Air Programs Policy
and Guidance Notebook
US. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
-------
AIR PROGRAMS POLICY
AND GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
INTRODUCTION
Section 301 (a) (2) of the Clean Air Act requires EPA to disseminate national policy and guid-
ance to Regional and State officials to help assure uniform and consistent implementation of the
air programs under the Clean Air Act. The Air Programs Policy and Guidance Notebook, with
this issuance, includes air programs material within the organizational components of the Office
of Air, Noise, and Radiation (OANR). This includes the Office of Air Quality Planning and Stand-
ards (OAQPS), the Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control (OMSAPC), and the Office of
Transportation and Land Use Planning (OTLUP); materials for other programs, such as the Office
of Enforcement or the Office of Research and Development, will be disseminated separately by
these organizations. Therefore, the notebook should not be considered a complete and formal
documentation of all EPA policy for all air programs.
The notebook represents a collection of material previously distributed which can be used
as a handy reference for officials involved in the development and implementation of air pollution
control programs. The material is organized according to sections of the Clean Air Act and con-
tains a table of contents and a subject cross index.
The documents in each section have been assigned code numbers relating to the respective
section of the Clean Air Act, the date of issuance for the documents, and a number denoting the
order or location of the documents in each section of the notebook. For example, a document
coded PN 172-80-01-23-025 would indicate:
Policy Notebook
Section 172 of the Clean Air Act
80-01-23 - January 23, 1980 - date of initial distribution of the document
025 - 25th item compiled in Section 172.
The subject index located in the back of the book lists code numbers for all documents re-
lating to the individual topic or subject. For example: public participation has two document
numbers listed: PN 110-79-10-02-022 and PN 172-78-11-01-010. This indicates that one docu-
ment is compiled in Section 110 and one in Section 172. They can readily be located in the book
using the example coding information above.
Documents within each section are arranged in chronological order, that is, the most current
documents appear first in any given section.
Distribution is being made to EPA Regional Offices, officials of State and local agencies, and
the Public Information Reference Unit (PIRU) at EPA's offices in Washington, D.C. Copies will
be available for public inspection and copying at PIRU and at each Regional Office. Recipients
of the notebook will receive periodic updates.
For additional information specific to the notebook please contact: (FTS) 629-5437;
Commercial (919) 541-5437.
-------
Table of Contents and
Title Listing by Clean Air Act (CAA) Section
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
TITLE LISTING BY CAA SECTIONS
• CAA SECTIONS
107
110
115
123
124
126
129
165
171
172
175
176
406
TITLE
Air Quality Control Regions
Implementation Plans
International Air Pollution
Stack Heights
Assurance of Adequacy of State Plans
Interstate Pollution Abatement
Nonattainment Areas
Preconstruction Requirements
Part D - Definitions
Nonattainment Plan Revisions
Grants
Limitations on Certain Federal Assistance
Savings Provision; Effective Dates
TAB HEADING
AQCRs
SIPs
Infl Air Poll.
Stack Ht's.
Plan Adequacy
Interstate
Offsets
Preconstr. Reqm'ts.
Definitions
0X/CO
Transportation Planning
Sanctions
Pay Reqm'ts.
SUBJECT INDEX
-------
TITLE LISTING BY CAA SECTION
Section 107: Air Quality Control Regions
PN107-79-12-C7-005
CRITERIA FOR OZONE REDESIGNATIONS UNDER SECTION 107
PN1C7-79-06-12-004
SECTION 107 REDESIGNATION CRITERIA
PN107-78-10-18-003
UNCLASSIFIED COUNTIES WITH SIGNIFICANT VOC POINT SOURCES
PN107-78-10-10-002
PROCEDURES FOR HANDLING FUTURE SECTION 107
PN1C7-78-03-24-001
FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS REGARDING SECTION 107 ATTAINMENT
DESIGNATIONS
Section 110: Implementation Plans
PN11C-80-09-25-043
INCOPORATING BV REFERENCE OF SlP REVISIONS
PN110-80-08-U-CK2
CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING BUBBLE TRANSACTIONS
EQUIVALENCY DEMONSTRATIONS
PS110-80-08-08-Q41
THE BUBBLE POLICY AND STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
UNDER CLEAN AIR ACT 1110
PN110-80-08-04-040
APPLICABILITY OF PAPER COATING FABRIC COATING AND
GRAPHIC ARTS CTGS
PN11C-8C-07-31-039
APPLICABILITY OF VOC CONTROL TECHNIQUE GUIDELINES
CCTGS3 TO THE AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY
PN110-80-07-15-038
ATTAINMENT DATES FOR NEWLY DESIGNATED AREAS
PN11C-80-07-14-G37
CREDIT FOR INCREASING STACK HEIGHTS AT EXISTING
SOURCES
PN11C-80-06-12-036
ATTAINMENT DATE FOR AMBIENT LEAD STANDARD
-------
PK11 0-80-06-1 Z-C
INFORMATION RECUIREfr IN FE&E**L REGISTER
PACKAGES
PN1TC-80-04-18-034
MALFUNCTION REGULATIONS
PN11Q-8Q-04-14-G33
FEDERAL EN FORCE AS I L IT Y OF OFFSETS IH
STATE INPLEMENTATION
.PN1 10-80-04 -08-032
NEy SOURCE REVIEW REQUIREMENTS FOR LEAD
PN11->8"C-03-12-33T
RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS ON BUBBLE POLICY
PN110-80-03-10-030
EMISSION OFFSET REQUIREMENTS IN SECONDARY TOTAL
SUSPENDED PART1CULATE PLANS
PN110-8C-03-CK-029
DEADLINE F'O'R PEVIEW OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION
PLAN SUBMITTALS
NOHTRADITIOKfAL TSP SOURCE CONTROL PROGRAMS
PN110-80-02-25-027
CLARIFICATION OF FEDERAL REGISTER ANNOUNCEMENTS
CONCERNING BUBBLE POLICY
PN110-80-02-01-OP6
REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY FOR
PARTICULATE MATTER
PN11Q-79-12-28-025
SIP RELAXATION IN NONA TTAI NP EN T AREAS
PN110-79-12-11-G24
SIP ISSUE MEMORANDUM NO. 2
PN110-79-11-21-023
MINIMUM NUMBER OF SAMPLES FOR DETERMINING QUARTERLY
AVERAGE LEAD CONCENTRATION
PN110-79-10-02-022
AMENDMENTS TO AMBIENT MONITORING REGULATIONS
-------
PN110-79-09-21-021
SECONDARY STANDARDS ATTAINMENT PLANS - EXTENSIONS
OF SUBMITTAL DATE
PN110-79-09-17-020
GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON APPROVAL
OF PLAN REVISIONS FOR NONATTAINMENT AREAS -
(SUPPLEMENT ON CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES)
PN11C-79-08-23-019
SIP ISSUE MEMORANDUM #1 (CONDITIONAL
APPROVALS, 18 MONTH EXTENSIONS)
PM10-79-07-16-018
REVISION TO PROCEDURE FOR PROJECTING AUTOMOTIVE
LEAD EMISSIONS
PN110-79-07-02-017
GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON
APPROVAL OF PLAN REVISIONS FOR NONATTAINMENT
AREAS - (SUPPLEMENT ON PUBLIC COMMENT AND
CONDITIONAL APPROVAL)
PN110-79-06-14-C16
LEAD SIPS
PN11C-79-04-04-015
GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING
ON APPROVAL OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION
PLAN REVISIONS FOR NONATTAINMENT AREAS
PN110-79-02-21-CU
INSPECTION/MAINTENANCE POLICY
PN110-79-02-15-013
CLARIFICATION OF SIP POLICIES FOR TSP
PN110-78-12-21-012
SUPPLEMENTARY GUIDLINES FOR LEAD IMPLEMENTATION
PLANS — CORRECTIONS
PM1O78-12-21-C11
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NATIONAL AMPIENT AIR QUALITY
STANDARD FOR LEAD
PN110-78-12-18-010
REASONABLE FURTHER PROCESS (RFP) REQUIREMENTS
FOR 1982 ATTAINMENT DATE SIPS
-------
PN11Q-78-10-11-G09
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS ON 1979 SIP
PN110-78-09-1 1-008
IMPACT OF POTENTIAL REVISION TO PASTICULATC MATTER
NAAQS
PN110-78-07-17-D07
INSPECTION MAINTENANCE POLICY
PN110-78-06-29-006
RE6IONAL CONSISTENCY FOR TSP CONTROL
STRATEGIES AND
PN1 10-78-Q5-16-005
OPTIONS FOR HANDLING SIP RELAXATIONS IN FACE
OF UNCERTAINTY
PN1 10-78-03-24-004
SUGGESTED FORMAT & GUIDANCE FOR THE 1979 STATE
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN SUBMISSION
PN1 10-78-03-24-Q03
PLANS UNDER SECTION 111(0) OF T*E CLEAN AIR ACT
P-N1 10-78-02-24-002
CRITERIA fOR APPRO-VAL OF 1979 SIP REVISIONS
PN110-77-08-16-001
GUIDANCE ON SIP DEVELOPMENT AND NEW SOURCE REVIEW
IN AREAS IMPACTED BY FUGITIVE DUST
Section 115: International Air Pollution
PN115-78-03-20-002
INTERNATIONAL POLLUTION (EL PASO/JUAREZ)
PN115-78-01-31-001
ACCOUNTING FOR POLLUTION ACROSS INTERNATIONAL
BOUNDARIES
Section 124: Assurance of Adequacy of State Plans
PX124-78-07-31-OC1
IMPLEMENTING SECTION 124 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
-------
Section 126: Interstate Pollution Abatement
PN126-80-06-08-003
INTERSTATE POLLUTION ABATEMENT PETITIONS -
POLICY STATEMENT
PN126-78-07-26-Q02
UNION ELECTRIC VARIANCE - INTERSTATE EQUITY
PN126-78-03-16-001
OUT OF STATE SOURCES EFFECT ON IMPLEMENTATION
PLAN REVISION
Section 129: Nonattainment Areas
PN129-78-07-03-002
INTERNAL OFFSETS FOR RACT CATEGORIES
PN129-77-13-26-CQ1
BILL STEWART MEMO REPLY BY 0. HAWKINS
RE: OFFSETS POLICY
Section 165: Preconstruction Requirements
PN165-80-02-26-Q05
IMPLEMENTATION OF PSD ADMINISTRATIVE STAY
Phjl65-8Q-02-P8-u04
CONDITIONAL LANGUAGE FOR PSD PERMITS
PN165-79-07-03-003
CONDITIONAL LANGUAGE FOR PSD PERMITS
PN165-79-01-10-002
8ACT DETERMINATION FOR POWER PLANTS SUBJECT
TO REVISED NSPS
PN165-78-12-22-OQ1
BACT INFORMATION FOR COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS
-------
Section 171: Part D — Definitions
PM71-79-05-18-301
IMPLEMENTATION OF REASONABLE FURTHER PROGRESS
(RFP) REGUIREMENTS
Section 172: Nonattainment Plan Provisions
PN172-80-09-P3-G30
MISCELLANEOUS METAL PARTS AND PRODUCTS CTG EMISSION
LIMITS FOR COATING OF SHIPPING PAILS AND DRUMS
PN172-8C-07-02-029
EXEMPTION FOR COLD CLEANER OEGREASERS
PN172-80-07-Q1-G28
BOILER PLATE LANGUAGE FOR OZONE SIPS
PN172-78-06-16-027
GASOLINE TANK TRUCK REGULATIONS
PN172-78-06-14-026
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY REGARDING THE INTERGRATION OF TRANSPORTATION
AND AIR QUALITY PLANNING
PN172-80-Q1-23-025
STANDARDIZED LANGUAGE (RE: SIPS FOR SOLVENT
CONTENT OF EMULSIFIED ASPHALTS)
PN172-80-01-17-024
DATA COLLECTION WORKPLANS FOR 1982 OZONE SIPS
PN172-79-12-12-023
EXEMPTIONS FOP DEGREASERS
PN172-79-11-U-022
DATA COLLECTION FOR 1982 OZONE IMPLEMENTATION
PLAN SUBMITTALS
PN172-79-10-04-021
CLARIFICATION FOR FINAL SIP ACTIONS ON ASPHALT
REGULATIONS
-------
PN172-79-OS-22-G20
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS/REVISE0 SCHEDULES
FOR SUBMITTING RACT FOR STATIONARY SOURCES
OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
PN172-79-3S-21-G19
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS: GENERAL PREA8LE FOR
PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON APPROVAL OF PLAN REVISIONS
FOR NONATTAINMENT AREAS - SUPPLEMENT (QN REVISED
SCHEDULES FOR SUBMISSION OF VOLATILE ORGANIC
COMPOUND RACT REGULATIONS)
PN172-79-06-2Q-018
MODIFICATIONS TO R£ COWMEN DAT 10NS FOP SOLVENT
MFTAL CLEANING
PN172-79-05-25-017
CLARIFICATION OF AGENCY POLICY CONCERNING OZONE
SIP REVISIONS AND SOLVENT REACTIVITIES
PM72-79-05-25-G16
SUBMISSION OF STATE AIR PERMITS AS SIP REVISIONS
PN172-79-05-21-G15
DRAFT LANGUAGE — PREAMBLES FOR SIP PROPOSALS
AND APPROVALS
PN172-79-03-06-OU
CUTBACK ASPHALT VOC REGULATIONS
PN172-79-02-21-013
DETERMINATION OF REDUCTIONS NECESSARY TO ATTAIN
THE OZONE STANDARD
PN172-79-01-16-012
CONTINUITY OF SIP REGULATIONS — REVISED ENCLOSURE
PN172-78-11-03-011
CATEGORIAL COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE FOR VOC SOURCES
PN172-78-11-01-010
GUIDANCE ON SIP REQUIREMENTS CONTAINED IN
SECTION 172CBX9XA)
PN172-7&-10-26-009
OZONE TRANSPORT VALUES FOR SIP REVISIONS
PN172-78-10-06-008
COMMENTS ON AUTO INDUSTRY PROPOSALS
-------
PN172-78-09-11-OQ7
CONTINUITY OF SIP REGULATIONS.
PN172-78-08-24-CQ6
CLARIFICATION OF EPA POLICY ON EMISSIONS OF
METHYL CHLOROFORM
PN172-78-08-16-G05
CLARIFICATION OF ATTAINMENT/NONATTAINMENT EVALUATION
GUIDANCE
PN172-78-08-CK-OCK
REQUIREMENT FOR VOc RACT REGULATIONS IN ALL
OXIOANT NONATTAINMENT AREAS
PN172-78-06-30-C03
VAPOR RECOVERY REGULATIONS REQUIRED TO MEET RACT
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE 1979 SIP
PN172-78-03-10-002
EXAMPLE DEMONSTRATION OF ATTAINMENT FOR
PHOTOCHEMICAL OXIDANTS
PN172-78-02-P2-001
IMPLEMENTATION OF REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL
TECHNOLOGY (RACT) ON HYDROCARBON STATIONARY
SOURCFS
Section 175: Transportation Planning
PN175-80-06-23-Q06
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION
PLAN - TRANSPORTATION REVISION PROCESS EXPANDED
GUIDELINES
PN175-80-04-23-005
IMPLEMENTATION OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 12185 CONSERVATION
OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
PN175-80-01-15-004
RECONCILIATION OF POPULATION PROJECTIONS
IN REVISED STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
PN175-79-02-12-003
REGIONAL OFFICE ASSISTANCE IN EXPEDITING
HEADQUARTERS REVIEW OF SECTION 175 GRANT
APPLICATIONS
-------
PN175-78-10-10-OC2
USE OF UNIFORM POPULATION PROJECTIONS IN
AIR AND WATFR PLANNING
PN175-7S-08-Q1-OC1
DETERMINATION OF EMISSION REDUCTION RESPONSIBILITIES
Section 176: Limitations on Certain Federal Assistance
PN176-80-06-12-002
PROCEDURES F0» cONpORMAHCE OF TRANSPORTATION
PLANS PROGRAM'S AND PROJECTS WITH CLEAN AIR ACT
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
PN176-79-06-P8-001
IMPACT OF CLEAN AIR ACT NOfoATTAINMENT SANCTIONS
Section 406: Savings Provision; Effective Dates
PH4C6-76-0-4-28-001
MAINTENANCE OF PAY REQUIREMENTS
-------
Section 110: Implementation Plans
PN110-80-09-25-043
1NCOPORATING BY REFERENCE OF SIP REVISIONS
PN110-80-08-U-042
CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING BUBBLE TRANSACTIONS
EQUIVALENCY DEMONSTRATIONS
PN110-8C-08-08-041
THE BUBBLE POLICY AND STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
UNDER CLEAN AIR ACT 111D
PN110-80-08-04-040
APPLICABILITY OF PAPER COATING FABRIC COATING AND
GRAPHIC ARTS CTGS
PNlin-80-07-31-Q39
APPLICABILITY OF VOC CONTROL TECHN10UE GUIDELINES
CCTGSl TO THE AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY
PN11C-8Q-07-15-038
ATTAINMENT DATES FOR NEWLY DESIGNATED AREAS
PN110-SG-Q7-14-G37
CREDIT FOR INCREASING STACK HEIGHTS AT EXISTING
SOURCES
PN11Q-8G-06-12-036
ATTAINMENT DAT£ FOR AMBIENT LEAD STANDARD
PN11Q-60-06-12-035
INFORMATION REQUIRED IN FEDERAL REGISTER
PACKAGES
PN110-8Q-04-18-034
MALFUNCTION REGULATIONS
PN110-80-04-14-033
FEDERAL EN FORCEABIL ITY OF OFFSETS IN
STATE INPLEMENTATION PLANS
PN11C-80-04-OS-032
NEW SOURCE REVIEW REQUIREMENTS FOR LEAD
-------
RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS ON BUBBLE POLICY
EMISSION OFFSET REQUIREMENTS IN SECONDARY TOTAL
SUSPENDED PARTICIPATE PLANS
PN110-9G-03-04-029
DEADLINE FOR PEVIEw OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION
PLAN SUBMITTALS
PNl1?-8Q-02-27-G28
NONTRAOITIONAL TSP SOURCE CONTROL PROGRAMS
PN11C-8C-02-25-G27
CLARIFICATION OF FEDERAL REGISTER ANNOUNCEMENTS
CONCERNING BUBBLE POLICY
PN110-8C-02-01-026
REASONABLY AV»ILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY FOR
PARTICIPATE MATTER
PN111-79-1 2-28-025
SIP RELAXATION IN NONA TTAI NMENT AREAS
PN1V1-79-12-11-G24
SIP ISSUE MEMORANDUM NO. 2
PN110-79-11-21-G23
MINIMUM NUMBER OF SAMPLES FOR DETERMINING QUARTERLY
AVERAGE LEAD CONCENTRATION
PN110-79-10-02-022
AMENDMENTS TO AMBIENT MONITORING REGULATIONS
PN11C-79-09-21-021
SECONDARY STANDARDS ATTAINMENT PLANS - EXTENSIONS
OF SUBMITTAL DATE
PN110-79-09-17-G20
GENERAL PREAMBLE FOP PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON APPROVAL
OF PLAN REVISIONS FOR NONA TTAINMENT AREAS -
(SUPPLEMENT ON CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES)
PN110-79-08-23-019
SIP ISSUE MEMORANDUM H J (CONDITIONAL
APPROVALS, 18 MONTH EXTENSIONS)
-------
PN110-79-07-16-018
REVISION TO PROCEDURE FOR PROJECTING AUTOMOTIVE
LEAD EMISSIONS
PN110-79-07-02-C17
GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON
APPROVAL Of PLAN REVISIONS FOR NONATTAINMENT
AREAS - (SUPPLEMENT ON PUBLIC COMMENT AND
CONDITIONAL APPROVAL)
PN110-79-06-U-016
LEAD SIPS
PN11CI-79-04-CU-015
GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING
ON APPROVAL OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION
PLAN REVISIONS FOR NONATTA1NMENT AREAS
PN11C-79-02-21-C14
INSPECTION/MAINTENANCE POLICY
PN11Q-79-02-15-013
CLARIFICATION OF SIP POLICIES FOR TSP
PN110-78-12-21-Q12
SUPPLEMENTARY GUIDLINES FOR LEAD IMPLEMENTATION
PLANS — COPRECT10NS
PN110-78-12-21-011
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY
STANDARD FOR LEAD
PN110-78-12-18-010
REASONABLE FURTHER PROCESS (RFP) REOUIREMENTS
FOR 1982 ATTAINMENT DATE SIPS
PNllO-7b-10-11-009
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS ON 1979 SIP REVISIONS
PN11C-78-09-11-008
IMPACT OF POTENTIAL REVISION TO PARTICULATE MATTER
NAAQS
PN11C-78-07-17-CI07
INSPECTION MAINTENANCE POLICY
PN11Q-78-06-29-006
REGIONAL CONSISTENCY FOR TSP CONTROL
STRATEGIES AND RACT
-------
PH110-78-05-16-J05
OPTIONS FOR HANDLING SIP RELAXATIONS IK fACE
OF UNCERTAINTY
S06C€ST€» FORMAT S fiUIBAKCE FOR TK€ 1»79 STATC
IWf»LE"ENT*T IOIN PL** SUBMISSION
PLANS UNDER SFCTIO«» 111(0> OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF 1979 SIP REVISIONS
PK110-77-08-16-G01
GUIDANCE ON SIP DEVELOPMENT AN» NEW SOURCE BEVIE*
IN AREAS IMPACTED BY FUGITIVE ftUST
-------
Section 172: Nonattainment Plan Provisions
MISCELLANEOUS METAL PARTS AND PRODUCTS CTG EMISSION
LIMITS FOR COATING OF SHIPPING PAILS AND DRUMS
PM72-8G-07-?2-0?9
EXEMPTION FOR COLD CLEANER DECREASED
PS172-80-07-01-C28
BOILER PLATE LANGUAGE FOR OZONE SIPS
PN172-7S-06-16-D27
GASOLINF TANK TRUCK REGULATIONS
PN1 72-78-06-U-J26
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY REGARDING THE INTEBGRATION OF TRANSPORTATION
AND AIR QUALITY PLANNING
STANDARDIZED LANGUAGE (RE: SIPS FOR SOLVENT
CONTENT OF EMULSIFIED ASPHALTS)
PN172-SU-01-17-024
DATA COLLECTION WORKPLANS FOR 196? OZONE SIPS
PN172-79-12-12-023
EXEMPTIONS FOP DtGREASERS
PM72-79-1 1-U-022
DATA COLLECTION FOR 1982 OZONE IMPLEMENTATION
PLAN SURKITTALS
PNl72-79-10-?4-0?1
CLARIFICATION FOR FINAL SIP ACTIONS ON ASPHALT
REGULATIONS
PN172-79-08-22-Q20
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS/REVISED SCHEDULES
FOR SUBMITTING RACT FOR STATIONARY SOURCES
OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
PN172-79-08-21-019
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS: GENERAL PREAELE FOR
PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON APPROVAL OF PLAN REVISIONS
FOR NONATTATNMENT AREAS - SUPPLEMENT (ON REVISED
SCHEDULES FOR SUBMISSION OF VOLATILE ORGANIC
COMPOUND RACT REGULATIONS)
-------
MODIFICATIONS TO RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SOLVENT
METAL CLEANING
PNT72-79-Q5-25--17
CLAPI FICAT10N OF AGENCY POLICY CONCERNING OZONE
SIP REVISIONS AND SOLVENT REACTIVITIES
P-N172-79-35-25-C-T6
SU&IMSSIOK' Of STATE. AIR PERMITS A-S SIP REVISIONS
P-l».17?-79-05-21-OT5
DRAFT LANGUAGE — PREAMBLES FOB SIP PROPOSALS
AND APPROVALS
P-N1-72-79-03-C6-014
CUTBACK ASPHALT VOC REGULATIONS
PNT77-79-Q2-2t-u13
DETERMINATION OF REDUCTIONS NECESSARY TO ATTAIN
THE OTONE STANDARD
PM.T72-79~}T-16~G12
CONTINUITY OF SIP REGULATIONS — REVISED ENCLOSURE
CATEGORTAl eO^PlLlANCE SCHEDULE FOR VOC SOURCES
GUIDANCE ON SIP R FiUI REMENTS CONTAINED IN
SECTION 17?CBM9MA*
OZONE TRANSPORT VALUES FOR SIP REVISIONS
COMMENTS ON AUTO IN.DUSTRY PROPOSALS
PNt72-78-09-11-007
CONTINUITY OF SIP R EGUL AT IQN.S .
P'NT72-75-08-24-ijC6
CLARIFICATION OF EPA POLICY ON EMISSIONS OF
h ETHYL CHLOROFORM
PNit T2-78-38-t6-00'5-
CLARIFICATION OF A1TA PNW EN T/NO NATTA IN:MEN-T EWALUATTCN
GUIDANCE
-------
PN172-7&-06-G4-OC4
REQUIREMENT FOR VOC RACT REGULATIONS IN ALL
OXIDANT NONATTAIrtMENT AREAS
PN172-78-06-30-G03
VAPOR RECOVERY REGULATIONS REQUIRED TO MEET RACT
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE 1979 SIP
PN172-7S-G3-10-002
EXAMPLE DEMONSTRATION OF ATTAINMENT FOR
PHOTOCHEMICAL OXIDANTS
PN172-7&-02-02-001
IMPLEMENTATION OF REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL
TECHNOLOGY (RACT) ON HYDROCARBON STATIONARY
SOURCES
-------
D
O
30
w
Section 107: Air Quality Control Regions
-------
Section 107: Air Quality Control Regions
PN107-79-12-07-005
CRITERIA fOR OZONE REDES1GNAT10NS UNDER SECTION 107
PN107-79-06-12-004
SECTION 107 REDESIGNAT10N CRITERIA
PN107-78-10-18-003
UNCLASSIFIED COUNTIES WITH SIGNIFICANT VOC POINT SOURCES
PN1Q7-78-10-10-002
PROCEDURES FOR HANDLING FUTURE SECTION 107
PN107-78-03-24-001
FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS REGARDING SECTION 107 ATTAINMENT
DESIGNATIONS
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
DATE:0£C 7 1979
PN-107-79-12-07-005
SUBJECT.- Criteria for Ozone Redesignations
Under Section 107
FROM: Richard G. Rhoads, Director/ _ „
Control Programs Development Division (MD-15)
T0: Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
As a result of the revision to the national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone published on February 8, 1979
in the Feder*1! Register, a change in the criteria for determining
the attainment/nonattainment status for purposes of Section 107
designations has become necessary.
Previously, either eight quarters of ambient data showing no
violations or four quarters of data showing no violations coupled with
commensurate reductions in actual hydrocarbon emissions were needed
to justify a designation of attainment. These criteria were set
to complement the form of the ozone NAAQS which allowed no more than
one excursion above the 0.08 parts per million (ppm) NAAQS for any
one hour. As you are aware, the revised NAAQS is of a statistical
nature. An area is considered to not be in violation of the revised
ozone standard (attainment) if the expected number of days per calendar
year with maximum hourly average concentrations above 0.12 ppm is equal
to or less than one.
OAQPS guideline, EPA 450/4-79-003 entitled, "Guideline for the
Interpretation of Ozone Air Quality Standards," published in January 1979
allows the use of as .little as one oxidant season of ambient data in
assessing compliance :with the ozone standard if that is the only avail-
able data. The procedures outlined in this guideline should be used in
making the Section 107 nonattainment area designations. The guideline
does require that the last three years of ambient data be used whenever
it is available. It is not allowable to arbitrarily exclude from con-
sideration data if it is valid. For example, if two years of ambient
data is available, a State cannot arbitrarily consider only the last
year of data because it shows attainment while consideration of both
years of data would show a probability of expected exceedances above
one, thereby requiring a nonattainment designation.
However, where significant changes in actual emissions have occurred
in an area, flexibility is provided to recognize such changes. In this
case, an area with two years of available ambient monitoring data that
has experienced significant reductions in actual emissions during the
last year could be handled as follows. If the State could demonstrate
that the emission reductions are commensurate with the improvement in
air quality levels monitored during the last year, the State could then
EPA Form 1320-6 (Rev. 3-76)
-------
justify using only the last year of ambient data in determining the
expected exceedances value for the area and, thus, its attainment status
for purposes of Section 107 designations.
Therefore, although EPA is not requiring States to reconsider
their current ozone designations, all future designations for ozone
submitted by the States must be evaluated based on the methodology
prescribed by OAQPS Guideline, EPA 450/4-79-003.
cc: Mike James
Ed Reich
-------
UHiitL) S1A1ES LNVIKONMbNl ^L PROItCI (Oh Aoc
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
1979
SUBJECT: section 107 Redesignation Criteria PN-107-79-06-12-004
3M: Richard G. Rhoads, Director,
Control Programs Development Division (MD-15)
TO. Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
A number of Regional Offices have contacted this office seeking
additional guidance as to the amount of ambient air quality data
needed to change area designations. The purpose of this memorandum is
to inform you of an option which is, and has been, available to justify
a request for redesignating an existing nonattainment area to an
attainment status.
Generally, eight quarters of ambient air quality data are required
showing no violations before an attainment designation can be approved.
However, an attainment designation based on less than eight quarters
of ambient data for a currently designated nonattainment area can be
approved, provided real emission reductions have taken place in the area
in question and provided the emission reductions are commensurate with
the air quality reductions. Also, all ambient data recorded since the
reductions occurred must obviously show no ambient violations.
This policy is merely a simple extension of current Agency policy
concerning the selection of control strategy design values where recent
air quality shows improvement over previous concentrations and real, not
paper, emission reductions have occurred in the nonattainment area.
Existing policy, as contained in the "Workshop on Requirements for
Nonattainment Area Plans" manual, allows use of the latest air quality
data in selecting the design value where, in fact, the emission
reductions are commensurate with the improvement in air quality.
Therefore, EPA will approve such a redesignation request for
attainment if at least four quarters of ambient data are available show-
ing no violations have occurred since the emission reductions have been
achieved, and a demonstration is presented that the reductions are
responsible for the air quality improvement. The requirement for a
minimum of four quarters of ambient data is necessary to minimize the
effects of possible seasonal fluctuations in air quality. Also, the
emission reductions must be a result of legally enforceable actions
taken by the State. It would not be sufficient for a State to show real
emission reductions occurring in a nonattainment area with no legally
enforceable way of assuring the continuation of those reductions.
m 1320-6 (Rev. 3-76)
-------
If you have any questions regarding this issue, please call
Lanny Deal of my staff at 629-5365.
cc: OGC
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1
1 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
PN-107-78-10-18-003
OCTIBIS?? OFF.CEOF
AIR AND \VASTE MANAGEMENT
SUBJECT: Unclassified Counties with Significant VOC Point Source
Emissions ^/^\ ,
FROM: A^DaviH <^H&4da ^'Assistant Administrator
#/ for Ayr; Noise, and Radiation
MEMO TO: Regional Administrator, Regions I-X
As a result of the recent petition by the State of New Jersey to
review the 107 nonattainment designations, we have reviewed our
policy regarding 107 designations and have reaffirmed our belief that
many unclassified counties in the eastern part of the United States
are likely to be in violation of the NAAQS for ozone. As you know,
we have encouraged (but not required) Statewide nonattainment designa-
tions and the subsequent development of Statewide controls for volatile
organic compound (VOC) sources. We should continue to encourage', but
not require, Statewide VOC controls.
In order to reach a better position for deciding whether broader
nonattainment designations are appropriate, I have requested the Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards to review and analyze in detail
existing ambient air quality data. In particular, they will consider
the area which can be assumed to be in violation of the photochemical
oxidant standard, given a measured violation, and the suitability of
aircraft data as an indicator of violations at the earth's surface. A
contractual study to resolve these questions, using existing data, will
be initiated in the near future.
Since there is a possibility that existing data will be insufficient
to demonstrate that Statewide nonattainment designations for oxidants
are appropriate, steps should be taken by the Regional Offices to
identify or list those unclassified counties with high emissions that
have a potential to exceed the standards. These would include counties
which have large amounts of VOC emissions from major sources or large_
population within about 85 miles of an urban nonattainment area.
We have enclosed some information regarding those counties which
have high point source VOC emissions and which are currently designated
attainment or unclassified to assist you in preparing the above list for
your Region. Once the list is -prepared, the States should be encouraged,
in the 1979 SIP submission for these counties, to require the application
of RACT on all major sources of VOC emissions (greater than 100 T/yr
-------
2
potential) for which EPA has issued a CTG by January 1, 1978. In addition,
the 1979 plan should also contain a commitment to adopt and submit
additional legally enforceable regulations on an annual basis, beginning
in January, 1980, for those CTGs that have been published by January of
the preceding year.
If the State refuses to comply with this request, please require
that additional ambient monitoring for ozone be conducted in each listed
county as a specific grant provision during the next round of 105 grant
negotiations.
If you have any questions regarding the above., please contact
Walt Barber.
Enclosure
cc: Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I, III-X
Director, Environmental Programs Division, Region II
E. Tuerk
W. Barber
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DATE. ..-OCTETS PN-107-78-10-10-002
SUBJECT. Procedures for Handling Future Section 107 Redesignations
FROM: Richard G. Rhoads, Directory
Control Programs Development Division
TO: Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I, III-X
Director, Envi~~rimental Programs Division, Region II
This memo presents suggestions and raises questions regarding the
subject matter.
WHEN DOES A STATE REDESIGNATE?
The Clean Air Act (CAA) allows States to revise their designations
"as appropriate." Therefore, EPA must review any redesignation when-
ever the State submits such a request. Consequently, a set periodic
update by EPA of the Section 107 designations is not feasible.
A State should consider redesignation of an area whenever new
information supporting a redesignation, either modeling or monitoring or
other relevant data, is submitted or acquired by the State.
REDESIGNATION PROCESS
Although the Section 107 designations are not legally part of the
State Implementation Plan (SIP) according to the Office of General
Counsel (OGC), the procedural aspects of the SIP revision process seem
ideally suited to use in processing these redesignations. As such, the
procedures of a proposal notice soliciting public comment on the revision
followed by a promulgation in the Federal Register under Part 81 of
Title 40 will be used. If an area previously designated as attainment
or unclassified is revised to nonattainment, the requirements of Subpart t
of the CAA for SIP revisions become applicable. States will be given
nine months from the date of the Section 107 nonattainment promulgation
for plan development and submittal. EPA will then have four months to
approve or disapprove the plan revision. For the Federal Register
actions involving these redesignations, a continuation of the "special
action" status for all revisions is appropriate for the time being to
allow Headquarters to review such actions and assess their status with
respect to national policy and consistency with other Regional actions.
Where there is a difference of opinion between a State and a local
agency over a designation, the question arises as to which designation
should prevail. The mechanism employed in the SIP revision process
appears to provide a workable solution in that all SIP revisions must be
submitted to EPA by the Governor or his designee. Consequently, EPA
EPA FORM 1320-6 (REV. 3-76)
-------
- 2 -
only recognizes SIP revisions submitted by the Governor or his designee
(usually the State air control agency). It is proposed to extend this
concept to the 107 process such that only those designations submitted
by the State agency would be recognized by EPA.
Finally, we are currently working to resolve the following questions
and your comments are invited.
- What are the monitoring requirements for various pollutants for
unclassifiable areas?
- Is there any flexibility in the 1982 attainment date for areas
possibly designated nonattainment very near the deadline?
- Are Section 107 designations necessary and/or desirable for new
ambient standards such as lead and the short term NO standard?
Please call if you have any questions.
-------
Follow-up Action Regarding Section 107 PN- 107-77-03-24-001
Attainment Status Designations
Richard G. Rhoads, Director
Control Programs Development Division
Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Divisions, Regions I, III - X
Director, Environmental Programs Division, Region II
The purpose of this memo is to provide guidance on the follow-up
actions to be taken by the Regional Offices and the Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) regarding the Section 107
attainment status designations that appeared in the March 3, 1978,
Federal Register.
A 60-day comment period was announced in the Federal Register
notice for these Section 107 designations. Following the closing of
this public comment period on May 2, 1978, the Regional Offices and
OAQPS will evaluate all relevant comments received. In some cases,
revisions will be necessary for designations. These revisions with any
accompanying explanation which you feel should appear in the Federal
Register notice should be forwarded to tiie Control Programs Operations
Branch (CPOB), to the attention of Lanny Deal, so that a national Federal
Register package can again be prepated by OAQPS for publication. The
deadline for Regional Offices to submit revisions fo CPOB is June 2, 1978.
It should be noted that an area's designation status should be based on
the existing air quality in that area. The approval by EPA of a SIP
revision which will demonstrate attainment of the national ambient air
quality standards by 1982 is not a basis for declaring an area attainment.
After publication of these revisions in late June, subsequent
chances to these designations will be accomplished by the appropriate
Regional Office as an informal rulemaking action revising Part 81.
The procedure for revising Section 107 designations will be a proposed
rulemaking notice with a 30-day comment period followed by a final
rulemaking notice. Intra-agency coordination should be accomplished
through the procedures established for "special" State implementation
plan revisions.
Your comment is requested on the question of whether or not a
distinction between attainment and unclassified designations should be
made in the Federal Register for carbon monoxide, photochemical oxidants,
and nitrogen dioxide. If so, this would require a revised set of charts
for these Set II pollutants with separate attainment and unclassidied
columns to be submitted to OAQPS by the Regional Offices for publication
in the forthcoming Federal Register notice. Please make your recommen-
dations known on this point by contacting Lanny Deal at 629-5365 no
later that April 3, 1978. A decision will be made by mid-April, 1978.
-------
Section 110: implementation Plans
CO
3P
-------
Section 110: Implementation Plans
PN110-80-04-18-034
MALFUNCTION REGULATIONS
PN110-80-04-14-033
FEDERAL ENFORCEABILITY OF OFFSETS IN
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
PN110-80-04-08-032
NEV SOURCE REVIEW REQUIREMENTS FOR LEAD
PN110-80-03-12-031
RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS ON BUBBLE POLICY
PN110-80-03-10-030
EMISSION OFFSET REQUIREMENTS IN SECONDARY TOTAL
SUSPENDED PARTICULATE PLANS
PN110-80-03-04-029
DEADLINE FOR REVIEW OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION
PLAN SUBMITTALS
PN110-80-02-27-028
NONTRADITIONAL TSP SOURCE CONTROL PROGRAMS
PN110-80-02-25-027
CLARIFICATION OF FEDERAL REGISTER ANNOUNCEMENTS
CONCERNING BUBBLE POLICY
PN110-80-02-01-026
REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY FOR
PARTICULATE MATTER
PN110-79-12-28-025
SIP RELAXATION IN NONATTA1NMENT AREAS
PN110-79-12-11-024
SIP ISSUE MEMORANDUM NO. 2
PN110-79-11-21-023
MINIMUM NUMBER OF SAMPLES FOR DETERMINING QUARTERLY
AVERAGE LEAD CONCENTRATION
PN110-79-10-02-022
AMENDMENTS TO AMBIENT MONITORING REGULATIONS
-------
PN110-79-09-21-Q21
SECONDARY STANDARDS ATTAINMENT PLANS - EXTENSIONS
OF SUBNITTAL DATE
PN110-79-09-17-020
GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKIN6 ON APPROVAL
OF PLAN REVISIONS FOR NONATTAINMENT AREAS -
(SUPPLEMENT ON CONTROL TECHNIQUES GUIDELINES)
PN110-79-08-23-019
SIP ISSUE MEMORANDUM ff1 (CONDITIONAL
APPROVALS* 18 MONTH EXTENSIONS)
PN110-79-07-16-018
REVISION TO PROCEDURE FOR PROJECTING AUTOMOTIVE
LEAD EMISSIONS
PN110-79-07-02-017
GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKIN6 ON
APPROVAL OF PLAN REVISIONS FOR NONATTAINMENT
AREAS - (SUPPLEMENT ON PUBLIC COMMENT AND
CONDITIONAL APPROVAL)
PN110-79-06-14-Q16
LEAD SIPS
PN110-79-04-04-015
GENERAL PREAMBLE FOR PROPOSED RULEMAKING
ON APPROVAL OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION
PLAN REVISIONS FOR NONATTAINMENT AREAS
PN110-79-02-21-014
INSPECTION/MAINTENANCE POLICY
PN110-79-02-15-013
CLARIFICATION OF SIP POLICIES FOR TSP
PN110-78-12-21-012
SUPPLEMENTARY 6UIDLINES FOR LEAD IMPLEMENTATION
PLANS — CORRECTIONS
PN110-78-12-21-011
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY
STANDARD FOR LEAD
PN110-78-12-18-010
REASONABLE FURTHER PROCESS REQUIREMENTS
FOR 1982 ATTAINMENT DATE SIPS
-------
PN110-78-10-11-009
QUESTIONS ft ANSWERS ON 1979 SIP REVISIONS
f»N 110-78-09-11-008
IMPACT OF POTENTIAL REVISION TO PARTICIPATE MATTER
NAAQS
PN110-78-07-17-007
INSPECTION MAINTENANCE POLICY
PN110-78-06-29-Q06
REGIONAL CONSISTENCY FOR TSP CONTROL
STRATEGIES AND RACT
PN110-78-05-16-005
OPTIONS FOR HANDLING SIP RELAXATIONS IN FACE
OF UNCERTAINTY
PN110-78-03-24-004
SUGGESTED FORMAT 8 GUIDANCE FOR THE 1979 STATE
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN SUBMISSION
PN110-78-03-24-003
PLANS UNDER SECTION 11KD) OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
PN110-78-02-24-002
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF 1979 SIP REVISIONS
PN110-77-08-16-001
GUIDANCE ON SIP DEVELOPMENT AND NEW SOURCE REVIEW
IN AREAS IMPACTED BY FUGITIVE DUST
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
PN-110-80-04-18-034
APR 181980 OFF,C.OF
AIR, NOISE, AND RADIATION
SUBJECT: Malfunction Regulations
FROM: David G. Hawkins, Assistant Administrator y
for Air, Noise, and Radiation (ANR-443)^
MEMO TO: Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
The discussions at the weekly meeting of the Assistant Administrators
to discuss policy issues associated with the Part D nonattainment plans
have revealed a need to restate the Agency's current policy regarding
exemptions from State Implementation Plan (SIP) emission limitations
during periods of start-up, shutdown, and malfunction.
As a result of allegations that a malfunction provision, which was
part of a Federally promulgated regulation affecting a nonferrous.smelter,
was more restrictive and inconsistent with various malfunction regulations
approved by EPA as part of SIPs, this Agency committed to undertake a
review of all State malfunction regulations. Consequently, a directive
was issued to the Regional Offices on July 14, 1977 requesting all
Regional Offices to review their respective SIP malfunction provisions
and to take corrective action to remove unacceptable provisions from the
Federally approved SIP. In a follow-up to the directive, the Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) provided guidance on
August 18, 1977 outlining the criteria that should be utilized in
evaluating SIP malfunction provisions. In many cases, the review of
such provisions has not been accomplished due to priorities and limited
resources.
The Agency's malfunction policy was further defined in the manual
entitled "Workshop on Requirements for Nonattainment Area Plans" which
indicated that disapproval of malfunction provisions would not precipitate
growth restrictions and funding cutoffs under Part D (since malfunction
provisions are not a required element of a Part D plan) and that inappro-
priate malfunction provisions should be disapproved pursuant to Section
110 of the Clean Air Act. Again, as prior experience indicated, compliance
with this Agency policy was a function of resources and priorities.
Despite this guidance, many State malfunction provisions remain
inconsistent with EPA policy. To eliminate this problem, Regional
-------
Offices should, during the review of nonattainment area plans,
identify and disapprove inadequate start-up, shutdown, malfunction
provisions submitted with nonattainment area plans. In addition,
existing SIPs should be reviewed and inadequate malfunction
provisions should be disapproved as soon as possible.
cc: Jeff Miller
Michele Beige! Corash
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
APR 1 4 1980 PN-110-80-04-14-033
OFFICE OF
AIR. NOISE, AND RADIATION
SUBJECT: Federal Enforceability of Offsets in
State Implementation Plan Programs
FROM: David G. Hawkins, Assistant Administrator
for Air, Noise, and Radiation (ANR-443)
MEMO TO: Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
Recently, issues have been raised in the Part D SIP revision
review process addressing the relationship of offsets obtained under a
Section 173 new source review program to the Federally enforceable SIP.
The purpose of this memo is to reemphasize the Agency policy in regard
to such offsets.
The basic premise of the Agency's policy is that where a SIP
depends upon an offset program to attain and maintain ambient standards
and to achieve reasonable further progress, the SIP must contain provi-
sions to insure that the offsets are Federally enforceable. An internal
emission offset will be considered enforceable if it is made a SIP
requirement by inclusion as a condition of the new source permit. The
emission offset will, therefore, be enforceable by EPA under Section 113
as an applicable SIP requirement and will be enforceable by private
parties under Section 304 as an emission limitation.
An external emission offset will not be enforceable unless the
affected source(s) providing the emission reductions is subject to a new
SIP requirement by means of a SIP revision to insure that its emissions
will be reduced by a specified amount in a specified time. Thus, if the
source(s) providing the emission reduction does not obtain the necessary
reduction, it will be in violation of a SIP requirement and subject to
enforcement action by EPA, the State, and/or private parties. The form
of the SIP revision may be a State or local regulation, operating permit
condition, consent or enforcement order, or any other mechanism available
to the State that is enforceable under the Clean Air Act.
The manner in which compliance with this policy for internal and
external offsets will be insured must be submitted with the Part D non-
attainment plan in order for EPA to approve the State's plan. Preferably,
this insurance should take the form of a provision within the State's
new source review (Section 173) regulation requiring all offsets to be
submitted as SIP revisions. As a minimum, however, this insurance should
take the form of a written commitment in the SIP by the State that any
offsets will be submitted as a SIP" revision.
-------
In those instances in which EPA has not yet taken final
approval/disapproval action on the Part D SIP, the conditional
approval mechanism should provide an excellent mechanism to require
States to revise their SIPs to insure that offsets are submitted as
SIP revisions. However, it has been brought to my attention that
some 1979 SIP revisions may have been inadvertently approved without
adequate provisions to insure the submittal of offsets as SIP revisions.
Consequently, each of you should review your SIPs and, if you find no
explicit provision to insure enforceability, should require the State to
submit a revision correcting the noted deficiency.
In the latter case addressed above, it is necessary to issue
a Notice of Deficiency allowing the State 60 days to take corrective
action. The notice should further state that if the State fails to
correct the deficiency, then EPA will proceed to promulgate the
attached provision in the appropriate subpart of 40 CFR 52. The
notice should add that the public will have an additional 30 days
to comment on any material the State may submit, as well as on
EPA's proposed provision. The effect of promulgation is to notify
the State and other involved parties that in order for a new source
permit to be considered valid, all offsets associated with the new
source permit must be made legally enforceable through.the SIP
revision process.
Attachment
cc: Jeff Miller
Michele Beige! Corash
-------
ATTACHMOTr
The following language should be published in the approval status
Section of 40 CFR 52 for all States which fail to include explicit
provisions in their SIP to insure Federal enforceability of offsets.
New source review permits issued pursuant to Section 173 of the
Clean Air Act will not be deemed valid by EPA unless the provisions of
Section V of the emission offset interpretive rule published on January
16, 1979 (44 PR 3274) are met.
-------
DATE:
APR
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning, and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
8 1980
PN-110-80-04-08-032
SUBJECT-. New Source Review Requirements for Lead
FROM:
TO:
Richard G. Rhoads, Director
Control Programs Development Division (MD-15)
Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
Recently, several Regions have requested guidance regarding new
source review requirements for lead SIPs.
The "Supplementary Guidelines for Lead Implementation Plans"
contains a brief outline of general SIP requirements. . This outline
discusses those portions of 40 CFR 51 regulations "Requirements for
Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans" that were
not revised to account for the lead standard, but which are still
applicable to the lead SIPs. Specifically, the requirements of CFR
51.18 Review of New Sources and Modifications must be satisfied for lead
SIPs.
Existing permitting regulations adopted in accordance with Section
51.18 may be applicable to lead depending on the specific exemptions
included in the State's general permitting regulation. In general,
the NSR requirement for lead SIPs may be satisfied by simply revising
existing permit regulations to eliminate any exemption of sources
which have the potential to emit five tons/year or more of lead.
The source size limit is based on the definition of a point source
of lead which is five tons/year actual emissions of lead. The rationale
for this limit is based on an analysis contained in the "Supplementary
Guidelines for Lead Implementation Plans," pages 75-77. Briefly, this
rationale indicates that sources which emit five tons/year of lead
have the potential to violate the ambient standard for lead.
If you have any questions regarding new source review in lead SIPs,
contact Susi Jackson (629-5365) .of my staff.
cc: Chief, Air Branch,
Mike James, OGC
Ed Reich, DSSE
Regions I-X
EPA Form 1320-6 (R»v. 3-76)
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
DATi:i5Ai-< 1 9 !Q»9l Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
i4i«*w 3 PN-110-80-03-12-031
STr :T:
Response to Questions on Bubble Policy
FROM: waiter C. Barber, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (MD-10)
TO: Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
Since the publication of the "Recommendation for Alternative
Emission Reduction Options Within State Implementation Plans" (Bubble
Policy) in the December 11, 1979 Federal Register (44 FR 71780), several
questions have arisen which indicate that certain clarifications in the
policy are needed. Attached is a series of questions and answers which
will serve to further clarify, amplify, and explain some items of the
bubble policy. Should you have any further questions on these issues,
please contact Mr. Leo Stander of Dick Rhoads ' staff at FTS 629-5365.
Attachment
cc: Chief, Air Programs Branch, Regions I-X
-------
BUBBLE POLICY ISSUES AND ANSWERS
1. (Q) If a source ceases to operate all or a specified number of its
emission points or reduces or modifies its production activities such
that total emissions decrease, may it use these emission reductions in
an alternative emission control plan ("bubble") under the new policy?
(A) As the "bubble policy" is essentially an internal offset, many
of the points discussed in the "Offset Policy" (as provided in the
January 16, 1979 Federal Register 44 FR 3274) are also applicable here.
In general, EPA will allow a company to use the emission reductions from
such emission points in a "bubble," that is, to offset increases in the
allowable emission levels from other existing emission points at the
same source or at other sources, subject to the following restrictions:
A. The source cannot take credit for reductions already
committed to as part of the control strategy in the SIP.
B. Only emission reductions in excess of those needed, as
part of an applicable SIP, to demonstrate attainment of ambient
standards, or to demonstrate compliance with requirements on
reasonble further progress may be credited.
C. Emission reductions resulting from actual curtailment of
production or operating hours or shutdowns may be credited pro-
viding these actions are legally enforceable by EPA.
D. Emission reductions from source shutdowns and curtailments
in production or operating hours occurring prior to the date of the
application for consideration, generally may not be used as credit.
(See Footnote 6 of Section IV.C of Offset Policy page 44 FR 3284.)
2. (Q) In the cases previously discussed, for which emission levels
can a company take credit in implementing the "bubble policy," actual
or allowable emissions?
(A) Allowable emissions. If the alternative plan is being submitted
in response to new or revised SIP regulations, the proposed allowable
emission limits should be used. (However, it should be noted that
before the "bubble" application can be approved, such emission limits
should be adopted). Where the applicable SIP does not contain an
emission limitation for a source or source category, the appropriate
emission level for such sources shall be the actual emissions based on
operating conditions for the previous one or two year period (or other
appropriate period if warranted by cyclical business conditions).
Generally, the emissions for determining credit involving a fuel com-
bustion source will be the allowable emissions under the SIP for the
type of fuel being burned at the time the application is filed (i.e., if
-------
the source has switched to a different type of fuel at some earlier date,
any resulting emission reduction (either actual or allowable) shall not
be used as credit. However, if a source is emitting less than the SIP
allows (for example, because a clean fuel is being used) the difference
between the actual and allowable emissions may not be used to increase
emissions elsewhere unless it is shown that the SIP control strategy is
based on the allowable emissions rate (see discussion on low emitting
processes in Section D.I. of the policy).
3. (Q) Can a source use rollback procedures or the example region
approach to demonstrate the equivalency of control measures in open
dust trades?
(A) No. While the bubble policy generally does not impose more
stringent conditions on the demonstration of the adequacy of .alterna-
tive emission control strategies than were used to design the current
SIPs, the policy does place special requirements on trades involving
open dust emissions. Because of the Substantial uncertainty regarding
the accuracy of some model projections, particularly for the inter-
action between open dust sources and structures at industrial sites,
EPA generally.will not approve any proposed alternative strategy based
on a modeling demonstration that proposes to substitute controls on
open dust emissions for reasonable controls on the more significant
sources of process emissions. Sources may use modeling demonstrations
for open dust trades that do not affect the use of process controls.
(Please note the factors to be kept in mind when considering such a
demonstration, as discussed on page 71783 of the policy.) Where a
source wishes to trade open dust controls for control on the more
significant sources of process emissions, the bubble policy allows
sources to demonstrate the equivalency of such trades by installing the
open dust source controls and then monitoring the results. But all
demonstrations for open dust trades must include a monitoring or
modeling demonstration (whichever is applicable), regardless of how
the adequacy of the existing SIP requirements was demonstrated.
-------
< ^^^^ z.
153SI
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Washington, D. C. 20460 PN-110-80-03-10-030
Office of
MAR 1 0 19® Air> Noise> and Radiation
SUBJECT: Emission Offset Requirements in Secondary
Standard Total Suspended Particulate Plans
FROM: David G. Hawkins, Assistant Administrator
for Air, Noise, and Radiation
MEMO TO: Regional Administrator, Regions I-X
The purpose of this memorandum is to reiterate Agency policy
regarding emission offset requirements in State Implementation Plans
(SIPs) for areas in which only the secondary TSP standard is violated.
For TSP nonattainment areas violating the secondary standard
only and where the Federal offset policy remains in effect, emission
offsets are required for all major new sources permitted prior to
approval of the SIP for that area. The Federal offset policy re-
mains in effect during any extended time allowed under Section
110(B) for development and approval of a SIP revision for an area
that violates the secondary standard only (44 FR 20379; April 4,
1979, and 44 FR 50600; August 29, 1979).' If the Federal offset
policy expires, however no major new sources may be permitted to
commence construction prior to final approval of the SIP for the
area impacted by the source. Following approval by EPA of the
secondary standard SIP, emission offsets would no longer be required
for any new source locating in or impacting a secondary standard
nonattainment area dominated by agricultural and related fugitive
dust sources if offsets from industrial sources are not reasonably
available.
In order to assure thorough dissemination of Agency policy and
procedures with regard to the requirements of Part D of the Act, I
am having this memorandum published in the Federal Register.
cc: Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
J. Miller
M. James
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
PN-110-80-03-04-029
MAR 41980 OFR.CEOF
AIR, NOISE, AND RADIATION
SUBJECT: Deadline for Review of State Implementation
Plan Submittals
FROM: David G. Hawkins, Assistant Administrator
for Air, Noise, and Radiation (ANR-443)
MEMO TO: Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
As the State Implementation Plan (SIP) review process continues, it
is becoming increasingly evident that the conditional approval approach
is being utilized to a significant degree. While this process has
served its purpose well in allowing minor deficiencies to be handled in
a reasonable and legal manner, the granting of a conditional approval is
only the beginning of a very important sequence of actions required both
of the State and of EPA.
Since the States have committed to submittal dates set forth in the
Federal Register as part of the conditional approval process, EPA must
likewise commit to review and act upon the State submittals in an expe-
ditious manner. I am therefore setting a time frame of 60 days following
the deadlines set forth in the various conditional approvals for the
Regions to review the States' submissions and submit to the various
Headquarters offices a FederaT_ Register notice proposing approval/dis-
approval action on the submitted material. In situations where the
original proposal was specific enough so that interested persons could
reasonably have anticipated and commented on the substance of the State's
supplemental submission, and where there is no active commenter interested
in that particular item, the Region may proceed directly to a final
action, in which case, the 60-day time frame would apply to the final
approval/disapproval notice instead of the proposal. In no event will
the publication of a notice of receipt serve to fulfill the 60-day time
period.
If, following receipt of a State subnrittal, you foresee a situation
where this time frame cannot be met,' a memo informing Richard Rhoads,
Director, Control Programs Development Division should be sent as soon
as possible giving an explanation for the inability to meet the 60-day
time frame and identifying and committing to the most expeditious date
for submission of the Federal Register notice. The justification for the
delayed review period need not be extensive but should be sufficiently
detailed to serve its intended purpose.
-------
In concluding, I want to stress the importance of following
these procedures since I will be asking for a periodic report on the
status of the conditional approval reviews from Dick to keep me abreast
of the situation. If you or your staff feel that there are preferable
alternatives to this approach, please inform Dick of your suggestions.
cc: Jeff Miller
Michele Corash
-------
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ri.^ t ? WASHINGTON. D.C. 20-150
\[ ^^ PN-110 - 80 -0 2 - 2 7- 0 2 8
OFFICE OF
AIR. NOISE. AND RADIATION
? FEB 1980
SUBJECT: Nontraditional TSP Source Control Programs
FROM: D^vid G. Hawkins, Assistant Administrator
for Air, Noise and Radiation (ANR-443)
TO: Regional Administrator, Regions I-X
SIP revisions providing for attainment of TSP NAAQS are currently
in various stages of submittal, proposal, or approval. An examination of the SIP
revisions thus far submitted reveals that further direction is needed concerning
control of nontraditional sources of TSP. Accordingly, I am providing the
following guidance for calendar year 1980.
BACKGROUND
The Administrator's memorandum of February 24, 1973 contained certain special
provisions relating to TSP control strategies. These provisions allowed the
States, after adoption of RACT regulations for traditional sources, to conduct
demonstration projects and studies for controlling nontraditional sources of
TSP in lieu of immediately adopting control measures for these sources. The
provisions were designed to allow enough time to obtain the necessary additional
data and coordination prior to the adoption of the control measures to provide
for attainment by December 1982.
The Administrator's memorandum required the States to have obtained
sufficient information by the time of SIP submission to determine the contribution
of nontraditional sources and the degree of reductions needed for attainment.
The SIPs were to provide for the step-wise implementation of control measures
while assessing their effectiveness and drawing final conclusions on the degree
of controls necessary.
It is now recognized that TSP problems are more complex than originally
thought. Assessments must adequately identify the specific sources contributing
to the nonattainment problem and determine the reductions.needed from those
sources.
As you are aware, §109(d)(l) of the Act requires EPA to review the NAAQS
by the end of 1980. The review of the particulate matter standard currently
underway could result in revised primary or secondary standards. As a result
of the potential change in the standards, many States have been reluctant
-------
to initiate new control programs. Because alternative standards addressing
smaller particles are likely to be considered, EPA has stated that deferred
compliance schedules are acceptable for new control measures designed
primarily to control large-size particles (Memo, David G. Hawkins to Regional
Administrators, Impact of Potential Revision to Particulate Matter NAAQS,
September 11, 1978). As long as' compliance is required not later than 1982,
such schedules may include dates which are late enough so that the uncertainty
over the particulate matter standard can be resolved prior to significant
expenditures for control.
CALENDAR YEAR 1980 PROGRAM
For calendar year 1980, and likely extending into 1981, States' goals
toward alleviating the particulate matter nonattainment problem should include:
(1) completion of adequate problem assessments to determine the sources, source
emissions, and nature of particulate matter (especially size distribution), and
(2) assurance that RACT is applied to all traditional TSP sources. Achievement
of these two goals will bring all States up to a common level and will provide
a basis for developing plans to attain either the current or revised particulate
matter standards.
Problem Assessment -- Those States which have not completed adequate
assessments of their nontraditional TSP problem must carry out further analyses
during 1980. In light of the fact that the Agency is considering possible
inhalable particulate (IP) or fine particulate standards as a result of the
current particulate matter standard review, data on particle size distributions
should be gathered as part of the analyses. Inclusion of particle size data
will provide a dual purpose for the analyses: (1) It will provide additional
data to better understand the current TSP problem, and (2) it will provide
background and support for a program for attaining any revised particulate
matter standard. Those States which have already completed an adequate non-
traditional TSP problem assessment, therefore, should also be strongly
encouraged to gather particle size data during 1980. Particle size determi-
nations should initially include at least the 15 micrometer (urn) cut point.
The use of the selective modified hi-vcl is recommended for this purpose.
Evaluation of RACT - It is important that the degree of control considered
RACT is that which could be considered reasonable considering the latest technology.
During 1980, States should reexamine their RACT determinations and provide for
further controls as needed.
EPA SUPPORT ACTIVITIES
Concurrent with the States' efforts during 1980, KPA will provide guidance
on how States can determine control effectiveness at the local level. Also,
it is planned to carry out several major scale demonstration studies with
EPA funding support. The studies will be of nontraditional source control
measures that are considered applicable to many areas, but for which little
information on effectiveness is known (e.g., control of reentrained dust from
paved roadways). The studies will develop source-receptor relationships,
determine control measure effectiveness, and monitor the ambient air impact of
the controls. The studies will provide useful information to the States in
choosing control measures.
cc: Jeff Miller, OE
Mike James, OGC
-------
UNITED STATE: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
DATE: FEB25 i860 PN-110-80-02-25-027
S---JECT: Clarification of Federal Register Announcements
Concerning the Bubble Policy
FROM: Richard G. Rhoads, Director
Control Programs Development Division (MD-15)
TO: Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
On January 23, 1980, EPA published in the Federal Register (45 FR
5616) certain changes to the new source performance standard (NSPS)
regulations concerning the use of the "bubble" concept for applica-
bility determinations. This promulgation has caused some confusion in
light of our "bubble policy" statement published in the-Federal Register
on December 11, 1979. The attached fact sheet should serve to clarify
the issue.
Attachment
-cc: Chief, Air Programs Branch, Regions I-X
EPA Form 1320-6 (R«v. 3-76)
-------
FACT SHEET
EPA's BUBBLE POLICY FOR NSPS
On January 23, 1980, the Environmental Protection Agency published
in the Federal Register (45 FR 5616) amendments and corrections to
certain definitions and requirements of standards of performance for
new stationary sources (NSPS), as promulgated in 40 CFR Part 60 under
the authority of Section 111 of the Clean Air Act as amended. These
changes we;e made to comply with a 1978 ruling by the United States
Court of Appeals in ASARCO vs. EPA, 578 F2d 319.
One of the corrections in the January 23 notice was the revocation
of the use of a bubble concept as a means of determining what constitutes
a "modified" source for the purpose of applying NSPS. This has caused
some confusion on the part of industry and other governmental agencies.
To remove any misconceptions, it should be noted that EPA's "bubble"
policy, as published in the December 11, 1979 Federal Register (44 FR
71780), has not been revoked or revised. That policy is still available
for use by existing facilities to comply with the emission limitations
in a State's implementation plan. However, as stated in that policy:
"[It] does not apply to or supersede the conditions that a source must
meet under nonattainment or PSD permit programs, NSPS, or national
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants, or other conditions
that the Clean Air Act specifically requires for new or modified sources."
(44 FR 71781.) The action published in the January 23, 1980 Federal
Register further clarifies this by prohibiting the use of a "bubble"
concept for determining whether a modified existing facility would be
required to meet NSPS. In short, the "bubble" policy can be utilized by
existing facilities to comply with requirements of a State Implementa-
tion Plan; however, it cannot be utilized to circumvent the requirements
of the Clean Air Act for new or modified sources subject to NSPS.
-------
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
"1
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
PN-110-80-02-01-026
OFFICE OF
J CCfl -n. AIR> NO1SE. AND RADIATION
*»W tCJOv/
SUBJECT: °pasonably Available Control Technology for
Particulate Matter
FROM: David G. Hawkins, Assistant Administrator
for Air, Noise, and Radiation
MEMO TO: Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
This memorandum provides further guidance on review of total
suspended particulate (TSP) State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions
for which adoption of reasonably available control technology (RACT) is
a criterion for approval.
Many SIPs contain a certification by the State that the adopted
regulations represent RACT. In some cases, the SIP contains an exten-
sive analysis justifying the RACT certification; in other cases, very
little justification is provided.
The submission of a State certification of RACT does not, and
should not, preclude EPA from performing an independent analysis.
Clearly, in cases where EPA has promulgated regulations, has negotiated
consent agreements, or has otherwise made case-by-case determinations of
RACT which conflict with the State certification, such a certification
should be rejected and the SIP should be either disapproved or approved
on the condition that the deficient regulations be corrected.
It is not Agency policy to approve a SIP solely because the State
certifies that the RACT criterion has been met. Where EPA has reason to
question a State certification, an independent analysis of RACT should
be performed by the Regional Office prior to SIP approval.
Because of the potential for Regional and State inconsistencies, a
review of all State certifications should be conducted. In some cases,
resource constraints may require initial acceptance of a State certifica-
tion with only a minimal review. This is an acceptable procedure in the
interim, but a more thorough review should be conducted when resources
are available.
-------
The fact that EPA has approved a SIP based upon a State certification
of RACT would not preclude a subsequent disapproval action if further
analysis confirmed that the State certification was erroneous.
cc: Jeff Miller
Michele Corash
-------
DATE:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
Otl- 2 8 1978
SUBJECT: SIP Relaxations in Nonattainment Areas
PN-110-79-12-28-025
FROM: Richard G. Rhoads, Director
Control Programs Development Division (MD-15)
TO: Stephen R. Wassersug, Director
Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Region III
The purpose of this memo is to summarize the Agency's current
policy toward SIP relaxations for sources impacting nonattainment
areas. Specifically, I am addressing any nonattainment area for which
an attainment SIP has not been approved.
Generally, the nonattainment provisions of the Clean Air Act would
prohibit any SIP relaxation for a source located in a designated (pursuant
to Section 107) nonattainment area. The basic rationale is that a
nonattainment area without an attainment strategy is an intolerable
situation, and any relaxation would only aggravate the already intolerable
situation.
However, some exceptions apply. We recognize that some "designated
nonattainment areas" may include clean areas. If the affected source is
located in such a clean area, the nonattainment provisions do not necessarily
apply.
For sources located in "clean" areas of a nonattainment area (as
for sources located in close proximity to a nonattainment area) the
nonattainment provisions apply only if the source is "significantly
impacting" a violation in the nonattainment area. Although the defini-
tion of "significant impact" for this purpose is a case-by-case decision,
for most major sources any air quality impact should be considered
"significant" if the impact exceeds the Class I significant deterioration
increments.
If such a source does not cause a significant impact on a violation
in a nonattainment area, then the nonattainment provisions of the Act
would not normally apply. In this case, the relaxation would still have
to be assessed against the conventional criteria such as causing a viola-
tion of the ambient standards or exceeding the significant deterioration
increments.
Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I, II, IV-X
Ed Reich
Mike James
EPA Form 1320-6 (Rev. 3-76)
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North"Carolina 27711
DATE-. DEC t t 1979
SUBJECT- SIP Issue Memorandum #2
PN-110-79-12-11-024
FROM:
TO:
G. T. Helms, Chief
Control Programs Operations Branch
Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X
This is the second of a series of SIP issue memorandums which will
generally focus on issues that have been identified in the special
action Federal Register packages of the 1979 SIP revisions. This
memorandum will discuss the following five issues in detail:
- Conditional Approval of Missing VOC Regulations;
- Stage I Throughput;
- Conditional Approval of Cutback Asphalt Regulations;
- Criteria for Ozone Redesignation; and
- Public Hearings for SIP Revisions Dealing with Public Notification.
The names of the CPOB contacts for each of these items are noted in each
case. Several other issues will be discussed briefly.
There was one error in the first SIP issue memorandum (August 23, 1979).
In the discussion of 18-month extensions, the date of December 1, 1980 was
inadvertently given as the date after which the Federal offset policy
expires. The correct date is December 31, 1980.
Attachments
Form 1320-6 (Rev. 3-76)
-------
ATTACHMENT I
Conditional Approval of Missing VOC Regulations
As discussed in SIP Issue Memorandum #1, to be conditionally
approved, a plan must be in substantial compliance (the deficiencies
must be minor) and the State must commit to remedy the minor defi-
ciencies within a short period. Several recent examples bring this
issue into focus.
For instance, the surface coating, cutback asphalt, and degreasing
regulations do not represent RACT in the Colorado submittal. EPA con-
siders conditional approval appropriate since the emissions from those
sources not required to install RACT are minimal based on the State's
emissions inventory.
For San Diego, seven of the CTG categories (solvent metal cleaning,
cutback asphalt, surface coating of cans, coils, paper, fabric, and
metal furniture) are missing. In contrast to Colorado, this must be
remedied before the plan is approvable, even conditionally, since 7 of
the 12 CTG categories are missing which account for a large amount of
emissions. The State has submitted model rules applicable to each of
the seven categories. EPA considers these draft regulations and expects
the State to submit final rules within the next several months. EPA
believes that such rules, if adopted and legally enforceable, contain
control requirements sufficient to fulfill the RACT requirements.
(Bill Polglase, 629-5251)
Stage I Throughput
Tennessee's Stage I requirements for gasoline service stations
allow an exemption for stations with throughput of less than 260,000
gallons per year rather than specifying the tank size as recommended.
EPA proposed to conditionally approve the regulation provided the above
deficiencies are corrected and submitted to EPA by March 1, 1980.
Michigan had a similar case and was treated in a like manner in a
Federal Register notice dated August 13, 1979. (Bill Polglase, 629-5251)
Conditional Approval of Cutback Asphalt Regulations
The conditional approvals of cutback asphalt regulations to date
have primarily involved two issues. The first is the allowable period
for exemptions and the second issue is allowable percent solvent in an
emulsified asphalt.
The seasonal exemption for cutback asphalt is primarily predicated
on the technical problems associated with the application of emulsified
asphalt on cold days. Coincidental to this is the fact that ozone is
not formed on cold days. Accordingly, approval of an exemption for the
-------
cold weather months should be based on the occurrences of days with cold
weather (generally November through Harch) and the difficulty with the
application of emulsified asphalts during cold weather periods. It
should not be based on the lack of ozone violations during these months.
The exemption for emulsified asphalts containing in excess of five
percent of VOC must be conditionally approved. As was stated in
Richard Rhoads1 March 6, 1979 memorandum to the Regional Office Division
Directors, "Cutback Asphalt VOC Regulations," if less than five percent
of the total solvent has evaporated up to and including 600 F in a
distillation test done according to ASTM Method D-702, "Distillation of
Cutback Asphalt Products," the cutback should be considered to be one
which will not emit VOC under field conditions.
Information EPA has received on the subject of solvent content in
emulsified asphalt does not support the allowance of a blanket solvent
content for emulsified asphalt. The intent of EPA guidance has been for
States to specify in the regulations and justify those emulsions and/or
applications where addition of solvent is necessary. Where States
failed to do this and instead proposed across the board solvent contents,
EPA stated that a five percent across the board content would be acceptable.
The alternative to the five percent maximum is to follow the guidance
and specify necessary solvent contents on the basis of application or
asphalt grade. In such an instance, more than five percent solvent
contents will be allowed. The following maximum solvent contents for
specific emulsified asphalt applications have appeared in EPA guidance
and are based on ASTM, AASHTO, and State specifications and on information
recently received from the Asphalt Institute.
Use Maximum Solvent Content
Seal coats in early spring or | 3%
late fall
Chip seals when dusty or dirty 3%
aggregate is used
Mixing with open graded aggregate 8%
that is not well washed
Mixing with dense grade aggregate 12%
Standardized language on this issue will be forthcoming shortly.
In the meantime, sample language on percent solvent for New York and
Pennsylvania is attached. (Debbie Prather, 629-5365)
-------
Criteria for Ozone Redesignation
Due to the revised form of the ozone NAAQS (expected exceedances),
questions concerning the amount of air quality data needed and the
methodology for interpreting it for purposes of Section 107 nonattainment
designations have arisen. Previous policy required two years (eight
quarters) of ambient data showing no violations or four quarters of
ambient data and commensurate emission reductions to justify an attain-
ment designation. However, the revised ozone NAAQS and the accompanying
"Guidelines for the Interpretation of Ozone Air Quality Standards" (EPA-
450/4-79-003) sets forth a new methodology for determining the attainment
status. The new methodology allows a designation of attainment to be
based on as little as one oxidant season's monitoring data if the
criteria (expected exceedances) set forth in the guideline are met
although three years of ambient data is preferred. Therefore, for ozone
only, the previous designation criteria are superseded by this expected
exceedances methodology whereby the probability of an exceedance of the
0.12 ppm NAAQS must be <_ 1 for a designation of attainment.
(Lanny Deal, 629-5365).
Public Hearings for SIP Revisions Dealing with Public Notification
The question of whether or not public hearings need to be held for
the Section 127 public notification SIP revisions has been raised. In
general, it is not felt that public hearings are needed for this item since
such a revision is not considered to significantly affect the program for
attainment and maintenance of the national standards. If public hearings
are being held for other SIP revisions, it is prudent to include the
revisions on public notification. However, if this is the only SIP
revision at hand, it is not necessary to hold a public hearing for just
this revision. Of course, the State should be sure that it follows its
own requirements for public hearings. (Bill Beal, 629-5365)
Other Questions
A number of other questions relating to SIPs have arisen. These
generally require only a brief response and are detailed below.
1. Ozone/CO extension requests--EPA can accept a plan in which a State
requests an extension to 1987 even though its RFP demonstration projects
attainment by 1982, especially if the State meets all of the requirements
associated with the extension. That requirement, of course, is to
demonstrate that attainment is not possible even with the implementation
of all reasonably available measures.
Moreover, an extension cannot be conditionally granted and then rescinded
on the grounds that the requirements of Section 172(b)(l.l) have not been
complied with. These 172(b)(ll) requirements are not requirements that
must be satisfied prior to approving an extension request; they are
requirements which come into effect upon EPA's granting of the extension.
-------
2. Rural areas - Rural areas are defined as all areas less than 200,000,
which is the Bureau of Census definition.
3. Conditional approval - Regional Offices should not impose conditional
approval dates that are more stringent than those prepared by the States
since EPA needs assurances that the States will meet the conditional
approval requirements. This kind of a situation would likely lead to
sanctions.
-------
Fe.doral Register / Vol. •) I. No. 1-17 / Mondav
.')(). 1!>7!) / Proposed Rules
• Part 211—General Prohibitions
Part 211 r.oiil;iins a Renerai prohibition
against polluting the air and rejjulales
visible, emissions. Il also contains a new
s.'dinn (Section 2I1.-I) which prohibits
tin; (isc of VOC's lo liquify ;isphalt used
for paving purposes except under
ceil a in circumstances.
The Stale lias included an exemption
fur cutback asphalt used in the
m.imifaeturp. of asphalt dnulr.icms with
low VOC content (less III.in IV; by
weight), in describing K:\CI" for this
source category, KPA did not deem this
exemption necessary. However. Ihi:
St.ilt: determined otherwise because of
certain application problems for
emulsions with no VOC content and the
inability of some nsphall manufacturers
lo produce solvcnl-free emulsions.
However, this is a Rcncval rxr.mption
not restricted lo specific ;ipplicalions
justified by the Stain. Therefore. F.PA is
proposing to conditionally npprfn'e this
rcj;iilali)ry provision pnnidi'd the Stnle
{-omiiiils lo iniiiinii7in.«: Ihi' snlvrnl
ciinli'iil in all (iilurt1 i'inul':ifn%il .Kph.ill
usapi'- On or hf.loro. Srpiombi'r 1. I'J'U.
tin: Stale shall submit I" I'-I'A in
enforceable procedure for carrying out
this objccliVe.
I-'cdcra!
/ Vol. -M. No. M.'l / Tiicsd.i y. |nly ?A. 1
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DATE:
2 1 NOV 1979
PN-110-79-11-21-023
SUBJECT: Minimum Number of Samples for Determining Quarterly Average Lead
Concentration
FROM: Richard G. Rhoads, Director
Control Programs Development Division, OAQPS (MD 15)
TO-. Director, Air & Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
In the preamble to the lead SIP regulations of October 5, 1978 (43
FR 46264), it was stated that EPA would provide guidance regarding the
minimum number of valid samples needed to determine quarterly average
lead concentrations. The preamble also cited the general practice that
at least 75 percent of the scheduled samples must be valid in order to
determine average concentrations. OAQPS has reviewed this issue and has
concluded that the "75 percent rule" is appropriate for determining
attainment with the NAAQS for lead. This means that, at the sampling
frequency of one 24-hour sample every six days (15 samples per quarter),
at least 12 valid lead samples must be available to determine whether a
State is attaining the national standard.
This criterium applies to the review of existing data submitted as
part of the original lead plan, as well as all future data collected
through the required NAMS stations. In the event that situations arise
where the minimum number of valid samples are not available, further
guidance may be sought by contacting Mr. William Cox, Chief, Monitoring
and Reports Branch at (FTS) 629-5312.
cc: Director, Surveillance & Analysis Division, Regions I-X
R.-Neligan
B. Cox
T. Helms
EPA Font. 1320-6 (R«v. 3-76)
-------
i UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
v Office of Air Quality Pljinnmci nwl Standards
'«< wo'*0 Research Tri.int|lo Park. North'Carolina 27711
OCT 2 1979 PN-110-79-10-02-022
SUBJECT: Amendments to Ambient Monitoring Regulations
FROM: Richard G. Rhoads, Director
Control Programs Development Division, OAQPS
Robert E. Neligan, Director
Monitoring and Data Analysis Division, OAQPS
TO: Director, Air & Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
Director, Surveillance & Analysis Division, Regions I-X
As you know, the ambient air monitoring SIP revisions required by
the regulations promulgated on May 10, 1979 (44 FR 27558-27604), are due
January 1, 1980. An issue has been raised concerning the need for the
States to hold public hearings on these SIP revisions. Apparently,
changes in monitoring networks have been made in the past in some States
without holding a public hearing.
The Office of General Counsel agrees that the SIP revisions will be
essentially non-substantive and that the States should not be required
to hold hearings on these revisions. You may therefore advise your
States accordingly.
-------
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRON.N ENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
"^^} o
j^\^fi ? WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
X«-r PN-110-79-09-21-021
OFFICE OF
SEP ? 1 197Q A'R AN° WASTE MANAGEMENT
SUBJECT: Secondary Standards Attainment Plans - Extensions
of Submittal Date
FROM: David G. Hawkins, Assistant Administrator
for Air, Noise, and Radiation
MEMO TO: Director, Air & Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I, III-X
Director, Environmental Programs Division, Region II
The purpose of this memorandum is to clarify the requirement for
submission of State Implementation Plans for attainment of secondary
standards.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 require that SIPs be
submitted by January 1, 1979, for attainment of primary and secondary
standards in all nonattainnient areas. However, Section 110(b) of
the Act authorizes the Administrator to grant up to 18-month extensions
for submission of SIPs (or portions thereof) for attainment of
secondary standards.
Agency policy regarding these extensions is contained in
4C CFR 51.31, and requires that any request for an extension must
be accompanied by a showing that attainment of the secondary standards
will require emission reductions exceeding those which can be
acnieved through application of reasonably available control measjres.
cc: J. Sernstein
M. Durning
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
(40 CFR Part 52]
[FRL 1316-4!
State Implementation Plans; General
Preamble for Proposed Rulemaking on
Approval ol Plan Re ' Ions for
Nonattainment Areas—Supplement
(on Control Techniques Guidelines)
AGENCY; Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: General preamble for proposed
rulemaking—Supplement.
SUMMARY: Provisions of the Clean Air
Act enacted in 1977 require states to
revise their State Implementation Plans
for all areas that have not attained
National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. States are to have submitted
the necessary plan revisions to EPA by
January 1,1979. The Agency is now
publishing proposals inviting public
comment on whether each of the
submittals should be approved. These '
are followed by final actions on the
submitlals. In the April 4.1979 issue of
Ihe Federal Register, EPA published a
General Preamble identifying and
summarizing the major considerations
that will guide EPA's evaluation of the
submittals (44 FR 20372). This was
followed by a correction of a
typographical error on April 30 (44 FR
25243) and Supplements on |uly 2 (44 FR
30583) and August 28 (44 FR 50371).
Today's Supplement provides further
discussion on Control Techniques
Guidelines for stationary sources of
volatile organic compounds.
For Further Information Contact: The
appropriate EPA regional office listed on
the first page of the April 4.1979
General Preamble (44 FR 20372} or the
following headquarters office: G. T.
Helms. Chief. Control Programs
Operations Branch. Control Programs
Development Division, EPA Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards
(MD-15), Research Triangle Park. North
Carolina 27711. (919) 541-5365 or 541-
5228.
Public Comment: As explained in the
April 4 General Preamble. EPA Regional
Administrators are publishing Federal
Register proposals inviting comment on
whether the individual plan submittals
should be approved. The General
Preamble, the July 2 Supplement, the
August 28 Supplement, and this
Supplement are notices of proposed
rulemaking. applicable to each decision
by EPA whether to approve a state plan
submittal. EPA's final action will be in
the form of a ruling approving or
disapproving the individual plan
submittal. If the discussion in this
Supplement requires alteration of any
comments on a plan for which the
comment period has already ended, the
commenter should contact the
appropriate EPA Regional Office
immediately so that the issue can be
appropriately resolved.
Supplementary Information: General
background information is set out at
length in the April 4 General Preamble.
This Supplement provides further
discussion on the Control Techniques
Guidelines (CTGs) issued by EPA for
sources of volatile organic compounds
(VOC). (VOC is a chemical precursor or
ozone, and is therefore controlled in
plans for the ozone ambient standard).
In several proposals involving .
particular state plan submittals, EPA
has stated that the submitted regulations
for control of sources of VOC were not
supported by the information in the
CTGs. Where EPA noted a problem, the
Agency proposed that the State would
have to provide an adequate
demonstration that its regulations
represent reasonably available control
technology (RACT), or amend the
regulations to be consistent with the
information in the CTGs. The purpose of
the following discussion is to explain
generally the legal and'policy
considerations supporting these
proposals, and to discuss in general the
purpose of the CTGs.
1. RACT for Otone Plans. In the 1977
amendments to the Clean Air Act,
Congress specified that, in order for a
state implementation plan (SIP) to
satisfy the requirements of Part D of
Title I of the Act (Part D). the SIP must
provide for application of all reasonably
available control measures, which
includes RACT for all stationary
sources.1 In using the term "reasonably
available control technology," Congress
apparently adopted EPA's pre-existing
conception of the term.2
EPA has defined RACT as: The lowest
emission limitation that a particular
source is capable of meeting by the
application of control technology that is
reasonably available considering
technological and economic feasibility.*
RACT for a particular source is
determined on a case-by-case basis,
considering the technological and
economic circumstances of the
individual source.
PN-110-79-09-17-020
-------
EPA regulations provide that less
stringent emission limitations than those
achievable with RACT are acceptable
only if the State plan shows that the less
stringent limitations are sufficient to
attain and maintain national ambient air
quality standards, and show reasonable
further progress during the interim
before attainment.4 Otherwise, RACT
limitations are required, as discussed in
detail in the April 4 General Preamble.*
2. EPA's Control Techniques
Guidelines. In the 1977 amendments to
the Act, Congress instructed States to
begin revising their plans to assure .
attainment of standards, and also
instructed EPA to prepare guidance
material to assist states in their efforts
to develop ozone plans. While EPA's
main effort was to prepare material on
control of transportation sources.
Congress also required the Agency to
publish, and make available to State air
pollution control agencies, information
on control of emissions from non-
transportation sources including fuel
transfer and storage operations and
operations using solvents.* Congress
stated its intent that these documents
were "to be a basic resource available
to State and local governments in
determining the measures to be included
in plans to achieve and maintain the
national ambient air quality
standards." 'While deliberating on the
1977 amendments to the Act containing
these specific instructions. Congress
was aware that EPA had already begun
preparing a series of CTGs to provide
guidance to States and industry on
controlling stationary sources of VOC.8
Each CTG describes techniques
available for reducing emissions of VOC
from a category of sources, and states
recommended levels of control. There
were 11 such CTG's published before
January 1978. and 9 published during
1978. EPA intends the CTG's to serve the
following functions:
a. Informing the States. The primary
purposes of each CTG is to inform the
State and local air poliution control
agencies of air pollution control
techniques available for reducing
emissions of VOC from the class of
sources covered by the CTG. This
information, involving the capabilities
and problems general to the industry,
should be useful to both control
agencies and industry in developing
needed emission limitations for
stationary sources within the State.
b. Establishing the Deadline for
Submitting SIP Requirements. EPA
believes that States will be able to make
more technologically sound decisions in
adopting emission limitations if they are
permitted to defer adoption until after
the information in the CTGs is available.
Therefore. EPA has stated that a SIP
revision due January 1,1979 is
acceptable if it includes necessary
emission limitations for source
categories covered by CTGs published
by January 1978.9 Emission limitations
for source categories covered by CTGs
published between January 1978 and
January 1979 must be adopted and
submitted to EPA by July 1,1980. l°
c. Recommendation to States. Along
with information, each CTG contains
recommendations to the States of what
EPA calls the "presumptive norm" for
RACT. based on EPA's current
evaluation of the capabilities and
problems general to the industry. Where
the States finds the presumptive norm
applicable to an.individual source or
group of sources. EPA recommends that
the State adopt requirements consistent
with the presumptive norm level in order
to include RACT limitations in the SIP."
However, recommended controls are.
based on capabilities and problems
which are general to the industry; they
do not take into account the unique
circumstances of each facility. In many
cases appropriate controls would be
more or less stringent. States are urged
to judge the feasibility of imposing the
recommended controls on particular
sources, und adjust Ihe controls
accordingly.
The presumptive norm is only a
recommendation. For any source of
group of sources, regardless of whether
they fall within the industry norm, the
•44 FR 20376 col. 3 (April 4.1979): 43 FR 21678
(May 3.1978).
"See memorandum from David G. Hawkins. EPA
Assistant Administrator for Air. Noise and
Radiation, to Regional Administrator. Regioni I-X.
on "State Implementation Plans/Revised Schedules
for Submitting Reasonably Available Control
Technology Regulations for Stationary Sources of
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)" (August 22,
1979). The July 1.1980 deadline is six months I alar.
than (he deadline EPA had announced in the
statements cited in footnote 9. Since Ihe process of
adopting regulations appears more lengthy than first
anticipated, additional lime may be necessary to
accommodate public, administrative, and legislative
review.
Adoption of emission limitations may not be
deferred until after publication of CTGs where
deferral would result in failure to achieve
reasonable further progress. Set 44 FR 20377 n. 25
(April 4, 1979).
"Or requirements that deviate imperceptibly
(e.g., up to 5 percent less control) from the
recommended presumptive norm.
State may develop case-by-case RACT
requirements independently of EPA's
recommendation. EPA will propose to
approve any submitted RACT
requirement that the State shows will
satisfy the requirements of the Act for
RACT. based on the economic and
technical circumstances of the particular
sources being regulated.
d. Basis for the EPA Decision on
Approval. EPA sought information from
the relevant industries in preparing the
/fcTGs. and EPA believes that the
information in the CTGs is highly
relevant to the decision whether to
approve State regulations. For SIPs that
must include RACT limitations, each
CTG will be part of the rulemaking
record on which EPA's decision will be
based."However, the CTG does not
establish conclusively how issues must
be resolved. In reviewing an individual
regulation. EPA will consider not only
the information in the CTG. but also any
material included in the State submittal
and in public comments on the
submittal.
For emission limitations that are
consistent with the information in the
CTGs. therefore, the State may be able
to rely solely on the information in the
CTG to support its determination that
the adopted requirements represent
RACT. Where this is not the case, EPA
believes that the State must submit
justification of its own, to support its
determination. EPA will then consider
the information submitted by the State.
together with the information in the
CTG and public comment.
Note: Under Rxccuiive Order 12OI4 EPA is
required to judjje whether a regulation is
"significant" and therefore subject to
procedural requirements of the Order or
whether it may follow other specialized
development procedures. EPA labels these
other regulations "specialized." 1 have
reviewed this regulation and determined that
it it a specialized regulation not subject to the
procedural requirements of Executive Order
12044.
(Sees. 110(8). 172. Clean Air Act. as amended
(42U.S.C. 7410(a), 7502)).
Dated: September S. 1979.
David G. Hawkins,
Auistont Administrator for Air. Noise and
Radiation.
IHt Doc. 79-ZS7W Filed 9-14-79. 8:45 »m|
MUM COOt 6MO-OI-M
"This it what was meant by EPA's statement
dul "the criteria for SIP approval rely heavily upon
•k* Information contained in the CTG." 44 FR 21670
(Xtjr lH 1878).
-------
' Sections 172(b)(2H3) of UM Act (42 U.S.C.
7S02(b)(2H3)].
1 Congros did not adopt iti own definition of
"RACT." and was well aware o( how EPA used the
terra. See. e.g., Hearing! on H.R. 4151. H.R. 4758. and
H.R. 4444 before the Subcommittee on Health and
Environment of the House Committee on Interstate
and Foreign Commerce. 95lh Cong.. 1st S«»».. Part 2
at 1806.1825 (Serial No. 95-59. March B-ll and April
18.1977).
1 EPA articulated its definition of RACT in a
memorandum from Roger Slrelow. Assistant
Administrator for Air and Waste Management to
Regional Administrator!. Regions I-X. on
"Guidance for Determining Acceptability of SIP
Regulations in Non-attainment Areas." section l.a
(December 9.1978). reprinted in (1978) 7
Environmental Reporter. Current Development*
(BNA) 1210 col. 2: and in EPA's publication
Workshop on Requirements for Non-attainment
Area Plant—Compilation of Presentations 154
(OAQPS No. 1.2-103. revised edition April 1978).
•40 CFR 51.1(o)(l). The regulation! refer only to
attainment and maintenance. The analogous
requirement for the SIP to show reasonable further
progress was established by the 1977 amendments.
See 44 FR 20375 col. 3 (April 4.1979).
• 44 FR 20375-20377.
'Section l08IO(l)(A)(ii) of the Act (40 USC
7408(0(1 )(A)(ii).
' Report to accompany S. 2SZ S. Rep. No. 95-127,
9Sth Cong.. 1st Sess. 24. (May 10.1977).
'See Hearings, note 2 above. Part 2 at 1427-32.
EPA's authority to publish information and
recommended levels of control is provided by
section 103[b)(l) (40 USC 7403(b)(l)). which
generally authorizes EPA to publish "information.
including appropriate recommendation!" to assist
air pollution control agencies, in addition to section
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
«TE.. 2 3 AUG 1979
SUBJECT: SIP Issue Memorandum #1 (Conditional Approvals,
18-Month Extensions) PN-no-79-08-23-oi9
FROM.- Q. T. Helms, Chief
Control Programs Operations Branch
TO: Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X
At the Regional Office/OAQPS Air Programs Workshop at
Southern Pines, North Carolina, in July, OAQPS agreed to initiate
a series of SI." issue memorandums. These will focus on issues
that have been defined through the special action Federal Register
packages for the nonattainment revisions and will describe the
approaches that were taken to resolve the issues. (If there are
further questions on any of these issues, the names and phone
numbers of the Control Programs Development Division staff person
who has worked the closest with that issue is provided.) Two
broad topics are covered in this initial memo: (1) Conditional
Approvals and (2) 18-month Extensions. Additional topics will be
forthcoming in the immediate future.
Conditional Approvals
Where a plan has been revised to be in substantial compliance
with the requirements of Part D and the State provides assurances that
any remaining minor deficiencies will be remedied within a short period,
imposition of the restriction on new sources during that period would
not serve the purpose of the Act. Therefore, under certain circum-
stances, EPA interprets the Act to permit the plan to be conditionally
approved as satisfying Part D requirements. Nearly all plans for which
action has been proposed in the Federal Register have included proposed
approvals of certain portions of the SIP with conditions that corrective
actions be completed in a stated time period. These proposed conditional
approvals cover a broad range of topics. However, because of various
EPA policies and requirements, conditional approvals, should not be
granted for plan deficiencies such as the following:
- Failure to meet requirements for TSP SIP revisions. A State
submitted a SIP revision for TSP which consisted of a commitment to
perform the necessary analyses, develop the necessary control measures,
and prepare the necessary plan revisions by a future date. Such a
SIP revision was determined to be unapprovable as it consisted of no
enforceable measures. An example of this type of action can be noted
in the Federal Register proposal for Texas (44 FR 45204, August 1, 1979--
Attachment 1).
- Actions on non Part D_requirements such_as PSD. A State plan
revision (Vermont) was submitted which included PSD regulations. These
regulations were reviewed and determined to be equivalent to EPA's PSD
requirements with the exceptions of certain definitions, BACT review
EPA, FOPM 1320-6 (REV. 3-76!
-------
procedures, monitoring and modeling requirements, and growth analysis.
An approval of these regulations on the condition that the deficiencies
would be corrected by November 1 was considered. Such approval was
determined to be inappropriate as it was not necessary. Conditional
approvals are only to be granted with respect to the Part D or sanc-
tionable requirements and need not be considered for the other non
Part D SIP provisions. The Regional Office divided the Federal
Register notice into two parts—Vermont's Nonattainment SIP Revision
and General SIP Measures. The PSD plan was included in the General
SJP Measures. Example wording for the proposed action for PSD can
be noted in the Proposal for Vermont (44 FR 40078, July 9, 1979—
Attachment 2).
- Lack of legal authority for inspection/maintenance (I/Ml. A
State which needed an I/M program submitted a Part D SIP revision
without evidence of adequate legal authority to implement or enforce
such a program. Absent an approved extension of the June 30, 1979
deadline for I/M legal authority, EPA is proposing that lack of I/M
legal authority is not subject to conditional approval and that the
SIP should be disapproved. An example of this type of action can be
found in. the Federal Register proposal for Michigan (40 CFR 45350-
47356, August 13, 1979—Attachment 3). Lack of commitments to
implement and enforce the I/M program or the lack of an implemen-
tation schedule are additional Part D requirements which cannot be
conditionally approved.
(CPDD Contact: Leo Stander, FTS: 629-5365.)
18-Honth Extensions
Minnesota asked for an 18-month extension for submittal of the SIP
revision for the secondary national ambient air quality standard for
TSP. On July 20, 1979 Region V submitted a final Federal Register
package approving Minnesota's request--(Attachment 4)~
Two items are of particular interest in this case. First, the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.31 were met since Minnesota showed that attain-
ment cannot be achieved without emission reductions greater than those
that can be achieved through the application of reasonably available
control technology. The SIP revision must be submitted to EPA by
July 1, 1980.
Second, the Emission Offset Interpretative Ruling (January 16, 1979)
will apply to the secondary nonattainment areas until December 1, 1980
or until Minnesota submits and EPA approves a SIP revision containing
preconstruction review, whichever comes first. If a SIP revision is not
approved by December 1, 1980, those secondary nonattainment areas will
be in a no-growth situation.
(CPDD Contact: Brock Nicholson, FTS: 629-5365.)
Attachments
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DATE: JUL 16 1979
: Revision to Procedure for Projecting Automotive Lead Emissions
PN-110-79-07-16-018
: Richard G. Rhoads, Director
Control Programs Development Division, OAQPS
TO: Director, Air & Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
I am attaching for your information, use, and distribution to the
appropriate State and local agencies, 20 copies of • revision to Section
4.3 of the Supplementary Guidelines for Lead Implementation Plans
(EPA-450/2-78-038). The revision presents a new procedure which will
replace the existing procedure in Section 4.3 for projecting automotive
lead emissions. Also included are the necessary tables of data to allow
use of the new procedure.
I am aware that this revision coincides with the preliminary submittal
of some lead SIPs; however, I feel that the new procedure—which generally
indicates higher automotive lead emissions than did the previous
procedure—should be used to project lead emissions, as appropriate, in
as many lead SIPs as possible. Therefore, I am making the following
recommendations: first, all lead SIPs which have not yet been submitted
for EPA review should use the new procedure described in the revised
Section 4.3; second, those SIPs already submitted, which use the automotive
lead projections as part of their control strategy to correct violations
of the ambient lead standard measured since 1974, should be resubmitted
using the revised procedure. The above recommendations do not apply to
SIPs employing a valid projection technique other than that in the
existing Section 4.3.
You should also note that the revision being made affects the EPA
guideline, "Development of an Example Control Strategy for Lead"
(EPA-450/2-79-002). Specifically affected are equations 2.3 (p.14), 2.4
and 2.5 (p.15) and the related discussion, which are based on the
previous procedure. A substitute procedure is provided in the revised
material.
I intend to publish in the Federal Register a notice of availability
of the revised procedure. Meanwhile, States should be provided with
copies of the revision so that the necessary changes can be made.
i-ORM 1320-6 (REV. 3-76)
-------
If you have any questions or comments, please contact Dan deRoeck
of my staff at 629-5437.
Attachment
cc w/attachments: Walt Barber, OAQPS
Ed Tuerk, OANR
Charles Gray, OMSAPC
Jack Hidinger, OTLUP
Dan deRoeck, CPDD
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 128 / MonJay. July
PN-110-79-07-02-017
140 CFH Part 52
IFRL 1262-51
State Implementation Plans; General
Preamble for Proposed Rulematdng on
Approval of Plan Revisions for
Nonattainment Areas—Supplement
(on Public Comment and Conditional
Approval)
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: General preamble for proposed
rulemaking—Supplement.
SUMMARY: Provisions of the Clean Air
Act enacted in 1977 require sinles to
revise their Slate Implementation Plan*
for all areas that have not attained
National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. Stales are to have submitted
ihe necessary plan revisions to EPA by
January 1.1979. The Agency is now
publishing proposals inviting public
comment on whether each of the
siibmiltals should be approved. In the
April 4. 1979 issue of Ihe Federal
Register. EPA published a General
Preamble identifying and summarizing
the major considerations that will guide
EPA's evaluation of Ihe submtttals (44
FR 20372). Today's Supplement provides.
further elaboration on two issues—
public comment and conditional
approval.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
The appropriate EPA regional office
lislfid on the first page of !ne General
Preamble (44 FR 20372) or Ihe following
headquarters office: G. T. Helms. Chief.
Control Programs Operations Branch.
Control Programs Development Division.
EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (MD-15). Research Triangle
Park. Norlh Carolina 27711. (919) 541-
53C5 or 541-5228.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
background is set out at length in the
April 4 General Preamble. This
Supplement addresses issues that
appear to need further elaboration.
1. Public Comment
As explained in the April 4 General
Preamble. EPA Regional Administrators
ere publishing Federal Register
proposals inviting comment on whether
the individual plnn submiltuls should be
approved. The General Preamble and
this Supplement arc notices of proposed
rulemaking. applicable to each decision
by EPA whether to approve a slate plan
submittal. EPA's final action will be in
Ihe form of approving or disapproving
the individual plan submittaj.
A plan may be approved only if it
satisfies the requirements of ihe Clean
Air Act and EPA regulations. To assist
the public in commenting on whether
EPA should approve or disapprove
individual plan submitlals. EPA
published in the General Preamble and
this Supplement a summary of the most
important requirements of the Act. EPA
regulations, and EPA's interpretations
and policies. Since the General
Preamble is a notice of proposed
rulemaking. the interpretations and
policies referred to in it do not now
establish conclusively how every issue
must be resolved. In reviewing each
individual plan submittal. EPA will
consider the justification submitted by
the stale with its pl.m.tho public
comments on whether the plan should
be approved, and other relevant
matcriul in the rolemakinif record—ns\N
well as the interpretations and policies "•
referred to in the General Preamble,
2. Conditional Approvals
For purposes of determining whether
a SIP satisfies the requirements of Part
D. EPA intends to grant conditional
approvals under certain circumstances.
The Act and existing SIPs provide.for a .
restriction on construction of major new
sources of pollution if a revised plan is
not in effect by July 1.1979, to satisfy
Ihe requirements of Part D. The purpose
of the restriction on new sources is not
to punish a stale for failure to control
pollution, but rather to prevent the
pollution problem from getting worse.
The restriction would postpone
construction that would worsen a
violalion of a national standard until
after an acceptable plan is in effect Ihat"
assures timely attainment of the
standard. Where a plan has been
revised so as lo be in substantial
compliance with the requirements of
Part D. and the stale provides
assurances that nny remaining minor
deficiencies will be remedied within a
short period, imposition of Ihe
restriction on new sources during that
period would not serve the
congressional purpose. Therefore, under
such circumstances EPA interprets the
Act lo permit Ihe plan to be
conditionally approved as satisfying
Part D requirements.
If a stale submits a SIP containing
minor deficiencies, and the state
provides nssurunccs thnt it will submit
corrections on u specified schedule. F.PA
will conditionally approve the plan. The
EPA Regional Office will negotiate with
the state on an acceptable schedule
prior to final action. A conditional
approval will mean that the restriction
on new sources will not apply unless the
state fails to submit corrections by the
specified date, or unless the corrections
are ultimately dctrcrmined lo be
inadequate. Conditional approval will
not be granted withourstrang_assurance
by the appropriate stale officials that ~"
the deficiencies will be corrected on
In developing comments on whether
individual plans satisfy the
requirements of Pnrt D. members of the
public should keep in mind the three
possible outcomes: full approval.
disapproval, and conditional approval
If this discussion of conditional approval
requires alteration of any comments on •
a plan for which the comment period
hus nlroady ended, the commtinler
should contact the appropriate EPA
Regional Office immcdiulely so that the
issue cnn be appropriately dcnll with.
Nolo.—Under Executive Order 121H4 ETA
is required lo judge whether a regulation.!*
"significant" and therefore subject lo Ihe
procedural requirements of Ihe Order or.
whether it may follow other specialized
development procedures. EPA labels these
other regulations "specialized". 1 hove
reviewed Ihij regulation and determined that
it is a specialized regulation not subject to the
procedural requirements of Executive Order
12044.
(Sees. T10(a]. 172. Clean Air Act. as amended
(42 U.S.C. 7410(a). 7002)).
Dated: June 27.1979.
David G. Hawkins.
Assistant Administrator for Air. Noise and
Radiation.
|r« Doc. 7»-20430 F.lfd 6-S>-7». MS
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
DATE-. J\JN \ 4 1979 Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
TO:
PN-110-79-06-14-016
G. T. Helms, Chief
Control Programs Operations Branch, CPDD (MD-15)
Air Branch Chief, Regions I-X
As you know, the SIP requirements for lead are set forth in
40 CFR Part 51, Subpart E, as promulgated on October 5, 1978. Questions
have arisen concerning the interpretation of these requirements in those
instances where no violations of the national ambient lead standard have
been recorded since January 1, 1974, no significant lead point sources
[as described in 40 CFR 51.80(a)] exist, and the State has no urbanized
area with a 1970 population greater than 500,000.
In cases where such conditions exist, a plan submission is still
required. This plan should minimally contain information pertaining
to lead emissions data (Section 51.81) and air quality data (Section
51.82). It must be submitted by the State and demonstrate continued
attainment (i.e., maintenance) of the standard for a minimum of three
years. The specific information that should be contained in this type
of plan is as follows:
1. A baseline emission inventory summarized in a form similar to
Appendix D of 40 CFR Part 51. Stationary sources emitting five or more
tons of lead per year must be included in such inventories. This inventory
must also contain area sources and mobile sources. [Section 51.81 (a)]
2. Projected lead emissions for at least three years from the date
by which EPA must approve or disapprove the plan. [Section 51.81(b)]
3. A summary of all lead air quality data measured since 1974 and
an evaluation of the data for reliability and representativeness.
[Section 51.82(a)]
4. A projection of maximum air quality concentrations based on
projected emissions. [Section 51.82(c)]
If you have any questions concerning minimum SIP requirements for
the above mentioned situations, please contact Susi Jackson at 629-5365.
cc: Jim Cahan, OGC
>RM 1320-6 [REV. 3-76)
-------
PN-110-79-04-04-015
Wednesday
April 4, 1979
Part Ml:
Environmental
Protection Agency
General Preamble for Proposed
Rulemaking on Approval of State
Implementation Plan Revisions for
Nonattainment Areas
-------
20372
Federal RegUtet / Vol. 44. No. 66 / Wednesday. April 4. 1979 / imposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[40 CFR Part 52]
State Implementation Plans; General
Preamble for Proposed Rulemaking on
Approval of Plan Revisions for
Nonattainment Areas
AGENCY: Environment! Protection
Agency.
ACTION: General preamble for proposed
mlemaking.
SUMMARY: Provisions of the Clean Air
Act enacted in 1977 require states to
revise their State Implementation Plans
for all areas that have no! attained
National Ambient Air Qur.lity
Standards. States are to have submitted
the necessary plan revisions to EPA by
January l, 1979. During the next several
months. EPA will be publishing
proposals inviting public comment on
whether each of the submittals should
be approved. This General Preamble
supplements these proposals by
identifying the major considerations that
will guide EPA's evaluation of ihn
submittals.
COMMENTS: As State plan submiitals are
received, EPA Regional Administrators
will publish Federal Register proposals
inviting comment on whether the
submittals should be approved. Even
before the formal EPA proposal is
published, in some instances Regional
Administrators are publishing notices
announcing receipt of SIP submittals,
and availability of the submittals for
public inspection. Each proposal or
other notice inviting comment will state
the address and closing date for
submittal of comments to the
appropriate EPA Regional Office.
For Further Information Contact the
Appropriate EPA Regional or Headquarters
Office
Betsy Home. Air Branch. Ei'A Region I. )FK
Federal Building, Boston. Mass. 02203. (617)
223-4448 (Connecticut. Maine,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire. Rhode
Island, Vermont).
William S. Baker, Chief. Air Programs
Branch, EPA Region II. 26 Federal Pla-.in, New
York. N.Y. 10007, (212) 2G4-2517 (New York,
New Jersey. Puerto Rico. Virgin Islands).
Howard Heim. Chief.-Air Programs Brunch.
EPA Region III. Curtis Building. Sixlh and
Walnut Streets, Philadelphia. Pa. 19106. (215)
597-8175 (Delaware, Maryland. Pennsylvania.
Virginia. West Virginia. District of Columbia).
Walter H. Bishop, Air Programs Br.im.h. EPA
Region IV. 345 Courtland Si rent. N.E..
Atlanta. Ca. 30308. (404) BiJJ-.'J-'HG (/M.jb.imn.
Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi,
North Carolina, Tennessee, South Carolina).
Debra Costello, Air Programs Branch, EPA
Region V, 230 South Dearborn Street,
Chicago. 111. 60604, (312) 353-2205 (Indiana,
Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio.
Wisconsin).
Jerry Stubberfield, Chief, SIP Section, Air
Programs Branch, EPA Region VI. 1201 Elm
Street, Dallas. Tex. 75270, (214) 767-2742 .
(Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, New
Mexico, Texas).
William Spratlin. Chief, Air Support Branch.
EPA Region VII, 324 East llth Street, Kansas
City, Mo. 64106, (816) 374-3791 (Nebraska,
iowa, Kansas, Missouri).
Robert DeSpain, Chief, Air Brunch, EPA
Region VIII, I860 Lincoln Street, Denver,
Colo. 80295, (303) 837-3471 (Montana, Utah.
North Dakota. South Dakout. Wyoming.
Colorado).
Douglas Grano, Chief, Regulatory Section. Air
Tochnical Branch, EPA Rogion IX. 215
Fremont Street. San Francisco. CJil 94105,
(415) 556-2338 (California. Nevada. Arizona,
Iliiwaii, American Samoa. Guam. \orthern
Muriana Islands).
Clark Gaulding, Chief. Air Programs Branch,
EI'A Region X. 1200 Sixth Avonue, Seattle,
Wash. H6101. (206) 442-1230 (Alaska.
Washington. Oregon, Idaho).
G. T. Helms. Chief. Conuol Programs
Operations branch. Control Programs
Development Division, KPA Offico of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (MD-15).
Research Triangle Park. North Carolin.i
27711. (91S) 541-5365 or 541-5^(5
(Huadqiiiiilors).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Out/inn
L Background
II. Approval of Individual SIP Elements
A. Basic Requirements
B. Further Guidance
1. Enforceabiiity
2. Stringency
3. Relaxation or Revocation
III. Approval of a Revised Sll3 os' Satisfying
Part D Requirements
A. Basic Requirements
1. Requirements for All Part D SIPS
2. Additional Requirements for Ozone or
Carbon Monoxide SIPs with Attainment
Dates After 1982
B. Further Guidance
1. Need for All RACM
2. Schedules
3. Ozone Control Strategy
4. Inspection/Maintenance
5. Transportation Control Measures
6. Ozone Standard
7. Interstate and International Issues
8. Secondary Standards
9. Fugitive Dust
10. Preconstruction Review
a. Basic Statutory Requirements
b. Requirements From Ihe Emission Offset
Interpretative Ruling
c. Ci'.ographic Applicability
d. Exempted Types uf Sources
e. Banking
f. Pru'Jibiiion on New CorjlMi; !ion
11. Changes in Designation
IV. Approval of revised SIP as Satisfying
Non-Part D Requirements
I. Background
In the 1970 amendments to the Clean
Air Act,' Congress directed EPA to
establish primary National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protect
the public health, and secondary
NAAQS to protect the public welfare,
and directed the states to develop and
adopt State Implementation Plans (SIPs)
to attain and maintain the standards.
EPA was given responsibility for
reviewing SIPs and either approving
them, or disapproving them and
promulgating substitutes.
In 1971 EPA promulgated NAAQS for
sulfur oxides, partioulate matter, carbon
monoxide, ozone (originally called
photochemical oxidants). and nitrogen
dioxide.2 SIPs were developed and
placed into effect. To m«et statutory
deadlines, ths NAAQS were to have
been attained in most regions by 3975,
with some extensions until 1977.
By 1976 it became apparent that,
despite significant progress, SIPs were
inadequate to achieve the NAAQS in
many nreas of the country. EPA
therefore issued numerous calls for
statos to revise their SIPs to provide for
attainment. Questions also arose as to
whether, and under what circumstances.
ne\v stationary sources might legally be
permidnd to construct in areas where
Ihe NAAQS were not being met. In
response to these questions, EPA
published its Emission Offset
Interpretative Ruling,-1 which allowed
new construction in areas where
NAAQS wore violated as long as
slringen! conditions were me I thai
would assure further progress toward
attainment of Ihe standards.
In August 1977 Congress amended the
Act to (among other things) establish a
statutory approach to permit growth in
polluted areas, while requiring
attainment of Ihe NAAQS by specific
deadlines.''Congress first instructed
1 Tin: Clean Air Acl. as amended, is codified ut 42
U.S.C 74tn el say.
J40 CFR Part 50. EPA also promulgated a
hydrocarbons slundard "for use as a guide in
devising impltMiionlation plans lo :ir.hicvn oxidanl
sliind.irds." 40 CFR 50.10. On October 5.1078. EI'A
piiWishi-.il an NAAQS for lead. 40 CFR M.12. «a
added 43 FR 46250. However. Part D of !hc Acl
(discussed in the texl below) dons not rci|uir<: SIP
KulitmUais now due to implement Ihe lead standard.
The roquiromcnls that now govern Isnd SJP.s were
promulgated uiong with tin; standard. 40 CFR Par!
51. as amended 43 FR 4f>2f'S.
3Oiiginnlly promulgated on HccL-mbiM 21. I0rr».
the Ruling was n.v.enily reviwd. 4(1 Cl K I'iiri 51.
Appendix S. as revised 44 KR :I274 (January 10.
1WJ).
'Sections 107(U) and 172 >>f Ihe Acl |4.". II S.C.
710r(d) and 750.:); st-.-.iianis 12? (H) »ml !< I *>t lh<:
Footnotes continued on next page
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 68 / Wednesday. April 4, 1979 / Proposed Rules
20373
each state to list those areas where
NAAQS were still not attained as of
August 7,1977 (nonattainment areas],
and instructed EPA to promulgate the
list with any necessary changes. Each
state then had to submit a SIP revision
by January 1,1979, providing for
attainment of the NAAQS as
expeditiouslyas practicable, and for
primary standards no later than the end
of 1982 (or the end of 1987 for areas with
particularly difficult ozone or carbon
monoxide problems). Congress also
provided that EPA's Offset Ruling would
govern new source construction until
July 1.1979, after which da' •• proposed
major sources are to be reviewed under
the provisions of a revised SIP that
meets the requirements of Part D.6
A list of nonattainment areas was
promulgated on March 3,1978, with
some subsequent modification, and for
these areas states are now in the .
process of submitting adopted SIP
revisions to EPA for approval.6 During
the next several months. EPA will be
publishing proposals soliciting public
comment on whether each of the
submittals should be approved. This
General Preamble supplements these
proposals, by identifying the major
considerations that are guiding EPA's
evaluation of the submittals.
The fundmental requirements for
approval of SIPs are set out in Title I of
the Clean Air Act, and in EPA's
regulations at 40 CFR Part 51. On
February 24,1978, the Administrator of
EPA issued a memorandum
summarizing the elements that an
approved SIP must contain by July 1,
1979, to satisfy the Act's requirements
for nonattainment areas. The Agency
has also prepared guidance on how to
satisfy these basic requirements, and
clarifying the requirements where
necessary.7
Footnotes continued from last page
1877 Amendments. Pub. L. No. 95-95 (notes under 42
U.S.C. 7502).
5 There are some circumstances under which the
Offset Ruling will still apply. See note 36 below.
"EPA promulgated intitial designatiims and
invited public comment. 43 FR 8962 (March 3.19781.
(n response to the comment received. EPA modified
the designations in certain areas of the country, and
in in the process of modifying designations in some
uddilinnul areas. 43 FR 40412 (September 11.197UI
(EPA Regions I. IV. VI. VIII. X); 43 FR 4051)2
(September 12.1978) (EPA Region III); 43 FR 4SB9;i
(October 5.1978) (EPA Region V): 44 FR 5119
(junuary 25. 1979) (EPA Region !1).
'Title.I of the Act is codified at 42 U.S.C. Ch»|).
85. Subchap. I. The sections most relevant to this
Genera! Preamble, sections 107 through 128 and I'/t
through 176 of the Act. are codified at sections 7407
through 7428 and 7501 through 7506. respectively, of
42 U.S.C. The Administrator's memorandum on
criteria for approval was reproduced in the Federal
Register at 43 FR 21673 (May 19.1978). The guidance
material has been collected together for public
inspection, and a notice of availability wan
published al 44 FR 8311 (February B. 1979|.
The purpose of this General Preamble
is to summarize the principal
requirements, in order to assist the
public in preparing comments on the
approvability of the submittals.
However, there are additional, more
detailed requirements and explanations
in the statute, regulations, and guidance,
which interested parties may consult in
preparing comments.
For each nonattainment SEP submittal
EPA must make two decisions: whether
each individual element of the submittal
should be approved as a revision to the
SIP; and whether the revised SIP, as a
whole, satisfies the requirements of Part
D of Title I of the Clean Air Act. In
addition, EPA must review the revised
SIP as soon as possible to determine
whether it satisfies all other pertinent,
non-Part D requirements of the Act
II. Approval of Individual SIP Elements
The effect of approving each element
of a submittal as a SIP revision is to add
to or alter the "applicable
implementation plan"—that is, the
collection of SIP provisions approved or
promulgated by EPA and enforceable
under federal law (see sections 110(d]
and 113(a) of the Act). Even if EPA
accepts the entire SIP submittal. EPA
may find that the overall revised SIP is
inadequate because it did not go far
enough. If a submittal does not
accomplish enough, EPA will ordinarily
approve the submitted SEP elements that
are acceptablefbut will disapprove the
SIP in part, to the extent that more
provisions are needed.
A. Basic Requirements
The 1977 Amendments to the Act did
not alter the principles governing
revisions to the applicable
implementation plan. The basic criteria ,
for approving any individual element of
a submitted plan revision, under section
110(a)(3)(A) of the Act, are that it must—
® Be legally adopted by the state.
© Be adopted after reasonable notice
and public hearing by the state.*
© Be enforceable.
@ Not interfere with assuring
attainment and maintenance of the
NAAQS by the required deadline, or
with satisfying the Act's other
requirements.
B. Further Guidance
1. Enforceobility. In determining
whether a SIP provision is enforceable.
emission limitations and other
.requirements will be reviewed for
clarity and specificity. Emission
limitations and other controlling terms
must be well defined, and must clearly
state which sources and processes are
being regulated, when the required
actions are to be taken and by whom,
and what specifically is to be done. In
addition, the provision must specify any
necessary test method by which
compliance is to be assessed, and, if the
provision requires compliance at a
future date, it must contain an adequate
schedule for compliance.
2. Stringency. It is EPA's policy to
encourage and assist states in adopting
economically efficient pollution control
methods.* However, the Agency has no
authority under the Act to reject a
requirement adopted by a state because
it is too costly or too stringent.10
("Stringency" refers to both the controls
required and how quickly they must be
implemented.) However, EPA must
reject any individual requirement that
would interfere with attaining and
maintaining the NAAQS by the required
deadline or with achieving the other
requirements of the Act."
3. Relaxation or Revocation. Even
when a new requirement is being added
to a SIP. the existing requirement may
not ordinarily be relaxed or revoked.
The new requirement does not
* Notice and hearing are required for all SIP
revisions except non-regulatory revisions that are
so insignificant that they will not affect the program
for attninment or maintenance of the NAAQS. See
40 FR "8629 col. 2. 28631 col. 2 (July 8.1975|.
* For exnmple. EPA encourages states to consider
allowing plants to place less control on processes
where the marginal cost of control is high, in return
for placing greater cor.trol where cost is low. so that
the total control satisfies SIP requirements. See note
16 below on alternative emission reduction
("bubble") options: Preamble to Emissions Offsat
Interpretative Ruling. 44 Fed. Reg. 3274. 3276 col. 3
(January 16.1979): discussion in section IU.B.1 of tha
text below, on Need for All RACM.
'" Therefore. EPA may not disapprove a
requirement on the ground that It is costly or even
economically or technologically infeasible. or on tha
ground that the overall plan is more stringent than
federal law requires. Sea Union Electric Company v.
EPA. 427 U.S. 248. 265 (1976). Of course, to the
extent «ven full efforts to implement and enforce a
nwisure cannot bring dbout the emission reductions
CdHcd for. EPA may deny credit for those reductions
in demonstrations of reasonable further progress
end attainment, or may reject the measure as
unenforceable. For example, a submitted provision
calling for an alteration of transportation patterns
that simply cannot be achieved may be denied
credit or rejected.
"For example, a submitted emission limitation
would have to be rejected if a more stringent
emission limitation is needed under the Act and if
application of technology to meet the submitted
emission limitation would make application of
technology to meal the needed emission limitation
more difficult. Likewise, a relatively slow schedule
for implementation of inspection/maintenance must
be rejected to the extent that a more expeditious
schedule is required under the Act (see section
I1I.B.4 in the text below, on Inspection/
Mointfnancel. As discussed in section HI.B.I of the
text below, on Need for All RACM. states often
have flexibility to obtain more or less emission
reduction from any one measure, as long as a group
of measures in the plan is adequate. Therefore.
review of an individual requirement to determine
whether it will interfere with attainment of the
NAAQS and other Act requirements must often be
conducted together with review of the entire SIP to
determine whether it is adequate overall.
-------
20374
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 4, 1979 / Proposed Rules
supersede or replace the old
requirement until the source comes into
compliance with the new requirement.
Instead, the existing requirement must
remain an enforceable provision of the
SIP, and must co-exist with the new
requirement in the applicable
implementation plan. The present
emission control requirement must bs
retained because the source must be
prevented from operating without
controls (or with less stringent controls)
while it is moving toward compliance
with {or challenging) the new
requirement.12
There are some exceptions, however.
A state may submit a relaxation or
revocation of an existing requirement
(or, for an existing requirement
promulgated by EPA, have EPA relax or
revoke it), if the requirement is in one or
more of the following categories:
(a) Any existing requirement that
conflicts with a new, more stringent
requirement, making it highly impratical
for a source to comply wi'h the cid
requirement.13 Any exemption granted
must be drawn as narrowly as possible.
(b) Any indirect source review
program revocable unrior section
110(a)(5)(A)(iii) of the Act,u ond any
bridge toll njqinreiiiur.t revocable under
section TIO(c)(5){A) of Inn Act.
(c) Any existing inspection/
maintenance or transportation control
measure, to the extent (he measure is
demonstrated not to be reasonably
available, if the rnvissd SIP satisfies all
Part 0 requirements (Part D
requirements nrn discussed in section III
below).15
1! If existing requirements i.ould he relaxed or
superseded recalcitrant sources could Iw r::iio>'ed
of obligations established under the Ac! preceding
Ihu 1977 Amendments. HUWPVV. the 1977
Amendment!: were intended to provide add'!i<>nal
timti for additional controls to bu applied, not to
permit relaxation of existing reqciri.mc'its.
Th.'iolore. failure of a source to inn •• .:p|il;c:nhle
exis'.ing requirements is subject to apf.iopriire
enforcement action, including assessment of
noncomplian<:e penalties. Furthermore, if (here is
any instance of delay or lapse in the applicability or
enforceability of the new re.'J.:ircments. because of a
coun order o- for any elder reason, the existing
reo.uiremenls will be applicable and enforciihlile.
>JFor example, equipment needed to satisfy
existing requirements may have to be disconnected
before more efficient equipment needed to saihfy
new requirements under the 1977 Amendments can
be installed. In such a situation, the existing
requirement may be suspended insofar as necessary
to permit installation ol the more efficient
equipment.
"EPA's interrjrefalion of this provision.!.*
published at 44 FR 5427 (January 26. 197sl.
11 "Inspection/maintenance" program; ,irf>
measures providing for envssion-coniro! inspection
and maiiilKiiit'ice of motcr virnit ics. "TrT*!;— rsjiinn
control" measures are measures tliri:"ip.ti»::; i". • IM
transport^ii.or: sourf.-:s .V;.io.,gh .=on»n ej--.
lrans|iorta!i-.i" r.ontro> pi^ii? ir.-!i-dcd viK-n,:,
stationary sot.:.:t' con:rn: r.-.R^f.-.as (such a-? •••:.?n:
(d) Any new requirement in a 1979 SIP
submittal designed for the 0.08 ozone
level, as long as the control measures in
the revised SIP satisfy all requirements
for the 0.12 level (as discussed in section
III.B.6 below, on Ozone Standard).
A relaxation or revocation is also
premissible if it will not contribute to
concentrations of poilutmn where there
is a violation of a NAAQS or of a
Prevention of Significant Air Quality
Deterioration fPSD) increment.16 Where
recovery from Tilling of vehicular tanks or other
storage containers, control of decreasing and
surface coating activities, and others (see. e.g.. 38
Fed. Reg. 31232 (November 12.1973|). these
stationary source control measures tire not
transportation control measures.
St>e the discussion in section UI.B.5 of the text
below, on reasonable availability. To the extent
deadlines for compliance are not practicable, they
may be relaxed. The fact thai d measure has
actually been implemented! will ordinarily indicate
thai the measure is reasonably available and the
deadlines are practicable. As explained in section
III.B.4 of the text below (on inspection/
f>lu:iitt:i>anca) u revised SIP with un attainment
dale after 1982 must meet certain :Ki,iimi:m
requirements for inspection/maintenance.
In 1973 EPA promulgated inspection/maimi-nunce
and transportation control measures for numeious
arras of the country, including requircR-.'-nls 'hat
states implement the measures. Several slates
sought judicial review of EPA's authority to
pron'.ulcnle these requiretr.rr.is. The couns of
appeals rejched inconsisicr.t .tensions, and th*1
Supreme Court has not resolved the issue.
Pnnnsyhaniu v EPA. 500 K.r.d 246. 257. 261 (3d Cir.
•W-1): Maryland v. F.PA. 530 F.2ri 215. 228-27 14th
Cir. 197S); Brown v. EPA. 52! F.2u B27. 8'Ji i'Uh Or.
IS/5). Diblricl ofCoiumbid v Train. 5-1 F.2d!>"; "06
(U.C. ('ir. 1s?75). All exc'.-pl tin- fa:>nxyh' c.isr
wu» r.alecimidri,ni:ndeclsub no:n. F:'A \.
iirrjwn. 431 U.S.99 (1H~~). On rei'>s. 74-1007 el a!. (4lii C'r . filrd Oclo'iri 13. 1!>"j;
Uislricl of Columbia v. Cosiie 5fi7 F.2.1 v.fii (D.C.
Cir. 15)77).
Under t!>i: most recenl U.C. C'icuJI ik'r.sion. EPA
must conduct substantial additional rulumttking
proceedings before the regulations will bi: ready for
flintier judicial consideration. Howcvvr idrniaVin)!
over the past year and a half ullc; U.C. Circuit
cii.xision would have distracted the status. K."A, and
interested members of ihc public from devoting
tht'-ir full efforts end attention to devclnpmi"!! of ihe
plan revisions now dun. including any npri;s?,vy
inspeclion.'matntenanct- nnd transpcirtaiicr, jor.lrol
measures. The Agency thei'i-f^u'e decidi-U nut to
proceed for the lime being with Ihe litigation a^J
related adinir.is'rjtivt- proceedings invoh'ing ihe
tiJ73 r(;gula'ions.
However. EPA still believes that ihe Clean Air
Ar.l provides a basis for promulgating imitircenble
tranbporlation control nici'su:es irquiring st.ilu
implumontation. The Agency has thoreforo not
altered its enforcement poliry for lh« 1C73
resul.ilions that are not su'ujer.! lo judicial review.
Alter the 197S SIP revisions have been submitted
and cvjiluati' d. F.PA will reconsider wlial further
proceedings on the 1973 regulations are necessary, if
any.
16PSD increments are the amounts of
deterioration of air quality beltfii than tlu NAAQS
iha' is ^ftriri«'ed ur.dfr section M»3 of the Ai.t (42
U S C. 747.1} -jni< "i; Ci-'K 51.24. 5.1.:!!. as rev i«,-,H -ill
TR •"i280 ?- requirements a plan mtis! meet to
satisfy Pan D. After each item is a
citHiion to Ihe applicable section of the
Act and the applicable paragraphs of
the Administrator's February 24,1P.78
total plant emissions do not increase and other
requirements are met. Sas Memorandum from the
Administrator of F.PA to Directors of Stale Air
Programs, on "implementing The Alternative
F.mijMOn Reduction ('Bubble') Approach"
(December 21. ia7S): Proposed Policy Statement on
Alternative Emission Reduction Options Within
SlaU- implementation Plans. 44 FR 3740 (January 18.
1979).
"The 'requirements of Part D" are Ihc
requirements of sections 110[a)(3)(D). 110(c|;si(D).
and 171-174 of the Act. (Thv icquirements of
sections 110(G)(3)|D) and 1 ]0|i:)(5)|il) are lo be
In-etcd as requirements of Part D. even though thnse
sections arc not physically within Part D of Title I of
Ihe Act.) These restrictions on construction, grants.
and funds where SIPs are inadequate are found in
sertuvis 110(a)(2)(l). 113(a)(5). and 17B|a) of Ihe Act.
Even if the SIP itself is adequate, failure to
ii:)i.'lcn<:-nl and cany out the S!P will result in
w:ihholding of new source permits and air pollution
control program grants, under sections 173(4).
113(a)(S). and 176(b) of the Act. In addition, section
316 of the Act (42 L'.S.C. 7616) provides that Ihe
Administrator may withhold, condition or restrict
sewage tiea";vnl plant construction grants if he
determines ihai th" air emissions n;n3on:ibly
nnlicipftifj to re^o't frnm the growth assui -aleci
•»\i',n the op^ndc-J r.0vv,,a» treatment cap*ict'y is f.oi
hrl::g adcqun:p!v iip-'"""!)"'"!.' ano compensated '.ur
mirier Ihe SIP
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 86 / Wednesday, April 4. 1979 / Proposed Rules
memorandum on Criteria for Approval
of 1979 SEP Revisions:18
1. Requirements for All Part D SIPs:
® Demonstrate that both primary and
secondary NAAQS will be attained
within the nonattainment area as
expeditiously as practicable, but for
primary NAAQS no late than the
following final deadlines: (§ 172(a); JJ 1,
3,5.)
—For sulfur oxides, particulate
matter, and nitrogen dioxide, December
31,1982.
—For ozone or carbon monoxide,
December 31,1982, except, if the state
demonstrates that attainment by
December 31,1982 is impos>RtV|!» despite
implementation of all reasu.iably
available measures, December 31,1987.
® Require reasonable further progress
in the period before attainment,
including regular, consistent reductions
sufficient to assure attainment by the
required date, {§ 172{b)(3); fl 6.)
® Provide for implementation of all
reasonably available control measures
(RACM) as expeditiously as practicable,
insofar as necessary to assure
reasonable further progress and
attainment by the required date. This
includes reasonably available control
technology (RACT) for stationary
sources and reasonably available
transportation control measures.
(§§172(b)(2), (8); M4-5.)
® Include an accurate, current
inventory of emissions that have an
impact on the nonattainment area, and
provide for annual updates to indicate
emissions growth and progress in
reducing emissions from existing
sources. {§ 172(b)(4); M 2, 7-«.)
® Expressly quantify the emissions
growth allowance, if any, that will be
allowed to result from new major
sources or major modifications of
existing sources, which may not be so
large as to jeopardize reasonable further
progress or attainment by the required
date. (§§172(b)(3)and(5);fl7.)
© Require preconstruction review
permits for new major sources and
major modifications of existing sources,
to be issued in accordance with section
173 of the Act. (§ 172(b)[6): fl 9.)
"See citations in note 7 above. For the items in
subsection 1 of the text below, the paragraph
numbers refer to paragraphs in the section of the
Administrator's memorandum entitled "General
Requirements of all 1979 SIP Revisions." For items
in subsection 2 of the text below, paragraph
numbers refer to paragraphs in the section of the
memorandum entitled "Additional Requirements for
Carbon Monoxide and Oxidant SIP Revisions
Which Provide for Attainment of the Primary
Standards Later Than 1982." except that paragraph
numbers identified by the word "Oxidant" refer to
paragraphs in the section of the memorandum
entitled "Carbon Monoxide and Oxidant."
® Include the following additional SIP
elements: (§§ 172fb)(7), (9H10); iH 4.10-
11.) ">
—Identification and commitment of
the necessary resources to carry out the
Part D provisions of the plan.
—Evidence of public, local
government, and state legislative
involvement and consultation in
accordance with section 174 of the Act.
—Identification and brief analysis of
the air quality, health, welfare,
economic, energy, and social effects of
the plan provisions chosen and the
alternatives considered, and a summary
of the public comment on the analysis.
—Written evidence that the state and
other governmental bodies have
adopted the necessary requirements in
legally enforceable form.
—Written evidence that the state and
other governmental bodies are
committed to implement and enforce the
appropriate elements of the SIP.
2. Additional Requirements for Ozone
or Carbon Monoxide S/Ps with
Attainment Dates After 1982:
® Include an adequate on-going
vehicle emission control inspection/
maintenance program, or establish a
specific schedule endorsed by and
committed to by the governor (or the
chief executive of the local or regional
governmental unit, if it is responsible for
implementation) for the development,
adoption, and implementation of such a
program as expeditiously as practicable.
(§ 172(b)(ll)(B); fl 2.)
© Present a program for selecting a
package of transportation control
measures (and any other necessary
measures) to attain the emission
reductions target ascribed in the SIP to
the package, including adopted
schedules for expeditious
implementation of currently planned
"These SIP elements are required for all SIP
provisions needed to satisfy Part D, except for
provisions that were approved or promulgated, and
implumenlcd. prior to enactment of the 1977
Amendments (Augusl 7.1977). The elements
required by section 110(a)(2)(F)(i) (that is.
assurances of adequate personnel, funding and
authority) are needed for all SIP provisions.
Under sections 172(b)(10) and 174 of the Act. the
SIP may provide that local governments or regional
agencies, rather than the atata itseJf. is responsible
for implementing and enforcing particular plan
provisions. Where this is done. (1) the plan
provisions must atill be adopted by the state and
submitted to EPA by the Governor. (2) the slate
must evidence its determination that the local or
regional body has legal authority to implement the
provision, and (3) the local or regional body must
evidence its commitment of necessary resources,
adoption of enforceable requirements, and
commitment to implement and enforce the plan
elements. For some elements, such as inspection/
maintenance provisions, item (3) will also require a
certification by the local or regional body that it has
adopted necessary ordinances or other legislative
authorization- See the lasl paragraph of note 27
below, on inspection/maintenance.
reasonable transportation control
measures, and schedules for analysis
and adoption of additional
transportation control (and other
necessary) measures. (§§ 110fa){3)(D),
172(b)(2) & (11)(C); Oxidant f| 1-5.)
® Include a commitment to establish,
expand, or improve public
transportation measures to meet basic
transportation needs as expeditiously as
practicable, including a commitment to
use necessary federal grants and state
and local funds. (§§ 110(a)(3)(D),
Establish a program that requires,
before issuance of a preconstruction
review permit, an analysis of alternative
sites and other factors which
demonstrates that the benefits of the
proposed source significantly outweigh
any environmental and social costs.
B. Further Guidance.
1. Need for All RACM. Part D requires
the SIP to provide for that level of
control necessary to assure attainment
of the standards as expeditiously as
practicable, and no later than the
specified deadlines, and reasonable
further progress in the interim. It does
not require that all sources apply RACM
if less than all RACM will suffice for
reasonable further progress and
attainment. Therefore, if a state adopts
less than all RACM and demonstrates
(a) that reasonable further progress and
attainment of the NAAQS are assured,
and (b) that application of all RACM
would not result in attainment any
faster, then a plan with less than all
RACM may be approved. An exception
is that most ozone SIPs must include, as
a minimum, RACT requirements for
certain stationary sources (discussed in
subsection 3 below, on Ozone Control
Strategy).
2. Schedules. Ordinarily all necessary
measures must be adopted in legally
enforceable form. However, for certain
classes of measures, EPA interprets the
Act to allow approval of plans
containing schedules for expeditious
development, adoption, submittal, and
implementation of these measures.
Schedules may be used for the
following: (a) Measures to control
particulate matter sources that EPA has
not traditionally treated as causes of
NAAQS violations ("nontraditional"
sources — for example, sources of urban
fugitive dust, resuspended road dust,
and dust from construction, as
distinguished from fugitive and stack
process emissions from stationary
sources); (b) RACT requirements for
stationary volatile organic compound
(VOC) sources for which EPA has not
issued a Control Techniques Guideline
-------
0376
Federal Register / VoL 44. No. 68 / Wednesday. April 4. 1979 / Proposed Rules
ly January 1978; (c) inspection/
naintenance programs; and (dj
ransportation control measures.
Schedules must provide for
mplementation of measures quickly
:nough to assure that the SIP will
jrovide for reasonable further progress
md attainment by the required date.
schedules for control of stationary VOC
jources and for inspection/maintenance
programs also must meet, at a minimum,
:he deadlines and other specific
-equirements for these kinds of
measures established in EPA guidance,
which are summarized below (in
subsections 3 and 4, on Ozone Control
Strategy and Inspection/Maintenance).
For controls of nontraditional
particulate matter sources and for
transportation controls, where analysis.
selection, and adoption cannot be
completed in time to be approved by
July 1.1979, schedules may provide for
expeditious completion of analysis,
selection, and adoption. By the
applicable deadline in the schedule, the
state must adopt the necessary
measures in legally enforeceable form.
along with any necessary additional
schedules for expeditious
implementation of the measures.
Each schedule must contain key
milestones to be used for evaluating
progress in completing the scheduled
tasks, including as precise a description
as possible of what must be
accomplished by each key milestone. In
order to contribute to the demonstration
of reasonable further progress and
attainment, each schedule must include
a target of how much emission reduction
will result, and when, from each
measure or group of related measures.
Each schedule must be adopted as
part of the SIP, and each state or other
governmental body responsible for
implementation must be committed to
meet the key milestones.20The state and
other governmental bodies must
"•Failure to meet a key milestone to which (he
8t;ite or other governmental body 19 committed may
be ireated as a failure to "implement" and "cHiry
ou!" the SIP under sections 173(4). 176(b). and
31ti(b)(2) of the Act. and under gome circumstances
may be treated 88 a "violation" of a requirement of
the SIP under section 113(a)(l). Furthermore, certain
milestones in each schedule will be deadlines for
submitting additional necessary elements of the SrP.
such as certification of adequate legal authority.
evidence that the necessary requirements have b«en
adopted in legally enforceable form, or evidence
that the state or local government is committed to
implement and enforce the appropriate plan
elements. Regardless of whether the state or othor
governmental body is committed to meeting thesfl
milestones for subriitting additional elements,
failure to meet them may render the SIP no longor
adequate to satisfy the requirements of Part D under
suuion UO(a)(2)(I) of the Act. and in some
circumstances may be treated as a failure to submit
a plan that considers an 'element required by Piirt 0
under section 176(a) of the Act.
therefore be committed to analyze,
select, adopt, and implement measures
necessary to achieve the emission
reductions ascribed to the schedules.
There is a partial exception for ozone
and carbon monoxide measures that are
not reasonably available for
implementation before the end of 1982:
The state and other governmental
bodies must be committed to meeting
the key milestones for analyzing and
selecting such measures for the post-
1982 period, but need not submit the
adopted enforceable measures, and
schedules and commitments to
implement them, until, at the latest, July
1,1982.21
3. Ozone Control Strategy. Although
an ozone SIP must assure reasonable
further progress and attainment in all
nonattainment areas, the SIP need not
include a specific demonstration of
reasonable further progress and
attainment in rural areas. (A designated
nonattainment area may consist of one
or more "urbanized areas" surrounded
by "rural areas.")22Such a
demonstration in all urbanized areas.
aloug with at least the minimum
stationary-source requirements
described below, should assure
reasonable further progress and
attainment in the rural areas by
minimizing the pollutants transported
from urbanized to rural areas.
Because it is often difficult to develop
precise ozone control strategies, and
because sections 172(a)(2) and (b)(3)
require minimum levels of control
" Section 172lc) of the Act establishes a July 1.
1982 deadline for the SIP to contain all enforeceahle
measures necessary' for attainment by the end of
1987. The |u!y 1. 1982 deadline applies only to
measures not reasonably available earlier The
state ir.«y nut delay adoption and implementation of
measures that are reasonably available earlier on
d'.cuunl of section 172(c). Sea Clean Air
Amendments of 1977, Conference Report to
accompany H.R. 6161. U.K. Rep. No. 95-564. BSlh
Cong.. 1st Sess. 157 (August 3.1977).
if! For purposes of ozone plan development.
"urbanized area" means a central city and
surrounding closely settled areas with population of
200.00 or more, according to the 1970 Census, plus
any adjacent fringe areas of development. Any
other area is a 'rural area."
SiRte reasonable furthur progress and attainment
need not be demonstrated in a rural area, ozone
SIPs that satisfy all Part D requirements under EPA
guidance for a rural area and for the urbanized
areas that ,:.iusi: the nonallainment problem in the
tur.il area will provide an inherent omissions
growth allowance for new major sources in the rural
area. This means that a permit m.iy be issued for
major sources of VOC in such rural areas, under
section 173 of the Act. without a specific
demonstration that the new emissions will be
Hccomoiod.itt'd under section 173(1) (Situ discussion
in subsection lO.a below, on Precons'.rui'.tian
Rrr;ew,\ If extensive growth changes the
dBT.ugr.iphic character of an area from rural to
urbanized, a demonstration of reasonable further
progress and attainment may then be called for in
Ihi: tn.-ivly urbanized arua.
technology, the minimum acceptable
level of stationary source control for
ozone SfPs is the following: Ozone SIPs
being revised now must include adopted
RACT requirements for VOC sources
covered by Control Techniques
Guidelines (CTGs) that EPA issued by
January 1978, and schedules to adopt
and submit by each future January
additional requirements for the sources
covered by CTGs issued by the previous
January. For SIPs with attainment dates
after 1982. these RACT requirements
must apply in urbanized areas to all
sources covered by each CTG, and in
rural areas to all "major" sources (that
is. over 100 tons/year potential
emissions)"covered by each CTG.
(Such SIPs must also provide for the
control of additional sources where
necessary to achieve reasonable further
progress, as discussed below.) For SIPs
with attainment dates before the end of
1982 that do not use photochemical
dispersion modeling, these RACT
requirements must apply to all major
sources covered by each CTG, and in
urbanized areas to enough additional
sources covered by each CTG to provide
for reasonable further progress and
attainment as expeditiously as
practicable. In SIPs with attainment
dates before the end of 1982 that do use
photochemical dispersion modeling,
these RACT requirements must apply to
enough sources covered by each CTG to
provide for reasonable further progress
and attainment as expeditiously as
practicable.24
""Potential" to emit means the maximum
capacity to emit a pollutant absent air pollution
control equipment. See sections II.A.I through 5 of
the Offset Ruling, note 3 above.
3AThe above sets forth the minimum \evel of
stationary source control that must be included not
only in the SIP. but also in the demonstration that
Hitiiinmcnt is impossible by the end of 1982 despite
implementation of all reasonably available
measures, which is necessary under section
172(a)(2) to qualify for an attainment date after thtt
end of 1982.
Linear rollback techniques for determining
net*dfid emission reductions arc acccplbblu for use
in 1979 SIP xubmiltals. Plans with attainment dates
after 1982. however, must be revised by July 1.1982
to jst! more rigorous techniques.
"Thai is. the SIP must do the following to tho
extant necessary to achieve straight-line reductions
at lh« .ind of 1982: |1) Include all RACT. including
RACT for source categories in addition to those that
will be covered by EPA's CTC series, and. for
source categories that will be covered by CTGs.
adopt RACT requirements sooner than would be
required by EPA's CTC program described in the
texi above: (2) provide for especially expeditious
and ambitious reasonably available transportation
control measures: and (3) permit new major sources
and major modifications only with case-by-case
offsetting emission reductions (see discussion on
PrHConiitruclion Review in subsection 10 below of
the text). As a practical matter, a SIP that requires
application of alt RACT and includes no emissions
growth allowance for new major sources should
assure straight-line reductions at the end of 1982 for
even tiie most seriously polluted area.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 60 / Wednesday, April 4, 1979 / Proposed Rules
20377
An ozone plan with an attainment
date after 1982 will satisfy the
requirement for reasonable further
progress if the SIP requires at least (1)
"straight-line reductions" at the end of
1982, or (2) reductions that reflect
application of all RACM as
expeditiously as practicable through the
end of 1982 with no emissions growth
allowance for new major sources.1*
"Straight-line reductions" mean
reductions at the end of 1982 at least as
great as if equal annual reductions were
required between 1979 and the
attainment date, which can be
represented graphically by a straight
line. Until the end of 1982, Allowable
emissions may remain above the
straight line to accommodate the time
required for compliance.
4. Inspection/Maintenance. An
acceptable inspection/maintenance
program or schedule is required in
urbanized areas for every ozone or
carbon monoxide SIP with an
attainment date after 1982.26In addition,
for SIPs with attainment dates by the
end of 1982, states may find that
inspection/maintenance is helpful to
assure reasonable further progress and
attainment by the required date, or even
to provide an emissions growth
allowance for new major sources. For
urbanized areas with attainment dates
after 1982, the SIP must contain a
commitment of the state, local
government, or regional agency to
implement the program as expeditiously
as practicable. EPA has determined that
the final deadline for submitting
assurances of adequate legal authority
to carry out the program is June 30,1979,
"That is. the SIP must do the following to the
extent necessary to achieve straight-line reductions
al the end of 1982: (1) Include all RACT. including
RACT for source categories in addition to those that
will be covered by EPA's CTG series, and. for
source categories lhat will be covered by CTGs.
adopt RACT requirements sooner than would be
required by EPA's CTG program described in the
lexl above; (2) provide for especially expeditious
and ambitious reasonably available transportation
control measures; and (3] permit new mejor sources
and major modifications only with case-by-case
offsetting emission reductions (see discussion on
Proconslruclion Review in subsection 10 below of
the text). As a practical matter, a SIP lhat requires
application of all RACT and includes no emissions
growth allowance for new major sources should
assure straight-line reductions at the end of 1982 for
even the most seriously polluted area.
""Urbanized area" is defined in note 22 above.
Statewide programs are encouraged, especially for
stales that are small and highly urbanized. EPA will
review the need for inspection/maintenance in non-
urbanized areas after the 1979 SIP revisions arc
submitted and will consider additional requirements
al that lime. For some carbon monoxide SIPs.
regardless of whether attainment will be after 1982.
inspection/maintenance for non/urbanized areas
may now be necessary to demonstrate reasonable
further progress and attainment.
with limited exceptions." Phial
implementation of the program
(including adoption and submission to
EPA of all necessary requirements for
mandatory inspection and repair of
failed vehicles) must be scheduled for.
no later than the end of 1982 for a
centralized program, or the end of 1981
for a decentralized program.58 Failure to
submit by the required deadlines the
legal authority and all regulatory
requirements necessary for mandatory
inspection and mandatory repair of
"Limited exceptions to the June 30,1979 deadline
for supplying certification of adequate legal
authority may be possible if the state (or other
governmental body) can demonstrate that the
legislature has had no opportunity to consider any
necessary enabling legislation between enactment
of the 1977 Amendments (August 7,1977) and June
30,1979. Extension beyond June 30,1979 is an
exceptional remedy, and EPA will grant no
extension if the legislature has had an opportunity
to consider enabling legislation but has not given
such legislation serious consideration. (EPA had
also contemplated extensions for situations where
there had been insufficient opportunity to conduct
necessary technical analyses: however, us far as
EPA Is aware, the needed information is now
available.) In no case may the assurances of
adequate legal authority be supplied later than July
1.1980. Where legislative action will occur after the
SIP has been approved, submiltal of assurances of
adquate legal authority must be included as a key
milestone in the schedule for implementation of the
program.
Legal authority by the required deadline is
necessary to satisfy the requirements of sections
172(b)(7) and (10) of the Act, which call for evidence
that the state or other governmental body has
legally adopted the necessary requirements and
schedules and timetables for compliance, is
committed to implement and enforce the elements
of the SIP, and has committed the necessary
resources to carry out the SIP. If legal authority is
provided but is later withdrawn or found to be
inadequate to authorize implementation of the
required program, the SIP will then no longer satisfy
the requirements of section 172(b)t?) and (10).
See note 19 above, on commitments by
governmental bodies other than the state. Where a
local or regional body will implement the program.
the deadline for certification that such a body has
necessary legal authority is the same as for a
state—that is. June 30.1979, with limited exceptions.
"A "centralized" program is one where
inspection testing is conducted At facilities owned
and operated by a state, local, or regional
governmental agency, or a contractor working for
the agency. A "decentralized" program is one where
testing is conducted at private garages licensed to
conduct the tests by the slate, local, or regional
agency. The deadlines for implementation apply
regardless of when authorizing legislation is
obtained. The Administrator's memorandum on
criteria for approval (note 7 above) had provided
that the deadline for implementation would be
earlier for areas that obtain legislation earlier.
However, tht> Agency has modified this policy. EPA
believes that lh« uniform deadlines stated in the
text, for obtaining legislative authority and for
implementing the necessary programs, will foster
equity among slates and coordination in
administering programs in interstate metropolitan
areas, and that compliance with the deadlines will
constitute implementation of the programs as
expeditiously as practicable. See also note 21
above, explaining that the July 1. 1982 deadline
under section 172(c) of the Act is irrelevant to
inspection/maintenance legislation, which is now
reasonably available.
failed vehicles will make the SIP no
longer adequate to satisfy the
requirements of Part D.
5. Transportation Control Measvres.
For urbanized areas, each SIP with an
attainment date after 1982 must contain
schedules for implementation of
currently planned reasonably available
transportation control measures, and
schedules for analysis, selection and
adoption of additional transportation
control measures, sufficient to achieve
the emission reductions target ascribed
to transportation control in the
demonstration of reasonable further
progress and attainment. As noted
above, by the applicable deadlines in
the schedules, the state must adopt the
necessary measures, along with any
necessary additional schedules and
commitments for expeditious
implementation of the measures. It is
EPA's policy that each area will be
required to schedule a representative
selection of reasonable transportation
control measures for implementation at
least on a pilot or demonstration basis
before the end of 1980.
The determination of what
transportation control measures are
reasonably available must be made on a
case-by-case basis. The measures listed
in section 108(f)(l)(A) of the Act are
presumed to be reasonably available. If
a state or local government believes that
in its particular situation any of the
measures listed [except inspection/
maintenance) is not reasonably
available, the burden is on the state or
local government to demonstrate the
unavailability of the measure, based on
the local situation. A demonstration lhat
a measure is not reasonably available
must be based on substantial
widespread and long-term adverse
impact that would result from the
measure, and on the time needed to
analyze, develop and implement the
measure. These factors bear both on
whether a measure is reasonable and on
whether a schedule calls for
implementation as expeditiously as
practicable.
6. Ozone Standard. EPA recently
changed the required level under the
primary and secondary NAAQS for
ozone from 0.08 to 0.12 parts per million
(and changed the designation of the
NAAQS from "photochemical oxidants"
to "ozone")."A SIP is now acceptable if
it moets all Part D requirements for the
NAAQS at a level of 0.12 or below. A
state may, if it wishes, relax new
requirements in a 1979 SIP submittal
designed for a level below 0.12, so long
"40 CFR 50.9. as revised 44 PR 8220 (February 8.
1979).
-------
20378
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 86 / Wednesday. April 4, 1979 / Proposed Rules
as the revised SIP meets all
requirements for the 0.12 level.
Being a relaxation, the revision to the
ozone standard does not affect the
schedule for submittal of SIP revisions
required under Part D. Section 110(a)(l)
of the Act requires that SIP revisions be
submitted within 9 months after a
standard is revised. This refers only to
SIP revisions legally required because of
the revision to the standard. However,
where a standard is relaxed, no SIP
revision is required by law, since states
may have more stringent controls than
necessary if they choose.^ It is optional
with the state whether to relax new
requirements back to the 0.1'. level, and
the state may therefore determine its
own schedule for accomplishing this.
The relaxation of the ozone NAAQS
may allow some areas now designated
nonattainment to have their
designations changed, under section
107(d)(5) of the Act. In order to clear up
any questions about what is a
nonattainment area before the July 1,
1979 deadline for having approved Part
D SIPs,31 states are urged to promptly
submit lists of areas that may be
redesignated, along with supporting
documentation. EPA will then
promulgate the revised lists as soon as
possible, with any necessary
modifications.
7. Interstate and International Issues.
P6llutants entering a state from sources
in neighboring states, countries, or
bodies of water, and contributing to the
violation of a NAAQS in a
nonattainment area, must be included in
the demonstration of reasonable further
progress and attainment. For purposes
of SIP development (although not for
purposes of making nonattainment
designations under section 107(d) of the
Act), states may assume that the
NAAQS will be attained by the
appropriate deadlines under the Act in
neighboring states, countries, and bodies
of water, and that all SIP requirements
in neighboring states will be met. For
interstate (and intrastate) urbanized
areas that are nonattainment for ozone,
the highest pollutant concentration for
the entire area must be used in
M An adequate SIP designed for an ozone level
below 0.12 will be al least stringent enough lo
satisfy requirements for the 0.12 level, as required
by )uly 1.1979.
31 The revised standard is immediately effective
for determining whether a proposed new source
would cause or contribute to a violation of.lhe
standard, for purposes of preconstruction review,
regardless of the designations. However, the
requirement to have a revised SIP that satisfies Part
D remains in effect for all nonattainment areas until
EPA promulgates a different designation. See the
discussion in subsection 11 of the text below, on
Changes in Designation.
determining the necessary level of
control.
8. Secondary Standards. Particulate
matter and sulfur oxides are the only
pollutants for which secondary NAAQS
are more stringent than primary
NAAQS. These secondary standards
must be attained as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than the end of
1982 where application of all RACT by
the end of 1982 will result in
attainment. "Where application of all
RACT will not be sufficient, or where
the state shows that good cause exists
for postponing its application, then an
attainment date later than 1982 may be
provided for in the SIP. This date must
be as expeditious as practicable
considering the amount of emission
reductions needed and the problems
involved in obtaining them.
The January 1,1979 deadline for
deadline for submittal of the SEP
revision and the July 1,1979 deadline for
its approval may be extended up to 18-
months for a secondary NAAQS."The
state must request an extension, and
include a showing that attainment will
require emission reductions greater than
those that would result from application
of all RACT.
9. Fugitive Dust. "Rural areas" (as
defined according to EPA's Fugitive
Dust Policy)34 experiencing particulate
matter violations that can be attributed
to fugitive dust (that is, native airborne
soil uncontaminated by man-made
sources) can under certain conditions be
designated as attaining the NAAQS.
Areas so designated do not need SIPs
that satisfy the requirements of Part D.
Non-rural areas that experience
particulate matter violations, even if
attributed to airborne soil, must be
designated as non-attainment and must
have SIPs that satisfy the requirements
of Part D. "Rural"areas are defined for
these purposes as those that have (1) a
lack of major industrial development or
the absence of significant industrial
particulate emissions, and (2) low
urbanized population. All other areas
are "non-rural" areas.
Where fugitive dust in non-rural areas
causes or contributes to particulate
matter violations SIPs must include
sufficient controls to demonstrate
reasonable further progress and
«5«s40CFRS1.13(b).
"Soo section 110(b) of the Act; 40 CFR 51.31.
" See memorandum from Edward F. Tuerk. EPA
acting Assistant Administrator for Air & Waste
Management, to EPA Regional Administrators, on
"Guidance on SIP Development and New Source
Review in Areas Impacted by Fugitive Dust"
(August 16.1977). and the attachment entitled
Fugitive Dust Policy: SIP's and New Source Review
(August 1.1977); Preamble to initial designations of
attainment status. 43 PR 8963 col. 1. (March 3.1078);
section II.A.8 of the Offset Ruling, note 3 above.
attainment of the standard by the
required date. SIPs for non-rural urban
areas must contain adopted RACT
requirements for traditional sources and
either adopted requirements or
schedules for study and subsequent
adoption of requirements for
nontraditional sources. (See subsection
2 above, on Schedules.) Controls of
fugitive dust sources in non-rural areas
must be included, if controls to be
applied to other sources are not
sufficient to demonstrate reasonable
further progress and attainment.
10. Preconstruction Review.
a. Basic Statutory Requirements. To
satisfy the requirements of Part D,55 a
preconstruction review program must
assure that permits for proposed major
sources and major modifications may be
issued only if the following conditions of
sections 172(b)(ll)(A) and 173 of the Act
are satisfied:
i. Requirements for all Part D SIPs:
® The proposed major source or
major modification is accommodated by
one or both of the following approaches:
(A) There are sufficient case-by-case
offsetting emission reductions (offsets)
and other emission reductions required
under the SIP, so that allowable
emissions from all sources when the
proposed major source or major
modification is to commence operation
represent reasonable further progress, or
(B) Emissions resulting from the
proposed major source or major
modification are accommodated by the
emissions growth allowance for major
new sources.
© Any emission reductions required
under paragraph (A) must be legally
binding and enforceable before the
permit may be issued. (§ 173(1) and the
sentence of § 173 after subsection (4).)
9 The proposed major source or
major modification must comply with
the lowest achievable emission rate •
(LAER), as that term is defined in
section 171(3) of the Act. (§ 173(2).)
® All major sources in the state
owned or operated by the owner or
operator of the proposed major source
or major modification must be in
compliance (or on a schedule for
compliance) with the Act. {§ 173(3).)
ii. Additional requirements for ozone
and carbon monoxide SIPs with
attainment dates after 1992:
© An analysis must have been
conducted of alternative sites, sizes,
production processes, and
environmental control techniques for the
proposed major source or major
"There are several other preconstruction review
requirements under the Act that are not Part D
.requirements. E.g., section 110{a)(2)(D) of the Act
and section II.B of the Offset Ruling, note 3 above.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 66 / Wednesday. April 4. 1979 /Propo»;edjtule»_
20371
modification which demonstrates that
benefits significantly outweigh any
environmental and social costs.
(§ 172(b)(ll)(A).)
The submitted preconstruction review
program must be legally enforceable,
and may satisfy the requirements of Part
D by referring to these requirements of
the Act and stating that permits will be
issued only in compliance with them, or
by restating these requirements (or
requirements more stringent).
Aside from the specific requirements
discussed above, a state preconstruction
review program along with other SIP
provisions must impose enough controls
on new and existing sources that
resonable further progres. -ad
attainment will actually occur as
required. If this does not happen, major
source and major modifications may be
unable to obtain permits in the future,
existing sources may have to apply even
more stringent controls, and the overall
SIP may be found not to satisfy Part D
requirements. The state preconstruction
review program must therefore be
adequate, considering the particular
circumstances of the overall SIP and the
area to which it applies, to assure
reasonable further progress and
attainment.
b. Requirements From the Emission
Offset Interpretative Ruling. EPA's
recently revised Emission Offset
Interpretative Ruling now governs
preconstruction review of any major
source or major modification that would
cause or contribute to a violation of a
NAAQS. Under the statute, the Ruling is
to be superseded for nonattainment
areas after June 30.1979, by
preconstruction review provisions of the
revised SIP, if the SIP meets the
requirements of Part D. If the SIP does
not meet the requirements of Part D, the
Ruling is to be superseded by a
prohibition on major source construction
under the applicable SIP and section
110(a)(2)(I) of the Act (discussed below
in subsection f, on Prohibition on New
Construction. The Ruling will remain in
effect to the extent not superseded
under the Act. 36
14See seclion 129(a)(l) of the 1977 Amendments
(note under 42 U.S.C. 7502): section I of the Offset
Ruling, note 3 above. The Ruling is therefore to
apply after July 1.1979. in the following situations:
(a) To proposed major sources in one state that
would contribute to a violation of a NAAQS only in
another state, (b) during the time allowed for the
development and approval of a revised SIP in an
area that is designated as nonattainment after
March 3.1978. and (c) during any extended time
allowed under secton 11Q(B) for development of a
SIP revision for an area that violates the secondary
NAAQS but not the primary NAAQS for a pollutant.
Furthermore, the Ruling applies everwhere in the
state, regardless of the applicable designation under
section 107(d) of the Act. See sections ll.D and E of
the Ruling. For any areas in the state where neither
The revised Ruling and accompanying
Federal Register preamble set forth
EPA's views on several issues that are
relevant under Part D. Many of the
approaches used by the Agency in
revising the Ruling may be used by the
states as guidance in developing
provisions under Part D. But to establish
uniform minimum requirements and
consistent statutory definitions, EPA
requires that state programs apply
certain fundamental policies that EPA
adopted in revising the Ruling (or be
more stringent):"
O The SIP must require permits for
the construction and operation of all
proposed "major sources" and "major
modifications," with those terms given
definitions equivalent to those in the
Ruling. (Ruling §§ II.A.l through 5.)
9 Permits may be issued without
satisfying the requirements under
sections 172(b)(ll)(A) and 173(1). (2) and
(3) of the Act, for proposed major
sources and major modifications that do
not have allowable emissions exceeding
50 tons per year, 1000 pounds per day, or
100 pounds per hour, whichever is most
restrictive. (Ruling § II.C.)
9 Permits may be issued without
satisfying the requirements under
sections 172(b)(ll)(A) and 173(1). (2) and
(3) of the Act, for proposed major
modifications of existing facilities (that
is, modifications of identifiable pieces of
process equipment) with accompanying
offsets within the same source (intra-
source offsets) such that there is no net
increase in allowable emissions. (As
explained in the preamble to the revised
Ruling, this requirement is more lenient
than that found in the Ruling itself. 44
FR at 3276-3277.)
© In determining the lowest
achievable emission rate (LAER), the
reviewing authority may consider
transfer of technology from one source
type to another where such technology
is applicable. (44 FR at 3280-3281.)
If a state adopts a regulation in the
SIP that is not inconsistent with these
mandatory policies, EPA proposes to
assume that the state intends to
implement its preconstruction review
program in accordance with these
policies. EPA proposes to conduct its
enforcement activities accordingly.
Alternatively, the state may adopt '
a Part D preconstruction review program nor a
seclion 110fa)(2)(l) prohibition on issuance of
permits applies, the Ruling will not be superseded
and will continue to apply to every source that
would cause or contribute to a NAAQS violation.
" See the preamble to the revised Ruling. 44 FR
3278 col. 1. (January 16.1979). EPA considered
comment received before publication of the revised
Ruling, and the Agency invited additional comment.
As soon as EPA has completed reviewing and
responding to these latter comments, it will publish
a response.
regulations that expressly incorporate
these mandatory policies (or approaches
more stringent).
c. Geographic Applicability. At a
minimum, the program must apply to
any major source 38 in the state that
would cause or contribute to a violation
of the NAAQS within the designated
nonattainment area. M The Ruling
establishes certain exemptions for a
source locating at a site where the
NAAQS is not actually violated.
Although sections 172(b)(ll)(A) and 173
do not expressly allow exemptions from
a preconstruction review program, EPA
interprets the Act to allow exemptions
like those in the Ruling. A state may
therefore make the following provision
for major sources locating at sites where
the NAAQS is not violated (as of the
new source start-up date):
• A source whose allowable
emissions would not cause or
significantly contribute a violation of the
NAAQS may be exempted from all
requirements under sections
172(b)(ll)(A) and 173(1), (2), and (3).
(Ruling §§II.D and E.)
• A source that would cause a new
violation of the NAAQS may be
exempted from all requirements under
sections 172(b)(ll)(A) and 173(1). (2).
and (3), except that it must have
sufficient offsets so that allowable
emissions from the new source and
existing sources will not, in fact, cause a
violation. (Ruling § III.)
e For a source that would contribute
significantly to an existing violation,
emissions that result from the source
must be accommodated under section
173(1) only to the extent that those
emissions would actually contribute to
the violation. All other applicable
requirements (including the requirement
under section 173(1)(A) to accommodate
certain emissions that do not result from
the source) must be satisfied in full.
(Ruling §§ II. D and E.)
d. Exempted Types of Sources. In
addition to the exemptions discussed
above involving location of a source, the
revised Ruling provides that certain
types of major sources may be
exempted from the requirement for
offsets. In adopting its preconstruction
review program, the state may exempt
similar types of sources from the
requirement of section 173(1) that
emissions be accommodated by offsets
or by the emission growth allowance, as
long as the exemptions established by
the state cover classes of sources no
"Except where the context indicates otherwise.
reference to any "major source" includes any major
modification.
"See the preamble to the revised Ruling, 44 FR
3275 col. 3 (January 16.1979).
-------
•0388
JfeterajI**?8*!", L .Y.tf'^^^J^^^^L^^^L^LL^^^^^^
broader than those exempted under the-
Ruling. The types of sources exempted
under the Ruling are: (i) Resource
recovery facilities burning municipal
solid wast, (ii) sources that must switch
fuels due to lack of adequate fule
supplies or where a source is required to
be modified as a result of EPA
regulations and no exemption from such
regulation is available to the source, (iii)
temporary emission sources, and (ivj"
emissions resulting from the
construction phase of a new source.
(Ruling § IV.B.)
As under the Ruling, exemptions for
resource recovery facilities and sources
that must switch fuels may be permitted
only if (A) the new emissions are
charged against the emissions growth
increment for major new sources to the
extent there is any, (B) the applicant
demonstrates that it made its best
efforts to obtain sufficient offsets, (C)
the applicant applies all offsets that are
available, and (D) the applicant will
continue to seek the necessary offsets
and apply them when they become
available. Issuance of a permit under an
exemption for resource recovery
facilities or sources that must switch
fuels will ordinarily cause the inventory
of allowable emissions to exceed what
is permitted; for reasonable further
progress. Therefore, no further permits
for major sources may be issued under
section 173(1) until the deficit is made
up by either addirionp! offsets or a SIP
revision, to provide additional control of
existing sources.
e. Banking. Under the policy
expressed in the Offset Ruling {§ IV.C.5).
the state may allow emission reductions
to be banked for later use under the
Ruling and under the state's
preconstruction review program under
Part D. The SIP should provide
procedures for managing banked
emission reductions, such as SIP
revisions or permit conditions. Banked
emission reductions may be used for
case-by-case offsets under section
173(1)(A), by contributing part or all of
the required offsetting reductions in
allowable emissions. To be sufficient
under that section, the offsetting
reductions in allowable emissions,
including any banked emission
reductions being used, must be sufficient
to represent reasonable further progress.
Alternatively, banked emission
reductions may be preserved for use
under section 173(1)(B), by being added
to the emissions growth allowance for
new major sources. Adding to the
allowance requires a SIP revision, and
will be approved by EPA only if the
enlarged allowance will not interfere
with reasonable further progress and
attainment by the- required date.
f. Prohibition on New Construction.
Sections 110(aK2)(I). 113(a)(5). and
173(4) of the Act and section I of the
Ruling provide that new major sources
and major modifications that would
cause or contribute to a NAAQS
violation within the nonattainment area
are not to be constructed if either of the
following circumstances applies:
i. If there is a period after June 30,
1979 when a SIP does not satisfy the
requirements of Part D, no major source
or major modification is to be
constructed under a permit applied for
during that period, until after the
approved SIP meets Part D
requirements. If the permit was applied
for before July 1,1979, or before the
period when the SIP fails to satisfy Part
D requirements, construction is not
restricted by any failure of the SIP to
satisfy Part D requirements (as long as
requirements of the Ruling or of an
adequate Part D preconstruction review
program, whichever is applicable, are
satisfied).
ii. If there is a period after June 30,
1979 when a SIP is not being carried out
in accordance with the requirements of
Part D, no permits are to be issued until
the SIP is carried out in accordance with
those requirements. To the extent that
the state does not carry out these
prohibitions against new construction
under sections 110(a)(2)(l), 113(a)(5), and
173(4), the Act provides for EPA to do
so.
11. Changes in Designation. In
developing a Part D SIP revision for a
designated nonattainment area, the
state may determine that the
designation is inappropriate. If this
occurs, the state may submit to EPA a
revised designation with supporting
material. Until EPA finds the revised
designation acceptable and promulgates
it. the July 1 deadline for approval of a
SIP revision satisfying Part D will
continue to apply. However, the SIP
submittal may simply demonstrate that
the standard is attained and that no
additional emission reductions or
preconstruction review requirements
need to be included in the SIP.'0
The |uly 1 deadline applies only for
areas designated as nonattainment in
the Hsitiat March 3, W78 promulgation."
For any area designated as
nonattainment after March 3,1978, the
state will have nine months after the
new designation is promulgated" to
submit a SIP revision satisfying the
requirements of Part D. No additional
time is available, however, when an
area boundary is adjusted but the same
air quality problem and sources
contributing to the problem are
addressed.
IV. Approval of Revised SIP as Satisfying
Non-Part D Requirements
The final question that EPA must
determine in reviewing a SIP submittal
is whether the revised applicable
implementation plan satisfies all
requirements in the Act that are not Part
D requirements. A state's failure to
satisfy non-Part D requirements creates
an obligation under Section 110{c) of the
Act for EPA to promulgate substitute SIP
provisions to satisfy those requirements,
but does not require withholding of new
source permits and highway and air
pollution control program grants.42
Many states are submitting SIP
provisions to satisfy non-Part D
requirements along with their Part D
submittals. EPA must review these
submittals as soon as possible to
determine whether they should be
approved, and must review all
applicable implementation plans as
soon as possible to determine what non-
Part D requirements remain unsatisfied.
In some cases EPA will consider non-
Part D submittals along with Part D
submittals, and in other cases EPA will
defer consideration of non-Part D
submittals until later. The Federal
Register proposals referring to
individual state plans will identify apy
non-Part D decisions to be made and the
relevant considerations.
(Sees. 110(a), 172, Clean Air Act, as amended
(42 U.S.C. 7410(a), 7502))
Dated: March 23,1979.
Dcvid C. Hawklni.
Assi.ititnl Administrator for Air. Noise and Radiation.
|FRL1090-1|
| PR Doc. 79-10?:? Filed 4-3-79; 8.45 am|
BILLING CODE 6580-01-M
Tor purposes of preconslruction review, the
determination of whether a proposed new source
would cause or contribute to a violation of the
standard may be made without regard to the
applicable designation. See subsections 10.c and f of
the text above, in the discussion on Preconstruction
Review: discussion on EFFECT OF
DESIGNATIONS ON CLEAN AIR ACT
REQUIREMENTS in the general preamble on
revised desigmitions of attainment stulus. 43 FR
40412-n (September 11.1978).
" .SV»e note 6 above.
"Several SIP revisions are required by the 1977
Amendments to the Act but are not Part D
requirements. These include the requirements of
sections 128 (state boards). 110(a)(2|(E) and 126
(interstate pollution). 127 (public notification). 160 el
seq. (PSD). 110 (a)(2)(K) (permit fees). 123 (stack
heights in other than nonatt.iinment areas). 121
(consultation), and 110(a)(6) (pay reduction).
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Washington, D. C. 20460 PN-110-79-02-21-014
FEB 2 1
Office of
Air, Noise, and Radiation
SUBJECT: Inspection/Maintenance Policy
FROM: David G. Hawkins, Assistant Administrator
for Air, Noise and Radiation (ANR-443)
TO: Regional Administrators, I-X
Attached is a letter from John McGuire that was discussed at
our meeting on February 7, 1979. John's letter discusses and expands
upon the criteria for granting extensions beyond the July 1, 1979,
deadline for obtaining state enabling legislation for inspection and
maintenance programs.
The Clean Air Act is very specific as to many of the actions
required for the SIP process. EPA's policy guidance has attempted
to carve out as much flexibility as possible to allow latitude for
the states in meeting the many Act requirements. In the case of I/M,
the Act is clear that non-attainment plans must, by July 1, 1979,
include "written evidence that the state...has adopted by statute,
regulation, ordinance, or other legally enforceable document...the
schedules and timetables for compliance..." (172(b)(10)) and has committed
"the financial and manpower resources to carry out the plan..."(172(b)(7)).
In developing the I/M policy (as described in the Administrator's
February 24, 1978, memo and my July 17, 1978, memo to the Regional
Administrators), it was recognized that some flexibility in meeting the
Act's requirements was desirable. Since many legislatures did not meet
until after the January 1, 1979, deadline for SIP submittals, we agreed
to accept a governor's commitment to the I/M schedule in lieu of legislation
by that date. Proof of legislative authority would become an element of
the schedule, (which would reflect obtaining such authority by July
1, 1979), allowing EPA to take earlier action with respect to the
process of approving the SIP.
In a similar vein, the possibility existed that in certain limited,
exceptional situations, it might be unreasonable to require a state to
pass I/M legislation by July 1, 1979. The two situations which were
included in the I/M policy memos were: a) insufficient opportunity to
conduct necessary technical analyses; and b) the legislature has had no
opportunity to consider any necessary enabling legislation. In the
latter case, it was felt appropriate to allow an extension if the
legislature did not meet before the July 1, 1979, deadline. In the
former case, the legislatures could not be expected to pass I/M legislation
before information on I/M benefits and implementation had been gathered;
however, as far as I am aware, the needed information is now available.
-------
John McGuire's letter very emphatically points out that legislative
extensions will not be granted at this time under any circumstances.
The extension, if needed, should only be considered after June and
should be requested by the legislature. In addition to the two criteria
discussed above, the determination on granting a legislative extension
will also take into account "whether the legislation has been given
serious consideration by the legislature." I agree with John that this
is an important consideration and should be included in the policy
guidance. The availability of extensions must continue to be regarded
as an exceptional remedy. I will oppose the granting of extensions
where it appears that the state has made only pro forma attempts to
have I/M legislation consideration.
The use of the legislative extension should still be reserved
for special situations. As John's letter points out, the interpretation
that the Act provides this flexibility is not universally held. For
that reason alone our efforts should be focused on obtaining legislation
by this July, and discussions with the states dealing with the legis-
lation deadline should point out that we are both likely to be in
jeopardy if legislation is not obtained by that date. John's letter
also points out several other benefits of obtaining legislation this
session.
Current policy requires implementation of mandatory inspection
and repair no later than 18 months after legislation for decentralized
programs, and no later than 30 months for centralized programs. This
results in an earlier implementation date for those states that obtain
legislation the earliest; a disincentive for taking action now. After
consultation with the Administrator, I am modifying this requirement
by establishing a single deadline (dependent on program type). I
hope this action will act as an incentive; earlier legislation
will provide more time for implementation. Therefore, regardless of
when the legislation is obtained, the latest date for implementation
of mandatory inspection and repair will be:
Decentralized programs - 1981
Centralized programs - 1982
Our success in obtaining inspection and maintenance programs will
be measured by the legislative progress in the upcoming months. I have
directed my staff to intensify their efforts towards supporting the
regional and state efforts in obtaining adequate I/M programs. I
strongly urge you personally as well as your staffs to also intensify
your efforts during this time. The data being generated by our Portland
Study (a copy of the latest status report was recently sent to you)
reinforces our previous conclusions that I/M programs are both necessary
and effective. With this new information and a strong commitment by
both our staffs, I am confident that our objectives can be met.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
DATE: 1 5 FEB 1979
T.CT: Clarification of SIP Policies for TSP
PN-HO-79-02-15-013
FROM:
TO:
Richard G. Rhoads, Director
Control Programs Development Division (MD-15)
Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X
During the past weeks, several questions have been raised on certain
policies and *heir implications on plan development and control strategy
requirements. The purpose of this memorandum is to respond to these
questions and to reiterate and clarify the policies in question.
1. (Q) Should ambient air quality data reflecting extraordinary
conditions be excluded from control strategy development so as not to
indicate a need for an unreasonable control strategy element?
(A) Yes, as Section 51.12(d) states ". . . data derived from
measurements of existing ambient levels of a pollutant may be adjusted
to reflect the extent to which occasional natural or accidental phenomena,
e»g.,-dust storms, forest fires, industrial accidents, demoi;strably
affected such ambient levels during the measurement period." During
the review of the SIP revisions, the ambient data summaries should
be reviewed to assure that such extraordinary conditions are
not utilized in developing control strategies.
2<
areas?
(Q) Is RACT required for all major sources in nonattainment
(A) The basic requirement under Section 172 is that the NAAQS
must be attained as expeditiously as practicable (with reasonable
further progress before attainment), but for primary standards
in no case later than December 31, 1982. Therefore, nonattainment
area'plan revisions nn;st provide for implementation of all RACT
rc-quirements thi.1 \vould serve to expedite attainment of the flAAQS.
One or more RACT requirements may be dispensed with only if it is
demonstrated: (1) that their absence will not jeopardize the
attainment date in the revised SIP and (2) that their inclusion would
not allow for an earlier attainment date. States may develop whatever
mix of control measures they deem appropriate to obtain the NAAQS
as expeditiously as practicable, provided the mix of control measures
has been officially submitted and is legally enforceable.
3o (Q) Can one or more existing RACT requirements for TSP be
revoked as being unnecessary?
(A) Congress did not intend the extension of attainment dates
under Section 172 to permit loosening of existing SIP requirements.
Therefore, a demonstration that the loosening of one or more existing
RACT requirements will not jeopardize the attainment date in the
EPA Form 1320-6 (Rev. 3-76)
-------
revised SIP will not justify, in and of itself, the lifting of these
requirements. Before existing RACT requirements may be lifted, it
must also be shown that the absence of suqh requirements does not
prevent expeditious attainment or does not result in violation of
PSD increments.
4. (Q) How rigid is the definition of "rural area" in the fugitive
dust policy?
(A; As stated in the "Fugitive Dust Policy: SIPs and New
Source Review" of August 16, 1977, the criteria used to determine what
constitutes an urbanized area vs a 'rural' area should be based upon a
number of factors (i.e., industrial emissions, population, or population
density). For purposes of defining a 'rural' fugitive dust area, the
following criteria should be examined: (1) the lack of major industrial
development or absence of significant industrial particulate emissions
and (2) low urbanized population (i.e., eastern States <100,000-200,000 or
westerp States <25,000-50,000). The population criteria is at best a
range of values to be considered in conjunction with the amount of
industrial activity for classifying an area as "urban" or'"rural."
These criteria allow the States to utilize a certain amount of discretion
in designating nonattainment areas and in requiring control measures
for various source categories.
The answers to these questions express our current thoughts on each
of these issues. Should you require further clarifications or have any
comments on this memorandum, please do not hesitate to contact me or
my staff.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DATE: December 21, 1978
SUBJECT: Supplementary Guidelines for Lead Jmp-jementation Plans—Correction's'
i n T i ru- r PN-110-78-12-21-012
Oarryl 0. Tyler, Chief
FROM: Standards Implementation Branch
Air Branch Chiefs
TO: Regions 1-X
EPA's recommended procedure for projecting automotive lead emissions
appears in section 4.3 of the Supplementary Guidelines for Lead Imple-
mentation Plans (EPA-450/2-78-038). Section 4.3.1.2 presents a procedure
for calculating area source automotive emissions. The procedure uses an
equation J), which contains a factor, a , the percentage of lead burned that
is exhausted. Section 4.3.1.2 advises users to base the determination of
a on the average vehicle speed for the specific area. The value of a
would be determined from Figure 4.3-1, which presents the percentage or
burned lead exhausted vs. vehicle cruise speed. It appears, however, that
Figure 4.3-1 is based primarily on tests of lead emissions from vehicles
operating at steady speeds over short test periods, rather than on long-
ter,m, varied driving conditions. Therefore, for calculating monthly or
quarterly mobile source lead emissions over an area, one should use a
factor more representative of those conditions. Although there haven't
been many tests of mobile source lead emissions that enable OAQPS to
define such a factor with more certainty, CPDD recommends a factor of
a = 0.70, which is based on tests that measured exhaust emissions under
city-type driving conditions. At the completion of the test runs, the
cars were examined to determine the amount of lead left in various
zones of the engine and exhaust system. The total lead trapped in the
car was subtracted from the total amount of lead burned to determine
the maximum amount of lead which could have been exhausted. The 70
percent emission factor is approximately equal to this amount.
Use of the 70 percent value will yield an amount of lead particulate
matter emitted from automobiles greater than the amount derived from
Figure 4.3-1 and without consideration of the particle size. Some of
the particles, may, of course, be very large and may not become airborne.
At present, EPA does not have enough information to provide guidance on
how to account for particle size distributions of automotive lead emis-
sions, although Appendix C of the guideline presents additional informa-
tion about this topic.
This change does not affect the procedure for calculating emissions
from individual roadways, which appears in Section 4.3.1.1; for individual
roadways, a should be determined from Figure 4.3-1.
Also several errors have been found in other portions of the guideline.
We have prepared the attached correction sheet for the lead guideline.
I ask you to pass this information on to the agencies that are preparing
the lead SIPs.
Attachment
EPA FORM 1320-6 (REV. 3-761
-------
SUPPLEMENTARY GUIDELINES FOR LEAD IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
(EPA-450/2-78-038)
--CORRECTION—
1. On page 45, section 4.3.1.2, "Area Source Automotive Emissions,"
delete "a and" in the last sentence and add the following sentence:
"For determining lead emissions for an area for a one- to three-month
averaging time, assume a = 0.7."
2. On page 61, 15th li/ie, replace "1200" with ".'2000."
3. On page 104, fourth line, replace "100 ^g" with "100 mg."
-------
"«= PN-no-78-i2-21-on
SUBJECT: Implementation of the National, Ambient Air Quality Standard for Lead
FROM: waiter C. Barber, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
T0: Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
As a follow-up to my memorandum of October 16, it appears that more
guidance is needed for development of the State Implementation Plans for
lead. As you may recall, the Administrator indicated in his press
conference when he signed the lead standard that EPA did not have adequate
information to accurately assess the impact of the national .lead standard,
but that after the SIPs are developed, EPA would have a better indication
of those impacts.
Therefore, I ask you to encourage your States to -perform assessments
of the impacts of the lead SIPs on sources. Many States are already
required under their own laws to perform regulatory impact analyses
anyway, so EPA can benefit from those efforts. Specifically, we would
like the States to address in their assessments the following topics:
—Existing and future levels of control.
—Existing and future'emission levels.
—Cost of additional controls.
—Affordability of controls.
—Discussion of population exposure.
OAQPS can make some limited technical assistance available for the
development of these assessments; interested persons can call Richard Rhoads
of my offi ce.
cc: R. Rhoads
D. Tyler
0. Sableski
0. Silvasi
D. deRoeck
EPA Pom, 1320-6 (R.v. 3-76)
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DEC 18 1978
PN-110-78-12-18-010
SUBJECT: Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) Requirements for 1982
Attainment Date SIPs
PROM: Walter C. Barber, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
T0: Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division
Regions I-X
At the December 5, 1978, meeting of STAPPA/ALAPCO/EPA in Mobile,
Alabama, a discussion was held concerning the applicability of the RFP
requirement for SIPs with 1982 attainment dates, e.g., TSP. At the meeting,
I committed to Devaluating the RFP requirement for 1982 attainment date
SIPs.
After once again studying the appropriate sections of the 1977 Clean
Air Act Amendments and the Administrator's February 24, 1978, memorandum
"Criteria for Approval of 1979 SIP Revisions," I have concluded that
the RFP requirement is applicable to all SIPs regardless of attainment
date. I do not, however, consider this to be a burdensome requirement
as the demonstration of RFP is nothing more than a projection of the
incremental emission reductions that will result from the expeditious as
practicable application of the various SIP control measures.
Let me provide an example of how the RFP presentation would be
developed for a TSP SIP. The State's 1979 SIP submittal must demon-
strate attainment by 1982. In order to do this, the State must know
what the current emissions are and what emissions must be reduced to in
order to demonstrate attainment. These pre- and post-SIP emissions define
the two ends of the RFP line. I realize that to the extent that
fugitive emissions and fugitive dust are significant contributors to
the nonattainment problems, the degree of confidence in these emission
estimates will be weak and will certainly improve as studies are con-
ducted and control measures are more specifically defined and ultimately
implemented. Regardless of the shortcomings of the emission inventory,
some estimate of current emissions and the emissions necessary to demon-
strate attainment must be made by the State if EPA is to have any
confidence in the State's ability to attain the standards by the
prescribed date. Thus, the pre- and post-SIP emission estimates are
needed regardless of any RFP requirements.
The Administrators' February 24, 1978, memo states that: "The
January 1979 plan revisions dealing with particulate matter must contain
all the necessary emission limitations and legally enforceable procedures
for traditional sources. These emission limitations and enforceable
EPA Form 1320-6 (R.v. 3-76)
-------
procedures must provide for the control of fugitive emissions, where
necessary, as well as stack emissions from these stationary sources.
Where control of non-traditional sources (e.g., urban fugitive dust,
resuspension, construction, etc.) is necessary for attainment, the
plan shall contain an assessment of the impact of these sources and a
commitment on the part of the State to adopt appropriate control measures.
This commitment shall take the form of a schedule to develop, submit, and
implement the legally enforceable procedures, and programs for controlling
non-traditional particulate matter sources."
The shape of the RFP line will be determined by the time it takes
the sources to comply with the traditional and fugitive emissions regu-
lations submitted in 1979, by the timing of the non-traditional source
studies, and by the time it takes to implement the specific control
requirements that were outlined in the schedules contained in the 1979
submittals. As stated in the Administrator's memo, "...EPA recognizes
that some measures cannot result in immediate emission reduction. Therefore,
if a State can show that some lag in emissions reduction is necessary, a
SIP will be acceptable even though reductions sufficient to produce
decreases at the "straight-line rate" are not achieved..." In
conclusion, the RFP presentation for 1982 attainment date SIPs must
demonstrate that the control measures are being implemented as
expeditiously as practicable and that attainment will be achieved
by the prescribed date.
Again, the RFP demonstration requires very little additional work
than would be required to develop a SIP with the associated compliance
schedules in the absence of such a requirement.
Congress added the RFP requirement to the Act to ensure that
measures would be adopted and implemented in sufficient time to bring
about attainment by the prescribed date. RFP forces the State to
analyze the means and the schedule by which the plan will provide for
attai nment.
cc: I. Artico
D. Borchers
M. Fast
S. Kuhrtz
B. Steigerwald
E. Tuerk
H. Williams, Chairman, STAPPA
K. MacKenzie, President, ALAPCO
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
C4TE: X10CT 1978 Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
PN-110-78-10-11-009
CT: Questions and Answers on 1979 SIP Revisions
: G. T. Helms, Chief
Control Programs Operations Branch
TO: see Addressees Below
Enclosed is a compilation of the six monthly questions and answers
memos put out ':: date plus questions and answers (dated January 12, 1978)
from the January Air Branch Chiefs' meeting. Also included are six
new questions and answers. The questions and answers are grouped by
subject. I hope this will enhance the use of the memos in clarifying
the 1979 SIP revision requirements. The date of the original memo
follows each question.
Enclosures
Addressees:
Thomas Devine, Region I
William Baker, Region II
Howard Heim, Region III
Winston Smith, Region IV
Steve Rothblatt, Region V
Jack Divita, Region VI
Art Spratlin, Region VII
Robert DeSpain, Region VIII
Wayne Blackard, Region IX
Clark Gaulding, Region X
cc: R. Campbell
R. Rhoads
D. Tyler
The six new questions and answers are identified by an asterisk as well
as by date in parenthesis.
EPA FORM 1320-6 IREV. 3-761
-------
SECTION 107 DESIGNATIONS
Q: What are the general criteria for EPA promulgation where a State
defaults and a violating monitoring site is present? And for EPA
acceptance of State designations for Section. 107? (1/12)
A: Given below on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis are the two cases—first,
where EPA must promulgate the area to be generally designated as non-
attainment is given; and second, the criteria to be used by the Regional
Offices in evaluating State submitted designations.
TSP
EPA promulgation — political boundaries such as county, city.
State designation — if monitoring sites are unrepresentative according
to SAMWG — call area unclassified.
Oxidants
EPA promulgation — county as a minimum.
State designation — accept all reasonable designations.
S02
EPA promulgation — county as a minimum.
State designation — accept all reasonable designations.
C0_
EPA promulgation — urban core area.
State designation — accept reasonable designations. Regional Office
would redesignate as "unclassified" if State submitted attainment designa-
tion for large urban area > 200,000 population with no monitoring or
modeling data.
Designation of all areas as nonattainment, attainment, or unclassified
relative to air quality standards must be made by EPA in early February, 1978,
based on State recommendations due December 5s 1977.
Q: Which should be given preference in designating areas, monitored data
or modeling results? 0/12)
A: In urban areas monitoring results should be used. For areas around
isolated point sources, especially for SO;?, it is difficult for a few
monitors to catch the hotspot. If there is a conflict between adequate
monitoring data and modeling results, monitored values should be used.
However, if the monitoring data are inadequate, then available modeling
results should be used. It is not necessary to model specifically for
the §107 designations.
-------
Q: Is there any flexibility allowed 1n determining nonattainment areas? (1/12)
A: Areas clearly showing attainment or nonattainment must be classified
as such. Areas with only sketchy data may be defined as unclassifiable.
We recognize the subtle complexity of this issue and the inherent
difficulties created by the above guidance. However, two factors must
be recognized: (1) sites with clearly defined nonattainment problems
cannot be arbitrarily reclassified except as provided in the fugitive
dust policy paper; and (2) a SIP cannot be totally approved by EPA
unless it demonstrates attainment of the NAAQS in all areas.
Q: Are all sapling sites to be included in determining nonattainment
areas? (1/12)
A: Yes, unless it can be clearly shown that such data points do not
represent the true ambient air quality occurring at the site in question.
Q: If the last four quarters of sampling were shown to be abnormal in
terms of frequency and magnitude of violations, would previous data be
accepted as the basis for not declaring nonattainment status at this
time? (1/12)
A: Both the long term trend and specific data point given by the four
quarter analysis should be examined. If there is a discrepancy between
the two, the State should make a judgment as to which is the most valid
indicator. Rationale utilized in making this judgment should be provided
to EPA. As a practical guide, data significantly impacted by rare
meteorological conditions (for example, the recent Northwest drought)
may be considered abnormal and thus be discounted for these determinations.
Q: Will EPA accept a designation of attainment for an area with a monitor
showing recent violations due to a temporary situation such as construction? (1/12)
A: Yes, if a history of attainment can be shown and 1f the temporary
activity is demonstrated to be responsible for the violation.
Q: Is it necessary to designate an area-as nonattainment if the source
of the violation is known and regulatory measures are underway? (1/12)
A: Yes, if the data are available and valid. The area of nonattainment
can be made small in these situations.
Q: Is the boundary of a. nonattainment area best determined by the
"contour" around areas experiencing ambient violations or by the
location of sources that contribute to these violations? (1/12)
A: Nonattainment areas are in general defined by ambient violations.
It appears that sufficient flexibility exists to allow States to include
an additional area around the actual nonattainment area to make new
sources located immediately adjacent to the problem areas subject to
offset requirements.
-------
Q: What are EPA's intentions on Ox designations? (1/12)
A: It is our intention to designate all urbanized areas with populations
greater than 200,000 (1970 census) as nonattainment for Ox even in the
absence of air quality data. Valid rural data on Ox cannot be ignored
and at a minimum the county in which the sampler is located must be
declared nonattainment if a violation has been recorded.
Q: Does EPA intend to hold public hearings on the State designations
of attainment status? (1/12)
A: EPA does not intend to conduct public hearings on the State designa-
tions. Instead, EPA will publish arrlist of attainment, nonattainment
and unknown designations on_February 3, 1978, followed by a 30-day
comment period. Any" changes to the designation status will be" promulgated
at~~Teast 30 days later.
Q: Should illegal stack heights be considered in Section 107 designations? (1/T2)
A: Yes, to the extent that they are known.
Q: Can attainment/nonattainment status be changed? (1/12)
A: Yes. An area designated nonattainment on the basis of this year's
data could be redesignated whenever the data show that the area has
achieved attainment.
Q: What form will the February 3, 1978, Federal Register notice take
which will give the Stats designations for attainment/nonattainment areas
as required by Section 107 of the Clean Air Act? (1/12)
A: The designations will appear in the notice section of the Federal
Register with a general national perspective preamble accompanying the
actual list of designations as approved by EPA. Where necessary, a
portion of the preamble will be devoted to a discussion for any signifi-
cant actions taken by the Regional Offices.
Q. Is it true that if a monitor is properly sited, i.e., influenced
by a significant stationary source, then the area of the nonattainment
designation should be as small as possible, so as to reflect only the
impact of a nearby source? (6/2)
A. Yes. The nonattainment area may be as small as possible as long
as it covers the whole area of the source's impact.
Q. Should monitors that are improperly sited, according to EPA
criteria, and hence could be unduly influenced by resuspended street
dust, be ignored in establishing the attainment status of an area? (6/2)
-------
A. No. It is not current Agency policy that only those monitoring
sites which meet SAMWS guidelines be used for both SIP development and
Section 107 designation purposes. EPA's proposed guidance states that
there are situations in which data from existing monitors located in the
"unacceptable" zone may still be useful. For sites not located within.
the proposed guidelines, an evaluation is needed to determine the roadway
influence. This evaluation is then used to decide if the roadway influence
is significant enough to warrant relocation of the monitor. If relocation
is necessary, the monitor must be within the immediate vicinity of the
original location such that the new site meets the proposed guidelines.
The area is presumed to be nonattainment until such time as data from
the relocated station indicate otherwise.
Q. Are States required to monitor air quality in areas desig-
nated as unclassified in order to establish a base for determining the
attainment/nonattainment status? (7/11)
A. No specific monitoring requirements apply. However, the require-
ment for sources subject to PSD regulations to obtain one year of air
quality data prior to construction does apply and that data could be
used for purposes of designating the area.
Q. What is the future of the Section 107 designation process? Will
designations be modified, changed, and updated on any kind of annual
basis? (7/28)
A. There is no specific schedule for revising the Section 107 desig-
nations. The designations are dynamic and designation changes are to be
made whenever new and relevant information is brought to the attention
of the State (or EPA if the State does not act.) The designation changes
are to be accomplished by the Regional Office as an informal rulemaking
action revising Part 81.
-------
EMISSION INVENTORIES
Q. Must the emission inventory forms recommended in the workshops
on requirements for nonattainment area plans be used for submitting
inventories with the 1979 SIP submissions? (6/2)
A. No. The formats in the nonattainment workshop summaries are
merely suggestions. Due to the vast number of computerized systems
using varied storage formats, it is nearly impossible for all submissions
to fit the particular suggested formats, Whatever particular summary
format a State chooses, must be approved by their Regional Office and
should reflect that the emission inventory is accurate, current, and
comprehensive.
Q. Must chemical species information be included in the emission
inventory? (6/2)
A. Total nonexempt volatile organic compound emissions are the only
emissions that need to be identified in the emission inventory submitted
in the January, 1979, plan. Chemical _species information may be useful
in the determination of the most appropriate method of control for a
particular industry, but this information need not be submitted in the
emission inventory.
Q. Emission inventories are to be on an annual basis, yet some
problems and standard violations occur on a short-term basis (daily
or seasonal). Is there a way these sources can be reported so their
emission inventories will reflect this? (3/31)
A. If the nonattainment area has short-term problems, the State can
attempt to develop a selective short-term emission inventory for those
sources which have an impact on the air quality problem.
Q. Are sources located outside a nonattainment area which significantly
impact on that area required to be inventoried? (3/31)
A. Sources outside the nonattainment area which, due to meteorological
conditions, impact on the nonattainment area are required to be included
in the emissions inventory. It is unlikely that standards will be
attained if these outside sources are not part of the inventory and con-
trol strategy.
Q. What date is acceptable as a "current" emission inventory? (5/4)
A. A "current" emission inventory is generally considered to be
1977. However, the emission inventory should be comparable with the
air "quality data used to develop the control strategy and if pre-1977
air quality data were used, a "current" emission inventory can be
anywhere from 1975-1977.
-------
Q. What information is available to do a mobile source emission
inventory? (6/2)
A. Mobile Source Emission Factors (EPA 400/9-78-005) is now available.
The computer program Mobile 1 tape along with a short user's guide, is
available from Len Fleckenstein in OTLUP (755-0603).
-------
FUGITIVE DUST
As previously stated in the Hawkins to the Regional Administrators,
memo dated October 7, 1977, for rural areas, the contribution of fugitive
dust to monitored air quality levels can be neglected before determining
the attainment/nonattainment status for Section 107 designations.
Q: For purposes of defining nonattainment areas for TSP, what is rural
fugitive dust? 0/12}
A: The State may subtract both the impact of industrial sources located
within an area and the normal ambient background level. The remainder
may be considered "rural fugitive dust" in non-urban areas.
Q: Windblown particulate need not be counted against nonattainment in
rural areas but all particulate must be counted in urban areas. What
is a rural area? 0/12)
A: Significant flexibility is allowed in this determination. Generally,
Regional Offices have been using 25,000 population as the cut point between
an urban setting and a rural situation. However, for the purposes of
implementing the fugitive dust policy, rural areas are determined by
the following criteria: (1) the lack of major industrial development
or absence of significant industrial particulate emissions; and (2) low
urban.i zed popul ati ons.
Q. If an area influenced by fugitive dust is designated as a non-
attainnent area due to point source emissions, does the control strategy
analysis have to include fugitive dust controls? (5/4)
A. Yes, fugitive dust may only be discounted in accordance with
the fugitive dust policy paper. An area which cannot be classified as
attainment through the discounting of fugitive dust cannot subsequently
discount fugitive dust sources in developing control strategies, assuming,
of course, that point source control alone will not be sufficient to
attain the ambient standards.
-------
OFFSETS
Q: If a source locates or expands in an attainment area and is therefore
not subject to offset, can it be allowed to significantly contributes
to violations of standards in an adjacent nonattainment area? (1/12)
A: No, the requirement that each NAAQS shall act as an overriding ceiling
to any otherwise allowable increment assures that a source constructed
in an attainment area will not significantly contribute to violations of
standards in an adjacent area.
Q: Can sources be allowed to construct under the State emission offset
rulina after July 1979? (1/12)
A: Yes, in the following situations:
(1) The requirements of Part D are otherwise met, but the allowance
for growth has been used up (or none was provided initially).
(2) If an area is determined to be nonattainment subsequent to the
initial February 1978 designations, a State will have 9 months in which
to develop an acceptable SIP, and EPA will have six months to approve
during which time new sources may be permitted in accordance with the
offset ruling.
Q. How is a nonattainment area treated before promulgation in the
Federal Register, specifically with respect to offsets? (6/2}
A. Section 107 designations in no way affect offset requirements.
Once data show an area to be nonattainment, the area is required to get
offsets immediately, irrespective of the Federal promulgation date. This
works both ways. .If data show an area to be attaining the standards and
that a new source will not cause or contribute to a violation, offsets
are not required.
Q. Are hydrocarbon (HC) offsets required of major new sources
locating in rural 0 nonattainment areas? (5/4)
J\
A. Yes, offsets are required in rural 0 nonattainment areas until
the State develops a SIP which demonstrates attainment in the urban non-
attainment areas and requires RACT on all existing 100 ton HC sources
located in rural nonattainment areas: The required offsets, however, do
not have to be obtained in the vicinity of the proposed new source.
Q. Does a source wishing to construct in a nonattainment area need
to obtain offsets if the new source permit is approved after the SIP is
submitted? (7/11)
A. Offsets are required up until the time a SIP is approved by EPA
even if the SIP submittal has a margin for growth provision rather than
an offset requirement. However, rather than go through the offset ruling,
the State could process a new source application under the new source
review procedure in the revised SIP. As soon as EPA approves the SIP,
the State can issue the oermit.
-------
Q: Is there any difference between violations of primary and secondary
standards in terms of actions that must occur, especially with regards
to offset? (1/12)
A: SIP revisions are required for both violations of primary and
secondary standards. Offsets apply in both cases until July 1979 unless
the State submits a revised attainment date for the secondary standard
for either TSP or sulfur dioxide.
* Q. If a State adopts Statewide RACT regulations for TOO tons/year
VOC sources for which EPA has published a CTG by January, 1978, do
offsets apply in rural nonattainment areas and rural unclassifiable
areas subsequently designated as nonattainment? (1-P/ll)
A. No, as stated in the Administrator's memo of February 24, 1978,
for oxidants, Statewide regulatory development (for at least VOC
sources greater than 100 tons/year for which EPA has published a CTG
by January, 1978) would permit the State to utilize the regulations
developed for the entire State as the applicable plan. This would
normally constitute an approvable SIP for rural areas and by definition
will accommodate the proposed growth.
* Q. Are internal offsets which are approved in the 1979 submission
permanent or do they expire in 1982? (10/11)
A. Neither. If attainment cannot be demonstrated by 1982, a plan
revision must be submitted before July 1, 1982, containing additional
measures to assure attainment by 1987. This means that the 1982 submittal
may need to call for tightening of RACT or the elimination of internal
offsets, but they will not automatically expire in 1982. Of course, a
State can make offsets expire at any time it wishes.
-------
PSD
Q: Do the PSD increments become applicable when an area moves from
nonattainment to attainment? 0/12)
A: No. Since the baseline for determining air quality deterioration
for PSD purposes is air quality as of January 6, 1975 (which exceeded
the NAAQS), the NAAQS would always be more restrictive than any PSD
increment.
Q: Can Indian reservations unilaterally redesignate to Class I? (1/12)
A: Yes, Indian reservations can reclassify their lands from Class II
to Class I by following the proper procedures outlined in the Clean Air
Act Amendments and PSD Federal Register.
Q: Can a new source be allowed in a rural attainment area that is just
barely achieving the NAAQS if the source's emissions, even though within
the allowable PSD increment, would cause violations of the NAAQS? (1/12)
A: No. If the source would cause violations of NAAQS,-it would not be
allowed to build. PSD increments are not allowed to cause an area to
exceed the NAAQS. Yes, if offsets are practiced.
Q: If a source is constructed in a nonattainment area and meets the
required offset, would it be allowed to violate PSD increments in an
adjacent Class I area even though it is not subject to the PSD regulations?(1/12)
A: PSD reviews are required in all areas. The source would not be
allowed to violate PSD increments in any area.
Q: Will sulfur dioxide from ships be included in the PSD requirements
if the potential cumulative emissions exceed 250 tons per year? (1/12)
A: Yes, it is recommended that the SO? emissions from ships be included
in the PSD analysis for the duration of time that they are docked or
attached to the facility.
Q: Do hydrocarbons and oxidants have to be included in PSD reviews at
this time? If not, when do you anticipate that they will be included?
If these pollutants are to be included at some future date, will
facilities previously planned or under construction be exempt? (1/12)
A: If a source can get a final permit by March 1, 1978, the PSD
applications will only need to assess the impacts for $62 and partic-
ulates. After March 1, 1978, the new definitions and regulations under
Section 165 will go into effect. (Even a source which'could obtain a
final permit by March 1, 1978, must be reviewed in accordance with the
new rules to be issued in March if it will commence construction on or
after December 1, 1978.) BACT would be required for all sources which
require PSD review. Increments for hydrocarbons and oxidants may go
into effect within the next few years.
-------
Q. Will EPA require PSD permit applicants to monitor for hydro-
carbons in addition to oxidant? (7/11)
A. Since the .24 ppm hydrocarbon standard is only a guide for
developing SIPs to attain the oxidant standard, no monitoring for hydro-
carbons will be required.
Q. What is the effect of reducing baseline emissions? (7/lT)
A. Reductions in baseline emissions (such as the application of
RACT as a result of 1979 SIP revisions) will serve to expand the avail-
able increment for an area.
Q. Does a SIP relaxation count against a PSD increment? (7/11)
A. SIP relaxations that were pending as of August 7, 1977, are part
of the baseline. The contribution to the baseline from existing sources
affected by the relaxation that was pending as of August 7 would be
based on the allowable emissions under the SIP as revised.
SIP relaxations received by EPA after August 7, 1977, but before
promulgation of the PSD regulations do consume increment. However,
these revisions require special consideration due to the uncertainty of
how the new Act would apply to such SIP relaxations. These SIP relaxa-
tions need not be individually assessed to determine the precise amount
of consumed increment before such relaxations may be approved. The
periodic assessment requirement to verify that the applicable increments
have not been exceeded is thought to be sufficient protection. This
assessment would result in revisions to the SIP if an increment were
found to have been violated. All SIP relaxations received after the
date of promulgation of the PSD regulations will be individually reviewed
against the available PSD increments. If deterioration beyond that
allowed under the available increments would occur under a SIP relaxa-
tion, then such a SIP revision would be disapproved to the extent that
it would cause significant deterioration. Whether a plan relaxation
would consume the available increment would be typically determined
through modeling the difference between the allowable emissions resulting
from the new relaxed SIP limit and the emissions of the applicable
source(s) which were included in the baseline.
Q. Can EPA delegate PSD as an interim measure? (7/11)
A. The PSD program can be delegated to the States as has been done
in the past. States should, however, be encouraged to develop their own
PSD program.
Q. Does an applicant located in a nonattainment area have to obtain
one year of air quality data if the control agency has sufficient data
reflecting the predicted ambient impact of the new source? (7/11)
A. No. If the Regional Office feels that existing air quality data
are representative, then no additional monitoring would be required.
-------
Q. SIP relaxations which would exceed the air quality increments
established under Part C of the Clean &ir Act to prevent significant
deterioration will be disapproved. Will this be retroactive for previously
approved SIP relaxations? (7/11)
A. There is no need to immediately disapprove previously approved
SIP relaxations which would have caused the increment to be violated.
However, the State should be notified of the need to assess the possible
violation of the increment. If the review indicates a violation of an
increment, then the plan should be revised within 60 days or such time
as determined by the Administrator. The SIP revision should be designed
to obtain such reduction in emissions so that the increment is no longer
exceeded.
Q. Is it appropriate to disapprove implementation plan relaxations
if such relaxations would exceed the air quality increment established
under Part C of the Clean Air Act (CAA) to prevent significant deteriora-
tion (PSD) of air quality? (3/31)
A. Yes, Section 110(a)(2)(J) of the CAA requires, prior to
approval, that each plan contains measures to prohibit a stationary
source from emitting pollutants which -xould interfere with any PSD
increment. Any SIP relaxations which exceed the increment would be in
violation of this provision. It should be noted that this policy
applies in all instances, even if the relaxation would not jeopardize
attainment or maintenance of the ambient standards.
Q. If a State is conducting some of the PSD review but not issuing
permits, should it obtain a formal delegation of authority from EPA to
conduct that review? (7/28)
A. Yes. In orider to clarify the relationship between EPA and the
State, the Governor (or his designated agent) should request a partial
delegation. -•
Q. Will post-construction monitoring play any role in determining
whether a source has used up the increment? (7/28)
A. Section 52.21(n)(7) of the PSD regulations provides that the
owner or operator shall conduct such post-construction monitoring as the
Administrator determines may be necessary to establish the effect which
emissions of a criteria pollutant from a source are having or would have
on air quality. In the preamble to the regulations, EPA indicates it
would, in any event, only require monitoring data for the purpose of
determining whether a NAAQS has been or would be violated. At the
present time, however, EPA is generally not requiring post-construction
monitoring for this purpose.
-------
Q. What is EPA's role in approval/disapproval of PSD classification
redesignations? (7/28)
A. EPA can disapprove a redesignation only if the procedural require-
ments of Section 164 of the Clean Air Act and Sections 52.21(g) are
not met (which includes, e.g., failure to give public notice or failure
to hold public hearings) or if the redesignation is inconsistent with
Section 162(a) or Section 164(a)(l)(2). If the above requirements are
satisfied, EPA cannot overturn a redesignation and will approve the
redesignation.
Q. Can a Regional Office have a more stringent PSD monitoring program
or ask for additional monitoring in support of a permit application than
is recommended in the OAQPS guideline? (9/8)
A. Yes, a Regional Office may exceed the minimum sampling requirements
specified in air guidance. However, to assure some degree of regional
consistency, they should have sufficient justification when additional
monitoring or more frequent quality assurance tests are required from a
particular source.
-------
CO AND Qx SI Ps
Q. What is the effective date of Section 172(b)(ll)? (5/4)
A. Section 172(b)(ll) states that when a plan due on or before
January 1, 1979, demonstrates that attainment is not possible for either
0 or CO (or both) before December 31, 1982, that plan must establish a
permit system, a schedule for implementation of inspection/maintenance
(I/M), and identify other measures necessary to provide attainment by
December 31, 1987.
Q. Can an extension to 1987 be requested after 1979 if the original
1982 attainment for CO or 0 (or both) does not materialize? (5/4)
A
A. Yes. If a State has their SIP approved in 1979 which provides
for attainment of CO or 0 (or both) by 1982, but that plan later proves
inadequate for achieving attainment by 1982 and the State demonstrates
that it cannot attain the standards by 1982 despite the implementation
of all reasonably available control measures, a plan revision may be
submitted providing attainment by 1987.
Q. If a State concludes it is impossible to demonstrate attainment
of the CO or 0 standards or both by 1987 using all reasonable measures,
will there be I no growth sanction as of July, 1979? (7/11)
A. A State should not draw that conclusion. The Clean Air Act requires
commitment to the implementation of all RACT in the January, 1979, SIP.
If these reasonable measures are not adequate to show attainment, the
State must identify the additional control measures which could theoretically
produce the additional required emission reductions and commit to further
investigation of the measures. However, the Clean Air Act does not require
that a State commit in 1979 to implement these specific additional measures.
Such a commitment is not required until 1982.
Q. For CO nonattainment areas which cannot attain by 1982, is
inspection/maintenance required? (6/2)
A. Yes. Section 172(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act says that in the
case of the national primary ambient air quality standard for photochemical
oxidants or CO (or both) "if the State demonstrates...that such attainment
is not possible in an area with respect to either or both of such pollu-
tants within the period prior to December 31, 1982,...such provisions
shall provide for the attainment of the national primary standard for
the pollutant (or pollutants) with respect to which such demonstration
is made, as expeditiously as possible but not later than. December 31, 1987."
Section 172(b)(ll) says that in the case of plans which make a demonstra-
tion pursuant to Section 172(a)(2), the plan provisions shall establish
a specific schedule for implementation of a vehicle emission control
inspection and maintenance program. However, as a matter of policy, EPA
is not requiring I/M in cities with populations, of less than 200,000.
-------
i. Q. What model should States use to determine percent reduction
needed to attain the 0Y standards? £6/2)
^
A. The Regional Office need not dictate model consistency but can
leave it to the option of the States.
Q. Is the reference (in the February 24, 1978, memo on criteria for
approval of 1979 SIP revisions) to use of the highest pollutant concentra-
tion for determining the necessary level of control for photochemical
oxidants in nonattainment urban areas an attempt to modify current
Agency policy regarding the use of the second highest value? (7/28)
A. No, the use of the highest pollutant concentration is intended
by definition to mean the second highest value since the ambient standard
dictates that-the-.oxidant standard can be exceeded, once per year.
Q. If an area contains several CO monitors all showing nonattainment,
must the control strategy demonstrate attainment for all monitors or
only the one with the highest reading?(7/28)
A. The control strategy must demonstrate attainment at all locations.
Site specific controls alone are sufficient if they take care of the
problem and do not serve simply to relocate it. However, measures that
provide comprehensive control (such as I/M) and area-wide VMT reduction
(such as mass transit, car pooling, etc.) may provide the best solution
to the problem.
Q. How is an "urbanized area" of greater than 200,000 people defined? (7/28)
A. As defined in the U.S. Department of Commerce publication,
1970 Census Users' Guide Part 1, p. 82, urbanized area includes a core
city plus any closely settled suburban area. For the purpose of oxidant
plan development, major urbanized areas are urbanized areas with a popula-
tion of 200,000 or greater. (See attachments to this enclosure for the
Bureau of Census1 definition and a list of urbanized areas.)
Q. Is Appendix 0 an acceptable procedure for calculating percent
reduction required to achieve the oxidant NAAQS? (9/8)
A. Present guidance permits the use of Appendix 0. However, there
has been much adverse comment in the technical community regarding its
adequacy; and its limitations are well known. Therefore, States should
be discouraged from using Appendix J because it is not the best technique
available. States should also be advised that EPA has proposed to rescind
Appendix J in its proposed revision to the NAAQS for ozon.e. Regional
Offices should not use Appendix J in any calculations made for any urban-
ized area since it will not be considered appropriate after the standard
is revised.
-------
Q. The rollback equation accounting for transport is different in
the workbook used in the "Workshop on Requirements for Nonattainment
Area Plans" from the equation presented in the "Users" document. Which is
correct? (9/8)
A. Both are correct. The equations are algebraically the same.
Q. For CO SIPs, what is needed to demonstrate reasonable further
progress (RFP) by 1982? (9/8)
A. The requirement to demonstrate RFP will, in most areas, reflect
a continuous phased implementation of transportation control measures
(TCMs). These TCMs will most likely stress overall vehicle miles
traveled (VMTy reductions. Also included in the RFP line would be
reasonable controls for point sources (in areas which have them), reduc-
tions from the Federal motor vehicle control plan (FMVCP) and where
required, I/M emission reductions for a decentralized program (1981) and
for a centralized program (1982). Most CO violations are "hot spot"
type problems and some evaluation of progress toward attainment should
be made in these smaller areas as well-as in the larger regional CO
nonattainment areas.
-------
SECONDARY STANDARDS
Q. Can an 18-month extension be granted for submission of a secondary
standard control strategy? (6/2)
A. Yes. A state may request from the Administrator an extension
under 40 CFR 51.31. Such a request shall show that attainment of the
secondary standard will require emission reductions exceeding those
achieved through application of RACT. A request for an extension must
be submitted early enough to permit development of a plan prior to the
deadline in the event that such request is denied.
Q. What criteria must a State meet prior to changing the date
specified for attainment of a secondary standard? (5/4)
A. Section 172(a)(l) of the CAA requires that secondary standards
be attained as expeditiously as practicable, while Section 110(a)(2)(A)
requires that secondary standards be attained by a reasonable time.
Reasonable time for attainment of TSP and sulfur dioxide (S02) secondary
standards is 1982 if only reasonable available control technology (RACT)
is needed to attain and maintain the secondary standard. Section 51.13
of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations states that in any
Region where application of RACT will not be sufficient for attainment
and maintenance of the secondary standard, or where the State shows that
good cause exists for postponing the application of such control technology,
reasonable time shall depend on the degree of emission reduction needed
for attainment of such secondary standard and on the social, economic,
and technological problems involved in carrying out a control strategy
adequate for attainment and maintenance of such secondary standard. A
date specified for attainment of a secondary standard which satisfies
these requirements will also satisfy the provision of Section 172 which
requires that the secondary standard be attained as expeditiously as
practicable.
-------
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
Q: What are the criteria that must be met for EPA to approve a State
submitted SIP revision due-in January, 1979? (1/12)
A. The criteria for approval are contained in Costle's memo of
February 24, 1978, entitled "The Criteria for Approval of 1979 SIP
Revisions."
Q. If attainment is reached before the projected date (1982 or 1987),
do control strategy measures not yet effective have to be implemented? (3/31)
A. Yes, unless the State wants to reevaluate the control strategy
and demonstrate that some of the controls are no longer needed in view
of changed conditions. Unless there is some reason to doubt the control
strategy, it should be assumed that all the measures must be implemented
to assure attainment at all times, not just during years with good
dispersion conditions.
Q. Do the 1979 SIPs have to demonstrate maintenance and if so, for
how long? (3/31)
A. The 1979 SIPs must demonstrate both attainment and maintenance.
For most areas the maintenance requirements are satisfied by first
demonstrating attainment and then having adequate new source review
(NSR) procedures. For air quality maintenance areas (AQMAs) for which
the Region has determined the need for an AQMA plan, such a plan is
still required and maintenance for a period established by the Region
must still be demonstrated. Otherwise, unless a nonattainment area is
within an A0MA or there is a severe problem with minor source growth, a
NSR program is adequate for satisfvina the maintenance requirement.
Q. Does the January 1, 1979, submission date hold for areas redesig-
nated nonattainment for minor boundary adjustments as a result of the
sixty-day comment period on the March 3, 1978, Section 107 designations? (6/2)
A. Yes. Any nonattainment area revised for minor boundary adjustments
as a result of the 60-day comment period on the original designations promul-
gated March 3, 1978, is required to submit a SIP before January 1, 1979.
Q. When are SIPs due for nonattainment designations made after the
revised March 3, 1978, final promulgations? (6/2)
A. SIPs are due nine months from the date of any new promulgations.
Q: Will all nonattainment areas of primary and secondary standards
require SIP revisions? (1/12)
A: Nominally, yes, but the exact nature of the SIP revision could vary
considerably. For instance, a number of TSP nonattainment areas will be
washed out in advance by current EPA policy that authorizes a designation
of "attainment" where present nonattainment is demonstrated to be cause
by rural fugitive dust sources. It also appears possible in a number of
cases that attainment might be possible by December 31, 1982, without
adding any significant new regulatory requirements to the SIP; in such
cases, the SIP "revision" might consist of an official notification that
the time extensions for the primary and the secondary NAAQS contained
in the Clean Air Act Amendments (accompanied by the underlying analysis).
-------
Q: Should EPA require the States to implement the provisions of
Section 124 (i.e., consider whether low polluting-fuels that are presently
being used will continue to be available) in their January, 1979, SIP
submissions? (1/12)
A: Yes. It makes little sense for a State to revise their SIP without
dealing with these issues, and then have EPA call for a SIP revision
several months later. Where a SIP is not required to be revised as a
result of a nonattainment designation, the analysis and submission of a
revised SIP (if necessary) may be done on the more extended schedule
outlined in Section 124.
Q: Most a SIP contain provisions complying with Section 172(b)(ll)(A)
if the State indicates that no major stationary sources will be constructed
in the nonattainment areas? (9/8)
A: At a minimum, the plan must contain legally'-enforceable procedures
which require an analysis of alternative sites, sizes, production processes,
and recommended control techniques prior to issuance of any permit.
* Q. What is the status of the existing SIPs once the 1979 SIP
revisions are approved? (10/11)
A. New control requirements imposed by the 1979 SIP revisions will
normally be treated as being in addition to, rather than in lieu of,
those imposed by existing regulations. In approving a SIP revision, EPA
will provide that the current SIP emission control regulations remain in
effect until the newly revised regulations become effective and the
source achieves full compliance with its provisions. The one major
exception to this rule would be when the new regulations are "incon-
sistent" with those currently in effect. In this situation, the State
may exempt the source from the requirements of the preexisting regulations,
provided the source demonstrates that it cannot physically meet the new
regulations and continue to comply with the existing requirements.
Exemptions must be reviewed by the State and if approved, submitted to
EPA as SIP revisions to ensure that every exemption will be drawn as
narrowly as possible.
-------
RURAL Qv NONATTAINMENT AREAS
Q. Are control strategies needed (and if so, what should they look
like) for States whose only Ov nonattaintnent areas have a population of
less than 200,000 persons? (7?11)
A. Control strategies are needed for all areas designated nonattain-
ment, but their form and substance will vary depending on the nature
and complexity of the problem. To have an approvable 1979 SIP, areas
less than 200,000 persons need only to adopt VOC RACT regulations for
100 tons/yr point sources. As a minimum, these regulations should be
accompanied with an emissions inventory quantifying emissions from the
affected sources. For the 1982 0 SIP, the State should adopt a more
detailed plan which can rely upon any mix of measures it desires-
Federal Motor Vehicle Control Proaram, additional stationary source
controls, I/M, and any other measures. A control strategy demonstra-
tion showing attainment must also be contained in the 1982 SIP.
Q. Must the attainment plan for areas designated nonattainment for
photochemical oxidant with a population less than 200,000 contain an
organic compound inventory? (7/11)
A. If an area has been designated nonattainment in accordance with
Section 107 of the Clean Air Act, then the attainment plan must contain
an inventory of organic compound emissions regardless of population.
However, where a plan specifies Statewide RACT control for major sources,
detailed emission inventories are required only for those areas specif-
ically designated as nonattainment.
Q. If an 0 nonattainment area with a population less than 200,000
(i.e., rural arias) develops a control strategy, can Federal monies be
used?
A. The classification of areas by population is primarily for the
purpose of rural and non-rural consideration as well as for setting of
priority for resources. In some areas it may be necessary to develop
strategies in these rural areas. If available, Federal monies can be
used in these areas and the use and amounts of monies should be nego-
tiated with the State and/or local agencies involved with the strategies.
Q. Are rural areas nonattainment for photochemical oxidants required
to implement reasonably available control technology (RACT)? (.3/31 )
A. RACT must be applied to rural major stationary sources with the
potential for emitting more than 100 tons per year, but a demonstration
of attainment does not have to be made for such areas.
-------
Q. Even though it is not required for rural areas to demonstrate
attainment for oxidants, how are areas with urbanized populations of
40,000 - 200,000 classified? C3/31}
A. There may be some adjustment later, but for now areas with
populations greater than 200,000 are considered urban areas and any
areas less than 200,000 are considered as being rural areas for purposes
of demonstratina attainment.
-------
RACT REGULATIONS
Q: RACT on selected source categories is a requirement for SIP approval
for Ox SIPs. RACT is defined by the CTG documents. Many States have
existing regulations for VOC that are already being implemented. Can
RACT determinations be softened to account for existing regulations and
control control efforts? (1/12)
A: While it is recognized that RACT will be determined on a case-by-case
basis, the criteria for SIP approval should rely heavily upon the informa-
tion contained in the CTGs. Any deviations from the use of the CTGs
should be adequately documented to be approvable.
Q. Is it possible to approve hydrocarbon control regulations which
are less stringent than the emission limitations provided in the CTGs?(5/4)
A. Yes, in some cases if adequate justification is provided. Where
economics or other circumstances justify regulatory requirements less
stringent than those contained within CTGs, such justification is to be
_clearly documented in the SIP submittal.
;. Q. What will be accepted as adequate justification to explain
deviations from the CTGs for hydrocarbon regulations? (7/28)
A. Where deviations from the CTG results in a more stringent control
requirement, no justification is necessary. However, a deviation resulting
in a less stringent control requirement is acceptable only if one of two
conditions is met. One condition is that the 1979 SIP submittal contains
adequate justification that economics or other circumstances warrant
requirements less stringent than those contained within the CTG. The
other condition is;that the impact on emissions differs imperceptively
(less than 5 percent in cases where it is possible to quantify the
difference) from that of the CTG and there is no significant threat of
undermining EPA activities elsewhere in the nation. This concept is
only applicable on a source category basis. In other words, it would
be unacceptable to approve a source category specific regulation requiring
significantly less control than the corresponding CTG on the basis that
other source categories are regulated to a degree significantly more
stringent than the comparable CTGs.
Q. Can States apply VOC RACT regulations to sources in attainment
areas surrounding a nonattainment area? (7/28)
A. Yes, States can obviously apply RACT regulations wherever they
wish. The application of RACT regulations to expanded areas, perhaps
even Statewide, is probably a wise action since it will greatly simplify
the SIP revision process for future 0 nonattainment "discoveries" made
through the PSD program. However, EPA presently does not require VOC
RACT regulations for attainment areas.
-------
Q. Does Hawkins1 August 4 memo on requirement for VOC RACT regulations
mean that linear rollback and EKMA should no longer be used for the 1979
oxidant SIPs? Must detailed photochemical dispersion modeling now be done? (9/8)
A. Mr. Hawkins1 memo was not intended to discredit the use of less
rigorous oxidant control strategy techniques such as rollback and EKMA.
Further, it does not require detailed photochemical dispersion modeling
in the 1979 SIPs for all large urbanized nonattainment areas. Instead,-
the memo was intended to provide consistency between the control require-
ments for urbanized and rural nonattainment areas. We believe that where
conditions of uncertainty and/or lack of precision exist, it is the prudent
course of action to regulate large VOC emitters in major urbanized areas
to at least the same degree as similar sources in rural nonattainment areas.
Q. How should cutoff sizes be established in VOC regulations for
large urbanized areas that get extensions beyond 1982 to attain the oxidant
standard? (9/8)
A. The 100-ton per year limit does not apply here. If a State chooses
to include a cutoff size other than one explicitly in the CTG documents,
it should reflect a consideration of the nature of sources in an individual
nonattainment area. • It should not be arbitrarily derived. Factors such
as the magnitude of emissions and the economics of control must be con-
sidered. You are encouraged to consult with OAQPS (John Calcagni) as
individual cutoff limits are established.
Q. For purposes of the 1979 SIP submittal, do all 11 RACT categories
contained in the first round of CTGs have to be adopted for rural nonattainment
oxidant SIPs? (9/8).
A. Yes. RACT regulations for all 11 CTG categories must be included
in the 1979 SIP for large VOC emitters (100 tons/yr potential emissions).
However, practically speaking, there may not be any large point sources
in certain CTG categories in some areas. A positive showing in the SIP
submittal that no such size sources exist in the affected nonattainment
area would obviously negate the need to require adopting of regulations
for this or any other source category. Service stations can be assumed
to be less than 100 tons without a detailed showing for the purposes of
exempting rural areas from Stage I requirements.
* Q. What is considered a "100 tons/year source" for the cutback
asphalt category? (10/11)
A. Emissions from this CTG category result from several points and
operations including the mixing plant, paving operations, and from the
curing of the road surface itself. Because of the possible combinations
of emissions points, the cutback asphalt category should be viewed as an
area source and any "TOO ton" calculations should consider all State,
local, and private uses of asphalt in the nonattainment area. Accordingly,
States should be encouraged to adopt limitations of the manufacture,
sale, and use of cutback asphalt on a Statewide basis. However, such a
limitation could be avoided in rural areas if it can be demonstrated
that the total emissions from the use of cutback asphalt in the entire
area for which a strategy is being developed does not exceed 100 tons/year.
-------
* Q. Can the CTG RACT value for VOC be met on a plant-wide basis (by
using internal offsets) rather than by applying RACT to each individual
source within the plant? (10/11)
A. Regulations using internal offsets will be approved under the
following conditions. Source specific process regulations can deviate
from the RACT value, provided that total emissions from the plant are
consistent with the level of control attained if RACT were applied to
each affected line. Also, each source of emissions must have a legally
enforceable emission limitation. This simply means that in the 1979
SIP, offsets can only be obtained from the.source categories for which
EPA has published a CTG by January, 1978. They cannot be obtained from
a source category not covered by the first eleven CTGs (which would
probably have to control at some future date). Furthermore, a RACT
bubble that covers several CTG source categories (e.g., coaters and
degreasers) could only be approved in the 1979 SIP if the SIP demon-
strates attainment by 1987 using measures firmly committed to in the
1979 SIP.
-------
MISCELLANEOUS
Q: Section 126 "Interstate Pollution Abatement" allows any State or
political subdivision to petition EPA for finding that a source in a
neighboring State "prevents attainment or maintenance...of any...national
primary or secondary ambient air quality standard." The Administrator
must make a decision within 60 days of the receipt of a petition and
follow up with appropriate new abatement actions. What will be the
basis for EPA decision on whether a source prevents attainment? (1/12)
A: EPA generally will make a positive finding only if the source is
causing the violation of the standard and control of the out-of-state
source will result in attainment. ThatjLS, the petitioning State
must have its own house in order and must fail to attain.only because
of the interstate source before EPA will invoke the special powers
of Section 126. Where the interstate source or sources are only contri-
buting to violations that would exist anyway, the situation should be
regulated through a comprehensive SIP revision for the area.
Q. What is the legal status of a source which is not meeting an
approved SIP limit and to which the State has granted a variance but EPA
has not yet approved the variance as part of the SIP? (3/31)
A. The source will be out of compliance and subject to Section 113
enforcement and noncompliance penalties under Section 120.
Q. What effect will non-ferrous smelter orders have on mandatory
S02 attainment by 1982? (3/31)
A. The issuance of a nonferrous smelter order (NSO) will not inter-
fere with the attainment of the ambient sulfur dioxide standards since
any smelter subject to a NSO will be required to employ dispersion
techniques to ensure attainment of the ambient standards until expiration
of the NSO. Upon expiration, the smelter will be required to attain
the ambient standards through constant control technology alone.
Q. Can monitors be relocated as part of a SIP revision? (6/2)
A. Yes.
Q. Are BACT and LAER nationwide or Statewide determinations? (3/31 j
A. Neither, BACT and LAER are case-by-case determinations.
Q. Are Federal facilities subject to SIP limits and procedures? (3/31)
A. Yes, Federal facilities should be treated as any other source.
-------
Q. Does the existence of Federal regulations alleviate sanctions? (6/2)
A. Only in limited circumstances. For example, to the extent
resources permit, EPA will promulgate RACT for stationary sources. If
this fills the only deficiency in the SIP, approval will then be possible
and any sanctions will be lifted. However, in this case sanctions would
apply if the State failed to implement the Federally promulgated regulations,
wnere states fail to adopt emission control regulations needed to provide
tor attainment and maintenance of the national air quality standards,
EPA may not have sufficient resources to correct all deficiencies and it
will be necessary to impose sanctions.
0. Q. Are Federal facilities required to pay permit fees to the State
in which they are located? (5/4)
A Yes, the Federal government is not exempt from these fees.
Q. ' Can Section 175 funds apply to TSP related .projects or grants? (6/2)
A Yes, Section 175 applies to TSP related projects or grants to
.solve'reentrained dust and other TSP problems.
Q. Is a delayed compliance order (DCO) a SIP revision? (5/4)
A. A DCO is not a SIP revision under Section 110(a)(3) of the CAA.
A DCO is, however, an addition to the SIP and modifies the terms of an
approved SIP under Section 110(i) and Section 113(d)(ll). Consequently,
a source subject to a DCO is potentially subject to non-compliance
penalties. DCO's will be published in 40 CFR 65.
Q. Who is required to submit a DCO to the Administrator? (5/4)
A. A State issued DCO is required to be submitted by the State to
the Regional Office which in turn submits it to headquarters for review.
A DCO is not required to be submitted by the State Governor but can be
submitted by a local agency.
Q. When and to whom will the Section 108 transportation control
measures (TCM) guideline documents be distributed? (6/2)
A. Inspection/maintenance and bus/carpool guidelines are now being
distributed to the Regional Offices. The vapor recovery guideline is
expected from the contractor on June 1. Limited copies of this will be
distributed in early June with more copies available in early July.
Other guidelines are due at the end of this year. Transportation planning
guidelines have been completed in-house and are awaiting DOT consensus.
This review should be completed in early June and the guidelines avail-
able then.
-------
Q. When will the "Micro-inventory Technique for TSP Assessment" be
available? (7/11)
A. This technique, which has recently been applied to several
areas, emphasizes a more definitive area source inventory in the
immediate vicinity of hi vols. It will be discussed, along with other
analysis techniques, at the Workshop on Particulate Analysis and
Assessment Methods, July 19 and 20, in Raleigh, North Carolina. A paper
describing the technique in more detail will be available at that time
and afterwards by requesting a copy from Tom Pace, MD-14, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, or at 629-5486 (FTS).
Q. What is EPA's policy on approving SIP relaxations which impact
interstate areas? (9/8)
A. EPA's interim policy on approving SIP relaxations which impact
interstate areas is stated in the July 26, 1978, memo from Dave Hawkins'
to Kathleen Camin, Regional Administrator, Region VII, regarding the
Union Electric variance. EPA's policy is as follows. The relaxation
cannot be approved if the NAAQS or PSD increments would be violated.
Additionally, where the affected States have a specific growth/maintenance
plan for the area, the SIP relaxation must not violate that plan. If
neither State has a specific maintenance-plan and the States involved
cannot agree to the level of consumption of the growth allowance, EPA
becomes involved. In this case, it is current EPA interim policy to
approve the relaxation based on dividing equally between the two States,
the consumption of growth potential. That is, each State will have use
of one-half the air quality difference between the NAAQS and the ambient
concentration now allowed at the border. This concentration represents
the air quality level which would exist if sources in the area were to
emit at the level allowed by the applicable SIP. The "one-half growth
• allowance" concept should also apply to areas internal to the other
State. That is, where an applicable source would have significant
impacts well within the geographic boundaries of the other State, then
that impact should also be evaluated using the "one-half growth allowance"
criteria. If the relaxation would consume more than one-half of any
applicable growth increment, then it will be disapproved.
Q. When are the State reviews for plan adequacy, as required by
Section 124, due for submission to the ..Regional Offices? (9/8)
A. The results of the State reviews were due August 7, 1978.
Q. Has guidance been developed for implementing Section 124? (9/8)
A. A draft guidance memorandum was distributed for Regional Office
review on January 23, 1378. That memo reflected a very detailed review
process. On July 31, 1978, a final guidance memorandum was sent to the
Regional Offices; however, it did not mandate the detailed review as
described in the earlier draft memo. The final memo pointed out that the
earlier draft could be followed if a detailed review was necessary, but in
~ome cases, depending on conditions within a State, a .shorter, qualitative
>proach would suffice. For further information on what constitutes a
qualitative approach, contact Roger Powell (FTS: 629-5437).
-------
* Q. For control strategy demonstration purposes, if an existing
source is operating at less than capacity and is restricted by permit
conditions to that level of operation, what emissions should be factored
into the demonstration, actual or allowable? (10/11)
A. If the permit is submitted and approved as part of the SIP,
actual emissions which become allowable via the permit are used for the
demonstration. If the permit is not part of the SIP, then allowable SIP
emissions must be used.
-------
1. Q. For urban nonattainment areas (greater than 200,000 population),
what are the appropriate exemptions for solvent metal cleaning operations?
A. The only exemptions which would generally be allowed are those
explicitly provided for in the preface of the CTG. Namely, conveyorized
degreasers smaller than 2.0 m (21.5 ft ) of air/vapor interface can
be exempted from the requirement for a majoc control device and open top
vapor degreasers smaller than 1 m (10-8 ft ) of open area can be
exempt from the application of refrigerated chillers (or carbon adsorbers).
We do not rerommend across the board exemptions for small sources
(e.g., 3 Ib/day). Because of the large number of small metal cleaning
operations in existence, an exemption of this nature would significantly
reduce the overall effectiveness of the control program in this CTG
category. We recognize that for cold cleaners (batch operated, non-
boiling solvent degreasers typically of the type found in automotive
repair facilities) these limits will be difficult to enforce. However,
since the sources are so ubiquitous, we feel it would be preferable to
set requirements which are applicable to similar pieces of equipment
throughout the industry and prioritize enforcement rather than exempt
particular sectors because of the difficulty with enforcement.
2. Q. For rural nonattainment areas, what are appropriate exemptions for
solvent metal cleaning regulations?
A. Besides those exemptions listed above for urban areas, the policy
allows exemptions for sources less than 100 tons/year. Hence, an exemp-
tion for all cold cleaners in rural nonattainment areas would be approvable
since a typical cold cleaner emits approximately 0.3 tons/year. However,
States should be encouraged not to automatically exempt all open top
vapor degreasers or conveyorized degreasers which individually emit
less than 100 tons/year in rural nonattainment areas because large
scale users may have over 100 separate degreasing operations at one
plant location. If a State chooses to exempt open top or conveyorized
degreasing operations in rural nonattainment areas, the limitation
should be 100 tons or less on a facility-wide basis based on annual
solvent purchase records. Further, anyexemption which distinguishes
between open top vapor degreasers and conveyorized degreasers should not
be approved because of the potential of switching between equipment
types. Although conveyorized degreasers are larger emitters, they emit
significantly less solvent than do open top vapor degreasers for an
equivalent workload. Thus, it would not be advantageous to encourage
degreaser operators to choose open top vapor degreasers in order to
avoid regulations on conveyorized degreasers.
3. Q. The CTG for solvent metal cleaning identifies a Control System A
and a Control System B. Under what circumstances are each appropriate?
-------
- 2 -
A. States should be encouraged to control all sources to Control
System B level.
Generally, regulations for urban nonattainment areas seeking an
extension, and facilities emitting in excess of 100 tons/yr in a non-
attainment area, should require Control System B. Obviously, case-by-case
exemptions where appropriate are approvable as they are for all RACT
categories.
4. Q. If, for an 0 nonattainment area, a State adopts the 11 CTG RACT
regulations (covering 16 source categories) and demonstrates attainment
of the NAAQS L%> 1982 using other than a rigorous dispersion model, must
the State commit to adopting additional CTG RACT regulations as issued
by EPA for an approvable SIP?
A. Under present policy, the answer is yes. Due to the uncertainty
associated with other than rigorous dispersion modeling for 0 , EPA is
requiring such a commitment to be part of the 1979 SIP submittal. If a
State can demonstrate through monitoring that the 0 NAAQS is being
attained, a revision to the Section 107 attainment status would alleviate
necessity for adopting or implementing additional measures beyond the
first 11 CTGs.
5. Q. Is there a deadline for State submittal of a request for an
extension beyond 1982 for attainment of the CO and/or 0 NAAQS?
A
A. Generally the request along with sufficient justification
should be submitted prior to, or most likely included in, the formal 1979
plan submission. If a State does not request such an extension in the
1979 SIP, but later finds an extension beyond 1982 is needed to attain
the 0 and/or CO NAAQS, the State may then request the extension. In
summary, there is no deadline for requesting such an extension although
the sooner the extension is requested, the better.
6. Q. What impact does an 18-month extension for submittal of a plan
for attaining secondary standards have on growth, Federal funding, and
the Federal offset program?
A. If the area in question is designated nonattainment solely for
the secondary standard, limitations on growth and funding would only
apply after December, 1980 (18 months from July, 1979) if no plan is
submitted or when a plan is submitted but officially disapproved by EPA,
whichever comes first. The Federal offset policy would remain applicable
until December, 1980 (18 months from July, 1979) or until a plan is
submitted and officially disapproved by EPA, whichever comes first.
-------
- 3 -
7. Q. How is the RFP curve developed for areas where air quality
monitoring indicates attainment but which were designated nonattainment
based on projected air quality violations due to growth and future
activities (e.g., Valdez, Alaska)?
A. The RFP line should be a horizontal line or ceiling reflecting
the emissions level which, if exceeded, would result in an actual ambient
violation. Progress against such a line should be measured by tracking
actual emission increases.
-------
PN-110-78-09-11-008
11 SEP 1978
SUBJECT: Impact of Potential Revision to Participate Hatter
HAAQS
FROM: 0?.vid G. Hawkins, Assistant Administrator
for. Air, Noise and Radiation (ANR-443)
TO: Regional Administrators, Regions I-X
The Clean Air Act arid EPA policy require a periodic reevaluatlon
of each National Ambient Air Quality Standard. Under these •
requirements, the Office of Research and Development has begun a
program to revise the Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Hatter
(AP-49). Ue anticipate that the craft revised criteria document v/ill
be available for external review in late 1979. Any revisions to the
NAAQS for particulate matter that result from revision to the
criteria document would probably be proposed in mid-1980 and
promulgated 1n late 1SSO.
It is possible that the revised criteria document will result
in some form of an "inhalable" particulate matter primary standard
based on particle sizes of less than 15 micrometers.
Of course, until the criteria cocu.r^nt is revised, any estimate
of the effect is only speculation and therefore should not be
allowed to disrupt the current efforts to develop SIP revisions in
arsas>-designated nonattainnient for particulate matter. The SIP
revisions must still be submitted by January 1, 1979, rcust demonstrate
attainment of the current ^articulate matter standard by
Decetr.ber 31, 1982, and must include emission regulations for
conventional sources and programs to subsequently develop controls
for unconventional sources as required.
If the revaluation of the criteria document results in the .
kind of change to the flAAQS discussed above, however, sorr.e controls
that would be necessary to attain the current NAAQS n;ay not be
necessary to attain a revised primary iiAAQS. Generally, the sources
In this category are those such as storage piles and rraterials
handling-operations that emit relatively large particles.
-------
The 1979 SIP revisions must contain or provide for the develop-
ment of all measures necessary to attain the current particulate
matter standard. However, it is legally permissible for States
which adopt new regulations covering sources of predominantly
large particles to recognize the possibility of a revision of the
current standard in establishing compliance schedules for such sources.
As long as compliance is required not later than 1982 such
schedules may include dates which are late enough so that the
uncertainty over the particulate matter standard can be resolved
prior to significant expenditures for control.
Your office should advise State and local agencies that this
approach may be followed .if they wish. The approach may be
appropriate in some situations and inappropriate in others. Naturally,
the State's judgment regarding appropriateness in particular cases
should be respected.
The possible revision of the particulate standard should not
be a factor which is considered in setting compliance schedules for
sources other than those described above, llor can this possibility
affect any existing compliance schedules.
I encourage you and your staff to work with your State and.
local agencies to acquaint them with this situation.
Enclosed is a copy of a letter to Congressman Walgren of
Pennsylvania and an issue paper which discusses the reassessment of ths
particulate matter ambient air quality standard and the impact on
the January 1, 1979, SIP revision submittals. This guidance
memorandum is consistent with the information in those two documents.
cc: M. Durning
J. Bernstein
S. Gage
Director, Air & Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I, III-X
Director, Environmental Programs Division, Region II
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT'™
ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 4S105 PN-110-78-07-17-007
till OFFICE OF
JUL 1 7 W«w AIR AND >;VATS;* PROGRAMS
SUBJECT: Inspection/maintenance Policy
FROM: David G. Hawkins, Assistant Administrator
for Air and Waste Management
MEMO TO: Regional Administrators, Regions I - X
As you know, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 set forth
specific requirements for the implementation of motor vehicle
inspection/maintenance (I/M) programs. Attached is a policy paper
indicating what EPA will consider a minimally acceptable program
wherever I/M is required by the Act. It should aid your efforts Co
provide for adequate I/M submissions for the State Implementation
Plan (SIP) revisions of January 1, 1979. Plaase continue to contact
me if problems in I/M implementation develop.
cc: Air and Hazardous Materials Division
Directors, Regions I, III - X
Environmental Programs Division Director,
Region II
Air Programs Branch Chiefs, Regions I - X
-------
Policy for the Development and Implementation of
Inspection/Maintenance Programs
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 provide new direction £or the
development and implementation of motor vehicle inspection/maintenance
(I/M) programs. If states are not able to demonstrate attainment of the
standards for oxidant (Ox) or carbon monoxide (CO) by December 31, 1982,
a specific schedule for the implementation of I/M muse be included in
the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions of January 1, 1979 for the
plan to meet the requirements, of Section 172. The general requirements
for the I/H programs are set out in a February 24, 1978 memorandum from
the EPA Administrator to the Regional. Administrators (reprinted in the
Federal Register on May 19, 1978, 43 ?.R. 21673). The requirements, for
these programs, are explained in more detail below.
A« I/M SI? Revision Development and the January 1, 1979, Submittal
In producing an I/M SI? revision, the states should provide for:
1. an analysis of the benefits and costs of the program;
2. a public information effort;
3. a legislative proposal; and
4. a schedule for I/M implementation.
A copy of suggested steps for development of the SIP revision is attached
(Attachment 1). Before the January 1, 1979 submittal, the SI? revision
must be adopted by the state air pollution control board or agency head as
appropriata. As a. part of the SI? revision submittal itself, chere must
be a commitment by the Governor to implement che I/M program according to
the schedule submitted.*
*Sections 172(b)(7) and (10) provide that the plan revisions required
for nonattainment areas shall —
(7) identify and commit the financial and manpower resources
necessary to carry out the plan provisions required by this subsection;
[Emphasis added]
and shall —
(10) include written avidenca that the state, the general purpose
local government or governments, or a regional agency designatad by general
purpose local governments for such purpose, have adopted by statute, regu-
lation, ordinance, or other legally enforceable document, the necessary
requirements and schedule and timetables for, conipliar.ee, and ara cocmitced
to implement and enforce che appropriata alaner.ts of the plan; [Emphasis
added]
-------
these plan elements should be prepared in accordance with che guidance
on pages 186-188 of che Compilation of Presentations, prepared by EPA's
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) for the "Workshops
on Requirements for Nonattainment Area Plans" February -March 1978
(pages 218-220 in the April 1978 edition).
B. The I/M Implementation Schedule
The specific items listed below must be included as a part or the
States' I/M implementation schedules with specified dates for implementation
of each item. The stringency planned for the program and other factors
affecting the potential for emission reductions should also be indicated.
Additional items if necessary because of local factors may be required by
USZPA Regional Offices.
1. Initiation (or continuation) of public information
program including publicizing the I/M program in the
media, meeting and speaking vith affected interest
groups, etc.
2. Preparation of a draft legislative package and
submittal of legislation package to legislature
if additional legislative authority is needed.
3. Certification of adequate legal authority by approp-
riate state official.
4. Initial notification of garages explaining program
and schedule of implementation.*
5. Development and issuance of RFPs.*
6. Award to contractor(s). *
7. Initiation of construction of facilities.*
8. Completion of construction of facilities.*
9. Adoption of procedures and guidelines for tasting
and quality control including emission analyzer
requirements (and licensing requirements for private
garages, if applicable*).
10. Notification of and explanation co garages of actions
in step 9.*
-------
_j.. Completion of equipment purchase and delivery of
equipment.
12. Development and adoption of outpoints.
13. Initiation of hiring and training of inspectors or
licensing of garages.*
14. Initiation of introductory program (voluntary main-
tenance with either voluntary or mandatory inspection)
if not previously initiated.
15. Initiation of mechanics training and/or information
program.
16. Initiation of mandatory inspection.
17. Initiation of mandatory repair for failed vehicles.
If certification of adequate legal authority occurs after January 1979,
the States may modify previous commitments to implement and enforce the elements
of the schedule to conform to che legal authority.** These modifications will be
approved by the EPA Regional Offices and must be consistent with the Administra-
tor's February 24, 1978, policy memorandum. The documents should be submitted
to the EPA Regional Offices for inclusion in the SIP revisions already submitted
by January 1, 1979. Any necessary adjustments to the schedule may be made at
this time but must be approved by the EPA Regional Offices.
C. Authority to Implement I/M
Normally, adequate legal authority to implement a 3TJ? revision must exist
for a revision to be approved. Where a legislature has had adequate
opportunity to adopt enabling legislation before January 1, 1979, the
Regional Administrator should require certification that adequate legal
authority exists for I/M implementation by January 1, 1979. However,
for many states there will be insufficient opportunity to obtain adequate
legal authority before their legislatures seet in early 1979. Therefore,
a certification of legal authority for the implamentation of I/M in
these states must be made no later than June 30, 1979. An extension to
July 1, 1980, is possible, but only when the state can demonstrate that
(a) thera was insufficient opportunity to conduct necessary technical
analyses and/or (b) the legislature has had no opportunity to consider
any necessary enabling legislation for inspection/ maintenance between
enactment of the 1977 Amendments to che Act and June 30, 1979. Certifi-
cation of adequate lagal authority, or other evidence that legal authority
has been adopted, aust be submitted to the EPA Regional Offices to be
included in the SIP revision already submitted. Failure to submit evidence
of legal authority by the appropriate deadline will constitute a failure
to submit an essential element of the SIP, under Sections 110(a)(2)(I)
and 176(a) of che Act.
^Dependent on type of system chosen (state-run centralized, contractor
centralized, or decentralized).
**See footnota on page 1.
-------
Prior to the respective deadlines for initiating mandatory inspection
fad mandatory repair of failed vehicles, the state, local government, or
regional agency should adopt whatever legally enforceable requirements
are necessary to ensure that vehicles are not used unless they comply
with the inspection/maintenance requirements. Written evidence of
adoption of these requirements should be submitted to the EPA Regional
Offices, to be included in the SIP revision already submitted by January
1, 1979.*
D. I/M Implementation Deadlines
Implementation of I/M "as expeditiously as practicable" shall be
defined as implementation of mandatory repair for failsd vehicles no
later than rwo and a. half years after passage of needed legislation or
certification of adequate legal authority for new centralized systems
and one and a half years after legislation or certification for decen-
tralized systems or for centralized systems which are adding emission
inspections to safety inspections. For the normal legislation deadline
of June 30, 1979, new centralized programs must star- by December 31,
1981, and all others must start by December 31, 1980. For the case of
the latest possible legislation data, July 1, 1980, chis means that a
nev centralized program aust start by December 31, 1982, while all other
programs must start by December 31, 1981. Where I/M can be implemented
more expeditiously, it aust be. Each stats implementation schedule mist
be looked at individually to determine if it is as expeditious as practi-
cable. Implementation dates ordered by courts, if earlier than these
dates, take precedence.
E. Geographic Coverage
I/M should focus on metropolitan areas and should include the entire
urbanized area and adjacent fringe areas of development. Boundaries of the
area affected may be adjustad if an equivalent emission reduction is achieved.
For urbanized areas of 200,000 population or graatar which aeed I/M to obtain
an extension of the 1982 attainment data, full mandatory I/M must be implemented
by the deadlines indicated above. Statewide programs ara encouraged, especially
for those states which ara small and highly urbanized.
It should be emphasized Chat all nonattaimnent araas must have SI?s
which ara adequate to attain and maintain the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (MAAQS) by 1982 or by no later than 1987 should an
acceptable nonattainment demonstration be aade. For areas under 200,000,
EPA will not at this time automatically raquira I/M schedules in 1979 as a
condition for SI? approval or an extension. However, areas under 200,000
still have to attain and maintain NAAQS as expeditiously .as practicable,
and I/M is encouraged as a aeans of helping to provide for an adequate
SI?. EPA will review the need for I/M in areas under 200,000 aftar che
1979 SI? revisions are submitted, and will consider additional require-
ments at that time.
*See footnote on ?aga 1.
-------
Emission Reductions Required for I/M
I/M programs must produce at least a 25 percent reduction in light
duty vehicle (LDV) exhaust emissions of hydrocarbons and a 25 percent
reduction in LDV emissions of carbon monoxide by December 31, 1987,
compared to what emissions would be without I/M on the basis of the most
recent motor vehicle emission factors. However, the choices of stringency
factor to be used and other actions affecting the potential for emission
reduction should be made by the states. States should of course be
encouraged to develop programs which produce more emission reduction
when possible. The final revision to .Appendix N (40 C.F.R., Part 51)
when promulgated (along with its minimum program requirements) should be
used to determine if the program described in the implementation schedule
will meet the minimum 25 percent CO/25 percent HC criterion. Should a
program not need to be this stringent to attain and maintain the NAAOS
by 1982, the I/M program need be only as stringent as needed to assure
conformity wich NAAQS. Should a state vant to emphasize control of one
particular pollutant at the expense of the other, the plan for such an
I/M program must be submitted to the appropriate EPA Regional Office for
approval.
G. Minimum Program Requirements
In addition to the emission reduction requirement above, all I/M
programs must:
1. provide for regular periodic inspections of all vehicles
for which emission reductions ara claimed;*
2. provide for maintenance and recasting of failed vehicles
to provide for compliance with applicable emission
standards;
3. prohibit ragistration or provide some equally affective
mechanism to prevent vehicles which do not comply with
the applicable exhaust emission requirements from operating
on public roads;
4. provide for quality control regulations and procedures
for the inspection system including:
*Randoia roadside checks, while a useful addition to an I/M program,
are not an acceptable substitute for regular periodic inspections.
-------
-6-
a. m-Lnimim specifications for emission analyzers
b. required calibrations of all types on analyzers and
c. m-fm'TTTitm record keeping;
5. provide for either a mechanics training program or a program
to inform the public of service establishments with approved
emission analyzers;
6. inform the public of the reason for the I/M program plus
the locations and hours of inspection stations.
Decentralized systems must also comply with the following require-
ments .
1. All official inspection facilities must be licensed.
Provisions for the licensing of inspection facilities
must insure that the facility has obtained, prior to
licensing, analytical instrumentation which has been
approved for use by the appropriate state, local, or
regional government agency. A representative of the
facility must have received instructions in the proper
use of the instruments and in vehicle tasting methods
and must have demonstrated proficiency in these methods.
The facility must agree to maintain records and to submit
to inspection or the facility. The appropriate government
agency must have provisions for penalties for facilities
which fail to follow prescribed procedures and for mis-
conduct.
2. Records required to be saintained should include the
description (make, year, license number, ate.) of each
vehicle inspected, and its emissions test rasults.
Records must also be maintained on the calibration of
testing equipment.
3. Summaries of these inspection records should be submitted
on a periodic basis to the governing agency for auditing.
4. The governing agency should inspect each facility
periodically to check the facilities' records, check
the calibration of the tasting equipment and observe
that proper test procedures are followed.
5. The governing agency should have an eff active -program
of unannounced /unscheduled inspections both as a routine
measure and as a complaint investigation measure. It is
also recommended that such inspections be used cc check
the correlation of iastr'^aenc raadings among inspection
facilities.
-------
-7-
6. The governing agency should operate a "referee" station
where vehicle owners may obtain a valid test to compare
to a test from a licensed station. At least one 'referee"
station must be present in each I/M metropolitan area.
-------
Attachment 1
Suggested I/M Milestones
1. Complete plan for preparing and implementing I/M SI? revision
including:
a. technical analysis
b. public information program
c. development of necessary legislation
d. development of I/M implementation schedule.
2. Complete technical analysis including:
a. emission reduction benefits
b. fuel economy benefits
c. costs.
3. Complete elements of a continuing public information program
including:
a. further publicity concerning oxidant (and/or carbon
monoxide) episodes
b. meeting with and speaking to affacred interest groups
(including the public and public officials)
c. news releases.
4. Complete development of legislative proposals.
5. Complete development of I/M implementation schedule.
6. Receive approval of I/M, including implementation schedule, from
air pollution control board or agency head as applicable and
introduce into state legislature.
7. Submit SI? revision for I/M, including implementation schedule, to
E?A (due no later than January 1, 1979).
3. Obtain legal authority needed to implement I/M (required by July 1,
1979, with some exceptions allowed until July I, 1980).
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
29 13?{5 PN-110-78-06-29-006
Regional Consistency for TSP Control Strategios and RACT
Richard G. Rhoads, Director
FROM: Control Programs Development Division
T0 Robert L. Duprey, Director
Air & Hazardous Materials Division, Region V
This is in response to your memo to Halter Barber of April 26
regarding RACT for particulate matter sources.
As you know, Region IX has the lead on developing regulations to
insure regional consistency. We have been working with Region IX on
this effort, and a draft regulatory package is currently being prepared.
This regulatory action should go a long way toward insuring regional
consistency and in resolving many of the potential problems with incon-
sistencies regarding the implementation of Agency policy in interregional
nonattainrcent areas.
The 1979 SIP revisions need only to provide that level of control
which would be necessary to insure attainment of the standards as expedi-
tiously as practicable. We do not believe that all sources must apply
RACT if less than RACT is needed to attain tne standards. It may be
unreasonable or provide little or no benefit to apply RACT to some
industrial sources if the problem is totally fiue to fugitive dust. RACT
on industrial sources should not necessarily he a prerequisite before
one is permitted to investigate fugitive dust controls. We recognize
that the emission estimates and reductions due- to fugitive dust controls
are difficult to quantify and, as such, we will want to look closely at
these sources and the associated control strategy.
While RACT may not be necessary for attainment of the primary
standard in all cases, it will play a critical role in determining the
attainment date for the secondary standard. If less than RACT is neeued
to attain the secondary standard, attainment shall bo no later than
1982. If more than RACT is needed, a reasonable time is allowed. Since
many areas will have difficulty attaining the secondary standard by
1982, RACT will be needed to permit use of thfi reasonable time criteria
for defining the attainment date. Thus, whilo RACT ir.ay not be needed on
industrial sources to attain the primary standard, RACT would need to be
applied if attainment of the secondary standard is beyond 1982.
OAQPS does not intend to issue RACT guidance or control technique
guidelines for particulate matter. However, your efforts to establish
a list of RACT criteria or a compendium of information on paniculate
matter regulations is certainly useful to th;.- States in developing
regulations. However, we should not indicate that this list or compendium
represents presumptive RACT for particulate matter. We cannot concur that
1320-6 IREV. 3-76!
-------
§110 - TSP SJPs -
2 Fugitive Dust
each number in the list represents RACT. This is best handled on a,
case-by-case basis. In general, we have no major problems with your
using these criteria as a draft for use by the States in developing
particulate matter control regulations, but we should not base approval/
disapproval on the specific values contained in the attachment to your
April 26 memo.
If you have any questions, please give me a call.
cc: D. Goodwin
D. Tyler
T. Helms
-------
MAY 16 1978
Options for Handling State Implementation P
Plan Relaxation -in Face of Uncertainty
Richard G. Rhoads, Director
Control Programs Development Division
David G. Hawkins, Assistant Administrator
for Air, Noise, and Radiation
During your discussions with Walt Barber regarding the Westvaco
situation, you asked how these types of situations had been handled in
the past, and how they might be handled in the future.
The main factor in our policy has been that the State must demon-
strate to EPA that the State implementation plan (SIP), or any revision
thereto, is adequate to attain and maintain the standards. Specifically,
the burden of proof is on the State. If the State fails to provide an
adequate demonstration, we do not (normally) feel obligated to conduct
a demonstration on behalf of the State; we believe we are authorized
to (and we have in the past) either defer action on the submission or
disapprove the submission.
A second factor in our policy is our strong reliance on air quality
modeling. Most of the controls imposed under the Clean Air Act (CAA)
of 1970 were justified on modeling. We strongly guard our legal
authority to impose controls based on modeling, and strongly resist
any implication that ambient monitoring is necessary in order to justify
controls, although we do agree that monitored data are very valuable
(but not essential) for calibration and verification of the models.
A third factor is that a source is bound by an approved SIP regula-
tion unless EPA has approved revisions to the regulation. If a State
adopts a revision to an approved regulation, the revision must be submitted
to EPA for review, proposal, and promulgation of our approval/disapproval
decision. Until we have promulgated our approval of the revision, the
original regulation remains in effect. For these situations, Stan Legro
established an enforcement discretion policy for the interim period
between State adoption of a regulation relaxation and EPA approval. The
policy prohibits increases in emissions during the interim period, but
it states that we generally should not require reductions in emissions
until after EPA makes the final determination. This, however, is only
an internal enforcement policy, and should not influence our regulatory
decisions.
In summary, the Agency has three options available to it. They
are approval of the relaxation, disapproval of the relaxation, or deferral
of action on the relaxation. Generally, the specifics of each case dictate
which option must be followed. Specifically, approval of a relaxation
-------
is only appropriate when the criteria outlined above are met. Any
deviation from these criteria would result in arbitrart approvals of
SIP relaxations by this Agency, a situation which is disasterous.
Consequently, disapproval of the regulation would be in order, recog-
nizing, of course, that in many instances litigation and external
pressures are a likely outcome. The third option, which in some cases
can alleviate the problems associated with a disapproval action, is to
defer action on the SIP revision. However, this option is not free of
the problems associated with the disapproval action. For example, in
some cases external pressures will force the Agency to make an affirma-
tive approval/disapproval decision. In other cases the Agency faces the
possibility of litigation over the administrative decision to delay action.
I believe all three options are available for every SIP relaxation
and the Agency must evaluate the application of each on a case-by-case
basis to determine the most prudent approach. In the case of Westvaco,
it is obvious that because this issue escalated into a polarized adversary
situation before all the facts were straight, it is not prudent to delay
action on the revision any longer.
I futher believe that in implementating the case-by-case determination
approach, we should maintain a fairly flexible policy in order to preserve
some options (e.g., approval of a relaxation may be granted based on the
good faith effort of the State to adopt and submit by January, 1979, a
SIP which will demonstrate attainment by 1982). Nevertheless, the general
.policy must be understood by the staff level to ensure consistency in
our decisions and to avoid inadvertent undesirable precedents.
To the extent possible, my staff will keep aware of pending activities
in this area, and will ensure that the critical decisions are made at
the appropriate level.
cc: W. Barber
-------
MAR 24 1378
Suggested Format and Guidance for the PN-iio-78-03-24-004
1979 State Implementation Plan Submission
Richard G. Rhoads, Director
Control Programs Development Division
Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Region I, III-X
Director, Environmmtal Programs Division, Region II
In our discussions with Regional Office and State Agency personnel,
questions regarding the content and format of the 1979 State Implementa-
tion plan (SiP) submissions have been raised. Specifically, since many
personnel of State air control agencies have not been involved in producing
a SIP revision of the magnitude required by the Clean Air Act (CAA) amend-
ments of 1977, there exists a need for nationwide guidance on those
requirements that must be included in the SIP revision and where in the
SIP those requirements should be addressed.
Generally, the State should utilize the existing format of the
current SIP as a basis for developing the 1979 SIP revision. Therefore,
when adding to the current SIP any information which complies with a new
requirement which deals with an area or topic previously required and
included in the SIP, it is appropriate to submit such material such that
it compliments the discussion of that topic in the current SIP. For
example, a State which must submit in 1979 a photochemical oxidant
control strategy should format the discussion of such strategy so that
it meshes with the already existing oxidant control strategy. If the
current SIP contains no oxidant strategy and an oxidant strategy must be
submitted in 1979, the submission should still be formated so as to
compliment the existing control strategy discussion (i.e., particulate
matter or sulfur dioxide) in the current SIP. Obviously, the same
approach should be utilized when a regulation must be revised or added.
Many requirements to be compiled with in the 1979 submissions deal
with topics that have not previously been addressed in the existing SIP.
In these instances, it is appropriate for the 1979 submission to simply
add new sections to the current SIP. For example, assuming a State's
current SIP contains Chapters 1 through 14, that portion of the 1979
submission which addresses the requirements of Section 126 of the CAA
amendments dealing with State board composition could be labeled as
Chapter 15.
For your State's use in developing the 1979 SIP submissions, the
enclosure lists those requirements which may be confusing in terms of
locating a proper place for discussion in the format of the existing
SIP and recommends a place for such topics to be discussed.
-------
Finally, in order to minimize the volume of material contained in a
given section of SIP, it is recommended to employ appendices to the
SIP whenever possible. For example, a report summarizing a control
strategy prepared by a contractor should be regerenced in the text of
the SIP and included in its entirety as an appendix. Other examples of
items to be included as appendices include computer printouts, emission
inventories, and air quality data.
Hopefully this guidance will be usefu to agencies developing 1979
submissions. If you have any futher questions, please feel free to contact
me or my staff.
Enclosure
cc: B. 0. Steigerwald
D. Taylor
D. Borchers
T. Mateer
-------
RECOMMENDED LOCATIONS IN SIP FORMAT FOR DISCUSSION
OF VARIOUS REQUIREMENTS OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT OF 1977
TOP I C
Intergovernmental Consultation
(Section 121)
Tall Stacks (Section 123)
State Board Composition (Section 128)
Interstate Pollution (Section 126)
Public Notification (Section 127)
Maintenance of Pay (Section 110)
Air Pollution Episode Reporting
(Section 313)
Permit Fees (Seciion 110(a)(2))
Socio-economic Impact Analysis
(Section 172(b}(9))
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(Part C)
LOCATION IN SIP
Existing section on inter-
governmental cooperation.
Existing control strategy
section in addition to regu-
lations, if appropriate.
Mew section is appropriate
in addition to legal authority
revi sions.
Existing section on inter-
governmental cooperation
in addition to regulation
revisions.
New section is appropriate.
New section in addition to
regulation revisions, if
appropriate.
Existing section on air
pollution emergency episodes.
Existing new source review
section or existing compliance
schedule section in addition
to regulation revisions.
Mew section is appropriate.
Mew section is appropriate
in addition to regulation
revisions.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
D'TE: ivIAR 24 187S
BjEci: Plans under Section lll(d) of the Clean Air Act
PN-110-78-03-24-003
FROM: Richard G. Rhoads, Director
Control Programs Development Division
TO: Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I, III-X
Director, Environmental Programs Division, Region II
A question has been raised concerning Section lll(d) plans and
their relationship to the State implementation plan (SIP). Specifi-
cally, it was asked whether a State is require^ to develop and submit
a plan under Section lll(d) to control a facility if the facility is
currently controlled by the SIP to a degree equivalent to that of the
Section lll(d) requirements.
The State must submit under Section lll(d) a separate control
plan for designated facilities as outlined under 40 CFR 60, Subpart B -
Adoption & Submittal of State Plans for Designated Facilities.
However, certain plan requirements can be fulfilled by referencing the
appropriate provision found in the State's approved SIP. Section lll(d)
plan requirements which can be fulfilled in this manner are found in
40 CFR 60.25(d) and 40 CFR 60.26(b).
Section 60.25(d) of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
states that the provisions for monitoring the status of compliance
with applicable emission standards; provisions for correlation of this
monitoring data with applicable emission standards; and provisions for
making the data available to the public may be included in the lll(d)
plan by referencing the appropriate provision in the SIP. In addi-
tion, when employing this approach, the State must make a demonstra-
tion that the SIP provision being referenced applies to the desig-
nated pollutant(s) for which the Section lll(d) plan is being submitted
and that the Section lll(d) plan requirements of Section 60.25 are, in
fact, met.
Section 60.26(b) of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
states that laws or regulations which provide authority to carry out
the Section lll(d) plan need not be directly submitted with the plan
if the legal authority to do so has been approved as part of the
existing SIP and the State demonstrates that the laws or regulations
are applicable to the designated pollutant(s) for which the lll(d) plan
is being submitted. The approved SIP provision must be specifically
identified in the Section lll(d) plan to satisfy this requirement.
F.,,,,, 1370-6 'Rev. 3 76,
-------
- 2 -
The requirements listed under Section 60.25(5 & c) and Section 60.26(a)
are the only Section lll(d) plan requirements which may be satisfied by
referencing the appropriate approved SIP provision. However, we believe
any emission standards which have been included in the officially approved
SIP can also be included in the Section lll(d) plan by reference, pro-
vided.that the State makes demonstrations similar to those identified in
Section 60.25 and Section 60.26.- All other requirements must be specifi-
cally spelled out in the Section lll(d) plan.
Finally, it should be noted that hearing requirements can be waived,
pursuant to Section 60.23(c)(3), if certain criteria are met. All the
requirements for Section lll(d) plans, including those which can be
fulfilled by referencing the appropriate portion of the Section 110 SIP,
are summarized in a checklist found in No. 1.2-072 of the OAQPS Guideline
Series, Requirements and Procedures for Implementing Section lll(d). This
was sent to you in March, 1977, and should prove helpful to States when
they develop their lll(d) plans. I hope these comments adequately respond
to your needs; however, if I can be of any further assistance, please
feel free to call.
cc: W. Spratlin
D. Tyler
J. Sableski
J. Farmer
L. Wegman
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRC i.V.ENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
PN-110-78-02-24-002
OFFICE OF
AIR AND WASTE MANAGEME.V
FEB 24 1978
SUBJECT: Criteria for Approval of 1379 SIP Revisions
FROM: The Administrator (A-100)
TO: Regional Administrators, I-X
The attachment to this memo summarises the elements
which a 1979 State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
for a non-attainment area must contain in order to be
approved by EPA as meeting the requirements of Part D of
the Clean Air Act.
In summary, the Act requires the demonstration of
attainment of the air quality standards (primary and
secondary) as expeditiously as practicable, but in the
case of national primary standards not later than
December 31, 1932. However, for carbon monoxide (CO) and
oxidants (Ox), if the State can demonstrate attainment
is not possible by 1982 despite the implementation of all
reasonable stationary source and transpc: ation control
measures, the Act provides for up to a five-year extension.
In those cases the plan revisions must de^onstra:o
attainment as expeditiously as practicable but no lat<-:-
than December 31, 1987. The extension is not automatic;
a demonstration of need must be made and the Stati. must
fulfill the other statutory requirements.
It is the intent of the Agency to establish reasonable
and achievable goals for SIP submissions -.;nd to t';ke a firm
posture on the imposition of sanctions whore the reaso:iible
goals are not achieved. Accordingly, while the policy
requires a commitment to many specific strategic, in the
19~9 submissions (e.g., RACT on stationary sourc-.-s, in^pec-
r.ion/maintenance programs where attainment for c:. rbon
monoxide or oxidanls extends beyond 1982, other reasonable
transportation control measures, etc.) the T.err.o ^;so
requires (for carbon monoxide and oxidants', .1 coir,,,atmv.-;it
to a-continuing process. This process must oe one which
extensively involves the ;-i.blic as well ?.s State and local
elected officials and which ambitiously pursues a wide
ran^e of alternatives.
-------
Since reliance on stationary controls and Federal
new car standards alone will not enable most areas with
oxidant and carbon monoxide problems to attain these
standards by 1982, each Regional Office will need to put
particular emphasis on additional measures to reduce
transportation system emissions. The process committed
tn in the 1979 plan submission must lead to the
expeditious selection and implementation of comprehensive
transportation control measures. In judging the adequacy
of the 1979 plan submission for the transportation
sector, each Regional Administrator should ensure that
ambitious alternatives (as described in the draft
"Transportation Planning Guidelines" which have been
circulated) will be analyzed.
The Department of Transportation (DOT), Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) and EPA are seeking to integrate
the transportation/air quality planning and implementation
required by the Clean Air Act into existing planning and
programming procedures. The air planning activities should
be included in the Unified Work Program required by DOT
and the adopted transportation measures should be included
in the Transportation Improvement Program required by DOT.
In complying with the Clean Air Act requirements, the Regions
should also keep in mind the requirements of the HUD-EPA
Agreement which provides for coordination of air quality
planning and planning assisted under the HUD Comprehensive
Planning Assistance (701) Program. Integration of air
and transportation planning with comprehensive planning
which incorporates growth management concerns should improve
the effectiveness of air quality planning and could reduce
the need for enforcement measures in the future.
States will be provided some discretion regarding
the amount of emissions growth to be accommodated within
the SIP. EPA generally will not question the growth rates
desired by the State so long as reasonable further progress
is demonstrated and there is a demonstration of attainment
by the statutory deadline (1982 or 1987). However, the
growth rate identified in the SIP must be consistent with
growth rates used (or implied by) other planning programs
in the area (e.g., FWPCA §208, '201, HUD §701, FHWA
§134).
-------
You should note that there are other SIP revisions
which are not discussed in the attachment but which are
required by the 1977 Amendments. These include:
1. Section 128 (relating to State boards)
2. Section 126 (relating to interstate pollution)
3. Section 127 (relating to public notification)
4. Part C (relating to prevention of significant
deterioration)
5. Section 110(a)(2)(K) (relating to permit fees)
6. Section 123 (relating to stack heights for
existing source in other than non-attainment
areas)
7. Section 121 (relating to consultation)
Although incorporation of these provisions is required
by the law, failure to achieve final approval by
July 1, 1979 does not trigger the new source prohibition
of Section 110(a)(2) (I) .
It is important to emphasize to the States that all
current SI? requirements remain in effect despite the
development of the 1979 revisions. Any suspension or
discontinuance of an existing SIP provision must be
submitted for EPA approval. This should be done as part
of the revision submitted in January 1979. Exceptions
to this procedure may be found in certain new provisions
of §110 relating to reduction of on-street parking, bridge
tolls, and other measures.
The development o
minimum requirements o
1977 is a complex and
the commitment of sign
air programs staff of
the States develop and
approvable plan. We a
the necessary guidance
assist your office and
difficult but importan
f the January 1979 S
f the Clean Air Act
demanding program.
ificant resources on
the Regional Office
submit a comorehens
re working with your
and follow-up progr
the State to carry
t oart of the overal
IPs to meet the
Amendments of
It will require
the part of the
to ensure that
ive and
staff to develop
a m s w h i c h will
out this very
1 a i r p rog ram.
-------
Attachment
cc: Air f, Hazardous Division Directors
Air Srar:«:h Chiefs
-------
Criteria for Approval of 1979 Sta te Iinplernentatiori^ Plan Revisions
for Non-Ati ••'.inment Areas
Purpose
The purpose of this document is to define the criteria by which
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions for non-attainment areas
required by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 (the Act) will be
approved. These revisions are to be submitted to EPA by January 1, 1979.
Categories of SIP Revisions
SIP revisions submitted by January 1, 1979 can be divided into
two categories:
1. Those which provide for attainment of tl e Primary Ambient
Air Quality Standards (primary standards) for ali criteria pollutants-
on or before December 31, 1982.
2. Those which provide for attainment of the primary standards
for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter on or before
December 31, 1982 but show that despite the implementation of all
reasonable transportation and stationary source emission control measures
attainment of the primary standards for carbon monoxide and/or oxidants
cannot be achieved until after this date. In these cases, the revisions
*ust demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as practicable but no later
than December 31, 1987.
In order for an adequate SIP revision to fall into the second
category, the Stats has an affirmative responsibility to demonstrate
to the satisfaction of EPA that attainment of the primary carbon
monoxide and/or oxidants standards is not possible in an area prior
to December 31, 1982.
It should be noted that SIP revisions of either category should
also provide for attainment of Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards
(secondary standards) as expeditiously as practicable although there is
no specific deadline contained in the Act.
General Requirements of AH 1979 SIP Revisions
Each 1979 SI? revision must contain the following:
1. A definition of the geographic areas for which control
strategies have been or will be developed. Consideration should be
given to the practical benefits of defining areas which correspond
whenever possible to those substate districts established pursuant
to Fart IV, Attachment A of OMB Circular No. A-95.
-------
2. An accurate, comprehensive, and cunent (1977 calendar year)
inventory of existing emissions.
3. A determination of the level of control needed to demonstrate
attainment by 1982 (including growth). This demonr>era 1.ion should be
made by the application or medal ing techniques as set lorth in EPA's
Guideline on Air Quality Models. For oxidanco, any legitimate modeling
technique (e.g., chose referenced in ''Use, Limitation an-J Technical
Basis of Procedures for Quantifying Relationships Between Photochemical
Oxidants and Precursors.'" EPA 450/2-77-G21d. November 1977) can be
used. Consideration of background and transport for oxidants should
generally be in accordance with the procedures 'documented in "Procedures
for Quantifying Relationships Between Photochemical Oxidants and
Precursors," In developing photochemical oxidant control strategies
for a particular area, states may assume at a minimum that the standard
will be attained in adjacent stales.
If a state can demonstrate that the level of coni.ro! necessary for
attainment of the primary standards for r.arbcn .r.onoxide and/or oxidant
is not possible by 1982 despite the application of all reasonable
measures, a-n extension past 1SS2 (but not beyond IG'bTJ" is authorized,
'\. Adoption in legally enforceable form^ of all measures necessary
to proviao for attainment by the prescribed date or, where adoption of
all such measures by 1979 is noc possible, (e.g.; certain transportation
control measures, and certain measures to control the oxides of nitrogen
and total suspended participate) a schedule for expeditious development,
adoption, submittal, and implementation of these measures. The
situations in which adoption of measures may be scheduled after 1979
are discussed in the pollutant specific sections of this document. Each
schedule must provide for implementation of all reasonably available
control measures as expeditiously as practicable. During the period
prior to attainment, these measures must be implemented rapidly enough
to provide at a minimum for reasonable further progress (see discussion
'Written evidence that the State, the general purpose local
government or governments, or a regional agency designated by general
purpose local governments for such purpose, have adopted by statute,
regulation, ordinance or other legally enforceable document, the
necessary requirements and schedules and timetables for compliance,
and are committed to implement anc enforce the appropriate elements
of the plan. The relevant organizations shall provide evidence that
the legally enforceable attainment measures and the "criteria,
standards and implementing procedures necessary for effectively guiding
and controlling major decisions as to where growth snail and shall not
take place," prepared by State and local governments in compliance with
Section 701 of the Housing Act of 1954, as amended, are fully coordinated
in the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
-------
below). Each schedule will be considered part of the applicable
implementation plan and thus will represent a commitment on the part
of the State to meet the key milestones set forth in the submitted
schedule.
5. Emission reduction estimates for each adopted or scheduled
control measure or for related groups of control measures where
estimates for individual measures are impractical. It is recognized
that reduction estimates may change as measures are more fully
analyzed and implemented. As such estimates change, appropriate
responses will be required to insure that the plan remains adequate
to provide for attainment and for reasonable further progress.
6. Provision for- reasonable further progress toward attainment
of the primary and secondary standards in the period prior to the
prescribed date for attainment. Reasonable further progress is defined
as annual incremental reductions in total emissions (emissions from
new as well as existing sources) to provide for attainment by the
prescribed date. The plan shall provide for substantial reductions in
the early years with regular reductions thereafter.
Reasonable further progress will be determined for each area
by dividing the total emission reductions required to attain the appli-
cable standard by the number of years betv/een 1979 and the date pro-
jected for attainment (not later than 1987). This is represented
graphically by a straight line drawn from the emissions inventory sub-
mitted in 1979 to the allowable emissions on the attainment date.
However, EPA recognizes that some measures cannot result in immediate
emission reduction. Therefore, if a State can show that some lag in
emissions reduction is necessary, a SIP will be acceptable even though
reductions sufficient to produce decreases at the "straight-line --ate"
are not achieved for a year or two after 1979. This lag in achieving
the "straight-1ine rate" for emissions reduction is to be accepted
only to accommodate the time required for compliance with the first set
of regulations adopted on or before January 1, 1979, if immediate
compliance is not possible. It does not authorize delays in adoption
of control requirements.
The requirement to demonstrate reasonable further progress will,
in most areas designated non-attainment for oxidant or carbon monoxide,
necessitate a continuous, phased implementation of transportation
control measures. In areas where attainment of all primary ambient
standards by 1982 is not possible EPA will not accept mere reliance on
the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program by itself as a demonstration
of reasonable further progress.
-------
In determining "reasonable further progress", those emission
reductions obtained from compliance between August 7, 1977, and
December 31, 1979, with (1) SIP revisions that have been submitted
after August 7, 1977, and (2) regulations which were approved by the
Agency prior to the enactment of the 1977 Clean Air Amendments, can
be treated as having been achieved during 1979. There should be an
assurance, however, that these are real emission reductions and riot
just "paper" ones.
7. An identification and quantification of an emissions growth
increment which will be allowed to result from the construction and
operation of major new or modified stationary sources within the -area
for which the plan has been developed. Alternatively, an emissions
offset regulation can be adopted to provide for major new source growth.
The growth rates established by states for mobile sources and new
minor stationary sources should also be specified, and in combination
with the growth associated with major new or modified stationary sources
will be accepted so long as they do not jeopardize the reasonable further
progress test and attainment by the prescribed date. However, the growth
rate identified in the SIP must be consistent with the growth rates used
(or implied by) the other planning programs in the area (e.g., FVJPCA
Section 208 [201], HUO Section 701, FHWA Section 134). A system for
monitoring the emission growth rates from major and minor new stationary
sources and from transportation sources and assuring that they do not
exceed the specified amounts must also be provided for in the revision.
8. Provision for annual reporting on the progress toward meeting
the schedules summarized in (4) above as well as growth of mobile
sources, minor new stationary sources, major new or modified stationary
sources, and reduction in emissions from existing sources to provide for
reasonable further progress as in (6) above. This should include an
updated emission inventory.
9. A requirement that permits be issued for the construction and
operation of new or modified major sources in accordance with Section
173 and 110(a)(2)(0).
10. An identification of and commitment to the financial and
manpower resources necessary to carry out the plan. The cotr«nitment
should be made at the highest executive level having responsiblity for
SIP or that portion of it and having authority to hire new employees.
This commitment should include written evidence that the State, the
general purpose local government or governments, and all state, local or
regional agencies have included appropriate provision'in their respective
ts and intend to continue to do so in future years for which budgets
not yet been finalized, to the extent necessary.
-------
.•5
11. Evidence of public, local government, and state legislative
involvement and consultation. It shall also include an identification
and brief analysis of the air quality, health, welfare, economic,
energy, and social effects of the plan revisions and of the alternatives
considered by the State, and a summary of the pub.lic comment on such
analysis.
12. Evidence that the SIP was adopted by the state after reasonable
notice and public hearing.
Additional Requirements For Carbon Monoxide and Oxidant SIP Revisions
which Provide for Attainment of the Primary Standards Later than 1982
For those SIP revisions which demonstrate that attainment of the
primary standards for carbon monoxide and/or oxidants is not possible
in an area prior to December 31, 1982 despite the implementation of all
reasonable emission control measures the following items must be
included in the January 1, 1979 submission in addition to all the
general requirements listed above:
1. A program which requires prior to issuance of any permit for
construction or modification of a major emitting facility an analysis
of alternative sites, sizes, production processes, and environmental
control techniques for such proposed source which demonstrates that
benefits of the proposed source significantly outweigh the environmental
and social cost imposed as a result of its location, construction, or
modification.
2. An inspection/maintenance program or a schedule endorsed by
and committed to by the Governor for the development, adoption, and
implementation of such a program as expeditiously as practicable.
Where the necessary legal authority does not currently exist, it must
be obtained by June 30, 1979. Limited exceptions to the requirement
to obtain legal authority by June 30, 1979 may be possible if the state
can demonstrate that (a) there was insufficient opportunity to conduct
necessary technical analyses and/or (b) the legislature has had no
opportunity to consider any necessary enabling legislation for inspection/
maintenance between enactment of the 1977 Amendements to the Act and
June 30, 1979. In addition, where a legislature has adequate opportunity
toxadopt enabling legislation before January 1, 1979, the Regional
Administrator should require submission of such legal authority by
January 1, 1979. In no case can the schedule submitted provide for
obtaining legal authority later than July 1, 1980.
-------
Actual implementation of the inspection/maintenance program must
proceed as expeditiously as practicable. EPA considers two and one half
years from the time of legislative adoption to be.the maximum time
required to implement a centralized inspection/maintenance program and
one and one half years to implement a decentralized proqr?m. In no case
may Implementation of the program, i.e., mandatory inspection and
mandatory repair of failed vehicles be delayed beyond 1982 in the case
of a centralized program (either state lanes or contractor lanes) or
beyond 1981 in the case of a decentralized (private garage) system.
3. A commitment by the responsible government official or
officials to establish, expand, or improve public transportation
measures to meet basic transportation needs as expeditiously as is
practicable.
4. A commitment to use insofar as is necessary Federal grants,
state or local funds, or any combination of such grants and funds as
may be consistent with the terms of the legislation providing such
grants and funds, for the purpose of establishing, expanding or
improving public transportation measures to meet basic transportation
needs.
Note that HUD has prepared guidelines for local development codes
and ordinances to provide special requirements for areas which for
significant periods of time may exceed the primary standards. These
guidelines specify criteria for new construction operation of buildings
which minimize pollutant concentrations to ensure a healthy indoor end
outdoor environment. States are encouraged to adopt such measures as
part of the SIP.
Pollutant Specific Requirements
Sulfur Dioxide
Specifically, with regard to item (4) of the General Requirements,
the January 1S79 plan revisions dealing with sulfur dioxide must contain
al1 the necessary emission 1 imitations and legally enforceable procedures
to provide for attainment by no later than December 31, 1S82 (i.e.,
schedules for the development, adoption, and submittal of regulations
will not be acceptable).
-------
Nitrogen Oxides
For NOX, the January 1979 plan must contain all the necessary
emission limitations and the legally enforceable procedures, or as a
minimum, the appropriate schedules to adopt and submit the emission
limitations and legally enforceable procedures which provide for
implementation so that standards will be attained by no later than
December 31, 1982. EPA is currently evaluating the need for a short
term NO? standard and expects to promulgate such a standard during
1978. If such a standard for air quality is promulgated, a new and
separate SI? revision will be required for this pollutant.
Particulate Matter
The January 1979 plan revisions dealing with particulate matter
must contain all the necessary emission "limitations and legally enforce-
able procedures-for traditional sources. These emission limitations and
enforceable procedures must provide for the control of fugitive
emissions, where necessary, as well as stack emissions from these
stationary sources. Where control of non-traditional sources (e.g.,
urban fugitive dust, resuspension, construction, etc.) is necessary for
attainment, the plan shall contain an assessment of the impact of these
sources and a commitment on the part of the state to adopt appropriate
control measures. This commitment shall take the form of a schedule to
develop, submit, and implement the legally enforceable procedures, and
programs for controlling non-traditional particulate matter sources.
These schedules must include milestones for evaluating progress and
provide for attainment of the primary standards by no later than
December 31, "1982, and attainment of the secondary standards as expe-
ditiously as practicable. States should initiate the necessary studies
and demonstration projects for controlling the non-traditional sources
as soon as possible.
Carbon Monoxide and Oxidant
An adequate SIP for oxidant is one which provides for sufficient
control of volatile organic compounds (VOC) from stationary and mobile
sources to provide for attainment of the oxidant standard. Accordingly,
the 1979 plan revision must set forth the necessary emission limitations
and schedules to obtain sufficient control of VOC emissions in all non-
attainment areas. They must oe directed toward reducing the peak
concentrations within the major urbanized areas to demonstrate attainment
as expeditious^ as practicable but in no case later than December 31, 19
This should also solve the rural oxidant problem by minimizing VOC
emissions and more importantly oxidants that may oe transported from
urba>i to rural areas. The 1979 submission must represent a comprehensive
strategy or plan for each non-attainment area; plan submissions that
address only selected portions of non-attainment are not adequate.
-------
8
For the purpose of oxidant plan development, major urban areas are
those with an urbanized population of 200,000 or greater (U.S. Bureau
of Census, 1970). A certain degree of flexibility will be allowed in
defining the specific boundaries of the urban area. However, the areas
must be large enough to cover the entire urbanized? area and adjacent
fringe areas of development. For non-attainment urban areas, the highest
pollutant concentration for the entire area must be used in determining
the necessary level of control. Additionally, uniform modeling .tech-
niques must be used throughout the non-attainment urban area. These
requirements apply to interstate as well as intrastate areas.
Adequate plans must provide for the adoption of reasonably
available control measures for stationary and mobile sources.
For stationary sources, the 1979 oxidant plan submissions for
major urban areas must include, as a minimum, legally enforceable
regulations to reflect the application of reasonably available control
technology (RACT)3 to those stationary sources for which EPA has
published a Control Techniques Guideline (CTG) by January 1978, and
provide for the adoption and submittal of additional legally enforce-
able RACT regulations on an annual basis beginning in January 1980, for
those CTGs that have been published by January of the preceeding year.
For rural non-attainment areas, the Ox plan must provide the
necessary legally enforceable procedures for the control of large HC
sources (more than 100 ton/year potential emissions) for which EPA
has issued a CTG by January 1978, and to adopt and submit additional
legally enforceable procedures on an annual basis beginning in
January 1980, after publication of subsequent CTGs as set forth above.
For mobile sources in urbanized area (population 200,000) SIPs
must provide for expeditious implementation of reasonably available
control measures. Each of the measures for which EPA will publish
information documents during 1978 is a reasonably available control
measure. These measures are listed on the following page:
2As defined by the U.S. Bureau of Census, urbanized area generally
include core cities plus any closely settled suburban areas.
3while it is recognized that RACT will be determined on a case-by-
casc basis, the criteria for SIP approval rely heavily upon the
information contained in the CTG. Deviations from the use of the CTG
must be adequately documented.
-------
1. To be published by February 1970
a. inspection/maintenance
b. vapor recovery
c. improved public transit
d. exclusive bus and carpool lanes
e. area wide carpool programs
2. To be published by August 1978
a. private car restrictions
b. long range transit improvements
c. on street parking controls
d. park and ride and fringe parking lots
e. pedestrian malls
f. employer programs to encourage car and van pooling,
mass transit, bicycling and walking
g. bicycle lanes and storage facilities
h. staggered work hours
i. road pricing to discourage single occupancy auto trips
j. controls on extended vehicle idling
k. traffic flow improvements
1. alternative fuels or engines and other fleet
vehicle controls
m. other than light duty vehicle retrofit
n. extreme cold start emission reduction programs
The above measures (either individually or combined into packages
of measures) should be analyzed promptly and thoroughly and scheduled
for expeditious implementation. EPA recognizes that not all analyses
of every measure can be completed by January 1979 and, where necessary,
schedules may provide for the completion of analyses after January 1,
1979 as discussed below. (If analysis after January 1979 demonstrates
that certain measures would be unnecessary or ineffective, a decision
not to implement such measures may be justifiable. However, decisions
not to implement measures will have to be carefully reviewed to avoid
broad rejections of measures based on conclusbry assertions of
infeasibility.)
As described previously, annual incremental reductions in total
emissions must occur in order to achieve reasonable further progress
during the period prior to attainment of the standards. Therefore,
not all transportation measure implementation activities should wait
until the comprehensive analyses of control measures are completed.
Demonstration studies are important and should accompany or precede
-------
10
full scale implementation of the comprehensive strategy. It is EPA's
policy that each area will be required to schedule a representative
selection of reasonable transportation measures (as listed above) for
implementation at least on a pilot or demonstration basis prior to the
end of 1930.
Every effort must be made to integrate the air quality related
transportation plan and implementation required by the Clean Air Act
into planning and programming procedures administered by DOT. EPA will
pubiish "Transportation Planning Guidelines" which will, if followed
carefully, insure that an adequate transportation planning process
exists.
EPA recognizes that the planning and implementation of very
extensive air quality related transportation measures can be a complicated
and lengthy process, and in areas with severe carbon monoxide or oxidant
problems, completion of some of the adopted measures may extend beyond
1982. Implementation of even these very extensive transportation
measures, however, must be initiated before December 31, 1982.
In the case of plan revisions that make the requisite showing to
justify an extension of the date for attainment, the portion of the 1979
plan submittal for transportation measures must:
1. Contain procedures and criteria adopted into the SIP by which
it can be determined whether the outputs of the DOT Transportation
planning process conform to the SIP.
2. Provide for the expeditious implementation of currently
planned reasonable transportation control measures. This includes
reasonable but uniimplemented transportation measures in existing SIPs
and transportation controls with demonstrable air quality benefits
developed as part of the transportation process funded by DOT.
3. Present a program for evaluating a range of alternative
packages of transportation options that includes, as a minimum, those
measures listed above for which EPA will develop information documents.
The analyses must identify a package of transportation control measures
to attain the emission reduction target ascribed to it in the SIP.
4. Provide for the evaluation of long range (post-1982) trans-
portation and growth policies. Alternative growth policies and/or
development patterns must be examined tc determine the potential for
modifying total travel demand. One of the growth alternatives evaluated
should be that prepared in response to Section 701 of the Housing Act of
1954, as amenaed.
-------
11
5. Include a schedule for analysis and adoption of transportation
control measures as expeditiously as practicable. The comprehensive
analysis of alternatives (item 2 above) must be completed by July 1980
unless the designated planning agency can demonstrate that analysis
of individual components (e.g., long range transit improvements) may
require additional time. Adopted measures must be implemented as
expeditiously as practicable and on a continuous schedule that demonst>-
reasonable further progress from 1979 to the attainment date. Deter-
minations of the reasonableness of a schedule will be based en the
nature of the existing or planned transportation system and the com-
plexity of implementation of an individual measure.
Additional Carbon Monoxide and Oxidant Monitoring Requirements
It is EPA's policy to require that all SIPs which provide for
attainment of the oxidant standard after December 31, 1982, must con-
tain commitments to implement a complete oxidant monitoring program in
major urbanized areas in order to adequately characterize the nature
and extent of the problem and to measure the effectiveness of the
control strategy for oxidants. The 1979 plan submittal must provide
for a schedule to conduct such CO monitoring as necessary to correct
any deficiencies as identified by the Regional Office.
SIPs for Unclassified Areas Redesignated Non-Attainment
With respect to unclassified areas which are later found to be
non-attainment areas the state will be required to submit a plan
within nine months of the non-attainment determination. During plan
development, the state will be required to implement the offset policy
for that area. However, it should be noted that in many cases, because
of previous plan revisions or adoption of previous control regulations,
the baseline for offsets will be more restrictive and thus offsets may
be more difficult to obtain. For oxidants, state-wide regulatory
development (for at least all sources greater than 100 tons/year),
however, would permit the state to utilize the regulations developed
for the entire state as the applicable plan for the newly designated
non-attainment area. This wcv.tid normally constitute an approvable SIP
per the above criteria and could essentially accommodate the proposed
growth within the previously submitted state plan and not require
offsets once the area is designated as non-attainment.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
. ' • WASHINGTON. D.C.' 20460
PN-110-77-08-16-001
1 R flllP 1Q77 OFFICE OF
X 0 MUU IO/ / A1R AND vvASTE MANAGEMENT
SUBJECT: Guidance on SIP Development and New Source
Review in Areas Impacted by Fugitive Dust
FROM: Edward F. Uierk, _ A^tkl$ Assistant Administrator
for £ir (t waste Management
MEMO TO: Regional Administrators
Many of the July 1, 1976, calls for particulate matter SIP revisions
identified fugitive dust as a significant contributor to the particulate
matter problem within the urbanized areas throughout the nation. Addition-
ally, recent studies have indicated that fugitive dust control should be
considered as part of the overall control program for particulate matter
if many urban areas are to attain and maintain the NAAQS.
The attached policy paper has undergone considerable review from
boch within and outside the Agency. Briefly, the policy recognizes the
greater environmental impact due to violations of the National Amoient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) due to fugitive dust in urban versus rural
areas. Consequently, for control strategy development, urban areas should
receive the highest priority for the development of a comprehensive and
reasonable program to control fugitive dust. Rural area control programs
at this time should center on the control of large existing man-made
fugitive dust sources (i.e., tailing piles, mining operations, etc.) which
in themselves are presently causing violations of the NAAQS or are sources
of a known toxic or hazardous material (e.g., asbestos). For the purposes
of implementing the fugitive dust policy, rural areas are primarily
determined by the following criteria: (1) the lack of major industrial
development or absence of significant industrial particulate emissions,
and (2) low urbanized population.
In addition, .ew sources that wish to construct in rural fugitive
dust areas should be allowed to do so without the need of an emission
offset, as long as they comply with the applicable emission regulation,
and the impact of their emissions plus the emissions from other stationary
sources in tne vicinity of the proposed location, along with normal back-
ground, is not projected to cause violations of the NAAQS. Source: wishing
to locate in urban non-attainment areas must obtain offsets and may do so
by controlling fugitive dust sources.
-------
The control of fugitive dust sources reflecting the application of
reasonable available controls should be included with the SIP revisions
now under development. It should be noted that since fugitive dust
control programs will be relatively new to many State and local agencies,
time will be required for coordination among various groups in order to
implement an effective program in urban areas. Demonstration projects
and special implementation studies may be needed, and efforts to support
such programs are encouraged.
Enclosure
cc: Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Region I, III-X
Director, Environmental Programs Division, Region II
Assistant Adminstrator for Enforcement
Office of General Counsel
Assistant Administrator for Planning and Management
-------
FUGITIVE DUST POLICY:
SIP's AND NEW SOURCE REVIEW
August 1, 1977
Control Programs Development Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Office of Air and Waste Management
-------
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to identify and set forth the Agency's
position concerning fugitive dust relative to the control strategy and
new source review requirements of the State Implementation Plans (SIPs).
Policy Statement
Briefly, the policy recognizes the greater environmental impact due
to violations of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) due to
fugitive dust in urban versus rural areas. Consequently, for control
strategy development, urban areas should receive the highest priority for
the development of a comprehensive and reasonable program to control fugi-
tive dust. Rural area control programs at this time should center on the
control of large existing man-made fugitive dust sources (i.e., tailing piles,
mining operations, etc.) which in themselves are presently causing violations
of the NAAQS or are sources of a known toxic or hazardous material (e.g.,
asbestos). For the purposes of implementing the fugitive dust policy, rural
areas are primarily determined by the following criteria: (1) the lack of
major industrial development or absence of significant industrial particu-
Vate emissions and (2) low urbanized population.
In addition, new sources that wish to construct in rural fugitive dust
areas should be allowed to do so without the need of an emission offset, as
long as they comply with the applicable emission regulation, and the impact
of their emissions plus the emissions from other stationary sources in the
vicinity of the proposed location, along with normal background, is not
projected to cause violations of the NAAQS. Sources wishing to locate in
urban non-attainment areas must obtain offsets and may do so by controlling
fugitive dust sources.
Summary
The particulate matter found in rural areas, without the impact of
man-made sources, is typically native soil that for various reasons
-------
becomes airborne. It is generally not exposed to potential contaminatie-
by industrial pollutants which commonly occur in urban atmospheres.
In urban areas, the native soil is contaminated to a measurable
degree by various components highly suspect in their health effects.
Urban fugitive dust characteristically contains a combination of industrial
pollutants from a variety of sources making it potentially more harmful.
Additionally, the problem is more pronounced within urbanized areas and
thus more conducive to the development of an imp!erne itable control program.
Therefore, the major emphasis for fugitive dust control should center
upon urban areas. Urbanized areas shall be required to adopt compre-
hensive but reasonable fugitive dust control plans.
Additionally, certain non-urban sources may have a significant air
quality impact or may contain known toxic materials (such as some mining
and large tailings operations) and should also be controlled through the
application of reasonably available control technology (RACT).
Since fugitive dust control programs will be relatively new
to many State and local agencies, time will be required for coordination
among various State and local agencies in order to develop and implement
an effective program. Demonstration projects and special studies may
be needed as part of the control strategy development process and adequate
time should be provided to accomplish these programs. Fugitive dust
control plans reflecting the application of RACT should be submitted as
part of the SIP revisions now under development and provide for imple-
mentation of the program as expeditiously as practicable considering
that a demonstration project would or could be the first phase of the
implementation program which would require several years to fully and
completely implement.
2
-------
The emission offset policy states that if a new source wishes
to locate within an urbanized non-attainment area, the source must
insure that its emissions will be controlled to the greatest degree
possible, that more than equivalent offsetting emission reductions will
be obtained from existing sources, and that there will be progress
toward attainment of the NAAQS. Since fugitive dust is a significant
problem which must be controlled within the urban area, the source could
be permitted to minimize either the existing fugitive dust or stack particu-
late emissions in order to satisfy the offset requirements. It should be
pointed out that if a source wishes to offset its proposed particulate
stack emissions with fugitive dust emissions, it must provide a demonstra-
tion that this offset utilizing fugitive dust control represents an
equally effective offset as compared to an offset utilizing stack emission
control only. However, if a new source wishes to locate in a rural area
with violations of the NAAQS attributed to non-industrial sources, the
source will be allowed to construct without the need of offsets, as long
as it complies with the applicable emission regulations (NSPS, state
regulation, etc.) and the impact of its emissions, plus the emissions
from other stationary sources in the vicinity of the proposed location,
along with normal background, is not projected to cause violations
of the NAAQS for particulate matter. If violations are predicted,
the source will be required to provide for further control and/or
offsets as necessary, as outlined in the current Emissions Offset
Policy (December 21, 1976).
-------
Prioritites for Control of Fugitive Dust
Briefly, efforts should begin to control fugitive dust from all
major sources in urban areas, with little or no attention to natural
or non-industrial (i.e., unpaved roads, agricultural activities)
related fugitive dust sources in rural areas. Exclusion of rural areas
from control efforts at this time is based upon the belief that the
toxic fraction of fugitive dust 1n areas without the impact of man-made
pollutants is likely to be small. Fugitive dust rources in such areas
include dust from deserts, arid lands, sparsely vegetated land, exposed
but vacant lots in rural communities, dust from sparsely traveled,
unpaved roads and unpaved residential driveways, and other such conditions
endemic to rural America. It is generally not exposed to potential
contamination by industrial fallout or subject to adsorption of gaseous
pollutants, which commonly occur in urban atmospheres. This analysis
is supported'in a qualitative manner by an EPA statement to the U. S.-
Senate Committee on Public Works:
"In rural areas relatively free from point emission sources,
sucn as in areas of the Southwest, the total suspended particulate
matter may be composed largely of non-toxic substances, such as
silicates; although certain organic material, such as fungi and
aeroal lergens, may be present in specific areas. No epidemiological
studies have been conducted in sparsely populated areas where the
TSP concentration may be high due to 'fugitive dust.' In general,
the population is too small to provide a statistically significant
sample. Detailed information on the chemical composition of the
TSP in these areas is not available; however, the toxic fraction is
likely to be small."
Fugitive dust in urban areas, on the other hand, is a relatively
different phenomenon. While mineral matter is still the primary ingredient,
it can no longer be considered as native soil. In urban areas, it is con-
taminated to a measurable degree by various components wnicn may adversely
affect health. Urban fugitive dust contains fallout from'industrial and
4
-------
combustion related processes, lead from automotive exhaust, measurable
rubber tire particles, and other components associated with an advanced
technologically dependent community. " Further contamination may result
in urban areas from adsorption of harmful gases or adhesion of fine
particle matter on fugitive dust particles making fugitive dust particles
carriers of potentially more harmful and potent ingredients.
There are other reasons why efforts for fugitive dust control should
center in urban areas. From a resource point of view (i.e., control
agency manpower and control costs) and from a population at risk viewpoint,
control efforts concentrated in urban environments will be more effective
and beneficial. In urban centers, a larger base of support exists to
implement an expanded road-paving or other such fugitive dust control
program than would exist in a rural area because of the more uniform and
pronounced impact of the problem on the population in general. Within
the urban area, the feasibility and implementability of the control plan
is enhanced by the increased number of positive improvements in addition
to air quality which can be derived from a fugitive dust control program
(improved streets, less soil erosion, overall urban improvement and
enhancement). Therefore, urban areas should receive a higher priority
in the development and implementation of a comprehensive reasonable
program to control fugitive dust.
Thus from either a scientific or priority basis, the need to control
fugitive dust should begin in urbanized areas where the impact and
feasibility of implementing a program are the greatest.
-------
Integration of Fugitive Dust Control Into the Particulate Matter
Control Strategy and New Source Review Program
Urban Areas
"Urban" fugitive dust is a significant air pollution problem and
must be controlled. The criteria used to determine what constitutes an
urbanized area vs a "rural" area should be based upon a number of- factors
(i.e., industrial emissions, population, or popu^tion density). For
the purposes of defining a "rural" fugitive dust area, the following
criteria should be examined: (1) the lack of major industrial develop-
ment or absence of significant industrial particulate emissions and
(2) low urbanized population (i.e., eastern states <100,000-200,000 or
western states <25,000-50,000).
Once the "urban" area is defined, an analysis should be conducted
to identify all sources of particulate matter and to consider various
measures that might be used to reduce particulate emissions from both
conventional stationary sources and fugitive dust sources and determine
what impact such measures would have on ambient air quality. From this
evaluation, a comprehensive achievable control program should oe developed.
Generally, the control of fugitive dust at construction activities
is reasonably available and should be required if needed to meet national
standards. Also, cleared land awaiting construction can be stabilized.
Additionally, the number of acres cleared at one time should be minimized
to the greatest extent practicable. Similarly, it 1s generally reasonable
-------
in urban areas to control fugitive dust from demolition and similar
activities, commercial driveways and parking lots and truck parking
areas. In urban areas where there is enough rain or water available,
it may be reasonable to require owners of vacant lots to maintain some
type of vegetation cover to minimize the potential of soil loss by wind
erosion.
Additionally, fugitive dust measures such as street sweeping or
street cleaning, paving of existing unpaved roads, stabilizing road
shoulders and roadways, requiring that all new roads be paved and
constructing curbs along roadways, may be reasonable, depending upon local
conditions (technical, social, or economic). More specific discussions
of the control alternatives for fugitive dust, their effectiveness and cost
can be found in OAQPS Guideline Series 1.2-071, Guideline for Development
of Control Strategies in Areas with Fugitive Dust Problems.
A fugitive dust strategy should contain a series of air pollution
control regulations, which should be coordinated where possible with
existing on-line actions taken by various agencies in the performance
of related projects. The traditional regulatory enforcement approach
is certainly required for several of the source categories (i.e., construc-
tion, aggregate storage). This will be the only way to insure compliance.
However, in some cases this direct approach may pose some difficulties
and binding agreements on the part of certain departments (i.e., public
works, etc.) that they will participate in and be responsible for the
implementation of a certain portion of the strategy should be pursued.
-------
This approach provides for integration (where possible) of the
control measures into the on-line operations of various governmental
agencies. This approach generates greater acceptance in that these
measures are viewed not only as air pollution controls, but as overall
planning and developmental improvements which will yield other tangible
benefits in addition to air quality improvement.
In some areas, demonstration projects may be planned as an integral
part of the control strategy to generate support anc coordinate efforts
within various departments. Because fugitive dust control may be a new
program, a control demonstration project is particularly appropriate
to insure an achievable program in a timely manner. In many areas,
demonstration projects will not be necessary, however, and the program
to control fugitive dust can be immediately implemented. In other areas,
some control efforts have already begun, and more complete enforcement
of existing regulations, along with the implementation of some additional
control, will be effective.
It seems appropriate that wide latitude be given in the develop-
ment of a fugitive dust control program. Sufficient time should be
given to the States to develop a comprehensive program. Plans for the
eventual control of fugitive dust should be submitted as part of the
SIP revisions now under development. It is anticipated that the plans
submitted will include various interagency agreements or demonstration
programs to implement the strategy in various stages, if necessary.
This approach is based upon the fact that specific fugitive dust
control programs will be relatively new to many State and local agencies.
Time v/ill be required for coordination among various State and local
agencies in order to develop and implement an effective program.
8
-------
For new source review in non-attainment urban areas, the program
which includes the emission offset concept remains unchanged. However,
since fugitive dust is recognized as-a significant air pollution problem
in urban areas, it is appropriate to allow sources to minimize either
existing fugitive dust sources or particulate stack emissions in order
to satisfy their emission requirements. When proposing offsets, the
sourca must be required to consider the nature of the particulate matter
being offset and should provide a demonstration that the offset utlizing
fugitive dust control represents an equally effective offset when compared
to an offset utilizing stack emissions only. Such factors as exit
velocity, effective stack height, temperature and the particulate size
of the particulate matter should be specifically considered when a source
proposes to utilize fugitive dust control as an equivalent offset.
Rural Areas
While it is agreed that a comprehensive fugitive dust control
program may not be realistic within rural areas,* certain sources
which may have a significant impact upon air quality or which may
contain toxic materials, such as mining and large tailings operations,
can and should be controlled. Several areas have very effectively
controlled large isolated sources of fugitive dust. When the source is
determined to have a specific health or air quality impact, control
agencies have traditionally required the application of reasonable
precaution measures to minimize the source's impact upon health and
welfare. In rural areas, this is still an effective means of control
and should continue to be utilized.
See page 6 for criteria to identify rural areas.
-------
There has been considerable concern about the location of major
stationary sources in rural areas where fugitive dust has been determined
to be the major source. This awareness of a problem has been brought
about in many cases by the results of special ambient air quality monitoring
studies being conducted in remote areas (where previously little or no long-
term sampling had been done) prior to the source applying for a new source
review permit. In many cases, these short-term sampling programs are
established to determine the background concentrations for the geographic
area under consideration for plant location. Quite often the long-term
averages for these particular sampling locations, if conducted over
more than a few months, are quite low, however, on rare occasions, i.e.,
2.or 3 times during the sampling program, unusually high 24-hour concen-
trations in many cases violate the 24-hour NAAQS and provide some concern
when considering the location of a new source within this isolated rural
area essentially free from the impact of stationary sources. These
values should be closely reviewed prior to use. These short-term data
should be statistically analyzed via some statistical test (e.g., Dixon
Ratio Test) to evaluate the peak-to-mean ratio. Quite often the peak-
to-mean ratio is unusually high and the maximum 24-hour concentration
is highly suspect when compared to the measured norm. This analysis
would suggest which short-term maximum concentrations may not be
representative in determining the concentration which best describes
the average air quality for the area in question. If through such a
statistical analysis the violations of the 24-hour concentration are
"flagged',1' it is recommended that these concentrations be investigated
10
-------
and where further analysis supports the. non-representativeness of the
data it should be omitted for evaluating the impact of the new
stationary source.
Similarly, for control strategy development, when the impact of
natural sources can be determined, the Part 51 SIP regulations allow
such data to be discarded and not used in control strategy development.
Section 51,12d states:
"For purposes of developing a control strategy, data derived
from measurements of existing ambient levels of a pollutant may
be adjusted to reflect the extent to which occasional natural or
accidental phenomena, e.g., dust storms, forest fires, industrial
accidents, demonstrably affected such ambient levels during the
measurement period."
New sources that wish to construct in rural areas with infrequent
short-term violations of the TS? standard should be allowed to construct
without the need of an emission offset, as long as they comply with the
appropriate emission regulation (tNSPS, state regulation or 8ACT for PSD
source) and when considering their emissions, plus "non-urban" back-
ground and the emissions from other stationary sources in the vicinity
of the proposed location, they do not cause violations of the NAAQS
or appropriate PSD increments if applicable. Specific procedures to
conduct an air quality modeling analysis for new particulate matter
sources can be found in current EPA modeling guidance now under
development.
11
-------
REFERENCES
1. A Study of the Nature and Origin of Airborne Particulate Matter
in Philadelphia, Scott Environmental Technology, Inc., January 1975.
2. Draftz, R. G., Types and Sources of Suspended Particles in Chicago.,
ITTRI, May 1975.
3. National Assessment of the Urban Particulate Problem. Volume 1:
Summary of National Assessment, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangel Park, North Carolina. Publication
Number EPA-450/3-76-024, July 1976.
4 . . 'Water Pollution Aspects of Street Surface Contaminants, Sartor, J. 0.,
and Boyd, G.B., Contract No. 14-12-921, November 1972. EPA-R2-72-081.
5. Contributions of Urban Roadway Usage to Water Pollution, Shaheen, O.G.,
Contract No. 68-01-0197, Task Order 005, April 1975.
6. Dixon, W. J., "Processing Data for Outliers," Biomedics, 9:75, 1953,
7. Guj_deTjne for Air Quality Models, Second Draft, OAQPS. May 1977.
-------
Section 115: International Air Pollution
3
r-+
>
-------
Section 115: International Air Pollution
PN115-78-03-30-002
INTERNATIONAL POLLUTION (EL PASO/JUAREZ!
PN115-78-01-31-001
ACCOUNTING FOR POLLUTION ACROSS INTERNATIONAL
BOUNDARIES
-------
MAR 20 1978
SUBJECT: International Pollution (EL Paso/Juarez)
FROM: David G. Hawkins, Assistant Administrator
for Air, Noise, and Radiation
PN-115-78-03-20-002
MEMO TO: Adlene Harrison
Regional Administrator, Region VI
The purpose of this memorandum is to communicate the policy applicable
to the El Pasc/Juarez situation referenced in your recent memos on this
subject. The policy does not shelter the El Paso area from imposition
of the Clean Air Act (CAA) sanctions, but at the same time increases the
probability of the El Paso area being able in 1979 to demonstrate the
potential for attainment of the ambient standards.
A portion of El Paso County has been designed, pursuant to Section
107 of the CAA, nonattainment for particulate matter. Such a designation
automatically invokes the requirement of Section 172 to submit a State
implementation plan (SIP) revision which, among other things, demonstrates
attainment of the ambient standards by 1982. Consequently, the area
cannot avoid the imposition of sanctions unless an acceptable SIP revision
is submitted.
Neither the CAA amendments nor current Agency policy provides
relief from the impact of emissions from existing stationary sources
located in foreign nations. Such a problem is best solved, however, by
an interim policy which allows control agencies developing strategies
for attaining ambient standards in nonattainment areas to assume that
foreign sources will be controlled sufficiently to attain standards at
the border by 1982. Since such a policy must have a foundation, it will
be necessary to initiate bilateral diplomatic actions to realize the
assumption that ambient standards will be attained at the border (i.e.,
that actual emission reductions will take place).
It must be noted, however, if the reductions agreed upon through
negotiations do not materialize, those sources located in the United
States will have to be controlled to a greater degree in order to realize
attainment. Futhermore, for the above approach to be truly effective,
the State of Texas must make a good faith effort to further reduce
pollution originating in this country and impacting air quality levels
in Mexico. Specifically, progress must be made on controlling air
pollution from the El Paso smelter . In this context, I believe that the
agreed judgement and order of injunction issued by the 41st District
Court in El Paso in the case of the City of El Paso and the State of
Texas vs. ASARCO. Incorporated will provide substantial controls at the
smelting facility in the near future. It is imperative, however, that
compliance by ASARCO with this court order be closely monitored and if
the court ordered controls are insufficient to insure the attainment of
the standards, additional controls will be required.
cc: M. Durning
J. Berstein
A. Popkin
R. Wilson
Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Divisions, Regions I, III-X
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OATE- 31 JAM iJ/8
SUBJECT-. Accounting for Pollution Across
International Boundaries
ROM: Halter C. Barber, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
T0: David G. Hawkins, Assistant Administrator
for Air and Waste Management
PN-115-78-01-31-001
In response to your memo of December 23, 1977, concerning the
impact of pollution originating in foreign nations, I offer the following
coniuents.
The issue of exempting fugitive dust and stationary source emissions
originating across international boundaries is'-partially addressed by
the Agency's current policy on fugitive dust. Such policy dictates that
control programs in rural areas affected by fugitive dust should at this
time center on the control of large existing man-made fugiti.ve dust
sources which in themselves are presently causing violations of the
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) or are sources of a known
toxic or hazardous material. This policy has universal application in
that it does not distinguish between fugitive dust originating in the
United Slates and that originating in areas outside of this country.
Consequently, if the El Paso/Juarez area meets the criteria set forth in
the fugitive dust policy, the nonattainment analysis for that area can-
discount that portion of emissions from Mexico, as well as from the
United States, which are attributable to natural fugitive dust sources.
iNeither the Clean Air Act Amendments nor current Agency policy,
however, provides relief from the impact of emissions from existing
stationary sources located in foreign nations. Congress did recognize
that relief may be required in areas along international boundaries with
respect to new sources and the prevention of significant deterioration.
Specifically, the Amendments permit a Governor to set aside the increase
in concentrations attributable to new sources outside the United States
over the concentrations attributable to existing sources which are
included in the baseline concentration.
I believe the best interim policy to resolve this problem is one
which will allow control agencies developing strategies for attaining
ambient standards in nonattainment areas to assume that foreign sources
will be controlled sufficiently to attain standards at the border by
1982.
«. 3-761
-------
In addition, the United States should initiate bilateral diplomatic
actions to obtain reductions necessary to attain standards at the border.
In the long term, if reductions are not actually obtained, a policy
change or Clean Air Act amendment would be required.
cc: Marvin Burning
Mike James
Jack Thompson
-------
Section 123: Stack Heights
NJ
CO
CO
r~+
0)
o
7T
-------
Section 124: Assurance of Adequacy
of State Plans
19
03
.Q
Q)
O
-------
Section 124: Assurance of Adequacy of State Plans
PN124-78-OT-31-001
IMPLEMENTING SECTION 124 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OATE: JUL 3 1 1378
CT. Implementing Section 124 of the Clean Air Act PN-124-78-07-31-001
FROM: Walter C. Barber, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
TO: Director, Air & Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I, III-X
Director, Environmental Programs Division, Region II
On January 23, 1978, Richard Rhoads sent to the Regional Offices
for comment a draft copy of an OAQPS guideline memorandum on imple-
menting Section 124, Assurance of Adequacy of State Plans, of the
Clean Air Act. This section requires the States to determine the
effect of potential fuel shortages on the adequacy of their SIPs and
to revise their SIPs if necessary to counteract any adverse effect
of shortages. The draft guidance material was also discussed at the
February and March workshops on requirements for nonattainment area
plans.
The analysis required by Section 124 is, although important, of
lesser priority than many other aspects of the air program. Further,
the depth of analysis required is highly dependent upon the conditions
within the individual States. Although some States may need to follow
the full analytical procedures outlined in our January draft guidance,
most States could comply with Section 124 by using much more simplified
techniques, and in many States a simple qualitative assessment would be
adequate.
I therefore do not intend to formalize uniform national guidance
on implementation of Section 124 at this late date. I believe you and
your States should continue to implement Section 124 in a manner
consistent with the specific conditions within the individual States,
. keeping in mind the many conflicting resource demands on both the
States and EPA.
cc: R. Rhoads
J. Padgett
Director, Enforcement Division, Regions I-X
Air Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
EPA FORM 1320-6 (REV. 3-761
-------
fO
o>
-3
*-*
0>
r-4-
CO
**-f
0)
Section 126: Interstate Pollution Abatement
-------
Section 126: Interstate Pollution Abatement
PN126-80-06-08-003
INTERSTATE POLLUTION ABATEMENT PETITIONS -
POLICY STATEMENT
PN126-78-07-26-002
UNION ELECTRIC VARIANCE - INTERSTATE EQUITY
PN126-78-03-16-001
OUT OF STATE SOURCES EFFECT ON IMPLEMENTATION
PLAN REVISION
-------
Federal Register./_Vd.4S,Ma 53 / Monday,March 17.1980 / Propo PN-126-80-u5-i7-003
40 CFR Parti
.1436-3]
interstate Pollution Abatement; Notice
of Proceedings Under Section 126 of
the Clean Air Act and Hearing
AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA).
ACTION: Notice of Proceedings under
Section 126 of the Clean Air Act
(Lnerstate PolluSon Abatement)
including Notice of Public Hearing.
SUMMARY: Section 126 of the Clean Air
Act provides a mechanism for any State
or political subdivision to petition the
USEPA to determine whether i major
pollution source-in another State is
causing or has the potential to cause in
interestate air pollution problem. Such a
petition has been filed by Jefferson
County, Kentucky with respect to sulfur
dioxide (Sd) emissions from the Public
Service of Indiana (PSI) Gallagher
power station in Floyd County, Indiana.
The purpose of this notice is to
announce a public hearing to determine
the interstate impact of the PSI
Gallagher station; and to solicit
comments from affected parties and the
general public with respect to the
criteria which should be used to
establish an emission limitation for the
Gallagher station should the
Administrator determine that this source
is emitting any air pollutant in amounts
which -will prevent attainment or
maintenance by any other State of any
national primary or secondary ambient
air quality standard, or interfere with
measures required to be included in the
applicable implementation plan for any
other State under Part D of the Act to
prevent significant deterioration of air
quality or to protect visibility.
DATE: The public hearing will be held on
April 17,1980.
Submit requests to present oral
testimony by not later than close of
business on April 11,1980.
USEPA request advance copies of
written comments and factural
information wherever possible;
however, written material will be
accepted up until the close of the public
hearing record on May 2,1980.
ADDRESSES: The hearing will be held at
the Ramada Inn-Airport, Corbin Room,
1465 Gardiner Lane at Interstate 264,
Louisville, Kentucky. The hearing will
convene at 1 p.m.; recess at 5 p.m. (or at
such time as all commentors scheduled
for the afternoon have completed their
testimony); reconvene at 7 p.m.; and
adjourn when all scheduled testimony
has been completed.
Individuals .wishing to present oral
testimony are requested to contract
Robert Miller, Air Programs .Branch,
USEPA. Region V. 230 South-Dearborn,
Chicago, Illinois 80604 (312-888-6031).
FOfl FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert Miller, Air Programs Branch. VS.
Environmental Protection Agency,. Region
V, 230 South Dearborn Street. Chicago.
Illinois 60604. (312) 886-6031
Barryn Gilbert, Air Programs Branch, US.
Environmental Protection Agency, 845
Courtland Street. Atlanta. Georgia 30308,
(404)881-3286.
Technical and background documents
are available for public inspection at the
above address and at
Public Information reference Unit,tJ.S.
Environmental Protection Agency library.
Room 2922,401M Street SW, 'Washington,
D.C. 20460.
Air Pollution Control District of Jefferson
County, 914 E. Broadway, Louisville.
Kentucky 40204.
Division of Air Pollution Control, Kentucky
Department for Natural Resources, and
Environmental Protection. W. Frankfort
Office Complex, US 127 South. Frankfort.
Kentucky 40601.
Air Pollution Control Division, Indiana Board
of Health. 1330 W. Michigan Street,
Indianapolis, Indiana 46206.
Background:
On May 14,1973. the USEPA
approved Indiana's S02 State
Implementation Plan for Floyd County
(38 FR 12698). This regulation set an
emission limitation for PSI's Gallagher
Station of 1.2 pounds of S02 per million
British Thermal Units fMBTU) of actual
heat input. Final compliance with the
rule was required by April 1,1975. In
1974 Indiana adopted new S02
regulations for Floyd County. Technical
support submitted by the State of
Indiana included ambient air quality
data showing no monitored violations of
S02 air quality standards in Indiana, and
a modeling study which concluded that
Gallagher's contribution to high S02
levels in Kentucky was minimal (i.e.
about 6%). On August 24,1976 the
USEPA approved these regulations for
the Gallagher station (41 FR 35676).
Although these regulations do not
impose an emission limitation of any.
kind on Gallagher, they do require the
facility to install an ambient monitoring
system and to maintain an emergency
two week supply of fuel which will be
adequate to meet an emission limitation
of 1.2 Ibs. of S02/MBTU. This fuel is to
be used upon the State of Indiana's
order during periods of adverse
meteorological conditions.
Indiana submitted a revised statewide
S02 attainment strategy and a revised
S02 regulation to USEPA on July 3,1979.
These regulations were de
demonstrate attainment of S •
standards in the Lake. Mail; . ._ .d
Wayne County nonartainmert . - s.
The regulations also establish a 6 Ibs. of
S02/MBTD heatimput emission
limitation for fossil fuel fired power
plants throughout the State.If approved
by the USEPA. this 8 Ibs. of S02/MBTU
limitation would apply to the Gallagher
station.
The 1972 Kentucky State
Implementation Plan required major
power plants in Jefferson County,
Kentucky to limit their emissions to 1.2
Ibs. of S02/MBTU. These limitations are
still in effect in Kentucky.
Section 126(b) of the Clean Air Act
authorizes any Slate or political
subdivision to petition the
Administrator of the USEPA for a
finding that any major source emits or
will emit an air pollutant hi violation of
the prohibition of seption 110[a)[2)(E)p)
of the Clean Air Act This section
prohibits any stationary source within a
State from emitting any air pollutant in
amounts which will prevent attainment
or maintenance by any other State of
any national primary or secondary
ambient air quality standard, or
interfere with measures required to be
included in the applicable
implementation plan for any other State
under Part C of the Act to prevent
signficant deterioration of air quality or
to protect visibility. After public
hearings, the Administrator either
makes a finding that section
110(a)(2)(E)(i) is being violated or denies
the petition. If the finding is made,
section 126(c) provides that operation of
the source for more than three months
after the finding has been made shall be
a violation of the applicable
implementation plan unless the
Adminstrator permits continued
operation of the source conditioned on
its compliance with emission limitations
and compliance schedules provided by
the Administrator. Compliance with the
requirements contained in section
nO(a)(2)(E)(i) must be as expeditious as
practicable but no later than three years
after the date of such finding.
On May 14,1979, USEPA was
petitioned by the Air Pollution Control
District of Jefferson County, Kentucky to
initiate proceedings, pursuant to section
126 (b) and (c) of the Clean.Air Act as
amended in 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.),
to make a finding that the sulfur dioxide
emissions from the PSI Gallagher
Station in Floyd County, Indiana were
causing or contributing to violations of
the SOj standards in Kentucky and were
otherwise in violation of 110(a)(2)(E)(i).
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 53 I
Rules
17049
In order to study the issues raised by
Jefferson County, the USEPA funded a
computer dispersion modeling study to
assess the impact of SO* emissions from
selected facilities in the Louisville
Interstate Air Quality Control Region
(AQCR). The 1976 emissions were
modeled using the Air Quality Display
Model (AQDM) to determine if the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) would be violated. A
background of 30 micrograms per cubic
meter (/ig/m*) was used. No violation of
the annual standard was predicted. The
annual contribution from Gallaher at the
point of maximum concentration was 0.7
p.g/m3. The annual primary slandered is
80 fig/m3. A compliance scenario was
then modeled with AQDM in which the
LG&E plants were assumed to be in
compliance with Federal consent orders
and Gallagher was modeled at the.
maximum allowable emissions rate. No
violation of the annual N, AAQS was
predicted. The annual contribution of
Gallagher at the point of maximum
concentration was then predicted to be
0.9 fig/m3.
The short-term impact of Gallagher
when emitting at a 6 Ibs./MBTU rate
was determined. This impact, and all
others, was determined without
consideration of the possibility that the
sulfur content of coal burned by power
plants may significantly vary. Computer
dispersion modeling predicts that the
plant would cause a violation in Indiana
of the 3-hour NAAQS (1300 jig/ms—not
to be exceeded more than once a year).
The highest second-highest 3-hour
concentration of 1434 ftg/m3 would
occur at a location eleven kilometers
north of the plant. The highest second-
highest 24-hour impact would be 307
m3, again occuring eleven kilometers
north of Gallagher. The primary 24-hour
standard is 365 jig/m3 not to be
exceeded more than once a year.
Kentucky sources would have an
insignificant contribution to these values
in Indiana during the time periods that
•these concentrations are predicted.
Gallagher emitting at 6 Ibs. of SO* per
MBTU would impact in Kentucky as
well. The highest second-highest
predicted 24-hour and 3-hour
concentrations in Kentucky from
Gallagher alone are 126 ^g/m3 and 608
/ig/m3, respectively. Sulfur dioxide
emissions from both Gallagher and three
LG&E power plants were modeled to
determined if Gallagher would
contribute to violations of the NAAQS
in Kentucky in 1976. Violations of the 24-
hour standard were predicated for two
Kentucky locations to which Gallagher
has a contribution: 16 fig/m3
contribution to a 487 /ig/m3 violation
and 51 jig/m* contribution to a 395 jig/
m3 violation. Violations of the three hour
standard were predicted in Kentucky
but Gallagher does not contribute to
these violations.
In conclusion, the model predicted
that emissions from the plant result in
increased ambient air concentrations in
Kentucky and contribute to predicted
violations of the 24-hour NAAQS in
Kentucky.
The Agency considers that the degree
of protection afforded by the interstate
pollution provisions includes nof only
protection against NAAQS violations,
but also protection against unreasonable
interference with a maintenance
program or margin for growth in the SIP.
In reaching this conclusion, the Agency
has reviewed the interstate pollution
provisions of the Act, including Sections
101.110,126 and 301. their legislative
history and pertinent case law. The
Agency is of the opinion that these
provisions evidence Congressional
intent to protect against unreasonable
interstate interference with State
programs to maintain the NAAQS and
create margins of growth, as well as
efforts to attain the standards, present
significant deterioration of air quality
and protect visibility. Such efforts may
include State adoption of emission
limitations that are more stringent than
needed to attain Federal standards. In
addition, the Agency believes that the
provisions are designed to protect
against interstate interference with
State or local ambient air standards or
other measures more stringent than
necessary to attain Federal standards.
See. H.R. Rep. No. 95-294.95th Cong..
1st Sess.; May 12.1977, 331, n. 14.
Issues that should be addressed by
the interested parties and the public
include the questions and possible
USEPA courses of action given below.
1. Does the Gallagher Power Plant in
Indiana now cause or contribute to air
pollution concentrations in excess of the
NAAQS in Kentucky?
2. Were sources in Jefferson County,
Kentucky, required to put on additional
controls to correct NAAQS violations
that were caused or substantially
contributed to by emissions from the
Gallagher plant?
3. Does the Gallagher plant have a
substantial adverse impact on
Kentucky's or Jefferson County's efforts
to develop a State Implementation Plan
which will attain and maintain
standards or create a margin for future
growth for NAAQS or PSD purposes? It
should be noted that emissions from the
Gallagher Plant may affect future
growth in Kentucky, irrespective of a
proposed new sources and Gallagher's
air quality impact within Kentucky, if
Gallagher substantially consumes the
full NAAQS or PSD increment within
Indiana.
4. The Agency currently intends to
encourage the interested parties to
resolve the interstate dispute
themselves. The Agency will encourage
the parties to consider various strategies
and tradeoffs that may be used to settle
the dispute. If this is not possible, the
Agency intends to make a case-by-case
finding of whether an interstate
pollution problem exists. The Agency
will consider the air quality impact of
the source and differences between the
control requirements for the contested
source and comparable sources in the
affected State. One option would be to
find that the Gallagher plant in Indiana
has a substantial adverse impact on
Kentucky's air quality maintenance
program or margin for growth if, in the
Administrator's opinion, the air quality
impact in Kentucky of emissions from
the Gallagher plant is significantly
greater than the air quality impact
allowed a comparable'Kentucky source.
5. If the Agency makes a finding of
substantial adverse impact, the Agency
may resolve the interstate dispute by
requiring generally comparable emission
limits for comparable sources hi both
States. In determining a comparable
emission limit for the contested source,
the Administrator would consider the
air quality impacts permitted
comparable sources in each State and
emission limits required for similar
sources in similar areas. Comments are
solicited on such an approach.
6. Suggestions are also solicited on
other appropriate criteria for USEPA
arbitration of interstate disputes.
Suggestions should include
consideration of the following questions:
a. How should differences between
State emission limits generally be
compared against the estimated air
quality impacts of out-of-State sources
and comparable in-State sources.
b. What criteria should the Agency
utilize when air quality impacts may be
difficult to ascertain, for example, when
multiple sources and pollution transport
over considerable distances may be
involved?
c. In such a situation, should the
Agency give a lesser weight to air
quality impacts and more to differences
in emission limits?
d. Under what circumstances should
the Agency consider the application of
reasonably available control technology
(RACT) by the contested sources to be
sufficent in and of itself to avoid a
finding of impermissible interstate
pollution?
-------
17050
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 53 / Monday, March 17.1980 / Proposed Rules
e. Under what circumstances should
the Agency require regionally uniform
emission limits or uniform control
technologies?
7. Specific discussions of estimated air
quality impacts should include
information on, among other things, the
model used, the input data-used, and the
assumptions used in applying the model,
such as the selection of critical
meteorological periods, plant loading
and other plant operating characteristics
assumed for the period of time (annual,
24-hour, 3-hour, 3-hour] being examined
and fuel variability.
8. If the Agency has need of-more
information than that presented at the
hearing, it may use its powers to obtain
information under Section 114 of the
Act. Also, if any additional reports or
studies need to be prepared, the costs of
such may be assessed against the
Agency's Section 105 grants for the
States involved in the dispute. The
Agency may require in-stack monitoring
lo develop comparable information.
Conduct of Public Hearings
A panel of Agency officials will
conduct an informal public hearing on
the above .issues. Although no cross-
examination will take place-at the
hearings, the panel may ask questions of
witnesses to clarify issues or to make
the record complete. Written questions
directed at the witnesses may be
submitted to the panel by members of
the audience. Any person wishing to
make a presentation or submit material
for inclusion in the hearing record
should provide written notice of this
intention by April 11,1980, to: Robert
Miller, Air Programs Branch, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 230
South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois
60604, (312) 886-6031.
This notice should include the
following information: (1) Name(s),
title(s). and affiliation(s); (2) amount of
time necessary for presentation and
whether yovrwould like to present your
testimony in the afternoon or evening
session. The time allotted for each
presentation will depend on the number
of persons seeking an opportunity to
appear. A verbatim transcript of the
hearing, copies of written statements,
and copies of other material will be
made available for public inspection
and copying during normal working
hours at the USEPA Region IV Library
(Atlanta), the Region V Air Programs
Branch (Chicago), and the Public
Information Reference Unit
(Washington). The same documents will
be available for inspection at the Air
Pollution Control District of Jefferson
County (Louisville), the Kentucky
Division of Air Pollution Control
(Frankfort), and the Indiana Air
Pollution Control Division
(Indianapolis).
Submission of Written Materials
USEPA solicits and win accept
written materials relevant to the issues
set forth above from all interested
parties. Eight copies of the material
should be submitted. We encourage the
filing of written statements prior to the
hearing, but they may be filed at the
hearing itselLThe public hearing record
will be kept open until May 2,1980, to
provide an opportunity for the public to
submit rebuttal and supplementary
information on the data presented at the
hearing. Written materials should be
submitted to Mr. Miller, Air Programs
Branch. USEPA Region V at the above
address.
The Agency recognizes that interested
persons may require a period or time
prior to the hearing to read the written
submissions of other interested parties
so that informed comments can be made
at the public hearing. All written
comments prior to the public hearing
will be available for public inspection
and copying during normal business
hours at the following address: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region V, Air Programs Branch, 230
South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois
60604.
Final Determination Under These
Proceedings
The EPA recommendation will be
based upon the preponderance of the
evidence of record and will be
announced in the Federal Register in the
form of a proposal upon which the
public wul be given an opportunity to
comment. Final action, following the
public comment period, will be
announced in the Federal Register.
Dated: March 10.1980.
John McGuire,
Regional Administrator.
(FR Doc 80-7959 Filed 3-34-80:8*5 am)
BILLING CODE
-------
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
PN-126-78-07-26-002
III f\ ** OFFICE OF
JUL 2t) 1978 AIR AND WASTE MANAGEMENT
SUBJECT: Union Electric Variance - Interstate Equity
FROM: David 6. bawkite Assistant Administrator
fo? Am, Nc fse, and Radiation
TO: Kathleen Q. Camin, Ph.D.
Regional Administrator, Region VII
This is in response to our recent conversation and your memo of
June 27, 1978, regarding interstate problems in general and the Union .
Electric variance for 502 ^n particular.
In evaluating a SIP relaxation affecting interstate areas, the
Agency must consider several criteria. EPA must be assured that the
applicable National Ambient Air Quality Standards and the PSD increments
will not be exceeded by approving the relaxation. Additionally, where
a State has a specific growth/maintenance plan for the area, the SIP
relaxation must not violate the specific provisions regarding what
growth in emissions is acceptable with respect to the maintenance plan.
Where no'specific maintenance plan exists, the two States involved
must agree to the level of consumption, consistent with attaining the
standards and maintaining the PSD increment, which would be permitted
to take place as a result of the proposed relaxation. Finally, the
control strategy submitted by a State in support of a SIP relaxation
should define the growth that would be permitted or precluded by the
proposed relaxation. If the State would adopt a relaxation which would
not permit future growth, the Agency should notify the State when
approving the revision that the State may not approve the construction
of any major source unless it would obtain the necessary offsets and
meet all other applicable requirements for new source review.
In the specific case of the Union Electric variance, it is my
understanding that no NAAQS would be interfered with by the proposed
relaxation, and that no maintenance plan for S02 has been approved for
Illinois which would restrict its approval. Moreover, I understand that
Missouri and Illinois cannot agree upon an equitable solution to resolve
this problem. Such agreement does not appear necessary in the case of
maintaining the PSD increment, since the PSD baseline emissions (actual
emissions) will not increase. Agreement, however, is necessary in
deciding what new growth is to be allowed with respect to attaining the
ambient standards.
-------
I recommend that the following approach be used in resolving the
Union Electric variance dispute, should Missouri and Illinois fail to
otherwise agree. In general, consumption of the growth potential relative
to the S02 NAAQS should be divided equally among the two States at the
border. That is, each State will have use of one-half the air quality
difference between the NAAQS and the ambient concentration now allowed
at the border. This concentration represents the air quality level which
would exist if sources in the area were to emit at the level allowed by
the applicable SIP. It should be noted that the "one-half growth allow-
ance" concept should also apply to areas internal to the other State (in
this case, Illinois). That is, where an applicable source would have
significant impacts well within the geographic boundaries of the'other
State, then that impact should also be evaluated using the "one-half
growth allowance" criteria.
The above policy means that the SIP relaxation for Union Electric
would count against the remaining growth potential for Illinois. If
this relaxation would consume more than one-half of any applicable
grov/th increment, then it must be disapproved.
I hope this guidance is useful in resolving the Union Electric
situation. Please call on me if you require further assistance.
cc: W. Barber
V. Adamkus
-------
MAR 3 1978
Out-of-State Sources Effect on DM ,-.. 7Q n, ,,. nni
Implementation Plan Revision PN-126-78-03-16-001
Richard G. Rhoads, Director
Control Programs Development Division
Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I, III-X
Director, Environmental Programs Division, Region II
A question has been raised concerning what constitutes an adequate
control strategy determination and how this impacts on regional consistency
in evalusting State implementation plan (SIP) revisions. It will be
assumed for the purpose of SIP development and evaluation that sources
in neighboring States are in compliance with appropriate emission limita-
tions and ambient standards will be achieved as required. Accordingly,
States should develop their plans and EPA should evaluate these plans
based on presumed compliance of sources in neighboring States. Should
it be determined that sources are not in compliance, then appropriate
enforcement action should be initiated against noncomplying sources.
We believe that a "presumed compliance policy" is a fair assumption
and will encourage regional consistency in the SIP process. If you have
an objection to this approach or wish to propose an alternative approach,
please advise me.
-------
Section 129: Nonattainrnent Areas
N)
CO
o
-+>
—1\
tn
CD
t-f
CO
-------
Section 129: Nonattainment Areas
PN129-78-07-03-002
INTERNAL OFFSETS FOR RACT CATEGORIES
PN129-77-10-26-001
BILL STEWART PtEftO REPLY BY D. HAWKINS
REs OFFSETS POLICY
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Washington, D. C. 20460 PN-129-78-07-03-002
tM :« iCtfft Office of
Jl/L c» .JJ?/.« .. , ... __ ..
Air and Waste Management
SUBJECT: Internal Offsets for RACT Categories
FROM: David G. Hawkins, Assistant Administrator
for Air and Waste Management
MEMO TO: Robert L. Duprey, Director
Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Region V
Your May 18, 1978, memo concerning internal offsets for RACT cate-
gories has been reviewed and discussed with other headquarters offices.
agree with your positive benefits from allowing "internal offsets" for
those facilities (plants) which can use it.
If the following conditions are met, I would see no reason why a
SIP would be disapproved for using "internal offsets."
1. In the case of source category specific regulations, each regu-
lation must consist of the RACT regulation consistent with the Control
Techniques Guideline (CTG) for that category. In the case of source
specific regulations, individual regulations for a source category can
deviate from the RACT value, provided total control of processes within
that source is consistent with the RACT for the categories covered. For
VOC sources, only source categories covered by a CTG document could be
included within a "RACT bubble." Also, a RACT bubble that covers several
source categories (e.g., coaters and degreasers) could only be allowed
if the 1979 SIP demonstrates attainment by 1987 using measures firmly
committed to in the 1979 SIP.
2. To alleviate the potential enforcement problems associated with
internal offsets, individual source category emission limits within a
RACT bubble would have to be in the SIP and met at all times.
3. Once the individual source emission limit is set, it cannot be
changed without a SIP revision.
4. Finally, as you suggested, the tightening of RACT and the
elimination of the "internal offsets" in the 1982 submittal must not
be precluded.
cc: Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Region I,
III, IV, VI-X
Director, Environmental Programs Division, Region II
L. Wegman
J. Rasnic
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Washington, D. C. 20460 PN-129-77-10-26-001
OCT 26> 1977 Office of
Air and Waste Management
Mr. Bill Stewart
Executive Director
Texas Air Control Board
8520 Shoal Creek Boulevard
Austin, Texas 78758
Dear Mr. Stewart:
We have reviewed the resolution of the Texas Air Control Board
(TACB) (Resolution R77-3) enclosed in your letter of September 22, 1977.
Although the resolution adequately reflected the requirements for granting
a waiver to the offset procedures under Section 129(a)(2) of the Clean
Air Act of 1977, the Administrator must make a finding of equivalency
based on the record. Therefore, the record must be complete before we
can take final action. A review of information currently available to
the Administrator has identified several deficiencies. In order to
complete the record, the TACB must provide: a demonstration of equiv-
alency between the TACB Regulation and the offset procedure, special
inventories, procedures for determining lowest achievable emissions rate
(LAER), evidence that regulations requiring reasonably available control
technology (RACT) for existing sources are enforceable, and identifica-
tion of the nonattainment areas to be included under the waiver.
For purposes of the waiver request, the following demonstrations
and information must be provided:
1. An emissions inventory must be submitted for each nonattainment
area showing the emissions allowed under the State Implementation Plan
(SIP) by category of major stationary source. The emissions inventories
used for SIP development which reflect actual emissions are not acceptable.
2. For each nonattainment area, a second inventory which shows the
projected allowable emissions inventory for January 1, 1979, must be
submitted. This inventory must be based on the projected major source
growth for the area and the applicable SIP regulations.
3. Based on these two emissions inventories, a demonstration which
shows that the TACB programs would provide for the same level of emission
reductions as would result from the application of the offset policy,
must be submitted.
-------
4. The TACB must submit enforceable regulations requiring LAER on
all new major sources. LAER as defined by the Act means: (a) the most
stringent emission limit which is contained in the SIP of any State for
such class or category of source; or (b) the most stringent emission
limit which is achieved in practice by such class or category of sources,
whichever is more stringent, but in no case less restrictive than an
applicable new source standard of performance for such a source.
5. The enforceable regulations requiring RACT for each class or
category of existing major sources contained in the inventory must be
identified. RACT for the purposes of obtaining an offset waiver will be
broadly interpreted and is not necessarily the same as RACT for the 1979
SIP submittal. A formal notification of State enforcement of all SIP
regulations (including, for example, Federally promulgated Stage I
Gasoline Marketing Regulations) must be submitted.
6. A clear description of the nonattainment area to be included
under the request for waiver must be provided. The definition of non-
attainment for the purposes of the waiver application may be found in
Section 171 of the Act.
Details of reporting progress, review of permits by this Agency,
and determination of compliance with annual reduction requirements will
be provided by the Regional Administrator.
If you have specific questions, concerning the waiver requirements,
please contact the Regional Office (Mr. Jack Divita, 214-749-3837) or
the Control Programs Development Division in Durham, North Carolina
(Mr. Charles Pratt, 919-541-5365).
Sincerely yours,
David G. Hawkins
Assistant Administrator
for Air and Waste Management
cc: A. Harrison, Region VI
-------
Section 165: Preconstruction Requirements
O5
on
CD
O
o
3D
Ct>
JQ
en
-------
Section 165: Preconstruction Requirements
PN165-80-02-26-005
IMPLEMENTATION OF PSO ADMINISTRATIVE STAY
PN165-80-02-08-00*
CONDITIONAL LANGUAGE FOR PSD PERMITS
PN165-79-07-03-003
CONDITIONAL LANGUAGE FOR PSD PERMITS
PN165-79-01-10-002
BACT DETERMINATION FOR POWER PLANTS SUBJECT
TO REVISED NSPS
PN165-78-12-22-001
BACT INFORMATION FOR COAL-FIRED POuER PLANTS
-------
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FE fa'2 6 1980
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
PN-165-80-02-26-005
Implementation of PSD Administrative Stay
FROM:
TO:
Walter C. Barber, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Regional Administrator, Regions I-X
On February 12, 1980, I sent you a memorandum advising you of the
administrative stay of the June 1978 PSD regulations and of the need to
assure that the monitoring provisions are adequately complied with by
PSD applicants. I also indicated that more specific guidance on what
the stay meant would be forthcoming; that is the purpose of this memo.
All possible questions cannot be answered in a short guidance
document. This memorandum provides merely an overview of the evaluation
that must be made and should resolve some questions. Our New Source
Review Office is available to help in unique situations, but please keep
in mind that specific applicability determinations are the responsibility
of the Division of Stationary Source Enforcement in Washington.
In general, a two-level test is given to a proposed source to
determine the need for PSD review. First, it is necessary to determine
whether the June 1978 PSD regulations would apply to the source independently
of the stay. If they would not, then the source does not need a PSD
permit. If they would, then it is necessary to determine whether the
stay so limits the applicability of the regulations as to exclude the
source from PSD review. The stay would exclude the source, if the
source (1) would not be "major" under the amendments to the June 1978
regulations which EPA proposed in September 1979 or (2) would be located
in an area designated nonattainment for each of the pollutants for which
the source would be "major" under the proposal. If the stay would
exclude the source, then it does not need a PSD permit. In short, as
the stay itself states, "a source or modification would not be subject
to PSD review if either the 1978 PSD regulations would not apply to it
or this stay applies to it."
The process of deciding whether a particular source or modification
would be "major" under the September proposal should generate questions,
since it will require interpretation of provisions which are both new
and unrefined. In general, a source or modification would be "major"
under the proposal if it meets the criteria described in the attached
interim rules.
Attachment
cc: Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
Director, Enforcement Division, Regions I-X
Director, Surveillance and Analysis Division, Regions I-X
Peter Wyckoff
Steven Kuhrtz
Edward Tuerk
EPA Form 1320-6 (Rev. 3-76)
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North'Carolina 27711
DATE FEB 8 1980
SURJECT: Conditional Language for PSD Permits PN-165-80-02-08-004
FROM Richard G. Rhoads, Director
Control Programs Development Division
T0: Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
The recent Court decision in the case of Alabama Power v. Costie
has significant impact on the PSD program. On July 3, I sent you a
memorandum suggesting language to be included in a permit package to
advise applicants of possible risks in proceeding with construction.
Such language is still appropriate in modified form. The following
revised paragraph is recommended for inclusion in the permit and the
cover letter transmitting it to the applicant:
"The United State Court of Appeals for the D. C. Circuit
has issued a ruling in the case of Alabama Power Co. vs.
Douglas M. Costle (78-1006 and consolidated cases"T~which
will have significant impact on the EPA prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) program. The applicant
is hereby advised that this permit may be subject to
reevaluation as a result of the final Court decision and
its ultimate effect."
cc: Air Branch Chief, Regions I-X
New Source Review Contact, Regions I-X
David Hawkins, OANR
Peter Wyckoff, OGC
Rich Biondi, DSSE
orm 1320-6 (Rev. 3-76)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL TROTECTION AGENCY
JUL 3 19
^ ,.J.. , , f Bcn n .. PN-165-79-07-03-003
Conditional Lan.guage for PSD Permits
Richard G. Rhoads, Director
Control Programs Development Division
Director, A1r and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
As discussed at the Air Directors' meeting in Cincinnati, the recent
court decision in the case of Alabama Power v. Costle has significant
impact on the current PSD program. Although the court has stayed the
effect of Its decision pending resolution of petitions for reconsideration,
it is now clear that the final opinion will still materially affect our
PSD procedures and permits. Moreover, it is unclear what the effect
of the decision will be (i.e., to what extent the decision will be
retroactive).
It will be prudent to advise applicants which propose to meet the
requirements of the current PSD regulation that sore uncertainties exist
so that they may decide whether to risk proceeding with construction. The
following language is recorrmended for inclusion 1n the permit and the
cover letter transmitting it to the applicant:
"The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
has issued a ruling in the case of Alabama Power Co. vs.
Douglas M. Costle (78-1006 and conscHMdated cases) which
has significant impact on the EPA prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) program and permits issued thereunder.
Although the court has stayed its decision pending resolu-
tion of petitions for reconsideration, it is possible that
the final decision will require modification of the PSD
regulations and could affect permits issued under the
existing program. Examples of potential impact areas include
the scope of best available control technology (BACT) , source
applicability, the amount of increment available
(baseline definition), and the extent of preconstruction
monitoring that a source may be required to perform. The
applicant is hereby advised that this permit may be
subject to revaluation as a result of the final court
decision and its ultimate effect.
cc: Air Branch Chief, Regions I-X
New Source Review Contact, Regions I-X
David Hawkins, OA.NR
Peter Wyckoff , OGC
Rich Biondi , DSSE
-------
ATE'
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENT/ L PROTECTION AGENC0
JAN 10 1979
BACT Determinations for Power Plants Subject to Revised NSPS
PN-165-79-01-10-002
Walter C. Barber, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Deputy Regional Administrator, Regions I-X
It has come to my attention that some confusion may exist relative
to the applicability of the proposed new source performance standard (NSPS)
for steam electric power plants to the PSD permitting process. The PSD
program requires a determination that new power plants employ best
available control technology (BACT) which is defined on a case-by-case
basis and can be no less stringent than the applicable NSPS. Thus, for
new power plants where the proposed NSPS identifies the applicable
standard, all PSD permit decisions regarding BACT and application com-
pleteness should be made to reflect at least the level of stringency
contained in this proposal.
At the time of proposal, Administrator Costle indicated that no
final decision had been made as to the appropriate stringency of the
standard and that he would base the final rule on the record developed
during the public comment period. Mr. Costle -further indicated that
he was proposing the stringent alternative, in part, because it would
be easier to design down to a less stringent promulgation than it would
be to design up to a more stringent standard. Accordingly, BACT decisions
made prior to promulgation which require control equal to that contained
in the proposal should be reviewed against the final standard to determine
if alternative (less stringent) controls would be more appropriate.
Of course, any more stringent standards required by the promulgated rule
would also establish a new technology baseline for the relevant portion
of the BACT determination.
cc: D. Hawkins
Director, Air & Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
R. Rhoads
S. Kuhrtz
I. Artico
B. Steigerwald
M. Fast
D. Borchers
E. Tuerk
EPA Form 1320-6 (R.v. 3-76)
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
PN-165-78-12-22-001
DATEOEC 22 1378
SUBJECT: BACT Information for Coal-fired Power Plants
FROM: Walter C. Barber, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (MD-10)
TO: Director, Air & Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
Currently, there seems to be some confusion regarding how much
information is required in order to make BACT determinations for power
plants. Such confusion has created situations where one Region may have
conditionally approved a power plant's construction plans while another
would not. This memo is intended to provide an example of the type and
amount of information required from power plant applicants in order to
determine whether the source is applying BACT.
Under the new PSD regulations, BACT is necessarily decided on a
case-by-case basis after weighing relevant socio-economic costs and
environmental impacts. Consequently, information must now be submitted
by a PSD source describing its plans for control equipment in sufficient
detail so as to define the plant-specific BACT limit. As indicated in
separate guidance for making case-by-case BACT determinations, the
utility is also required to demonstrate that the proposed controls are
not less stringent than the applicable NSPS and that more stringent
control alternatives are not appropriate.
While the new PSD regulations require a reasonable degree of
assurance that the source can and will install BACT, they also permit
the Agency to establish a system for initial BACT review followed by a
more detailed control equipment analysis. While such a system does not
relieve the source from its responsibility to demonstrate to the Agency
that it is applying BACT, it does act to streamline the review process
and minimize the delays incurred by power plants which cannot supply
ultimate equipment designs and blueprints at the time that a permit to
construct is secured. This system will also provide the utility with
sufficient flexibility to take advantage of expected improvements in
control technology.
The key question then becomes how much information is necessary to
establish the BACT limit during the initial preconstruction review. In
general the information should include the preliminary engineering and
plant design criteria which will constitute the basis for soliciting and
reviewing vendor proposals for control equipment. In addition, an
example should be included which specifies how the preliminary design
criteria would be applied to the particular plant in question or to a
similar facility where the design has been completed and the exact
detailed specifications are available. Where a utility has not settled
on a single control system, it may submit alternatives for review.
-------
Attachment A is provided as an example of the type of information
which can be used both to define a specific BACT emission limit and to
assess whether the plant can be reasonably expected to meet this limit.
Power plants can be permitted when this initial information confirms
that BACT will be employed and that the applicable ambient constraints
will be met. This approach must be conditioned on the company's later
submission of final detailed engineering design specifications prior to
commencement of construction of the control equipment. While the final
engineering design and vendor specifications will vary from the preliminary
information, the utility must show it to be equivalent in performance
and reliability established as BACT in the initial determination. These
variations may include basic changes in equipment design such as a shift
from an ESP to a baghouse, a change from a lime/limestone scrubber to a
regenerable scrubbing system or a change in the design approach to
insuring reliability.
All of the information outlined in Attachment A may not be available
and is not required in all instances. The reviewing authority should
seek only those data elements which are necessary to support air engineering
judgment that the proposed system will perform reliably at the specified
emission rates.
Since the submission of the final engineering design specifications
is a condition of the permit, this would not constitute a reopening of
the permit process, and I do not see the need for an opportunity for
public comment on this material. However, I do recommend that the
approval notice contain the location and approximate time period in
which this final design information would be available.
The above guidance represents some change for several Regions.
Therefore, I am requesting that during 1979 you submit to OAQPS your
BACT determinations for SCL from coal-fired power plants (together with
the applicable BACT information identified in Attachment A) for review
prior to your preliminary determination. If some of your States are
making these BACT determinations, I ask that you send us the appropriate
BACT information before they make their final determination. The above
information should be sent to Mike Trutna (629-5497) who will coordinate
OAQPS's activities regarding these determinations in the near future.
Suggestions on additions or modifications to this guidance also should
be addressed to Mr. Trutna.
Attachments
cc: Director, Enforcement Divisions, Region I-X
D. Hawkins
R. Rhoads
M. James
E. Reich
E. Tuerk
-------
PRELIMINARY BACT INFORMATION*
A. GENERAL INFORMATION
l.a. Name of Power Plant and Parent Company
b. Name, address, phone no. of company contact
2. Location of Source
a. City b. State
B. STEAM GENERATOR'DATA
1. Type of boiler (manufacturer,fiif known)
2. Size of boiler (heat input 10° Btu/hr)
C. FUEL DATA
Provide long term averages and ranges for specified short term and
long term averaging periods for the following (1-6):
1. Primary fuel (coal or oil)
2. Start up fuel
3. Alternate fuels
4. Brief description of what fuels will be fired including
estimated percentage heat input
5. Solid fuel data (all solid fuels to be fired)
a. Ultimate analysis (as burned) % by weight sulfur
also include chlorine, ash, moisture and gross heating
value (Btu/lb)
b. Estimated resistivity of particulate as a function of gas
temperature (if known)
c. Estimated ash analysis (% by weight - dry)
6. Particle size analysis for ash
7. Liquid fuel'data (all liquid fuels)
a. Type and grade
b. Density (Ib/gaTlon)
c. Gross heating value (Btu/gallon)
d. Ash content (percent by weight)
e. Sulfur content (percent by weight)
f. Nitrogen content (percent by weight)
g. Moisture (percent by weight)
h. Will additives by used? If so, furnish data on chemical
composition and approximate quantitites (percentage of
total fuel to be used).
8. Is a contract signed for the coal? If no contract is signed,
we would need the information for questions 1-6 for all coals
that are being contemplated for usage and percentage usage where
coals are to be blended.
*Note that not all information may be available in all cases. Information
requirements should be adjusted as appropriate to fit the circumstances
of the applicant at time of permit application.
-------
D. PRECIPITATOR DATA
Part I - Preliminary design or design criteria
1. Design emission rate (Ibs/mBTU) for participate matter (before
and after proposed controls)
2. Total gas flow from steam generator at full load and at ESP
operating temperature (ACFM)
3. ESP operating temperature (±F) range
4. Number of separate ESP modules under consideration
5. Approximate specific collection area (SPA)
6. Number of separate electrical sections for each module under
consideration.
7. Type of power control and instrumentation
8. Estimated linear velocity of gas through each module at full
load (actual feet/sec) or range of acceptable velocities
9. Briefly describe techniques used to ensure uniform linear
velocity within ESP.
10. Nature and terms of performance guarantee
11.' Briefly describe system used to remove and convey collected
ash to final disposal.
Part II - Reference plant example
1. General flow diagram for the precipitator
2. Provide design criteria or preliminary engineering data for the
major elements of'the ESP for the particular plant under
consideration or a similar plant where the major elements have
been designed and detailed specification are available.
-------
E. BAGHOUSE DATA
Part I - Preliminary design or design criteria
1. Design emission rate (Ib/mmBtu) for participate matter (before
and after proposed controls)
2. Estimated total gas flow from steam generator at full load and
at baghouse operation temperature (ACFM)
3. Baghouse operation temperature (±F) range
4. Number of 'separate baghouses
5. Number of isolated compartments per baghouse
6. Design criteria for air to cloth ratio or range of acceptable
ratios (Cloth area divided by total ACFM)
7. Cloth description
8. Type of bag cleaning under consideration and subsequent cleaning
controls
9. Strategy for detecting and replacing faulty bags
10. Description of ash handling and disposal system
11. Nature and terms of performance guarantee
-------
Part II - Reference plant example
1. General flow diagram for the baghouse
2. Provide design criteria or preliminary engineering data for the
major elements of the baghouse for the particular plant under
consideration or a similar plant where the above elements have
been designed and detailed specifications are available.
F. SULFUR DIOXIDE SCRUBBER DATA
Part I - Preliminary design or design criteria
1. Design emission rate (Ib/mm Btu) of SOp (before and after
proposed controls)
2. Design data or criteria for the scrubber modules to include:
- scrubber type (TCS, spray tower, etc.)
- absorbent type
- possible scrubber liquor additives (e.g., mg)
- prescrubber design criteria, or acceptable ranges for 1/g,
inlet and outlet chloride, etc.
- design criteria for acceptable ranges for inlet and oulet
gas flow and temperature and volume percent HpO, Op, and SOp
- specific design criteria or acceptable ranges for fiquid/gas
ratio
- estimated scrubber gas velocity
- design criteria or acceptable range for scrubber inlet and
outlet pH
- design criteria or acceptable range of pressure drop across
the scrubber (inches of H20)
3. For turbulent contact absorber (TCA) also supply:
- design criteria or acceptable ranges for diameter of spheres
- design criteria or acceptable ranges for the height of
sphere in TCA
- design criteria or acceptable ranges for number of grids or
screens in TCA
4. Indicate total number of scrubber modules and number of spare
modules during maximum boiler loading.
5. What special precautions will be taken with module internals
and other components (pumps, mist eliminators, fans, etc.) to
ensure that corrosion, scaling, and plugging does not cause failure
of the system^
6. What special precautions will be taken with the control
systems, e.g., spare probes, probe site location, probe sheaths,
backup instrumentation to ensure that failure will not lead to
excess emissions or fouling of components via scaling?
-------
7. How will other key variables, such as process stoebiometry,
liquid to gas ratios (1/g), etc., be monitored to ensure
good operations?
8. Indicate which key components of the scrubber will be spared,
e.g., pumps, fans, nozzles, etc.
9. Location and mechanism of reheat, auxiliary fuel requirements,
and percentage of exhaust gas reheated. If reheat will not be
performed, indicate what measures are being taken to eliminate
stack corrosion or provide data to verify that stack corrosion
. will not be a problem area.
10. Outline routine maintenance and inspection procedures for the
scrubber system hardware to ensure continuous and reliable
scrubber performance.
11. Describe the general design standard for the material to be used
and type of mist eliminator system and describe the techniques
under consideration to guarantee uniform gas distribution across
the mist eliminator and to the scrubber modules.
12. Nature and terms of performance guarantees
Part II - Reference plant example
1. General flow diagram of the scrubber system including mix tanks
prequench section, scrubber modules, mist eliminator and reheat.
General design standards for materials to be used to construct
above elements.
2. Provide design criteria for the major scrubber and system
components (e.g., pumps, tanks, alkali handling systems, etc.)
for the particular plant under consideration or a similar
plant where the above items have been already designed and
detailed specifications are available.
G. Other Sulfur control methods*
I. Description of control method
II. Amount of sulfur removal credit
These "other sulfur control methods" are those designed to augment S02
scrubbers in order to achieve a given rate of SOo removal. An example
of such a method would be coal cleaning.
-------
Section 171: Part D — Definitions
D
cr>
o
-------
Section 171: Part D—Definitions
PN171-79-05-18-001
IMPLEMENTATION OF REASONABLE FURTHER PROGRESS
(RFP) REQUIREMENTS
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MAY t 8 '375 PN-SL71-79-05-18-001
DATE:
SUBJECT: Implementation of Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) Requirements
FROM: Walter C. Barber, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
TO:
; Regional Administrator, Regions I-X
Over the recent weeks, substantial concern has been expressed
regarding the resources that may be necessary to monitor compliance
with RFP requirements which must be contained in the 1979 State
Implementation Plans. In this regard, OAQPS has been requested to
develop and provide computer programs to facilitate the monitoring of
RFP. The purpose of this memorandum is to describe an approach to RFP
tracking which is relatively simple and which does not require a computer
application.
The first step in the RFP process is to determine the yearly
emission reduction milestones to be achieved. Many of these will be
clearly stated in the SIP submittal; however, where this is not the
case, a simple straight line from the base line SIP emission inventory
(total actual emissions) to the 1982 attainment emissions will be sufficient
in most cases. The second phase, actual tracking, can be accomplished
by maintaining a ledger of decreases and increases in total actual
emissions. When a source is certified as in compliance with the applicable
regulations the difference between controlled and precontrolled emissions
is entered on the decrease side. When a new source begins operation,
the increase in emissions is entered on the increase side. At the con-
clusion of the reporting period, the difference between the increases and
decreases is combined with the last year's total inventory (presumably an
overall decrease) providing the total emission level for the particular
pollutant.
The above program is applicable to either an offset SIP or an
accommodative SIP. Thus, while the above procedures could be computerized,
OAQPS does not feel this is required to monitor RFP.
cc: Director, Air § Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
Director, Enforcement Division, Regions I-X
Richard Wilson, OE
J.O. Hidinger, OTLUP
EPA Form 1320-4 (R«v. 3-76)
-------
Section 172: Nonattainment Plan Provisions
-sj
S3
o
x
O
o
-------
Section 172: Nonattainment Plan Provisions
PN172-80-01-23-025
STANDARDIZED LANGUAGE (RE: SIPS FOR SOLVENT
CONTENT OF EMULSIFIED ASPHALTS)
PN172-80-01-17-024
DATA COLLECTION UORKPLANS FOR 1982 OZONE SIPS
PN172-79-12-12-023
EXEMPTIONS FOR DEGREASERS
PN172-79-11-14-022
DATA COLLECTION FOR 1982 OZONE IMPLEMENTATION
PLAN SUBMITTALS
PN172-79-10-04-021
CLARIFICATION FOR FINAL SIP ACTIONS ON ASPHALT
REGULATIONS
PN172-79-08-22-020
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS/REVISED SCHEDULES
FOR SUBMITTING RACT FOR STATIONARY SOURCES
OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
PN172-79-08-21-019
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS: GENERAL PREABLE FOR
PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON APPROVAL OF PLAN REVISIONS
FOR NONATTAINMENT AREAS - SUPPLEMENT (ON REVISED
SCHEDULES FOR SUBMISSION OF VOLATILE ORGANIC
COMPOUND RACT REGULATIONS)
PM172-79-06-20-018
MODIFICATIONS TO RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SOLVENT
METAL CLEANING
PN172-79-05-25-017
CLARIFICATION OF AGENCY POLICY CONCERNING OZONE
SIP REVISIONS AND SOLVENT REACTIVITIES
PN172-79-05-25-016
SUBMISSION OF STATE AIR PERMITS AS SIP REVISIONS
PN172-79-05-21-015
DRAFT LANGUAGE — PREAMBLES FOR SIP PROPOSALS
AND APPROVALS
-------
PN172-79-03-06-014
CUTBACK ASPHALT VOC REGULATIONS
PN172-79-02-21-013
DETERMINATION OF REDUCTIONS NECESSARY TO ATTAIN
THE OZONE STANDARD
PN172-79-01-16-012
CONTINUITY OF SIP REGULATIONS — REVISED ENCLOSURE
PN172-78-11-03-011
CATE60RIAL COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE FOR VOC SOURCES
PN172-78-11-01-010
GUIDANCE ON SIP REQUIREMENTS CONTAINED IN
SECTION 172
PN172-78-10-26-009
OZONE TRANSPORT VALUES FOR SIP REVISIONS
PN172-78-10-06-008
COMMENTS ON AUTO INDUSTRY PROPOSALS
PN172-78-09-11-007
CONTINUITY OF SIP REGULATIONS.
PN172-78-08-24-006
CLARIFICATION OF EPA POLICY ON EMISSIONS OF
METHYL CHLOROFORM
PN172-78-08-16-005
CLARIFICATION OF ATTAINMENT/NONATTAINMENT EVALUATION
GUIDANCE
PN172-78-08-04-004
REQUIREMENT FOR VOC RACT REGULATIONS IN ALL
OXIDANT NONATTAINMENT AREAS
PN172-78-06-30-003
VAPOR RECOVERY REGULATIONS REQUIRED TO MEET RACT
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE 1979 SIP
PN172-78-03-10-002
EXAMPLE DEMONSTRATION OF ATTAINMENT FOR
PHOTOCHEMICAL OXIDANTS
PN172-78-02-02-001
IMPLEMENTATION OF REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL
TECHNOLOGY (RACT) ON HYDROCARBON STATIONARY
SOURCES
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ATP 2 ,'J JAN 1980
BJECT Standardized Language PN-172-80-01-23-025
FROM: G. T. Helms, Chief
Control Programs Operations Branch (MD-15)
TO: Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X
Because of the frequency of comments from the Asphalt Emulsion
Manufacturers Association and the State of New Jersey on solvent con-
tent of emulsified asphalts and ozone SIPs, respectively, my office
and the Office of General Counsel have prepared the attached sample
language for your use in preparing Federal Register notices for SIPs
where final actions are still pending. Please call Mary Ann Muirhead
of OGC (755-0744) or Bill Beal of my office (629-5365) if you have any
comments or questions on this material.
Attachments
cc: Mary Ann Muirhead, OGC
EPA Form 1320-6 (Rev. 3-76)
-------
Suggested Response to Cominents from the Asphalt
Emulsion Manufacturers Association
Comments were also received from the Asphalt Emulsion Manufacturers
Association (AEMA) concerning the availability of emulsified asphalts
with low solvent content for all applications in all regions of the
country. Although some of the issues raised are not relevant to the
plan, EPA is notifying the public of its response to these
comments at this time. AEMA's main point is that no general rule
regarding solvent content of emulsified asphalt for the nation is
possible because of varying conditions. AEMA urges that EPA accept each
State's emulsion specifications as RACT. AEMA also incorrectly concludes
that EPA has been using a figure of five percent as nationwide RACT for
maximum solvent content in emulsified asphalt.
EPA recognizes that varying conditions may require different solvent
content asphalts. RACT for asphalt should be determined on a case-by-case
basis in order to take varying conditions into account. Therefore, EPA
has not set a nationwide standard for the solvent content of emulsified
asphalt. However, EPA has accepted a five percent maximum solvent con-
tent regulation where a State has chosen to submit an across-the-board
regulation for emulsified asphalt, rather than develop case-by-case
RACT. The intent of EPA guidance has been for States to speci-fy in the
regulations, and justify, those emulsions and/or applications where
addition of solvent is necessary. Since RACT can be determined on a
case-by-case basis, States are free to specify necessary solvent con-
tents on the basis of application or asphalt grade. Where a State
demonstrates that these are RACT, EPA will approve the regulations. The
following maximum solvent contents for specific emulsified asphnlt
applications have appeared in CPA guidance and are based on ASTM, AAS1ITO,
and State specifications and on information recently received from the
Asphalt Institute.
Use Max. Solvent Content
Seal coats in early spring or
late fall 3%
Chip seals when dusty or dirty
aggregate is used 3%
Mixing w/open graded aggregate
that is not well washed 8%
Mixing w/dense graded aggregate 12%
-------
Suggested Response^to New Jersey's
Comments on Ozone SIPs
The State of New Jersey submitted comments on the proposed Part D
ozone SIP revisions for several States. New Jersey contends that SIPs
which do not include uniform Statewide controls for existing and new
sources which meet the requirements of Part D will not attain the ozone
standard. New Jersey urges the Administrator to disapprove ozone SIPs
which do not include such Statewide measures. The State of ,
however, has adopted measures including Statewide RACT regulations for
existing sources and has demonstrated in its plan that the ozone standard
will be attained before the statutory deadline of December 31, 1982.
Moreover, New Jersey has not made a specific showing that 's
SIP will not attain standards. Therefore, the Administrator has no
basis for disapproving 's SIP.
In addition, New Jersey argues as it did in objecting to the
Administrator's ozone nonattainment area designations that entire
States should be designated nonattainment, thereby requiring Part D SIP
revisions Statewide. The Administrator considered all of New Jersey's
objections to the designations and responded in the document entitled
"Technical Support Document for Agency Policy Concerning Designation
of Attainment, Unclassifiable, and Nonattainment Areas for Ozone"
January 1979. Availability of this document was announced in the
February 1, 1979 Federal Register (44 FR 6395). This document and the
Administrator's response to New JerseyT comments are incorporated
herein by reference.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
DATE: -JAN 1? ;98G PN-172-80-01-17-024
T-CT Data Collection Workplans for 1982.Ozone SIPs
FROM: Walter c> Barber, Directon
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (MD 10)
TO:
: Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
On October 23, 1979, David Hawkins sent to t'.e Regional Administrators
a memorandum discussing the data the Agency anticipates will be necessary
to prepare the 1982 ozone SIP revisions required by the Clean Air Act.
As was indicated in this memorandum, it is essential that data collection
programs be initiated immediately. I cannot overemphasize the importance
Mr. Hawkins places on having adequate inventory and air quality data as
a part of the 1982 SIP.
It is evident that a number of areas will not be able to collect
all the suggested data during 1980. In addition, it is also likely that
some adjustments will be made to the level of analysis required for
individual areas. However, regardless of which models are ultimately
applied for the attainment demonstration in the 1982 ozone plan revisions,
representative data are essential to developing credible air quality
management plans. I cannot envision a circumstance where a 1982 SIP
will be approvable without timely and accurate inventory and air quality
data.
In order to ensure that data requirements are understood and will
be met, each Region is asked to prepare, in consultation with the States,
data collection workplans for each of the urban areas identified as
needing a 1982 SIP revision. These plans should reflect realistic
consideration of the capabilities of the States and local agencies to
perform the requisite tasks.
Workplans now being finalized in the urban areas in the Northeast
Corridor will be sufficient for these areas. For all other urban areas,
in order to assure that at least the minimum necessary data to prepare a
1982 submittal are available, I recommend that a staged plan be developed.
Basic air quality and emissions data should be collected as expeditiously
as practicable (preferably in 1980). As a minimum, these basic data
must include a timely and accurate seasonally-adjusted annual inventory
of VOC and NO and related air quality data as called for to support the
level 3 demonstration. This does not relieve States of the requirement
to continue developing a Level 1 or 2 data base for those cities that
have been provided Section 105 and 175 grant funds for these efforts.
In these cases, the higher level data base should generally be available
by mid-1982.
cfA fo,m 1320-6 (Rev. 3-76)
-------
The workplan should include: a description of the existing data
base, the efforts required to complete the data base, the entity (State
agency, MPO, contractor, EPA) which will complete the effort, the date
of completion, and the resources to be expended. Careful consideration
should be given to identifying those 105 and 175 funds explicitly delineated
in the FY 80 grant awards for data collection efforts. It may be appropriate
to redeploy some of the funds programmed for detailed data collection in
Level 1 or 2 cities to areas where funding is insufficient to complete
the required tasks. A copy of this workplan should be forwarded to me
by March 15, 1980. If there are any questions regarding these workplans,
please contact John Calcagni at (FTS) 629-5365 in the Control Programs
Development Division (MD 15).
cc: Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X
Director, Surveillance and Analysis Division, Regions I-X
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
DATE: L)hC .liJ 19/9
PN-172-79-12-12-023
.EOT: Exemptions for Degreasers
FROM: Richard G. Rhoads, Director
Control Programs Development Division (MD-15)
TO: Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
It has come to my attention that some States are including a weight
rate exemption in degreasing VOC regulations applicable to urban nonattain-
ment areas (>200,000 population) that cannot demonstrate attainment by
1982o For example, some States have included a 15 Ibs/day and/or
3 Ibs/hour weight exemption that effectively exempts from control cold
cleaners (batch operated, nonboiling solvent degreasers typically found
in automotive repair facilities).
A telephone survey of Regional Offices has indicated that, in some
instances, where weight exemptions for degreasers have been included in
draft regulations, the States have revised the regulation to delete the
exemption. States, such as Colorado, Delaware, and Wisconsin are included
in this category. In other States, the weight exemption for degreasers
has been cited as a deficiency in the State Implementation Plan (SIP) by
the Regional Offices. Conditional approval of the SIP has been given to
the States pending exclusion of the weight exemption from the degreasing
regulation. States, such as Connecticut, Virginia, and Tennessee are in
this category. In the majority of cases, States have not included a
weight exemption in degreasing regulations.
The degreaser regulation policy guidance cited in my memorandum of
September 7, 1978, to the Air and Hazardous Materials Division Directors,
states that for urban nonattainment areas across the board exemptions
for small sources (e.g., 3 Ibs/day) should not be approved. However,
conditional approval may be appropriate where the State agrees to
remove the exemption. This policy guidance is reaffirmed.
Please contact Bill Polglase at (FTS 629-5251) should you have any
questions on this memorandum.
Form 1320-6 (Rev. 3-76)
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 14, 1976
PN-172-79-11-14-022
(FRL 1349-7; Docket A-79-43J
Data Collection for 1982 Ozone
Implementation Plan Submittals
AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency is initiating efforts which will
lead to the development of control
strategies and implementation plans to
attain the ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard by 1987 for those
areas needing an extension beyond 1982
in accordance with the requirements of
Section 172 of the Clean Air Act as
amended. As a first step in this process,
the Agency has prepared preliminary
information and guidance for the
collection of "emission, air quality, and
meteorological data. This guidance
identifies the data presently believed to
be necessary to complete modeling
analyses and plan development in the
time period and to the degree expected
to be necessary to complete these tasks.
This guidance should not be construed
as a requirement in a regulatory sense.
Rather, it should be regarded as the
Agency's preliminary estimate of the
data necessary to prepare a plan. While
the Agency has already distributed this
information, primarily for initial
planning purposes, the Agency is
soliciting comments on this guidance.
Docket No. A-79-43, containing
material relevant to this action is
located in the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Central Docket
Section, Roorh 2903B, 401 M Street S.VV.
Washington, D.C. 20460. The docket may
be inspected between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00
p.m. on weekdays and a reasonable fee
may be charged for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
Mr. John Calcagni, Environmental
Scientist, Environmental Protection
Agency (MU-15), Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone:
(919) 541-5365.
Dated: October 24. 1979.
David G. Hawkins,
Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise, and
Radiation.
Environmental Protection Agency
October 23,1979.
Subject: Data Collection for the 1982 Ozone
Implementation Plan Submiltals.
From: David G. Hawkins, Assistant
Admininslralor for Air. Noise, and Radiation.
Memo lo: Regional Administrator, Regions
i-X.
As you are aware, the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1M77 require a State which
needs on extension of the aHiiinment dale for
the National Ozone Ambient Air Quality
Standard lo submit a revision to its
implementation plan by July 1,1982. A
principal component of this submittal will be
the demonstration of attainment. In most
cases, if a State is to prepare its plan revision
in a timely manner, the data collection effort
will have to be completed during the fiscal
year 1980. Hence, it is essential that data
collodion programs be initiated this fall.
In order to assist you and your States in
preparing the necessary data collection plans
for this effort, a summary of the anticipated
air quality and emission data requirements
for the more comprehensive models is
attached. (Attachment 1.) In addition, the
anticipated level of modeling for each of the
major urban areas (over 200,000 pop. 1970
census} requesting an extension of the
attainment date is delineated in
Attachment 2.
The data requirements summarized in
Attachment 1 have been divided into four
levels based upon four generic types of
models: [1] Photochemical dispersion models,
(2) Simplified trajectory models, (3) City-
specific EKMA. and (4) Standard EKMA. The
Attachment provides a description of the
analysis technique, emissions data
requirements, air quality data requirements,
and meteorological data requirements for
each level. These date requirements vary
depending upon the complexity and
comprehensiveness of the model. Generally,
the most severe problem areas will require
application of the most comprehensive
models and therefore the most extensive data
bases. Areas with lesser problems will
require loss comprehensive models and
correspondingly simpler data bases.
With regard to the urban areas delineated
in Attachment 2 and the level of modeling
expected, it should be noted that this was
derived based on consideration of the
complexity and magnitude of the air quality
problem as projected by the 1979 State
Implementation Plan submittals and data
reviews conducted by Headquarters and
regional staff. Should there be any
discrepancies between our expectations for a
particular city and the State plans for that
area, it should be discussed with the Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards before
you commit to accept a different level of
analysis.
The above efforts will likely result in a
need for additional resources beyond those
included in the FY 80 budgets for those
agencies responsible for collecting the data.
The Agency has made spocial allocations of
Sections 105 and 175 funds to accomplish the
above tasks. The Section 105 funds have
already been allocated to the Regional
Offices for distribution to the appropriate
agencies. The Section 175 funds are being
held in Headquarters and will be allocated to
each Regional Office for distribution,
preferably lo Metropolitan Planning
Organizations. These special funds are being
provided primarily for level 1 and 2 data
collection activities. Level 3 and 4 data
collection should be accomplished within the
scope of the general Section 105 allocation.
Final decisions on distribution of funds
should be based upon an integrated workplan
for the 1082 ozonfi SIP.
In order to assure thorough disse.-ninntion
of these requirements. I am having this
memorandum published in the Federal
Register.
Attachments
cc: D. Bickart, Director. Air and Hazardous
Materials Division, Regions I-X, Director,
Surveillance and Analysis Division,
Regions I-X
Attachment 1.—Summary of Data Input
Requirements for Various Levels of Ozone
Modeling
The following pages provide summaries of
data input requirements for four levels of
ozone modeling analysis:
-------
65668 Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 14. 1979 / Notices
(a) Level I—Photochemical Dispersion
Models
(b) Level II—Simplified Trajectory Models
(c) Level III—Photochemical Dispersion
Models
(d) Level IV—Standard EKMA
It most likely will be necessary to plan and
execute a special field sampling program
during the smog season (e.g., typically June-
September) to collect the air quality and
meteorological data needed for the various
levels of analysis. The level of effort needed
to carry out such a field study can vary
widely, depending upon the level of modeling
analysis required and the size anil
distribution of the existing ambient network.
Generally, a larger effort would be required
for Levels I and II than for III or IV. For
Levels III and IV, current ambient data
collection activities should provide much of
the data input required for the modeling
analyses.
Estimates of the number of monitors/
stations which are made herein are general
ones which are useful in estimating resource
requirements. In the final design of
environmental monitoring networks for
individual cities however, care must be taken
to consider such factors as roughness of
terrain, local meteorology, size and shape of
the urban area and the nature and
distribution of the city's emissions. Although
available guidance and User's Manuals
provide a useful framework for the design
and interpretation of information forthcoming
from the different levels of analysis, the
advice of modelers, meteorologists and other
air pollution specialists familiar with the area
being modeled is likely to be essential,
particularly for Levels 1 and II.
For additional information please contact
Mr. John Calcagni of the Standards
Implementation Branch at FTS 629-5365.
Level I: Photochemical Dispersion Models
Description of Analysis. This level of
sophistication requires the application of
validated photochemical dispersion models.
The procedure is to apply one of several
available photochemical dispersion models to
the urban area, encompassing the area of
major emissions and the downwind area of
maximum ozone concentrations. In order to
validate the model and to specify the critical
meteorological scenario(s) associated with
the design level ozone concentration it is
necessary to conduct a rather extensive field
study during an ozone season. The extent and
density of the environmental data collection
network in this field study depends on the
expected spatial/temporal variability of the
data within the area and on the sensitivity of
the model to the data. It is also necessary to
assemble or derive spatially/temporally
resolved emissions inventories of VOC
classes and NO/NO2 for (1) the base year
(corresponding to the field study); (2) for one
to two projection years (effect of regulations
"on the books" plus growth); and (3) for the
various control strategy scenarios to be
tested. Expertise in air pollution meteorology.
photochemical modeling, air pollution
monitoring, and emissions inventories are
generally required to design the data
collection effort and to conduct the modeling
analysis.
A. Emissions Data Requirements
1. Spatial Resolution. These models require
the use of a gridded VOC, NO, and CO
emissions inventory. Grid squares are
typically one kilometer to five kilometers on
a side. County-wide area sources are
allocated to the grid squares using various
activity indicators. Roadway emissions are
calculated by link and assigned to the
appropriate grid. Smaller point sources are
generally allocated to the appropriate grid as
an area source, whereas major point sources,
with stack parameters, are located exactly.
Emission inventory guidance is available in
EPA 450/4-79-18.
2. Temporal Resolution. All emissions must
be temporally resolved on an hourly basis for
a typical ozone simulation day. Roadway
emissions are temporally resolved from
traffic data. Information on the diurnal
variability of point source emissions is
obtained directly from the sources. For area
sources, local information on the source
categories is used to derive the diurnal
emission behavior.
3. Pollutant Splits. VOC emissions must be
split into three to six hydrocarbon classes
(specific to the model used); NO, emissions
are split into NO/NOi. Information on
pollutant splits is available in EPA 450/3-78-
119.
B. Air Quality Data Requirements
1. Ozone Monitors. Typically 10-20 sites
are required in the modeling area. One to
three upwind sites are needed to establish
incoming transport and five or more sites.
generally located 15-40 kilometers downwind
to encompass the area of maximum
concentrations, are needed for model
validation purposes. The number and
location of the upwind and downwind sites
should be dependent on the wind direction
during periods of high concentration. The five
to 12 remaining sites should be distributed
over the modeling region in such a fashion
that a reasonably accurate depiction of the
ozone concentration field can be derived
using interpolation.
2. NO/NO,. Typically six to 12 sites are
required, usually collocated with O» monitors
and with THC/CH, monitors. The NO/NO,
sites should be concentrated in the urban/
suburban and near downwind areas. The
data are used in an analogous fashion to the
ozone data.
3. THC/CH*. Three to six sites are required
and should be collocated with NO/NO,
monitors in high emission density areas
within the modeling region.
4. Species. A total of approximately 200
samples should be taken and analyzed for
hydrocarbon species (C, through C,0 plus
aromalics) during the field study. These data
arc used to derive the mix of pollutants
within the modeling region. Samples should
be taken at one or two upwind sites to
provide an estimate of incoming transport
and at two to three sites within the urban
area where pollutant mixes might be
expected to be different. Some samples
should be taken at the THC/CH. sites for
comparison with the THC/CH. data. If
possible, approximately 30 samples should be
collected aloft (see B6 below).
5. Carbon Monoxide. Data from six to 10
sites within and downwind of the city should
be collected. The data from these sites are
helpful in troubleshooting any initial poor
performance of the model in that estimates
for an inert pollutant such as CO allow the
dispersion aspects of the model to be isolated
from the photochemical aspects. Thus the
sites should be located such that the data are
representative of an average concentration
over a grid and not a hot spot within the grid.
8. Aircraft Data. Ozone, NO,, and
hydrocarbon grab samples should be taken
by aircraft. These data are used to provide an
estimate of upper-level transport into and out
of the modeling region and the downward
transport of pollutants from aloft. Aircraft
flight patterns should consist of vertical
profiles over key ground stations and
horizontal flights: (1) In the early morning,
upwind and over the city to measure
incoming transport and initial conditions
aloft; (2) mid-morning over and near
downwind of the city to measure rapid
changes during inversion dissipation; and (3)
afternoon over a broad area downwind up to
80 kilometers to assess the pattern of highest
ozone concentration and verify the maximum
value. The two to four vertical profiles over
key stations in each of these flights should
include temperature data used in 03 below.
C. Meteorological Data Requirements
1. Surface Winds. A total of 10-25 sites
should be distributed over the modeling
region in such a fashion that the data can be
spatially interpolated to derive wind vectors
for each grid.
2. Upper Level Winds. Data from one or
two radiosonde sites and two to three
movable pibal sites are required to derive the
upper level wind fields as a function of space
and time. These sites should take advantage
of existing radiosonde sites (usually at an
airport) but should generally encompass the
entire modeling region.
3. Temperature Data. Data from five to 15
surface temperature sites (usually collocated
with wind sites) and the radiosonde and
aircraft soundings mentioned above are
needed to spatially/temporally derive the
mixing height and/or stability inputs to the
model.
4. Solar Radiation. Continuous data from
two to three surface sites are needed as input
to the kinetics module. It is preferable to use
an ultraviolet pyranometer; a net solar
radiometer can often be substituted.
D. Other Data Requirements
Some models require the specification of
other variables which may require ambient/
meteorological/emissions data. The modeler
should consult the user/planning manuals for
the specific photochemical dispersion model
to determine the required input parameters.
Level 11: Simplified Trajectory Model
Description of Analysis. Level II analysis is
essentially the application of the city-specific
EKMA approach using a more comprehensive
and detailed data base than required for
Level HI analysis. The larger data base
provides added confidence in (a) defining
ambient levels of ozone, (b) determining
control requirements, and (c) testing various
control strategies.
The procedure involves calculating
backward trajectories from the site(s)
-------
65669
observing a high hourly ozone concentration.
Atmospheric chemistry is simulated within a
uniformly mixed parcel of air as the parcel
moves along the calculated trajectory. Fresh
emissions encountered along the trajectory
and pollutants entrained from aloft are
considered as well. For a given trajectory, the
simulation is repeated a number of times for
different VOC and NO. emission levels. An
ozone isopleth diagram is thus obtained. The
EKMA procedure (described in EPA-450/2-
77-021 a and b and EPA-600/8-78-14a) is
then applied to estimate needed controls and
test the effectiveness of control strategies. A
similar procedure is followed usirg
trajectories corresponding with other
observed high ozone concentrations as well.
More detailed guidance on selecting specific
trajectories and applying the EKMA
approach in this mode will be available in
summer 1980. prior to the time the analysis
will need to be applied for 1982 ozone SIPs.
A. Emissions Data Requirements
1. Spatial Resolution. Level II analyses
require the use of a gridded VOC and NO,
emission inventory with a network of grid
squares approximately 10 km on a side.
Gridded CO emissions are also highly
desirable and are used with ambient CO data
to tost the dispersion aspects of the model.
The area covered by the grid should at least
encompass all of the air quality monitors
deployed in accordance with paragraph B.
Distinction should be made between point
and area sources for each grid square. Line
sources are treated as area sources. In order
to provide satisfactory emission projections
in accordance with EPA-450/4-79-18, it is
useful to identify emissions from each major
kind of VOC, NO. and CO source in each grid
square.
2. Temporal Resolution. Hourly emission
estimates are required for each source
category in each grid square between the
hours of 8:00 a.m.-6.00 p.m. LOT inclusive for
a typical summer day. Procedure? to compile
such an emission inventory are contained
within EPA-450/4-79-18.
3. VOC Splits. Consideration of reactivity
is not required for Level H analysis. However,
consideration is being given to making
available an option which would allow the
user to assess the impact of changing
reactivity more satisfactorily. In order to
exercise such an option. VOC emissions from
each source calegory would need to be
divided into several lumped categories.
Guidance contained in EPA-450/3-78-119
should be utilized in making estimates of
VOC emissions by lumped species if it is
desired to exercise such an option.
B. Air Quality Data Requirements
1. Ozo. e Monitors (7-11 sites). Since i! may
be necessary to simulate several trajectorins,
ozone monitors should be located in the
prevailing wind direction during the smog
season and in other wind directions
frequently observed to cause high ozone
levels. Ozone monitors should be located at
(a) one site upwind of the urban area, (b) one
site downtown, (c) 1-3 sites on the downwind
edge of the city, and (d) 4-6 sites 15-^10+ km
downwind of the urban area to encompass
the areas of maximum ozone concentration.
2. NO/NO, Monitors (4-6 sites). NO/NO,
monitors should be (a) located at one upwind
site, (b) collocated with THC/CH. continuous
monitors in two (or more) representative
locations likely to observe high
concentrations of precursors (i.e., downtown
sites, industrial areas, etc.), and (c) collocated
with ozone monitors on the downwind edge
of the city.
3. Organic Compounds. Two continuous
THC/CHi monitors should be collocated with
NO/NO, monitors in areas with high
precursor levels (e.g., downtown or industrial
sector). An optional third site on the
downwind edge of the city is desirable. In
addition, a number of integrated grab
samples should be taken upwind of the city
(at the same site where continuous O™and
NO/NOT* monitors are deployed) for a
period of several weeks during the early
morning hours during the smog season.
Species data thus obtained should be
summed to estimate upwind VOC being
transported into the urban areas.*
4. CO Data. Although CO data are not
required in Level II analysis, they can be
extremely useful in trouble shooting model
performance. CO data are used to test the
dispersion aspects of the model. To the
extent possible, it is recommended that CO
monitors be collocated with all NO/NO,
monitors. CO measurements should be
indicative of areawide representativeness
rather than hot spot concentrations.
C. Meteorological Data Requirements
1. Surface Winds. Because Level II requires
simulation of specific trajectories, it is
important to define the wind field as
carefully as possible. It is difficult to specify
what number of properly siied surface wind
stations is sufficient because this will depend
on such factors as terrain, surface roughness
and the presence of complicuting factors such
as largo bodies of water. As a rule of thumb,
the number of surface wind measurements
should be about the same number as the
number of air quality monitoring stations (i.e.,
abou! 8-12 sites).
2. Upper Air and Surface Temperatures.
Hourly estimates of mixing height between
8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. are needed. These
estimates should be made using local
rawinsonde and surface temperature data. If
there are no suitable rawinsonde data being
collected, these measurements should be
made ai least twice a day for at least 60 days
during the smog season, at one site.
Generally, an airport location should suffice.
Surface temperature data should be
collocated at 4-6 sites where surface wind
data are being collected.
Level 111: City-Specific EKMA
Description of Analysis. City specific
EKMA allows consideration of local sunlight
intensity, temporal and spatial VOC and NO,
emission patterns and transported ozone and
precursors in constructing an ozone isopleth
diagram. Such a diagram is constructed using
a published user's guide and a widely
available computer program (EPA-COO/8-78-
014a and b). Control requirements are
' Sec discussion in Level 111 for rationale of using
grab snmplcs at upwind location.
estimated by using the ozone design value
and prevailing 6-9 a.m. NMHC/NO. radons
to identify a starting point on the isopleth
diagram. Control requirements are estimated
using procedures described in EPA-450/2-77-
OZla, b. The impact on peak ozone
concentrations resulting from gross changes
in temporal or spatial emission patterns and/
or pollutants transported into the city can be
assessed as described in EPA-450/2-77-021a
and EPA-600/8-78-014a.
A. Emission Data Requirements
1. Temporal Resolution of VOC and A'O.
Emission Patterns. Diurnal patterns of
emissions (on an hour-by-hour basis) are
superimposed over the seasonal adjusted
annual emission rate for each broad source
category identified in the discussion of Level
IV analysis. Only emissions between 8:00
a.m. LDT and 6:00 p.m. LOT are considered.
2. Spatial Disaggregation of Emission.
Gross spatial disaggregation of emissions and
growth rates can be considered. For example,
urban area emission patterns could be
disaggregated into component counties, and
surrounding rural counties. Alternatively.
existing information, such as land use maps,
or population distribution could be used as a
rough basis for spatial disaggregation of
emissions. It is not required to obtain a
gridded inventory for l.evel HI analysis.
B. Air Quality Data Requirements
1. Ozone Monitors (3 sites). Ozone
monitors should be located at (a) one upwind
site, (b) one monitor on the downwind edge
of the city, and (c) one monitor 15-40 km
downwind of the city.
2. 77/C/CW.NO, Monitors (1 site required.
2 sites desirable). Guidance presented in
EPA-450/2-77-021b should be followed.
Upwind Precursor Data. Optional air
quality data for Level III are measurements of
ambient NO, and THC/CH, at one site
upwind of a city. These data are only needed
if explicit account of transported precursors
is to be taken in the analysis. Most studies
have indicated that transported ozone is of
greater significance than transported
precursors in contributing to urban problems.
Because of the imprecision attendant with
NMHC estimates from continuous THC/CH,
measurements, use of these instruments at
upwind sites is not recommended. H is
preferable to collect a limited number of grab
samples and analyze these
chromatographically and sum species to
estimate upwind NMHC. Continuous
measurement of NO/NO, is appropriate.
C. Meteorological Data Requirements
I. Upper Air and Surface Temperature
Data. Estimates of the morning (8 a.m.) and
maximum afternoon mixing heights ore
required. Preferably, estimates should be
obtained using National Weather Service
rawinsonde data (if available) at a nearby
airport in conjunction with hourly surface
temperature data. If rawinsonde data are not
available, morning and afternoon mixing
heights can be estimated using AP-101.
2. Surfara Wind Data. Surface wind data at
two sites (one site located in an area of high
precursor emissions in addition to the airport
site) are desirable. The wind data are used in
-------
65670 Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 221 / Wednesday. November 14.. 1979 / Notices
helping to assure that the recorded design
value is downwind of the city.
Level IV: Standard EKMA
Description of Analysis. Level IV analysis
entails the use of published ozone isopleth
curves. Two pieces of input information are
needed: (1) the O, design value; and (2)
prevailing 6-9 a.m. NMHC/NO, ratios
downtown. In order to be reasonably assured
that representative levels of high ozone and
appropriate NMHC/NO, ratios are observed,
it is highly desirable that data be collected
for at least one smog season (e.g., June-
September). The procedure for utilizing the
isopleths has been described in EPA-450/2-
77-QZla. In order for estimated control
requirements to be translated into meaningful
control programs, comprehensive, current
seasonably adjusted VL 1 and NO, emission
inventories are needed.
A. Emission Data Requirements
1. Spatial and Temporal Resolution of VOC
and NO, Emissions. Seasonally adjusted
VOC and NO, inventories for the county
(counties) comprising the urban area. It is not
necessary to grid the inventory. Procedures to
compile the emission inventory are contained
within EPA-450/4-79-18. Hourly emission
estimates are not necessary.
2. Disaggregotion Among Source types.
Although not required, it is desirable to
disaggregate VOC and NO, emissions into
major source categories such as light-duty
vehicles, stationary area sources, heavy-duty
vehicles, stationary point sources, etc. Such
disaggregation is likely to prove highly useful
in making projections of future aggregated
emissions.
B. Air Quality Data Requirements
1. Ozone Monitors (2 sites). At least one
site should be deployed 15-W km in the
prevailing downwind direction and one site
at the downwind edge of the commercial
district or in the inner downwind suburbs. In
order to estimate transported ozone, an
upwind monitor is highly desirable.
2. THC/CHt and NO, Monitors (1 site).
THC/CH, and NO/NO, monitors should be
collocated at at least one site in the city's
major commercial district, following the
guidance in EPA-450/2-77-021 b.
C. Meteorological Data Requirements
Although no meteorological data ai-e
required by the standard EKMA procedure, to
enhance credibility, it is desirable to show
that the wind carries emissions from the city
to the monitoring site on the design value
day. In many cases, such a rough assessment
can be made using wind data which are
collected at a local airport.
References
1. Uses, Limitations and Technical Basis
for Quantifying Relationships between
Photochemical Oxidants and Precursors.
EPA-450/2-77-021a, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina, November 1977.
2. Procedures for Quantifying
Relationships between Photochemical
Oxidants and Precursors: Supporting
Documentation. EPA-450/2-77-02lb, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park. North Carolina, February 1978.
User's Manual for Kinetics Model and
Ozone Isopleth Plotting Package. EPA-600/8-
78-014a, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, July 1978.
4. Kinetics Model and Ozone Isopleth
Plotting Package Computer Program. EPA-
600/8-78-014b, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park. North
Carolina, July 1978.
5. Procedures for the Preparation of
Emission Inventories for Volatile Organic
Compounds—Volume I. EPA-450/4-77-028,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,
December 1977.
6. Procedures for the Preparation of
Emission Inventories for Volatile Organic
Compounds—Volume II: Emission Inventory
Requirements for Photochemical Air Quality
Simulation Models. EPA-450/4-79-18, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina, September
1979. (in print)
7. G. C. Holzworth,JWmng Heights, Wind
Speeds, and Potential for Urban Air Pollution
Throughout the Contiguous United States.
AP-101, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, January 1972.
8. Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)
Species Data Manual. EPA-450/3-78-119.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,
December 1978.
Attachment 2.—Anticipated Level of Ozone
Modeling for Major Urban Areas Requesting
Extension
Level I
Boston. MA Chicago. IL/IN
New York. NY/NJ Houston, TX
Philadelphia. PA/N) St. Louis. MO/IL
Baltimore. MU Los Angeles. CA
Washington. DC/MD/VA
Level 2
Springfield. MA
Pittsburgh, PA
Wilmington, DE
Cleveland. OH
Cincinnati. OH/KY
Level 3
Worcester. MA
Providence. RI
Hartford. CT
New Haven. CT
Bridgeport. CT
Trenton. NJ
Allentown. PA
Scranton. PA
Richmond. VA
Louisville. KY/1N
Nashville, TN
Level 4
None identified at this time.
[FR Doc. 79-35028 Filed 11-13-79: 8:45 am)
MIXING CODE 6560-01-M
Detroit. MI
Milwaukee. WI
Sacramento. CA
San Diego. CA
Venlura-Oxnard. CA
Youngstown. OH
Dnyton. OH
Indianapolis, IN
Denver. CO
Salt Lake City. UT
Phoenix. AZ
San Francisco. CA
Fresno. CA
San Bernardino. CA
Seattle. WA
Portland. OR/WA
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DATE: OCT 4 1979
suBjECT:Clarification for Final SIP Actions on Asphalt Regulations PN-172-79-10-04-021
FROM:Richard 6. Rhoads, Director
Control Programs Development Division, OAQPS (MD 15)
TO;Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
On December 19, 1978, and March 6, 1979, guidance memoranda were
sent to the Regional Offices concerning criteria for determining acceptable
Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) RACT regulations for cutback asphalt.
The examp",_- regulation in the first memorandum prohibited use of cutback
asphalt or emulsified asphalt containing solvent but provided certain
exceptions. The exceptions are: cold weather use; prime coat; stockpiling;
and demonstration of no VOC emissions from cutback. Both memoranda
pointed out that there might also be other unique problems for which
additional exemptions could be appropriate with adequate-justification
such as applications of emulsified asphalt requiring the addition of
solvents or oils to improve the properties of the emulsion. I requested
that you advise our.office of additional exemptions which the States
requested.
Now that most VOC SIP regulations have been submitted to EPA,
several remaining issues with cutback asphalt need clarification. The
following guidance is intended for your use as you finalize SIP approval/
disapproval actions and conditional approvals.
The approach recommended in the two previous memoranda was to
define an asphalt emulsion as a suspension of asphalt in water by means
of an emulsifying agent with no allowance for the addition of solvents
to the emulsion. The additional exemptions to the regulation were to be
the mechanism for allowing use of those emulsions containing solvent*
where necessary. While most of the SIP submittals applying RACT to
asphalt operations have not addressed the acceptability of solvent in
emulsions, several States which have allowed solvent have not used the
mechanism we provided, but instead have allowed a maximum solvent content
in emulsions, sometimes up to 12 to 15 percent. Information we have
received on the subject of solvent content in emulsified asphalt does
not support the allowance of a blanket solvent content for emulsified
asphalt. Accordingly, these blanket-type regulations should not be
unconditionally approved. If a State chooses to allow the use of solvents
in certain emulsions, the regulations should only permit the inclusion
of solvent in emulsified asphalt by stipulating maximum solvent contents
*The solvent content is determined by ASTM distillation test D-244.
°A Form 1320-6 (R«v. 3-76)
-------
allowed for specific uses or for specific grades of emulsified asphalt.
The following maximum solvent contents for specific emulsified asphalt
applications are based on ASTM, MSHTO, and State specifications and on
information recently received from the Asphalt Institute.
Use Max. Solvent Content
Seal coats in early spring or late
fall 3%
Chip seals when dusty or dirty
aggregate is used 3%
Mixing w/open graded aggregate that
is not well washed 8%
Mixing w/dense graded aggregate 12%
I wish to emphasize that these are maximum solvent contents and if
States are using emulsified asphalt with less solvent for these applications,
they should continue to do so. These are only the maximum solvent
contents that we feel current technology supports. Many emulsified
asphalt manufacturers are successfully using less solvent and achieving
the same acceptable results. The chemistry of emulsified asphalt and
the non-uniformity of the technology across the country prevents us from
specifying anything more than upper limits on solvent content. Lower
limits are certainly achievable in many States but must be determined on
a case-by-case basis.
Finally, in our contact with the emulsified asphalt industry we
find that many people are extremely apprehensive about defining an
emulsified asphalt as having no solvent. Should the exceptions which
allow emulsions containing solvent ever be removed from the regulation,
the industry might be unable to produce acceptable products for a number
of applications. An acceptable regulatory approach, therefore, will be
to allow defining emulsified asphalt as optionally containing solvent or
oils. The allowed solvent would be limited to the amounts specified
above (or lower if this can be negotiated) based on application. The
definition should be worded in such a way to clearly indicate that these
are the maximum solvent contents allowed and that they are allowed only
for the specific applications or grades of emulsified asphalt. All
other asphalt emulsions should not contain solvent. If States reject
this approach, as an alternative, we will accept blanket-type regulations
which allow maximum solvent contents in the range of 5 to 7 percent.
For those States who have submitted regulations with an unacceptable
blanket solvent content allowance, a conditional approval should be
granted with time allowed to modify the regulations to follow the solvent
content guidance provided above or to lower the blanket solvent allowance
to 5 to 7 percent.
-------
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
PN-172-79-08-22-020
AUR 90 1Q7Q OFFICE OF
r»L»U Ct £ ICJ/O AIR. NOISE, AMD RADIATION
SUBJECT: State Implementation Plans/Revised
Schedules for Submitting Reasonably Available
Control Technology Regulations for Stationary
Sources-'Of Vqlatrte Organic Compound ; (VOC)
FROM: /n payj^^&te&OJiS, Assistant Administrator
for Air, Noise, and Radiation
MEMO TO: Regional Administrator, Regions I-X
The Administrator's memorandum of February 24, 1978, published in
the Federal Register at 43 FR 21673 (May 19, 1978), stated that the 1979
plan submission for ozone nonattainment areas, "... must include, as a
minimum, legally enforceable regulations to reflect the application of
reasonably available control technology (RACT) to those sources for
which EPA has published a Control Technique Guideline (CTG) by January
1978, and provide for the adoption and submittal of additional legally
enforceable RACT regulations on an annual basis beginning in January
1980 for those CTGs that have been published by January of the preceding
year."
It is now apparent that the regulatory adoption process may be more
lengthy than first anticipated. Additional time may be necessary to
accommodate public, administrative, and legislative review. In order to
realistically address this problem, yet to continue meeting our respon-
sibilities to attain the ambient standards as expeditiously as practi-
cable, EPA is revising by six months the deadlines for submittal of'the
RACT regulations for the second set of CTGs. The SIPs- should now provide
for the adoption and submittal of additional'legally enforceable regulations
by July 1, 1980 for the following source categories:
Factory Surface Coating of Flatwood Paneling
Petroleum Refinery Fugitive Emissions (Leaks)
Pharmaceutical Manufacture
Rubber Tire Manufacture
Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products
Graphic Arts (Printing)
Dry Cleaning, Perch!oroethylene
Gasoline Tank Trucks, Leak Prevention
Petroleum Liquid Storage, Floating Roof Tanks
-------
In the immediate future, I will publish a Federal Register notice
announcing this policy change. I ask that you notify your States in
order to allow them to schedule their associated regulatory activities
in the most efficient manner possible.
cc: Marvin Durning
Joan Bernstein
Director, Air & Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[40 CFR Part 52]
tFRL 1305-8)
State Implementation Plans; General
Preamble for Proposed Rulemaklng on
Approval of Plan Revisions for
Nonattalnment Areas—Supplement
(on Revised Schedules for Submission
of Volatile Organic Compound Ract
Regulations)
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: General Preamble for proposed
rulemaking—Supplement
SUMMARY: Provisions of the Clean Air
Act enacted in 1977 requires States to
revise their State Implementation Plans
for all areas that have not attained
National Ambient A;r Quality
Standards. States are to have submitted
the necessary plan revisions to EPA by
January 1.1979. The Agency is now
publishing proposols inviting public
comment on whether each of the
Bubmittals should be approved. In the
April 4,1S79 issue of the Federal
Register. EPA published a General
Preamble identifying and summarizing
the major considerations that will guide
EPA"s evaluation of the submittals (44
FK 20372). Today's Supplement provides
information on the revised schedule for
adoption of regulations for source
categories emitting volatile organic
compounds (VOC) covered by the
second set of Control Technique
Guidelines (CTGs).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
The appropriate EPA Regional Office
Listed on the first page of the General
Preamble (44 FR 20372) or the following
Headquurters office: G. T. Helms, Chief,
Control Programs Operations Branch.
Control Programs Development Division,
EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (MEM5), Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711, (919) 541-
5365 or 541-5226.
SUPPLEMENTARY IHFORMATiON'. The
background is set out nt length in the
April 4 General Preamble. This
Supplement address an issue that needs
explanation.
The Administrator's memorandum of
February 24,1978. published in the
Federal Register at 43 FR 21673 (May 19,
1978). slated that \he 1979 plan
submission for ozone nonattainment PN-172- 79-08-21 -019
areas." . . • must includes, as a
minimum, legally enforceable
regulations to reflect the application of
reasonably available control technology
(RACT) to those sources for which EPA
has published a Control Technique
Guideline (CTG) by January 1978. and
provide for .the adoption and submittal
of additional legally enforceable RACT
regulations on an annual basis
beginning in January 1980 for those
CTGs that have been published by
January of the preceding year."
It is now apparent that the regulatory
adoption process may be more lengthy
than first anticipated. Additional time
may be necessary to accommodate
public, administrative, and legislative
review. In order to realistically address
this problem, yet to continue meeting
our responsibilities to attain the ambient
standards as expeditiously as
practicable. EPA is revising by six
months the deadlines for submittal of
'.he RACT regulations for the second set
>f CTGs. The SIPs should now provide
.'or the adoption and submittal of
additional legally enforceable
regulations by July 1.1980 for the
following source categories:'
Factory Surface Coating of Flarwood
Paneling
Petroleum Refinery Fugitive Emission (Leak*)
Pharmaceutical Manufacture
Rubber Tire Manufacture
Surface Coaling of Miscellaneous Metal Part*
and Products
Graphic Arts (Printing)
Dry Cleaning. Perchloroelhylene
Gasoline Tank Trucks. Lenk Prevention
Petroleum Liquid Storage. Floating Roof
Tanks
If this revision to the adoption
schedule of RACT regulations requires
alteration of any comments on a plan for
which the comment period has already
ended, the commcnter should contact
the appropriate EPA Regional Office
immediately so thnt the issue can be
appropriately dealt with.
Note.—Under Executive Order 12044 EPA
Is required to judge whether a regulation it
"significant" and. therefore, subject to the
procedural requirements of the order or
whether it may follow other specialized
development procedures. EPA labels these
other regulations "specialized." 1 have
reviewed this regulation and 'determined that
it is a specialized regulation not subject to the
procedural requirements of Executive Order
12044. (Sees. I10(a). 172. Clean Air Act. at
amended (42 U.S.C. 7410(a). 7502JJ.
Dated: August 21,1079.
Edward F. TueiW.
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise,
and Radiation.
|FR Doc. 7S-2fl7M Rind 6-CT-7B; S.44 UBJ
BILLING CODE «5*0-01-U
-------
UNITED STATES.ENVIRQNMENTAL.PROTECTION AGENCY
MI\ 1479 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
DATE- Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
SUBJECT: Modifications to Recommendations for Solvent Metal Cleaning
PN-172-79-06-20-018
rROM: Richard G. Rhoads, Director
Control Programs Development Division (MD-15)
TO: Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
In the Control Technique Guideline for Solvent Metal Cleaning, the
operating requirements for open top vapor degreasers include the
following specification for changes in the vapor level:
"The vapor level should not drop more than 10 cm (4 in) when the
workload enters the vapor zone."
Recently the effectiveness and practicality of this specification
has been questioned. The Emission Standards and Engineering Division of
OAQPS«has reviewed this issue and has concluded that this specification
may not necessarily reduce emissions and will cause compliance problems
for a significant number of sources. A summary of the analysis is
attached.
Accordingly, State plans which do not include this provision for
open top vapor degreasers should be recommended for approval. States
with final adopted regulations that include this restriction should be
advised of potential implementation problems with the provision. Where
practical, States should be encouraged to amend their plans to delete
this provision. In the interim, Regional Offices should take no steps
to implement this provision.
Attachment
cc: Mr. Ed Reich, DSSE
Mr. Don Goodwin, ESED
FORM 1320-6 (REV. 3-76)
-------
PN-172-79-05-25-017
ENVIRONjyiB»i
;iV^_vJj/^^-.y-r-5:^iftSg^X
Policy Concerning
Revisions and Solvent Reactivities
: section: lO^oJEtBe Clean AiisAAy^Kt>|-.v
•notice clarifi1esiEPA.'9."Recommend&i.-j:
" '
volatile organic compounds participate
• in the chemical reactions that form.-"' -IT
photochemical oxidante- Currently y.~ .. -
-available information suggests that. -'.;
negligibly .pHptochemically reactive :. .
volatile organic compounds as defined".
in that Statement, incliidino mp*K«l -
chloroform and methylene chloride, do
not appreciably affect ambient ozone
levels.' Hence, EPA will not disapprove
any state implementation plan or plan
revision for its failure to contain
regulations restricting emissions of these
compounds.
Although these substances need not
Ibe controlled under state
implementation plans for the purpose of
achieving ambient ozone standards,
nothing in this memorandum is intended
to modify past EPA expressions of
concern about the uncontrolled use of
methyl chloroform and methylene
chloride. As noted in the above
referenced policy and the clarification
presented'in memoranda of August'24,
1978 and March 6, 1979, there is
suggestive evidence that both-
compounds are potentially carcinogenic.
and methyl chloroform is suspected of
contributing to depletion of
stratospheric ozone. See, for example,
the following studies:
Simmon, V. F^-Kauhanen, K. and
Tardiff, R. G., "Mutagenic Activity of
Chemicals Identified in Drinking Water"
in Progress in Genetic Toxicology, ed. L
D. Scott,' B. A. Bridges, and F. H. Sobels,
at 249-258 (Elsevier, 1977);
Price, P. G., Hassett, C. M. and
Mansfield, O.L, 'Transforming
Activities A Trichloroethylene and
Proposed Industrial Alternatives" In
Vitro 14:3, at 290-293 (1978);
Theiss, J. O, Stoner, G. D., Shimkin, M.
B., et al., 'Test for Carcinogeniciry of
Organic Contaminants of United States
Drinking Waters by Pulmonary Tumor
Response In Strain A Mice," Cancer
Research, 37(8 Pt 1): 2717-20, (August
1977);
The EPA Carcinogen Assessment
Group's Preliminary Risk Assessment on
Methyl Chloroform, Type I—-Air
Program, (January 17,1979);
The EPA Carcinogen Assessment
Group's Preliminary Risk Assessment on
Methylene Chloride, Type I-^Air
Program, (January 17,1979);
Conference on Methyl Chloroform and
other Halocarbon Pollutants, sponsored
by Environmental Sciences Research
Laboratory, 133. EPA, February 27-28,
1979,-Washington, B.C. (proceedings in
press).
Because both methyl chloroform and
methylene chloride are potentially
harmful, EPA recommends that these
chemicals not be substituted for other
solvents in efforts to reduce ozone
concentrations. EPA further
recommends that-the states control
these compounds under the authority
reserved to'them in section 116 of the
Clean Air Act Moreover, there is a
strong possibility for future regulation of
these compounds under the Clean Air
Act
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: •
Joseph Padgett, Director, Strategies and
Air Standards Division, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, MD-12
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina':
27711(919)541-5204.
Dated: May 25,1979.,"
David G. Hawkins, '•'
Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise and
Radiation.
[FR Doc. 7S-172M Filed fr-1-78; &4$ am]
BILLING CODE U«0-Ot-M
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
25
PN-172-79-05-25-016
V
> \^
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
MEMORANDUM
Subject: Submission of State Air Permits
as SIP Revisions
From: Richard G. Rhoads, Director
Control Programs Development Division
Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
To: Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division
Regions I-X
A question has been raised concerning the need for
States to submit construction and operating air permits as
revisions to State implementation plans (SIP). Of particular
concern is tine Federal enf orceabil i ty of State-issued air
permits tha:; have not been incorporated individually within
a SIP by means of an EPA approval through rulemaking.
Federal enforcement of construction permits issued
under procedures complying with the requirements of
40 CFR 51.18 (new source review) is provided in
40 CFR 52.02(d) which reads, in part, as follows:
...all permit conditions or permit denials
issued pursuant to approved or promulgated
regulations for the review of new or modi-
fied stationary or indirect sources, are
enforceable by the Administrator... in
accordance with...assigned responsi-
bilities under the plan.
Thus, State construction permits which have been issued
in accordance with SIP procedures approved by EPA as
satisfying 40 CFH 51.18, and which satisfy the interpretative
ruling of the requirements of 40 CFR 51.18 (the emission
offset policy), 44 Fed. Reg. 3274 ot §054. (January 16,
1979), are oaf orco.ab.lo by EPA. (However, i I: emission
reductions to meet Condition 3 of the emission offset policy
J. Sableski
Environmental Protection Agency
OAQPS, CPDD (MD 15)
Research Triangle Park, fJC 27711
-------
-2-
are obtained from existing sources other than those con-
trolled by the owner of the proposed new source, Section
V.B. of the policy provides that these "external" offsets
must be effectuated through a SIP revision.) The provisions
of 40 CFR 52.02(d) also provide for EPA enforcement of
prevention of significant deterioration construction permits
which have been issued by States under procedures complying
with 40 CFR 52.21.
The conditions upon construction contained in these
permits which are needed to meet federal requirements
(e.g., the source must achieve the lowest achievable emission
rate, or operate best available control technology) have
continuing application to a source built under the permit.
Any State limitations upon the effective duration of a State
construction permit is deemed to effect only the authorization
to construct under the permit. Once a source is actually
built, it must continue to meet the conditions imposed upon
itsfconstruction unless they are modified by a federally
approved SIP revision.
Operating permits present some special problems.
Since State procedures for the issuance of operating permits
to new sources are not required under 40 CFR 51.18 or
40 CFR 52.2a., State new source operating permits are not
federally enforceable under 40 CFR 52.02(d). Of course, to
the extent ^he behavior required in new source operating
permits is consistent with the behavior required in the SIP
(including any previously issued construction permit enforce-
able by reason of 40 CFR 52.02(d)), EPA can enforce the
behavioral requirement on the basis of noncompliance with
the SIP. In addition, EPA can enforce, on the basis of
noncompliance with the SIP, behavioral requirements contained
in operating permits i:'or existing sources to the extent that
the permit requirements are the same as the SIP requirements.
However, if the provisions of an operating permit differ
from the SIP, the permit must, at the present time, be
approved as a SIP revision before it is enforceable (or
recognized) by EPA. If an operating permit condition more
stringent than the SIP is necessary to assure attainment or
maintenance of a national ambient air quality standard,
failure to trevise the SIP accordingly results in the SIP
being inadequate. Therefore, we are advising each Regional
Office to notify the States of this potential need to revise
their SIPs. States which do, in fact, need to revise their
SIPs to incorporate individual operating permits which are
necessary to assure attainment and maintenance of a national
ambient air quality standard should do so as soon as possible.
-------
-3-
Some State-issued opera* : .-sg permits may not indefinitely
require individual EPA approval through rulemaking in order
to be considered part of the SIP. Section 110(a)(2)(d) of
the Clean Air Act requires SIPs to include "a program to
provide for the enforcement of emission limitations and
regulation of the modification, construction, and operation
of any stationary source, including a permit program as
required in parts C and D and a permit or equivalent program
for any major emitting facility..." In addition, Section
,l'72(b)(6) of the Act provides that SIPs must "require
permits for the construction and operation of new or modified
major stationary sources..." Although no regulations
implementing these sections yet exist, a working group is
developing a regulatory proposal requiring STPs to contain
an operating permit program (or its equivalent) and estab-
lishing the standards for EPA approval of such a program.
The issue of the federal enforceabi.l. ity of State-issued
operating permits will be addressed by these regulations.
In the interim, States are encouraged to submit permits as
SIP revisions as appropriate.
cc: Director, Enforcement Division
Regions I-X
Michael James, OGC
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
DATE: 21 'MAY 1979
SUBJECT: Draft Language—Preambles for SIP Proposals PN-172-79-05-21-015
and Approvals
ROM: Richard G. Rhoads, Director
Control Programs Development Division (MD-15)
T0: Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
As a followup to the mid-April Division Directors' meeting in Atlanta,
I am attaching sample Federal Register language on two topics:
1. Commitment to Future CTG RACT Categories (Attachment #1)
2. Solvent Exemptions in Ozone SIPs (Attachment #2)
Attachment #1 should be self-explanatory. Attachment #2, pertaining to
methylene chloride and methyl chloride, can be used for VOC solvent
exemptions in cases where the solvents have been shown to have minimal
reactivity, yet have other adverse effects. For these two specific
compounds, I am also attaching additional information (Attachment #3)
which may be of value to you in your State discussions.
I appreciate your cooperation and hope you find the draft language
useful.
Attachments
Form 1320-6 (Rev. 3-76)
-------
Attachment 1
COMMITMENT TO FUTURE CTG RACT CATEGORIES
EPA will accept a commitment from States to adopt reasonably
available control technology (RACT) regulations which apply to those
source categories emitting volatile organic compounds (VOCs) for which
control technique guidelines (CTGs) did not exist on January 1, 1978.
This policy was discussed in a notice entitled "Criteria for Proposing
Approval of Revision to Plans for Nonattainment Areas" which appeared in
the Federal Register on May 19, 1978 (43 FR 21673). The State Implemen-
tation Plan (SIP) described in this notice does not contain a formal
commitment to adopt regulations for future CTG source categories. However,
the Agency proposes to approve the SIP on the following conditions:
1. The State submits adopted RACT regulations for the following
source categories by January 1980:
a. Vegetable oil processing
b. Petroleum refinery leaks
c. Gasoline tank truck
d. Perchloroethylene dry cleaning
e. Pharmaceutical manufacture
f. Miscellaneous metal parts and products
g. Graphic arts
h. Pneumatic rubber tire manufacture
i. Flatwood paneling
j. Floating roof tanks
2. The State adopts by January 1981 regulations which control
emissions from additional source categories for which F.PA issues a new
CTG by January 1980.
-------
3. The State demonstrates by certification that there are no
sources in the State for a given VOC source category that is not regulated.
-------
Attachment
-------
2
interpreted as encouraging the increased use of these compounds nor
compliance by substitution. The Agency does not endorse such approaches.
Furthermore, State officials and sources should be advised that there is
a strong possibility of future regulatory action to control these com-
pounds. Sources which choose to comply by substitution may well be
required to install control systems as a consequence of these future
regulatory actions.
-------
Attachment 3
SYNOPSIS OF POTENTIALLY ADVERSE EFFECTS
OF METHYL CHLOROFORM AND METHYLENE CHLORIDE
Both methyl chloroform (MCF) and methylene chloride (MC) have been
found to be mutagenic in a bacterial test system (Simmon e_t aj_) and in
in vitro tests of mammalian cell transformation (Price et_aj_). In both
cases, methylene chloride exhibited a higher potency than either methyl
chloroform or trichloroethylene.
o
A pulmonary tumor bioassay conducted by Theiss (1977) indicated
that methylene chloride produced an excess in surface adenomas in male
mice. Results of animal studies on methyl chloroform are inconclusive.
On the basis of the available data, EPA's Carcinogen Assessment
Group has concluded that, for both methyl chloroform and methylene chloride,
"there is suggestive evidence of carcinogenicity." '
In addition, methyl chloroform has been implicated in the depletion
of stratospheric ozone. At a recent conference on the atmospheric
4
chemistry of methyl chloroform and other halocarbon pollutants, researchers
reported tropospheric lifetimes for MCF ranging from three to twelve years,
sufficient time to allow for significant migration of the chemical to the
stratosphere. It was further estimated that, at the current growth pro-
jections in the production and use of this chemical, MCF could account for
10-20 percent of the total ozone depletion attributable to chlorofluoro-
carbons over the next ten years. Significant depletion of stratospheric
ozone impairs the ability of this atmospheric layer to filter out harmful
ultraviolet radiation. Increases in the amount of this type of radiation
reaching the Earth may lead to reduced crop yields as well as increases
in human skin cancer.
Simmon, V. F., Kauhanen, K. and R. G. Tardiff, "Mutagenic Activity of
Chemicals Identified in Drinking Water" in Progress in Genetic Toxicology,
ed. I. D. Scott, B. A. Bridges, and F. H. Sobels. p. 249-258 Elsevier (1977),
2
Price, P. 0., C. M. Hassett, and J. I. Mansfield, "Transforming Activities
of Trichloroethylene and Proposed Industrial Alternatives" In Vitro 14:3,
p. 290-293 (1978).
3
Theiss, J. C., et al, "Test for Carcinogenicity of Organic Contaminants."
-------
Conference on Methyl Chloroform and Other Halocarbon Pollutants, sponsored
by Environmental Sciences Research Laboroatory, U.S. EPA, February 27-28,
1979, Washington, D. C.
The Carcinogen Assessment Group's Preliminary Risk Assessment on Methyl
Chloroform, Type I - Air Program, January 17, 1979.
The Carcinogen Assessment Group's Preliminary Risk Assessment on Methylene
Chloride, Type I - Air Program, January 17, 1979.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DATE: MAR 6 1979
SUBJECT: Cutback Asphalt VOC Regulations
PN-172-79-03-06-014
FROM: Richard G. Rhoads, Director
Control Programs Development Division, OAQPS (MD 15)
TO:
: Director, Air & Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
On December 19, 1978 a memorandum containing an example regulation
for controlling cutback asphalt was sent to eac of you. That memo-
randum was prompted by misunderstandings of the complicated issue of
cutback asphalt; specifically, what exemptions are allowed and what is
an appropriate transition period from cutback to emulsified asphalt.
The memorandum contained information based on contacts with emulsified
asphalt manufacturers and users and with representatives of the Asphalt
Institute.
Attached is a summary of the draft regulations which were submitted
to CPDD prior to the December 19 memorandum. Even though the summarized
regulations were only drafts and have likely been revised, I feel it
worthwhile to point out the significant problems found during the review
of the regulations. An explanation of these problems is also attached.
The December 19 memorandum indicated that liquid emulsified asphalt
can be stored only up to four weeks in heated or insulated containers.
Information received since the memorandum was sent indicates that this
is an error; liquid emulsified asphalt apparently can be stored for much
longer periods of time. This error, however, is only minor since it is
still true that an emulsified asphalt patch mix (mixture of aggregate
and liquid asphalt) cannot be stockpiled. Manufacturers, however, are
working on this problem and are trying to develop such an emulsion. If
solvent is added to the emulsion, long life stockpiling can be achieved,
but our definition of emulsified asphalt does not include emulsions
containing solvents.
The December 19 memorandum also indicated that more detailed
information for calculating emission rates from cutback asphalt will be
sent to the Regional Offices. At the present time an EPA contracted study
of emission rates from cutback asphalt is being reviewed by the Asphalt
Institute. The results of that review will be considered when the review
is completed in late March or early April. At that time a decision will be
made on the need for further study of cutback asphalt emission rates. For
the present, however, in developing control strategies for ozone and pre-
paring emission inventories for the 1979 SIP revisions, States should use
the evaporation rates contained in the control techniques guideline. These
rates are 80% for rapid cure, 70% for medium cure, and 25% for slow cure
orm 1320-6 (Rev. 3-76)
-------
(except as discussed below). These rates-should be used in conjunction
with solvent content values for the vorious cutbacks used in the State.
Solvent content values can be obtained from the cutback manufacturers.
If new emission rates are established at a later date, they will be
available for the next round of SIP revisions.
The fourth exemption in the example regulation sent December 19
allowed the use of any cutback for which the user can demonstrate that
no emissions will occur under conditions of normal use. Until further
studies are done on cutback emission factors, that demonstration should
be done as follows:
1. Obtain distillation data for the cutback from the manufacturer
or run a distillation test. (ASTM Method D-402, Distillation of Cutback
Asphalt Products.)
2. If less than 5% of the total solvent has evaporated up to and
including 500°F, the cutback will be considered one that has no VOC
emissions under field conditions.
«
We realize that distillation tests cannot be directly related to
field conditions, however, we feel that any emissions from a cutback
passing the above test will be very minor. Also, for purposes of calcu-
lating emissions for control strategies or emissions offsets, cutbacks
passing the test should be considered as having no VOC emissions.
The December 19 memorandum indicated that there might be other
unique problems for which exemptions could be appropriate under a case-
by-case RACT determination. I would like to stress that if a State
requests an exemption to use cutback or an emulsified asphalt containing
solvent for any application other than those accepted in the example
regulation, it is up to the State to demonstrate that an emulsified
asphalt (containing no solvent) cannot be used. The demonstration must
contain evidence that the State has contacted emulsified asphalt manufac-
turers and emulsifying chemical manufacturers, and that the manufacturers
cannot develop an acceptable emulsion or cannot recommend an acceptable
alternative paving or repair procedure. As stated in the December 19
memorandum, please advise me of any additional requests for exemptions.
Attachments
-------
SUMMARY OF DRAFT VOC REGS. i:OR CUTBACK ASPHALT
STATE
I
Mass.
NH
II
N.Y.
Ill
VA
WVA
MD
DEL
PA
COMPLIANCE
DATE
7/1/80
1
1/1/79-
12/31/80
nut given
EXEMPTIONS
UJ
s:
t— i
C£
a.
X
X
X
X
X
X
SEASONAL
1
1
X
Q.
UJ
t—
X
X
1
X
STORAGE
X
X
X
X
X
C£
UJ
1C
0
2
1
SIZE
CUTOFF
PE > 100
~~ TPY
>7 TPY
>10 Ibs/day
ior 3 lbs/hr
STATEWIDE
x
X
X
2
?
1
X
X
COMMENTS
1. 10/30-5/1 for patching.
Total prohibition for paving of
roads, highways, or driveways.
N.H. has no urbanized areas.
1. 10/16-5/1
2. Emulsified asphalt containin
less than 15% by weight VOC.
1. 60 days after board adoption
or 9 months after promulatio
of new 03 standard.
2. At a minimum, the non-
attainment areas* may be
adopted Statewide.
All cutback asphalt users and
manufacturers must register wit
the Commission within 30 days
from the effective date of the
regulation. After the effectivi
date of the regulation, permits
are required for anyone commenc
operations subject to this
regulation.
1. Applies to the Baltimore
Metropolitan Area. There
are two other nonurban non-
attainment areas in MD.
1. Only for emergency repair of
potholes and/or filling crad
in highway pavement. As
technology becomes available
all uses of cutback asphalt
will be discontinued.
1. Dust palliative tack coat, pr
coating of aggregate and pro-
tective coating for concrete.
-------
STATE
IV
KY
(Louis-
vine)
N.C.
S.C.
TN
V
IL
IND
OH
MICH
wise
COMPLIANCE
DATE
eff. date
of reg.
10/1/80
5/1/81
2/1/81
12/31/80
1/82
not given
7/1/79
EXEMPTIONS
UJ
s:
i — i
DC
Q,
X
X
X
X
X
X
SEASONAL]
2
1
-
1
1
Q_
s:
LU
H-
X
X
X
X
X
STORAGE
X
X
X
X
X
2
C£
UJ
n:
h-
o
1
1
1
SIZE
CUTOFF
? 15 Ibs/day
ors Ibs/hr
7100 TPY for
att. areas
1
?
? 15 Ibs/day
or 3 Ibs/hr
STATEWIDE
3
X
X
?
X
?
X
X
COMMENTS
1. Exempts asphalt with less
than or equal to 10% by
weight VOC.
2. Jan. -Apr. for repair of
potholes or other damage to
roadways.
3. Louisville, Kentucky.
1. In urban areas, stationary
sources with potential
emissions greater than 10 TP
non-urban areas greater than
100 TPY.
1. Total prohibition in urban
counties. Use allowed in a
rural co. with the approval
of the director.
1. 10/1-4/30.
1. Other than road paving, i.e.
roofing or water proofing.
1. 10/1-4/30
1. non-ozone season 11/1-4/30
2. must be stored for 2 years
or longer.
-------
STATE
VI
ARK
OK
TX
VIII
CO
X
WASH
(Puget
Sound)
WASH
STATE
ORE
COMPLIANCE
DATE
7/21/79
24 mo.
after eff.
date "f reg
12/31/80
not given
6/1/80
6/1/80
4/1/79
EXEMPTIONS
UJ
5^
1— H
Q_
X
1
1
1
5
o
oo
UJ
2
3
?
.
^
LU
h-
X
1
1,
4
UJ
«C
0
t—
OO
X
X
3
1
1
<-£.
LU
t—
O
1
2
4
SIZE
CUTOFF
LU
t — i
LU
1—
1 —
X
1
X
2
2
COMMENTS
1. Consent of the Commissioner
1. 7 nonattainment areas. Use
of cutback asphalt for
paving is restricted to no
more than 7% of the total
annual volume of asphalt use
or specified for use by any
State, municipal, or county
agency. All nonattainment
areas are not covered.
1. Also allows exemptions when
precipitation is anticipated
within 3 hrs. from time of
application.
2. Other conditions as approved
by the Division. Div. may
require invoices or other
records to verify use of cut-
back and emulsified asphalt.
1. Use of MC only.
2. Oct. -May.
3. Use of MC only.
4. SC
Reg. applies to Puget Sound
nonattainment area.
1. Allowed provided diluent has
a total vapor pressure of le<
than 26 mm Hg at 20°C.
2. Nonattainment areas.
3. Oct. -May.
4. Forecast for 24 hr. period
following application is less
than 50°F.
Report required on use of cutbac
asphalt during June-Sept.
1. MC only.
2. Nonattainment areas.
-------
DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN PROP! SF.D ASPHALT REGULATIONS
AND EXAMPLE REGULATION 01 DECEMBER 19, 1978
1. Twelve regulations contain an exemption allowing the use of cutback
asphalt when the temperature is below 50°F. It is preferable for
enforcement purposes to establish a season during which cutback asphalt
may be used. The season would represent that portion of the year during
which temperatures do not linger above 50°F for periods of time adequate
for emulsified asphalt application and setting.
2. Several States specify a 100 TPY cutoff size. No criteria is
provided for defining a 100 TPY source with respect to cutback asphalt.
Our guidance defines cutback asphalt as an area source and any "100 Ton"
calculations should consider all State, local, and private uses of asphalt
in the area for which the control strategy demonstration is developed.
3. None of the 24 draft regulations prohibit the use of emulsified
asphalt containing solvent. Our definition of emulsified asphalt
includes only solvent-free emulsions.
4. Eight States exempt cutback asphalt from regulation for situations
other than the three prescribed in our guidance. These exemptions in the
draft regulations are unacceptable although there will be case-by-case
situations where other exemptions could be allowed.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
DATE: F£B 2 1 1979
PN-172-79-02-21-013
SUBJECT-. Determination of Reductions Necessary to Attain
the Ozone Standard
JM: Richard G. Rhoads, Director
Control Programs Development Division
TO; Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
The promulgation of the new standard for ozone has modified a
number of the assumptions used in determining the necessary reductions
to achieve- the ozone standard. If States are revising their plans
for the .12 ppm standard, the analysis should be consistent with the
enclosed, revised guideline. This memorandum updates and supersedes my
memorandum of August 16, 1978, entitled, "Clarification of Attainment/
Nonattainment Evaluation Guidance." States submitting plans based on
the .08 ppm standard can use the assumptions in the August 16, 1978,
version.
Please distribute this to all appropriate State and local agencies
in your Region. If you have any questions regarding this memorandum,
please contact John Calcagni at FTS 629-5365.
Enclosure
cc: Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X
W. C. Barber
B. J. Steigerwald
Joe Paisie, Region v
o. 1320-6 (Rev. 3-76)
-------
DETERMINATION OF NECESSARY REDUCTION TO ATTAIN THE OZONE STANDARD
I. SELECTION OF DESIGN VALUE
Generally, the ozone design value should be developed in accordance
with the "Guideline for Interpretation of Ozone Air Quality Standards"
(EPA-450/4-79-003, OAQPS 1.2-108), January 1979. Several special cases
are addressed below:
A. In the case where a major hydrocarbon control program has been
initiated and has resulted in significant actual emission reductions in
the 1975-1977 time period. In this case, the latest maximum value can
be used. However, the burden of proof is on the State to demonstrate
that significant actual emission reductions have occurred due to the
implementation (not simply the adoption) of a control program and that
the air quality improvements are consistent with, and can be attributed
to, the emission reductions. Generally, the emission reduction should
be equal or greater than the air quality improvement. It is not appro-
priate* to use the latest year's data rather than the last three years if
there has not been a commensurate reduction in emissions. (For example,
e 10 percent difference in air quality levels cannot be attributed to a
3 percent reduction in actual emissions.)
B. In certain situations where transport influences the design
value to a point that the design value is not the worst case. This case
is described in greater detail in Item V.
C. In cases where less than three years of data exist. In that
cc.se, EPA will accept a design value based on the available years of
data.
D. In cases where the representativeness of the data set is
questionable. An input data set which is 75 percent complete for the
pa die ozone season should be considered representative for that year. In
ceses where the input data set is less than 50 percent complete during
the peak ozone season or, during the monitoring period in the case of a
special study, then the data should be considered inadequate. Care
should be used in evaluating data sets that fall between these two
limits to assure representativeness. Data determined to be unrepre-
sentative should be used only as a last resort when no other data exist
and should not be included in the routine statistical analysis with
other years. Care should be taken in the treatment of data to assure
that the number of valid data points (after adjusting for seasonal
monitoring) from each year do not vary by more than 20 percent. If they
do, the conditional probability technique discussed in Section 3.3(4),
page 26 of the guideline must be applied to guard against the excessive
weighting of any one year's data.
-------
Regardless of the technique applied, the chosen design value must
n^eet the quick test for design values test discussed in Section 3.4,
page 28 of the guideline. Unless adequately substantiated, the design
values not meeting this quick test will not be considered valid.
II. SELECTION OF A PRESENT TRANSPORT VALUE
The procedure set forth in the Workbook for Nonattainment Planning
based on an upwind monitor is by far the most desirable technique for
selection of a transport value. This procedure is to use upwind data
collected on the day- of the design value. The most desirable surface
data to use are data collected shortly after the breakup of the nocturnal
inversion. Review of the ambient data from prim'rily rural areas suggests
that the 10-n2 a.m. LST average value is appropriate. Alternatively, a
more precise fixed time of nocturnal inversion breakup can be determined
with the assistance of a meteorologist by reviewing specific local para-
meters such as time of sunrise, ambient air quality data, vertical
temperature profiles, and surface temperature.
In the absence of upwind air quality data, two less satisfactory
alternatives are available.
The first alternative is to assume that both future and present
transport are equal to background (.04ppm). This is most appropriate in
circumstances where the urbanized area is isolated and not likely to be
subject to significant transport from other urban areas, but acceptable
for any urban area where transport is not an obvious major influence.
In circumstances where transport obviously is a major factor, the
recommended alternative approach is to consider 03 data collected at
rural sites shortly after breakup of a nocturnal inversion (e.g.,
10-12 LST) on the highest CL day in the city under review. At least
five days should be considered. A range for the rural values is thus
determined. The median value of this range should be considered the
present transport value. This helps safeguard against the selection of
an unrepresentative value. For example, if rural data suggest transport
values ranging from .06-.10 ppm (.06, .07, .08, .09, 10'ppm), a present
transport value of .03 ppm would 'bs assumed.
For evaluations made for the .12 ppm ozone standard, the alter-
native of ignoring both present and future transport considerations is
no longer acceptable unless the net impact on control requirements is
relatively insignificant. Concurrent with the adoption of the new ozone
standard, 40 CFR 51.14(c) has been amended by the addition of paragraph
(8) which states: "In developing an ozone control strategy for a particular
area, background ozone and ozone transported into an area must be con-
sidered. States may assume that the standard will be attained in the
upwind area."
-------
III. SELECTION OF A FUTURE TRANSPORT VALUE
fTiie generally acceptable range for future transport is .12-.04 ppm
(somewhere between attainment of the standard by the upwind urban area
and background). Isolated urbanized areas (at a distance greater than
36 hours travel time of an air parcel) whose air quality levels are not
influenced by air masses which have passed over major urban areas,
should use .04 ppm. The selection of a value within this range will be
a subjective judgment on the part of the State with concurrence by the
Regional Office with the isolation of the city in question as the key
criterion.
However, the choice of a future transport value must be logically
consistent with the determination made for the present transport value.
It is inappropriate to assume a major contribution from transport
presently and very low transport levels in the future. Any reduction in
the future transport value from the present transport value must be
attributable to an anticipated control program in another upwind urban
area. Generally, assumptions for the future transport value should not
be less than 60 percent of the present transport value. The only
possible exception to this is 'in those few circumstances where present
transport is so large that a 40 percent reduction is insufficient to
reduce future transport to the ozone standard of .12 ppm. In these cases
the States may assume that the standard will be attained in the upwind
area. However, this situation will be quite unusual and should be
adequately documented.
IV. CHOICE OF AN ADDITIVITY FACTOR
A presumptive value of .45 (.5 to one significant figure) should be
assumed unless documentation can be presented supporting the use of a
different value.
Documentation supporting the use of another value could be based on
Guidance contdined in EPA-450/2-77-C21b or, better yet, through simu-
"I3tions with OZ1PP (a computerized, city specific version of EKI-'iA EPA-
600/3-78-014a) using locally applicable data. However, if the cap-
ability for running OZIPP exists, consideration of transport can be made
more satisfactorily using OZIPP than by using the additivity concept.
Because simulations to date suggest that edditivity may increase as
precursor concentrations decrease and/or as NMHC/NO ratios decrease, it
is inappropriate to assume an additivity value in fOture years less than
the currently assumed one.
V. CONSIDERATION OF A NUMBER OF HIGH DAYS
A consideration in establishing the baseline air quality is the
desire to identify and base the plan on the ambient conditions which
will result in attainment of the standard under all circumstances. In
-------
areas influenced significantly by transport, it may well be that the day
requiring the greatest percent reduction will differ from the statistically
predicted design value. For example, if the design value v/ere .24 ppm
and transport on that day were .16 ppm, local control requirements would
be less stringent than a design day of .20 ppm with a transport value of
.06 ppm.
If an urban area intends to demonstrate attainment by 1982, then it
will be necessary to review a sufficient number of the high ozone days
to ensure1that the proposed plan provides for a sufficient level of
control to ensure attainment. Note that this analysis will be only
necessary in cases where upwind data which are specific for each day are
.used in development of a transport value.
If an urban area is seeking an extension to 1987 based on an
evaluation of the design value determined in accordance with Section I,
the Region has the option to accept this demonstration. It will net be
necessary at this time to insist on the evaluation of a number of high
days to determine if the higher percent reduction is necessary since
the plan is subject to revision in 1982.
VI. APPROVAELE MODELING TECHNIQUES
Concurrent with the modification of the ozone standard, EPA
revised 40 CFR, Part 51, to rescind Appendix J and replace it with
four analytical techniques: (1) photochemical dispersion models,
(2) empirical kinetics modeling approach (EKMA), (3) empirical and
statistical models, and (4) proportional rollback. States must use one
of the four techniques to determine the amount of hydrocarbon 'reductions
necessary to demonstrate attainment of the national ozone standard.
VII. APPROPRIATE NMHC/NO RATIOS
s\
If no data exist, the default value cf 9.5:1 should be applied when
employing EKMA. If an area intends to develop a city specific value, the
guidance conv. inec -in F.PA-45C/2-77-021b op 3-21 through 3-24 should be
cure fully fo'i 'lov/eci. Th<.-re is 5 good deal of concern v;1tn the use of a
single day's Ni-'.sC data at a single site being used. This is especially
true if the NMHC values are less than 0.5 ppm C. Regions should carefully
review these data prior to accepting a city specific NMHC/NO , ratio
different than 9.5:1. Given the past lack of emphasis on monitoring of
NO and nonmethane hydrocarbons, careful attention should be paid to -he
representativeness of this data. In particular, Regions should carefully
evaluate siting and quality assurance procedures before accepting a
locally derived W.HC/NO ratio. It is especially important to review
high NO data used in tfie derivation of this ratio since acceptance of
the dstia may imply the possibility of N0? nonattainrn^nt or maintenance
problems.
For estimates of future conditions, unless it can be clearly
demonstrated to the contrary, or unless major reductions are necessary
-------
to attain standards, States should presume that the change in NO con-
centrations are not likely to be significant. Therefore, it wilt be
appropriate to assume a constant HO concentration (i.e., lower future
NMHC/NO ratio). x
A
VIII. SELECTION OF THE URBANIZED AREA
The urbanized area should generally conform to the boundaries
defined by the U.S.- Bureau of Census although States, with Regional
Office concurrence, do have a certain degree of flexibility in defining
the specific boundaries of the urban area. However, the areas must be
large enough to cover the entire urbanized area and adjacent fringe
areas of development. In situations where urbanized areas are contiguous
or in close proximity, States should be encouraged to consolidate the
urban areas for the purpose of attainment/nonattainment demonstration.
In no case should an urbanized area be divided into smaller subunits,
even if the urbanized area straddles more than one State.
-------
^°s"«
/.Cv*}/* UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
/ WASHINGTON D.C. 20460
JAN 16 1979
PN-172-79-01-K-012
OFFICE OF
AIR AND WASTE MANAGEMENT
SUBJECT: Continuity ofJjiP-^egul at ions—Revised Enclosure
<^r'* (/~~~s^ <^-
FROM: / Davi0=^
-------
REDRAFT OF LANGUAGE FOR 1.979 SIP PREAMBLES
The measures proposed/promulgated today would/will be additional
to, and not in lieu of, existing SIP regulations. The present emission
control regulations for any source would/will remain applicable and
enforceable to prevent a source from operating without controls, or under
less stringent controls, while it is moving toward compliance with the
new regulations (or, if it chooses, challenging the new regulations).
Failure of a source to meet applicable pre-existing regulations would/will
result in appropriate enforcement action, including assessment of noncom-
pliance penalties. Furthermore, if there is any instance of delay or
lapse in the applicability or enforceability of the new regulations, because
of a court order or for any other reason, the pre-existing regulations
would/will be applicable and enforceable.
The only exception to this rule is in cases where there is a conflict
between the requirements of the new regulations and the requirements of the
existing regulations such that it would be impossible for a source to
comply with the new regulations. In these situations, the State may
exempt a source from compliance with the pre-existing regulations.
Any exemption granted would/will be reviewed and acted on by EPA
either as part of these proposed/promulgated regulations or as future
SIP revisions.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DATE: o .,--70 PN-172-78-11-03-011
NDV 3 tS?8
SUBJECT: Categorical Compliance Schedule for VOC Sources
FROM: Walter C. Barber, Director
Air Quality Planning and Standards (MD-10)
TO: Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I, III-X
Director, Environmental Programs Division, Region II
We have received a number of requests to clarify what is expected
for VOC coir^-iance schedules. The guidance pubV.shed in the compilation
for the "Workshops on Requirements for Nonattainment Area Plans" states:
1. Each plan must contain legally enforceable compliance schedules
setting_forth dates by which all sources or categories of sources must
be in compliance with an applicable requirement of the plan. Each
compliance schedule must contain increments of progress as defined in
Section 51.1(q) except as provided in item number 3 below.
2. Compliance schedules as defined in Section 51.1(q) shall be
submitted with the plan and shall provide for final compliance as
expeditiously as practicable but in no case shall extend beyond the final
air quality attainment date of the plan.
•3. Each compliance schedule for six months or less in duration from
the date of its adoption must contain at least the following increments:
a. Date of initiation of a contract or activity which will
result in final compliance.
b. Date of final compliance with the emission limitation.
In order to better define what should be considered "as expeditious
as practicable" for a compliance schedule, OAQPS requested the Division
of Stationary Source Enforcement (DSSE) to investigate the time a typical
source would need to come into compliance. Their response is enclosed.
Please note that every source should be covered by a schedule,
either categorical or source specific. Categorical schedules should
reflect the minimum time necessary for a typical individual source in
a category to come into compliance, and generally should reflect the
consideration of the enclosed memo from DSSE. States which depend
heavily on categorical schedules are also encouraged to have procedures
to develop source specific schedules for sources which need them.
-------
On a case-by-case basis, individual source specific schedules may be
extended under the SIP beyond the categorical schedule time (but not
beyond the final air quality attainment date) only if one or more of
the following are satisfied.
1. The State demonstrates that it is physically impossible for the
operation in question to comply with the date in a categorical schedule.
2. That, by allowing additional time, innovative technology will
be applied and the reductions to be achieved will be significantly greater
than that from the CTG RACT value (this ultimate limitation must be
legally enforceable).
3. Additional time is necessary to allow for the development of
low solvent systems rather than apply add-on controls.
4. The operation in question is part of a Statewide or multistate
program to prioritize the sequence of installing controls at a number of
similar operations owned or controlled by the same company, and the
overall compliance program is as expeditious as practicable.
Please note that any present or future modification of a compliance
schedule must be included in the SIP (or revised into the SIP) since it
will impact the evaluation of reasonable further progress (RFP). In no
case should compliance with RFP be waived. Hence an alternate compliance
schedule can be approved but only if the RFP demonstration is maintained
through compensating reductions in other areas.
If you have any questions or comments on this memorandum, please
call John Calcagni (FTS) 629-5365.
Enclosure-
cc: Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X
D. Hawkins, OANR
E. Tuerk, OANR
-------
! UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
,_01^ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
SEP 18'1978
OFFICE CF ENFORCEMENT
MEMEORANDUM
SUBJECT: Categorical Compliance 'chedules for VOC
Sources
FROM: John Rasnic, Chief
Compliance Monitoring Branch
Division of Stationary
Source Enforcement (EN-341)
TO: John Calcagni, Staff Assistant
Control Programs Operations Branch
Control Programs Development Division (MD-15)
Earlier this month you asked DSSE to develop
categorical ("blanket") compliance schedules for
sources required to install RACT for VOC control.
Sources subject to these requirements must be in
compliance as expeditiously as practicable but no later
than December 31, 1982. In response to your request we
have developed schedules that, hopefully, will enable
most sources to be in compliance before this date yet
not be unduly burdensome in terms of time constraints.
The control technique guideline (CTG) series
issued by OAQPS lists 11 documents covering 16 VOC
emitting industrial operations. Our brief investigation
of these industries leads us to believe most of these
sources can achieve final compliance within either one
or two years by adhering to one of the following
categorical schedules:
-------
2.
Categorical Compliance Sche
Options
Required Increments Schedule No. 1 Sched
of Progress One-Year TV*
Schedule, Weeks Sched
1 Control Plan Submitted 12
2 Contract Award 18
3 Initial of Construction 28
4 Construction Completed 46
5 Final Compliance 52
The left hand column lists the increments of
progress as required by 40 CFR 51.15. The time
intervals are in weeks (Note: Due dates can be
conveniently designated as the 1st or 15th of a month).
This table was constructed after consulting
various literature sources and obtaining the opinions
of CTG authors or other qualified CMB-ESED personnel.
Since states must submit approvable regulations by
January 1979, the need for compliance schedules was
immediate. Therefore our proposed schedules have been
prepared in a short period of time and involve consider-
able guesswork. Also, many other factors may mitigate
the proposed time scales. Some of these factors are
on-site problems such as space limitations, inclement
weather, and lack of needed utilities; logistical
problems such as delays in equipment delivery caused by
special orders, backlog of orders, or unavailabi-
lity of large motors and/or fans; and design problems
caused by lack of engineering data for some applications.
To the limited extent possible, such factors were
considered in preparation of the schedules.
Before presenting the industry specific results of
our investigation I would like to mention some apparent
problems areas:
Low Solvent Technology (LST) - The adoption of low
solvent coatings as a principal means of reducing VOC
emissions is, in many cases, technology forcing. As a
result, more time may be required to install some low
solvent coating systems than would be required for
add-on control devices. For example, five years would
not be an unreasonable length of time to research.
-------
3.
develop and evaluate a low solvent coating for a
particular application. Time would also be required to,
install the system. Despite .this, low solvent coating
technology is advocated because of the inherent long-te
benefits to be derived from reducing the quantity of
volatile organic compounds used in surface coatings,
eliminating the need for abatement «quipment and
reducing concommittant energy requirements. For source:
developing innovative, superior technology a special
compliance schedule can be issued in accordance with
Section 113(d)(4) of the Clean Air Act as amended
August 1977; however, no explicit guidance is available
at this time. Please note that this long-term situatioi
is not to be confused with LST applications where the
low solvent coatings are already developed. Lead time
for applying existing technology should not exceed two
years.
Ultraviolet Curing - Conversion to ultraviolet
curable coatings has been successful on some can
coating formulations; however, many coatings are still
in the development stages or are undergoing tests for
the Food and Drug Administration. Presently, ultravio-
let curing technology is limited to thin semi-trans-
parent coating films, although they are being tested
for additional uses in the can coating industry. It
will be a number of years before acceptable ultraviolet
curable coatings are generally available. A categories
compliance schedule for ultraviolet curing is not
necessary or appropriate at this time.
Cutback Asphalt Paving and Degreasing Cold
Cleaners - The orginal compliance schedules developed
for these sources indicated that final compliance can
be achieved in less than six(6) months. However, the
hundreds of thousands of companies affected by the
anticipated regulations may not be able to comply that
quickly. Most of these operations are, by nature, smal.1
businesses with limited resources and may not be aware
of their regulatory obligations. In addition, manufac-
turers may not be able to produce sufficient quantities
of emulsion agents and cold cleaner covers in such a
short period of time. Therefore, we recommend the one
year schedule be applied.
-------
4.
Our specific recommendations for each VOC source
category are listed in Attachment 1. Generally speaking
sources installing add-on control devices or applying
low solvent technology are given two years to comply.
Sources subject to equipment, operating, and/or
maintenance standards have one year to comply.
Hopefully this discussion will help you develop
meaningful categorical compliance schedules that
state and local agencies may use as a guideline when
preparing the 1979 SIPs. Allow me to remind you that
§120(g) requires payment of noncompliance penalties for
sources violating emission limitations beyond mid-79.
Failure by States to include schedules as part of their
VOC regulations will generally subject the affected
sources to penalties. If you have any further questions
or wish to comment please contact Bob Marshall
(FTS-755-0103).
-------
Attachment 1
CTG Source Category
Recommended
Compliance Schedule
1) Surface Coating
Can
Coil
Low Solvent Technology (LST)
Add-On Controls (AOC) except
incineration - |2
Incineration (I) - #1
Ultraviolet Curing - Unknown
LST - #2
I - #1
- 12
Fabric
Vinyl
Pager
Auto & Truck
2) Metal Furniture Coating
3) Magnetic Wire Coating
^) Large Appliance Coating
5) Bulk Gasoline Terminal
Truck Loading
6) Bulk Gasoline Plants
7') Service Stations
8) Fixed-Roof Storage of
Petroleum Liquids
9} Petroleum Refining
10) Cutback Asphalt
11) Degreasing
LST
AOC
I
LST
AOC
I
LST
i
LST
AOC
I
#2
12
12
#1
#2
#2
fl
- #1
- #2
- #2
- #1
Internal Floating Roofs - #1
AOC - #2
Vacuum Systems and Process
Unit Turnarounds - #1
Waste Water Separators - #2
#1
-------
DATE:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1 NOV 19/8
:cT: Guidance on SIP Requirements Contained in Section 172(b)(9)(A)
PN-172-78-11-01-010
FROM: Walter C. Barber, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and standards
TO: Regional Administrator, Regions I-X
Enclosed is a copy of the final guidance on Section 172(b)(9)(A)
which was previously transmitted to your staff in draft form for review
and comment. We have received many helpful comments, most of which have
been incorporated in this final guidance.
Section 172(b)(9) provides for public, local governments and State
legislative involvement and consultation in developing implementation
plans for nonattainment areas. Subsection (A) requires an identification
and analysis of the air quality, health, welfare, economic, energy and
social effects of the selected plan provisions and of the alternatives
considered by the State. Subsection (B) requires a summary of public
comment on the above analysis.
The general requirements regarding the identification and analysis
are provided in Section 172(b)(9)(A) itself. However, the specific
elements of this provision have not been supplied. The purpose of this
guidance is to describe the scope of the requirements. The intent
throughout is to avoid the imposition of additional burdens and to
tailor the analysis to information already needed for developing an
adequate plan. Specific attention should be given to the identification
of differential impacts which vary from one alternative to another.
Wherever possible, the analysis should be prepared in laymen's language
and in a format suitable for public review.
The enclosed guidance has been developed so as to accomplish the
requirements of Section 172(b)(9) within the limited resources currently
available within the State and local programs. This analysis should
center on the significant impacts of the plan and the alternatives
considered.
Where impacts are severe and the implementation plans are especially
controversial, some Regional Offices may determine that more detailed
analysis is in order. For those Regions desiring further information,
please contact David Foster of the Policy Development Section at 629-5497.
Enclosure
cc: Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
D. Hawkins
R. Gamse
M. James
D. Wilson
EPA FORM 1320-6 (REV. 3-76)
-------
Guidance on SIP Requirements Contained in Section 172(b)(9)(A)
Section 172(b)(9) provides for public, local government, and State
legislative involvement and consultation in developing implementation
plans for nonattainment areas. Subsection (a) requires an identification
and analysis of the air quality, health, welfare, economic, social and
energy effects of the selected plan provisions and of the alternatives
considered by the State. Subsection (B) requires a summary of public
comment on the above analysis.
The general requirements regarding the identification and analysis
are provided in Section 172(b)(9)(A) itself. The purpose of this
guidance is to describe the scope of the requirements. The intent
throughout is to avoid the imposition of additional burdens and to
tailor the analysis to information already needed for developing an
adequate plan.
At a minimum, this must include an impact assessment or analysis
for each of the following six impact areas: air quality, health,
welfare, economic, social, and energy effects.
I. AIR QUALITY
Included here should be estimates of air quality in terms of the
annual and short-term standards for each pollutant under each alternative.
This information should be provided for the base year and the year of
attainment. The plan must provide for attainment at least by the
statutory deadline.
Also included under air quality effects should be a discussion of
any additional beneficial effects associated with the various plans
under consideration. For example, a transportation control plan
instituted to reduce emissions of hydrocarbons would have the additional
effect of reducing carbon monoxide and possibly particulate emissions
as well.
II. HEALTH
The presentation of health information should address general health
effects and population exposure. This would include a generalized
description of the types of health effects which have been associated
with the pollutant for which the plan was prepared/ This is not intended
to be a specific statement about health effects on the area in question.
Population exposure estimates can be presented as a narrative
description outlining the relative difference in exposure levels and
numbers of people exposed associated with the alternative strategies
considered.
Estimates for the alternatives need not employ the detail and same level
of precision required in making the final selection.
p
This information can be taken from the criteria documents.
-------
III. WELFARE
Presentation of welfare data would be similar to, but less detailed
than, that for health data. It should first contain a qualitative
statement regarding the detrimental impacts on material, crops and
livestock associated with each pollutant, as well as the aesthetic
impacts. The second part should characterize the differential exposure
under alternative plans. Where the secondary standard is to be attained
after the primary standard, the estimated date of secondary standard
attainment should be listed along with the associated strategy.
IV. ECONOMIC EFFECTS
The minimum requirements for identification and analysis of economic
effects should include estimates for control and administration costs.
These estimates should be provided for the plan to be submitted, as well
as for each considered alternative plan, and they-should be specified
by industry and government category (where applicable). Where possible,
the percentage price increases under the assumption of full cost pass
through should be estimated where the price increases are significant
(i.e., >5%).
Given the time and resource constraints facing the States, cost
estimates developed on a plant specific basis may well be the exception
rather than the rule. Many States may elect to use model plants as a
basis for cost estimates. Typical control costs for certain source
categories may be used where specific cost information is not available.
Regardless of which cost estimating technique or combination of
techniques is used, there should be an indication of the extent of the
analysis (i.e., all sources versus 95% of the affected sources
included in the analysis). Where a substantial portion of the affected
sources are not covered, a justification should be provided regarding
the limited coverage.
A. Control and Administration Costs
4
Control costs include the incremental investment and annualized
costs incurred by a source to comply with the regulations under the
alternative plans. The control costs are incremental in the sense that
This information can be taken from the criteria documents.
4
"Investment costs" include one time, non-recurring costs such as the
design, fabrication, and installation of air pollution control systems.
5
"Annualized cost" is comprised of three categories: the direct operating
cost, the indirect costs (including annualized capital charges), and
(where applicable) the recovery credit. The first accounts for operation
and maintenance costs, such as: (1) labor and materials needed to
operate and maintain the control equipment; and (2) utilities, which
include electric power, process water, and cooling water; water treatment
(herein, applicable to the electrostatic precipitator and venturi scrubber
systems).
-------
they are in addition to current control conditions. For example, if an
emission source is currently controlling 90% of its emissions and an
alternative plan regulation requires 90% control of the same emissions,
there would be no incremental costs. However, if the requirement was
95% control, there would be incremental costs associated with the addi-
tional 5% control.
The indirect costs include administrative overhead, property taxes,
insurance, and the annualized capital charges for depreciation and
interest. The depreciation and interest portion is computed by use of a
capital recovery factor, the value of which depends on the device
operating life (e.g., 10 years for the electrostatic precipitators and
venturi scrubbers; 15 years for the fabric filters) and the interest
rate (e.g., annual interest rate of 10 percent). Administrative overhead,
taxes, and insurance are usually a fixed percent of the installed capital
cost per year (e.g., 4 percent).
The product recovery credit accounts for the value of the material
recovered by the control equipment. The annualized cost is then obtained
simply by adding the direct operating cost to the indirect costs
and subtracting any recovery credit from the sum.
Alternative plans could also impose different incremental costs on
State and local agencies charged with administering the plan to attain the
national ambient air quality standards. The incremental costs could take
the form of more data gathering, enforcement, monitoring, laboratory,
support, and management activities. Experience with administering the
present implementation plan may be the best basis for estimating the
incremental costs of administering a revised plan.
The control and administration costs should be summarized to show
the totals for each alternative plan.
B. Potential Price Increases
A potential price increase is the quotient of incremental annualized
cost divided by annual revenue. Annualized cost is the sum of control
and administration costs referred to earlier. Annual revenue is "product"
price times the quantity sold each year. Price information can be
obtained from industry trade journals and several Department of Commerce
publications. The quantity sold each year can be estimated from the
capacity and hours of operation data specified in the source's emissions
inventory. Differences in source characteristics or control requirements
may result in different potential price increases within an emission
source category.
A bibliography of pertinent published cost references is included
in the appendix.
-------
V. SOCIAL EFFECTS
Effects on establishments, employment, and living conditions are
classified in this guidance as social effects. One could argue that
establishment and employment effects are really economic effects, and
that living condition effects are best classified as health or welfare
effects. However, Section 172(b)(9)(A) does not identify social effects
as subsets of economic, health, or welfare effects. Consequently,
social effects are treated separately in this guidance.
Given the resource constraints of the States and the difficulties
in estimating social effects, this portion of the identification and
analysis may not be very precise. This is not to say social effects
should be ignored. However, the analysis may be presented as descrip-
tions of general tendencies as opposed to specific point estimates.
Where these changes seem significant, a brief narrative description
should be provided outlining the magnitude and type of existing estab-
lishments affected, employment gains and losses (where known), and a
general statement of impacts on living conditions, such a transportation
service.
VI. Energy Effects
In most cases, the potential energy impacts will be factored into
the control costs for an individual source. However, some strategies,
for example, those involving S0?, may have significant impacts on
projected energy supplies. These impacts include any major increase
in aggregate energy demand or major shift in demand by fuel type. The
primary focus here is on the identification of any potential for major
disruption or conflict with the national energy policy. Where signifi-
cant energy impacts are identified for control of a given pollutant,
impact information should be provided for the year of full compliance
and where possible expressed in a common unit for each major source
category.
Coordination with the State energy plan is also encouraged, and any
projected energy savings should be noted in support of the proposed
implementation plan.
The national energy policy encourages the use of coal, seeks to assure
availability of natural gas, and favors a decrease in oil imports.
-------
Appendix
1. Control Techniques Documents for:
a. Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen Oxide, and Hydrocarbon Emissions
from Mobile Sources: AP-66
b. Carbon Monoxide Emissions from Stationary Sources: AP-69
c. Volatile Organic Emissions from Stationary Sources: EPA-
450/2-78-022
d. Nitrogen Oxide Emissions from Stationary Sources: AP-67
e. Particulate Air Pollutants: AP-51
f. Sulfur Oxide Air Pollutants: AP-52
2. Control Techniques Guideline Documents for Volatile Organic Emissions
from Existing Stationary Sources: Several Volumes published in 1976,
1977, and 1978.
3. Standards Support and Environmental Impact Statements for Various
New Source Performance Standards
4. Industrial Gas Cleaning Institute, Inc., Air Pollution Control
Technology and Cost Studies: EPA-450/3-73-010 and EPA-450/3-74-060
5. GARD, Inc., Capital and Operating Costs of Selected Air Pollution
Control Systems: EPA-450/3-76-014
6. Air Quality Impact of Transit Improvements, Preferential Lane, and
Carpool/Vanpool Programs: EPA-450/2-78-992a
7. Volume 2 (Plan Preparation) of Guidelines for Air Quality Maintenance
Planning and Analysis, Appendices B & C (EPA-450/4-74-002), July, 1974
8. Development of a Trial Air Quality Maintenance Plan Using the Baltimore
Air Quality Control Region, Chapters VII and VIII (EPA-450/3-74-050).
September, 1974
9. Air Quality Analysis Workshop: Volume I - Manual, Chapter 9 (EPA-
450/3-75-080-a), November, 1975
-------
ocr 2 &
PN-172-78-10-26-009
Ozone Transport Values for SIP Revisions
Walter C. Barber, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I, III-X
Director, Environmental Programs Division, Region II
Techniques for selecting transport values have been discussed in
past guidance. This memorandum is to further reinforce Agency policy
concerning the use of background and present/future transport values
in the development of ozone control strategies employing the linear
rollback or EKMA method.
When developing an ozone control strategy, consistent assumptions
must be employed. A control strategy cannot assume that a significant
portion of the present ozone problem is due to ozone transported into
the control region and at the same time assume that future transport
will be at the commonly accepted natural background level of 0.04 ppm.
For example, a control strategy for an urbanized area with a ozone
design value of 0.19 ppm should not assume ozone presently transported
in at a level of 0.13 ppm, while at the same time assuming that future
ozone transport measurements will drop to the 0.04 ppm background
level. High present transport is indicative of the influence of
significant upwind sources which one can assume will be controlled to
attain the standard. However, if the influence of these upwind emis-
sions is as significant now as in the example, they will continue to
be an important influence in the future. Accordingly, a future
transport number at the natural background levels is not acceptable.
Regional Offices should pay careful attention to the present and
future transport values in all linear rollback and EKMA evaluations
made for ozone control strategies. Strategies which assume that
transported ozone is a significant portion of the present problem and
accordingly employ high present transport values, but then assume
future transport to be at natural background, are not approvable.
August 16, 1978, memo from Richard G. Rhoads to Regional Air and
Hazardous Materials Division Directors, "Clarification of Attainment/
Nonattainment Evaluation Guidance."
-------
UhUTED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
TE: OCT 6 1Q70 Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
0 M'S 3 PN-172-73-10-06-008
SUBJECT: comments on Auto Industry Proposals
FROM: Richard G. Rhoads, Director
Control Programs Development Division
T0: Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I, III-X
Director, Environmental Programs Division, Region II
A number of States and Regional Offices have requested OAQPS comments
on auto industry proposals which differ from limits in the Control Technology
Guidelines (CTG). Rather than review each proposal individually, we have
aggregated the key issues raised in each and addressed it in the enclosed
memorandum. This memorandum should be considered a supplement to the CTG
and a clarification of EPA policy for the review of State SIP submittals.
Any questions or comments on this memorandum should be directed to
John Calcagni at FTS 629-5365.
Enclosure
EPA FORM 1320-6 (REV. 3-76)
-------
AUTOMOTIVE AND LIGHT TRUCK ASSEMBLY COATING OPERATIONS
A number of States have received suggestions and proposed standards
for the control of auto and light truck assembly operations. The principle
issues raised by these comments related to:
RACT for prime application
RACT for topcoat application
Averaging times for the emission limits
Case-by-case review
Compliance schedules
Our findings and guidance on these issues are as follows:
PRIME APPLICATION OPERATIONS
The prime coat serves the dual function of protecting the surface
from corrosion and providing for good adhesion of the topcoat. A combi-
nation of manual and automatic spray methods, with or without the use of
electrostatic techniques, is usually used to apply organic solvent-borne
primer.
Primers may also be applied by dipping techniques. The Chrysler
Corporation, for example, used water-borne dip primers for underbodies
at some of its plants. Because the dip-coated primer is not smooth, the
coating must be sanded or else be used only on areas where appearance
is not important.
Of most interest from a pollution control standpoint is a relatively
new priming process, electrophoretic (electrodeposited) water-borne dip.
The object to be coated is immersed in a water-borne coating and an
-------
electric potential is induced between the vehicle and the coating bath.
By correctly setting the electrical potential and the time of the bath,
the coating thickness can be controlled as desired. Corrosion protection
is excellent because coverage is more complete than can ever be obtained
by spray priming alone. The electrophoretic dip pncess is used at over
40 percent of U.S. assembly plants and is very widely used in Europe.
Because of the uniformity of the electrodeposited coating, it does
not "mask" imperfections in the substrate and additional primer must be
sprayed on those areas for subsequent sanding. This additional primer,
called "surfacer" or "guidecoat," is available as either a water-borne or
organic solvent-borne coating.
The EPA recommendation of 1.9 Ib/gal (less water) was based on a
weighted average of the two essential components in this system: .8 Ib/gal
coating used in the anodic electrodeposition (EDP) process then in use and
a 2.8 Ib/gal (less water) coating for the surfacing operation.
The industry comments on the prime application operations have
questioned the availability of cathodic EDP coatings at the same solvent
content as anodic EDP. Cathodic EDP is a new development in EDP coating
and is considered to be a superior technology because it markedly improves
the corrosion resistance. Our investigation on this matter concluded:
Anodic EDP coatings are available at .8 Ib/gal (less water).
Presently used anodic EDP coatings are 1.2 Ib/gal (less water).
Presently used cathodic EDP coatings are between 1.8 and
2.1 Ib/gal (less water).
-------
Coating manufacturers have committed to providing cathodic El
coatings at 1.2 Ib/gal (less water).
In terms of emissions/year, a typical EDP line (coating 40 i
mediate size vehicles per hour) using a .8 Ib/gal (less water) coa
consumes 15 tons/year while a 1.2 Ib/gal (less water) coating cons1
26 tons/year and a 2.1 Ib/gal (less water) coating consumes 54 ton:
Test results have shown approximately two-thirds of this solvent c<
tion from an EDP process is removed from the system by the waste we
stream reducing the emissions from the oven and dip tank to a thirc
these values. Accordingly, State regulations should require EDP bu
less stringent limits than 0.8 Ib/gal. Based on the available data
believe a regulation which calls for EDP at 1.2 Ib/gal (less water)
prime application would allow the use of either cathodic or anodic
even though cathodic EDP coatings at less than 1.8 Ib/gal (less watt
are not commercially available today.
For surfacing operations, the EPA recommended limit of 2.8 lb/<
equivalent to a 62 percent solids coating, is based on a conventions
applisd water-borne coating which was in use in two plants in this c
We anticipate that conversion to a water-borne surface will be the p
compliance technique for approximately 50 percent of the industry.
In evaluating equivalence to the CTG, it is important to consid
transfer efficiency. Electrostatically sprayed coatings offer a mar
advantage over conventional spray coatings in that the overspray (or
material) is reduced from about 50 percent to 30 percent. Unfortunal
water-borne coatings are not presently applied electrostatically in 1
automotive industry because of some safety problems. Considering the
higher transfer efficiency, a 55 percent solids organic-borne surface
-------
applied electrostatically can be considered equivalent to the EPA-
recommended limit of 2.8 Ib/gal. Although a 55 percent solids prime
coat is not presently available, if it can be developed, it would be 1
preferred option for a significant fraction of the industry. It shou
also be noted that a shortfall from the 55 percent solids coating pro!
can be made up through the addition of add-on controls such as incine
of the prime oven emission, or carbon adsorption on the spray booth a
flash off areas.
TOPCOAT APPLICATION OPERATIONS
The area receiving the most comment has been the appropriate cor
levels for topcoat application. The EPA-recommended limit of 2.8 lb,
was based on a conventionally sprayed water-borne enamel coating pre:
being applied at two automotive assembly plants in California. Cons
there can be no argument as to the technical feasibility of achievin
2.8 Ib/gal.
At many of its1 plants, General Motors uses lacquers for the top
Lacquers have an extremely high solvent content (- 88 volume percenl
American, and Chrysler use topcoat enamels with 65 to 78 percent so'
by volume. Volkswagen expects to use topcoats with only 30 volume >
solvent equivalent by 1981.
A number of major process modifications are necessary, however
retrofit water-borne coating technology to an existing plant. This
the lengthening or addition of new ovens and flash tunnels, humidit
temperature controls in the spray booths, increased sludge handlinc
bilities, provisions for additional power, and use of more corrosic
resistant materials in the piping and spray booth construction. Tl
-------
of this retrofitting will vary and one major variable will be the age of
the existing coating equipment. If near retirement, it may be better to
build entirely new spray booths and ovens. This was done at one of two
automobile plants which converted to water-borne coatings. If the coatim
equipment is still relatively modern, however, retrofitting will entail
lengthening of ovens and modification of spray booths and conveyors.
This was the approach taken at the other automobile plant using water-
borne topcoats. While costs will vary from plant-to-plant, capital costs
for a retrofit to water-borne topcoats for the "model plant" were estimate
by EPA to be about $20 million (1975 dollars). For a plant where the
entire coating line is replaced, capital costs can be about twice this.
Incremental operating costs include increased electrical requirements
and maintenance labor. Coating material costs are approximately the same.
Higher oven temperature causes an increase in natural gas usage.
Actual conversion to water-borne coatings may not be the only way to
achieve the emission levels represented by 2.8 Ib/gal. For example, emis-
sions from electrostatic application of an organic-borne topcoat of
55 percent solids (with a transfer efficiency of 70 percent) is equivalent
to conventionally sprayed water-borne coating with 2.8 Ib/gal (less water)
of solvent. Electrostatic application of a 50 percent solids coating
(with a 70 percent transfer efficiency) would require an additional
16 percent reduction of the organic solvent through add-on controls in
order for it to emit no more than the water-borne. These reductions may b
achieved through incineration of oven emissions and/or carbon adsorption
of a portion of the spray booth emissions.
-------
It should be noted that while carbon adsorption of the spray booth
emissions is technically feasible, no full-scale installations are presently
in operation in automobile plants although the two major manufacturers
both have large scale pilot studies underway. If a coating with a
reasonably ^gh solids content (50-55 percent) becomes commercially
practicable for the automobile topcoat, the costs for add-on controls to
provide incremental reductions would be significantly less than the cost
of converting to an all water-borne operation. Naturally, if future
organic-borne enamel coatings fall shori of 50 percent solids, a greater
reliance on add-on control would be necessary. For example, a 45 percent
solids coating with a 70 percent transfer efficiency would require a
31 percent reduction from add-on controls,
AVERAGING TIMES
The 2.8 Ib/gal (less water) limit chosen represents a typical color
being used. Some of the light metallic colors require greater solvent
content (as high as 3.1 Ib/gal). If the 2.8 Ib/gal (less water) value is
interpreted as a maximum not to be exceeded, this would likely constrain
the availability of certain colors. Suggestions have been made by the
automotive industry that this should be an average. If a State regula-
tion expresses this limit as a daily weighted average or arithmetic
average of the colors in use (so long as the limit is unambiguously expressed
and legally enforceable), OAQPS would not regard that as being perceptibly
different than the recommended limit.
-------
CASE-BY-CASE REVIEW
Arbitrary variation from the recommended limits is not appropriate.
However, the recommended limits are presumptive norms for the category ii
question, not absolutes for each individual plant. If facility specific
problems unique to a given plant are identified, these should be conside:
on a case-by-case basis. In any circumstance where the State requiremen'
vary from the recommended limit, the SIP must provide adequate technical
information to support the modification. Individual source specific
regulations or variances are appropriate if:
1. The recommended limit is inappropriate for an individual
source because of specific circumstances unique to the particular
facility;
2. The proposed level of control is the maximum reasonably attain-
able by the operation in question. Specific consideration should be giv
to the feasibility of development of technology to comply with a value
at or near the recommended value; and
3. The reasonable further progress demonstration is not violated.
It should be noted that any change made after the initial submittal
will have to be a SIP revision and that the revision must provide a
means to account for the increased emissions in the SIP. This could be
through such measures as offsets by the sources, plans for additional
reductions to be obtained by the State beyond what the SIP called for, c
a reduction in the growth increment. In brief, the plan must continue
to demonstrate a program for attainment.
-------
COMPLIANCE SCHEDULES
Where source specific schedules cannot be proposed, OAQPS recommends
that the SIP contain categorical compliance dates for each source category.
A categorical schedule for any CT6 categories rust have increments of
progress which are as expeditious as practicable. This schedule should
reflect the minimum reasonable time necessary for a typical individual
source to install controls. However, that is not to say that all sources
must comply by that date. Individual extensions beyond this date, but
not later than the attainment date, may be acceptable on a case-by-case
basis if:
1. The State demonstrates that it is physically impossible for the
operation in question to comply with the date.
2. That, by allowing additional time, innovative technology will
be applied and the reductions to be achieved will be significantly
greater than that from the CTG RACT value (this ultimate limitation
must be legally enforceable).
3. Additional time is necessary to allow for the development of
low solvent systems rather than apply add-on controls.
4. The operation in question is part of a Statewide or multi-state
program to prioritize the sequence of installing controls at a number of
similar operations and that the overall compliance program has been
approved as being expeditious as practicable.
-------
Note that any modification of the compliance schedule beyond
December 31, 1982, will need to be a SIP revision and will impact the
evaluation of reasonable further progress (RFP). In no case should
compliance with RFP be waived. Hence, an alternate schedule beyond
1982 can be approved only if the RFP program is modified to reflect
the delays.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
jfj 1 2EP 1878 PN- 172- 78 -10 -11 -00 7
" WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
AIR AND WASTE MANAGEMENT
SUBJECT: Continuity of SIP Regulations
FROM: David G. Hawkins, Assistant Administrator
for Air, Noise, and Radiation
MEMO TO: Regional Administrator, Regions I - X
Pursuant to Sections.107 and 172 of the Clean Air Act, many States
have had areas designated as nonattainment and will be required to
submit revisions to their State Implementation Plans to provide for
attainment. While many of these regulations will bring previously
uncontrolled sources under the purview of control regulations, there
will also be a significant degree of regulation tightening. This sub-
mittal of more stringent regulations probably will result in judicial
challenges to the new regulations and requests for temporary relief, in
the form of variances or delayed compliance orders, from the more oneroi
regulatory provisions. In these situations, it is imperative that
the plan retain an enforceable regulation in order to minimize any
further deterioration of air quality in nonattainment areas. In order
to ensure that this deterioration does not occur, it is essential to
inform affected States of the procedures to be followed in submitting
and approving plan revisions.
In approving a SIP revision, EPA will provide that the emission
limitation contained in the existing regulations remain in effect.
Mew requirements imposed by the plan revision will normally be treated
as being in addition to, rather than in lieu of, those imposed by
existing regulations. For example, if the new regulations are judi-
cially challenged, or if the source is granted a delayed compliance
order or variance which exempts it-temporarily from the provisions of
the new regulations, it must comply with the pre-existing regulations.
Failure to meet these pre-existing standards ..will, subject .the. source
to appropriate enforcement actions, including the "imposition of'non-
compliance penalties under Section 120 of the Act.
EPA's policy should be set forth in the FEDERAL REGISTER notices
proposing to approve, and approving, SIP revisions. Also, the States
should be informed of this policy immediately. EPA will disapprove
any SIP revision to the extent it is inconsistent with this approach.
-------
The one major exception to this rule would be when the new regulations
are "inconsistent" with those currently in effect. In this situation,
the State may exempt the source from the requirements of the pre-existing
regulations, provided the source demonstrates that it cannot physically
meet the new regulations and continue to comply with the existing require-
ments. If the State expects to grant such exemptions, it must establish
an appropriate exemption review mechanism in its nonattainment plan.
Exemptions approved by the State must be submitted to EPA as SIP revisions
to ensure that every exemption will be drawn as narrowly as possible.
EPA will review these exemption requests strictly. An exemption request
may be granted only when the construction or installation of the new
equipment can no longer proceed while existing controls remain in operation.
No request may be granted, however, if to do so would interfere with the
demonstration of reasonable further progress required by the Act.
Enclosed is suggested wording for EPA's FEDERAL REGISTER notices
proposing to approve, and approving, State Implementation Plan revisions.
cc: M. Burning
J. Bernstein
Enclosure
-------
ENCLOSURE
This proposal/final action would/will replace measures in the
current SIP with the new measures submitted by the State to EPA for
approval. Under this proposal/action, the current emission control
regulations applicable to any source would/will remain in effect
until such time as the newly revised regulation becomes effective and
the source achieves full compliance with its provisions. This provision
applies to all revised SIP regulations, not merely those that are
subjected to judicial challenge. Failure of the source to satisfy
the requirements of the former regulation would/will result in appro-
priate enforcement actions.
-------
UNITEDtSTATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
i 4 AUG 19/8
:
: Clarification of EPA Policy on Emissions of Methyl Chloroform
PN-172-78-08-24-006
FROM: Walter C. Barber, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (MD-10)
T0: Regional Administrator, Regions I-X
The purpose of this memo is to clarify EPA's position with regard
to State and Federal regulation of emissions of methyl chloroform
(1,1,1, trichloroethane). On July 8, 1977, EPA published the present
"Recommended Policy on Control of Volatile Organic Compounds"
(42 FR 35314). This policy exempts methyl chloroform from inventory
requirements and regulations to meet the national ambient air quality
standard for photochemical oxidants. However, the policy indicated
that methyl chloroform had been implicated as having deleterious effects
on stratospheric ozone and therefore may be subject to future controls.
Nevertheless, the policy seems to be encouraging a shift to the
uncontrolled use of methyl chloroform in place of trichloroethylene and
other regulated solvents in metal degreasing operations.
We have been advised by the Office of Toxic Substances that methyl
chloroform should be considered potentially harmful to the ozone layer
and that they are performing the necessary evaluations and assessments
prior to pursuing further regulatory initiatives. Hence, its use in an
uncontrolled fashion should not be encouraged. Accordingly, OAQPS has
begun the necessary actions to propose removal of methyl chloroform from
the list of exempt volatile organic compounds (VOC). However, we do not
expect this action to be completed before the State Implementation Plans
for photochemical oxidants are to be submitted. In addition, I have
directed that the new source performance standards to be proposed for
solvent metal cleaning operations, as well as any other solvent uses,
require positive control of all VOC emissions including methyl chloroform.
I recognize that many States are well along in the preparation of
their regulatory packages and inventories. In order not to change the
existing guidance at this late date, I am requesting that you advise
your State directors that, although we will not disapprove a State
oxidant SIP submittal which exempts methyl chloroform from control, we
are very concerned with the environmental risks associated with wide
scale substitution to methyl chloroform; and that the uncontrolled use
of methyl chloroform es an approved means for compliance should be avoided
wherever possible.
cc: Director, Air & Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I, III-X
Director, Environmental Programs Division, Regions II
Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X
Steven D. Jellinek, Office of Toxic Substances
Warren Muir, Office of Toxic Substances
EPA Font. 1320-4 (Rev. 3-76)
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
. -JQ^ Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
•E *UG lo i Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 PN-172-78-08-16-005
SUBJECT- Clarification of Attainment/Nonattainment
Evaluation Guidance
FROM. Richard G. Rhoads, Director
Control Programs Development Division (MD-15)
TO Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I, III-X
Director, Environmental Programs Division, Region II
Enclosed is a clarification of the approved -procedure for the
determination of the necessary reduction to achieve the oxidant standard.
This memorandum is the result of a work group recommendation as revised
at the last branch chief's meeting at the Southern Pines workshop.
Please distribute this to'all appropriate State and local agencies in
your Region.
If you have any questions regarding this memorandum, please contact
John Calcagni at (FTS) 629-5365.
Enclosure
cc: T. Devine, Region I
W. Baker, Region II
H. Heim, Region III
G. Glahn, Region IV
W. Pearson, Region V
J. Divita, Region VI
A. Sprat!in, Region VII
R. DeSpain, Region VIII
W. Blackard, Region IX
C. Gauiding, Region X
T. Helms
D. Tyler
E. Lillis
. 3-7b
-------
CLARIFICATION OF ATTAIHMENT/NONATTAINMENT
EVALUATION GUIDANCE
I. SELECTION OF DESIGN VALUE
The present guidance regarding selection of an oxidant design value
generally is appropriate. EPA will expect the design value to be the
highest of the three second high values obtained during the last 3 years
(1975, 76, and 77). The only variations from this will be:
A. In the case where a major hydrocarbon control program has been
initiated and has resulted in significant actual emission reductions in
the 1975-1977 time period. In this case, the latest second high value
can be used. However, the burden of proof is on the State to demonstrate
that significant actual emission reductions have occurred due to the
implementation (not simply the adoption) of a control program and that
the air quality improvements are consistent with, and can be attributed
to, the emission reductions. Generally, the emission reduction should
be equal or greater than the air quality improvement. It is not appro-
priate to use the latest second high rather than the highest second high
of the last 3 years if there has not been a commensurate reduction in
emissions. (For example, a 10 percent difference in air quality levels
cannot be attributed to a 3 percent reduction in actual emissions.)
B. In certain situations where transport influences the design
value to a point that the highest second high value is not the worst
case. This case is described in greater detail in Item V.
C. In cases where less than 3 years of data exist. In that
case, EPA will accept the highest second high of the available years of
data.
II. SELECTION OF A PRESENT TRANSPORT VALUE
The procedure set forth in guidelines based on an upwind monitor
is by far the most desirable technique for selection of a transport
value. This procedure is to use upwind data collected on the day of
the design value. The most desirable surface data to use are data
-------
collected shortly after the breakup of the nocturnal inversion. Review
of ambient data from primarily rural areas suggests that the 10-12 a.m.
LSI average value" is appropriate. Alternatively, a more precise fixed
time of nocturnal inversion breakup can be dstermined with the assistance
of a meteorologist by reviewing specific local parameters such as time
of sunrise, ambient air quality data, vertical temperature profiles, and
surface tenr--/attire.
In the absence of upwind air quality data, several less satisfactory
alternatives are available.
One alternative is to assume that both future and present transport
are equal to background. This is most appropriate in circumstances
where the urbanized area is isolated and not likely to be subject to
significant transport from other urban areas.
In circumstances where transport obviously is a major factor, the
recommended alternative approach is to consider 0~ data collected at
rural sites shortly after breakup of a nocturnal inversion (e.g., 10-12 LSI)
on the highest 0-, days in the city under review. At least 5 days should
be considered. A range for the rural values is thus determined. The
median value of this range should be considered the present transport
value. This helps safeguard against the selection of an unrepresenta-
tive value. For example, if rural data suggest transport values ranging
from .06-.10 ppm (.06, .06, .08, .09, .10 ppm), a present transport
value of .08 ppni would be assumed.
The third alternative is to ignore both present and future transport
considerations. Providing the design value is twice the standard or
greater, calculations obtained ignoring the effects of present and future
transport will yield results similar to the previously described pre-
ferred approach.
III. SELECTION OF A FUTURE TRANSPORT VALUE
The generally acceptable range for future transport is .08-.04 ppm
(attainment of the standard by the upwind urban area). Isolated
-------
urbanized areas (at a distance greater than 36 hours travel time of an
air parcel) whose air quality levels are'not influenced by air masses which
have passed over major urban areas, can use .04 ppm. The selection of
a value within this range will be a subjective judgment on the part of
the State with concurrence by the Regional Office with the isolation of
the city in question as the key criterion.
IV. CHOICE OF AN ADDITIVITY FACTOR
A presumptive value of .45 (.5 to one significant figure) should
be assumed unless documentation can be presented supporting the use of
a different value.
Documentation supporting the use of another value could be based
on guidance contained in £PA-450/2-77-021b or, better yet, through
simulations with OZIPP (a computerized, city specific version of EKMA)
using locally applicable data. However, if the capability for running
OZIPP exists, consideration of transport can be made more satisfactorily
using OZIPP than by using the additivity concept.
Because simulations to date suggest that additivity may increase
as precursor concentrations decrease and/or as NMHC/NO ratios decrease,
A
it is inappropriate to assume an additivity value in future years less
than the currently assumed one.
V. CONSIDERATION OF OTHER DAYS IN ADDITION TO THE DAY WITH THE HIGHEST
SECOND HIGH
A consideration in establishing the baseline air quality is the
desire to identify and base the plan on the ambient conditions which
will result in attainment of the standard under all circumstances. In
areas influenced significantly by transport, it may well be that the
day requiring the greatest percent reduction will differ from the day
with the second high value. For example, if the highest second high
value were .24 pp:n and transport on that day were .16 ppm, this would
be less stringent than a design day of .20 ppm with a transport value
of .06 ppm.
-------
If an urban area intends to demonstrate attainment by 1982, then
it will be necessary to review a sufficient number of the high ozone
days to ensure that the proposed plan provides for a sufficient level
of control to ensure attainment. Note that this analysis will only be
necessary in cases where upwind data which are specific for each day
are used in development of a transport value.
If an urban area is seeking an extension t) 1987 based on an
evaluation of the highest second high value obtained over the last
three years, the Region has the option to accept this demonstration. It
will not be necessary at this time to insist on the evaluation of a number
of high days to determine if the higher percent reduction is necessary
since the plan is subject to revision in 1982.
VI. APPROVABILITY OF THE USE OF APPENDIX J
Present guidance permits the use of Appendix J. However, there
has been much adverse comment in the technical community regarding its
adequacy; and its limitations are well known. Therefore, States should
be discouraged from using Appendix J because it is not the best technique
available. States should also be advised that EPA has proposed to rescind
Appendix J in its proposed revision to the NAAQS for ozone. Regional
Offices should not use Appendix J in any calculations made for any
urbanized area since it will not be considered appropriate after the
standard is revised.
VII. APPROPRIATE NMHC/NO RATIOS
A
If no data exist, the default value of 9.5:1 should be applied when
employing EKMA. If an area intends to develop a city specific value,
the guidance contained in EPA-450/2-77-02b pp 3-21 through 3-24 should
be carefully followed. There is a good deal of concern with the use of
a single day's NMHC data at a single site being used. This is especially
true if the NMHC values are less than 0.5 ppm C. Regions should carefully
review these data prior to accepting a city specific NMHC/NO ratio
J\
different than 9.5:1.
-------
For estimates of future conditions, unless it can be clearly
demonstrated to the contrary, States should presume that the change in
NO concentrations are not likely to be significant. Therefore, it will
A
be appropriate to assume a constant NO concentration (i.e., lower future
A
MMHC/NO, ratio).
X
VIII. SELECTION OF THE URBANIZED AREA
The urbanized area should generally conform to the boundaries
defined by the U.S. Bureau of Census although States, with Regional
Office concurrence, do have a certain degree of flexibility in defining
the specific boundaries of the urban area. Hovjever, the areas must be
large enough to cover the entire urbanized area and adjacent fringe
areas of development. In situations where urbanized areas are contiguous
or in close proximity, States should be encouraged to consolidate the
urban areas for the purpose of the attainment/nonattainment demonstration.
In no case should an urbanized area be divided into smaller subunits,
even if the urbanized area straddles more than one State.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
PN-172-78-08-04-004
OFFICE OF
AIR AND WASTE MANAGEMENT
SUBJECT: Requirement for VOC RACT Regulations in all
Oxidant Nonattainment Areas.
FROi-1: David G. Hawkins, Assistant Administrator
for Air, Noise and Radiation (AW-443)
TO: Regional Administrators
Regions I-X
This is £ follow-up to Mr. Costle's February 24, 1S73, memorandum
entitled "Criteria for Approval of 1979 SIP Revisions", and to r,iy recent
discussions with the Regional Air snd Hazardous Materials Division
Directors in Houston. It is intended to clarify the 1979 SIP require-
ments for volatile organic compound (VOC) RACT regulations for all
oxidant nonattainnient areas.
The issues of long range oxidant transport and background make it
difficult to develop oxidant control strategies with the degree of
precision normally associated with more stable air pollutants. Further,
certain of the available analytical techniques will tend to under-
estimate the degree of control required'for al.taini.icnt. The ur.o of
less rigorous analytical techniques such as rollback support 1979 SIP
revisions is acceptable in areas viliere reasonably available control
measures are scheduled for implementation. However, for the reasons
stated above this technique is not acceptable as a demonstration that
RACT regulations on VGC sources are not needed to attain and maintain
the oxidant standard. Accordingly, for every cxidant plan v/hich
relies en the rollback technique for its control strategy demonstration,
the plan must, as a mimimum, include legally enforceable provisions
for the control of large VOC sources (more than 100 tons/year potential
emissions) for which EPA has issued a Control Technology Guideline (CTG)
Plans which rely on the rollback technique and uO not contain these
provisions will not be approvable. The only exception to this policy
is the situation in which the control agency certifies that there are no
affected sources for a particular source category in the nonattainnient
area.
-------
States which wish to attempt co demonstrate that the oxidant standard
can be attained and maintained v/ithout adopting one or snore of such RACT
regulations for large VOC sources may cio so out must employ more
rigorous analytical techniques than the rollback method; i.e., photo-
chemical dispersion modeling.
I ask that you proceed immediately to advise your States and to
integrate this policy clarification into'.the ongoing SIP development
process.
cc: i'i. Durning
J. Bernstein
Director, Air and Hazardous Materials
Division, Regions I, III-X
Director, Environmental Programs Division,
Region II
-------
SUBJECT
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
3 0 JUN 1G73
Vapor Recovery Regulations Required to
Meet RACT Requirements for the 1979 SIP
PN-17.-78-06-30-003
FROM: Richard G. Rhoads, Director
Control Programs Development Division
T°: Allyn Davis, Director
Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Region IX
In response to your memo dated June 2, 1978, regarding the subject
matter, I offer the following comments for your consideration.
As you know, the 1979*oxidant plan submissions for major urban
areas must include, as a minimum, legally enforceable regulations to
reflect the application of reasonably available control technology
(RACT) to those stationary sources for which a Control Techniques Guide-
line (CTG) has been published by January, 1978. While it is recognized
that RACT will be determined on a case-by-case basis, the criteria for
SIP approval will rely heavily upon the information contained in the
CTGs. However, deviations, from the CTGs are acceptable, provided one of
two possible conditions are met.
First, a regulation which deviates from the CTG may be approved
by this Agency if .economics or other circumstances justify regulatory
requirements less stringent than those contained within the CTG. In
this situation, the 1979 SIP submittal must provide adequate justifica-
tion for such deviations. Please note that the above discussion applies
in those instances where the deviation from the CTG results in a less
stringent control requirement and that in cases where regulations are
more stringent than the CTGs, no justification for the deviation is
necessary.
Alternatively, this Agency may approve State regulations that are
only marginally different from the CTGs without the detailed justification
noted above if the impact on emission differs imperceptibly (less than
five percent in cases where it is possible to quantify the difference)
from that of the CTG and there is no significant threat of undermining
Agency activities elsewhere in the nation. This concept, however, is
only applicable on a source category basis. In other words, it would be
unacceptable to approve a source category specific regulation requiring
significantly less control than the corresponding CTG on the basis that
other source categories are regulated to a degree significantly more
stringent than the comparable CTGs.
Although your analysis of the State and Federal regulations and
the CTGs appears correct and we agree with your interpretation of the
CTG regarding accounts which may be exempted, a further analysis is
required to assess the acceptability of the California regulations.
EPA FORM U20-6 (REV. 3-76)
-------
Such an analysis would have to demonstrate that the California
regulations regulate emissions to within five percent of the CT6 or
justify deviations greater than five percent on the basis of economics
or other circumstances.
Furthermore, approvability of VOC regulations is not dependent
on the ability of a State to demonstrate attainment by 1982 versus
1987. As indicated by Mr. Hawkins at the recent Air and Hazardous
Materials Division Directors' meeting in Houston, RACT musUbe applied
to a11 categories in a]1 areas designated nonattainment for photo-
chemical oxidants. Tfvis office is currently preparing a policy
memorandum on this matter-for Mr. Hawkins1 signature.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call.
cc: Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I,
III-VIII, & X, w/incoming letter
Director, Environmental Programs Division, Region II, w/incoming
letter
E. Reich, DSSE,.w/incoming letter
M. James, OGC, w/incoming letter
H. Beal, SRED, w/incoming letter
-------
UNITED STATES ENViRONMEHTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DATE;
SUBJECT:
PROM:
TO:
U
B78
Example Demonstration of Attainment
for Phoiocnemical Oxidants
Richard G. Rhoads , Director
Control Programs Development Division
Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I, III-X
Director, Environmental Programs Division, Region II
PN-172-78-03-10-002
This office has received numerous inquiries concerning the content
of the 1979 State implementation plan (SIP) ribmissions relating to the
demonstration of attainment for oxidants. Specifically, the inquiries
focused on the questions of which models are acceptable for air quality
prediction purposes and which techniques are acceptable for presenting
the emissions inventory.
One of the statutory criteria for approval of the 1979 plan is
that it must determine the level of control needed to demonstrate attain-
ment (including growth). For oxidants, such a determination shall be
made by applying any moceling technique referenced in the document "Use,
Limitation anc Technical Basis of Procedures for Quantifying Relation-
ships Between Photochemical Oxidants and Precursors," EPA 450/2-77-Q21a,
November, 1977. Consideration of background and transport for oxidants
should generally be in accordance with the procedures described in this
document. Although the use of Appendix J to 40 CFR Part 51 to determine
the degree cf emission reduction necessary to attain the ambient standard
for photochernica i oxidants is not referred to in the above-mentioned
document, the ase of such a procedure by State agencies snould be condoned.
In no instances, however, should the Regional Offices employ Appendix J
or any other method not referenced in the above-mentioned document to
develop pnctochemical oxidant control strategies.
Emission inventories should be developed in accordance with the docu-
ment "Procedures for the Preparation of Emission Inventories for Volatile
Organic Compounds," EPA 450/2-77-028, December, 1977, and :ne Agency's
recommenced policy on the control of volatile organic compounds (VOC)
publishec in the July 8, 1977, Federal Register (42 FR 35314).- Because
there exists a need to be able to compare baseline inventories fr:.,, one
area to another, as well as to determine the impact of employing various
control strategies, a common format for summarizing such inventories is
desirable. Therefore, the enclosed format should be strongly recommended
to State agencies generating summary reports of VOC emissions. This format
allows the control agency to identify all major source categories of vola-
tile organic compound emissions and to determine the reductions trsat may
occur in an area if various control strategies are employed. In addition,
the en.closec form sr.ould be utilized to summarize the anticipated percent
emission reduction from transportation control measures to allow one to
:orn, 1530-6 IRcv
76)
-------
- 2 -
determine what percentage of the total emission reduction is attributable
to various transportation control measures. Finally, both summaries
should be prepared for each area for which a separate strategy is being
developed.
Hopefully, these comments adequately respond to your questions in
the subject areas. However, if you need further assistance, please feel
free to contact me or my staff.
Enclosure
cc: R. Neligan
0. Hidinger
-------
SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED
PERCENT EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM
RTCMs
MEASURES % EMISSION REDUCTION
Inspection/maintenance
Improved public transit
Exclusive bus and carpool lanes
Areawide carpool programs
Private car restrictions
Long-range transit improvements
On-street parking controls
Park and rice and fringe parking lots
Pedestrian malls
Employer programs to encourage car and van
pooling, mass transit, bicycling and walking
Bicycle lanes and storage facilities
Staggereo work hours
Road .pricing to discourage single occupancy
auto trips
Controls on extenced vehicle idling
Traffic flow improvements
Alternative fuels or engines and other
fleet vehicle controls
Other than light duty vehicle retrofit
Extreme cold start emission reduction
programs
Other (specify)
-------
SUMMAHV I:QH /1AT FOH VOC
SOU'
f eTROLEUM HEFINEKIES 1
i
r
STORAGE. TRANSPORTATION |
f, MARKETING OF PETROLEUM j
PRODUCTS
1
i !
l :
i
i
INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES
"....m
vi:.ci i I.A-VI. <•!.••.; ?JK. """"•'. 3
•nl V.w.oii'" Prr)«:>icm<| SvMC'"
f, r 1 1 c n
O'L i'. r' *>S f'iOCHX rcj^ >-'!Ci.
•\' A T >j n A i_ GAS ,\ \ O DATURA
""i AJOL'NR PMOCRSSINC
0 '. A :.. ' C
'". A ^C'L-^E f". C!M '(JC OH. 3 TO
•jillP AKjOUAnGi r,TA.\SF!:U
:. A SOL 'ME <-, couOc OIL
nci.-: GASOLINE TERMINALS
'.A-.-dl :\! .'.UL-: PLA.-ITS3
'., KVIC-- 3TATIO . (.'.VM'i •>.'/-.
Mjii/1 ii'in/i iMto.ir- C.TI: i
IIASI VI-'AI; iMi;;:'.ii!N:; tiuiM
LMISSIONS SOUHCI.S L'XI.STINC
IU/7 IN 1077
ALLC VAUI c F/g|
CROW I'D SlNCiH
l'J/7
1
i
1 |
OS
u ~ r
!
H/.GC1
OF |
2 " 1 '
t
.--:.•..,-• n
'JC"VIC£ iTAriO"^ UNLOADING lii.iic HI ;
O T . i £ f (
OnC,A.^,CC"HV.lCAL MANUr
P.M.-<- \!.-,NU- -'-C "'Jftfc
t
1 1
ACT'jilE j i
j
vtce TAIILS OIL PROCESSING
••> - 1 A I' .M A C J U T 1 C A L M AN U F A
PLASTIC onociuCTS MAwuct
•"i>.T.i-= ^ rnccuCiS .MAM JC*
CTUSE
^CTune ! !
"fcXTIL? POLYMERS MANUFACTURE |
INDUSTRIAL SURFACE
COATING
NCN-lNDUSTa IAL SuRrACH
COATINGS
OTHER SOLVENT USE
OTHER-MISCELLANEOUS
SOUHCES
TOTAL VOC EV.i$S:O.XS ?RC.V.
MOBILE SOUHCEi
O T . i? as
:.-lRG^i /-PPLi AMCcS
; -,iAG.VcT -.VI R S
••HJTOMG3ILES
; C -"• -'•' S
. '.•': T '. L COILo
'. ^ A P i; H
;.-.:l«IC
\-L 'At e^P>H-L-Tt£
' A' 000 FURNITURE
? i. A T wooo =«or/uc i s
OT-...T;-, MJjTAi. =SOOUCr3
•-: -.-E-V,
-. .T ,; ., i - = .; r u M A L. C O A r ' •"• 0
; •'• ^.~O iT E F l N l S H l M O
CT-.SRS
. CF. T.-EA^wr,
;_> .TV <;L t .i.i.'.ciG
: CMAPIMC AR TS
; ADt-'KS'vss
' C Jr3 AC< ASPHALT
• O "••?•"; 3 C L '.' C '-J T ; j S El
. --e . C.TV.NUS-IOM
'•OL-O .".'AST,'. rji-JfOrfAL
:K-,M^",I AC'i-cuL ru" AL.
STAT!Q'NA«Y SOURCES
;) H-.-iw O,,iy Cose""1? T'
ul ""flw Ouiy D'csnl T.uc
C 1 '• * O 1 o ' 1 / f ' '.' S
O *• r ^i O '-i'.'.' A Y */ £ ^ l C L E *J
n A ' 1
.-. . .'ICR A? r
«'
1 i
i ! i
i : ! i
i i
i • i
! 1 !
i ; '
1
l
; !
i i ! j
i i
1
f , , , , {
i i i i
i ;
!
i ; i
\ .N o o T , i n o , 1 1
: j i
> i
i
'• i
! i
j
i
i
i <
i
\
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
°
, - WASHINGTON. O C. 20460
J>
'tp"°'fc PN-172-78-02-02-001
FFB2 =073
' I- I-* *"*
AIR AND WASTE MANAGEMENT
SUBJECT: Implementation of Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT)-'D'n Hydrocarbon Stationary Sources
/^"^ (^ — ~~ t
FROM : £ Da v i d y^A^W\my &$ sta n t Admi n i s t ra to r
for Vftf and 1-Jaste Management
MEMO TO: Regional Administrator, Regions I - X
As part of the State implementation plan (SIP) revision process,
I want to personally emphasize the importance of the development of
adequate oxicant plans which incorporate RACT for stationary sources.
One important effort in this process is the development of the Control
Techniques Guideline documents (CTGs).
I have enclosed for your information a summary of the 11 completed
CTGs. These documents define presumptive RACT for 11 source categories.
At a minimum, the SI? revisions due in 1979 must contain RACT for these
11 Categories in areas where the attainment of the oxidant standard
cannct be demonstrated by 1982. Where economics or other circumstances
justify regulatory requirements less stringent than those contained
within the CTG's, such justification should be clearly documented in the
SIP submi ttal .
For source categories not yet included in the CTGs, existing local
and Federal regulations should be retained and enforced. We will not
approve relaxation of existing reasonable hydrocarbon control regula-
tions in oxidant nonattain:r,ent areas without a demonstration of attain-
ment as expeai tiously as possible. As new CTG's are issued, it will
be necessary to review and revise or reaffirm these regulations.
Enclosure
-------
ENCLOSURE
REGULATIONS FOR STATIONARY SOURCES
Control techniques guidelines (CTG's) have been prepared for ten
VOC source, categories. Vie plan to release sixteen more in 1978. They
are written in uncomplicated language and are not highly detailed.
Each CTG identifies the presumptive emission limits, operating prac-
tices, and/or equipment which are achievable through the application of
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT). RACT is defined as
the lov.-est emission limit that a particular source is capable of
meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably
available considering technological and economic feasibility. It- may
require technology that has been applied to similar but not neces-
sarily identical source categories. Limitations recommended in the
CTG's are based on capabilities and problems which are general to the
industry; they may not be applicable to every installation. In many
cases, appropriate controls will be more or less stringent. States are
urged to examine the impact of imposing these requirements through the
public nearing process. Where economics or other circumstances justify
regulatory requirements less stringent than those contained within
CTG's, such justification is to be clearly documented in tne SIP
submitta1.
The recommended limitations are in the form of allowable VOC emis-
sion levels for surface coating operations and bulk gasoline terminals.
For cutback asphalt paving operations, the recommended control measure
is replacement to the extent possible of solvent cutback asphalt with
water-borne emuisicns. For the remaining source categories — degreasing,
-------
refinery sources, petroleum storage tanks,, and'bulk plants--! imitations
are stated in terms of equipment standards with companion operating
requi rements.
The format of each CTG limit was chosen on the basis of compat-
ibility with the most likely air pollution control technique. For
example, surface coating limits are presented in terms of the maximum
allowable solvent content of the coating, the assumption being that all
of the solvent will evaporate during application and curing. SIP regu-
lations should allow the use of equivalent control technology in all
cases. The burden of proving the equivalency of a new control tech-
nique will normally lie with the owner or operator. OAQPS will provide
guidance in the measurement of VOC emissions.
Stares are also required to adopt measures to control VOC from
the transfer of bulk gasoline to service station storage tanks (Stage I).
The necessary hardware is relatively simple and available. It nas been
used successfully in several areas of the nation to provide 95 percent
or better control of gasoline vapors displaced during the loading of
these storage tanks. Criteria describing Stage I equipment and operating
requirements were prepared by OAQPS and have been distributed to the
regional offices.
Additional copies of CTG's and the Stage I design criteria may be
obtained from Mrs. Deborah McCarley at 919-541-5374.
-------
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED K.'.'ISSTON LIMITATIONS
FOR STATIONARY Va: -SOURCES
Rcco-.unenued Limitation
Surface Coating
Can Coating
Sheet basecoat
Two-piece con exterior
TV/O- & three-piece can
interior body spray
Two-piece end exterior
Side-seam spray
End sealing conpound
Coil Coating
Fabric Coating
Vinyl Coating
Paper Coating
Auto & Light Duty Truck Coating
Prime
Topcoat
Repair
Metal Furniture Coating
Magnet Wire Coating
Larp.o Appli.-incc Co:.! tin
Sx ilk Casoli.no Tomu.ticL
Truci^ tjoading
Bulk Gasolir.c PLants
0.34 kg /I oL coating (r.anus water)
0.5L kg/1 of coating (minus water)
0.66 kg/1 of coating (minus water)
O.AA kg/1 of coating (minus water)
0.31 kg/1 of coating (minus water)
0.35 kg/1 of coating (minus water)
0.45 Kg/1 of coating (minus water)
0.35 kg/1 of coating (minus water)
0.23 kg/1 of coating (minus water)
0.34 kg/i of coating (minus water)
0.5S kg/1 of coating (minus water)
0.36 kg/1 of coating (minus water)
0.20 kg /I of coating (minus water)
J . 34 kg/i oj. coating (niLiiLis water)
60 nig/i. of gasoline loaded
Storage Tanl\ i'l
Vapor balance system
-------
Truck loading
Service Stations
Storage Tank Filling (Stage I)
Fixed-Roof Storage of Petroleum
Liquids
Petroleum Refining
Vacuum Systems
Wastewater Separators
Process Unit Turnarounds
Cutback Asphalt Pavir.s
Degress ir,;;
Vapor balance system
Vapor balance system
Internal floating roofs
Vent noncondensables to boiJLer/
heater firebox
Install tight covers over
separators
Vent gases to a flare or other
carpustion device during depressurizat
Substitute water emulsions for solvent
cutback asphalt applications
Conunnation of control equipment and
operating requirements to minimize
solvent evaporation and solvent
carryoul:. Requirements differ for
cold cleaners, open top vapor
degreasers and conveyorized degreasers
-------
Section 175: Grants
01
so
3
tn
T3
o
s
r-+
o'
3
2
09
3
3
3
CO
-------
Section 175: Transportation Planning
PN175-8G-Q6-23-006
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION
PLAN - TRANSPORTATION REVISION PROCESS EXPANDED
GUIDELINES
PN175-80-04-23-005
IMPLEMENTATION OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 12185 CONSERVATION
OF PETROLEU* AND NATURAL GAS
PN175-SO-01-15-004
RECONCILIATION OF POPULATION PROJECTIONS
IN REVISED STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
PN175-79-02-12-003
REGIONAL OFFICE ASSISTANCE IN EXPEDITING
HEADQUARTERS REVIEW OF SECTION 175 GRANT
APPLICATIONS
PN175-78-10-10-002
USE OF UNIFORM POPULATION PROJECTIONS IN
AIR AND WATER PLANNING
PN175-78-08-C1-001
DETERMINATION OF EMISSION REDUCTION RESPONSIBILITIES
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
DATE:
SEP 25 !9°Q PN 110-80-09-25-043
SUBJECT: Incorporation by Reference of SIP Revisions
FROM: Richard G. Rhoads, Director
Control Programs Development Division (MD-15)
TO;Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
We have received a few questions regarding my June 21, 1980 memo
in which minor changes were described in the procedures to be followed
in the submissions for incorporation by reference by the Office of the
Federal Register (OFR). The purpose of this memo is to clarify a few
points.
1. A copy of the document described in the Identification of the
Plan must be attached, to the package intended for the OFR. This is
important since it is the document which is really being incorporated by
reference and is indexed and placed in OFR's public information center.
2. Some Identification of Plan sections are quite lengthy. In
such cases, there is no need for a verbatim repetition in the identifica-
tion of the document section of the covering memo. This memo submits
the package to OFR by EPA's Office of Federal Register (EPA/OFR). A
short identification will do.
3. Final submission of all parts, including Part 81, should be
forwarded for incorporation by reference.
4. There may be public inquiries by mail to the OFR so the
zip code, 20408, should be added to the OFR address.
5. The contract period has been recently extended to provide time
for the contractor to update the compilation to September 1, 1980
rather than to August 1, 1980. This means that there is no need to
submit any final approval action taken during the month of August to
the EPA/OFR.
If you have any further questions, please call Tom Gunning (629-5365).
o-n, 1320-6 (R.r. 3-76)
-------
^^ PN 110-80-08-14-042
?' .£^\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
14 August 1980
OFFICE OF
AIR. NOISE, AND RADIATION
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Criteria for Evaluating Bubble Transaction Equivalency
Demonstrations
FROM: David Hawkins, Assistant Administrator for Air,
Noise and Radiation
TO: Regional Administrators
One key criterion for evaluating proposed "bubble" transactions
under the December 11, 1979 Policy Statement (44 FR 71780) is a showing
that the transaction will not have an adverse impact on ambient air quality.
The ambient air impacts before and after the bubble transaction must be
at least substantially equivalent. In light of the recent decision to
require more rigorous modeling for SIP revisions, including use of five
years of meteorological data and tighter receptor grids, jV a question
has arisen regarding the modeling needed for bubble ambient air impacts
equivalency demonstrations.
This is to clarify that the more rigorous modeling requirements set
out in the CEI decision do not apply to bubble transactions which involve
the following: 1) colocated stacks of similar height, i.e., stacks of
similar height located at the same plant or facility which are reasonably
close to one another, 2) no net increase in actual emissions (or if
allowable emissions levels are less than actual, then no net increase in
allowable emissions), and 3) the applicable SIP provides for attainment
by the statutory deadline. In addition, if the area is currently non-
attainment, the SIP must have been approved or conditionally approved
under Part D.
Under the above circumstances the equivalency demonstration may be
made in a manner consistent with the attainment demonstration in the
applicable SIP. See 44 FR 71783, col. 3 for a further discussion of this
point.
This~~decision is set out in the promulgation of new emission
limitations for the Cleveland Electric Illuminating (CEI)
Company's Eastlake and Avon Lake plants 45 F.R. 42279 (June 24, 1980).
-------
-2-
An important constraint on this policy must be mentioned, however.
If, for whatever reason, it becomes known that standards or increments
are being or will be violated, then remedial action must be taken.
Monitored or modeled violations may not be ignored, regardless of the
reason why they were discovered. Further, the remedial action must be
undertaken in a manner consistent with the modeling policy set out in
the CEI decision.
-------
FROM:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
DATE:
AVQ
0 1980
PN 110-80-08-08-041
SUBJECT: The Bubble Policy and State PI a;
Under Clean Air Act Section
waiter C. Barber, Direct
'\
Office of Air Quality FlarwflWT/nd Standards (MD-10)
\A/
TO: Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
A number of inquiries/have been received concerning the applicability
of the bubble policy witjrrespect to the noncriteria pollutants designated
under the requirements or Section lll(d) of the Clean Air Act. This
memorandum is a response to these inquiries.
The bubble policy, as published in the December 11, 1979 Federal
Register (44 FR 71780), may be applied to emission limitations developed
as part of State Implementation Plans required by Section 110 of the
Clean Air Act. The bubble policy does not apply to sources which
must comply with the performance standards for existing stationary
sources developed in accordance with the requirements of Section lll(d).
These performance standards are applied to specific individual facilities
for certain designated pollutants.
Although the bubble policy does not apply to Section ill(d), the
advantages of the policy can be achieved, in some cases, simply by
observing EPA's requirements for implementing this Section as found in
40 CFR Part 60 Subpart B. This is particularly true if the Administrator
determines that a designated pollutant may only cause or contribute to
the endangerment of public welfare but not endanger public health. In
such cases, the States are not bound by the EPA guideline document but
may balance "other factors of public concern" against the EPA guidelines
when setting standards. These other factors may include: (a) the cost
of achieving such emission reductions; (b) any other health and environ-
mental impacts; (c) energy requirements; and (d) the remaining useful
life of the existing sources.
Under the regulations, States have less flexibility if the
Administrator determines the designated pollutant to be health related.
In such cases, the States are generally expected to set standards at
least as stringent as the EPA guidelines. Less stringent standards may
be set but only in situations where the State demonstrates compelling
reasons to do so.
•orrr. U20-4 (R«v. 3-76)
-------
We encourage you to be receptive to Section m(d) proposals. If a
company tells you or the State that they want to "bubble" lll(d)
pollutant control requirements, ask to see their specific plan before
you give them an opinion. In many cases, it may be possible to adopt
the company's preferred cot^rol strategy. In particular, since TRS
regulations are due s-oon in many States and it is a welfare related
pollutant only, you may want to remind your States that they already
have substantial flexibility under our regulations to design source-
specific regulations for these sources.
Should you have any questions concerning the relationship between
EPA's bubble policy and the requirements of Section lll(d), please
contact Dick Rhoads at FTS 629-5251 or Leo Stander of his staff at
FTS 629-5365.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
DATE: August 4, 1980
PN 110-08-04-040
SUBJECT: Applicability of Paper Coating, Fabric Coating, and Graphic Arts CTGs
FROM-. Tom Helms, Chief
Control Programs Operations Branch, CPDD
TO; Air Branch Chief, Regions I - X
(MD-15)
Recent discussions with State agencies and industry indicate there
are misunderstandings concerning which coating processes are subject to
the Graphic Arts CTG (Volume VIII) and which are covered by the Paper
Coating and Fabric Coating CTGs (Volume II).
As stated in Section 1.2.4 of Volume VIII, the Graphic Arts CTG is
intended to cover printing operations in the production of packaging
materials and publication rotogravure printing operations. Other types
of web coating operations are covered by Volume II in the Paper Coating
and Fabric Coating CTGs. These Volume II operations include some
printing operations, such as printing of wallpaper, floor coverings,
gift wrap, shower curtains, and artificial leather and wood grains.
Industry spokesmen have requested that all rotogravure printing
operations be covered under the Graphic Arts CTG (Volume VIII). There
is a certain simplicity to having all rotogravure printing operations
included under one RACT level; however, since publication printing and
flexible package printing would be included, such a general rotogravure
RACT level would, of necessity, be less strict than the paper coating
and fabric coating RACT levels described in Volume II.
EPA engineers have observed that there are many rotogravure coating
operations which are as amenable to control as are paper and fabric
coated by reverse roll or blade coating techniques. Thus, in order to
obtain the maximum reasonable control, rotogravure operations (other
than publication printing and flexible packaging printing) have been
included in the Paper Coating and Fabric Coating CTGs along with roll,
reverse roll, blades, air knife, and other coating application techniques.
Some types of printing, such as textile printing, are not covered
by either Volume II or Volume VIII, but may be covered in future CTGs.
cc: VOC Contact, Regions I - X
Jim Berry, ESED
:ocm 1320-4 (Rov. 3-76)
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
DATE:
JUL3H980
PN 110-80-07-31-039
SUBJECT.- Applicability of VOC Control Technique Guidelines
(CTGs) to the Automobile Manufacturing Industry
FROM:
Richard G. Rhoads, Director
Control Programs Development Division (MD-15)
TO: Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I
- X
It has been brought to my attention that some confusion exists
concerning the applicability of EPA-CTG, Vol. II, "Surface Coating of
Automobiles and Light Duty Trucks" and EPA-CTG, Vol. VI, "Surface
Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products" in the automobile
manufacturing industry. This memorandum clarifies the applicability of
these two CTGs to the automobile manufacturing industry.
For the purposes of this discussion, metal coating operations in
the automobile manufacturing industry can be separated into the following
three distinct subdivisions:
I. Primer, guidecoat (surfacer), topcoat, and final repair coating
of main body and front end sheet metal parts.
II. Application of coatings other than those in I above to main
body and front end sheet metal parts.
III. Separate coating of metal parts other than main body and front
end sheet metal parts.
Coating operations in I above are covered by the Automobile and
Light-Duty Truck CTG. The recommended limits apply whether the main
body and front end sheet metal parts are coated as a single unit or
separately as is done at some stamping plants and some assembly plants.
Contrary to two statements (pages viii and 6-5) in the Automobile
and Light-Duty Truck CTG which indicate that all automotive metal
coating operations are covered by this CTG, all operations in II and III
above should be covered by the Miscellaneous Metal Parts CTG. This was
noted in the attached April 18, 1980 memorandum from F. W. Giaccone,
Region II to Don Goodwin, Director ESED.
The Miscellaneous Metal Parts CTG best takes into account the broad
range of performance requirements for coatings in II above such as
plastisols, striping, trunk spatter, and undercoatings; and for coatings
applied to such varied parts in III as wheels, steering columns,
brackets, and engine parts. The recommended emission limits in the
Miscellaneous Metal Parts CTG are generally less stringent than those in
the Automobile and Light-Duty Truck CTG.
Fcxm 1320-6 (R,v. 3-7«)
-------
As is noted in the CTG. for Miscellaneous Metal Parts, when reviewing
regulations for these products, consideration should be given to the
possibility that for some operations in II and III control to the level
recommended in the Miscellaneous Metal Parts CTG may be technically
infeasibile or unreasonably costly. Such operations may be allowed to
control to a Tess stringent level provided an adequate demonstration of
technical infeasibility or unreasonable cost is made. Consideration
might also be given to the utilization of alternative emission control
strategies under the bubble policy (44 FR 71780, December 11, 1979) for
those operations from II and III and thereby possibly exempting small
(measured in terms of absolute mass emission) sources from control.
Please contact Bill Polglase (FTS 629-5251) or Tom Williams
(FTS 629-5226) should you have any questions.
Attachment
cc: Chief, Air Programs Branch, Regions I-X
Del Rector,. Michigan DNR
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
DATE: JUL t 5 1980 PN 110-80-07-15-038
SUBJECT: Attainment Dates for Newly
Designated Nonattainment Areas
FROM: R-jchard G. Rhoads, Director
Control Programs Development Division (MD-15)
T0: Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
The purpose of this memo is to set forth the policy for determining
the date by which areas must attain the national ambient air quality
standard for pollutants for which such areas are, hence forth, initially
designated nonattainment.
As you are aware, current Agency policy allows nonattainment area
plans to be approved only if they satisfy the criteria, among others,
of demonstrating compliance by the 1982 attainment date (unless one of
the criteria allowing post-1982 compliance dates is satisfied). Obviously,
continuance of this policy creates a difficult problem for those areas
which are designated nonattainment within a few years of the 1982 attain-
ment date. As such, my office has requested a legal opinion from OGC on
the ability of the Agency to specify an attainment date different than
1982 for newly designated nonattainment areas. A copy of our request
and OGC's subsequent response are attached.
The policy expressed in the attached OGC legal opinion states that
SIPs developed for newly designated nonattainment areas are subject to
the same time intervals set forth in Part D as were the initial 1979 plan
revisions. This allows 12 months from the nonattainment designation for
preparation and submittal of a plan, 6 additional months for EPA action
on the plan, and no more than 3-1/2 years from the date of plan approval
(i.e., 18 months from the nonattainment designation) to reach attainment.
If you have any questions or comments concerning this policy,
please contact Mike Clowers (FTS) 629-5365 of my staff.
Attachments
cc: Mike James
Ed Reich
-------
UNITED ST4TE5 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office or Air Quality Planning ano Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
DATE J&Y , 3 1980
SUSJECT Compliance Dates Extending Beyond
a 1982 Attainment Date
PROM. Richard G. Rhoads, Director
Control Programs Development Division (MD-15)
T0: Michael A. James, Director
Air, Noise, and Radiation Division, OGC (A-133)
The purpose of this memo is to request a legal opinion on the
Agency's ability to approve a compliance schedule extending beyond £
1982 attainment date.
As you ere aware, current policy dictates that on a case-by-case
basis, individual source specific schedules may be extended beyond the
categorical schedule but not beyond the final attainment date if various
criteria ere satisfied. However, in implementing this policy, the'
Agency hes allowed commonly, owned or controlled operations (i.e., GK)
which ere part of a statewide or multistage program and ere prioritizing
the sequence of installing controls to extend the compliance deadline
beyond the applicable attainment date (1982). In addition, the Agency
hes just issued guidance allowing States with 1982 attainment dates to
grant extensions beyond 1982 provided, however, that the SIP continues
to demonstrate attainment by 1982.
Recently, issues have been brought to the attention of my office
which suggest that further flexibility in this area of post-attainment
date compliance schedules is necessary. Specifically, the issues
involve these instances where States will be required to develop Pert D
SIP revisions for areas which are designated nonattainment in the future.
Under current Agency policy, such nonattainment area plans could only be
approved if they satisfy the criteria, among others, of demonstrating
compliance by the 1982 attainment date (unless one of the criteria for
allowing post-1982 compliance dates is satisfied). No provisions
currently exist to deal with those instances where, because of the
timing of the nonetteinrnent designation, insufficient time remains for
the sources to comply with the emission limitations prior to 1982.
decision being published by early 1982. Even with this optimistic
schedule, sources subject to the plan would' have less then one year from
EPA's decision to comply with the limitations in the plan. In most
cases, due to control equipment construction and stert-uo times.
sources will be physically unable to comply by the 1982 attainment date.
-------
Two possible solutions for dealing with this situation are briefly
outlined below for your consideration. The first possibility is to
operate under Section 110 which allows three years from the date of plan
approval to achieve attainment. The second and more logical approach is
to prorate the time frames in Part D so that post-1978 designations are
subject to the same time period as the initial designations.
The present situation in Wisconsin and the possibility of future
nonattainment designations require that Agency policy address these
special circumstances. It is, therefore, important that we receive the
benefit of your staff's opinion of this issue as soon as possible. If
you have any questions concernino this request, please cell Bob Schell
of my staff at FTS 62S-5365.
cc: Chief, Air Proorams Branch, Reoions I-X
Ed Reich, DSSE
Steve Kuhrtz, OANR
Ron Campbell, OAQPS
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
JUN 241980
f'fO
MEMORANDUM
OFFICE OF
GENERAL COUNSEL
SUBJECT: Attainment Dates For Part D Plans For Newly
Designated Nonattainment Areas
FROM: Bruce Diamond
Deputy Associate General Counsel
Air, Noise and Radiation Division
THRU: Michael A. James
Associate General Counsel
Air, Noise and Radiation Division
TO: Richard G. Rhoads, Director
Control Programs Development Division
Office of Air, Noise and Radiation
You have aslece;nb*.r
-.1 . Section : -?.(£) (2 } .
:r;?ose? of this -discussion
::;s v:ith respect to lead.
-.•••e nave
-------
-2-
I also agree that Congress could not have intended the
deadlines contained in Part D to apply when, due to the late
date at which a nonattainment designation occurs, these dead-
lines make no sense whatever. 3_/
The question, then, is what time frames to apply. Two
choices present themselves. One option is to use the time
•frames in Section 110: nine months to prepare a plan (110(a)
(1); see also uncodified Section 406(d)(2)(B)), four months
to approve or disapprove it {110(a)(2)), and up to three
years from the date of approval to reach primary standards
attainment (110( a) ( 2 ) {A) ( i) ) . _4/ The other option is to use
the time intervals (but not the precise dates specified) in
Part D and related provisions. This would allow 12' months
for preparation of a plan, 5/ six months for EPA approval or
3y This must be distinguished from claims that the attain-
ment deadline is impractical due to other reasons.
Congress was well aware that the 1982 date could present
a severe practical challenge, yet provided only very
limited authority to EPA to extend that date. By limiting
the scope of Section 172(a)(2) to CO and 03, Congress
made clear that the 1982 deadline could not be deferred
for other pollutants despite the existence of such
practical obstacles as lack of data, the complexity of
the required tasks, or the severity of the pollution
problem. But maintaining the 1982 deadline for areas
first designated nonattainment well after the initial
designations were issued could lead to absurd results.
For example, there is obviously no way an area desig-
nated nonattainment in 1983 could meet a 1982 attainment
deadline. Since Congress was aware that designations
could change, see Section 107{d)(5), and since it must
be assumed that Congress could not have intended absurd
results, it is reasonable to believe that the 1982 dead-
line nay be deferred for areas designated nonattainment
in the future.
4/ Tne three years runs from no later than the last day
~ set by the statute for approval, even if approval is
delayed. Section 110(e) authorizes an extension of the
atttainraent date of up to two years under certain cir-
cumstances .
5_/ This is the approximate difference between the date
nonattainnent designations were originally supposed to
be promulgated under Section 107(d) and the date for
Part 0 Plan submission specified ir. uncodified Section
129(c).
-------
-3-
disapproval, 6/ and no more than 3 1/2 years from date of
plan approval (or from the last clay by which approval was due)
to reach attainment. 7/
Neither the statute nor the legislative history addresses
the question of which option is more appropriate. I believe
that using the Part D time frame is somewhat more defensible.
As a matter of simple logic it would seem that the time frames
designed by Congress specifically for Part D SIPs are the ones
to use. Since the plans to be developed for the new nonattain-
ment areas are subject to the other requirements of Part D, it
makes sense that they also be subject to the time deadlines set
out in (or for) Part D. Although it could be argued that in
the absence of explicit alternative deadlines the deadlines of
Section 110 apply, 8/ I think the better reading of the statute,
in light of its structure and purposes, is to use the time frames
set out in the statute for Part D SIPs.
cc: Steve Kuhrtz
Ed Reich
6yThis is the difference between the January 1, 1979 date
for plan submission set in uncodified Section 129(c)
and the July 1, 1979 date for imposition of the growth
moratorium. See Sections 110(a)(2)(I) and 172(a)(l).
7_/ This is the difference between July 1, 1979 and December
31, 1982. Of course, attainment must always be as
expeditious as practicable.
3/ Uncodified Section 406(d)(2) provides that "[e]xcept
as otherwise expressly provided" by the statute plan
revisions required by the 1977 amendments are due within
nine months of the adoption of the regulations neces-
sary for approval of the revisions. This could provide
support for using nine months rather than twelve months
as the deadline for Part O plan subrnittal for newly
designated nonattainment areas. But, since Section 406(d)
does not literally apply (since no new regulation is
involve'"!) anrl since one year w=s the ti'ie originally
provided for submittal of Part D plans, a one year dead-
line seems reasonable.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASH.NGTON. D.C. 20,60
PN 1 1 0-80-07-1 4-037
OFFICE Of
AIR, NOISE. AND RADIATION
.IUL 141*80
SUBJECT: Credit for Increasing Stack Height at Existing Sources
FROM: David G. Hawkins, Assistant Administrator ("original siqned by]
for Air, Noise, and Radiation (ANR-443)
MEMO TO: Regional Administrator, Regions I-X
Administrator Costle and I are concerned about the impact of pending
SOg emission limit relaxations on the acid rain problem. We have received
several State Implementation _Plan (SIP) revisions which allow such
relaxations based on stack height increases at existing sources. If
granted, the increased emissions would add to the long-range transport
of sulfur oxides which are precursors of acid rain.
In the future, we will not approve any SIP revision that gives
credit to a source which raised its existing stack after December 31,
1970, unless the new stack height is justified through fluid modeling
or field studies. .This policy does not aooly to sources with new
stack heights less than 65 meters or to sources less than 250 million
BTUs per hour heat input that are not increasing their stack(s) above
the formula height as defined in the January 12, 1979 proposal of the
stack height regulation (44 PR 2608).
I recognize that several SIP revisions may be pending which are not
consistent with this policy. To permit an adequate transition to the
new policy, 3 have asked OAQPS to coordinate all pending SIP revisions.
Please contact that office for guidance for your pending SIP actions.
The Cleveland Electric Illuminating SIP revision (June 24, 1980, 45 FR
42279) reflects one way pending SIP revisions will be handled; however,
the differences among the various sources do not allow me to provide
uniform requirements here. Your pending revisions will be reviewed by
OAQPS on a case-by-case basis.
cc: J. Miller
M. Corash
Director, Air & Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
-------
PN 110-80-06-20-036
UNITED STATES E NVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
DATE:
2 0 ]980
SUBJECT: Attainment Date for Ambient Lead Standard
FROM: G. T. Helms, Chief
Control Programs Operations Branch (MD-15)
TO: Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X
A question has been raised in regard to the attainment date for
the national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for lead. Specifically,
is the date to be determined from the statuatory timeframe or from the
actual date the State plan receives EPA approval or disapproval?
Under the first scenario, the attainment date would be three years
from the statutory approval/disapproval date of July 5, 1979 (i.e.,
four months from the required plan submittal date) or in other words,
October 31, 1982. The second scenario would result in different
attainment dates for different areas depending on when the plan for a
specific area was submitted and acted upon by EPA. For example, if a
plan was submitted in June 1980 and approved in October 1980, the
attainment date would be October 1983.
A response to this question was addressed in the October 5, 1979
Federal Register notice promulgating the NAAQS for lead. That notice
indicates that attainment of the standard must be no later than
October 1982. Obviously, this approach, besides being supported by
the statute, does not place sources at competitive advantages because
their States failed to submit a lead SIP in a timely fashion. Finally,
it is important to note that the granting of a two-year extension of the
attainment date in no way alters the basic scenario for determining the
applicable attainment date.
In summary, the attainment date for lead is either October 31, 1982
or October 31, 1984 if a two-year extension has been granted. If you
have any questions regarding this issue, please call Jane Kelly at 629-5365.
1370-6
. 3-76)
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
DATE:
SUBJECT:
JIJN121980
Information Required in Federal Register Packages
PN 110-80-06-12-035
FROM:
Richard G. Rhoads, Director
Control Programs Development Division (MD-15)
TO: Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-V, and VII
An April 29, 1980 memo from Walt Barber asked that all SIP
revisions dealing with SO^ relaxations be submitted through the "special
action" procedures. The purpose of that request was to allow the Agency
to more carefully scrutinize the nature of each relaxation and its
multi-regional impact. A copy of this memo is attached.
In order to allow us to assess the relative impact of each S0?
relaxation more accurately, I ask that the following information be
included in each action memo.
1. Plant name and location.
2. Size of the facility (including the number of boilers) expressed
in megawatts or Btu/hour firing capacity (design).
3. Amount, type, and sulfur content of actual fuel combusted
during the previous year.
4. The revised S02 emission limit, the existing SIP limit,
and the corresponding averaging times for these limits.
5. The "paper" as well as actual increase or decrease in emissions.
The calculations involved in determining the increase of emissions
should assume status quo operating conditions of the source. There is
no need to consider increased or decreased utilization of the source's
capacity.
In addition, because of the ongoing development of policy on the
issue of good engineering practice (GEP) stack height, all Federal
Register packages addressing the stack height issue should be submitted
through the "special action" procedures. Furthermore, I ask that
your staff inform Bob Schell (629-5365) of my staff of any Federal
Register packages involving stack height increases which are currently
under development and projected to be forwarded for 14-day review
within the next few weeks.
orm 1320-6 (Rev. 3-76)
-------
The following information should be included in each action memo
which involves increased stack height.
1. Height of the old stack as well as that of the new.
2. If GEP stack height is determined, the methodology used to
determine it, and the staclc height considered* to be»GEP.
Your cooperation and assistance in dealing with these sensitive
issues are greatly appreciated.
Attachment
cc: David Hawkins
Walt Barber
Mike James
Ed Reich
-------
PN 172-80-09-03-030
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
DATE-. September 3, 1980
Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products CTG—•
Emission Limits for Coating of Shipping Pails and Drums
Tom Helms, Chief
Control Programs Operations Branch, CPDD
Air Branch Chief, Regions I - X
(MD-15)
The sample regulation for the Group II CTG categories indicated that
the coating of pails and drums was to be included in the Miscellaneous
Metal Parts CTG. Representatives from the shipping container industry
have since requested clarification as to what emission limits are
applicable to their coatings.
We recommend that a presumptive norm of 4.3 pounds of VOC per
gallon of coating less water is reasonably available control technology
for coatings used in pail and drum interior protective linings even
though the coatings may not be a true "clear coat." This determination
was made on the basis of the unavailability of lower VOC coatings that can
withstand the harsh, toxic, and corrosive nature of many chemicals that
are shipped in these containers.
The exterior coatings for pails and drums must meet an emission
limit of 3.5 pounds of VOC per gallon of coating less water. This is
the limit described in the CTG for outdoor exposure coatings.
The following information is provided for the States to use in
defining metal pails and drums:
Pails -- any nominal cylindrical metal shipping container of
1- to 12-gallon capacity and constructed of 29 gauge and heavier
material.
Drums -- any cylindrical metal shipping container of
13- to no-gallon capacity.
For additional information, please call Tom Williams at
FTS 629-5226.
cc: VOC Contact, Regions I - X
Jim Berry, ESED
Fo
-------
DATE:
PN 172-80-07-02-029
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
JUL 2 1980
SUBJECT: Exemption for Cold Cleaner Degreasers
FROM: Richard G. Rhoads, Director
Control Programs Development Division (MD-15)
TO-. Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
During the past several months, a number of States have submitted
VOC regulations for solvent metal cleaners that include an exemption
based on weight, i.e., 3 Ibs/hr, 15 Ibs/day, for cold cleaners (batch
operated, nonboiling solvent degreasers typically found in automotive
repair facilities). A major concern of the States was related to the
manpower requirements associated with enforcing regulations for these
sources.
Agency policy guidance in these instances has been to conditionally
approve regulations containing weight type exemptions applicable to
urban nonattainment areas that cannot demonstrate attainment by 1982
pending State deletion of the exemption or demonstration of compliance
with the five percent significance test. (See memoranda from
Richard G. Rhoads, Director, CPDD to Director, Air and Hazardous
Materials Division, Regions I-X, dated September 7, 1978 and
.December 12, 1979.)
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide additional guidance by
specifying instances where certain designs of cold cleaner degreasers
could justifiably be determined to be in compliance with the CTG.
In the development of NSPS for solvent metal cleaning, it was
determined as the result of investigation that cold cleaners with remote
solvent reservoirs expose solvent only while parts are being cleaned.
The solvent is pumped through a nozzle suspended over a sink-like work
area which drains back into the reservoir. Because the reservoir is
remote from the work area, this type of cold cleaner is not subject to
the evaporation losses suffered by conventional cold cleaners.
Consequently, it was concluded that cold cleaners with remote
solvent reservoirs can be exempted from the operating requirements to
cover the degreaser during non-use periods. In addition, the units can
be exempted from equipment specifications which require each cold
cleaner to have a closable cover and,because the sink collects solvent
drainage, a separate drain rack is unnecessary.
:orm 1320-6 (Rev. 3-76)
-------
In view of the above, State regulations which specify an exemption
for cold cleaners meeting the following criteria could be approved as
being equivalent to RACT.
1. The cold cleaner must have a remote solvent reservoir.
2. The solvent used in the cold cleaner must not have a vapor
pressure that exceeds 4.3 kPa (33mm Hg or 0.6 PSI) measured at
38° C (100° F) or be heated above 50° C (120° F).
3. The sink-like work area must have an open drain area less
than 100 cm.
4. Evidence is provided that waste solvent will be stored or
properly disposed of with minimal loss due to evaporation.
Should you have any questions regarding this memorandum, please
contact Bill Polglase at (FTS 629-5251).
-------
PN 172-80-07-01-028
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
DATE: JUL t 1980
SUBJECT: "Boiler Plate" Language for Ozone SIPs
FROM: G. T. Helms, Chief
Control Programs Operations Branch (MD-15)
TO: Chief, Air Programs Branch, Regions I-X
Attached for your consideration is "boiler plate" language that is
suggested when a State submits an ozone SIP revision that either exempts
methyl chloroform and/or methylene chloride or includes specific controls
for these compounds. This "boiler plate" was originally drafted
by OGC for a Maryland SIP revision. Should other organic compounds
(such as Freon compounds) be included in the approved list of exempt
organic materials, the boiler plate language should be modified to
reflect these exemptions.
Should you have any questions, please contact me (FTS 629-5226) or
Bill Polglase (FTS 629-5251).
Attachment
Forrr. 1320-4 (Rev. 3-76)
-------
PROPOSED NEW BOILERPLATE FOR OZONE SIPs
Maryland's SIP exempts methyl chloroform (1,1,1, trichloroethane)
from its definition of "organic material." On May 16, 1980, EPA pub-
lished a clarification of Agency policy concerning the control of methyl
chloroform and methylene chloride in ozone SIPs. (45 FR 32424). EPA
explained that it cannot approve or enforce controls on either of these
two compounds as part of a Federally enforceable ozone SIP because
current information indicates that neither compound is an ozone pre-
cursor. Consequently, EPA is not disapproving Maryland's exemption of
methyl chloroform from the definition of "organic material."
This policy is in no way an expression of EPA's view on the
desireability of controls on these compounds. States retain the
authority to control these compounds under the authority reserved to
them in Section 116 of the Clean Air Act. In addition, State officials
and sources should be advised that there is a strong possibility of
future regulatory action by EPA to control emissions of these two
compounds. (See, e.g., Proposed New Source Performance Standards for
Organic Solvent Cleaners, 45 FR 39766, June 11, 1980.)
NOTE: This boilerplate can also be used to handle a SIP revision
which includes specific controls on the compounds (e.g., Delaware) by
substituting the following sentence for the last sentence in the first
paragraph:
Consequently, EPA is taking no action on [State]'s
regulations controlling methyl chloroform and methylene
chloride.
-------
PN 172-80-06-16-027
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
DATE: JUN 1 6 1980
SUBJECT: Gasoline Tank Truck Regulations
FROM: Richard G. Rhoads, Director
Control Programs Development Division
TO.- Jack Divita, Chief
Air Programs Branch, Region VI
(MD-15)
This is to confirm previous telephone conversations with my staff
concerning the necessity to develop regulations for gasoline tank trucks
in areas demonstrating attainment by 1982. Prior EPA guidance has
provided that:
"Urban and rural nonattainment areas not needing an
extension until 1987 may have a cutoff source size
of 100 tons per year if they can demonstrate
attainment by 1982."
As indicated above, the tank truck regulations are necessary where
nonattainment area extensions until 1987 are required.
Nonattainment areas that demonstrate attainment by 1982 may have
a cutoff source size of 100 tons per year. In line with this policy,
regulations for Stage I service stations, bulk plants, and smaller
degreasers were not required for the Group I CTG categories.
Tank trucks are less than 100 tons per year sources and, as such,
under present policy would be exempt from a CTG recommended annual
certification regulation. However, tank trucks are an integral part of
bulk terminal operations (which are generally 100 tons per year sources).
Essentially leakless tank trucks compatible with bulk terminal vapor
control were required to comply with bulk terminal regulations previously
adopted during the Group I CTG regulation development.
In summary, in areas attaining by 1982, separate regulations
covering tank trucks are strongly encouraged. In any event, in
order for the terminal regulation (mass emission standard of
80 mg/1) or an efficiency standard of (90 percent by weight) to
be effective, the tank trucks loading gasoline at regulated
terminals must be essentially leakless and equipped for vapor collection
so that vapors generated in the tank trucks during loading operations
Form 1320-6 (R«». 3-76)
-------
are vented to the bulk terminal vapor control system. The State
regulations will have to include a test method that addresses the
leak tight tank truck conditions. For additional information, please
call Bill Polglase (629-5251) or Tom Williams (629-5226).
cc: Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-V, VI1-X
Pete Hagerty, Region I
Paul Truchan, Region II
Neil Swanson, Region III
Doug Cook, Region IV
Dick Dalton, Region V
Donna Ascenzi, Region VI
David Doyle, Region VII
Bill Bernardo, Region VIII
Tom Rarick, Region IX
Ken Lepic, Region X
-------
PN 172-78-06-14-026
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN
THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
AND
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGARDING
THE INTEGRATION OF TRANSPORTATION AND AIR QUALITY PLANNING
I. Introduction
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 were signed into law by the President
on August 7, 1977. These Amendments require state and local governments
to develop for all areas where national ambient air quality standards have
not been attained, revisions to state implementation plans (SIPs). The
revised SIPs must be submitted by the state to the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) by January 1, 1979. These revised plans must provide for
attainment of the national ambient air quality standards by 1982 or, in
the case of areas with severe photochemical oxidant or carbon monoxide
problems, not later than 1987. The revised plans must also provide for
incremental reductions in emissions ("reasonable further progress") between
the time the plans are submitted and the attainment deadline.
In many major urbanized areas of the country the revised SIPs will require
transportation controls, i.e. strategies designed to reduce emissions from
transportation-related sources by means of structural and operational changes
in the transportation system. A mechanism is required that will enable
state and local governments to: (1) develop a wide range of alternative
transportation control strategies, (2) analyze the air quality and other
impacts of the strategies, and (3) select among the alternatives in a
timely and informed manner.
Federal transportation planning requirements in urbanized areas are imple-
mented by the Department of Transportation (DOT) through a joint delegation
of authority to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Urban
Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA). The FHWA and UMTA provide funds
to states and local governments to plan, develop, and improve transportation
systems and services. In urbanized areas improvements are implemented
according to a continuing, comprehensive, and cooperative transportation
planning process carried out pursuant to FHWA/UMTA joint regulations. It
-------
is in this context that "DOT" is utilized in this document. In order to
effectively achieve the objectives of the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments,
the DOT and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) agree that the trans-
portation-related air quality planning requirements of EPA will be integrated
with the transportation planning process administered by the DOT. Closer
integration of the planning requirements of DOT and EPA will ensure the
timely consideration of air quality concerns and will reduce potentially
duplicative, overlapping, and inconsistent activities at the state and
local level. DOT administers other planning programs through other
administrations (e.g. FAA and FRA) which have lesser impact on air
quality but may be subject to future discussion.
II. Purpose
This Memorandum of Understanding, developed pursuant to the President's
request, is designed (1) to establish certain principles which DOT and EPA
agree to follow in the preparation of more detailed regulations and
administrative procedures required to achieve the objective of integrating
the air quality and transportation planning processes; (2) to identify
specific areas of agreement with regard to the joint administration of the
air quality aspects of the planning process.
III. Principles that Will Guide the Integration of the Air Quality
and Transportation Planning Processes
A. The reduction of air pollution is an important national goal and
must be among the highest priorities of the transportation planning
process in areas not meeting primary Air Quality Standards. However,
the transportation planning process must also consider other national
and local objectives such as mobility, safety, energy conservation,
urban economic development, full employment and orderly metropolitan
growth.
B. It is the affirmative responsibility of federal, state and local
agencies involved in funding or conducting transportation planning
and implementation to ensure that evaluation of an adequate range
of alternative transportation control strategies is conducted in
order to furnish local, state and federal officials with an adequate
basis on which to reach informed decisions.
C. Any transportation planning activites conducted pursuant to this
agreement must continue to provide for an adequate process of
consultations with and involvement of the general purpose local
government, responsible state agencies and the public as called for
in the joint UMTA/FHWA Urban Transportation Planning regulations.
-------
0. It is the objective of the activities undertaken pursuant to this
agreement to contribute to the maximum extent feasible, in com-
bination, with other emission reduction measures, to a reduction of
emissions necessary to meet the prescribed air quality standards.
IV. Joint Administration pfjthe Air Quality Aspects of the
Urban Transportation Planning Process_
The Department of Transportation and Environmental Protection
Agency agree to modify existing procedures concerning the administration
of the urban transportation and air quality planning processes in
nonattainment areas as follows:
1. DOT and EPA regional/division offices will have the opportunity
for joint review of and concurrence in the Unified Work Program (UWP)
required pursuant to paragraph 450.114 of the Joint Planning Regulations
(23 CFR 450), to ensure that adequate air quality planning tasks are
included in the planning programs. Any disagreements at the regional
level shall be referred to the DOT Secretary for resolution. Before
making his final decision on the UWP, the Secretary will consult with
the EPA Administrator and will notify EPA of the disposition of its
comments, with appropriate supporting materials. In addition, where an
MPO has failed, without adequate reason to carry out the analysis or
other activities committed in Us Unified Work Program, DOT will prescribe
conditions which will require specified remedial actions to be taken in
order to correct the identified failure in the Unified Work Program.
DOT and EPA will develop in the near future a document identifying
appropriate categories of remedial actions.
2. DOT and EPA regional/division offices will have the opportunity
for joint review of transportation plans (including TSM elements) in
nonattainment areas required pursuant to paragraph 450.116 of the
Joint Plannning Regulations, to ensure that air quality considerations
are adequately addressed. DOT and EPA will consult with the planning
agency on how air quality related planning deficiencies will be
corrected. DOT will also explicitly consider EPA comments in taking
subsequent actions on program approvals and will notify EPA of the
disposition of its comments, with appropriate supporting materials.
3. DOT and EPA regional/division offices will have the opportunity
for joint review in connection with the annual planning certification
required pursuant to paragraph 450.122 of the Joint Planning Regulations,
on the adequacy of the planning process to address air quality considerations.
DOT and EPA will consult with the planning agency on how air quality
related planning deficiencies will be corrected. DOT will also explicitly
consider EPA comments in making any certification decisions and will
notify EPA of the disposition of its comments, with appropriate
supporting material.
-------
4. DOT and EPA regional/division offices will have the opportunity
for joint review of the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and its
annual element required pursuant to paragraph 450.118 of the Joint
Planning Regulations for consistency with the air quality elements of
the transportation plan and/or the SIP. DOT will explicitly consider
EPA's comments in program approvals, and will notify EPA of its disposition
of the comments. If EPA disagrees with the disposition of its comments,
the procedures for resolution set forth in Addendum 1 to this memorandum
will be followed.
5. DOT and EPA regional/division offices will have the opportunity
for joint review of the revised SIPs, for compliance with the objectives
of statutes administered by DOT (e.g., Title 23 USC and the Urban Mass
Transportation Act) to provide for mobility and for safe and efficient
transportation. EPA will explicitly consider DOT comments in approving
or disapproving SIP revisions, and will notify DOT of its disposition of
the comments, with appropriate supporting materials. If DOT disagrees
with the disposition of its comments, the procedures for resolution set
forth in Addendum 2 to this memorandum will be followed.
6. DOT and EPA agree to work toward greater coordination in the
administration of their respective grants for local planning activities
by including these grants in the UWP, to ensure that such grants support
effectively the related objectives of both agencies while avoiding
duplication and overlapping planning activities.
DOT and EPA will take appropriate steps to alter their existing internal
procedures and to issue a joint appendix to the existing transportation
planning regulations to implement the above understandings.
DOT and EPA agree to consult one another in the development of
criteria and procedures required by Section 176 of the Clean Air Act,
including insuring that all major capital improvement projects are
consistent with the SIP.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 14th day of June 1973.
Department, of Transportation Environmental Protection Agency
. N * si
-------
ADDENDUM 1
If the EPA Regional Administrator disagrees with the disposition
of his comments by DOT, he will so notify the DOT Regional/Division
Administrator within seven days. In such a case, the DOT Regional/
Division Administrator will not approve the element or elements of
the TIP in disagreement until so advised by headquarters.
Within 30 days after the EPA Regional Administrator notifies DOT
of his disagreement, the EPA Administrator will notify the Secretary
of Transportation if the EPA Administrator disagrees with the DOT
field staff disposition of EPA comments, and the reason for the EPA
Administrator's disagreement.
If such notification is received within 30 days, the Secretary of
Transportation will carefully consider the EPA Administrator's views
and in the event of disagreement will notify the EPA Administrator
of the disposition of his comments,- with appropriate supporting
materials before making his decision.
-------
ADDENDUM 2
If the DOT Regional/Division Administrator disagrees with the
disposition of his comments by EPA, he will so notify the EPA
Regional Administrator within seven days. In such a case, the
EPA Regional Administrator will not approve the SIP until so
advised by headquarters.
Within 30 days after the DOT Regional/Division Administrator
notifies EPA of his disagreement, the Secretary of Transportation
will notify the EPA Administrator if the Secretary of Transportation
disagrees with the EPA field staff disposition of DOT comments, and
the reason for the Secretary's disagreement.
If such notification is received within 30 days, the EPA Administrator
will carefully consider the Secretary of Transportation's views and
in the event of disagreement will notify the Secretary of the
disposition of his comments, with appropriate supporting materials
before making his decision.
-------
PN 175-BC-06-23-007
Federal Register / Vol 45. No. 122 / Monday. June 23. 1980 / Notices 42823
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
[FRL 1579-4]
Public Participation In the State
Implementation Plan—Transportation
Revision Process: Expanded
Guidelines
AGENCIES: Environmental Protection
Agency and Department of
Transportation.
ACTION: Expanded guidelines.
SUMMARY: The Clean Air Act as
amended August 1977 (Pub. L 95-95)
includes a requirement that the
Environmental Protection Agency, after
consultation with appropriate Federal,
State and local officials, produce
guidance on the basic program elements
for the planning process assisted under
Section 175 of Part D. Section 108(e)(4)
of the Act specifically directs EPA to
produce guidelines-on methods to assure
participation by the public in all phases
of that process.
The Environmental Protection
Agency, in conjunction with the
Department of Transportation, has
completed guidelines for public
participation in the planning process
assisted by funds authorized under
Section 175 of the Clean Air AcL These
guidelines are being published today to
complement their distribution to lead
agencies, States, public interest groups,
organizations of local elected officials
and the public.
The guidelines set forth the elements
and procedures of an acceptable public
participation program. This program
should be integrated with the urban air
quality planning program that is being
carried out by lead agencies comprised
of local elected officials.and designated
under Section 174 of (he Clean Air Act
FOR INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary C.
Hawthorn or William L Houck,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Transportation and Land Use
Policy (ANR-445), 401 M Street, &W.,
Washington, B.C. 20460, (202) 755-0603.
FOR SPECIFIC INFORMATION OM DOT'S
ROLE, CONTACT: James Geteewich,
Department of Transportation. Urbao
Mass Transportation Administration
-------
42024 Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 122 / Monday, June 23, 1980 / Notices
(UPM-10). 400 Seventh Street, S.W..
Washington. D.C. 20590. (202) 426-W91.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
and the Department of Transportation
(DOT) jointly issued Transportation-Air
Quality Planning Guidelines in June
1978. Section UI-D of those guidelines
contained initial guidance for lead and
other agencies involved in the planning
process to use in developing an effective
public participation program to support
the 1979 Stale Implementation Plan (SIP)
submission.
The joint EPA-DOT guidelines
published today are an expansion of
that earlier guidance. EPA and DOT
indicated their intent to issue these
expanded guidelines in Section 175
Federal Register notices of December 28.
1978 (43 FR 60215) and March 6,1980 (45
FR 14774). The guidelines-are to assist
urban areas that could not demonstrate
attainment of the national ambient air
quality standards for carbpn monoxide
and/or ozone by December 31.1982.
Agencies representing these areas are
required to submit a revised SIP in 1982
which includes an analysis of, and
commitment to implement, reasonably
available transportation control
measures in order to assist in attaining
the carbon monoxide and ozone
standards before December 31.1987.
Since certain measures which may be
included in the revised SIP could affect
personal travel habits and could be
considered controversial, it is essential
that effective public participation
support the planning and
implementation process.
The expanded guidelines are a result
of over 12 months of extensive
consultation with Stale, local and
regional agencies, public and special
interest groups, knowledegable
consultants and the general public. Prior
to developing the guidelines, EPA
surveyed established public interest
groups and lead agencies which
demonstrated exemplary approaches to
public involvement.
The insight gained from this survey
led to the development of the first
version of the Section 108{e)(4)
guidelines which were presented at a
national meeting of lead agency officials
in April 1979. All of the numerous
comments EPA received were reviewed
and considered in the development of a
revised June 1979 draft. This version
reflected the fact that a majority of
commentors had urged EPA to place
more emphasis on the key elements of a
successful process rather than to rely
upon rigid, prescribed public
participation techniques.
Further refinement of the guidelines
occurred in the following months. June.
August and October 1979 drafts were
widely distributed to lead agencies,
selected environmental and public
interest groups and the general public.
Periodic newsletter releases.
presentations at national meetings and
workshops, mail responses and direct
contact with affected interests produced
over 100 written and verbal responses.
Many of these comments helped shape
the Section 108(e)(4) guidelines into a
more practical tool for the management
of the consultation portion of the
transportation-air quality program.
Throughout the development of the
guidelines EPA maintained an open-
ended approach to public review and
comments. EPA's efforts were the
subject of continuing critique and
refinement by those who were to be
most affected by the guidelines.
Commenlors played a strong role in
shaping the direction of the guidelines.
In October of 1979 EPA released an
interim final version of the guidelines.
Little additional comment was received
on this version. Areas requiring a post-
1982 attainment extension for carbon
monoxide and/or ozone were
encouraged to use this interim version
when preparing their remaining Section
175 grant applications. EPA and DOT
then entered into discussions to produce
the final guidelines jointly. This joint
version being published today contains
only minor changes from the previous
October draft.
Finally, in support of the guidelines, a
scries of well-received technical
assistance seminars were held in
January and February 1980 in
Philadelphia, Chicago. San Francisco
and Colorado Springs for affected
agencies, elected officials and citizens in
order to explain the rationale behind,
and the practically applicability of, the
guidelines to ongoing transportation-air
quality work program development.
Expanded Guidelines for Public
Participation in the SIP—Transportation
Revision Process
'&ih/e of Contents
Foreword
Organization of the Guidelines
A. Introduction: Purpose and Background
B. Policy and Objectives
C. Applicability
D. Definilion of the Public
E. Elements and Procedures
1. Commitment
2. Identification
3. Outreach
4. Interaction
5. Responsiveness
6. Evaluation
7. Financial Resources
F. Work Program and Public Information
Involvement
G. Progress Reports
H. Performance Evaluation
1. Provisions for Coordination
Foreword
The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department
of Transportation (DOT) are jointly
issuing these Guidelines for public
participation in response to Section
108(e)(4) of the Clean Air Act, as
amended August 1977. This issuance
expands upon the more genera! public
participation guidance in the June 1978
EPA-DOT Transportation-Air Quality
Planning Guidelines. These Guidelines
apply to public participation programs
for development of the transportation
component of SIPs funded with section
175 grants in urban areas requiring an
extension beyond 1982 for attainment of
the carbon monoxide or ozone standard.
EPA views the Guidelines as a
significant step in its efforts to integrate
Clean Air Act transportation
requirements with the ongoing DOT
process.
Section C. Applicability, describes the
operational significance of these
Guidelines: "Section 175 grant awards
made subsequent to the issuance of
these Guidelines will be conditioned on
an adequate response to the Guidelines
for'urban areas requiring an extension
beyond 1982 for attainment of the CO
and/or the ozone standard. EPA will
require these grantees to modify their
section 175 work programs to include
specific tasks that meet the objectives
and cover elements and procedures of
the expanded Guidelines."
The Guidelines have benefited from
and been shaped by extensive
consultation. As a consequence of the
many comments, the final version does
not prescribe detailed methods but does
cover the essential elements and
procedures of an effective public
participation program. Specific methods
are not prescribed because many
alternative approaches can be
effectively employed. Extensive details
on specific participation or information
techniques are not provided because (1)
such information is available elsewhere
and (2) the exact details should be a
local decision.
EPA and DOT have observed that the
most effective public participation
programs consist of elementary parts
and procedures. Therefore, the final
product continues to emphasize the
common sense ingredients of an
adequate public participation program.
Implementation of these basic
Guidelines should improve a key part of
the SIP-transportation process and
facilitate attainment of the air quality
standards.
-------
/ Voi. 45. No. 122 / Monday, June 23, 1980 / Nolioes^
42025
Organization of the Guidelines
Following the Foreword the
Guidelines are organized into nine
sections. The Introduction, Section A,
addresses the Purpose and Background,
highlighting the relationships of the
Guidelines to the Clean Air Act and past
DOT and EPA guidance. Section B
covers Agency Policy and Objectives
regarding public participation activities.
The Applicability of the Guidelines—
particularly their relationship to the
section 175 grant program—is set forth
in section C.
Section D provides a Definition of
Public, while Section E presents more
substantive information on Elements
and Procedures in seven subsections,
including: Commitment. Identification,
Outreach, Interaction, Responsiveness,
Evaluation, and Financial Resources.
Section F describes how Section 175
Work Programs should be modified,
where necessary, to address Guideline
elements. Sections G and H discuss the
content of Progress Reports and
Performance Evaluation criteria,
respectively. Section I concludes with
advice on COORDINATION of related
public participation programs.
A. Introduction: Purpose and
Background
The nation's efforts to attain and
maintain healthy, clean air will not
succeed without an informed and
involved citizenry. Effective citizen and
elected official involvement is especially
essential to development of the
transportation portion of State
Implementation Plan (SIPs) because
certain measures could affect travel
habits and be considered controversial.
The purpose of the expanded public
participation Guidelines is to facilitate
attainment of national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS). Early and
widespread public and elected official
involvement throughout the process can
accelerate and smooth the planning and
implementation of measures by
surfacing community goals and interests
and by helping to resolve conflicts prior
to key decision points.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of
1977 clearly emphasize the need for
public and elected offical input to SIP
development. Section 172(b](9) requires
public involvement and consultation.
Consultation should occur from the
initial stages of identifying and
developing controls through technical
analysis to the selection and
implementation of measures.
Additionally section 108(e)(4j directs the
EPA Administrator to issue guidance on
methods to assure public involvement ia
all phases of the planning process
funded by section 175.
These expanded Guidelines build
upon the June 1978 Transportation-Air
Quality Planning Guidelines. This initial
guidance of June 1978 anticipated the
issuance of further detail on an effective
public participation program as
provided for in Section 108(e) of the Act.
EPA and DOT indicated their intent to
issue these expanded Guidelines in the
Section 175 Federal Register notice of
December 26,1978 (43 FR 60215).
Agencies should coordinate
implementation of these Guidelines with
their activities conducted in response to
Section 121 requirements on
intergovernmental consultation (e.g., by
insuring effective interaction among
local elected officials and citizens).
Implementation of the Guidelines should
also be coordinated with section 127
requirements on public notification
which require a SIP revision to address
how the public will be informed and
involved in all phases of SIP
development and implementation. This
Section 127 SIP revision should include
a summary of activities carried out in
response to these section 108(e)
Guidelines.
B. Policy and Objectives
These expanded Guidelines reflect the
following policy: Public participation
will be provided for, encouraged and
assisted as a continuing activity in the
SIP-Transportation Revision Process.
Public information and involvement
should begin early and continue
throughout the planning process.
Responsible agencies should seek and
consider the views of a wide spectrum
of affected public interests. Since
effective involvement may occur in a
variety of ways, the Guidelines o.utline
only the key elements and procedures of
an effective public participation
program. The Guidelines do not
prescribe specific methods.
The goal of agencies engaged in S1P-
transportation revision process should
be to achieve and maintain widespread
public awareness and consensus on the
nature of the air quality problem and
agreement on the implementation of
reasonably available controls necessary
for its solution. The objectives
supporting this goal are:
1. to assure that the public and elected
officials understand the: (1) public
health and welfare dangers of air
pollution; (2) the nature of the SIP-
transportation revision process and the
role of the public and officials in it; (3)
the nature and impacts of transportation
control measures (TCMs) and their
relationship to other attainment
strategies;
2. to encourage active involvement of
a broad range of interested and affected
constituencies in the SIP-iransportation
revision process;
3. to assure public understanding and
agreement on needed, reasonably
available transportation-air quality
measures;
4. to assure that interested and
affected constituencies are identified,
informed and consulted before decisions
are made that significantly affect the
public;
5. to assure that agency and elected
officials consider and are responsive to
the concerns of these constituencies
when making such decisions;
6. to foster spirit of openness and
mutual trust among responsible
agencies, elected officials and the
public, thereby establishing and
maintaining the legitimacy and
credibility of the SIP-transportatiofl
revision process;
C. Applicability
These expanded Guidelines apply to
all section 175 urban air quality planning
grantees and subgrantees in urbaa areas
that require an extension beyond 1982 to
attain the carbon monoxide and/or
ozone air quality standards.
The expanded Guidelines do not
apply to grantees or subgrantees in
urban areas that demonstrate
attainment of carbon monoxide and
ozone air quality standards by 1982.
Grantees and subgrantees in such areas
are required, however, to implement-
public participation activities called for
in the EPA-DOT June 1978 Guidelines
{section 111 D).
These Guidelines are effective as of
the date issued. Grants awarded after
December J, 1979, however, were
approved with the condition that within
60 days of the effective date of the
Guidelines, tasks meeting the objectives
and covering the elements and
procedures of the Guidelines were to be
included in the section 175 work
programs and undertaken as a part of
the approved grant Grants awarded
after tfte effective date of the Guideline*
must contain tasks that meet the
objectives and cover the elements and
procedures of the expanded Guidelines.
Section F provides details on work
program content Failure to adequately
address these Guidelines in the section
175 work program will delay grant
awards until deficiencies are corrected
EPA could notify UMTA. in
accordance with procedures in
Attachment J to OMB circular A-102, to
withhold section 175 payments if grant
conditions are aot met or if work
program tasks unpfesaeating Guideline
procedures are set carried out
-------
42026
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No. 122 / Monday, June 23, 1980 / Notices
The applicability of the Guidelines
with respect to appropriate agency and
interest group roles should be
determined by the lead planning agency
in consultation with agencies and
groups affected. Responsibilities for
implementing Guideline elements and
procedures should be shared among
agencies—and jointly determined as
required by section 174 of the Act.
Those agencies identified in accordance
with section 174 as having roles to play
in implementing Guideline elements are
hereinafter referred to as "responsible
agencies."
Although actual implementation of
individual Guideline elements may be
carried out by different agencies, the
lead planning agency is responsible for
overall coordination. The lead agency
should manage the coordination of all
activities necessary to develop the
required work program tasks and to
implement the Guidelines.
D. Definition of the Public
The public ia not only the general
population but also a collection of
constituencies with varying interests
and concerns regarding air quality and
transportation. As used in the
guidelines, public refers to those
interests concerned about and likely to
be affectd by, the implementation of
transportation control measures. In any
given area for any particular measure
these constituencies could include
consumer, public health, environmental,
civic, neighorhood. minority, labor,
trade, commerce and industry and, of
course, individual citizens. Public
information and involvement programs
should be designed for both general and
specific interests.
E. Elements and Procedures of an
Effective Public Participation Program
The following six sections define the
principal elements of an effective public
participation program. These are:
commitment, identification, outreach,
interaction, responsiveness, evaluation.
Section seven discusses the financial
resources necessary to support these
elements. Lead agencies in consultation
with citizen advisory groups should
work closely with EPA in developing
Section 175 work program tasks to cover
each of these elements. Tasks should
reflect ongoing public participation
activities that adequately cover the
elements below.
1. Commitment. A lead agency's
commitment to these expanded
Guidelines is first demonstrated by
integrating the public participation
program tasks Into the overall
transportation-air quality work program.
The goals, objectives, elements,
procedures and performance criteria of
the public participation program should
be clearly defined and developed by the
lead planning agency in consultation
with a body of interested and affected
constituencies. Execution of these work
program tasks demonstrates an agency's
commitment to integrate Guideline
citizen participation activities with the
SIP-transportation revision process.
2. Identification. Constituencies
interested in and potentially affected by
transportation-air quality issues should
be identified and inventoried early in
the process, as called for in the June
1978 EPA/DOT Planning Guidelines.
The inventory—if not yet completed—
should be finished within two months of
issuance of these Guidelines. These
constituencies should be matched to
specific air quality issues and other
transportation impacts according to
timing and geographic considerations.
As new interests are identified they
should be encouraged jo participate in
the planning process. Information and
involvement techniques should be
targeted at particular interests at key
points in the process to make better use
of scare public participation resources.
3. Outreach. Citizens and elected
officials can productively participate in
the process only if they receive timely,
accurate and understandable
information well in advance of key
decisionmaking. An extensive,
continuing public education and
information—i.e.. outreach—effort
should be directed at these groups.
This outreach program should cover:
Clean Air Act requirements: the
relationship of air quality, public health
and TCM's: benefits, costs and other
impacts of control measures (including
social, economic, energy, environmental,
mobility, etc.); timetables for proposed
actions; lay summaries of lengthy or
technical documents: and importantly,
guidance on how and when to
effectively participate in the process.
Various outreach method can be
employed to enhance public awareness,
understanding and involvement. These
methods include: press releases, radio
arid television programs, public service
announcements, news conferences,
speakers' bureaus, educational
television, school curricula, information
campaigns for particular TCMs,
pamphlets, fact sheets, newsletters,
roadway notices, town and
neighborhood workshops, newspaper
advertisements, slide shows and films,
demonstration program (e.g., financial
incentives for earpools, transit fare
reductions, free emission tests, flexitime
etc.), public opinion polls, sub-area
public participation coordinators, etc.
These guidelines are not intended to
provide detailed information on each of
these methods. The methods have been
adequately covered in special courses
and in the literature published by DOT
in an extensive compendium: Effective
Citizen Participation in Transportation
Planning. Volumes 1 and II. 1979). EPA
and DOT can provide further
information on this material and other
references.
Outreach activities should be
conducted well in advance of key
decision points and precede the use of
interaction techniques. Information
should be distributed in a timely fashion
to affected and interested groups and
individuals. A comprehensive mailing
list should be maintained and updated
by the lead planning agency as new
issues and interest groups surface.
Additionally the lead planning agency
should provide central locations whore
relevant information is available for
public review.
4. Interaction. Outreach activities are
intended to inform the public whereas
interaction activities channel this
awareness and interest into exchanges
among the public, elected offrcials and
agencies on issues, measures, impacts,
etc. Public hearings and agency
meetings with ad hoc or permanent
citi2en advisory bodies have
traditionally been used to obtain public
comment on plans and projects. While
these can be effective techniques, many
others (including many listed above in
section E.3) can be employed to achieve
the communication necessary for
agreement on reasonably available
measures and plan implementation (e.g.,
use of an ombudsman or citizen
advocate, citizen delphi panels,
telephone hotlines, special meetings
with affected interests, etc.)
Section 110 of the Act requires
"reasonable notice and public hearings"
prior to adoption and submittal of the
SIP. Section 172(b)(9) requires
nonattainment plans to: "evidence
public, local government, and State
legislative involvement and consultation
in accordance with section 174 and
include (A) an identification and
analysis of. . . plan effects and
alternatives considered by the State.
and (B) a summary of the public
comment on such analysis".
Where an ad hoc or permanent
citizens advisory body (reflecting a
range of-affected community interests) is
used, it should contribute to the
development of, and function in, the
public participation program (See the
June 1978 June EPA-DOT Planning
Guidelines, p. 16). Such bodies should
also participate in the development and
analysis of alternative transportation
control measures, (Section IIWE the June
-------
Federali Register / Vol. 45. No. 122 /Monday. June 23. 1980 /Notices^
42027
1978 Guidelines) and at key miles tones
noted below.
Existing procedures and groups
should be used where possible.
However, the lead planning agency in
consultation with a representative group
of interests or a citizen advisory body
must demonstrate that existing
techniques allow those affected,
including genera! citizens, to effectively
participate in the process.
The public should be informed,
allowed to comment and receive
responses on major issues prior to
significant agency actions. At least 45
days should be allowed for outreach
and interaction activities prior to major
decisions.
Effective public participation
throughout the SIP-transportation
revision process requires that key
decision points and activities be defined
at the outset. A description of these
must be included in all Section 175 work
programs as a basis for grant award or
for the continued receipt of section 175
funds. The following are the minimum
points at which input should be sought
and considered in a timely fashion prior
to decisionmaking. (Each area may
identify additional key points):
a. development "and adoption of the
overall section 175 work program for
inclusion in the DOT unified planning
work program (UPWP);
b. development and adoption of a
public information and involvement
program, including specific tasks in the
section 175 work program (as part of a.);
c. initial identification of
transportation control measures (TCMs)
and packages of TCMs for possible
inclusion in the 1982, SIP;
d. evaluation framework for the
assessment of TCMs and packages of
TCMs for the 1982 SIP;
e. identification and assessment of the
social, economic, environmental, energy,
community, health, minority, mobility
etc., impacts of measures or packages of
measures (as required by the June 1978
EPA-DOT Planning Guidelines);
f. adoption of proposed or final
packages of TCMs for inclusion in the
1982 SIP (including the determination of
the mix of stationary source and
transportation controls);
g. removal of any TCM from a
previously approved plan;
h. rejection of any TCM as "not
reasonably available;"
i. conformity determination of
programs and projects with approved
SIPs by MPOs receiving Section 175
funds;
j. demonstration phase or trial
application of adopted TCMs prior to
final decision on full, permanent
implementation.
5. Responsiveness. In addition to
providing clear procedures and
mechanisms for public input the
responsible agency should assure that
this input is made known and
understood by decisionmakers and
considered in agency decisions and
actions. For example, the agency should
provide within a reasonable time,
explicit responses to formal
recommendations or significant issues
raised by interested or affected
constituents. This could include
responses to: requests formore
information or explanations of technical
issues, suggested changes to a proposed
or adopted program (e.g., section 175
work program, UPWP. TIP) and
questions on rejection of public
proposals. The responsible agency
should also respond to requests for
information by the general public and
consider their concerns throughout the
process.
Semi-annual progress reports to EPA
(see section G) should include a
summary record of major issues raised
by the public covering the receipt,
consideration, and disposition of these
issues. Agencies should distribute and
discuss the summary record with
commenters and interested constituents
at appropriate meetings. The summary
record should be made available for
general public review at convenient
locations.
6. Evaluation. The effectiveness of the
public participation program should be
evaluated periodically by the lead
planning agency in consultation with
other responsible agencies and affected
community interests in order to identify
shortcomings and make improvements.
Program effectiveness can be measured
by determining whether public
participation objectives (defined in the
section 175 work program) have been
met and by applying performance
criteria, developed by lead and olher
responsible agencies in consultation
with affected community interests (See
Section H). EPA will monitor and
evaluate the participation program and
will work with lead planning agencies
and the public to make improvements.
7. Financial Resources. The
responsible agencies should allocate
sufficient financial resources to provide
for informed and effective public
participation in the SIP-transportation
revision process. Section 175 grantees
and subgrantees are encouraged to work
closely with existing citizens' and
interest groups, building upon their
contacts and expertise wherever
possible. Agencies conducting related
air quality and transportation public
participation activities should
coordinate their resources.
While SlP-transportation revision
public participation activities should be
funded from multiple sources, EPA
believes an adequate public
participation program—including the
vital element of local elected official
consultation—may require from 10 to
30% of an area's total section 175 funds.
Additionally EPA strongly encourages
the pass-through of section 175 funds to
a broad base of affected constituencies
to achieve better understanding of. and
effective participation in, the planning
process. (The June 1978 EPA-DOT
Planning Guidelines note that the basic
element of any information and
consultation program should be
conducted by the agencies or interest
groups best equipped to carry out the
tasks effectively.)
The scope and intensity of the public
participation program should be scaled
to the severity of the air quality
problem, the number and types of
interests affected, and the level of
awareness, understanding and
involvement of the public needed to
develop and implement an attainment-
plan.
F. Work Program For Public
Information/In vehement
Eligible applicants for section 175
funds must submit a program for public
information/involvement that covers the
elements and meets the objectives of
these Guidelines. The work program
should detail key milestones and link
the technical study portion of the
process to the information and
consultation portion. The relationship
and scheduling of major tasks should be
noted (e.g., public input to the
development and analysis of
alternatives). Work program tasks
should be incorporated into the area's
UPWP and implementation should be
tracked and substantiated in progress
reports (section G).
The work program should be prepared
and implemented by the lead planning
agency in consultation with other state,
regional and local agencies and the
public interest groups most capable of
carrying out the public information and
involvement tasks. As noted in section
E.7 the work program should provide for
contracts with citizens' organizations
and public interest groups to carry out
public information and involvement
tasks where such Work can be
effectively carried out by such groups.
The work program should describe all
public information and involvement
tasks to be undertaken In development
and implementation of the
transportation portion of the 1982 SIP
-------
Federal Register / VoL 45. No. 122 / Monday, June 23. 1980 / NoHces
submitta! and should (in accordance
with Section E above):
1. State the goals and objectives of the
public participation program in the SIP-
tran sport a lion revision process. These
should be developed by the lead
planning agency in consultation with a
body reflecting the interested^and
affected constituencies of the'public
(See sections B. D, and E.I and Hj;
2. Outline the SIP-transportation
revision process and decisionrnaking
structure and identify opportunities for
public input (section E.I and E.3);
Identify and update, as necessary,
affected interests, their issues of
concern, potential impacts of
transportation control measures on each
interest, tuning and geographic coverage
of measures, sic. {section D. E2 and Gj;
4. Identify key milestones and
decision points in the SIP-transporlation
revision process, particularly regarding
I ho analysts, adoption and
implementation of TCMs (section E.4)
and identify specific techniques to
inform and involve the interested and
affected segments of the public at these
key points {section E.3 and 4);
S. Describe procedures and
mechanisms to seek, consider and
respond to the views of the general
public and affected interest in
decisionrnaking (section E.3. E.4 and
E.5);
& Describe the role, responsibilities
and composition of a citizens' advisory
group (or groups) reflecting the affected
interest to be consulted on SfP-
transDortation revision decisions
throughout the process (sections D and
E.4);
7. Describe a public education and
iaformalion strategy for producing
understandable, timely and readily
accessible information targeted at
affected interests, the general public and
elected officials at key points in the
process (sections E.3 and E.4):
8. Describe how feedback on the
effectiveness of the overall public
information and involvement program
will be obtained, used and reported on
by the lead planning agency, include
evaluation criteria on ihe effectiveness
of the public participation program
(section E.5. E.6. G and H);
9. Identify funding sources and
commit resources needed to carry out a
effective program (section E.7). Identify
at least one staff member from the lead
planning agency or other responsible
agcMicies to serve as prime public
participation coordinator and
information contact:
10. Describe procedures to coordinate
activities of agencies and groups
conducting SIP public participation
activities (section 1);
11. Describe section 175 agreements
for pass-through funding to citizens' or
public interest groups (section E.7 and
F).
G. Progress Reports
Implementation of the public
participation work program should be
tracked and substantiated. The lead
planning agency must submit an
assessment of public information and
involvement tasks conducted during the
preceding six-month period as part of its
section 175 progress report to EPA. This
assessment should neither be
voluminous not a substitute for the more
effective mechanism of direct staff
contact for demonstrating and
determining progress. It should at a
minimum, however:
1. Briefly summarize and evaluate
work accomplished in conducting public
participation activities included in the
lead planning agency's work program.
particularly noting those tasks
supported by section ITS funds;
2. Briefly summarize major issues
raised by the public and the agency's
response to those issues;1
3. Identify significant emerging issues
and previously unidentified but
potentially affected interests who need
to be informed and involved, if any and;
4. Briefly describe public information
and involvement activities to be carried
out over the next reporting period,
according to upcoming key milestones,
identified interests, and crucial issues.
The semi-annual assessments should
be provided to EPA, to the general
public in a timely well-publicized
manner in convenient locations, and to
interested and affected constituencies
through direct distribution.
H. Performance Evaluation
The effectiveness of a public
participation program is ultimately
demonstrated by widespread public
understanding of the problem and a
consensus by responsible interests to
implement the most reasonable
solutions. The public participation
program should be periodically
evaluated and refined.
These Guidelines require the lead
planning agency, in consultation with
other responsible agencies and interest
groups, to define the goals, objectives
and evaluation criteria of the public
participation program at the outset of
the process. Each lead agency—in
1 Examples of documentation that could be
siimmnrizod anA referenced include: recorded
minulwi of public hearings and advisory group
merlinys. summaries of public workshop sessions.
correspondence wilh citizens and special inJeres!
groups, information and media materials, public
comment logs: elc.
consultation with other responsible
agencies and interest groups—should
use and report on these objectives -and
criteria as the basis for periodically
assessing the effectiveness of its
program. In managing the section 175
gram program EPA will use—and
suggests that the lead agencies use—the
following criteria or questions to
evaluate performance. This evaluation
should be conducted semi-annually or
more frequently if necessary.
1. Have dear goals, objectives and
evaluation criteria of the public
participation program been defined? To
what degree are tliey being met?
2. Have all potentially affected aad
interested segments of the public been
identified and contacted regarding their
role and concerns in the SIP revision
process?
3. Has timely information and data
been provided to affected interests to
allow intelligent comment on the issues
and alternative measures?
4. Have their concerns been
communicated to and understood by the
lead planning agency's staff and
decisionmakers? Have the staff and
decisionmakers responded to these
concerns?
5. Has this exchange ted to a better
understanding of the problem, the
issues, and alternatives solutions? Has i1
helped lead planning agencies to resolve
conflicts with affected interests and
reach agreement in a timely fashion on
clear courses of action to attain and
maintain the NAAQSs?
6. Has there been an appropriate
commitment of manpower and financial
resources to the public participation
program? Has technical and financial
assistance to citizen groups and/or
citizen advisory bodies been provided?
7. Have the media and other
information techniques been used
effectively, resulting in greater public
understanding of air quality problems
and possible solutions?
8. Have section 175 and other funds
been adequate—and used effectively—
to educate, inform and involve the
public and local elected officials?
/. Provisions For Coordination
Agencies conducting air quality-
related public participation programs
are encouraged to coordinate efforts and
combine resources to decrease the costs
and increase the effectiveness of their
efforts. Hearings and other meetings
should be held jointly for more than one
purposes or program under the Act
where possible.
Public participation activities funded
under section 105 (air grants to State
and local-air pollution control agencies),
section 175 (urban air quality planning
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 122 /.Monday. June 23. I960 / Notices 42029
grants to organizations of local elected
officials) and with DOT planning funds
should be coordinated. Where States
and lead agencies conduct
complementary public information and
involvement efforts, the coordinated use
of staff and resources as well as joint
presentation of complex environmental,
transportation, and public health issues
is encouraged.2
The responsible agencies should also
consider integrating air quality public
participation programs, where
appropriate, with other public
participation activities in related areas
(e.g., energy conservation, water quality,
transportation, etc.)
Dated: May 1.1980.
David G. Hawkins,
Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise and
Radiation, Environmental Protection Agency.
Dated: April 29,1980.
William B. Johnston,
Assistant Secretory for Policy and
Internationa! Affairs, Department of
Transportation.
|FR Doc 80-18646 Filed 6-20-80. 8:45 am)
BILLING CODE 6560-OI-M
-------
COPY PN 175-80-04-23-006
APR 23, 1980
SUBJECT: Implementation of Executive Order 12185, Conservation
of Petroleum and Natural Gas
FROM: David G. Hawkins, Assistant Administrator
for Air, Noise, and Radiation (ANR-443) [Original signed by]
TO: Air and Hazardous Materials Division Directors, Regions
I-X
BACKGROUND
On December 17, 1979 President Carter signed Executive Order
12185, a copy of which is attached, encouraging the additional
conservation of petroleum and natural gas by recipients of
federal financial assistance. An interagency effort coordinated
by White House staff was initiated to implement the order.
On February 7, 1980 the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and other federal agencies published in the Federal
Register (45 FR 8534) a list of federal assistance programs that
may offer opportunities for energy conservation. Since that time
the White House coordinators have requested the identification of
changes in regulations and other actions to assure that the
assistance programs do contribute to energy conservation. These
changes in regulations and other actions will be announced in the
Federal Register in May 1980.
ENERGY CONSERVATION FROM EPA ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
The EPA response to the White House indicated that
administrative actions can be used to assure that energy
conservation is adequately considered by recipients of section
175 and 105 grants and that no changes in regulations are
necessary. The actions that were identified for the two grant
programs are described below.
I urge each of you to consider these and other actions that
will result in energy conservation when you negotiate grants with
state and local governments. I know that several regional
offices have already identified energy conservation initiatives
-------
-2-
in response to the March 13, 1980 memorandum from the
Administrator and Deputy Administrator. If you have any
questions about the actions listed below, please -call Jerry
Kurtzweg at 755-0570.
SECTION 105 CONTROL AGENCY CRAFTS
The annual EPA operating guidance already identifies a
number of energy related activities including:
- vehicle inspection and maintenance programs
- fuel conversions
- permitting of energy facilities
EPA headquarters staff will evaluate the portion of the agency
guidance setting priorities for section 105 grants to determine
whether any revised or supplementary guidance is necessary to
implement Executive Order 12185. Any additional guidance
result from the evaluation will be sent to regional offices by
mid-May 1980.
Energy conservation considerations will be incorporated in
the requirements for future state implementation plan revisions.
Additional emphasis will be placed on the requirement of section
172(b)(9) of the Clean Air Act for identification and analysis of
energy and other effects of plan revisions.
SECTION 175 URBAN AIR QUALITY PLANNING GRANTS
Identification of the energy implications of air quality
plan elements was explicitly identified in the March 63 1980
Federal Register notice of funds availability as an activity
eligible for funding. Regional offices should assure that the
work programs prepared by grant applicants adequately provide for
energy assessments. Energy assessments should receive high
priority in allocating any discretionary funds that regional
offices may have.
Attachment
cc: Ed Tuerk
Walt Barber
Steve Kuhrtz
Chris Palmer
Bob Fuhrman
Air Branch Chiefs
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460
JAN 15 ^80 PN 175-80-01-15-005
OPP1CS OP
AIR, NOISE. AND 5AOIATICN
SUBJECT: Reconciliation of Population Prcjections in Revised
State Implementation Plans
FRCM: David Q. Hawkins, Assistant Administrator
for Air, Noise, and Radiation (ANR-443)
TO: Regional Administrators, Regions I-X
Among the criteria included in the Administrator's February
24, 1978 memorandum for approving 1979 state isiplementaticn plan
(SI?) revisions was the requirement that the growth rates en which
the plan is based be consistent with the growth rates used in
other federally administered planning programs. Consistency among
the growth rates used in programs for which the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible is particularly essential.
Responses to a recent telephone survey indicate that seme
regional offices have not compared the pcpulaticn projecticns on
which 1979 SIP revisions are bas^d with the population projections
used in water quality management or wastewater treatment facility
plans for the same area. As a result, EPA. may be approving SIPs,
208 plans, and facility plans based en different population
projections.
The SIP population projecticns may also differ from those new
being submitted by states in response to the requirements of the
cost-effectiveness analysis guidelines published in September
1978. These requirements include:
9 State pcpulaticn projecticns must be consistent with
projections prepared for EPA by the Bureau of Economic
Analysis or the ^Regional Administrator must approve a
variance*
0 States must disaggregate- pcpulaticn projections ancng
designated 208 areas and other substate areas. Air
quality planning agencies must be consulted in the
disaggregation. The deadline for submitting these
projecticns to EPA was October 1, 1979.
0 208 projections prepared prior to June 26, 1978 may
continue to be used unless the projecticns exceed the
state disaggregaticn for the area by more than 10 percent.
Where the 208 projection exceeds the 10 percent allowance,
the 208 agency must lower its projection and submit the
revised projection for stats and SPA approval.
-------
0 Projections for 208 and ether substate areas most be
further disaggregated among wastawater treatment facility
planning areas.
Projections developed according to the cost-effectiveness
guidelines should ultimately be the basis for all air and water
quality plans that SPA approves. Although the projections en
which the 1979 SIP sufcmittals are based should have been
consistent with the projections being used in water quality
management and facility plans, those projections have new been or
scon will be superseded by projections developed under the
cost-effectiveness guidelines.
In an October 18, 1978 menccandum, Tom Jorling, former
Assistant Administrator for Water and Waste Management, and I
indicated that the population projections resulting from the
application of the cost-effectiveness guidelines should be used in
preparing the SIP revisions due in 1982. You are requested to
notify those states that are granted extensions for attaining the
standards for ozone and carbon monoxide that EPA. will require the
use of projections consistent with those developed under the
cost-effectiveness guidelines as a condition for approval of their
1982, SIP revision.
Earlier this month Chris Beck and I requested an examination
of the population projections used in the 1979 SIP revisions.
If you find in these examinations that a different population
projection was used in the 1979 SIP revision than wasr
submitted in response to the cost-effectiveness- guidelines, then
you should request that the state reconcile the projections within
the next 5-12 months. Mechanisms such as section 105 and 175 air
quality planning grant conditions and state-SPA agreements should
be used to help bring the population projections into agreement.
Reconciling population projections is identified as an eligible
activity for funding in the Federal Register notice that I signed
recently announcing the second 525 million of section 175 funds.
Peconciling population projections is also included among the
first priority group of regional objectives/activities in the
draft Agency- guidance for FT 1981.
In seme- instances, reconciliation of population projections
may result in 1979 SI? revision that provided for attainment in
1982 no longer being adequate to meet, that deadline.. If you find
that the control measures in a SI? are inadequate to attain the
standards in 1982 due to a revised population projection, then the
governor should be notified to revise the SIP.
-------
PN 175-79-02-12-004
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
FEE 12, 1979
OFFICE OF
AIR, NOISE. AND RADIATION
COPY
SUBJECT: Regional Office Assistance in Expediting Headquarters
Review of Section 175 Grant Applications
FROM: Gary C. Hawthorn, Chief [original signed by]
Transportation Policy Branch
THRU: John 0. Hidinger, Director
Office of Transportation and Land
Use Policy
MEMO TO: Air & Hazardous Materials Division
Directors, Regions I-X
Air & Hazardous Materials Branch
Chiefs, Regions I-X
Transportation Contacts, Regions I-X.
1. Background: The DOT-ERA Interagency Agreement of
November 3, 1978 (see Appendix B of December 26, 1978 Federal
Register (FR) notice on Urban Air Quality Planning Grants) defines
the respective roles of EPA and UMTA in administering section 175
funds. This memorandum does not modify the roles of EPA and UMTA
Regional Offices as provided for in the Interagency Agreement.
Rather, this memorandum provides additional, clarifying information
on the specific roles of EPA and UMTA headquarters in the section 175
grants management process.
2. UMTA's planning grant procedures require that all section
175 planning grants and work programs for large cities (with over one
million population) be reviewed by UMTA headquarters and signed by
the UMTA Administrator. This required review by UMTA headquarters
can add approximately two to three weeks to the total time for grant
processing and approval. In carrying out OTLUP's program responsi-
bilities, the Transportation Policy Branch will participate in — and
work to expedite -- this headquarters review. My staff will review
the proposed scope of work and budget to insure conformity with the
current UPWP, the EPA-DOT Transportation-Air Quality Planning
Guidelines, and the EPA-DOT Federal Register on Urban Air Quality
Planning.
3. EPA and UMTA Regional Offices can help expedite
headquarters' review by insuring that secition 175 grant applications
provide the information required in the December 26, 1978 FR notice.
-------
Lead agencies should be strongly encouraged to prepare the grant
application with the FR notice in hand. The most expeditious
headquarters' review can be conducted when:
(1) The application explicitly provides information for
each item required in section H, "Application
Procedures."
(2) The eligible priority activities in section F are
explicitly discussed and described in the UPHP (upon
which the grant application is based) - Generally, the
initial grant falls into one of two categories:
(a) where the initial grant application is for a
multiple year work program of activities
leading to an approvable SIP, section F
activities to be conducted during the first
year should be described and costed in some
detail. The remaining section F activities
to be undertaken in subsequent years should
be generally described and roughly costed.
Activities listed in section F that are
omitted in the application and those
included in the application but not con-
contained in section F should be discussed
in more detail.
(b) where the initial grant is primarily for
development of a multiple year work program,
each section F activity need not be
discussed and described. However, in this
situation the second grant for a multiple
year work program of activities should
contain a discussion and description of each
section F measure as described in (a)
above.
Headquarters' review will be lengthened considerably when this
required information is either missing or difficult to find.
4. When necessary, headquarters may also review work programs
and grant applications for smaller cities (with population less than
1,000,000) to insure conformity with the UPWP, the EPA/DOT
Transportation/Air Quality Planning Guidelines, and the EPA/DOT
Federal Register on Urban Air Quality Planning.
5. Questions on this memorandum should be directed to either
Gary Hawthorn or Len Fleckenstein (755-0603).
cc: David Hawkins
Ed Tuerk
Walt Barber
Steve Kuhrtz
Jim Getzewich
-------
PN 175-79-01-26-003
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
AIR, NOISE, AND RADIATION
SUBJECT:: Public Involvement: ut the Air Quality-
Transportation. Planning: Broceaa—Existing.
FROM:
MEMO TO:
John 0. Hidingerr Director,
Office of Transportation, and Land
Uses Policy
Air and Hazardous? Materials Division
Directors', Regions I-X
Recently? we? requested that: each Region, designate a.
representative to a work, group? tec adviser OTLOP in producing: further*
guidance: om requirements foe public involvement: in the air
quality-transportation: planning; process'. By now the designee*
should! have- received, notifications of the first: meeting- of thia-
groupv Realistically a* final product: front this* effort: cannot be?
expected; fbxr several, months*^
To: the interim* existing language? and intent contained in the
I9-7T (Heart Air Act Amaodmentat outlining: State? and: metropolitan.
planning; organization: responsibilitie* for assuring: effective public
involvement should be followed^. This* memorandums serves- to summarize
and> underscore.- the> importance of" existing1 language in. light of
forthcoming: 3IF submission^, and Section: 17? grant applications..
Section: 175 Air* Quality Planning- Grants-
The* recent Federal Register- notice/ of" December 26, 1978*
announced eh& availability of urban- air quality planning, grants
under: section,-175- off th& Clean? Air Actv The; notice indicated thac
additional guidancer detailing:, public participation requirements
applicable to section 175 grantees waai being considered but would
not be completed until mid-1979. When, the guidance is completed by
the worfc. group (and produced in conjunction with the. Department
-------
of Transportation) compliance with it will be a condition for
subsequent approvals for all section 175 grantees. Prior to
completion of the guidance, the initial section 175 grants will be
conditioned upon compliance with the public information-
participation section, contained in the air quality-transportation
planning- process guidelines, of June, 1978 (see below).
It should, be? reiterated that. both. DOT and 2PA. emphasize the
importance of: establishing; a> continuing, integrated process, ta carry
out: thes requireiamtss- o£ the Actr> In many areas* a significant
portions of the* available sections 175 funds (perhaps* 10-30 percent)
cam be expected, to bet devoted-, to public, and. local, elected official
involvement,, am activity identified, as a critical, eligible funding;
item*. It i» essential, that: the: grant applicants not simp 17 discuss>
what: participation: activities are- desirable but detail havr- these-
groups are to be effectively informed and involved throughout all
phases* of* the planning process-,,
Air- Quality Transportation: Planning Process guidelines:
The* joint: EPAHDOT guidelines* call for a commitment by the?
responsible agencies; to> am open,, yet integrated, process extensively
involving the? public, aes. well aw State and local officials; in: the
expeditious development, evaluation-, selection; and implementation! of
at comprehensive;- set ofZ reasonably- available: transportation, control
measures? Cas> necessary) .. Public information: and invo-lvement, like:
the: planning; process* itself^ must be continuous^ and not a> one-time
occurrence^ It should: not dissipate nor- be allowed to wane- after
that initial public, hearings on. the January 1, 1979 SIP submission^
That planning: process* guidelines specifically indicate; that ait
acceptable; public information: and involvement process should include
the*- following; Tirini.Tinmt; elements r
1_ an; inventory of; agency programs and specific activities;
intended to inform and involve the public; and local elected
officials;
2- am inventory of? special interest groups and important local
citizen*' groups* to be informed, and involvedr
-------
3. an assessment of Che agencies' programs and working
relationships with the public, done- by an objective group (this
should be done jointly by the agency and a representative group of
public interests) focusing: upon: Cher quality of the-agency'a outreach
effort:,, its. responsiveness; to public, concerns, and its> effectiveness*
in? public involvement;: amt
4-. the: development of; as program plait to-- correct: inadequacies*
andi deficiencies!, int the area* of public information? and:
consultation-
In the: area, of public information: the program plan: should:
target: appropriate!! inforaiatioa Ccr affectedi agencies: and: interest:
groups* on:
a. the magnitude of: the air- quality problem: and health
impacts;
bv the* inventory and assessment; of program* and. groups*
involved;
c_ the* rationale* and stepst ins the planning; process^ andi
iw the* transportation control measure* being* considered;
including; their: costs and benefits:* etc-)..
Eas the; area: of- public- consultation, the guidelines state* that:
aechanisms* should ber developed and implemented: to* allow* the; public
and: elected: officials? to> participate int all phases? of the integrated
planning; process including: Che* development and analysis-, of
alternative? transportation: improvements-. Where; this is-- not
occurring; the- guidelines1 recommended several way* in, which adequate
representation? cant occurs
The planning process* guidelines* also? urge thac existing:
procedures for public participation; ins the air quality
transportation! planning; process* be used; whenever- such procedures
achieve the objectives* of: adequate* and; effective public and local
elected official involvement.. The exact: details of- the- public
information, and consultation: program^ should be determined under the
aegis- of the designated: lead- planning agency by responsible State,
regional and local agencies ixr consultation with the appropriate
citizens-' groups:. The basic elements* of any program* should be
conducted by the agency or group- most; capable to effectively carry
out the information and involvement tasks.
-------
SIP Transportation-Related Checklist
On October 17, 1978; Assistant Administrator David Hawkins
transmitted a. checklist of requirements to be- used in the review of
the transportation- portions, o£ the; 1977 SIP submissions (September 21,.
1978) . la the courser of SIB review* and. approval Che affected
agencies)1 responsesr to* the* checklist: items* noted below should be-
scrutinized: care-fully tot help determine the> actual, integrity of the?
Statret' s» and: HBO'st public: information* andi participation: efforts. Thet.
an',nimm» elements) and. requirements* discussed; above? should: be- covered inc.
the? following; items (as. numbered! ia thet checklist) r
5- agency tasks* and responsibilities
9*. public and* local elected, official, consultation:
andi information: process;
10.. financial and manpower resource needs;
11. SIP public hearing: and; resolution of public concerns;.
12.. progress* reporting! *n<£
17 > analysis* afj social economic,, environmental, impacts',, etc.
Deficiencies* andv inadequacies^ should, be: noted, and. addressed.
before the SIP canr bar approved. A SIP submission or a, section 175
grant: applications which, only discusses? public involvement mechanisms:
without: evidencing; adequate? pub-lie, local government: and State
legislative? involvement and. consultation; should: be considered
inadequate..
Coordination-, of SPA Activities*.
Regional. Air Programs* and. Public Awareness* Offices are: urged to?
coordinate- their- efforts* uc encouraging, assisting; and evaluating
effectives public education: and. involvement: in. planning, and.
implementations ofr ther- required, reasonably available transportation-
control measuresv OTLDP plans; to have: products from Che work: group-
disseminated, and; utilized' by both; OPA and. Air Programs! in their
activitie». I. would like to stress? that we need & concerted effort
if we? are: to avoid, the- pitfalls* o£ our earlier transportation
control planning!; efforts..
Should you have comments or questions! regarding the public
involvement work group please contact BOJL Hbuck alt 7TS 755-0853.
-------
cc: Public Awareness Division Directors,
Regions I-X
Air Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
Fobliir Involvement Work; Group Members
David
-------
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
? WASHINGTON. C.C. '20460
* PN 175-78-10-10-002
OFFICE OF
~ __ AIR ANO WAS™ MANAGEMENT
OCi 10 1S78
SUBJECT: Use of Uniform Population Projections in Air and Water
Quality Planning
FROM: David G. Hawkins, Assistant Administrator ' n 7$^
for Air, Noiserfand Radiation (ANR-443)
^f ]
Thomas q, ;Tar«±ng7~Ass£stant Administrator
for Water and Waste Management (WH-556)
TO: Regional Administrators
There have been a number of attempts in the past several years ta
encourage the use of the same population projections by air and vatar
quality planning programs encompassing the same substate arsas. Despite
these attempts, different projections are still used in some areas. In
addition, some of these projections appear unsupportable when compared
with state and national trends.
On September 27, 1978, the Environmental Protection Agency (SPA)
published, as final regulations for the construction grants program,
guidelines for determining che population projections Co be used for
water quality programs. Our two offices have agreed that the projections
determined using the guidelines should also be. used for air quality
programs.
Briefly, the guidelines provide chat state projections must
coincide with projections developed for EPA by the Bureau of
Economic Analysis (3EA). States, in coordination with local govern-
ments, oust also disaggregate state totals among designated 208
areas, standard metropolitan statistical areas not included in
208 areas, and other appropriate substata units.
Provisions are included in che guidelines fcr departures free the
state totals determined by 3EA and the subsequent substace
disaggregatioas. Both che state totals and the disaggregations
aust be approved by Regional Administrators prior to
October 1, 1979.
-------
One of the problems in. using population projections determined
according to the construction grants guidelines in air quality
programs is che seed for agreed upon substate projections in
early 1979. We recognize that it will generally not be possible
to use the projections in. the air quality plan submittals due from
the states by January 1979. However, many areas with violations
of photochemical osidant or carbon monoxide standards will be
requesting extensions for attaining the standards and will be
preparing a second submittal, due by July 1, 1982. The analyses
on which the second round plan submissions will be based should
be initiated early in 1979 and be completed by July 1980.
la. order that population projections, agreed upon by state and
local governments and acceptable to EPA, be available for use in
the air quality analyses initiated in early 1979, we request that
regional, offices urge states to give priority in determining substata
disaggragations to metropolitan areas requiring extensions for attaining
standards for photochemical oxidants and carbon monoxide.
By—giving priority to these areasr state and local governments should
be able to agree upon population projections in sufficient tine to
enable use of the projections in the air quality analyses.
Other federal agencies are currently considering the use of
EPA's population disaggregation approach in federally sponsored
planning programs. Thus, these procedures nay be used by chese
other programs as well. We believe that EPA has an opportunity to
exercise a leadership role in the use of population projections
consistent among programs and urge your attention to this matter.
cc: Barbara Blum
-------
o"°
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
PN 175-78-08-01-001
OFFICE OF
AIR, NOISE, AND RADIATION
AUG 1 1978
SUBJECT: Determination of Emission Reduction.
Responsibilities
FROM: David G. Hawkins, Assistant Administrator-
for Air and Waste Management j \ \
TO: Regional Administrators,
Regions I-X
One of the most important changes in the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1977 is the emphasis on the sharing of
decisions on air pollution control programs among State
and local Governments. An important test of how well
this aspect of intergovernmental coordination, will work
is the determination of responsibilities in achieving the
emission reduction necessary to attain the national
ambient air quality standards.
In past efforts towards developing Stats Implementation
Plans, the determination of emission reduction responsibilities
has been a source of controversy. In some cases States
attempted to require local agencies to make up a large
shortfall in the needed emission reductions entirely through
transportation control measures without examining whether
other measures, such as more stringent emission limitations
for stationary sources might make up some of this shortfall.
This created a "do nothing" backlash on the part of local
transportation agencies.
A potential, for the same sort of State requirements and
local responses exists in the current round of SIP revisions.
I recommend that you convey to State and local officials
the need to establish a process of negotiation for the
allocation of emission reduction responsibilities among the
participants in the SIP process. This process should be
structured so that neither, the. State dictates the magnitude
of the emissions reductions to the local governments, nor~
the designated organization of local elected officials
simply announces that emissions from the transportation sector
can be only reduced by a certain amount. Rather, the division
of responsibility should be a negotiated orocess.
-------
A key .element, in this process" is the review and. consent
by the designated. Local agency on the entire SIP submittal.
Such review is consistent with the intent of section 121 of
the Amendments and the regulations proposed by the Agency
in the May 18, 1978, Federal Register to implement that
section.
The decision on the split in emission reduction
responsibilities will require periodic update. The first
estimate made for the SIP submittal in January 1979 will
necessarily be rough. However, efforts should be made to
improve the estimate as the analysis of packages of
transportation control alternatives oroceeds. Additional
information on the effects of both stationary and mobile
source controls will enable better decision making. A
firmer division of emission reduction responsibilities should
be made in July 1980 when the analysis of alternatives is
completed.
-------
SUBJECT INDEX
ADOITIVITY FACTOR
PN172-78-08-16-005
ADMINISTRATOR'S MEMO
PN110-78-02-24-QC2
ALABAMA PObER
PN165-79-Q7-03-OQ3
ATTAINMENT DATE POLICY
PN110-80-07-15-C38
BACT
PN165-78-12-22-C01
PN165-79-01-1C-002
BUBBLE EQUIVALENCY DEMO
PN110-80-08-K-042
BUBBLE POLICY
PN110-8G-02-25-027
PN11P-80-03-12-031
PN110-80-08-U-042
BUBBLE POLICY 111D
PN11C-80-08-08-CK1
CARBON MON CONT STRAT DEMO
PN172-79-02-21-013
CARBON MONOXIDE SIPS
PN110-78-10-11-OD9
COATING FABRIC CTG
PN110-80-08-04-0*0
COATING PAPER CTG
PN110-80-08-04-04G
COATINGS AUTO MANUFACTURING
PN110-8G-07-31-Q39
COATINGS VOC
PN172-8Q-09-03-03Q
COMPLIANCE SCHEDULES VOC
PN172-78-11-03-011
CONDITIONAL APPROVALS
PN110-79-07-02-017
PN110-79-08-27-019
PN110-79-12-11-024
PN110-80-03-04-029
CONT STRAT DEMO
PN110-78-05-16-n05
CONT STRAT DEMO CO
PN172-79-02-Z1-013
CONT STRAT DEMO GENERAL
PNl26-78-03-t6-001
CONT STRAT DEMO OXIDANT
PN172-78-03-10-002
PN172-79-92-21-013
CTG AUTO MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY
PN11Q-80-07-31-039
CTG PRESUMPTIVE PACT
PN172-78-02-C2-001
CTGS
PN11Q-79-09-17-02Q
PN110-80-08-0*-0*0
PN172-78-06-16-027
PN172-80-D7-02-029
CUTBACK ASPHALT
PN110-79-12-11-C24
PN172-79-03-06-OU
PN172-79-10-OA-021
DATA RQ'TS OXIDANT
PN172-79-11-U-D22
PN172-80-01-17-024
DEGREASER COLD CLEANER
PN172-80-07-02-029
DEGREASER REGULATIONS
PN172-79-12-12-023
PN172-80-07-02-029
-------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION US
PN175-79-02-12-003
PN175-8G-06-23-006
PN176-80-06-12-C02
DESIGN VALUE OXIDANT
PN172-78-08-16-OP5
DESIGN VALUES
PN107-79-C6-12-OQ4
DESIGNATION COMMENT PERIOD
PN1G7-78-03-24-OQ1
DESIGNATION CRITERIA
PN110-7&-10-11-OQ9
DISPERSION DEP CONT SYST
PN4G6-78-04-2S-CQ1
EIGHTEEN: MONTH EXTENSION
PN110-79-08-23-019
EMISSION INVENTORIES
PN11Q-7S-1Q-11-009
EMISSION MIX
PNl75-7fc-08-CM-001
EMULSIFIED ASPHALT
PN172-8G-01-23-025
ENERGY CONSERVATION
PN175-80-CK-23-OC5
ENFORCEABILITY OF PERMITS
PN172-79-05-25-010
FUEL SHORTAGES ANALYSIS
PN124-78-07-31-001
FUGITIVE DUST
PN110-77-08-16-OC1
PN110-78-10-11-009
PN110-79-02-15-013
GRAPHIC ARTS CTG
P.M10-80-08-04-n40
INHALABLE PART REGS
PN110-78-09-11-008
INSPEC MAINT GENERAL
PNl1G-78-07-17-n07
PM10-79-02-21-OU
INSPEC MAINT GEO COVERAGE
PN11Q-78-07-17-n07
PN110-79-02-21-OU
INSPEC MAINT SCHEDULE
PN11C-78-07-17-007
INTERNATIONAL POLLUTION
PNl15-78-01-31-/:Q1
PN1 1 5-78-C3-20-002
INTERSTATE EQUITY
PNl26-78-03-16-nu1
PN126-78-D7-26-002
PN126-80-06-G8-003
LEAD EMISSIONS AUTOMOBILE
PN11C-78-12-21-012
PN110-79-C7-16-018
LEAD MONITORING
PN110-79-11-21-C23
LEAD SIP ATTAINMENT DATE
PN110-80-06-12-C36
LEAD SIP CONTENT
PN110-79-C6-U-C16
LEAD SOURCE ASSESSMENTS
PN110-78-12-21-011
MALFUNCTION REGULATIONS
PN110-80-OA-18-034
-------
METHYL CHLORIDE
PN172-79-05-2I-Q15
METHYL CHLOROFORM REGULATIONS
PN172-78-08-24-006
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
PN172-79-35-21-015
MODELING BUBBLE
PN110-8G-08-U-042
MODELING OXIDANT
PN172-78-03-10-002
PN172-79-11-U-022
MONITORING REGULATIONS
PN110-79-1Q-02-022
MPO
PN176-80-06-12-002
NAAQS REVISION
PN110-7&-Q9-11-008
NEW SOURCE REVIEy
PN110-77-08-16-001
PN110-80-04-U-033
NEW SOURCES LEAD
PN110-8G-04-08-Q32
NONTR ADITIONAL TSP CONT
PN110-80-02-27-028
NSPS
PN110-80-02-25-027
PN165-79-D1-10-002
OFFSETS EMFORCEABILITY
OFFSETS EXTERNAL
PN110-80-OA-U-033
OFFSETS GENERAL
PN110-78-10-11-009
PN110-80-03-10-030
OFFSETS INTERNAL
PN110-80-04-14-P33
PN129-78-07-Q3-002
OFFSETS WAIVER
PN129-77-1Q-26-001
OXIDANT CONT STRAT DEMO
PN172-78-03-1P-002
PN172-79-02-21-013
OXIDANT RURAL
PN110-78-1C-11-009
OXIDANT SIPS
PN110-78-10-11-009
PN172-79-02-2.1-013
PN172-79-05-21-015
PN172-80-01-17-024
PN172-80-07-01-028
PARTICULATE MATTER RACT
PN110-78-06-29-006
PN110-79-02-15-013
PN110-80-02-01-026
PAY RQ'TS MAINTENANCE
PN406-78-04-28-001
PERMIT ENFORCEABILITY
PN172-79-05-25-016
PLAN RQ'TS, SECTION 111(0)
PN11G-78-03-24-C03
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
PN175-78-10-10-002
PN175-8Q-01-15-004
POWEP PLANTS
PN165-79-D1-10-002
POWER PLANTS COAL FIRED
PN165-78-12-22-001
PRESUMED COMPLIANCE
PN126-78-03-16-001
-------
PSD
PN11>78-10-11-009
005
PSD APPLICABILITY
PN165-8C-02-26
PSD PERMITS
PN165-79-07-03-003
PN165-8C-02-08-004
PUBLIC COMMENT
PN11C-79-07-02-Q17
PN11Q-79-09-17-02Q
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PN110-79-12-11-Q24
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
PN110-79-10-02-022
PN172-78-11-01-010
PN175-8C-06-23-006
RACT PARTICULATE MATTER
PN110-77-08-16-001
PN11Q-78-06-29-Q06
PN110-79-02-15-Q13
PN110-80-02-01-026
RACT REGULATIONS
PN110-78-10-11-009
REDESI6NATION CRITERIA
PN107-78-10-18-C03
PN107-79-06-12-OCK
PN107-79-12-07-005
PN11D-79-12-11-024
PN110-79-12-28-025
REDESIGNATION PROCEDURES
PN107-78-10-10-002
REGIONAL CONSISTENCY
PN110-78-06-29-006
PN126-78-03-16-001
RFP Ra'TS
PNl71-79-05-18-?01
RURAL FUGITIVE DUST
PNT/J 0-79-02-15-01 3
SANCTIONS FUNDING
PN176-79-06-08-001
SANCTIONS GROWTH
PN176-79-06-08-001
SANCTIONS INTERNATIONAL
PN115-78-03-20-OQ2
SECONDARY STANDARDS
PN110-78-10-11-C09
PN11G-79-09-21-021
PN110-80-03-10-030
SECTION 111(0) PLAN RQ'TS
PN110-78-D3-24-003
SIP CRITERIA MEMO
PN110-78-02-24-002
SIP FORMAT
PN110-80-09-25-rA3
PN172-80-C7-01-028
SIP GENERAL PREAMBLE
PN110-79-04-Q4-015
PN110-79-07-02-017
SIP REGULATORY CONTINUITY
PN172-78-09-11-007
PN172-79-01-16-D12
SIP RELAXATION
PN110-79-12-28-D25
PN110-80-06-12-035
SIP REVI£W TIME
P-N 1-10-80-03-04-029
RFP
PN110-78-10-11-009
PN110-78-12-18-010
-------
SOLVENT CLEANING
PN110-7S-10-11-009
SOLVENT EXEMPTIONS
PN172-79-05-21-015
SOLVENT METAL CLEANING
PN172-79-06-20-018
SOLVENT REACTIVITY
PN172-79-05-25-017
SOURCE IMPACTS
PN11C-79-12-28-025
PN115-78-01-31-001
STACK HEIGHTS
PM10-80-07-U-037
STAGE I CONTROLS
PN110-79-12-11-024
START-UP/SHUTDOWN REGS
PN110-80-CK-1&-034
STATE/LOCAL CONSULTATION
PN172-76-11-01-01Q
STATIONARY VOC SOURCES
PN172-7&-02-02-001
SULFUR DIOXIDE REVISIONS
PN110-80-Q6-12-035
TANK TRUCKS GASOLINE
PN172-78-06-16-027
TRANSPORT VALUES OXIDANT
PN172-76-08-04-OQ4
PN172-76-08-16-005
PN172-78-10-26-009
TRANSPORTATION GRANTS
PN175-79-02-12-003
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
PN172-78-Q6-U-026
TRANSPORTATION PLANS
PN175-80-06-23-006
PN176-80-06-12-002
UHTA
PNl75-79-02-12-n03
PN175-80-06-23-006
UNCLASSIFIED AREAS
PN107-78-10-18-003
UNION ELECTRIC
PN126-78-07-26-002
VARIANCE
PN126-78-07-26-002
VOC COMPLIANCE SCHEDULES
PN172-78-11-03-011
VOC COMPOUNDS
PN172-79-05-25-Q17
VOC EMISSIONS INVENTORY
PN172-78-03-10-002
VOC RACT
PN110-79-09-17-D20
PN129-78-07-C3-002
PN172-78-08-2A-006
PN172-79-08-21-019
PN172-80-09-03-030
VOC RACT AUTOMOTIVE COATINGS
PN172-78-10-06-008
voc RACT CRITERIA
PN172-78-06-30-003
PN172-78-08-OA-OOA
VOC RACT SCHEDULE
PN172-79-08-22-020
VOC REGULATIONS
PN172-79-03-06-PU
VOC SOURCES
PN107-78-10-18-Q03
-------
O)
f
b
r-f
5'
Cfl
Section 176: Limitations on Certain Federal
-------
Section 406: Savings Provision; Effective Dates
I
33
Ct>
(A
-------
Section 176: Limitations on Certain Federal Assistance
PN176-79-06-08-001
IMPACT OF CLEAN AIR ACT NONATTAINWENT SANCTIONS
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
\ Xl/. 3 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
PN-176-79-06-08-001
.. «O7O OFFICE OF
JUN O '^'9 AIR, NOISE. AND RADIATION
SUBJECT: Impact of Clean Air Act Nonattainment Sanctions
FROM: David G. Hawkins, Assistant Administrator"^*^
for Air, Noise and Radiation (ANR443) ^
MEMO TO: Regional Administrator, Regions I-X
There is substantial concern and confusion over what will happen to
new construction on July 1, 1979, if States have not by then satisfied
the State Implementation Plan (SIP) requirements of Part D of Title I of
the Clean Air Act. Regional Administrators should take action to inform
the States and the concerned public that, although very few State plans
will have been approved by July 1, construction of major air pollution
sources will not stop as of that date. In addition, there will be no
immediate curtailment of State program grants or other Federal funds.
In fact, I do not expect major disruptions of industrial or State
activities where States are making reasonable and expeditious efforts
toward submitting an approvable State Implementation Plan revision.
This memorandum sets forth Agency policy and procedures regarding
the July 1, 1979 sanctions. Three main topics are addressed:
Construction Prohibitions (permit processing, sources affected and geo-
graphic applicability); SIP Approvals (area specific approval, conditional
approval, and area redesignation); and Federal Funding Sanctions (dis-
cretionary aspects).
Summary
The imposition of the Clean Air Act sanctions depends on whether by
July 1, 1979, a State has an approved State Implementation Plan that
meets the requirements of Part D of the Act. The first step in this SIP
approval process involves State development and submission of a State
plan. The EPA Regional Office then evaluates the submitted plan and
publishes in the Federal Register a proposal for final action on the
State plan. This starts a 30-to-60-day period for public comment.
After reviewing the comments, the EPA Administrator will take final
action. Final action will consist of one or a combination of the following
actions: approval of the nonattainment plan as a whole, approval of the
plan for specific areas, conditional approval of the plan, disapproval
of the plan as a whole, or disapproval for specific areas. Most States
will not have final approvals on July 1. However, although the areas
subject to sanctions are defined based on their status on July 1, the
impact of the sanctions in those areas is not immediate.
-------
The Act establishes two kinds of sanctions—new major source
construction sanctions and funding sanctions for Federal programs and
facilities. The construction prohibition sanction becomes applicable on
July 1, and remains in effect until a final Federal Register notice is
issued approving or conditionally approving the SIP for the area in
question. The construction prohibition applies only to permits applied
for after June 30, 1979. Because a typical permit requires approximately
three months for processing, it is unlikely that this sanction would
have any impact until September or October 1979. Also, although the
administrative process for Federal funding sanctions must begin on
July 1 for the Section 176 transportation and air pollution control
related funds, actual withholding will not occur for at least
two to four months after July 1. Any discretionary withholding of
sewage treatment construction funds under Section 316 will not occur for
at least the same length of time.
Construction Prohibitions
The Clean Air Act's prohibition against construction applies to a
major new or modified source for which a complete permit application is
submitted to the permit review agency after June 30, 1979. Therefore,
any complete permit application postmarked or received on or before
June 30, 1979 will not be subject to any construction prohibition.* The
permit review agency may process all such permit applications received
on or before June 30, 1979. No source which receives such a permit and
which commences on a program of continuous construction will be subject
to the construction sanction.
After June 30, 1979, sources may continue to submit New Source
Review permit applications to the permit review agency. The submission
of a permit application will enable the review agency to process the
permit so that administrative time is not lost while a State npnattainment
plan is being reviewed. Because the administrative time for reviewing a
major source can take three months or longer, in many cases, we expect
to have SIPs approved by the time the major source permit would itself
be ready for approval. If any State intends to issue a permit to a
source to which the construction prohibition applies, the permit must
contain a condition which prohibits construction until SIP approval is
obtained. For a source to be able to construct as soon as a SIP is
approved, the permit conditions would have to be consistent with the
requirements that are eventually approved in the SIP.
The EPA Regional Offices will continue to process and issue PSD
permits (under 40 CFR 52.21, Regulations for the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration of Air Quality) even while awaiting receipt or approval of
nonattainment SIP revisions. A PSD permit is required whenever a major
When an applicant can show a reasonable and good faith effort to
submit all information necessary for permit issuance, the permitting
authority may consider a substantially complete permit application
as adequate to avoid the prohibition against construction.
-------
source, (defined for PSD purposes at 40 CFR 52.21(b)), impacts an area
with air quality better than NAAQS. This affects sources both inside
and outside designated nonattainment areas. When a PSD source will be
subject to the Part D prohibition against construction the EPA-issued
PSD permit will be conditional. A permit condition will be included
which will make the following statement:
This source will significantly impact a nonattainment problem
in an area currently designated as violating the National
Ambient Air Quality Standard for , and for which
the Clean Air Act currently prohibits construction of this
source until a State submits and receives approval of a
State Implementation Plan which meets the requirements of
Part D of the Act. This permit is issued conditional on
your receipt of an appropriate State permit issued pursuant
to regulations approved by the Administrator as meeting
the requirements of Part D of the Clean Air Act. Source
construction is prohibited until the State Implementation
Plan is approved by the Administrator as meeting such
requirements for the nonattainment area that this source
will impact. You will be notified by mail when the necessary
State regulations have been approved.
The construction prohibition applies only to major sources as
defined in Section 302 of the Act. Smaller sources are not affected.
Furthermore, the construction prohibition applies only to a source that
would be a major source or major modification for the specific pollutant
for.which the area was designated as a nonattainment area and for which
the plan remains inadequate. For instance, a new plant which is a major
source of particulate matter only and which proposes to construct in a
designated sulfur dioxide nonattainment area is not affected by the
construction prohibition.
The construction prohibition affects any major new or modified
source that would cause or contribute to a National Ambient Air Quality
Standard violation in the designated nonattainment area within the State
in which the source proposes to locate. EPA believes that this prohibition
applies, as a matter of law, to sources whose permits are applied for
after June 30, 1979. The Administrator is expected to publish a ruling
to this effect in the Federal Register in the near future. A major
source that would cause a new NAAQS violation outside of a designated
nonattainment area or that would significantly contribute to a NAAQS
violation only in another State is subject to the Offset Interpretative
Ruling of January 15, 1979 (44 FR 3274) but is not subject to a construction
prohibition.
-------
The Agency intends to propose, in the Federal Register, that
the Part D prohibition on construction should apply equally for sources
outside designated nonattainment areas as it applies to a major source
locating inside a designated nonattainment area. EPA will also propose
that only sources with a significant impact on a violation be subject
to the construction prohibition. A source will generally be considered
to contribute significantly to a NAAQS violation if its modeled impacts
exceed the significance levels found in the Offset Interpretative Ruling
of January 16, 1979 (44 FR 3274, at 3283). However, any major source of
a designated nonattainment pollutant that proposes to locate at a site
already violating NAAQS within the designated nonattainment area is
presumed to contribute significantly to the violation without regard to
modeled impacts. The rule would be proposed to apply to a new or modified
source if the permit application for the source is submitted after
June 30, 1979. The construction prohibition would apply to any major
source outside a designated nonattainment area if the source would
significantly contribute to a NAAQS violation within a designated non-
attainment area.
State Implementation Plan Approvals
Source specific and area specific impacts of the Part D sanctions
are discussed above. This next section addresses Federal Register
actions that alleviate sanction imposition: area specific SIP
approvals, conditional SIP approvals, and nonattainment area redesig-
nations. First, however, a summary of relevant Federal Register actions
is appropriate.
A list of nonattainment areas was published March 3, 1978 in the
Federal Register (43 FR 8962). A number of modifications have been
made or proposed for changes to the initial listing. SIP approvability
guidance was published in the Federal Register on May 19, 1978 (43 FR
21673) and February 9, 1979 (44 FR 831TJ7Th¥ General Preamble for
proposed rulemaking on the approval of plan revisions for nonattainment
areas was published April 4, 1979 (44 FR 20372).
Once a State plan for a designated nonattainment area is approved
as meeting Part D requirements, the construction or funding sanctions
that would or may have taken effect after June 30, 1979 no longer apply.
The Agency will approve SIP revisions for any portion of the State or
nonattainment area where the revisions meet the requirements of
Part D of the Act. Thus, a State plan submission for several desig-
nated nonattainment areas may be approved while plan development or
-------
approval may still be underway for other areas. This would in effect be
an area specific approval of the SIP, as revisions for other areas would
remain necessary. Sanctions would only affect those areas for which the
plan remains inadequate. Thus, if there are three designated SO-?
nonattainment areas and SIP revisions are approved for two, the Part D
sanctions apply only with regard to the remaining nonattainment area.
Where appropriate, the Agency intends to grant conditional approvals
of SIP revisions. A SIP containing minor deficiencies will be approved
on the condition that the State submit corrections by a specified date.
A conditional approval would not result in sanctions unless the State
failed to submit corrections by the specified date, or unless the corrections
were ultimately determined to be inadequate. However, proposing in the
Federal Register to conditionally approve a SIP does not act to alleviate
Part D sanctions. The required imposition of Part D sanctions ends only
with final SIP approval or conditional approval. Conditional approval
will not be granted without strong assurance by the appropriate State
officials that the deficiences will be corrected. The form of this
assurance may vary from State to State, but it must nevertheless represent
a commitment on the part of the State. A conditional approval will
require specific schedules for correcting deficiences.
Another mechanism that would act to alleviate the Part D sanctions
is that of revising a previous designation of nonattainment. In developing
a SIP revision for a designated nonattainment area, the State may
determine that the existing designation is inappropriate. If this
occurs, the State may submit to EPA a revised designation with supporting
material. Until EPA finds the revised designation acceptable and
promulgates it, the July 1 deadline for approval of a SIP revision
satisfying Part D, and the attendant sanctions, will continue to apply.
However, the SIP submittal may simply demonstrate that the standard is
attained and that no additional emission reductions or preconstruction
review requirements need to be included in the SIP. Also, a source is
exempt if in fact it would not cause or contribute to a violation,
regardless of the applicable designation.
Federal Funding Sanctions
Air pollution control program grants, Federal highway funds, and
wastewater treatment facility grants do not immediately stop as of
July 1, 1979, where nonattainment SIP revisions have not been approved.
Required and authorized restrictions on grants and funds where SIPs are
inadequate are found in Sections 176(a) and 316 of the Act.
-------
Federal funding limitations required by Section 176(a) will only be
applied if the EPA finds after July 1, 1979, that the Governor has_not
submitted, or is not making reasonable efforts to submit, a SIP which
considers each of the elements required by Section 172 of the Act. The
EPA is authorized to make the same finding with respect to the 1982 SIP
revisions required in areas that cannot attain National Ambient Air
Quality Standards by 1982. In cases where a finding is made by EPA,
project approvals and grants authorized by Title 23 (Highways), United
States Code, and the Clean Air Act must be withheld from air quality
control regions where transportation control measures are needed to
attain NAAQS. An exception to this Federal assistance limitation is
that safety, mass transit, and transportation improvement projects
related to air quality attainment or maintenance may be approved and
funded.
EPA and the Department of Transportation (DOT) are preparing a
Federal Register notice proposing policy and procedures for applying
Federal assistance limitations in Section 176(a). Public comment will
be invited and considered in finalizing the policy. EPA will propose to
make case-by-case determinations of good faith efforts based on the
State's efforts to submit a SIP satisfying pertinent guidance issued by
EPA. Negotiations with affected State and local agencies will precede
any decision to apply funding limitations. EPA intends to propose
initial Section 176(a) findings between September 1 and October 31, 1979
in the Federal Register and invite public comment prior to promulgating
a final list of affected areas. However, the funding limitations would
be effective on the date of publication of the proposed list. Removal
of funding limitations will also be done through Federal Register
publication and an opportunity for public comment will be provided prior
to final action.
Section 316 of the Act provides that the Administrator may condition,
restrict or withhold EPA grants for the construction of sewage treatment
works in any area where a SIP has not been approved or where the SIP
does not account for the direct or indirect emissions from the treatment
works. Unlike the new source construction prohibition, the implementation
of any action pursuant to Section 316 is not mandatory on July 1, but is
at the discretion of the Administrator. EPA is preparing a Federal
Register notice inviting public comment on the development of an administrative
mechanism to implement the provisions of Section 316. The interim
policy for the implementation of Section 316, while revisions to existing
construction grant regulations are being completed, will be proposed in
July. Further guidance on this matter will be forthcoming in the next
several weeks.
Any decision to stop grant funding under any provision of the Act
will be made only after coordination among the Regional Office, Headquarters,
and affected State and local agencies.
-------
Federal Register Notice
In order to assure thorough dissemination of Agency policy and
procedures regarding the requirements and impacts of Part D of the Act,
I am having this memorandum published in the Federal Register.
cc: The Administrator
M. Durning
J. Bernstein
W. Barber
Director, Air & Hazardous Materials Division, Regions IX
-------
CO
o
Q.
-------
Section 406: Savings Provision; Effective Dates
PK406-78-04-28-001
MAINTENANCE OF PAY REQUIREMENTS
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
i 8 APR 1973
PN-406-78-04-28-001
Maintenance of Pay Requirements _
-"? .-'V-'cl
Richard G. Rhoads , Director/'-' •'-" •
Control Programs Development Division
Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I, III-X
T0: Director, Environmental Programs Division, Region II
This memo addresses the tine schedule for States to submit SIP revisions
addressing maintenance of pay requirements as set forth in § 110(a)(6) of the
Clean Air Act, as amended. Section 406 of the Act indicates that unless
otherwise provided, each SIP must incorporate new requirements within one
year of the passage of the Act, or within nine months of the date when EPA
promulgates applicable regulations in 40 CFR Part 51. Since we do not
intend to promulgate regulations in Part 51, SIP revisions, where appropriate,
will be due in August, 197S--one year from the passage of the Act.
Maintenance of pay requirements anply only to SIPs for which compliance
with the M/V.QS's depends on the use of supplemental, intermittent or other
dispersion-dependent control systems. Furthermore, the August due date
applies to those applicable SIPs wlv'ch already contain dispersion-dependent
control systems. States that are planning to submit provisions for such
control systems as a SIP revision should concurrently provide for the main-
tenance of pay requirements.
States should be encouraged to meet the August submittal date as required
by the Act; however, some States may decide to withhold maintenance of pay
requirements until the 1979 SIP revisions are submitted. While we do not
encourage this delay, it would probably not be prudent to disapprove a
State plan if we have been assured that an adequate regulation will be
incorporated in a SIP revision by January, 1979.
You may wish to provide States with a copy of the following model
regulation:
Ncri-ferrous smelter owners or operators shall not
temporarily reduce the pay of any employee by reason of
the use of supplemental or intermittent or other dispersion-
dependent control systems for the purpose of meeting the
requi renients of orders under section 113(d) or section
119 of the Clean Air Act, as amended.
cc: Branch Chiefs, Reaions I-X
1320 4 iRrv. ] 761
-------
SUBJECT INDEX
AD0ITIVIT* FACTOR
PN172-76-08-16-005
ADMINISTRATOR'S MEMO
PN110-78-02-24-Q02
ALABAMA POUEK
PN165-79-07-03-003
BACT
PN165-78-12-22-001
PN165-79-01-TO-002
BUBBLE POLICY
PN110-80-02-25-027
PN110-80-03-12-031
CARBON WON CONT STRAT DEMO
PN172-79-02-21-013
CARBON MONOXIDE SlPS
PN110-78-10-11-009
COMPLIANCE SCHEDULES VOC
PN172-78-11-03-011
CONDITIONAL APPROVALS
PN110-79-07-02-017
PN110-79-08-23-019
PN110-79-12-11-024
PN110-80-03-04-029
CONT STRAT DEMO
PN110-78-05-16-005
CONT STRAT DEMO CO
PN172-79-02-21-013
CONT STRAT DEMO GENERAL
PN126-78-03-16-001
CONT STRAT DEMO OXIDANT
PN172-78-03-10-002
PN172-79-02-21-013
CT6 PRESUMPTIVE 8ACT
PN172-78-02-02-001
CTG'S
PN110-79-09-17-020
CUTBACK ASPHALT
PWl10-79-12-1t-024
PN 72-79-03-06-014
PHt 72-79-10-04-021
DATA RQ'TS OXIDANT
PM172-79-11-14-022
PW172-80-01-17-024
DEGREASER REGULATIONS
PN172-79-12-12-023
DESIGN VALUE OXIDANT
PN172-78-08-16-005
DESIGN VALUES
PN107-79-06-12-004
DESIGNATION COMMENT PERIOD
PN107-78-03-24-001
DESIGNATION CRITERIA
PN110-78-10-H-009
DISPERSION DEP CONT SVST
PN406-78-04-28-D01
EIGHTEEN MONTH EXTENSION
PN110-79-08-23-019
EMISSION INVENTORIES
PNl10-r8-10-11-009
EMULSIFIED ASPHALT
PN172-80-01-23-025
ENFORCEABILITV OF PERMITS
PN172-79-05-25-016
FUEL SHORTAGES ANALYSIS
PN124-78-07-31-P01
FUGITIVE DUST
PN110-77-08-16-001
PN110-78-10-11-009
PN110-79-02-15-013
-------
1NHALABLE PART R£6S
PN110-78-09-11-008
INSPEC SAINT GENERAL
PN110-78-07-17-OG7
PN110-79-02-21-OU
INSPEC MAIN! GEO COVERAGE
PN110-78-07-17-007
PN110-79-02-21-014
INSPEC WA1NT SCHEDULE
PN110-78-07-17-007
PNf 10-79-02-21-014
INTERNATIONAL POLLUTION
PN115-78-01-31-001
PW115-78-03-20-002
INTERSTATE EQUITY
PN126-78-03-U-001
PN12A-78-07-26-002
PW126-80-06-08-003
LEAD EMISSIONS AUTOMOBILE
PW110-78-12-21-01Z
PN110-79-07-16-018
LEAD
PW110-79-11-21-023
LEAD SIP CONTENT
PW110-79-06-U-016
LEAD SOURCE ASSESSMENTS
PN110-78-12-21-011
MALFUNCTION REGULATIONS
PN110-80-CH-18-034
METHYL CHLORIDE
PN172-79-05-21-015
METHYL CHLOROFORM REGULATIONS
PN172-78-08-24-006
METHVLEWE CHLORIDE
PN172-79-05-21-015
MODELING OMIDANT
PK172-78-03-10-002
PW172-79-11-U-022
MONITORING REGULATIONS
PN110-79-10-02-022
NAAOS REVISION
PN110-78-09-11-008
NEW SOURCE REVIEW
PN110-77-08-16-001
PN110-80-04-H-033
MEW SOURCES LEAD
PN110-80-04-08-032
NONTRADITIONAL TSP CONT
PN110-80-02-27-028
NSPS
PN110-80-02-25-027
PN165-79-01-10-002
OFFSETS ENFORCEABILITY
PN110-80-04-K-033
OFFSETS EXTERNAL
PW110-80-04-U-033
OFFSETS GENERAL
PN11Q-78-10-11-009
PN110-80-03-10-030
OFFSETS INTERNAL
PN110-80-04-14-033
PN129-78-07-03-002
OFFSETS WAIVER
PN129-77-10-26-001
OX10ANT CONT STRAT DEMO
PN172-78-03-10-002
PN172-79-02-21-013
-------
OKIDANT RURAL
PN11Q-78-10-11-009
OXIDANT SIPS
PN1 1 0-78-1 0-11 -009
PN172-79-P2-21-Q13
PN172-79-05-21-015
PN172-80-01-17-024
PARTICULATE MATTER RACT
PN1 10-78-06-29-006
PN110-79-02-15-013
PN110-8Q-02-01-026
PA* RQ'TS MAINTENANCE
PN406-78-04-28-001
PERMIT ENFQRCEABILITt
PN172-79-05-25-016
PLAN RQ'TS, SECTION 111(0)
PN110-78-03-24-003
POWER PLANTS
PN165-79-01 -10-002
PLANTS COAL FIRED
PRESUMED COMPLIANCE
PN126-78-03-16-001
PSO
PN110-78-10-11-009
PSD APPLICABILITY
PN165-80-02-26-005
PSD PERMITS
PN165-79-07-Q3-003
PN 16 5-8 0-0 2 -08 -00*
PUBLIC COMMENT
PN110-79-07-02-017
PN110-79-09-17-020
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PN110-79-12-11-024
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
PN110-79-10-02-022
PN172-78-11-01-010
RACT PARTICULATE MATTER
PHI10-77-08-16-001
PN110-78-06-29-006
PN110-79-02-15-013
PN11 0-8 0-02-01-026
RACT REGULATIONS
PN110-78-10-11-009
REOESI6NAT10N CRITERIA
PN107-78-10-18-003
PN107-79-06-12-004
PN107-79-I2-Q7-005
PN110-79-12-11-024
PN110-79-12-28-025
REDESI6NATION PROCEDURES
PN107-78-10-10-002
REGIONAL CONSISTENCY
PN110-78-06-29-006
PN126-78-03-16-001
RFP
PN110-78-10-11-009
PN110-78-12-18-010
flFP RO'TS
PN171-79-05-18-001
RURAL FUGITIVE OUST
PN110-79-02-15-013
SANCTIONS FUNDING
PN176-79-06-08-001
SANCTIONS 6ROUTH
PN176-79-06-08-001
-------
SANCTIONS INTERNATIONAL
PN115-78-03-20-002
SECONDARY STANDARDS
PN110-78-10-11-009
PN110-79-09-21-021
PN110-80-03-1Q-030
SECTION 111CD) PLAN RO'TS
PN110-78-03-24-003
SIP CRITERIA MEMO
PN110-78-02-24-002
SIP FORMAT
PN110-78-03-24-004
SIP GENERAL PREAMBLE
PN110-79-04-04-015
PN110-79-07-Q2-017
SIP REGULATORY CONTINUITY
PNl72-7a-09-11-007
PN172-79-01-16-012
SIP RELAXATION
PN110-79-12-28-02S
SIP REVIEW TIME
PN110-80-03-04-029
SOLVENT CLEANING
PN110-78-10-11-009
SOLVENT EXEMPTIONS
PN172-79-05-21-015
SOLVENT METAL CLEANING
PN172-79-06-20-018
SOLVENT REACTIVITY
PN172-79-05-25-017
SOURCE IMPACTS
PN110-79-12-28-025
PN115-78-01-31-001
STAGE I CONTROLS
PN110-79-12-11-024
START*UP/SHUTDOUN REGS
PNtlO-80-04-18-034
STATE/LOCAL CONSULTATION
PN172-78-11-01-010
STATIONARY VOC SOURCES
PN172-78-02-02-001
TRANSPORT VALUES OXIDANT
PN172-78-08-04-OOA
PN172-78-08-16-005
PN172-78-10-26-009
UNCLASSIFIED AREAS
PN107-78-10-18-003
UNION ELECTRIC
PN126-78-07-26-002
VARIANCE
PN126-78-07-26-002
tfOC COMPLIANCE SCHEDULES
PN172-78-11-03-011
VOC COMPOUNDS
PN172-79-05-25-017
VOC EMISSIONS INVENTORY
PN172-78-03-10-002
VOC RACT
PN110-79-09-17-020
PN129-78-07-03-002
PN172-78-08-24-006
PN172-79-08-21-019
VOC RACT AUTOMOTIVE COATINGS
PN172-78-10-06-008
VOC RACT CRITERIA
PN172-78-06-30-003
PN172-78-08-OA-OOA
-------
WQC FACT SCHEDULE
PPO7?-79-08 -22-020
voc REGULATIONS
PN172-79-03-06-OU
VOC SOURCES
PN107-78-10-18-003
------- |