Edits
to
Chapter
VIII
1
4/
9/
2004
DRAFT
for
Internal
Deliberation
Do
Not
Cite
or
Quote
VIII.
Clarifications
to
January
30,
2004
Proposal
This
section
provides
clarifications
to
the
proposed
rule
where
the
preamble
language
provided
in
the
published
proposal
was
unclear,
inadvertently
omitted,
or
inadvertently
incorrect.
Unless
otherwise
indicated,
all
references
to
the
Federal
Register
 
69
FR
4566­
4650
 
are
to
the
proposed
Interstate
Air
Quality
Rule
(
IAQR).

A.
States
covered
by
the
proposed
action
On
69
FR
4633
col.
1,
EPA
discussed
the
NOx
cap
and
trade
program.
Under
the
heading
"
States
Outside
the
Proposed
Region
with
Existing
Regional
NOx
Cap
and
Trade
Programs",
EPA
mistakenly
identified
Massachusetts
in
a
list
of
States
that
would
not
be
affected
by
the
proposed
rules.
Massachusetts
should
be
deleted
from
that
list
because
it
would
be
affected
by
the
proposed
rules.
|
|
On
69
FR
4584
col.
2,
EPA
discussed
alternative
significance
levels
for
inclusion
of
|
states
in
the
IAQR.
A
level
of
1%
of
the
NAAQS
for
particulate
matter
was
proposed,
|
and
EPA
solicited
comments
on
higher
and
lower
thresholds.
Noting
that
a
threshold
of
|
2
ppb
was
used
for
ozone,
and
that
this
level
is
1.7%
of
the
1
hour
average
ozone
|
NAAQS
and
2.5%
of
the
8
hour
average
NAAQS,
EPA
seeks
comment
specifically
on
|
PM2.5
significance
levels
that
would
parallel
the
ozone
percentages,
i.
e.,
1.7%
and
|
2.5%
of
the
PM2.5
NAAQS
(
0.25
and
0.375
ug/
m3).
|
|
B.
Source
categories
covered
by
the
proposed
action
|
|
On
69
FR
4611
col.
3,
EPA
discussed
alternative
approaches
to
determining
whether
|
source
categories
should
be
covered
by
the
IAQR.
We
discussed
our
interpretation
of
|
the
"
contribute
significantly"
determination
under
CAA
section
110(
a)(
2)(
D),
and
the
|
fact
that
air
quality
component
and
the
cost­
effectiveness
component
of
that
|
determination.
In
short,
we
stated
that
a
broad
multi­
state
call
for
SIP
revisions
to
|
address
interstate
transport
of
air
pollution
is
warranted
only
for
groups
of
sources
|
make
substantial
contributions
to
a
significant
number
of
nonattainment
areas.
Other
|
mechanisms
exist
to
address
isolated
instances
of
interstate
transport,
such
as
SIP
|
disapproval
authority
and
state
petitions
under
Section
126
of
the
Clean
Air
Act.
|
|
One
approach
cited
in
the
NOPR
for
ensuring
that
both
the
air
quality
component
and
|
the
cost
effectiveness
component
of
the
"
contribute
significantly"
determination
is
met,
|
is
to
consider
a
source
category's
contribution
to
ambient
concentrations
above
the
|
attainment
level
in
all
nonattainment
areas
in
affected
downwind
states.
EPA
|
furthermore
seeks
comment
on
a
variation
on
this
concept:
that
is,
whether
a
source
|
category
should
be
considered
to
meet
the
"
contribute
significantly"
requirement
only
if
|
the
proposed
level
of
additional
control
of
that
category
would
result
in
at
least
0.5%
of
|
U.
S.
counties
coming
into
attainment
with
a
NAAQS.
Given
the
number
of
counties
and
|
parishes
in
the
U.
S.,
this
would
be
at
least
16
counties.
Control
of
EGUs
in
the
IAQR
|
meets
this
test.
EPA
believes
that
the
"
contribute
significantly"
requirement
should
|
include
this
test
because
if
control
of
a
source
category
did
not
bring
into
NAAQS
|
attainment
at
least
0.5%
of
the
Nation's
counties,
then
the
category
would
not
be
|
significant
enough
to
warrant
a
unique
Federally
driven,
multi­
state
mitigation
program.
|
As
with
the
other
criteria
in
this
call
for
SIP
revisions,
use
of
this
criteria
in
defining
a
|
Federal
multi­
state
SIP
call
in
no
way
limits
a
State's
responsibilities
under
the
Clean
|
Air
Act,
including
under
section
110(
a)(
2)(
D).
|
|
|
[
Re­
letter
subsequent
paragraphs.]
|

B.
Summary
of
control
costs
The
control
cost
summary
provided
on
69
FR
4632
col.
2
(
first
full
paragraph)
indicates
a
marginal
cost
per
ton
of
SO2
emissions
of
$
805
in
the
first
phase,
and
$
989
in
the
second
phase,
of
the
proposed
control
program.
These
