[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 134 (Thursday, July 13, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36065-36070]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-17218]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 70
[CA77-2-7058; AD-FRL-5227-7]
Clean Air Act Final Interim Approval of Operating Permits Program
for Glenn County, Lake County, Shasta County and Tehama County,
California; Final Approval of State Implementation Plan Revision for
the Issuance of Federally Enforceable State Operating Permits, Lake
County, California
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is promulgating interim approval of the Operating
Permits Programs submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
on behalf of Glenn County Air Pollution Control District (APCD), Lake
County Air Quality Management District (AQMD), Shasta County AQMD, and
Tehama County APCD, California (the four districts) for the purpose of
complying with Federal requirements for an approvable State program to
issue operating permits to all major stationary sources, and to certain
other sources. In addition, EPA is promulgating final approval of a
revision to Lake County's portion of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP) regarding synthetic minor regulations for the
issuance of federally enforceable state operating permits (FESOP)
limiting emissions of criteria pollutants. In order to extend the
federal enforceability of state operating permits to hazardous air
pollutants (HAP), EPA is also finalizing approval of Lake County's
synthetic minor regulations pursuant to section 112(l) of the Clean Air
Act (CAA or Act).
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 14, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the four districts' submittals and other
supporting information used in developing the final interim approval
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 on the Lake County
program and SIP, please contact: Ed Pike, (415) 744-1248. For
information on the programs for the other districts, please contact:
Sara Bartholomew, (415) 744-1170.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background and Purpose
A. Introduction
Title V of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (sections 501-507 of
the Act), and implementing regulations at 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (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 1 year after receiving
the submittal. The EPA's program review occurs pursuant to section 502
of the Act and the part 70 regulations, which together outline criteria
for approval or disapproval. Where a program substantially, but not
fully, meets the requirements of part 70, EPA may grant the program
interim approval for a period of up to 2 years. If EPA has not fully
approved a program by 2 years after the November 15, 1993 date, or by
the end of an interim program, it must establish and implement a
Federal program. On November 29, 1994, EPA proposed disapproval, or in
the alternative, interim approval of the operating permits program for
Glenn County, Lake County, Shasta County and Tehama County, California.
See 54 FR 60931. The proposed disapproval was due to deficiencies in
the districts' upset/breakdown rules. The EPA received public comment
on the proposal, and is responding to those comments in this document
and in a separate ``Response to Comments'' document that is available
in the docket. The EPA also compiled a Technical Support Document (TSD)
for each of the four districts, which 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 Glenn County APCD, Lake
County AQMD, Shasta County AQMD, and Tehama County APCD, California.
On June 28, 1989 (54 FR 27274), EPA published criteria for
approving and incorporating into the SIP regulatory programs for the
issuance of federally enforceable state operating permits. Permits
issued pursuant to an operating permit program meeting these criteria
and approved into the SIP are considered federally enforceable for
criteria pollutants. The synthetic minor mechanism may also be used to
create federally enforceable limits for emissions of hazardous air
pollutants (HAP) if it is approved pursuant to section 112(l) of the
Act.
In the November 29, 1994 Federal Register, EPA also proposed
approval of Lake County's synthetic minor program for creating
federally enforceable limits in District operating permits. In this
notice, EPA is promulgating approval of the synthetic minor program for
Lake County as a revision to Lake County's SIP.
[[Page 36066]]
II. Final Action and Implications
A. Analysis of State Submission and Response to Public Comments
EPA received two comment letters on the proposed rulemaking for the
four districts, one from the National Environmental Development
Associations Clean Air Regulatory Project (``NEDA/CARP''), and one from
the American Forest & Paper Association (``AF&PA''). The issues
discussed in the November 29, 1994 proposal were not changed as a
result of public comment with the exception of the implementation of
section 112(g) from the effective date of the title V program. EPA's
final action is being revised from the proposed notice with respect to
this issue. This change is discussed below along with other issues
raised during the public comment period.
1. Section 112(g) Implementation
NEDA/CARP and AF&PA both submitted comments regarding EPA's
proposed use of the four California districts' preconstruction
permitting program 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. In
opposition to the proposed action, the commenters argued that the four
districts should not, and cannot, implement section 112(g) until: (1)
EPA has promulgated a section 112(g) regulation; and (2) the District
has a section 112(g) program in place.
EPA received many comments nationally on this issue, and agrees
that it is not reasonable to expect the states and districts to
implement section 112(g) before a rule is issued. EPA has therefore
published an interpretive notice in the Federal Register regarding
section 112(g) of the Act: 60 FR 8333 (February 14, 1995). This
document outlines EPA's revised interpretation of 112(g) applicability
prior to EPA's issuing the final 112(g) rule. The action states that
major source modifications, constructions, and reconstructions will not
be subject to 112(g) requirements until the final rule is promulgated.
EPA expects to issue the 112(g) final rule in September 1995.
The action further explains that EPA is considering whether the
effective date of section 112(g) should be delayed beyond the date of
promulgation of the Federal rule so as to allow States time to adopt
rules implementing the Federal rule, and that EPA will provide for any
such additional delay in the final section 112(g) rulemaking. Unless
and until EPA provides for such an additional postponement of section
112(g), the four districts must be able to implement section 112(g)
during the period between promulgation of the Federal section 112(g)
rule and adoption of implementing State regulations.
For this reason, EPA is proposing to approve the use of the four
districts' preconstruction review programs as a mechanism to implement
section 112(g) during the transition period between promulgation of the
section 112(g) rule and adoption by the four districts of rules
specifically designed to implement section 112(g). However, since
approval is intended solely to confirm that the districts have
mechanisms to implement section 112(g) during the transition period,
the approval itself will be without effect if EPA decides in the final
section 112(g) rule that there will be no transition period. The EPA is
limiting the duration of this proposal to 12 months following
promulgation by EPA of the section 112(g) rule.
2. Insignificant Activities
NEDA/CARP and AF&PA both assert that EPA lacks the legal footing
for rejecting the districts' present ``insignificant levels,'' and that
EPA has no authority to hold out ``suggested'' emission levels as a
threshold for receiving full approval.
EPA disagrees that it lacks authority to reject inappropriate or
unsupported insignificance levels, or to articulate on a program-by-
program basis levels that it definitely would accept. Part 70 allows
States to deem certain activities or emission levels insignificant if
they are listed in the program submitted to EPA and approved by EPA,
but does not grant States authority to create new exemptions without
EPA approval. Section 70.4(b)(2) requires the submittal of criteria
used to determine insignificant activities, and Sec. 70.5(c) does not
allow States to create an insignificant activities permit exemption if
the exemption will interfere with the imposition of applicable
requirements or the collection of fees. In addition, part 70 explicitly
authorizes EPA to approve insignificant activities based on an emission
level (Sec. 70.5(c)). EPA has the legal authority to reject district
provisions that contravene these part 70 requirements.
As stated in the proposal, the four districts provided EPA with no
criteria or information on the level of emissions of activities on the
districts' exemption lists. In addition, the specific insignificant
activities provisions submitted by the districts have raised concerns
with EPA regarding the districts' ability to ensure that applicable
requirements are included in permits. None of the four districts
provided EPA with a demonstration to the contrary. For these reasons,
the four districts' lists of insignificant activities are not
acceptable.
In the proposed rulemaking EPA suggested insignificance levels that
the Agency would find acceptable even without a further demonstration.
Neither of the commenters specifically addressed these suggested
insignificance levels. EPA would like to note that the four districts
have the flexibility to modify their regulations and submit criteria
for EPA approval of new exemptions, as long as each district
demonstrates, or EPA is otherwise satisfied, that such alternative
emission levels are insignificant compared to the level of emissions
and types of units that are permitted or subject to applicable
requirements.
3. Public Petitions to EPA
NEDA/CARP and AF&PA both registered their concern regarding the
public petition requirements, notification and other procedural
requirements, stating that they believe these requirements will thwart
efforts in California to develop market incentive approaches to
emissions reductions.
Provisions for public participation, notification and public
petitions are required under title V of the Clean Air Act (CAA
502(b)(6) for public participation, and CAA 505(b)(2) for public
petitions), and are therefore included in part 70, the regulations that
implement title V. EPA believes public participation does not preclude
a district from developing market based incentive programs.
4. Enforcement Authorities
NEDA/CARP and AF&PA both contend that EPA should provide specific
modifications to the districts' equipment breakdown/upset rules
necessary to assure consistency with the intent and the operation of
the part 70 rules, instead of proposing disapproval of the programs on
this issue.
EPA recommended changes concerning the breakdown/upset rules of the
four districts in the TSDs accompanying the proposed rulemaking. Since
the proposed rulemaking, EPA has worked with the districts to correct
the provisions in the districts' equipment breakdown/upset rules which
stood in the way of interim approval. At this time, Glenn and Tehama
have corrected these rules satisfactorily, and Lake and Shasta have
corrected their rules sufficiently to receive interim approval on this
issue. EPA proposed disapproval originally,
[[Page 36067]]
however, because the previous exemptions in the rules potentially
allowed permitted sources to avoid compliance with certain applicable
requirements.
A permitting program that includes rules specifically stating that
excess emissions during malfunctions or shutdowns are not violations
cannot meet the minimum requirements of Sec. 70.11 (Requirements for
enforcement authority). These rules may also compromise the ability of
the Districts to issue permits that assure compliance with all
applicable requirements. The ability to enforce permits as specified in
Sec. 70.11 and issue permits that assure compliance with all applicable
requirements are identified as minimum elements for interim approval of
title V programs in Sec. 70.4 (d)(3). Programs that do not have the
minimum requirements listed in Sec. 70.4 (d)(3) and otherwise do not
substantially meet the requirements of part 70 are subject to
disapproval.
5. Compliance Certification
NEDA/CARP and AF&PA both contend that EPA has misread its own rule
in requiring that the full text of the responsible official's
certification be included in both the application content and permit
content. They argue that the provision of Sec. 70.5 (d) sets out the
terms and conditions for any certification of an application form,
report or compliance made pursuant to the rules, but does not establish
a signatory statement that must be attested to by the responsible
official to the exclusion of all other statements (emphasis in comment
letters).
EPA disagrees with the above comment. Section 70.5 requires that:
``This certification . . . shall state that, based on information and
belief formed after reasonable inquiry, the statements and information
in the document are true, accurate, and complete.'' (emphasis added)
This indicates that it is not sufficient merely for the responsible
official to sign the certification; the certificate must state that he
or she considered the issue carefully. The statement must contain the
essential elements of Sec. 70.5 (d), and include the words quoted
above. EPA does not rule out having a pre-printed statement on the
certificate for convenience.
6. Deviation Reporting
NEDA/CARP and AF&PA both contend that it is necessary for EPA to
revise several of its earlier interim approval notices, in which the
Agency conditioned final approval on including a definition of
``prompt'' in the state operating permits program, in order to provide
a consistent application of the appropriate interpretation of its
rules.
In the proposed interim approval notice EPA stated that the four
districts' regulations should define the meaning of ``prompt'' as used
in the requirement found at 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(B), which requires
``prompt'' reporting of deviations from applicable requirements. The
Agency indicated that an acceptable alternative to defining in the
regulation what constitutes ``prompt'' is to define ``prompt'' in each
individual permit.
NEDA/CARP and AF&PA both support this approach. EPA has
consistently asserted that this is an acceptable alternative to
defining ``prompt'' in the body of the permitting regulations, and sees
no need to revisit past interim approval actions to clarify this
interpretation of the definition of what constitutes ``prompt''
reporting of deviations from applicable requirements.
B. Final Action
1. Title V Operating Permits Program
Since the time that EPA proposed disapproval (or interim approval
in the alternative), the four districts have each adopted regulations
to correct identified disapproval issues based on deficiencies in their
enforcement authorities. The primary deficiency lay in provisions in
the four districts' equipment breakdown/upset rules that stated that
excess emissions during equipment breakdowns or upsets were not
violations. This amounted to an a priori exemption that eliminated the
districts' authority to enforce against certain violations of permit
terms or conditions. Section 70.11 requires that districts must have
the authority to enforce against all violations of permit terms and
conditions. In addition, the Glenn, Lake, and Shasta Districts had
rules that stated that excess emissions during equipment shutdown for
maintenance were not violations. There is a more detailed discussion of
the deficiencies in these rules in the proposed notice. See 54 FR
60931.
In the alternative, EPA proposed to grant source-category limited
interim approval to any of these four programs for which, prior to the
final disapproval action, the district adopted and CARB submitted to
EPA, revisions to the breakdown/shutdown rules that removed the ``no
violation'' language. For the breakdown rules, EPA stated that the four
districts could either adopt the language of Sec. 70.6 (g) that an
emergency constitutes an affirmative defense to noncompliance with
technology-based emission limitations, or revise the rules to provide
that emissions exceeding emission limitations during equipment
breakdowns constitute a violation of district rules.
CARB submitted revisions to each of the four districts' upset/
breakdown rules and, except for Tehama County, equipment shutdown
rules. Glenn County APCD and Tehama County APCD have removed the ``no
violation'' language and adequately corrected the deficiencies. Shasta
County and Lake County must each make the additional changes to their
rules, as discussed below, before full approval can be granted.
Shasta County AQMD's Excess Emissions Rule. On January 3, 1995
Shasta County adopted revisions to Rule 3:10 to substantially meet
EPA's objections. Under the new rule, changed from ``Excusable
Malfunctions'' to ``Excess Emissions,'' the ``no violation'' language
was removed, as EPA requested. A new paragraph (g) was added to the
rule, however, which says that ``Excess emissions during start-up and
shutdown shall be considered a violation... if the owner or operator
cannot demonstrate that the excess emissions are unavoidable when
requested to do so by the APCO.'' It is inaccurate to say that only the
APCO can request such a demonstration, since EPA also has enforcement
authority over these sources. In addition, 3:10(g) states that the
``APCO may specify for a particular source the amount, time, duration,
and under what circumstances excess emissions are allowed during start-
up and shut-down.'' The rule is not clear, however, as to where these
conditions will be specified, which is not acceptable to EPA because
the establishment of such conditions must be subject to a public review
process.
EPA is promulgating interim approval of Shasta's program but is
requiring additional changes for full approval because the district has
substantially, but not fully, revised their rule to meet EPA's
objection, as stated in the November 29, 1994 proposal. The changes
described below will therefore be necessary for full approval:
Shasta County AQMD must revise paragraph (g) of Rule 3:10 (Excess
Emissions) to include a provision that EPA, as well as the APCO, can
request a demonstration that the excess emissions are unavoidable. In
addition, the rule must clarify that the APCO will specify in the
permit the amount, time, duration, and under what circumstances excess
emissions are allowed during start-up and shut-down.
Lake County Upset/Breakdown Rule. On November 8, 1994 Lake County
[[Page 36068]]
adopted revisions to sections 500 and 510, and added section 512. These
changes substantially meet EPA's objection, as set out in the November
29, 1994 notice of proposed rulemaking. Under the revised section 510,
the Director will determine whether an enforcement action for an upset
or breakdown condition can be pursued based on a number of
circumstances. The requirements on sources include, but are not limited
to, the following: prompt reporting, minimizing emissions, following
good operating practices, shutting down the facility within 24 hours,
and not threatening air quality standards or public health. In
addition, the maintenance exemption no longer applies if a source
violates permitted emission limits.
EPA is promulgating interim approval of Lake's program but is
requiring additional changes for full approval because the district has
substantially, but not fully, revised their rule to meet EPA's
objection, as stated in the November 29, 1994 proposal. The changes
described below will therefore be necessary for full approval:
a. Maintenance Exemption. The District's maintenance exemption in
section 500 was substantially narrowed by eliminating exemptions for
equipment shut-downs that cause violations of permit emission limits.
The rule no longer excuses a source that shuts down control equipment
for maintenance and violates a numerical emission limit in a part 70
permit. However, the rule does not prohibit sources from violating
other types of permit terms (including those that limit emissions, such
as a work practice standard or a requirement to continuously apply a
control technology) while shutting down control equipment for
maintenance. Therefore, the current rule does not allow the District
the authority to enforce against all types of violations, as required
under Sec. 70.11. The District must further narrow the maintenance
exemption in section 500 to state that violations of applicable federal
requirements including part 70 permit terms may not be automatically
exempted.
b. Citizen Relief. Section 304 of the Clean Air Act expressly
provides citizens with enforcement authority for Clean Air Act
requirements. Therefore, the District rule must clarify that citizen
enforcement, as well as EPA enforcement, of Clean Air Act requirements
is not affected by APCO discretion, as expressed in sections 500 and
510, to not pursue an enforcement action.
c. Clarifying Restrictions on Upset/Maintenance Exemption. Section
510 must be clarified because the first and second sentences could be
interpreted as expressing two distinct and possibly conflicting options
for qualifying for an exemption. The best reading of the District's
rule is that conditions ``beyond the reasonable control of the source
operator'' must also meet the nine criteria for qualifying for an
exemption. EPA believes that these nine criteria are necessary to
appropriately limit the scope of the upset/breakdown provisions. For
instance, sources should not escape liability for violations due to
improper operation or maintenance or that create a public health
threat. Therefore, the rule must clearly state that actions that are
``beyond the reasonable control of the source operator'' must also meet
the nine criteria for qualifying for an exemption.
The EPA is promulgating interim approval of the operating permits
program submitted by CARB on behalf of Glenn County APCD (complete
submittal received on December 27, 1993), Lake County AQMD (complete
submittal received on March 15, 1994), Shasta County AQMD (complete
submittal received on November 16, 1993), and Tehama County APCD
(complete submittal received on December 6, 1993), California.
The four districts must make the changes that were specified in the
proposed rulemaking, under II.C. District Title V Interim Approval
Issues Common to All Four Districts and Section III. Individual
District Title V Interim Approval Issues of the November 29, 1994 FR
notice in order to be granted full approval. In addition, Lake County
and Shasta County must make the changes specified above.
The part 70 programs submitted by Glenn County, Lake County, Shasta
County and Tehama County and approved in this notice apply to all part
70 sources (as defined in the approved program) within the four
districts, except any sources of air pollution over which an Indian
Tribe has jurisdiction. See, e.g., 59 FR 55813, 55815-55818 (Nov. 9,
1994). The term ``Indian Tribe'' is defined under the Act as ``any
Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or community,
including any Alaska Native village, which is Federally recognized as
eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United
States to Indians because of their status as Indians.'' See section
302(r) of the CAA; see also 59 FR 43956, 43962 (Aug. 25, 1994); 58 FR
54364 (Oct. 21, 1993).
This interim approval, which may not be renewed, extends until
August 13, 1997. During this interim approval period, Glenn County,
Lake County, Shasta County and Tehama County, California are protected
from sanctions, and EPA is not obligated to promulgate, administer and
enforce a Federal operating permits program in the four districts.
Permits issued under a program with interim approval have full standing
with respect to part 70, and the 1-year time period for submittal of
permit applications by subject sources begins upon the effective date
of this interim approval, as does the 3-year time period for processing
the initial permit applications.
If Glenn County, Lake County, Shasta County or Tehama County,
California fails to submit a complete corrective program for full
approval by February 13, 1997, EPA will start an 18-month clock for
mandatory sanctions. If any of the four districts then fails to submit
a corrective program that EPA finds complete before the expiration of
that 18-month period, EPA will apply sanctions to that district as
required by section 502(d)(2) of the Act, which will remain in effect
until EPA determines that the district has corrected the deficiency by
submitting a complete corrective program.
If EPA disapproves a complete corrective program submitted by
either Glenn County, Lake County, Shasta County or Tehama County, EPA
will apply sanctions to that district as required by section 502(d)(2)
on the date 18 months after the effective date of the disapproval,
unless prior to that date the district or districts has submitted a
revised program and EPA has determined that the district or districts
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 Glenn
County, Lake County, Shasta County or Tehama County has not timely
submitted a complete corrective program or EPA has disapproved its
submitted corrective program. Moreover, if EPA has not granted full
approval to all of the four districts' programs by the expiration of
this interim approval and that expiration occurs after November 15,
1995, EPA must promulgate, administer and enforce a Federal permits
program for those districts lacking full approval, 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 EPA as they apply to part 70
sources. Section 112(l)(5) requires that the State's
[[Page 36069]]
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 four
districts' programs 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.
2. State Operating Permit Program for Synthetic Minors
EPA is promulgating full approval of Lake County AQMD's synthetic
minor operating permit program submitted to EPA by the California Air
Resources Board, on behalf of Lake County AQMD. The synthetic minor
operating permit program is being approved into Lake County's SIP
pursuant to part 52 and the approval criteria set out in the June 28,
1989 Federal Register document (54 FR 27282). EPA considers the changes
to Lake County's enforcement authority sufficient to grant approval,
and expects future changes to clarify this authority under part 70 to
also clarify this authority for synthetic minor permits.
EPA will consider all operating permits processed pursuant to Lake
County's synthetic minor regulations and consistent with the five
approval criteria set out in the June, 1989 document to be federally
enforceable with the promulgation of this approval, provided that Lake
County submit any permits that it wishes to make federally enforceable
to EPA, accompanied by documentation that the procedures approved today
have been followed. EPA will expeditiously review any individual
permits so submitted to ensure their conformity to the program
requirements. (See 57 FR 59931.)
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future implementation
plan. Each request for revision to the state implementation plan shall
be considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and
environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and
regulatory requirements.
III. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
Copies of the four districts' submittals and other information
relied upon for the final interim approval, including two public
comments received and reviewed by EPA on the proposal, are contained in
docket number CA-NONGR4-94-01-OPS, maintained at the EPA Regional
Office. The docket is an organized and complete file of all the
information submitted to, or otherwise considered by, EPA in the
development of this final 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.
The EPA's actions under section 502 of the Act do not create any
new requirements, but simply address operating permits programs
submitted to satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR part 70. Because this
action does not impose any new requirements, it does not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The EPA's actions under sections 502, 110, and 112 of the Act do
not create any new requirements, but simply address operating permit
programs submitted to satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR part 70.
Because these actions do not impose any new requirements, they do 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, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, EPA
must select the most cost- effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated today does
not include a federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of
$100 million or more to either state, local, or tribal governments in
the aggregate, or to the private sector. This federal action approves
pre-existing requirements under state or local law, and imposes no new
federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to state, local,
or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this
action.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides,
Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR Part 70
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Operating permits,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: June 19, 1995.
David P. Howekamp,
Acting Regional Administrator.
Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart F--California
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(217)(i)(B) to
read as follows:
Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c)* * *
(217)* * *
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(B) Lake County Air Pollution Control District.
(1) New Regulation 12, section 12.200 (a4), (c2), (d1), (d2), (d3),
(e3), (f1), (f2), (m1), (o1), (p1), (p2), (s3), and sections 12.800-
12.850, adopted October 19, 1993.
* * * * *
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 paragraphs (h), (l),
(bb), and (ee) to the entry for California to read as follows:
Appendix A to Part 70--Approval Status of State and Local Operating
Permits Programs
California
* * * * *
(h) Glenn County APCD (complete submittal received on December
27, 1993); interim approval effective on August 14,
[[Page 36070]]
1995; interim approval expires August 13, 1997.
* * * * *
(l) Lake County AQMD (complete submittal received on March 15,
1994); interim approval effective on August 14, 1995; interim
approval expires August 13, 1997.
* * * * *
(bb) Shasta County AQMD (complete submittal received on November
16, 1993); interim approval effective on August 14, 1995; interim
approval expires August 13, 1997.
* * * * *
(ee) Tehama County APCD (complete submittal received on December
6, 1993); interim approval effective on August 14, 1995; interim
approval expires August 13, 1997.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 95-17218 Filed 7-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
