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 lsi 

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

TO: Director, Office of Ecosystem ~rotection, 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 B. Development Of Applications And Permits For Outdated 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 51 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 r 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 lOr 1995). White Paper Number 2 supplements r not obviates r 

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. r part 70 operating permits programs). In 

particularr 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 r in many

districtS also include local emissions standards (often with 

associated recordkeeping and reporting requirements) r monitoring 

requirements inspections source testing r and new source review 

r 

r r 

(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 r 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 r however r 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 SIPapproved 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 (lEU'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 lEU'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 lEU'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 

lEU'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, crossreferencing 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. 

A. Streamlining Multiple Applicable 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 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. 

2Emissions 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? 

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 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 

3The 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. 

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 and procedures. 

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, 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) 

6While 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. 

7The 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. 

8For 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 HProtocol For Equipment Leak Emissions 

Estimation H (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. 

9Title 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. lo 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 monitoringll ) 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. 

IOQuality assurance requirements pertaining to continuous 

monitoring systems should be evaluated using the same approach. 

lIThe 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). 

12permitting 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 

limit13 ,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 S02 emissions 

from a boiler firing pipeline quality natural 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 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. 

15The 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 16 emissions units of a source . 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 

16A 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