[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 1, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55516-55521]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-27144]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 70
[CA163-1-7251; AD-FRL-5323-4]
Clean Air Act Proposed Approval of the Federal Operating Permits
Program; California State Implementation Plan Revision; San Joaquin
Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing interim approval for the Federal
Operating Permits Program submitted by the California Air Resources
Board on behalf of the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control
District (San Joaquin or District). This Program was submitted for the
purpose of complying with Federal requirements in title V of the Clean
Air Act which mandates that States develop, and submit to EPA, programs
for issuing operating permits to all major stationary sources and to
certain other sources. As part of San Joaquin's program, EPA is also
proposing to approve Rule 2530 Federally Enforceable Potential to Emit
under Clean Air Act sections 110 and 112(l). This rule creates
federally-enforceable limits on potential to emit for sources with
actual emissions less
[[Page 55517]]
than 50 percent of the major source thresholds.
DATE: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by
December 1, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Frances Wicher, Mail Code A-
5-2, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, Air and Toxics
Division, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105.
Copies of the District's submission and other supporting
information used in developing the proposed interim approval including
the Technical Support Document are available for inspection during
normal business hours at the following location: Operating Permits
Section, A-5-2, Air and Toxics Division, U.S. EPA-Region IX, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frances Wicher, (415) 744-1250,
Operating Permits Section, A-5-2, Air and Toxics Division, U.S. EPA-
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background and Purpose
A. Title V
As required under title V of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990,
EPA has promulgated rules that define the minimum elements of an
approvable State operating permits program and the corresponding
standards and procedures by which the EPA will approve, oversee, and
withdraw approval of State operating permits programs (see 57 FR 32250
(July 21, 1992)). These rules are codified at 40 CFR part 70. Title V
requires States to develop, and submit to EPA, programs for issuing
operating permits to all major stationary sources and to certain other
sources. EPA has also issued numerous policy documents on implementing
part 70, many of which are contained in the docket for this proposal.
The Act requires that States develop and submit operating permit
programs to EPA by November 15, 1993, and that EPA act to approve or
disapprove each program within one year of receiving the submission.
The EPA's program review occurs pursuant to section 502 of the Act and
the part 70 regulations, which together outline criteria for approval
or disapproval. Where a program substantially, but not fully, meets the
requirements of part 70, EPA may grant the program interim approval for
a period of up to two years. If EPA has not fully approved a program by
two years after the November 15, 1993 date, or by the end of an interim
program, it must establish and implement a Federal program.
B. Federally-Enforceable Limits on Potential to Emit
Section 502(a) of the Act requires all major sources obtain title V
operating permits. To determine whether a source is major, the Act
focuses not only on a source's actual emissions, but also on its
potential emissions. Thus, a source that has maintained actual
emissions at levels below the major source threshold could still be
subject to title V permitting if it has the potential to emit (PTE)
major amounts of air pollutants.
However, in situations where unrestricted operation of a source
would result in a PTE above major-source levels, such sources may
legally avoid permitting by taking federally-enforceable PTE limits
below the applicable major source threshold. Federally-enforceable
limits are enforceable by EPA or by citizens in addition to the State
or Local agency. There are numerous mechanisms for creating federally-
enforceable limits including prohibitory rules that are approved into
the state implementation plan and, for limiting PTE for hazardous air
pollutants, under section 112(l) of the Act.
II. Proposed Action and Implications
A. Analysis of State Submission
The analysis contained in this notice focuses on the major elements
of San Joaquin's title V operating permit program and on the specific
elements that must be corrected to meet the minimum requirements of
part 70. The full program submittal, the Technical Support Document
(TSD), which contains a detailed analysis of the submittal, and other
relevant materials are available for inspection as part of the public
docket. The docket may be viewed during regular business hours at the
address listed above.
1. Title V Program Support Materials
San Joaquin's program was submitted for approval under title V and
part 70 by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) on July 3 and
August 17, 1995. Additional material was submitted by the District on
September 6 and 21, 1995. In submitting the District's title V program,
CARB requested source category-limited interim approval for the program
because California law currently exempts agricultural sources from all
permitting requirements including title V. The District's submission
contains a complete program description, District implementing and
supporting regulations, application and reporting forms, and other
supporting information. In addition, CARB submitted for all Districts
in the State a single Attorney General's opinion, State enabling
legislation, and certain other information regarding State law.
San Joaquin's Rule 2530 Federally Enforceable Potential to Emit was
submitted by CARB as a revision to the SIP and for approval under
section 112(l) of the Act on October 24, 1995.
EPA reviewed the District's program to assure that it contains all
the elements required by Sec. 70.4(b) (elements of the initial program
submission) and has found the program complete pursuant to
Sec. 70.4(e)(1) in a letter to the CARB on October 18, 1995. Rule 2530
was found to be complete pursuant to EPA's completeness criteria for
SIP revisions that are set forth in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V.
2. Title V Operating Permit Regulations and Program Implementation
The rules that constitute San Joaquin's title V program are Rules
2520 Federally Mandated Operating Permits (adopted June 15, 1995), Rule
2530 Federally Enforceable Potential to Emit (adopted June 15, 1995),
and elements of Rule 2201 New and Modified Stationary Source Review
(amended June 15, 1995). Other District rules that were submitted in
support of the District's title V program are Rules 1080 Stack
Monitoring (amended December 17, 1992), 1081 Source Sampling (amended
December 17, 1992), 2010 Permits Required (amended December 16, 1993),
2020 Exemptions (amended October 26, 1993), and 3010 Fees (amended July
21, 1995).1 These rules, along with the authorities granted the
District under California State law, substantially meet the
requirements of Secs. 70.2 (Definitions) and 70.3 (Applicability) for
applicability; Sec. 70.5(c) (Standard application form and required
information) for criteria that define insignificant activities and for
complete application forms; Secs. 70.4(b)(12) (Section 502(b)(10)
changes) and 70.6 (Permit content) for permit content including
operational flexibility; Sec. 70.7 (Permit issuance, renewal,
reopenings, and revisions) for public participation, permit issuance,
and permit modifications; Sec. 70.9 (Fee
[[Page 55518]]
determination and certification) for fees; and Sec. 70.11 for
enforcement authority.
\1\EPA is only approving the portions of these Rules that are
necessary to implement the District's title V program. Except for
Rule 2530, this approval does not constitute approval or indicate
the approvability of these rules under any other provisions of the
Act or EPA regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has identified several interim approval issues affecting
applicability, application content, permit content, and permit issuance
and modifications procedures that must be corrected in order for the
San Joaquin program to receive full approval. These interim approval
issues are discussed in Section II.B.2. of this notice and detailed in
the TSD. EPA has also included in the summary section of the TSD its
understandings and interpretations of certain elements of the San
Joaquin rule including the use of EPA's January 25, 1995 transition
memorandum on limiting potential to emit; limits on EPA's objections to
permits; limits on the permit shield; consolidation of overlapping
applicable requirements; variances; the effective definition of title I
modifications; and administrative permit amendments. A copy of this
summary section may be obtained by contacting Frances Wicher at the
address listed at the beginning of this notice.
3. Permit Fee Demonstration
Section 502(b)(3) of the Act requires that each permitting
authority collect fees sufficient to cover all reasonable direct and
indirect costs required to develop and administer its title V operating
permits program. Each title V program submission must contain either a
detailed demonstration of fee adequacy or a demonstration that
aggregate fees collected from title V sources meet or exceed $25 per
ton of emissions per year (adjusted from 1989 by the Consumer Price
Index (CPI)). The $25 per ton amount is presumed, for program approval,
to be sufficient to cover all reasonable program costs and is thus
referred to as the ``presumptive minimum,'' (Sec. 70.9 (b)(2)(i)). For
FY 1996, the presumptive fee level is $30.93.
San Joaquin has opted to make a presumptive minimum fee
demonstration in order to show fee adequacy and meet the requirements
of Sec. 70.9 (Fee determination and certification). San Joaquin's fee
schedule (Rule 3010) requires title V facilities to pay an application
fee for initial permits, permit renewals, and permit modifications of
$15 per unit creditable to a $46 per hour processing fee. In addition,
the District charges an annual fee for permits to operate and a fee for
sources applying for preconstruction permits under Rule 2201. In
aggregate, title V sources in the Valley will pay a total annual fee of
$32.09 per ton in 1996. This amount is over the $30.93 per ton
presumptive minimum fee level for FY 1996.
4. Provisions Implementing the Requirements of Other Titles of the Act
a. Authority and Commitments for Section 112 Implementation. San
Joaquin has demonstrated in its title V program submission adequate
legal authority to implement and enforce all section 112 requirements
through the title V permit. This legal authority is contained in the
State of California enabling legislation and in regulatory provisions
defining ``federally enforceable requirements'' and stating that the
permit must incorporate conditions and terms to ensure compliance with
all applicable requirements. EPA has determined that this legal
authority is sufficient to allow San Joaquin to issue permits that
assure compliance with all section 112 requirements.
b. Authority for Title IV (Acid Rain) Implementation. San Joaquin's
title V program contains minimal elements of an acid rain program;
however, the District has committed to adopt all missing elements of an
acid rain program as soon as possible. At this time, EPA does not
believe that there are any phase II acid rain sources in the Valley,
therefore, the District's commitment to adopt an acid rain program
expeditiously should ensure appropriate regulatory authority exists to
issue a timely title IV permit to any new or existing source in the
District that becomes subject to, or wants to opt into, the acid rain
program.
B. Proposed Action
1. Title V Operating Permits Program
The EPA is proposing to grant interim approval to the operating
permit program for the San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD submitted on
July 3 and August 17, 1995, and supplemented on September 6 and 21,
1995. If EPA finalizes this proposed interim approval, it will extend
for two years following the effective date of final interim approval
and cannot be renewed. During the interim approval period, San Joaquin
will be protected from sanctions, and EPA is not obligated to
promulgate, administer and enforce a federal permits program for the
District. Permits issued under a program with interim approval have
full standing with respect to part 70, and the one-year time period for
submittal of permit applications by subject sources begins upon the
effective date of interim approval, as does the three-year time period
for processing the initial permit applications.
Following final interim approval, if the District fails to submit a
complete corrective program by the date six months before expiration of
the interim approval, the District will be subject to a sanction clock
or potentially subject to sanctions under section 502(d)(2) of the Act.
If EPA has not granted full approval to the District's title V program
by the end of the interim period, then the District will be subject to
a federally-imposed operating permits program.
2. Interim Approval Issues for San Joaquin's Title V Operating Permits
Program
If EPA finalizes this interim approval, San Joaquin must make the
following changes, or changes that have the same effect, to receive
full approval:
(1) Revise the applicability language in Rule 2520 2.2 and the
definitions of Major Air Toxics Source (Rule 2520 3.18) and Major
Source (Rule 2520 3.19) to be consistent with the Act and part 70 to
cover sources that emit at major source levels. Currently, these
sections of Rule 2520 define major source solely on a source's
potential to emit; however, both the Act and part 70 define a major
source as a source that emits or has the potential to emit at major
source levels. These revisions to Rule 2520 will assure sources whose
potential to emit is less than major source levels but whose actual
emissions are at major source levels because of non-compliance with or
ineffective limits on potential to emit are subject to permitting under
Rule 2520.
(2) Limit the exemption for non-major sources in Rule 2520 4.1 so
that it does not exempt non-major sources for which EPA determines,
upon promulgation of a section 111 or 112 standard, must obtain title V
permits.
(3) Either revise the definition of ``stationary source'' in Rule
2201 3.29 so that the exception to the Major SIC Group requirement for
oil and gas production sources in Rule 2201 3.29.4 does not apply for
determining the applicability of Rule 2520 or demonstrate that the
definition is as stringent as part 70.
Rule 2201 3.29.4 is a provision applicable to any facility located
totally within the Western or Central Kern County Oil Fields or the
Fresno County Oil Fields that is used for the production of light oil,
heavy oil or gas. This provision states that all sources under common
control or ownership within each field shall be considered a single
stationary source even if they are located on non-contiguous or
adjacent properties. However, the section also states that light oil
production, heavy oil production, and gas production shall
[[Page 55519]]
constitute separate stationary sources. While the former provision is
more stringent that part 70, the latter provision is not. Part 70's
definition of ``major source'' requires aggregating all emission points
under common control or ownership that are on contiguous or adjacent
properties and belong to the same Major Group as described in the
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Manual. See Sec. 70.2 ``Major
source.'' Light oil production, heavy oil production and gas production
are all in the same Major Group. It is unclear whether or not San
Joaquin's program would require permitting of the same emission units
as part 70. If the District can make this demonstrate then EPA proposes
not to require any revision to Rule 2201 3.29 as it applies to
applicability determinations under Rule 2520.
While Sec. 70.2 ``Major source'' (1)(i) does not require emissions
from any oil or gas exploration or production well be aggregated with
emissions from other such units in determining whether such units are a
major source, this allowance is limited to determining HAPs major
source status. Emissions of other regulated pollutants must be
aggregated within the stationary source for determining major source
status.
(4) Revise Rule 2520 7.1.3.2 to eliminate the requirement that
fugitive emission estimates need only be submitted in the application
if the source is in a source category identified in the major source
definition in 40 CFR part 70.2. Fugitive emissions need only be counted
to determine the applicability of part 70 if a source is in a source
category listed in the Sec. 70.2. major source definition. However,
once applicability is determined, all sources must submit information
on fugitive emissions in their applications to the extent the
information is required by part 70. See Sec. 70.3(d).
(5) Revise Rule 2520 to provide that unless the District requests
additional information or otherwise notifies the applicant of
incompleteness within 60 days of receipt of an application, the
application shall be deemed complete. See Secs. 70.5(a)(2) and
70.7(a)(4).
(6) Revise Rule 2520 sections 11.1.4.2 and 11.3.1.1 and Rule 2201
5.3.1.1.1 to include notice ``by other means if necessary to assure
adequate notice to the affected public.'' See Sec. 70.7(h)(1).
(7) Revise Rule 2520's permit issuance procedures to provide for
notifying EPA and affected states in writing of any refusal by the
District to accept all recommendations for the proposed permit that an
affected state submitted during the public/affected state review
period. See Sec. 70.8(b)(2).
(8) Either delete section 11.7.5 in Rule 2520 and section 5.3.1.8.5
in Rule 2201, which purport to limit the grounds upon which EPA may
object to a permit to compliance with applicable requirements, or
revise them to be fully consistent with Sec. 70.8(c).
Rule 2520 11.7.5 and Rule 2201 5.3.1.8.5 purport to limit the
grounds on which EPA may object to a permit to compliance with
applicable requirements. Section 70.8(c)(1) provides that EPA will
object to the issuance of any proposed permit that is not ``in
compliance with applicable requirements or requirements under this part
[part 70].'' (emphasis added). EPA's authority to object to issuance of
permits derives from section 505(b) of the Act. No state or local
agency may restrict authorities granted EPA under the Clean Air Act;
therefore, EPA views section 11.7.5 of Rule 2520 and Section 5.3.1.8.5
of Rule 2201 as not binding upon its actions. EPA will exercise its
authority to object to permits consistent with Sec. 70.8(c) and without
regard to the restriction on that authority in San Joaquin's title V
program. Should the District issue a permit to which EPA has objected
and the District has not revised or reissued to meet the objection, EPA
will consider the permit invalid and will require the District to
revise and reissue the proposed permit or will revoke, revise, and
reissue the permit itself. EPA has made these revisions to Rule 2520 an
interim approval issue in order to clarify its authority.
(9) Revise Rule 2520 2.4 to clarify that the sentence in section
2.4 that ``[o]nly the affected emissions units within the stationary
source shall be subject to part 70 permitting requirements'' applies
only to stationary sources that are also area sources. Rule 2520 2.4
requires any emission unit, including an area source subject to a
standard or other requirement promulgated pursuant to section 111 or
112 of the CAA published after July 21, 1992, to obtain a part 70
permit but also states that only the affected emissions unit within a
stationary source shall be subject to the part 70 permitting
requirements. Section 70.3(c) requires all emission units subject to
any applicable requirement at major sources be included in a part 70
permit. Only at non-major sources does part 70 allow the permit to
cover only the units causing the source to be subject to part 70.
(9) Revise Rule 2520 8.1 to provide that model general permits and
model general permit templates will have a permit term not to exceed 5
years instead of being valid until revoked, suspended, or modified.
During the interim approval period, EPA recommends that the District
issue all model general permits and model general permit templates with
a permit term not to exceed 5 years to avoid having to reopen all model
general permits and model general permit templates issued during the
interim approval period to incorporate the correct permit term.
(10) Revise Rule 2520 8.1 to provide that any permit for a solid
waste incineration unit that has a permit term of more than 5 years
shall be subject to review, including public notice and comment, at
least every 5 years. See Sec. 70.6(a)(2).
(11) Revise Rule 2520 13.2.3 to state that the permit shield will
apply only to requirements addressed in the permit. Rule 2520 13.2.3
currently extends the permit shield to requirements addressed by the
District in written application reviews. Section 504(f) of the Act and
Sec. 70.6 (f) are both clear that the permit shield may only extend to
requirements that are addressed in the permit. EPA will not consider a
source shielded from an enforcement action for failure to comply with
an applicable requirement if that applicable requirement is addressed
only in the written reviews supporting permit issuance and not in the
permit. Further, EPA will veto any permit that extends the permit
shield to conditions, terms, or findings of non-applicability that are
not included in the permit.
(12) Revise Rule 2520 9.12 to require the permit to contain terms
and conditions for the trading of emission increases and decreases in
the permitted facility to the extent that any applicable requirement
provides for such trading without case by case approval. Rule 2520 9.12
currently restricts permit terms and conditions to trades allowed under
the District's new source review rule, Rule 2201. See Sec. 70.6
(a)(10).
(13) Revise Rule 2520, Section 9.0 (permit content) to include the
Sec. 70.6 (c)(3) requirement for schedules of compliance for applicable
requirements for which the source is in compliance or that will become
effective during the permit term. Section 70.6(c)(3), reflecting the
language of Clean Air Act section 504(a) (``Each permit issued * * *
shall include * * * a schedule of compliance* * * .''), requires that
the permit contain a schedule of compliance even when the source is in
compliance with all applicable requirements. Rule 2520 9.15 only
requires a schedule of compliance when the source is in violation of
any applicable requirement. During the interim period, the District
should incorporate schedules of compliance, as
[[Page 55520]]
required by Sec. 70.6(c)(3), into all issued permits.
(14) Revise Rule 2520 to treat changes made under the prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) provisions of the Act and EPA' PSD
regulations in the same manner as ``title I modifications'' as that
term is defined in Rule 2520 and Rule 2201. PSD modifications are
considered ``modifications under title I'' in part 70.
(15) Revise Rule 2520 to state that, notwithstanding the permit
shield provisions, if a source that is operating under a general permit
is later determined not to qualify for the terms and conditions of that
general permit, then the source is subject to enforcement action for
operation without a part 70 permit. See Sec. 70.6(d).
(16) Because California State law currently exempts agricultural
production sources from permit requirements, CARB has requested source
category-limited interim approval for all California districts. EPA is
proposing to grant source category-limited interim approval to the San
Joaquin program. In order for this program to receive full approval,
the Health and Safety Code must be revised to eliminate the exemption
of agricultural production sources from the requirement to obtain a
title V permit. Once the California statute has revised, the District
must also revise its permit exemption rules to eliminate any blanket
exemption granted agricultural sources.
3. District Program Implementing Section 112(g)
The EPA has published an interpretive notice in the Federal
Register regarding section 112(g) of the Act (60 FR 8333; February 14,
1995). The revised interpretation postpones the effective date of
section 112(g) until after EPA has promulgated a rule addressing that
provision. The interpretive notice explains that EPA is considering
whether the effective date of section 112(g) should be delayed beyond
the date of promulgation of the federal rule so as to allow States time
to adopt rules implementing the federal rule, and that EPA will provide
for any such additional delay in the final section 112(g) rulemaking.
Unless and until EPA provides for such an additional postponement of
section 112(g), San Joaquin must be able to implement section 112(g)
during the period between promulgation of the federal section 112(g)
rule and adoption of implementing District regulations.
For this reason, EPA is proposing to approve the use of San
Joaquin's preconstruction review program (Rule 2201) as a mechanism to
implement section 112(g) during the transition period between
promulgation of the section 112(g) rule and adoption by San Joaquin of
rules specifically designed to implement section 112(g). However, since
the sole purpose of this approval is to confirm that the District has a
mechanism to implement section 112(g) during the transition period, the
approval itself will be without effect if EPA decides in the final
section 112(g) rule that there will be no transition period. The EPA is
limiting the duration of this proposed approval to 12 months following
promulgation by EPA of the section 112(g) rule.
4. Program for Delegation of Section 112 Standards as Promulgated
Requirements for approval, specified in 40 CFR 70.4(b), encompass
section 112(l)(5) requirements for approval of a program for delegation
of section 112 standards as promulgated by EPA as they apply to part 70
sources. Section 112(l)(5) requires that the state program contain
adequate authorities, adequate resources for implementation, and an
expeditious compliance schedule, which are also requirements under part
70. Therefore, EPA is proposing to grant approval under section
112(l)(5) and 40 CFR part 63.91 of San Joaquin's program for receiving
delegation of section 112 standards that are unchanged from federal
standards as promulgated. California Health and Safety Code section
39658 provides for automatic adoption by CARB of section 112 standards
upon promulgation by EPA. Section 39666 of the Health and Safety Code
requires that districts then implement and enforce these standards.
Thus, when section 112 standards are automatically adopted pursuant to
section 39658, San Joaquin will have the authority necessary to accept
delegation of these standards without further regulatory action by the
District. The details of this mechanism and the means for finalizing
delegation of standards will be set forth in a Memorandum of Agreement
between San Joaquin and EPA, expected to be completed prior to approval
of the District's section 112(l) program for delegation of unchanged
federal standards. This program applies to both existing and future
standards but is limited to sources covered by the part 70 program.
5. Proposed Approval of Rule 2530 Federally Enforceable Potential To
Emit
On October 24, 1995, CARB submitted for approval into the San
Joaquin Valley's portion of the California State Implementation Plan
(SIP), Rule 2530 Federally Enforceable Potential to Emit. This Rule
creates a streamlined process for limiting the potential to emit of
sources that emit less that 50 percent of major source levels but whose
potential to emit is above those levels. Sources complying with this
Rule will have federally-enforceable limits on their potential to emit
and will avoid being subject to title V.
The basic requirement for approving into the SIP rules to limit
potential to emit is that the limits in the rule are practically
enforceable. For a discussion of general principle of practical
enforceability, see Memorandum from John Seitz to Regional Air
Directors ``Options for Limiting the Potential to Emit (PTE) of a
Stationary Source Under Section 112 and Title V of the Clean Air Act
(Act),'' January 25, 1995, found in the docket for this rulemaking.
Rule 2530 meets these requirements for practical enforceability for
limiting potential to emit through general prohibitory rules in SIPs.
Please refer to the TSD for further analysis of the Rule.
CARB also submitted Rule 2520 for approval under section 112(l) of
the Act. The separate request for approval under section 112(l) is
necessary because the proposed SIP approval discussed above only
provides a mechanism for controlling criteria pollutants. EPA has
determined that the practical enforceability criterion for SIPs is also
appropriate for evaluating and approving Rule 2530 under section
112(l). In addition, Rule 2530 must meet the statutory criteria for
approval under section 112(l)(5). For a discussion of EPA's authority
to approve rules under section 112 (l), see 59 FR 60944 (November 29,
1994).
EPA proposes approval of Rule 2530 under 112(l) because the Rule
meets all of the approval criteria specified in section 112(l)(5) of
the Act. EPA believes Rule 2530 contains adequate authority to assure
compliance with section 112 requirements because it does not waive any
section 112 requirements applicable to non-major sources. Regarding
adequate resources, Rule 2530 is a supporting element of the District's
title V program which has demonstrated adequate funding. Furthermore,
EPA believes that Rule 2530 provides for an expeditious schedule for
assuring compliance because it provides a streamlined approval that
allows sources to establish limits on potential to emit and avoid being
subject to a federal Clean Air Act requirement applicable on a
particular date. Finally, Rule 2530 is consistent with the objectives
of the section 112 program because its purpose is to enable sources to
obtain federally enforceable
[[Page 55521]]
limits on potential to emit to avoid major source classification under
section 112. The EPA believes this purpose is consistent with the
overall intent of section 112.
Rule 2530 is modeled on the California model prohibitory rule
developed by the California Association of Air Pollution Control
Officers, CARB, and EPA. In its agreement on the model rule, EPA
expressed certain understandings and caveats. See letter, Lydia Wegman,
Deputy Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA
to Peter D. Venturini, Chief, Stationary Source Division, CARB, January
11, 1995. A copy of this letter is in the docket for this rulemaking.
These understandings and caveats are incorporated into EPA's proposed
approval of Rule 2530.
III. Administrative Requirements
A. Request for Public Comments
The EPA is requesting comments on all aspects of this proposed
interim approval. Comments should be submitted by December 1, 1995.
Copies of the District's submittal and other information relied upon
for the proposed interim approval are contained in a docket maintained
at the EPA Regional Office.
B. Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action from
Executive Order 12866 review.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The EPA's actions under Section 502 of the Act do not create any
new requirements, but simply address operating permits programs
submitted to satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR part 70. Because this
action does not impose any new requirements, it does not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Act
Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that the proposed approval action promulgated
today does not include a federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal
governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This federal
action approves pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and
imposes no new federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs
to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector,
result from this action.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides,
Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR Part 70
Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control,
Environmental protection Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental
relations, Operating permits, and Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Dated: October 19, 1995.
John Wise,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-27144 Filed 10-31-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
