COMMENTS OF THE AIR PERMITTING FORUM AND THE ALLIANCE OF AUTOMOBILE
MANUFACTURERS ON 

EPA’S DRAFT WHITE PAPER NUMBER 3, “DESIGN OF FLEXIBLE AIR PERMITS”

65 Fed. Reg. 49803 (AUGUST 15, 2000)

Submitted September 14, 2000

The Air Permitting Forum (APF) and the Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers (the Alliance) jointly submit the following comments on
USEPA’s draft White Paper Number 3, entitled Design of Flexible Air
Permits (WP3), published in the Federal Register at 65 Fed. Reg. 49803
(August 15, 2000). 

Our specific comments are set forth below.  At the outset, however, we
would like to express our support for EPA’s White Paper (WP3) efforts
generally and the specific efforts being made to improve flexibility
within the structure of the existing Title V program in this draft
paper.  We believe that certain aspects of the paper need to be improved
and clarified to ensure that it can be reasonably implemented by state
agencies and affected facilities within the constraint of current
resources.  With the exception of the WP3’s treatment of Cap permits
and Plantwide Applicability Limits (PALs), we recommend that WP3 be
issued promptly incorporating our suggested changes.  In addition, we
recommend that the Agency make any changes possible to simplify and
streamline the document.  While it addresses numerous important topics,
we believe that its length and complexity may make regulators and
sources less likely to utilize the flexibility approaches it discusses.

EPA Should Place More Emphasis on Smart Permit Writing for All Title V
Permits, Focusing on The Benefits of Minimizing Permit Revisions in the
Future.

One of the most important aspects of permit “flexibility” is that
the mechanisms be designed for the average source.  In other words,
flexibility should not be limited to those sources and states that are
willing to invest substantial resources to write a “new” and
“different” permit.  Indeed, the key to an effective Title V program
for everyone is that it include the necessary Clean Air Act
requirements, while at the same time minimizing the need for permit
revisions.  Accordingly, we strongly support the discussion of smart
permit writing included on page 7 of WP3.  If permits can be simplified,
the national resources needed to implement the program can be
substantially reduced and many facilities can achieve flexibility
without resort to special flexibility programs.  

On page 7, WP3 encourages states to provide sources with the full
flexibility provided in existing requirements by writing smart permits
in the first instance.  Specifically, WP3 states:

 

You [the state regulator] can often minimize the number of times the
source will have to revise its permit by writing a “smart permit.” 
Such a permit essentially allows a source to make changes as
expeditiously as would be allowed under the relevant applicable
requirement(s) alone.  In other words, the permit does not prevent the
source from operating as flexibly as the applicable requirement(s) allow
by including restrictive terms in the permit that are not included in
the applicable requirement(s).

We agree with this statement, but believe that it should include further
explanation and should note in particular that standards which allow for
more than one compliance option can be included in the permit as a
general citation.  For example, under NSPS standards, a source can
change its compliance option through a 60-day advance notice to the
Agency and meeting certain testing requirements set forth in the
regulations.  By citing  the NSPS more generally, instead of one
particular compliance option, a source could use the previously
established NSPS procedures to switch compliance methods without needing
to revise the Title V permit.  This type of explanation would be
extremely helpful to definitively illustrate what the Agency means by
writing a “smart permit.”  In addition, EPA should point out that
providing the flexibility inherent in the underlying standards will
actually save resources in the future  by eliminating permit revisions
since the requirements will all be included in the permit through the
citation to the applicable standard, including its various compliance
options.

EPA Should Encourage States to Replace Overly-Restrictive Minor NSR
Permit Terms When Issuing Any Title V Permit and Should Explain How
Resource Needs for Implementing Such Conditions Can Be Minimized.

WP3 explains how a state can create “replacement conditions” for
problematic permit terms in existing minor NSR permits.  We strongly
support this section of the paper because it demonstrates how a permit
cleanup can be accomplished under EPA’s current view of the Title V
regulations.  We believe that the process outlined in the previous White
Papers to revise redundant or obsolete terms should be sufficient to
achieve the flexibility described in this White Paper.  To the extent
minor NSR permit revision is required, however, we support the concept
of using the Title V notice and other procedures to accomplish the
revisions.  

The example included in WP3 is particularly helpful to illustrate how
permit terms can be adapted to provide greater flexibility while still
ensuring compliance with an emission limitation.  We believe that this
section of the paper could be even more effective if it explicitly
encouraged states to use this approach to provide sources with
flexibility and noted that, unlike some of the more resource intensive
mechanisms discussed later in WP3, this approach can be implemented by
the permit writer with little or no additional resource expenditure by
the state.  Moreover, if state agencies take advantage of the
replacement condition approach outlined in WP3 during permit issuance,
the need for permit revisions will be substantially reduced. 

This section of WP3 should explain, in detail, the steps a state should
take to achieve “replacement” of permit conditions.  EPA needs to
ensure that states understand that a “two-track process” is not
needed to accomplish these revisions.  Otherwise, states will be
reluctant to utilize this approach.  For example, EPA could include a
statement in WP3 explaining that the state could include in its public
notice for the Title V permit any public notice that would be required
to revise the minor NSR permit and noting on the cover of the Title V
permit that specified permit terms represent a revision of an underlying
minor NSR permit.  By giving these explicit suggestions, EPA would
facilitate state permit writers’ ability to actually implement the
“replacement conditions” approach outlined in WP3.  This is akin to
the approach that has been approved by EPA in Illinois.  We have
attached some suggested revisions to the document for your
consideration.

Finally, we want to emphasize that we disagree with EPA’s position
that all of the terms in a minor NSR permit are federally enforceable
and believe that states retain the authority to determine which terms in
a minor NSR permit are issued for the purpose of attaining and
maintaining NAAQS standards.  Prior to May 1999, EPA’s stated position
agreed with ours that state permits were in the first instance to be
interpreted by the states and not EPA.  Despite this disagreement
regarding the scope of minor NSR permit terms, the WP3 approach to
replacement conditions for those provisions which we would agree are
federally-enforceable is helpful and should be included in WP3.

The Discussion of Advance Approvals Should Include Further Examples of
Changes that Would Qualify  

We generally support the concept of advance approvals in Title V permits
but question the extent to which the approach will be able to be used in
practice given that all minor NSR approvals must be obtained prior to
inclusion in the Title V permit.  As recognized in the paper, this
limitation substantially limits the ability of sources and states to
implement advance approvals.  To the extent that a source does go
through this process and obtain an advance approval, we believe that WP3
should provide that the approval is presumed valid for the entire permit
term rather than requiring the control technology determination to be
revisited during the permit term.  Some states provide that a source’s
construction permit becomes invalid if construction does not begin
within 18 months of issuance, other SIPs do not contain this provision
or they provide that the state has the option to revoke the permit in
such a case but does not automatically require a new technology
determination.  EPA should defer to state programs and allow them to
make the determination, if any, that a revisitation of a technology
determination is warranted to the extent consistent with state
regulations.  

We also believe that the effort required to develop replicable operating
procedures (ROPs) and obtain state and EPA approval may be too
significant for states to consider investing the time in such advance
approvals.  Nonetheless, we think that in those states where the SIP
allows such changes (e.g., Indiana), these provisions could be useful
and should be retained in WP3.  Finally, we suggest that EPA eliminate
the “extra notice” requirements in the paper and allow states to
determine if an alternate operating scenario warrants a separate notice.
 Because the initial approval will be reviewed and the compliance terms
included in the permit, another, separate notification seems
unnecessary.  Nothing in Title V requires an advance notice for
alternative operating scenarios.  Indeed, Title V only requires that the
source record in an on-site log when it changes operating scenarios. 
Moreover, even for off-permit changes under 70.4(b)(14), only a
contemporaneous notice is required.  Section 70.4(b)(12) specifies the
particular changes that require a seven day advance notice – changes
that contravene a permit term, changes under a SIP trading program, and
changes under a Title V-only cap.  If the change is not associated with
one of these three categories of activities, it should not require an
advance notice. 

EPA’s approach of using alternative operating scenarios to embody
advance approvals is a workable approach that is consistent with the
regulations.  Under section 70.6(c), states are to include alternative
operating scenarios when an applicant requests them.  These scenarios
are intended to reflect the different applicable requirements that may
apply when a source is in one mode of operation or another.  This may
occur frequently with existing units that have different operations that
may or may not be subject to a particular standard (e.g., an NSPS or
MACT), but is also applicable in situations where a source may change a
unit or add a unit such that the source is subject to a new or different
applicable requirement.  While WP3 is relatively clear on how the
approach would work for new units, to clarify how alternative operating
scenarios should be used, we recommend that EPA provide some examples of
a “defined category of changes” for changes to existing units.  This
would facilitate use of this form of advance approval. 

As currently drafted, it is unclear what types of changes might qualify
for this provision and it is, therefore, difficult to develop comments
or suggestions.  It would also be helpful to clarify that this type of
advance approval would only be necessary for a change that would change
or trigger a new applicable requirement to be included in the Title V
permit.  Our concern is that WP3 might be inadvertently misinterpreted
to require Title V permit revisions or “advance approvals” even when
the applicable requirements in the Title V permit will not change.

Finally, we recommend moving the discussion of expediting certain
changes in Section VI of WP3 into the discussion of advance approvals. 
It is important to emphasize the ways that state agencies can expedite
permit revisions for the monitoring decisions associated with replicable
operating procedures in the discussion of advance approvals.  We support
the classification of the changes to monitoring listed in WP3 on pages
38-40 as qualifying for treatment as minor permit modifications.   There
are many minor changes to monitoring that will qualify as minor permit
modifications and we support including this explanation for those
relevant to advance approvals in the paper. One example might be a
request for a reduction in the frequency of monitoring based on
consistent, compliant monitoring results.  This would be akin to the
approaches approved in many states to opacity monitoring, where
qualitative observations start out on a daily basis and assuming no
abnormal observations are gradually reduced to monthly or quarterly. As
a general rule, minor permit modifications should be available when the
source is proposing a monitoring approach that has already been accepted
in a Title V permit for units of that type in the state.  

The Discussion on Plantwide Applicability Limits (PALs) and Cap Permits
Should Be Removed from WP3.

APF and Alliance members have worked on cap and PAL permits and have
participated in the NSR Reform rulemaking, in which EPA intends to issue
regulations that will govern the issuance of PALs.  We appreciate
EPA’s stated intention to help facilitate issuance of PALs prior to
completion of the rulemaking and does not intend WP3 to prejudge the
outcome of PAL issues in that rule.  We do not believe, however, that it
is possible to issue WP3’s statements on PALs without prejudging the
outcome of the rulemaking.  Moreover, WP3 states that any PAL issued
under the guidance would have to be revised to be consistent with the
future PAL rule.  Thus, WP3 may have the opposite of the intended effect
by actually encouraging states to wait before acting to ensure that they
do not have to invest resources in a future permit revision to achieve
consistency with the PAL rules. 

In addition to our procedural concerns, we are also concerned that the
PAL discussion in WP3 creates unnecessary burdens on PAL development and
that it fails to include the appropriate legal basis for PALs under the
current regulations.  To the extent that the PAL discussion is retained,
it needs to be revised to address these concerns. Specifically:

Legal Basis for PALs:  We believe it is important that EPA explain that
PALs are legally supported under the existing NSR regulations. 
Specifically, EPA should state that the authorization in 40 CFR
52.21(b)(21)(iii) for the permitting authority to presume that actual
emissions are equivalent to source specific allowable emissions provides
support for allowing increases and decreases under a PAL.  EPA
previously offered this interpretation, but it is not included in this
draft of WP3.  If the PAL discussion is retained, it is important that
the legal basis for the PAL be included in the paper.  In addition, if
the PAL involves a process where the source actually completes major New
Source Review, the PAL would be supported under 40 CFR 52.21(b)(3)(iii)
which provides that “an increase in actual emission is creditable only
if the Administrator has not relied on it in issuing a [major NSR]
permit….”  It is important to note that EPA and states have worked
with sources to develop several PALs under the current regulations and
that WP3 not create the impression that PALs are a “new concept”
that has yet to be implemented successfully.

Establishing PAL Baselines Under Current Regulations: As noted above,
the current regulations provide that the permitting authority can
presume that source specific allowable emissions are equivalent to
actual emissions in NSR analyses.  In addition, EPA’s regulations
provide that the baseline should be representative of normal operations.
 EPA should provide in WP3 that the permitting authority has discretion
to set PAL baselines under current regulations given these regulatory
provisions and should recognize that the Agency has issued PALs with
other than “actual” emissions baselines in the past.  These
approaches should be validated if PALs are included in WP3.  In
addition, the draft WP3 states that emissions from all units covered by
the PAL are evaluated for the same representative time periods.  EPA
should revise this aspect of WP3 since it is possible for portions of a
complex manufacturing facility to experience differing representative
baseline periods. For example, if an integrated automotive manufacturing
facility imported engines from another facility during an extended
outage of the on-site engine plant (e.g., re-tooling, maintenance),
emissions from the engine plant would be zero while other operations
(e.g., painting) would be representative.  Baseline emissions for a
facility should be considered on a case-by-case basis taking into
account each facility’s unique situation.

Tracking Physical or Operational Changes for NSR: WP3 states that
sources with PALs must keep a contemporaneous record of all changes
which potentially could have triggered major NSR under traditional NSR. 
This requirement should be eliminated because a major advantage of a PAL
is the elimination of traditional NSR applicability determinations. 

Relationship of Minor NSR to PALs: PALs have been issued by State
regulatory agencies that embrace the concept of pre-approved minor NSR
and WP3 should also endorse this concept.

PAL Expiration: EPA has identified that PALs would be in effect for up
to five years.  PALs have been issued with terms of ten years and
current discussion between EPA and stakeholders includes consideration
of twenty-year terms.  WP3 should not impose an arbitrary time limit of
five years on PALs.

Applicability of Other Requirements:  WP3 states that a PAL does not
supersede any currently applicable emissions control requirements.  EPA
should clarify that this does not apply to BACT and LAER that have been
established through a major NSR process and incorporated into the PAL. 

Treatment of Emission Factors and Bias Toward CEMS:  We disagree with
WP3’s statements regarding emission factors and the unnecessary bias
towards CEMS evidenced in the document.  EPA states that if a source has
not developed site-specific emission factors for cap permit compliance,
it must, on an interim basis, use the most relevant factors available.
While using relevant factors seems appropriate, we believe it is
unreasonable to require relevant factors to be doubled for debits and
halved for credits pending completion of site-specific tests.  EPA has
recognized that many processes are well-defined and that emission
factors are an extremely accurate way of characterizing emissions.  EPA
itself has used emission factors to develop standards because the cost
of additional testing would be too high.  It seems incongruous to now
say that sources may not use “relevant” emission factors and must
always conduct expensive site-specific testing if they want to use the
WP3 cap approaches. No arbitrary adjustment of emission factors or
requirement for site specific testing should be imposed.  If additional
conservatism is required, it should occur only in cases where a factor
is being transferred from one type of process to another and it is
determined that the relevance of the factor is attenuated.

In addition, EPA’s statement that sources must use CEMS or equivalent
is extremely problematic and should be deleted from the document.  EPA
has acknowledged that CEMS are not necessary to provide a “reasonable
assurance of compliance,” which is the standard provided in Clean Air
Act § 504 and adopted in EPA’s Compliance Assurance Monitoring (CAM),
40 CFR § 64.3(a)).  Indeed, these statements in WP3 are actually
inconsistent with the CAM rule because CAM focuses on providing an
assurance that control devices are functioning properly.  In
promulgating the CAM rule, EPA stated: 

[O]nce an owner or operator has shown that the installed control
equipment can comply with an emission limit, there will be a reasonable
assurance of ongoing compliance with the emission limit as long as the
emissions unit is operated under the conditions anticipated and the
control equipment is operated and maintained properly.   This logical
assumption is the basis of EPA standard-setting under the NSPS program
and serves as the model for the CAM approach as well.

	62 Fed. Reg. 54900, 54918 (October 22, 1997).

EPA should adopt this same logic in WP3, rather than arbitrarily
mandating use of CEMS, which are costly to operate and maintain and are
not needed in many cases to provide a reasonable assurance of
compliance.

Missing Data:  WP3 suggests that for cap permits, the source must have
emissions data to account for all increments of time during which the
source’s processes operate. These increments include periods of
process or control equipment malfunction, data unavailability due to
monitoring malfunction or ongoing calibrations or QA/QC checks,
parameters outside their correction ranges, startup, or shutdown.  WP3
goes on to suggest a way to deal with missing data periods as follows:  

For instance, you may require a calculated emissions value during a
period of missing data to be the average obtained from the last valid
reading before the missing data period begins and the first valid
reading after the missing data period ends plus 20 percent.  Absent
credible evidence to the contrary, and provided evidence exists that the
source’s process continued in a steady-state fashion during the
missing data period, you may find this approach acceptable.  In no event
will a missing data routine, generalized to allow you to make ad-hoc
approvals, be acceptable.

	

We are concerned that developing data for malfunction periods may not be
possible and, therefore, a source would never be able to qualify under
this test for a cap permit.  We also question the basis for the 20%
factor included in this example provision.  The gap-filling methodology
suggested in WP3 requires that the source show that the process was in
steady-state operation during a missing data period but this would
generally not be possible during periods of malfunction, startup or
shutdown. 

Moreover, we believe that other approaches, in addition to the example
given in the paper, could be appropriate (e.g., for an hourly factor,
taking the average hourly reading in the prior 24 hours and applying
that to the time frame for which data is missing) and that WP3 should be
clear that any number of approaches may be used, as appropriate to the
process.

Disqualification of Sources with Greater than 20% Fugitive Emissions: 
We disagree with the position in WP3 that sources with greater than 20%
fugitive emissions should be disqualified from using the PAL concepts. 
There are valid ways to account for fugitive emissions that have been
addressed and accepted in numerous EPA rulemakings.  There is no
reasonable basis for selecting a 20% threshold and excluding sources
from the program, without considering the particular situation of the
source and the ability to account for its fugitive emissions.

CONCLUSION

APF and the Alliance appreciate the opportunity to comment on draft WP3
and would be happy to answer any questions regarding these comments. 
Please contact Chuck Knauss at 202-424-7644 or Shannon Broome
510-985-1710 with any questions regarding these comments.



Recommended Edits of Section III of White Paper Number 3

III.	How Can Permits Be Written to Preserve the Flexibility Already in
Applicable Requirements? tc \l1 "III.	How Can Permits Be Written to
Preserve the Flexibility Already in Applicable Requirements? 

Smart Permit Development

You can often minimize the number of times the source will have to
revise its permit by writing a “smart permit.”  Such a permit
essentially allows a source to make changes as expeditiously as would be
allowed under the relevant applicable requirement(s) alone.  In other
words, the permit does not prevent the source from operating as flexibly
as the applicable requirement(s) allow by including restrictive terms in
the permit that are not included in the applicable requirement(s). 
Nothing in Title V prohibits you from providing sources with the full
flexibility allowed in existing applicable requirements and providing
this flexibility may provide substantial benefits to you by eliminating
the need to revise the permit when a source seeks to make a change that
is provided for in an applicable requirement (e.g., changing compliance
options under NSPS by providing appropriate notices and testing under a
Title V permit term that cites to the NSPS, including all compliance
options rather than one in particular). Only after completing the
exercise of providing the full flexibility allowed under existing
requirements is exercise should you proceed to see whether and to what
degree the other flexibility mechanisms subsequently discussed  are
needed to provide an additional level of operational flexibility and
planning certainty to the source.  We believe in general that smart
permits will reduce unintended permit revision burdens on you and
sources and will completely satisfy flexibility needs for many sources. 
The first two White Papers on the operating permits program describe
many smart permitting techniques.

Replacement Conditions

In addition to the techniques mentioned in the previous White Papers, we
believe that another smart permit technique is generally available which
involves using replacement conditions to revise certain minor NSR permit
terms into a more flexible format.  This is essentially the “permit
cleanup” discussed in the May 20, 1999 Memorandum from John Seitz to
State Air Directors.  All applicable requirements, including the terms
and conditions of existing NSR permits issued pursuant to the State
implementation plan (SIP), must be included in the title V permit. 
Some of the terms in previously issued minor NSR permits may severely
restrict the operational choices that a source can make.  Example terms
are:

(1)	those that limit the volatile organic compound (VOC) content of
coatings and solvents instead of limiting VOC emissions;

(2)	specify or prohibit the use of certain coatings and solvents; or

(3)	require or prohibit specific conditions, rates of production, types
of inputs or products, or rate of input.

Additional flexibility might be accomplished by fashioning replacement
conditions which:

(1)	retain the required emissions limit;

(2)	delete the specific restrictions on materials usage and/or
production; and

(3)	add a mass balance-based formula which determines emissions
replicably by interrelating the proven combined effect of any control
devices and the relevant operating parameters (e.g., effects of specific
materials used, production rates, and capture and control efficiencies,
where relevant).

Under this approach, the source would have to maintain a log of the
inputs to the relevant formulas and the resultant calculations for the
relevant time periods.   By not imposing limitations on individual
materials usage or VOC content, significant flexibility is afforded to
adjust operations, to reformulate the process materials, to reduce
emissions, and to allow for possible pollution prevention and increased
production. 

The extent to which restrictive terms in minor NSR permits can be
revised into a more flexible format depends on the specific reasons that
the limitations were included.  Where an NSR permit incorporates the
restrictions of an applicable regulation (e.g., an NSPS or a SIP rule),
revision to a more flexible format is not possible.  A voluntary limit
on potential-to-emit (PTE) is an example of a permit term that does not
have a corresponding regulation and that is sometimes written more
restrictively than necessary to ensure practical enforceability.  Where
not barred by a particular applicable requirement, a more flexible
format (i.e., replacement conditions) may, in many cases, preserve the
practical enforceability of a limit previously taken to restrict the PTE
of an emissions unit or facility.

Where compliance with underlying requirements can be assured with more
flexible permit terms, you may be able to revise minor NSR permit terms
into this more flexible format prior to their incorporation into the
source’s title V permit. You may accomplish this efficiently by using
the parallel process mentioned in White Paper Number 1 to modify the
minor NSR permit.  Specifically, this would involve using the Title V
procedures to meet any procedural requirements associated with revising
the minor NSR permit terms.  For example, you could include in the
public notice for the Title V permit a statement that this notice serves
as a public notice for issuing (or revising) the Title V permit as well
as for revising certain terms in previously-issued minor NSR permits. 
You could identify those terms in the Title V permit which represent
revised minor NSR terms with an asterisk or another appropriate
designation and make available the relevant documents in the public
review file for the permit.  In this way, the only additional step
involved in revising the minor NSR permit would be to change the permit
terms in that permit to be consistent with the Title V permit terms once
the final permit decisions have been made.  EPA has approved a similar
approach which was developed in Illinois and is being implemented
successfully in the Illinois EPA Title V permits.

Developing replacement conditions to achieve more flexible permit terms
must be  consistent with requirements for practical enforceability.
guidance given in our June 13, 1989 memorandum entitled “Guidance on
Limiting Potential to Emit in New Source Permitting,” signed by
Terrell E.  Hunt, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring, and
John Seitz, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.  Accordingly,
replacement conditions are available to implement the alternative to the
daily emissions calculations described in the 1989 memorandum for
surface coating operations where production or materials variability
precludes the use of operating and production parameters.  Replacement
conditions also meet the need for readily verifiable and enforceable
restrictions on actual emissions as outlined in the Louisiana-Pacific
case, United States v.  Louisiana - Pacific Corporation, 682 F. Supp.
1122 (D.  Colo., October 30, 1987) and 682 F.  Supp.  1141 (D.  Colo.,
March 22, 1988).

Case Example for Lithographic Printer

The following example illustrates the general opportunities to develop
replacement conditions for a source currently issued an NSR permit with
inflexible terms and highly variable operations.  Consider a heatset
lithographic printing line at a source in an attainment area with an
annual VOC emissions limit of 249 tpy.  The source is currently subject
to conditions limiting operational flexibility similar to those
previously mentioned (e.g., specific limits on the type of certain
coatings and solvents and the rates of production and inputs) which were
imposed to limit the source’s PTE to the 249 tpy.  The printer has
demonstrated to you that it has highly variable production rates and
materials usage, thus qualifying for the alternative to daily data
collection provided for in the 1989 guidance mentioned above.  Where
these conditions unnecessarily restrict the source’s ability to adjust
production levels and material use, you might choose to revise the NSR
permit containing these conditions in your applicable minor NSR revision
process.  In particular, you might replace these conditions with the
following limits and formulae which still meet the 249 tpy limit but
allows flexibility in adjusting operating conditions:

To determine compliance with the annual emissions limit, VOC emissions
from the affected heatset lithographic printing line shall be based on a
rolling 12-month total of monthly emissions using formulae (1) through
(3).  The facility shall record materials usage and VOC content on a
monthly basis to establish the monthly and rolling 12-month total
emissions.

ET = EM1 + EM2 + EM3 + EM4 + ... + EM12

( SEQ AutoList74_0 \* Arabic \n 1 )	EMn = E1 + E2 + E3 + ... + En

/100) x {1 - (n/100) x (/100)}		

Where:

ET =	Annual VOC Emissions (tons) as summed from the previous 12 months
of monthly VOC emissions;

EMn =	Monthly VOC Emissions (tons per month);

En =	VOC emissions from an individual material;

Un =	Total usage of the individual material - typically ink, fountain
solution, and cleaning solvents - in tons of material per month;

Vn =	Average VOC content of material as determined by EPA Method 24;

 =	Control Efficiency (90 - 95% minimum typically required by
applicable requirements) as verified during an initial performance test
and testing as needed thereafter, and as maintained via parameter
monitoring;

Rn =	Amount of VOC retained and not emitted as allowed by our Control
Technology Guideline Document for Offset Lithography;

 =	Capture efficiency for individual material emitted as determined
by EPA Method 204 and maintained via parameter monitoring or as allowed
by our Control Technology Guideline Document and Alternative Control
Techniques Document for Offset Lithography.

The replacement conditions described above offer a more flexible
approach in the form of limitations on operation and production that can
be verified monthly through review of records of materials consumption
and VOC content.  That is, the source would now have increased
operational flexibility from its ability to balance increased use of one
input to the formula (e.g., use of a higher VOC coating) with decreased
use of another (e.g., reduced total usage of other materials).  Those
conditions allow documentation of materials consumption and VOC content
over a monthly inventory, i.e., summation of materials purchased,
because values for periods shorter than those associated with materials
purchased inventories are extremely difficult to obtain due to low usage
rates, the difficulty in accurately measuring partially filled
containers, or  shared usage of materials between multiple presses. 
Replacement conditions for this case also allow the source to prorate
monthly data to compute daily data.  Replacement conditions in this
example must:  

(1)	contain the previously established annual emissions limitation which
can easily and readily be verified on a monthly basis;  

(2)	set out the methodology (formula-based) by which emissions from
various process materials will be determined;

(3)	be supplemented, in many locations, by additional limitations on
control efficiency, fountain solution VOC content, and cleaning solvent
VOC content or vapor pressure; and

(4)	ensure that no emissions rate exceeds the level allowed by any
applicable requirement.

As previously mentioned, the advance approval of changes that are
subject to minor NSR must be established in a minor NSR action and then
included in the title V permit, unless such advance approvals for minor
NSR (which would meet all the substantive and procedural requirements of
the minor NSR program) can be established in the title V permit during
the initial title V permit issuance, renewal, or revision process.  In
any event, we suggest that the issuance of the minor NSR  permit
establishing the advance approval be synchronized with the corresponding
title V action needed to incorporate this result.

 NOTE TO EPA:  Citation to the 1989 guidance is not appropriate in light
of the decision in Chemical Manufacturers Ass’n v. EPA, No. 89-1514
(D.C. Cir. Sept. 15,1995).   

APF and Alliance Comments on WP3

September 14, 2000

Page   PAGE  7  of   NUMPAGES  11 

