July 10, 1995


MEMORANDUM


SUBJECT:	 White Paper for Streamlined Development of Part 70


Permit Applications


FROM:	 Lydia N. Wegman, Deputy Director /s/


Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (MD-10)


TO: Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 


Management Division, Regions I and IV


Director, Air and Waste Management Division,


Region II


Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division,


Region III


Director, Air and Radiation Division,


Region V


Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division,


Region VI


Director, Air and Toxics Division, 


Regions VII, VIII, IX, and X


Please find attached a White Paper on Part 70 permit


applications. The paper is designed to streamline and simplify


the development of part 70 permit applications. The guidance was


developed to respond to the concerns of industry and permitting


authorities that preparation of initial permit applications was


proving more costly and burdensome than necessary to achieve the


goals of the Title V permit program. 


The White Paper provides several streamlining improvements. 


Among them, it allows industry to: 


- Provide emissions descriptions, and not emissions


estimates, for emissions not regulated at the source,


unless such estimates are needed for other purposes


such as calculating permit fees;


- Submit checklists, rather than emission descriptions,


for insignificant activities based on size/production


rate and for risk management plans potentially owed

2


under section 112(r);


- Provide citations for applicable requirements, with


qualitative descriptions for each emissions unit, and


for prior new source review (NSR) permits;


- Exclude certain trivial and short-term activities from


permit applications;


- Provide group treatment for activities subject to


certain generally-applicable requirements;


- Certify compliance status without requiring re-


consideration of previous applicability decisions; 


- Use the Part 70 permit process to identify


environmentally significant terms of NSR permits, which


should be incorporated into the part 70 permit as


federally-enforceable terms; and


- Submit tons per year estimates only where meaningful to


do so and not, for example, for section 112(r)-only


pollutants; such estimates should be based on


generally-available information rather than new studies


or testing.


There is an immediate need for the implementation of this


guidance. Increasing numbers of sources are becoming subject to


the requirement to file a complete part 70 application as more


State part 70 programs are approved. I strongly encourage you to


work with your States to effect near-term use of the White Paper


guidance to streamline the application process.


I want to thank you and your staff for your support in


developing this guidance and invite your suggestions on what


additional guidance is needed to improve further the initial


implementation of title V. If you should have any questions


regarding the attached guidance, please contact Michael Trutna at


(919) 541-5345 or Jeff Herring at (919) 541-3195.


Attachment


cc:	 M. Trutna (MD-12)


J. Herring (MD-12)


A. Eckert (2344)


J. Domike (2242A)


A. Schwartz (2344)

WHITE PAPER FOR


STREAMLINED DEVELOPMENT OF PART 70 PERMIT APPLICATIONS


U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY


OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND STANDARDS


July 10, 1995

4


Contacts: Michael Trutna (919) 541-5345


Jeff Herring (919) 541-3195

EPA WHITE PAPER FOR


STREAMLINED DEVELOPMENT OF PART 70 PERMIT APPLICATIONS


July 10, 1995


I. INTRODUCTION


The EPA is issuing this guidance to enable States to take


immediate steps to reduce the costs of preparing and reviewing


initial part 70 permit applications. A perceived lack of clarity


in these requirements has led to an unintended escalation in


permit application costs. Too often, sources have felt compelled


to make conservative assumptions to assure themselves of


receiving the "application shield" and avoiding enforcement


actions.


Title V of the Clean Air Act (the Act) and its implementing


regulations in part 70 set forth minimum requirements for State


operating permit programs. In general, this program was not


intended by Congress to be the source of new substantive


requirements. Rather, operating permits required by title V are


meant to accomplish the largely procedural task of identifying


and recording existing substantive requirements applicable to


regulated sources and to assure compliance with these existing


requirements. Accordingly, operating permits and their


accompanying applications should be vehicles for defining


existing compliance obligations rather than for imposing new


requirements or accomplishing other objectives.


There is an immediate need for this guidance. Most States


and those local air pollution control agencies participating in


the program (hereinafter referred to as "States") are expected to


receive approval by the fall of 1995 of their part 70 operating


permit programs to implement title V of the Act. As a result,


most sources are in the process of preparing their initial


applications, a number of sources have already submitted their


initial applications, and a few part 70 permits have already been


issued. As programs start to be implemented, concerns are being


raised by States and sources as to the expectations for complete


permit applications and permit content, the intended scope of the


program, and the respective responsibilities of sources,


permitting authorities, and the Environmental Protection Agency


(EPA) in making implementation decisions in accomplishing permit


issuance.


The EPA recognizes that the burden for filing a complete


application may vary significantly among States as does the


nature of their applicable requirements, status of source

2


compliance, air quality conditions, the type of permit fee


schedule, and the size and complexity of their industry. 


However, EPA believes that the mentioned problems, if


unaddressed, would threaten implementation of the title V


program, and thus warrant a timely response. The clarifications


contained in this policy statement are made under the current


part 70 regulations and should typically not require State


rulemaking. The EPA strongly urges States to allow sources to


take near term advantage of the flexibility provided by this


paper, particularly during the initial implementation phase of


the program. It is imperative that the provisions and


clarifications of this paper are implemented by States as quickly


as possible. Most States need not wait for EPA approval before


implementing this guidance, however they are encouraged to


consult with the appropriate EPA Regional Office as they adjust


implementation of their programs.


Section II of this paper articulates how part 70 allows


permitting authorities considerable flexibility to make decisions


regarding the completeness of applications and their adequacy to


support initial permit issuance. This guidance makes clear that


the part 70 rules do not impose unreasonable permit application


preparation burdens. In particular, it accomplishes application


streamlining by enabling and encouraging the use of:


- Tons per year (tpy) estimates for emissions units and


pollutant combinations subject to applicable


requirements, and only where meaningful to do so (e.g.,


not for section 112(r)-only pollutants); such estimates


can be based on generally-available information rather


than new studies or testing;


- Emissions descriptions, not estimates, for emissions


not regulated at the source (unless needed for permit


fee calculation, for purposes of establishing a permit


shield or a plantwide applicability limit (PAL), or for


resolution of applicable requirement coverage or major


source status);


- Checklists rather than emission descriptions for


insignificant activities based on size/production rate


and risk management plans potentially owed under


section 112(r);


-
 Exclusions for certain trivial and short-term


activities from permit applications (see Attachment A);


- Group treatment for activities subject to certain


generally-applicable requirements;

3


- Part 70 permit process to reconcile which terms of


existing new source review (NSR) permits should be


incorporated into the part 70 permit as federally-


enforceable terms;


- Citations for applicable requirements with qualitative


descriptions for each emissions unit, and for prior NSR


permits as they may be revised; and


- Certifications of compliance status which do not


require re-evaluation of previous applicability


decisions.


This paper affirms EPA's strong commitment to successful


program implementation. It is the first in a series of policy


statements intended to alleviate known implementation concerns


within the framework of the existing part 70 regulations. At the


same time, the Agency is developing rulemaking which will afford


a new streamlined approach to part 70 permit revisions and


provide other relief not possible under the current rule. The


policies set out in this paper are intended solely as guidance,


do not represent final Agency action, and cannot be relied upon


to create any rights enforceable by any party.


II. STREAMLINED DEVELOPMENT OF COMPLETE Part 70 APPLICATIONS


A. Current Requirements for Complete Applications (§ 70.5)


Within 12 months of the effective date of a part 70 program,


all sources subject to the program must submit complete permit


applications. The State may establish, and many have


established, a phased schedule for application submittals.


Section 70.5(c)(3) requires a permit application to describe


all emissions of pollutants for which a source is major and all


emissions of regulated air pollutants. It also authorizes the


permitting authority to obtain additional information as needed


to verify which requirements are applicable to the source. 


Applications are also sometimes relied upon to evaluate the fee


amount required under the approved permit fee schedule. 


Emissions information for these purposes does not always need to


be detailed or precise. Information for applicability purposes


need only be detailed enough to resolve any open questions about


which requirements apply. Information for fee purposes only has


to be consistent with what is required in applications by the


permitting authority to implement its fee schedule. No


information is needed when this activity is done outside the


part 70 permit application process. Finally, in cases where the


applicable requirement will be established or defined in the

4


part 70 permit (e.g., PAL), the part 70 permit application must


contain additional information as needed to verify emissions


levels and the basis for measuring changes from them.


Section 70.5(c) further requires the application to contain


a compliance plan describing the compliance status of the source


with respect to all applicable requirements. For sources that


will not be in compliance at the time of permit issuance, the


application must contain a narrative description of how the


source will achieve compliance and a detailed schedule of


remedial measures leading to compliance. If the source is in


compliance, the application need only contain a statement that


the source will continue to comply. For applicable requirements


that will take effect during the permit term, the compliance plan


may be a statement that the source will meet them. Each


application must also include a certification of the source's


compliance status with respect to each applicable requirement and


a statement of the methods used for determining compliance. 


Finally, the responsible official must also certify that the


application form and the compliance certification are true,


accurate, and complete based on information and belief formed


after reasonable inquiry.


Each part 70 program must contain criteria and streamlined


procedures for determining when permit applications are complete. 


Applications for an initial part 70 permit may be considered


complete if they have information sufficient to allow the


permitting authority to begin processing the application. Unless


the permitting authority determines that an application is not


complete within 60 days, it will be considered complete by


default. If the source submits a timely and complete application


the source is shielded against penalties for operating without a


permit until its part 70 permit is issued (i.e., the source is


granted the "application shield").


Even after applications have been initially determined to be


complete, the source must submit any additional information


requested by the permitting authority to determine, or evaluate


compliance with applicable requirements, within the reasonable


timeframe allowed by the permitting authority, to maintain the


effect of the application shield. In addition, until release of


the draft permit, sources have an on-going responsibility to


correct information or submit supplemental information needed to


prepare the permit. The timeframe for updates will depend on the


permitting authority's schedule for performing the technical


review for a given application. The application shield once


granted remains in effect until permit issuance even where the


source augments its original application submittal in response to


requests for more information by the permitting authority.

5


As mentioned, considerable confusion exists as to what


constitutes a complete application under the requirements of part


70. Due to the significant new penalties for knowing violations


and the extremely visible forum for processing permit


applications, in the absence of clear guidance many sources have


made or are making very conservative assumptions regarding their


obligations. For example, many in the regulated community feel


that a part 70 application can be complete only if it


exhaustively catalogues every past and present emitting activity


with great precision. Others fear that an application can never


be complete since many Act requirements are still evolving,


confusion exists as to which requirements are applicable to the


source (e.g., what constitutes the State Implementation Plan


(SIP)), or no monitoring data exists upon which to base the


initial certification of compliance. Other concerns have been


raised regarding the choice of emissions estimation techniques


and the amount of information needed to support decisions of


applicability or exemption, especially those involving the


appropriate NSR for previous construction activities.


There is also a general apprehension that EPA will second


guess any or all of these judgments during its review period and


thereby impede the permit issuance process. Others are concerned


that even if complete applications could be filed, they soon


would grow obsolete and require updates before a draft permit


could be prepared. In addition, there are concerns that EPA will


issue guidance in the future which would establish extensive new


requirements concerning the content of a complete application. 


As a result, worst-case assumptions for various determinations


are being made effecting a level of rigidity and rigor as well as


cost unintended by the current regulations.


This guidance is intended to correct these


misunderstandings. It is intended to give States and sources


direction on how States can reduce these burdens while achieving


the requirements of title V. As previously stated, EPA believes


that these streamlining ideas can and should be implemented under


the current part 70 rule for most States. To the extent State


forms reflect the current confusion, the Agency wishes to clarify


the issues sufficiently for States to revise the portion of their


forms implementing title V to be consistent with this guidance.


B. Content of Part 70 Permit Applications


1. Overview


This section describes the level of information which must


be contained in a part 70 permit application for it to be


considered complete. This guidance clarifies the minimum

6


requirements under the Federal regulations for acceptable part 70


permit applications. It grants a substantial degree of


discretion to State permitting agencies. The EPA recognizes that


different States may adopt different approaches to these minimum


requirements depending on their local needs and circumstances,


and that others may elect to go beyond those minimum


requirements. However, at least in the initial program phase,


EPA urges States to keep part 70 application requirements to the


minimum needed to identify applicable requirements. In many


instances, a qualitative description of emissions, or sometimes


no description at all, will satisfy this standard.


This section specifically clarifies that there are different


expectations for information from emissions units depending on


whether and how applicable requirements apply. In addition, this


section provides several policy clarifications aimed at lowering


current application burdens associated with addressing


insignificant activities, generic grouping of emissions units and


activities, short-term activities, incorporation of current NSR


permit conditions, section 112(r) requirements, and Research and


Development (R&D) activities.


2. Required Emissions Information And Source Descriptions


Applications should contain information to the extent needed


to determine major source status, to verify the applicability of


part 70 or applicable requirements, to verify compliance with


applicable requirements, and to compute a permit fee (as


necessary). Section 70.5(c) requires the application to describe


emissions of all regulated air pollutants for each emissions


unit. This would require at least a qualitative description of


all significant1 emissions units, including those not regulated


by applicable requirements.


While part 70 does not require detailed emissions inventory


building, it does require limited emissions-related information


for each pollutant and emissions unit combination which is


regulated at the source. Section 70.5(c)(3)(iii) requires for


such units emissions rate descriptions in tpy and in such terms


as are necessary to establish compliance consistent with the


applicable standard reference test method. The EPA interprets


the tpy estimates to not be required at all where they would


1

The term "significant" as used in this policy statement


does not have the meaning as used in § 52.21 (e.g., 15 tpy PM-10,


40 tpy VOC) but rather means that the emissions unit does not


qualify for treatment in the application as an insignificant


emissions unit.

7


serve no useful purpose, where a quantifiable emissions rate is


not applicable (e.g., section 112(r) requirements or a work


practice standard), or where emissions units are subject to a


generic requirement (see Section 4. Generic Grouping of


Emissions Units and Activities).


On the other hand, more emissions information would


presumptively be required to verify emissions levels and


monitoring approaches where PALs or other plantwide emissions


limits would be established or defined in part 70 permits. 


Another situation where additional emissions information might be


needed is where the permitting authority would be granting the


shield relative to a decision of non-applicability where a source


is claiming an exemption based on an emissions level cutoff in a


standard that has been issued for the category to which the


emissions unit potentially belongs. In such cases additional


information to support a determination that a requirement is not


applicable may well be required. In addition, for the minority


of States that use the part 70 application to determine the first


year's permit fee, the application and its description of all


regulated air pollutants for presumptive fee calculation must


also be adequate for that purpose. Finally, additional emissions


information might also be necessary in some cases to resolve a


dispute over whether a particular requirement is applicable, or


whether a source is major for a particular pollutant (additional


information would not be necessary where a source would stipulate


to the applicablity of the requirement and/or its major status).


Wherever emissions estimates are needed (unless the source


independently decides to more accurately estimate emissions), use


of available information should suffice. Any information that is


sufficient to support a reasonable belief as to compliance or the


applicability or non-applicability of requirements will be


acceptable for these purposes. That could include AP-42 emission


factors, emissions factors in other EPA documents, or reasonable


engineering projections, as well as test data (see Section C. 


Quality of Required Information).


Any required tpy estimates are not to be included as


federally-enforceable part 70 permit terms, unless otherwise


required by an applicable requirement or requested by the source


to avoid one. In addition, where tpy descriptions are needed,


EPA does not believe that part 70 requires multiple forms of


emissions estimates (i.e., actual allowable, and potential


emissions). Also, where an emissions estimate is needed for


part 70 purposes but is otherwise available (e.g., recent


submittal of emissions inventory), then the permitting authority


can allow the source to cross-reference this information for


part 70 purposes.

8


Even if tpy estimates are not necessary, part 70


applications must describe all significant emissions units,


including any which are not subject to any applicable requirement


at any given emissions unit. Such unregulated emissions can


include hazardous air pollutants (HAP) listed under section


112(b) of the Act and criteria pollutants that are unregulated


for a particular emissions unit. A general description of


emissions (i.e., simple identification of the significant


pollutant or family of pollutants believed to be emitted by the


emissions unit) should suffice. For part 70 purposes, the


descriptions of emissions units themselves also can be quite


general (i.e., descriptions need not contain information such as


UTM coordinates or model and serial numbers for equipment, unless


such information is needed to determine the applicability of, or


to implement, an applicable requirement). Negative declarations


are not required for pollutants that are not emitted by the


emissions unit.


Some examples may help to illustrate where only source


descriptions of regulated and unregulated emissions are necessary


for title V purposes:


- An application for a de-greaser subject to a


requirement to have a certain type of lid could


describe the relevant applicable requirement and simply


identify that it emits volatile organic compounds (VOC)


and falls within the scope of the regulation. 


Quantification of the VOC emissions would not be


necessary since the level of emissions is not relevant


to the standard.


- An application for a storage tank subject to a


requirement to have a certain type of seal, in addition


to describing this requirement, would only need to


generally identify the types of pollutants emitted,


such as VOC and HAP generally.


- An application for a boiler that is grandfathered under


the SIP could just identify that PM, SO2, NOx, VOC,


lead, and HAP are emitted and that no applicable


requirement is relevant.


3. Insignificant Activities


Section 70.5(c) allows the Administrator to approve as part


of a State program a list of insignificant activities which need


not be included in permit applications. For activities on the


list, applicants may exclude from part 70 permit applications


information that is not needed to determine (1) which applicable

9


requirements apply, (2) whether the source is in compliance with


applicable requirements, or (3) whether the source is major. If


insignificant activities are excluded because they fall below a


certain size or production rate, the application must describe


any such activities at the source which are included on the list. 


Even for such insignificant activities, the process for listing


them in the application can be fairly simple. The permitting


authority could allow the source merely to list in the


application the kinds of insignificant activities that are


present at the source or check them off from a list of


insignificant activities approved in the program.


In addition to the insignificant activity provisions of


§ 70.5(c), there is flexibility inherent in § 70.5 to tailor the


level of information required in the application to be


commensurate with the need to determine applicable requirements. 


The EPA believes this inherent flexibility encompasses the idea


that certain activities are clearly trivial (i.e., emissions


units and activities without specific applicable requirements and


with extremely small emissions) and can be omitted from the


application even if they are not included on a list of


insignificant activities approved in a State's part 70 program


pursuant to § 70.5(c). Attachment A lists examples of activities


which EPA believes should normally qualify as trivial in this


sense. This list is intended only as a starting point for States


to consider. The determination of whether any particular item


should be on the State's trivial list may depend on State-


specific factors (e.g., whether the activity is subject to the


requirements of the SIP). Permitting authorities can also allow,


on a case-by-case basis without EPA approval, exemptions similar


to those activities identified in Attachment A. Additional


exemptions, to the extent that the activities they cover are not


clearly trivial, still need to be approved by EPA before being


added to State lists of insignificant activities.


4. Generic Grouping of Emissions Units and Activities


Questions have arisen regarding whether emissions units and


activities may be treated generically in the application and


permit for certain broadly applicable requirements often found in


the SIP. Examples of such requirements brought to EPA's


attention include requirements that apply identically to all


emissions units at a facility (e.g., source-wide opacity limits),


general housekeeping requirements, and requirements that apply


identical emissions limits to small units (e.g., process weight


requirements). These requirements are sometimes referred to as


"generic," because they apply and are enforced in the same manner


for all subject units or activities.

10


These requirements can normally be adequately addressed in


the permit application with minimal or no reference to any


specific emissions unit or activity, provided that the scope of


the requirement and the manner of its enforcement are clear. 


Even where such generic requirements attach to individual small


emissions units or activities, requiring a unit-by-unit or


activity-by-activity description of numerous units or activities


would generally impose a paperwork burden that would not be


compensated by any gain in the practical enforceability of such


relatively simple requirements. Therefore, provided the


applicant documents the applicability of these requirements and


describes the compliance status as required by § 70.5(c), the


individual emissions units or activities may be excluded from the


application, provided no other requirement applies which would


mandate a different result. Similarly, the part 70 permit which


must assure compliance with the generic applicable requirement


would be written without specificity to applicable emissions


units or activities.


In EPA's view, the validity of this approach stems from the


nature of these applicable requirements. Accordingly, EPA


believes application of this principle for grouping subject


activities together generically should not depend on whether


those activities qualify as trivial or insignificant. Where the


applicable requirement is amenable to this approach, that is,


where (1) the class of activities or emissions units subject to


the requirement can be unambiguously defined in a generic manner


and where (2) effective enforceability of that requirement does


not require a specific listing of subject units or activities,


permitting authorities may follow this approach regardless of


whether subject activities have been listed as trivial or


insignificant.


A lengthy list of the types of requirements suitable for


this treatment is not possible here because, among other reasons,


the examples of which EPA is aware are SIP requirements, and so


vary from State to State. Permitting authorities are in the best


position to decide which SIP requirements can be treated in this


generic fashion. However, permitting authorities may wish to


consult with the EPA Regional office in advance to clarify any


uncertainties.


5. Short-term Activities


States can treat many short-term activities (e.g.,


activities occurring infrequently and for a short duration at a


part 70 source) subject to an applicable requirement in the same


fashion as activities subject to a generic requirement (see


previous discussion). Since these activities are not present at

11


the source during preparation of the permit, the most that can be


expected is generic treatment in the application. For such


activities, the application and permit would not include


emissions unit specificity but instead would contain a general


duty to meet all applicable requirements that would apply to any


qualifying short-term activity. Short-term activities which are


not subject to an applicable requirement should be classified as


insignificant activities or would qualify as trivial, and so


would not be included in either the part 70 application or


permit.


For example, a contractor-run sandblasting operation that is


subject to a SIP limit for particulate matter might be operated


on an infrequent but recurring basis might qualify for the


general duty approach. However, where such activities re-occur


with considerable frequency, the permitting authority could


require them to be included in the permit. The source would also


be obligated to revise the permit if operation of any short-term


activity would be in conflict with the permit. If short-term


construction activities occur, the part 70 permit application


would need to address them only if they are subject to the


State's NSR program or are otherwise in conflict with the


envisioned part 70 permit.


6. Determination of Applicable SIP Requirements


One of the undisputed challenges facing both State and the


regulated community in their efforts to develop complete


applications is the determination of the applicable SIP


requirements for a part 70 source. In some situations, it may be


difficult to identify all the requirements in the SIP which are


applicable to a particular source. Applicants, after


consultation with the permitting authority, should include in


permit applications the State rules which, to the best of their


knowledge, are in the SIP. A good faith estimate will be enough


to support both a valid compliance certification and a


"completeness" determination. Review by the permitting


authority, EPA, and the public may provide additional insight


into whether any other applicable requirements exist. Any


additions should not affect the validity of the original permit


application and its eligibility for the application shield or of


the accompanying compliance certification. However, the source


would have to update its certification to account for any


subsequently identified SIP requirements. 


At least one State has developed a checklist of its air


rules and required the applicant to check off which ones apply


and select appropriate codes for rationalizing which ones do not


apply. This type of approach should aid the source in providing

12


in the part 70 application its understanding of what applicable


requirements apply. Sources in such a State may rely on the


checklist. The EPA has also provided a contractor to document


the approved SIP for each State. Where an EPA compilation


exists, sources may rely on it as well. This process is well


underway for most States and permitting authorities and, in many


cases, EPA Regional Offices can provide the rule citation of the


State rules that have been approved as part of the SIP.


Where a State has adopted a rule that is pending approval by


EPA into the SIP, sources (if advised by the permitting


authority) could in their applications note that the


corresponding State-only requirements will become federally


enforceable upon SIP approval. The permitting authority during


review of the application would be responsible for determining if


the SIP had been approved. If so, then the permitting authority


would incorporate the requirements into the federally-enforceable


portion of the permit. If the requirements had not been approved


into the SIP, the permitting authority could incorporate the


pending requirements into the State-only enforceable portion of


the permit and note that the requirements would become federally


enforceable upon SIP approval. The federally-enforceable portion


of the permit would include the existing SIP requirements and


condition them to expire upon EPA approval of the SIP revision. 


Once the SIP revision is approved, the pending permit terms would


become federally-enforceable and the permit terms based on the


superseded SIP rule would become void.


7. Incorporation of Prior NSR Permit Terms and Conditions


This paper provides guidance to States and sources in


devising a means to revise NSR permit terms as appropriate


(including classification as a State-only enforceable term) in


conjunction with the part 70 permit issuance process. As used


here, "new source review" refers to all forms of preconstruction


permitting under programs approved into the SIP, including minor


and major NSR (e.g., prevention of significant deterioration). 


Section 70.2 defines any term or condition of a NSR permit issued


under a Federal or SIP-approved NSR program as being an


applicable requirement. The Agency has concluded, however, that


only environmentally significant terms need to be included in


part 70 permits. The EPA recognizes that NSR permits contain


terms that are obsolete, extraneous, environmentally


insignificant, or otherwise not required as part of the SIP or a


federally-enforceable NSR program. Such terms, as subsequently


explained, need not be incorporated into the part 70 permit to


fulfill the purposes of the NSR and title V programs required


under the Act.

13


Minor NSR, in particular, is a program which the State has


discretion to mold as necessary to be consistent with the goals


of the SIP. Therefore, the permitting authority has very broad


discretion in determining the terms of minor NSR. This


discretion also exists to a much lesser extent in crafting major


NSR permits, since the Act and EPA regulations contain several


express requirements for review of major subject sources. Many


NSR permit terms written in the past for both minor and major


NSR, however, were understandably not written with a view toward


careful segregation of terms implementing the Act from State-only


requirements.


The EPA believes that the part 70 permit issuance process,


involving as it does review by the permitting authority, public,


and EPA, presents an excellent opportunity for the permitting


authority to make appropriate revisions to a NSR permit2


contemporaneously with the issuance of the part 70 permit. The


public participation procedures for issuance of a part 70 permit


satisfy any procedural requirements of Federal law associated


with any NSR permit revision. This parallel processing approach


is also an excellent opportunity to minimize the administrative


burden associated with such an exercise. By conducting a


simultaneous revision to the NSR permit, the permitting authority


would be revising the "applicable NSR requirement" for purposes


of determining what must be included in the part 70 permit.


There are several factors which bound the available


discretion of the permitting authority in deciding whether an


NSR permit term is necessary and must be incorporated into


the part 70 permit as a federally-enforceable condition. 


Certainly all NSR terms must be incorporated which are mandatory


under EPA's governing regulations (e.g., best available control


technology, lowest achievable emissions rate, and other


applicable NSR emission limits), or are not mandatory under EPA


regulations but are expressly required under the terms of the


State's NSR program (e.g., new source performance standards


(NSPS) and SIP emission limits, reporting and recordkeeping


requirements3

), or are voluntarily taken by the source to avoid


2

In many States, an NSR permit is subsequently converted to


an operating permit leaving the preconstruction permit void. In


other States, there is not a separate construction permit (i.e.,


single permit system). In either case the phrase "NSR permit"


means the current permit in which the NSR applicable requirements


reside.


3
This does not preclude the possibility that certain


federally-enforceable limits incorporated into the NSR permit may

14


an otherwise applicable requirement (e.g., emission limits used


to create a "synthetic minor" source, to "net out" of major NSR,


or to create tradeable offsets or other emission reduction


credits).


On the other hand, other NSR permit terms and conditions may


be patently obsolete and no longer relevant to the operation of


the source, such as terms regulating construction activity during


the building or modification of the source, where the


construction is long completed and the statute of limitations on


construction-phase activities has run out. These terms no longer


serve a Federal purpose and need not be included as terms of the


part 70 permit. Likewise, the State will also need to identify


provisions from NSR permits that are not required under Federal


law because they are unrelated to the purposes of the NSR


program. Examples typically include odor limitations, and


limitations on emissions of hazardous air pollutants where such


limitations do not reflect a section 112 standard or a SIP


criteria pollutant requirement. Where the State retains such


conditions, it would draft the part 70 permit to specify that


they are State-only conditions and incorporate them into the


part 70 permit as such.


New source review permits are also likely to contain other


terms that are not patently obsolete or irrelevant, but that the


source and permitting authority agree are nevertheless


extraneous, out-dated, or otherwise environmentally insignificant


and inappropriate for inclusion in a federally-enforceable


permit. Candidates for this exclusion include: (1) information


incorporated by reference from an application for a


preconstruction permit (to the extent this information is needed


to enforce NSR permit terms it should be converted to terms in


the part 70 permit), or (2) original terms of a preconstruction


permit that has been superseded by other terms related to


operation. The propriety of excluding other types of NSR permit


terms will need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.


The EPA believes that the above parallel processing approach


should be effective in most situations to incorporate the


federally significant NSR permit terms into the part 70 permit in


an efficient and workable way. However, the Agency recognizes


that sources and permitting authorities may experience serious


burden and timing concerns in accomplishing this process. 


Therefore, the Agency recommends the following approach, which


qualify for generic treatment in the application and the permit


as described in Section 4. Generic Grouping of Emissions Units


and Activities.

15


EPA believes is consistent with the current part 70 rule. Under


this approach, sources may in their part 70 permit applications,


propose candidate terms from their current NSR permits which they


reasonably believe should be considered for revision, deletion,


or designation as being enforceable only by the State. Upon


submittal of the application, the source would, as a Federal


matter, only need to certify compliance status for those


remaining NSR terms that it had earmarked for incorporation into


the part 70 permit as federally-enforceable terms. The


permitting authority, as part of the collaborative part 70 permit


issuance process, would review the list of terms recommended in


good faith by the source for deletion, revision, or State-only


status and would ultimately agree or disagree with the source's


proposal. Where the permitting authority decided that terms


beyond those proposed as federally enforceable by the source


should be retained to implement NSR, the source would be required


to re-certify its application with respect to those NSR terms. 


Failure to do so within the timeframe required by the permitting


authority would result in an inaccurate certification and the


loss of the application shield.


The resolution of which NSR terms are to be incorporated


should ideally be completed by the time of initial part 70 permit


issuance. However, the resources available for timely issuance


of thousands of part 70 permits may not be sufficient to achieve


final resolution of NSR permit terms by permit issuance. Serious


concerns have been raised by industry that they should not be


subject to premature incorporation of these remaining permit


terms into the part 70 permit. They believe that this could


trigger, in many cases, inappropriate part 70 responsibilities


(e.g., monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping) for these terms.


The EPA believes that the current part 70 rule allows


permitting authorities to address these concerns as well. Where


States wish to extend the time in which to decide whether to


revise, delete, or designate as State-only certain terms of


current NSR permits, permitting authorities may stipulate in


initial part 70 permits that any of those NSR terms so listed in


the permit will be reviewed and be deleted, revised, or


incorporated as federally-enforceable terms of the part 70 permit


on or before a specified deadline (not later than the renewal of


the permit). Prior to the deadline, the permitting authority


would delete, revise, or make federally enforceable any terms


that the State determined warranted such treatment. In the


meantime, all other terms would continue to be enforceable under


State law as terms of the NSR permit. The permitting authority


would incorporate any NSR permit terms that were not deleted or


designated as State-only into the federally enforceable portion


of the part 70 permit consistent with its approved part 70 permit

16


revision procedures.


Finally the permitting authority may be required to add new


terms to the part 70 permit to make any incorporated NSR permit


terms enforceable from a practical standpoint, to reflect


operation rather than construction, or to meet other part 70


requirements regarding the content of permits. Where a


permitting authority has already converted the NSR permit into an


existing State operating permit before incorporation into the


part 70 permit, the terms of the current permit to operate will


presumptively define how NSR permit terms should be incorporated


into part 70 permits.


8. Section 112(r) Requirements


For sources otherwise required to obtain a part 70 permit,


complete applications merely need to acknowledge (where


appropriate) that the on-site storage and processing of section


112(r) chemicals may require the source to submit a section


112(r) risk management plan (RMP) when that requirement becomes


applicable. This acknowledgment should be based on the "List of


Regulated Substances and Their Thresholds" rule [59 FR 4478


(January 14, 1994)]. Sources are not required to quantify


emissions of these substances (unless they are also pollutants


listed under section 112(b), and such quantification is needed


for fee collection purposes). To resolve issues of


applicability, permitting authorities may ask for additional


information from certain sources regarding materials stored and


transferred and the amounts of chemicals used in certain


processes if the source does not indicate its potential


applicability with respect to the section 112(r) requirement to


file an RMP.


9. Research and Development Activities


The EPA expects that R&D activities will generally be exempt


from part 70 and not be involved in the part 70 application


process since they are typically independent, non-major sources. 


The July 1992 part 70 preamble provided general guidance


explaining that R & D activities could often be regarded as


separate "sources" from any operation with which it were co­


located (57 FR 32264 and 32269). The Agency is clarifying and


confirming their substantial flexibility under the ongoing


rulemaking action to revise part 70.


Some R&D activities can still be subject to part 70 because


they are either individually major or a support facility making


significant contributions to the product of a collocated major


manufacturing facility. In addition, laboratory activities which

17


involve environmental and quality assurance/quality control


sample analysis, as well as R&D, present similar permitting


problems. Such activities should be eligible for classification


as an insignificant activity if there are no applicable SIP


requirements. Where applicable SIP requirements do apply, they


typically consist of "work practice" (e.g., good laboratory


practice) requirements. In this situation, permit applications


would need to contain only statements acknowledging the


applicability of, and certifying compliance with, these work


practice requirements. There is no need for an extensive


inventory of chemicals and activities or a detailed description


of emissions from the R&D or laboratory activity. Similarly,


there would be no need to monitor emissions as a part 70 permit


responsibility.


10. Applications from Non-major Sources


Applications for non-major sources subject to part 70 can be


less comprehensive than those for major sources. (Note that


virtually all States have deferred the applicability of these


sources as provided by part 70.) While permits for major sources


must include all applicable requirements for all emissions units


at the source, § 70.3(c)(2) stipulates that permits for non-major


sources have to address only the requirements applicable to


emissions units that cause the source to be subject to part 70


(e.g., requirements of sections 111 or 112 of the Act applicable


to non-major sources). Other emissions units at non-major


sources that do not trigger part 70 applicability, even if they


are subject to applicable requirements, do not have to be


included in the permit. Since permits for non-major sources do


not have to include applicable requirements for emissions units


that do not cause the source to be subject to part 70, no


information on those units is needed in the permit application.


11. Supporting Information


The great majority of the detailed background information


relied upon by the source to prepare the application need not be


included in the application for it to be found complete. Even


though certain emissions-related calculations [see


§ 70.5(c)(3)(viii)] are required, the application size can still


be significantly reduced if the permitting authority allows the


source to submit examples of calculations performed that


illustrate the methodology used. Cost savings can be realized,


even though the calculations are still performed, in that the


efforts to exhaustively record them in the application can be


omitted.


The permitting authority can request additional, more

18


detailed information needed to justify any questionable


information or statement contained in the initial application or


to write a comprehensive part 70 draft permit. Applications for


permits which will establish a requirement uniquely found in the


part 70 permit (such as an alternative reasonably available


control technology (RACT) limit) would require more supporting


information, including any required demonstration.


C. Quality of Required Information


The quality of emissions estimates where they are needed in


the part 70 permit application depends on the reasonable


availability of the necessary information and on the extent to


which they are relied upon by the permitting authority to resolve


disputed questions of major source status, applicability of


requirements, and/or compliance with applicable requirements. In


general, where estimates of emissions are necessary, reasonably-


available information may be used.


Generally, the emissions factors contained in EPA's


publication AP-42 and other EPA documents may be used to make any


necessary calculation of emissions. When an acceptable range of


values is defined for a general type of source situation,


permitting authorities have considerable discretion to define the


appropriate emissions factor value within that range. States are


most often better able to make such decisions given their closer


proximity to the particular source and its operation.


For purposes of certifying the truth and accuracy of the


application, part 70 requires that emissions estimates be


expressed in terms consistent with the applicable requirement. 


This does not mean that only test data is acceptable. Rather,


the source may rely on any data using the same units and


averaging times as in the test method. New testing is not


required and emission factors are presumed to be acceptable for


emissions calculations, but more accurate data are preferred if


they are readily available. Emissions factors provided by


permitting authorities are also allowed where EPA emission


factors are missing or State or industry values provide greater


accuracy. The applicant may also use other estimation methods


(materials balance, source test, or continuous emissions


monitoring (CEM) data) when emission estimates produced through


the use of emission factors are not appropriate.


In disputed cases, the source may propose the least costly


alternative estimation method as long as it will produce


acceptable data. Owners and operators may propose use of


emissions estimation methods of their choosing to the permitting


authority when the resulting data is more accurate than that

19


obtained through the use of emissions factors. Sources are


encouraged to contact the permitting authority to discuss the


appropriate estimation techniques for a particular circumstance.


Emissions estimates when they are necessary for HAPs often


become less precise below certain thresholds. The need for


quantification or even estimation should therefore decrease the


lower the levels are that are present. For example, VOC


estimates based on manufacturer's safety data sheets may indicate


that trace amounts of certain HAPs may be present. It is


reasonable for the source to report these HAPs as present in


trace amounts and not quantify them further or perform expensive


testing procedures to collect more accurate data, unless the


permitting authority requires otherwise. On the other hand, more


precise estimates might be required to defend a position that a


VOC source was below emissions cutoffs which subject it to a RACT


requirement if the source appeared close to that threshold and it


exact emissions level was in doubt.


D. Phase-In of Details for Completeness Determinations


Permitting authorities have considerable flexibility in


processing the expected huge volume of permit applications so as


to issue initial permits by the required deadline of 3 years


after program approval. The § 70.5(c) requirement that a permit


application will be complete only if it addresses all the


information required in this section must be interpreted in light


of the July 1992 preamble (which clarifies the § 70.5(c)


requirement for completeness in terms of information needed by


the permitting authority to begin processing of an application). 


Accordingly, the permitting authority may balance the need for


information to support timely permit issuance pursuant to the


schedule approved in the program against the workload associated


with managing and updating as necessary the initially submitted


information.


Sources must submit complete applications within 12 months


of the effective date (i.e., 30 days after the Federal Register


date where EPA approves the program) of a State part 70 program


or on whatever schedule for application submittal the State


establishes in its approved program for its sources. Permitting


authorities may also require application submittals prior to


part 70 program approval under State authority, however, a


failure to comply with any application deadline earlier than the


effective date for the program cannot be considered a violation


of the Act.


The current rule allows permitting authorities to implement


a two-step process for application completeness, first

20


determining an application to be administratively complete, then


requiring application updates as needed to support draft permit


preparation. For example, permitting authorities can initially


find an application complete if it defines the applicable


requirements, and major/minor source status; certifies compliance


status with respect to all applicable requirements (subject to


the limitation on this action provided for in Section H. 


Compliance Certification Issues); and allows the permitting


authority to determine the approved permit issuance schedule. 


The application must also include a certification as to its


truth, accuracy, and completeness. In any event, permitting


authorities must award the application shield if the source


submits a timely application which meets the criteria for


completeness in § 70.5(c).


Under this approach, if the source has supplied at least


initial information in all the areas required by the permit


application form and has certified it appropriately, the


permitting authority generally has flexibility to judge the


application to be complete enough to begin processing. 


Accordingly, there should normally be no need for an applicant to


submit an application many days in advance in order to build in


extra time for an iterative process before the relevant submittal


deadline. Sources scheduled for permitting during the first year


of the transition schedule must submit any additional information


as needed to meet fully the requirements of § 70.5(c) for


completeness on a more immediate schedule so that their permit


can be issued within that first year.


E. Updates to Initially Complete Applications Due to Change


Sources, to maintain their application's status as complete


and therefore preserve the application shield, must respond to


requests from the permitting authority for additional information


to determine or evaluate compliance with applicable requirements


within the reasonable timeframe established by the permitting


authority. Where more information is needed in the permit


application to continue its processing, permitting authorities


may opt to add the additional information to the application


themselves or require additional submittals from the source. 


Sources must promptly certify any additional information


submitted by them and certify or revise any relevant information


furnished by the permitting authority.


1. Changing Emissions Information


Updates to the initially complete application may be


required if emissions information, such as revised emissions


factors, changes or additional NSR projects are approved after an

21


application is submitted. The exact response required will


depend in part on whether the change affects a source's


applicable requirements or its compliance status and when it is


discovered. If, after consultation with the permitting


authority, it is determined that the applicability status of the


source is affected by new emissions information (e.g., the change


causes the source to become newly subject to applicable


requirements or may affect its ability to comply with a current


NSR permit condition), then the source must promptly submit the


new information to the permitting authority, identify any new


requirements that apply, and certify any change in the source's


compliance status. The issuance of an NSR permit may also add a


new applicable requirement that would need to be addressed by the


part 70 permit.


If the new information is discovered before the draft permit


has been issued, it should be submitted as an addendum to the


application, and the draft permit should reflect the new


information. The permitting authority and a source can agree on


set intervals at which such updating is required in order to


structure the process and make it more efficient. If new


information is discovered after the draft permit has completed


public review but before the proposed permit has been issued, the


information should still be submitted, and it is the


responsibility of the permitting authority to revise the permit


accordingly.


If new information is discovered after the permit has been


issued, the resulting change could, at the discretion of the


permitting authority, be addressed as a permit revision or as a


reopening. If the change would not allow a source to comply with


its current permit, the source should initiate a permit revision.


If the information does not affect applicability of, or


compliance with, any applicable requirement (e.g., only alters


the tpy emissions estimates of regulated pollutants), the


information need not be submitted until permit renewal. If the


permitting authority requires submittal of new information


earlier, however, then it must be submitted according to


reasonable deadlines established by the permitting authority.


2. Other Changes


Other changes can also occur that would require the source,


even absent a specific request from the permitting authority, to


propose an update to an initially complete application. One


example is where a new regulatory requirement becomes applicable


to the source before the permit is issued.

22


F. Content Streamlining


1. Cross Referencing


The permitting authority may allow the application to cross-


reference previously issued preconstruction and part 70 permits,


State or local rules and regulations, State laws, Federal rules


and regulations, and other documents that affect the applicable


requirements to which the source is subject, provided the


referenced materials are currently applicable and available to


the public. The accuracy of any description of such cross-


referenced documents is subject to the certification requirements


of part 70. Such documents must be made available as part of the


public docket on the permit action, unless they are published


and/or are readily available (e.g., regulations printed in the


Code of Federal Regulations or its State equivalent). In


addition, materials that are available elsewhere within the same


application can be cross referenced to another section of the


application.


In many cases, incorporation of prior information from


previously issued permits would be useful. Examples are where a


source is updating a part 70 permit by referencing the


appropriate terms of a NSR permit or renewing a part 70 permit by


referencing the current permit and certifying that no change in


source operation or in the applicable requirements has occurred. 


Even where existing permit conditions are expressed in


terminology other than that used in the part 70 permit, cross-


referencing can still be possible. Such citations, however,


would have to provide sufficient translations of terms to ensure


the same effect. 


As discussed previously, the permitting authority may


determine that certain terms and conditions of existing NSR


permits are obsolete, environmentally insignificant, or not


germane with respect to their incorporation into part 70 permits. 


Even when a NSR permit contain such terms, citation can still be


used to the extent that the NSR permit provisions appropriate for


part 70 permit incorporation are clearly identified through the


cross-reference. Also, the NSR permit terms not cited for


part 70 incorporation are still in effect as a matter of State


law unless and until expressly deleted by the permitting


authority. Wherever this citation approach is used, the


permitting authority should review all referenced terms to ensure


they meet part 70 requirements for enforceability.


The EPA believes that one reason for the excessive length


and cost of some permit applications is that sources believe they


are required to paraphrase or re-state in their entirety the

23


provisions of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) or other


repositories of applicable requirements. Citations can be used


to streamline how applicable requirements are described in an


application and will also facilitate compliance by eliminating


the possibility that part 70 permit terms will conflict with


underlying substantive requirements. Indeed, many States have


taken a citation-based approach as a way of streamlining


applications and permits. Thus, a source could cite, rather than


repeat in its application, the often extensive details of a


particular applicable requirement (including current NSR permit


terms), provided that the requirement is readily available and


its manner of application to the source is not subject to


interpretation. The citation must be clear with respect to


limits and other requirements that apply to each subject


emissions unit or activity. For example, a storage tank subject


to subpart Kb of the NSPS would cite that requirement in its


application rather than re-typing the provisions of the CFR.


2. Incorporation of Part 70 Applications by Reference into


Permits


The EPA discourages the incorporation of entire applications


by reference into permits. The concern with incorporation of the


application by reference into the permit on a wholesale basis is


the confusion created as to the requirements that apply to the


source and the unnecessary limits to operational flexibility that


such an incorporation might cause.


If States do incorporate part 70 applications by reference


in their entirety into part 70 permits, EPA will consider


information in the application to be federally enforceable only


to the extent it is needed to make other necessary terms and


conditions enforceable from a practical standpoint. Moreover,


EPA does not interpret part 70 to require permit revisions for


changes in the other aspects of the application.


3. Changing Application Forms


The EPA urges States to re-examine their permit application


forms in light of their experience to date and the contents of


this guidance. Although the revision of an application form


requires a program revision when it impacts any portion of the


form which was relied upon by EPA in approving the part 70


program for the State, such a revision can, in most cases, be


accomplished through an exchange of letters with the appropriate


EPA Regional Office. Changes made to implement this guidance


can be effected immediately with implementing documents sent to


the appropriate EPA Regional Office. Similarly, a State could


notify the Regional Office in writing that the State intends to

24


make completeness determinations based on completion of parts of


the existing forms to avoid costly changes in computerized form


systems that have already been developed. This is another way


that a State can act quickly to streamline application


requirements while minimizing its own administrative burdens.


G. Responsible Official


Part 70 provides that a "responsible official" must perform


certain important functions. In general, responsible officials


must certify the truth, accuracy, and completeness of all


applications, forms, reports, and compliance certifications


required to be submitted by the operating permits program


[§ 70.5(d)]. As an example, a responsible official must certify


the truth, accuracy, and completeness of all information


submitted as part of a permit application [§ 70.5(a)(2)] and that


the source is in compliance "with all applicable requirements"


under the Act [§ 70.5(c)(9)(i)]. In addition, part 70 requires


responsible officials to certify monitoring reports, which must


be submitted every 6 months, and "prompt" reports of any


deviations from permit requirements whenever they occur.


The definition of responsible official in § 70.2 identifies


specific categories of officials that have the requisite


authority to carry out the duties associated with that role. The


definition provides in part that the following corporate


officials may be a responsible official:


. . . a president, secretary, treasurer, or vice president


or any other person who performs similar policy or decision-


making functions for the corporation, or a duly authorized


representative of such person if the representative is


responsible for the overall operation of one or more


manufacturing, production, or operating facilities applying


for or subject to a permit . . . . [emphasis added]


Similarly, for public agencies, the definition indicates the 


following persons may be responsible officials:


. . . a principal executive officer or ranking elected


official. For purposes of this part, a principal executive


officer of a Federal agency includes the chief executive


officer having responsibility for the overall operations of


a principal geographic unit of the agency . . . . [emphasis


added]


Concerns have been raised over the apparent narrowness of


the current definition of responsible official. In the August


1994 Federal Register notice, EPA responded to those concerns

25


related to acid rain by proposing a revision to the definition of


responsible official to allow a person other than the designated


representative to be the responsible official for activities not


related to acid rain control at affected sources [59 FR 44527].


To respond to further concerns over the definition of


responsible official as it applies to partnerships formed by


corporations, or partnerships, or a combination of both, EPA


confirms that the same categories of officials who can act as


responsible officials for corporations can also act in that


capacity for partnerships where they carry out responsibilities


substantially similar to those in the same categories in


corporations. Partnerships that are essentially unions of


corporations and/or partnerships will normally have the same


management needs as corporations and so will establish a


management structure with categories of officials similar to


those of most corporations. In these partnerships, the persons


with the knowledge and authority to assure regulatory compliance


are the officials of the partnership.


Interpreting the definition of responsible official as


limiting the class of persons in partnerships that may be


responsible officials to general partners would frustrate the


intent of the definition because it would in many instances


actually result in designating a person that is not in a position


to adequately fulfill the role of a responsible official. For


this reason, EPA believes it is reasonable for permitting


authorities, in the case of partnerships composed of corporations


and/or partnerships, to allow for the same flexibility in


designating a responsible official as would be the case for


corporations.


H. Compliance Certification Issues


To make the required compliance certification to accompany


the initial part 70 permit applications, sources are required to


review current major and minor NSR permits and other permits


containing Federal requirements, SIP's and other documents, and


other Federal requirements in order to determine applicable


requirements for emission units. The EPA and/or the State


permitting authority may request additional information


concerning a source's emissions as part of the part 70


application process.


Companies are not federally required to reconsider previous


applicability determinations as part of their inquiry in


preparing part 70 permit applications. However, EPA expects


companies to rectify past noncompliance as it is discovered. 


Companies remain subject to enforcement actions for any past

26


noncompliance with requirements to obtain a permit or meet air


pollution control obligations. In addition, the part 70 permit


shield is not available for noncompliance with applicable


requirements that occurred prior to or continues after submission


of the application.

ATTACHMENT A


LIST OF ACTIVITIES THAT MAY BE TREATED AS "TRIVIAL"


The following types of activities and emissions units may be


presumptively omitted from part 70 permit applications. Certain


of these listed activities include qualifying statements intended


to exclude many similar activities.


Combustion emissions from propulsion of mobile sources,


except for vessel emissions from Outer Continental Shelf


sources.


Air-conditioning units used for human comfort that do not


have applicable requirements under title VI of the Act.


Ventilating units used for human comfort that do not exhaust


air pollutants into the ambient air from any


manufacturing/industrial or commercial process.


Non-commercial food preparation.


Consumer use of office equipment and products, not including


printers or businesses primarily involved in photographic


reproduction.


Janitorial services and consumer use of janitorial products.


Internal combustion engines used for landscaping purposes.


Laundry activities, except for dry-cleaning and steam


boilers.


Bathroom/toilet vent emissions.


Emergency (backup) electrical generators at residential


locations.


Tobacco smoking rooms and areas. 


Blacksmith forges.


Plant maintenance and upkeep activities (e.g., grounds-


keeping, general repairs, cleaning, painting, welding,


plumbing, re-tarring roofs, installing insulation, and


paving parking lots) provided these activities are not


conducted as part of a manufacturing process, are not


related to the source's primary business activity, and not

otherwise triggering a permit modification.1


Repair or maintenance shop activities not related to the


source's primary business activity, not including emissions


from surface coating or de-greasing (solvent metal cleaning)


activities, and not otherwise triggering a permit


modification.


Portable electrical generators that can be moved by hand


from one location to another .


2


Hand-held equipment for buffing, polishing, cutting,


drilling, sawing, grinding, turning or machining wood, metal


or plastic.


Brazing, soldering and welding equipment, and cutting


torches related to manufacturing and construction activities


that do not result in emission of HAP metals.3


Air compressors and pneumatically operated equipment,


including hand tools.


Batteries and battery charging stations, except at battery


manufacturing plants.


Storage tanks, vessels, and containers holding or storing


liquid substances that will not emit any VOC or HAP.4


1
Cleaning and painting activities qualify if they are not


subject to VOC or HAP control requirements. Asphalt batch plant


owners/operators must still get a permit if otherwise required.


2
"Moved by hand" means that it can be moved without the


assistance of any motorized or non-motorized vehicle, conveyance,


or device.


3
Brazing, soldering and welding equipment, and cutting


torches related to manufacturing and construction activities that


emit HAP metals are more appropriate for treatment as


insignificant activities based on size or production level


thresholds. Brazing, soldering, welding and cutting torches


directly related to plant maintenance and upkeep and repair or


maintenance shop activities that emit HAP metals are treated as


trivial and listed separately in this appendix.


4
Exemptions for storage tanks containing petroleum liquids


or other volatile organic liquids should be based on size limits


2

Storage tanks, reservoirs, and pumping and handling


equipment of any size containing soaps, vegetable oil,


grease, animal fat, and nonvolatile aqueous salt solutions,


provided appropriate lids and covers are utilized.


Equipment used to mix and package, soaps, vegetable oil,


grease, animal fat, and nonvolatile aqueous salt solutions,


provided appropriate lids and covers are utilized.


Drop hammers or hydraulic presses for forging or


metalworking.


Equipment used exclusively to slaughter animals, but not


including other equipment at slaughterhouses, such as


rendering cookers, boilers, heating plants, incinerators,


and electrical power generating equipment.


Vents from continuous emissions monitors and other


analyzers.


Natural gas pressure regulator vents, excluding venting at


oil and gas production facilities.


Hand-held applicator equipment for hot melt adhesives with


no VOC in the adhesive formulation.


Equipment used for surface coating, painting, dipping or


spraying operations, except those that will emit VOC or HAP.


CO2 lasers, used only on metals and other materials which do


not emit HAP in the process.


Consumer use of paper trimmers/binders.


Electric or steam-heated drying ovens and autoclaves, but


not the emissions from the articles or substances being


processed in the ovens or autoclaves or the boilers


delivering the steam.


Salt baths using nonvolatile salts that do not result in


emissions of any regulated air pollutants.


Laser trimmers using dust collection to prevent fugitive


emissions.


such as storage tank capacity and vapor pressure of liquids


stored and are not appropriate for this list.


3

Bench-scale laboratory equipment used for physical or


chemical analysis, but not lab fume hoods or vents.5


Routine calibration and maintenance of laboratory equipment


or other analytical instruments.


Equipment used for quality control/assurance or inspection


purposes, including sampling equipment used to withdraw


materials for analysis.


Hydraulic and hydrostatic testing equipment.


Environmental chambers not using hazardous air pollutant


(HAP) gasses.


Shock chambers.


Humidity chambers.


Solar simulators.


Fugitive emission related to movement of passenger vehicles,


provided the emissions are not counted for applicability


purposes and any required fugitive dust control plan or its


equivalent is submitted.


Process water filtration systems and demineralizes.


Demineralized water tanks and demineralizer vents.


Boiler water treatment operations, not including cooling


towers.


Oxygen scavenging (de-aeration) of water.


Ozone generators.


Fire suppression systems.


Emergency road flares.


Steam vents and safety relief valves.


Steam leaks.


5
Many lab fume hoods or vents might qualify for treatment as


insignificant (depending on the applicable SIP) or be grouped


together for purposes of description.


4

Steam cleaning operations.


Steam sterilizers.


5