Internal
and
Deliberative
Draft
­
Do
not
cite,
quote,
copy,
or
distribute
August
2005
United
States
Office
of
Air
Quality
Environmental
Protection
Planning
and
Standards
August
2005
Agency
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC
27711
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ttn/
nsr/
rule_
dev.
html
Technical
Support
Document
for
Changes
to
the
New
Source
Review
Regulations
in
the
Phase
II
Ozone
Implementation
Rule
Internal
and
Deliberative
Draft
­
Do
not
cite,
quote,
copy,
or
distribute
August
2005
Technical
Support
Document
for
Changes
to
the
New
Source
Review
Regulations
in
the
Phase
II
Ozone
Implementation
Rule
Integrated
Implementation
Group
Information
Transfer
and
Program
Integration
Division
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC
27711
August
2005
Table
of
Contents
Internal
and
Deliberative
Draft
­
Do
not
cite,
quote,
copy,
or
distribute
August
2005
i
List
of
Acronyms
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
iii
Chapter
1
­
Introduction
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1­
1
1.1
Overview
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1­
1
1.2
Public
Comments
and
EPA
Responses
on
Changes
to
Implement
1990
Amendments
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1­
1
1.3
Public
Comments
and
EPA
Responses
on
Criteria
for
Emission
Reduction
Credits
from
Shutdowns
and
Curtailments
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1­
2
1.4
Public
Comments
and
EPA
Responses
on
Changes
to
Construction
Ban
Provisions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1­
2
1.5
Proposed
Changes
on
Applicability
of
Appendix
S
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1­
3
1.6
Changes
to
Identify
NOx
as
an
Ozone
Precursor
in
Attainment
and
Unclassifiable
Areas
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1­
4
1.7
How
to
Get
More
Information
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1­
4
Chapter
2
­
Comments
on
Changes
to
Implement
1990
Amendments
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
1
2.1
Overview
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
1
2.2
Major
Stationary
Source
Threshold
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
1
2.3
NO
x
as
an
Ozone
Precursor
for
NSR
Purposes
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
1
2.4
Requirements
When
NO
x
Waiver
Applies
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
2
2.5
Requirements
in
the
OTR
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
3
2.6
Provisions
for
Carbon
Monoxide
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
6
2.7
Provisions
for
PM­
10
Nonattainment
Areas
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
7
Chapter
3
­
Emission
Reduction
Credits
from
Shutdowns
and
Curtailments
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
10
3.1
Overview
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
10
3.2
General
Support/
Opposition
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
10
3.2.
Alternative
1
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
11
3.3.
Alternative
2
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
13
3.4.
Other
Comments
on
Emission
Reduction
Credits
from
Shutdowns
and
Curtailments
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
16
Chapter
4
­
Comments
on
Changes
to
Construction
Ban
Provisions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
1
4.1
Overview
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
1
4.2
Construction
Ban
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
1
Chapter
5
­
Comments
on
Changes
to
Applicability
of
Appendix
S
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4­
1
5.1
Overview
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4­
1
5.2
Changes
to
Section
VI
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4­
1
5.3
Other
Comments
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4­
4
Table
of
Contents
Internal
and
Deliberative
Draft
­
Do
not
cite,
quote,
copy,
or
distribute
August
2005
ii
Chapter
6
­
Comments
on
Changes
to
Identify
NOx
as
an
Ozone
Precursor
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4­
6
6.1
Overview
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4­
6
6.2
NOx
as
an
Ozone
Precursor
in
Attainment
Areas
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4­
6
Appendix
A.
Public
Commenters
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A­
1
Internal
and
Deliberative
Draft
­
Do
not
cite,
quote,
copy,
or
distribute
August
2005
iii
Acronym
List
BACT
Best
Available
Control
Technology
CAA
Clean
Air
Act
CBI
Confidential
Business
Information
CFR
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
CO
Carbon
Monoxide
EAC
Early
Action
Compact
EPA
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency
FR
Federal
Register
LAER
Lowest
Achievable
Emissions
Rate
MOU
Memorandum
of
Understanding
NAAQS
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards
NO
x
Nitrogen
Oxides
NSR
New
Source
Review
OTC
Ozone
Transport
Commission
OTR
Ozone
Transport
Region
PAL
Plantwide
Applicability
Limitation
PCP
Pollution
Control
Project
ppm
Parts
Per
Million
PM2.5
Particulate
Matter
Less
Than
2.5
Microns
in
Diameter
PSD
Prevention
of
Significant
Deterioration
RACT
Reasonably
Available
Control
Technology
RBLC
RACT/
BACT/
LAER
Clearinghouse
SIP
State
Implementation
Plan
tpy
Tons
Per
Year
VOC
Volatile
Organic
Compound
Internal
and
Deliberative
Draft
­
Do
not
cite,
quote,
copy,
or
distribute
August
2005
1­
1
Chapter
1
­
Introduction
1.1
Overview
This
document
contains
public
comments
and
EPA
responses
on
changes
to
implement
NSR
under
the
8­
hour
ozone
NAAQS.
We
previously
proposed
changes
to
the
three
regulations
that
govern
NSR
permitting
of
major
stationary
sources
in
nonattainment
areas­
40
CFR
51.165,
appendix
S
of
40
CFR
part
51,
and
40
CFR
52.24.
We
also
proposed
changes
to
the
Prevention
of
Significant
Deterioration
(
PSD)
rules
in
40
CFR
51.166
and
52.21
to
regulate
NOx
as
an
ozone
precursor
in
attainment
areas.
For
a
complete
summary
of
the
regulatory
history
of
these
rulemakings
and
public
notice
and
opportunity
for
comment
on
them,
please
see
the
preamble
to
the
final
Phase
II
8­
hour
Ozone
Implementation
regulations.

1.2
Public
Comments
and
EPA
Responses
on
Changes
to
Implement
1990
Amendments
On
July
23,
1996
(
61
FR
38250),
we
proposed
changes
to
§
51.165
to
incorporate
requirements
in
part
D
of
title
I
of
the
1990
amendments
to
the
CAA
for
ozone,
carbon
monoxide,
and
Particulate
Matter
(
PM­
10).
Specifically,
we
proposed
the
following
changes.

°
new
major
stationary
source
thresholds
°
new
significant
emission
rates
°
new
offset
ratios
for
ozone
nonattainment
areas
On
June
2,
2003,
we
proposed
a
rule
to
identify
the
statutory
requirements
that
apply
for
purposes
of
developing
SIPs
under
the
CAA
to
implement
the
8­
hour
ozone
NAAQS.
(
68
FR
32802)
Specifically,
we
proposed
two
options:
(
1)
one
in
which
all
nonattainment
areas
would
be
classified
and
regulated
under
subpart
2
of
part
D
of
title
I;
and
(
2)
a
second
in
which
some
nonattainment
areas
would
be
regulated
under
the
less
restrictive
requirements
of
subpart
1
and
some
would
be
classified
and
regulated
under
subpart
2.
For
areas
classified
under
subpart
2
 
those
with
a
1­
hour
ozone
design
value
at
or
above
0.121
ppm
 
the
classifications
set
forth
in
subpart
2
(
marginal,
moderate,
etc.)
would
govern
part
D
SIPs
for
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard.
Each
area's
classification
would
be
determined
by
a
modified
version
of
the
subpart
2
classification
table
containing
1­
hour
design
values
and
translated
8­
hour
design
values
for
each
classification.
The
NSR
permitting
requirements
for
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard
necessarily
follow
from
the
classification
scheme
chosen
under
the
terms
of
subpart
1
and
subpart
2.
We
did
not
propose
specific
regulatory
language
for
implementation
of
NSR
under
the
8­
hour
NAAQS.
However,
we
indicated
that
we
intended
to
revise
the
nonattainment
NSR
regulations
to
be
consistent
with
the
rule
for
implementing
the
8­
hour
ozone
NAAQS.
(
68
FR
32844)
Chapter
1­
Introduction
Internal
and
Deliberative
Draft
­
Do
not
cite,
quote,
copy,
or
distribute
August
2005
1­
2
This
document
contains
public
comments
and
EPA
responses
on
the
proposed
major
stationary
source
thresholds,
significant
emission
rates,
and
offset
ratios
in
§
51.165
and
Appendix
S
discussed
in
this
section
1.2.

1.3
Public
Comments
and
EPA
Responses
on
Criteria
for
Emission
Reduction
Credits
from
Shutdowns
and
Curtailments
In
1996
we
proposed
to
revise
the
regulations
limiting
offsets
from
emission
reductions
due
to
shutting
down
an
existing
source
or
curtailing
production
or
operating
hours
below
baseline
levels
("
shutdowns/
curtailments").
The
prior
regulations
at
§
51.165(
a)(
3)(
ii)(
C)
provided
that
such
emission
reductions
could
be
used
as
offsets
if
the
State
lacked
an
approved
attainment
demonstration,
unless
the
shutdown/
curtailment
occurred
after
the
date
the
new
source
permit
application
was
filed
or
the
applicant
could
establish
that
the
proposed
new
source
is
a
replacement
for
the
shutdown/
curtailed
source.
We
proposed
to
revise
the
existing
provisions
for
crediting
emission
reductions
by
restructuring
existing
§
§
51.165(
a)(
3)(
ii)(
C)(
1)
and
(
2)
for
clarity
without
changing
the
current
requirements
therein.
[
See
proposed
§
§
51.165
(
a)(
3)(
ii)(
C)(
1)
through
(
4).]
We
also
proposed
substantive
revisions
in
two
alternatives
that
would
ease,
under
certain
circumstances,
the
existing
restrictions
on
the
use
of
emission
reduction
credits
from
source
shutdowns
and
curtailments
as
offsets.
We
explained
that
easing
the
restrictions
may
be
warranted
by
the
1990
Amendments,
in
which
Congress
significantly
reworked
the
attainment
planning
requirements
of
part
D
of
title
I
of
the
CAA
such
that
an
approved
attainment
demonstration
is
unnecessary.

This
document
contains
public
comments
and
EPA
responses
on
the
proposed
changes
to
criteria
for
emission
reduction
credits
from
shutdowns
and
curtailments.

1.4
Public
Comments
and
EPA
Responses
on
Changes
to
Construction
Ban
Provisions
On
July
23,
1996,
we
proposed
to
revise
§
52.24
to
incorporate
changes
made
by
the
1990
Amendments
that
alter
the
applicability
of
the
construction
ban
provisions.
On
December
31,
2002
(
67
FR
80187),
we
stated
our
intention
to
conform
the
regulatory
language
in
§
52.24
to
the
final
regulations
promulgated
on
that
date.
That
is,
all
of
the
provisions
of
§
51.165
apply
in
interpreting
the
terms
of
§
52.24.

We
note
that
§
52.24(
k)
was
not
included
in
the
proposed
rule
text.
However,
the
preamble
did
not
in
any
manner
indicate
that
EPA
believed
that
NSR
permits
complying
with
appendix
S
were
not
required
during
the
SIP
development
period
where
necessary.

Our
proposed
8­
hour
ozone
NAAQS
implementation
rule
explained
that
§
52.24(
k)
remained
in
effect
and
made
clear
that
it
would
be
retained.
In
that
action,
we
also
proposed
that
Chapter
1­
Introduction
Internal
and
Deliberative
Draft
­
Do
not
cite,
quote,
copy,
or
distribute
August
2005
1­
3
we
would
revise
§
52.24(
k)
to
reflect
the
changes
in
the
1990
Amendments.
(
68
FR
32846)
The
prior
language
at
§
52.24(
k)
allowed
States
to
issue
permits
under
appendix
S
for
a
maximum
period
of
18
months
after
designation.
After
this
time,
if
the
nonattainment
area
did
not
have
an
approved
part
D
NSR
permit
program,
a
construction
ban
would
apply.
Under
the
1977
CAA,
the
construction
ban
went
into
effect
on
July
1,
1979.
However,
in
1990,
Congress
altered
the
provisions
of
the
construction
ban
such
that
it
would
not
apply
when
a
State
lacked
an
approved
part
D
NSR
program
in
the
future.
Thus,
the
1990
Amendments
supersedes
that
portion
of
prior
§
52.24
dealing
with
the
construction
ban
but
leaves
unaltered
the
requirement
that
appendix
S
continue
to
apply
through
§
52.24
(
k).
We
proposed
to
allow
States
to
issue
permits
under
appendix
S
from
designation
to
approval
even
if
it
exceeds
18
months.

This
document
contains
public
comments
and
EPA
responses
on
the
proposed
changes
to
§
52.24.

1.5
Proposed
Changes
on
Applicability
of
Appendix
S
and
the
Transitional
NSR
Program
On
June
2,
2003
(
68
FR
32802),
we
explained
implementation
of
the
NSR
program
under
the
8­
hour
ozone
NAAQS
during
the
interim
SIP
development
period,
and
proposed
flexible
NSR
requirements
for
areas
that
expected
to
attain
the
8­
hour
NAAQS
within
three
years
after
designation.
For
a
nonattainment
area
in
a
State
with
a
SIP
that
specifically
lists
the
areas
in
which
part
D
NSR
applies,
or
in
areas
that
currently
have
no
nonattainment
plan
or
otherwise
lack
direct
authority
to
implement
NSR
for
the
8­
hour
ozone
NAAQS
through
a
SIP­
approved
permitting
program,
there
is
an
interim
period
between
the
designation
date
and
the
date
that
the
State
amends
its
SIP
either
to
list
any
new
nonattainment
areas
or
to
include
a
part
D
plan.
We
stated
that
the
existing
regulation
codified
at
40
CFR
52.24(
k)
requires
that
permits
be
issued
in
compliance
with
appendix
S
during
this
time,
and
that
in
the
absence
of
a
transitional
NSR
program,
a
State
would
have
to
continue
implementing
part
D
nonattainment
requirements
under
appendix
S.
(
68
FR
32846­
48.)
Consistent
with
our
1996
NSR
Reform
proposal,
we
also
proposed
that
the
nonattainment
NSR
regulations
be
amended
to
expressly
include
NO
x
as
an
ozone
precursor
in
the
nonattainment
major
NSR
program.
We
also
proposed
that
as
provided
under
CAA
section
182(
f),
a
waiver
from
nonattainment
NSR
for
NO
x
as
an
ozone
precursor
would
apply
for
both
subpart
1
and
subpart
2
areas.
(
68
FR
32846)

With
regard
to
transitional
NSR
permitting,
we
proposed
to
limit
the
exemption
from
NSR
permitting
in
Section
VI
of
appendix
S
to
nonattainment
areas
meeting
certain
requirements.
(
68
FR
32844)
The
Transitional
NSR
program
would
only
apply
in
nonattainment
areas
that
are
attaining
the
1­
hr
NAAQS,
are
subject
to
subpart
1
(
rather
than
subpart
2)
of
part
D
of
title
I,
have
submitted
an
attainment
plan
by
April
15,
2004
that
demonstrates
attainment
within
3
years
after
designation,
and
have
submitted
an
attainment
plan
containing
any
additional
local
control
measures
needed
for
attainment
of
the
8­
hour
standard.
(
68
FR
32847)
We
proposed
that
Chapter
1­
Introduction
Internal
and
Deliberative
Draft
­
Do
not
cite,
quote,
copy,
or
distribute
August
2005
1­
4
sources
under
the
Transitional
NSR
program
would
be
subject
to
BACT
instead
of
LAER
and
would
not
be
required
to
obtain
source­
specific
offsets.

On
August
6,
2003
(
68
FR
46536),
we
solicited
comment
on
additional
options
for
implementing
NSR
under
the
8­
hour
NAAQS,
including
a
major
rewrite
of
appendix
S
that
would
include
the
proposed
changes
to
Section
VI,
as
well
as
the
December
31,
2002
Reform
rule
changes.

This
document
contains
public
comments
and
EPA
responses
on
the
proposal
to
change
to
Section
VI
of
appendix
S
.

1.6
Changes
to
Identify
NOx
as
an
Ozone
Precursor
in
Attainment
and
Unclassifiable
Areas
Currently,
only
VOCs
are
expressly
regulated
as
ozone
precursors
under
the
PSD
regulations.
Recognizing
the
role
of
NO
x
in
ozone
formation
and
transport,
we
proposed
to
amend
our
PSD
regulations
to
expressly
include
NO
x
as
an
ozone
precursor
in
attainment
and
unclassifiable
areas.
Moreover,
we
proposed
to
require
States
to
modify
their
existing
programs
to
include
NO
x
as
an
ozone
precursor
in
these
areas.
(
68
FR
32846)
This
document
contains
public
comments
and
EPA
responses
on
the
proposal
to
identify
NOx
as
an
ozone
precursor
in
attainment
and
unclassifiable
areas.

1.7
How
to
Get
More
Information
EPA
has
established
a
docket
for
the
final
Nonattainment
NSR
rule
under
Docket
ID
No.
OAR­
2004­
0079.
All
documents
in
the
docket
are
listed
in
the
EDOCKET
index
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket.
Although
listed
in
the
index,
some
information
is
not
publicly
available,
i.
e.,
CBI
or
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute.
Certain
other
material,
such
as
copyrighted
material,
is
not
placed
on
the
Internet
and
will
be
publicly
available
only
in
hard
copy
form.
Publicly
available
docket
materials
are
available
either
electronically
in
EDOCKET
or
in
hard
copy
at
the
Air
Docket,
EPA/
DC,
EPA
West,
Room
B102,
1301
Constitution
Ave.,
NW,
Washington,
DC.
The
Public
Reading
Room
is
open
from
8:
30
a.
m.
to
4:
30
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
The
telephone
number
for
the
Public
Reading
Room
is
(
202)
566­
1744,
and
the
telephone
number
for
the
Air
Docket
is
(
202)
566­
1742.

In
addition
to
being
available
in
the
docket,
an
electronic
copy
of
the
final
Nonattainment
NSR
rule
is
also
available
on
the
internet
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
nsr/.
Chapter
1­
Introduction
Internal
and
Deliberative
Draft
­
Do
not
cite,
quote,
copy,
or
distribute
August
2005
1­
5
Internal
and
Deliberative
Draft
­
Do
not
cite,
quote,
copy,
or
distribute
August
2005
2­
1
Chapter
2
­
Comments
on
Changes
to
Implement
1990
Amendments
2.1
Overview
This
chapter
contains
comments
on
the
1996
proposal
concerning
changes
to
§
51.165
and
appendix
S
for
which
we
are
making
final
changes.
These
include
major
stationary
source
thresholds
and
significant
emission
rates
for
ozone,
carbon
monoxide,
and
PM­
10,
NO
x
as
an
ozone
precursor
for
NSR
purposes,
requirements
in
an
Ozone
Transport
Region
(
OTR),
applicability
of
NO
x
as
an
ozone
precursor
when
a
waiver
pursuant
to
182(
f)
applies,
and
emission
reduction
credits
from
shutdowns
and
curtailments.

2.2
Major
Stationary
Source
Threshold
Comment:

In
order
to
make
the
requirements
of
§
51.165
applicable
to
nonattainment
area
sources
only,
one
commenter
(
IV­
D­
113)
proposed
specific
language
for
use
in
§
51.165
(
a)(
1)(
iv)(
A)(
1).
The
commenter
proposed
to
strike
the
phrase
"
any
pollutant
subject
to
regulation
under
the
Act"
and
replace
it
with
"
any
pollutant
for
which
the
area
in
which
the
source
is
located
is
designated
as
nonattainment."

Response:

We
do
not
agree
with
the
commenter's
suggestion.
For
the
reasons
set
forth
at
67
FR
80240,
we
have
replaced
the
terminology
"
pollutants
regulated
under
the
Act"
with
"
regulated
NSR
pollutant."

Comment:

One
commenter
(
IV­
D­
192)
strongly
supported
the
major
stationary
source
threshold
of
25
tpy
for
VOC
in
serious
and
severe
ozone
nonattainment
areas.

Response:

We
have
changed
the
rules
to
include
the
definitions
of
major
stationary
source
set
forth
by
Section
182(
c)
and
(
d)
for
serious
and
severe
ozone
nonattainment
areas.
Section
182(
c)
states
that
the
major
stationary
source
threshold
for
VOC
in
serious
nonattainment
areas
is
50
tpy.
Section
182(
d)
states
that
the
major
stationary
source
threshold
in
severe
nonattainment
areas
is
25
tpy.
We
appreciate
the
commenter's
support.

2.3
NO
x
as
an
Ozone
Precursor
for
NSR
Purposes
Chapter
2­
Comments
on
1990
Amendments
1
We
proposed
at
68
FR
32840
to
establish
NO
x
waiver
provisions
identical
to
those
in
section
182(
f)
for
areas
subject
to
subpart
1.
We
intend
to
promulgate
final
rules
concerning
the
applicability
of
NO
x
waivers
in
subpart
1
areas
as
part
of
our
Phase
II
Final
Rule
to
Implement
the
8­
hour
Ozone
NAAQS.
We
will
also
address
implementation
issues
related
to
NO
x
waivers
under
the
1­
hour
and
8­
hour
NAAQS
in
future
rulemaking
and
guidance.

Internal
and
Deliberative
Draft
­
Do
not
cite,
quote,
copy,
or
distribute
August
2005
2­
2
Comment:

Several
commenters
[
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0196;
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0273;
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0322;
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0299]
expressed
support
of
EPA's
plan
to
include
NO
x
as
an
ozone
precursor
in
major
NSR
programs.
Some
commenters
[
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0273;
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0299]
believed
classification
of
NO
x
as
a
regulated
pollutant
to
be
necessary
for
NSR
purposes.
The
commenters
[
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0273;
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0299]
noted
that
in
the
context
of
NSR
permitting,
many
jurisdictions
have
already
implemented
such
requirements.

As
a
downwind
State,
one
commenter
[
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0322]
did
not
agree
that
waivers
from
nonattainment
NSR
should
be
allowed.
This
commenter
[
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0322]
believed
the
implementation
rule
should
require
broad
application
of
emission
control
requirements,
given
the
regional
nature
of
the
ozone
problem.

Response:

We
agree
with
the
commenters
supporting
NO
X
as
an
ozone
precursor
for
NSR
applicability,
and
have
retained
it
in
the
final
rule.
Thus,
we
have
finalized
as
proposed
in
1996
(
61
FR
38298)
and
2003
(
68
FR
32846)
that
the
NSR
requirements
applicable
to
major
stationary
sources
of
VOC
(
including
provisions
regarding
major
modifications,
significant
emission
rates,
and
offsets)
apply
to
nitrogen
oxide
emissions.
Section
182(
f)
specifies
circumstances
under
which
NO
x
requirements
for
major
stationary
sources,
including
NSR
requirements,
would
not
apply
or
would
be
limited
("
NO
x
waiver"),
based
on
a
determination
by
the
Administrator
that
the
standards
in
Section
182(
f)
have
been
met.
No
determination
about
the
applicability
of
the
section
182(
f)
NO
x
waiver
to
8­
hour
nonattainment
areas
is
being
made
today.
We
note
that
whether
a
NO
x
waiver
applies
in
a
particular
area
and
the
effects
of
NO
x
waivers
on
RACT
are
not
NSR
permitting
determinations,
and
are
thus
beyond
the
scope
of
this
rulemaking.
1
2.4
Requirements
When
NO
x
Waiver
Applies
Comment:
Chapter
2­
Comments
on
1990
Amendments
2
See
Footnote
1
concerning
NO
x
waiver
provisions.

Internal
and
Deliberative
Draft
­
Do
not
cite,
quote,
copy,
or
distribute
August
2005
2­
3
Two
commenters
(
IV­
D­
140,
154)
asserted
that
where
there
is
an
approved
section
182(
f)
exemption
indicating
that
NO
x
is
not
a
contributor
to
ozone
attainment
problems,
permitting
should
not
be
subject
to
the
nonattainment
NSR
modification
thresholds,
netting,
and
offset
requirements.
Increases
in
NOx
emissions
should
instead
be
evaluated
using
the
PSD
rules.
One
commenter
(
IV­
D­
140)
added
that
EPA
should
provide
a
specific
exemption
in
the
NSR
provisions
for
NO
x
emissions
in
nonattainment
areas
that
have
received
a
section
182(
f)
exemption.
Another
commenter
(
IV­
D­
160)
suggested
that
the
proposed
provisions
implementing
section
182(
f)
be
revised
to
clarify
that,
in
certain
circumstances
B
even
in
the
absence
of
a
plan
approval
or
plan
revision
B
the
Administrator
may
create
an
exception
to
the
general
presumption
that
NO
x
is
an
ozone
precursor.
In
particular,
the
commenter
recommended
that
the
final
rule
include
provisions
implementing
sections
182(
f)(
2)
and
182(
f)(
3).

Response:

Today's
final
rules
acknowledge
that
if
a
NOx
waiver
is
available
and
has
been
granted
applying
the
standards
set
forth
in
Section
182(
f),
and
the
waiver
continues
to
apply,
the
NSR
program
will
recognize
such
a
waiver.
[
See
§
51.165(
a)(
8)
and
appendix
S
at
Section
IV.
N.]
As
noted
above,
no
determination
about
the
applicability
of
the
section
182(
f)
NOx
waiver
to
8­
hour
nonattainment
areas
is
being
made
today.
We
note
that
whether
a
NO
x
waiver
under
section
182(
f)
applies
in
a
particular
area
and
the
effects
of
NO
x
waivers
on
RACT
are
not
NSR
permitting
determinations,
and
are
thus
beyond
the
scope
of
this
rulemaking.
2
2.5
Requirements
in
the
OTR
Comment:

One
commenter
(
IV­
D­
48)
suggested
that
given
the
importance
of
the
long­
range
transport
of
NO
x
emissions,
the
EPA
should
recognize
the
benefits
of
exchanging
NO
x
offsets
for
VOC
offsets
in
the
OTR.
The
EPA
should
allow
a
"
1
ton
of
NO
x
for
1
ton
of
VOC"
offset
without
analysis,
because
attainment
area
NO
x
reductions
are
more
beneficial
regionally
than
are
attainment
area
VOC
reductions.
A
"
less
than
1
ton
of
NO
x
offset
for
1
ton
of
VOC"
increase,
on
the
other
hand,
should
be
permitted
only
where
justified
by
an
air
quality
evaluation.

Another
commenter
(
IV­
D­
60)
recommended
that
EPA
allow
sources
in
attainment
areas
with
the
OTR
to
substitute
NO
x
reductions
for
VOC
offset
requirements,
as
NO
x
reductions
would
provide
a
greater
incremental
benefit
in
reducing
transport
and
regional
ozone
concentrations.
The
EPA
should
establish
NO
x­
for­
VOC
substitution
ratios
at
some
level
other
than
1:
1
 
preferably
a
level
based
on
the
relative
percentages
of
NO
x
and
VOCs
in
a
State's
Chapter
2­
Comments
on
1990
Amendments
Internal
and
Deliberative
Draft
­
Do
not
cite,
quote,
copy,
or
distribute
August
2005
2­
4
emissions
inventory
 
in
order
to
more
accurately
reflect
NO
x
and
VOC
emissions
within
a
geographic
area.

Response:

We
do
not
agree
with
the
commenters
for
several
reasons.
First,
CAA
section
184(
b)
sets
forth
specific
VOC
and
NO
x
control
requirements
to
be
applied
through
the
entire
OTR,
in
both
attainment
and
nonattainment
areas,
to
reduce
interstate
air
pollution.
Pursuant
to
sections
182(
f)
and
184(
b),
these
additional
regional
requirements
include
part
D
NSR
for
VOC
and
NO
x,
including
the
requirements
for
offsets.
As
we
indicated
at
68
FR
32855,
these
statutory
obligations
remain
in
place
for
areas
in
the
existing
OTR.

Second,
we
do
not
agree
that
substituting
NO
x
offsets
for
VOC
offsets
will
always
lead
to
favorable
air
quality
results.
The
requirements
in
CAA
section
184(
b)
apply
except
as
provided
in
CAA
Section
182(
f).
While
NO
x
emissions
are
necessary
for
the
formation
of
ozone
in
the
lower
atmosphere,
a
local
decrease
in
NO
x
emissions
can,
in
some
cases,
increase
local
ozone
concentrations.
This
potential
``
NO
x
disbenefit''
resulted
in
Congress
including
NO
x
waiver
provisions
in
section
182(
f)
(
in
subpart
2
of
part
D)
for
areas
classified
under
subpart
2.
We
believe
the
NO
x
waiver
provisions
are
a
prudent
safeguard
to
avoid
unnecessary
emissions
reductions
and
that
these
safeguards
should
be
extended
to
areas
classified
under
subpart
1
that
are
subject
to
the
NO
x
RACT
and
NSR
provisions.
Therefore,
we
proposed
to
establish
NO
x
waiver
provisions
identical
to
those
in
section
182(
f)
for
areas
subject
to
subpart
1.
(
See
68
FR
32840)
We
intend
to
promulgate
final
rules
concerning
the
applicability
of
NO
x
waivers
in
Subpart
1
areas
as
part
of
our
Phase
II
Final
Rule
to
Implement
the
8­
Hour
Ozone
NAAQS.

As
a
general
matter,
we
do
not
believe
that
interprecursor
trading
should
be
uniformly
available
without
analysis.
We
have
recognized
the
value
of
interprecursor
trading
when
the
State
has
made
a
modeling
demonstration.
Accordingly
we
may
approve
interprecursor
trading
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
Finally,
we
believe
that
other
programs
we
have
developed
specifically
for
reducing
transported
NO
x
emissions,
including
the
NO
x
SIP
call
and
the
Clean
Air
Interstate
Rule,
will
be
effective.

Comment:

Three
commenters
(
IV­
D­
59,
60,
95)
opposed
applying
offset
requirements
to
major
stationary
sources
in
attainment
areas
of
ozone
transport
regions.

One
commenter
(
IV­
D­
59)
argued
that
ozone
modeling
has
confirmed
that
reducing
VOC
emissions
in
attainment
areas
is
ineffective
in
reducing
ozone
concentrations
in
nonattainment
areas,
as
large
amounts
of
naturally
occurring
VOC
emissions
exist
in
rural
attainment
areas.
The
EPA
should
eliminate
the
VOC
offset
requirements
for
rural
attainment
areas
of
the
OTR.
One
Chapter
2­
Comments
on
1990
Amendments
Internal
and
Deliberative
Draft
­
Do
not
cite,
quote,
copy,
or
distribute
August
2005
2­
5
commenter
(
IV­
D­
95)
also
stated
that
rural
VOCs
are
less
of
a
contributing
factor
to
ozone
formation
than
are
urban
VOCs,
and
the
commenter
suggested
that
EPA
eliminate
the
VOC
offset
requirements
for
all
attainment
areas
of
the
OTR.
Another
commenter
(
IV­
D­
60)
stated
that
the
VOC
offsets
should
not
be
required
for
rural
attainment
areas
that
have
or
will
receive
a
section
182(
f)
NO
x
waiver,
provided
a
State
can
satisfy
the
requirements
of
"
section
110(
D),"
apparently
referring
to
section
110(
a)(
2)(
D)
of
the
Act.

One
commenter
(
IV­
D­
95)
stated
that
EPA
should
eliminate
entirely
the
offset
requirements
for
NO
x
in
attainment
areas
of
the
OTR.
Any
new
units
constructed
in
attainment
areas
would
offset
NO
x
emissions
in
nonattainment
areas,
given
that:
(
1)
most
NO
x
emissions
from
new
sources
would
be
associated
with
the
generation
of
power;
and
(
2)
the
commenter's
region
was
under
capacity
utilization.

Another
commenter
(
IV­
D­
59)
recommended
that
EPA
waive
the
NO
x
offset
requirements
where
an
Ozone
Transport
Commission
(
OTC)
State
has
adopted
the
NO
x
Memorandum
of
Understanding
(
MOU).
The
commenter
stated
that,
when
implemented,
the
MOU
will
establish
a
maximum
amount
of
NO
x
emissions
that
can
be
emitted
from
sources
that
emit
over
95
percent
of
the
stationary
source
NO
x
emissions
in
the
OTR.
This
emissions
cap
will
apply
to
both
existing
and
new
or
modified
sources.
Accordingly,
before
a
new
or
modified
source
can
begin
operation
it
will
need
to
obtain
a
portion
of
the
emissions
allowed
under
the
cap.
These
allowances
would
need
to
be
obtained
within
the
MOU
emissions
cap
program
and
the
cap
on
NO
x
emissions
could
not
be
exceeded.
The
effect
of
the
NO
x
MOU
would
be
similar
to
that
of
the
NSR
offset
provisions
and
therefore
would
render
the
NSR
offset
provisions
obsolete
and
duplicative.

Response:

We
disagree
with
a
blanket
assertion
that
offsets
are
not
required
in
attainment
areas
or
rural
areas
of
an
OTR.
CAA
Section
184(
b)
sets
forth
specific
VOC
and
NO
x
control
requirements
to
be
applied
through
the
entire
OTR,
in
both
attainment
and
nonattainment
areas,
to
reduce
interstate
air
pollution.
Pursuant
to
Sections
182(
f)
and
184(
b),
these
additional
regional
requirements
include
part
D
NSR
for
VOC
and
NO
x,
including
the
requirements
for
offsets.
As
we
indicated
at
68
FR
32855,
these
statutory
obligations
remain
in
place
for
areas
in
the
existing
OTR.
If
a
new
OTR
is
established
for
purposes
of
the
8­
hour
standard
pursuant
to
section
176A,
that
area
would
also
be
subject
to
the
provisions
and
additional
requirements
of
section
184.

With
regard
to
the
use
of
allowances
under
a
budget
trading
program
to
satisfy
the
offset
requirement,
we
note
that
since
that
since
the
time
of
the
submission
of
the
comments,
EPA
has
promulgated
rules
to
require
dramatic
reductions
in
NO
x
emission
in
the
Eastern
U.
S.,
in
a
rule
known
as
the
NO
x
SIP
Call
(
68
FR
57356,
Oct.
27,
1998).
EPA
has
expressed
the
view
that
Chapter
2­
Comments
on
1990
Amendments
Internal
and
Deliberative
Draft
­
Do
not
cite,
quote,
copy,
or
distribute
August
2005
2­
6
nonattainment
NSR
offset
requirements
can
be
met
using
the
mechanisms
of
the
NO
x
Budget
Trading
Program
in
that
rule,
but
has
pointed
out
that
integrating
these
programs
involves
many
complex
issues.
63
FR
57475­
76
(
Oct.
27,
1998).
EPA
is
continuing
to
work
toward
resolving
these
issues.

Comment:

Three
commenters
(
IV­
D­
59,
60,
95)
suggested
alternative
control
technologies
for
attainment
areas
of
the
OTR.
One
commenter
(
IV­
D­
59)
argued
that
the
applicable
NSR
requirements
would
be
the
appropriate
control
technology
for
VOC
and
NO
x
sources.
One
commenter
(
IV­
D­
60)
observed
that
the
current
requirement
for
LAER
controls
in
attainment
areas
represents
a
significant
incremental
expense
for
some
sources,
while
providing
only
marginal
benefits.
The
EPA
should
provide
States
with
the
flexibility
to
determine
LAER
on
a
case­
bycase
basis.
One
commenter
(
IV­
D­
95)
stated
that
EPA
should
not
focus
on
trading
when
dealing
with
the
offset
issue
in
attainment
areas.
Instead,
EPA
should
adopt
the
preemptive
approach
of
requiring
any
new
source
in
an
attainment
area
of
the
OTR
to
install
the
best
possible
technological
controls.

Response:

We
agree
with
commenters
that
LAER
control
is
required
for
all
sources
subject
to
NSR
for
ozone
precursors
in
an
OTR,
regardless
of
whether
they
are
in
an
attainment
or
nonattainment
area
of
an
OTR.
We
further
note
that
LAER
is
defined
by
statute
and
we
have
limited
ability
to
make
case­
by­
case
decisions
within
this
framework.
However,
we
do
not
agree
with
the
commenter
that
the
requirement
for
LAER
can
presumptively
replace
the
requirement
for
offsets
in
an
OTR.

2.6
Provisions
for
Carbon
Monoxide
Comment:

Three
commenters
(
IV­
D­
73,
74,
88)
addressed
EPA's
proposal
to
change
the
significance
threshold
from
100
tpy
to
50
tpy
for
stationary
sources
that
contribute
significantly
to
CO
levels
in
serious
CO
nonattainment
areas.
They
suggested
that
EPA
clarify
that
its
preamble
language
is
incorrect
and
clarify
that
the
change
in
CO
significance
threshold
applies
only
to
sources
in
serious
CO
nonattainment
areas,
not
to
major
modifications
in
moderate
CO
nonattainment
areas.
Otherwise,
EPA's
proposal
would
exceed
the
statutory
mandate
of
section
187(
c).

Response:
Chapter
2­
Comments
on
1990
Amendments
Internal
and
Deliberative
Draft
­
Do
not
cite,
quote,
copy,
or
distribute
August
2005
2­
7
We
agree
with
the
commenter
that
the
50
tpy
major
stationary
source
threshold
for
carbon
monoxide
only
applies
in
serious
CO
nonattainment
areas,
and
our
final
rules
reflect
this.
[
See
§
51.165(
a)(
1)(
x)(
A)(
1)(
v)
and
appendix
S
at
Section
II.
A.
4.(
i)
(
5).]
Our
final
rules
also
reflect
that
the
significant
emission
rate
for
CO
in
serious
nonattainment
areas
is
50
tpy
and
in
all
other
nonattainment
areas
is
100
tpy.
[
See
§
51.165(
a)(
1)(
x)(
D)
and
appendix
S
at
Section
II.
A.
10.].

2.7
Provisions
for
PM­
10
Nonattainment
Areas
2.7.1
In
General
Comment:

One
commenter
(
IV­
D­
94)
recommended
that
EPA
delete
total
suspended
particulate
matter
(
TSP)
from
the
list
of
pollutants
in
§
52.21(
b)(
23)
that
would
trigger
an
NSR
permitting
action.
Because
EPA
previously
established
that
PM­
10
is
the
portion
of
particulate
matter
with
which
it
is
concerned
for
purposes
of
protecting
human
health
and
the
environment,
TSP
is
not
a
pollutant
of
regulatory
significance.

Response:

We
have
not
revised
§
52.21
as
the
commenters
suggest.
Instead,
we
intend
to
address
regulation
of
particulate
matter
in
the
PSD
program
as
part
of
the
PM
2.5
Implementation
Rule.

2.7.2
PM­
10
Precursors
Comment:

Five
commenters
(
IV­
D­
31,
73,
74,
88,
153)
recommended
that
the
agency
consider
allowing
offsets
among
different
types
of
PM­
10
precursors,
provided
that
a
sufficient
scientific
basis
for
doing
so
exists.
One
commenter
(
IV­
D­
31)
suggested
that
EPA
allow
permitting
authorities
and/
or
States
the
flexibility
to
consider
trading
between
PM­
10
precursors
through
a
SIP
rule.
Three
other
commenters
(
IV­
D­
73,
74,
88)
reserved
the
right
to
supplement
their
comments
in
the
event
that
relevant
scientific
information
becomes
available.

One
commenter
(
IV­
D­
153)
argued
that
nothing
in
section
173(
c)(
1)
precludes
offsetting
PM­
10
precursors
with
PM­
10
or
emissions
from
the
same
precursor;
nor
does
the
statute
foreclose
offsetting
PM­
10
with
PM­
10
precursors
or
offsetting
one
type
of
PM­
10
precursor
with
another
type.
Section
173(
c)(
1)
merely
provides
that,
for
proper
offsetting
to
occur,
the
emissions
reductions
must
assure
that
an
increase
of
an
air
pollutant
shall
be
offset
by
an
equal
or
greater
reduction
in
the
actual
emissions
of
the
air
pollutant.
Because
Congress
has
concluded
Chapter
2­
Comments
on
1990
Amendments
Internal
and
Deliberative
Draft
­
Do
not
cite,
quote,
copy,
or
distribute
August
2005
2­
8
that
PM­
10
precursors
shall
be
subject
to
the
control
requirements
for
PM­
10
in
PM­
10
nonattainment
areas,
it
is
reasonable
to
conclude
that
PM­
10
precursors
should
also
be
treated
like
PM­
10
for
offsetting
purposes
so
long
as
appropriate
conversion
factors
and/
or
offset
ratios
are
used.
EPA
should
issue
guidelines
pursuant
to
section
189(
e)
which
make
clear
that
broad
offsetting
among
PM­
10
and
PM­
10
precursors
is
legally
permissible,
and
develop
the
necessary
conversion
factors.

Comment:

Four
commenters
(
IV­
D­
73,
92,
109,
137)
believed
that,
due
to
the
complexity
of
the
relationship
between
PM­
10
and
PM­
10
precursors,
the
trading
of
PM­
10
and
PM­
10
precursors
for
offsets
and
netting
would
be
appropriate
only
if
the
scientific
basis
of
their
relationship
had
been
worked
out
in
preparing
the
SIP
(
that
is,
which
pollutants
are
precursors
in
which
areas
during
which
seasons).
Two
commenters
(
IV­
D­
109,
137)
added
that
it
would
be
appropriate
to
allow
such
exchanges
only
in
areas
for
which
there
is
an
adopted
control
strategy
that
relies
on
the
control
of
PM­
10
precursors
as
part
of
the
plan
to
control
PM­
10
concentrations.
Two
commenters
(
IV­
D­
73,
74)
reserved
the
right
to
submit
further
comments
if
and
when
the
necessary
scientific
information
becomes
available.

Comment:

Two
commenters
(
IV­
D­
135,
160)
believed
that
PM­
10
precursors
should
not
be
regulated
pollutants
under
the
nonattainment
major
NSR
program.
One
of
the
commenters
(
IVD
135)
argued
that
EPA's
proposal
to
treat
PM­
10
precursors
as
PM­
10
for
purposes
of
part
D
review
on
major
sources
and
modifications
in
PM­
10
nonattainment
areas
fails
to
comport
with
either
the
Act
or
a
workable
NSR
program.
More
specifically,
the
statute
does
not
support
EPA's
reading
that
the
term
"
control
requirements"
refers
to
all
of
the
elements
of
a
PM­
10
SIP.
Congress
would
not
have
used
the
word
"
control"
to
modify
the
requirements
applicable
under
part
D
plans
if
it
had
not
intended
to
limit
section
189(
e)
to
control
requirements.
To
read
obligations
into
part
D
other
than
control
requirements
is
legally
unsound.
The
commenter
(
IVD
135)
remarked
that
it
makes
no
sense
to
read
section
189(
e)
as
applying
to
new
sources.
The
provision
makes
sense
only
if
read
as
applying
to
the
control
requirements
specified
for
existing
sources
in
sections
189(
a)
and
(
b).
Even
if
section
189(
e)
were
not
limited,
on
its
face,
to
existing
source
requirements,
it
should
nonetheless
be
interpreted
as
such
in
light
of
its
limited
legislative
history.

One
commenter
(
IV­
D­
160)
argued
that
the
final
rule
should
not
presume
that
sources
emitting
PM­
10
precursors
must
meet
the
same
NSR
requirements
as
sources
emitting
PM­
10.
The
scientific
basis
for
the
relationship
between
PM­
10
and
PM­
10
precursors
has
not
been
sufficiently
well
established
to
justify
extending
the
NSR
requirements
to
sources
emitting
PM­
10
precursors.
Moreover,
even
if
the
relationship
between
PM­
10
and
PM­
10
precursors
were
Chapter
2­
Comments
on
1990
Amendments
Internal
and
Deliberative
Draft
­
Do
not
cite,
quote,
copy,
or
distribute
August
2005
2­
9
scientifically
corroborated,
extending
the
NSR
provisions
to
sources
emitting
PM­
10
precursors
should
be
accomplished
by
statute,
not
by
rule.

Response:

We
have
not
revised
the
regulations
concerning
PM­
10
precursors.
Instead,
we
intend
to
address
regulation
of
particulate
matter
in
the
NSR
programs
as
part
of
the
PM
2.5
Implementation
Rule.
Internal
and
Deliberative
Draft
­
Do
not
cite,
quote,
copy,
or
distribute
August
2005
2­
10
Chapter
3
­
Emission
Reduction
Credits
from
Shutdowns
and
Curtailments
3.1
Overview
This
chapter
contains
comments
on
the
1996
proposal
concerning
changes
to
the
pr
ovisions
for
emission
reduction
credits
from
shutdowns
and
curtailments
in
§
51.165
and
appendix
S.

3.2
General
Support/
Opposition
Comment:

Ten
commenters
(
IV­
D­
11,
33,
50,
138,
142,
146,
149,
153,
160,
190)
supported
EPA's
general
conclusion
that
shutdown
emission
reductions
are
usable
as
NSR
offsets
under
the
1990
Amendments
to
the
Act,
especially
given
the
additional
safeguards
adopted
in
the
1990
amendments.
(
See
also
commenters
listed
below
as
supporting
specifically
Alternative
2
on
this
same
basis.)
One
commenter
(
IV­
D­
42)
supported
EPA's
proposed
shift
to
a
systemic
approach
and
lauded
EPA's
reference
to
the
benefits
of
such
a
shift
in
the
context
of
military
base
closings,
noting
that
in
southern
California,
the
offset
credits
from
base
shutdowns
will
probably
assist
in
that
region's
economic
recovery.
Another
commenter
(
IV­
D­
129)
supported
lifting
restrictions
on
crediting
emission
reductions
from
shutdowns
and
curtailments,
stating
that
doing
so
will
give
areas
the
flexibility
of
an
additional
planning
tool
while
ensuring
that
new
source
growth
is
consistent
with
RFP
toward
attainment
of
the
air
quality
standards.
Another
commenter
(
IV­
D­
190)
added
that
shutdowns
and
curtailments
are
a
normal
part
of
business
activity,
and
that
disallowing
shutdown
credits
is
unreasonable
and
adversely
affects
economic
development.
In
addition,
the
most
guaranteed
and
enforceable
form
of
emission
reduction
is
one
that
occurs
as
a
result
of
a
shutdown.

Comment:

One
commenter
(
IV­
D­
152)
strongly
opposed
expanding
the
availability
of
shutdown
credits
as
offsets
for
three
reasons:
(
1)
most
nonattainment
areas
are
overdue
in
achieving
NAAQS;
(
2)
most
of
the
1990
Amendment
provisions
(
most
importantly,
SIP
attainment
demonstrations)
have
not
been
implemented;
and
3)
the
required
actions
given
as
justification
for
expanding
shutdown
credits
are
more
than
2
years
overdue.
The
commenter
(
IV­
D­
152)
supported
neither
of
EPA's
proposed
Alternatives.

Comment:

Those
commenters
who
agreed
that
shutdown
emissions
reductions
are
available
as
NSR
offsets
had
varying
approaches
to
EPA's
two
alternatives.
Four
commenters
(
IV­
D­
33,
138,
149,
Chapter
3
­
Comments
on
ERCs
from
Shutdowns
and
Curtailments
Internal
and
Deliberative
Draft
­
Do
not
cite,
quote,
copy,
or
distribute
August
2005
2­
11
153)
agreed
with
both
alternative
approaches
and
suggested
that
both
approaches
be
included
in
the
final
rule.
One
commenter
(
IV­
D­
92)
supported
EPA's
move
toward
a
systemic
approach,
but
did
not
agree
with
either
of
the
two
alternative
approaches.
One
commenter
(
IV­
D­
160)
suggested
that
parts
of
each
alternative
should
be
combined
in
the
final
rule.
For
all
nonattainment
areas,
emission
reductions
from
source
shutdowns
and
curtailments
should
be
credited
in
the
absence
of
an
EPA­
approved
attainment
demonstration
if
such
reductions
occurred
after
November
15,
1990.
In
addition,
the
provisions
easing
restrictions
on
the
use
of
ERCs
from
shutdowns
and
curtailments
must
be
included
in
State
NSR
programs.
(
See
further
comments
specific
to
Alternatives
1
and
2
summarized
below.)

Comment:

One
commenter
(
IV­
D­
108)
noted
that
not
crediting
shutdowns
at
all
would
rapidly
deplete
the
shrinking
pool
of
potential
offsets.
The
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association
litigation
has
been
stayed
pending
EPA's
resolution
of
this
issue,
and
EPA
should
approve
SCAQMD's
NSR
regulation,
which
allows
the
creation
and
use
of
shutdown
credits
subject
to
a
LAER
discount.
The
same
commenter
noted
that,
for
economically
depressed
regions,
facilities'
abilities
to
get
credits
and
to
use
baselines
that
fairly
reflect
previous
levels
of
economic
activity
are
necessary
conditions
to
return
to
previous
levels
of
economic
health.

Response:

We
agree
with
the
commenters
who
supported
our
conclusion
that
shutdown
emission
reductions
are
usable
as
NSR
offsets
under
the
1990
Amendments
to
the
Act,
especially
given
the
additional
safeguards
adopted
in
the
1990
amendments.

3.2.
Alternative
1
Comment:

Many
commenters
(
IV­
D­
40,
66,
92,
113,
116,
117,
129,
154,
157,
162,
191)
opposed
Alternative
1.

Two
State
agencies
(
IV­
D­
92,
113)
opposed
Alternative
1
because
most
States
would
probably
not
meet
the
six
requirements
specified
under
it.
One
of
the
commenters
(
IV­
D­
92)
believed
that
the
rule
should
allow
shutdowns
to
be
creditable
when
the
State
has
not
submitted
all
required
items
because
of
changes
in
statutory
requirements,
EPA
policy,
or
EPA­
approved
delays
in
submission.
The
other
commenter
(
IV­
D­
113)
strongly
opposed
Alternative
1
(
and
supported
Alternative
2)
because
no
State
with
a
serious
or
higher
non­
attainment
classification
has
met
all
of
the
six
required
conditions.
These
conditions
are
unworkable.
States
and
the
Chapter
3
­
Comments
on
ERCs
from
Shutdowns
and
Curtailments
Internal
and
Deliberative
Draft
­
Do
not
cite,
quote,
copy,
or
distribute
August
2005
2­
12
Ozone
Transport
Assessment
Group
are
now
working
to
develop
solutions
to
long­
range
ozone
transport
problems.
The
six
required
conditions
assume
ozone
formation
is
a
local
phenomenon
that
States
can
address
individually
to
reach
attainment.
This
alternative
will
encourage
sources
to
locate
just
outside
of
non­
attainment
areas
without
having
to
obtain
offsets
and
increase
vehicle
miles
traveled,
both
of
which
will
exacerbate
non­
attainment
problems.

One
commenter
(
IV­
D­
129)
recited
current
sanctions
for
failure
to
meet
planning
or
emission
reductions
requirements,
and
argued
that
Alternative
1
was
unnecessarily
restrictive,
would
cause
confusion,
and
would
hinder
a
State's
ability
to
establish
a
viable
"
offset
banking"
program.
Similarly,
another
commenter
(
IV­
D­
40)
stated
that
given
the
current
state
of
modeling,
the
requirement
that
a
State
must
have
submitted
an
attainment
demonstration
under
section
182(
b)(
1)(
A)
or
182(
c)(
2)
could
be
a
strong
obstacle
to
using
Alternative
1.
Another
commenter
(
IV­
D­
66)
added
that
Alternative
1
is
too
complicated
and
could
result
in
withdrawing
shutdown
credits
based
on
a
States's
failure
to
meet
attainment
demonstration
requirements.
Other
tools
for
addressing
such
failures
are
available
and
sufficient.
Another
commenter
(
IV­
D­
191)
also
opposed
Alternative
1
as
unworkable,
especially
given
the
aggressive
attainment
timelines
under
the
Act.

An
agency
(
IV­
D­
47)
criticized
Alternative
1.
The
commenter
(
IV­
D­
47)
stated
that
disallowing
the
use
of
shutdown
credits
for
external
credit
transfers
during
an
interval
when
the
agency
fails
to
meet
a
planning
deadline,
but
allowing
their
use
when
the
requirement
is
satisfied,
adds
an
unacceptable
level
of
uncertainty
to
planning
for
procurement
and
use
of
external
offsets.
Generally,
ozone
nonattainment
areas
already
have
significant
controls,
and
to
require
that
any
new
major
construction
occurs
only
after
additional
"
ratcheting"
of
existing
sources
is
an
insurmountable
obstacle
to
economic
development.
Such
an
approach
could
limit
interstate
credit
transfers
in
the
OTR
if
the
area
in
which
the
ERCs
are
created
fails
to
meet
a
planning
deadline.
ERC
generators
should
not
be
penalized
for
a
State's
failure
to
meet
SIP
planning
obligations.

Three
commenters
(
IV­
D­
42,
50,108)
opposed
the
November
15,
1990
cutoff
date
in
the
SCAQMD.
One
commenter
(
IV­
D­
50)
disagreed
with
the
use
of
the
November
15,
1990
cutoff
date
because
it
would
jeopardize
the
agency's
federal
NSR
equivalency
showing
under
its
unique
NSR
program
and
place
hundreds
of
sources
at
risk
of
a
lawsuit.
This
agency
listed
the
strong
features
of
its
NSR
program
and
requested
including
provisions
that
would
acknowledge
the
agency's
unique
program
and
its
use
of
pre­
1990
shutdown
emission
reductions
as
NSR
offset
credits.
Another
commenter
(
IV­
D­
108)
noted
the
same
agency's
unique
program
and
urged
EPA
to
"
recognize
and
approve
the
agency's
approach,
and
the
approaches
of
other
regions,
to
the
creation
and
use
of
shutdown
or
curtailment
credits
which
have
effectively
ensured
that
the
trading
and
use
of
such
credits
do
not
interfere
with
applicable
RFP
or
attainment
requirements."
ERCs
from
shutdowns
or
curtailments
should
be
creditable
regardless
of
whether
the
shutdown
or
curtailment
occurred
before
November
15,
1990.
The
pre­
November
15,
1990
shutdown
credit
prohibition
should
be
lifted
both
retrospectively
and
prospectively
in
order
not
to
jeopardize
Chapter
3
­
Comments
on
ERCs
from
Shutdowns
and
Curtailments
Internal
and
Deliberative
Draft
­
Do
not
cite,
quote,
copy,
or
distribute
August
2005
2­
13
previously­
issued
permits
or
to
result
in
the
confiscation
of
ERCs
currently
held
by
facilities.
Another
commenter
(
IV­
D­
42),
commenting
on
the
same
agency,
noted
that
not
recognizing
ERCs
resulting
from
shutdowns
and
curtailments
before
enactment
of
the
1990
Amendments
would
create
serious
problems
within
the
agency's
jurisdiction.
Not
allowing
the
credits
before
November
15,
1990
would
eliminate
the
area's
main
source
of
new
offsets
and
would
ignore
the
careful
balance
struck
by
the
agency
to
protect
the
area's
productive
capacity
through
use
of
its
discounting
rule.
Not
allowing
shutdown
credits
before
November
15,
1990
would
place
at
risk
any
prior
issued
permits
and
in
essence
confiscate
already
heavily
discounted
pre­
November
15,
1990
ERCs
currently
held
by
facilities
in
the
agency's
jurisdiction.

One
commenter
(
IV­
D­
117)
rejected
Alternative
1
in
favor
of
Alternative
2
for
two
main
reasons.
First,
there
is
no
reason
to
distinguish
non­
attainment
areas
based
on
the
status
of
EPA's
review
of
attainment
demonstrations.
The
sanctions
for
failure
to
meet
attainment
milestones
address
this
issue.
Second,
all
offset
transactions
provide
an
air
quality
benefit,
regardless
of
the
status
of
an
attainment
demonstration.
The
offset
requirements
at
greater
than
a
1:
1
ratio
and
the
geographical
limits
on
offsets
ensure
continued
progress
toward
attainment.

One
commenter
(
IV­
D­
162)
strongly
opposed
Alternative
1
because
it
would
cause
the
original
1976
Offset
Interpretative
Ruling
to
flash
in
and
out
of
existence,
making
offset
credits
unreliable.
Also,
the
idea
of
a
nexus
between
the
source
shutting
down
and
the
specific
purchaser
is
incompatible
with
banking
approaches.
Finally,
the
1990
Amendments
wiped
out
the
logic
EPA
used
to
keep
provisions
of
the
original
Offset
Ruling
in
effect
even
after
the
1986
trading
policy.

Four
commenters
(
IV­
D­
40,
116,
154,
157)
who
supported
Alternative
2
stated
opposition
to,
or
at
least
questioned
the
need
for,
Alternative
1
because
the
1990
Amendments
did
not
apply
only
to
ozone,
but
rather
to
all
pollutants.

Response:

We
agree
with
the
commenters
who
maintained
that
Alternative
1
was
unworkable
and
restrictive.
Therefore,
we
have
promulgated
Alternative
2
for
the
reasons
indicated
in
our
response
in
section
3.3.

3.3.
Alternative
2
Comment:

Many
commenters
(
IV­
D­
38,
40,
47,
53,
56,
66,
73,
74,
88,
103,
113,
115,
117,
137,
142,
146,
157,
162,
172,
176,
183,
191)
supported
Alternative
2.
Several
of
these
commenters
(
IV­
D­
40,
53,
66,
103,
113,
115,
117,
142,
157,
162)
stated
that
the
safeguards
in
the
1990
Amendments
address
progress
in
nonattainment
areas.
Three
commenters
(
IV­
D­
38,
47,
66)
Chapter
3
­
Comments
on
ERCs
from
Shutdowns
and
Curtailments
Internal
and
Deliberative
Draft
­
Do
not
cite,
quote,
copy,
or
distribute
August
2005
2­
14
cited
Alternative
2'
s
greater
flexibility
as
a
basis
for
their
support.
Three
commenters
(
IV­
D­
40,
142,
157)
also
cited
as
a
safeguard
the
requirement
to
obtain
offsets
at
a
ratio
of
greater
than
1:
1,
which
will
reduce
emissions.
Two
commenters
(
IV­
D­
40,
142)
also
noted
the
geographic
restrictions
on
offset
use.
Three
commenters
(
IV­
D­
40,
66,
142)
also
asserted
generally
that
this
proposal
would
have
benefits,
such
as
enhancing
long­
term
economic
development
and
encouraging
companies
to
shut
down
or
replace
old,
high­
emitting
sources.
Two
commenters
(
IV­
D­
129,
162)
stated
that
only
Alternative
2
provides
a
stable,
predictable
"
credit
banking
program"
or
"
offset
banking
program"
environment.
Four
commenters
(
IV­
D­
53,
113,
137,
176)
voiced
support
for
Alternative
2,
stating
that
since
agencies
are
responsible
for
attainment
of
the
NAAQS,
agencies
appropriately
should
have
discretion
over
the
use
of
any
shutdown
or
curtailment
credit
resources.

One
commenter
(
IV­
D­
146)
suggested
implementation
of
Alternative
2,
but
urged
that
shutdown/
curtailment
offsets
should
only
be
reduced
and
not
eliminated
in
situations
where
the
State
is
delayed
in
submitting
an
attainment
demonstration
or
submits
a
plan
that
cannot
be
approved.
Where
a
permit
application
is
submitted
before
a
determination
that
a
required
SIP
submission
is
late
or
deficient,
any
reduction
in
the
credit
allowed
from
shutdowns
or
curtailments
should
only
be
prospectively
applied
in
order
not
to
penalize
permittees.

One
commenter
(
IV­
D­
38)
supported
Alternative
2
because
of
its
unique
situation,
stating
that
the
ability
to
apply
shutdown
credits
from
base
closings
to
other
locations
and
to
support
community
reuse
and
development
is
of
highest
importance
to
the
agency.

One
State
agency
(
IV­
D­
172)
that
supported
Alternative
2
also
noted
its
unique
situation
and
maintained
that
the
way
in
which
they
account
for
offsets
­­
by
including
the
offsets
in
their
growth
allocation
­­
should
mean
that
offset
restrictions
do
not
apply.
The
agency
asked
for
clarification
of
the
effects
of
the
proposed
restrictions
on
that
State.

One
commenter
(
IV­
D­
113)
noted
that
the
current
restrictions
could
have
adverse
impacts
if
they
encourage
sources
to
"
border
hop"
just
outside
of
non­
attainment
areas.
Thus,
Alternative
2
should
be
adopted.

One
commenter
(
IV­
D­
157)
stated
that
shutdown
credits
should
be
as
freely
usable
for
offset
purposes
as
any
other
reductions
even
if
a
State
is
not
"
on
track"
in
its
planning
process.
In
those
circumstances,
imposing
a
two
for
one
offset
ratio
is
preferable
than
denying
the
use
of
shutdown
credits
altogether.

One
commenter
(
IV­
D­
103)
urged
EPA
to
adopt
Alternative
2
so
that
its
State
agency
could
move
forward
with
its
emission
offset,
trading
and
banking
rules.
Most
of
the
ERCs
that
are
available
result
from
shutdowns
and
curtailments,
so
the
State
agency
has
not
proceeded
with
its
rules
because
of
EPA's
regulatory
restrictions.
Chapter
3
­
Comments
on
ERCs
from
Shutdowns
and
Curtailments
Internal
and
Deliberative
Draft
­
Do
not
cite,
quote,
copy,
or
distribute
August
2005
2­
15
One
commenter
(
IV­
D­
92)
noted
that
if
shutdown
or
curtailment
reductions
are
creditable
only
after
the
base
year
of
the
most
recent
emissions
inventory
(
as
EPA
stated
in
the
preamble)
then
there
will
be
shifting
base
years
and
companies
will
have
a
limited
time
to
use
shutdowns
and
curtailments
as
offsets.
Another
issue
is
whether
previous
reductions
that
were
creditable
at
the
time
they
were
generated
are
still
creditable
when
the
base
year
shifts.
The
reductions
resulting
from
shutdowns
and
curtailments
occurring
after
the
1990
base
year
should
still
be
creditable
if
the
sources
continue
to
be
carried
in
the
inventory.

One
commenter
(
IV­
D­
129)
noted
that
the
proposal
gives
States
the
authority
to
allow
credit
for
shutdowns
or
curtailments
if
the
baseline
inventory
explicitly
includes
as
current
existing
emissions
the
emissions
from
such
previously
shutdown
or
curtailed
sources.
As
currently
written,
§
51.165(
a)(
3)(
ii)(
C)(
5)
in
proposed
Alternative
2
restricts
use
of
shutdowns
occurring
during
the
baseline
year
despite
these
emissions
being
included
in
the
baseline
year
emissions
inventory.
Alternative
2
should
be
amended
by
changing
§
51.165(
a)(
3)(
ii)(
C)(
5)
to
read
as
follows:
"
Not
withstanding
paragraph
(
a)(
3)(
ii)(
C)(
4)
of
this
section,
the
plan
may
provide
that
the
reductions
described
in
paragraph
(
a)(
3)(
ii)(
C)
of
this
section
may
be
credited
in
the
absence
of
an
EPA
approved
attainment
demonstration
if
such
reductions
occurred
in
the
baseline
year
of
the
most
recent
emissions
inventory
used
(
or
to
be
used)
in
the
plan."
Another
commenter
(
IV­
D­
183)
also
recommended
that
sources
shut
down
during
the
baseline
inventory
year
should
be
eligible
for
ERCs
in
addition
to
sources
shut
down
after
the
baseline
year.

One
commenter
(
IV­
D­
40)
recommended
that,
in
§
51.165(
a)(
3)(
ii)(
C)(
5),
for
Alternative
2,
the
words
"
described
in
paragraph
(
a)(
3)(
ii)(
C)
of
this
section"
should
be
revised
to
refer
to
"
paragraph
(
a)(
3)(
ii)(
C)(
1)."
This
is
consistent
with
the
wording
for
Alternative
1.

Response:

We
agree
with
the
commenters
who
supported
Alternative
2.
We
have
promulgated
final
regulations
that
allow
emission
reduction
credits
to
be
used
as
offsets
in
the
absence
of
an
approved
attainment
demonstration,
provided
that
these
emission
reduction
credits
were
generated
from
shutdowns
or
curtailments
that
are
included
in
the
base
year
emission
inventory
as
current
actual
emissions.

We
agree
with
the
commenter
that
the
terminology
"
most
recent
emissions
inventory"
is
confusing
and
have
revised
§
51.165(
a)(
3)(
C)(
1)
accordingly,
specifying
preapplication
shutdown
credits
can
be
used
for
offsets
if
the
projected
emissions
inventory
used
to
develop
the
attainment
demonstration
explicitly
includes
the
emissions
from
such
previously
shutdown
or
curtailed
emission
units."
This
regulatory
language
is
consistent
with
our
previous
guidance
on
how
emission
reduction
credits
from
shutdowns
and
curtailments
are
used
in
attainment
planning.
Most
importantly,
it
assures
that
emissions
from
shutdown
and
curtailed
units
are
accounted
for
in
attainment
planning.
Chapter
3
­
Comments
on
ERCs
from
Shutdowns
and
Curtailments
Internal
and
Deliberative
Draft
­
Do
not
cite,
quote,
copy,
or
distribute
August
2005
2­
16
3.4.
Other
Comments
on
Emission
Reduction
Credits
from
Shutdowns
and
Curtailments
Comment:

Three
commenters
(
IV­
D­
73,
74,
88)
recommended
that
ERCs
be
based
on
"
potential"
calculations
rather
than
"
actual"
calculations,
stating
that
they
preferred
the
"
potential­
topotential
test,
and
that
keeping
the
calculations
consistent
will
simplify
the
permitting
process
for
both
industry
and
regulatory
authorities.
Three
commenters
(
IV­
D­
73,
74,
88)
argued
that
the
applicability
test
for
determining
NSR
(
for
example,
actual­
to­
potential
test)
should
be
consistent
with
the
determination
of
ERCs
from
shutdowns
and
curtailments.

Response:

We
disagree
with
the
commenter
who
suggested
that
ERCs
be
based
on
potential
emissions.
We
also
disagree
that
an
actual­
to­
potential
test
is
appropriate
for
determining
ERC.
Our
regulations
at
§
51.165(
a)(
3)(
i)
require
that
ERC
from
the
generating
source
be
based
on
the
SIP
limit
(
allowable
emissions),
except
where
the
demonstration
of
RFP
and
attainment
is
based
on
actual
emissions.

Comment:

One
commenter
(
IV­
D­
160)
suggested
that
the
final
rule
should
provide
that
the
provisions
easing
restrictions
on
the
use
of
ERCs
resulting
from
source
shutdowns
and
curtailments
for
offset
purposes,
are
minimum
elements
that
will
be
included
in
the
Federal
regulations
and
must
be
included
in
State
NSR
programs.
Another
commenter
(
IV­
D­
117)
made
the
same
argument
while
specifically
supporting
Alternative
2.
States
can
always
impose
more
stringent
requirements
if
they
believe
it
appropriate
to
do
so.

Response:

We
agree
with
the
commenter.

Comment:

One
commenter
(
IV­
D­
11)
requested
guidance
from
EPA
as
to
what
constitutes
a
shutdown
for
emission
credit
purposes
(
partial
versus
full
shutdowns)
and
when
the
shutdown
actually
occurs
(
stoppage
of
production,
permit
revision,
etc.).
It
appears
that
a
permitted
source
could
avoid
being
classified
as
a
shutdown
by
going
into
an
extended
idle
mode,
and
then
years
later
shut
down
permanently
and
claim
ERCs
for
offset
purposes.
Chapter
3
­
Comments
on
ERCs
from
Shutdowns
and
Curtailments
Internal
and
Deliberative
Draft
­
Do
not
cite,
quote,
copy,
or
distribute
August
2005
2­
17
Response:

A
shutdown
is
a
total,
permanent
cessation
of
production
acticity
at
a
source.
A
curtailment
is
a
partial
reduction
in
production
activity
that
may
be
either
permanent
or
temporary.
For
more
information
shutdowns,
see
our
guidance
document,
Improving
Air
Quality
With
Economic
Incentive
Programs,
EPA­
452/
R­
01­
001,
available
at
http://
search.
epa.
gov/
s97is.
vts.

Comment:

One
commenter
(
IV­
D­
42)
was
troubled
by
EPA's
recurring
references
to
federal
enforceability
of
emission
reductions,
which
appeared
to
the
commenter
to
indicate
EPA's
unwillingness
to
abide
by
the
decisions
in
National
Mining
and
Chemical
Manufacturers,
which
established
that
federal
enforcement
is
not
necessary.

Response:

We
disagree
with
the
commenter.
The
last
sentence
of
CAA
Section
173(
a)(
1)(
A)
requires
that
offsets
be
federally
enforceable.
The
decisions
in
National
Mining
and
Chemical
Manufacturers
concern
the
federal
enforceability
of
limits
on
potential
to
emit,
not
on
emission
reduction
credits
used
as
offsets.

Comment:

One
commenter
(
IV­
D­
82)
concurred
with
EPA's
assessment
that
emission
reductions
from
military
base
closings
should
be
creditable,
but
cautioned
that
for
other
types
of
shutdowns
it
may
be
difficult
to
ascertain
whether
an
actual
net
emission
decrease
has
occurred,
or
a
simple
load
shifting
has
occurred
without
a
net
emissions
decrease.
Neither
of
the
two
alternatives
effectively
addresses
this
concern.
Also,
EPA's
decision
to
grant
NO
x
waivers
and
to
redesignate
areas
in
the
OTAG
region,
when
coupled
with
easing
restrictions
on
shutdown
credits,
may
make
it
difficult
for
downwind
States
to
come
into
attainment.

One
commenter
(
IV­
D­
12)
believed
that
ERC
from
shutdowns
or
curtailments
should
only
be
available
as
offsets
when
all
of
the
company's
remaining
existing
sources
in
the
nonattainment
area
are
capped
in
such
a
way
to
insure
that
aggregate
actual
emissions
will
always
be
commensurately
reduced.
The
commenter
(
IV­
D­
12)
gave
an
example
of
an
electric
utility
that
applied
for
certification
of
emission
reductions
occurring
at
six
emission
sources
in
the
same
State,
located
in
the
OTR.
The
commenter
(
IV­
D­
12)
believed
that
the
company
could
use
the
ERC
at
its
other
facilities,
which
have
extensive
unused
capacity.
The
company's
aggregate
emissions
would
then
increase.
Chapter
3
­
Comments
on
ERCs
from
Shutdowns
and
Curtailments
Internal
and
Deliberative
Draft
­
Do
not
cite,
quote,
copy,
or
distribute
August
2005
2­
18
Response:

EPA
has
considered
the
impact
of
NOx
emissions
from
upwind
States
on
8­
hour
ozone
nonattainment
areas
as
part
of
the
CAIR.
We
expect
this
regulation
to
reduce
annual
NOx
emissions
by
1.2
million
tons
in
2009
and
by
1.5
million
tons
in
2015.
(
Cite
to
final
when
available
in
FR.)
Therefore,
we
are
not
revising
the
NSR
regulations
as
the
commenter
suggests.

Comment:

One
commenter
(
IV­
D­
173)
supported
the
set
of
criteria
for
emission
reductions
achieved
by
shutdowns
or
curtailments.
The
commenter,
however,
was
concerned
over
the
addition
of
the
word
"
surplus"
to
(
a)(
3)(
ii)(
C)(
1)(
i),
stating
that
"
surplus"
is
used
by
States
in
describing
emissions
reductions
for
attainment
demonstration
packages
and
is
not
appropriate
for
stationary
sources.
If
a
State
needed
emissions
reductions
through
either
shutdowns
or
curtailments
to
meet
attainment
demonstrations
or
milestones,
then
the
State
should
adopt
appropriate
rules,
such
as
emissions
trading
or
banking,
to
address
those
emissions
reductions.
It
is
impracticable
for
a
facility
to
apply
for
a
permit,
and
for
State
agencies
to
issue
permits,
based
on
ERCs
that
may
not
be
available,
noting
the
delay
in
EPA
approval
of
State
plans.
Delete
the
word
"
surplus"
and
remove
the
requirement
for
an
"
EPA­
approved
attainment
plan."

Response:

As
we
discuss
in
Section
1.3
of
this
document,
we
have
removed
the
requirement
for
an
EPA­
approved
attainment
plan
as
a
condition
for
using
preapplication
ERC
as
offsets.
However,
we
have
retained
the
requirement
that
emission
reductions
from
shutdowns
and
curtailments
must
be
surplus.
If
an
emission
reduction
is
otherwise
required
under
the
Act,
it
is
not
surplus
and
is
not
creditable
for
use
as
an
offset.
Where
an
emission
reduction
is
not
otherwise
required
under
the
Act,
we
encourage
State
agencies
to
allow
sources
to
use
banked
emission
credits
for
offsets.
Internal
and
Deliberative
Draft
­
Do
not
cite,
quote,
copy,
or
distribute
August
2005
3­
1
Chapter
4
­
Comments
on
Changes
to
Construction
Ban
Provisions
4.1
Overview
This
chapter
contains
comments
on
the
1996
proposal
on
changes
to
§
52.24
concerning
construction
bans
under
the
1990
CAA.

4.2
Construction
Ban
Comment:

Three
commenters
(
IV­
D­
53,
92,
137)
stated
that
EPA
should
provide
an
opportunity
for
public
notice
and
comment
prior
to
taking
final
action
to
implement
a
construction
ban.
These
commenters
did
not
further
elaborate
on
this
position.

Response:

The
text
of
§
52.24(
b)
as
proposed
tracked
the
language
of
section
173(
a)(
4)
and
did
not
include
a
provision
on
the
process
to
be
used
for
issuing
a
determination
of
inadequate
SIP
implementation.
Therefore,
§
52.24(
b)
has
been
finalized
in
substantially
the
same
form
as
it
was
proposed.
We
are
still
considering
the
appropriate
process
to
use
in
issuing
a
determination
under
section
173(
a)(
4).
Internal
and
Deliberative
Draft
­
Do
not
cite,
quote,
copy,
or
distribute
August
2005
4­
1
Chapter
5
­
Comments
on
Changes
to
Applicability
of
Appendix
S
5.1
Overview
This
chapter
includes
comments
on
changes
to
Section
VI
of
appendix
S
were
submitted
in
response
to
our
2003
proposal
to
implement
the
8­
hour
ozone
NAAQS
(
68
FR
32802)
.

5.2
Changes
to
Section
VI
Comment:

EPA
received
many
comments
both
in
support
of
an
in
opposition
to
the
Transitional
NSR
option,
proposed
as
an
amendment
to
section
VI
of
Appendix
S.

Many
commenters
opposed
our
proposed
Transitional
NSR
program,
stating
that
it
would
not
be
protective
of
air
quality.
[
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0215;
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0269;
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0315;
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0321;
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0322;
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0365;
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0334;
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0119;
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0203
]

Many
other
commenters
supported
the
proposed
program,
believing
that
it
would
provide
needed
flexibility
and
would
not
interfere
with
achieving
attainment.
[
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0196;
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0097;
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0232;
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0211;
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0272;
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0288;
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0306;
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0355;
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0187;
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0229;
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0223;
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0273;
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0292;
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0299
;
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0149;
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0177;
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0222;
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0195;
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0292]

Many
commenters,
including
some
who
supported
the
Transitional
program,
believed
the
schedule
for
submitting
attainment
plans
and
control
requirements
was
impracticable.
[
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0182;
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0185;
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0211;
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0272
;
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0292;
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0307;
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0355;
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0212
;
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0220;
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0232;
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0273;
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0301;
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0308;
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0341;
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0122;
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0295;
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0299;
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0365]

Some
commenters
opposed
the
Transitional
NSR
program
on
legal
grounds,
arguing
that
Section
VI
does
not
authorize
any
NSR
flexibility
or
that
appendix
S
has
been
superseded
in
its
entirety
by
various
sections
of
the
Clean
Air
Act.
[
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0215;
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0232
;
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0269;
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0315;
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0321;
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0334
;
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0203]
Chapter
5­
Changes
to
Appendix
S
Section
VI
3
Designations
are
in
40
CFR
81.300.
This
citation
has
been
corrected
in
today's
final
rules.

Internal
and
Deliberative
Draft
­
Do
not
cite,
quote,
copy,
or
distribute
August
2005
4­
2
Response:

We
are
not
adopting
the
Transitional
NSR
Program
as
proposed,
which
would
have
set
forth
additional
limitations
on
the
exemption
from
NSR
permitting
in
Section
VI
of
appendix
S.
However,
we
agree
with
the
many
commenters
who
supported
flexible
NSR
requirements
for
some
areas
and
maintained
that
attainment
would
not
be
in
jeopardy
due
to
such
programs.
Thus,
we
have
finalized
a
procedural
requirement
that
the
Administrator
has
determined
that
the
original
conditions
of
Section
VI
are
satisfied
and
notice
of
the
determination
is
published
in
the
Federal
Register.

We
agree
with
commenters
that
the
schedule
in
the
proposal
rule
for
submitting
attainment
plans
to
be
eligible
for
Transitional
NSR
was
impracticable.
On
the
other
hand,
however,
we
do
agree
with
the
many
commenters
who
urged
us
to
provide
flexible
NSR
requirements
for
some
areas.
While
we
have
not
promulgated
specific
criteria
for
when
such
flexibility
would
apply,
we
have
promulgated
final
regulations
specifying
that
Section
VI
applies
where
the
original
conditions
are
met
(
that
is,
the
attainment
deadline
has
not
passed,
the
source
would
not
interfere
with
attainment
by
the
deadline,
and
the
source
meets
all
applicable
SIP
emissions
limitations)
and
the
Administrator
has
provided
public
notice
that
Section
VI
applies.

Regarding
the
objections
to
our
legal
authority
to
implement
flexible
NSR
under
appendix
S,
some
commenters
argued
that
the
Section
VI
exemption
is
applicable
only
where
an
attainment
date
for
the
secondary
standards
has
not
yet
passed.
However,
this
comment
ignores
the
plain
language
of
Section
VI,
which
references
primary
standards.
It
states:
"
In
some
cases,
the
dates
for
attainment
of
primary
standards
have
not
yet
passed
due
to
the
delay
in
the
promulgation
of
a
plan
under
this
section
of
the
Act."
It
then
goes
on
to
note
that
the
attainment
deadlines
for
the
secondary
standards
may
also
not
yet
have
passed.
It
then
states:
"
In
such
cases
[
a
reference
to
attainment
dates
that
have
not
passed
for
both
primary
and
second
standards],
a
new
source
locating
in
an
area
designated
in
40
CFR
81.3000
et
seq.
as
nonattainment
may
be
exempt
from
the
conditions
of
Section
IV.
A"
3
where
certain
requirements
are
met.
Thus,
the
Section
VI
exemption
is
applicable
where
the
attainment
date
for
the
primary
standard
has
not
passed.

Other
commenters
argued
that
appendix
S
and
40
CFR
52.24(
k)
have
been
superseded
by
or
prohibited
by
various
sections
of
the
Act.
(
We
will
use
the
term
"
appendix
S"
in
this
section
of
the
preamble
to
refer
to
these
collectively.)
Although
commenters
made
this
argument
in
the
context
of
opposing
the
proposed
revisions
to
Section
VI
of
appendix
S,
this
comment
applies
to
Chapter
5­
Changes
to
Appendix
S
Section
VI
4
Although
EPA
did
state
in
the
proposal
that
States
with
already
applicable
part
D
NSR
SIPs
may
choose
to
amend
their
SIPs
to
allow
them
to
take
advantage
of
the
proposed
revisions
Internal
and
Deliberative
Draft
­
Do
not
cite,
quote,
copy,
or
distribute
August
2005
4­
3
any
use
of
appendix
S
for
permitting,
including
the
LAER
and
offset
requirements
of
Section
IV,
and
the
existing
version
of
Section
VI.
First,
the
commenter
contended
that
appendix
S
has
been
superseded
by
section
181(
b)(
1)
within
subpart
2
of
the
Act,
under
which
it
believes
a
newly
designated
nonattainment
area
receives
its
nonattainment
classification
by
operation
of
law
and
immediately
becomes
subject
to
all
of
the
requirements
­­
including
section
110,
subpart
1,
and
subpart
2
­­
that
apply
to
that
classification.
We
disagree
with
the
commenter.
As
a
threshold
matter,
even
if
the
commenter
were
correct
that
both
subpart
1
and
subpart
2
applied
upon
an
area's
nonattainment
classification,
subpart
1
itself
provides
in
section
172(
b)
that
the
area
may
have
up
to
"
three
years
from
the
date
of
the
nonattainment
designation
for
the
submission
of
a
plan
or
plan
revision
.
.
.
meeting
the
applicable
requirements
of
subsection
(
c)
[
the
section
173
major
NSR
permitting
provision]
and
section
110(
a)(
2)."
For
the
SIP
development
period,
part
D
leaves
a
gap
as
to
the
NSR
requirements
applicable
to
the
newly
designated
nonattainment
area
(
if
the
State's
part
D
NSR
SIP
does
not
automatically
cover
the
area).
This
gap
exists
even
if
EPA
were
to
accept
the
commenter's
contention
that
subpart
2
applies.
Pursuant
to
40
CFR
52.24(
k),
this
gap
is
filled
by
appendix
S,
which
requires
NSR
permitting
that
mirrors
part
D,
subject
to
the
Section
VI
exemption.

Additionally,
EPA
disagrees
with
the
commenter's
contention
that
subpart
2
must
apply
to
all
newly
designated
nonattainment
areas.
As
discussed
in
more
detail
in
the
preamble
to
the
8­
hour
ozone
implementation
rule
(
69
FR
23951),
EPA
has
determined
that
it
has
discretion
in
determining
whether
subpart
2
applies
to
these
areas
because
subpart
2
does
not
dictate
whether
it
applies
where
the
1­
hour
design
value
falls
below
the
lowest
value
in
the
subpart
2
classification
table.
EPA
has
described
in
that
rule
the
circumstances
in
which
subpart
2
applies.

The
commenter
also
contends
that
section
193
has
superseded
appendix
S.
EPA
disagrees.
The
commenter
relies
on
the
following
language
in
section
193:
"
No
control
requirement
in
effect,
or
required
to
be
adopted
by
a[]
.
.
.
[
implementation]
plan
in
effect
before
November
15,
1990,
in
any
area
which
is
a
nonattainment
area
for
any
air
pollutant
may
be
modified
after
November
15,
1990,
in
any
manner
unless
the
modification
insures
equivalent
or
greater
emission
reductions
of
such
air
pollutant."
However,
this
part
of
section
193
is
of
no
relevance
to
appendix
S
because
appendix
S
does
not
replace
any
existing
SIP
requirements.
An
area
is
only
required
to
apply
appendix
S
where
it
does
not
have
a
part
D
NSR
SIP
covering
permitting
for
the
8­
hour
standard.
In
other
words,
it
covers
only
the
gap
in
the
SIP
caused
by
the
lack
of
a
part
D
NSR
program
for
the
relevant
NAAQS,
and
is
supplemental
to
any
existing
SIP
requirements.
4
Chapter
5­
Changes
to
Appendix
S
Section
VI
to
Section
VI
(
68
FR
32844
n.
67),
the
decision
not
to
go
forward
with
the
Section
VI
revisions
as
proposed
makes
that
issue
moot.
NSR
under
Section
VI,
as
finalized,
will
involve
notification
by
the
Administrator
that
it
applies
for
new
sources
meeting
the
Section
VI
criteria,
rather
than
replacement
of
an
NSR
program
in
the
SIP
with
the
Transitional
NSR
program.
Additionally,
the
existing
Section
VI
exemption
criteria
require
that
the
source
meet
the
applicable
SIP
emissions
limitations
 
rather
than
be
excused
from
them
 
so
the
section
193
concern
raised
by
the
commenter
is
unlikely
to
arise.

Internal
and
Deliberative
Draft
­
Do
not
cite,
quote,
copy,
or
distribute
August
2005
4­
4
The
commenter
also
believes
that
use
of
appendix
S
for
permitting
would
violate
section
110(
l),
which
provides,
in
relevant
part,
that:
"
The
Administrator
shall
not
approve
a
revision
of
a
plan
if
the
revision
would
interfere
with
any
applicable
requirement
concerning
attainment
and
reasonable
further
progress
.
.
."
The
commenter
states
that
nonattainment
preconstruction
permitting
requirements
"
concern[]
attainment
and
reasonable
further
progress,"
so
if
a
SIP
is
already
written
such
that
nonattainment
NSR
will
apply
in
an
area
as
soon
as
it
is
designated
nonattainment
under
the
8­
hour
standard,
then
any
revision
that
would
thwart
the
automatic
effectiveness
of
those
requirements
would
violate
section
110(
l).
Again,
appendix
S
is
not
an
amendment
to
a
SIP,
and
does
not
replace
any
existing
SIP
requirements.
Rather,
it
covers
the
gap
caused
by
the
lack
of
a
part
D
NSR
SIP
for
the
newly
designated
nonattainment
area.
If
a
SIP
is
already
written
such
that
nonattainment
NSR
will
apply
to
an
area
as
soon
as
it
is
designated
nonattainment,
appendix
S
does
not
apply
to
that
area.
[
See
40
CFR
52.24(
k)
and
appendix
S,
Section
I.]
For
these
same
reasons,
the
commenter
is
incorrect
that
NSR
permitting
under
appendix
S
violates
Congressional
intent
not
to
relax
pollution
control
requirements
when
the
NAAQS
are
revised,
as
expressed
in
section
172(
e).

5.3
Other
Comments
Two
commenters
[
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0273;
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0299]
requested
that
a
misstatement
be
corrected
regarding
CAA
section
110.
The
commenters
believed
that
EPA
statements
in
the
proposal
that
state
that
the
"
general
provisions"
of
section
110
mandate
the
adoption
of
minor
NSR
programs
or
dictate
the
minimum
contents
of
those
programs
are
not
consistent
with
the
Clean
Air
Act.
According
to
the
commenters,
under
section
110
of
the
Act,
states
must
adopt
a
"
major"
NSR
program
for
their
SIP
to
be
approved.
However,
contrary
to
EPA's
statement
in
this
proposal
at
page
32846,
col.
1,
the
commenters
asserted
that
the
Act
does
not
prescribe
adoption
of
a
"
minor"
NSR
program.
Hence,
the
commenters
believed
the
adoption
of
such
a
program
was
left
entirely
to
the
states,
as
were
the
requirements
of
such
programs
if
States
indeed
adopted
them.

Response:
Chapter
5­
Changes
to
Appendix
S
Section
VI
Internal
and
Deliberative
Draft
­
Do
not
cite,
quote,
copy,
or
distribute
August
2005
4­
5
We
disagree
with
the
commenter.
Section
110(
a)(
2)(
C)
states
that
each
SIP
shall
"
include
a
program
to
provide
for
the
.
.
.
regulation
of
the
modification
and
construction
of
any
stationary
source
within
the
areas
covered
by
the
plan
as
necessary
to
assure
that
[
NAAQS]
are
achieved,
including
a
permit
program
as
required
in
parts
C
and
D."
On
its
face,
this
provision
is
not
limited
to
major
stationary
sources,
but
rather
extends
to
"
any"
stationary
source.
Our
long­
held
interpretation
of
this
section
is
that
States
must
provide
for
preconstruction
permitting
of
any
stationary
source
not
covered
by
parts
C
and
D
of
the
Act,
and
we
have
referred
to
this
as
the
"
minor"
NSR
program.
[
61
Fed.
Reg.
31443,
31445
(
June
20,
1996)
("
Section
110(
a)(
2)(
C)
of
the
Act
and
EPA's
regulations
at
51.161
clearly
establish
Federal
requirements
for
preconstruction
review
of
activities
below
the
major
NSR
applicability
thresholds.")]
The
minor
NSR
requirements
are
codified
at
40
CFR
§
§
51.160­.
164.
Internal
and
Deliberative
Draft
­
Do
not
cite,
quote,
copy,
or
distribute
August
2005
4­
6
Chapter
6
­
Comments
on
Changes
to
Identify
NOx
as
an
Ozone
Precursor
6.1
Overview
This
chapter
contains
comments
on
the
1996
proposal
and
2003
proposals
to
expressly
regulate
NOx
as
an
ozone
precursor
in
attainment
areas.
Comments
and
responses
on
regulating
NOx
as
an
ozone
precursor
in
nonattainment
areas
are
discussed
in
Section
2.3
of
this
document.

6.2
NOx
as
an
Ozone
Precursor
in
Attainment
Areas
Comment:

Three
commenters
(
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0196,
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0273,
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0322)
supported
expressly
including
NOx
as
an
ozone
precursor
in
the
Prevention
of
Significant
Deterioration
(
PSD)
rules.

Response:

We
agree
with
these
commenters
and
accordingly
have
revised
the
regulations
in
§
51.166
and
§
52.21.
Specifically,
we
have
amended
the
definitions
of
major
stationary
source,
major
modification,
significant,
and
regulated
NSR
pollutant
to
include
NOx
as
an
ozone
precursor.
[
See
§
51.166(
b)(
1)(
ii),
(
b)(
2)(
ii),
(
b)(
23),
and
(
b)(
49).
See
also
§
52.21(
b)(
1)(
ii),
(
b)(
2)(
ii),(
b)(
23),
and
(
b)(
50).]
We
have
also
amended
the
footnote
to
§
51.166(
i)(
5)(
i)(
e)
and
§
52.21(
i)(
5)(
i)
to
require
sources
with
a
net
increase
of
100
tons
per
year
or
more
of
NOx
to
perform
an
ambient
impact
analysis.
Internal
and
Deliberative
Draft
­
Do
not
cite,
quote,
copy,
or
distribute
August
2005
Appendix
A.
Public
Commenters
Internal
and
Deliberative
Draft
­
Do
not
cite,
quote,
copy,
or
distribute
August
2005
A­
2
Commenter
Air
Docket
Item
ID
Air
Improvement
Resources
Committee
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0220
Alabama
DEM
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0187
Alliance
of
Automobile
Manufacturers
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0306
American
Automobile
Manufacturers
Association
A­
90­
37:
IV­
D­
160
Amoco
Corporation
A­
90­
37:
IV­
D­
66
Appalachian
Mountain
Club
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0313
Aquila,
Inc.
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0177
ASARCO
Incorporated
A­
90­
37:
IV­
D­
135
Atlanta
Chamber
of
Commerce
A­
90­
37:
IV­
D­
117
Baker
&
Botts
L.
L.
P.
A­
90­
37:
IV­
D­
129
Board
of
Commissioners
of
Morgan
County,
Indiana
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0288
Capital
Area
Metropolitan
Planning
Organization
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0301
Chemical
Manufacturers
Association
A­
90­
37:
IV­
D­
154
City
of
San
Antonio,
Texas
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0195
City
of
Austin,
Texas
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0341
City
of
La
Porte,
Indiana
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0224
Class
of
85',
Regulatory
Response
Group,
Baker
&
Botts,
L.
L.
P.
A­
90­
37:
IV­
D­
142
Clean
Air
Council
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0119
Clean
Air
Act
Services
Steering
Committee
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0196
Clean
Air
Task
Force
(
CATF),
et
al.
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0215
ConocoPhillips
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0299
Delaware
DNR
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0322
Department
of
Environmental
Quality,
Portland,
OR
A­
90­
37:
IV­
D­
11
Department
of
Navy,
Environmental
Compliance
and
Restoration
A­
90­
37:
IV­
D­
38
Dominion
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0308
Commenter
Air
Docket
Item
ID
Internal
and
Deliberative
Draft
­
Do
not
cite,
quote,
copy,
or
distribute
August
2005
A­
3
DuPont
SHE
Excellence
Center
A­
90­
37:
IV­
D­
190
Duquesne
Light
A­
90­
37:
IV­
D­
40
ExxonMobil
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0212
Foth
&
Van
Dyke
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0097
Indiana
DEM
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0292
Jefferson
City
(
Missouri)
DNR
A­
90­
37:
IV­
D­
192
Kansas
City
Power
and
Light
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0185
Knauf
Fiber
Glass
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0222
Latham
&
Watkins
A­
90­
37:
IV­
D­
108
Louisiana
Chemical
Association
A­
90­
37:
IV­
D­
140
Louisiana
Assistant
Secretary
of
Departmental
Quality
A­
90­
37:
IV­
D­
173
Maine
DEP
A­
90­
37:
IV­
D­
48
Maine
DEP
A­
90­
37:
IV­
D­
60
Massachusetts
DEP
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0269
Metropolitan
Washington
Airports
Authority
A­
90­
37:
IV­
D­
116
Mid­
America
Regional
Council
Air
Quality
Forum
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0307
Missouri
DOT
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0365
Missouri
APCD
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0235
Natural
Gas
Supply
Association
A­
90­
37:
IV­
D­
149
Natural
Resources
Defense
Council
A­
90­
37:
IV­
D­
152
NEDA/
CARP
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0273
NESCAUM
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0315
New
Hampshire
Department
of
Environmental
Services
A­
90­
37:
IV­
D­
82
New
York
Public
Interest
Research
Group
A­
90­
37:
IV­
D­
12
Commenter
Air
Docket
Item
ID
Internal
and
Deliberative
Draft
­
Do
not
cite,
quote,
copy,
or
distribute
August
2005
A­
4
New
York
State
Department
of
Environmental
Conservation
(
NYSDEC)
A­
90­
37:
IV­
D­
53
New
Hampshire
Air
Resources
Board
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0321
North
Carolina
DENR
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0229
New
York
State
Department
of
Environmental
Conservation
(
NYSDEC)
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0334
Ohio
EPA
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0232
Outdoor
Power
Equipment
Institute
A­
90­
37:
IV­
D­
88
Pennsylvania
DEP
A­
90­
37:
IV­
D­
59
Pennsylvania
DEP,
Air,
Recycling
&
Radiation
Protection
A­
90­
37:
IV­
D­
47
Porter,
Wright,
Morris
&
Arthur
A­
90­
37:
IV­
D­
146
R.
J.
Reynolds
Tobacco
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0211
Shaw,
Pittman,
Potts
&
Trowbridge
A­
90­
37:
IV­
D­
157
Sonoco
Flexible
Packaging
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0223
Southern
California
Gas
Company
A­
90­
37:
IV­
D­
42
South
Coast
Air
Quality
Management
District
A­
90­
37:
IV­
D50
Specialty
Steel
Industry
of
North
America
A­
90­
37:
IV­
D­
74
STAPPA/
ALAPCO
A­
90­
37:
IV­
D­
137
Steel
Manufacturers
Association
A­
90­
37:
IV­
D­
73
Texaco
Incorporated
A­
90­
37:
IV­
D­
33
Texas
Natural
Resource
Conservation
Commission
(
TNRCC)
A­
90­
37:
IV­
D­
92
Texas
Commission
on
Environmental
Quality
(
TCEQ)
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0149
Travis
County
Transportation
and
Natural
Resources
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0182
Unified
Air
Pollution
Control
District
A­
90­
37:
IV­
D­
109
U.
S.
PIRG
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0203
Utility
Air
Regulatory
Group
(
UARG)
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0122
Commenter
Air
Docket
Item
ID
Internal
and
Deliberative
Draft
­
Do
not
cite,
quote,
copy,
or
distribute
August
2005
A­
5
Vanderburgh
County
(
Indiana)
Health
Dept.
and
City
of
Evansville,
Indiana
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0295
Vermont
APCD
A­
90­
37:
IV­
D­
95
Virginia
DEQ
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0231
Virginia
Manufacturers
Association
A­
90­
37:
IV­
D­
138
Washington
Environmental
Practice,
McGuire,
Woods,
Battle
&
Boothe
L.
L.
P.
A­
90­
37:
IV­
D­
162
West
Virginia
Chamber
of
Commerce
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0302
W.
H.
Lewis,
Morgan,
Lewis
&
Bockius,
L.
L.
P.
A­
90­
37:
IV­
D­
153
Wisconsin
Manufacturers
&
Commerce
A­
90­
37:
IV­
D­
191
Wisconsin
Paper
Council
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0355
Wisconsin
Manufacturers
&
Commerce
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0272
Wisconsin
DNR
A­
90­
37:
IV­
D­
113
Internal
and
Deliberative
Draft
­
Do
not
cite,
quote,
copy,
or
distribute
August
2005
A­
6
