[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 41 (Thursday, March 1, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12872-12877]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-4975]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 70 and 71

[FRL-6934-5]
RIN 2060-AJ04


State and Federal Operating Permits Programs: Amendments 
Compliance Certification Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Direct final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the EPA, are taking direct final action to amend the State 
Operating Permits Program and the Federal Operating Permits Program. 
The amendments are in response to the United States Circuit Court of 
Appeals October 29, 1999, decision to remand to us part of the October 
22, 1997, Compliance Assurance Monitoring rulemaking that included 
revisions describing the ongoing compliance certification content 
requirements. In particular, the Court ruled that the compliance 
certification must address whether the affected facility or source has 
been in continuous or intermittent compliance. This action will revise 
only certain sections to carry through the revisions to the compliance 
certification requirements.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule amendment is effective on April 30, 
2001 without further notice, unless we receive adverse comments on this 
direct final rule by April 2, 2001 or we receive a request for a 
hearing by March 16, 2001. If we receive timely adverse comment or a 
timely hearing request, we will publish a withdrawal in the Federal 
Register informing you, the public, that this direct final rule will 
not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Comments. You may submit comments on this rulemaking in 
writing

[[Page 12873]]

(original and two copies, if possible) to Docket No. A-91-52 to the 
following address: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center 
(6102), US Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Room 
1500, Washington, DC 20460.
    Docket. A docket containing supporting information used in 
developing this direct final rule amendment is available for public 
inspection and copying at our docket office located at the above 
address in Room M-1500, Waerside Mall (ground floor). You are 
encouraged to phone in advance to review docket materials or schedule 
an appointment by phoning the Air Docket Office at (202) 260-7548. 
Refer to Docket No. A-91-52. The Docket Office may charge a reasonable 
fee for copying docket materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter Westlin, Environmental 
Protection Agency, Office Air Quality Planning and Standards, at 919/
541-1058, e-mail: westlin. <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#750510011007351005145b121a03"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="235346574651634653420d444c55">[email protected]</span></a>, facsimile 919/541-1039.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are publishing these rule amendments 
without a prior proposal because we consider this to be 
noncontroversial amendment, given the Court's decision, and we do not 
expect to receive any adverse comment. We believe that this change to 
the previously promulgated rule adequately addresses the Court's 
direction expressed in the remand. In the event we receive adverse 
comment or a hearing request and this direct final rule is subsequently 
withdrawn, we are also publishing a separate document that will serve 
as the proposal of this amendment in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of 
this Federal Register publication. This final rule amendment will be 
effective on April 30, 2001 without further notice, unless we receive 
adverse comment on this rulemaking by April 2, 2001 or we receive a 
request for a hearing by March 11, 2001. If we receive timely adverse 
comment or a timely hearing request, we will publish a withdrawal in 
the Federal Register informing you that this direct final rule will not 
take effect. In that event, we will address all public comments in a 
subsequent final rule, based on the proposed rule amendment published 
in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of this Federal Register document. 
Because we will not provide further opportunity for public comment on 
this action, you must comment on this amendment at this time if you 
wish to do so.
    Regulated entities. The requirements in this regulation may apply 
to you if you own or operate any facility subject to the compliance 
certification requirements of part 70 to 71. These regulations apply 
to, but are not limited to, owners or operators of all sources who must 
have operating permits under either of these programs. State, local, 
and tribal governments are potentially affected tot he extent that 
those governments must revise existing compliance certification 
requirements in implementing the part 70 operating permits program to 
make consistent with these revisions.
    Internet. The text of this Federal Register document is also 
available on our web site on the Internet under the Recently Signed 
Rules category at the following address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/rules.html and the OAQPS, Emissions Measurement Center website at 
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/. Our Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) 
homepage on the Internet also contains a wide range of information on 
the air toxics program and many other air pollution programs and 
issues. The OAR's homepage address is: http://www.epa.gov/oar.
    Electronic Access and Filing Addresses. The official record for 
this rulemaking, as well as the public version, has been established 
for this rulemaking under Docket No. A-91-52 (including comments and 
data submitted electronically). A public version of this record, 
including printed, paper versions of electronic comments, which does 
not include any information claimed as confidential business 
information (CBI), is available for inspection from 8 a.m. to 5:30 
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The official 
rulemaking record is located at the address listed in the ADDRESSES 
section at the beginning of this preamble. You may submit comments on 
this rulemaking electronically to the EPA's Air and Radiation Docket 
and Information Center at their address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a0e18dc1cec48df28de4cfc3cbc5d4e0c5d0c18ec7cfd6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="09482468676d245b244d666a626c7d496c7968276e667f">[email protected]</span></a>. 
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use 
of special characters and any form of encryption. Comments and data 
will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect in 6.1 file format or 
ASCII file format. You must identify all comments and data in 
electronic form by the docket number (A-91-52). You should not submit 
CBI through electronic mail. You may file electronic comments online at 
any Federal Depository Library.
    Outline. The information in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. Authority
II. Background
    A. Regulatory and litigation background
    B. Direction from Court
III. Regulatory Revisions and Effects
    A. What are the regulatory revisions?
    B. What must I include in the compliance certification?
IV. Administrative Requirements
    A. Executive Order 12866: ``Significant Regulatory Action 
Determination''
    B. Regulatory Flexibility
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Docket
    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    I. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
    J. National Technology Transfers and Advancement Act

I. Authority

    The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 114 
and 501 through 507 of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7414a 
and 7661-7661f).

II. Background

A. Regulatory and Litigation Background

    On October 22, 1997 (62 FR 54900), we published the final part 64, 
Compliance Assurance Monitoring (CAM) rule, and revisions to parts 70 
and 71, the State and Federal Operating Permits Programs. Part 64 
included procedures, design specifications, and performance criteria 
intended to satisfy, in part, the enhanced monitoring requirements of 
the Clean Air Act (``the Act''). The revisions to parts 70 and 71 
included language to Secs. 70.6(c)(5)(iii)(B) and 71.6(c)(5)(iii)(B) 
specifying the minimum information necessary for the compliance 
certification required of responsible officials.
    Subsequent to that publication, the Natural Resources Defense 
Council, Inc. (NRDC) and the Appalachian Power Company et al. 
(industry) filed petitions with the United States Court of Appeals for 
the District of Columbia Circuit (Court) challenging several aspects of 
the CAM rule. Industry challenged our authority to promulgate the parts 
70 and 71 language requiring that compliance certifications be based on 
any other material information including credible evidence.
    The NRDC argued that the monitoring in part 64 failed to meet Clean 
Air Act requirements regarding enhanced monitoring and that the parts 
70 and 71 revisions were inconsistent with the Act's explicit 
requirement that compliance certifications indicate

[[Page 12874]]

whether compliance is continuous or intermittent.

B. Direction From Court

    On October 29, 1999, the Court issued its decision (see docket A-
91-52, item VIII-A-1) Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 194 
F.3d 130 (D.C. Cir. 1999), on these challenges. Most importantly, the 
court held that ``EPA's adoption of CAM as ``enhanced monitoring'' 
meets the requirements of the Clean Air Act.'' Id. at 137. The court 
also dismissed the industry's challenge as unripe relying on its 
earlier decision involving EPA's Credible Evidence Rule. See Clean Air 
Implementation Project v. EPA, 150 F.3d 1200 (D.C. Cir. 1998). The 
court did, however, agree with NRDC that EPA's removal from parts 70 
and 71 of the explicit requirement that compliance certifications 
address whether compliance is continuous or intermittent revisions ran 
contrary to the statutory requirement that each source must certify 
``whether compliance is continuous or intermittent * * *'' See section 
114(a)(3)(D), 42 U.S.C. 7414(a)(3)(D). Our rationale for revising the 
compliance certification language had been that so long as the 
compliance certification addressed the substance of whether compliance 
had been continuous or intermittent there was no need to require 
responsible officials to use the terms ``continuous'' or 
``intermittent.'' The court disagreed finding Congress'' intent to be 
``express and unambiguous.'' 194 F.3d at 138. Accordingly, the court 
remanded that portion of the CAM rule ``pertaining to `continuous or 
intermittent' compliance certification'' to us for revision consistent 
with the court's decision.

III. Regulatory Revisions and Effects

A. What Are the Regulatory Revisions?

    In response to the court's remand, we have added text to sections, 
Secs. 70.6(c)(5)(iii)(B) and 71.6(c)(5)(iii)(B), to require that the 
responsible official for the affected facility include in the annual 
(or more frequent) compliance certification whether compliance during 
the period was continuous or intermittent. Specifically, the revised 
text, including the introductory language for both sections reads: 
``Permits shall include each of the following * * *: A requirement that 
the compliance certification include all of the following * * *: The 
status of compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit for 
the period covered by the certification, including whether compliance 
during the period was continuous or intermittent. The certification 
shall be based on the method or means designated in paragraph 
(c)(5)(iii)(B) of this section.'' The italicized text indicates the 
revisions made in response to the Court decision. Other text within 
both of these sections remains as promulgated in 1997. Under this 
revised language, the responsible official must include in the 
compliance certification a statement as to whether compliance during 
the period was continuous or intermittent. We believe these revisions 
respond directly and adequately to the Court's decision to remand the 
compliance certification requirements to us and are consistent with the 
requirements of the Act.
    The Court's decision and this amendment to our regulations also 
necessitate a change to a guidance document issued in connection with 
the CAM rulemaking. In ``Compliance Assurance Monitoring Rule 
Implementation Questions and Responses'' (from Steve Hitte, OPG-ITPID 
to APMs, Regions I-X (January 8, 1998)), we advised permitting 
authorities that they could require sources to certify compliance using 
either existing state regulations that tracked the statute (e.g., 
certify to whether compliance was continuous or intermittent) or the 
certification language in the CAM revisions to Part 70. See at Question 
10. This guidance was based on our interpretation that (1) the 
statutory requirement to certify whether compliance is continuous or 
intermittent had sufficient flexibility to allow the approach taken in 
the revisions to Part 70 and (2) the state regulations on compliance 
certification generally tracked exactly the statutory language on 
certification of continuous or intermittent compliance. The Court, 
however, disagreed with our interpretation of the statutory language 
and remanded the revisions to Part 70 to us. As a result, the guidance 
above is no longer justified. Accordingly, we withdraw the guidance 
provided to permitting authorities in Question and Response 10 in the 
above-mentioned guidance to the extent it states that permitting 
authorities may allow certifications based on the Part 70 revisions set 
aside by the Court. We are aware that most if not all approved state 
program regulations continue to require responsible officials to 
certify whether compliance was intermittent or continuous. Accordingly, 
any state programs that followed the interpretation in Question 10 
above should be able to expeditiously require certifications to be 
based upon the proper statutory certification language.

B. What Must I Include in the Compliance Certification?

    The compliance certification is your assessment, signed by your 
facility's responsible official, as to whether your facility complied 
with the terms and conditions of the permit. The compliance 
certification includes three main elements. The first is identification 
of all the permit terms and conditions to which your facility is 
subject. These include applicable design provisions, work practice 
elements, required operating conditions, and emissions limitations in 
addition to general and specific monitoring, reporting, and record 
keeping requirements.
    Second, you must identify the method(s) and any other material 
information used to determine compliance status of each term and 
condition. The method(s) includes at a minimum any testing and 
monitoring methods required by Parts 70 or 71 that were conducted 
during the period for the certification. You must describe whether the 
data collection using the methods referenced for the compliance 
certification provide continuous or intermittent data.
    Third, you must certify as to the status of compliance including 
whether compliance was continuous or intermittent. You must base this 
status on the results of the identified methods and other material 
information. You must note as possible exceptions to compliance any 
deviations from the permit requirements and any excursions, or 
exceedances as defined in part 64, or other underlying applicable 
requirements, during which compliance is required.
    You can find additional explanation on our interpretation of a 
certification of continuous or intermittent compliance in the preamble 
to the final CAM rule. 62 FR 54937

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866: ``Significant Regulatory Action 
Determination''

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), we must 
determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and 
therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and 
the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines 
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a 
rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the

[[Page 12875]]

economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the 
environment, public health or safety in State, local, or tribal 
governments or communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlement, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs of the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    Because the annualized cost of this final rule amendment would be 
significantly less than $100 million and would not meet any of the 
other criteria specified in the Executive Order, we have determined 
that this action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the 
terms of Executive Order 12866, and is therefore not subject to OMB 
review. Executive Order 12866 also encourages agencies to provide a 
meaningful public comment period, and suggests that in most cases the 
comment period should be 60 days. However, in consideration of the very 
limited scope of this amendment, we consider 30 days to be sufficient 
in providing a meaningful public comment period for this rulemaking.

B. Regulatory Flexibility

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires us to conduct a 
regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and 
comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 
small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. 
We determined that these amendments to the parts 70 and 71 do not have 
a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. We 
intended that compliance with the CAM rule would provide monitoring 
information sufficient to demonstrate whether compliance was continuous 
or intermittent. Even though we did not require that the responsible 
official use those terms in the revisions to the compliance 
certification, we did require that the responsible rely on the 
monitoring information in making that certification. That the court 
held that the responsible official must address explicitly whether 
compliance was continuous or intermittent does not substantively change 
the monitoring responsibilities or economic impact. The revisions to 
parts 70 and 71 in this action add no burden on responsible officials 
other than to categorize their compliance status as continuous or 
intermittent. We have determined that a regulatory flexibility analysis 
is not necessary in connection with this action.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This amendment does not include or create any information 
collection activities subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, and 
therefore we will submit no information collection request (ICR) to OMB 
for review in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 
3501, et seq.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, we 
must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, 
for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that may result 
in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one 
year. Before we promulgate a rule for which a written statement is 
needed, section 205 of the UMRA requires us to identify and consider a 
reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least 
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that 
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do 
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows us to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation of why that 
alternative was not adopted. Before we establish any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including tribal governments, we must have developed under 
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. That plan must 
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling 
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely 
input in the development of regulatory proposals with significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and 
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory 
requirements.
    As noted above, this amendment is of very narrow scope, and 
provides a compliance alternative very similar to one already available 
in the promulgated part 70 compliance certification requirements. We 
have determined that this action contains no regulatory requirements 
that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. We have 
also determined that this action does not contain a Federal mandate 
that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, 
local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector 
in any one year. Thus, today's action is not subject to the 
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

E. Docket

    The docket includes an organized and complete file of all the 
information upon which we relied in taking this direct final action. 
The docketing system is intended to allow you to identify and locate 
documents readily so that you can participate effectively in the 
rulemaking process. Along with the proposed and promulgated standards 
and their preambles, the contents of the docket, except for certain 
interagency documents, will serve as the record for judicial review. 
(See CAA section 307(d)(7)(A).)

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires us to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    Under Section 6 of Executive Order 13132, we may not issue a 
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless 
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or we consult 
with State and local officials early in the process of developing the 
proposed regulation. We also may not issue a regulation that has 
federalism implications and that preempts State law, unless we consult 
with State and local officials early in the process of developing the 
proposed regulation.
    This final rule does not have federalism implications. The rule 
will

[[Page 12876]]

not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. Today's action does not create a 
mandate on State, local or tribal governments. The amendments to the 
rule do not impose any new or additional enforceable duties on these 
entities. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do 
not apply to this rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that the EPA determines 
(1) economically significant as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) the 
environmental health or safety risk addressed by the rule has a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or 
safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. These 
amendments to the State and Federal operating permits program are not 
subject to E.O. 13045, entitled Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997), because it is not an economically significant regulatory action 
as defined by E.O. 12866, and the amendments do not address an 
environmental health or safety risk that would have a disproportionate 
effect on children.

H. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Under Executive Order 13084, we may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those 
governments. If we comply by consulting, Executive Order 13084 requires 
us to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a separate 
identified section of the preamble to the rule, a description of the 
extent of our prior consultation with representatives of affected 
tribal governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns, and a 
statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, 
Executive Order 13084 requires us to develop an effective process 
permitting elected officials and other representatives of Indian tribal 
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development 
of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect 
their communities.'' These amendments to parts 70 and 71 do not 
significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal 
governments. The amendments to the rule do not impose any new or 
additional enforceable duties on these entities. Accordingly, the 
requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to 
this action.

I. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United 
States. We will submit a report containing this rule and other required 
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and 
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of 
this final rule in the Federal Register.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Under section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and 
Advancement Act (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113 (March 7, 1996), we are 
required to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory and 
procurement activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, business practices, etc.) which are adopted by 
voluntary consensus standard bodies. Where we do not use available and 
potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards, the NTTA requires 
us to provide Congress, through OMB, an explanation of the reasons for 
not using such standards. This action does not involve technical 
standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of any voluntary 
consensus standards.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 70 and 71

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: January 12, 2001.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, we amend title 40, chapter 
I, parts 70 and 71 of the Code of Federal Regulations to read as 
follows:

PART 70--STATE OPERATING PERMIT PROGRAMS

    1. The authority citation for part 70 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.


    2. Section 70.6 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(5)(iii)(C) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 70.6  Permit content.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (5) * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (C) The status of compliance with the terms and conditions of the 
permit for the period covered by the certification, including whether 
compliance during the period was continuous or intermittent. The 
certification shall be based on the method or means designated in 
paragraph (c)(5)(iii)(B) of this section. The certification shall 
identify each deviation and take it into account in the compliance 
certification. The certification shall also identify as possible 
exceptions to compliance any periods during which compliance is 
required and in which an excursion or exceedance as defined under part 
64 of this chapter occurred; and
* * * * *

PART 71--FEDERAL OPERATING PERMITS PROGRAMS

    1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.


    2. Section 71.6 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(5)(iii)(C) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 71.6  Permit content.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (5) * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (C) The status of compliance with the terms and conditions of the 
permit for the period covered by the certification, including whether 
compliance during the period was continuous or

[[Page 12877]]

intermittent. The certification shall be based on the method or means 
designated in paragraph (c)(5)(iii)(B) of this section. The 
certification shall identify each deviation and take it into account in 
the compliance certification; and
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 01-4975 Filed 2-28-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>