From:
Amy_
L._
Farrell
Sent:
01/
15/
2004
10:
00
AM
To:
Bill
Wehrum/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
Cc:
Arthur_
G._
Fraas@
omb.
eop.
gov
Subject:
Re:
Inserts
to
final
umbrella
monitoring
rule
Bill
­
One
suggested
edit.
One
general
issue.

In
your
page
17
edit,
insert
the
following
sentence
just
before
the
last
sentence.
Furthermore,
in
Appalachian
Power,
the
Court
acknowledged
that
they
"
have
recognized
before
that
changing
the
emission
limitation
can
affect
the
stringency
of
hte
limitation
itself."
Portland
Cement
Ass'n
v.
Ruckelshaus,
158
U.
S.
App.
D.
C.
308,
486
F.
2d375,
396­
97
(
D.
C.
Circuit
1973),
discussed
in
Clean
Air
Implementation
Project
v.
EPA,
150
F.
3d
at
1203.

General
issue
­
deleting
the
paragraph
on
page
19
cuts
the
reference
to
the
1992
rulemaking
which
was
Kevin's
point.
Any
way
to
keep
that?

af
Wehrum.
Bill@
epamail.
epa.
gov
01/
14/
2004
04:
53:
16
PM
Record
Type:
Record
To:
Amy
L.
Farrell/
OMB/
EOP@
EOP,
Arthur
G.
Fraas/
OMB/
EOP@
EOP
cc:
Subject:
Inserts
to
final
umbrella
monitoring
rule
Art
and
Amy
­­
Here
are
suggested
revisions
to
the
text
we
discussed
yesterday
afternoon.
All
of
your
other
suggested
changes,
except
those
addressed
below,
are
ok
with
us.

­­­­­
Forwarded
by
Bill
Wehrum/
DC/
USEPA/
US
on
01/
14/
2004
04:
48
PM
­­­­­

Kerry
Rodgers
To:
Bill
Wehrum/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
01/
14/
2004
04:
19
cc:
Bill
Harnett/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Lea
PM
Anderson/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Lisa
Friedman/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Richard
Ossias/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Adam
Kushner/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
Loan
Nguyen/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,
NancyH
Wilson/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
Subject:
Inserts
to
final
umbrella
monitoring
rule
p.
17
Replace
"
Furthermore
..."
paragraph
with
the
following:

Furthermore,
under
the
proposal,
the
state
permit
writers
were
given
no
guidance
as
to
how
to
set
these
monitoring
requirements,
as
commenters
pointed
out.
Using
rulemaking
to
revise
monitoring
requirements
will
assure
that
the
new
monitoring
reuqirements
are
adopted
in
the
same
manner
as
the
originally
promulgated
standards.
That
original
promulgation
included
a
determination
that
the
standards
were
achieveable
assuming
the
specified
control
technologies.
Commenters
expressed
concern
that
the
proposed
rule
would
illegally
increase
the
stringency
of
underlying
emission
standards
and
limitations
because
it
would
require
new
averaging
periods
or
change
other
compliance
methods
when
added
to
the
permit.
Ratifying
the
current
regulatory
language
eliminates
any
possible
problem
in
this
regard
under
Section
70.6(
c)(
1).

pp.
19­
20
Delete
suggested
new
paragraph
starting
"
EPA's
final
action
....."
Replace
the
following
paragraph
(
starting
"
Finally,
...")
with
the
following:

Finally,
commenters
expressed
concern
about
the
statutory
underpinnings
of
sufficiency
monitoring
under
70.6(
c)(
1)
and
71.6(
c)(
1),.
Their
concern
was
based
in
part
on
along
the
lines
of
the
D.
C.
Circuit's
observation
in
Appalachian
Power
that
the
approach
to
sufficiency
monitoring
described
in
the
Periodic
Monitoring
Guidance
"
raises
serious
issues,
not
the
least
of
which
is
whether
EPA
possesses
the
authority
it
now
purports
to
delegate."
208
F.
3d
at
1026.
Adopting
this
final
rule
will
eliminate
possible
concern
in
this
regard.

p.
28
midway
throught
the
first
(
very
long)
sentence
in
the
paragraph
starting
"
As
for
the
comments
....":

....
EPA
believes
it
is
not
necessary
to
respond
to
these
comments
because
we
have
decided
not
...
