March 5, 1996

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: White Paper Number 2 for Improved Implementation of The Part 70 Operating Permits Program

FROM: Lydia N. Wegman, DeputyDirector lsi Office ofAir Quality Planningand Standards (MD-10)

TO: Director, Office of Ecosystem**~rotection,** Region I Director, Environmental Planning and Protection Division, Region II Director, Air, Radiation andToxics Division, Region III Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, Region IV Director, Air andRadiation Division, Region V Director, Multimedia Planning and PermittingDivision, Region VI Director, Air, RCRA and TSCA Division, RegionVII Assistant Regional Administrator, Office of Pollution Prevention, State and TribalAssistance, RegionVIII Director, Air and Toxics Division, Region IX Director, Office of Air, Region X

Please find attachedWhite PaperNumber 2 for improved implementation of part 70 operatingpermits programs. This guidance is intended to enable State and local agencies to take further steps to reduce the complexity andpreparation costs of part 70 permit applications and of the part 70 permits themselves. It is intended to supplement, not obviate, the guidanceprovided in EPA's "White Paper for Streamlined Development of part 70 PermitApplications" (July 10, 1995). This guidance is consistent withand furthers the goals of the Presidential initiatives to streamline and reinvent government.

The attached guidance is divided into five sections as follows:

II. A. StreamliningMultipleApplicable 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 B. Development Of Applications And Permits For Outdated SIP Requirements.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 AndApplicable Requirement Stipulation.

II. E. Referencing Of Existing Information In Part 70 Permit ApplicationsAndPermits.
Streamliningwill leadto substantial reductions in permittingburdens and improvedpart 70 implementationby allowing for the first time multiple applicable emissions limits andworkpractices expressed indifferent forms and averaging times to be reduced to a single set of requirements (which canbe
an alternative to all those requirements being subsumed). It will also allowvarious 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 streamliningmust provide that compliance with the streamlined limit would assure compliance with all applicable requirements. In addition, substantial reductions inburden are expected to result from the reduced confusion and cost where locallyadopted rules differ from the EPA-approved State implementationplan, the streamlinedtreatment of insignificant emissions units, the use of stipulations by sources as to which regulations apply, and the cross referencing rather than repetitionof certainexisting information.

There is an immediate need for the implementation of this guidance. A largenumber of sources have filed completepart 70 applications, and increasingnumbers of these submittals are beingprocessed for permit issuance. I strongly encourage you to workwithyour States to effect near-termuse of this guidance.

Substantial contributions to this White Paper have come from the CaliforniaTitleV ImplementationWorking Group. I want to thank you andyour staff for your support andRegion IX in particular for their leadership and considerable efforts in developing andcompleting this paper. I invite your suggestions
on what additional guidance is needed to improve further the initial implementation of title V. If you shouldhave any questions regarding the attachedguidance, please contact Michael Trutna at (919) 541-5345, GingerVagenas of Region IX at (415) 744-1252, orRoger 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 51 1996



### Contacts: Michael A. Trutna (919) 541-5345 GingerVagenas (415) 744-1252 Roger Powell (919) 541-53315WHITE PAPER NUMBER 2 FOR IMPROVED IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PART 70 OPERATING PERMITS PROGRAM

March 5 r 1996

I. OVERVIEW.

This guidance is intended to enable State and local agencies to take further steps to reduce the complexity andpreparation costs of part 70 permit applications and of the part 70 permits themselves and to remove unintendedbarriers and administrative costs. It is also intended to buildon andexpand the guidance provided in the Environmental ProtectionAgency's (EPA) "White Paper for StreamlinedDevelopment of Part 70 Permit Applications" (July lOr 1995). White PaperNumber 2 supplements not obviates r r the first White Paper. Bothpapers shouldbe consulted for guidance in improving the implementation of titleVof the Clean AirAct (Act) (i.e. r part 70 operatingpermits programs). In particular White PaperNumber 2 is designed to simplify the r treatment of overlapping regulatory requirements and insignificant emissions units and to clarify the use of citations and incorporationby reference inthe part 70 permittingprocess. This effort is consistent with and furthers the goals of the Presidential initiatives to streamline and reinvent government.

Substantial contributions to this White Paperhave come from the CaliforniaTitle VImplementation Working Group (Working Group). The CaliforniaAir Resources Boardand several California air districts and industries which (together with EPA) make up theWorking Group have decades of experience with operatingpermits. These operatingpermits programs are generallyjust one component of airprograms that inmany r districtS also include local emissions standards (oftenwith associatedrecordkeeping and reporting requirements) r monitoring requirements inspections source testingr and new source review r

r r (NSR). The EPA has found the insights and recommendations of the Working Group extremelyuseful in integrating thesevarious requirements using thepart 70 permittingprocess. While much of the guidance containedherein addresses situations arising in California it is available for use nationwide. r This guidance is divided into five sections and two attachments which are generally summarized as follows (the reader iSr however referred to the applicable main sections of the r guidance for more detailed information):
Section II. A. StreamliningMultiple Applicable Requirements On The Same Emissions Unit(s)

. The EPA and States have developed different and oftenoverlapping applicable requirements governing the same emissions units to serve the purposes of different air programs. As a result, emissions units at a stationary
sourcemaybe subject to several parallel sets of requirements. This can result in some of the requirements being redundant andunnecessary 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 eachof the overlapping requirements maybe unnecessary and could needlessly consume resources. For example, a source couldbe subject to overlapping standards that result intwo ormore different emissions limits for the same pollutant and two ormore source monitoring requirements for instrumentation, recordkeeping, and reporting.
Today's guidance describes how a source maypropose 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 maybe 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 unambiguouslymore stringent than the others, the applicant may synthesize the conditions of all the applicable requirements into a single
newpermit term that will assure compliance with all requirements. The streamlinedmonitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements would generallybe those associatedwith the most stringent emissions limit, providing theywould assure compliance to the same extent as any subsumedmonitoring. Thus, monitoring, recordkeeping,
or reporting to determine compliance with subsumed limits wouldnot be required where the source implements the streamlined approach.

It is important to emphasize that while streamlining maybe initiatedby either the applicant or the permitting authority, it canonlybe implemented where the permit applicant consents to its use.
Section II. B. Development Of ApplicationsAnd Permits For OutdatedSIP Requirements. Historically, longperiods of timehave 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 significantprogress in

2reducing the amount of time required for taking action on SIP revisions. Despite the progress we have made to date, there are many local rules nowpendingEPA review and approval for inclusion in the SIP. The gap between the approved SIP andthe State rules is of concernbecause States and local agencies enforce their current rules (which
are usuallymore stringent than the approved SIP rules) and often, as a practical matter, no longer enforce the supersededand outdatedrules in the SIP. On the other hand, EPA only recognizes and·can only enforce the SIPapproved rules. This situation can cause confusion and uncertaintybecause some sources are effectively subject to two different versions of the same rules. Part 70's application, certification, andpermit 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 foundby the State to be impossible tomeet. 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 tomeet.

This section of the guidance largely addresses the problemby authorizingpermitting authorities and their
sources tobase permit applications on State and local rules that have been submittedfor SIP approval, rather than on thepotentiallyobsolete approved SIPprovisions that they would replace. Such reliance onpending State and local rules is proper when the permitting authority has concluded that thepending rule will probablybe approved, or when the
sourcebelieves 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 issueduntil the pending rule is approved.

Section II. C. Treatment Of Insignificant Emissions Units.

This sectionprovides for the streamlined treatment of generally applicable requirements that apply to "insignificant" emissions units (lEU's). It is intended to address current concerns that resources will be unnecessarily consumedbymatters of trivial environmental importance.

The guidance clarifies that the permitting authority has broad discretion to tailor thepermit application and

3permit for small equipment and activities as long as compliance with Federal requirements is assured. Forboth the permit application and the permit, information on lEU's maybe genericallygrouped and listedwithout emissions estimates, unless emissions estimates are needed for another purpose such as determining the amount of permit fees that
are calculatedusing total source emissions. This approach wouldutilize standardpermit conditions withminimal orno reference to any specific emissions unit or activity, provided that the scope of the requirement and its enforcement are clear.

The EPA alsobelieves that for lEU's, a responsible official's initial compliance certificationmaybe based on available informationand the latest cycle of required information.

The guidance further provides that the permitting authority canuse broad discretion in determining the nature of any requiredperiodic monitoring. The EPA's policy on lEU's is based on the belief that these emissions points are typically associated with inconsequential environmental impacts.

Section II. D. Use Of Major SourceAndApplicable Requirement Stipulation.

There have been concerns expressedthat extensive new emissions data wouldbe needed toverifymajor source status
or the applicabilityof Federal requirements. White Paper Number 2 clarifies that for applicabilitypurposes, a source familiar to the permitting authoritymay simply stipulate in its applicationthat it is major or that Federal requirements applyas specified in the application. The paper clarifies that there is noneed to prepare and submit extensive informationabout the source that "proves" it is subject to any requirements that it stipulates are applicable. This does not affect the requirement to provide informationthat is otherwise requiredbypart 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 alreadyhas, to complete part 70 permit applications. In addition, similar concerns have beenvoiced regarding the large and potentiallyunnecessary burden of developingpermits which repeat rather than reference certain types of regulatory requirements that

4apply to the source (e.g., monitoring and testing protocols). The guidance clarifies that, in general, the permitting authoritymay allow information tobe cited or cross-referenced inbothpermits and applications if the information is current and readily available to the permitting agencyand to the public. The citations and references must be clear andunambiguous andbe enforceable from a practical standpoint. Afterpermits specifywhich emissions limits apply to identified emissions units, crossreferencing canbe authorized for other requirements (e.g., monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting)

. Attachment Aprovides guidance on using the part 70 permit process to establish alternative test methods, while Attachment B provides example SIP language that couldbe used bybothpart 70 and non-part 70 sources to establishalternative requirements without the need for a prior source-specific SIP revision. This guidance shouldbe particularlyuseful to those seeking greater certaintyor to establish alternative test methods to those now approvedbyEPA. [Note that Sections III. andbeyond in Attachment B are currently in draft form.] Streamlining will lead to substantial reductions in permittingburdens by allowing for the first time multiple applicable emissions limits and workpractices expressed in different forms and averaging times to be reduced to a single set of requirements. It will also lower current burden levels by allowingvarious monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements that are not critical to assuring compliance with the streamlined (most stringent) limit tobe subsumed in the permit. In addition, substantial reductions inburden 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 inpart 70 applications andpermits.

The EPA believes that the guidance contained hereinmaybe implementedbypermitting authorities and sources without revisions topart 70 programs, unless a provision is specifically prohibitedby State regulations. In some situations, EPA will be proceeding inparallel to issue clarifying rules. The EPA stronglyencourages 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 andmake it available to other similar sources tohelp avoid repetitive costs.

5Sources are advised to consult with theirpermitting authority to understandhow 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 authoritypursuant to part 71 regulations, the Agency will implement bothWhite Papers to the extent possible and promote similar implementationwhere 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 reliedupon to create any rights enforceableby anyparty.

II. ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE ON STREAMLINED DEVELOPMENT OF PART 70 PERMITS AND APPLICATIONS.

A. StreamliningMultipleApplicable Requirementsl 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

ITitle 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 andpart 78 are inconsistent with the requirements of part 70, part 72 andpart 78 will take precedence andwill govern the issuance, denial, revision, reopening, renewal, and appeal of the acidrain portion of an operating permit. The subsequent descriptions of streamlining therefore apply to requirements underparts 72 and 78 onlyto the extent that suchrequirements are, at the option of the applicant, used
as streamlining requirements because they are the most stringent applicable requirements.

2Emissions unit(s) means anypart or activityof a stationary source that emits orhas the potential to emit any regulated air pollutant (as defined in section 70.2) or any pollutant listedunder section 112(b) of the Act. It is used in this paper to include specificallya grouping of emissions units at a stationary source that shares the same applicable requirement and compliance demonstrationmethod for a given pollutant.

6single set of understandable and enforceable permit conditions? Mayan applicant propose to minimize or consolidate applicable requirements? Maya permitting authority develop such a proposal? How would a permit application with a streamlining proposal satisfy compliance certificationrequirements?

2. Guidance.

A source, at its option, maypropose in its application to streamlinemultiple applicable requirements into a single set of permit terms and conditions3

. The overall objective wouldbe 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 conflictingrequirements. Otherwise applicable requirements that are subsumed in the streamlinedrequirements could thenbe identified in a permit shield. The process wouldbe carriedout in conjunctionwith 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 topart 70 authorizes permitting authorities touse a less extensivepermit revisionprocess)

. The EPA plans to revisepart 70 toprovide that the compliance certification requiredwith initial application submittals may be based on the proposed streamlined applicable requirement where there is sufficient source compliance information on which to base sucha certification.

The permitting authority, at its option, may evaluate multiple applicable requirements for a source category and predetermine an acceptable streamlining approach. Such evaluations shouldbe made readily available to applicants. It is up to the applicant, however, to request in its application that such streamlinedrequirements be contained in the part 70 permit. Where streamliningwouldbe of mutual interest, the permitting authorityand the source couldwork together during the permit development stage to establisha basis for a streamlined limit prior to the issuance of a draft permit. This

3The EPA recognizes that the described streamliningprocess may not be allowedby all State regulations orbe warranted or desired for all applicable requirements. Similarly, partial streamlining (i.e., the streamliningof some, but not all, applicable requirements that apply to the same emissions units) maybe most cost effectivewhere difficult comparisons or correlations are needed for streamlining the other remaining applicable requirements. In addition, there is nobarrier to
more extensive streamliningoccurring in the future.

7cooperative activitymust result in a record consistent with this guidance which supports the draft permit containing the streamlinedrequirement. The approachmight be particularly useful where a sourcehas already submitted a complete part 70 permit application and the permitting authoritydoes not want to require the source to submit a formal amendment to its application. Any streamlining demonstrationmust be promptly submittedto EPA upon its availability and in advance of draft permit issuance unless EPA has previously agreedwith the permitting authority not to require it (e.g., the proposed streamlining is of a simple and/or familiar type withno new concerns)

.
In addition, general permits couldbe useful to allow the transfer of streamlinedrequirements from the first source tobe coveredby them to other similar sources or emissions units. The information development and review conducted as part of streamlining for an individual source canbe usedby the permitting authorityto generate a general permit for similar
sources orportions of sources. If a general permit were used, EPA andpublic reviewbeyond that needed to issue the general permit wouldnot be necessarywhen sources subsequently applied for the streamlinedpermit conditions establishedunder the general permit. Evenwhere a general permit is not issued, the availabilityof information obtained from the streamliningof one source maybe useful as a model for future streamlining actions involving other similar sources.
Streamlinedpermit terms shouldbe coveredby a permit shield. The permit shieldwill result in an essential degree of certaintybyproviding that when the source complies with the streamlinedrequirement, the source will be considered tobe in compliance with all of the applicable requirements subsumedunder the streamlined requirement. Where the programdoes 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 theywish to realize fully the benefits of streamlining.

Sources that opt for the streamlining of applicable requirements must demonstrate the adequacy of theirproposed streamlinedrequirements. The following principles shouldgovern their streamliningdemonstrations:

a. The most stringent of multiple applicable emissions limitations for a specific regulated airpollutant on a particular emissions unit must be determined taking into

8account4 ,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 requirements7.

4Applicable 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 andprocedures.

5Sources 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, itmay 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)

6While the streamlining of requirements withvarying averaging times is viable under this policy, inno event can requirements which are specificallydesigned to address a particularhealth concern (including those with short term averaging times) be subsumed into a requirement which is any less protective.

7The predominant case is expected to involve test methods whichhave 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 tobase a streamlined limit on an alternative or new test method relative to the ones already approvedby EPA for the SIP or a section 111, or section 112 standard, some additional steps are needed to complete the proposed streamlining. As described inmore detail inAttachment A, permitting authorities may only implement streamliningwhich

9Limitations for specificpollutants canbe subsumedby 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 theVOC limit is at least as stringent as the hexane limitation. Where a singleVOC limit subsumes multiple HAP limits, the permitmust be writtento assure that each of the subsumed limits will not be exceeded. However, a limit for a single or limitednumber 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 effectivelyderegulate any of the class that
are not coveredby the more limitedgroup.
b. Workpractice requirements must be treated as follows:

o SupportingAn Emissions Limit. Awork 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 neednot include anywork practice standards that are associatedwithand directly support the subsumed limit(s);

o Not SupportingAn Emissions Limit. Similar work practice requirements which apply to the same emissions
or emissions point but whichdo not directly support an emissions limit maybe streamlined (e.g., different leak detection and repair (LDAR8) programs). The

involves alternative ornew test methods within the flexibility grantedby the SIP and any delegationof 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 whichprovides a mechanism that can establishan alternative applicable requirement in such cases without the need for source specific SIP revisions.

8For LDARprograms, stringency comparisons likelywill be based on the aggregate requirements of eachLDAR program (screening levels, frequency of inspection, repairperiods, etc,) and the resultant overall actual emissions reduction expected

10streamlinedwork practice requirement maybe composed of provisions/elements (e.g., frequency of inspection, recordkeeping) from one ormore of the similarwork 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 subsumedwork 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 shouldnot be used to determine the relative stringencyof the applicable requirements towhich they are applicable.

d. Where the preceding guidance does not allow sufficient streamliningorwhere it is difficult to determine a single most stringent applicable emissions limit by comparing all the applicable emissions limits with each other, sources may performany or all the following activities tojustify additional or different streamlining:

o Construct an alternative orhybrid emissions limit9

from the affected equipment. In cases where a convincing demonstration cannot be made basedon existing information or the regulations themselves have not clearlydefined the expected emissions reduction, verifying test datamaybe required. Alternatively, the applicant, the permitting authority, and EPA
canwork together to devise a method consistent with the principles of EPA's HProtocol ForEquipment LeakEmissions EstimationH (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 maymodify elements of a particularLDAR program toproduce a program that clearly (i.e., without further analysis) assures compliance with the other applicable LDAR programs.
9TitleVallows for the establishment of a streamlined requirement, provided that it assures compliance with all applicable requirements it subsumes. However, EPA recognizes that construction of suchhybrid or alternative limits canbe
more complicated than the situationwhere the streamlined limit is one of the applicable emissions limits. Accordingly, sources and States mayneedmore time to agree on acceptable

11that 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 thenbecome a federally-enforceable condition in the part 70 permit);

o Use a more accurate andprecise test method than the
one applicable (see footnote number 7) to eliminate doubt in the stringencydetermination; or

o Conduct detailed correlations toprove the relative stringencyof each applicable requirement.

e. The monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements associatedwith themost stringent emissions requirement are presumed appropriate for use with the streamlined emissions limit, unless reliance on that monitoringwould diminish the ability to assure compliance with the streamlinedrequirements.lo To evaluate this presumption, compare whether the monitoringproposedwould
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, thenmonitoring associatedwith a subsumed limit (or other qualifyingmonitoringll) would be included in the permit.12 The recordkeeping and reporting

demonstrations andmaywish to defer such streamlininguntil after issuance of the initial part 70 permit. IOQuality assurance requirements pertaining to continuous monitoring systems shouldbe evaluatedusing the same approach.

lIThe applicant maypropose alternativemonitoring of equal rigor. Permitting authorities may only implement streamlining which involves alternative or newmonitoringmethods within the flexibility grantedby the SIP and any delegation of authority from EPA (where section 111/112 standards are involved). 12permitting authorities and sources shouldpresume that existingmonitoring equipment [such as continuous emissions monitors (CEMs)] required and/or currentlyemployed at the
source shouldbe retained. Apermitting authority or applicant would have the opportunity to demonstrate that retention of such

12associatedwith the selectedmonitoring approachmay be presumed tobe appropriate for use with the streamlined limit13,14,15.

f. Permitting authorities must include citations to any subsumedrequirements 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 streamlinedrequirement. In all instances, the proposed permit terms and conditions must be enforceable as a practical matter.

3. Process. Streamliningmaybe accomplished through an applicant proposing to streamline multiple requirements applicable to a source, the permitting authoritydeveloping 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 tomeasure, such as S02 emissions from a boiler firing pipeline qualitynatural gas.)

13Where 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.

14Where a standard includes recordkeeping associatedwith a limit in addition to recordkeeping linked to a monitoring device (e.g., a coating facility that has recordkeeping requirements pertaining to coatingusage, as well as recordkeeping for monitoring associatedwith an add-on control), both types of recordkeeping must be incorporated into the permit.

15The result offers considerable potential to reduce the different reportingburdens associatedwith different applicable requirements well beyondwhat was previouslyavailable (e.g., synchronizing the required reporting cycles from different applicable requirements to coincide with the most stringent one beginning at the earliest requireddate). (See also Final General Provisions, § 63.10(a)(5), March 16,1994.)

13initial complete application. The first six of the following actions wuldbe takenby 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 authoritywould then perform steps seven and eight.
Step One

- Provide a side-by-side comparison of all requirements included in the streamlining proposal that are currentlyapplicable and effective for the specific 16 emissions units of a source

. Distinguishbetween requirements which are emissions and/or workpractice standards, andmonitoring and compliance demonstration provisions.
Step Two

- Determine the most stringent emissions and/or performance standard (or anyhybrid or alternative limits as appropriate) consistent with the above streamlining principles andprovide the documentation reliedupon to make this determination. This process shouldbe repeated for each emissions unit pollutant combination for which the applicant is proposing a streamlinedrequirement.
Step Three

- Propose one set of permit terms and conditions (i.e., the streamlinedrequirements) 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

- Certifycompliance (applicant only) with

16A future applicable requirement (e.g., MACT standardnewly promulgatedunder section 112 with a compliance date 3 years in the future) maybe determined tobe 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 maypropose either a streamlinedrequirement based on immediate compliance with the future applicable requirement or it may opt for a phased approachwhere the permit would containtwo separate time-sensitive requirements. Under the latter approach, one streamlinedrequirement addressing all currently applicable requirements wouldbe defined tobe 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 wouldbecome the new streamlinedrequirement after expirationof the first streamlinedrequirement.

14applicable requirements. The EPA isplanning to revise its part 70 regulations toprovide that a source may certify compliance withonlythe proposed streamlined limit. Until this is accomplished, EPA recommends that a source certifying compliance onlywith the streamlined limit indicate this inan attachment to the certification, so that it is clear that the certification is beingmade with respect to a set of terms and conditions that the source believes "assure compliance" with all applicable requirements. In any event, a sourcemay only certify compliance witha streamlined limit if there is source compliance data onwhich tobase sucha certification. (Such data shouldbe available where the streamlined requirement is itself an applicable requirement andmaybe available if the streamlined limit is an alternative limit, e.g., a previously State-onlyemissions limitation). If there is not, then certifications must insteadbemade relative to eachof the applicable requirements judged tobe less stringent andmust bebased on data otherwise required under them tomake this point clear.
Step Five

- Develop a compliance schedule to implement any newmonitoring/compliance approach relevant to the streamlined limit if the source is unable to complywith it uponpermit issuance. The recordkeeping, monitoring, and reporting requirements of the applicable requirements being subsumedwould 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 approachbecomes operative.
Step Six

- Indicate in the application submittal that streamlining of the listed applicable requirements under a permit shield (where available) isbeingproposed and propose the establishment of a permit shieldwhich would state that compliance withthe streamlined limit assures compliance with the listed applicable requirements. All emission and/or performance standards not subsumedby 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 andprovide reasonable opportunity for the applicant to accept the findings orpropose a resolution of the differences before issuance of a draft permit for public review. Where the permitting authority determines that the streamliningproposal is inadequate, the source, to retain its application shield, must expeditiouslyresolve any

15problems identifiedby the permitting authority orupdate its prior applicationbased on the individual applicable requirements previouslyproposed 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 toprovide a copy of the application (or summary) directly to EPA, it must note the proposeduse of streamlining. A copy of the streamlining demonstrationmust be submittedpromptly to EPA alongwith the required copy of the application or application summary (where a summarymaybe submitted to EPA in lieuof the entirepart 70 permit application) unless EPA has previously agreed with the permitting authoritynot to require it (e.g., the proposed streamlining is of a simple and/or familiar type withno new concerns)

. 4. Enforcement.

All terms and conditions of a part 70 permit are enforceable byEPA 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 permitmaybe subject to enforcement action for violation of one (ormore) 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 tomeet monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements that are subsumedwithin the streamlined requirement and specifiedunder the permit shield. These requirements wouldno longerbe 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 inpart 70 permit applications, they may find that multiple applicable requirements affect the same pollutant orperformance parameter for a particular emissions

16unit. Likewise, the requirements of federally-enforceable terms and conditions inpreconstruction or operatingpermits may overlap with the requirements of other federally-enforceable rules and regulations.

In these instances, a sourcemaybe in compliance with the overall emissions limit of each of the applicable requirements, but be required to complywith a multitude of redundant or conflictingmonitoring, reporting, or recordkeeping requirements. Forexample, a source owner facedwith 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 withboth emissions limits. Furthermore, the recordkeeping and reporting associated with the unnecessary instrumentationmay create an administrative burden for both the facility and the implementing agency without an associatedgain incompliance assurance. Prior to titleV there has been no federally-enforceable means to resolve this situation.

The EPA encourages permitting authorities to allow use by the permit applicant of thepart 70 permit issuance process to streamlinemultiple applicable requirements to the extent the conditions of this policy canbe met. In this way, the part 70 process with itsprocedural safeguards canbe used to focus all concernedparties on providing for compliance with a single set of permit terms that assure compliance withmultiple applicable requirements instead of maintaining the costs of multiple sets of controls, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting approaches.

The legal basis for streamliningmultiple applicable requirements relies on section 504(a), which requires that title Vpermits contain emissions limits/standards and other terms as needed to assure compliance with applicable requirements. This sectionnotably does not require repetition of all terms andconditions of an applicable requirement when another applicable requirement orpart 70 permit condition (i.e., streamlined requirement) couldbe fashioned to otherwise assure compliance with that applicable requirement.

Section 504(f) lends additional certainty to permit streamlining. It specificallyprovides that the permitting authoritymay authorize that compliance with the permit may be deemed tobe compliance with theAct 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 subsumedunder the streamlined requirement, provided that the

17