[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 12, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-497]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 12, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[FRL-4825-1]
Prevention of Significant Deterioration; Delegation of Authority;
Maricopa County, AZ
AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
ACTION: Delegation of authority.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Regional Administrator for EPA Region 9, San Francisco,
has delegated full authority to Maricopa County to implement and
enforce the federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
program.
DATES: The effective date of the delegation agreement is November 22,
1993.
ADDRESSES: Environmental Management and Transportation Agency, Maricopa
County Division of Air Pollution Control, 2406 South 24th Street, suite
E-214, Phoenix, AZ 85034.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jessica Gaylord, Air and Toxics
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 75 Hawthorne Street (A-
5-1), San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 744-1256.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has
delegated, under the provisions which are found in 40 CFR 52.21(u), to
Maricopa County: (a) The authority for all sources in that County
subject to review for the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD)
of air quality, pursuant to Part C of Title I of the Clean Air Act, as
amended August 7, 1977, and the requirements promulgated in the July 1,
1992, edition of 40 CFR 52.21, as amended August 7, 1980, under
authority of sections 101, 110, and 160-169 of the Clean Air Act: and
(b) the authority to review, administer, and enforce throughout the
County the PSD requirements imposed by the Clean Air Act sections 101,
110, and 160-169, and 40 CFR 52.21, as amended August 7, 1980.
The following letter and attached agreement represent the terms and
conditions of the amended delegation.
The PSD Delegation of Authority is reviewable under section
307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act only in the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals. A petition for review must be filed by March 14, 1994.
Dated: December 13, 1993.
David P. Howekamp,
Director, Air and Toxics Division, Region IX.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX--75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901
December 16, 1993.
Karen J. Heidel, Ph.D., Environmental Management &
Transportation Agency, 2406 South 24th Street, Suite E-214, Phoenix,
AZ 85034.
Re: PSD Delegation Agreement for Maricopa County
Dear Dr. Heidel: I am pleased to transmit to you two signed
originals of the delegation agreement for the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration program. Please note that the delegation
is effective on the date of the Regional Administrator's signature.
EPA will shortly publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing
the delegation.
EPA will continue to provide any guidance or technical
assistance that may be needed for Maricopa County's implementation
of this agreement. EPA is committed to including the Division of Air
Pollution Control in decisions relating to determinations of
noncompliance with permits issued under this agreement, intended PSD
enforcement actions, and in any intended revocation proceedings
related to this agreement. We are also committed to maintaining, as
I know you are, unobstructed channels of communication between our
agencies. We look forward to a continuing partnership in the
permitting program.
Sincerely,
David P. Howekamp,
Director, Air and Toxics Division.
Agreement for Delegation of Authority of the Regulations for Prevention
of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality (40 CFR 52.21) Between U.S.
EPA and MC
The undersigned, on behalf of the Maricopa County (MC) and the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), hereby agree
to the delegation of authority for the administrative, technical and
enforcement elements of the source review provisions of 40 CFR 52.21,
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), as they may be amended
and in accordance with the permit review requirements in 40 CFR part
124 subparts A and C, from U.S. EPA to MC, subject to the terms and
conditions below. This delegation is executed pursuant to 40 CFR
52.21(u), Delegation of Authority.
I. General Delegation Conditions
A. Authority is delegated for all sources under the jurisdiction of
MC that are subject to review for PSD. This includes all source
categories listed in 40 CFR 52.21 for each pollutant regulated by the
Clean Air Act.
B. This delegation may be amended at any time by the formal written
agreement of both MC and U.S. EPA, including amendments to add, change,
or remove conditions or terms of this Agreement.
C. If the Regional Administrator determines that the County is not
implementing or enforcing the PSD program in accordance with the terms
and conditions of this delegation, the requirements of 40 CFR 52.21, 40
CFR 124, or the Clean Air Act, this delegation, after consultation with
MC, may be revoked in whole or in part. Any such revocation shall be
effective as of the date specified in a Notice of Revocation to the
County. Nothing in this paragraph shall preclude U.S. EPA from
exercising its enforcement authority, as provided in paragraph V.B.
below.
D. The permit appeal provisions of 40 CFR 124.19 shall apply to all
appeals to the Administrator on permits issued by MC under this
delegation. For purposes of implementing the federal permit appeal
provisions under this delegation, if there is a public comment
requesting a change in a draft preliminary determination or draft
permit conditions, the final permit issued by MC is required to contain
statements which indicate that for Federal PSD purposes and in
accordance with 40 CFR 124.15 and 124.19, (1) the effective date of the
permit is 30 days after the final decision to issue, modify, revoke and
reissue the permit; and (2) if an appeal is made to the Administrator,
the effective date of the permit is suspended until such time as the
appeal is resolved. MC shall inform U.S. EPA (Region IX) in accordance
with conditions of this delegation when there is public comment
requesting a change in the preliminary determination or in a draft
permit condition. Failure by MC to comply with the terms of this
paragraph shall render the subject permit invalid for Federal PSD
purposes.
E. By this agreement, MC assumes authority for enforcement and
permit modification/amendment for EPA issued NSR/PSD permits.
F. This delegation of authority becomes effective upon the date
that both parties have signed the Agreement.
II. Communications Between U.S. EPA and MC
MC and U.S. EPA will use the following communication procedures:
A. MC shall report to U.S. EPA on a quarterly basis the compliance
status of the sources that have received a PSD permit from either MC or
U.S. EPA. The Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS) will be
used for this purpose. Compliance determinations will be made with
respect to the conditions established in the PSD permits.
B. MC shall forward to U.S. EPA, at the beginning of the public
comment period for each PSD permit, a summary of (1) the findings
related to each PSD application, (2) the justification for MC's
preliminary determination, and (3) a copy of the draft permit. Should
there be any comments or concerns about the pending PSD permit, U.S.
EPA shall communicate these comments and concerns to MC as soon as
possible prior to the close of the public comment period.
C. MC shall forward to EPA Region IX (attn: A-5-1) copies of the
final action on the PSD permit applications at the time of issuance, as
well as copies of substantive public comments. MC must address any
public comments not incorporated into the permit, and shall provide a
summary of the responses.
D. MC shall send U.S. EPA copies of preliminary determinations on
PSD permit modifications and amendments at or prior to the beginning of
the public comment period. U.S. EPA will provide comments to MC prior
to the close of the public comment period.
E. MC shall send to EPA a copy of all applicability determinations
and justifications made that would involve PSD exemptions due to
offsetting or netting (40 CFR 52.21(b)(3) and 52.21(b)(21).
III. Revisions to Title 40 CFR 52.21
A. This delegation covers any revisions that are promulgated for 40
CFR 52.21 and 40 CFR 124. The terms ``40 CFR 52.21'' and ``40 CFR 124''
as used in the delegation request and throughout this Agreement,
include such regulations as are in effect on the date this Agreement is
executed and any revisions that are promulgated after that date.
B. In addition, the following U.S. EPA policies shall apply to PSD
review:
1. U.S. EPA is responsible for the issuance of PSD permits on
Indian Lands, under sections 110(c) and 301 of the Clean Air Act.
States (or their delegates) have no authority to establish air
pollution control requirements on Indian Reservations, unless requested
to by the Tribal Governing Body.
2. According to U.S. EPA guidance published on September 22, 1987
and supplemental guidance published on July 28, 1988, all delegated
agencies must now consider pollutants not subject to the Clean Air Act
in their Best Available Control Technology (BACT) determinations. The
BACT determinations must include a review of the toxic effects of
unregulated pollutants and the impact of the proposed BACT on the
emissions of these pollutants.
3. MC shall consult with the appropriate Federal, State, and local
land use agencies prior to issuance of preliminary determinations on
PSD permits. In particular, U.S. EPA requires that MC shall:
(a) Notify the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and U.S. EPA when a
PSD permit application has been received, in order to assist U.S. EPA
in carrying out its non-delegable responsibilities under section 7 of
the Endangered Species Act (PL 97-304).
(b) Notify potential applicants of the potential need for
consultation between U.S. EPA and the FWS if an endangered species may
be affected by the project. U.S. EPA's data sheet may be used for this
process (copy enclosed).
(c) Refrain from issuing a final PSD permit unless the FWS has
determined that the proposed project will not adversely affect any
endangered species.
4. MC shall consider a dry scrubber for sulfur dioxide control, a
baghouse or electrostatic precipitator for particulate control, and
efficient combustion techniques for carbon monoxide control in their
BACT determinations for municipal waste combustors pursuant to U.S. EPA
guidance published on June 26, 1987.
5. MC shall begin any BACT determination with the most stringent
control options available for that category, pursuant to additional
BACT guidance issued on December 1, 1987. U.S. EPA will consider as
deficient any BACT determination not complying with this ``top-down''
requirement.
6. Upon notification from EPA, MC shall implement such new
regulations or directives pending revision of this Agreement.
IV. Permits
A. In any matter involving interpretation of sections 160-169 of
the Clean Air Act, or 40 CFR 52.21, and of 40 CFR 124 where guidance on
the implementation, review, administration, or enforcement of these
sections has not been sent to MC, U.S. EPA will be contacted and
requested to provide the appropriate guidance.
B. MC shall at no time grant any waiver to the PSD permit
requirements.
C. Permits issued under this delegation shall contain language
certifying that the Federal PSD requirements have been satisfied.
D. Authorities to Construct must include appropriate provisions, as
specified in Attachment A, to ensure permit enforceability. Permit
conditions shall, at a minimum, contain reporting requirements on
initiation of construction, startup, and where applicable, source
testing and continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS). In all
cases where tests are required, the tests methods shall be specified.
All cases where CEMS are required, appropriate testing and reporting
requirements shall be included. Upset/breakdown and malfunction
conditions shall be included in all permits.
E. U.S. EPA will assist MC in the BACT determination for all PSD
permit applications filed with MC, such that U.S. EPA and MC jointly
concur on each BACT determination. The signatures of U.S. EPA and MC on
the final permit shall constitute concurrence on the BACT
determinations
F. All modeling analyses for determination of increment consumption
and compliance with the NAAQS will require the joint concurrence of
U.S. EPA and MC. The signatures of U.S. EPA and MC on the final permit
shall constitute concurrence on the modeling analyses.
G. Separate from conditions E and F and for a given time as
specified in this subpart, U.S. EPA and MC shall jointly concur on the
entire analysis and permit conditions for each PSD permit issued. This
requirement for dual concurrence shall be waived beginning with the
first application submitted and deemed complete two (2) years after the
date of this agreement, or after U.S. EPA concurs with MC on ten (10)
final permits issued pursuant to this delegation agreement, whichever
occurs later. In any event, U.S. EPA shall provide written notice to MC
when the requirement for dual concurrence no longer applies.
H. MC shall conduct an annual review of the NO2 increment
status for each Section 107 area designated as attainment over which it
has jurisdiction and shall prepare a summary report of the review. Such
review shall be made in accordance with current U.S. EPA guidance as
provided to MC. Emissions from the following sources consume NO2
increment: (1) any new major stationary source or modification of a
major stationary source on which construction begins after February 8,
1988; and (2) minor, area, and mobile sources, after the minor source
baseline date, as it is defined by 40 CFR 52.21. The initial review of
the NO2 increment status shall address the consumption of NO2
increment between February 8, 1988, and the effective date of this
agreement.
I. MC shall conduct an annual review, similar to the one in
preceeding subpart H, on the status of the PM10 increment. For
that part of Maricopa County designated nonattainment for TSP, the
requirement for tracking PM10 increment consumption becomes
effective on the date of receipt of the first major source application
deemed complete after the June 3, 1994, implementation date for
PM10 increments. For all other areas within Maricopa County, the
minor source baseline date established for TSP remains in effect, but
PM10 increments replace TSP increments as the particulate matter
indicator.
J. U.S. EPA shall retain the responsibility of issuing the PSD
permit for Palo Verde Steel, but enforcement of the final permit terms
and conditions on the source shall be under local authority.
V. Permit Enforcement
A. The primary responsibility for enforcement of the PSD
regulations as found in 40 CFR part 52 in Maricopa County will rest
with MC, except where responsibility is vested in the State of Arizona.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 49-402, the State of Arizona has original
jurisdiction over the following sources in Maricopa County:
1. Smelting of metal ore.
2. Petroleum refineries.
3. Coal fired electrical generating stations.
4. Portland cement plants.
5. Air pollution generated by portable sources unless delegated to
MC.
6. Air pollution by mobile sources for the purpose of regulating
those sources as prescribed by A.R.S. Title 49, Chapter 3, Articles 4 &
5.
MC will enforce the provisions that pertain to the PSD program,
except in those cases where the rules or policy of MC are more
stringent. In such cases, MC may elect to implement the more stringent
requirements.
B. Nothing in this delegation agreement shall prohibit EPA from
enforcing the PSD provisions of the Clean Air Act, the PSD regulations
or any PSD permit issued by MC pursuant to this Agreement.
C. In the event that MC is unwilling or unable to enforce a
provision of this delegation with respect to a source subject to the
PSD regulations, MC will immediately notify the Regional Administrator.
Failure to notify the Regional Administrator does not preclude U.S. EPA
from exercising its enforcement authority.
Dated: November 9, 1993.
James D. Bruner,
Chairman, Maricopa County Board of Supervisors.
Dated: November 22, 1993.
John Wise,
Acting for
Felicia A. Marcus,
Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region IX.
Attachment A
All Authorities to Construct, where applicable, shall contain:
1. Identification of all points of emission, both stack and
fugitive.
2. Specification of a numerical emission limitation for each point
of emission in terms of mass rate and/or concentration limitations. If
emission testing based on a numerical emission limitation is
infeasible, the permit may instead prescribe a design, operational, or
equipment standard. Any permits issued without numerical emission
limitations must contain conditions which assure that the design
characteristics or equipment will be properly maintained or that the
operational conditions will be properly performed so as to continuously
achieve the assumed degree of control.
3. Limitations or factors which were the basis for the air quality
impact analysis must be specified (e.g. hours of operation, stack
height, materials processed which affect emissions).
4. Methods and frequency of determining continued compliance for
each point of emission (such as from the SIP or if the source is
subject to New Source Performance Standards [NSPS] or National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants [NESHAP] or explicitly
identified if a reference method is not used.
5. Recordkeeping requirements which enable the agency to ascertain
continued compliance, especially where factors such as hours of
operation, throughput of materials, sulfur content of fuels, fuel
usage, and type or quantity of materials processed are conditions of
the permit.
6. A condition that the permit such that it will expire if
construction is not commenced within eighteen (18) months or a shorter
period.
7. A condition that the source is responsible for providing
sampling and testing facilities at its own expense.
8. A condition that continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS)
will be used for enforcement purposes.
9. Reporting requirements which enable the agency to monitor the
following:
(a) Progress of source construction including the date by which
construction is completed; and
(b) Compliance with (1) emission limitations, (2) operational
limitations, (3) and work practice standards; the reporting
requirements should include excess emissions reports and source test
results.
10. Permits issued under this delegation should contain language
certifying that the federal PSD requirements have been satisfied.
11. As a courtesy to sources exempted from PSD review due to
federally enforceable operational or process restrictions, or the use
of controls more stringent than required by applicable SIP limits, the
source shall be advised that any relaxation of those limits may subject
the entire source to full PSD review as if construction had not yet
begun. Suggested language is as follows:
This source is exempt from PSD review because of * * * (state
reason, for example, ``the requirement that limits operation to
eight hours per day''). Any relaxation in this limit which increases
your potential to emit above the applicable PSD threshold will
require a full PSD review of the affected source as if construction
had not yet commenced.
[FR Doc. 94-802 Filed 1-11-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[FRL-4825-2]
Prevention of Significant Deterioration; Rescission of Authority;
Fresno County, CA
AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
ACTION: Rescission of local PSD permitting authority.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Director, Air & Toxics Division, for EPA Region IX, San
Francisco has rescinded local Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) permitting authority in Fresno County, California.
DATES: Rescission of local PSD permitting authority is effective April
9, 1993.
ADDRESSES: David L. Crow, Executive Director/APCO, San Joaquin Valley
Unified Air Pollution Control District, 1999 Tuolumne Street, suite
200, Fresno, CA 93721.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jessica Gaylord, Air and Toxics
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 75 Hawthorne Street (A-
5-1), San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 744-1256.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In September 1991, the State of California
passed legislation that effectively required the eight separate
counties of the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin to form a single air
pollution control district (APCD). EPA had delegated PSD authority to
Fresno County APCD by an agreement dated December 23, 1985. Because the
San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD has chosen to defer to EPA the
regulation of sources subject to PSD rules at 40 CFR 52.21, EPA is
responding to their request to rescind PSD authority previously
delegated to Fresno County APCD. The following letter represents the
terms and conditions of the rescission.
The PSD Delegation of Authority is reviewable under section
307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act only in the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals. A petition for review must be filed by March 14, 1994.
Dated: December 10, 1993.
David P. Howekamp,
Director, Air and Toxics Division, Region IX.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
April 9, 1993.
David L. Crow,
Executive Director/APCO, San Joaquin Valley, Unified Air Pollution
Control District, 1999 Tuolumne Street, Suite 200, Fresno, CA 93721.
Dear Mr. Crow: This letter responds to your request to EPA to
rescind Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting
authority in Fresno and Kern counties. We recognize that the
request, dated March 16, 1993, and received by this office on March
19, 1993, is consistent with ongoing efforts to attain a more
coordinated approach to air quality management in the San Joaquin
Valley.
In September 1991, the State of California passed legislation
that effectively required the formation of a single air pollution
control district in the Valley Air Basin. To that end, eight
counties joined efforts in March 1992 to form the San Joaquin Valley
Unified Air Pollution Control District. The District comprises the
counties of Fresno, Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus,
and Tulare counties, as well as that part of Kern County located in
the Valley Air Basin. By August 1992, the California Air Resources
Board certified that the District met the requirements stated in SB
124.
EPA had specifically transferred PSD authority to Fresno County
APCD by a delegation agreement, dated December 23, 1985. As
mentioned in your letter, the District has chosen to defer to EPA
the regulation of sources subject to PSD rules at 40 CFR 52.21.
Therefore, EPA hereby rescinds authority delegated to Fresno County
APCD to regulate sources subject to the federal PSD rules. Please
note that no such agreement was made between EPA and Kern County, so
that your request to rescind PSD authority in that county requires
no further action.
Pursuant to grant conditions under Sec. 105 (Program Objective
5), the District shall continue to provide to EPA notification, as
soon as possible and prior to deeming the application complete, of
all new major stationary sources and major modifications that may be
subject to the federal PSD regulation. Specifically, this affects
major stationary sources and major modifications to existing
sources, as defined under part 52.21(b), that are located in areas
designated as attainment within the San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD.
The District should also provide notification to sources potentially
affected by the federal PSD requirements. These sources must submit
PSD permit applications to EPA and may be subject to enforcement
action if construction commences before EPA issues a final PSD
permit.
We look forward to continued cooperation with you and your
staff, so that permits may be issued in a timely and effective
manner. If you have further questions regarding this matter, please
contact Jessica Gaylord of my staff at (415) 744-1256.
Sincerely,
Carl C. Kohnert, Jr.,
Acting for David P. Howekamp, Director, Air & Toxic Division.
[FR Doc. 94-803 Filed 1-11-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[OPP-42024H; FRL-4743-5]
Notice of Approval of Amendment to Texas Plan for Certification
of Applicators of Compound 1080 Livestock Protection Collars
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of approval of amended certification plan.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On August 13, 1993, EPA announced its intention to approve an
amendment to the Texas Plan for Certification of Applicators of
Compound 1080 Livestock Protection Collars (LPC's). Public comments
were solicited on this amended plan. The amended plan permits pooling
of LPC's among certified LPC applicators. No comments were received and
EPA therefore approves the amended plan.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry Oglesby, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances Branch, Region VI, Environmental Protection Agency, 1445
Ross Ave., Dallas, TX 75202-2733, Telephone: 214-655-7563.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the provision of section
11(a)(2) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA) and 40 CFR part 171, the Texas Department of Agriculture
submitted to EPA for approval, revisions to its current plan for
certification of LPC applicators. The amendment to the Texas LPC
certification plan permits the designation of collar pool agents.
Certified LPC applicators are permitted to participate in a collar pool
administered by a collar pool agent. The purpose of the collar pool is
to reduce the number of LPC's in circulation by a pooling of LPC's.
Certified LPC applicators will check out the LPC's from the collar pool
agent immediately prior to use. When no longer needed, a LPC will be
returned to the collar pool agent for distribution to another certified
LPC applicator. All collar pool agents are considered agents of the
registrant and are required to keep the same records. Further, the
collar pool system will not affect the recordkeeping or reporting
requirements of LPC users. EPA announced its intention to approve the
amended plan in the Federal Register of August 13, 1993 (58 FR 43115),
and solicited comments. No comments were received and EPA therefore
approves the amended plan.
Copies of the amended plan are available for review at the
following locations during normal business hours:
1. Texas Department of Agriculture, Stephen F. Austin Building, Rm.
1034F, 17th St. and Congress Ave., Austin, TX 78711, Telephone 512-463-
0013.
2. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VI, 1445 Ross Ave., 12th
Floor, Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75202, Telephone: 214-655-7239.
Dated: December 6, 1993.
Allyn M. Davis,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region VI.
[FR Doc. 94-497 Filed 1-11-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
