[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 235 (Thursday, December 8, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-30214]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: December 8, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 70
[AD-FRL-5118-6]
Clean Air Act Proposed Interim Approval of the Title V Operating
Permit Programs for Nineteen California Air Pollution Control Districts
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA proposes source-category-limited interim approval of
the Operating Permits Programs submitted by the California Air
Resources Board on behalf of Amador County Air Pollution Control
District (APCD), Butte County APCD, Calaveras County APCD, Colusa
County APCD, El Dorado County APCD, Feather River Air Quality
Management District (AQMD), Great Basin Unified APCD, Imperial County
APCD, Kern County APCD, Lassen County APCD, Mendocino County APCD,
Modoc County APCD, North Coast Unified AQMD, Northern Sierra AQMD,
Northern Sonoma County APCD, Placer County APCD, Siskiyou County APCD,
Tuolumne County APCD, and Yolo-Solano AQMD. These Programs were
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 the EPA, programs for issuing operating permits to all major
stationary sources and to certain other sources.
DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by
January 9, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Comments on these programs should be addressed to Sara
Bartholowmew, Operating Permits Section, A-5-2, Air and Toxics
Division, U.S. EPA-Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco,
California 94105.
Copies of the submissions and other supporting information used in
developing the proposed interim approvals of these programs including
the Technical Support Documents 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: For information, please contact: Sara
Bartholowmew, Operating Permits Section, A-5-2, Air and Toxics
Division, U.S. EPA-Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco,
California 94105, (415) 744-1170.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background and Purpose
A. Introduction
As required under title V of the Clean Air Act (``the Act'') as
amended (1990), the 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 these operating permits to all major stationary sources and to
certain other sources.
The Act requires that States develop and submit these programs to
the EPA by November 15, 1993, and that EPA act to approve or disapprove
each program within one 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, the EPA may grant the program interim approval
for a period of up to 2 years. If the EPA has not fully approved a
program by 2 years after the November 15, 1993 date, or by the end of
an interim program, it must establish and implement a Federal program.
II. Proposed Action and implications
A. Analysis of State Submission
The analysis contained in this document focuses on the major
elements of the Districts' title V operating permits program
submissions and on specific elements that must be corrected to meet the
minimum requirements of 40 CFR part 70. The nineteen District programs
are based on a model rule and program description developed by the
California Air Resources Board (CARB). As a result, the programs are
very similar. A detailed analysis of each program can be found in
Technical Support Document (TSDs) for each District. The full program
submittals, TSDs, and other relevant materials are available for public
review in the public docket for this proposal. The docket may be viewed
during regular business hours at the address listed above.
1. Title V Support Materials
In submitting each District's title V program, CARB requested
source category-limited interim approval for the program because
California statute (Health and Safety Code (H.S.C.) section 42310 (e))
currently exempts agricultural sources from all permitting requirements
including title V. Each 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, enabling legislation, and certain other
information regarding State law.
EPA has reviewed each District's program to assure that it contains
all the elements required by Sec. 70.4(b) (Elements of the initial
program submission). EPA has found each program complete pursuant to
Sec. 70.4(e)(1) in letters to CARB on January 13, 1994 (El Dorado and
Kern), January 28, 1994 (Tuolumne), February 4, 1994 (Butte, Great
Basin, Lassen, Mendocino, and Siskiyou), March 4, 1994 (Feather River,
Modoc, Northern Sonoma, and Placer), April 22, 1994 (Colusa and North
Coast), May 20, 1994 (Imperial), June 22, 1994 (Northern Sierra),
October 19, 1994 (Amador), October 26, 1994 (Yolo-Solano), and November
9, 1994 (Calaveras).
Prior to final action to approve these operating permit programs,
EPA intends to have in place an implementation agreement with each
District that will address data management, acid rain provisions,
procedures for delegation of hazardous air pollutant standards under
section 112(l) of the Act, and other elements regarding the
implementation of the District's title V program.
2. Title V Operating Permit Regulations and Program Implementation
This section discusses how the Districts' rules in general comply
with the requirements of part 70. In each case, the District's rules/
regulations are identical to or very similar to the CARB model;
therefore, the discussion below is applicable to all nineteen programs.
If a District's program differs substantially from the CARB model in a
way that is not fully approvable under part 70, it is noted in the
discussion on each District later in this document.
Applicability. All programs meet the source applicability
requirements of Secs. 70.2 (Definitions) and 70.3 (Applicability)
except that current California law exempts agricultural sources from
all permitting requirements including title V. This exemption must be
removed from State law in order for the District programs to receive
full approval. All programs opted to defer the permitting of minor
sources subject to New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) or National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) as allowed
under Sec. 70.3 (b)(1).
Permit application. The programs substantially meet the application
deadlines and application content requirements of Sec. 70.5 (Permit
applications). Each program contains the application forms that the
District intends to use for initial permit, permit renewal, and permit
modification applications. In this action, the EPA is proposing to
approve the application forms as part of each District's program. All
rules require sources to list all emission units in sufficient detail
to establish applicable requirements and permit fees. EPA has
identified several interim approval issues regarding permit application
requirements that must be corrected for full approval. The interim
approval issues are discussed in detail later in this document. In the
TSD, EPA has also identified other recommended changes that are not
required for full approval but would improve, clarify, or strengthen
the Districts' part 70 programs.
Insignificant activities. Section 70.4(b)(2) requires States to
include in their part 70 programs any criteria used to determine
insignificant activities or emission levels for the purposes of
determining complete applications. Section 70.5(c) 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 70.5(c)
also 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. Under part 70, a State must request
and EPA must 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.
Except for Mendocino County, each Districts provided its current
permit exemption list as its list of insignificant activities. Several
of these lists provide unbounded discretion to the APCO to determine
additional exemptions. Most programs either provided no criteria or
stated that their criteria for insignificance was the list of
activities in their current permit exemption list. Only in the Northern
Sonoma County APCD program provided detailed information on the
emission levels from the exempted activities. Because EPA was provided
no criteria or information on the level of emissions of activities on
most Districts' exemptions list and no demonstration that these
activities are unlikely to be subject to an applicable requirement, EPA
cannot propose full approval of these exemption lists as the basis for
determining insignificant activities.
Several programs (including Mendocino) stated that their criteria
for insignificant activities was the significance levels for their new
source review regulations. These signficance levels are the federal
major modification thresholds and are set at a substantial fraction of
the major source thresholds for all areas and would almost certainly
exclude units with applicable requirements. EPA, therefore, finds that
emission levels at the federal major modification thresholds are too
high to be considered insignificant.
For other State programs, EPA has proposed to accept, as sufficient
for full approval, emission levels for insignificant activities of 2
tons per year of regulated air pollutants and the lesser of 1000 pounds
per year, section 112(g) de minimis levels, or other title I
significant modification levels for HAPs and other toxics (40 CFR
52.21(b)(23)(i)). EPA believes that these levels are sufficiently below
applicability thresholds for most applicable requirements to assure
that no unit potentially subject to an applicable requirement is left
off a part 70 application and are consistent with current permitting
thresholds for the nineteen Districts under consideration here. EPA is
requesting comment on the appropriateness of these emission levels for
determining insignificant activities in these Districts. This request
for comment is not intended to restrict the ability of individual
Districts to propose and EPA to approve other emission levels if the
District demonstrates that such alternative emission levels are
insignificant compared to the level of emissions from and types of
units that are permitted or subject to applicable requirements.
Permit content. The rules substantially meet the permit content
requirements of Sec. 70.6 (Permit content) including assuring
compliance with all applicable requirements, monitoring and related
recordkeeping and reporting requirements, compliance requirements, and
emergency provisions. None of the programs opted to use general permits
or the permit shield.1 In addition, the programs substantially
meet the operational flexibility requirements of Sec. 70.4(b)(12). EPA
has identified several problems with the permit content and the
operational flexibility provisions that must be corrected for full
approval. The interim approval issues are discussed in detail later in
this document. In the TSD, EPA has also identified other recommended
changes that are not required for full approval but would improve,
clarify, or strengthen the Districts' part 70 programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The Placer County program description contains a discussion
of the District's intent to implement a permit shield. Placer's part
70 rule, however, does not provide for the permit shield in
Sec. 70.6(f) but rather contains conditions for the application
shield in Sec. 70.5(a)(2) and provisions for implementing
modifications prior to EPA review which do not meet the requirements
of Sec. 70.7 and Sec. 70.8. This is discussed further in the TSD and
in the discussion of the Placer program later in this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permit issuance and modifications. All programs provide adequate
criteria and procedures for deeming applications complete as required
by Sec. 70.5(a)(2). Most programs provide deadlines and procedures
(including public participation and EPA/affected state review) for
acting on permits consistent with Sec. 70.7 (a) (Action on
applications) and (h) (Public participation) and Sec. 70.8 (Permit
review by EPA and affected States); the exceptions are noted in the
discussions of each District's program. All programs have permit
modification procedures that are, for the most part, consistent with
Sec. 70.7 (e) (Permit modifications). All programs contain procedures
that allow new emission units that do not trigger major source NSR, are
not acid rain units, and whose operations are not addressed or
prohibited by the existing part 70 permit to be handled ``off-permit.''
EPA has identified several problems with the permit issuance and
modification procedures that must be corrected for full approval. The
interim approval issues are discussed in detail later in this document.
In the TSD, EPA has also identified other recommended changes that are
not required for full approval but would improve, clarify, or
strengthen the Districts' part 70 programs.
Definition of title I modification. Part 70 prohibits changes that
are modifications under any provisions of title I of the Clean Air Act
(``title I modifications'') from being treated as minor permit
modifications, being made ``off-permit,'' or being made under an
operational flexibility provision. None of the Districts' programs
specifically define ``title I modification'' although it is clear from
the use of the term that the programs do not treat changes reviewed
under a minor source preconstruction review program (``minor NSR
changes'') as title I modifications. See, for example, the distinction
made between ``a modification under Title I of the CAA'' and ``any
provision of [the District NSR and PSD rules]'' in Amador's Rule 500,
sections V.I. and V.I.3.c. See also the discussion on operational
flexibility in each District's Program Description: ``Title I
modifications include a modification that is major under federal NSR *
* *, a modification that is major under PSD * * *.'' (Emphasis added).
The EPA is currently in the process of determining the proper
definition of title I modification. As further explained below, EPA has
solicited public comment on whether the phrase ``modification under any
provision of title I of the Act'' should be interpreted to mean
literally any change at a source that would trigger permitting
authority review under regulations approved or promulgated under title
I of the Act. This would include State and District preconstruction
review programs approved by EPA as part of the State Implementation
Plan under section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Clean Air Act.
On August 29, 1994, EPA proposed revisions to the interim approval
criteria in 40 CFR 70.4(d) to, among other things, allow State programs
with a more narrow treatment or definition of title I modifications to
receive interim approval (59 FR 44572). In that notice, EPA explained
its view that the better reading of title I modifications includes
minor NSR, and solicited public comment on the proper interpretation of
that term (59 FR 44573). EPA stated that if, after considering the
public comments, it continues to believe that the phrase ``title I
modifications'' should be interpreted as including minor NSR changes,
it would revise the interim approval criteria as needed to allow
States/Districts with narrower definitions to be eligible for interim
approval.
The EPA hopes to finalize its rulemaking revising the interim
approval criteria under 40 CFR 70.4 (d) expeditiously.2 If EPA
establishes in its rulemaking that the definition of title I
modifications can be interpreted to exclude changes reviewed under
minor NSR programs, the Districts' treatment of title I modifications
would be fully consistent with part 70. Conversely, if EPA establishes
through the rulemaking that the definition must include changes
reviewed under minor NSR, the Districts' treatment of title I
modifications will become a basis for interim approval. If the
treatment becomes a basis for interim approval as a result of EPA's
rulemaking, each of the nineteen Districts would be required to revise
its treatment of title I modifications to conform to the requirements
of part 70.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Publication of the proposed interim approval criteria
revisions was delayed until August 29, 1994, and EPA received
several requests to extend the public comment period until November
27, 1994. Given the importance of the issues in that rulemaking to
States, sources, and the public, but mindful of the need to take
action quickly, EPA agreed to extend the comment period until
October 28, 1994 (See 59 FR 52122 (October 14, 1994)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, today's proposed approval does not identify the
Districts' treatment of title I modification as necessary grounds for
interim approval. Again, although EPA has reasons for believing that
the better interpretation of title I modifications is the broader one,
EPA does not believe that it is appropriate to determine whether this
is a program deficiency until EPA completes its rulemaking on this
issue.
3. District Title V Compliance Provisions
California statute and District rules and regulations provide the
Districts with the enforcement authorities required by Sec. 70.11
(Requirements for enforcement authority). See the California Attorney
General's Opinion and the TSDs (especially Attachments A and F) for
further detail.
Variances. The Hearing Boards of all nineteen Districts have the
authority to issue variances from requirements imposed by State and
local law. See H.S.C. sections 42350 et seq. In the legal opinion
submitted with 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 State and District variance provisions as wholly
external to the programs submitted for approval under part 70 and
consequently is proposing to take no action on these provisions of
State and local law. EPA has no authority to approve provisions of
state and local law that are inconsistent with the Act. EPA does not
recognize the ability of a District 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 revision 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 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.''
Prompt reporting of deviations. Section 70.6 (a)(3)(iii)(B) states
that permits must require prompt reporting of deviations from the
permit requirements and that the District shall define ``prompt'' in
relation to the degree and type of deviation likely to occur and the
applicable requirements. The Districts' rules do not define ``prompt''
and instead leave the determination of what constitutes ``prompt'' to
the discretion of the Air Pollution Control Officer. Although the
permit program regulations should define ``prompt'' for purposes of
administrative efficiency and clarity, it is acceptable to define the
term in each individual permit. The EPA believes that prompt means
reporting a deviation 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, since this is a separate reporting
obligation under Sec. 70.6 (a)(3)(iii)(A). Where ``prompt'' is defined
in the individual permit but not in the program regulations, the EPA
may veto permits that do not require sufficiently prompt reporting of
deviations.
4. Permit Fee Demonstration
Section 502 (b)(3) of the Act and Sec. 70.9 (a) require 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 part 70 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 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)). All nineteen Districts have opted to make a
presumptive minimum fee demonstration.
Currently, the nineteen Districts charge fees for permitting based
on some combination of equipment type and/or size, number of emission
units, permitting action, and actual cost of services. All Districts
have adopted supplemental fee rules or revised existing fee rules to
assure that title V sources (either individually or in the aggregate)
will pay fees that will remain at or above the CPI-adjusted presumptive
minimum. Most of these fees are at $29.26 per ton. All nineteen
Districts demonstrated in their program descriptions that the
presumptive minimum fees are adequate to cover the direct and indirect
costs of their part 70 programs.
5. Provisions Implementing the Requirements of Other Titles of the Act
a. Section 112-hazardous air pollutants. The Districts have
demonstrated in their part 70 program submissions adequate legal
authority to implement and enforce all section 112 requirements through
the part 70 permit. This legal authority is contained in the State of
California enabling legislation and in regulatory provisions in each
District's rule defining ``applicable requirements'' and mandating that
all applicable requirements must be incorporated into permits. The EPA
has determined that this legal authority is sufficient to allow the
Districts to issue permits that assure compliance with all section 112
requirements. For further discussion on the District's legal authority,
please refer to the TSDs accompanying this action and the April 13,
1993 guidance memorandum entitled, ``Title V Program Approval Criteria
for Section 112 Activities,'' signed by John Seitz, Director, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, USEPA.
b. Title IV-acid rain. No Districts in California have Phase I acid
rain sources and only two of the nineteen Districts whose part 70
programs are being considered in this document have identified Phase II
sources. These two Districts are North Coast Unified AQMD and Imperial
County APCD. Neither of these two Districts has submitted complete acid
rain programs nor has committed to adopt such programs by January 1,
1995. The adoption of complete acid rain programs is an interim
approval issue for both of these two Districts. Many of the other
Districts have provided commitments to expeditiously adopt the
appropriate regulatory authority necessary 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. For Districts
that have not made this commitment and do not have any identified Phase
II sources, the EPA will require this commitment as part of the
District-EPA implementation agreement.
B. Proposal for and Implications of Interim Approval
Because the programs substantially meet the requirements of part
70, the EPA is proposing to grant source-category limited interim
approval to the operating permits programs submitted by the California
Air Resources Board on behalf of Amador County APCD (received: December
27, 1993, August 5 and September 20, 1994), Butte County APCD
(received: November 16, 1993), Calaveras County APCD (received: October
31, 1994), Colusa County APCD (received: February 24, 1994), El Dorado
County APCD (received: November 16, 1993), Feather River AQMD
(received: December 27, 1993), Great Basin Unified APCD (received:
January 12, 1994), Imperial County APCD (received: January 12 and March
24, 1994), Kern County APCD (received: November 16, 1993), Lassen
County APCD (received: January 12, 1994), Mendocino County APCD
(received: December 27, 1993), Modoc County APCD (received: December
27, 1993), North Coast Unified AQMD (received: February 24, 1994),
Northern Sierra AQMD (received: June 3, 1994), Northern Sonoma County
APCD (received: January 12, 1994), Placer County APCD (received:
December 27, 1993), Siskiyou County APCD (received: December 6, 1993),
Tuolumne County APCD (received: November 16, 1993), and Yolo-Solano
AQMD (received: June 6 and October 14, 1994).
If EPA were to finalize these proposed interim approvals, they
would extend for two years following the effective date of the final
interim approvals and could not be renewed. During the interim approval
period, each District would be protected from sanctions, and EPA would
not be 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 1-
year time period for submittal of permit applications by subject
sources begins upon the effective date of the interim approval, as does
the 3-year time period for processing the initial permit applications.
Following final interim approval, if the District fails to submit a
complete corrective program for full approval by the date six months
before expiration of the interim approval, EPA will start an 18-month
clock for mandatory sanctions. If the District 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,3 which would then remain
in effect until EPA determines that the District has corrected the
deficiency by submitting a complete corrective program. Moreover, if
the Administrator found a lack of good faith on the part of a District
with a non-attainment area, both sanctions under section 179(b) would
apply after the expiration of the 18-month period until the
Administrator determines that the District has come into compliance.
For Districts with non-attainment areas, a second sanction would be
imposed if, six months after application of the first sanction, the
District still has not submitted a corrective program that EPA has
found complete.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\There are two sanctions available under sections 502
(d)(2)(B) and 179 (b) of the Act. The first is a prohibition on
highway funding and approvals and the second one is an increase in
the emissions offset ratio for new or modified sources. The latter
sanction is available only in areas designated non-attainment for
one or more criteria pollutant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If, following final interim approval, EPA disapproves the
District'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 the
District 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 a District
with a non-attainment area, both sanctions under section 179(b) would
apply after the expiration of the 18-month period until the
Administrator determines that the District has come into compliance.
For Districts with non-attainment areas, a second sanction would be
imposed if, six months after application of the first sanction, the
District still has not submitted a revised program that EPA has
determined corrects the deficiencies.
In addition, discretionary sanctions may be applied when warranted
any time after the end of an interim approval period if a District has
not timely submitted a complete corrective program or EPA has
disapproved a submitted corrective program. Moreover, if EPA has not
granted full approval to a District program by the expiration of an
interim approval and that expiration occurs after November 15, 1995,
EPA must promulgate, administer and enforce a Federal permits program
for that District upon interim approval expiration.
C. District Interim Approval Issues Common to All Nineteen Districts
In order to receive full approval for its part 70 program and rule,
each District must make the following changes:
(1) Provide a demonstration that activities that are exempt from
part 70 permitting are truly insignificant and are not likely to be
subject to an applicable requirement. Alternatively, the District may
restrict the exemptions (including any director's discretion
provisions) to activities that are not likely to be subject to an
applicable requirement and emit less than District-established emission
levels. The District should establish separate emission levels for HAPs
and for other regulated pollutants and demonstrate that these emission
levels are insignificant compared to the level of emissions from and
type of units that are required to be permitted or subject to
applicable requirements. This is a condition for full approval for all
Districts except for Mendocino County AQMD and Northern Sonoma County
APCD.
(2) Revise the exemption list to remove the general exemption for
agricultural production sources or to restrict the exemptions to non-
title V sources. Insignificant activities at agricultural production
sources may still be listed. This is a condition for full approval for
all District programs except for Great Basin Unified APCD and Lassen
County APCD which do not have general exemptions for agricultural
operations in their exemption lists and for Mendocino County which did
not provide a list of exempted activities.
(3) Revise the rule's application content requirements so that any
compliance schedule required by the rule for a source not in compliance
must resemble and be at least as stringent as that contained in any
judicial consent decree, administrative order, or schedule approved by
the hearing board to which the source is subject as required by
Sec. 70.5 (c)(4)(iii)(C) rather than simply a schedule of compliance
approved by the District's hearing board.
(4) Revise the rule's application content requirements to clarify
that all reports and other documents submitted in the permit
application must be certified by the responsible official as required
by Sec. 70.5 (d) and to provide the full text of the responsible
official's certification in Sec. 70.5 (d). This is an interim approval
issue for all Districts except Yolo-Solano AQMD whose rule already
requires this.
(5) Provide in the rule a permit application deadline for sources
that become subject to the District's part 70 rule after the rule's
effectiveness date for reasons other than commencing operation. This
deadline cannot be any later than 12 months after the source becomes
subject to the rule as required by Sec. 70.5 (a)(1). This is a
condition for full approval for all District programs except for
Northern Sierra AQMD and Yolo-Solano AQMD whose rules already contain
this deadline.
(6) Revise the rule's permit issuance procedures to provide for
notifying the EPA and affected States in writing of any refusal by the
District to accept all recommendations for the proposed permit that the
Affected State submitted during the public/Affected State review period
as required by Sec. 70.8 (b)(2).
(7) Incorporate in the rule provisions citing the right of the
public to petition EPA under Sec. 70.8 (d) after the expiration of the
EPA's 45-day review period and prohibiting the District from issuing a
permit, if it has not already done so, until the EPA's objections in
response to the petition are resolved as required by Sec. 70.8 (d).
(8) Revise the rule to provide for public notice of permitting
actions by other means if necessary to assure adequate notice to the
affected public as required by Sec. 70.7 (h)(1).
(9) Revise the rule's permit content requirements to clarify that
all reports and other documents required by the permit must be
certified by a responsible official as required by Sec. 70.6 (c)(1) and
to provide the full text of the responsible official's certification in
Sec. 70.5 (d).
(10) Revise the rule's permit content requirements to require that
any compliance schedule for a source not in compliance must resemble
and be at least as stringent as that contained in any judicial consent
decree, administrative order, or schedule approved by the hearing board
to which the source is subject as required by Secs. 70.6 (c)(3) and
70.5 (c)(8)(iii)(C). This is an interim approval issue for all
Districts except Yolo-Solano AQMD whose rule already provides for this.
(11) Revise the rule's permit content requirements to require the
submission of compliance certifications more frequently than annually
if a more frequent period is specified in the applicable requirement or
by the District as required by Sec. 70.6 (c)(5)(i). This is an interim
approval issue for all Districts except Yolo-Solano AQMD whose rule
already provides for this.
D. Basis for Source Category-Limited Interim Approval
California state law currently exempts agricultural production
sources from permit requirements (H.S.C. Sec. 42310 (e)); therefore,
the EPA is proposing to grant source category-limited interim approval
to the operating permits program of these nineteen Districts. At this
time, none of the Districts has identified any agricultural production
sources as potential title V sources. In order for these programs 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.
III. Individual District Interim Approval Issues
A. Amador County APCD
In addition to the interim approval issues noted above for all
Districts, the Amador District must make the following changes to its
part 70 rule, Rule 500--Procedures for Issuing Permits to Operate for
Sources Subject to Title V of the Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990, amended July 5, 1994, in order to receive full approval:
(1) Revise all deadlines for final permit action in Rule 500
V.C.4 (except for C.1. and C.5.) to be no later than the
appropriate number of months after the complete application is
received, rather than after the application is deemed to be complete,
as required by Secs. 70.4 (b)(11)(iii) and 70.7 (a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The EPA has cited specific sections of District rules and
regulations to illustrate appropriate places for making the
revisions/changes necessary for full approval. The District may,
however, revise other sections of their rules to satisfy the interim
approval issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Revise the definition of ``potential to emit'' in Rule 500
II.AA. to clarify that only federally-enforceable limitations may be
considered in determining a source's potential to emit.
(3) Revise Rule 500 V.I.2 and 3 to require notification by the
source of operational flexibility changes to both the EPA and the
District as required by Sec. 70.4 (b)(12).
(4) Revise the definition of ``affected state'' in Rule 500 II.C.
to allow for the treatment of Tribal Authorities as affected states if
the Authority request such treatment under the Tribal Air Regulations.
B. Butte County APCD
In addition to the interim approval issues noted above for all
Districts, the Butte District must make the following changes to its
part 70 rule, Rule 1101--Federal Operating Permits, adopted November 9,
1993, in order to receive full approval:
(1) Revise Rule 1101 V.C.6. to take final action on early reduction
applications within nine months of receipt of the complete application
rather than within nine months of the date the application was deemed
complete as required by Sec. 70.4 (b)(11)(iii).
(2) Revise Rule 1101 IV.B.4. to incorporate the compliance
provisions of Sec. 70.7 (e)(2)(v). Rule 1101 IV.B.4. allows the air
pollution control officer (APCO) to approve minor permit modifications
when the proposed permit revision is sent to EPA for review. While this
is allowed under Sec. 70.7 (e)(2)(v), Rule 1101 does not state, as does
Sec. 70.7 (e)(2)(v), that until the District takes final action to
issue or deny the requested permit modification or determines that it
is a significant modification, the source must comply with both the
applicable requirements governing the change and the proposed permit
terms and conditions, but the source need not comply with the existing
permit terms and conditions being modified. Rule 1101 should also be
revised to state that if the source fails to comply with the permit
terms and conditions in the requested modification, the existing permit
terms and conditions being modified may be enforced against it.
(3) Revise Rule 1101 IV.B.3. to limit the discretion of the APCO to
authorize sources to commence operations of significant permit
modifications prior to final permit action to when the changes meet the
criteria of Sec. 70.5 (a)(1)(ii). Rule 1101 IV.B.3. allows the APCO to
authorize sources to commence operations of significant permit
modifications when the proposed permit revision is publicly noticed but
prior to final permit action. Part 70 prohibits sources from making
significant permit modification changes prior to final permit issuance
unless the changes are subject to preconstruction review under section
112 (g) of the Act or preconstruction review programs approved into the
SIP pursuant to part C or D of title I of the Act, and the changes are
not otherwise prohibited by the source's existing part 70 permit. See
Sec. 70.5 (a)(1)(ii). The authority in Rule 1101 IV.B.3. is
discretionary with the APCO, and the EPA expects that the APCO will
exercise that authority during the interim approval period only where
the changes meet the criteria of Sec. 70.5 (a)(1)(ii).
C. Calaveras County APCD
The Calaveras District has no additional interim approval issues.
Calaveras' part 70 rule is Regulation X--Additional Procedures for
Issuing Permits to Operate for Sources Subject to Title V of the
Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, adopted August 29, 1994.
D. Colusa County APCD
In addition to the interim approval issues noted above for all
Districts, the Colusa District must make the following changes to its
part 70 rule, Rule 3.17--Permits to Operate for Sources Subject to
Title V of the Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, adopted
January 11, 1994, in order to receive full approval:
(1) Revise Rule 3.17 d.2.D. to incorporate the compliance
provisions of Sec. 70.7(e)(2)(v). Rule 3.17 d.2.D. allows the APCO to
approve minor permit modifications when the proposed permit revision is
sent to EPA for review. While this is allowed under Sec. 70.7(e)(2)(v),
Rule 3.17 does not state, as does Sec. 70.7(e)(2)(v), that until the
District takes final action to issue or deny the requested permit
modification or determines that it is a significant modification, the
source must comply with both the applicable requirements governing the
change and the proposed permit terms and conditions, but the source
need not comply with the existing permit terms and conditions being
modified. Rule 3.17 should also be revised to state that if the source
fails to comply with the permit terms and conditions in the requested
modification, the existing permit terms and conditions being modified
may be enforced against it.
(2) Revise Rule 3.17 d.2.C. to limit the discretion of the APCO to
authorize sources to commence operations of significant permit
modifications prior to final permit action to when the changes meet the
criteria of Sec. 70.5(a)(1)(ii). Rule 3.17 d.2.C. allows the APCO to
authorize sources to commence operations of significant permit
modifications when the proposed permit revision is publicly noticed but
prior to final permit action. Part 70 prohibits sources from making
significant permit modification changes prior to final permit issuance
unless the changes are subject to preconstruction review under section
112(g) of the Act or preconstruction review programs approved into the
SIP pursuant to part C or D of title I of the Act and the changes are
not otherwise prohibited by the source's existing part 70 permit. See
Sec. 70.5(a)(1)(ii). The authority in Rule 3.17 d.2.C. is discretionary
with the APCO, and the EPA expects that the APCO will exercise that
authority during the interim approval period only where the changes
meet the criteria of Sec. 70.5(a)(1)(ii).
E. El Dorado County APCD
In addition to the interim approval issues noted above for all
Districts, the El Dorado District must make the following changes to
its part 70 rule, Rule 522--Title V--Federal Operating Permit Program,
adopted November 2, 1993, in order to receive full approval:
(1) Revise Rule 522 to restrict the use of minor permit
modification procedures to be consistent with Sec. 70.7(e)(2)(i)(B).
Rule 522 by default allows minor permit modification procedures to be
used for those permit modifications that involve the use of economic
incentives, marketable permits, emissions trading, and other similar
approaches. Section 70.7(e)(2)(i)(B) constrains the use of the minor
permit modification procedures for these approaches only when minor
permit modification procedures are explicitly provided for in the
applicable implementation plan or in the applicable requirements
promulgated by the EPA.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\For most District programs addressed in this notice, EPA
considers this revision to be a recommended change because most
Districts do not and likely will not have economic incentives,
marketable permits, emission trading, and other similar approaches
as part of their applicable implementation plans. However, the El
Dorado, Feather River, Placer, and Yolo-Solano Districts are part of
the Sacramento ozone nonattainment area for which EPA will be
issuing a federal implementation plan (FIP) in early 1995. This FIP
may contain such approaches and programs. Because of the probability
that these areas will shortly have such programs as elements of
their application implementation plans, the EPA has raised this
issue from a recommended change to an interim approval issue for
these four Districts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Revise Rule 522's permit content requirements to provide that
every permit contain a provision stating that no permit revision shall
be required, under any approved economic incentives, marketable
permits, emissions trading, and other similar programs or processes for
changes that are provided for in the permit as required by
Sec. 70.6(a)(8). See footnote 5.
F. Feather River AQMD
In addition to the interim approval issues noted above for all
Districts, the Feather River must make the following changes to its
part 70 rule, Rule 10.3--Federal Operating Permits, adopted November
11, 1993, in order to receive full approval:
(1) Revise Rule 10.3 to restrict the use of minor permit
modification procedures to be consistent with Sec. 70.7(e)(2)(i)(B).
Rule 10.3 by default allows minor permit modification procedures to be
used for those permit modifications that involve the use of economic
incentives, marketable permits, emissions trading, and other similar
approaches. Section 70.7(e)(2)(i)(B) constrains the use of the minor
permit modification procedures for these approaches only when minor
permit modification procedures are explicitly provided for in the
applicable implementation plan or in the applicable requirements
promulgated by the EPA. See footnote 5.
(2) Revise Rule 10.3's permit content requirements to provide that
every permit contain a provision stating that no permit revision shall
be required, under any approved economic incentives, marketable
permits, emissions trading, and other similar programs or processes for
changes that are provided for in the permit as required by
Sec. 70.6(a)(8). See footnote 6.
(3) Revise Rule 10.3 D.2.c. to limit the discretion of the APCO to
authorize sources to commence operations of significant permit
modifications prior to final permit action to when the such changes
meet the criteria of Sec. 70.5(a)(1)(ii). Rule 10.3 D.2.c. allows the
APCO to authorize sources to commence operations of significant permit
modifications when the proposed permit revision is publicly noticed but
prior to final permit action. Part 70 prohibits sources from making
significant permit modification changes prior to final permit issuance
unless the changes are subject to preconstruction review under section
112(g) of the Act or preconstruction review programs approved into the
SIP pursuant to part C or D of title I of the Act and the changes are
not otherwise prohibited by the source's existing part 70 permit. See
Sec. 70.5(a)(1)(ii). The authority in Rule 10.3 D.2.c. is discretionary
with the APCO, and the EPA expects that the APCO will exercise that
authority during the interim approval period only where the change
meets the criteria of Sec. 70.5(a)(1)(ii).
G. Great Basin Unified APCD
In addition to the interim approval issues noted above for all
Districts, the Great Basin District must make the following changes to
its part 70 rule, Rule 217--Additional Procedures for Issuing Permits
to Operate for Sources Subject to Title V of the Federal Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990, adopted September 15, 1993, in order to receive
full approval:
(1) Revise Rule 217 IV.B.1.b. to delete the phrase ``or is
discovered to be subject.'' Rule 217 IV.B.1.b. establishes a deadline
for applications from sources which are ``discovered to be subject to
Rule 217 after the date the rule becomes effective.'' It is a source's
obligation to determine if it is or is not subject to title V and Rule
217. A source that is subject but fails to apply for a permit in the
appropriate timeframes is in violation of its Clean Air Act section
502(a) obligation to apply for a part 70 permit and is subject to
appropriate enforcement action. Discovery of a source that should have
applied for a part 70 permit at an earlier date should not
automatically provide that source twelve additional months to apply for
a permit. The period for permit application should be decided in the
context of the enforcement action against the source for failing to
apply for and/or have a valid part 70 permit.
(2) Revise all deadlines for final permit action in Rule 217 V.C.
(except for C.1. and C.5.) to be no later than the appropriate number
of months after the complete application is received, rather than after
the application is deemed complete, as required by Secs. 70.4
(b)(11)(iii) and 70.7 (a)(2).
(3) Revise Rule 217 V.I.2 and V.I.3.e. to require notification by
the source of operational flexibility changes to both the EPA and the
District as required by Sec. 70.4 (b)(12).
H. Imperial County APCD
In addition to the interim approval issues noted above for all
Districts, the Imperial District must make the following changes to its
title V program and rule, Rule 900--Procedures for Issuing Permits to
Operate for Sources Subject to Title V of the Federal Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990, adopted December 14, 1993, in order to receive full
approval:
(1) Revise Rule 900 E.3.f. to take final action on early reduction
applications within nine months of receipt of the complete application
rather than the date the application was deemed complete as required by
Sec. 70.4 (b)(11)(iii).
(2) Submit a complete Acid Rain Program consistent with 40 CFR part
72 and title IV of the Act.
(3) Revise Rule 900 E.9.b. and c. to require notification by the
source of operational flexibility changes to both the EPA and the
District as required by Sec. 70.4 (b)(11)(iii).
I. Kern County APCD
The Kern District has no additional interim approval issues. Kern's
part 70 rule is Rule 201.1--Permits to Operate for Sources Subject to
Title V of the Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, adopted
November 1, 1993.
J. Lassen County APCD
In addition to the interim approval issues noted above for all
Districts, the Lassen District must make the following changes to its
part 70 rule, Regulation VII--Permits to Operate for Sources Subject to
Title V of the Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, adopted
December 21, 1993, in order to receive full approval:
(1) Revise all deadlines for final permit action in Rule 7:5 c.
(except for c.1. and c.5.) to be no later than the appropriate number
of months after the complete application is received, rather than after
the application is deemed complete as required, by Secs. 70.4
(b)(11)(iii) and 70.7 (a)(2).
(2) Revise Rule 7:5 b.4. to clarify that the APCO's approval of a
minor permit modification prior to EPA's review is not a final permit
action. Rule 7:5 b.4. allows the APCO to approve minor permit
modifications changes prior to EPA's review; however,
Sec. 70.7(e)(2)(iv) precludes the District from issuing a final permit
modification until after EPA's review period or until EPA has notified
the District that EPA will not object, although the District may
approve the permit modification prior to that time.
(3) Revise Rule 7.5 b.4. to incorporate the compliance provisions
of Sec. 70.7 (e)(2)(v). Rule 7:5 b.4. allows the APCO to approve minor
permit modifications prior to the EPA's review. While this is allowed
under Sec. 70.7 (e)(2)(v), Regulation VII does not state, as does
Sec. 70.7 (e)(2)(v), that until the District takes final action to
issue or deny the requested permit modification or determines that it
is a significant modification, the source must comply with both the
applicable requirements governing the change and the proposed permit
terms and conditions, but the source need not comply with the existing
permit terms and conditions being modified. Regulation VII should also
be revised to state that if the source fails to comply with the permit
terms and conditions in the requested modification, the existing permit
terms and conditions being modified may be enforced against it.
(4) Revise Rule 7:5 b.3. to limit the discretion of the APCO to
authorize sources to commence operations of significant permit
modifications prior to final permit action to when the changes meet the
criteria of Sec. 70.5 (a)(1)(ii). Rule 7:5 b.3. allows the APCO to
approve significant permit modifications and the source to commence
operations of those modifications prior to the EPA's review and final
permit action. Part 70 prohibits sources from making significant permit
modification changes prior to final permit issuance unless the changes
are subject to preconstruction review under section 112 (g) of the Act
or preconstruction review programs approved into the SIP pursuant to
part C or D of title I of the Act and the changes are not otherwise
prohibited by the source's existing part 70 permit. See Sec. 70.5
(a)(1)(ii). The authority in Rule 7:5 b.3. is discretionary with the
APCO, and the EPA expects that the APCO will exercise that authority
during the interim approval period only where the changes meet the
criteria of Sec. 70.5 (a)(1)(ii).
(5) Revise Rule 7:6 i.2. and 3. to require notification by the
source of operational flexibility changes to both the EPA and the
District as required by Sec. 70.4 (b)(11)(iii).
K. Mendocino County APCD
In addition to the interim approval issues noted above for all
Districts, the Mendocino District must make the following changes to
its part 70 program and rule, Regulation 5--Procedures for Issuing
Permits to Operate for Sources Subject to Title V of the Federal Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990, adopted September 14, 1993, in order to
receive full approval:
(1) Revise all deadlines for final permit action in Regulation 5,
Rule 5.520 (except for (a) and (e)) to be no later than the appropriate
number of months after the complete application is received, rather
than after the application is deemed complete, as required by
Secs. 70.4 (b)(11)(iii) and 70.7 (a)(2).
(2) Revise Regulation 5, Rule 5.580 (b) and (c) to require
notification by the source of operational flexibility changes to both
the EPA and the District as required by Sec. 70.4 (b)(11)(iii).
(3) Restrict insignificant activities to those that are not likely
to be subject to an applicable requirement and emit less than District-
established emission levels. The District should establish separate
emission levels for HAPs and for other regulated pollutants and
demonstrate that these emission levels are insignificant compared to
the level of emissions from and type of units that are required to be
permitted or subject to applicable requirements.
L. Modoc County APCD
In addition to the interim approval issues noted above for all
Districts, the Modoc District must make the following changes to its
part 70 rule, Rule 2.13--Additional Procedures for Issuing Permits to
Operate for Sources Subject to Title V of the Federal Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990, adopted November 16, 1993, in order to receive full
approval:
(1) Revise all deadlines for final permit action in Rule 2.13 IV.C.
(except for C.1. and C.5.) to be no later than the appropriate number
of months after the complete application is received, rather than after
the application is deemed to be complete, as required by Secs. 70.4
(b)(11)(iii) and 70.7 (a)(2).
(2) Revise Rule 2.13 IV.B.4. to clarify that the APCO's approval of
a minor permit modification prior to EPA's review is not a final permit
action. Rule 2.13 IV.B.4. allows the APCO to approve minor permit
modifications changes prior to the EPA's review; however,
Sec. 70.7(e)(2)(iv) precludes the District from issuing a final permit
modification until after EPA's review period or until the EPA has
notified the District that EPA will not object, although the District
may approve the permit modification prior to that time.
(3) Revise Rule 2.13 IV.B.4. to incorporate the compliance
provisions of Sec. 70.7 (e)(2)(v). Rule 2.13 IV.B.4. allows the APCO to
approve minor permit modifications prior to the EPA's review. While
this is allowed under Sec. 70.7 (e)(2)(v), Rule 2.13 does not state, as
does Sec. 70.7 (e)(2)(v), that until the District takes final action to
issue or deny the requested permit modification or determines that it
is a significant modification, the source must comply with both the
applicable requirements governing the change and the proposed permit
terms and conditions, but the source need not comply with the existing
permit terms and conditions being modified. Rule 2.13 should also be
revised to state that if the source fails to comply with the permit
terms and conditions in the requested modification, the existing permit
terms and conditions being modified may be enforced against it.
(4) Revise Rule 2.13 IV.B.3. to limit the discretion of the APCO to
authorize sources to commence operations of significant permit
modifications prior to final permit action to when the changes meet the
criteria of Sec. 70.5 (a)(1)(ii). Rule 2.13 IV.B.3. allows the APCO to
approve significant permit modifications and the source to commence
operations of those modifications prior to the EPA's review and final
permit action. Part 70 prohibits sources from making significant permit
modification changes prior to final permit issuance unless the changes
are subject to preconstruction review under section 112 (g) of the Act
or preconstruction review programs approved into the SIP pursuant to
part C or D of title I of the Act and the changes are not otherwise
prohibited by the source's existing part 70 permit. See Sec. 70.5
(a)(1)(ii). The authority in Rule 2.13 IV.B.3. is discretionary with
the APCO, and the EPA expects that the APCO will exercise that
authority during the interim approval period only where the changes
meet the criteria of Sec. 70.5 (a)(1)(ii).
(5) Revise Rule 2.13 V.I.2 and V.I.3. to require notification by
the source of operational flexibility changes to both the EPA and the
District as required by Sec. 70.4 (b)(11)(iii).
M. North Coast Unified AQMD
In addition to the interim approval issues noted above for all
Districts, the North Coast District must make the following changes to
its part 70 rule, Regulation 5--Procedures for Issuing Permits to
Operate for Sources Subject to Title V of the Federal Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990, adopted December 12, 1993, in order to receive full
approval:
(1) Revise Regulation 5, Rule 520 (f) to take final action on early
reduction applications within nine months of receipt of the complete
application rather than the date the application was deemed complete as
required by Sec. 70.4 (b)(11)(iii).
(2) Submit a complete Acid Rain Program consistent with 40 CFR part
72 and title IV of the Act.
(3) Revise Regulation 5, Rule 580 (b) and (c) to require
notification by the source of operational flexibility changes to both
the EPA and the District as required by Sec. 70.4(b)(11)(iii).
N. Northern Sierra AQMD
The Northern Sierra District has no additional interim approval
issues. Northern Sierra's part 70 rule is Rule 522--Title V Federal
Operating Permits, adopted May 11, 1994.
O. Northern Sonoma County APCD
In addition to the interim approval issues noted above for all
Districts, the Northern Sonoma District must make the following changes
to its title V program and rule, Regulation 5--Procedures for Issuing
Permits to Operate for Sources Subject to Title V of the Federal Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990, adopted October 12, 1993, in order to
receive full approval:
(1) Revise all deadlines for final permit action in Rule 5.520
(except for (a) and (e)) to be no later than the appropriate number of
months after the complete application is received rather than after the
application is deemed complete as required by Secs. 70.4(b)(11)(iii)
and 70.7(a)(2).
(2) Revise Rule 5.580 (b) and (c) to require notification by the
source of operational flexibility changes to both the EPA and the
District as required by Sec. 70.4(b)(11)(iii).
(3) Revise Policy A-33A (Small Emission Source Exemptions) to state
that the APCO may not exempt from the requirement for permitting any
process, article, machine, equipment, device or contrivance at a title
V source if that process, etc. is subject to an applicable federal
requirement. Also, revise the Policy to restrict the exemptions
(including any director's discretion provisions) to activities that
emit less than District-established emission levels for HAPs. The
District should demonstrate that these emission levels are
insignificant compared to the level of emissions from and type of units
that are required to be permitted or subject to applicable
requirements.
P. Placer County APCD
In addition to the interim approval issues noted above for all
Districts, the Placer District must make the following changes to its
part 70 rule, Rule 507--Federal Operating Permit Program, adopted
October 19, 1993, in order to receive full approval:
(1) Revise the definition of Major Source, section 219 of Rule 507,
as follows:
(a) Revise section 219.1 to reference the ``major source''
definition in CAA section 112, rather than the CAA section 112
``source'' definition.
(b) Because ``source'' is not defined in Rule 507, revise section
219.2 to refer to a ``stationary source'' with a potential to emit,
rather than a ``source''.
(2) Revise section 302.6 of Rule 507 to limit the discretion of the
APCO to authorize sources to commence operations of significant permit
modifications prior to final permit action to when the changes meet the
criteria of Sec. 70.5(a)(1)(ii). Section 302.6 of Rule 507 allows the
APCO to authorize sources to commence operations of significant permit
modifications when the proposed permit is publicly noticed but prior to
final permit modification. Part 70 prohibits sources from making
significant permit modification changes prior to final permit issuance
unless the changes are subject to preconstruction review under section
112(g) of the Act or preconstruction review programs approved into the
SIP pursuant to part C or D of title I of the Act and the changes are
not otherwise prohibited by the source's existing part 70 permit. See
Sec. 70.5(a)(1)(ii). The authority in section 302.6 of Rule 507 is
discretionary with the APCO, and the EPA expects that the APCO will
exercise that authority during the interim approval period only where
the changes meet the criteria of Sec. 70.5(a)(1)(ii).
(3) Revise section 302.7 of Rule 507 to restrict the use of minor
permit modification procedures consistent with Sec. 70.7(e)(2)(i)(B).
Rule 507 by default allows minor permit modification procedures to be
used for those permit modifications that involve the use of economic
incentives, marketable permits, emissions trading, and other similar
approaches. Section 70.7(e)(2)(i)(B) constrains the use of the minor
permit modification procedures for these approaches only to when minor
permit modification procedures are explicitly provided for in the
applicable implementation plan or in the applicable requirements
promulgated by EPA. See footnote 5.
(4) Revise Rule 507's permit content requirements (section 402) to
provide that every permit contain a provision stating that no permit
revision shall be required, under any approved economic incentives,
marketable permits, emissions trading, and other similar programs or
processes for changes that are provided for in the permit as required
by Sec. 70.6(a)(8). See also footnote 5.
(5) Revise all deadlines for final permit action in section 401.3
of Rule 507 (except for a. and e.) to be no later than the appropriate
number of months after the complete application is received, rather
than after the application is deemed complete, as required by
Secs. 70.4(b)(11)(iii) and 70.7(a)(2).
(6) Revise section 401.9 of Rule 507 to require notification by the
source of operational flexibility changes to both the EPA and the
District as required by Sec. 70.4(b)(11)(iii).
Q. Siskiyou County APCD
In addition to the interim approval issues noted above for all
Districts, the Siskiyou District must make the following changes to its
part 70 rule, Rule 2.13--Additional Procedures for Issuing Permits to
Operate for Sources Subject to Title V of the Federal Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990, adopted October 26, 1993, in order to receive full
approval:
(1) Revise all deadlines for final permit action in Rule 2.13 IV.C.
(except for C.1. and C.5.) to be no later than the appropriate number
of months after the complete application is received, rather than after
the application is deemed complete, as required by
Secs. 70.4(b)(11)(iii) and 70.7(a)(2).
(2) Revise Rule 2.13 IV.B.4. to clarify that the APCO's approval of
a minor permit modification prior to EPA's review is not a final permit
action. Rule 2.13 IV.B.4. allows the APCO to approve minor permit
modifications changes prior to the EPA's review; however,
Sec. 70.7(e)(2)(iv) precludes the District from issuing a final permit
modification until after EPA's review period or until EPA has notified
the District that EPA will not object, although the District may
approve the permit modification prior to that time.
(3) Revise Rule 2.13 IV.B.4. to incorporate the compliance
provisions of Sec. 70.7(e)(2)(v). Rule 2.13 IV.B.4. allows the APCO to
approve minor permit modification changes prior to the EPA's review.
While this is allowed under Sec. 70.7(e)(2)(v), Rule 2.13 does not
state, as does Sec. 70.7(e)(2)(v), that until the District takes final
action to issue or deny the requested permit modification or determines
that it is a significant modification, the source must comply with both
the applicable requirements governing the change and the proposed
permit terms and conditions, but the source need not comply with the
existing permit terms and conditions being modified. Rule 2.13 should
also be revised to state that if the source fails to comply with the
permit terms and conditions in the requested modification, the existing
permit terms and conditions being modified may be enforced against it.
(4) Revise Rule 2.13 IV.B.3. to limit the discretion of the APCO to
authorize sources to commence operations of significant permit
modifications prior to final permit action to when the changes meet the
criteria of Sec. 70.5(a)(1)(ii). Rule 2.13 IV.B.3. allows the APCO to
approve significant permit modifications and the source to commence
operations of those modifications prior to the EPA's review and final
permit action. Part 70 prohibits sources from making significant permit
modification changes prior to final permit issuance unless the changes
are subject to preconstruction review under section 112(g) of the Act
or preconstruction review programs approved into the SIP pursuant to
part C or D of title I of the Act and the changes are not otherwise
prohibited by the source's existing part 70 permit. See
Sec. 70.5(a)(1)(ii). The authority in Rule 2.13 IV.B.3. with
discretionary to the APCO, and the EPA expects that the APCO will
exercise that authority during the interim approval period only where
the changes meet the criteria of Sec. 70.5(a)(1)(ii).
(5) Revise Rule 2.13 V.I.2 and V.I.3. to require notification by
the source of operational flexibility changes to both the EPA and the
District as required by Sec. 70.4(b)(11)(iii).
R. Tuolumne County APCD
In addition to the interim approval issues noted above for all
Districts, the Tuolumne District must make the following changes to its
part 70 rule, Rule 500--Additional Procedures for Issuing Permits to
Operate for Sources Subject to Title V of the Federal Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990, adopted September 28, 1993, in order to receive
full approval:
(1) Revise all deadlines for final permit action in Rule 500 V.C.
(except for C.1. and C.5.) to be no later than the appropriate number
of months after the complete application is received, rather than after
the application is deemed complete, as required by
Secs. 70.4(b)(11)(iii) and 70.7(a)(2).
(2) Revise the definition of ``potential to emit'' in Rule 500
II.Y. to clarify that only federally-enforceable limitations may be
considered in determining a source's potential to emit.
(3) Revise Rule 500 V.I.2 and 3 to require notification to the EPA
as well as the District by the source of operational flexibility
changes as required by Sec. 70.4(b)(11)(iii).
S. Yolo-Solano AQMD
In addition to the interim approval issues noted above for all
Districts, the Yolo-Solano District must make the following changes to
its title V, Rule 3.8--Additional Procedures for Issuing Permits to
Operate for Sources Subject to Title V of the Federal Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990, adopted January 26, 1994 as Rule 3.19 and
renumbered February 23, 1994, in order to receive full approval:
(1) Revise Rule 3.8 to restrict the use of minor permit
modification procedures consistent with Sec. 70.7(e)(2)(i)(B). Rule 507
by default allows minor permit modification procedures to be used for
those permit modifications that involve the use of economic incentives,
marketable permits, emissions trading, and other similar approaches.
Section 70.7(e)(2)(i)(B) constrains the use of the minor permit
modification procedures for these approaches only when minor permit
modification procedures are explicitly provided for in the applicable
implementation plan or in the applicable requirements promulgated by
the EPA. See footnote 5.
(2) Revise Rule 3.8's permit content requirements to provide that
every permit contain a provision stating that no permit revision shall
be required, under any approved economic incentives, marketable
permits, emissions trading, and other similar programs or processes for
changes that are provided for in the permit as required by
Sec. 70.6(a)(8). See also footnote 5.
IV. Approvals Under Section 112 of the Act
A. Implementation of 112(g) Upon Program Approval
As a condition of approval of its part 70 program, each District is
required to implement section 112(g) of the Act from the effective date
of its part 70 program. Imposition of case-by-case determinations of
maximum achievable control technology (MACT) or offsets under section
112(g) will require the use of a mechanism for establishing federally-
enforceable restrictions on a source-specific basis. The EPA is
proposing to approve each District's preconstruction permitting program
under the authority of title V and part 70 solely for the purpose of
implementing section 112(g) during the transition period between title
V approval and adoption of a District rule implementing EPA's section
112(g) regulations. The EPA believes this approval is necessary so that
each District has a mechanism in place to establish federally-
enforceable restrictions for section 112(g) purposes from the date of
part 70 approval. Although section 112(l) of the Act generally provides
the authority for approval of State and local air toxics programs,
title V and section 112(g) also provide authority for this limited
approval because of the direct linkage between implementation of
section 112(g) and title V. The scope of this approval is narrowly
limited to section 112(g), and does not confer or imply approval for
purposes of any other provision under the Act. If a District does not
wish to implement section 112(g) through its preconstruction permit
program and can demonstrate prior to final action to approve its part
70 program that an alternative means of implementing section 112(g)
exists, the EPA may approve the alternative instead.
This approval is for an interim period only, until such time as
each District is able to adopt regulations consistent with regulations
promulgated by EPA to implement section 112(g). Accordingly, EPA is
proposing to limit the duration of this approval to a reasonable time
following promulgation of section 112(g) regulations so that each
District, acting expeditiously, will be able to adopt regulations
consistent with the section 112(g) regulations. The EPA is proposing
here to limit the duration of this approval to 12 months following
promulgation by EPA of section 112(g) regulations. Comment is solicited
on whether 12 months is an appropriate period considering each
District's procedures for adoption of regulations.
B. Program for Delegation of Section 112 Standards as Promulgated
Requirements for approval of part 70 programs, specified in
Sec. 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 each
State's and/or local's program contain adequate authorities, adequate
resources for implementation, and an expeditious compliance schedule,
which are also requirements under part 70. Therefore, the EPA is also
proposing to grant approval under section 112(l)(5) and 40 CFR part
63.91 of each District's program for receiving delegation of section
112 standards that are unchanged from the Federal standards as
promulgated. California H.S.C. section 39658 provides for automatic
adoption by CARB of section 112 standards upon promulgation by EPA.
H.S.C. section 29666 requires that Districts then implement and enforce
these standards. Thus, when section 112 standards are automatically
adopted pursuant to Sec. 39658, each District 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 as part of the implementation agreement between
each District and EPA. This MOA is expected to be completed prior to
approval of the District's section 112(l) program for delegations of
section 112 standards as promulgated. This program applies to both
existing and future standards but is limited to sources covered by the
part 70 program.
V. Administrative Requirements
A. Request for Public Comments
The EPA is requesting comments on all aspects of this proposed
interim approval. Copies of the Districts' submittals and other
information relied upon for the proposed interim approval are contained
in a docket 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 proposed
interim approval and EPA's detailed analysis of each Program. The
principal purposes of the docket are:
(1) to allow interested parties a means to identify and locate
documents so that they can effectively participate in the approval/
disapproval process, and
(2) to serve as the record in case of judicial review.
The EPA will consider any comments received by January 9, 1995.
The docket number for this proposal is CA-MULTI-94-2-OPS. The
docket for each of the nineteen Districts is located in separate
section of this overall docket.
B. Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action from
Executive Order 12866 review.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
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.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Operating permits,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Dated: November 28, 1994.
John Wise,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-30214 Filed 12-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
