This proposed rule revisions do not have tribal implications because
they will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order
13175.  This action does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements
of Executive Order 13175 do not apply to these proposed rule revisions.
We solicit comments from Indian tribal governments on the proposed rule.

Executive Order 13045:  Protection of Children from Environmental Health
and Safety Risks

	This proposed rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental
health or safety risks addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children because it does not establish an
environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.

Executive Order 13211:  Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use

	This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

	This proposed rule is not a “significant energy action,” as defined
in to Executive Order 13211, because it is not likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy.  As noted earlier, this action would simply clarify existing
requirements and would not impose any new requirements, and thus would
not affect the supply distribution, or use of energy.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

	Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113, directs us to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory 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, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus bodies.
The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when
the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary
consensus standards.

	The NTTAA does not apply to this proposed rule because it does not
involve

technical standards.  Therefore, we did not consider the use of any
voluntary consensus standards.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 51

	Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 52

	Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 70

	Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 71

	Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirement

_________________________________

Dated

_________________________________

Stephen L. Johnson,

Administrator.

 We first addressed the concept of a flexible air permit in May 1991.
See 56 FR 21712, 21748 (May 10, 1991).

 (Applicable requirements( is a term that is used in title V.  The EPA
has defined the term to include, among other things, State
implementation plan (SIP) rules, the terms and conditions of
preconstruction permits issued under a SIP-approved NSR program, and
requirements pursuant to the new source performance standards (NSPS),
national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP), and
Acid Rain Programs.  See 40 CFR 70.2.

 (Major stationary source( is defined at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(iv),
51.166(b)(1), and 52.21(b)(1), and (major modification( is defined at 40
CFR 51.165(a)(1)(v), 51.166(b)(2), and 52.21(b)(2).

 This is a section 307(d) rulemaking.  See CAA section 307(d)(1)(J)
(addressing regulations under part C of Subchapter I) and 307(d)(1)(V)
(authorizing the Administrator to designate any action a 307(d)
rulemaking).

 In the 1990's, we proposed certain clarifications and modifications to
the part 70 regulations, none of which were ever finalized.  See
generally 60 FR 45529 (Aug. 31, 1995), 59 FR 44460 (Aug. 29, 1994).  In
those proposals, among other things, we discussed the concept of
(advance NSR( in relation to AOSs, and proposed a definition for
(alternative operating scenarios.(

 The EPA included other operational flexibility provisions in the final
part 70 regulations, including 40 CFR 70.4(b)(12), (b)(14) and (b)(15),
which implement section 502(b)(10) of the Act.  This proposed rule does
not address these provisions.

 The Federal operating permit program at part 71 addresses reasonably
anticipated operating scenarios in the same fashion as part 70.  See 40
CFR 71.6(a)(9).  These proposed revisions affect both parts 70 and 71
and the revisions that we propose to each part are virtually identical.
For ease of reference, this preamble discussion refers to the part 70
provisions.  The discussion, of course, applies equally to the part 71
program revisions proposed.  Section numbers given for the part 70 rules
correspond directly to the analogous sections in part 71.  The term
(title V permit( refers to permits issued under either part 70 or part
71.

 In implementing the pilot projects, EPA and other permitting
authorities sometimes imposed certain constraints in the permits for
advance approvals and AOSs beyond those expressly contained in
applicable requirements or part 70.  These additional constraints varied
and were designed to provide permitting authorities the opportunity to
gain experience with different flexible permitting approaches.  Some of
these constraints were anticipated to be removed at the time of permit
renewal in the next version of the permit.

 See (Evaluation of the Implementation Experience with Innovative Air
Permits.(  A copy of this report is located in the docket for this
rulemaking, or can be accessed at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t5/memoranda/iap_eier.pdf.

 In August 2000, based in large part on the experience we gained through
the pilot permit program, we issued a draft guidance document called
White Paper Number 3, on which we solicited comment.  See White Paper
Number 3, 64 FR 49803 (Aug. 15, 2000).  That draft guidance addressed
various flexible permitting approaches, including the use of the
reasonably anticipated AOS provision of 40 CFR 70.6(a)(9), Clean
Buildings, and PALs.  We received comments on the proposed rules and
draft guidance and, in fashioning this proposal, considered those
comments that addressed advance approval and AOSs as contained in 40 CFR
70.6(a)(9).  As explained further below, we propose a definition of
(alternative operating scenario( and certain other revisions to the part
70 regulations.  We also propose revisions to parts 51 and 52 that
provide for Green Groups.

 Note that other approaches to AOSs and advance approval may also be
acceptable, although they may not provide as much flexibility as the
approaches proposed.  For example, some States include in a title V
permit a type of conditional approval under which a source cannot
construct or operate otherwise approved changes until a minor NSR
approval is obtained for them.  Essentially, this approach creates in a
title V permit a structure that is a precursor to an AOS or an advance
approval.  Once the minor NSR permit is issued, the source can construct
and operate the changes under the conditional approval, but a title V
permit revision is needed to incorporate the now-available minor NSR
terms and to award the permit shield (where available from the
permitting authority).  Where an AOS is involved, this incorporation is
also needed to complete the AOS consistent with 40 CFR 70.6(a)(9).  Our
pilot permit experience suggests that in many instances changes subject
to minor NSR can be approved in advance, although the ability for a
State to provide such approvals will vary depending on the actual
provisions of individual State rules.  As a result, where advance
approval of changes subject to minor NSR is available, we encourage its
incorporation into the title V permit after or concurrent with obtaining
the necessary minor NSR approvals in order to provide a permitting
strategy with greater operational flexibility, certainty, and permitting
efficiency than does a conditional approval approach.

 Sources at the following locations participated in our pilot permit
program:  (1) 3M (St. Paul, MN); (2) Intel (Aloha, Oregon); (3) Lasco
Bathware (Yelm, WA); (4) Imation (Weatherford, OK); (5) Cytec
(Connecticut); (6) DaimlerChrysler (Newark, DE); (7) Merck (Elkton, VA);
(8) Merck (Barceloneta, PR); (9) Saturn (Spring Hill, TN); (10) BMW
(Spartanburg, SC); (11) Eli Lilly (West Lafayette, IN); (12) 3M (Nevada,
MO); and (13) Imation (Camarillo, CA).

 The VOC emissions caps used in the pilots were determined to be
adequate for purposes of safeguarding the ozone NAAQS, but for other
pollutants (e.g., air toxics) States sometimes required a replicable
modeling procedure to screen the impacts of individual emissions
increases relative to acceptable ambient toxics levels.  Here an ambient
dispersion model, complete with implementation assumptions, is approved
into the minor NSR permit to evaluate any new pollutant of concern or
increased existing pollutant emissions.  Failure of a particular change
to meet the screening levels triggered the need for case-by-base review
of that change from the permitting authority.

 The six permits that we analyzed were:  (1) Intel (Aloha, Oregon); (2)
3M (St. Paul, MN); (3) Lasco Bathware (Yelm, WA); (4) DaimlerChrysler
(Newark, DE); (5) Saturn (Spring Hill, TN); and (6) Imation
(Weatherford, OK).

 Among other things, the report confirmed that the flexible permits are
enforceable in a practical manner by EPA and permitting authorities.
See Report at pages 5, 20.  See footnote 9 of this preamble for
information on how you can obtain the report.

 See the pilot permit report, (Evaluation of the Implementation
Experience with Innovative Air Permits,( page 22.

 See (EPA Flexible Permit Implementation Review:  Saturn Permit Review
Report,( pages 9 and 34, which is available at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t5/memoranda/iap_sprr.pdf"
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t5/memoranda/iap_sprr.pdf .

 Findings are discussed in more detail in the (Evaluation of
Implementation Experiences with Innovative Air Permits( report, under
Finding 8.

 These manufacturing concepts have been defined in various ways.
Generally, however, lean manufacturing is defined as an initiative
focused on eliminating all waste in manufacturing processes.  Principles
of lean manufacturing include zero waiting time, zero inventory,
scheduling (internal customer pull instead of push system), batch to
flow (cut batch sizes), line balancing, and cutting actual process
times.  Six Sigma is defined as a rigorous and disciplined methodology
that utilizes data and statistical analysis to measure and improve a
company's operational performance, practices, and systems.  Six Sigma
identifies and prevents defects in manufacturing and service-related
processes.  In many organizations, it simply means a measure of quality
that strives for near perfection.  Agile manufacturing emphasizes the
ability to thrive and prosper in an environment of constant and
unpredictable change and includes the use of tools such as rapid
prototyping, rapid tooling, and reverse engineering to address customers
who require small quantities of highly custom, design-to-order products,
and where additional services and value-added benefits like product
upgrades and future reconfigurations are as important as the product
itself.

 Although we are proposing certain revisions to the major NSR program,
we are proposing no changes to any other applicable requirement, as that
term is defined in  40 CFR 70.2.

 The NAAQS and increments for some pollutants are established over
short-term periods as well as annually.  For example, annual, daily, and
3-hour NAAQS and increments are defined for sulfur dioxide.
Accordingly, some NSR permits include emissions limits for these shorter
periods.

 If any other applicable requirements would be triggered by the change
that are not addressed by the minor NSR advance approval, they also must
be included in the part 70 permit and become applicable upon its
issuance.  Alternatively, such requirements may be prevented from
applying through limits contained in the permit (e.g., a PAL or PTE
cap(s)).

 As explained in White Paper Number 2, sources that seek to streamline
applicable requirements should submit their request as part of their
title V permit application, identifying the proposed streamlined
requirements and providing a demonstration that the streamlined
requirements assure compliance with all the underlying, subsumed
applicable requirements.  Upon approval of the streamlined requirements,
the permitting authority would place the requirements in the title V
permit.  See (White Paper Number 2 for Improved Implementation of the
Part 70 Operating Permits Program,( March, 5, 1996, for the complete
guidance on the streamlining of applicable requirements
(www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t5/ memoranda/wtppr-2.pdf).  Where the source
wishes to streamline the advance approval under NSR with all other
relevant applicable requirements, the same title V permit application
can address both actions.

 For the complete text of the elements that must be included in a title
V application, see 40 CFR 70.5(c).

 Some State, local, and Tribal air control programs include (State-only(
requirements (i.e., requirements not enforceable by EPA) that require
source owners or operators to obtain authorization prior to
construction.  In instances where the permitting authority elects to
include such requirements in the part 70 permit, there are benefits to
addressing them as part of a comprehensive permit flexibility solution.
These requirements should, however, be labeled as (State-only(
consistent with 40 CFR 70.6(b)(2).  Options for flexible permit
conditions to address State-only applicable requirements potentially
range widely, depending on the State(s interpretation of its ability to
authorize changes in advance under these requirements.

 As needed, additional terms would be added to assure compliance with
applicable requirements beyond NSR that are implicated by the advance
approved changes.

 Failure to anticipate and include a particular change under an AOS does
not in and of itself bar the source from implementing the change if it
can satisfy the requirements of the off-permit provisions in part 70,
such as those set forth at 40 CFR 70.4(b)(12) and (b)(14).  The permit
shield does not extend to changes made pursuant to these provisions.
See, e.g., 40 CFR 70.4(b)(12)(i)(B), (b)(12)(ii)(B), (b)(14)(iii).  For
example, during the term of its part 70 permit, a source might obtain
approval under minor NSR to construct and operate a new emissions unit.
Where available and granted by the permitting authority, the source can
implement the change under the off-permit provisions, assuming that the
change is not addressed or prohibited by the terms of the source’s
part 70 permit.

 Under the authority of 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3), however, the permit can also
contain additional streamlined monitoring or gap-filling periodic
monitoring as needed to assure compliance with applicable  requirements.
 An ARM can operate on the information gathered under these obligations
as well.

 Although subpart JJJJ requires only an initial performance test, many
States require periodic performance tests to verify that the control
device continues to achieve the emissions limit.  Where this is the
case, the operating limit typically is recalculated based on the
temperature during each test.

 We have proposed in the definition of ARM that the otherwise qualifying
replicable protocol be consistent with and implement an applicable
requirement or requirement of part 70 (emphasis added).  Limits on PTE
may be established pursuant to part 70, and such a PTE limit would be a
requirement of part 70 and thus could be in part implemented through an
ARM.

 In the above PTE example, assume that the emissions determinations were
based on emissions factors derived from a stack test.  If there is a
possibility that a subsequent stack test may be performed, which would
require revision of those emissions factors in the near future, the
source or permitting authority may consider including in the permit an
ARM.  The ARM could direct the source to use emissions factors derived
from the most recent stack test, rather than listing specific factors in
the PTE equation contained in the permit, eliminating the need for a
permit revision once new factors are established.

 Although an ARM can reduce the number of permit revisions a source must
make, it cannot modify an applicable requirement.  For example, there
are some instances where the applicable requirement requires a notice to
the permitting authority, such as where the requirement calls for notice
of a performance test or the submission of certain performance test
results.  An ARM does not abrogate these requirements.

 In pertinent part, 40 CFR 70.6(a)(9) provides that for an AOS, the part
70 permit must contain appropriate terms and conditions to ensure that
“all applicable requirement and the requirements of this part” are
met.  An ARM constitutes an example of such permit terms.

 Certain applicable requirements require that additional information be
included in an on-site log.  These data can be combined with that which
is would be required under the proposed part 70 revisions.  For example,
the Pharmaceuticals Production MACT standard (40 CFR part 63, subpart
GGG) requires the source to log considerably more information about its
(operating scenarios.(  See 40 CFR 63.1259(b)(8) and the definition of
(operating scenario( at 40 CFR 63.1251.

 A source, however, would not need to log a change to an emissions unit
unless an AOS is implicated by the change, or a source stops operating
under an AOS and returns to baseline operating conditions as a result of
the change.  In particular, no log entry is needed for a source making a
change where the change has been advance approved under minor NSR, the
title V permit contains the advance approval, and these terms are in
effect upon issuance of the title V permit (i.e., no AOS is involved).

 Under the provisions of parts 51 and 52, a major NSR PAL does not
inherently affect the applicability of minor NSR.  Some State minor NSR
rules may vary on this point, but for purposes of this example we assume
that minor NSR continues to apply beneath the major NSR PAL.

 The acronym “NESHAP” stands for National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants.  The NESHAP promulgated in 40 CFR part 63 are
typically referred to as MACT standards.

 The limit on tank size applies only to the advance approved tanks.  The
source retains the ability to construct tanks larger than 30,000
gallons, but would have to go through the normal preconstruction
permitting to construct a larger tank.

	 See section VI.A of this preamble and footnote 23 for more on the
streamlining of applicable requirements in a title V permit.

 The HON applies to specified organic HAPs that are a subset of the
total HAP list.  For this example, we use “HAP” to refer to those
HAPs covered by the HON.

 The companies in two of our pilots conveyed a clear desire to pursue an
approach similar to the Green Group options described in this proposal.
One of these facilities is a synthetic minor source of VOC emissions for
purposes of PSD applicability, and is therefore not subject to major
NSR.  The source did, however, agree to meet a best technology
requirement under the State’s minor NSR program in order to authorize
a range of changes with VOC emissions conveyed to a highly efficient
carbon adsorption system.  The second facility went through major NSR to
obtain authorization for a wide spectrum of related changes anticipated
to occur in a complex of buildings all ducted to a common
state-of-the-art control technology.

 The major NSR rules refer to the (reviewing authority,( while part 70
refers to the (permitting authority.(  For purposes of consistency with
the other sections of this preamble, we use the term (permitting
authority( in this section.  In these discussions, this term is intended
to have the same meaning as (reviewing authority.(

 The source may maintain a back-up control device; however, all
emissions from the Green Group must be directed to a dedicated, common
pollution control device.

 Emissions activities are the component equipment that makes up the
Green Group.  For example, a Green Group could include multiple coating
lines, and each individual coating line could be considered an emissions
activity within the Green Group.  Note that some or even several of
these might be individually regulated under one or more other applicable
requirements but are combined into one emissions unit for purposes of
NSR.

 In order to qualify for the Green Group designation, all of the
emissions activities that are identified as part of the Green Group must
be conveyed to a common air pollution control device to meet the BACT or
LAER limit, as appropriate, depending on whether the area is designated
attainment or non-attainment for the pollutant of concern.  Although
this Green Group proposal requires that the emissions from the Green
Group be ducted to a common air pollution control device, consistent
with existing EPA policy, the source can use other control measures in
addition to the common control device to meet BACT or LAER.  Such
additional measures can include P2, work practices, or operational
standards.

 Note that additional detail to describe the new and existing activities
of a Green Group may be necessary for title V purposes.  For example,
more detail would be necessary to identify those emissions activities
included in the Green Group that are also subject to other applicable
requirements (e.g., MACT or NSPS).

 The NAAQS and increments for some pollutants are established over
short-term periods as well as annually.  For example, annual, daily, and
3-hour NAAQS and increments are defined for sulfur dioxide.
Accordingly, some NSR permits include emissions limits for these shorter
periods.

 For surface coating operations, (compliant materials( means coatings
and solvents that are formulated to meet emissions limits without need
of add-on controls.  For example, coatings may be formulated with high
solids content and low VOC content.

 In some cases, a source may have previously taken an emissions limit on
a new or modified emissions unit to remain below major NSR applicability
thresholds (often referred to as an “(r)(4) limit” based on
§52.21(r)(4)).  Once the unit is included with a Green Group, it has
gone through major NSR and the (r)(4) limit will no longer apply.

 Any emissions increase that occurs from debottlenecking and/or
increased utilization may in addition be subject to review before it
would occur if the permitting authority determines that NSR/PSD also
directly applies to such increases.  “Debottlenecking” refers to the
situation that arises when an emissions unit that has been unable to
operate at full capacity because of low production capacity at a second
unit in the process is able to operate at closer to full or full
capacity due to changes made to increase the capacity of the second
unit.

 The EPA has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that will address,
in part, the issues of “debottlenecking” and “increased
utilization.”  See 71 FR 54235, September 14, 2006.  In this
rulemaking, we do not intend to change current requirements related to
“debottlenecking” or “increased utilization.”

 These emissions changes, however, would not be creditable for
applicability purposes to the extent that they were considered in a
modeling analysis conducted as part of a permit issuance process under
§52.21 or 51.166.  Thus, to the extent that the emissions effects
associated with anticipated debottlenecking and/or increased utilization
of production or support units were evaluated relative to the relevant
ambient constraints (e.g., PSD increments and ambient air quality
standards) in the permit establishing the Green Group, such emissions
increases would not be creditable when they subsequently occur for
purposes of determining whether future increases occurring under the
approved Green Group would be subject to major NSR.

 Parallel requirements are found at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(5)(ii) and
51.166(r)(2).

 The baseline actual emissions for a unit with an (r)(4) limit are
calculated just as for any other emissions activity included in a Green
Group, complete with the reduction for the effect of the required
BACT/LAER control.  However, such units may be among the emissions
activities with authorized future physical or operational changes, and
emissions from such units could subsequently increase (as part of the
authorized emissions increase increment), but under BACT/LAER controls.

 Such credits in order to be used as an emissions offset must also be
federally enforceable.

 See 67 FR 80221 for a discussion of the MRRT requirements promulgated
for PALs by the Agency in December of 2002.

 Note that BACT/LAER requirements in terms of percent reduction can be
difficult or impossible to achieve during periods of low or dilute flow.
 Where a percent reduction requirement is imposed, we recommend that the
BACT/LAER determination include an alternative concentration standard
for such periods.  For example, BACT/LAER for VOC control might be 98
percent reduction or an outlet concentration of 20 ppm by volume on a
dry basis.

 See 40 CFR part 124 for permits issued under §52.21.  See §51.161 for
permits issued under State programs approved pursuant to §§51.165 and
51.166.

 In order to streamline the process to update as necessary the
corresponding title V permit, the permitting authority might: (1)
structure the permit to retain the initial BACT limit and support
conditions unless affirmatively revised; and (2) revise the title V
permit in parallel to revising the NSR permit or use an (enhanced NSR(
process to do so in order to optimize use of comment periods and
opportunities for public hearings.

 We expect that in most cases this will be the
actual-to-projected-actual applicability test adopted in the December
2002 NSR Improvement rulemaking.  The actual-to-projected-actual test is
currently in effect in all jurisdictions where §52.21 applies,
including in States and Indian country.  For nonattainment major NSR and
SIP-approved PSD programs, States are currently in the process of
revising their SIPs to incorporate the actual-to-projected-actual test
(or some other preferred approach if they can demonstrate that it is at
least as stringent as the actual-to-projected-actual test).  Thus, the
actual-to-projected-actual test (or an approved alternative approach)
should be in effect in all jurisdictions by the time that Green Groups
begin to expire.

 Vatavuk, William, “Part II, Factors for Estimating Capital and
Operating Costs,” Chemical Engineering, Nov. 3, 1980.

  See “Supplemental Analysis of the Environmental Impact of the 2002
Final NSR Improvement Rules,” EPA, November 21, 2002, pp. 10-11 and
Appendices C and D.  Available at
http://www.epa.gov/NSR/documents/nsr-analysis.pdf.

 The Federal PSD rules apply in jurisdictions that do not have their own
approved PSD programs, including a number of States (to which we have
delegated implementation or in which EPA directly administers the
program) and in Indian country.  Many State and local major NSR programs
include similar provisions.

 Section 70.6 describes the required elements of permits issued under
part 70 such as emissions limits, applicable requirements, permit
duration, and MRRT.  Section 70.7 describes the process for issuing,
renewing, reopening, and revising permits.  Section 70.8 describes the
process by which EPA will review permits and State programs, object to
permits, and act on public petitions.  It also requires the permitting
authority to give notice of each draft permit to any affected State and
to consider its comments.

|

ö

Q

¹

Z

[

\

v

ࠆᘁᥨ鍕唀Ĉ䡭Ѐ䡮Ѐࡵ␁v

w

x

y

z

{

|

}

~

š

›

œ

Ÿ

Ô

Õ

Ö

ð

ñ

ò

ó

ô

õ

ö

÷

ø

.

/

0

J

ࠆᘁᥨ鍕唀Ĉ䡭Ѐ䡮Ѐࡵ␁J

K

L

N

O

P

Q

R

S

o

p

q

r

t

u

–

—

˜

²

³

´

¶

·

¸

¹

º

»

×

Ø

Ù

Ú

Ü

Ý

䀁

 hFe

 hFe

  hFe

␱䀁द摧甯µ

옍)

 hFe

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

hn

hn

hn

hn

hn

hn

hn

@

ᄀ킄ሂā㄀Ĥ␳㔀$葠ː摧甯µ	ሀā㄀Ĥ摧甯µ

h

hn

hn

 h

h

hn

hA

5

\

 hN

 hN

hn

hn

ᄀ킄ሂā㄀Ĥ葠ː摧甯µᔆ㄀Ĥ摧甯µ

h

hn

hn

hN

 hN

hN

 hN

hN

hn

hn

hÉ

hn

hn

hn

☊ଁቆ㄀Ĥ摧甯µ

ഀ׆Āːᄀ킄ሂā㄀Ĥ葠ː摧甯µ᐀°

ᄀ킄ሂā㄀Ĥ葠ː摧甯µ

฀Ꚅᇿ킄ሂā㄀Ĥ葝ﾦ葠ː摧甯µᔆ㄀Ĥ摧甯µ

ᄀሂā㄀Ĥ葠˭摧甯µᘆ㄀Ĥ摧甯µ

☊ଁᙆ㄀Ĥ摧甯µ

ԀĤ␆ᄁ킄ሂā㄀Ĥ葠ː摧坟áᜉԀĤ␆㄁Ĥ摧坟áᘉԀĤ␆
㄁Ĥ摧坟á

ԀĤ␆ᄁ킄ሂā㄀Ĥ葠ː摧坟áᜉԀĤ␆㄁Ĥ摧坟áᜆ㄀Ĥ
摧甯µ	ሀā㄀Ĥ摧甯µ

‡

ԀĤ␆ᄁ킄ሂā㄀Ĥ葠ː摧坟áᜉԀĤ␆㄁Ĥ摧坟á
ሀā㄀Ĥ摧坟á

옍Ąฐༀ킄ᄂやዽāጀ¤᐀¤㄀Ĥ葞ː葠ﴰ摧甯µ

ᄀሂā㄀Ĥ葠ˬ摧甯µᘆ㄀Ĥ摧甯µ

ᘆ㄀Ĥ摧甯µᔆ㄀Ĥ摧甯µ
ഀ׆Ā褐ༀ킄ᄂやዽā㄀Ĥ葞ː葠ﴰ摧甯µ

＀葠ˬ摧甯µᘆ㄀Ĥ摧甯µ

!

"

0

1

m

n

l

m

(ruction, even if EPA had, by regulations promulgated prior to enactment
of the PSD provisions in the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments, attempted to
exempt the source from regulatory PSD review.  1977 House Report at __.
For present purposes, the fact that Congress defined “commenced” to
include construction timing requirements for the narrow purpose
described above, but did not apply such requirements to construction
more broadly, further supports our view that we have discretion in
applying construction timing requirements.

 Indeed, as quoted above, 40 CFR 52.21(r)(2) explicitly provides that
“[t]he Administrator may extend the 18-month period upon a
satisfactory showing that an extension is justified.”

 As explained above in section VI.A of this preamble and footnote 23, in
White Paper Number 2 we interpreted our part 70 rules to allow sources
to streamline multiple applicable requirements that apply to the same
emissions unit(s) into a single set of requirements that assure
compliance with all the subsumed applicable requirements.  Sources that
seek to streamline applicable requirements should submit their request
as part of their title V permit application, identifying the proposed
streamlined requirements and providing a demonstration that the
streamlined requirements assure compliance with all the underlying,
subsumed applicable requirements.  Where the source wishes to streamline
the advance approval under NSR with all other relevant applicable
requirements, the same title V permit application can address both
actions.

	Does Not Represent EPA Policy

	Unreviewed Internal and Deliberative Draft - Do not quote, cite, copy
or distribute

	1/29/07

 PAGE

 PAGE   i

Does Not Represent EPA Policy

Unreviewed Internal and Deliberative Draft- Do not quote, cite, copy or
distribute

10/25/06

 PAGE

 PAGE   151