July 10, 1995

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: White Paper for Streamlined Development of Part 70

Permit Applications

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

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

TO: Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

 Management Division, Regions I and IV

Director, Air and Waste Management Division,

 Region II

Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division,

 Region III

Director, Air and Radiation Division,

 Region V

Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division,

 Region VI

Director, Air and Toxics Division, 

 Regions VII, VIII, IX, and X

Please find attached a White Paper on Part 70 permit

applications. The paper is designed to streamline and simplify

the development of part 70 permit applications. The guidance was

developed to respond to the concerns of industry and permitting

authorities that preparation of initial permit applications was

proving more costly and burdensome than necessary to achieve the

goals of the Title V permit program. 

The White Paper provides several streamlining improvements. 

Among them, it allows industry to: 

- Provide emissions descriptions, and not emissions

estimates, for emissions not regulated at the source,

unless such estimates are needed for other purposes

such as calculating permit fees;

- Submit checklists, rather than emission descriptions,

for insignificant activities based on size/production

rate and for risk management plans potentially owed
2

under section 112(r);

- Provide citations for applicable requirements, with

qualitative descriptions for each emissions unit, and

for prior new source review (NSR) permits;

- Exclude certain trivial and short-term activities from

permit applications;

- Provide group treatment for activities subject to

certain generally-applicable requirements;

- Certify compliance status without requiring reconsideration of previous applicability decisions; 

- Use the Part 70 permit process to identify

environmentally significant terms of NSR permits, which

should be incorporated into the part 70 permit as

federally-enforceable terms; and

- Submit tons per year estimates only where meaningful to

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

pollutants; such estimates should be based on

generally-available information rather than new studies

or testing.

There is an immediate need for the implementation of this

guidance. Increasing numbers of sources are becoming subject to

the requirement to file a complete part 70 application as more

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

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

guidance to streamline the application process.

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

developing this guidance and invite your suggestions on what

additional guidance is needed to improve further the initial

implementation of title V. If you should have any questions

regarding the attached guidance, please contact Michael Trutna at

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

Attachment

cc: M. Trutna (MD-12)

J. Herring (MD-12)

A. Eckert (2344)

J. Domike (2242A)

A. Schwartz (2344)
WHITE PAPER FOR

STREAMLINED DEVELOPMENT OF PART 70 PERMIT APPLICATIONS

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND STANDARDS

July 10, 1995
4

Contacts: Michael Trutna (919) 541-5345

Jeff Herring (919) 541-3195
EPA WHITE PAPER FOR

STREAMLINED DEVELOPMENT OF PART 70 PERMIT APPLICATIONS

July 10, 1995

I. INTRODUCTION

The EPA is issuing this guidance to enable States to take

immediate steps to reduce the costs of preparing and reviewing

initial part 70 permit applications. A perceived lack of clarity

in these requirements has led to an unintended escalation in

permit application costs. Too often, sources have felt compelled

to make conservative assumptions to assure themselves of

receiving the "application shield" and avoiding enforcement

actions.

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

regulations in part 70 set forth minimum requirements for State

operating permit programs. In general, this program was not

intended by Congress to be the source of new substantive

requirements. Rather, operating permits required by title V are

meant to accomplish the largely procedural task of identifying

and recording existing substantive requirements applicable to

regulated sources and to assure compliance with these existing

requirements. Accordingly, operating permits and their

accompanying applications should be vehicles for defining

existing compliance obligations rather than for imposing new

requirements or accomplishing other objectives.

There is an immediate need for this guidance. Most States

and those local air pollution control agencies participating in

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

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

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

most sources are in the process of preparing their initial

applications, a number of sources have already submitted their

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

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

raised by States and sources as to the expectations for complete

permit applications and permit content, the intended scope of the

program, and the respective responsibilities of sources,

permitting authorities, and the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) in making implementation decisions in accomplishing permit

issuance.

The EPA recognizes that the burden for filing a complete

application may vary significantly among States as does the

nature of their applicable requirements, status of source
2

compliance, air quality conditions, the type of permit fee

schedule, and the size and complexity of their industry. 

However, EPA believes that the mentioned problems, if

unaddressed, would threaten implementation of the title V

program, and thus warrant a timely response. The clarifications

contained in this policy statement are made under the current

part 70 regulations and should typically not require State

rulemaking. The EPA strongly urges States to allow sources to

take near term advantage of the flexibility provided by this

paper, particularly during the initial implementation phase of

the program. It is imperative that the provisions and

clarifications of this paper are implemented by States as quickly

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

implementing this guidance, however they are encouraged to

consult with the appropriate EPA Regional Office as they adjust

implementation of their programs.

Section II of this paper articulates how part 70 allows

permitting authorities considerable flexibility to make decisions

regarding the completeness of applications and their adequacy to

support initial permit issuance. This guidance makes clear that

the part 70 rules do not impose unreasonable permit application

preparation burdens. In particular, it accomplishes application

streamlining by enabling and encouraging the use of:

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

pollutant combinations subject to applicable

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

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

can be based on generally-available information rather

than new studies or testing;

- Emissions descriptions, not estimates, for emissions

not regulated at the source (unless needed for permit

fee calculation, for purposes of establishing a permit

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

resolution of applicable requirement coverage or major

source status);

- Checklists rather than emission descriptions for

insignificant activities based on size/production rate

and risk management plans potentially owed under

section 112(r);

- Exclusions for certain trivial and short-term

activities from permit applications (see Attachment A);

- Group treatment for activities subject to certain

generally-applicable requirements;
3

- Part 70 permit process to reconcile which terms of

existing new source review (NSR) permits should be

incorporated into the part 70 permit as federallyenforceable terms;

- Citations for applicable requirements with qualitative

descriptions for each emissions unit, and for prior NSR

permits as they may be revised; and

- Certifications of compliance status which do not

require re-evaluation of previous applicability

decisions.

This paper affirms EPA's strong commitment to successful

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

statements intended to alleviate known implementation concerns

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

same time, the Agency is developing rulemaking which will afford

a new streamlined approach to part 70 permit revisions and

provide other relief not possible under the current rule. The

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

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

to create any rights enforceable by any party.

II. STREAMLINED DEVELOPMENT OF COMPLETE Part 70 APPLICATIONS

A. Current Requirements for Complete Applications (§ 70.5)

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

all sources subject to the program must submit complete permit

applications. The State may establish, and many have

established, a phased schedule for application submittals.

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

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

emissions of regulated air pollutants. It also authorizes the

permitting authority to obtain additional information as needed

to verify which requirements are applicable to the source. 

Applications are also sometimes relied upon to evaluate the fee

amount required under the approved permit fee schedule. 

Emissions information for these purposes does not always need to

be detailed or precise. Information for applicability purposes

need only be detailed enough to resolve any open questions about

which requirements apply. Information for fee purposes only has

to be consistent with what is required in applications by the

permitting authority to implement its fee schedule. No

information is needed when this activity is done outside the

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

applicable requirement will be established or defined in the
4

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

contain additional information as needed to verify emissions

levels and the basis for measuring changes from them.

Section 70.5(c) further requires the application to contain

a compliance plan describing the compliance status of the source

with respect to all applicable requirements. For sources that

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

application must contain a narrative description of how the

source will achieve compliance and a detailed schedule of

remedial measures leading to compliance. If the source is in

compliance, the application need only contain a statement that

the source will continue to comply. For applicable requirements

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

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

application must also include a certification of the source's

compliance status with respect to each applicable requirement and

a statement of the methods used for determining compliance. 

Finally, the responsible official must also certify that the

application form and the compliance certification are true,

accurate, and complete based on information and belief formed

after reasonable inquiry.

Each part 70 program must contain criteria and streamlined

procedures for determining when permit applications are complete. 

Applications for an initial part 70 permit may be considered

complete if they have information sufficient to allow the

permitting authority to begin processing the application. Unless

the permitting authority determines that an application is not

complete within 60 days, it will be considered complete by

default. If the source submits a timely and complete application

the source is shielded against penalties for operating without a

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

granted the "application shield").

Even after applications have been initially determined to be

complete, the source must submit any additional information

requested by the permitting authority to determine, or evaluate

compliance with applicable requirements, within the reasonable

timeframe allowed by the permitting authority, to maintain the

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

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

correct information or submit supplemental information needed to

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

permitting authority's schedule for performing the technical

review for a given application. The application shield once

granted remains in effect until permit issuance even where the

source augments its original application submittal in response to

requests for more information by the permitting authority.
5

As mentioned, considerable confusion exists as to what

constitutes a complete application under the requirements of part

70. Due to the significant new penalties for knowing violations

and the extremely visible forum for processing permit

applications, in the absence of clear guidance many sources have

made or are making very conservative assumptions regarding their

obligations. For example, many in the regulated community feel

that a part 70 application can be complete only if it

exhaustively catalogues every past and present emitting activity

with great precision. Others fear that an application can never

be complete since many Act requirements are still evolving,

confusion exists as to which requirements are applicable to the

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

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

initial certification of compliance. Other concerns have been

raised regarding the choice of emissions estimation techniques

and the amount of information needed to support decisions of

applicability or exemption, especially those involving the

appropriate NSR for previous construction activities.

There is also a general apprehension that EPA will second

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

thereby impede the permit issuance process. Others are concerned

that even if complete applications could be filed, they soon

would grow obsolete and require updates before a draft permit

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

issue guidance in the future which would establish extensive new

requirements concerning the content of a complete application. 

As a result, worst-case assumptions for various determinations

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

cost unintended by the current regulations.

This guidance is intended to correct these

misunderstandings. It is intended to give States and sources

direction on how States can reduce these burdens while achieving

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

that these streamlining ideas can and should be implemented under

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

forms reflect the current confusion, the Agency wishes to clarify

the issues sufficiently for States to revise the portion of their

forms implementing title V to be consistent with this guidance.

B. Content of Part 70 Permit Applications

1. Overview

This section describes the level of information which must

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

considered complete. This guidance clarifies the minimum
6

 The term "significant" as used in this policy statement 1

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

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

qualify for treatment in the application as an insignificant

emissions unit.

requirements under the Federal regulations for acceptable part 70

permit applications. It grants a substantial degree of

discretion to State permitting agencies. The EPA recognizes that

different States may adopt different approaches to these minimum

requirements depending on their local needs and circumstances,

and that others may elect to go beyond those minimum

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

EPA urges States to keep part 70 application requirements to the

minimum needed to identify applicable requirements. In many

instances, a qualitative description of emissions, or sometimes

no description at all, will satisfy this standard.

This section specifically clarifies that there are different

expectations for information from emissions units depending on

whether and how applicable requirements apply. In addition, this

section provides several policy clarifications aimed at lowering

current application burdens associated with addressing

insignificant activities, generic grouping of emissions units and

activities, short-term activities, incorporation of current NSR

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

Development (R&D) activities.

2. Required Emissions Information And Source Descriptions

Applications should contain information to the extent needed

to determine major source status, to verify the applicability of

part 70 or applicable requirements, to verify compliance with

applicable requirements, and to compute a permit fee (as

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

emissions of all regulated air pollutants for each emissions

unit. This would require at least a qualitative description of

all significant emissions units, including those not regulated 1

by applicable requirements.

While part 70 does not require detailed emissions inventory

building, it does require limited emissions-related information

for each pollutant and emissions unit combination which is

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

such units emissions rate descriptions in tpy and in such terms

as are necessary to establish compliance consistent with the

applicable standard reference test method. The EPA interprets

the tpy estimates to not be required at all where they would
7

serve no useful purpose, where a quantifiable emissions rate is

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

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

generic requirement (see Section 4. Generic Grouping of

Emissions Units and Activities).

On the other hand, more emissions information would

presumptively be required to verify emissions levels and

monitoring approaches where PALs or other plantwide emissions

limits would be established or defined in part 70 permits. 

Another situation where additional emissions information might be

needed is where the permitting authority would be granting the

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

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

standard that has been issued for the category to which the

emissions unit potentially belongs. In such cases additional

information to support a determination that a requirement is not

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

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

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

regulated air pollutants for presumptive fee calculation must

also be adequate for that purpose. Finally, additional emissions

information might also be necessary in some cases to resolve a

dispute over whether a particular requirement is applicable, or

whether a source is major for a particular pollutant (additional

information would not be necessary where a source would stipulate

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

Wherever emissions estimates are needed (unless the source

independently decides to more accurately estimate emissions), use

of available information should suffice. Any information that is

sufficient to support a reasonable belief as to compliance or the

applicability or non-applicability of requirements will be

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

factors, emissions factors in other EPA documents, or reasonable

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

Quality of Required Information).

Any required tpy estimates are not to be included as

federally-enforceable part 70 permit terms, unless otherwise

required by an applicable requirement or requested by the source

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

EPA does not believe that part 70 requires multiple forms of

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

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

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

submittal of emissions inventory), then the permitting authority

can allow the source to cross-reference this information for

part 70 purposes.
8

Even if tpy estimates are not necessary, part 70

applications must describe all significant emissions units,

including any which are not subject to any applicable requirement

at any given emissions unit. Such unregulated emissions can

include hazardous air pollutants (HAP) listed under section

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

for a particular emissions unit. A general description of

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

pollutant or family of pollutants believed to be emitted by the

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

descriptions of emissions units themselves also can be quite

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

UTM coordinates or model and serial numbers for equipment, unless

such information is needed to determine the applicability of, or

to implement, an applicable requirement). Negative declarations

are not required for pollutants that are not emitted by the

emissions unit.

Some examples may help to illustrate where only source

descriptions of regulated and unregulated emissions are necessary

for title V purposes:

- An application for a de-greaser subject to a

requirement to have a certain type of lid could

describe the relevant applicable requirement and simply

identify that it emits volatile organic compounds (VOC)

and falls within the scope of the regulation. 

Quantification of the VOC emissions would not be

necessary since the level of emissions is not relevant

to the standard.

- An application for a storage tank subject to a

requirement to have a certain type of seal, in addition

to describing this requirement, would only need to

generally identify the types of pollutants emitted,

such as VOC and HAP generally.

- An application for a boiler that is grandfathered under

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

lead, and HAP are emitted and that no applicable

requirement is relevant.

3. Insignificant Activities

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

of a State program a list of insignificant activities which need

not be included in permit applications. For activities on the

list, applicants may exclude from part 70 permit applications

information that is not needed to determine (1) which applicable
9

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

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

insignificant activities are excluded because they fall below a

certain size or production rate, the application must describe

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

Even for such insignificant activities, the process for listing

them in the application can be fairly simple. The permitting

authority could allow the source merely to list in the

application the kinds of insignificant activities that are

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

insignificant activities approved in the program.

In addition to the insignificant activity provisions of

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

level of information required in the application to be

commensurate with the need to determine applicable requirements. 

The EPA believes this inherent flexibility encompasses the idea

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

units and activities without specific applicable requirements and

with extremely small emissions) and can be omitted from the

application even if they are not included on a list of

insignificant activities approved in a State's part 70 program

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

which EPA believes should normally qualify as trivial in this

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

to consider. The determination of whether any particular item

should be on the State's trivial list may depend on Statespecific factors (e.g., whether the activity is subject to the

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

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

to those activities identified in Attachment A. Additional

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

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

added to State lists of insignificant activities.

4. Generic Grouping of Emissions Units and Activities

Questions have arisen regarding whether emissions units and

activities may be treated generically in the application and

permit for certain broadly applicable requirements often found in

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

attention include requirements that apply identically to all

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

general housekeeping requirements, and requirements that apply

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

requirements). These requirements are sometimes referred to as

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

for all subject units or activities.
10

These requirements can normally be adequately addressed in

the permit application with minimal or no reference to any

specific emissions unit or activity, provided that the scope of

the requirement and the manner of its enforcement are clear. 

Even where such generic requirements attach to individual small

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

activity-by-activity description of numerous units or activities

would generally impose a paperwork burden that would not be

compensated by any gain in the practical enforceability of such

relatively simple requirements. Therefore, provided the

applicant documents the applicability of these requirements and

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

individual emissions units or activities may be excluded from the

application, provided no other requirement applies which would

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

must assure compliance with the generic applicable requirement

would be written without specificity to applicable emissions

units or activities.

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

nature of these applicable requirements. Accordingly, EPA

believes application of this principle for grouping subject

activities together generically should not depend on whether

those activities qualify as trivial or insignificant. Where the

applicable requirement is amenable to this approach, that is,

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

the requirement can be unambiguously defined in a generic manner

and where (2) effective enforceability of that requirement does

not require a specific listing of subject units or activities,

permitting authorities may follow this approach regardless of

whether subject activities have been listed as trivial or

insignificant.

A lengthy list of the types of requirements suitable for

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

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

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

position to decide which SIP requirements can be treated in this

generic fashion. However, permitting authorities may wish to

consult with the EPA Regional office in advance to clarify any

uncertainties.

5. Short-term Activities

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

activities occurring infrequently and for a short duration at a

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

fashion as activities subject to a generic requirement (see

previous discussion). Since these activities are not present at
11

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

expected is generic treatment in the application. For such

activities, the application and permit would not include

emissions unit specificity but instead would contain a general

duty to meet all applicable requirements that would apply to any

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

not subject to an applicable requirement should be classified as

insignificant activities or would qualify as trivial, and so

would not be included in either the part 70 application or

permit.

For example, a contractor-run sandblasting operation that is

subject to a SIP limit for particulate matter might be operated

on an infrequent but recurring basis might qualify for the

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

with considerable frequency, the permitting authority could

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

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

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

construction activities occur, the part 70 permit application

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

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

envisioned part 70 permit.

6. Determination of Applicable SIP Requirements

One of the undisputed challenges facing both State and the

regulated community in their efforts to develop complete

applications is the determination of the applicable SIP

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

difficult to identify all the requirements in the SIP which are

applicable to a particular source. Applicants, after

consultation with the permitting authority, should include in

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

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

to support both a valid compliance certification and a

"completeness" determination. Review by the permitting

authority, EPA, and the public may provide additional insight

into whether any other applicable requirements exist. Any

additions should not affect the validity of the original permit

application and its eligibility for the application shield or of

the accompanying compliance certification. However, the source

would have to update its certification to account for any

subsequently identified SIP requirements. 

At least one State has developed a checklist of its air

rules and required the applicant to check off which ones apply

and select appropriate codes for rationalizing which ones do not

apply. This type of approach should aid the source in providing
12

in the part 70 application its understanding of what applicable

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

checklist. The EPA has also provided a contractor to document

the approved SIP for each State. Where an EPA compilation

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

underway for most States and permitting authorities and, in many

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

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

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

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

authority) could in their applications note that the

corresponding State-only requirements will become federally

enforceable upon SIP approval. The permitting authority during

review of the application would be responsible for determining if

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

would incorporate the requirements into the federally-enforceable

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

into the SIP, the permitting authority could incorporate the

pending requirements into the State-only enforceable portion of

the permit and note that the requirements would become federally

enforceable upon SIP approval. The federally-enforceable portion

of the permit would include the existing SIP requirements and

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

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

become federally-enforceable and the permit terms based on the

superseded SIP rule would become void.

7. Incorporation of Prior NSR Permit Terms and Conditions

This paper provides guidance to States and sources in

devising a means to revise NSR permit terms as appropriate

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

conjunction with the part 70 permit issuance process. As used

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

permitting under programs approved into the SIP, including minor

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

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

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

applicable requirement. The Agency has concluded, however, that

only environmentally significant terms need to be included in

part 70 permits. The EPA recognizes that NSR permits contain

terms that are obsolete, extraneous, environmentally

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

federally-enforceable NSR program. Such terms, as subsequently

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

fulfill the purposes of the NSR and title V programs required

under the Act.
13

 In many States, an NSR permit is subsequently converted to 2

an operating permit leaving the preconstruction permit void. In

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

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

means the current permit in which the NSR applicable requirements

reside.

 This does not preclude the possibility that certain 3

federally-enforceable limits incorporated into the NSR permit may

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

discretion to mold as necessary to be consistent with the goals

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

discretion in determining the terms of minor NSR. This

discretion also exists to a much lesser extent in crafting major

NSR permits, since the Act and EPA regulations contain several

express requirements for review of major subject sources. Many

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

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

careful segregation of terms implementing the Act from State-only

requirements.

The EPA believes that the part 70 permit issuance process,

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

and EPA, presents an excellent opportunity for the permitting

authority to make appropriate revisions to a NSR permit2

contemporaneously with the issuance of the part 70 permit. The

public participation procedures for issuance of a part 70 permit

satisfy any procedural requirements of Federal law associated

with any NSR permit revision. This parallel processing approach

is also an excellent opportunity to minimize the administrative

burden associated with such an exercise. By conducting a

simultaneous revision to the NSR permit, the permitting authority

would be revising the "applicable NSR requirement" for purposes

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

There are several factors which bound the available

discretion of the permitting authority in deciding whether an

NSR permit term is necessary and must be incorporated into

the part 70 permit as a federally-enforceable condition. 

Certainly all NSR terms must be incorporated which are mandatory

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

technology, lowest achievable emissions rate, and other

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

regulations but are expressly required under the terms of the

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

(NSPS) and SIP emission limits, reporting and recordkeeping

requirements ), or are voluntarily taken by the source to avoid 3
14

qualify for generic treatment in the application and the permit

as described in Section 4. Generic Grouping of Emissions Units

and Activities.

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

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

or to create tradeable offsets or other emission reduction

credits).

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

be patently obsolete and no longer relevant to the operation of

the source, such as terms regulating construction activity during

the building or modification of the source, where the

construction is long completed and the statute of limitations on

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

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

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

provisions from NSR permits that are not required under Federal

law because they are unrelated to the purposes of the NSR

program. Examples typically include odor limitations, and

limitations on emissions of hazardous air pollutants where such

limitations do not reflect a section 112 standard or a SIP

criteria pollutant requirement. Where the State retains such

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

they are State-only conditions and incorporate them into the

part 70 permit as such.

New source review permits are also likely to contain other

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

source and permitting authority agree are nevertheless

extraneous, out-dated, or otherwise environmentally insignificant

and inappropriate for inclusion in a federally-enforceable

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

incorporated by reference from an application for a

preconstruction permit (to the extent this information is needed

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

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

permit that has been superseded by other terms related to

operation. The propriety of excluding other types of NSR permit

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

The EPA believes that the above parallel processing approach

should be effective in most situations to incorporate the

federally significant NSR permit terms into the part 70 permit in

an efficient and workable way. However, the Agency recognizes

that sources and permitting authorities may experience serious

burden and timing concerns in accomplishing this process. 

Therefore, the Agency recommends the following approach, which
15

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

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

propose candidate terms from their current NSR permits which they

reasonably believe should be considered for revision, deletion,

or designation as being enforceable only by the State. Upon

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

matter, only need to certify compliance status for those

remaining NSR terms that it had earmarked for incorporation into

the part 70 permit as federally-enforceable terms. The

permitting authority, as part of the collaborative part 70 permit

issuance process, would review the list of terms recommended in

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

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

proposal. Where the permitting authority decided that terms

beyond those proposed as federally enforceable by the source

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

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

Failure to do so within the timeframe required by the permitting

authority would result in an inaccurate certification and the

loss of the application shield.

The resolution of which NSR terms are to be incorporated

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

issuance. However, the resources available for timely issuance

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

final resolution of NSR permit terms by permit issuance. Serious

concerns have been raised by industry that they should not be

subject to premature incorporation of these remaining permit

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

trigger, in many cases, inappropriate part 70 responsibilities

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

 The EPA believes that the current part 70 rule allows

permitting authorities to address these concerns as well. Where

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

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

current NSR permits, permitting authorities may stipulate in

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

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

incorporated as federally-enforceable terms of the part 70 permit

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

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

would delete, revise, or make federally enforceable any terms

that the State determined warranted such treatment. In the

meantime, all other terms would continue to be enforceable under

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

would incorporate any NSR permit terms that were not deleted or

designated as State-only into the federally enforceable portion

of the part 70 permit consistent with its approved part 70 permit
16

revision procedures.

Finally the permitting authority may be required to add new

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

terms enforceable from a practical standpoint, to reflect

operation rather than construction, or to meet other part 70

requirements regarding the content of permits. Where a

permitting authority has already converted the NSR permit into an

existing State operating permit before incorporation into the

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

presumptively define how NSR permit terms should be incorporated

into part 70 permits.

8. Section 112(r) Requirements

For sources otherwise required to obtain a part 70 permit,

complete applications merely need to acknowledge (where

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

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

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

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

Regulated Substances and Their Thresholds" rule [59 FR 4478

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

emissions of these substances (unless they are also pollutants

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

for fee collection purposes). To resolve issues of

applicability, permitting authorities may ask for additional

information from certain sources regarding materials stored and

transferred and the amounts of chemicals used in certain

processes if the source does not indicate its potential

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

file an RMP.

9. Research and Development Activities

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

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

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

The July 1992 part 70 preamble provided general guidance

explaining that R & D activities could often be regarded as

separate "sources" from any operation with which it were colocated (57 FR 32264 and 32269). The Agency is clarifying and

confirming their substantial flexibility under the ongoing

rulemaking action to revise part 70.

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

they are either individually major or a support facility making

significant contributions to the product of a collocated major

manufacturing facility. In addition, laboratory activities which
17

involve environmental and quality assurance/quality control

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

problems. Such activities should be eligible for classification

as an insignificant activity if there are no applicable SIP

requirements. Where applicable SIP requirements do apply, they

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

practice) requirements. In this situation, permit applications

would need to contain only statements acknowledging the

applicability of, and certifying compliance with, these work

practice requirements. There is no need for an extensive

inventory of chemicals and activities or a detailed description

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

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

responsibility.

10. Applications from Non-major Sources

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

less comprehensive than those for major sources. (Note that

virtually all States have deferred the applicability of these

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

must include all applicable requirements for all emissions units

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

sources have to address only the requirements applicable to

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

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

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

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

are subject to applicable requirements, do not have to be

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

not have to include applicable requirements for emissions units

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

information on those units is needed in the permit application.

11. Supporting Information

The great majority of the detailed background information

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

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

though certain emissions-related calculations [see

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

be significantly reduced if the permitting authority allows the

source to submit examples of calculations performed that

illustrate the methodology used. Cost savings can be realized,

even though the calculations are still performed, in that the

efforts to exhaustively record them in the application can be

omitted.

The permitting authority can request additional, more
18

detailed information needed to justify any questionable

information or statement contained in the initial application or

to write a comprehensive part 70 draft permit. Applications for

permits which will establish a requirement uniquely found in the

part 70 permit (such as an alternative reasonably available

control technology (RACT) limit) would require more supporting

information, including any required demonstration.

C. Quality of Required Information

The quality of emissions estimates where they are needed in

the part 70 permit application depends on the reasonable

availability of the necessary information and on the extent to

which they are relied upon by the permitting authority to resolve

disputed questions of major source status, applicability of

requirements, and/or compliance with applicable requirements. In

general, where estimates of emissions are necessary, reasonablyavailable information may be used.

Generally, the emissions factors contained in EPA's

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

necessary calculation of emissions. When an acceptable range of

values is defined for a general type of source situation,

permitting authorities have considerable discretion to define the

appropriate emissions factor value within that range. States are

most often better able to make such decisions given their closer

proximity to the particular source and its operation.

For purposes of certifying the truth and accuracy of the

application, part 70 requires that emissions estimates be

expressed in terms consistent with the applicable requirement. 

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

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

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

required and emission factors are presumed to be acceptable for

emissions calculations, but more accurate data are preferred if

they are readily available. Emissions factors provided by

permitting authorities are also allowed where EPA emission

factors are missing or State or industry values provide greater

accuracy. The applicant may also use other estimation methods

(materials balance, source test, or continuous emissions

monitoring (CEM) data) when emission estimates produced through

the use of emission factors are not appropriate.

In disputed cases, the source may propose the least costly

alternative estimation method as long as it will produce

acceptable data. Owners and operators may propose use of

emissions estimation methods of their choosing to the permitting

authority when the resulting data is more accurate than that
19

obtained through the use of emissions factors. Sources are

encouraged to contact the permitting authority to discuss the

appropriate estimation techniques for a particular circumstance.

Emissions estimates when they are necessary for HAPs often

become less precise below certain thresholds. The need for

quantification or even estimation should therefore decrease the

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

estimates based on manufacturer's safety data sheets may indicate

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

reasonable for the source to report these HAPs as present in

trace amounts and not quantify them further or perform expensive

testing procedures to collect more accurate data, unless the

permitting authority requires otherwise. On the other hand, more

precise estimates might be required to defend a position that a

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

requirement if the source appeared close to that threshold and it

exact emissions level was in doubt.

D. Phase-In of Details for Completeness Determinations

Permitting authorities have considerable flexibility in

processing the expected huge volume of permit applications so as

to issue initial permits by the required deadline of 3 years

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

application will be complete only if it addresses all the

information required in this section must be interpreted in light

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

requirement for completeness in terms of information needed by

the permitting authority to begin processing of an application). 

Accordingly, the permitting authority may balance the need for

information to support timely permit issuance pursuant to the

schedule approved in the program against the workload associated

with managing and updating as necessary the initially submitted

information.

Sources must submit complete applications within 12 months

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

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

or on whatever schedule for application submittal the State

establishes in its approved program for its sources. Permitting

authorities may also require application submittals prior to

part 70 program approval under State authority, however, a

failure to comply with any application deadline earlier than the

effective date for the program cannot be considered a violation

of the Act.

The current rule allows permitting authorities to implement

a two-step process for application completeness, first
20

determining an application to be administratively complete, then

requiring application updates as needed to support draft permit

preparation. For example, permitting authorities can initially

find an application complete if it defines the applicable

requirements, and major/minor source status; certifies compliance

status with respect to all applicable requirements (subject to

the limitation on this action provided for in Section H. 

Compliance Certification Issues); and allows the permitting

authority to determine the approved permit issuance schedule. 

The application must also include a certification as to its

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

authorities must award the application shield if the source

submits a timely application which meets the criteria for

completeness in § 70.5(c).

Under this approach, if the source has supplied at least

initial information in all the areas required by the permit

application form and has certified it appropriately, the

permitting authority generally has flexibility to judge the

application to be complete enough to begin processing. 

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

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

extra time for an iterative process before the relevant submittal

deadline. Sources scheduled for permitting during the first year

of the transition schedule must submit any additional information

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

completeness on a more immediate schedule so that their permit

can be issued within that first year.

E. Updates to Initially Complete Applications Due to Change

Sources, to maintain their application's status as complete

and therefore preserve the application shield, must respond to

requests from the permitting authority for additional information

to determine or evaluate compliance with applicable requirements

within the reasonable timeframe established by the permitting

authority. Where more information is needed in the permit

application to continue its processing, permitting authorities

may opt to add the additional information to the application

themselves or require additional submittals from the source. 

Sources must promptly certify any additional information

submitted by them and certify or revise any relevant information

furnished by the permitting authority.

1. Changing Emissions Information

Updates to the initially complete application may be

required if emissions information, such as revised emissions

factors, changes or additional NSR projects are approved after an
21

application is submitted. The exact response required will

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

applicable requirements or its compliance status and when it is

discovered. If, after consultation with the permitting

authority, it is determined that the applicability status of the

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

causes the source to become newly subject to applicable

requirements or may affect its ability to comply with a current

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

new information to the permitting authority, identify any new

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

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

new applicable requirement that would need to be addressed by the

part 70 permit.

If the new information is discovered before the draft permit

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

application, and the draft permit should reflect the new

information. The permitting authority and a source can agree on

set intervals at which such updating is required in order to

structure the process and make it more efficient. If new

information is discovered after the draft permit has completed

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

information should still be submitted, and it is the

responsibility of the permitting authority to revise the permit

accordingly.

If new information is discovered after the permit has been

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

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

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

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

If the information does not affect applicability of, or

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

the tpy emissions estimates of regulated pollutants), the

information need not be submitted until permit renewal. If the

permitting authority requires submittal of new information

earlier, however, then it must be submitted according to

reasonable deadlines established by the permitting authority.

2. Other Changes

Other changes can also occur that would require the source,

even absent a specific request from the permitting authority, to

propose an update to an initially complete application. One

example is where a new regulatory requirement becomes applicable

to the source before the permit is issued.
22

F. Content Streamlining

1. Cross Referencing

The permitting authority may allow the application to crossreference previously issued preconstruction and part 70 permits,

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

and regulations, and other documents that affect the applicable

requirements to which the source is subject, provided the

referenced materials are currently applicable and available to

the public. The accuracy of any description of such crossreferenced documents is subject to the certification requirements

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

public docket on the permit action, unless they are published

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

Code of Federal Regulations or its State equivalent). In

addition, materials that are available elsewhere within the same

application can be cross referenced to another section of the

application.

In many cases, incorporation of prior information from

previously issued permits would be useful. Examples are where a

source is updating a part 70 permit by referencing the

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

referencing the current permit and certifying that no change in

source operation or in the applicable requirements has occurred. 

Even where existing permit conditions are expressed in

terminology other than that used in the part 70 permit, crossreferencing can still be possible. Such citations, however,

would have to provide sufficient translations of terms to ensure

the same effect. 

As discussed previously, the permitting authority may

determine that certain terms and conditions of existing NSR

permits are obsolete, environmentally insignificant, or not

germane with respect to their incorporation into part 70 permits. 

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

used to the extent that the NSR permit provisions appropriate for

part 70 permit incorporation are clearly identified through the

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

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

law unless and until expressly deleted by the permitting

authority. Wherever this citation approach is used, the

permitting authority should review all referenced terms to ensure

they meet part 70 requirements for enforceability.

The EPA believes that one reason for the excessive length

and cost of some permit applications is that sources believe they

are required to paraphrase or re-state in their entirety the
23

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

repositories of applicable requirements. Citations can be used

to streamline how applicable requirements are described in an

application and will also facilitate compliance by eliminating

the possibility that part 70 permit terms will conflict with

underlying substantive requirements. Indeed, many States have

taken a citation-based approach as a way of streamlining

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

repeat in its application, the often extensive details of a

particular applicable requirement (including current NSR permit

terms), provided that the requirement is readily available and

its manner of application to the source is not subject to

interpretation. The citation must be clear with respect to

limits and other requirements that apply to each subject

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

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

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

2. Incorporation of Part 70 Applications by Reference into

Permits

The EPA discourages the incorporation of entire applications

by reference into permits. The concern with incorporation of the

application by reference into the permit on a wholesale basis is

the confusion created as to the requirements that apply to the

source and the unnecessary limits to operational flexibility that

such an incorporation might cause.

If States do incorporate part 70 applications by reference

in their entirety into part 70 permits, EPA will consider

information in the application to be federally enforceable only

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

conditions enforceable from a practical standpoint. Moreover,

EPA does not interpret part 70 to require permit revisions for

changes in the other aspects of the application.

3. Changing Application Forms

The EPA urges States to re-examine their permit application

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

this guidance. Although the revision of an application form

requires a program revision when it impacts any portion of the

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

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

accomplished through an exchange of letters with the appropriate

EPA Regional Office. Changes made to implement this guidance

can be effected immediately with implementing documents sent to

the appropriate EPA Regional Office. Similarly, a State could

notify the Regional Office in writing that the State intends to
24

make completeness determinations based on completion of parts of

the existing forms to avoid costly changes in computerized form

systems that have already been developed. This is another way

that a State can act quickly to streamline application

requirements while minimizing its own administrative burdens.

G. Responsible Official

Part 70 provides that a "responsible official" must perform

certain important functions. In general, responsible officials

must certify the truth, accuracy, and completeness of all

applications, forms, reports, and compliance certifications

required to be submitted by the operating permits program

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

the truth, accuracy, and completeness of all information

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

the source is in compliance "with all applicable requirements"

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

responsible officials to certify monitoring reports, which must

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

deviations from permit requirements whenever they occur.

The definition of responsible official in § 70.2 identifies

specific categories of officials that have the requisite

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

definition provides in part that the following corporate

officials may be a responsible official:

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

or any other person who performs similar policy or decisionmaking functions for the corporation, or a duly authorized

representative of such person if the representative is

responsible for the overall operation of one or more

manufacturing, production, or operating facilities applying

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

Similarly, for public agencies, the definition indicates the 

following persons may be responsible officials:

. . . a principal executive officer or ranking elected

official. For purposes of this part, a principal executive

officer of a Federal agency includes the chief executive

officer having responsibility for the overall operations of

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

added]

Concerns have been raised over the apparent narrowness of

the current definition of responsible official. In the August

1994 Federal Register notice, EPA responded to those concerns
25

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

responsible official to allow a person other than the designated

representative to be the responsible official for activities not

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

To respond to further concerns over the definition of

responsible official as it applies to partnerships formed by

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

confirms that the same categories of officials who can act as

responsible officials for corporations can also act in that

capacity for partnerships where they carry out responsibilities

substantially similar to those in the same categories in

corporations. Partnerships that are essentially unions of

corporations and/or partnerships will normally have the same

management needs as corporations and so will establish a

management structure with categories of officials similar to

those of most corporations. In these partnerships, the persons

with the knowledge and authority to assure regulatory compliance

are the officials of the partnership.

Interpreting the definition of responsible official as

limiting the class of persons in partnerships that may be

responsible officials to general partners would frustrate the

intent of the definition because it would in many instances

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

to adequately fulfill the role of a responsible official. For

this reason, EPA believes it is reasonable for permitting

authorities, in the case of partnerships composed of corporations

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

designating a responsible official as would be the case for

corporations.

H. Compliance Certification Issues

To make the required compliance certification to accompany

the initial part 70 permit applications, sources are required to

review current major and minor NSR permits and other permits

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

other Federal requirements in order to determine applicable

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

permitting authority may request additional information

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

application process.

Companies are not federally required to reconsider previous

applicability determinations as part of their inquiry in

preparing part 70 permit applications. However, EPA expects

companies to rectify past noncompliance as it is discovered. 

Companies remain subject to enforcement actions for any past
26

noncompliance with requirements to obtain a permit or meet air

pollution control obligations. In addition, the part 70 permit

shield is not available for noncompliance with applicable

requirements that occurred prior to or continues after submission

of the application.
ATTACHMENT A

LIST OF ACTIVITIES THAT MAY BE TREATED AS "TRIVIAL"

The following types of activities and emissions units may be

presumptively omitted from part 70 permit applications. Certain

of these listed activities include qualifying statements intended

to exclude many similar activities.

Combustion emissions from propulsion of mobile sources,

except for vessel emissions from Outer Continental Shelf

sources.

Air-conditioning units used for human comfort that do not

have applicable requirements under title VI of the Act.

Ventilating units used for human comfort that do not exhaust

air pollutants into the ambient air from any

manufacturing/industrial or commercial process.

Non-commercial food preparation.

Consumer use of office equipment and products, not including

printers or businesses primarily involved in photographic

reproduction.

Janitorial services and consumer use of janitorial products.

Internal combustion engines used for landscaping purposes.

Laundry activities, except for dry-cleaning and steam

boilers.

Bathroom/toilet vent emissions.

Emergency (backup) electrical generators at residential

locations.

Tobacco smoking rooms and areas. 

Blacksmith forges.

Plant maintenance and upkeep activities (e.g., groundskeeping, general repairs, cleaning, painting, welding,

plumbing, re-tarring roofs, installing insulation, and

paving parking lots) provided these activities are not

conducted as part of a manufacturing process, are not

related to the source's primary business activity, and not
 Cleaning and painting activities qualify if they are not 1

subject to VOC or HAP control requirements. Asphalt batch plant

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

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

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

or device.

 Brazing, soldering and welding equipment, and cutting 3

torches related to manufacturing and construction activities that

emit HAP metals are more appropriate for treatment as

insignificant activities based on size or production level

thresholds. Brazing, soldering, welding and cutting torches

directly related to plant maintenance and upkeep and repair or

maintenance shop activities that emit HAP metals are treated as

trivial and listed separately in this appendix.

 Exemptions for storage tanks containing petroleum liquids 4

or other volatile organic liquids should be based on size limits

2

otherwise triggering a permit modification.1

Repair or maintenance shop activities not related to the

source's primary business activity, not including emissions

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

activities, and not otherwise triggering a permit

modification.

Portable electrical generators that can be moved by hand

from one location to another .

2

Hand-held equipment for buffing, polishing, cutting,

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

or plastic.

Brazing, soldering and welding equipment, and cutting

torches related to manufacturing and construction activities

that do not result in emission of HAP metals.3

Air compressors and pneumatically operated equipment,

including hand tools.

Batteries and battery charging stations, except at battery

manufacturing plants.

Storage tanks, vessels, and containers holding or storing

liquid substances that will not emit any VOC or HAP.4
such as storage tank capacity and vapor pressure of liquids

stored and are not appropriate for this list.

3

Storage tanks, reservoirs, and pumping and handling

equipment of any size containing soaps, vegetable oil,

grease, animal fat, and nonvolatile aqueous salt solutions,

provided appropriate lids and covers are utilized.

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

grease, animal fat, and nonvolatile aqueous salt solutions,

provided appropriate lids and covers are utilized.

Drop hammers or hydraulic presses for forging or

metalworking.

Equipment used exclusively to slaughter animals, but not

including other equipment at slaughterhouses, such as

rendering cookers, boilers, heating plants, incinerators,

and electrical power generating equipment.

Vents from continuous emissions monitors and other

analyzers.

Natural gas pressure regulator vents, excluding venting at

oil and gas production facilities.

Hand-held applicator equipment for hot melt adhesives with

no VOC in the adhesive formulation.

Equipment used for surface coating, painting, dipping or

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

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

not emit HAP in the process.

Consumer use of paper trimmers/binders.

Electric or steam-heated drying ovens and autoclaves, but

not the emissions from the articles or substances being

processed in the ovens or autoclaves or the boilers

delivering the steam.

Salt baths using nonvolatile salts that do not result in

emissions of any regulated air pollutants.

Laser trimmers using dust collection to prevent fugitive

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

insignificant (depending on the applicable SIP) or be grouped

together for purposes of description.

4

Bench-scale laboratory equipment used for physical or

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

Routine calibration and maintenance of laboratory equipment

or other analytical instruments.

Equipment used for quality control/assurance or inspection

purposes, including sampling equipment used to withdraw

materials for analysis.

Hydraulic and hydrostatic testing equipment.

Environmental chambers not using hazardous air pollutant

(HAP) gasses.

Shock chambers.

Humidity chambers.

Solar simulators.

Fugitive emission related to movement of passenger vehicles,

provided the emissions are not counted for applicability

purposes and any required fugitive dust control plan or its

equivalent is submitted.

Process water filtration systems and demineralizes.

Demineralized water tanks and demineralizer vents.

Boiler water treatment operations, not including cooling

towers.

Oxygen scavenging (de-aeration) of water.

Ozone generators.

Fire suppression systems.

Emergency road flares.

Steam vents and safety relief valves.

Steam leaks.
5

Steam cleaning operations.

Steam sterilizers.