional total of 60 days before the public hearing).
6. After 30-days notice described in Step #5 the State will hold
a public hearing on the proposed reclassification.
7. Following the public hearing, the State may receive written comments,
revise the analysis document, or refine the reclassification action
based on public comment. At the end of that period, the State should
submit its final reclassification proposal to EPA for approval or
disapproval. The analysis document and a summary of the hearing record
must accompany the proposal. During this period, any neighboring
State that feels it will be adversely affected by the proposed reclassi-
fication and is unable to resolve its differences with the proposing
State may appeal to EPA to resolve the dispute. If negotiation fails
to bring agreement between the States, EPA will itself make the Classi-
fication decision for the area. The same conditions will apply to
disputes between States and Indian governing bodies.
8. EPA will publish proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register
soliciting public comments for a minimum of 30 days. Following that
period, EPA will publish in the Federal Register its final determination
on the State submittal. Should EPA disapprove the proposal, the State
is free to reconsider, rework, and repropose the classification at any
time providing it follows all prescribed procedures.
The formal process will probably take a minimum of 6 months.
Administrative delays and time for the hearing itself will probably extend
it beyond that point. Any individual time period may be extended if the
State and EPA agree to do so. Because of the length of time required for
the reclassification process, it is important for States to anticipate
and plan for needed reclassifications. With proper planning and adherence
to the required procedures presented in Section I, II, and III of these
guidelines States should be able to meet, with few difficulties, the
occasional circumstances that would require consideration of a redesignation
to a Class III or to a Class I.
12
-------
TIMETABLE AND CONSULTATION PROCESS FOR RECLASSIFICATION PROPOSAL
Figure I
Time
cl ock
begins
(Days)
No
Speci fi c
Time
60-90
O
Consultation and
reclassification
preparati on
analysi s.
of
Continued collection of relevant data;
task force or other consultation.
State may make available reclass-
ification proposal and analysis to
publi c.
Comments on documents, if made
available, begin. (EPA does not
comment until Step 8.)
State announces public hearing.
Document must be made available
for review and comment for 30 days
up to and at hearing.
Public hearing.
State submits the analysis
and hearing record summary
a decision.
document
to EPA for
EPA will publish notice of proposed
rulemaking in the Federal Register
for a minimum of 30 days soliciting
public comment. After that period
EPA will publish the final determi-
nation on the State submittal.
(s^State or delegated State agency
djj]) Local and regional governments and planning agencies
[Jjjj] Federal agencies (see Intergovernmental Section)
[ERA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ic interest groups, organizations and individuals
Federal Register
13 &
-------
DIVISION II
-------
INTRODUCTION TO DIVISION II
The information in this division is strictly advisory and states
may use it at their discretion. EPA has included the following discussion
and information in response to State requests to clarify some of the funda-
mental issues associated with the reclassification process. The information
in Division II addresses when a State may need or want to reclassify, what
approaches are available in determining the need, what considerations are
useful in drawing area boundaries for a proposed redesignation, what
approaches are appropriate for balancing various objectives, and what
format may be desirable to use in answering the information requirements
set forth in Division I.
Because the discussion here is primarily conceptual and necessarily
general, EPA encourages a State to discuss the specific circumstances of
a proposed reclassification with their EPA-regional office.
14
-------
"A STATE WANT^TO'RECLASSIFY?""
Under the December 5, 1974 regulations, all areas of all States
were designated Class II on January 6, 1975. The regulations provide
for new source review of 18 source categories commencing construction
on or after June 1, 1975. EPA will perform the review and enforce the
Class II increment until a State requests delegation for the new source
review. Only after a State requests and receives delegation of authority
for the new source review procedure will it be able to receive an appro-
val for a reclassification proposal. (Delegation guidelines are forth-
coming.) Consideration of reclassification needs should begin as soon
as possible. For any given area, a State has three alternatives:*
1. It may choose to have an area remain a Class II. This would
allow well controlled and managed growth accommodating, for example,
1,000 megawatt power plants.
2. It may choose to reclassify an area to a Class I. As a conse-
quence, almost no change in air quality could occur, preserving
the existing air quality of the area.
3. It may choose to reclassify an area to a Class III. Intensive
development could then occur, allowing a change in air quality up
to the national standards.
There is no requirement that a State must consider reclassification.
As noted above, a State may choose the alternative of maintaining the Class II
designation. However, there are likely to be circumstances that will create
strong incentives for consideration of a reclassification. The existence of
* A State may find that certain counties or comparable areas are
already pervasively violating the national standards and request that
EPA permit those areas to be exempt from any class designation. Although
not in a designated class, these areas still would be subject to all other
requirements of the regulations. (For guidance on identifying and designating
these areas, see Appendix A.)
15
-------
circumstances calling for a redesignation decision can be identified by
asking three basic categories of questions:
1. Where might the Class II increment constrain growth and
development? Is this desirable? What are the alternatives?
2. Where might the Class II increment be inadequate to protect
desired air quality?
3. What is known about air quality and about development and
preservation goals in the State?
Where A Class II Increment Might Be Constraining
There are three types of concerns that may trigger a State to consider
redesignation from a Class II to a Class III. They are:
-- Projected new industrial development (within the 18 new source
categories)
— Projected new power plant development (included in the 18
source categories)
-- Resource area development
As an example of the above concerns consider a proposed power plant
that is identified by both the State and the public as economically and
socially desirable. Assume the power plant would not receive a permit
because its emissions would violate the area's Class II increment. Air
quality data shows that the addition of the facility would not cause a
violation of national standards and would not create an air quality problem
for a neighboring area or State. The State has carefully explored alter-
natives, such as alternative sites for the facility or phasing out or
retrofitting older existing facilities to make more "room" in the increment
available to the new facility, and has even assessed the various impacts of
not building the facility at all.
After considering all reasonable options, the decision is that the
facility is necessary and desirable. To accommodate the facility, the
State decides to redesignate the area in which the proposed plant is to
be located to a Class III.
-------
As diiuuier example, consider a State that has assessed general
growth and population statistics and has used industrial growth projections
that indicate that a relatively clean air area is likely to attract intensi-
fied development. Supported by extensive analysis of environmental, economic,
social, national and regional factors, the State proposes that the identified
area be redesignated from a Class II to a Class III. The State expects to
accommodate intensive growth in this sector and will probably allow air quality
to come close to or reach the national standards. This area has already been
designated an Air Quality Maintenance Area (AQMA) because its 10-year growth
projections indicated the potential for future air quality standards violations.
Therefore, the State is required to develop an Air Quality Maintenance Plan
(AQMP) which will ensure that despite the projected intensive growth, no
primary or secondary standards will be violated.
The preceding hypothetical examples suggest trigger situations for re-
classification. A State might select an area for a redesignation, and then,
if it is consistent with the results of the analysis, proceed to propose the
change.
Where A Class II Increment Might .be Inadequate
To Prevent Significant Deterioration of Air Quality
There are certain types of land use areas where more stringent protection
than that provided by the Class II designation is or may be desirable. Examples
of these land use areas include:
— Agricultural Areas
-- Recreational Areas
-- Areas of Rural Character
-- National Parks and Forests
— Pristine and Historic Areas
— National Seashores and Coastal Areas
-- Other areas where substantial industrial growth is not desired
If a State or Federal Land Manager or Indian governing body having authori-
ty over such areas decide that they require for their preservation a limit of
practically no additional air pollution resulting from the 18 source categories
identified as major emitters of sulfur oxides and particulate matter, reclassi-
fication from a Class II to a Class I may be necessary. One trigger to this
decision could be a proposed siting of one of the specified sources, a
siting that would potentially conflict with accepted air quality and related
land uses in the area. However, waiting for a proposed source to request
review would not allow sufficient time to reclassify, and it would probably be
too late to legitimately prevent construction. Therefore, advanced planning
approaches are more desirable.
17
-------
Conclusions
As the foregoing discussion of trigger situations indicates, there
are several ways for a State to identify a need to reclassify. A State
may simply track the projections for the 18 source categories. The Office
of Business and Economic Research (OBERS) in the Department of Commerce
has projected future output and growth of all major industrial sources
throughout the nation. Simply tracking the specified sources is an ad hoc
mechanism that would be activated only as a State faced permit decisions
for one of the 18 source categories. Advanced planning has more advantages
making it the preferable approach.
One planning approach is the establishment of an inventory of the
anticipated and desired land uses of areas in the State. Based on the
inventory, a State could identify areas where the Class II could constrain
growth or be inadequate for preservation. Air quality might be one of
many considerations in developing the land use inventory.
Finally, a State may choose to execute an areawide plan integrating
air quality into its analysis and objectives. Such a plan, although having
many advantages over more incremental approaches, would require large resource
expenditures.
The advantages and disadvantages of these options are discussed
in the next section.
18
-------
II. APPROACHES TO RECLASSIFICATION
The preceding section discussed the problems that may face a state
that retains the Class II designation promulgated nationwide by EPA.
Should a State face or anticipate one or more of the problems discussed
in the preceding section, it may take any one of several approaches to re-
classification. Its options, however, fall into two major categories:
(1) ad hoc reclassifications, done to respond to specific source or area
needs; and (2) reclassifications done on a comprehensive Statewide basis.
The options discussed in this section by no means comprise an
exhaustive listing of the alternatives available to the States. The
discussion is provided only to suggest a few approaches States might use-
fully consider. This list of alternatives and the discussion of each are
neither exhaustive nor definitive. EPA strongly encourages States to find
and carry out the approach to reclassification that best suits their individ-
ual needs.
Approach #1: Ad Hoc Redesignations
Ad hoc approaches can be used where States desire specific sources to
be sited, generalized growth to occur which would not be permissible in a
Class II area, and preservation of particular areas where no change of
existing air quality is desired.
A. Tracking the 18 source categories.
If a State chooses this ad hoc approach, it will consider reclassification
only in response to the actual or projected desire of a source to locate in
an area where it would either be constrained by the Class II increment, or
significantly deteriorate air the State wishes to preserve in its existing
state. The State can wait for sources actually to file for permits. However,
this could delay construction of a desired source or sources until the reclassification
proposal to a Class III is approved. Therefore, it would be preferable for the State to
anticipate the proposed siting of sources by consulting with the affected
utilities or industries, and by utilizing the projections of future source
expansion by the Office of Business and Economic Research (OBERS), or some
other projections it feels accurately predicts future source locations in the
State. Once the State faces or projects the location of a source in an area
the State could then request to reclassify, and going through the analysis
and balancing procedures described elsewhere in these guidelines. Where a State
wishes to preserve existing air quality, waiting for one of the major industrial
sources to request a permit may be too late to protect the area with a re-
designation to a Class I.
B. Inventory of "need" areas.
The second of the ad hoc approaches the State may take is to make an
inventory of areas within the State, reclassifying them where analysis shows
there is an immediate "need" and retaining the Class II in all other cases.
-------
There would be at least two kinds of areas the State would wish to inventory
and consider reclassifying. First are those areas targeted for the growth
potential of a Class III. An example of such an area is one where there is
very clean air and where further growth is desired than that permitted by the
Class II increment. Second would be those areas already identified under
other laws and programs as having special values related to the clean air
resource that the State wishes to preserve. Obvious examples are national
and State parks and recreational or historic areas. These would be candidates
for the special protection of Class I.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Ad Hoc Redesignations
The advantages of the tracking or sources approach revolve around optimal short-
term use of State financial and labor resources. This approach ensures that a
State proposes reelassification only where it really needs to, only where and
when it faces an actual constraint to desired growth or encroachment on clean
air quality the State wishes to preserve. Resources can thus be concentrated
on highest need areas. States that do not expect any great number of sources --
or consequent reclassification decisions— may consider this approach to be
the most conservative of State fiscal resources.
However, this approach has drawbacks inherent in its ad hoc nature.
Reclassification cannot be done without a reclassification analysis and a
public hearing. This process takes time, and in the end the analysis may
convince the State and/or public that the reclassification is not the best use
of the clean air resource. This means that (if a State takes the ad hoc approach
to reclassification) no one not the State, the local jurisdictions, nor the
potential sources themselves-can be certain where new sources may or may not
locate or what delays they may face.
Another disadvantage of this approach is that there is no over-all
balancing of the number and extent of various Class areas within the State.
A State may eventually find itself with more Class III areas than it really
needs to accommodate desired growth or with some Class I areas the State will
later wish to reclassify in order to accommodate such growth.
The advantages of identifying "need" areas also center on the best use
of State financial and labor resources. The State can focus its resources on
examining those areas most likely to be unduly restricted by Class II or to
need the protection of Class I.
In the case of areas that can easily be identified as potential Class Ills,
this approach can focus State resources on removing the Class II restraints in
areas where growth is predicted and where its associated air quality deterioration
will not be considered significant. This will provide a measure of certainty to
sources and governments, the impact on non-significant deterioration by fuel-
switching, and avoid delays in beginning the reclassification analysis.
-------
This approach also shares some disadvantages with the tracking of
sources method. While most immediate need areas will probably be inventoried
and addressed, sources may well apply to locate in areas not inventoried.
Where this happens, the State will again be faced with the same problems of
delay and uncertainty. The possibility also exists that some areas that
should be considered for redesignation will be missed by the inventory and
that special clean air values may be compromised or Class II constraints
imposed on areas where they are inappropriate.
Approach #2: Comprehensive Approach
The State may choose to take the approach of establishing areas and
proposing reclassifications on a Statewide basis. Using this approach,
the State would not classify areas on a reactive basis, but in a compre-
hensive fashion.
The program to prevent significant air quality deterioration is essentially
one of emissions allocation within each Class designation. A limited amount
of additional emissions (the increment) are available to areas and to sources.
It is likely that new sources will compete for these allowable emissions
increases within each Class area, and that the State will have a decision as to
how the emissions are allocated. States may decide that the most advantageous
way to make the allocation is on a Statewide basis.
The advantages of this approach are many. The first is equity. Classifi-
cations, rather than being done on a case-by-case basis, will be done for all
areas against standard criteria. This will mean consistency in the decision
making process. States may therefore feel that evaluating the various areas
and sources competing for allowable emissions on this standardized basis is
the fairest treatment for all concerned. The approach also guarantees attention
to all areas, since all will be evaluated as part of the same process.
A second advantage is that a comprehensive approach can avoid certain
technical problems. Area boundaries, for example, may be drawn on the most
logical and technically defensible basis. When boundaires are drawn for areas
proposed on an ad hoc basis, they may not correspond to logical meteorological
or planning boundaries. In fact, some areas may be defined simply by being
left out of other areas. Determining all boundaries at one time should pre-
vent this problem.
Another problem that can be dealt with or avoided under this approach
is the transport of pollutants from area to area, either within one State
or between States. In a Statewide classification process, the State may
consciously decide to allocate the emissions of a source or sources over more
than one area. This would not eliminate the transport problem, but would
allow affected areas to plan for this eventuality and make appropriate adjust-
ments. Transport between States must be addressed, and procedures (e.g.,
inter-State agreements) set up to deal with it.
-------
Another advantage is that the comprehensive classification action
would be more visible, a better focus for public and governmental participation
than a series of smaller ad hoc actions. Local areas, State agencies,
potential sources, and various concerned groups and individuals could more
easily participate in the full process and be made aware of its outcome
and probable impacts when it is more visible.
A final advantage of the Statewide approach is that the State may
utilize a wider range of knowledge and options than would be possible in
a case-by-case approach. For example, for any particular proposed reclas-
sification, the reclassification analysis will reveal whether the services
infrastructure (of water, power, transportation, etc.) needed to support
the level of growth allowed by the proposed class is (or will be) available,
if it is in fact planned and funded or fundable. If it is not, a State
using the case-by-case approach may simply decide to drop the proposal.
However, if this knowledge surfaces in a comprehensive reclassification
process, the State may look to other areas where the infrastructure is
available and choose to allocate more emissions and growth there, other
considerations permitting. This greater range of knowledge and options
should increase the State's flexibility in carrying out the program and
lessen any adverse impact of the regulations.
While the advantages of this option are many, so are its drawbacks.
The first and perhaps most serious of these is the resource question. The
State simply may not have the resources necessary to perform Statewide
classifications where there is a critical need. One response to this problem
may be a phase approach, with the State reclassifying critical areas first
and other areas in stages according to a set timetable. However, for some
States the long-term benefits of the comprehensive approach may be outweighed
by its short-term initial costs. Some States may wish not to make the resource
investment of a comprehensive approach because they expect few sources and
few reclassification decisions. For such States, an ad hoc approach may be
all that is necessary to carry out the full intent of the regulations. Other
States may feel that the reclassification analysis, with its consideration of
alternative actions and boundaries, is sufficient to deal with the problems of
pollutant transport, equitable emissions allocation, and adequate attention
to all areas, without further resource investment.
EPA recognizes that a Statewide reclassification process
will affect land use through emissions allocation and that land use decisions
have traditionally been the province of local governments. However, the
Agency would point out that the State will be making decisions whether it
reclassifies or not, simply by either retaining Class II or by reclassifying
on an ad hoc basis. Also, EPA points out that the non-significant deteriora-
tion regulations do not call for decision-making on the basis of air quality
alone but specifically require consideration of social, economic, national
and other environmental factors in determining what is "significant."
Further, EPA encourages States to involve local governments directly in
the decision-making.
Finally, a State may find that is growth and preservation objectives
change over time and that it wishes to reclassify many areas classified
according to former objectives. Should this occur, the comprehensive
coverage of Approach #2 may mean more areas to reclassify than an ad hoc
approach could have created.
-------
III. DETERMINATION OF BOUNDARIES AND SIZE
OF RECLASSIFICATION AREA
When selecting a target area for reelassification, there are
several important parameters that should be considered. Consideration
of these parameters is particularly critical when distinct and function-
ally competing land use areas, such as a developing resource area and a
pristine recreation area, are so situated that there may be pollutant
transport from one area to another. (See U.S. Federal Register,
December 5, 1975, Part 52, page 42512, column 3, Appendix E)
There are three major categories of parameters to consider in
determining the size and boundaries of an area for reclassification.
They are:
1. Air Quality parameters, including topographical and meteoro-
logical characteristics;
2. Political parameters, including regional, county, and local
government jurisdictions and multi-and single-purpose planning agency
jurisdictions; and
3. Program Planning parameters, relating wherever possible the
various regulatory and planning program objectives of Federal, State,
regional, and local governments being implemented in an area.
Air Quality Parameters
Air quality characteristics are among the most critical parameters
for defining an appropriate size for an area to be considered for redesig-
nation. Calculations have shown that because of the small air quality
increments specified for Class I areas, these levels can be violated
by a source located many miles inside an adjacent Class II or Class III
area. For example, a power plant which just meets the Class II increment
for S02 could under some rare conditions violate the Class I increment
for S02 of an area 60 miles away. Under the regulations promulgated,
a new source could not be allowed to construct if it would violate an
air quality increment either in the area where it is to be located or in
any neighboring area outside the State. Therefore, wherever a Class I
area adjoins a Class II or III area, the potential growth restrictions —
especially for power plant development -- extend well beyond the Class I
boundaries into the adjacent areas. A similar situation exists, to a
greater or lesser degree, wherever areas of different classification are
adjacent. Therefore, the area with the less restrictive classification
should include an additional area at its periphery where it is clearly.
recognized that development will be somewhat.restricted because of the
adjacent "cleaner" area. As a result, a Class I redes-lgnation could be
fairly limited in size, yet the adjoining Class II or Class III areas
would need to cover a substantial area in order to fully utilize the
Class II or III increment. Again it should be emphasized that the Class II
or III increment could be fully utilized toward the center of the area,
23
-------
while at the periphery allowable deterioration would be dictated by the
adjoining Class I area rather than the Class II or III increment.
The distance needed between a large source and a Class I area to protect
the Class I area is more dependent on meteorological conditions than the
size of the source. Where very long pollutant travel times from source to
receptor are involved, the assumptions of wind direction and atmospheric
stability are critical. At some point it can be assumed that a receptor
will be virtually unaffected by a source regardless of the source strength,
since the critical meteorological conditions would not be expected to per-
sist long enough to move the pollutants from source to receptor for any
significant period of time. This distance is, of course, dependent on local
meteorological conditions, terrain, and the operating characteristics of
the source.
Using an airshed to define an area's size and boundaries for a Class II or
III would, as a rule, be a reasonable planning device. Depending on the
meteorologicial conditions and size of the airshed, with some sub-basin
planning an airshed that is largely Class II or III might be able to
accommodate a Class I "pocket." For example, an airshed could have areas
with high pollutant levels resulting from a concentration of sources in
those areas. At the same time, upwind there could be clean air areas,
where there are no sources. Providing that there is no pollution transport
from the dirty areas to the clean areas, a clean air area could be pre-
served by preventing new sources from locating within it.* The potential
for such planning will vary greatly among airsheds, as will their individual
meteorological and topographical characteristics. There will be some
circumstances where the airshed could not accommodate both a Class I and
Class II or III. In that situation, a choice of just one designation
would have to be made. The dominant or most "valued" land use characteristic
in the airshed would probably prevail.
Political Parameters
Airsheds are not necessarily identical with local, county, or regional
political jurisdictions or with the land area jurisdiction of multi- or
single- purpose regulatory or planning agencies. An example of the potential
multi-jurisdictional effects of single stationary sources is shown in Figure II,
a pollutant concentration map developed in a study done by the Bureau of
Domestic Commerce, U.S. Department of Commerce. In this study, the Department
* This probably would not be a common airshed.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Domestic Commerce,
Implications of Air Non-Degradation Policies on Clean Air Regions:
A Case Study of the Dallas - Ft. Worth AQCR (215), May 1974, COM-74-11438.
24
-------
COMAHCHE
-------
used OBER projections to predict future pollutant sources and modeling
techniques to project over effected area the pollutant levels that
would result.
Wherever possible, attempts should be made to reconcile air quality
parameters with governmental and agency political jurisdictions. However,
boundary consistency will not always be possible. Because of the long
distance pollutant transport problem
<3A of
one area's air quality impact on another, a larger area size for Class
II and III will minimize the likelihood of intrastate conflicts.
Decisions to define an area for reclassification should consider both
air quality factors and the relationship of political jurisdictions to
them.
Program Planning Parameters
The prevention of signficiant deterioration of air quality is just
one of many programs related to land use with which States or local
governments must cope. There are, for example, water quality programs
such as EPA's "208" Areawide Waste Treatment Management, EPA's land use
related Air Quality Maintenance program, and HUD's 701 Comprehensive
Planning Assistance program. As the data requirements section of these
guidelines suggests, there should be coordination of planning among
these programs and consideration of the various program objectives. If
feasible and not strongly inconsistent with air quality goals, boun-
daries and sizes of classification areas should be coordinated with the
geographic areas of as many of the land use related planning programs as
possible. To accomplish boundary coordination, early consultation would
be beneficial between the State and the affected agencies.
Conclusions
In most cases, larger area size reduces the geographical potential
for intra-and inter-State conflict. A larger area size gives a State the
flexibility to consider the use of alternative facility siting to alle-
viate a potential long distance intrusion of pollution from one class
area to another.
In most cases, airsheds and their sub-basins provide a useful thres-
hold planning area. It is possible, of course, that there will be
exceptions. For purposes of implementation, it would be beneficial to
consider not only air quality, but also political jurisdictions and
program coordination.
26
-------
IV. BALANCING ENVIRONMENTAL, ECONOMIC, SOCIAL
NATIONAL, AND REGIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
Once the basic data and information have been collected for the
environmental, economic, social, national, and regional analysis,
EPA expects that a State would use these data in an attempt to balance
State development and preservation objectives and relevant public interests.
The process of assigning priorities to and balancing the various interests
is ultimately achieved by informed value judgements expressed through the
political process. Apart from reconciliation in the political arena of
the various valuations of individual actors, no one satisfactory methodology
exists for making these choices.
Many scholars and public policy decision makers have addressed the
Question of balancing and reconciling economic and environmental interests.
(See Appendix B for reference list.) Some have attempted to develop
methodologies that quantitatively measure environmental values in order
to use the assigned numerical values in cost-benefit analyses. Other
scholars, addressing the feasibility of a cost-benefit approach for a
public good like environmental preservation, express serious reservations
about the possibility—or the desirability—of quantifying environmental
values.
A clean, healthful environment is a public good, one benefiting society
as a whole. As a public good, it is not priced in the marketplace. While
there is general recognition today that the environment is a valuable resource,
how valuable it is in a quantitative, objective sense is not really appreciated.
These difficulties, in attempting to measure the benefits of clean air and
water frequently contribute to misvaluation of the environment. Misvaluation can have
serious consequences. Decisions based on insufficient valuation of the environ-
ment, for example, may be irreversible. Thus a. valuable resource may be lost
to future generations.
There has been some success in evaluating the economic benefits and
costs of cleaning up the air to achieve the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards: one can measure damage to property values and vegetation at
levels of pollution above primary and secondary standards; loss of life,
health, and employment resulting from emissions of sulfur oxides, particulate
matter, carbon monoxide and other pollutants can be documented. However,
where air quality is cleaner than the primary and secondary standards and
where there is no certifiable damage to health as a result of air pollution,
it becomes increasingly difficult and less desirable to assign a market value.
That does not mean, however, that there is not a value in maintaining some
air cleaner than the standards. We know that there are some hard-to-quantify
effects that occur below the levels of the national air quality standards.
Furthermore, when air quality is allowed to deteriorate up to the standards,
the costs of returning to clean air increase dramatically. Although there
is no perfect methodology for assigning quantitative values to environmental
27
-------
• objectives so that they can be systematically weighed and balanced with
economic objectives, the environmental objectives can be qualitatively
considered. Economists usually agree that all relevant factor? (espec-
ially non-market factors like social and environmental objectives) can
not be included in quantitative cost-benefit analyses. . &;w, ^yet11
-------
V. SUGGESTED FORMAT FOR RECLASSIFICATION
FROM CLASS II TO CLASS III
Introduction
The format below is similar to that of an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). It includes
a gathering of information to describe the projected environmental, economic,
and social effects, consideration of national and regional interests, con-
sideration of alternatives to the proposed reclassification, and the reasons
for the proposal. This format should amply address all of the information
requirements set forth in Division I, Section I.
Because there is a risk of significant environmental harm associated
with a decision to reclassify a relatively clean area from a Class II to
a Class III, and because the rapid growth and uses of land associated with
the Class III reclassification choice could cause irreversible or very
costly to "repair" environmental effects, the analysis required to change
from a Class II to Class III would be more extensive than the analysis
required to change from a Class II to a Class I. To reclassify from
a Class II to a Class I, the format could be substantially abridged. Deci-
sions to redesignate clean areas to a Class III cannot be made cavalierly
without serious consideration of the impacts. Therefore, EPA strongly
encourages States, when redesignating to a Class III, to use the compre-
hensive format below in considering the social, environmental and economic
impacts.
The level of detail necessary for addressing each item can vary
according to individual capabilities and circumstances. In some cases,
for example, several of the items on the list could be addressed in a few
sentences. EPA recognizes that at first blush the.format suggested below
may seem to place a heavy burden-on resources. However, .as.mentioned
earlier, a State does not have to bear the burden alone. Local and
regional governments and agencies can,contribute to the analysis, as well
as the major industries that would., gain from a reclassification. It is
useful to restate that what EPA expects is that the State .will make a
good faith effort .in ,using available data to. surface the fullest informa-
tion possible raising the pertinent issues for consideration of the reclassi-
fication proposal.
29
-------
i. Summary and relevant facts
A. Responsible agency: The State should designate an agency as the
lead (i.e., responsible) agency for the proposed reelassification, and
provide its name, address, function, (e.g., air pollution control,
economic development, planning) and a contact person in the agency who
could be reached for questions.
B. Explanation of program: A brief explanation of the function
and operation of the program to prevent signficant deterioration of air
quality, including a description of the new source review, should be
provided.
C. Purpose of document: The purpose of the analysis should be
stated to provide background for the proposal and a focus for public
participation.
D. Explanation of public participation: The procedure and time-
table for written comments, as well as the time, date, and place of the
public hearing should be given.
II. Description of proposed action
A. Reclassification from Class II to Class III; The section should
explain (in terms comprehensible to the layperson) the difference between
the increment allowed under the present class and under the proposed class.
It should particularly make clear the difference in the level of develop-
ment that is permitted under the present class and that which would be
permitted under the proposed class.
B. Proposed boundaries; Both a verbal description and a map should
be included.
C. Timetable for State actions: The timetable should specify
periods for circulating the analysis document, holding the public hearing,
submitting the proposal to EPA, and any other significant actions related
to the proposal.
III. Description of the proposed area: An inventory should be made of
the natural and human environment of the proposed area. It should include
the area's natural resources and economic characteristics, any planning
and mandated program requirements to which it is subject, and projections
of its future population and economic growth.
30
-------
A. General description: This would encompass location within
the State, total area in relation to the State's total area, neighboring
areas, and the dominant land uses and character of the area (i.e., urban,
rural, developing, a combination of these).
B. Air resources: The State should present at least the
following items.
1. From the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for meeting and
maintaining the national air quality standards or other sources:
(a) The emissions inventory being used by the State to
calculate or estimate the 1974 air quality inventory baseline. The
location of point and area sources in the proposed area should be
shown on a map.
(b) Air quality data, if any, being used by the State in calcu-
lating or estimating the 1974 air quality baseline. These data should
be presented in a manner comprehensive to the layperson, and the locations
of the samplers reporting the data should be shown on a map.
(c) Control strategies for SOX and TSP applicable to the area
and air quality projections and emissions reductions expected from these
strategies in future years, including projections based on the growth
assumptions in the SIP. (These regulations should be explained.) The level
of mandatory fuel-switching, if any, expected in the proposed area and its
effects on air quality should be discussed.
2. Meteorology: an explanation, comprehensible to the layperson,
of the proposed area's meteorological conditions, including average
wind speeds and directions, inversion conditions, and other relevant
climatological data. The potential or actual transport of pollutants
into the proposed area from other areas and/or from the proposed area
to others should be discussed.
C. Water resources: The State should examine at least the following
i terns.
1. Water quality standards, proposed or approved, and any constraint
they may present (e.g., consider whether the effluent from a proposed source
among the 18 source categories would be such that it might violate appli-
cable water quality standards in the proposed area).
2. Pristine waters the State may wish to preserve and any constraint
they may present.
31
-------
3. Water supply and any constraint it may present (e.g., consider
whether sufficient water is available now and will continue to be available
in the future to supply the needs of sources among the 18 categories that
may locate in the area (e.g., cooling water or water for process use) as
well as the population and industrial or commercial growth the sources
may attract.
4. Flood control and its constraints (e.g., consider the
physical capability of flood control plains to bear various levels of
development as well as any legal restrictions on development in flood
plains).
5. "208" Areawide Waste Treatment Management Plans (e.g., area classifi-
cations and the land uses they permit should be examined for consistency
with these plans).
D. Land resources: Classifications can preserve or lead to the
controlled, orderly development of various land resources. The State
should consider at least the following items:
1. Geology and geography of the proposed area: The ability of the
land to bear various uses and levels of development should be assessed.
Any special geological features of the area (e.g., canyons, mountains,
deserts) that possess special values or present special problems shot/Id
be discussed.
2. Agricultural lands: The quality of the land currently under
cultivation or planned for such use, its current and projected pro-
ductivity, and its contribution to the State's and the proposed area's
economics and land use objectives should be discussed.
3. Resource areas: These include any mineral deposits (e.g., oil
shale, coal, tar sands) and potential sources of hydroelectric or geothermal
power within the proposed area. Already committed development of these
resources should be described, as should the level of development that
could be allowed under both the present and the proposed classifications.
4. Parks and wilderness areas, designated or proposed: The analysis
should discuss the special values and constraints imposed by national or
state parks, forests, deserts, wilderness areas, and wild life refuges.
These areas should be indicated on a map.
E. Historical and archaeologically important areas: These should
be described, shown on a map, and their special values and limitations
discussed. Plans to preserve and/or explore the areas should be described.
32
-------
i7- Present lend uses: A description of the uses and activities
currently supported by the proposed area's land should be provided. Maps,
charts, and other visual aids should be used to make the presentation clear
to the layperson. The discussion should present the land uses by type
(e.g., residential, light industry, agricultural, open or recreational
space) and describe the extent of each type of use in the proposed area.
G. Planning and mandated programs: For each of the programs listed
below in this subsection, the State should explain the program in lay
language; show, by maps, tables, and similar aids, the location and extent
of the planning or program areas; and specify the constraints or opportunities
posed by the programs in the proposed area. Besides the State and local
Federally funded programs, listed, the..State might well-wish to discuss State,
regional, or local programs.. . An inventory map..showing .all Federal facili-
ties, Federal .lands, and Indian reservations in-the proposed area should
be included. The programs that should be discussed include:
1. Air Quality Maintenance Areas
2. Water resource development (e.g., by the Bureau of Reclamation
or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)
3. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development "701" Compre-
hensive Planning and Housing Element
4. U.S. Department of Transportation actions
5. U.S. Department of Agriculture planning (including Forest
Service planning, Rural Development Act planning)
6. Federal Energy Administration energy supply activities.
An inventory map showing all Federal facilities, Federal lands, and Indian
reservations in the proposed area should be included.
H. Economic and social profile: The profile should describe the
types and/or levels of business, tourism, and industrial and commercial
activity in the proposed area. Such data as employment levels, income
groupings, housing patterns, urban and non-urban density patterns, and
business and industrial investment trends should be included and the
relationship of the proposed area's economy to the State's discussed.
I. Growth projections for the proposed area:
1. Population projections compiled for SIPs, or general State
or local planning for transportation control, wastewater control, or
any other State or Federal planning purposes thought relevant can be used.
If any data differ, all should be presented.
2. Infrastructure availability should be projected for growth
supporting services like transportation (including roads and highways,
railroads and port facilities). Water power, sewage disposal and waste-
water disposition. The analysis should discuss current load on these
services and the availability of funds to pay for their future provision.
-------
j. inoustria'l expansion projections iUKe the urnce OT Dusmess
and Economic Research (OBERS) projections of major industrial growth) should
be presented with special attention to sources expected to locate within the
proposed area.
IV. Alternatives to the proposed reclassification
A. No action alternative (i.e., keeping the area's present classification)
The State should discuss means of dealing with the special values (if appli-
cable) it wishes tc protect within the Class III and the development it
wishes to permit should the proposed area's present classification not be
changed. At a minimum, the State should consider the following:
1. Alternative siting of proposed sources to better distribute
emissions or take advantage of favorable meteorological conditions.
2. Retrofitting or otherwise further controlling present sources to
reduce their emissions, thereby creating more "room" in the increment
for new sources.
3. Controlling the influx, if any, of pollutants from other areas to
create more "room" in the increment. This might be done by using retro-
fit, alternative siting, or buffer zones in adjoining areas.
B. Redraw the boundaries of the proposed area: Boundaries could be
redrawn to take advantage of favorable meteorology, terrain, or other siting
conditions; to create larger buffer zones in adjoining areas; or to shift
a particular source from an area that cannot accommodate its emissions
to one that could.
C. Change the timinc; of the proposed reel assifi cation; The State may
wish to delay the recTassification of some areas pending the outcome of
studies, the acquisition of further data, or the development of improved
technology (primary or retrofit).
V. Impact of the proposed reelassification
The impact of the proposed reclassification upon the natural and
social environment can only be predicted and evaluated in light of the
information possessed by the State at the time of the proposal. This means
that the depth of impact analysis the State can perform will vary according
to the approach to reclassification the State employs.
-------
A- s.Ln9J±_s_°H^£§:- 1T ^ e reciassification is triggered ny the actual
application of a sinc;e source to construct, the State may be able to
predict with cer-uainT.y only tne effects of that single source upon the
•
' '•• I fit- iUV.1 UiU il ll IX i (-, lriS',1! ir:.l -i.ij. '.VI
IcM^C Ute fOtiOWilhJ COIIi lutTa L
1. Natural environment: The impacts of the proposed source
on the air, water, land values, land use, historical or achaeological
values, and planning programs in the proposed area should be projected
and evaluated. These evaluations may at times be highly subjective
and resistant to quantification. It is difficult, for example, to
evaluate air quality impacts, since by definition what is involved
are pollutant levels below those at which public health effects or
property damage can be proven. Also, the effect of any one source
upon the full matrix of resources and values may be small. The State
should, of course, consider the effects of any industrial, commercial,
or other growth that might reasonably be induced by the construction
and operation of the proposed source. It must examine any effects
of the proposal on other areas. (See subsection IX in this section.)
2. Economic environment: Both a micro and a macro analysis of the
costs and benefits involved in source construction and operation should
be done. The micro analysis should include the costs to the source of
the program (e.g., of alternate siting or required control technology).
The macro analysis should examine the effects of the proposed source
on the State's economy, on the local economy (e.g., employment and tax
base effects) . It should also examine any costs of the
proposed source not fully borne by the source or the proposed area
(e.g., pollutants transported from the source to another area using
up part of that area's Increment; see subsection IX).
B. Tracking of sources or areas: If the State determines a need to
reclassify an area from OBERS projections or from an inventory of special
need areas, a fuller analysis may be possible, since the State may possess
more data. In this case, the State should present and evaluate the effects
of projected sources it expects on the natural, social, and economic environ-
ment of the proposed area in the same manner as for a single source. All
foreseen effects should be discussed, and the State should clearly indicate
how certain or uncertain, complete or incomplete, it judges its projections
or inventories to be.
C. Statewide classification: This approach will allow the most
complete impact analysis, since the State will be able to predict at least
some land uses that will or will not occur in the proposed area and will be
able to predict the future character of an area without waiting for a source
or sources to propose locating there. Since the State will possess more data,
it will be better able to assess impacts of reciassification on the natural,
social, and economic environment. The State should prepare the impact
analysis for the sources and effects it anticipates in the same manner
described in Subsection A above.
35
-------
' a • ^«-'ji^>-' u. v.naiiije i I uill lUtCfclll, IdllCI USe
The reclassification decision should reflect the State's desire for
change from or continuation of present uses of land and the clean air
resource in the proposed area. In this section of the analysis, the degree
and nature of that change or continuance should be explained, and should
be evaluated in terms of local, regional, State, and national objectives.
State/local/regional objectives might consist of (1) a desire to preserve
the rural, recreational, agricultural, or wilderness character and use of
some areas; (2) a desire to ensure orderly growth in areas targeted for
growth; and (3) a desire to place some areas in a protected state until
decisions can be made about their future use. In applying whatever are
the State/local/regional objectives, the State should make those objectives
and their application to the proposed area explicit.
VII. Consideration of national concerns
The States must, in their-deliberations, take national
concerns into account, including but net.limited to: 1) the
critical food supply shortage, and need for food production; 2) the
preservation of sufficient recreational, wilderness, and open space
areas to accommodate the present and future needs of an expanding
population; and 3) the critical energy supply situation and the need
to develop energy resources. In weighing these national concerns, as
in weighing different and sometimes competing State/regional/local
interests, it is the role of the States to balance varying needs and
to decide which factors are most critical in each area. However,
where a State, Federal Land Manager, or Indian governing body protests
a redesignation to the State proposing the redesignation and to the
Administrator, the Administrator will take an expanded role in
determining the balance of the competing interests.
VIII. Irreversible effects of the proposed reclassification
The express purpose of this program is protection of the clean air
resource through a searching and thorough determination of the relative
significance of increasing increments in specific areas. One of the central
elements in making this determination is the question of irreversibility;
that is, which options does the State foreclose by a reclassification,
and which does it keep open? The irreversibility of a deterioration
decision may be a key to its significance. For this reason, the States
should pay special attention to the question. (This item may be
combined with V - Impact of the proposed reclassification.)
36
-------
In this section the State should discuss any special values connected '
with the clean air resource that may be lost by the reelassification, any
irreversible commitment of the resource, and any uses of the resource that
are permanently precluded by the effects of the proposed reclassification.
While the State may decide that no such special values or uses exist in the
proposed area and that further industrial and economic growth is the best use
of the proposed area's air resource, full examination and full disclosure of
the irreversible effects, both short and long-term, of the proposed reclas-
sification should be made.
IX. Effects on adjacent areas
This section should summarize the findings of the analysis done in
subsections III.A.,B.(2), and V.A.(l) and (2) and assess the overall likely
impact on adjacent areas (e.g., neighboring. States and Federal and Indian
lands). If a harmful impact is indicated, there should also be an analysis
indicating what would be foregone economically, socially, or nationally if
there were no redesignation .
X. Conclusion
This section should briefly summarize the action the State is taking
and the technical and policy justifications for determining that the proposed
reclassification accurately represents what is "significant" deterioration
in the proposed area. The discussion should include a summary of the
advantages and disadvantages associated with the reclassification.
XI. Public comments
A summary of public comments on the proposed action and the State's reply
to those comments should be presented here. (See the procedures outlined in
the Intergovernmental Cooperation Section of these guidelines.)
37
-------
APPENDIX A
GUIDELINES FOR DETERMINING WHETHER AN AREA PERVASIVELY
EXCEEDS NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
Introduction
EPA's final regulations for preventing significant deterioration
of air quality published on December 5, 1974 (39 FR 42510) include a
provision exempting all counties or other functionally equivalent areas
that pervasively exceed any national ambient air quality standards for
sulfur dioxide or total suspended particulates from the area designation
requirements of paragraph (c). This provision makes it clear that no
air quality deterioration increments are applicable in counties which
pervasively exceeded the national standards for S02 or TSP during 1974.
However, the regulations still require that major sources located in
such areas be reviewed to determine whether significant deterioration
increments in adjacent areas would be violated and to assure that Best
Available Control Technology (i.e., NSPS where such standards have been
set) will be applied. These guidelines provide criteria for determining
whether an area pervasively exceeded the national standards for SOg or
TSP during 1974.
General
Demonstration of whether air quality pervasively exceeded the national
standards may be based on measured air quality data or atmospheric simula-
tion modeling or both, but in any case should be representative of 1974
air quality. Exemption from the area classification requirements may be
granted for either TSP or S02 or both. Since the baseline for determining
whether significant deterioration has occurred is based on 1974 air quality,
an area that is exempt originally remains exempt, even if air quality is
-------
ments applicable in Class I or II areas. Other mechanisms in the imple-
mentation plans (i.e., new source review and air quality maintenance plans)
would ensure that air quality would not increase above the national stand-
ards.
Although the NSD regulations require states to provide the Administra-
tor a list of areas to be exempted by June 1, 1975, current plans are to
amend the regulation to remove the above date restriction. Therefore, it
may be assumed that requests for exemptions will be accepted at any time.
It should be noted that exempting a county does not necessarily
mean that the county will not attain standards by the prescribed attainment
date or that an SIP revision is needed. The area classification exemption
is always based on 1974 air quality, whereas the attainment dates are
generally July 1975 and in some cases may extend to July 1977. In most
cases, the control strategy will not be fully implemented until very close
to the attainiment date or even later (where sources have been issued
enforcement orders extending beyond the attainment date).
Definition of Pervasively Exceeds Standard
The significant deterioration regulations, while including provision
for exempting areas which pervasively exceed the national standards for
S02 or TSP, did not specifically define the term "pervasively exceed."
Therefore, the following definition is provided and will be used to deter-
mine if a county qualifies for an exemption from the area designation
provisions of the regulations.
ii
—,.^.r, _,...., ...» ^,. , JJg<, „ ^—i, i ... ... .j, j, ^i, jin i^jtm.
-------
"The ambient air quality in 75% or more of the county or other
functionally equivalent area was above any national standard
for sulfur dioxide or total suspended particulates, or both
during 1974."
For clarification, the following table provides the controlling '
standards to which the above definition should be applied as a test
for violations.
TSP
Annual Geometric Mean ....... . ..... 75 yg/m3
Second-highest 24-hour concentration ...... 150 yg/m3
S0_2
2
Annual Arithmetic Mean ....... ...... 80 vg/m3p
Second-highest 24-hour concentration ...... 365 yg/m3
Second-highest 3-hour concentration ...... 1300
Violation of any standard listed above for a pollutant constitutes
a violation for that pollutant. For example, if. the annual geometric
mean of 75 yg/m3 for TSP is exceeded in 50% of the area and the second
highest concentration exceeds 150 yg/m3 in an additional 25% of the area,
that area qualifies for an exemption with respect to TSP.
Areas Which May Be Exempted
The regulations state that any county or functionally equivalent
area (i.e., parishes, townships, etc.) which qualifies may be exempted.
•s
Consideration was given to using other designations for the area, such
i
as an AQCR. However, it was felt that the "county" designation would be
the most appropriate size area from a management standpoint, since AQCR's
tend to be too large to meet the 75% criterion, while an area smaller than
the "county" could result in too many small areas to be manageable.
This is the primary standard; there is no annual secondary standard for
TSP. The 60 yg/m3 is a guideline.
o
These are primary standards. The originally promulgated secondary standards
for these time periods were revoked on September 14, 1973, as a result of a
court challenge.
iii
-------
Therefore, as a general rule, the exemption shall apply to all the
area within the boundaries of a county. However, it is recognized that
some counties are very large and significant differences exist in the
air quality in different parts of the county. Therefore, approval may
be granted to exempt a well-defined contiguous sub-area of a large
county, provided reasonable justification for such action is provided by
the state. Also, exemptions may be granted to independent cities when
they are not considered a portion of the county or functionally equivalent
area. A demonstration shall be made for each county to be exempted.
Criteria for Demonstrating County Pervasively Exceeds Standards
Measured air quality data or atmospheric simulation modeling may be
used either in combination or separately to demonstrate that a county
qualifies for an exemption. Measured air quality data should be by an
approved reference method or equivalent and a year's worth of valid data
(as defined on p. 71 of "Monitoring and Air Quality Trends Report, 1973,"
EPA-45011-74-007, October 1974) should be used. If measured data is used,
it must reasonably represent the air quality in at least 75% of the area
in the county. Should monitoring data be available which indicates the
air quality is above the NAAQS, but the data does not reasonably represent
all portions of the county, modeling or gridded emission density maps may
be used to demonstrate that violations can be expected in 75% of the
county.
Also, air quality data recorded just outside the borders of a county
being considered for exemption may be used in demonstrating the existence
of pervasive violations. If 75% of the county can be shown to be in
violation, it is not necessary to estimate air quality in other portions
IV
-------
if 75Vof all samplers in the county show a violation or one or more
of the standards for that pollutant, provided it can be shown that the
selected samplers provide reasonable coverage of the county. The pro-
cedures outlined in "Guidelines for the Interpretation of Air Quality
Standards," OAQPS Mo. 1.2- 008, shall be used to determine if a violation
has occurred at a receptor.
It is desired to keep the resources devoted to determining
if an area is "pervasively" above a standard to a minimum. There-
fore, where modeling is required, it is not necessary that the most sophis-
ticated techniques be used. Rather, unless the material and facilities are
readily available to assist in the computation, it is recommended that the
Hana-Gifford model be used in making the above determination. The model,
along with others which may be used are explained in "Guidelines for Air
Quality Maintenance Planning and Analysis," Volume 12, EPA-450/4-74-013.
Also, for those situations where an air quality maintenance analysis has
been performed (for 1974 air quality), the results of this analysis,
appropriately applied to a county, may be used for demonstrating "per-
vasive" violations.
Responsibility for Determining Which Areas Are to be Exempted
There is no intent in the regulations to require that States
apply for an exemption for all areas pervasively above the national stand-
ards; this is an option left strictly to the States. EPA will not initiate
action to exempt any area, even in cases where EPA is implementing the new
source review and certain areas are known to exceed standards. This is
because there is little practical impact achieved by such exemption, as
discussed below. However, the regulations included the exemption option
-------
in response to public comients requesting such a provision and in order
to be consistent with the court order which required EPA to prevent
significant deterioration only in those areas where air quality was
superior to the nationa standards.
The reason that the exemption of an area that is above standards
has little impact as compared with designating the area Class I, II, or
III, is that the significant deterioration increments apply only to air
quality increases, whereas air quality in these areas must be decreased
in order to attain the national standards. Therefore, the present new
source review, which requires that a source cannot be constructed if it
will interfere with the attainment or maintenance of a national ambient
air quality standard, will be more restrictive in such areas than the
requirements for preventing significant deterioration.
' vi
-------
Baumol, W.J., Welfare Economics and the Theory of State. Cambridge,
Howard University Press, 1952.
Baxter, W.F., "The S.S.T.: from Watts to Harlem in two hours," 21 Stan
L_. Rev. 1, 1968. .
Bergson, A., "A Reformulation of Certain Aspects of Welfare Economics",
Quarterly Journal of Economics, February, 1948, pp. 310-334.
Boulding, K., "The Economics of the Coming Spaceship Earth," Environmental
Quality in A Growing Economy 3, 1966.
Braybroke, David and Lindblom, Charles, A Strategy of Decision, New York,
Free Press, 1963
Buchahan, James M. and Tullock, Gordon, The Calculus of Consent:
Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy, Ann Arbor, University
of Michigan Press, 19T3.
Carl in, Alan, "The Grand Canyon Controversy: Lessons for Federal Cost
Benefit Practices," 44 Land Economics 219, 1968.
"Water Resources Development in an Environmentally Conscious Era,"
7 Water Resources Bull., 1971.
Carter Luther J. "Grand Canyon Dams: 'Interior to ask are they
necessary?1 " Science, Vol. 154, October 7, 1966, p. 134.
Castle, Emery, Kelso, Maurice, and Gardner, Dellworth, "Water Resource
Development: A Review of the New Federal Evaluation Procedures,"
Journal of Farm Economics, November, 1963.
Coase R., "The Problem of Social Cost," 3^. Law Econ. 1, 1960.
Davis, Otto A. and Kami en, Morton, "Externalities and the Quality of
Air and Water, "Economics of Air and Water Pollution." W.R. Walker ed.,
Water Resources Research Center, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, 1969.
DeVany, Eckert, Myers, O'Hara and Scott," A Property System for Market
Allocation of the Electromagnetic Spectrum," 21 Stan. I. Rev. 383, 1969..
Eckestein, Otto, A Survey of the Theory of Public Finances: Needs. Sources
and Utilization, New York, Princeton University Press, 1961.
Fox, Irving K, and Herfindahl, Orris C., "Attainment of Efficiency in
Satisfying Demands for Water Resources," American Economic Review, May
1964, pp. 198-206.
-------
...K. AU.KCI, eu., toacer Kesources Research Center, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute, 1969, pp. 22-28.
Hicks, J.R., "The Valuation of Social Income," Economia, 1940, pp. 105-24.
Hirschleifer, DeHaven, James C. and Milliman, Jerome W., Water Supply:
Economics, Technology and Policy. University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, 1960.
Kaldor, N., "Welfare Propositions and Interpersonal Comparisons of
Utility," Economic Journal, 1939, pp. 549-52.
Kneese, A. and Bower, B., Managing Water Quality: Economics, Technology
f
^ Institutions, Published for Resources for the Future, Johns
Hopkins Press, 1968.
Knetsch, Jack L. "Economics of Including Recreation as a Purpose of
Water Resource Projects," Journal of Farm Economics, December, 1964
p. 1155.
Krutilla John V., "Conservation Reconsidered," 57 American Economic
Review 1967.
_ "Is Public Intervention in Water Resources Development
Conducive to Economic Efficiency?11, Natural Resources Journal ,
January 1966, pp. 60-75.
_ Multiple Purpose River Development, Johns Hopkins Press,
Baltimore, 1958.
_ (with Knetsch, Jack H.) "Outdoor Recreation Economics,"
389 Annals of_ the American Academy o£ Political and Social Science
63_, 1970.
Little, I.M.D., A Critique of Welfare Economics, Oxford University Press,
New York, 1950.
Major, David C. "Notes on the New Standards for Evaluating Water
Resource Projects," Journal of Farm Economics, May 1964, pp. 491-493.
McKean, Roland N., Efficiency in Government Through Systems Analysis
with Emphasis on Water Resources Development, John Wiley & Sons,
New York, 1958.
Meade, J.E., "The Theory of International Economic Policy,"
Trade and Welfare, New York, Oxford University Press, 1954, vol. 2.
ii
-------
JJ La 11u Li. uliuiii i v. a ii)9,
Mishan, E., Pareto Optimality and the Law, 9 Oxford Econ. Papers
225, 1967.
Note, "The Cost-Internalization Case for Class Actions,"
21 Stan. L. Rev. 383, 1969.
Note, "An Economic Analysis of Land Use Conflicts,"
21 Stan. L. Rev. 293. 1969.
Note, "The Public Trust Doctrine in Tidal Areas: A Sometime Submerged
Traditional Doctrine," 79 Yale L.J. 762, 1970.
Pigou, A., The Economics of Welfare, London, Macmillan
and Co., 1932, 4th ed.,
Prest, A.R. and Turvey, R., "Cost-Benefit Analysis: A Survey,"
Economic Journal, 75, December, 1965, pp. 683-75.
Schmid, "Market Failure-Why Externalities are not Accounted for
in the Market," Economics of Air and Water Pollution, W.R.
Walker, ed. Water Resources Research Center, Polytechnic Institute
1969.
Scitoysky f., "A Note on Welfare Propositions in Economics,"
Review of Economic Studies 1942, pp. 98-110.
Weisbrod, Burton, The Economics of Public Health: Measuring the
Economic Impact of Diseases, University of Pennsylvania Press,
Philadelphia, 1961.
Wildavsky, Aaron, "The Political Economy of Efficiency: Cost Benefit
Analysis, Systems Analysis and Program Budgeting," Political Science
and Public Policy, ed. A. Ranney, 1968, pp. 57-64.
ill
-------
-- GENERAL LISTING OF INSTITUTIONS AMD OFFICES OF STATE,
REGIpKAl . AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT WHICH SHOULD BF. CONSULTED
IN PREPARING RECLASSIFICATION DOCUMENT
STATE
Governor's Office
Environmental Agency
Water Quality Board
Air Quality Board
Department of Health
State Office of Planning
State Recreation Department
Regional Office of Air Quality (part of State
Environments'! Agency or Department of Health)
Department of Transportation
Highway Administration
Department of Urban Development and Housing
Office of Intergovernmental Relations
Office of Economic Development
REGIONAL
Air Quality Control Agency
Regional Planning Council
Council of Governments
Environmental Quality Agency
Transportation Planning Department
Land-Use Planning Department
Economic Development Planning Department
Recreation and Open Space Planning Department
Citizens and Agency Air Quality Review or Advisory
Committee (Task Force)
Water Quality Control. Boards
Area-Wide Waste Water Treatment Planning Agencies
(established under section 203 of the Federal
Writer f-nl'ii'tion Control Act Anicndn-.-snts of 1972)
LOCAL
*-
Air Quality Control Agency
Chief Executive of the City and County Local Board
or Committee charged with responsibility for
activities in the conduct of the urban transportation
planning process (3-C process).
Municipal (City, County, Township) elected officials
Municipal Planners (convoynity, transportation,
environmental, parks, and recreation)
Local Departments (health, water and sewer, solid
waste disposal)
Local Development Offices
Local Zoning Administrators
-------
APPENDIX D
DEFINITIONS. OF KEY V.TiRDS IN PREVENTION OF
SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION OF AIR QUALITY
REGULATIONS
1. The Classification Plan:
Class I designation involves those areas where almost no
change from current air quality is allowed;
Class II designation indicates areas where moderate change is
allowed to accomodate limited and managed growth;
Class III designation indicates areas where substantial indus-
trial or other growth is allowed and where increases in concentrations
up to the national standards, consistent with health and welfare re-
quirements for air quality, is allowed.
All areas of all States are initially designated Class II, except
those counties or other comparable areas that already violate .the Federal
secondary air standards.
A State must give sufficient evidence of pervasive violations of
the standard and apply by June 1, 1975 if it desires the exemption from
designation for such an area.
2. Increments:
The Class I and Class II designations involve numerical limi-
tations on the allowable increases in sulfur oxides and particulate
matter concentrations over a 1974 baseline. The numerical standards,
or increments, exoressed in rrricroarams per cubic meter of air, are:
-------
ALLOKED POLLUTAilT CONCENTRATION INCREASES
(OVER BASELINE) -MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER
POLLUTANT
PARTICIPATE MATTER
ANNUAL GEOMETRIC MEAN
24-HOUR MAXIMUM
AREA
CLASS
5
10
DESIGNATION
I CLASS II
10
30
APPLICABLE
HATIOiiAL
STANDARDS
75 (P)
150 (S)
SULFUR DIOXIDE •
ANNUAL ARITHMETIC MEAN 2 15 80 (P)
24-HOUR MAXIMUM 5 100 365 (P)
3-HOUR MAXIMUM 25 700 ' 1300 (S)
NOTE: Class III areas are limited to concentrations no greater
than the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
(P) -Primary Standard
(S) -Secondary Standard
There is preconstruction review of 18 specified source categories to
determine whether these sources would cause a violation of the increments
associated with a I, II, or III classification. In all cases, n£ classi-
fication or increment would permit a violation of the national standards.
3. Baseline:
The phrase "baseline air quality concentration" refers to both sulfur
dioxide and particulate matter. It is the sum of ambient concentration
levels existing during 1974 and (those additional concentrations estimated
to result from sources granted approval for construction or modification
U;t not vot operating prior to January 1. 1975. The baseline concentration
-------
may be measured or estimated, ihe area classifications do not necessarily
ii'ply current air quality or current land use patterns. Classifications
should reflect the desired degree of change from current levels and patterns,
Because the classification and increment procedures is designed to
control and manage the level of change from existing air quality, a
baseline of existing air quality concentration may be set at zero, for
calculation purposes. This means,-for example, that an area designated
Class II could have a change in air quality by as much as.+15 ug/m3 of
S02 and +10 ug/m3 of TSP from a baseline of zero. If a new source in
that area uses 10 ug/m3 of S02 and 5ug/m3 of TSP, the unused portion .
of the increment calculated from the baseline would be (15-10) or
5ug/m3 S02 and (10-5) or 5ug/m3 TSP.
If an existing plant phased out, or through scrubbers reduced
emissions, that amount of improvement could be credited to the incre-
ment. For example, if an existing plant in the Class II area with
remaining increments of 5ug/m3 S02 and 5ug/m3 TSP were to reduce
emissions by either BACT or by curtailment of operation by 10 ug/m3
of S02 and 6ug/m3 of TSP, the increment remaining to be used would
be augmented by 10 ug/m3 S02 and 6ug/m3 TSP, becoming (5+10) ug/m3
302 or 15 ug/m3 S02 and (5+6) ug/m3 TSP or 10 ug/m3 TSP. Although
the TSP sum is eleven ug/m3, the increment limit for TSP in Class II
is 10 ug/m3. As this example shows, the increment is the limit of
allowable change.
A basel me; therefore, is what the. incremental change in air
ty is measured against.
m
-------
BACT or ''best available control
The term "best available ccntrol technology," 3s arcli^d to x.r.y
ccili-v r.;biect to EPA's Pan 60 regulations , irseans any emission
ccntrc-l d=v1ce or technique which is capable of limiting emissions to the
levels proposed or promulgated in EPA's Part 60. Where no standard of
performance has been proposed or pron.ul gated for a source under Part 60,
best available control technology shall be determined on a case-by-case
basis considering the following:
(1) The process, fuels, and raw material available and to be employed
in the facility involved,
(2) The engineering aspects of the application of various types of
control techniques which have been adequately demonstrated;
(3) Process and fuel changes,
(4) The respective costs of the application of all such control
techniques, process changes, alternative fuels, etc.,
(5) Any applicable State and local emission limitations, and
(5) Locational and siting considerations.
5 . ifJSR or "n&'.'i source review":
The regulations require a preconstruction review of new or expanded
facilities of 18 -types of industry in all three Classes. The review will
appty -to facilities whose construction or noa'ification beains on or
afte- June 'I, 19*75. The review is designed to insure -thtt e^n'ssion-;
Vroii the faci 1 ittes wi i 1 ixst violate, the a* Iow5ble.clc.teri oration incr
i A the, ar^a where the- source v/i 1 1 be. located ncr the. air quali «ty f
-------
•: t;v •--"••'' 7: >".;'?.">. ,;vj revic1.1/ ~/iro rer!.;ir~£ that "r-jjct ^'
technology" (BA.CT) -3 employed.
''.:=••; rcurcj oer~:.^:-:-.'iC5 ~t.-.nd-.rds:i:
A NSPS is defined in the Clean Air Act r.s "2 standard for emission
limitation achievable through the- application of the best system "f enission
reduction which (taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction) tha
Administrator determines has been adeauately demonstrated."
NSPS may only apoly to certain affected -facilities within a large
source. Where NSPS do not cover one of the sources within the 18 categories
of sources in the non-sianificant deterioration regulations, EACT must be
determined on a csse-by-case basis until such tine as NSPS are issued for
these facilities.
7 . Federal Land Manager
The Federal Land Manager as defined in the December 5, 1975,
Federal Register 52.21(b)(3) is "the head, or his designated
representative of any Department or Agency of the Federal Govern-
ment which administers federally owned land, including public domain."
8. Indian Governing Body
An Indian Governing Body as defined in the December 5, 1975,
Federal Register 52.21(b)(5) is "The governing body of any tribe land,
or group of Indians subject to jurisdiction of the United States
recognized by the limited States as possessing power of self-
government."
------- |