[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 24 (Monday, February 5, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4220-4224]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-2358]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 70
[OK-FRL-5407-9]
Clean Air Act Final Interim Approval of Operating Permits
Program; the State of Oklahoma
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final source category-limited interim approval.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is promulgating source category-limited interim
approval of the Operating Permits Program submitted by the Oklahoma
Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) for the State of Oklahoma
for the purpose of complying with Federal requirements for an
approvable State program to issue operating permits to all major
stationary sources, except any sources of air pollution over which an
Indian Tribe has jurisdiction, and to certain other sources.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 6, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the State's submittal and other supporting
information used in developing this source category-limited interim
approval are available for inspection during normal business hours at
the following location:
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Air Programs Branch
(6T-AN), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Program, 4545
North Lincoln Blvd, Suite 250, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105-3483.
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wm. Nicholas Stone, New Source Review
Section (6T-AN), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone (214) 665-7226.
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 (CAA or ``the Act'')), and implementing regulations
at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 70 require that States
develop and submit operating permits programs to the EPA by November
15, 1993, and that the 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 two years. If the EPA has not fully approved a program by two years
after November 15, 1993, or by the end of an interim program, it must
establish and implement a Federal program.
On March 10, 1995, the EPA proposed source category-limited interim
approval of the operating permits program for the State of Oklahoma.
See 60 Federal Register (FR) 13088 (March 10, 1995). The EPA received
comments on the proposal and compiled a Technical Support Document
which describes the operating permits program in greater detail. In
this document, the EPA is taking final action to promulgate source
category-limited interim approval of the operating permits program for
the State of Oklahoma.
II. Final Action and Implications
A. Analysis of State Submission
The State of Oklahoma submitted to the EPA, under a cover letter
from the Governor dated January 7, 1994, the State's operating permits
program. The submittal has adequately addressed all sixteen elements
required for full approval as discussed in part 70, with the exception
of seven interim issues listed in the proposal: (1) Revision of
Subchapter 8 to incorporate the new transition schedule included in the
Governor's request for source category-limited interim approval, (2)
regulation revision to make the definition of ``major source''
consistent with part 70, (3) revision of the regulation to make the
provisions for insignificant activities consistent with part 70, (4)
revision of the regulation to make the permit content provisions
consistent with part 70, (5) revision of the regulation to make the
provisions regarding standing for judicial review consistent with part
70, (6) revision of the regulation to make the administrative
amendments provisions consistent with part 70, and (7) submission of a
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for Subchapter 7 consistent
with Subchapter 8 and 40 CFR part 70.
The proposal noted three conditions that had to be met before the
EPA could complete the approval process. The State of Oklahoma has
adequately addressed each of these issues as shown below:
1. Acid Rain Incorporation by Reference
The State had not completed the rulemaking process for the acid
rain rules when the proposal was sent to publication. The State of
Oklahoma incorporated the acid rain rules by reference as an emergency
rule signed January 5, 1995. This provision appears at Oklahoma
Administrative Code (OAC) 252:100-8-6(i)(8) and became a permanent
rule, due to inaction by the Legislature, on March 29, 1995.
2. Request for Source Category-Limited Interim Approval
The Governor of Oklahoma, in a letter dated May 26, 1995, requested
source category-limited approval for the operating permits program. The
Executive Director of the ODEQ submitted a detailed transition schedule
in a letter dated January 23, 1995, for the source category-limited
interim approval.
3. Supplemental Attorney General's Opinion
The State of Oklahoma provided the EPA with a supplemental Attorney
General Opinion, dated June 23, 1995, which clarified the State's
interpretation of the criminal liability statute. The EPA required this
clarification to ensure that the criminal liability provision in the
State statute would not preclude daily fines up to $10,000 for on-going
violations.
The State of Oklahoma appropriately addressed all requirements
necessary to receive source category-limited interim approval of the
State operating permits
[[Page 4221]]
program pursuant to title V of the Act and 40 CFR part 70.
B. Response to Comments
Comments were received from six parties during the comment period
that ran from March 10, 1995, until April 10, 1995. Several of the
comments requested additional time so that comments could be made after
the Air Quality Council meeting on April 18, 1995. The EPA extended the
comment period until May 10, 1995, in a Federal Register document
published April 26, 1995. Three additional parties submitted comments
during the extension. Below is the EPA's response to comments received
on the proposed source category-limited interim approval for the
Oklahoma Operating Permits Program.
1. Section 112(g) Implementation
Comments were made that the EPA should reiterate its present
interpretation of section 112(g) as published in the Federal Register
on February 14, 1995.
The EPA concurs with the comment. The EPA proposed to approve the
State's preconstruction review program for the purpose of implementing
section 112(g) during the transition period before promulgation of a
Federal rule implementing section 112(g). This proposal was based in
part on an interpretation of the Act that would require sources to
comply with section 112(g) beginning on the date of approval of the
title V program, regardless whether the EPA had completed its section
112(g) rulemaking. The EPA has since revised this interpretation of the
Act in a Federal Register document published on February 14, 1995, 60
FR 8333. The revised interpretation postpones the effective date of
section 112(g) until after the EPA has promulgated a rule addressing
that provision. The revised notice sets forth in detail the rationale
for the revised interpretation.
The section 112(g) interpretive notice explains that the EPA is
still 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 the EPA will provide for any such additional delay in the final
section 112(g) rulemaking. Unless and until the EPA provides for such
an additional postponement of section 112(g), Oklahoma must be able to
implement section 112(g) during the transition period between
promulgation of the Federal section 112(g) rule and adoption of
implementing State regulations.
For this reason, the EPA is finalizing its approval of Oklahoma's
preconstruction review program. This approval clarifies that the
preconstruction review program is available as a mechanism to implement
section 112(g) during the transition period between promulgation of the
section 112(g) rule and adoption by Oklahoma of rules established to
implement section 112(g). However, since the approval is for the single
purpose of providing a mechanism to implement section 112(g) during the
transition period, the approval itself will be without effect if the
EPA decides in the final section 112(g) rule that sources are not
subject to the requirements of the rule until State regulations are
adopted. Further, the EPA is limiting the duration of this approval to
18 months following promulgation by the EPA of the section 112(g) rule.
The EPA believes that, although Oklahoma currently lacks a program
designed specifically to implement section 112(g), the State's
preconstruction review program will serve as an adequate implementation
vehicle during a transition period because it will allow Oklahoma to
select control measures that would meet the maximum achievable control
technology, as defined in section 112, and incorporate these measures
into a federally enforceable preconstruction permit.
2. Major Source Definition
Several comments questioned the EPA's position on the State's
definition of ``major source'' because it requires the State to revise
its definition to delete the non-aggregation provision for criteria
pollutants at oil & gas facilities. Some of the comments cited section
112(n)(4) of the Act and interpreted the Federal statute to mean that
emissions at oil and gas facilities cannot be aggregated.
The EPA does not agree with these comments. The EPA has required
the State to revise the non-aggregation provision for criteria
pollutants because, as written, the regulation could be interpreted to
allow non-aggregation of criteria pollutants at oil and gas facilities.
Section 112 of the Act applies only to hazardous air pollutants and no
similar non-aggregation provision is found in title V of the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990 for criteria pollutants at oil and gas
facilities. Without this required change, the definition of ``major
source'' will also be inconsistent with the definition of ``major
source'' at 40 CFR 52.21 which contains the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) requirements.
3. Insignificant Activities
Several comments complained that EPA's approval of an insignificant
activities list would limit State discretion. The comments also noted
that the State should maintain this list as a guidance document and not
as a part of the regulations. Further, comments were made that the
insignificant emissions level of 10% of the permit limit or major
source threshold was consistent with State law. Some of the comments
noted that measurement equipment often has a 10% margin of error and
that the current regulation is consistent with the limits of the
equipment used. One comment suggested that the EPA complete formal
rulemaking before imposing an insignificant emissions level.
The EPA does not agree with these comments. Regarding the need for
prior approval by the EPA, the rule at 40 CFR 70.5(c) clearly requires
the Administrator's approval of the State's insignificant activities
list. Contrary to one individual's comment, even though insignificant
activities are not a required element of a part 70 program, a State
that opts to establish such activities must nevertheless meet certain
requirements, including prior approval by the EPA. Though this list
does not have to be a part of the regulations, the EPA must approve it
to assure that all applicable requirements are met and that consistency
among the various states is maintained. The insignificant activities
list may exist as a guidance document and not as part of the State
regulations, provided, of course, that this will allow for its
effective implementation as a matter of State law. However, the list
and any changes to the list must be submitted to the EPA for review and
approval before they can be federally recognized.
The EPA plans to issue guidance addressing activities that it
considers ``trivial'' in the sense that they never implicate applicable
requirements. Such activities can be exempted from permit applications
without the need for prior EPA approval. The State may act consistent
with this guidance. However, activities that are ``insignificant'' (as
opposed to ``trivial'') because they are not clearly unrelated to
applicable requirements, must first be approved by the EPA.
Another element of the EPA's proposed approval was that the State
eliminate the provision defining as insignificant increases in
emissions less than 10 percent of a permit limit or 10
[[Page 4222]]
percent of the baseline potential to emit. The EPA continues to believe
that defining insignificance levels relative to percentages of
permitted limits or potential emissions is inappropriate, because it
can result in increases being deemed insignificant that are large
enough to trigger New Source Review (NSR) or other applicable
requirements. In addition, use of a percentage of permit limits could
be read to imply that sources may exceed those limits without incurring
liability. Title V provides no authorization for this.
Several comments suggested that the State's insignificance levels
should be approved because the equipment used to monitor emissions has
a 10 percent margin of error. These comments misunderstand the role of
insignificant activities. Insignificant activities or levels are not
relevant to determining compliance with applicable requirements. The
limits of verifiability for any particular emissions limits are
therefore irrelevant to the EPA's approval of insignificant emissions
limits.
Comments also asserted, with regard to the 10% levels discussed
above, that these limits are additive to the 1 pound per hour (lb/hr)
limits established for individual emissions units, and serve to limit
the accumulation of exempted emissions units across an entire facility.
While the establishment of ``tiered'' insignificance levels at the
emissions unit and facility-wide level could be approvable (provided
the levels were acceptable), the EPA does not read the State's rule to
effect this result. Section 252:100-8-3(e)(3) defines as insignificant,
``in addition'' to units qualifying under 252:100-8-3(e) (1) or (2),
any ``individual or combination of air emissions sources'' that is
below the 10 percent levels. This provision might be redrafted to make
clear that the 10 percent level does not supersede the 1 lb/hr and de
minimis levels for individual emissions units. However, the EPA
maintains that use of percentage levels for determining insignificant
activities is inappropriate.
The EPA proposed that the 1 lb/hr level on insignificant activities
for individual emissions units was excessive, and further proposed that
the State could obtain full approval by changing this to a limit on
potential, rather than actual emissions. One comment stated that the
EPA lacks authority to reject the State's limits, and moreover cannot
impose a specific emissions level except through rulemaking.
The EPA has authority under part 70 to reject insignificance levels
that will interfere with the permitting authority's ability to
determine and impose applicable requirements. Oklahoma has not
attempted to show that the 1 lb/hr limit will not so interfere with
this obligation. In the absence of such a demonstration, the EPA must
exercise its judgement in light of applicable requirements. The EPA has
serious concerns in this regard with the 1 lb/hr limit. The EPA agrees
that it cannot impose a specific limit except through rulemaking. The
EPA is stating here that it will fully approve a 1 lb/hr limit based on
potential to emit. No comments objected to this. It will also approve a
higher threshold if the State demonstrates that the level is in fact
insignificant.
4. Permit Content Language
Some comments questioned the EPA's requirement that the State
delete the phrase ``to the extent practicable'' from the regulation's
requirement at OAC 252:100-8-6 that the permit include all applicable
requirements. It was noted that some industries are concerned about
applicable requirements which become effective after the application
but before permit issuance would be included in the permit.
The EPA does not agree with these comments. The rule at 40 CFR
70.6(a)(1) requires the permit to contain emission limitations and
standards, including those operational requirements and limitations
that assure compliance with all applicable requirements at the time of
permit issuance. Therefore, if an applicable requirement becomes
effective after the application is determined complete, the draft
permit must reflect the new requirement.
The EPA notes that it has proposed a revision to part 70 which
would allow States flexibility in dealing with requirements promulgated
near permit issuance. See 59 FR 44519 (August 29, 1994). Even under
this proposed approach, however, the State rule would not be fully
approvable, because the phrase ``to the extent practicable'' is
unbounded.
5. Administrative Amendment Language
Comments were made that it was inappropriate for the EPA to
disallow less frequent monitoring than was originally in the permit via
the State's administrative amendment procedure at OAC 252:100-8-
7(d)(1)(C).
The EPA does not agree with these comments. Although section
70.7(d)(1)(vi) allows the EPA to approve provisions for administrative
amendments similar to those specified in part 70, less frequent
monitoring is not sufficiently similar. Administrative amendments are
appropriate for incorporation of actions that do not require a case by
case judgement. Switching to more frequent monitoring or reporting will
always be more stringent, and therefore does not require case by case
approval. However, switching to less frequent monitoring has the
potential to adversely impact the enforceability of a requirement, and
would therefore need to be reviewed on a case by case basis through a
minor or significant permit modification.
Another comment noted that the proposed revisions to part 70, see
FR 44519 (August 29, 1994), would allow changes using the Oklahoma NSR
procedures that would satisfy the requirements of part 70. If the
Oklahoma regulation meets the requirements of part 70 after the
revision is promulgated, then the State would not be required to change
the regulation.
6. Judicial Review for Oral Comments
One comment was made requesting clarification of the EPA's
requirement that the State regulations assure that review is available
for comments made at hearings. The comment asserted that the State's
rule is consistent with general administrative law, which the
individual commenting believes requires a written record of oral
comments.
The EPA disagrees with this comment. Section 502(b)(6) of the Act
and section 70.4(b)(3)(x) do not distinguish participation in a public
comment period through oral as opposed to written comments. The
requirement that Oklahoma delete the word ``written'' from OAC 252:100-
8-7(j)(2)(A) was made to ensure that all comments would be covered
under the judicial review provisions of subchapter 8 of the State's
regulations. Though written records of comments made at public hearings
are normally made in Oklahoma, removal of the word ``written'' will
make the regulation clear so that judicial review is available to all
those who comment.
The EPA has elsewhere found a lack of standing to be grounds for
program disapproval. See 59 FR 62324, December 5, 1994, (Virginia). The
standing deficiency in the Virginia title V program is considerably
more far-reaching than that noted here. Regarding the need for written
comments, citizens wishing to comment on permits in Oklahoma, if they
are aware of the provision at issue, may reduce their comments to
writing so as to avoid the potential bar to judicial review. The bar to
standing in the Virginia program is not so easily avoided.
Oklahoma's other judicial review deficiency is that the State's
regulations
[[Page 4223]]
are unclear as to whether judicial review is available for minor
modifications and administrative amendments. The EPA is requiring the
State to clarify that such review is available.
The seriousness of the deficiencies regarding judicial review in
Oklahoma is minor relative to those identified for Virginia, and so
does not merit full disapproval. In addition, Oklahoma has not
indicated any reluctance to change its rules as necessary to obtain
full approval on these issues. Therefore, the EPA is granting interim
approval for the Oklahoma program.
7. Variance Provisions
A comment was made objecting to the EPA's position that variance
provisions under State statute may not apply to title V permits unless
title V processes are followed.
The EPA does not agree with this comment. As discussed in the
proposed notice, the EPA recognizes the State's statutory authority to
grant variances as a matter of State law. However, 40 CFR part 70 does
not allow States to grant variances from title V requirements. The EPA
recognizes that title V permits may include compliance schedules for
sources which are out of compliance with applicable requirements.
However, such measures to bring a source into compliance are not the
same as variances, which normally provide a complete exemption from a
requirement. The EPA also recognizes that Oklahoma may exercise
enforcement discretion when addressing permit violations, but this,
likewise, is not analogous to the issuance of variances.
8. Fee Demonstration
One comment was received in support of the proposed annual fee of
$15.19 per ton. No adverse comments were received on the proposed fee.
The EPA has concluded that the fee proposed in the workload analysis
and fee demonstration of $15.19 per ton per year will be adequate to
fund the title V program in the State of Oklahoma. The EPA will, as
part of its oversight role, review the program periodically to ensure
that adequate funding is maintained.
9. Phased Application Schedule
Several comments requested that the State of Oklahoma utilize a
phased application schedule during the transition period.
The EPA concurs with these comments. The State has, under the
signature of the Governor, requested source category-limited interim
approval. This form of approval provides a one-year time period for the
submission of applications to be permitted during the two year interim
approval period. Then, the State has another one-year time period for
the submission of all other applications to be permitted during the
first three years of full approval. In this way, all sources will be
permitted within five years after approval with the sources submitting
applications in two phases.
C. Final Action
The EPA is promulgating source category-limited interim approval of
the operating permits program submitted by the State of Oklahoma on
January 12, 1994. The State must make the following changes to receive
full approval:
1. Revise Subchapter 8 To Include Transition Schedule
The State must revise subchapter 8 to reflect a transition schedule
providing for permitting certain sources during the two year interim
approval period and then permitting all other sources during the first
three years of full approval. This revision was signed by the Governor
as an emergency and permanent rule on November 4, 1995. During the
interim approval period the State will submit the revised regulation as
part of the corrected program.
2. Revise Subchapter 8 Definition of ``Major Source''
The language at OAC 252:100-8-2 must be revised to clarify that for
criteria pollutants, units cannot be considered separately at a
facility when determining a source is major.
3. Revise Subchapter 8 Insignificant Activities Provisions
The State must revise OAC 252:100-8-3(e) to reflect an
insignificant emissions level of 1 lb/hr of operation, based on
potential to emit, or such other level as the State may demonstrate is
insignificant with respect to applicable requirements.
4. Revise Subchapter 8 Permit Content Language
The language at OAC 252:100-8-6(a) must be revised to delete the
phrase, ``to the extent practicable.''
5. Revise Subchapter 8 Judicial Review Provisions
The language at OAC 252:100-8-7(j) must be revised to provide
judicial review for comments made during public review and provide
judicial review for all final permit actions.
6. Revise Subchapter 8 Administrative Amendment Provisions
The language at OAC 252:100-8-7(d) must be revised to delete the
phrase ``or less'' from subpart (1)(d) and be amended to define the
term ``Enhanced NSR procedures'' consistent with part 70.
7. Submission of a SIP Revision for Subchapter 7
The State must revise subchapter 7 consistent with subchapter 8 and
40 CFR part 70. This revised regulation must be submitted as a SIP
revision within 18 months after interim approval is granted to ensure
consistency between the SIP and title V for major sources.
The scope of the Oklahoma part 70 program approved in this notice
applies to all part 70 sources (as defined in the approved program)
within the State of Oklahoma, except any sources of air pollution over
which an Indian Tribe has jurisdiction. See, e.g., 59 FR 55813, 55815-
18 (November 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 (August 25,
1994); 58 FR 54364 (October 21, 1993).
This interim approval, which may not be renewed, extends until
March 5, 1998. During this interim approval period, the State of
Oklahoma is protected from sanctions, and the EPA is not obligated to
promulgate, administer, and enforce a Federal operating permits program
in the State of Oklahoma. Permits issued under a program with source
category-limited interim approval have full standing with respect to
part 70, and the one year time period for submittal of permit
applications by subject sources begins upon the effective date of this
interim approval. The State will issue permits to these sources during
the interim approval period and then have an additional one year time
period for application submittal of all remaining sources. The State
will issue permits to all remaining sources during the first three
years after full approval.
If Oklahoma fails to submit a complete corrective program for full
approval by September 5, 1997, the EPA will start an 18-month clock for
mandatory sanctions. If Oklahoma then fails to submit a corrective
program that the EPA finds complete before the
[[Page 4224]]
expiration of that 18-month period, the EPA will apply sanctions as
required by section 502(d)(2) of the Act, which will remain in effect
until the EPA determines that the State of Oklahoma has corrected the
deficiency by submitting a complete corrective program.
If the EPA disapproves Oklahoma's complete corrective program, the
EPA will apply sanctions as required by section 502(d)(2) on the date
18 months after the effective date of the disapproval, unless prior to
that date Oklahoma has submitted a revised program and the EPA has
determined that it corrected the deficiencies that prompted the
disapproval.
In addition, discretionary sanctions may be applied where warranted
any time after the expiration of an interim approval period if the
State of Oklahoma has not timely submitted a complete corrective
program or the EPA has disapproved its submitted corrective program.
Moreover, if the EPA has not granted full approval to the Oklahoma
program by the expiration of this interim approval and that expiration
occurs after November 15, 1995, the EPA must promulgate, administer and
enforce a Federal permits program for the State of Oklahoma upon
interim approval expiration.
Requirements for approval, specified in 40 CFR 70.4(b), encompass
section 112(l)(5) requirements for approval of a program for delegation
of section 112 standards as promulgated by the EPA as they apply to
part 70 sources. Section 112(l)(5) requires that the State'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 promulgating approval under
section 112(l)(5) and 40 CFR 63.91 of the State's program for receiving
delegation of section 112 standards that are unchanged from Federal
standards as promulgated. This program for delegations only applies to
sources covered by the part 70 program.
III. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
Copies of the State's submittal and other information relied upon
for the final source category-limited interim approval, including the
thirteen public comment letters received and reviewed by the EPA on the
proposal, are contained in docket number OPP-6-9-1 maintained at the
EPA Regional Office. The docket is an organized and complete file of
all the information submitted to, or otherwise considered by, the EPA
in the development of this final source category-limited interim
approval. The docket is available for public inspection at the location
listed under the ADDRESSES section of this document.
B. Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action from
Executive Order 12866 review.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The EPA's actions under section 502 of the Act do not create any
new requirements, but simply address operating permits programs
submitted to satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR part 70. Because this
action does not impose any new requirements, it does not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates
Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, the 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, the 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 the EPA to establish a
plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
The 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 preexisting requirements under State or local law, and imposes
no new Federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State,
local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from
this action.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Operating permits,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: January 11, 1996.
Jane N. Saginaw,
Regional Administrator (6A).
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 the entry for the
State of Oklahoma in alphabetical order to read as follows:
Appendix A to Part 70--Approval Status of State and Local Operating
Permits Programs
* * * * *
Oklahoma
(a) The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality submitted its
operating permits program on January 12, 1994, for approval. Source
category--limited interim approval is effective on March 6, 1996.
Interim approval will expire March 5, 1998. The scope of the approval
of the Oklahoma part 70 program excludes all sources of air pollution
over which an Indian Tribe has jurisdiction.
(b) Reserved
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-2358 Filed 2-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
