SUPPLEMENTAL BASIS STATEMENT

CHAPTER 100, DEFINITIONS REGULATION

CHAPTER 115 MAJOR AND MINOR SOURCE AIR EMISSION LICENSE REGULATION

CHAPTER 140 PART 70 AIR EMISSION LICENSE REGULATION

December 1, 2005

1.	David Conroy, Chief

Air Programs Branch

U.S. EPA. Region I

1 Congress St., Suite 1100

Boston, Mass. 02114-2023

2.	Dixon Pike

Pierce Atwood

One Monument Square

Portland, Maine 04101

3.	Chris MacMillan

	MacMillan and Donnelly, Inc.

	361 U.S. Route One, Suite 2

	Falmouth, Maine 04105-1305

************************************************************************

Chapter 100 Definitions

Maine must change Chapter 100, Section 112(B)(27) to read “Any other
stationary source category, which as of August 7, 1980, is being
regulated under section 111 or 112 of the Act.”  The phrase “but
only with respect to those air pollutants that were regulated for that
category.” must be removed from the definition.  EPA amended this
definition in 2001.  The rule change will make Maine’s program
consistent with Part 70 regarding when to include fugitive emissions in
determining if a source is major.  (Commenter 1)

	The Department agrees and has made this change.

Section 137(H): Maine should remove this section from its regulations to
be consistent with Part 70.  Even though EPA proposed a similar
exemption from the definition of “regulated pollutant” in 1995, the
proposal was never finalized.  (Commenter 1)

The Department agrees and has made this change.

The BAQ’s proposal to add four additional compounds to the list of
those compounds excluded from the definition of  “volatile organic
compounds (VOC)” is consistent with the first of two VOC rulemakings
issued by EPA on November 29, 2004 (69 FR 69290).  In this rulemaking,
EPA also made a nomenclature clarification to two previously exempted
compounds.  EPA recommends that the BAQ also update its VOC definition
to reflect this clarification as follows: 

1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4-nonafluoro - 4 - methoxy-butane (C4F9OCH3)
(known as HFE-7100);

1-ethoxy - 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4 - nonafluorobutane (C4F9OC2H5)
(known as HFE-7200)  (Commenter 1)

	The Department agrees and has made this change.

4.	Consistent with EPA’s second VOC rulemaking on November 29, 2004
(69 FR 69298), Maine is proposing to exempt t-butyl acetate (TBAC) from
the definition of VOC for purposes of emission limitations and content
requirements but to retain recordkeeping and reporting requirements for
TBAC.  EPA’s rulemaking, however, also specifies that “TBAC
emissions shall be broken out from other VOC and reported as a distinct
class of emissions.”  The BAQ should, therefore, revise the wording of
its exemption to be consistent with 40 CFR 51.100(s).  Specifically,
Section 162(B) of Maine’s Chapter 100 should be revised to read as
follows:

“T-butyl acetate (known as tertiary butyl acetate) shall not be a
volatile organic compound for the purposes of emission limitations or
content requirements but shall continue to be a volatile organic
compound for the purposes of all recordkeeping, emissions reporting,
photochemical dispersion modeling, and inventory requirements and shall
be uniquely identified in emission reports.”  (Commenter 1)

The Department agrees and has made this change.

5.	The BAQ’s (as well as EPA’s) definition of VOC includes CFC-113
and trifluoromethane on the list of exempted compounds.  The BAQ’s
exemption of these compounds should, however, be clarified as follows:

1, 1, 2 - trichloro - 1, 2, 2 - trifluoroethane (CFC-113)

trifluoromethane (CFC-23) (HFC-23)  (Commenter 1)

	The Department agrees and has made this change.

6.	The current definition of the term “Minor Modification” contains
a reference to Chapter 140.  Since the proposed rulemaking would
re-locate the new source review procedures for minor modifications of
Part 70 major sources from Chapter 140 to Chapter 115, I believe the
reference to Chapter 140 is no longer applicable and should be deleted. 
(Commenter 3)

The Department agrees that the definition needs to be changed and has
deleted “or Part 70 minor revision, is subject to licensing defined in
Chapter 115 or Chapter 140” .

This proposal replaces the terms “Part 70 Minor Change” and “Part
70 Major Change” with the terms “Part 70 Minor Modification” and
“Part 70 Significant Modification”, to align with the terms
currently used in 40CFR70.7.  Therefore, the terms “Part 70 Minor
Change” and “Part 70 Major Change” listed in Chapter 100 will
become obsolete and should be deleted in this rulemaking, and the terms
“Part 70 Minor Modification” and “Part 70 Significant
Modification” should be added.  Actually, the term used by EPA in 40
CFR Part 70.7 for identifying the “minor” permit modification
procedure is “Minor Permit Modification” (emphasis added).  M&D
recommends that the term “Part 70 Minor Permit Modification” be used
instead of “Part 70 Minor Modification” in Chapters 100 and 140, to
avoid confusion with the term “Minor Modification” used to describe
actual physical or operational changes that are licensed in Chapter 115.
 (Commenter 3)

The Department agrees there is a need to change the terms Part 70 Minor
Change and Part 70 Major Change, but believes it is more appropriate to
change the terms to Part 70 Minor License Modification and Part 70
Significant License Modification, respectively.

The definition of “actual emissions” at Section 1 of Chapter 100
should be replaced with the comparable definition at 40 CFR Part
51.165(a)(1)(xii).  To enable proper quantification of net emissions
increases, DEP should also add into Chapter 100 definitions for
“projected actual emissions” at 40 CFR Part 51.165(a)(1)(xxviii) and
“baseline actual emissions” at Part 51.165(a)(1)(xxxv).  For
additional clarification, we believe that the language regarding
“actual-to-projected-actual” and “actual to potential” tests at
40 CFR Part 51.165(2)(ii)(C) and (D) should be added either in Chapter
100 or Chapter 115.  A suggestion would be to add the discussion of
these two subsections under the definition of “net emissions
increase” at Section 89 of Chapter 100.  (Commenter 2)

The Department is required by EPA to either meet all federal NSR
requirements by incorporating these provisions into Chapter 115 and the
State Implementation Plan approved by EPA or by demonstrating to EPA
that the amended rules are at least as stringent as the revised federal
NSR provisions.  The Department will provide EPA with a demonstration
that the amended rules are at least as stringent as federal NSR rules. 
The commenter’s suggestions have not been added to Chapter 100 or 115.

Chapter 115 Major and Minor Source Air Emission License Regulation

9.	Currently, Maine’s New Source Review (NSR) program is divided into
two regulations: Chapter 115, which applies to greenfield sources, and
Chapter140, which applies to sources that have received a Title V
permit.  The proposed amendments will consolidate Maine’s NSR program
into a single NSR regulation under Chapter 115 that will apply to all
sources.  We agree that the proposed amendments simplify Maine’s NSR
program. 

However, since the amendments expand the applicability of Chapter 115 to
cover all new sources in Maine, these rules must meet all federal NSR
requirements for State Implementation Plans (SIPs) at 40 CFR §§
51.165-166.  On December 31, 2002, EPA revised these regulations to
establish new applicability provisions that apply to major modifications
at major stationary sources.  These new provisions include:

a revised definition of “actual emissions” that allows for the use
of a 10-year lookback period for selecting a two-year actual emission
baseline,

an actual-to-projected actual emissions test to measure emission
increases from modifications, and

new procedures to establish Plantwide Applicability Limits.

These are core program elements that state agencies must include in
their major NSR regulations.  Therefore, the BAQ will need to either
incorporate these provisions into the amendments to its SIP-approved NSR
regulations or demonstrate that its amended rules are at least as
stringent as the revised federal NSR provisions. 

EPA understands that incorporating the new federal rules into the
state’s current NSR regulations may present significant challenges for
the BAQ.  We strongly urge you to work closely with EPA in incorporating
the new federal provisions into your NSR program or developing
approvable alternative rules that are at least as stringent.  (Commenter
1)

See response to Comment #8.

Section 1(C)(2):  This section provides license exemptions for a defined
set of small emission units.  EPA approved of some of these exemptions
in 1996.  Since that time, the BAQ has added or modified the list of
exempted emission units.  For example, in these amendments, the BAQ is
exempting incinerators with a primary chamber volume under 133 cubic
feet.  EPA understands that the listed emission units are relatively
small.  However, the BAQ should provide a rationale in the supporting
documents for the amendment that explains why these emission units are
exempt from license requirements.  (Commenter 1)

The very small units do not have a major impact on air quality standards
in Maine and are not included in any maintenance plans.  Therefore, it
is not warranted to expend resources on licensing these units.  The
current amendment to this section aligns the rule with State Statute,
Title 12, Section 9324, subsection 7-A language.  No change was made to
the rule.

Section 2(U): Pollution Control Projects:  EPA’s provisions for
pollution control projects was vacated by the D.C. circuit court on June
24, 2005.  Therefore, federal major NSR rules do not allow exemptions
for pollution control projects.  EPA recommends that the BAQ remove this
provision.  (Commenter 1)

The Department believes it is appropriate to keep this provision in the
rule to allow for licensing flexibility.  Keeping this section in the
regulation does not conflict with federal rules, but states that
projects are approvable to the extent allowed under the Clean Air Act.

Section 4(C): HAP Emission Limitations has been moved from Chapter 140
to Chapter 115 so that Maine is able to issue a Section 112(g)
case-by-case MACT determination to a new or reconstructed major HAP
source where EPA has not specifically regulated or exempted such a
source under a standard issued pursuant to Section 112.  Under 40 CFR
Part 63 Subpart B, EPA has set forth requirements for Section 112(g)
case-by-case MACT determinations.  Although Maine moved some of the
principles of the MACT determination requirements to Chapter 115, it did
not include provision 6(D)(2)(c)(i) from Chapter 140 which is required
by EPA under Section 63.43(d)(2).  This provision should be added to
Chapter 115.  However, Maine should also leave this requirement in
Chapter 140 for any case-by-case MACT determinations required under
Section 112(j) of the Act.

In addition, although this section was added to Chapter 115, many of the
implementing requirements for case-by-case MACT determinations were left
in Chapter 140.  Chapter 115 should either include these requirements or
reference them in Chapter 140.  For example, Chapter 140 Sections
6(A)(2)(b) and 6(A)(3) set forth the applicability and exemption
requirements for Section 112(g) case-by-case MACT determinations.  In
addition, Chapter 140 includes Section D. Required Application
Information, Section E. License Content Information, Section F. Criteria
for Approval and Section G. Draft Notification requirements.  These are
required by Part 63 Subpart B, including the requirement for a public
notice period in Section 63.43(h).  (Commenter 1)

The Department agrees that some of the requirements were not moved from
Chapter 140 to Chapter 115.  To correct this inconsistency the
Department has included “and Chapter 140” to Section 6(B)(3) in
Chapter 140 in order to include those requirements.

13.	Section 4(C)(1) is confusing.  Does the Department intend that new
or reconstructed Part 70 HAP sources conduct a case-by-case top-down
MACT analysis even where applicable new source MACT standards have been
identified by EPA when the agency developed an applicable MACT standard
in Part 63?  Only if EPA did not address new or reconstructed sources in
the development of a MACT standard should the individual source be
required to conduct a case-by case MACT analysis.  (Commenter 2)

To clarify this section, the Department added the following language at
the beginning of Section 4(C)(1):  “For sources or units not covered
by an applicable MACT standard in Part 63 the HAP emission
limitations……”.

Section 4(B)(8) identifies the draft license notification requirements
for minor modifications to existing Part 70 sources, and states that the
draft notification requirements are described in subsection 2(K). 
However, minor modifications to Part 70 sources are not listed. 
Therefore, if it is the Air Bureau’s intent to impose this
subsection’s requirements on minor modifications to Part 70 sources
M&D suggest that this licensing action be added to the list in
subsection 2(K).  (Commenter 3)

Draft license notification for minor modifications is not required under
New Source Review (NSR).  The Department deleted Section 4(B)(8) from
the proposed rule.

Section 4(B)(8) requires a Draft License Notification for Minor
Modifications at a Part 70 source.  Draft License Notification is not
currently required for Minor Modifications at a Part 70 source.  These
projects are already required to publish public notice prior to filing
an application.  We do not believe that it is justified to require a
second public notice for projects that by their definition are
“minor”.

There appears to be an inconsistency between Section 4(B)(8) of Chapter
115 and Section 2(K) of Chapter 115.  The latter indicates that the
Draft License Notification provisions apply only to major new sources
and major modifications.

The second public comment period is not necessary to meet EPA
requirements for the Part 70 license.  The intent of these revisions is
to incorporate preconstruction licenses issued under Chapter 115 into
Chapter 140 licenses through the administrative revision process which
should not require a second notice and public comment period. 
(Commenter 2)

See response to comment #14.

M&D supports the proposal to re-locate the licensing procedures for
minor modifications of Part 70 major sources from Chapter 140 to Chapter
115.  However, the public notice provisions would now include a
requirement to publish a notice of draft license availability in the
newspaper, and to send a copy of the draft license to the municipality. 
Since the procedures currently in Chapter 140 for minor modifications to
major sources do not include these draft license notification
requirements, M&D questions why these additional requirements are now
being imposed.  (Commenter 3)

See response to comment #14.

Section 5(H) addresses draft license notifications for Minor
Modifications.  Subsection H is out-of-place in Section 5 which
otherwise applies only to Minor Revisions.  Minor Modifications are
addressed in Section 4.  (Commenter 2)

The Department agrees there is an inconsistency in this section and has
deleted Section 5(H).  This issue of draft license notifications for
minor modifications is covered in Chapter 140.

The Summary indicates that, for major sources, Chapter 115 licenses will
not expire and will be incorporated into Chapter 140 licenses through
the Part 70 administrative revision process.  Presumably, whenever a
source seeks to amend provisions of a Chapter 140 license that
originated in a Chapter 115 NSR license, the source will need to amend
both the Chapter 115 and 140 licenses (because the Chapter 115 license
does not expire).  The process seems fairly straightforward if the
change triggers NSR.  However, the process is less clear if the change
does not trigger NSR but does involve a revision to an existing license
condition that was developed in a Chapter 115 NSR permit that has since
been incorporated into a Chapter 140 license.  For example, if a source
wants to change testing, monitoring or recordkeeping requirements in a
Chapter 140 license that have, as their origin, a Chapter 115 NSR
permit, should the source simply follow the appropriate requirements in
Chapter 140 for a Part 70 Administrative Revision, Part 70 Minor
Modification or Part 70 Significant Modification, as appropriate?  Or,
will this change be required to be first permitted under Chapter 115 and
then incorporated into the Chapter 140 license?  (Commenter 2)

The commenter is correct.  There is no standard protocol for these
cases.  If the Chapter 140 requirement exists in both a Chapter 115 and
140 license, then the Chapter 115 license would need to be amended
either before or at the same time as the Chapter 140 license.  Thus,
Chapter 115 licenses involving NSR should be written in a flexible
manner that would only require a change to the Chapter 140 license.  The
sources and the Department will need to be aware of this issue and deal
with each case accordingly.

The introductory paragraph of Appendix C is confusing.  Presumably, the
Department intends that if a particular unit does not qualify as a
categorically exempt insignificant activity under Section A, or an
insignificant activity based on size or production rate under
subsections 2 through 25 of Section B, then the unit may still qualify
as an insignificant activity if it has the potential to emit less than
the thresholds in subsection 1 of Section B.  One of the requirements in
Section B(1) is that the unit have the potential to emit less than 1 ton
per year of total HAPs.  The introductory paragraph to Section C also
states that “in order for an individual emission unit or activity to
be insignificant, the potential to emit is less than 1 ton per year of
total HAP.”  However, it appears that an individual unit must also
have potential HAP emissions less than the levels specified in the
table.  The effect of striking the phrase “at a rate greater than 20%
of the threshold value” in the opening paragraph is unclear.  Does
this mean that all individual emission units, regardless of the level of
HAP emissions, must be included in the application if the total facility
emits over the “total facility” threshold?  Or, is it unnecessary to
include individual units that are below the 20% threshold in the Table? 
(Commenter 2)

The Department agrees the introductory paragraph of Section C of
Appendix B is unclear and has replaced it with the following language: 
A unit under Chapter 115 and 140, Appendix B Section A 34 and 99 and
Chapter 115 and 140, Appendix B Section B(1)(d) would be considered
insignificant under the following thresholds.  In addition, the “unit
20% of facility (lb/yr)” column in the table has been deleted.

The Department has also clarified insignificant activities at the
beginning of Appendix B.

Chapter 140 Part 70 Air Emissions License Regulation

Section 1(D)(3)(c): This exemption must be removed from the list of
exempted sources.  Title V does not allow an exemption from licensing
based on the concept of a pollution control project.  (Commenter 1)

The Department agrees and has deleted this section.

Section 1(D)(3)(d): This exemption is not always true.  Regardless of
any restrictions on emissions a source may have in a Chapter 115
license, any source that has received a major new source review license
from Maine’s SIP approved program must have a Title V license.  In
addition, EPA has a policy that sources defined as major after the
compliance date of a MACT standard will not be allowed to restrict
emissions to avoid Title V applicability.  Maine should remove this
section from its rule or clarify the fact that emission restrictions in
a Chapter 115 license do not always remove a source from Chapter 140. 
(Commenter 1)

The Department has clarified this section by adding “as allowed by 40
CFR Part 70” to the end of this section.

Section 2(B)(2): Although outdated, EPA still uses the SIC codes in the
definition of a source for NSR and Title V purposes.  Until EPA changes
its underlying requirements, Maine must continue using the SIC codes and
not the NAICS codes in Chapter 140.  (Commenter 1)

The Department has decided to keep the SIC reference along with the
NAICS codes as the Department makes the transition from SIC to NAICS
codes.

Section 2D(1)(H): A new Subsection H has been added to public notice
content requirements and would require that public notice of intent to
file include a statement providing the location, date and time of the
public meeting that will be held if requested.  This public notice of
intent to file applies to renewals of Part 70 licenses, issuance of
initial Part 70 licenses and Part 70 license transfers.  Requiring the
applicant to make additional arrangements to hold a public meeting if
one is requested both when the application is filed and, then again,
when the draft license is available, as would be the case for initial
Part 70 license and renewals, would be overkill.  This is particularly
true in the case of an initial Part 70 license where, in most cases, the
reason for a new Part 70 license is to authorize construction of a new
major source.  In such a case, that new major source will have already
provided a total of four public notices and two opportunities to request
hearings and two comment periods as part of its Chapter 115 NSR process.
 (Commenter 2)

The Department agrees with the commenter and has deleted Section
2(D)(1)(h).

Section 2(J): Subsection 2 requires notices to the Department and EPA in
writing when making an off-license change.  We do not believe that it is
necessary for a facility to notify the Department and EPA in writing
when making an off-license change (e.g., defined as a change at a Part
70 source for which the applicant has already received written DEP
approval or a modification of an insignificant activity that is still
insignificant after the modification).  If these changes are either
already approved by the Department or are insignificant activities, it
seems unnecessary to require additional written notice to DEP and EPA. 
(Commenter 2)

The Department agrees and has deleted the written notification
requirement from Section 2(J).

Section 2(J)(2)(c): Major NSR modifications are not allowed to be
processed as an off-permit.  This section must be removed since it is
inconsistent with Part 70's requirements of an off-permitting change. 
In addition, Section 2(J)(2)(c) allows NSR changes to be processed as
Administrative Amendments.  This is inconsistent with Part 70.  Part 70
allows NSR changes to be brought into the Title V license if the change
is subject solely to NSR requirements under Section 110 of the Act
(meaning the change is not also classified as a Section 111 or 112
modification) and the state’s approved NSR program meets the
requirements of 40 CFR Sections 70.6, 70.7 and 70.8.  Chapter 115 does
not meet these requirements.  (Commenter 1)

To address this comment, the Department replaced “administrative
revision of the Part 70 license within one year of the issuance of the
Chapter 115 license” with “an amendment of a Part 70 license within
one year of commencing operations as provided in 40 CFR Part 70.5”.

Section 2(K): The establishment of a cap on HAP emission in a Title V
license would require Maine to process the license change as a
significant license modification.  This would require the change to be
subject to public comment and opportunity for a public hearing. 
Therefore, remove the exemption of a HAP cap from this section. 
(Commenter 1)

The Department agrees and has deleted this language from Section 2(K).

Section 2(W): Whether the replacement of pollution control equipment can
qualify as a minor NSR change must be made on a case-by-case basis just
like any other physical change at a facility.  Maine must change this
section to simply require a Chapter 115 license and not a “minor
revision pursuant to Chapter 115.”  (Commenter 1)

The Department agrees and has replaced “minor revision pursuant to
Chapter 115” with “a license amendment pursuant to Chapter 115”.

Section 3(B)(2): An initial Part 70 license for new sources should be
due within one year of commencing operations as provided in 40 CFR Part
70.5, instead of within one year of issuance of the Chapter 115 license.
 A source may not commence construction within one year of the issuance
of a Chapter 115 license and is unlikely to have any operational
experience to know whether revisions may need to be made to the existing
license.  It would be beneficial to have this experience so that the
facility could include in its Part 70 application a request for any
necessary revisions to existing license conditions.  (Commenter 2)

The Department agrees and has included “within one year of commencing
operations as provided in 40 CFR Part 70.5”.

Section 3(C)(2): Please remove the requirement for sources to submit
applications directly to EPA.  EPA is committed to working with Maine to
revise the implementation agreement to address the submittal
applications information.  (Commenter 1)

The Department believes EPA should be informed of all renewals and
initial Title V applications submitted to DEP.  No change was made to
the rule.

Section 3(D)(2):  Maine should add clarifying language that a CAM plan,
if applicable, is required for a renewal application.  (Commenter 1)

The Department agrees and has included a compliance assurance monitoring
(CAM) plan requirement in Section 3(D)(2).

Section 3(E)(7)(b)(xii): Maine should consider adding the following
language:

“By January 31 and July 31 of each year, or on an equivalent schedule
specified in the license.”

Simply referring to a “schedule” is inadequate.  (Commenter 1)

The Department agrees and has included the suggested language.

Section 3(E)(7)(b)(xiii): EPA has changed the requirements in Part 70
(see 68 FR 38518) that dealt with compliance certifications since EPA
last approved Maine’s Title V program.  Therefore, Maine needs to
change this section of Chapter 140 to be consistent with 40 CFR
70.6(c)(5)(iii).  For example, Chapter 140, section 3(E)(7)(b)(xiii)(d)
does not require the source to base its compliance determinations on the
compliance requirements contained in the source’s Title V license. 
Basing compliance certifications on at least the methods required by a
license is crucial to an adequate compliance certification.  See 40 CFR
70.6(c)(5)(iii)(B).  (Commenter 1)

The Department agrees and has clarified that the compliance
certification is based on compliance methods contained in the source’s
license.

Section 6(D)(2)(c): This section defines MACT requirements for HAP
sources.  The DEP should clarify that a source meets the HAP emission
limitation if it proposes the HAP emission limits established in an
applicable MACT standard for the source and that a case-by-case MACT
emission limitation assessment is necessary only where EPA has not
determined a MACT standard for an applicable source.  (Commenter 2)

Section 6(D)(2)(c) by itself could be confusing, but the Department
believes Section 6(D)(2) in its entirety addresses the commenter’s
concerns.   No change to the rule.

Section 7(A)(5): Maine should note that the state will be unable to use
this provision until EPA approves a version of Chapter 115 that contains
the necessary requirements of 40 CFR 70.6, 70.7 and 70.8.  (Commenter 1)

In response to this comment, the Department has deleted Section 7(A)(5).

Section 7(A)(6): Please remove this requirement since this requirement
gives EPA the authority which we already have to approve other changes
for qualifying as Administrative Amendments.  It does not appear that
Maine is proposing additions to the items qualifying as Administrative
Amendments at this time.  EPA would be willing to work with Maine at any
time they may decide to expand the types of changes that could be
processed as Administrative Amendments.  (Commenter 1)

The Department prefers to include this section to clarify to the
applicant and the public what is included in the administrative
requirements.  As a clarification, the Department has changed
“administrative permit amendment” to “administrative license
amendment” in Section 7(A).

Section 9: This section defines the requirements for Part 70 Minor
Modifications.  Subsection A, the Applicability section, should make it
clear that changes previously licensed under NSR provisions of Chapter
115 are not considered Part 70 Minor Modifications or Part 70
Significant Modifications.  (Commenter 2)

NSR licenses may or may not be considered Part 70 Minor Modifications or
Part 70 Significant Modifications according to EPA depending on what the
NSR change involves and how it is processed.

Section 10(G)(2): Since the start of EPA’s 45 day review period starts
when EPA receives a copy of the proposed license, Maine must remove the
following underlined text:

“The 45 day comment period shall begin on the date the affected states
or EPA receives a copy.”  (Commenter 1)

The Department agrees and has made that change.

Page 80, Appendix B: Insignificant activities subject to an applicable
requirement cannot be exempted from a Title V license.  However, these
activities can be grouped together in a license.  Please remove the
language under Insignificant Activities “may not be included in the
Chapter 140 license.”  (Commenter 1)

Upon discussions with the commenter for clarification of the comment,
the commenter has decided no response by the Department is needed.

The proposed Chapter 115 would require new major sources, and
modifications that cause a minor source to become a major source, to
apply for their initial Part 70 license within one year after the
issuance of the Chapter 115 new source review license.  However,
provisions for filing initial Part 70 licenses are already contained in
Appendix C to Chapter 140.  Section 1(A) of Appendix C states that
sources must file their initial Part 70 license application within one
year after startup of the new source or modification.  Therefore, to
avoid confusion as to which regulatory provision applies, M&D recommends
amending Appendix C of Chapter 140 by deleting Section 1(A).  (Commenter
3)

The Department does not believe this issue is present in Chapter 115. 
However, this inconsistency has been corrected in Chapter 140.  See
comment #28.

 PAGE   

 PAGE   1 

