![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Request for Comment on Potentially Inadequate Monitoring in Clean Air Act Applicable Requirements and on Methods To Improve Such Monitoring
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: February 16, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 31)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 7905-7909]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr16fe05-20]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 70 and 71
[OAR-2003-0180; FRL-7873-9]
RIN 2060-AM63
Request for Comment on Potentially Inadequate Monitoring in Clean Air Act
Applicable Requirements and on Methods To Improve Such Monitoring
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Today's ANPR asks for public comment to help us identify
monitoring in applicable requirements under the Clean Air Act (Act)
that is potentially inadequate with respect to the statutory monitoring
requirements for operating permits issued under title V of the Act.
Today's ANPR also asks for public comment on ways to improve such
monitoring. The EPA believes that it will be more effective, more
equitable, and more efficient to improve inadequate monitoring in
applicable requirements, where necessary, through rulemakings to revise
the applicable requirements themselves or through other programmatic
approaches, rather than by addressing inadequate monitoring on a case-
by-case basis in the issuance and renewal of title V operating permits.
To inform EPA's consideration of improvements to existing monitoring,
today's ANPR seeks stakeholder input to identify inadequate monitoring
in certain Federal standards and State implementation plan (SIP) rules
and to suggest specific ways to improve such monitoring. Comments
received in response to today's ANPR will enable EPA to better evaluate
whether and where inadequate monitoring exists and to determine how to
craft any necessary improvements.
DATES: Comments. We must receive written comments on or before April
18, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. OAR-2003-
0180, by one of the following methods:
? Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
? Agency Web site: http://www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET,
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, is EPA's preferred
method for receiving comments. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
? E-mail: Send electronic mail (e-mail) to EPA Docket Center
at a-and-r-docket@epamail.epa.gov.
? Fax: Send faxes to EPA Docket Center at (202) 566-1741.
? Air and Radiation Docket, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Mail code: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20460.
? Hand Delivery: Air and Radiation Docket, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West Building, Room B102, 1301
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0180.
The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change and may be made available online at http://
www.epa.gov/edocket, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be confidential
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through EDOCKET, regulations.gov, or e-
mail. The EPA EDOCKET and the Federal regulations.gov Web sites are
``anonymous access'' systems, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly
[[Page 7906]]
to EPA without going through EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit EDOCKET on-line or see the
Federal Register of May 31, 2002 (67 FR 38102).
Docket: 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 and Radiation Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301
Constitution Avenue, 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jeff Herring, Information Transfer
and Program Implementation Division, Office and Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Mail Code C304-04, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919)
541-3195; fax number: (919) 541-5509; and e-mail address:
herring.jeff@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
Categories and entities potentially affected by this action include
facilities currently required to obtain title V permits under State,
local, tribal, or Federal operating permits programs, and State, local,
and tribal governments that issue such permits pursuant to EPA-approved
programs.
B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI to EPA through EDOCKET,
regulations.gov or e-mail. Instead, mail CBI to the following address:
Mr. Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
Attention E-Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0180. Alternatively, such
information may be hand delivered to the following address: Mr. Roberto
Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC
27709, Attention E-Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0180. Clearly mark the part
or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information
in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to Mr. Morales, mark the outside of
the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the
disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI.
In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted to EPA's electronic
public docket. If you submit a CD ROM or disc that does not contain
CBI, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not
contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the
public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice.
If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI,
please consult the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except
in accordance with procedures set forth in title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR), part 2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
? Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
? Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a CFR part or
section number.
? Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
? Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
? If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
? Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
? Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
? Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
C. Where Can I Obtain Additional Information?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
today's notice is also available on the World Wide Web through the
Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature by the EPA
Administrator, a copy of today's notice will be posted on the TTN's
policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and
technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. If more
information regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP line at
(919) 541-5384.
D. How Is This Preamble Organized?
The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this Action Apply to Me?
B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI
2. Tips for Preparing your Comments
C. Where Can I Obtain Additional Information?
D. How Is This Preamble Organized?
II. Background
III. What Is the Purpose of Today's ANPR?
IV. What Are We Specifically Seeking Comment On?
V. What Additional Steps Are Expected After EPA Reviews the Comments
Received?
II. Background
Two provisions of EPA's State and Federal operating permits program
regulations require that title V permits contain monitoring
requirements. The ``periodic monitoring'' rules, 40 CFR
70.6(a)(3)(i)(B) and 71.6(a)(3)(i)(B), require that:
[w]here the applicable requirement does not require periodic testing
or instrumental or noninstrumental monitoring (which may consist of
recordkeeping designed to serve as monitoring), [each title V permit
must contain]
periodic monitoring sufficient to yield reliable data
from the relevant time period that are representative of the
source's compliance with the permit, as reported pursuant to
[Sec. Sec. 70.6(a)(3)(iii) or 71.6(a)(3)(iii)]. Such monitoring
requirements shall assure use of terms, test methods, units,
averaging periods, and other statistical conventions consistent with
the applicable
[[Page 7907]]
requirement. Recordkeeping provisions may be sufficient to meet the
requirements of [Sec. Sec. 70.6(a)(3)(i)(B) and 71.6(a)(3)(i)(B)].
The so-called ``umbrella monitoring'' rules, Sec. Sec. 70.6(c)(1) and
71.6(c)(1), require that each title V permit contain, ``[c]onsistent
with paragraph (a)(3) of this section, compliance certification,
testing, monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements sufficient
to assure compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit.''
In a final rule entitled ``Revisions to Clarify the Scope of
Certain Monitoring Requirements for Federal and State Operating Permits
Programs'' (69 FR 3202, January 22, 2004), also known as the ``umbrella
monitoring'' rule, EPA announced a four-step strategy for improving
existing monitoring that is designed to minimize reliance on case-by-
case monitoring reviews and so-called ``gap-filling'' in title V
operating permits over time. Today's ANPR is part of that strategy.
In the first step, the umbrella monitoring rule (69 FR 3202,
January 22, 2004), EPA decided not to adopt proposed revisions to the
regulatory text of Sec. Sec. 70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1) (67 FR 58561,
September 17, 2002) and instead ratified the regulatory text of those
rules without making any changes. The EPA also announced that it has
determined that the correct interpretation of these provisions is that
they do not establish a separate regulatory standard or basis for
requiring or authorizing review and enhancement of existing monitoring
independent of any review and enhancement as may be required under
Sec. Sec. 70.6(a)(3) and 71.6(a)(3). The EPA explained that Sec. Sec.
70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1) require that title V permits contain: (1)
Monitoring required by ``applicable requirements'' under the Act, as
that term is defined in 40 CFR 70.2 and 71.2; and (2) such monitoring
as may be required under Sec. Sec. 70.6(a)(3)(i)(B) and
71.6(a)(3)(i)(B). See Appalachian Power Co. v. EPA, 208 F.3d 1015 (D.C.
Cir. 2000). The term ``applicable requirements'' includes, but is not
limited to: Monitoring required under the compliance assurance
monitoring (CAM) rule, 40 CFR part 64, where it applies; monitoring
required under Federal rules such as new source performance standards
(NSPS) in 40 CFR part 60, national emissions standards for hazardous
air pollutants (NESHAP) in 40 CFR part 61, maximum achievable control
technology (MACT) standards in 40 CFR part 63, the acid rain program
rules in 40 CFR parts 72 through 75; and monitoring required in SIP,
tribal implementation plan and Federal implementation plan rules. Thus,
for monitoring, EPA explained, Sec. Sec. 70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1)
constitute ``umbrella provisions'' that direct permitting authorities
to include monitoring required under existing statutory or regulatory
authorities in title V permits. Based on EPA's interpretation of the
Act, the plain language and structure of Sec. Sec. 70.6(c)(1) and
71.6(c)(1), and the policy reasons described in the preamble to the
umbrella monitoring rule (see 69 FR at 3204), EPA concluded that
Sec. Sec. 70.6(c)(1) and 71.6(c)(1) do not require or authorize a new
and independent type of monitoring in permits beyond what is required
by section Sec. Sec. 70.6(a)(3)(i) and 71.6(a)(3)(i).
In the umbrella monitoring rule, EPA also announced plans to
address monitoring in three related rulemaking actions. First, EPA
announced plans to encourage States to improve potentially inadequate
monitoring in certain SIP rules. The EPA intends to address such
monitoring in guidance to be developed in connection with an upcoming
rulemaking concerning the implementation of the national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter (particulate
matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 2.5 micrometers, or PM
2.5), also referred to as the proposed PM 2.5 implementation rule. The
primary purpose of the proposed PM 2.5 implementation rule will be to
describe the requirements that States and Tribes have to meet in order
to implement the PM 2.5 NAAQS. Because opacity and particulate
monitoring are related to compliance with particulate matter standards,
one part of this proposal will address EPA's plans to develop separate
guidance on how States can reduce PM 2.5 emissions by improving source
monitoring related to particulate matter emission limits. This may
include increasing the frequency of existing opacity monitoring, adding
monitoring for parameters of a control device, installing continuous
particulate emissions monitoring, or a combination of the above. See 69
FR at 3204.
In addition, EPA announced plans to publish a separate proposed
rule to address what monitoring constitutes ``periodic'' monitoring
under Sec. Sec. 70.6(a)(3)(i)(B) and 71.6(a)(3)(i)(B) and what types
of monitoring should be created under Sec. Sec. 70.6(a)(3)(i)(B) and
71.6(a)(3)(i)(B). Finally, EPA announced plans for today's ANPR. See 69
FR at 3204-3205. Together with the umbrella monitoring rule, these
three related rulemaking actions comprise EPA's four-step strategy for
improving existing monitoring where necessary on a programmatic basis.
In the umbrella monitoring rule, EPA stated that the strategy will
ensure that the Act's monitoring requirements will be met. See 69 FR at
3207. For instance, EPA explained that ``section 504(c)'s command that
each title V permit `set forth * * * monitoring * * * to assure
compliance with the permit terms and conditions' will be satisfied
through the combination of EPA and, as necessary, State rulemakings to
address monitoring, and the addition to permits of such monitoring as
may be required under Sec. Sec. 70.6(a)(3)(i)(B) and 71.6(a)(3)(i)(B).
See 42 U.S.C. 7661c(c).'' Id. The EPA also explained that
``[s]atisfying the specific monitoring requirements of section 504(c)
will assure that the more general requirements of section 504(a) are
satisfied as to monitoring.'' See 42 U.S.C. 7661c(a) (``Each [title V]
permit * * * shall include * * * conditions as are necessary to assure
compliance with applicable requirements of this chapter, including the
requirements of the applicable implementation plan''). Id. Further, the
EPA noted that the Act grants the Agency broad discretion to implement
the monitoring requirements of section 504 of the Act as well as the
``enhanced monitoring'' requirement of section 114(a)(3) of the Act. 69
FR at 3207; see 42 U.S.C. 74 14(a)(3) (``[the Administrator shall in
the case of any person which is the owner or operator of a major
stationary source * * * require enhanced monitoring* * *'').
III. What Is the Purpose of Today's ANPR?
The purpose of today's ANPR is to request public comments to
identify potentially inadequate monitoring contained in certain
applicable requirements and on ways to improve such monitoring. In
particular, EPA is requesting comments on existing monitoring
requirements in NSPS under 40 CFR part 60 and NESHAP under 40 CFR part
61 that were promulgated prior to the 1990 Amendments to the Act. See
Section IV of this preamble for identification of categories of
monitoring in which individual rules may have inadequate monitoring. We
believe these categories, listed below, are a good starting point to
frame public comments on potential monitoring inadequacies in Federal
standards. However, we are not limiting comment to the categories which
we specifically list for comment. In addition, as explained below, in
this ANPR, EPA is asking for comments identifying specific SIP rules
which contain inadequate monitoring. Although we believe some SIP's are
likely to contain some of the potential monitoring inadequacies listed
[[Page 7908]]
below, we do not identify specific SIP rules where such inadequacies
may exist. In this notice, EPA is not making any determinations that
the categories of potentially inadequate monitoring listed below
represent inadequate monitoring in any specific Federal rules and SIP
rules, and thus, an important purpose of this notice is to seek public
comments to help us to identify specific Federal rules and SIP rules
where such monitoring categories actually result in monitoring that is
inadequate. Further, we note that the Agency has met any obligation it
had to promulgate regulations for the ``enhanced monitoring''
requirement in section 114(a)(3) of the Act. Nevertheless, EPA will
consider any comments in response to this ANPR regarding whether any of
the monitoring requirements in the pre-1990 NSPS and NESHAP and if any
specific SIP rules fail to meet ``enhanced monitoring'' requirements
and the monitoring requirements in title V of the Act. If we conclude
that any such inadequacies exist, we will take appropriate action to
ensure that these statutory requirements are fully satisfied.
By contrast, we are not seeking comments on or otherwise reopening
standards promulgated after the 1990 Amendments to the Act, for
example, many NESHAP standards under part 63, and acid rain
requirements, because we believe these more recent standards are
unlikely to contain inadequate monitoring. This is so because such
rules are already required to meet and were promulgated to meet Act
requirements for monitoring that were enacted in 1990. Therefore to the
extent the categories listed below exist in Federal rules promulgated
since 1990, EPA believes they are unlikely to contain inadequate
monitoring. For example, in the final NESHAP for lime manufacturing
plants published on January 5, 2004 (69 FR 394), we allowed use of a
continuous opacity monitoring systems (COMS) to serve as a surrogate
for HAP metals instead of requiring continuous particulate mass
monitoring. This is an example of a category of potentially inadequate
monitoring in which limits on both PM mass and opacity are specified,
but only monitoring of opacity is required, not PM mass. A commenter
asserted that a COMS as a surrogate for HAP metals emitted from kilns,
coolers, or processed stone operations was inappropriate because COMS
does not correlate to particulate matter (PM) mass, and that a better
alternative was to use PM continuous monitoring that measures PM mass
in units directly related to the mass emissions limit (see 69 FR 407).
In its response, EPA agreed that COMS cannot directly measure PM
emissions, but argued, for this standard, that a properly calibrated
and maintained COMS is sufficient to demonstrate long term PM control
device performance, since the purpose of the monitoring is to
demonstrate with reasonable certainty that the PM control device is
operating as well as it did during the PM emission test used to
demonstrate compliance. For this standard, EPA also justified the use
of a COMS because PM continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) and
PM detectors (bag leak detectors) are significantly more expensive to
purchase and maintain than a COMS, and because PM CEMS measure
concentration, while the basis of the standard is mass per unit of feed
input.
We are also not seeking comment on or otherwise reopening the CAM
rule because we believe the CAM rule is currently structured such that,
when it applies, it already requires adequate monitoring in permits.
(The next paragraph discusses in more detail how this ANPR relates to
the CAM rule.)
An important purpose of this notice is to solicit comments that
could inform rulemaking actions that potentially would reduce the
resource burdens associated with case-by-case review under the periodic
monitoring and CAM rules. Because periodic monitoring rules apply when
existing monitoring is not ``periodic'' and our strategy for improving
existing monitoring through rulemaking may result in more existing
monitoring that is ``periodic,'' our strategy for improving monitoring
will likely result in fewer instances where periodic monitoring rules
apply. Also, for two reasons, our strategy for improving monitoring
through rulemaking may result in less need for case-by-case review and
enhancement under the CAM rule. First, as provided in Sec.
64.2(b)(1)(i), any rulemakings to revise emission limitations and
standards established pursuant to section 111 or 112 of the Act will
result in exemptions from CAM for those emission limitations and
standards. The CAM rule provides for this because any such rulemakings
must satisfy certain Act requirements for monitoring, and thus, EPA
believes further enhancements to monitoring through CAM would be
unnecessary. Second, Sec. 64.4(b)(1) allows States to provide SIP
rules designed to satisfy certain CAM requirements (the requirements to
document the appropriateness of monitoring within the CAM plan) for
particular types of emission units. To the extent that our strategy for
improving monitoring through rulemaking results in SIP rules designed
for this purpose, it follows that this strategy may potentially reduce
some of the burdens associated with implementation of the CAM rule.
IV. What Are We Specifically Seeking Comment On?
To focus analysis and comment on potential monitoring inadequacies
in existing Federal and State rules, we provide the following
categories of potential monitoring inadequacies based on our
preliminary review of certain NSPS and NESHAP rules:
? No monitoring of any kind is required.
? Monitoring is specified for certain units, but no
monitoring is required for other units.
? Limits on both PM mass and opacity are specified, but only
monitoring of opacity is required (and not of PM mass).
? Monitoring is specified for certain control devices (e.g.,
monitoring of pressure drop), but no monitoring is specified for other
control devices.
? Monitoring method is specified, but no monitoring
frequency is specified, or monitoring is required only when directed by
permitting authority.
? Infrequent periodic testing required, but no monitoring of
the control device is specified between required tests.
? Monitoring of parameters may be insufficient to assure
proper operation of control device.
? Monitoring of parameters required, but no parameter range
is specified, nor is a procedure for setting the range specified.
? No monitoring or recordkeeping (to serve as monitoring) is
specified for work practices (such as keeping covers closed at all time
except during transfer of materials).
To help us gather useful information to decide if Federal or State
rules may need to be revised, we ask the following questions:
Question: Identify specific pre-1990 Federal rules, including rules
in the categories listed above, where you believe that the monitoring
is inadequate. Explain why you believe the existing monitoring is
inadequate and what types of monitoring you believe would be adequate
for the specific example provided.
Question: Are there other categories of potential monitoring
inadequacies in Federal rules? Please specify what you believe to be
monitoring inadequacies, including citation to specific rules of
concern. Are there other ways to identify inadequate monitoring by
source category, industry, pollutant,
[[Page 7909]]
emission limitation, and/or pollution control device that would be more
useful?
Question: What kinds of revisions or improvements would you suggest
be made to improve inadequate monitoring in underlying Federal rules?
Types of revisions or improvements that could be made through
rulemaking include, but are not limited to: (1) Establishing periodic
testing or monitoring for each emission limitation, (2) more frequent
monitoring using existing monitoring methods, (3) the collection of
data that is more representative of control device operation or of the
industrial process, (4) switching from monitoring methods that provide
an indication of compliance to those that measure the pollutant of
interest more directly, and (5) a combination of the above. In your
comments, please provide any available information about cost,
accuracy, feasability, or any other factors that you consider relevant
to the revised or improved monitoring.
Question: What kinds of programmatic or other changes would you
suggest be used to make changes to improve inadequate monitoring?
Options include conducting rulemaking to revise emissions standards,
issuing guidance or policy, or other approaches. Please be specific on
which option(s) you prefer and provide reasons for your preference(s).
Question: Do the categories of potential monitoring inadequacies
identified above also appear in SIP rules such that you believe the
monitoring to be inadequate? If so, identify such SIP rules. Do you
believe there to be other categories of inadequate monitoring in SIP's,
and if so, what are they? How would you suggest we go about identifying
the specific standards or rules in specific implementation plans that
contain potential monitoring inadequacies? Please specify what you
believe to be the standards, the inadequate monitoring, and the type(s)
of improvements necessary to correct any potential inadequacies you
identify. In your comments, please provide any available information
about cost, accuracy, feasability, or any other factors that you
consider relevant to the revised or improved monitoring. What
programmatic changes would be best to effect these changes (e.g., EPA
or State rulemaking, SIP calls, voluntary programs, issuing guidance or
policy, or other means)?
Question: Is opacity an effective means of determining compliance
with PM limits in pre-1990 applicable requirements such as NSPS and
NESHAP? Are other monitoring technologies more effective in assuring
compliance with PM limits? Please specify situations where other
monitoring approaches would be more appropriate and effective as
indicators of compliance with PM limits. What new technologies may
serve as cost-effective and reliable means of determining compliance
with those PM limits (e.g., bag leak detectors which detect problems
that may lead to a deviation or continuous emissions monitoring systems
that directly monitor PM emissions)? Please specify when such new
technologies may be warranted, including the standards, the current
monitoring, and the more appropriate monitoring technology.
In this ANPR we are only seeking comments to identify potential
monitoring inadequacies in the Federal rules identified in section III
of this ANPR (i.e., NSPS under 40 CFR part 60 and NESHAP under 40 CFR
part 61 promulgated prior to 1990) and SIP rules, and to suggest ways
to correct any such inadequacies we may later determine to exist with
respect to section 114(a)(3) of the Act and the monitoring requirements
in title V of the Act. We have not opened for comment any provisions of
the operating permits program rules in 40 CFR parts 70 and 71, the CAM
rule in 40 CFR part 64, any post-1990 NESHAP or any other post-1990
Federal rules or any issues related to State, local, tribal, or EPA
implementation of permitting programs approved under or based on those
rules.
V. What Additional Steps Are Expected After EPA Reviews Comments Received?
Once EPA receives comments on our preliminary analysis of potential
monitoring inadequacies and suggestions on methods to correct such
inadequacies, we will determine the appropriate next steps. The EPA
believes, at this time, the next steps will likely include rulemakings
to improve monitoring requirements in some Federal rules. We are open
to comments and have made no decisions as to which Federal rules, have
inadequate monitoring, nor on how to proceed to correct any such
monitoring. Any rulemakings we may decide to undertake in the future
will be conducted using notice and comment procedures. In addition,
prior to finalizing any changes to Federal rules, we will consider all
specific facts associated with the upgrades we propose for each
standard and conduct any required analyses of burdens, including
economic impacts, necessary to satisfy statutory and other requirements.
Dated: February 9, 2005.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05-2995 Filed 2-15-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P