UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
? 3
OFFICE OF
ENFORCEMENT AND
COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Review of Memoranda Posted on the Clean Air Act
Applicability Determination Index
John B. Rasnic,
Manufacturing, Energy and Transportation Division
Office of Compliance
TO: See Attached List
The reorganization of the Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance (OECA) in 1994 expanded the authority for
issuance of applicability determinations and monitoring revisions
for the New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
programs. The ensuing redelegations of authority removed
limitations from the Regional Offices in the issuance of
applicability determinations, and gave Regional Offices the lead
in reviewing and responding to alternative monitoring requests.
The reorganization also expanded the number of divisions in
Headquarters with authority to issue applicability
determinations.. To evaluate the quality and consistency of
determinations issued since the reorganization, the
Manufacturing, Energy and Transportation Division (METD)
conducted a partial review of memoranda posted on the
Applicability Determination Index (ADI). The METD review focused
on NSPS memoranda posted on the ADI since the reorganization, and
evaluated them for accuracy, clarity, and emerging policy trends.
The attached report entitled, "Review of the Applicability
Determination Index; NSPS Memoranda," summarizes our.method of
performing the review, our findings, and recommendations. METD
reviewed half (96/197) of the NSPS memoranda posted in the nearly
two and a half year period covered by the study (September 1994 -
March 1997). Varying levels of activity among Regional Offices
Internal Address (URL) * http://www.spa.gov
Recycied/Recyciabi* • Printed with Vegetable OK Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 25% Postconsumeo
-------
proximately ha ^ o^t-nTm ^" -° °V6r °ne h^ndred.
Plicabilit-i: *;; ^u:*e,memoranda were related to
< -oranda
-<">"1 ) --h i i , *- • "'^"i^iduud were relate-
r^: "^ tne °ther half Addressed monitorl
ng or testing
memorandum
accurate and adeq
providi"9
he
nrusion in the delea^r' - '-^nouj. uacio
issuing determi"fl*-inn- "- ° authority and
as drafting LtLll w "Xemplar^ drafting
^^^iiy PJ-Liaili-i WPrs> n/^f-^^i ^_
^vjouiii^ UfciLe
practices as well as draftina mt-f^ii ' "
.;^Tp has drafted separate guidance on"^^? n°ted* As a result,
Applicability Determinations Development of
"or the NSPS^and NESHAP °Thiand A^ternative Monitoring Responses
^legations of authority clarifies^! leS'o?^5 ^
r::!;:^n!!10^;n«^«ndSiConsultation procedures^'and" 1SSUlng
r-.'e^er'^!,!^
... . ' ±:yy't co air manaaprs ~^ ^'
-
;• -
-------
3
Accurate responses to applicability and
hps nnr i r- *-, .c , •-^ r
..e ADI in time for the quarterly ADI system updates
Pr°vlde
Attachment:
-------
Addressees:
Elaine G. Stanley, Director
Office of Compliance
Bruce R. Weddle, Deputy Director
Cffice of Compliance
Eric V. Schaeffer, Director
Office of Regulatory Enforcement
Linda M. Murphy, Director
Office of Ecosystem Protection, Region I
Michael P. Kenyon, Air Policy Associate Director
Office of Ecosystem Protection, Region I
Ira Leighton, Acting Director
Office of Environmental Stewardship, Region I
Gregory Roscoe, Technical Air Manager
ffice of Ecosystem Protection, Region I
o
Conrad S. Simon, Director
Division of Enforcement and Compliance Assistance, Region II
Kenneth Eng, Chief
Air Compliance Branch, Division of Enforcement and Compliance
Assistance, Region II
Kathleen C. Callahan, Director
Division of Environmental Planning and Protection, Region II
Judith Katz/ Director
Air Protection Division, Region III
Bernard E. Turlinski, Enforcement Cluster Associate Director
Air Protection Division, Region III
John Ruggero, Chief
Toxics Enforcement Section, Air Protection Division, Region III
David McGuigan, CAA Enforcement Section,
Air Protection Division, Region II
, _
Winston A. Smith, Director
Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, Region IV
-------
Beverly Spagg, Chief
Air and EPCRA Enforcement Branch,
Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, Region IV
David A. Kee, Director
Air and Radiation Division, Region V
George Czerniak, Chief
Air Enforcement Branch, Region V
Robert Hannesschlager, Acting Director
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, Region VI
William Luthans, Associate Director Air, Pesticides, and Toxics,
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, Region VI
Samuel J. Coleman, Director
Compliance Assurance and Enforcement Division, Region VI
John R. Hepola, Chief
Air/Toxics and Inspection Coordination Branch
Compliance Assurance and Enforcement Division, Region VI
William A.J. Spratlin, Director
Air, RCRA and Toxics Division, Region VII
Don Toensing, Chief
Air Permitting and Compliance' Branch, Region VII
Leo Alderman, Director
Environmental Services Division, Region VII
Mary Tietjen-Mindrup, Chief
Air and RCRA Compliance Branch,
Environmental Services Division, Region Vll'
Dick Long, Air Program Director
Office of Pollution Prevention, State, and Tribal Assistance,
Region VIII
Martin Hestmark, Program Director
Office of Enforcement, Compliance, and Environmental Justice,
Region VIII.
David Howekamp, Director
Air Division, Region IX
Barbara Gross, Enforcement Office
Air Division, Region IX
-------
Anita Frankel, Director
Office of Air Quality, Region X
Gil Haselberger, Manager
Air Enforcement and Program Support Unit, Of fire ^f £ir .^na'
Region X *
Bruce Jordan, Director
Emission Standards Division, OAQPS
Jack Edwardson, Associate Director
Emission Standards Division, OAQPS
Susan Wyatt, Leader
Policy, Planning, and Standards Group, OAQPS
William Hunt, Director
Emissions, Monitoring and Analysis Division, OAQPS
Tom Curran, Director
Information Transfer and Program Integration Division, OAQPS
Fred Dimmick, Leader
Program Review Group, ITPID, OAQPS
Karen Blanchard, Leader
Integrated Implementation Group, ITPID, OAQPS
Richard Colbert, Director
Agriculture and Ecosystem Division, OC
Elliott Gilberg, Director
Chemical, Commercial Services, and Municipal Division, OC
Reggie Cheatham, Chief
Chemical Industry Branch, CCSMD, OC
Kate Anderson, Chief
Commercial Services and Municipal Branch, CCSMD, OC
Bruce Buckheit, Director
Air Enforcement Division, ORE
Rich Biondi, Associate Director
Air Enforcement Division, ORE
Gregory Jaffe, Acting Chief
Stationary Source Enforcement Branch, AED, ORE
-------
-------
Review of the Applicability Determination Index;
NSPS Memoranda
Manufacturing, Energy and Transportation Division
Office of Compliance
July, 1998
The reorganization of the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
(OECA) in 1994, resulted in several important changes to the process for making
applicability determinations and monitoring revisions in the New Source Performance
Standard (NSPS) and the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant
(NESHAP) programs. The delegations of authority related to applicability and
monitoring issues were revised to reflect the new divisional structure within
Headquarters, and, in response to Regional requests, the delegated authorities for the
Regional Offices were expanded. The principal changes are as follows:
» Regional Offices are expected to take on a greater role in issuing applicability
determinations. Previous restrictions on the Regions' delegated authority for
multi-Regional applicability determinations and issues of national significance
were removed, as was the requirement-for consultation with Headquarters.
• Headquarters' authority to issue applicability determinations resides with three
sector-based divisions in the Office of Compliance (OC)1, and one division in the
Office of Regulatory .Enforcement (ORE)2. Headquarters determinations were
previously issued from one centralized division in the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (OAQPS).
'The Manufacturing, Energy, and Transportation Division (METD); the Chemical,
Commercial Services, and Municipal Division (CCSMD); and the Agriculture and Ecosystem
Division (AgED), all within the Office of Compliance.
2The Air Enforcement Division (AED) in the Office of Regulatory Enforcement.
-------
Regional Offices have the authority to issue alternative monitoring methods and
major changes in monitoring (see 40 CFR sections 60,13, 61.14, and 63.8).
Regional authority for monitoring revisions was previously limited to only minor
changes in monitoring methodology.
Headquarters is no longer delegated the authority to issue alternative monitoring
methods, nor to make monitoring revisions.
Applicability determinations and alternative monitoring responses may be issued
from the branch chief level. Previously this authority was delegable only to the
division director level.
Given these changes in the implementation of the NSPS and NESHAP
programs, the Manufacturing, Energy, and Transportation Division (METD) in OC
conducted a review of memoranda posted on the Applicability Determination Index
(ADI) to evaluate the memoranda for national consistency. METD first determined the
number and type of issues addressed by each Regional Office and division in
Headquarters since the OECA reorganization, and then reviewed a sampling of the
memoranda for quality. The quality review consisted of an analysis of the accuracy
(was the incoming question answered correctly), the clarity (did the response serve well
as guidance), and any emerging policy trends. This initial review of memoranda was
restricted to the NSPS program.
This report summarizes this review of NSPS memoranda posted on the ADI, as
follows:
Section 1: Evaluation Method.
• Section 2: Findings.
2.1: Quantity of memoranda posted;
2.2: Type of memoranda posted (the general topic of the memoranda);
2.3: Quality of memoranda reviewed.
• Section 3: Conclusions and Recommendations.
The subsection on the quality of memoranda contains the bulk of the findings. It
separately discusses the accuracy and clarity of responses, and presents additional
findings and policy trends identified in the quality review.
-------
Section 1: Evaluation Method
METD initiated the review of ADI memoranda in the Spring of 1997. The review
represents memoranda issued since the reorganization of OECA; any NSPS
memoranda dated from September 1, 1994 through March 30, 1997 and posted on the.
ADI as of April 1, 1997 were included in the study. Therefore, the study covers nearly a
two and a half year time period.
METD noted the number of NSPS memoranda posted on the ADI from each
Regional Office and division in Headquarters. In order to evaluate a significant sample
of memoranda, METD elected to review at least 25% of the memoranda posted from
each Regional Office or Headquarters division, but no fewer than 10 memoranda per
Regional Office or Headquarters division. Memoranda were selected for review at
random; however, some additional memoranda were selected by topic to ensure
representation of a wide variety of issues. This selection process resulted in a review of
97 of the 196 NSPS memoranda posted on the ADI and dated within the study's time
frame.
The 97 memoranda reviewed were categorized as either applicability issues, or
monitoring/testing issues. The few memoranda which did not deal with either of these
topics were labeled as "other." , As memoranda were reviewed, the accuracy and clarity
of responses, questions raised by the responses, and emerging policy trends were
noted. METD consulted with sector, technical, and/or Regional leads as necessary to
resolve any questions raised and any apparent discrepancies with prior Agency
determinations. Resolution of the issues identified ranged from posting clarifying
statements in the comment field of the ADI header for the memorandum, to simple
confirmation that the memorandum correctly addressed the issue at hand. METD
noted exemplary practices in the drafting of memoranda, as well as common drafting
pitfalls.
Throughout this prdcess, the quality of memoranda was evaluated in terms of
both accuracy, L^, whether the Agency provided a correct answer to the inquiry, and
clarity, Le,, whether the response stood alone well as future guidance. The clarity of
memoranda was classified as either excellent-good, satisfactory, fair, or poor (see the
discussion in Subsection 2.3, p. 9, entitled "Clarity of Memoranda" for a definition of
these terms).
-------
Section 2: Findings
2.1: Quantity of Memoranda Posted
As illustrated in the first pie chart, the numbers of NSPS memoranda posted on
the ADI per Regional Office or Headquarters division for the nearly two and one half
years reviewed varied substantially. The vast majority of NSPS memoranda posted on
the ADI were from Regional Offices; Regional Offices issued 80% of the memoranda
posted, whereas Headquarters issued 20%. This distribution is consistent with the
Regions' lead role in addressing revisions and alternatives to monitoring methods, arid
their lead role in issuing applicability determinations.
Chart 1, No. of NSPS Memoranda* Submitted to ADI per Office
Dated September '94 - March '97
Region 1 (1)
Region 2 (3)
Region 3 (5)
Region 4 (98)
Region 5 (10)
Region 6 (35)
Region 7(1)
Region 8 (4)
Region 9 (0)
Region 10(0)
METD(21)
CCSMD (4)
AgED (2)
AED/ORE(11)
OAQPS(1)
Total, 196
*Four (4) submittals consisted of headers only, with no memoranda attached.
Submittals without memoranda are not included in the totals nor in the chart.
Exploded portion of the pie represents memoranda issued by Headquarters.
-------
Among the Regions, activity varied substantially. Region 4 issued 98
memoranda, constituting half of the NSPS entries in the study. The next most active
office, Region 6, issued 35 memoranda, or 18% of the memos posted. Six Regions
posted fewer than five memoranda, with two Regions posting no memoranda at all. A
variety of factors may have contributed to this distribution, including differing state
capabilities, levels of state delegations, Regional and state management philosophies,
and interpretations of the types of memoranda which should be posted on the ADI.
Within Headquarters, the majority of memoranda were issued by METD (54% of
all Headquarters memoranda, 11% of all memoranda). Again, differing levels of activity
between divisions in Headquarters may be attributed to different management
philosophies, including different interpretations of when Headquarters versus the
Regions should issue determinations. The organizational structure of OECA and the
ensuing areas of responsibility also result in different numbers of determinations being
issued by each division. For example, the only NSPS for which the Agriculture and
Ecosystem Division (AgED) are responsible are those related to the farming sector,
such as those for fertilizers. In contrast, the METD has responsibility for the majority of
the manufacturing industries, which encompass over 45 NSPS. The Air Enforcement
Division in ORE had the lead only when an enforcement action was involved.
-------
2.2: Type of Memoranda Posted
Based on the review of 97 of 196 of the NSPS memoranda posted,
approximately half of the determinations were related to applicability. The remaining
memoranda involved the interpretation or revision of monitoring or testing requirements.
A few memoranda (only 4 of the 97 reviewed) addressed other issues such as
alternative means of emission limitation, information on where to send reports, and
enforcement policy. These distributions are depicted in Chart 2 below.
i
Of the memoranda related to monitoring and testing, the Regions issued the vast
majority, 84% of the memos; whereas, OECA issued 14%. The one remaining
memoranda was issued by OAQPS. This distribution is consistent with the Regions'
lead role in monitoring revisions. With respect to applicability issues, the Regions and
Headquarters issued similar numbers of determinations; the Regions issued 52% of
applicability-related memoranda; Headquarters issued 48%.
Chart 2. Approximate* Types of NSPS Memoranda Posted
Dated September '94 - March '97
D Applicability-Related
I Monitoring or Testing
• Other
* Based on a review of 97/196 memoranda posted
As indicated, these findings on the types of memoranda posted on the ADI are
based on a review of approximately half of the memoranda posted. The full universe of
NSPS memoranda posted on the ADI after the OECA reorganization would therefore
likely follow the same distribution.
-------
7
2.3: Quality of Memoranda
The purpose of the quality-review portion of this study was to evaluate not only
the accuracy of the determinations (i.e.. whether a correct response was provided), but
also the clarity of determinations (i.e.. how well Agency explained the question, the
answer, and the rationale). A memorandum can provide a correct response to the
question posed, while lacking clarity on the rationale for the decision or the unique facts
at hand. Such memoranda may satisfy the inquirer, who is familiar with the details of
his or her situation, but may confuse or mislead other readers of the response. As
such, a correct answer does not necessarily translate into adequate guidance for '
others, and may impede national consistency if clarity is lacking. Therefore, this
discussion on quality separately addresses the accuracy and clarity of memoranda
reviewed. Other findings identified in the review of these 97 memoranda, including
emerging policy trends, are discussed separately at the end of this subsection.
In interpreting the findings on quality which follow, it is important to be aware of
factors which were outside of the scope of the study, but have a bearing on quality
nonetheless. For example, the study did not evaluate the timeliness of response. Also,
the study did not review whether or how many times the assignment to prepare a
response shifted among staff, divisions or offices. Both of these have a bearing on the
efficiency and effectiveness of the Agency's work. Also, there were memoranda issued
within the time frame of the study which were not posted on the ADI. The quality of
these memoranda could not be reviewed, but their absence from the ADI has bearing
on the utility of those memoranda as guidance, and could create problems with national
consistency in the future. Nonetheless, the review addresses the accuracy and clarity
of nearly half the NSPS memoranda posted on the ADI, which provides an ample
sampling size and addresses the most critical factors affecting quality.
-------
Accuracy of Memoranda
The Agency provided the correct response to the specific question posed in
virtually all cases reviewed, initially, it was difficult to distinguish between poorly drafted
memoranda, and those which were incorrect. Through research and consultation with
sector, technical, enforcement, and Regional leads, METD determined that only three
of the 97 memoranda reviewed were erroneous.
In all three cases where an erroneous memorandum was issued, the Agency 4
had already identified and resolved the error, prior to METD's completion of this study.
In one case, the Agency issued a correction to the original, erroneous determination
within two months; both the original memorandum and its correction were posted on the
ADI. In another case, the Agency issued a no action assurance and amended the rule
to clarify the regulation. As part of METD's review of the ADI, a note was posted in the
header to that memorandum on the ADI, referencing the no action assurance and the
impending rule revision. In the third case, it was discovered that the memorandum in
question had never been signed or issued in final, and so the memorandum was
removed from the ADI.
Several other memoranda conflicted with prior determinations based on a
reading of the memoranda alone. However, after researching the determinations and
interviewing staff involved in the decisions, an adequate rationale for the responses
became apparent. These memoranda were therefore deemed to be correct, although
poorly drafted. These cases underscore the need for a clearly stated rationale in all
Agency responses.
-------
Clarity of Memoranda
The clarity of a memorandum encompasses how well the question, answer, and
rationale is explained in the Agency's response. To ensure a nationally consistent
program, EPA builds from the source-specific determinations issued in the past. As
indicated in the discussion on the previous page, a correct (accurate) answer if poorly
explained can be easily misinterpreted, and hinder national consistency. Therefore, the
clarity of memoranda was carefully considered in this quality review. '
The clarity classifications used in this analysis are defined as follows:
* Excellent-Good memoranda not only provided a correct response, but were clear
as to the question asked, and provided a concise answer and rationale. The
excellent memoranda thoroughly cited relevant background information, and/or
very clearly explained a complex issue.
Satisfactory memoranda provided a correct response, but could have been
written more clearly.
Fair memoranda contained the correct decision, but contained statements that
could easily be misinterpreted. These memoranda were characterized by a
misleading statement.
* Poor memoranda contained either substantive errors, or statements which
contradicted previous policy and were not explained.
-------
10
Chart 3. Clarity of Memoranda* Posted on ADI
Dated September '94 - March '97
Excellent-Good - 62%
Fair- 10%
Satisfactory -20%
Poor - 8%
Based on a review of 97/196 memoranda posted
Excellent-good memoranda constituted the majority of memos reviewed (62%),
These memoranda provided a clear, concise, and correct answer and rationale for the
question asked of the Agency. The excellent memoranda were particularly thorough in
citing relevant background information, and/or clearly explained a complex issue. The
review did not attempt to parcel out the excellent from the good memoranda, since all
the memoranda in the excellent-good category were of high quality and serve the
Agency well in ensuring national consistency.
Satisfactory memoranda (20%) alsd provided a correct response. However
these memoranda could have been written more clearly in that they did not state the
incoming question to the Agency, did not fully explain the rationale for the decision, or
did not explicitly state what was being approved. These memoranda typically relied too
heavily on access to information in the incoming materials which were not attached.
These memoranda, although providing the requestor with a correct and appropriate
decision, are not readily useful as future guidance for the Agency. There were simple,
common drafting pitfalls identified in this group of memos, which if avoided, would have
increased the quality of these memos to the good or excellent category.
-------
11
Memoranda in the fair category (10%) also appeared to contain the correct
response; however, research was necessary for the reviewer to confirm this, and the
memoranda contained statements that could be easily misinterpreted. Such
statements could be taken out of context and misapplied, because the memoranda
inadequately stated the rationale or the unusual circumstances of the case at hand.
Therefore, although providing a correct answer to the basic question, these memoranda
are misleading and could actually complicate future decisions or determinations.
Memoranda which were rated as poor (8%) either contained substantive errors
or contained statements which contradicted previous policy. In most of these cases,'
the source or requestor was provided with the correct answer, but the rationale was
deemed to be either wrong or contradictory. To address incorrect rationale, as part of
this review of the ADI, clarifications were added to the comment fields of the headers of
memoranda in question. In those few cases where the Agency provided an erroneous
answer, the Agency had issued and posted a retraction and/or correction prior to our
discovery of the problem. Absent retractions or clarifications, all the memoranda in this
category would have been detrimental to the accuracy and consistency of future
determinations.
In analyzing the data used to develop Chart 3 on Clarity of Memoranda, it was
noted that the distribution of excellent-good (62%), satisfactory (20%), fair (10%), and
poor (8%) memoranda was similar for Headquarters and for the Regional Offices.
Therefore, whether evaluating the quality of Headquarters memoranda alone, Regional
Office memoranda alone, or the combination thereof as depicted in the pie chart, the
quality of memoranda is about the same. It was further noted in the review that
memoranda that were clearly coordinated with other offices tended to be in the
excellent-good category.
Therefore, within the necessary scope of this study, in the vast majority of cases
(82%) the Agency drafted responses which were satisfactory or better. Requestors
were provided with the correct answer for the facts presented in virtually all memoranda
reviewed, even for some of those categorized as "poor". However, 38% of the
memoranda (satisfactory, plus fair, plus poor memoranda) could not be readily utilized
as the basis for future guidance, without research into the question asked and the
rationale for the response. Further, due to misleading statements or lack of critical
-------
12
information, well over a tenth of the memoranda3 could lead to erroneous decisions in
the future.
Additional Findings & Policy Trends
The review identified some minor misconceptions as to the proper type of
memoranda to be posted on the ADI, the proper delegated authorities, trends in
drafting, and emerging policies. For example, confusion as to the delegated authorities
within EPA for issuing monitoring revisions, testing revisions, and alternative standards
was apparent in several memoranda. There were also simple common drafting pitfalls
identified which, if avoided, would have substantially improved the quality of
memoranda. Also, as noted, memoranda which were clearly coordinated with other
offices were some of the best memoranda issued.
Several emerging policies were observed during the course of the review. In the
area of boiler derating, the Agency has been expanding the existing policy on what
criteria can be used to determine whether derating is accomplished through a
permanent physical change. In the area of performance test waivers, the Agency has
issued some waivers based on inherently low emission levels, rather than simply the
representative performance of identical units.
As a result of these findings, the Agency is drafting guidance on the procedures
for developing applicability determinations and monitoring revisions. The guidance will
address appropriate delegated authorities, lead offices, consultation procedures, and
basic drafting principles. With respect to the emerging policy trends, OC is evaluating
the rationale for these decisions, and these issues are being addressed in national and
Region-specific meetings and conferences.
The process of performing this study in itself has improved the quality of
memoranda and information on the ADI. The increased staff-level communication
necessary to clarify issues raised in the review of memoranda has resulted in improved
consultations for memoranda under development. Numerable typographical errors and
transmission errors were identified and corrected as a result of the review, and informal
3The number of fair plus poor memoranda actually constitutes 18% of those reviewed.
However the Agency has already issued a number of corrections and clarifications to address
possible misinterpretation of the most serious issues.
-------
13
staff-level correspondence from nondelegated authorities was removed from the ADI.
METD also clarified potential misinterpretation of existing memoranda by working with
lead offices to develop clarifying notes which have been posted in the ADI headers to
the memoranda.
-------
14
Section 3: Conclusions and Recommendations
Providing timely, accurate and well explained determinations and responses to
Regions, state agencies, and the regulated community is a basic form of compliance
assistance and a core function of EPA Headquarters and Regional Offices. Clarity on
how and why decisions are reached is critical, not only because the substance or
validity of the determination may be challenged in an enforcement action, but also
because these memoranda serve as the basis for future decisions. A clear record
saves future resources on the research of related topics, and prevents future
misinterpretation or misapplication of the decision. '
This review of the ADI has provided basic information on the Agency's role and
responsiveness in applicability and monitoring inquiries, and has identified potential
areas for improvement. Clarification of roles and responsibilities, consultation
procedures, proper background research, and basic drafting practices, are simple and
key elements which will assist in the development of high quality determinations.
METD is developing guidance on the Development of Applicability
Determinations and Alternative Monitoring Responses for the NSPS and NESHAP
Programs, which will help improve the quality of these memoranda. This guidance will
identify the common drafting pitfalls noted in this review, the delegated authorities, the
lead offices, the proper consultation procedures, and the basic steps to developing and
issuing applicability determinations and alternative monitoring responses. Adherence to
the principles and procedures in the guidance should result in quality improvements and
more timely responses.
Using the ADI is critical for ensuring national consistency in the NSPS and
NESHAP programs. METD has already facilitated use of the ADI through Internet
access, providing expanded search capabilities, easier viewing of multiple abstracts,
screens, and menus, and simpler printing commands. Posting memoranda on the ADI
is the most essential element in facilitating national consistency. As such, quarterly
updates to the ADI are a condition of the delegation of applicability determination
authority to Regional Offices, and therefore, Regions as well as OC sector leads must
continue to post issues related to NSPS and NESHAP monitoring requirements on the
ADI, Sector leads should also periodically review new entries on the ADI pertaining to
their sector. A complete and up-to-date compilation of memoranda on the ADI serves
-------
15
to provide compliance assistance to the regulated community, public access, and fair
notice.
A variety of other mechanisms are under consideration for improving the quality
and facilitating the issuance of applicability determinations. These include: performing
a similar review or sampling of the NESHAP memoranda posted on the ADI; providing a
short training for EPA staff on how to prepare/handle applicability issues; reviewing
accessibility to background documents; and using expert systems in the development of
regulations to help simplify applicability.
k
With the growth of the air program and the expanding roles and responsibilities
of the Regional Offices, providing means to facilitate national consistency is more
important than ever. This review of the ADI has provided basic insight into the quality
and nature of the Agency's work products. Thoughtful review of these findings and
implementation of these recommendations should help to promote a nationally
consistent program.
------- |