MEMORANDUM
TO
DOCKET
A­
90­
33
SUBJECT:
Docketing
of
Detailed
Responses
to
Comments
on
the
Part
70
Operating
Permit
Regulations
This
document
entitled
"
Response
to
Comments
on
the
40
CFR
Part
70
Rulemaking"
is
being
placed
in
Docket
number
A­
90­
33
to
docket
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
(
EPA)
responses
to
comments
received
on
the
Part
70
proposal.
Each
chapter
of
this
document
(
except
Chapter
1
and
12)
corresponds
to
the
11
sections
of
the
Part
70
regulations.
Chapter
1
is
introductory
remarks
and
Chapter
12
contains
responses
to
miscellaneous
comments.

The
EPA
received
approximately
500
comments
during
the
public
comment
period
on
the
regulations
proposed
in
the
FEDERAL
REGISTER
on
May
10,
1991.
The
EPA
has
thoroughly
reviewed
and
considered
each
of
these
comments
in
the
process
of
developing
the
final
Part
70
regulations.
The
EPA
has
revised
the
final
rule
to
reflect
these
comments
where
it
deemed
it
appropriate.
Explanations
of
these
revisions
and
their
relationship
to
comments
can
be
found
in
the
preamble
to
the
final
rule.
Where
EPA
decided
not
to
follow
the
suggestions
of
commenters,
or
where
comments
have
resulted
in
very
minor
changes
in
the
regulation,
the
rationale
for
these
decisions
will
be
found
in
this
response
to
comments
document.

While
EPA
is
progressing
to
fulfill
its
duty
to
respond
to
all
significant
comments,
it
has
determined
that
effective
implementation
of
the
Part
70
operating
permit
program
will
be
better
served
by
proceeding
at
this
time
with
promulgation
of
the
regulations,
rather
than
delaying
until
all
chapters
of
the
response
to
comments
document
are
completed.
This
submission
of
the
response
to
comments
document
contains
the
introduction
and
responses
to
comments
on
section
70.11,
"
Requirements
for
Enforcement
Authority,"
of
the
Part
70
regulations.
The
EPA
will
submit
additional
chapters
as
they
are
completed
and
expects
the
remainder
of
the
comment
responses
to
be
placed
in
the
docket
within
30
days
of
Part
70
promulgation.
2.0
COMMENTS
AND
RESPONSES
ON
SECTION
70.2:
DEFINITIONS
2.1
SUMMARY
OF
COMMENTS
ON
SECTION
70.2
The
proposed
definitions
for
"
major
source,"
"
regulated
pollutant,"
"
responsible
official,"
and
"
stationary
source"
drew
numerous
comments,
which
are
summarized
in
this
Section.
The
definitions
of
"
actual
emissions,"
"
administrative
permit
amendments,"
"
affected
source,"
"
affected
States,"
"
applicable
requirements,"
"
complete
application,"
"
draft
proposed
permit,"
"
emissions
unit,"
"
federally
enforceable
limitation,"
"
final
permit,"
"
fugitive
emissions,"
"
potential
to
emit,"
and
"
whole
program"
also
drew
comment.
There
were
no
comments
on
the
definitions
of
"
Act,"
"
affected
unit,"
"
designated
representative,"
"
EPA,"
"
flexible
source
operation,"
"
general
permit,"
"
Part
70
permit,"
"
Part
70
source,"
"
permit
modification,"
"
permit
revision,"
"
permitting
authority,"
"
renewal,"
or
"
State."

Many
definitions
appeared
in
more
than
one
place
in
the
proposed
rule.
They
were
defined
in
Section
70.2
and
discussed
in
greater
detail
in
other
Sections
where
applicable.
This
chapter
only
contains
those
comments
that
specifically
referred
to
Section
70.2
of
the
proposed
regulations.
Additional
comments
relating
to
these
definitions
may
be
found
in
the
chapters
that
address
their
use.
These
discussions
are
referenced
in
the
responses
in
this
chapter.

Several
definitions
in
Section
70.2
of
the
proposed
rule
were
moved
to
those
Sections
in
the
final
rule
where
the
definition
was
primarily
or
exclusively
used.
The
definitions
for
"
actual
emissions,"
"
administrative
permit
amendment,"
and
"
complete
application"
were
moved
to
Sections
70.9,
70.7,
and
70.5,
respectively.
Definitions
for
"
federally
enforceable
limitation,"
"
flexible
source
operation,"
and
"
minor
permit
amendment"
were
deleted
from
Part
70.

2.2
ACTUAL
EMISSIONS
Comment:
Three
State
agencies
(
IV­
D­
91,
IV­
D­
113,
IVD
384)
and
four
industry
groups
(
IV­
D­
124,
IV­
D­
152,
IV­
D­
311,
IV­
D­
314)
commented
on
the
definition
of
"
actual
emissions."
Three
industry
commenters
(
IV­
D­
210,
IV­
D­
311,
IV­
D­
314)
believed
that
actual
emissions
should
be
based
on
calculations
of
actual
emissions,
rather
than
on
the
average
rate
of
emissions
over
a
two­
year
period.
One
State
agency
(
IV­
D­
384)
commented
that
the
definition
of
actual
emissions
should
specifically
include
the
use
of
continuous
emission
monitors
(
CEM's)
to
determine
emissions,
and
that
it
should
reference
EPA's
Compilation
of
Air
Pollutant
Emission
Factors
(
AP­
42)
or
some
other
consistent
approach
for
determining
emissions
when
actual
emissions
are
not
available.
Two
State
agencies
(
IV­
D­
91
and
IV­
D­
113)
contended
that
the
proposed
definition
did
not
conform
with
40
CFR
52.21(
b)(
21).
An
industry
commenter
(
IV­
D­
124)
stated
that
actual
emissions
should
be
based
on
any
two­
year
period
within
the
fiveyear
permitting
period.
Another
industry
commenter
(
IV­
D­
124)
requested
that
the
words
"
or
any
other
12­
month
period"
be
added.

Response:
In
both
the
proposed
and
final
regulations,
the
definition
of
"
actual
emissions"
allows
either
calculations
of
actual
emissions
or
averaged
actual
emissions,
and
no
revision
to
the
regulations
is
necessary
on
this
point.
The
proposal
definition
did
allow
for
calculation
based
on
the
"
preceding
calendar
year
or
any
other
period
defined
by
the
permitting
authority."
However,
the
Administrator
has
decided
to
clarify
that
a
period
of
time
other
than
the
preceding
calendar
year
may
be
used
if
the
time
period
is
"
representative
of
normal
source
operation."
The
appropriate
time
period
may
be
the
previous
calendar
year
or
an
average
of
two
or
more
average
years,
as
allowed
by
the
permitting
authority.

The
use
of
CEM's
by
all
sources
to
determine
actual
emissions
will
not
be
mandated.
Another
applicable
requirement,
such
as
acid
rain
requirements,
may
mandate
the
use
of
CEM's,
but
this
is
not
necessary
or
appropriate
for
all
sources.
Appropriate
reference
materials
should
be
used
when
calculations
are
made
to
estimate
actual
emissions,
but
there
is
no
mandate
that
only
AP­
42
must
be
referenced.
States
usually
are
responsible
for
suggesting
appropriate
methods
or
offering
guidance
for
estimating
emissions
when
federal
guidance
is
lacking
or
unclear.
When
guidance
is
lacking
and
a
calculation
must
be
made,
a
source
might
approach
this
problem
in
numerous
ways,
for
example,
they
may
use
average
emission
factors
such
as
those
contained
in
AP­
42
or
they
may
choose
to
obtain
a
more
accurate
estimate
by
extrapolating
an
average
emission
rate
based
on
existing
source­
specific
data.

In
the
final
regulations,
the
definition
of
actual
emissions
has
been
moved
to
Section
70.9(
b)(
2)(
iii)
within
the
regulatory
section
concerning
fees.
2.3
ADMINISTRATIVE
PERMIT
AMENDMENT
Comment:
Two
industry
commenters
(
IV­
D­
124
and
IV­
D­
207)
requested
changes
in
the
wording
of
this
definition.
One
of
these
commenters
(
IV­
D­
124)
requested
that
the
phrase
"
more
frequent
monitoring"
be
replaced
with
"
a
change
in
frequency
of
monitoring."
The
other
commenter
(
IV­
D­
207)
suggested
broadening
the
definition
of
the
New
Source
Review
(
NSR)
program
to
include
any
preconstruction
permit
program.

Response:
The
Administrator
believes
using
administrative
permit
amendments
to
reflect
an
increase
in
the
frequency
of
monitoring
would
be
appropriate.
The
final
definition
has
not
been
changed
in
response
to
this
comment.
The
proposed
and
final
definitions
allow
an
administrative
permit
amendment
to
be
used
to
change
a
monitoring
requirement
only
when
this
change
results
in
"
more
frequent
monitoring."
Administrative
permit
amendments
may
not
be
used
to
weaken
permit
terms
and
conditions
that
relate
to
the
frequency
of
monitoring
or
reporting.
However,
a
change
resulting
in
a
more
stringent
application
of
such
a
requirement
may
be
made,
as
would
be
the
case
if
monitoring
were
performed
more
frequently
than
prescribed
by
an
applicable
requirement.

The
suggestion
from
commenter
IV­
D­
207
concerning
broadening
the
definition
of
NSR
has
also
not
resulted
in
a
change
to
the
final
regulations.
The
proposed
regulation
defining
administrative
amendments
did
use
the
term
"
preconstruction
review."
As
a
general
rule,
any
reference
to
preconstruction
review
requirements
in
the
preamble
was
meant
to
include
requirements
of
both
the
NSR
and
Prevention
of
Significant
Deterioration
(
PSD)
programs.

In
the
final
rule
there
have
been
several
modifications
to
the
definition
of
administrative
permit
amendment.
The
most
important
change
concerns
the
use
of
administrative
permit
amendments
to
incorporate
requirements
from
EPA­
approved
preconstruction
review
programs
into
Part
70
permits.
The
EPA
will
allow
States
to
use
these
procedures
and
apply
the
permit
shield
only
if
the
State's
NSR
program
meets
the
procedural
requirements
substantially
equivalent
to
those
contained
in
Section
70.7
and
70.8
and
the
compliance
requirements
substantially
equivalent
to
those
contained
in
Section
70.6.
If
a
State's
NSR
program
does
not
meet
these
requirements,
the
shield
may
not
apply
and
the
permit
modification
process
must
be
used
for
the
incorporation.
For
additional
information
on
changes
to
the
final
rule
in
regard
to
administrative
permit
amendments,
please
refer
to
the
final
rule's
preamble
discussion
on
Section
70.7.

This
definition
has
been
moved
from
Section
70.2,
where
it
appeared
in
the
proposal,
to
Section
70.7
in
the
final
regulation.

2.4
AFFECTED
SOURCE
Comment:
Industry
commenter
IV­
D­
124
believed
that
"
under"
should
be
replaced
with
"
as
defined
in."

Response:
The
wording
of
the
definitions
of
"
affected
source"
and
"
affected
unit"
have
changed
since
the
proposal,
although
the
intended
meaning
remains
unchanged.

2.5
AFFECTED
STATES
Comment:
Four
industry
commenters
(
IV­
D­
124,
IV­
D­
134,
IV­
D­
173,
IV­
D­
313)
suggested
modifications
to
this
definition.
Two
of
these
commenters
(
IV­
D­
124
and
IVD
134)
opposed
the
use
of
the
50­
mile
radius
to
define
affected
States;
one
commenter
(
IV­
D­
124)
further
requested
that
1

g/
m3
be
used
instead
of
the
50­
mile
radius.
Other
suggestions
for
the
definition
of
affected
States
included
"
one
whose
air
quality
may
be
affected
and
is
contiguous
and
within
50
miles
of
the
permitted
source,"
and
"
those
whose
air
quality
is
demonstrated
by
the
State
to
be
significantly
affected."
Another
commenter
(
IV­
D­
313)
requested
that
the
term
"
whose
air
quality
may
be
affected"
be
clarified.

Response:
The
final
regulations
have
not
been
modified
in
response
to
comments
concerning
the
definition
of
"
affected
States."
The
Administrator
has
not
established
any
specific
ambient
air
quality
standard
or
other
tests
for
the
purpose
of
defining
affected
State
status,
other
than
the
50­
mile
test,
because
he
does
not
wish
to
impose
any
new
rigorous
analysis
upon
the
States
for
purposes
of
implementing
this
requirement.
In
the
proposal,
the
Administrator
defined
the
term
"
may
be
affected,"
contained
in
Section
505(
a)(
2)(
A)
of
the
Act,
as
equivalent
to
the
50­
mile
geographic
trigger
contained
in
Section
505(
a)(
2)(
B).
The
EPA
read
the
reference
to
the
50­
mile
radius
in
Section
505(
a)(
2)(
B)
as
an
indication
of
Congress'
judgement
as
to
which
States
should
be
deemed
"
affected
States."
The
EPA
believes
that
the
50­
mile
trigger
provides
adequate
protection
for
virtually
any
case
and
is
relatively
simple
to
administer,
especially
compared
to
alternatives
that
attempt
to
define
a
significant
ambient
impact.
Few
commenters
objected
to
defining
affected
State
status
with
a
50­
mile
geographic
test,
and
no
compelling
evidence
to
show
the
need
for
any
other
tests
was
offered.
Therefore,
this
interpretation
has
been
retained
as
proposed.

Also
unchanged
from
the
proposed
rule
is
EPA's
statement
that
it
might
waive
its
own
and
neighboring
States'
review
of
permits
for
any
category
of
sources,
except
major
sources,
either
when
approving
an
individual
program,
or
in
a
regulation
applicable
to
all
programs.
The
EPA
may
also
waive
its
own
right
to
review,
but
maintain
the
requirement
for
a
State
to
notify
neighboring
States
[
Section
505(
d)
of
the
Act].
During
Phase
II
of
the
acid
rain
program,
the
Agency
does
not
intend
to
waive
its
own
right
to
review
affected
sources.

2.6
APPLICABLE
REQUIREMENTS
Comment:
One
industry
commenter
(
IV­
D­
404)
suggested
that
applicable
requirements
include
only
those
regulations
that
have
been
promulgated
when
the
permit
is
issued
and
the
specific
parts
of
the
Act
that
are
directly
applicable
to
emission
sources.
Another
industry
commenter
(
IV­
D­
323)
concurred
and
requested
that
the
definition
of
"
applicable
requirement"
be
amended
to
indicate
that
it
does
not
refer
to
any
de
minimis
emissions
exempted
under
existing
State
rules.

Response:
In
response
to
comment
and
after
further
review
by
the
Administrator,
several
important
changes
to
the
definition
of
"
applicable
requirements"
were
made.
Three
important
changes
were
made
in
the
final
rule
and
are
discussed
in
detail
in
Section
IV.
F.
1.
of
the
preamble.
Applicable
requirements
has
been
clarified
to
include
not
only
those
requirements
in
effect
at
the
time
of
permit
issuance,
but
also
includes
those
that
have
been
promulgated
prior
to
permit
issuance
and
have
compliance
dates
effective
during
the
permit
term.
The
second
revision
to
the
definition
clarifies
that
requirements
of
the
accidental
release
program,
Section
112(
r)
of
the
Act,
are
applicable
requirements.
The
third
change
clarifies
that
the
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards
(
NAAQS)
are
applicable
requirements
for
temporary
sources
and
for
the
States,
but
are
not
directly
imposed
on
all
sources.

The
definition
of
"
applicable
requirement"
has
not
been
changed
to
exclude
existing
State
de
minimis
exemptions
because
such
exemptions
are
not
recognized
by
the
EPA
for
purposes
of
the
Part
70
operating
permit
program.
Therefore,
existing
State
de
minimis
exemptions
cannot
be
utilized
by
the
source
when
applying
for
a
Part
70
permit,
unless
such
exemptions
have
been
proposed
by
the
State
as
part
of
the
State's
permit
program
submittal
and
approved
by
the
EPA
as
being
"
insignificant,"
under
the
meaning
of
70.5(
c).
Once
approved,
however,
these
exemptions
will,
in
some
cases,
not
be
available
to
the
source.
These
exempted
emissions
or
activities
may
still
have
to
be
fully
explained
in
the
permit
application
when
the
exemption
interferes
with
the
determination
or
imposition
of
applicable
requirements
or
the
calculation
of
fees
[
see
Section
IV.
E.
4.
of
the
preamble
to
the
final
rule
and
Section
5.3.2
of
this
document].

2.7
COMPLETE
APPLICATION
Comment:
One
local
government
(
IV­
D­
85)
believed
that
the
definition
of
"
complete
application"
was
inadequate
and
inconsistent
with
current
State
regulations.
An
industry
commenter
(
IV­
D­
124)
believed
that
the
applicant
should
have
the
same
amount
of
time
to
respond
to
notices
of
application
deficiencies
as
the
permitting
authority
takes
to
make
the
completeness
determination.

Response:
In
response
to
comment
and
for
editorial
reasons,
the
definition
of
"
complete
application"
was
removed
from
Section
70.2
and
placed
in
Section
70.5.
Section
70.2
of
the
proposal
defined
a
complete
application
as
one
containing
"
information
needed
to
begin
to
process
the
application,"
while
Section
70.5
contained
much
of
the
same
language
and
additional
clarifying
language.
In
the
final
rule,
"
complete
application"
is
defined
within
Section
70.5(
a)(
2)
as
an
application
that
contains
"
all
information
required
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
c)
of
this
section."
The
definition
in
the
final
rule
appears
to
require
a
higher
standard
that
the
proposal
language
but,
in
fact,
an
application
must
contain
the
information
required
by
Section
70.5(
c)
in
order
for
the
permitting
authority
to
begin
processing
the
application
and
this
is,
in
many
cases,
a
smaller
set
of
information
than
might
be
needed
to
issue
a
permit.
This
change
does
not,
however,
alter
the
State's
discretion
in
regard
to
what
information
they
might
require
of
sources
for
the
application
to
be
deemed
"
complete"
but
merely
clarifies
that
the
information
required
by
Section
70.5(
c),
at
a
minimum,
must
be
in
an
application
for
it
to
be
complete.

The
Administrator
recognizes
that
certain
administrative
procedures
that
States
are
required
to
adopt
in
their
State
Part
70
operating
permit
program
in
order
to
have
a
program
approvable
by
EPA
may
be
inconsistent
with
current
State
regulations.
However,
Section
502(
b)(
1)
of
the
Act
requires
the
Administrator
to
promulgate
regulations
establishing
minimum
permit
program
elements,
one
of
which
is
timely
determination
of
an
application's
completeness.

The
Administrator
has
provided
States
with
additional
flexibility
by
giving
States
discretion
in
regard
to
establishing
deadlines
for
applicants
to
respond
to
requests
for
additional
information,
rather
than
by
requiring
State
regulations
to
require
that
these
submittals
be
made
within
the
same
deadline
set
for
completeness
determinations.
This
flexibility
reflects
the
important
implementation
guideline
that
Title
V
should
build
on,
rather
than
unnecessarily
disrupt,
existing
programs.

2.8
DRAFT
PROPOSED
PERMIT
Comment:
Three
commenters
(
IV­
D­
92,
IV­
D­
362,
IV­
D­
212)
believed
that
"
draft
proposed
permit"
should
be
changed
to
"
draft
permit."
One
State
agency
(
IV­
D­
91)
commented
that
the
term
"
preliminary
draft"
should
be
used.

Response:
In
response
to
these
comments,
the
Administrator
has
created
two
new
definitions
to
replace
"
draft
proposed
permit:
"
draft
permit"
and
"
proposed
permit."
A
draft
permit
is
the
version
of
the
permit
that
a
permitting
authority
offers
for
public
participation
under
Section
70.7(
h)
or
affected
State
review
under
Section
70.8.
The
proposed
permit
is
the
version
of
the
permit
that
the
permitting
authority
proposes
to
issue
and
forwards
to
the
Administrator
for
review
under
Section
70.8.
These
new
definitions
help
clarify
the
status
of
the
permit
during
the
procedural
processes
leading
to
the
issuance
of
a
"
final
permit".
This
clarification
also
removes
the
need
to
create
a
definition
for
the
term
"
preliminary
draft."

2.9
EMISSIONS
UNIT
Comment:
An
industry
commenter
(
IV­
D­
97)
requested
that
a
limit
below
which
the
emissions
unit
becomes
insignificant
be
defined.
Another
industry
commenter
(
IV­
D­
321)
believed
that
the
definition
of
emissions
unit
should
be
expanded
to
include
any
part
of
a
stationary
source
that
is
regulated
by
emission
rate,
design,
or
operation,
in
addition
to
those
that
emit
or
have
the
potential
to
emit
any
regulated
pollutant.

Response:
States
are
allowed
to
propose
emissions
levels
or
activities
as
"
insignificant"
within
their
Part
70
program
submittal
for
approval
by
EPA.
These
"
insignificant"
emissions
or
activities
would
then,
in
many
cases,
be
exempt
from
being
described
in
detail
within
the
permit
application
[
see
Section
70.5(
c)].
Further
discussion
on
this
issue
can
be
found
in
the
preamble
to
the
final
rule
in
Section
IV.
E.
4.
or
in
this
document
in
Section
5.3.2.

Concerning
the
expansion
of
the
definition
to
include
"
any
part
of
a
stationary
source
is
regulated...,"
the
definition
already
included
"
any
part
of
a
stationary
source...,"
but
the
Administrator
has
modified
the
definition
to
include
"
any
part
or
activity
of
a
stationary
source..."
If
the
commenter
intended
to
modify
the
definition
because
of
confusion
over
the
definition
of
"
regulated
pollutant,"
it
is
not
clear
from
his
comment.
However,
the
definition
of
regulated
pollutant
has
changed
significantly
since
proposal
and
these
changes,
along
with
the
change
to
the
definition
of
stationary
source,
should
help
to
address
the
commenter'
concerns.
Additional
comment
and
response
about
the
definition
of
regulated
pollutant
is
found
in
Section
2.16
of
this
document.

2.10
FEDERALLY
ENFORCEABLE
LIMITATION
Comment:
Two
industry
commenters
(
IV­
D­
200
and
IV­
D­
319)
requested
clarification
of
this
definition,
stating
that
the
definition
provided
little
direction
on
what
the
Agency
meant
by
"
federally
enforceable
limitations."
Another
industry
commenter
(
IV­
D­
404)
believed
that
enforceable
restriction
should
be
clearly
defined
with
regard
to
restricting
emissions
below
the
threshold
for
a
major
source.

Response:
In
response
to
comments
and
for
purposes
of
clarifying
the
regulations,
the
definition
of
"
federally
enforceable
limitation"
has
been
removed
from
Section
70.2
of
the
regulations.
In
a
general
sense,
the
phrase
"
federally
enforceable"
is
equivalent
to
the
phrase
"
enforceable
by
the
Administrator
and
citizen
under
the
Act,"
for
purposes
of
Part
70.
In
the
final
rule,
the
phrase
"
federally
enforceable"
is
used
to
refer
to
Act
requirements
(
including
requirements
of
an
applicable
requirement
of
the
Act)
and
terms
and
conditions
of
Part
70
permits.

Section
70.6(
b)(
1)
of
the
final
rule
now
states
that
"
All
terms
and
conditions
in
a
Part
70
permit,
including
any
provisions
designed
to
limit
a
source's
potential
to
emit,
are
enforceable
by
the
Administrator
and
citizens
under
the
Act."
In
addition,
the
preamble
to
the
final
rule
restates
this
and
adds
that
Part
70
general
permits
may
be
used
by
sources
for
the
purpose
of
restricting
potential
to
emit.

For
sources
of
criteria
pollutants,
the
following
limitations
are
available
under
Title
I
of
the
Act
to
make
voluntarily
assumed
restrictions
on
potential
to
emit
federally
enforceable
without
getting
a
Part
70
permit:
(
1)
limitations
contained
in
preconstruction
review
permits
approved
under
a
NSR
program,
and
(
2)
limitations
adopted
as
source­
specific
SIP
revisions.
Furthermore,
for
Section
112(
b)
pollutants,
the
Administrator
is
considering
allowing
States
to
use
programs
approved
under
Section
112(
l)
as
a
means
of
developing
federally­
enforceable
limits
on
potential
to
emit
without
requiring
the
source
to
obtain
a
Part
70
permit
to
make
the
limitations
federally
enforceable.
This
concept
will
be
addressed
in
the
forthcoming
guidance
issued
pursuant
to
Section
112(
l)(
2).

2.11
FINAL
PERMIT
Comment:
One
industry
commenter
(
IV­
D­
375)
requested
that
this
definition
be
clarified
by
adding
"
required
under
Part
70"
following
"
all
administrative
concurrence
and
procedures,"
in
order
to
avoid
detaining
the
Part
70
permit
until
concurrence
on
totally
unrelated
issues
is
reached.

Response:
In
response
to
this
comment,
the
definition
has
been
changed
to
more
directly
refer
to
Part
70
review
procedures.
The
definition
now
states
that
a
final
permit
is
one
that
has
completed
"
all
review
procedures
required
by
''
70.7
and
70.8,"
rather
than
"
administrative
concurrence
and
procedures
at
the
State
and
Federal
levels."

2.12
FUGITIVE
EMISSIONS
Comment:
One
State
agency
(
IV­
D­
384)
commented
that
the
definition
of
fugitive
emissions
should
include
dust
from
roadways,
storage
piles,
and
other
open
sources.
An
industry
commenter
(
IV­
D­
134)
disagreed,
however,
arguing
that
fugitive
emissions
should
exclude
particulates
generated
by
truck
traffic,
earth­
moving
equipment,
and
other
landfill
construction
activities.
Industry
commenter
IV­
D­
311
requested
clarification
of
fugitive
emissions.

Response:
The
definition
of
"
fugitive
emissions"
has
not
changed.
Fugitive
emissions
do
indeed
include
emissions
generated
from
roadways,
storage
piles,
truck
traffic,
earth­
moving
equipment,
landfill
construction
activities,
and
other
open
sources
by
definition.
However,
Title
V
does
not
impose
any
new
requirements
on
these
sources
other
than
that
fugitive
emissions
may
need
to
be
estimated
for
purposes
of
calculating
fees.
For
a
more
detailed
discussion
on
the
requirements
imposed
on
fugitive
sources
by
Part
70,
refer
to
Chapter
3.5
of
this
document.

2.13
MAJOR
SOURCE
Comment:
Numerous
local
government
agencies
that
manage
affected
units
(
IV­
D­
54,
IV­
D­
64,
IV­
D­
68,
IV­
D­
69,
IV­
D­
70,
IV­
D­
71,
IV­
D­
73,
IV­
D­
74,
I
V­
D­
78,
IV­
D­
95,
IV­
D­
292,
IV­
D­
293,
IV­
D­
294,
IV­
D­
298,
IV­
D­
299,
IV­
D­
300,
IV­
D­
305,
IV­
D­
329,
IV­
D­
328,
IV­
D­
329,
IV­
D­
338,
IV­
D­
339,
IV­
D­
340,
IV­
D­
382,
IV­
D­
385,
IV­
D­
391,
IV­
D­
399),
two
industry
groups
(
IV­
D­
103
and
IV­
D­
181)
and
one
State
agency
(
IV­
D­
166)
requested
that
the
phrase
"
potential
to
emit"
be
removed
from
the
definition
of
major
source.
One
industry
(
IV­
D­
200)
and
one
local
government
(
IV­
D­
107)
supported
the
definition
of
major
source
in
the
rule.

Response:
The
final
rule
and
preamble
now
clearly
state
that
potential
to
emit
may
be
restricted
by
limitations
placed
in
a
Part
70
permit.
This
clarification
should
remove
much
of
the
misapprehension
that
sources
feel
about
using
maximum
potential
to
emit
to
determine
major
source
status,
as
it
is
clear
that
potential
to
emit
can
be
restricted
by
reducing
the
maximum
capacity
to
emit
using
actual
operating
hours,
control
equipment,
and
other
means.
Furthermore,
Title
V
permits
are
an
appropriate
means
by
which
a
source
can
assume
a
voluntary
limit
on
emissions
for
purposes
of
avoiding
being
subject
to
more
stringent
requirements.
Section
70.6(
b)(
1)
has
been
revised
to
clarify
that
such
terms
and
conditions
assumed
voluntarily
for
purposes
of
limiting
a
source's
potential
to
emit
will
be
federally
enforceable.
This
definition
is
also
consistent
with
the
definitions
used
in
the
Act
at
Sections
302
and
112,
as
well
as
Part
D
of
Title
I,
and
does
not
intend
to
overrule
established
precedent.

Comment:
Three
industry
commenters
(
IV­
D­
129,
IV­
D­
142,
IV­
D­
306)
and
one
State
agency
(
IV­
D­
219)
objected
to
the
requirement
that
properties
under
common
control
be
considered
as
a
major
stationary
source.
In
some
cases,
they
argued,
these
properties
may
be
owned
by
one
parent
corporation
but
operated
by
two
independent
companies.
They
believed
that
common
control
should
not
apply
to
a
parent
company
that
does
not
actively
control
the
operation.

Response:
Including
the
phrase
"
under
common
control"
in
the
definition
of
"
major
source"
is
consistent
with
established
precedent
in
the
Act
at
Sections
112
and
302
and
Part
D
of
Title
I
(
NSR).
These
Sections
are
explicitly
referenced
in
the
Title
V
definition
of
major
source.
The
phrase
"
under
common
control
of
the
same
person
or
persons
under
common
control"
in
the
definition
would
apply
when
two
properties
are
owned
by
one
parent
corporation.
However,
properties
owned
or
operated
by
one
corporate
entity
would
have
to
meet
the
other
important
qualifying
statements
before
they
would
be
found
to
be
a
major
source.

Comment:
A
few
commenters
proposed
exceptions
to
the
requirement
that
contiguous
or
adjacent
properties
be
considered
a
major
stationary
source,
including
railroad
and
pipeline
right­
of­
ways
connecting
power
plants
and
mines
(
IV­
D­
129);
oil
or
gas
exploration,
production
wells,
pipeline
compressors,
and
pumping
stations
or
other
units;
and
mines
(
IV­
D­
142).
A
Federal
agency
(
IV­
D­
109)
requested
that
military
installations
such
as
airfields,
utilities,
shipyards,
hospitals,
or
space
research
facilities
be
treated
as
separate
units
according
to
the
type
of
operations
performed.

Response:
This
portion
of
the
definition
is
consistent
with
precedent
established
in
the
NSR
program
under
authority
of
Part
D
of
Title
I,
as
well
as
with
discussion
contained
in
the
House
Committee
Report
concerning
the
definition
of
"
major
source."
In
the
final
rule,
only
one
exception
to
the
requirement
that
contiguous
or
adjacent
properties
be
considered
a
major
source
has
been
provided.
This
exception
is
required
by
language
in
Section
112(
n)(
4)
of
the
Act.
The
final
regulation
now
states
that
"
emissions
from
any
oil
or
gas
exploration
or
production
well
(
with
its
associated
equipment),
and
emissions
from
any
pipeline
compressor
or
pump
station
shall
not
be
aggregated
with
emissions
from
other
similar
units,
whether
or
not
such
units
are
in
a
contiguous
area
or
under
common
control,
to
determine
whether
such
units
or
stations
are
major
sources."

Comment:
Two
industry
groups
(
IV­
D­
142
and
IV­
D­
164)
and
one
State
agency
(
IV­
D­
214)
commented
that
emissions
from
mobile
sources
located
at
the
stationary
source
cannot
be
counted
in
determining
whether
a
facility
is
a
major
source.
The
State
agency
commented
that
mobile
sources,
such
as
equipment
used
in
asphalt
plants
and
sand
and
gravel
operations,
usually
are
housed
separately
but
sometimes
are
brought
together
for
one
job.
The
agency
believed
such
operations
should
not
qualify
the
source
as
a
major
source.
One
of
the
industry
groups
(
IV­
D­
142)
further
commented
that
there
was
precedent
for
such
mobile
sources
not
being
included
in
the
major
source
determination
under
NRDC
v.
EPA,
725
F.
2d
761,
764.

Response:
Title
V
generally
follows
established
precedents
in
regard
to
the
determination
of
major
source
and,
in
most
cases,
would
not
include
emissions
from
mobile
sources
located
at
a
stationary
source
in
determining
whether
a
facility
is
a
major
source.
The
definition
of
"
major
source"
in
Section
70.2
of
the
proposed
and
final
regulations
specifically
state
that
it
applies
to
"
any
stationary
source
(
or
any
group
of
stationary
sources..."
and
then
references
Sections
112
and
302,
and
Part
D
of
Title
I.
An
exception
is
provided
in
Section
328(
a)(
4)(
C)
of
the
Act
where
emissions
from
vessels
servicing
or
associated
with
Outer
Continental
Shelf
(
OCS)
sources
are
to
be
considered
direct
emissions
from
the
source.
The
statement,
"
the
activities
of
any
vessels
shall
not
be
considered
part
of
a
major
source...",
has
been
deleted
from
the
definition
of
"
major
source"
in
response
to
comment.
These
vessels
are
mobile
sources
and
must
be
included
in
the
determination
of
major
source
status
for
stationary
sources.
Many
of
these
comments
are
addressed
in
Section
3.2.1
of
this
document
concerning
major
source
definitions.
However,
temporary
sources
are
required
to
obtain
Part
70
permits
under
certain
circumstances.
If
the
commenters
are
actually
referring
to
sources
that
would
meet
the
definition
of
temporary
source,
they
would
be
required
to
obtain
Part
70
permits
under
Section
70.6(
e)
of
the
Act.

Comment:
Two
other
industry
groups
(
IV­
D­
184
and
IV­
D­
303)
commented
that
moveable
drilling
rigs
and
oil
well
service
equipment
units
or
sets
of
units
should
not
be
major
sources
unless
their
potential
emissions
exceed
the
"
major
source"
threshold.

Response:
This
interpretation
is
consistent
with
Sections
112
and
302,
and
Part
D
of
Title
I
of
the
Act,
and
with
the
definition
of
"
major
source"
in
Section
70.2
of
the
regulation,
both
of
which
determine
major
source
status
by
potential
to
emit.
Oil
and
gas
exploration
and
production
facilities,
as
well
as
pipeline
compressor
pump
stations,
are
exempted
from
being
defined
as
a
major
source
due
to
aggregation
of
emissions
from
contiguous
and
adjacent
properties
(
see
Section
3.2.1
of
this
document).

Comment:
Five
industry
groups
(
IV­
D­
199,
IV­
D­
200,
IVD
205,
IV­
D­
206,
IV­
D­
375)
proposed
that
only
those
sources
currently
regulated
under
the
Act
should
be
subject
to
definition
as
a
major
source
under
Title
V.
One
of
these
commenters
(
IV­
D­
199)
further
stated
that
stationary
sources
should
be
limited
to
those
stationary
source
categories
that
have
been
regulated
under
Section
111
or
112
of
the
Act
since
August
7,
1980.
Another
of
the
commenters
believed
that
a
major
source
should
be
limited
to
those
sources
that
emit
or
have
the
potential
to
emit
100
tons
per
year
or
more
of
any
regulated
pollutant.

Response:
The
Administrator
responds
that
the
Act
does
not
limit
the
major
source
status
under
Title
V
to
sources
"
currently
regulated"
at
the
time
of
passage
of
the
Act
or
at
time
of
program
approval
in
each
State
or
to
stationary
sources
regulated
under
Section
111
or
112
since
August
7,
1980.
The
Act
specifically
provides
in
Section
502(
b)(
9)
that
major
source
permits
with
terms
of
three
or
more
years
should
be
reopened
to
incorporate
applicable
standards
and
regulations
promulgated
after
permit
issuance.
This
provision
evidences
Congress's
intent
that
the
Part
70
program
include
all
major
sources
and
there
be
time
limits
on
major
source
status
determinations.

Furthermore,
Congress
intended
that
major
source
status
should
also
include
sources
with
potential
to
emit
less
than
100
tons
per
year,
including
Section
112(
b)
pollutants
and
criteria
pollutants
in
nonattainment
areas
(
Part
D
of
Title
I).
The
EPA
does
not
have
discretion
within
the
Part
70
rulemaking
to
increase
or
override
major
source
thresholds
previously
specified
in
the
Act.
For
example,
the
definition
of
"
major
source"
contained
in
Section
112
applies
to
stationary
sources
that
emit
or
have
the
potential
to
emit,
in
the
aggregate,
10
tons
per
year
(
tpy)
or
more
of
any
HAP
listed
pursuant
to
Section
112(
b)
of
the
Act,
25
tpy
or
more
of
any
combination
of
such
HAP,
or
such
lesser
quantity
as
the
Administrator
may
establish
by
rule.

Comment:
One
local
government
agency
(
IV­
D­
85)
supported
the
inclusion
of
fugitive
emissions
in
determining
whether
a
source
met
the
100
tpy
emissions
limit
to
qualify
as
a
major
source.
One
State
agency
(
IV­
D­
91),
however,
believed
that
fugitive
emissions
from
fuel
conversion
plants
should
not
be
considered
in
determining
whether
the
source
was
major.
An
industry
commenter
(
IV­
D­
111)
stated
that
it
is
beyond
EPA's
statutory
authority
to
include
fugitive
particulate
matter
emissions
from
mining
operations
to
determine
whether
a
source
is
major
until
a
Section
302(
j)
rulemaking
has
been
conducted.

Response:
Chapter
3.5
of
this
document
contains
significant
discussion
on
the
subject
of
whether
fugitive
emissions
are
included
in
determining
major
source
status.
In
summary,
Title
V
does
not
interfere
with
established
precedents
in
this
regard.
Title
V
does,
however,
provide
that
fugitive
emissions
can
be
used
for
purposes
of
calculating
permit
fees,
regardless
of
whether
or
not
they
are
included
for
purposes
of
determining
major
source
status.

Comment:
Two
industry
groups
(
IV­
D­
188
and
IV­
D­
394)
and
one
State
agency
(
IV­
D­
398)
opposed
the
use
of
the
standard
industrial
classification
(
SIC)
code
to
determine
groupings
for
major
source
determination.
These
commenters
stated
that
some
facilities
may
have
the
same
SIC
code
but
different
management
and,
therefore,
may
require
separate
permits.
They
believed
sources
should
be
allowed
to
demonstrate
which
sources
are
included
in
one
permit
and
which
need
to
be
permitted
separately.
The
State
agency
(
IV­
D­
398)
commented
that
major
industrial
groupings
needed
to
be
defined
separately.

Response:
The
final
rule
has
not
been
changed
in
this
regard.
As
promulgated,
the
two­
digit
SIC
code
will
be
used
to
aggregate
stationary
sources
on
contiguous
or
adjacent
properties
consistent
with
established
NSR
procedures
as
the
legislative
history
suggests
that
Congress
intended.
Additional
discussion
on
this
subject
can
be
found
in
Section
3.2.1
of
this
document
and
in
the
preamble
to
the
proposed
rule.

Comment:
One
Federal
agency
(
IV­
D­
352)
stated
that
the
definition
of
major
source
of
radionuclides
should
be
consistent
with
the
definition
of
radionuclides
under
Section
112
of
the
Act.
Industry
commenter
IV­
D­
404
also
believed
that
the
definition
of
radionuclides
should
follow
that
of
40
CFR
61(
h),
such
that
a
stationary
source
is
any
source
that
emits
or
has
the
potential
to
emit,
in
the
aggregate,
a
10­
mrem
effective
dose
equivalent.

Response:
In
the
proposed
regulation,
the
definition
for
"
major
source"
stated
that,
"
For
radionuclides,
such
term
shall
have
the
meaning
specified
by
the
Administrator
by
rule."
Therefore,
defining
a
radionuclide
source
as
a
"
major
source"
depends
on
the
emissions
criteria
established
within
the
regulation
specifically
applicable
to
that
source.
For
instance,
40
CFR
61(
h)
is
a
National
Emission
Standard
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants
(
NESHAP)
applying
specifically
to
emissions
of
radionuclides
other
than
radon
from
Department
of
Energy
(
DOE)
facilities,
therefore,
this
regulation
applies
only
to
DOE
facilities.
Future
Section
112
rulemakings
will
establish
the
emissions
levels
for
"
major
sources"
of
radionuclides.
Regulations
will
also
be
promulgated
to
establish
emissions
standards
for
categories
and
subcategories
of
radionuclides,
including
radon.

Comment:
One
industry
commenter
(
IV­
D­
173)
requested
that
the
definition
of
major
source
be
amended
by
adding
the
words
"
after
controls."
Without
such
language,
the
commenter
argued,
there
are
too
many
sources,
and
permitting
authorities
will
not
have
the
time
or
technology
to
determine
removal
efficiency
of
the
various
control
devices.

Response:
The
final
regulations
are
promulgated
as
proposed
in
regard
to
this
comment.
Pollution
controls
are
already
taken
into
account
when
potential
to
emit
is
determined
for
a
source.
It
is
unnecessary
and
inappropriate
to
also
take
controls
into
account
when
determining
major
source
status,
as
major
source
status
is
based
on
the
potential
to
emit.

2.14
MINOR
PERMIT
AMENDMENT
Comment:
One
State
agency
(
IV­
D­
398)
commented
that
there
should
be
a
two­
tiered
definition
for
minor
permit
amendments,
including
a
threshold
for
de
minimis
exemptions.

Response:
Extensive
comments
concerning
the
proposed
minor
permit
amendment
provisions
were
received,
and
the
definition
of
"
minor
permit
amendment"
has
been
removed
from
the
final
rule.
For
more
information
about
the
deletion
of
this
definition
and
about
the
permit
revision
procedures
that
have
replaced
it,
see
Section
70.7
of
the
final
rule
and
the
discussion
in
the
preamble
of
the
final
rule
concerning
Section
70.7.

2.15
POTENTIAL
TO
EMIT
Comment:
Six
industry
commenters
(
IV­
D­
174,
IV­
D­
175,
IV­
D­
176,
IV­
D­
177,
IV­
D­
178,
IV­
D­
383)
stated
that
potential
to
emit
should
be
interpreted
to
include
operational
limits
that
are
not
federally
enforceable.
Three
industry
commenters
(
IV­
D­
144,
IV­
D­
184,
IV­
D­
303)
believed
that
potential
to
emit
should
not
be
based
on
the
maximum
operating
capacity
of
8760
hours
per
year,
as
many
sources
do
not
operate
at
maximum
capacity.
One
State
agency
(
IV­
D­
214)
commented
that
States
should
be
allowed
to
use
a
definition
of
potential
to
emit
that
does
not
include
control
equipment
or
operational
limitations.
Another
industry
commenter
(
IV­
D­
173)
stated
that
potential
to
emit
should
be
determined
after
controls.

Response:
In
the
final
rule,
"
potential
to
emit"
is
based
on
maximum
capacity
after
taking
into
account
any
physical
or
operational
limitations
on
capacity,
including
control
equipment
and
restrictions
on
hours
or
operation.
In
response
to
comment,
clarifying
language
has
been
added
to
the
final
rule
and
preamble
explaining
that
potential
to
emit
may
now
be
limited
by
a
restriction
enforceable
by
the
Administrator
and
citizens
under
the
Act
and
that
limitations
are
enforceable
if
they
are
either
contained
in
Part
70
permits
or
otherwise
federally
enforceable.
For
further
information
in
regard
to
making
limitations
on
potential
to
emit
Federally
enforceable,
see
Sections
2.10
and
2.13
of
this
document.

The
Administrator
views
it
as
axiomatic
that
a
limit
on
potential
to
emit
may
not
be
recognized
for
purposes
of
the
Part
70
program
unless
that
limitation
is
Federally
enforceable.
This
follows
established
precedent
in
the
NSR
program.
See
Final
Rule:
Requirements
for
the
Preparation,
Adoption,
and
Submittal
of
Implementation
Plans;
Approval
and
Promulgation
of
Implementation
Plans,
54
Fed.
Reg.
27274,
June
28,
1989.

2.16
REGULATED
POLLUTANT
Comment:
While
a
few
State
(
IV­
D­
92,
IV­
D­
125,
IV­
D­
212)
and
environmental
groups
(
IV­
D­
76
and
IV­
D­
252)
proposed
broadening
the
definition
of
"
regulated
pollutant,"
several
industry
commenters
(
IV­
D­
139,
IVD
160,
IV­
D­
188,
IV­
D­
199,
IV­
D­
200,
IV­
D­
202,
IV­
D­
208,
IV­
D­
303,
IV­
D­
311,
IV­
D­
344,
IV­
D­
375)
suggested
limiting
the
scope
of
regulated
pollutants.
Some
of
these
industry
commenters
(
IV­
D­
160,
IV­
D­
199,
IV­
D­
202,
IV­
D­
303,
IV­
D­
375)
proposed
that
pollutants
regulated
under
the
Act
at
Section
111
and
112
not
be
subject
to
Title
V
unless
a
standard
has
been
promulgated.
One
of
these
commenters
(
IV­
D­
200)
further
suggested
that
Title
V
should
not
apply
to
Section
111
and
112
pollutants,
except
for
those
listed
under
Section
112(
r).
Each
of
the
following
suggestions
to
limit
the
scope
of
regulated
pollutants
was
made
by
one
industry
commenter:
regulated
pollutants
should
include
only
any
federally
regulated
volatile
organic
compounds
(
VOC's)
(
IV­
D­
375);
the
definition
of
regulated
pollutant
should
include
a
de
minimis
cutoff
(
IV­
D­
188);
the
definition
of
regulated
pollutant
should
be
source­
specific
(
IV­
D­
311);
perchlorethylene,
methyl
chloride,
1­
1­
1
trichloroethane,
and
chlorofluorocarbons
(
CFC's)
should
not
be
considered
regulated
pollutants
(
IV­
D­
344);
a
source
should
be
regulated
only
when
there
are
substantive
requirements
in
effect
on
the
emission
or
control
of
the
substance
(
IV­
D­
203);
and
a
source
should
not
be
regulated
solely
on
the
quantity
of
emissions
(
IV­
D­
139).
On
the
other
hand,
one
State
(
IV­
D­
125)
and
two
environmental
commenters
(
IV­
D­
76
and
IV­
D­
252)
considered
the
definition
of
regulated
pollutants
to
be
too
narrow,
suggesting
various
pollutants
that
should
be
added.
Two
State
commenters
(
IV­
D­
92
and
IV­
D­
212)
suggested
adding
fine
particulate
matter
(
PM
10)
to
the
list
of
regulated
pollutants.
An
environmental
commenter
(
IV­
D­
76)
indicated
that
CFC's,
other
pollutants
regulated
under
Title
IV,
and
incinerator
emissions
regulated
under
Section
129
of
the
Act
should
be
included
in
the
definition
of
regulated
pollutant.
Industry
commenter
IV­
D­
208
requested
clarification
on
what
pollutants
were
regulated,
suggesting
that
if
no
maximum
achievable
control
technology
(
MACT)
standard
is
promulgated
for
HAPs,
then
the
pollutant
is
not
regulated.

Response:
Many
of
the
comments
concerning
"
regulated
pollutant"
are
addressed
in
Section
3.4.2
of
this
document.
Many
commenters
were
confused
by
this
term
because
the
Act
defined
it
differently
and
used
it
only
for
fee
calculation
purposes.
In
the
final
rule,
"
regulated
pollutant
(
for
presumptive
fee
calculation)"
refers
to
pollutants
for
which
a
source
may
be
assessed
permit
fees.
A
new
term,
"
regulated
air
pollutant",
has
been
added
to
the
definitions
to
refer
to
pollutants
for
which
a
standard,
regulation,
or
requirement
is
promulgated
or
otherwise
established.

Several
changes
were
made
to
the
definition
of
"
regulated
air
pollutant"
­­
which
was
"
regulated
pollutant"
in
the
proposal.
First,
substances
regulated
under
Title
VI
of
the
Act
(
protection
of
stratospheric
ozone)
were
added
to
the
list
of
"
regulated
air
pollutants."
Second,
the
final
Part
70
regulations
clarify
when
a
substance
regulated
under
Section
112
becomes
a
"
regulated
air
pollutant".
The
term
"
regulated
air
pollutant"
includes
any
pollutant
subject
to
a
standard
or
other
requirements
under
Section
112
of
the
Act,
including
Section
112(
r)
of
the
Act.
As
applied
to
an
individual
source
only,
the
definition
includes
any
pollutant
for
which
a
MACT
standard
is
promulgated
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
under
Section
112(
g)(
2)
of
the
Act.
This
type
of
MACT
requirement
will
apply
only
to
the
individual
source
for
which
it
was
developed.
Generally
speaking,
if
a
Section
112(
b)
pollutant
has
no
standard
promulgated
or
other
requirement
under
Title
III,
it
would
not
be
a
"
regulated
air
pollutant",
however,
Section
112(
b)
pollutants
might
be
regulated
because
they
are
also
sources
of
VOC's,
or
because
they
are
also
listed
pursuant
to
Section
112(
r).
Although
there
may
not
be
a
Federal
standard
or
requirement
for
a
VOC,
a
standard
or
requirement
in
a
SIP
that
has
been
approved
by
EPA
would
cause
the
VOC
emissions
to
be
considered
a
"
regulated
air
pollutant."

In
response
to
commenters,
the
term
"
regulated
air
pollutants"
includes
any
pollutant
for
which
a
NAAQS
has
been
promulgated
(
including
nitrogen
oxides),
PM
10,
and
any
class
I
or
II
substances
subject
to
a
standard
promulgated
under
or
established
by
Title
VI.
The
definition
of
"
regulated
air
pollutant"
already
includes
incinerator
emissions
regulated
under
Section
129
to
the
extent
that
these
emissions
are
subject
to
a
standard
or
requirement
in
Section
112.

There
are
no
changes
to
the
rule
in
regard
to
de
minimis
cutoffs
for
"
regulated
air
pollutants",
however,
Section
70.5(
c)
provides
that
the
State
may
exempt
certain
"
insignificant"
emissions
or
activities
from
being
included
in
the
application.
The
EPA
will
approve
State
program
exemptions
for
insignificant
emissions
if
they
do
not
interfere
with
determinations
of
applicability,
the
imposition
of
applicable
requirements,
or
the
calculation
of
fees.

In
the
final
rule,
"
regulated
pollutant
(
for
presumptive
fee
calculation"
only
refers
to
pollutants
for
which
fees
may
be
assessed
under
the
authority
of
Section
502(
b)(
3)
of
the
Act.
It
includes
all
"
regulated
air
pollutants"
except
carbon
monoxide
(
CO),
substances
that
are
only
"
regulated
air
pollutants"
because
they
are
subject
to
a
standard
or
regulation
in
Section
112(
r),
and
class
I
or
II
substances
subject
to
a
standard
promulgated
under
or
established
by
Title
VI.

In
the
final
rule,
a
HAP
listed
pursuant
to
Section
112(
b)
becomes
a
"
regulated
pollutant
(
for
presumptive
fee
calculation)"
when
EPA
first
promulgates
a
MACT
standard
for
that
pollutant.
In
addition,
if
a
pollutant
is
regulated
at
a
particular
source,
its
emissions
will
be
considered
for
fee
purposes
even
if
a
general
standard
has
not
been
issued.

The
EPA
has
also
decided
to
exercise
its
discretion
by
excluding
from
"
regulated
pollutant
(
for
presumptive
fee
calculation)"
those
substances
that
would
be
regulated
pollutants
only
because
they
are
regulated
under
Section
112(
r)
(
the
accidental
release
program)
for
reasons
more
fully
described
in
the
preamble
to
the
final
rule.
The
proposal
was
also
modified
so
as
to
allow
States
relying
on
the
$
25/
tpy
presumptive
minimum
to
exclude
from
the
calculation
insignificant
quantities
of
actual
emissions
not
required
to
be
in
a
permit
application
pursuant
to
Section
70.5(
c).

2.17
RESPONSIBLE
OFFICIAL
Comment:
Many
industry
commenters
(
IV­
D­
52,
IV­
D­
56,
IV­
D­
86,
IV­
D­
102,
IV­
D­
111,
IV­
D­
161,
IV­
D­
173,
IV­
D­
184,
IV­
D­
198)
and
one
State
agency
(
IV­
D­
91)
strongly
objected
to
the
proposed
definition
of
"
responsible
official."
These
commenters
preferred
a
broader
definition
of
responsible
official.
They
stated
that
basing
the
definition
on
specific
requirements
for
employees
or
expenditures
was
impractical
and
would
frequently
mean
that
company
officials
who
had
no
specific
knowledge
of
the
facility
would
be
responsible
for
the
permitting
process.
These
commenters
preferred
that
the
facility
manager
be
the
responsible
official,
regardless
of
the
size
of
the
facility.
One
industry
commenter
(
IV­
D­
173)
believed
that
responsible
official
should
be
defined
as
in
40
CFR
403.12(
l)(
3).
One
industry
commenter
(
IV­
D­
369)
believed
that
the
definitions
of
responsible
official
and
designated
official
were
conflicting,
and
created
confusion
about
who
could
sign
a
Part
70
permit
application.
The
commenter
further
stated
that
the
definition
of
responsible
official
was
more
appropriate.

Response:
The
proposed
definition
of
"
responsible
official"
was
modified
in
response
to
comment.
Now
the
regulation
allows
a
"
duly
authorized
representative"
who
is
responsible
for
the
overall
operation
of
one
or
more
corporate
manufacturing,
production,
or
operating
facilities
to
be
the
responsible
official
in
certain
circumstances.
Sources
have
the
greatest
flexibility
when
the
permitting
authority
approves
delegation
of
authority
to
this
representative
in
advance.
States
could
establish
their
own
criteria
for
this
delegation
of
authority
in
their
individual
rulemakings,
but
this
will
not
be
required
by
the
Administrator.
This
modification
will
allow
a
plant
manager,
for
instance,
to
be
the
"
responsible
official,"
regardless
of
the
size
of
the
facility,
as
long
as
the
designation
is
approved
in
advance.
The
portion
of
the
definition
allowing
a
president,
secretary,
treasurer,
vice
president
in
charge
of
a
principal
business
function,
or
any
other
similar
person
to
be
the
"
responsible
official"
has
not
changed.

2.18
STATIONARY
SOURCE
Comment:
Several
groups
(
IV­
D­
2,
IV­
D­
85,
IV­
D­
91,
IVD
92,
IV­
D­
109,
IV­
D­
139,
IV­
D­
212,
IV­
D­
251,
IV­
D­
258)
requested
clarification
on
or
modification
of
the
definition
of
"
stationary
source,"
especially
regarding
the
differences
between
a
stationary
source
and
an
emissions
unit.
One
of
these
commenters
(
IV­
D­
85)
feared
that
the
proposed
definition
of
stationary
source
allowed
the
disaggregation
of
a
group
of
common
units
so
that
a
permit
was
not
required.
A
few
commenters
(
IV­
D­
2,
IV­
D­
85,
IV­
D­
92,
IV­
D­
212)
preferred
a
broad
interpretation
of
the
term,
indicating
that
a
stationary
source
would
be
any
building,
structure,
installation,
operation,
or
combination
thereof
that
contains
one
or
more
emissions
units.
One
industry
commenter
(
IV­
D­
82)
believed
that
the
definition
of
stationary
source
should
be
patterned
on
the
definition
of
the
term
in
Title
I,
stating
that
the
proposed
definition
was
too
narrow.
A
few
industry
commenters
(
IV­
D­
139,
IV­
D­
251,
IV­
D­
375),
one
local
government
agency
(
IV­
D­
362),
and
one
Federal
agency
(
IV­
D­
109)
preferred
a
narrower
interpretation
of
stationary
source,
stating
that
any
activities
or
pieces
of
equipment
should
not
be
included
as
part
of
the
stationary
source.
One
of
these
groups
(
IV­
D­
362)
further
requested
that
language
be
added
to
clarify
that
portable
pieces
of
equipment
could
not
be
considered
stationary
sources.
The
Federal
agency
(
IVD
109)
requested
that
the
definition
be
modified
to
make
it
subject
to
exclusions
or
conditions
of
coverage
of
activities
or
equipment
contained
in
42
U.
S.
C.
7401
et.
seq.
Two
State
(
IV­
D­
91
and
IV­
D­
212)
groups
contended
that
the
definition
conflicted
with
existing
definitions
of
stationary
source:
one
stated
that
it
is
inconsistent
with
the
definition
of
major
stationary
source
at
Section
302
of
the
Act
(
IV­
D­
212),
and
the
other
(
IV­
D­
91)
believed
that
it
does
not
conform
with
the
definition
of
stationary
source
at
40
CFR
52.21(
b)(
5).

Response:
This
definition
has
been
changed
in
response
to
comment.
The
part
of
the
definition
including
"
any
activity
or
piece
or
equipment"
has
been
deleted.
The
definition
now
clearly
does
not
regulate
emissions
from
mobil
sources,
as
might
possibly
be
construed
by
including
"
activities"
and
"
pieces
of
equipment"
in
the
definition.
This
change
now
makes
the
Part
70
definition
consistent
with
the
term
as
used
in
other
parts
of
the
Act
and
Federal
regulations.

The
definition
of
"
stationary
source"
will
not
allow
the
disaggregation
of
a
group
of
common
units
so
that
a
permit
is
not
required,
since
the
requirement
for
a
permit
is
governed
by
Section
70.3
(
on
applicability)
and
the
definition
of
"
major
source"
contained
in
Section
70.2,
not
the
definition
of
"
stationary
source."
Section
70.3
requires
permitting
of
any
major
source,
any
source
subject
to
a
standard,
limitation,
or
other
requirement
under
sections
111
and
112,
any
affected
source,
and
any
source
designated
by
the
Administrator.
The
definition
of
"
major
source"
in
Section
70.2
means
a
stationary
source
or
a
group
of
stationary
sources
located
on
contiguous
or
adjacent
properties,
under
common
control
of
the
same
person,
and
belonging
to
the
same
major
industrial
group
(
having
the
same
2­
digit
SIC
code).
The
Part
70
definition
of
"
major
source"
includes
"
major
sources"
under
Section
112
of
the
Act
and
"
major
stationary
sources"
as
defined
in
Section
302
and
Part
D
of
Title
I
of
the
Act.
See
Sections
2.12
and
3.2.1
of
this
document
for
additional
discussion
on
the
major
source
definition
and
the
aggregation
of
units
located
on
contiguous
or
adjacent
properties.

Definitions
contained
in
various
regulations
promulgated
pursuant
to
the
Act
are
inconsistent
with
one
another
in
regard
to
both
the
specific
terms
that
are
defined
and
the
specific
wording
of
definitions
for
the
same
terms.
One
commenter
stated
that
the
Part
70
definition
of
"
stationary
source"
is
inconsistent
with
Section
302
of
the
Act.
This
is
not
true
because
the
definition
of
"
major
source"
in
Part
70
specifically
includes
"
a
major
stationary
source
of
air
pollutants,
as
defined
in
section
302
of
the
Act..."
Another
commenter
believed
that
there
is
a
conflict
with
the
definition
of
"
stationary
source"
at
40
CFR
52.21(
b)(
5).
These
two
definitions
only
differ
in
respect
to
the
language
used
to
describe
the
pollutants
emitted,
not
in
respect
to
what
types
of
property
or
devices
constitute
the
physical
being
of
the
stationary
source:
40
CFR
52.21(
b)(
5)
refers
to
"
air
pollutants
subject
to
regulation
under
the
Act,"
while
"
stationary
source"
in
Section
70.2
refers
to
"
regulated
air
pollutants
and
pollutants
listed
under
Section
112(
b)
of
the
Act."
This
is
not
a
substantive
difference
since
these
phrases
are
used
to
convey
the
general
concept
that
this
type
of
source
emits
pollutants,
not
to
define
the
emissions.
A
Federal
commenter
requested
that
the
following
phrase
be
added
to
the
definition
of
stationary
source:
"
This
definition
is
subject
to
exclusions
or
conditions
of
coverage
of
activities
or
equipment
contained
in
42
U.
S.
C.
section
7401
et
seq."
It
appears
­­
although
it
is
not
clear
­­
that
the
commenter
is
referring
to
specific
exemptions
or
exclusions
found
in
the
Act.
The
Administrator
has
not
made
this
change
because
the
request
is
vague
with
no
legal
or
policy
justification
showing
the
need
for
such
change,
and
because
the
Administrator
finds
that
this
change
is
unnecessary
and
inappropriate.

2.19
WHOLE
PROGRAM
Comment:
One
State
(
IV­
D­
179)
and
one
local
government
(
IV­
D­
85)
agency
each
commented
that
the
definition
of
whole
program
should
be
changed
to
include
programs
submitted
by
individual
air
permitting
authorities.

Response:
This
definition
has
not
been
changed.
It
is
important
that
it
not
change
in
order
to
provide
some
distinction
between
a
whole
program
covering
a
whole
State
and
a
partial
program
that
may
cover
only
an
area
served
by
a
individual
local
permitting
authority
within
the
State.

2.20
OTHER
COMMENTS
Comment:
One
industry
commenter
(
IV­
D­
366)
proposed
adding
a
definition
for
process
unit,
such
that
a
process
unit
means
equipment
assembled
and
integrated
to
perform
a
common
service
or
to
produce
articles
or
chemical
intermediate
and
products.
The
commenter
noted
that
a
process
unit
can
operate
independently
if
supplied
with
sufficient
fuel
or
raw
materials
and
sufficient
product
storage
facilities.
A
Federal
agency
(
IV­
D­
109)
believed
the
following
definition
such
be
added:
Common
military
control
means
a
United
States
Military
Property
entirely
under
the
command
of
an
Army
MACOM,
Air
Force
Major
Command,
Navy
Major
Claimant,
or
Marine
Corps.
An
industry
commenter
(
IVD
377)
stated
that
violations
of
law
should
be
defined,
and
offered
the
following
definition:
"
any
case
of
noncompliance
existing
at
the
time
of
permit
issuance
that
is
identified
in
the
compliance
schedule
for
the
source
or
that
rests
on
material
facts
that
were
not
disclosed
to
the
permitting
authority
prior
to
permit
issuance."
Response:
The
Administrator
has
not
changed
the
regulations
to
add
the
suggested
definitions
to
Part
70.
It
would
be
especially
counterproductive
to
define
a
term
such
as
"
violations
of
law"
in
the
narrow
way
that
the
commenter
suggests,
as
his
suggestion
does
not
include
such
events
as
operating
without
a
permit.
The
Administrator
sees
no
purpose
in
defining
"
process
unit"
or
"
common
military
control"
for
purposes
of
Title
V,
as
these
terms
are
not
used
within
the
regulations
as
promulgated.
3.0
COMMENTS
AND
RESPONSES
ON
SECTION
70.3:
APPLICABILITY
3.1
SUMMARY
OF
COMMENTS
ON
SECTION
70.3
Comments
on
applicability
were
received
from
industry,
State
and
local
agencies,
and
a
few
Federal
agencies.
The
issue
of
deferring
nonmajor
sources
for
five
years
drew
the
greatest
number
of
comments.
Other
areas
receiving
significant
attention
were
the
major
source
definition,
list
of
source
categories
proposed
for
exemption,
and
fugitive
emissions.

3.2
SOURCES
SUBJECT
TO
PERMITTING
3.2.1
Major
Source
Definition
Comment:
Many
industry
commenters
(
IV­
D­
49,
IV­
D­
77,
IV­
D­
97,
IV­
D­
159,
IV­
D­
160,
IV­
D­
161,
IV­
D­
200,
IV­
D­
271,
IV­
D­
312,
IV­
D­
317,
IV­
D­
331,
IV­
D­
341,
IV­
D­
345,
IV­
D­
346,
IV­
D­
350,
IV­
D­
390)
and
State
commenters
(
IVD
04,
IV­
D­
166,
IV­
D­
191,
IV­
D­
219,
IV­
D­
301,
IV­
D­
322)
supported
using
two­
digit
standard
industrial
classification
(
SIC)
codes
to
define
major
sources.
Several
of
the
industry
commenters
(
IV­
D­
160,
IV­
D­
208,
IV­
D­
312,
IV­
D­
350)
opposed
use
of
the
support
activity
test;
one
commenter
(
IV­
D­
160)
argued
that
the
percent
allocations
of
a
support
unit
will
change
from
year
to
year
at
a
given
plant,
while
another
(
IV­
D­
208)
was
concerned
that
a
single
plant
would
be
forced
to
have
multiple
permits
if
certain
units
were
shared
by
different
installations.
Another
industry
commenter
(
IV­
D­
315)
said
EPA
should
allow
facility
permits
that
cover
all
emission
sources
within
a
facility
or
group
of
facilities
under
common
ownership.

One
State
agency
(
IV­
D­
367),
two
industry
groups
(
IV­
D­
93
and
IV­
D­
188),
and
one
Federal
agency
commenter
(
IV­
D­
352)
opposed
the
sole
use
of
two­
digit
SIC
codes
to
determine
the
source.
Another
industry
commenter
(
IV­
D­
311)
generally
supported
use
of
SIC
codes,
but
stated
that
there
will
be
instances
when
a
source
will
want
to
include
different
SIC
codes
in
one
permit.
State
agency
commenter
IV­
D­
223
suggested
that
EPA
allow
the
source
owner
or
operator
to
demonstrate
that
use
of
a
three­
or
four­
digit
SIC
code
is
appropriate.

Response:
Section
502(
a)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA)
requires
all
major
sources
to
obtain
a
Title
V
permit.
A
major
source
is
defined
in
Section
501(
2)
of
the
Act
as
"
any
stationary
source
(
or
any
group
of
stationary
sources
located
within
a
contiguous
area
and
under
common
control)"
that
is
either
a
major
source
as
defined
in
Section
112,
or
a
major
stationary
source
as
defined
in
Section
302
or
Part
D
of
Title
I.
EPA
does
not
believe
it
is
appropriate
to
change
the
definition
of
"
major
source"
that
was
proposed.

Consistent
with
EPA's
past
practice
under
new
source
review
(
NSR),
the
regulations
require
all
commonly
owned
or
controlled
pollutant
emitting
activities
on
contiguous
or
adjacent
properties
to
obtain
an
operating
permit
if
they
are
within
the
same
major
(
two­
digit)
SIC
group,
assuming
the
aggregated
activities
emit
enough
pollutants
to
exceed
the
applicable
emissions
thresholds
provided
in
the
Act.

Any
equipment
used
to
support
the
main
activity
at
a
site
would
also
be
considered
part
of
the
same
major
source,
regardless
of
the
two­
digit
SIC
code
for
that
equipment.
For
example,
an
automobile
manufacturing
plant
may
consist
of
a
foundry
(
SIC
Group
33),
a
power
plant
(
SIC
Group
49),
and
an
assembly
plant
(
SIC
Group
37).
Assume
that
the
equipment
is
situated
at
the
same
site,
under
common
ownership,
and
that
the
foundry
and
power
plant
are
used
solely
to
supply
the
assembly
plant.
In
this
example,
all
three
activities
would
be
considered
to
be
part
of
one
major
source.
However,
if
less
than
50
percent
of
the
output
of
the
foundry
was
dedicated
to
the
mentioned
auto
assembly
plant,
it
would
be
considered
a
separate
source.
If
the
power
plant
supported
both
the
foundry
and
the
assembly
plant
and
no
other
source,
it
would
be
considered
part
of
the
source
that
consumed
the
largest
percentage
of
the
power
generated.
Thus,
a
single
plant
would
not
be
required
to
have
multiple
permits
even
if
it
supported
several
different
installations.

The
EPA
has
not
changed
the
definition
from
the
proposal
because
the
definition
is
what
was
intended
by
Congress,
is
consistent
with
past
agency
practice,
and
furthers
important
policy
goals.

The
EPA
continues
to
believe
that
Congress
intended
that
sources
be
aggregated
by
two­
digit
SIC
code
at
the
source
site
to
determine
whether
the
source
is
major.
The
statute
defines
"
major
source"
to
include
a
"
major
source
as
defined
in
Section
112"
or
a
"
major
source
as
defined
in
Section
302
or
Part
D
of
Title
I."
Section
501(
2)(
B)
of
the
Act.
Under
Section
302
and
Part
D
of
Title
I,
EPA
has
a
long
practice
of
defining
major
stationary
source
by
reference
to
twodigit
SIC
codes.
Congressional
reliance
upon
a
term
for
which
there
is
a
long­
standing
EPA
interpretation
is
strong
evidence
that
Congress
considers
the
existing
interpretation
permissible,
if
not
mandatory.
At
this
time,
EPA
anticipates
that
it
will
also
reference
twodigit
SIC
codes
in
defining
major
source
under
Section
112.

Furthermore,
the
House
Committee
Report,
in
an
explanation
of
the
use
of
the
term
"
major
source"
in
Section
182(
c)
of
the
Act
(
regarding
serious
ozone
nonattainment
areas),
sheds
light
on
the
Title
V
definition
as
well
[
see
H.
R.
Rep.
No.
490(
I),
101st
Cong.,
2d
Sess.
236­
237
(
1990)].
Specifically,
the
report
states
the
following:

The
definition
of
"
major
source"
here
and
elsewhere
in
the
bill
uses
the
term
"
group
of
sources
located
within
a
contiguous
area
and
under
common
control."
The
Committee
understands
this
to
mean
a
group
of
sources
with
a
common
industrial
grouping,
i.
e.,
the
same
two­
digit
SIC
code.
It
is
the
approach
followed
today
by
EPA
as
a
result
of
the
Alabama
Power
litigation.
It
avoids
the
possibility
that
dissimilar
sources,
like
a
power
plant
and
an
adjacent
coal
mine,
will
be
considered
as
the
same
"
source"
because
of
common
ownership.

The
legislative
history
reference
to
Alabama
Power
and
EPA's
current
approach,
suggest
that
aggregation
by
SIC
code
should
be
done
in
a
manner
consistent
with
established
NSR
procedures.
See
New
Source
Review
Workshop
Manual,
Draft,
October
1990,
and
New
Source
Review:
Prevention
of
Significant
Deterioration
and
Nonattainment
Area
Guidance
Notebook,
1991,
for
further
information
on
how
NSR
handles
this
and
other
precedent­
setting
issues
that
relate
to
Title
V.

The
Administrator
believes
that
using
two­
digit
SIC
codes
to
define
"
major
source"
serves
several
important
policy
concerns.
Because
the
Administrator
currently
uses
two­
digit
SIC
codes
for
NSR
purposes,
permitting
authorities
and
sources
will
be
familiar
with
this
definition.
Another
advantage
is
that
using
two­
digit
SIC
codes
will
promote
greater
consistency
in
air
regulations.
The
two­
digit
SIC
code
level
is
superior
to
the
three­
or
four­
digit
SIC
code
level
for
several
reasons.
Two­
digit
categories
are
narrow
enough
to
separate
sets
of
activities
into
common
sense
groupings.
These
two­
digit
categories
are,
at
the
same
time,
broad
enough
to
minimize
the
likelihood
of
artificially
dividing
a
set
of
activities
that
does
not
constitute
a
plant
or
facility
into
more
than
one
group.
The
two­
digit
categories
are
also
broad
enough
to
minimize
the
likelihood
of
disputes
over
whether
a
set
of
activities
falls
entirely
into
one
category
or
another.

The
definition
of
"
major
source"
need
not
be
changed
based
on
commenters'
concerns
regarding
whether
one
permit
or
several
should
cover
various
emission
sources
at
a
facility
or
group
of
facilities.
The
definition
of
"
major
source"
does
not
preclude
permitting
authorities
from
issuing
one
permit
for
all
emissions
sources
within
a
facility
or
group
of
facilities
under
common
ownership,
regardless
of
SIC
code.
Similarly,
permitting
authorities
may
decide
to
issue
a
group
of
permits
to
cover
a
facility
or
group
of
facilities
even
when
all
emissions
are
from
units
in
the
same
SIC
code.

One
commenter
was
concerned
that
the
percent
allocation
for
support
units
at
a
facility
may
change
from
year
to
year
affecting
the
support
activity
test.
Congressional
intent
was
that
Title
V
would
handle
the
determination
of
source
in
the
same
manner
as
the
NSR
program.
Under
NSR,
support
facilities
are
those
facilities
that
convey,
store,
or
otherwise
assist
in
the
production
of
the
principal
product
at
the
site.
The
commenter's
question
seems
to
assume
that
a
support
unit
assists
more
than
one
primary
activity
(
source)
in
the
production
of
a
product.
NSR
considers
an
emissions
unit
that
supports
two
or
more
sources
as
part
of
the
source
that
relies
most
heavily
on
its
support.
Many
factors
in
addition
to
percentage
allocation
of
output
to
each
source
is
considered
in
such
determinations
and
not
enough
information
is
provided
to
answer
the
question
specifically.

Comment:
One
industry
representative
(
IV­
F­
02e)
commented
that
the
permit
should
apply
to
individual
processes
defined
as
major
sources
or
as
sources
of
hazardous
air
pollutants
(
HAPs),
and
not
to
the
entire
plant
site.

Response:
States
may
continue
to
issue
individual
permits
for
specific
processes,
as
long
as
they
are
aggregated
and
filed
together
in
accordance
with
the
definition
of
"
major
source."
States
may
also
choose
to
issue
one
permit
for
the
entire
major
source
(
plant).
Whether
the
State
chooses
to
issue
one
permit
or
a
collection
of
permits
for
a
major
source,
the
permit(
s)
must
contain
all
applicable
requirements
that
apply
to
the
source.
Additionally,
Part
70
applicability
may
extend
to
other
than
major
sources
(
nonmajor
sources),
including
any
Section
111,
Section
112,
Title
IV,
or
other
source
in
a
source
category
designated
by
the
Administrator.
Permits
for
these
nonmajor
sources
need
only
contain
applicable
requirements
for
the
emissions
units
that
trigger
applicability.

Comment:
Three
industry
commenters
(
IV­
D­
184,
IV­
D­
257,
IV­
D­
303)
stated
that
the
Title
V
program
should
indicate
that
emissions
from
oil
and
gas
exploration
and
pipeline
compressor
stations
are
not
to
be
aggregated
with
emissions
from
other
similar
units
in
determining
whether
a
source
is
major.
One
of
these
commenters
argued
that
in
the
case
of
a
mobile
drilling
rig,
which
will
relocate
a
number
of
times
on
a
lease,
the
major
source
determination
should
be
made
independently
at
each
location
and
should
not
be
additive.

Response:
The
EPA
has
changed
the
definition
of
"
major
source"
in
Section
70.2
of
the
regulations
to
make
it
consistent
with
the
requirements
of
Section
112(
n)(
4)
of
the
Act.
The
regulations
now
provide
that
"
emissions
from
any
oil
or
gas
exploration
or
production
well
(
with
its
associated
equipment)
and
emissions
from
any
pipeline
compressor
pump
station
shall
not
be
aggregated
with
emissions
from
other
similar
units,
whether
or
not
such
units
are
in
a
contiguous
area
or
under
common
control,
to
determine
whether
such
units
or
stations
are
major
sources."

Comment:
Three
environmental
groups
(
IV­
D­
228,
IV­
D­
229,
IV­
D­
432)
argued
that
the
provision
in
Section
70.2(
r)
stating
that
the
activities
of
vessels
shall
not
be
considered
part
of
a
major
source
violates
the
Outer
Continental
Shelf
(
OCS)
provision
in
Section
328(
a)(
4)(
C)
of
the
Act
that
includes
vessel
emissions
as
direct
emissions
from
the
OCS
source.

Response:
Evaluation
of
the
requirements
of
the
Act
with
respect
to
the
OCS
program
has
prompted
the
Agency
to
delete
the
reference
to
vessels
in
the
major
source
definition.
Specifically,
Section
328(
a)(
4)(
C)(
iii)
of
the
Act
requires
that
emissions
from
vessels
servicing
or
associated
with
the
OCS
source
be
considered
direct
emissions
from
the
source.
The
promulgated
definition
will
allow
permitting
of
these
sources
consistent
with
the
requirements
of
the
OCS
program.

3.2.2
Potential
Emissions
Comment:
Several
industry
commenters
(
IV­
D­
135,
IV­
D­
160,
IV­
D­
204,
IV­
D­
311,
IV­
D­
312,
IV­
D­
323,
IV­
D­
350)
recommended
that
a
major
source
should
be
based
on
actual,
not
potential,
emissions.
Response:
The
proposal
defined
a
major
source
in
terms
of
a
source's
potential
to
emit
all
air
pollutants
from
all
emissions
units
within
the
same
two­
digit
major
group
industrial
classification
under
common
control
at
the
same
plant
site.
The
final
rule
retains
potential
emissions
as
the
basis
for
determining
major
source
status.
"
Potential
to
emit"
is
defined
in
Section
70.2
of
the
regulations
as
the
maximum
capacity
of
a
source
to
emit
any
air
pollutant,
taking
into
account
any
physical
or
operational
limitation
on
that
capacity
enforceable
by
the
Administrator,
including
any
air
pollution
control
equipment.

EPA
is
required
by
statute
to
base
the
definition
of
major
source
on
potential,
not
actual,
emissions.
Title
V
defines
"
major
source"
to
include
"
major
source
as
defined
in
Section
112"
and
"
major
stationary
source
as
defined
in
Section
302
or
Part
D
of
Title
I."
Section
501(
2)
of
the
Act.
The
cross­
referenced
statutory
definitions
are
based
on
whether
a
source
emits
or
"
has
the
potential
to
emit"
a
specified
amount
of
pollutants.
Sections
112(
a)(
1),
302(
j)
(
emphasis
added).

Comment:
Many
industry
commenters
(
IV­
D­
01,
IV­
D­
49,
IV­
D­
100,
IV­
D­
169,
IV­
D­
174,
IV­
D­
175,
IV­
D­
176,
IV­
D­
177,
IV­
D­
178,
IV­
D­
181,
IV­
D­
200,
IV­
D­
273,
IV­
D­
317,
IV­
D­
350)
and
several
State
commenters
(
IV­
D­
59,
IV­
D­
191,
IV­
D­
219,
IV­
D­
279,
IV­
D­
322,
IV­
D­
359)
favored
allowing
sources
to
restrict
potential
emissions
to
below
Title
V
major
source
threshold
levels.
However,
the
State
commenters
urged
that
this
provision
be
used
only
if
sources
conduct
adequate
monitoring
and
submit
periodic
reporting
to
the
reviewing
agency.

One
State
agency
(
IV­
D­
125)
urged
that
the
federally
enforceable
NSR
program
be
used
as
a
mechanism
to
deal
with
sources
whose
potential
to
emit
is
"
major"
but
whose
emissions
are
restricted
enforceably
to
below
the
threshold
for
major
stationary
sources.
Three
State
agencies
(
IV­
D­
125,
IV­
D­
231,
IVD
267)
recommended
the
use
of
general
permits
as
an
acceptable
alternative.
One
State
agency
(
IV­
D­
125)
argued
that
use
of
enforceable
company
commitments
is
merely
another
form
of
permit
review.
Another
of
the
State
agencies
(
IV­
D­
267)
agreed
but
questioned
whether
small
sources
could
afford
to
monitor
and
report
every
six
months.
One
State
agency
(
IV­
D­
219)
questioned
what
would
happen
to
an
existing
Title
V
permit
if
a
source
controlled
emissions
to
below
the
major
source
threshold.

Response:
The
Preamble
to
the
proposal
discussed
the
scenario
in
which
a
source
chooses
to
restrict
enforceably
its
potential
emissions
below
the
threshold
for
a
major
stationary
source
in
order
to
exempt
itself
from
the
requirement
to
obtain
a
full
Part
70
permit,
assuming
no
other
provision
of
the
Act
captures
that
source
in
the
program.
Three
options
were
proposed
to
address
this
situation:
(
1)
a
State
could
issue
State
general
operating
permits
to
such
sources,
without
subjecting
them
to
the
federally­
approved
permit
program,
and
submit
those
State
permits
as
State
Implementation
Plan
(
SIP)
revisions
to
make
the
limits
federally
enforceable;
(
2)
a
State
could
submit
its
operating
permit
program
to
EPA
for
approval
as
a
SIP
revision,
and
then
issue
federally­
enforceable
State
permits
to
these
sources;
or
(
3)
a
source
could
submit
to
the
permitting
authority
an
"
enforceable
commitment"
containing
specific
physical
or
operational
conditions
that
would
restrict
the
source's
potential
emissions
below
the
applicability
threshold.

After
considering
comments
on
this
issue,
EPA
has
decided
to
adopt
the
first
two
options,
but
finds
the
third
option
to
be
unacceptable.
It
would
needlessly
create
a
separate,
although
similar,
process
outside
of
the
permitting
process.
To
be
at
all
acceptable,
such
a
process
would
have
to
require
public
notice
and
review,
and
these
agreements
would
then
have
to
be
made
federally
enforceable
through
some
as
yet
undefined
means.
The
two
options
described
in
detail
in
the
proposal,
as
well
as
another
method
described
in
the
following
paragraph,
would
satisfactorily
do
just
this,
without
the
burden
of
creating
and
implementing
another
process
external
to
the
permitting
program.

Another
acceptable
option
has
been
provided
in
the
final
rules.
Under
this
option,
States
may
issue
to
these
sources
Federal
Part
70
permits
that
are
reduced
in
scope
and
detail.
Such
a
permit
could
contain
specific
physical
or
operational
conditions
that
would
restrict
the
source's
potential
emissions
to
a
level
below
the
applicability
thresholds
stated
in
Section
70.3(
a).
Monitoring
and
reporting
requirements
in
the
permit
could
be
limited
to
those
necessary
to
ensure
enforcement
of
these
conditions.
The
permitting
authority
could
use
a
general
permit
under
Part
70
to
implement
this
option.
Failure
of
the
sources
to
meet
these
permit
conditions
could
trigger
a
requirement
to
submit
a
revised,
detailed
Title
V
permit
application.

One
commenter
questioned
what
would
happen
to
an
existing
Title
V
permit
in
the
event
that
a
source
controlled
its
emissions
to
below
the
major
source
threshold.
These
emission
reductions
would
have
to
be
restricted
enforceably
in
order
for
the
permitting
authority
to
recognize
the
change
in
status
from
major
to
nonmajor
source.
However,
the
nonmajor
sources
may
still
be
required
to
obtain
Part
70
permits,
provided
that
there
is
no
deferral
or
permanent
exemption
in
place
for
the
nonmajor
source
and
that
it
is
otherwise
subject
to
Part
70.

3.3
SOURCE
CATEGORY
EXEMPTIONS
3.3.1
Deferral
of
Nonmajor
Sources
Comment:
In
general,
commenters
overwhelmingly
supported
the
five­
year
deferral
of
nonmajor
sources.
Specific
commenters
favoring
this
provision
included
34
industry
representatives
(
IV­
D­
49,
IV­
D­
52,
IV­
D­
57,
IV­
D­
63,
IV­
D­
77,
IV­
D­
93,
IV­
D­
159,
IV­
D­
160,
IV­
D­
174,
IV­
D­
175,
IV­
D­
176,
IV­
D­
177,
IV­
D­
178,
IV­
D­
181,
IV­
D­
186,
IV­
D­
189,
IV­
D­
195,
IV­
D­
199,
IV­
D­
200,
IV­
D­
202,
IV­
D­
203,
IV­
D­
205,
IV­
D­
206,
IV­
D­
213,
IV­
D­
217,
IV­
D­
269,
IV­
D­
272,
IV­
D­
307,
IV­
D­
312,
IV­
D­
324,
IV­
D­
330,
IV­
D­
361,
IV­
D­
404,
IV­
F­
01y),
six
State
groups
(
IV­
D­
121,
IV­
D­
125,
IV­
D­
191,
IV­
D­
211,
IV­
D­
219,
IVD
270),
and
one
government
agency
(
IV­
D­
269).
Several
industry
commenters
(
IV­
D­
160,
IV­
D­
269,
IV­
D­
312)
noted
that
the
deferral
would
minimize
severe
administrative
burdens
for
sources,
the
States,
and
EPA.
A
State
commenter
(
IV­
D­
270)
noted
that
because
there
is
some
question
about
the
legality
of
the
proposed
section,
EPA
should
provide
a
further
rationale
for
the
deferral
of
nonmajor
sources.
One
State
agency
commenter
(
IV­
D­
261)
and
an
environmental
representative
(
IV­
D­
432)
argued
that
source
categories
cannot
be
exempted
or
deferred
because
it
is
impractical
and
infeasible
for
the
permitting
authority.
The
commenter
added
that
the
applicants
can
be
exempted
only
if
it
is
impracticable,
infeasible,
or
unnecessarily
burdensome
for
sources.

Two
environmental
groups
(
IV­
D­
229
and
IV­
D­
261)
argued
that
there
should
be
no
exemption
for
small
or
nonmajor
sources
unless
there
is
a
specific
finding
that
it
would
be
impracticable,
infeasible,
or
unduly
burdensome
for
the
nonmajor
source
to
comply
with
the
Act's
requirements;
the
Act
does
not
provide
an
exemption
on
the
basis
it
would
be
unduly
burdensome
for
the
States
to
permit
the
sources.

Response:
Section
502(
a)
of
the
Act
provides
the
Administrator
the
discretion
to
exempt
one
or
more
source
categories
(
in
whole
or
in
part)
from
the
requirement
to
obtain
a
permit
"
if
the
Administrator
finds
that
compliance
with
such
requirements
is
impracticable,
infeasible,
or
unnecessarily
burdensome
on
such
categories."
The
Act
specifies
that
major
sources
may
not
be
exempt
from
these
requirements.

Section
70.3(
b)(
1)
of
the
final
Part
70
regulations
retains
most
of
the
provisions
of
the
proposal
and
provides
States
the
option
of
exempting
all
nonmajor
sources
(
except
for
acid
rain
sources
and
solid
waste
incineration
sources)
temporarily
from
the
requirement
to
obtain
a
permit.
A
State
may
choose
to
provide
the
temporary
deferral
for
all
nonmajors
or
for
nonmajors
only
in
selected
source
categories.
A
State
also
has
the
option
of
allowing
deferred
sources
to
apply
for
and
receive
a
permit
during
the
deferral
period.
As
explained
below,
the
Administrator
will
enter
into
a
rulemaking
in
the
future
to
decide
whether
or
not
to
grant
further
permanent
exemptions
to
all
or
some
specific
categories
of
nonmajor
sources.
Additionally,
the
proposal
requirements
in
paragraph
70.3(
b)(
2)
concerning
a
showing
by
the
State
for
source
category
exemptions
in
nonattainment
areas
has
been
deleted
from
the
final
rule
for
the
reasons
given
in
the
preamble
to
the
final
rule.

The
EPA
finds
that
without
this
deferral,
compliance
with
the
permitting
requirements
would
be
"
impracticable,
infeasible"
and
"
unnecessarily
burdensome
on
such
source
categories"
within
the
meaning
of
Section
502(
a)
of
the
Act.
Two
independent
and
sufficient
reasons
support
EPA's
determination.
The
first
was
presented
in
the
Preamble
to
the
proposal:
the
burden
on
the
permitting
authorities
and
EPA
will
make
permitting
all
nonmajor
sources
in
the
early
stages
of
the
program
impracticable
and
infeasible.
The
second
reason,
which
by
itself
justifies
deferral,
is
that
the
requirements
necessary
to
obtain
a
Title
V
permit
during
the
early
stages
of
the
program
would
be
"
unnecessarily
burdensome"
for
nonmajor
sources.
This
is
because
the
anticipated
burden
on
permitting
authorities
and
EPA,
as
described
in
the
Preamble
to
the
proposal,
would
translate
into
a
significant,
additional,
and
unnecessary
burden
on
nonmajor
sources
if
they
were
required
to
be
permitted.

Nonmajor
sources
will
be
disproportionately
affected
by
the
administrative
difficulties
faced
by
the
permitting
authorities.
The
great
majority
of
nonmajor
sources
are
small
businesses,
and
many
are
not
currently
subject
to
State
air
permit
programs.
Nonmajor
sources
will
require
more
assistance
from
permitting
authorities
and
EPA
because
of
the
relative
lack
of
resources
and
technical
and
legal
expertise,
as
well
as
inexperience
in
dealing
with
environmental
regulation,
that
characterizes
most
small
businesses.
If
permitting
authorities
become
overburdened
due
to
a
backlog
of
thousands
of
permits
to
be
processed,
in
many
States
nonmajor
sources
will
be
unable
to
obtain
additional
technical
and
procedural
assistance
from
permitting
authorities.
Although
the
small
business
technical
assistance
program
should
help
these
sources,
the
small
business
program
staff
will
also
be
assisting
small
businesses
that
are
major
sources
and
will
face
the
same
problems
and
time
constraints
as
permitting
staffs.

Difficulty
in
obtaining
assistance
will
unnecessarily
burden
nonmajor
sources
in
various
ways.
For
example,
difficulty
in
obtaining
assistance
from
permitting
authorities
could
make
it
difficult,
if
not
impossible,
for
some
nonmajor
sources
to
submit
a
timely
and
complete
application.
If
they
fail
to
submit
a
timely
and
complete
application,
these
sources
would
lose
the
"
application
shield,"
thereby
forcing
them
to
close
or
run
the
risk
of
operating
without
a
permit
in
violation
of
the
Act.
The
inexperience
of
nonmajor
sources
with
permitting
and
their
relative
lack
of
technical
and
legal
resources
also
makes
it
more
likely
that
such
sources
will
require
more
permit
revisions
soon
after
permit
issuance.
If
permitting
authorities
are
overburdened,
it
will
be
difficult
for
nonmajor
sources
to
obtain
permit
revisions
early
in
the
process.
This
will
prevent
them
from
promptly
making
what
they
believe
are
necessary
changes.

The
EPA
notes
that
some
nonmajor
sources
are
already
permitted
at
the
State
level,
and
therefore
would
have
some
experience
with
the
permitting
process
and
completing
permit
applications.
A
State
need
not
extend
the
deferral
to
these
sources.
However,
even
these
sources
will
have
to
deal
with
the
increased
burdens
flowing
from
the
requirements
of
other
titles
of
the
Act
Amendments
(
CAAA).
As
stated
above,
EPA
expects
that
the
great
majority
of
nonmajor
sources
will
be
small
businesses.
Some
nonmajor
sources
will
in
fact
be
either
adjuncts
to
large
corporations
possessing
significant
resources
along
with
technical
and
legal
expertise,
or
will
have
independently
acquired
such
resources
and
expertise.
It
is
therefore
likely
that
there
will
be
certain
nonmajor
sources
for
which
the
requirements
of
the
Part
70
program
may
not
be
unnecessarily
burdensome.

While
the
permitting
requirements
will
be
significantly
less
burdensome
for
these
sources,
EPA
has
determined
that
it
is
not
feasible
to
subject
these
sources
to
different
treatment
for
purposes
of
this
deferral.
This
is
primarily
because
the
class
of
sophisticated
nonmajor
sources
described
above
bears
little
or
no
relation
to
the
delineation
of
source
"
categories"
as
that
term
is
used
in
Section
502(
a).
Rather,
EPA
believes
that
these
sources
typically
represent
a
small
percentage
of
each
of
the
various
categories
of
nonmajor
sources.
Given
the
anticipated
lack
of
resources
discussed
above,
it
is
not
reasonable
to
expect
permitting
authorities
to
sift
through
the
large
number
of
nonmajor
sources
and
select
those
for
which
the
permit
program
requirements
will
not
be
unnecessarily
burdensome.
Indeed,
the
requirement
to
conduct
such
a
survey
would
to
a
great
extent
undercut
the
benefits
intended
by
this
deferral,
and
would
not
be
justified
by
the
minor
gains
in
emission
controls
resulting
from
the
permitting
of
these
few
nonmajor
sources.

As
already
mentioned,
States
are
free
to
apply
the
deferral
only
to
certain
categories
of
nonmajor
sources.
The
Part
70
regulations
therefore
do
not
prevent
a
State
from
drawing
distinctions
based
upon
which
nonmajor
sources
have
the
resources
and
expertise
necessary
to
comply
with
the
permit
program.

The
EPA
also
notes
that
an
alternative
to
deferral
under
Section
502(
a)
exists
in
the
form
of
general
permits.
General
permits
reduce
the
administrative
burden
for
sources
and
permitting
authorities
by
simplifying
the
permit
issuance
process
on
certain
categories
of
nonmajor
sources.
However,
not
all
nonmajor
sources
are
well­
suited
to
general
permits
and
the
sources
for
which
general
permit
would
be
applicable
must
still
comply
with
the
administrative
procedures
related
to
permit
issuance,
such
as
public
review,
and
EPA
and
affected
State
review.
Administrative
burdens
would
therefore
be
reduced
but
not
eliminated
and
still
represent
a
significant,
additional,
and
unnecessary
burden
on
nonmajor
sources.

Compelling
States
to
permit
nonmajor
sources
during
the
early
stages
of
the
Title
V
permitting
program
is
not
only
extremely
burdensome
for
these
sources,
it
is
unnecessarily
so.
Requiring
nonmajor
sources
to
be
permitted
at
the
beginning
of
the
program
would
not
provide
major
benefits
to
air
quality
and
might
actually
hinder
implementation
of
the
Act.
The
temporary
exemption
for
nonmajor
sources
poses
few
risks
to
progress
in
improving
air
quality.
By
definition,
these
sources
emit
less
than
major
sources
and
are
less
significant
contributors
to
air
quality
problems.
Furthermore,
deferring
permitting
requirements
does
not
defer
a
source's
obligation
to
comply
with
the
underlying
substantive
air
pollution
control
requirements.
Nonmajor
sources
may
be
subject
to
New
Source
Performance
Standards
(
NSPS)
or
existing
National
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants
(
NESHAP)
regulations
that
in
general
already
contain
many
of
the
same
monitoring,
recordkeeping,
and
reporting
requirements
that
would
apply
to
major
sources
and
represent
one
of
the
major
benefits
of
the
permit
program.

Requiring
nonmajors
to
obtain
permits
at
the
start
of
a
permitting
program
could
hinder
implementation
of
the
Act.
It
will
stress
the
system
by
greatly
increasing
the
number
of
permits
that
must
be
processed.
This
additional
stress
would
make
it
more
likely
that
errors
would
occur
in
permitting
major
sources,
which
could
adversely
affect
air
quality.
Concentrating
State
permitting
resources
on
major
sources
during
the
first
phase
of
the
program
will
make
more
efficient
use
of
those
resources.

Furthermore,
deferring
permitting
requirements
for
nonmajor
sources
temporarily
does
not
only
delay
the
permitting
burden
on
these
sources,
it
will
significantly
decrease
the
burden.
Once
the
programs
have
been
operating
for
several
years
and
the
initial
wave
of
permitting
is
completed,
permitting
staff
will
have
the
time
and
experience
necessary
to
assist
nonmajor
sources
with
the
permitting
process.

Thus,
the
temporary
exemption
of
minor
sources
furthers
important
policy
goals.
The
failure
to
defer
nonmajors
would
greatly
increase
the
burden
on
those
sources,
would
probably
not
provide
significant
environmental
benefits,
would
stress
the
permitting
system
when
it
is
at
its
most
vulnerable
time,
and
might
actually
hinder
achievement
of
air
quality
gains.
Temporarily
deferring
the
applicability
of
Title
V
requirements
to
nonmajor
sources
might
even
have
a
net
air
quality
benefit
to
the
extent
it
facilitates
bringing
more
major
sources
into
compliance
earlier.

The
EPA
believes
that
the
preceding
analysis
of
the
burden
on
nonmajor
sources
is
ample
justification
for
the
exemption
under
Section
502(
a)
of
the
Act
being
implemented
here.
This
is
particularly
so
in
light
of
the
observation
from
the
Alabama
Power
Company
v.
Costle
decision,
636
F.
2d
360
(
D.
C.
Cir.
1979),
that
a
deferral
of
the
applicability
of
Act
provisions
requires
far
less
justification
than
an
outright
exemption.

Comment:
Many
of
the
industry
commenters
urged
that
deferral
of
nonmajor
sources
continue
indefinitely.

Response:
The
Administrator
does
not
intend
for
the
deferral
of
nonmajor
sources
to
continue
indefinitely.
In
the
proposal,
permitting
authorities
were
allowed
to
defer
(
temporarily
exempt)
nonmajor
sources,
except
for
acid
rain
sources,
from
coverage
under
Part
70
for
five
years
after
program
approval.
The
final
rule
retains
the
provisions
in
this
regard,
with
the
exception
of
the
5­
year
limitation.
The
preamble
to
the
final
rule
states
that
the
Administrator
will
complete
a
national
rulemaking
within
5
years
of
the
first
approval
of
a
State
program
that
defers
non­
major
sources
to
consider
further
deferral
or
permanent
exemption
for
nonmajor
sources.

The
burdens
of
the
permitting
program
previously
identified,
including
the
lack
of
adequate
resources
and
technical
and
legal
expertise
on
the
part
of
sources,
as
well
as
the
potential
difficulty
in
obtaining
technical
and
legal
assistance
from
permitting
authorities,
are
likely
to
continue
for
some
significant
number
of
nonmajor
sources
beyond
the
early
stages
of
the
permit
program.
Accordingly,
EPA
believes
it
would
be
unduly
burdensome,
and
in
some
cases
onerous,
to
subject
all
such
sources
to
the
full
panoply
of
procedural
and
substantive
requirements
embodied
in
the
final
permit
rules.
Although
the
Agency
anticipates
that
many
nonmajor
sources
will
qualify
for
general
permits
and
thereby
avoid
the
greater
burdens
associated
with
obtaining
specific
permits,
EPA
also
believes
it
likely
that
a
certain
number
of
categories
of
nonmajor
sources
should
be
permanently
exempted
from
the
permit
program.
This
is
so
despite
the
support
that
will
be
offered
through
the
Small
Business
Technical
Assistance
Program
established
under
Section
507.
While
that
program
will
be
beneficial
to
nonmajor
sources,
the
extraordinary
number
of
nonmajor
sources
that
could
conceivably
enter
the
permit
system
absent
this
deferral,
as
many
as
350,000
sources,
could
overwhelm
the
capacities
of
the
State
technical
assistance
programs.

To
address
these
serious
concerns,
EPA
stated
in
the
preamble
to
the
final
rule
that
it
intends,
within
3
years
of
the
first
approval
of
a
full
or
partial
State
permit
program
that
defers
nonmajor
sources,
to
initiate
a
rulemaking
to
determine
whether
to
grant
a
further
deferral
from
the
permit
program
to
all
or
some
specific
categories
of
nonmajor
sources.
In
addition,
the
rulemaking
will
consider
whether
to
grant
permanent
exemptions
to
any
source
categories
for
which
there
is
a
sufficient
record
to
support
such
an
exemption.
As
part
of
this
rulemaking,
EPA,
in
conjunction
with
sources,
will
gather
information
which
will
enable
the
Agency
to
make
exemption
determinations
as
appropriate.
The
EPA
will
propose
such
a
rule
no
later
than
4
years
following
approval
of
the
first
full
or
partial
State
permit
program
with
a
deferral
and
promulgate
the
rule
within
5
years
of
that
date.
Comment:
A
few
commenters
(
IV­
D­
219,
IV­
D­
314,
IV­
D­
322,
IV­
D­
331)
indicated
that
the
deferral
process
is
unclear.
Their
basic
questions
centered
on
whether
nonmajor
sources
must
obtain
permits
within
five
years
or
after
the
initial
five
years.

Response:
Nonmajor
sources
must
obtain
permits
after
the
end
of
the
temporary
exemption.
At
that
time,
nonmajor
sources
will
be
required
to
submit
a
complete
permit
application
within
12
months,
unless
the
source
is
covered
by
a
permanent
exemption.
Section
503(
c)
states
that
sources
are
required
to
submit
an
application
to
the
permitting
authority
within
12
months,
or
such
earlier
date
as
the
permitting
authority
may
establish,
of
becoming
subject
to
the
State
permit
program
and
that
the
permitting
authority
is
required
to
issue
or
deny
the
permit
within
18
months
of
receipt
of
an
application.

Comment:
Three
industry
commenters
(
IV­
D­
197,
IV­
D­
205,
IV­
D­
206)
indicated
that
the
deferral
should
apply
to
certain
major
sources
as
well
as
nonmajor
sources.

Response:
The
Administrator
may
not
extend
any
deferral
(
temporary
exemption)
or
permanent
exemption
to
any
major
source,
as
this
is
explicitly
prohibited
by
Section
502(
a)
of
the
Act.

Comment:
Two
environmental
groups'
(
IV­
D­
228
and
IV­
D­
432)
interpretation
of
Section
70.3(
b)
was
that
it
would
exempt
nonmajor
incinerators
from
permitting
and
argued
that
Section
129(
e)
requires
such
sources
to
obtain
Title
V
permits.

Response:
The
proposal
identified
major
sources
and
nonmajor
sources
with
applicable
requirements
of
the
acid
rain
program
(
affected
units)
as
not
eligible
for
the
deferral
from
Part
70
program
applicability
and
did
not
single
out
solid­
waste
incineration
units
for
any
special
consideration
in
this
regard.
The
final
rule
specifically
allows
nonmajor
solid­
waste
incineration
units
to
be
deferred
only
until
the
time
they
are
independently
required
to
obtain
permits
under
Section
129(
e)
of
the
Act.
This
is
because
the
Administrator
believes
that
States
should
not
be
allowed
to
override
the
Act's
specific
schedule
for
permitting
specific
source
categories.

Comment:
One
industry
commenter
(
IV­
D­
272)
suggested
deleting
the
restriction
on
deferrals
for
nonattainment
areas,
as
it
is
not
required
by
the
Act.
A
State
commenter
(
IV­
D­
125)
noted
that
a
State
should
not
be
required
to
show
that
its
SIP
obligations
can
be
effectively
enforced
without
a
federally
enforceable
permit.

Response:
The
proposal
made
the
deferral
for
nonmajor
sources
in
nonattainment
areas
contingent
upon
a
showing
by
the
permitting
authority
that
the
State
could
effectively
enforce
its
SIP
obligations
on
such
sources
without
using
Title
V
operating
permits.
The
final
rules
do
not
include
this
requirement
because
such
a
showing
is
not
required
by
the
Act.
Section
502(
a)
of
the
Act
makes
no
distinction
regarding
treatment
of
exemptions
in
attainment
areas
versus
nonattainment
areas.
The
EPA
also
determined
that
the
proposed
provision
was
impractical
and
unnecessary.
It
would
have
demanded
a
significant
amount
of
resources
from
State
agencies
at
a
critical
period
in
program
development.
States
said
that
it
would
have
taken
almost
as
much
effort
to
make
the
demonstration
as
it
would
to
permit
the
nonmajor
sources.
The
purpose
of
allowing
States
to
defer
permitting
obligations
for
nonmajor
sources
would
have
been
dramatically
undercut
if
a
special
showing
were
required
for
nonattainment
areas.

Comment:
Several
State
agency
commenters
(
IV­
D­
97,
IVD
100,
IV­
D­
219,
IV­
D­
415)
either
disagreed
with
the
five­
year
deferral
or
wanted
it
limited.
They
expressed
concern
that
it
would
be
difficult
to
adequately
fund
their
programs
without
fee
collection
from
nonmajor
sources.
Another
agency
commenter
(
IV­
D­
261)
argued
that
if
such
deferral
is
legal,
a
threeyear
deferral
would
be
sufficient,
provided
major
source
permitting
is
completed
in
three
years.

Several
industry
and
State
representatives
urged
flexibility
in
applying
the
deferral
provisions.
Two
industry
groups
(
IV­
D­
160
and
IV­
D­
312)
commented
that
owners
of
nonmajor
sources
should
be
allowed
to
obtain
permits
if
they
wish.
Two
States
(
IV­
D­
97
and
IV­
D­
219)
favored
allowing
the
deferral
of
nonmajor
sources
to
be
optional.
Two
other
State
groups
(
IV­
D­
121
and
IV­
D­
270)
commented
that
States
should
be
allowed
to
require
a
permit
from
a
nonmajor
source
if
they
believe
a
permit
is
necessary.

Response:
Both
the
proposed
and
final
rule
make
the
deferral
of
nonmajor
sources
optional
for
States.
The
Agency
believes
this
is
appropriate
because
the
permitting
authority's
ability
to
handle
permitting
of
nonmajor
sources
(
and
the
corresponding
burden
to
such
sources)
may
vary
from
State
to
State.
Some
States
may
already
require
nonmajor
sources
to
obtain
permits,
and
may
want
to
continue
this
source
coverage
in
their
new
Part
70
programs
with
minimal
disruption.
Other
States
may
have
relatively
few
major
sources
and
may
determine
they
can
effectively
handle
the
permitting
of
nonmajor
sources
without
imposing
administrative
demands
that
are
unnecessarily
burdensome
for
these
sources.
Because
States
have
the
discretion
to
provide
a
deferral,
they
can
also
limit
the
deferral
in
any
manner
(
e.
g.,
to
three
years
only
or
to
specific
source
categories
only)
consistent
with
their
needs
in
implementing
the
program.

Several
commenters
were
concerned
that
deferring
nonmajor
sources
would
prevent
them
from
collecting
fees
adequate
to
fund
their
program
costs.
As
stated
in
the
preamble
to
the
proposal,
States
are
allowed
to
independently
charge
fees
to
federally­
exempted
sources
at
their
discretion.
Furthermore,
the
cost
of
program
development
for
the
deferred
sources
would
not
have
to
be
included
in
any
calculation
of
fee
adequacy
or
overall
Part
70
program
costs
for
the
years
that
the
deferral
were
effective.
Alternatively,
since
the
deferral
is
discretionary,
States
have
the
option
of
not
deferring
any
nonmajor
sources
or
only
deferring
specific
categories
of
nonmajor
sources
and
possibly
collecting
higher
overall
fee
amounts
than
they
would
if
they
had
deferred
all
nonmajor
sources.

The
proposal
also
stated,
in
Section
70.3(
c)(
4),
that
any
source
whose
initial
applicability
was
deferred
would
be
given
the
option
of
obtaining
a
permit
prior
to
the
end
of
the
5­
year
deferral
period.
The
final
rules
continue
to
allow
States
to
determine
whether
nonmajor
sources
should
have
the
option
of
obtaining
a
Part
70
permit.
Some
companies
have
business
reasons
for
obtaining
an
operating
permit.
For
example,
a
lender
may
wish
to
determine
that
air
emissions
from
a
facility
are
permitted
under
the
law.
As
a
result,
there
may
be
sources
that
a
permitting
authority
determines
do
not
need
a
permit
for
air
pollution
control
purposes,
but
which
have
independent
business
reasons
to
seek
operating
permits.

3.3.2
Exempt
Source
Categories
Comment:
Many
commenters
offered
suggestions
on
categories
that
should
be
exempt
from
the
permitting
program
in
accordance
with
Section
502(
a)
of
the
Act
Amendments.
Several
industry
commenters
(
IV­
D­
132,
IVD
272,
IV­
D­
306,
IV­
D­
311,
IV­
D­
317,
IV­
D­
323
and
IV­
D­
330)
requested
an
exemption
from
Title
V
requirements
for
research
and
development
laboratories,
(
e.
g.,
pharmaceutical
research
and
development)
where
changes
may
need
to
be
made
on
an
hourly
basis
to
improve
processes
and
develop
new
ones.
Other
suggested
categories
for
exemption
included
wood
stoves
(
IV­
D­
219,
IV­
D­
269,
IV­
D­
322,
IV­
D­
343,
IV­
D­
398),
asbestos
demolition/
renovation
sites
(
IV­
D­
86,
IV­
D­
100,
IV­
D­
198,
IV­
D­
202,
IV­
D­
203,
IV­
D­
211,
IV­
D­
219,
IV­
D­
269,
IV­
D­
272,
IV­
D­
301,
IV­
D­
306,
IV­
D­
319,
IV­
D­
330,
IV­
D­
343,
IV­
D­
352,
IV­
D­
398,
IV­
D­
404),
residential
boilers
(
IV­
D­
269),
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
remediation
sites
(
IV­
D­
132,
IV­
D­
198,
IV­
D­
202),
maintenance
equipment
(
IV­
D­
52
and
IV­
D­
198),
peaking
electrical
generating
units
(
IV­
D­
79),
surface
coal
mines
(
IV­
D­
219),
automotive
refinishing
plants
(
IV­
D­
266),
and
aircraft
de­
icing
operations
(
IV­
D­
344).

Five
industry
commenters
(
IV­
D­
257,
IV­
D­
86,
IV­
D­
184,
IV­
D­
199,
IV­
D­
205)
suggested
that
temporary
oil
and
gas
upstream
operations
such
as
drilling
wells,
workovers,
well
servicing,
and
well
treatments
should
be
exempt
from
the
permitting
requirements.
Several
additional
industry
commenters
(
IV­
D­
57,
IV­
D­
268,
IVD
272,
IV­
D­
330)
also
suggested
exempting
any
temporary
emissions
units
located
at
a
source
for
a
short
duration
(
i.
e.,
less
than
the
time
necessary
to
complete
a
permit
action).

One
industry
commenter
(
IV­
D­
226)
proposed
that
all
nonmajor
sources
be
exempt
from
the
permitting
requirements
unless
EPA
determines
that
unique
circumstances
dictate
that
a
specific
nonmajor
source
category
should
be
permitted.
One
industry
commenter
(
IV­
D­
236)
proposed
exempting
facilities
subject
to
a
NESHAP
from
the
Title
V
permitting
program,
arguing
that
it
would
be
duplicative
to
have
those
facilities
obtain
a
permit.

Response:
In
the
proposal,
the
Administrator
solicited
comment
and
information
concerning
which
source
categories
might
be
especially
appropriate
for
permanent
exemptions,
pursuant
to
the
authority
given
in
502(
a),
such
as
asbestos
demolition
and
renovation
operations
under
the
NESHAP
program
and
woodstoves
under
the
NSPS
program.
The
Agency
also
asked
for
comment
on
any
other
criteria
that
should
be
used
to
judge
the
effect
of
permanently
deferring
nonmajor
sources,
including
the
burden
on
sources
and
permitting
authorities,
and
the
aggregate
effect
on
air
quality
of
any
permanent
exemption.

Many
commenters
on
the
proposed
Part
70
rules
offered
suggestions
on
categories
of
sources
appropriate
for
permanent
exemption.
However,
at
this
time,
there
is
not
sufficient
information
in
the
record
to
justify
any
permanent
exemptions
for
other
than
the
two
source
categories
specifically
identified
in
the
proposal:
asbestos
demolition
and
renovation
under
the
NESHAP
program
and
woodstoves
under
the
NSPS
program.
As
stated
in
the
preamble
to
the
final
rule,
The
Administrator
intents
to
initiate
a
rulemaking
within
3
years
of
the
first
approval
of
a
full
or
partial
State
permit
program
that
defers
nonmajor
sources
to
determine
whether
to
grant
further
deferrals
and
to
consider
whether
to
grant
permanent
exemptions
to
any
source
categories
for
which
there
is
a
sufficient
record
to
support
such
an
exemption.
As
part
of
this
proposed
rulemaking,
EPA,
in
conjunction
with
sources,
will
gather
information
which
will
enable
the
Agency
to
make
exemption
or
deferral
determinations
as
appropriate.
The
EPA
will
propose
such
a
rule
no
later
than
4
years
following
approval
of
the
first
full
or
partial
State
permit
program
with
a
deferral
and
promulgate
the
rule
within
5
years
of
that
date.

The
final
rule
identifies
two
source
categories
for
permanent
exemption:
(
1)
all
sources
subject
to
regulation
under
the
demolition
and
renovation
provisions
of
the
NESHAP
for
asbestos
(
40
CFR
61.145);
and
(
2)
all
residential
wood
heaters
subject
to
regulation
under
the
NSPS
[
40
CFR
60
(
AAA)].
As
with
the
temporary
deferral
for
nonmajor
sources,
there
are
two
reasons
for
exempting
asbestos
demolition
and
renovation
operations
and
residential
wood
heaters.
Each
reason
provides
an
independent
justification
for
the
exemptions.
First,
as
described
in
more
detail
below,
permitting
such
sources
would
be
impracticable
and
infeasible
for
permitting
authorities.
Second,
permitting
such
sources
poses
an
unnecessary
burden
for
these
sources.
Additionally,
exempting
these
source
categories
furthers
an
important
goal
of
the
Agency's
implementation
of
the
Act:
It
minimizes
disruption
of
many
existing
State
programs.
Several
State
permitting
programs
already
exempt
both
categories
from
their
own
permitting
programs.
The
EPA
has
typically
deferred
the
responsibility
for
addressing
the
regulation
of
residential
sources
to
State
and
local
agencies.

Requiring
permits
from
both
of
these
source
categories
would
require
the
permitting
authority
to
determine
who
would
be
permitted
­­
each
individual
demolition
operation
or
wood
heater
owner,
or
demolition
and
renovation
contractors
and
wood
heater
manufacturers.
Either
option
presents
numerous
practical
problems.

Many
owners
and
operators
of
sites
where
asbestos
demolition
and
renovation
operations
take
place
may
be
responsible
for
permitting
these
sources
only
once
and
it
would
be
difficult
and
burdensome
for
these
individuals
to
obtain
permits
for
one­
time
operations.
Conversely,
when
an
individual
is
responsible
for
permitting
many
of
these
operations
in
temporary
locations;
permitting
them
raises
many
of
the
same
difficulties
related
to
permitting
temporary
sources.
Because
these
activities
often
commence
at
a
particular
site
with
relatively
short
notice,
it
is
very
difficult
to
predict
all
the
locations
where
these
activities
would
take
place
five
years
in
advance
(
with
five
years
expected
to
be
the
term
of
most
Title
V
permits)
and
it
is
likely
that
there
would
be
a
separate
application
submitted
for
every
site.
Because
the
source
may
commence
operation
up
to
a
year
before
a
complete
application
need
be
submitted,
it
is
also
likely
that
the
location
of
these
operations
may
have
changed
numerous
times
before
the
application
is
submitted
or
a
permit
issued.
A
permit
issued
after
the
activity
ceases
is
of
minimal
value.

The
burden
of
obtaining
permits
for
permitting
asbestos
demolition
and
renovation
sources
is
unnecessary
because
it
would
provide
few
additional
environmental
or
enforcement
benefits.
The
EPA
and
delegated
States
under
the
NESHAP
get
advance
notice
of
all
regulated
demolition
or
renovation
operations.
Enforcement
personnel
are
able
to
target
and
prioritize
inspection
resources
and
monitor
compliance
with
NESHAP
work
practice
standards.
The
EPA
and
the
States
also
receive
waste
disposal
documentation
verifying
proper
disposal
at
EPA­
approved
disposal
sites.
Because
of
the
temporary
nature
of
these
sources,
permits
issued
to
them
would
likely
only
require
compliance
with
the
NESHAP
work
practice
standards
because
additional
reporting
or
recordkeeping
requirements
would
be
unnecessary.
No
monitoring
in
the
traditional
sense
would
be
required
because
the
asbestos
NESHAP
is
a
work
practice
standard,
not
an
emissions
limitation.

The
EPA
finds
that
a
permanent
exemption
for
residential
wood
heaters
subject
to
the
NSPS
is
appropriate
because
of
the
burden
that
Federal
permitting
would
place
on
homeowners,
distributors,
manufacturers,
and
permitting
authorities
alike.
First,
requiring
permits
from
all
subject
residential
wood
heaters
(
likely
numbering
in
the
hundreds
of
thousands)
in
attainment
and
nonattainment
areas
across
the
country
would
require
a
significant
allocation
of
resources
from
both
homeowners
and
permitting
authorities
to
achieve
relatively
minimal
air
quality
benefits
in
some
areas.
Because
the
problems
associated
with
particulate
matter
(
PM)
and
HAP
emissions
from
wood
heaters
tend
to
be
very
localized
in
nature,
the
EPA
believes
that
a
requirement
to
obtain
a
permit
for
owners
of
residential
wood
heaters
subject
to
the
NSPS
is
unnecessary
in
some
areas
and
should
remain
at
the
discretion
of
State
and
local
agencies.
Some
local
agencies
in
nonattainment
areas
have
already
successfully
employed
control
programs
for
these
sources
as
part
of
their
attainment
strategies
and
they
may
wish
to
retain
the
right
to
permit
these
sources,
consistent
with
their
ability
to
retain
more
stringent
State
requirements.

Second,
if
homeowners
were
required
to
obtain
a
Title
V
permit,
they
would
likely
be
required
to
provide
verification
that
they
were
in
compliance
with
certain
installation
or
fuel
quality
requirements.
This
might
involve
expensive
inspections
or
laborious
recordkeeping.
It
would
be
unnecessarily
burdensome
for
private
citizens
to
comply
with
such
requirements.
The
frequent
transfer
of
residential
ownership
could
also
complicate
compliance
efforts.
If
wood
heater
manufacturers
or
distributors
were
the
permittees,
there
would
be
no
practical
way
for
wood
heater
performance
in
residential
locations
to
be
monitored.

Third,
the
permitting
of
residential
wood
heaters
by
permitting
authorities
could
prove
to
be
extremely
resource
intensive.
The
large
number
of
permittees
affected
would
likely
experience
problems
in
obtaining
technical
assistance
from
the
permitting
authority,
which
would
make
obtaining
a
permit
more
burdensome
for
homeowners.
Effectively
determining
the
number
and
location
of
all
wood
heaters
in
a
given
jurisdiction
would
be
a
complicated
task.
There
are
hundreds
of
thousands
of
such
sources
throughout
the
country.
Many
State
and
local
agencies
in
areas
where
wood
stoves
are
a
significant
concern
have
already
developed
nonregulatory
public
information,
outreach,
and
voluntary
control
programs.
Adding
the
additional
burden
of
permitting
these
numerous
sources
would
likely
not
be
an
efficient
use
of
agency
resources.

Several
commenters
suggested
that
temporary
emission
units
be
exempted
from
permitting
requirements.
Section
504(
e)
of
the
Act
Amendments
and
Section
70.6(
e)
of
the
proposed
and
final
rule,
allows
but
does
not
require,
permitting
authorities
to
issue
a
single
permit
for
similar
operations
by
the
same
source
owner
or
operator
at
multiple
temporary
locations.
These
operations
must
be
temporary
and
involve
at
least
one
change
of
location
during
the
term
of
the
permit.
At
this
time,
the
Administrator
does
not
wish
to
issue
a
blanket
permanent
exemption
for
all
or
specific
categories
of
temporary
sources
for
the
same
reasons
stated
previously
for
other
sources.
However,
nonmajor
temporary
sources
could
be
deferred,
at
State
discretion,
from
permitting
during
the
temporary
deferral
for
nonmajor
sources
and
it
is
possible
that
the
administrator
may
permanently
exempt
some
categories
of
temporary
sources
at
a
later
date.
Furthermore,
there
is
not
enough
evidence,
at
this
time,
to
decide
if
the
fact
that
a
temporary
emissions
units
is
located
at
a
source
for
a
period
of
time
less
than
that
necessary
to
complete
a
permit
action
is,
by
itself,
sufficient
grounds
to
justify
a
permanent
exemption
for
all
temporary
sources.

One
commenter
proposed
that
all
nonmajor
sources
be
exempt
from
the
permitting
requirements
unless
unique
circumstances
dictate
that
a
specific
nonmajor
source
category
should
be
permitted.
Contrary
to
the
commenters
assumption
that
all
nonmajor
sources
are
exempt
from
the
regulations
until
the
administrator
finds
that
a
particular
source
should
be
permitted,
Section
502(
a)
of
the
Act
states
that
major
sources
and
any
other
source
(
including
nonmajor
sources)
are
to
be
covered
by
Title
V
unless
the
administrator
promulgates
regulations
providing
an
exemption.
At
this
time,
the
Administrator
does
not
feel
that
there
is
sufficient
grounds
on
which
to
base
a
decision
as
to
source
categories
appropriate
for
permanent
exemptions,
other
than
for
asbestos
demolition
and
renovation
sources
under
NESHAP
and
wood
heaters
under
NSPS.

Concerning
the
comment
that
facilities
subject
to
a
NESHAP
should
be
exempt
from
the
permit
program,
Section
502(
a)
of
the
Act
Amendments
states,
in
part,
that
it
is
unlawful
to
operate
any
source
subject
to
standards
or
regulations
under
Section
112
(
NESHAP)
except
in
compliance
with
a
Title
V
permit.
Section
502(
a)
also
allows
the
Administrator
to
promulgate
regulations
to
exempt
one
or
more
source
categories,
except
that
no
major
source
may
be
exempted.
Therefore,
standards
or
requirements
of
the
NESHAP
regulations
are
applicable
requirements
of
the
Part
70
program
and
only
nonmajor
sources
can
be
exempted
by
the
administrator
by
rule.
In
the
proposal
and
the
final
rule,
EPA
has
given
the
States
the
option
of
deferring
(
temporarily
exempting)
the
applicability
of
nonmajor
sources,
for
all
or
specific
source
categories,
from
the
Part
70
operating
permit
program.
In
the
final
rule,
EPA
has
also
stated
its
intent
to
initiate
a
rulemaking
in
the
future
to
consider
permanent
exemptions
for
nonmajor
sources.
As
already
mentioned,
at
this
time,
the
Administrator
is
exempting
only
one
specific
category
of
nonmajor
sources
subject
to
a
NESHAP:
asbestos
demolition
and
renovation.

3.4
EMISSIONS
UNITS
AND
PART
70
SOURCES
3.4.1
Emissions
Units
Described
in
the
Permit
Application
Comment:
Three
industry
commenters
(
IV­
D­
209,
IV­
F­
02a,
IV­
F­
02c)
interpreted
the
proposal
to
require
each
major
source
to
apply
for
a
permit
and
to
describe
each
emission
point,
however
small,
even
when
there
were
Act
requirements
applicable
to
only
one
emission
source,
or
perhaps
no
applicable
requirements
at
all.
One
State
agency
commenter
(
IV­
D­
125)
argued
this
should
be
the
requirement.
Thirteen
industry
commenters
(
IV­
D­
156,
IV­
D­
159,
IV­
D­
160,
IV­
D­
169,
IV­
D­
182,
IV­
D­
188,
IV­
D­
204,
IV­
D­
208,
IV­
D­
272,
IV­
D­
323,
IV­
D­
314,
IV­
D­
311,
and
IV­
D­
209)
and
one
Federal
agency
commenter
(
IV­
D­
352)
urged
that
the
Title
V
program
should
cover
only
those
units
that
trigger
applicability
and
are
regulated.
One
industry
commenter
(
IV­
F­
02a)
submitted
four
"
real­
life"
examples
of
facilities
with
multiple
emission
units
that
would
not
be
subject
to
the
permit
program
except
for
the
presence
of
one
emission
unit.
The
commenter
said
that
including
all
the
unregulated
emission
units
in
the
permit
application
would
be
unnecessarily
burdensome.
Another
industry
representative
(
IV­
F­
02e)
recommended
that
permits
be
written
for
or
directed
at
individual
processes,
rather
than
the
entire
facility,
suggesting
that
writing
or
revising
such
complex
permits
would
be
unmanageable
for
both
the
source
and
the
reviewing
agency.
One
industry
commenter
(
IV­
D­
369)
requested
clarification
on
whether
EPA
would
permit
each
unit
within
a
source.

One
State
agency
(
IV­
D­
125)
argued
that
every
stack
must
have
an
emission
rate
and
every
emission
point
must
be
identified
or
a
Title
V
permit
would
be
ineffective
as
an
enforcement
tool.

Two
State
agencies
(
IV­
D­
125
and
IV­
D­
219)
and
one
industry
commenter
(
IV­
D­
98)
urged
that
once
a
source
is
subject
to
Title
V
for
one
pollutant,
all
sources
of
all
emissions
should
be
included
in
the
Title
V
permit
and
all
limits
should
be
enforceable.

Response:
Section
70.3(
c)
of
the
proposal
stated
that
once
subject
to
the
Part
70
operating
permit
program
for
one
pollutant,
any
major
or
nonmajor
source
must
include
the
following
in
its
application:
A
description
of
all
emissions
units
and
any
requirements
that
apply
to
these
units,
except
for
those
units
not
subject
to
any
applicable
requirement
and
that
are
exempted
by
the
permitting
authority
from
the
collection
of
fees;
and
an
accounting
of
all
emissions
of
regulated
pollutants
from
all
nonexempt
units.
A
regulated
pollutant
was
defined
in
the
proposal
as
nitrogen
oxides
(
NO
x),
any
volatile
organic
compound
(
VOC),
any
pollutant
for
which
a
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standard
(
NAAQS)
has
been
promulgated,
and
any
pollutant
addressed
by
any
standard
promulgated
under
Section
111
or
112
of
the
Act.
The
"
accounting"
mentioned
in
the
first
sentence
of
this
paragraph
refers
to
the
requirement
that
emissions
of
regulated
pollutants
be
included
in
applications,
whether
or
not
there
are
any
applicable
requirements
that
apply
directly
to
the
units
emitting
these
pollutants,
for
the
purpose
of
collecting
fees
from
the
sources.
The
proposal
also
required
all
fugitive
emissions
to
be
included
in
this
accounting.

The
final
Part
70
regulations
use
the
term
"
regulated
air
pollutant"
to
refer,
generally,
to
all
pollutants
subject
to
a
standard,
regulation,
or
requirement
and
the
term
"
regulated
pollutant
(
for
presumptive
fee
calculation
)"
for
use
in
calculating
fees.
The
final
rule
requires
that
for
major
and
nonmajor
sources,
the
permit
application
must
identify
all
the
emission
units
and
other
activities
that
emit
or
have
the
potential
to
emit
regulated
air
pollutants,
except
that
only
a
list
need
be
provided
for
certain
emissions
units,
in
accordance
with
the
exemption
provided
for
insignificant
activities
or
emissions
in
Section
70.5(
c)
of
the
rule.
As
stated
in
the
proposal,
this
is
the
case
for
nonmajors
even
though
only
one
emission
unit
or
subset
of
units
may
have
triggered
the
Title
V
permitting
requirement.
The
permitting
authority
may
also
require
the
application
to
identify
any
other
emission
units
and/
or
pollutants
subject
to
future
regulation
so
that
the
permitting
authority
can
meet
its
obligations
under
Section
502(
b)(
9)
of
the
Act
to
reopen
permits
when
new
regulations
are
passed.

On
the
other
hand,
major
source
permits
are
required
to
include
all
applicable
requirements
for
all
regulated
emission
units
at
the
source
and
nonmajor
source
permits
are
required
to
include,
at
a
minimum,
only
those
applicable
requirements
that
apply
to
the
regulated
emissions
unit(
s)
that
initially
triggered
the
source's
requirement
to
obtain
a
permit.

3.4.2
Regulated
Pollutants
Comment:
State
commenter
IV­
D­
125
argued
that
the
definition
of
regulated
pollutant
should
be
very
specific
and
include
a
comprehensive
list.
State
commenter
(
IV­
D­
219)
argued
that
Section
112
pollutants
should
be
considered
"
regulated"
from
the
date
the
Act
Amendments
were
passed,
not
on
the
date
a
standard
is
promulgated.
Four
industry
commenters
(
IV­
D­
156,
IV­
D­
160,
IV­
D­
193,
IV­
D­
200)
recommended
that
"
regulated
pollutant"
include
pollutants
under
Sections
111
and
112
of
the
Act
only
after
a
standard
is
promulgated.
One
of
these
commenters
(
IV­
D­
200)
stated
that
chemicals
listed
under
Section
112(
r)
should
not
be
viewed
as
regulated
pollutants.
An
environmental
group
(
IV­
D­
76)
disagreed,
indicating
that
in
order
to
implement
Section
112(
g),
the
permit
should
apply
to
all
sources
of
all
HAPs.

Response:
The
proposal
defined
"
regulated
pollutant"
to
mean
substances
for
which
a
standard
has
been
promulgated
under
the
Act.
The
term
regulated
pollutant
was
used
in
the
proposed
regulation
in
describing
what
information
is
required
in
permit
applications
and
permits.
This
caused
confusion
because
the
Act
defined
the
term
regulated
pollutant
differently
and
used
it
specifically
for
calculating
fees.
To
avoid
this
confusion,
the
final
Part
70
regulations
use
the
term
"
regulated
air
pollutant"
to
describe
the
information
required
for
permit
applications
and
permits,
and
the
term
"
regulated
pollutant
(
for
presumptive
fee
calculation)"
for
use
in
calculating
fees.

It
would
seem,
based
on
the
above
discussion,
that
the
commenter
who
would
like
a
specific
list
of
"
regulated
pollutants"
(
the
proposal
terminology)
is
really
asking
for
a
list
of
"
regulated
air
pollutants"
(
the
terminology
of
the
final
rule).
In
the
final
rule,
"
regulated
air
pollutant"
is
defined
to
include
the
following
specific
pollutants
or
categories
of
pollutants
for
which
information
must
be
submitted
in
applications
and
for
which
applicable
requirements
must
be
included
in
permits:
(
1)
NO
x
or
any
VOC,
(
2)
any
NAAQS
pollutant,
(
3)
any
pollutant
subject
to
a
standard
promulgated
under
Section
111
of
the
Act,
(
4)
any
Class
I
or
II
substance
subject
to
a
standard
promulgated
under
or
established
by
Title
VI
of
the
Act,
and
(
5)
any
pollutant
subject
to
a
standard
or
other
requirement
established
under
Section
112,
including
Sections
112(
g),
(
j),
and
(
r)
of
the
Act.
As
now
applied
in
the
regulations,
the
revised
definition
will
ensure
that
the
permitting
authority
receives
complete
information
on
all
pollutants
which
are
"
regulated"
under
the
Act
and
emitted
by
a
source.
By
having
this
information,
the
permitting
authority
can
properly
determine
which
requirements
under
the
Act
apply
to
the
source,
and
include
these
requirements
in
the
permit.
Only
by
including
all
requirements
applicable
to
a
source
in
the
permit
can
a
permitting
authority
ensure
that
the
permit
assures
compliance
with
the
Act.

Several
commenters
supported
EPA's
position
that
Section
112
pollutants
should
not
be
considered
to
be
regulated
until
after
a
standard
is
promulgated.
One
commenter
held
that
these
pollutants
should
be
considered
regulated
on
the
date
of
passage
of
the
Act
Amendments.
In
the
final
rule,
Section
112
pollutants
are
not
considered
to
be
regulated
air
pollutants,
until
a
specific
MACT
standard
[
or
requirement
under
Section
112(
r)(
7)]
is
promulgated,
or
a
case­
by­
case
MACT
determination
is
made
(
but
only
in
regard
to
that
particular
source
for
which
the
determination
was
made).
Section
112
of
the
Act
does
not
contain
any
standards
applicable
to
toxics
pollutants,
it
requires
that
standards
be
promulgated
according
to
certain
schedules
or
determined
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
and
therefore
did
not
directly
regulate
these
emissions
at
the
time
of
passage
of
the
Act.

In
the
final
rule,
several
important
changes
were
made
to
the
definition
of
"
regulated
air
pollutant"
(
which
was
"
regulated
pollutant"
in
the
proposal).
First,
substances
regulated
under
Title
VI
of
the
Act
(
protection
of
stratospheric
ozone)
were
added
to
the
list
of
"
regulated
air
pollutants."
As
a
general
rule,
regulatory
requirements
under
the
stratospheric
ozone
program
should
be
included
in
a
source's
permit.
However,
because
of
the
nature
of
some
Title
VI
regulations,
the
Administrator
may
determine
by
future
regulation
that
some
CFC
regulations
need
not
be
in
an
operating
permit.
For
example,
the
Administrator
may
decide
that
a
Title
V
permit
need
not
contain
production
limits
that
apply
on
a
company­
wide,
rather
than
facility­
specific,
basis.

Second,
the
final
Part
70
regulations
clarify
when
a
substance
regulated
under
Section
112
becomes
a
regulated
air
pollutant.
The
definition
of
regulated
air
pollutant
includes
any
pollutant
subject
to
a
standard
or
other
requirements
under
Section
112
of
the
Act,
including
Section
112(
r)
of
the
Act.
As
applied
to
an
individual
source
only,
the
definition
includes
any
pollutant
for
which
a
MACT
standard
is
promulgated
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
under
Section
112(
g)(
2)
of
the
Act,
which
requires
such
a
standard
to
be
developed
for
new,
reconstructed,
or
modified
sources.
This
type
of
MACT
requirement,
which
is
to
be
developed
by
the
permitting
authority
where
no
applicable
emission
standards
have
yet
been
established,
will
apply
only
to
the
individual
source
for
which
it
is
developed.
Because
the
requirement
to
develop
such
a
standard
is
triggered
by
action
by
a
single
source,
EPA
believes
that
such
a
standard
should
not
require
the
substance
to
be
treated
as
a
regulated
air
pollutant
for
the
entire
regulated
community
at
the
time
the
standard
is
developed
for
a
single
source.

The
proposal
requested
comment
on
when
a
pollutant
listed
in
Section
112(
b)
becomes
a
regulated
pollutant
for
fee
purposes.
The
following
three
alternatives
were
set
forth:
(
1)
at
the
time
of
enactment
of
the
1990
Act
Amendments,
(
2)
when
EPA
first
promulgates
a
MACT
standard
for
that
pollutant,
or
(
3)
when
a
MACT
standard
for
that
pollutant
first
becomes
applicable
to
the
permitted
source.
The
proposal
adopted
the
second
alternative.

The
final
rule
adopts
a
slightly
modified
version
of
the
second
alternative,
i.
e.,
a
pollutant
becomes
a
regulated
pollutant
(
for
presumptive
fee
calculation)
when
EPA
first
promulgates
a
MACT
standard
for
that
pollutant.
In
addition,
if
a
pollutant
is
regulated
at
a
particular
source,
its
emissions
will
be
considered
for
fee
purposes
even
if
a
general
standard
has
not
been
issued.
The
EPA
continues
to
rely
on
the
rationale
in
the
preamble
supporting
the
second
alternative.
This
alternative
is
the
most
reasonable
interpretation
of
the
Act
and
makes
the
most
sense
from
a
policy
perspective.

Section
70.9(
b)(
2)(
i)
of
the
proposal
provided
that
carbon
monoxide
should
be
excluded
from
the
definition
of
regulated
pollutant
for
purposes
of
determining
the
minimum
fee
amount.
In
the
final
rule,
carbon
monoxide
is
specifically
excluded
from
any
demonstration
of
fee
schedule
adequacy
because
it
is
excluded
from
the
definition
of
regulated
pollutant
(
for
presumptive
fee
calculation),
which
is
used
only
for
purposes
of
Section
70.9(
b)(
2)
regarding
fee
schedule
adequacy.
Carbon
monoxide
is
excluded
from
fees
demonstrations
due
to
the
language
of
Section
502(
b)(
3)(
B)(
i)
which
excludes
carbon
monoxide
from
being
included
in
any
calculation
by
a
permitting
authority
of
whether
fees
have
been
collected
in
amounts
adequate
to
cover
the
reasonable
costs
of
the
permit
program.
The
EPA
has
also
decided
to
exercise
its
discretion
by
excluding
from
regulated
pollutant
(
for
presumptive
fee
calculation)
those
substances
that
would
be
regulated
pollutants
only
because
they
are
regulated
under
Section
112(
r)
(
the
accidental
release
program).
Requiring
these
substances
to
be
included
in
calculating
the
presumptive
minimum
necessary
to
cover
a
State's
permit
program
costs
would
be
administratively
difficult
and
would
not
significantly
increase
the
presumptive
minimum.
Because
releases
of
these
substances
are
not
permitted
and
occur
accidentally,
the
amount
of
actual
emissions
from
an
accidental
release
may
not
be
known
­­
certainly
it
is
unlikely
that
it
would
be
measured
with
monitoring
equipment.
The
EPA
believes
that
there
will
be
relatively
few
substances
that
are
regulated
under
Section
112(
r)
and
not
regulated
elsewhere
under
the
Act.
Additionally,
the
amount
of
emissions
of
such
substances
are
likely
to
be
small
enough
that
they
would
be
insignificant
for
purposes
of
calculating
the
presumptive
minimum
amount
to
cover
permit
program
costs.

In
the
final
rule,
substances
regulated
under
Title
VI
of
the
Act
(
protection
of
stratospheric
ozone)
have
been
specifically
excluded
from
the
definition
of
regulated
pollutant
(
for
presumptive
fee
calculation)
for
several
reasons.
These
regulated
air
pollutants
are
to
be
phased
out
and
therefore
would
only
be
contained
in
Part
70
permits
until
such
time
as
the
phase­
out
were
completed.
The
vast
majority
of
emissions
of
these
substances
are
not
released
from
the
limited
number
of
facilities
that
manufactures
them
but
rather
from
the
large
number
of
small
sources
that
release
them
in
de
minimis
amounts.
Furthermore,
the
total
nationwide
emissions
of
these
substances
are
relatively
small
when
compared
to
emissions
of
any
other
category
of
regulated
air
pollutants
and,
therefore,
requiring
permitting
authorities
to
account
for
them
in
their
fee
adequacy
demonstrations
would
present
more
of
a
paperwork
and
accounting
burden
than
is
necessary.

The
proposal
was
also
modified
so
as
to
allow
States
relying
on
the
$
25/
tpy
presumptive
minimum
to
exclude
from
the
calculation
insignificant
quantities
of
actual
emissions
not
required
to
be
in
a
permit
application
pursuant
to
Section
70.5(
c).
The
EPA
could
not
justify
requiring
States
to
include
such
emissions
in
the
presumptive
minimum
calculation
given
the
administrative
burden
of
collecting
the
necessary
information
for
fees
purposes,
and
the
insignificant
additional
fees
that
a
State
would
be
required
to
collect
if
these
insignificant
levels
of
emissions
were
included.
To
the
extent
that
actual
emissions
must
be
included
in
the
calculation
of
the
$
25/
tpy
presumptive
minimum,
they
need
not
be
measured
using
the
same
methods
as
might
be
required
to
determine
whether
a
source
is
complying
with
an
underlying
applicable
requirement.

Section
502(
b)(
3)
provides
that
States
relying
on
the
$
25/
tpy
presumptive
minimum
must
base
this
computation
upon
each
regulated
pollutant
(
for
presumptive
fee
calculation)
and
defines
this
for
fee
purposes
only
in
terms
of
criteria
pollutants
(
except
CO),
pollutants
regulated
under
Sections
111
or
112
of
the
Act,
and
VOC.
No
exemption
from
fees
is
created
for
such
pollutants
which
a
particular
source
emits
them
but
there
is
no
specific
regulatory
requirement.
On
the
other
hand,
no
fees
are
required
from
other
regulated
air
pollutants
as
defined
more
expansively
in
Section
70.2
in
making
the
$
25/
tpy
test.

Comment:
One
industry
commenter
(
IV­
D­
314)
wanted
Title
V
major
sources
to
be
limited
to
source
categories
which,
as
of
August
7,
1980,
were
regulated
under
Section
111
or
112
of
the
Act.
One
commenter
(
IV­
F­
02e)
recommended
that
a
Title
V
permit
not
be
required
for
emission
units
already
permitted
under
a
Act
or
State
operating
permit
program.

Response:
There
is
no
legal
basis
for
limiting
major
sources
to
those
source
categories
regulated
under
Section
111
or
112
as
of
August
7,
1980.
The
Act
Amendments
requires
all
major
sources
as
defined
in
the
Act
to
obtain
a
Title
V
permit
and
does
not
exempt
sources
that
are
already
permitted.
However,
States
may
consolidate
existing
permits
with
Title
V
permits
for
such
sources.

Comment:
One
environmental
group
(
IV­
D­
229)
noted
that
Section
70.5(
b)(
3)(
viii)
excludes
VOC's
and
expressed
that
this
is
bad
policy
because
VOC's
play
an
important
role
in
smog
formation.

Response:
This
section
in
the
proposed
rule
concerned
the
requirement
that
an
application
must
contain
other
information
that
might
be
required
by
an
applicable
requirement
and
did
not
mean
that
all
VOC­
related
information
were
not
required
in
Title
V
permit
applications.
The
proposal
only
excluded
from
applications
emissions
information
on
VOC's
that
might
be
used
for
source­
specific
ambient
dispersion
modeling.
This
is
because
dispersion
modeling
is
not
required
for
VOC's
as
either
a
Title
I
requirement
on
the
State
or
as
a
requirement
for
an
individual
source.
Because
of
the
confusion
created
by
this
formulation
in
the
proposal,
the
final
rule
has
been
revised
to
eliminate
the
examples
of
"
other
requirements"
in
Section
70.5(
c)(
3)(
vii).

Comment:
One
industry
commenter
(
IV­
D­
289)
asked
whether
total
PM
or
fine
PM
(
PM
10)
is
the
regulated
pollutant
for
particulate
matter.
The
commenter
pointed
out
that
most
emission
standards
are
written
for
total
PM.

Response:
Under
the
definitions
for
"
regulated
air
pollutant"
and
"
regulated
pollutant
(
for
presumptive
fee
calculation)"
in
Section
70.2
of
the
final
rule,
both
TSP
and
PM10
are
"
regulated
pollutants"
(
the
terminology
of
the
proposed
rule).
Any
pollutant
for
which
a
NAAQS
is
promulgated
and
any
pollutant
subject
to
a
standard
promulgated
under
Section
111
(
NSPS)
are
included
in
both
definitions.
The
NAAQS
for
particulate
mater
is
currently
expressed
as
PM
10,
although
some
SIPs
have
not
yet
been
revised
to
reflect
the
change
from
TSP
to
PM
10.
Also,
as
the
commenter
noted,
most
emissions
standards
in
the
NSPS
regulations
are
written
for
TSP
(
the
regulations
generally
refer
to
particulate
matter,
but
the
applicable
test
method,
Method
5,
measures
the
TSP
species).
However,
the
EPA
expects
that
it
will
only
count
particulate
matter
once,
that
is,
either
TSP
or
PM
10
for
purposes
of
demonstrating
if
a
State's
permit
program
has
recovered
fees
in
the
amount
of
$
25/
ton
or
greater
for
all
actual
emissions
of
regulated
pollutants
(
for
presumptive
fee
calculation).

3.4.3
Major
Sources
Not
Subject
to
Any
Applicable
Requirement
Comment:
Three
State
agency
commenters
(
IV­
D­
125,
IVD
261,
IV­
D­
367)
argued
that
a
source
that
is
major
by
virtue
of
the
quantity
of
emissions
of
particular
pollutants
and
whose
emissions
are
not
regulated
by
a
standard
or
requirement
under
the
Act
should
be
required
to
obtain
a
permit;
otherwise,
the
permitting
authority
will
lose
the
ability
to
track
the
source
and
to
develop
regulations
and
standards
for
the
source.
Many
industry
commenters
(
IV­
D­
49,
IV­
D­
67,
IV­
D­
77,
IV­
D­
86,
IV­
D­
100,
IV­
D­
161,
IV­
D­
162,
IV­
D­
169,
IV­
D­
173,
IV­
D­
174,
IV­
D­
189,
IV­
D­
200,
IV­
D­
205,
IV­
D­
206,
IV­
D­
208,
IV­
D­
318,
IV­
D­
330,
IV­
D­
366)
argued
that
EPA
should
not
be
issuing
permits
for
sources
that
qualify
as
major
solely
due
to
the
level
of
their
unregulated
emissions).
Three
industry
commenters
(
IV­
D­
189,
IV­
D­
200,
IV­
D­
318)
stated
that
there
is
no
useful
purpose
in
permitting
such
sources
until
MACT
standards
are
promulgated.
Several
industry
commenters
(
IV­
D­
189,
IV­
D­
205,
IV­
D­
206)
argued
that
there
should
be
no
fees
imposed
on
units
for
which
no
emission
limit
exists.

Response:
Proposed
Section
70.3(
a)(
1)
requires
all
major
sources
to
obtain
a
permit.
Certain
sources
considered
as
"
major"
under
the
Act
may,
in
fact,
not
be
subject
to
any
applicable
requirements
at
the
time
a
permit
application
is
required
for
submission.
This
could
occur
in
several
ways.
For
instance,
Section
112(
a)(
1)
of
the
Act
defines
major
sources
as
those
emitting
more
than
10
tons
of
any
one
pollutant
listed
under
Section
112(
b)
or
25
tons
of
any
combination
of
these
pollutants.
Some
major
sources
may
be
required
to
obtain
a
permit
due
to
emissions
of
a
single
Section
112(
b)
pollutant
before
a
standard
is
promulgated
for
that
pollutant.
As
well,
some
major
sources
in
attainment
areas
(
e.
g.,
those
emitting
more
than
100
tpy
of
a
criteria
pollutant,
such
as
NO
x)
are
not
subject
to
any
applicable
requirements
because
the
SIP
currently
does
not
regulate
such
sources.

Section
70.3(
a)(
1)
of
the
regulation,
which
requires
all
major
sources
to
obtain
a
Part
70
permit,
remains
unchanged.
Section
502(
a)
of
the
Act
clearly
requires
all
major
sources
to
obtain
a
permit.
In
addition,
this
section
prohibits
EPA
from
exempting
any
major
source
from
this
requirement.
However,
under
appropriate
circumstances,
States
may
choose
to
issue
general
permits
to
such
sources
to
reduce
the
paperwork
burden.

Requiring
permits
for
all
major
sources
also
furthers
policy
goals.
Although
some
major
sources
in
attainment
areas
may
not
be
subject
to
applicable
emission
limits
in
the
SIP
at
the
time
of
submittal
of
a
permit
application,
EPA
believes
that
requiring
these
sources
to
obtain
permits
would
enable
the
permitting
authority
to
track
them
while
concurrently
developing
a
standard
or
revision
to
the
SIP
that
would
subject
these
sources
to
an
applicable
requirement
in
the
near
future.

In
regard
to
major
sources
subject
to
regulation
under
Section
112,
the
Agency
acknowledges
that
some
of
these
sources
lacking
any
applicable
requirements
may
have
to
obtain
permits
because
standards
may
not
be
promulgated
by
the
time
of
initial
permit
issuance,
but
it
believes
that
this
number
of
sources
will
be
relatively
small,
because
most
major
sources
under
Section
112
likely
would
be
regulated
elsewhere
under
the
Act.
Many
of
the
pollutants
regulated
under
Section
112
are
also
VOC's
or
PM
and
are
regulated
by
SIP
regulations
designed
to
maintain
or
attain
the
NAAQS
for
ozone
or
PM
10.

3.5
FUGITIVE
EMISSIONS
Comment:
Twelve
industry
commenters
(
IV­
D­
88,
IV­
D­
132,
IV­
D­
162,
IV­
D­
164,
IV­
D­
169,
IV­
D­
188,
IV­
D­
208,
IV­
D­
271,
IV­
D­
272,
IV­
D­
313,
IV­
D­
320,
IV­
F­
03e)
disagreed
with
the
inclusion
of
fugitive
emissions
in
a
Title
V
permit.
They
indicated
that
accounting
for
every
fugitive
emission
in
the
permit
application
is
overreaching
under
Section
70.3.
An
industry
commenter
(
IV­
D­
314)
supported
this
position,
stating
that
small
emission
units
should
not
be
included
in
the
permit
application.
One
State
agency
commenter
(
IV­
D­
91)
said
that
States
should
have
the
flexibility
to
determine
whether
fugitive
emissions
should
be
included.
One
industry
commenter
(
IV­
D­
209)
suggested
that
fugitive
emissions,
especially
fugitive
emissions
of
HAPs,
should
not
be
subject
to
the
permit
program.
This
commenter
argued
that
fugitive
emissions
of
HAPs
should
not
be
included
until
EPA
defines
de
minimis
for
the
pollutants.

Response:
The
Act
requires
fugitive
emissions
to
be
counted
for
purposes
of
major
source
applicability
in
nonattainment
areas
as
defined
in
Title
I
[
where
major
sources
emit
less
than
100
tons
per
year
(
tpy)],
for
Section
112
major
sources,
and
for
major
sources
in
attainment
areas
(
i.
e.,
sources
emitting
more
than
100
tpy)
belonging
in
one
of
the
source
categories
that
have
previously
been
subjected
to
the
rulemaking
required
in
Section
302(
j)
of
the
Act
(
45
FR
52676
August
7,
1980),
and
subsequently
listed
in
the
definition
of
major
source
in
this
part.
It
was
also
proposed
that
any
source
must
include
in
its
application
a
description
of
all
emission
units,
whether
subject
to
any
applicable
requirement
under
the
Act
or
not,
along
with
an
accounting
of
all
emissions
of
regulated
pollutants
from
these
units.
All
fugitive
emissions
were
to
be
included
in
this
accounting.

The
final
rule
does
not
change
the
way
that
fugitive
emissions
are
to
be
accounted
for
in
making
major
source
applicability
determinations,
in
permit
applications,
and
in
assessing
fees,
except
that
exemptions
for
insignificant
activities
or
emissions
may
now
be
established
by
the
permitting
authority,
as
described
in
Section
70.5(
c).
The
final
rule
does
clarify
how
fugitives
are
to
be
incorporated
into
each
of
these
aspects
of
the
permitting
process,
however.

The
Administrator
has
no
basis
nor
additional
criteria
within
Title
V
to
distinguish
between
fugitive
and
nonfugitive
(
stack)
emissions
for
purposes
of
defining
major
source
status.
Section
502(
a)
of
the
Act
requires
that
major
sources
be
reviewed
according
to
definitions
contained
in
other
sections
of
the
Act.
These
definitions
(
with
the
exception
of
Section
302(
i)
of
the
Act)
do
not
differentiate
between
fugitive
and
stack
emissions.
Thus,
Title
V
does
not
make
this
distinction,
either.
"
Major
stationary
source,"
as
defined
in
Section
302,
requires
a
rulemaking
before
allowing
fugitives
to
count
in
determining
whether
a
source
would
be
major.

Similarly,
the
Administrator
finds
no
basis
or
reason
to
treat
fugitive
emissions
any
differently
once
the
applicability
determination
has
been
made
and
a
source
is
subject
to
the
permit
program.
Title
V
requires
that
each
permit
ensure
compliance
by
the
source
with
all
applicable
requirements,
without
any
distinction
regarding
fugitive
emissions.
However,
only
to
the
extent
that
the
underlying
applicable
requirements
themselves
apply
to
fugitives
must
the
source
address
fugitive
emissions
in
the
permit.
This
approach
is
consistent
with
the
Alabama
Power
decision,
which
in
part
ruled
that
once
a
source
is
subject
to
review
as
a
major
emitting
facility,
all
requirements
apply
equally
to
fugitive
emissions
as
well
as
to
emissions
from
industrial
point
sources.
Although
several
comments
were
received
suggesting
the
contrary,
fugitives
are
to
be
included
in
all
aspects
of
the
permitting
process
in
order
to
remain
consistent
with
other
air
quality
programs,
namely
PSD,
NSR,
and
SIP
programs.

Comment:
Seven
industry
commenters
(
IV­
D­
99,
IV­
D­
100,
IV­
D­
159,
IV­
D­
205,
IV­
D­
206,
IV­
D­
369,
IV­
F­
01p)
did
not
want
estimates
of
fugitive
emissions
to
be
used
for
fee
determinations.
The
opposite
view
was
held
by
two
other
industry
commenters
(
IV­
D­
313
and
IV­
D­
404).

Response:
With
regard
to
fees,
States
may
assess
fees
for
fugitive
emissions,
but
are
not
required
to
do
so.
The
Act
allows
States
to
have
this
flexibility,
and
the
commenters
have
not
explained
why
EPA
should
take
this
policy
choice
away
from
the
States.
However,
States
that
rely
on
the
$
25
per
ton
presumptive
minimum
fee
calculation
must
base
their
calculation
on
emissions
of
all
regulated
pollutants
(
for
presumptive
fee
calculation)
­­
Section
502(
b)(
3)
does
not
exclude
fugitive
emissions
from
this
calculation.
For
this
reason
(
among
others)
States
may
need
to
collect
information
on
fugitive
emissions
above
the
insignificant
levels
discussed
previously.

Comment:
State
agency
commenter
IV­
D­
233
suggested
that
the
permitting
authority
should
have
latitude
to
select
methods
to
quantify
applicable
fugitive
emissions.
A
second
State
agency
commenter
expressed
concern
that
there
will
be
no
national
consistency
for
measuring
and
determining
fugitive
emissions.

Response:
EPA
recommends
that
permitting
authorities
select
or
establish
methods
by
which
to
quantify
fugitive
emissions
when
Federal
guidance
is
unclear
or
unavailable.
Historically,
EPA
manual
AP­
42,
Compilation
of
Emission
Estimation
Factors,
has
been
the
recognized
source
for
guidance
on
estimating
air
emissions,
including
fugitive
emissions;
this
is
not
expected
to
change,
as
this
manual
is
continually
being
updated
and
expanded.
However,
in
order
to
promote
consistent
approaches
to
emission
estimation
on
a
State­
wide
basis
when
there
is
uncertainty
as
to
a
nationally­
accepted
estimation
method,
some
States
have
provided
guidance
or
developed
their
own
emission
factors
for
fugitive
sources
or
fugitive
emitting
activities
that
commonly
are
permitted
in
the
State.

Comment:
Two
industry
commenters
(
IV­
D­
238
and
IV­
D­
156)
supported
the
exclusion
of
mining
fugitive
emissions
from
the
major
source
determination
and
added
that
EPA
should
clarify
that
major
sources
such
as
milling
facilities
and
coal
production
plants,
which
are
adjacent
to
mines,
will
not
draw
mines
into
the
permitting
process.

Response:
A
discussion
of
when
fugitive
emissions
must
be
counted
in
determinations
of
major
source
status
under
Part
70
is
found
above.
Of
interest
to
sources
involved
in
mining
activities
are
the
requirements
that
fugitive
emissions
must
be
counted
when
the
source
is:
(
1)
regulated
by
a
standard
promulgated
under
Section
111
(
NSPS),
with
respect
to
those
air
pollutants
that
have
been
regulated
for
that
category
(
definition
of
major
source,
paragraph
xxvii),
and
(
2)
located
in
nonattainment
areas
(
Title
I
of
the
Act
Amendments).
Note
that
the
NESHAPs
for
metallic
and
nonmetallic
minerals
processing
plants
would
not
bring
fugitives
emanating
from
haul
roads,
blasting,
and
truck
loading
in
an
open
pit,
for
example,
into
the
calculation
of
major
source
status,
but
would
include
fugitive
emissions
from
crushers,
with
their
associated
conveyors,
and
railcar
loading
stations
(
see
Part
60,
Subparts
LL
and
OOO).
Note
also
that
Congress
did
not
specifically
exclude
fugitive
emissions
from
counting
toward
major
source
status
in
nonattainment
areas
where
a
major
source
is
defined
as
emitting
less
than
100
tpy
and
that
this
will,
most
likely,
only
affect
a
few
mining
operations
located
in
severe
particulate
nonattainment
areas.

The
question
of
what
constitutes
a
major
source
under
Part
70
has
been
answered
in
detail
in
Section
3.2.1
of
this
document.
This
discussion
also
holds
true
for
milling
facilities
and
coal
production
plants.
Consistent
with
EPA's
past
practice
under
new
source
review
(
NSR),
the
regulations
require
all
commonly
owned
or
controlled
pollutant
emitting
activities
on
contiguous
or
adjacent
properties
to
obtain
an
operating
permit
if
they
are
within
the
same
major
(
two­
digit)
SIC
group,
assuming
the
aggregated
activities
emit
enough
pollutants
to
exceed
the
applicable
emissions
thresholds
provided
in
the
Act.
In
addition,
any
equipment
used
to
support
the
main
activity
at
a
site
would
also
be
considered
part
of
the
same
major
source,
regardless
of
the
two­
digit
SIC
code
for
that
equipment
3.6
OTHER
Comment:
One
industry
representative
(
IV­
F­
02e)
said
that
those
emission
points
currently
permitted
as
separate
sources
under
existing
State
permit
programs
should
not
be
required
to
reapply
for
a
joint
permit
under
the
new
program
unless
they
meet
the
requirements
proposed
for
major
sources
or
for
HAPs.

Response:
Title
V
does
not
require
permitting
authorities
to
issue
permits
on
a
facility­
wide
basis
(
one
permit
for
the
entire
facility)
or
on
an
emissions­
unit
basis
(
separate
permits
for
each
emissions
unit
at
a
facility).
The
selection
of
one
of
these
approaches
is
discretionary
with
the
permitting
authority.
It
is
also
a
requirement
of
Title
V
and
the
Part
70
regulations
that
all
sources
subject
to
the
program
must
submit
applications
and
that
the
applications
must
completely
describe
all
emissions
and
emissions
units
found
at
the
facility,
whether
there
is
an
applicable
requirements
that
applies
or
not,
except
that
only
a
list
need
be
included
in
the
application
for
certain
emissions
or
activities
found
at
the
facility
that
are
identified
by
the
State
as
insignificant.

Comment:
Two
industry
commenters
(
IV­
D­
135
and
IV­
D­
204)
suggested
waivers
from
NSPS
and
MACT
requirements
be
granted
for
sources
researching
innovative
technology,
because
of
its
potential
of
achieving
either
a
greater
or
a
comparable
emission
reduction
at
lower
cost.

Response:
Title
V
of
the
Act
does
not
provide
for
waivers
from
NSPS
and
MACT
requirements
due
to
innovative
technology
research.
Future
rulemakings
may
address
this
issue.

Comment:
Industry
commenter
IV­
D­
331
questioned
the
applicability
of
the
rule
to
ozone
transport
regions
not
located
within
a
nonattainment
area.
He
indicated
that
the
rule
is
ambiguous
on
whether
sources
in
such
areas
would
have
to
obtain
a
Title
V
permit.

Response:
The
Part
70
rule
applies
to
sources
located
in
attainment
areas,
nonattainment
area,
and
interstate
transport
regions
as
long
as
the
sources
otherwise
meet
the
applicability
requirements
of
Section
70.3.
Furthermore,
Section
176A
of
the
Act
makes
no
distinction
between
attainment
or
nonattainment
areas
when
describing
what
States
or
portions
of
States
may
be
included
in
an
interstate
transport
region.
Comment:
One
State
commenter
(
IV­
D­
301)
requested
that
EPA
allow
States
the
flexibility
to
extend
applicability
of
the
Title
V
program
beyond
what
is
listed
in
the
rule.
The
commenter
indicated
that
States
may
want
to
cover
certain
sources
to
maintain
the
NAAQS.

Response:
States
may
only
recommend
to
EPA
that
Title
V
applicability
be
extended
to
specific
source
categories.
The
statute
gives
EPA,
and
not
the
States,
the
authority
to
extend
applicability
to
Title
V
by
rule.
However,
States
are
free
to
require
State
permits
from
sources
not
covered
by
Title
V.

Comment:
One
industry
commenter
(
IV­
D­
184)
argued
that
temporary
units
should
not
be
subject
to
best
available
control
technology
(
BACT)
and
MACT
review
each
time
the
location
is
changed.
He
believed
that
20­
day
notice
was
too
long.

Response:
The
final
rule
has
been
changed
to
require
a
10­
day
instead
of
20­
day
notice
each
time
the
location
of
a
temporary
source
is
changed
to
be
consistent
with
the
existing
PSD
notification
requirement.
The
final
rule
does
not
require
the
permitting
authority
to
review
the
temporary
source
permit
for
each
new
location,
since
the
required
notification
will
inform
the
permitting
authority
of
the
present
location
of
each
temporary
source.
When
temporary
units
change
location,
they
are
not
required
to
undergo
a
new
BACT
and
MACT
review,
however,
any
analysis
necessary
to
assure
compliance
with
the
Act
would
have
to
be
performed
during
the
initial
permit
review
before
the
final
permit
is
issued.
Section
504(
e)
of
the
Act
requires
that
such
sources
have
a
permit
that
assures
compliance
with
all
requirements
of
the
Act
at
all
authorized
locations,
including
requirements
relating
to
ambient
standards,
increments,
and
visibility.

Comment:
Industry
commenter
IV­
D­
258
suggested
that
sources
be
subject
to
permitting
only
if
they
emit
regulated
pollutants
in
greater
than
a
de
minimis
amount
of
2000
pounds
per
year.

Response:
Section
70.5(
c)
of
the
final
rule
now
give
States
the
discretion
to
propose
exemptions
for
insignificant
activities
or
emissions
in
their
State
program
submittals.
However,
a
source
that
is
subject
to
permitting
must
submit
an
application
that
completely
describes
all
emissions
of
regulated
air
pollutants
and
the
emissions
units
that
emit
them,
except
for
insignificant
emissions
or
activities.
Insignificant
activities
exempted
because
of
size
or
production
rates
must
be
listed
in
the
application
for
identification
purposes,
though
not
thoroughly
described.
Emissions
that
have
been
permanently
exempted
by
rule
by
the
Administrator,
as
well
as
other
activities
and
emissions
levels
approved
as
insignificant,
need
not
be
included
in
the
application.

It
is
most
likely
that
a
2000­
lb
source
as
described
by
the
commenter
would
be
a
nonmajor
source
under
Part
70.
The
Administrator
has
temporarily
exempted
(
deferred)
most
nonmajor
sources
from
the
Part
70
program
during
the
early
stages
of
the
program,
at
State
discretion,
and
subject
to
opt­
in
permitting
by
the
source.
Moreover,
the
final
rule
in
Section
70.3
only
includes
nonmajor
sources
subject
to
Sections
111,
112,
129,
and
Title
IV
of
the
Act
in
the
Part
70
program.
4.0
COMMENTS
AND
RESPONSES
ON
SECTION
70.4:
STATE
PROGRAM
SUBMITTALS
AND
TRANSITION
4.1
SUMMARY
OF
COMMENTS
ON
SECTION
70.4
Various
organizations
commented
on
initial
program
submission
requirements,
interim
and
partial
programs,
EPA
review,
individual
permit
transition,
program
revision,
and
the
information­
sharing
provisions
of
Section
70.4.
The
transition
plan
provisions
drew
the
greatest
number
of
comments
by
far.
The
submittal
date,
State
response,
effective
date,
and
administration
and
enforcement
provisions
of
Section
70.4
drew
no
comments.
In
addition
to
the
proposed
provisions,
comments
addressed
equivalent
programs,
the
need
to
include
State
statutes,
model
permits,
provisions
to
challenge
permits,
State
accountability
for
program
management,
delegation
of
authority
to
local
programs,
the
relationship
of
the
State
program
to
Part
71
programs,
delegation
of
program
administration,
and
input
from
affected
entities.
Many
commenters
addressed
the
issue
of
whether
State
and
local
program
requirements
can
be
more
stringent
than
Federal
requirements,
and
whether
such
requirements
are
federally
enforceable.
Their
comments
are
summarized
in
Chapter
6.0
in
the
discussion
on
Section
70.6,
Permit
Content.
Comments
on
lapsing
permits
are
summarized
in
Chapter
6.0.
While
a
few
comments
on
fees
are
included
in
this
chapter,
the
bulk
of
the
fee
comments
are
recorded
in
Chapter
9.0,
which
contains
comments
and
responses
on
Section
70.9,
Fee
Determination
and
Certification.

4.2
ELEMENTS
OF
THE
INITIAL
PROGRAM
SUBMISSION
4.2.1
Inspection
Provisions
Comment:
Five
groups
(
IV­
D­
53,
IV­
D­
113,
IV­
D­
303,
IVD
343,
IV­
D­
364)
commented
on
the
provisions
for
inspection.
Several
State
agencies
(
IV­
D­
53,
IV­
D­
113,
IV­
D­
343,
IV­
D­
364)
opposed
including
inspector
certification
criteria
in
the
program
submittal.

Response:
The
Administrator
agrees
that
including
inspector
certification
criteria
is
not
necessary
and
this
requirement
has
been
deleted
from
Section
70.4(
b)(
4)(
ii).

Comment:
One
industry
group
(
IV­
D­
303)
stated
that
EPA
should
disallow
use
of
contractors
for
inspection,
adding
that
Federal
courts
in
the
6th
and
10th
circuits
had
not
supported
EPA's
authority
to
use
contractors
for
inspection.
Response:
The
Part
70
regulations
do
not
specify
that
contractors
will
be
used
for
inspections.

4.2.2.
Resources
for
the
Operating
Permit
Program
Comment:
Two
State
commenters
(
IV­
D­
91
and
IV­
D­
332)
insisted
that
States
must
demonstrate
that
the
programs
are
adequately
staffed;
one
of
these
commenters
(
IV­
D­
91)
further
indicated
that
States
must
demonstrate
that
adequate
personnel
are
available
to
do
the
permitting.

Response:
Section
502(
b)(
4)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
Act)
requires
that
permitting
authorities
make
provisions
for
adequate
personnel
to
administer
the
program.
In
Section
70.4(
b)(
8),
EPA
requires
the
program
submittal
to
include
a
statement
that
adequate
resources,
to
include
personnel
and
funding,
are
available
to
administer
the
program.
Section
70.4(
b)(
8)(
ii)
specifically
requires
a
description
of
the
agency
staff,
including
the
number,
occupation,
and
general
duties
of
the
employees.
The
Administrator
does
not
feel
any
further
detail
in
this
requirement
is
needed.
When
program
submittals
are
reviewed
by
EPA,
they
will
be
examined
to
see
if
adequate
staff
is
available
for
all
functions
of
the
program.

Comment:
A
State
agency
(
IV­
D­
398)
commented
that
air
pollution
control
officials
must
be
given
a
clear
method
of
securing
adequate
resources
to
carry
out
the
various
permitting
functions.
Response:
Section
502(
b)(
3)(
A),
(
B),
and
(
C)
of
the
Act
requires
permitting
authorities
to
collect
fees
from
the
regulated
sources
as
a
means
to
provide
adequate
funding
for
the
permit
program.
The
Act
does
not
mandate
that
EPA
direct
the
permitting
authorities
to
appropriate
the
fees
that
are
collected
in
a
specific
manner.
The
EPA
will
not
dictate
in
advance
the
method
of
allocating
the
fees
that
are
collected,
but
will
review
the
program
plans
to
determine
if
staffing
is
adequately
provided.

Comment:
One
industry
commenter
(
IV­
D­
124)
believed
that
States
should
be
required
to
allow
affected
businesses
to
comment
on
the
cost
of
the
proposed
State
program,
and
should
also
supply
a
detailed
cost
breakdown
for
public
comment
purposes.

Response:
The
program
submittal
will
be
available
for
public
inspection
prior
to
EPA
approval,
and
a
notice
of
EPA's
approval
will
be
published.
Sources
will
have
an
opportunity
to
examine
the
permit
fee
structure,
which
will
be
a
detailed
cost
breakdown,
unless
the
permitting
authority
adopts
the
$
25
per
ton
per
year
structure.
Where
the
permitting
authority
adopts
a
fee
schedule
that
results
in
a
collection
in
the
aggregate
of
$
25
per
ton
per
year
adjusted
for
the
CPI,
EPA
will
presume
the
fee
schedule
to
be
adequate.
Even
the
$
25
per
ton
per
year
structure
can
be
challenged
if
a
commenter
can
demonstrate
it
is
inadequate,
excessive,
or
otherwise
inappropriate.

Comment:
Two
cement
industry
groups
(
IV­
D­
137
and
IVD
138)
commented
that
State
programs
should
be
required
to
exempt
the
cement
industry
from
fees,
as
it
is
already
overburdened
with
regulation.
Response:
The
EPA
will
not
take
action
to
exempt
the
cement
industry
from
the
permit
fee
program;
however,
permitting
authorities
are
free
to
do
so,
provided
the
requirements
of
Section
70.9
are
met.

4.2.3
Requirement
to
Report
Violations
Comment:
Several
industry
commenters
(
IV­
D­
86,
IV­
D­
88,
IV­
D­
106,
IV­
D­
149,
IV­
D­
200,
IV­
D­
202,
IV­
D­
208,
IV­
D­
325)
urged
that
EPA
drop
the
requirement
for
reporting
the
number
of
violations
as
an
indicator
of
enforcement.
These
commenters
argued
that
such
a
reporting
requirement
would
lead
to
the
development
of
a
"
quota"
system,
and
would
not
serve
to
encourage
enforcement.
One
environmental
commenter
(
IV­
D­
170)
disagreed,
however,
stating
that
enforcement
activities
should
be
submitted
to
EPA
annually.

Response:
The
Administrator
believes
it
necessary
for
permitting
authorities
to
report
the
relevant
enforcement
action
information
required
in
Section
70.4(
b)(
9).
The
Administrator
requires
this
information
on
enforcement
activities
to
fulfill
his
duty
under
Section
502(
i)
to
ensure
that
each
State
is
adequately
administering
and
enforcing
its
permit
program.

4.2.4
Transition
Plan
Provisions
Comment:
Several
groups
commented
on
when
the
application
submittal
process
should
begin
under
the
transition
plan
and
on
how
long
the
process
should
be.
Two
commenters
(
IV­
D­
113
and
IV­
D­
219)
questioned
whether
the
clock
for
submission
of
permit
applications
begins
when
the
State
program
has
full
or
interim
approval.
Four
industry
commenters
(
IV­
D­
100,
IV­
D­
134,
IV­
D­
207,
IV­
D­
330)
and
one
State
agency
(
IV­
D­
277)
supported
the
submittal
of
applications
three
years
after
full
program
approval.
Two
State
agencies
(
IV­
D­
125
and
IV­
D­
245)
and
one
industry
commenter
(
IV­
D­
100)
interpreted
the
proposed
rule
to
mean
that
all
permit
applications
were
due
12
months
after
full
program
approval.
Two
industry
commenters
(
IV­
D­
156
and
IV­
D­
331),
however,
said
that
a
one­
year
application
period
is
unreasonable.
One
industry
commenter
(
IV­
D­
124)
interpreted
the
proposed
rule
to
imply
that
the
State
could
require
permit
applications
one
day
after
a
source
becomes
subject,
which
they
considered
impossible.
Yet
another
industry
commenter
(
IV­
D­
106)
requested
clarification
on
when
the
permit
applications
are
due.

Response:
Section
502(
a)
of
the
Act
states
that
it
shall
be
a
violation
for
a
source
to
operate
without
a
permit.
This
provision
of
the
Act
indicates
that
a
source
becomes
subject
to
the
operating
permit
program
when
operations
commence.
However,
Section
503(
a)
of
the
Act
provides
that
any
source
is
subject
to
the
permitting
program
on
the
later
of
two
dates­­
the
effective
date
of
the
State's
Part
70
program
(
whether
full
or
interim
approval),
or
when
the
source
is
subject
to
Section
502(
a).
Additionally,
Section
503(
c)
of
the
Act
requires
an
application
with
a
compliance
plan
to
be
submitted
not
later
than
12
months
after
the
date
on
which
the
source
becomes
subject
to
the
permitting
program
that
is
approved
or
promulgated
pursuant
to
Title
V,
unless
the
permitting
authority
has
set
an
earlier
date.
These
deadlines
are
to
be
included
in
the
Part
70
program
submittal
for
review
and
approval
by
EPA.

Section
503(
d)
of
the
Act
allows
a
source
to
operate,
and
not
be
in
violation
of
the
Act,
prior
to
the
time
it
must
submit
an
application
under
Section
503(
c).
Therefore,
a
subject
source
may
wait
until
12
months
after
it
begins
operation
or
after
State
program
approval,
whichever
date
is
later,
to
submit
its
operating
permit
application.
This
prevents
the
source
from
being
subject
to
an
enforcement
action
for
failure
to
have
an
operating
permit
during
the
12­
month
period
that
it
operates
before
it
applies
for
a
permit.

Section
502(
h)
makes
clear
that
the
effective
date
of
a
full,
partial,
or
interim
program
is
the
date
the
program
is
approved
by
EPA.
Therefore,
the
period
for
submittal
of
applications
(
12
months
or
such
earlier
date
as
is
set
by
the
State)
begins
when
the
State
program
has
either
full,
partial,
or
interim
approval.
However,
a
source
need
not
submit
an
application
if
it
is
not
covered
by
a
program
receiving
partial
or
interim
approval.

The
transition
plan
provisions
of
Section
70.4(
b)(
11)
only
affect
the
time
allowed
for
a
State
to
act
on
an
application.
Consistent
with
Section
503(
c),
the
State
may
set
a
period
of
less
than
12
months
for
the
submittal
of
applications.
However,
the
State
may
not
set
a
period
longer
than
12
months,
even
for
those
sources
subject
to
a
transition
plan.

Comment:
Two
industry
commenters
(
IV­
D­
127
and
IV­
D­
199)
agreed
that
the
transition
plan
was
needed
to
process
the
initial
permit
applications.
A
local
government
(
IV­
D­
107),
however,
stated
that
a
transition
plan
was
not
needed
to
process
the
first
wave
of
applications,
that
perhaps
the
permitting
authority
could
commit
only
to
processing
a
certain
number
of
permits
each
quarter.

Response:
Section
503(
c)
of
the
Act
provides,
in
part,
that
the
permitting
authority
shall
establish
a
phased
schedule
for
acting
on
permit
applications
submitted
within
the
first
full
year
after
the
effective
date
of
a
permit
program
(
or
a
partial
or
interim
program).
The
transition
plan
provided
for
in
the
proposed
Part
70
regulations
is
a
program
element
to
ensure
that
permitting
authorities
meet
the
requirements
of
Section
503(
c).
The
transition
plan
must
ensure
that
all
Part
70
sources
submit
applications
within
the
first
year
of
the
effective
date
of
the
program
and
that
at
least
one­
third
of
such
permits
will
be
acted
on
annually
over
a
period
not
to
exceed
three
years
after
the
effective
date.
The
transition
plan
provisions
of
Section
503(
c)
are
designed
to
synchronize
resource
growth
in
the
agency
with
the
initial
workload
of
processing
permit
applications
and
issuing
permits.
A
State
that
could
act
finally
on
applications
on
a
more
expedient
schedule
would
of
course
meet
the
transition
plan
requirements
of
Section
503(
c).

Comment:
One
State
proposed
that
the
requirement
for
a
permitting
authority
to
"
act
on"
a
permit
[
as
discussed
in
the
transition
plan
requirement
in
Section
70.4(
b)(
11)]
should
mean
begin
review
of,
rather
than
issue
or
deny
the
permit.
In
this
way,
the
permitting
authority
would
begin
reviewing
all
applications
within
three
years,
and
permit
issuance
could
go
beyond
the
three
years.
One
advantage
would
be
to
spread
out
renewals
over
a
period
longer
than
three
years.

Response:
The
Administrator
interprets
the
second
reference
to
"
act
on"
in
Section
503(
c)
to
mean
that
activity
beyond
application
approval
or
disapproval
must
take
place
in
each
of
the
three
years,
because
the
language
establishing
that
one­
third
of
the
permits
will
be
acted
on
annually
refers
to
permits,
not
to
permit
applications.
The
Administrator
interprets
this
to
mean
the
act
of
issuing
permits.
The
transition
plan
provisions
of
Section
503(
c)
supersede
the
otherwise
applicable
18­
month
timeframe
for
permit
issuance.
If
the
phrase
"
act
on"
were
interpreted
to
mean
something
less
than
taking
final
action
on
the
permit,
then
Section
503(
c)
would
effectively
impose
no
deadline
for
issuance
or
denial
of
applications
submitted
within
the
first
year,
a
result
plainly
inconsistent
with
the
purposes
of
Title
V.
Permitting
authorities
must,
therefore,
go
beyond
just
approving
or
disapproving
permit
applications
in
each
of
the
first
three
years.
They
must
also
go
beyond
making
draft
permits
for
one­
third
of
the
sources
available
for
public
inspection
in
each
of
the
three
years.

Because
the
permitting
authority
must
take
final
action
on
one
third
of
the
applications
submitted
during
the
first
year
in
each
of
the
first
3
years,
it
follows
that
all
applications
submitted
within
the
first
year
must
be
issued
or
denied
within
3
years
of
program
approval.
This
is
a
necessary
consequence
of
EPA's
interpretation
of
the
phrase
"
act
on"
in
Section
503(
c)
to
mean
"
final
permit
action."
In
addition
to
this
statutory
language,
EPA
believes
it
is
unreasonable
not
to
issue
permits
within
a
3­
year
period.
A
period
longer
than
three
years
would
be
inconsistent
with
Section
502(
b)(
6),
which
provides
for
streamlined
permit
application
processing
and
review
of
permit
actions,
and
with
Section
502(
b)(
7),
which
protects
against
unreasonable
delay
in
acting
on
permit
applications.
In
addition,
if
permits
were
issued
after
the
three­
year
period,
some
of
the
applications
would
be
more
than
two
years
old
by
the
time
the
permits
were
issued.

Comment:
A
State
agency
(
IV­
D­
245)
interpreted
the
transition
plan
provisions
to
require
that
all
applications
should
be
submitted
within
one
year
of
program
approval,
and
pointed
out
that,
if
this
were
true,
it
would
be
difficult
to
process
one­
third
of
the
applications
by
the
end
of
the
first
year
after
program
approval,
as
applications
would
not
have
been
submitted.
Several
industry
commenters
(
IV­
D­
100,
IVD
125,
IV­
D­
203,
IV­
D­
205,
IV­
D­
206,
IV­
D­
207,
IV­
D­
277,
IV­
D­
330)
and
one
State
agency
(
IV­
D­
125)
suggested
that
the
application
submittal
period
should
not
begin
until
the
program
has
full
approval.
An
industry
commenter
(
IV­
D­
152)
believed
that
sources
should
be
allowed
to
submit
applications
before
EPA
approval
of
the
State
program,
and
that
these
permits
should
remain
in
effect
after
program
approval.

Response:
Section
503(
c)
of
the
Act
requires
sources
to
submit
applications
within
one
year
of
the
effective
date
of
permit
program
approval,
or
such
earlier
date
as
the
permitting
authority
may
establish.
Section
503(
c)
further
requires
that
a
phased
schedule
be
established
for
acting
on
at
least
one­
third
of
the
applications
submitted
within
the
first
full
year
after
program
approval.
It
may
be
particularly
difficult
for
the
State
to
act
on
one­
third
of
the
permit
applications
submitted
during
the
first
year,
as
many
of
the
applications
may
not
be
submitted
until
nearly
one
year
after
program
approval,
leaving
too
little
time
for
the
State
to
perform
all
required
notification
and
public
participation
procedures
and
issue
the
permit
before
the
first
year
expires.

The
EPA
suggests,
but
does
not
mandate,
that
States
require
some
applications
to
be
submitted
before
EPA's
approval
of
the
Part
70
program.
Upon
Part
70
permit
program
submittal
to
EPA,
but
before
final
approval
by
EPA,
the
program
would
most
likely
be
enforceable
by
the
State
under
State
law
and
permit
application
submittal
could
be
required.
These
applications
would
not
be
considered
Part
70
applications,
but
assuming
the
program
were
approvable,
they
would
meet
the
requirements
of
Part
70.
Upon
program
approval,
the
applications
could
be
deemed
to
have
met
Part
70
and
could
be
issued
under
the
approved
procedures
in
the
operating
permit
program.

States
will
be
best
able
to
judge
when
applications
could
first
be
developed
and
required
so
as
to
reduce
at
least
some
aspects
of
the
permitting
workload
otherwise
occurring
after
EPA
approval
of
the
State's
program.

Comment:
A
State
agency
(
IV­
D­
364)
interpreted
the
transition
plan
provisions
to
mean
that
no
more
than
one­
third
of
the
applications
should
be
processed
the
first
year,
and
indicated
that
this
was
not
advisable.

Response:
Section
503(
c)
indicates
that
"
at
least
onethird
of
the
applications
should
be
acted
on
annually
over
the
three­
year
period
after
program
approval.
The
Administrator
interprets
this
to
mean
the
permitting
authority
must
act
on
at
least
one­
third
the
first
year.
The
permitting
authority
may
act
on
more
the
first
year
such
that
less
than
two­
thirds
are
left
for
the
remaining
two
years.
At
the
end
of
the
second
year,
at
least
two­
thirds
should
be
acted
on.

Comment:
Another
industry
commenter
(
IV­
D­
208)
indicated
that
States
should
not
be
able
to
require
emission
inventories
until
full
approval
of
the
permit
program.

Response:
Emissions­
related
information
is
required
to
be
included
in
Part
70
permit
applications
and
a
State
may
require,
under
State
law,
permit
application
submittal
before
Part
70
permit
program
approval
by
EPA.

Comment:
A
State
commenter
(
IV­
D­
398)
believed
that
EPA
should
specify
how
nonmajor
sources
would
be
addressed
in
the
transitional
plan,
because
permitting
of
nonmajor
sources
may
be
temporarily
or
permanently
deferred.

Response:
If
permitting
of
nonmajor
sources
is
deferred
temporarily,
the
permit
applications
will
not
be
submitted
until
after
the
deferral
period
passes.
This
time
will
be
beyond
the
period
covered
by
the
transition
plan.
States
may
choose
to
defer
only
some
categories
of
non­
major
sources.
States
may
also
choose
to
defer
non­
major
sources
for
less
than
the
period
allowed
under
part
70.
States
will
have
discretion
as
to
how
to
prioritize
the
processing
of
applications
from
non­
major
sources
that
are
not
deferred
from
the
program,
provided,
of
course,
that
the
requirements
of
Section
70.4(
b)(
11)
are
met.
Comment:
A
State
agency
(
IV­
D­
301)
commented
that
States
should
permit
classes
of
sources
in
phases
and
that
applicants
and
regulatory
agencies
should
be
advised
of
the
schedule
for
permitting
so
that
both
could
anticipate
when
applications
would
need
to
be
ready.
An
industry
commenter
(
IV­
D­
127)
suggested
that
the
application
process
be
adopted
gradually.
Another
industry
commenter
(
IV­
D­
331)
questioned
the
three­
year
period
to
phase
in
applications,
fearing
that
industries
operating
in
several
States
would
be
disadvantaged
if
there
was
no
uniform
guidance
to
States
on
how
to
prioritize
permit
applications
by
source
category.

Response:
Permitting
authorities
may
design
the
transition
plan
as
they
wish.
The
EPA
will
not
dictate
specifics;
rather,
the
plan
should
be
designed
consistent
with
local
conditions.

Comment:
One
State
(
IV­
D­
212)
and
one
local
government
agency
(
IV­
D­
362)
each
believed
that
language
should
be
added
to
distinguish
between
the
initial
permit
application
and
subsequent
applications,
using
the
terms
"
first
issue"
and
"
renewal
permit."

Response:
The
Administrator
does
not
believe
that
use
of
the
term
"
first
issue"
is
necessary.

4.2.5
Other
Comments
on
Initial
Program
Submittals
Comment:
Commenter
(
IV­
D­
410)
stated
that
permit
programs
with
provisions
to
deny
applications
should
be
approvable,
i.
e.,
a
program
that
denies
an
application
if
the
source
cannot
demonstrate
the
ability
to
comply
with
all
applicable
regulations.

Response:
Such
provisions
for
denying
applications
are
required
as
part
of
a
Title
V
permit
program.
Section
502(
b)(
1)
provides
that
among
the
minimum
elements
of
a
permit
program
to
be
administered
by
any
air
pollution
control
agency
are
requirements
for
permit
applications,
including
standard
form
and
criteria
for
determining
in
a
timely
fashion
the
completeness
of
applications.
If
an
application
does
not
meet
the
completeness
criteria
or
is
not
submitted
in
a
timely
fashion,
as
described
in
Section
70.5,
the
application
must
be
denied.

Once
the
application
is
deemed
timely
and
complete,
and
has
been
fully
reviewed,
the
permitting
authority
at
that
point
has
the
option
of
denying
the
application.
The
EPA
will
not
in
this
rule
dictate
the
circumstances
under
which
a
permitting
authority
might
justifiably
deny
a
permit
application.
However,
such
grounds
could
include
the
failure
to
submit
requested
additional
information,
the
misrepresentation
of
facts
or
the
failure
to
fully
disclose
all
relevant
facts,
the
failure
to
submit
an
adequate
compliance
plan
and
schedule
of
compliance,
or
the
failure
to
assure
operation
in
compliance
with
all
applicable
requirements.
The
Act
is
clear
in
providing,
however,
that
once
the
permitting
authority
has
taken
the
final
action
of
denying
the
application,
any
continued
operation
by
the
source
will
be
a
violation
of
Section
502(
a).

In
requiring
the
submittal
of
compliance
plans
with
the
application
and
schedules
of
compliance
in
operating
permits,
Congress
provided
a
mechanism
for
allowing
non­
complying
sources
to
obtain
a
permit
and
continue
operation.
State
laws
that
prohibit
the
issuance
of
permits
to
non­
complying
sources
but
that
nevertheless
allow
those
sources
to
continue
operation
would
therefore
seem
to
be
inconsistent
with
Title
V.
However,
as
stated
in
the
preamble
to
the
Part
70
regulations,
EPA
will
consider
State
programs
containing
elements
substantially
equivalent
to
those
required
under
Part
70.

Comment:
Commenter
(
IV­
D­
200)
believed
that
provisions
for
judicial
review
of
the
final
decisions
on
permits
are
required
(
IV­
D­
200).

Response:
Opportunity
for
judicial
review
is
provided
in
Section
70.4(
b)(
3)(
x),
consistent
with
Section
502(
b)(
6),
for
the
applicant,
any
person
who
participated
in
the
public
comment
process,
and
anyone
else
who
can
obtain
judicial
review
under
State
law.

Comment:
One
State
agency
(
IV­
D­
249)
requested
clarification
of
whether
"
final
permit"
for
purposes
of
providing
State
judicial
review
is
when
the
draft
proposed
permit
is
issued
by
the
State
or
when
it
has
been
reviewed
by
EPA.

Response:
A
permit
is
considered
final
after
EPA
review
and
the
permit
is
issued.

Comment:
One
State
agency
(
IV­
D­
108)
commented
that
their
legislature
was
not
in
session
until
February
1992
and
that
some
requirements
of
the
operating
permits
program
might
require
action
by
the
State
legislature.
In
such
a
case,
the
commenter
argued,
it
would
be
unfair
for
EPA
to
consider
the
State
unable
to
meet
its
permitting
requirements.

Response:
The
mechanism
of
interim
approvals
allows
permitting
authorities
to
begin
program
operation
while
program
additions
are
made,
such
as
legislative
authority,
provided
the
program
substantially
meets
the
requirements
of
Title
V.
The
EPA
has
encouraged
States
to
consider
the
legislative
authority
that
will
be
needed
for
their
permit
programs
and
take
action
as
soon
as
possible
to
ensure
such
authority
is
available.
Early
action,
interim
approvals,
and
the
three­
year
time
period
from
enactment
for
permit
program
development
should
allow
for
attaining
sufficient
legislative
authority.

Comment:
An
industry
commenter
(
IV­
F­
02a)
believed
that
State
flexibility
is
critical
to
a
successful
permitting
program.

Response:
The
Part
70
regulations
have
been
developed
with
the
intent
to
provide
as
much
flexibility
as
allowed
by
Title
V
for
permitting
authorities.

Comment:
One
commenter
(
IV­
D­
124)
believed
that
any
permit
applications,
compliance
plans,
and
monitoring
and
compliance
reports
must
be
available
to
the
public.

Response:
Section
70.4(
b)(
3)(
viii)
of
the
regulations
requires
the
program
submittal
to
contain
provisions
for
making
these
items
available
to
the
public.

4.3.
INTERIM
AND
PARTIAL
PROGRAMS
Comment:
A
State
agency
(
IV­
D­
91)
commented
that
a
definition
of
interim
program
is
needed.
Several
commenters
(
IV­
D­
129,
IV­
D­
134,
IV­
D­
203,
IV­
D­
219)
supported
the
inclusion
of
interim
program
provisions.
One
industry
commenter
(
IV­
D­
184),
however,
opposed
allowing
interim
permitting
programs.
Two
commenters
(
IV­
D­
129
and
IV­
D­
219)
gave
reasons
why
interim
program
approvals
were
needed,
including
that
interim
approvals
are
necessary
when
EPA
and
the
State
disagree
on
whether
an
adequate
program
exists
(
IV­
D­
219).
Industry
commenter
IV­
D­
325
stated
that
permits
granted
under
interim
program
approval
should
not
expire,
as
this
would
penalize
sources
by
requiring
them
to
submit
duplicate
applications.

Response:
Section
502(
g)
of
the
Act
allows
interim
approval
of
a
State
program
for
up
to
two
years
if
it
would
substantially
meet
the
requirements
of
Title
V.
Section
70.4(
d)
proposed
six
program
elements
that
would
be
needed
for
a
program
to
receive
interim
approval.
The
criteria
for
allowing
interim
approvals
is
designed
to
provide
for
viable
permits
that
will
not
have
to
be
renewed
upon
full
program
approval
other
than
when
the
term
of
the
permit
expires.
The
EPA
believes
the
proposed
criteria,
with
the
addition
of
enforcement,
operational
flexibility,
expeditious
permitting
procedure
provisions,
permit
application
and
reporting
form(
s),
and
provisions
for
alternate
scenarios
are
sufficient
to
substantially
meet
the
requirements
of
Title
V.
Other
suggested
additions
to
the
criteria
were
considered
and
only
these
provisions
were
judged
to
be
important
enough
to
be
added.

Comment:
Two
industry
commenters
(
IV­
D­
122
and
IV­
D­
208)
requested
that
operational
flexibility
provisions
be
required
for
interim
program
approvals.

Response:
The
Administrator
agrees
with
industry
commenters
that
operational
flexibility
is
an
important
aspect
of
the
permitting
program
that
should
be
included
in
an
interim
program.
Because
permits
issued
under
an
interim
program
could
be
for
a
full
five­
year
term,
sources
would
need
this
important
provision
to
allow
timely
response
to
changes
in
market
conditions.
Without
operational
flexibility
provisions
and
provisions
for
alternate
scenarios,
needless
permit
revisions
could
be
required,
often
before
critically
important
changes
could
be
made.

Comment:
One
local
government
agency
(
IV­
D­
107)
commented
that
interim
programs
should
be
approved
as
quickly
as
possible.

Response:
The
EPA
has
one
year
to
approve
operating
permit
programs.
This
time
limit
applies
to
interim
programs.
Due
to
the
requirements
in
Title
V
for
opportunity
for
public
comment
in
the
program
approval
process,
the
process
will
be
somewhat
lengthy.
The
EPA
will,
however,
act
as
expeditiously
as
possible
to
grant
approval
to
permit
programs.

Comment:
A
State
agency
(
IV­
D­
219)
commented
that
adequate
fees
should
not
be
a
minimum
element
for
granting
interim
approval.

Response:
The
Administrator
believes
that
adequate
funding
of
permit
programs
through
permit
fees
is
a
necessary
element
of
a
program
for
it
to
be
sufficient
to
issue
viable
Part
70
permits.
The
lack
of
adequate
funding
could
result
in
resources
being
insufficient
to
give
proper
attention
to
permit
development
and
compliance.

Comment:
One
industry
group
(
IV­
D­
134)
commented
that
interim
and
partial
program
approvals
are
necessary,
because
cumbersome
dual­
permitting
programs,
such
as
those
under
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
Subtitle
C,
result
when
such
options
do
not
exist.
An
environmental
commenter
(
IV­
D­
432)
considered
partial
program
approvals
acceptable
if
they
implement
Titles
I,
IV,
and
V
for
one
source
category,
as
the
Act
at
Section
502(
f)
prohibits
partial
approval
unless
all
applicable
requirements
are
included.
Response:
The
minimum
criteria
in
Section
502(
f)
of
the
Act
for
approval
of
a
partial
program
is
that
it
ensure
compliance
with
Title
V,
Title
I,
Title
IV
applicable
to
affected
sources,
and
Section
112
applicable
to
new
sources,
major
sources,
and
area
sources.
Any
program
meeting
these
requirements
can
be
granted
a
partial
approval.
However,
a
full
program
meeting
all
applicable
requirements
of
the
Act
(
e.
g.,
Title
VI,
etc.)
must
be
submitted
by
the
program
submittal
deadline
of
3
years
after
enactment,
unless
an
interim
approval
is
granted
which
would
extend
the
deadline.

Clarification
is
added
to
Section
70.4(
c)
concerning
partial
programs
limited
to
certain
source
categories.
A
program
that
only
addresses
certain
source
categories
based
on
the
jurisdictional
limits
of
a
local
agency
may
be
approved
as
a
partial
program.
This
partial
program
approval
can
be
interim
if
the
program
does
not
fully
meet,
but
substantially
meets,
the
criteria
for
a
permitting
program.
A
program
that
is
limited
because
it
does
not
address
certain
source
categories
(
for
reasons
other
than
geographical
jurisdiction
of
a
local
agency)
will
be
given
only
an
interim
approval
and
must
be
modified
within
the
interim
approval
period
to
cover
all
sources
and
meet
all
Part
70
requirements
before
full
approval
can
be
granted.
However,
for
EPA
to
grant
a
source
categorylimited
program
(
other
than
for
geographical
reasons)
an
interim
approval,
there
must
be
compelling
reasons
why
the
State
cannot
address
all
sources
in
the
interim.
These
reasons
will
be
judged
on
a
case­
bycase
basis.

Comment:
One
State
agency
(
IV­
D­
179)
argued
that
EPA
should
approve
permit
programs
on
a
district­
bydistrict
basis.

Response:
The
EPA
will
approve
partial
programs
individually
as
they
are
submitted.
The
breakup
of
a
State
into
partial
programs
is
an
option
employed
at
the
discretion
of
the
State
and
its
local
agencies
with
no
EPA
input
except
during
program
evaluation
and
approval
or
disapproval
to
ensure
that
the
whole
State
is
covered
by
a
fully
approved
program.

Comment:
An
industry
commenter
(
IV­
D­
129)
stated
that
a
mechanism
for
permit
renewals
would
be
needed
if
interim
program
approvals
are
allowed,
in
order
for
businesses
to
have
a
permit
in
place
if
the
State
program
is
not
approved
after
the
interim
approval
period
expires.

Response:
Permitting
authorities
have
the
option
to
establish
permit
terms
shorter
than
five
years
so
that
permits
will
be
renewable
sometime
shortly
after
full
program
approval.
If
an
interim
program
does
not
get
full
approval
at
the
end
of
the
two
years,
EPA
is
required
by
the
Act
at
Section
502(
d)(
2)
to
apply
sanctions
and
by
Section
502(
d)(
3)
to
promulgate
a
program
two
years
after
the
deadline
for
program
submittal
in
Section
502(
d)(
1).
Corrections
of
interim
program
deficiencies
must
be
submitted
to
EPA
at
least
six
months
before
the
end
of
the
interim
approval
period
to
allow
time
for
evaluation
and
public
notice
of
full
program
approval.
If
the
program
does
expire
and
does
not
get
full
approval,
any
permits
issued
under
the
interim
approval
will
remain
in
effect
as
federally
enforceable
and
will
become
subject
to
a
Federal
program.

Comment:
Several
industry
commenters
(
IV­
D­
160,
IV­
D­
311,
IV­
D­
325,
IV­
D­
406)
were
concerned
that
permitting
programs
might
be
approved
before
determination
of
Federal
maximum
achievable
control
technology
(
MACT)
standards.
States
might
then
be
forced
to
set
MACT
requirements
that
would
later
have
to
be
revised,
requiring
permit
modifications.
These
commenters
wanted
to
avoid
case­
by­
case
MACT
determinations.
Two
of
the
commenters
(
IV­
D­
311
and
IV­
D­
406)
additionally
stated
that
neither
early
approval
of
State
programs
nor
the
permitting
process
itself
should
lead
to
caseby
case
MACT
determinations.

Response:
State
and
local
operating
permit
programs
will
be
approved
before
some
of
the
EPA
MACT
standards
are
set.
Section
112(
g)(
2)
of
the
Act
requires
that,
after
a
permit
program
is
approved,
no
major
source
may
construct
or
be
modified
unless
the
applicable
MACT
standard
is
met.
If
no
MACT
has
been
set,
the
permitting
authority
must
determine
MACT
for
the
source
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
This
could
result
in
a
MACT
control
level
below
the
level
that
would
be
set
by
EPA,
thus
requiring
the
source
to
meet
a
new
MACT.
The
Administrator
understands
the
concern;
however,
the
Act
is
clear
on
this
issue
and
case­
by­
case
MACT
determinations
would
have
to
be
made
under
the
circumstances
described.

4.4
EPA
REVIEW
OF
PERMIT
PROGRAM
SUBMITTALS
Comment:
Several
groups
commented
on
EPA
review
of
permit
program
submittals.
Two
industry
commenters
(
IV­
D­
93
and
IV­
D­
134)
indicated
that
the
States
should
only
have
one
year
to
submit
their
program
revisions
following
EPA
review.
One
of
these
groups
(
IV­
D­
134)
further
commented
that
a
two­
year
period
would
be
appropriate
if
legislative
action
was
required.
An
environmental
group
(
IV­
D­
432)
believed
that
a
State
should
only
have
180
days
to
resubmit
a
permit
program
after
EPA
disapproval,
which
is
the
statutory
deadline
given
under
the
Act
at
Section
502(
d)(
1).

Response:
The
Act
at
Section
502(
d)(
1)
stipulates
that
the
State
has
180
days
after
EPA
notice
of
disapproval
to
resubmit
a
program
and
does
not
provide
for
any
longer
period.
Section
70.4(
f)
has
been
revised
to
reflect
only
the
180
days,
and
the
provision
for
up
to
two
years
(
an
allowance
proposed
only
for
a
situation
where
legislative
changes
would
be
needed
and
additional
time
would
be
required
for
the
changes
to
be
adopted)
has
been
removed
to
make
the
regulation
consistent
with
Section
502(
d)(
1).
Comment:
One
industry
commenter
(
IV­
D­
313)
urged
that
EPA
oversight
of
State
programs
is
vital
in
order
for
programs
to
develop
gradually.
Another
State
agency
(
IV­
D­
301)
believed
that
EPA
review
should
extend
to
audits
of
State
and
local
programs
for
quality
control.

Response:
The
EPA
will
be
periodically
involved
in
oversight
of
State
and
local
permitting
programs,
from
initial
plan
approval
to
oversight
of
permit
issuance,
revision,
and
renewal.
The
EPA
has
responsibility
under
Section
502(
i)
to
promulgate,
administer,
and
enforce
a
permit
program
if
the
permitting
authority
fails
to
adequately
administer
and
enforce
its
approved
program.
The
EPA
envisions
future
audits
of
approved
programs
to
fulfill
this
responsibility
to
assure
proper
program
administration.

Comment:
A
State
agency
(
IV­
D­
113)
believed
that
States
should
have
the
opportunity
to
appeal
EPA
denial
of
the
State
program.
This
commenter
argued
that
States
should
have
the
opportunity
to
demonstrate
that
their
original
program
submittal
met
the
intent
of
the
Act
before
the
process
begins,
and
that
the
Administrator
should
be
required
to
respond
within
six
months
of
submittal.

Response:
There
is
nothing
to
prevent
a
permitting
authority
from
appealing
a
disapproval
and
nothing
to
prevent
the
Administrator
from
reconsidering
approval
of
a
program
submittal.
However,
the
Administrator
is
under
no
obligation
to
respond
to
an
appeal.

The
Act
does
not
limit
the
timing
of
EPA
review
of
program
revisions
resulting
from
disapproval.
There
is
incentive,
however,
for
EPA
to
act
expeditiously.
First,
EPA
supports
State
and
local
agency
establishment
and
implementation
of
the
programs
as
soon
as
possible.
Second,
EPA
will
have
to
promulgate
a
Part
71
program
two
years
after
the
program
submittal
deadline
(
i.
e.,
by
November
15,
1995)
if
a
program
is
not
approved.
The
EPA
wants
States
to
administer
permitting
programs
and
will
make
every
effort
to
support
program
establishment
at
the
State
or
local
government
level.

Comment:
One
State
agency
(
IV­
D­
219)
commented
that
States
should
be
exempted
from
the
requirement
to
submit
any
permit
applications
for
sources
not
regulated
under
Part
70
for
EPA
review.

Response:
The
permitting
authority
will
have
to
submit
to
EPA
only
those
permit
applications
for
sources
within
the
approved
permit
program
for
that
agency.

4.5
INDIVIDUAL
PERMIT
TRANSITION
Comment:
Two
industry
groups
(
IV­
D­
93
and
IV­
D­
184)
commented
on
individual
permit
transition.
One
of
these
groups
(
IV­
D­
93)
believed
that
there
should
be
no
individual
permit
transitions,
and
that
the
whole
set
of
permit
applications
should
either
be
retained
by
EPA
or
transferred
to
the
State.
Response:
Section
502(
e)
specifies
that
the
Administrator
shall
suspend
issuance
of
permits
under
a
federal
program
upon
notice
of
approval
of
a
permitting
program.
There
is,
however,
authority
for
EPA
to
retain
jurisdiction
over
federally­
issued
permits
until
a
permit
is
issued
under
the
approved
program.
It
is
unclear
whether
EPA
has
authority
to
retain
jurisdiction
over
permit
applications
for
which
permits
are
not
issued.
The
EPA
believes
the
Act
can
be
read
either
way
and
EPA
will
consider
transferring
application
processing
to
the
permitting
authority
upon
program
approval.

Comment:
An
industry
group
(
IV­
D­
184)
commented
that
even
if
EPA
has
jurisdiction
over
the
permit,
the
permittee
still
only
needs
to
report
to
the
State.

Response:
This
would
not
serve
the
purpose
of
EPA's
administration
of
a
permit
program.
If
the
State
fails
to
submit
a
program
or
its
program
is
disapproved,
the
State
will
not
be
actively
involved
in
permitting.
The
source
will
have
to
report
to
EPA
as
the
permitting
authority.

4.6
PROGRAM
REVISIONS
Comment:
An
environmental
group
(
IV­
D­
432)
commented
that
the
Act
at
Section
502(
i)
requires
that
any
program
deficiencies
must
be
corrected
within
18
months,
or
sanctions
are
applied;
thus,
the
commenter
argued,
EPA
may
not
allow
a
State
"
such
period
as
the
Administrator
may
specify"
to
correct
deficiencies.

Response
Section
502(
i)(
1)
of
the
Act
gives
the
Administrator
authority
to
apply
sanctions
before
the
end
of
the
18
months
(
when
at
least
one
sanction
becomes
mandatory),
recognizing
that
program
deficiencies
can
vary
in
complexity
and
importance.
The
Administrator
feels
that
there
can
be
some
program
deficiencies
that
should
be
corrected
in
less
time
than
18
months
and
reserves
the
right
to
establish
a
shorter
period
of
time
for
action.

Comment:
An
industry
commenter
(
IV­
D­
343)
stated
that
the
words
"
or
priorities"
should
be
deleted
from
Section
70.4(
i),
and
that
States
should
not
have
to
keep
EPA
informed
of
program
priorities.
Response:
The
Administrator
agrees
and
the
reference
to
priorities
has
been
deleted
from
Section
70.4(
i).

Comment:
A
State
agency
(
IV­
D­
113)
commented
that
the
Administrator
should
be
required
to
explain
why
the
permit
program
is
inadequate
when
a
mandatory
program
revision
is
required.

Response:
If
EPA
does
not
approve
a
program
or
gives
a
program
interim
approval,
that
action
will
be
accompanied
with
an
explanation
of
the
deficiencies
in
the
program
that
need
to
be
corrected
prior
to
full
approval
being
granted.
If
a
revision
necessitating
program
modifications
is
made
to
Part
70,
the
notice
promulgating
that
action
will
explain
any
required
modifications.

Comment:
Two
industry
groups
(
IV­
D­
199
and
IV­
D­
208)
commented
that
changes
to
the
State
permitting
program
should
require
public
notification
and
opportunity
for
public
comment.
Another
industry
group
believed
that
while
public
comment
was
not
necessary,
EPA
should
provide
notice
of
revisions
to
State
air
operating
permit
programs,
even
if
the
changes
were
not
substantial.

Response:
Any
action
to
approve,
disapprove,
or
substantially
revise
a
program
will
go
through
opportunity
for
public
comment
according
to
Section
502(
d)
of
the
Act.
Section
70.4(
i)(
2)(
ii)
and
(
iv)
are
written
to
provide
public
notice
only
of
substantial
program
revisions
to
avoid
what
could
be
a
significant
burden
of
public
notice
procedures
for
minor
program
changes
in
which
the
public
has
little
interest.
At
any
time,
the
public
can
gain
access
to
the
program
provisions
or
can
request
information
on
program
changes
for
which
no
public
notice
was
provided.

4.7
INFORMATION­
SHARING
PROVISIONS
Comment:
Several
comments
on
the
proposed
informationsharing
provisions
were
received
(
IV­
D­
53,
IV­
D­
91,
IVD
109,
IV­
D­
367,
IV­
D­
435).
A
Federal
agency
(
IV­
D­
109)
requested
that
laws
for
classified
or
sensitive
unclassified
information
be
applied
when
such
information
is
transmitted
to
the
permitting
authority
and
to
EPA
for
permit
review.
A
State
commenter
(
IV­
D­
91)
requested
that
EPA
correspond
directly
with
the
permittee
to
get
confidential
information,
and
that
EPA
not
require
States
to
share
confidential
information.
Two
State
agencies
(
IV­
D­
53
and
IV­
D­
367)
commented
that
State
laws
may
prohibit
transmittal
of
confidential
information
to
EPA,
and
that
EPA
should
instead
use
its
authority
under
the
Act
at
Section
114
to
obtain
the
required
information.
An
industry
commenter
(
IV­
D­
435)
stated
that
all
information
in
the
application
should
be
confidential,
or
proprietary
information
on
manufacturing
processes
will
be
sacrificed.
Response:
A
stipulation
is
added
to
Section
70.4(
j)
that
the
permitting
authority
may
require
a
source
to
submit
confidential
information
directly
to
EPA,
because
some
States
cannot
submit
such
information
to
EPA.
Regardless
of
whether
the
submittal
is
made
by
the
State
or
the
source,
the
material
will
be
submitted
under
40
CFR
Part
2,
which
contains
the
Federal
Government's
business
confidentiality
regulations.
These
regulations
specify
requirements
for
material
to
be
considered
confidential
business
information.
Qualifying
information
is
protected
from
being
released
to
outside
parties
under
Part
2.

4.8
OTHER
COMMENTS
ON
SECTION
70.4
Comment:
Several
industry
commenters
(
IV­
D­
145,
IV­
D­
147,
IV­
D­
154,
IV­
D­
207)
and
one
State
agency
(
IV­
D­
179)
strongly
supported
the
existing
California
or
Texas
air
permitting
programs
and
suggested
that
these
programs
be
approved
with
minimal
change.
Several
other
commenters
(
IV­
D­
1,
IV­
D­
58,
IV­
D­
123,
IV­
D­
233,
IV­
D­
411)
further
suggested
that
EPA
allow
"
equivalent"
programs
where
they
achieve
the
same
results
as
the
Title
V
program.
One
of
these
commenters
(
IV­
D­
147)
suggested
that
EPA
identify
the
minimal
changes
required
for
an
existing
program
to
be
approved
as
a
Title
V
program.
Another
of
these
commenters
(
IV­
D­
179)
suggested
that
language
be
added
to
allow
permitting
authorities
to
integrate
existing
compliance
procedures
into
the
operating
permits
program
and
that
States
be
allowed
to
develop
alternative
permit
programs
that
fully
comply
with
Title
V.
Another
agency
commenter
(
IV­
D­
233)
suggested
that
emphasis
be
placed
on
allowing
States
to
maintain
their
existing
procedures,
including
current
forms,
and
that
the
regulations
should
indicate
that
the
model
forms
will
not
be
the
sole
criteria
used
to
judge
the
adequacy
of
a
State's
submitted
application
forms.
Industry
commenter
IV­
D­
315
also
supported
approval
of
equivalent
programs
and
gave
as
an
example
the
declining
balance
strategy
proposed
in
California,
in
which
a
facility
is
allocated
emissions
that
decrease
over
time.
These
decreasing
emissions
are
considered
equivalent
to
Title
I
emissions
offset
requirements.
One
industry
commenter
(
IV­
D­
303)
indicated
that
States
must
have
the
flexibility
to
design
permit
programs
that
avoid
permitting
conflicts
among
State
agencies.

Response:
The
EPA
has
no
leeway
to
accept
current
programs
other
than
to
judge
them
against
the
criteria
for
program
content
specified
in
the
Act
at
Section
502(
b)
and
in
the
Part
70
regulations.
In
promulgating
these
regulations,
however,
the
Administrator
has
provided
for
as
much
flexibility
as
possible
in
approving
State
programs
in
an
effort
not
to
disrupt
them
unduly.
The
provisions
in
Section
502(
g),
however,
provide
for
interim
approval
of
programs
for
a
period
of
up
to
two
years
if
the
program
"
substantially
meets"
the
program
content
criteria
in
Section
502(
b).
The
criteria
for
determining
if
a
program
substantially
meets
Title
V
and
is
eligible
for
interim
approval
were
proposed
in
Section
70.4(
d),
and
public
comment
was
considered
in
establishing
the
final
criteria.

As
a
general
rule,
EPA
will
accept
elements
of
current
State
or
local
operating
permit
programs
consistent
with
the
criteria
for
program
content
specified
in
Section
502(
b)
and
the
Part
70
regulations,
using
as
much
flexibility
as
possible
in
an
effort
not
to
disrupt
them
unduly.
This
policy
will
be
particularly
true
where
the
State
has
an
established
track
record
in
implementing
an
air
operating
permit
program.

The
regulations
specify
the
flexibility
for
all
permitting
authorities
to
develop
their
own
"
substantially
equivalent"
procedures.
In
the
following
situation,
EPA
has
provided
a
model
for
the
State
to
follow
and
will
approve
different
but
effective
State
approaches
that
accomplish
the
same
statutory
and
regulatory
objectives.
Section
70.4(
b)(
13)
requires
in
part
for
State
program
approval
"
provisions
for
adequate,
streamlined,
and
reasonable
procedures
for
expeditious
review
of
permit
revisions,
including
permit
modifications."
This
section
further
states
that
the
State
may
meet
this
obligation
for
purposes
of
establishing
modification
procedures
by
"
using
procedures
that
meet
the
requirements
of
Section
70.7(
e)
of
this
part
or
that
are
substantially
equivalent
(
emphasis
added)."

Comment:
One
State
(
IV­
D­
249)
commented
that
it
is
unreasonable
to
require
evidence
that
existing
regulations,
some
of
which
were
adopted
20
years
ago,
were
correctly
adopted
and
that,
for
new
regulations,
States
should
only
need
to
make
a
demonstration
that
the
general
adoption
process
was
procedurally
correct,
with
a
statement
from
the
Attorney
General
that
the
regulations
followed
proper
procedures.
One
industry
group
(
IV­
D­
152)
said
that
States
should
not
have
to
include
both
relevant
statutes
and
the
Attorney
General's
opinion
to
show
sufficient
legal
authority
as
part
of
their
program
submittal.
One
industry
commenter
(
IV­
D­
361)
and
one
State
agency
(
IV­
D­
301),
however,
supported
the
requirement
for
States
to
submit
a
legal
opinion.
Response:
The
Administrator
agrees
with
the
concern
that
proper
regulatory
adoption
evidence
may
be
unavailable.
Section
70.4(
b)(
2)
in
the
final
regulations
requires
only
that
the
State
provide
reasonably
available
evidence
of
procedurally
correct
adoption.
Added
to
the
final
regulations
is
the
requirement
to
also
submit
any
regulations
or
statutes
that
could
restrict
the
effective
implementation
of
the
permit
program.
The
EPA
needs
to
see
any
such
regulations,
and
needs
the
Attorney
General's
opinion
as
to
their
validity,
to
be
able
to
judge
if
any
regulatory
changes
need
to
be
made
for
the
permitting
authority
before
full
approval
of
a
program
submittal
is
warranted.

Comment:
One
State
(
IV­
D­
326)
and
one
Federal
agency
(
IV­
D­
376)
commented
that
States
should
be
required
to
include
a
model
permit
in
their
program
submittal.
A
cement
industry
commenter
(
IV­
D­
137)
requested
that
State
programs
be
required
to
accept
a
federallyadopted
general
permit
for
the
cement
industry
as
a
model
permit,
as
the
cement
industry
is
already
overburdened
with
regulation.

Response:
A
model
permit
is
not
a
necessary
element
of
a
program
to
ensure
compliance
with
Part
70.
In
addition,
many
agencies
without
permitting
experience
may
find
it
difficult
to
produce
a
model
permit
in
the
time
frame
provided
for
program
development
and
submittal.
The
EPA
intends
to
develop
model
permits
for
use
by
permitting
agencies
as
an
aid,
but
these
model
permits
will
not
be
binding
on
them.

Comment:
Two
industry
commenters
(
IV­
D­
210
and
IV­
D­
311)
argued
that
the
provisions
to
challenge
permits
are
critical,
as
new
grounds
of
information
arise
after
the
period
for
challenge
has
lapsed,
and
the
Government's
interpretation
of
a
permit
may
not
be
known
until
an
enforcement
action
is
commenced.

Response:
An
additional
provision
regarding
the
opportunity
for
judicial
review
has
been
added
to
the
final
regulations.
Section
70.4(
b)(
3)(
xiii)
requires
that
this
opportunity
for
State
court
review
of
the
final
permit
action
must
be
the
exclusive
means
for
obtaining
judicial
review
of
the
permit,
and
that
all
such
petitions
for
judicial
review
must
be
filed
no
later
than
90
days
after
final
permit
action,
or
such
shorter
time
as
the
State
requires.
If
new
grounds
for
challenge
arise
after
the
90­
day
review
period
has
ended,
the
party
may
challenge
the
permit
on
such
new
grounds
within
90
days
after
the
new
grounds
arise.
Such
new
grounds
must
be
based
on
new
information
that
was
not
available
during
the
review
period.
New
grounds
specifically
do
not
include
a
government
interpretation
of
a
permit
the
source
claims
in
an
enforcement
action
to
have
been
unaware
of.
After
this
period
for
review,
no
permit
may
be
challenged
in
court,
including
any
State
or
Federal
enforcement
action.
Section
307
clearly
establishes
this
rule
for
circumstances
in
which
EPA
is
the
permitting
authority.

Comment:
Industry
commenters
IV­
D­
205
and
IV­
D­
206
believed
that
States
need
to
be
publicly
accountable
for
managing
their
permit
programs.
These
commenters
further
indicated
that
States
should
be
required
to
publish
a
list
of
approved
permits
semiannually,
including
a
description
of
the
number
and
types
of
permit
applications
that
the
State
has
received.

Response:
A
requirement
for
public
accountability
is
an
example
of
an
item
that
would
be
in
the
implementation
agreement
between
a
permitting
authority
and
EPA.

Comment:
One
industry
commenter
(
IV­
D­
48)
stated
that
EPA
should
delegate
program
administration
to
the
States
as
soon
as
the
program
demonstrates
minimum
requirements.
This
commenter
argued
that
delegating
authority
quickly
avoids
duplicate
efforts.

Response:
The
EPA
will
assist
permitting
authorities
in
any
way
possible
to
support
expeditious
adoption
and
implementation
of
a
permitting
program.

Comment:
Two
industry
commenters
(
IV­
D­
93
and
IV­
D­
134)
believed
that
local
agencies
should
be
delegated
the
same
authority
that
the
State
agency
has
when
permitting
is
their
responsibility.

Response:
The
EPA
will
approve
partial
programs
on
the
same
basis
as
full
State
programs
and
judge
administrative
authority
of
local
agencies
as
a
State's
authority
will
be
judged.

Comment:
One
Federal
agency
(
IV­
D­
394)
commented
that
States
should
actively
seek
input
from
affected
entities
in
developing
their
own
permit
programs.

Response:
Each
State
is
responsible
for
its
own
mechanism
of
program
development.

Comment:
A
State
agency
(
IV­
D­
326)
commented
that
a
Part
71
program
was
needed
earlier
in
order
to
serve
as
a
model
for
program
development.
This
commenter
further
indicated
that
the
State
should
be
the
permitting
authority
when
there
is
no
approved
State
program
and
no
promulgated
Federal
program.
The
EPA
should
not
be
able
to
apply
sanctions
against
the
State,
the
commenter
believed,
if
the
State
elects
not
to
propose
its
own
program
and
instead
to
wait
for
a
Part
71
program
to
be
promulgated.
Another
State
agency
(
IV­
D­
91)
commented
that
States
should
be
able
to
choose
those
circumstances
where
the
State
wants
EPA
to
carry
out
a
Part
71
permit
in
the
State.

Response:
The
purpose
of
a
Part
71
program
is
primarily
for
Federal
implementation
in
the
event
a
State
does
not
meet
its
obligations
to
develop
or
implement
an
approvable
program
covering
the
entire
State.
The
EPA
intends
to
develop
the
Part
71
program
as
soon
as
possible.
This
program,
however,
will
not
be
for
purposes
of
relieving
a
State
from
its
responsibilities,
and
sanctions
will
be
applicable
to
a
State,
as
provided
for
in
Sections
502(
d)
and
(
i),
if
it
does
not
submit
an
entire
program
or
combination
of
partial
programs
covering
the
entire
State
within
the
allowed
time
frames.

Comment:
One
State
agency
(
IV­
D­
91)
commented
that
EPA
should
not
require
States
to
issue
permits
located
outside
of
their
legal
jurisdiction,
such
as
on
the
continental
shelf.

Response:
Section
328(
a)(
1)
establishes
that
certain
sources
on
the
outer
continental
shelf
shall
be
treated
as
if
they
are
within
the
boundaries
of
States.
The
EPA
does
not
have
discretion
to
deviate
from
this
Act
requirement.
5.0
COMMENTS
AND
RESPONSES
ON
SECTION
70.5:
PERMIT
APPLICATIONS
5.1.
SUMMARY
OF
COMMENTS
ON
SECTION
70.5
Comments
in
this
section
were
directed
at
permit
applications.
They
included
discussion
on
the
timing
of
submittals,
the
format
and
content
of
applications,
compliance
plans
and
certifications,
determination
of
the
completeness
of
applications,
and
other
issues
relating
to
the
permit
application
process.
The
majority
of
comments
in
this
section
were
on
the
18­
month
lead
time
for
application
submittals,
the
30­
day
default
completeness
determination,
de
minimis
exemption
levels
for
inclusion
in
the
application,
and
the
need
for
compliance
plans.

5.2.
DUTY
TO
APPLY
Comment:
There
were
several
comments
on
general
aspects
regarding
the
duty
to
apply
and
the
timely
submittal
of
applications.
One
State
commenter
(
IV­
D­
113)
questioned
who
must
apply
when
the
owner
and
operator
are
different.
One
industry
commenter
(
IV­
D­
184)
also
requested
clarification
on
this
point,
and
indicated
that
regardless
of
who
must
apply,
there
should
only
be
one
permit
application.

Response:
One
application
or
set
of
applications
is
required
for
each
source,
whether
the
owner
and
operator
are
different
or
not.
Information
on
each
emission
unit
or
activity
at
a
facility
need
be
fully
described
only
once.
The
Administrator
has
provided
States
with
flexibility
concerning
the
format
of
standard
application
forms,
therefore,
States
may
require
sources
to
submit
one
application
for
the
entire
facility,
discrete
application
forms
for
each
emission
unit,
or
provide
a
modular
approach
to
permitting
where
each
source
prepares
the
same
basic
application
form
with
additional
forms
for
specialized
regulatory
requirements.

The
issue
of
who
must
apply
is
addressed
in
response
to
comments
contained
in
Section
2.13
of
this
document
which
discusses
whether
owners
or
operators
must
apply
and
the
"
under
common
control"
provision
of
the
definition
of
"
major
source."
Further
discussion
is
found
in
Section
3.2.1
of
this
document
concerning
major
source
applicability.

Comment:
Several
industry
commenters
addressed
the
issue
of
timely
application
submittals.
One
commenter
(
IV­
D­
124)
requested
a
definition
of
"
timely."
Another
commenter
(
IV­
D­
319)
wanted
the
timely
submissions
to
be
by
a
specified
date
(
November
11,
1995),
and
a
third
(
IV­
D­
193)
wanted
the
timely
submissions
to
be
only
for
Federal
requirements.
One
commenter
(
IV­
D­
106)
encouraged
EPA
to
make
the
12­
month
period
for
submittals
an
allowable
time
period,
with
a
minimum
submittal
time
of
6
months,
while
another
(
IV­
F­
019)
suggested
the
time
deadline
for
submissions
be
reworded
to
allow
more
flexibility.
Commenter
IV­
D­
5
indicated
that
any
initial
application
submittal
time
of
less
than
12
months
would
be
unacceptable.
The
final
commenter
(
IV­
D­
100)
on
this
subject
indicated
that
the
12­
month
submittal
time
should
apply
after
the
permit
program
has
been
approved
by
EPA.

Response:
"
Timely"
is
defined
with
regard
to
application
submittal
or
submittal
of
additional
information
within
Section
70.5(
a)(
1)
of
the
final
regulations.
To
be
a
timely
submission,
a
complete
application
must
be
submitted
on
deadlines
established
by
the
States,
subject
to
approval
by
EPA.
States
may
also
set
their
own
deadlines,
subject
to
EPA
approval,
for
applicants
to
submit
additional
information
requested
by
the
permitting
authority
subsequent
to
the
completeness
determination.

To
require
that
applications
be
submitted
by
a
certain
date
(
November
15,
1995)
as
suggested
by
one
commenter
is
infeasible
because
State
programs
will
be
approved
on
differing
dates
and
is
contrary
to
Sections
502(
a),
503(
a),
503(
c),
and
503(
d),
which
set
deadlines
for
applications
based
not
on
a
specific
date
but
with
reference
to
timeframes
that
commence
following
an
action
taken
by
EPA,
the
permitting
authority,
or
the
source.
If
an
applicant
submitted
an
application
that
only
addressed
federally­
enforceable
requirements
but
did
not
address
otherwise
applicable
State­
only
requirements,
it
would
be
determined
by
the
permitting
authority
to
be
incomplete.
If
the
applicant
did
not
submit
a
complete
application
within
the
deadlines
provided
by
the
permitting
authority,
the
applicant
would
be
subject
to
Federal
enforcement
for
failure
to
apply
for
federally­
enforceable
requirements
and
subject
to
State
enforcement,
independently
of
Title
V
deadlines,
for
those
requirements
that
are
State
enforceable.

Section
503(
c)
of
the
Act
states
that
an
application
with
a
compliance
plan
shall
be
submitted
not
later
than
12
months
after
the
date
on
which
the
source
becomes
subject
to
the
permitting
program
and
provides
for
States'
discretion
on
setting
the
exact
deadline.
These
deadlines
should
be
included
in
the
Part
70
program
submittal
for
review
and
approval
by
the
Administrator.
Section
503(
c)
clearly
gives
States
authority
to
set
any
time
for
submittal
of
applications
that
is
not
greater
than
12
months.
The
Act
therefore
does
not
allow
the
Administrator
the
discretion
to
disapprove
a
submittal
date
on
the
grounds
that
it
is
too
early
or
to
set
a
minimum
submittal
time
of
6
months
as
suggested
by
the
commenter.
Section
503(
a)
states
that
any
source
is
subject
to
the
permitting
program
on
the
later
of
two
dates,
the
effective
date
of
State's
Part
70
program
after
approval,
or
when
the
source
is
subject
to
Section
502(
a)
of
the
Act.
Additionally,
Section
502(
a)
states
that
it
shall
be
a
violation
for
a
source
to
operate
without
a
permit.
This
implies
that
a
source
becomes
subject
to
the
operating
permit
program
when
operations
commence.
Therefore,
a
subject
source
may
wait
until
12
months
after
it
begins
operation
or
after
State
program
approval,
whichever
date
is
later,
to
submit
its
operating
permit
application,
provided
that
the
State
has
not
established
an
earlier
date.
Furthermore,
Section
503(
d)
allows
a
source
subject
to
the
permit
program
to
operate
and
not
be
in
violation
prior
to
the
time
it
must
submit
an
application
under
Section
503(
c).
Since
Section
503(
d)
is
more
specific
on
this
point,
it
is
clear
that
any
source,
including
those
required
to
have
a
Title
I
Part
C
or
D
permit
need
not
submit
a
Part
70
application
until
after
it
commences
operation
or
such
earlier
date
as
the
permitting
authority
may
establish.
This
prevents
the
source
from
being
subject
to
an
enforcement
action
during
the
12­
month
period
that
it
operates
before
it
applies
for
an
operating
permit.

The
proposal
did
not
address
the
timing
of
application
submittal
for
sources
required
to
have
a
preconstruction
review
permit
pursuant
to
the
requirements
of
the
Prevention
of
Significant
Deterioration
(
PSD)
program
under
Title
I,
Part
C
or
the
nonattainment
area
New
Source
Review
(
NSR)
program
under
Title
I,
Part
D.
However,
Sections
502(
a)
and
503(
a)
together
indicate
that
a
source
required
to
have
a
Title
I,
Part
C
or
D
permit
is
not
subject
to
the
Part
70
permit
requirements
until
after
it
commences
operation
or
such
earlier
date
as
the
permitting
authority
may
establish.
This
prevents
the
source
from
being
subject
to
an
enforcement
action
during
the
period
that
it
operates
before
it
is
required
to
apply
for
an
operating
permit.
The
final
rule
in
Section
70.5(
a)(
1)(
ii)
now
states
that
new
or
modified
sources
required
to
meet
the
requirements
under
Section
112(
g)
or
to
have
a
Part
C
or
D
permit
must
submit
a
Part
70
permit
application
no
later
than
12
month
after
operations
commence,
unless
the
State
requires
an
earlier
submittal
date.
The
requirements
of
Section
112(
g)
will
be
established
in
the
forthcoming
rulemaking
to
implement
that
Section.
If
an
existing
Part
70
permit
would
prohibit
or
limit
a
proposed
modification,
the
Part
70
permit
must
be
revised
before
commencing
operation.

Comment:
Many
industry
commenters
(
IV­
D­
2,
IV­
D­
52,
IV­
D­
56,
IV­
D­
77,
IV­
D­
88,
IV­
D­
100,
IV­
D­
101,
IV­
D­
105,
IV­
D­
106,
IV­
D­
114,
IV­
D­
115,
IV­
D­
116,
IV­
D­
120,
IV­
D­
122,
IV­
D­
126,
IV­
D­
127,
IV­
D­
129,
IV­
D­
132,
IV­
D­
135,
IV­
D­
139,
IV­
D­
144,
IV­
D­
150,
IV­
D­
152,
IV­
D­
155,
IV­
D­
159,
IV­
D­
161,
IV­
D­
174,
IV­
D­
175,
IV­
D­
176,
IV­
D­
177,
IV­
D­
178,
IV­
D­
184,
IV­
D­
188,
IV­
D­
198,
IV­
D­
199,
IV­
D­
200,
IV,
D­
203,
IV­
D­
204,
IV­
D­
208,
IV­
D­
209,
IV­
D­
272,
IV­
D­
274,
IV­
D­
276,
IV­
D­
278,
IV­
D­
296,
IV­
D­
302,
IV­
D­
306,
IV­
D­
311,
IV­
D­
313,
IV­
D­
314,
IV­
D­
318,
IV­
D­
323,
IV­
D­
330,
IV­
D­
348,
IV­
D­
369,
IV­
D­
383,
IV­
D­
395,
IV­
D­
404,
IV­
D­
406,
IV­
D­
417)
stated
that
the
18­
month
lead
time
for
permit
renewals
was
too
long.
Two
commenters
(
IV­
F­
02e
and
IV­
F­
03d)
suggested
a
lead
time
of
90
days
or
less,
while
the
majority
of
commenters
(
IV­
D­
56,
IV­
D­
101,
IV­
D­
105,
IV­
D­
106,
IVD
114,
IV­
D­
115,
IV­
D­
122,
IV­
D­
126,
IV­
D­
127,
IV­
D­
139,
IV­
D­
144,
IV­
D­
150,
IV­
D­
155,
IV­
D­
159,
IV­
D­
161,
IV­
D­
184,
IV­
D­
188,
IV­
D­
199,
IV­
D­
198,
IV­
D­
203,
IV­
D­
271,
IV­
D­
274,
IV­
D­
276,
IV­
D­
303,
IV­
D­
306,
IV­
D­
313,
IV­
D­
318,
IV­
D­
330,
IV­
D­
348,
IV­
D­
369,
IV­
D­
395,
IV­
D­
404,
IV­
D­
406,
IV­
D­
417)
suggested
a
3­
to
6­
month
renewal
deadline
was
more
appropriate.
Most
cited
the
number
of
updates
or
revisions
that
would
occur
within
the
18­
month
period
itself
would
make
it
burdensome
to
turn
in
the
renewal
application
so
far
in
advance.
Some
commenters
(
IV­
D­
52,
IV­
D­
77,
IV­
D­
88,
IV­
D­
124,
IV­
D­
152,
IV­
D­
200)
suggested
that
the
lead
time
should
be
shorter
than
the
18
months,
but
longer
than
the
3
to
6
months
suggested
by
other
commenters.
One
State
commenter
(
IV­
D­
125)
requested
that
EPA
allow
the
Regional
Administrators
the
authority
to
approve
shorter
time
frames.

Response:
The
proposal
defined
"
timely"
for
submittal
of
renewal
applications
as
18
months
prior
to
permit
expiration,
unless
some
other
time
were
approved
by
the
Administrator.
Furthermore,
the
proposal
offered
two
examples
where
times
less
than
18
months
would
be
approved
by
the
Administrator
(
i.
e.,
if
the
State
issues
permits
with
terms
shorter
than
5
years
and
if
the
State
is
required
to
act
on
permits
in
less
than
18
months)
and
stated
that
in
no
case
would
a
deadline
be
approved
that
was
less
than
6
months
before
the
permit
terms
expired.
In
order
to
ensure
that
the
permit
terms
do
not
lapse,
the
renewal
application
must
be
submitted
long
enough
before
the
permit
expires
to
allow
for
processing
and
permit
reissuance.
This
is
consistent
with
Section
502(
a)
of
the
Act,
which
states
that
a
source
shall
not
operate
without
a
permit
once
it
is
subject
to
the
permitting
program.
There
is
a
competing
concern
expressed
by
many
commenters
in
that
these
applications
must
be
expeditiously
processed
by
the
State,
consistent
with
Section
502(
b)(
6)
of
the
Act.

These
concern
has
been
addressed
by
changing
the
wording
of
the
final
regulation
to
more
clearly
communicate
that
permitting
authorities
have
the
discretion
to
require
renewal
applications
to
be
submitted
not
less
than
6
months
or
more
than
18
months
before
permit
expiration.
The
States
are
given
flexibility
to
set
these
deadlines,
but
this
flexibility
is
tempered
by
the
Administrator's
ability
to
audit
State
programs
after
approval
to
determine
if
permits
are
being
renewed
before
the
permit
terms
lapse.
The
States
can
require
sources
to
submit
applications
within
the
time
confines
provided
in
the
regulation
and
it
is
then
up
to
the
State
to
ensure
that
the
applications
are
processed
and
the
renewal
permits
are
issued
as
approved
in
their
program
submittals.

5.3.
STANDARD
APPLICATION
FORM
AND
REQUIRED
INFORMATION
5.3.1
Plant
Description
Comment:
There
was
only
one
comment
on
the
plant
description
information
requirements
for
the
permit
application.
The
commenter
(
IV­
D­
173)
objected
to
the
requirement
that
a
source
submit
plant
descriptions
in
terms
of
products
and
processes
that
were
not
emissions
related.

Response:
Permit
reviewers
must
be
provided
with
the
plant
description
in
terms
of
the
products
and
processes
present
at
the
plant
so
they
can
determine
application
completeness
and
ensure
that
all
applicable
requirements
are
included
in
the
permit.
Section
502(
b)(
1)
of
the
Act
requires
that
the
Administrator
establish
criteria
for
determining
the
completeness
of
applications.
Section
502(
b)(
5)(
A)
requires
that
the
States
have
adequate
authority
to
issue
permits
that
ensure
compliance
with
each
applicable
standard,
regulation,
or
requirement
under
the
Act
and
Section
504(
a)
requires
that
each
permit
contain
such
conditions
as
are
necessary
to
assure
compliance
with
each
applicable
requirement.
The
Administrator
believes
that
more
than
just
emissions­
related
information
is
necessary
to
meet
these
Act
requirements.
Information
on
all
the
source's
products
and
processes
is
a
necessary
check
on
the
applicant's
determination
of
which
processes
are
regulated
under
the
Act
and
which
components
of
those
processes
are
in
fact
emissions­
related.
Often
it
is
not
patently
clear
which
processes
or
products
are
emission­
related
and
which
are
not.
Depriving
the
permitting
authority
of
information
on
the
totality
of
operations
at
the
source
can
only
make
more
difficult
the
task
of
writing
permits
which
are
effective
and
provide
reasonable
flexibility.

5.3.2.
Emissions­
Related
Information
Comment:
Many
commenters
(
IV­
D­
97,
IV­
D­
106,
IV­
D­
126,
IV­
D­
132,
IV­
D­
160,
IV­
D­
174,
IV­
D­
175,
IV­
D­
176,
IV­
D­
177,
IV­
D­
178,
IV­
D­
199,
IV­
D­
269,
IV­
D­
278,
IV­
D­
312,
IV­
D­
325,
IV­
D­
344,
IV­
D­
352,
IV­
D­
366,
IV­
D­
374,
IV­
D­
374,
IV­
D­
375,
IV­
D­
376,
IV­
D­
383,
IV­
D­
390)
indicated
that
the
reporting
of
every
piece
of
emitting
equipment,
however
small
the
emissions,
was
an
unnecessary
burden.
Commenter
IV­
D­
352
stated
that
the
reporting
of
all
emission
points
would
overwhelm
regulatory
agencies.
They
cited
as
an
example
one
facility
that
has
over
700
buildings,
many
of
which
are
involved
in
production
activities.
Many
commenters
(
IV­
D­
97,
IV­
D­
126,
IV­
D­
160,
IV­
D­
174,
IV­
D­
175,
IV­
D­
176,
IV­
D­
177,
IV­
D­
178,
IV­
D­
199,
IV­
D­
269,
IV­
D­
344,
IV­
D­
366,
IV­
D­
374,
IV­
D­
374,
IV­
D­
375,
IV­
D­
376,
IV­
D­
383,
IV­
D­
390)
suggested
EPA
create
a
de
minimis
exemption
level
for
regulated
pollutants,
and
that
emissions
information
not
be
required
for
pollutants
below
this
de
minimis
level.
One
commenter
(
IV­
D­
126)
proposed
that
this
de
minimis
level
be
set
at
2
tons
per
year
(
tpy),
while
another
commenter
(
IV­
D­
384)
suggested
the
level
be
set
at
5
tpy,
or
20
percent
of
the
applicable
threshold.
Commenter
IV­
D­
97
requested
a
clarification
of
the
de
minimis
level,
and
commenter
IV­
D­
319
suggested
the
emissions
from
valves
and
flanges
be
considered
de
minimis.
Commenter
(
IV­
D­
02)
requested
de
minimis
permit
exemptions,
but
suggested
that
sources
be
required
to
report
them
in
applications.

Response:
The
Preamble
to
the
proposal
solicited
comment
on
the
position
that
all
information
be
required
on
application
forms
to
facilitate
the
State
issuing
these
comprehensive
permits.
The
Preamble
section
on
applications
did
not
address
the
issue
of
whether
insignificant
activities
or
de
minimis
emissions
should
be
exempted
from
the
reporting
requirements
for
applications.

The
final
rule
in
Section
70.5(
c)
addresses
the
commenters'
concerns
about
burdensome
paperwork
and
reporting
by
providing
that
States,
subject
to
EPA
approval
as
part
of
the
State
program,
may
establish
exemptions
for
activities
or
emissions
levels
as
insignificant.
The
regulation
limits
this
discretion
by
precluding
any
of
these
exemptions
if
they
would
interfere
with
determinations
of
applicability,
the
imposition
of
applicable
requirements
upon
the
source,
or
the
calculation
of
fees.
Applicable
requirement
in
this
context
would
include
any
standard
or
requirement,
as
defined
in
Section
70.2.

Furthermore,
the
Administrator
requires
the
application
to
have
only
a
list
containing
information
on
the
activities
or
emission
units
that
qualify
for
the
exemption
because
of
size
or
production
rate.
An
example
might
be
a
boiler
which
is
exempt
because
it
is
below
a
specific
heat
input
rate.
This
list
need
only
contain
enough
information
to
identify
the
activities
or
units
requiring
an
exemption.
This
list
is
important
for
both
the
source
and
the
State
because
it
provides
certainty
as
to
exactly
what
activities
or
units
are
exempted,
where
a
particularized
determination
was
necessary.
The
exemptions
described
in
Section
70.5(
c)
are
necessary
to
minimize
unnecessary
paperwork
and
to
reduce
the
need
for
sources
to
conduct
analysis
of
all
emissions,
regardless
of
the
amount
involved.
Such
a
position
is
also
supported
by
the
Alabama
Power
decision,
where
the
court
found
that
emissions
from
certain
small
modifications
and
emissions
of
certain
pollutants
at
new
sources
could
be
exempted
from
some
or
all
PSD
review
requirements
on
the
grounds
that
such
emissions
would
be
de
minimis
[
Alabama
Power
Company
v.
Costle
636
F.
2d
360
(
D.
C.
Cir.
1979)].
In
other
words,
the
Administrator
may
determine
levels
below
which
there
is
no
practical
value
in
conducting
an
extensive
review.

Rather
than
mandating
national
criteria
for
exempting
insignificant
activities
or
emission
levels
for
all
pollutants,
the
Administrator
is
allowing
them
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
to
be
approved
during
rulemaking
for
each
Part
70
permit
program.
To
require
one
test
nationally
would
ignore
several
State
programs
that
have
already
defined
workable
criteria
for
insignificant
emissions
activities
or
units.
State
discretion
to
apply
these
exemptions
also
allows
Title
V
to
build
upon
rather
than
disrupt
their
existing
programs.
In
regard
to
hazardous
air
pollutants,
the
Administrator
is
planning
a
rulemaking
to
establish
exemptions
based
on
insignificant
emission
levels
for
modifications
under
the
Act
at
Section
112(
g),
and
the
exemptions
established
by
a
State
for
such
pollutants
should
not
be
less
stringent
than
these
levels.
Further
guidance
on
what
emission
levels
will
be
considered
to
be
"
reasonable"
in
regard
to
exemptions
for
other
pollutants
will
be
developed
at
a
future
date.

Valves
and
flanges
are
not
specifically
exempted
from
being
included
in
permit
applications.
The
Administrator
has
authority
under
Section
502(
a)
to
exempt
one
or
more
source
categories
from
the
requirements
of
the
Part
70
operating
permit
program.
Valves
and
flanges
are
not
source
categories
per
se
and
therefore
could
not
be
exempted
under
this
authority;
nor
can
the
Administrator
provide
an
exemption
for
valves
and
flanges
on
a
nationwide
basis
as
insignificant
emissions
or
activities
as
described
in
Section
70.5(
c).
The
Administrator
will
allow
permitting
authorities
in
the
States
to
propose
exemptions
for
insignificant
emissions
or
activities
as
part
of
their
program
submittal,
subject
to
approval
by
the
Administrator
after
such
submittal.
Furthermore,
these
exemptions
may
not
interfere
with
determinations
of
applicability
or
fees
and
may
not
exempt
an
otherwise
applicable
requirement
in
regard
to
valves
or
flanges.
However,
the
Administrator
believes
the
regulations
allow
application
forms
to
reasonably
limit
the
detail
required
from
sources,
where
such
is
appropriate.
For
example,
VOC
emissions
might
be
produced
at
many
places
in
a
chemical
process
facility,
but
an
application
might
describe
these
adequately
without
individually
describing
each
minor
emission
point
such
as
a
valve
or
flange.

Comment:
One
industry
commenter
(
IV­
D­
313)
stated
that
only
emissions­
related
data
should
be
required
in
the
application.
They
believed
that
identifying
the
raw
materials
used
in
some
processes
may
reveal
confidential
business
information.
Commenter
IV­
D­
366
wanted
to
be
assured
of
the
confidentiality
of
any
information
other
than
emission
data
(
such
as
calculations),
with
some
method
of
keeping
confidential
business
information
(
CBI)
separate
from
public
application
information.
Two
industry
commenters
(
IVD
258
and
IV­
D­
268)
indicated
that
emissions­
related
information
should
only
have
to
be
submitted
for
"
pollutants
subject
to
regulation"
at
the
permitted
facility,
rather
than
for
"
regulated
pollutants."

Response:
To
the
extent
that
any
information
on
a
unit
or
source
must
be
included
in
an
application,
all
information
detailed
in
Section
70.5(
c)
must
be
submitted.
See
Section
3.4.1
of
this
document
for
additional
information
on
which
emission
units
should
be
described
in
applications.
When
a
unit
is
required
to
be
described,
information
must
be
submitted
sufficient
to
determine
application
completeness
and
to
ensure
compliance
with
all
applicable
standards,
pursuant
to
Sections,
502(
b)(
1),
502(
b)(
5)(
A),
and
504(
a)
of
the
Act.

The
proposal
at
Section
70.5(
b)(
3)(
iv)
contained
a
requirement
that
an
application
contain,
in
order
to
be
complete,
information
on
fuels,
fuel
use,
and
raw
materials
used.
The
Administrator
has
modified
this
requirement
in
the
final
regulations
at
Section
70.5(
c)(
3)(
iv)
to
require
this
information
only
"
to
the
extent
it
is
needed
to
determine
or
regulate
emissions."

Section
502(
b)(
8)
of
the
Act
requires
that
States
make
available
to
the
public
any
permit
application,
compliance
plan,
permit,
and
monitoring
and
compliance
certification
report
except
for
information
entitled
to
confidential
treatment
pursuant
to
Section
114(
c)
of
the
Act.
Business
information
contained
in
applications
may
qualify
for
protection
under
Section
114(
c).
The
EPA
interprets
Section
502(
b)(
8)
as
requiring
States
to
adopt
procedures
for
dealing
with
claims
of
business
confidentiality
which
are
the
same
or
substantially
similar
to
those
of
Section
114(
c).
A
stipulation
was
added
to
Section
70.4(
j)
that
the
permitting
authority
may
require
a
source
to
submit
confidential
information
directly
to
EPA
because
some
States
cannot
submit
such
information
to
EPA.
If
information
concerning
raw
materials
meets
the
requirement
of
business
confidential
information,
then
it
will
not
be
released
to
outside
parties.

Section
IV.
C.
4.
of
the
Preamble
to
the
final
rule
discusses
the
meaning
of
the
term
"
regulated
pollutant"
and
discusses
a
new
term,
"
regulated
air
pollutant,"
which
was
introduced
to
address
the
concerns
of
commenters.
Additionally,
the
definition
of
"
regulated
air
pollutant"
is
included
in
the
final
rule
in
Section
70.2.

Comment:
Commenter
IV­
D­
210
said
information
required
to
be
submitted
in
an
application
should
be
strictly
limited
to
information
needed
to
ensure
proper
implementation
of
Title
V.
Commenter
IV­
D­
98
indicated
that
the
phrase
"
other
information
required
by
any
applicable
requirements"
was
too
ambiguous
and
should
be
clarified.
Four
commenters
(
IV­
D­
92,
IV­
D­
212,
IVD
362,
IV­
D­
445)
did
not
want
volatile
organic
compounds
(
VOC's)
to
be
exempt
from
the
requirements
for
other
information
(
such
as
monitoring
requirements)
placed
on
pollutants
at
Part
70
sources.
Two
of
the
commenters
(
IV­
D­
212
and
IV­
D­
362)
stated
this
information
would
be
useful
in
the
development
of
emission
inventories.
Commenter
IV­
D­
158
went
further,
stating
that
continuous
emission
monitors
(
CEMs)
should
be
used
to
develop
emission
inventories.
An
industry
commenter
(
IV­
D­
208),
however,
stated
that
information
from
the
permit
application
should
not
be
collected
to
provide
the
basis
for
emission
inventories.
Similarly,
commenter
IV­
D­
56
stated
that
provision
of
calculations
for
emission
estimates
should
be
discretionary.

Commenter
IV­
D­
325
believed
permit
applications
should
not
include
descriptions
of
any
monitoring
systems
or
calculations.
This
commenter
indicated
that
the
permit
application
should
contain
only
emission
data.
Industry
commenter
IV­
D­
311
argued
that
detailed
emission
calculations
need
not
always
be
submitted.
Commenter
IV­
D­
272
stated
that
absent
any
applicable
regulation
under
Section
504(
b),
the
permit
application
is
not
required
to
State
monitoring
and
reporting
requirements.
Commenter
IV­
D­
156
stated
permitting
agencies
must
allow
the
use
of
engineering
calculations
and
or
simulations
for
test
methods.
Commenter
IV­
D­
199
indicated
that
only
the
emission
limit
should
be
specified
in
the
permit.

Response:
Section
502(
b)
requires
the
Administrator
to
promulgate
regulations
establishing
the
minimum
elements
of
a
permit
program
to
be
administered
by
any
air
pollution
control
agency,
but
Section
503
which
discusses
permit
applications,
does
not
contain
a
specific
list
of
what
should
be
included
in
a
permit
application.
Several
sections
of
the
Act
by
implication
mandate
the
inclusion
of
certain
information
in
permit
applications.
These
sections
provided
guidance
as
to
what
minimum
elements
must
be
included
in
permit
applications,
and
the
Administrator
has
exercised
discretion
in
determining
what
other
information
may
be
required
in
order
to
assure
compliance
with
all
applicable
requirements.
States
may
also
require
any
additional
information
that
they
consider
necessary
to
enforce
the
Act
or
to
meet
the
requirements
of
this
part,
subject
to
approval
by
the
Administrator.

Section
502(
b)(
2)
specifically
includes
monitoring
and
reporting
requirements
as
one
of
the
minimum
elements
of
any
permit
program
and
Section
502(
b)(
5)(
A)
requires
the
States
to
issue
permits
that
assure
compliance
with
each
applicable
requirement
of
the
Act.
Section
503(
b)
requires
the
applicant
to
submit
a
compliance
plan
with
the
permit
application
and
that
this
compliance
plan
describe
how
the
source
will
comply
with
all
applicable
requirements
of
the
Act.
Section
504(
c)
requires
that
each
permit
should
set
forth
inspection,
entry,
monitoring,
certification,
and
reporting
requirements
to
assure
compliance
with
permit
terms
and
conditions.
Furthermore,
Section
114(
a)(
3)
sets
forth
specific
requirements
for
enhanced
monitoring
and
submission
of
compliance
certifications
for
all
sources.
Further
information
and
requirements
in
this
regard
are
to
be
promulgated
within
two
years
of
enactment
as
enhanced
monitoring
and
compliance
certification
regulations.

At
this
time
all
the
requirements
that
might
come
from
this
or
other
future
rulemakings
are
not
known,
but
the
States
must
have
the
authority
to
collect
adequate
information
on
permit
applications
in
order
to
assure
compliance
with
all
applicable
requirements
of
the
Act.
Although
the
statutory
basis
for
a
requirement
to
include
certain
types
of
information
in
an
application
is
discussed
above,
additional
discussion
on
issues
raised
by
these
commenters
is
found
in
other
chapters
of
this
document
and
in
the
following
paragraphs.

Many
commenters
misinterpreted
Section
70.5(
c)(
3)(
vii)
of
the
proposal
to
read
that
any
information
concerning
VOC's
could
be
excluded
from
an
application.
The
primary
purpose
of
this
section
is
to
make
the
point
that
additional
information
not
specifically
mentioned
in
the
Part
70
regulations
(
i.
e.,
information
needed
for
implementation
of
additional
program
requirements
or
the
enforcement
of
other
applicable
requirement
of
the
Act)
might
be
required
by
permitting
authorities
in
the
permit
application.
The
proposal
also
stated
that
information
on
location
of
emissions
units,
flow
rates,
building
dimensions,
and
stack
parameters
(
normally
used
for
ambient
dispersion
modeling)
might
be
required
by
an
applicable
requirement,
for
all
regulated
air
pollutants,
but
is
not
required
for
VOC's
(
as
is
established
EPA
policy).
EPA
policy
is
that
dispersion
modeling
is
not
required
for
VOC's
as
either
a
Title
I
requirement
of
the
State
or
as
a
requirement
of
an
individual
source.
Furthermore,
it
would
have
made
no
sense
to
exclude
all
additional
information
concerning
VOC's
from
an
application,
with
an
example
of
when
additional
information
concerning
VOC's
would
be
required
being
found
in
Part
D
of
Title
I,
where
certain
sources
of
VOC's
(
and
NO
x)
are
subject
to
the
emissions
statement
requirements
for
nonattainment
areas.
However,
the
States,
independently,
may
require
additional
information
to
be
included
in
an
application,
including
information
concerning
dispersion
modeling
or
VOC's,
under
their
own
authority.
Because
of
the
confusion
created
by
the
formulation
of
this
provision
in
the
proposal,
the
final
rule
has
been
revised
to
eliminate
the
examples
of
"
other
requirements"
in
Section
70.5(
c)(
3)(
vii).

Information
required
for
emission
inventories
could
be
required
by
the
States,
but
the
Administrator
is
not
requiring
it
as
a
minimum
element
of
a
permit
application.
CEMs
are
not
required
of
every
source
and
not
specifically
required
by
Title
V
for
any
particular
source.
However,
a
State
could
use
information
from
a
CEM
for
purposes
of
developing
emission
inventories
and
information
contained
in
permit
applications
could
then
be
used
by
States
for
purposes
of
developing
these
emission
inventories.

Information
on
monitoring
and
reporting
is
necessary
in
permit
applications,
as
more
than
just
emission
data
is
needed
in
the
application
for
the
State
to
assure
compliance
with
all
applicable
requirements.
Information
on
monitoring
and
reporting
may
be
required
of
a
source
as
a
part
of
the
enhanced
monitoring
regulation
or,
pursuant
to
Section
504(
c),
to
assure
compliance
with
permit
terms
and
conditions.

Additionally,
calculations
used
to
determine
any
emissions­
related
information
or
data
are
required
in
an
application
by
Section
70.5(
c)(
3)(
viii).
These
calculations
must
be
shown
in
permit
applications
for
permitting
authorities
to
be
able
to
reproduce
the
calculations
for
purposes
of
checking
accuracy
and
to
understanding
the
formulas,
methods,
variables,
and
assumptions
used
in
the
calculations.

Test
methods
used
as
the
standard
engineering
basis
for
monitoring
or
stack
testing
are
specifically
defined
in
the
CFR
and
State
regulations.
The
enhanced
monitoring
regulations
to
be
promulgated
may
allow
a
source
to
use
their
own
test
methods
based
on
engineering
calculations
or
simulations,
provided
certain
rigorous
statistical
tests
are
met.

5.3.3
Air
Pollution
Control
Requirements
Comment:
There
were
several
comments
on
what
should
or
should
not
constitute
an
applicable
air
pollution
control
requirement,
and
how
those
requirements
should
be
included
in
the
permit
application.
One
environmental
representative
(
IV­
D­
158)
argued
that
"
applicable
requirements
under
the
Act"
must
include
ambient
standards
and
compliance
with
any
applicable
requirements
under
Part
C
of
Title
I.
Two
State
commenters
(
IV­
D­
151
and
IV­
D­
367)
agreed,
stating
that
a
source
should
be
required
to
submit
data
for
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards
(
NAAQS)
determination.

Several
industry
commenters
(
IV­
D­
97,
IV­
D­
106,
IV­
D­
134,
IV­
D­
203,
IV­
D­
208,
IV­
D­
210,
IV­
D­
273,
IV­
D­
311,
IV­
D­
396)
disagreed
with
this
position,
and
stated
that
a
source
should
not
be
required
to
submit
data
for
determination
of
NAAQS
as
a
part
of
their
permit
application.
Some
commenters
(
IV­
D­
114,
IV­
D­
330,
IVD
396)
simply
stated
that
there
should
be
no
additional
requirements
other
than
applicable
requirements.

Response:
The
proposed
rule
contained
discussion
on
whether
ambient
impact
assessment
information
should
be
required
on
all
applications
and
stated
that
it
should
not,
but
could
be
required
by
a
State
in
limited
circumstances.
Ambient
impact
assessment
information
here
means
source­
specific
data
necessary
for
input
to
air
quality
impact
dispersion
models.
Air
quality
modeling
is
not
typically
required
for
individual
sources
by
the
Act
(
i.
e.,
it
is
normally
assumed
that
no
individual
source
can
affect
attainment
or
maintenance
of
an
ambient
standard
on
an
area­
wide
basis).

The
definition
of
"
applicable
requirement"
in
Section
70.2
of
the
final
rule
states
that
NAAQS
standards
or
visibility
requirements
under
Part
C
of
Title
I
are
applicable
requirements
as
they
apply
to
temporary
sources.
Section
70.5(
c)(
5)
of
the
final
rule
requires
that
an
applicant
submit
"
other
specific
information
that
may
be
necessary
to
implement
and
enforce
other
applicable
requirement
of
the
Act..."
Therefore,
ambient
impact
assessment
information
would
be
required
in
applications
for
temporary
sources.
Additionally,
this
type
of
information
would
be
required
in
applications
for
any
other
source
where
such
information
is
needed
to
meet
an
applicable
requirement
(
e.
g.,
regulation
to
ensure
good
engineering
stack
height
consistent
with
Section
123
of
the
Act).
Such
information,
however,
might
be
required
in
more
circumstances,
or
at
the
discretion
of
the
permitting
authority,
where
the
State
opts
to
develop
permit
conditions
to
meet
State
Implementation
Plan
(
SIP)
obligations.

Comment:
Some
commenters
(
IV­
D­
57,
IV­
D­
100,
IV­
D­
341)
requested
that
States
or
permitting
authorities
list
what
the
applicable
requirements
are
within
the
permit,
and
not
leave
that
determination
to
the
applicant.
Similarly,
commenter
IV­
D­
133
suggested
that
sources
should
not
have
to
specify
the
test
methods
to
be
used;
this
should
be
done
by
the
permitting
agency.
Commenter
IV­
D­
57
suggested
that
if
a
list
of
requirements
is
not
supplied
directly
by
the
State
agency,
then
they
should
make
available
a
reference
list
to
the
companies.
Commenter
IV­
D­
276
proposed
that
this
information
be
supplemental
and
included
if
known
by
the
applicant,
but
not
required.
Commenter
IV­
D­
208
argued
that
a
source
should
not
be
required
to
"
suggest"
a
test
method
when
there
are
so
few
approved
methods.
One
commenter
(
IV­
D­
163)
noted
what
they
considered
to
be
a
lack
of
detail
on
what
constitutes
an
applicable
requirement,
and
requested
clarification
on
what
is
required
in
an
application.
Another
commenter
(
IV­
D­
100)
stated
that
emission
data
should
not
be
considered
an
applicable
requirement,
while
another
(
IV­
D­
395)
believed
that
only
sample
calculations
of
emission
points
should
be
required.

Response:
The
term,
"
applicable
requirement"
is
fully
defined
in
Section
70.2
of
the
regulations.
Unless
protected
by
shield
provisions,
all
sources
are
subject
to
enforcement
for
not
complying
with
any
applicable
requirement
of
the
Act
whether
or
not
it
is
contained
in
a
permit;
therefore,
permittees
should
already
know
which
applicable
requirements
apply
to
them.
States
may
require
applicants
to
list
all
applicable
requirements
that
apply
to
a
source
or
the
permitting
authority
may
provide
this
information.
Section
70.6(
a)(
1)(
i)
requires
permits
to
"
specify
and
reference
the
origin
of
and
authority
for
each
term
or
condition."
This
requirement
is
based
on
Section
502(
b)(
5)(
A),
which
requires
permitting
authorities
to
"
issue
permits
and
assure
compliance
by
all
sources...
with
each
applicable
standard,
regulation
or
requirement
under
this
Act."
Some
States
may
decide
to
provide
additional
guidance
for
sources
to
assist
them
in
determining
which
requirements
apply
to
the
source
or
what
test
methods
may
be
appropriate,
but
the
Act
does
not
require
States
to
do
so.

Test
methods
used
for
any
required
monitoring
should
be
referenced
or
described
in
the
permit
application,
where
appropriate.
Section
504(
c)
requires
the
permit
to
describe
monitoring
and/
or
test
methods
for
determining
compliance
with
each
applicable
requirement.
This
information
is
necessary
to
assure
compliance
with
applicable
requirements
and
must
be
known
by
the
permit
authority
prior
to
issuance
of
the
permit.
However,
monitoring
or
test
methods
provided
for
in
the
applicable
requirements
may
not
be
applicable
or
appropriate
to
show
compliance
in
every
case.
Until
the
Administrator
specifies
enhanced
monitoring
requirements,
pursuant
to
Sections
114(
a)(
3)
and
504(
b),
the
choice
of
the
appropriate
compliance
technique
remains
primarily
the
responsibility
of
the
permit
reviewing
authority.
The
requirements
of
section
504(
c)
must
be
met
even
if
the
underlying
regulation
or
enhanced
monitoring
rule
does
not
contain
or
suggest
a
method
for
determining
compliance.
If
the
underlying
regulation
or
enhanced
monitoring
rule
does
not
specify
a
test
method,
or
allows
a
source
the
option
of
choosing
among
several
equivalent
test
methods,
the
source
is
given
an
opportunity
within
the
permit
application
to
suggest
one.
In
preparing
the
permit,
the
permitting
authority
may
either
follow
the
suggestion
or
require
the
source
to
use
another
method.
See
Section
6.2.2
of
this
document
for
a
more
detailed
discussion
of
the
minimum
monitoring
requirements
of
an
approvable
Part
70
program.

The
collection
of
emission
data
is
not
an
applicable
requirement
itself,
but
emission
data
may
be
required
by
an
applicable
requirement.
Emission
data
are
required
as
a
minimum
element
for
inclusion
in
standard
Part
70
permit
application
forms.
Emission
calculations
must
be
required,
and,
at
State
discretion,
it
is
conceivable
that
a
sample
emission
calculation
may
be
required
if
there
are
many
similar
calculations
based
upon
the
same
standard
formula,
as
long
as
the
variables
that
affect
the
calculations
are
known.
The
guiding
principle
is
that
permitting
authorities
must
be
able
to
reproduce
any
calculations
performed
within
a
permit
application
and
know
the
basis,
assumptions,
and
methods
used
in
any
calculations.

5.3.4
Other
Information
Requirements
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
Comment:
One
commenter
(
IV­
D­
397)
stated
that
only
information
necessary
for
implementation
of
the
permit
program
should
be
included
in
the
permit
application.

Response:
Minimum
criteria
for
determining
the
completeness
of
applications
for
Part
70
sources
have
been
promulgated
at
Section
70.5(
c),
as
directed
by
statute
at
Section
502(
b)(
1)
of
the
Act.
These
criteria
are
composed
of
the
minimum
data
elements
required
by
the
permitting
authority
to
be
included
in
permit
applications.
These
criteria
have
also
been
established,
taking
into
account
Section
502(
b)(
5)(
A)
of
the
Act,
which
requires
States
to
have
adequate
authority
to
issue
permits
that
ensure
compliance
with
each
applicable
standard,
regulation,
or
requirement
under
the
Act.
Furthermore,
States
may
require
additional
information,
subject
to
approval
by
the
Administrator,
to
be
included
in
permit
applications.

5.3.5
Alternative
Operating
Scenarios
Comment:
One
industry
commenter
(
IV­
D­
184)
stated
that
it
would
be
impossible
to
list
all
possible
operating
scenarios
in
the
permit
application.
Another
commenter
(
IV­
D­
276)
stated
that
it
would
be
very
difficult
to
provide
all
reasonably
anticipated
operating
scenarios.

Response:
The
final
rule
does
not
require
the
submittal
of
information
concerning
anticipated
operating
scenarios.
Section
70.6(
a)(
9)
requires
Part
70
permits
to
include
terms
and
conditions
for
reasonably
anticipated
operating
scenarios
identified
by
the
source
in
its
application
as
approved
by
the
permitting
authorities.
The
submittal
of
such
information
by
the
source
is
advantageous
to
it
because
the
permit
application
(
and
the
permit)
will
be
more
representative
of
source
operation
and,
therefore,
lead
to
less
need
for
permit
modifications
to
accommodate
different
operations
at
the
facility.
Additionally,
the
requirement
in
Section
70.5(
c)(
7)
means
that
if
anticipated
operating
scenarios
are
identified
in
the
application,
then
the
permitting
authority
may
require
the
application
to
include
whatever
additional
information
it
deems
necessary
to
define
such
scenarios.

5.3.6
Compliance
Plans
Comment:
Several
industry,
environmental,
and
State
commenters
(
IV­
D­
113,
IV­
D­
125,
IV­
D­
172,
IV­
D­
183,
IVD
201,
IV­
D­
252,
IV­
D­
287,
IV­
D­
339,
IV­
D­
432,
IV­
D­
438,
IV­
D­
443,
IV­
F­
02)
stated
that
a
compliance
plan
is
required
under
Section
501(
b)(
1)
of
the
Act,
and
that
the
proposed
regulation
appears
to
eliminate
that
requirement
for
complying
sources..
However,
one
industry
commenter
(
IV­
D­
161)
stated
that
the
language
of
the
Act
supports
the
use
of
compliance
plans
only
for
noncompliant
sources.

Several
commenters
(
IV­
D­
13,
IV­
D­
125,
IV­
D­
158,
IV­
D­
426,
IV­
D­
427,
IV­
D­
428,
IV­
D­
431,
IV­
D­
441,
IV­
D­
447,
IV­
D­
450,
IV­
D­
455,
IV­
D­
459,
IV­
D­
464,
IV­
F­
02,
IV­
F­
02d,
IV­
F­
01x,
IV­
F­
01c)
opposed
the
elimination
of
the
requirements
for
a
compliance
plan
from
the
earlier
drafts
of
the
proposal.
These
commenters
argued
that
the
Act
required
that
a
permit
application
include
a
compliance
plan
and
schedule.
They
maintained
that
the
elimination
of
the
plan
would
subvert
the
continual
progress
toward
achieving
compliance.
One
of
the
State
commenters
(
IV­
D­
125)
noted
that
there
are
two
parts
to
compliance­­
attaining
and
maintaining­­
and
that
even
if
a
source
is
in
compliance
it
must
show
how
it
will
stay
in
compliance.
One
environmental
commenter
(
IV­
D­
158)
stated
that
not
requiring
compliance
plans
to
address
future
compliance
dates
creates
an
unlawful
exemption
to
the
Act's
requirement
that
each
permit
have
a
compliance
plan.
This
commenter
argued
that
not
including
a
requirement
for
a
compliance
plan
is
inconsistent
with
both
Title
V
and
the
Act
at
Sections
110
and
172
that
require
SIPs
to
contain
such
schedules
and
that
such
schedules
be
incorporated
into
a
permit
under
Title
V.

On
the
other
hand,
many
industry
commenters
(
IV­
D­
14,
IV­
D­
97,
IV­
D­
102,
IV­
D­
105,
IV­
D­
106,
IV­
D­
115,
IV­
D­
132,
IV­
D­,
141,
IV­
D­
160,
IV­
D­
174,
IV­
D­
175,
IVD
176,
IV­
D­
177,
IV­
D­
178,
IV­
D­
182,
IV­
D­
195,
IV­
D­
209,
IV­
D­
274,
IV­
D­
296,
IV­
D­
303,
IV­
D­
306,
IV­
D­
312,
IV­
D­
383,
IV­
D­
395)
supported
EPA's
proposal
to
require
compliance
plans
only
from
sources
out
of
compliance.
One
of
these
commenters
(
IV­
D­
209)
stated
that
Section
502
of
the
Act
does
not
require
compliance
plans
for
sources
that
are
already
in
compliance.
This
commenter
argued
that
requiring
schedules
for
meeting
future
requirements
would
be
contrary
to
congressional
intent,
because
similar
requirements
were
deleted
from
earlier
versions
of
the
legislation.

Response:
In
response
to
commenters,
the
Administrator
has
further
reviewed
the
language
of
the
statute
and
the
legislative
history,
and
concludes
that
compliance
plans
containing
schedules
of
compliance
are
required
of
all
sources
as
part
of
the
permit
application.

Section
503(
b)(
1)
of
the
Act
establishes
the
requirement
that
applications
contain
compliance
plans
and
does
not
distinguish
between
sources
in
compliance
or
out
of
compliance
with
applicable
requirements.
Further
evidence
for
requiring
a
compliance
plan
for
complying
sources
is
a
reference
to
a
compliance
plan
in
Section
503(
b)(
1)
as
a
description
of
how
the
source
will
comply
with
applicable
requirements
(
i.
e.,
a
description
of
how
the
source
will
maintain
versus
attain
compliance).
Additionally,
Section
503(
c)
of
the
Act
clearly
states
that
any
person
required
to
have
a
permit
shall
submit
a
compliance
plan
and
an
application
for
a
permit.

The
legislative
history
supports
this
conclusion.
While
the
bill
passed
by
the
House
required
compliance
plans
from
both
complying
and
noncomplying
sources,
the
bill
passed
by
the
Senate
would
have
required
compliance
plans
only
from
those
complying
sources
subject
to
new
requirements
[
S.
1630,
Section
352(
b)].
It
therefore
appears
that
Congress
considered
and
rejected
even
a
limited
exemption
from
the
requirement
to
submit
compliance
plans
for
sources
in
compliance.
Comment:
There
were
several
comments
on
compliance
plans
themselves.
Commenter
IV­
D­
85
requested
standards
be
set
for
what
is
an
acceptable
compliance
plan.
One
commenter
(
IV­
D­
348)
requested
detailed
compliance
plans
only
from
noncompliant
sources,
and
streamlined
compliance
plans
from
sources
in
compliance.
Similarly,
other
industry
commenters
(
IVD
52
and
IV­
D­
182)
suggested
abbreviated
or
streamlined
compliance
plans
for
sources
that
are
in
compliance.
One
commenter
(
IV­
D­
100)
suggested
that
the
compliance
plan
contain
only
the
level
of
compliance
to
be
achieved
and
the
date
it
will
be
achieved.
One
industry
commenter
(
IV­
D­
325)
supported
the
use
of
alternative
compliance
plans,
while
another
(
IV­
D­
159)
stated
that
compliance
plans
should
not
contain
excessive
detail.
Commenter
IV­
D­
274
requested
that
the
compliance
schedule
be
able
to
incorporate
by
reference
any
existing
judicial
consent
decree,
administrative
order,
or
like
agreement.
Several
commenters
(
IV­
D­
432,
IV­
D­
438,
IV­
D­
443,
IV­
D­
449,
IVD
464)
indicated
that
the
Act
requires
"
that
each
permit
shall
include
a
schedule
of
compliance"
and
thus
this
schedule
should
be
included
in
the
compliance
plan.
One
State
commenter
(
IV­
D­
85)
suggested
that
the
proposed
regulation
be
amended
to
delete
the
allowance
for
permitting
noncompliant
sources.
The
commenter
added
that
if
this
could
not
be
done,
the
regulation
should
include
specific
criteria
for
acceptance
of
compliance
schedules.

Response:
In
the
final
rule,
several
revisions
have
been
made
to
the
regulations
concerning
compliance
plans
and
their
content.
The
proposed
regulations
required
compliance
plans
only
from
sources
that
were
not
in
compliance
with
an
applicable
requirement.
Section
70.5(
c)(
8)
of
the
final
rule
requires
compliance
plans
from
all
sources
and
allows
the
compliance
plan
to
contain
different
levels
of
detail
depending
on
the
compliance
status
of
the
applicable
requirement.
The
final
rule
requires
that
compliance
plans
contain
a
statement
on
the
status
of
each
applicable
requirement,
a
description
of
how
the
source
will
maintain
compliance
with
each
requirement,
and
a
schedule
of
compliance.
The
requirement
that
all
applications
contain
compliance
plans
is
based
on
the
language
of
Section
503(
b)
that
requires
the
applicant
to
submit
with
the
application
a
compliance
plan
describing
how
the
source
will
comply
with
all
applicable
requirements.

In
the
final
rule,
the
detail
required
in
the
schedule
of
compliance
contained
in
the
compliance
plan
is
allowed
to
vary,
depending
on
the
status
of
the
applicable
requirement,
with
more
information
needed
for
a
requirement
that
the
source
is
not
in
compliance.

However,
the
Administrator
believes
that
the
language
of
the
statute
suggests
that
schedules
of
compliance
should
receive
different
treatment
where
they
are
being
applied
to
requirements
for
which
the
source
is
in
compliance.
Section
501(
3)
of
the
Act
defines
a
schedule
of
compliance
as
"
a
schedule
of
remedial
measures,
including
an
enforceable
sequence
of
actions
or
operations,
leading
to
compliance"
with
applicable
requirements.
The
use
of
the
phrases
"
remedial
measures"
and
"
leading
to
compliance"
logically
suggest
the
correction
of
a
situation
where
a
source
is
not
in
compliance.
Further,
it
is
unlikely
that
sources
in
compliance
were
intended
to
be
subject
to
enforceable
interim
measures.
In
addition,
complying
sources
have
already
demonstrated
an
ability
to
maintain
compliance
with
applicable
requirements.
The
EPA
believes
that
it
would
be
burdensome
and
serve
no
useful
purpose
for
these
sources
to
submit
detailed
schedules
of
compliance.

In
the
final
rule,
EPA
requires
schedules
of
compliance
for
sources
in
compliance
with
all
applicable
requirements
at
the
time
of
permit
issuance
to
contain
only
a
final
date
for
compliance
with
any
applicable
requirement
effective
in
the
future,
unless
the
underlying
applicable
requirement
requires
a
detailed
compliance
schedule.
Similarly,
the
term
"
where
applicable"
in
Section
70.7(
c)(
7)(
v)
means
that,
for
complying
sources,
certified
progress
reports
are
not
required
unless
detailed
compliance
plans
are
required
by
an
underlying
requirement.

Requirements
of
judicial
consent
decrees,
administrative
orders
and
other
similar
agreements,
such
as
compliance
plans
or
schedules
of
compliance,
could
be
incorporated
by
reference
in
the
Part
70
application
or
permit.
However,
if
the
application
or
permit
contains
compliance
plans
with
schedules
of
compliance,
these
plans
or
schedules
should
not
be
less
stringent
than
the
requirements
contained
in
the
decrees
or
orders.

Comment:
One
State
commenter
(
IV­
D­
148)
stated
that
California
law
does
not
allow
for
compliance
plans
in
lieu
of
permit
denial
for
noncompliant
sources.
Another
State
commenter
(
IV­
D­
85)
suggested
that
the
proposed
regulation
be
amended
to
delete
the
allowance
for
permitting
noncompliant
sources.
The
commenter
added
that
if
this
could
not
be
done,
the
regulation
should
include
specific
criteria
for
acceptance
of
compliance
schedules.
One
industry
commenter
(
IV­
D­
319)
requested
clarification
on
the
stringency
of
the
compliance
plans,
and
another
(
IV­
D­
199)
wanted
the
compliance
plans
for
noncompliant
sources
to
be
progress
checks,
not
enforceable
limits.
Also,
this
commenter
did
not
want
exemptions
to
be
listed
in
compliance
plans,
as
this
should
be
a
State,
not
Federal,
issue.
However,
one
State
commenter
(
IV­
D­
123)
disagreed
with
this
point,
and
suggested
that
State
programs
include
terms
under
which
variances
or
exemptions
can
be
granted.

Response:
There
are
many
States
that
have
a
prohibition
on
issuing
a
permit
to
a
source
not
in
compliance,
but
Section
502(
a)
of
the
Act
requires
sources
subject
to
the
permit
program
to
obtain
a
permit.
Therefore,
the
Act
requires
permits
for
all
subject
sources,
whether
in
compliance
with
all
requirements
or
not,
and
provides
for
compliance
plans
to
be
submitted
by
all
sources,
as
discussed
previously
in
this
section.
By
requiring
the
submittal
of
compliance
plans
as
part
of
the
application
and
providing
for
the
issuance
of
operating
permits
with
schedules
of
compliance,
Congress
provided
a
mechanism
for
allowing
noncomplying
sources
to
continue
operation
while
efforts
are
underway
to
bring
their
operations
back
into
compliance.
Additionally,
the
clear
implication
of
this
is
that
Congress
did
not
intend
for
noncomplying
sources
to
continue
operation
without
a
permit
once
the
permit
application
has
been
denied.

Compliance
plans
are
not
elements
of
the
permit,
and
therefore
are
not
enforceable.
Pursuant
to
Section
504(
a),
the
schedule
of
compliance
must
appear
in
the
permit
itself,
and
therefore
must
be
Federally
enforceable.

State
and
local
variances
or
exemptions
from
applicable
requirements
will
only
be
allowed
if
they
are
approved
by
the
Administrator
into
the
SIP.
Otherwise,
if
a
source
is
not
operating
in
compliance
with
an
applicable
requirement
or
successfully
meeting
milestones
within
their
schedule
of
compliance,
they
are
in
violation
of
their
permit
and
the
State
should
begin
enforcement
proceedings.

Comment:
Several
industry
commenters
(
IV­
D­
102,
IV­
D­
140,
IV­
F­
01)
wanted
the
Title
V
compliance
plan
requirements
to
be
the
same
as
those
found
in
Title
IV
(
i.
e.,
they
did
not
want
to
have
additional
compliance
plan
requirements
for
Title
V).
One
commenter
(
IV­
D­
365)
noted
that
only
when
the
Title
V
noncompliance
is
also
noncompliance
with
Title
IV
should
the
compliance
plan
include
a
schedule
and
methods
for
the
source
to
come
into
compliance
with
Title
IV
and
Title
V.
Industry
commenters
IV­
D­
98
and
IV­
D­
227
argued
that
the
provisions
of
Section
70.5(
b)(
7)
of
the
proposal
requiring
compliance
plans
and
schedule
are
in
conflict
with
the
Title
IV
program,
and
that
Title
IV
affected
units
will
be
able
to
satisfy
compliance
plan
requirements
by
a
simple
statement
as
required
in
Section
408(
b).
Two
industry
commenters
(
IV­
D­
227
and
IV­
D­
262)
proposed
that
EPA
clarify
that
the
acid
rain
portion
of
a
compliance
plan
under
Section
70.5(
b)(
7)
of
the
proposal
refers
solely
to
Title
IV
affected
units
that
select
an
alternative
means
of
compliance
with
Title
IV
requirements.

Response:
Affected
sources
under
Title
IV
are
typically
subject
to
several
applicable
requirements
under
the
Act.
With
respect
to
the
compliance
plan
requirement
for
affected
sources,
Section
70.5(
c)(
8)(
v)
of
the
final
rule
states
that
the
compliance
plan
content
requirements
of
this
paragraph
shall
apply
and
be
included
in
the
acid
rain
portion
of
a
compliance
plans
for
affected
sources,
except
as
specifically
superseded
by
regulations
promulgated
under
Title
IV
with
regard
to
the
schedule
and
method(
s)
the
source
will
use
to
achieve
compliance
with
acid
rain
limitations.
The
Administrator
believes
that
Section
408(
b)
of
the
Act
describes
only
the
compliance
planning
requirements
for
specific
requirements
found
in
Title
IV.
Section
408(
b)
states
that
"...
submission
of
a
statement
by
the
owner
or
operator...
that
the
unit
will
meet
the
applicable
emissions
limitation
requirements...
or...
will
hold
allowances
to
emit
not
less
than
the
total
annual
emissions
of
the
unit
shall
be
deemed
to
meet
the
proposed
and
approved
compliance
planning
requirements
of
this
section
and
Title
V,
except
that,
for
any
unit
that
will
meet
the
requirements
of
this
title
by
means
of
an
alternative
method
of
compliance...,
the
compliance
plan,
permit
application,
and
permit
shall
include,
for
each
alternative
method
of
compliance
a
comprehensive
description
of
the
schedule
and
means
by
which
the
unit
will
rely"
on
such
methods.
Thus,
affected
sources
are
required
to
follow
all
of
the
compliance
plan
requirements
included
in
Section
70.5(
c)(
8)
for:
(
1)
all
non­
Title
IV
applicable
requirements
(
e.
g.
SIP
limits,
NAAQS
requirements),
and
(
2)
all
units
for
which
the
source
uses
an
alternative
method
of
compliance
to
meet
the
requirements
of
Title
IV.

Comment:
One
commenter
from
a
local
agency
(
IV­
D­
153)
questioned
what
the
effect
would
be
if
a
source
that
was
initially
out
of
compliance
submitted
a
compliance
plan,
and
began
to
operate
under
that
plan
before
it
had
final
approval,
only
to
have
the
compliance
plan
rejected.
Commenter
IV­
D­
252
indicated
that
compliance
schedules
submitted
with
compliance
plans
during
the
pendency
of
an
application
before
a
permit
is
issued
are
enforceable.

Response:
A
schedule
of
compliance
contained
in
an
application
is
not
an
enforceable
part
of
a
Part
70
permit
because
a
permit
has
not
been
issued.
A
source
that
submits
a
compliance
plan
and
proposed
schedule
of
compliance
with
its
application,
and
operates
pursuant
thereto
during
the
pendency
of
the
application,
bears
the
risk
that
the
proposed
application
will
not
be
accepted
as
submitted.
Just
as
the
compliance
plan
is
not
a
required
element
of
the
permit,
it
does
not
in
any
way
shield
the
source
from
enforcement
or
necessarily
predict
the
ultimate
terms
of
the
permit
or
compliance
schedule.

However,
once
the
permit
is
issued,
the
source
would
have
to
comply
with
the
schedule
of
compliance
contained
in
the
permit,
or
be
in
violation
for
not
complying
with
a
permit
condition.
A
schedule
of
compliance
contained
in
a
permit
is
enforceable
by
citizens
and
EPA
as
part
of
a
permit
and
can
only
be
changed
through
permit
modification
procedures.

Comment:
One
commenter
(
IV­
D­
303)
indicated
that
compliance
plan
schedules
should
allow
for
unforeseen
delays,
while
another
industry
commenter
(
IV­
D­
124)
did
not
want
any
information
on
noncompliance
that
is
revealed
in
the
application
compliance
plan
to
be
used
as
a
basis
for
later
enforcement.

Response:
Schedules
of
compliance
must
contain
dates
on
which
certain
milestones
or
final
compliance
will
be
reached.
If
these
dates
are
not
reached,
a
violation
will
occur.
If
the
source
encounters
unforeseen
delays
in
reaching
their
goals,
they
must
undergo
permit
revision
procedures
to
change
any
date
contained
in
the
schedule
of
compliance,
as
these
dates
are
enforceable
parts
of
the
permit.
During
the
permit
application
preparation
process,
the
source
has
the
opportunity
to
suggest
dates
for
meeting
milestones
and
final
dates
for
compliance
and
to
avoid
excessive
permit
revisions,
they
should
select
dates
that
allow
a
certain
amount
of
reasonable
unforeseen
delay.

The
permit
application
will
contain
a
certification
of
the
compliance
status
of
the
source
with
regard
to
each
applicable
requirement
as
of
the
expected
date
of
permit
issuance.
Information
concerning
noncompliance
in
an
application
would
not
be
used
for
enforcement
for
failure
to
comply
with
the
terms
of
a
Part
70
permit
but
could
be
used
to
enforce
failure
to
timely
obtain
a
permit.
Such
information
may
be
used
for
other
enforcement
purposes
that
independently
require
compliance
such
as
might
be
contained
in
a
SIP,
or
consent
decree.

Comment:
Commenter
IV­
D­
428
requested
that
the
compliance
plan
be
enforceable
by
both
EPA
and
citizens.

Response:
The
final
rule
has
been
changed
to
require
compliance
plans
from
all
sources
applying
for
Part
70
permits
and
Section
70.6(
b)(
1)
now
requires
all
terms
and
conditions
of
Part
70
permits
to
be
enforceable
by
the
Administrator
and
citizens
under
the
Act.
Compliance
plans
with
schedules
of
compliance
are
required
in
permit
applications,
while
only
schedules
of
compliance
are
required
to
be
in
permits.
Therefore,
only
schedules
of
compliance
will
be
an
enforceable
part
of
a
permit.

5.3.7
Compliance
Certification
Requirements
Comment:
Commenter
IV­
D­
271
requested
a
clarification
of
what
a
compliance
certification
is;
that
is,
whether
it
is
a
one­
page
signed
statement,
or
a
detailed
document
containing
information
about
the
source
while
in
operation.
One
commenter
(
IV­
D­
97)
noted
that
the
compliance
certification
would
be
an
administrative
burden
for
a
typical
PSD
source.

Several
comments
(
IV­
D­
127,
IV­
D­
161,
IV­
D­
203,
IV­
D­
311,
IV­
D­
325)
were
directed
at
what
requirements
are
being
certified
in
the
permit.
Three
of
these
commenters
(
IV­
D­
161,
IV­
D­
311,
IV­
D­
325)
stated
that
the
certification
and
reporting
requirements
should
be
changed
to
refer
to
all
applicable
requirements
contained
within
the
permit,
rather
than
all
requirements
applicable
to
the
source.
A
fourth
commenter
(
IV­
D­
203)
suggested
that
the
certification
be
for
certain
identifiable
and
quantifiable
requirements,
rather
than
"
all
applicable
requirements."
One
industry
commenter
(
IV­
D­
174)
requested
a
certification
of
partial
compliance
be
made
available.
The
final
commenter
(
IV­
D­
127)
questioned
whether
the
requirements
for
compliance
certification
should
even
be
included
in
the
permit
application.

Commenter
IV­
D­
314
requested
clarification
of
the
meaning
of
"
enhanced
monitoring"
in
Section
70.5(
b)(
8)(
iv).

Commenter
IV­
D­
303
suggested
that
the
certifications
were
too
detailed
and
should
be
streamlined.
Two
commenters
(
IV­
D­
172
and
IV­
D­
331)
requested
model
or
standard
compliance
certification
forms,
and
two
commenters
(
IV­
D­
205
and
IV­
D­
206)
requested
standard
language
for
certification
documents.

Response:
Commenters
seemed
to
be
confused
as
to
the
distinction
between
compliance
certifications
required
as
part
of
an
application
and
those
required
as
a
term
or
condition
of
a
permit.
The
compliance
certification
requirements
contained
in
Section
70.5(
c)(
9)
require
certifications
of
compliance
or
noncompliance
with
all
applicable
requirements
within
every
permit
application,
including
any
enhanced
monitoring
and
compliance
certification
requirements
promulgated
pursuant
to
Sections
114
and
504(
b)
of
the
Act.
This
certification
should
include:
a
statement
that
the
source
has
met
all
applicable
requirements
or
will
be
in
compliance
with
these
requirements
at
the
projected
time
of
permit
issuance;
a
description
of
the
method(
s)
used
to
determine
compliance;
and
a
schedule
for
submission
of
compliance
certifications
during
the
term
of
the
permit,
to
be
submitted
at
least
annually.
Section
503(
b)(
2)
of
the
Act
concerning
permit
applications,
requires
a
facility
to
periodically
certify
that
the
source
is
in
compliance
with
any
applicable
requirements
and
to
promptly
report
any
deviations
from
these
requirements
to
the
State.

The
compliance
certification
reports
required
as
a
term
or
condition
of
a
Part
70
permit
are
described
in
Section
70.6(
c)(
5)
and
require
permittees
to
identify
each
term
and
condition
of
the
permit
that
is
the
basis
for
certification;
the
compliance
status
of
each
requirement;
whether
compliance
was
intermittent
or
continuous;
the
method(
s)
used
to
determine
compliance,
consistent
with
the
monitoring
requirements
of
Section
70.6(
a);
and
such
other
facts
as
the
permitting
authority
may
require
to
determine
the
compliance
status
of
the
source.
The
contents
of
this
compliance
certification
are
drawn
from
Sections
114(
a)(
3)
and
503(
b)(
2)
of
the
Act.

In
summary,
compliance
certifications
in
permit
applications
are
for
applicable
requirements
of
the
Act,
while
compliance
certifications
required
by
permits
are
for
permit
terms
and
conditions
only.
The
final
rule
differs
from
the
proposal
in
that
annual
certification
is
now
required
with
respect
to
terms
and
conditions
of
the
permit;
the
proposal
required
certification
only
with
the
applicable
requirements.
This
change
is
necessary
to
conform
to
the
express
requirement
of
Section
503(
b)(
2).

The
term
"
enhanced
monitoring"
refers
to
enhanced
monitoring
and
compliance
certification
regulations,
which
are
to
be
promulgated
by
the
administrator
within
two
years
of
enactment.
The
definition
of
"
applicable
requirement"
in
Section
70.2
includes
requirements
established
pursuant
to
Section
504(
b)
or
Section
114(
a)(
3)
of
the
Act.
Section
504(
b)
allows
the
Administrator
to
prescribe
procedures
and
methods
for
determining,
monitoring,
and
analyzing
pollutants
regulated
under
the
Act
and
states
that
each
permit
should
set
forth
monitoring,
compliance
certification,
and
reporting
requirements
to
ensure
compliance
with
permit
terms
and
conditions.
Section
114(
a)(
3)
sets
forth
specific
requirements
for
enhanced
monitoring
and
submission
of
compliance
certifications
for
all
sources.

The
detail
required
in
compliance
certifications
contained
in
applications
or
for
compliance
certification
reports
required
as
a
permit
term
will
vary
depending
on
the
complexity
of
the
emissions
and
the
requirements
that
apply
to
the
facility.
Furthermore,
for
applications,
the
scope
of
the
certification
will
vary
depending
on
whether
the
application
is
for
a
new
operation,
a
permit
renewal,
or
a
modification.

Several
commenters
requested
either
standard
certification
forms
or
language.
The
Administrator
has
described
the
information
that
must
be
included
on
application
forms
but
not
the
exact
format
of
the
forms.
Permitting
authorities
are
required
to
have
standard
forms
for
applications
that
are
sufficient
to
collect
information
consistent
with
the
minimum
data
elements
required
by
Section
70.5(
c)
or
consistent
with
other
additional
requirements
pursuant
to
Section
114.
States
are
not
required
by
Part
70
to
have
standard
forms
for
compliance
certifications,
but
they
may
provide
them.
Concerning
standard
language
used
on
certification
and
certification
forms,
States
may
include
such
language
on
any
standardized
forms
that
they
might
provide,
whether
for
the
certifications
required
in
a
permit
application
or
as
a
permit
term,
consistent
with
the
guidance
provided
in
the
applicable
regulations.

There
is
no
reference
in
Title
V
to
"
identifiable
and
quantifiable
requirements"
and
no
such
reference
is
contained
in
Part
70.
Comment:
One
industry
commenter
(
IV­
D­
319)
did
not
want
a
compliance
certification
document,
because
it
may
be
used
as
a
self­
incriminating
admission
in
later
judicial
or
administrative
proceedings.
Other
commenters
(
IV­
D­
203
and
IV­
D­
325)
simply
stated
they
did
not
believe
the
compliance
certification
should
be
used
as
a
means
of
enforcement.
Similarly,
industry
commenter
IV­
D­
102
did
not
think
there
should
be
a
certification
of
noncompliance,
as
that
may
make
the
certifier
criminally
liable.
One
State
agency
and
two
industry
commenters
(
IV­
D­
125,
IV­
D­
240,
IV­
D­
364)
opposed
submitting
certifications
of
noncompliance
to
EPA,
and
suggested
that
the
operation
should
only
have
to
submit
such
information
to
the
State;
the
State
could
submit
to
EPA.
Another
commenter
(
IV­
D­
198)
did
not
want
to
be
required
to
list
the
reasons
for
noncompliance,
how
noncompliance
can
be
corrected,
or
how
it
could
be
prevented
in
the
future
as
a
part
of
the
certification
of
noncompliance.

Response:
The
proposal
was
silent
on
the
issue
of
compliance
certification
as
evidence
of
a
violation,
but
commenters
were
concerned
that
compliance
certifications
by
themselves
would
be
used
as
evidence
of
a
violation.
The
legislative
history
suggests
and
the
Administrator
intends
that
compliance
certifications
could
be
used
as
evidence
of
a
violation.
It
is
likely,
however,
that
the
Administrator
would
want
to
further
investigate
a
source
showing
noncompliance
to
substantiate
the
evidence
for
purposes
of
developing
an
enforcement
action.

Several
commenters
were
concerned
about
the
implications
of
certifying
noncompliance,
and
whether
this
could
be
potentially
construed
as
criminal
conduct
by
the
plant
or
signing
official.
Signing
a
compliance
certification
that
indicated
knowledge
of
noncompliance
does
not
in
itself
constitute
criminal
conduct.
In
order
for
an
act
to
be
criminal,
it
must
be
a
knowing
and
willful
act
at
the
time
that
the
violation
occurs.
Discovering
a
violation
after
the
fact,
through
selfauditing
or
through
any
of
the
required
monitoring
provisions
is
not
in
itself
criminal
conduct.
Having
the
knowledge
that
a
deviation
or
violation
occurred,
and
choosing
not
to
report
such
information
in
the
compliance
certification
would
constitute
a
criminal
act.

The
requirement
contained
in
the
final
regulations
at
Section
70.6(
c)(
5)(
iv)
that
all
compliance
certifications
be
submitted
to
the
Administrator
as
well
as
to
the
permitting
authority
remains
as
proposed.
This
wording
allows
the
States
or
the
permittee
to
submit
this
information
to
the
Administrator.
The
States
will
be
performing
this
task
in
most
cases,
with
the
exception
that
the
States
may
require
a
source
to
submit
confidential
business
information
directly
to
EPA,
due
to
State
confidentiality
laws
that
bar
them
from
disclosing
information
that
a
source
holds
to
be
confidential.
The
Administrator
would
then
follow
the
procedures
for
dealing
with
claims
of
business
confidentiality
as
set
forth
in
Section
114(
c).

The
requirement
in
Section
70.6(
c)(
4)(
ii)
concerning
explanations
of
why
any
dates
in
the
schedule
of
compliance
were
not
or
will
not
be
met
and
the
preventative
methods
adopted
by
the
permittee
as
part
of
the
compliance
certification
are
necessary
parts
of
a
progress
report.
Progress
reports
are
required
to
be
submitted
by
Section
503(
b)
and
Section
504(
a)
of
the
Act,
which
require
"
such
other
conditions
as
are
necessary
to
assure
compliance
with
applicable
requirements
of
this
Act...".

Comment:
Commenter
IV­
D­
240
interpreted
the
requirement
for
compliance
certification
as
a
requirement
for
stack
testing
on
each
source,
and
proposed
that
minor
sources
(
defined
as
emitting
less
than
1
ton
per
year)
be
exempt
from
the
requirement.
Similarly,
two
commenters
IV­
D­
126
and
IV­
D­
258)
indicated
that
work
practices
to
be
addressed
in
the
compliance
certification
should
not
include
stack
testing
for
compliance,
adding
that
the
40
CFR
60
Appendix
B
requirements
are
too
burdensome
to
be
required
on
a
frequent
basis.

Response:
Stack
testing
may
be
required
by
the
Administrator
or
the
State
to
ensure
compliance
with
standards
or
limitations,
but
Title
V
does
not
impose
any
new
requirements
specifically
requiring
stack
testing
for
sources.
Section
504(
b)
states
that
monitoring
any
analysis
requirements
for
pollutants
regulated
by
the
Act
may
be
established
by
rule.
Section
504(
c)
also
requires
permits
to
set
forth
monitoring
and
compliance
certification
requirements
to
ensure
compliance
with
permit
terms
and
conditions.
If
stack
testing
is
the
best
way
to
meet
these
goals,
then
it
may
be
required.
See
Section
5.3.2
of
this
document
or
Section
IV.
E.
4.
of
the
preamble
to
the
final
rule
for
discussion
on
insignificant
emissions
or
activities
that
may
be
exempt
from
being
fully
described
in
applications
and
included
in
permits.

5.3.8
Certification
by
Responsible
Official
Comment:
There
were
several
comments
on
the
definition
of
who
is,
or
should
be,
the
"
responsible
official"
for
signing
compliance
certification
documents.
Several
industry
commenters
(
IV­
D­
100,
IV­
D­
102,
IV­
D­
160,
IVD
161,
IV­
D­
184,
IV­
D­
188,
IV­
D­
203,
IV­
D­
274,
IV­
D­
306)
indicated
that
the
proposed
definition
was
too
restrictive,
and
should
allow
for
an
official
at
a
more
local
level,
such
as
a
plant
or
regional
manager,
to
be
authorized
to
sign
compliance
certifications.
Similarly,
one
industry
commenter
(
IV­
D­
369)
noted
an
apparent
conflict
between
the
definition
of
"
responsible
official"
and
"
designated
representative."
One
industry
commenter
(
IV­
D­
331)
stated
that
the
definition
of
responsible
official
should
be
the
same
in
every
State,
and
another
commenter
(
IV­
D­
153)
requested
that
the
certification
be
signed
by
both
a
responsible
corporate
official
and
a
professional
engineer.
One
commenter
(
IV­
D­
318)
requested
that
the
certification
statement
be
identical
to
one
used
in
the
National
Pollution
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES)
program.

Response:
The
proposed
and
final
rules
in
Section
70.5(
c)
require
all
Part
70
sources
to
submit
with
each
application,
report,
or
compliance
certification,
a
certification
by
a
responsible
official
of
truth,
accuracy,
and
completeness.
The
final
rule
provides
that
this
certification
shall
state
that,
based
on
information
and
belief
formed
after
reasonable
inquiry,
the
statements
and
information
in
the
document
are
true,
accurate,
and
complete.

Title
IV
contains
independent
requirements
for
compliance
certification
and
Section
403(
26)
of
the
Act
defines
the
term
"
designated
official"
as
a
responsible
official
designated
to
represent
the
owner
or
operator
in
matters
pertaining
to
allowances
and
the
submission
of
and
compliance
with
permits,
permit
applications,
and
compliance
plans
for
the
unit.
The
final
regulations
have
been
clarified
in
Section
70.2
to
allow
the
designated
official
for
affected
sources
to
be
the
responsible
official
for
all
Part
70
purposes.

The
proposed
definition
of
"
responsible
official"
was
modified
in
response
to
comment.
This
modification
will
allow
a
plant
manager,
for
instance,
to
be
the
"
responsible
official."
There
is
National
Pollution
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES)
precedent
for
using
the
term
"
responsible
official"
to
refer
to
a
plant
manager.
The
change
to
the
regulation
allows
a
"
duly
authorized
representative"
who
is
responsible
for
the
overall
operation
of
one
or
more
manufacturing,
production,
or
operating
facilities
to
be
the
"
responsible
official"
in
certain
circumstances.
The
circumstance
that
gives
sources
the
greatest
certainty
is
the
case
where
the
permitting
authority
approves
in
advance
the
delegation
of
authority
to
this
representative.
States
could
establish
their
own
criteria
for
this
delegation
of
authority
in
their
individual
rulemakings,
but
this
will
not
be
required
by
the
Administrator.

Comment:
Three
environmental
commenters
(
IV­
D­
76,
IV­
D­
252,
IV­
D­
432)
wanted
the
certification
to
be
for
"
actual"
compliance,
and
not
for
compliance
"
to
the
best
of
the
signer's
information
and
belief."
Comments
from
the
Attorneys
General
from
nine
States
(
IV­
D­
201)
stated
that
the
qualifying
language
of
"
reasonable
inquiry"
was
not
called
for
by
Title
V,
and
should
not
be
included
in
the
certification
document.
Industry
commenter
IV­
D­
251
requested
a
definition
of
"
reasonable
inquiry"
and
more
information
on
what
is
required
for
compliance
certifications.
Finally,
one
commenter
(
IV­
D­
105)
stated
that
the
proposed
certification
would
be
too
broad,
because
it
asks
officials
to
certify
not
only
facts
(
data
truth,
accuracy,
and
completeness)
but
also
to
make
a
legal
determination
(
i.
e.,
that
a
source
is
in
compliance).

Response:
The
certification
by
a
responsible
official
as
discussed
in
Section
70.5(
c)(
10)
of
the
proposal
and
Section
70.5(
d)
of
the
final
regulation
is
required
for
each
application,
report,
or
compliance
certification
and
is
not
a
certification
of
compliance
or
noncompliance,
but
a
statement
that
the
responsible
official
believes
that
the
information
submitted
is
true,
accurate,
and
complete.
Section
70.5(
c)(
9)(
i)
of
the
final
regulation,
on
the
other
hand,
requires
the
responsible
official
to
certify
the
compliance
status
of
all
applicable
requirements
within
a
compliance
certification
as
to
truth,
accuracy,
and
completeness,
consistent
with
Section
70.5(
d).

The
term
"
to
the
best
of
the
signer's
knowledge"
has
been
struck
from
the
definition.
The
statement
in
Section
70.5(
d)
does
not
require
that
this
certification
statement
be
based
on
absolute
knowledge
but
rather
allows
the
signer
to
question
other
responsible
persons
within
this
organization
and
based
on
what
they
relate
to
him
to
certify
that
he
believes
this
information
is
true.
A
responsible
official
would
only
be
held
accountable
for
criminal
prosecution
for
making
this
certification
if
he
had
knowledge,
at
the
time
he
signed,
that
what
he
was
certifying
was
not
true,
accurate,
or
reasonably
complete.

The
phrase
"
reasonable
inquiry"
simply
states
the
standard
a
court
would
necessarily
apply
when
examining
the
facts
of
such
a
situation.
Section
70.5(
c)(
9)(
i)
requires
the
permittee
to
indicate,
with
regard
to
each
applicable
requirement,
the
legal
conclusion
as
to
whether
the
permittee
is
in
compliance
with
those
requirements.
The
statement
of
a
legal
conclusion
is
required
by
Section
503(
b)(
2)
of
the
Act.

5.3.9
Use
of
Standard
Application
Forms
Comment:
Several
industry
commenters
(
IV­
D­
126,
IV­
D­
140,
IV­
D­
311,
IV­
D­
319,
IV­
F­
03c,
IV­
F­
03d,
IV­
F­
03i)
urged
that
current
State
and
local
forms
be
used.
Commenter
IV­
D­
311
went
on
to
request
that
language
be
added
at
Section
70.4(
b)(
4)(
i)
to
state
that
State
and
local
agencies
may
revise
the
forms
for
program
approval.
One
State
commenter
(
IV­
D­
85)
also
opposed
the
use
of
standard
Federal
forms,
arguing
that
they
are
too
restrictive
and
specific.
Commenter
IV­
D­
100
instead
suggested
the
use
of
an
outline
containing
the
basic
information
required
and
the
format
for
submittal.
State
commenter
IV­
D­
91
requested
that
EPA
list
key
elements,
or
their
equivalent,
instead
of
a
standard
form.
Another
State
agency
(
IV­
D­
125)
supported
EPA
specification
of
minimum
criteria
for
application
forms.

However,
several
other
industry
commenters
(
IV­
D­
93,
IV­
D­
102,
IV­
D­
106,
IV­
D­
134,
IV­
D­
144,
IV­
D­
149,
IV­
D­
184,
IV­
D­
250,
IV­
D­
251,
IV­
D­
258,
IV­
D­
406)
requested
that
EPA
develop
a
standard
application
form
to
specify
the
information
required.
Commenters
IV­
D­
106
and
IV­
D­
149
suggested
that
the
application
form
be
modular.
Commenter
IV­
D­
184,
also
suggested
that
only
those
requirements
that
are
in
a
standard
application
form
should
apply.

Response:
The
proposal
and
the
final
rule
state
that
the
State
permitting
authority
could
use
its
discretion
in
developing
application
forms
that
best
meet
program
needs
and
provide
administrative
efficiency,
but
the
form(
s)
must
be
adequate
to
evaluate
the
subject
source
and
to
determine
what
applicable
requirements
apply
and
if
they
would
be
met.

In
the
final
rule,
the
Administrator
has
retained
his
proposal
requirement
that
States
develop
standard
application
forms
that
contain
minimum
data
elements.
The
minimum
data
elements
required
in
applications
are
specified
in
Section
70.5(
c)
of
the
final
rule.

The
Administrator
interprets
Section
502(
b)(
1)
of
the
Act
as
requiring
States,
not
the
Administrator,
to
develop
a
standard
form,
and
he
believes
that
the
flexibility
provided
by
this
approach
is
important
so
as
to
build
on
existing
State
practices.
The
information
needed
to
completely
describe
a
source
and
the
Act
requirements
that
apply
to
it
can
vary
greatly
depending
on
the
type
of
source
or
pollutant
emitted
and
State
and
local
air
quality
requirements.
Most
States
already
have
application
forms,
and
some
of
them
are
very
comprehensive.
If
these
forms
are
modified
to
the
extent
necessary
to
collect
the
required
information
on
the
minimum
data
elements,
then
States
and
sources
alike
can
continue
to
use
familiar
forms
and
better
build
on
current
applications
and
permits.

5.4
COMPLETENESS
DETERMINATION
Comment:
Several
commenters
representing
State
and
local
agencies
(
IV­
D­
84,
IV­
D­
85,
IV­
D­
113,
IV­
D­
117,
IV­
D­
121,
IV­
D­
125,
IV­
D­
148,
IV­
D­
153,
IV­
D­
192,
IV­
D­
249,
IV­
D­
416,
IV­
D­
434,
IV­
F­
010)
supported
lengthening
the
time
for
default
completeness
determination
from
30
to
60
days
(
same
as
in
NPDES).
Other
commenters
(
IV­
D­
151,
IV­
D­
190,
IV­
D­
322,
IV­
D­
368)
agreed
that
30
days
was
too
short,
but
either
did
not
suggest
another
time
period
(
IV­
D­
322,
IV­
D­
368)
or
suggested
a
minimum
time
period
of
45
days
(
IV­
D­
151,
IV­
D­
190).
Commenters
IV­
D­
228
and
IV­
D­
432
argued
that
deeming
an
application
complete
after
30
days
significantly
weakens
the
Act
by
allowing
sources
to
operate
with
incomplete
applications
until
the
State
denies
the
application;
these
commenters
argued
this
could
stimulate
the
submission
of
"
sham"
applications
from
sources
who
hope
that
the
State
bureaucratic
delay
will
enable
them
to
escape
requirements
of
the
Act.
One
State
agency
commenter
(
IV­
D­
245)
indicated
that,
because
all
applications
must
be
submitted
within
1
year
of
the
effective
date
of
the
State
program,
they
will
all
be
received
at
approximately
the
same
time
and
all
have
to
be
reviewed
for
completeness
within
a
30­
day
time
period;
the
State
agency
suggested
flexibility
needs
to
be
provided
to
the
State
to
avoid
this
burdensome
workload.

However,
many
industry
commenters
(
IV­
D­
2,
IV­
D­
52,
IV­
D­
87,
IV­
D­
93,
IV­
D­
106,
IV­
D­
122,
IV­
D­
126,
IVD
127,
IV­
D­
134,
IV­
D­
144,
IV­
D­
152,
IV­
D­
164,
IV­
D­
184,
IV­
D­
199,
IV­
D­
203,
IV­
D­
208,
IV­
D­
210,
IV­
D­
224,
IV­
D­
313,
IV­
D­
317,
IV­
D­
319,
IV­
D­
331,
IV­
D­
370,
IV­
D­
373,
IV­
D­
395)
supported
the
30­
day
deadline
for
completeness
determination.
Commenter
IV­
D­
224
proposed
that
failure
by
the
State
to
determine
within
30
days
if
an
application
is
incomplete
and
within
18
months
to
take
final
action
should
be
treated
as
final
permit
action
(
issuance).

Response:
Due
to
these
comments
and
after
further
study,
the
Administrator
has
decided
to
change
provisions
for
the
determination
of
application
completeness
by
default
to
60
days
[
Section
70.5(
a)(
2)
of
the
final
rule].
The
Administrator
believes
that
a
"
reasonable"
time
for
this
review
as
required
by
Section
502(
b)(
6)
of
the
Act
is
60
days.
This
follows
the
precedents
set
in
the
NPDES
program
and
in
numerous
States
for
processing
permits
for
existing
sources
and
should
afford
permitting
authorities
sufficient
time
for
completeness
determination.
Applications
for
major
sources
often
involve
hundreds
of
individual
units
and
the
States
may
not
be
able
to
practically
perform
this
task
in
30
days.
Allowing
a
60­
day
completeness
review
time
should
ensure
that
the
States,
especially
at
program
commencement,
do
not
issue
blanket
notices
of
incompleteness
to
permittees,
due
to
an
inability
to
physically
perform
this
duty.
This
is
important
because
a
State's
completeness
determination
starts
the
clock
as
of
receipt
of
the
application
on
any
required
deadlines
for
application
processing.
On
the
other
hand,
increasing
this
review
time
will
prevent
the
sheer
weight
of
the
applications
at
the
beginning
of
the
program
from
allowing
sources
by
default
to
operate
and
be
shielded
from
enforcement
action
with
incomplete
applications
that
the
State
agency
has
not
reviewed.
Comment:
Many
commenters
addressed
the
issue
of
what
constitutes
a
completed
permit
application.
One
commenter
(
IV­
D­
303)
suggested
States
pass
completeness
criteria
through
a
rulemaking
process,
not
a
policymaking
process.
One
State
agency
(
IV­
D­
125)
urged
definition
of
completeness
procedure
and
procedures
to
start
and
stop
the
final
action
clock.
Commenter
IV­
D­
361
stated
that
information
for
completeness
should
be
limited
to
the
information
that
is
directly
related
to
controlling
air
pollution.
Commenter
IV­
D­
347
stated
that
completeness
should
be
determined
by
specific
Federal
or
State
requirements
listed
in
the
application.
Commenter
IV­
D­
373
stated
that
the
permit
should
be
deemed
complete
if
substantially
all
information
needed
to
begin
the
review
is
submitted.
Several
commenters
(
IV­
D­
10,
IV­
D­
100,
IV­
D­
122,
IV­
D­
202,
IV­
D­
203,
IV­
D­
361)
expressed
the
need
for
the
development
of
specific
completeness
criteria
to
provide
some
measure
of
certainty
in
completeness
determinations.
In
addition,
commenters
IV­
D­
122,
IVD
134,
IV­
D­
138,
IV­
D­
208,
and
IV­
D­
209
requested
that
a
permitting
agency
be
required
to
state
in
writing
why
applications
are
judged
incomplete.
Two
commenters
(
IV­
D­
210
and
IV­
D­
102)
further
argued
that
the
program
should
provide
the
right
to
an
administrative
appeal
from
a
determination
of
incompleteness,
and
one
(
IV­
D­
203)
noted
that
a
State
should
not
be
able
to
extend
the
completeness
determination
by
a
general
objection
to
completeness.
Commenter
IV­
D­
376
suggested
that
State
programs
should
include
model
examples
of
complete
applications.

Response:
Substantive
responses
to
many
of
these
issues
are
addressed
in
response
to
comment
on
the
definition
of
"
complete
application"
contained
in
Section
2.7
of
this
document.
A
written
notification
of
completeness
or
incompleteness
is
not
directly
required
by
regulation,
but
Section
70.7(
a)(
4)
requires
prompt
notice
of
whether
the
application
is
complete
and
then
requires
that
unless
the
State
requests
additional
information
or
notifies
the
permittee
of
incompleteness
within
60
days
of
receipt,
the
application
shall
be
deemed
complete.

Comment:
There
were
several
comments
on
the
ability
of
permitting
authorities
to
request
additional
information.
Industry
commenters
(
IV­
D­
100
and
IV­
D­
251)
requested
clarification
of
what
constitutes
a
"
reasonable
and
timely"
response
to
a
request
for
additional
information.
Two
commenters
(
IV­
D­
347
and
IV­
D­
370)
stated
that
EPA
must
allow
reasonable
time
for
the
submission
of
additional
information.
Three
commenters
(
IV­
D­
188,
IV­
D­
313,
IV­
D­
318)
requested
that
EPA
specify
what
a
reasonable
response
time
period
is,
rather
than
allowing
permitting
authorities
to
set
their
own
deadlines.
State
commenter
IV­
D­
398
argued
that
the
maximum
response
time
allowed
for
additional
requests
should
be
30
days,
while
commenters
IV­
D­
100
and
IV­
D­
303
stated
that
the
30
days
should
be
the
minimum
allowed
response
time.

Industry
commenter
IV­
D­
375,
stated
the
number
of
additional
requests
for
information
should
be
"
reasonable."
Commenter
IV­
D­
124
requested
setting
a
limit
of
two
additional
requests
for
information.

Response:
The
proposal
stated
that
permitting
authorities
should
have
reasonable
criteria
for
determining
when
additional
information
requested
of
a
source
(
after
a
determination
of
completeness)
must
be
submitted
in
order
to
retain
the
protection
afforded
by
the
timely
submittal
of
a
complete
application.

In
response
to
these
comments,
the
Administrator
believes
that
time
frames
for
requests
and
responses
for
additional
information
are
best
decided
by
the
permitting
authority.
States
may
already
have
time
frames
established
by
statute
or
regulation
or
may
establish
them
and
the
Administrator
will
determine
at
the
time
of
program
approval
if
they
are
reasonable.

Furthermore,
the
need
for
additional
information
from
the
source
after
the
filing
of
a
complete
application
will
be
highly
dependent
on
the
facts
of
the
particular
situation,
e.
g.,
the
applicability
of
new
requirements
or
the
diligence
of
the
applicant
in
responding
to
previous
requests.
It
would
therefore
be
inappropriate
to
set
limits
in
these
regulations
on
the
State's
discretion
to
request
additional
information.

5.4.1.
Application
Shield
Comment:
Several
industry
commenters
(
IV­
D­
164,
IV­
D­
189,
IV­
D­
306)
indicated
general
support
of
the
permit
application
shield.
Commenter
IV­
D­
306
stated
that
the
shield
should
be
tied
to
a
standard
of
reasonableness.
Commenter
IV­
D­
202
suggested
that
a
source
should
be
allowed
to
remain
in
operation
from
the
time
that
the
permit
authority
determines
their
application
to
be
complete
until
the
permit
is
issued
or
denied.

One
State
agency
(
IV­
D­
123)
commented
that
the
permit
application
shield
should
not
apply
to
sources
that
do
not
file
timely
applications.
Another
State
commenter
(
IV­
D­
99)
requested
that
the
application
shield
not
apply
until
the
permit
application
is
determined
to
be
complete.

Three
industry
commenters
(
IV­
D­
106,
IV­
D­
311,
IVD
314)
supported
allowing
a
source
to
continue
to
operate
without
penalty
when
information
is
submitted
less
than
three
months
late.
Commenters
IV­
D­
229
and
IV­
D­
322
opposed
this
three­
month
grace
period.
Commenter
IV­
D­
229
stated
that
these
sources
are
likely
to
be
in
violation
of
rules,
and
that
they
should
be
required
to
meet
regulatory
deadlines
or
be
subject
to
penalties.
This
commenter
further
argued
that
the
application
shield
should
not
extend
to
sources
who
have
submitted
an
application
in
"
good
faith"
and
that
the
Act
grants
no
exception
to
the
requirement
for
a
timely
and
complete
permit
application.
Industry
commenters
IV­
D­
106
and
IV­
D­
203
disagreed,
and
stated
that
an
application
submitted
in
"
good
faith"
should
be
shielded.
In
addition,
commenter
IV­
D­
156
argued
that
the
shield
should
be
in
place
from
the
time
of
"
good
faith"
submission,
not
from
the
time
the
"
good
faith"
application
is
determined
to
be
complete.

Response:
The
proposed
rule
contained
two
provisions
relating
to
the
application
shield
that
received
comment
[
Sections
70.7(
b)(
2)
and
(
3)].
One
provision
in
the
proposal
provided
a
grace
period
of
three
months
or
less
for
applications
or
additional
information
requested
by
the
State
to
be
submitted
after
the
required
submittal
date.
Another
proposed
provision
allowed
the
shield
for
timely
applications
that
the
permitting
authority
determined
to
be
incomplete
in
consideration
of
"
good
faith"
effort
on
the
part
of
the
permittee
to
cure
the
defect.

The
Administrator,
upon
consideration
of
comments
and
after
further
study,
has
decided
to
delete
these
two
provisions
related
to
the
shield
from
enforcement
action
[
Sections
70.7(
b)(
2)
and
(
3)]
from
the
final
rule.
The
three­
month­
or­
less
grace
period
for
submitting
a
timely
application
effectively
extended
the
"
application
shield"
to
sources
that
did
not
submit
a
timely
application,
which
would
have
been
inconsistent
with
Section
503(
c)
of
the
Act.
Section
503(
c)
does
not
allow
for
any
additional
time
beyond
the
deadlines
specifically
provided.
Furthermore,
the
Administrator,
upon
reconsideration
of
the
proposal,
believes
that
this
regulation
would
have
allowed
a
source
to
operate
without
a
permit
(
given
the
application
shield
would
not
have
applied),
which
is
directly
prohibited
by
Section
502(
a)
of
the
Act.

Similarly,
the
proposed
provision
to
allow
incomplete
applications
to
qualify
as
being
submitted
on
time
if
certain
"
good
faith"
efforts
were
made
to
correct
the
defects
has
also
been
deleted
from
the
final
rule.
That
is,
the
proposal
would
have
allowed
an
application
believed
by
the
permittee
to
be
complete,
but
later
determined
by
the
permitting
authority
to
be
incomplete
to
be
awarded
the
shield
provided
that
the
applicant
acted
in
"
good
faith"
to
cure
the
defect.
This
regulation
would
have
effectively
shielded
all
sources
from
enforcement
action
for
not
submitting
a
completed
application
since
"
good
faith"
is
an
undefined
term
for
purposes
of
the
Act
and,
therefore,
is
subject
to
varying
interpretation
and
would
not
be
enforceable.

Comment:
One
industry
commenter
(
IV­
D­
184)
requested
that
the
application
shield
be
mandatory,
and
apply
to
the
initial
application,
whereas
two
State
commenters
(
IV­
D­
190
and
IV­
D­
249)
believed
that
States
should
have
the
right
to
limit
the
application
shield.
Commenter
IV­
D­
249
requested
that
States
have
the
option
to
assess
administrative
penalties
for
incomplete
applications.

Response:
Section
70.7(
b)
as
proposed
does
require
the
application
shield
if
a
timely
and
complete
application
has
been
submitted
and
the
source
does
not
fail
to
submit
additional
information
as
requested
by
the
State.
Title
V
does
not
provide
specific
authority
to
assess
penalties
for
incomplete
applications.
However,
if
a
source
continues
to
operate
after
failing
to
submit
a
complete
application
within
the
period
required
under
Section
502(
a),
an
enforcement
action
may
be
commenced
for
the
failure
to
obtain
a
permit.

Comment:
One
industry
commenter
(
IV­
D­
115)
stated
that
the
shield
should
be
extended
to
include
compliance
plans,
and
be
used
if
there
is
any
disagreement
between
reviewing
or
permitting
agency.
Commenter
IV­
D­
318
stated
that
the
application
shield
should
apply
to
new
constructions
and
modifications,
and
commenters
IV­
D­
203
and
IV­
D­
349
strongly
endorsed
the
application
shield
for
projects
undergoing
NSR
review
preconstruction
permitting.
Commenter
IV­
D­
159
supported
the
use
of
an
application
shield
for
construction
permits,
and
requested
clarification
that
new
or
modified
sources
which
have
submitted
an
application
for
an
operating
permit
will
not
be
required
to
wait
for
a
final
permit
before
commencing
operations.
They
also
support
the
position
that
the
application
shield
applies
equally
to
new
and
existing
sources.

Response:
The
application
shield
applies
to
compliance
plans
the
same
way
that
it
applies
to
other
information
required
to
be
in
a
Part
70
application.
The
application
shield
shields
a
source
from
enforcement
for
failure
to
have
a
Part
70
permit.
It
does
not
shield
a
source
from
a
requirement
to
have
a
compliance
plan
that
may
stem
from
an
applicable
requirement
other
than
the
Part
70
program,
such
as
a
consent
decree
that
requires
the
source
to
have
such
a
plan.
The
application
shield
would
also
apply
to
sources
with
preconstruction
review
requirements
in
that
these
sources
would
also
be
shielded
from
enforcement
for
not
having
a
Part
70
permit
by
submittal
of
a
timely
and
complete
Part
70
application.

5.5
DUTY
TO
SUPPLEMENT
OR
CORRECT
INFORMATION
Comment:
Commenter
IV­
D­
156
stated
that
the
rule
should
include
guidelines
on
what
constitutes
a
timely
update
to
a
permit
application.
Commenter
IV­
D­
52
stated
that
voluntary
supplements
to
permit
applications
should
not
delay
permit
issuance.

Response:
The
proposal
stated
that
permitting
authorities
should
have
reasonable
criteria
for
determining
when
additional
information
requested
of
a
source
after
a
determination
of
completeness
must
be
submitted
in
order
to
retain
the
protection
afforded
by
the
timely
submittal
of
a
complete
application.

In
response
to
comments
and
for
additional
reasons,
the
Administrator
believes
that
additional
information
should
be
provided
to
correct
information
previously
submitted
or
to
address
requirements
that
become
applicable
during
the
period
of
time
from
the
completeness
determination
but
prior
to
release
of
the
draft
permit.
Section
70.5(
b)
has
been
changed
to
require
the
submittal
of
this
information.
This
new
information
would
not
affect
the
determination
of
completeness.
This
information
submittal
requirement
is
a
logical
outgrowth
of
the
important
principle
of
Title
V
that
these
permits
should
articulate
a
clear
road
map
of
the
source's
obligations
and
further
provide
certainty
to
the
source
as
to
its
obligations.
These
applicable
requirements
would
apply
to
the
source
regardless
of
the
status
of
the
permit
application
and
regardless
of
whether
a
permit
has
been
issued
or
not.
However,
for
practical
reasons,
this
requirement
only
extends
until
the
time
that
the
draft
permit
is
issued.
After
the
draft
permit
is
issued,
new
applicable
requirements
would
have
to
be
inserted
by
the
State,
but
the
protection
of
the
completeness
determination
would
be
preserved.

Voluntary
supplements
to
permit
applications
may
delay
the
issuance
of
a
permit
to
the
extent
that
additional
time
is
needed
to
process
the
information.
Submittal
of
voluntary
supplementary
information
would
not
affect
any
determination
of
completeness
that
has
already
occurred,
although
such
submittal
could
delay
any
completeness
determination
not
already
made.
After
the
completeness
determination,
whether
additional
information
is
required
to
be
submitted
or
submitted
voluntarily,
this
submittal
does
not
restart
any
mandatory
time
period
for
permit
issuance.

5.6
OTHER
COMMENTS
5.6.1.
Computerized
Data
Transmission
Comment:
Two
industry
commenters
(
IV­
D­
160
and
[
IV­
D­
377)
and
two
State
agency
commenters
(
IV­
D­
249
and
IVD
367)
requested
that
EPA
encourage
the
use
of
electronic
reporting
and
the
development
of
"
expert"
systems
to
assist
in
acid
rain
permits.
State
commenter
IV­
D­
125
agreed,
provided
that
there
would
be
severe
penalties
for
false
data.
One
commenter
(
IV­
D­
77)
expressed
general
support
for
the
development
of
an
electronic
permit
application.
Commenter
IV­
D­
331
supported
the
use
of
electronic
data
management,
but
they
suggested
using
a
universal
program,
instead
of
the
Aerometric
Information
Retrieval
System
(
AIRS).

State
agency
commenter
IV­
D­
151
has
direct
experience
with
AIRS
and
recommended
that
it
not
be
used
directly
for
the
operating
permits
program.
The
commenter
believed
that
the
current
AIRS
system
is
cumbersome
and
time­
consuming.
State
commenter
IV­
D­
211
also
recommended
not
using
AIRS,
believing
it
would
increase
staffing
problems.
However,
one
industry
commenter
(
IV­
D­
165)
supported
the
use
of
AIRS
to
expedite
the
permitting
procedure.

Response:
The
proposed
rule
stated
that
the
Administrator
expected
to
request
information
from
States
in
computer­
readable
formats.
In
the
final
rule,
Section
70.4(
j)(
1)
requires
that
any
information
obtained
or
used
in
the
administration
of
a
State
program
shall
be
available
to
EPA
upon
request
without
restriction
and
in
a
form
specified
by
the
Administrator,
including
computer­
readable
files
to
the
extent
practicable.
Section
70.8(
a)(
1)
requires
that
a
copy
of
each
permit
application,
proposed
permit,
and
final
permit
shall
be
provided
to
the
Administrator
and
that
to
the
extent
practicable
this
information
shall
be
provided
in
computer­
readable
format
compatible
with
EPA's
national
database
management
system.
The
Administrator
believes
that
the
transmission
of
information
in
computer­
readable
formats
will
help
the
agency
to
perform
timely
and
effective
oversight
of
permit
programs,
provide
for
future
administrative
cost
savings,
and
will
assist
States
in
building
their
emission
inventories
and
in
conducting
the
actual
permit
processing.

The
Aerometric
Information
Retrieval
System
(
AIRS)
is
a
national
data
system
developed
by
the
Administrator
and
consisting
of
several
subsystems.
The
AIRS
Facility
Subsystem
(
AFS)
was
chosen
to
be
enhanced
and
expanded
to
provide
data
management
capability
and
full
support
for
the
Part
70
program
on
a
national
basis.
The
Administrator
believes,
due
to
the
relatively
short
timeframes
for
implementation
of
the
Part
70
program,
that
is
was
better
to
build
upon
an
existing
information
management
system
than
to
start
from
the
beginning
with
an
entirely
new
system
and
that
AIRS/
AFS
is
appropriate
for
such
purposes.

5.6.2.
Miscellaneous
Comment:
Commenter
IV­
D­
97
suggested
EPA
develop
a
summary
application
form
for
application
renewal,
instead
of
requiring
sources
to
complete
an
entirely
new
application.
Commenter
IV­
D­
376
requested
an
expedited
application
process
for
short­
term
research
projects
such
as
those
that
the
National
Aeronautics
and
Space
Administration
(
NASA)
operates.

Response:
In
the
Part
70
program,
States
are
generally
given
the
flexibility
to
produce
whatever
forms
they
think
best
meet
the
needs
of
their
programs.
The
Administrator
has
specifically
provided
that
applications
for
renewals
need
not
include
all
information
originally
in
the
Part
70
application,
but
only
the
information
necessary
to
evaluate
the
source
in
reference
to
the
new
requirements
that
apply
due
to
the
revision.
States
with
NASA
facilities
may
decide
to
provide
such
facilities
with
priority
consideration
in
terms
of
application
review
and
issuance
of
permits,
but
they
may
not
require
less
than
the
minimum
data
elements
to
be
included
in
the
application
as
required
in
Section
70.5(
c).

Comment:
Commenter
IV­
D­
184
suggested
EPA
require
State
and
local
agencies
to
accept
applications
by
certified
mail
to
ensure
the
date
of
submission
is
documented.

Response:
States
may
require
the
applications
or
correspondence
be
sent
or
received
by
certified
mail
or
any
other
method
they
feel
appropriate.
The
Administrator
will
not
require
such
procedures
to
be
included
in
the
Part
70
permit
program
submittal
for
approval
by
the
Administrator.
States
are
given
reasonable
discretion
within
their
programs
and
it
is
not
necessary
for
the
Administrator
to,
as
a
minimum
program
requirement,
to
require
this
kind
of
detail
in
program
submittals.
