[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 24, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18083-18088]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10094]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 70
[AD-FRL-5460-9]
Clean Air Act Final Interim Approval of the Federal Operating
Permits Program; San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control
District
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final Interim Approval.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is promulgating interim approval of the Operating
Permits Program submitted by the California Air Resources Board on
behalf of the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District
for the purpose of complying with Federal requirements which mandate
that States develop, and submit to EPA, programs for issuing operating
permits to all major stationary sources, and to certain other sources.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 24, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the District's submittal and other supporting
[[Page 18084]]
information used in developing the proposed interim approval including
the Technical Support Document with response to comments are available
for inspection during normal business hours at the following location:
Operating Permits Section, A-5-2, Air and Toxics Division, U.S. EPA-
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frances Wicher, (415) 744-1250,
Operating Permits Section, A-5-2, Air and Toxics Division, U.S. EPA-
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background and purpose
A. Introduction
Title V of the Clean Air Act (the Act), and implementing
regulations at 40 CFR part 70 require that States develop and submit
operating permits programs to EPA by November 15, 1993, and that EPA
act to approve or disapprove each program within 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, EPA
may grant the program interim approval for a period of up to 2 years.
On November 1, 1995, EPA proposed interim approval of the operating
permits program for the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution
Control District (San Joaquin Valley or District). See 60 FR 55516. The
EPA received comments on the proposal and has summarized its response
to the major comments in this notice and has fully responded to all
comments in the Technical Support Document (TSD) accompanying this
rulemaking. The TSD also describes the operating permits program in
greater detail. In this notice, EPA is taking final action to
promulgate interim approval of the operating permits program for San
Joaquin Valley.
In the November 1, 1995 proposal, EPA also proposed approval of the
San Joaquin Valley's Rule 2530 Federally Enforceable Potential to Emit
as a revision to San Joaquin Valley portion of the California State
Implementation Plan and under section 112(l) of the Act. In a separate
notice, EPA has taken final action to approve Rule 2530.
II. Final Action and Implications
A. Response to Comments
EPA received comments from four groups during the comment period:
Caufield Enterprises (an independent oil producer in the southern San
Joaquin Valley), the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA),
Chevron, and the San Joaquin Valley District. EPA's response to the
major comments is summarized below. A full response to each comment is
in the TSD.
1. Stationary Source Definition
The District's title V program defines stationary source by
combining elements of part 70's definitions of ``major source'' and
``stationary source.'' The District's definition of stationary source,
which is common to both its title V program and its new source review
program, contains a provision applicable to any facility located
totally within the Western or Central Kern County Oil Fields or the
Fresno County Oil Field that is used for the production of light oil,
heavy oil or gas. This provision states that all sources under common
control or ownership within each field shall be considered a single
stationary source even if they are located on non-contiguous or
adjacent properties. This provision is more stringent than part 70;
however, the section also states that light oil production, heavy oil
production, and gas production shall constitute separate stationary
sources. Part 70's definition of ``major source'' requires aggregating
all emission points that belong to the same Major Group as described in
the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Manual. See Sec. 70.2
``Major source.'' Light oil production, heavy oil production and gas
production are all in the same Major Group. EPA proposed as an interim
approval issue that the District either revise the SIC code exemption
in its definition of stationary source or show that it is as stringent
as part 70.
The District stated that changing the definition of stationary
source from its historic usage in the new source review (NSR) program
would complicate permitting actions under title V. The District also
provided data that few emission units (and few emissions) would be
added to the program compared to the number of the units and emissions
that would be lost from the program if part 70's definition were used
to determine applicability. WSPA and Chevron also raised concerns
regarding changing from the historic NSR definition of stationary
source.
EPA has reviewed the information provided by the San Joaquin
District on the number and type of additional emission units that would
be included should the District change to EPA's definition of major
source. These units are relatively few in number, have insignificant
emissions, are attached to otherwise major sources, and would for the
most part qualify for treatment as insignificant activities or
insignificant emission units. Overall, San Joaquin Valley's definition
of stationary source is neither inconsistent with nor less stringent
than EPA's definition of major source; therefore, EPA is removing the
proposed interim approval issue regarding it.
Caufield Enterprises commented that the District's part 70 program
as proposed is in conflict with the Clean Air Act because both section
502 of the Act and Sec. 70.2 define a major source to be a contiguous
source while San Joaquin Valley's program combines non-contiguous
properties into a single source. The commenter stated that it was
immaterial whether this provision is stricter or less strict than
federal law since it was the intent of Congress to implement the title
V program uniformly throughout the United States and that allowing the
District to use a different definition for stationary source and major
source for title V permitting is inconsistent with this intent.
EPA believes that it is the intent of Congress to require states to
implement operating permit programs that all contain certain minimum
elements. See section 502(b). EPA also believes that Congress did not
intend to bar States from establishing additional permitting
requirements provided that those requirements were not inconsistent
with the Act. See section 506(a).
While it is true that section 501(2) of the Act defines major
source as ``any stationary source (or group of stationary sources
located within a contiguous area and under common control) * * * '',
this definition serves to define the sources Congress, at a minimum,
intended to be included in the program. The definition of major source
in section 501(2) does not define the only sources that a state may
include in its operating permit program. Clearly, states are allowed to
include a broader range of sources in their programs than the Act
nominally requires.
San Joaquin Valley's definition of major source (which encompasses
its definition of stationary source in its NSR program) differs from
the definition of major source in section 501(2) by grouping all
sources within an oil field that are under common control or ownership
regardless of whether the sources are on contiguous or adjacent
properties. This provision of San
[[Page 18085]]
Joaquin's stationary source definition will bring into its part 70
program more sources than EPA's definition. On the other hand, the
provision does not effectively exclude any sources subject to title V
under the federal definition. As a result, the non-contiguous and non-
adjacent requirement in San Joaquin Valley's definition constitutes an
additional permitting requirement that is not inconsistent with the Act
and is allowed by section 506(a) of the Act.
2. Permit Terms for Model General Permits and Model General Permit
Templates
Chevron, WSPA, and the District commented that model general
permits and model general permit templates should not be required to
have permit terms of five years or less as proposed in interim approval
issue 9. All three commenters recommended that these model permits have
indefinite terms and require revision only when an applicable
requirement changes or needs to be added. WSPA and Chevron noted that
if EPA or the District believes that a correction is needed in a model
permit/template then they have the ability to effect such a change and
modify all associated permits.
Title V and part 70 requires all elements of part 70 permits,
whether or not they are based on model permits or permit templates, to
undergo public, affected state, and EPA review at least once every five
years. Rule 2520 sections 11.3.8, 11.7.6 and 11.7.7 limit public and
EPA comment to the applicability of the permit/template to a source and
thus prohibit public or EPA comment on the internal elements of a model
permit/template after that model permit/template is issued. In effect,
these provisions of the Rule bar regular public, affected state, and
EPA review of the conditions and terms of a source's part 70 permit
that are based on a model permit/template. The ability to comment on
the applicability of a model general permit or permit template does not
replace the ability to comment on the internal elements of that permit
because not all issues will be ones of applicability. Hence there is a
need to provide some mechanism to assure regular public, affected
state, and EPA review of the model general permits and permit
templates. Therefore, EPA is retaining this interim approval issue.
In reviewing this issue, EPA did determine that it is not necessary
that the model general permits/permit templates to contain five-year
permit terms but rather that the District's part 70 program provide
some mechanism that requires regular public, affected state, and EPA
review of the internal provisions of each model general permit or
permit template at least once every five years. EPA, therefore, has
revised the interim approval issue.
EPA does not argue with the commenters that EPA has the ability to
reopen model permits/templates when necessary, but this ability does
not replace the requirement for regular public and affected state
review. EPA would also note that regulatory changes are not the sole
reason why model general permits/permit templates may need to be
changed.
3. Permit Shield Provision for General Permits and Permit Templates
Proposed interim approval issue 15 required that Rule 2520 be
revised to state, as required by Sec. 70.6(d), that, notwithstanding
the permit shield provisions, if a source that is operating under a
general permit is later determined not to qualify for the terms and
conditions of that general permit, then the source is subject to
enforcement action for operation without a part 70 permit. The District
declined to revise Rule 2520 to add this language arguing it was
unnecessary because its general permit provisions are more stringent
than part 70. The District noted that any general permit obtained by a
source under Rule 2520 would include qualification criteria and the
applicable requirements, thus any deviation from the general permit
should be treated like any other part 70 permit violation.
EPA agrees that the District's general permit provisions are
different from the provisions in part 70 in that the District's program
gives each source a part 70 permit derived from the model general
permit rather than issuing one permit that applies to multiple sources.
EPA, however, is retaining this interim approval issue.
At issue is not whether a source is complying with the terms of its
permit but rather whether the permit the source has is the correct
permit for that source. A source that applies to use a model general
permit and receives a permit based on that model when it does not
qualify is not substantially different from a source that fails to
apply for and receive any permit because both sources do not have
permits applicable to them. The former source may appear to have a
permit and may appear to comply with some of the terms of that permit,
but, because the permit was not crafted for that source, there is in
fact no valid permit with which to comply. The source should be treated
as operating without a part 70 permit rather than not operating in
compliance with a part 70 permit.
Chevron and WSPA requested clarification that this interim approval
issue does not carry over into the application and use of general
permit templates. The commenters noted that a general permit template
is only a partial coverage for certain emission units. The commenters
also recommended extending this concept to general permits in cases
where the non-applicability represents failure to properly manage
change at the facility, in contrast to a misrepresentation of the
source at the time of permit application.
EPA agrees with the commenters and has clarified the interim
approval issue. If a general permit template is later determined not to
be applicable to the sources then the emission units or the portion of
the facility that was covered by the terms of the general permit
template would be subject to enforcement action for operating without a
title V permit and the balance of the facility, where the permit
remains in force, would not be subject to the enforcement action.
EPA does not believe there is any need to extend this concept to
general permits where the source modifies so as to no longer qualify
for the general permit. EPA interprets the requirement in Sec. 70.6(d)
to apply only to sources that misrepresented their qualifications for a
general permit at the time of initial issuance or renewal.
4. Other Comments
The District addressed each of EPA's 17 proposed interim approval
issues and in most cases stated it would propose language changes to
Rule 2520 to address the interim approval issue. EPA appreciates the
District's responses on these issues. For several interim approval
issues, the District stated that it did not believe Rule revisions were
warranted. These issues are discussed below. Please note that the issue
numbers reflect those in the proposal and not the revised numbering in
this notice.
Interim Approval Issue 9: Clarify minor source applicability. The
District believes that section 2.4 of Rule 2520 clearly applies only to
area sources and that it is not necessary to clarify the sentence in
section 2.4 that ``[o]nly the affected emissions units within the
stationary source shall be subject to part 70 permitting requirements''
applies only to stationary sources that are also area sources. The
District noted that any major source subject to an NSPS would be
subject to title V permitting by its major source status.
EPA agrees with the District that any major source regulated under
an NSPS or section 112 standard would be
[[Page 18086]]
subject to the District's rule under the major source requirement in
section 2.3 of Rule 2520; however, it is also true that such a source
would also be subject to Rule 2520 under the ``subject to an NSPS or
112 standard'' requirement in section 2.4. In fact, it will be common
for sources to be subject to the District's rule on a number of grounds
(e.g., a major source subject to an NSPS). Therefore, the exclusivity
of section 2.4 to area sources is not inherent in the rule. In
addition, section 2.4 of Rule 2520 parallels the language of
Sec. 70.3(a)(3) which reads ``any source, including an area source,
subject to a standard * * *''. EPA does not interpret Sec. 70.3(a)(3)
to apply only to area sources and would not agree that section 2.4
applies only to area sources. EPA is therefore retaining this interim
approval issue.
Interim Approval Issue 10: Review and public notice municipal waste
incinerator permits every five years, even in the event that permit
expiration may be every 12 years. The District noted that
Sec. 70.6(a)(2) does require that the District review permits for
municipal waste incinerators every five years, but it does not require
public notice and comment.
Part 70 does not fully repeat the Act's requirement that title V
permits for municipal waste incinerators be subject to public review
every five years. The requirement is a provision of section 129(e) of
the Act and not of title V. Section 129(e) of the Act requires that all
municipal waste incinerators obtain title V permits and that those
permits may have a permit term of up to 12 years, shall be reviewed
every 5 years, and shall remain in effect until the date of
termination, unless EPA or the permitting authority determines that the
unit is not in compliance with all standards and conditions contained
in the permit. Under section 129(e), such determination shall be made
at regular intervals during the term of the permit, such intervals not
to exceed five years, and only after public comment and public hearing.
Based on the explicit language of section 129(e) requiring public
comment and hearing, EPA is retaining this interim approval issue.
Interim Approval Issue 12: Allow trading of emission increases and
decreases without a case-by-case review to the extent allowed by an
applicable requirement, and not merely those allowed by Rule 2301. The
District commented that District Rule 2301, ``Emission Reduction Credit
Banking'' states that the rule is applicable to all transfers or uses
of emission reduction credits in the San Joaquin Valley, and that the
District does not propose to change this provision. The District also
commented that the permit terms will identify circumstances under which
credits can be transferred without a case-by-case review, that under
these circumstances, the language in Rule 2520 which requires that
emission reduction transfers be consistent with Rule 2301 is
appropriate, and that the District does not propose to change it.
EPA notes that proposed interim approval issue 12 did not address
the part of Rule 2520, section 9.12 that restricts the use of emission
reduction credits. Rather, this interim approval issue addresses the
first provision in section 9.12 that restricted terms and conditions in
a permit for the trading of emission increases and decreases in the
permitted facility to those allowed by Rule 2201. Section 70.6(a)(10)
requires permitting authorities to include terms for emission trading
without case-by-case approvals to the extent applicable requirements
allow them. EPA's interim approval issue is to remove Rule 2520's
restriction to Rule 2201 and expand it to encompass any applicable
requirement, such as the Hazardous Organic NESHAP, that allows for
emission trading without case-by-case approval. EPA, therefore, is
retaining this interim approval issue but is clarifying that it does
not affect the emission reduction credit provisions in Rule 2520,
section 9.12.
Interim Approval Issue 13: Require a schedule of compliance be
included in the permit even if the source is in compliance with all
applicable requirements. The District argues, based on language in part
70 and title V, that neither title V nor part 70 requires that each
permit issued contain a schedule of compliance unless the source is in
non-compliance.
The District is correct in stating that Sec. 70.6(c)(3) merely
requires that a permit contain a schedule of compliance consistent with
Sec. 70.5(c)(8); that Sec. 70.5(c)(8) requires a compliance plan be
submitted with the application, part of which is a compliance schedule;
and finally that Sec. 70.5(c)(8)(iii) lists what constitutes a
compliance schedule and that for non-complying source, this is the
``schedule of compliance'' in Sec. 70.5(c)(8)(iii)(C).
The District is also correct in stating that section 504 of the Act
requires that ``each permit issued under this title shall include * * *
a schedule of compliance * * *'' However, the District is not correct
in stating that facilities are not required to submit a schedule of
compliance with their applications unless they are out of compliance.
Section 503 clearly requires all permit applications, without regard to
the source's compliance status, to include a ``compliance plan
describing how the source will comply with all applicable requirements
* * *'' and that the ``[c]ompliance plan shall include a schedule of
compliance * * *''.
Part 70 and the Act need to be read with the understanding that the
terms ``compliance schedule'' and ``schedule of compliance'' are
synonymous. With this understanding, it is clear that all sources,
complying and non-complying, must include a schedule of compliance
(i.e., a compliance schedule) in their applications and that all
permits must have schedules of compliance (i.e., compliance schedules)
in them. For complying sources and sources that have future-effective
applicable requirements, the compliance schedule is a simple statement
that the source will continue to comply or will comply in a timely
manner. Only for non-complying sources are there detailed requirements
for the contents of a schedule of compliance. Given the requirements of
the Act and part 70, EPA is retaining this interim approval issue.
B. Interim Approval
The EPA is promulgating interim approval of the operating permits
program submitted by the California Air Resources Board on behalf of
the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District on July 3
and August 17, 1995, and supplemented on September 6 and 21, 1995. The
District or the State must make the following changes to receive full
approval:
(1) Revise the applicability language in Rule 2520 2.2 and the
definitions of Major Air Toxics Source (Rule 2520 3.18) and Major
Source (Rule 2520 3.19) to be consistent with the Act and part 70 to
cover sources that emit at major source levels.
(2) Limit the exemption for non-major sources in Rule 2520 4.1 so
that it does not exempt non-major sources that EPA determines, upon
promulgation of a section 111 or 112 standard, must obtain title V
permits. Sec. 70.3(b)(2)
(3) Revise Rule 2520 7.1.3.2 to eliminate the requirement that
fugitive emission estimates need only be submitted in the application
if the source is in a source category identified in the major source
definition in 40 CFR part 70.2. See Sec. 70.3(d).
(4) Revise Rule 2520 to provide that unless the District requests
additional information or otherwise notifies the applicant of
incompleteness within 60 days of receipt of an application, the
application shall be deemed complete. See Secs. 70.5(a)(2) and
70.7(a)(4).
[[Page 18087]]
(5) Revise Rule 2520 sections 11.1.4.2 and 11.3.1.1 and Rule 2201
5.3.1.1.1 to include notice ``by other means if necessary to assure
adequate notice to the affected public.'' See Sec. 70.7(h)(1).
(6) Revise Rule 2520's permit issuance procedures to provide for
notifying EPA and affected states in writing of any refusal by the
District to accept all recommendations for the proposed permit that an
affected state submitted during the public/affected state review
period. See Sec. 70.8(b)(2).
(7) Either delete section 11.7.5 in Rule 2520 and section 5.3.1.8.5
in Rule 2201, which purport to limit the grounds upon which EPA may
object to a permit to compliance with applicable requirements, or
revise them to be fully consistent with Sec. 70.8(c).
EPA's authority to object to issuance of permits derives from
section 505(b) of the Act. No state or local agency may restrict
authorities granted EPA under the Clean Air Act; therefore, EPA views
section 11.7.5 of Rule 2520 and Section 5.3.1.8.5 of Rule 2201 as not
binding upon its actions. EPA will exercise its authority to object to
permits consistent with Sec. 70.8(c) and without regard to the
restriction on that authority in San Joaquin's title V program. Should
the District issue a permit to which EPA has objected and the District
has not revised or reissued to meet the objection, EPA will consider
the permit invalid and will require the District to revise and reissue
the proposed permit or will revoke, revise, and reissue the permit
itself. EPA has made these revisions to Rule 2520 an interim approval
issue in order to ensure that the Rule 2520 clearly states EPA's
authority to object to permits.
(8) Revise Rule 2520 2.4 to clarify that the sentence in section
2.4 that ``[o]nly the affected emissions units within the stationary
source shall be subject to part 70 permitting requirements'' applies
only to stationary sources that are also area sources.
(9) Revise Rule 2520 8.1 to provide that each model general permit
and model general permit templates will be subject to public, affected
state, and EPA review consistent with initial permit issuance at least
once every 5 years.
(10) Revise Rule 2520 8.1 to provide that any permit for a solid
waste incineration unit that has a permit term of more than 5 years
shall be subject to review, including public notice and comment, at
least once every five years. See Sec. 70.6(a)(2).
(11) Revise Rule 2520 13.2.3 to state that the permit shield will
apply only to requirements addressed in the permit. EPA will not
consider a source shielded from an enforcement action for failure to
comply with an applicable requirement if that applicable requirement is
addressed only in the written reviews supporting permit issuance and
not in the permit. Further, EPA will veto any permit that extends the
permit shield to conditions, terms, or findings of non-applicability
that are not included in the permit.
(12) Revise Rule 2520 9.12 to require the permit contain terms and
conditions for the trading of emission increases and decreases in the
permitted facility to the extent that any applicable requirement
provides for such trading without case by case approval. The District
may limit transfers of emission reduction credits in accordance with
District Rules 2201 and 2301. Sec. 70.6(a)(10)
(13) Revise Rule 2520, Section 9.0 (permit content) to include the
Sec. 70.6(c)(3) requirement for schedules of compliance for applicable
requirements for which the source is in compliance or that will become
effective during the permit term. During the interim period, the
District should incorporate compliance schedules, as required by
Sec. 70.6(c)(3), into all issued permits.
(14) Revise Rule 2520 to treat changes made under the prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) provisions of the Act and EPA' PSD
regulations in the same manner as ``title I modifications'' as that
term is defined in Rule 2520 and Rule 2201.
(15) Revise Rule 2520 to state that, notwithstanding the permit
shield provisions, if a source that is operating under a general permit
or general permit template is later determined not to qualify for the
terms and conditions of that general permit or template, then the
source is subject to enforcement action for operation without a part 70
permit. For sources operating under a general permit template, if a
source is later determined not to qualify for the template, only the
portion of the facility covered by the template shall be subject to
enforcement action for operation without a part 70 permit. See
Sec. 70.6(d).
(16) Because California State law currently exempts agricultural
production sources from permit requirements, CARB has requested source
category-limited interim approval for all California districts. EPA is
granting source category-limited interim approval to the San Joaquin
program. In order for this program to receive full approval, the Health
and Safety Code must be revised to eliminate the exemption of
agricultural production sources from the requirement to obtain a title
V permit. Once the California statute has been revised, the District
must also revise its permit exemption rules to eliminate any blanket
exemption granted agricultural sources.
This interim approval, which may not be renewed, extends until May
25, 1998. During this interim approval period, the State is protected
from sanctions for failure to have a program, and EPA is not obligated
to promulgate a Federal permits program in the District. Permits issued
under a program with interim approval have full standing with respect
to Part 70, and the one-year time period for submittal of permit
applications by subject sources begins upon the effective date of
interim approval, as does the three-year time period for processing the
initial permit applications.
If the District fails to submit a complete program through the
State for full approval by November 24, 1997, EPA will start an 18-
month clock for mandatory sanctions. If the District fails to submit a
complete program before the expiration of that 18-month period, EPA
would impose sanctions. If EPA disapproves the District's corrective
program, and has not granted full approval within 18 months after the
disapproval, then EPA must impose mandatory sanctions. In both cases,
if the District has not come into compliance within 6 months after EPA
applies the first sanction, a second sanction is required. In addition,
discretionary sanctions may be applied where warranted any time after
the end of the interim approval period. If the EPA has not granted full
approval to the District program by May 25, 1998, EPA must promulgate,
administer, and enforce a Federal permits program for San Joaquin
Valley.
C. District Program Implementing Section 112(g)
EPA is approving the use of San Joaquin Valley's preconstruction
review program (Rule 2201) as a mechanism to implement section 112(g)
during the transition period between promulgation of EPA's section
112(g) rule and adoption by San Joaquin Valley of rules specifically
designed to implement section 112(g). EPA is limiting the duration of
this approval to 18 months following promulgation by EPA of the section
112(g) rule.
D. Program for Delegation of Section 112 Standards as Promulgated
Requirements for part 70 program approval, specified in 40 CFR
70.4(b), encompass section 112(l)(5) requirements for approval of a
program for delegation of section 112 standards as promulgated by EPA
as they apply to part 70 sources. Section 112(l)(5)
[[Page 18088]]
requires that the District's program contain adequate authorities,
adequate resources for implementation, and an expeditious compliance
schedule, which are also requirements under part 70. Therefore, EPA is
also promulgating approval under section 112(l)(5) and 40 CFR 63.91 of
San Joaquin Valley's program for receiving delegation of section 112
standards that are unchanged from the federal standards as promulgated.
This program for delegations applies to both existing and future
standards but is limited to sources covered by the part 70 program.
III. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
Copies of the District's submittal and other information relied
upon for the final interim approval, including all comments received on
the proposal and EPA's responses to those comments, are contained in
docket number CA-SJV-95-001 maintained at the EPA Regional Office. 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 action under section 502 of the Act does not create any
new requirements but simply addresses the operating permits program
developed and submitted by the San Joaquin Valley District to meet the
requirements of 40 CFR part 70. EPA evaluated the impact on small
businesses of the title V operating permit program as part of its
promulgation of part 70 and determined that operating permit programs
required by part 70 would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small business and no Regulatory Flexibility Act
analysis was necessary.
D. Unfunded Mandates Act
Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that the 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 and therefore, no budgetary
impact statement is necessary.
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: April 10, 1996.
Felicia Marcus,
Regional Administrator.
Part 70, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
PART 70--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 70 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
2. Appendix A to part 70 is amended by adding paragraph (y) to the
entry for California to read as follows:
Appendix A to Part 70--Approval Status of State and Local Operating
Permits Programs
* * * * *
California
* * * * *
(y) San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD (complete submittal received on
July 5 and August 18, 1995); interim approval effective on May 24,
1996; interim approval expires May 25, 1998.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-10094 Filed 4-23-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-W
