Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0179-0116
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2003-11-03T05:00Z

Mr.
Frank
H.
Lobb
Vice
President
Compliance
Systems
Clean
Air
Engineering
Post
Office
Box
242
Nottingham,
PA
19362
Dear
Mr.
Lobb:

Thank
you
for
your
letter
of
May
1,
2003,
to
Administrator
Whitman
asking
for
information
on
the
Clean
Air
Act's
operating
permits
programs,
specifically
the
role
that
monitoring
plays
in
defining
compliance.
Your
letter
has
been
forwarded
to
me
for
reply.
I
want
to
assure
you
that
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
shares
your
concerns
about
implementing
the
operating
permits
requirements
in
a
manner
consistent
with
the
Clean
Air
Act.

In
your
letter,
you
raised
several
issues:
(
1)
you
asked
for
a
clear
definition
of
the
primary
purpose
of
monitoring
in
operating
permits
as
it
applies
to
compliance
certification,
(
2)
you
objected
to
any
attempt
on
our
part
to
redefine
monitoring
in
a
way
that
ignores
inherent
uncertainty
in
monitoring
data,
and
(
3)
you
asked
that
we
reaffirm
that
the
accuracy
of
data
from
monitoring
is
determined
relative
to
sitespecific
factors,
and
thus,
that
no
monitoring
data
can
be
considered
presumptively
accurate
or
presumptively
credible
for
compliance
or
enforcement
purposes.
In
addition,
I
understand
that
you
are
particularly
interested
in
these
questions
as
they
relate
to
EPA's
interim
final
rule
(
now
expired)
and
a
proposal,
both
published
on
September
17,
2002,
which
were
intended
to
clarify
the
scope
of
the
sufficiency
monitoring
requirements
of
the
operating
permits
regulations.

In
response
to
your
first
question,
the
primary
purpose
of
monitoring
in
operating
permits
is
to
provide
data
to
help
the
source
owner,
the
permitting
authority,
and
citizens
assess
compliance
status.
As
part
of
the
annual
compliance
certification,
the
operating
permits
regulations
require
source
2
owners
to
include
the
methods
and
means
they
use
for
determining
compliance,
including
any
other
material
information.
This
means
the
source
owner
must
consider
all
relevant
monitoring
data
and
records
required
to
be
kept
by
the
permit,
as
well
as
any
other
relevant
information
available
to
him/
her
when
performing
this
compliance
determination.
The
Clean
Air
Act
requires
source
owners
to
certify
to
continuous
or
intermittent
compliance.
Source
owners
are
not
required
to
certify
to
noncompliance
or
violations.
Instead,
noncompliance
or
violations
would
be
established
through
Federal
or
State
enforcement
actions
or
citizen
suits,
which
may
be
based
on
any
information
determined
to
be
credible
evidence
(
more
on
credible
evidence
below).

Regarding
the
second
issue
you
raised
in
your
letter,
it
is
not
our
intent
to
change
any
policies
related
to
how
data
uncertainty
is
considered
in
compliance
certifications.
Your
concerns
over
data
uncertainty
appear
to
be
based
on
your
belief
that
the
September
17,
2002,
sufficiency
monitoring
proposal
would
require
direct
monitoring
techniques,
such
as
continuous
emissions
monitoring
systems
or
monitoring
similar
to
reference
test
methods,
that
would
provide
an
"
absolute
determination
of
compliance."
The
rulemaking
actions
on
sufficiency
monitoring
do
not
require
an
"
absolute
determination
of
compliance,"
do
not
specify
any
particular
types
of
monitoring
as
sufficiency
monitoring,
and
do
not
address
uncertainty
in
monitoring
data.
Also,
note
that
we
stated
in
the
sufficiency
monitoring
proposal
that
we
intend
to
address
the
issue
of
what
types
of
monitoring
would
be
necessary
to
meet
the
sufficiency
monitoring
requirements
through
future
notice­
and­
comment
rulemaking.
We
will
address
further
the
comments
in
your
letter
when
we
respond
to
comments
on
our
current
sufficiency
monitoring
proposal.

On
the
third
issue
you
raised,
we
can
reaffirm
statements
on
site­
specific
data
accuracy
we
made
in
the
context
of
the
final
credible
evidence
rule
on
February
24,
1997.
The
proposed
credible
evidence
rule
contained
lists
of
"
presumptively
credible
evidence"
and
"
presumptively
credible
monitoring
methods."
After
carefully
considering
public
comments,
we
deleted
these
lists
from
the
final
rule
discussion.
Instead,
we
recognized
that
judicial
and
administrative
tribunals
would
determine
the
admissibility
and
weight
of
evidence
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
based
on
applicable
evidentiary
law.
The
rulemaking
actions
on
sufficiency
monitoring
made
no
statements
that
should
be
construed
to
affect
this
policy.
3
Again,
thank
you
for
your
letter.
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
be
of
service
and
trust
the
information
provided
is
helpful.

Sincerely,

/
s/

Jeffrey
R.
Holmstead
Assistant
Administrator