Mr. Mike Vince 

Supervisor 

Permit Section 

MAR 3 2003 

Office of Air Quality and Radiation 

Protection 

Louisiana Department of 

Environmental Quality 

P.O. Box 82135 

Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2135 

RE: 1993 State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal to 

Incorporate Revisions to Louisiana Administrative 

Code 33:III Chapter 5 Section 5.31(a) - Public Notice for 

Minor Sources 

Dear Mr. Vince: 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 6 received 

a SIP submittal in 1993 which included revisions to LAC 33:III 

Chapter 5 Section 531(a) - Public Notice. After evaluating this 

submittal, we have determined that section 531(a) is not 

consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 51.161 of 

the Federal rules. 

40 CFR 51.16l(a) requires opportunity for public comment 

and applies to all proposed decisions concerning new and modified 

sources. More important, the rule does not distinguish between 

major and minor sources. 

As currently written, Louisiana's rule states: 

531(A} Public Notice 

1. At the discretion of the permitting authority, 

public notice may be provided prior to issuance of any 

new or revised permit under this Chapter. 

This discretionary language does not conform to the Federal 

regulations as Section 51.161 clearly mandates that legally 

onFf"'lr("'o~hlP nrn~Poures must also require the State or local 
Agency to provide for public comment. Thus, the current language 

in 531(A)is not approvable under 40 CFR 51.161 as it allows the 

permitting agency discretion whether to provide for public 

notice. 

In a letter to Mr. Allyn Davis, dated December 12, 1996, 

Mr. Gus Von Bodungen (1996 letter) explained the State's 

rationale for not wanting to make changes to its rules. The 

letter discussed several proposed changes to the Federal rules, 

and addressed the question of adequate opportunity for public 

participation, in 40 CFR parts 51 and 70 pursuant to EPA's rule 

proposals in the Federal Register on August 31, 1995. The 1996 

letter urged that these proposed changes should give States 

broader discretion in determining both the coverage and public 

notice requirements for minor New Source Review. While we 

recognize the issues raised in the 1996 letter, the State's rules 

simply do not meet the requirements of the Federal rules as they 

currently exist nor as proposed in 1995. 

Further~ the above-referenced rule changes were proposed 

over seven years ago and have never been finalized, and there is 

no indication from EPA Headquarters that they will ever go final .. EPA Region 6 believes that we should go forward with processing 

the SIP submittal. 

We recommend the State to agree to make changes to its rules 

to meet the current Federal requirements. The EPA could then go 

forward with a conditional approval of the SIP. If EPA decided 

to finalize the 1995 rule proposals, the State would be free to 

make any additional changes at that time. 

I trust this answers the questions posed in your 

December 12, 1996, letter. If you have any further questions, 

please call Mr. Reverdie Daron Page of my staff at 

(214) 655-7222. 

bee: 6PD-R Staff 

Sincerely yours, 

Carl E. Edlund, P.E. 

Director 

Multimedia Planning and 

Permitting Division