March 5, 1996


MEMORANDUM


SUBJECT:	 White Paper Number 2 for Improved Implementation of The


Part 70 Operating Permits Program


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


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


TO: Director, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Region I


Director, Environmental Planning and Protection


Division, Region II


Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division,


Region III


Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management


Division, Region IV


Director, Air and Radiation Division, Region V


Director, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division,


Region VI


Director, Air, RCRA and TSCA Division, Region VII


Assistant Regional Administrator, Office of Pollution


Prevention, State and Tribal Assistance, Region VIII


Director, Air and Toxics Division, Region IX


Director, Office of Air, Region X


Please find attached White Paper Number 2 for improved


implementation of part 70 operating permits programs. This


guidance is intended to enable State and local agencies to take


further steps to reduce the complexity and preparation costs of


part 70 permit applications and of the part 70 permits


themselves. It is intended to supplement, not obviate, the


guidance provided in EPA's "White Paper for Streamlined


Development of part 70 Permit Applications" (July 10, 1995). 


This guidance is consistent with and furthers the goals of the


Presidential initiatives to streamline and reinvent government.


The attached guidance is divided into five sections as


follows:


II. A. Streamlining Multiple Applicable Requirements On The


Same Emissions Unit(s).

2


II. B. Development Of Applications And Permits For Outdated


SIP Requirements.


II. C. Treatment Of Insignificant Emissions Units.


II. D. Use Of Major Source And Applicable Requirement


Stipulation.


II. E. Referencing Of Existing Information In Part 70


Permit Applications And Permits.


Streamlining will lead to substantial reductions in


permitting burdens and improved part 70 implementation by


allowing for the first time multiple applicable emissions limits


and work practices expressed in different forms and averaging


times to be reduced to a single set of requirements (which can be


an alternative to all those requirements being subsumed). It


will also allow various monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting


requirements that are not critical to assuring compliance with


the streamlined (most stringent) limit to be subsumed in the


permit. Any such streamlining must provide that compliance with


the streamlined limit would assure compliance with all applicable


requirements. In addition, substantial reductions in burden are


expected to result from the reduced confusion and cost where


locally adopted rules differ from the EPA-approved State


implementation plan, the streamlined treatment of insignificant


emissions units, the use of stipulations by sources as to which


regulations apply, and the cross referencing rather than


repetition of certain existing information.


There is an immediate need for the implementation of this


guidance. A large number of sources have filed complete part 70


applications, and increasing numbers of these submittals are


being processed for permit issuance. I strongly encourage you to


work with your States to effect near-term use of this guidance.


Substantial contributions to this White Paper have come from


the California Title V Implementation Working Group. I want to


thank you and your staff for your support and Region IX in


particular for their leadership and considerable efforts in


developing and completing this paper. I 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, Ginger Vagenas of Region IX at (415)


744-1252, or Roger Powell at (919) 541-5331.


Attachment


cc: M. Trutna (MD-12)

3


G. Vagenas (Region IX)


R. Powell (MD-12)


A. Schwartz (2344)

WHITE PAPER NUMBER 2 FOR IMPROVED IMPLEMENTATION


OF THE PART 70 OPERATING PERMITS PROGRAM


U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY


OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND STANDARDS


March 5, 1996


Contacts: 	Michael A. Trutna (919) 541-5345


Ginger Vagenas (415) 744-1252


Roger Powell (919) 541-5331

5

WHITE PAPER NUMBER 2 FOR IMPROVED IMPLEMENTATION


OF THE PART 70 OPERATING PERMITS PROGRAM


March 5, 1996


I. OVERVIEW.


This guidance is intended to enable State and local agencies


to take further steps to reduce the complexity and preparation


costs of part 70 permit applications and of the part 70 permits


themselves and to remove unintended barriers and administrative


costs. It is also intended to build on and expand the guidance


provided in the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) "White


Paper for Streamlined Development of Part 70 Permit Applications"


(July 10, 1995). White Paper Number 2 supplements, not obviates,


the first White Paper. Both papers should be consulted for


guidance in improving the implementation of title V of the Clean


Air Act (Act) (i.e., part 70 operating permits programs). In


particular, White Paper Number 2 is designed to simplify the


treatment of overlapping regulatory requirements and


insignificant emissions units and to clarify the use of citations


and incorporation by reference in the part 70 permitting process. 


This effort is consistent with and furthers the goals of the


Presidential initiatives to streamline and reinvent government.


Substantial contributions to this White Paper have come


from the California Title V Implementation Working Group (Working


Group). The California Air Resources Board and several


California air districts and industries which (together with EPA)


make up the Working Group have decades of experience with


operating permits. These operating permits programs are


generally just one component of air programs that, in many


districts, also include local emissions standards (often with


associated recordkeeping and reporting requirements), monitoring


requirements, inspections, source testing, and new source review


(NSR). The EPA has found the insights and recommendations of the


Working Group extremely useful in integrating these various


requirements using the part 70 permitting process. While much of


the guidance contained herein addresses situations arising in


California, it is available for use nationwide.


This guidance is divided into five sections and two


attachments which are generally summarized as follows (the reader


is, however, referred to the applicable main sections of the


guidance for more detailed information):


Section II. A. Streamlining Multiple Applicable


Requirements On The Same Emissions Unit(s).


The EPA and States have developed different and often

overlapping applicable requirements governing the same


emissions units to serve the purposes of different air


programs. As a result, emissions units at a stationary


source may be subject to several parallel sets of


requirements. This can result in some of the requirements


being redundant and unnecessary as a practical matter, even


though the requirements still legally apply to the source. 


In cases where compliance with a single set of requirements


effectively assures compliance with all requirements,


compliance with all elements of each of the overlapping


requirements may be unnecessary and could needlessly consume


resources. For example, a source could be subject to


overlapping standards that result in two or more different


emissions limits for the same pollutant and two or more


source monitoring requirements for instrumentation,


recordkeeping, and reporting.


Today's guidance describes how a source may propose


streamlining to distill or "streamline" multiple overlapping


requirements into one set that will assure compliance with


all requirements. According to the guidance, multiple


emissions limits may be streamlined into one limit if that


limit is at least as stringent as the most stringent limit. 


(Limitations that apply to the streamlining of acid rain


requirements are described in the main section of this


guidance.) If no one requirement is unambiguously more


stringent than the others, the applicant may synthesize the


conditions of all the applicable requirements into a single


new permit term that will assure compliance with all


requirements. The streamlined monitoring, recordkeeping,


and reporting requirements would generally be those


associated with the most stringent emissions limit,


providing they would assure compliance to the same extent as


any subsumed monitoring. Thus, monitoring, recordkeeping,


or reporting to determine compliance with subsumed limits


would not be required where the source implements the


streamlined approach.


It is important to emphasize that while streamlining


may be initiated by either the applicant or the permitting


authority, it can only be implemented where the permit


applicant consents to its use.


Section II. B. Development Of Applications And Permits For


Outdated SIP Requirements.


Historically, long periods of time have been required


to review and approve (or disapprove) SIP revisions. The


EPA has undertaken a number of reforms to its SIP approval


process and is continuing to make significant progress in


2

reducing the amount of time required for taking action on


SIP revisions. Despite the progress we have made to date,


there are many local rules now pending EPA review and


approval for inclusion in the SIP. The gap between the


approved SIP and the State rules is of concern because


States and local agencies enforce their current rules (which


are usually more stringent than the approved SIP rules) and


often, as a practical matter, no longer enforce the


superseded and outdated rules in the SIP. On the other


hand, EPA only recognizes and can only enforce the SIP-


approved rules. This situation can cause confusion and


uncertainty because some sources are effectively subject to


two different versions of the same rules. Part 70's


application, certification, and permit content requirements


highlight this longstanding concern.


The most problematic situation arising from the gap


between the approved SIP and the State rules is where a


technology-forcing rule that has been approved into the SIP


is found by the State to be impossible to meet. Under these


circumstances, the State would generally adopt a relaxation


of this rule and submit it to EPA as a SIP revision. Until


EPA is able to take action on the submitted relaxation,


sources remain subject to a rule that is impossible to meet.


This section of the guidance largely addresses the


problem by authorizing permitting authorities and their


sources to base permit applications on State and local rules


that have been submitted for SIP approval, rather than on


the potentially obsolete approved SIP provisions that they


would replace. Such reliance on pending State and local


rules is proper when the permitting authority has concluded


that the pending rule will probably be approved, or when the


source believes it can show that the pending rule is more


stringent than the rule it would replace. However, if the


pending rule is not more stringent than the rule it would


replace, the permit cannot be issued until the pending rule


is approved.


Section II. C. Treatment Of Insignificant Emissions Units.


This section provides for the streamlined treatment of


generally applicable requirements that apply to


"insignificant" emissions units (IEU's). It is intended to


address current concerns that resources will be


unnecessarily consumed by matters of trivial environmental


importance.


The guidance clarifies that the permitting authority


has broad discretion to tailor the permit application and


3

permit for small equipment and activities as long as


compliance with Federal requirements is assured. For both


the permit application and the permit, information on IEU's


may be generically grouped and listed without emissions


estimates, unless emissions estimates are needed for another


purpose such as determining the amount of permit fees that


are calculated using total source emissions. This approach


would utilize standard permit conditions with minimal or no


reference to any specific emissions unit or activity,


provided that the scope of the requirement and its


enforcement are clear.


The EPA also believes that for IEU's, a responsible


official's initial compliance certification may be based on


available information and the latest cycle of required


information.


The guidance further provides that the permitting


authority can use broad discretion in determining the nature


of any required periodic monitoring. The EPA's policy on


IEU's is based on the belief that these emissions points are


typically associated with inconsequential environmental


impacts.


Section II. D. Use Of Major Source And Applicable


Requirement Stipulation.


There have been concerns expressed that extensive new


emissions data would be needed to verify major source status


or the applicability of Federal requirements. White Paper


Number 2 clarifies that for applicability purposes, a source


familiar to the permitting authority may simply stipulate in


its application that it is major or that Federal


requirements apply as specified in the application. The


paper clarifies that there is no need to prepare and submit


extensive information about the source that "proves" it is


subject to any requirements that it stipulates are


applicable. This does not affect the requirement to provide


information that is otherwise required by part 70.


Section II. E. Referencing Of Existing Information In


Part 70 Permit Applications And Permits.


Concerns have been raised that a source must re-prepare


and resubmit information that is readily available, or that


the permitting authority already has, to complete part 70


permit applications. In addition, similar concerns have


been voiced regarding the large and potentially unnecessary


burden of developing permits which repeat rather than


reference certain types of regulatory requirements that


4

apply to the source (e.g., monitoring and testing


protocols). The guidance clarifies that, in general, the


permitting authority may allow information to be cited or


cross-referenced in both permits and applications if the


information is current and readily available to the


permitting agency and to the public. The citations and


references must be clear and unambiguous and be enforceable


from a practical standpoint. After permits specify which


emissions limits apply to identified emissions units, cross-


referencing can be authorized for other requirements (e.g.,


monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting).


Attachment A provides guidance on using the part 70 permit


process to establish alternative test methods, while Attachment B


provides example SIP language that could be used by both part 70


and non-part 70 sources to establish alternative requirements


without the need for a prior source-specific SIP revision. This


guidance should be particularly useful to those seeking greater


certainty or to establish alternative test methods to those now


approved by EPA. [Note that Sections III. and beyond in


Attachment B are currently in draft form.]


Streamlining will lead to substantial reductions in


permitting burdens by allowing for the first time multiple


applicable emissions limits and work practices expressed in


different forms and averaging times to be reduced to a single set


of requirements. It will also lower current burden levels by


allowing various monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting


requirements that are not critical to assuring compliance with


the streamlined (most stringent) limit to be subsumed in the


permit. In addition, substantial reductions in burden are


expected to result from the reduced confusion and cost where


locally adopted rules differ from the EPA-approved SIP, the


streamlined treatment of insignificant emissions units, and the


use of stipulations and the cross-referencing rather than


repetition of certain existing information in part 70


applications and permits.


The EPA believes that the guidance contained herein may be


implemented by permitting authorities and sources without


revisions to part 70 programs, unless a provision is specifically


prohibited by State regulations. In some situations, EPA will be


proceeding in parallel to issue clarifying rules. The EPA


strongly encourages States to allow sources to take advantage of


the streamlining opportunities provided in this guidance. The


Agency also suggests the permitting authority develop information


about permits issued with successful streamlining and make it


available to other similar sources to help avoid repetitive


costs.


5

Sources are advised to consult with their permitting


authority to understand how the policies of this White Paper will


be implemented. In several situations (particularly those where


sources have already filed complete applications), permitting


authorities may choose to propose streamlining options and, if


mutually agreeable, work with the source to support a draft


permit containing a streamlined limit. Where EPA is the


permitting authority pursuant to part 71 regulations, the Agency


will implement both White Papers to the extent possible and


promote similar implementation where EPA delegates responsibility


for the part 71 program to a State.


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. ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE ON STREAMLINED DEVELOPMENT OF PART 70


PERMITS AND APPLICATIONS.


1
 A. Streamlining Multiple Applicable Requirements On The Same


Emissions Unit(s).2


1. Issue.


Can multiple redundant or conflicting requirements


(emissions limits, monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting


requirements) on the same emissions unit(s) be streamlined into a


1
Title IV applicable requirements are an exception to this


general rule. As set out in § 72.70(b), to the extent that any


requirements of part 72 and part 78 are inconsistent with the


requirements of part 70, part 72 and part 78 will take precedence


and will govern the issuance, denial, revision, reopening,


renewal, and appeal of the acid rain portion of an operating


permit. The subsequent descriptions of streamlining therefore


apply to requirements under parts 72 and 78 only to the extent


that such requirements are, at the option of the applicant, used


as streamlining requirements because they are the most stringent


applicable requirements.


2
Emissions unit(s) means any part or activity of a


stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit any


regulated air pollutant (as defined in section 70.2) or any


pollutant listed under section 112(b) of the Act. It is used in


this paper to include specifically a grouping of emissions units


at a stationary source that shares the same applicable


requirement and compliance demonstration method for a given


pollutant.


6

single set of understandable and enforceable permit conditions? 


May an applicant propose to minimize or consolidate applicable


requirements? May a permitting authority develop such a


proposal? How would a permit application with a streamlining


proposal satisfy compliance certification requirements?


2. Guidance.


A source, at its option, may propose in its application to


streamline multiple applicable requirements into a single set of


permit terms and conditions3

. The overall objective would be to


determine the set of permit terms and conditions that will assure


compliance with all applicable requirements for an emissions


point or group of emissions points so as to eliminate redundant


or conflicting requirements. Otherwise applicable requirements


that are subsumed in the streamlined requirements could then be


identified in a permit shield. The process would be carried out


in conjunction with the submittal and review of a part 70 permit


application, as an addendum to an application, or as an


application for a significant revision to the part 70 permit


(unless EPA in its revisions to part 70 authorizes permitting


authorities to use a less extensive permit revision process). 


The EPA plans to revise part 70 to provide that the compliance


certification required with initial application submittals may be


based on the proposed streamlined applicable requirement where


there is sufficient source compliance information on which to


base such a certification.


The permitting authority, at its option, may evaluate


multiple applicable requirements for a source category and


predetermine an acceptable streamlining approach. Such


evaluations should be made readily available to applicants. It


is up to the applicant, however, to request in its application


that such streamlined requirements be contained in the part 70


permit. Where streamlining would be of mutual interest, the


permitting authority and the source could work together during


the permit development stage to establish a basis for a


streamlined limit prior to the issuance of a draft permit. This


3
The EPA recognizes that the described streamlining process


may not be allowed by all State regulations or be warranted or


desired for all applicable requirements. Similarly, partial


streamlining (i.e., the streamlining of some, but not all,


applicable requirements that apply to the same emissions units)


may be most cost effective where difficult comparisons or


correlations are needed for streamlining the other remaining


applicable requirements. In addition, there is no barrier to


more extensive


streamlining occurring in the future.


7

cooperative activity must result in a record consistent with this


guidance which supports the draft permit containing the


streamlined requirement. The approach might be particularly


useful where a source has already submitted a complete part 70


permit application and the permitting authority does not want to


require the source to submit a formal amendment to its


application. Any streamlining demonstration must be promptly


submitted to EPA upon its availability and in advance of draft


permit issuance unless EPA has previously agreed with the


permitting authority not to require it (e.g., the proposed


streamlining is of a simple and/or familiar type with no new


concerns).


In addition, general permits could be useful to allow the


transfer of streamlined requirements from the first source to be


covered by them to other similar sources or emissions units. The


information development and review conducted as part of


streamlining for an individual source can be used by the


permitting authority to generate a general permit for similar


sources or portions of sources. If a general permit were used,


EPA and public review beyond that needed to issue the general


permit would not be necessary when sources subsequently applied


for the streamlined permit conditions established under the


general permit. Even where a general permit is not issued, the


availability of information obtained from the streamlining of one


source may be useful as a model for future streamlining actions


involving other similar sources.


Streamlined permit terms should be covered by a permit


shield. The permit shield will result in an essential degree of


certainty by providing that when the source complies with the


streamlined requirement, the source will be considered to be in


compliance with all of the applicable requirements subsumed under


the streamlined requirement. Where the program does not now


provide for a permit shield, the permit containing streamlined


requirements should clarify this understanding (See section


II.A.3. discussion). Permitting authorities without provisions


for permit shields are encouraged to add a permit shield


provision at the first opportunity, if they wish to realize fully


the benefits of streamlining.


Sources that opt for the streamlining of applicable


requirements must demonstrate the adequacy of their proposed


streamlined requirements. The following principles should govern


their streamlining demonstrations:


a. The most stringent of multiple applicable emissions 


limitations for a specific regulated air pollutant on a


particular emissions unit must be determined taking into


8

account4,5

:


o Emissions limitation formats (emissions limits in


different forms must be converted to a common format


and/or units of measure or a correlation established


among different formats prior to comparisons);


o Effective dates of compliance (to the extent


different);


o Transfer or collection efficiencies (to the extent


relevant);


o Averaging times6; and


o Test methods prescribed in the applicable


requirements .


7


4
Applicable requirements mean those requirements recognized


by EPA, as defined in § 70.2. State and local permitting


authorities may modify, eliminate, or streamline "State-only"


requirements based on existing State or local law and procedures.


5
Sources may, in the interest of greater uniformity, opt to


expand the scope of an applicable requirement to more emissions


units so that the same requirements would apply over a larger


section of the plant or its entirety, provided compliance with


all applicable requirements is assured. Though a permit may


through streamlining expand the scope of applicable requirements


to include new emissions units, it may not change the basis on


which compliance is determined (e.g., emissions unit by emissions


unit, if that is the intent of the applicable requirement).


6
While the streamlining of requirements with varying


averaging times is viable under this policy, in no event can


requirements which are specifically designed to address a


particular health concern (including those with short term


averaging times) be subsumed into a requirement which is any less


protective. 


7
The predominant case is expected to involve test methods


which have been EPA approved either as part of the SIP or as part


of a Federal section 111 or 112 standard. If a permitting


authority is seeking to base a streamlined limit on an


alternative or new test method relative to the ones already


approved by EPA for the SIP or a section 111, or section 112


standard, some additional steps are needed to complete the


proposed streamlining. As described in more detail in Attachment


A, permitting authorities may only implement streamlining which


9

Limitations for specific pollutants can be subsumed by


limitations on classes of pollutants providing the applicant can


show that the streamlined limit will regulate the same set of


pollutants to the same extent as the underlying applicable


requirements. For example, a volatile organic compound (VOC)


limitation could effectively subsume an organic hazardous air


pollutant (HAP) limitation for a constituent such as hexane,


provided the VOC limit is at least as stringent as the hexane


limitation. Where a single VOC limit subsumes multiple HAP


limits, the permit must be written to assure that each of the


subsumed limits will not be exceeded. However, a limit for a


single or limited number of compounds cannot be used to subsume a


limit for a broader class (e.g., a hexane limit for a VOC limit)


because this would effectively deregulate any of the class that


are not covered by the more limited group.


b. Work practice requirements must be treated as follows:


o Supporting An Emissions Limit. A work practice


requirement directly supporting an emissions limit


(i.e., applying to the same emissions point(s) covered


by the emissions limit) is considered inseparable from


the emissions limit for the purposes of streamlining


emissions limits. The proposed streamlined emissions


limit must include its directly supporting work


practices, but need not include any work practice


standards that are associated with and directly support


the subsumed limit(s);


o Not Supporting An Emissions Limit. Similar work


practice requirements which apply to the same emissions


or emissions point but which do not directly support an


emissions limit may be streamlined (e.g., different


leak detection and repair (LDAR8

) programs). The


involves alternative or new test methods within the flexibility


granted by the SIP and any delegation of authority from EPA


(where section 111/112 standards are involved). With respect to


SIP requirements, the ability for a permitting authority to


authorize use of a different test method depends on the governing


language contained in the SIP. Attachment B contains example SIP


language which provides a mechanism that can establish an


alternative applicable requirement in such cases without the need


for source specific SIP revisions.


8
For LDAR programs, stringency comparisons likely will be


based on the aggregate requirements of each LDAR program


(screening levels, frequency of inspection, repair periods, etc,)


and the resultant overall actual emissions reduction expected


10

streamlined work practice requirement may be composed


of provisions/elements (e.g., frequency of inspection,


recordkeeping) from one or more of the similar work


practice requirements, provided that the resulting


composite work practice requirement has the same base


elements/provisions as the subsumed work practice


requirements (e.g. has a frequency of inspection or has


recordkeeping if the subsumed work practice


requirements have these elements/provisions).


Multiple work practice requirements which apply to


different emissions or emissions points cannot be


streamlined.


c. Monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements


should not be used to determine the relative stringency of


the applicable requirements to which they are applicable.


d. Where the preceding guidance does not allow sufficient


streamlining or where it is difficult to determine a single


most stringent applicable emissions limit by comparing all


the applicable emissions limits with each other, sources may


perform any or all the following activities to justify


additional or different streamlining:


o Construct an alternative or hybrid emissions limit9


from the affected equipment. In cases where a convincing


demonstration cannot be made based on existing information or the


regulations themselves have not clearly defined the expected


emissions reduction, verifying test data may be required. 


Alternatively, the applicant, the permitting authority, and EPA


can work together to devise a method consistent with the


principles of EPA's "Protocol For Equipment Leak Emissions


Estimation" (EPA-453/R-95-017, November 1995) for determining


relative stringency. Where a demonstration of the relative


stringency of LDAR programs as applied to the affected equipment


is not feasible, sources may modify elements of a particular LDAR


program to produce a program that clearly (i.e., without further


analysis) assures compliance with the other applicable LDAR


programs.


9
Title V allows for the establishment of a streamlined


requirement, provided that it assures compliance with all


applicable requirements it subsumes. However, EPA recognizes


that construction of such hybrid or alternative limits can be


more complicated than the situation where the streamlined limit


is one of the applicable emissions limits. Accordingly, sources


and States may need more time to agree on acceptable


11

that is at least as stringent as any applicable


requirement;


o Use a previously "State-only" requirement as the


streamlined requirement when it is at least as


stringent as any applicable Federal requirement it


would subsume (this requirement would then become a


federally-enforceable condition in the part 70 permit);


o Use a more accurate and precise test method than the


one applicable (see footnote number 7) to eliminate


doubt in the stringency determination; or


o Conduct detailed correlations to prove the relative


stringency of each applicable requirement.


e. The monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting


requirements associated with the most stringent emissions


requirement are presumed appropriate for use with the


streamlined emissions limit, unless reliance on that


monitoring would diminish the ability to assure compliance


with the streamlined requirements.10 To evaluate this


presumption, compare whether the monitoring proposed would


assure compliance with the streamlined limit to the same


extent as would the monitoring applicable to each subsumed


limit. If not, and if the monitoring associated with the


subsumed limit is also relevant to and technically feasible


for the streamlined limit, then monitoring associated with a


subsumed limit (or other qualifying monitoring11) would be


included in the permit.12 The recordkeeping and reporting


demonstrations and may wish to defer such streamlining until


after issuance of the initial part 70 permit. 


10
Quality assurance requirements pertaining to continuous


monitoring systems should be evaluated using the same approach.


11
The applicant may propose alternative monitoring of equal


rigor. Permitting authorities may only implement streamlining


which involves alternative or new monitoring methods within the


flexibility granted by the SIP and any delegation of authority


from


EPA (where section 111/112 standards are involved).


12
Permitting authorities and sources should presume that


existing monitoring equipment [such as continuous emissions


monitors (CEMs)] required and/or currently employed at the


source should be retained. A permitting authority or applicant


would have the opportunity to demonstrate that retention of such


12

associated with the selected monitoring approach may be


presumed to be appropriate for use with the streamlined


limit .
 13,14,15


f. Permitting authorities must include citations to any


subsumed requirements in the permit's specification of the


origin and authority of permit conditions. In addition, the


part 70 permit must include any additional terms and


conditions as necessary to assure compliance with the


streamlined requirement. In all instances, the proposed


permit terms and conditions must be enforceable as a


practical matter.


3. Process.


Streamlining may be accomplished through an applicant


proposing to streamline multiple requirements applicable to a


source, the permitting authority developing streamlining options


for sources or source categories that would be subsequently


accepted at the election of permittees, or the applicant working


in agreement with the permitting authority after filing an


monitoring equipment is inappropriate, such as when the


monitoring equipment is no longer relevant or is technically


infeasible (e.g., the source has switched to a closed loop


process without emissions or the streamlined limit corresponds to


levels too low for a monitor to measure, such as SO2 emissions


from a boiler firing pipeline quality natural gas.)


13
Where recordkeeping is the means of determining compliance


(e.g., in the miscellaneous metal parts and products coating


rules, the typical role of monitoring is fulfilled by


recordkeeping), the appropriate recordkeeping would be determined


in the same manner described for monitoring.


14
Where a standard includes recordkeeping associated with a


limit in addition to recordkeeping linked to a monitoring device


(e.g., a coating facility that has recordkeeping requirements


pertaining to coating usage, as well as recordkeeping for


monitoring associated with an add-on control), both types of


recordkeeping must be incorporated into the permit.


15
The result offers considerable potential to reduce the


different reporting burdens associated with different applicable


requirements well beyond what was previously available (e.g.,


synchronizing the required reporting cycles from different


applicable requirements to coincide with the most stringent one


beginning at the earliest required date). (See also Final


General Provisions, § 63.10(a)(5), March 16, 1994.)


13

initial complete application. The first six of the following


actions wuld be taken by the source or, as appropriate, by the


permitting authority. The level of effort to complete these


actions will depend on the relative complexity of the


streamlining situation. The permitting authority would then


perform steps seven and eight.


Step One - Provide a side-by-side comparison of all


requirements included in the streamlining proposal that are


currently applicable and effective for the specific


emissions units of a source16. Distinguish between


requirements which are emissions and/or work practice


standards, and monitoring and compliance demonstration


provisions.


Step Two - Determine the most stringent emissions and/or


performance standard (or any hybrid or alternative limits as


appropriate) consistent with the above streamlining


principles and provide the documentation relied upon to make


this determination. This process should be repeated for


each emissions unit pollutant combination for which the


applicant is proposing a streamlined requirement.


Step Three - Propose one set of permit terms and conditions


(i.e., the streamlined requirements) to include the most


stringent emissions limitations and/or standards,


appropriate monitoring and its associated recordkeeping and


reporting (see section II.A.2.e.), and such other conditions


as are necessary to assure compliance with all applicable


requirements.


Step Four - Certify compliance (applicant only) with


16
A future applicable requirement (e.g., MACT standard newly


promulgated under section 112 with a compliance date 3 years in


the future) may be determined to be the most stringent applicable


requirement if compliance with it would assure compliance with


less stringent but currently applicable requirements. In such a


case, the source may propose either a streamlined requirement


based on immediate compliance with the future applicable


requirement or it may opt for a phased approach where the permit


would contain two separate time-sensitive requirements. Under


the latter approach, one streamlined requirement addressing all


currently applicable requirements would be defined to be


effective until the future applicable requirement became


effective. The permit would also contain a second streamlined


requirement which also addressed the future applicable


requirement and would become the new streamlined requirement


after expiration of the first streamlined requirement.


14

applicable requirements. The EPA is planning to revise its


part 70 regulations to provide that a source may certify


compliance with only the proposed streamlined limit. Until


this is accomplished, EPA recommends that a source


certifying compliance only with the streamlined limit


indicate this in an attachment to the certification, so that


it is clear that the certification is being made with


respect to a set of terms and conditions that the source


believes "assure compliance" with all applicable


requirements. In any event, a source may only certify


compliance with a streamlined limit if there is source


compliance data on which to base such a certification. 


(Such data should be available where the streamlined


requirement is itself an applicable requirement and may be


available if the streamlined limit is an alternative limit,


e.g., a previously State-only emissions limitation). If


there is not, then certifications must instead be made


relative to each of the applicable requirements judged to be


less stringent and must be based on data otherwise required


under them to make this point clear.


Step Five - Develop a compliance schedule to implement any


new monitoring/compliance approach relevant to the


streamlined limit if the source is unable to comply with it


upon permit issuance. The recordkeeping, monitoring, and


reporting requirements of the applicable requirements being


subsumed would continue to apply in the permit (as would the


requirement for the source to operate in compliance with


each of its emissions limits) until the new streamlined


compliance approach becomes operative.


Step Six - Indicate in the application submittal that


streamlining of the listed applicable requirements under a


permit shield (where available) is being proposed and


propose the establishment of a permit shield which would


state that compliance with the streamlined limit assures


compliance with the listed applicable requirements. All


emission and/or performance standards not subsumed by the


streamlined requirements must be separately addressed in the


part 70 permit application.


Step Seven - Evaluate the adequacy of the proposal and its


supporting documentation. The EPA recommends that the


permitting authority communicate its findings to the


applicant and provide reasonable opportunity for the


applicant to accept the findings or propose a resolution of


the differences before issuance of a draft permit for public


review. Where the permitting authority determines that the


streamlining proposal is inadequate, the source, to retain


its application shield, must expeditiously resolve any


15

problems identified by the permitting authority or update


its prior application based on the individual applicable


requirements previously proposed for streamlining.


Step Eight - Note the use of this process in any required


transmittal of a part 70 application, application summary,


or revised application to EPA and include the streamlining


demonstration and supporting documentation in the public


record. When the source is required to provide a copy of


the application (or summary) directly to EPA, it must note


the proposed use of streamlining. A copy of the


streamlining demonstration must be submitted promptly to EPA


along with the required copy of the application or


application summary (where a summary may be submitted to EPA


in lieu of the entire part 70 permit application) unless EPA


has previously agreed with the permitting authority not to


require it (e.g., the proposed streamlining is of a simple


and/or familiar type with no new concerns).


4. Enforcement.


All terms and conditions of a part 70 permit are enforceable


by EPA and citizens, unless certain terms are designated as being


only State (or locally) enforceable. In addition, a source


violating a streamlined emissions limitation in the part 70


permit may be subject to enforcement action for violation of one


(or more) of the subsumed applicable emissions limits to the


extent that a violation of the subsumed emissions limit(s) is


documented.


Upon receiving a part 70 permit, a source implementing the


streamlined approach would not be subject to an EPA enforcement


action for any failure to meet monitoring, recordkeeping, and


reporting requirements that are subsumed within the streamlined


requirement and specified under the permit shield. These


requirements would no longer be independently enforceable once


the permit has been issued, provided that the source attempts in


good faith to implement the monitoring, recordkeeping, and


reporting requirements specified in the permit.


If subsequently the permitting authority or EPA determines


that the permit does not assure compliance with applicable


requirements, the permit will be reopened and revised.


5. Discussion.


As sources subject to title V identify all applicable


requirements for inclusion in part 70 permit applications, they


may find that multiple applicable requirements affect the same


pollutant or performance parameter for a particular emissions


16

unit. Likewise, the requirements of federally-enforceable terms


and conditions in preconstruction or operating permits may


overlap with the requirements of other federally-enforceable


rules and regulations.


In these instances, a source may be in compliance with the


overall emissions limit of each of the applicable requirements,


but be required to comply with a multitude of redundant or


conflicting monitoring, reporting, or recordkeeping requirements. 


For example, a source owner faced with two emissions limits for


the same pollutant at a specific emissions point may be required


to install separate monitoring instrumentation and submit


separate monitoring reports for each, even though one monitor can


effectively assure compliance with both emissions limits. 


Furthermore, the recordkeeping and reporting associated with the


unnecessary instrumentation may create an administrative burden


for both the facility and the implementing agency without an


associated gain in compliance assurance. Prior to title V there


has been no federally-enforceable means to resolve this


situation.


The EPA encourages permitting authorities to allow use by


the permit applicant of the part 70 permit issuance process to


streamline multiple applicable requirements to the extent the


conditions of this policy can be met. In this way, the part 70


process with its procedural safeguards can be used to focus all


concerned parties on providing for compliance with a single set


of permit terms that assure compliance with multiple applicable


requirements instead of maintaining the costs of multiple sets of


controls, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting approaches.


The legal basis for streamlining multiple applicable


requirements relies on section 504(a), which requires that


title V permits contain emissions limits/standards and other


terms as needed to assure compliance with applicable


requirements. This section notably does not require repetition


of all terms and conditions of an applicable requirement when


another applicable requirement or part 70 permit condition (i.e.,


streamlined requirement) could be fashioned to otherwise assure


compliance with that applicable requirement.


Section 504(f) lends additional certainty to permit


streamlining. It specifically provides that the permitting


authority may authorize that compliance with the permit may be


deemed to be compliance with the Act provided that the permit


includes all applicable requirements. Thus, this section allows


the permitting authority to issue a permit containing a shield


which protects a source against a claim that it is violating any


applicable requirements listed in the permit shield as being


subsumed under the streamlined requirement, provided that the


17

source meets the permit terms and conditions that implement the


streamlined requirement.


Part 70 is also receptive to the issuance of streamlined


permits. It contains parallel language to the statute for


emissions limits and for permit shields in §§ 70.6(a)(1) and (f). 


Although language in § 70.6(a)(3) may appear to restrict


streamlining by requiring that all "applicable" monitoring,


recordkeeping, and reporting requirements be placed in the


permit, EPA did not intend for these provisions to preclude


streamlining. Instead, the Agency believes that the provisions


should be consistent with the flexibility for streamlining


provided in section 504(a) of the Act and in § 70.6(a)(1). To


require otherwise would be anomalous and could frustrate


legitimate streamlining efforts. The EPA intends to revise


part 70 to reflect this understanding in a future rulemaking.


Streamlining may be limited in cases where an applicable


requirement defines specific monitoring requirements as the


exclusive means of compliance with an applicable emissions limit. 


Some interpret these cases to require that only one set of


monitoring requirements may be used to determine compliance and


that only these requirements may appear in the part 70 permit. 


The EPA believes instead that section 504(a) supersedes any need


for such exclusive monitoring, but nonetheless recommends that


States address any potential concerns by adopting certain SIP


language in the future. States that choose to revise their


existing SIP's to contain authorizing language to overcome any


SIP exclusivity problems may use the example language in


Attachment B. The EPA believes that similar flexibility should


be provided to non-part 70 sources as well. To that end,


Attachment B also provides a SIP process (currently in draft


form) which would allow similar flexibility for non-part 70


sources.


With respect to NSR, States can process, in parallel with


the part 70 permit issuance process, a revision to an existing


NSR permit as necessary to resolve any exclusivity concerns


within existing NSR permits (See first White Paper).


Currently the implementing regulations for section 112(l) at


40 CFR part 63, subpart E represent an additional constraint on


the streamlining of applicable requirements in part 70 permits


but only where a State or local agency has accepted a delegation


of authority for a particular maximum achievable control


technology (MACT) standard by virtue of its commitment to replace


the Federal section 112 emissions standard with the State's own


standard or program during the part 70 permit issuance process


and using the procedures established in the Subpart E rule at


§ 63.94.. In § 63.94, EPA has specified the criteria for


18

approving such alternative limits and controls to meet an


otherwise applicable section 112 requirement. These criteria


must be satisfied to ensure that, after a State accepts


delegation under § 63.94, any change to the Federal rule results


in permit requirements that, among other things:


o Reflect applicability criteria no less stringent than


those in the otherwise applicable Federal standards or


requirements;


o Require levels of emissions control for each affected


source and emissions point no less stringent than those


contained in the Federal standards or requirements;


o Require compliance and enforcement measures for each


affected source and emissions point no less stringent than


those in the Federal standards or requirements;


o Express levels of control and compliance and enforcement


measures in the same form and units of measure as the


Federal standard or requirement for § 63.94 program


substitutions;


o Assure compliance by each affected source no later than


would be required by the Federal standard or requirement.


Thus, when a State or local agency, after receiving § 63.94


delegation, seeks to replace a Federal section 112 emissions


standard with requirements arising from its own air toxics


standard or program (such as a toxics NSR program) during the


part 70 permit issuance process, streamlining must take place by


meeting both the criteria of § 63.94 and, except where


contradictory, the criteria of this guidance. However, because


most States are planning to take straight delegation of Federal


emissions standards through subpart E procedures that do not rely


on the part 70 permit issuance process, the EPA believes that the


subpart E criteria for streamlining applicable requirements will


be necessary only in a minority of instances. In the majority of


cases, where a State takes delegation of a Federal standard


(e.g., through straight delegation), the applicable section 112


requirements could be streamlined by following only the criteria


outlined in section A.2., above. Where there are a large number


of sources in the same category subject to a MACT standard for


which the State has a regulation with equivalent requirements,


EPA recommends that the State explore delegation options under


§ 63.93 to best utilize available resources.


It should be noted that the current subpart E rule may be


subject to change as a result of pending litigation. Currently,


EPA intends to revise the rule within the parameters of the


19

Court's decision to allow greater flexibility for approving State


air toxics standards and programs and to minimize or remove (as


appropriate) any constraint that subpart E might impose on the


streamlining of applicable requirements in part 70 permits.


Finally, States are strongly encouraged to adopt regulatory


provisions allowing permitting authorities to grant the permit


shield where they cannot now do so. The permit shield is an


effective means to clarify that for applicable requirements


listed as subsumed under the streamlined requirements, compliance


with the streamlined requirements is deemed to also be compliance


with the subsumed requirements. Such an understanding is


essential to support and defend the issuance of any permit which


provides for the streamlined treatment of multiple applicable


requirements.


If a permit shield is not available, a permittee can still


be afforded significant enforcement protection by an explicit


agency finding that in its judgment the streamlined permit term


indeed provides for full compliance with all the permit limits


that is subsumes. In such a case, it is imperative that the


permit contain language that lists the applicable requirements


being subsumed into the streamlined requirement and states that


compliance with the streamlined requirement will be deemed


compliance with the listed requirements.


B. Development Of Applications And Permits For Outdated SIP


Requirements.


1. Issue.


Can sources file part 70 permit applications on the basis of


locally adopted rules pending EPA SIP approval rather than the


current SIP requirements? Can sources certify their compliance


status on the same basis? Under what circumstances can


permitting authorities issue and/or later revise part 70 permits


based on such locally adopted rules?


2. Guidance.


a. General. In the first White Paper (section II.B.6.),


EPA described a mechanism for simplifying permits where a source


is subject to both a State adopted rule that is pending SIP


approval and the approved SIP version of that rule. Under that


approach, the pending SIP requirements would be incorporated into


the State-only portion of the permit and would become federally


enforceable upon EPA approval of the SIP. The EPA believes that


in most instances, the approach described in the first White


Paper adequately addresses the described problem. In some areas


(most notably California), however, a sizable backlog of pending


20

SIP revisions exists, and a more far-reaching solution is needed. 


In today's guidance, therefore, another approach that may be used


by EPA and permitting authorities to address this situation is


described.


Under this new alternative, the permitting authority may


allow that application completeness initially be based on locally


adopted rules including those which would relax current (i.e.,


federally-approved) SIP requirements, provided that (1) the local


rule has been submitted to EPA as a SIP revision, and (2) the


permitting authority reasonably believes that the local rule (not


the current SIP rule) will be the basis for the part 70 permit.


Where the permitting authority or the source has


demonstrated to EPA's satisfaction17 that the local rule is more


stringent and therefore assures compliance with the current SIP


for all subject sources, a permit application relying on the


local rule may be deemed to be complete and a permit containing


the requirements of the local rule rather than the current SIP


could be issued for part 70 purposes. That is, consistent with


section 504(a) of the Act, the part 70 permit need only contain


emissions limits and other terms and conditions (i.e., the more


stringent local rule) as needed to assure compliance with the


applicable requirement (i.e., the current SIP regulation).


An EPA finding that a submitted rule assures compliance with


the approved SIP rule would be a preliminary indication of EPA's


belief that a part 70 permit incorporating the terms of the


submitted rule would also assure compliance with the approved


SIP. Such a finding would not equate to rulemaking, and so would


not constitute a revision of the SIP. Therefore, a preliminary


finding would not necessarily ensure that the proposed revision


would ultimately be approved by EPA, nor would it protect a


source from enforcement of the approved SIP.18 Further, such a


finding would not predetermine the outcome of the part 70 permit


proceeding. Reviewers would have the ability to evaluate any


17
Where resources allow and the situation calls for it, EPA


will go on record with a letter to the permitting authority with


a list of rules that it has preliminarily determined will assure


compliance with the corresponding SIP approved rule.


18
If a part 70 permit is issued based upon a pending SIP


revision and a permit shield is incorporated in the permit,


compliance with the permit would be deemed to be compliance with


all applicable requirements. If EPA or the permitting authority


later discovers that the permit terms do not assure compliance


with all applicable requirements, including the applicable SIP,


the permit would have to be reopened and revised. 


21

proposed permit terms or conditions based on pending SIP


revisions to determine whether the permit assures compliance with


applicable requirements, i.e., the approved SIP. However, EPA


believes that a finding of this nature should provide the source


and the permitting authority sufficient assurance to proceed with


the issuance of a permit that reflects the terms of the submitted


local rule rather than the approved SIP. Note that a part 70


permit can be based on a local rule even if the local rule is


subsequently disapproved by EPA for SIP purposes (e.g., measure


is more stringent than the current SIP but fails to meet SIP


requirements for reasonably available control technology and/or


to make reasonable further progress), provided: (1) a permit


based on the local rule would assure compliance with all


applicable requirements (including the approved SIP); and (2) the


permit meets all part 70 requirements.


Where the local rule submitted to EPA as a SIP revision


represents a relaxation of the current SIP requirement (e.g., the


local rule would replace an existing technology forcing rule that


has been determined to be unachievable in practice), a part 70


source may propose in its permit application to base its permit


on the local rule in anticipation of EPA approval. However, a


permit based on the local rule could not be issued prior to EPA


approval of the rule. This is because a permit based on the


relaxed requirements of the local rule could not assure


compliance with the more stringent applicable requirement (the


approved SIP), as required by section 504 of the Act. Similarly,


a part 70 source may be subject to pending SIP revisions that may


tighten certain current SIP obligations and relax others for


sources in that source category. Here again the permitting


authority could allow initial application completeness to be


determined relying on the locally adopted rule, but the permit


could not be issued without the current SIP requirements unless a


source opted to demonstrate that the submitted rule represents,


for that specific source, a more stringent requirement than the


current SIP. In such a case, the part 70 permit could


subsequently be issued for that source on the basis of the local


rule, since the permit terms would assure compliance with the


approved SIP.


b. Initial actions by EPA and permitting authorities. The


EPA is committed to working with States within available


resources to assure that the timetable for overall permit


issuance is not adversely affected by pending SIP revisions that


are not straightforward tightenings. The extent of the problem,


however, will vary greatly and, in some cases, may require a


specific plan of action between EPA and certain States to


expedite SIP processing where the problem is substantial.


In California, where this problem is believed to be most


22

extensive, EPA, the districts, and the California Air Resources


Board are in the process of identifying rules in the SIP backlog


that are not straightforward tightenings or are relaxations of


the currently approved SIP, and will target them for expeditious


processing. These rules will be identified within a specified


timeframe, generally within 1 year of the effective date of a


district's part 70 program. The EPA's Region IX will enter into


formal agreements with affected districts and will commit to take


action on this "targeted" portion of the SIP backlog before


comprehensive permit issuance for sources affected by the backlog


would be required, provided this is consistent with the


transition plan19 (as it may be revised). Other EPA Regional


Offices will determine the need and resources available for this


type of exercise on a case-by-case basis. Region IX will also


commit to process expeditiously any similar rules submitted or


identified after the period of the formal agreement, although


such processing would not necessarily occur before permits must


be issued to sources affected by these rules.


Under Region IX's formal agreements, permitting authorities


in the districts need not issue the portion of the part 70 permit


covering emissions units affected by the targeted backlog until


the rule adoption or change identified in the formal agreement


has been acted on by EPA, consistent with the flexibility allowed


in the permit issuance transition plan in the permitting


authority's program. This should in most cases allow permitting


authorities to delay issuing permits to sources to the extent


they are affected by the targeted SIP backlog until EPA completes


its review action on the pending SIP revisions. Where a


transition plan contains a permit issuance schedule that would


not allow postponing permit issuance until EPA has acted on the


proposed SIP revisions, appropriate changes to the plan can still


be made to defer permit issuance until EPA action on the targeted


SIP backlog. Such changes would be made following the same


approach described for changing application forms in EPA's first


White Paper. Within these constraints, a permitting authority


may allow for issuance of part 70 permits to the facility in


phases such that permits covering those emissions units of the


facility affected by the targeted SIP revision are issued later. 


This result is also consistent with the flexibility contained in


§ 70.2 (see definition of "Part 70 permit") for the permitting


authority to issue multiple permits to one part 70 source if it


makes sense to do so. Alternatively, the permitting authority


could issue the permit in its entirety based on the current SIP.


The EPA agrees that delays in permit issuance described


19
Transition plan refers to the 3-year transition strategy


for initial part 70 permit issuance described in § 70.4(b)(11).


23

above will not be cause for an EPA finding of failure by the


permitting authority to adequately administer or enforce its


part 70 program. Any initial permit issued under a phased


approach (i.e., the first phase involves all emissions units


unaffected by the SIP backlog targeted by EPA), however, does not


shield the source from the enforceability of the requirements


excluded in the first phase permit and the obligation to obtain


permit conditions covering the excluded emissions units after EPA


has acted on the relevant SIP rule backlog.


c. Ongoing actions. The preceding guidance should address


the most significant problems associated with the development of


part 70 permit applications and the subsequent issuance of


part 70 permits that result from the existence of a SIP backlog. 


The EPA recognizes, however, that areas experiencing the most


significant start-up problems with respect to pending SIP rules


may well require an ongoing program to manage the potential SIP


backlog so as to prevent significant problems of this nature from


occurring in the future. In some situations it may be


appropriate on a continuing basis for EPA to determine


preliminarily whether a submitted rule can be listed as one which


would assure compliance with the SIP rule it seeks to replace. 


This would enable the permitting authority to adjust its


priorities for requiring application updates and for


accomplishing permit issuance and revision.


For post application submittal, a source that has filed a


complete application may opt to, or be required to, update its


current application as a result of changes or pending changes to


the SIP. The likelihood of these changes occurring will vary


from area to area, and are most likely to affect sources


scheduled later in the transition period for initial permit


issuance. For example: 


o A local rule previously relied upon may be amended by the


State or district.


o Where a local rule that was previously listed in the


formal agreement for expeditious SIP processing (because the


rule is not a straightforward strengthening) is disapproved


by EPA and the source has relied on that rule in preparing


its application, the applicant must file an application


update that either demonstrates that compliance with the


local rule would assure compliance with the current SIP or


demonstrates direct compliance with the current SIP.


o The adoption and submission to EPA of a more stringent


local rule after an applicant has filed its application may


present a new and desired opportunity for streamlining. If


so, the applicant could opt to file an application update to


24

shift the compliance focus of its current application to the


newly adopted local rule, which is pending SIP approval,


provided it meets the streamlining criteria described in


section II.A. above.


For post permit issuance, sources may also encounter changes


to rule situations after initial permit issuance that could lead


them to request a permit revision. For example, sources may


propose a revision to an issued part 70 permit where a newly


adopted local rule would present a desirable streamlining


opportunity. The significant permit revision process would be


required under the current part 70 to accomplish this change. 


Note that EPA in its revisions to part 70 may authorize


permitting authorities to use a less extensive permit revision


process.


To initiate the permit revision, the source must file an


application to revise the permit to contain the requirements of


local rule instead of the current SIP. This application must


meet the previously defined and applicable streamlining criteria. 


In response, the permitting authority may subsequently


revise the permit based on the local rule in lieu of the current


SIP where (1) the rule is listed by the EPA as one where


compliance with it would assure compliance with the relevant


portions of the current SIP, or (2) the applicant has provided a


source specific demonstration consistent with the streamlining


criteria in section II.A.2. that assures this result. A permit


shield or similar permit condition should be issued for purposes


of certainty. In the absence of a shield or similar permit


condition, all aspects of the approved SIP remain enforceable,


regardless of the source's compliance status with respect to the


permit. The EPA encourages permitting authorities currently


without provisions for incorporating permit shields to add them


at their first opportunity.


3. Process.


a. Initial Applications. An applicant proposing to submit


its part 70 permit application based on a local rule that has


been submitted for EPA approval rather than the current SIP would


take one of two courses of actions depending on the status of the


local rule with EPA and/or the permitting authority:


The first course of action would be appropriate for local


rules that (1) have been previously demonstrated to EPA's


satisfaction to be at least as stringent as the approved SIP rule


so as to assure compliance with it for all subject sources, (2)


are otherwise authorized by the permitting authority based on its


judgement that such rules will likely be the basis for the


25

part 70 permit (e.g. EPA approval of the rule is imminent), or


(3) have been specifically identified in a formal agreement


between the permitting authority and EPA for expeditious SIP


processing, i.e., the "targeted backlog." Rules listed in a


formal agreement will typically involve local rules pending SIP


approval which do or could represent full or partial relaxations


of the current SIP. Where they choose to use this approach, the


permitting authority and EPA will maintain an up-to-date list of


local rules which meet any of these criteria.


In preparing initial part 70 permit applications with


respect to such local rules the applicant:


Step One - Will indicate in its application that it has


opted for this approach, list or cross-reference all


requirements from applicable local rules that are eligible


for this approach, and refer to the list maintained for this


purpose by the permitting authority.


Step Two - Will identify in the permit application the


current SIP requirements that the pending SIP revision would


replace.


Step Three - May choose to certify compliance with the


requirement(s) of the pending local rule in lieu of the


current SIP if there is sufficient source compliance data on


which to base such a certification. (The EPA is proposing


to revise its part 70 regulations to provide that such a


certification would meet the requirements of § 70.5(c)(10).)


Step Four - May propose that a permit shield would be in


effect upon permit issuance. For those listed local rules


which are recognized by EPA as being able to assure


compliance with the current SIP rule, the applicant would


indicate in the application that a permit shield (or


alternatively, other similar language where authority for a


permit shield is not available) is being proposed to be


incorporated into the permit to confirm this understanding.


The second course of action would be appropriate where the


criteria specified above have not been met for a particular rule


and an applicant still wants to base its initial part 70


application on such local rules pending SIP approval. In this


instance, the process would be essentially the same but the


source would have to demonstrate that compliance with the local


rule would assure compliance with the current SIP (i.e., make an


adequate demonstration consistent with the streamlining criteria


described in section II.A.2. above.) and submit it with the


permit application in step one. Again, if a part 70 permit


application has already been submitted without streamlining but


26

the source agrees to subsequently pursue this option, the


permitting authority may work with the source to support


streamlining requirements during the permit development process.


b. Initial Permit Issuance Process. After receiving a


complete application, the permitting authority must note where


the applicant has proposed use of the approaches described above


in section II.B.3.a. The note would be placed in the application


summary, the application, or the revised application. Copies of


the application summary, the application, or the revised


application containing such proposals must be submitted promptly


to EPA (unless EPA has agreed that the demonstration is of a type


not required for advance submittal to EPA).


Where the rule is listed by EPA as one where compliance with


it would assure compliance with the relevant portions of the


current SIP, or the applicant has provided a source specific


demonstration consistent with the streamlining outlined in


section II.A.2., the permitting authority may proceed to issue


the permit based on the local rule in lieu of the current SIP. A


permit shield or similar permit condition which confirms this


understanding should be issued for purposes of certainty.


If an applicant chooses to demonstrate that a local rule


assures compliance with the applicable SIP for all affected


emissions units, the permitting authority will evaluate this


proposal and any supporting documentation. Upon completion of


this evaluation and prior to releasing a draft permit public


notice, the permitting authority is advised to communicate any


concerns to the applicant and provide reasonable opportunity for


the applicant to accept the findings or propose a resolution of


the differences. This may cause some revisions to the


application as originally filed.


If the permitting authority or EPA are not satisfied that


the local rule (as it applies to the applicant's facility)


assures compliance with the applicable SIP rule, the applicant


must revise its application to rely on the SIP rule. All


required application updates must be submitted on or before the


reasonable deadline required by the permitting authority for the


source to maintain its application shield.


Consistent with the flexibility allowed in the permit


issuance transition plan (as it may be revised), the permitting


authority may delay issuance of those portions of a source's


permit that are covered by a rule identified in a Region IX type


formal agreement, which targets certain SIP rules for expeditious


processing, until EPA has acted on the relevant rule(s). 


Alternatively, comprehensive permits may be issued to such a


source prior to the time that EPA has acted on the rule provided


27

that they are based on the current SIP (unless the source has


provided an adequate streamlining demonstration).


4. Enforcement.


All terms and conditions of the part 70 permit are


enforceable by EPA and by citizens. In addition, a source


violating the emissions limitation in the part 70 permit is also


subject to enforcement action for violation of the current SIP


emissions limits if a violation of this limit can be documented.


Upon issuance of a part 70 permit based on the local rule,


the permit terms and conditions implementing the local rule would


become federally enforceable. A source would not be subject to


an EPA enforcement action for any failure to meet monitoring,


recordkeeping, and reporting requirements that are required under


the currently approved SIP, if such an understanding has been


specified in the permit. These requirements would no longer be


independently enforceable, provided the source attempts in good


faith to implement the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting


approach required under the local rule.


If subsequently the permitting authority or EPA determines


that the permit does not assure compliance with applicable


requirements, the permit must be reopened and revised.


5. Discussion.


Sources in California districts currently are subject to


several locally adopted rules which are pending before EPA as


proposed SIP revisions. The majority of these local rules have


been determined by the districts to be more stringent than the


SIP rules that they seek to replace, although some of these rules


would relax the current SIP requirements for certain affected


sources. In some cases, technology-forcing SIP rules have been


found to be infeasible to achieve and, instead of seeking to


enforce them, districts have adopted achievable local rules. 


Until the local rules are approved into the SIP, sources are


subject to both the local rule and the federally-approved version


of the rule.


The resulting "outdated SIP" presents special problems to


sources which must file a part 70 permit application. In


particular, questions arise as to whether sources must complete


their applications and certify compliance based on SIP rules


which have been superseded by more stringent local rules or by


rules that have been relaxed where, for example, the permitting


authority has found the current SIP rules to be unachievable. 


Those problems, while most apparent in their effect on the start-


up of a part 70 program, are also ongoing in nature and may


28

create a need to update initially complete permit applications


and to revise issued permits. The EPA believes that these


problems with outdated SIP rules are most extensive in California


but are not unique to that State.


The EPA strongly believes that implementation of title V to


the extent possible should complement, not complicate, the


implementation of other titles, including title I, the purpose of


which is to assure adoption of programs that will attain and


maintain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).20


Accordingly, the Agency is providing this guidance which will


allow sources and permitting authorities to rely on more


stringent local rules for permit issuance. The overall strategy


for sensitizing the SIP revision process to part 70 concerns


presented in this guidance will allow sources to focus more on


current air quality requirements in all aspects of part 70 permit


application development and update, permit issuance, and permit


revision.


The legal basis for recognizing a local rule pending SIP


approval in lieu of the current, but less stringent, SIP


requirement or for streamlining multiple applicable requirements


is identical to the basis for adopting a streamlined emissions


limit to replace multiple applicable requirements (see discussion


in section II.A.5.). The opportunities for shifting to the more


stringent local rule are correspondingly affected by the


limitations previously described for the streamlining of


applicable requirements.


C. Treatment Of Insignificant Emissions Units.


1. Issue.


How must sources address insignificant emissions units


(IEU's) subject to at least one applicable requirement?21


20
This guidance is designed primarily to alleviate


situations where the SIP backlog is both large and longstanding. 


It is not to be used as a means of anticipating the outcome of


pending attainment status redesignations.


21
An emissions unit can be an IEU for one applicable


requirement and not for another. However, such a unit may be


eligible for treatment as an IEU only with respect to those


pollutants not emitted in significant amounts. 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


29

(Insignificant emissions units are in most cases not directly


regulated, and therefore could be left off the permit entirely,


were it not for the presence of certain generic or facility-wide


requirements that apply to all emissions units.) Must the


application and the subsequent permit address each IEU


individually and require periodic monitoring where it is not


otherwise provided by a generically applicable requirement? On


what basis can the initial and future compliance certifications


be made for IEU's with generally applicable requirements?


2. Guidance.


The EPA interprets part 70 to allow considerable discretion


to the permitting authority in tailoring the amount and quality


of information required in permit applications and permits as


they relate to IEU's. In general, permit applications must


contain sufficient information to support the drafting of the


part 70 permit (including certain information for IEU's subject


to only generally applicable requirements) and to determine


compliance status with all applicable requirements. The EPA,


however, interprets part 70 to allow permitting authorities


considerable discretion as to the format and content of permits,


provided that compliance with all applicable requirements,


including those for IEU's, is assured. The Agency believes that


the clarifications contained herein afford permitting authorities


sufficient flexibility to treat IEU's in a manner commensurate


with the environmental benefits that may be gained from their


inclusion in the permit.


a. Permit Applications - Information. With regard to


part 70 requirements to describe and list IEU's in applications


and permits, the permitting authority can use the generic


grouping approach for emissions units and activities as discussed


in the first White Paper. In addition, the requirement to


identify all applicable requirements, as it related to IEU's


subject to generally applicable requirements, can normally be


addressed by standard or generic permit conditions with minimal


or no reference to any specific emissions unit or activity. The


EPA has reviewed and acquiesced in the issuance of permits


wherein generally applicable requirements are incorporated


through the use of tables describing a tiered compliance regime


for these requirements as they affect different sizes of


emissions units, including a distinct and more streamlined


compliance regime for IEU's. Different generic permit tables may


be necessary to cover the situation for a particular type of IEU


which is governed by different applicable requirements. 


Similarly, the first White Paper provides that no emissions


treatment in the application as an insignificant emissions unit.


30

estimates need be provided for even regulated emissions streams


where it would serve no useful purpose to do so. This should be


the case for IEU's where the amount of emissions from a unit is


not relevant to determining applicability of, or compliance with,


the requirement. Except where the contributions of IEU's would


need to be more precisely known to resolve issues of


applicability or major source status would the permitting


authority need to request emissions estimates for part 70


purposes.


b. Permit Applications - Initial Compliance Certifications. 


Section 70.5(c)(9) requires complete part 70 applications to


contain a certification of compliance with all applicable


requirements by a responsible official and a statement of the


methods used for determining compliance. This certification must


be based on a "reasonable inquiry" by the responsible official. 


The EPA believes that, for the generally applicable or facility-


wide requirements applying to an IEU, reasonable inquiry for


initial certifications need only be based on available


information, which would include any information required to be


generated by the applicable requirement. Regarding the latter,


and as is true for any applicable requirement, the initial


certification can be based on only the latest cycle of required


information (e.g., a source could generally rely on a


demonstration of compliance resulting from the most recent


required monitoring, notwithstanding the existence of prior


monitoring indicating non-compliance at a previous point in


time). Where an applicable requirement (generally applicable or


otherwise) does not require monitoring, the § 70.5(c)(9)


requirement to certify compliance does not itself require that


monitoring be done to support a certification. Similarly, there


is no need to perform an emissions test to support this


compliance certification if none is required by the applicable


requirement itself. The EPA interprets § 70.5(c)(9) to allow for


a certification of compliance where there is no required


monitoring and, despite a "reasonable inquiry" to uncover other


existing information, the responsible official has no information


to the contrary.


c. Permit Content - Applicable Requirements. With regard


to part 70 obligations to include all applicable requirements in


the permit, the permitting authority can also use the generic


grouping approach for emissions units and activities as discussed


in the first White Paper. That is, generally applicable


requirements can normally be adequately addressed in the part 70


permit by standard permit conditions 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. As noted above, different generic permit provisions may


be necessary to cover the situation for which different types of


31

IEU's are governed by different applicable requirements.


d. Permit Content - Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and


Reporting. Section 70.6(a)(3)(i) requires all applicable


requirements for monitoring and analysis procedures or test


methods to be contained in part 70 permits. In addition, where


the applicable requirement does not require periodic testing or


monitoring (which may consist of recordkeeping designed to serve


as monitoring), the permitting authority must prescribe periodic


monitoring sufficient to yield reliable data from the relevant


time period that are representative of the source's compliance


with the permit. Many of the generically applicable requirements


for IEU's have a related test method, but relatively few have a


specific regimen of required periodic testing or monitoring.


The EPA believes that the permitting authority in general


has broad discretion in determining the nature of any required


periodic monitoring. The need for this discretion is


particularly evident in the case of generally applicable


requirements, which tend to cover IEU's as well as significant


emissions units. The requirement to include in a permit testing,


monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting, and compliance


certification sufficient to assure compliance does not require


the permit to impose the same level of rigor with respect to all


emissions units and applicable requirement situations. It does


not require extensive testing or monitoring to assure compliance


with the applicable requirements for emissions units that do not


have significant potential to violate emissions limitations or


other requirements under normal operating conditions. In


particular, where the establishment of a regular program of


monitoring would not significantly enhance the ability of the


permit to assure compliance with the applicable requirement, the


permitting authority can provide that the status quo (i.e., no


monitoring) will meet § 70.6(a)(3)(i). For IEU's subject to a


generally applicable requirement for which the permitting


authority believes monitoring is needed, a streamlined approach


to periodic monitoring, such as an inspection program to assure


the proper operation and maintenance of emissions activities


(e.g., valves and flanges), should presumptively be appropriate.


The EPA's policy on IEU monitoring needs is based on its


belief that IEU's typically are associated with inconsequential


environmental impacts and present little potential for violations


of generically applicable requirements, and so may be good


candidates for a very streamlined approach to periodic


monitoring. As EPA noted in the first White Paper, generally


applicable requirements typically reside in the SIP. Permitting


authorities therefore not only have the best sense of which


requirements qualify as generally applicable, but also where it


is appropriate to conclude that periodic monitoring is not


32

necessary for IEU's subject to these requirements. Where the


source ascertains that the permitting authority will not require


periodic monitoring for IEU's, it can of course omit a periodic


monitoring proposal from the application.


e. Permit Content - Compliance Certifications. Section


70.6(c)(5) requires in part that each permitted source submit no


less frequently than annually a certification of its compliance


status with all the terms and conditions of the permit. This


certification will be based on available information, including


monitoring and/or other compliance terms required in the permit. 


Where a particular emissions unit presents little or no potential


for violation of a certain applicable requirement, the


"reasonable inquiry" required by title V can be abbreviated. 


Since it can be determined in the abstract that violation of the


requirement by these emissions units is highly improbable, it is


reasonable in that instance to limit the search for information


to what is readily available. As noted above, EPA believes that


an IEU subject to a generally applicable requirement typically


presents little or no potential for violation of those


requirements. It follows that where, for instance, a permit does


not require monitoring for IEU's subject to a generally


applicable requirement, and there were no observed, documented,


or known instances of non-compliance, an annual certification of


compliance is presumptively appropriate. Similarly, where


monitoring is required, an annual certification of compliance is


also appropriate when no violations are monitored and there were


no observed, documented, or known instances of non-compliance.


3. Discussion.


Many of the concerns expressed to EPA regarding the


treatment of IEU's in the application and permit arise because


IEU's are in most cases not directly regulated, and therefore


could be left off the permit entirely, were it not for the


presence of certain generic requirements that apply to all


emissions units. Though the focus of concern is the


applicability of the generic requirements to IEU's, response to


these concerns derive primarily from the flexibility that exists


in part 70 for dealing with generically applicable requirements. 


In implementing this flexibility, it may be appropriate for the


permitting authority to further distinguish between units that


have been designated as insignificant and those that have not. 


This is so because the relative size of a unit can be an


important factor in deciding how to fashion permit terms even for


a generically applicable requirement, and State-established IEU's


normally define the smallest emissions points. However, EPA


notes that, as a matter of part 70 interpretation, whether a unit


has been designated as insignificant is not necessarily critical


to its treatment in the part 70 permit.


33

Concerns have been expressed that addressing in part 70


permits the relatively trivial portion of emissions attributable


to IEU's will consume a disproportionate share of the total


resources available to issue part 70 permits. That is, according


to their understanding of part 70, applicants and permitting


authorities will expend greater resources than warranted to


determine the specific applicability of requirements to IEU's,


how compliance with them will be assured, and the basis on which


the certification of compliance status of the source with respect


to these IEU's would be made.


The EPA believes that the policy described for addressing


generically applicable requirements in applications and permits


as they apply to IEU's allows permitting authorities sufficient


flexibility to streamline the required administrative effort


commensurate to the environmental significance of the varying


types of IEU situations. This should prevent the potentially


high but unintended level of costs identified by certain sources


and permitting authorities from occurring in the future with


respect to IEU's.


D. Use Of Major Source And Applicable Requirement Stipulation.


1. Issue.


When an applicant stipulates that it is a major source and


subject to specific applicable requirements, how much, if any,


additional information related to applicability is necessary in


the part 70 permit application?


2. Guidance.


If an applicant stipulates that it is a major source22 and


subject to specific applicable requirements, it need not provide


additional information in its application to demonstrate


applicability with respect to those requirements, provided that


(1) the permitting authority has had previous review experience


with a particular source (e.g., issued it a permit), or (2)


otherwise has an adequate level of familiarity with the source's


operation (e.g., current emissions inventory information). This


does not affect the requirement to provide information for other


purposes under part 70, such as to support a compliance


certification or a request for a permit shield or to describe the


emissions activities of its site (see first White Paper).


Accordingly, permitting authorities may allow the applicant


22
If an applicant stipulates it is a major source, it must


list all pollutants for which it is major.


34

to stipulate that:


o Its facility is a major source and subject to part 70


permitting, without providing any additional information for


the applicability determination;


o It is subject to specific applicable requirements, to be


included in its part 70 permit, without providing additional


information to establish applicability for stipulated


requirements; or


o It is subject to only portions of an applicable


requirement and state that it is not subject to other


portions. Such a stipulation must explicitly state which


portion of the rule applies and which does not and an


explanation must be provided for this conclusion.


Stipulation by a source to major source status or specific


applicable requirements in a part 70 application does not


preclude the permitting authority from requesting additional


information from the applicant for establishing the applicability


of non-stipulated requirements or for verifying a stipulation


that certain requirements are not applicable.


3. Discussion.


In general, part 70 requires that applications contain


information to the extent needed to determine major source


status, to verify the applicability of part 70 or 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.


In the first White Paper, EPA indicated a substantial degree


of discretion for permitting authorities in this area. It


indicates that States may adopt different approaches to meet the


minimum program requirements established by the part 70


regulations depending on local needs. In many instances, a


qualitative description of emissions will satisfy this standard. 


However, the applicant may need to provide more detailed


information for purposes other than determining applicability and


to foster efficiency in the permitting program.


For the purpose of determining the applicability of part 70


or other specific requirements, the information required in an


application should be streamlined for the mutual benefit of the


applicant and the permitting authority. An applicant that


stipulates it is a major source subject to part 70 and to other


applicable requirements should not be required to provide any


additional information to verify those facts in its part 70


35

application. However, the applicant must provide sufficient


information to allow the permitting authority to impose the


applicable requirement. In addition, the resulting application


streamlining would not relieve the applicant from submitting, or


the permitting authority from reviewing, emissions or other data


for part 70 purposes other than determining applicability.


In the case where there is no dispute that a stationary


source is subject to part 70, and the applicant stipulates that


the source is a part 70 source in the application, no further


information would be required for applicability determination. 


An example would be a source which is currently operating under a


prevention of significant deterioration permit because it is


major for PM-10. Both the source and the permitting authority


agree that the source is subject to the State's part 70 program.


A source may also streamline the part 70 permit process by


stipulating that specific applicable requirements apply. This


does not relieve the source of its obligation to identify all


applicable requirements or preclude the permitting authority from


requesting additional information, including information


pertaining to the applicability of requirements not covered in


the stipulation. For example, a stationary source may stipulate


it is subject to a SIP rule. However, the permitting authority


may suspect that the source is also subject to a New Source


Performance Standard (NSPS), but may need more information for


confirmation. In this case, the permitting authority would


request additional information related to the applicability of


the NSPS.


Similarly, an applicant may stipulate that it is subject to


only portions of an applicable requirement and state that it is


not subject to other portions. In such case, the permitting


authority may request the applicant to provide additional


information to demonstrate that it is not subject to requirements


in question. However, if a source requests a permit shield,


additional information to demonstrate the non-applicability of


these requirements must be submitted.


E. Referencing Of Existing Information In Part 70 Permit


Applications And Permits.


1. Issue.


Can an applicant in its permit application, and can the


permit itself, reference existing information that is available


at the permitting authority? Also, can the permit application


and the permit reference applicable requirements through citation


rather than by a complete reprinting of the requirements


themselves in the part 70 permit application or permit?


36

2. Guidance.


a. General. Information that would be cited or cross


referenced in the permit application and incorporated by


reference into the issued permit must first be currently


applicable and available to the permitting authority and


public23. The information need not be restated in the part 70


application. Standardized citation formats should be established


by the permitting authority to facilitate appropriate use of this


mechanism.


Referenced documents must also be specifically identified. 


Descriptive information such as the title or number of the


document and the date of the document must be included so that


there is no ambiguity as to which version of which document is


being referenced. Citations, cross references, and


incorporations by reference must be detailed enough that the


manner in which any referenced material applies to a facility is


clear and is not reasonably subject to misinterpretation. Where


only a portion of the referenced document applies, applications


and permits must specify the relevant section of the document. 


Any information cited, cross referenced, or incorporated by


reference must be accompanied by a description or identification


of the current activities, requirements, or equipment for which


the information is referenced.


b. Permit Applications. The applicant and the permitting


authority should work together to determine the extent to which


part 70 permit applications may cross reference agency-issued


rules, regulations, permits, and published protocols, and


existing information generated by the applicant. To facilitate


referencing existing information, permitting authorities should


identify the general types of information available for this


purpose. To the extent that such information exists and is


readily available to the public, the following types of


information may be cited or cross referenced (as allowed by the


permitting authority)24:


23
Referenced documents must be made available (1) as part of


the public docket on the permit action or (2) as information


available in publicly accessible files located at the permitting


authority, unless they are published or are readily available


(e.g., regulations printed in the Code of Federal Regulations or


its State equivalent).


24
Use of cross-referencing does not shift any burden of


reproducing or otherwise acquiring information to the permitting


authority.


37

o Rules, regulations, and published protocols.


o Criteria pollutant and HAP emission inventories and


supporting calculations.


o Emission monitoring reports, compliance reports, and


source tests.


o Annual emissions statements.


o Process and abatement equipment lists and descriptions.


o Current operating and preconstruction permit terms.


o Permit application materials previously submitted.


o Other materials with the approval of the permitting


authority.


Applicants are obligated to correct and supplement


inaccurate or incomplete permitting authority records relied upon


for the purposes of part 70 permit applications. The responsible


official must certify, consistent with § 70.5(d), to the truth,


accuracy, and completeness of all information referenced.


c. Permits. Incorporation by reference in permits may be


appropriate and useful under several circumstances. Appropriate


use of incorporation by reference in permits includes referencing


of test method procedures, inspection and maintenance plans, and


calculation methods for determining compliance. One of the key


objectives Congress hoped to achieve in creating title V,


however, was the issuance of comprehensive permits that clarify


how sources must comply with applicable requirements. Permitting


authorities should therefore balance the streamlining benefits


achieved through use of incorporation by reference with the need


to issue comprehensive, unambiguous permits useful to all


affected parties, including those engaged in field inspections.


Permitting authorities may, after listing all applicable


emissions limits for all applicable emissions units in the


part 70 permit, provide for referencing the details of those


limits, rather than reprinting them in permits to the extent that


(1) applicability issues and compliance obligations are clear,


and (2) the permit includes any additional terms and conditions


sufficient to assure compliance with all applicable


requirements25.


25
In the case of a merged permit program, i.e., where a


State has merged its NSR and operating permits programs, previous


38

Where the cited applicable requirement provides for


different and independent compliance options (e.g., boilers


subject to an NSPS promulgated under section 111 may comply by


use of low sulfur fuel or through add-on of a control device),


the permitting authority generally should require that the


part 70 permit contain (or incorporate by reference) the specific


option(s) selected by the source. Alternatively, the permit


could incorporate by reference the entire applicable requirement


provided that (1) such reference is unambiguous in its


applicability and requirements, (2) the permit contains


obligations to certify compliance and report compliance


monitoring data reflecting the chosen control approach, and (3)


the permitting authority determines that the relevant purposes of


title V would be met through such referencing. The alternative


approach would not be allowable if changing from one compliance


option to another would trigger the need for a prior review by


the permitting authority or EPA (e.g. NSR), unless prior approval


is incorporated into the part 70 permit (i.e., advance NSR).


The EPA does not recommend that permitting authorities


incorporate into part 70 permits certain other types of


information such as the part 70 permit application (see first


White Paper).


3. Discussion.


Title V and part 70 do not define when citation or cross-


referencing in permit applications would be appropriate, although


it obviously would not be allowed where such citations or cross-


references would not support subsequent development of the


part 70 permit. The EPA's first White Paper states that a


permitting authority may streamline part 70 applications by


allowing the applicant to cross-reference a variety of documents


including permits and Federal, State, and local rules. This


guidance further provides that where an emissions estimate is


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


recent submittal of emissions inventory) the permitting authority


can allow the source to cross-reference this information for


part 70 purposes.


Permitting authorities' files and databases often include


information submitted by the applicant which can also be required


by part 70. Development and review of part 70 permit


applications could be streamlined if information already held by


NSR permits expire. This leaves the part 70 permit as the sole


repository of the relevant prior terms and conditions of the NSR


permit. Under these circumstances, it is not possible to


incorporate by reference the expired NSR permits.


39

the permitting authority and the public is referenced or cited in


part 70 permit applications rather than restated in its entirety. 


Similarly, specific citations to regulations that are unambiguous


in their applicability and requirements as they apply to a


particular source will reduce the burden associated with


application development.


Incorporation by reference can be similarly effective in


streamlining the content of part 70 permits. The potential


benefits of permit development based on an incorporation by


reference approach include reduced cost and administrative


complexity, and continued compliance flexibility as enforceably


allowed by the underlying applicable requirements.


Expectations for referencing with respect to permit content


are somewhat better defined than for permit applications. 


Section 504(a) states that each permit "shall include enforceable


emissions limitations and standards" and "such other conditions


as are necessary to assure compliance with the applicable


requirements." In addition, section 504(c) requires each permit


to "set forth inspection, entry, monitoring, compliance


certification, and reporting requirements to assure compliance


with the permit terms and conditions." Analogous provisions are


contained in §§ 70.6(a)(1) and (3). The EPA interprets these


provisions to place limits on the type of information that may be


referenced in permits. Although this material may be


incorporated into the permit by reference, that may only be done


to the extent that its manner of application is clear.


Accordingly, after all applicable emissions limits are


placed in the part 70 permit and attached to the emissions unit


to which they apply, the permitting authority may allow


referencing where it is specific enough to define how the


applicable requirement applies and where using this approach


assures compliance with all applicable requirements. This


approach is a desirable option where the referenced material is


unambiguous in how it applies to the permitted facility, and it


provides for enforceability from a practical standpoint. On the


other hand, it is generally not acceptable to use a combination


of referencing certain provisions of an applicable requirement


while paraphrasing other provisions of that same applicable


requirement. Such a practice, particularly if coupled with a


permit shield, could create dual requirements and potential


confusion.


Even where the referenced requirement allows for compliance


options, the permitting authority may issue the permit with


incorporation of the applicable requirement provided that the


compliance options of the source are enforceably defined under


available control options, appropriate records are kept and


40

reports made, and any required revisions to update the permit


with respect to specific performance levels are made. This


treatment would be analogous to the flexibility provided to


sources through the use of alternative scenarios.


41

Attachment A


Approval of Alternative Test Methods


The part 63 general provisions, as well as other EPA air


regulations implementing sections 111 and 112 of the Act, allow


only EPA-approved test methods to implement emissions standards


that are established by States to meet Federal requirements. 


Accordingly, streamlining cannot result in any requirement


relying on a State-only test method unless and until EPA, or the


permitting authority acting as EPA's delegated agency, approves


it as an appropriate method for purposes of complying with that


streamlined standard. Currently, all States may be delegated


authority to make decisions regarding minor revisions to EPA


approved test methods (i.e., minor changes are those that have


isolated consequences, affect a single source, and do not affect


the stringency of the emissions limitation or standard). The EPA


is exploring options for defining where delegation to States is


appropriate for reviewing major revisions or new test methods,


and for expediting the approval process where the Agency retains


final sign-off authority. The EPA recognizes that its approval


must generally occur in a timeframe consistent with the time


constraints of the part 70 permit issuance process. Until


further guidance on this subject is issued, States must obtain


EPA approval for all State-only test methods which represent


major changes or alternatives to EPA-approved test methods prior


to or within the 45-day EPA review period of the proposed permit


seeking to streamline requirements.


With respect to SIP requirements, the ability for a


permitting authority to authorize use of a different test method


depends on the governing language contained in the SIP. For


example, some SIP's expressly connect a test method with a


particular emissions limit but allow for the use of an equally


stringent method. Other SIP's contain a more exclusive linkage


between an emissions limit and its required test method (i.e.,


limit A as measured by test method B). The SIP-approved test


method can be changed only through a SIP revision unless the SIP


contains provisions for establishing alternative test methods. 


Attachment B contains example SIP language which provides a


mechanism that can establish an alternative applicable


requirement in such cases without the need for a source-specific


SIP revision.


Permitting authorities may implement streamlining which


involves alternative or new test methods within the flexibility


granted by the SIP and any delegation of authority granted by EPA


(where section 111/112 standards are involved). Permit


applications containing a request for a streamlined requirement


based on an alternative or new test method must, to be complete,


1

demonstrate that the alternative or new test method would


determine compliance at the same or higher stringency as the


otherwise applicable method. The EPA expects to receive


expeditiously (i.e., well in advance of any draft permit


issuance) those portions of an application dealing with a


proposal for streamlining, including any demonstration of test


method adequacy. Any required EPA approval of an alternative or


new test method need not be obtained as a precondition for filing


a complete application, but it must be secured before the final


part 70 permit can be issued. As mentioned previously, EPA


intends to structure its approval process to comport reasonably


with the timelines for part 70 permit issuance.


2

Attachment B


SIP Provisions For Establishing


Alternative Requirements


I. Overview.


States may revise their SIP's to provide for establishing


equally stringent alternatives to specific requirements set forth


in the SIP without the need for additional source-specific SIP


revisions. To allow alternatives to the otherwise-applicable SIP


requirements (i.e., emissions limitations, test methods,


monitoring, and recordkeeping) the State would include language


in SIP's to provide substantive criteria governing the State's


exercise of the alternative requirement authority.


II. Example Language For Part 70 Sources To Establish


Alternative SIP Requirements.


The following is an example of enabling language that could


be used to provide flexibility in the SIP for allowing


alternative requirements to be established for part 70 sources.


In lieu of the requirements imposed pursuant to


(reference specific applicable sections(s) or range of


sections to be covered), a facility owner may comply with


alternative requirements, provided the requirements are


established pursuant to the part 70 permit issuance,


renewal, or significant permit revision process and are


consistent with the streamlining procedures and guidelines


set forth in section II.A. of White Paper Number 2.


For sources subject to an approved part 70 program, an


alternative requirement is approved for the source by EPA if


it is incorporated in an issued part 70 permit to which EPA


has not objected. Where the public comment period precedes


the EPA review period, any public comments concerning the


alternative shall be transmitted to EPA with the proposed


permit. If the EPA and public comment periods run


concurrently, public comments shall be transmitted to EPA no


later than 5 working days after the end of the public


comment period. The Director's [permitting authority's]


determination of approval is not binding on EPA.


Noncompliance with any provision established by this


rule constitutes a violation of this rule.


III. Example Language For Non-Part 70 Sources To Establish


Alternative SIP Requirements.


[NOTE: This section is a draft that EPA expects to finalize


after appropriate revisions in the near future.]

 For sources not subject to an approved part 70 program, the


following is an example of enabling language that States may use


to revise/submit SIP rules which would provide flexibility in the


SIP for allowing alternative requirements to be established.


A. Procedures.


1. General. In lieu of the requirements imposed pursuant


to [reference applicable sections] of this plan, a source


owner may comply with an alternative requirement, provided


that the Director approves it consistent with the procedures


of this paragraph and the criteria of paragraph B.


2. State Review Procedure. The Director may establish an


alternative requirement in [a review process defined by the


State], provided that the requirements of this paragraph are


met for EPA and public review and for notification and


access are met. The Director's determination of approval is


not binding on EPA.


3. Public Review. The Director shall subject any proposed


alternative to adequate public review but may vary the


procedures for, and the timing of, public review in light of


the environmental significance of the action. For the


following types of changes [add list of de minimis actions


subject to EPA review], no public review shall be necessary


for the approval of the alternative.


4. EPA Review. The Director shall submit any proposed


alternative to the Administrator through the appropriate


Regional Office, except for the following types of changes


[add list of de minimis actions subject to EPA review] no


EPA review shall be necessary for the approval of the


alternative. Until the specific alternative SIP requirement


has completed EPA review, the otherwise applicable SIP


provisions will continue to apply.


5. 	Periodic Notification And Public Access. For all


actions taken by the State to establish an alternative


requirement, the Director shall provide in a general manner


for periodic notification to the public on at least a


quarterly basis and for public access to the records


regarding established alternatives and relevant supporting


documentation.


6. Enforcement. Noncompliance with any alternative


established by this provision constitutes a violation of


this rule. The EPA and the public may challenge such an


alternative limit on the basis that it does not meet the


criteria contained in the SIP for establishing such an


2

alternative. In addition, EPA and the public can take


enforcement action against a source that fails to comply


with an applicable alternative requirement.


B. General Criteria for Evaluating Alternatives.


1. Applicability. The unit(s) to which the requirements


apply must be specified in the underlying SIP and in the


permit/alternative. If percentage reductions are required


from the source, the baseline must be clearly set. The SIP


must require the submission of all the information necessary


to establish the baseline, and the alternative requirement


must achieve the reduction called for in the SIP.


2. Time. The alternative must specify the effective date


of the alternative requirement. The underlying requirement


of the SIP shall remain in effect until the effective date


of the alternative. The alternative must clearly specify


any future-effective dates or any compliance schedules that


apply to the source under regulations in effect at the time


of issuance. For instance, a source may be due to comply


with requirements promulgated before the permit/alternative


was issued, but which are effective prior to the expiration


of the permit/alternative.


3. Effect of changed conditions. If alternative emissions


limitations or other requirements are allowed in the


underlying SIP, the associated documentation with the


changed conditions must clearly demonstrate the alternative


requirement is no less stringent than the original SIP


requirement.


4. Standard of conduct. The alternative proposal must


clearly state what requirements the source must meet. For


example, the SIP must specify the emissions limit and what


alternatives are acceptable. The alternative proposal must


contain limits, averaging times, test methods, etc., that


are no less stringent and must address how they are no less


stringent than the underlying SIP requirements. The


alternative proposal must also show whether it applies on a


per-source or per-line basis or is facility-wide.


5. Transfer Efficiency. Any SIP allowing alternative


emissions limits and using transfer efficiency in


determining compliance must explicitly state the


circumstances under which a source may use improved transfer


efficiency as a substitute for meeting the SIP limit. The


improvement should be demonstrated through testing and an


3

appropriate baseline and test method should be specified.1


See draft "Guidelines for determining capture efficiencies"


for criteria for evaluating alternative capture efficiency


requirements.


6. Averaging Time. Both the SIP and the alternative


proposal must explicitly contain the averaging time


associated with each emissions limit (e.g., instantaneous,


three hour average, daily, monthly, or longer). The time


must be sufficient to protect the applicable NAAQS. The


alternative proposal must demonstrate that the averaging


time and the emissions limit in the alternative are as


stringent as those in the original SIP requirements.


7. Monitoring and Recordkeeping. The alternative proposal


must state how the source will monitor compliance with the


emissions requirement, and detail how the proposed method


compares in accuracy, precision, and timeliness to the SIP-


approved method. Records and monitoring data must be


retained for at least the same period of time as required by


the SIP. The method must enable compliance determinations


consistent with the averaging time of the emissions


standard.


8. Test Methods. The alternative proposal must detail how


the proposed test method in association with its particular


emissions requirement (or rule) is at least as stringent as


the approved method in association with its emissions limit


(or rule) considering the accuracy, reliability,


reproducibility, and timeliness of each test method taken in


combination with its emissions limit. The application or


proposal must also address how the change affects


measurement sensitivity and representativeness, describe the


need for the change, and indicate if the change is needed


for unique conditions related only to the source in


question. The method must enable a compliance determination


consistent with the averaging time of the emissions standard


associated with it.


9. Act Requirements. The alternative must meet the all


applicable Act requirements (e.g., for reasonably available


control technology, 15% VOC reduction, etc.) and must not


interfere with any requirements of the Act, including any


regarding the SIP's attainment demonstration and


requirements for reasonable further progress.


1
Implied improvements noted by the NSPS auto coating


transfer efficiency table cannot be accepted at face value.


4

10. Production Level. The emissions are no greater than


the SIP allowable emissions at the same production level. 


Pre-1990 production/operation scenarios cannot be used as


part of any demonstration that the alternative requirements


are as stringent as those in the SIP. Also, the


demonstration must be performed using an EPA-approved test


methods.


5