[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 181 (Tuesday, September 19, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48435-48439]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-23204]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 70
[AD-FRL-5298-1]
Clean Air Act Proposed Disapproval of Operating Permits Program;
Commonwealth of Virginia
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed disapproval.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to disapprove the Commonwealth of Virginia's
Operating Permits Program, which Virginia submitted in response to
Federal requirements that States adopt programs providing for the
issuance of operating permits to all major stationary sources and to
certain other sources. EPA is proposing disapproval of Virginia's
submittal because Virginia's program does not afford all persons who
are entitled to seek judicial review of operating permits with the
legal standing to obtain such review, does not assure that all sources
required by the Clean Air Act (CAA) to obtain Title V permits will be
required to obtain such permits, and does not contain an adequate
provision for collection of Title V program fees.
DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by
October 19, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted to Ray Chalmers, USEPA Region
III; Air, Radiation, & Toxics Division; 841 Chestnut Building;
Philadelphia, PA 19107.
Copies of the State's submittal and other supporting information
used in developing the proposed disapproval are available for
inspection during normal business hours at the following location: U.S.
EPA Region III; Air, Radiation, & Toxics Division; 841 Chestnut
Building; Philadelphia, PA 19107.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ray Chalmers, 3AT23; U.S. EPA Region
III; Air, Radiation, & Toxics Division; 841 Chestnut Building;
Philadelphia, PA 19107. (215) 597-9844.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
Title V of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. Secs. 7661-7611f, requires that
States develop programs for issuing operating permits to all major
stationary sources and to certain other sources, that they submit those
programs to EPA by November 15, 1993, and that EPA approve or
disapprove each program within 1 year after receiving the submittal.
The EPA's program review occurs pursuant to section 502 of the CAA and
regulations promulgated at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part
70. The regulations promulgated at 40 CFR Part 70 define the minimum
elements of an approvable State operating permits program and the
corresponding standards and procedures by which the EPA will approve or
disapprove and oversee implementation of State operating permits
programs (see 57 FR 32250 (July 21, 1992)). Where a program
substantially, but not fully, meets the requirements of section 502 of
the CAA or 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.
Due in part to pending litigation over several aspects of the Part
70 rule promulgated on July 21, 1992, Part 70 is in the process of
being revised. When the final revisions to Part 70 are promulgated, the
requirements of the revised Part 70 will define EPA's criteria for the
minimum elements of an approvable State operating permits program and
the corresponding standards and procedures by which EPA will review
State operating permits program submittals. Until the date on which the
revisions to Part 70 are promulgated, the currently effective July 21,
1992 version of Part 70 shall be used as the basis for EPA review.
[[Page 48436]]
Virginia submitted a Title V program to EPA on November 12, 1993.
The submittal included regulations, an Attorney General's opinion, a
program description, permitting program documentation, and other
required elements. On January 14, 1994, Virginia submitted a
supplemental letter pertaining to enhanced monitoring. In a Federal
Register notice published December 5, 1994 (59 Fed. Reg. 62324), EPA
disapproved this program.1 On January 9, 1995, Virginia submitted
revised regulations and a revised Attorney General's opinion as
amendments to its original program, and asked that EPA approve the
revised program. On January 17, 1995, Virginia submitted an additional
copy of the revised regulations (the version published in the Virginia
Register). On April 18, 1995, EPA found Virginia's January 9, 1995
submittal to be administratively complete, pursuant to 40 CFR
70.4(e)(1). Finally, on May 17, 1995, Virginia again amended its
program by submitting revised statutory language and an amended
Attorney General's opinion.
\1\The Commonwealth of Virginia filed an appeal of this
rulemaking in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit (Case No. 95-1052).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The analysis contained in this document focuses on the major
corrections required in Virginia's operating permit program submittals
to enable Virginia's program to meet the minimum requirements of 40 CFR
Part 70 and the CAA. The full program submittal, the Technical Support
Document (TSD), providing additional analysis of Virginia's submittal,
and other relevant materials providing more detailed information are
available as part of the public docket.
II. Analysis of State Submittal
A. Statutes, Regulations and Program Implementation
Virginia's operating program submittal does not substantially meet
the requirements of the CAA and of the implementing regulations at 40
CFR Part 70 because it: (1) Does not adequately afford persons the
opportunity to seek judicial review of final permit decisions; (2) does
not assure that all sources required by the CAA to obtain Title V
permits will be required to obtain such permits; and (3) does not
contain an adequate provision for collection of Title V program fees.
These issues are discussed below, and in the TSD. In addition, this
notice and the TSD specify other deficiencies which must be corrected
before EPA can grant full approval to Virginia's operating permits
program.
1. Standing for Judicial Review
EPA is proposing to disapprove Virginia's Title V program because
it does not adequately provide interested parties with adequate
standing to obtain judicial review of final Title V permit decisions.
As described in the December 5, 1994 final disapproval notice, EPA
interprets section 502(b)(6) of the CAA and 40 CFR 70.4(b)(3)(x) as
requiring that approvable Title V permit programs provide any party who
participated in the public comment process on a permit action and who
meets the threshold standing requirements of Article III of the U.S.
Constitution with the opportunity to obtain judicial review of an
operating permit in State court. (See 59 FR 62325). The Commonwealth's
January 9, 1995, submittal did not correct the previously identified
deficiency in Virginia's standing provisions. In particular, Virginia
did not amend the standing provisions of Section 10.1-1318(B) of the
Code of Virginia. Those provisions continue to extend the right to seek
judicial review only to persons who have suffered an ``actual,
threatened, or imminent injury * * *'' where ``such injury is an
invasion of an immediate, legally protected, pecuniary and substantial
interest which is concrete and particularized * * *'' Virginia's
statute does not enable a party who meets the minimum threshold
standing requirements of Article III of the U.S. Constitution to obtain
access to Virginia's court system and therefore it fails to meet the
minimum requirements for providing an opportunity for judicial review
as required by section 502(b)(6) of the CAA and 40 CFR 70.4(b)(3)(x).
The Commonwealth's Attorney General has questioned the validity of
EPA's interpretation of section 502(b)(6) of the CAA and, if that
interpretation is valid, of the constitutionality of the CAA. EPA
believes that its interpretation of section 502(b)(6) of the CAA is
reasonable and is supported by the language of the CAA, its legislative
history, and the goals Congress sought to achieve under Title V of the
CAA. In addition, EPA believes that Title V of CAA and its related
sanctions provisions do not violate the U.S. Constitution. (See 59 FR
62325-62327).
EPA must disapprove Virginia's program and cannot merely grant it
interim approval on this issue because this deficiency is so
significant that it prevents the entire program from substantially
meeting the requirements of 40 CFR Part 70. If Virginia is permitted to
narrowly preclude public commenters from exercising judicial review
rights, one of the chief incentives for permit decision makers to fully
consider public comments would be significantly reduced and the public
comments process would thereby be rendered less meaningful. The guiding
principle that EPA considers in all evaluations of approvability of
interim programs is whether the proposed program can ensure the
issuance of good permits. Only after a permit program is found to
substantially meet the requirements of Part 70 can the criteria in 40
CFR Sec. 70.4(d)(3) be applied to determine if the program is eligible
for interim approval.
EPA cannot approve Virginia's operating permit program until
Virginia amends Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1318(B) to correct this deficiency.
2. Applicability Under the Operating Permits Program
EPA is also proposing to disapprove Virginia's submittal because it
does not ensure the applicability of the Title V operating permit
program to all sources subject to the program under 40 CFR 70.3.
Virginia's regulations provide that the operating permit program
applies to sources subject to certain listed air pollution control
requirements. (See Sec. 120-08-0501 and Sec. 120-08-0601.) In these
applicability sections the Commonwealth should have listed all the CAA
requirements which trigger Title V applicability, as they are set forth
at 40 CFR 70.3. Instead, Virginia lists, in several cases, its own air
pollution control regulations, in which Virginia incorporates federal
CAA Sec. 111 and Sec. 112 requirements. Virginia states in Rule 8-5,
Sec. 120-08-0501, and in Rule 8-6, Sec. 120-08-0601, that sources are
subject to its operating permits rule if they are subject to Virginia's
regulatory provisions of Parts IV, V and VI as adopted pursuant to
sections 111 and 112 of the CAA. To meet the requirements of 40 CFR
70.3, Virginia must revise Sec. 120-08-0501 and Sec. 120-08-0601 to
state that sources are subject to the operating permits rule if they
are subject to a standard, limitation or other requirement under
sections 111 or 112 of the CAA.
EPA cannot approve Virginia's operating permit program until
Virginia corrects the deficiencies discussed above.
3. Permit Fee Demonstration
EPA is also proposing to disapprove Virginia's submittal because it
does not contain an adequate permit fee demonstration. Virginia's Rule
8-6, entitled ``Permit Program Fees for Stationary Sources,'' includes
a formula to be used for calculating permit fees. Under this formula a
base year fee
[[Page 48437]]
amount is to be increased each year by the amount of inflation as
measured by the consumer price index for all urban consumers. This part
of the formula meets the permit fee requirements of 40 CFR Sec. 70.9.
However, in the formula Virginia defines the base year amount not
as $25, which is the minimum required for EPA to presume a State fee to
be adequate, as specified under 40 CFR Sec. 70.9, but rather as ``the
base year amount specified in Sec. 10.1-1322(B) of the Virginia Air
Pollution Control Law, expressed in dollars per ton.'' Section 10.1-
1322(B) does not define a certain base year fee, but states only that
``The annual permit program fees shall not exceed a base year amount of
twenty-five dollars per ton using 1990 as the base year, and shall be
adjusted annually by the Consumer Price Index as described in Sec. 502
of the federal Clean Air Act.'' For Virginia's program to be
approvable, the fee assessment formula in Virginia Rule 8-6 must be
revised to specify a base year fee amount of $25 per ton, with a base
year of 1989 adjusted for inflation, as provided for under 40 CFR
Sec. 70.9. Also, Sec. 10.1-1322(B) should be changed to specify a base
year of 1989.
Virginia Rule 8-6 also includes a provision, in Secs. 120-08-
0604.D. and E., which allows Virginia to assess a fee of less than $25
per ton (1989 dollars) adjusted for inflation, if Virginia determines
that it would collect more money than required to fund its Title V
program if it assessed the full $25 per ton fee (1989 dollars),
adjusted for inflation. If Virginia chooses in the future to collect a
fee of less than $25 (1989 dollars), adjusted for inflation, its fee
assessment would no longer meet the requirement for presumed adequacy
under 40 CFR Sec. 70.9. Accordingly, Virginia would trigger the
requirements under 40 CFR Sec. 70.9(b)(5) that it provide EPA with a
detailed accounting that its fee schedule meets the requirements of 40
CFR Sec. 70.9(b)(1).
Before the Commonwealth assesses a fee lower than the presumptive
minimum of Sec. 25 per ton (1989 dollars), adjusted for inflation, it
must obtain EPA approval of such a fee. EPA would approve such a fee if
Virginia submitted a detailed accounting showing that the fee would
result in the collection of sufficient funds to run a fully adequate
Title V program. This requirement for EPA approval of any fee lower
than the presumptive minimum is consistent with the requirements of 40
CFR Sec. 70.9, and is implied by Sec. 120-08-0604.D. which states that
``Any adjustments made to the annual permit program fee shall be made
within the constraints of 40 CFR Sec. 70.9.''
4. Insignificant Activities
Section 70.4(b)(2) requires States to include in their operating
programs any criteria used to determine insignificant activities or
emission levels for the purposes of determining complete applications.
Section 70.5(c) provides 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) further 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 may 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 specific 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.
In Appendix W of Rules 8-5 and 8-6 Virginia defines various
specified types of emission units as insignificant for purposes of
Title V permitting, and states that these units are not required to be
identified in Title V applications. The Appendix also states that other
unspecified types of units can be considered insignificant if their
emissions or their size or production rate are below certain levels.
These units must be listed in Title V applications, and their
emissions, size, or production rate must be given, whichever is
relevant, but no additional information must be supplied regarding
them.
EPA has several concerns regarding Virginia's classifications of
insignificant sources. One overall concern is that under Virginia Rule
8-5 and Appendix W the determination of whether or not a source is
subject to the operating permit program can be done without taking into
account emissions from units considered to be insignificant. If the
total emissions from units subject to Title V requirements were just
below the level which would trigger Title V program applicability,
failure to take into account additional emissions from units which are
exempt could result in a source avoiding Title V requirements when it
should be subject to those requirements. EPA recommends that Virginia
correct this deficiency by modifying the statements found in Sec. 120-
08-505D(1)(a)(2) and in Appendix W(I)(A)(4), which require that ``the
emissions from any emissions unit shall be included in the permit
application if the omission of those emission units from the
application would interfere with the determination or imposition of any
applicable requirement or the calculation of permit fees.'' The last
portion of this statement should be modified to state ``if the omission
of those emission units would interfere with the determination of Title
V applicability, the determination or imposition of an applicable
requirement, or the calculation of permit fees.''
EPA is also concerned that when Virginia defined emissions units as
insignificant based on their emissions levels, Virginia used emissions
levels which are too high. Specifically, EPA is concerned that Virginia
defined as insignificant all emissions units with uncontrolled
emissions of less than 10 tons per year of nitrogen dioxide, sulfur
dioxide, and total suspended particulates or particulate matter (PM10),
less than seven tons per year of volatile organic compounds, and less
than 100 tons per year of carbon monoxide. Virginia defines
``uncontrolled emissions'' as emissions from a source when operating at
maximum capacity without air pollution control equipment. Insignificant
activity thresholds that are considered to be ``sound'' by EPA would
fall in the range of 1 to 2 tons per year for criteria pollutants. EPA
is also concerned that Virginia defined as insignificant all other
pollutant emission sources (many of them hazardous emission sources)
with emissions less than the section 112(g) de minimis levels set forth
at 40 CFR Sec. 63.44 or the accidental release threshold levels found
at 40 CFR Sec. 68.130. These levels are appropriate in many cases, but
are too high in others. Accordingly, EPA believes that Virginia should
modify this provision to indicate that sources emitting other air
pollutants are considered insignificant if their emissions are below
the lesser of the Sec. 112(g) threshold levels set forth at 40 CFR
Sec. 63.44, the accidental release thresholds set forth at 40 CFR
Sec. 68.130, or 1000 pounds per year. EPA believes that the above
criteria and other pollutant emission levels are sufficiently below the
applicability thresholds for many applicable requirements to assure
that no unit potentially subject to an applicable requirement would be
omitted from a Title V application.
EPA is concerned that Virginia did not provide EPA with sufficient
information to properly evaluate whether or not all of the activities
[[Page 48438]]
which Virginia included on its list of insignificant activities are
appropriate. Of key importance to EPA in reviewing such lists is that
no source subject to an applicable federal requirement should be
included on the list, pursuant to 40 CFR Sec. 70.5. Virginia did not
provide a demonstration that the activities it listed are not likely to
be subject to such requirements. Also important in reviewing such lists
is that the emissions from the activities listed be truly
insignificant, and Virginia did not provide EPA with information on the
likely emissions of the activities listed. However, it is clear that
Virginia has incorrectly listed as insignificant both ``comfort air
conditioning'' and ``refrigeration systems,'' which are subject to
stratospheric ozone protection requirements established by Title VI of
the CAA. Virginia should remove both comfort air conditioning and
refrigeration systems from the insignificant activities list.
EPA cannot fully approve Virginia's operating permit program until
Virginia corrects the deficiencies discussed above.
5. Variance Provision
While not a disapproval issue, it should be noted that Virginia has
the authority to issue a variance from requirements imposed by Virginia
law. The variance provision at Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1307.C. empowers the
Air Pollution Control Board, after a public hearing, to grant a local
variance from any regulation adopted by the board. EPA regards this
provision as wholly external to the program submitted for approval
under Part 70, and consequently is proposing to take no action on this
provision of Virginia law. EPA has no authority to approve provisions
of State law, such as the variance provision referred to, which are
inconsistent with the CAA. EPA does not recognize the ability of a
permitting authority to grant relief from the duty to comply with a
federally enforceable permit, except where such relief is consistent
with the applicable requirements of the CAA and is granted through
procedures allowed by Part 70. EPA reserves the right to enforce the
terms of the permit where the permitting authority purports to grant
relief from the duty to comply with a permit in a manner inconsistent
with the CAA and Part 70 procedures.
B. Provisions Implementing Other CAA Requirements
1. Authority and Commitments for Section 112 Implementation
Virginia requested that EPA grant Virginia ``delegation of
authority upon approval of the operating permit program for all Section
112 programs except Section 112(r), prevention of accidental
releases.'' Because EPA is disapproving Virginia's Title V submittal,
Virginia's request for delegation has not been triggered.
Virginia demonstrated that it has in Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1322.A. and
Rule 8-5 the broad legal authority to incorporate into permits and to
enforce most applicable CAA section 112 requirements. However, Virginia
also indicated that it may require additional authority to conduct
certain specific section 112 activities. Virginia supplemented its
broad legal authority with a commitment to ``develop the state
regulatory provisions as necessary to carry out these programs and the
responsibilities under the delegation after approval of the operating
permit program and EPA has issued the prerequisite guidance for
development of these title III programs.'' Also, Virginia has the
authority under Sec. 120-08-0505.K. to require that an applicant state
that the source has complied with CAA Sec. 112(r) or state in the
compliance plan that the source intends to comply and has set a
schedule to do so.
EPA had until recently interpreted the CAA as requiring sources to
comply with section 112(g) beginning on the date of approval of a Title
V program regardless of whether or not EPA had completed its section
112(g) rulemaking. EPA has since revised this interpretation of the CAA
as described in a February 14, 1995 Federal Register notice (see 60 FR
83333). The revised interpretation postpones the effective date of
section 112(g) until after EPA has promulgated a rule addressing that
provision. The rationale for the revised interpretation is set forth in
detail in the February 14, 1995 interpretive notice.
The section 112(g) interpretive notice explains that EPA is still
considering whether the effective date of section 112(g) should be
delayed beyond the date of promulgation of the federal rule 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), Virginia would be required, if it were
delegated authority to implement section 112(g), to be able to
implement section 112(g) during the transition period between
promulgation of the federal section 112(g) rule and adoption of
implementing Virginia regulations.
2. Acid Rain Provisions
Virginia's program does not contain all provisions required
relating to acid rain sources, but Virginia has committed to submit the
required provisions shortly, and EPA find Virginia's commitment
acceptable. Virginia's program properly requires ``affected sources''
to obtain operating permits, and Virginia defines an ``affected
source'' as a source containing one or more ``affected units,'' which
are themselves defined as ``a unit subject to any acid rain emissions
reduction requirement or acid rain emissions limitation under 40 CFR
Parts 72, 73, 75, 76, 77, or 78.'' However, Virginia has not defined as
an ``applicable requirement'' any of these acid rain emissions
reduction requirements or limitations. Therefore, Virginia's operating
permits would not be required to include any of these requirements.
Virginia is aware of this deficiency and has committed to correct
it. In Virginia's operating permits program submittal of January 9,
1995, Virginia committed to adopting an acid rain regulation by the
latter half of 1995. Virginia stated that under this regulation it
would issue acid rain sources operating permits which would include all
requirements of the acid rain program. In a statement included in that
submittal, Virginia's Attorney General also committed to provide EPA,
when Virginia submits its acid rain regulation, with the required legal
opinion regarding Virginia's legal authority to carry out the acid rain
portion of the operating permits program.
III. Proposed Action and Implications
The EPA is proposing to disapprove the operating permits program
contained in submittals from Virginia dated November 12, 1993, January
14, 1994, January 9, 1995, January 17, 1995, and May 17, 1995. If
promulgated, this disapproval would constitute a disapproval under
section 502(d) of the CAA (see generally 57 FR 32253-54). As provided
under section 502(d)(1) of the CAA, Virginia would have up to 180 days
from the date of EPA's notification of disapproval to the Governor to
revise and resubmit the program.
If EPA finalizes this proposed disapproval, Virginia may become
subject to sanctions under the CAA. Pursuant to section 502(d)(2)(A) of
the CAA, EPA may, at its discretion, apply any of the sanctions in
section 179(b) at any time following the effective date of
[[Page 48439]]
a final disapproval. The available sanctions include a prohibition on
the approval by the Secretary of Transportation of certain highway
projects or the awarding of certain federal highway funding, and a
requirement that new or modified stationary sources or emissions units
for which a permit is required under Part D of Title I of the CAA
achieve an emissions reductions-to-increases ratio of at least 2-to-1.
In addition, EPA is required by section 502(d)(2)(B) of the CAA to
apply one of the sanctions in section 179(b), as selected by the
Administrator, on the date 18 months after the effective date of a
final disapproval, unless prior to that date Virginia has submitted a
revised operating permits program and EPA has determined that it
corrects the deficiencies that prompted the final disapproval.
Moreover, if the Administrator finds a lack of good faith on the part
of Virginia, both sanctions shall apply after the expiration of the 18-
month period until the Administrator determines that Virginia has come
into compliance. In all cases, if, six months after EPA applies the
first sanction, Virginia has not submitted a revised program that EPA
has determined corrects the disapproved program's deficiencies, a
second sanction is required. Finally, if EPA has not granted full
approval to Virginia's program by November 15, 1995, and Virginia's
program at that point does not have interim approval status, EPA must
promulgate, administer and enforce a Federal permits program for
Virginia on that date.
EPA first disapproved Virginia's operating permits program in a
Federal Register notice published on December 5, 1994, which became
effective on January 5, 1995. As a result, EPA's authority to apply
discretionary sanctions to Virginia arose on January 5, 1995, and the
18-month period before which EPA is required to apply sanctions also
began on that date.
Consequently, following today's proposed disapproval EPA continues
to have the authority to apply discretionary sanctions to Virginia and
will be required to apply sanctions on July 5, 1996, unless by that
date EPA determines Virginia has corrected each of the deficiencies
that prompted EPA's original disapproval. Moreover, if today's proposed
disapproval is finalized, EPA would be required to apply sanctions 18
months after the effective date of such action, unless by that date EPA
determines Virginia has corrected each of the deficiencies that
prompted EPA's disapproval and that were not the subject of the
original final disapproval action.
IV. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to disapprove the submittals made on January 9,
1995 and May 17, 1995 by the Commonwealth of Virginia to satisfy the
requirements for the operating permits program required by Title V of
the Clean Air Act for the reasons outlined in this notice.
V. Administrative Requirements
A. Request for Public Comments
The EPA is requesting comments on all aspects of this proposed
disapproval. Copies of the State's submittal and other information
relied upon for the proposed disapproval 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 disapproval. 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 disapproval process; and (2) to serve as the record
in case of judicial review. The EPA will consider any comments received
by October 19, 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 CAA 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. Federal 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 action 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 consider 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 this proposed disapproval action of Virginia's Title V
Operating Permits Program 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 disapproves 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,
and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Dated: September 8, 1995.
W. Michael McCabe,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 95-23204 Filed 9-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
