Document jLRZQonvoxV0Oky72YJrpR4k

N MEDA CLEAN AIR PROJECT National Environmental Development Association's Clean Air Project Docket No. EPA-HQ-OA-2017-0190 Mr. Ryan Jackson, EPA Administrator Pruitt's Chief of Staff Ms. Samantha Dravis, Associate Administrator EPA Office of Policy U.S. Environmental Protection Agency I 200 Pennsylvania Avenue. NW Washington, DC 20460 May 15, 2017 Members: The Boeing Company BP America Eli Lilly & Company Georgia-Pacific LLC Invista S.a'r.l. Koch Industries, Inc. Merck & Co., Inc. Occidental Petroleum Corporation Phillips 66 Procter & Gamble Counsel: RITTS LAW GROUP. PLLC Dear Mr Jackson and Ms. Dravis NEDA/CAP. a coalition of American manufacturers, is responding to EPA's Notice requesting recommendations for repealing, replacing and/or modifying burdensome EPA regulations. 82 Fed. Reg. I 7,793 (Apr. 13, 2017). The attached Table ofNEDA/CAP recommendations lists over 40 Clean Air Act (CAA) regulations that impose mammoth costs on U.S. manufacturers with little or no environmental benefit. The following CAA regulations and policies constitute "our top ten" candidates for repeal or replacement. (Each candidate has a reference such as "A.2," "B.19", etc., that refer to the entry in the attached Table of Recommendations). 1. Modify the Exceptional Events Rule to Include High Background Ozone Levels and International Ozone Transport (See A.2); 2. Replace the New Source Review (NSR) exclusion for "Routine. Maintenance. Repair and Replacement (R.MRR) following protracted enforcement litigation on this issue so that a reasonable man knows what changes at a plant are excluded from NSR (See B.3); 3. Repeal Revisions to the Refrigerant Rule that Illegally Regulate Substitutes for Ozone Depleting Substances Banned under the Montreal Protocol. (See D. I); 4. Repeal Federal "SIP Call" of State Rules Containing Affirmative Defenses or Exclusions from Violation for Excess Emissions During Startup. Shutdowns (See A.3); 5. Repeal and Replace EPA's "Major Source" and "Major Modification" Aggregation Policies (See B.l, B.2); 6. Modify the NSR "Offset Interpretative Ruling" (See B.4); 7. Modify NSR Atmospheric Air Dispersion Modeling Requirements in Appendix W for Secondary Pollutants Until EPA Approves a Sole Source Model (See A.4, B.6); 8. Repeal the NESHAPs "Once In Always In Policy" (See C.2); 9. Repeal 2016 Regional Consistency Revisions Rule and Ask the Court to Remand the Revisions Rule (See B. 16). 10. Modify' and expand the regulations authorizing Plantwide Applicability Limits ("PALS") (Sec B. 14). The attached table provides full citations to these candidate rules and policies, with a description of each and the burdens they entail, with a proposed solution that is consistent with the Clean Air Act. Respectfully submitted. Leslie Ritts on behalfofNEDA/CAP Cc Dominic Mancini. Deputy Administrator, OMB Amanda Gunasekara, HQ OAQPS Liaison Attachment Table ofNEDA/CAP Recommendations 620 Fort Williams Parkway Alexandria, Virginia 22304 Tel: 703-823-2292 Fax: 57 1 -970-3721 N E DA/CA P Recommendations to Repeal, Replace or Modify Existing Clean Air Act Regulations and Policies 82 Fed. Reg, 17.793 (Apr. 3. 2017) - Docket No. EPA-HQ-OA-20I7-0190 NAME OF REGULATION Brief Description CITATION toC.F.R. & FED. REG. Issue Description (iHvi) criteria listed at 82 Fed. Reg. 17.793, CoU Savings/cconomic impact information A. IMPLEMENTATION OF NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS (NAAQS); State Implementation Plan (SIP) Rules 42 I .S.C. Chapter 85. Subchapter I. Part A - AirQualiti and Emission l imitations A.I Repeal the SIP Clean Air Act (CAA) 42 l .S.C . 7410<b). 40 C.F.R. 50.15 {Ozone (i) Eliminates jobs, or As the Business Roundtable Requirements /VA40S), 40 ( FR Part 51 Subpar! AA. and Proposed Subpart ( ( . inhibits job creation: pointed out to the White and Designation 1 or the 2015 ozone NAAQS. final nonaitamment designations and (iii) Imposes economic 1 louse National Economic Rules for the 2015 State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision requirements were proposed costs that exceed benefits Council in its Feb 22. 2017 Ozone NAAQS & at 81 Fed Reg 81.276 (Nov 17. 2016) and will be codified at 40 (v) Relics in pan on letter, the 20)5 Ozone De la s C F R 51 Subpart CC {"Provisionsfor Implementation ofthe 2015 scientific information that NAAQS hampers economic Implementation Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards ') has not been disclosed to growth in vast sections of the of the 2015 the public country without delivering NAAQS I he 2008 (>zone NAAQS have not been fully implemented, nor have additional, meaningful health Res isions. Judicial Petitions for Review of the 2008 NAAQS Implementation benefits Further, Rule. 40 C F R Subpart AA. have not been adjudicated South (oast implementation of the 2015 Air Quality Management District v EPA. D C Cir Case No 15-1115 rule would interfere with The 2015 Implementation Rule should be repealed and reconsidered resources for implementing after the 2008 NAAQS has been implemented the 2008 rule for States. Industry and EPA Regions \.2 Modify (he CAA. 42 1 .S.C. 7619(b); 40 C.F.R. $ 50.14, las) amended 81 Fed. (i) Eliminates jobs, or When U.S human-caused Exceptional Reg. 68.216(Oct. 3, 2016). inhibits job creation: sources account for but a Eventi ("EE") The 2016 amended "EE" rule is an improvement and helps Slates (iv) Creates a serious small portion of a non Rule to Exclude exclude high monitored NAAQS values from area nonattainment inconsistency or otherwise altainment event, it should be from designations 11 e.. "NAAQS design values") if they resulted from interferes with regulatory possible to aggregate all the Xonattainmcnt exceptional events such as forest fires, natural calamities, stratospheric reform initiatives and other causes that cannot be Monitor "Design ozone intrusion into the troposphere, and other events beyond the policies controlled and exclude these V alues" High control of regulators F.PA recognized in the rule the potential tor from non-atlainment Biogenic high naturally occurring seasonal ozone from biogenic & other determinations, thus relieving Background sources contnbute to violations of the NAAQS. but declined to states of the Ozone Levels and include these in the scope of the revised rule because they are burdensome/impossible task International "normally occurring events " 81 Fed Reg 68.228 EPA noted the of quantifying separately Ozone Iransport availability of CAA Section 179B to exclude internationally- each non-human. non-U.S. transported emissions but suggested it should be limited to Mexican or uncontrollable cause of lite and Canadian emissions event NEDA/CWP Recommendations for Evaluation of Existing EPA ( lean Vir Vcl Regulations & Policies Docket No. EPA-IIQ-OA-20I7-0I90 NAME OF REGULATION Brief Description CITATION to C.F.R. & FED. REG. Issue Description (iHvi) criteria listed at 82 Fed. Reg. 17,793. CoU Savings/cconomic impact information A.3. Repeal the 2015 EIP ( all and Preserve Rights of States to Adopt Local Rules Containing Affirmative Defenses and/or Exclusions from Violation for Excess Emissions During Startup. Shutdown, and Malfunctions (SSM) 42 1.S.C 74IO(aM2XH).(l): 40CFR Part 52 (Approval of Statc-bs-State SIP Provisions); 80 Fed. Reg. 33.829 (Jun. 12. 2015) ( 'Slate Implementation Plans Responses to Petition for Rulemaking; Restatement and Update of EPA's SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs. Findings of Substantial Inadequacy and SIP Calls To Amend Provisions zXpplymg to Excess Emissions Dunng Periods of Startup. Shutdown and Malfunction. Final Rule" ("FTP Call") The 2015 FIP call is inconsistent with Stales' flexibility to plan how each will attain and or maintain the NAAQS and enforce their own laws The FIP call disapprov ing 36 SIPs is not based on a finding, required by Clean z\ir Act (CAA) Section 42 U S C 7410(1). that these provisions interfere with timely NAAQS attainment (i) Eliminates jobs, or inhibits job creation: (iv)( reales a serious inconsistency or otherwise interferes with regulators reform initiatives and policies to return authority over NAAQS Implementation to the States Petitions for Review of the FIP Call were accepted by the D C Circuit in Walter Coke. Inc., eta!.. v EPA. DC Cir Case No 15-1166 The D C Circuit issued an Apr 24. 2017 Order granting EPA's motion to remove oral argument from the May 8.2017 calendar and holding the case in abey ance pending further proceedings The FIP Call" overrides improperly State authority to allow certain types of emissions to be excluded from CAA violation when they occur during startup, shutdown or malfunctions of process or pollution control equipment, including but not limited to instances where affirmative defenses explain why the emissions are not predictable or cannot be prevented (as is the case for certain technological malfunctions) Slates have primary authority over their air quality and regulation of emission sources, and EPA did not even attempt to demonstrate that exclusion of emissions from stationary source SSM events or the exercise of affirmative defenses resulted in violations or interfered with attainment of the NzXAQS The importance of as oiding safety issues involved in startup, shutdown, and malfunction, including but not limited to startup of combustion equipment and purging of process equipment and pollution control equipment like oxidizers cannot be over-estimated Moreover, exclusion of emissions during a reasonable period of startup, particular^ for combustion equipment and fuel-fired control equipment like oxidizers that takes time to reach a steads state, do not interfere with ambient air quality or cause NAAQS exceedances except in rare instances Also, affirmative defenses in SIPs that can be administratively implemented save court resources, or if an issue proceeds to court rev tew. as perhaps in the case of a citizen suit, amplifies a court 's record of decision Page 2 NEDA NEDA/CAP Rccomim'nilations for Evaluation of Existing EPA < lean Air Act Regulation A Policies Docket No. EPA-HQ-OA-20I7-0190 NAME OF REGULATIONBrief Description CITATION to C.F.R & FED. REG. Issue Description (iMv>) criteria listed at X2 Fed. Reg. 17,793. ColJ information A.4. Repeal applicability of CAA PM2.5 SIP Implementation (including PM2.5 NSR applicability) to VOCs and Ammonia and Reinstitute PM2.S Surrogacy Policy until Air Dispersion Modeling for Secondary Air Pollutants is Available at a Reasonable Cost. A.5 Rcpcul/Modify PMu Stack Compliance 1 csting for ct Slacks" Clean Air Act. 42 C.S.C. 74IO(m). 7475(c) (NAAQS Pollutants. SIP Modeling and PSD Modeling Requirements) 4(1 C.F.R Subpart 7.--Provisions for Implementation of PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards 51.1000 Definitions; 81 Fed. Reg. 58.010 ( Aug. 24. 2016) ("Fine Paniculate Matter NAAQS: State Implementation Plan Requirements**). 40 C.F.R. 51.1000 defines PM. precursor* as sulfur dioxide (SO2). oxides of nitrogen volatile), volatile organic compounds (\ <X s), and ammonia (NH>). PSD single source air dispersion models are not available for modeling secondary PM2 5 formation from ozone and NH3 I.PA's Technical Assistance Document t TAD), at fains www cm gov nsr Jratt-guidancc-commcnt-significant-imnactlevels-ozone-and.fine-narticle-nrevention-significant is not sufficient and in fact underscores the difficulty of a case-by-case approach to air dispersion modeling for secondary pollutants such as PM25 40 C F R 51. Appendix M recommends test methods for compliance with PM;s (fine particulate) emissions limits, provided for states to implement into SIPs "Artifacts" (i e . line particulate) are created by the EPA reference test methods, especially for wet stack plumes which EPA acknowledges and results in emission limit noncompliance EPA should re-implement the PM;slack testing surrogacy police until it fixes the compliance testing method See S Page. Implementation of New Source Review Requirements in PM2 5 Nonattainment Areas (April 5. 20051 at https nun ena eov sites production tiles 2o|5<>7 document* nm^^guid pd' (i)Eliminatn join, or inhibits job creation: (iii) The implementation rule impose* economic costs that exceed benefit* (iv) ( reales a serious inconsistency or otherwise interferes with regulatory reform initiatives and policie* (iii) Impose* costs that exceed benefits: Until adequate evaluation tools exist to model secondary pollutants. EPA should not require air dispersion modeling on a case-by-case basis, particularly since the agency's prior surrogacy policies (eg. evaluating PM; , using PM,,,) have about the same amount of accuracy as case-by-case modeling, and can be backstopped with other recordkeeping & reporting requirements without delaying or discouraging economic expansion and new products Noncompliance with EPA and State NAAQS emission limits is intolerable when it is caused by EPA technical issues Joint efforts by API. EPRI. and NCASI to address the test method issues are underway withEPA's blessing, so there is w idespread recognition of the problem A fix would reduce testing costs at facilities and reduce the costly likelihood of triggering PSD because of well-known testing problems Page 3 NEDA/CAP Recommendations for Evaluation of Existing EPA Clean Air Act Regulations & Policies Docket No. EPA-HQ-OA-2017-0190 NAME OF REGULATION Brief Description CITATION loCF.R. & FED. REG. Issue Description (Hvi) criteria listed at 82 Fed. Reg. 17,793, Col.3 Sav ingVeconomic impact information H.l Repealand Replace AU "Major Source" * Aggregation Policies* & Interpretations, B.2 Repeal EPA Stay of Final 2(8)9 "Project Aggregation" Rule and Finalize the 2010 "Proposed Reconsideration Ride" B. NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) & PERMUTING: 42 U.S.C. 85 Subchantcr 1 Part C and Part D 42 U.SC 7410(a)(2)(C) & (1), 7479( 1) [def, of "miyor emitting facUtti "]* 7501-7506 [Nonattainment NSR Permitting]: 7601 (z) [ "stationary source]: 77602cj) | def of "major stationary source", major emitting facility"]40 CFR 51 165(bX 1 KiiMA [cZe/ of "Building, structure, facility. or installation " in PSD areas], (1) Eliminates jobs, or inhibits job creation; (h) Creates a serious inconsistency or otherwise interferes w ith regulatory Uncertainty in the applicability of (he most basic CAA requirement of when a preconstruction permit or an operating permit is required 52.166(b)(6) [def. of `Building, structure, facility. or installation " in nonattainment areas]: (iXa). 70.2, 71.2. (CAA program applicability reform initiatives and policies costs the gross national product dearly by interfering dejimtions of "major stationary source " mayor .wrcc " n/jff Twcyor emitting facility"). See also Summit Petroleum Corp.. LLC v. EPA. 690 F 3d 733 (6* Cir. 2012). with economic development of domestic manufacturing., There are dozens of EPA Pres ention of Sign: (leant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonallainment New Source Review (NNSR) applicability guidance" documents and interpretations regarding when emissions activities under common ownership or operation must be "aggregated" and permitted as a single source One controversial group of EPA applicability interpretations addresses when emissions of a pollutant from different pieces of equipment, even emissions units located as far as 30 miles apart and thus non-adjacent in a plain meaning sense of the word "adjacent," ti e . physical proximity) must be "aeereeateef' to determine if the projects arc part of the same "major source" or "major modification of a major source" and require a major NSR permtt EPA should withdraw prior aggregation policies and issue new rules on NSR appiicabilitv- Reasonable people should be able to acrec when projects arc part of the same "source" and arc required to obtain a PSD or NNSR pyrnuL States should be able to make these decisions with minimal EPA oversight See 74 Fed Reg 2.376 (Jan 15. 2009), as amended by 74 Fed Reg 22.693 (May 14. 2009), ("Stay of PSD & Nonattainment NSR Aggregation" Rule published 74 Fed. Reg, 2,376 (Jan. 15. 2009); 75 l ed Reg 27 643 (May 18. 2010). See also "Applicability ol NSR Review Circumvention Guidance to 3M - Maplewood. Minnesota (PDF) Similar to the "major source aggregation" policy and guidance situation, a rail of EPA policies and interpretations exist (i) Eliminates jobs, or inhibits job creation; (iv) C reates a serious inconsistency or otherwise interferes with regulatory reform initiatives and policies Uncertainly in the applicability of the most basic CAA req ui re men! of when a preconstruction permit is required for projects undertaken at the same plant costs the gross national regarding aggregating the emissions from individual projects al a product millions of dollars Page 4 XEDA/CAP Recommendations for Evaluation of Etisting EP \ Clean Air Act Regulations & Policies Docket No. EPA HQ-OA 2017-0190 NAME OF REGULATION Brief Description Project Aggregation Recommendation Coat'd B3 Replace \SR Exemption for "Routine Maintenance. Repair & Replacement (RMRR)** Approach I tili/cd by EPA Enforcement with a Rnjulatorx Definition on W hich Reasonable People ( an Agree. CITATION toC.F.R. & FED. REG. Issue Description manufacturing plant into a single project (in order to determine the applicability of "major modification" new source review permitting), based on EPA's judgment that some business projects are "substantially related " EPA stayed the 2009 aggregation interpretative rule and started a rulemaking to replace it EPA should finalize the proposed 2010 rule that establishes bright line presumptions - for instance that projects cannot be substantially related if they occur more than three years apart EPA should create bright line test to eliminate EPA second-guessing and enforcement of business decisions that plant projects arc independent, provided that these conclusions arc reasonable and supported by businesses before projects are constructed 11 e . a project does not depend on construction of a succeeding business project to "pay back" expenses of the first project i 4 ( .F.R. 5L165(nX 1X27MAXWO; 5Z.l66(bX3Xi): 52.21(1 (2Hi): EPA. 1990 (Draft) NSR Manual, at A 33. .Vex York v. HPA.. 443 F3d880(DC Cir 2OO6W Veo York H ")vacating 2006 XSR equipment replacement process rules, EPA has implemented a longstanding NSR Program rule exempting from the definition of a "major modification." physical changes that are routine maintenance, repair and replacement ("RMRR") But the exemption has been re-defined in numerous EPA interpretative policies and enforcement actions against numerous US manufacturers based on multiple EPA definitions of "RMRR " A number of federal courts repudiated EPA's interpretations of "RMRR " It is enticed to manufacturers that EPA prov ides a clear and meaningful definition of RMRR that encourages maintenance and or ' like kind" replacement of process equipment States and other stakeholders over the years have periodically urge EPA to formally adopt a rule that allows physical changes and changes in the method of operation that constitute less than 5 percent of the capital cost of brand new equipment used by the IRS See IRS Publication 534. We also recommend that EPA add language that policies on equipment replacement be based on ly pical practices for the entire industry sector." ( 1 e . not what is tvpical at an individual source) (Hvi) criteria listed al 82 --Sav in"veconomic impact Fed. Reg. 17.793. Col.3 information annually Businesses plan new products, routine maintenance, non-routine maintenance, and new equipment installation and replacement on a project-byproject basis, but EPA applies the PSD, NSR permit requirements to groups of purportedly related projects" based on a haphazard policy culled "project aggregation " (h) C reafc\ a serious inconsistency or otherwise interferes with regulatory reform initiatives and policies EPA's enforcement policy of defining "RMRR" on a case-by-case application based on a number of factors repudiated by many federal district courts is improper and should be replaced by an EPA rulemaking that defines the longstanding exemption from a "major modification" subject to NSR in a predictable manner Enormous savings to companies who could maintenance equipment without the ambiguity and risk of EPA's enforcement office and citizen suits If the rules would also encompass energy efficiency improvements in hke-kmd replacements using better materials to improve throughputs, additional savings for manufacturing, industry and the environment could be realized NEDA/CAP Recommendations for Evaluation of Existing EPA Clean Air Act Regulations & Policies Docket No. EPA-HO-OA-2017-0190 NAME OF REGULATION Brief Description CITATION to C.F.R. & FED. REG. Issue Description (Hvi) Criteria listed at 82 Fed. Reg. 17.793, Col.3 Savings/cconomic impact information B.4 Modify the Nonattainment NSR Offset Geographic Location Requirements. B.5 Debottlenecking Repeal EPA Withdrawal of 2006 Proposed Rulemaking and C larify that Upstream & Downstream Debottlenecked Units Never are Subject to BACT Controls. 40C.F R 51 165.40 C.F.R 51 Appendix S. "Emission Offset Interpretative Ruling" at IV. 3. D 1-2 (`Location of offsetting emissions") stipulates that offsets from other areas that impact the location of the proposed new source are not eligible unless the upwind location also is a nonattainment area for the pollutant In order to obtain a NNSR permit. CAA Section 173 (c) requires a company to obtain emissions reductions from other sources within the same air quality control region that arc equal to or greater than the ' potential'' new emissions from a new source or major modification EPA has interpreted geographic boundaries in the offset provision very strictly, particularly in the face of well-understood science regarding emissions transport across multistate regions of the country and the relative contribution of certain precursor emissions such as NOV. SO;, and VOCs to the formation of ozone and PM. v To facilitate company expansions and new products. EPA's rigid interpretation of the law can be relaxed (even without the amendments to the 1977 law that NEDA CAP also believes are needed ) This Emission Offset Interpretative Ruling is scientifically inconsistent with EPA modeling used in the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule that EPA argues demonstrates that many upwind attainment area emission sources impact downwind monitors. See 1997 Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR); 2008 CSAPR and 2015 CSAPR modeling runs at 76 Fed Reg 48208 (July 6. 2011) 74 Fed Reg 2.460 (Jan 15. 2009) (withdrawing proposed rule that attempted to clarify when emissions increases upstream or downstream of modified emission sources trigger NSR); 71 Fed Reg. 54.235 (Sep 14. 2006) Debottlenecking, like traffic control, is the removal of a constraint in a plant that allows it to increase production Counterintuitively. EPA policy dis-incentivizes replacing old equipment with new process equipment that is more efficient because emissions increases from debottlenecked "upstream or downstream" process units are counted toward the determination of whether a project is major and must be permitted under NSR (even when (he emissions from the new unit decrease, remain the same, have only a small increase, and or the upstream downstream emission increase is (i) Eliminates jobs, or inhibits job creation; (ii) Is outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective; (iii) Imposes costs that exceed benefits; (i) Eliminates jobs, or inhibits job creation; (ii) Is outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective; (iii) Imposes costs that exceed benefits. Companies cannot consider building tn parts ofthe U.S where eligible offsets are not available including rural nonattainment areas that often otherwise have no economic development potential and developed areas tn States like Arizona) This issue particularly impacts facilities in the oil & gas and natural resource sectors NEDA members by themselves report projects worth hundreds of S million have not moved forward due to EPA debottlenecking policies. The debottlenecking policy thwarts plant efficiency by subjecting commonsense changes to lengthy permit review and additional costs of Page 6 NEDA/CAP Recommendations for Evaluation of Existing EPA Clean Air Act Regulations & Policies Docket No. EPA-HQ-OA-2017-0I90 NAME OF REGLTATIONBricf Description Deboif/en ec/ang Conrad. CITATION to C.F.R. & FED. REG. Issue Description (iHvi) criteria listed at 82 Fed. Reg. 17.793, Col.3 Savings/economic impact information already allowed by permit) Notably, most but not all EPA interpretations exclude a debottlenecked emissions unit that has not undergone a physical or operational change from BACI See 40 CPR 52 21 (j X 3) {stating that BACTapplies to units that experience a net increase "as a result ofa physical change or change in the method of operation in the unit"). See. e g.. Director. Stationary Source Compliance Division. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to Michael M Johnston. Chief. Air Operations Section - Region X. tilled "PSD Applicability Pulp and Paper Mill" July 28. 1983. pollution control, and simply results in leaving these projects on the engineering floor or moving them abroad where efficiency and innovation is prized instead of punished.). B.6 Modify Ambient Air Dispersion Modeling Requirements for Secondary' Formation of Ozone and PMu and Replace Draft El*A Guidance and Requirement for Case-by-Case Modeling 42 I.S.C. 7475(a)(3); 40 C.F.R. 5I.I66(kXD, (m). and 52.2l(kx 1): 40 C.F.R. 51. App. W, 5.2.1(c). App W default models and data processors are periodically listed in Appendix W, which was revised on Jan 17. 2017 (82 Fed Reg 5,182) after nearly 20 years. 40CTR 51. App. W. 5 2.1(c) docs not include an EPAapproved "single source" ozone model for ambient air impact demonstrations under PSD Only a few models and (heir data processors are pre-approved for use w ithout case-by-case approval by EPA's Modeling Clearinghouse Included tn these lengthy case-bycase determinations (assuming they even get State agency authority and EPA Regional Office approval to move forward) are model "fixes." "tweaking" model algorithms to better replicate case-by-case site emission conditions, or using beta-tested non-Appendix W-default processors." In lieu of selecting a single source model for secondarily-formed pollutants like ozone and PM;, EPA published draft guidance in 2016, to assist new source review permit applicants: https www era cov nsr.draft-guidance-commenl-siEnificant-imoacIEwds-ozonc-aniJ-fi ik-partide-prevent ion-si am ficani (a Technical Assistance Document or TAD) Also see 2015 Ozone Implementation Rule at 81 l ed Reg 81,276 (Nov 17. 2016), (iii) Imposes costs that exceed benefits PSD applicants were allowed to make qualitative comparisons of increases in ozone precursors to ozone values in an area to meet 40 C.F.R, 51,166{kX 1) and 52.21(kXl lor louse EPA's PM2.5 Surrogacy Policy (SEE`A4 supra). The Sierra Club petitioned EPA to establish a "single source" model for ozone, However. EPA acknowledges in the 2017 Appendix W revisions that it has been unable to establish a single source model for secondary pollutants like ozone and PM2 5. Alternatively EPA can resume application of the PM2.5 surrogacy Policy We estimate that the absence of an approved EPA singlesource ozone and PM2 5 model for PSD applicants results in roughly eight to ten abandoned manufacturing expansions in the U.S annually A single source photochemical modeling run will cost al least $50,000 to 5100.000. assuming States can provide an inventory of emissions from nearby facilities and acceptable meteorological data, if these data are unavailable, costs will increase significantly, agency's prior surrogacy policies (e g . evaluating PM; r using PM,.,) have about the same amount of accuracy as case-by-case modeling, and can be backstopped with other recordkeeping & reporting requirements Page 7 NERA/CAP Recommendations for Evaluation of Existing EPA ( lean Air Act Regulations & Policies Rocket No. EPA-HQ-OA-2017-0I90 NAME OF REGULATION Brief Description B.7 Replace the Significant Impact l-cvcl ("SIL'*) for Nitrogen Dioxide. CITATION to C.F.R. & FED. REG. Issue Description (i)-(vi) criteria listed at 82 Fed. Reg. 17,793, Col.3 Savings/economic impact information CAA. 42 U SC SS 74101 mH 7475(c):40C h R 52 2 l(bM23xiii i. 51 I66(k), Part 51.Appendix ;W 75 FR 6474 (Feb 9. 201 OX Revision ofNO2 NAAQS"}. EPA. "General Guidance for Implementing the /hour NO2 NAAQS in Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration Permits, Including an Interim -hour N02 Significant Impact /.eve/" (June 28. 2010) In order to obtain a NSR permit under the CAA. an applicant must demonstrate that the proposed emissions from a new major source or major modification will not violate a NAAQS or a NAAQS increment If that cannot be done, a source, including a pollution control that is based on burning fuel and pollutants cannot be permitting in the U.S Since the SIL is so low. EPA published the cued guidance to develop a modeling "work around" for the NSR ambient air quality analysis, but it costs thousands of dollars more in modeling resources and requires a case-by-case EPA approval and importantly oftenfails. The NO2 SIL should be raised It is so low that new pollution control equipment, like an oxidizer for VOC pollution control, that has less than a 10 MMBTU hr heat input capacity and a 45' stack fails to pass the PSD model screening limits and must therefore obtain a PSD pennit (iv) Creates a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with regulatory reform initiatives and policies by interfering with new energy and pollution control projects w ithout delaying or discouraging economic expansion and new products In order to obtain a NSR permit under the CAA. an applicant must demonstrate that the proposed emissions from a new major source or major modification will not violate a NAAQS or a NAAQS increment Ifthat cannot be done, a source, including a pollution control that is based on burning fuel and pollutants cannot be permitting m the U.S Since the SIL is so low. EPA published the cited guidance to develop a modeling "work around" for the NSR ambient air quality analysis, but it costs thousands of dollars more in modeling resources and requires a case-by-case EPA approval and importantly oftenfads. There are no NO2 nonattainment areas in the country, and no ambient air monitors can detect excess NO2 so the SIL can safely be increased to support domestic manufacturers with slate of the art pollution equipment NEDA/CAP Recommendations for Evaluation of Existing EPA < lean Air Act Regulations & Policies Docket No. EPA-HQ-OA-2U17-0I90 NAME OE REGULATION Bricf Description B.8 Rcpeal and Replace lhe Dfinition of "Bgin Actual Construction" C ITATION to C.F.K. & FED. REG. Issue Description (Hvi) criteria listed at 82 Fed. Reg. 17.793. CoU 42 USC 7475(aMl). 7479(2X11.40CF R 52 2l(bX).4O C.F R 51 !66<bX 11). 40 C FR 51 l65(aM 1 Xxv). 40 C F R 51 .Appendix S II. A 17 (definitions of "begin actual construction"); see also hups www etu gox nsr newxmityy-roicw-polish -and- guidance-docunxnt-mdex such as httns ena giw sites production tiles 2015- o~ documents 1^*51215 rdf) PSD and a NNSR permits are "construction permits." and thus PSD applicants arc not allowed to "begin actual construction" before a NSR permit is issued Conflicting EPA and State guidance exists on what "begin actual construction" means, and EPA has issued CAA Notices of Violation I NOVs) for activHies only peripherally related to an emissions unit, such as sue lighting, demolition of emission units to be retired or replaced, electrical installation for a new budding or section of a budding, construction of budding footings, digging drainage conduits, and budding excavation (unrelated to the emission unit pad itself) Given the length of time it takes to get NSR permits, preconstruction<typically at least lOto 18 months), prc-pcnmt activities that are not "on an emission unit" te g. a boiler, or storage tank) can help expedite projects (particularly in parts of the country with severe weather), and should be allowed al the project proponent s own risk even though they may be directly related to a project to install or modify NSR affected emissions units The construction of foundations, buddings, and tie-ins to existing process units are examples of activities that should be allowed poor to permit issuance (A "tie-in" is piping and other equipment, including cut-off valves, used to connect or link tie . tie-in") other equipment, either directly or indirectly ) (1) Eliminates jobs, or inhibits job creation: (tv) Creates a serious inconsistency or otherwise interferes with regulatory reform initiatives and policies Sav ings/econotnic impact information file global market place and speed to market easily trump EPA's conteclure that it is more difficult for EPA or a Stale to disapprove a permit application if a company has not spent money on it yet It also is easier, safer, and less expensive to install tie ins during turnarounds, as opposed to hot tapping while the unit is running to facilitate installation of an emitting unit, once its PSD permit application is approved. Page 9 NEDA/CAP Recommendations for Evaluation of Existing EPA ( lean Air Act Regulations X Policies Docket Xo. EPA-HQ-OA-20I7-0I90 NAME OF REGULATION Brief Description B.9 "Project Netting" - Repeal and Replace Current Agency Policies B.I0 "Fugitive Emissions" - With draw Illegal EPA Stay of Rule Exempting from XSR Applicability Determinations for Plant Expansions in Many Industry Sectors CITATION toC.F.R. & FED. REG. Issue Description 42 U.S C 7475 (PSD Permit Applicability); "Project netting" w ould allow a company to replace a piece of equipment or a process with another piece of equipment or process quickly. -- provided that the new equipment has similar or lesser environmental impacts on a per-unit-of-production bisis In such instances, however. EPA requires a full facility-wide emission netting analysis, aggregating emissions increases and decreases for every project undertaken at a plant over a five-year period This is unnecessary and discourages equipment replacement EPA should streamline the procedures for project netting by finalizing a proposed September 14. 2006 rule (71 Fed. Reg 54,235) that allowed certain types of project netting 42 I ,S.< . 7602(j); 40 < 1 R 51.165 (aXhXO |exd. in def. of "major modification" in nonattainment areas); 5l.l66(bX2Xh) |exd. in def. of "major modification" in PSD areas for fugitive emissions; 52.2l(bX2Xiv). 75 Fed Reg l6.OI2(Mar 31.2010). 76 Fed Reg 23,4X9 (Apr 27.2011) Fugitive emissions are defined by EPA guidance as emissions that can neither be readily captured nor prevented See eg. T Curran, EPA. "Interpretation ofthe Definition of Fugitive F.mmmtu" (Feb 10.1999) Sec also 40 C FR 51 I66tbx 1 land 51 l65(aXiv) EPA violated CAA 7607(d)(7) and finalized an "Interim Final Rule" on Mar 30, 2011. 76 Fed Reg 17.54X (Mar 30, 2011). without notice and public comment rulemaking, indefinitely stay ing a Dec 19. 2008 regulations (73 Fed Reg 77.881), which excluded consideration of fugitive emissions from certain manufacturing sectors in determining whether a plant expansion was a "major modification" and needed a NSR permit (Hvi) criteria listed al 82 Fed. Reg. 17,793. CoU information (i) Eliminates jobs, or inhibits job creation: (ii) Is ou Id a fed. unnecessary, or ineffective; (iv) Creates a serious inconsistency or otherwise interferes with regulatory reform initiatives and policies The stay ing of 73 Fed Reg 77.881 and issuance of the Intenm Final Rule (76 Fed Reg 17.548) violates CAA Section3O7(dX7xB). which docs not allow EPA to indefinitely slay effective final regulations w ithout rulemaking as well as 7602(j) that requires rulemaking for an industry before fugitives are included in "major source" determinations____________ Project netting would keep domestic manufacturing jobs at home, and EPA can modify its regulations to assure that small energy efficiency improvements provided by like-kind replacements (e g. pros ided by better metallurgy, etc ) by like-kind replacement equipment will protect production and the environment Some projects trigger NSR PSD review, with lengthy delays to gel permits and significant control costs, simply because of fugitive emissions (often from material handling like wood or chip piles, piles of agricultural materials used to make ethanol or seed oils, minerals, coal, etc ) If fugitive emissions were excluded, many more projects would move forward, and more quickly. improving domestic manufacturing's economic competitiveness Page 10 NEDA NEDVCAP Recommendations for Evaluation of Existing EPA Clean Air Act Regulations il Policies Docket No. EPA-HQ-OA-2I7-0I90 NAME OF REGULATION Brief Description B. 11 ~Ambient Air" Interpretations Repeal and Replaee EPA to Pros ide a More Realistic Meaning Regarding Public Access and Potential Exposure to Emissions, Particularly in Air Modeling B. 12 C ombined Heat and Poss er (CUP) Projects - Replace Emission Netting Rules to Pros ide Incent is es for CUP Projects. CITATION to C.F.R.& FEU REG. Issue Description (i)-(vi) criteria listed at 82 Fed. Reg. 17,793. CoU CAA 42 US C $ 7475(aX3). ("PSD modeling requirements") `.Ambient air" is not defined by the CAA but is defined at 40 C F R 50 1(e) as the "portion of the atmosphere, external to buildings, to which the general public has access 1 PA has re-interpreted the definition mans times-- wr EPA NSR DETTERMINATION Index https www era gov nsr new-source-review-pohcs-and-guidancedocument-index; - and made unreasonable determinations that the public has access to areas like a fenced train railroads, roads and nsers. and independent contractor-operated property in the middle of a "source" that is otherwise owned and operated by the same person (t e. the definition of "major source") The definition of "ambient air" is pivotal to PSD modeling outcomes because it delineates the location of receptors for which ambient air quality impacts must be analyzed Placing air dispersion receptors in the modeling grid in tile middle ofa ource, where the general public is highly unlikely to be exposed to pollutants for more than a few moments, greatly increases the likelihood that a source will be shown in air dispersion modeling to "cause or contribute to" a NAAQS violation, leading to unnecessary , but costly, control measures or abandonment of a proposed project 40CFR S51 IMibXDiaXIXik-IOCF.R $ 52 ltbx 1). 52 21 (bMH)NSR Program Definitions of Major Stationary Source and or "major emitting facility") that include the requirement for a source to be ow ned or operated by the "same person" have thwarted dozens of energy-efficiency and environmentally beneficial CUP projects over the past three decades because a cogeneration plant is generally not owned or operated by the manufacturer, who wants to an independent power provider or municipal utility to provide steam to the manufacturing process at the same time the power plant is generating electricity to the t' S power grid Since the CUP plant therefore is not under "common control." emission decreases from the manufacturer's existing (higher-emitting) steam plant cannot be "netted" with emissions increases from the new (cleaner and more efficient) CHP plant, which would avoid PSD or NNSR permuting altogether (or at least greatly streamline permitting! 1 PA should reinterpret redefine (n ) Creates a serious inconsistency or otherwise interferes with regulatory reform initiatives and policies These modeling decisions defining "ambient air" should be left up to States and EPA should replace guidance (Hi) Imposes costs that eicccd benefits (iv) ( reales a serious inconsistency or otherwise interferes with regulatory reform initiatives and policies Savings/economic impact information EPA's ambient air policy causes many projects to show modeled violations of NAAQS. meaning sources must install expensive controls or take other measures to reduce pollutant impacts or cancel projects because the needed controls make the projects uneconomic Requiring placement of receptors w here real exposures are likely to occur for relevant durations for the NAAQS in question, typically outside the boundaries of a source 's property, would mitigate these negative economic impacts CUP projects (hat produce process steam for indusinal lines and electricity for public consumption or to regional power grids are meritorious and could be allowed by modifying EPA's anachronistic netting rules to allow these projects, even if they are not under common control or ow nership Changing the rules as suggested could also result in emissions decreases, by including regulatory Page 11 NEDA/CAP Recommendations for Evaluation of Existing El*A (.'lean Air Act Regulations & Policies Docket No. EPA-HQ-OA-2017-4)190 NAMEOF REGULATION Brief Description B.I3 Replace NSR Policies on NSR Application "Completeness Determinations" - CITAT1ON to C.F.R. & FED. REG. Issue Description ((Hvi) criteria listed at 82 Fed. Reg. 17.793, Col J Savings/cconomic impact information the first prong of the three-part definition of "major source" to redefine common control for CHP project review to treat the host and the owner, operator of the power plant as being "under common control/1 42 I .S.C. 7475(c) requires that States anti the EPA grant or deny a NSR application within one year. Avenal Power Center LLC v. EPA. 787 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C. 2011). S. Page, "Timely Processing of Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permits when EPA or a PSD-Delegated Air Agency Issues the Permit (Oct. 12. 2012). Completeness determinations" are critical for establishing a bright line for grandfathering NSR applications when a NAAQS is revised or another critical CAA regulation changes and are high on the list of why American manufacturers lake nets product lines abroad to avoid typical lengthy permitting delays for new major sources and major source expansions in the US EPA and state regulators "game the system" utilizing completeness determinations to control workflow le g., through belated and/or repealed requests for additional application information) in order lo "re-slart" ihe clock, thereby slowing Ihe permit review process Thus the 12-month period for obtaining a NSR permit can stretch for years EPA must repeal old policies and establish a bright line test on which reasonable people can agree regarding 'completeness determinations." An application which contains sufficient information for the permitting authority lo begin work on the review should be considered lo be complete, and only the failure of the applicant lo provide additional information reasonably requested by the permuting authority w ithin a reasonable time should stop (but not reset) the clock (i) Eliminates jobs, or inhibits job creation; (iv) Creates a serious inconsistency or otherwise interferes with regulatory reform initiatives and policies mechanisms like discounts CHP plants are inherently more efficient than utility umis because the steam from a Cl IP unit is used twice Plants that have added CHP are less costly to operate and less reliant on uncertain electricity grid pricing and is also consistent with smart grids promoted by DOE and the FERC for reliabilitv IF ihe PSD one-year time line were implemented as intended by Congress, it would accelerates economic benefits because projects are no longer delayed and likely to encourage more expansion of product lines in the U.S discouraged by the long review periods typically associated with PSD review NEDA/CAP Rccomnwnthlions for Evaluation of IAisling EPA (lean Vir Act Regulations Policies Docket No. EPA-IIQ-OA-20I7-0I90 NAME OF REGULATION Brief Description C ITATION lo C.F.R. & FED. REG. Issue Description (Hvi) criteria list'd al 82 Fed. Reg. 17,793, CoU Savings/economic impact information B. 14 "Pianist ide Applicability Limits (PALs)"- Modify NSR Regulations to Broaden Opportunities to Ctili/c PALs B.IS Replace methods for calculating whether certain physical changes or changes in the method of operation of a source is subject to NSR. 42 1 .S.C. 7602(e) (definition of "stationary source"); 40 C.F.R, 51.166(bX2 X ) and (w ) (definition and rules applying to PALs); Chevron USA Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council Inc.. 467 I .S. 837 (1984); A'<w For* v. EP I. 413 F.3d 3 (D.C. < ir. 2005) (upholding PALs). There is no question that PALsare legal and that they result in emission reductions and innovative process and conlrol technologies The EPA regulations are too restrictive and thus many companies do not consider the use of PALs One of the easiest and best ways Io encourage PALs would be to allow "mtni-PALs" instead of requiring "plant-wide'' PALs. especially for logical equipment groupings like "all tanks in a tank farm" or "process heaters in specific production areas " Most plants are enormous even allowing "west-side or south-side PALs would be environmentally and economically beneficial In addition, eliminating requirements to reset PALs every 10 years, eliminating the ability of permit authorities or EPA to reopen PALs at any time, and eliminating restrictions on terminating PALs. would lead to a significant increase in their use. pros iding long-term certaintv to domestic manufacturers IL 13 BASIC -EMISSIONS INCREASE" MAPI - The 2002 NSR Reform Rule provided needed clarifications and revisions to how manufacturer calculate whether a ` physical change or change in the method of operation" to an existing 'major source" resulted in a significant increase in emissions and is therefore subject to NSR 67 fed Reg 80.1 6(Dec 31,2002) However, other revisions clarifications for calculating emissions increases under a Plant wide Applicability Limit (PAL) or for debottlenecked equipment and in other contexts were unclear and often unreasonable Clarifications Io the method for calculating emissions increases are needed: ( 1 ) Eliminate the need to consider emissions increases from non modi fled affected emission units; (2 (e.g.. "debottlenecking)" (ii) Allow "project netting*' so that emissions reductions associated with a project can he considered in Step 1 of the PSD applicability analysis: (J) Establish a more-flexible PAL program that includes a (i) Eliminates jobs, or inhibits job creation: (iv) Creates a serious inconsistency or otherwise interferes with regulatory reform initiatives and policies (i) Eliminates jobs, or inhibits job creation; (iv) Creates a serious inconsistency or otherwise interferes with regulatory reform initiatives and policies See EPA's assessment of the cost savings and striking environmental benefits of approved PALs in "Evaluation of Implementation Experiences with Innovative Air Permits" (2002). which was cited with approval by the 1) C Circuit in .Veu Yorii 1 https www yna eov sites rio dwlion files 201?>0 documents eval implementation-experiencesmnwauvc-uir-pcmnts pdf Encourages replacing old equipment with new. more efficient equipment, reduces permitting costs for domestic manufacturers; accelerates the benefits tliat accrue from expanded, modernized facilities, and or allows projects that would be shelved due to NSR-requtred controls to move forward NEDA/CAP Recommendations for Evaluation of Existing EPA Clean Air Act Regulations & Policies Docket No. EPA-HQ-OA-2017-0190 NAME OF REGULATION Brief Description CITATION to C.F.R. & FED. REG. Issue Description (i)-(vi) criteria listed at 82 Fed. Reg. 17,793. ColJ simplified "facility-wide actuals" emission test under which NSR is not triggered if facility-wide actual emissions for a given pollutant may not increase by greater than the respective significant emission rate; and (4) Use a Baseline Actual-to-Post-Project Actual comparison or NSPS hourly increase methodology to determine whether PSD is triggered. B.U.a. EMISSION NETTING ( AK I LM IONS EPA also should revise its guidance concerning the inclusion ofactualto-projcctcd actual (A 1 PA) calculations in a netting analysis when the ATPA occurred within the netting contemporaneous project w indow . The current approach discourages the retirement of older, higher-emissions manufacturing equipment that can be replaced with modem manufacturing processes that answer demands in the global marketplace The current approach uses, this unnecessarily conservative environmental protectionism, which has been was discouraged by Congress in balancing environmental protection with economic development 42 U.S.C tj 7470(3) B.l3.b CURRENT REGULATIONS REGARDING I DE CALCULATION OF EMISSIONS INCREASES ASSUME THAT ANY UNIT THAT HAS UNDERGONE X NON ROUTINE PHYSICAL CHANGE "has noi begun normal operation", and hence the manufacturer may not compare projected actual emissions from that unit with historical emissions, but instead must base NSR applicability on the unit's potential to emit (because it has not begun normal operations) This is unreasonable and subjects manufacturers to NSR despite other constraints that limit projected actual emissions, leading results in manufacturers to abandon or relocating projects. EPA should amend 40 C.FR 51 J66(bX47Xiii) B.I3.C Amend Plantwide Applicability Calculation Method tn provide a comparison of "allowable |PAL| emissions" before and after a modification." Savings/cconomic impact information Page 14 NEDA NED VCAP Rrcommcndalions for Evaluation of Existing EP X Clean Air Act Regulations & Policies Docket No. EPA-IIQ-OA-20I7-0I90 NAME OF REGULATION Brief Description CITATION toC.F.R. & FED. REG. Issue inscription (iHvi) criteria listed at 82 Fed. Reg. 17.793.CoM Savings/cconomic impact information B.I6 Repeal 2016 Agency "Regional Consistency Rule." Stay C urrent Rule, and Ask Court to Hold Litigation in Abeyance Pending Reconsideration 42 I .S.C . 760l(aM2>: 40 C.F.R. $$56.1-6: XI Fed Reg 51.102 (Aug 3. 2016) ("Amendments to Regional Consistency Regulations.)" Fhc CAA unambiguously requires liPA to make regionally consistent permit decisions to "level the playing Geld for capital investment and permitting across all stales I Jntil 2016. following a unanimous decision bv the DC Circuit Court of Appeals enforcing EPA's own regional consistency regulations, EPA regulations echoed the CAA following that decision. SEDA CAP v EPA. 752 F 3d 999 (DC Cir 2014). which vacated an EPA directive to the ten EPA Regions to ignore a 6'h Circuit ruling holding that EPA lacked authority under its own regulations to require a Title V operating permit for Summit based on ilk' aggregated emissions from gas wells across 31 miles. EPA amended 40 C F R 56 regulations to erase the consistency requirement and allow the agency to engage in "intercircuit nonacquiescence ' The amendments have been challenged by industry as contrary to the consistency requirements ofSection 301(a)(2) ofthe ('.4.4 and briefing h /// mu be final until fall 2017. (SEDA CAP v EPA, D C Cir No 16-1344) (rv) ( reales a serious inconsistency or otherwise interferes with regulatory reform initiatives and |olicics Violates the C AA Any inconsistency in permitting policy between regions creates uncertainly for manufacturers subject to Title V operating permits and preconstruction permitting, and favors certain states and regions over others potentially resulting in a misallocation of resources EPA should request a remand of the 2016 regulation from the DC Circuit and withdraw the rule in order to prevent "forum shopping*' and make preconstruction permitting consistent across the country. B.I7 Modify the Court-vacated NSR Exclusion for "Pollution Control Projects (PCPs)" From 1994 until 2005. when the federal DC Circuit Court of /Xppeals held that (he codification of the NSR PCP exclusion in the 2002 NSR Reform Rule was inconsistent with the Clean Air Act in .Veu York v. EPA. 413 1 3d 3 (2005). PCPs were exempted from NSR even if incidental increases of other pollutants occurred that exceeded the NSR significance levels (i c . generally NOx or CO increased from the energy required to run the pollution control devices) EPA should revise its regulations to provide presumptive NSR approval of PCPs if they meet the EPA 1994 PCP policy and the Ao* York v EPA. (is) Creates a serious inconsistency or otherwise interferes with regulatory reform initiatives and policies Modification of the PCP Policy rule would allow net 'environmentally beneficial" projects to proceed without undergoing NSR EPA should be encouraging the use of PCPs. current policy does not Page 15 NEDA/CAP Rci-ommcndations for Evalualion of Existing EPA ( lean Air Act Regulations & Policies Docket No. EPA-HQ-OA-2017-0190 NAME OF REGULATION Brief Description CITATION to C.F.R. & FED. REG. Issue Description (iXvi) criteria listed at 82 Fed. Reg. 17.793. Col.3 Savings/cconomic impact information B. 18 "Significant Emission Rate (SERP for GHGs vsith a Higher Value - Repeal PSD BACT Review for GIIG Emissions When a "Major Modification" Triggers PSD for Another "Regulated NSR Pollutant" or Replace Proposed GIIG B.I9 Streamline NSR for Modifications at "Clean Units" 40 C.F.R. 51.166 (b)(48); proposed 40 C.F.R. 51,166 (h)(31) with parallel changes to 5Z.21 (b)(31). 70.2 and 71.2 in 51.166(0X23)and 52.21(b)(23)(i); 81 Fed Reg 68.110(Oct. 3. 2016) I "Proposed Revisions to the PSD and Title I ' GHG Permitting Regulations and Establishment ofa Significant Emissions Rate (SER) for Greenhouse Gas (GIIG) Emissions under the PSD Program Proposed Rule ") The Supreme Court ruled in Utility Air Regulatory Group V. EPA. 134 S Ct 2427 (2014k that 1 PA could not apply NSR or Title V Operating Permit requirements to "major sources" or 'major modifications" based solely on emissions of GHG. but might still require NSR BACT review of "significant" GHG increases when NSR is triggered for other NSR-regulated air pollutants The current GHG significant emission rate (SER) level is 75,000 tpy CO;elons year Justice Scalia pointed out that there was no basis for the value, but EPA proposed to retain that value in the 2016 rulemaking w hen it is clear thal GHGs do not affect ambient air quality and the value should be much, much higher if EPA continues lo demand BACT review for GHGs. The CAA provides for special Irealmem of clean and innovative technologies under the provisions New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) at 1 1 hj) In the 2002 NSR Reform Rule, EPA attempted to provide NSR relief for a certain number of years for ' clean units" that met BACT and lowest achievable emissions rate (LAER), based on the agency sjudgment that pollution control technology does not rapidly improve The DC, Circuit held that the "clean unit" exclusion from NSR violated the CAA in Aeu' York 1, sitpra. (iv) Creates a serious inconsistency or otherwise interferes with regulatory reform initiatives and policies (i) Eliminates jobs or inhibits job creation; (iv) Creates a serious inconsistency or otherwise interferes with regulator) reform initiatives and policies Even though the Supreme Court found it to be within EPA's discretion, review of GHG BACT controls results in delays of NSR permits, added pollution control costs, and a disincentive to domestic manufacturing when there is. EPA should incentivize manufacturers to build in America and install "clean units." by adopting a conditional NSR exclusion for a set period of years for units that have undergone NSR and installed BACT or LAER. alternatively. EPA should streamline NSR applicability to changes that occur at clean units by not applying additional BACT review or modeling to reduce NSR PSD permitting costs and provides regulatory certainty Page 16 NEDA XED.VCAP Rccomnwndatiunx for Evaluation of Existing EPA ( Iran Air Act Regulations & Policies Docket \o. EPA-IIQ-OA-20I7-0I90 NAME OF REGl'LATION Brief Description CITATION toGF.R & FED. REG. Issue Description (iH*i) criteria listed at 2 Fed. Reg. 17,793. CoU Savings/economic impact information O NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS ("NESHAPs") (.U. "MACT Standards") and FEDERAL NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ("NSPS") C'.l Issue Revised Final Roilcr MAC1 Emissions Limits As Soon As Possible. 42 r.S.C\ 7412(d); 411 ( .F.R. 63 Subparts JJJJJJ, DDDDD U.S. Sugar v. EPA. 830 F.3d 579 (D.C. ( ir. 2016) (ordering EPA to vacate and revise IC 7 bolter MAC T limits). EPA has been working on boiler MACT since 1996 through al least three iterations, many companies have alreadv stranded' capital in the form of controls at least twice, and are ready for regulatory certainty EPA should revise and reissue final standards as soon as possible (h) ( rentes a venous inconsistency or otherw ise interferes with regulatory reform initiatives and policies Expeditious issuance of the final MACT limits is required by law. If EPA docs not finalize this rule with recent emissions testing data, as required by the DC Circuit, it "new ' stack testing (at a cost of SI5.OOO-S3O.OOO each stack) could be required, which would be unnecessary and duplicative C.2 Repeal the MAC I "Once In, Always In" Policy 42 U.S.C. tj 7412(d) (NESHAPS/a.k.. "MACT Standards"); J. Seitz. "Potential to Emit for M \< 1 Standards - Guidance on Timing Issues" (May 16. 1995); 72 Fed. Reg. 69 (Jan. J. 2007) [Proposed rule to withdraw Once In Policy). Current EPA policy says that once you have triggered MACT. you are forever bound to all the requirements of the underlying MACT standard, even if you replace or retire equipment or otherwise reduce emissions by substituting non-Hazardous Air Pollutants 11 lAPs) tn your process so that a source that you operate is no longer a MACT `major source. This acts as a disincentive to meeting market demands, responding to opportunities for use of innovative technologies, lowering or eliminating 11 Al' emissions, and being a responsive corporate citizen (iv) Creates a serious inconsistency or otherwise interferes with regulatory reform initialises and policies \ot required by law. Maintaining compliance and recordkeeping when processes have eliminated HAP emissions or the source has controlled its IIAPs below a NESI lAPs applicability level is equivalent to the costs EPA quantified in the Regulatory Impact Analysts for each MACT Since Title V permits can contain restrictions to maintain minor source status, there is no need for this policy NEDA/CAP Recommendations for Evaluation of Existing EPA Clean Air Act Regulations & Policies Docket No. EPA-HQ-OA-2017-0190 NAME OF REGULATION Brief Description CITATION to C.F.R. & FED. REG. Issue Description (Hvi) criteria listed at 2 Fed. Reg. 17.793, Col.3 Savings/cconomic impact information C.3. Replace AU MACT and NSPS Standards Applicable to Small Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (RICE) and in the Interim, Enforce Only the Most Egregious Violations. C.4 Withdraw Proposed NSPS if The) are Not Finalized within Five Years. 42 I.S.C. 7412(d): 40 C.F.R. Part 63. Suhpart ZZZZ (RICE MACT); 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subparts Illi and JJJJ (RICE NSPS): All (NSPS)RICE are subject to EPA standards, including area sources, but the regulations have been amended so many times that it is diflic ult for owners and operators to understand the standards' application to equipment, including but not limited to emergency fire pump engines; gasoline engines; and uncontrolled emergency engines used for "demand response" to aven voltage sag and collapse of the U.S power grid Many of the requirements, besides being complicated to understand, provide very limited environmental benefit but place a large burden on manufacturers Many of these requirements are unnecessary since the RICE manufacturers are already subject to separate certification requirements Also replace RICE MACT work practice requirements changing oil and filters and inspecting air cleaners, hoses, and belts should be based on actual run lime of the units instead of calendar time Using calendar time creates additional operating expenses and environmental impact (waste generation) with little environmental benefit For example, the current rule requires and operator to Change oil and filter every 1.000 hours of operation or annually. whichever comes first; Inspect air cleaner every 1.000 hours of operation or annually. whichever comes first, and replace as necessary; Inspect all hoses and belts every 500 hours of operation or annuallv. whichever comes first, and replace as nccessarv 42 U.S.C. 7411(a)(2). 40 CFR 60 is interpreted to mean that after the day of proposal of a NSPS. a newly constructed or modified will be subject to the NSPS if and when finalized. This prevents new sources from circumventing "`new"' NSPS. hut here are about a dozen, maybe more, proposed NSPS for various industries (e g . 40 CFR 60. Subpart YY) that were proposed decades ago but have never been finalized. EPA should create a regulatory mechanism that withdraws these proposed NSPS rules expire if the agency does not take final action within a reasonable time. (iii) Imposes costs that exceed benefits The regulation is messy and unclear, creating potential enforcement vulnerability The RICE Work Practice Standards requiring annual replacement of oil. filters, hosesand belts is unnecessary for equipment that only operates between 50-100 hours annually (mostly for readiness testing to assure that it can operate during an emergency) (iv) Creates a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with regulatory reform initiatives and policies * 42 1 .S.C. 7607(b), (d) require proposed rules become final before they can lie adjudicated. Replacement of this rule with a clearer set of applicability provisions, reasonable testing & recordkeeping requirements for fire pumps and emergency engines, and organization to remedy the number of times the rule has been amended would increase clarity, certainty and compliance While this rulemaking is going on. NEDA/CAP recommends that EPA enforcement stands down except in the case of egregious violation of the standards /X regulation that imposes emission limits and other conditions of operation on a "major affected source" has clear cost implications If a final action on a proposed rule has not been taken aller five years, fairness and equity demand it be withdrawn Page 18 NEDA/CAP Recommendations for Evaluation of Existing EPA Clean Air Act Regulations & Policies Docket No. EPA-HQ-OA-20I7-BI90 NAME OF REGULATION Brief Description CITATION to C.F.R.& FED. REG. Issue Description (i)-(vi) criteria listed at 82 Fed. Reg. 17,793, Col.3 SavingSk/cconomic impact information C.5 Repeal or Replace the National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA). C.6 RepcalAVithdraw Proposed Revisions to Site Remediation Rule. See h Uns w ww era gov natnonal-air-toxies-asscssmem 2011 national-ai r-tosics-assess me nt. NA'IA is not required by the CAA. and in some respects is a vestige of the failure of the Act up until the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments to include air toxics In 2015. EPA released the results of its 2011 national-scale assessment of air toxic emissions, which is the first problem NATA is always based on data dial is "old " The purpose of NATA is lo identify and prioritize air toxics, emission source types, and locations that are of greatest potential concern in terms of contributing lo population risk EPA uses NATA (1)to work with communities in designing their own local scale assessments, (2) to set priorities tor improving data in emissions inventories, and (3) lo help direct prionlies for expanding and improving the network of air toxics monitoring Use of the outdated data for these purposes is inappropnate. (NATA is not required by law. is substantially weak when compared with toxics data collected and reported by industry under the NESHAPs (MACTs) for existing sources of hazardous air pollutants under the 1990 amendments, and the data it provides is old and misleading to the public i 42 I'.S.C. s 7412(d); SI Fed. Reg. 29,821 (May 13. 21) 16) (Proposed Amendments lo 40 C ER 63 Subpan GGGGG including the proposed removal in TOC F.R 63 7881 is amended by a Revising paragraphs (aK2> introductory text. (aX2(i) and (li), (a)(3) introductory text, and (bi introductory text, b Removing paragraphs (bX2) and < 3); and c Redesignating paragraphs (b)(4) through (6) as (bx2) through (4)). The proposed revisions lo (he site remediation NESHAP would remove exemptions from the rule for site remediation activities performed under authority of the Comprehensive Environmental Response and Compensation Liability Act (CERCLA) and for site remediation activities performed under a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective action or other required RCRA order (ii) Are outdated, unnecessary; or ineffective. (Hi) Imposes costs that exceed benefits; (iv) Creates a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with regulators reform initiatives and policies (iii) Impuses costs that exceed benefits; Duplicative and Inconsistent Regulation with 40 C.F.R. 264-265 RCRA Onsite Waste Management Requirements (TSDF Standards) Il is unclear how much the EPA Offices of Research and Development and Air Quality Planning and Standards invest annually in maintaining NATA in terms of resources, but expenditure of any more money on this program is far in excess of its usefulness. The additional CAA costs of compliance are entirely unnecessary' when these activities are regulated under RCRA and or CERCLA. and there is potential additional liability for dual federal regulations of the same activity Page 19 NEDA/CAP Recommendations for Evaluation of Existing EPA Clean Air Act Regulations & Policies Docket No. EPA-HQ-OA-2017-0190 NAME OF REGULATION B rief Description CITATION toGF.R. & FED. REG. Issue Description (Hvi) criteria listed al 82 Fed. Reg. 17,793, Col.3 Savings/economic impact information C.7 Modify Proposed Risk & Technology Rule (RTR) for Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs). 42 U.S.C. 7412(d)(6), (f); 40 C.F.R. 63 Subpart VVV, Hl Fed. Reg. 95J52 (Dec. 27, 2016). In the proposed revisions to the POTW RTR Rule. EPA determined that under 7412(f). that the Section 112 MACT category of POTWs does not represent any residual risk, but also proposed significant new requirements, including but not limited to pretreatment requirements for direct and indirect dischargers into POTWs requiring dischargers to adopt VOC pretreatment programs as a condition of the MACT. The proposed new standard is not only unnecessary but it is in violation of the Clean Waler Act (CW A) and 40 CFR 403 (de ve lopment of pret reatme nt standards ) E P A ' s basis for this costly and significant change is that this revision would be consistent with future changes in CW A regulations See SI Fed Reg 95.373 Please note that a POTW may already develop a local limit to reduce or eliminate a discharge of a pollutant from a particular discharger without selling a nation-wide air standard. (iii) Imposes costs that exceed benefits: EPA erroneously concludes that this new POTW requirement will not cost anything. See 81 Fed Reg at 95,373, Implementing the proposed changes to the POTW RTR Rule would potentially cost indirect and direct discharges millions of dollars in capital and up to $1 million for annual maintenance and operation, depending on the size of the facility. A POTW may already develop a local limit to reduce or eliminate a discharge of a pollutant from a particular discharger withortf setting a nation-wide air sfandard C.8 Repeal or Replace Modify NSPS anti NESHAPS Methane Monitoring Requirements. C9 Modify H1 R Rule for Refineries and Other Industries Requiring "Fenccline Monitoring." 42 I .SX. 7411(b); 40 C.F.R. 60 Subpart OOOOa; 81 l ed. Reg. 35.824 (June 6. 2016) (Methane Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR) program revisions}. 77 Fed. Reg. 49490 (Aug. 16. 2012) (VOC NSPS Part OOOO). EPA's 2016 "methane LDAR program" regulates the same emission points as the 2012 NSPS Subpan OOOO. There is little or no evidence that the 2016 rule's incremental benefits provide regulatory justification for revisions, particularly since implementation of the 2012 NSPS has resulted in a decline of methane emissions by 13.3% despite a 400% increase m U S. shale gas production 42 u s e. 7412<dX6).(0; 40 C ER 63 Subpart CC at 40 CFR 63 658; 80 Fed Reg 75.177 (Dec. 1.2015), EPA determined in the RTR Rule that there was no residual risk from Group 1 and Group 2 refineries, see page 75,187-8. but nonetheless the agency adopted expensive fenceline monitoring requirements for affected refineries, ostensibly to study fugitive emissions from facilities and because such monitors would make surrounding communities feel safer There are not rigid monitoring protocols for such fugitives monitoring, and there are no compliance emission limits from the monitors (iii) Imposes costs that exceed benefits; (unnecessarily duplicative with 2012 rulemaking for VOC sources. (iii) Imposes costs that exceed benefits; not the least of which is the potential to suggest improperly to the public that emissions levels are not incompliance with law. Not required by law. EPA "conservatively" estimated that capital cost of the 2016 revisions will be S250 mm in 2020 and 8360 mm with O & M and recordkeeping reporting costs of$390* S640 mm in 2020 2025 See.81 Fed Reg. at 35886. EPA estimated the total capital cost offenceline monitoring to be S 12 5 million with $6 36 million in annual maintenance and operation costs See 80 Fed Reg, 75.226 Table 2 Industry believes the overall sector costs will be higher Page 20 NEDA XED/VCAP Recommendations for Evaluation of Existing EPA Clean \ir \ct Regulations & Policies Docket Xo. EPA-HQ-OA-20I7-0I90 NAME OF REGULATION Brief Description (.10 Amend XSPS and XESHAPs to Include High Pressure (round Harr* CITATION to C.F.R. & FED. REG. Issue Description 42 I .S.< . $$ 7411<bk 7412(d): 40 CFR 60.1 (\SPS) and 6111 (NESHAP). Currentlv high pressure ground flares arc not covered by NSPS or NESHAP standards and thus require EPA's approval of an Alternative Monitoring Emission 1 imitation for each Hare, which inhibits new project developments since approval can take months or years and currently requires a federal register notice proposal, public comment and final federal register approval in addition to those associated with NSR permitting public notice requirements (iHvi) criteria listed at 82 Fed. Reg. 17.793. Col.3 Sav ings/economic impact information (i) Eliminate job*, or inhibit job creation; (ii) arc outdated, unnecessary, or incfTccthe Questions regarding ground flares and approv al of case specific alternative monitoring methods for ground flares weigh in decisions to site projects in the US and lead to less efficient control technology selection Continued on Next Pane NEDA/CAP Recommendations for Evaluation of Existing EPA ( lean Air Act Regulations & Policies Doc ket No. E PA-11Q-OA-2 017-0190 NAME OF REGULATION Brief Description CITATION to C.F.R. & FED. REG. Issue Description (iXvi) criteria listed at 82 Fed. Reg. 17,793, Col.3 Savings7economic impact information I). 1 Repeal or Reconsider the Regulation of Non Ozone Depleting Substitutes under C AA Title VI Section 608 Refrigerant Management Rule and Section 612 Significant New Alternatives Policy ("SNAP") Program Based Solely on their GWP. 1). CAA TITLE VI - OZONE DEPLETING SUBSTANCES CODS") AND NON-ODS SUBSTITUTES Montreal Protocol: Clean Air Act Title VI, 42 U.S.C. 7671- (iii)imposes economic costs Without consideration of 767 lq ("Regulation of Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS)"); 11 ] that exceed benefits benefits using the social cost 40 C.F.R. 82.151 (def.); 156-157 as amended by 81 Fed. Reg. (vi) derives from or of carbon, the Regulatory 82,272 (Nov, 18, 2016) CVVpfeiViwr ofStratospheric Ozone: Update i triplements Executive Impact Assessment indicates to the Refrigerant Management Requirements Under the Clean Air Orders or other that the costs of these rules .let ") unr/ Presidential directives that far exceed their benefits. |2| 42 l .S. C. 612;40 C.F.R. Part 82. Subpl G (SNAP Program). have been subsequently App B42 81 Fed. Reg. 86.778 (Dec. 1.2016) (SNAP Rule 21; 81 rescinded or substantially Replacement of comfort Fed. Reg.70,029 (Oct. II, 2016). modified. cooling, industrial refrigeration process units for [ 1! The Revised 2016 Refrigerant Management Regulations 40 CFR manufacturers who relied on Pan 82 Subpart F impose significant new regulatory requirements, CAA Sections 608 and 612 agency assurances that including but not limited to leak detection and repair and reporting are designed to implement replacement of non-leaking programs and retrofit retirement planning requirements for equipment the Montreal Protocol in the equipment with non-ODS using non-ODS Substitutes (based on their GWP potential) The new 1990 Clean Air Act substitutes would provide regulations also impose very harsh consequences for units on which Amendments, and the recent long-term assurances and leaks luve been repaired but recur `amendment" to the certainly to industry. EPA Protocol agreed to by the should however incentivize (2] Under the SNAP program, 40 CFR Part 82, App G. EPA listed U.S, in Kigali. Rwanda in the use of non-ODS non-ODS substances as unacceptable alternatives based on iheir GWP Fall 2016 must be presented refrigerants by expanding the Substitutes that arc non-ODS should not be listed as an unacceptable to the U.S. Senate for list of exempt refrigerants alternative for any use, based in whole or in pan on their GWP Note, ratification before the because it is not clear that hoHwer, that NEDA-CAP supports the acceptable alternatives Congress can amend the Act substitutes like propane and determinations in each ofthese rules. Including but not limited to: to regulate non-ODS other flammable VOCs are substitutes under the either safe or provide reliable For Fire suppression and explosion protection end-uses, subject to refrigerant management use conditions, as of January 3. 2017 for and/or SNAP program cooling needs to current nonODS " 2-bromo-3,3,3-tri fluoroprop-l -ene (2-BTP) as a total Also note that this regulation flooding agent for use in engine nacelles and auxiliary' power applies to institutional units (APUs) on aircraft: and (hospital, church, school, 2-BTP as a streaming agent for use in handheld extinguishers government, etc -owned air in aircraft conditioners) A 1 Page 22 NEDA/CAP Recommendations for Evaluation of Existing EPA Clean Air Act Regulations & Policies Docket No. EPA-HQ-OA-2017-0190 NAME OE REGULATION Brief Description CITATION toC.E.R. & EEI). REG. Issue Description (Hvi) criteria listed at 82 l ed. Reg. 17,793, CoU Savings/economic impact information E.l Modify Proposed Revisions of CAA Risk Management Rule E.2 Apply Good Faith Policy to the I se of EPA Emissions Factors, Including WebFIRE & AP-42 Factors. E.3 Modify the Title V Permit Objection Policy by Removing Retroactive NSR Applicability Issues from Consideration. E. OTHER CAA REGULAI ONS 42 U S C 7412(0.40 CF R 68; 82 Fed Reg 4.594 (Jan 13, (iii) Imposes costs that 2017). as delayed at 82 Fed Reg 8.499 (Jan 26. 2017) and 82 Fed (far) exceed benefits Reg 13.968 (Mar 16.2017) Specifically the "Safer Technology & Alternatives Analysis" ("STAA") al 68 67(c)(8) and in 68.3 (definitions) exceeds EPA's authority as docs disclosure of information (particularly information required to be managed as sensitive security information under the Chemical Facility Assessment rules administered by the US Dept of Homeland Security) Further, in 68 79-80. EPA has dramatically and unnecessarily expanded audits to require review of ALL records and ALL procedures versus allowing for the use of recognized audit protocols, which is wasteful and unnecessary. Emission factors, compiled by EPA on WebFIRE, Good public policy. hltns cfnub ena gov webtire index cfm 'action fire SearchEmissionF actors, are commonly used to estimate emissions from proposed new sources for purposes of New Source Review preconstruction permitting and to calculate compliance with CAA requirements, particularly where such emissions cannot be accurately measured. EPAs emissions reporting tools, pan of the 21 Century Emissions Reporting Project, continuously update new emission factors for industry sectors based on a variety of reported emissions data, including but not limited to stack-testing Thus, a source that was literally in compliance based on yesterday's emission factors may not be in compliance based on tomorrow's emission factor The CAA Enforcement Office should issue a good faith policy on industry's reliance on /MM 2 and emission factors while it continues to clean up the "old" ("C"- & "D" graded AP 42 emission factors) through ERT & WebFIRE 42 USC 7661(2Xb). 40 CFR 70 8(d). 7| 8 81 Fed Reg The courts apply the general 57.822 (Aug 24. 2016) (Proposed Rule to Improve Title V Petitions) federal 5-year statute of CAA Title V operating permits must be renewed every five years, limitations to NSR. (i e . the which affords the public to opportunity to comment on all applicable failure to obtain a required Title V requirements Environmental advocacy groups take advantage NSR permit), so EPA of this opportunity to make and renew--objections regarding a Title should apply the same EPA estimates that the annualized costs for the STAA analysis isS70 million, with little or no economic benefit form this "make work" provision EPA's civil policy includes daily fines of almost S50.000'per day per occurrence and. in some jurisdictions, operating without a valid preconstruction permit is viewed as a continuing violation Requiring EPA's Administrator to review historical NSR applicability is not constructive, especially as memories fade and personnel change It has NEDA/CAP Recommendations for Evaluation of Existing EPA Clean Air Act Regulations & Policies Docket No. EPA-HQ-OA-2017-0190 Nv AMMl-t n <>lt REGl LATIONBricf Description E.4 KPA Should Automatical!} Issue 705 Stays'* with Notices of Agency Reconsideration of Rules that arc Also 1 nder Judicial Res iew. CITATION loC.F.R & FED. REG. Issue Description (iHvi) criteria listed ut 82 Fed. Reg. 17.793. C oL3 V source s histone NSR compliance, including whether a source implemented BACT at the time when the permit was issued, which may be decades before These are two separate EPA programs, and NSR applicability review is not appropriate in the context of Title V permit renewal 5 I .S.C. 705. The Administrative Procedures Act provides that "When an agency finds that justice so requires, it mas postpone the effective date of action taken by it. pending judicial review l)n such conditions as may be required and to the extent necessary to prevent irreparable tnjurv. the reviewing court, including the court to which a case may be taken on appeal from or on application for certiorari or other writ to a reviewing court, mas issue all necessary and appropriate process to postpone the effective date of an agency action or to preserve status or rights pending conclusion of tire review proceedings " Statute of 1 imitations to Title V review of historic NSR applicability Further, with respect to projects for which an NSR permit was obtained, any objections should be brought in a timely, direct, and procedurally proper challenge to that permit and not in a Title V renewal proceeding Good public policy. Sav ings/cconomic impact information become a tremendous drain on stale permitting authorities. EPA. regulated entities, and the courts Millions of dollars in costs imposed by implementing regulations that are administratively and judicially challenged and reconsidered by EPA. could save the U S economy SS millions While EPA. on a case-by-case basis, can postpone effective date of any action taken by it pending judicial review, the reconsideration process and judicial review process can take years and frustrate the process for reconsidering regulations that the Administrator lias agreed are appropriate for reconsideration, unless the regulation itself is stay ed Adoption of an agency rule or police automatically stayring the implementation of a rule on which the Administrator has granted reconsideration would promote expeditious reconsideration of such regulations and save millions of dollars spent on implementation of some regulations that are ulttmatelv reconsidered Page 24