EPA
RESPONSE
TO
COMMENTS
REVISIONS
TO
CLARIFY
CERTAIN
TITLE
V
MONITORING
REQUIREMENTS
Prepared
by:

U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards
Information
Transfer
and
Program
Integration
Division
Operating
Programs
Group
January,
2004
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
Chapter
Introduction
1.0
Does
the
Rulemaking
Record
Support
Separate
Authority
for
Review
and
Enhancement
of
Monitoring
Under
§
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
and
71.6(
c)(
1)?

2.0
May
New
Monitoring
be
Established
in
Permits
without
Further
Rulemaking?

3.0
Was
the
Proposal
Inconsistent
with
the
Appalachian
Power
and
NRDC
Decisions?

4.0
Does
§
70.1(
b)
Prohibit
Monitoring
Enhancement
in
Permits?

5.0
How
Stringent
was
Monitoring
under
§
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
and
71.6(
c)(
1)
in
the
Proposal?

6.0
Does
New
Monitoring
in
Permits
Increase
the
Stringency
of
Existing
Standards?

7.0
Did
the
Proposal
Require
Direct
Proof
of
Violations?

8.0
Did
the
Proposal
Meet
All
Administrative
Rulemaking
Requirements?

9.0
Miscellaneous
Issues
i
Introduction
On
September
17,
2002
(
67
FR
58561)
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
proposed
changes
to
its
part
70
and
71
regulations
to
clarify
the
scope
of
monitoring
required
in
operating
permits
issued
by
State
and
local
permitting
authorities
or
by
the
EPA
under
title
V
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
Act).
Specifically,
EPA
proposed
to
remove
certain
text
from
the
"
umbrella
monitoring"
rules
in
§
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
and
71.6(
c)(
1)
to
clarify
that
these
provisions
established
a
separate
regulatory
standard
for
monitoring
from
that
of
the
periodic
monitoring
rules
in
§
§
70.6(
a)(
3)(
i)(
B)
and
71.6(
a)(
3)(
i)(
B).

The
opportunity
for
written
public
comment
on
the
proposal
was
announced
in
the
September
17
notice.
The
30­
day
comment
period
lasted
from
September
17,
2002
through
October
17,
2002.
During
that
period,
approximately
24
letters
commenting
on
the
proposal
were
received.
One
comment,
VIII­
D­
21,
was
received
late
(
October
18,
2002),
but
EPA
(
we)
have
decided
to
include
it
in
the
comment
summaries.
Appendix
A
at
the
end
of
this
document
contains
a
table
identifying
each
public
commenter
on
the
proposal
that
is
incorporated
into
this
document.

The
public
comments
on
the
proposal
are
contained
in
Legacy
Docket
ID
No.
A­
90­
50,
which
is
a
paper­
based
docket
established
prior
to
proposal,
and
electronic
docket
(
e­
docket)
ID
No.
OAR­
2003­
0179,
which
is
an
e­
docket
more
recently
created
for
internet
access
purposes
during
the
course
of
this
rulemaking
(
between
the
proposal
and
the
final
rule).
The
full
text
of
each
comment
letter
is
available
for
public
inspection
and
copying
at
the
Air
Docket
in
the
EPA
Docket
Center,
(
EPA/
DC)
EPA
West
Building,
Room
B102,
1301
Constitution
Ave.,
NW,
Washington,
DC,
20004.
The
EPA
Docket
Center
Public
Reading
Room
is
open
from
8:
30
a.
m.
to
4:
30
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
The
telephone
number
for
the
Reading
Room
is
(
202)
566­
1744,
and
the
telephone
number
for
the
Air
Docket
is
(
202)
566­
1742.
Copies
also
may
be
mailed
on
request
from
the
Air
Docket
by
calling
(
202)
260­
7548.
A
reasonable
fee
may
be
charged
for
copying.
An
electronic
version
of
public
comments
on
the
proposal
are
contained
in
e­
docket
Id
No.
OAR­
2003­
0179,
which
can
be
accessed
through
EPA
Dockets
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket/.

The
primary
purpose
of
this
document
is
to
respond
to
comments
on
the
September
17,
2002
proposal.
Thus,
this
document
contains
summaries
of
the
public
comments
received
and
EPA
responses
to
those
comments.
This
document
attempts
to
respond
to
all
comments
received.
However,
because
the
final
rule
does
not
adopt
the
regulatory
changes
or
interpretation
contained
in
the
September
17
proposal,
a
full
response
to
many
of
the
comments
is
not
warranted.
In
any
event,
the
preamble
of
the
final
rule
only
includes
significant
comments,
whereas
this
document
includes
all
comments.
Note
that
many
responses
in
this
document
are
often
identical
to
responses
contained
in
the
preamble
to
the
final
rule.

The
comments
in
this
document
are
grouped
in
the
same
general
order
as
the
issues
raised
in
the
preamble
to
the
September
17
proposal,
e.
g.,
the
legal
basis
for
the
proposal
first,
followed
ii
by
a
discussion
of
court
rulings
on
title
V
monitoring,
etc.
Issues
that
were
raised
by
commenters,
but
not
discussed
in
the
preamble,
are
included
in
this
document
after
those
discussed
in
the
preamble.
The
scope
and
range
of
comments
received
was
so
great
that
certain
comments
fell
into
multiple
categories
and
we
have
represented
such
comments
in
multiple
categories
in
this
document
whenever
possible.

In
the
proposal,
aside
from
seeking
to
clarify
the
scope
of
monitoring
under
§
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
and
71.6(
c)(
1)
in
relation
to
periodic
monitoring,
we
did
not
ask
for
comments
on
other
title
V
issues,
such
as
the
type
of
monitoring
required
under
those
rules.
This
document
does
not
respond
to
issues
we
did
not
seek
comment
on.
Also,
EPA
notes
that
many
commenters
felt
compelled
to
comment
on
a
related
rulemaking,
the
interim
final
rule
(
IFR)
published
on
the
same
day
(
67
FR
58529,
September
17,
2002)
as
the
proposal.
We
did
not
request
comments
on
the
IFR
because
it
was
a
60­
day
rule
and
was
subject
to
the
good
cause
exception
from
prior
notice
and
comment
under
the
Administrative
Procedure
Act
(
APA).
Thus,
such
comments
are
also
not
summarized
in
this
document.
1
1.0
Does
the
Rulemaking
Record
Support
Separate
Authority
for
Review
and
Enhancement
of
Monitoring
Under
§
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
and
71.6(
c)(
1)?

Comment:
Commenter
VIII­
D­
02
broadly
stated
that
EPA
is
not
authorized
to
conduct
sufficiency
reviews
of
existing
monitoring
or
to
require
States
to
conduct
such
reviews
on
a
caseby
case
basis.
Commenter
VIII­
D­
11
opined
that
EPA
generally
lacks
authority
to
require
sufficiency
reviews
of
monitoring
in
existing
applicable
requirements
and
permits
and
case­
by
case
enhancement
of
any
monitoring
found
to
not
be
sufficient
to
assure
compliance,
and
that
EPA's
interpretation
is
a
clear
and
dramatic
change
in
the
scope
and
in
the
scientific
and
legal
basis
for
determining
compliance
with
title
V
permits.
State
representative
VIII­
D­
12
opposed
the
proposal
because
he
believes
eliminating
the
requirements
that
monitoring
under
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
be
consistent
with
periodic
monitoring
will
significantly
change
the
scope
of
periodic
monitoring
requirements
in
parts
70
and
71
by
requiring
case­
by­
case
monitoring
determinations
where
applicable
requirements
already
include
periodic
monitoring
or
compliance
assurance
monitoring
(
CAM)
(
62
FR
54900,
October
22,
1997),
which
they
contend
is
not
allowed.
Similarly,
commenter
VIII­
D­
17
opined
that
the
proposal
would
affect
the
scope
of
title
V
monitoring
requirements
because
removing
the
prefatory
phrase
removes
the
link
that
requires
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
to
be
consistent
with
the
scope
of
authority
of
§
70.6(
a)(
3).

Many
industry
representatives
opined
that
the
proposal
was
inconsistent
with
the
Act
generally,
title
V
of
the
Act,
or
not
authorized
by
Congress
(
VIII­
D­
02
VIII­
D­
04,
VIII­
D­
05
VIII­
D­
13
VIII­
D­
14
VIII­
D­
16,
VIII­
D­
17,
VIII­
D­
20,
and
VIII­
D­
25).
Commenter
VIII­
D­
02
opined
that
the
Act,
its
legislative
history,
and
part
70
does
not
allow
EPA
to
add
substantive
new
requirements
to
permits,
and
that
monitoring
reviews
under
70.6(
c)(
1)
are
not
authorized
by
title
V.
Commenter
VIII­
D­
04
remarked
that
the
proposal
is
an
incorrect
interpretation
of
the
Act
and
a
misuse
of
regulatory
authority.
Commenters
VIII­
D­
05
and
VIII­
D­
13
opined
that
Congress
rejected
the
notion
that
State
implementation
plans
(
SIPs)
could
be
revised
through
title
V
permits.
Commenters
VIII­
D­
14
and
VIII­
D­
17
believed
that
separate
regulatory
authority
for
monitoring
review
and
enhancement
under
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
does
not
exist
in
the
Act,
while
commenter
VIII­
D­
16
plainly
said
that
the
proposal
is
inconsistent
with
the
Act.
Commenter
VIII­
D­
20'
s
position
was
that
EPA's
proposed
clarifications
are
inconsistent
with
the
Act,
since
there
is
nothing
in
title
V
authorizing
or
requiring
EPA
or
States
to
change
compliance
methods
in
promulgated
standards.
Commenter
VIII­
D­
25
believed
case­
by­
case
enhancement
of
all
existing
monitoring
by
EPA
or
the
States
violates
section
504(
b)
of
the
Act,
and
that
there
is
no
evidence
Congress
authorized
case­
by­
case
monitoring
enhancement
or
that
EPA
could
delegate
such
authority
to
States.
On
the
other
hand,
commenter
VIII­
D­
03,
countered
that
the
congressional
record
shows
that
Congress
recognized
that
the
Nation's
air
remained
unhealthy,
in
large
part,
because
the
Act
had
failed
to
require
sufficient
monitoring
and
that
title
V
would
give
EPA
flexibility
in
developing
monitoring
provisions
adequate
to
assure
compliance.
The
commenter
also
opined
that
the
proposed
revisions
do
not
substantially
change
EPA's
long­
standing
interpretation
and
that
the
proposal
is
compelled
by
the
Act,
existing
case
law,
and
congressional
goals,
and
that
specific
provisions
of
title
V
clearly
require
permits
to
include
monitoring
sufficient
to
assure
compliance
with
applicable
requirements.
The
commenter
believed
that
2
industry
representatives'
argument
that
monitoring
under
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
may
be
required
only
when
an
applicable
requirement
completely
lacks
monitoring
is
inconsistent
with
the
Act,
because
the
Act
requires
that
permits
include
enhanced
monitoring
and
monitoring
sufficient
to
assure
compliance
with
all
the
permit
terms
and
conditions.
The
commenter
believed
industry's
interpretation
is
designed
solely
to
provide
for
minimal,
infrequent
and
meaningless
episodic
monitoring
contrary
to
the
Act.
This
commenter
further
stated
agreement
with
EPA's
assertion
that
industry's
interpretation
of
part
70
and
the
Act
would
result
in
emission
units
with
insufficient
monitoring
escaping
enhancement,
and
thus
such
units
would
not
be
subject
to
enhanced
monitoring
or
monitoring
sufficient
to
assure
compliance.
This
commenter's
position
was
that
industry's
interpretation
that
sufficient
monitoring
is
only
required
for
applicable
requirements
that
completely
lack
monitoring
is
contrary
to
the
Act,
because
the
Act
requires
facilities
to
comply
with
applicable
requirements
at
all
times,
on
a
continuous
basis.
Adding
to
these
arguments,
commenter
VIII­
D­
9'
s
view
was
that
insufficient
monitoring
in
permits
does
not
allow
for
independent
verification
of
compliance,
and
may
mean
that
the
applicable
requirements
in
the
permit
are
not
enforceable
as
a
practical
matter.

Many
commenters
were
more
specific
that
the
proposal
was
inconsistent
with
and/
or
not
authorized
by
section
114(
a)(
3)
of
the
Act
(
VIII­
D­
14,
VIII­
D­
16,
VIII­
D­
17,
and
VIII­
D­
20).
Commenters
VIII­
D­
14,
VIII­
D­
16,
and
VIII­
D­
17
held
the
position
that
Title
V
and
section
114(
a)(
3)
of
the
Act
do
not
allow
EPA
or
States
to
conduct
sufficiency
reviews
of
monitoring
or
to
alter
existing
monitoring
in
applicable
requirements,
while
commenter
VIII­
D­
20
observed
that
Section
114(
a)(
3)
of
the
act
does
not
alter
existing
statutory
criteria
governing
changes
to
emissions
standards.
On
the
other
hand,
commenter
VIII­
D­
03,
supported
the
proposal
position
that
section
114
enhanced
monitoring
requirements
may
be
implemented
through
title
V
permits.

Many
commented
held
that
the
proposal
was
inconsistent
with
or
not
authorized
by
part
70
or
the
rulemaking
record
for
part
70
(
VIII­
D­
02,
VIII­
D­
05,
VIII­
D­
08,
VIII­
D­
13,
VIII­
D­
14,
VIII­
D­
16,
VIII­
D­
17,
and
VIII­
D­
21).
Commenter
VIII­
D­
07,
representing
a
State
environmental
commission,
did
not
agree
with
the
EPA's
proposal
position
that
part
70
prescribes
additional
monitoring.
Commenter
VIII­
D­
02
stated
that
EPA's
prior
position
was
that
existing
monitoring
in
applicable
requirements
was
deemed
sufficient,
except
when
the
standard
did
not
contain
any
monitoring
or
it
contained
only
a
one­
time
stack
test
upon
start­
up,
and
that
§
70.6(
a)(
1)
implemented
section
504(
c)
of
the
Act.
Commenters
VIII­
D­
05,
VIII­
D­
08,
and
VIIID
13
stated
that
§
70.6(
a)(
3)(
i)
does
not
allow
sufficiency
reviews
of
monitoring
in
applicable
requirements
that
already
contain
periodic
monitoring,
while
commenters
VIII­
D­
02,
VIII­
D­
16
and
VIII­
D­
21
said
there
was
nothing
in
the
record
for
the
part
70
rule
that
would
allow
this.
Commenter
VIII­
D­
16
asserted
that
there
is
nothing
in
the
underlying
rulemaking
record
to
indicate
that
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
was
originally
intended
to
provide
a
separate
regulatory
standard
against
which
existing
monitoring
would
be
judged.
Commenter
VIII­
D­
17
made
similar
comments,
stating
that
there
is
no
evidence
in
the
record
that
EPA
originally
considered
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
to
provide
separate
authority
for
conducting
sufficiency
reviews
of
monitoring
in
applicable
requirements,
or
to
usurp
§
70.6(
a)(
3),
because
the
record
shows
that
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
is
a
general
provision
which
must
be
interpreted
in
light
of
more
specific
provisions
of
§
70.6(
a)(
3).
1
In
the
Matter
of
Fort
James
Camas
Mill,
Petition
No.
X­
1999­
1
(
Dec.
22,
2000)
(
Fort
James),
available
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
region07/
programs/
artd/
air/
title5/
petitiondb/
petitions/
fort_
james_
decision199
9.
pdf.

2
In
the
Matter
of
Pacificorp's
Jim
Bridger
and
Naughton
Electric
Utility
Steam
Generating
Plants,
Petition
No.
VIII­
00­
1
(
Nov.
16,
2000)
(
Pacificorp),
available
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
region07/
programs/
artd/
air/
title5/
petitiondb/
petitions/
woc020.
pdf.

3
Many
commenters
opined
that
the
proposal
was
inconsistent
with
the
original
promulgation
of
part
70
or
the
originally
promulgated
rules.
Commenter
VIII­
D­
04
urged
EPA
to
affirm
its
contention
in
the
original
promulgation
of
part
70
(
57
FR
32250,
July
21,
1992)
that
no
new
periodic
monitoring
could
be
established
where
applicable
requirements
already
provide
for
such
monitoring.
Commenters
VIII­
D­
05
and
VIII­
D­
13
thought
the
proposal
contravenes
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
as
originally
promulgated,
because
prior
to
the
Fort
James1
and
Pacificorp2
orders,
EPA
thought
§
70.6(
a)(
3)
solely
implemented
section
504(
c)
of
the
Act.
Commenter
VIII­
D­
16
believed
that
part
70
consistently
refers
to
§
70.6(
a)(
3),
rather
than
§
70.6(
c)(
1),
when
it
refers
to
monitoring
in
other
parts
of
the
rule,
for
example
in
§
70.6(
c)(
5).
Commenter
VIII­
D­
17
stated
that
the
proposal
is
contrary
to
the
plain
reading
of
the
originally
promulgated
rule,
and
that,
if
finalized,
§
70.6(
a)(
3)
would
continue
to
govern
attempts
to
supplement
monitoring
in
applicable
requirements
which
contain
periodic
monitoring.
Commenter
VIII­
D­
20
opined
that
EPA's
proposed
clarifications
are
not
supported
by
the
rulemaking
record
for
the
originally
promulgated
part
70
and
71
rules,
and
thus
that
the
proposal
represents
a
re­
interpretation,
because
EPA
did
not
state
that
it
was
exercising
section
114(
a)(
3)
authority
to
prescribe
enhanced
monitoring,
EPA
did
not
state
that
there
was
separate
regulatory
authority
for
monitoring
enhancement
under
§
70.6(
c)(
1),
or
that
§
70.6(
a)(
3)
contained
a
broad
requirement
for
new
compliance
monitoring,
and
because
the
final
part
70
rule
only
contained
the
more
narrow
periodic
monitoring
requirement.
On
the
other
hand,
commenter
VIII­
D­
09
expressed
the
view
that
originally
promulgated
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
provides
separate
authority
for
monitoring.
In
addition,
commenter
VIII­
D­
03,
commented
that
they
agreed
with
EPA
that
the
original
part
70
and
71
rules
(
61
FR
34202,
July
1,
1996)
contained
two
separate
monitoring
requirements,
§
70.6(
a)(
3)(
iii)
and
§
71.6(
a)(
3)(
iii),
the
periodic
monitoring
provisions,
and
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
and
§
71.6(
c)(
1).

Other
commenters
opined
that
the
proposal
was
inconsistent
with
the
preamble
and
response
to
comments
for
the
original
part
70
rule
(
57
FR
32250,
July
21,
1992).
Commenters
VIII­
D­
6
and
VIII­
D­
23
stated
that
the
proposal
conflicts
with
the
original
preamble,
that
it
violates
section
504(
b)
requirements
to
do
rulemaking
for
new
monitoring,
and
they
asked
EPA
to
confirm
that
new
periodic
monitoring
may
not
be
established
where
an
applicable
requirement
already
provides
for
monitoring,
as
they
believe
EPA
stated
in
its
1992
preamble.
Commenters
VIII­
D­
07,
VIII­
D­
16,
and
VIII­
D­
17
stated
that
EPA
explained
in
the
preamble
to
the
original
part
70
rule
that
§
70.6(
a)(
3)
implements
section
504(
c)
requirements,
while
commenters
VIII­
D­
05
and
VIII­
D­
13
stated
that
the
preamble
says
that
section
504(
c)
monitoring
was
being
implemented
solely
through
§
70.6(
a)(
3)(
i),
and
that
a
title
V
permit
may
provide
for
new
4
monitoring
only
where
the
applicable
requirement
fails
to
require
periodic
monitoring.
Commenter
VIII­
D­
20
stated
that
the
original
1992
preamble
and
the
related
response
to
comments
confirmed
the
final
rule's
more
limited
scope
by
explaining
that
monitoring
to
assure
compliance
under
section
504(
c)
would
be
implemented
solely
through
periodic
monitoring
under
§
70.6(
a)(
3)(
i),
and
that
periodic
monitoring
would
only
be
added
to
the
permit
when
the
underlying
standard
does
not
require
it.
In
addition,
they
believe
the
final
part
71
rule
response
to
comments
and
part
71
application
form
only
refer
to
periodic
monitoring,
not
to
sufficient
monitoring.
On
the
other
hand,
commenter
VIII­
D­
03,
was
of
the
opinion
that
the
response
to
comments
for
originally
promulgated
part
70
shows
that
EPA
recognized
that
section
504(
c)
gave
it
authority
to
require
appropriate
compliance
methods
in
title
V
permits.

Commenters
VIII­
D­
02,
VIII­
D­
05,
VIII­
D­
13,
VIII­
D­
16,
VIII­
D­
17,
and
VIII­
D­
20
opined
that
the
proposal
departs
from
the
original
preamble
statements
that
EPA
would
do
rulemaking
to
revise
insufficient
monitoring
it
found
in
federally
promulgated
standards.
Commenter
VIII­
D­
16
noted
that
the
original
preamble
committed
to
doing
rulemakings
on
the
underlying
standards
instead
of
doing
case­
by
case
sufficiency
reviews
of
monitoring.
Commenter
VIII­
D­
17
believed
that
EPA
stated
in
the
original
preamble
that
it
would
only
review
pre­
1990
standards
for
insufficient
monitoring.
Commenter
VIII­
D­
20
stated
that
the
original
preamble
and
the
response
to
comments
committed
to
issuing
guidance
in
18
months
to
address
which
applicable
requirements
contained
insufficient
monitoring
and
to
identify
the
criteria
that
would
apply
in
establishing
sufficient
monitoring.

Commenter
VIII­
D­
20
believed
the
1996
draft
and
1997
final
CAM
rules
contain
no
mention
of
a
separate
standard
for
evaluating
monitoring
under
§
70.6(
c)(
1),
and
that
EPA
makes
no
attempt
to
reconcile
its
new
interpretation
with
its
past
statements
that
conflict
with
that
interpretation,
particularly
statements
in
the
CAM
rulemaking
regarding
the
level
of
enhancement
provided
in
part
70.

State
representative
VIII­
D­
7
commented
that
the
proposal
to
remove
the
prefatory
"
consistent
with"
phrase
will
not
change
the
construction
of
part
70
because
§
70.6(
a)(
3)
will
continue
to
limit
the
ability
of
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
to
require
sufficiency
reviews
for
monitoring
in
applicable
requirements
that
already
contain
periodic
monitoring.
Commenter
VIII­
D­
16
believed
the
removal
of
the
prefatory
phrase
will
do
nothing
to
change
the
construction
of
part
70
because
EPA's
reading
of
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
is
contrary
to
the
more
specific
requirements
of
§
70.6(
a)(
3).
Commenter
VIII­
D­
20
has
the
position
that
revising
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
to
allow
more
monitoring
than
required
by
periodic
monitoring
provisions
would
render
the
periodic
monitoring
provisions
superfluous.
Finally,
commenter
VIII­
D­
24
asserted
that
EPA's
interpretation
reduces
§
70.6(
a)
to
a
comment,
such
that
section
594(
a)
[
probably
meaning
504(
a)]
of
the
Act
would
not
be
required,
and
it
de­
links
section
504(
b)
from
504(
c).

Response:
For
the
reasons
set
forth
in
sections
IV
and
V
of
the
preamble
to
the
final
rule,
notwithstanding
the
recitation
in
the
umbrella
monitoring
rules
of
monitoring
as
a
permit
element,
EPA
has
determined
that
the
correct
interpretation
of
§
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
and
71.6(
c)(
1)
is
that
they
do
5
not
establish
a
separate
regulatory
standard
or
basis
for
requiring
or
authorizing
review
and
enhancement
of
existing
monitoring,
independent
of
any
review
and
enhancement
as
may
be
required
under
§
§
70.6(
a)(
3)
and
71.6(
a)(
3).
Rather,
for
monitoring,
§
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
and
71.6(
c)(
1)
act
as
"
umbrella
provisions"
that
direct
permitting
authorities
to
include
in
title
V
permits
monitoring
required
under
existing
statutory
and
regulatory
authorities.
Thus,
the
final
rule
does
not
adopting
the
proposed
revision
to
the
text
of
§
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
and
71.6(
c)(
1).

In
light
of
the
final
rule's
approach,
we
do
not
believe
it
is
necessary
to
address
the
referenced
rulemaking
records
as
they
may
relate
to
the
proposed
rule.
However,
some
explanation
of
the
regulatory
and
statutory
background,
as
well
as
the
policy
and
legal
reasons
underlying
the
final
rule,
illuminates
its
purpose
and
intent.

Two
provisions
of
EPA's
State
and
federal
operating
permits
program
regulations
require
that
title
V
permits
contain
monitoring
requirements.
The
"
periodic
monitoring"
rules,
40
CFR
70.6(
a)(
3)(
i)(
B)
and
71.6(
a)(
3)(
i)(
B),
require
that
[
w]
here
the
applicable
requirement
does
not
require
periodic
testing
or
instrumental
or
noninstrumental
monitoring
(
which
may
consist
of
recordkeeping
designed
to
serve
as
monitoring),
[
each
title
V
permit
must
contain]
periodic
monitoring
sufficient
to
yield
reliable
data
from
the
relevant
time
period
that
are
representative
of
the
source's
compliance
with
the
permit,
as
reported
pursuant
to
[
§
70.6(
a)(
3)(
iii)
or
§
71.6(
a)(
3)(
iii)].
Such
monitoring
requirements
shall
assure
use
of
terms,
test
methods,
units,
averaging
periods,
and
other
statistical
conventions
consistent
with
the
applicable
requirement.
Recordkeeping
provisions
may
be
sufficient
to
meet
the
requirements
of
[
§
70.6(
a)(
3)(
i)(
B)
and
§
71.6(
a)(
3)(
i)(
B)].

The
"
umbrella
monitoring"
rules,
§
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
and
71.6(
c)(
1),
require
that
each
title
V
permit
contain,
"[
c]
onsistent
with
paragraph
(
a)(
3)
of
this
section,
compliance
certification,
testing,
monitoring,
reporting,
and
recordkeeping
requirements
sufficient
to
assure
compliance
with
the
terms
and
conditions
of
the
permit."

On
September
17,
2002,
EPA
published
a
proposed
rule
(
67
FR
58561)
(
the
"
proposed
rule")
to
clarify
the
scope
of
the
monitoring
required
in
title
V
permits
issued
by
State,
local
and
tribal
permitting
authorities
or
by
EPA.
Specifically,
EPA
proposed
to
remove
the
underscored
prefatory
language
to
§
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
and
71.6(
c)(
1)
providing
that
all
title
V
permits
contain,
"[
c]
onsistent
with
paragraph
(
a)(
3)
of
this
section,"
monitoring
"
sufficient
to
assure
compliance
with
the
terms
and
conditions
of
the
permit."
At
that
time,
EPA
proposed
to
clarify
the
interpretation
that
§
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
and
71.6(
c)(
1)
established
a
separate
regulatory
standard
from
that
of
the
periodic
monitoring
rules.
The
EPA
believed
the
proposed
revisions
were
necessary
to
address
claims
of
confusion
on
the
part
of
some
source
owners
and
operators,
permitting
authorities
and
citizens
as
to
the
scope
of
the
title
V
monitoring
rules.
However,
as
discussed
in
the
preamble
to
the
final
rule,
EPA
has
decided
not
to
adopt
the
proposed
revisions
based
on
EPA's
reasonable
interpretation
of
the
Act,
the
plain
language
and
structure
of
§
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
and
6
71.6(
c)(
1),
and
the
policy
considerations
discussed
in
the
preamble
to
the
final
rule.

Policy
Rationale.
Several
considerations
 
many
of
which
were
raised
in
comments
on
the
proposed
rule
 
motivate
our
decision
to
pursue
an
approach
to
title
V
monitoring
that
will
achieve
necessary
improvements
in
monitoring
primarily
through
national
rulemakings
or
guidance
for
States
to
revise
their
SIP
rules.
We
believe
this
approach
will
achieve
a
better
balance
of
responsibilities
and
resource
burdens
between
the
States
and
EPA,
than
by
case­
bycase
monitoring
reviews
by
the
permitting
authorities
under
§
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
and
71.6(
c)(
1).

First,
the
approach
of
the
final
rule
will
better
balance
the
responsibilities
of
States
and
other
permitting
authorities
and
EPA
to
improve
monitoring
where
necessary
to
ensure
that
the
Act's
monitoring
requirements
are
met.
Under
the
interpretation
in
the
proposed
rule,
permitting
authorities
would
perform
case­
by­
case
monitoring
reviews
of
individual
title
V
permits
under
§
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
and
71.6(
c)(
1),
which
in
turn
would
place
significant
burdens
on
State,
local,
and
tribal
permitting
authorities
charged
with
implementing
§
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
and
71.6(
c)(
1).
The
EPA
and
permitting
authorities
have
some
experience
with
such
an
approach.
For
each
draft
title
V
permit,
permitting
authorities
were
required
to
perform
monitoring
reviews
under
§
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
and
71.6(
c)(
1)
with
respect
to
virtually
every
permit
term
or
condition
and
to
determine,
generally
without
any
definitive,
national
EPA
guidance,
whether
the
existing
monitoring
was
sufficient
to
assure
compliance
with
such
terms
and
conditions.
The
complex
industrial
sources
and
other
sources
subject
to
title
V
are
subject
to
numerous
applicable
requirements
and
their
draft
permits
contain
numerous
terms
and
conditions,
which
means
that
such
reviews
are
time­
consuming.
In
addition,
the
reviews
demand
permit
writers
with
highly
technical
expertise.
Where
permit
writers
determined
that
§
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
and
71.6(
c)(
1)
applied
because
existing
monitoring
would
not
assure
compliance,
permit
writers
were
expected
to
determine
what
monitoring
to
include
in
permits
to
assure
compliance
with
the
permits'
terms
and
conditions.
Thus,
under
the
interpretation
reflected
in
the
proposed
rule,
States
and
other
permitting
authorities
found
themselves
in
the
awkward
position
of
having
to
review
existing
monitoring
for
sufficiency
under
§
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
and
71.6(
c)(
1)
before
EPA
clearly
indicated
what
monitoring
was
insufficient
and
then
having
to
create
new
monitoring
in
permits
under
those
provisions
before
EPA
explained
what
types
of
monitoring
would
satisfy
the
statutory
and
regulatory
requirements.
Over
the
years,
some
permitting
authorities
have
attributed
delays
in
permit
issuance
to
their
need
to
develop
monitoring
for
permits
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.

These
concerns
are
reflected
in
the
comments
received
on
the
proposed
rule
from
State
and
local
permitting
authorities.
Two
representatives
of
State
and
local
permitting
authorities
commented
on
the
proposal,
they
both
disagreed
with
the
proposed
rule's
overall
approach
for
monitoring,
and
they
both
noted
either
significant
concerns
or
burdens
that
they
perceived
in
implementing
it.
One
cited
the
burdens
of
conducting
sufficiency
reviews
for
monitoring
and
adding
new
monitoring
to
permits
in
more
cases
than
they
thought
were
appropriate
or
were
required
by
the
Act.
The
commenter
also
indicated
that
such
monitoring
would
likely
result
in
more
arbitrary
and
less
consistent
monitoring
from
permit
to
permit
and
make
permit
issuance
more
difficult.
Another
State
commenter
did
not
understand
specifically
what
States
would
be
7
required
to
do
to
implement
the
proposal,
if
it
were
to
be
adopted
as
a
final
rule.
Neither
of
the
State
or
local
commenters
filed
comments
that
could
be
interpreted
as
adverse
to
the
approach
of
today's
final
rule.
In
addition,
other
commenters
indicated
that
the
proposed
rule's
approach
would
lead
to
increased
burdens
on
States.

Thus,
we
now
are
convinced
that
requiring
States
and
other
permitting
authorities
to
assess
the
adequacy
of
all
existing
monitoring,
and,
as
necessary,
to
upgrade
monitoring
through
the
title
V
permitting
process
would
place
a
significant,
unmanageable
and
unnecessary
burden
on
those
permitting
authorities.

Similarly,
we
are
convinced
that
requiring
sufficiency
reviews
of
monitoring
under
§
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
and
71.6(
c)(
1)
places
undue
burdens
on
title
V
sources.
Many
commenters
disagreed
with
the
proposed
rule's
approach
to
monitoring
and
cited
numerous
examples
of
how
it
would
lead
to
increased
burdens
not
only
on
States
but
also
on
sources.
For
instance,
commenters
claimed
that
it
would
delay
permit
issuance
and
renewals,
represent
an
inefficient
use
of
State
resources,
and
promote
"
forum
shopping"
by
sources,
resulting
in
inequities
among
similarlysituated
sources
in
different
jurisdictions
or
even
within
the
same
jurisdiction.

Furthermore,
under
the
proposal,
the
State
permit
writers
were
given
no
guidance
as
to
how
to
set
these
monitoring
requirements,
as
commenters
pointed
out.
Using
rulemaking
to
revise
monitoring
requirements
will
assure
that
the
new
monitoring
requirements
are
adopted
in
the
same
manner
as
the
originally
promulgated
standards.
That
original
promulgation
included
a
determination
that
the
standards
were
achievable
assuming
the
specified
control
technologies.
Commenters
expressed
concern
that
the
proposed
rule
would
illegally
increase
the
stringency
of
underlying
emission
standards
and
limitations
because
it
would
require
new
averaging
periods
or
change
other
compliance
methods
when
added
to
the
permit.
Similar
issues
were
raised
in
Appalachian
Power.
Ratifying
the
current
regulatory
language
eliminates
any
possible
problem
in
this
regard
under
§
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
and
71.6(
c)(
1).

In
addition
to
reducing
burdens
on
title
V
permitting
authorities
and
sources,
the
final
rule
offers
several
other
advantages
over
the
proposed
rule's
approach.
We
believe
it
is
a
far
better
and
more
efficient
approach
from
a
resource
standpoint
to
focus
primarily
on
reviewing
the
adequacy
of
existing
monitoring
requirements
on
a
programmatic
basis
and
to
accomplish
needed
upgrades
through
federal,
State,
or
local
rulemaking.
Programmatic
"
fixes"
to
monitoring
in
applicable
requirements
made
through
national
or
State
rulemakings
will
address
potential
inadequacies
in
existing
monitoring
requirements
in
the
first
instance.
Thus,
there
will
be
no
need
to
resort
to
more
resource­
intensive,
case­
by­
case
sufficiency
reviews
of
monitoring
to
supplement
existing
monitoring
under
§
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
and
71.6(
c)(
1)
during
permit
proceedings.

The
final
rule
also
is
likely
to
result
in
greater
consistency
in
monitoring
requirements
included
in
permits,
both
within
States
and
nationally.
When
inadequate
monitoring
is
improved
through
rulemaking
at
the
national
or
State
level,
the
improved
monitoring
can
be
incorporated
into
title
V
permits
with
little,
if
any,
source­
specific
tailoring,
thereby
eliminating
some
of
the
8
variations
in
monitoring
determinations
inherent
in
case­
by­
case
reviews.
Under
the
proposed
rule's
approach,
such
variations
may
have
resulted
from
permitting
authorities'
different
policies
on
what
monitoring
to
add
to
permits,
from
variations
in
engineering
judgment
among
permit
writers,
and
from
complex
source­
specific
factors.
More
consistent
monitoring
requirements
in
permits
nationally
should
help
to
eliminate
some
of
the
concern
over
forum
shopping
pointed
out
by
the
commenters,
as
well
as
concerns
about
potential
inequities
in
monitoring
amongst
similarlysituated
sources
in
different
jurisdictions.

In
addition,
we
expect
the
final
rule's
approach
to
result
in
broader
public
input
into
monitoring
decisions
than
is
possible
during
individual
permit
proceedings.
This
is
so
because
formal
rulemaking
procedures
involve
an
opportunity
for
public
comment
and
a
hearing
that
may
attract
a
larger
national
or
State
audience
of
individuals
more
interested
in
consistent
outcomes
and
perhaps
more
knowledgeable
about
technical
issues
specific
to
the
source
categories
or
applicable
requirements
that
are
the
subject
of
the
rulemaking.
Moreover,
rulemaking
actions
are
more
likely
than
individual
permit
proceedings
to
result
in
better
consideration
of
potential
economic
impacts.
Statutory
or
regulatory
provisions
or
Executive
Orders
requiring
detailed
consideration
of
economic
impacts
or
other
burdens
imposed
by
various
types
of
monitoring
may
apply
to
federal
or
State
rulemakings;
such
consideration
is
not
required
in
individual
permit
proceedings.
Thus,
compared
to
the
proposed
rule's
approach,
this
approach
has
the
added
benefit
of
providing
a
greater
degree
of
clarity
and
the
opportunity
for
a
wider
interested
public
to
influence
decisions
concerning
the
adequacy
of
monitoring
and
efforts
to
accomplish
upgrades.

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

For
all
of
these
reasons,
we
believe
the
approach
of
the
final
rule
will
better
balance
the
roles
and
responsibilities
of
States
and
other
permitting
authorities,
on
the
one
hand,
and
EPA,
on
the
other,
to
improve
the
monitoring
required
of
title
V
sources
where
necessary
to
ensure
that
the
Act's
title
V
monitoring
requirements
are
met.

Legal
Basis.
The
Act
provides
EPA
with
broad
discretion
to
decide
how
to
implement
the
title
V
monitoring
requirements.
In
the
past,
EPA
has
exercised
that
discretion
in
part
by
requiring
permitting
authorities
to
conduct
case­
by­
case
monitoring
reviews
under
§
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
and
71.6(
c)(
1)
and,
where
necessary
to
assure
compliance,
to
add
monitoring
pursuant
to
those
provisions
prior
to
issuing,
renewing,
reopening,
or
revising
title
V
operating
permits.
The
EPA
also
has
established
monitoring
requirements
under
national
rules,
such
as
the
CAM
rule
(
40
CFR
part
64)
and
the
continuous
emission
monitoring
rule
under
the
acid
rain
program
(
40
CFR
part
75).
Based
on
comments
received
on
the
proposed
rule
and
as
a
matter
of
policy
(
see
section
IV
of
the
preamble
to
the
final
rule),
EPA
now
believes
that
it
is
not
appropriate
to
exercise
our
3For
instance,
each
permit
must
contain,
with
respect
to
monitoring:
(
1)
"[
a]
ll
monitoring
and
analysis
procedures
or
test
methods
required
under
applicable
monitoring
and
testing
requirements,
including
[
the
CAM
rule]
and
any
other
procedures
and
methods
that
may
be
promulgated
pursuant
to
sections
114(
a)(
3)
and
504(
b)
of
the
Act,"
see
§
§
70.6(
a)(
3)(
i)(
A)
and
71.6(
a)(
3)(
i)(
A);
and
(
2)
"[
a]
s
necessary,
requirements
concerning
the
use,
maintenance,
and,
where
appropriate,
installation
of
monitoring
equipment
or
methods."
§
§
70.6(
a)(
3)(
i)(
C)
and
71.6(
a)(
3)(
i)(
C).

9
discretion
under
the
statute
to
require
case­
by­
case
monitoring
reviews
under
§
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
and
71.6(
c)(
1).
The
EPA
believes
that
improving
the
monitoring
required
of
title
V
sources
by
conducting
rulemakings
to
revise
federal
standards
that
contain
inadequate
monitoring
and/
or
by
encouraging
States
to
revise
SIP
rules
that
contain
inadequate
monitoring
will
better
balance
the
responsibilities
of
EPA
and
States
and
other
permitting
authorities
and
will
result
in
more
equitable
and
more
efficient
monitoring
decisions.

Accordingly,
in
the
final
rule,
EPA
decided
not
to
adopt
the
proposed
rule,
which
would
have
removed
the
prefatory
phrase,
"[
c]
onsistent
with
paragraph
(
a)(
3)
of
this
section,"
from
the
regulatory
text
of
§
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
and
71.6(
c)(
1).
See
67
FR
58561.
Rather,
EPA
decided
to
leave
the
regulatory
text
as
it
stands
and
to
issue
what
EPA
now
believes
to
be
the
correct
interpretation
of
§
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
and
71.6(
c)(
1).
Specifically,
EPA
has
determined
that
notwithstanding
the
recitation
in
§
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
and
71.6(
c)(
1)
of
monitoring
as
a
permit
element,
the
correct
interpretation
of
§
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
and
71.6(
c)(
1)
is
that
these
provisions
do
not
establish
a
separate
regulatory
standard
or
basis
for
requiring
or
authorizing
review
and
enhancement
of
existing
monitoring
independent
of
any
review
and
enhancement
as
may
be
required
under
§
§
70.6(
a)(
3)
and
71.6(
a)(
3).

Various
factors
have
prompted
EPA's
decision
regarding
§
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
and
71.6(
c)(
1).
Significantly,
upon
reflection,
EPA
believes
that
the
plain
language
of
§
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
and
71.6(
c)(
1),
which
begins
with
the
phrase
"[
c]
onsistent
with"
§
§
70.6(
a)(
3)
and
71.6(
a)(
3),
indicates
that
§
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
and
71.6(
c)(
1)
serve
as
"
umbrella
provisions"
for
monitoring
which
include
and
gain
meaning
from
the
more
specific
monitoring
requirements
in
§
§
70.6(
a)(
3)
and
71.6(
a)(
3).
Both
§
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
and
71.6(
c)(
1)
provide
only
that
permits
contain
"
monitoring
.
.
.
requirements
sufficient
to
assure
compliance
with
the
terms
and
conditions
of
the
permit."
Read
in
isolation,
this
general
language
does
not
provide
any
indication
of
what
type
or
frequency
of
monitoring
is
required.
Yet,
for
monitoring,
§
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
and
71.6(
c)(
1)
take
on
practical
meaning
when
they
are
read
together
with
the
more
detailed
periodic
monitoring
rules,
which
specify
that
periodic
monitoring
must
be
"
sufficient
to
yield
reliable
data
from
the
relevant
time
period
that
are
representative
of
the
source's
compliance
with
the
permit,"
or
with
other
provisions
of
§
§
70.6(
a)(
3)
and
71.6(
a)(
3).
3
Thus,
the
plain
language
and
structure
of
§
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
and
71.6(
c)(
1)
and
the
periodic
monitoring
rules
show
that
§
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
and
71.6(
c)(
1)
are
correctly
interpreted
on
their
face
as
umbrella
provisions.

In
addition,
the
policy
considerations
discussed
in
section
IV
of
the
preamble
to
the
final
4Section
114(
a)(
3)
of
the
Act
provides
that
"[
t]
he
Administrator
shall
in
the
case
of
any
person
which
is
the
owner
or
operator
of
a
major
stationary
source,
and
may,
in
the
case
of
any
other
person,
require
enhanced
monitoring
and
submission
of
compliance
certifications."
42
U.
S.
C.
§
7414(
a)(
3).

10
rule
support
EPA's
determination
that
the
final
rule's
interpretation
of
§
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
and
71.6(
c)(
1)
is
the
correct
one.
In
sum,
the
final
rule's
approach
will
better
balance
the
responsibilities
of
States
and
other
permitting
authorities
and
EPA
to
improve
monitoring
where
necessary
to
ensure
that
the
Act's
monitoring
requirements
are
met.
Compared
to
the
proposed
rule's
approach,
the
final
rule's
approach
also
will
reduce
burdens
on
title
V
sources,
be
more
efficient
from
a
resource
standpoint,
result
in
more
equitable
monitoring
decisions,
and
allow
for
wider,
more
expert
public
input
into
monitoring
decisions.

The
final
rule's
interpretation
of
§
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
and
71.6(
c)(
1)
is
consistent
with
EPA's
authority
under
the
Act.
In
title
V,
Congress
granted
EPA
broad
discretion
to
decide
how
to
implement
the
title
V
monitoring
requirements,
as
well
as
the
"
enhanced
monitoring"
requirement
of
section
114(
a)(
3)
of
the
Act.
4
Two
provisions
of
title
V
specifically
address
rulemaking
concerning
monitoring.
First,
section
502(
b)(
2)
of
the
Act
requires
EPA
to
promulgate
regulations
establishing
minimum
requirements
for
operating
permit
programs,
including
"[
m]
onitoring
and
reporting
requirements."
42
U.
S.
C.
§
7661a(
b)(
2).
Second,
section
504(
b)
authorizes
EPA
to
prescribe
"
procedures
and
methods"
for
monitoring
"
by
rule."
42
U.
S.
C.
§
7661c(
b).
Section
504(
b)
provides:
"
The
Administrator
may
by
rule
prescribe
procedures
and
methods
for
determining
compliance
and
for
monitoring
and
analysis
of
pollutants
regulated
under
this
Act,
but
continuous
emissions
monitoring
need
not
be
required
if
alternative
methods
are
available
that
provide
sufficiently
reliable
and
timely
information
for
determining
compliance.
.
.
."
(
Emphasis
added.)
Id.

Other
provisions
of
title
V
refer
to
the
monitoring
required
in
individual
operating
permits.
Section
504(
c)
of
the
Act,
which
contains
the
most
detailed
statutory
language
concerning
monitoring,
requires
that
"[
e]
ach
[
title
V
permit]
shall
set
forth
inspection,
entry,
monitoring,
compliance
certification,
and
reporting
requirements
to
assure
compliance
with
the
permit
terms
and
conditions."
42
U.
S.
C.
§
7661c(
c).
Section
504(
c)
further
specifies
that
"[
s]
uch
monitoring
and
reporting
requirements
shall
conform
to
any
applicable
regulation
under
[
section
504(
b)]
.
.
.."
Id.
Section
504(
a)
more
generally
requires
that
"[
e]
ach
[
title
V
permit]
shall
include
enforceable
emission
limitations
and
standards,
.
.
.
and
such
other
conditions
as
are
necessary
to
assure
compliance
with
applicable
requirements
of
this
Act,
including
the
requirements
of
the
applicable
implementation
plan."
42
U.
S.
C.
§
7661c(
a).

Thus,
title
V
clearly
authorizes
the
Agency
to
require
improvements
to
the
existing
monitoring
required
by
applicable
requirements
in
at
least
two
ways.
Under
the
statute,
the
Agency
may
require
case­
by­
case
monitoring
reviews
as
described
in
the
proposed
rule.
Alternatively,
the
Agency
may
achieve
any
improvements
to
monitoring
through
federal
or
State
rulemakings
to
amend
the
monitoring
provisions
of
applicable
requirements
themselves;
then
11
permitting
authorities
can
simply
incorporate
the
amended
monitoring
requirements
into
title
V
permits
without
engaging
in
case­
by­
case
monitoring
reviews
under
§
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
and
71.6(
c)(
1)
on
a
permit­
specific
basis.
The
EPA
believes
that
the
latter
approach
correctly
reflects
the
plain
language
of
§
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
and
71.6(
c)(
1),
is
responsive
to
the
majority
of
public
comments
received
on
the
proposed
rule,
and
gives
effect
to
the
policy
considerations
discussed
in
the
preamble
to
the
final
rule.
Thus,
the
final
rule
exercises
our
discretion
under
the
Act
to
no
longer
require
case­
by­
case
monitoring
reviews
under
§
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
and
71.6(
c)(
1)
and
instead
to
proceed
with
related
rulemaking
actions
to
address
monitoring
in
applicable
requirements.

The
four­
step
approach
outlined
in
the
final
rule
will
ensure
that
the
Act's
monitoring
requirements
will
be
met.
First,
our
new
emphasis
on
establishing
monitoring
requirements
through
rulemaking
gives
full
effect
to
section
504(
b)
of
the
Act,
which
provides
that
"[
t]
he
Administrator
may
by
rule
prescribe
procedures
and
methods
for
determining
compliance
and
for
monitoring
and
analysis
of
pollutants
.
.
."
42
U.
S.
C.
§
7661c(
b)
(
emphasis
added).
The
final
rule's
approach
also
ensures
that
section
504(
c)'
s
command
that
each
title
V
permit
"
set
forth
.
.
.
monitoring
.
.
.
to
assure
compliance
with
the
permit
terms
and
conditions"
will
be
satisfied
through
the
combination
of
EPA
and,
as
necessary,
State
rulemakings
to
address
monitoring,
and
the
addition
to
permits
of
such
monitoring
as
may
be
required
under
§
§
70.6(
a)(
3)(
i)(
B)
and
71.6(
a)(
3)(
i)(
B).
See
42
U.
S.
C.
§
7661c(
c).
Satisfying
the
specific
monitoring
requirements
of
section
504(
c)
will
assure
that
the
more
general
requirements
of
section
504(
a)
are
satisfied
as
to
monitoring.

The
EPA
anticipates
that
some
existing
monitoring
required
under
applicable
requirements
could
be
improved
and
will
be
addressed
in
connection
with
both
the
upcoming
PM
2.5
implementation
rulemaking
and
the
ANPR
process
described
above.
The
EPA
also
plans
to
address
the
periodic
monitoring
rules
in
a
separate
rulemaking.
Nevertheless,
EPA
believes
the
four­
step
strategy
outlined
in
the
final
rule
is
well
designed
to
assure
that
for
purposes
of
title
V,
permits
will
contain
monitoring
to
assure
compliance.

2.0
May
New
Monitoring
be
Established
in
Permits
without
Further
Rulemaking?

Comment:
Commenters
VIII­
D­
02,
VIII­
D­
05,
VIII­
D­
13,
VIII­
D­
16,
VIII­
D­
17,
VIII­
D­
20,
VIII­
D­
21,
VIII­
D­
25
generally
disagreed
with
the
proposal
position
that
EPA
has
authority
to
require
new
monitoring
sufficient
to
assure
compliance
within
the
context
of
the
title
V
permitting
process.
Commenter
VIII­
D­
17
disagreed
that
there
are
three
separate
authorities
in
title
V
and
section
114(
a)(
3)
that
allow
it
to
conduct
sufficiency
reviews
of
monitoring.
Commenter
VIII­
D­
18
noted
that
significant
changes
to
monitoring
may
result
from
the
proposal
without
providing
a
process
for
proper
review
and
comment
and
resulting
in
improper,
inconsistent,
and
confusing
monitoring
requirements
in
title
V
permits.
Commenter
VIII­
D­
24
added
that
the
proposal
allows
challenges
to
any
existing
monitoring,
including
that
in
maximum
achievable
control
technology
(
MACT)
standards.
12
Commenters
VIII­
D­
02,
VIII­
D­
05,
VIII­
D­
13,
VIII­
D­
16,
VIII­
D­
17,
VIII­
D­
20,
VIIID
21,
and
VIII­
D­
25
opined
that
the
proposal
requirement
that
State
and
locals
establish
monitoring
in
permits
represents
an
unlawful
delegation
of
regulatory
authority.
Commenters
VIII­
D­
16
and
VIII­
D­
17
added
that
the
proposal
would
also
delegate
authority
to
change
compliance
methods
and
the
manner
in
which
compliance
and
violations
are
established.
Commenter
VIII­
D­
17
added
that
a
grant
of
such
authority
to
States
would
have
to
be
explicit
in
the
Act.
Commenters
VIII­
D­
05
and
VIII­
D­
13
stated
that
letting
States
set
monitoring
in
permits
ignores
the
standard
setting
criteria
in
the
Act,
and
thus,
that
the
proposal
constitutes
a
standardless
delegation
of
regulatory
authority
that
conflicts
with
sections
504(
b)
and
(
c)
of
the
Act.

Commenters
VIII­
D­
02,
VIII­
D­
06
VIII­
D­
16,
VIII­
D­
17,
VIII­
D­
20,
VIII­
D­
23,
and
VIII­
D­
25
opined
that
the
proposal
violates
section
504(
b)
of
the
Act,
which
requires
EPA
to
adopt
new
monitoring
requirements
through
rulemaking,
rather
than
through
the
permitting
process.

Commenter
VIII­
D­
20
asserted
that
EPA
must
conduct
rulemaking
or
a
SIP
call
to
upgrade
the
compliance
methods,
if
a
promulgated
standard
or
SIP
requirement
is
insufficient
to
assure
compliance.
Commenter
VIII­
D­
25
believed
that
additional
monitoring
must
be
imposed
through
rulemaking
because
Title
V
does
not
authorize
permit
writers
to
change
monitoring
requirements
adopted
by
rule
or
required
by
statute.
Commenters
VIII­
D­
05
and
VIII­
D­
13
opined
that
504(
c)
lists
monitoring
requirements
as
substantive
new
requirements,
that
must
be
established
by
rule
under
section
504(
b).
In
addition
they
explained
that
a
general
criterion
in
section
504(
c)
may
not
be
used
to
justify
new
monitoring
because
new
monitoring
must
be
established
"
by
rule"
in
section
504(
b).
Commenter
VIII­
D­
16
took
the
position
that
Section
504(
c)
requires
that
any
monitoring
must
conform
to
any
applicable
regulation
under
504(
b).

Commenters
VIII­
D­
05,
VIII­
D­
13,
VIII­
D­
16,
VIII­
D­
17,
and
VIII­
D­
21
stated
that
504(
b)
requires
the
rule
to
specify
the
procedures
and
methods
to
be
used
to
establish
the
monitoring
(
or
to
determine
compliance).
Commenters
VIII­
D­
05,
VIII­
D­
13,
and
VIII­
D­
21
added
that
the
procedures
and
criteria
must
be
the
same
ones
used
to
establish
the
original
applicable
requirement.
Commenter
VIII­
D­
17
opined
that
proposed
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
includes
no
procedures
and
methods
so
it
is
inconsistent
with
section
504(
b)
of
the
Act,
while
commenter
VIII­
D­
16
asserted
that
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
is
inconsistent
with
sections
504(
b)
and
504(
c)
of
the
Act
because
it
does
not
prescribe
the
procedures
and
methods
for
determining
what
constitutes
sufficient
monitoring.
Finally,
commenter
VIII­
D­
02
asserted
that
upgrading
insufficient
monitoring
on
a
permit­
by­
permit
basis
is
arbitrary
and
capricious
since
the
proposal
included
no
criteria
for
doing
so,
and
such
criteria
must
undergo
notice
and
comment
rulemaking.

Commenter
VIII­
D­
02
stated
that
the
proposal
violates
sections
307
of
the
Act
because
he
believes
section
307
requires
separate
rulemakings
to
revise
emissions
standards
and/
or
limitations.
Similarly,
Commenter
VIII­
D­
20
said
that
EPA
must
follow
the
requirements
of
section
307
in
this
rulemaking
action,
because
the
Agency
followed
section
307
requirements
13
when
promulgating
original
part
70
and
71
promulgations
and
the
Agency
is
making
substantive
changes
to
those
rules.

Response:
In
response
to
these
comments,
it
appears
that
this
issue
did
not
need
to
be
addressed
in
the
final
rule
because
EPA
committed
to
exercise
its
discretion
under
the
Act
to
pursue
rulemaking
to
improve
existing
monitoring
requirements
where
necessary,
as
opposed
to
case­
bycase
monitoring
reviews
under
§
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
and
71.6(
c)(
1).
Nonetheless,
as
explained
in
the
preamble
to
the
final
rule,
EPA
believes
that
the
Act
authorizes
it
to
meet
the
title
V
monitoring
requirements
by
requiring
permitting
authorities
to
add
monitoring
to
permits
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
or
by
pursuing
rulemaking
to
improve
monitoring
requirements
in
federal
or
State
applicable
requirements.

As
for
the
comments
that
the
proposal
to
upgrade
monitoring
on
a
permit­
by­
permit
basis
was
arbitrary
and
capricious,
was
an
unlawful
delegation
of
regulatory
authority
not
explicitly
allowed
by
section
504(
b)
of
the
Act,
and
would
revise
emission
standards
in
violation
of
section
307(
d)(
1)(
C)
of
the
Act,
EPA
believes
it
is
not
necessary
to
respond
to
these
comments
because
we
have
decided
not
to
adopt
the
proposed
changes
to
the
regulatory
text
of
§
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
and
71.6(
c)(
1)
in
the
final
rule
and
we
have
determined
that
the
correct
interpretation
of
those
provisions
is
that
they
do
not
establish
a
separate
regulatory
standard
or
basis
for
requiring
or
authorizing
review
and
enhancement
of
existing
monitoring
independent
of
any
review
and
enhancement
as
may
be
required
under
§
§
70.6(
a)(
3)
and
71.6(
a)(
3).
To
the
extent
the
comments
could
be
read
to
raise
the
concerns
listed
above
with
respect
to
the
upgrading
of
monitoring
under
§
§
70.6(
a)(
3)(
i)(
B)
and
71.6(
a)(
3)(
i)(
B),
EPA
notes
that
these
issues
were
beyond
the
scope
of
this
rulemaking
and
were
not
opened
for
comment.

3.0
Was
the
Proposal
Inconsistent
with
the
Appalachian
Power
and
NRDC
Decisions?

Comment:
Commenters
VIII­
D­
02,
VIII­
D­
03,
VIII­
D­
05,
VIII­
D­
08
VIII­
D­
13,
VIII­
D­
14,
VIII­
D­
16,
VIII­
D­
17,
VIII­
D­
20,
and
VIII­
D­
21
thought
the
proposal
was
inconsistent
with
the
decision
of
the
United
States
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
District
of
Columbia
Circuit
(
D.
C.
Circuit)
in
Appalachian
Power
Co.
v.
EPA,
208
F.
3d
1015
(
D.
C.
Cir.
2000)
(
Appalachian
Power).
Commenters
VIII­
D­
02
and
VIII­
D­
03
disagreed
with
the
proposal
position
that
the
Appalachian
Power
decision
did
not
address
EPA's
authority
to
require
sufficiency
reviews
of
monitoring
in
applicable
requirements
and
upgrade
that
monitoring
in
permits.
Commenter
VIII­
D­
02
added
that
this
decision
only
addresses
when
periodic
monitoring
could
be
used
and
that
the
Appalachian
Power
decision
required
EPA
to
conduct
rulemaking
to
amend
inadequate
monitoring
in
applicable
requirements.
Commenter
VIII­
D­
05
and
VIII­
D­
13
declared
that
in
vacating
the
periodic
monitoring
guidance,
the
Appalachian
Power
court
expressly
rejected
EPA's
argument
that
part
70
allows
sufficiency
reviews
of
periodic
monitoring
in
applicable
requirements
and
that
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
does
not
require
States
to
conduct
sufficiency
reviews
of
existing
periodic
monitoring
because
the
court
held
that
sufficiency
reviews
and
upgrading
of
periodic
monitoring
in
applicable
requirements
was
not
allowed
under
§
70.6(
a)(
3).
They
also
commented
that
the
14
Agency
in
its
litigation
never
argued
that
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
provides
such
authority,
thus
EPA
waived
its
ability
to
rely
upon
such
arguments.
Commenter
VIII­
D­
08
declared
that
EPA
is
revising
regulations
through
guidance,
similar
to
what
EPA
did
with
its
periodic
monitoring
guidance,
before
it
was
thrown
out
by
the
Appalachian
Power
court.
Commenters
VIII­
D­
14
and
VIII­
D­
16
requested
that
EPA
withdraw
its
proposal
and
affirm
that
the
interpretation
in
the
Appalachian
Power
decision
governs
title
V
implementation.
On
this
point
commenter
VIII­
D­
14
added
that
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
cannot
be
read
to
allow
a
separate
regulatory
authority
for
imposing
monitoring
because
EPA's
interpretation
changes
the
meaning
of
existing
monitoring
for
sources.
Commenter
VIII­
D­
17
asserted
that
the
proposal
is
not
a
clarification
of
the
existing
rule
because
this
would
be
contrary
to
Appalachian
Power,
where
the
court
determined
that
EPA
may
not
supplement
existing
monitoring
in
applicable
requirements
that
already
has
periodic
monitoring.
Commenter
VIII­
D­
20
opined
in
detail
that
the
Appalachian
Power
court
rejected
EPA's
arguments
that
§
70.6(
a)(
3)(
i)(
B)
also
required
sufficiency
reviews
of
existing
periodic
monitoring
in
standards,
that
the
court
found
that
no
enhancement
was
allowed
by
part
70
where
periodic
monitoring
already
existed,
and
that
there
is
no
separate
standard
for
monitoring
that
is
already
periodic
under
part
70.
They
also
opined
that
prior
to
the
Appalachian
Power
decision,
EPA
interpreted
its
rules
as
placing
all
authority
to
require
monitoring
to
assure
compliance
in
the
periodic
monitoring
provisions.
Commenter
VIII­
D­
21
stated
that
the
proposal
conflicts
with
Appalachian
Power
because
original
part
70
did
not
authorize
sufficiency
reviews
of
existing
periodic
monitoring,
which
the
proposal
would
allow.

Commenters
VIII­
02,
VIII­
08,
VIII­
16,
VIII­
17,
VIII­
18,
and
VIII­
20
thought
the
proposal
was
inconsistent
with
the
D.
C.
Circuit's
decision
in
Natural
Resources
Defense
Council
v.
EPA,
194
F.
3d
130
(
D.
C.
Cir.
1999)
(
NRDC).
Commenter
VIII­
D­
02
believed
the
proposal
is
inconsistent
with
the
NRDC
decision
because
the
NRDC
court
did
not
say
EPA
had
unfettered
discretion
to
allow
States
to
upgrade
federally
applicable
standards
and
emission
limits,
that
it
merely
observed
the
distinction
between
sections
504(
a)
and
504(
b)
of
the
Act,
and
agreed
that
EPA
could
implement
enhanced
monitoring
through
rulemaking.
Commenter
VIII­
D­
08
thought
that
while
the
NRDC
court
said
that
sources
subject
to
periodic
monitoring
or
monitoring
under
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
could
be
excluded
from
enhanced
monitoring,
EPA
has
interpreted
the
court's
decision
in
the
opposite
manner.
Commenters
VIII­
D­
16
and
VIII­
D­
17
thought
EPA
based
its
proposal
on
the
belief
that
the
NRDC
decision,
which
was
issued
before
Appalachian
Power,
could
have
somehow
changed
the
holding
in
Appalachian
Power,
which
is
not
logical.
Continuing
on
they
opined
that
the
NRDC
decision
stated
generally
that
part
70
provided
a
residual
rule
for
monitoring
not
addressed
by
the
CAM
rule,
it
did
not
imply
that
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
created
separate
regulatory
authority
for
upgrading
monitoring.
Commenter
VIII­
D­
17
also
added
that
the
proposal
does
not
make
sense
because
it
would
impose
stringent
monitoring
on
small
sources,
while
CAM
imposes
limited
monitoring
on
large
sources.
Commenter
VIII­
D­
18
believed
the
proposal
is
a
flawed
interpretation
of
the
NRDC
decision
because
the
court
did
not
hold
that
periodic
monitoring
and
monitoring
under
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
were
"
residual
rules,"
rather
the
court
accepted,
without
critical
examination,
EPA's
assertion
that
these
provisions
represented
"
residual
rules"
because
what
these
provisions
impose
and
how
they
related
to
each
other
was
not
at
issue,
thus
this
statement
was
merely
dicta,
not
a
judicial
holding.
Finally,
commenter
VIII­
D­
20
15
contended
that
the
court's
opinion
in
NRDC
does
not
refer
to
two
separate
regulatory
standards
but
to
two
interrelated
rules,
that
the
court
did
not
opine
as
to
the
meaning
of
"
sufficient
monitoring"
or
suggest
that
part
70
requires
monitoring
beyond
CAM,
and
that
EPA
never
mentioned
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
in
its
briefs.

Response:
We
believe
it
is
not
necessary
to
respond
to
these
comments
because
EPA
is
not
adopting
the
proposed
revisions
to
the
text
of
§
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
and
71.6(
c)(
1)
in
the
final
rule,
and
because
EPA
has
determined
that
the
correct
interpretation
of
§
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
and
71.6(
c)(
1)
is
that
these
provisions
do
not
establish
a
separate
regulatory
standard
or
basis
for
requiring
or
authorizing
review
and
enhancement
of
existing
monitoring
independent
of
any
review
and
enhancement
as
may
be
required
under
§
§
70.6(
a)(
3)
and
71.6(
a)(
3).

4.0
Does
§
70.1(
b)
Prohibit
Monitoring
Enhancement
in
Permits?

Comment:
Commenters
VIII­
D­
02,
VIII­
D­
05,
VIII­
D­
13,
VIII­
D­
14,
VIII­
D­
16,
VIII­
D­
17,
and
VIII­
D­
20
opined
that
EPA
is
not
allowed
generally
to
add
substantive
new
requirements
to
permits.
Commenters
VIII­
D­
14,
VIII­
D­
16,
and
VIII­
D­
17
asserted
that
the
addition
of
such
requirements
to
permits
is
not
allowed
(
or
conflicts
with)
§
70.1(
b),
while
commenter
VIII­
D­
02'
s
position
was
that
this
is
not
allowed
by
the
Act,
its
legislative
history
or
part
70.
Commenters
VIII­
D­
05
and
VIII­
D­
13
reasoned
that
part
70
does
not
impose
substantive
new
requirements,
that
the
D.
C.
Circuit
has
stated
that
monitoring
requirements
are
substantive
requirements,
and
thus
part
70
may
not
be
used
to
establish
new
monitoring.
On
the
other
hand,
commenter
VIIID
09
pointed
out
that
the
Administrator
recently
said
that
title
V
"
does
not
generally
impose
new
substantive
air
quality
requirements
(
which
are
referred
to
as
"
applicable
requirements"),
but
does
require
permits
to
contain
monitoring,
recordkeeping,
and
reporting,
and
other
compliance
requirements
to
assure
compliance
by
sources
with
existing
applicable
requirements.
(
Pencor­
Masada
Oxynol
order
responding
to
petition,
page
3
(
referring
to
57
FR
32251,
July
21,
1992).

Thus,
he
added,
the
Administrator
recognized
that
requirements
specifying
monitoring,
recordkeeping,
and
reporting
necessary
to
assure
compliance
with
existing
applicable
requirements
must
be
included
in
permits,
even
though
such
compliance
requirements
may
not
be
found
in
the
applicable
requirements.

Response:
The
Act
expressly
requires
that
permits
contain
"
conditions
as
are
necessary
to
assure
compliance
with
applicable
requirements"
and
in
particular
"
monitoring
.
.
.
to
assure
compliance
with
the
permit
terms
and
conditions."
42
U.
S.
C.
§
§
7661c(
a),
7661c(
c);
see
42
U.
S.
C.
§
7661a(
b)(
5)(
A)
(
requiring
that
title
V
permitting
authorities
have
adequate
authority
to
"
issue
permits
and
assure
compliance
by
all
[
title
V
sources]
with
each
applicable
standard,
regulation
or
requirement
under
this
chapter").
The
court
in
Appalachian
Power
recognized
that
certain
16
monitoring
requirements
may
be
added
to
title
V
permits
in
some
circumstances,
see
208
F.
3d
at
1028,
and
the
plain
language
of
§
70.1(
b)
is
not
a
bar
to
the
addition
of
monitoring
to
permits
under
§
§
70.6(
a)(
3)
and
71.6(
a)(
3).
At
the
same
time,
EPA
has
determined
that
the
correct
interpretation
of
§
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
and
71.6(
c)(
1)
is
that
these
provisions
do
not
establish
a
separate
regulatory
standard
or
basis
for
requiring
or
authorizing
review
and
enhancement
of
existing
monitoring
independent
of
any
review
and
enhancement
as
may
be
required
under
§
§
70.6(
a)(
3)
and
71.6(
a)(
3).
To
the
extent
the
comments
could
be
read
to
refer
to
the
addition
of
monitoring
to
permits
under
§
§
70.6(
a)(
3)(
i)(
B)
and
71.6(
a)(
3)(
i)(
B),
we
believe
it
is
not
necessary
to
respond,
because
that
issue
is
beyond
the
scope
of
this
rulemaking
and
was
not
opened
for
comment.

5.0
How
Stringent
was
Monitoring
under
§
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
and
71.6(
c)(
1)
in
the
Proposal?

Comment:
Commenter
VIII­
D­
11
observed
that
the
proposal's
"
sufficient
to
assure
compliance"
monitoring
standard
is
too
costly
and
burdensome,
that
EPA
needs
to
return
to
the
"
reasonable
assurance
of
compliance"
standard,
and
that
if
it
does
not,
it
must
explain
that
there
are
no
broad
requirements
for
such
monitoring.
The
commenter
added
that
the
current
standard
for
monitoring
and
certifying
compliance
is
"
a
reasonable
assurance
of
compliance,"
quantified
by
the
exercise
of
good
and
accepted
science,
which
is
the
same
standard
used
by
CAM,
which
the
D.
C.
Circuit
held
met
the
Act's
requirement
for
enhanced
monitoring.
In
addition,
commenter
VIII­
D­
11
opined
that
EPA's
interpretation
in
the
proposal
ignores
the
findings
of
the
D.
C.
Circuit
by
changing
the
monitoring
standard
to
an
"
absolute
assurance
of
compliance,"
which
can
only
be
achieved
by
stringent
and
expensive
direct
monitoring
techniques,
such
as
continuous
emissions
monitoring
systems
(
CEMS).
Commenter
VIII­
D­
19
thought
the
proposal
eliminates
the
Act
requirement
for
reasonable
monitoring
by
de­
linking
periodic
monitoring
and
§
70.6(
c)(
1).
Commenter
VIII­
D­
01
thought
the
proposal
removes
the
reasonableness
embodied
in
the
periodic
monitoring
provisions.

Commenters
VIII­
D­
04,
VIII­
D­
10,
VIII­
D­
11,
and
VIII­
D­
22
believed
the
proposal
requires
direct
monitoring
methods,
such
as
CEMS
and
Continuous
Opacity
Monitoring
Systems
(
COMS)
for
all
points
at
title
V
sources.
Commenter
VIII­
D­
04
asserted
that
the
proposal
severs
the
link
between
periodic
monitoring
and
monitoring
under
§
70.6(
c)(
1),
that
this
means
that
monitoring
under
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
may
not
be
reasonable
as
Congress
intended,
that
CEMS
will
be
mandated
for
all
points,
regardless
of
the
appropriateness
or
statutory
requirements,
and
he
contends
the
better
interpretation
is
that
parametric
monitoring,
or
little
or
no
monitoring,
can
be
justified
for
certain
minor
or
predictable
emission
points,
and
that
flexibility
to
develop
sitespecific
monitoring
requirements
must
be
maintained
where
CEMS
are
not
appropriate.
Similarly,
commenters
VIII­
D­
10
and
VIII­
D­
22
believed
that
severing
the
link
between
periodic
monitoring
and
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
may
mean
that
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
requires
the
use
of
CEMS
for
all
points
at
title
V
sources.
Commenter
VIII­
D­
24
more
bluntly
stated
that
EPA's
interpretation
is
an
attempt
to
force
CEMS,
rather
than
reasonable
monitoring,
on
sources.
Commenters
VIII­
D­
10
and
VIII­
D­
22
asserted
that
the
proposal
could
mean
that
even
stringent
monitoring,
including
CEMS,
contained
in
standards
could
be
viewed
as
not
meeting
the
sufficiency
standards.
17
Commenter
VIII­
D­
06
and
VIII­
D­
23
thought
that
the
proposal
disregards
the
fact
that
no
monitoring
may
be
needed
to
assure
compliance
at
certain
sources
(
e.
g.,
natural
gas
fired
equipment
will
almost
never
violate
a
visible
emission
standard).

Commenter
VIII­
D­
11
opined
that
EPA's
proposal
voids
the
CAM
and
credible
evidence
rules
by
not
allowing
parametric
monitoring
and
forcing
CEMS
and
other
direct
monitoring
methods
to
determine
and
certify
compliance.
Commenter
VIII­
D­
20
added
that
EPA's
new
interpretation
encourages
imposition
of
CEMS
and
COMS
beyond
that
required
by
CAM.

Other
commenters
VIII­
D­
01,
VIII­
D­
10,
VIII­
D­
15,
VIII­
D­
19,
and
VIII­
D­
22
opined
that
the
proposal's
"
sufficient
to
assure
compliance"
monitoring
standard
is
vague
and
either
potentially
unreasonable,
subjective,
and/
or
undefined.
Commenter
VIII­
D­
19
concluded
that
it
was
unclear,
under
the
proposal,
if
existing
monitoring
will
be
determined
adequate
to
meet
the
standard.
In
a
similar
vein,
commenter
VIII­
D­
01
declared
that
removing
the
linkage
between
periodic
monitoring
and
§
70.6(
c)(
1),
removes
certainty
for
sources
because
it
will
be
unclear
how
stringent
monitoring
under
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
must
be.

Response:
The
EPA
responds
by
noting
that
the
proposed
rule
made
no
statements
regarding
either
an
"
absolute
assurance
of
compliance"
or
a
"
reasonable
assurance
of
compliance"
as
the
standard
for
monitoring
and/
or
for
certifying
compliance
in
title
V
permits.
Nor
does
the
final
rule.
The
proposed
rule
made
clear
that
its
scope
was
narrow.
The
EPA
stated
in
the
preamble:
"
This
proposed
rule
is
limited
to
the
removal
of
the
prefatory
phrase
"[
c]
onsistent
with
paragraph
(
a)(
3)
of
this
section"
from
§
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
and
71.6(
c)(
1)
in
order
to
clarify
the
scope
of
these
provisions.
This
proposed
rule
does
not
address
any
other
issues
related
to
title
V
monitoring,
such
as
the
type
of
monitoring
required
under
the
periodic
monitoring
provisions,
§
§
70.6(
a)(
3)(
i)(
B)
and
71.6(
a)(
3)(
i)(
B),
or
under
...
§
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
and
71.6(
c)(
1)."
(
67
FR
58561,
58565,
September
17,
2002).
Consistent
with
this
statement,
EPA
does
not
address
the
issues
raised
by
the
commenters
here.
As
noted
in
sections
III.
C
and
VII
of
the
preamble
to
the
final
rule,
however,
EPA
plans
to
address
criteria
for
use
in
determining
how
to
fill
a
"
gap"
in
a
separate
proposed
rule.

6.0
Does
New
Monitoring
in
Permits
Increase
the
Stringency
of
Existing
Standards?

Comment:
Commenters
VIII­
D­
02,
VIII­
D­
05,
VIII­
D­
13,
VIII­
D­
20,
and
VIII­
D­
21
were
concerned
that
EPA's
proposal
would
illegally
increase
the
stringency
of
underlying
emission
standards
and
limitations.
Commenter
VIII­
D­
02
contended
this
will
occur
because
the
proposal
will
require
new
averaging
periods
or
change
other
compliance
methods.
Commenter
VIII­
D­
11
asserted
that
stringency
will
increase
because
compliance
would
have
to
be
demonstrated
to
a
higher
confidence,
such
that
the
source
may
have
to
curtail
manufacturing
capacity
(
reduce
its
output)
or
increase
its
permitted
limit
to
remain
in
compliance.
Commenters
VIII­
D­
05
and
VIIID
13
thought
that
increasing
the
stringency
of
standards
is
unlawful
because
it
may
make
standards
unachievable,
and
that
new
monitoring
must
be
consistent
with
the
meaning
of
18
compliance
as
it
was
defined
in
the
original
standard
(
e.
g.,
new
monitoring
for
new
source
performance
standards
(
NSPS)
must
consider
section
111
factors
through
rulemaking).
Commenter
VIII­
D­
21
made
a
similar
point,
saying
that
additional
periodic
monitoring
should
be
established
using
the
same
procedures
and
criteria
in
the
program
that
originally
established
the
monitoring
that
EPA
now
finds
insufficient
to
avoid
making
applicable
requirements
more
stringent
by
requiring
new
monitoring.

Response:
The
final
rule
does
not
require
or
authorize
the
addition
of
monitoring
to
permits
under
§
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
and
71.6(
c)(
1).
To
the
extent
the
comments
concern
the
addition
of
monitoring
to
permits
under
§
§
70.6(
a)(
3)(
i)(
B)
and
71.6(
a)(
3)(
i)(
B),
we
believe
it
is
not
necessary
to
respond
because
that
issue
is
beyond
the
scope
of
this
rulemaking
and
was
not
reopened
for
comment.
The
proposed
rule
was
limited
to
the
removal
of
the
prefatory
phrase
"[
c]
onsistent
with
paragraph
(
a)(
3)
of
this
section"
from
§
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
and
71.6(
c)(
1).
(
67
FR
58561,
58565,
September
17,
2002).

7.0
Did
the
Proposal
Require
Direct
Proof
of
Violations?

Comment:
Commenter
VIII­
D­
11
opined
that
for
purposes
of
compliance
certification,
data
from
such
direct
monitoring
methods,
such
as
CEMS
required
by
EPA's
September
17,
2002
proposal
would
be
direct
proof
of
violations
in
enforcement
actions,
without
consideration
of
other
credible
evidence
or
the
totality
of
circumstances.
Commenter
VIII­
D­
15
contended
that
the
proposal
would
remove
confidence
that
existing
monitoring
is
good
enough
for
compliance
certification
purposes,
unless
it
is
based
on
stringent
continuous
monitoring
systems.

Response:
The
proposed
rule
was
limited
to
the
removal
of
the
prefatory
phrase
"[
c]
onsistent
with
paragraph
(
a)(
3)
of
this
section"
from
§
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
and
71.6(
c)(
1)
and
did
not
address
any
other
issues
related
to
title
V
monitoring
(
67
FR
58561,
58565,
September
17,
2002).
The
EPA
did
not
explicitly
or
implicitly
seek
comment
on
the
use
of
monitoring
data
in
enforcement
actions
or
the
consideration
of
other
credible
evidence.
Those
issues
were
resolved
in
the
credible
evidence
rule
(
62
FR
8313,
February
24,
1997),
and
they
were
not
reopened
in
this
rulemaking.
The
credible
evidence
rule
"[
did]
not
designate
any
particular
data
as
probative
of
a
violation
of
an
emission
standard"
but
rather
eliminated
language
in
40
CFR
parts
51,
52,
60
and
61
that
"
some
[
had]
construed
to
be
a
regulatory
bar
to
the
admission
of
non­
reference
test
data
[
such
as
other
monitoring
data]
to
prove
a
violation
of
an
emission
standard.
.
.
."
62
FR
at
8314.
Thus,
the
credible
evidence
rule
clarified
that
non­
reference
test
data
can
be
used
in
enforcement
actions
and
that
in
addition
to
reference
test
data,
"
other
material
information
that
indicates
that
an
emission
unit
has
experienced
deviations
.
.
.
or
may
otherwise
be
out
of
compliance
with
an
applicable
requirement
even
though
the
unit's
permit­
identified
data
indicates
compliance"
must
be
considered
in
compliance
certifications
under
title
V
of
the
Act.
62
FR
at
8320.
The
credible
evidence
rule
thereby
"
eliminate[
d]
any
potential
ambiguity
regarding
the
use
of
non­
reference
test
data
as
a
basis
for
[
t]
itle
V
compliance
certifications."
62
FR
at
8314;
see
42
U.
S.
C.
§
7413(
c)(
2).
The
September
17,
2002
proposed
rule
made
no
statements
inconsistent
with
the
19
credible
evidence
rule,
such
as
to
require
title
V
monitoring
data
to
be
considered
direct
proof
of
a
violation.
Similarly,
the
final
rule
makes
no
statements
inconsistent
with
the
credible
evidence
rule,
nor
does
it
revise
part
70
or
part
71
to
that
effect.
Thus,
the
proposed
rule
did
not
reopen
these
issues
for
comment,
and
the
final
rule
does
not
change
the
credible
evidence
rule.
Finally,
to
the
extent
that
an
applicable
requirement
provides
that
certain
monitoring
methods
constitute
direct
evidence
of
violations,
title
V
rules
would
not
affect
that
requirement.

8.0
Did
the
Proposal
Meet
All
Administrative
Rulemaking
Requirements?

Comment:
Commenters
VIII­
D­
02,
VIII­
D­
08,
VIII­
D­
11,
and
VIII­
D­
20
were
concerned
that
the
proposal
did
not
provide
adequate
notice
to
the
public
because
it
was
mislabeled
by
EPA
as
a
clarification
of
the
existing
rule.
Commenter
VIII­
D­
02
simply
stated
that
the
proposal
did
not
provide
adequate
notice
to
the
public.
Commenter
VIII­
D­
08
believed
the
proposal
expands
Act
monitoring
requirements
without
following
proper
rulemaking
procedures.
Commenter
VIII­
D­
20
asserted
that
the
current
rulemaking
represents
a
substantial
change
without
adequate
explanation
or
justification
because
a
separate
regulatory
standard
for
monitoring
has
not
been
created,
thus
the
Act
and
Administrative
Procedure
Act
(
APA)
requirements
have
not
been
met
and
a
proper
rulemaking
has
not
taken
place.

In
a
similar
vein,
commenters
VIII­
D­
01,
VIII­
D­
19,
and
VIII­
D­
24
stated
that
the
proposed
changes
will
cause
confusion,
rather
than
clarity.
Commenters
VIII­
D­
02,
VIII­
D­
05,
and
VIII­
D­
13
believed
that,
instead
of
a
clarification,
the
proposal
is
a
fundamental
change
to
the
permit
rules
to
allow
sufficiency
reviews
of
existing
periodic
monitoring
previously
barred
by
the
regulation.
Commenter
VIII­
D­
01
contended
that
the
current
rule
is
clear
that
there
is
no
"
sufficient
to
assure
compliance"
monitoring
standard.
State
commenter
VIII­
D­
07
expressed
the
view
that
the
proposal
does
not
clarify
the
relationship
between
monitoring
under
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
and
CAM,
such
as
whether
the
exemptions
that
apply
to
the
CAM
rule
[
§
64.2(
b)]
also
apply
to
monitoring
under
§
70.6(
c)(
1),
nor
what
EPA
would
consider
appropriate
monitoring
under
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
and
how
it
compares
to
monitoring
required
by
§
70.6(
a)(
3).
Commenters
VIII­
D­
10
and
VIII­
D­
22
opined
that
the
proposal
imposes
new
monitoring
requirements
over
those
specified
in
the
current
rule.
Commenter
VIII­
D­
15
asserted
that
the
proposal
does
not
clarify
what
monitoring
would
be
sufficient
to
assure
compliance
because
the
current
rule
is
clear
that
where
monitoring
is
required,
periodic
monitoring
would
suffice,
and
because
deleting
the
prefatory
phrase
would
not
eliminate
confusion
over
monitoring
requirements.
Commenter
VIIID
16
asserted
that
the
proposal
substantially
changes
the
approach
to
monitoring
in
existing
regulations
by
requiring
sufficiency
reviews
of
existing
periodic
monitoring
in
applicable
requirements.
Commenter
VIII­
D­
19
added
that
this
is
so
because
the
proposal
would
remove
the
linkage
between
periodic
monitoring
and
monitoring
under
§
70.6(
c)(
1).
Commenter
VIII­
D­
20
opposed
the
proposal
because
he
believes
it
is
a
not
a
clarification,
but
a
significant
change,
not
adequately
justified
or
explained,
that
expands
the
scope
of
monitoring
in
permits.
Commenter
VIII­
D­
21
asked
EPA
to
withdraw
the
proposal
because
he
believes
it
changes
the
meaning
of
the
rule
requirement
that
no
new
periodic
monitoring
is
required
where
applicable
requirements
20
already
provide
for
such
monitoring.
Commenter
VIII­
D­
24
asserted
that
the
proposal
will
lead
to
debate
over
what
is
adequate
monitoring
under
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
and
what
procedures
are
used
to
create
new
monitoring
in
lieu
of
rulemaking.
Commenter
VIII­
D­
25
opined
that
the
proposal,
rather
than
being
a
clarification,
modifies
the
rule
to
make
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
a
separate,
broader
standard
for
"
sufficiency
review."
On
the
other
hand,
commenter
VIII­
D­
09
supported
the
proposal
because
he
believes
it
will
eliminate
confusion
leading
to
quicker
permit
issuance.

Commenter
VIII­
D­
20
stated
that
since
EPA
has
already
revised
the
regulations
in
the
IFR,
comment
on
the
proposal
would
be
post
hoc
comment,
and
because
the
simultaneous
issuance
of
a
proposal
and
an
IFR
indicates
that
EPA
will
not
have
an
open
mind
to
comments
on
the
proposal.
In
addition,
the
commenter
stated
that
EPA
has
never
said
it
was
creating
two
regulatory
standards
for
monitoring,
and
that
in
the
proposal
EPA
does
not
say
it
is
making
a
prospective
change,
thus
EPA
is
engaged
in
retroactive
rulemaking,
and
the
APA
does
not
allow
for
retroactive
rules
absent
express
congressional
authority.
The
commenter
also
believed
the
standard
for
implementation
of
monitoring
under
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
in
the
proposal
is
so
vague
that
it
constitutes
a
"
standardless
standard"
that
does
not
satisfy
rulemaking
requirements.
Finally,
the
same
commenter
believed
EPA's
proposed
clarifications
are
inconsistent
with
the
APA
as
an
unlawful
attempt
to
exercise
legislative
power.

Commenter
VIII­
D­
15
contended
that
EPA
needs
to
reevaluate
administrative
rulemaking
requirements,
such
as
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
(
UMRA),
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
RFA),
and
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
(
PRA)
before
it
can
offer
a
complete
proposal.
More
specifically,
commenter
VIII­
D­
02
stated
that
the
proposal
fails
to
evaluate
the
cost
associated
with
the
change
in
policy
and
that
it
will
shift
rulemaking
burdens
and
costs
to
State
and
local
agencies
in
violation
of
the
Act
and
the
UMRA.
Commenters
VIII­
D­
06
and
VIII­
D­
23
believed
that
the
proposal
doesn't
meet
statutory
requirements
for
consideration
of
costs
in
standard­
setting
because
EPA's
interpretation
will
likely
result
in
costs
that
disproportionately
affect
small
sources
in
nonattainment
areas
with
10
to
25
ton
per
year
major
source
thresholds,
and
it
may
result
in
stringent
monitoring
for
these
sources
because
cost
has
not
been
adequately
considered
in
a
rulemaking
that
more
comprehensively
considered
all
elements
of
the
underlying
standard.
Commenter
VIII­
D­
11
opined
that
EPA's
interpretation
changes
the
current
standard
for
monitoring,
which
is
inconsistent
with
congressional
intent
regarding
costs.
Commenters
VIII­
D­
05
and
VIII­
D­
13
contended
that
costs
must
be
considered
when
setting
new
monitoring,
except
where
the
Act
states
costs
should
not
be
considered.
Commenters
VIII­
D­
16,
VIII­
D­
17
and
VIII­
D­
20
stated
that
the
Regulatory
Impact
Analysis
(
RIA)
and
Information
Collection
Request
(
ICR)
for
part
70
do
not
address
case­
by­
case
sufficiency
reviews
for
existing
standards
with
periodic
monitoring
as
in
EPA's
new
interpretation.
Commenters
VIII­
D­
06
and
VIII­
D­
23
commented
that
the
costs
of
meeting
new
monitoring
requirements
will
be
significant
for
large
sources,
and
that
with
no
consideration
of
cost
in
the
proposal,
the
costs
of
monitoring
could
exceed
the
cost
of
emission
control.
Also,
they
believe
that
the
proposal
may
add
significant
costs
for
no
air
quality
benefits
because
it
disregards
the
fact
that
no
monitoring
may
be
needed
to
assure
compliance
at
certain
sources
(
e.
g.,
natural
gas
fired
equipment
will
almost
never
violate
a
visible
emission
standard).
Finally,
commenter
VIII­
D­
11
thought
EPA's
actions
will
be
too
21
costly
and
burdensome
because
it
will
lead
to
a
requirement
that
all
sources
must
conduct
CEMS
and
other
direct
continuous
monitoring.

Response:
The
EPA
disagrees
that
the
proposed
rule
was
not
part
of
a
proper
rulemaking.
The
proposed
rule,
which
was
published
in
the
Federal
Register
for
a
30­
day
public
comment
period,
satisfied
the
rulemaking
requirements
of
the
APA
and
the
Act.
In
accordance
with
those
requirements,
the
reasons
for
the
proposed
revision
to
the
text
of
§
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
and
71.6(
c)(
1)
were
set
forth
in
the
preamble.
However,
in
that
EPA
has
decided
in
the
final
rule
not
to
adopt
the
proposed
revision
and
has
determined
that
the
correct
interpretation
of
§
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
and
71.6(
c)(
1)
is
different
from
that
set
forth
in
the
proposed
rule,
EPA
believes
it
is
not
necessary
to
respond
to
the
commenters'
specific
assertions.
Section
VIII
of
the
final
rule's
preamble,
"
Statutory
and
Executive
Order
Reviews,"
describes
how
the
final
rule
meets
the
administrative
requirements
that
the
commenters
identified.

9.0
Miscellaneous
Issues
Comment:
Commenter
VIII­
D­
03,
stated
that
the
interpretation
of
the
monitoring
requirements
in
the
Pacificorp
order
is
consistent
with
the
Act
and
with
the
NRDC
finding
that
§
70.6(
a)(
3)(
i)(
B)
and
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
are
distinct
residual
rules
that
have
the
same
bottom
line
­
a
major
source
must
undertake
monitoring
sufficient
to
assure
compliance.
On
the
other
hand,
commenters
VIII­
D­
05
and
VIII­
D­
13
opined
that
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
does
not
require
States
to
conduct
sufficiency
reviews
of
existing
periodic
monitoring
because
prior
to
the
Fort
James
and
Pacificorp
orders
EPA
interpreted
§
70.6(
a)(
3)
as
solely
implementing
section
504(
c)
of
the
Act.

Commenters
VIII­
D­
01,
VIII­
D­
02,
VIII­
D­
10,
VIII­
D­
11,
VIII­
D­
15,
VIII­
D­
16,
VIIID
17,
VIII­
D­
19,
and
VIII­
D­
22,
and
State
commenter
VIII­
D­
12
cited
various
implementation
concerns
they
had
with
the
proposal.
State
representative
VIII­
D­
07
was
concerned
that
the
proposal
provided
little
information
on
the
implementation
of
the
requirement
for
monitoring
under
§
70.6(
c)(
1).
Commenter
VIII­
D­
02
opined
that
the
proposal
will
establish
inconsistent
and
unfair
permitting
across
the
country
by
promoting
forum
shopping
for
sufficiency
reviews
of
monitoring
and
that
it
will
further
delay
permit
issuance.
Commenter
VIII­
D­
16
contended
that
the
proposal
would
slow
the
issuance
of
permits
and
substantial
increase
burdens
on
sources
and
permitting
authorities.
Commenters
VIII­
D­
10
and
VIII­
D­
22
opined
that
the
vague
and
subjective
nature
of
the
phrase
"
sufficient
to
assure
compliance"
could
lead
to
delays
in
issuing
permits.
Commenters
VIII­
D­
16
and
VIII­
D­
17
observed
that
case­
by­
case
reviews
of
monitoring
are
bad
policy
it
is
an
inefficient
use
of
resources
and
it
creates
inequities
among
similar
sources
throughout
the
country
(
because
such
sources
might
to
subject
to
monitoring
of
vastly
different
stringency).
Commenter
VIII­
D­
05
thought
the
proposal
would
have
a
significant
impact
on
sources
by
delaying
action
on
pending
permit
applications
and
renewals.
Commenter
VIII­
D­
01,
VIII­
D­
15,
and
VIII­
D­
19
were
concerned
that
the
proposal
may
require
permit
reopenings
to
determine
if
current
monitoring
is
"
sufficient
to
assure
compliance
and
to
upgrade
such
monitoring.
Commenter
VIII­
D­
01
added
that
there
is
no
regulatory
language
to
assure
that
22
such
reopening
will
not
be
required
on
a
wide­
spread
basis.
Finally,
State
representative
VIII­
D­
12
contended
that
the
proposal
will
result
in
evaluation
of
monitoring
in
applicable
requirements,
less
consistent
monitoring
in
permits,
more
complex
permit,
more
opportunity
for
the
public
to
object
to
permits,
hinder
permit
issuance,
and
create
disparities
between
existing
permits
and
those
yet
to
be
issued.

Commenters
VIII­
D­
04
VIII­
D­
10,
VIII­
D­
18,
and
VIII­
D­
22
and
State
commenter
VIIID
07
agreed
that,
rather
than
finalize
this
proposal,
EPA
should
combine
this
rulemaking
with
the
second
notice
and
comment
rulemaking
it
alluded
to
in
it
proposal
(
a
second
notice
and
comment
rulemaking
"
to
consider
more
comprehensively
means
of
meeting
the
statutory
monitoring
requirements").
Similarly,
commenter
VIII­
D­
15
said
EPA
should
develop
proposed
rule
language
to
clearly
identify
types
of
reasonable
monitoring
sufficient
to
assure
compliance,
and
propose
that
language
for
public
comment
before
finalizing
the
rule.

Response:
Because
EPA
has
decided
not
to
adopt
the
proposed
revision
to
the
text
of
§
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
and
71.6(
c)(
1)
in
the
final
rule
and
we
have
determined
that
the
correct
interpretation
of
§
§
70.6(
c)(
1)
and
71.6(
c)(
1)
is
different
from
that
set
forth
in
the
proposed
rule,
we
believe
it
is
not
necessary
to
respond
to
the
commenters'
specific
assertions.
Sections
IV
and
V
of
the
preamble
to
the
final
rule
set
forth
EPA's
specific
policy
and
legal
reasons
for
not
adopting
the
proposed
revisions,
while
sections
III..
C
and
VII
discuss
related
rulemaking
actions.
APPENDIX
A
Docket:
A­
93­
50
Category:
VIII­
D
Correspondence
Received
from
Persons
Outside
of
the
EPA
after
September
17,
2002
and
Prior
to
the
October
17,
2002
close
of
a
public
comment
period
23
Document
Number
Date
Rcvd
in
Docket
Commentor,
Addressee,
Title
or
Description,
etc.
Date
of
Document
VIII­
D­
01
10­
17­
02
E.
D.
Martin,
Bracewell
&
Patterson,
L.
L.
P.,
Washington,
D.
C.;
on
behalf
of
Robert
D.
Bessette,
President,
Council
of
Industrial
Boiler
Owners
10­
17­
02
VIII­
D­
02
10­
17­
02
Leslie
S.
Ritts,
Counsel,
National
Environmental
Development
Associations's
Clean
Air
Regulatory
Project
10­
17­
02
VIII­
D­
03
10­
17­
02
Public
Citizen's
Texas
Office,
et.
al.
Kelly
Haragan,
Staff
Attorney,
Austin
TX
10­
17­
02
VIII­
D­
04
10­
17­
02
Kyle
B.
Isakower,
Senior
Regulatory
Analyst,
American
Petroleum
Institute,
Washington,
D.
C.
10­
17­
02
VIII­
D­
05
10­
17­
02
William
H.
Lewis
&
Michael
A.
McCord,
Morgan,
Lewis
&
Bockius
LLP,
Washington,
D.
C.;
on
behalf
of
the
Clean
Air
Implementation
Project
&
American
Chemistry
Counsel,
Joe
J.
Mayhew,
Vice
President,
Regulatory
&
Technical
Affairs
10­
17­
02
VIII­
D­
06
10­
17­
02
Bob
Walker,
Chevron
Texaco
Corporation
10­
17­
02
VIII­
D­
07
10­
17­
02
Margaret
Hoffmann,
Executive
Director,
Texas
Commission
on
Environmental
Quality
10­
17­
02
VIII­
D­
08
10­
17­
02
Alison
A.
Keane
Darling,
Counsel,
Government
Affairs
Director,
National
Paint
&
Coatings
Association
10­
17­
02
VIII­
D­
09
10­
17­
02
Gary
A.
Abrams,
Esq,
Allegany,
New
York
10­
17­
02
APPENDIX
A
Docket:
A­
93­
50
Category:
VIII­
D
Correspondence
Received
from
Persons
Outside
of
the
EPA
after
September
17,
2002
and
Prior
to
the
October
17,
2002
close
of
a
public
comment
period
Document
Number
Date
Rcvd
in
Docket
Commentor,
Addressee,
Title
or
Description,
etc.
Date
of
Document
24
VIII­
D­
10
10­
17­
02
Kent
J.
Veron,
P.
E.,
Senior
Engineer,
Marathon
Ashland
Petroleum
LLC,
Findlay,
OH
10­
17­
02
VIII­
D­
11
10­
17­
02
Scott
Evans,
Clean
Air
Engineering,
Palatine,
IL
10­
17­
02
VIII­
D­
12
10­
17­
02
Barry
Wallerstein,
President,
California
Air
Pollution
Control
Officers
Association
,
Cameron
Park,
CA
10­
11­
02
VIII­
D­
13
10­
17­
02
David
F.
Zoll,
Vice
President,
General
Counsel,
American
Chemistry
Council
10­
17­
02
VIII­
D­
14
10­
17­
02
Timothy
G.
Hunt,
Director
of
Air
Quality
Programs,
American
Forest
&
Paper
Association
10­
17­
02
VIII­
D­
15
10­
17­
02
Debra
J.
Jezouit
&
Joshua
B.
Frank,
Baker
Botts
LLP,
Washington,
D.
C.;
Counsel
to
the
Class
of
`
85
Regulatory
Response
Group
10­
17­
02
VIII­
D­
16
10­
17­
02
Charles
H.
Knauss,
Partner,
Swidler
Berlin
Shereff
Friedman,
LLP,
Washington,
D.
C.;
on
behalf
of
Alliance
of
Automobile
Manufacturers
10­
17­
02
VIII­
D­
17
10­
17­
02
Shannon
S.
Broome,
Esquire,
Oakland,
CA,
on
behalf
of
Air
Permitting
Forum
10­
17­
02
VIII­
D­
18
10­
17­
02
Maria
Zannes,
President,
Integrated
Waste
Services
Association,
Washington,
D.
C.
10­
17­
02
APPENDIX
A
Docket:
A­
93­
50
Category:
VIII­
D
Correspondence
Received
from
Persons
Outside
of
the
EPA
after
September
17,
2002
and
Prior
to
the
October
17,
2002
close
of
a
public
comment
period
Document
Number
Date
Rcvd
in
Docket
Commentor,
Addressee,
Title
or
Description,
etc.
Date
of
Document
25
VIII­
D­
19
10­
17­
02
Robert
D.
Bessette,
President,
Council
on
Industrial
Boilers,
Burke,
VA
10­
17­
02
VIII­
D­
20
10­
17­
02
Lauren
E.
Williams,
Hunton
&
Williams,
Washington,
D.
C.;
Counsel
for
Utility
Air
Regulatory
Group
10­
17­
02
VIII­
D­
21
10­
21­
02
Norbert
Dee,
Ph.
D.,
Director,
Environmental
Affairs,
Washington,
D.
C.
10­
18­
02
VIII­
D­
22
10­
17­
02
Kent
J.
Veron,
P.
E.,
Senior
Engineer,
Corporate
Environmental
Support,
Marathon
Ashland
Petroleum,
Findlay,
OH
10­
17­
02
VIII­
D­
23
10­
17­
02
Philip
T.
Cavanaugh,
V.
P.,
Government
Relations,
ChevronTexaco,
Washington,
DC
10­
17­
02
VIII­
D­
24
10­
17­
02
J.
A.
Dege,
Director,
Air
Programs,
DuPont
SHE
Excellence
Center
10­
16­
02
VIII­
D­
25
10­
17­
02
J.
Shanahan,
Director,
Air
Quality,
National
Mining
Association,
Washington,
DC
10­
17­
02
