[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 170 (Friday, September 1, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45685-45690]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-21761]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 70
[AD-FRL-5290-3]
Clean Air Act Proposed Approval of the Federal Operating Permits
Program; San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District, California
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing interim approval for the Federal
Operating Permits Program submitted by the California Air Resources
Board on behalf of the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control
District (San Luis Obispo or District). This Program was submitted for
the purpose of complying with Federal requirements in title V of the
Clean Air Act which mandates that States develop, and submit to EPA,
programs for issuing operating permits to all major stationary sources
and to certain other sources.
DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by
October 2, 1995.
ADDRESS: Comments should be addressed to Frances Wicher, Mail Code A-5-
2, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, Air and Toxics
Division, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105.
Copies of the District's submission and other supporting
information used in developing the proposed interim approval including
the Technical Support Document 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
As required under title V of the Clean Air Act (``the Act'') as
amended (1990), EPA has promulgated rules that define the minimum
elements of an approvable State operating permits program and the
corresponding standards and procedures by which the EPA will approve,
oversee, and withdraw approval of State operating permits programs (see
57 FR 32250 (July 21, 1992)). These rules are codified at 40 CFR part
70. Title V requires States to develop, and submit to EPA, programs for
issuing operating permits to all major stationary sources and to
certain other sources.
The Act requires that States develop and submit these programs to
EPA by November 15, 1993, and that EPA act to approve or disapprove
each program within one year of receiving the submission. 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 two years. If EPA has not fully approved a program by
two years after the November 15, 1993 date, or by the end of an interim
program, it must establish and implement a Federal program.
II. Proposed Action and Implications
A. Analysis of State Submission
The analysis contained in this notice focuses on the major elements
of San Luis Obispo's title V operating permit program and on the
specific elements that must be corrected to meet the minimum
requirements of part 70. The full program submittal, the Technical
Support Document (TSD), which contains a detailed analysis of the
submittal, and other relevant materials are available for inspection as
part of the public docket. The docket may be viewed during regular
business hours at the address listed above.
1. Title V Program Support Materials
San Luis Obispo's title V program was submitted by the California
Air Resources Board (CARB) on November 15, 1993. Additional material
was submitted by CARB on May 23 and August 21, 1995 and by the District
on February 18, 1994 and May 3, 1995. In submitting the District's
title V program, CARB requested source category-limited interim
approval for the program because California law currently exempts
agricultural sources from all permitting requirements including title
V. The District's submission contains a complete program description,
District implementing and supporting regulations, application and
reporting
[[Page 45686]]
forms, and other supporting information. In addition, CARB submitted
for all Districts in the State a single Attorney General's opinion,
State enabling legislation, and certain other information regarding
State law.
EPA reviewed the District's program to assure that it contains all
the elements required by Sec. 70.4(b) (elements of the initial program
submission) and has found the program complete pursuant to
Sec. 70.4(e)(1) in a letter to the CARB on January 13, 1994. An
implementation agreement is currently being developed between San Luis
Obispo and EPA.
2. Title V Operating Permit Regulations and Program Implementation
The rules that San Luis Obispo adopted to implement its title V
program are Rules 216 Federal Part 70 Permits (adopted October 26,
1993) and Rules 217 Federal Part 72 Permits (adopted March 29, 1995).
Other District rules that were submitted in support of the District's
title V program are Rules 103 Conflicts between District, State and
Federal Rules (no date), 105 Definitions (revised October 26, 1993),
107 Breakdown or Upset Conditions and Emergency Variances (revised
March 29, 1995), 201 Equipment Not Requiring a Permit (revised November
5, 1991), 206 Conditional Approval (revised November 5, 1991) and 301-
308 Fees (various adoption and revision dates).1 These rules,
along with the authorities granted the District under California State
law, substantially meet the requirements of Secs. 70.2 (Definitions)
and 70.3 (Applicability) for applicability; Sec. 70.5(c) (Standard
application form and required information) for criteria that define
insignificant activities and for complete application forms;
Secs. 70.4(b)(12) (Section 502(b)(10) changes) and 70.6 (Permit
content) for permit content including operational flexibility;
Sec. 70.7 (Permit issuance, renewal, reopenings, and revisions) for
public participation, permit issuance, and permit modifications;
Sec. 70.9 (Fee determination and certification) for fees; and
Sec. 70.11 for enforcement authority.
\1\ EPA is only approving those portions of Rules 105, 107, 206
and 301-308 that are necessary to implement the District's title V
program. More specifically, EPA is not approving the emergency
variance provisions of Rule 107 B. This approval does not constitute
approval under any other provisions of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has identified several interim approval issues affecting permit
content, permit modifications and notice to the public and affected
states that must be corrected in order for the San Luis Obispo program
to receive full approval. These interim approval issues are discussed
below and detailed in the TSD. EPA has also identified in the TSD other
recommended changes that are not required for full approval but would
improve, clarify, or strengthen the District's title V program.
a. Variances
The San Luis Obispo District Hearing Board has authority to issue
variances from requirements imposed by State and local law. See
California Health and Safety Code 42350 et seq. and District Rule 107
and Regulation VII. In the opinion submitted with California operating
permit programs, California's Attorney General states that ``(t)he
variance process is not part of the Title V permitting process and does
not affect federal enforcement for violations of the requirements set
forth in a Title V permit.'' (Emphasis in original.)
EPA regards State and District variance provisions as wholly
external to the programs submitted for approval under part 70 and
consequently is proposing to take no action on these provisions of
State and local law. EPA has no authority to approve provisions of
state law that are inconsistent with the Act. EPA does not recognize
the ability of a District to grant relief from the duty to comply with
a federally-enforceable part 70 permit, except where such relief is
granted through procedures allowed by part 70. A part 70 permit may be
issued or revised, consistent with part 70 permitting procedures, to
incorporate those terms of a variance that are consistent with
applicable requirements. A part 70 permit may also incorporate, via
part 70 permit issuance or revision procedures, the schedule of
compliance set forth in a variance. However, EPA reserves the right to
pursue enforcement of applicable requirements notwithstanding the
existence of a compliance schedule in a permit to operate. This is
consistent with Sec. 70.5(c)(8)(iii)(C), which states that a schedule
of compliance ``shall be supplemental to, and shall not sanction
noncompliance with, the applicable requirements on which it is based.''
b. Permit Content
San Luis Obispo's permit content requirements are found in sections
F. and L. of Rule 216 and in the District's Part 70 Permit Format. The
Part 70 Permit Format is San Luis Obispo's sample permit form and was
submitted as part of the District's title V program. The regulatory
provisions adequately address nearly all of the part 70 requirements;
however, certain elements (e.g., Secs. 70.6(a)(3)(ii)(A) and
70.6(a)(6)(i)), are addressed or more fully detailed only in the Part
70 Permit Format. Nothing in the District's program requires the use of
the Part 70 Permit Format for every permit issued pursuant to Rule 216.
EPA is, therefore, requiring, as a condition for full approval, that
San Luis Obispo establish a binding requirement that the Part 70 Permit
Format be included in all part 70 permits or that the District fully
address all part 70 permit content requirements in Rule 216.
EPA is specifically approving the Part 70 Permit Format (dated
November 13, 1993) contained in Appendix B-6 of the District November
15, 1993 submittal. Any modifications to the conditions established in
this Format must be approved by EPA. Failure to include these
conditions in part 70 permits will be cause for EPA to object to a
District operating permit. See Sec. 70.8(c)(1).
c. Insignificant Activities
Section 70.4(b)(2) requires States to include in their title V
programs any criteria used to determine insignificant activities or
emission levels for the purpose of determining complete applications.
Section 70.5(c) states that an application for a part 70 permit may not
omit information needed to determine the applicability of, or to
impose, any applicable requirement, or to evaluate appropriate fee
amounts. Section 70.5(c) also states that EPA may approve, as part of a
State program, a list of insignificant activities and emissions levels
which need not be included in permit applications. Under part 70, a
State must request and EPA must approve as part of that State's program
any activity or emission level that the State wishes to consider
insignificant. Part 70, however, does not establish appropriate
emission levels for insignificant activities, relying instead on a
case-by-case determination of appropriate levels based on the
particular circumstances of the part 70 program under review.
San Luis Obispo submitted, as an insignificant activities list, its
permit exemption rule (Rule 201) which specifies a specific list of
activities and, for unlisted activities, an emissions cap of 2 lb/day
(0.365 tons per year) that will be considered insignificant in the
District's title V program. Rule 201, however, does not allow any
activities that are subject to a New Source Performance Standard or
National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants to be
considered insignificant. In addition, the District submitted an
emissions analysis of its list of insignificant activities.
[[Page 45687]]
San Luis Obispo County is designated attainment for all criteria
pollutants; therefore, the major source threshold for all non-HAPs
regulated air pollutants is 100 tons per year and, for HAPs, 10 tons
per year for a single HAP and 25 tpy for a combination of HAPs. The
District's emissions cap for insignificant activities is less than \1/
2\ of 1 percent of the major source threshold for all non-HAPs
regulated air pollutants and less than 5 percent of the major source
threshold for HAPs. EPA finds these levels to be insignificant and the
2 lb/day cap to be fully approvable.
EPA, however, in reviewing the District list of specific activities
did find several activities that are potentially subject to a unit-
specific applicable requirement. Rule 201 M.1. and 2. exempts air
conditioning and refrigeration units regardless of size. Such units, if
they have a charge rate of 50 pounds or more of a Class I or II ozone-
depleting compounds, would be subject to applicable requirements and
could not be considered insignificant.
The TSD provides a detailed review of the District's insignificant
activities list. For interim approval, EPA is relying on San Luis
Obispo's Rule 216 which requires the inclusion in each permit
application of a list of all activities that are insignificant based on
size or production rate and all information necessary to determine the
applicability of, and to impose applicable requirements. For full
program approval San Luis Obispo must revise its list of insignificant
activities for title V permitting as discussed in section B.2. of this
notice.
d. Definition of Title I Modification
The San Luis Obispo program does not explicitly define the term
``title I modification,'' however, the program effectively defines the
term to mean ``the modification does not involve any addition,
deletion, or revision to a part 70 permit condition under section
112(g) of Title I of the CAA, or under EPA regulations promulgated
pursuant to Title I of the CAA, including 40 CFR parts 51, 52, 60, 61,
and 62.'' See, for example, Rule 216 C.13., definition of ``Minor Part
70 Permit Modification.'' While this effective definition is broad
enough to cover minor new source review (minor NSR) changes because it
includes changes under parts 51 and 52, it is clear from the Program
Description that the District does not intend that minor NSR be
considered a title I modification.
In an August 29, 1994 rulemaking proposal, EPA explained its view
that the better reading of ``title I modifications'' includes minor
NSR. However, the Agency solicited public comment on whether the phrase
should be interpreted to mean literally any change at a source that
would trigger permitting authority review under regulations approved or
promulgated under title I of the Act. (59 FR 44572, 44573). This would
include State preconstruction review programs approved by EPA as part
of the State Implementation Plan under section 110(a)(2)(C) of the
Clean Air Act.
The EPA has not yet taken final action on the August 29, 1994
proposal. However, in response to public comment on that proposal, the
Agency has decided that the definition of ``title I modifications'' is
best interpreted as not including changes reviewed under minor NSR
programs. This decision was announced in a June 20, 1995 letter from
Mary D. Nichols, EPA Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, to
Congressman John D. Dingell, and will be included in a supplemental
rulemaking proposal that will be published in August, 1995. Thus, EPA
expects to confirm that San Luis Obispo's definition of ``title I
modification'' is fully consistent with part 70.
The August 29, 1994 action proposed to, among other things, allow
State programs with a more narrow definition of ``title I
modifications'' to receive interim approval (59 FR 44572). The Agency
stated that if, after considering the public comments, it continued to
believe that the phrase ``title I modifications'' should be interpreted
as including minor NSR changes, it would revise the interim approval
criteria as needed to allow states with a narrower definition to be
eligible for interim approval. If EPA does conclude, during this
rulemaking, that Title I modifications should be read to include minor
NSR, it will implement the interim approval option spelled out in the
August 29, 1994 proposal.
e. Affected State Notification
The San Luis Obispo program neither defines ``affected state'' nor
includes any procedures for notifying and dealing with comments from
affected states as required by Sec. 70.2 ``Affected state'',
Sec. 70.8(b) and Sec. 70.7(e)(2)(ii). In its program submittal, the
District argued that it need not include these procedures because its
location (on the coastline in the middle of California) precludes
emissions from its sources from affecting any other states. EPA would
agree with this position if the definition of ``affected state'' was
not being revised to include tribal governments that request treatment
as affected states. Because there are tribal lands that could qualify
as affected states for San Luis Obispo, the District may in the future
need to have affected state notification and response procedures in its
title V program.
EPA has not finalized the rulemaking that will allow tribal
governments to seek affected state status. EPA is proposing, as an
interim approval issue for the District, that Rule 216 be revised to
define and provide for giving notice to and responding to comments from
affected states. Since it remains uncertain whether any tribes will
seek affected state status for the San Luis Obispo District, EPA is
proposing as an alternative that the District may satisfy the interim
approval issue by making a commitment to: (1) Initiate rule revisions
upon being notified by EPA of an application by a tribe for state
status, and (2) provide affected state notice to tribes upon their
filing for state status (i.e., prior to San Luis Obispo's revising Rule
216 to incorporate affected state notice procedures).
3. Permit Fee Demonstration
Section 502(b)(3) of the Act requires that each permitting
authority collect fees sufficient to cover all reasonable direct and
indirect costs required to develop and administer its title V operating
permits program. Each title V program submission must contain either a
detailed demonstration of fee adequacy or a demonstration that
aggregate fees collected from title V sources meet or exceed $25 per
ton of emissions per year (adjusted from 1989 by the Consumer Price
Index (CPI)). The $25 per ton amount is presumed, for program approval,
to be sufficient to cover all reasonable program costs and is thus
referred to as the ``presumptive minimum,'' (Sec. 70.9(b)(2)(i)).
San Luis Obispo has opted to make a presumptive minimum fee
demonstration in order to show fee adequacy and meet the requirements
of Sec. 70.9 (Fee determination and certification). San Luis Obispo's
existing fee schedule (Rules 301-308) requires title V facilities to
pay an amount equivalent to $61 per ton in annual operating fees (1991
figures). This amount is well over the $25 per ton per year (CPI
adjusted from 1989) presumptive minimum.
San Luis Obispo determined its fee level at the $61 per ton
equivalent amount by assessing its 1991 fee revenue and costs, and the
additional costs posed by title V. San Luis Obispo is prepared to
increase fees, as needed, to reflect actual program implementation
costs.
[[Page 45688]]
4. Provisions Implementing the Requirements of Other Titles of the Act
a. Authority and Commitments for Section 112 Implementation
San Luis Obispo has demonstrated in its title V program submission
adequate legal authority to implement and enforce all section 112
requirements through the title V permit. This legal authority is
contained in the State of California enabling legislation and in
regulatory provisions defining ``federally enforceable requirements''
and stating that the permit must incorporate all applicable
requirements. EPA has determined that this legal authority is
sufficient to allow San Luis Obispo to issue permits that assure
compliance with all section 112 requirements. For further discussion on
the District's legal authority, please refer to the TSD accompanying
this rulemaking and the April 13, 1993 guidance memorandum titled
``Title V Program Approval Criteria for Section 112 Activities,''
signed by John Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. EPA.
b. Authority for Title IV (Acid Rain) Implementation
On May 23, 1995, CARB submitted on behalf of San Luis Obispo, the
District's rule Rule 217 Federal Part 72 Permits (adopted March 29,
1995). Rule 217 incorporates by reference 40 CFR part 72 (Acid Rain)
Permit Regulation and provides the District adequate authority to issue
permits to affected acid rain sources under title IV.
B. Proposed Action
1. Title V Operating Permits Program
The EPA is proposing to grant interim approval to the operating
permits program submitted by CARB on behalf of the San Luis Obispo
County Air Pollution Control District on November 15, 1993, and
supplemented on February 18, 1994, and May 3, May 23 and August 21,
1995. If EPA were to finalize this proposed interim approval, it would
extend for two years following the effective date of final interim
approval, and could not be renewed. During the interim approval period,
San Luis Obispo would be protected from sanctions, and EPA would not be
obligated to promulgate, administer and enforce a federal permits
program for the District. Permits issued under a program with interim
approval have full standing with respect to part 70, and the 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.
Following final interim approval, if the District failed to submit
a complete corrective program for full approval by the date six months
before expiration of the interim approval, EPA would start an 18-month
clock for mandatory sanctions. If San Luis Obispo then failed to submit
a corrective program that EPA found complete before the expiration of
that 18-month period, EPA would be required to apply one of the
sanctions in section 179(b) of the Act, which would remain in effect
until EPA determined that the District had corrected the deficiency by
submitting a complete corrective program. Moreover, if the
Administrator found a lack of good faith on the part of the District,
both sanctions under section 179(b) would apply after the expiration of
the 18-month period until the Administrator determined that the
District had come into compliance. In any case, if, six months after
application of the first sanction, the District still had not submitted
a corrective program that EPA found complete, a second sanction would
be required.
If, following final interim approval, EPA were to disapprove San
Luis Obispo's complete corrective program, EPA would be required to
apply one of the section 179(b) sanctions on the date 18 months after
the effective date of the disapproval, unless prior to that date the
District had submitted a revised program and EPA had determined that it
corrected the deficiencies that prompted the disapproval. Moreover, if
the Administrator found a lack of good faith on the part of the
District, both sanctions under section 179(b) would apply after the
expiration of the 18-month period until the Administrator determined
that the District had come into compliance. In all cases, if, six
months after EPA applied the first sanction, San Luis Obispo had not
submitted a revised program that EPA had determined corrected the
deficiencies that prompted disapproval, a second sanction would be
required.
In addition, discretionary sanctions may be applied where warranted
any time after the end of an interim approval period if a district has
not timely submitted a complete corrective program or EPA has
disapproved a submitted corrective program. Moreover, if EPA has not
granted full approval to a District title V operating permits program
by the expiration of an interim approval and that expiration occurs
after November 15, 1995, EPA must promulgate, administer and enforce a
federal permits program for that district upon interim approval
expiration.
2. Interim Approval Issues for San Luis Obispo's Title V Operating
Permits Program
If EPA finalizes this interim approval, San Luis Obispo must make
the following changes, or changes that have the same effect, to receive
full approval:
(1) Remove any activities from the District's list of insignificant
activities that are subject to a unit-specific applicable requirement.
See Secs. 70.4(b)(2) and 70.5(c).
(2) Revise the definitions of ``Minor Part 70 Permit Modification''
in Rule 216 C.13, to ensure that significant changes to existing
monitoring permit terms or conditions, rather than just relaxations of
existing monitoring terms, are processed as significant permit
modifications. See Sec. 70.7(e)(4).
(3) Revise Rule 216 J.1.b. to include notice ``by other means if
necessary to assure adequate notice to the affected public.'' See
Sec. 70.7(h)(1).
(4) Revise Rule 216 H.1.a.4. and L.1.e. to further limit the types
of significant permit modifications that may be operated prior to
receiving a final part 70 permit revision to only those modifications
that are subject to section 112(g) or required to have a permit under
title I, parts C and D of the Act and that are not otherwise prohibited
by an existing part 70 permit. See Sec. 70.5(a)(1)(ii).
(5) Revise Rule 216 to establish a binding requirement that the
Part 70 Permit Format will be included in all part 70 permits or revise
Rule 216 to fully address all part 70 permit content requirements
within the Rule. See Sec. 70.6.
(6) Revise Rule 216 to define and provide for giving notice to and
responding to comments from affected states. Alternatively, San Luis
Obispo may make a commitment to: (1) Initiate rule revisions upon being
notified by EPA of an application by a tribe for state status, and (2)
provide affected state notice to tribes upon their filing for state
status (i.e., prior to revising Rule 216 to incorporate affected state
notice procedures). See Secs. 70.2 ``Affected state,'' 70.7(e)(2)(iii),
and 70.8(b).
(7) Limit the exemption in Rule 216 D.4 for solid waste
incineration units required to obtain a permit pursuant to section 3005
of the Solid Waste Disposal Act to those units that are not a major
source. Section 70.3(b) states that all major sources, affected sources
(acid rain sources), and solid waste incinerators regulated pursuant to
section 129(e) of the CAA may not be exempted from title V permitting.
[[Page 45689]]
Although section 129(g)(1) of the CAA exempts solid waste incineration
units subject to section 3005 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act from
regulation under section 129, these units are still subject to title V
and part 70 if they are also major sources. See Sec. 70.3(a)(1).
(8) Revise Rule 216 H.4. to require that the permittee keep records
describing non-federal minor changes (e.g., off-permit changes) and the
emissions resulting from these changes. See Sec. 70.4(b)(14)(iv).
3. California Enabling Legislation--Legislative Source Category Limited
Interim Approval Issue
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
proposing to grant source category-limited interim approval to the
operating permits program submitted by CARB on behalf of San Luis
Obispo on November 15, 1993. In order for this program to receive full
approval (and to avoid a disapproval upon the expiration of this
interim 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
revised, the District must also revise its permit exemption rules to
eliminate any blanket exemption granted agricultural sources.
The above described program and legislative deficiencies must be
corrected before San Luis Obispo can receive full program approval. For
additional information, please refer to the TSD, which contains a
detailed analysis of San Luis Obispo's operating permits program and
California's enabling legislation.
4. District Preconstruction Permit Program Implementing Section 112(g)
The EPA has published an interpretive notice in the Federal
Register regarding section 112(g) of the Act (60 FR 8333, February 14,
1995). The revised interpretation postpones the effective date of
section 112(g) until after EPA has promulgated a rule addressing that
provision. The interpretive notice explains that EPA is considering
whether the effective date of section 112(g) should be delayed beyond
the date of promulgation of the federal rule so as to allow States time
to adopt rules implementing the federal rule, and that EPA will provide
for any such additional delay in the final section 112(g) rulemaking.
Unless and until EPA provides for such an additional postponement of
section 112(g), San Luis Obispo must be able to implement section
112(g) during the period between promulgation of the federal section
112(g) rule and adoption of implementing District regulations.
For this reason, EPA is proposing to approve the use of San Luis
Obispo's preconstruction review program as a mechanism to implement
section 112(g) during the transition period between promulgation of the
section 112(g) rule and adoption by San Luis Obispo of rules
specifically designed to implement section 112(g). However, since the
sole purpose of this approval is to confirm that the District has a
mechanism to implement section 112(g) during the transition period, the
approval itself will be without effect if EPA decides in the final
section 112(g) rule that there will be no transition period. The EPA is
limiting the duration of this proposed approval to 12 months following
promulgation by EPA of the section 112(g) rule.
5. Program for Delegation of Section 112 Standards as Promulgated
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 program contain
adequate authorities, adequate resources for implementation, and an
expeditious compliance schedule, which are also requirements under part
70. Therefore, EPA is also proposing to grant approval under section
112(l)(5) and 40 CFR part 63.91 of San Luis Obispo's program for
receiving delegation of section 112 standards that are unchanged from
federal standards as promulgated. California Health and Safety Code
section 39658 provides for automatic adoption by CARB of section 112
standards upon promulgation by EPA. Section 39666 of the Health and
Safety Code requires that districts then implement and enforce these
standards. Thus, when section 112 standards are automatically adopted
pursuant to section 39658, San Luis Obispo will have the authority
necessary to accept delegation of these standards without further
regulatory action by the District. The details of this mechanism and
the means for finalizing delegation of standards will be set forth in a
Memorandum of Agreement between San Luis Obispo and EPA, expected to be
completed prior to approval of the District's section 112(l) program
for delegation of unchanged federal standards. This program applies to
both existing and future standards but is limited to sources covered by
the part 70 program.
III. Administrative Requirements
A. Request for Public Comments
The EPA is requesting comments on all aspects of this proposed
interim approval. Copies of the District's submittal and other
information relied upon for the proposed interim approval are contained
in a docket maintained at the EPA Regional Office. The docket is an
organized and complete file of all the information submitted to, or
otherwise considered by, EPA in the development of this proposed
interim approval. The principal purposes of the docket are:
(1) To allow interested parties a means to identify and locate
documents so that they can effectively participate in the approval
process, and
(2) To serve as the record in case of judicial review. The EPA will
consider any comments received by October 2, 1995.
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 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 proposed 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
[[Page 45690]]
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 in 40 CFR Part 70
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Operating permits,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Dated: August 21, 1995.
Felicia Marcus,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-21761 Filed 8-31-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
