A Four Hour    Satellite Seminar
         BROADCAST LIVE To Over 82 I
         February 10,1994
  1994
  Update:
  Implementing The
  Clean  Air  Act
  EPA SPEAKS
           Sponsored by;
   XI ^V   American Bar Association
           Section of Natural Resources, Energy, and
           Environmental Law and the
           Division for Professional Education
   ^A^     Presented by:
   ^^     Air & Waste Management Association
In cooperation with:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Air & Waste Management Association

-------
               7994 UPDATE:
IMPLEMENTING THE CLEAN AIR ACT
                EPA SPEAKS
               AN ABA SATELLITE SEMINAR
                  FEBRUARY 10, 1994
                   SPONSORED BY:

             THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION
SECTION OF NATURAL RESOURCES, ENERGY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
                     AND THE
          DIVISION FOR PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION
                   PRESENTED BY:

         THE AIR & WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
   THE VIEWS EXPRESSED HEREIN HAVE NOT BEEN APPROVED BY
   THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES OR THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF
THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION AND, ACCORDINGLY, SHOULD NOT BE
       CONSTRUED AS REPRESENTING THE POLICY OF THE
              AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION
              © COPYRIGHT, AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, 1994

-------
            1994 UPDATE: IMPLEMENTING THE CLEAN AIR ACT
                    AN ABA SATELLITE SEMINAR
                        FEBRUARY 10, 1994
                       TABLE OF CONTENTS
PRESENTATION OF TOPICS	(i)

FACULTY AND SPONSORS	(H)

IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY FOR THE	  (1)
CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1990
UPDATE 1993
By EPA Office of Air & Radiation

FEDERAL REGISTER DOCUMENTS PUBLISHED 1993	(25)

NONATTAINMENT	(65)

FUEL SWITCHING TO MEET THE REASONABLY	(W9)
AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (RACT)
REQUIREMENTS FOR NITROGEN OXIDES (NOx)
MEMORANDUM
By Michael H. Shapiro

STATUS OF AIR TOXICS RULES AND REPORTS	(121)

REPORT TO CONGRESS ON IMPLEMENTATION	(123)
OF SECTION 112 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
AMENDMENTS OF 1990
By EPA Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards

CLARIFICATION OF ISSUES REGARDING THE	(165)
CONTINGENCY MEASURES THAT ARE DUE
NOVEMBER 15, 1993 FOR MODERATE AND
ABOVE OZONE NONATTINMENT AREAS MEMORANDUM
By D. Kent Berry

GUIDANCE ON ISSUES RELATED TO 15 PERCENT	   (175)
RATE-OF-PROGRESS PLANS MEMORANDUM
By Michael H. Shapiro

CREDIT TOWARD THE 15 PERCENT REQUIREMENTS 	     (193)
FROM ARCHITECTURAL AND INDUSTRIAL
MAINTENANCE COATINGS MEMORANDUM
By John S. Seitz

-------
            1994 UPDATE: IMPLEMENTING THE CLEAN AIR ACT
                     AN ABA SATELLITE SEMINAR
                        FEBRUARY 10, 1994
                     TABLE OF CONTENTS cont'd
OPERATING PERMITS PROGRAM
OFFICE TELEPHONE NUMBERS AND	
ADDRESSES OF HEADQUARTERS OFFICES

NATURAL RESOURCES & ENVIRONMENT - CLEAN AIR	(311)
HOW STATES CAN SUCCESSFULLY
IMPLEMENT THE NEW OPERATING
PERMIT TITLE
By Michael R. Bair

ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 2288 - CALIFORNIA	(319)
CHAPTER 1166

TITLE 31. NATURAL RESOURCES AND	(329)
CONSERVATION - PART III TEXAS AIR
CONTROL BOARD • CHAPTER 122 FEDERAL
OPERATING  PERMITS
By The Texas Register

VOLUNTARY SOURCE SPECIFIC PLANTWIDE	           (365)
APPLICABILITY LIMIT (PAL) ISSUES
By EPA

WILDERNESS ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT	(375)
By John D. Peine & Douglas G. Fox

A SCREENING PROCEDURE TO EVALUATE AIR POLLUTION              f3B7]
EFFECTS ON CLASS I WILDERNESS AREAS                        ' '
By Douglas G. Fox, Ann M. Bartuska, James G. Byrne,
Ellis Cowling, Richard Fisher, Gene E. Likens,
Steven E. Lindberg, Rick A. Linthurst,
Jay Messer, and Dale S. Nichols

STRUCTURED ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY	(391)
By Douglas G. Fox

-------
       7994 UPDATE: IMPLEMENTING THE CLEAN AIR ACT
                 AN ABA SATELLITE SEMINAR
                     FEBRUARY 10, 1994


                 PRESENTATION OF TOPICS
12 Noon EST     LIVE INTERVIEW WITH ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR
                AIR PROGRAMS, MARY D. NICHOLS

12:15            BREAK

12:20            PANEL I:   Reforming the New Source Review Process
                               Andrea Bear Field, Moderator
                               Lydia N.  Wegman
                               Pamela Faggert
                               Douglas  G. Fox
                               Michael R. Barr

12:55            BREAK

 1:00            PANEL 2:   NONATTAINMENT
                               Andrea Bear Field, Moderator
                               John Seitz
                               A. Stanley Meiburg
                               Thomas M. Allen
                               David Aldorfer

 1:50            BREAK

 2:10            PANEL 3:   AIR TOXICS
                               Kathleen Bennett, Moderator
                               Bruce C. Jordan
                               Donald F. Theiler
                               David M. Driessen
                               Joseph C. Hovious

 2:55            BREAK

 3:00            PANEL 4:   PERMITTING AND ENFORCEMENT
                               Kathleen  Bennett, Moderator
                               Alan W. Eckert
                               Michael Trutna
                               Robert H. Co/torn
                               Ernie Rosenberg

3:55            National Transmission Ends


                          (i)

-------
                  1994 UPDATE: IMPLEMENTING THE CLEAN AIR ACT
                            AN ABA SATELLITE SEMINAR
                                FEBRUARY 10, 1994
                             FACULTY AND SPONSORS
 PLANNING COMMITTEE

 Andrea Bear Field
 Partner
 Hunton & Williams
 Washington, D.C.
 MODERATORS

 Andrea Bear Field
 Partner
 Hunton & Williams
 Washington, D.C.
 Gale Hoffnagle
 Past President, A&WMA
 Vice President
 TRC Environmental
 Consultants
 Hartford, Connecticut
Jeffrey Clark
Special Assistant to
the Director, Office
of Air Quality Planning
& Standards
U.S. EPA
Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina
Kathleen Bennett
Vice President, Environmental Affairs
James River Corporation
Richmond, Virginia
 FACULTY

 David M. Aldorfer
 Senior Manager
 Regulatory/Legislative
 Direction Group
 General Motors Corporation
 Detroit, Michigan

 Thomas M. Allen, P.E.
 Director, Division of Air
 Resources, New York State
 Department of Environmental
 Conservation
Albany, New York

Michael R. Ban
Partner, Pillsbury,
Madison & Sutro
San Francisco, California
Alan W. Eckert
Associate General Counsel,
Air and Radiation Division
Office of General Counsel
U.S. EPA
Washington, D.C.

Pamela Faggert
Executive Director - Air
Division,  Virginia Department
of Environmental Quality
Richmond, Virginia
Douglas G. Fox
Director, Terra Laboratory
U.S. Forest Service
Fort Collins, Colorado
                                  (ii)
Mary D. Nichols
Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation
U.S. EPA
Washington, D.C.
Ernie Rosenberg
Director of Environmental
External Affairs
Occidental Petroleum
Washington, D.C.
John Seitz
Director, Office of Air
Quality Planning and
Standards
Office of Air and Radiation
U.S.  EPA
Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina

-------
                 1994 UPDATE: IMPLEMENTING THE CLEAN AIR ACT
                           AN ABA SATELLITE SEMINAR
                               FEBRUARY 10, 1994


                                 FACULTY cont'd
Kathleen Bennett
Vice President, Environmental
Affairs
James River Corporation
Richmond, Virginia
Robert H. Co/torn
Cheif, Air Protection Branch
Environmental Protection
Division
Georgia Department of Natural
Resources
Atlanta, Georgia

David M. Driesen
Attorney
Natural Resources Defense
Council
Washington, D.C.
Joseph C. Hovious
Assistant Director,
Environmental Affairs
Union Carbide Corporation
Danbury, Connecticut
Bruce C. Jordan
Director, Emmission Standards
Division
Office of Air and Radiation
U.S. EPA
Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina

A. Stanley Meiburg
Director
Air, Pesticides & Toxics
Division
U.S. EPA
Dallas, Texas
Donald F. Theiler
Director, Bureau of Air
Management
Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources
Madison, Wisconsin

Michael Trutna
Office of Air and Radiation
U.S. EPA
Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina
Lydia Wegman
Deputy Director, Office of
Air Quality Planning and
Standards
Office of Air and Radiation
U.S. EPA
Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina
 SPONSORS

 ABA SECTION OF NATURAL RESOURCES, ENERGY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
 Frank Erisman    R. Kinnan Golemon
 Chair             Chair-Elect
 Denver, Colorado  Austin, Texas

 Philip A. Fleming  Kristy Neihaus Bulleit
 Vice Chair        CLE Officer
 Washington, D.C.  Washington, D.C.
            Donna R. Black
            Budget Officer
            Los Angeles, California

            Larry D.  Feldcamp
            Chair,  Air Quality
            Committee
            Houston, Texas
AIR &, WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION

Douglas G. Fox   Anthony J. Buonlcore    David W. Hoffman
President         First Vice President      Past President
Fort Collins,       Southport, Connecticut    Indianapolis, Indiana
Colorado
      Clyde Hampton
      Secretary
      Denver, Colorado

      Richard G. Stoll
      Chair,
      Teleconference
      Programs
      Washington, D.C.
                                   Martin E. Rivers
                                   Executive Vice
                                   President
                                   Pittsburgh,
                                   Pennsylvania

-------
                 7994 UPDATE: IMPLEMENTING THE CLEAN AIR ACT
                          AN ABA SATELLITE SEMINAR
                               FEBRUARY 10, 1994
                               SPONSORS confer
 A&WMA GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS STEERING COMMITTEE
 Leslie S. Ritts
 Chair
 Washington, D.C.

 Jerry Pell
 Washington, D.C.

 Michael H. Levin
 Washington, D.C.
 Richard D. Siegel
 Cambridge, Massachusetts
 Bruce K. Maillet
 Andover, Massachusetts

 Kenneth N. Weiss
 Exton, Pennsylvania
 Christ! Veleta
 Jacksonville, Florida
 Rao Kona
 Conshohocken, Pennsylvania

 David P. Novello
 Washington, D.C.
 A&WMA PROFESSIONAL STAFF

 Courtland P. Gould
 Developmental Program
 Manager
Robert D. Hurley
Member Services
Division Manager
ABA STANDING COMMITTEE ON CONTINUING EDUCATION OF THE BAR
 R. Clark Wadlow
 Chair
 Washington, D.C.
Douglas G. Houser
Chair
Liaison to the American Law Network
Portland, Oregon
ABA DIVISION FOR PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION
Terrence J. Brooks
Interim Director
Theresa K. Livingston
Seminars & Marketing
Coordinator
Consortium for Professional
Education
William H. Hamblin
Director
Consortium for Professional
Education
Annette J. Cook
Assistant Director
Consortium for Professional
Education
Kenneth D. Scruggs
Course Materials Coordinator
Consortium for Professional Education

-------
          1994 UPDATE:
IMPLEMENTING THE CLEAN AIR ACT
           EPA SPEAKS
          AN ABA SATELLITE SEMINAR
            FEBRUARY 10, 1994

-------
                       United States
                       Environmental Protection
                       Agency
                      Air And Radiation
                      (6102)
EPA410-K-93-001
November1993
&EPA
Implementation Strategy
For The Clean Air Act
Amendments Of 1990
Update. 1993
       INTRODUCTION

          The Environmental Protection Agency is
       committed to implementing the Clean Air Act
       (CAA) Amendments of 1990 in a manner which
       will protect health and the environment,
       minimize costs, and encourage pollution
       prevention and innovative technologies.
          The implementation of the Amendments is
       based on a two-year strategy developed and
       continually updated to inform Congress and the
       public on the status of CAA implementation
       activities.
          Since Congress passed the Amendments,
       EPA has issued over 150 proposed and final
       rules and guidance documents. When fully
       implemented in the year 2005, the CAA will
       remove an estimated 57 billion pounds of
       pollution from the air. To date EPA has
       proposed or promulgated rules that will
       account for 85 percent of those 57 billion
       pounds. Figure 1 shows emission reductions
                      addressed to date and the number of actions
                      included in the revised two-year
                      implementation strategy.

                      CAA REGULATORY/IMPLEMENTATION
                      HIGHLIGHTS

                         Under the Clinton Administration, EPA has
                      taken a number of steps to accelerate our rapid
                      implementation pace and enforce the CAA.
                      Highlights of our accomplishments from January
                      through October 1993 are as follows:

                      Title I (Non-Attainment)

                      Final Rules
                      • New source performance standards for SOCMI
                      Reactor Processes
                      • Guidelines for air quality models for SIPs
                      • PM-10 increments for PSD program
                      • Decision on ozone NAAQS
                      • Enhanced ozone monitoring
              Emissions Reductions To Date
                (In Blllloni of Pound* p*r y*»r)
                        85% Addressed To Date
                        15% To Be Addressed
                      70
                                            60
                                            50
                                            40
                                            30
                                            20
                                            10
                               Number of Major
                              Regulatory Actions
                                                1991   1992   1993    1994   199S


                                                   HI Completed  CD Proposed
                                   Figure 1
                                                               1

-------
Proposed Rules
• General conformity criteria for federal agencies
• Order of sanctions
• Economic Incentives Program

Title II (Mobile Sources)

Final Rules
• Urban bus PM standards
• Urban bus retrofit standards
• NOX standards for 1998 model year and later
heavy duty engines

Proposed Rules
• Emission standards for non-road
 engines >50 hp
• Clean fuel fleet vehicle standards
• Credit programs for heavy duty vehicles
• California Pilot test program
• Clean fuel vehicle standards for passenger cars
and light duty truck
• On-board vehicle diagnostics

Title ID (Air Toxics)

Final rules
• Dry Cleaners MACT standards
• Coke Ovens

Proposed Rules
• Procedures for approving state air toxic
programs
• Case by case MACT determinations under
section 112(j) - (MACT hammer)
• General provisions for MACT standards
• MACT standards for Chromium from
Industrial Cooling Towers

Title IV (Acid Rain)

Final rules
• Phase n utility allowance allocations

Proposed Rules
• Opt-in regulation for combustor sources

Title VI (Stratospheric Ozone Protection)

Final rules
• Section 608 refrigerant recycling program
Proposed Rules
• Federal procurement regulations for ozone
depleting chemicals
• Accelerated phase out of CFCs and listing of
methyl bromide as a Phase I ozone-depleting
substance
• Class II non-essential products ban
• Significant new alternatives program (SNAP)

Title VII (Enforcement)

Proposed Rules
• Enhanced Monitoring requirements from air
pollution sources

Studies, Reports and Guidance

• Report to Congress on Air Toxics Efforts
[Section 112(s)]
• 185B NOX/VOC Study
• Joint EPA/DOT report to Congress:  Clean Air
Through Transportation
• Guidance to states on writing emission
inventories, ozone non-attainment, and Title V
permits

Other Significant Accomplishments

• Enhanced I/M legislation - the following
eleven states have passed enhanced I/M
legislation since January, 1993: Colorado,
Connecticut, Louisiana, Maine,  Nevada, New
Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island,
Texas, Virginia.
• Operating Permits Legislation - 48 states have
enacted operating permits legislation.  EPA has
to determine whether all the  legislation meets
the standards.
• EPA is working with the Small Business
Administration on an MOU implementing
Section 507, the Small Business Assistance
Program.
• EPA settled an $11.1 million enforcement
action against Louisiana Pacific Corporation.
This is the largest penalty EPA has collected
ever under the Clean Air Act and the  second
largest civil penalty under any environmental
statute. The settlement also resulted in industry
agreement to install new state-of-the-art controls
built by American workers that will result in

-------
about 22,000 tons of reductions of volatile
organic compounds, particulate matter, and
carbon monoxide from 11 wood panel facilities
nationwide.
• Voluntary Emission Reduction Programs - The
Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) initiated
innovative voluntary  programs that reduce
emissions of greenhouse gases, including carbon
dioxide and methane, and other air pollutants.
Three of these non-regulatory "Green Programs"
promote use of energy-efficient lighting,
building energy systems and computers. Other
programs will encourage reduction in emissions
from natural gas transmission and distribution;
assist in the profitable capture of methane from
coal beds during and prior to mining; and
encourage steps to prevent water and air
pollution from feedlot waste stored in lagoons.
In each program, emissions reductions are
achieved through private-public partnerships
with businesses and other organizations. The
Green Programs are an example of how we are
working cooperatively with the private sector to
arrive at economically attractive ways to protect
the environment while improving productivity
and competitiveness.
 • Market-Based Programs - The Clean Air  Act
has stimulated demand for pollution prevention
and control technologies, and in the process has
created new business opportunities and jobs in
the billion-dollar air pollution control industry.
We are working with the Department of
Commerce and the business  community to
identify these business opportunities.  OAR has
established a database to document the vast
array of technological advances and new
business and export ventures that have arisen
since passage of the Amendments. OAR is also
developing regulations that give sources
flexibility on ways to comply and encourage
prevention and innovative technologies. OAR
will encourage market-based solutions, such as
those that the Congress wrote into the acid rain
provisions of the Clean Air Act The emissions
trading market under the program is now
developing; we expect this market will provide a
model for future market-based systems.
IMPLEMENTATION GOALS

   As we move forward to fulfill our obligations
under the Clean Air Act there are four major
principles that will guide our efforts:

L  Enhance EPA's partnerships to work with
state and local governments.

   As more rulemaking occurs, state and local
   governments bear ever greater responsibility
   for implementing requirements ranging from
   the new operating permit program to
   enhanced vehicle inspection-and-maintenance
   programs.  We need to build true
   partnerships with state and local
   governments.

n. Seek to eliminate the adversarial nature of
the rulemaking and regulatory process.

   An important part of public outreach effort is
   to encourage consensus through broad public
   consultation with outside parties. We must
   reach out to all who have an interest in and
   are affected by our rules and regulations.
    Encourage pollution prevention and
innovative technologies for reducing pollution.

   Where possible we will encourage solutions
   such as our proposed industrial process
   cooling tower rule that eliminates chromium
   emissions through a change in feedstocks, not
   through end-of-pipe controls.

IV. Examine the environmental justice
questions associated with implementing the
Clean Air Act

   We will initiate projects to identify and
   reduce air pollution that is disproportionately
   affecting the  poor and people of color.
   Earlier in the year OAR held a public meeting
   in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, to discuss our
   proposed toxic rule on the chemical
   manufacturing industry (HON) with the local
   communities affected by air pollution and to
   provide them with an opportunity to express
   their concerns about the proposed rule.

-------
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

   The implementation of the CAA is based on a
strategy which outlines the regulatory agenda
that will serve to guide our activities in the most
effective manner for the forthcoming two year
period.  The strategy document (Attachment A)
contains a chart showing OAR's schedule for
carrying out the law through December 1995, as
well as those actions already completed.
   The chart is reprinted below with changes to
bring it up-to-date. For each entry/ the chart
shows the following information:

   •    whether or not the action has been
        completed, and if so, when
   •    the Agency's current target date for
        completion of planned actions
   •    the statutory deadline for the action, if
        one exists

   The chart contains  most but not all significant
actions needed to carry out the 1990
Amendments through December 1995.  The chart
does not include, for example, some of the
requirements implemented by EPA offices other
than the Office of Air and Radiation, such as the
Office of Research and Development Target
dates for future actions are subject to change
based on new risk assessments, court decisions,
changes in available resources and other factors.
   The remainder of this report will focus on the
Agency's communication/outreach efforts.

OAR OUTREACH TOOLS/PUBLICATIONS

   One of  OAR's primary goals in implementing
the Clean Air Act is to reach out to all affected
parties and help them understand the
implications of the Amendments. OAR has
developed and distributed a series of learning
tools mat can be used to understand the
complexities of the amendments. These include
brochures, citizen guides, slide presentations,
telephone hotlines, interactive computer bulletin
boards,  and a number of public service
announcements.  A partial list highlighting
current OAR's communication  tools follows.
The listing is part of an OAR publication entitled
"OAR Outreach/Communication Tools" which
can be obtained by contacting Jeanette Brandon
at (202) 260-7400.

GENERAL INFORMATION - WRITTEN
MATERIALS (October 1993)

The Plain English Guide to the Clean Air Act -

  Published April 1993. Explains in non-
  technical, straightforward language the
  provisions of the Clean Air Act of 1990 and
  how they will clean the air.  [Contact NCEPI
  (513) 891-6561].

What You Can Do To Reduce Air Pollution -

  Published October 1992. A citizen's guide to
  what individuals can do to help meet the
  goals of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
  1990. Also outlines the causes and effects of
  air pollution. [Contact NCEPI (513) 891-
  6561].

The Clean Air Act of 1990: An Introductory
Guide to Smart Implementation —

  Published by the Clean Air Act Advisory
  Committee in May 1992. A concise five page
  guide, written in layperson's terms, which
  covers the background, benefits, and
  philosophy of the new Clean Air Act.

The Clean Air Act of 1990: A Primer on
Consensus-Building -

  Published summer 1992. Outlines
  collaborative decision-making processes to
  assist agencies, organizations, and individuals
  embarking on consensus-building activities in
  the implementation of the Clean Air Act.

The Clean Air Act of 1990: A Guide to Public
Financing Options ~

  Published November 1992. Outlines ways for
  state and local governments to meet the
  funding obligations of the Clean Air Act of
  1990, both within current air program
  financing arrangements and within the
  provisions of the Act.

-------
The Clean Air Marketplace -

   First issue published in June 1993. Periodic
   newsletter on business opportunities created
   by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.
   [Contact Steve Harper (202) 260-5580]

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990: Detailed
Summary of Titles -

   Published in 1990. A highly detailed and
   relatively technical treatment of Titles I
   thrpugh XI  of the Clean Air Act. [Contact
   NCEPI (513) 891-6561].

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990:
Overview Summary Materials ~

   Published on November 15,1990. Contains
   an overview of the Clean Air Act
   Amendments of 1990, one page summaries of
   the key titles, a glossary of terms, and a
   legislative chronology. This document can
   serve as useful background, but has not been
   recently updated.

Clean Air Update -

   A 2-3 page document, published monthly,
   with information on upcoming public
   meetings, upcoming regulatory actions,
   reports, and major Federal Register notices.
   [Contact: Heidi Farber (202) 260-2632]

Implementation Strategy for the Clean Air Act
Amendments  of 1990 -

   Published on January 15,1991. Summarizes
   plans to implement the  Clean Air Act
   Amendments of 1990 within the timeframes
   set by Congress. Multi-year document.
   [Contact: Heidi Farber (202) 260-2632]

Update of Implementation Strategy for the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 ~

   Published July 1992.
EPA Journal, "The New Clean Air Act What it
Means to You" (Vol. 17, No. 1) -

   Published in January/February 1991 by the
   Office of Communications, Education and
   Public Affairs. The entire edition of the
   Journal is devoted to discussions of various
   issues concerning the new Clean Air Act.
   [Contact NCEPI (513) 891-6561].

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990: A
Guide for Small Businesses -

   Published September 1992. Explains how the
   various parts of the Clean Air Act
   Amendments can affect small businesses and
   how small businesses can obtain information
   and assistance. [Contact NCEPI (513) 891-
   6561].

GENERAL INFORMATION - OTHER
FORMATS

Technology Transfer Network (TIN): Clean Air
Act Computer Bulletin Board —

   A system of integrated electronic bulletin
   boards.  The Bulletin Board is run by the
   Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
   and contains general documents, rules, and
   guidance documents that can be accessed
    electronically by the public.  The system
   allows users to call in from anywhere in the
   world and download information on air
   quality models, air inventories, recently
   signed rules, and extensive information on
   operating permits, including model permits -
   all for the price of a phone call. A one page
   instruction sheet on how to access the bulletin
   board is available. [Bulletin Board Number
   (919) 541-5742 (8 bits, no parity, 1 stop bit,
   VT100 emulation) Contact: Jerry Mersch (919)
   541-5635]
Slide Presentation
Marketplace -
The Clean Air
                                                   "The Clean Air Act: Spurring Innovation,
                                                   Jobs, and Exports". Slides and talking points

-------
on tine relationships between clean air and the
economy. [Contact: Steve Harper (202) 260-5580]

Videotapes -

   PBS Teleconference on the Clean Air Act

   The Legal Winds of Change: Business and the
   New dean Air Act, broadcast on November
   28,1990. Tape of a videoconference in which
   panelists explain provisions of the 1990 Clean
   Air Act and their implications for business
   and the environment (Limited quantities
   available.) [Contact NOSPI (513) 891-6561].
Air and Waste Management
Association/American Bar Association
Teleconferences on the Clean Air Act —

   Update: Implementing the Clean Air Act -
   EPA Speaks, broadcast in February 1991,
   1992, and 1993.  Satellite seminars in which
   four panels address different aspects of the
   1990 Clean Air Act. Each panel features key
   decision makers from EPA, as well as
   representatives from industry, state
   governments, and the major environmental
   groups. [Contact: The American Bar
   Association, Division for Professional
   Education; one copy available for loan from
   Heidi Farber (202) 260-2632]

-------
                                                                             ATTACHMENT A
                    The Clean Air Act Implementation Strategy
                                  (Revised October 1993)

Dec-90


J*v01





MMH

Mar-91



Apr-91


May-91











Title 1 - Nonattalnment



Title 1 - Nonattainment


Title VI - CFCs

Title 1 - Nonattainment

Title 1 - Nonattainment

Title VI - CFCs

Title 1 - Nonattainment


Title 1 - Nonattainment


Title 1 - Nonattainment

Title II - Mobile Sources






IS : : I1S21S

Issue 'Getting Started" letter to Governors
States submit request/Justification for 5 % classification adjustments
Publish two-year implementation strategy

Publish notice of initial PM-10 moderate nonattainment areas
Initiate additional PM-10. SO,, lead designation process

Listing of depleting substances

Act on 5% classification adjustment requests

States submit nonattainment area designations

Direct final 1991 production limits

States submit PM-10 areas unable to attain by 1994
States respond to list of PM-10, SC^, lead nonattainment areas

States deadline for PACT corrections
Notify States of intent to modify suggested boundaries

Convene NE ozone transport commission

Finalize gasoline Reid Vapor Pressure regulations
Finalize Tier 1 car and truck standards
Propose reformulated gasoline requirements
Propose clean fuels fleet and CA pilot credit programs
Propose urban bus regulations
Prooose emission control diagnostic rule
fpp&^'

Y
Y
Y

Y
Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y
Y

Partial
Y

Y

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
'"" '^SfiriK'^'S'-i^iPw


Oec-90





Jan-91

Feb-91

Mar-91







May-91

May-91

May-91
May-91




These dates are subject to change based on new risk assessments, court decisions, and changes in available resources.

-------
                       The Clean Air Act Implementation Strategy
                                  (Revised October 1993)


Msy«1



Jurvfll



JuWI



Sep<1


OcWI



No*91








Oo«1


j|l||:I:: ;:;|l
Title IV • Acid Rain

Title V - Permit

TWe III - Air Toxics



Trtto II - Mobil* Sources

Title VII • Enforcement

Title VI - CFCs


Title 1 - Nonattainment

Title II • Mobile Sources

TWe 1 • Nonattainment






Title III • Air Toxics

TitJe 1 • Nonattainment

'r""'i:
.

Propose regulations for auctions and sales

Propose State permit regulations

Publish draft list of source categories
Propose list of high risk pollutants, 90/95% early reductions guidance
Propose early reductions rulemaking

Propose lead substitute gasoline additives

Propose administrative penalties rules of practice

Propose CFC phase-out regulations
Propose mobile air conditioning recycling regulations

Publish VOC and CO emission Inventory guidance

Publish study on non-road engines

Publish guidance on control cost-effectiveness
States submit PM-10 SIPs
Publish air quality and emission trends report
Establish Grand Canyon visibility transport commission
Propose PM-10 area reclassffications
Finalize ozone, CO, PM-10, and lead nonattainment boundaries

Propose MACT for dry cleaners (per court order)

ProDOse outer continental shelf rule
f^fS^^iiiOS


Y



Y
Y
Y

Y

Y

Y
Y

Y

Y

Y
Partial
Y
Y
Y
Y

Y

Y








Jul-91











Nov-91

Nov-91
Nov-91

Nov-91
Jun-91
Jul-91




8

-------
The Clean Air Act Implementation Strategy
           (Revised October 1993)
BUB
4 csjs&SJjjjji
I Dso«1






JMttt



Fsb-82

Mar-82


Apr-02




M*«2





Jun-92




TOe IV- Acid Rain






Title V - Permits

TWevl-CFCs

into VII - Enfbfcofflont

TWe II - Mobile Sources


Tlaljfc 1 hL-»rt»*imIjLi i»r*l
i nw i • nonauainrnvrn


TWe II - Mobile Sources

Title 1 - Norattainment

THto II • Mobile Sources

TWevl-CFCs

TWe VI - CFCs



llifllflp " :-; " i"'' S ' ' :; .;.::;:.;;>:;-x ;.::,. :»: ; >: '.•-.• . } ;. ;.;!;:; ;i!:^^^^

HnaHze regulations for auctions and sales
Propose allowance trading system
Propose add rain permit program


Propose excess emissions rules
„_


Publish guidance on State programs to assist small businesses

Propose ban on non-essential products

Finalize administrative penalties rules of practice

Finalize onboard controls regulatory decision


Publish Titie 1 General Preamble
Propose rules for ozone, NQ,, and VOC monitoring

Propose rule on reformulated gasoline SNPRM (supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking)

Publish guidance on TCM's (transportation control measi-es)

Finalize cold temperature CO standards

Propose CFC labeling regulations

Finalize mobile air conditioning recycling regulations



Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

Y

Y

Y

Y


Y
Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y



Nov-91












Nov-91





Nov-91

Nov-91

Nov-91



Nov-91


-------
                      The Clean Air Act Implementation Strategy
                                  (Revised October 1993)

J£4B












Aug42

Sap-02





OMB





Nwtt





Title II - Mobile Sources

Title III - Air Toxics

Trtte IV - Add Rain

Title V - Permits

Title VI - CFCs

Title I - Nonattainment

Title I - Nonattainment



TrUe III - Air Toxics

Title I - Nonattainment

TrUe II - Mobile Sources

Tftie III - Air Toxics

Title I - Nonattainment



Revise two-y*ar implementation strategy

StalM submit SIPs for Initial SC^ nonattainment anas

Propose enhanced I/M regulation

Publish final list of source categories

Propose list of Phase II utility allowances

Finalize State permit regulations

Finalize CFC phase-out regulation

Finalize guidance on transportation air quality planning

Propose additional PM-10 nonattainment areas
Propose discretionary sanction rules
Finalize outer continental shelf rules

Propose regulatory schedule for all source categories

Publish 1991 air quality data and emission trends report

Finalize oxygenated fuel credit guideline

Propose MACT for hazardous organic chemical manufacturing

States.aubmit RACT catch-up rules, NSR rules, CO attainment demonstration
and contingency measures


Y

Partial

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y
Y
Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Partial




May-92



Nov-91

Dec-91

Nov-91

Sept-91

Aug-91



Nov-91





Aug-91



Nov-92

10

-------
The Clean Air Act Implementation Strategy
           (Revised October 1993)


No*ae








Dec-flC









JMV03











TWj I - Nonattainment




Title II - Mobile Sources

Title IV -Add Rain

Title 1 • Nonattainment

Title II • Mobile Sources


TMe III - Air Toxics


Title VI - CFCs

THIe 1 - Nonattainment


Title II - Mobile Sources







;

States submit small business assistance programs
States submit base ozone, CO emission inventories
Finalize PM-10 BACM technical guidance
Publish TMe I Nq, guidance

Rnalize enhanced I/M regulation

Propose NQ, requirements for Group 1 utility boilers

Publish alternative control technology document for VOCs from bakeries

Propose revisions to motor vehicle certification procedures (certification short
test)
Rnalize California pilot credit program

Propose MACT for coke ovens
Rnalize early reductions rulemaking

Propose emission reduction program

Approve/disapprove first PM-10 SIPs
Rnalize PM-1Q area ^classifications

Rnalize vehicle evaporative emissions regulations
Rnalize emission control diagnostic rule
Publish draft mobile source air toxics study
Propose reformulated gasoline complex model
Rnalize dean fuels fleet (TCM's)




Partial
Partial
Y
Y

Y

Y

Y

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y

Partial
Y

Y
Y
Y

Y

}
iaani^HB
iM-* !

Nov-92
Nov-92
May-92


Nov-91



Nov-93


Nov-91




Jan-92

Jan-93
Dec-91

Aug-93
May-92


Nov-91

                    5
                                                             11

-------
                       The Clean Air Act Implementation Strategy
                                   (Revised October 1993)
ite£:;.:

JMV03









FiM3












Mv-flS








w
TrUe III • Air Toxics

Title IV -Add Rain





TWeVI-CFCs

Title I - Nonattalnment


,
Title II - Mobile Sources


Title IV -Add Rain

TWeVl-CFCs

THJe VII - Enforcement

Title 1 - Nonattalnment



Title II - Mobile Sources



u


Propose list of substances for accidental releases prevention program

Finalize excess emission requirements
Finalize allowance trading system
Finalize continuous emission monitoring requirements
Finalize conservation and renewable Incentives
Finalize add rain permit program

Finalize ban nonessential products

Finalize rules for ozone, NQ,, VOC enhanced monitoring
Propose economic Incentive rules
Propose transportation conformity criteria

Finalize urban bus 94+ (PM standard)
Finalize procedures of enforcement for urban bus standards

Sources submit Phase 1 permit applications and proposed compliance
plans

Finalize CFC labeling regulations

Propose rules for citizen suits

Issue draft 185B report
0. -<-


Finalize urban bus retrofit
Finalize procedures of enforcement for urban bus standards




Y

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

Y


Y
Y

Y
Y

Y

Y

Y

Y



Y
Y


, -i^^-MSm
MvDMBflBHK^ I
KsTOr-B-raratSHwRjwwyj!;*
__J


May-92
May-92
May-92
May-92
May-92

Nov-91

May-92



Jan-92
May-92

Feb-93

May-92







Nov-91
May-92

                                           6
12

-------
                                     Hie Clean Air Act Implementation Strategy
                                                     (Revised October 1993)
Msf-03    ™« IV - Add Rain
                                        Initiate auctions and tale* of allowances
                                                                                                                           Mar-93
                                        Finalize list of Phase II utility allowances
                                                                                                                           Dec-92
                                        Raking by lottery of Phase I extension applications
          Title VI-CFCs
                             Propose procurement regulations
                                                                                                                           May-92
                                        Propose accelerated CFC phase-out
          TrUe I - Nonattalnment
                                        States submit lead SIPs (18 months from designation)
                                                                                                   Partial
                                                                                                                Jul-93
                                        Publish alternative control technology document for VOCs from pesticide
                                        applications                                    	
                                                                                                                Nov-93
          Title II. Mobile Sources
                                        Publish final mobile source related air toxics study
                                                                                                                May-92
                                        Propose non-road emission standards >50 hpr.
                                                                                                                Nov-92
          Title III - Air Toxics
                                        Propose guidance for State air toxics program 112(1)
          True VI - CFCs
                                        Finalize emission reduction program (Section 608)
                                                                                                                Jan-92
May-93
TrUe I - Nonattainment
                                        PM-10 PSD Increments (11/92 court agreement)
          TrUe II - Mobile Sources
                                       Propose dean fuel fleet vehicle standards, conversions and general
                                       provisions	
                                                                                                                Nov-92
          Title VI - CFCs
                                       Propose safe alternatives
                                                                                                                Nov-92
          Title II - Mobile Sources
                                       Propose California pilot, dean vehicle standards, and opt-in provisions
          Title III - Air Toxics
                                       Propose rule on case-by-case MACT determination 112Q)
                                       Propose rules for risk management plans and prevention programs (OSWER)
                                                                                                                             13

-------
                       The Clean Air Act Implementation Strategy
                                  (Revised October 1993)
4 '•.-' VL_
KsBBi>>:'-:--:>*
i§"^iI«HI
JurHB

JuM8





Aug-83











Ssp«3











TrtteVI-CFC*

THto I • Nonattalnment

THIe III - Mr Toxics

TTC« (V - Add Rain

Titto I - Nonattainment



TWe II - Mobil* Sources

Trtte III - Air Toxics



THJe IV - Add Rain

THto I - Nonattainment

THto III - Air Toxics


TOe IV - Add Rain


Htw vu - cniorooffwnt



^3 ^Mro^'^'' ••••-.: ' : . • : "'''^^^^^i
}••:. '"'. • • :' !• -."• ...• ^If&liKi^jj^ii^

Propose Class II Non-essential ban

Publish 185B NCt/VOC study

Complete study of the hazards of hydrofluoric add (OSWER)

Begin submission of applications for Energy Conservation & Renewable Reserve

Publish SOCMI distillation processes CTG
Publish SOCMI reactor processes CTQ
Publish SOCMI batch processes CTG

Submit transportation systems report to Congress

Propose general provisions for MACT standards
Propose MACT for Industrial cooling towers
Section 112(s) Report

Draft add rain permits issued for public comment

Propose Certification Program for solid waste and fossil-fuel combustor
operators (OSWER)

Finalize MACT for dry deaners
r»_
Propose permits for early reduction sources

Propose opt-In regulations - combustion sources

Propose rules for enhanced monitoring





Y



Y





Y

Y
Y


Y



Y








Nov-91

Feb-92

Nov-92



Nov-93
Nov-93
Nov-93











Nov-92






                                           8
14

-------
The Clean Air Act Implementation Strategy
           (Revised October 1993)

O*B3
















Nov-S3













Title I - Nonattainment


Title II • Mobile Source*


Trtto III - Air Toxics



Title IV - Acid Rain


TrttoVI-CFCs

Tffle VIII • Miscellaneous

Title I - Nonattainment




Title II - Mobile Sources

Title III - Air Toxics







Publish air quality and emission trends report
Finalize additional PM-10 and SO, nonattainment areas

Finalize revisions to motor vehicle certification procedures (I/M short test)
Finalize testing protocols for fuels and additives

Propose MACT for pulp and paper
Publish study of hydrogen sulfide emissions from extracting natural gas and oil
Finalize MACT for coke ovens

Finalize NCI requirements for utility boilers
Begin issuing allowances to small diesel refineries

Finalize procurement regulation

Section 81 1 Report (International Competiveness)

States receive emission source statements
Publish alternative control technology documents for NQ, sources
States submit selected SIP provisions for moderate and above ozone areas
finalize general conformity criteria

Propose detergent additive regulations

Submit Great Lakes study report to Congress
Issue urban area strategy • research report
finalize rules for risk management plans and prevention programs







Y



Y
Y

























Nov-91



Nov-92
Dec-92

May-92
Oct-93

May-92

May-92

Nov-93
Nov-93
Nov-93




Nov-93
Nov-93
Nov-93


                   9
                                                            15

-------
                       The Clean Air Act Implementation Strategy
                                  (Revised October 1993)


Ncw-93



















Daott












Trtte III - Air Toxics





Title IV - Add Rain



Title V - Permits

TOe VI-CFCs





Tttle VIII - Miscellaneous

Title I - Nonattainmerrt



Title II - Mobile Sources



Title III • Air Toxics



" : v ' : :-•-•. : .': : ;

Publish guidance for state air toxics programs 1 120)
Propose MACT for chromium electroplating
Finalize list of substances for accidental releases prevention program
Rnallze regulatory schedule for all source categories
Propose Degreasing MACT

States submit add rain permit program proposals
Promulgate SQj new source performance standards (NSPS) for new fossil
fuel utility units
EPA action on final Phase I permits

States submit operating permit programs

Finalize CFC phase-out
Finalize Class II Non-essential Ban


Propose rules for field citation

Issue report on the impact of the 1990 CM Amendments on visibility

Propose Part C & D new source review requirements
Finalize economic incentives rules
Finalize discretionary sanctions rules

Finalize reformulated gasoline regulations
Finalize reformulated gasoline complex model
Finalize CNG/LPG vehicle standards

Propose guidance for modification provisions



































lilMHii

Nov-91

Nov-92
Nov-92


Nov-83
Nov-93
Aug-93

Nov-93


Nov-91







Nov-92



Nov-91




                                          10
16

-------
The Clean Air Act Implementation Strategy
           (Revteed October 1993)
HB^H
••
f""1*""™'"^^
Oso«


Jan*


















Feb-«4






IHralHini
jjjJiim&Ss^^BBm
TM* \IH PfAliyian
* VH * enforcement


TWe 1 - Norattalnnwnt


THto II • Mobile Sources

Tlte III - Air Toxics






TWelV-AcldRaln

Title VI-CFCs


Title VII • Enforcement

TW« III - Air Toxics






IPlft

PropOM ruto for contractor listing
PropOM ruto for morwtvy awvards


findings)
Approvs/disapprov* ozons & CO submittals du* 11/92

HnaRzs on-board rafuellno vapor recovery regulations

Deliver program-specialized Inspection training course at three regional
locations (radlonudldes)
Develop inspection manual and training materials for coke ovens
Issue HAP list petition procedure guidance
Propose standards for large MWC's
Propose standards for small MWC's
Propose Stage 1 gasoline marketing MACT

Promulgate NQ, NSPS for fossil fuel-fired boilers (utility and nonutility units)

Enhance regional compliance components
Finalize safe alternatives program

Prepare clarification guidance for EPA supplementary environmental project for
air

Propose MACT for solid waste TSDF


Finalize MACT for hazardous organic chemical manufacturing
Propose MACT for magnetic tape coating
Finalize general provisions for MACT standards




































Jun-93
Jan-94




Nov-93

Nov-91
Nov-92


Jan-94

Nov-92






Nov-92



                  11
                                                          17

-------
                       The Clean Air Act Implementation Strategy
                                  (Revised October 1993)
K&SSSafcSKWwSix
ill&R^iiiii
I " '-;3»88§llls
Ub*Jft4






Apr-»4


















htey-04







THto II - Mobile Sources

Title IV - Add Rain

TWe 1 - Nonattalnment





Title II - Mobile Sources



Title III - Air Toxics



TWe IV - Add Rain


THIe VII - Enforcement

Tftte 1 - Nonattainment




HHPTa-. J^^^^^,

Publish web offset lithography CTG
Submit consumer/commercial products study report to Congress

Propose revision for federal test procedures

Conduct second allowance auction

Publish petroleum/Industrial wastewater CTG
Publish plastic parts coating CTG
Publish storage tanks CTG
Propose tank vessel rule
Publish results of ozone design value study

Propose non-road emission standards < 25 HP - Phase 1
Finalize dean fuel fleet vehide standards, conversions, and general provisions
Finalize California pilot, dean vehide standards, and opt-in provisions

Propose MACT for polymers and resins II
Final permits for early reduction sources
Finalize case-by-case MACT determinations 112Q)

Certify continuous emissions monitors for Phase I units
Begin Issuing allowances to small diesel refineries

Finalize rules for citizen suits

RedaMify marginal ozone areas failing to attain by 11/93
Propose NSR Simplification rule

|ga89&j9££Biii&

































Nov-93
Nov-93



Mar-94

Nov-93
Nov-93
Nov-93

Nov-93

Nov-92



Nov-94








May-94


                                          12
18

-------
The Clean Air Act Implementation Strategy
           (Revised October 1993)
fejm«silliiss
s&SSR??' §§§§
! ;.:::-J:; :-:•':« :t:
••'•":»;:?:'«<<'»
i^H-A
N^FV*









Jun-94













JuW4







Tite II • Mobile Sourem

Tite III - Air Toxics



Tite IV - Add Rain

Titio V - Permits

rite 1 - Nonattalnmant


Tite II - Mobil* Sources




Tite III - Air Toxics



Title IV - Acid Rain

Tite III - Air Toxics





IL^^islllllllIlilMiP^ :'v::'-'^-: •'.-'•:•••:'•.."••• • ' '•';•:•"•''
l8l;|liBlllll11llif?l;:;:;; ': • ' ' '••- "

Finalize non-road emissions standards tor >50 HP diesel engines

Publish draft risk assessment and management commission report
Propose MACT for secondary lead smelters
Submit MAS study to Congress

Propose NQ, NSPS for new fossil fuel utility units (407(c)]

Propose Federal operating permit regulations

Approve/disapprove lead SIPs due 4/93
States implement Phase II of the enhanced ozone monitoring network

Report to Congress on the Cal. low-emissions vehicle
Propose locomotive emissions standards
Finalize lead substitute gasoline additives
Proposed mobile source air toxics regulation

Develop inspection manual and training materials for medical waste
incinerators
Propose medical waste incinerator rule
Propose MACT for Petroleum refineries

Prepare implementation guidance for Phase II - affected units

Propose MACT for aerospace industry
Promulgate industrial cooling towers standards
Propose MACT for shipbuilding (surface coating)
Propose MACT for printing/publishing industry
Prooose asbestos MACT
ftftOfttflL:;::;-.--
Illllflllll


































May-94

May-93





Jun-94


Jun-94

Nov-91













                   13
                                                            19

-------
                      The Clean Air Act Implementation Strategy

l||PPs*W':>:
i*'
*£*«

8qpM











OoMM








Mw4M





.: -. ,..v;:-
:






TrUe III - Air Toxics


Title IV - Add Rain

Title VII - Enforcement


Title 1 - Nonattainment

Titte II - Mobile Sources

Title III • Air Toxics

Title IV - Add Rain


Title 1 - Nonattainment


Title III - Air Toxics



S

Publish surface coal mining study

Produce inspection and compliance checklists tor new CTGs completed in
FY1993

Propose non-road emission standards for marine engines

Final certification program for solid waste and fossil-fuel combustor
operators
Develop inspection manual and training materials for dry deaners

Finalize Opt-In Regulation - Combustion Sources

Finalize rules for enhanced monitoring
Finalize rules for monetary awards

Publish air quality and emission trends report

Finalize detergent additive regulations

Finalize guidance for modifications provisions

Propose opt-in regulations - process sources
Publish final add deposition standards study

Publish wood furniture CTG
States submit ozone SIP's demonstrating attainment

Promulgate MACT chromium electroplating

































Nov-83



Nov-92




May-92

Nov-92






May-92


Nov-93

Nov43


Nov-92

20
                                        14

-------
The Clean Air Act Implementation Strategy
           (Revised October 1993)


No*04











Dec-04

Jen-85

Fetors

Mar-96



Apr-05



May-95











Title V - Permits

Trtto VU - Enforcement


Tito I - Nonattainment

Title VII - Enforcement

THto III - Air Toxics

Trde 1 - Nonattainment

Title IV - Add Rain

Title 1 - Nonattainment

Title IV • Add Rain

Title 1 - Nonattainment



| • ; : : : - : 111
Submit mercury study to Congress
Submit risk assessment and management commission report to Congress
Promulgate MACT for 25% of source category list (includes about 30
categories)
Promulgate MACT for commercial sterilizers
Promulgate degreasing MACT
Promulgate Stage 1 gasoline marketing MACT
Finalize MACT for magnetic tape coatings

Finalize Federal operating permit program

Finalize guidance/rule for field citations
Issue enhanced monitoring reference document

Finalize Part C & D new source review requirements

Finalize rule for contractor listing

Finalize MACT for polymers and resins II

Propose auto body refmishing

Conduct third allowance auction

Finalize tank vessel rule

Finalize NQ, NSPS for new fossil fuel utility units [407(c)j

Final NSR Simplification rule


'•:':••• :'..






























: .;•,;:,,:':

Nov-94
Nov-94

Nov-94
Nov-94
Nov-94










Nov-94



Mar-95








                   15
                                                             21

-------
                       The Clean Air Act Implementation Strategy
                                  (Revised October 1993)
p
ltay-85







Jun-65




JuM5





Atie4S



Ssp-95

0*96





Tttle II - Mobil* Sources


Title III - Air Toxics


Title IV - Acid Rain

Title III - Air Toxics


Title VII - Enforcement

Title III - Air Toxics



Title rV-AcW Rain

Title III - Air Toxics



Title III - Air Toxics

Tttle 1 - Nonattalnmerrt

Title IV - Add Rain



Ht

Finalize non-road emission standards for < 25 HP SI engines
Finalize mobile source air toxics regulations

Promulgate asbestos MACT
Final MACT for secondary lead smelters

Certify continuous emissions monitors for Phase II units

Promulgate medical waste incineration standards
Finalize MACT for petroleum refineries

Update enhanced monitoring referencing document

Final MACT for aerospace industry
Final MACT for printing/publishing industry
Final MACT for shipbuilding (surface coatings)

Propose NQ, requirements for Group 2 utility boilers

State must submit plans for implementing MWC standards
Develop inspection manual and training materials for Stage 1 vapor
recovery systems
Develop inspection manual and training materials for industrial cooling

Promulgate paper & pulp MACT

Publish air quality and emission trends report

Finalize opt-in regulations - process sources








































Nov-94



Nov-94





Nov-94
Nov-94

Jan-95

Nov-94



Nov-94





22
                                         16

-------
                       The Clean Air Act Implementation Strategy
                                     (Revised October 1993)
THto II • Mobile Sources
                         Finalize marine engine emission standards
                         Finalize locomotive emission standards
 Nov-95
THto III • Air Toxics
                         Study of electric utilities generating units
Nov-93
                                               17
                                                                                                    23

-------
                                                    ERRATA
                                                     (November 1993)
                 These proposed and final rule dates were incorrectly listed in the Implementation Strategy.
          Title
    Date*
                                                         Activity
Statutory
Deadline
         Title II -
             Mobile Sources

         Tide HI - Air Toxics

         Title HI - Air Toxics

         Title ffl - Air Toxics

         Title IV - Acid Ram


         Title IV - Acid Rain
         Tide IV - Acid Rain



         Tide VI - CFCs

         Tide VI - CFCs
    4/94            Finalize testing protocols for fuels
                    additives

    11/94           Propose standards for large MWCs       Nov-91

    11/94           Propose standards for small MWCs       Nov-92

     5/95           Propose medical waste incinerator rule

     2/94           Finalize NOX requirements for            May-92
                    utility boilers

    Delete          Promulgate NOX NSPS for fossil fuel-     Jan-94
     1/94           fired boilers (utility & nonudlity
                    units) - Listed twice; current date
                    is 5/94

  Schedule          Promulgate SO2 new source performance  Nov-93
under review        standards (NSPS) for new fossil fuel
                    utility units - Listed as 11/93

    2/94            Finalize safe alternatives program          Nov-92

    1/94            Finalize Class II Non-essential Ban        Nov-91
                These daces are subject to change based on new risk assessments, court decisions, and changes in available
                                                             resources.
24

-------
                                          UMENTS PUBLISHED
                                      1993
Notice

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone;
Labeling Supplemental Proposal (Notice
of Proposed Rule/3348)

Acid Rain Program; Permits and Allowance
Permits and Allowance System Proposed
Regulations (Change in Public Comment
Period for the Proposed Revisions to the
Rules/3319)

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone; Ban of
Nonessential Products Containing Class II
Ozone-Depleting Substances Under Section
610(d) of the CAA, as Amended (Notice of
Final Rule/3267)

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone; Amend the
Class I Nonessential Products Ban Published
in the FR of 1/15/93, and Promulgated Under
Section 610(b) of the CAA, as Amended
(Direct Final Rule/3385)

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone; Establish
Baseline Production & Consumption Allowances
for Chemicals (methyl bromide and  hydro-
bromofluorocarbons) Added to List of Class I
Ozone-Depleting Substances in FR Signed
11/30/93 and Published 12/10/93 (Notice of
Final Rule/3374)

Control Techniques Guideline Document;
Industrial Wastewater (Release of draft CTG
document for public review)

Control Techniques Guideline Document;
Batch Process (Release of draft CTG document
for public review)
Date Published

December 30,1993



December 30,1993
December 30, 1993
December 30, 1993
December 30, 1993
December 29,1993
December 29,1993
                                                                                  25

-------
       Federal Operating Permit Programs; Permits
       for Early Reductions Sources (Notice of
       Proposed Rule/3942)

       Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles
       and New Motor Vehicle Engines; Nonconformance
       Penalties for Heavy-Duty Engines and Heavy-Duty
       Vehicles, Including Heavy Light-Duty Trucks
       (Notice of Final Rule/2801)
December 29,1993
December 28,1993
       Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives; Renewable
       Oxygenate Requirement for Reformulated Gasoline
       (Notice of Proposed Rule/3395)

       State Implementation Plans for Lead Nonattainment
       Areas; Addendum to the General Preamble for the
       Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments
       (3278)

       Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning
       Purposes (Final Action to Redesignate Areas
       as Nonattainment for PM-10 and Sulfur Dioxide
       NAAQS/3144)

       Amendments to the National Emission  Standards
       for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source
       Categories; Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning
       Facilities (Notice of Final Rule/2360)

       Environmental Radiation Protection Standards
       for the Management & Disposal of Spent Nuclear
       Fuel, High-Level and Transuranic Radioactive
       Wastes  (Notice of Final Rule/2590)

       Certification Testing and Selective Enforcement
       Audit Testing Waivers for on-Highway Heavy-Duty
       Diesel Engine Smoke Standards (Direct Final
       Rule/3153)

       National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
       Pollutants, Off-Site Waste Operations (Advance
       Notice of Proposed Rulemaking)
December 27,1993
December 22, 1993
December 21,1993
December 20,1993
December 20,1993
December 20,1993
December 20, 1993
26

-------
Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment
Standards, and New Source Performance Standards:
Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category; National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Source Category: Pulp and Paper Production
(Notice of Proposed Rule/2712 & 2914)

Standards for Chromium Emissions from Hard and
Decorative Chromium Electroplating and Chromium
Anodizing Tanks (Notice of Proposed Rule/2841)

Enhanced Monitoring Program (Proposed Rule;
Notice of Comment Period Extension/2942)

Registration of Fuels and Fuel Additives;
Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives;
Emissions Control System Performance Warranty
Regulations and Voluntary After-market Part
Certification Program (Notice of Final Rule
(3308)

New Source Review Reform Subcommittee
(Notice of Public Meetings)

Fuels and Fuel Additives; Extension of Time
and Finding Concerning Fuel Additive (MMT)
Waiver Application

Clean Fuel Fleet Program:  Definitions
and General Provisions (Notice of Final
Rule/3070

Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission
(Notice of Meetings)

Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives:
Standards for Deposit Control Gasoline
Additives (Notice of Proposed Rule/3018)

National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants Schedule for the Promulgation
of Emission Standards Under Section 112(e)
of the CAA Amendments of 1990 (Notice of the
Source Category Schedule Standards/2971)
December 17,1993
December 16, 1993



December 15,1993


December 15, 1993
December 9,1993


December 9,1993



December 9,1993



December 8, 1993


December 6,1993



December 3,1993
                                                                                 27

-------
        Control Techniques Guideline Document;
        Volatile Organic Liquid Storage in Floating
        and Fixed Roof Tanks (Release of draft (CTG)
        document for public review)

        Determining Conformity of General Federal
        Actions to State or Federal Implementation
        Plans (Notice of Final Rule/3207)

        Opting Into the Acid Rain Program (Change
        in Public Comment Period for the Proposed
        Rule/3009)

        National Emission Standards for Hazardous
        Air Pollutants;  Amendments to Compliance
        Extensions for Early Reductions (Notice
        of Final Rule/2819)

        National Emission Standards for Hazardous
        Air Pollutants;  Halogenated Solvent Cleaning
        (Notice of Proposed Rule, Test Methods, and
        Notice of Public Hearing/2839)

        Approval of State Programs & Delegation of
        Federal Authorities EPA is Required to Publish
        Under Section 112(1) of the CAA Amendments
        Novice of Final  Rule/3142)

        Criteria and Procedures  for Determining
        Conformity to State or Federal Implementation
        Plans of Transportation Plans, Programs, and
        Projects Funded or Approved Under Title 23
        U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act  (Notice of
       Final Rule/2963)

       Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of State
       Implementation  Plans; Methods for Measurement
       of Visible Emissions (Notice of Proposed Rule
       and Notice of Public Hearing/2915)

       Outer Continental Shelf Air Regulations;
       Denial of Petition for Reconsideration of
       Corresponding Onshore Area Designation
       (Notice of Final  Rule/2947)
 December 2,1993
 November 30,1993
 November 30,1993
 November 29,1993
 November 29,1993
November 26, 1993
November 24,1993
November 22,1993
November 19, 1993
28

-------
Outer Continential Shelf Air Regulations;
Petition for Reconsideration (Notice to
Announce EPA's Proposal Not to Change the
Corresponding Onshore Area Designations for
Eight Outer Continental Shelf Platforms)

Acid Rain Program; Permits and Allowance
System Regulations Under Title IV of the
CAA Amendments (Notice of Proposed Rule
and Notice of Public Hearing/3319)

Health and Environmental Standards for
Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings (Notice
of Final Rule Amending General Environ-
mental Regulations Pertaining to Uranium
Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act
(UMTRCA) of 1978/3039)

Control Techniques Guidelines Document;
Reactor Processes and Distillation
Operations Processes (Release of CTG
Document)

Listing of Marine Vessel Loading Operations
Under Section 112(c) of the CAA (Notice of
Category Listing/2858)

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone (Notice
of Proposed Rule to Establish Baseline
Production and Consumption Allowances for
Chemicals EPA has Proposed to Add to the List
of Class I Ozone-Depleting Substances/3374)

Inspection/Maintenance Program Requirements;
Correcting Amendments (Notice of Corrections
to Final Regulation/3004)

Control Techniques Guideline Document Offset
Lithographic Printing (Release of draft (CTG)
document for public review)

Listing of Categories and Regulatory Schedule
Schedule for Air Emissions from Other Solid
Waste Incineration Units under Section 129 of
the CAA and a Schedule for Promulgation of
Regulations  (Notice of Listing)
November 19,1993
November 18,1993
November 15, 1993
November 15, 1993
November 12, 1993
November 9, 1993
November 9,1993
November 8, 1993
November 2,1993
                                                                                  29

-------
       Control of Air Pollution from New Motor
       Vehicles & New Motor Vehicle Engines: Short
       Test Emission Regs for 1996 and Later Model
       Year Light-Duty Vehicles and Light Duty-Trucks,
       and Revised Performance Warranty Regulations
       (Notice of Final Rule)

       National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
       Pollutants for Source Categories and for Coke
       Oven Batteries (Notice of Final Rule)

       Protection of Stratospheric Ozone (Final Rule
       for Federal  Procurement Requirements Under
       Title VI Section 613 of the CAA Amendments)
November 1, 1993
October 27,1993
October 22,1993
       Enhanced Monitoring Program (Notice of Proposed
       Rule; Notice of Opportunity for Public Hearing)

       New Source Review Reform Subcomittee (Notice of
       Public Meeting)
October 22, 1993


October 20, 1993
       Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON)/Reasonably
       Available Control Technology (RACT) Interface
       Draft Guidance (Draft Guidance for Public
       Comment)

       State Implementation Plans for Nonattainment
       Areas for Lead (Notice Announces Findings of
       Failure to Submit Required SIP's for Lead)

       National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
       Pollutants for Source Categories: Perchloroethylene
       Dry Cleaning Facilities (Notice of Public Meeting)
October 20,1993
October 19, 1993
October 19,1993
      1994 and 1995 Nominations for Essential for
      Essential Use Exemptions for Halons 1211,1301,
      and 2402 (Notice Announces the Results of the
      Call for Nominations for 1994; A Call for
      Nominations for 1995; and Formation of the
      Halon Recycling Corporation)
October 18,1993
30

-------
National Emission Stds for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Source Categories: Organic
Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Synthetic
Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry
(SOCMI) and Seven Other Processes (Notice
to Reopen Comment Period and Correct
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification)

Draft Student Handbook & Statement of Intent
to Develop Training & Certification Programs
for Operators of High Capacity Fossil Fuel-Fired
Plants (Notice of Availability)

Asbestoes NESHAP Clarification of Intent
(Notice of Clarification)

Control of Air Pollution; Emissions of Oxides
Oxides of Nitrogen & Smoke From New Nonroad
Compression-Ignition Engines at or Above 50
Horsepower (Notice to Reopen  Public Comment
Period)

Application  Sequence for CAA  Section  179
Sanctions (Notice of Proposed Rule)

New Source Review Reform Subcommittee
(Notice of Cancellation of Public Mtg.)

CAA Contractor Access to Confidential
Business Information (Notice)

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone; Ban of
Nonessential Products Containing Class II
Ozone-Depleting Substances Under Section  610(d)
of the CAA, as Amended (Notice of Proposed Rule)

Opting Into the Acid Rain Program (Notice
of Proposed Rule)

National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants for Source Categories:
Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning Facilities
(Notice of Final Rule)
October 15,1993
October 6, 1993
October 5,1993


October 4, 1993
October 1, 1993


September 27,1993


September 27,1993


September 27,1993
September 24, 1993


September 22,1993
                                                                                   31

-------
      Territory of Guam Petition for Exemption
      From the Diesel Fuel Sulfur Requirement
      (Notice of Direct Final Decision)

      Announcement of Fuel Economy Retrofit
      Device Evaluation for the Fuelon Power
      Gasoline Fuel Additive (Completion of EPA
      Evaluation)

      National Emission Standards for Hazardous
      Air Pollutants; Compliance Extensions for
      Early Reductions (Notice of Complete
      Enforceable Commitments Received Through
      August 9,1993)

      Codification of Corresponding Onshore
      Area Designations & Notice of Convening
      Proceeding for Reconsideration of Certain
      Corresponding Onshore Area  Designations
      (Notice of Correction)

      New Source Review Reform Subcommittee
      (Notice of Public Meeting)

      Approval of South Carolina's  Petition
      to Relax the Federal Reid Vapor Pressure
      Volatility Standard for South  Carolina
      from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi (Direct Final
      Rule)

      Standards of Performance for New Stationary
      Sources Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)
      Emissions from the Synthetic Organic Chemical
      Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) Reactor
      Processes (Notice of Final Rule)
 September 21,1991
 September 15,1993
September 10,1993
September 9, 1993
September 1,1993


September 1,1993
August 31, 1993
      Hazardous Air Pollution; Proposed Regs
      Governing Equivalent Emission Limitations
      by Permit (Notice to Extend Public Comment
      Period)

      State of Alaska Petition for Exemption from
      Diesel Fuel Sulfur Requirement of Section 211(i)
      of the CAA as Amended  (Notice of Proposed
      Decision)
August 30, 1993
August 27, 1993
32

-------
Petition to Remove the Compound Caprolactam
from Hazardous Air Pollutant List (Notice of
Receipt of Petition)

CAA Contractor Access to Confidential Business
Information (Notice)

National Primary Ambient Air Quality Standards
for Sulfur Oxides (Notice Extending Public Comment
Period on the Sulfur Dioxide Criteria Document and
Staff Paper Supplements)

Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (Request for
Candidates)

Special Exemptions from Requirements
Section 325(a) of the CAA, Territory of
Guam (Notice of Final Rule)

National Emission  Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants for Chromium Emissions from
Industrial Process Cooling Towers (Notice
of Proposed Rule)
August 26, 1993



August 25, 1993


August 20, 1993
August 13, 1993


August 12, 1993



August 12, 1993
National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants for Source Categories;
General Provisions (Notice of Proposed Rule)

Workshops Sponsored Committees of the Grand
Canyon Visibility Transport Commission
(Notice of Meetings)

Final Agency Actions Regarding the Motor
Vehicle Provisions of the CAA (Notice of
Mobile Source Final Agency Actions)

Clean Fuel Fleet Emission Standards,
Conversions, and General Provisions and the
Clean-Fuel Vehicle Standards for Light-Duty
Vehicles and Light-Duty Trucks (Proposed
Rules; Extension of the Comment Period)

Standards of Performance for New Stationary
Sources: Calciners and Dryers in Mineral
Industries; Amendment (Notice of Correction)
August 11, 1993
August 10,1993
August 10,1993
August 9,1993
July 29, 1993
                                                                                  33

-------
       Protection of Stratospheric Ozone (Section 114                    July 27,1993
       Information Request to Establish Baselines for
       Newly Listed Ozone Depleting Chemicals and to
       Meet UNEP Reporting Requirements)

       Policy Regarding the Sale of 1985 and                            July 22,1993
       Subsequent Model Year California Vehicles
       (Notice of Public Workshop and Request for
       Comments)

       Protection of Stratospheric Ozone (Request                       July 20, 1993
       for Comments on the Recordkeeping and Reporting
       Requirements of Newly Listed Ozone-Depleting
       Substances)

       CAA Contractor Access to Confidential                          July 20, 1993
       Business Information (Notice)

       Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and                     July 20, 1993
       Submittal of Implementation Plans; Revised
       Guideline on Air Quality Models (Notice of
       Final Rule)

       Acid Rain Program (Notice of Draft Permits                      July 16,1993
       and Public Comment Period)

       Hazardous Air Pollution (Proposed Regulations                   July 13,1993
       Governing Equivalent Emission Limitations by
       Permit Under Section 112(j) of the Clean Air
       Act, As Amended)

       Retrofit/Rebuild Requirements for 1993 and                      July 9, 1993
       Earlier Model Year Urban Buses (Notice of
       Public Workshop for Equipment Certifiers)

       Fuels and Fuel Additives (Ethyl Corporation                      July 2,1993
       Waiver Application for Methylcyclopentadienyl
       Tricarbonyl (MMT) and Petition for Review -
       Circuit Court Remand)

       Clean Fuel Fleet Emission Stds, Conversions,                      July 1, 1993
       and General Provisions & Amended Heavy-Duty
      Averaging, Banking, & Trading Credit Accounting
      Regs (Notice of Clarification Concerning the
      Comment Period and Opportunity to Request a
      Public Hearing)
34

-------
California State Motor Vehicle Pollution Control                 July 1,1993
Stds (Notice of Opportunity for Public Hearing
and Public Comment)

Emission Defect Reporting Requirements (Notice                 June 30,1993
of Public Workshop and Request for Comments)

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)                    June 30,1993
for Particulate Matter (Notice of Correction
to Final Rule)

The California Pilot Test Program & Clean-Fuel                 June 29,1993
Vehicle Standards for Light-Duty Vehicles and
Light-Duty Trucks (Notice of Proposed Rule)

Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles                June 28,1993
& New Motor Vehicle Engines: Evaporative Emission
Regs for Gasoline and Methanol-Fueled  Light-Duty
Vehicles & Light-Duty Trucks and Heavy-Duty
Vehicles (Notice Technical Correction on FRM)

Draft Acid Rain Permits Public Comment Period                 June 28, 1993
(Notice of Correction)

Intent To Form an Advisory Committee To Negotiate             June 25,1993
Small Nonroad Engine Regulations Under the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA)
Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles                June 23, 1993
and New Motor Vehicle Engines; Regs Requiring
On-Board Diagnostic Systems on 1994 and Later
Model Year Light-Duty Vehicles and Light-Duty
Trucks (Notice of Public Workshop & Reopening
of Comment Period)
Standards of Performance for New Stationary                    June 21,1993
Sources & Guidelines for Control of Existing
Sources: Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
(Notice of Availability of New Information
for NPRM)
                                                                                  35

-------
       Control of Air Pollution from New Motor                        June 17,1993
       Vehicles & New Motor Vehicle Engines;
       Refueling Emission Regs for Light-Duty
       Vehicles & Trucks & Heavy-Duty Vehicles
       (Notice of Change in Date for Public
       Hearing & Additional Request for Comment
       on Proposed On-Board Refueling Vapor
       Recovery Regs)
       Approval of State Programs & Delegation                       June 16,1993
       of Federal Authorities EPA is Required
       to Publish Under Section 112(1) of the
       CAA Amendments (Notice of Public Hearing
       & Extension of Public Comment Period)

       Draft Acid Rain Permits (Notice of Draft                        June 11, 1993
       Permit and Public Comment Period)

       Control of Air Pollution from New Motor                        June 10, 1993
       Vehicle Engines;  Gaseous & Paniculate
       Emission Regs for 1994 & Later Model Year
       Light-Duty Vehicles & Light-Duty Trucks
       Notice of Final Rule; Technical Amendments)

       Oxygenated Gasoline; Utah Waiver Application                  June 10,1993
       and Proposed Establishment of Control Periods
       for the Salt Lake/Ogden, MSA (Notice of
       Public Hearing)

       Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission                  June 10,1993
       and Operations Committee (Notice of Meetings)
       Clean Fuel Fleet Emission Standards, and                       June 10,1993
       General Provisions & Amended Heavy-Duty
       Averaging, Banking, & Trading Credit
       Accounting Regs (Notice of Proposed Rule)
       Acid Rain Program; Announcement of Open                     June 9,1993
       Meeting on Continuous Emission Monitoring
       (CEM) Data Acquisition & Handling Systems
       (SAHS) Certification, & Electronic and
       Magnetic Data Reporting for the CEM Rule
36

-------
In-Use Urban Bus Testing Program (Notice                      June 8,1993
of Availability of Advisory Circular)

Health and Environmental Standards for Uranium               June 8,1993
and Thorium Mill Tailings (Notice of Proposed
Rule)

Prevention of Significant Deterioration                          June 3,1993
(PSD) for Paniculate Matter (PM-10)
(Notice of Final Rule)

Draft List of Categories and Regulatory                         June 2,1993
Schedule for Air Emissions from Other Solid
Waste Incinerator Units under Section 129
of the CAA (Notice of Availability)
Control of Air Pollution from New Motor                        May 27,1993
Vehicle Engines & New Motor Vehicle Engines;
Refueling Emission Regs for Light-Duty
Vehicles & Trucks & Heavy-Duty Vehicles
(Notice of Public Hearing & Reopening of
Comment Period on Proposed Onboard Vapor
Recovery Regs)
 Control of Air Pollution from New Motor                        May 24, 1993
 Vehicles & New Motor Vehicle Engines;
 Federal Test Procedure Review
 (Notice of Availability of a Preliminary
 Report, EPA Document #420-R-93-007, and
 Solicitation of Comments

 Air Pollution Control; Motor Vehicle Emission                   May 20,1993
 Factors (Notice of Availability of Updated
 & Corrected Highway Motor Vehicle Emission
 Factor Model MOBILESa)

 Request for Nominations for Essential Use                      May 20,1993
 Exemptions for CFCs, Methyl Chloroform,
 Carbon Tetrachloride, and HBFCs

 Approval of State Programs & Delegation                       May 19,1993
 of Federal Authorities EPA is Required
 to Publish Under Section 112(1) of the
 CAA Amendments (Notice of Proposed Rule)
                                                                                   37

-------
       Regulation of Fuels & Fuel Additives                            May 18,1993
       Standards for Reformulated Gasoline &
       Conventional Gasoline (Notice to Extend
       Public Comment Period & Notice of Public
       Workshop)
       Control of Air Pollution from New                               May 17,1993
       Nonroad Mobile Sources; Determination
       of Significance for Nonroad Sources &
       Emission Stds for Oxides of Nitrogen
       & Smoke from New Nonroad Compression-
       Ignition Engines At or Above 50
       Horsepower (Notice of Proposed Rule)

       Economic Incentive Program Rules/Interim                       May 14,1993
       Guidance on the Generation of Mobile
       Source Emission Reduction Credits
       (Extension of Public Comment Period)

       Protection of Stratospheric Ozone;                               May 14,1993
       Refrigerant Recycling Program Under
       Section 608 of the CAA Amendments
       (Notice of Final Rule)
       Protection of Stratospheric Ozone;                              May 12,1993
       Significant New Alternatives Policy
       (SNAP) Program on Substitutes for Ozone
       Depleting Compounds Under Section 612
       of CAA Amendments (Notice of Proposed
       Rule)

       Clean Air Act; Acid Rain Provisions;                            May 10,1993
       1993 EPA SO2 Allowance Auctions Results
      Motor Vehicle-Related Air Toxics Study                         May 7 1993
      (Notice of Availability)                                               '

      CAA Contractor Access to Confidential                          May 6, 1993
      Business Information (Notice)
38

-------
National Emission Standards for Hazardous                     May 6,1993
Air Pollutants; Compliance Extensions for
Early Reductions (Notice of Complete
Enforceable Commitments Received Through
April 6,1993)

Approval of Colorado's Petition To                              April 30,1993
Relax the Federal Reid Vapor Pressure
Volatility Standard for Colorado in
1992 and 1993 (Notice of Final Rule)

Amended Schedule for the Phaseout of                          April 28,1993
Ozone-Depleting Substances and Request
for Comment on the Allowance Level for
1995 Class I, Group I Substances (Notice
Extending the Deadline for Submission
of Comments on the 3/18/93 NPRM)
 CAA Contractor Access to Confidential                          April 27, 2993
 Business Information (Notice)
Availability of Draft Model V Operating                         April 27,1993
Permits (Notice of Availability)

Oxygenated Gasoline; Waiver Application                        April 23,1993
Submitted by the State of California
(Notice of Public Hearing)

Retrofit/Rebuild Requirements for 1993                         April 21,1993
& Early Model Year Urban Buses; Fuel
Quality Regs for Certification Diesel
Test Fuel (Notice of Final Rule)
 National Ambient Air Quality Secondary                        April 21,1993
 Standards for Sulfur Oxides (Notice of
 Final Decision)

 Protection of Stratospheric Ozone;                              April 12,1993
 Federal Procurement Requirements Under
 Section 613 of the CAA Amendments
 (Notice of Proposed Rule)
                                                                                  39

-------
       Control of Air Pollution From New Motor
       Vehicles and New Motor Vehicles & New
       Motor Vehicle Engines; Nonconformance
       Penalties for Heavy-Duty Engines & Heavy
       Light-Duty Trucks (Notice to Reopen
       Comment Period)

       Model Standards & Techniques for Control
       of Radon in New Buildings (Notice publishes
       stds for public review & comment as required
       by section 304 of the Title  HI of the Toxic
       Substances Control Act)

       Proposed Model Construction Standards and
       Techniques for Control of  Radon in New
       Buildings (Public Review & Comment)

       CAA Advisory Committee (Notice of Special
       Meeting)

       Regulation of Fuels & Fuel Additives; Stds
       for Reformulated Gasoline & Conventional
       Gasoline (Notice of Public Hearing & Notice
       of Correction for Proposed Rule)

       National Emission Standards for Hazardous
       Air Pollutants; Halogenated Solvent
       Emissions from Organic Solvent Cleaners
       (Public Review & Comment)
April 12, 1993
April 12, 1993
April 7, 1993



April 6, 1993


April 1, 1993
March 31,1993
       Control of Air Pollution from New Motor
       Vehicles & New Motor Vehicle Engines;
       Evaporative Emission Regs for Gasoline &
       Methanol-Fueled Light-Duty Vehicles,
       Light-Duty Trucks & Heavy-Duty Vehicles
       (Notice of Final Rule)

       Control of Air Pollution from New Motor
       Vehicle & New Motor Vehicle Engines;
       Paniculate Emission Regulations for 1993
       Model Year Buses, Paniculate Emission Regs
       for 1994 & Later Model Year Urban Buses, and
       Oxides of Nitrogen Emission Regs for 1998  &
       Later Model Year Heavy-Duty Engines
       (Notice of Final Rule)
March 24, 1993
March 24,1993
40

-------
National Emission Stds for Hazardous Air                      March 23,1993
Pollutants (NESHAP) for Benzene Waste
Operations; request for comment on possible
future rulemaking to propose alternative
compliance option for NESHAP: Benzene
(Advance Notice of Proposed Rule)

Acid Rain Allowance Allocations and                           March 23,1993
Reserves (Notice of Final Rule)

Notice of Availability of the National                           March 23,1993
Allowance Data Base (Notice announces
final data base upon which the Agency
is basing the allowance allocations).

Environmental Radiation Protection Stds                        March 22,1993
for the Mgmt &  Disposal of Spent Nuclear
Fuel, High-Level & Transuranic Radioactive
Wastes (Extension of Public Comment Period)

Criteria for the Certification of Compliance                      March 22,1993
with Environmental Radiation Protection Stds
for the Mgmt &  Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel,
High-Level & Transuranic Radioactive Wastes
(Extension of Public Comment Period)

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone:                              March 18,1993
Accelerating the  Phaseout of Class I
& Class  II Ozone Depleting Substances
and Adding Methyl Bromide and Hydro-
bromofluorocarbons to Class I
(Notice of Proposed Rule)

Volatility Regs for Gasoline & Alcohol                          March 17,1993
Blends (Notice of Final Rule)

Codification of Corresponding Onshore Area                     March 16,1993
Designations and Notice of Convening
Proceeding for Reconsideration of Certain
Corresponding Onshore Area Designations


Motor Vehicle Certification Short Test                          March 15,1993
& Performance Warranty Procedures
(Extension of Comment Period & Notice
of Availability)
                                                                                   41

-------
       Grand Canyon Visibility Transport
       Commission Work Plan Committees
       (Notice of Meetings)

       Determining Conformity of General
       Federal Actions to State or Federal
       Imlementation Plans (Notice of
       Proposed Rule)

       Special Exemptions from Requirements;
       Section 325(a) of the CAA  Territory
       of Guam (Notice of Proposed Rule)

       Final Documents: Employee Commute
       Options Guidance (Notice  of Availability)

       CAA Contractor Access to  Confidential
       Business Information (Notice)
March 15, 1993
March 15, 1993
March 12, 1993



March 12, 1993


March 12, 1993
       Regulation of Fuels & Fuel Additives: Stds
       for Fuel Quality-Sulfur Content; and Control
       of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles &
       New Motor Vehicle Engines: Stds for Oxides
       of Nitrogen Emissions from Heavy-Duty Diesel
       Engines & Correction of Type 2-D Diesel Test
       Fuel Specification for Light-Duty Vehicles,
       Light-Duty Trucks & Heavy-Duty Engines
       (Announcement of Public Meeting on Enforce-
       ment of Diesel Desulfurization Regulations)
March 11, 1993
       National Ambient Air Quality Stds for Ozone
       (Notice of Final Decision)

       Section 185B Report on Trospospheric Ozone
       (Notice of Report for Public Review)

       Regulation of Fuel & Fuel Additives:  Stds
       for Reformulated Gasoline (Notice of
       Proposed Rule)

       New Source Review Simplification Workshop
       (Notice of Public Meeting)
March 9, 1993


February 26, 2993


February 26,1993



February 26, 1993
42

-------
National Emission Stds for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (HAP) for Source Categories:
Organic Hazardous Air Pollutants from the
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Industry (SOCMI) (Notice of Public Hearing
& Extension of Public Comment Period)

Control of Air Pollution from New Motor
Vehicles  & New Motor Vehicle Engines;
Federal Test Procedure (FTP) Review
(Notice of Public Workshop)
February 24,1993
February 24,1993
National Emission Stds for Hazardous Air
Pollutants; Compliance Extensions for Early
Reductions (Notice of Complete Enforceable
Commitments Received Through 1/7/93)

Interim Guidance on the Generation of Mobile
Source Emission Reduction Credits (Notice of
Proposed Guidance for Comment)

Economic Incentive Program (Notice of
Proposed Rule & Notice of Public Hearing)

Control of Air Pollution from New Motor
Vehicles & New Motor Vehicle Engines;
Federal Test Procedure (FTP) Modifications
(Notice of Availability)
              t
Control of Air Pollution from New Motor
Vehicles & New Motor Vehicle Engines;
Regulations Requiring On-Board Diagnostic
Systems on 1994 & Later Model Year Light-
Duty Vehicles & Light-Duty Trucks (Notice
of Final Rule)

Ambient Air Quality Surveillance; Revise
Regs to Include Provisions for the Enhanced
Monitoring of Ozone (Notice of Final Rule)

Environmental Radiation Protection Stds
for the Management &  Disposal of Spent
Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Wastes (Notice
of Public Hearings on Proposed Stds and
Establishment of Dockets)
February 23, 1993
February 23,1993



February 23,1993


February 22, 1993
February 19,1993
February 12,1993
February 11,1993
                                                                                  43

-------
        Criteria for the Certification of Compliance
        with Environmental Radiation Protection Stds
        for Management & Disposal of Spent Nuclear
        Fuel, High-Level & Transuranic Radioactive
        Wastes (Advance Notice of Proposed Rule)

        Protection of Stratospheric Ozone; Labeling
        Requirements for Products Manufactured with,
        Containers of, & Products Containing Specific
        Ozone-Depleting Substances Pursuant to
        Section 611 of the CAA, as Amended
        (Notice of Final Rule)

        Regulations Governing Prior Notice of
        Citizen Suits Brought Under Section 304
        of the Clean Air Act (Notice  of Proposed
        Rule)
 February 11, 1993
 February 11,1993
 February 10,1993
        Environmental Radiation Protection Stds
        for the Management and Disposal of Spent
        Nuclear Fuel, High-Level & Transuranic
        Radioactive Wastes (Notice of Proposed
        Rule)

        Air Pollution Control; Motor Vehicle
        Emission Factors (Notice of MOBILES
        Model Availability)
February 10,1993
February 9,1993
       Request for Nominations for Essential
       Use Exemption for Halons 1211, 1301,
       and 2402

       Acid Rain Program; Nitrogen Oxides
       Emission Reduction Program (Extend
       Public Comment Period)
February 2,1993
January 25,1993
       Protection of Stratospheric Ozone;
       Ban of Nonessential Products Releasing
       Class I Ozone-Depleting Substances Under
       Section 610 of the CAA, as Amended
       (Notice of Final Rule)
January 15,1993
44

-------
 Motor Vehicle-Related Air Toxics Study
 (Notice of Availability of Public Review
 Draft)

 California State Motor Vehicle Pollution
 Control Stds; Waiver of Federal Preemption
 (Decision)

 Hazardous Air Pollutants List; Denying a
 Petition to Remove Five Specific Substances
 from the Category of Glycol Ethers as Listed
 in CAA Section 112(b)(l)
 (Notice of Denial)
 January 13, 1993
 January 13, 1993
 January 13, 1993
 Control of Air Pollution from New Motor
 Vehicles and New Motor Vehicle Engines;
 Regulations for Light-Duty Vehicle and
 Light-Duty Truck 1994,1995 & 1996 Model
 Year Durability Testing Procedures, and
 Later Model Year Allowable Maintenance
 (Notice of Final Rule)

 Criteria & Procedures for Determining
 Conformity to State of Federal Implementa-
 tion Plans, Programs, & Projects Funded or
 Approved Under Title 23 U.S.C. or the
 Federal Transit Act (Notice of Proposed
 Rule)

 Acid  Rain Program: General Provisions
 and Permits, Allowance System, Continuous
 Emissions Monitoring, Excess Emissions
 and Administrative Appeals (Notice of
 Final Rule)

 Control of Air Pollution from New Motor
 Vehicles & New Motor Vehicle Engines;
 Gaseous & Paniculate Emission Regulations
 for 1994 & Later Model Year Light-Duty
Vehicles & Light-Duty Trucks, and Revised
Performance Warranty Regulations; Addition
of Certification Short Test Standards and
Procedures (Notice of Proposed Rule)
January 12, 1993
January 11, 1993
January 11,1993
January 8, 1993
                                                                                   45

-------
46
         Air Quality Designations & Classifications
         Amendments; Reclassification of Moderate
         PM-10 Nonattainment Areas to Serious Areas
         (Notice of Final Rule)

         National Emission Stds for Hazardous Air
         Pollution;  Benzene Waste Operations
         (Notice of Final Rule)
 January 8, 1993
 January 7,1993
         National Emission Stds for Hazardous Air
         Pollutants; Coke Oven Batteries (Notice of
         Public Hearing)
January 5,1993
         Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission
         Work Plan Committees (Notice of Meeting)
January 5,1993

-------
                                                  12/19/93

                     NEW SOURCE REVIEW REFORM

     New major stationary sources of air pollution and major
modifications to stationary sources of air pollution are re
-------
                           New Source Review Reform
          With passage of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, the Environmental
     Protection Agency (EPA) began to revise its  new source review (NSR) rules to
     incorporated the requirements of the 1990 Amendments. In conjunction with the
     revision, the EPA began considering ways to simplify the NSR process.  To
     facilitate its efforts to identify potential methods for simplifying the NSR process,
     the EPA decided to conduct a workshop, open to the public, to solicit comments
     from interested parties.

          The first workshop was  held in August 1992.  The EPA  invited
     representatives from industry,  EPA Regions, State and local air pollution control
     agencies, and environmental organizations to participate in a NSR Simplification
     workshop.  The workshop was announced in the Federal Register and was
     designed to provide EPA with input from the affected interest groups as to possible
     revisions that would simplify but maintain the legislative requirements of the NSR
     process.  The representatives were requested to identify issues of concern and to
     present any conceptual or specific ideas for simplifying the NSR process.  The EPA
     shared its own preliminary ideas and options for modifying NSR applicability with
     the group.

           A second NSR Simplification workshop was held in March 1993. Like the
     August 1992 meeting, this meeting was announced in the Federal Register and
     was open to the  public. The primary purpose of the  workshop was to explore in
     greater detail a number of the  specific issues identified .at the August 1992
     workshop and to discuss EPA's proposed responses to many of the comments.
     Among the agenda topics was an in-depth discussion of the plantwide  emissions
     limit concept for  NSR applicability; the definition and treatment of environmentally-
     beneficial projects for NSR purposes; and ways to simplify the pre-construction
     monitoring requirements in attainment areas. In addition, the best means for
     ensuring continued public involvement in the NSR simplification rulemaking process
     was also discussed. Options discussed were subsequent public meetings,
     formation of smaller workgroups and regulatory negotiation.

           In June 1993, the EPA held a public workshop to discuss the issues and
     potential solutions associated with pollution control projects (PCP) and pollution
     prevention projects (PPP).  The main topics for this meeting were the definition of
     PCP and PPP and NSR applicability of PCP and PPP.  Some of the issues discussed
     were identifying  criteria (e.g.,  add on controls, process changes, environmentally
     beneficial and emission reductions) to use in defining a  PCP. Another issue was
     the! distinction between voluntary versus mandatory, required  by the Clean Air Act
48

-------
(e.g., reasonably available control technology or maximum achievable control
technology), PCP and whether these types of projects should be subject to NSR.

      The EPA considered the input provided by these three public workshops as
invaluable and that it was time to select appropriate options in order to formulate
policy and regulations.  To accomplish this, EPA decided that a subcommittee,
constituted as part of the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee, be formulated to
assist in choosing a course of action.

      On July 7, 1993, the EPA gave notice of the establishment of the NSR
Reform Subcommittee  (58 FR 36407) under the auspices of the Clean Air Act
Advisory Committee (55 FR, No. 217, 46993) which was established pursuant to
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app I).  The Subcommittee's
purpose is to provide independent advice and counsel  to the EPA on  policy and
technical issues associated with reforming the NSR rules. The subcommittee is
consulted on environmental, technical, scientific, economic, policy, and guidance
issues.  Representatives from industry, State and local air pollution control
agencies, and environmental organizations are members of the Subcommittee. In
addition, representatives from other Federal agencies (e.g., National Park Service,
Forest Service and Department of Energy) and various EPA offices participate in
these meetings.

      The Subcommittee met for the first time on July 20-21, 1993. This meeting
addressed NSR issues related to best available control technology (BACT) and
Class I areas. As a result of the discussions, the Subcommittee decided to form
six subgroups to address broad BACT and Class I area topics. A description of the
issues to be addressed by each subgroup and their respective goals are attached.
The Subcommittee charged the subgroups with discussing the identified issues and
developing recommendations for resolving their respective issues.

      Another Subcommittee meeting was held on November 8-9, 1993, to review
draft options and recommendations developed by the subgroups on specific areas
regarding Class I area impacts and BACT.   In addition, the Subcommittee
addressed NSR applicability-related issues. At this meeting, two new subgroups
were formed: NSR Applicability and Existing Source Impacts on Class I Areas.  A
description of the issues to be addressed by these two subgroups and their
respective goals are attached.

      Currently, the Subcommittee is scheduled to meet on January 20-21, 1994.
The primary focus of this meeting will be to have the Subcommittee reach a final
consensus regarding recommendations on Class I area permitting issues, control
technology determinations and NSR applicability.
                                                                               49

-------
                       New Source Review Reform Subgroups

      • Permitting Sources With Class I Impacts
            - Procedures and Coordination
            - Determination of Adverse Impacts (Increments & AQRVs)
            - Mitigation of Source Impacts

      • BACT/LAER Determinations
            - BACT/LAER Clearinghouse and "Presumptive" BACT
            - BACT/LAER Criteria
            - Innovative  Control Technologies and Pollution Prevention

      • New Source Review Applicability

      • Existing Source Impacts on Class I Areas
50

-------
Permitting Sources With Class I Impacts:  Procedures and Coordination

Description: Proposed sources which may, or actually do, have an adverse impact
on Class I areas sometimes experience delays in receipt of a final permit
determination.  In part, such delays are usually due to the time-intensive steps
needed by the Federal land managers (FLMs) in fulfilling their statutory
responsibility for protecting the air quality related resources of the Class I area.
Identifying steps that can be taken to ensure early and  continued involvement by
the FLMs and the public during the PSD permit review process may help avoid
such delays. Also, existing PSD regulations may not adequately address the
important interrelationship between the FLM and the permit granting authority
concerning the analysis of possible adverse impacts on air quality related values
and the ultimate determination as to whether such impacts warrant denial of a PSD
permit.

Goals:  Provide proposed recommendations regarding changes (regulatory and
other) that will improve the overall coordination between  FLMs, permitting
authorities, permit applicants and the public to ensure Class I impact issues are
raised and addressed in a timely and appropriate manner.

Potential Questions:

1. ,    What steps can be taken to reduce permitting delays resulting from separate
       FLM and permitting authority reviews?  Also, when considering any potential
       approaches for additional coordination of project reviews concerning a
       possible adverse impact on a Class I area, how should the administrative
       burden be fairly distributed among the involved parties?

2.     Preapplication meetings between the applicant, permitting authority and
       FLMs as well as advanced FLM notification of the proposed project promote
       early discussion of Class I concerns and can reduce "late hits" on a project
       during the public comment period.  How can FLM notification and input (in
       advance of the public comment period) be formalized within the PSD review
       process?  In addition, how can public input and concerns be addressed early
       in the PSD review process for a source with potential Class I area impacts?

3.     What can be done to ensure that FLMs have adequate opportunity to assess
       impacts of proposed sources (or projects) and to ensure that adequate
       consideration is given to the FLM's adverse impact determinations?

4.     What alternative means are available for resolving disagreements between
       the permitting authority, the FLM, applicant and public over a finding of
       adverse impacts before a final permit is issued?
                                                                                51

-------
     Permitting Sources With Class I Impacts: Determination of Adverse
     Impacts

     Description: Congress established the Class I increments as well as the concept of
     air quality related values (AQRVs) as the measures fqr assessing whether proposed
     emission increases can be allowed near Class I areas. The Clean Air Act provides
     that the burden of  proof for determining adverse impacts to AQRVs,  and ultimately
     whether a PSD permit may be issued, turns on the proposed project's consumption
     of the available Class I increment.  If no increment violation is predicted, then it the
     FLM's burden to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the State that an adverse
     AQRV impact will occur. If, however, an increment violation is predicted, then the
     source must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the FLM that no adverse AQRV
     impact will result from the source's emissions.

           Regarding the AQRV analyses, specific AQRVs, must be identified for each
     Class I area. Also, specific data needs and criteria should be defined in order to
     analyze the potential impacts of a proposed source on a given AQRV. De minimis
     thresholds may be  appropriate for determining impacts on both the increments and
     AQRVs; however, such EPA issued, national thresholds do not currently exist.  In
     addition, some assessment of cumulative impacts  i4 necessary to account for the
     net impacts on AQRVs.

     Goals: Propose recommendations for establishing  the necessary procedures and
     criteria for performing and evaluating adverse impact  determinations.

     Potential Questions:

     1.   More specific information concerning the  particular AQRVs associated with
           individual Class I areas is needed by the permit applicants  and  permitting
           authorities to analyze Class I  impacts. What kinds of information and
           common criteria related to AQRVs and effects is available, or can be made
           available, to  industry, the permitting authorities and the public  to improve
           the AQRV analyses and evaluation of the analyses (e.g., FLM screening
           values)?

     2.    After a Class I analysis is found to be necessary, what is the extent of the
           area over which existing  source emissions should be considered. What
           criteria should be used to determine which existing source emissions are
           included in the Class I impact analysis?
                                                               - continued-
52

-------
3.    Class I increments do not exist for tropospheric ozone. In the absence of
      modeling techniques for predicting ambient ozone levels,  a PSD increment
      would be meaningless.  Yet high ozone levels in many Class I areas have
      been identified.  Where none exist, what alternatives to a numerical PSD
      increment are,available to protect Class I areas?

4.    There are often disagreements as to what distance from a Class I area a new
      source must locate in order to avoid a Class I impact analysis.  EPA's current
      policy is that sources within 100 km. be addressed, with case-by-case
      consideration of more distant sources.  What changes to  this existing
      guidance would  improve the current system?

5.    The EPA uses significance levels for determining significant ambient impacts
      on the NAAQS and PSD increments.  Are national significance levels for
      Class I increments appropriate where there are existing violations (e.g.,
      Virginia and National Park Service significance levels) and how would such
      levels be set? Conceivably, significance levels could allow new sources to
      continue to be constructed and  potentially exacerbate violations of the
      increment indefinitely (i.e., the overflowing cup analogy).  How  should the
      use of significance levels be restricted in such circumstances?  What
      objective criteria, e.g., significance levels, can be developed for determining
      adverse impacts on AQRVs?  Should significance levels be developed
      specifically for each AQRV and  how would such levels be set?

6.    What opportunity during the permitting process can be made available to
      rebut presumptions concerning impacts less than and greater than a de
      minimis level and what would be the criteria  by which these presumptions
      could be rebutted?

7.    Should  a standard analytical approach (and evaluation criteria) be prescribed
      which by default result in a finding of adverse impacts (e.g., rules of thumb,
      such as distance and pollutant relationships resulting in adverse impacts on
      Class I areas)?

8.    An AQRV Clearinghouse is being considered as a means  to better inform
      applicants  and permitting authorities of the particular AQRVs of interest or
      concern for a  particular Class I area.  What type of information would be the
      most useful for such a  clearinghouse to contain and what mechanisms exist
      to ensure that the information be submitted?
                                                                                53

-------
       Permitting Sources With Class I Impacts: Mitigation of Source Impact

       Description: Once it has been demonstrated that a proposed source will adversely
       impact a Class I area, the source may be afforded an opportunity to mitigate its
       adverse impact in order to receive its PSD permit.  For example, one suggestion is
       that once an AQRV has been determined to be adversely impacted, sources
       seeking to locate near the affected Class I area would comply with nonattainment
       area type permitting requirements such as
       BACT and LAER.

       Goals: Propose recommendations as to the range of mitigation measures that
       should be considered for new major sources to mitigate their own Class I adverse
       impacts in order to receive a PSD permit.

       Potential Questions:

       1.    What specific, mitigation measures (e.g., offsets, LAER) can be considered
            or imposed on sources locating in the vicinity of Class I areas already
            experiencing, or projected to experience, adverse impacts on AQRVs?
            Should the measure be shown to be related to the particular impact?

       2.    What role can preconstruction or post-construction monitoring serve in areas
            where projected adverse Class I area impact from the proposed source is of
            concern?
54

-------
BACT/LAER Determinations:  BACT/LAER Clearinghouse and
"Presumptive" BACT

Description: Currently there is no single comprehensive repository of BACT/LAER
technology information, including cost, which permitting agencies, applicants and
the public can access, to provide a common definitive basis for selecting and
comparing BACT/LAER candidates.  This leads to uncertainty regarding the control
options which are available to the sources.

      Availability of new or improved BACT (and LAER) technologies which
sometimes emerge after a permit application has been submitted is another
uncertainty in the technology review.  Current policy requires consideration of new
technologies for BACT and LAER are available for consideration up to the permit
issuance date causing some permits to be appealed and renegotiated which may
result in project delays. Balancing these concerns, environmental groups and the
public have expressed interest in greater opportunity to review and comment on
control technology determinations.  Often the public first learns of the proposed
technology for a source shortly before or during the public comment period on a
proposed  permit.  There is also some concern about the consideration of
technology from other countries, because of differing environmental regulations
and potentially unproven performance of technology.

Goals: Propose recommendations for improvements in storing, characterizing and
disseminating control technology information including the use of a presumptive
approach  to the BACT analysis.

Potential Questions:

1.    What revisions and improvements to the RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse
      (RBLCH) can be implemented to ensure a comprehensive, all inclusive data
      base and what mechanisms exist to ensure the RBLCH is current with
      respect to available technologies?

2.    How would a presumptive BACT/LAER be established and how would the
      development of new or improved control technologies be factored into a
      presumptive BACT/LAER to ensure it remained current?

3.    Is there a way to reconcile the case-by-case nature of BACT with a
      "presumptive" or guideline control technology determination for a category
      of sources?

4.    What additional mechanisms exist to involve the public  early in the control
      technology review?
                                     8

                                                                              55

-------
      5.    How should technology demonstrated outside of the U.S. be considered for
           BACT or LAER purposes?
56

-------
BACT/LAER Determinations: BACT/LAER Criteria

Description: In brief, EPA current guidance on BACT provides that all available
control technologies be ranked In descending order of control effectiveness. The
PSD applicant first examines the most stringent--or "top"--alternative.  That
alternative is established as BACT unless the applicant demonstrates, and the
permitting authority agrees, that technical considerations, or energy,
environmental, or economic impacts justify a conclusion that the most stringent
technology is not "achievable" in that case.  If the most stringent technology is
eliminated In this fashion, then the next most stringent alternative Is considered,
and so on.

      LAER is the most stringent emission limitation derived from: 1) the most
stringent limitation  contained in the implementation plan of any State for such
class or  category of source; or 2) the most stringent emission limitation achieved In
practice  by such class or category  of source.

      While the existing procedures  for consideration of technologies (starting with
the most stringent) appears to be relatively straight forward, there is apparently
some uncertainty in the evaluation of the parameters that are considered in the
 BACT analysis and in satisfying LAER.

 Goals:  To identify within the framework of EPA's current BACT and LAER policies,
 proposed clarifications or information that would add more certainty to the
 evaluation of the parameters that are considered in the BACT and LAER analyses.

 Potential Questions:
 1.    Is It appropriate for the financial condition or competitive position of a
       company to play a role In the  BACT or LAER analysis? If yes, how?

 2.    What criteria are appropriate for determining If a otherwise demonstrated
       technology Is a candidate for  technology transfer?

 3     In terms of EPA Involvement In the  BACT analysis, what type of practice
       should EPA  Implement regarding when a, technology Is or Is not available for
       BACT consideration purposes?  How shbuld a cutoff date be Implemented
       for the purpose of limiting what is an available control technology for
       consideration In the BACT processes?

 4.    What additional guidance on environmental, energy and economic Impacts
       would add more certainty to the BACT process?

 5     To what extent Is It appropriate for the BACT analysis to require the source
       ,to consider other alternatives to the source configuration that are either

                                      10

                                                                                 57

-------
             inherently less polluting (e.g., alternative fuels or processes) or provide an
             overall environmental benefit?
                                            11

58

-------
BACT/LAER Determinations:  Innovative Control Technology and
Pollution Prevention

Description: The subcommittee identified the need for additional guidance on how
innovative control technology and pollution prevention could be incorporated into
new source review (NSR).

      The NSR rules, 40 CFR 51.166 (s) and 40 CFR 52.21 (v),  provide a
mechanism for permitting an innovative control technology.  To obtain approval for
an innovative control technology, the owner  or operator of a proposed major
stationary source or major modification must petition EPA's Administrator in
writing before the close of the public comment period. The owner/operator must
agree to achieve a level of continuous emissions reduction equivalent to that which
would be required if BACT was installed. Additional requirements are outlined in
these two portions of the NSR rules. To date, requests for innovative control
technology waivers have been limited.

      The Pollution Prevention  Act of 1990 defined pollution prevention as "any
practice which reduces the amount of any hazardous substance,  pollutant or
contaminant entering any waste stream or otherwise released into the
environment." In  a memorandgm dated June 15,  1993, Carol Browner, EPA
Administrator, outlined the Agency's position on pollution prevention.  In this
memorandum, Ms. Browner committed EPA to adopting a major policy integrating
pollution prevention into every EPA activity, program, and operation.
Goals: Propose recbmmendations for improving the utilization of the innovative
control technology waiver and evaluating pollution prevention projects in relation to
BACT/LAER determination.

Potential Questions:

1.    What changes to the current PSD innovative control waiver can be made to
      encourage development of innovative controls and strategies?

2.    How can pollution prevention, as defined by the Pollution Prevention Act of
      1990, be recognized and encouraged in BACT/LAER determinations?

3.    What special considerations should be provided for innovative control
      technologies when applied as LAER?
                                     12

                                                                               59

-------
       Existing Source Impacts on Class I Areas Subgroup

       Description:  Currently emissions from existing sources have an adverse impact on
       Class I areas' air quality related values. These impacts are primarily related to
       visibility impacts, acid deposition impacts and related terrestrial and aquatic
       effects, and damage from ozone on sensitive species. Current programs under the
       Clean Air Act are likely to address at least some of these impacts yet no programs
       are specifically targeted at effects in Class I areas. EPA is considering
       development of options for addressing Class I area impacts from existing sources
       and seeks the advice of the subgroup on potential solutions to the problem.

       Goals: Provide review and comment on short-term and long-term program options
       for specifically addressing ozone, deposition, and visibility impacts on Class I areas.
       Assess and provide advice on how options mesh with current clean air programs.
                                           13

60

-------
 HOGANkHAKISON


                         MEMORANDUM
                                             November 30,1993


TO:         David Aldorfer, General Motors
            Michael R. Barr, Piilsbury, Madison & Sutro
            John Bunyak, National Park Service
            Larry B. Feldcamp, Baker & Botts, L.L.P.
            David Hawkins, Esq., Natural Resources Defense Council
           .Bill Lewis, Esq., Morgan, Lewis & BocMus
            David McAvoy, Eli Lilly and Company
            William F. Pedersen, Esq., Perkins Coie
            Donald Theiler, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
            Bill Tyndall, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
            Richard S. Zbur, Latham & Watkins

FROM:      Patrick M. Raher

RE:         Subgroup Approach and Schedule

            As EPA would like the Applicability Subgroup of the NSR Reform
Subcommittee to propose specific recommendations in January, we have very little
time to work. Attached you will find a schedule I  am proposing to develop our
recommendations. I am gathering relevant comments regarding NSR
reconsideration that have been submitted to EPA over the last several years. I will
use this, and any other written input or ideas you can provide prior to December 6,
to complete an issue paper on the pros and cons of various applicability approaches
by December 17, Subgroup members will then have until January 4'to review the
issue paper and provide written comments, but if you, can comment before
Christmas, please do. I have scheduled a conference call on January 7, 1994 at
10:00 am EST to discuss the issues and develop a consensus recommendation for
EPA. I will be sending a reminder along with the telephone number after the New
Year's holiday. Based on this discussion, we will revise the issue paper for
distribution to the full  subcommittee prior to the January 20 and 21 meeting.

            I also have enclosed a brief outline of the topics to be addressed by the
subgroup. Despite the rigorous timetable we face, I believe we can be very
productive as a team. I look forward to working with you.


cc:    Lydia Wegman
      David Soloman

                                                                              61
\\\DC\58377N0016\ME000601.DOC

-------
     11/30/93

     11/30/93.
     12/6/93

     12/6/93

     12/17/93

     1/4/94

     1/7/94

     1/10/94-
     1/13/94
     APPLICABILITY SUBGROUP SCHEDULE



Distribute outline of topics for comments

Pat Raher to review/compile past filings on NSR applicability


Written) input and ideas foi draft issue paper due to Pat Raher

Draft issue paper distributed to subgroup

Written comments on issue paper due to Pat Raher

Conference call on issues and consensus recommendations

Issue paper revised and consensus write-up distributed for comment
     1/13/94     Package sent to EPA for distribution to full subcommittee
62
                        • 2
     \\\DC\56377\0016NME000601.DOC

-------
                         PROPOSED TOPICS TO
                  BE ADDRESSED IN THE SUBGROUP
                     APPLICABILITY ISSUE PAPER
(1)         Changes to the base time period and definition of recent actual
           emissions (average emissions of last two years, highest two years of
           previous five, longer periods for more cyclical sectors, use of typical
           ozone season emissions vs. annual emissions, etc.)

(2)         Changes to the current vs. future comparison basis:

           •     recent actual vs. future allowable

           •     recent actual vs. expected future actual

           •     recent potential v. future potential

           •     recent allowable vs. future allowable

           •     PAL's

 (3)        Use of different applicability rules for specific circumstances:

            •     pollution control projects

            •     pollution prevention projects
                                     .3-                                       63
  \\DC\9WT7\OOieNME000601.DOC

-------
                          NONATTAINMENT

f«AAn.        national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) for six "criteria" pollutants  (ozone or smog, carbon
-«S°?  Si nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter,
and lead) .The primary air quality standards are designed to
protect public health with an adequate margin of safety.  The
secondary standards are designed to protect against welfare
effects.  The air quality management process that is in place to
meet the NAAQS involves tailoring control programs to address the
nature and magnitude of a given area's air quality problem.
Areas that do not meet air quality standards, i.e. nonattainment
areas, must design and implement control programs that make sense
for the area in question.

     The EPA has designated all areas of the country as
"attainment", "nonattainment", or "unclassifiable" with respect
to each of the six criteria pollutants.  Areas SPA designates as
"nonattainment" for a given pollutant must then take a series of
steps to meet the applicable NAAQS as outlined in the
nonattainment provisions of the 1990 Clean Air Act.

     The following materials outlining the status of
nonattainment area designations and guidance are provided in this
section.

     Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment

          Map and List of Classified Ozone Areas
          Map and List of Classified CO Areas
          Map and List of Not Classified CO Areas
          Recent Significant Guidance for Ozone and CO

     Particulate Matter (PM-10)

          Fact Sheet
          Map and List of Nonattainment Areas

     Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) and Lead

          SO2 Fact Sheet
          Map and List of S02 Nonattainment Areas
          SO2 Enforceability Deficiencies Issue Paper
          Map of Lead Nonattainment Areas
          Status of Lead NAAQS Attainment Strategy and Multi-
          media Targeting Effort
          List of Policy Memoranda Issued in 1993
                                                                    65

-------
         Copies  of  Guidance  Materials  Provided:

              Guidance on Correcting 502  Enforceability Deficiencies,
              April 16,  1993

              Impact of Recent  Onboard Decision on Stage II
              Requirements in Moderate Nonattainment Areas, June 23,
              1993
              Impact of Conditional Approvals on Sanction and Federal
              Implementation Plan Clocks,  July 14,  1993

              Fuel  Switching to Meet The  Reasonably Available Control
              Technology Requirements  for Nitrogen Oxides, July 30,
              1993

              Guidance on Issues Related  to 15 Percent Rate-of-
              Progress Plans, August 23,  1993

              Addressing Potential NAAQS  Violations for PM-10, S02,
              and Lead, August  24, 1993

              Credit Toward the 15 Percent Requirements from
              Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Coatings,
              September 10,  1993

              Responses to violations  of  the Lead NAAQS, September
              16, 1993

              State Implementation Plan Requirements for Areas
              Submitting Requests for  Redesignation to Attainment of
              the Ozone and Carbon Monoxide NAAQS on or After
              November 15, 1992, September 17, 1993

              Clarification of  Issues  Regarding the Contingency
              Measures that are due November 15, 1993 for Moderate
              and Above Ozone Nonattainment Areas,  November 8, 1993

              Use of Actual Emissions  in  Maintenance Demonstrations
              for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Nonattainment Areas,
              November 30, 1993

              Credit for 15 Percent Rate-of-Progress Plans for
              Reductions from Architectural and Industrial
              Maintenance Coating Rule, December 9, 1993
66

-------
Classified Ozone Nonattainment Areas
                                                                        * LINCOLN COt

                                                                     PORTLAND

                                                                     tKTSMOUTH
                                                                       •WOHCESTEft

                                                                        IfLD

                                                                   OM'ATtlTcbNHICTICUT
                                                                    YORK
                                                                  :H*NTON
                                                                   ALLENTOWN
                                                                  MJUNNO (Mod)
                                                                HAMNMUM PMLADtlFHIA
                                                                YOMC "•""•Vfl.ANTK CITY IM.dl
                                                               »ALTMe«E
                                                                KENT > OMEN ANNE'I COt. MO
                                                                    •UttEX CO. OE

-------
                         Classifications of Ozone Nonattainment Areas1

                                           Extreme (201 Of
      Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin, CA
                                           Severe (2007)
      Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN                   New York-N New Jersey-Long lsland,NY-NJ-CT
      Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX                    Southeast Desert Modified Air Quality
      Milwaukee-Racine, Wl                                   Maintenance Area (AQMA), CA
                                           Severe (2005)
      Baltimore, MD                                   San Diego, CA
      Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton,PA-NJ-DE-MD       Ventura County, CA
                                           Serious (1999)
      Atlanta, GA                                      Portsmouth-Dover-Rochester, NH
      Baton Rouge, LA                                 Providence (All Rl), Rl
      Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX                         Sacramento Metro, CA
      Boston-Lawrence-Worcester, MA-NH                San Joaquin Valley, CA
      El Paso, TX                                      Springfield (Western MA), MA
      Greater Connecticut                              Washington, DC-MD-VA

                                          Moderate (1996)
      Atlantic City, NJ                                  Monterey Bay, CA
      Charleston, WV                                  Muskegon, Ml
      Chartotte-Gastonia, NC                           Nashville, TN
      Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY                        Parkersburg, WV
      Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, OH                       Phoenix, AZ
      Dallas-Fort Worth, TX                             Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, PA
      Dayton-Springfield, OH                            Portland, ME
      Detroit-Ann Arbor, Ml                              Raleigh-Durham, NC
      Grand Rapids, Ml                                 Reading, PA
      Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY                       Richmond, VA
      Kewaunee County, Wl                            Salt Lake City, UT
      Knox  &  Lincoln Counties, ME                      San Francisco-Bay Area, CA
      Lewiston-Aubum, ME                              Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Lompoc, CA
      Louisville, KY-IN                                  Sheboygan, Wl
      Manftowoc County, Wl                            St Louis, MO-IL
      Miami-Fort Lauderdale-W. Palm Beach, FL           Toledo, OH

                                          Marginal (1993)
     Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY                      Lake Charles, LA
     Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ                 Lancaster, PA
     Altoona, PA                                      Lexington-Fayette, KY
     Birmingham, AL                                  Manchester, NH
     Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY                          Memphis, TN
     Canton,  OH                                      Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News, VA
     Columbus, OH                                   Owensboro, KY
     Door County, Wl                                  Paducah, KY
     Edmonson County, KY                            Portland-Vancouver, OR-WA
     Erie, PA                                         Poughkeepsie, NY
     Essex County (Whiteface Mtn), NY                  Reno, NV
     Evansville, IN                                     Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, PA
     Greenbrier County, WV                            Seattle-Tacoma, WA
     Hancock & Waldo Counties, ME                    Smyth County, VA (White Top Mtn)
     Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle, PA                     South Bend-Elkhart, IN
     Indianapolis,  IN                                   Sussex County, DE
     Jefferson County, NY                              Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL
     Jersey County, IL                                 Walworth County, Wl
     Johnstown, PA                                   York, PA
     Kent & Queen Anne's Counties, MD                 Yoqngstown-Warren-Sharon, OH-PA
     'A* til October 7,1993 (Transitional and Incomplete Area Not Included)  'Dates in parenthesis are when the ozone standard must be met (.MX. 7,
68

-------
                   Classified Carbon Monoxide Nonattainment Areas
                                                Serious & Moderate > 12.7 ppm
                                                Moderate <- 12,7 ppm
                                                Not Classified Areas Excluded
ON

-------
              Classified Carbon Monoxide Nonattainment Areas
                             Listed Alphabetically
         Albuquerque, NM
         Anchorage, AK
         Baltimore, MD
         Boston, MA
         Chico, CA
         Cleveland, OH
         Colorado Springs, CO
         [Denver-Boulder, CO
         Duluth, MN
         B Paso, TX
         Fairbanks, AK
         Fort Collins, CO
         Fresno, CA
         Grants Pass, OR
         Hartford-New Britain-Middletown, CT
         Klamath Falls, OR
         Lake Tahoe South Shore, CA
         Las Vegas, NV
         Longmont, CO
         Los Angeles South Coast Air Basin, CA
         Medford, OR
         Memphis, TN
         Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN
         Missoula,  MI
         Modesto,  CA
         New York-N. New Jer-Long Is, NY-NJ-CT
         Ogden, UT
         Philadelphia-Camden Co, PA-NJ
         Phoenix, AZ
         Portland-Vancouver, 'OR-WA
         Provo, UT
         Raleigh-Durham, NC
         Reno, NV
         Sacramento, CA
         San Diego, QA
         San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA
         Seattle-Tacoma, WA
         Spokane, WA
         Stockton, CA
         Syracuse, NY
         Washington, DC-MD-VA
         Winston-Salem, NC
         Bold type for emphasis only
 Moderate<«12.7 ppm
 Moderate >12.7 ppm
 Moderate<=12,7 ppm
 Moderate<=12.7 ppm
 Moderate<=12.7 ppm
 Moderate*:=12.7 ppm
 Moderate<=12.7 ppm
 Moderate >12.7 ppm
 Moderate<-12.7 ppm
 Moderate<=12,7 ppm
 Moderate<=12.7 ppm
 Moderate<-12.7 ppm
 Moderate >12.7 ppm
 Moderate<=12.7 ppm
 Moderate<=12.7 ppm
 Moderate<=12.7 ppm
 Moderate<«12.7 ppm
 Moderate >12.7 ppm
 Moderate<-12.7 ppm
  Serious
 Moderate <=12.7 ppm
 Moderate<=12.7 ppm
 Moderate<=12,7 ppm
 Moderate<=12.7 ppm
 Moderate<=12.7 ppm
 Moderate >12.7 ppm
 Moderate<=12.7 ppm
 Moderate<=12.7 ppm
 Moderate<=12.7 ppm
 Moderate<=12.7 ppm
 Moderate >12.7 ppm
 Moderate<=12.7 ppm
 Moderate<=12.7 ppm
 Moderate<=12.7 ppm
 Moderate<=12.7 ppm
 Moderate<=12.7 ppm
 Moderate >12.7 ppm
 Moderate >12.7 ppm
Moderate< = 12.7 ppm
Moderate< = 12.7 ppm
Moderate< = 12.7 ppm
Moderate< = 12.7 ppm
70

-------
Not Classified Carbon Monoxide Nonattainment Areas
                  Prior Designation Retained by Operation of Law

-------
               Not Classified Carbon Monoxide Nonattainment Areas

                       Prior Designation Retained by Operation of Law

                                   Listed Alphabetically
                               Atlantic City, NJ
                               Bakersfield, CA
                               Billings, MT
                               Boise-Northern Ada Co, ID
                               Burlington, NJ
                               Charlotte, NC
                               Detroit, Ml
                               East Chicago, IN
                               Eugene-Springfield, OR
                               Freehold, NJ
                               Great Falls, MT
                               Greeley, CO
                               Indianapolis,  IN
                               Lake Tahoe Nevada
                               Lake Tahoe North Shore, CA
                               Lowell, MA
                               Manchester, NH
                               Morristown, NJ
                               Nashua, NH
                               New Haven-Meriden-Waterbury, CT
                               Penns Grove, NJ
                               Perth Amboy, NJ
                               Pittsburgh, PA
                               Salem, OR
                               Salt Lake City, UT
                               Somerville, NJ
                               Springfield, MA
                               St Louis, MO
                              Toms River, NJ
                              Trenton, NJ
                              Tucson, AZ
                              Waltham, MA
                              Worcester, MA
                              Yakima, WA
72

-------
                                                                 October 14,  1993
                             Significant Changes since the
                   November 6,  1991 Federal Register (56 FR 56694)
                     on Air Quality Designations and Classifications
                 for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Nonattainment Areas

November 30. 1992 Federal Re&ster (57 FR 56762)
California - Carbon Monoxide
       San Diego boundary change (small reduction)
Oregon - Carbon Monoxide and Ozone
       Salem Area boundary change from City of Salem
       to Salem Area Transportation Study
Michigan - Ozone - Muskegon Area
       Muskegon County classification change (Serious to Moderate)
New York - Ozone
       New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island Ozone Nonattainment Area -
       Orange and Putnam Counties: The November 6,1991 notice indicated that the State
       requested time to study the  boundaries and classification for these two counties and that
       EPA would evaluate the State study.  Both counties are in the New York City CMSA.
       The following action was taken in the November 30,1992 notice:
             The portions of Orange County that remain with the New York City
             nonattainment area (classified Severe-17) are: Blooming Grove, Chester,
             Highlands, Monroe,  Tuxedo, Warwick, and Woodbury.
             The remaining portions of Orange County (16 towns and cities) are designated as
             attainment.
       -    Putnam County was  placed in the Poughkeepsie Nonattainment Area  (classified
             Marginal).
 Washington - Ozone- Seattle Area boundary change (small reduction)
 Wisconsin - Ozone - Sheboygan Area
       Sheboygan County classification change (Serious to Moderate)
 Other areas had small typo changes (see notice)

 Redesignations to Attainment
 Kansas - Kansas City Area - Ozone (previously Sub-Marginal)
       Johnson and Wyandotte Counties
       See the June 23,1992 Federal Register (57 FR 27936)
 Missouri - Kansas City Area - Ozone (previously Sub-Marginal)
       day, Jackson and Platte Counties
       See the June 23,1992 Federal Register (57 FR 27936)
 South Carolina - Cherokee County - Ozone (previously Marginal)
       See the December 15,1992 Federal Register (57 FR 59300)
 Minnesota - City of Saint Cloud - Carbon Monoxide
       Benton, Sherburne and  Stearns Counties
       See the June 28,1993, Federal Register (58 FR 34532)
 North Carolina - Greensboro-Winston Salem-High  Point - Ozone (previously Moderate)
       Davidson, Davie, Forsyth & Guilford Counties
       See the  Sept 9,1993 Federal Register (58 FR 47391) Effective Nov 8,1993
 Tennessee - Knoxville - Knox County - Ozone (previously Marginal)
       See the  Sept 27,1993 Federal Register (58 FR 50271)
 New York - Syracuse - Onondaga County - Carbon Monoxide
       See the  Sept 29,1993 Federal Register (58 FR 50851 )(

 For tuther information contact Valerie Broadwell (919-541-3310) or Barry Gilbert (919-541-5238)
 Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, AQMD, MD-15, OAQPS, EPA, RPT, NC, 27711
                                                                                            73

-------
        Recent  Significant Guidance for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide

          Documents  which  have been  released recently include:

     Federal  Register  -  State  Implementation Plans:  General  Preamble
     for the  Implementation of Title I  of the Clean Air Act  Amendments
     of 1990;  Proposed Rule -  Thursday,  April 16,  1992.

     Guidelines  for  Estimating and Applying  Rule - Effectiveness for
     Ozone/Co State  Implementation Plan Base Year  Inventories -
     November, 1992  -  EPA-452/R-92-010.

     Guidance on the Adjusted  Base Year Emissions  Inventory  and the
     1995  Target for the 15 Percent  Rate of  Progress Plans - October,
     1992  - EPA-452/R-92-005.

     Guidance for Growth Factors, Projections,  and Control Strategies
     for the  15  Percent  Rate-of-Progress plans - March,  1992 -  EPA-
     452/R-93-002.

     Guidance on thi Relationship Between the 15 Percent Rate-of-
     Progress Plans  and  Other  Provisions of  the Clean Air Act - May,
     1993  - EPA-452/R-93-007.

     Guidance on Preparing Enforceable  Regulations and  Compliance
     Programs for the  15 Percent Rate-Of-Progress  Plans  - June,  1993 -
     EPA-452/R-93-005.

     Federal  Register  -  State  Implementation Plans;  Nitrogen Oxides
     Supplement  to the General Preamble;  Clean Air Act Amendments of
     1990  Implementation of Title I;  Proposed Rule - Wednesday,
     November 25,  1992.

     Technical Support Document to Aid  States With the Development of
     Carbon Monoxide State Implementation Plans -  EPA-452/R-92-003 -
     July, 1992.

          In  addition  to the documents  listed above,  several guidance
     memoranda have  been issued.  Copies of  these  memoranda  are
     attached*
74

-------
                        December 14, 1993

                         PM-10  Fact Sheet

I.   Present number of PM-10 Nonattaiment areas:  83

     O    The original number was 70 areas, but  3 additional areas
          were redesignated this Fall by the Regional Offices.

     O    The final action  for 10  additional  areas was signed by
          the Administrator on December 14, 1993.

II.  Present number of Serious areas:  5

     O    A  total  of  5 areas were reclassified  to  serious  on
          January 8, 1993.

III. The following policy memoranda were issued during 1993:

     1.   Impact of Conditional  Approval  Actions on Sanction and
          Federal Implementation Plan clocks,  July 14, 1993.

     2.   Addressing Potential  New NAAQS Violations for PM-10, SO2,
          and Pb, August 24, 1993.

     3.   PM-10 Serious Area Guidance:  Final Staff Work product.

          O    This document was issued as a staff  work product
               September  24,  1993.  It went  through  work group
               closure on November 18,  1993 and is next scheduled
               to go  to the Office of Management  and Budget for
               review.

     4.   PM-10   SIP   Development  Guideline   Document,   U.S.
          Environmental Protection  Agency, Office  of Air Quality
          Planning and  Standards,  Research Triangle  Park,  N.C.,
          EPA-452/R-93-008,  April  1993.  Available  through  the
          National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal
          Road, Springfield, VA 22161.

          O    This document is a compendium of previously issued
               guidance  on PM-10  SIP  development policies  and
               procedures.
                                                                     75

-------
ON
                              AREAS DESIGNATED NONATTAINMENT
                         FOR PM10 PARTICULATES, BY EMISSION TYPE
            AREAS NONATTAINMENT DUE TO STATIONARy SOURCE EMISSIONS
            AREAS NONATTAINMENT DUB IN PART TO WOOD SMOKE EMISSIONS
            AREAS NONATTAINMENT DUB IN PART TO FUGITIVE DUST EMISSIONS
            AREAS NONATTAINMENT DUE TO MULTVLB TYPES OF EMISSIONS
CIRCLE DIAMETER O
INDICATES RELATIVE SIZE
OF AFFECTED POPULATION
                                                                                      OAQPS. AQMD, SDPMPB
                                                                                      December 17.1993

-------
                       December 17,  1993
PM-10 Nonattainment Area Update
EPA Reg
I
I
II
III
III
V
V ,
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
VI
VI
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
Nonattainment Area
New Haven, CT
Presque Isle, Maine
Guaynabo , PR
Clairton, PA
Follansbee, WV
Lyons Township, IL
Southeast Chicago, IL
Granite City, IL
LaSalle County, IL
Lake
County , IN
Vermill ion, IN
Cuyahoga County, OH
Mingo Junction, OH
Detroit, MI
St. Paul, MN
Rochester ,
MN
Anthony , NM
El Paso, TX
Aspen , CO
Canon City, CO
Denver , CO
Pagosa Springs, CO
Telluride, CO
Lamar , CO
Butte, MT
Kalispell, MT
Lame Deer, MT
Classification
(Moderate or
Serious)
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
                                                    77

-------
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
IX
IX
IX
IX
IX
IX
IX
IX
IX
IX
IX
IX
IX
IX
IX
IX
IX
X
X
X
X
Columbia Falls, MT
Poison, MT
Ronan , MT
Libby, MT
Missoula, MT
Utah County, UT
Salt Lake County, UT
Sheridan , WY
Douglas, AZ
Hayden/Miami , AZ
Phoenix, AZ
Nogales , AZ
Paul Spur, AZ
Rillito, AZ
Yuma , AZ
A jo, AZ
Coachella Valley, CA
Imperial Valley, CA
Mammoth Lake, CA
Owens Valley, CA
South Coast Air Basin,
CA
San Joaquin, CA
Searles Valley, CA
Las Vegas, NV
Reno, NV
Eagle River, AK
Juneau , AK
Boisie, ID
Bonner County, ID
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M /Reclassif ied
to Serious
M
M
M/ Reclassified
to Serious
M/Reclassified
to Serious
M/Reclassified
to Serious
M
M
M/Reclassified
to Serious
M
M
M
M
78

-------
X
X
X
X I
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
(
Pinehurst, ID
Pocatello, ID
Grants Pass, OR
Klamath Falls, OR
Springfield/Eugene, OR
Medford, OR
LaGrande , OR
Kent, WA
Olympia, Tumwater, and
Lacey , WA
Seattle, WA
Spokane , Wa
Tacoma , WA
Wallula, WA
Yakima , WA
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
I.   List of new PM-10 nonattainment areas:

     A.    Just signed by the Administrator:

     1.    Payson, Arizona
     2.    Bullhead City, Arizona
     3.    Sacramento County, California
     4.    San Bernadino County, California
     5.    Steamboat Springs, Colorado
     6.    Shoshone County, Idaho
     7.    Thompson Falls, Montana
     8.    New York County, New York
     9.    Oakridge, Oregon
     10.  Weirton, West Virginia

     B.    Redesignated by Regional offices:

     1.    Mono Lake, California
     2.    Lakeview, Oregon
     3.    Whitefish, Montana

II.   List of areas for which PM-10 SIP's have not been submitted:

     1.    New, Haven, CT
     2.    Guaynabo, PR
     3.    Clairton, PA
     4.    Rillito, AZ
     5.    Yuma,  AZ
                                                                    79

-------
    III. No. of proposed  SIP  rulemaking  actions  -  15

         1.    Follansbee, WV
         2.    La Salle County,  IL
         3.    Vermillion  County, IN
         4.    Cuyahoga County/Mingo Junction,  OH
         5.    St.  Paul/Rochester,  MN
         6.    Anthony, NM
         7.    El Paso, TX
         8.    Canon  City, CO
         9.    Butte, MT
         10.   Missoula, MT
         11.   Utah/Salt Lake, UT
         12.   Eagle  River, AK
         13.   Grants Pass, OR
         14.   Kent,  HA
         15.   Thurston, WA

         *     The  total  number of   PM-10  areas  with  proposed  SIP
               rulemaking  actions is 18.  The Regions, in some cases, as
               indicated  above,  proposed more  than one  nonattainment
               area in a Federal Register package.

    IV.  No. of final rulemaking actions  taken  -  9

         1.    Anthony, NM
         2.    El Paso, TX
         3.    Eagle  River, AK
         4.    Grants Pass, OR
         5.    Kent,  WA
         6.    Thurston County,  WA
         7.    Cuyahoga County/Mingo Junction,  OH
         8.    St.  Paul/Rochester,  MN
         9.    Vermillion  County, IN
80

-------
December 16, 1993

              Fact Sheet on the Sulfur Dioxide (S02)
      National  Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)  Program


8  National Ambient Air Quality Standards
     Primary (40 CFR 50.4):   - 80 ug/m3 (0.03 ppm), Annual
                              (Arithmetic mean), and
                              - 365 ug/m3 (0.14 ppm), 24-hour,
                              not to be exceeded more than once
                              per year.
     Secondary (40 CFR 50.5): - 1300 ug/m3  (0.5 ppm),'3-hour, not
                              to be exceeded more than once per
                              year.

£  Part D SIP's for nonattainment areas were due May 15, 1992.

%  Number of nonattainment areas for:
     Primary NAAQS =                    32
     Secondary NAAQS =                   4
     Both Primary and Secondary NAAQS = 12

     Total =                            48

     The above tally includes two additional nonattainment areas
that were signed by the Administrator on 12/14/93.

I  National SO2 emission estimates,  23  tons/year

8  Typical sources of SO2 emissions:
     Fossil-fuel fired power plants
     Fossil-fuel fired boilers
     Petroleum refineries
     Sulfuric acid plants
     Pulp and paper mills
     Nonferrous smelters
     Steel Mills
     Municipal incinerators
     Wet corn milling operations/ ethanol production

8  SO2 Guideline  Document - This  compendium  of  SO2 NAAQS
implementation policy and guidance has been revised to reflect
changes per the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and is in the final
stages of review within the EPA.   It will be distributed to State
agencies in the Spring of 1994.
                                                                    81

-------
   AREAS DESIGNATED NONATTAINMENT FOR SO2
O DESIGNATED NONATTAINMENT AREAS FOR SO2, Dec. 17,1993
                                                       OAQPS, AQMD, SDPMPB
                                                       December 17,1993

-------
     12/16/93
                            Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Areas
REGION
1
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
3
3
STATE
ME
NJ
PA
PA
PA
WV
KY
KY
TN
TN
TN
IL
IL
IL
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
MN
MN
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
WI
WI
NM
MT
MT
UT
DT
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
GM
GM
NV
PA
WV
COUNTY
PENOBSCOT
WARREN
ALLEGHENY
ARMSTRONG
WARREN
HANCOCK
BOYD
MUHLENBERG
BENTON
HUMPHREYS
POLK
PEORIA
PEORIA
TAZEWELL
LAKE
LAPORTE
MARION
VIGO
WAYNE
AQCR 131
OLMESTED
COSHOCTON
CUYAHOGA
GALLIA
JEFFERSON
LAKE
LORAIN
LUCAS
MORGAN
WASHINGTON
MARATHON
ONEIDA
GRANT
LEWIS AND CLARK
YELLOWSTONE
SALT LAKE
TOOELE
COCHISE
GILA
GREENLEE
PIMA
FINAL
FINAL
PITI-CABRAS
TANGUISSON
WHITE PINE
WARREN
Hancock
                           AREA                 STANDARD
                           Millinocket          P
                           6 areas              P/S
                           Clairton portion     P
                           5 areas (TWPS)       P
                           CONEWANGO TWP        P
                           New Manchester Grant P
                           portion              P
                           all                  S
                           portion              P/S
                           portion              P/S
                           all                  P/S
                           HOLLIS TWP           P/S
                           PEORIA               P
                           GROVELAND TWP        P
                           portion              P
                           portion              P
                           portion              P
                           all                  P
                           portion              P
                           7 Co.'s; Dakota, etc P
                           CITY OF ROCHESTER    P
                           FRANKLIN TWP         P
                           portion              P
                           ADDISON TWP          S
                           portion              P
                           portion              P
                           portion              P
                           portion              P
                           CENTER TWP           S
                           WATERFORD TWP        S
                           3 areas              P/S
                           RHINELANDER portion  P/S
                           portion              P
                           EAST HELENA AREA     P/S
                           LAUREL               P
                           all                  P/S
                           portion              P/S
                           DOUGLAS (3 AREAS)    P
                           MIAMI (9 AREAS)      P
                           MORENCI (8 AREAS)    P
                           AJO (5 AREAS)        P
                           SAN MANUAL (11 AREAS P
                           HAYDEN (9 AREAS)     P
                           PITI POWER PLANT     P
                           TANGUISSON POWER PLT P
                           CENTRAL STEPTOE VALL P
                           Warren, Pleasant,Gla P/S
                           portion              P/S
P= Primary NAAQS
S= Secondary NAAQS
P/S = Both Primary and Secondary NAAQS
                                                                          83

-------
               S02 Enforceability Deficiencies Issue Paper

    Background

         In the past, EPA has had difficulty enforcing emission
    limitations that have longer averaging times than those
    associated with the attainment demonstration and the KAAQS.
    These difficulties have resulted in lack of referrals of cases to
    the Department of Justice and lost enforcement cases.  State and
    industry resistance to short term averaging times in emission
    limitations and/or compliance methods stems from the inherent
    variability of sulfur in the coal burned at power plants.  In the
    past, limits specifying allowable sulfur emissions were derived
    by assuming that the sulfur content of the particular fuel supply
    is essentially invariant.  However, this assumption is not valid
    for coal.  The short term compliance averaging periods provide
    less opportunity for extreme random deviations from the norm to
    be "averaged down."   Thus, shortening the averaging times
    effectively tightens the source's emission limitation by forcing
    the source to use a lower sulfur coal to assure high peaks will
    be under the limit.  Therefore, in the past few years, EPA has
    not approved 30-day averaging as a compliance method, because it
    does not guarantee continuous compliance with the emission
    limitation or protection of the short term standard.

         In addition to the issues associated with sulfur
    variability, EPA has encountered other deficiencies in the SIPs
    that have led to problems in enforcing the rules pertaining to
    S02 emissions.  EPA developed a 12 point checklist of the most
    common enforcement deficiencies (Nov .28, 1990 memo from Bauman
    and Biondi to the Regional Air Branch Chiefs).  This checklist
    was used to review the SIPs.  The results of this review are
    compiled in the SO2 Yellow Book (June 12, 1991).

         In order to address the SIP deficiencies identified in the
    SO2 Yellow Book,EPA created the S02 implementation work group.
    The work group is composed of representatives from AQMD, SSCD,
    OE, O6C, ARD and Regions III, IV and V, as well as eight States,
    which have (had) Phase I acid rain sources located in SO2
    nonattainment areas.  Their task is to address these outstanding
    issues in the most practical way, using the authorities under
    Titles I, IV, V and VII of the 1990 Clean Air Act as Amended.

         The work group has developed a policy memorandum for
    addressing the noncontroversial S02 issues (April 16, 1993), and
    worked to refine options for addressing the long term averaging
    issues.  The efforts of the work group are currently on hold
    pending the completion and evaluation of the statistical
    compliance methods currently being developed by OAQPS.
84

-------
                   AREAS DESIGNATED NONATTAINMENT FOR LEAD
                O DESIGNATED NONATTAINMENT AREAS FOR Pb, Dec. 17,1993
                                                                         OAQPS, AQMD, SDPMPB
                                                                         December 17.1993
00

-------
                                               December 17,  1993

             Status of the Lead NAAQS Attainment Strategy and
                       Multi-media targeting effort


    GOAL - Target  lead implementation efforts  where they  are most
    needed, e.g.,  in  communities with the most risk to  lead
    exposures.

    Lead NAAOS Attainment Strategy Approach -  To identify areas  of
    highest potential exposure to lead, and determine if  an
    environmental  problem exists.  Address environmental  problems
    using existing regulations and programs to the fullest extent
    possible.  Finally, where exisitng regulations are  inadequate,
    initiate the regulatory process  (SIP calls, nonattainment
    designations)  to  develop programs that will address the
    identified environmental problem.

    Current Status -  The first phase of the lead NAAQS  attainment
    strategy targeted 29 primary and secondary lead smelters.  Since
    its initiation in 1990, ambient air monitors were sited around
    all of these sources.  Compliance inspections were  conducted at
    all sources and appropriate actions were taken where  compliance
    problems were  identified.  Ambient air concentrations have been
    reduced around 14 of the original sources.  In 15 of  these areas,
    where compliance  actions did not address the problem  (or where
    the requirements  were obviously lacking),  regulatory  action  was
    initiated.                         '

         In additjLon, the EPA Regions have identified additional
    sources to target and address any subsequent problems.  The
    Regions identified three additional areas  with air  quality
    problems.  In  all of the.se areas, compliance actions  were taken,
    but have proven insufficient to address ,the air quality problems
    and further regulatory action is under consideration  or is
    underway.  The Regions have also investigated other areas and
    determined that no problems exist and no additional follow-up is
    needed.

    Expanding the  Strategy - EPA is expanding  the Lead  NAAQS
    Attainment Strategy in two ways.

         First - identify additional source categories  which have the
         potential to emit enough lead to violate the lead NAAQS.
         OAQPS will provide this information to the Regions to aid
         them in their implementation efforts.  The list  of new
         areas/sources included in the Strategy is on schedule for
         completion in January, 1994.

         Second -  Identify ten Regional hot spots where there are
         potential multimedia exposures to lead, as well  as a list of
         100 hot spots nationwide (may be different from  the Regional
         hot spots).  The identification the priorities within a
         specific  media is currently underway.  Once this is
         completed and agreed on by the other  media offices the
86

-------
     mapping will take place to begin to identify the hot spot.
     The final step is to prioritize these hot spots by looking
     at the magnitude of potential exposure, and the demographic
     information (population, age, income level, race, etc).

     The long term goal of all of these efforts is to address
environmental problems where they pose the greatest potential
health risk.  The targeting efforts are used to indicate where
potential problems exist, the areas identified will indicate
where the further investigation is needed to determine if an
environmental problem truly exists.
                                                                     87

-------
                 Policy Memoranda Issued in 1993


April 16, 1993 - Guidance on Correcting SO2 Enforceability
               Deficiencies (Attached)

August 12, 1993 - Lead Guideline Document EPA-450/R-93-009
               Available through NTIS #PB94-111846

September 16, 1993 - Responces (actions by the Region) to
            i   Violations of the Lead NAAQS.  (Attached)

December 14, 1993 - Lead Addendum to the General Preamble of
               Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.
               Signed by the Administrator, to be published in
               the Federal Register.

-------
                           APR 161993
MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:  Guidance on Correcting S02 Enforceability Deficiencies

FROM:     D. Kent Berry, Acting Director
          Air Quality Management Division (MD-15)
               t
TO:       Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
            Division, Regions I and IV
          Director, Air and Waste Management Division,
            Region II
          Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division,
            Region III
          Director, Air and Radiation Division,
            Region V
          Director, Air, Pesticides and,Toxics Division,
            Region VI
          Director, Air and Toxics Division,
            Regions VII, VIII, IX, and X


     As you may recall, the Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (OAQPS) has identified correction of sulfur dioxide
(SO ) enforceability deficiencies as a priority in the detailed
operating guidance for 1992 and  1993.  This effort targets the
deficiencies, documented in the June  12, 1990 SO2 Yellow Book,
which could impede or complicate the  issuance of the permits
under title V or complicate the  implementation of the acid rain
program.

     The OAQPS, in coordination with  eight State representatives
with interests in both the acid  rain  and S02 nonattainment
programs, and several Regional and Headquarters offices,  is
developing guidance to address these  deficiencies.  Based on
discussions with this group, we  now believe that many
deficiencies (e.g., lack of record keeping and .reporting
requirements, ambiguities in averaging times, etc.) may be
resolved more expeditiously through the title V permits,  thus
avoiding the need for a formal State  implementation plan  (SIP)
revision.  Generally, the permits can be used to clarify
ambiguities or fill gaps in noncontroversial SIP requirements.
                                                                      89

-------
       The  States  and Regions,  however,  should be cautious not to
  address deficiencies that may be controversial  through the
  permits program.   If a  State  has an indication  that the public or
  the  industry will  challenge the permit,  the  State  should address
  the  issue in a SIP revision.   For instance,  when addressing the
  issue  of  long averaging times,  affected  industries could be very
  sensitive about  changing these requirements.  Several  have
  indicated that they will challenge any permit that does not
  reflect what they  believe to  be the current  SIP requirements.
  Permit challenges  from  the industry or the public  may  encumber
  the  permitting process  and could lead  to unfavorable legal
  precedents and risk a more difficult and confusing permitting
  process,  thus defeating the purpose of avoiding the more
  cumbersome SIP process.

        In addressing these deficiencies, an affected State should:
  (1)  document to  EPA satisfaction that  there  is  no  deficiency
  where  the State  disagrees with the Yellow Book  items;  (2)  where
  there  are deficiencies  in the SIP,  correct them via the permit if
  the  State demonstrates  that it has adequate  general authority  in
  its  operating permits program and/or SIP to  clarify (or fill)
  these  requirements in the permit;  and  (3) correct  the  deficiency
  through a SIP revision  .if the State does not  have  adequate
  general authority, or if the  State is  concerned about  potential
  challenges from  the industry  or the public.

        In order to clarify the  state's intent  and to establish a
  record of how it is addressing these problems,  the Regional
  Office may wish  to prepare a  memorandum  of agreement (MOA)  with
  the  State explaining that the permit will be  the federally-
  enforceable vehicle for clarifying the deficiency(ies).   The MOA
  should acknowledge the  deficiency(ies) and identify any
  impediments to its authority  to correct  these deficiencies in  the
  permit.   The State and  EPA should establish  in  the MOA that, if
  the  permit is not  consistent  with the  current guidance on an
  enforcement issue, EPA  may exercise its  veto  authority on the
  grounds the permit is not enforceable1.

        I believe that this approach will provide  the States with a
  series of practical options for dealing  with  most  of the
  identified Yellow  Book  deficiencies.  I  am attaching more
  detailed  information on how the individual checklist deficiencies
  can  be addressed and where additional  guidance  can be  found.   We
        *The SIP revision is always an option for the State in
   resolving any of these  issues.   A  benefit  of undertaking a  SIP
   revision would be to avoid  a case-by-case  review  of  all of  the
   permits for sources with the affected deficiency.
90

-------
X
will continue to work on refining the guidance for dealing with
the long-term averaging time issues.  If you have any questions
or comments, please feel free to contact me at (919) 541-5505 or
Laura McKelvey at (919) 541-5497.

Attachment

cc:  W. Becker, STAPPA/ALAPCO
     G. Foote, OGC
     B. McLean, ARD
     R. Ossias, OGC
     J. Rasnic, SSCD
     M. Winer, OGC
     Chief, Air Branch, Regions  I-

bcc:  D. Campbell
      J. Dills
      P. Dubenetsky
      P. Embrey
      E. Flowers
      P. Hansen
      N. Hartman
      K. Harmon
      T. Helms
      Z. Kosim
      L. Lay
      E. Lillis
      M. Miller
      S. Miller
      S. Mitoff
      M. Onischak
       R. Patterson
       J. Rinertson
       S. Sallie
       J. Slade
       M. Trutna
       T. Tucker
       R. Vogel
       L. Wegman

 SDPMPB:LMcKelvey:pfinch:MD-15:541-5628:3-22-93
 McKelvey 2B:DEFMEM2.GUD
                                    91

-------
                               Attachment
   Background

     On June 12,  1990, OAQPS  released  the  "S02  Yellow Book,"  which
   documented  deficiencies  in the  S02  SIPs.   OAQPS  initiated  this
   effort  because of  the  concern that  leaving these issues
   unresolved  would impede  or complicate the  implementation of
   Titles  I, IV and V of  the  CAA.

        Even though resolution of  these issues  has  been  identified
   by  EPA  as a priority in. the subsequent  operating guidance,  many
   States  have made little  progress  in correcting the deficiencies,
   perhaps due to a lack  of clear  guidance.   Consequently,  OAQPS
   established an S02 Implementation Work  Group.  This work group
   consists of representatives from  eight  States  (chosen from the
   States  that have Phase I acid rain  units located in SO2
   nonattainment  areas),  the  Regions in which these States  are
   located; and the appropriate Headquarters  offices.  The  work
   group is charged with  developing  guidance  for correcting these
   "Yellow Book"  deficiencies and  with developing model  permits  for
   the ambient SO2 requirements.

        Since  the effort  to identify and correct these problems  in
   the SO2 SIPs was initiated, Part  70 regulations  which implement
   the Title V operating  permits program have been  completed.
   Recently, the  work group met to discuss the  development  of
   guidelines  and the interaction  between  this  effort and Title  V
   operating permits. In response to  the  opportunities  provided by
   this new program,  the  work group  determined  that of the
   deficiencies caused by ambiguities  or omissions  (gaps) in  the SIP
   requirements and which are noncontroversial, could be resolved
   more expeditiously through the  Title V  permits.

   Checklist Deficiencies

        The following is  the  checklist that was used in  reviewing
   the SO2 SIPs:

        1) The rule  does not clearly  specify sources subject  to the
             rule.

        2) The rule  does not clearly  specify the applicable
        averaging time (compliance periods) associated with the
        emission  limitation.

        3) The averaging time in  the  rule is inconsistent  with  the
        averaging time for the NAAQS.  For instance,  if  the rule
        allows 30-day averaging or weekly  fuel  sampling  then  there
        may be no assurance that the 3-hour and 24-hour  NAAQS are
        being  protected.
92

-------
4)  The compliance test methodologies in the rule are
inconsistent with the averaging time and/or units of the
applicable emission limitations (e.g., the rule specifies a
Ib/hr limitation based on a 1-hour average but the
compliance method specifies part per million over a 24-hour
average.

5)  The rule does not provide for determining compliance on
a continuous basis (e.g., Reg. Method 6, stack Test, is the
specified reference test method, but no freguency for
testing is specified; or fuel sampling is specified but does
not require daily sampling, GEM is feasible but is not
required).

6)  The averaging time in the continuous compliance
monitoring and reporting methodology is inconsistent with
the protection of the NAAQS (e.g., the averaging time in the
compliance method is not specified in the regulation or in
the reported data).  Therefore, the source with an
acceptable continuous compliance method may be providing
information that demonstrates compliance on a 30-day average
but that might not be in compliance with the shorter term
averaging times.

7)  The rule does not specify requirements to report
compliance data to regulatory agencies or does not include
requirements on format and frequency of data reporting
(e.g., quarterly reports of 3-hour average excess
emissions).

8)  The rule does not contain clear requirements for
compliance data record keeping and retention (e.g., all
emissions data, recorded in units consistent with the
emission limit, must be retained on site and made available
to the regulatory agency inspectors; data must be maintained
for at least 2 years).

9)  The rule contains an alternative approach for compliance
(e.g., variable or multiple limits among a number of
affected sources) where the emission limits which apply to
each affected sources are a) unclear, b) the period of time
and length of time the alternate limits are in effect are
unclear, c) there is no requirement for the source to notify
the regulatory agency prior to changes in the applicable
emission limit, and/or d) the rule does not contain
continuous monitoring requirements that enable EPA to verify
that all sources are in compliance with an applicable limit
scenario.

10)  The rule contains an alternative compliance approach
other then alternative emission limits (e.g., load derating)
but it does not clearly state the method of determining
continuous compliance.
                                                                93

-------
         11)  The rule contains director's discretion authority
         without provision for EPA review.

         12)  The rule has Section 123 deficiencies; including non
         compliance with the 1985 regulations, sources affected by
         the NRDC vs Thomas. 838 F.2d 1224 (D.C. Cir., 1988) remand
         and restrictions on Intermittent or Supplemental Control
         Systems (ICS or SCS).

         Note that checklist items #5, 9, and 10 which require a
    method for determining compliance on a continuous basis may meet
    the requirement for periodic monitoring or testing.  However, as
    stated above, a one time stack test would not be considered
    periodic monitoring or testing.  Additionally, the permit
    regulations would require the periodic monitoring data to be used
    in compliance certifications.  Therefore, if a state believes
    that using continuous compliance or periodic monitoring or
    testing data for direct enforcement may be controversial, the
    state may wish to address this through a SIP revision.

         Checklist items 1,2,4,7,8,9, and 10 (See attached checklist)
    can be corrected in the permit.  The permit can also be used to
    fill a gap in the SIP for to checklist item # 5, to the extent
    that there is an omission or ambiguity in the continuous
    compliance method.  However, where the compliance method is
    clearly stated, but does not provide for continuous compliance
    (e.g., requires an annual stack test) more extensive rule making
    will be necessary.

         Items 12 and 13 are issues where there is on going policy
    development and it is not yet clear how they will be resolved.
    Thus, we are unable determine if these will require revisions of
    the SIP or if they, too, can take advantage of the permit
    program.

         For the remaining checklist items (3 and 6) and any of the
    above deficiencies that may be controversial in the particular
    State.  The States and Regions should be cautious not to
    implement address these items through the permit.  If the State
    has an indication that the public or the industry will challenge
    the permit, the State should address the issue in a SIP revision.
    For instance, when addressing the issues of long averaging times,
    the industries could be very sensitive about changing these
    requirements.  They may challenge any permit that does not
    reflect the current SIP requirements.  Permit challenges from the
    industry or the public on these issue, may encumber the
    expeditious permitting process and may lead to unfavorable legal
    precedents, both of which would risk a more difficult and
    confused permitting process defeating the purpose of avoiding the
    more cumbersome SIP process.
94

-------
Process

     Affected States should employ a three-tiered approach for
dealing with these problems.

     1)  If the State does not agree that there are deficiencies
     in their SIPs, the State should document their reasons to
     the Region's satisfaction.

     2)  If the SIP is unenforceable, the State may correct these
     noncontroversial deficiencies through the permit if the
     State demonstrates that they have adeguate general
     authorities in their operating permit program and/or SIPs to
     clarify (or GAP fill, i.e., rely on general authorities to
     satisfy pollutant/program specific reguirements) these
     requirements in the permit.  Evidence of the States ability
     to demonstrate that they have "adeguate general authority"
     could include operating permits issued pursuant to the
     existing SIP which impose the missing reguirements.

     3)  If the State does not have adeguate general authorities,
     or if the State is concerned about potential challenges from
     the industry or the public, then the state can correct the
     deficiency through a SIP revision.

Mechanism

     In order to clarify the State's intent and to establish a
record of how it is addressing these problems, the State should
prepare a memorandum of agreement (MOA) with the Regional office
explaining that the permit will be the Federally enforceable
vehicle for clarifying the deficiency(ies).  This MOA could be
included in the State-Regional agreements developed with their
Title V permit program.  The MOA should acknowledge the
deficiency(ies) and identify any impediments to its authority to
correct these deficiencies in the permit.  The State should also
agree that the permit will reflect the current EPA policy on that
particular issue.  For instance, if there is no averaging time
associated with the emission limitation, the MOA and the permit
should specify an appropriate  (3 or 24 hour) averaging time.  The
State and EPA should agree in the MOA that, if the permit is not
consistent with the current guidance on an enforcement issue,
then EPA may exercise its veto authority.on the grounds the
permit is not enforceable.
                                                                       95

-------
           \,
                       UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                           RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711
                                                       OFFICE OF
                                                    AIR QUALITY PLANNING
                                                      AND STANDARDS
                               JUN 23 1998
    MEMORANDUM

    SUBJECT:
    FROM:
    TOi
Impact of the Recent Onboard Decision  on  Stage II
Requirements in Moderate Nonrattainment
John S. Seitz, Director
Office of Air Quality PI
                                                               -10)
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
  Management Division, Regions I and IV
Director, Air and Waste Management Division,
  Region II
Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division,
  Region III
Director, Air and Radiation Division,
  Region V
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxic Division,
  Region VI
Director? Air and Toxics Division,
  Regions VII, VIII, IX, and X
         As you are probably aware, on January 22, 1993, the  U.S.
    Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit  held that
    the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under section
    202(a) (6) of the Act, has a mandatory duty to issue regulations
    requiring installation of onboard refueling vapor recovery (ORVR)
    systems on light duty motor vehicles (Natural Resources Defense
    Council v. Reillv. 983 F.2d 259).  The EPA has since entered into
    a proposed settlement agreement (subject to the section 113(g)
    public comment process) under which the Agency would promulgate
    final ORVR standards by January 22, 1994.

         In a memorandum dated March 9, 1993, I addressed  the issue
    of how the new court opinion related to potential legal
    obligations under section 182(b)(3) to install vehicle refueling
    (Stage II) controls in moderate ozone nonattainment areas.   I
    indicated there that the opinion would not abrogate such  Stage II
    requirements since the requirements remain until EPA actually
    promulgates ORVR standards.  In light of the more recent
    developments noted above, I would now like to supplement  my
96

-------
earlier memorandum/ particularly with respect to the issue of
whether EPA intends to invoke sanctions for State implementation
plans which fail in some manner to implement the Stage II
requirement contained in the Act.

     As I indicated in my March 9 memorandum, EPA has "started the
18-month time clock for mandatory sanctions for failure to submit
Stage II programs in about 20 moderate ozone nonattaihment areas.
This would result in the first sanction being imposed in July
1994.  However, since EPA plans to promulgate ORVR rules by
January 1994, mandatory sanctions in these moderate areas would
not be imposed.  The EPA also has the authority to implement
sanctions earlier than 18 months from issuance of a findings
letter; however, given our plans to promulgate ORVR rules, EPA
does not intend to impose such sanctions for a State's failure to
adopt or implement Stage II programs in moderate ozone areas.
The Office of General Counsel has previously communicated this
information to the industry petitioners (see attached).

     I note that States may still need to require installation of
Stage II for reasons independent of section 182(b)(3).  One
possible reason, as explained in my March 9 memorandum, would be
to meet the 15 percent volatile organic compounds (VOC) reduction
requirements in section 182(b)(l).  A second reason would be the
need to include Stage II in a maintenance plan to ensure
maintenance of the standard.  (EPA, of course, is not promising
that it would not invoke discretionary sanctions for failure to
carry out the 15 percent VOC reduction requirements.)
                     i
     I would appreciate your sending copies of this memorandum-
to all State air program directors in States in your Region that
contain moderate ozone nonattainment areas, as well as to any
State air program director otherwise interested in this issue.

Attachment

cc:  M. Shapiro
     D. Wilson
                                                                        97

-------
                 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                       Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
                      Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
                                  MAR   9 I993
     MEMORANDUM
     SUBJECT:
     FROM:
     TO:
Impact of the Recent Onboard Decision on Stage  II
Requirements in Moderate Ngnattainment Areas
John S. Seitz, Director
Office of Air Quality PI
                                                         ds  (MD-io)
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
  Management Division, Regions I and IV
Director, Air and Waste Management Division,
  Region II
Director) Air, Radiation and Toxics Division,
  Region III
Director, Air and Radiation Division,
  Region V
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division
  Region VI
Director, Air and Toxics Division,
  Regions VII, VIII, IX, and X
          On January 22,  1993,  the United States Court of Appeals for
     the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the Environmental
     Protection Agency's  (EPA's)  previous decision not to require
     onboard vapor recovery controls be set aside and onboard
     standards be promulgated pursuant to the Clean Air Act (Act),
     section 202(a)(6).   The EPA is currently studying a schedule for
     complying with the court's ruling.

          As a result of  that court decision,  several States have
     contacted EPA Regions  and asked how the decision will affect
     Stage II requirements  in moderate ozone nonattainment areas.
     States  are required  to adopt Stage II rules for such areas under
     section 182(b)(3).   Section 202(a)(6)  states that "the
     requirements of section 182(b)(3)  (relating to Stage II gasoline
     vapor recovery)  for  areas  classified under section 181 as
     moderate for ozone shall not apply after promulgation of such
     standards [i.e.,  onboard controls] .  .  .  .«

          These Act  provisions  indicate that a State's obligation to
    adopt,  implement, and  enforce Stage II rules for moderate areas
    continues until onboard rules are actually promulgated.  The EPA
    will process Stage II  rules  as revisions  to State implementation
    plans (SIP's).   When onboard rules are promulgated,  a state may
    withdraw  its Stage II  rules  for moderate  areas from the SIP (or
98

-------
from consideration as a SIP revision) consistent with its
obligations under sections 182(b)(3) and 202(a)(6), so long as
withdrawal will not interfere with any other applicable
requirement of the Act.  Further guidance on Stage II
requirements for moderate nonattainment areas seeking-
redesignation will be forthcoming.

     The EPA has recently issued findings of failure to submit
Stage II rules covering about 20 moderate ozone nonattainment
areas.  If EPA has not promulgated the onboard rules and a State
still has not submitted complete Stage II rules within 18 months
of the findings letter, the Act imposes sanctions in that area.

     There are compelling reasons for keeping Stage II
requirements even after an onboard rule is promulgated.  Vehicles
equipped with onboard controls are not required to enter the
market until the fourth model year after the onboard standards
are promulgated, and even then only 40 percent of that model
year's production would be required to have onboard controls.
Full coverage of all new vehicles is not required until 6 model
years after promulgation [see section 202(a)(6)].  It will take
several more years for the fleet to turn over so that most cars
in use have onboard controls.  Thus, it could take 10-15 years
before onboard controls may achieve the same overall degree of
volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions reductions as Stage II
controls.
      i
     In the meantime, section 182(b)(1)(A) requires moderate and
above nonattainment areas to achieve a 15 percent VOC reduction
by 1996.  The VOC reductions achieved from Stage II controls may
contribute significantly toward this 15 percent reduction
requirement.  Early indications are that many areas will have
difficulty demonstrating the 15 percent reduction in VOC
emissions needed to meet section 182(b)(l)(A) even when
reductions from Stage II are included.  Given the stringent
criteria for receiving a waiver from the 15 percent reduction
requirement, it is unlikely that many areas will receive a
waiver.  Therefore, areas that do not adopt Stage II may be faced
with adopting much more stringent and less cost-effective
controls on other sources in order to meet the 15 percent
requirement.  States that fail to submit approvable 15 percent
demonstrations and fail to waive the requirement will also
subject themselves to sanctions and Federal implementation plans.

     In addition to the 15 percent requirement, moderate ozone
nonattainment areas must demonstrate attainment of the ozone
standard by December 31, 1996.  Therefore, regardless of whether
Stage II is necessary to meet the 15 percent reduction, Stage II
may be needed for moderate areas to attain the ozone standard by
the end of 1996.  Moderate areas failing to attain by that date
will be "bumped up" to a serious classification and will become
subject to the requirements for serious areas, including the 1999
                                                                      99

-------
   attainment date.   At that time the area would then be  subject to
   the  Stage II requirement as well as the additional control
   requirements for  serious areas [see section 182(i)].   These
   reclassif ied areas will have less than 3 years to adopt  and
   implement additional controls before the serious area  attainment
   date of 1999.   Furthermore, failure to attain by that  date will
   subject the areas to being "bumped up" to a severe classification
   and  the more stringent requirements applicable for those areas.

        The EPA is further considering how this court ruling affects
   a  state's obligation under jsection 184(b)(2) regarding Stage  II
   or measures that  get equivalent emission reductions in the
   Northeast Ozone Transport Region.  The section 184(b)(2)
   requirement applies to all areas in the Region regardless of  the
   ozone designation or classification.  Guidance concerning the
   Northeast Ozone Transport Region will be issued at a later date.

   cc:   MT  Shapiro
        D.  Wilson
100

-------
                              JUN   2 1933,


 Alice Crowe
 American Petroleum Institute
 1220 L Street, N.W.
 Washington, D.C.  20005

 Dear Hs. Crowe:

      This letter documents the substantive points  to be made in
 EPA's? letter regarding the relationship of Stage II  requirements
 under the clean Air Act (CAA)  section 182 (b) (3) and  on-board
 refueling vapor recovery (ORVR)  requirements  in section
 202 (a) (6), as well as the Agency's position with respect to
 discretionary sanctions for siPs which fail,  in some manner,  to
 implement the section 152(b)(3)  Stage II requirement.

      EPA would state that,  because the section 182 (b), (3)  stage II
 requirement is waived in moderate ozone.'.non-attainment  areas  once
 EPA promulgates an ORVR requirement,  arid because the Agency has
 committed to promulgating on ORVR requirement by January 22^
 1994,  EPA therefore does not intend to invoice discretionary
 sanctions (pursuant to section lio(m))  in any of <1;he following
 situations;  a)  foe moderate ozone non-attainment ^areas that fail
 to  submit a. SIP revision addressing section 182 (bji(3); b) for SIP
 submittals that do not require Stage  II in moderate  ozone non-
 attainment areas;  and c)  for States that require stage II in
 moderate ozone non-attainment  areas but fail to implement the
 requirement.   The  letter would also note that states may  still
 need to  require installation of Stage  II for reasons independent
 of  section 182 (b) (3),  such  as  to  meet  the 15 % VOC reduction
 requirement  in  section I82(b)(l).

     Within two weeks,  EPA  will disseminate a letter making all
 of these  points to EPA Regional Offices, and will  request the
 Regional  Administrators to  send copies of the letter to state air

 SSILVERMANJse:OGC:LE-132S:RM.509WT:260-7716:F: \STG21182B:
 revised: nt:F:\... \PILES\STGII: 6/1/93: revised :lh:OGCS:LE132S:
SUBJ:F:\...\PILES\STG±I:6/2/93
                                                                   101

-------
     program directors in each of their states.  We will send you a
     copy of the letter at the time it is  sent to the EPA Regional
     Offices.

                                        Sincerely,
                                        Alan W. Eckert
                                        Associate General Counsel
                                        Air and Radiation Division
102

-------
             UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                  Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
                 Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
                           JUL141993
MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:


FROM:


TO:
Impact of Conditional Approvals on Sanction and
Federal Implementation Plan  (FIP) Clocks

D. Kent Berry, Acting Director    I) r^  1'.^
Air Quality Management Division (MD-15)

Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
  Division,-Regions I and IV
Director, Air and Waste Management Division,
  Region II
Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division,
  Region III
Director, Air and Radiation Division,
  Region V
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division,
  Region VI
Director, Air and Toxics Division,
  Regions VII, VIII, IX, and X
     The purpose  of  this  memorandum is  to  clarify the  impact  of
conditional approvals  on  the  sanction and  FIP clocks initiated by
findings of failure  to submit a  State implementation plan  (SIP)
or complete SIP under  sections 179(a) and  110(c)(l),
respectively, of  the Clean Air Act  (Act),  as amended.1  A July
9, 1992 memorandum from John  Calcagni to the Air  Division
Directors entitled "Processing of State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Submittals" provides guidance on how the sanction and  FIP  clocks
function but does not  address the effect of conditional approval
on the sanction and  FIP clocks.  The July  1992 guidance indicates
that to stop the  sanction clock  following  a section 179(a)
finding, the State must correct  the deficiency prompting the
finding.  A finding  of failure to submit a plan or complete plan
is corrected when the  State submits a plan the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) finds complete.  Regarding the FIP clock,
section 110(c)(l) requires that  the EPA promulgate a FIP
           memorandum does not address the effect of conditional
approval on sanction and  FIP clocks  initiated by  SIP
disapprovals, which will  be addressed in  future guidance.
                                                                   103

-------
     within 2 years of findings of failure to submit a plan or
     complete plan unless two conditions are met:   the State corrects
     the deficiency, and the EPA approves the plan.

     The Effect of Conditional Approval on Clocks  Initiated by
     Findings of Nonsubmittal

         Sanction Clock Permanently Stops, FIP Clock Temporarily
         Stops

         As indicated in the July 9, 1992 guidance,  when the EPA
     finds that a State has failed to submit a plan  or complete
     plan,2 the sanction and FIP  clocks  start  on the date of the
     finding.  If the EPA subsequently finds the late  plan  submittal
     complete, the sanction clock will permanently stop.  If the EPA
     then takes final rulemaking action to conditionally approve the
     same plan, the FIP clock will temporarily stop.

          The sanction clock will permanently stop because  the
     submittal of a SIP that the EPA finds complete  corrects the
     finding of failure to submit.3  The  FIP clock will temporarily
     stop because both conditions for stopping the FIP clock will have
     been met.  The complete SIP submittal correcting  the deficiency
     prompting the finding satisfies the first condition  for stopping
     the FIP clock, and the EPA taking final rulemaking action
     approving the plan satisfies the second FIP clock condition.

         The EPA believes that the FIP clock should  only stop
     temporarily because the Act does not require  the  EPA to take
     duplicative FIP promulgation action to address  the SIP's
     inadequacy during the time intended for the State to meet the
     commitment of the conditional approval.   However,  the  FIP clock
     does not permanently stop because a conditional approval  can
     convert to a disapproval if a State fails to  meet the  commitment
     by submitting a plan revision that the EPA can  fully approve.
     Thus, although the State has met the second condition,  it is
     temporary, and if the conditional approval converts  to a
     disapproval, the FIP clock resumes where it stopped and a new
     sanction clock starts.
          2Note that plan or complete plan refers also to any
     submittal which we have indicated explicitly in guidance  or
     elsewhere that we could accept as a committal  SIP.


          3For guidance  on  finding  committal SIP's complete, see
     memorandum entitled "State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions
     Submitted in Response  to Clean Air Act  (Act)  Deadlines" from John
     Calcagni to Air Division Directors, Regions I-X, October  28,
     1992.
104

-------
    Following Conditional Approval, When Does FIP Clock Stop or
    Resume?

    The FIP clock will stop permanently if the State fulfills
its commitment and the EPA takes final action fully approving the
plan.  The clock will resume where it stopped (and the EPA will
remain under its FIP obligation) and a new sanction clock will
start if any one of three events occurs where the conditional
approval converts to a disapproval.  (See attached flowchart for
graphic representation of how this process works.)

    One, if the State fails to  submit anything to meet its
commitment/ the clock will resume on the date of the letter from
the EPA to the State finding that it had failed to meet its
commitment and that the SIP submittal has now been converted to a
disapproval.  The letter will be sent shortly after the final
date for the State to meet its  commitment.  Two, if the State
submits an incomplete SIP to meet its commitment, the clock will
resume on the date that the EPA sends a letter of incompleteness
to the State.  If the EPA finds the SIP incomplete prior to the
final date for meeting the commitment (i.e., in the case where
the State submits the SIP before the due date), the FIP clock
will resume on the final date for meeting the commitment if the
State has not remedied the incompleteness finding by making a
submittal the EPA finds complete.  On that date, the EPA will
notify the State by letter that ihe plan remains incomplete and
that the FIP clock resumes.*  Three,  if the State submits  a SIP
for which the EPA  takes final  disapproval action, the clock
resumes on the effective date of the final action.  (The July 9,
1992 guidance explains in detail how conditional approvals
function.)
      4The guidance provided here clarifies the discussion in the
 July 9,  1992  guidance of how conditional  approvals may be
 converted  to  disapprovals in the  event  the State  fails to submit
 anvthinq and/or where the State makes a submittal that EPA  finds
 incomplete.   In the first case, if the  State  fails to submit
 anything,  the sanction and FIP clocks start on the date of  the
 letter from EPA to the State finding that it  had  failed to  meet
 its  commitment and the SIP has been converted to  a dJJW"™1;
 The  letter is sent shortly after  the "M\ ^5« f;jjj^ **"*• **
 meet its commitment.  In the second case, if  EPA  "»*•«»;»
 incomplete, the sanction and FIP  clocks start on  the date of the
 EPA  letter making the finding of  incompleteness and notifying the
 State that it, therefore, failed  to meet  its  commitment.
 Sowever, if EPA finds the submittal incomplete Before the date
 the  submittal is due under the commitment, the sanction and FIP
 clocks do  not start until the final date  for  meeting the
 commitment Short" after which time EPA will  notify the State by
 letter that the SIP remains incomplete.
                                                                    105

-------
         General questions on this clarification should be directed
     to Chris Stoneman of the Sulfur Dioxide Particulate Matter
     Programs Branch (919/541-0823).  Questions regarding application
     to specific programs should be directed to the appropriate
     program branch within OAQPS.

     Attachment

     cc:  Jane Armstrong, QMS
          William Becker, STAPPA/ALAPCO
          Phillip Lorang, QMS
          Rich Ossias, OGC
          Air Branch Chief, Regions I-X
          Regional Air Counsel, Regions I-X
106

-------
   Attachment (page 1  of 2)
        Submitted Due
            i
        Submittal Made?
                     Yes
                             (Process^
                             Submittaly
               No
 (EPA Makes Nonsubmittal Finding)


  ( Sanction and FIP Clocks Start j

             I
        Submittal Made?
                        No   / Proceed with
                             Sanctions
                             and FIP's
             i                \ ana rn
             1 Yes                 I
             ^	1  No      T
             kWh•
-------
M«*OSI!»>.
>r  —  T
-------
          The EPA guidance identifies presumptive RACT for certain
     types of electric utility boilers in pounds of NOx per million
     British thermal units (Btu) on a 30-day rolling average:

          1.  0.45 for tangentially-fired coal burning.

          2.  0.50 for dry bottom, wall-fired (other than cell burner)
     coal burning.

          3.  0.20 for tangentially-fired gas/oil burning.

          4.  0.30 for wall-fired gas/oil burning.

     For other source categories, the EPA guidance states that NOx
     RACT may be set at levels that are comparable to the above levels
     for certain utility boilers.

          The EIP guidance is intended to stimulate the adoption of
     incentive-based, innovative programs that will assist States in
     meeting air quality goals through flexible approaches which allow
     for less costly control strategies and which provide stronger
     incentives for the development and implementation of innovative
     emissions reductions technology.  As described in that guidance,
     long-term emissions averaging programs can be used by States to
     .meet the Act's RACT requirements.  Key provisions of the EIP
     guidance, with respect to the use of fuel switching to meet the
     NOx RACT requirements, are described below.

     III.  Definitions

          A.  Fuel Switching

          As used in this guidance, fuel switching refers to instances
     where a unit historically burned one primary fuel, such as coal,
     and under a "fuel switching" program the unit would burn a
     cleaner fuel, such as natural gas, during the ozone season and
     may switch back to the "historic" fuel for some or all of the
     non-ozone season.

          B.  Base Year Fuel

          For purposes of this guidance, the historical fuel refers to
     the fuel that a unit primarily used during calendar year (CY)
     1990.  The EPA believes that CY 1990 is appropriate since many
     Act requirements (such as reasonable further progress) stem from
     this date.  States are required to develop a comprehensive 1990
     inventory, and the CY 1990 inventory is likely to be the most
     accurate information readily available.  Further, since this
     guidance utilizes an annual emissions equivalency (described
     below), the historical fuel needs to be based on an annual
     period.
110

-------
      J ™« Precisely  the historical fuel is defined as the fuel
            J«2? ? Btu-weighted basis,  during CY 1990.   Where CY
            J 9? is den?nstrated to be  more representative of
          actual operating conditions,  those years may  be used.
          ie' ?5eTe a m^ burned 9° percent coal during 1990-
 ;???!  t5at ""^ i« considered subject  to the presumptive NOx RACT
 limits for coal-fired units; if the same unit used 60  percent gas
 i™a*rr.vear.s, it would still be subject to the presumptive NOx
 RACT limits for coal-fired units.
      C.   Ozone Season
      For purposes of this guidance,  the  ozone  season generally
 means the  period of time that ozone  monitoring is required  for an
 area  as defined in 40 CFR part 58, appendix D,  section 2.5.

      D-  Presumptive NOx RACT

      For purposes of this guidance,  presumptive NOx RACT means
 the more stringent of the requirements:

      1.  adopted by the State into the State implementation plan
 (SIP) to meet the NOx RACT requirements, or

      2.  defined in EPA's guidance published in 57 FR 55620,
 November 25, 1992.

 IV.   NOx RACT for Fuel Switchers

      Limited data indicate that, in  some cases, a switch to
 natural gas from coal could result in emissions in the 0.10 to
 0.40  (pounds of NOx per million Btu) range as compared to the EPA
 presumptive NOx RACT emissions rates for gas/oil of 0.20 to 0.30
 and for coal of 0.45 to 0.50.   This  is a relatively broad range
 and is based on very little data.  The EPA has determined that
 there is not enough data available to establish a presumptive NOx
 RACT  level for  a fuel-switcher category.

     As a result, units that  switch, for example, from coal
 (historic fuel)  to  gas could  fall under either the presumptive
 coal or gas/oil  NOx RACT limits.  However, if fuel-switcher units
 were required to meet the presumptive gas RACT limits,  those
 units would face the costs of  both fuel switching and add-on
 controls,  which  would remove an important incentive for coal
 units to switch  to  gas.   In these cases, EPA believes that the
 presumptive RACT limits for coal are appropriate for establishing
 the program baseline in an EIP because it is consistent with the
 EIP guidance,  data  are not available to set a fuel switcher
presumptive NOx  RACT level, there are clear environmental
benefits (noted  below)  when units switch to clean fuels,  and fuel
switching might  only occur under a coal baseline.
                                                                  Ill

-------
     V.  Fuel Switching to Meet NOx RACT Through Loncr-Term Averaging

          A.  EIP Approach

          State rules which allow fuel switching to meet the NOx RACT
     requirements are approvable where the rules are consistent with
     the EIP guidance for long-term averaging and the guidance in this
     memorandum.  This approach is applicable to utility boilers as
     well as any other source subject to the NOx RACT requirements.
     Any source which meets the NOx RACT requirements through a long-
     term averaging EIP must also meet all other relevant Act
     requirements.       *

          B.  Emissions Limitation Requirements

          The State rules must include emissions limits on both an
     annual and ozone season basis, as described below.

          C.  Annual Emissions Limit

          The EIP guidance provides States with the flexibility to
     meet new RACT requirements, such as the NOx RACT requirements,
     through an EIP that yields reductions in emissions at least
     equivalent to those which would result from unit-by-unit
     compliance with the presumptive RACT limit for that source
     category.  Under a long-term emissions averaging EIP to meet NOx
     RACT, annual emissions of NOx must be less than or equal to
     annual emissions that would result from compliance with
     presumptive NOx RACT.  The specific calculation methodology for
     determining annual equivalence is described in the enclosed
     appendix to this guidance.

          D.  Ozone Season Emissions Limit

          An EIP that uses long-term emissions averaging to meet the
     RACT requirements must include long-term emissions requirements,
     as described above,  and other requirements to show that the EIP
     is equivalent to the presumptive RACT on a short-term basis.   For
     purposes of NOx RACT, a short-term emissions limit, in
     conjunction with an annual emissions limit, satisfies these EIP
     requirements.   The short-term emissions limit must be applicable
     in the ozone season and at least as stringent as the presumptive
     NOx RACT limit.   The more stringent of the State-adopted or EPA
     presumptive NOx RACT must be required during the ozone season.

          As discussed in the long-term averaging section of the EIP
     guidance,  a 24-hour averaging time is generally used to construct
     attainment demonstrations in ozone nonattainment plans.
     Accordingly,  EPA believes that daily emissions limits should be
     considered in the development of the EIP short-term emissions
     limit requirements.
112

-------
VI.  EIP Cost/Environmental Considerations

     In general, the EIP guidance indicates  (58 FR 11121) that
savings in compliance costs can result from EIP's and that
consideration might be given to the sharing of that benefit
between the regulated sources and the environmental goals of the
Act.  The EIP guidance also states (58 FR 11117) that new RACT
requirements must be based on an analysis that considers the
incentive mechanism upon which the EIP is based.  The EPA's
assessment of these issues_for fuel switching is summarized
below.

     A.  Fuel-Switching Cost Considerations

     In general, a fuel-switching program would provide new
flexibility to States and industry in meeting certain Act
requirements, including the NOx RACT requirements. , Fuel
switching is a viable option for units where natural gas is
readily available since the price of natural gas in the ozone
season may be competitive with other fuels.  While still meeting
the Act requirements, industry could, in some cases, avoid much
of the initial capital and operating costs associated with
combustion modifications.

     As described above, fuel switching is expected to reduce the
cost to industry of meeting the NOx RACT requirements in some
cases.  In other cases, the cost of a fuel-switching program may
exceed the cost of compliance with a presumptive RACT technology
such as a low-NOx burner and overfire air.  The costs of a fuel-
switching program to industry will vary greatly from unit to unit
due to the availability of gas, price of gas, extent of needed
modifications to the boiler, and monitoring requirements.
     B.  Fuel-Switching  Environm
ental Considerations
     The EPA has considered the relative environmental benefits
for fuel switching and presumptive NOx RACT.  In terms of the
primary purpose of NOx1 RACT, that is reducing ozone effects in
areas of high concentrations, it is clear that the increased NOx
emissions reductions due to burning a cleaner fuel during the
ozone season would be much more effective than lesser emissions
reductions at the presumptive NOx RACT levels, which would be
evenly spread over an entire year.  The use of natural gas
instead of coal could also substantially reduce annual and
summertime emissions of sulfur dioxide (S02),  carbon dioxide
(CO,), PM-10  (particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or
equal to a nominal 10 micrometers), and associated toxic
emissions such as mercury.  Further, emissions reductions of
these pollutants may be especially effective in the summer with
respect to reducing regional haze and sulfate-related PM-10, both
                                                                   113

-------
      of which tend to peak in the summer.  Thus, the potential
      benefits that go beyond the title I ozone and NOx PACT goals
      include helping attain/maintain the NAAQS for S02  and  PM-10,
      reducing mercury and other air toxic emissions, improving
      visibility, and cutting emissions of C02, a global warming gas.

           The EPA has also considered evidence suggesting that, for
      certain ecosystems, reductions in nitrogen deposition that occur
      only during the summer would be less effective at reducing acid
      deposition and nutrient impacts than reductions that occur
      uniformly throughout the year.  It is not possible at this time
      to fully determine or quantify this relative ecological impact.
      Moreover, due to the inherent limits on the amount of fuel
      switching that can occur and the effect of titles II and IV KOx
      reductions, wintertime nitrogen deposition would be projected to
      decrease in most areas regardless of fuel switching.  In
      contrast, the ozone related and many of the additional potential
      benefits of fuel switching noted above are well known and
      quantifiable.  In EPA's judgment, substantial additional ozone
      reductions occur from fuel switching; this benefit and the
      accompanying improvements in visibility, PM-10, air toxics, and
      global warming that also occur from fuel switching clearly
      outweigh the reduced wintertime benefits.

            C. Conclusion

           The above environmental and cost considerations are
      important in interpreting the EIP guidance for the use of fuel
      switching to meet NOx RACT.  Based on these considerations, EPA
      believes that, in cases where fuel switching results in a lower
      cost to the source, requiring further environmental benefits
      would not be necessary for fuel switching.   Moreover,  the
      potential cost savings may need to be preserved to provide some
      incentive to sources to achieve these substantial environmental
      benefits.

      VII.  Enforcement

           Each affected source in a long-term averaging program must
      comply with all requirements imposed by the program.  Each long-
      term averaging program must:

           1.  Specify credible, workable, replicable and otherwise
      fully enforceable methodologies for appropriately determining
      compliance at all emissions units participating in the averaging
      program, including methodologies for quantifying emissions, where
      appropriate.

           2.  Require recordkeeping and reporting, consistent with the
      required compliance determination methodologies, including
      emissions quantification methodologies sufficient for determining
114

-------
and documenting compliance with the program.  These requirements
must contain a mechanism for determining required data, including
emissions at subject emissions units when data are missing,
inadequate, or erroneous.  This mechanism must ensure that owners
of emissions units have a strong incentive to properly perform
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting in the first instance.

     3.  Provide adequate civil and criminal sanctions for
failure to comply with applicable program requirements, including
emissions limitations and monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements.  The program regulatory requirements and
enforcement authorities must preserve the level of deterrence to
noncompliance, at both the State and Federal levels, which would
have otherwise applied in the absence of the averaging program.

VIII.  Projected Results and Audit Procedures

     A SIP revision that contains an EIP must include projections
of the emissions reductions the State expects to achieve through
implementation of the program.  All EIP submittals must include
documentation which clearly states how sources in an EIP are or
will be addressed in the emissions inventory, reasonable further
progress (RFP) plan (i.e., where the 3 percent RFP plan includes
NOx substitution for required volatile organic compounds
reductions) and attainment or maintenance plan, as applicable.

     All EIP's must also contain program audit procedures
designed to evaluate program implementation and track program
results in terms of the actual emissions reductions obtained
during program implementation.  The program audit provisions must
include a State commitment to ensure timely implementation of
programmatic revisions or other measures which the State, in
response to the audit, deems necessary for the successful
operation of the program.

IX.  Emissions Reduction Credits fERCl

     Annual emissions reductions achieved through the EIP that
exceed the annual emissions reductions that would result from
compliance with presumptive RACT may be used to establish ERG.
However, this guidance does not address establishing or trading
of seasonal ERC.
                                                                   115

-------
           Appendix;  Annual Equivalency Calculation Methodology

     A.  Emissions Averaging or Emissions Cap

          As described below, a long-term averaging EIP may use either
     an emissions averaging or emissions cap basis to establish annual
     equivalency!  Under emissions averaging, if production increases,
     emissions may increase proportionately; and if production
     decreases, emissions must decrease accordingly.  Shutdowns and
     curtailments do not provide credit under an emissions averaging
     program.  Where an emissions cap is set, actual emissions must be
     within the emissions cap for all appropriate averaging periods in
     the future.  Shutdowns and curtailments may provide credit under
     an emissions cap under circumstances that will be described in
     future guidance.

          Both of these options assume that the State has determined a
     RACT emissions rate value for each fuel i (up to N fuels) burned
     in equipment j  (for M types of equipment).  The constraints in
     this guidance presume that RACT is designated as an emissions
     rate per unit of production (in this case heat input).  The RACT
     may also be designated as a percent reduction from representative
     historical emissions rates.1   If a  source wishes to  implement  a
     long-term average percent reduction, the values must be converted
     to emissions rate limits per unit of production.

          Note, where multiple fuels are used in the base year, EPA
     generally expects the presumptive RACT to be applicable to the
     one primary fuel, and that different emissions rate limits would
     be used for other fuels.  For example, where coal has been
     historically used 80 percent and oil 20 percent of the time in a
     wall-fired boiler, the EPA presumptive RACT emissions limit of
     0.5 (pounds of NOx per million Btu) might be used in the coal-
     fired portion of the calculation; however, the EPA presumptive
     RACT of 0.30 for oil might not be appropriate for the oil-fired
     portion of the calculation since the presumed low NOx burner
     technology designed to meet 0.5 when burning coal might not be
     designed to meet 0.3 when burning oil.  In this example, 0.35
     might be more appropriate to include in the oil-fired portion of
     the calculation; the State needs to determine the appropriate
     emissions rate for the secondary fuel(s), considering the control
     equipment designed to meet the primary fuel limit.
          1  Generally speaking,  the term "historical"  means calendar
     year 1990 unless another 12-month: period is more representative
     of normal source operation.  This alternative 12-month period
     must fall between January  1990 and December 1992.
116

-------
B.  Emissions Averaging

     Emissions averaging allows an emissions unit to use a
production-weighted average to meet the prescribed emissions rate
limitation (in this case the presumptive RACT limit) on an annual
basis.  Actual annual emissions in each future compliance period
(mass per year) must be less than the emissions that would have
occurred if the presumptive RACT limit was met.

     If RACT is designated as an emissions rate limitation, then
mathematically the constraint that must be met for every annual
compliance period in the future is as follows:

Si.w,2j_i_MRACTs  X Annual Heat Inputy £
                         Total Annual Actual NOX Emissions

Where RACTy generally equals the lowest federally enforceable
emissions rate limitation that applies to unit j using fuel i.
There are limited exceptions to this generalization where an
emissions rate lower than RACTy would apply (e.g.,  see the
baseline section of the EIP guidelines) .  Further guidance is
expected to be released on this soon.

C.  Emissions Cap

     An emissions cap is an averaging approach that imposes a
limit on annual mass emissions from an emissions unit.  The cap
is set using historical production rates and RACT emissions rate
limitations as shown below:

Emissions Cap = Ziml_NZj.,..MHistorical Production Rates X RACTg

     Where RACT;j is defined the same as above.

D.  Example Determinations of Annual Equivalency
                                           i

     a.  Sinle Fuel Emissions Averaging Example
             s  X Annual Heat Input,,- £
                         Total Annual Actual NOS Emissions
i « 100% coal
j - wall-fired utility boiler
assume presumptive coal RACT » 0.5  (pounds NOx/MMBtu)

if 1996 actual annual heat input -  4 X 10* MMBtu
then actual |1996 annual emissions could not exceed:
(0.5)  X  (4 X 106)  » 2 million pounds or 1000 tons NOx
                                                                  117

-------
                                      3

           b.   Single Fuel Emissions Cap Example

      i = 100% coal
      j - wall-fired utility boiler
      assume presumptive coal RACT "0.5 (pounds NOx/MMBtu)

      if historic (CY-90) production rates » 3 X 10* MMBtu/year
      then the emissions cap is:
      (3 X 106)  X   (0.5) -  1.5  million pounds or 750 tons  NOx/vear

      Annual emissions must1, therefore,  not exceed 750 tons for all
      future years.

           c.   Multiple Fuel Emissions Averaging Example

      Zit.i.*iZj.i_MRACTs  X Annual Heat Inputy £
                               Total Annual Actual NOX Emissions

      i - 75%  coal; 25% oil
      j - wall-fired utility boiler
      assume presumptive coal RACT =0.5 (pounds NOx/MMBtu)
      assume the State has determined that the low NOx burner
           technology designed for coal will result in a 0.35 emissions
           rate when burning oil

      if 1996  actual annual heat input (coal) = 3  X 10* MMBtu and
         1996  actual annual heat input (oil) = 1 X 106 MMBtu

      then actual 1996 annual emissions could not exceed:
           (0.5)   X  (3 X 106) -1.5 million pounds  plus
           (0.35)   X  (IX 106)  - 0.35 million pounds
      which -  1.85 million pounds or 925 tons NOx

           d.   Multiple Fuel Emissions Cap Example

      Emissions Cap - Z^j^Ej^^Historical Production Rate8 X RACTe
      i =  66.6%  coal;  33.3% oil
      j -  wall-fired utility boiler
      assume presumptive coal RACT =0.5 (pounds NOx/MMBtu)
      assume the State has determined that the low NOx burner
          technology  designed for coal will result in a 0.35 emissions
          rate  when burning oil
118

-------
if historic (CY 1990) production rates for coal - 2 X 10*
    MMBtu/year and
historic (CY 1990) production rates for oil - 1 X 10* MMBtu/year,

then the emissions cap is:
     (2 X 10*)   X  (0.5)  - 1 million pounds  plus
     (1 X 10')   X  (0.35)  - 0.35 million pounds
which -1.35 million pounds or 675 tons NOx

Annual emissions must, therefore, not exceed 675 tons for all
future years.
                                                                   119

-------
                                                  12/19/93

             STATUS OF AIR TOXICS RULES AND REPORTS

     Under section 112 of the Clean Air Act,  EPA is required to
issue,  by the year 2000,  regulations governing major sources of
189 hazardous air pollutants; perform,  or participate in, 13
special studies of national scope,  evaluate and update the EPA's
risk assessment methodologies, provide guidance to State and
local air pollution control agencies on particular provisions of
the Act; establish and maintain publicly-available data bases and
Clearinghouses; initiate voluntary emission reduction programs;
and establish a prevention program for accidental releases.

     Significant progress has been made in all of the areas
mentioned.  Progress has been made on proposal of standards and
reports to Congress covering the following:

     Proposed Rules Issued:

               Section 112(j) Equivalent Emission Limitations
               Hazardous Organic NESHAP
               Pulp and Paper
               Industrial Cooling Towers
               Chromium Electroplating
               Degreasers
               General Provisions

     Reports to Congress:

               Section 112(s) - Status Report on Toxics Program
               Hydrogen Sulfide Report

     A copy of the executive summary from the section 112(s)
report is provided on the following pages.

     Fact sheets summarizing requirements of final regulations
issued in the last year are also provided.  These include:

     Final Rules Issued:

               Coke Ovens
               Dry Cleaning
               Section 112(1) Delegation of Federal Programs
               Source Category List and Schedule
               Early Reductions Program
                                                                   121

-------
        United Slates
        Environmental Protection
        Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
EPA/453/R-93-024
August 1993
        Report to Congress on Implementation
EPA   of Section 112 of the Clean Air Act
        Amendments of 1990
                                                   123

-------
                        2.0  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
                                        i

   X.  INTRODUCTION

         This report is being submitted to Congress in fulfillment
   of the requirements of section 112(s) of the CAA.  Section 112(s)
   requires the EPA to submit a status report every 3 years,
   beginning in 1993, on the measures taken by the EPA and the
   States to implement the provisions of section 112 of the CAA.
   Section 112 pertains to emissions of hazardous air pollutants
   from routine as well as accidental releases.   As required by
   section 112(s), this report includes a summary of standards-
   setting activities under section 112(d), information with respect
   to the costs of compliance with such standards, and discussions
   of the national urban air toxics program and the accidental
   release program.

        Section 112 of the CAA requires EPA to issue, by the year
   2000, regulations governing major sources of 189 hazardous air
   pollutants; perform, or participate in, 13 special studies of
   national scope; evaluate and update the EPA's risk assessment
   methodologies; provide guidance to State and local air pollution
   control agencies on particular provisions of the Act; establish
   and maintain publicly-available data bases and clearinghouses;
   initiate voluntary emission reduction programs; and establish a
   prevention program for accidental releases.  The EPA has not met
   all of the deadlines required by section 112  to date.  However,
   significant progress has been made in all of the areas mentioned
   above.

        In addition to section 112, other efforts the EPA has
   underway under the authority of the CAA will reduce air toxics
   emissions.  Section 129 of Title III requires EPA to regulate
   emissions from municipal solid waste incinerators.  This
   regulation will have a significant impact on air toxics emissions
   from these sources.  Title I of the CAA contains provisions
   requiring the control of volatile organic compounds, and Title II
   provisions relate to control of mobile source emissions.  Actions
   under both of these Titles will reduce air toxics.  The EPA has
   also initiated a voluntary emissions reduction program - the
   33/50 program - which asks companies to voluntarily reduce
   releases of 17 air toxics to air, land and water.  All of these
   efforts are also discussed in the Executive Summary because all
   are means to a common ends  protection of public health and the
   environment from the effects of air toxics emissions.

        This Executive Summary is divided into ten areas of air
   toxics activities and provides an overview of each area as well
   as highlights of some of the EPA's accomplishments in each.  The
   ten areas ares
                  - Emission Standards,
                  - Implementation Programs,
124

-------
               - Special Studies/Programs,
               - Technical Assistance,
               - Regional Activities,
               - State Activities,
               - Risk Assessment Activities,
               - Voluntary Programs,
               - Outreach Activities, and
               - Titles I and II Air Toxics Accomplishments.

Projects specific to section 112 are described individually in
Section 4.0 of this report, including discussions of compliance
costs where applicable.  Other activities the EPA has undertaken
to reduce emissions of air toxics that are not required by
section 112 are also described in Section IV of this Executive
Summary, but are hot included in the detailed descriptions
provided in Section 4.0.


II.  SECTION 112 REQUIREMENTS OVERVIEW

     Section 112 of the CAA requires EPA, over a 10 year period,
to issue "maximum achievable control technology" (MACT) standards
which cover all major sources of 189 specified hazardous air
pollutants (SAP's).  The'primary consideration in establishing
these standards must be demonstrated technology.  Costs, non-air
quality health and environmental impacts and energy requirements
may also play a role in setting these standards.  Standards are
effective immediately, except that industries may have up to
3 years to comply with a standard for an existing source,
according to a schedule established by EPA.  If EPA determines,
after MACT standards are applied, that additional standards to
protect public health and the environment are required to provide
an ample margin of safety, EPA will promulgate additional
standards.

     Other provisions of section 112 require controls on area
sources to address the urban air toxics problem, measures to
prevent accidental releases, and measures to protect the Great
Lakes and coastal waters from atmospheric deposition of air
toxics.  A voluntary early emissions reduction program is also
required to be established.  The new amendments also place
greater emphasis than in the past on health effects other than
cancer and on the prevention of ecosystem damage.

     Section 112 also recognizes the considerable role that State
and local air pollution control agencies will play in the
successful implementation of the CAA.  Several provisions require
the EPA to provide guidance addressing source modifications,
delegation of State programs, and case-by-case equivalency
determinations in the event the EPA fails to issue a standard
according to the established regulatory schedule.  National data
bases and clearinghouses for technical and risk assessment

                              ES-2


                                                                    125

-------
   information are also to be maintained to assist  State and local
   agencies and any other interested parties.
                   i

   ZZZ.   SECTION 112:  THE FIRST TWO TEARS AND WHAT'S AHEAD

        This section of the Executive Summary highlights the
   progress the EPA has made in implementing section 112.   While
   this  section highlights certain  projects, Section 4.0 of this
   report summarizes the status and achievements of all  section 112
   activities.  The following areas are  discussed here:'

                  - Emission Standards,
                  - Implementation  Programs,
                  -.Special Studies/Programs,
                  •- Technical Assistance,
                  - Regional Activities,  and
                  - State Activities.

   Emission Standards

         Although significant actions  have  been taken  since passage
   of the 1990 CAA, the EPA has not met  all of the  section 112
   deadlines for issuance of emissions standards.   Reaching the
   degree of consensus necessary to issue the rules and  to lay  the
   groundwork for effective implementation  has proven  to be a
   lengthy process.

        To date,  three emission standards have been proposed.   These
   standards regulate  synthetic organic  chemical manufacturing
   (otherwise known as the Hazardous Organic NESHAP, or  HON
   standard), commercial and industrial  dry cleaners (two distinct
   source categories), and steel coke  ovens.

        In developing  the regulations  implementing  section 112  and
   consistent with CAA section 101(c), EPA  is committed  to promoting
   pollution prevention approaches.  As  part of the Source Reduction
   and Review Project  (SRRP),  the EPA has identified 17  industrial
   categories which may be affected by the  development of
   environmental  regulations,  and has  committed to  identifying  and
   promoting pollution prevention options as part of the regulatory
   development process.   The emission  standards that are being
   considered for the  SRRP include:

             Industrial process cateogry,
             Acrylic fibers/modacrylic fibers,
             Degreasing operations,
             Integrated iron and steel manufacturing,
             Metal products and machinery,
        -    Paint stripper users,
        -    Paints, coatings,  adhesives  manufacturing,
             Paper and other web coatings,

                                 ES-3

126

-------
          Pesticide formulating,
          Pharmaceuticals production,
          Plywood/particle board manufacturing,
          Polystyrene production,
          Printing/publishing,
          Pulp and paper production,
          Reinforced plastic composite production,
          Rubber chemicals manufacturing,
          Styrene, butadiene latex and rubber,  and
     -    Wood furniture manufacturing.


     Related to the section 112(d) emission standards is the
Early Reductions Program required by  section 112(i).   The Early
Reductions Program gives industries an incentive to achieve at
least a 90 percent reduction in emissions  prior to  proposal of an
applicable MACT standard.  In exchange, the facility would be
given 6 additional years to comply with the final emissions
standard.   This program has the potential  to result in
substantial emission reductions well  before the compliance date
for individual section 112(d) standards.             '

     Achievement Highlights

          The proposed HON standard requires reductions in
          emissions of 149 HAP's and  affects nearly 370 chemical
          manufacturing plants  across the  nation.  The HON
          standard will reduce HAP emissions from this industry
          by 80 percent, or an estimated 552,000 tons per year -
          more than any other air toxics rule to be issued under
          the CAA.  This rule will also reduce  volatile organic
          compounds, which react to form ozone,  by  1.1 million
          tons per year.  The proposed rule, announced in October
          1992, includes requirements to reduce equipment leaks;
          these requirements were developed through a regulatory
          negotiation which included  industry,  environmental
          groups, and State representatives. Also  reflected in
          the proposal are the results of  dozens of meetings the
          EPA held with the chemical  industry,  environmental
          groups, States, and other Federal agencies.

          Control technology standards for about 3,700 industrial
          and large commercial  dry cleaners were proposed in
          November 1991 and will be finalized in September 1993.
          This proposal includes a "consumption cutoffs"
          provision that will exempt  many  small dry cleaners and
          thus minimize the regulatory impacts  on small business.

          Regulatory negotiations produced an agreement on
          regulations to reduce toxic emissions from steel
          industry coke ovens.   These regulations should be
          finalized in September 1993.  The regulatory

                              ES-4


                                                                    127

-------
             negotiation committee included 22 parties representing
             EPA, States, the steel industry, labor unions and
             environmental and citizen groups.  Use of regulatory
             negotiation also resulted in more control of emissions
             than required by the CAA, as well as a lower estimate
             of compliance costs for industry than was originally
             anticipated during Congressional debate over the CAA.

             The EPA has initiated work on 35 additional emission
             standards.  These include the emission standards due
             4 years after enactment and several that are due 7
             years after enactment.  Table 1 lists the source
             categories covered by this ongoing work.

             The final rule for the Early Reductions Program was
             announced in December 1992.  As of July 1993, 91
             enforceable commitments have been received and are
             being reviewed.  If all of these commitments are
             carried out, the resulting reductions in SAP's would
             total 36 million pounds by January 1, 1994.

   Implementation Programs

        Nine implementation programs are being developed to assist
   State and local air pollution control agencies in implementing
   the requirements of section 112.  The EPA is working to develop
   guidance for State and local agencies and, where necessary, rules
   establishing EPA policy and requirements.  The nine programs are:

        the General Provisions which create the technical and
        administrative framework for implementing section 112
        standards and programs,

        the section 112(c)(l) Source Category List which is an
        initial list of major and area sources of SAP's,

        the section 112(e) Source Category Schedule for Standards
        which is a schedule for the regulation of all source
        categories by November 15, 2000.

        the section 112(g) Modifications rule which requires control
        technology reviews for constructed, reconstructed, and
        modified major sources of pollutants,

        the section 112(j) Equivalent Emissions Limitations by
        Permit rule which requires States to issue operating permits
        to major sources based on a case-by-case control technology
        assessment, if the EPA fails to promulgate a standard within
        18 months of the scheduled date,
                                  ES-5

128

-------
    Table 1.   Emission  Standards  Currently Under Development
                             SOURCE  CATEGORY
Aerospace Industry
Auto/Light-Duty Truck
Cbelating Agents Production
Chlorine Manufacturing
Chromium Electroplating
Commercial Sterilizers
Electric Arc Furnaces:  Carbon/Stainless Steel
Ferroalloys
Halogenated Solvent Cleaning - Degreasing
Iron/Steel Foundaries
Magnetic Tape
Medical Haste Incineration
Oil and Gas Production
Paper and Pulp (Combustion Sources)
Paper and Pulp (Nonconbustion Sources)
Petroleum Refinery
Polymers and Resins I
Polymers and Resins II
Polymers and Resins III
Polymers and Resins IV
Portland Cement
Primary Copper
Primary Aluminum
Printing/Publishing
Rubber Chemicals Production
Secondary Lead
Secondary Lead Smelters
Secondary Aluminum
Shipbuilding
Solid Haste Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities
Stage I (Gasoline Marketing)
Steel Pickling
Hood Treatment
Hood Furniture
Hool Fiberglass
               gsggggi^aSS^SSSSSSfSSSSssssssssssi^^ssss^ssss^mmi^	••nm  m	






                                   ES-6                                        129

-------
        the section 112(1)(1) State Programs rule which establishes
        EPA requirements for the approval of State or local air
        toxics rules or programs, so that the federal air toxics
        program can be integrated with existing State programs,

        the section 112(1)(2) State Guidance for Implementation of
        Section 112(r)/ which provides guidance to States
        implementing the section 112(r) accidental release
        provisions,

        the section 112(r) List of Regulated Substances and Risk
        Management Program, which requires any facility having
        greater than the established threshold quantity of listed
        substances to -develop a risk management program, and

        the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, which
        will investigate accidental releases resulting in a
        fatality, serious injury, or substantial property damage.

        Achievement Highlights

             In July 1992, an initial list of 174 industrial
             categories potentially subject to MACT standards was
             published.  The list also includes eight categories of
             "area sources" which are sources that emit smaller
             amounts of HAP's than major sources, but were
             determined by the Administrator to present a threat of
             adverse effects to human health or the environment
             warranting regulation under section 112.

             A 10-year schedule for issuing the MACT standards was
             announced for public comment in September 1992.  The
             draft schedule calls for the first standards to be
             issued for the synthetic organic chemical manufacturing
             industry, commercial and industrial dry cleaners, and
             steel industry coke ovens.

             A rule implementing the section 112(g) Modifications
             requirements, including a list of the 189 HAP's ranked
             in order of estimated hazard, has been drafted and is
             currently undergoing EPA review.  The technical support
             documents for implementing this requirement, including
             case-by-case control technology assessment, have also
             been completed and are under EPA review.

             The section 112(1) State Programs rule was proposed on
             May 19,  1993.

             The section 112(j) rule, the equivalent standard
             provision was proposed on July 13, 1993.
                                 ES-7

130

-------
          The General Provisions were proposed on August 11,
          1993.

          Under  section 112(r),  EPA is required to develop a  list
          of at  least 100 chemicals which are known or reasonably
          anticipated to cause death, injury, or serious adverse
          effects to human health or the environment in the event
          of an  accidental release.  A proposed rule listing  162
          substances was announced in January 1993.

Special Studies/Programs

     Section 112 requires the EPA to either conduct or
participate in 13 special studies on topics ranging from risk
assessment methodologies to urban air toxics; work has been
initiated on all of them.  Several special studies, such as the
Hydrogen Fluoride Study, the Hydrogen Sulfide Study and the
National Academy of Sciences Study will be completed in 1993.
The first in a series of biennial reports on the Great Waters
Program and an interim report for the Utility Study will also be
submitted to Congress in 1993.  The special studies and programs
are:

          Atmospheric Deposition to Great Lakes and Coastal
          Waters (Great Waters Program)
          Urban  Area Source Program
          Electric Utilities Steam Generating Units
          Mercury Study
          Mercury Health Effects Study
          National Academy of Sciences Study
          Hazardous Materials Accident Safety Review
          Hydrogen Fluoride Study
          Hydrogen Sulfide Study
          Residual Risk Report
          Coke Oven Production Technology Study
          Publicly-Owned Treatment Works Study
          Mickey Leland Urban Air Toxics Research Center

     Achievement Highlights

          The Great Waters Program under section 112(m) is
          evaluating the deposition of toxic air pollutants to
          the Great Lakes, Lake Champlain, Chesapeake Bay, and
          other  coastal waters.   Master research stations have
          been established in each of the Great Lakes and the
          data are being used to develop Lakewide Management
          Plans.  The Chesapeake Bay Atmospheric Deposition Study
          is providing monitoring data on deposition to this
          region and other monitoring and research initiatives
          are'either underway or under development for other
          geographic regions.  The 1993 Great Waters report to
          Congress is on schedule for submission in

                              ES-8


                                                                   131

-------
            November 1993.  The report will address sources of air
            pollutants, relative loading of air pollutants to the
            Great Waters, and exposure and effects of airborne
            pollutants in those waters.

            The Urban Area Source Program has a number of
            activities underway that will assist in drafting the
            national urban air toxics strategy, due to Congress in
            1995.  Three major geographical initiatives in
            Baltimore, Bouston, and Chicago have been undertaken to
            develop improved emission inventories.  Ambient air
            monitoring and receptor modeling, which is a tool for
            associating emission sources with samples from the
            ambient air, are also included in these efforts.  A
            series of national surveys has also been commenced to
            better characterize the emissions of several selected
            SAP's.  The EPA's Office of Research and Development
            has drafted a research report, which is currently
            undergoing review, covering ambient monitoring, source
            characterization, and consideration of atmospheric
            transformation.  The final research report will be
            published in 1995 to complement the national urban air
            toxics strategy.

            The Utility Study is being coordinated with the
            Electric Power Research Institute and the Department of
            Energy to exchange information related to HAP emissions
            from utilities and to conduct several emission tests at
            representative facilities.  The initial development of
            a Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy system has
            been completed.  This system will be used to
            characterize BAP emissions from utility stacks.  Work
            is also ongoing to design impact analyses and risk
            assessments.  The study is scheduled to be submitted to
            Congress in November 1995.

            The Mercury Study program is receiving input from
            numerous interested parties including State agencies,
            industry and environmental groups, other Federal
            agencies and scientists in academia.  A national
            emissions inventory for mercury is near completion as
            well as a health effects summary.  Efforts well
            underway include long-range transport modeling and the
            enhancement of EPA's indirect exposure model.  The
            Report to Congress, due in November 1994, is on
            schedule.  The National Institute of Environmental
            Health Sciences has completed a final draft of their
            findings on threshold levels for mercury health effects
            as required by section 112(n)(l)(C) of the CAA.  This
            report is on schedule for a November 1993 submittal to
            Congress.
                                ES-9

132

-------
          In order to provide input to the National Academy of
          Sciences' Study on risk assessment methodologies, the
          EPA completed and transmitted a report to the Academy
          which provided extensive information on air toxics,
          regulatory case studies, and past and present
          applications of EPA's risk assessment methods.  The
          Academy currently plans to release its report in
          October 1993.

          The EPA has a,lso completed a report to Congress
          entitled "Review of Federal Authorities for Hazardous
          Materials Accident Safety" as required by section
          112(r)(10).  The report is currently being reviewed by
          OMB.

          The reports on hydrogen fluoride and hydrogen sulfide
          are both being finalized for publication in September
          and October 1993, respectively.

          The Mickey Leland Urban Air Toxics Research Center has
          been established and has received $300,000 in funding
          which will be used to fund research focused on the
          effects of air toxics on human populations.
Technical Assistance

     Section 112(s) requires EPA to maintain a data base on
pollutants and sources subject to the provisions of section 112
and to include aggregate information from the data base in each
triennial report.  Individual data bases have already been
established for several of the emissions standards projects.
Where applicable, information from these data bases has been
included in the project updates in Section 4.0 of this report.
In addition, there are efforts underway to expand and enhance
EPA's national data base, the Aerometric Information Retrieval
System (AIRS), to include air toxics information, specifically
for major sources of HAP's.  Thus, information collected on the
major sources|of these pollutants would be stored in one data
base.  The EPA is also exploring what types of information will
be needed for area sources of HAP's and what data base or data
bases will be used to manage these data.  Subsequent reports on
section 112 implementation will include updated information from
the data bases.


     Section 112(1)(3) of the CAA requires the EPA to maintain an
air toxics clearinghouse and centers to provide technical
information and assistance to State and local agencies and, on a
cost recovery basis,  to others on control technology, health and


                              ES-10


                                                                    133

-------
            November 1993.  The report will address sources of air
            pollutants, relative loading of air pollutants to the
            Great Waters, and exposure and effects of airborne
            pollutants in those waters.

            The Urban Area Source Program has a number of
            activities underway that will assist in drafting the
            national urban air toxics strategy, due to Congress in
            1995.  Three major geographical initiatives in
            Baltimore, Houston, and Chicago have been undertaken to
            develop improved emission inventories.  Ambient air
            monitoring and receptor modeling, which is a tool for
            associating emission sources with samples from the
            ambient air, are also included in these efforts.  A
            series of national surveys has also been commenced to
            better characterize the emissions of several selected
            HAP's.  The EPA's Office of Research and Development
            has drafted a research report, which is currently
            undergoing review, covering ambient monitoring, source
            characterization, and consideration of atmospheric
            transformation.  The final research report will be
            published in 1995 to complement the national urban air
            toxics strategy.

            The Utility Study is being coordinated with the
            Electric Power Research Institute and the Department of
            Energy to exchange information related to HAP emissions
            from utilities and to conduct several emission tests at
            representative facilities.  The initial development of
            a Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy system has
            been completed.  This system will be used to
            characterize HAP emissions from utility stacks.  Work
            is also ongoing to design impact analyses and risk
            assessments.  The study is scheduled to be submitted to
            Congress in November 1995.

            The Mercury Study program is receiving input from
            numerous interested parties including State agencies,
            industry and environmental groups, other Federal
            agencies and scientists in academia.  A national
            emissions inventory for mercury is near completion as
            well as a health effects summary.  Efforts well
            underway include long-range transport modeling and the
            enhancement of EPA's indirect exposure model.  The
            Report to Congress, due in November 1994, is on
            schedule.  The National Institute of Environmental
            Health Sciences has completed a final draft of their
            findings on threshold levels for mercury health effects
            as required by section 112(n)(l)(C) of the CAA.  This
            report is on schedule for a November 1993 submittal to
            Congress.
                                ES-9

132

-------
          In order to provide input to the National Academy of
          Sciences' Study on risk assessment methodologies, the
          EPA completed and transmitted a report to the Academy
          which provided extensive information on air toxics,
          regulatory case studies, and past and present
          applications of EPA's risk assessment methods.  The
          Academy currently plans to release its report in
          October 1993.

          The EPA has also completed a report to Congress
          entitled "Review of Federal Authorities for Hazardous
          Materials Accident Safety" as required by section
          112(r)(10).  The report is currently being reviewed by
          OMB;

          The reports on hydrogen fluoride and hydrogen sulfide
          are both being finalized for publication in September
          and October 1993, respectively.

          The Mickey Leiand Urban Air Toxics Research Center has
          been established and has received $300,000 in funding
          which will be used to fund research focused on the
          effects of air toxics on human populations.
Technical Assistance

     Section 112(s) requires EPA to maintain a data base on
pollutants and sources subject to the provisions of section 112
and to include aggregate information from the data base in each
triennial report.  Individual data bases have already been
established for several of the emissions standards projects.
Where applicable, information from these data bases has been
included in the project updates in Section 4.0 of this report.
In addition, there are efforts underway to expand and enhance
EPA's national data base, the Aerometric Information Retrieval
System (AIRS), to include air toxic's information, specifically
for major sources of HAP's.  Thus, information collected on the
major sources Iof these pollutants would be stored in one data
base.  The EPA is also exploring what types of information will
be needed for area sources of HAP's and what data base or data
bases will be used to manage these data.  Subsequent reports on
section 112 implementation will include updated information from
the data bases.


     Section 112(1)(3) of the CAA requires the EPA to maintain an
air toxics clearinghouse and centers to provide technical
information and assistance to State and local agencies and, on a
cost recovery basis, to others on control technology, health and


                              ES-10


                                                                    133

-------
   ecological risk assessment,  risk analysis,  ambient monitoring and
   modeling and emissions measurement and monitoring.

        Three technical assistance centers and a bulletin board
   system that deal primarily with air toxics  issues  are being
   operated and maintained.   These are:

             the Control Technology Center (CTC), which, in 1986,
             began to provide emission and control  technology
             assistance to State and local agencies as well as
             industry.  The  CTC services  include a  hotline, a
             computerized bulletin board  which provides access to
             numerous other  information systems,  in-depth analysis
             of specific questions and publication  of technical
             guidance on issues of national or regional interest.
             In early 1992,  the CTC became the focal  point for
             coordination of efforts among the four EPA information
             centers participating in the Federal Small Business
             Assistance Program.  This program provides support
             primarily to the State small business  assistance
             programs required  under section 507  of the CAA.
             Assistance provided by this  program includes
             information on  Federal air pollution standards,  air
             pollution control  technologies, air emission testing
             and monitoring  methods, accidental chemical release
             prevention, hazardous chemical emergency planning,  and
             pollution prevention methods.


             the National Air Toxics Information Clearinghouse
             (NATICH), which was established in 1984  as a
             cooperative effort by EPA, the State and Territorial
             Air Pollution Program Administrators,  and the
             Association of  Local Air Pollution Control Officials.
             Components of NATICH include a computerized data base
             containing State and local information on air toxics
             and air toxics  programs,  a bimonthly newsletter, a
             telephone helpline, and publication of various special
             reports.

             the Air Risk Information Support  Center  (Air.RISC),
             established in  1988, assists State and local agencies,
             other Federal agencies, and  the public with questions
             concerning risk, exposure, and health  effects of air
             pollutants.  Air RISC serves as a focal  point for
             providing health effects information primarily through
             operation of a  hotline staffed by EPA  scientists.  The
             Air RISC also publishes special reports  such as
             citizen's guides and publications dealing with specific
             pollutants.
                                 ES-11


134

-------
          the EPA Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) computer
          bulletin board system that contains information on air
          toxics.  The bulletin board is easily accessed with a
          computer and modem and stores information such as text
          of recently-signed air toxics rules, policy and
          guidance documents, and summaries of air toxics and
          other provisions.

     The EPA is also currently operating two information centers
which deal with ambient modeling and monitoring and emissions
measurement and monitoring.  These are the Emissions Measurement
Technical Information Center (EMTIC) and the Ambient Monitoring
Technical Information Center (AMTIC).

     Achievement Highlights

          Services provided by the CTC were accessed over 15,000
          times in fiscal year 1992.  This includes over 2,700
          calls to the hotline and more than 5,800 requests for
          CTC documents.  This includes over 300 requests for
          documents specifically prepared for small businesses.
          The CTC bulletin board system was accessed more than
          4,400 times, while the Reasonably Available Control
          Technology/Best Available Control Technology/Lowest
          Achievable Emission Rate (RACT/BACT/LAER) Clearinghouse
          Information System was accessed almost 2,000 times.

          Since enactment of the CAA, NATICH has expanded its
          bulletin board system to include the NATICH Newsletter,
          files from the Toxics Release Inventory, and a list of
          annual publications from the Office of Research and
          Development.  Also since enactment, the NATICH helpline
          has received more than 1,200 calls and the NATICH data
          base of State and local air toxics information was
          accessed more than 5,400 times.  The NATICH Newsletter
          is currently distributed to approximately 2,100
          subscribers.

          The Air RISC hotline has seen demand for its services
          increase by over 30 percent since enactment of the CAA.
          The hotline staff has responded to over 3,500 calls
          since 1988 with the average number of calls received
          numbering about 900 per year.  The Air RISC has also
          expanded its services to include all air pollutants
          rather than just air toxics.

          The EPA's AIRS data base is being expanded to
          accommodate air toxics information.  The plan is for
          States to provide information on pollutants and sources
          available from their files and for EPA to provide
          information from source surveys.  With these


                              ES-12



                                                                   135

-------
             enhancements,  the EPA expects  the data base to become a
             national repository of air toxics information.

   EPA Regional Activities

        The ten EPA Regional offices have all  made implementation of
   section 112 a high priority.  Significant efforts have focused on
   conducting outreach activities for the Early Reduction program,
   including workshops, guidance materials,  and numerous meetings
   and presentations.  The  outreach activities have included
   industry as well as the  States in the various Regions.  The
   Regional offices are also working with individual States to
   ensure that the necessary State legislative authority exists to
   implement and enforce the section 112 requirements.   Regional
   office staff are also extensively involved  in EPA work groups
   that are working to interpret and implement the CAA  provisions.

   State Activities

        Major efforts at the State and local level since enactment
   of the CAA have focused  on how best to integrate the new CAA
   requirements into existing State and local  air toxics programs.
   Representatives from State and local agencies are active
   participants bn informal EPA work groups  for every section 112
   program and emission standard with emphasis on the Early
   Reductions Program, section 112(g) Modifications,  and
   section 112(1) State Programs.  Considerable effort  is also being
   expended on helping the  States develop rules to expand their
   legal authority to accept delegation of  section 112  requirements.


   IV.  BEYOND SECTION 112: OTHER AIR TOXICS ACTIVITIES

        Although section 112(s) requires the body of this report to
   address only ongoing section 112 air toxics activities,  the EPA
   is including discussion  of how it is implementing other programs
   to reduce emissions of air toxics.  This  section of  the Executive
   Summary highlights several of these activities.  The following
   areas are discussed here,  but are not included in the detailed
   descriptions in Section  4.0 of this -report:

                  - Risk Assessment Activities,
                  - Outreach Activities,
                  - Voluntary Programs, and
                  - Titles  Z and II Air Tbxics Accomplishments.

   Risk Assessment Activities

        Although the more immediate focus of Title III  is on
   development of control technology-based  emission standards, the
   EPA also has several efforts underway to improve the EPA's risk
   assessment capabilities.  These efforts  range from acquiring

                                 ES-13

136

-------
better health effects data to improving exposure models. The EPA
will then be prepared to meet the provisions of section 112(f)
which requires the EPA to evaluate whether additional standards
are necessary to protect human health and the environment after
application of section 112(d) controls.  The risk assessment
activities currently underway include:

          development of health effects benchmarks to evaluate
          short-term exposures,

          development of a tiered modeling approach (level of
          modeling/monitoring increases as available data
          increases) for conducting risk assessments,

          revision of the EPA's cancer guidelines,

          toxicity testing efforts, being performed by EPA's
          Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances,
          to generate needed health data for toxic pollutants,
          and '

          improvement of EPA's exposure models.

     Achievement Highlights

          The EPA's exposure modeling capabilities have been
          significantly improved by adding a feature that allows
          better characterization of uncertainties associated
          with risk estimates.

          A tiered modeling approach for conducting risk
          assessments was published in February 1992.

          A pilot study to write a test rule for 16 HAP's is  in
          progress to determine if testing options under the
          Toxics Substances Control Act would provide sufficient
          health data for CAA purposes.

          Revisions to the EPA's cancer guidelines have been
          drafted and are undergoing EPA review.

Voluntary Programs

     In addition to the Early Reductions Program discussed above,
the EPA's Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
has initiated another voluntary program.  The 33/50 project,
begun in February 1991, asks companies to voluntarily reduce
releases of 17 pollutants to the air,  water,  and soil.
                              ES-14

                                                                    137

-------
        Achievement Highlights

             As of July 1993,   1157 companies  had pledged their
             support for the 33/50 program by  agreeing to reduce
             their releases of the 17  chemicals  by 354 million
             pounds.

   Outreach Activities

        The EPA has devoted considerable effort  to outreach
   activities beyond providing the technical assistance required by
   section 112(1).  For example,  the EPA developed and sponsored the
   Hazardous Air Pollutants Implementation Workshop for State and
   local agencies, and a workshop  highlighting  risk assessment
   issues.


        Achievement Highlights

             The EPA developed and sponsored the Hazardous Air
            'Pollutants Workshop  which dealt specifically with
             section 112 issues.   The  workshop was attended by 240
             participants with representatives from 37 State
             agencies, 22 local agencies,  and  all ten  EPA regional
             offices.  Also in 1992, a workshop  was convened to
             facilitate discussion between EPA and State and local
             agencies on risk assessment issues.   Three EPA offices
             were represented along with nine  State and local
             agencies.  As a result of this workshop,  EPA now hosts
             a monthly conference call on risk assessment issues
             which is open to all State and local agencies and EPA
             Regional offices.

   Titles I and II Air Toxics  Accomplishments

        In addition to Title III, Titles I and II of the CAA contain
   provisions that, when implemented,  will also  serve  to reduce air
   toxics emissions.  Title I  deals with attainment and maintenance
   of the national ambient air quality standards.   For geographical
   areas that do not achieve a national ambient  air quality standard
   (called nonattainment areas),  Title I includes a system that
   classifies the areas by the severity of the ozone pollution
   within their borders.   In order of  increasing severity, the
   classifications are marginal,  moderate, serious, severe, and
   extreme.   Title I requires  EPA to publish Control Techniques
   Guidelines (CTG's) for several source categories.  The CTG's
   describe reasonable achievable control technologies (RACT)
   effective in reducing emissions of  volatile organic compounds
   (VOC's)  which react to form ozone.   Because most HAP's are also
   VOC's,   concomitant control of HAP's will generally occur when
   the CTG's are implemented.   Similarly,  numerous provisions under
   Title II of the CAA will significantly reduce air toxics

                                 ES-15

138

-------
emissions  from mobile sources.  For example, requirements for
reformulated gasoline will reduce toxic emissions by at least 15
percent by 1995,  and 20 percent by the year 2000.  Reductions in
toxic emissions will also be realized from vehicle inspection and
maintenance programs, reductions in evaporative emissions and
diesel particulate emissions, and clean-fuel vehicle programs.

     Achievement  Highlights

          Significant progress has been made on 11 CT6 documents.
          Eight CTG's are in the process of being finalized,  and
          three others are being coordinated with work ongoing to
          develop national emission standards for the same source
          categories.  The status of the CTG's is summarized  in
          Table 2.

          States  were required to submit as part of their Title I
          State implementation plans (SIP's) VOC RACT rule
          corrections by May 15, 1991, for all ozone nonat-
          tainment areas rated marginal and above.  These
          corrected rules now have tighter limits or are more
          easily  enforced.  The corrections cover VOC source
          categories for -;hich EPA had issued CTG's prior to  the
          CAA and other major sources of VOC.  This has resulted
          in greater VOC emission reductions.

          States  were required to submit, as part of their
          Title I SIP's, VOC "RACT catch-up" rules by November
          15, 1992, for all moderate and above ozone nonat-
          tainment areas.  Rules had to cover VOC source
          categories for which EPA had Issued CTG's prior to  the
          CAA and other major sources of VOC.  These rules will
          shortly result in VOC reductions from new VOC rules
          that were never previously required in new
          nonattainment; areas or new portions of existing
          nonattainment areas.

          States  were required to submit, as part of their
          Title I SIP's, Stage II (vehicle refueling) vapor
          recovery rules by November 15, 1992, for all moderate
          and above ozone nonattainment areas.  Moderate areas
          may eventually not be required to install Stage II
          vapor recovery since EPA plans to issue regulations for
          onboard refueling controls for new vehicles.  Even  so,
          serious and above ozone nonattainment areas were to
          have adopted the program and will shortly begin
          experiencing VOC emission reductions from the controls.

     •    The EPA has implemented reformulated gasoline
          initiatives to reduce motor vehicle pollut (including
          air toxics).  In July 1991, April 1992, and February
          1993, standards were proposed addressing several

                              ES-16

                                                                   139

-------
             different aspects of the reformulated gasoline
             regulations which, as described above,  will
             significantly reduce emissions  of toxic air pollutants.

             Final rules announced in 1991 that affect the sulfur
             content of diesel fuel will  substantially cut diesel
             particulate pollution from urban buses.   The EPA also
             finalized rules  in March 1993 for urban buses that will
             reduce diesel particulate emissions (including HAP's
             that are particulates) 95 percent from uncontrolled
             levels.

             Vehicle inspection and maintenance programs,  required
             in certain ozone nonattainment  areas  were finalized in
             November 1992.   These programs  will reduce emissions of
             VOC's (including HAP's)  by 5 to 30 percent.

             A study on motor vehicle-related air  toxics,  required
             by section 202(6)  of the CAA, was finalized on
             April 30,  1993.   Section 202(6)  also  requires EPA to
             promulgate regulations by May 15,  1995 that apply at a
             minimum to benzene and formaldehyde.
                                ES-17

140

-------
    Table 2.  Status of Control Techniques Guidelines Documents
CT6 Source Category*
SOCMI Distillation
SOCMI Reactors
Industrial Wastewater
Volatile Organic Liquid
Storage Tanks
Batch Processes
Offset Lithography
Plastic Parts - Auto
Plastic Parts - Other
Wood Furniture
Aerospace
Shipbuilding
Status
(as of July 1993)
Final document scheduled for
publication in Summer 1993.
Draft in OMB review.
Draft in final EPA review,
prior to submittal to OMB.
Being coordinated with section
112 standards due i*» November
1994.
SOCMI means  synthetic organic cnemxcal manufacturing industry.
                             ES-18
                                                                   141

-------
            FACT SHEETS
             FOR FINAL
          MACT STANDARDS
142

-------
                            FACT SHEET
                         COKE  OVEN NESHAP
*    Coke is used in_blast furnaces for the conversion of iron
     ore to iron, which can be further refined to produce steel.
     The conversion of coal to coke is performed in coke oven
     batteries.  A battery consists of a group of ovens connected
     by common walls.

«    Coke oven emissions are among the most toxic of all air
     pollutants.  Emissions from coke ovens include a mixture of
     polycyclic organic matter, benzene, and other chemicals that
     can cause cancer.  Occupational exposure studies of coke
     oven workers have shown statistically significant excess
     mortality from cancers of the respiratory tract, kidney, and
     prostate and all cancer sites combined.

*    At the current level of control, coke oven batteries emit an
     estimated 1660 MG/yr of coke oven emissions (810 MG from
     doors, lids, offtakes, and charging; and 850 MG from by-pass
     stacks).

*    The risk of contracting cancer for the population exposed to
     coke oven emissions is high.  The risk to an individual
     exposed to the maximum concentration (maximum individual
     risk) ranges from 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 100 with more than
     half the facilities having a maximum risk greater than 1 in
     1,000.

REGULATORY BACKGROUND

«    EPA and states have long been concerned about the health
     effects associated with coke oven emissions.

4    EPA initiated a regulatory examination of coke oven
     emissions in the late 1970's and proposed a regulation to
     control these emissions in 1987.

+    EPA and the Administration worked with Congress to develop
     new provisions to control coke oven emissions in the Clean
     Air Act Amendments of 1990.   In the Amendments, Congress
     recognized the significant health effects associated with
     coke oven emissions.

*    The new coke oven standards were proposed in the Federal
     Register on December 4, 1992.  The 1987 proposal was
     withdrawn.

*    A public hearing was held in Philadelphia, PA on January 15,
     1993 to allow participation by local citizens who requested
     the public hearing.
                                                                   143

-------
          A total of 61 comments were received and considered in
          developing the final standard.

         N AIR ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1990

          The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 include sweeping and
          complex provisions to limit emissions from both new and
          existing coke ovens.

          The Amendments require EPA to issue by December 31,  1992
          coke oven emissions standards for maximum achievable control
          technology (MACT)  for new and existing sources,  and an even
          tighter control limit called "lowest achievable emissions
          rate" (LAER)  for certain existing sources to be promulgated
          by December 31, 1992.  The coke oven MACT and LAER standards
          will establish emission limits  for a variety of different
          aspects of coke oven facilities,  including coke oven doors,
          lids, offtakes, and seconds of  charging.

          The Clean Air Act also requires EPA to issue "work practice
          standards" with Industry compliance by November 15,  1993,
          and so-called "residual risk" standards by November 15,
          2000.  These residual risk provisions require EPA to examine
          the remaining risk to the public after technology-based
          standards are imposed and to further reduce emissions,  if
          appropriate.

          The coke oven emissions standards apply to all new and
          existing facilities that produce coke.   The Amendments allow
          the coke oven industry a choice of two tracks of compliance.
          We call these tracks the "LAER" extension track and the
          "MACT"  track.

          LAER EXTENSION TRACK:  Affected companies can elect  to
          qualify for an extension of compliance with the "residual
          risk" standards beyond the 01/01/03 compliance date  by doing
          the following:

               Comply with Clean Air Act  limits by 11/15/93
               Comply with LAER limits by 01/01/98
               Comply with revised LAER limits by 01/01/10
               Comply with residual risk  standard by 01/01/20

          MACT TRACK;   Companies can elect not to defer compliance
          with residual  risk standards.   These ovens must:

               Comply with existing source MACT limits by 12/31/95.
               Comply with residual risk  standard by 01/01/03.

          Companies  commencing construction of their ovens after
          December 4,  1992 (proposal date)  must meet New Source MACT
          requirements,  except for replacement capacity.
144

-------
EPA has made widespread use of consultation in developing
rules under the Clean Air Act.  In some rulemakings
including coke oven emissions, EPA has used formal
regulatory negotiation, where parties negotiate and sign a
formal agreement that becomes the basis for EPA's proposed
rule.

The Coke Ovens Regulatory Negotiation Committee is comprised
of several interested parties:  Environmental groups such as
the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Group
Against Smog and Pollution  (GASP), Industry associations
such as American Iron and Steel Institute  (AISI) and
American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute (ACCCI),
representatives from the Steel Worker's Union, and State and
local agencies.

The Committee held a series of public meetings and informal
workshops to identify and resolve the many issues associated
with the regulation.  At the final negotiating session on
October 8, 1992, the Committee members conceptually resolved
all outstanding major issues and decided to reach final
agreement after reviewing and concurring on the draft
regulation.  The final Coke Oven Standard reflects the
agreements reached by this Committee.
The negotiated agreement meets -- and in some cases
exceeds -- the environmental goals of the coke oven
provisions in the Clean Air Act.  The agreement also
provides industry with flexibility that will significantly
reduce compliance costs.

     Increased Emission Reduction;  The Committee has agreed
     that flares be required to control emissions of raw
     coke oven gas during venting episodes.  Flares will
     eliminate 850 MG/yr of coke oven emissions.  The MACT
     and LAER standards will result in reductions of coke
     oven emissions from the doors, lids, offtakes and
     charging ranging from 540 to 720 MG/yr.  (66% to 90%
     reduction)

     Consistent Monitoring;  Under the agreement, coke oven
     inspectors will have to undergo a rigorous
     certification program to qualify as observers.  Also,
     the inspectors will be chosen by the enforcement agency
     instead of the company.  These requirements ensure
     fairness and consistency in the application of the
     method.
                                                              145

-------
               Improved Compliance;   Industry has agreed to pay the
               enforcement agency or an independent contra'ctor to
               monitor their coke oven batteries daily.   This means
               there will be enforcement presence at every battery in
               the country every day.   This is another significant
               result which we would not have achieved through normal
               regulation development.

               Work Practices;  The  work practice standards would
               require new or existing coke oven batteries to develop
               a written plan describing emission control work
               practices to be implemented for each battery.   The plan
               must include provisions for training and procedures for
               controlling emissions from the battery.   Work practices
               are implemented when  performance standards are not in
               effect or when emission limits are violated.

               Alternative Door Leak Standard;  The agreement provides
               industry the flexibility of an alternative door leak
               standard for coke oven batteries equipped with sheds.
               The alternative standard will be determined on a case-
               by-case basis,  but it must achieve a greater reduction
               of coke oven emissions than the original  door leak
               standard.
     IMPACTS
     4    Coke Oven emissions:   reduction of  1390  to 1570  MG/year.
     *    Annualized cost:   increase of $84 million by 1998.
     •    MACT Captial cost:   $66  million by  1995.
     «    LAER Capital cost:   $444 million by 1998.
             PRE
          Another provision of the Clean Air Act  Amendments is for the
          Department of Energy and EPA to jointly undertake a 6 -year
          study to assess coke oven emission control  technologies and
          assist in the development and commercialization of viable
          control technologies which have the potential  to
          significantly reduce emissions from coke ovens.   Each
          proposed project must be cost- shared, with  Federal funding
          not  to exceed 50% of the cost.  A solicitation for research,
          development,  and demonstration projects was announced by DOE
          in the June 2,  1992,  issue of Commerce  Business Daily.
146

-------
MACT AND LAER:  The negotiated agreement includes the
emission limits outlined in the following table.  All
numbers are rolling averages of the last thirty readings;
that is, if no reading is taken on a day, nothing is entered
for that day.  The states are responsible for conducting the
daily readings and nothing in this rulemaking precludes
citizen suits under the Clean Air Act.
smcT TRACK

LIDSPLL
% leaking lids
OFFTAKES FLO
% leaking offtakes
CHARGING Gog)
s/charge
DOORS PLD
% leaking doors
TALL
SHORT
FOUNDRY
12/31/95
0.6
3.0
12
6.0
5.5
5.5
Beyond 2003
(most meet
residual risk)
0.6
3.0
12
5.5
5.0
5.0
LASR. TRACK
11/15/93
(Act's
Limits)
0.83
4.2
12
7.0
7.0
7.0
1/1/98
0.4
2.5
12
4.3
3.8
4.3
1/1/10
0.4
2.5
12
4.0
3.3
4.0
                                                               147

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


        NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR  POLLUTANTS
        FROM  PERCHLOROETHYLENE  DRY CLEANING FACILITIES--FINAL RULE

                                FACT SHEET

    BACKGROUND

         •    Dry  cleaners  are  a major  source  of perchloroethylene
              (also referred to  as PCE,  PERC, tetrachloroethene,  and
              tetrachloroethylene),  one  of the  toxic air pollutants
              Congress has required the Environmental Protection Agency
              (EPA) to regulate under the Clean Air Act of 1990.   PCE
              is known to cause cancer in animals and  is  suspected to
              cause cancer  in  humans.   PCE also has non-cancer toxic
              effects that make it desirable to minimize PCE emissions.

         •    Under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act,  the  EPA proposed
              on  December 9,  1991,  national emission standards  for
              hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP)  to limit PCE  emissions
              from both new (constructed on or after December 9, 1991)
              and existing  (constructed  before December 9,  1991)  dry
              cleaning facilities.

         •    In response to public comments received on the  proposal,
              a notice of availability of new information on control of
              PCE emissions during clothing transfer was  published on
              October 1, 1992.  Additional comments were  received.
                  i
         •    The final  rule was published on September 22, 1993,  in
              the Federal Register, volume 58, starting on page 49356.

    REQUIREMENTS OF THE EPA DRY CLEANER RULE

         •    The  rule  breaks   dry  cleaners   into   three  separate
              categories--small  "area" sources,  large  "area" sources,
              and ^major" sources--and contains different  requirements
              for each category.   (See Table  1.)

         •    There are  two types  of dry  cleaning machine systems:
              dry-to-dry and transfer.  A dry-to-dry machine consists
              of  one  machine, which does  both the  washing  and  the
              drying of the articles being cleaned.  A transfer machine
              consists  of  two  machines:    a  washer  and  a  dryer.
              Transfer of clothing between  a washer  and a dryer is
              considered to be a  significant  source of emissions.

                                  1 of 6


148

-------
            TABLE  1.  REQUIREMENTS OF THE PCE DRY CLEANING NESHAP  (PAGE 1 OF 2)
      Requirement
   Small Area Source
  Large Area Source
    Major Source
Applicability!

Dry Cleaning
Facilities  with:

(1) Only Dry-to-Dry
    Machines

(2) Only Transfer
    Machines

(3) Both Dry-to-Dry
    and Transfer
    Machines
Consuming less than:
140 gallons PCE/year


200 gallons PCE/year


140 gallons PCE/year
Consuming equal to
or between:
140-2,100 gallons
PCE/year

200-1,800 gallons
PCE/year

140-1,800 gallons
PCE/year
Consuming more
than:
2,100 gallons
PCE/year

1,800 gallons
PCE/year

1,800 gallons
PCE/year
Process Vent Controls

      Existing
      Facilities
      None
Refrigerated condenser (or equivalent)

Carbon adsorbers installed on existing
machines before 9/22/93 can remain
      New Facilities
Refrigerated condenser (or equivalent)
                      Refrigerated
                      condenser and small
                      carbon adsorber
                      (or equivalent)
Fugitive Controls:
      Existing
      Facilities
   Leak deteci. ton/repair -
   Store all PCE solvent & waste in sealed
   containers
                      Transfer machine
                      systems are
                      contained inside a
                      room enclosure
      New
   Leak detection/repair
   Store all PCE solvent & waste in sealed containers
   No new transfer machine systems allowed	

-------
             TABLE 1.   REQUIREMENTS OF THE PCE DRY CLEANING NESHAP (PAGE 2  OF 2)
      Requirement
   Small  Area Source
  Large Area Source
Major Source
Monitoring;
New: Same as large
area source

Existing: None
Refrigerated condenser (RC):  Measure the
RC outlet temperature at the end of the
cycle on a dry-to-dry machine or dryer.
(Needs to be less than or equal to
45 OF.)  Measure the RC inlet and outlet
temperature difference on a washer.
(Needs to be greater or equal to 20 °F.)

Carbon adsorber (CA):  Measure the PCE
concentration out of the CA with a
colorimetric detector tube.  (Needs to be
less than or equal to 100 ppm.)	
Operation/Maintenance:
Operate and maintain dry cleaninc
manufacturer's specifications anc
          systems according to
          recommendations.
                                                                                                o
                                                                                                en
Records;
Each facility must maintain records of PCE purchases and the
calculation of yearly PCE consumption each month, along with
dated records of all monitoring and leak detection and repair
activities.  The last five years of records must be kept.	
Reporting &
Compliance;
      Existing
      Facilities
Each facility must submit an initial report by December 20, 1993
and compliance report by January 19, 1994.  Reports must be
certified by a responsible official.  Each facility also has
until December 20, 1993 to comply with pollution prevention and
record-keeping requirements.  Large Area and Major facilities
must comply with process controls by September 23, 1996 and must
submit an additional compliance report by October 22, 1996.	
      New
      Facilities
All other new facilities must comply upon start-up with all
requirements and submit a compliance report within 30 days from
the date the dry cleaner must be in compliance.  However, there
are special compliance and notification requirements for dry
cleaning systems that were constructed during December 9, 1991
and September 21, 1993.	

-------
The  EPA's  final  rule  requires all  new  dry cleaning
machines  to  be  dry-to-dry machines.    It  does  not,
however,  require  the  replacement  of  existing transfer
machines with new dry-to-dry machines.

There are  two sources  of  PCE emissions at dry cleaning
facilities:   process  vent  emissions  (that is,  the dry
cleaning  machine vent);  and  fugitive  emissions   (for
example, clothing transfer,  equipment  leaks,  and solvent
exposed to air, and so forth) .   Process vent emissions
are controlled through the use of refrigerated condensers
or carbon  adsorbers.   Fugitive emissions  from clothing
transfer at transfer machines are controlled through room
enclosures.   Other fugitive emissions  are  controlled
through leak detection and  repair, keeping PCE and PCE
wastes in sealed containers, keeping machine doors  shut,
and proper operation and maintenance  of  equipment  .

The EPA' s rule requires control of process vent emissions
at all  new dry cleaning facilities.   It also requires
control of process vent emissions at existing large area
source and major  source dry cleaning  facilities.

The  rule  requires control  of fugitive emissions at all
new dry cleaning facilities. It also requires control of
fugitive   emissions  at  all   existing  dry  cleaning
facilities.   However,   only transfer  machines at  major
source  dry cleaning facilities are required  to control
fugitive  emissions  by  installing a room  enclosure.

The  rule  requires the  use of refrigerated condensers to
control  process  vent  emissions   at  new  dry cleaning
facilities.   It  also  requires  the use of  refrigerated
condensers to control process vent emissions at existing
dry cleaning facilities, except those existing facilities
that have already installed  a carbon adsorber for control
of process vent emissions  prior to September 22,  1993.
These facilities may continue to use this carbon adsorber
to comply with the  requirements of the  rule.

All  existing  dry  cleaners  must submit  an  initial
notification report by December 20,  1993,  to  the EPA
Region  for each  of their  locations.   The notification
reporting requirements  are in the rule. Forms supplied by
EPA may be used to fulfill this notification requirement.
Dry  cleaning systems  that  were  constructed  between
December-9, 1991, and September 21,  1993, can .either meet
the  requirements  for  new facilities  or  comply with the
special rule  of Section 112  (i)  (2)  of the Clean Air. Act.
For  assistance with  complying with  the  special  rule,
refer to  the EPA  forms or contact  EPA.

                    4 of 6
                                                         151

-------
          •    Each existing facility must comply with all requirements
               of the  rule except  for the refrigerated condenser by
               December 20, 1993.  Existing large area source and major
               source  dry  cleaning  facilities   must  comply  with
               installing  a  refrigerated condenser and also, for any
               major source  transfer  machines,  a  room enclosure,  by
               September 23,  1996.  All new dry cleaning  facilities must
               comply with the rule when they begin operation. However,
               dry  cleaning  systems  that were  constructed between
               December  9,  1991, and  September 21,  1993,  can  either
               comply with the requirements for new facilities or  comply
               with the special rule of Section 112  (i)  (2)  of the Clean
               Air Act.  For assistance with complying with  the special
               rule, refer to  the EPA  forms or contact  EPA.

          •    Each existing facility must submit a compliance report to
               'EPA certifying  that  the facility is in  compliance with
               all  the  requirements  of  the  rule  except  for  the
               refrigerated   condenser  installation   requirement  by
               January 19, 1994.  Existing large area source  and major
               source dry cleaning facilities  must  submit an additional
               compliance report to EPA certifying  that  the  facility is
               in  compliance  with  the   control  requirements   for  a
               refrigerated  condenser  and also, for  any major  source
               transfer machines, a room enclosure, by October 22, 1996.
               All new dry cleaners  must submit  a compliance  report
               within 30 days  from the date the dry cleaner constructs
               the  new  facility or  installed  the  new dry cleaning
               machine or dry  cleaning system.

     IMPACTS

          •    Nationwide Impacts

                    Note:  Impacts are estimates given  for  1996.  1996
                    is the year that all facilities must comply with the
                    rule, and  will be  the first year  that the
                    rule is expected to have  its maximum impact.

                    In 1996 about 25,000 commercial and industrial dry
                    cleaning facilities will be in.operation. Although
                    the  dry cleaning  industry's  growth is  currently
                    stable, about 7,700 of these 25,000  facilities will
                    be   new   facilities   built  to  replace  existing
                    facilities  that   retire.    Of   these   7,700  new
                    facilities,   about  400   are  estimated  to  be
                    uncontrolled in  the  absence of the rule  and, as a
                    result  of the  rule,  will be  required to install
                    process vent control.  In  addition, the EPA rule
                    will  require  about   3,200  existing uncontrolled
                    facilities to install controls  on process vents.

                                   5 of 6


152

-------
              The  rule will result  in a total maximum  national
              PCE  emissions  reduction  of  6,600 megagrams  (Mg)
               (7,300  tons)  from projected 1996 emission  levels.

              Energy:     Total  maximum  national   increase   in
              electricity use   (needed  to operate  the  control
              devices)   of  280,000  kilowatt  hours  per  year
               (kwh/yr)  in 1996  for new facilities and 2.5 million
              kwh/yr  for existing facilities.

              Annualized  Cost:    Total  national   increase   of
              $0.5 million  per  year   for  new  dry   cleaning
              facilities and $3.4 million per year  for  existing
              facilities in 1996.

              Capital  Cost:     Total   national  increase   of
              $3 million  for  new  dry  cleaning  facilities  and
              $32  million for existing dry cleaning facilities in
              1996.

     •     Typical  facility impacts for an existing,  uncontrolled,
          35-pound  dry-to-dry machine located at an  area  source:

              Perchloroethylene Emission Reductions:   Individual
              reduction of 0.82 megagrams per year (0.91  tons  per
              year)  from projected 1996 emission levels.

              Wastewater:       Total   maximum   increase    of
               0.03 kilograms per year  (0.07 pounds per  year)  of
              PCE  in wastewater in 1996.
                                    f
              Solid Waste:  No  increase for the typical facility.

              Noise:   No incremental impacts.

               Energy:  The increase  in electricity use (needed to
               operate  refrigerated  condenser)  of  604  kilowatt
              hours (kwh) per year in 1996.

              Annualized Cost:   Increase of $1,100 per year in
               1996.    This  includes  the  annualized  cost   of
              purchasing a refrigerated condenser and the annual
               operation and maintenance costs associated with the
               refrigerated condenser.

               Capital  Cost:   Increase  of  $6,300 year  in  1996.
              This  is   the  average  cost  of   a   refrigerated
               condenser.

Please  Note;   This fact sheet  is not a  substitute for reading and
              understanding the EPA PCE dry cleaning rule.

                             6  of 6


                                                                  153

-------
                    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
      * ^"97 8             Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
      \ ^\'/~ *            Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

                                   FACT SHEET
         SECTION  112  (1)   - DELEGATION OF FEDERAL AIR TOXICS PROGRAMS
                                TO STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES
       WHAT IS SECTION 112(1) OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT?

       *    Section 112(1) provides flexibility  for  State  and local
            agencies in meeting Federal requirements for controlling air
            toxics.  Air toxics are air pollutants known or suspected of
            causing cancer or other serious health or environmental
            effects, such as birth defects or reproductive effects.

       •    Section 112(1) allows State and local air pollution control
            agencies, at their option, to:

            •    substitute a Federal air toxics rule with an EPA
                 approved industry-specific State rule that is no less
                 stringent (e.g. an existing or  new  State  rule requiring
                 equivalent or greater emission  reductions from the
                 chemical manufacturing industry) or

            •    substitute Federal air toxics rules with  an EPA
                 approved State air toxics program that is not less
                 stringent than the Federal air  toxics rules

       •    Section 112(1) also establishes the  framework  for EPA to
            delegate to States the authority to  implement  and enforce
            unchanged Federal air toxic standards.

       WHO CAN USE THE SECTION 112(1) nnrfTf?

       State and local air pollution control agencies, territories,
       Indian tribes that wish to receive approval for delegation of
       authority to implement and enforce:

            1)   air toxics standards established by EPA under section
                 112 of the Act.

            2)   State rules and programs that differ from Federal
                 air toxics standards under section  112 of the Act.
154

-------
HOW DOES THE SECTION 112(1) ROLE WORK?

*    States that wish to obtain approval of State rules that
     differ from the Federal section 112 standards have options
     of one or any combination of:

     1.   Adjusting a Federal rule - For this option, there is a
     "pre-approved" list of adjustments that the State or local
     air pollution control agency may make to a Federal rule.

     2.   Substituting State authorities for a Federal rule -
     This option involves a comparison of a state rule or broad
     State authorities to a Federal rule.  Demonstration of
     stringency is based on source-level emission reductions.

     3.   Substituting a State program for Federal emission
     standards for hazardous air pollutants - For this option,
     States provide an upfront commitment through State law to
     regulate every source and emission point affected by Federal
     standards, and to incorporate the requirements into the
     operating permit in a format that matches the Federal
     requirement .

•    The following are applicable to all options as well as for
     delegation of unchanged Federal section 112 standards:

     *    States submit approval packages for EPA review
     •    State rules or programs must meet specified criteria
          for approval
     *    Opportunity for public notice and comment
     *    State rules cannot be less stringent than Federal rules
     »    Once approved, State rules or programs are federally
          enforceable in lieu of otherwise applicable Federal
          rules

*   In addition, State and local agencies are subject to periodic
     program reviews and audits by EPA.  Based upon the findings,
     the EPA may withdraw approval.
WHAT ARE THE
1.   Public Health/Environment:  The new air toxic programs
     required under the Clean Air Act will help  achieve
     significant reduction in risk to public health and the
     environment.  This rule will allow States to maintain
     existing rules/programs that are at least as stringent as
     Federal rules.

2.   industry:  The final rule can eliminate dual regulation
     wherever State rules or programs are at least as  stringent
     as Federal rules.  This will reduce regulatory agency and
                                                                  155

-------
            industry costs and time involved in permitting and
            enforcement.                    J

            States and Local Governments:  The final rule provides
            State and local agencies the opportunity to preserve and
            build upon existing State programs.  It also makes Federally
            enforceable State or local air toxics rule/programs that are
            at least as stringent as the Federal requirements and that
            meet the approval criteria.
156

-------
**
             UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                   0fflce of Air QualitV Planning and Standards
                  Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 2771 1

                                              November 15,  1993


       Final Schedule  for Regulating Air Toxics Emissions
            under  the  1990  Clean Air Act Amendments.
                                    i
Today's Action:  This  Schedule sets  the deadlines for
establishing Federal emission  standards ,  based on maximum
achievable control technologies (MACT) ,  for 174 listed categories
of sources emitting hazardous  air  pollutants (air toxics).   The
174 listed categories  are divided  into 4 groups with  regulatory
deadlines of either 2, 4, 7, or 10 years following enactment of
the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments.

     The categories were prioritized  by considering a number of
factors including:  (1) the quantity  and location of  emissions of
hazardous air pollutants; (2)  potential  adverse effects of  the
hazardous air pollutants on public health and the environment;
(3) the efficiency of  grouping categories in the • same timeframe
due to similarities in processes or technologies;  and (4) time
needed to develop  standards.

     The Schedule  has  been  developed  such that the Synthetic
Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry,  and five categories of
the dry cleaning industry are  scheduled for regulation within
2 years of enactment of the 1990 Amendments.   A total of
45 categories are  scheduled for regulation  by November 15,  1994.
The remaining 129  categories are scheduled for regulation within
either 7 years of  enactment of the 1990  Amendments (by
November 15, 1997), or within  10 years (by November 15,  2000).

     The Environmental Protection  Agency (EPA)  shall  promulgate
Federal emission standards  for each of the  categories according
to the deadlines in this Schedule. If the  EPA misses the
deadlines in this  Schedule  for promulgating Federal emission
standards by at least  18 months, section 112(j) of the
1990 Amendments requires State and local  agencies to  establish
case-by-case emission  standards.   These  case-by-case  standards
must be equal to the level  of  control that  would  have been
required by the Federal emission standards.
                                                                  157

-------
             THE  SCHEDULE FOR PROMULGATING EMISSION STANDARDS FOR
            CATEGORIES  OF SOURCES EMITTING HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS


   Source  Categories with Emission Standards Due by November 15. 1992

    SYNTHETIC  ORGANIC  CHEMICAL MANUFACTURING l
    COMMERCIAL DRYCLEANING (PERCHLOROETHYLENE)  - DRY-TO-DRY MACHINES 2'4
    COMMERCIAL DRYCLEANING (PERCHLOROETHYLENE)  - TRANSFER MACHINES 2'4
    COMMERCIAL DRYCLEANING (PERCHLOROETHYLENE)  - TRANSFER MACHINES 2
    INDUSTRIAL DRYCLEANING (PERCHLOROETHYLENE)  - DRY-TO-DRY MACHINES 2
    INDUSTRIAL DRYCLEANING (PERCHLOROETHYLENE)  - TRANSFER MACHINES 2

   Source  Categories with Emission Standards Due by November 15. 1994

    ACRYLONITRILE-BUTADIENE-STYRENE PRODUCTION.
    AEROSPACE  INDUSTRIES
    ASBESTOS PROCESSING 4
    BUTYL  RUBBER PRODUCTION
    CHROMIC ACID ANODIZING
    CHROMIC ACID ANODIZING 4
    COKE OVENS:  CHARGING,  TOPSIDE AND DOOR LEAKS (CAA MANDATED
      PROMULGATION BY  DECEMBER 31,  1992)  3
    COMMERCIAL STERILIZATION FACILITIES
    COMMERCIAL STERILIZATION FACILITIES 4
    DECORATIVE CHROMIUM ELECTROPLATING
    DECORATIVE CHROMIUM ELECTROPLATING 4
    EPICHLOROHYDRIN ELASTOMERS PRODUCTION
    EPOXY  RESINS PRODUCTION
    ETHYLENE-PROPYLENE RUBBER PRODUCTION
    GASOLINE DISTRIBUTION -  STAGE  1
    HALOGENATED  SOLVENT CLEANERS
    HALOGENATED  SOLVENT CLEANERS 4
    HARD CHROMIUM ELECTROPLATING
    HARD CHROMIUM ELECTROPLATING 4
    HYPALON (TM) PRODUCTION
    INDUSTRIAL PROCESS COOLING TOWERS
    MAGNETIC TAPES (SURFACE  COATING)
    METHYL  METHACRYLATE-ACRYLONITRILE-BUTADIENE-STYRENE PRODUCTION
    METHYL  METHACRYLATE-BUTADIENE-STYRENE TERPOLYMERS PRODUCTION
    NEOPRENE PRODUCTION
    NITRILE BUTADIENE  RUBBER PRODUCTION
    NON-NYLON  POLYAMIDES  PRODUCTION
    PETROLEUM  REFINERIES  - OTHER SOURCES  NOT DISTINCTLY LISTED
    POLYETHYLENE TEREPHTHALATE PRODUCTION
    POLYBUTADIENE RUBBER  PRODUCTION
    rule proposed on December 31,  1992
   2 rule promulgated on September  22, 1993
   3 rule promulgated on October 27, 1993
   4 area source category
158

-------
gnurce Categories with Emission Standards Due bv November 15. 1994
                              (CONTINUED)

 POLYSTYRENE PRODUCTION
 POLYSULFIDE RUBBER PRODUCTION
 PRINTING/PUBLISHING (SURFACE COATING)
 SECONDARY LEAD SMELTING
 SHIPBUILDING AND SHIP REPAIR  (SURFACE COATINGS)
 SOLID WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, & DISPOSAL FACILITIES  (TSDF)
 STYRENE-ACRYLONITRILE PRODUCTION
 STYRENE-BUTADIENE RUBBER AND LATEX PRODUCTION
 WOOD FURNITURE (SURFACE COATING)

Source Categories \vith Emission Standards Due by November 15. 1997

 4-CHLORO-2-METHYLPHENOXYACETIC ACID PRODUCTION
 2,4-D SALTS AND ESTERS PRODUCTION
 4,6-DINITRO-O-CRESOL PRODUCTION
 ACETAL RESINS PRODUCTION
 ACRYLIC FIBERS/MODACRYLIC FIBERS PRODUCTION
 AMINO RESINS PRODUCTION
 BUTADIENE DIMERS PRODUCTION
 CAPTAFOL PRODUCTION
 CAPTAN PRODUCTION
 CHLORONEB PRODUCTION
 CHLOROTHALONIL PRODUCTION
 CHLORINE PRODUCTION
 CHROMIUM CHEMICALS MANUFACTURING
 CYANURIC CHLORIDE PRODUCTION
 DACTHAL  (TM) PRODUCTION
 FERROALLOYS PRODUCTION
 FLEXIBLE POLYURETHANE FOAM PRODUCTION
 HYDROGEN CYANIDE PRODUCTION
 MINERAL WOOL PRODUCTION
 NON-STAINLESS STEEL MANUFACTURING - ELECTRIC ARC FURNACE  (EAF)
   OPERATION
 NYLON 6 PRODUCTION
 OIL AND NATURAL GAS PRODUCTION
 PETROLEUM REFINERIES - CATALYTIC CRACKING  (FLUID AND OTHER) UNITS,
   CATALYTIC REFORMING UNITS, AND SULFUR PLANT UNITS
 PHARMACEUTICALS PRODUCTION
 PHENOLIC RESINS PRODUCTION
 POLYCARBONATES PRODUCTION
 POLYETHER POLYOLS PRODUCTION
 PORTLAND CEMENT MANUFACTURING
 PRIMARY ALUMINUM PRODUCTION
 PRIMARY COPPER SMELTING
 PRIMARY LEAD SMELTING
 PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS  (POTW) EMISSIONS  (CAA MANDATED
   PROMULGATION BY NOVEMBER 15, 1995)
 PULP & PAPER PRODUCTION
                                                                      159

-------
   Source Categories with Emission Standards Due bv November 15. 1997
                                 (CONTINUED)

    REINFORCED PLASTIC COMPOSITES PRODUCTION
    SECONDARY .ALUMINUM PRODUCTION
    SODIUM CYANIDE PRODUCTION
    SODIUM PENTACHLOROPHENATE PRODUCTION
    STAINLESS STEEL MANUFACTURING -  ELECTRIC ARC FURNACE (EAF)  OPERATION
    STEEL PICKLING - HC1  PROCESS
    TORDON (TM)  ACID PRODUCTION
    WOOD TREATMENT
    WOOL FIBERGLASS MANUFACTURING

   Source Categories with Emission Standards Due by, November* 15. 2000

    AEROSOL CAN-FILLING FACILITIES
    ALKYD RESINS  PRODUCTION
    ALUMINA PROCESSING
    AMMONIUM SULFATE PRODUCTION -  CAPROLACTAM BY-PRODUCT PLANTS
    ANTIMONY OXIDES MANUFACTURING
    ASPHALT CONCRETE MANUFACTURING
    ASPHALT PROCESSING
    ASPHALT ROOFING MANUFACTURING
    ASPHALT/COAL  TAR APPLICATION - METAL PIPES
    AUTO AND LIGHT DUTY TRUCK (SURFACE  COATING)
    BAKERS YEAST  MANUFACTURING
    BENZYLTRIMETHYLAMMONIUM CHLORIDE PRODUCTION
    BOAT MANUFACTURING
    BUTADIENE-FURFURAL COTRIMER (R-ll)
    CARBONYL SULFIDE PRODUCTION
    CARBOXYMETHYLCELLULOSE  PRODUCTION
    CELLOPHANE PRODUCTION
    CELLULOSE ETHERS PRODUCTION
    CELLULOSE FOOD CASING MANUFACTURING
    CHELATING AGENTS PRODUCTION
    CHLORINATED PARAFFINS PRODUCTION
    CHROMIUM REFRACTORIES PRODUCTION
    CLAY PRODUCTS  MANUFACTURING
    COKE BY-PRODUCT PLANTS
    COKE OVENS: PUSHING,  QUENCHING AND  BATTERY STACKS
    DODECANEDIOIC  ACID  PRODUCTION
    DRY  CLEANING  (PETROLEUM SOLVENT)
    ENGINE TEST FACILITIES
    ETHYLIDENE NORBORNENE PRODUCTION
    EXPLOSIVES PRODUCTION
    FLAT WOOD  PANELING  (SURFACE COATING)
    FUME  SILICA PRODUCTION
    HAZARDOUS WASTE  INCINERATION
    HYDRAZINE PRODUCTION
    HYDROCHLORIC ACID PRODUCTION
    HYDROGEN FLUORIDE PRODUCTION
160

-------
                        TABLE  2.   CONCLUDED


      Categories with Emission Standards Due by November 15. 2000
                             (CONTINUED)

INDUSTRIAL BOILERS
INSTITUTIONAL/COMMERCIAL BOILERS
INTEGRATED IRON & STEEL MANUFACTURING
IRON FOUNDRIES
LARGE APPLIANCE (SURFACE COATING)
LEAD ACID BATTERY MANUFACTURING
LIME MANUFACTURING
MALEIC ANHYDRIDE COPOLYMERS PRODUCTION
MANUFACTURE OF PAINTS, COATINGS & ADHESIVES
METAL CAN (SURFACE COATING)
METAL COIL (SURFACE COATING)
METAL FURNITURE (SURFACE COATING)
METHYLCELLULOSE PRODUCTION
MISCELLANEOUS METAL PARTS & PRODUCTS  (SURFACE COATING)
MUNICIPAL LANDFILLS
OBPA/1,3-DIISOCYANATE PRODUCTION
ORGANIC LIQUIDS DISTRIBUTION (NON-GASOLINE)
PAINT STRIPPER USERS  .
PAPER AND OTHER WEBS  (SURFACE COATING)
PHOSPHATE FERTILIZERS PRODUCTION
PHOSPHORIC ACID MANUFACTURING
PHOTOGRAPHIC CHEMICALS PRODUCTION
PHTHALATE PLASTICIZERS PRODUCTION
PLASTIC PARTS AND PRODO'CTS  (SURFACE COATING)
PLYWOOD/PARTICLE BOARD fciANUFACTURING
POLYESTER RESINS PRODUCTION
POLYMERIZED VINYLIDENE CHLORIDE PRODUCTION
POLYMETHYL METHACRYLATE RESINS PRODUCTION
POLYVINYL ACETATE EMULSIONS PRODUCTION
POLYVINYL ALCOHOL PRODUCTION
POLYVINYL BUTYRAL PRODUCTION
POLYVINYL CHLORIDE AND COPOLYMERS PRODUCTION
PRIMARY MAGNESIUM REFINING
PRINTING, COATING & DYEING OF FABRICS
PROCESS HEATERS
QUATERNARY AMMONIUM COMPOUNDS PRODUCTION
RAYON PRODUCTION
ROCKET ENGINE TEST FIRING
RUBBER CHEMICALS MANUFACTURING
SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING
SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATION
SITE REMEDIATION
SPANDEX PRODUCTION
STATIONARY INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES
STATIONARY TURBINES
STEEL FOUNDRIES
SYMMETRICAL TETRACHLOROPYRIDINE  PRODUCTION
TACONITE IRON ORE PROCESSING
TIRE PRODUCTION
URANIUM HEXAFLUORIDE  PRODUCTION
VEGETABLE OIL PRODUCTION
                                                                     161

-------
                          EPA's Early Reductions Program
                           for Ha2ardous Air Pollutants

                                    FACT SHEET
         •     On October 29,  1992,  EPA issued its  final  rule  establishing
              its Early Reductions  Program for emissions of air toxics.

         Background

              The Clean Air Act Amendments for 1990  contain specific
              provisions that allow EPA to establish a program to give
              industry incentives for voluntarily  achieving reductions in
              emissions of toxic air pollutants.

              Title III of the Clean Air Act Amendments  establishes a 10-
              year regulatory schedule for implementing  "maximum
              achievable control technology" (MACT)  standards for
              controlling emissions of 189 statutorily-listed air toxics.

         •     One of the new  features of the Act is  a provision [Section
              H2(i)(S)] that allows existing sources to be granted six
              additional years to comply with the  applicable  MACT
              standards by volunteering to achieve early reductions of
              their emissions.

         •     On June 13,  1991, EPA proposed a rule  in the Federal
              Register to implement the early reductions provisions of the
              Act.

              in order to be  eligible for the extension,  a source must
              obtain a 90% or more  reduction of its  air  toxic emissions.

         Benefits of the Early Reductions Program

              The program will benefit the environment by ensuring that
              reductions in potentially dangerous  air toxics  are achieved
              significantly earlier than would have  been the  case under
              the MACT schedule prescribed in the  Clean  Air Act
              Amendments.

         *     Companies1 will  have flexibility to design  cost-effective
              reduction plans.  Moreover, the six  year compliance
              extension affords companies time to  develop less-costly
              approches to eventual compliance with  MACT standards,
              including pollution prevention options.

         •     Companies participating in the early reduction  program also
              benefit from the demonstrated marketing advantages
              associated with being a good corporate citizen  and reducing
              public exposure to harmful toxics.
162

-------
Draerran Recruireraentft
     In most cases the emissions reduction will have to be
     achieved before EPA proposes applicable MACT standards.  For
     the first set of MACT standards, however, sources that
     achieve the reduction after proposal, but before January 1,
     3.994, nay qualify for the compliance extension if the source
     makes a commitment to achieve such reduction before EPA
     proposes the standard.

     An important aspect of the program is how SPA defines
     combinations of emission points for which the reduction roust
     be achieved (the so-called "definition of source11).  The
     proposed rule provides flexibility for industry to design
     their program for reductions from the entire plant site or
     for'parts of the plant site, subject to certain limitations.

     Emission reduction will be determined by comparing the post-
     reduction emissions with verifiable and actual emissions in
     a base year of 1987 or later.

     To obtain a compliance extension under the early reductions
     program, a source must submit an application for an
     operating permit that contains a demonstration of the early
     reduction.

     For additional information on the Early Reductions program,
     interested parties may contact one of the EPA Regional
     Office representatives listed below.
          Region I

          Region IZ

                I
          Region III

          Region IV

          Region V

          Region vi

          Region VII

          Region vm

          Region IX

          Region x
- Janet:Beloin

- Harish Patel
  Umesh Dholakia

- Jim Baker

- Anthony Toney

- John Pavitt

- Tom Driscoll
(617)  835-2734

(212)  264-6683
(212)  264-6676

(215)  597-3499

(404)  347-2864

(312)  886-6858

(214)  655-7549
  carmen Torres-Ortega (913)  551-7873

  Cory Potash          (303)  293-1886

  Ken Bigos            (415)  744-1240

  ChriS Hall           (206)  553-1949
                                                                      163

-------
          UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
               Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
               Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 2771 1
                            NOV 0 8 1993
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
          Clarification of Issues Regarding the Contingency
          Measures  that are due November 15, 1993 for Moderate
          and Above Ozone Nonattainment Areas
          D. Kent Berry,  Acting
          Air  Quality Management Division (MD-15)
          Director,  Air Pesticides and Toxics
            Management Division,  Regions I and IV
          Director,  Air and Waste Management Division,
            Regibn II
          Director,  Air,  Radiation and Toxics Division,
            Region III
          Director,  Air and Radiation Division,
            Region V
          Director,  Air,  Pesticides and Toxics Division,
            Region VI
          Director,  Air and Toxics Division,
            Regions VII,  VIII,  IX, and X
     The August  23,  1993  memorandum "Guidance on Issues Related
to 15 Percent Rate-of -Progress Plans,"  from Michael H.  Shapiro,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air  and Radiation,  to you,  set
forth the policy on  accepting nitrogen  oxide (NOx)  measures for a
portion of the contingency measures that are due November 15,
1993, and for allowing committal State  implementation  plans
(SIP's) for the  contingency measure submittal.   This memorandum
provides additional  clarification on a  number of related issues
that were raised after issuance of the  August 23 memo.

NOx Reasonably Available  Control Technology (RACT)

     Section 172 (c) (9)  of the Clean Air Act (Act)  states that
moderate and above ozone  nonattainment  areas "... shall provide
for the implementation o'f specific measures to be undertaken if
the area fails to make reasonable further progress, or to attain
the national ambient air  quality standard."

     In addition, section 182 (c) (9)  of  the Act states  that
serious and above areas "...  shall provide for the
implementation of specific measures to  be undertaken if the area
fails to meet any applicable milestone."
                                                                    165

-------
         Because the Act says that  specific measures must  be
    undertaken if the area "fails to meet a milestone, any  measures
    that are already required in any  ozone nonattainment area  would
    not be creditable for the 3  percent contingency measure
    requirement.1  Therefore, since NOx RACT is already a
    requirement, it would not be accepted as a contingency measure.
    The only exception would be  the early implementation of required
    measures scheduled for implementation at a later date  in the SIP.
    In this case, if an area then failed to meet a milestone which
    triggered the implementation of the contingency measures^ the
    State would have 1 year to backfill the shortfall.

         Note that measures that provide for emissions reductions
    beyond RACT would be creditable as contingency measures.

    Control Techniques Guidelines fCTG'sl

         States may adopt, as a  contingency measure, rules for
    categories where the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)  plans
    to issue a CTG.   When EPA finally issues the CTG, however,  the
    State will have to revise its SIP to ensure implementation of the
    RACT rule by a date certain. In  other words, the rule can no
    longer be a "contingency measure11 that is triggered by failure to
    attain or failure to meet reasonable further progress.  The rule
    would thus have to be replaced  with another contingency measure
    after EPA issues the CTG because  of the rationale stated above.
    When a CTG is issued by EPA, States can consider moving a  rule or
    measure from its 15 percent  plan  to its contingency plan and
    replacing the 15 percent rule or  measure with the CTG  rule.   This
    type of transaction would require a SIP revision.

    Maximum Available Control Technology  fMACTl. and Other Federal
    Rules

         Any reductions that occur  because of implementing MACT or
    any Federal rule are not creditable toward the contingency
    measure requirement, because  of  the rationale stated above.
    States may, however', use as  contingency measures rules for
    categories for which EPA plans  in the future to issue  Federal
    rules.  Note that such contingency measures must be replaced when
    EPA finally issues the rule. As  stated in the discussion  of
    CTG's, a SIP revision would  be  required when a State replaces
    rules or measures in their 15 percent plan with the new MACT
    standard or Federal rule and moves the replaced rule or measure
    to its contingency plan.
         'Note that an area may use as a contingency measure a rule
    or measure that is required for another  pollutant (such as carbon
    monoxide)  as long as it would provide  reductions  in volatile
    organic compounds (VOC)  or NOx.
166

-------
Episodic Strategies

     Section 123 of the Act states that an emissions limitation
may not be affected by any dispersion technique, which includes
"any intermittent or supplemental control of air pollutants
varying with atmospheric conditions."  According to EPA guidance
documents,2 by November 15,  1993, EPA expects the regulations or
measures that are adopted for the 15 percent rate-of-progress
plan to be fully adopted, real,  permanent, quantifiable, and
enforceable.  Therefore, since episodic strategies do not result
in real, permanent, quantifiable, and enforceable emissibn
reductions, they will not be approvable for the contingency
measure requirement, as well as  the 15 percent plan requirement.
The EPA's policy was set forth in, "Stack Height Regulation;
Final Rule," 50 PR 27892, July 8, 1985.

Committal SIP's '

     If a State elects to submit in its SIP a commitment for the
contingency measure requirement, it must include a commitment to
adopt, by November 15,'1994, the measures or rules for the entire
3 percent required.  The commitment must provide as much
information as possible, but we  recognize that in some cases it
may be difficult to list the measures that an area is considering
with a schedule because the area's modeling may not yet be
complete.  Completion of modeling may be necessary in cases where
a State is considering NOx controls as part of the contingency
measures.  Therefore, EPA will accept such commitments without a
list of specific measures, but the commitment should at least
note the possible kinds of measures under consideration for NOx
and VOC.

     Please forward this information to your State and local
agencies.  Your staff may contact Kimber Scavo at (919) 541-3354
with questions.
     2Two  of  which are:   "General Preamble for the Implementation
of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990," 57 FR 13498,
April 16,  1992, and "Guidance for Growth Factors, Projections,
and Control Strategies for the 15 Percent Rate-of-Progress
Plans," EPA-452/R-93-002, March 1993.
                                                                    167

-------
    cc:   Air Branch Chief, Regions  I-X      William Becker
         Gary Dolce                        Doug Grano
         Howard Hoffman                    Phil Lorang
         Rich Ossias                       Kimber Scavo
         Sara Schneeberg                   Laurel Schultz
         John Seitz                        John Silvasi
         Lydia Wegman
168

-------
/\ •»       UNITE° STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTtCllON AGtlMCY
                 Offlce of Air Quality Planning and Sland;mis
                Research Triangle Park, North Ccimhna Tll\\
 iwH*1'

                           NOV 3 0 1993

 MEMORANDUM


 SUBJECT:   Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations
           for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas
                                                   *       ^V
                                                  / A*
 FROM:      D.  Kent Berry, Acting Director        L 4 —
           Air Quality Management Division  (MD-15)

 TC.        Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
            Management Division, Regions I and IV
           Director, Air and Waste Management Division,
            Region II                                '
           Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division,
            Region III
           Director, Air and Radiation Division,
            Region V
           Director, Air,/ Pesticides and Toxics Division,
            Region VI
           Director, Air and Toxics. Division,
            Regions VII, VIII, IX, and X


     This  memorandum provides guidance on the use of actual
 emissions  in  maintenance demonstrations for ozone and CO
 nonattainment areas seeking redesignation to attainment.  This
 guidance supersedes previous Environmental Protection Agency
 (EPA) guidance set forth in the September 4, 1992 memorandum from
 John Calcagni to Air Division Directors,  "Procedures for
 Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment"
 (redesignation policy), which required emission projections for
 these areas to be based on allowable emissions.

     The EPA  has previously issued guidance on the use of actual
 emissions  in  projecting , emissions to meet the requirements for
 the is percent rate-of-progress plans for ozone nonattainment
 areas.1   For consistency, this memorandum extends the policy of
 using actual  emissions to maintenance projections for ozone and
 CO areas,  as  well.   This  guidance is not intended to apply to
 emission projections in control programs for the other criteria
 pollutants (see discussion under "Other Pollutants") .
     'See  Guidance for Growth Factors. Projections, and Control
Strategies for the  15 Percent Rate-of Progress Plans  (EPA-452/R-
93-002, March 1993).
                                                                        169

-------
   Ozone and CO Policy

        Actual emissions from a source are the emissions based on
   the source's actual operating hours, production rates, and
   control equipment for the processes carried out at the source.
   Actual emissions take into consideration normal operating
   conditions as well as instances when deviations occur.  For ozone
   and CO areas, the term allowable emissions refers to emissions
   estimates based on enforceable emission rates and actual
   production rates and hours.

        Consistent with the earlier rate-of-progress plan guidance,
   ozone and CO maintenance projections may be based on actual
   emissions for sources or source categories that are currently
   subject to a regulation and that the State does not anticipate
   subjecting to additional regulation.  Similarly, the maintenance
   projections may be based on actual emissions for sources or
   source categories that are currently unregulated and are not
   expected to be subject to future regulation.  (The State still
   has the option of using allowable emissions for these two cases.)
   However, for sources that are expected to be subject to
   additional regulation, the projections must be based on the new
   allowable emissions limits because the new actual emissions are
   not yet known.                   •'

        Upon approval of a redesignation request and associated
   maintenance plan by EPA, all future emissions calculations or
   projections to implement other air quality requirements for an
   area must be consistent with the maintenance demonstration
   (unless a more stringent requirement applies).  For example, if
   projected emissions from a source used in the maintenance
   demonstration are based on actual emissions, that source must use
   actual emissions in determining the credit available for
   emissions trading, innovative strategies, economic incentive
   plans, and emissions budgets.

   Other Pollutants

        Under the redesignation policy, emissions projections for
   particulate matter (PM-10), sulfur dioxide  (SO2), nitrogen
   dioxide, and lead  (Pb) nonattainment areas are still required to
   follow current EPA modeling guidance.2  The modeling guidance
   requires that maximum 'allowable emission limits for major point
   sources be used in demonstrating maintenance of short-term
        2The EPA-approved modeling guidance may be found in the
   following documents:   "Guideline on Air Quality Models  (Revised)"
   (EPA-450/2-78-027R, July 1987) and "PM-10 SIP Development
   Guideline"  (EPA-450/2-86-001, June 1987).
170

-------
standards.3   It is necessary to continue the use  of maximum
allowable emissions when projecting emissions for these
nonattainment areas because, in some cases, large point sources
operating at full capacity could by themselves cause an
exceedance of the applicable national ambient air quality
standard.  In contrast, large point sources are not likely to be
dominant emission sources in inventories for ozone and CO
nonattainment areas, and it is unlikely that the multitude of
smaller sources would be operating at maximum capacity
simultaneously.
                                                         *.
     For further  information regarding the use of actual and
allowable emissions for maintenance demonstrations for ozone and
CO areas, please  contact Carla Oldham at (919) 541-3347.  For
information  on projecting emissions for S02, PM-10, and Pb
nonattainmeht  areas, please contact Robin Dunkins at (919) 541-
5335.

cc:  Air Branch Chief, Regions  I-X
     John Cabaniss, QMS
     Mary Henigin, OAQPS
     Bob Kellam,  TSD
     Rich Ossias,  O6C
     John Rasnic,  SSCD
     John Seitz,  OAQPS
     Ann Goode, OAR
     Lydia Wegman, OAQPS
      'Maximum allowable emissions  are  calculated using the
 enforceable (i.e., allowable) emission rate multiplied by the
 maximum operating capacity of that source at continuous operation
 (unless there are federally-enforceable limits on the hours of
 operation).
                                                                        171

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


                 DEC   g I993
    MEMORANDUM
    SUBJECT:
    FROM:
    TO:
Credit for 15 Percent Rate-of-Progr«
Reductions from the Architectural
Maintenance (AIM) Coating
John S. Seitz, Directo:
   ice of Air Quality
Plans for
ndustrial
                                               nd Standards (MD-10)
Director, Air, Pesticides and'Toxics
  Management Division, Regions I and IV
Director, Air and Waste Management Division,
  Region II
Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division,
  Region III
Director, Air and Radiation Division,
  Region V
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division,
  Region VI
Director, Air and Toxics Division,
  Regions VII, VIII, IX, and X
         This memorandum supplements my memorandum of September 10,
    1993 concerning State credit for reductions from the forthcoming
    Federal AIM coating rule.   As you know,  a number of States have
    indicated that  reductions  from this source category are crucial
    to their 15 percent rate-of-progress plans.  In order to allow
    States to take  credit for  expected reductions from the Federal
    rule while still providing necessary safeguards, EPA will approve
    a committal state implementation plan (SIP) under section
    110(k)(4) if the following conditions are met:

         1.   States must submit a SIP by April 1994 committing to
    adopt an AIM rule if EPA does not promulgate a national rule by
    February 1995.

         2.   The commitment must be to adopt and submit a State rule
    by March 1995 and to implement the rule  and achieve reductions by
    November 1996.

         3.   Emissions reductions in the State-adopted rule must be
    equivalent to the committal SIP, or else a new plan must be
    submitted to make up the shortfall.
172

-------
     4.    States that submit such a commitment will  be  allowed to
take credit in their 15 percent rate-of-progress plans  for these
reductions.

     If you have any questions or comments concerning this
approach,  please contact Laurel Schultz at (919)  541-5511.

cc:  Kent Berry
     Alan Eckert
     Bruce Jordan
     Mary Nichols
     Rich Ossias
                                                                    173

-------
                UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                           WASHINGTON D.C. 20460
                              AUG a3 1893
                                                               OFFICE OF
                                                            AIR AND RADIATION
 MEMORANDUM

 SUBJECT:  Guidance on Issues Related  to  15 Percent Rate-of-
           Progress Plans

 FROM:      Michael H.  Shapiro,,       . _,
           Acting Assistant Administrator
             for Air and Radiation  (ANR-443)

 TO:        Director, Air Pesticides and Toxics
             Management Division, Regions I and  IV
           Director, Air a"nd  Waste Management Division,
             Region II
           Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division,
             Region III
           Director, Air and  Radiation Division,
             Region V
           Director, Air, Pesticides and  Toxics  Division,
             Region VI
           Director, Air and  Toxics Division,
             Regions VII, VIII, IX, and X

     As you know, section 182(b)(l) of the Clean Air Act  (Act)
 requires States to submit, by November 15,  1993 for all ozone
 nonattainment areas classified as moderate and  above, a State
 implementation plan (SIP) that provides  for a 15 percent
 reduction in emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) by
 November 15,  1996.  The purpose of this memorandum is to provide
 guidance related to these SIP submissions.
                  r
 Committal SIP's for 15 Percent Plan Control Measures

     Several  States asked to what extent will the Environmental
 Protection Agency (EPA) accept committal SIP's for the measures
 necessary to  achieve the 15 percent reduction.  Under section
 110(k) (4)  of  the Act,  EPA has the authority to conditionally
 approve a SIP submittal based 'on a commitment by the State to
 adopt  specific enforceable measures by a date certain.  A
 previous memorandum identified specific cases in which EPA would
 accept commitments for submittals which were due by November 15,
 1992.   For the 15 percent rate-of-progress  plans,  EPA will not
 allow  commitments to adopt the measures needed to meet th« 15
percent reduction requirement and any such  plans would not be
considered approvable.
                                                      •Recycled/Recyclable
                                                      Printed with Soyttanola Ink oh paper thai
                                                      contain* at toaat 50% recyctod tltxr
                                                                    175

-------
        NOx Substitution for Contingency Measures

             Section 172 (c) (9)  of the Act  requires moderate and above
        ozone nonattainment  areas to adopt contingency measures by
        November 15,  1993.   These measures would have to be implemented
        if  the area fails to make reasonable further progress  (RFP)  or to
        attain the national  ambient air quality standards  (NAAQS)  by the
        applicable attainment date.  In addition, section  182(c)(9)  of
        the Act requires serious and above areas to adopt  contingency
        measures which would be implemented if the area fails to meet any
        applicable milestone.  When triggered, the contingency  measures
        must be implemented  without further action by the  State or the
        EPA.

             The "General Preamble for the Implementation  of Title I of
        the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990" (57 FR 13498, April  16,
        1992)  requires that  the contingency measures generally  must
        provide reductions of 3 percent of the emissions from the
        adjusted base year inventory.   The reductions must be achieved in
        the year following that in which the failure has been identified.
        Throo percent represents 1 year's  worth o£ reductions under  the
        post-1996 rate-of-progress requirement.

             The contingency measures that are required to be adopted  by
        November 15,  1993 are for both failure to achieve RFP and  failure
        to  attain.   While the contingency  measures to address failure  to
        achieve RFP must be  for VOC,  the contingency measures for  failure
        to  attain may be for VOC and/or NOx.  Since these measures will
        be  implemented after 1996,  and because these measures serve  two
        purposes (i.e.,  failure to achieve RFP and failure to attain),
        the contingency measures could provide for less than 3 percent in
        voc reductions as long  as some of  the measures are for VOC and
        the area would have  the difference (up to 3 percent)  in NOx
        reductions.   Based on discussions  with EPA's Office of General
        Counsel,  we have determined that States must adopt a minimum of
        0.3 percent in VOC measures of the 3 percent contingency measure
        requirement to be legally defensible.  Therefore,  in an area that
        has demonstrated that NOx controls are needed for attainment,  2.7
        percent of  the required 3 percent  could be NOx contingency
        measures;  at  least 0.3  percent must still be VOC to cover the
        contingency requirement for meeting RFP.  Note that this applies
        to moderate areas as well;  moderate areas must submit an
        approvable  plan that shows how they will achieve the 15 percent
        requirement but are  not required to submit a demonstration that
        the milestone was achieved.   Moderate areas, of course, must
        demonstrate that they have attained the NAAQS for ozone by
        November  15,  1996.
176

-------
     In order  for NOx contingency measures to be acceptable,  the
State roust adhere to EPA's forthcoming guidance on NOx
substitution.   In addition,  States must show with modeling
evidence that  NOx reductions are needed in a particular
nonattainment  area.   Therefore,  in order to give States enough
time to consult EPA's guidance on NOX substitution and to
determine if NOx reductions are  needed, EPA will accept
committals for contingency measures that are due November  15,
1993.  If the  contingency measures themselves are not included
with the November 15,  1993 submittal, that submittal must  include
a commitment,  with schedule,  for contingency measures to be
adopted by November  15,  1994.
          \
     We believe that this is acceptable due to the fact that the
earliest a contingency measure would be implemented would be in
1997.  The first attainment date and milestone date for areas
that "are required to adopt contingency measures is November 15,
1996.  The EPA will  expect all actions needed to make the
measures fully effective to occur within 60 days after EPA
notifies the State of its milestone failure or within 6 months Of
its attainment failure.'  Therefore, the State would not need to
implement the  contingency measures until 1997 and EPA could
accept measures that could not be implemented until 1997.

     Upon activation of  the contingency measures,  reductions of
up to 3 percent (or  such lesser  percentage that will cure the
identified failure)  roust be achieved 1 year following the date on
which the failure had been identified.  The State must achieve
these reductions while conducting additional control measure
development and implementation as necessary to correct the
shortfall if it is beyond the  3  percent the state would have
already adopted.   In determining what measures should be
implemented if less  than 3 percent reduction is needed to cure
the failure,1 all voc contingency measures should be required
first followed by the appropriate percentage of NOx measures that
will correct the shortfall.

15 Percent Waiver Provision

     Under section 182(b)(l)(A)(ii), areas can submit plans
demonstrating  less than  a 15 percent emission reduction if the
following conditions are met.  First,  the State must demonstrate
that the area  has a  new  source review program equivalent to the
requir-conotvt in extreme areas  [section 182 (e) ],  except that a
"major source"  must  include  any  source that emits,  or n«t» the
potential to emit, 5 tons per  year (tpy)  of VOC.   Second, all
major sources  (down  to those with emissions of 5 tpy of VOC or
greater)  in the area must be required to have RACT-level
controls.  Third,  the  State must demonstrate that the SIP
includes all measures  (both  stationary and mobile)  that are
achieved in practice by  sources  in the same source category in
nonattainment  areas  of the next  higher classification.  Fourth,
                                                                     177

-------
                                      4

      the plan must include all measures  that can be feasibly
      implemented in the area,  in light of technological achievability
      and cost

           If an area chooses to meet  the requirements of section
      I82(b) (1) (A) (ii)  to get a waiver of the 15 percent provision,  EPA
      interprets title V to require operating permits for all VOC
      sources in that area that emit or have the potential to emit 5
      tpy of VOC.  This is because the definition of "major source"  in
      title V expressly refers  to "major  stationary source" as defined
      in part D of title I.   Since,  under the waiver provision, "major
      stationary source" would  be defined as having the potential to
      emit 5 tpy .for the purposes of title I, this would become the
      definition^of major source for the  purposes of title V.

           I suggest that you provide  a copy of this memo to your
      affected State and local  agencies.  Inquiries nay be directed  to
      John Silvasi at (919)  541-5666.

      cc:   Air Branch Chief,  Regions I-X
           William Becker
           Rich Ossias
           Lydia Wegman
           Dick Wilson
178

-------
%
*
 \
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
     Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
     Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711
                           AUG241993
  MEMORANDUM
  SUBJECT:   Addressing Potential New National Ambient Air Quality
            Standards (NAAQS) Violations For PM-10, S02,  and Lead

  FROM:      D.  Keijt Berry, Acting Directorx^vM*^ )' WW l
            Air Quality Management Division (MD-15)
            Robert G. Kellam, Acting
            Technical Support Division (MD-14)

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


       This memorandum provides the Regional Offices with a status
  of the potential new PM-10 (particles with an aerodynamic
  diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers) NAAQS
  violations,  first presented in the January 19, 1993 memorandum to
  the Air Branch Chiefs.  It is the Office of Air Quality Planning
  and Standards' (OAQPS') intention to address PM-10 NAAQS
  violations and progress toward their resolution in a nationally
  consistent manner as part of the memorandum of agreement (MOA)
  process beginning in fiscal year (FY) 1994.  The attachment to
  this memorandum includes the current information necessary to
  start this process.  This approach (albeit much simpler) will be
  initiated next year for sulfur dioxide NAAQS exceedances and
  potential violations.  The air quality data for lead will
  continue to be tracked through the lead NAAQS attainment
  strategy.  New reporting procedures for the Regional Offices for
  PM-10 exceedances and potential NAAQS violations will be
  discussed in more detail in future guidance.
                                                                      179

-------
         The potential new PM-10 NAAQS violation sites included in
    this memorandum are based on the January 19, 1993 memorandum to
    the Air Branch Chiefs.  The Regional Offices were asked to review
    the material on exceedances for the sites in each Region and
    update the status as appropriate.  The OAQPS received responses
    both in writing and through conversations with Regional Office
    staff.  The responses are incorporated in the attached table and
    writeup of each site.  This information shows the status of the
    information received and OAQPS' recommended NAAQS violation
    status of each site which has recorded one or more exceedances.

         The attachment includes detailed information for 52 sites.
    Of the 52 sites on the January list which had one or more
    exceedances, 19 sites are recommended as not yet being in
    violation, 20 sites are recommended as being in violation, and 13
    are in a provisional violation category.  The sites in the
    provisional category include sites in which OAQPS has not
    received adequate documentation about recurrence claims.  The
    other 19 sites are identified as not in violation, but must be
    reevaluated in the future pending results of daily sampling or
    saturation sampling results.

         In order to resolve the status of each site in a nationally
    consistent manner, the FY 1994 MOA process should include each
    Regional Office's plan for addressing each site which has
    recorded one or more exceedances, as well as a priority on
    resolving recurrence claims and monitoring issues for the sites
    in the provisional category.  For the Regional Offices addressing
    these issues in their MOA's, OAQPS would like a mid-year and end-
    of-year status report indicating progress toward their resolution
    through the MOA reporting system.

         In the future, OAQPS plans on providing more formal guidance
    and procedures for making this decision-making process easier.
    Issues to be addressed include exceedance and violation
    reporting, handling of data affected by special events and
    conditions, and enhancing Aerometric Information Retrieval
    System-Air Quality Subsystem data storage and reporting
    capabilities.  These changes will provide the Regional Offices
    with real-time data necessary to track exceedances and make
    potential violation determinations as they occur.  If you have
    any questions, please contact Joe Paisie at 919-541-5556
    concerning the MOA issues and reporting procedures, or Bill Hunt
    at 919-541-5559 concerning data contained in the attachment and
    any monitoring issues.

    Attachment

    cc:  Joe Paisie
         Bill, Hunt
         Jerry Stubberfield
         Chief, Air Programs Branch, Regions I-X
         Director, ESD, Regions  I-X
         PM-10 Contact, Regions  I-X
180

-------
                                                       ATTACHMENT

           STATUS  OF PM-10 POTENTIAL VIOLATIONS BY SITE

Region I

•  Darien, CT (09-001-1401)

     *  Site had  1 exceedance in 199I, and was caused by the
     sandblasting of a bridge near the sampler.  Sandblasting
     only occurs during infrequent repair of bridges and Region I
     believes the exceedance in Darien at this specific location
     should be classified as a nonrecurring event.  Site still
     sampling on  1/6 frequency.  Concentrations since July 1992
     have been less than 58 ug/m3.  Recommend no violation.

Region II

•  Buffalo, NY (36-029-0017)

     •  Site had  1 exceedance in 1990 and was the result of
     nearby construction activities which were occurring at the
     time.  Region II believes that exceedances like this one are
     not likely to recur, and indeed have not recurred.  Site
     still sampling on 1/6 frequency.  Concentrations since June
     1990 have been less than 75 ug/m3.  Recommend no violation.

Region III

•  Vansant, VA (51-027-0003)

     •  Site had  2 exceedances in 1991 and have been flagged by
     Virginia as due to a forest fire.  Region III does not
     believe the event is likely to recur.  The site was sampling
     on a 1/2 frequency through January 1992 when the site was
     discontinued.  Recommend no violation.

•  Covington, VA  (51-580-0007)

     •  Site had  1 exceedance in 1991 and has been flagged by
     Virginia as due to a forest fire.  Region III does not
     believe the event is likely to recur.  The site is still
     sampling on a 1/6 frequency.  Concentrations since December
     1991 have been less than 57 ug/m3.  Recommend no violation.

Region IV

•  North Charleston, SC (45-019-0019)

     •  Site had  1 exceedance in 1991 and was due to "an unusual
     occurrence at a nearby coal pile."  An analysis of the
     filter showed the primary constituent to be bituminous coal.
     South Carolina has flagged the data as a special event.
                                                                   181

-------
         Region IV does not believe that this event Is likely to
         recur.  Site still sampling on 1/6 frequency.  Concentra-
         tions since the event in November 1991 have been less than
         75 ug/m3.  South Carolina has agreed to install a continuous
         PM-10 sampler at this site as soon as one can be procured
         and installed.  South Carolina is in the process of applying
         for a special grant from Region IV to buy the sampler.
         Region IV will approve the request when received and have
         the sampler operational by September 30/ 1993.  Recommend
         status determination be delayed and be dependent upon review
         of 1 year of continuous data with a minimum of 75 percent
         data capture.

    Region V

    •  Randolph County, IL (17-157-0002)

         •  Site had 2 exceedances in 1989, 2 in 1990, 1 in 1991, and
         1 in 1992.  The exceedances were due to emissions from a
         surface coal mine and its associated haul road.  Daily
         sampling was begun in October 1989 and continued until the
         site was discontinued in December 1992.  Mine ceased
         operation during third quarter 1992.  Everyday sampling
         initiated January 1993 at site 17-157-0003.  Although the
         site recorded violations, the source of the exceedances has
         been discontinued.  Recommend violation since estimated
         exceedances greater than 1.0.

    •  Randolph County, IL (17-157-0003)

         •  Site had 4 exceedances in 1991 and 1 in 1992.  The
         exceedances were due to emissions from an unpaved road used
         to haul coal refuse and clean coal.  The site was sampling
         on a 1/6 frequency through the end of 1992 and then everyday
         sampling was supposedly begun.  Mine ceased operation during
         third quarter 1992.  Although the site recorded violations,
         the source of the exceedances has been discontinued.
         Recommend violation since estimated exceedances greater than
         1.0.

    •  Rockdale, IL (17-197-1009)

         •  Site had 1 exceedance in 1990, and has been flagged by
         Illinois as being due to high winds.  The site is still
         sampling on a 1/6 frequency.  There is no statement as to
         recurrence claim.  Concentrations since May 1990 have been
         less' than 80 ,ug/m3.  Since everyday sampling not initiated
         and no recurrence claim was made, recommend classification
         as a violation.
182

-------
•  Jeffersonville, IN (18-003-0003)

     «  Site had 1 exceedance in 1985 with a nonreference
     sampler.  The site was discontinued in 1987, and moved to
     site 18-003-0005.  Recommend no violation since exceedance
     was not corroborated by a reference sampler.

•  Indianapolis, IN (18-097-0073)

     «  Site had 1 exceedance in 1991.  Concentrations since the
     event have been less than 64 ug/m3.  The site is still
     sampling on a 1/6 frequency.  Since increased sampling not
     initiated, recommend classification as a violation.

•  Bay County, MI (26-017-0906)

     «  Site had 1 exceedance in 1989.  The site was discontinued
     in March 1991.  The exceedance was probably due to either
     agriculture and/or Monitor Sugar.  Three additional sites
     were started in April 1992 with everyday sampling.  One of
     these sites (26-017-0911) measured 494 ug/m3 on June 17,
     1992 and 286 ug/m3 on December 25, 1992.   Recommend
     classification as a violation.

•  Ludington, MI (26-105-0004)

     •  Site had 1 exceedance in 1990.  Michigan has flagged the
     exceedance as due to chemical spills.   The site is still
     sampling on a 1/6 frequency.  Concentrations since September
     1990 have been less than 96 ug/m3.  Region V believes the
     evenib to be non-recurring.  Recommend no violation.

•  Muskegon, MI (26-121-0919)

     •  Site had 1 exceedance in 1989.  The exceedance was
     flagged as due to construction.  The site was discontinued
     in November 1989.  Recommend violation subject to
     clarification of future construction activity in the
     monitoring area and non-recurrence claim.

•  Noble County, Ohio (39-121-0001)

     •  Site had 1 exceedance in 1991 and has been flagged as  due
     to infrequent large gatherings.  The site is still sampling
     on a 1/6 frequency.  Concentrations since July 1991 have
     been less than 82 ug/m3.  There is no statement as to
     likelihood of recurrence.  Recommend violation subject to
     demonstration that this was a rare event and is not likely
     to recur.
                                                                  183

-------
    •  Alliance, OH  (39-151-4004)

         •  Slta had 1  exceedance  In  both 1990  and 1991.   Both
         exceedances have  been  flagged  as due to  chemical  spills.
         There  is  no statement  as  to  recurrence claim.  The site is
         still  sampling on a  1/6 frequency.  Concentrations since
         February  1991  have been less than 69 ug/m3.  Recommend
         violation since events are recurring with 2  exceedances in  2
         years.

    Region VII

    •  Mason City, IA (19-033-0011)

         •  Iowa has flagged  1  exceedance from  the primary sampler
         and 2  exceedances from the collocated  sampler  in  1990 as
         being  caused by high winds.  The exceedance  at the primary
         sampler occurred  on  January  11 and the collocated also
         measured  an exceedance on the  same day.   However,  the
         collocated  sampler measured  an exceedance on May  17,  and
         there  was no sample  collected  by the primary sampler  on that
         day.   Site  continues to sample on 1/6  schedule.
         Concentrations since May  1990  have been  less than 79  ug/m3,
         although  no data  reported to AIRS since  July 1992.  Daily
         sampling  started  at  site  19-033-0014 (which  is considered to
         be the area of maximum concentration)  in October  1992 for 1
         year.  The  everyday  sampling at  site 0014  was  the result of
         exceedances measured at that site in May and June of  1992.
         Recommend violation  since everyday sampling  was not
         initiated in 1990 and  there  is no recurrence claim.

    •  Kansas City,  KS  (20-209-0011)

         •  There  were  3 exceedances  in 1987.   These  concentrations
         were due  to construction  activity in the vicinity of  the
         sampler.  The  sampling site  was  discontinued,  because the
         building  site  it  was located on  was demolished due to the
         construction activity. (Note: This, information was
         documented  in  Attachment  A of  a  November 4,  1989  memo from
         William Hunt to David  Stonefield.)  Region VII does not
         believe the construction  is  likely to  recur.   A continuous
         PM-10  sampler  is  expected to be  installed this spring at
         site 20-209-0020. ' Recommend no  violation.

    Region VIII

    •  Alamosa, CO (08-003-0001)

         •  Site had 1  exceedance  in  1989 and 1 in 1991.   Daily
         sampling  was begun in  September  1989 and continues to the
         present with no additional exceedances through February
         1993.  Data not flagged due  to insufficient  documentation.
184

-------
     No statement as to what caused the exceedances or likelihood
     of recurrence.  Recommend no violation since estimated
     exceedances for 1989-1992 are less than 1.0.

•  Anaconda-Deer Lodge County, MT (30-023-0007)

     *  Site had 1 exceedance in 1985 with a nonreference
     sampler.  Site was shut down in 1985, and replaced with a
     max concentration site.  No exceedances reported at new
     superfund site and it may have been shut down 9/92.  Based
     on 2i years of data from 4 sites which show no exceedances,
     Region VIII believes area is in attainment.  Recommend no
     violation since exceedance was not corroborated by a
     reference sampler.

•  Jefferson County, MT (30-043-0711)

     •  Site had 1 exceedance in 1990 during a day when company
     was maintaining and repairing a haul road and holding pond
     dam.  The company wanted to designate this exceedance as an
     special event, but Montana would not agree.  Site was
     sampling on a 1/6 frequency through December 1992.   Company
     has stopped all mining and property is up for sale.
     Although the site recorded violations, the source of the
   i  exceedances has been discontinued.  Recommend Region
     consider the likelihood of problem recurring after the sale
     of property.

•  Madison County, MT (30-057-0005)

     •  Site is on company property (not ambient air)  near mining
     activities and had 1 exceedance in 1989.   State requested
     better fugitive dust controls and negotiated agreement to
     operate 1 sampler an a 1/2 schedule for 2 years beginning
     6/91 and implement better fugitive dusts controls.   Numbers
     have been low since exceedance.  Recommend no violation
     pending verification that property is inaccessible to public
     (i.e. presence of fence) and not ambient air.
         \N
•  Park County, MT (30-067-0002)

     * Site is on company property and not an ambient monitoring
     site.  Site had 2 exceedances in 1988, 6 in 1989, 1 in 1990,
     1 in 1991, and 1 in 1992.  Sampling frequency went to 1/3 in
     May 1991.  State wants this site to track tailing pile
     fugitive emissions and controls.  Recommend no violation
     pending verification that property is inaccessible to public
     (i.e. presence of fence) and not ambient air.
                                                                  185

-------
     •   Sanders County,  MT (30-089-0005)

          •  Site was a  short-term site operated during a study in
          Thompson Falls.   The site had 2 exceedances in 1991 and was
          discontinued in  March 1991.   The area is nonattainment based
          on another site.

     •   Fargo,  ND (38-017-1001)

          •  Site had; 1  exceedance in  1990 and has been flagged as
          being due to high winds.  Site  continues to operate on a 1/6
          sampling frequency.   Concentrations  from February 1990-March
          1993  show concentrations less than 63 ug/m3.   Region VIII
          believes the event is not likely to  recur.  Recommend
          violation determination be made pending the receipt of
          additional information to support high wind claim.

     •   McLean  County, ND  (38-055-0111)

          •  Site was located on coal  mine property and was not
          ambient air.  The samplers were located incorrectly and the
          site  has been  moved away from the coal mine property with a
          new contractor to do the analyses.   The site had 1
          exceedance in  1988' and 2 in  1990.  All of the data  from this
          site  have been deleted from  AIRS.  Recommend no violation
          pending verification that property is inaccessible  to public
          (i.e. presence of fence) and not ambient air.

     •   Williston, ND (38-105-0001)

          •  Site had 1  exceedance in  1990 and has been flagged as
          being due to high winds.  Site  continues to operate on a 1/6
          sampling frequency.   Concentrations  November 1990-March 1993
          have  been less than 40 ug/m3.  Region VIII  believes the
          event is not likely to recur.  Recommend violation
          determination  be made pending the receipt of additional
          information to support high  wind claim.

     •   Brookings, SD (46-011-0002)

          •  Site had 1  exceedance in  1990.  It has been flagged as
          due to high winds.  Site continues to operate on a 1/6
          frequency.  Concentrations February  1990-December 1992 have
          been  less than 89 ug/m3.  Region VIII believes the event is
          not likely to  recur.  Recommend violation determination be
          made  pending the receipt of  additional information to
          support high wind claim.
186

-------
0  Rapid City,  Sti (46-103-1001)

     *  Site had 1 exceedance in February and 1 in December 1991.
     Daily sampling was started in July 1991 and continues with
     no additional exceedances through February 1993.  Expected
     exceedances 1990-1992 are 0.75.  Recommend no violation.

t  Moab, UT (49-019-0004)

     •  Site had 1 exceedance in 1991.  Utah presented
     information, which they believe shows the exceedance was due
     to high winds blowing desert sands.  They did not flag the
     data.  Based on Utah's interpretation, the exceedance was a
     special event, therefore no further action was required.
     However, there is no special event flag on AIRS for this
     event.  Negotiations are on-going regarding this matter.
     Site* continues to operate on a 1/6 frequency.  Recommend
     violation determination be made pending the receipt of
     additional information to support high wind claim.

•  Sweetwater County, WY (56-037-0013)

     •  Site had 1 exceedance in March 1991, and daily sampling
     performed  July 1991-August 16, 1992.  Site now samples on a
     1/6 schedule.  No exceedances recorded through December
     1992.  Estimated exceedances for 1990-1992 are less than
     1.0.  Recommend no violation.

Region IX

•  Yosemite National Park, CA (06-043-1001)

     *  Site had 3 exceedances in 1990 and 1 in 1991.  The site
     is still sampling on a 1/6 frequency.  Region IX has
     indicated that there is no evidence these are special
     events, and will initiate the redesignation process for the
     area in 1993.

•  Merced, CA (06-047-1001)

     *  Site had 1 exceedance in 1990.  The site is still
     sampling on a 1/6 frequency.  Merced County is part of the
     San Joaquin Valley PM-10 planning area and was addressed in
     the San Joaquin Valley PM-10 SIP submitted in 1991.  When
     EPA published the revision to 40 CFR 51, Merced County was
     inadvertently left off the list of counties included in the
     nonattainment area.  When EPA takes action on the PM-10
     submittal, Region IX will correct 40 CFR Part 51 to include
     Merced County.
                                                                   187

-------
                                     8

     •  Quincy-East Quincy/ CA (06-063-1006)

          •  Site had 1 exceedance in 1991.  The site is still
          sampling on a 1/6 frequency.  Region IX is working with the
          California Air Resources Board and the Nevada Sierra Air
          Quality Management District to determine whether the
          District will initiate every day monitoring.  Everyday
          sampling had not been started as of December 1992.  Since
          increased sampling frequency not initiated, recommend
          classification as violation.

     •  Lucerne Valley (06-071-0013)

          •  Site had 2 exceedances in 1990 and 1 in 1991.   The site
          was discontinued in September 1991.  Lucerne is in San
          Bernardino County and has been proposed for redesignation to
          nonattainment for PM-10 (FR 57 43846).

     •  San Francisco, CA (06-075-0005)

          •  Site had 1 exceedance in 1990.  The  site is still
          sampling on a 1/6 frequency. 'The Bay Area Air Quality
          Management District chose not to initiate every day
          monitoring at this site.  Region IX intends to initiate the
          redesignation process for this area in  1993.  The boundary
          of the proposed area may include San Francisco County, Santa
          Clara County, and Alameda County.  Everyday sampling had not
          been started as of December 1992.  Since increased sampling
          frequency not initiated, recommend classification as
          violation.

     •  Stockton, CA (06-077-1002)

          •  Site had 1 exceedance in 1986 and 1987 with a
          nonreference sampler.  One exceedance was also measured in
          1990' with a reference sampler.  The site is still sampling
          on a 1/6 frequency.  Stockton is in San Joaquin County and
          is part of the San Joaquin Valley PM-10 Planning  area.
          Everyday sampling had not been started  as of December 1992.
          Since Increased sampling frequency not  initiated, recommend
          classification as violation.

     •  San Jose, CA (06-085-2003)

          •  Site had 1 exceedance in 1990 and 3  in 1991.  The
          exceedances in 1991 have been deleted from AIRS.   The site
          is still sampling on a 1/6 frequency.  The Bay Area Air
          Quality Management District chose not to initiate every day
          monitoring at this site.  The boundary  of the proposed
          area may include San Francisco County,  Santa Clara County,
          and Alameda County.  Region IX intends  to initiate the
          redesignation process for this area in 1993.
loo

-------
•  Modesto, CA (06-099-0002)

     *  Site had 1 exceedance in 1990 and 1 in 1991. , The site is
     still sampling on a 1/6 frequency.  Modesto is in Stanislaus
     County and is part of the San Joaquin Valley PM-10 Planning
     area.

•  Modesto, CA (06-099-0003)

     •  Site had 1 exceedance in 1986 with a nonreference sampler
     and 1 in 1988 with a reference sampler.  The site was
     discontinued in April 1990.  Modesto is in Stanislaus County
     and is part of the San Joaquin Valley PM-10 Planning area.
     Everyday sampling had not been started as of December 1992.
     Since increased sampling frequency not initiated, recommend
     classification as violation.

Region X

•  Anchorage, AK (02-020-0026)

     •  Site had 2 exceedances in April 1990 and 11 exceedances
     in 1992 all due to volcanic eruptions.  Region X has
     concurred with the 1990 exceedances.  Site started sampling
     on aNl/l frequency in July 1990 and continues 1/1 through
     December 1992.  Region X stated the volcanic eruption event
     is not likely to recur after 1990, but it did.  Recommend
     Region X further investigate the cause(s) of the 11
     exceedances in 1992 prior to violation determinations.

•  Pocatello, ID  (16-005-0005)

     •  Site was designated as nonattainment in 1988.  This site
     was  included in the list because it could not be determined
     from the FR listing whether this site was located in the
     nonattainment area.  This site had 1 exceedance in 1989.
     The  site has been terminated due to noise complaints.

•  Soda Springs, ID  (16-029-0027)

     * Site had 2 exceedances  in 1988.  The first exceedance was
     flaoaed as due to a  forest fire.  The second event in
     October was not a special event and the frequency was
     increased to 1/1  from  October  1988-March 1989, then reduced
     to 1/1 In March  1989,  and to  1/6  in April 1990.  The site
     was  discontinued  in  June  1990.  Collocated data with an
     exceedance was deleted from AIRS.  Recommend Region X
      further  investigate  this  issue prior  to violation
     determination.
                                                                  189

-------
                                    10

    •  Hayden, ID (16-055-0007); Post Falls, ID  (16-055-0009);
       Lewiston, ID (16-069-0009); and Lewiston, ID (16-069-0010)

         •  All sites had exceedances on the same day due to a wind
         storm.  State has Inserted flag as special event.  Region X
         has conditionally ruled that the wind storm was rare.  Site
         16-055-0007 appears to have been discontinued In January
         1992 and site 16-069-0010 discontinued in August 1992.  The
         other 2 sites continue to operate on a 1/6 sampling
         frequency.  Site 16-055-0009 also had 3 exceedances in 1992.
         Recommend violation determination be made pending the
         receipt of additional information to support high wind
         claim.

    •  Rosenburg, OR (41-019-0121)

         •  Site was sampling on a 1/2 frequency at the time of the
         exceedance in December 1990 during the winter (impact)
         season, and 1/6 frequency during the summer months.  The
         property was sold and the site discontinued 3/92.  Two
         replacement sites were established and one site operates 1/1
         during the winter and 1/6 during the summer.   The other site
         operates 1/6 year round.  Recommend no violation.

    •  Lakeview, OR (41-037-0001)

         •  Site had 3 exceedances in 1991 and 1 in 1992, and none
         were due to special events.  The site samples at 1/1 during
         the winter months and 1/6 during the summer months.  Region
         X says the area is in the process of being classified as
         nonattainment.

    •  Portland, OR (41-051-0003)

         •  Site had 1 exceedance in 1991.  The site was still
         operating on 1/6 frequency through December 1992.  Frequency
         will be increased to 1/1 during the upcoming winter season.
         Recommend no violation at this time.

    •  Portland, OR (41-051-0009)

         •  Site had 1 exceedance in 1991.  Site also had an
         exceedance in 1986 with a nonreference sampler.  A
         saturation study will be performed in Portland during the
         winter months of 1992, 1993, and 1994.  Recommend no
         violation pending results of saturation study.

    •  Pendleton, OR (41-059-0002)

         •  Site had exceedance on same day in November 1991 with
         other sites in the surrounding area.  Region X has
         determined that the winds met the special event criteria.

190

-------
                                11

     However,  there is no flag on data in AIRS indicating high
     winds.   Site still sampling on 1/6 schedule.   Recommend
     violation.

•  Pendleton,  OR (41-059-0121)

     •  Site had 1 exceedance in 1991 due to high  winds,  but
     there is no flag on AIRS for high winds.   The site presently
     samples at 1/1 during the winter months and 1/6  during the
     summer months.  Recommend no violation.
                                                                   191

-------
          UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
   g            Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
               Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 2771 1
                            SEP  JO,

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:  Credit Toward the 15  Percent Requirements  from
          Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Coatings

FROM:     John S. Seitz, Director              */Gr*Ht, s
          Office of Air Quality Planning and S^Bda#*s
                i                                   S
TO:       Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
            Management Division, Regions I and IV
          Director, Air and Waste Management Division,
            Region II
          Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division,
            Region III
          Director, Air and Radiation Division,
            Region V
          Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division,
            Region VI
          Director, Air and Toxics Division,
            Regions VII, VIII,  IX, and X


     The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently
involved in negotiations concerning the development  of a
regulation for architectural and industrial maintenance  (AIM)
coatings.  The AIM coatings are defined as coatings  applied to
stationary structures and their appurtenances, portable
buildings, pavements, and curbs.  These coatings include off-the-
shelf paints sold to consumers, as well as certain industrial
specialty products (e.g., traffic paints and coatings for such
items as bridges and petroleum  storage tanks) .  The  negotiations
are still under way, but it appears that the regulation  will be
successfully developed, possibly as a national rule.

     States which are currently developing their 15  percent
volatile organic compounds  (VOC) plans which are due November  15,
1993 may want to take credit for reductions from this emissions
category since it seems apparent that reductions will be achieved
by the AIM rule by 1996.  We anticipate that this rule will
reduce AIM emissions by approximately 25 percent from current
emissions from the same level of paint use.  It will be
acceptable for States to assume a 25 percent reduction from their
AIM coatings emissions inventory and incorporate this reduction
into their 15 percent VOC plan.  Portions of plans incorporating
such an assumption will be  approvable by EPA.
                                                                     193

-------
          I trust that this information will be helpful to you.  If
     you have any questions, please call Bill Johnson at (919) 541-
     5245.

     cc:  Air Branch Chiefs, Regions I-IX
194

-------
             UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                 o      A'r Quallty Plann|ng and Standards
                 Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711


                            * SEP 1993
MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:   Responses to Violations of the Lead National Ambient
          Air Quality Standards  (NAAQS)           	.

FROM:      Joseph W. Paisie, Chief \M^JW- 1*+**^
          SO2/Particulate Matter PfibgjTams Branch (MD-15)

TO:       Chief, Air Branch
          Regions I-X


     As you may recall John Seitz announced the lead NAAQS
attainment strategy in September of 1990.  Generally, the lead
strategy identifies two steps to address ambient concentrations
of lead:   (1) identify any environmental problems; and (2)
correct problems with the most appropriate tool available.  To
assess air quality, the strategy suggests operating at least two
ambient monitors around the sources of concern.  However, there
appears to be some confusion about how to address subsequent
monitored violations.

     Currently, the EPA has three different tools [authorities
under the Clean Air Act (Act)] which can be employed in
correcting air quality problems.  They include:   (1) using the
administrative or judicial enforcement authorities under section
113 of the Act for problems caused by lack of compliance with the
existing requirements, (2) using the authority under section
107(d) to designate the area nonattainment, and/or (3) issuing a
SIP call under section 110(k)(5) of the Act to notify the
Governor of the State that the SIP is inadequate to attain and
maintain the lead NAAQS and to call for a SIP revision as
necessary to correct such inadequacies.  Both of the latter
actions are intended to strengthen the existing requirements
applicable to affected sources.

     In keeping with the philosophy of the lead NAAQS attainment
strategy of addressing the air quality problems in the most
efficient manner, OAQPS has encouraged Regions and States to
pursue, where appropriate, the enforcement options first.  In
many cases, air quality problems are due to poor operation and
maintenance or other resolvable compliance problems.  In these
instances, enforcement action can result in timely resolution of
violations and avoid the sometimes lengthy regulation development
                                                                     195

-------
   process.  However, the Region should pursue one of the two
   regulatory options where:  (1) the regulations are clearly
   inadequate/ either because there are no applicable lead SIP
   requirements/ or the source is in compliance with the existing
   regulations and an air quality problem still exists; or (2) the
   Region otherwise believes that even if the source were in
   compliance with the existing regulations, there would continue to
   be air quality problems.

        There are advantages and disadvantages in using either the
   nonattainment designation or SIP call approach.  For instance,
   the nonattainment designation process/ in addition to requiring
   expeditious attainment of the standard, imposes the requirements
   applicable under part D, title I of the Act (e.g./ RACM,  RFP/
   nonattainment new source review and contingency measures)/ and
   requires sanctions and FIP's if the SIP is not developed and
   implemented.  These part D requirements might be useful in
   effectively addressing the air quality problem.

        The SIP submitted in response to a SIP call under section
   110 must also provide for attainment of the NAAQS.  In addition/
   plan development in the area may proceed quickly in response to a
   SIP call because the SIP call does-not require the notification
   of the Governor and the subsequent notice and comment rulemaking
   associated with the nonattainment designation.  However/  a
   possible disadvantage associated with the SIP call is that some
   sanctions may apply only to nonattainment areas that are subject
   to SIP calls.  The FIP requirement is wholly available for either
   option/ however.

        Regions should determine on a case-by-case basis which of
   these two approaches is most appropriate for each area.  In
   making this decision, the Regions should also consult with OGC
   and OAQPS in determining the most appropriate path to take.  The
   OAQPS in turn will arrange a peer review call with the Regional
   contacts.  The purpose of the call will be to discuss the Regions
   preferred response and ensure national consistency.  Following
   the peer review call, the Region should also be careful to
   document, for the record with a dated note "to the file," the
   rationale used in determining which option to use.  The OAQPS has
   not required the use of one of the regulatory options over the
   other, but generally recommends that serious consideration be
   given to designating to the area as nonattainment.

        Decisions about which regulatory approach to use should
   consider factors specific to the area.  Among the factors the
   Region should consider are the following:

        (1)  The compliance record of the source to determine if the
        source is recalcitrant and may require the full leverage
        available under the designation process.  Alternatively, the
        compliance record might show that the source has complied
196

-------
    with existing requirements  and,  thus,  that  the  regulations
    themselves are  inadequate.

    (2)  The magnitude  of  the violation.   The Region  should
    consider whether, in cases  of  extreme  concentrations,  the
    Agency's response demonstrates the  appropriate  level of
    action.

    (3)  The persistence of  violations.  The Region should
    consider whether, in the case  of recurring  violations, the
    Agency's response demonstrates both the appropriate level of
    action, and  a consideration of timeliness.

    (4)  The source location (e.g.,  is  it  near  a population
    center, near a  school  or preschool).

    (5)  The State's regulatory process (e.g.,  is it  lengthy,
    does the legislature only meet periodically, would the
    timeline of  one option fit  better within the State's
    regulatory frame work).

    (6)  Other sources  in  the area (e.g.,  can culpability  be
    clearly determined, would one  process  facilitate  that
    determination  of culpability over the  other, is new source
    growth anticipated).

    (7)  The need  for  a more objective  level of control (e.g.,
    RACM/RACT).

    (8)  The type  of information available for  indicating  a
    problem exists (monitoring, modeling,  high  blood  lead
    levels, others).

     (9)   If there  is uncertainty associated with modeling  and/or
    past  history of failing to  attain the  standard, does the
    action taken provide  for appropriate contingencies that can
    be implemented if  the  area  fails to provide a SIP or to
    attain and maintain the standards.

     (10)   Is  there a need  for long-range planning for the  area
    and does  the approach  taken facilitate this planning effort.

    The Region should also consider whether the approach taken
would  reduce the possibility of  legal challenge; would one
approach elevate public awareness of a problem and/or  result in a
more expeditious resolution.

    This  list is by no means exhaustive, and the decision  to use
one approach over the other can be  difficult.  However, because
of the serious health problems associated with exposure to  lead,
I would urge the Regions to make their decisions as  quickly as
possible.
                                                                    197

-------
        I  hope  this  information  is useful to you in the future.  If
  my office  can be  helpful  in any way during this process, please
  feel  free  to contact us.   I can be reached at 919/541-5556 or you
  can speak  with Laura McKelvey at  919/541-5497.

  cc:   Lead  Contact,   Regions I-X
198

-------
     I  hope this information is useful to you in the future.   If
my office can be helpful in any way during this process,  please
feel free to contact us.  I can be reached at 919/541-5556 or you
can speak with Laura McKelvey at 919/541-5497.

cc:  Lead Contact,  Regions I-X

bcc:  L. Byrd
      L. McKelvey
      C. Oh
      V. Patton


AQMD:SDPMPB:LMCKELVEY:vwyatt:x5585:MD-12:09-15-93
DISK:  BNSIPDES.CMP
                                                                      199

-------
    ,o*
                   UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                              WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
                                    SEP | 1 1993
                                                                  OFFICE OF
                                                               AIR AND RADIATION
     MEMORANDUM
     SUBJECT:
     FROM:
     TO:
State Implementation Plan  (SIP) Requirements for Areas
Submitting Requests for Redesignation  to Attainment of
the Ozone and Carbon Monoxide  (CO^National Ambient Air
Quality Standards  (NAAQS) on or ,a/yer  November 15, 1992
Michael H. Shapiro
Acting Assistant A«
  for Air and Radiation  (ANR-443)

Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
  Management Division, Regions I and  IV
Director, Air and Waste Management Division,
  Region II
Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division,
  Region III
Director, Air and Radiation Division,
  Region V
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics  Division,
  Region VI
Director, Air and Toxics Division,
  Regions VII, VIII, IX, and X
          I.  Purpose

          The purpose of this memorandum is to  address State requests
     to redesignate from nonattainment to attainment of the ozone and
     CO NAAQS under section 107.  Specifically  at  issue are requests
     submitted on or after November 15, 1992 where outstanding Clean
     Air Act (Act) requirements have not been met.   This memo provides
     guidance on the statutorily-mandated control  programs that must
     be in the EPA-approved SIP if EPA is to approve the redesignation
     request.  The Act's requirements for redesignation and a list of
     EPA's redesignation policy and guidance are included in
     Attachments A and B.  In the future, further  guidance may be
     provided for redesignations submitted after November 15, 1993.
200
                                            Recycled/Recyclable
                                            Printed with Soy/Canola Ink on paper that
                                            contains at least 50% recycled fiber

-------
     II.   Policy Summary

     Section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) of the Act as amended (amended Act)
provides that the State must have met all applicable requirements
of section 110 and part D in order to be redesignated.
Furthermore, section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) provides that the State
must have a fully-approved SIP for the area seeking
redesignation.

     The EPA is interpreting these section 107 provisions to
require satisfactory completion of the current Act planning
requirements.  Specifically, before EPA can act favorably upon
any State redesignation  request, the statutorily-mandated control
programs of section 110  and part D (that were due prior to the
time of the redesignation request) must have been adopted by the
State and approved by EPA into the SIP.

     Thus, with respect  to  redesignation requests submitted on or
after the Act's deadline for submittal of the required programs,
States must generally adopt and provide for implementation of
their regulations  for all of the programs that were due.  States
must submit these  plans  to  EPA for incorporation into the SIP.
This would  include such  requirements as emissions inventories
and/or emission, statements.  Such requirements must be met in
order for the  area to have  a fully-approved SIP that meets all
requirements applicable  to  the area under section 110 and part D.

     The amended Act, however, also provides that upon
redesignation,  a State may  move measures from the implemented SIP
to the contingency plan  portion  of the SIP if the State
demonstrates that  such measures  are  not needed for maintaining
the NAAQS.  Many areas sought redesignation at or about the same
time they were required  to  adopt and implement the requirements
due on November 15,  1992.   In many instances, the State will be
able to  immediately  move these measures to the contingency plan
without  implementation.

     III.   Exceptions to Policy

     The EPA decided to  review the requirements  to determine  if
something less than  full adoption of these regulations would  be
acceptable  under the Act for areas seeking redesignation.
Exceptions  to this policy on the States'  need to complete the
full planning and  adoption process  for the November  15,  1992
mandated programs  are very limited.   The language in the Act
allows  a degree of flexibility  in only four  program areas.-These
are-   m  basic inspection and  maintenance  (I/M),  (2)  annual
updates  of  vehicle miles traveled (VMT)  forecasts and annual
      'Note that this represents  a  departure  from  earlier  guidance
 for part D new source review (NSR) regulations.
                                                                     201

-------
    estimates of actual VMT for CO nonattainment areas, (3)  nitrogen
    oxides (NOx) reasonably available control technology (RACT),  and
    (4)  small business programs (SBP).

         These exceptions are only applicable in areas for which EPA
    approves a redesignation.  The States should be aware that if EPA
    denies a redesignation request, rules submitted in accordance
    with this guidance may also be disapprovable.  Finally,  because
    EPA anticipates issuing onboard regulations by January 1994,
    States seeking redesignation of areas classified as moderate may
    have some flexibility with respect to the Stage II requirement.

         Our guidance for State submittals covering these four
    programs is described in the following paragraphs.

         Basic I/M

         For areas where maintenance plans do not rely on
    implementation of a basic I/M program immediately following
    redesignation, the I/M component of the SIP should include:

         1.  Legislative authority for basic I/M such that
    implementing regulations can be adopted without any further
    legislative action.

         2.  A provision in the SIP providing that basic I/M be
    placed in the contingency measures portion of the maintenance
    plan upon redesignation.

         3.  An enforceable schedule and commitment by the Governor
    or his designee for adoption and implementation of a basic I/M
    program upon a specified, appropriate triggering event.

    Note that, for purposes of consideration of a redesignation
    request submitted after November 15,  1992,  the commitment as
    described in the I/M regulation (see 57 FR 52950, November 5,
    1992)  is not sufficient to meet the Act's requirement for a
    fully-approved SIP.

         In addition, please note that, EPA's final I/M regulations
    in 40 CFR part 51 require a fully-adopted I/M program by
    November 15, 1993.  At this time,  our preliminary interpretative
    guidance on basic I/M in this memo is not discussed in the I/M
    regulations.  Therefore, EPA is proceeding to establish this
    interpretation through regulatory action, thus enabling EPA to
    accept legislative authority and a commitment to adopt and
    implement basic I/M regulations for those areas being
    redesignated to attainment.
202

-------
     VMT Forecasting

     The VMT forecasting SIP for CO should include:

     1.  Annual forecasts of VMT (i.e., average daily VMT for the
peak 3-month CO1 seasons for 1993, 1994, and 1995 in moderate
areas above 12.7 ppm, and until 2000 in serious areas).

     2.  An enforceable commitment by the Governor or his
designee to estimate actual annual VMT for each of these years
(by September 30 of the following year) and to update the
forecast of the VMT in the remaining years.

     3.  A request that the commitment be moved to the
contingency plan portion of the SIP upon redesignation, becoming
a contingency provision triggered by a specified triggering
event.

     4.  Adopted contingency measures to reduce CO emissions.
The implementation of such measures is contingent upon either:
(a) an annual estimate of actual VMT or updated forecast of VMT
exceeding the previous forecast for that year, or (b) the area
failing to attain by the CO attainment deadline.  These
contingency measures must meet the requirements of section
187(a)(3) as interpreted by the April 16, 1992, "General Preamble
for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1990," including the requirement that no further action by the
State is needed for them to take effect.

     NOX RACT

     Section 182(f) provides that States may request an exemption
from the NOx RACT requirements.  The NOx RACT requirements of
section 182(f) do not apply if additional reductions of NOx would
not contribute to attainment.2  In  an area that did  not implement
the section 182 (f) NOx requirement but did meet the ozone
standard, as demonstrated by adequate monitoring data consistent
with EPA guidance, it is clear that the additional NOx reductions
required by section 182(f) would not contribute to attainment,
although they might contribute to maintenance.  Therefore, EPA
believes that if a State submits a redesignation request along
with a section 182(f) exemption request based on monitoring data
demonstrating attainment of the ozone NAAQS, further
documentation is not required.  The State may follow one of two
approaches in making such a submittal:
     2Note that the section 182 (f)  exemption for NOx RACT and NSR
requirements described in this section is applicable only for
States outside an ozone transport region, since only those States
fall under the section 182(f) "contribute to attainment"
provision.
                                                                    203

-------
         1.  Submit a redesignation request along with a section
    182(f) exemption request based solely upon monitoring data
    showing that the area's air quality is meeting the ozone NAAQS;
    and submit a maintenance plan SIP revision, which includes a NOx
    RACT program as a contingency measure.  In lieu of adopted NOx
    RACT rules, such a NOx RACT program may consist of an enforceable
    schedule and commitment by the Governor or his designee to adopt
    and implement the NOx RACT rules upon a specified, appropriate
    triggering event.

         2.  An exemption request based on both ambient monitoring
    and urban airshed modeling consistent with EPA guidance that
    shows additional NOx reductions would not contribute to
    attainment in the area.  In this case, NOx RACT rules do not have
    to be included as a contingency measure of the maintenance plan.

         SBP

         For several reasons, the Act can be interpreted as not
    requiring the section 507 SBP submittal in order for EPA to
    approve a redesignation request.  The SBP submittal is required
    regardless of whether there are any designated nonattainment
    areas within the State.  In addition, the SBP is not a control
    measure intended to contribute to the emission reductions
    achieved by an area;  rather it is a service provided to help
    small businesses comply with requirements of the Act.  For the
    above reasons, EPA is interpreting the SBP as not being an
    applicable requirement for any specific nonattainment area that
    is seeking redesignation.  However, EPA will continue to ensure
    that States make SBP submittals in a timely fashion.

         Stage II Vapor Recovery

         Stage II vapor recovery remains an applicable requirement
    for moderate ozone nonattainment areas until EPA promulgates
    onboard vapor recovery regulations.  Section 202(a)(6) of the Act
    provides that once onboard regulations are promulgated, the Stage
    II regulations required under section 182(b)(3) are no longer
    applicable for moderate ozone nonattainment areas.  Therefore,
    final redesignation for a moderate nonattainment area that occurs
    after EPA's onboard regulations are promulgated does not have to
    include a Stage II SIP control program.  For redesignation
    requests that are submitted before EPA promulgates onboard rules
    and that do not include Stage II rules for moderate areas,
    Regional Offices may prepare rulemaking actions proposing to
    approve the redesignation, if appropriate, as long as final
    approval occurs after EPA promulgates onboard regulations.
204

-------
     IV-   Coordination of SIP Submittals and Redesianation
          Requests

   1  If the State elects to follow the approach above, the State
should submit the SIP control program as described above along
with the redesignation request and maintenance plan.  The EPA
will review the required SIP submittal(s) against EPA policy and
guidance and in coordination with the redesignation request and
maintenance plan.  Approvability of the redesignation is directly
related to the approvability of the SIP submittals (i.e., EPA is
precluded from approving a redesignation to attainment if the SIP
is not approvable).

     As a general policy, a State may not relax the adopted and
implemented SIP for an area upon the area's redesignation to
attainment.  States should continue to implement existing control
strategies in order to maintain the standard.  However, section
17 5A recognizes that States may be able to move SIP measures to
the contingency plan upon redesignation if the State can
adequately demonstrate that such action will not interfere with
maintenance of the standard.  The type of demonstration necessary
is dependent upon the pollutant for which the area has been
redesignated to attainment.

     In order to make such a demonstration for an area
redesignated to attainment for CO, EPA believes that the State
could submit a revised control strategy demonstration showing
that the measure is not necessary to maintain the standard.  For
ozone, the State would need to submit an attainment modeling
demonstration consistent with EPA's current "Guideline on Air
Quality Models," showing that the control measure is not needed
to maintain the standard.  The EPA intends to be very cautious in
approving such revisions in cases where the control measures were
implemented during the time the area attained the standard; the
State's demonstration should indicate an ample margin of safety
with respect to maintenance of the standard.

     V.  Conclusion

     In summary, full adoption of all of the statutorily-required
programs, as well as a schedule and an enforceable commitment for
an implementation date, are necessary for redesignation to
attainment from nonattainment for ozone or CO if the
redesignation request is submitted after the statutory due date
for the program.  The few exceptions to this requirement are
basic I/M, annual updates of VMT forecasts, and estimates of
actual VMT, NOx RACT, and SEP.

     If you have any questions, please contact Sharon Reinders at
(919)  541-5284, or Annie Nikbakht at (919) 541-5246.
                                                                   205

-------
    Attachments

    cc:  Air Branch Chief, Regions  I-X
         Kent Berry, AQMD
         Rob Brenner, OAR
         Mary Henigin, OAQPS
         Alan Eckert, OGC
         Robert Kellam, TSD
         Rich Ossias, OGC
         John Seitz, OAQPS
         Paul stolpman, OAR
         Jan Tierney, OGC
         Lydia Wegman, OAQPS
         Dick Wilson, QMS
206

-------
                           Attachment A


     Criteria For Redesianation Under Section 107 fd)

     Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act states five criteria that
must be met before the Administrator may redes ignate an area to
attainment.  The criteria are:

     1.  The EPA has determined that the NAAQS have been
attained.

     2.  The applicable implementation plan has been fully
approved by EPA under section 110(k).

     3.  The EPA has determined that the improvement in air
quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in
emissions.

     4.  The State has met all applicable requirements for the
area under section 110 and part D.

     5.  The EPA has fully approved a maintenance plan, including
a contingency plan, for the area under section 175A.
                                                                     207

-------
                               Attachment B


         The EPA policies for implementing section 107 of the Act for
    redesignations are contained in the following memorandums.

         1.  "Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas
    to Attainment," John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management
    Division, September 4, 1992.

         2.  "State Implementation Plan  (SIP) Actions Submitted in
    Response to Clean Air Act  (CAA) Deadlines," John Calcagni,
    Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992.

         3.  "Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO)
    Redesignations," G. T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide
    Programs Branch, June 1, 1992.

         4.  "Maintenance Plans for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon
    Monoxide Nonattainment Areas," G. T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon
    Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 1992.

         In the event that EPA does not approve the redesignation,
    the applicable I/M program requirements and guidance can be found
    in 57 FR 52950, November 5, 1992 and in 40 CFR part 51.  The
    applicable VMT forecast guidance is described in the document
    entitled, "Section 187 VMT Forecasting and Tracking Guidance,"
    January 1992.
208

-------
                    OPERATING PERMITS PROGRAM
     The Clean Air Act requires States to develop operating
permit programs that meet the requirements of Title V of the Act.
States were required to submit these programs to EPA by November
15, 1993.  EPA has 60 days to determine if the program submittals
were complete, and if so, 1 year to determine if the program
submittals are approvable.  In cases where States do not adopt
approvable programs, the statute requires EPA to adopt and
implement a federal permit program.


     As of December 1, 1993, 31 States and a number of local
agencies submitted operating permit programs to EPA for review.
State agencies that have submitted programs to EPA are listed on
the following pages.


     Copies of a number of program guidance documents that the
Agency has developed to guide permitting agencies in developing
their program submittals are, also provided.  These guidance
documents include the following:

          -Title V Program Approval Criteria for Section 112
           Activities

          -Delegations Issues Concerning Sections 111 and 112
           Requirements and  Title V

          -Approaches to creating federally-enforceable emission
           limits
               i
          -Guidance for Optional federally-enforceable emission
           limits based on Volatile Organic Compound Use

          -Reissuance of Guidance on Agency review of State Fee
           Schedules for Operating Permits Programs Under Title V

          -Definition of Regulated Air Pollutant for Purposes  of
           Title V
                                                                    209

-------
                              January 10, 1994
      STATUS  OF OPERATING PERMIT PROGRAM SUBMITTALS

           When Congress amended the Clean Air Act in 1990,  it included
      a requirement in Title V for States and Territories to develop
      and implement operating permit programs.    While programs must be
      implemented statewide,  the Governor can designate local agencies
      to implement the program within portions of the State.  Title V
      operating permit programs were required to be submitted to the
      EPA for review and approval by November 15,  1993.

           As of November 30,  1993,  31 States and a number of local
      agencies submitted programs.   Since then 3 additional  States
      (Alabama,  Hawaii,  and Nevada)  have submitted their programs.

           The program submittals listed below have not yet  been fully
      reviewed by EPA for either completeness or approvability.   The
      listing merely indicates if a submittal has been made.  The CAA
      gives EPA 60 days to determine if a program submittal  is complete
      and 1 year to approve or disapprove the submittal.   The CAA also
      requires that EPA implement mandatory sanctions within 18  months
      in those cases where States do not submit a program by the
      statutory due date.   However,  the subsequent submittal of  a
      complete program would stop the sanctions clock.

           States (and local agencies)  which have submitted  operating
      permit  programs to EPA include:


      EPA RO  1  NONE YET RECEIVED

      EPA RO  2  NEW YORK,  NEW JERSEY,  PUERTO RICO,  VIRGIN ISLANDS

      EPA RO  3  WEST VIRGINIA,  VIRGINIA,  PENNSYLVANIA,  AND DELAWARE

      EPA RO  4  MISSISSIPPI,  NORTH CAROLINA (INCLUDING PROGRAMS  FOR 3
                LOCAL AGENCIES - FORSYTH COUNTY,  MECKLENBERG COUNTY AND
                WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA),  SOUTH CAROLINA,  FLORIDA,
                GEORGIA,  2 LOCAL PROGRAMS IN TENNESSEE:  KNOX  AND
                NASHVILLE/DAVIDSON COUNTIES,  AND ALABAMA*  (INCLUDING
                PROGRAMS FOR HUNTSVILLE AND JEFFERSON COUNTY*)

      EPA RO  5  ILLINOIS,  MINNESOTA,  MICHIGAN,  AND OHIO

      EPA RO  6  TEXAS,  NEW MEXICO (INCLUDING ALBUQUERQUE), LOUISIANA,
                AND ARKANSAS

      EPA RO  7  NEBRASKA (INCLUDING OMAHA AND LINCOLN)  AND IOWA
210

-------
EPA RO 8  COLORADO, S. DAKOTA, AND WYOMING

EPA RO 9  18 OF THE 34 CALIFORNIA AIR DISTRICTS; ARIZONA
          (INCLUDING PIMA COUNTY, PINAL COUNTY AND MARICOPA
          COUNTIES); HAWAII*;  AND NEVADA*  (INCLUDING WASHOE
          COUNTY*)

EPA RO 10 IDAHO, OREGON  (INCLUDING 1 LOCAL PROGRAM), AND
          WASHINGTON  (INCLUDING  7 LOCAL AGENCIES)
* Submittals since last report
                                                                    211

-------
            vF    ss>
           P ^^  TJ   UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY


           \
| VXiTy $        RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK. NC 27711




                   APR 1 3 199^          AIR QUALITY PLANNING
                   ni  l\ J. t/ IC/OJ           AiuncTAwnAons
     MEMORANDUM
     SUBJECT:  Title V Program Approval Criteria  for Section 112
               Activities
     FROM:     John S. Seitz, Director             _
               Office of Air Quality Piffling and 'StatfjdagLds^XKD-lO)

     TO:       Director, Air Division, Regions  I-X


          Under title V of the Clean Air Act  (Act)  and its
     implementing regulations published at 40 CFR  part 70,  States are
     required to submit operating permits programs to  the
     Environmental Protection Agency  (EPA) by November 15,  1993.
     Section 112 of the Act  (hazardous air pollutants)  contains
     several types of applicable requirements which are intended  to  be
     carried out by States as a precondition of their  title V program
     approval.  While the broad authority contained in most States
     enabling legislation should support the mandated  program for
     section 112, States may find it necessary  to  take certain interim
     steps ,in order to incorporate section 112  requirements into  title
     V permits.  A'lthough ongoing EPA rulemakings  related to section
     112 may ultimately affect the final response  to such questions,
     several Regions and States have asked for  guidance now to direct
     the development of title V operating permits  programs submittals.
     This memorandum, with its attachment, is intended to respond to
     these requests based on the part 70 regulations and the general
     structure and requirements of section 112.  However,  the policies
     set out in this memorandum and its attachment are intended solely
     as guidance, do not represent final Agency action, and cannot be
     relied upon to create any rights enforceable  by any party.

          This memorandum defines current Agency policy for evaluating
     part 70 submittals with respect to section 112 requirements.
     Under this guidance, in order to obtain a  full approval from EPA,
     the part 70 submittal needs to contain authority  and/or
     commitments to assure the compliance of part  70 permits issued  by
     the State, or by independent permitting authorities therein, with
     all applicable section  112 requirements.   Specifically, the
     Attorney General's statement should certify that  the State has
     authority to issue part 70 permits that assure compliance with
     all currently applicable requirements  (including  section 112 of
     the Act), and that the  State will expeditiously adopt any new
     authority needed to implement future EPA section  112
     requirements.  Where general statutory authority  to issue permits
     implementing section 112 is present, but the  Attorney General is
212

-------
unable to certify explicit legal authority to carry out specific
section 112 requirements at the time of program submittal, the
Governor may instead submit commitments to adopt and implement
additional regulations as needed to issue permits that implement
applicable section 112 requirements.  The EPA will rely on these
commitments in granting part 70 program approvals provided that
the underlying legislative authority would not prevent a State
from meeting the commitments.

     As for part 70 program revisions, no formal amendment to the
initial title V program should typically be needed with respect
to section 112 Requirements taking effect after the effective
date of the program.  The State's up-front commitment and
demonstrations (i.e., legal authorities and mechanisms to adopt
additional section 112 requirements) coupled with EPA's ability
to review individual permits and to audit part 70 programs
periodically should provide reasonable assurance of adequate
State implementation.

     The EPA will make reasonable efforts to communicate to
States when additional legal, technical, and financial resources
may be necessary to implement new section 112 requirements as
they become applicable.  The State, however, remains responsible
for maintaining and enhancing as necessary its authority to
implement section 112, including any new regulations.  In light
of the demonstrations and/or commitments required for part 70
approval, the EPA will presume that a State's.request for
approval of its operating permits progfam will be an implicit .
request under section 112(1) for delegation of authority tb
implement federally-promulgated section 112 requirements in the
same form in which EPA issues them.  In lieu of this arrangement,
States can opt to establish specific delegations where needed.
In the latter case, States should revise the implementation
agreement with a schedule for the timely adoption of all EPA
requirements promulgated after the time of program subraittal.

     Under the above approaches, there should be few concerns
which would require the process in 40 CFR 70.4(i) to revise the
part 70 program.  This process involves public participation and
publication in the Federal Register.  An example of where this
process might be needed would be a pattern of proposed permits
which fail to assure compliance with a certain section 112
requirements due to a lack of State authority.   In such a case a
part 70 program revision may well be needed.  The EPA will be
prepared to veto any permit that does not assure compliance with
the Act and part 70, as required in section 70.8(c) and call for
appropriate correction to(the State program.

     The attached information summarizes the guidance for Regions
to follow when reviewing State title V submittals for specific
section 112 concerns.  The attachment also provides, where
indicated, the "current best advice" with respect to certain
                                                                    213

-------
     future  section  112 rulemakings  as  they  may affect title V
     programs.   Please note  that  States are  responsible for
     implementing  all applicable  requirements  of section 112,
     including making and  enforcing  the case-by-case  maximum
     achievable  control technology decisions under  sections 112(i)(5),
     112(g)  and  (j), as well as making  any offset determinations
     required under  section  112(g).  The attachment also summarizes
     EPA's position  regarding fee demonstrations and  interim approvals
     for  section 112 activities.

         I  trust  this guidanpe will be useful.   If you have any
     questions,  please contact Karen Blanchard at (919)  541-5503 on
     section 112 concerns, Michael Trutna at (919)  541-5345 on how
     title V interfaces with section 112 requirements,  and  Kirt  Cox at
     (919) 541-5399  on general approval criteria for  title  V programs.

     Attachment

     cc:  J. Beale,  OPAR
         K. Berry, AQMD
         E. Davies, OSWER
         A. Eckert, OGC
         E. .Gilberg, OE
         B. Jordan, ESD
         J. Rasnic, SSCD
         L. Wegman, OAQPS
214

-------
           ATTACHMENT  -  TITLE  V APPROVAL CRITERIA FOR
                     SECTION 112 ACTIVITIES

     The following information summarizes the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's) guidance for evaluating title V
program submittals due on or before November 15, 1993 as well as
EPA's current best advice regarding future rulemakings under
section 112 in relation to title V programs.  The result of
granting approval under title V is important because it confers
responsibility on the state for implementing all section 112
requirements.  Citations are to the regulations published at 40
CFR part 70.

SCOPE OF THE PROGRAM

     States must issue part 70 permits to all major sources of
hazardous air pollutants (HAP's) regardless of whether there is
any section 112 standard or requirement which currently applies
to such sources (section 70.3(a)).  A source meets the definition
of "major" in section 70.2 if its potential to emit is 10 tons
per year (tpy) or more of any pollutant listed in section 112(b),
or 25 tpy or more for a combination of these pollutants.  A
source that reduces its potential to emit HAP's below the major
source threshold would eliminate the need to obtain a part 70
permit and to comply with section 112 requirements that apply
only to major sources.   Future EPA rulemakings may identify
additional means beyond those identified in the proposed part 70
regulations (see 56 FR 21725 which identifies several mechanisms,
including SIP limits and permit Conditions taken under EPA
approved new source, review -and operating permits programs) for
sources to reduce their potential to emit HAP's.

     Under the final title V regulations, States may grant a
temporary exemption to nonmajor part 70 sources (other than acid
rain-affected sources and municipal waste incinerators) from the
requirement to obtain a part 70 permit, including any nonmajor
sources subject to section 112 standards in existence on July 21,
1992.  The Agency intends to propose through rulemaking within 4
years of the first EPA-approved permit program whether to
continue some exemption opportunity for these sources.  The need
to permit additional nonmajor sources which become subject to
section 112 standards promulgated after the final part 70
regulations will be determined at the time a new standard is
promulgated.   In addition, EPA may at a later date establish
lesser quantity emission rates for some or all HAP's under
section 112(a) which increase the number of major sources which
are required to have part 70 permits.

LEGAL AUTHORITY

     Under this guidance, in order to obtain a full approval from
EPA,  the part 7,0 submittal needs to contain authority and/or
commitments to assure the compliance of part 70 permits issued by
the State,  or by independent permitting authorities therein, with
                                                                   215

-------
    all applicable section 112 requirements.  Specifically, the
    Attorney General's statement should certify that the State has
    authority to issue part 70 permits that assure compliance with
    all currently applicable requirements (including section 112 of
    the Act), and that the State will expeditiously adopt any new
    authority needed to implement future EPA section 112
    requirements.  Where general statutory authority to issue permits
    implementing section 112 is present, but the Attorney General is
    unable to certify explicit legal authority to carry out specific
    existing section 112 requirements at the time of program
    submittal, the Governor in the part 70 program submittal may
    instead submit commitments to adopt and implement additional
    regulations as needed to issue permits that implement section 112
    requirements.  The EPA will rely on these commitments in granting
    part 70 program approvals, provided that the underlying
    legislative authority would not prevent a State from meeting the
    commitments.

         The approach with regard to part 70 approvals should
    minimize the need for part 70 program revisions.  Part 70 merely
    requires States to have authority to incorporate applicable
    requirements into part 70 permits, and to issue permits that
    assure compliance with those applicable requirements.  Part 70
    does not, however, dictate or restrict the legal mechanisms by
    which States may accomplish this result.  The availability of
    particular mechanisms will likely be determined by the legal .
    regime of the individual.State.  A State may, by virtue of its
    own legal regime, be required to seek formal delegations from EPA
    for-each section 112 requirement before it can incorporate those
    requirements into permits (this mechanism reflects the historical
    practice in many States that have chosen to implement and enforce
    section 112 standards).  Where the State does make use of
    recurring delegations from EPA in order to meet the part 70
    requirement, these delegations will not in the normal course
    require a concomitant revision to the part 70 program.

         States may alternatively possess mechanisms to satisfy this
    part 70 requirement that do not involve separate delegations from
    EPA for each section 112 requirement.  For instance, State law
    may allow incorporation of a Federal standard directly into the
    part 70 permit without any interim steps to adopt the standard as
    State law or to seek formal delegation of that standard from EPA.
    The EPA would also consider this approach sufficient to meet the
    ongoing part 70 obligation for States to have adequate authority
    to implement through permits the applicable requirements of
    section 112.

         Delegation agreements for all section 112 requirements can
    also be established on an automatic basis at the time of part 70
    program approval.  This approach can greatly improve the
    efficiency of program transfer.  Accordingly, EPA will presume
    'that in light of the required demonstration and/or commitments
216

-------
required for part 70 approval, a State will automatically
implement each new requirement unless the State advises EPA to
the contrary.  The EPA may request a review of individual State
actions to ensure that the needed legal authority and/or
technical capabilities are in place at the State level in time
for their use in the part 70 permit process.  Such evaluations
should be limited to the exceptional case where EPA has strong
reasons to believe that legal and/or resource problems exist.  In
lieu of general or automatic delegation arrangements, the State
could opt to meet its obligations under part 70 by establishing a
delegation agreement for each specific source category as
discussed above.
SECTION 112(d).(f).AND  (h) - EPA EMISSIONS STANDARDS

     All National  Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) standards, maximum achievable control technology  (MACT)
standards, and  residual risk standards must be incorporated and
implemented within the part 70 permit.  When required under
specific standards, generally available control technology (GACT)
standards must  also be implemented within the part 70 permit.  As
described above, States are charged with acquiring all necessary
legal authorities  in order to guarantee this result and
identifying a mechanism that ensures the timely acquisition of
authority for  future EPA standards.  Under the part 70 rules,
States must specifically agree:   (1) not to issue any permit  [or
permit revision addressing any emissions unit subject to a newly
promulgated section 112 standard] unless it would assure
compliance with all applicable section 112 standards [section
70.6(a)(l)], and  (2) to reopen part 70 permits which have 3 or
more years remaining before their expiration date to incorporate
any newly promulgated standard [section 70.7(f)(1)(i)].  The
implementation  agreement should be revised to contain specific
milestones for  timely State acquisition of any needed authority
or capability  to implement standards to prevent any unreasonable
delay in permit issuance  (i.e., in no event longer than 18 months
after receipt  of a complete application for any permit action).

GENERAL PROVISIONS

     The implementation of all current NESHAP standards and
future MACT (and residual risk) standards includes the
implementation  of  any "general provisions" that EPA develops  for
these standards.,   Initial title V approval must assure that
States will carry  out these provisions as in effect at the time
of any permit  issuance or revision.  States should be aware that
EPA will soon  be preparing revisions to the general provisions
and that they may  have to update their implementation authorities
in accordance with EPA's rulemaking.
                                                                   217

-------
          Revisions  to the  general  provisions  will contain (as do the
     existing  general  provisions) compliance-related requirements that
     supplement the  compliance  requirements  specified in individual
     standards.   These general  provisions will also establish
     definitions and administrative procedures to make applicability
     determinations, grant  compliance  extensions,  and perform
     preconstruction review and approval for new and reconstructed
     sources to assure compliance with applicable,  promulgated
     standards,  among  other functions.  Future EPA rulemakings may
     supplement the  general provisions for new section 112 standards
     and programs by further clarifying how  and when sources may limit
     their potential to emit toxic  pollutants  below major source
     threshold levels.
     SECTION 112  (a)  - CASE-BY-CASE MACT FOR MODIFIED/CONSTRUCTED AKD
     RECONSTRUCTED MAJOR TOXIC  SOURCES

          The EPA anticipates that section  112(g) will  involve a
     preconstruction  review program with the subsequent incorporation
     of  its  results into the part 70 permit.  The EPA expects States
     to  implement this program  fully.1  Therefore,  in order to obtain
     approval of  a title V  program, a State must commit to  have
     authority to make all  required section 112(g) determinations as
     well  as subsequently to incorporate them into the  part 70 permit.
          'The preamble to the proposed operating permits rule stated
     that  States  must  have  authority to  "implement and  enforce"
    'certain section, 112  provisions, including authority to  "develop
     and enforce  case-by-case  determinations of MACT  for new,
     reconstructed,  or modified  sources  where no  applicable  emissions
     limitations  have  been  yet established  (112 (,g)) ."   56 Fed. Reg.
     21722.   The  EPA believes  that, for  section 112(g),  this is  the
     proper  interpretation  of  the  State's duty under  section
     502(b)(5)(A)  to have authority to assure compliance with all
     applicable requirements.  The EPA interprets the phrase "the
     Administrator (or the  State)" (referring to  the  entity
     responsible  for making case-by-case determinations)  in  sections
     112(g)  and  (j)  to be a reference to the title V  permitting
     authority.   That  section  112(g) is  triggered on  the effective
     date  of the  title V  program further supports this  reading of
     Congressional intent.   This interpretation also  is reasonable in
     that  the title  V  permitting process will 'provide  important
     information  to  the permitting authority implementing section
     112(g).  The EPA  expects  this benefit  will begin to manifest
     itself  even  before sources  are issued  permits, as  they  will be
     required to  assess and report emissions-related  data in their
     permit  applications.
218

-------
     In addition, the State must, on the effective date of the
program,  be able to implement section 112(g) in accordance with
EPA regulations.  If EPA's rulemaking to implement section 112(g)
is not then final, the State must still implement section 112(g)
since this program is triggered by the effective date of the part
70 program.  In such cases, EPA expects to work closely with the
State in making required section 112(g) determinations, including
providing to the State the use of centralized EPA data bases and
exploring with the State the possible use of general permits to
establish a presumptive MACT for certain qualifying source
categories.


SECTION 112 (i)(5) - EARLY REDUCTIONS

     Each State must have adequate legal authority upon the
effective date of its part 70 program to carry out EPA's final
rule to implement section 112(i) (5) within the part 70 program.
Section 112(i)(5) requires that States implement fully the
requirements of the provision as part of its title V program.  In
the absence of an approval of a more stringent program under
section 112(1),, in designing federally enforceable permit
conditions under the early reductions program, States may be more
stringent only to the extent that requiring a greater than 90
percent emissions reduction for organic HAP.'s or 95 percent
emissions reduction for particulate matter HAP's.  The State may
also opt to take temporary delegation of EPA's program for
permitting sources that have entered into enforceable commitments
under section  112(i)(5), if such a program is promulgated prior
to the effective date of the part 70 program.


SECTION 112(T) - CASE-BY-CASE MACT HAMMER

   i  Section 112(j) requires that the permitting authority
perform case-by-case MACT determinations in the context of
issuing title V permits to categories of sources for;which EPA
has failed to meet by more than 18 months the regulatory schedule
established under section 112(e).  Therefore, to obtain approval
of a part 70 program, States must first have authority upon
submittal of their part 70 program to require applications from
sources subject to section 112(j) within 18 months after a missed
deadline.  A commitment', is also needed from each State that it
will obtain sufficient legal authority in a timely manner to make
any required section 112(j) case-by-case determination and to
incorporate it into a part 70 permit.  Specific legal authority
to implement and enforce limits as needed can be obtained on a
source category basis for those sources and pollutants which are
subject to the section 112(j) hammer requirement before permit
issuance is required of the State under part 70.  A revision to
the part 70 program would not be necessary, provided that the
State has made the general commitment to issue permits which
                                                                   219

-------
     assure compliance with section 112 and any implementing
     regulations.   States can, of course, also meet their part 70
     responsibility by adopting a general legal authority to establish
     case-by-case MACT consistent with any final EPA rulemaking
     setting for the requirements of section 112(j).


     SECTION 112(1) - STATE AIR TOXICS PROGRAMS

          The applicable requirements, including those of section 112,
     must each be included in part 70 permits and enforced (as
     necessary)  by the State.  States are free under sections 116,
     506(a), and 112(d)(7) to be more stringent than Federal
     requirements as a matter of State law.  However, any additional
     State restrictions will in general be identified in the part 70
     permit as not being federally enforceable [section 70.6(b)(2)].
     Future rulemaking under section 112(1) could allow States to
     establish alternative terras in the part 70 permit which would be
     no less stringent than the corresponding requirement in section
     112 and, once approved, would be federally enforceable in lieu of
     the section 112 requirement.

          Future guidance to implement section 112(1) will provide
     additional insight into the available options for delegation of
     section 112 standards, including where the State proposes to
     implement the Federal standards exactly as promulgated by EPA
     (see previous discussion in Legal Authority).


     SECTION 112(r) - ACCIDENTAL RELEASE PLANS

          States must demonstrate adequate legal authority to assure
     compliance with the applicable requirements of section 112(r) for
     any source subject to part 70.  In order to qualify for full
     approval of their part 70 submittal with respect to section
     112(r), a State must have legal authority sufficient to:  (1)
     determine whether a part 70 source is obligated to register and
     submit a risk management plan; (2) secure verification from part
     70 sources that any required submittal was prepared and submitted
     to appropriate authorities (permit authority, EPA, and/or another
     State authority);2 (3)  obtain  annual  certifications  from these
     sources as to whether their risk management plans are being
     properly implemented;  and (4) include the obligation, to submit
     such a plan in accordance with a compliance schedule in the part
          2States must  identify the group  in the State  (if not the
     permitting authority)  which has been designated(to receive the
     risk management plans for part 70 sources in accordance with
     section 112 (r).
220

-------
70 permit for any source failing to make its required plan
submittal.

     States can opt to implement more of this program through
part 70 permits, but States are not encouraged to put the actual
plan in the part 70 permit.  In its demonstration of adequate
resources,  a State must account for the costs associated with the
requirements listed above.  The costs incurred from any other
permit review and subsequent oversight of these plans that is
accomplished within the permit program must also be addressed.

RESOURCE ADEQUACY
                i
     A State's submittal must contain demonstrations that
adequate resources will be available to implement its part 70
program [section 70.4(b)(8)].  In general, section 112
requirements, to the extent they are carried out through title V
permiting,  must be supported by title V permit fees.  These
requirements would include activities related to determinations,
incorporation and implementation of any standards under section
112(d), (f) and (h), and case-by-case MACT requirements under
sections 112(g) and 112(j), and oversight of accidental release
plans (to the extent required in the permit).   The test for
initial approval of a part 70 program is that sufficient fees
must be collected to cover the costs of program implementation,
including all section 112 requirements (section 70.9(b)).  The
EPA in reviewing a State's permit fee program submittal will
generally presume that it is adequate if the State would collect
in aggregate, revenues greater than the $25/tpy (1989 basis)
presumptive fee schedule.  After the program is launched,
adjustments to any approved fee schedule can be required by EPA
if poor implementation is linked to inadequate resources.

     Some States may, instead of relying on the presumptive
approach, opt to make a detailed showing that the indirect and
direct costs of their permits program will be offset from fee
revenues.  Other States may be required to do so if compelling
evidence exists that the presumptive fee schedule is inadequate
(i.e., prediction of actual program costs are higher than the
revenue programs which would be obtained using the presumptive
fee schedules).  In addition, a detailed demonstration would be
required where a State is trying to demonstrate the adequacy of a
fee schedule which is less than the presumptive one.  States, in
making detailed fee demonstrations, should be aware of the
additional  complexity associated with toxics programs.  For
example, development of emissions estimates, measurement
strategies, and control technologies is much more contaminant
specific.  For further discussion, please contact Karen Blanchard
at (919) 541-5503.
                                                                    221

-------
                                     8

     INTERIM APPROVAL

          Other issues dealing with title V program approval concern
     when and how the concept of interim approval would be
     appropriate.  Under part 70, the State may 'be able to defer
     applicability of the part 70 program to certain source categories
     and obtain interim approval.  However, the EPA views the source
     category-limited option as a grant of extraordinary relief
     available only for States that substantially meet the source
     coverage requirements of part 70 but that, for compelling
     reasons, fall short of the source coverage necessary for full
     approval.  All permits that are issued within the interim program
     must address ail applicable requirements, including all section
     112 requirements [section 70.4(d)] [but not title VI
     requirements] that apply to sources subject to the interim
     program.  Therefore, a source must be totally exempted from title
     V coverage under an interim program to avoid incorporation of
     section 112 requirements into a title V permit.
     (Notwithstanding, any exempted source would remain subject to
     applicable MACT and NESHAP standards.)  Of course, this could
     occur only the extent that the interim program nevertheless
     "substantially meets" the source coverage requirements of part
     70.

          Another issue related to interim approval concerns the
     trigger for making section 112(g) determinations.  Section 112(g)
     provides that such determinations must be made for source
     modifications upon the effective date of a title V program,
     including interim programs.  States should assume, in the case of
     interim programs, that the section 112(g) responsibility is
     triggered for only those sources covered by the interim approval.
     This is consistent with the obligation of only sources covered by
     the interim program to submit applications.  However, EPA will
     not grant interim approval where the proposed program would fail
     to cover certain major source categories solely on the grounds
     that applying section 112(g) to these sources would be too
     burdensome.
222

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

                       RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK. NC 27711
                            DEC 10 1993
                                        OFFICE OF
                                     AIR QUALITY PLANNING
                                      AND STANDARDS
MEMORANDUM
 SUBJECT:   Straight Delegations Issues Concerning Sections 111 and
           112  Requirements and Title, V

 FROM:
 TO:
John S. Seitz, Director
Office of Air Quality Plann&ig and Standard

Director, Air, Pesticides, and Toxics
  Management Division, Regions I and IV
Director, Air and Waste Management Divisipn,
  Region II
Director, Air, Radiation  and Toxics Division,
  Region IIJ
Director, Air and Radiation Division,
  Region V
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division,
  Region VI
Director, Air and Toxics  Division,
  Regions VII, VIII, IX,  and X
     Several  questions have been raised concerning the ways in
which authority to implement and enforce sections ill and 112
requirements  exactly as promulgated by EPA (i.e., "straight
delegations")  can now be delegated to the States, both
independent of and in conjunction with State part 70 operating
permits programs being developed to meet the requirements of
title V.  This memo and its attachment, ray April 13, 1993
memorandum  ("Title V Approval Criteria for Section 112
Requirements"),  and the final section 112(1)  rules should be
taken as Agency policy regarding straight delegations of these
requirements.   This guidance,  however, does not represent final
Agency action and cannot be relied upon to create any rights
enforceable by any party.   Approval of State requirements that
differ from and are no less stringent than section 112
requirements  are addressed in EPA's recently signed regulations
to implement  section 112(1).

     Some of  the key points found in the attachment are
summarized as  follows:

     1.  The  Environmental Protection Agency's  (EPA)  ability to
delegate section 112 requirements to States is  now governed by
the new section  112(1)  rulemaking process added by the Clean Air
Act Amendments  (CAAA)  of 1990.   The approval of a part 70
operating permits  program  provides an excellent opportunity for
                                                                  223

-------
    States to receive concurrent EPA approval-under  section 112(1)  of
    a "mechanism1'  by which straight delegation  of  section  112  •
    requirements,  as they apply to sources  covered by  the  permitting
    program,  can occur expeditiously.   The  detailed  procedures
    comprising this mechanism and the responsibilities of  each party
    should be specified in a title V implementation  agreement  or
    other memorandum of agreement (MOA).   (For  the purposes of this
    memorandum and attachment, the term "MOA" will refer to the
    specific agreement used by a State and  associated  EPA  Regional
    Office for establishing specific procedures to implement the
    section 112 delegations process, regardless of whether this
    agreement is in the form of a title V implementation agreement  or
    a more general MOA between the State and the Region.)   This
    approval will  eliminate the need to conduct a  section  112(1)
    rulemaking for each new requirement that applies to these
    sources.   In addition, this rulemaking  should  presumptively
    accomplish section 112(1)  delegation for any currently applicable
    section 112 requirements which are delegatable,  still
    undelegated, and applicable to sources  covered by  the  State's
    part 70 permit program.-  As noted in paragraph number  4 below and
    discussed in the attachment there may be certain exceptions  to
    this (see question 6).  It may also be  possible  for this
    rulemaking to  provide for partial delegation of  certain
    information-receipt responsibilities for some  future section 112
    requirements,  as long as the details of this delegation are
    agreed to in an MOA, and the State has  the  ability to  obtain
    necessary enforcement authority on a timely basis.

         2.  Until the time of part 70 approval or in  cases where
    sources not subject to the part 70 program  are covered by  a
    section 112 requirement, Regions can, in many  instances,
    effectively transfer much of the technical  and administrative
    burden of implementing and enforcing a  particular  standard by
    establishing an MOA with the State.   Alternatively, the Region
    can delegate responsibility for section 112 requirements by
    accomplishing  notice and comment rulemaking under  section
    112(1)(5) in the most efficient manner. Possible  approaches
    include use of "direct final" actions,  where appropriate,  and
    programs which prospectively deal with  delegation  of section 112
    requirements.

         3.  The options for delegation of  section 111 standards
    prior to the 1990 CAAA remain available to  the States  and  EPA
    since the language in section lll(c)  was not changed.   Again, the
    title V program approval provides an excellent new opportunity
    for delegation.

         4.  States must acquire any new legal  authority as needed  to
    implement the  applicable requirements of  sections  111  and  112 on
    a timeframe sufficient to assure timely issuance or revision of
    part 70 permits.  For applicable requirements  existing at  the
    time of the State's part 70 program submittal, the State must
224

-------
demonstrate adequate existing legal authority to implement these
requirements presumptively'by the effective date of the part 70
program.  Under certain circumstances, a State may negotiate with
the Region a later date for acquiring such' responsibility for a
particular standard.  This approach will be acceptable only if it
is consistent with the timely phase-in of the part 70 program,
and if the State presents a detailed implementation strategy
convincing the Region that the necessary legal authority will be
secured consistent with its strategy.

     5.  There is no immediate need for a State to obtain
delegation for a standard which currently applies to sources not
in that State.  However, the State and Regional Office should
develop a strategy describing how new sources of this type will
be addressed without delaying issuance of their part 70 permits.
    *
     6.  The EPA anticipates that States will accept full
delegation to implement and enforce applicable sections 111 and
112 requirements for all major and nonmajor sources subject to
them.  Some States have requested that EPA partially delegate
certain sections 111 or 112 requirements on the basis of source
coverage.  This would be done by withholding delegation of
requirements as they apply to nonraajor sources and retaining this
responsibility for EPA implementation.  The EPA Regions can
consider such requests on a case-by-case basis but this type of
delegation should be reserved for those rare cases where a State
can demonstrate that the approach would still meet the
requirements of title V (e.g., a standard clearly applies in part
to a set of smaller sources which are not potentially subject to
part 70).

     The responses contained in the attachment have been
previously coordinated with your staff and will be placed on the
Technology Transfer Network bulletin board.   If you have any
further questions on title Ill/title V delegation concerns,
please contact Michael Trutna at 919-541-5345, Rich Damberg at
919-541-5592, or Julie Andresen at 919-541-5339.  For other title
III issues not involving title V, please contact Karen Blanchard,
who is managing the effort to guide the implementation of section
112, at 919-541-5647.

Attachment

cc:  K. Berry
     B. Jordan
     A. Schwartz
     L. Wegman
                                                                    225

-------
                                ATTACHMENT

     QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS TO STRAIGHT DELEGATION ISSUES CONCERNING
              SECTIONS 111 AND 112 REQUIREMENTS AND TITLE V


    l.   How can "straight delegation" (i.e., where the State will
         implement and enforce the requirement exactly as promulgated
         by EPA) of section 112 requirements be accomplished before
         and after the approval of a part 70 program?

         a«   Section 112(1) Rulemaking Required for Future
              Delegations

         Section 112(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) provides the
    mechanism for approval of programs for the delegation of Federal
    standards and programs to the States:  "A program submitted by a
    State under this subsection may provide for partial or complete
    delegation of the Administrator's authorities and
    responsibilities to implement and enforce emission standards and
    prevention requirements. ..."  This language in section 112(1)
    was enacted in 1990 and replaces that formerly found in section
    112(d).  Thus, section 112(1) now provides the exclusive pathway
    for delegation of section 112 requirements.  Section 112(1)(5)
    prescribes the specific requirements for EPA approval,  following
    notice and comment rulemaking, of State air toxics programs
    addressing, among other things, delegation of standards.   There
    is no basis to distinguish this rulemaking in its application to
    pre-1990 section 112 standards versus its application to the
    "new" standards and programs.  As a result, this rulemaking
    requirement applies to all future section 112 delegations,
    regardless of whether they are for new MACT standards,
    infrastructure programs (such as those in sections 112(g)  and
    (j))r or pre-1990 NESHAPS for which a State failed to take
    delegation in the past.

         Once a State's part 70 program has been approved,  the State
    typically will not have to submit a separate request for approval
    under section 112(1*)  for straight delegation of section 112
    requirements which apply only to sources subject to the part 70
    program.  A separate request is presumptively not needed for two
    main reasons:   1)  meeting part 70 approval requirements will
    suffice in meeting the section 112(1) approval requirements,  and
    2) approval of a part 70 program confers the responsibility to
    implement and enforce all "applicable requirements" of  section
    112 for sources subject to the part 70 permit program.   The
    extent to which a part 70 program meets the requirements of
    section 112(1)  is further discussed in section (d).

         States will need to take additional steps to receive
    "straight delegation" of section 112  requirements which apply to
    sources not covered by that State's part 70 program.   For many
    States,  only major sources will initially be subject to the part
    70 program.   As 4 result,  certain sources subject to section 112
226

-------
requirements will not face part 70 permitting obligations,
including area sources deferred from permitting requirements in
the part 70 rule, area sources deferred from permitting by
specific section 112 standards (e.g." dry cleaners)', or sources
subject to the 112(r) accidental release program but not required
to obtain a part 70 permit.

     There are two primary options for obtaining delegation of
requirements as they apply to sources not subject to the part 70
permit program.  Both involve section 112(1) rulemaking.  The
most administratively streamlined rulemaking option is for a
State to submit a request to EPA for approval of a program for
"straight delegations'* under subpart 63.91 of the 112(1) rule.
Here EPA would conduct a 112(1) rulemaking which would provide
for public notice and comment on the State's proposed program for
receiving straight delegation from the EPA for section 112
requirements as they apply to sources outside the part 70 permit
program.  Under this program, States would then, without further
rulemaking, receive delegation for specific section 112
requirements upon their request in accordance with the memorandum
of agreement (MOA) between the State and EPA.

     The second rulemaking option would involve separate
submittals from the State requesting delegation of specific
section 112 requirements as they apply to sources not required to
obtain a part 70 permit.  The EPA would need to conduct a 112(1)
rulemaking for each individual State request, although "direct
final" rulemakings could be used wherever appropriate [the
"direct final" process is discussed in section (b)].  Separate
section 112(1) rulemakings may be appropriate for expedited
delegation of section 112 requirements promulgated before the
State receives part 70 program approval (e.g., degreasing
National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP), the Hazardous Organic NESHAP, chrome electroplating
NESHAP, and cooling towers NESHAP).

     Both of these rulemaking options require submittal of State
demonstrations that the State has adequate legal authority,
resources and an expeditious schedule for implementation.  The
content of these submittals is discussed in section (c).

     Another option, one which does not constitute section 112(1)
rulemaking but can provide quick transfer of many implementation
responsibilities to States, involves the expanded use of MOA's.
Where a section 112(1) rulemaking is not practical (e.g., short
time before part 70 approval expected), EPA can still enter into
an MOA with a willing State to transfer the effective workload of
a particular section 112 requirement.  These MOA's, which can be
similar in form to the pre-1990 delegation practices under
section 112(d), can be used to contract with the State to perform
the technical and administrative implementation of the
requirement (and enforcement as well if the State has adequate
                                                                    227

-------
    legal  authority to enforce  in State  court).  However,  an MOA
    cannot,  standing alone,  be  the basis for  a  formal  delegation
    under  section 112(1).  Therefore, while this approach, is
    potentially valuable in  certain situations, it would not serve to
    formally delegate a section 112 requirement and  so would not,  for
    example,  allow the state to replace  EPA as a point of receipt  for
    required reports or other information.  The EPA  Regions and
    States must weigh the relative merits associated with this use of
    MOA's  as compared with delegations accomplished  by section 112(1)
    rulemaking before selecting the most appropriate means for
    implementing a particular section 112 requirement.

        b.    Nature of Section 112(11 Rulemakincrs bv  EPA

        Procedurally, section  112(1) requires a State submittal of a
    request  for approval,  notice in the  Federal Register that EPA  has
    received a request for approval, a public comment  period of at
    least  30 days, and notice in the Federal  Register  that EPA has
    approved or disapproved  the request.  The content  of the EPA
    rulemaking to transfer the  responsibility to implement and
    enforce  section 112 requirements as  promulgated  can  vary widely.
    As discussed in section  (d),  the substance of a  section 112(1)
    notice can be extremely  short where  implementation in large part
    depends  on the adequacy  of  resources and  legal authority
    otherwise required under the part 70 permit program.   Where the
    State  intends to, implement  and enforce the section 112
    requirement as promulgated  by EPA, this notice and comment
    rulemaking,  even where it cannot be  combined with  the part 70
    approval process, can also  be expeditiously accomplished in many
    cases.

        One approach available to expedite future straight
    delegations outside of a part 70 program  approval  is based on
    EPA's  ability to approve a  program for the delegation of section
    112 requirements as promulgated.  Such an approval would have  a
    prospective effect in that  it would  obviate the  need to repeat
    the notice and comment procedures of section 112(1)(5)  for each
    delegation.   The function of this rulemaking is  to take comment
    on a mechanism for the transfer of section 112 responsibilities
    from EPA to the State, as well as on the  State's general
    authority and resource strategy to implement that  mechanism.   The
    proposed section 112(1)  approval notice would discuss  the
    delegations mechanisms proposed by the State and would include a
    finding  that the State has  the broad statutory authority
    necessary to implement the  mechanism, as  well as a finding that
    the State now has or will be able to obtain the  resources
    necessary to implement and  enforce section 112 requirements.

        The approval of a program for straight delegation of section
    112 requirements must also  be accompanied by an  MOA  between EPA
    and the  State which details the mechanism for transfer of
    responsibilities.  Options  for structuring such  an agreement are
228

-------
essentially those that existed prior to the 1990 Amendments, as.
described in the Good Practices Manual.  The MOA must also
establish some method of continuing oversight, so .that EPA can
continue to assure that the criteria of section 11-2(1) (5) are
met.  If the State fails to meet these criteria subsequent to
approval of a program for straight delegations because it was
unable to meet its commitment to provide adequate resources, the
auditing and withdrawal mechanism in the section 112(1)
regulations would allow EPA to withdraw approval for all or part
of the program.

     The approval of a program for straight delegation and the
actual delegation of existing section 112 standards are not
mutually exclusive.  A section 112(1) approval can accomplish
both simultaneously if the State wishes to structure the approval
in that way.  Accordingly, as part of any program for straight
delegations, a State that wishes to establish any delegations for
specific requirements under section 112(1) or modify any
delegations approved in the past might submit documentation of
adequate authorities, resources, and expeditious schedule for
section 112(1) at the same time it submits a request to EPA for
the program authorizing straight delegations.  Alternatively, a
State could obtain approval of a program for straight delegations
and then accomplish those same specific delegation actions
pursuant to that program.

     Where a prospective program is not chosen, the direct final
rulemaking approach may be a procedural streamlining mechanism
available.for accomplishing certain straight delegations.  In
general, direct final rulemaking is more likely to be appropriate
where the only action being noticed is the delegation of a single
section 112 standard.  In situations where EPA does not expect
any adverse comment upon'publication of a notice of approval, the
notice can specify that the approval would become effective in 30
days unless adverse comments were received.  If adverse comments
were received, then EPA would have to re-propose the approval and
provide for a 30-day comment period.  The time and resource
savings from this use of the direct final, approach would thus
depend on the correctness of the Agency's judgement regarding
whether or not any adverse comments would be submitted.  For a
more complete discussion of the direct final procedure, see 47 FR
27073 (June 23, 1982).

     The content of the Federal Register notice accomplishing a
straight delegation under section 112(1) can also be very brief.
It can be as simple as a re-statement of EPA's findings
concerning the adequacy of statements and/or demonstrations
contained in the State's submittal.  The contents of State
submittals are discussed in the next section.

     As part of the approval for either the delegation of a
particular standard or of a program for straight delegation, the
                                                                    229

-------
   Region may consider the appropriateness of one or more partial
   delegations which would allow the State to become the point of
   receipt .for notices and reporting required prior to the'
   compliance date for a particular section 112 standard or
   requirement.  Such a partial delegation would precede the more
   complete delegation that would occur once the State gains the
   ability to fully implement and enforce the standard.  The partial
   delegation of information-receipt responsibilities may avoid
   redundant reporting where the State will be the primary enforcer
   of the standard, .as will be the case, for instance, for sources
   covered by a part 70 program.  In the case of approval of a
   program for straight delegations, the availability of this type
   of partial delegation should be detailed in the MOA that
   accompanies the program approval.

        Regions must make case-by-case judgements as to the
   appropriateness of such a partial delegation based upon the
   nature of the particular standard and the likelihood that the
   State will be able to implement and enforce the standard for all
   covered sources on a timely basis.  The shifting of information-
   receipt responsibilities would not be appropriate, for example,
   where the State's jschedule for obtaining enforcement authority
   may result in sources reaching the compliance deadline before the
   State is able to enforce the standard.  To guard against this
   possibility, any such partial delegation should be accompanied by
   an MOA which assures the Region that notices and reports received
   by the state will be transferred to the Regional Office if the
   State anticipates it will not be able to enforce the standard- on
   a timely basis.'

        c.   State Submittals Required for Straight Delegations of
             Section 112 Requirements

        The EPA will consider a State's submittal for a part 70
   operating permits program to be also an implicit request for
   approval of a program for delegation of all section 112
   requirements as they involve applicable requirements for sources
   covered by the State's part 70 program (see next section).  In
   order to take delegation of section 112 requirements for other
   sources, a State will need to provide EPA with a separate
   submittal pursuant to one of two  options described in this
   section.

        A submittal for approval of a program for the delegation of
   section 112 requirements as promulgated by EPA must meet the
   criteria in section 63.91(b).  However, the content of a
   submittal for approval of such a program will necessarily be less
   detailed than a submittal for delegation of a specific
   requirement, since the subject of a program approval will be a
   more general mechanism for future delegation actions.  As noted
   in the previous section, the primary purpose of a program
   approval is to provide for notice and comment on a mechanism for
230

-------
the future transfer of section 112 standards as promulgated.  The
State must therefore indicate in its submittal the type of
mechanism (e.g.., automatic or case-by-case delegation) it intends
to use to accept, delegation.  The details of this mechanism will
be established through the MOA between the State' and EPA.  A
demonstration of authority to implement and enforce a particular
requirement will occur at the time of delegation of that
requirement pursuant to the MOA.  In the case of a request for
approval of the 112(r) accidental release program as promulgated
by EPA, the State must also submit information necessary to meet
the approval criteria specified in section 63.95.

       For approval of a program for straight delegations, the
State, pursuant to section 63.91(b)(l), must submit an opinion
from the State Attorney General (for local agencies, a similar
representative) demonstrating that it has the broad legislative
authority necessary to implement the chosen mechanism for
delegation.  Authority to implement a particular standard need
not,be demonstrated as part of the opinion, although general
enforcement, inspection, and information gathering authority
required by section 63.91(b)(1) must be demonstrated.  Once a
State has obtained approval of a program for straight
delegations, the EPA will not require additional Attorney General
opinions for each delegation accomplished pursuant to that
program.

     Section 63.91(b)(3) requires a demonstration of resource
adequacy and certain descriptions of State agency organization.
Here, the State-submittal should include descriptions of current-
organization as appropriate, as well as a description of how the
State plans to  obtain and maintain adequate resources to
implement delegations that occur pursuant to the approved
program.  As with the requirement for adequate authority, a
demonstration of adequate resources to implement a particular
requirement should accompany requests for delegation performed
pursuant to the program.  The content of this more specific
demonstration should be detailed in the MOA and can be relatively
brief, consistent with prior practice under the 1983 Good
Practices Manual.  «

     The remaining criteria in  section 63.91(b) concern
demonstrations  associated with  the delegation of particular
requirements.   For example, section 63.91(b)(2) requires
submittal of copies of all  statutes, regulations, and other
material granting authority to  implement and enforce the
requirement.  Sections 63.91(b)(4) and  (5) require submittal of
plans  for expeditious implementation and enforcement,
respectively, of the  section  112 requirement.  These
demonstrations  should be provided for in the MOA that accompanies
the  program approval, so that EPA can ensure that these criteria
are  met at the  time each section 112 requirement is delegated  and
on a continuing basis for as  long as the State retains approval
                                                                     231

-------
   of the program.  However, consistent with the prospective nature
   of such a program for straight delegations, these demonstrations
   will not require the repetition of a rulemaking under section
   112(1) (5).   -

        State submit^als requesting delegation for individual
   section 112 requirements  (the second option discussed in the
   previous section) must also meet the criteria set forth in
   section 63.91(b) of the section 112(1) regulation.  (Requests for
   approval of programs to implement section 112(r) requirements as
   promulgated by EPA must also meet the approval criteria specified
   in section 63.95.)  Here  section 63.91(b)(l) requires an opinion
   by the State Attorney General stating that the State has the
   necessary legal authority to implement and enforce the section
   112 requirement exactly as promulgated by ,EPA, as well as require
   compliance by applicable  sources with all emission limits, test
   methods, and reporting and monitoring requirements specified in
   the -Federal requirement.  The State must also demonstrate that it
   has adequate legal authority to bring enforcement actions against
   noncomplying sources in State court.

        Section 63.91(b)(3)  requires in the case of a specific
   section 112 requirement that the State show it has adequate
   resources to implement and enforce the applicable section 112
   requirement.  A statement of resource adequacy should suffice
   where the State has had experience regulating similar sources
   through an existing State requirement.  In other cases, the State
   should show that the estimated workload for implementing and
   enforcing* the standard does not exceed.available resources
   (including any grants provided by EPA for non-part 70
   activities).

        The EPA wishes to clarify that, in requiring section 112(1)
   submittals to have enforcement authority required by section
   70.11, section 63.91 implicitly recognizes the same interim
   flexibility as would be the case for a State seeking approval of
   a part 70 program.  Just  as a State may receive interim approval
   under part 70 for up to two years if its enforcement authority
   "substantially meets" the requirements of section 70.11, a State
   may receive approval of a section 112(1) program under the same
   circumstances and subject to the same restrictions if its
   enforcement authority "substantially meets" these criteria.  Were
   this not the case, a State could obtain approval of a part 70
   program, be required to implement and enforce all section 112
   requirements at part 70 sources, and yet not be able to receive
   formal delegation from EPA to implement and enforce those same
   requirements.  This intent of the section 112(1) rule is
   evidenced by statements in the preambles to the proposed and
   final rule that a State submittal meeting part 70 criteria would
   also meet the criteria for section 112(1) approval.  See, e.g.,
   58 F.R. 29299 (May 19, 1993), and 58 F.R. 62271 (November 26,
   1993).
232

-------
     <*•  Relationship to Part 70 Program Approval

     In order .to obtain approval of a part .70 operating permits
pr6graro, a State is obligated to incorporate all section 112
applicable requirements into permits and assume the primary
responsibility for enforcing these requirements.  The part 70
submittal (see April 13, 1993 memorandum,entitled "Title V
Approval Criteria for Section 112 Requirements") must guarantee
this result by containing an Attorney General's statement of
adequate legal authority and/or commitments by the Governor to
adopt and implement additional requirements as needed to assure
timely issuance or revision of part 70 permits which implement in
part these section 112 requirements.  The EPA, therefore,
considers the approval of the part 70 program to be an excellent
contemporaneous opportunity to approve a program for straight
delegations under section 112(1), to the extent that it applies
to sources subject to the permit program.

     The approval notice addressing section 112(1) can be
extremely brief and can largely rely on the demonstrations
required for part 70 approval.  This is because the part 70
approval will consider/essentially the same approval criteria
with respect to legal authority and resource adequacy required to
be met under section 112(1)(5) and will provide an adequate
opportunity for oversight of future State actions to implement
and enforce section 112 requirements at part 70 sources.  Because
part 70 approval is conditioned on a State's ability to implement
and enforce section 112 requirements for sources subject to the
part 70 program, EPA will treat the request for approval under
part 70 as a request under section 112(1)  for approval of a
program for straight delegation of all section 112 requirements
applying to part 70 sources subject to the permit program.  The
EPA will so indicate this position in notices proposing to
approve the part 70 program.  Unless a State specifically
requests otherwise, EPA intends to establish this program for
prospective straight delegations at the same time that a part 70
program would become effective for that State.  This same
rulemaking could also accomplish straight delegations for any
existing section 13,2 applicable requirements for which the State
had not yet taken delegation.

     As discussed in section (b) above, the approval of a program
for straight delegations may also, for certain standards, allow
for the partial delegation of information-receipt
responsibilities prior to the delegation of enforcement
responsibilities.  Such partial delegations may be particularly
useful where there is some delay between Federal promulgation and
the time when the State is able to enforce the Federal Standard.
This will sometimes occur in the context of the part 70 program.
In these cases, partial delegation of the information-receipt
responsibilities with regard to part 70 sources may facilitate
the permitting of these sources, while reducing the reporting
                                                                   233

-------
    burden.  As  noted  in the preceding discussion, partial
    delegations  of  this sort will not be appropriate  in all
    instances, and  should not be undertaken unless there  is  assurance
    through  an MOA  that any, information received by the State  will be
    timely transferred to EPA where EPA will carry an enforcement
    responsibility  for any  period of time.  This understanding can be
    included within the more comprehensive part 70 implementation
    agreement.

         One additional concern relates to the timing sequence of
    these two rulemakings.  Section 112(1)(5) requires that  EPA's
    notice and comment rulemaking occur within 6 months of a complete
    State submittal, while  the rulemaking in response to  a part 70
    submittal by a  State needs to occur within 12 months  of  a
    complete State  submittal.  Although approval under section 112(1)
    in  not necessarily a precondition for part 70 approval,  a  State
    may want to  propose the two rulemakings in the Federal Register
    concurrently.   In  such  cases, the EPA Region can  delay the start
    of  the 6-month  clock associated with section 112(1) rulemaking
    until the time  that the part 70 submittal for the State  is
    proposed for approval unless the State specifically requests a
    different schedule for/approval under section 112(1).  This
    delayed  start will facilitate compliance with section 112(l)'s
    six month tiraeframe for approval in cases where the presumption
    of  an approved  part 70  program is needed to demonstrate  adequate
    legal authority and resources.  That is, unless a proposed
    approval of  the part 70 program occurs or an independent
    demonstration of adequacy is provided, a submittal for section
    112(1) rulemaking  would be incomplete.  Thus, a simultaneous
    proposal for approval of a submittal under part 70 and section
    112(1) would serve to start the 6-month time period for
    conducting section 112(1) rulemaking.  This strategy  also  offers
    sufficient flexibility  to complete the part 70 rulemaking  within
    the year following a complete submittal from the  State.

         The procedural steps necessary before a State may
    incorporate  a federally-promulgated standard into the part 70
    permit will  vary as a matter of State law.  In several instances
    this may require rurlemaking at the State level (perhaps  through
    incorporation of the Federal requirement by reference).  A State
    may also have mechanisms available to satisfy part 70
    requirements that  allow incorporation of a Federal standard
    directly into the  part  70 permit without any interim  steps to
    promulgate the  standard through State rulemaking  or to seek
    formal delegation  of the standard from EPA.  Regardless  of the
    necessity under State law for a formal delegation, EPA will
    consider the formal delegation for all delegatable provisions to
    have occurred,  at  the latest, when the part 70 permit is issued,
    so  that  the  point  of receipt for any reporting requirements will
    shift from EPA  to  the State at that time (unless  some earlier
    time is  established pursuant to section 112(1) rulemaking).
234

-------
     The EPA may request a review of individual State rulemaking
and/or other actions taken to ensure that the needed legal
authority and/or technical capabilities are in place at the State
level in time for their use in the part 70 permit process.  Such
evaluations should be limited to the exceptional case where EPA
has strong reasons to believe that legal and/or resource problems
exist.  Thus, unless a State is legislatively barred or has made
a specific request for delegation under section 112(1), EPA will
presume that the State receiving approval for its part 70 program
will implement the Federal sections 111 and 112 requirements as
promulgated and will adopt any new authority at the State level
needed to assure timely inclusion as applicable in part 70
permits in order to maintain its part 70 approval.


2.   How can section 111 standards be transferred before and
after the approval of a part 70 program?

     Section lll(c), which governs the transfer of new source
performance standards (NSPS), was not changed by the 1990
Amendments.  Therefore, the prior options for delegating such
standards remain in effect.

     Approval of part 70 programs requires, in part, that States
must be able to implement and enforce current section 111
standards and commit to take any necessary steps to implement and
enforce future standards promulgated by EPA so as to assure the
timely issuance or revision of part 70 permits.  Therefore, this
approval process provides a new and convenient opportunity to
establish a prospective delegation agreement with the State to
implement future NSPS, as well as to implement NSPS in effect at
this time.  Accordingly, EPA will assume that the part 70
submittal is an implicit request to establish a delegation
agreement for the State to implement, as promulgated by EPA, all
section 111 requirements applicable to sources subject to the
part 70 program.  States retain the option, however, of
submitting separate requests for delegation authority pursuant to
section lll(c) when this arrangement for automatic delegation is
not appropriate.  Eyen in this case, EPA will explore options
with individual States to establish the presumption where
possible that the point of receipt for any section 111 reporting
requirement will shift from EPA to the State and any separate
delegation requests will involve petitions to obtain the
remaining implementation and enforcement responsibilities.
                                                      i
                                          I

3.   Are there portions of any section 111 requirement which
cannot be delegated to States?

     Most provisions of these requirements can be delegated to
States.  However, as stated in the Gobd Practices for Delegation
of NSPS and NESHAPS (February, 1983), certain activities such as

                                10
                                                                   235

-------
     issuance of certain waivers, approval of alternate test methods
     and monitoring, and some general authority provisions cannot be
     delegated.


     4.   Must States accept delegation for all existing and all new
     sections ill and 112 standards/ or only for those for which
     applicable sources currently exist in the State?

          Under current part 70 rules States must have adequate legal
     authority to issue or revise part 70 permits in a timely fashion
     to all major sources of hazardous air pollutants.  States may
     also opt to subject nonmajor sources covered by a particular
     national standard to their part 70 permit program.  Explicit
     legal authority to implement a particular standard, however, may
     not be necessary if the State determines that there are presently
     no sources located in the State subject to a given standard, and
     there is no likelihood that such a source would construct in the
     State in the immediate future.  It is important that States
     acquire the appropriate legal authority on a timeframe
     commensurate with the probability that sources will locate in the
     State.  The State must,be able to demonstrate that it can acquire
     any necessary legal authority quickly enough to issue a timely
     part 70 permit, or revision if a new source of this type were to
     locate in the State.  The States are encouraged to provide for a
     strategy to address such a prospect (e.g., through milestones in
     a MOA or part 70 implementation agreement).


     5.   If a State applies under section 112(1) to substitute a
     State requirement as being no less stringent, must the State
     implement the otherwise applicable section 112 requirement "as
     is" until it receives section 112(1) approval?

          Part 70 requires States to issue permits in a timely fashion
     which assure compliance with all applicable requirements,
     including those developed pursuant to section 112.  The section
     112 requirements are those promulgated by EPA, unless the State
     obtains section 112,(1) approval to substitute a specific State
     requirement for a Federal requirement.  If the State submits its
     own "equivalent" requirement for approval under section 112(1),
     the State must still incorporate the•applicable Federal section
     112 requirements into part 70 permits until it receives EPA
     approval to dot otherwise.

          A State may be able to obtain some relief in this interim
     period by structuring its transition plan such that sources
     affected by a different State requirement could be acted on last
     during the 3-year phase-in of the part 70 program.  Another
     possibility for relief is for the State to issue a permit that
     includes both its own State standard (designated in the permit at
     issuance as not federally enforceable as required by section

                                     11


236

-------
70-6(b)(2))  as well as the Federal standard it would replace upon
section 112(1) approval.  This permit would contain a condition
that upon EPA's approval of the State requirement pursuant to
section 112(1), the permit will be administratively amended such
that the former requirement would supersede the latter as the
federally enforceable requirement.


6.  Must States have delegation of authority for all existing
sections 111 and 112 requirements prior to submitting their
operating permit programs?  If not, by what date must states take
delegation of these standards—prior to EPA's final program
approval or prior to issuing a title V permit to a source covered
by one of these standards?

     States must acquire any new legal authority as needed to
implement both sections 111 and 112 in a timeframe sufficient to
assure timely issuance or revision of part 70 permits.  The
procedural steps necessary before a State may incorporate a
federally-promulgated standard into the part 70 permit will vary
as a matter of State law.  A State may have mechanisms available
to satisfy part 70 requirements that do not involve a delegation
from EPA under section 112(1) for section 112 requirements.  For
instance, State law may allow incorporation of a Federal standard
directly into the part 70 permit without any interim steps to
promulgate the standard through rulemaking or to seek formal
delegation of the standard from EPA.  Regardless of the necessity
under State law, EPA will consider delegation pursuant to section
112(1) to have occurred for all applicable requirements which can
be delegated, at the latest, when the part 70 permit is issued,
so that after part 70 program approval the point of receipt for
any reporting requirements required qf sources subject to the
permit program will shift from EPA to the State.

     For applicable section 112 requirements in effect on
November 15, 1993 (the date for subraittal of part 70 programs),
the States must demonstrate adequate existing legal authority to
implement these requirements presumptively by the effective date
of the part 70 program.  Only under unusual circumstances could
the Region negotiate with the State a later date to acquire such
authority for a particular standard, but it still must be
consistent with the timely issuance of permits to applicable
sources as they are phased-in as part of the part 70 program.
This could only be done if the State presents a detailed
implementation strategy to do so, has no legislative impediment
to the delegation, and demonstrates to the Region that the legal
authority necessary to accomplish this delegation will be secured
in a timely manner.


7.  If a State intends to defer area sources from title V
applicability, can the State accept delegation of a section 111

                                12

                                                                   237

-------
    or 112 requirement only for the major sources which exist in the
    State and not for the nonmajor or area sources to which the
    standard may also apply?

         Although EPA strongly encourages States to take full
    delegation of all section 112 requirements, states may submit a
    request to EPA for partial delegation of such requirements.  In
    addition to previously discussed options for shifting the initial
    implementation responsibilities of certain section 112
    requirements (see response to question 1), partial delegations
    can also be accomplished with respect to source coverage.  For
    example, the request for delegation may exclude those nonmajor
    sources which the State within its discretion under part 70 has
    allowed to be exempt from the requirement to obtain a part 70
    permit.  The EPA may partially delegate such standards to a State
    and withhold delegation of the area sources in that category for
    EPA implementation.  However, this type of partial delegation
    should be reserved for those rare cases where total delegation
    does not meet the requirements of title V.  To qualify for this
    delegation, the State must demonstrate that such a delegation
    would only apply to source categories subject to a section 111 or
    112 standard which can -easily be separated into exempt and
    subject sources (i.e., not involve difficult section 111 or 112
    applicability decisions), and only to'sources which are not
    otherwise required to get a part 70 permit (e.g., are not major
    sources due to emissions of some criteria pollutant).


    8.  Will EPA have to issue operating permits to sources if states
    do not take timely delegation of a particular MACT standard?  If
    EPA has to issue the permit, will it only cover the MACT
    requirement(s), or will it cover all CAA requirements applicable
    to the source?

         The EPA will object to any proposed part 70 permit which
    does not contain sufficient terms and conditions to assure
    compliance with all applicable requirements of the CAA, including
    those of section 112.  If the State does not adequately respond
    to an EPA objection, (e.g., for failure to include a recently-
    established section 112 standard), the Agency must veto the
    permit and issue a Federal permit addressing all applicable CAA
    requirements (not just those pertaining to the deficiency
    identified by EPA).  A failure to adopt new legal authority as
    needed to impose a new section 112 standard would likely lead to
    the issuance of a comprehensive EPA permit for sources subject to
    the new section 112 standard.  A significant number of such
    situations may lead EPA to conclude that the State has failed to
    administer its approved part 70 program and that EPA should
    implement a Federal title V program in that State.
                                    13

238

-------
9.  Will the delegations of section 112 standards be tracked on a
national data base?  Can the delegations themselves be tracked
and implemented through the APS Permitting Enhancements Title V
data management system?

     There are currently no plans to track the national progress
in accomplishing the delegations of section 112 standards.
Individual Regions may choose to use a MOA or a part 70
implementation agreement to establish milestones for State
enhancement of their legal authority as needed to implement
section 112 standards and to submit (at the option of the Region)
evidence of this enhancement (e.g., rules or policy statements).


10.  What type of sections 111 and 112 commitments can qualify a
State submittal for part 70 program approval?

     In order to obtain full approval from EPA, the part 70
submittal must contain authority and/or commitments adequate to
ensure that the part 70 permit will assure compliance with all
applicable sections 111 and 112 requirements.  Where general
statutory authority to/issue or revise permits implementing
sections 111 and 112 is present, but the Attorney General is
unable to certify explicit legal authority to carry out certain
specific requirements at the time of program submittal, the
Governor may instead submit commitments to adopt and implement
additional regulations as needed to issue part 70 permits.  The
EPA will rely on'these commitments in granting part 70 program
approvals, provided that (1) the underlying legislative authority
would not prevent a State from meeting the commitments, and (2)
the State can demonstrate the commitments will be satisfied by
the time the State has to issue or revise permits to sources
subjject to the sections 111 and/or 112 requirements for which the
State now lacks adequate authority to implement.

     ,The nature of such commitments can vary widely depending on
what is needed by the State to implement and enforce a particular
standard.  For example, one State might be able to carry out a
particular section ,111 or 112 requirement under its existing
program while another State might require rulemaking to allow it
to enforce this Federal.requirement.  The commitments contained
in the letter of submittal from the Governor should outline the
timetable by which any required additions to existing legal
authority would be acquired and any major interim milestones
needed to ensure that this deadline will be met.
                                14

                                                                   239

-------
              UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
     „              Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

                    Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711


                                 NOV   3 1993
    MEMORANDUM
    SUBJECT:  Approaches to  Creating Federally
              Emissions Limits
    FROM: /  John S. Seitz,  Directc
                 Ice of Air Quality Planning and Standards (MD-10)
    TO:       Director, Air,  Pesticides and Toxics
                Management  Division,  Regions I and IV
              Director, Air and  Waste Management Division,
                Region II
              Director, Air,  Radiation and Toxics Division,
                Region III
              Director, Air and  Radiation Division,
                Region V
              Director, Air,  Pesticides and Toxics Division,
                Region VI
              Director, Air and  Toxics Division,
                Regions VII,  VIII,  IX,  and X


         The new operating  permits  program under title V of the Clean
    Air Act  (Act), combined with the  additional and lower thresholds
    for "major" sources also  provided by the 1990 Amendments  to the
    Act, has led to greatly increased interest by State and local air
    pollution control agencies,  as  well as sources,  in obtaining
    federally-enforceable limits on source potential to emit  air
    pollutants.  Such limits  entitle  sources to be considered "minor"
    for the purposes of title V  permitting and various other
    requirements of the Act.  Numerous parties have identified this
    as a high priority concern potentially involving thousands of
    sources in each of the  larger States.

         The issue of creating federally-enforceable emissions limits
    has broad implications  throughout air programs.   Although many of
    the issues mentioned above have arisen in the context of  the
    title V permits program,  the same issues exist for other
    programs, including those under section 112 of the Act.   As
    discussed below, traditional approaches to creating federally-
    enforceable emissions limits may  be unnecessarily burdensome and
    time-consuming for certain types  and sizes of sources.  In
    addition, they have been  of  limited usefulness with respect to
    creating such limits for  emissions of hazardous air pollutants
    (HAP's).

         The purpose of this  memorandum is to respond to these needs
    by announcing the availability  of two further approaches  to
    creating federally-enforceable  emissions limits:   the extension
    of existing criteria pollutant  program mechanisms for HAP program
240

-------
purposes, and the creation  of  certain classes  of standardized
emissions limits by rule.   We  believe that these options are
responsive to emerging  air  program implementation issues and
provide a reasonable balance between the  need  for administrative
streamlining and the need for  emissions limits that are
technically sound and enforceable.

Background

     Various regulatory options already exist  for the creation of
federally-enforceable limits on potential to emit.   These were
summarized in a September 18,  1992  memorandum  from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management Division.  That memorandum
identified the five regulatory mechanisms generally seen as
available.  These are:  State  major and minor  new source review
 (NSR) permits [if the NSR program has been approved into the
State implementation plan (SIP) and meets certain procedural
requirements]; operating permits based on .programs approved into
the SIP pursuant to the criteria in the June 28,  1989  Federal
Register  (54 FR 27274); and title V permits (including general
permits).  Also available are  SIP limits  for individual sources
and limits for HAP's created through a State program approved
pursuant to section 112(1)  of  the Act.
 i
     Regional Office and State air  program officials realize that
these five options are  generally workable,  but  feel that the
programs emerging from  the  1990 Amendments  present certain
further needs that are  not  well met.   They note  that NSR is not
always available, title V permitting can  be more rigorous than
appropriate for those sources  that  are in fact quite small,  and
that general permits have limitations  in  their usefulness.   The
use of State operating  permits approved into the SIP pursuant  to
the June 28, 1989 Federal Register  is  generally  considered  to  be
a promising option for  some of these transactions;  however,- these
programs do not regulate toxics directly.

State Operating Permits for Both Criteria Pollutants
and HAP/s

     As indicated above, State operating permits  issued by
programs approved into the  SIP pursuant to  the process  provided
in the June 28,  1989 Federal Register  are recognized as federally
enforceable.  This is a useful option, but  has historically been
viewed as limited in its ability to  directly create  emissions
limits for HAP's because of the SIP  focus on criteria pollutants.

     Since that option was  created,  however, section 112  of the
Act has been rewritten,  creating significant new regulatory
requirements and conferring additional responsibilities and
authorities upon the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)  and
the States.   Section 112 now mandates a wide range  of activities:
                                                                    241

-------
     source-specific preconstruction reviews,  areawide approaches to
     controlling risk,  provisions for permitting pursuant to the
     title V permitting program,  and state program provisions in.
     section 112(1)  that are similar to aspects of the SIP program.  A
     result of these changes is that implementation of toxics programs
     will entail the use of many of the same administrative mechanisms
     as have been in use for the criteria pollutant programs.

          Upon further analysis of these new program mandates and
     corresponding authorities, EPA concludes  that section 112 of the
     Act, including section 112(1), authorizes it to recognize these
     same State operating permits programs for the creation of
     federally-enforceable emissions limits in support of the
     implementation 'of section 112.  Congress  recognized,  and
     longstanding State practice confirms, that operating permits
     are core-implementing mechanisms for air  quality program
     requirements.  This was EPA's basis for concluding that
     section 110 of the Act authorizes the recognition and approval
     into the SIP of operating permits pursuant to the June 28,  1989
     promulgation, even though section 110 did not expressly provide
     for such a program.  Similarly, broad provision of section 112(1)
     for "a program for the implementation and enforcement ...  of
     emission standards and other requirements for air pollutants
     subject to this section" provides a sound basis for EPA
     recognition of State operating permits for implementation and
     enforcement of section 112 requirements in the same manner
     as these permitting processes were recognized pursuant to
     section 110.

          In implementing this authority to approve State operating
     permits programs pursuant to section 112,  it should be noted that
     the specific criteria for what constitutes a federally-
     enforceable permit are also the same as for the existing SIP
     programs.  The June 28,  1989 Federal Register essentially. -
     addressed in a generic sense the core criteria for creating
     federally-enforceable emissions limits in operating permits:
     appropriate procedural mechanisms,  including public notice and
     opportunity for comment, statutory authority for EPA approval of
     the State program, and enforceability as  a practical matter.   The
     EPA did this in the context of SIP development,  not because these
     criteria are specific to the SIP,  but because section 110 of the
     Act was seen as our only certain statutory basis for this prior
     to the 1990 Amendments.   Based on the discussion above,  States
     can extend or develop State operating permits programs for toxics
     pursuant to the criteria set forth in the June 28,  1989 Federal
     Register.   The EPA is also evaluating analogous opportunities to
     enhance State NSR programs to address toxics and will address
     this in future guidance.

          This is a significant opportunity to limit directly the
     emissions of HAP's.   It also offers the advantage of the
     administrative efficiencies  that arise from using existing

242

-------
 administrative mechanisms,  as opposed to creating additional
 ones.

     States are  encouraged  to consult with  EPA Regional  Offices
 to discuss the details of adapting their current  programs to
 carry out these  additional  functions.  The  EPA will consider
 State permitting programs meeting the criteria in the June 28,
 1989 Federal Register as  being approvable for HAP program
 functions as well.   States  may submit their programs for
 implementing this process with their  part 70 program submittals,
 or at such other time as  they choose.  The  EPA has various
 options for administratively recognizing these State program
 submittals.  The EPA plans  initially  to  review these state
 programs as SIP  review actions, but with official recognition
 pursuant to authorities in  both sections 110 and  112.  Once
 rulemaking pursuant  to section 112(1)  of the Act  is completed,
 EPA expects to use the process developed in that  rule for
 approving State  programs  for HAP's.   The section  112(1)  process
 may be especially useful  prior to EPA approval and implementation
 of the State title V programs.  The reader  may wish to refer to
 the process for  certain section 112(1) approvals  proposed on May
 19, 1993  (58 FR  29296)  (see section 63.91).

     The General Provisions (40 CFR part 63) establish the
 applicability framework for the implementation of  section 112.
 In the final rule, EPA will indicate  that State operating permits
 programs which meet  the procedural requirements of the June  28,
 1989 Federal Register can be used to  develop federally-
 enforceable emissions limits for  HAP's,  thereby limiting a
 source's potential to emit.   In addition, after we gain
 implementation experience,  EPA will be evaluating the usefulness
 of further rulemaking to  define more  specific criteria by which
 this process may be  used  in the implementation of programs under
 section 112 of the Act.   Any such rulemaking could similarly be
 incorporated into the General Provisions  in part  63.

 State-Standardized Processes Created  by  Rule to Establish
 Source-Specific. Federally-Enforceable Emissions Limits

     State air program officials  have  highlighted specific types
 of sources that  are  of  particular administrative concern  because
 of their nature  and  number.   These include  sources whose
 emissions are primarily volatile  organic  compounds (VOC)   arising
 from use of solvents  or coatings,  such as automobile body  shops.
 Another example  is fuel-burning sources  that have low actual
 emissions because of  limited hours of  operation,  but with  the
 potential to emit sulfur  dioxide  in amounts sufficient to  cause
 them to be classified as  major  sources.

     The EPA recognizes that emissions limitations for some
processes can be created  through  standardized protocols.    For
example,  limitations on potential  to emit could be established

                                                                   243

-------
     for certain VOC sources on the basis of limits on solvent use,
     backed up by recordkeeping and by periodic reporting.   Similarly,
     limitations on sulfur dioxide emissions could be based on  ..
     specified sulfur content of fuel and the source's obligation to
     limit usage to certain maximum amounts.  Limits on hours of
     operation may be acceptable for certain others sources, such as
     standby boilers.   In all cases, of course, the technical
     requirements would need to be supported by sufficient  compliance
     procedures, especially monitoring and reporting, to be considered
     enforceable.

          The EPA concludes that such protocols could be relied on to
     create federally-enforceable limitations on potential  to emit if
     adopted through rulemaking and approved by EPA.   Although such an
     approach is appropriate for only a limited number of source
     categories, these categories include large numbers of  sources,
     such as dry cleaners,  auto body shops,  gas stations, printers,
     and surface coaters.   If such standardized control protocols  are
     sufficiently reliable and replicable,  EPA and the public need not
     be involved in their application to individual sources,  as long
     as the protocols themselves have been subject to notice and
     opportunity to comment and have been approved by EPA into the
     SIP.

          To further illustrate this concept and to provide
     implementation support to the States,  EPA has recently released
     guidance on one important way of using this process.   This
     document,  entitled "Guidance for State Rules for Optional
     Federally-Enforceable Emissions Limits Based on Volatile Organic
     Compound Use," was issued by D. Kent Berry, Acting Director,  Air
     Quality Management Division,  on October 15, 1993.   It  describes
     approvable processes by which States can create federally-
     enforceable emissions limits for VOC for large numbers of sources
     in a variety of source categories.                       ~- -

          States have flexibility in their choice of administrative
     process for implementation.   In some cases, it may be  adequate
     for a State to apply these limits to individual sources through a
     registration process rather than a permit.  A source could simply
     submit a certification to the State committing to comply with the
     terms of an approved protocol.   Violations of these
     certifications would constitute SIP violations,  in the case of
     protocols  approved into the SIP,  and be subject to the same
     enforcement mechanisms as apply in the case of any other SIP
     violation.   Such  violations would,  of course,  also subject the
     source to  enforcement for failure to comply with the requirements
     that  apply to major sources,  such as the requirement to obtain a
     title V permit or comply with various requirements of  section 112
     of the Act.

          Some  States  have also indicated an interest in more
     expansive  approaches  to implementing this concept,  such as making

244

-------
presumptive determinations of control equipment efficiency with
respect to particular types of sources and pollutants.  While
such approaches are more complicated and present greater numbers
of concerns in the EPA review process, they offer real potential
if properly crafted.  The EPA will evaluate State proposals and
approve them if they are technically sound and enforceable as a
practical matter.

     States may elect to use this approach to create federally-
enforceable emissions limits for sources of HAP's as well.  Based
on the same authorities in section 112 of the Act, as cited above
in the case of operating permits, EPA can officially recognize
such State program submittals.  As with the operating permits
option discussed in the preceding section, EPA plans initially  to
review these activities as SIP revisions, but with approval
pursuant to both sections 110 and 112 of the Act, and approve
them through the section 112(1) process when that rule is final.

Implementation Guidance

     As indicated above, the creation of federally-enforceable
limits on a source's potential to emit involves the
identification of the procedural mechanisms for these efforts,
including the statutory basis for their approval by EPA, and the
technical criteria necessary for their implementation.  Today's
guidance primarily addresses the procedural mechanisms available
and the statutory basis for EPA approval.

     The EPA will be providing further information with respect
to the implementation of these concepts.  As described above, the
first portion of this guidance, addressing limits on VOC
emissions, was issued on October 15, 1993.  My office is
currently working with Regional Offices and certain States in
order to assist in the development of program options under-
consideration by those States.  We will provide technical and
regulatory support to other State programs and will make the
results of these efforts publicly available through the Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) Technology Transfer
Network bulletin board.

     We will provide further support through the release of a
document entitled "Enforceability Requirements for Limiting
Potential to Emit Through SIP Rules and General Permits," which
is currently undergoing final review within EPA.  In addition,
EPA will be highlighting options for use of existing technical
guidance with respect to creating sound and enforceable emissions
limits.   An important example of such guidance is the EPA "Blue
Book," which has been in use by States for the past 5 years as
part of their VOC control programs.
                                                                    245

-------
         States are encouraged to discuss program needs with their
     EPA Regional Offices.  The OAQPS will work with them in
     addressing approvals.  As indicated, additional technical
     guidance  for implementing these approaches is underway and will
     be made publicly available soon.  For further information, please
     call Kirt Cox at  (919) 541-5399.

     cc:  Air  Branch Chief, Regions I-X
         Regional Counsel, Regions I-X
         OAQPS Division Directors
         A. Eckert
         M. Winer
         A. Schwartz
         E. Hoerath
246

-------
         UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
               Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
               Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
                                OCT  I 5 I993
MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:  Guidance for State Rules for Optional  Fader/ally-
          Enforceable Emissions Limits Based on  Vplat
          Organic Compound  (VOC)  Use
FROM
TO:
D. Kent Berry, Acting Director
Air Quality Management Division, OAQPi

Air Division Director, Regions  I-x
                                                   (MD-15)
     The 1990 Amendments to the  Clean Air  Act  (Act) ,  including
the title V operating permits  program,  have  made  source status as
a "major" stationary source of considerably  greater relevance  to
air quality programs.  The lower major  source  thresholds now
included in the Act have made  an unprecedented number of sources
"major."  Many of these sources  are  actually emitting air
pollutants in amounts less than  the  major  thresholds  but are
major on the basis of their potential to emit.  Certain
categories of these sources are  comprised  of sources  that are  in
fact rather small and, in some cases, are  not  addressed in detail
by State air quality programs.   Examples include  auto body shops,
dry cleaners, printers, and surface  coaters.

     Many of these sources will  seek federally-enforceable limits
in their potential to emit so  as to  avoid  the  obligation to
obtain a title V operating permit.   The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), State air agencies,  and industry are all interested
in creating these emissions limits in the  most efficient manner
consistent with having reasonable assurance  that  these are in
fact enforceable and being complied  with.  There  are  a, variety of
approaches available for creating federally-enforceable emissions
limits.  While the creation of federally-enforceable  emissions
limits generally requires a source-specific  evaluation created
through an approved State permitting program,  EPA recognizes
that,  for certain types of sources or emissions,  the  limits can
be created through more streamlined  processes  that do not involve
detailed review or public process for each individual source.
                                                                     247

-------
          Probably the greatest need for such limits involves those
     sources, such as auto body shops and surface coaters, that would
     be major on the basis of use of raw materials containing VOC's.
     To aid States in developing generic enforceable emissions limits
     for such sources, we have developed technical guidance materials
     that States can use in creating such requirements.   States
     seeking to use these approaches may submit appropriate
     regulations as State implementation plan revisions  or, in the
     case of toxics, as section 112(1) plan provisions.   The technical
     guidance materials, along with draft forms that States may use in
     implementing this process are attached to this memorandum.
     States may, of course, opt to develop their own approaches for
     creating such documents.  The attached language and forms are
     provided as technical support to States and to provide an
     indication of what sorts of practices EPA considers approvable.
     Alternate approaches will be considered on their individual
     merits.

          For further information about this guidance, please contact
     Kirt Cox at (919) 541-5399 or Eric Noble at (919) 541-5362.  To
     discuss individual State regulatory provisions and  issues, please
     contact your Regional Office title V permits program contact.
     Any questions on practical enforceability should be brought
     to the attention of Sally Mitoff at (703) 308-8692  or Clara
     Poffenburger at (703) 308-8709.   The EPA is considering further
     options for use of these streamlined procedures with other
     pollutants and is interested in working with States in developing
     such approaches.  Suggestions are invited and may by made by
     calling Mr. Cox or Mr. Noble.

     Attachments

     cc:   Air Branch Chief, Regions I-X
          Operating Permits Program Contact, Regions I-X
          Regional Counsel, Regions I-X
          Division Directors, OAQPS
          A.  Schwartz, OGC
          E.  Hoerath, OE
248

-------
Attachment 1


                 CRITERIA FOR A DRAFT MODEL RULE
              FOR VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOC'S)
            AND HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANT  (HAP) SOURCES


PURPOSE:  To provide a federally-enforceable mechanism by which
certain sources emitting VOC's may certify that they are not
major sources of those pollutants in a manner that  can be
recognized as federally enforceable.  For the purpose of this
guidance, "VOC" also encompasses HAP's as defined pursuant to
section 112 of the Clean Air Act (Act) that are VOC's (including
those that are not photochemically reactive).

APPLICABILITY:  This approach is available to sources which opt
to assume limitations on the quantities of materials used in
their production processes which contain VOC's.  It does not
apply to VOC's that are produced as part of the manufacturing
processes.  That is, this approach applies limits on emissions
resulting from the use of VOC-containing materials.  To that end,
all the VOC's and HAP's present in the source materials, such as
paints and solvents, are assumed to be emitted to the atmosphere
(VOC in equals VOC out).  Because this rule relies on simple
calculation procedures based on recordkeeping, sources seeking
recognition of emissions limits based on the use of emissions
control devices, which require more complex determinations, would
not be able to take advantage of this approach.  This approach
would not be available to sources which are subject to title V
requirements for other reasons (e.g., that have the potential to
emit other pollutants in major amounts).

     To be approvable, a State rule must require that the source
owner or operator specifically apply for coverage.  Such
applications could take the form of a relatively simple
certification of compliance with the applicability criteria and
the requirements of the rule.  An example of such a certification
that EPA would find acceptable is attached as Attachment 2.


BASIS FOR THE CRITERIA:  This approach applies to sources which
agree to limit their annual emissions.  The basis for determining
compliance is the maintenance of records with respect to the use
of VOC-containing materials and the periodic submittal of this
information to the permitting authority.  States may elect to
streamline this process further by reducing the frequency and
level of detail of this reporting for those sources accepting
limits on emissions that are very substantially below the
threshold for major source status.  As described below, EPA
suggests three different levels of reporting requirements for
sources, depending on the degree of limitation that the source
opts to take.  Individual State rules developed pursuant to this
approach should, of course, replace the threshold percentages
                                                                   249

-------
     listed herein with actual quantities in tons per year appropriate
     to the areas subject to those rules.  For example,  the threshold
     for major source status for VOC's in ozone nonattainment- areas
     designated as "serious" is 50 tons per year.

          1.  Sources which commit only to limiting their VOC
     emissions to less than the major source threshold.

          These sources would be required to do more comprehensive
     recordkeeping and reporting than those smaller sources that
     accept more limited emissions caps.   The EPA suggests that these
     requirements include:                                 '

          a.  Preparation of monthly consumption records of all
     materials used containing VOC's.   Sources would make a separate
     record for each such material.   These records would include the
     VOC and/or individual HAP content of each such material on the
     same form.   Table 2 of Attachment 3  provides an example of such a
     form that States might find useful.

          b.  Summation of VOC and individual HAP emissions  on  a
     monthly or more frequent basis.   Table 1 of Attachment 3 is
     offered as an example form.   Such reports would be  submitted to
     the State agency on a monthly basis.

          c.  Submittal of an annual  inventory to the reviewing agency
     listing monthly VOC totals and total VOC emissions  for  the
     previous year,

          d.  Maintenance of purchase  orders and invoices of VOC-
     containing materials which must  be made available to the State
     agency upon request for u,se in confirming the general accuracy of
     the reports submitted pursuant to item b,  above,  regarding
     materials usage.

          e.  Retention of  purchase orders and invoices  for  a period
     sufficient to support enforcement efforts.

          f.  Reporting of  any exceedance of a requirement of this
     rule within I week of  occurrence.

          g.   Certification of all submittals as to the  truth
     completeness,  and accuracy of all information recorded  and
     reported.
250

-------
     2.  Sources which commit to  limiting  their VOC  emissions to
25 percent of the major source threshold.

     These sources would also be  required  to meet all the above
requirements, except that annual  reports would need  to be
submitted annually, rather than monthly, for compliance with
item b.

     3.  Truly small sources which commit  to limiting their VOC
emissions to 5 percent of the major source threshold.

     These sources could dramatically limit their recordkeeping
and reporting obligations.  Such  sources need only report total
gallons of paints or solvents used on an annual basis.  Table 3
of Attachment 3 could serve as a  standard  means for  sources to
maintain this tabulation and could be submitted to satisfy the
annual reporting requirement of item c above.  Such  sources would
be required to meet the same general obligations regarding
purchase records and general compliance reporting obligations as
sources in the other categories (items d-g).

ADDITIONAL CRITERIA:
                         t
  •  A source cannot rely on these emissions caps to justify
     violation of rate-based emissions limits or other applicable
     requirements of the Act.

  •  A State may require additional restrictions, e.g.,
     limitations on monthly VOC use in the peak ozone formation
     season.

     The State must make a list of the sources which are subject
     to these requirements publicly available.

  •  All records shall be maintained at the site and available
     for inspection on demand.

  •  A violation of these requirements is  a violation of the SIP
     or of the State's section 112 program, or both, depending on
     the particular EPA approval mechanism used.  A violation
     also subjects the source to enforcement action for failure
     to meet requirements applicable to a  major stationary
     source.

     There are,  of course, a variety of ways in which States may
elect to implement this concept based on their particular air
quality program needs and policy inclinations.  The above is
offered as one suggestion that states might find useful.  States
wishing to develop alternative approaches  should contact their
EPA Regional Office to discuss their approvability.
                                                                     251

-------
    Attachment 2
                           OPERATING AGREEMENT
                                  FOR A
                        SURFACE COATING OPERATION
    Source Name:	
    Address:    	
    Source Description:.
    Emission Units:   re.cr..  Paint Sprav Booths]
    Number fe.cr..  31
                                                Actual Usage
Material Used Over Past 12 Months:
                  Product
                                #VOC/gal*
    Maker     Type     Number    (MSDS) gal/day gal/mo   gal/year
1) 	  	  	  	  	  	  	
2) 	  	  	  	  	  	  	
3) 	  	  	  	  	  	  	
4) 	  	  	  	  	  	  	
5) 	  	  	  	  	  	  	
6) 	  	  	  	  	  	  	

Maximum Annual Material Usage in Future:
                  Product              Maximum Predicted Usage
                                #VOC/gal*
    Maker     Type     Number    (MSDS) gal/day gal/mo   gal/year
1) 	:	  	  	  	  	  	  	
2) 	  	  	  	  	  		
3)	  	  	  	  	  	  	
4) 	  	  	;	  	  	  	  	
5) 	  	  	  	  	  	  	
6) 	  	  	  	  	  	  	
      *  Sources may require this input to be in #VOC/gallon solids
         (paint or solvent less water).


    CERTIFICATION:

    I certify that this source will not emit volatile organic
    compounds or volatile hazardous air pollutants (as defined
    pursuant to section 112 of the Clean Air Act)  in excess of the
    amounts specified in [indicate which of the 3  size classes].   I
    further certify that all information submitted pursuant to this
    agreement is true,  accurate,  and complete.
    Plant  Owner/Operator
                                  Name (print)     Signature
                                                            Date
252

-------
    Attachment 3
            Table 1
MONTHLY EMISSIONS RECORD1
    Plant Name
    Address
                              Report for  (month/ vearl
                              Report Date (day/month/year)

Months
Units
PAINT A
PAINT B
PAINT C
PAINT D
SOLVENT 1
SOLVENT 2
SOLVENT 3
SOLVENT 4
TOTALS
POTENTIAL EMISSIONS2
Volatile Organic
Compound (VOC) Totals
1
pounds
200






[from T X]
650
Last 12
tons
2.5







4.2
Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) Totals
High Individual
1
pounds
16







900
Last 12
tons
0.096







5.4
All HAPS
1
pounds
100







2100
Last 12
tons
1.25







12.6
         1   Data in this  table  summarizes information from the table 1 worksheets for
    individual paints and solvents and other VOC and HAP  sources at the listed stationary
    source.

         2   Assumes all VOC  and HAPs in paint or solvent are released into  the atmosphere.
Is)
u\
CO

-------
Attachment 3
Table 2
                          EMISSIONS WORKSHEET
                  FOR MINOR VOC AND HAP SOURCES
Plant Name
Address
                         (month/year)
                 Paint/Solvent Manufacturer
              Paint/Solvent Name 	A
Record for 	
Date Prepared  fdav/month/year)
        Code No.

1
2
3
4
5
6

Paint /Solvent
Constituents
Paint / Solvent
Total VOC
Total HAP "
HAP A
HAP B
High Individual HAP
A
Fraction in
Paint/Solvent
_—
.40
[uj
.20
[V]
w
X

B
C
Usage/Emissions Totals
Last Month
500 Ibs
[gal x S.6. ]
200 Ibs
[A2 x Bl]
100 Ibs
[A3 x Bl]
[A4 X Bl]
etc.
16 Ibs
Last 12 Months
6.25 tons
[sum of totals for
last 12 months]
2.5 tons
[A2 x Cl]
1.25
[A3 X Cl]
[A4 X Cl]
etc.
0.096 tons
    3  Assumes all VOC and HAPs in paint or solvent are released into the atmosphere.

    4  Separate worksheet  (table 1) required for each paint or solvent used.

-------
  Attachment 3
Table 3
   Plant Name
   Address
                            EMISSIONS WORKSHEET
                    FOR MINOR VOC AND HAP SOURCES
                                                  Record for
                         fmonl
            Date Prepared  fday/month/vear)
Paint/
Solvent
Paint A
Paint B
Paint C
Solvent A
Solvent B
Solvent C
Solvent D
Totals
Usage Totals (gallons)
Month
1








2








3








4








5








6








7








8








9









10









11









12









1.2
Month
Total








       1  Assumes all VOC and HAPs in paint or solvent are released into the atmosphere.

       6  Separate worksheet (table 1) required for eachjpalnt or solvent used.
Lft

-------
                UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                      Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
                     Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
                               AUG   4 I993
     MEMORANDUM

     SUBJECT:   Reissuance of Guidance on Agency Rev
            tl  Schedules for Operating Permit^ Prog

     FROM:  *4^\Tohn S.  Seitz, Directo
           fl   Office of Air Quality
     TO:
                           ling
Air Division Director, Regions
                                        |of State  Fee
                                      imfi Under Title V
(MD-10)
          On December 18,  1992,  I issued a memorandum designed to
     provide initial guidance on the Environmental Protection Agency's
     (EPA's) approach to reviewing State fee schedules for operating
     permits programs under title V of the Clean Air Act (Act).
     Today's memorandum updates, clarifies, revises, and replaces the
     earlier memorandum.

          Section 502(b)(3) of the Act requires that each State
     collect fees sufficient to cover all reasonable direct and
     indirect costs required, to develop and administer its title V
     permits program.  [As used herein, the term "State" includes
     local agencies.]  The final part 70 regulation contains a list of
     activities discussed in the July 21, 1992 preamble to the final
     rule (57 FR 32250) which must be funded by permit fees.  This
     memorandum and its attachment provide further guidance on how EPA
     interprets that list of activities, as well as the procedure for
     demonstrating that fee revenues are adequate to support the
     program.

          The memorandum and attachment set forth the principles which
     will generally guide our review of fee subraittals.  The EPA
     believes that these positions are consistent with the preamble
     and  final rule and are useful in explaining the broad language in
     the  promulgation,  but in no way supplant the promulgation itself.
     In evaluating State program submittals, EPA will make judgments
     based on the particular design and attributes of the State
     program, as well as the requirements of section 70.9 of part 70.
256

-------
The policies set out in this memorandum and attachment are
intended solely as guidance, do not represent final Agency
action, and cannot be relied upon to create any rights
enforceable by any party.

     Several substantive revisions to the earlier guidance that
are reflected in this document deserve special mention.  First,
with respect to Activities which relate to provisions of the Act
in addition to title V, the revisions clarify that the cost of
those activities would be permit program costs only to the extent
the activities are necessary for part 70 purposes.  For example,
this qualification would apply to activities undertaken pursuant
to sections 110, 111, and 112 of the Act.  In determining which
of the activities normally associated with State Implementation
Plan (SIP) development are to be funded by permit fees, for
instance, States should include those activities to the extent
they are necessary for the issuance and implementation of part 70
permits.  Accordingly, if a SIP provision requires that a State
perform or review a modeling demonstration of a source's impact
on ambient air quality as part of the permit application process,
the State's costs which .arise from the modeling demonstration
(which are ordinarily ndt permit program costs) must be covered
by permit fees.

     Second, the revisions provide that case-by-case maximum
achievable control technology determinations for modified/
constructed and reconstructed major toxic sources under
section 112(g) of the Act are considered permit program costs,
even if the determination preceded the issuance of the part 70
permit.  This position is consistent with the Agency's guidance
on Title V Program Approval Criteria for Section 112 Activities
(issued April 13, 1993).  In that guidance, EPA explained that in
order to obtain approval of their title V permit programs, States
must take responsibility for implementing all applicable
requirements of .section 112, including section 112(g), to fulfill
their broader obligation to issue title V permits which
incorporate all applicable requirements of the Act.  For this
reason, these section 112 activities are appropriately viewed as
permit program costs and thus funded with permit fees.

     Third, the revisions clarify in section II.L that
enforcement costs incurred prior to the filing of an
administrative or judicial complaint are considered permit
program costs, including the issuance of notices, findings, and
letters of violation, as well as development and referral to
prosecutorial agencies of enforcement cases.  This approach is
based on legislative history which indicates that Congress viewed
the filing of complaints as the beginning of enfbrcement actions
for purposes of the statutory provision that excludes "court
costs or other costs associated with any enforcement action" from
the costs to be recovered through permit fees.
                                                                    257

-------
         Fourth,  the  revisions  take  a  different approach to
    "State-only"  requirements which  are part  of the  title V permit by
    concluding that part  70  does  not require  that permit fees cover
    the  costs  of  implementing and enforcing such conditions,  since
    theirule requires that States designate these requirements as not
    federally  enforceable.

         Fifth, the attachment  modifies the discussion of the extent
    to which title V  fees must  fund  the costs of permit  programs
    under provisions  of the  Act other  than title V.  After carefully
    considering section 110(a)(2)(L) (which requires that every major
    source covered by a permit  program required under the Act pay a
    fee  to fund the permit program), as it relates to section
    502(b)(3)  in  general, and section  502(b)(3)(A)(ii) in particular,
    EPA  has concluded that title  V fees must  cover the costs  of
    implementing  and  enforcing  not only title V permits  but of any
    other permits required under  the Act, regardless of  when  issued.
    This result makes sense, since the title  V permit will
    incorporate the terms of other permits required  under the Act so
    that enforcing title  V permits will have  the effect  of
    implementing  and  enforcing  those permit requirements as well.
    However, the  costs of reviewing  and acting on applications for
    permits required  under Act  provisions other than title  V  need not
    be recouped by title  V fees.  In conclusion, the costs  of
    implementing  and  enforcing  all permits required  under the Act
    must be considered in determining  whether a State's  fee revenue
    is adequate to support its  title V program.  However,  States  may
    opt  to retain separate mechanisms  and procedures for collecting
    permit fees for other permitting programs under  the  Act,  provided
    the  fees covering the costs of implementing and  enforcing permits
    are  included  in the determination  of fee  adequacy for purposes of
    title V.

         Although most of the changes  outlined today are not  expected
    to affect  significantly  whether  EPA will  find fee programs based
    on the earlier guidance  adequate,  we will assist States in
    resolving  any difficulties  which may have resulted from reliance
    on the December 18 guidance.

         As a  means of providing  support for  the Regional Offices and
    States on  fee approval issues, we  invite  early submittal  of fee
    analyses (separate from  the entire program submittal)  from
    States, particularly  those  which propose  to charge less than  the
    presumptive fee minimum.  We  will  assist  Regional Offices in
    reviewing  these submittals  with  respect to the requirements of
    title  V.   Case-by-case reviews of  fee programs which you  believe
    are  ripe for  review offer a timely opportunity to provide
    additional guidance on this issue.
258

-------
     If you would like us to assist with review of a State's fee
program, please contact Kirt Cox.  For further information,
you may call Kirt at (919) 541-5399 or Candace Carraway at _
(919) 541-3189.

Attachment

cc:  Air Branch Chief, Regions I-X
     Regional Counsel, Regions I-X
     M. Shapiro
     J. Kurtzweg
     A. Eckert
     B. Jordan
     R. Kellam
     J. Rasnie
                                                                    259

-------
                                ATTACHMENT
                GUIDANCE FOR STATE FEE PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
     I.    GENERAL PRINCIPLES

          States must collect,  from part 70 sources,  fees adequate to
          fund the reasonable direct and indirect costs of the permits
          program.

          Only funds collected from part 70 sources may be used to
          fund a State's title V permits program.   Legislative
          appropriations, other funding mechanisms such as vehicle
          license fees,  and section 105 funds cannot  be used to fund
          these permits  program activities.

     •     The 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act (Act)  generally
          require a broader range of permitting activities than are
          currently addressed by most State and local permits
         >programs.  Title V and part 70 contain a nonexclusive list
          of types of activities which must be funded by permit fees.

          Title V fees present a new opportunity to improve permits
          program implementation where funding has been inadequate in
          the past.

          The fee revenue needed to cover the reasonable  direct and
          indirect costs of the permits program may not be used for
          any purpose except to fund the permits program.   However,
          title V does not limit State discretion to  collect fees
          pursuant to independent State authority beyond  the minimum
          amount required by title V.   The evaluation of  State fee
          program adequacy for  part 70 approval purposes  will be based
          solely on whether the fees will be sufficient to fund all
          permit program costs.

          Any fee program which collects aggregate revenues less than
          the $25 per ton per year (tpy)  presumptive  minimum will  be
          subject to close Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
          scrutiny.

          If credible evidence  is presented to EPA which  raises
          serious questions regarding whether the  presumptive minimum
          amount of fee  revenue is sufficient to fund the permits
          program adequately, the State must provide  a detailed
          demonstration  as to the adequacy of its  fee schedule to  fund
          the direct and indirect costs of the permits program.
260

-------
     The  EPA encourages State legislatures to include flexible
     fee  authority in State statutes so as to allow flexibility
     to manage fee adjustments if needed in light of program
     experience,  audits, and accounting reports.  States should
     be able to adapt their fee schedules in a timely way in
     response to new information and new program requirements.


II.  ACTIVITIES EXPECTED TO BE FUNDED BY PERMIT FEES

A.   Overview.

          Permits program fees must cover all reasonable direct
          and indirect costs of the title V permits program
          incurred by State and/or local agencies.  For example,
          fees must cover the cost of permitting affected units
          under section 404 of the Act, even though such sources
          may be subject to special treatment with respect to
          payment of permit fees.

          In making the determination as to whether an activity
          is a title V permits program activity, EPA will
          consider the design of the individual State's title V
          program and its relationship to its comprehensive air
          quality program.  State design of its air program,
          including its State Implementation Plan (SIP), will in
          some cases determine whether a particular activity is
          properly considered a permits program activity.  For
          example, if a SIP provision requires that a State
          perform or review a modeling demonstration of a
          source's impact on ambient air quality as part of the
          permit application process, the State's costs which
          arise from the modeling demonstration  (which are
          ordinarily not permit program costs) would be part of
          the  State's title V program costs.  Because the nature
          of  permitting-related activities can vary from State to
          State, the EPA intends to evaluate each program
          individually  using the definition of  "permit program
          costs"  in the final regulation.

          In  general,  EPA expects that title V  permit fees will
          fund the activities listed below.  However, in
          evaluating State program  submittals,  EPA will consider
          the particular design  and attributes  of the State
          program.   It  is  important to note that the activities
          lasted  below  may not represent  the  full range of
          activities to be covered  by permit  fees.
          Implementation experience may demonstrate that
          additional activities  are appropriately added to this
          list.   Additionally, some States may  have further
                                                                     261

-------
               program needs based on the particularities of their own
               air quality issues and program structure.

               States may use permit fees to hire contractors to
               support permitting activities.

     B.   Initial program submittal, including:

               Development of documentation required for program
               submittal, including program description, documentation
               of adequate resources to implement program, letter from
               Governor, Attorney General's opinion.

               Development of implementation agreement between State
               and Regional Office.

     C.   Part 70 program development,  including:

               Staff training.

          -    Permits program infrastructure development, including:

               *    Legislative authority.

               *    Regulations.

               *    Guidance.

               *    Policy, procedures,  and forms.

               *    Integration of operating permits program with
                    other programs [e.g.,  SIP,  new source review
                  ,  (NSR), section 112].

               *    Data systems (including AIRS-compatible systems
                    for submitting permitting information to EPA,
                    permit tracking system)  for title V purposes.

               *    Local program development,  State oversight of
                   •local programs, modifications of grants of
                    authority to local  agencies,  as needed.

               *    Justification for program elements which are
                    different from but  equivalent to required program
                    elements.

               Permits program modifications which  may be triggered by
               new Federal requirements/policies,  new standards [e.g.,
               maximum achievable control technology (MACT),  SIP,
               Federal implementation plan],  or audit results.
262

-------
D.   Permits program coverage/applicability determinations,
     including:

          Creating an inventory of part 70 sources.

          Development of program criteria for deferral of
          nonmajor sources consistent with the discretion
          provided to States in part 70.

          Application of deferral criteria to individual sources.

          Development of significance levels (for exempting
          certain information from inclusion on permits
          application).

          Development and implementation of federally-enforceable
          restrictions on a source's potential to emit in order
          to avoid it being considered a major source.

E.   Permits application review, including:

     -    Completeness review of applications.

          Technical analysis of application content.

          Review of compliance plans, schedules, and compliance
          certifications.

F.   General and model permits, including:

          Development.

          Implementation.

G.   Development of permit terms and conditions, including:

          Operational flexibility provisions.

     -    Netting/trading conditions.

          Filling gaps within applicable requirements (e.g.,
          periodic monitoring and testing).
                 i
          Appropriate compliance conditions (e.g., inspection
          and entry, monitoring and reporting).

          Screen/separate "State-only" requirements from the
          federally-enforceable requirements.
                                4

                                                                    263

-------
              Development of  source-specific  permit  limitations
              [e.g.,  section  112(g)  determinations,  equivalent SIP
              emissions  limits pursuant  to  70.6(a)(1)(iii)]•

              Optional shield provisions.

    H.   Public/EPA participation, including:

              Notices to public, affected States and EPA  for
              issuance,  renewal, significant  modifications and (if
              required by State law) for minor modifications
              (including staff time  and  publication  costs).

              Response to comments received.

              Hearings (as appropriate)  for issuance, renewal,
              significant modifications, and  (if required by State
              law) for minor  modifications  (including preparation,
              administration, response,  and documentation).

              Transmittal to  EPA of  necessary documentation for
              review  and response to EPA objection.

              90-day  challenges to permits terms in  State court,
              petitions  for EPA objection.

    I.   Permit revisions, including:

              Development of  criteria and procedures for the
              following  different types  of permit revisions:

              *    Administrative amendments.

              *    Minor modifications (fast-track and group
                   processing).
                    i

              *    Significant modifications.

              Analysis and processing of proposed revisions.

    J.   Reopenings:

              For cause.

              Resulting  from new emissions standards.
264

-------
K.   Activities.relating to other sections of the Act which are
     also needed in order to issue and implement part 70 permits,
     including:

          Certain section 110 activities, such as:

          *    Emissions inventory compilation requirements.

          *    Equivalency determinations and case-by-case
               reasonably available control technology
               determinations if done as part of the part 70
               permitting process.

          Implementation and enforcement of
          preconstruction permits issued to part 70
          sources pursuant to title I of the Act,
          including:

          *    State minor NSR permits issued pursuant to a
               program approved into the SIP.

          *    Prevention of significant deterioration/NSR
               permits issued pursuant to Parts C and D of
               title I of the Act.

          Implementation of Section 111 standards through part 70
          permits i

          Implementation of the following section 112
          requirements through part 70 permits:

          *    'National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
               Pollutants  (NESHAP) promulgated under
               section 112(d) according to the timetable
               specified in section 112(e).

          *    The  NESHAP  promulgated undet section 112(f)
               subsequent  to EPA's study of the residual risks
               to the public health.

          *    Section 11,2(h) design, equipment, work practice,
               or operational standards.

          Development and  implementation of certain section 112
          requirements through part 70 permits, including:

          *    Section 112(g) program requirements for
               constructed, reconstructed, and modified major
               sources.                                ;
                                 6

                                                                      265

-------
               *    Section 112(1) early reductions.

               *    Section 112(j) equivalent MACT determinations.

               *    Section 112(1) State air toxics program activities
                    that take place as part of the part 70 permitting
                    process.

               *    Section 112(r)(7) risk management plans if the
                    plan is developed as part of the permits process.

     L.   Compliance and enforcement-related activities to the extent
          that these activities occur prior to the filing of an
          administrative or judicial complaint or order.  These
          activities include the following to the extent they are
          related to the enforcement of a permit, the obligation to
          obtain a permit, or the permitting regulations:

          -    Development and administration of enforcement
               legislation, regulations, and policy and guidance.

          -    Development of compliance plans and schedules of
               compliance.

       !   -    Compliance and monitoring activities.

               *    Review of monitoring reports and compliance
                    certifications.

               *    Inspections.

               *    Audits.

               *    Stack tests conducted/reviewed by the permitting
                    authority.

               *    Requests for information either before or after a
                    violation is identified (e.g., requests similar to
                    EPA's section 114 letters).

               Enforcement-related activities.

               *    Preparation and issuance of  notices, findings,  and
                    letters of violation [NOV's,  FOV's,  LOV's].

               *    Development of cases and referrals up until the
                    filing of the complaint or order.
266

-------
          Excluded are all enforcement/compliance monitoring
          costs which are incurred after the filing of an
          administrative or judicial complaint.
M.   The portion of the Small Business Assistance Program which
     provides:
          Counseling to help sources determine and meet their
          obligations under part 70, including:
          *    Applicability.
          *    Options for sources to which part 70 applies.
          Outreach/publications on part 70 requirements.
   '  -    Direct part 70 permitting assistance.
N.   Permit fee program administration, including:
          Fee structure development.
          Fee demonstration.
          *    projection of fee revenues.
          *    Projection of program costs if detailed
               demonstration is required.
          Fee collection and administration.
          Periodic  cost accounting.
0.   General air program activities to the extent they are
     also necessary for the issuance and  implementation of
     part 70 permits.
          Emissions and ambient monitoring.
          Modeling  and analysis.
          Demonstrations.
          Emissions inventories.
          Administration  and technical support (e.g., managerial
          costs,  secretarial/clerical costs,  labor  indirect
          costs,  copying  costs, contracted  services,  accounting
          and  billing).
                                                                     267

-------
               Overhead (e.g., heat, electricity, phone, rent, and
               janitorial services).
                     i
               States will need to develop a rational method based on
               sound accounting principles for segregating the above
               costs of the permits program from other costs of the
               air program.  The cost figures and methodology will be
               reviewed by EPA on a case-by-case basis.


     III.  FLEXIBILITY IN FEE STRUCTURE DESIGN

     A.   A State may design its fee structure as it deems
          appropriate, provided the fee structure raises sufficient
          revenue to cover all reasonable direct and indirect permits
          program costs.

     B.   Provided adequate aggregate revenue is raised, States may:

               Base fees on actual emissions or allowable emissions.

               Differentiate fees based on source categories or type
               of pollutant.

               Exempt some sources from fee requirements.

               Determine fees on some basis other than emissions.

               Charge annual fees or fees covering some other period
               of time.


     IV.  INITIAL PROGRAM APPROVABILITY CRITERIA

     A.   Elements of State program subraittals which relate to permit
          fees.

               Demonstration that fee revenues in the aggregate will
               adequately fund the permits program.

               Initial accounting to demonstrate that permit fee
               revenues required to support the reasonable direct  and
               indirect permits program costs are in fact used to  fund
               permits program costs.

               Statement that the program is adequately funded by
               permit fees (which is supported by cost estimates for
               the first 4 years of the permits program).
268

-------
B.   Methods by which a State may demonstrate that its fee
     schedule is sufficient to fund its title V permits program:
                                         i
          Demonstration that its fee revenue in the aggregate
          will meet or exceed the $25/tpy (with CPI adjustment)
          presumptive minimum amount.

          Detailed fee demonstration.

          *    Required if fees in the aggregate are less than
               the presumptive minimum or if credible evidence is
               presented raising serious questions during public
               comment on whether fee schedule is sufficient or
               information casting doubt on fee adequacy
               otherwise comes to EPA's attention.

C.   Computation of $25/tpy presumptive minimum.

          The emissions inventory against which the $25/tpy is
          applied is calculated as follows:

          *    Calculate emissions inventory using actual
               emissions (and estimates of actual emissions).

          *    From the total emissions of part 70 sources,
               exclude emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) and
               other pollutants consistent with the definition of
               "regulated pollutant (for presumptive fee
               purposes)."

          *    States may:

                    Exclude emissions which exceed 4,000 tpy per
                    pollutant per source.

                    Exclude emissions which are already included
                    in the calculation (i.e., double-counting is
                    not required).

                    Exclude insignificant quantities of emissions
                    not required in a permit application.

          *    States have two options with respect to emissions
               from affected units under section 404 of the Act
               during 1995 through 1999.
                                          /
                    If a State excludes emissions from affected
                    units under section 404 from its inventory,
                    fees from those units may not be used to show
                    that the State's fee revenue meets or exceeds
                    the $25/tpy presumptive minimum amount (see
                    paragraph IV.E below).

                                10


                                                                    269

-------
                        If a State includes emissions from affected
                        units under section 404 in  its  inventory,  it
                        may include non-emissions-based fees from
                        those units in showing that its fee revenue
                        meets or exceeds the $25/tpy presumptive
                        minimum amount (see paragraph IV. E below.)

              Computation of the presumptive minimum amount is a
              surrogate for predicting aggregate actual program
              costs.  Once this aggregate cost has  been determined,
              the method used for computing it does not restrict a
              State's discretion in designing its particular fee
              structure.  States may impose fees in a manner
              different from the criteria for calculating the
              presumptive amount (e.g., charging fees for CO
              emissions and for emissions which exceed  4,000 tpy per
              pollutant per source).

    D.   Establishing that fee revenue meets or exceeds the
         presumptive minimum.

              Fee revenue in the aggregate must be  equivalent to
              $25/tpy (as adjusted by CPI) as applied to the
              qualifying emissions inventory.

              States have flexibility in fee schedule design as
              outlined in paragraph III above and are not required to
              adopt any particular fee schedule.

    E.   Fees collected from affected units under section 404.

              States may not use emissions-based fees from "Phase I"
              affected units under section 404 for  any  purpose
              related to the approval of their operating permits
              programs for the period from 1995 through 1999.  The
              EPA interprets the prohibition contained  in section
              408(c)(4) of the Act as preventing EPA from recognizing
              the collection of such fees in determining whether a
              State has met its obligation for adequate program
              funding.  Furthermore, such fees cannot be used to
              support the direct or indirect costs  of the permits
              program.  However, States may, on their own initiative,
              impose title V emissions-based fees on affected units
              under section 404 and use such revenues to fund
              activities beyond those required pursuant to title V.

              *    All units initially classified as "Phase I" units
                   are listed in Table I of 40 CFR  part 73.  In
                   addition, units designated as active substitution
                   units under section 404(b) are considered
                   "Phase I" affected units under section 404.
                                    11

270

-------
          States may collect fees which are not emissions based
          (e.g., application or processing fees) from such units.

          Role of nonemissions-based fees in determining adequacy
          of aggregate fee revenue.

          *    Such fees may be used as part of a detailed fee
               demonstration (which does not rely on the $25/tpy
               presumption).

          *    Such fees may not be used to establish that
               aggregate fees meet or exceed the presumptive
               minimum amount unless the State exercises its
               discretion to include emissions from affected
               units under section 404 in the emissions inventory
               against which the $25/tpy is applied.

F.   Fee program accountability.

          Initial accounting (required as part of program
          submittal) comprised of a description of the mechanisms
          and procedures for ensuring that fees needed to support
          the reasonable direct and indirect costs of the program
          are utilized solely for permits program costs.

     -    Periodic accounting every 2-3 years to demonstrate that
          the reasonable direct and indirect costs of the program
          were covered by fee revenues.

     -    Earlier accounting or more frequent accountings if EPA
          determines through its oversight activities that a
          program's inadequate implementation may be the result
          of inadequate funding.

G.   Governor's statement assuring adequate personnel and funding
     for permits program.

          Submitted as part of program submittal.

          A statement supported by annual estimates of permits
          program costs for the first 4 years after program
          approval and a description of how the State plans to
          cover those costs.

          *    Detailed description of estimated annual costs is
               not required if the State has relied on the
               presumptive minimum amount in demonstrating the
               adequacy of its fee program,.
                               12

                                                                    271

-------
               *     Detailed  description  of  estimated  costs  for a
                    4-year  period showing how program  activities and
                    resource  needs will change during  the  transition
                    period  is required if State proposes to  collect
                    fee  revenue  which is  less than  the presumptiye
                    minimum amount.

               Projection of  annual  fee revenue for a  4-year period
               with  explanation  of how State will handle any temporary
               shortfall (if  projected revenue for  any of  the 4 years
               is  less than estimated costs).
    V.   FUTURE ADJUSTMENTS TO FEE SCHEDULE

    A.   Continuing  requirement of fee revenue adequacy.

              Obligates the States to update and adjust their fee
              schedules periodically if they are not sufficient to
              fund the reasonable direct and indirect costs of the
              permits program.

    B.   Changes in  fee structure over time are inevitable and may be
         required by the following events:

              Results of periodic audits/accountings.

              Revised number of part 70 sources (discovery of new
              sources, new EPA standards, expiration of the deferral
              of nonmajor sources).

              Changes in the number of permit revisions.

              Changes in the number of affected units under
              section 404 (e.g., substitution units).

              CPI-type adjustments.

              Different activities during post-transition period.
                                    13

272

-------
                         NOTICE
The policies set out in this guidance document are
intended solely as guidance and do not represent final
Agency action and are not ripe for judicial review.
They are not intended, nor can they be relied upon, to
create any rights enforceable by any party in
litigation with the United States.  The EPA officials
may decide to follow the guidance provided in this
guidance document, or to act at variance with the
guidance, based on an analysis of specific
circumstances.  The EPA also may change this guidance
at any time without public notice.
                           14


                                                               273

-------
               UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                     Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
                    Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 2771 1


                               APR  26 1993
    MEMORANDUM
    SUBJECT:   Definition of Regulated Air Pollutant for
              Purposes of Title V
    FROM:      Lydia N. Wegman, Deputy Director
              Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards  (MD-iO)

    TO:        Air Division Director, Regions I-X
                   I

         In response to requests for guidance on the definition of
    regulated air pollutant, this memorandum clarifies the approach
    set forth by the definition in the 40 CFR part 70 regulations and
    indicates the ways in which the class of regulated air pollutants
    can change.  The attachment provides a compilation of the lists
    of pollutants which are considered regulated air pollutants for
    purposes of the operating permits programs under title V of the
    Clean Air Act (Act) .  This memorandum also provides guidance on
    the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) definition of air
    pollutant, as that term is used in determining major source
    status pursuant to section 302 of the Act.  Finally, this
    memorandum emphasizes the ability of permitting authorities to
    designate certain quantities of emissions of regulated air
    pollutants as "insignificant" with respect to the obligation to
    report emissions of those pollutants in permit applications.  The
    policies set out in this memorandum and attachment are intended
    solely as guidance, not final Agency action, and cannot be relied
    upon to create any rights enforceable by any party.

    I,  Regulated Air Pollutants

         The definition of regulated air pollutant, found at
    40 CFR 70.2, is important because it determines which pollutants
    and emissions units must be addressed in a source's title V
    permit application.  In addition, this definition can affect
    whether a State's fee revenue is presumed adequate to fund its
    title V program and, in some cases, the amount of permit fees a
    source must pay.   Each of these roles is discussed below.

         Once a source is subject to a title V permitting program,
    its  emissions of all regulated air pollutants (except those which
    meet the permitting authority's criteria for "insignificant"
274

-------
emissions) must be described in the permit application along with
all emissions of pollutants for which the source is considered
major.  Similarly, applications must describe all emissions units
which emit regulated air pollutants (except those deemed
insignificant).

     In addition!, the concept of regulated air pollutant plays a
significant role in the area of permit fees.  Most importantly,
the definition of regulated air pollutant is the starting point
for determining which pollutants must be included when relying on
the $25 ton per year (as adjusted by the Consumer Price Index)
presumptive minimum program cost as a basis for demonstrating the
adequacy of a State's projected fee revenue.  As part of this
demonstration, the State projects its revenue using a subset of
regulated air pollutants (i.e., regulated pollutant (for
presumptive fee calculation)].

     The population of regulated air pollutants is composed of
the following categories of pollutants:

      (1)  Nitrogen oxides (NOJ  and  volatile organic compounds
(VOC).  The definition of regulated air pollutant specifically
includes these two significant precursors to ozone (O3)
formation.  This approach is consistent with the Act's treatment
of VOC and NOK pursuant to part D  of title I of the Act  [these O3
precursors are combined with the criteria pollutants for purposes
of the attached list of regulated pollutants].

      (2)  Any pollutant for which a national ambient air quality
standard has been promulgated  (i.e., particulate matter (measured
as PM-10:  particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or
equal to a nominal 10 micrometers),  sulfur dioxide,  O3/  nitrogen
dioxide, carbon monoxide, and lead].

      (3)  Any pollutant that is subject to a new source
performance standard promulgated under section 111 of the Act
(including section lll(d)],  which requires new and modified
sources to satisfy emissions standards, work practice ,standards,
and other requirements.

      (4)  Any of the O3-depleting  substances specified as  a
Class I (primarily chlorofluorocarbons) or Class II substance
(hydrochlorofluorocarbons)  under title VI of the Act  (all of
which became regulated pollutants when they became subject to
standards and requirements for servicing of motor vehicle air
conditioners, and restrictions on the sale of O3-depleting
substances promulgated into 40 CFR part 82  (57 FR 31242, July 14,
1992)].
                                                                    275

-------
         (S)  Any pollutant subject to a standard promulgated under
   section 112 or other  requirements  established under  section 112
   of the Act, including section 112(g)(2),  (j), and  (r) of  the Act.

         It is important  to note that  it is EPA's interpretation that
   if a  pollutant is regulated for one source category  by a  standard
   or other requirement,  then the pollutant  is considered a
   regulated air pollutant for all source categories.   This  concept
   is relevant to all  the pollutants  listed  under  items (3),  (4),
   and  (5) above, with one exception:   those which are  the subject
   of case-by-case maximum achievable control technology (MACT)
   determinations under  section 112(g)(2).

         The issue of when a substance regulated under section 112
   becdmes a regulated air pollutant  merits  further discussion.

   •     When a permitting authority makes a  case-by-case MACT
         determination  under section 112(g)(2), then the pollutant
         for which the  determination is made  is regulated even though
         EPA has not issued a standard for that pollutant.  However,
         the pollutant  is considered regulated only with respect to
         the individual source for which the  MACT determination was
         made.

   •     A pollutant will become regulated under section 112(j)  of
         the Act [the MACT hammer] if  the Administrator  fails to
         promulgate a standard by the  date established pursuant to
         section 112(e) of the Act. Pursuant to section 112(j),
         permitting authorities will be required to make case-by-case
         MACT equivalent   determinations.  The pollutants become
         regulated nationwide upon the date this provision takes
         effect for the pollutant [i.e.,  18 months  after the  missed
         deadline for the standard, but not prior to 42  months after
         the enactment  of the Act Amendments  of 1990  (1990
         Amendments)].  Pollutants so  regulated are considered
         regulated air  pollutants for  all sources that emit the
         pollutant because the hammer  provision is  a broadly-
         applicable surrogate for the  promulgation  of a  MACT
         standard.  This  is in contrast to the section 112(g)(2)
         determinations which are triggered only for the single
         source subject to the requirement, rather  than  nationwide.

   •     The EPA's proposed rule [required by section  112(r)(3)]
         listing substances which could cause, or may reasonably be
         anticipated to cause, death,  injury, or serious adverse
         effects to human health or the environment,  if  accidentally
         released, was  published in the Federal Register on
         January 19, 1993 (58 FR 5102).  All  of the listed pollutants
         will become regulated air pollutants upon  promulgation of
         the list.
276

-------
     The attachment to this memorandum contains a list of
pollutants which are regulated, as well as a list of pollutants
which are subject to regulation under section 112 in the future,
as discussed above.  It is also important to note that the
attached lists are dynamic and subject to change.  For example,
the EPA is required to review periodically the statutory list of
pollutants in section 112(b) and is authorized to delete and add
substances if the scientific data demonstrate that such a change
is appropriate.
                                         i
     We have attempted to note the likely near-term changes in
the regulations that determine which pollutants are regulated air
pollutants, and we will provide updates to this guidance
periodically.

     The definition of regulated air pollutant does not limit the
air pollutants which a State may choose to regulate, nor does it
limit the information (such as for permit applications) which a
State may require of a source.  States are free to adopt more
expansive approaches to the regulation of toxic air pollutants
than is required by part 70.

II.  Definition of Air Pollutant Pursuant to Section 302

     Considerable interest has been expressed in a related but
distinct area:  the definition of air pollutant contained in
section 302 (g) of the Act.  This definition governs which
pollutants are to be considered in determining whether a source
is "major" pursuant to section 302(j) of the Act.  This is
important to the operating permits programs because all major
sources must obtain a title V permit.  Although section 302(g)
can be read quite broadly, so as to encompass virtually any
substance emitted into the atmosphere, EPA believes that it is
more consistent with the  intent of Congress to interpret this
provision more narrowly.  Were this not done, a variety of
sources that have no known prospect for future regulation under
the Act would nonetheless be classified as major sources and be
required to apply for title V permits.  Of particular concern
would be sources of carbon dioxide or methane.

     As a result, EPA is  interpreting "air pollutant" for
section 302(g) purposes as limited to all pollutants subject to
regulation under the Act.  This would include, of course, all
regulated air pollutants plus others specified by the Act or by
EPA rulemaking.  This approach results in the inclusion of the
pollutants on the list of hazardous air pollutants in section
112(b) that are not otherwise regulated.  It should be noted that
the 1990 Amendments did include provisions with respect to carbon
dioxide (section 821) and methane (section 603), but these
requirements involve actions such as reporting and study, not
                                                                   277

-------
    actual control of emissions.  Therefore, these provisions do not
    preempt EPA's discretion to exclude thesfe pollutants in
    determining whether a source is major.  If the results of the
    studies required by the 1990 Amendments suggest the need for
    regulation, these pollutants could be reconsidered at that time
    for classification as pollutants subject to regulation under the
    Act.

         This approach to interpreting section 302(g) is similar to
    the traditional practice of the prevention of significant
    deterioration (PSD) program under part C of title I of the Act
    [e.g., Implementation of North County Resource Recovery PSD
    Remand, Gerald Emison, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning
    and Standards, dated September 22, 1987].

    III.  De Minimis Thresholds

         With the 1990 Amendments, the Act expressly addresses a
    significantly broader range of pollutants.  The EPA believes that
    this will confer real benefits to air quality management, and
    that the title V permits program offers the flexibility for
    efficient implementation of these requirements.  This function
    includes providing information about emissions of these
    pollutants, through the permit application process, even if the
    particular pollutant is not currently required to be controlled
    at the individual source.  The EPA also realizes that in many
    cases these pollutants are emitted in amounts of no significance
    to air quality management.  It would be unduly burdensome to
    require permit applicants to quantify all emissions of these
    pollutants, especially given their considerable number and, in
    some cases, difficulty in quantification.

         The part 70 promulgation recognized this fact but gave only
    very general guidance as to the approvable options for States in
    developing their part 70 programs.  Section 70.5(c) provides that
    "[T]he Administrator may approve as part of a State program a
    list of insignificant activities and emissions levels which need
    not be included in permit applications."   The regulation further
    provides that M[T]he permitting authority shall require
    additional information related to the emissions of air pollutants
    sufficient to verify which requirements are applicable to the
    source, and other information needed to collect any permit fees
    owed under the fee schedule approved pursuant to section 70.9(b)
    of this part" [section 70.5(c)(3)(i)].

         In order to aid States in establishing their approaches to
    insignificant activities and emissions levels, EPA intends to
    review various approaches to setting de minimis thresholds for
    reporting of emissions of air pollutants and provide advice and
    guidance as needed on what constitutes acceptable approaches  for
    setting de minirois levels.  This effort will include evaluation
    of data compiled by EPA's national toxics program as well as
278

-------
review of current practices among some States that have been
regulating these pollutants.  The EPA recognizes that the
particular thresholds selected by individual states can vary
based on their air quality management needs and professional
judgement.  The EPA's further efforts in this area will be
offered as technical support and guidance to State and local
programs in addressing these challenging issues, not as mandatory
program minima.  The EPA will work with states to develop part 70
programs that will best meet their program needs.

     For further information, please contact Kirt Cox or
Candace Carraway of my staff at  (919) 541-5399 and
(919) 541-3189, respectively.

Attachments

cc:  Air Branch Chief, Regions I-X
     Operating Permits Program Contacts, Regions I-X
     OAQPS Division Directors
                                                                    279

-------
     Attachment 1


                      LIST OF REGULATED AIR POLLUTANTS
                             (AS Of April 1993)

     I.  Pollutants for Which National Ambient Air Quality  Standards
         (NAAQS) Have Been Established

     lead
     sulfur dioxide
     nitrogen dioxide
     carbon monoxide
     particulate matter (PM-10)
     ozone, including precursors:
          nitrogen oxides  (NO, NO2, NO3/ N2O,  N2O3,  N2O<,  N^)
          volatile organic compounds (VOC)

          As defined in 40 CFR 51.100(s), the term VOC includes any
     compound of carbon (excluding carbon monoxide, carbon  dioxide,
     carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium
     carbonate) which participates in atmospheric photochemical
     reactions.  The EPA has developed a list of substances (which is
     subject to change) which are  excluded from the VOC definition
     because of their negligible reactivity.  The EPA's proposal to
     exclude perchloroethylene from the definition was published in
     57 FR 48490 (October 26, 1992).

          The following organic compounds are excluded from the
     definition of VOC because they have been determined to have
     negligible photochemical reactivity:

     methane
     ethane
     raethylene chloride (dichloromethane)
     1,1,1-trichloroethane (methyl chloroform)
     1,1,l-trichloro-2,2,2-trifluoroethane (CFC-113)
     trichlorofluoromethane  (CFC-11)
     dichlorodifluoromethane  (CFC-12)
     chlorodifluoromethane (CFC-22)
     trifluoromethane (FC-23)
     1,2-dichloro 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane  (CFC-114)
     chloropentafluoroethane  (CFC-115)
     1,1,1-trifluoro 2,2-dichloroethane  (HCFC-123)
     1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane  (HFC-134a)
     1,1-dichloro l-'f luoroethane  (HCFC-141b)
     1-chloro 1,1-difluoroethane  (HCFC-142b)
     2-chloro-l,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane  (HCFC-124)
     pentafluoroethane (HFC-125)
     1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane  (HFC-134)
     1/1,1-trifluoroethane (HFC-143a)
     1,1-difluoroethane (HFC-152a)
280

-------
perfluorocarbon compounds which fall into •these classes:

     (i)   Cyclic, branched, or linear, completely
          fluorinated alkanes;
                 N
    (ii)   Cyclic, branched, or linear, completely
          fluorinated ethers with no unsaturations;

   (iii)   Cyclic, branched, or linear, completely
          fluorinated tertiary amines with no
          unsaturations; and

    (iv)   Sulfur containing perfluorocarbons with no
          unsaturations and with sulfur bonds only to
          carbon and fluorine.

II.  Pollutants Regulated Under New Source Performance
     Standards (NSPS)

Criteria pollutants  (including VOC and NOX)  plus:

dioxin/furan  (defined in 40 CFR 60.53a to mean total tetra
through octachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans)*
fluorides
hydrogen chloride*
hydrogen sulfide  (H2S)
sulfuric acid mist
total reduced sulfur
reduced sulfur compounds
total suspended particulate

*  The NSPS for municipal waste combustors (MWC)  controls
emissions of dioxin/furans and hydrogen chloride gas  (40  CFR
60.53a and 60.54£) as surrogates for controlling emissions  of
organic compounds and acid gases which are emitted in the exhaust
gases from MWC units.  Thus, the indicated dioxin/furan compounds
and hydrogen chloride are regulated pollutants.

     Note that the EPA has drafted a proposed revision to the
NSPIS for MWC's which will regulate substances like cadmium  which
are not currently regulated air pollutants.  As this revised NSPS
and other standards are developed, there.may be additions to the
list of regulated pollutants.            ,
                                                                    281

-------
    III.  Class  I  and Class II Substances Under Title VI
   Class  I  Substances:

   carbon tetrachloride
   chlorofluorocarbon-11
   chlorofluorocarbon-12
   chlorofluorocarbon-13
   chlorofluorocarbon-111
   chlorofluorocarbon-112
   chlorofluorocarbon-113
   chlorofluorocarbon-114
   chlorofluorocarbon-115
   chlorofluorocarbon-211
   chlorofluorocarbon-212
   chlorofluorocarbon-213
   chlorofluorocarbon-214
   chlorofluorocarbon-215
   chlorofluorocarbon-216
   chlorofluorocarbon-217
   halon-1211
   halon-1301
   halon-2402
   methyl chloroform

   Class  II Substances:
    hydrochlorofluorocarbon-21
    hydrochlorofluorocarbon-2 2
    hydrochlorofluorocarbon-31
    .hydrochlorofluorocarbon-121
    hydrochlorofluorocarbon-122
    hydrochlorofluorocarbon-123
    hydrochlorofluorocarbon-124
    hydrochlorofluorocarbon-131
    hydrochlorofluorocarbon-132
    hydrochlorofluorocarbon-133
    hydrochlorofluorocarbon-141
    hydrochlorofluorocarbon-142
    hydrochlorofIuorocarbonf221
    hydrochlorofluorocarbon-222
    hydrochlorofluorocarbon-22 3
    hydrochlorofluorocarbon-2 2 4
    hydrochlorofluorocarbon-2 2 5
    hydrochlorofluorocarbon-2 2 6
    hydrochlorofluorocarbon-2 31
    hydrochlorofluorocarbon-232
    hydrochlorofluorocarbon-233
    hydrochlorofluorocarbon-2 3 4
    hydrochlorofluorocarbon-2 3 5
    hydrochlorofluorocarbon-241
    hydrochlorofluorocarbon-2 4 2
(CFC-11)
(CFC-12)
(CFC-13)
 (CFC-111)
 (CFC-112)
 (CFC-113)
 (CFC-114)
 (CFC-115)
 (CFC-211)
 (CFC-212)
 (CFC-213)
 (CFC-214)
 (CFC-215)
 (CFC-216)
 (CFC-217)
     (HCFC-21)
     (HCFC-22)
     (HCFC-31)
      (HCFC-121)
      (HCFC-122)
      (HCFC-123)
      (HCFC-124)
      (HCFC-131)
      (HCFC-132)
      (HCFC-133)
      (HCFC-141)
      (HCFC-142)
      (HCFC-221)
      (HCFC-222)
      (HCFC-223)
      (HCFC-224)
      (HCFC-225)
      (HCFC-226)
      (HCFC-231)
      (HCFC-232)
      (HCFC-233)
      (HCFC-234)
      (HCFC-235)
      (HCFC-241)
      (HCFC-242)
282

-------
hydrochlorofluorocarbon-243
hydrochlorofluorocarbon-24 4
hydrochlorofluorocarbon-2 51
hydrochlorofluorocarbon-252
hydrochlorofluorocarbon-253
hydrochlorofluorocarbon-2 61
hydrochlorof luorocarbon-2 6 2
hydrochlorofluorocarbon-271
(HCFC-243)
(HCFC-244)
(HCFC-251)
(HCFC-252)
(HCFC-253)
(HCFC-261)
(HCFC-262)
(HCFC-271)
IV.  Pollutants Regulated Under §  112

Pollutants for which national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants  (NESHAP) have been  established:

arsenic
asbestos
beryllium
benzene
mercury
radionuclides
vinyl chloride
                                                                      283

-------
   Attachment 2

              POLLUTANTS SUBJECT TO REGULATION UNDER S 112

   I.  Pollutants  listed  in §  112(b):

        The  189 pollutants  listed  in S  112 (b) are not considered
   regulated air pollutants until  addressed in a requirement that
   the pollutant be controlled by  a source.  None of the  listed
   pollutants meets ,the definition except asbestos, benzene,  and
   vinyl chloride  (ror  which NESHAP have been established);  and
   hydrogen  chloride  (gas),  dibenzofurans, and 2,3,7,8-
   Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (regulated under the municipal waste
   combustor NSPS).   Most of the listed pollutants will become
   regulated when  EPA promulgates  the Hazardous Organic NESHAP  (HON)
   which is  discussed below.   The  remaining pollutants will  become
   regulated:   (1) when EPA promulgates a maximum achievable control
   technology  (MACT)  standard  for  the pollutant under S 112(d);
    (2) for a particular source, when case-by-case MACT
   determinations  are made  under S 112(g) for the source; or
    (3) the later of June  15, 1994  or 18 months after EPA  fails  to
   issue emissions standards for categories of sources in compliance
   with the  timetable promulgated  pursuant to § 112(e) as mandated
   by § 112(j).            ;

        The  § 112(b)  list contains some technical errors  which  will
   be corrected in subsequent  rulemaking.  The majority of the
   technical corrections  likely to be made are noted below.   Also,
   the pollutants  from  the  S 112 (b) list which are addressed in the
   proposed  HON are followed by an asterisk.

   Chemical
   Abstract
   Service
    (CAS)
   Number          Chemical  Name

   75070           Acetaldehyde"
   60355           Acetamide"
   75058           Acetonitrile*
   98862           Acetophenone*
   53963           2-Acetylaminofluorene*
   107028          Acrolein*
   79061           Acrylamide*
   79107           Acrylic acid*
   107131          Acrylonitrile"
   107051          Allyl chloride* ^
   92671           4-Aminobiphenyl*
   62533           Aniline*
   90040           o-Anisidine*
   1332214         Asbestos   .
284

-------
71432
92875
98077
100447
92524
117817
542881
75252
106990
156627
105602
133062
63252
75150
56235
463581
120809
133904
57749
7782505
79118
532274
108907
510156
67663
107302
126998
1319773
95487
108394
106445
98828
94757
 334883
 132649

 96128
 84742
 106467

 91941

 111444
 542756
 62737
 111422
Benzene (including benzene from gasoline)*
Beilzidine"
Benzotrichloride*
Benzyl  chloride*
Biphenyl*
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP)*
Bis(chloromethyl)ether*
Bromoform*
1,3-Butadiene*
Calcium cyanamide
Caprolactam*
Captan
Carbaryl
Carbon  disulfide*
Carbon  tetrachloride"
Carbonyl sulfide*
Catechol*
Chloramben
Chlordane
Chlorine
Chloroacetic acid*
2-Chloroacetophenone*
Chlorobenzene*
Chlorobenzilate
Chloroform"
Chloromethyl methyl ether*
Chloroprene*
Cresols/Cresylic acid (isomers and mixture)*
o-Cresol*
m-Cresol*
p-Cresol*
Cumene"
 2,4-D  (2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, including
salts and esters)*
DDE*  [recommended  technical correction:  CAS number
 72559]   (Itl-dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)
ethylene)
 Diaz omethane*
 Dibenzofurans*  [recommended technical correction:
 Dibenzofuran]
 1,2-Dibrorao-3-chloropropane*
 Dibutylphthalate*
 l,4-Dichlorobenzene(p)* [recommended technical
correction: 1,4-Dichlorobenzene]
 3,3-Dichlorobenzidene* [recommended technical
correction: 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine]
 Dichloroethyl ether (Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether)*
 1,3-Dichloropropene"
 Dichlorvos
 D ie thano lam ine*
                                                                      285

-------
   121697
   64675
   119904

   60117
   119937

   79447

   68122

   57147

   131113
   77781
   51285
   121142
   123911
   122667
   106898
   106887
   140885
   100414

   51796
   75003
   106934
   107062
   107211
   151564
   technical
             75218
             96457
             75343
   (1,1-Dichloroethane)
 N,N-Diethyl aniline  (N,N-Dimethylaniline)"
 [recommended technical correction:
N,N-Dimethylaniline]
 Diethyl sulfate*
 3,3-Dimethoxybenzidine" [recommended technical
correction:  3,3*-Dimethoxybenz idine]
 Dimethyl aminoazobenzene*
 3,3',-Dimethyl benzidine* [recommended technical
correction:  3,3',-Dimethylbenz idine]
 Dimethyl carbamoyl chloride* [recommended
technical correction: Dimethylcarbamoyl chloride]
 Dimethyl formamide* [recommended technical
 correction: N,N-Dimethylformamide]
 1,1-Dimethyl hydrazine* [recommended technical
correction:  1,1-DimethyIhydraz ine]
 Dimethyl phthalate*
 Dimethyl sulfate*
 4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol, and salts* (recommended
 technical correction to remove CAS number]
 2,4-Dinitrophenol*
 2,4-Dinitrotoluene*
 1,4-Dioxane (1,4-Diethyleneoxide)*
 1,2-DiphenyIhydrazine*
 Epichlorohydrin (l-Chloro-2,3-epoxypropane)"
 1,2-Epoxybutane*
 Ethyl acrylate*
 Ethyl benzene* [recommended  technical correction:
 EthyIbenzene]
 Ethyl carbamate (Urethane)"
 Ethyl chloride  (Chloroethane)"
 Ethylene dibromide (Dibroinoethane)"
 Ethylene dichloride  (1,2-Dichloroethane)*
 Ethylene g],ycol*
          iroine  (Aziridine)  [recommended
          correction:  Ethyleneimine  (Aziridine)]
           Ethylene oxide"
           Ethylene thiourea"
           Ethylidene dichloride
                               Formaldehyde*
                              Heptachlor
                             Hexachlorobenzene*
                             Hexachlorobutadiene*
               Ethylene
                              50000
                             76448
                            118741
                            87683
                            77474
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane*
Hexamethylene-1,6-diisocyanate*
Hexamethylphosphoramide*
Hexane*
Hydrazine*
                                                      67721
                                                       822060
                                                       680319
                                                       110543
                                                       302012
286

-------
7647010
7664393
123319
78591
108316
67561
72435
74839
74873
71556
78933
60344

74884
108101
624839
80626
1634044

101144
75092
101688
 101779
 91203
 98953
 92933
 100027
 79469
 684935
 62759
 59892
 56382
 82688
 87865
 108952
 106503
 75445
 7803512
 7723140
 85449
Hydrochloric acid  [recommended  technical
correction:  Hydrochloric  acid  (hydrogen
chloride)(gas only)]
Hydrogen  fluoride  (Hydrofluoric acid)
Hydroquinone*
Isophorone"
Lindane  (all isomers)  [Recommended technical
correction: -1,2,3,4,5,6-Hexachlorocyclohexane (all
stereo isomers,  including  lindane)]
Haleic anhydride*
Methanol*
Methoxychlor
Methyl bromide  (Bromomethane)"
Methyl chloride  (Chloromethane)*
Methyl chloroform  (1,1,1-Trichloroethane)*
Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone)*
Methyl hydrazine" [recommended technical
correction: Methylhydrazine]
Methyl iodide  (lodomethane)*
Methyl isobutyl  ketone (Hexone)*
Methyl isocyanate*
Methyl methacrylate*
Methyl tert butyl  ether* [recommended technical
correction:, Methyl tert-butyl  ether]
4,4-Methylene bis(2-chloroaniline)* [recommended
technical correction:  4,4'-Methylenebis(2-
chloroaniline]
Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane)*
Methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI)"
 [recommended technical correction:
4-4'  Methylenediphenyl diisocyanate (MDI)]
4,4,-Methylenedianiline"
Naphthalene"
Nitrobenzene"
4-Nitrobipheny1*
4 -N i tr opheno 1*
2-Nitropropane*
N-Nitroso-N-methylurea*
N-Nitrosodimethylamine*
N-Nitrosomorpholine"
Parathion
Pentachloronitrobenzene  (Ouintobenzene)
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol*
p-Phenylenediamine*
Phosgene"
Phosphine
Phosphorus
Phthalic anhydride*
                                                                      287

-------
   1336363
   1120714
   57578
   123386
   114261
   78875
   75569
   75558
   91225
   106514
   100425
   96093
   1746016
   79345
   127184
   7550450
   108883
   95807

   584849
   95534
   8001352
   120821
   79005
   79016
   95954
   88062
   121448
   1582098
   540841
   108054
   593602
   75014
   75354
   1330207
   95476

   108383

   106423

   0
   0
   0
   0
   0
   0
   0
   0
   0
Polychlorinated biphenyls (Aroclors)"
1,3-Propane sultone"
beta-Propiolactone*
Propionaldehyde*
Propoxur (Baygon)"
Propylene dichloride (1,2-Dichloropropane)"
Propylene oxide*
1,2-Propylenimine  (2-Methyl aziridine)"
Quinoline
Quinone"
Styrene*
Styrene oxide*
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin*
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane*
Tetrachloroethylene (Perchloroethylene)*
Titanium tetrachloride
Toluene*
2,4-Toluene diamine* [recommended technical
correction: 2,4-Toluenediamine]
2,4-Toluene diisocyanate*
o-Toluidine*
Toxaphene (chlorinated camphene)
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene*
1,1,2-Trichloroethane*
Trichloroethylene*
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol*
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol*
Triethylamine*
Trifluralin*
2,2,4-Trimethylpentane"
Vinyl acetate*
Vinyl bromide*
Vinyl chloride"
Vinylidene chloride (1,1-Dichloroethylene)*
Xylenes (isomers and mixture)*
o-Xylenes*  [recommended technical correction:
o-Xylene
m-Xylenes"  [recommended technical correction:
m-Xylene]
p-Xylenes*  [recommended technical correction:
p-Xylene]
Antimony Compounds
Arsenic Compounds  (inorganic  including arsine)
Beryllium Compounds
Cadmium Compounds
Chromium Compounds
Cobalt Compounds
Coke Oven Emissions
Cyanide Compounds  [1]
Glycol ethers*  [2]
288

-------
                                6

0              Lead Compounds
0              Manganese Compounds
0              Mercury Compounds
0              Fine mineral fibers [3]
0              Nickel Compounds
0              Polycylic Organic Matter [4]*  [recommended
               technical correction: Polycyclic Organic Matter]
0              Radionuclides (including radon) [5]
0              Selenium Compounds

NOTE:   For all listings above which contain the word "compounds"
and for glycol ethers, the following applies:  Unless otherwise
specified, these listings are defined as including any unique
chemical substance that contains the named chemical (i.e.,
antimony, arsenic, etc.) as part of that chemical's
infrastructure.

   1 X'CN where X = H1 or any other group where a formal
dissociation may occur.
For example KCN or Ca(CN)2

   2 Includes mono- and di- ethers of ethylene glycol, diethylene
glycol, and triethylene glycol R-(OCH2CH2)n-OR« where

   n = 1, 2, or 3

   R = alkyl or aryl groups

   R1  = R, H, or groups which, when removed,  yield glycol ethers
with the structure:  R-(OCH2CH)0-OH [recommended  technical
correction:  R-(OCH2CH2)n-OH].   Polymers are  excluded  from the
glycol category.

   3 Includes mineral fiber emissions from facilities
manufacturing or processing glass, rock, or slag fibers  (or other
mineral-derived 'fibers) of average diameter 1 micrometer or less.

   4 Includes organic compounds with more than one benzene ring,
and which have a boiling point greater than or equal to 100°c.
[Recommended technical correction:  limited to, or refers to,
products from incomplete combustion of organic compounds  (or
material) and pyrolysis processes having .more than one benzene
ring,  and which have a boiling point greater than or equal to
100CC.]

   5 A type of atom which spontaneously undergoes radioactive
decay.
                                                                     289

-------
  II.  Pollutants  subject to the HON:

       As part of  the effort to regulate pollutants  listed in
  S  112 (b), the  EPA has developed the HON which will apply to
  the  synthetic  organic chemical manufacturing industry and will
  control emissions of 149 volatile hazardous air pollutants
   (HAP's).  All  of the pollutants listed in the HON  are among the
  189  HAP's listed in S 112(b) and are  identified  (with an
  asterisk) in the preceding section of this document.   Pollutants
  addressed by the HON will become regulated on the  effective date
  specified in the HON.

  III.  Pollutants Listed Under § 112(r):

        Section 112(r)(3)  requires that  EPA promulgate an initial
  list of at  least 100 substances with  threshold quantities which
  would cause or may reasonably be anticipated to cause death,
  injury, or  serious adverse effects to human health or the
  environment if accidentally released.  The EPA's proposed rule to
  implement § 112 (r) (3) was published in the Federal Register on
  January 19, 1993 (58 FR 5102).  The proposed list  of  substances
  includes 100 acutely toxic substances, 62 flammable gases and
  volatile flammable liquids, and commercial explosives (classified
  by the Department of Transportation in Division 1.1).   The listed
  pollutants  will  become  "regulated" for purposes of title V upon
   final promulgation of the list.
                   i
        The toxic and flammable substances listed in  the proposed
   rule are arranged alphabetically and  by CAS number on the
   attached  lists.
                                NOTICE

        The policies set out in this guidance document are
        intended solely as guidance and do not  represent final
        Agency action,  and are not ripe for judicial review.
        They are not intended, nor can they be  relied upon,  to
        create any rights enforceable by any party in
        litigation with the United States.  The EPA officials
        may decide to follow the guidance provided in this
        guidance document, or to act at variance with the
        guidance, based on an analysis of specific
        circumstances.   The EPA may also change this guidance
        at any time without public notice.
290

-------
I TO §68.130.—UST OF REGULATED Tone SUBSTANCE
                                 PREVENTON
                                 (Ode*—100 SutxuiKw]
Janu«y 19.1993 / Proposed Rules       5121

  TmesHOU) QUANHTIES RM AOCOENTAL Ra£Asc
Ctamial name
Ae*OMCy*Mhr«ta 	 . 	 	 	
AeraWn ______________________________________ 	
AuWtMajW* 	 __ 	


_*m^ul«V 	

A«*M 	
S^fSy^^ii.^^^^: 	

AMi^ef-Md.. 	 ^i-m-i
ffryjq fr-BtfQAjfr - 	 _.—.. 	
ltaimMfcja__MUjrU^Ua




ObmNhMtfrforMBanf
Piimur^ 01.^1 'ifi'f
fllm-UhLir jSvuu+u m u 4 A tAlnlhlnato
ftHcNofn}»S*»
rSiLt^afSmia-
tttiytaioimha'* '


frKITWMa^Wl.
Fofmaldortydo cyanohydtln - ..— . . «. 	 - 	 	 	 	 	

Hydf%zirM
HydfocNorfc acid (sokxtoo, cone 25% or greater] .__...„.... 	 ....... 	 	 	 	 ...
Hydrocyanfc acW - 	 —

HyQ'iQO40 pyofWfl * .........
HydnjQfln pt>mid(1fl (cone > S?%) - ...... «....- 	 	 -_ ,. .-.-..—-...—,..,... -n, 	 , ,
Hvricnofln Cfllrtnirtfl * 	 "• , T 	 n-.-ti 	 n-mwi
MuHmnln A«V
-------
               federal K/eguter / VoL S8t No.  11 / Tuesday. January 19. 1883 / Proposed Bale*	
              ~m*^SSSSSSS£S^^^^—>         •
               TO S6&1X.—4JST of REGULATED Twee SUBSTANCES AND THRESHOU> Quwnriesfro ACCIDENTAL <%LEA - —
TaMM$t3R*4£ywiM • , , 	
Ttfmnt <8toyy»n«H (unynrfHKl twwn)
TrtchkxoflthyWtanc ' " 	 	 	 	 	
Tlfcn^hylcllloHB*|«« 	 _ 	 ._.., ;„ 	 	 	 	 	 	
Wy tcataM mw"*'

CAS NO.
7719-12-2
11O-89-*
107-12-0
109-61-5
7S-SS-6
75-S6-8
140-76-1
7446-00-5
7664-03-9
7763-60-0
7446-11-4
75-74-1
509-14-6
106-66-6
7SSMS-0
fm* mM ft
•1-06-7
26471-62-6
115-21-9
75-77-4
1 0S-OS-*
7S-01-4
•JwttfwW
<»u»nwy(«)*)
s.ooo
5.000
1.000
S.OOO
10.000
10.000
1.000
1jOOO
5.000
1.000
IjOOO
1.000
1.000
1.000
soo
1jOP°,
1.000
1.000
1.000
1X100
5.000
. 10jOOO
ettfcfcr
•sang
<*J
CJ
o
0
«


i**i
o
o
<**j
0
o
w
o

f)
o
o
o
o
«
  *O« CMS IB. •mtai pnttum AS
  •On e« W.
  'Tade
       TABLE 2 TO § 68.130.—*JST OF REGOLATEO Toxic SUBSTANCES AND THRESHOLD QUANTITIES FOR ACCIDENTAL RELEASE
                                                       PREVENTION
                                              (CAS NumMr Onar—100 Srt»sant«l
   CAS No.
                                                                                                     TiHQVlOIQ
                                                                                                       for
                                                                                                    feting
 so-oo-o.
 56-36-2.
 57-14-7 .
FooMktaiiyJa.
              DiM6Uiytiyvii4£jiw .
 62-53-3 .
 67-66-3 .
 74-63-9 .
 74-67-3
 74-90-8 .
 74-93-1
 75-01-4
 75-15-0
 75-21-8
 7S~t4-S
 75-65-8
 75-56-9
 7Sr74-1
 75-77-4

 75-79-6 -
 75-66-S .
 78-62-0 _
 78-97-7 -
 79-21-0 .
 79-S2-1 _
 91-C6-7 .
 96-C7-7 .
 96-16-6-
 96-67-3-
 86-65-3-
 100-44-7.
 106-69-6 .
 107-02-6.
 107-07-3.
 107-11-9 .
 107-12-0 .
 107-13-1 .
 107-15-3 .
                                                                          500
                                                                         1.000
                                                                         5.003
                                                                         5.000
Chfexotonn *._.»»».
M«(hy1 brooMa	
M«my1 cNorfcto	
Hydrocyanic acM ....
M«lhy( meccapon ...
Vinyl cftkxWe  	
Cartxxi disuf KM	
Ettiytane oxkM	
Ptvjsg«o«.
                                                                        10.000
                                                                         5,000
                                                                        10.000
                                                                           930
                                                                         1.000
                                                                        10.000
                                                                        10.000
                                                                         5.000
                                                                           500
                                                                        10,000
                                                                        10.000
                                                                         1.000
                                                                         1.000
                                                                         1.000
                                                                        ' vox
                                                                         5.000
                                                                        10,000
                                                                         5.000
                                                                         1.000
B0flZOIricMotfdi .
BenzwwmlM. 3-(Mft>
•OqD.
t.OCO
 SCO
1.0CO
(1
o
o
n
n
n
ft
o
n
n
n
C")
n
o
n
o
o
n
o
n
n
n
n
«
                                                                                             1.000
                                                                                            10.000
                                                                                             1.000
                                                                                             1.000
f^vm'um'ilMm
»T"Op*OnlU»6 .
                                                                         IjOOQ
•107-16-6 .
 107-30-2.
                                                                                                          10.000
                                                                                                           SjOOO
                                                                                                           1JOOO
  292

-------
     TA8UE 2 TO § 68.130.—UST OF REGULATED TOMC SUBSTANCES AND THRESHOLD Oil
                                                     PREVENTION—Continued
                                                 (CAS Number O«S0r—100 Subconcec}
  CAS No.
                                                      Chemical nine
                                                                                                             Butt lor
                                                                                                              fetng

*A*L_dC_£
100 •* •• •
106-96-4.
109-61-6
110-00-8
150-67-6

T«»-1.4-4
,,1-44-4
U5-21-*
,2>73-9
126-96-?
140-89-4
(4046-1
,Si-S6-4
S8-01-2
3S3-«-<
806-77-4
S09-14-6
$42-66-1
SS6-64-fl
Tiwrwroethjtei tone.
Benzyl
          menyf-Si
                                                     •«*•
«-*««*«-
                                      :1)
S94-42-3
624-63-9 .
              52%)
CNortrw	
 Hydrogen tetenMe.
 SuBur tetrafluorUe .
 Pfiocpriine
Pftocptwfva oxycMorlde —
 Iron, pemacarbonyl.
Toluene dUsocyanalc (uncpedOed (comer) ...
 S.OOO
 5.000
 5.000
10.000
 1.000
 5.000
 1.006
 i.ood
 5.900
10.300
 '.OQOJ-O
10.0&1
 i.oac
 i.ooo
 1.00C
 LOGO
 S.O30
 5.000
 1.000
 1.000
  soo
10.000
 1400
 1.000
 1.000
 1400
 1400
10400
 1.000
 1400
  soo
 1400
 1400
 S.OOO
  soo
 1400
 S.OOO
 5.000
 5400
 5400
 5400
 1.000
  soo
 1.000
 1.000
  soo
 1.000
 1.000
 S.OOO
  soo
 1.000
 1.000
  500
 1.0001
 1400
  soo
  soo
  soo
 1.000
  6«it tor CUno:
  • WmltMd lor Ming by Conorvu.
  • On EH6 he. vmor prncm 0^ mrnHg or om«lw.
  • On GHS tat. vwor prawn IM« «wn 03 mtHo- ** *•• *•*" *"«»'•* *» <
                                                   tidng In dMft or Ir4u()r.
                                                           Mi «nrj Mtnryaf «a*J«r«.
        TABLE 3 TO §68.130.—UST OF REGULATED FLAMMABLE SUBSTANCES AND THRESHOLD QUANTITIES FOR ACCIDENTAL
                                                       RELEASE PREVENTION
                                                   (AlphatMflcal Orttef-62 Substances]
Chemical name
Acetridahytki • 	


1>8uta(Senfl 	 	 	 	 	
CAS No.
7S-07-0
74-«6-2
696-7»^
108-99-0
ThflWhoW
qu*«)r^>«)
10.000
10400
10400
10400i
8osls for
.teang
«
O
8
                                                                                                                                       293

-------
3124
              Federal Roister / VoL 58. No. 11 / Tuesday. January 19. 1993 / Proposed Rotes
T*i«c 1TT\ Rftfl 11rt__f «T/^Cf?IVtfB «TIT> ft AUUAfVF StfRSTANfy^ AMH TMHF^&irV ft f
Ra£Ase PREVENTION— Continued











9./>tln>nnm(K/4ivwi '




nifliitunjlmu l


MUM* ' ""^^


FlM Ottviri*




... .i—. , , i,

ttoowtarm
fcnjwina

tea>Mnpy<rf«n«uvi fTV.
Pn)parM ...


Silana 	 	 	 	 	 	 , 	 	 	 	 	 -,,,.- , ., ...
Tatrafluoroeitiylana , . , , .. ..,., „
TalmnMaiylsllafM ... ,,„„„,„
TricMonKilafle 	 . _ .„ 	 	
TlMuom- ctinmattiyiana ' ...


VMy< «my< olh<>r
Vinyl fluorirfa 	 	 	 	 	 _ 	 	 	 	 ._ 	 	 	 	 .

VtnyCktera fluaMa
Vinyl malhyl «KMT 	 , ._ „ 	 , 	 	 ,

juAMTTnes fo« ACCIDENTAL

CAS NO.
106-07-8
106-96-9
107-01-7
25167-67-3
SflO-16-1
624-64-6
463-59-1
7781-81-1
557-06-2
590-21-6
460-19-5
75-19-4
4109-96-0
7S-37-6
124-40-3
463-62-1
74-64-0
107-00-6
75-04-7
75-00-3
74-65-1
6049-7
75-08-1
109-95-6
1333-74-0
75-28-6
78-78-4
• 78-79-5
7S-31-0
7S-29-6
74-82-6
74-69-5
S63-45-1
963-46-2
115-10-6
W7-31-3
115-11-7
S04-60-9
109-68-O
109-67-1
646-04-8
627-20-3
74 08 6
, 115-07-1
74-99-7
7603-62-6
116-14-3
75-76-3
1002S-76-2
79-38-9
75-60-3
689-07-4
109-92-2
75-02-6
75-35-4
7S-38-7
107-25-5

Thractaid
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
• 10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
1OOOO
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
^S"
3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333X333333333333333
1
Bttlt tor LhHrv
• VoWM ««nnui>l. iauti ~
        TABLE 4 TO §68.130.—LIST OF REGULATED FLAMMABLE SUBSTANCES AND THRESHOLD QUANTITIES FOR ACCIOEKTIAL
                                            , RELEASE PREVENTION
                                         (CAS Number Order—62 Substances)
CAS No.
60-29-7 	
74-82-8 	
74-64-0
T4_«R.1 ,
7X_flA-9
IL-fG-f,
74-9B-6
Chentical nam«
E*V«h«' — :. 	
Methane 	 	
RtaM
FfhyUn.

Uothytamlrvi
PRVVUM
TNwhoW
qu«tty(ibi)
1
-------
              Federal Register / VoL S6. No.  11 / Tuesday. January 19. 1993 /
             **ii^^^^^^^*mfi^SSiSSSSf^ss^s*mm^m*^^^^^^siiii^^^s^s^sss*slsSS^^^SSSSSSSSmS!^^^£^f^^^^^^ii^^m
       TABLE 4 TO §68.130.—UST OF RCGULAtED FLAMMABLE SUBSTANCES ,
S12S
                                                                                                   ACODCNTIAX.
                                             fCAS NunOor O«J«r-62 Sul)CUno.»|
CAS NO-
.1 rrt ,-T

7S-09-9 	
7S-0*-6 	
1**** 	
TS-or-o 	
75-08-t 	
7S-1.M 	
75-«6-« —
1*4*6 	
7S-31-« 	
7S-3S-4 	
7S-37-6 	
75-38-7 	
75-60-3 	
TS-76-3 _ 	
18-78-4
Ignr79-S 	 _.
TMB-fl -. —
106-07-8 	
106-98-9 	
106-69-0 	
107-00-6 __-
107-01-7 ....
107-45-6 	
107-31-3 	
109-66-0 	
109-67-1
VM-K-Z 	
109-95-5 	
11S-07-1 	
115-10-6 	
115-11-7 	
116-14-3 	
124-40-3 	
460-19-6 	
463-49-0 	 	
463-66-1 	
463-62-1 	
504-60-fl 	
SS7-86-2 	
S63-4S-1 	
5S3-46-2 .___
590-18-1 	
590-21-6 	
S96-73-2 	
624-64-6 	
627-20-3 	
646-04-8 	
689-«7-4 	
1333-74-0 	
4100 06 0 	
7791-31-1 	
7803-62-5 	
10025-78-2 ....
2S167-67-3 ....
Ctwmlcal nanw
P^tyn 	 	 	 	 	 .
Pityj-Mnrf*. . „. 	
i*y H..VM.
EKiylanikM - 	 	 	
AoM.M^rt.
f*y HMM^P^II 	 	 _. 	 	 _ 	
esfeirtpmp*** _____ 	 	
hnhmn. _.,. • 	 ,
Ignpmpyl rtWrtAtu
lc^p«Jp) VI 	 j 	 , , M1 „,„„„ 	 	
PflfVBIV*
^-P^m^vg 	 	 _ 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 : i LI 	 	 	
VS^yl «fhy< *h«f
£y -ftj|
-------
              OFFICE TELEPHONE NUMBERS AND ADDRESSES

                        HEADQUARTERS OFFICES


Office and Address                                  Telephone Number

Office of Air and Radiation

     Office of the Assistant Administrator              (202) 260-7400
     U.S. EPA, 6101
     401 M Street, SW
     Washington, DC 20460

     Office of Program Management Operations         (202) 260-7415
     U.S. EPA, 6102
     401 M StreegSW
     Washington, DC 20460

     Office of Policy Analysis and Review              (202) 260-5580
     U.S. EPA, 6103
     401 M Street, SW
     Washington, DC 20460

     Office of Radiation and Indoor Air               (202) 233-9320
     U.S. EPA, 660U
     401 M Street, SW
     Washington, DC 20460

     Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards       (919) 541-5615
     U.S. EPA, MD-10
     Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

     Office of Mobile Sources                        (202) 260-7645
     U.S. EPA, 6401
     401 M Street, SW
     Washington, DC 20460

     Office of Atmospheric Programs                  (202)233-9140
     U.S. EPA, 620U
     401 M Street, SW
     Washington, DC 20460
                                                                           297

-------
      Office and Address                                    Telephone Number

      Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

            Chemical Emergency Preparedness and             (202) 260-8600
              Prevention Office
            U.S. EPA, 5101
            401 M Street SW
            Washington, DC 20460

      Office of General Counsel

            Air and Radiation Division                       (202) 260-7606
            ILS. EPA, 2344
            401 M Street, SW
            Washington, DC 20460

      Office of Research and Development

            Office of the Assistant Administrator               (202) 260-7676
            U.S. EPA, 8101
            401 M Street, SW
            Washington, DC 20460

                                   REGIONAL OFFICES

      Office and Address                                    Telephone Number

      Region I -   Air, Pesticides and Toxics                   (617) 565-3800
                         Management Division
                        U.S. EPA - Region I
                        One Congress Street
                        John F. Kennedy Building
                        Boston, MA 02203-2211

      (Connecticut, Maine,Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont)

      Region II -  Air and Waste Management Division         (212) 264-2301
                        U.S. EPA - Region II
                        Jacob K. Javits Federal Building
                        26 Federal Plaza
                        New York, NY 10278

      (New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands)
298

-------
Office and Address                                      Telephone Number

Region III - Air, Radiation and Toxics Division           (215) 597-9390
                   U.S. EPA - Region III
                   841 Chestnut Building
                   Philadelphia, PA 19107

(Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia)

Region IV-  Air, Pesticides and Toxics                   (404)347-3043
                    Management Division
                   U.S. PA - Region IV
                   345 Courtland Street, NE
                   Atlanta, GA 30365

(Alabama,  Florida, Georgia,  Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South  Carolina,
Tennessee)

Region V -   Air and Radiation Division                  (312) 353-2212
                   U.S. EPA - Region V
                   77 West Jackson Boulevard
                   Chicago, IL 60604-3507

(Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin)

Region VI- Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division           (214)655-7200
                   U.S. EPA - Region VI
                   First Interstate Bank Tower at Fountain Place
                   1445 Ross Avenue, 12th Floor, Suite 1200
                   Dallas, TX 75202-2733

(Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas)

Region VII -        Air and Toxics Division               (913) 551-7020
                   U.S. EPA - Region VII
                   726 Minnesota Avenue
                   Kansas City, KS 66101

(Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska)

Region VIII -       Air and Toxics Division               (303) 293-1438
                   U.S. EPA - Region VIII
                   999 18th Street
                   1 Denver Place - Suite 500
                   Denver, CO 80202-2405
(Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, Utah, Wyoming)
                                                                                  299

-------
       Office and Address                                     Telephone Number

       Region IX -  Air and Toxics Division                     (415) 744-1219
                         U.S. EPA - Region DC
                         75 Hawthorne Street
                         San Francisco, CA 94105

       (Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, American Samoa, Guam)

       Region X -   Air and Toxics Division                     (206) 553-4152
                         U.S. EPA - Region X
                         1200 Sixth Avenue
                         Seattle, WA 98101

       (Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington)
300

-------
                                CLEAN AIR CONTACTS
TAA GENERAL
OZONE (GROUND LEVELS GENERAL
Areas Affected/Nonattainment
Boundaries

Air Quality Data
Data for Nonattainment
Classifications and Designations

Mobile Source Requirements (See Below)

Stationary Source Requirements
CTG's, Stationary Source Controls
* see list of CTG's on last page

Marine Vessel Loading
Architectural/Structural Coatings
Reg/Neg

Control Strategy Development/
Demonstration of Attainment

Emissions Inventory Guidance
Emission Statements
Ozone Modeling
RACT Fixups
Tracking/ % Reduction Calculations
Rob Brenner/John Beale
(202)260-5580

John Bachmann/Jeff Clark
(919)541-5359/(919)541-5557

Tom Helms/John Silvasi
(919)541-5527/(919)541-5666

Barry Gilbert
(919)541-5238

Tom Quran
(919)541-5467

Barry Gilbert
(919)541-5238
Bill Johnson
(919)541-5245

Susan Wyatt/Bill Johnson
(919)541-5674/(919)541-5245

David Markwordt
(919)541-0837

Bruce Madariaga
(919)541-5290

John Silvasi
(919)541-5408

David Misenheimer/David Mobley
(919)541-5473/(919)541-4676

Mary Warner-Selph
(919)541-1192

Ned Meyer/Joe Tikvart
(919)541-5594/(919)541-5562

Bill Johnson
(919)541-5245

Kimber Scavo
(919)541-3354
                                                                                       301

-------
  Enhanced Ozone and VOC Monitoring

  OZONE (STRATOSPHERIC); GENERAL


  Recycling

        Mobile Sources


        Stationary Sources


  Labelling


  Nonessential Uses


  Safe substitutes


  CFC Phaseout


  CFC Enforcement


  Greenlights Program


  MOBILE SOURCES; GENERAL


 Reformulated Gasoline


 Clean Fueled Cars


 Oxygenated Fuels


 Auto Tailpipe Requirements


 Inspection/Maintenance


 CARBON MONOXIDE! GENERAL

302
 Ogden Gerald/Geri Dorosz-Stargerdt
 (919)541-5652/(919)541-5492
 Stratospheric   Ozone  Protection
 Hotline
 (800)296-1996
 Lena Nirk
 (202)233-9147

 Debbie Ottinger
 (202)233-9149

 Kate Van Slyck
 (202)233-9742

 Matt Dinkel
 (202)233-9194

 Drusilla Hufford
 (202)233-9101

 Peter Voigt
 (202)233-9185

 Bob Labens
 (703)308-8683

 Greenlights Hotline
 (202)775-6650

 Paula Van Lare
 (202)260-3450

 Paul Machiele
 (313)668-4264

 Jeff Alson
 (313)668-4296

 Al Mannato
 (202)233-9050

 Paula Van Lare
 (202)260-3450

 Gene Tierney
 (313)668-4456

Tom Helms
 (919)541-5527

-------
Mobile Source Requirements (See Above)
Nonattainment Classifications
and Designations/Boundaries

Data for Nonattainment Classifications
and Boundaries

Air Quality Data
CO Modeling
Emission Inventories
 Control Strategy Development/
 Demonstration of Attainment

 PARTICULATE MATTER (PM-IO): GENERAL
 Areas Affected


 Control Requirements (


 SIPs


 Air Quality Data


 Emissions Inventory Guidance


 RACM/BACM Technical Guidance
                             t
      Residential Wood Combustion


      Fugitive Dust


      Smoke Management


      Air Quality Modeling
Barry Gilbert
(919)541-5238

Barry Gilbert
(919)541-5238

TomCurran
(919)541-5467

Tom Braverman
(919)541-5383

David Misenheimer
(919)541-5473

John Silvasi
(919)541-5666

Joe Paisie
(919)541-5556

Larry Wallace
(919)541-0906

Ken Woodard/Charlene Spells
(919)541-5697/(919)541-5255

Larry Wallace
(919)541-0906

Neil Frank
(919)541-5560

Bill Kuykendall
(919)541-5372
Chris Stoneman
(919)541-5497

Robin Dunkins
(919)541-5335

Andy Smith
(919)541-5398

Gary Blais
(919)541-5223
                                                                                     303

-------
NAAOS REVIEW; GENERAL

LEAD

SIPs


SULFUR DIOXIDE; GENERAL


Areas Affected


SIP Requirements


Air Quality Modeling/Stack Heights


Air Quality Data


ACID RAIN; GENERAL


Allowance Trading
         t

Auctions/Sales


Allowance Tracking


Allowance Allocations


Opt-In


Conservation/Energy Reserve


Permit Issuance


Permits Phase I Extension/Forms


Compliance Certification

304
John Haines
(919)541-5533
Laura McKelvey
(919)541-5497

Ken Woodard
(919)541-5697

Andy Smith
(919)541-5398

Andy Smith
(919)541-5398

Gary Blais
(919)541-3223

Lee Byrd
(919)541-5367

Acid Rain Hotline
(617)674-7377

Linda Critchfield/Kenon Smith
(202)233-9087/(202)233-9164

Linda Critchfield
,(202)233-9087

Kenon Smith
(202)233-9164

Kathy Barylski/Craig Hillock
(202)233-9074/(202)233-9105

Julie Rosenberg
(202)233-9154

Barry Solomon
(202)233-9166

Donna Deneen/Drew Willison
(202)233-9089/(202)233-9175

Karen Kent
(202)233-9119

Donna Deneen
(292)233-9089

-------
Data Recordation and Reporting
Flow Monitors and Alternative
Systems              ,

Accuracy of Data
Excess Emissions
Program Evaluation
Low NOx Burner Technology
 NOx Compliance Options
 Research, US/Canada Negotiations, NAPAP
 VISIBILITY; GENERAL
 Report to Congress on
 Progress/Improvements

 Report to Congress on
 Modeling, Source Impact

 Visibility Transport
 Commissions

 TOXICS; GENERAL
 Source Category List/Source Category
 Sources

 Pollutants/Pollutant Categories
Technology
      Automobile Coatings
Larry Moritz
(202)233-9144

John Schakenbach
(202)233-9158

Brian Bloomer
(202)233-9078

Donna Deneen
(202)233-9089

Robert Newman
(202)233-9104

Arthur Lee
(202)233-9133

Peter Tsirigotis
(202)233-9171

Dennis Leaf
(202)233-9129

Bruce Polkowsky/John Bachmann
(919)541-5532/(919)541-5359

Bruce Polkowsky
(919)541-5532

Joe Tikvart/Ned Meyer
(919)541-5562/(919)541-5594

Bruce Polkowsky
(919)541-5532

Bruce Jordan/Fred Dimmick
(919)541-5571/(919)541-5625

Chuck French/Dave Svendsgaard
(919)541-0467/(919)541-5608

Nancy Pate
(919)541-5347

Susan Wyatt/Jim Crowder
(919)541-5674/(919)541-5596

David Salman
(919)541-0859
                                                                                     305

-------
     Petroleum Refineries


     Paints and Coatings


     Waste/Wastewater


     Benzene Waste


     Bakeries
       i

     Gasoline Marketing


     POTW


      Storage Vessels


      Batch Operations


      Pulp and Paper


      Polymer and Resins


      Painting


Accidental Releases


Electric Utilities


Great Lakes


Coke Ovens


Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON)


306
Jim Durham
(919)541-5672

Jim Berry
(919)541-5605

KC Hustvedt
(919)541-5395

Bob Lucas
(919)541-0884

Martha Smith
(919)541-2421

Steve Shedd
(919)541-5397

Eric Crump
(919)541-5032

Randy McDonald
(919)541-5402

Randy McDonald
(919)541-5402

Penny Lassiter
(919)541-5396

Bob Rosensteel
(919)541-5608

David Salman
 (919)541-0859

Elaine Davies
 (202)260-8600

 Bill Maxwell/Jim Crowder
 (919)541-5430/(919)541-5596

 John Bachmann/ Melissa McCullough
 (919)541^5359/(919)541-5646

 Sims Roy/Amanda Agnew
 (919)541-5263/(919)541-5268

 Jan Meyer/Linda Herring
 (919)541-5654/(919)541-5358

-------
Drycleaning
OPERATING PERMITt PROGRAM
ENFORCEMENT
 COSTS/ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
 NEW SOURCE REVIEW/PSD
 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
 RADIATION/RADIONUCLIDES
      Subpart T (Uranium Mill Tailings
      Subpart I (NRC-licensed Facilities
                  Facilities not under Subpart H

      Phosphogypsum
 INDIANS
 TRAINING
 SMALL BUSINESS ASSISTANCE
 OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF
 ECONOMIC INCENTIVE PROGRAMS
      Fred Porter/George Smith
      (919)541-5251/(919)541-1549

      Mike Trutna/Ed Lillis
      (919)541-5345/(919)541-5586

      John Rasnic
      (703)308-8600

      Mamie Miller/Sally Mitoff
      (703)308-8685/(703)308-8692

Jim DeMocher/Rob Brenner/Alan Basala
(202)260-8980/(202)260-5580/(919)541-5622

      David Solomon
      (919)541-5375

Jean Croft/Judy Rohrer/Stacy Katz
(202)260-7678/(202)260-7678/(202)260-7669

      Albert Colli/Fran Jonesi
    (202)233-9300/(202)233-9229

      Gale Bonanno
      (202)233-9219

      David O'Very
      (202)233-9483

      Jacolyn Dziuban
      (202)233-9474

      Denise Gerth
      (919)541-5550

      Ron Townsend
      (919)541-2498

      Raqueline Shelton/Deborah Elmore
      (919)541-0898/(919)541-5437

      Karen Brown/Bob Rose
      (703)305-5291

      Bill Johnson
      (919)541-5245
      Karen Martin/Bill Beal
      (919)541-5274/(919)541-5667
                                                                                307

-------
SIP GUIDANCE RULEStRECLAIM                KawaMartta
 308

-------
CTG's BEING PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS
              FOR 11 CTG's IN THREE YEARS (ACTIVE PROJECTS)
 PROJECT
 SOCMI* Distillation
 SOCMI Reactor Vents
 Batch Operations
 VoL Organic Liquid
  Storage

 Wastewater (SOCMI,
  Paper and Pulp
  Pesticides,
  Pharmaceuticals,
  Hazardous Waste)

 Plastic Parts -
 Business Machines

 Plastic Parts - Other
 Wood Furniture


 Offset Lithography


 Autobody Refinishing


 Cleanup Solvents
SECTION CHIEF

Bob Rosensteel
(919)541-5608

Bob Rosensteel
(919)541-5608

Bob Rosensteel
(919)541-5608

Bob Rosensteel
(919)541-5608

Kent Hustvedt
(919)541-5605
Jim Berry
(919)541-5605

Jim Berry
(919)541-5605

Jim Berry
(919)541-5605

Jim Berry
(919)541-5605

Bob Rosensteel
(919)541-5608

Jim Berry
(919)541-5605
ENGINEER

Les Evans
(919)541-5410

Les Evans
(919)541-5410

Randy McDonald
(919)541-5402

Mark Morris
(919)541-5416

Penny Lassiter
(919)541-5396
Dave Salman
(919)541-0859

Dave Salman
(919)541-0859

Madeline Strum
(919)541-2383

Dave Salman
(919)541-0849

Mark Morris
(919)541-5416

Mohammed Seragddm
(919)541-2379
                  OTHER CTG's REQUIRED BY AMENDMENTS
                          (Not Active; Plan to Start FY9?.)
 Aerospace
 Shipbuilding and
   Repair
 Linda Herring
 (919)541-5358

 Jim Berry
 (919)541-5605
Vickie Booth
(919)541-0164

Mohammed Seragddin
(919)541-2379
 *SOCMI - Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry
                                                                             309

-------
Natural Resources
& Environment
Volume 7, Number 2, Fall 1992
                Clean Air?
Section of Natural Resources, Energy, and Environmental Law
American Bar Association
      311

-------
 How States  Can
 Successfully
 Implement  the
 New  Operating
 Permit Tide
 Michael  R. Ban-
    Are the states ready to adopt operating per-
 mit programs to carry out new Title V of the
 Clean Air Act and EPA's recent part 70 imple-
 menting regulations? Not yet. Is EPA worried
 about states not being able to adopt approvable
 Title V operating permit programs by the No-
 vember 1993  deadline?  Very.  Is  there still a
 chance that states can successfully implement
 the new operating title? Maybe, but decisive,
 early action by states will be critical. The final
 pan 70 rules give states many options and states
 should use them fully. Perhaps most important,
 the early and constructive involvement of the
 regulators, industries and EPA regions to help
 each state choose appropriate options under Ti-
 tle V will make the implementation of a suc-
 cessful' operating permit program much more
 likely.
    Operating permit programs for air pollut-
 ant sources are not new to the states. More than
 forty states have operating permit programs,
 many of which have been up and running for a
 decade or more. Large, industrialized states like
 California and  Texas have  issued tens  of
 thousands of operating permits to air pollutant
 sources for years without major problems. Many
 states also followed the development of the new
 part 70 regulations closely and even partici-
 pated in the rulemaking. It would be reasonable
 to suppose that most states will have few prob-
 lems implementing permitting programs under
 the new pan 70 rules.
    However, serious concerns remain about
 the states' abilities to carry out Title V. Title V
started out in Congress as a simple provision
aimed at raising fees so  that states and local
agencies could  prepare nonattainment plans,
regulate major sources in nonattainment areas,
track emissions of nonattainment pollutants, and
enforce newnonattainment regulations. When
the President signed the bill, though, Title V
had grown to more than five thousand words
and one hundred subsections. Its coverage had
expanded to many mid-sized (and even small-
sized) sources located in all nonattainmem and
attainment areas and to air toxics and acid rain
precursors. The federal operating permit pro-
gram will now affect all states and many sources
for the first time. States will have to amend all
of their existing permit programs and the
amendments will add complex mandatory pro-
gram elements  (such as EPA permit review)
which are completely new and controversial.
    A second reason for concern is that Title V
is based on EPA's Clean Water Act NPDES per-
mitting program  implemented  in  the  early
1970s. That program  was difficult for EPA to
implement, even though it only applied to sev-
eral hundred sources which individually had
only one or a handful of water pollutant dis-
charge points. States were very reluctant to take
over even that limited permit program. By con-
trast, Title V will apply to tens of thousands of
sources across the country, many of which con-
tain dozens or even hundreds of separate emis-
sions points. States do not have the resources to
apply a Clean Water Act-type program to air
pollution sources.
    Third, the current recession has put enor-
mous pressure on state and local agencies and
the regulated community. This has already re-
sulted in greater resistance to state regulatory
expansion, especially when the new regulation,
like part 70, imposes large  public and private
costs. The significant  and complex  economic
and administrative burdens of implementing Ti-
tle V by the statutory deadline of November 15,
1993, will tax the financial resources and po-
litical will of many states to the limits. There is
hope for successful state implementation, how-
ever, if states keep the main objectives of Title
V in mind and sensibly exercise the options EPA
has provided for them in the final part 70 reg-
ulations.


     Essential Purposes of Title V

    Title V aims to achieve three essential pur-
poses:
    • Realizing  the burdens imposed by the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Congress
wanted to find a way to raise more money for
state and local air pollution control agencies
without federal subsidies.
    • Title V is also intended to improve the
tracking of  emissions and emissions changes.
Better emissions data will be used for a variety
of purposes including calculating fees,  plan-
ning in nonattainment areas, identifying prior-
ities for air toxics regulation and implementing
Mr. Barr is a partner
with Pillsbury
Madison & Sutro in
San Francisco. He is
currently chair of
SONREEL'sAir
Quality Committee.
 312
                                                                    JVJUkE/FALL 1992

-------
       Title V tries to
    improve federal,
      state and local
   enforcement of air
 quality regulations.
8
   plantwide emission limits or other market-based
   approaches.
       • Title V tries to improve federal, state and
   local  enforcement  of air quality regulations.
   Enhancements include requiring permit writers
   to express clearly all applicable emission  lim-
   itations and other requirements in the operating
   permit itself for ease of reference by any inter-
   ested party and requiring EPA review of oper-
   ating permits issued by state and local agencies.
       Like so many titles and sections of the 1990
   Clean Air Act Amendments, the statute itself is
   just the beginning. EPA proposed Title V rules
   on May 10.  1991, six months before the Title
   V rulemaking deadline. On June 25, 1992, more
   than a year later. EPA Administrator Reilly signed
   the final Title V regulations (40 C.F.R. part 70).
   Because of the looming November  15, 1993,
   deadline for states  to submit their operating
   permit programs for EPA approval, state deci-
   sionmakers should focus immediately on  sev-
   eral  basic  options and  numerous  specific
   options available to them  under EPA's final Ti-
   tle V regulations.


              Basic State Options
       Many existing  state  permit programs al-
   ready achieve the three essential purposes of
   Title V. Can a state  simply substitute the state
   or local operating permit program for the Title
   V program? Many states commented in the Title
   V rulemaking that their existing operating  per-
   mit programs should simply  be dovetailed or
   grandfathered into the Title V program. EPA se-
   riously considered a broad "equivalency" op-
   tion, as requested by California EPA Secretary
   James Strock, but declined to include  it in the
   final pan 70 rules. However, EPA recently wrote
   Secretary Strock that it will not insist that each
   state program element be  identical to the  part
   70 rules. "Similar"  program  elements will be
   approvable.
       Before discussing detailed options availa-
   ble to states under EPA's flexible approach, it
   is important to consider several basic  options.
   The first is for the state to do nothing and let
   EPA impose sanctions, CAA§ 502 (d); 40 C.F.R.
   §70.10.
       This option would avoid changes to the ex-
   isting state permit program and the difficulties
   of obtaining sufficient new  state  legislation.
   Legislative difficulties can be significant. In New
   Jersey, for example, the state  agency hoped to
   obtain an attorney general's opinion that no leg-
   islative changes would be necessary to imple-
   ment the Title V program because it feared that
   the New Jersey legislature would not pass  leg-
   islation authorizing  higher fees of any sort. An-
   other problem is that some state legislatures only
.VRftB/FALL 1992
meet every other year or for a very short annual
legislative session. Letting EPA implement Title
V could save the state money up front (includ-
ing state and local rulemaking resources) and
allow EPA to take the heat and bear the burden
of shaking down the Title V program.
    However, the disadvantages of this¥irst op-
tion are daunting. The state or local agency could
appear inept and unwilling to protect the en-
vironment. It may lose significant new permit
fees to EPA. This option could also lead to an
independent or duplicative EPA permit  pro-
gram in the state. Perhaps worst of all, EPA has
various new, expensive sanctions to use against
states in expressing  its unhappiness with any
state which chooses this option. Given the flex-
ibility for states built into the final part 70 rules,
it should not be necessary for any state to choose
this option.
    A second basic option is for the state or
local agency to apply for interim approval, CAA
§ 502(g); 40 C.F.R.  § 70.4(d). States can im-
plement this approach quickly.  It also quickly
channels new fees to state and local agencies,
and may qualify the agencies for EPA grants.
Another very important benefit is that this op-
tion will do the least damage to the existing
state operating permit program.
    Interim approval also allows the state or
local agency and industry to "ramp up" the state
permitting program to full EPA approval. In fact,
many state  agency  officials are adopting  a
"ramping up" approach  to gain some experi-
ence with the new  operating permit program
before launching a full Title V program. Texas.
a state with significant air quality permitting
experience and a high level of preparedness for
Title V, experimented with one of its own per-
mits as a simulated Title V permit application.
On their first run, issuing the Title V permit
took six months and six engineers dedicated to
the task. Ramping up to Title V may be critical
to the success  of many state permitting  pro-
grams over the next few years.
    Interim approval may also make it easier to
obtain state legislative  approvals for adoption
and implementation of the full Title V program
because the agency can pick the right time for
new legislation and  rulemaking. Under an in-
terim approval, the  additional  time available
may be as long as three to four years  (including
EPA's one-  to two-year approval period).  The
interim approval option also lowers the politi-
cal stakes, imposes the least burden on the state's
economy, and' allows the most chance to de-
velop innovative rules, performance-based ap-
proaches and other permit improvements.
    There are several disadvantages of interim
approval. It delays full approval and could re-
duce leverage for imposing the toughest pans
                                                                                      313

-------
 of the full Title V program. It also requires two
 rounds of changes to the state or local program,
 which is probably the biggest downside of this
 approach.
      The third approach, applying for full ap-
 proval, puts all the issues on the table up front
 and finishes the job. It offers the best oppor-
 tunity for industry  and others to work proac-
 tively with states and EPA regions to install the
 most flexibility in the revised state or local op-
 crating permit program.
      However, the final pan 70 rules make it
 very clear that this approach will require a ma-
 jor effort in many states, which may be difficult
 given the tight economy and agency budgets. It
 also maximizes disputes up front (concerning
 problems that may be largely theoretical) and
 may lead to long delays in state or local sub-
 missions of Title V programs, perhaps well past
 the Act's submission deadline of November 15,
  1993.
      In  summary, states  which have  the  re-
 sources and authority to apply for full approval
 should probably do so. But states, local agencies
 and interested parties should al'so seriously con-
 sider the interim approval approach because EPA
  has made this approach so relatively easy. When
 applying for interim approval, states and local
 agencies can use their existing public partici-
 pation procedures, enforcement authorities and
 fee structures. These are some of the most con-
 tentious potential issues for states under Title
 V.  In adopting the  part 70 rules, EPA has rec-
 ognized that many states  have had long expe-
 rience  with operating permits  and  that both
 states and EPA need a sensible transition. The
 interim approval approach can promote public
 health and the environment as well as provide
 a useful ramp up to a full Title V program.


           Specific State Options
      For states wishing to adopt the full program
 or  complete elements of a partial or interim
 program, 'EPA has practiced what it has often
 preached—at least in terms of providing flex-
 ibility to state  and local  permitting agencies.
 The following are some of the specific options
 offered to the state and local agencies under the
 final pan 70 rules:
      1.  Definitions, 40 C.F.R. § 70.2. EPA al-
 lows departures from  its  defined terms. How-
 ever, in most cases states and local  agencies
 should probably adopt the EPA definitions, with
 the fewest changes  to fit state statutes and rule
 books. Departing from EPA definitions has cre-
 ated some of the thorniest and most unnecessary
 problems facing  California agencies over the
 years. Other states should be wary.
      2.  Exemption for Non-Major Sources, 4 0
C.F.R. § 70.3(b). State and local agencies should
seriously consider opting in favor of the  ex-
emption in pan 70 for non-major sources. This
is a built-in transition provision and is not likely
to harm larger sources or the  area's long-term
air quality goals. Alternatively, states and local
agencies should consider adopting a  ramp up
approach: require smaller sources to report and
pay fees, but impose no other requirements for
five years. This would accomplish  two of  the
three essential purposes of an operating permit
program (fees and tracking) without overload-
ing the agency or smaller sources.
    3. Interim Approval, 40 C.F.R. § 70.4(d).
States and local agencies  should seriously con-
sider  interim approval (as  discussed above).
They also should use "partial approval" for sub-
state regions, like local air districts, 40 C.F.R.
§ 70.4(c).
    4. CoHy&fenfl^,40C.F.R§70.4(b)(3)(viii).
States and local agencies  should add confiden-
tiality protections at least as broad as EPA's.
    5. Application Time, 40 C.F.R. § 70.5(a)(l).
States and local agencies should provide the full
twelve-month period for initial permit appli-
cants and for new sources to apply for an  op-
erating permit after commencing operation. This
is very imponant for smooth functioning as  the
program ramps up.
    6. Completeness Criteria and Processing
Deadlines, 40 C.F.R. §§ 70.5(a)(2), 70.7(a)(l).
States and local agencies should add  detailed,
clear permit application  completeness criteria
and procedures, if they  do not already have
them. The final rules contain an imponant pro-
vision deeming  applications complete if  the
agency does not request additional information
within sixty days, 40 C.F.R. § 70.7(a)(4). Cal-
ifornia's system is a well-tested model. Califor-
nia air districts  are now moving  beyond  the
statutory minimum requirements  for expedi-
tious processing. One progressive California lo-
cal agency is even shooting for one day permits
for the 30 percent or so of permit and renewal
applications which  are most simple and repet-
itive.
    7. Forms, 40 C.F.R. § 70.5(c). States and
local agencies are allowed to and should utilize
existing state forms as much as possible. States
can continue to utilize lists of insignificant ac-
tivities and should continue to use them.
    8. Operating Flexibility, 40 C.F.R. § 70.7.
States and local agencies should provide for full
operating flexibility, netting and emission trad-
ing. This is essential to the early success of the
new program. Title V does not change netting
under Title I or affect emission reduction credit
banks or similar, substantive  elements of  the
state or local program.
                      Continued on page 4 7
States which have
the resources and
authority to apply
for full approval
should probably
do so.
314
                                                                            .VR&ETALL 1992

-------
 Successful Implementation
                Continued from page 9
    9. Paperwork, 40  C.F.R.  § 70.6(a)(3).
 States and local agencies should minimize com-
 pliance paperwork and only require reports that
 will actually be read and used by the state or
 local agency,  especially in terms of frequency
 of submissions (annually, if possible,  but  no
 more  often than every six months). States may
 find it necessary to require more reporting as
 part of market-based approaches, such as plant-
 wide  emission limits. A reasonable price for
 companies to  pay to use more flexible compli-
 ance methods is likely to be real-time daily
 monitoring, monthly reporting, and quarterly or
 monthly plantwide emissions limits.
    10. Permit Terms, 40 C.F.R. § 70.6(a)(2).
 States and local agencies should issue operating
 permits for the full five-year terms allowed by
 the part 70 rules to minimize the costs and bur-
 dens of the program to agencies and the affected
 sources. Shorter terms of less than three years
 may not be worth the now very limited "permit
 shield" protection, 40 C.'F.R. §  70.6(f). EPA will
 accommodate states and local agencies whose
 existing permit programs do not technically
 meet this requirement of the Title V program.
 For instance, a state agency which renews per-
 mits every  fifteen years—instead of the re-
 quired five or  less—could still qualify for
 program approval if the state had the authority
 to reopen permits and either had an administra-
 tive pattern and practice of doing so every five
 years or supplemented its program  submittal
with a commitment to reopen permits every five
years.
    11. Monitoring, 40 C.F.R. §70.6(a)(3).
States and local agencies should use the full
flexibility provided by EPA to allow a variety of
cost-effective monitoring methods. Continuous
emissions monitors (CEMs) are no* required by
Title V. The final permit rules require "periodic
monitoring sufficient to yield reliable data from
the relevant time period that are representative
of the source's compliance with the permit,"
40 C.F.R. § 70.6(a)(3)(i)(B).
    12.  State  Permit Terms,  40  C.F.R.
§ 70.6(b)(2). Some permit terms will be re-
quired only by state law. States and local agen-
cies should use the full authority allowed by
EPA to designate these permit terms as not fed-
erally enforceable. Based on experience in Cal-
ifornia, this will avoid confusion once permits
are issued.         '
    13.  General Permits, 40 C.F.R. § 70.6(d).
States and local agencies should promote gen-
eral permits for "numerous similar sources" and
they should use the full flexibility allowed by
general  permits. For example, a system for
sources to notify the agency by postcard when
they are relying on a general permit can mini-
mize applicability disputes.
    14. Permit Shield, 40 C.F.R. § 70.6(f).
States and local agencies should consider allow-
ing sources  to use the permit shield  (even
though it may be more of a fig leaf than a shield).
Industry should consider using the shield only
where it is really needed and makes sense, such
as where recent pollution control investments
make further equipment changes highly costly
and marginally beneficial.
    15. Permit Amendments and Modiflca-
                                                                          JVJMkfi/FALL 1992
States and local
agencies should use
the full flexibility
provided by EPA to
allow a variety of
cost-effective
monitoring
methods.
                                                           47
                                                           315

-------
    Industry should
 work with state and
    local agencies to
         provide for
    adequate fees to
       cover "permit
    program costs."
flows, 40 C.F.R. § 70.7. States and local agen-
cies should  adopt the  streamlined permit
amendment  and modification procedures  al-
lowed by EPA. This will be very important for
smooth functioning of the program during its
early years. These sections of the final pan 70
rules were the focus of so much debate and con-
troversy on the federal level that it will not be
wise to repeat the debate on the state or local
level.'
     16. Reopening for Cause,  40  C.F.R.
§ 70.7(0- EPA's final regulation allows states
and local agencies to define "cause" to fit their
own needs and current state or local operating
permit program requirements. Doing so should
reduce the burden on states, local agencies and
permit holders of unnecessary or unproductive
permit reopenings by invoking "cause"  only
when reopening can provide a significant en-
vironmental benefit.
     17   "Significance" Levels,  40  C.F.R;
§ 70.7(e)(4). States and local agencies should
take the opportunity to define which changes
are "significant" and which are not, using es-
tablished state or local permit program criteria
where they exist. Examples include the Texas
standard exemption list and California de min-
imis exemption lists.  "Insignificant" changes
will be reviewed  on a fast track while signifi-
cant changes will require the full permit review
process.
     18. Public  Participation,   40  C.F.R.
§ 70.7 (h). States and local agencies should use
their existing public participation procedures,
                                   Illustration Credits

                           Cover photo by Bob Woolley,  depart-
                           ment art for Trends & Insights on page 38
                           and Nuggets on page 42 by Susan Wise;
                           department art for Vantage Point on the
                           inside front cover by Bob Woolley.
as allowed by EPA, rather than copying EPA's.
Current EPA procedures are incomplete and
have not been tested for Title V purposes.
    19. Fees, 40 C.F.R. § 70.9- Industry should
work with state and local agencies to provide
for adequate fees to cover "permit program
costs." Fair and adequate fees will be essential
to the smooth and effective functioning of the
program. In exchange, the state or local agency
should justify its fee schedule, submit to annual
audits and publish the results in an understand-
able form.
    20.  State Reports to EPA, 40  C.F.R.
§ 70.8(a). States and local agencies can and
should supply their EPA regions with summa-
ries of applications for operating permits rather
than copies of all complete applications. States
and local agencies should focus EPA's attention
only on  those operating  permit applications
which are truly significant. This will help avoid
confusion in EPA regions.
    21. State Role During EPA Review, 40
C.F.R. § 70.8. States and local agencies will have
an opportunity to defend any permits which are
questioned by EPA or other states during the re-
view periods required by the final part  70 reg-
ulations. To protect the integrity of operating
permits issued by state and local agencies, the
agencies should be provided with adequate re-
sources to defend their permits and specific di-
rections to do so.
    22.  Enforcement, 40 C.F.R. §70.11.
States and  local agencies  should use existing
'state enforcement authorities to the maximum
extent to satisfy EPA's requirements for enforce-
ment authority. Solid enforcement may be a very
significant determinant in the level of autono-
my and flexibility states are able to obtain and
maintain in the Title V operating permit pro-
gram.
    These are not all of the options available to
states under the new part 70 rules. States de-
veloping new operating permit programs should
tailor their statutes and rules to take advantage
of all  of the flexibility allowed by EPA.  For the
forty or so states that have existing permitting
programs, understanding and exercising the op-
tions available under (he Title V regulations can
significantly  reduce the changes required to
adapt the state program to meet the Title V man-
date.
    As with any new program as complex and
massive as Title V, a substantial risk exists that
it may become so burdensome or unmanageable
as states try to implement it that it fails to  achieve
the essential  purposes of Title V. It would be
especially unfortunate if the Title V program in-
terferes with state and local initiatives to apply
quality management approaches to permitting,
improve agency permitting services, and reduce
48
316
        1992

-------
permitting costs and delays. The flexibility al-
lowed to states and local (agencies under EPA's
final pan 70 rules significantly reduces the risk
of failure and increases their ability to innovate.
Every state and local agency which creatively
uses the options provided by EPA to meet the
unavoidable mandate of Title V will help both
its economy and its environment.          9.
                                                               Reprinted by Permission
                                                                           JVR&E/FALL 1992
                                                             49
                                                             317

-------
                                                                 CALIFORNIA
                    Assembly BUI No. 2288
                       CHAPTER 1166

  An act to amend Sections 40507,40752,42300,42301,42350,42400,
42400.3, 42402, and 42402.3 of, and to add Sections 39053.3, 39053.5,
42301.10, 42301.11, 42301.12, and 42400.4 to, the Health and Safety
Code, relating to air pollution.

           [Approved by Governor October 11,1993. Filed with
                 Secretary of State October 11,1993.]

                 LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
  AB 2288, Quackenbush.  Air pollution: permits.
  (1) Existing law authorizes an air pollution control district or air
quality management district to establish a permit system, requires
the district regulations to provide that a permit is valid only for a
specified period, renewable upon the payment of specified fees, and
limits to one year the time during which an order of the South Coast
Air Quality Management District Board granting a permit shall be
effective.
  This bill would delete that one-year limit in the case of the south
coast district, and, in the case of the districts generally, delete the
provision for renewal on payment of specified fees, and require the
expiration date of a permit to be extended upon completion of an
annual review, except as specified.
  (2) Existing law requires the air pollution  control officer of a
district to observe and enforce all orders, regulations, and rules
prescribed by the district board.
  This bill  would require  the officer to additionally observe and
enforce permit conditions, thereby imposing a state-mandated local
program, and would authorize the officer to enforce an applicable air
quality implementation plan.
  (3) Existing law requires a permit system adopted by a district to
prohibit  the issuance of 4 permit unless the permitted article,
machine, equipment, or contrivance will comply with prescribed
orders, rules,'regulations, and statutes.
  Thjs bill would authorize a district air pollution control officer to
subject the issuance of a permit to compliance with an applicable
implementation plan, and would subject the issuance of the permit
to other specified requirements of federal law. The bill would impose
additional requirements on the districts, and impose penalties for
violations,  relating to  the  federal  law,  thereby imposing a
state-mandated local program by imposing new duties  on the
districts and creating new crimes.
  (4) Existing law authorizes any person to apply for a variance
from a specified statute or from rules and regulations of the district,
but not from the requirement for a permit to build, erect, alter, or
                                                       94  90
                                                                            319

-------
                       Ch. 1166                    ~ S —

                       replace.
                        This bill would also prohibit the granting of a variance from1 the
                       requirement for a permit to operate or use, and would authorize the
                       issuance of a permit for activities for which a variance  has been
                       granted, fooliifting an abatement order which has the effect of a
                       variance.
                         (5) This bill would also make additional changes proposed by AB
                       2107, to be operative only if AB 2107 and this bill are both chaptered
                       and become effective on January 1,1994, and this bill is chaptered
                       last.
                         (6) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse
                       local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
                       state. Statutory provisions establish  procedures for making that
                       reimbursement
                        This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this
                       act for specified reasons.

                       The people of the State of California  do enact as follows:

                        SECTION  1.  It  is the intent of the Legislature that this act
                       provide  authority in state  law for  the  implementation of  the
                       operating permit program required by Tide V of the federal Clean
                       Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7661 et seq.)  without affecting the  issuance of
                       permits as required by any other provision of state law.
                        SEC. 2.  Section 39053.3 is added to the Health and Safety Code,
                       to read:
                        39053.3.  "Title V" means Title V of the federal dean Air Act (42
                       U.S.C. Sec. 7661 et seq.).
                        SEC. 3.  Section 39053.5 is added to the Health and Safety Code,
                       to read:
                        39053.5.  'Title V source" means only a stationary source required
                       by federal law to be included in an operating permit  program
                       established pursuant to Tide V of the federal Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
                       Sees. 7661 to 7661f, incl.) and  the  federal regulations  adopted
                       pursuant to Tide V.
                        SEC. 4. Section 40507 of the Health and Safety Code is amended
                       to read:
                        40507.  The  south  coast district board, in making  any order
                       granting* a permit, may specify the time during which the order shall
                       be effective and may require the payment of fees established by the
                       south coast district board.
                        SEC. 5. Section 40752 of the Health and Safety Code is amended
                       to read:
                        40752.  The air pollution control officer shall observe and enforce
                       all  of the following:
                         (a) This part and Part 4 (commencing with Section 41500).
                         (b) All orders, regulations, and rules prescribed by the district
                       board.
                                                                             M  ISO
320

-------
                            — 3—                   Ch. 1166

  (c) All variances and standards which the district hearing board
has prescribed.
  (d) All permit conditions imposed pursuant to Sections 42301 to
42301.10, inclusive.
  SEC. 6. Section 42300 of the Health and Safety Code is amended
to read:
  42300.   (a) Every district board may establish, by regulation, a
permit system that requires, except as otherwise provided in Section
42310, that before any person builds, erects, alters, replaces, operates,
or uses any article, machine, equipment, or other contrivance which
may cause the issuance of air contaminants,  the person obtain a
permit to do so from the air pollution control officer of the district.
  (b) The regulations may provide that a permit shall be valid only
for  a specified period. However, the expiration date of any permit
shall be extended upon completion of the  annual review required
pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 42301 and peyment of the fees
required pursuant  to Section 42311, unless the air pollution control
officer or the hearing board has initiated action to suspend or revoke
the permit pursuant to Section 42304,42307, or 42390, that action has
resulted  in  a final determination by the officer or the board to
suspend or revoke  the permit, and all appeals have been exhausted
or the time for appeals  from that final determination  has been
exhausted.
  (c) • The annual extension of a permit's expiration date pursuant to
subdivision  (b) does  not constitute permit issuance, renewal,
reopening,  amendment,  or  any other  action  subject to  the
requirements specified in Tide V.
  SEC. 7. Section 42301 of the Health and Safety Code is amended
to read:
  42301.  A permit system established pursuant to Section 42300
shall do all of the following:
  (a) Ensure that  the article, machine, equipment, or contrivance
for  which the permit was issued does not prevent or interfere with
the  attainment or maintenance  of any  applicable air quality
standard.
  (b) Prohibit the issuance of a permit unless the  air pollution
control officer is satisfied, on the basis of criteria adopted by the
district board, that the article, machine, equipment, or contrivance
will comply with all of the following:
  <1) All applicable orders, rules, and regulations of the district and
of the state  board.
  (2) All applicable provisions of this division.
  (c) Prohibit the issuance of a permit to a Title V source if the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency objects to its
issuance in a timely manner as provided in Title V. This subdivision
is not intended to provide any authority to the Environmental
Protection Agency to object to the issuance of a permit other than
that authority expressly granted by Title V.
                                                       94  190
                                                                               321

-------
                         Ch. 1166                   —4—

                           (d)  Provide that the air pollution control officer may issue to a
                         Tide V source a permit to operate or use if the owner or operator of
                         the Title  V source presents a variance  exempting the owner  or
                         operator from Section 41701, any rule or regulation of the district, or
                         any permit condition imposed pursuant to this section, or presents
                         an abatement order mat has the effect of a variance and mat meets
                         all of the requirements of this part pertaining to variances, and the
                         requirements for the issuance of permits to operate are otherwise
                         satisfied. The terms and conditions of any variance or abatement
                         order may be incorporated into the permit as a compliance schedule,
                         to the extent required by Title V.
                           (e)  Require, upon annual renewal, that each permit be reviewed
                         to determine that the permit conditions are adequate to ensure
                         compliance with, and the enforceabulry of,  district rules and
                         regulations applicable to  the  article, ™»*»hfaM»,  equipment,  or
                         contrivance for which the permit was issued which were in effect at
                         the time  the permit  was issued or modified, or which  have
                         subsequently been adopted and made retroactively applicable to an
                         existing article, ™***n»l equipment, or contrivance, by the district
                         board and, if the permit conditions are not consistent, require that
                         the permit be revised to specify the permit conditions in accordance
                         with all applicable rules and regulations.
                           (f) Provide for the reissuance or transfer of a permit to a new
                         owner or operator of an article, machine, equipment, or contrivance.
                         An application for transfer of ownership only, or change in operator
                         only, of any article, TT»nohin^i equipment, or contrivance which had
                         a valid permit to operate within the two-year period immediately
                         preceding the application is a temporary permit to operate. Issuance
                         of the final  permit to  operate shall be  conditional upon a
                         determination  by  the  district mat the  criteria  specified  in
                         subdivisions (b)  and (e) are met, if the permit was not surrendered
                         as a condition to receiving emission reduction credits pursuant to
                         banking or permitting rules of the district. However,  under no
                         circumstances shall the criteria specify that a change of ownership
                         or operator alone is a basis for requiring more stringent emission
                         controls or operating conditions than would otherwise apply to the
                         article, machine, equipment, or contrivance.  ,
                           SEC. 8.  Section 42301.10 is added to the Health and Safety Code,
                         to read:
                           42301.10. In any district that has  a permit  system established
                         pursuant  to Section 42300, the air pollution control officer may
                        • include, in any permit issued to a Title V source, emission limits,
                         standards, and other requirements that ensure compliance with all
                         federal Clean Air Act "applicable requirements," as that term is
                         defined in regulations adopted by the Environmental Protection
                         Agency pursuant to Title V, including those requirements specified
                         in an applicable implementation plan as defined by Section 7602 (q)
                         of Title 42 of the United States Code, and Parts C (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7470
                                                                               94  210
322

-------
                           —5—                    Ch. 1166

et seq.) and D (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7501 et seq.) of Title 1 of the Clean Air
Act
  SEC. 9.   Section 42301.11 is added to the Health and Safety Code,
to read:
  42301.11.  It is the intent of the Legislature that, in implementing
Title V, districts do  all of the following:
  (a) Develop, in recognition that districts are obligated to issue
one-third  of the Titie V permits  within one  year of die Title V
program's approval by the Environmental Protection Agency, and in
recognition that sources are allowed one year to  submit a Title V
permit  application, an  equitable program for ensuring  that all
sources receive as much time as feasible  to develop and submit
permit applications. In developing die program the districts shall
recognize the complexity and size of the facilities, the number and
similarity  of facilities within each industry category, the level of
effort required to develop the permit application, and the resources
available  to complete the application. The districts should also
consider potential incentive programs to promote voluntary early
permit application submissions.
  (b) Consider  the merits and benefits of including the permit
shield authorized by subsection (f) of Section 70.6 of Title 40 of the
Code of Federal, Regulations in all Title V permits to clarify the
federal compliance  responsibilities of Title  V sources.
  (c) Consistent with state and federal regulations, allow the use of
emission monitoring alternatives, when available and having the
accuracy required to ensure enforcement and compliance, in lieu of
the use of continuous emission monitors.
  (d) Give priority to the issuance of Title V permits for five-year
terms.
  SEC 10. Section 42301.12 is added to the Health and Safety Code,
to read:
  42301.12.  (a) Any district permit system or permit provision
established by a district board to meet the  requirements of Title V
shall minimize the  regulatory burden on Title V sources and the
district and shall meet all of the following criteria:
  (1) Apply only to Title V sources, as defined in Section 39053.5.
  (2) Issue  permits  pursuant   to   Title  V only  after  the
Environmental Protection Agency has approved the district's Title
V permit  program.
  (3) Identify in the permit, to the greatest extent feasible, permit
terms and conditions which are  federally enforceable  and those
which are not federally enforceable, so that requirements imposed
only by the state are not made federally enforceable solely as a result
           "  " "     t of a Title V permit.  A district may make that
identification by either of the following means:
   (A)  Identifying in the permit the terms and conditions which are
federally enforceable because they are imposed pursuant to a federal
requirement
                                                       94 250
                                                                            323

-------
                            Ch. 1166                   —6—

                               (B) Identifying in the permit- the terms and conditions which are
                            imposed pursuant to state law or district rules and are not federally
                            enforceable.
                               (4) Utilize, to the extent reasonably feasible, general permits and
                            similar methods to reduce source and district permitting burdens for
                            Tide V sources.
                               (5) Establish clear and simple application completeness criteria.
                               (6) To  die extent possible,  minimize the burden  of federally
                            mandated  paperwork  such  as  recordkeeping  and  reporting
                            documents.
                               (7) Allow sources maximum  flexibility in selecting cost-effective,
                            reliable, and representative monitoring methods consistent  with
                            applicable state and federal requirements.
                               (8) If a permit is required to be reopened to comply with Title V
                            requirements, base the reopening upon the  federal criteria for
                            reopening and lunit the reopening to only the federal component of
                            the Title V permit This paragraph is not intended to limit in any way
                            the authority under state law to reopen permits.
                               (9) Authorize administrative permit amendments and  minor
                            permit modifications as required by federal law.
                               (10) Provide that, unless the district determines that a Title V
                            application  is not complete within  60 days  of receipt of the
                            application,  the application shall be deemed to be complete.
                               (11) Authorize, to the extent consistent  with existing state law,
                            mandatory operational flexibility provisions required  pursuant to
                            subparagraphs (i) and (iii) of paragraph (12) of subsection (b) of
                            Section 70.4 of, and paragraphs (9) and (10) of subsection (a) of
                            Section 70.6 of, Part 40 of the Code  of Federal Regulations, and
                            consider  optional  operational flexibility  provisions  established
                            pursuant to subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (12) of, and paragraphs
                            (14) and (15) of, subsection (b) of Section 70.4 of, and subparagraph
                            (iii) of paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of Section 70.6 of, Part 40 of
                            die Code of Federal Regulations. Nothing in this paragraph is
                            intended to  affect whatsoever any pending litigation.
                               (12) Make every reasonable effort, in partnership with Title V
                            sources and the state board, to evaluate and respond to the substance
                            of any objection to a proposed permit and to obtain expeditious
                            approval  of Title  V permits  submitted  to the Environmental
                            Protection Agency.
                              SEC. 11.  Section 42350 of the Health and Safety Code is amended
                            to read:
                              42350.   (a) Any person  may apply to the hearing  board for a
                            variance from Section 41701 or from the rules and regulations of the
                            district.
                               (b) (1)  If the district board has established a permit system by
                            regulation pursuant to Section  42300, a variance, or an abatement
                            order which has the effect of a variance, may not be granted from
                            the requirement for a permit to build, erect, alter, or replace.
                                                                                   94  270
324

-------
                           _7—                   Ch. 1166

  (2)  Title V sources shall not be granted a variance, or  an
abatement order which has the effect of a variance, from the
requirement for a permit to operate or use.
  SEC. 12.  Section 42400 of the Health and Safety Code is amended
to read:
  42400.   (a) Except  as  otherwise  provided in Section  42400.1,
42400.2, or 42400.3, any .person who violates this part, or any rule,
regulation, permit, or order of the state board or of a  district,
including a district hearing board, adopted pursuant  to  Part 1
(commencing with Section 39000) to Part 4 (commencing with
Section 41500), inclusive, is guilty of a misdemeanor and is subject to
a  fine  of not  more than one thousand   dollars  ($1,000)   or
imprisonment in the county jail for not more than six months, or
both,
  (b) If a violation under subdivision (a) with regard to the failure
to operate a vapor recovery system on a gasoline cargo tank is
directly caused by the actions of an employee under die supervision
of, or of any independent contractor working for, any person subject
to this part, the employee or independent contractor, as the case may
be, causing the violation is guilty of a misdemeanor and is punishable
as provided in subdivision (a).  That liability shall not extend to the
person employing the employee or  retaining the independent
contractor, unless that person is separately guilty of an action that
violates this part.
   (c) The recovery of civil penalties  pursuant to Section 42402,
42402.1,  42402.2, or 42402.3 precludes prosecution pursuant to this
section for the same offense. When a district  refers  a violation to a
prosecuting agency, the filing of a criminal  complaint  is  grounds
requiring the dfcmi«"d of-any  civil action brought pursuant to this
article for the same offense.
   (d) Each  day during  any portion of which  a  violation  of
subdivision (a) occurs is a separate offense.
   SEC.  13.  Section  42400.3  of  the Health  and  Safety  Code is
amended to read:
   42400.3.  (a) Any person who willfully and intentionally emits an
air contaminant in violation of any provision of this part or any rule,
regulation,  permit, or order  of the state board or of a district,
pertaining to emission regulations or limitations is  guilty of a
 misdemeanor and is subject to a fine of not more than fifty thousand
 dollars ($50,000) or imprisonment in the county jail for not more
 than one year, or both.
   (b) The recovery  of civil penalties pursuant to Section 42402,
.42402.1, 424022 or 42402.3 precludes prosecution pursuant to  this
'section for the same offense. When a district refers a violation to a
 prosecuting agency, the filing of a criminal complaint is  grounds
 requiring the *«mtaMl of any civil action brought pursuant to this
 article for the same offense.
   (c) Each day during any  portion  of which a violation occurs
                                                        94  300
                                                                           325

-------
                         Ch. 1166                   —8—

                         constitutes a separate offense.
                           SEC. 14.  Section 42400.4 is added to the Health and Safety Code,
                         to read:
                           42400.4.   (a) In any district where a Tide V permit program has
                         been fully approved by the Environmental Protection Agency, any
                         person who knowingly violates any federally enforceable permit
                         condition or any fee or filing requirement applicable to a Title V
                         source is guilty of a misdemeanor and is subject to a fine of not more
                         than ten thousand dollars ($10,000).
                           (b) In any district in which a Title V permit program has been
                         fully approved by the Environmental Protection Agency, any person
                         who knowingly makes any false material statement, representation,
                         or certification in any form or in any notice or report required of a
                         Title V source of a federally enforceable permit requirement, or who
                         knowingly renders inaccurate  any monitoring device  or method
                         required of a Title V source, is guilty of a misdemeanor and is subject
                         to a fine of not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000)'.
                           (c) The recovery of civil penalties pursuant to Section 42402,
                         42401.1, 424022, or 42404.3 precludes prosecution pursuant to this
                         section for the same offense. When a district refers a violation to a
                         prosecuting agency, the filing  of a criminal complaint is grounds
                         requiring the dismissal of any civil action brought pursuant to this
                         article for the same offense.
                           (d) Each day  during any  portion  of which  a violation  of
                         subdivision (a) or (b) occurs is a separate offense.
                           (e) This section shall not become operative in a district until the
                         Environmental Protection Agency fully approves that district's Title
                         V* permit program.
                           (f)  This section is applicable only to federally enforceable permit
                         conditions which are not otherwise enforceable pursuant to Sections
                         42400, 42400.1, 424002, and 42400.3.
                           SEC. 15.  Section 42402 of the Health and Safety Code is amended
                         to read:
                           42402. (a) Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (b) or in
                         Section 42402.1,424022, or 42402.3, any person who violates this part,
                         any order issued pursuant to Section 42316, or any rule, regulation,
                         pejrmit, or order of a district, including a district hearing board, or
                         of the state board issued pursuant to Part 1 (commencing  with
                         Section 39000) to Part 4 (commencing with Section 41500), inclusive,
                         is strictly liable  for a civil penalty of not more than one thousand
                         dollars ($1,000).
                           (b) (1) Any person who violates any provision of this part, any
                         order issued pursuant to Section 42316,  or any rule,  regulation,
                         permit, or order of a district, including a district hearing board, or
                         of the state board issued pursuant to Part 1 (commencing  with
                         Section 39000) to Part 4 (commencing with Section 41500), inclusive,
                         is strictly liable for a civil penalty of not more than ten thousand
                         dollars ($10,000).
                                                                                94 330
326

-------
                            — 9—                    Ch. 1166

  (2) Where  a civil penalty in excess of one thousand dollars
($1,000) for each day in which the violation occurs is sought, there
is no liability  under this subdivision if die person accused of the
violation alleges by affirmative defense and establishes that the
violation was caused by an act which was not the result of intentional
or negligent conduct In a district in which a Title V permit program
has been fully  approved, this paragraph shall not apply to a violation
of federally enforceable requirements that occurs at a Title V source.
  (c) Each day during any portion of which a violation occurs is a
separate offense.
  SEC.  15.5.  Section  42402 of the Health  and Safety Code is
amended to read:
  42402.   (a)  Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (b) or in
Section 42402.1,42402J2, or 42402.3, any person who violates this part,
any order issued pursuant to Section 42316, or any rule, regulation,
permit, or  order of a district, including a district hearing board, or
of the state board issued pursuant to Part 1 (commencing with
Section 39000) to Part 4 (commencing with Section 41500), inclusive,
is strictly liable for a civil penalty of not more  than one thousand
dollars ($1,000).
  (b) (1)  Any person who violates any provision of this part, any
order issued pursuant to Section 42316, or any rule, regulation,
permit, or  order of a district, including a district hearing board, or
of the state board issued pursuant to Part 1 (commencing with
Section 39000) to Part 4 (commencing with Section 41500), inclusive,
is strictly liable for a civil penalty of not more  than ten  thousand
dollars ($10,000).
  (2) (A)  Where  a civil penalty in excess of one thousand dollars
($1,000) for each day in which the violation occurs is sought, there
is no liability  under this subdivision if the person accused of the
violation alleges by affirmative defense and establishes that the
violation was caused by an act which was not the result of intentional
or negligent conduct. In a district in which a Title V permit program
has been fully  approved, this paragraph shall not apply to a violation
of federally enforceable requirements that occurs at a Title V source.
  (B) This paragraph does not apply to a person who is determined
to have violated an annual facility emissions cap established pursuant
to a market-based  incentive program under Section 39620.
  (c) Each day during any portion of which a violation occurs is a
separate offense.
  SEC.  16. Section 42402.3 of the Health  and Safety Code is
amended to read:
  42402.3.   (a) Any person who willfully and intentionally emits an
air  contaminant in violation of this part or any rule, regulation,
permit,- or  order of the state board, or of a district, pertaining to
emission regulations or limitations, is liable for a  civil penalty of not
more than  fifty thousand dollars ($50,000).
  (b) Each day during any portion of which a violation occurs is a
                                                        94 370
                                                                               327

-------
                               Ch. 1166                   —10—

                               separate offense.
                                 SEC.  17.  Section 155 of this bill incorporates amendments to
                               Section 42402 of the Health and Safety Code proposed by both this
                               bill and AB 2107. It shall only become operative if (1) both bills are
                               enacted and become effective on or before January 1,1994, (2) each
                               bill amends Section 42402 of die Health and Safety Code, and (3) this
                               bill is enacted after AB 2107, in which case Section 15 of this bill shall
                               not become operative.
                                 SEC  18.   (a) No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant
                               to Section 6 of Article Xm B of the California Constitution for those
                               costs which may be incurred by a local agency or school district
                               because this act creates a new crime or infraction, changes the
                               definition of a crime or infraction, changes the penalty for a crime
                               or infraction, or eliminates a crime or infraction.
                                 (b) No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section
                               6 of Article XDIB of the California Constitution to the extent that the
                               local agency or school district has the authority to.levy service
                               chaises, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level
                               of service mandated by this act
                                 (c) Notwithstanding  Section 17580 of the  Government Code,
                               unless otherwise specified in this act, the provisions of this act shall
                               become operative on the same date that the act takes effect pursuant
                               to
                                                                                     94  380
328

-------
 TEXAS
TITLE 31. NATURAL RE-
   SOURCES  AND CON-
   SERVATION
Pan m.  Texas  Air
   Control  Board
Chapter  122.  Federal Operating
   Permits
 Tlw Texas Air Control Board (TAGS) adopts
 raw §§122.10-122.12. 122. 120.  122.122.
 122.130.122.132-122.134.122.136. 122.138.
 122.139.    122.141.   122.143.   122.145.
 122.150.     122.1S2-122.155.     122.161.
 122.163-122.165.122201.122502.122204.
 122210-122213.        122215-122217.
 122219-122221.122231.122233.122241.
 122243.122410-122312.122314, 122316.
 122.410.122.411,122.420-122.422,122.425.
 122.427,    122.430.   122.432.   122.434,
 122.435.  122. 437. 122.438.' and  122.440.
 concerning Federal Operating Permits. Sec-
 lions  122.  10-122.12.  122.120.  122.122.
 122.130.122.132-122.134,122.136.122.138.
 122.  139.   122.141,  122.143.   122.145.
 122.150.     122.152*122.155.     122.161.
 122.163-122.   165.   122201.   122202.
 122204, 122210-122213. 122215-122.217.
 122219-122.   221.   122231.   122233.
 122241,   122243,    122311.   122312.
 122314.   122316.    122.411.   122.420,
 122.421.   122.430.    122.432.   122.434.
 122.435. 122.437. and 122.440 are adopted
 with changes to the proposed text as pub-
 fished in  the May 11. 1833.  issue of me
 Texts fleodttr (18 Texfleg  3017).  Sections
 122.  310.   122.410.  122.422.   122.425.
 122.427, and 122.438 are adopted without
 changes and win not be repubtshed.

 The new chapter is written to adopt the teds-;
 ral operating permit program as required in
 new Part 70 of Chapter t: rule 40 oi the Code
 of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 70). Title V
of the Federal dean Air Act  Amendments of
 1990 (FCAAA or the Ad), enacted on  No-
vember 15.1990. requires the United Stales
 Environmental Protection'  Agency (EPA) to
promulgate regulations within 12 months of
enactment that require and specify the mini-
mum elements of stale operating permit pro-
grams. The new CFR Part 70 contains these
provisions. The new TAGS Regulation XII is
created to m*flyn the regulatory authority ot
the federal operaliim permit pi 091 am required
under §70.4
-------
       wMn the sfte. 3M suggested language tor
       two raw subsections under $122.141to alow
       tor both these changes. The staff recognizes
       that boJh emissions trading and alternate op-
       erating scenarios were inducted  in 40 CFR
       70. Iha staff designed the proposed operat-
       ing permit program  (permt  content  and
       icope) to alow such changes provided mat
       such changes do  not altoet an  appicable
       requkement, and provided that Regulation VI
       end the  Texas Slate Implementation Plan
       (SIP) alows such emission trading and alar-
       nate operating scenarios. Regulation VI does
       not allow tor  a facHy to trade emissions-
       without  best  avalable. control  technology
       (BAC1) and an emissions  impacts review.
       Nor does Regulation VI alow a source to vary
       its operating scenario, unless expressly al-
       lowed under an existing  preconstruction au-
       *•	T- —.*	  ^n*A mlmM  h*I^M^k0
       monzanon. ine sum  Deieves
       emissions trading  and  alemate
       scenarios are appropriately adores
       the currant Regulation VI New Source
            (NSR)i
Union Carbjdsi commented that the TACffs
proposed vttenm cppiovsJ wes ttppropnejte
tor the stato. The commerter suggested that
the maximum afiewabte control technology
(MACT) determinations required under the
FCAAA. §ll2(g) and $112® 'not be imple-
mented across al sources until they are tor-
maUy covered by the (stale's) complete/final
program.' The staff believes the responsMBy
to implement §ll2(g) and $112® is not re-
stricted only to the time after the ful program
approval is obtained. The staff understands,
based  on  guKfance from  EPA,i that the
$1120) provisions (case-by-case MACT de-
terminations, triggered by new construction,
              or  modifications of
       named sources) of the FCAAA apply only to
       those sources for which a permit is required.
       This would mean  the responsibility to apply
       tor §112(0) MACT determinations would fed
       only to those sources required to submit per-
       mit  applications under the  interim  program.
      i AN  sources would  be  raqured  to  meet
       §112(0) requirements upon full delegation of
       the    program.   The   staff   has   added
       $122.161(0) to reflect  the  effective date of
       §l12(g). The  omission of  similar guidance
       concerning the §1120) program by EPA is
       interpreted by  the staff to mean  that all
       sources affected by §1120 wll be required to
       apply  for MACT determination regardless of
       their status under an interim program. The
       §112® program requires the stales to  make
       source category wide MACT determinations if
       theEPA fails to promulgate a standard  ac-
       cudiiu to a predetei iiiimJ schedule.  Smce
       this program is not isolated1 to source by
       source determinations of a standard, as is the
       §H2(g) program, basing source applicability
      determinations on the date a source becomes
      subject to the permitting program is not ep*
      propriate. The staff believes the MACT stan-
      dards  are  Mended  to apply to  aN major
      sources covered by the §112(c) source cate-
      gory list. The rasponsbiMy of an individual
      source to abide by the standards  is not a
      function of the appHcabiUty date of the permit
      program, but rather the applicability date of
      the standard. The staff Mends  to  request
      delegation of the §112® program from EPA
      after the proposed §112® and §112(1)  rules
      are promulgated. For those sources not cov-
end by the interim program. $112® stan-
dards wil be determined and administered by
thestate after delegation through $112(1). No
cfienge has been uniHfiv to the proposal svwe
this comment is outside the scope of this rule
package. The staff believes these implemen-
tatm icsues are  best  addressed during
rule making  specific to these xograms. Al
determinations wfl eventually I icome part of
the permits issuad under Reguation xn and
         authority is provided in the pro-
TMOGA eommenM that language should be
added in the preamble or in a guidance docu-
ment to itdcata that the appficant can assign
a numbering schema to the emission unto, 9
to desired. The commemer pointed out that
this would aflow tor consistency wan the cur-
rent system used in emission inventories. The
staff agrees with this suggestion but proposes
to address it in.the gwdance documents,
rather man in me final rule.

PenmcH requested that the staff develop and
issue the General Appfication Form tar Fede-
ral   Qparejaig   Panni    vvjerenced   ei
§t22.l32(a))  as soon as possbte. Natural
Gas suggested that a standard parma appS-
             be developed tar the natural
                                                   gas transmission industry in order to stream-
                                                   Ime the review process tar both the Musky
                                                                  3Mi
                                                   staff develop a "Perma: Manual* to hajpappi-
                                                   carvs navigate through  the new appication
                                                   and review process and trtatucl that such a
                                                   manual would greatly  assist  apuicBnu. jn
                                                             to comply  wfth the regulations
                                                            re staff resources by acting as a
practical reference
lily. The staff
•user friendly*
                                                                   tor the regulated commit*
                                                                       that wel written and
                                                                                  andap-
phc&bort forms we esseiatieJ to tfie vnpiemen*
tfltion of this propwn. ThQ proposed timing of
theprogrwn subnttta! to EPA is such thai the
kdiift wil to Among the find rtems submitted
to EPA by November 15, 1993. The staff
beieves tW it it exrt^ in^»iert to have
ctee/ end ooncase 
-------
EPA noted that, at this time, there is no final
EPA policy on what constitutes an acceptable
phase-in schedule tor sources under an in-
terim program.  EPA further staled that the
staff must provide any required information in
the request tor interim approval.  The staff
Mends, in the program cubmittal. to provtte
competng  reasons tor interim program ap-
proval by EPA. The staff wil provide al htor-
mation requested by EPA related  to interim
approval wah the program submataL

One MMdual requested mat the fine) rates
require  mat a poeution prevention plan be
developed  and submitted Mm each permit
application  and mat TACB should pressure
EPA Mo an agreement win  Mexico to de-
velop a program similar to the tederal operat-
ing  permit program.  Pollution  prevention
Plans are not required under Part 70; conse-
quently, this request is beyond the scape of
H* rutsmaking. The staff agrees that  poeu-
tton prevention  is  a worthwhie  objective.
However, the federal operating pomtts are
Mended to be codifying permits only, the
program is not Wended to address this issue.

The second comment does not require any
changes to the proposed rules and is beyond
the  scope  of this rule package.

One individual opposed atowing any general
permits to  be issued under me final rule, hi
B*pp^"* of this position, the commenter ctfod
the  staffs  tong held belief in case-by-case
determinations. 40 CFR Part 70 §70.6(d) pro-
vides that general permits must comply with
all requirements apptcable to other Part 70
permits and the general permit must identity
me criteria  by which a source may qualty tor
such a permit. The staff does believe that the
proposed uHHzation  of general permits wil
resut in efficient use of state resources to
provide  effective and  enforceable permits.
The general  permits  concept has   many
similarities  to the  Standard  Exemption List
which the TAC8 has administered tor years.
For these reasons, the staff is retaining the
general permits, as proposed.

TCC suggested changes to various sections
of the proposed rate to make dear that the
federal  operating permit does not  affed the,
ability to commence construction or medifica-
tion of a lacifity, only the ability to operate the
taciity under certain eircumstances. The staff
agreed  with the intent of TCC's suggestion
and $122.161$) is added tor clarification.

In addition to the testimony received, the staff
has identified two areas where rate changes
are necessary to ensure the smooth imple-
mentation  of the  new permittng process.
First, the staff has added a new §122.i52(d).
relating to Notification of TAGS and Others, to
provide  tor notice to the agency of publication
of public notice. The staff also noted during
review of the comments  that the  proposed
rules tailed  to make it dear that an owner or
operator of a site which satisfies the criteria of
$122.120. concerning Applicability, must not
only apply  tor, but also obtain, a  permit in
oraV- to operate. A new subsection  (f) to
$122201, concerning Permits addresses this
oversight.

hi the  preembte of the proposed rate the
agency requested comments from the public
on 16 issues for consideration in determining
whether or not to include a perms shield as
an option in the Federal Operating Perm!
Program. A number ol oommemers who sup-
ported inclusion of the permit shield chose to
            those issues. One commenter
who opposed inclusion of the permit shield
also responded to the 16 issues. Fottowmg
this paragraph are the sixteen issues from the
proposed ride and a brief summary of the
commentars* responses.

Should a permit shield as written in 40 CFR
STQjfMf). or some variation  of  mat  permit
shield, be part of  the Federal Operating Per-
mit Program in Texas?

Generally,  the commenters responded  that
the permit shield, since stowed by federal
rule. shouBateatea included in the state rule
and consequently, the  state program. As
                                     i of
the perntit shield. Many of the oommenteis
who supported the inclusion of a permit shield
also noted mat the permit sNotd should be
included in order to provide the  permittee
protection from enforcement due to a reMer-
pretation of an appicable requvement by the
 How would enforceable regulatory
 be written which would provide toransnw
 ptWTui shield (tar •xkvnpto« lor fwtittf$vviiik)ii
 of an applicable requirement in the permit)?

 Overall, the comreenters stated met the per-
 ma shield had been narrowed sufficiently dur-
 ing federal rulomaMng. Several <
      I that in general they old not support a
 pemat shield which weuB alow the staff to
 reMeipret an aiyBMftte reqwroment, after a
 permit is issued and daring its Sve-year term,
 without reopening the permit punuent to the
 procedural requirements  in  the final  rules.
 One commenter slated that 8 is unnecessary
 to define narrow  language tor a shield be-
 cause proper operation is the only *shiekr
 necessary.                   i

 bi what ways is a permit shield necessary to
One<
menter acknowledged that the exist-
ence ol a permt shield in Texas is not neces-
sary    to    make    proper    appUcapity
determinations but noted that it would prated
them from enforcement for reimerpretation of
applicable  requirements after  permit  issu-
ance. Other eommenters meinlained that me
availability cf a permit shield offers an added
incentive to industry to come  forwent with
tfirfcuR  appieatsBy questions  early in the
permit application in enter to obtain a,perm*
shield for protedion from enforcement when
apphcabiily detenvvnations are rerteipretod
by the staff subsequent to  issuance of the
permit. One commenter stated that a permit
shield is not necessary to  make a proper
applicability determination.

What additional planning certainty would the
permit shield provide to the regulated com-
munity beyond  what is currently available
through  proper  applicability determinations?

Generally, the commenters responded that
the permit shield provides stablity to the reg-
ulated community since it offers protection
from enforcement due to reMerprelation of
the applicable requirements by the staff or
general public. The eommenters oebeved that
                                    the permMees would be able to operate with
                                    a high degree of confidence that compliance
                                    wMMtepermit  wllresut in avoidance of
                                    enforcement proceedings, hence the pwmu
                                    would provide a credtote base tor business
                                    and cofflptianoe  ptsnnng.  One oommenter
                                    stated that planning certainly is not the goal
                                    of the Texas Chan Air Act. protection of the
                                    dean air resources and pubJc health is the
                                    goal. Proper plant operation, accurate permit
                                    Mormatnn, and  compliance  wa give plan-
                                    ning certainty to  the regulated community

                                    A permajhKrtd woutt only apply to the oper-
                                    fltinQ ptWtMl. Tiwotore, how would tfac poniM
                                    shield be  written such that it does not pro-
                                    mote confusion over what applicable require-
                                    ments are subject to enforcement because of
                                    their inclusion in other permits or regulations.
                                    even though they are shielded in me cperal-
                                   The commenteni were spfit in their aprons
                                             9COOH. Sovw ooswiMfttsfs
                                         Ottamt tt*A ev^woHetA mlnaiierll
                                         (MB Dlv |JHmU avMND
 requvemeiftt. ragardtess of whether the appfi-
 eabte requirement was in a permit  or  rule
 outside of the federal opsratng permit  pro-
 gram. Other eommenters believed that the
 permit shield would not extend to sat* arty
 reqwremonts. These commenters suggested
• that me parmk must delneate which require-
 ments are tedsraly enforceable and requie*
 marts that an  included pursuant  to  the
 state's authority, One oommenter stated  that
 to avoid confusion over entoraement, the staff
 should avoid writing a permit sNett that some
 might construe as a defense  against  agency
 or pubic adion against corporate abuse,  nui-
 sance, or health hazard even write operating
 under the terms of the permit since the permit
 may not be complete  and may not be ade-
 quate to avoid impacts.

 Since the Operating Permit Program is being
 implemented as a separate program from the
 pre-certttraaien^NSR program in Texas, how
 would the psrmt shield be written in order to
 avoid enforcement ineonsietensies in a two-
 uemw system?

 Again, the commenters varied in their re-
 sponses,  depending on their  opinion  of how
 extensive  the enforcement  protedion  pro-
 vided by the permit shield would be. Those
 commenters who believed that the permit
 shield would  provide  complete  protection
 tram enforcement 0^ the  anplicsMe require-
 ment  Act^wwlAOQttd  that   inopnsisienciet
 could occur. However, these comments be-
 lieved that the inconsistencyjn^enforcement
 would be fesdved when the operating permit
 was modffiad to incorporate the NSR permit,
 at renewal ol the operating permit, or when
 the staff reopened and revised the operating
 permit. Other commenters, who befeeved mat
 the  permit shield  would shield only enforce-
 ment action under the operating permit, be-
 lieved no inconsistencies would occur. One
 commenter stated that eomplianee with the
 representations in the permit  application  and
 the  operating permit is necessary  and non-
 compiiBnce should be cause for agency ac-
 tion.
                   Adopted Sections     September 7, 1993
                                                         18 TexReg 5991

                                                                         331

-------
How would the perma sNeti be written such
mat I woukl not imariere w»» the uss of the
operating perml as an onforanwnt tool?
The commentars pointed out that tJ»
shield would offer m protection from i
paenee wsh the terms and eondleas of the
pom*. One eommaisar <" nuBMBjeiy  oaiBmBnadons  can oe
                                                                                    made in permit apjrteaiiena. 7!w staff agrees
                                                                                    that I is the appropriate rasponsbilty of the
                                                                                    agency to provide interpretations of regula-
                                                                                    tory language  and believes thai one of the
                                                                                    functions of the operating permit program is
                                                                                    to provide wctt  ifltsrpretatiem. Therefore.
                                                                                    $122.145 (Permit Content Requirements) h*s
                                                                                    been revised  to  tngude a subsection (e)
                                                                                    which allows  tor interpretations of specific
                                                                                    language and the definition  of specific term
                                                                                    in an appUeabta requiramam to be attached to
                                                                                    the permit. Thereafter,  those interprttaiione
                                                                                    may  not be modified and  subsequent en-
   18 TexReg 5992
332
                    September 7,  1993     Texas Register  *

-------
               tata
notified and the fMRnl revised. This tubiac-
Han serves the dual purpose of insuring con-
         ol tho •ppfiCo»i)to ivQuifvnwnis by
the staff and providing consist*!* and timely
compfiance tor lha regulated community. At
tht sama time. Ma regutatod community «-
tams responsMty tar mar oparations  and
Marathon, TMOQA, Amoco. Exxon Baytown.
Ethyl DuPont and_Chavren supported tha

tmtnods  outlined to •ctflbish ^•ndtathor
rates. Bght individuals stated that grandfa-
ther tacMes. should ba penntted at their ex-
isting emission rates and>not in  excess  ot
their verified historical production rates. Tha
proposed raws. The staff dees not believe
that it is necessary to have a single permit
systemi to aettesstn^ grandfather issue in
the opening permit. Therefore, the ui at Mile-
ther rules win be retained as proposed.

SPSC commenied that biting grandtathered
units to maximum emission rates based on
known  or  approximated  actual, historical
emissions is an unconstitutional taking  of
property and a comraaTclioii of legislative in-
tant The TCAA, $3824518 requires a con-
struction  permi  tor  any  person  who
constructs any new tadly or engages in the
modification of any existing facely which may
emt air contaminants into the air. The staff
          i and believes the procedures out-
fined in tha proposed rutos piovide tor tha
concerns raised by the ccmiueiiars. Tha pro-
posed rutos requte the appficant to propose
an actual grandfather rate or  a presumptive
grandfather rate tor each pandlalhei amis-
•ton unit Tha actual gnwitthar rate, as da-
                                            prior to August 30. 1971. and that mat the
                                            requirements of now rapeatodS382.060,
                                            were not reoju^ed to obtavt a parml tram the
                                            TAC8 at the time the TCAAA were amended
                                            lo provric piVmttNiQ flulnonlly to HMI TACB*
         annual emission rate or
tare that are related to emissions (e.g., i
auction, fuel  firing raw. throughput.
content, etc., as appropriate)  at  wHchthe
emission  unit actually operated and emitted
prior to September 1.1971. tor 12 consecu-
tive months. The staff believes this approach

allowing the units to eml or operate at their
vorifiaMl htttorCetf production fttw. Tno
sumptive  grandMhar rate wM seek to i
tsh a grandfather rate that  as ctosaty as
possUe refiects the actual uiandfathar rate.
Tha staff review involves the determination of
the reasonableness of  the information pro-
vided to estabfish the actual grandfather rate
or the presumptive grandfather rate.  H the
information is delei mined to not reflect grand-
lather rates, additional  Jntermalion may be
requested or atemate  procedures may be
required tor establishing the grandfather rate.
The estabfishment of a grandfather rate she!
not affect the requirement that any facHy
must operate in compliance with al TACB
rutos and regulations including 31 TAG Chap-
ter 116.

Pamzoil suggested that approval of rates tor
grandtamsred factties should be made at the
regional office level The staff befieves that
mis is an appropriate function of the appfica-
tion review process and approval  should re-
main  a central office function. The regional
office wil be  involved at me request _of the
central office in conducting the appficauon
                                                       that those sources that mat ttw
                                            criteria ware slowed to operate at U design
                                            capacity H may had not previously operated

                                            effective date of September 1.1971. tor reg-
                                            istration ol new or modified sources. March 1,
                                            1972. was the effective date tor requiring a
                                            permi tor construction of new or  meowed
                                            sources. If a  source needed k> increase as
                                            operating capacity on or after March 1.1972.
                                            the source was. and is. required to obtain a
                                            construction pern* from ma TACB. The
                                            TCAA. $382403(a) defines a -modification'
                                            to ba 'any physical change in. or change in
                                            the  method of  operation  of  a stationary
                                            source which increases the amount of any air
                                            polutant emitted by such source into'the at-
                                            moaphara or that resuts to the emission of
                                            any air polutant not previously emttod.' The
                                            definition of •modificatiorr set a regulatory
                                            limit on a tsctties operation and any physical
                                            change or operational change which results
                                            in a signHtaant increase in emissions requires
                                            such a tacflfty to obtain a  TACB permit
                                            pursuant to §382.05i8(a). The staff also cfis-
                                                  t that the tongstanolng interpretation of
                                            ttonal taking of design capacity. Tha defintton
                                            - M •^•••^•CdBMi^M^ J^M^Mkj  ifW^iMl^A Ml^A ttMf
                                            01  mooncanorr cwany  HMXIIH mei any
                                            changes to the method of operation that re-
                                            sult in • significant increase in air poUaras
                                            or resuB in the emission of a new pollutant
                                            wil require a permit. The staff does not agree
                                            thaii the Regulation XII requirement tor estab-
                                            isMng grandfather rates is a taking of prep-
                                            arty.* Any  activity that meets the criteria of a
                                            •mooroeatiorr is merely requred to undergo a
                                            TACB Regulation  VI preconstruction permit
 Jonas-Day questioned why the establishment
 of grandfather levels was being undertaken in
 the Title V  operating permit program. It is
 rates and units are appKcabto only to Regula-
 tion VI permits. Since Regulation VI permits
 and Title V permits are to be separated into a
 dual permit system, they believe that TACB
 should deal wth the grandfather issue in the
 context of  Regulation VI,  or combine new
 source review and Title V into « single permit
 system.  This issue was discussed  at the
 raunolabtes  and there was  general agree-
 ment to establish grandfather rates in the
                                            Chevron  Production  and  Union Carbide
                                            stated that the presumptive grandfather rate
                                            procedure  should provide  amnesty tor any
                                            company found in violation of 31 TAC Chap-
                                            ter 116. This issue  was discussed  in  the
                                            roundtobtos and the staff agreed to the estab-
                                            lishment ol presumptive grandfather rates in
                                            addition  to actual grandfather rales  to  ad-
                                            dross the concerns of the regulated commu-
                                            nity regarding tha impact of the final rule on
                                           staff has not added any proviso) to the final
                                           rule to gram amnesty tor any violation  ol
                                           Chapter 116 or any other chapter of this title.
                                                                                      EPA and SPSC commented that Kansas or
                                                                                      Colorado could fan  under the definition of
                                                                                      affected states since both those states are
                                                                                      within SO mUes of a Texas border  toon
                                                                                      Chem  and Exxon Baytown recommended
                                                                                      that the term be more narrowly defined as a
                                                                                      stan whose ar quality is affected to the ex-
                                                                                      tont that a Prevention of Sigrtfcant Deteriora-
                                                                                      tion (PSD) increment may be exceeded. The
                                                                                      AA^JI A^HAA«» M»^ VA*MIA* «w /%^WAjfc« JMMA4
                                                                                      stan agiaas mat Kansas or uomoo uuuu
                                                                                      potentialy ba  affected states  and  racom-
                                                                                      mends thar inclusion on the fist of potentialy
                                                                                      At^M*law4 ettflBMB •! Mill) Afa^af^aWt 4ttStAC ^llrftVlB*
                                                                                      tbn. LMing the right of an affected state to
                                                                                      comment on a permil application is prohtoSed
                                                                                      by 40 CFH 70; consequently, the staff has not
                                                                                      incorporated the second revision.
                                                                                      Chi
                                                  iPredu
                                                                  nted that the staff
                                           has exceeded the requirements of 40 CFH 70
                                           by defMng under air poHutanl.  in $122410.
                                           al poMants listed under Tale  I of the Act
                                           $112(0) or $112(T). rather man  those pofiut-
                                           ants fisted under Tito I of me Act. $112(b) or
                                           $112fjr) and which are atso subject» a start-
                                           dard  UNSMIU a  ipaciBc source  »^l^>ny.
                                           EPA  commented that the definition was not
                                           complete since subparagraph (F) did not spe-
                                           eiScaly reference the Act, $112(0) or ®. EPA
                                           stated that potentialy some pofiutants regu-
                                           latod under Titis I of the Act. $112 would not
                                           M under the proposed definition. HUP sug-
                                           gested modifying suupaiauiaph  (E), to alow
                                           tor an EPA detenninanon that Title VI reojuve-

                                           opanting permit. The staff agrees with Chav-

                                           sutpanigraph (F) has bean revised to reisct
                                           me requirements  of 40  CFR 70. The staff
                                           points out mat suUpaiayiaph (F) of tha define
                                           tion does reference the  Act, $112(b) which
                                           fists al potutants regulated under the Act.
                                           §112(0) or 0). Subparagraph (E) has been
                                           revised to alow tor such an EPA exclusion
                                           through future rutemalong.

                                           EPA  made the fofiowng comments on  tha
                                           definition of appficsblo requiement. Pirst,  un-
                                           der subparagraph (A). EPA stated that  the
                                           specific references to the  Texas SIP  ap-
                                           proved chapters are  IMUIOCI.  EPA recom-
                                           mended that al references to speofic slaw
                                           rules be deleted and the final ruto just refer-
                                           ence the  SIP in general terms
                                           under subparagraph  (B). EPA
                                           that references to Part C and Part D of Tata I
                                           of the Act should be deleted, finely, under
                                           subparagraph (L) ot the definition, EPA sug-
                                           gested that the final mte  should not exptcitly
                                           state that the National Ambient Ar Qualify
                                           Standards (NAAQS)  are not applicable re-
                                           quirements.  The TCC and DuPont recom-
                                           mended reviling subparagraph (B) in order to
                                           clarify which  preconstrucoon permits are  ap-
                                           plicable requirements under tha final rule.
                                           Pemzori commented that the  language in
                                           subparagraph (A) in the definition clarifies the
                                           SIP w^4Momeni& which may be appficabie to
                                           a facSty. Pennzoi supported such dartty in
                                           that I w« enhance both  compfiance and  en-
                                           forcement of lha final rule.

                                           HUP. SPSC, and Pennzoi noted an appar-
                                           ent publishing error  in subparagraph (D).
                                           PemzoiJ requested that the error ba cor-
                                           rected eccorduig to the  pnnted copy of the
                                           proposed rule distributed by the staff. TCC
                                           commenied that subparagraph (F) should be
                                                               Adopted  Sections    September  7, 1993
                                                                                                            18 TesMeg 5993

                                                                                                                            333

-------
      datetad am* the proposed rate, in effect
      would to adopting by reference various EPA
      rotes thai have not  yet barn promulgated.
      This would, TCC commented, constitute an
      unconstitutional   delegation   at   TACB*
                         TCC made the  same
                      be assigned a smote amiacian unii numbar.
                      EPA requested that the defintwn mil be clar-
                      ified with regard to fugitive emissions. The
                      staff agrees with these comments
      comment on sybparagraphc (A)00 and (B) in
      the daMbon of major source, as waH as in
      other sections. TCC suggested that, to aflay
      EPA* concerns about fa»ure to adopt Mure
      rotes', the agency  should make a eomrn*-
      mant in the submtttd package tb  EPA to
      Mbate rutemaking at such time «s EPA Mi-
      atos its  rutemetarig.

      In the staffs opinion, irfe'defintian forms the
      cornerstone tor the federal operating pern*
      program. The staff befieves that the regulatad
      community and the  general public must have
      avaaabte a detaiad and wdsrstandabb tin of
      the stale and federal requirements which are
      appSeafate requirements under this program.
      To accomplish this goal, the  staff has dafn-
      eated. vary carahdy. the specific appficabte
      requirements  under this program. The staff
      beteves that the uiupoMd definition in the
      final rate meats the reqwrements of 40 Cf R
      70, and  therefore, the changes suggested by
      EPA wil not be incorporated. In the interest of
      clarification the staff has made the change in
      subparagraph  (B) suggested by TCC and
      Dupont. The  error  noted by HUP. SPSC.
      and Pennzol was apparently  a printing error
      and does not appear in the final rate. 40 CFR
      70 requres that the state submit a program
      that, at a minimum,  assures adequate author-
      ity to issue permits  in compSance with a the
      requnmerts ofTitteVoftheActandof40
      CFR 70 (including  any requirements estab-
      fished  pursuanl  to  the Ad.   §504
-------
§122.12 (Acid Rain Definitions); thr
We proposed rule, affected  soiree is used
arty as defined  in  the  definition. Conse-
quently. Pemzors suggested change has not
TU and TMOGA commented that the station-
ary sources included in the definition of site
should be  fcwted to  those  belonging to a
single  major industrial grouping. To support
the* positon, TU and TMOGA cited consis-
tency win 40 CFR 70. and the federal permit-
tihg  programs. The TU  and TMOGA also
proposed  language   to  accomplish  the
change. The staff believes that a great deal ol
contusion would be created  in attempting to
sort out which emission unfs belong or sup-
port a particular major industrial  grouping.
The integrity of the site as tar as appficabtty
under  the final rule has been maintained.
DuPont recommended that the Definition of
state only  requirement be rewritten to ad-
dress whether  the state arty requirement is
an appficatate  requirement  under the final
rule. EPA commented that the reference to
the federal operating permit program should
be deleted torn the definition. The staff
       i that the portion of the proposed rule
         a state only requirement was  not
intended to be an applicable requirement un-
der the proposed rute. The staff has revised
the definition to clarity that applicable require-
roonts 4W  not  sfc&te only nBojumntnts. Th§
staff agrees with EPA and  has revised  the
definition to delete the reference to Federal
Operating Permte.
 EPA suggested that the  definition of  Tite I
 modification be deleted from the final rule. In
      to. promote a general unuenJaikfc^i of
 the program, the staff has attempted to pre-
 sent the requirements of the federal operating
 program as dearly as possible in the pro-
 posed rute. The staff believes that the mean-
 ing  of Title  I  modification is subject  to
 misinterpretation and the term wil not be de-
 Pennzoil and SPSC commented that in an
 apparent misprint, the Texas Register version
 of the proposed rule combined the definitions
 of Title I modification and stationary  source.
 The error  noted  was apparently a  printing
 error and does not appear in the final rule.

 GSU, LCRA. SPSC, TU. El Paso. CPftX. and
 HL8P commented that the grandfather defini-
 tions in §122.11 would make it very  dHfioutt
 for   them   to   operate   their    electric
 grandlamered generators in the. manner that
 is often required to meet peak electrical de-
 mands or to respond to major electrical out-
 ages in the power grid. They stated that the
 units are designed with a maximum power
 generation  potential and while the use of ful
 potential may not have been  required  prior to
 September 1.1971. the un* and/or units may
 currently be operating at much Ivgher levels
 than any level of operation prior to September
 1. 1971. and it would be impossxHe to drop
 back to the pre-1971 operational level. TMs
 issue was also raised in the roundtabtos held
 on  the  draft Regulation XII. The sttH re-
 sponded to these issues by  conducting two
 separate meetings with the electric utiHties to
 discuss  the  issues  raised  during   the
 roundtables and the issues  commented on
during the  public  comment  period  of the
rutemaking procedure. The first meeting was
conducted on May 25. 1993. and the main
topic  of  d«fa ration   centered   on  the
operational strategies employed by the ut*
ties  during  dmerent  seasonal  peaks and
emergencies. At this meeting, a revised defi-
nition for actual grandfather rate was pres-
ented  to the staff tor consideration. The
problem, as defined, was fimoed to electric
unities and most of the units involved would
be required to obtan an acid rain  permit
under  40 CFH 72 as a pert of  a federal
upeialMig permi. The staff revised the defini-
tion  proposed by the electric utifilies at the
May 25. 1993. meeting and distributed me
revised definition to each maty by tetter dated
June 30, 1993. Another meeting  was con-
ducted on July 14.1993. to consider a final
definition. During this meeting a final defini-
tion was agreed upon by the parties ewotved.
Therefore, the staff has included a definition
for actual grandfather nta tor electric utitiss
in Subchapar_EjAcid Rain) o) the final rules.
The final definition, oont&iis the loon *Max^
mum Continuous Rating.* This term has been
added to the definitions in §122.12 (Acid Rain
Definitions) as The  heat input required to
HtMlf*1 IrW ffWXttnum OOiSUSBSfltetl SwtWt COft**
dMon   or  to   achieve  the   maximum
documented electrical output*

Sierra  commented, in §122.11 (Definitions).
that  the actual granlliilhai rate should be
defined as the emission rate, production rate
tar today, supported by  accurate historical
date to support the representations made by
the appficanf The staff agrees and befieves
the procedures outfined in the proposed rule
provided lor the concerns of the commenter.
The proposed rule requires the apnfifiant to
estabfish for each grandfather emission unit
an actual grandfather rate or a presumptive
grandfather  rate.  The  definition tor  actual
grandfather rate, as proposed, is consistent
with established policy for defining grandfa-
ther rates. The proposed grandfather rate is
subject to review by me staff at the time the
appScation  is  submitted.   Section  122.
132(a)(5M8)(S) provides for review of an ac-
tual  grandfather rate representation and al-
lows for the staff  to require revisions to the
application if the representations for an actual
grandfather rate do not appear to be correct
The  staff may also require the determination
of a presumptive grandfather rate in lieu of an
actual     grandfather    rate.     Section
l22.132(aX5)(E) states that establishment of
the presumptive grandfather rate  does not
remove any tiabttilies or potential enforce-
ment action tor past or future exceedances of
the actual grandfather rate in violation of 31
TAG Chapter  116. In  addition,  the revised
definition tor presumptive grandfather rate
makes it dear that regardtess of grandfather
rates compliance  with al rules and  regula-
tions of the TACB mduding Chapter 116 is
required. Therefore, the proposed methods of
establishing the grandfather rates will remain
in the  final  rule with only  minor clarifying
changes made in §122.132 rather than in the
definitions.
AOGC. DuPont. and  TCC suggested lan-
guage  changes to the defirulion of grandla-
ther tadfities to clarify the terms. There are
minor revisions to the first three definitions in
§122.11 to clarify the definitions.
EPA suggested mat aR definitions contained
in 40 CFR §722 or, at a minimum, the defini-
tions contained in the Model Aed Rain Rule
be   incorporated  by  reference.  Section
I22.4ii(b) has been revised to clarify that
the final rule incorporates al of the Acid Rain
Rute. nctudmg the definitions, by reference.

Chevron Production requested that me staff
formally exempt in §122.120 of the proposed
rules al non-major sources untt EPA, as out-
fined in 40 CFR 70. removes any non-major
source type from exemption. DuPont  made
the same request fora specific category of
non-major sources. TCC requested that the
final rute contain the specific source category
exemptions identified in 40 CFR 70 The staff
has no objecion to the final rule noting the
general exemption of the non-major sources
        under 40 CFR 70 and the  change
|^__ ttAAdt _- „ ,j ,  i in i mi mr Mttt jiIjiH bw^* it
nas oeen mane  fiowevor, me sun nsu& n
redundant to  fist each specific source cate-
gory exemption.

TU requested that the final rules merer 40
CFR 70 and  speorficaly state, in §122.120
(Appfieabity), that a source is not required to
obtain a permit solely because it is subject to
regulations or requirements under the  Act.
§112(r). The staff agrees that it is appropriate
to narrow the  1st of non-major sources which
may be brought under the final rule through
further EPA ndemaking. and this change has
           i as §122.120(4X8).
EPA noted that §122.120 dees not provide for
the appfirahilify of non-major sources which.
as a result ol rutomaking by EPA. are no
longer exempt torn the obligation to obtain a
federal operating permit. EPA further noted
that  apphcabttty  of sofict waste  monoramn
units had not been addressed in the proposed
rule. The staff agrees with both comments
and §122.120 has been revised to acknow-
ledge the apphcabflity ol sold waste incinera-
tion  units  and the potential appNcabXly of
non-major sources.

Pennzoil recommended that in order to clarity
that  the certified  registrations discussed in
§122.122 of the proposed rules wil be  a
means to limit a site's potential to emit, the
staff should either define in §122.10 the term
'certified registration * or reference §122.122
in the definition of potential to emit The intent
of §122.122 (concerning Potential to Emit) is
to atow federally enforceable emission traits
at a site in order tor the site  to Brno its
potential to emit. The  staff understands the
concerns of the commenter and clarifications
have been made  to §122.122.

Chevron Production noted that §122.122 (Po-
tential to Emit) would allow federally enforce-
able limitations on a  source's potential to
emit. TCC and DuPont suggested rewriting
this section to clarify both the federal enforce-
ability of the  registrations  and the source's
ability to tower the emission rates even below
past operational rates. Section 122.122 has
been revised  to clarify that the registrations
are  toderaly  enforceable.  Regarding  the
emission rates, in the proposed rule no lower
limn was placed on the emission rates listed
in the  registrations. This issue  wil  not be
addressed to any greater  extent.

An individual requested that under §122.122
al upsets, releases, spies, etc. be included in
                                                             «   Adopted Sections    September 7, 1993    IS TexKeg 5995
                                                                                                                                335

-------
     ttw certified registration ol ernssions, end
     only so many per year alowed.  Emissions
     from upsets, releases, and spits are not in-
     cluded in calculating a site's potential to emit
     as defined m the ledert rules. Therefore.!!*
     section has been left Mad with regard to this
     comment. Situations regsflSng upsets am ad-
     dressed under TACB Chapter 101.

     EPA commented that §122.122 must be in-
     corporated into the Teas SIP in order tor
     those certiSed registrataon ol emissions, pro-
     posed under $122.122. to be federaty en-
     forceable. The stall Mends to submit to EPA.
     as a SIP revision, the adapted  version  of
     §122.122.              ,-  .
      Exxon Chem recommended that §l22/l22(b)
     apply only to those emissions which taJ under
     an applicable requirement. The intent ol the
     proposed section is toeetabfith a toderely
      entarceable emission Jjreit tor the entire site
     to 0M0iiiun6 jpfrftrtfy"^y of tho fiml nM.
      Regardess of whether an appfcable require-
      ment exists tor a particular PptuMnt it that
      site, applcahifiiy wW be detenwned on the
      bass of whellier any air polutant is emitted at
      rates defined as major. Therefore, staff has
      not placed any father fimiiation on the type of
      emssions included in the roQAhsluw. flow
      ever,  the staff has  added §122.122(4)  to
      dearly place the burden on the appicanl to
      nsure that the loyj&liatnn adequately imils
      the site's potential to emit.

      An individual requested that §122.122(d) be
      rewritten to require registration to be kept at
      the site and to maintavi constant accassoisy
      of the registration. This issue was Discussed
      at the roundtabtes. where the staff was re-
      mnded that many of Ihe  sites which may
      maintain these registrations are in remote lo-
      cations and without a physical structure avail-
      able  to  house  the  registration. The staff
      agreed that alowing access at  an  agreed
      location  is  sufficient  tor enforcement and
      compliance purposes.

      AOGC commented that the proposed interim
      application submittal schedule  in §122.130
      does not track the federal requirement such
      that ono-thfd ol the amfcraiions for those
      sources received during me interim
      may be either approved or disapproved in me
      first year of  the interim  program. The staff
      disagrees witti this comment and believes
      that one-third of the pei mils in the  ntenm
      program wll  be issued under the proposed
      schedule in the first year after program ap-
      proval torn EPA.

      Chevron Production commented thafthe pro-
      posed interim application submittal schedule
      in §122.130 imposes a significant burden on
      the smaler sources. Chevron Production re-
      quested that the staff consider other options
      tor scheduling the application submittal. This
      issue was dscussed at the rouraftabtas and
      general  understanding  tor  the proposed
      schedule was reached. In determining which
      sources to put into the interim program, the
      staff considered a number of options includ-
      ing delineating sources by SIC codes, coun-
      ties,  attainment/nonattainment  areas,  and
      complexity of  the source  types. The staff be-
      fieves that the schedule proposed in the final
      rule atows the most reasonable utilization of
      resources on  the part  of both the state and
      private sector.
                      HLRP recommended staggering the issuance
                      of the Title IV Acid Rain Permits in order to
                      best utiflze staff resources both in the TAC8
                      and  in  the  regulated  community.  The
                      commenter  recommended  avowing a  12-
                      month application schedule tor afl sources
                      subject to the final rule. The proposed rule
                      provided tor as much fbxttftty as  pccsUe
                      white sta assuring EPA that appfcations wfl
                      be submitted in sufficient time to alow tor
                      issuance of omHlttd of the parmte ta *» Srsl
                      year as reputed m 40 CFR 70. ki drier to
                      the federal Acd Rail Rules, the staff befieves
                      it is necessary to cal the affected sources in
                      as quickly as possfcte and opposes the sug-
                       Natural Gas requested that the natural gas
                       transmission Musty be given 18 months un-
                       tf^feV M^K ^rt^MMM ^^^BliB^SAA A ^^BiMAl MM^kMfe^A
                       oerme iraenm anieumii suamaai ecnent»
                       in §122.130(0) to submit afl applications. 40
                       CFR 70 requies at •rrs':ifat"*- under both
                       the Meiim and M program to be submitted
                                 112  months after each approval
                      TCC, OuPont, ENRON. Pemzoi. TMOGA,
                      and Oow recommended that §122.130 be re-
                      written in order to clarify the intent of this
                      section. SPSC commented mat §122.1300})
                                    .-      « mat al
                              are required to subml _	
                       waft SBC months of the effective date of the
                       interim program arid are ate required,  in
                       §122.130
-------
merits  tor  each  relevant  emission  una,
Consequently, the suggested changes  are
proMbted by the federal rule.

An indrvidual requested thai the term •rele-
vant" be removed from §122.132(a)(2). stal-
ing  that  al emission  units  are  relevant.
Relevant emission unit is a defined term in
the proposed rub. The term Tetevant" refers
only to whether any appficabto requirements
apply to mat unit, not to the relative value or
importance ot the unH at the site.

AOGC commented  that §122.l32(a)(5)(A)
does not provide tor determining emissions
imitations as required  for compressor en-
gines regulated under TAGS Standasd Ex-
emption  s. AOGC recommends that  a
procedure similar to that for grandfather units
be used to estal^sh emission limitations. The
engines or engine trains instaBed under Stan-
dard  Exemption 6. referenced  by AOGC.
were apparently instated in accordance win
appK»aht« provisions of  Regulation VI,  and
therefore, appear to be in eempfiance with the
Standard Exemption as it existed at that time.
The units are not grandfathered and cannot
utize the procedures for presumptive grand-
father emission units. However. Regulation VI
provides tor establishing federally enforce-
able emission limitations tor starstos exemp-
tore. Also, tor determining the appliiiaMity of
the federal operating permit program, station-
ary sources without other federally enforce-
able  emission  Hm^atione  may  limit their
potential to em* by maintaining a certified
registration of emissions. Therefore, the staff
believes that the ruto wU adequately address
AOGC-S concerns.

OuPont commented that §122.132(8) re-
quires the submittal  of too much information.
some of which could be supplied through
other  agency  programs.  OuPont  recom-
mended using these programs to supply in-
formation  to the federal  operating  permit
program. The staff believes that in order to
process the applications in a timely manner,
the reviewing permit engineer should receive
information directly from the applicant rather
than  searching the other programs  in the
agency for data which may be out-of-date or
incorrect. The staff agrees that the amount of
information required under  this  program  is
significant. The staff envisions a sophisticated
computer  database  as the  only reasonable
means of handling the large volume of infor-
mation necessary tor this program. The staff
is actively pursuing the development of such
a computer system.

Enron and Exxon Houston commented that
§122.132(a) should  require  only reasonable
and  reasonably avaiiabte information  rather
than any information deemed necessary by
the staff. The staff envisions the applicalion
as the end resuR of a thorough regulatory
review of the applicable requirements for the
emission units at the site. In order to audM
such a review, the staff must have access to
information on those emission units. The pro-
posed  rule allows the staff the  authority to
review the necessary information. The staff
understands the eommmenter's concerns and
believes that the application forms and the
guidance document will  more appropriately
address the type of information the reviewing
•ngineer might  require.
HUP commented that no basis, exists in 40
CFR 70 tor the requirement in §122.132(8) to
submit information identifying potentially ap-
phcahlo requvements. Hl&P recommended
this  reqwrement  be  taken  out.  Enron.
TMO8A. and Marathon cemmentad that the
battt tor why an appesabte requirement does
not i^4*y should not be a requvement of this
section. The oommenters further suggested a
statement of negative itppfffilnffly be substi-
tuted tor UBS requirement. In order to property
audit an appfcabon, the staff beieves that the
reviewing engineer should be aware of me
reason why a potentially applicable requn-
ment does not apply to a particular emission
unit. A simple slatement ot negativity would
not provide an acoeptalite degree of assur-
ance.

Enron m
           uuenticd that the requirement in
§122.132(8). to submit a risk management
plan in acosrdsnee with the Aet. §tl2(rX7),
be revised to n«eet the pessraty that  the
tsdcral rule may not be pramutgated prior to
the appBeatfen submftM datdana. The staff
unterssands Sat the last timwni of tlte fede-
ral rule referenced wil be proposed in No-
vember of 1993. The staff also understands
that the federal rate is scheduled to ba pro-
mulgated  prior  to  the  first  amiraiilion
submittal deadine Ssted in the final rule. Con-
sequenHy. §122.132(8) hasbww retained in-
ties with tv^Bfd to Ihte
TMOQA  commented  that  §l22.l32
-------
       does not believe thai TMOGA's suggested
       language provides any additional clarification,
       except  tor changing  the  word 'impose1 in
       §122.132(8) to 'codify.'

       An individual opposed §122.134(b) which al-
       lows, unless the agency notifies the applicant
       otherwise, automatic  completeness 60 days
       alter receipt  by the agency. 40 CFR  70
       specHtes that the states' program wiB provide
       an automatic completeness determination 60
       days after me application  is received by the
       state, unless the state otherwise notifies the
       applicant that the application submrttal was
       Exxon Chem requested $122.136(8) be modi-
       fied to allow applicants, who taiied to submit
       viforrnation or submatod  noon net. Biforma-
       ton. more than ©0 days to correct the appli-
       cation. The  staff  believes that 60 days is
       sufficient time tor  an applicant to correct an
       OuPont commented that §122.136(0 should
       allow the staff to request additional informa-
       tion from an applicant only after consuKalion
       with the applicant.

       The determination of what  information is re-
       quired  to  continue or complete the permit
       review  should be made by the reviewing engi-
       neer. This win provide greater Nexibilily and
       can potentially reduce review time.

       Enron   and  TMOGA  commented  that
       §122.138  should  include  language  which
       states  that the  applicant is not required to
       comply with the condrtions of the peuiid until
       after the permit is issued, and for permit mod-
       ification application, the  permit  holder need
       only CQfTiply with thB tenns flno  oonoihoflS ol
       the existing permit until a modified permit is
       issued. The stad believes that the initial per-
       mits are not enforceable until issued by the
       board  or its designee. However, it was not
       clear in the proposed rule  which terms and
       conditions,  the  proposed  or  existing,  the
       permittee shall comply with during the time
       period  between  commencing operation and
       the issuance or denial of the permit revision.
       In order to comply with the intent of 40 CFR
       70. which allows changes  to be made and
       operation of those changes to commence
       prior to issuance   of  a  permit  revision,
       $122.217 (Permit Addition  Procedures) and
       §122.219 {Significant Permit Modifications)
       have been reviewed to allow the permittee to
       comply with the  terms and conditions of the
       proposed permit, rather  than those  of  the
       existing permit during this interim period.

       EPA commented thai the reference to permit
       modification in §122.136  should be deleted.
       40 CFR 70 requires significant permit modifi-
       cations to meet all the procedural require-
       ments  of permit issuance.  As a result, the
       applications for a significant permit modifica-
       tion must meet the timely  and complete crite-
       ria in the federal rule. The staff interprets 40
       CFR 70 as allowing  the application shield tor
       those sources which are subject to the proce-
       dural requirements and meet the timely and
       complete criteria  in the federal rule. This sec-
       tion has been retained intact with regard to
       this comment and does allow the application
       shield for significant permit  modifications.

       TCC requested revising §122.138 to allow the
       application shield tor sources that submitted
only a timely application, rather than, as pro-
posed, a timely and complete appScaSon. 40
CFR 70 specifies that me appication shield
may be  extended only to those applications
which are  both timely and complete, as de-
scribed by the federal rate.
TMOGA recommended clarifying $122-138 to
eteminffle confusion on who sets the deacSine
tor the submttai of additional Mormatien. The
staff  acmes  with   the  oommenter  and
§122.138 has been clarified to ctearty attow
the executive Director the rmwessary authority
to set deaovnes tor the submttai of addtional
intormation.
An individual opposed §122.139(4) and sug-
gested that the nine  month time frame be
revised to 12  months.  The requirement in
§122.139(4) to late action wit* nine months
of receiving the application is a toderal re-
quirement of 40 CFR 70.

AOGC commented that the annual compS-
anee eertaentonfc requrad under §122.143
should be required to be submitted  at the
same lime the annual emaskr; inventorias
are requrad to be submtted so to avoid a
dupseation of effort on the part of the regu-
lated community. The staff agrees w«h the
goal ol minimizing duplicative effort where 40
CFH 70 alows. However, it is unclear to staff
at this time how much Wade is avaaabte in
--• submission of compliance
 	.	_, <•"•-* 11 BPII w^tm iMaja mpmaa^^u*
 Therefore, the  phrase 'at teasT has been
 added before the phrase'every 12 months'in
 §122.143(4) to alow tor maximum fiexttfily in
 submission of compianea onrtifcctlions.

 3M  suggested  language  to be added to
 §122.141 regarding atatnative-operating sce-
 narios as addressed in 40 CFR §70.6
-------
at any  film...*  in §122.l43(l)(CXa)  be
changed  to  read  Inspect, at  reasonable
times,*  whfeh  reflects  the  language  of
§70.6(c)(2)(ii). The basis tor mis comment is
that in certain situations, such as an emer-
gency, it may not be appropriate tor repre-
sentatives of tt»  TACB to t» atowed ensue.
This issue was addressed during the  draft
Regulation  XII  round-tables.  Stae many
sources operate continuously, the staff be-
fieves that it is important to have access to a
source at any tima. The TACB regional staff
befieves that the waning should be 'inspect.
at any time* The basis tor This is mat repre-
sentatives of the TACB would rot voluntarily
endanger themselves during an emergency
or knowingly hinder efforts to control an
emergency.  Consequently, in  enter to ad-
dress both the concerns of the regional staff
and  the  commenters.  the staff has added
language to §122.143 which provides tar to-
spectton at any time other man when the
presence of the TACB personnel would inter-
fere with the abMy of the permittee to re-
spond to en emergency situation.

                            able period of
 An individual asked thai *ra
 time' as used in §122.143(1)(D) be defined.
 This paragraph addresses the amount of time
 that a  permittee has to present records re-
 quired  by a permit to representatives of the
 TACB  or the local air poBulion program with
 jurisdiction. The staff has retained this section
 as proposed with regard to this comment.
 This wording was dscussed in the draft Reg-
 ulation XII rourseUabtes at some lengm. 8 was
 determined that inspectors from the TACB or
 local program could best determine what con-
 stitutes « reasonable amount of time en a
 case-by-case basis.

 Pennzoil commented that §122.143(1 )(E) did
 not include the alternative defense of emer-
 gency  contained in §70.6 M*^ f&^m^^ — J.l IAM^M ifcA* * ---- Mjfe4^d4
von, me pnrase ai teasr nas Deen aooeo
before  the phrase 'every 12 months* in
§122.143(4) to attow tor maximure BexMty in
submissnn of compliance certificaliont.

DuPont  requested  that  the  wordwg of
§122.143(3HC)  be changed  to reflect the
wording contained in §70.6(g)(3). The  ratio-
nale is that the subparagraph, as currently
worded, and specrlicaly  the  reference to
Chapter 101  (TACB General Rules), is too
vague to be used as an affirmative defense of
emergency. The staff  believes thai §101.6
and §101 .1 1 of the TACB General Rules tutu
the  requirements of 40 CFR §70.6(g). and
that an affirmative defense of emergency can
be butt by using those sections.

An individu
              mmented that the word *pre-
ventative* in §122.143(3)(B) should be 'pre-
ventive.* Staff agrees and this suggestion has
Exxon Chemical asked that §122.143(4) be
changed to incorporate the idea that the com-
pliance certification should contain a blanket
statement  of oompiance and should detail
only noncomnhance through the requirements
of subparagraphs (A)-(0). Compliance certifi-
cation requirements are slated in §70.6(c)(5).
The  staff  understands that  these require-
ments  are  mandated and can  not  be
changed.
                                                                                       Exxon Baytown and Marathon supported all
                                                                                       of TMOGA's comments on §122.143 (Permit
                                                                                       CoKfitions). In addition. Exxon Baytown sup-
                                                                                       ported the  commertfs  of  Exxon Chem  on
                                                                                       §122.143. TMOGA. Marathon. TCC. DuPont
                                                                                       AEA. Tl. and Exxon Houston commented that
                                                                                       the language of §122.145(a) requving certifi-
                                                                                       cation by a responstete official tor any docu-
                                                                                       ment  required  by a  permit  is  overly
                                                                                       burdensome. AEA commented that  the re-
                                                                                       quirement to certify reports in §122. i4S(a)
                                                                                       should not be extended to sm>orunu docu-
                                                                                       mentation such  as catibration data,  strip
                                                                                       dierts.  etc.  The
                                                                                       changing the language in §l22.l4S(a) to re-
                                                                                       quvo certification by a responsisle official
                                                                                       only tor those documents that win be submit-
                                                                                       ted to the TACB.

                                                                                       The staff agrees that the language contained
                                                                                       in §122.14S(a) could be overly I
                                                                                       and has incorporated language as i
                                                                                            j—^^^-ad.-u^j* «|A|^MM M»A &«4  »Aa&_
                                                                                            recommenoeo oweung me *m  sen-
                                                                                            of §122.14S(a). The <
                                                                                 n
                                           §122.143. and that restatement is confusing.
                                           The conditions included in §122.143 are gen-
                                           eral perm» condraonsttMwilbeincluded by
                                           reference in every operating perrnt, much as
                                             TK«A* fUCB •^^^•^•tat JhM^^t^Mh ^•••••t I^MM^.
                                             exas Non Petiivu coniaei uenerai now*
                                           sons.  Section J22.145(a) provider authorty
                                           to Mdude conditions in each operating per*
                                           mil, >icUiinfl(|  those that go beyond the gen*
                                           Enron. TMOGA. and Marathon
                                           that  language  should   be
                                                                                                                            to
                                           §l22.l45(a) such mat the subsection would
                                           not be construed to require compiance certifi-
                                           cation,  testing, montomg, recordkeeping,
                                           and loporung tor an emssion units. The lalio-
                                           nate was mat the rote, in andot teen, should
                                           not requve testing and moiMoiing until en-
                                           hanced  monitoring rules  are  promulgated.
                                           The staff beieves that §70.6
-------
      en a easa-by-case basis, father than in the
      TMOGA, Marathon. TCC, ml  DuPont ex-
      pressed concern that the use ot the phrase
      •operating conditions- in §122.145(0(6) is too
      broad and  needs «o be defined, the phrase
      •which are teems  nseesswy to characterize
      emissions' has be jn added after the phrase
       YMOGA and Marathon esmmented with re-
       gad to §122.145(4), raiding  to  sites with
       emission units net h eompiance at the time
       el permit issuanoa, thai the TACB  snoutt
       publish  a  giridance  document within  six
       months ol 'issuance* of the final rule on eom-
       piance plans pursuant to §122.132$). The
       ecRwneRtsfs further s&tad. that enforcement
       pcScaes should be developed which give con-
       siderettxt to those companies which made
       •good faith  efforts* to comply with appfieable
       nqwwnents. The  staff  Mends to develop
       guidance dssumants,  not  only relating to
       eompKance issues, but tor a wide variety ol
                                      of  the fe-
       deral operating perma program. However, an
       exact time-trams on issuance ol these docu-
       ments wiS not be estabtsned. but guidance
       wM be developed as seen as possbte after
       the effective date ot Jhe final rule. The stall
       befieves (net me comments on eniorcement
       policy are outside the scope ol this rule pack-
       age.

       DuPont commented ttaat §122.145(d)<2MA)
       requires permiaees to provida an explanation
       ol why any dates in the schedule ol eompf-
       anse (lor sites not in eomptance) *were not
       or w« not be met* The eammenter argued
       thai most 'conscientious permittees" wil not
       intentionaly miss a compfiance date and ihat
       there is no need to predict •non-compliance
       of a non-oompNanca schedule. * They recom-
       mend deleting the phrss® 'or wil not be*
       This specific site refers to submission of pro-
       gress reports tor sites with units not in com-
       pliance, tt a conceivable thai  at the time of
       progress report ssjbrraaa!, a permittee may be
       aware ol a eomptance schedule dale mat wil
       be missed  lor whatever reason. The  lan-
       guage which is identical to §70.6
                                 The  appropriate methodology  hi these mat-
                                 ters is to review the tacts ol each request on
                                 a cBse-oycase  basis in otder to determine
                                 whether the person is affected by emissions
                                 or H the request is a reasonable request as
                                 •lowed  by the Texas Heath and Safety
                                 Code. §382.0561(0. Any further definition of
                                 •affected person* would sttt have to alow tor
                                 case-oy-case  determination of the  relevant
                                 factors. Therefore, the staff wH not be defin-
                                 ing •affected person- in the final rule.
                                 The  TCC eommemed mat §122.154(a) and
                                 (c) should be changed to alow the Executive
                                 Director to  have the  discretion  «  approve
                                 atemative placement of signs in the event
                                 mat  the current requirements prove to be
                                 •inadequate  or  awkward* The staff   has
                                 added §i22.l54(d) to allow for aftemata sign
                                 phcement where H is impractical to comply
                                 with the staled requirements, and where the
                                 akemale placement wil  provide equivalent
                                 Exxon  Chem and  Exxon  Baylown  recom-
                                 mended changing §122.155(0 to include the
                                 permittee when notifying interested parties ol
                                 the board's proposed final action.  This sec-
                                 tion has been revised.

                                 EPA commented that §122.163(a) should re-
                                 fled the 40 CFR 70 requirement that the final
                                 rule shal be effective upon EPA approval of
                                 the  federal   operatng   ueiiiut  program
                                 submmai, and not 30 days after pubfcation of
                                 the approval date, as written in the proposed
                                 rule. The TCC suggested addtog language to
                                 §l22.i63(a) to clarify that the effective date of
                                 the final rule is the date that the approval of
                                 the operating permit program is published in
                                 the Federa/  Register. The TCC  also sug-
340
       18  TexReg 6000     September  7,  1993     Texas Register  «

-------
 gestad that the caveat in $122. 163(0 regard-
 ing the taiure of the TAC8 to punish notice
 elite data of approval of the operating permit
 program be daMad.

 40 CFR Part 70.4(g) provides that the effec-
 tive date of an operating permi  program,
 including any partial or interim program shal
 be the effective date of approval by the Ad-
 mMatrator.  The atafl agrees win  the TCC
 comment that the date at approval should be
 tiedtopubfcatjon of the approval in me fiede-
 ml flecfettr. EPA  wB pubtfeh  notice of at
 approval of the Texas program in the Federa/
 Register. The  FederaT Aepstar wB indicate
 the actual date of approval, which ehould be
 30 days after the dale  of pubficatton in the
 fiedaraf Aaoomr. EPA correctly noted that
 $70. 4••«*•» **
 regulations shal to My •ftactivo by the tone

                         "
 •no Sstoly Coon*
 during the 1898 Legislative Season by Houee
 M 2049. Sedian 28 of Houae M 2049 pro-
 vttes that 9m  sections  of  Chapter 382
 panaMng to federal operating parmto chaJ
 take effect on the effective dale of the bi,
 which was signed and became elective (with
 the exception of $29 on June 9. 1993. How-
 ewer, the Texas Heath  and Safety Code.
 $382.064. provides mal appicatiorB for fede-
 ral fl|>f ^"fj ueiiiisb an  not required to be
 aubmiited to the boaid batare the approval of
 the Tide V permitting (program by the Admin-
 aJiaUi  In oroer to address the  concanis of
 the regulated  community, the staff initially
                        ,
 proposed that the final rule becomes effectMo
 30 days after the date of approval of the
 operating permit program by  EPA. APTRA,
 $10(aK3) provides that if a federal regulation
 requires that an agency implement a rule by a
 certain date, then the rule is effective on the
 proscribed  date.  In  this  instance,  since
 $70.4 be published in the Federal
 The TCC commented that the word "•tread/
 in $122.164 makes no sense, and would po-
 tontiely create unlawlul lestnctions on piottic-
 lion accorded by Slate law. The staff agrees
 that the proposed language in this  section
' could arguably be interpreted to mean thai
 any later laws regarding confidentiality would
 not apply to documents applicants believe to
 be confident*!. consequently, the word •al-
 ready* has been deleted from the final rule

 One indwdual requested that the agency de-
 termine whether or not documents submitted
as confidential are  Meed entitled to confi-
dential treatment. The  Texas Heath and
Safety Code.  $382.041 provides that mem-
bers, employees, or agents of the board may
no) disclose  information submitted  to  the
board relating to secret processes or meth-
ods of manufacture or production that  are
'it* .iltiinrt ^ i>iMifciB..linl itthmin ••^Miiitlnfi TilA
floraraoo as cuHiuoniiai wnen sionneo. i ne
agency maintains documents marked as con-
fidential in closed Has and notes in the public
fto that certain information is held confiden-.
tiaL HI the event a request is received to view
the documents, the agency is authorized by
the  Texas  Open  Records  Act.  Article
625M7a,  to  request an opinion  tram  the
Texas Attorney General as to whether or not
the documents meet any of the exceptions
from disclosure provided for in that act. The
Open Records Act. $7(e). states that in cases
where a third party's privacy or prapertyMar-
ests are vnpficated by a reojuest for •Ncrme*
tion. the governmental body  may. but is not
required, tosubmi its reasons as to why the
information should or should not be wthheld.
The agency has not made i a practice to
submit such reasons as the agency is not in
the best position to provide such reasons.
Section 382.040 provides that all information.
documents, and data collected by the board
in pei taming to dulies are state property and
subject to the Imilations in §382.041 (and
those of the Open Records Act), and that al
laoords are open to the pirtc during regular
agency hours.

The TCC and TMOGA commented that  the
last sentence  of $122.185 should be deleted
because $122211 already requns thai  the
TACB be notified of any change regaroTng the
responsive official. This section  has been
revtad to reference $122211 rather than re-
peat those requirements.

HLAP recommended revising §122.201 (b)
and $122241 (a) to mandate bed terms lor
the federal operating permits. For two rea-
sons, the  staff believes that the  final rules
should retain the flexfciiy to renew the per-
mits prior  to the end of the five-year term.
first, this  allows a permittee the option of
scheduling smuaaneous NSR and  federal
operating pet mils reviews. Secondly, if in the
future, the  agency  moves to a one perm*
system, then the permits would almost cer-
tainly be combined at a renewal. Again, flexi-
DiHy in scheduling the renewal review would
be an advantage.

Chevron Production. TMOGA. and Marathon
commented that $122202 should require the
TACB to notify afl holders of a general perm*
if that perm* is repealed or revised. The staff
understands the commenters' concerns; how-
ever,  the staff befieves that the procedural
requirements of nitemakjng.  including public
notice wil serve as adequate notice  of the
general permit's proposed revision or revoca-
tion and insures efficient use of resources.

EPA commented that $122202  should be
changed to require renewal of the general
permits every five years. Pursuant to 40 CFR
70, the  proposdd rule provides for general
permits  to be promulgated through future
rutomaking. Since state rules are not required
to go through a renewal process, general
permits  ere net required to go through re-
HLS.P noted that the term 'general permT in
$122202 may also be used, with a different
meaning, under other rules.  HLAP recom-
mended using a different term, such as *stan-
dam permi*  or •general federal operating
permit* to avoid any potential confusion. The .
                     inter's i
potential confusion in terminology. Statutory
authorityalows tar the issuBneeofboth stan-
dard poHiiiu> and ueneial  penwts. Since
•general permits- is a federal term under Tale
V  of the Act, the general permits wi be
issued only under this rule. If other permits by
rule are issued pursuant to the NSR program.
Mutadh __-^_^_ u^l  k
nose ueiiiitt <™  o
•^ — «fc -- •  A,M4
uupora  ano
$122202 be rewritten to al
qw*y. to
                                    hich
wthout actualy applying tar the general per-
mi. The federal rate. 40 CFR 70. requires
thai each source which qusHes for a general
      muat appry for that general permi.
TCC recommended that $l22202(b) be re-
vised to require that the terms of each gen-
eral permi be set out as an appencfix to the
final rule, so that individuals trom oul-ol-state
can obtain a copy of the general permits by
obutbting a copy of the pubfished rule.  The
Texas  Asfltsfer, which  pubfishes proposed
and  adopted rules issued by Texas state
              •M* —•—-—  bu «i_ jlhllnatlLrLiT fA
              nOI UOAr  Wr pUUHUaWUM Of
         e or attachments to rules. The only
           method is to include the fist of
           nits wthin the  rule asefl. This is
an option which may be considered in Mure
rutamaMng. The general permts have bean
incorporated by reference, simiar to the way
                                    into
          VI.

Marathon and  TMOGA recommended thai
$l22202(d) specHicaly allow the use of gen-
eral permits to incorporate, at  a saa. new
        i requirements which were not pro-
mulgated prior to Bsuanoa of the original par-

the staff does onvison the general pamto
serving this function and the  proposed var*
Stan of the rule old alow tar such use. How-
ever, since the  staff cannot envision  every
possbto use of these permits, narrowly defin-
ing their use in the final rule wK not bo dona.

TCC  and  TMOGA  requested  mocffying
$l22202(d) and (e) to remove the raquire-
ment that the general permi must to granted
to each individual applicant. TCC commented
that athough under 40 CFR 70 the sources
must apply for  a  general permit, i is not
required that the state respond to each indi-
vidual application. 40 CFR 70 dearly states
that*To sources that qua%, the permating
authonty shal grant the condMions and terms
of the general  permi.* The  proposed rule
aJtows each general permi to specify whether
such grant wil be made^tar each individual
general  ^unu  HHifcUum or whether the
general permi may specify a reasonable time
period after which a source that has submit-
ted an apofccaton wil be deemed to be au-
thorized to operate under the general permi.

TCC requested that $l22202(t) be revised to
alow the general permit to remain in effect
uml is expiation date at the end of the five-
veer renewal cycle, regaroless of any action
                                                             •  Mopttd Sections     Stpttmber 7, 1993
                                                                 19 TtxRtg 6001

                                                                               341

-------
         on the part of the agency revising or repeal-
         ing the general perml. Sine* each general
         perm* remains perpetually in elfed until revi-
         sion or npMl ol Iho ipeiiul, this section wil
         not to revised.
         Exxon Chem and  Exxon  Baytown recom-
         mendad, under $122.202(9), where the ger-
         era) pern* has been revised or revoked,
         hriting enforcement action far operation wfth-
         out a perml to those periods of operatjon
         subsequent to Me  last possible appicalion
         date or the date the perm* is issued. The
         regarding  entorcement during  an interim
         period between revocation of an easting per-
         ml and the granting ol«-new general permit.
         Section 122202(i) has been revised to ad-
         dress such interim periods and §l222029(e)
         has been revised to darHy that the appfcation
         shield wil to  in place for those ainpiflnirttft
         who make a tamely and complete 'ii'ipft'iU'fl*1

         EPA commented that §122204 should clearly
         state that temporary sources which are in and
         of themselves major, must obtain a federal
         operating perml. The daft has revised the
                fa» JMMHM^* •*«•
                10 comply we
         IAOC requested clarification in §l22204(c)
         as to which perml wil not require revision:
         that of the temporary source or the site. The
         staff agrees that §122204(c) should to dan-
         fed with regard to this comment. This section
         §-— f * ---- W«MjM4d **h MwdaMMtA ffthMA MAMkMV MftA
         nas oeen cunneo 10 ncKate mai INMIIOI me
         status of the temporary source or the site B
         affected by a temporary source which re-
               al the sto tor six months or toss.
 IADC commented that the staff did not spec-
 ify what efled a temporary source w* have
 on the site's perml status if the temporary
 source remains longer than six months.

 IADC cited potential costly delays in opera-
 tions and suggested  removng  the  mplied
 requirement in  §l22204(c) for a sle permit
 revision tor temporary sources which remain
 on-site longer than six months. The staff be-
 ieves that a temporary source should to el-
 lowed to remain on site tor a reasonably short
 period  of time  without affecting the peimu
 status of the sle. The staff defined a six-
 month period and believes that this is a mere
 than  reasonable  length  of  time. Section
 122204(c)  has been  revised to clarify the
 requirement for  a sle perml revision for tem-
 porary sources  which  remain on sle longer
 than six months. IAOC commented that me
 staffs proposal  in §l22204(d) to requre the
 SflffIB AppHCfltlOn HlfOffnfllHtft If Gill  uOin p0f•
 manent and temporary sources |s unworkable
 because much  of the information requred
 under Subchapter B of the proposed rules is
 sle-specific. The staff believes thai the same
 appfccabtty  determinations , required  under
 $122.132 (Application and Required Informa-
 tion) apply to both types ol sources. However.
 the staff understands the commmenter's con-
 cerns and believes that the application forms
 and the guidance document wil more appro-
 priately  address the type  of information the
 reviewing engineer might  require.

 IAOC  commented  that the requirement  in
 §122204(1) to provide  ten day's notice  prior
 to moving a temporary source is. in  some
cases, impractical  it not  dangerous.  IADC
cited  emergency  situations,  foV example.
moving a rig on-site to drifl a reief wel at the
site of a blowout. The staff agrees with the
oommenter and this section has been revised
to aUow a shorter notification in me event of
an emergency.

EPA suggested that  $§122211 -122221 to
rewritten in order to clarify the requirements.
TCC suggested that due to the mmarous
varieties of permit revisions. She staff should
provide examples of the types of changes
oontemptatod by each. The staff has revised
these sections to generally clarify the intent of
the requirements. The staff intends to provide
examples of the different types of perml revi-
sions in the guidance documents.
     and Exxon Chem commented that the
proposed Regulation ^detsnat adequately
addimfc procediies to B*eaipcrais MACT oTe-
tanrinations.   made  under  the  FCAAA,
§112(8). into the proposed federal operating
permits. TCC aomreenied that case-fey-case
MACT  (Merninatiere  could  to  handled
through the state's preoowtuaien permitting
program and the rasubng  detenninaiion(s)
iroBrpcrsted rtothe operaling ^wma by ad-
           amendment procedures. TCC
      that some changes to Regulation VI
would to necessary to make  the requre-
mants of the $H2(g) MACT datenwnasww.
federally enforceable as well as revision of
$122221  of the proposed rotes. The staff
agrees that the most appropriate method to
administer §H2(g)  MACT attamtinations is
through tho stflfeo's  wosttfiQ pfBconsttucjiOifs
|wmiH»fio prQQnuit.  HMIQW, the st&fl Atso
beleves the appropriate time to resolve Ms
issue is after the §ll2(g) and  §1120) (Ap-
proval of State Programs and Delegation of
Federal Authorities) rules are promulojaled.
Tec's   recommendation to add language
allowing administrative incorporation ol case-
by-case MACT determinations  into Regula-
tion  XII (and. by reference, rutemafeing to
modify Regulation VI) is premature. The com-
ment is outside the scope of this rute pack-
age.   Appropriate   ndemaMng  w3l  to
implemented to alow adoption of the §H2(g)
program after promulgation ol the federal
                                                     EPA commented that §122211 must specify
                                                     the types of changes which the staff win allow
                                                     under  administrative amendments. Sedion
                                                     12221 t(a)(5)  is identical to the  language
                                                     used ii 40 CFR 70 for the same purpose.
                                                     Since the staff cannot envision every possible
                                                     change that might qualfly under §112.221(5).
                                                     the staff does not recommend narrowly defin-
                                                     ing Is use in the final  rule.

                                                     An individual requested that §12221 i(c) be
                                                     rewritten  to  alow  public   input.   The
                                                     oommenter further requested that §12221 l(f)
                                                     to rewritten to alow input from local air pollu-
                                                     tion control agencies. The staff  cannot ad-
                                                     dress these comments since §122211 does
                                                     not contain either subsection (c) or (I). How-
                                                     ever, the  staff believes that the proposed
                                                     rules  provide  substantial opportunities  tor
                                                     comment  and input from both the general
                                                   public and local air pollution control agencies,
                                                    as appropriate.

                                                     EPA commented that §122.215(5) would al-
                                                     low, under permit additions, changes which
                                                    involved reasonably available control technol-
                                                    ogy, PSD. BACT, lowest achievable emission
 rate. §111. or any case-by-case determina-
 tions, with the exception of $112(0) or §112©
 determwafons. The staff beteves  that the
 proposed rule is consistent with the intent of
 Congress. 40 CFR 70. the staffs understand-
 ing throughout the Tile V federal rownctabte
 discussions prior to the promulgation of 40
 CFR 70. end EPA staff comments at Air and
 Waste Management Association workshops.

 EPA  OQRMientad tat  §122215(7)  should
 spesiSeaSy prohibl  teas* changes which
 quaHy as significani mediations from the
 perml afldisof* procedures. The section, now
 identified as §122215fcM3).  has  been re-
 vised to comply wen IPA* comment

 An individual requested thai §122217 (P«rmit
 Addition Procedures).  §122220 (Significant
 PsnM Mcd&catjon  Application and  Proce-
 dures), §122221 (Operational FtexfeOiy), and
 $1222^ (Perml Reopening Procedures) to
 rewritten to fi«ow both teal air poeutien con-
 trol eguney input and a 30-day public com-
 meat  period. The  proposed rules  do not
 pronto! the review at the applications by the
 jocai air poUution control agencies. To deter-
 mine the breadm and depth of the local pro-
 grams' participalion in  the federal operating
 perml. the st&fl intends to hold discussions
 with *s tesaJ programs to develop an agree-
 ment  much  lite the impeementaiion agree-
 ment with EPA. The staff tofieves that such
 invotvemeni  shmdd  to addressed through
 egensy  policy  and  guidance documents
 rathe? than in the final rule. In order to meet
 the provisions of 40 CFR 70, which require
 adequate, streamlined, and reasonable  pro-
 cedures for expediiously processing perml
 revisions, the  staff  did  not  propose  that
 changes quaifying as pern* additions. SMI*
 lar to minor modifications in the federal rule.
 go  through a pubbe comment period. The
 staff toleves that the changes which quafify
 as perml additions are either minor changes
 at the ste.  and as such should not  require
 puttfe  comment,  or  involve  operational
 changes which wiH require review under Reg-
 ulation VI  and  a subsequent  determination
 under that chapter as to whether public notice
 is appropriate  for the  change at the sle.
 Therefore, the proposed changes to §122217
 w« not to made.  Section  122220  and
 §122233 already required a 30-day public
 comment period. 40 CFR 70 requires that the
 states' program aHow for operational flesfeility
 with only the procedural requirements fisted
 in §122221. Adding public  notice for the
 changes which  qualify under this section is
 prohibited by the federal rule.

 An individual requested that §i222l7(b) to
 rewritten to allow 180 days rather than 90
days to complete action on a perml addition
 application. In order to meet the provisions ol
40 CFR 70. which require adequate, stream-
 lined, and reasonable procedures for expedi-
ttously  processing   permit  revisions,  the
90-day review  requirement  has been re-
tained.

 EPA commented that §122219 does not re-
quire a permittee with a change qualifying as
 a significant permit modification to revise the
permit prior to commencing operation ol the
equipment  subjed to the  modification.  The
staff finds no such requirement in 40 CFR 70.
The stall believes that the only prohibition on
342
        18  TexReg 6002    September 7, 1993     Texas Register

-------
opmfisn in «® federal rute is ft me ease
where a change is • Tttte I modifieation end
the change is also prohtt&d by the existing
pom* lanns and eangfem. That prohfttien
was feted in §122.219 o! the proposed rates.

An MMdurt opposed alo<^ changes qual-
ifying under  $122219 (Significant  Permit
Modifications) to be made prior to a 304ay
piitfT corofiierit period and  v^iut from local
air potution cental agencies. The sisSJ be*
loves thai tha federal operaj&sg parent pro-
gram serves  a sigiifeanUy jfiflwKsJt,  yet
An individual epposed fenaatg cause tor re-
Bering  a  psrasft  ID  these  dsfeed  at
best interest of both to caressl p*&*e »nd
She ragged community to efewly Site the
eondUors under  which the permit must be
reopened.
MSB program. The NSH program is designed
to review appfeaiiofe to bu* or modify e
facOty. Tlw purpe^ ot thai review is to insure
that .appropriate ©ortrol technology w« to
      «t  the  tectKjf and 0wt the proposed
             not adverse* affea the heath
or aatety of any citizen, the awrapriaie time
tar this review, and when requires!, the «•
companyins pubMs eommsnt perieft is prior
to construction or gpeatton of She nsw or
modified teeSty. The t&dsmj oparaling par-
mils, on tha sfflwr hand, are designed to eed>
•y aB the appisabte ra^rawsenis at the site.
The best lime lor such a regutefory review is
after the tedSSy has been censtrusied and is
in operation. This is why, in both 40 CFR 70
and the proposed rule, the permit application
review and  the  accompanytfig pubic com"
men* period usuaSy takes place ester tha ep-

OuPont, Marathon, Permzoa. TCC, TMOGA
and Natural recommended that the tength of
time required tor prior notification  under
operalionai ftoxfesfity in §122221 be changed
from 30 days to seven  days. In supporting
this position. Natural and TCC cited, as unac-
ceptable, the  additional  delay  involved in
lengthening the minimum seven-day notifica-
tion period requred under 40 CFR 70. Mara-
thon and TMCX3A pointed out that the agency
should  react in  a prompt manner to these
notifications.  This issue  was diseusssd in
great detai at the roundtabtes, and tha staff
understands the esnesms of tha commenters
and the  roundtabte pertjcjpsifis regarding
their companies' abSty to make changes. To
at toast parttsiy address those eenewm, the
staff has revised §l2222l(b) to allow the
proposed operational changes at the expira-
tion o»  ihe  notifeatkm  period, rather than
allowing the permittee to make the proposed
change, i.e., begin construction, at that time.
The staff will have sufficient time to review
the written notification tor applicability  under
this section, and the permittee wil have the
additional latitude to make physical changes
at the site as necessary while wailing tor the
expnbon of the notification period.

EPA requested that the staff add language, in
§122221, incorporating  the federal  terms
•emissions  allowable'   and   °502(b)(iO)
changes*  to  define those  changes  which
qualify under operational fleifciity. In order to
promote a general understanding of the rule,
the staff has attempted to present the require-
ments of  the federal oporatng perrrnt pro-
gram as clearly as possible in the proposed
rule. For this reason, the staff chose in the
proposed rule to clearly define the changes
allowed  under §502
-------
     by • decision* is not in mad of • special
     definition as the wads are Mended to mean
     usl whet  they say: that any person who is
     •Heeled by a decision ol the Board or its
     designee  may file a citizen review petition
     wth the EPA. Lfcawise. the stall does not see
     a need to define 'impracticable- nor * a nec-
     essary to delete the phrase •with reasonable
     specificity ' Section 122314(c) is intended to
     provide petitioners with the abMy to petition
      EPA H the EPA tote to objoes to the issuance
     ol an upeialing
      An mdrnduai stated that a «ac»y should not
      be  allowed  to operate  if  EPA  Has an
      objection with  the TAGS as a rasul  oi a
      citizen  petition. 40 CFR  §70.8(d) provides
      that if the EPA objects and the permit has
      been issued, the permit « effective. There is
      no requirement that  cals tar a cessation of
      operation in the event that an EPA objection
      is received. However, the procedural require-
      ments to revok* a permit. La.. the site author-
      ity to operate. ere  dearly bid out in the
      proposed rule.
      EPA commented that  §1223160MA) refer-
      ences federal source.' and requested that
      this phrase be defined. Bather than adding
      another definition to the final rule; the refer-
      ences to federal source have been deleted
      end a description of such sources substituted.

      TCC and HL&P commenled that a reference
      was needed  to  S*  §122316  back to
      §122.155(0) regarding the 30-day time period
      during  which a hearing  may b» requested.
      The staff agrees with  the comments of the
      TCC and HL&P and a ssmtenop tas  been
      added to the first paragraph of §1)22316 to
      incorporate this suggestion.

      TCC suggested that language be added to
      §122.316(1)(A) that would require  persons
      who request a hearing on an operating permit
      to provide, at the time of the hearing request.
      a written statement of interest and a basis for
      chatenging the operating permit application.
      The staff believes it is not appropriate to
      requre persons requesting a hearing to sub-
      mil the information suggested by the TCC in
      the actual hearing request. This change
      would go beyond the scope of the proposed
      rule because it would  require a new proce-
      dure to be added to how a hearing is re-
      quested and it is inconsistent, with regard to
      timing,   with   TACB    Procedural   Rule
      §103.33(0).

      TCC  commented  that  the provisions of
      §122.316(2X0 have the potential to aHow tor
      hearing requests to be made after the period
      during which one may be requested. Exxon
      Chem noted that the hearings examiner's
      ability to extend the  comment period should
      be limited and HUP suggested that the  com-
      ment period not be allowed to extend beyond
      the initial 30 days provided tor in the public
      notice. The staff opposes making the change
      suggested by Exxon Chem and HL&P. The
      staff disagrees that allowing pubic commeiBt
      to be submitted untH the dose of any pubKc
      hearing  wiV unnecessarily delay the permit'
      process. If a hearing is requested, the staff is
      required to provide 30 day's advance notice
      of such hearing. Allowing public comment to
      be submitted during this 30-day period  or at
      the  public hearing will not  unduly interfere
      with the process. The staff does not believe
that it is necessary to fimi a hearing examin-
er's discretion to extend the public comment
period during any hearing. If this were to
become an rssus during a heamg. the parties
would be able to present arguments regard-
ing an appropriate deadUne. The TCC*s sug-
gested  changes make it  dear that even
though the public oaff-tent period is automat-
ically extended  to th?. dose of any public
hearing, the opportunity to request a pubfc
hearing is fruited to that time specified in^ihB
pubfiCfattKXt otiho nofiCB oft&ta juirrt BppMiiiV
ten as required by §122.155. A reference in
§122.155$) has teen added to reflect the
Changs.

An individual commented that "may  be af-
fected*  in  §122316(1MA). •unreasonable'
and  'reasonable*  in paragraph  (1KB), •rea-
sonable' in paragraph (2XQ. and 'reason-
ably    ascertainaMa*  and   •reasonably
avaiiaW in paragraph (2XE) should  be de-
fined.  The
aubparagraph (F) aheuM require the TAGS to
provide copies oi the imparae to eemntentr>
to the public or individuals who request to be
notified of sueti inta-maSon. The staff has not
defined what an •affected person* is tar the
purposes of hearing requests, tor ether Reg-
ulation VI hearings or  tor operating pen-its.
The preference in these matters is to review
the facts of each request on a ease-by-case
basis in order to determine whether the per-
son is affected by emissions or 9 the request
is a reasonable request as allowed by the
Texas   Health   and   Safety   Code,
§382.0561(0. The staff does not taefieve that
there is a need to spadficaty define the terms
eitad  by the eommenler. These  terms are
Mended to provide tor ftexfcUty in the hear-
ng process. In response to the comment to
place a two-week response (rail on the board
to respond to a  hearing request, the  staff
does not believe that it is necessary to place
a time limit on the actions of the Board or its
designee regardvig notification  of  persons
who have  requested  a hearing. Operating
permits are required  to be  issued by the
Board within 18 months of the receipt of a
complete permt appfcaijon. Due to the pro-
cedures required by the hearing process tor
answering  comments  and  notifying affected
states and  EPA, the staff does not believe
that there  is any potential tor a significant
delay in responding to those persons who
request a hearing. In  response to the com-
ment  regarding subparagraph (F), the staff
points out that §122.155(C) provides that the
TACB will provide notice of its proposed final
action to any person who commented during
the public  comment  period  or during any
hearing and to the applicant. For clarification
purposes, the staff proposes to add language
to subparagraph (F) to make it dear that the
staff wil respond to comments and win pro-
vide copies ol the response  to  inowsduals
who participate in a particular hearing.

EPA stated that Regulation XII does not  in-
dude the exemption provisions allowed tor by
40 CFR §72.7 and 40  CFR §72.8. EPA also
stated that  the proposed rule do not clearly
state .the type of units subjed to the Add Rain
Program. The intent of  the rules was to incor-
porate by reference all provisions of 40 CFR
72. Language has been added to §122.411 (b)
to specHicaly incorporate 40 CFR 72 by ref-
erence.
EPA commenled that §122.410 addresses
Standard Add Rain Requirements, but it does
not dearly state that both the Acid Rain Per-
mit and the Acid Rain permit appfeafcon need
to include the standard requirements. The
intent of the proposed rule was to incorporate
al  ol  the requfements of the  Acid Rain
Rules, indudng the requirements expressed
in EPA's comment. The rule incorporates by
reference al provisions of 40 CFR 72; how-
      the staff recommends that addtonal
language be added to §122.411 to clarify the
incorporation by reference of the Acid Rain
Rules.

EPA commented that §122.411$) states that
H the Add Rain Rules are in  contact "wih
other requirements of this chapter' then the
Add Rain Rules shaR take precedence. Thfc
could be interpreted as incorporating by refer-
ence  any previsions of the federal rule mat
are not specalcaly ndudod in the proposed
rule. The staff intended that, under the lan-
guage in the rate, the Act Rain Rules shafl
Wa precedence over the requirements of the
rule, hi w-Jer to darify this intent, language
has been added to §122.411 u incorporate
by reference al provisions of 40 CFR 72.

EPA commented that §122.421 requires the
designated representative  whose units be-
come subjed to the Add Rah rules to (He an
.ppiiMiiMB no later than 12 months after the
affected unit becomes subjed to the federal
operating permit program. EPA stated that
this appears to contradict 40 CFR §72.30$),
which requires a source with an affected irt
to submit a complete application at toast 24
months before the later of January 1.2000, or
the date on which the unit commences opera-
tion. Section 122.421 (b) has been reworded
to darity the language.

EPA stated  that §122.425 did not  include
many of the compliance plan provisions re-
quired under 40 CFR §72.40. The staff in-
tended  to  incorporate  by  reference  all
provisions of 40 CFR 72 and language has
been  added to §122.  411 to
SPSC suggested that the avaiabifity  of an
annual 304ay true-up period tor allowances
should be  clarified in §122.411.  Section
122.411  has been revised to eliminate any
uncertainty regardng this  matter.

TCC suggested changes  to §122.430 with
regard to addng the term 'suHur  dioxide*
when addressuig eNcwanoes. The defntaon
of atowanca under §122.  12 makes it dear
that an allowance is speeificaly related to
suHur dioxide emissions at  the rate of one
afnwance per one ton of sulfur dioxide emis-
sions.

EPA commented  that  §122.432 does  not
dearly state that a permit will rat be issued
unless the designated representative submits
a  certificate  of  representation. EPA further
stated that each submission by a designated
representative must also meet certification re-
quirements. The incorporation of 40 CFR 72
by reference in §122.411  has been  added
andshould eliminate any confusion  wth this
comment.

HL&P  suggested   a  minor  revision  in
§122.435(0). Section 122.43S(b) has been re-
vised to replace 'duration'  wth term.'
      18 TacReg 6004    September 7, 1993     Texas Register   «
344

-------
EPA cammeMd that §122.43§ does not
clearly stat« that §122515, §122217. and
§122221 (concerning permit Aliens and
operational  ftoxUffily)  do not apply to Acid
Ram permits. Section 122.43S(a) has been
clarified to comply with this request.
EPA commented that 40 CFR §7242 alows
for fast-track modification, which is another
permit revision option the designates repre-
sentative is allowed under 4© CFR 72. Sac-
lion 122.437(b) has been added to alow tor
the tasMraek modification procedure as eon*
tamed in 40 CFR 72.

An individual commented mat §122.437 does
not provide for a 30-day  pubic comment
period. Section  122.411(B)  of the proposed
rules specifies that, unless specifically noted
otherwise, al affected sources shati comply
win the requirements of the  final rule for
permit issuance, revision, reopening, and re-
newal including any such requromems for
eppBeafion, pubic partiejsefein, review by at-
faded stales, and review by IPA. The pubic
notice requirements of me proposed rate re-
quite a 30-day puofie eminent period. Any
exceptions noted in the acid rein section are
required by 40  CFR 72.
TCC recommended that §l22.440(c) regard-
ing jufictal appeal be deleted from the final
rule. TCC commented that ink *»efon » re-
dundant with me HeaBti anT Safety Cade.
§382.032.  The fta*   aesats  with  the
commenter and §i22.*40(e) has been re-
moved from the inal ruto.
EPA  commented thai §122.440 addresses
the imitation on time  for fing a judfeiei ap-
peal, but further stales that the Federal Acid
Rain  Rutos §ml the admMstrative appeal
period to 90 days or toss after issuance of the
Acid  Rain  portion  of  the  permit The
commenter suggested that the language of
this section be  clarified. The proposed rate
dM not provide for an adminstrative appeal to
the Board regarding actions tafcesi concerning
operating permits. This restrietisn in m way
impacts on the  federal appeals process for
acid rein permits.            ,

Subchapter  A. Definitions

•  31 TAG §6122.10-122.12
The new rules are adopted under the Texas
Heath and Safety  Code  (Varan  1990).
Texas Clean Air Act (TCAA). §7382.017.
which provides the TAGS with the authority to
adopt rates consisted with the pofiey and
purposes of the TCAA.

§122.10. General Definitions.  Unless spe-
cifically defined in the Texas Oean Air Act
(TCAA or  the Act) or  in  the rules  of the
Texas Air Control Board (TACB). the terms
used by the TACB have the meanings com-
monly ascribed to them  in the field of air
pollution control. IB  addition to the terms
which  are defined  by the TCAA,  and  in
J101.1 of this title, (relating to the General
Rules), the following terras, when used in
mis chapter..«hall have the following mem-
ings,  unless the context clearly  indicates
otherwise.
       Act-The Federal dean Air Act as
amended 42 United States Code 7401. et
       Affected states-May be New Mex-
ico.  Oklahoma, Kansas. Colorado. Arkan-
sas, or Louisiana if either of the following
criteria are met


           (A) that State's  sir  qualt
may be affected by the issuance of a federa
operating permit, permit revision, or permit
renews!; or


           (B)   that State is within 50
miles of the site or proposed site.
       Air PoUutant-For purposes of mis
chapter, any of the following regulated air
pollutants:

           (A) nitrogen oxides:
pounds:
           (B)    volatile  organic  eem-
           (Q  any potent for which a
National Ambient Air Quality Standard has
been promulgated:

           (D)  any pollutant that is sub-
ject to any standard promulgated under the
Act. $111:

           (E)  unless otherwise  speci-
fied by the Administrator by role, aay Gass
I or n substance subject to a standard pro-
mulgated under or  established by Title VI
of the Ace or
(F)
                                 in the
Act. 5112(b) or  §H2(r) and subject  to a
standard promulgated under the Act. fl!2.
       Applicable requirement-All  of tbe
following  as they  apply  to  the  emission
units it a  site (including lequiiements that
have been promulgated or approved by the
United  States  Environmental  Protection
Agency (EPA) through rulemaking at the
time of issuance of  the permit but have
future-effective compliance dates):

            (A)  any standard or other re-
quirement  provided for in the applicable
              plan  approved or promul-
gated by EPA through rulemaking under
Title I of the Act that implement^ the rele-
vant requirements of me Act, including any
revisions to that plan promulgated in 40
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 52. For
purposes of the Federal Operating  Permit
Program. Chapters 111-115. and 117-119 of
this title (relating to Control of Air Pollu-
tion From Visible Emissions and Paniculate
Matter; Control of Air Pollution From Sul-
fur Compounds. Control of Air Pollution
From Toxic Materials; Control of Air Pollu-
tion From Motor Vehicles;  Control of Air
Pollution From  Volatile  Organic Com-
                                pounds: Control of Air Pollution From Ni-
                                trogen  Compounds:  and  Control  of Air
                                Pollution from Carbon Monoxide) are the
                                only state standards that implement relevant
                                requirements of Title I of the Act;
                                           (B)
                                         struct
any term or condition of
t permits issued pursuant
MVP-
to the undesignated headings of
116  of this title (relating to Prevention of
Significant Deterioration or Nonattainment
Review) as necessary to implement the re-
quirements of fegulations approved or pro-
mulgated through rulemaking under Part C
(Prevention of Significant Deterioration) or
Part  D (Nonattainment) of Title I of the
Act

           (Q    say standard or other
requirement under the Act, fill, relating to
New   Source   Paf&mm®   Standards
(NSPS). including iUl(d);

           (D)   eny standard or other it-
quireraem under  the Act. §112. relating to
Hazardous Air Pollutants  (HAPS), includ-
ing any  requirement coacemsag aeddeat
prevention under the Act  $112(r)(7);


           (E)  any standard or other re-
quirement of the add tm provisions of the
Act or the acid rain rotes;


           (F)  any requirements estab-
lished  pursuant  to  the Act, §504(b) or
§114(a)(3).  regarding  Monitoring.  En-
hanced Monitoring, and Compliance Certi-
fication;


           (G)  any standard or other re-
quirement governing solid waste iacnen-
tion. under the Act. {129  (NSPS):


           (H)  any standard or other re-
quirement for consumer  and commercial
products, under the Act. §183(e) (Federal
Ozone Measures);


           (C   any standard or other re-
quirement for tank vessels, under the Act.
§183(f). (Tank Vessel Standards):


           (J)    any standard or other re-
quirement of the program  to  control air
pollution  from  outer  ""•'T'Ml  shelf
sources, under the Act, §328;


           (K)   any standard or other re-
quirement of the regulations promulgated to
protect stratospheric ozone under Title VI
of the Act unless EPA  has
                               such requirements need not be contained in
                               a federal operating permit;  and
                   Adopted Sections     September 7, 1993
                                                     IS TtxRtg 6005

                                                                     345

-------
                   (L)  any  National  Ambient
       Air Quality Standard or increment or visi-
       bility requirement under Part C of Title I of
       the Act but  only as it would apply  to
       temporary sources permitted pursuant to the
       Act. §504(e).  Except  as noted  »a this
       subparagraph. ambient air quality standards.
       net ground level  conceatratioa limits,  or
       ambient  atmospheric concentration  limits,
       either state or federal are not applicable
       requirements tinder mis  chapter.
              Deviation-Any  condition that indi-
       cates that  an  emissions  unit has failed to
       meet an ff'*""" limitation or standard im-
       posed by an applicable requirement If pa-
       rameter  monitoring  is  used,  a period of
       indeterminate compliance  that maty  occur
       «h«ii not necessarily be considered a devia-
       tion.
              Draft permit-The version of a fede-
       ral operating permit available for purposes
       of public notice  and affected state review
       under Subchapter B of this chapter (relating
       to Public Notification and Comment Proce-
       dures).
              Emission  allowable under the per-
       mit-A federally enforceable permit term or
       condition determined at issuance to be re-
       quired by am applicable requirement,  mat
                     emissions limit p*"**1"*"^ a
       work practice standard) in the form of the
       applicable requirement or a  federally en-
       forceable gmieeimiie cup that  the owner or
       operator of a site his assumed to avoid an
       applicable requirement to which the site
       would otherwise be subject
              Emission unit-The *ma1feff discrete
       or   identifiable  structure,  device,   item.
       equipment, or enclosure that  constitutes or
       contains a point of origin of air pollutants as
       defined in this Section. A point of origin of
       fugitive emissions from individual pieces of
       equipment e.g.. valves, flanges, pumps, and
       compressors, shall not be considered an in-
       dividual emission unit Such fugitive emis-
       sions shall be collectively considered as an
       emission unit based on their relationship to
       the nfWM'ff) process and those emissions
       shall be included in the permit application.
       This term is not meant v> alter or affect the
       definition of the term "unit" for purposes of
       the acid rain provisions of the Act.
              United States Environmental Protec-
       tion Agency (EPA) or Administrator-The
       Administrator of the EPA or  his designee.
              Final  action-Issuance  or denial of
       the proposed  permit by  the  board or  its
       designee after  the  EPA  review period as
       provided in Subchapter D of this chapter
       (relating to Affected  State Review.  U.S.
       Environmental  Protection Agency Review.
       and  Citizen Petition).
              Fugitive emissions-Those emissions
       which could not reasonably pass through a
       stack, chimney, vent, or other functionally-
       equivaient  opening.
              General permit-A  federal operating
       permit  that  meets  the  requirements  of
       §122.202  of this title  (relating  to General
       Permits).
       Major soufce-Any site which emits
or has the potential to emit air pollutants as
described in subparagraphs (A). (B). or (Q
of this definition.


            (A)  Any site which, in whole
or part is a major scarce under the Act
§112.  which is defined as:
               (i)  for  pollutants  other
man radioauclides. any site  that emits or
has the potential  tc emit in the aggregate.
10 tons per year (ipy) or more of any single
h^tf^rc  »ir  pollutant  which has  been
listed pursuant to the Act  §112(b). 25 tpy
or more of any combination of such hazard-
ous air pollutants, or such lesser quantity as
the Administrator may establish by rote; or
               (ii)  for      radiotnirM-s
"major mice" shall  hive  the meaning
specified by the  Administrator by rate.


            (B)  Any site which directly
emits or has me potential to  emit. 100 tpy
or more of any air pollutant (including any
major source of fugitive emissions  of any

United States  Environmental  Protection
Agency). Tne fugitive emissions of a sta-
tionary source  shall not be  coasadered  in
determining whether it is a  major source.
unless the stationary source betongs to one
of the following  categories  of stationary
sources:

               (i)  coal  cleaning  plants
(with  thermal dryers);
               (ii)  kraft pulp mills:
               (iu)     poitland   cement
plants;
               (iv)  primary zinc  smelt-
ers;
               (v)  iron and steel  mills;

               (vi)  primary   aluminum
ore reduction plants;

               (vii)  primary    '  copper
smelters;
               (viii)   municipal incinera-
tors capable of charging more than 250 tons
of refuse per day;
               (ix)  hydrofluoric, sulfuric.
or nitric acid plants;

               (x)  petroleum refineries;

               (xi)  lime  plants;

               (xii)  phosphate rock pro-
cessing plants;

               (xiii)   coke oven batteries;

               (xiv)   sulfur      recovery
plants;

               (xv)  carbon  black plants
(furnace  process);
                                                                                                               (xvi)   primary lead smelt-
ers;
               (xvii)   fuel     conversion
plant:
               (xviii)  sintering plants:
               (six)   secondary     metal
production plants;
               (xx)  chemical     process
plants;
               (x»)   fossil-fuel   boilers
(or combination thereof) totaling more than
250 million British thermal units (BTU) per
hour heat input;
               (jotii)  petroleum   storage
and transferunits with a total storage capac-
ity exeesdifflg 300,000 barrels;
               (xxiu)   taconite  ore   pro-
cessing plants;
               (xiv)   glass fiber  process-
ing plants:
               (xxv)  charcoal production
plants:
               (xxvi)   fossil-fuel-fired
sseasst electric plants of more than 250 mil-
lion Btu per hour heat input;  or
               (xxvii)  any other station-
ary source category which as of August 7.
1980.  is  being regulated  under  the  Act
§111 or §112.

            (Q  Any site which, in whole
or in part, is a major source under Part D of
Title I of the Act.  including:
               (i)  any site with the po-
tential  to emit volatile organic compounds
(VOQ or oxides of nitrogen in a quantity of
100 tpy or more in  Colttn. Dallas. Demon.
or Tarrant Counties, or in any other ozone
nonattainment area  classified as "marginal
or moderate;" 50 tpy or more in B Paso.
Hardin. Jefferson, or Orange Counties, or in
any other ozone nonattainment area classi-
fied as  "serious:"  25 tpy or  more  in
Brazpha. Chambers. Fort Bend. Galveston.
Harris.  Liberty. Montgomery,  or Walter
Counties,   or  in    any   other  ozone
                   flflffif'y*  as "severe;"
and   10  tpy  or  more  in   any  ozone
nonattainment area rlassifi"^ as "extreme;"
               (ii)   for  Victoria County.
sites with the potential to emit 100 tpy or
more of VOC;
               (iii)  for the carbon mon-
oxide  nonattainment  area  in  El  Paso
County, sites with the potential to emit  100
tpy or more of carbon monoxide:
               (iv)  for  the  City  of  El
Paso, sites with the potential  to emit  100
tpy or more of inhalable paniculate matter
(PM-10);
               (v)       for    the    lead
nonattainment area in  Collin County. ™lr*
with the potential to emit 100  toy or more
of lead.
       18 TexReg 6006     September 7, 1993     Texas Register
346

-------
            (D)  The fugitive  exclusions
which apply  to subparagraph (B) of this
definition   shall    also    apply   under
subparagraph  (Q.


            (E) Notwithstanding the pre-
ceding  source  categories,  emissions from
any oil  or gas exploration or  production
well  (with its  associated  equipment) and
emissions from any pipeline compressor or
pump station  shall not be  aggregated with
emissions from other similar units, whether
or not such units are in a contiguous area or
yiyjur  ccmmoa  control,   to  determine
whether such units  or stations are major
sources under subparagraph (A) of this defi-
nition and. in  the case of any  oil or gas
coloration or production well (with its as-
sociated equipment), w^  CTniff'WT «^n
not be aggregated for any purpose under
subparagraph (A).
       Permit  or  federal  operating  per-
mit-Any federal operating  permit or group
of federal operating permits covering a site
that is issued, renewed, amended, or revised
pursuant to this chapter, or general  permit
or group of general permits promulgated or
granted pursuant to  this *ht|Mfr
       Permit  Application-An  application
for a federal  operating permit, permit revi-
sion, permit renewal, permit reopening, and
any other  such  application as may  be re-
Quired.
       Permit  revision-Any  permit  addi-
 tion, significant modification, or administra-
 tive  permit  amendment   that   meets  the
related re<)uirements of Subchapter C of this
chapter (relating to Permit  Issuances. Revi-
sions. Reopenings.  and Renewals).
       Potential to emit-The maximum ca-
pacity of a stationary source to emit any air
pollutant under its physical and operational
design or configuration. Any certified regis-
tration or preconstruction authorization  re-
stricting emissions  or  any  physical  or
operational limitation on the capacity of a
stationary  source to  emit an air pollutant.
including air  pollution control  equipment
and restrictions on hours of operation or on
the type or amount of material combusted.
stored, or processed,  shall be treated as pan
of its design if the limitation is enforceable
by  the Administrator.  This term does not
alter or affect the use of mis term for any
other purposes  under the Act. or the term
"capacity factor" as used in acid rain provi-
sions of the Act or  the acid rain rules.
       Preconstruction  auihorization-Any
8uthon7ati"n  to construct or modify an ex-
isting facility or facilities under Chapter 116
of this title (relating to Control of Air Pollu-
tion by Permits For New  Construction or
Modification). In this chapter, references to
preconstruction authorization tinder Chapter
116 of this title also  include, where appro-
priate, preconstruction  authorization  under
Chapter 120 of this title (relating to Control
of Air Pollution fom Hazardous Waste or
Solid  Waste  Management  Facilities)  or
Chapter 121 of this title (relating ID Control
of  Air  Pollution  from  Municipal  Solid
Waste MaasgeBsent Facilities).
       Proposed permit-The version of a
federal opefHiqg permit that to Texas Air
Control Board (TACB)  forwards ta United
States iavironmeattl Protection Agency for
a 45-day nview period  in eompUanee with
Subchapter D of this chapter (reUnog to
Affected State Review, linked States Envi-
ronmental Protectioii Agency Review,  and
driven  petition).
       Relevant emissien unit-Those emis-
sion units having  OK, or mere applicable
requirements as defined in  mis chapter.
       Renewal-The process by  which  a
federal operating permit is reissued at me
cad of its term.
       Responsible official-One of the fol-
            (A)    for a  corporation:  a
president,  secretary,  treasurer,  or  vice-
president of the corporation in charge of a
principal business function, or any  other
person  who performs  similar polky  or
decision-making functions for the corpora-
tion, or a duly authorised representative  of
such person if the representative is responsi-
ble for the overall operation of oae or more
manufacturing, production, or operating fa-
cilities applying for or subject to a federal
operating permit snd  either

               (i)  the facilities  employ
more than 250 persons or have gross annual
sales or expenditures exceeding $25 miUkrn
(in second  quarter 19SO dollars); or
               (ii)  tte delegation of au-
thority to such representative is, approved in
advance  by the TACB;

            (B)  for  a partnership or sole
proprietorship: a general partner or the pro-
prietor,  respectively.

            (Q  for  a municipality,  state.
federal,  or otto public agency:  either a
principal  executive   officer  or   ranking
elected  official For the purposes of this
chapter, a principal executive officer  of a
federal agency includes the chief executive
officer having responsibility for the overall
operations of a  principal geographic unit  of
the agency (e.g.. a Regional Administrator
of the United States Environmental Protec-
tion Agency): or

            (D)  for  affected  sources:

               (i)  the designated  repre-
sentative insofar as actions, standards, re-
quirements, or prohibitions under the acid
rain provisions  of the Act or the acid rain
rules are concerned: and
               (ii)  the designated repre-
 sentative for any other purposes under this
 chapter.
       Significant  permit  modification-A
 revision to a federal operating  permit  that
 meets the seqwremsas of §122.219 of this
 tide (relating to i gnifkant Permit Modifi-
 cations).
       Site-The  total  of  all   stationary
 sources located on one or more  contiguous
 or  adjtsMM  properties,  which  are under
 eseafflea control of the seme  person  (or
 persons under common control). Research
 tad development operations shall be treated
 as a separate site  from any manufacturing
 facility  with  which they are co-located. A
 site muy contan multiple relevant emission
 units aod  grandfathered  **"'TTK*'  units.
    .   Stele  only reqiarement-A require-
 meat which is set federally enforceable un-
 der  thi' chapter or is not an  applicable
 requirement uecfesj- this chapter.
       Stationary  seutce-Any   building.
 sffjaaBffe, facility, or installation  that ••"it*
 or may emit any air pollutant.
      Title I modification—Changes at a
 site  that qualify as  a modification under
Titte I of the ACL §111 (New Source Per-
{armanee Standards) or Title I of me Act.
§112(g). or as a major modification under
Part C (Prevention of Significant Deteriora-
tion) or Part D (Nosssauksnsni Review) of
Title I of me Act.

§122.11. Grandfather Definitions for Suae
Only Requirements.   The following words
and terms, when used in this section shall
have the following  meanings,  unless  the
seated;  dearly indicates  otherwise.
      Actual grandfather  emission  "**'*
(definition  used  for state only  require-
meat)-An emission unit for which construc-
tion or operation started prior to  September
 1. 1971. and  at which either:  no modifica-
tion ha$ occurred since September 1.1971
and. therefore, for which no  authorization
has been required under Chapter 116 of mis
title (relating  to Control of Air Pollution by
Permits  for New Construction or Modifica-
tion); or modifications have been  authorized
only pursuant to a standard exemption un-
der Chapter 116 of this tide. Those emis-
sion  units   which  started  construction
between September 1.  1971 and March 1.
 1972. and which registered in aecoidance
with  Texas  Health  and  Safety  Code.
 §382.060.  as that  section existed prior to
September  1. 1991.  are also  considered
grandfathered units.
      Actual grandfather rate  (definition
 used for state only requirement)-The maxi-
 mum annual emission rate at  which the
emission unit actually operated and *TPMW)
prior to September 1.1971. for 12 consecu-
 tive months, including any increases autho-
 rized by standard exemption under Chapter
 116 of this title. A grandfather rate shall not
 be established which violates any
                                                                 Adopted Sections    September 7, 1993
                                                                  18 TexReg 6007

                                                                                 347

-------
                «• aaaiaid  s«jui«d
      dopier of this title.
             Presumptive  graadfi&er  emission
      unit (definition for  state  esly  require-
      ment)-^ amissicB uak or method of oper-
      ation  for  which construction or operation
      stuted prior to March 1. 1972. sinless the
      total  filial n*f*'|t'w> sasissiaa  rate  or
                  limit*  rti«> de  related to the
                TfKffls (e*g.. production, fuel fir*
      ii^  throughput, sulfur ccntftnt. operating
      hours. c*c., as appropriate) for the f*pfTP"a
      unit IK ftfttiMhhBd in* a  peimit.  special
      permit or special or  standaid exemption
      issued pursuant to Chapter 116 of this title.
             Resumptive grandfather rate (dafesi-
      tion used for suss only  requiremenO-Tise
      fflflxiiny^ fHMtByi emission rate or dats tii&t
      are related  to emissions  (64.. production.
      fuel firing, throughput, sulfur eoa&ns. ete.,
      as appropriate) which  are selected  to rea-
      sonably approximate the actual gcsiKifiite?
      rate based upon a review of actual historical
      operations using the procedure outlined in
      $122.132(«)(5) of this title (relating to Ap-
      plication  and  Requised  Inronnatkm).  A
      grandfather rats shall not  be  established
      which violates any emission MmitBtiQn or

      tide.

      §122.12. Acid Rain  Dtfutaism.   The fal-
      lowing words and terms, when used in this
      section. shaU have the following meanings.
      unless the context clearly indicates other-
      wise.
             Acid rain compliance option-One of
      the methods of compliance used by an af-
      fected unit as described in a compliance
      plan submitted and approved in accordance
      with the acid rain rates or the Act. §407.
             Acid rain permit-Toe legally bind-
      ing portion  of tte  federal operating permit
      issued by the Texas  Air  Control Board
      (TACB) under this chapter including.any
      permit revisions, specifying the acid rain
      requirements  applicable  to an   affected
      source, to each affected unit at an affected
      source, and to the owners and operators and
      the designated representative of the affected
      fffljfpy of goc affected  unit.
             Acid rain mles-The regulations pro-
      mulgated  pursuant to the acid rain provi-
      sions of the Act contained in 40 CFR Part
      72. et  at
             Actual  grandfather rate  (definiuea
      used for  state  only requirement)-Fw af-
      fected  units, auxiliary support systems for
      affected units, simple combustion turbines.
      and units  which serve  a  generator with a
      nameplate capacity  of 25 megawatt or  less.
      the actual grandfather rate for actual grand-
      father emission units shall be me maximum
      annual emission rate or data related to emis-
      sions (e.g.. fuel firing, sulfur content,  etc..
      as appropriate) at  the  documented  Maxi-
      mum Continuous Rating,  on a continuous
      operating basis, of generating units used to
                       meet or to prepare to meet requirements of
                       the cleans power grid. Each actual grand-
                       father emission unit that is an affected unit
                       shall be operated in compliance with appli-
                       cable provisions of the Acid Rain Rules, as
                       fifffinfffj in th« section. TBchtd*nt any emis-
                       sion allowance limitiiP""* '
                             Affected source-A ate that includes
                       one or store  affected units.
                             Affected unit-A unit mat is subject
                       to *m*ftiflri reduction requirements or bjni-
                       Jsukms under  te acid rain rules.
                             Allowance-An authorization, under
                       the acid  rain  rules,  by me  United States
                       Environmental Protection  Agency to emit
                       up to one ton of sulfur dioxide during or
                       after  a specified calendar year.
                             OEM and COM-Abbrevistkms  for
                       caobanous emission moaneKs) and a §ea-
                       tejjm opacity monitoKs). respectively.
                             Cettifiew!  of   rapreientBtkHi-m
                       completed m& signed submission required
                       by the aeM rato iuks. for  certifying the
                       appoteaent of a daJgnatgd representative
                       for m affected seisms or a group of kienii-
 This agency hereby certifies ftat the ruto as
 cdopled has tnsn rovimwd by tae*l count**
 and found to et a va« •xereisa oJ ttta agnv
 cys toeai authority.
 issuKl in Austin, Texas, on August 30, t983.
                         ; owaas and operators ef such sources)
                       and of the affected units at such souree(s)
                       with regard to matsere of tot acid rain re-

                             Designated  represemative-The  re-
                       sponsible individual authorized by me own-
                       ers and operators of an affected* source and
                       of all affected nabs at fee sitt. as evidenced
                       by a certificate of representation submitted
                       in accordance wife the add rain rules, to
                       represent and legally bind each owner and
                       operator, as  a matter of federal law,  in
                       matters pertaining to the acid rain require-
                       ments.  Such matters  include, but are not
                               ; £jjj Boidings, transfeis, or dispo-
                                                f loauniti and
                       the submission of or compUance with acid
                       rain  permits,  peimit apphcauons, compli-
                       ance plans, emission monitoring plans. CQR-
                       tinuous  emissions momtor (CEM). and
                       continuous opacity monitor (COM) certifi-
                       cation notifications. CEM and COM certifi-
                       cation    sad    applications,    quarterly

                       nual  cmralianee certifications.  Whenever
                       the tei     isponsibie official" is used in
                       mis ciuy*-. it shall refer to the "designated
                       representative'' with regard to all matters
                       under the  acid rain requirements.
                             Maximum  continuous  rating-The
                       heat input required to attain the maximum
                       dcomenusd steam conditions or to achieve
                       the maximum documented eiectric&l output
                             Unit-For  the purposes of the acid
                       rain provisions of the Act. a fossil-fuel fired
                       combustion device.
                             Upgraded   units-An  affected unit
                       that did not serve a generator with a name-
                       plate capacity greater than 25 mepwatts on
                       November 15.1990. but serves such  a gen-
                       erator after November 15.  1990.
                       , cwputy OtoMor. Ak
                     Gumy punning
                  Tains Air cornel Bowd

          «S@se: Septen^er 20. 1998
 Proposal pub&aten data: M»y 11, 1983
 far ta&m Mcnnaiian.  ptoese caft  (512)
       *           *          «

 Subchapter  B.  Permit  Require*
    meats

 Applicability
 • 31 TAG §§122.120, §122422
 The Raw rates ant adopted under me Texas
 Healh and Safety Code. Texas Ctean Ar Act
 (TCAA). 5382.017. which provides the TACB
 trim the authority  to adopt rute eonciattiit
 ttttt the paiey and pumoees of ma TCAA.

 §122.120. Applicability.  The owner or op-
 eian- of a site shall submit  an  applica-
 £330(3)  to  the  Texas  Air Control Board
 (TACB) for a federal operating permit un-
 der roe requffements of this chapter if the
 site has one or more of the following:
         (1) any major source as defined
 in §122.10 of this  title (relating to General
 Definitions);
         (2)  any  affected source as  de-
 fined in §122.12 of this title  (relating to.
 Acid Rain Definitions);
         (3) any solid waste incineration
 unit required to obtain a federal operating
 permit pursuant to the Act. §129(e) of Title
 I;
         (4) any  non-major source which
 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
 through further rulemaking. h»y designated
 as no longer exempt from the obligation to
 obtain a federal operating permit.  For the
.purposes of this section, non-major source
 shall  be defined as:

            (A)  any source,  including an
 area source, subject  to a standard, limita-
 tion,  or  other requirement  under the  Act.
 §111  (NSPS);

            (B)  any source,  including an
 area source, subject to a standard or other
 requirement under the  Act.  §112 (Hazard-
 ous Air Pollutants), except that a source is
 not required to obtain a permit solely be-
 cause it is subject to regulations or require-
 ments under the Act. §112(r) (Prevention of
 Accidental Releases); or
     18 TexReg 6008
348
September 7,  1993     Terns Register  «

-------
(O   any source in a source
        by the  Administrator
category
pursuant to Tide ID of the Act

§122.122. Potential to Emit.
      (a) For purposes of determining ap-
plicability of the Federal Operating Permit
program under this chapter, the owner or
operator of stationary sources without any
other federally  enforceable  •""««"»«  rate
may limit their sources' potential to emit by
maintaining a certified registration of emis-
sions. which shall be federally enforceable.
          rates in permits.' standard exemp-
tuns, other preconstruction authorizations.
and registrations of m**"""* provided for
under Chapter 116 of this title (relating to
Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New
Consouciton or Modification) are also fed-
erally enforceable  emission rates.
      (b)  All representations in any regis-
tration of emissions under this section with
regard to emissions shall become conditions
upon which the stationary source shall oper-
ate. It shall be unlawful for any person to
vary from such representation  wO*** the
registration is first revised.
      (c)  The  registration  of raniaMorB
shall include  documentation of the basis of
emission rates and a certification, in accord-
ance with f 122.165 of this title (relating to
Certification  by  a Responsible Official).
that the maximum emission rates listed on
the registration reflect the reasonably antki- •
pated maTfjmumft for  operation of the sta-
tionary source.
      (d)   In order to qualify for registra-
tions of emissions under this section, the
maximum emission rates listed in the regis-
tration must be less than those rates defined
for a major source in §122.10 of this  title
(relating to General Definitions).
      (e)   The  certified  registrations  of
emissions and records demonstrating com-
pliance with such registration shall be main-
tained on-site. or at an accessible designated
location, and shall be provided, upon  re-
quest during regular business hours to rep-
resentatives of the Texas Air Control Board
or any air pollution control agency having
 Trw agency Iwraby certifies that the rule as
 adopted has been reviewed by legal counsel
 and found to be a valid exercise of the agen-
 cy's  toga) authority.

 Issued in Austin. Texas, on August 30.1993.
 TRD-9327950       Cyrt Dunmbwpir
                   Acting D«puty Dwoor. Air
                     Quality Purring
                   T«XM Air Cwtrol Board
 Effective  dele: September 20. 1993

 Proposal  publication date: May 11. 1993

 For  further  information, please call: (512)
 908-1451
Permit Application
• 31 TAG  §§121130,
   122.132-122.134, 122.136,
   122038,122.139
The new rules are adopted under the Tans
HeaBh and Safety Coda, Tens CSean Air Act
(TCAA). 5382.017, which prevfctes the TAGS
wait the  authority to adopt rules earaistant
wih me  polcy and ewpaaes of me TCAA.

§122 J30. Responsibility to Appfy.
      (a)  General requirement After the
effective date of this chapter, the own&r or
operator shall submit to the Texas Air Con-
trol Board (TACB) a timely and complete
permit application for each site subject to
me requirements of this chapter and in ac-

      (b)  Interim program. The fouownig
sites are subject to the inietim federal  oper-
ating permit psograsi and as such, the own-
                                             ers or operators of these sites thaD submit
                                             imfj«i rMffmit applications according to the
                                             application submittal yh***"** for the In-
                                             terim Ptugianii
                                                      (1)   any site with  n  afffcttd
                                             source as defined in §122.12 of this title
                                             (relating to Acid Rain Definitions);
                                                      (2)   any site whose primary Stan-
                                             dard Industrial OassiScaaon (SIC) code (as
                                             described in the Standard Industrial das-
                                             aiilcaikm Manual. 1987) is one of the fol-
                                             lowing  (for  purposes  of this  subsection.
                                             each site shall have only one primary SIC
                                             code):
                                             Gas.  1311:
                                                         (A)  Petroleum  and  Natural
                                              1321;
                                                         (B)    Natural  Gas Liquids,
                                             (Q  Electric Services. 4911;


                                             (D)    Natural  Gas Transmis-
                                  sion. 4922;

                                             (E)  Natural  Gas  Transmis-
                                  sion  and Distribution. 4923; or

                                             (F)  Petroleum  Bulk Stations
                                  and Terminals. 5171.
                                        (c)  Application submittal  schedule
                                  for the interim program.
                                           (1)   No later than six months af-
                                  ter the effective date of  the interim federal
                                  operating permit program,  the designated
                                  representative of each affected source shall
                                  submit a permit application for  at least the
                                  affected units at the site. Regardless of the
                                  effective date  of the program and the re-
quirement to file i permit application de-
fined in this section, applications for initial
Phase n acid rain permits shall be submitted
to the TACB no later than January 1.1996.
for sulfur dioxide, and by January  1.1998.
for nitrogen  oxides pursuant to the Act
(407. This subsection shall  not apply to
affected  sources that elect to become af-
fected pursuant to the Act §410.
         (2)   No later than six months af-
ter the effective date of the interim federal
operating permit program, the owner or op-
erator of any site listed in subsection (bX2)
of this section shall submit a permit applica-
tion, except that if any owner or operator
has more than one site listed in  subsection
(b) (2) of this section,  then  the owner or
operator shall submit permit appucatitas for
no lea than  10ft of such sues.
         (3)   No later thaa 12 months af-
ter the effective date of the interim federal
operating permit program, the iyuttHf or op-
erator T^fi11 f"t»»«t an i*"*"1 permit tpplif*-
tioa for  those remaining siteU) listed  in
subsection (bX2) of this section  which did
not submit an application pursuant to sub-
section (c)(2)  of this section.
      (d)  Application submittal schedule
after full program approval. All sues, other


{122.120 of this title (relating to Applica-
bility). shall be subject to the fully approved
federal operating permit program and shall

than  12 months  after the effective date of
me fully approved federal operating permit
program.
      (e)  Owners or operators of sites that
become  subject  to this chapter after the

program shall submit permit ffr"'ttrgnt no
later  than 12 months after the issuance or
approval date of the preconstruction autho-
rization required under Chapter 116 of mis
title (relating to Control of Air Pollution by
Permits for New Construction or Modifica-
tion).


§122.132. Application and Required Infor-
mation.
      (a)  A permit application shall in-
clude any information, including CTfifidfn-
tial information, deemed  necessary by the
Texas Air Control Board (TACB) to deter-
mine the applicability of. or to  codify any
applicable requirement except that applica-
tions for a general permit shall  only be
required to provide the information neces-
sary  to determine qualification  for, v<4 to
assure compliance with, the general permit
The  federal operating permit  application
shall include, but is not limited to. a Gen-
eral Application Form for Federal Operating
Permit  all information requested  by that
form, and the information described as fol-
lows:
                                                              «  Adopted Sections     SepUmtxr 7, 1993     IB  TtxRtg  6009
                                                                                                                                349

-------
              (1)  for each  emission unit,  or
     group of  similar emission units:


                 (A)   information   identifying
     each  applicable  requirement,  airy  corre-
     sponding  emission limitation, and any cor-
     responding   monitoring,  reporting,  and
     recordkeeping requirements;


                 (B)    iofofinafion  identifying
     potentially applicable requirements for mat
     particular type  of emission unit and  the
     basis for the determinatjem that those appli-
     cable requirements do  hot  apply;

               (2)  a proposed monitoring, test-
     ing, recordkeeping.  and reporting protocol
     for each relevant emission unit at the site;

               (3)  information as requested  by
     the nationally standardized forms for acid
     rain portions of permit applications and
     compliance plans, as required  by the acid
     rain rules;

               (4)  a statement certifying that a
     risk management plan,  if applicable,  or a
     schedule to submit such plan has been sub-
     mitted  in   accordance  with   the  Act.
     §112(r)(7);
               (5)  (state-only requirement) the
     following identifications on the application:


                 (A)  Each  grandfather unit at
     the site shall be identified as a presumptive
     grandfather unit or an actual grandfather
     unit, regardless  of whether or not that unit
     is a relevant  emission  unit.


                 (B)   Each emission unit that
     would be a presumptive grandfather except
     for the fact that the total annual maximum
     emission  rate or operational limits that are
     related  to the annual emissions (e.g.. pro-
     duction, fuel firing,  throughput, sulfur con-
     tent,  operating hours, etc.. as  appropriate)
     for the emission  unit arc established  in a
     permit, special permit, or special or stan-
     dard exemption issued pursuant to Chapter
     116 of  this title (relating to Control of Air
     Pollution  by Permits for New Construction
     or Modification).

                    (i)   For  each  emission
     unit, the application shall identify the  total
     annual    maximum   emission   rate    or
     operational  limits that were previously de-
     fined and  documented, and the permit, spe-
     cial   permit,   or   special  or   standard
     exemption number in  which this informa-
     tion was established  and any documentation
     or basis for that determination.

                    (ii)  If.  during  the  permit
     application  review,  the  TACB  determines
     that such emission rates  or operational lim-
     its that were defined or documented do not
     reflect actual grandfather rates, then the ap-
                       plicant  must supply  me information re-
                       quired ia subparagraphs (Q or (D) of this
                       paragraph  to establish  the  presumptive
                                   (Q  The   application  shall
                       provide information to define and document
                       me presumptive grandfather rate for each
                       unit defined in stibpamgraph  (A) of mis
                       paragraph at me site. laformanoa provided
                       in this section & define and document me
                       presumptive grandfather rate shall include
                       available data related to emissions prior to
                       January 1. 1994 as follows.

                                      (i)  The documentation  of
                       the presumptive grandfather emission rate
                       shall be based on the best available of data
                       m the emission rale, equipment configura-
                       tion. and other emissions-related data dur-
                       ing tfse seven-year period prior to January 1.
                       1994 which  best  reflect the  presumptive
                       grandfather  rate.

                                      0i) The   best   available
                       data would be me average of 24 consecutive
                       months of emissions data w data that can be
                       related  » emissions  (such as production
                       rate, fuel firing, throughput, sulfur cement,
                       etc.) during  the  seven-year period refer-
                       'eae&d  in  clause (i) of tins subparagnph.
                       Less than 24 consecutive months of rf«ti
                       may be used, upon approval by the TACB
                       during the permit application review, if it is
                       more representative of the range of opera-
                       tions' which cCTiM be reasonably expected
                       from the existing equipment coofiguratkxt.
                                      (iii)  Any  other  method
                       proposed by the applicant during the permit
                       application review and that the Executive
                       Director approves as  representative of  the
                       operations and resulting emissions which
                       .may reasonably have occurred prior to 1971
                       may be ussd  to  define the  presumptive
                       grandfather  rate.


                                   (D)  In any event, the actual
                       grandfather rate for the emission unit shall
                       be established if the applicant  provides 12
                       consecutive   months   of   emissions   or
                       emissions-related  data  from prior to Sep-
                       tember  1. 1971 documenting the operations
                       prior to September 1.  1971. Less than 12
                       consecutive months of data prior to Septem-
                       ber 1. 1971 may be used, upon approval by
                       the TACB. if it is determined by the TACB
                       during the permit application  review that
                       mere is sufficient data to demonstrate mat it
                       reflects operations prior  to September  1.
                       1971.
                                   (E)  Upon  issuance  of  the
                       permit, the presumptive or actual grandfa-
                       ther rate established by the dvt submitted
                       shall   be   the   grandfather   rate   in
                       subparagraph (D) of this paragraph which
                       the unit may not operate without first  ob-
                       taining or qualifying for preconstruction au-
 thorization   in   accordance    with   the
 requirements of Chapter 116  of this title.
 This grandfather rate does not remove the
 responsibility of me applicant to obtain or
 qualify for any necessary preconstruction
 authorization  in accordance with  the re-
 quirements of Chapter 116 of this title prior
 to making  any- physical changes or con-
 structing a new facility source at the emis-
 sion  unit  regardless  of  whether   this
            rate is exceeded as s result of
that physical  change  or construction.  A
grandfather me shall not be established
which violates  any emission limitation or
standard required under any chapter of mis
title The establishment of this grandfather
rate does not  remove any liabilities or po-
tential enforcement action for past or future
exeeedtnces of the actual grandfather rate
in violation of Chapter 116 of mis title.
      (b>  Each federal  operating permit
jpplicaoon shall include a compliance plan.
Such  plan shall contain the following:
         (D   • description of the compli-
ance status of each relevant emission unit at
the site with  respect  to all applicable re-
qmremeots;
         (2)  a statement that  all  relevant
emission units at the  site will:

            (A)  except  as  provided  in
paragraph (3) of this subsection, continue to
comply with the applicable requirements;
and

            (B)  comply, as required, with
any applicable  requirements  that  become
effective during the permit term:
         (3)   for those relevant emissions
units not in compliance with applicable re-


            (A)  a narrative description of
how the emission unit will come into com-
pliance with the applicable requirements;

            (B)  a  compliance schedule
containing a schedule of remedial measures.
including, but not limited, to an enforceable
sequence of actions; and


            (Q  a  schedule for  submis-
sion of certified progress reports. After issu-
ance of the permit, the certified progress
reports shall be submitted no less frequently
than every six months.

      (c)   A compliance certification shall
be included with the federal operating per-
mit application consistent with the r^uire-
ments of §122.143  of this title (relating  to
Permit Conditions).

      (d)   The applicant  shall provide  to
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
a copy of the permit application.
     18  TexReg  6010
350
September 7, 1993     Texas Register   «

-------
      (e)  A responsible officiil shall cer-
 tify, consistent with {122.165 of this title
 (relating to Certification by a Responsible
 Official), all information submitted  under
 flllS 96CtiOO>                *


 §122.133.  Timely Application.

      (a)  A timely application for  a  site
 applying for a federal operating permit for
 liift first Qm&  is ooc  ttttt is supffiittpo in
 accordance with (122.130 of this title  (re-
 lating to Responsibility to  Apply).
      (b)   A timely application for  a  sig-
 nificant permit modification to a federal
 operating permit is one filed no later..thaa
 12 months after the owner or operator has
 obtained    or    Qualified    for     any

 TACB  Chapter 116 of mis  tide (relating to
 Control of Air  Pollution by  Permits  For
 New Construction or Modification).
      (c)   A timely application for  a per- •
 rait renewal is one that is submitted at least
 six months, but no earlier than 18 months.
 prior to the date of permit expiration.

 $122.134. Complete Application.
      (a)   To be complete, an application
 shall provide  all  information  required in
 $122.132 of this title (relating, to Applica-
 tion and Required Information) except that:
          (1)    applications for revision to
 a federal  operating permit shall only  be
 required to provide information related to
 the proposed change; and
          (2)    applications for a general
 permit  shall only be required to provide the
 information necessary to determine qualifi-
 cation for.  and to  assure compliance with.
 the general permit.
      (b)   The application shall be deemed
 complete,  unless the  Texas  Air  Control
 Board  requests additional  information  or
 otherwise notifies the applicant of incom-
 pleteness within 60 days of receipt.

 §122.136. Application Deficiencies.
      (a)  Any applicant who fails to sub-
 mit any relevant facts or who has submitted
 incorrect information in a federal operating
 permit  application shall, upon becoming
 aware of such failure or incorrect submittal.
 submit  such supplementary facts or cor-
 rected information  no  later than 60 days
 after such  discovery.
      (b)  An applicant shall provide addi-
 tional information as necessary to address
 any applicable requirements, as defined in
 this chapter, that this site becomes subject
 to after  the date the owner or operator filed
 a complete  application.
      (c)   If while processing an applica-
tion that has been deemed to be complete.
the  Texas  Air Control Board  determines
 that sdfiitiomBl information is necessary to
 evaluate or take final action on that applica-
 tion,  it  may  request such information  in
 writing and set a reasonable deadline for a
 response.


 §122 J38. Application Shield.  If the owner
 or operator of a site submits a  timely and
 complete applications) for permit issuance.
 significant permit modification to a permit.
 or renewal, the site's Mure to have a fede-
 ral operating permit is not a violation of this
 chapter until  the Executive Director  takes
 final action OB the permit application. This
 protection  shall cease to apply if. subse-
 quent to the application being deemed com-
 plete, the applicam fails n rabmit in writing
 to the Executive Director, by the  deadline
     "  d. any additional information identi-
 fied as necessary to process the application.


 §122.139.   Application   Review  Sched-
 ule.  The Board shaD:
          (1)  under  an interim program.
 for those sites required to file initial appli-
 cations within the first year of the effective
 date of the  interim program, take final ac-
 tion on at least one-third of those applica-
 tions annually over a period not to exceed
 three years  after such effective date;

          (2)-  under  the  fully  approved
 program, for  those  sites required  te file
 initial applications prior to or within one
 year of the effective date of the fully ap-
 proved program, take final action on at least
 one-third of those  applications annually
 over a period not to exceed three years after
 such  effective date;
          (3)  except as noted in paragraph
 (1) or (2) of this section, take final action
 on an application for a permit, significant
 permit  modification,  or permit renewal
 within 18 months of the date on which the
 Texas Air Control Board (TACB) deemed
 an application complete; and
          (4)   take  final  action on any
 complete permit  application containing  an
 early reduction demonstration  under the
 Act. §112(i)(5). within nine months of re-
 ceipt  of  the complete application.
 This agency hereby certifies thai  the rote as
 adopted has been reviewed by legal cmmse)
 and found to be a vafes exercise of the agen-
 cy's legal authority.
 Issued in Austin, Texas, on August 30,  1993.
 TRD-9327951       Cyril Duirantorger
                  Acting  Deputy Director. Air
 Permit Content
 • 31  TAG §§122.141,  122.143,
    122.145
 The new rutes are adapted under the Texas
 Heath and Safety Code. Texas Clean Air Act
 (TCAA). §382.017. which provides the TACB
 with the authority  to adopt rules consistent
 with me policy and pwpesss of  the TCAA.

 §122.141. Authority

      (a)  Federal operating permits may
 contain general and special terms and con-
 ditions.  The permittee shall comply with
 any and all such  terms and conditions.

      (b)  The board shall not grant a vari-
 ance, pursuant to  the Texas Health  and
 Safety Code.  $382.028. from the  require-
 ments of this chapter to apply for or operate
 under a  permit.


 §122.143. Permit Conditions.  Unless oth-
 erwise specified in the permit the permittee
 shall comply  with esch  of the following
 conditions
         (1)   General permit
,                   Texas Air Control Beard
 Effective' dote: September 20, 1993
 Proposal plication dale: May 11. 1993
 For further information.  please call: (512)
 908-1451
            (A)  Compliance with the fe-
deral operating permit does not relieve the
permittee's obligation to comply with any
other applicable Texas Air Control Board
(TACB)  rules, regulations, or orders.


            (B)  The   federal  operating
permit shall expire five years from the issu-
ance of the proposed permit


            (O  The permittee shall allow
representatives from the TACB or the local
air pollution control program having juris-
diction to perform the following:

               (i)  enter     upon     the
permittee's premises where an emission unit
is located  or  emissions-related activity is
conducted.-or  where records must be kept
under the conditions of the permit:

               (ii)  have access to and
copy any records that must be kept  under
the conditions of the permit;

               (iii)  inspect, at any time
other than when the presence of the TACB
personnel would interfere with the ability of
the permittee  to respond to  an emergency
situation, any emission unit equipment (in-
cluding monitoring and air pollution control
equipment), practices, or operations  regu-
lated or required under the  permit;  and

               (iv)  sample   or  monitor
substances or parameters for the purpose of
assuring compliance with the permit or  ap-
plicable requirements at any time.
                                                             «  Adopted Sections    Septestber 7, 1993    18 TexRtg 6011
                                                                                                                                  351

-------
                 (D)   Records  requited  under
      this permit shall be provided, upon request.
      to  representatives from the TACB or the
      local air pollution control program having
      jurisdiction  within a reasonable period of
      time.

                 (E)   The permittee shall com-
      ply with all conditions of the  permit Any
      permit ftflflfffr>fipliiM*c$  constitutes' a viola*
                       schedule in §101.27 of this title (relating to
                                pees),
months, or more frequently  if required by
an applicable requirement. The compliance
certification shall include  at a
      two of the Act and is grounds for enforce-
      ment   action;   for   permit  termination.
      revocation and reissuance. or revision; or
      for denial of a permit renewal application. It
      shall not be  a defense, for a permittee in an
      enforcement action that it would have been
      necessary  to halt or reduce  the 'permitted
      activity in order to maintain  compliance
      with the conditions of this permit

                  (F)   The  permit may  be  re-
      vised.  revoked,  reopened  and reissued, or
      terminated for cause as defined in $121231
      of t*"$ tide (relating to Permit Reopenings).
      The filing of a request by the permittee or
      notice  of intent by the TACB for a permit
      revision, revocation and reissuanee. or ter-
      mination.  or of a notification  of planned
      change* or mtjqp*ml noncoraplianee does
      not stay any permit condition.

                  (C)  Unless  the time is ex-
      tended by the Board or its designee.  the
      permittee  shall furnish within 60 days any
      information that me Executive Director may
      request in writing to determine whether
      cause exists  for revising, revoking and reis-
      suing. or terminating the permit or to deter-
      mine  compliance  with the  permit.  Upon
      request, the  permittee shall also furnish to
      the Executive Director, copies of records
      required to be kept by the permit, including
      any confidential-information. It may  be re-
      quired that such records be sent directly to
      the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
      (EPA)  along with any claim of confidential-
      ity. Any  such claim  should be made in
      accordance with federal law. including 40
      Code of Federal Regulations 2.

                  (H)  If at the time of promul-
      gation of a new applicable requirement, the
      permit has three or more years remaining in
      its term, the permittee shall request a  re-
      opening and  revision  of the  permit within
      12 months of promulgation of a new appli-
      cable requirement not already incorporated
      into a permit. No such reopening is required
      if the compliance date of the requirement is
      later than  the permit expiration date, or if
      the new requirement is incorporated in any
      federal operating permit  held by the site
      which addresses the emission  unit(s) subject
      to the  new requirement.

                  (I)  The  permittee  shall  pay
      fees to the TACB consistent with the fee
                                   (I)  Each  portion of the per-
                       mit is severable. Permit requirements in un-
                       challenged  portions  of the  permit  shall
                       remain valid in me event of a challenge to
                       other  portions of the permit.


                                   (K)   Thf permit does not con-
                       vey any property rights of any sort, or any
                       exclusive privilege.
                                (2)   Recordkeeping    conditions.
                       The permittee shill m*ififiip records  of all
                                                  support  infor-
                       mation for a period  of at least five years
                       from  the  <***»- of  the monitoring WTtpltn
                       rBetanremisrat. report, or  application. Sup-
                       port information may include, but shall not
                       be limited to. the data from all

                       recording* for eemiattous monitoring instru-
                       mentation, and copies of all reports required
                       by  the  permit The data may be stored
                       electronically.  However, it shall be made
                       available,  within  a reasonable period of
                       bme. in a rftMablft electronic or hard copy
                       form upon request by an Brtjiorirad repre-
                       sentative of the TACB or  any local air
                       pollution control program having jurisdic-
                       tion.

                                (3)  Reporting conditions.  The
                       permit shall incorporate all applicable moni-
                       toring data reporting  requirements as fol-
                       lows.


                                   (A)    After issuance of  the
                       permit, reports of any required monitoring
                       shall be  submitted  to the TAGS at least
                       every six months or more frequently if re-
                       quired  by an  applicable requirement.  All
                       instances of deviations shall be clearly iden-
                       tified in  such reports. All required reports
                       shall be certified by a responsible official.


                                   (B)  Within two weeks after
                       occurrence,  the permittee shall  report, in
                       writing, to the  TACB any deviations,  the
                       probable  cause of such deviations, and any
                       corrective actions or preventative measures
                       taken, except iu such cases that all informa-
                       tion required under this  subsection is sub-
                       muted, in writing, under subparagraph  (Q
                       of this paragraph.


                                   (C)  Emissions from any  up-
                       set, start-up, shutdown, or maintenance ac-
                       tivities shall be reported as required  under
                       Chapter 101 of this title  (relating to Notifi-
                       cation of Upset and Maintenance Require-
                       ments).

                                (4)     Compliance   certification
                       conditions. After  issuance  of the permit.
                       compliance certifications shall be submitted
                       to the TACB and EPA at least  every  12
            (A)  the identification of each
tenn  fm^"*"1  or applicable requirement
of me permit for which trie permittee shall
certify compliance;

            (B)  the compliance status of
the relevant  emission "•'*« listed  in the
permit relative to any applicable term, con-
dition. or applicable requirement over the
entire 12-month certification period;

            (Q  a  statement of whether
compliance was continuous or intermittent;

            (D)  me  method(s)  used for
determining the compliance flttw of each
relevant emissicsi unit; and

            (E)   a certification by a re-
sponsible official, consistent with §122.165
of this title (relating  to Certification by a
Responsible Official), of all the information
submitted under this  section.

§122.145. Permit Content  Requirements.

      (a)   Each  federal operating permit
shall contain terms and conditions regarding
fjnireinn limi^u^ jixj scndards. compli-
ance  certification, testing,  monitoring, re-
porting.  and  recordkeeping  requirements
sufficient to assure compliance with the ap-
plicable requirements.  Any document (in-
cluding reports) submitted to the Texas Air
Control Board (TACB) that is specifically
required by a permit shall contain a certifi-
cation by a responsible official.

      (b)   Each  permit  shall  contain the
following terms and conditions with respect
to monitoring:

         (1)  all emissions monitoring and
analysis procedures or test methods required
under the applicable requirements, includ-
ing any  enhanced  monitoring  procedures
and methods promulgated  pursuant to the
Act 5504(b) and §114(«)  (3);

         (2)  where the applicable require-
ments do not require periodic  testing or
instrumental or nnn*ngffi)fWrftfal monitoring
(which may consist of recordkeeping de-
signed to serve  as  monitoring),  terms and
conditions which require periodic monitor-
ing sufficient to yield reliable data from the
relevant time period that are representative
of the site's compliance with the permit.
Such  monitoring conditions shall assure use
of terms,  test methods,  units,  averaging
periods, and other  statistical conventions
consistent with the applicable requirement.
Recordkeeping  may be  sufficient  to  meet
the requirements of this paragraph; and
     18 TexReg 6012

352
September 7, 1993     Texas Register   *

-------
         (3)  conditions,   as  necessary.
concerning the use. maintenance. and where
appropriate,   installation  of   monitoring
ttpiipimnt or methods.
      (c)  Each permit shall contain terms
tad   conditions  that   would   require
recordk.eping of monitoring information in-
cluding,  but not limited  to:
         (1)  the date, place as defined in
the permit, and  time of sampling or mea-
surements
         (2)   the  date
-------
              (8)    notifkation mat  *  p»on
     who mty be affected by the emission of tir
     pollutants horn the site is entitled to request
     a bearing pursuant to §122. 316 of this title
     (relating  to Hearing and  Comment Proce-
     dures); and
              (&     name, address, sad phsae
     number of .ae TACB regional office to be
     contacted for further information.
           (b)  Publication  elsewhere  in  the
     newspaper. Another notice witfi a size of fit
     least 96.8  square  centimeters  (IS square
     inches), and whose shortest dimension is at
     least 7.6 centimeters (three inches), shall be
     published in a prominent location elsewhere
     in the same issue of the newspaper and shall
     contain the information specified in subsec-
     tion (aXIM*) of this section and note thai
     additional information  is eoataJaed in the
     notice published puraiant to subsection (a)
     of mis section in the public notice section of
     the,  same issue.

     §122,154. Sign Posting Requirements.
           (a)  At the applicant's  es^ensg.  «
     sign or signs shall be placed at the site
     declaring the filing of an application for i
     permit and stating the manner in which the
     Texas Air Control Board (TACB)  may be
     contacted for  further  information. Such
     signs shall be provided by the applicant and
     shall meet  the  following requirements:

              (1)  signs shall consist of dwk
     lettering on a white background and  shaU be
     no smaller than 18 indies by 28 inches;

              (2)   signs shall be headed by the
     words "APPLICATION  FOR  FEDERAL
     OPERATING PERMIT in  no  less  than
     two-inch, bold-face, block-printed  capital
     lettering:

              (3)  signs shall include the words
     "APPLICATION NO."  and the number of
     the permit application in  no less than one-
     inch boldface, block-printed capital lettering
     (more than one number  may be included on
     the signs if the respective public comment
     periods coincide);
              (4)  sigjs shall include the words
     "for further information contact" in  no less
     than 1/2-inch lettering;

              (5)  signs shall include the words
     Texas Air Control Board." and the  address
     of the appropriate TACB  regional office in
     no less than one-inch, boldface, capital let-
     tering  and  3M-ineh. boldface,  lower-case
     lettering;  and

              (6)  signs shall include the phone
     number of the appropriate TACB regional
     office in  no  less than  two-inch, boldface
     numbers.

           (b)  The  sign or signs shall be  in
     place by the date of  publication  of  the
     newspaper notice required by §122.153  of
                      tim title (relating to Public Notice, Format)
                      and  shall seasain  is place  and legible
                      thceyghout Ae period of public comment
                      provided for in §122.155 of this title (relat-
                      ing to Public Comment  Period).
                            (c)  Each siga placed at the site shall
                      be located wimin am feet of each (every)
                      property Mas paraHelicg a street or  other
                      publk totougnfare. Signs shaU  be visible
                      from the stiett and spaced at not more than
                      1300-foot intervals. A  wmaam of one
                      siga, but m  mse than tares signs shall be
                      required along any property fins paralleling
                      a public moroughfare.
                            (d)   The TACB may approve varia-
                      tions  from the requirements of subsection
                      (c) of mis section if the applicant has dem-
                      onsffated Aat it is not pfaetkai to comply
                      with tbe sjEfiofw fequsremeiits of suosectiQn
                      (e) of mis section sad alternative sign pett-
                      ing plans proposed by me applicant are at
                      teas m effective ia povidiag aotke to tbe
                      public. The approval from ft* TACB uffider
                      this .subsection  ssust  be sesssved Ijtwwe
                      posting signs for purposes of $@nsfyB9g the
                                  of this section.
                            (e)  Tease siga requirements do net
                      apply to properties under the same owner-
                      ship which are aoBeoatigttous aod/er sepa-
                      rated by  izstefvesuffig public thoroughfares.
                      unless directly involved by the pennk appli-
                      §122,155.  Public Comment Period.
                            (a)  A  30-day  publk  comment
                      period shall be held by the  Board or its
                      designee on a federal operating permit or
                      renewal application, or on a reopening of a
                      federal operatug permit

                            (b)  Tbe Board or its designee shall
                      receive public comment for 30 days after
                      the last day on which notice  of the public
                      comment period  is published. During the
                      30-day publk eommeat period, any person
                      may  submit written comments on the draft
                      permit or may. in writing, request a notice
                      and eomragnt hearing pursuant to §122316
                      of this title (reMng to Hearing and Com-
                      meat  Procedures for Operating Permits).

                            (c)  After   the  publk  comment
                      period and the conclusion of any notice and
                      comment  heanng convened  pursuant  to
                      Subcnspter D of the chapter (relating to
                      Affected State Review. U.S. Environmental
                      Protection  Agency Review, and Citizen Pe-
                      tition), the Board or its designee shall send
                      notice of its proposed final action  on the
                      permit application, or renewal  application
                      or on the reopening  of a federal operating
                      permit, to any person who commented dur-
                      ing the publk eomraw period, and to the
                      applicant. The notice shall include:

                              (1)   the  response  to any com-
                      fflsnts submitted during the publk comment
                      period:
         (2)   identification of any change
in tile conditions in the draft permit and the
reasons for the change: aad
         (3)   a  description of the process
for citizen petitions  to the U.S.  Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) pursuant
to §122312 of mis  titte (relating to  U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Review).
This agency hewtoy certifies that the rule as

and found to be a vaJM exereise of the agen-
cy* toga) aut&orsy.
issued to Austin, Texas, on August 30,1993.
TBB-938TSS3      OK* OunnnbeiBir
                 Aeune Dtpuiy OhMer. A»
                    Oudty PiamMa
                 TSWB AK Ceiwei Bawd

Efieetiwe daM:  Seotsmner 20.  1993
Propose! pubSealion date: May 11. 1999
Far feather WermaSon. ptease  eaft (51«
§tm>l45l
Miscellaneous
• 31  TAG §§122.161,
   I22J6.5-i22.I65
The MW rules ara adopted under the Tens
HetSft and Safety Code. Texas Clean Air Aa
(TCAA). §382.017. which provides the TACB
*»> tie  authority te adapt rules coreasiem
w*H th»  posey and  purposes of tf» TCAA.
§122.161. Miscellaneous.

     (a)  Unless specifically noted other-
wise, requirements under this chapter do not
supersede, substitute for. or replace any re-
quirement under any other rate, regulation,
or order of the  Texas Air  Control  Board:
     (b)   None of the requirements in
this chapter shall be construed as prohibit'
ing the  construction of new or modified
facilities, provided thtt the ®waer or opera-
tor   has   obtained    any    necessary
precoostruction authorization, ss defined in
§122.10  of this title  (relating  to Defini-
tions).
     (c)  The  Act.  §112(g).  concerning
modifications of sources of hazardous air
pollutants, shall  apply oaly to those sites
satisfying the criteria  of §122.130  of this
title (relating to Responsibility  to Apply).
The Act. §112(g). shall apply at the earliest
time at  which those  sites  are  required to
apply in accordance §122.130 of this title.
§122.163. Effective Dote.
      (a)  Compliance with  the require-
ments of this chapter will be required on the
date of approval, as published in tbe Fede-
ral Register, of the  Texas Air Control
Board's (TACB) federal operating permit
program by the U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency.
     IS TexReg 6014
354
September  7, 1993    Jssas Register  «

-------
      (b)  Sites  satisfying  the criteria  of
 (122.120 of this title (relating to Applica-
 bility) become subject ID this chapter either
 on the effective date of this chapter or upon
 issuance or approval of a  preconstruction
 authorization  required by Chapter 116  of
 this title (relating to Control of Air Pollu-
 tion by  Permits For New Construction  or
 Modification), whichever is later.

       (c)  Notice shall be published by the
 TACB in the Texas Register of the effective
• date of the interim federal operating peiinit
 program and  the  fully approved  program.
 Failure of the TACB to publish  shall not
 affect the effective program dates.


 §122.164. Corfaential liformation.  Any
 information provided to the  Texas Air Con-
 trol Board pursuant to this  chapter that re-
 lates  to  secret  processes  or  methods  of
 manufacture or production  may be identi-
 fied as  confidential when  submitted.  Any
 information so identified is entitled to pro-
 tection from  disclosure to  the ft?ctftflit pi'O—
 vided by law. If i-««fiH««iri«i information is
 submitted, an unclassified synopsis of con-
 fidential information shall  be provided to
 ensure a complete public record file. Any
 information required to be submitted to the
 U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency
 (EPA) may be submitted pursuant to EPA's
 procedures governing confidential informa-
 tion.


 §122.165. Certification by a Responsible
 Official.   Any    certification   submitted
 pursuant to this chapter shall contain a certi-
 fication  of truth, accuracy, and complete-
 ness  by  a  responsible official.  Unless
 specified  otherwise, any  certification re-
 quired under this  chapter  shall  state  that.
 based on information and belief formed af-
 ter  reasonable inquiry, the  statements and
 information in the document are true, accu-
 rate, and complete.  The Texas Air Control
 Board  shall   be   notified,  pursuant  to
 §122211 of this title (relating to Adminis-
 trative Permit Amendments), of any  ap-
 pointment of a  new responsible official.
 This agency hereby certifies that the rute as
 adopted  has own reviewed by togal counsel
 and found to be a valid exercise of the agen-
 cy's legal authority.
 Issued in Austin. Texas, on August 30.1933.
 TAO4327954       Cyril DurrenOtrg*
                  Acting Ctapuiy Dincnr. Air
                     CkMtty Pfenning
                  TMM Air Cortrol Botrt
 Effective date: Septemtew 20,  1999
 Proposal publication date: May 11. 1993
 For  further information,  please  call: (512)
 908-1451
Subchapter C. Permits Issu-
   ances,  Revisions,  Reopen-
   ings, and Renewals

Permit  Issuance
•  31 TAG §{121201, 122202.
   122204

The new rubs an  adapted under me Texas
Heatt and Safety Code. Texas Qean Air Act
(TCAA). $382.017.  which provides the TACB
win the authority to adopt nJn consJstmrt
*fto the pcfcy and puposas of the TCAA.

§122201. Permits.
      (a)  A federal operating permit may
be issued by the Board or its designee only
if all of the following conditions have been
met
         (1)  the Texas Ak Control Board
has received a complete permit application;
         (2)  the  applicant his  complied
wall the requirements for public participa-
tion  under  Subchapter B of this chapter
(relating to Permit Requirements);
         (3)  the  requirements for notify-
ing and responding ID affected states under
Subchapter  D of this chapter (relating to
Affected State Review. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency  Review and Citizen Peti-
tion) have been satisfied;
         (4)  the conditions of the permit
provide for  compliance with all applicable
requirements and the requirements of this
chapter; and
         (5)  the U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (EPA) has received a copy
of the proposed permit, any notices re-
quired, and has not objected to issuance of
the  proposed  federal  operating  permit
within the time period specified for the EPA
review in Subchapter D  of this chapter.
      (b)  All initial federal operating per-
mits,  and all subsequently issued or re-
newed permits, shall be issued by the Board
or its designee with terms  not to exceed five
years from  the issuance  of the  proposed
permit.
      (c)   Final action by the Board  or its
designee on an application for  a  federal
operating permit shall be the issuance or
denial of the proposed permit as provided in
Subchapter D of this chapter.
      (d)   The Board or its designee may
issue more than one  federal operating per-
mit at  a site.
      (e)  General permits  shall not be re-
quired to meet the requirements of this sec-
tion.
      CO  Except as otherwise provided in
§122.138 of this title (relating to Applica-
tion Shield). the owner or operator of a site
which satisfies the criteria of §122.120 of
 this title (relating to Applicability) shall not
 operate such site unless the owner or opera-
 tor has obtained the authority to do so under
 this chapter.


 §122202. General Permits.

      (a)   The Texas Air Control Board
 (TACB) may adopt a general permit cover-
 ing numerous ""ii"" stationary sources if
 the following conditions are satisfied:

         (1)   the conditions of the general
 permit provide for compliance with all  ap-
 plicable requirements and the requirements
 of this  chapter.
         (2)   the U.S. Environmental Pro-
 tection Agency is provided the opportunity
 to object and affected state(s) are provided
 the opportunity to comment on the general
 permit prior to its final adoption pursuant to
 paragraph (3) of this  subsection; and
         (3)   adoption of the general per-
 mit complies with the Administrative Proce-
 dure and Texas Register Act (Texas Civil
 Statutes. Article 67S2-13a).
      (b)   After adoption of a general per-
 mit, such permit shall be listed in the Gen-
 era!  Permit List. Pursuant to the Texas
 Health and Safety Code. §381  051(b).  the
 permit listed in the General Permit List as
 filed in  the Secretary of State's Office  and
 herein adopted by reference,  satisfies'  the
 permit requirements of the Texas Health
 and Safety Code. §382.054.
      (e)   Each general permit shall iden-
 tify the terms and conditions with which
 stationary  sources shall comply.
      (d)   Owners or operators of station-
 ary sources that would qualify for a  general
permit may apply to the Board or its desig-
 nee for approval inder the terms and condi-
 tions of the general permit. Those owners or
operators of stationary sources that apply
for a general permit in accordance with mis
section  shall satisfy the requirements  of
 Subchapter B  of this chapter (relating to
 Permit Requirements). An application for a
general permit shall include all informatics
necessary  to determine qualification for.
and to assure compliance with, the general
permit

      (e)  If the applicant satisfies the  re-
quirements of a timely and complete appli-
 cation, the applicant may operate under  the
 application shield until  such time  as  the
 Board or its designee  grants  or denies the
 application for the general permit

      (f)  The Board or its designee shall
 grant a  request for authorization to  operate
 under a general permit to owners or opera-
 tors of stationary sources that qualify. Such
 a grant  shall  not be a final action by  the
 TACB. and therefore, is not subject to judi-
 cial review.
                                                                Adopted Sections    September 7, 1993    18 TtxRtg 607.5
                                                                                                                               355

-------
               (g)  The owner or operator of a sta-
         tionary source shall be subject to enforce-
         ment action for operation without • perant
         if the stationary source, hiving been granted
         a general permit, is later determined not »
         qualify for the conditions and terms of the
         general permit.

               (h)   General permits shell net be
         authorized for gfleeted units under the acid
         rain
  rary sows at multiple
               6)  The Board may revise or repeal
         any general permit oa the General Permit
         List pursuant to me Administrative Proce-
         dure and Texas Register Act (Texas Civil
         Statutes. Artiek 6252-13*). Subsequent to
         such action, tad if the grantee's authority to
         operate under a general permit is  affected
         by such action, the grantee of me revised or
         repealed permit shall apply for a federal
         opeiMmg permit, if me grantee's authority
         to operate under a general permit is  affected
         by sack actiss and me grantee wishes to
         main aumority to operate tinder a general
         permit, the grantee shall:
                 (1)  apply by the date specified
         by the new or revised general permit, but no
         later than 12 months after the effective date
         of the new general permit:
                 (2)  prior so applying for the new
         or revised ge&srel permit. continue to  Kin-
         ply with the  terms and conditions of Us
         existing geaeral permit; and   •
                 (3)  subsequent $9 applying  for
         the new or revised general permit,  comply
         with  the terraw and conditions of the new
         general permit, rather then me  terms and
         conditions of the existing  permit

         §122204. Temporary Sources.
              (a) A temporary source is a station-
         ary source which changes location to an-
         other site at least once during any five-year
         period'

              (b) Any  temporary  source  which
         satisfies the criteria of $122.120 of this title
         (relating to Applicability) shell apply to the
        Texas  Air  Control Board  (TAGS) for  a
        federal operating permit consistent with this
        chapter.
              (e)  Eteh temporary souree which is
        located at a site for test man six months
        shall not affect the deteraination of major
        for other stationary sources at a site under
        this chapter, mr does this  addition of a
        temporary source trigger me requirement  to
        revise the existing permit at the site. Each
        temporary source shall  maintain records of
        duration of its stay &  i site.
             (d)  Applications  by   temporary
        sources shall  include all information re-
        quired under Subchtpter B of this chapter
        (relating to Permit Requirements).
             (e)   The Board or its designee may
        issue a single permit authorizing emissions
        from similar operations by the same tempo-
                       nporary locations.
Any permit issued to a temporary source
shall meet all requirements under this chap-
ter for issuance of a federal operating per-
mit.

      (f)  The ewer or operator of a tem-
porary source, permitted under mis chapter.
shaO notify the TACB  at least 10 days in
advance of each change in location, unless
me Board  or its  designee allows for  a
shorter notice due to an emergency.

      (g)  No affected usiss under the acid
rain program shall be permitted as a tempo-
rary somes.
Thfe mgsaef hereby ®ssti®m that tna ruto as
adopted has bean ravfewad by togal eaunatl
and tound » to * vefifl a*sreiM of mt awn-
c/* togai authority.
Stand in Austin, Ton. on Augutt 30,
                     QMttyPlMMna
 Ifisdfoa 
-------
      (e)   The TACB shall take no mote
than 60 days from receipt of an application
fat in administrative permit amendmrint to
take final action on such application.

      (d)   The owner or operator may im-
plement the changes addressed in the appli-
cation  for   an   administrative   permit
amendment immediately  upon receipt by
the TACB of the application, if the owner
or operator has obtained or qualified for any
preconstruction  authorization require! by
TACB  Chapter  116 of  mis  tide.  If no
preconstruction authorization is required for
the change, then the change may be imple-
mented upon filing the application  for an
administrative permit amendment

       (e)  The  site stall  be subject to ea-
fbrcement action if the change at the site is
later determined not  to qualify for  an ad-
ministrative permit amendment

       (f)   The  TACB shall submit a copy
of the revised permit to the US. Environ-
mental Protection Agency.


§122215. Permit Additions.
       (a)  A change at a site may qualify
as a permit addition if me change satisfies
all of the requirements of either subsection
(b)  or subsection (c) of  this section.

       (b)   The change at the site:
          (1)  is not addressed or prohib-
ited  by the  federal operating permit;
          (2)  does aot violate any existing
term or condition of the federal operating
permit;

          (3)  does not violate any applies-
blc  fcouircmcnt* Md
         (4)  is not a Title I modification.
or otherwise required by the Texas Air Con-
trol Board  (TACB) to be  processed  as  a
significant modification.

       (c)  The  change at the site:
         (1)   does not violate any appli-
cable rf^rir>rnfflt

         (2)  does not involve removal of
monitoring,  recordkeeping. or  reporting
terms w*4 conditions, or a  flrtyytiturjff*  in
those terms  and conditions promulgated
pursuant  to federal  New  Source  Perfor-
mance  Standards or  National Emissions
Standards for Hazardous  Air Pollutants;
(3)
              does not require or change a
             of an ffniTT""* limitation un-
der the Act. §112(g) or §1120) of Title I. or
a source-specific determination for tempo-
rary sources of ambient impacts, visibility
analysis, or increment analysis; and
         (4)  does not seek to establish or
change a permit term or condition for which
there is no corresponding underlying appli-
cable requirement and  that the  site has
                                    assumed to avoid an applicable requirement
                                    to which the site would otherwise be sub-
                                    ject  Such terms and <**""< fo^s  inrinA*-


                                               (A)  a federally  enforceable
                                    emissionr cap «*n«»rej to avoid *i«««ifa««
                                    tion as a aodificahco yfo* any provision
                                    of Title I. and.


                                               (B)  an alternative emissions
                                    limit approved pursuant to regulations pro-
                                    mulgated under the Act 5112(i)(5); and

                                             (5)  is not a Title I modification,
                                    or otherwise required by the TACB to be
                                    processed ss a significant modification.


                                    $122216. Application jar Permit Addition.

                                          (a)  The permittee shall submit to
                                    me Texas Aii Control Board  (TACB) an
                                    application requesting a permit addition that
                                    meets the requirements of {121215 of this
                                    title (relating to Permit Additions) and shaO
                                    include the following:

                                             (1)   a description of the change.
                                    the emissions  resulting from the «*"y

                                    will  apply/if the change occurs;

                                             (2)    the permittee's suggested
                                    draft permit conditions; and

                                             (3)   certification by a renponsi-
                                    We official, consistent with § 122.165 of this
tide (relating to Certification by a Responsi-
ble Official),  mat the proposed  change
meets me criteria for the use of me permit
addition procedures and a request that such
procedures be used.

      (b)   Applications for changes  that
qualify wftfcr this wtior? shall be submitted
to the TACB by the permittee no later than
90 days  after the owner  or operator has
obtained     or    qualified    for    any
preconstruction  authorization  required  by
Chapter 116 of this title (relating to Control
of Air Pollution by Permits For New Con-
struction  or Mortification).


§122217. Permit Addition Procedures.
      (a)   The Texas  Air Control Board
(TACB) shall notify the U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection  Agency  (EPA)  and  any  af-
fected  $titt(s)  of the requested permit
addition.

      (b)   Within 90 days of the TACB's
receipt of a  complete application under
§122216 of this title (relating  to Applica-
tion for Permit Addition); or subsequent to
the permittee  obtaining or qualifying  for
any preconstruction authorization  required
by Chapter 116  of this tide  (relating to
Control  of Air  Pollution  by  Permits  For
New Construction or Modification), which-
ever is later, the TACB shall:
                                                    (1)   determine that the requested
                                            change does  not meet the permit  •Hd'tam
                                            criteria in §122215 of ***" tills (relating to
                                            Permit  Additions)  and  whether  the re-
                                            quested change  should be reviewed under
                                            the $>£p'ficapt permit  nKKftficition proce-
                                            dures; or

                                                    (2)   revise the  draft permit addi-
                                            tion and transmit to EPA the proposed per-
                                            mit addition as required by Subchapter D of
                                            this chapter (relating to Affected State Re-
                                            view,  u.  S.  Environmental  Protection
                                            Agency Review, and Citizen Petition).

                                                 (c)  The Board or its designee may
                                            issue a permit ftffrft*fati for thMf changes at
                                            a  tff* ***** qualify as an "M**"*** ^m/w
                                            §122215 of this title. The owner or opera-
                                            tor may make the requested change prior to
                                            approval of the permit afhtitunn provided
                                            that the ©wiser or operator has I'Hit'f^ or
                                            qualified for any piemmlrncrmn authoriza-
                                            tion required  by Chapter  116 of this title
                                            (relating to  Permits)  for the requested
                                                 (d)  The permit addition  shall not
                                           become final until after EPA's 45-day re-
                                           view period at renewal of the permit or until
                                           EPA has notified the TACB that EPA win
                                           not object to issuance of the permit addi-
                                           tion, whichever is first
      (e) ' Until fifil. the permit
shall be  a  state only requirement of the
federal operating permit
      (f)  Prior to the issuance or denial of
a permit addition by the board or its desig-
nee, the owner or operator of the relevant
emission *,""*« affected by the change *h«!1
comply with the proposed permit turns and

owner or operator need not comply with the

the application seeks to modify. However.
if the o*Mf or operator of the relevant
emission units auected by the change rails
to comply with the proposed permit terms
and conditions during *h»y font ptsriod. *****
expiring permit terms and conditions  that
the application seeks to modify shall be the


§122219. Significant Permit Moderations.

      (a)  A change at a site may qualify
as a significant permit «i*nH*fiMri>»» only if
the change  satisfies  one or more of the
following:

         (1)  is a Title I  modification;

         (2)  does not qualify as a permit
addition, as an  administrative amendment
or for operational flexibility.

         (3)  is  a   removal  of existing

stitution in  those terms and """ditkmt pro-
mulgated pursuant to federal New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS). or National
                                                                Adopttd Stetuiu    September 7,1993    18  TtxRtg 6017
                                                                                                                               357

-------
       Bmisskns Standards for Hazardous Air M-
       iatanis (NESHAF); or
               (4)  is     a     removal    of
       recordkeepiag or reporting terns and condi-
       tions. or a substitution in a recordkeeping or
       reporting requirement promulgated passant
       to NSPS or NESHAP.

             (b)  Applications for changes  &at
       qualify under this section shall be submitted

       after me OWBST or opeff&or has obtained cc
       Qualified for any pracos^ructioR authonza*
       two  required  by  Chapter  116 of this tide
       (relating to Control of Air  Boiutkm by Per-
       raits For New CoissfiTK&ia or Modification)
       for me  change.
             (c)  Per changes that quaUfy as Title
       I mmdififjfifflm and ^hae-  the easting fede-
       rai operating permit prohibits such  change.
       te permittee shall  obtain the significant

       any  operation.

             (d)  Except as required in subsection
       (c) of this section, ftose changes that quai-
       uY as swuucaot Dcrmit flfnontiftfiatiftfts nsay
                          of any corresponding
       change immediatefy after obtaining or qual-
       ifying for my preconnuiuffiim authorisation
       required under Chapter 116 of Sfeis tills.

             (e)  Except ss provided in sisbiee-
       tion (c) of this sectipe. prior to the issuance
       or denial of a significant permit racdHks-
       tion by the Board ®r its designee, &e «WE»
       or operator of the relevant eosission units
       affected by the change shall comply wife
       the proposed permit terms  and conditions.
       During mis time period, the owner or opera-
       tor ami not comply with me existing per-
       mit  terms   and  conditions  that  the
       application seeks so modify. However,  if
       the owner or operator of the relevant emis-
       sion units affected by me cheap; fails to
       comply with  the proposed permit terras and
       conditions during this time period, the exist-
       ing permit terms and conditions  mat the
       gpplicttinn seeks to modify  shall be the
       enforceable terms and
       §122.220. Significant Permit  Modficatioss
       Application  and Procedures.   The Board
       or its designs; may mue s significant per-
       mit modification only for those changes at a
       site  that qualify as a "fpiifintnt modifica-
       tion and meet the following conditions:

               (1)  the Tessas Air Comrol Board
       (TACB) has received a complete  applica-
       tion;

               (2)  the applicant has complied
       with the requirements for public paniesps-
       tion  wider Subchapter  B  of  this chapter
       (relating to Permit Requirements);

               (3)   the requinaaenB for notify-
      ing and responding to affected  States under
      Subchapter D of this chapter (relating to
 Affected State Review. U.S. Environmental
 Protection Agency Review, and Citizen Pe-
 tition);

         (4)   the conditions of the permit
 provide for compliance with all applicable
 jequireragats and fee requirements of this
 chapter, and

         (S)  the US. Environmental Pro-
 jection Agency has received a copy of the
 proposed pen nut, any notices required, and
 b&si not objected 19 isswsss of the mnifi-
 *fffinf sennit BttoslioffffltiOB  wjfliiffl the y^mff
 period spsified  is Subchaeter D of this
 §122221.  Operational Flexibility.

      (a)  A permittes may make changes
 within si penxiittfid site wiiiMNit applying ws
 or ctoinieg a permit revision provided that
         (1)   ite ehanges ®® not Title I
         O)  the      _

 and
  do not emceed
aider me permit:
         (3)  tbs  owner @r  q>erator has
 obtained    or    qualified    for    any
 premssjafssksi affithonzation fequimd  by
 the Texas Air Control Board (TACB) Chap-
 ter 116 of this Me (relating to Control of
 Air Pollution by Permits For New Goastroe-
 tioa «• Msdifteetas).

      (b)  Far changes to me fedsnl oper-
 ating permit which qualify under ids sec-
 tion,  the permittee shall provide the U.S.
 imruoramental  Protection  Agency  (EPA)
 sad  the TACB with written notification.
 The wfiittn notifkatm sbaU be received by
 the TACB ss least 30 days in advance of
 operation of me proposed changes unless
 me Board or is designer approves a shorter
 period, but in m esse shtM feai period be
 less than seven days prior to the propsaed
 change.

      (e)   Written  notification shall  in-
 dude me following jnformation:
         (1)  a desmptio® of the change.
 the date on which the operation resulting
 from  the change is proposed to occur, the
 emissions resulting from the change,  any
 aew applicable requirements mat will apply
 if the change occurs, and any permit tefsn or
 condition that is no longer applicable *s a'
 result of the ebange; and

         (2)  certification by a responsible
 offkkl consistent  with §122.165 of  this
 title (relating to Certificate by ?, Responsi-
 ble Official), that  the  proposed  change
 meets die criteria for the use of operational
 flexibility under this section and a request
 that such procedures be used.
      (d)  The permittee. TACB. and EPA
 shall attach each such notice «© their copy
of me relevant  -. :,irast
                          (e)   Changes that qualify under mis
                    section  are not  subject to the procedural
                    requirements for permit revisions.
                          (0   Upon  satisfying  the  require-
                    ments of  this section, the permittee may
                    begin operations which result from the pro-'
                    posed change at the expiration of the time
                    period provided for in subsection (b) of this
                    section.
                    Tl* aaancy hereby certnTes that the rule as
                    adopted tas bam roviwwd by tog» count*
                    and iound to ba a veld exercise of Iha agm-
                    cr* tegsl cumorty.
                    tesawS in Austin, Taxes, on August 30.1993.
                                     Cym i
                                     AcHig Otoiinr OkMer. Air
                    EStoefe* MK.
                    For furtar
                    999-1451
T«M Ate Gem* Boert

      20, 1993

      May 11. 1993

             aa  CS12)
                    Permit Reopenings
                    « 31 TAC 512&231, §122.233
                    The mm ndas are adopted under me T»
                    HeMsami SaSety Cede. Texas Ctean Ar Act
                    (TCAA), §388,017, twMefc poviMB the TACB
                    wish the aytnortty to adopt rates constant
                    wMh me psScy «d PSBI^SSS of ia TCAA.

                    §122231. Permit Reopening*.
                         (a)  A permit shall be opened and
                    revised for eatsse only under one or more of
                    the following circumstaficesi
                            (1) additional  applicable   re-
                    quiremenis become applicable to a permit-
                    ted site which, at the date of promulganon

                    atm years remaining  prior to expiration.
                    except that no such reopening is required if
                    the new requirement is incorporated in any
                    federal operating permit which addresses
                    the emission unit(s) subject to the new re-
                            (2)  additional  requirements be-
                    come applicable to an affected unit under
                    the add rain program;
                            (3)  the federal operating permit
                    contains a material mistake or if
                    statements were made in establishing  the
                    emissions standards or other terms and con-
                    ditions of the federal operating permit; or
                            (4)   a determination is made by
                    the Texas Air Control Board that the permit
                    sbaU be revised or revoked to assure com-
                    pliance with the applicable requirements.
                         (b)  The Board or its designee shall
                    terminate, revise, or revoke and reissue a
                    federal operating permit  for cause.'
358
      IS TexReg 6018     Septewbtr 7, 1993    Ttses togister  •

-------
      (c)  After receipt of  a petition for
 reopening for cause, as defined in this sec-
 tion. the board or its designee may termi-
 nate. revise,  or revoke  and reissue  the
 permit

      (d)  No later than 180 days of re-
 ceipt of mitten notification by  the  US.
 Environmental Protection Agency  (EPA)
 that cause, as defined in this section, exists
 lo terminate, revise, or revoke and reissue a
 permit pursuant to this section, the Board or
 its desigoee snail Iflinitnate,  revise, or re-
 voke and reissue the permit in accordance
 with EPA's direction.

      (e)  No reopening is required under
 subsection (a) of this section, if the effec-
 tive date of the requirement is later than the
 permit  expiration dale.


 §122233.  Permit Reopening Procedures.

      (a)  Reopenings and revisions under
 §121231 of  this tide (relating to  Permit
 Reopenings) shall comply with the require-
 ments of this chapter for permit issuance,
 including such requirements for application.
 public  particqution.  review  by affected
 stales, and review by the U.S. Environmen-
 tal  Protection Agency. These procedures
 shaU' affect only those parts  of the permit
 for which cause, as defined in $122.231 of
 this title, to reopen exists.
       (b)   For reopemngs  and
 under §122.231 of this title, the Texas Air
 Control Board  (TACB)  shaU provide 30
 days notice of intent to reopen, unless the
 board or its designee allows for a  shorter
 notice due  to an  emergency.

      (c)   Reopenings and revisions under
 §122.231(8X1) and (2)  of this title shall be
 completed by the TACB not later than 18
 months after promulgation of the applicable


 This agency hereby certifies that the  rule as
 adopted has been reviewed by legal counsel
 and found to be a valid exercise of the agen-
 cy's toga! authority.
 Issued in Austin. Texas,  on August 30. 1933.
 TRO-93273S8      Cyril  Dumnbwgw
                  Acting CXputy Piwaor. Mr
                     Quaky Hewing
                  Teas Air Control Bowd

 Effective date: September 20. 1993
 Proposal publication date: May 11, 1933

 For  further  information,  piease  caJt (512)
 908-1451
Permit Renewals
• 31 TAC  5122JM1, $122.243
The new rules are adopted under the Texas
Heath and Safely Code, Texas Clean Air Act
(TCAA), §382.017, which provides the TACB
with the authority lo adopt rules eonsistnecit
wth the policy and purposes of the TCAA.
 $122241. Permit Renewals.

      (a)  Each  federal operating  permit
 issued or renewed by the Texas Air Control
 Board (TACB) shall be subject to review at
 least every five years after the dr.* of issu-
 ance of the proposed permit to Jetermme
 whether the authority to operate should be
 renewed.

      (b)  The TACB shatt provide written
 notice to the  permittee that the permit is
 scheduled for review. Such notice will be
 provided by certified or registered U.S. mail
 no Hess than 12 months prior to the expira-
 tion of  die permit. The notice shall specify
 the procedure for filing an application. In
 order to qualify as a timely application. the
 application shall be filed by the permittee
 with the TACB at least six months, but no
 earlier than 18 months, prior to the date of
 pel nut expiration. The application  shield is
 not available to sites that do not submit a
 timely and t^uifMete BpphMU&A. Failure to
 receive nonce is described in this subsec-
 lion does not affect the applicability of the
 application shield or  the lack thereof, as
 determined pursuant to Subchapter B of this
 chapter (relating to Permit Requirements).
      (c)  A federal operating permit may
 be renewed by the Bond or its designee
 only if all of the foUowmg condiiB&ns have
 been met
         (1)   the TACB  has received a
         (2)  the  applicant  has  complied
 with the requirements for public  participa-
 tion under Subchapter B of this chapter.

         (3)  the requirements for notify-
 ing and responding to affected states under
 Subchapter  D of this chapter (relating to
 Affected State Review. U.S. Environmental
 Protection Agency Review, and Citizen Pe-
 tition);

         (4)  the conditions of the permit
 provide for  compliance with aU applicable
 requirements and the requirements of  this
 chapter, and
         (5)  The   U.S.   Environmental
 Protection Agency has received  a copy of
 the proposed permit, any notices required.
 and  has  not objected to issuance of  the
 proposed federal operating permit within
 the time period specified in Subchapter D of
 uiis chaiptcr.

      (d)  In determining whether and  un-
 der what conditions a permit should be re-
 newed. the  Board shall consider
         (1)  all applicable requirements
 as defined in Subchapter A of this chapter
(relating to  Definitions); and
        (2)   the site's  compliance status
with this chapter and the terms and condi-
tions of the existing permit.
       (e)  The Board may not impose re-
 quirements less stringent man those of the
 existing permit unless the Board determines
 that  me proposed changes will meet the
 requirements of this chapter.

       (f)   At  the  time of  renewal,  the
 Board or its designee may combine into a
 single permit, any federal operating permits.
 including general permits, at the same  site
 which have  satisfied the  requirements of
 this section.


 §122243. Permit Expiraion.  Permit expi-
 ration terminates the site's  right to operate
 unless a timely and complete renewal appli-
 cation has been submitted consistent with
 §122.133  of this title (relating to Timely
 Application)  and §122.134  of this title  (re-
 lating to Complete Application). Subse-
 quent to a timely and complete application
 submittal. the site may continue to operate
 under the terms and conditions of the permit

 final  action on  the permit renewal applica-
 tion.
 Thisjtpeney hereby certifies that the rute as
 adtupbtd has been reviewed by legal counsel
 and found to be a vaH exercise of the agen-
 cy's tsgal authority.
 Issued in Austin, Texas, on August 30,1999.
 TBO-8327857
                 Cyril I
                 Acting 0*puy MMOT, Air
                    OMtty Purring
                 Ta«» Air Conm Boerd
 Effective date: September 20. 1993
 Proposal pubfcation date: May 11, 1993
 For  further information,  please cat):  (512)
 908-1451
Subchapter  D.  Affected State
   Review U.S.  Environmental
   Protection Agency  Review,
   and  Citizen Petition
•  31 TAC §§121310-122312,
   122314,  122J16

The new rules are adopted under the Texas
Heath art Safety Cede, Texas Clean Ar Act
(TCAA). §382X117. which provides the TACB
with  the  authority  to adopt rules consistent
wth  the policy and purposes of the TCAA.

§122310. Transmission of Information to
the US.  Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA).   The Texas Air Control Board shall
provide the EPA with a copy of each pro-
posed permit and each final federal operat-
ing permit.

§122311. Affected State Review.

      (a)  The  Texas  Air Control  Board
(TACB)  shall provide  notice of the draft
permit for permit issuance, renewal, permit
                                                            »  Adopted Section*    September 7, 1993     18 TexReg 6019
                                                                                                                               359

-------
      revision, and permit reopening to toy af-
      fected sate oo or before the time notice is
      provided to the public under Subchapter B
      of this chapter (relating to Permit Require-
      ments).
            (b)  Affected states) shall have 30
      days from date of notification of the draft
      permit ID comment on  the draft y»miit
            (c)  The TACB shall notify me U.S.
      Environmental Protection -Agency and any
      affected stale, in writing, of its refusal to
      incorporate any or all recommmrtatkim into
      the proposed permit that the affected state
      submitted during the affected state review
      period. The notice shall include the TACB's
      reasons for not accepting any such recom-
      mendations that are not baaed on applicable
      fCQUifCIHCfltS

      §122312.  US. Environmental Protection
      Agency (EPA)  Review.
             (a)  After the end of the public com-
      ment period provided for by {122. 155 of
      this title  (relating to  Public  Comment
      Period), the Board or its designee shall sub-
      mit the proposed permit to the EPA. Upon
      receipt of a proposed permit, die EPA shall
      have 45 days to object, in writing, to the
      issuance  of  the proposed permit  by the
       Board   or   its   designee   pursuant  to
       Subchapter  B  of  this  chapter (relating to
      Permit .Requirements)  if  EPA determines
      the proposed permit is not in compliance
      with applicable requirements of the federal
      operating permit program or the rules pro-
      mulgated thereunder. If EPA submits such
       an objection, the proposed permit shall not
       be issued by the  Board or its designee.
             (b)  If the Board or  its
       fails, within 90 days after the date of an
       objection under subsection (a) of this sec-
       tion, to revise the proposed permit and sub-
       mit a revised permit in response to the
       objection, the EPA will issue or deny the
       permit in accordance with the requirements
       Oi tuft ZCQftTU pFQffrBffl  pPOUiUJfHUBQ UfloCf
       Title V of the Act


       $>122J14.  Public Petitions to US. Envi-
       ronmental Protection Agency  (EPA).

             (a)  If the  EPA  does not file  an
       objection with the Board or  its designee.
       pursuant to Subchapter D of this chapter
       (relating to  Affected State Review.  U.S.
       Environmental Protection Agency Review
       and Gtizen Petition). any person, including
       the applicant, affected by a decision of the
       Board or its  designee  under  tNT cnapter
       may petition  the  EPA  to make such  an
       objection within 60 days of the expiration
       of tne EPA's 45-day review period.

            (b)   A copy of the petition shall be
       provided to the Texas  Air Control Board
       (TACB) and to the applicant  by the  peti-
       tioner.
      (c)  The petition for review to EPA
under this section does not limit the effec-
tiveness of a permit issued by the board or
its designee or the finality of the board's or
its designee's action for purposes  of  an
appeal under the Texas Health and Safety
Code. $382.031
      (d)  Petitions shall be based oa/ on
objections to the permit  that were  raised
with reasonable specificity during the public
comment period provided for in Subchapter
B of this chapter  (relating to Permit Re-
quirements), unless the petitioner  demon-
strates in the petition to the EPA that it was
impracticable  to  raise   such  objections
within the public comment period, or that
the grounds for such objection arose after
the public comment  period.  The  petition
shall identify all objections.

      (e)  Prior to issuance of me permit.
if the EPA objects to' the permit as a result
of a petition filed under this section, the
Board or its designee shall not issue the
permit until EPA's objection has been re-
solved.

      (f)  If die Board or its designee has
issued a permit prior  to receipt of  an EPA
objection  based on a citizen petition,  the
permit remains effective and the board or ia '
designee shall have 90 days from the receipt
of  the EPA's  objection to  resolve  the
objection and to terminate, revise, or revoke
and reissue  the permit In the event addi-
tional  information is needed from  the
permittee, the  TACB may request from
EPA a 90-day extension to resolve the EPA
objection. If the TACB fails to resolve the
objection, EPA  will  revise, terminate, or
revoke such permit,  and the  Board  or its
designee may thereafter issue only a revised
permit that satisfies EPA's objection. In any
case, the owner or operator of the site will
not be in violation of the requirement  to
have submitted a timely and complete appli-
cation.
§122316. Hearing and Comment Proce-
dures for Operating Permits.   Any hear-
ing regarding a federal operating permit will
be  conducted according to the following
procedures and not under the Administra-
tive Procedure  and Texas Register Act
(Texas  Civil  Statutes.  Article 6252-13a).
Such hearing shall be convened pursuant to
a request in accordance with Subchapter B
of this chapter (relating to Permit Require-
ments).
         (1)    Requests for  notice and
            (B)  After reviewing a request
 for e hearing the Board or its designee shall
 decide whether to call the hearing and shall
 provide written notice to each person who
 requested a hearing  and to the applicant
 wimtoTreasonable time after receipt* the
 bearine request. The  Board or its designee
 ^reqSedio hold a hearing if the basis
 rftelequS by  «  person wno may be
 affected is determined ID be unreasonaoie.
         (2)  Procedures  for  notice  and
 comment  hearing.

            (A)  The Texas Air Control
 Board  CTACB) shall  provide 30  day's ad-
 vance  notice of any hearing »eg«ding a
 federal operating permit. In addition to pub-
 IrariffH in the Texas Register, notice wiH be
 sot to all persons  who have made time*
 written requests for a hearing and to the
 applicant  The notice shall  mctode:
               (i)   a  statement  of  the
time, place, and nature of the hearing;
               (ii)  a reference to the par-
ticular  sections of  the statutes and regula-
tions involved: and
               (iii)  a brief description of
 the purpose of the  hearing.

            (B) Whenever a hearing will
 be held,  the Board or  its designee shall
designate a presiding officer for the hearing
who shall  be responsible for its scheduling
and  orderly conduct

            (Q  Any person,  including
the applicant, may  submit oral or written
nmuamatpt  jtuf  /}•»• concerning  the draft
permit Reasonable limits may be set upon
 the time allowed for  oral statements,  and
 the submission of flate""*1** in writing may
            (A)  Any person who may be
affected by emissions from a site regulated
under this chapter may request the Board or
its designee to hold a bearing on mat owner
or operator's application for a federal oper-
ating permit or renewal application or the
reopening of a federal operating permit
be required. The period for submitting writ-
ten comments shall  be automatically  ex-
tended to the close of any public hearing.
The  hearing officer  may also extend the
period for submitting written comments by
so stating at the hearing


            (D)  A  tape recording or writ-
ten transcript of the  hearing shall be made
available to the public.


            (E)  Any  person,  including
the applicant who believes mat the condi-
tions of the draft permit do not provide for
compliance with all applicable requirements
as defined in Subchapter A of this chapter
(relating to Definitions) or that any condi-
tion  of a draft permit is inappropriate or that
the Board or its designee's preliminary de-
cision to issue or  deny the draft permit is
inappropriate, shall raise all reasonably as-
certainable issues and submit all reasonably
      18 TexXeg 6020     September  7,  1993     Texas Register   «
360

-------
available arguments supporting his or her
position by the close of the public comment
period, including any public hearing. Any
supporting  materials shall be  included in
full and may not be incorporated by refer-
ence, unless  they are already  part of the
ti***"1'*"•"*"* record in the same proceed-
ing.  or consist  of state or federal statutes
and regulations. U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion  Agency documents of general applica-
bility, or other generally available reference
materials.


            (F)  All  comments  received
either during the public comment period or
during any hearing shall be considered by
and responded to by the Board or its desig-
nee. The response  to  comments shall be
available to the public and shall be seat to
the applicant and any person participating in
the public  hearing.  This response shall:

               0)  specify  which  provi-
sions, if any. of the draft permit have been
changed in the proposed permit and the
reasons for the  change; and
               (ii)  identify    the   party
making -the comments, and briefly describe
and  respond  to all comments on the draft
permit raised during  the public comment
period or during any hearing.


            (G)  The TACB shall keep a
record of  all comments and  also of the
issues raised in  die public hearing. This
record shall be available to the public.
This agency hereby certifies that the rule as
adopted has been reviewed by legal counsel
and found to be a valid exerciM of the agen-
cy* legal authority.
Issued in Austin. Tens, on August 30,1993.
TRD-M97IS*      Cyrt Dumnbcrgw
                 Acting Dtpuiy OkMor. Mr
                    ChMfty Planning
                 T«cw Mr Cenuol Bond
Etfacnve date: September 20. 1993
Proposal publication date: May  11. 1993
For  further information,  pirns*  calk (512)
908-1451
 Subchapter E. Acid Rain
 General Acid Rain Permit Re-
   quirements
 • 31 TAG  $122.410, $122411
 The new ruhw an adopted under the Texas
 Heath and Safety Code. Texas Clean Air Act
 (TCAA), 5382.017. which provides the TACB
 wth ma  authority to adopt rubs consistent
 win the  policy and purposes  oi the TCAA.

 §122.411. Operating Permit Interface.
      (a)  Unless specifically noted in this
 subchapter. all affected sources shall com-
ply with the requirements of this chapter for
 permit issuance, revision, reopening, and
 renewal: including any such requirements
 for application, public participation, review
 by affected states, and review by the U.S.
 Environmental Protection Agency.

       (b)  The Texas Air Control Board
 (TACB) hereby adepts and incorporates by
 reference the provisions of 40 Code of Fe-
 deral Regulations (CFR) 72 as in effect on
 the date of this action for purposes of im-
 plementing en acid rain program that meets
 the requirements of TJtte IV of the Act  If
 the provisions  or requirements of 40 CFR
 72 conflict with er are not included in this
 chapter, the 40 CFR 72 provisions and re-
 quirements shall apply and take precedence.

 This agency hereby ceftiSes that me ruta as
 adopted ha* been reviewed by legal eounsel
 and found to be a vaft) excrete of the agen-
 cy* legal authority.
 Issued Sn Austin, Texts. OB Aupati 30.19®.
 TRD-taafffffi       CWl DWIMBMRJM'
               •   Atone Dqwiy Meow. Mr
                     OMB* Pfenning
                  T«w Mr r
                                            EffecnVe date: September 20, 1993
                                            Proposal pubfeotion date: May 11, 1993
                                            For further jntamtfttten.  pleas* eeS: (512}
                                            908-1451
 Acid Rain  Application
 •  31 TAC 88122420.122.422;
    122.425, 122.427       ,
 The new rates are adopted under the Texas
 Maalh and Safety Code. Texas Ctoan Air Act
 (TCAA). 8382.017. which provides the TACB
 wfch $19 ftuttWaty to Adopt inutes €09%Ett0m
 wth the policy  and  pupates of  th* TCAA.

 §122.420. Eifoneabiliiy of Acid Rain Per-
 mil Application.  A complete acid rain per-
 mit application dull be  binding  on the
 owners  and operators and the  designated
 representative of the affected source and all
 affected units at the affected seme  gov-
 erned by the acid rain permit application.
 The application shall be enforceable as an
 acid rain permit from die date of submission
 of the permit application until the issuance
 or denial of the acid rain permit

 §122.421.  Timely Application.

       (a)  Applications  for initial Phase B
 acid rain permits shall be submitted to the
 Texas Air Control Board no later than six
 months after the effective date  of the in-
 terim federal operating perau't program, but
. BO later than by January 1. 1996. for sulfur
 dioxide, and by January 1. 1998. for nitro-
 gen oxides pursuant to the Act. §407.

       (b)  The designated representative of
 affected  units that  become subject to the
 acid rain rules after these filing  dates  shall
                                                                                      file applications no later  than  12 months
                                                                                      after the affected units beeorae subject to
                                                                                      those rules,  unless otherwise specified  in
                                                                                      the acid rain rules.

                                                                                      This agency hereby eartifias that the ruta es
                                                                                      adopted has been reviewed by iagal eaynsel
                                                                                      and found to * a valid mxeres® o« the agen-
                                                                                      cy* Isgal an 
-------
        the designated representative of the affected
        source  in  accordance with  the  ccid rain
        rules.
             (b)  Etch sod rain permit shall have
        a fixed term of five years commencing on
        its effective date. Bach  acid  rain  permit
        issued on or before December  31. 1997 in
        accordance with subsection (c) of this sec-
        tion shall take effect by the later of January
        1.2000. or. where the permit governs a new
        unit or upgraded unit, the deadline for mon-
        itor certification under 40 Code of Federal
        Regulations 75.
              (c)  The Board or its designee shall
        issue or deny an acid rain permit on  or
        before December 31.1997. (if the operating
        permit program has received full or interim
        approval by My  1.1996) to each affected
        source provided that the designated repre-
        sentative of the affected source submitted a
        timely and complete acid rain psrmit appli-
        cation and meets  the requirements  of the
        acid rain rules  sad of  to chapter. Other-
        wise, the Board or its desigaee shall issue
        or deny an  acid rain  permit within  18
        months  of receiving a complete  acid rain
        permit  application.

        §122.434. Acid Rain Permit Shield.  Each
        affected unit  operated  in  accordance with
        the acid rain permit that governs the af-
        fected unit, and mat was issued in compli-
        assse with die acid rain provisions pf the Act
        and the tckJ rain  rules i^nV be pfnwl to
        be operating in compliance wim the acid
        rain requirements, except as provided in 40
        Code of Federal  Regulations 72.9(g)(6).


        §122.435. Acid Rain Permit Revisions.
              (a)  The    provisions    of    mis
        subchapter supplement Subchapter C of this
        chapter (relating to Permit Issuances, Revi-
        sions. Reopenings. and Renewals).  Where
        the  provisions of  this  subchapter conflict
        with Subchapter C of this chapter, the pro-
        visions of 40 Code of Federal  Regulations
        72 shall supersede the ©periling permit re-
        vision procedures with regard to revision of
        any acid rain permit provision.
             (b)   No acid rain permit revision
        shall affect the term of the acid rain  permit
        to be revised. No  acid rain permit revision
        shall exosse any violation of an iind rain
        requirement that occurred prior to the effec-
        tive date of the revision.
             (c)  The  existing terms  and  condi-
        tions of the acid  rain  permit  shall apply
        while any acid rain permit revision is pend-
        ing.
             (d)   The standard requirements con-
        tained in the acid  rain  rules shall not be
        modified or voided by an acid  rain permit
        revision.
             (e)  Changes that are prohibited by
        the acid  rain permit or  changes which are
        not addressed by the acid rain permit shall
not be made by me permittee without first
revising the  acid  rain  permit  if such
changes are subject to any  requirements
under the  acid rain rules.
§122.437. Acid Rain Permit Revision Pro-
cedures.

      (a)  Permit modifications. The fbl-

modifications and shall follow  the permit
issuance procedures of this chapter  and
Subpart C of 40 Code of Federal Regula-
tions (CFR) 72:

         (1)    relaxation  of  an  excess
emission offset requirement after approval
of the offset plan by me US. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency (EPA):

         (2)   incorporation of a final ni-
troaen oxides alternative emission limitation
 following a demonstration period: and

         (3)  determinations   concerning
 failed repowenng projects.

       (b)  Fast track modifications. Not-
 withstanding subsection (a) of this section.
 at  the option  of the  designated  repre-
 sentative, permit revisions which meet the
 criteria in 40 CFR 72 for fast  track modifi-
 cations may follow the procedural require-
 ments for fast track modifications listed in
 40 CFR 72.

       (c)  Administrative  permit amend-
 ments. The following acid rain permit revi-
 sions are administrative permit amendments
 and snail follow the administrative  permit

 except mat the Texas Air  Control  Board
 (TACB) shall submit the revised portion of
 the permit to me  EPA within ten working
 days after the date of final action on the
 request for an  administrative  """"frrcCTf

         (1)  activation of a compliance
 option  conditionally  approved   by  the
 TACB: provided mat all requirements for
 activation under the acid rain rules are met:

         (2)  changes  in  the designated
 representative or alternative ^'ipiifod  rep-
 resentative: provided that a new certificate
 of representation is submitted;

         (3)  changes in the owners or op-
 erators; provided that a  new certificate of
 representation is submitted within 30 days
 of the change;

         (4)  termination of a compliance
 option in  the permit; provided that  all re-
 quirements for  termination under the  acid
 rain  rules shall  be met and this procedure
 shall not be used to terminate a repowering
plan after December 31, 1999:

         (5)  changes in the date,  speci-
fied  in a  new  unit's acid rain permit, of
commencement of operation or the deadline
for, monitor certification, provided that they
are in  accordance  with the acid rain rules;
          (6)  the addition of or change in
 a nitrogen oxides alternative emissions limi-
 tation demonstration period: provided that
 the requirements of the Act. §407 are met:
 and
          (7)  incorporation of changes mat
 the EPA has fetermined to be similar to
 those in paragraphs dMQ of mis subsec-
 tion.
      (d)  The following permit revisions
 shall  be deemed to amend automatically and
 become  a part of the affected  unit's acid
 rain permit by operation of law without any
         (1)  upon  recordation  by   the
EPA. all allowance allocation to. transfers
to  and deduct""** &om *° affected unit's
Allowance Tracking  System account:  and

         (2)   incorporation  of an offset
plan that has been approved  by the EPA.
That agency hereby cartHte that m> rute as
adopted has been reviewed by legal count*!
and tound to to • vaH exercise of me agen-
cy* toga) authority.
issued in Austin, Texas, on August 30. 1883.
TRD4327M!       C>l« &MW**gr
                  Acting Deputy DM*. Air
                     OuaMy Planning
                  TMM Air Central Bean)
Eftactw* date:* September 20, 1993
Proposal pubfceafion date: May 11. 1999
For  lurlnsr information,  please cafc  (512)
908-1451
Acid Rain Appeals
•  31 TAG  §122440
The naw rules are adopted under the Texas
Heath and Safety Cote. Texas Qean A* Act
(TCAA). $382.017. which provttes me TAGS
witti ttw Authority to 4tfopl nilM coftMtfiMt
with me pofey and purposes of the TCAA.

§122.440. Aeid Ram Appeals Procedure.

      (a)  Appeals of the acid rain portion
of an operating permit issued by the Texas
Air Control Board (TACB) or its designee
that do not challenge or involve decisions or
actions of the U.S. Environmental  Protec-
tion Agency (EPA) under the acid rain pro-
visions of the Act and the acid rain rules
shall  be conducted according to procedures
of the Texas Health and Safety Code. §382.
032.

      (b) Appeals of the acid rain portion
of such a permit  that gh«»fflgp or  involve
such decisions or actions of the EPA shall
follow the procedures specified 40 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) 78 and the Act.
§307. Such decisions or actions include, but
are not  limited  to.  allowance  •"~-irimi
determinations concerning alternative moni-
toring systems,  and determinations  of
       18  TexReg 6022     September 7,  1993     Texas Register  •
362

-------
         a  technology  is  a  qualifying
lepowering technology.

      (c)  The TACB shall serve  written
notice on the EPA of any judicial appeal
concerning an acid  rain provision  of any
operating permit or denial of an acid rain
portion of any operating permit within 30
days of the filing of the appeal.

      (d)  The Administrator  may inter-
vene as a  matter of right  in  any permit
appeal involving an acid rain permit provi-
sion or denial of an acid rain permit.
      (e)  The TACB shall serve  written
notice on the EPA of any determination or
order in  a  stale administrative or judicial

or otherwise relates to any portion of an
acid rain permit Following any such deter-
            order, the ^""""ttiUBf win
have an opportunity to review and veto the
acid  rain permit or revoke the pwitik for
cause.
      (f)  A failure of the board or  its
designee to issue  an  acid  rain permit in
accordance with the acid rain rules shall be
grounds for filing  an  appeal

      (g)   No appeal concerning  an  acid
rain requirement shall result in a stay of any
provision of me acid raia permit for which a
stay is barred under 40 OR 78.

TNe aoancy hereby certifies mat the ruto as
aft^hnbemrevtorad by teoal counsel
am found to be a vaftd •xaraias of me agen-
cy* tegsJ authority.

Issued in Austin, TOMS, on August 30.1993.
TRD4327M3      Cyrt OumrtMrgw
                    o OtfOif DkMMr. Air
                 T«Mi Air ConM I

                       20. 1993

                            11.11
For further
909-1451
(512)
                                                            Aiofltd Stetiau     Stpumbtr 7,1993    18 Ta**g 1023
                                                                                                                            363

-------
                                                                            EPA
This following information has been developed by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
staff for the sole purpose of facilitating discussion on the concept of implementing
voluntary plantwide applicability limits for new source review (NSR) applicability purposes.
It does not, nor it is intended to, represent Agency position on any of the topics discussed.
    Voluntary Source Specific Plantwide Applicability Limit (PAL) Issues
                     (Background paper, October 28, 1993}

       In August 1p92, the EPA invited representatives from industry, State/local
 air poilution control agencies, environmental organizations, EPA Regional offices,
 and other Federal agencies to participate in a workshop. The workshop was
 designed to provide EPA with input on possible revisions that would streamline and
 simplify the new source review process in a manner consistent with the statutory
 requirements.  The participants identified issues regarding the NSR process and
 discussed conceptual and specific ideas for simplifying the NSR process. The
 Agency also shared its own preliminary ideas and concepts with the participants.

       New source review applicability was a major issue identified and discussed
 by the participants at the workshop.  At a previous workshop, EPA presented
 several alternative applicability approaches. One of the alternatives was the
 concept of a source-wide cap under which a source could make various physical
 and operational changes without triggering major NSR applicability.  In a
 subsequent March 1993 workshop, EPA presented a detailed description of a PAL
 option as an area-wide change to a State's NSR program.

        Since that time various industries have talked to EPA regarding the
  possibility of developing source specific NSR capst. To date, one facility has been
  issued a PAL type permit and several others are considering the possibility. In an
  effort to build  on this, EPA is now considering a cap approach which would allow
  sources the option of taking an emissions cap as a  basis of determining NSR
  applicability.

        The following pages provide an overview of some of the larger jjuestions
  that have been identified and discussed by prospective^AL candidates, State/local
  authorities, public interest groups, and EPA relating to implementation of source
  specific PALs.
                                                                                365

-------
     1.    Establishing an Emissions Cap1

     Description:

            A "cap" limits the amount of actual emissions from a source. The cap
     becomes a permanent allowable level of emissions for a source.  From the source's
     perspective, the "margin" between the cap and the day-to-day and year-to-year
     operating emissions levels below the cap affect the flexibility provided by the cap.
      An actual emissions cap assures that "actual emissions" do not increase as the
      result of any physical or operational changes at the source and thereby avoiding
      NSR review.

            The EPA may define, within reason, an "actual emissions baseline" for
      determining the cap limit.  Because the cap limits any increase in actual emissions,
      including changes which would not otherwise  be subject to current NSR, it maybe
      reasonable to  encourage greater flexibility in setting the baseline than the current
      rules allow. Therefore, for the purpose of any future rulemaking on cap type
      permits, an objective may be to consider a methodology for determining an actual
      emissions baseline, where physical or operational changes may not increase actual
      emissions above the cap, while reasonable flexibility is provided for production
      changes under the cap.
       Possible Strategies for Establishing the Cap:

        A.   Use current definition of actual emissions to determine baseline (See e.g., 40
             CFR 52.21 (b)(21)(ii):

                   "the average rate, in tons per year, at which the unit actually emitted
                   the pollutant during a two year period which precedes the particular
                   date and which is representative of normal source operation. The
                   Administrator shall allow the use of a different time period upon a
                   determination that it is more representative of normal source
                   operation."

        B.   Use the current definition of actual emissions in the NSR rules, but allow an
             "operating margin" (e.g., 2, 5, 10, or 20 percent) be added to the actual
             emissions baseline in establishing the cap.

        C.   Define actual emissions baseline as the highest two years of operation in the
             five years immediately prior to the application to establish the cap, or   :
          1 "cap" permits issued or being evaluated under the existing regulatory structure contain an actual emissions baseline
       consistent with the current NSR regulations.
366

-------
     another two years within the ten previbus years if determined by the
     permitting authority or Administrator to be more representative of sourc
     operation and does not represent an unreasonable impact on air quality.
 D.   Set an actual emissions baseline at some reference date (e.g., November 15,
     1990) or some interval after a new source has commenced operation, and
     then deduct a fixed percentage per year (e.g., 1, 3, or 5 percent) for every
     year between that date and the date the cap is to be set.  In nonattainment
     areas, the cap would have to be reconciled with levels used in area's
     attainment demonstration.

 E.   Allow the cap to be established, but not implemented until a physical or
     operational change which would trigger NSR.  The change could go through
     NSR or the cap could be  implemented and the baseline established at that
     point. The actual  emissions baseline would then be set based on the two
     years of operation immediately prior to the implementation of the cap (not
     the application  date).
Questions:

  1.   What are the legal limitations on each approach? For example, current EPA
      regulations may limit the duration of a PAL to 5 years.

  2.   What are the practical limitations of each?

  3.   What data would be necessary and how useful and accurate would the data
      be (e.g., changes in emission factors and operating data).

  4.   What are the flexibility and air quality consequences of each?

  5.   Which is the best approach?

  6.   What are the best "stringency/flexibility levels" to apply? (For example,
      under options B, C and D, respectively, the levels might  be a 5 percent
      margin, a highest 2-in-5_baseline, or a 3 percent per year depreciation rate.)
                                                                             367

-------
     2.    Changes Under the Cap Approach

     a.    Changes which Increase Emissions Above the Cap

           Some sources with an emissions cap will eventually request to increase their
     caps. The request may occur as a result of two basic scenarios. First, an increase
     in emissions resulting'from a physical change or change in the method of operation
     at the source (e.g., the addition of a new unit at the source or a modification to an
     existing unit).  In applying for a major NSR permit for the emissions increase it is
     clear that the requirement for control technology review,  best available control
     technology/lowest achievable emissions rate (BACT/LAER), and  modeling/offsets
     would apply to the emissions units and emissions increases associated with the
      physical or operational change.

           The second scenario involves an increase in emissions resulting  from an
      increase in the hours of operation or production rate at the source without any
      other physical or operational change occurring.  (It is important to note that any
      emissions increase above a cap would be considered a physical or operational
      change requiring review). This scenario  becomes problematic in that it is unclear
      which emissions units would be required to apply BACT/LAER when a NSR permit
      is obtained for the increased emissions.  For example, a request to increase a cap
      because of a need to increase the source's production or hours  of operation may
      result in the emissions increase being spread evenly across all emissions units at
      the plant. Modeling/offsets for the  increase could be accomplished without
      pinpointing an individual unit or process  to be subject to  BACT/LAER.

            At issue is at what emissions units BACT/LAER would apply in  the case of
      such a increase to a cap?

      Question:

       *     When multiple emission units are  involved in the emissions increase, shpuld
            the source  be allowed to control only some portion of the units involved or
            should controls be installed on all units involved in the increase?  Does the
            control technology have to be BACT/LAER?
368

-------
b.    Changes Within the Cap

      In principal, sources should be able to make any changes desired without
triggering NSR so long as the cap is not exceeded.  However, this will mean that
new emissions units may be added and other changes can take place without
undergoing technology review or other limitations. Some have suggested that this
is a concern.
 Questions:

 *    Should a source be allowed to install a new unit(s) without going through
      major NSR if it can remain below the cap, regardless of the area's
      attainment status?

 *    Should the source, be required to install control technology on a new or
      reconstructed unit even though it can remain below the cap?  Does the
      control technology have to be BACT or LAER depending on the area's
      attainment status? Should such a requirement be applied only if the PAL
      extends beyond 5 years?
                                                                            369

-------
      c.    Reductions in the Emissions Cap

            Currently, permitting authorities may reduce permitted emissions levels for a
      number of reasons.  For example, a reasonable available control technology (RACT)
      or state implementation plan (SIP) requirement may be applied in a nonattainment
      area to reduce emissions from an existing source. Maximum available control
      technology (MACT)  and national emission standard for hazardous air pollutant
      (NESHAP) standards have similar effects on existing sources of air toxics.  Under
      NSR, emission limits for BACT and LAER can be revisited under certain
      circumstances resulting in lower emissions limits. An emissions cap requires direct
      consideration of these and other changes to  insure that the air quality
      improvements sought by these unit specific requirements are "seen" through the
      cap.  In addition, caps  developed under the current  NSR program (e.g., Oregon)
      recognize that technical adjustments are needed  in the cap when emission factors
      are updated (e.g., uncontrolled fugitive emission  factors, changes in storage tank
      emissions equations, etc.).  Industry, State/local, and the public will need to
       understand and know what adjustments to a cap may be necessary, both
       immediately and during some periodic (e.g, 5 year) review cycle.
       Questions:

       1.    Under what circumstances and how should caps be lowered?

       2.    When should adjustments be made? What type of adjustments should be
             immediate and which can be deferred until end of the permit cycle?

       3.    How should adjustments be made when a reduction may be available for
             netting but not for offsets (e.g., early reductions program under CAA §112)?
370

-------
3.    Air quality impacts

      A goal of the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) regulations is to
protect the public health and welfare from any adverse effect which might occur
even at air pollution levels below the relevant national ambient air quality standard.
An additional goal is to preserve,  protect, and enhance the air quality and air
quality related values (AQRV) in areas of special natural recreational, scenic, or
historic value, such as national parks and wilderness areas.

      An applicant for a PSD permit is required to conduct an air quality analysis
of the ambient impacts associated with the construction and operation of a
proposed new  source or modification.  The main purpose of the air quality analysis
is to demonstrate that new  emissions will not cause or contribute to a violation of
any applicable  national ambient air quality standard or PSD increment or adversely
impact an AQRV. The PSD permitting process specifically provides the Federal
Land Managers with  a formal role in reviewing impacts on AQRV in Class I areas.

       Air quality demonstrations may be required for some changes under a PAL
 which change  the source's  impact area, such as significant changes in effective
 source stack parameters. Requirements for when demonstrations should be
 required may be similar to emissions trading policy statement requirements for
 stack parameter changes.
 Questions:

 *     When should a source be required to model changes at a facility?
             - increases in emissions limit,
             - increases in emissions rate but with no increase in emissions limit,
             - changes in modelling parameters (stack height/diameter).

 *     Is the "Emissions Trading Policy Statement" (ETPS) useful for addressing air
       quality concerns for a PAL?  Are specific elements of the ETPS more useful
       than others? Are specific elements inappropriate?

  *     How can the Federal Land Manager Class I area interests be preserved under
       a PAL?
                                                                              371

-------
       4.    Enforceability

             For the PAL to be enforceable, compliance methods and related monitoring
       requirements are regarded to be included in the permit. In addition to the cap
       itself, short-term limit compliance methodology is needed to assure practical
       enforceability.  All compliance terms, including any unit specific emission limits or
       conditions and  the total PAL needs to be specified in the permit to be both
       federally and practically enforceable.

             Generally, demonstrations of compliance are possible through use of
       traditional measures such as monitoring of unit specific limits.  Minor NSR or other
       procedural requirements could be used to change unit specific limits. Alternative
       operating scenarios could also be permitted in advance for additional flexibility
       while assuring  enforceability of the PAL under each of the operating scenarios
       without requiring minor NSR permits for each change. To obtain maximum
       flexibility under a PAL and ensure enforceability, continuous emissions monitors
        (CEMs) and\or other continuous process monitoring may be necessary.  In any
        event, enforcement for PALs must be consistent with general EPA requirements of
        practical enforceability.
        Usual Conditions to be included in the PAL permit

          •   Methods to be used to quantify all emissions of all pollutants subject to the
              PAL

          •   Methods to determine compliance including:
              - monitoring requirements
              - recordkeeping requirements
              - reporting requirements
              - test methods   l

          •   Practically enforceable averaging time, for all  limits (allow for determination
              of compliance readily)
              - short term limits, generally not to exceed 1 month
              - rolling limits not be exceed 12 months or 365 days

          •   A reasonable description of all emissions units (54  FR 27283)

          •   Emission limits must be verifiable:
              - Louisiana Pacific:  plantwide emissions limits are not federally enforceable
              because they are not generally verifiable
              - use of continuous emissions monitoring to  verify total emissions at a
              source  may allow for plantwide emissions limits

                                               8
372

-------
    - otherwise, verifiable emissions limits assigned to all units or groups of units
    - an emission limit expressed only in tons per year is not practically
    enforceable (54 FR 27283 and LP)
    - where monitoring cannot be used to verify emissions directly, limits on the
    parameters established for the units or source and monitoring verify
    compliance with those limits

    Monitoring sufficient to yield data from the relevant time periods that are
    representative of the source's compliance with the permit

     "Monitoring" refers to many different types of data collection, including
     periodic stack sampling, continuous emission or opacity monitoring,
     measurements of various parameters of process or control devices (e.g.,
     temperature, pressure drops, fuel usage)

     The Title V applicability requirements include the emissions limits
     established, the limits on parameters (operating hours, production,
     temperature, fuel specifications, etc.), the monitoring requirements, the
     averaging time period, and the methods for determining compliance

     The permit may contain approved alternative scenarios that incorporate
     alternative compliance requirements.
Issue:

*     How much monitoring is required for enforceable PAL?



Questions

*     What conditions are placed on the source to show compliance with the
      limit?  (methods of compliance, methods of quantification, plantwide annual
      emission limits, unit specific emission limits, short term limits or averaging
      time)

 *     Are all of these conditions to be considered Title V applicable requirements?

 *     How are emissions to be quantified?

 *     Should emission limits be placed on individual units or groups of units?  To
      what extent are unit specific limits or limits on groups ot units  required?
                                                                              373

-------
      *     What type of averaging times are adequate for purposes of the PAL?

      *     How do alternative operating scenarios affect or assist compliance?

      *     What are the consequences of exceeding the cap and when are they set
            forth?
       5.    Public Review/Participation

            Federal NSR permits are subject to public review requirements.  Minor NSR
       permits also generally must undergo public review. Therefore, public participation
       of some form could be required at several steps in the PAL process.
       Questions:
            When should a PAL permit undergo public review?
                  - initial establishment of a PAL,
                  - adjustment .of cap based on technical revision of emission factors
                  and other assumptions in baseline,
                  - "ratcheting down" of cap because of more stringent State or
                  Federal requirements,
                  - other modification of cap limits,
                  - BACT/LAER process, if any, for new or reconstructed units under a
                  PAL,
                  - changes in emission limits within a PAL, i.e., shifting emissions
                  from one emission limit to another within the PAL,
                  - renewal of PAL.

             How can Title V public participation requirements be satisfied in" a PAL.

             What monitoring data and other compliance information should be available
             to the public, and what process should be used for making such information
             available.
                                            10
374

-------
         WILDERNESS ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT

     A summary report of one of five scientific panels associated with the National Wilderness
  Research Committee assembled for the Society of American Foresters by the US Forest Service to
 conduct an evaluation of wilderness research: state of knowledge and research needs for the 1990's.

                John D. Peine                         Douglas G. Fox
                Cooperative Park Studies Unit          USDA Forest Service
                National Park Service         .        TERRA Lab
                108 Hoskins Library                  315 W. Oak St. Suite 101
                University of Tennessee                Ft. Collins, CO 80521
                Knoxville, TN 37862

                                    INTRODUCTION

 Objectives of the Science Panel

 The Wilderness Management Working Group of the Society of American Foresters has established
 a National Wilderness Research Committee to evaluate the status and adequacy of wilderness
 research in the United States, and to make recommendations to address identified needs.  This
 committee established select panels of scientists to assist by identifying and prioritizing wilderness
 research needs.

 Research issues and questions pertinent to wilderness were judged by the following criteria: 1)
 Managerial Relevance: studies important to support management of the National Wilderness
 Preservation System (NWPS); 2) Wilderness Dependency: potential contributions to science
 through basic studies that depend on natural, wilderness conditions; and 3) Baseline Monitoring
 and Assessment: baseline measures of wilderness environmental conditions and natural processes,
 and systems for monitoring and assessing change of wilderness conditions for comparison with
 managed conditions (Cordell  1992).

 Managerial relevance. The concept that wilderness areas require active management is a
 relatively new perspective.  Research has provided documentation of the risks to resources of many
 units of the NWPS (Peine et al.  1988).  Baseline information on natural resources and research to
 define risk to those resources  provides a foundation for the development of an effective resources
 management program..

 Wilderness dependency. Wilderness designation implies  an area remaining in a "natural state"
 which is relatively free of perturbations associated with humans.  Research focused on how natural
 systems function becomes more and more dependent on protected areas as the ever escalating rate
 of land use conversion continues on the continent.  The environmental impact assessment process
 requires that protected areas to be used as laboratories to define relatively undisturbed ecosystems
 as points of comparison.

 Baseline monitoring and assessment. With the 1980's came an institutional awareness among
 federal land managers of the need for resource inventorying and monitoring on undisturbed
ecosystems and the resolve to begin building programs to address the need. In the 1990's, the
theory and procedures for natural resource inventorying, monitoring and assessment are being
                                                                                            375

-------
            developed via appropriate research and will ultimately be widely implemented and routinely
            maintained.

            The Sustainability Question

            The Wilderness Act of 1964 specifically mentions "science" as one of the purposes of wilderness:
            "Wilderness areas shall be devoted to the public purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific,
            educational, conservation and historic use." (PL 88-577, Sec.4b). Research should focus on the
            development of a theoretical basis for the monitoring of resources in order to build models to
            describe ecosystem productivity, structure and function, and ultimately predict how these processes
            might be altered by perturbations, thus defining elements critical to the conduct of risk assessment
            of resources.  Natural resource Sustainability can be described in terms of ecosystem productivity,
            structure and function. The protection of biological diversity is an inherent goal of the Wilderness
            Act.  The bottom line for research is to become able to predict with a reasonable degree of
            certainty the Sustainability of the resource base over the long term for every unit of the NWPS.

            Definition of Terms

            Monitoring is  based on a set of measurements, made in such a manner that they are repeatable in
            time and space, have an identifiable representation associated with the system being monitored, can
            be made by anyone with appropriate training and can be quality assured and quality controlled.
            Information based on such monitoring can then be assembled into an assessment of the health of
            wilderness ecosystems. Environmental health may be defined to be comprised of a set of measures
            of the productivity, structure and function of the ecosystem. Assessment is a process that
            compares these measures against some appropriately defined normal range of measures.

            Control of the Potential Adverse Impacts from research

            Field research' can be quite destructive, becoming a risk itself to wilderness values. Examples
            include the placement of instrumentation that is highly visible, indiscriminate flagging,
            manipulative research wherein a treatment is applied creating disturbance to an ecosystem, the
            creation of "people" ways in the vacinity of intensive research activity, and the movement or taking
            of specimens of rare species. The provision of access to remote research sites can create problems
            as well.  Caution should be exercised as to the potential adverse impact of research activity on the
            resources of these protected areas.

                           STATE OF KNOWLEDGE AND CURRENT RESEARCH

            The Paucity of Understanding

            The ongoing process of research on natural ecosystems has barely begun. Natural resource related
            research has traditionally been focused on ecosystems and species that are of direct interest to
            humans. We tend to study what we consume.  Icons of wildlife, fisheries and forest ecology
            research in the Southeastern U.S., for instance, include black bear, wood ducks, brook trout, and
            species of oak and southern pine trees. Vertebrates and woody plants tend to be best understood.
            For the vast majority of plant species, information on phenology and definition of thresholds of
            nutrients, temperature, moisture and other parameters that influence population density and range
            are rarely understood. Modeling the interdependency of species populations is in the formative
376

-------
 stages for most ecosystems as well. Risk assessment of the sustainability of biodiversity on these
 protected landscapes is seriously restricted do to this lack of basic knowledge.

 A Lack of Emphasis
                                                                t
 Federal land managing agencies have historically not placed emphasis on ecological research in
 designated wilderness areas.  Pridrities for research into more intensely managed landscapes have
 taken precedence. The awareness of the need for emphasis on research in natural protected
 landscapes is growing as evidenced by the emergence of the following research and monitoring
 programs.

 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

 Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP). This innovative research,
 monitoring and assessment program is designed to determine the condition of the Nation's
 ecological resources. The principle goal is to provide decision makers with sound data on which to
 base environmental risk management decisions.  The program is designed to provide "America's
 Ecological Report Card." It has four strategic objectives:
 1.  estimate the current status, trends and changes in selected indicators of the condition of the
 Nation's ecological resources on a regional basis with known confidence;
 2.  estimate the geographic coverage and extent of the Nation's ecological resources with known
 confidence; !
 3.  seek associations among selected indicators of natural and anthropogenic stresses and indicators
 of the condition of ecological resources; and
 4.  provide annual statistical summaries and periodic assessments of the Nation's ecological
 resources.

 EMAP has three functional components: resource monitoring and research, integration and
 assessment, and program coordination.  Using a probabilistic sampling design and ecological
 indicators, EMAP is assessing the condition of seven ecological resources (defined within EMAP
 as:  agroecosystems, arid ecosystems, estuaries, forests, Great Lakes, surface waters and wetlands).
 In addition to these resource groups, EMAP also has an integrated landscape ecology component.

 An ambitious task such as EMAP requires the participation of the Nation's best scientists. More
 than 12 Federal agencies, 20 States and 40 universities are currently active in various program
 components (EPA 1993).

 National Park Service (NPS)

 Resources inventory and monitoring. The NPS has launched a resource inventory and
 monitoring program in 1990 in 4 demonstration parks.  A hierarchical guideline for phasing in a
 system for biological, physical and chemical elements of the program is included in NPS-75, the
 Resources Management Handbook (NPS 1991).  The strategy is particularly helpful in defining a
well balanced program that can be phased in without major expense at the initial stages.  Standard
protocols are being developed for a variety of monitoring initiatives in the demonstration parks.
These guidelines are applicable to other units of the NWPS with similar biogeophysical resources.
In fiscal year 1994, the research aspects of this initiative are being transferred to the DOI National
Biological Survey.
                                                                                                377

-------
           Climate change. The NFS global climate change program includes a network of 20 biogeographic
           areas (including 74 NFS units) representing all of the major biomes of the United States, and three
           thematic initiatives (involving 18 additional NFS units). The NFS global change research program
           combines paleostudies, ongoing monitoring, field and laboratory research, and monitoring.  The
           program will help determine the influence of global change on populations, the structure and
           functions of ecosystems and their adaptability.

           The NFS program embraces integrated, interdisciplinary studies of park ecosystems, as well as
           three thematic initiatives mat transcend geographic boundaries and study the dynamics of coastal
           barriers, glaciers and coral reef systems. All of these programs not only increase the understanding
           of park systems for improved resources management decision-making, but also support the
           development and testing of regional global-change  models (NFS 1992).

           Air quality monitoring and effects.  The NFS Air Quality Program includes initiatives in
           monitoring, effects research and regulation (primarily new source permit reviews), in support of
           the responsibility of the federal land manager to protect air quality related values of Class I areas.
           The NFS program has provided leadership in defining the role of the federal land manager and the
           development of instrumentation to monitor visibility. EPA protocols are followed in the operation
           of air quality monitoring stations for pollutants in paniculate, gaseous and liquid form in 20+ park
           units.  Effects research has focused on visibility degradation, acid deposition and ozone.
           Fumigation chambers have been used to develop protocols for field identification of foliar injury
           from ozone on native species of vascular plants.

           US Forest Service (USFS)

           Forest health monitoring. The USFS and EPA have launched a joint program to monitor the
           health of forests in the United States. The program is still in the initial stages of implementation,
           but several indicators of forest health are undergoing development and permanent plots have been
           established in 12 states.  The primary function of the program is to gather and maintain an
           objective data base capable of supporting appraisals of forest health at the regional and national
           scales.  Some of the intended program outputs include the evaluation of potential problems
           associated with anthropogenic stressors, the interaction of these stressors with natural pathogens,
           the recognition of developing problems before they reach crisis proportions, and the ability to judge
           the effectiveness of regulatory programs (Bechtold 1991).

           Protocols for resource monitoring in wilderness areas. In response to the mandate of the 1977
           Amendments to the Clean Air Act, the USFS established a research program in air pollution and
           it's implications for those USFS wilderness areas designated as Class I by the Act. A number of
           products resulted from this activity. Among the most lasting was the development of a set of
           protocols for the measurement of effects on "air quality related values" of the Class I areas (Fox et
           al. 1987). This document has been used widely throughout the USFS and other management
           agencies to provide guidance on what should be measured and how it should be measured to
           maintain air quality related values in an acceptable state.  Air Quality Related Values (AQRVs)
           are attributes of a wilderness Class I area that can  be effected by air pollution or atmospheric
           deposition. They include such things as visibility, water quality, snow quality, soil quality, flora
           and fauna abundance and health, species diversity, preservation of threatened and endangered
           species, and similar "values"  of the area.
378

-------
 AQRV Screening.  The Clean Air Act provides protection to the AQRV's of a wilderness through
 the Prevention of Significant Degradation (PSD) Section of the Act. The operative mechanism of
 the protection is a permit that must be issued prior to construction of any major emitting facility.
 Development of this permit requires projection of the impact potential from the proposed facility on
 the wilderness. This projection, obviously, cannot be based on measurement but must be estimated
 through the use of an air quality model. USFS air resource research has developed a number of
 models for use in this process and has been instrumental, along with the EPA, in establishing
 modeling standards (Fox 1981, 1984).  However, a major concern has remained estimation of
 impacts on AQRVs, and moreover, what constitutes an "adverse" impact. To make some progress
 in this difficult determination, USFS air resources research proposed the adaptation of a screening
 technique (Fox et al. 1989). This screening technique proposed red, green and yellow lines on a
 multiparameteric relationship between nitrogen and sulfur deposition, acid neutralizing capacity
 and watershed ratio of precipitation to runoff for aquatic systems, levels of deposition of sulfur and
 nitrogen and ozone concentration for terrestrial ecosystems and just noticeable difference for
 visibility impacts. It was further recognized that these screening techniques were of limited utility
 because of the real diversity in actual wilderness areas. The Forest Service therefore proceeded to
 establish screening values for each region and for specific wilderness areas. These procedures are
 available from the air resource management officials in each USFS Regional Office.

 Climate change. The Forest USFS Global change research program is a broad national program
 aimed at developing an understanding of the exchange processes between atmosphere and
 biosphere, the role of disturbance in ecosystems, the dynamics of ecosystems and the role of
 humans in natural resource management. Much of this process is germane to the understanding of
 wilderness ecosystems because of the influence of climate and climate change as well as other
 stresses on the natural system will be studied (USFS  1993).

 TERRA Laboratory. In partnership with the Agricultural Research Service, Soil Conservation
 Service, US Geological Survey, CIESIN, IBM and ESA's Sustainable Biosphere Initiative, the
 Terrestrial Ecosystems Regional Research and Analysis (TERRA) Laboratory in Fort Collins has
 recently been formed to develop a structured analysis of regional effects of global change. TERRA
 is developing a "structured analysis methodology" to involve scientists, stakeholders, policy
 makers, land managers and regulators in the conceptualization of overall frameworks to integrate
 their needs and design conceptual models for problem resolution (DeCoursey et al.  1993).

 US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

 Gap analysis. This program provides a quick overview of the distribution and conservation status
 of several components of biodiversity.  It seeks to identify gaps that may be filled through
 establishment of new reserves or changes in land management practices.  Gap analysis uses the
 distribution of vegetation types and vertebrate and butterfly species as indicators of, or surrogates
 for, biodiversity, Digital map overlays in a geographic information system (GIS) are used to
 identify individual species, species rich areas, and vegetation types that are unrepresented or
underrepresented in existing areas managed for biodiversity (Scott 1993). The significance of the
role of desigiiated wilderness areas to protect biological diversity in the greater scheme of land use
patterns may be evaluated.  Such analysis is particularly important for smaller units of the NWPS.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

                                                                                                379

-------
           Monitoring. The BLM has developed an extensive monitoring program based on the USFS
           protocols. This monitoring program features dry deposition measurements using a network of
           measurements all over the world (Riebau 1992). An additional feature of the BLM program is the
           development of paired ecosystems where similar measurements are made in US ecosystems and
           similar systems around the world, especially in Russia and the former Soviet Union and China.

                               KNOWLEDGE GAPS AND RESEARCH NEEDS

           A System-wide Approach

           Since several federal agencies manage areas designated as wilderness by the U.S. Congress, there
           has been little attention to treating the designated units as a system.  There is no unifying advocacy
           in the federal government for treating the designated wilderness area as a system. Therefore, it
           may be entirely unrealistic to expect that a system-wide approach to monitoring and assessment
           could be accomplished. There would be considerable value to designing a conceptual framework
           for a system-wide program perspective that could be used as guidance by the various participatory
           land managers. Many such strategies have been proposed but none adopted. There is a need to
           seek greater consensus among the scientific community concerning the theoretical rational and
           predictive power of such a framework to describe ecosystem dynamics and  predict response to
           perturbations.

           Description of Biogeographic Regions and Ecosystems

           There is a need to better describe the natural resource base at a landscape scale for units of the
           NWPS.  Technology has improved in the utilization of remote sensing data  to develop detailed
           resource maps. Remote sensing data can be used to more precisely define major biogeographic
           regions and related ecosystems. Geographic information systems have become commonplace but
           the level  of sophistication at the applied resources management level lags behind this rapidly
           evolving technology.   There would be great advantage to combining the resources of the federal
           land managing agencies with EPA, NASA, NOAA, USGS and DOD to develop a common GIS
           and remotely sensed inventory of resources for the entire NWPS. Such an effort would go a long
           way toward promoting the cultural recognition of the designated wilderness areas as a system.

           Continent-wide/Landscape Level Assessment of Risks

           Design of a resource monitoring program must reflect mechanisms to track the potential adverse
           impacts from threats.  This principle was recognized by those who organized the scientific panel
           reported here. Air pollution was singled out as of particular concern to the  entire NWPS. Surveys
           of managers of wilderness areas have revealed a wide variety of perceived threats (Peine et al.
           1988, Machlis and Tichnell 1985). In addition to airborne pollutants, other common threats
           include both ground and surface water pollution from nearby mining, industrial and residential
           areas, the invasion of exotic species, aircraft overflights, border effects from urban encroachment
           such as the occurrence of domestic animals ranging into the protected areas, the illegal taking of
           plants and animals, vandalism to natural and cultural resources, infestations of pests and
           pathogens, and the severing of migration and movement corridors linking designated wilderness
           areas to other natural areas.  Then there is the mother of all threats, global climate change.
           Combinations of threats frequently have synergistic effects on sensitive organisms in the biosphere.
380

-------
Panels of experts can be assembled to provide a cost effective means to define system-wide and
unit specific threats.

Theoretical Framework for a Comprehensive Monitoring Strategy

As alluded to above, there is a need for scientific debate to build a consensus concerning a unifying
conceptual framework for resource monitoring and assessment programs conducted within the
NWPS in order to facilitate landscape scale and system-wide assessment. An underlying premise
that is more frequently ignored than not is to design monitoring programs so as to build models to
describe ecosystem processes  and population dynamics and to predict how those dynamics are
influenced by known perturbations. The linkage among scales of inventory, monitoring and
assessment must be addressed in the debate as well. Almost invariably, intensive monitoring
activity at specific sites are difficult to interpret at the landscape scale.  By carefully choosing
parameters to describe at the landscape scale that can provide key linkage to intensive study sites
(such as temperature and moisture gradients), the extrapolation of research findings from intensive
study sites to the landscape scale can be much more robust.

Application of Continent-wide Ecosystem Monitoring Programs to Wilderness Areas

Once a theoretical framework is defined, the  various research and monitoring programs mentioned
previously can be evaluated as to their relevance to the needs of the NWPS. A safe assumption is
that no one program will be considered adequate to meet the needs of the NWPS. There is also the
important matter of a reality check; i.e., what can be practically initiated in the short term. A key
principle is to encourage the various agencies to focus their emerging inventory and monitoring
initiates in designated wilderness areas to the extent practical.

Adoption of Standardized Protocols for Priority Monitoring

The institutions engaged in large scale resources monitoring programs are actively developing
standardized protocols for resource monitoring.  As theory and technology evolves, there will
invariably be changing perspectives on methodology.  There is something to be said for constancy
however.  In a review by faculty at Cornell University,of successful long term ecological studies,
the one universal commonalty found among programs was a tenacious dedication by one or two
people to keep the project focused and operational (Strayer 1986). This element of long term
personal commitment tends to be missing from the culture of government and scientific institutions
which tends to reward new ideas and short term payoff.

                  A PROPOSED WILDERNESS RESEARCH AGENDA

Research Mission
                       i
The primary mission of a research program for federally designated wilderness areas should be to
support management of the NWPS by providing methodology for the conduct of baseline
environmental inventory and monitoring to describe ecosystem processes and community dynamics
and study the response to perturbations, such as  air pollution, fire suppression, exotic species,
pes^s and pathogens, recreational activity, and potential adverse effects from adjacent land uses.
                                                                                                381

-------
            Landscape Characterization

            Resource characterization at the landscape scale utilizing remotely sensed data is the most cost-
            effective means to devise a coarse scale resources inventory and document large scale change in
            land cover categories over time. Remote sensing can be applied to characterize vegetation types,
            stress and mortality in forest stands, and sedimentation in water.

            Biological. Remote sensing should be used to define vegetation types in wilderness areas. Such a
            characterization would provide a foundation for evaluating the representativeness of specific
            research sites. Biological diversity associated with these broad scale vegetation types can be
            estimated as well as some forest health parameters.

            Two national programs to characterize biological diversity at a landscape scale include the EPA
            EMAP program and the USFWS Gap Analysis.  Placing priority on the implementation of these
            programs in wilderness areas should be encouraged. Defining the relevance of the EMAP program
            to a regional landscape assessment should be a priority research initiative.

            Geophysical. Digital elevation models are indispensable to characterize landscape topographic
            features.  Landscape position is a key factor in defining temperature and moisture gradients that
            are determents of vegetation patterns and ecosystem processes.  This same data base can be used to
            characterize streams and rivers by order, snow fields and glaciers, and reservoirs and lakes. The
            USGS Environmental Data Center (EDC) can provide the needed digital elevation maps.

            Chemical.  In wilderness areas where air pollution is a problem, an air quality monitoring station
            should be established at a site where pollutant deposition is maximized to determine pollution
            loading in the liquid, gaseous and paniculate form.

            Research priorities.  The following priorities are suggested:
            1. combine efforts of the federal land managing agencies and NASA, USGS, NOAA and EPA to
            create a system-wide GIS and resource inventory using remote sensing technology for the NWPS.
            This could be accomplished using the structured analysis methodology developed at TERRA in
            cooperation with the wilderness research community; and
            2. conduct research into the relevance of the EMAP protocols to landscape level assessment
            appropriate to the NWPS.

            Ecosystem Productivity, Structure and Function at the Watershed Level

            The designation of paired research watersheds provides a key mechanism to encourage
            interdisciplinary research into ecosystem processes and functions.  Watershed scale research lends
            itself well to building models to describe ecosystem processes and how they relate to the biological
            systems in place.
               i
            Biological.  A system of nested plots and line transects in the research watersheds can be  used to
            characterize species composition of vascular plants, small and large mammals, birds, insects, etc.
            A similar system can be applied to characterize aquatic resources as well.
382

-------
Geophysical and chemical.  Flumes and stream gauges can be installed in the research watersheds
to record stream flow, temperature, pH, and nutrient flow from the system. Sample soil pits are
sometimes appropriate to characterize soils and monitor nutrient cycling.

Research priorities. The following priorities are suggested:
1. recruit research institutions to establish research watersheds in wilderness areas following a
framework protocol designed for the NWPS; and
2. use existing research watersheds in wilderness areas to test the representativeness of the EMAP
protocol.

Community and Species Level Characterization

Circumstances on individual units of the NWPS will dictate priorities for conducting research at
the community and species level. Studies might describe or monitor phenology, structure,
reproduction and productivity.

Research priorities. A typical hierarchy ranging from high risk to dominant communities and
species is as follows:
1. rare and endangered species;
2. exotic species and the level of threat they pose;
3. sensitive communities and/or species to perturbations such as ozone, acid rain, pests and
pathogens, fire or fire suppression, and disturbance from adjacent land use;
4. wide ranging species that utilize habitat outside of the boundaries of the protected areas; and
5. dominant communities and species that best represent the biome of the reserve.

Viability of Units of the System to Sustain Biological Diversity

Given the above mentioned levels of research activity, one must not lose site of the big picture of
the relevance of the research activity to management of resources within individual units of the
NWPS.  A risk assessment and predictive models must be an overriding objective that remains
constant as the research and monitoring activity evolves.

Institutional Framework

Building an integrated  strategy among federal land management agencies.  If there is ever to be
a systematic and somewhat uniform approach to management of the NWPS, there needs to be a
conceptual framework for management, research and monitoring whose specificity goes beyond the
tenants of the federal legislation authorizing the system. This could be accomplished through a
memorandum of understanding among federal land managers responsible for units of the NWPS.
An additional unifying factor would be the establishment and maintenance of a system-wide GIS
and resource inventory generated by remote sensing reflectance data. The model of the TERRA
Laboratory designed for a similar purpose within the global change research community could be
utilized.

Leveraging university involvement.  The research needs in units of the NWPS are far greater
than are the capabilities of the federal land managers. Universities and independent research
institutions should be encouraged to use designated wilderness areas to conduct nondestructive
research deemed priority in the conceptual research plan. Mechanisms to encourage such
involvement include the establishment of designated research watersheds and provisions for
                                                                                                383

-------
           eviration of specimens from reference and environmental collections. Documentation of research
           site locations and appropriate documentation and storage of data is of critical importance as well.

           Mechanisms to facilitate research activity. The federal land manager should arrange for access
           to a nearby field research station to facilitate staging of research and monitoring activity.
           Providing transportation to field study sites can be most helpful as well.

           Setting Priorities

           Priorities tend to reflect a combination of pressing resource crises, short term agency-wide program
           emphasis,  and individual scientific interest. An effective approach to system-wide research and
           monitoring in the NWPS should reflect the needs for orderly implementation of a conceptual
           framework for the program.  Suggested overriding priorities are as follows:
           1.  develop a conceptual framework for system-wide research and monitoring strategies;
           2.  establish a landscape level initiative to cost effectively inventory resources and detect indicators
           of environmental stress using a system-wide application of remote sensing and the establishment of
           a'GIS for the NWPS which would provide a foundation and continuity for all other research and
           monitoring activities;
           3.  strengthen interest by the research community in units of the NWPS;
           4.  focus on those ecosystems, communities and species at greatest risk; and
           5.  contribute to the basic understanding of ecosystem processes and function.

                                           LITERATURE CITED

           Bechtold,W., W.Hoffard, and R.Anderson. 1991. Summary Report Forest Health Monitoring in
           the South. USDA Forest Service, Southeast Forest Experiment Station, Ashville, N.C. 40pp.
                                  I
           Cordell,K. January 31,1992 correspondence on the Wilderness Management Working Group.
           USDA Forest Service, Southeast Forest Experiment Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory,
           Athens, GA.

           DeCoursey, D.Fox, R.Watts, R.Woodmansee, B.Faber, and W.Wallace. 1993. Terrestrial
           Ecosystems Regional Research and Analysis: an Interagency Laboratory. In Wang, sam S.Y.,
           comp ed. Advances in hydro-science and engineering. Washington, D.C. International Committee
           for Hydraulic Engineering^ 1-70.

           US Environmental Protection Agency.  1993. EMAP The Environmental Monitoring and
           Assessment Program. Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C. EPA/620/N-
           93/001. 2pp.

           Fox,D. 1981. Judging Air Quality Model Performance. Bull.  Amer. Met. Soc. 62 (5):599-609.

           Fox,D. 1984. Uncertainty in Air Quality Modeling. Bull. Amer. Met. Soc. 65:27-36.

           Fox D J.Bemabo, and B.Hood.  1987. Guidelines for Measuring the Physical. Chemical and
           Biological Condition of Wilderness Ecosystems. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest &
           Range Experiment Station, Ft. Collins, CO. General Tech Report RM-146. 48pp.
384

-------
Fox,D., A.Bartuska, J.Byme [and others] 1989. A Screening Procedure to Evaluate Air Pollution
Effects on Class I Wilderness Areas. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest & Range
Experiment Station, Ft. Collins, CO. General Tech Report RM-168. 36pp.

Machlis,G. and D. Tichnell. 1985. The State of the World's Parks: An International Assessment
for Resource Management, Policy, and Research. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. 131pp.

Peine,J., J.Burde, and W.Hamitt 1988. Threats to the National Wilderness System, in Benchmark
1988:Proc. National Wilderness Colloquium. Tampa, FL:21-29.

Reibau.A 1992. Wildland Resources Inventory Display System. USDI Bureau of Land
Management, Wyoming District Office, Cheyenne, WY.

Scott, M., F.Davis, B.Csuti [and others]. 1993.GAP Analysis: a Geographic Approach To
Protection Of Biological Diversity. Wildlife Monographs. Department of Fisheries and Wildlife
Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA. 41pp.

Stryer,D., J. Glitzenstein, C.Jones [and others]. 1986. Long  Term Ecological Studies: An
Illustrated Account of Their Design, Operation, and Importance to Ecology. The Institute of
Ecosystem Studies, The New York Botanical Garden, Mary Flagler Cary Arboretum. Millbrook,
NY. 36pp.

USDA Forest Service. 1992. Forest Service Global Change  Research Program Plan Update
USDA Forest Service, Washington, D.C.  PA-1497. 36pp.

USDI National Park Service. 1991. NFS 75 Resource Inventory and Monitoring. USDOI National
Park, Service, Washington, D.C. 75pp.

USDI National Park Service. 1992. Global Change Research in U.S.National Parks USDOI
National Park Service, Washington, D.C. 19pp.
                                                                                              385

-------
USDA Forest Service                                                January, 1989
General Technical Report RM-168
             A Screening  Procedure to Evaluate
                      Air  Pollution Effects on
                    Class I Wilderness Areas
                         Douglas G. Fox1, Ann M. Bartuska,
                           James G. Byrne, Ellis Cowling,
                           Richard Fisher, Gene E. Likens,
                        Steven E. Lindberg, Rick A. Linthurst,
                          Jay Messer, and Dale S. Nichols
       1 Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. The Station's headquarters is in
    Fort Collins, in cooperation with Colorado State University. Supervision was provided by
    Douglas G. Fox, Chief Meteorologist and Project Leader for The Research Work Unit,
    Effects of Atmospheric Deposition on Natural Ecosystems in the Western United States.
                                                                           387

-------
 oo
 oo
Wilderness area"!
 Nitrogen deposition^   Sulfur deposition    Ozone concentrations
Green Ln    Red Line  Green Ln  Red Line  Green Ln   Red Ln

Alpine Lakes, WA
Hoover, CA
San Gorgonio, CA
Bob Marshall, MT
Bridger, WY
Superstition, AZ
Joyce Kilmer, NC/Slick Rock, TN
Otter Creek, WV
Boundary Waters Canoe Area, MN
ir ^ i
Kg i
5-7
3-5
5
3-5
3-5
3-5
7-10
7
3-5
Wha-y —
15
10
15
10-15
10
15
15
10-15
10
— kg S/ha-y—
3-5
3-5
3-5
5
5
5-7
5-7
5
5
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
«
P
35/75
35/75
35/75
35/75
35/75
35/75
35/75
35/75
35/75


55/110
55/110
55/1 10
55/110
55/110
55/110
55/110
55/110
55/110
    7 See appendix B for description of wildernesses.
    2Nitrogen and sulfur deposition are total values including all forms, wet, dry, NH+N and NOx-N, SCXf-S,
SO2-S, etc.
    ^Growing season average/second highest 1 hour average value in a year.

-------
14
12
10
 8
 6
                       60-70%  Runoff
                         40-50%
                       .. Runoff
             x-x-• • vXvX-:-;/
             V. •.*.*.• • ••««.. ,',W
             •!«V.*.V.V.V.*.V,y
             •v.y.v.v.v.v.Jr
             •••••• • ••••• w
    XvXvX
    .V.V.V.V
    e e e e e a e*e'

    i e e e e e*e*e*
    e e e e e e e <
        Red values - acidification
        likely
——• Green values - no
        acidification likely

 I.MM.M Yellow values - uncertain
        whether or not acidification
        occurs
                                               1 e a e e
                                               • t e e
                                               ' • • e e
                40         80         120        160         200

      Base cations - Ca + Mg + K + Na (adjusted  for marine influence)
    Figure 1.~Oreen and Red Line values for effects of deposition on freshwater ayatema. Total
      depoalllon la total aulfur deposition except for selected locations aa noted In the text where 25%
      of total Nitrogen deposition should be Included.
                                                                                   389

-------
    Structured Analysis Methodology
     SCIENTISTS AND
     COLLABORATORS
             FACILITATION
         ftifthft
       POLICY MAKERS
       DECISION MAKERS
       INTERESTED PUBLIC
LAND MANAGERS
REGULATORS
                                          STEPS IN COMPLETING THE
                                        STRUCTURED ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
                                              ISSUE TO BE
                                              ANALYZED
                                                     f
                    TEMPORAL AND
                    SPATIAL SCALE
                                            QUALITATIVE EFFECTS
                                            OF ISSUE
                   CONCEPTUAL SYSTEM
                   OF ANALYSES
                                                 I
                                             FORMAL MODEL
                                             OF ANALYSES
                                                 I
                    ANALYSES AND
                    ASSESSMENT
INTERPRETATION AND
PRESENTATION
VO
  Figure

-------