95-29836. Clean Air Act Interim Approval of Operating Permits Program; San Diego Air Pollution Control District, California  

  • [Federal Register Volume 60, Number 235 (Thursday, December 7, 1995)]
    [Rules and Regulations]
    [Pages 62753-62758]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 95-29836]
    
    
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    40 CFR Part 70
    
    [AD-FRL-5341-7]
    
    
    Clean Air Act Interim Approval of Operating Permits Program; San 
    Diego Air Pollution Control District, California
    
    AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
    
    ACTION: Direct final rule.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: The EPA is promulgating direct final interim approval of the 
    title V operating permits program submitted by the California Air 
    Resources Board, on behalf of the San Diego Air Pollution Control 
    District (San Diego or District), for the purpose of complying with 
    federal requirements for an approvable state program to issue operating 
    permits to all major stationary sources and to certain other sources. 
    In addition, today's action promulgates direct final approval of San 
    Diego's mechanism for receiving delegation of section 112 standards as 
    promulgated.
    
    DATES: This direct final rule is effective on February 5, 1996 unless 
    adverse or critical comments are received by January 8, 1996. If the 
    effective date is delayed, a timely notice will be published in the 
    Federal Register.
    
    ADDRESSES: Copies of the District's submittal and other supporting 
    information used in developing this direct final rule are available for 
    public inspection (docket number CA SD-95-1-OPS) during normal business 
    hours at the following location: Operating Permits Section (A-5-2), Air 
    and Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 
    75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Celia Bloomfield (telephone 415/744-
    1249), Operating Permits Section (A-5-2), Air and Toxics Division, U.S. 
    Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 
    Francisco, CA 94105.
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    
    I. Background and Purpose
    
    A. Introduction
    
        Title V of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (sections 501-507 of 
    the Clean Air Act (Act)), and implementing regulations at 40 Code of 
    Federal Regulations (CFR) part 70 (part 70), require that states 
    develop and submit operating permits programs to EPA by November 15, 
    1993, and that EPA act to approve or disapprove each program within 1 
    year after receiving the submittal. 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 2 years. 
    If EPA has not fully approved a program by 2 years 
    
    [[Page 62754]]
    after the November 15, 1993 date, or by the end of an interim program, 
    it must establish and implement a federal program.
        The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because 
    the Agency views this as a noncontroversial action and anticipates no 
    adverse comments. However, in a separate document in this Federal 
    Register publication, the EPA is proposing interim approval of the 
    operating permit program submitted by San Diego should adverse or 
    critical comments be filed.
        If EPA receives adverse or critical comments, this action will be 
    withdrawn before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document 
    that will withdraw the final action. All public comments received will 
    then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this action 
    serving as the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second 
    comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action 
    should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public 
    is advised that this action will be effective on February 5, 1996.
    
    B. Federal Oversight and Sanctions
    
        This interim approval, which may not be renewed, extends until 
    February 9, 1998. During this interim approval period, San Diego is 
    protected from sanctions, and EPA is not obligated to promulgate, 
    administer and enforce a federal operating permits program in the 
    District. Permits issued under a program with interim approval have 
    full standing with respect to part 70, and the 1-year time period for 
    submittal of permit applications by subject sources begins upon the 
    effective date of this interim approval, as does the 3-year time period 
    for processing the initial permit applications.
        If San Diego fails to submit a complete corrective program for full 
    approval by August 7, 1997, EPA will start an 18-month clock for 
    mandatory sanctions. If San Diego then fails to submit a corrective 
    program that EPA finds complete before the expiration of that 18-month 
    period, EPA will be required to apply one of the sanctions in section 
    179(b) of the Act, which will remain in effect until EPA determines 
    that San Diego has corrected the deficiency by submitting a complete 
    corrective program. Moreover, if the Administrator finds a lack of good 
    faith on the part of the District, both sanctions under section 179(b) 
    will apply after the expiration of the 18-month period until the 
    Administrator determines that San Diego has come into compliance. In 
    any case, if, six months after application of the first sanction, the 
    District still has not submitted a corrective program that EPA has 
    found complete, a second sanction will be required.
        If EPA disapproves San Diego's complete corrective program, EPA 
    will be required to apply one of the section 179(b) sanctions on the 
    date 18 months after the effective date of the disapproval, unless 
    prior to that date San Diego has submitted a revised program and EPA 
    has determined that it corrected the deficiencies that prompted the 
    disapproval. Moreover, if the Administrator finds a lack of good faith 
    on the part of the District, both sanctions under section 179(b) shall 
    apply after the expiration of the 18-month period until the 
    Administrator determines that San Diego has come into compliance. In 
    all cases, if, six months after EPA applies the first sanction, the 
    District has not submitted a revised program that EPA has determined 
    corrects the deficiencies, a second sanction is required.
        In addition, discretionary sanctions may be applied where warranted 
    any time after the expiration of an interim approval period if San 
    Diego has not timely submitted a complete corrective program or EPA has 
    disapproved its submitted corrective program. Moreover, if EPA has not 
    granted full approval to the District's program by the expiration of 
    this interim approval and that expiration occurs after November 15, 
    1995, EPA must promulgate, administer and enforce a federal permits 
    program for San Diego upon interim approval expiration.
    
    II. Direct Final Action and Implications
    
    A. Analysis of State Submission
    
        The analysis contained in this notice focuses on specific elements 
    of San Diego's title V operating permits program 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 (CA-SD-95-1-OPS). 
    The docket may be viewed during regular business hours at the address 
    listed above.
    1. Support Materials
        San Diego's title V program was submitted by the California Air 
    Resources Board (CARB) on April 22, 1994 and found to be complete on 
    June 9, 1994. On April 4, 1995, the District amended the regulatory 
    portion of its submittal. On October 10, 1995, EPA received from CARB, 
    on behalf of the District, a revised fee program and an updated program 
    description. Enabling legislation for the State of California and the 
    Attorney General's legal opinion were submitted by CARB for all 
    districts in California and therefore were not included separately in 
    San Diego's submittal. The San Diego submission does contain a 
    Governor's letter requesting source category-limited interim approval, 
    District implementing and supporting regulations, and all other program 
    documentation required by section 70.4. An implementation agreement is 
    currently being developed between San Diego and EPA.
    2. Regulations and Program Implementation
        San Diego's title V implementing regulation, District Regulation 
    XIV, was first adopted on January 18, 1994. After preliminary review of 
    Regulation XIV, EPA identified numerous regulatory deficiencies and 
    communicated the potential disapproval issues to San Diego in letters 
    dated September 6, 1994 and December 13, 1994. In response, San Diego 
    revised Regulation XIV. The amended regulation was adopted on March 7, 
    1995 and submitted to EPA by CARB, on behalf of the District, on April 
    4, 1995. San Diego's program description was also revised to reflect 
    the changes made to Regulation XIV. EPA is therefore evaluating and 
    acting on the March 7, 1995 version of Regulation XIV.
        San Diego's title V implementing regulations substantially meet the 
    requirements of 40 CFR part 70, sections 70.2 and 70.3 for 
    applicability; sections 70.4, 70.5, and 70.6 for permit content, 
    including operational flexibility; section 70.7 for public 
    participation and permit modifications; section 70.5 for criteria that 
    define insignificant activities; section 70.5 for complete application 
    forms; and section 70.11 for enforcement authority. Although the 
    regulations substantially meet part 70 requirements, there are a few 
    deficiencies in the program that are outlined under section II.B.1. 
    below as interim approval issues and further described in the TSD.
    a. Insignificant Activities
        Section 70.5(c) states that EPA may approve, as part of a state 
    program, a list of insignificant activities and emissions levels which 
    need not be included in permit applications. Section 70.5(c) also 
    states that an application for a part 70 permit may not omit 
    information needed to determine the applicability of, or to impose, any 
    applicable requirement, or to evaluate appropriate fee amounts. Section 
    70.4(b)(2) requires states to include in their part 70 
    
    [[Page 62755]]
    programs any criteria used to determine insignificant activities or 
    emission levels for the purpose of determining complete applications. 
    Under part 70, a state must request and EPA may approve as part of that 
    state's program any activity or emission level that the state wishes to 
    consider insignificant. Part 70, however, does not establish 
    appropriate emission levels for insignificant activities, relying 
    instead on a case-by-case determination of appropriate levels based on 
    the particular circumstances of the part 70 program under review.
        San Diego submitted an extensive list of insignificant activities 
    that the District determined to be insignificant based on having 
    ``relatively low potential to emit'' (Regulation XIV, Appendix A). 
    While the potential to emit criterion is an acceptable mechanism for 
    identifying insignificant units, the District did not provide emissions 
    level cut-offs for many of the listed units. For instance, Regulation 
    XIV, Appendix A(p)(17) exempts most refrigeration units regardless of 
    size. Such units, if they have a charge rate of 50 pounds or more of a 
    Class I or II ozone-depleting compound, would be subject to applicable 
    requirements and could not be considered insignificant. EPA believes 
    that in order to have fully approvable insignificant activities 
    provisions, the listed units should not confuse the regulated 
    community's obligation to provide all information needed to determine 
    the applicability of, or to impose, any applicable requirement.
        For interim approval, EPA is relying on several rules in Regulation 
    XIV that affect the scope and usage of insignificant activities. 
    Specifically, Rule 1401(a) ensures that the District's permit exemption 
    rule, Rule 11, will not interfere with title V applicability 
    determinations. Similarly, Rule 1401(b)(4) ensures that emissions from 
    insignificant units will be included in all title V applicability 
    determinations. In addition, Rules 1411, 1414(f)(1), 1414(f)(3)(iii) 
    (A)&(B), 1414(f)(4) and the application ``Completeness Criteria'' 
    guidance document require the permit application to include all 
    information necessary to determine whether and how an applicable 
    requirement applies at a source, regardless if a unit qualifies as 
    insignificant. Finally, Rules 1401(b)(4) and 1401(c)(24) prohibit 
    activities that are subject to an applicable requirement (other than 
    two specified generic facility-wide requirements) from qualifying as an 
    insignificant activity. For full approval, San Diego must revise its 
    list of insignificant activities for title V permitting as discussed in 
    section II.B.1.5. of this notice.
    b. Variances
        San Diego's Hearing Board has the authority to issue variances from 
    requirements imposed by State and local law. See California Health and 
    Safety Code sections 42350 et seq. In the legal opinion submitted for 
    California operating permit programs, California's Attorney General 
    states that ``[t]he variance process is not part of the Title V 
    permitting process and does not affect federal enforcement for 
    violations of the requirements set forth in a Title V permit.'' 
    (Emphasis in original.)
        EPA regards the State and District variance provisions as wholly 
    external to the program submitted for approval under part 70, and 
    consequently, is not taking action on those provisions of State and 
    local law. EPA has no authority to approve provisions of state or local 
    law, such as the variance provisions referred to, that are inconsistent 
    with the Act. EPA does not recognize the ability of a permitting 
    authority to grant relief from the duty to comply with a federally 
    enforceable part 70 permit, except where such relief is granted through 
    procedures allowed by part 70. A part 70 permit may be issued or 
    revised (consistent with part 70 permitting procedures) to incorporate 
    those terms of a variance that are consistent with applicable 
    requirements. A part 70 permit may also incorporate, via part 70 permit 
    issuance or modification procedures, the schedule of compliance set 
    forth in a variance. However, EPA reserves the right to pursue 
    enforcement of applicable requirements notwithstanding the existence of 
    a compliance schedule in a permit to operate. This is consistent with 
    40 CFR Sec. 70.5(c)(8)(iii)(C), which states that a schedule of 
    compliance ``shall be supplemental to, and shall not sanction 
    noncompliance with, the applicable requirements on which it is based.''
    c. Reporting of Permit Deviations
        Part 70 requires prompt reporting of deviations from permit 
    requirements, and San Diego has not defined ``prompt'' in its program. 
    Section 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(B) requires the permitting authority to define 
    prompt in relation to the degree and type of deviations likely to occur 
    and the applicable requirements. Although the permit program 
    regulations should define prompt for purposes of administrative 
    efficiency and clarity, an acceptable alternative is to define prompt 
    in each individual permit. The EPA believes that prompt should 
    generally be defined as requiring reporting within two to ten days of 
    the deviation. Two to ten days is sufficient time in most cases to 
    protect public health and safety as well as to provide a forewarning of 
    potential problems. For sources with a low level of excess emissions, a 
    longer time period may be acceptable. However, prompt reporting must be 
    more frequent than the semiannual reporting requirement, given this is 
    a distinct reporting obligation under section 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). Where 
    ``prompt'' is defined in the individual permit but not in the program 
    regulations, EPA may veto permits that do not contain sufficiently 
    prompt reporting of deviations.
    d. Temporary Authorization
        San Diego's title V regulation provides for the issuance of a 
    ``temporary authorization'' which allows a source to operate without an 
    operating permit. Temporary authorizations are not required by part 70, 
    but they exist in San Diego's title V program in order to maintain 
    consistency with the District's existing local permitting program. San 
    Diego structured its temporary authorization mechanism to ensure that 
    the issuance of temporary authorizations would not interfere with any 
    of the requirements established under part 70. Specifically, temporary 
    authorizations may only be issued to sources that have met the 
    requirements of section 112(g) or the preconstruction permitting 
    requirements under parts C or D of title I; i.e., the same scope of 
    sources that do not have to submit applications for title V permits or 
    title V permit modifications until 12 months after commencing operation 
    (section 70.5(a)(1)(ii)). Furthermore, possession of a temporary 
    authorization does not affect a source's obligation to submit a title V 
    permit application, and the temporary authorization expires on the date 
    that a complete title V permit application is due.
    e. Enhanced New Source Review
        San Diego's title V permit program provides for enhanced 
    preconstruction review, an optional process that allows sources to 
    satisfy both new source review and title V permit modification 
    requirements at the same time. Any modification processed pursuant to 
    San Diego's enhanced preconstruction review procedures may be 
    incorporated into the title V permit as an administrative permit 
    amendment. These enhanced procedures obviate the need to undergo two 
    application, public notice, and permit issuance/revision processes for 
    the same change. 
    
    [[Page 62756]]
    
    f. Applicability
        EPA found during its review of the San Diego title V program that 
    the District's applicability provisions are consistent with part 70 and 
    fully approvable, but that there is atypical language which warrants a 
    brief discussion in this notice. First, the requirement to count 
    fugitive hazardous air pollutant emissions in major source 
    determinations is contained in the definition of ``potential to emit'' 
    rather than the definition of ``major stationary source.'' The term 
    ``potential to emit'' is used to define ``major stationary source.'' 
    (See Regulation XIV, Rules 1401(c)(25) and (36).)
        Second, a broad applicability exemption for all non-major 
    stationary sources (Rule 1401(b)(1)) appears at first glance to be in 
    conflict with the part 70 requirement to permit non-major affected 
    sources and solid waste incineration units subject to section 129(e) of 
    the Act (section 70.3(b)). However, San Diego's regulation provides 
    that the applicability exemptions in Rule 1401(b)(1) apply only when 
    referenced in the applicability section (Rule 1401(a)(2) and (3)); 
    i.e., to non-major sources subject to sections 111 or 112 of the Act. 
    (See Regulation XIV, Rule 1401(a)(2-4).) San Diego's program 
    description confirms this reading (section III.B.1.b., p.2). In any 
    case, if EPA completes a rulemaking that would require a non-major 
    source to obtain a title V permit, the non-major stationary source 
    exemption would not apply for that source (Rule 1401(b)(1)).
    g. Federally Mandated New Source Review
        In order to have an approvable title V program, permits must assure 
    compliance with all federal applicable requirements. The part 70 
    definition of ``applicable requirement'' includes ``any term or 
    condition of any preconstruction permits issued pursuant to regulations 
    approved or promulgated through rulemaking under title I, including 
    parts C or D, of the Act;'' (section 70.2, definition of ``applicable 
    requirement,'' subsection (2)) i.e., major and minor new source review 
    and prevention of significant deterioration requirements.
        Rather than citing parts C or D of title I, San Diego's definition 
    of ``federally enforceable requirement'' states that requirements 
    imposed by ``federally mandated new source review'' or prevention of 
    significant deterioration regulations are applicable requirements. The 
    use of the term ``federally mandated new source review'' is unclear. 
    Under San Diego's definition, ``federally mandated new source review'' 
    is linked to ``emission thresholds specified in federal law or in the 
    approved State Implementation Plan (SIP).'' (See Regulation XIV, Rule 
    1401(c)(19).) The District has a SIP-approved minor new source review 
    program that is triggered by any emissions increase, which could be 
    construed as an emissions threshold of zero, and therefore all NSR, 
    major and minor, is federally mandated. (See Regulation II, Rule 
    10(a).) Yet, San Diego has contended that minor NSR is not always 
    federally mandated, leaving the term ``federally mandated new source 
    review'' subject to conflicting interpretations.
        The District must revise either the definition of ``federally 
    mandated new source review'' or the definition of ``federally 
    enforceable requirement'' to clearly include minor new source review as 
    an applicable requirement under title V. However, San Diego's program 
    is approvable for an interim period because the District's approved SIP 
    contains a minor new source review program, and San Diego's definition 
    of ``federally enforceable requirement'' also includes ``[a]ny standard 
    or other requirement provided for in the State Implementation Plan'' 
    (Regulation XIV, Rule 1401(c)(18)(i)). Rules 10 and 21 of San Diego's 
    portion of the California SIP constitute the District's minor (and 
    major) NSR program. (See June 22, 1994 letter from Richard Smith, San 
    Diego Air Pollution Control District, to Ron Friesen, California Air 
    Resources Board.) Since Rules 10 and 21 are in San Diego's SIP, the 
    requirement to obtain, and the specific conditions of, a minor NSR 
    permit are federally enforceable.
        EPA has discussed this interim approach with San Diego, and the 
    District agrees that SIP-approved Rules 10 and 21 provide for a 
    federally enforceable minor NSR program. However, EPA and San Diego 
    disagree about whether Rule 21 extends federal enforceability to all 
    terms and conditions of minor NSR permits. EPA believes that, until San 
    Diego's SIP is revised to state otherwise, Rule 21 makes all terms and 
    conditions of minor NSR permits federally enforceable. San Diego 
    believes that minor NSR permit terms that do not originate from the SIP 
    or other federal law or regulations are not made federally enforceable 
    by Rule 21. As an interim solution until San Diego's SIP is revised or 
    this disagreement is resolved, the District has agreed to designate in 
    the part 70 permit certain minor NSR permit terms as ``District-only 
    minor NSR'' and stipulate that those terms so listed will be reviewed 
    and, as necessary, be deleted, revised, or incorporated as federally-
    enforceable terms of the part 70 permit on or before a specified 
    deadline (not later than the renewal of the permit).
    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 submittal 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 per year (adjusted annually based on the Consumer Price Index 
    (CPI), relative to 1989 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'' (40 CFR 
    70.9(b)(2)(i)).
        San Diego has opted to make a presumptive minimum fee 
    demonstration. The District's fees are based on the actual direct and 
    indirect costs of evaluating and issuing a title V permit. In addition 
    to employing a cost recovery approach, the District will charge an 
    initial title V permit application fee of $2,200 per permitted source 
    (Rule 40, Section (s)). San Diego estimates an average implementation 
    cost, and hence fees, of $320,000 per year for the first 5 years of the 
    program. The presumptive minimum is calculated at $309,300 per year by 
    multiplying an estimated 10,000 tons of pollutants emitted each year in 
    San Diego by the CPI adjusted presumptive dollar amount of $30.93. San 
    Diego will therefore be collecting fees in an amount that exceeds the 
    presumptive minimum.
    4. Provisions Implementing the Requirements of Other Titles of the Act
    a. Authority and Commitments for Section 112 Implementation
        San Diego has demonstrated in its title V program submittal 
    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 federal ``applicable requirements'' and 
    requiring each permit to incorporate conditions that assure compliance 
    with all applicable requirements. EPA has determined that this legal 
    authority is sufficient to allow San Diego to issue permits that assure 
    compliance with all section 112 requirements. For further discussion, 
    please refer to the TSD accompanying 
    
    [[Page 62757]]
    this action and the April 13, 1993 guidance memorandum entitled, 
    ``Title V Program Approval Criteria for Section 112 Activities,'' 
    signed by John Seitz.
    b. Authority for Title IV Implementation
        On March 7, 1995, San Diego incorporated by reference part 72, the 
    federal acid rain permitting regulations. The incorporation by 
    reference was codified in Rule 1412 of Regulation XIV and submitted to 
    EPA on April 4, 1995.
    
    B. Proposed Interim Approval and Implications
    
    1. Title V Operating Permits Program
        The EPA is promulgating direct final interim approval to the 
    operating permits program submitted by the California Air Resources 
    Board, on behalf of the San Diego Air Pollution Control District, on 
    April 22, 1994 and amended on April 4, 1995 and October 10, 1995. Areas 
    in which San Diego's program is deficient and requires corrective 
    action prior to full approval are as follows:
        (1) California State law currently exempts agricultural production 
    sources from permit requirements. CARB has requested source category-
    limited interim approval for all California districts. In order for San 
    Diego's program to receive full approval (and to avoid a disapproval 
    upon the expiration of this interim approval), the California 
    Legislature must revise the Health and Safety Code to eliminate the 
    exemption of agricultural production sources from the requirement to 
    obtain a permit.
        (2) Part 70 requires that any significant change in monitoring 
    permit terms or conditions be processed as a significant permit 
    modification. Rule 1401(c)(43), definition of ``Significant Permit 
    Modification,'' must be revised accordingly. (See section 70.7(e)(4).)
        (3) San Diego's treatment of affected state notification is unclear 
    in the program submittal. Part 70 requires that air permitting 
    authorities provide notice to all affected states of all proposed 
    permits, minor and significant permit modifications, and renewals 
    (section 70.8(b)(1)). The term ``affected state'' is defined in section 
    70.2 as a contiguous state whose air quality may be affected or a state 
    within 50 miles of a permitted source. EPA is also undergoing a 
    rulemaking action that will allow Native American lands to be treated 
    as a state. (See 59 FR 43956, 43962 (Aug. 25, 1994); 58 FR 54364 (Oct. 
    21, 1993).)
        San Diego's program does not define ``affected state,'' and it does 
    not specify any affected state notification procedures. It does 
    provide, however, the requirement to notify affected states in the case 
    of minor or significant permit modifications. In addition, San Diego 
    has indicated that it currently has cooperative permitting agreements 
    with Native American tribes.
        EPA is not concerned about the notice deficiencies with respect to 
    states that border California because of San Diego's coastal location. 
    On the other hand, in order to receive full approval on this issue, San 
    Diego's program must ensure that Native American tribes will be 
    adequately notified and consulted once such tribes apply for treatment 
    as affected states. If San Diego's existing cooperative permitting 
    practices meet the affected state notification requirements set out in 
    section 70.8(b), the District may submit them to EPA for incorporation 
    into its title V program to satisfy the affected state notice 
    requirements. As an alternative to up-front adoption of affected state 
    notice provisions or incorporation of existing practices, EPA will 
    accept a commitment from San Diego to: (1) Initiate rule revisions upon 
    notification from EPA that an affected tribe has applied for state 
    status; and (2) provide affected state notice to tribes upon a tribe's 
    filing for state status, that is, prior to the District's adoption of 
    affected state notice rules.
        (4) Revise Rule 1410(h)(7), paragraph 2 to require permit reopening 
    procedures for any inactive status permit that is modified to reflect 
    new applicable requirements upon being converted to active status if 
    there are 3 years or more remaining on the term of its 5-year permit. 
    (See section 70.7(f)(1)(i).)
        (5) Remove any activities from the District's list of insignificant 
    activities that are subject to a unit-specific applicable requirement 
    and adjust/add size cut-offs to ensure that the listed activities are 
    truly insignificant. (See sections 70.4(b)(2) and 70.5(c).)
        (6) Remove the reference to Rules 1401 (j) and (k) in Rule 1401(i). 
    This reference to minor and significant permit modifications in the 
    provisions for administrative permit amendments could be read to be 
    inconsistent with the definition of ``significant permit modification'' 
    (Rule 1401(c)(43)), which correctly defaults unspecified changes to the 
    significant permit modification process. In addition, the phrase 
    ``These shall include the following'' in the administrative permit 
    amendment section (Rule 1410(i)) creates ambiguity about whether the 
    list of administrative permit amendments is exhaustive or open ended. 
    Because part 70, section 70.7(d)(vi) requires that administrative 
    permit amendments be specifically approved as part of the title V 
    program, the word ``include'' in the above phrase must also be removed.
        (7) The District must revise either the definition of ``federally 
    mandated new source review'' or the definition of ``federally 
    enforceable requirement'' to clearly include minor new source review as 
    an applicable requirement under title V.
        This interim approval, which may not be renewed, extends for a 
    period of up to two years. During the interim approval period, San 
    Diego is protected from sanctions for failure to have a program, and 
    EPA is not obligated to promulgate a federal permits program in 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 interim 
    approval, as does the three-year time period for processing the initial 
    permit applications.
        The scope of San Diego's part 70 program that EPA is acting on in 
    this notice applies to all part 70 sources (as defined in the approved 
    program) within San Diego's jurisdiction. The approved program does not 
    apply to any part 70 sources over which an Indian tribe has 
    jurisdiction. See, e.g., 59 FR 55813, 55815-18 (Nov. 9, 1994). The term 
    ``Indian tribe'' is defined under the Act as ``any Indian tribe, band, 
    nation, or other organized group or community, including any Alaska 
    Native village, which is federally recognized as eligible for the 
    special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians 
    because of their status as Indians.'' See section 302(r) of the CAA; 
    see also 59 FR 43956, 43962 (Aug. 25, 1994); 58 FR 54364 (Oct. 21, 
    1993).
    2. State Preconstruction Permit 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) that postpones the effective date of section 112(g) until after 
    EPA has promulgated a rule addressing that provision. The interpretive 
    notice also 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 
    Diego must be able to implement section 112(g) during the period 
    between promulgation of the 
    
    [[Page 62758]]
    federal section 112(g) rule and adoption of implementing State 
    regulations.
        For this reason, EPA is approving the use of San Diego's 
    preconstruction review program as a mechanism to implement section 
    112(g) during the transition period between promulgation of the section 
    112(g) rule and adoption by San Diego 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 approval to 18 months following promulgation by EPA of the section 
    112(g) rule.
    3. Program for Delegation of Section 112 Standards as Promulgated
        Requirements for approval, specified in 40 CFR section 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 a state's program 
    contain adequate authorities, adequate resources for implementation, 
    and an expeditious compliance schedule, which are also requirements 
    under part 70. Therefore, EPA is also promulgating approval under 
    section 112(l)(5) and 40 CFR part 63.91 of San Diego'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 Diego 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 an 
    implementation agreement between San Diego and EPA. This program 
    applies to both existing and future standards but is limited to sources 
    covered by the part 70 program.
    
    III. Administrative Requirements
    
    A. Docket
    
        Copies of San Diego's submittal and other information relied upon 
    for this direct final action is contained in docket number CA-SD-95-1-
    OPS maintained at the EPA Regional Office. The docket is an organized 
    and complete file of all the information submitted to, or otherwise 
    considered by, EPA in the development of this direct final rulemaking. 
    The docket is available for public inspection at the location listed 
    under the ADDRESSES  section of this document.
    
    B. 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.
    
    C. Unfunded Mandates
    
        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 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.
    
    D. Executive Order 12866
    
        The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action from 
    review under Executive Order 12866.
    
    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70
    
        Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
    Air pollution control, Environmental protection, Intergovernmental 
    relations, Operating permits, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
    
        Dated: November 8, 1995.
    Felicia Marcus,
    Regional Administrator.
    
        Part 70, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as 
    follows:
    
    PART 70--[AMENDED]
    
        1. The authority citation for part 70 continues to read as follows:
    
        Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
    
        2. Appendix A to part 70 is amended by adding paragraph (x) to the 
    entry for California to read as follows:
    
    Appendix A to Part 70--Approval Status of State and Local Operating 
    Permits Programs
    
    * * * * *
        The following district program was submitted by the California Air 
    Resources Board on behalf of:
        (x) San Diego Air Pollution Control District: submitted on April 
    22, 1994 and amended on April 4, 1995 and October 10, 1995; approval 
    effective on February 5, 1996, unless adverse or critical comments are 
    received by January 8, 1996.
    * * * * *
    [FR Doc. 95-29836 Filed 12-06-95; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    
    

Document Information

Effective Date:
2/5/1996
Published:
12/07/1995
Department:
Environmental Protection Agency
Entry Type:
Rule
Action:
Direct final rule.
Document Number:
95-29836
Dates:
This direct final rule is effective on February 5, 1996 unless adverse or critical comments are received by January 8, 1996. If the effective date is delayed, a timely notice will be published in the Federal Register.
Pages:
62753-62758 (6 pages)
Docket Numbers:
AD-FRL-5341-7
PDF File:
95-29836.pdf
CFR: (1)
40 CFR 70