[No title available]

[FRL-4825-1]

Prevention of Significant Deterioration; Delegation of Authority;

Maricopa County, AZ

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Delegation of authority.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Regional Administrator for EPA Region 9, San Francisco,

has delegated full authority to Maricopa County to implement and

enforce the federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)

program.

DATES: The effective date of the delegation agreement is November 22,

1993.

ADDRESSES: Environmental Management and Transportation Agency, Maricopa

County Division of Air Pollution Control, 2406 South 24th Street, suite

E-214, Phoenix, AZ 85034.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jessica Gaylord, Air and Toxics

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 75 Hawthorne Street (A-

5-1), San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 744-1256.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has

delegated, under the provisions which are found in 40 CFR 52.21(u), to

Maricopa County: (a) The authority for all sources in that County

subject to review for the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD)

of air quality, pursuant to Part C of Title I of the Clean Air Act, as

amended August 7, 1977, and the requirements promulgated in the July 1,

1992, edition of 40 CFR 52.21, as amended August 7, 1980, under

authority of sections 101, 110, and 160-169 of the Clean Air Act: and

(b) the authority to review, administer, and enforce throughout the

County the PSD requirements imposed by the Clean Air Act sections 101,

110, and 160-169, and 40 CFR 52.21, as amended August 7, 1980.

The following letter and attached agreement represent the terms and

conditions of the amended delegation.

The PSD Delegation of Authority is reviewable under section

307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act only in the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals. A petition for review must be filed by March 14, 1994.

Dated: December 13, 1993.

David P. Howekamp,

Director, Air and Toxics Division, Region IX.

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Region IX--75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901

December 16, 1993.

Karen J. Heidel, Ph.D., Environmental Management &

Transportation Agency, 2406 South 24th Street, Suite E-214, Phoenix,

AZ 85034.

Re: PSD Delegation Agreement for Maricopa County

Dear Dr. Heidel: I am pleased to transmit to you two signed

originals of the delegation agreement for the Prevention of

Significant Deterioration program. Please note that the delegation

is effective on the date of the Regional Administrator's signature.

EPA will shortly publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing

the delegation.

EPA will continue to provide any guidance or technical

assistance that may be needed for Maricopa County's implementation

of this agreement. EPA is committed to including the Division of Air

Pollution Control in decisions relating to determinations of

noncompliance with permits issued under this agreement, intended PSD

enforcement actions, and in any intended revocation proceedings

related to this agreement. We are also committed to maintaining, as

I know you are, unobstructed channels of communication between our

agencies. We look forward to a continuing partnership in the

permitting program.

Sincerely,

David P. Howekamp,

Director, Air and Toxics Division.

Agreement for Delegation of Authority of the Regulations for Prevention

of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality (40 CFR 52.21) Between U.S.

EPA and MC

The undersigned, on behalf of the Maricopa County (MC) and the

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), hereby agree

to the delegation of authority for the administrative, technical and

enforcement elements of the source review provisions of 40 CFR 52.21,

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), as they may be amended

and in accordance with the permit review requirements in 40 CFR part

124 subparts A and C, from U.S. EPA to MC, subject to the terms and

conditions below. This delegation is executed pursuant to 40 CFR

52.21(u), Delegation of Authority.

I. General Delegation Conditions

A. Authority is delegated for all sources under the jurisdiction of

MC that are subject to review for PSD. This includes all source

categories listed in 40 CFR 52.21 for each pollutant regulated by the

Clean Air Act.

B. This delegation may be amended at any time by the formal written

agreement of both MC and U.S. EPA, including amendments to add, change,

or remove conditions or terms of this Agreement.

C. If the Regional Administrator determines that the County is not

implementing or enforcing the PSD program in accordance with the terms

and conditions of this delegation, the requirements of 40 CFR 52.21, 40

CFR 124, or the Clean Air Act, this delegation, after consultation with

MC, may be revoked in whole or in part. Any such revocation shall be

effective as of the date specified in a Notice of Revocation to the

County. Nothing in this paragraph shall preclude U.S. EPA from

exercising its enforcement authority, as provided in paragraph V.B.

below.

D. The permit appeal provisions of 40 CFR 124.19 shall apply to all

appeals to the Administrator on permits issued by MC under this

delegation. For purposes of implementing the federal permit appeal

provisions under this delegation, if there is a public comment

requesting a change in a draft preliminary determination or draft

permit conditions, the final permit issued by MC is required to contain

statements which indicate that for Federal PSD purposes and in

accordance with 40 CFR 124.15 and 124.19, (1) the effective date of the

permit is 30 days after the final decision to issue, modify, revoke and

reissue the permit; and (2) if an appeal is made to the Administrator,

the effective date of the permit is suspended until such time as the

appeal is resolved. MC shall inform U.S. EPA (Region IX) in accordance

with conditions of this delegation when there is public comment

requesting a change in the preliminary determination or in a draft

permit condition. Failure by MC to comply with the terms of this

paragraph shall render the subject permit invalid for Federal PSD

purposes.

E. By this agreement, MC assumes authority for enforcement and

permit modification/amendment for EPA issued NSR/PSD permits.

F. This delegation of authority becomes effective upon the date

that both parties have signed the Agreement.

II. Communications Between U.S. EPA and MC

MC and U.S. EPA will use the following communication procedures:

A. MC shall report to U.S. EPA on a quarterly basis the compliance

status of the sources that have received a PSD permit from either MC or

U.S. EPA. The Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS) will be

used for this purpose. Compliance determinations will be made with

respect to the conditions established in the PSD permits.

B. MC shall forward to U.S. EPA, at the beginning of the public

comment period for each PSD permit, a summary of (1) the findings

related to each PSD application, (2) the justification for MC's

preliminary determination, and (3) a copy of the draft permit. Should

there be any comments or concerns about the pending PSD permit, U.S.

EPA shall communicate these comments and concerns to MC as soon as

possible prior to the close of the public comment period.

C. MC shall forward to EPA Region IX (attn: A-5-1) copies of the

final action on the PSD permit applications at the time of issuance, as

well as copies of substantive public comments. MC must address any

public comments not incorporated into the permit, and shall provide a

summary of the responses.

D. MC shall send U.S. EPA copies of preliminary determinations on

PSD permit modifications and amendments at or prior to the beginning of

the public comment period. U.S. EPA will provide comments to MC prior

to the close of the public comment period.

E. MC shall send to EPA a copy of all applicability determinations

and justifications made that would involve PSD exemptions due to

offsetting or netting (40 CFR 52.21(b)(3) and 52.21(b)(21).

III. Revisions to Title 40 CFR 52.21

A. This delegation covers any revisions that are promulgated for 40

CFR 52.21 and 40 CFR 124. The terms ``40 CFR 52.21'' and ``40 CFR 124''

as used in the delegation request and throughout this Agreement,

include such regulations as are in effect on the date this Agreement is

executed and any revisions that are promulgated after that date.

B. In addition, the following U.S. EPA policies shall apply to PSD

review:

1. U.S. EPA is responsible for the issuance of PSD permits on

Indian Lands, under sections 110(c) and 301 of the Clean Air Act.

States (or their delegates) have no authority to establish air

pollution control requirements on Indian Reservations, unless requested

to by the Tribal Governing Body.

2. According to U.S. EPA guidance published on September 22, 1987

and supplemental guidance published on July 28, 1988, all delegated

agencies must now consider pollutants not subject to the Clean Air Act

in their Best Available Control Technology (BACT) determinations. The

BACT determinations must include a review of the toxic effects of

unregulated pollutants and the impact of the proposed BACT on the

emissions of these pollutants.

3. MC shall consult with the appropriate Federal, State, and local

land use agencies prior to issuance of preliminary determinations on

PSD permits. In particular, U.S. EPA requires that MC shall:

(a) Notify the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and U.S. EPA when a

PSD permit application has been received, in order to assist U.S. EPA

in carrying out its non-delegable responsibilities under section 7 of

the Endangered Species Act (PL 97-304).

(b) Notify potential applicants of the potential need for

consultation between U.S. EPA and the FWS if an endangered species may

be affected by the project. U.S. EPA's data sheet may be used for this

process (copy enclosed).

(c) Refrain from issuing a final PSD permit unless the FWS has

determined that the proposed project will not adversely affect any

endangered species.

4. MC shall consider a dry scrubber for sulfur dioxide control, a

baghouse or electrostatic precipitator for particulate control, and

efficient combustion techniques for carbon monoxide control in their

BACT determinations for municipal waste combustors pursuant to U.S. EPA

guidance published on June 26, 1987.

5. MC shall begin any BACT determination with the most stringent

control options available for that category, pursuant to additional

BACT guidance issued on December 1, 1987. U.S. EPA will consider as

deficient any BACT determination not complying with this ``top-down''

requirement.

6. Upon notification from EPA, MC shall implement such new

regulations or directives pending revision of this Agreement.

IV. Permits

A. In any matter involving interpretation of sections 160-169 of

the Clean Air Act, or 40 CFR 52.21, and of 40 CFR 124 where guidance on

the implementation, review, administration, or enforcement of these

sections has not been sent to MC, U.S. EPA will be contacted and

requested to provide the appropriate guidance.

B. MC shall at no time grant any waiver to the PSD permit

requirements.

C. Permits issued under this delegation shall contain language

certifying that the Federal PSD requirements have been satisfied.

D. Authorities to Construct must include appropriate provisions, as

specified in Attachment A, to ensure permit enforceability. Permit

conditions shall, at a minimum, contain reporting requirements on

initiation of construction, startup, and where applicable, source

testing and continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS). In all

cases where tests are required, the tests methods shall be specified.

All cases where CEMS are required, appropriate testing and reporting

requirements shall be included. Upset/breakdown and malfunction

conditions shall be included in all permits.

E. U.S. EPA will assist MC in the BACT determination for all PSD

permit applications filed with MC, such that U.S. EPA and MC jointly

concur on each BACT determination. The signatures of U.S. EPA and MC on

the final permit shall constitute concurrence on the BACT

determinations

F. All modeling analyses for determination of increment consumption

and compliance with the NAAQS will require the joint concurrence of

U.S. EPA and MC. The signatures of U.S. EPA and MC on the final permit

shall constitute concurrence on the modeling analyses.

G. Separate from conditions E and F and for a given time as

specified in this subpart, U.S. EPA and MC shall jointly concur on the

entire analysis and permit conditions for each PSD permit issued. This

requirement for dual concurrence shall be waived beginning with the

first application submitted and deemed complete two (2) years after the

date of this agreement, or after U.S. EPA concurs with MC on ten (10)

final permits issued pursuant to this delegation agreement, whichever

occurs later. In any event, U.S. EPA shall provide written notice to MC

when the requirement for dual concurrence no longer applies.

H. MC shall conduct an annual review of the NO2 increment

status for each Section 107 area designated as attainment over which it

has jurisdiction and shall prepare a summary report of the review. Such

review shall be made in accordance with current U.S. EPA guidance as

provided to MC. Emissions from the following sources consume NO2

increment: (1) any new major stationary source or modification of a

major stationary source on which construction begins after February 8,

1988; and (2) minor, area, and mobile sources, after the minor source

baseline date, as it is defined by 40 CFR 52.21. The initial review of

the NO2 increment status shall address the consumption of NO2

increment between February 8, 1988, and the effective date of this

agreement.

I. MC shall conduct an annual review, similar to the one in

preceeding subpart H, on the status of the PM10 increment. For

that part of Maricopa County designated nonattainment for TSP, the

requirement for tracking PM10 increment consumption becomes

effective on the date of receipt of the first major source application

deemed complete after the June 3, 1994, implementation date for

PM10 increments. For all other areas within Maricopa County, the

minor source baseline date established for TSP remains in effect, but

PM10 increments replace TSP increments as the particulate matter

indicator.

J. U.S. EPA shall retain the responsibility of issuing the PSD

permit for Palo Verde Steel, but enforcement of the final permit terms

and conditions on the source shall be under local authority.

V. Permit Enforcement

A. The primary responsibility for enforcement of the PSD

regulations as found in 40 CFR part 52 in Maricopa County will rest

with MC, except where responsibility is vested in the State of Arizona.

Pursuant to A.R.S. 49-402, the State of Arizona has original

jurisdiction over the following sources in Maricopa County:

1. Smelting of metal ore.

2. Petroleum refineries.

3. Coal fired electrical generating stations.

4. Portland cement plants.

5. Air pollution generated by portable sources unless delegated to

MC.

6. Air pollution by mobile sources for the purpose of regulating

those sources as prescribed by A.R.S. Title 49, Chapter 3, Articles 4 &

5.

MC will enforce the provisions that pertain to the PSD program,

except in those cases where the rules or policy of MC are more

stringent. In such cases, MC may elect to implement the more stringent

requirements.

B. Nothing in this delegation agreement shall prohibit EPA from

enforcing the PSD provisions of the Clean Air Act, the PSD regulations

or any PSD permit issued by MC pursuant to this Agreement.

C. In the event that MC is unwilling or unable to enforce a

provision of this delegation with respect to a source subject to the

PSD regulations, MC will immediately notify the Regional Administrator.

Failure to notify the Regional Administrator does not preclude U.S. EPA

from exercising its enforcement authority.

Dated: November 9, 1993.

James D. Bruner,

Chairman, Maricopa County Board of Supervisors.

Dated: November 22, 1993.

John Wise,

Acting for

Felicia A. Marcus,

Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region IX.

Attachment A

All Authorities to Construct, where applicable, shall contain:

1. Identification of all points of emission, both stack and

fugitive.

2. Specification of a numerical emission limitation for each point

of emission in terms of mass rate and/or concentration limitations. If

emission testing based on a numerical emission limitation is

infeasible, the permit may instead prescribe a design, operational, or

equipment standard. Any permits issued without numerical emission

limitations must contain conditions which assure that the design

characteristics or equipment will be properly maintained or that the

operational conditions will be properly performed so as to continuously

achieve the assumed degree of control.

3. Limitations or factors which were the basis for the air quality

impact analysis must be specified (e.g. hours of operation, stack

height, materials processed which affect emissions).

4. Methods and frequency of determining continued compliance for

each point of emission (such as from the SIP or if the source is

subject to New Source Performance Standards [NSPS] or National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants [NESHAP] or explicitly

identified if a reference method is not used.

5. Recordkeeping requirements which enable the agency to ascertain

continued compliance, especially where factors such as hours of

operation, throughput of materials, sulfur content of fuels, fuel

usage, and type or quantity of materials processed are conditions of

the permit.

6. A condition that the permit such that it will expire if

construction is not commenced within eighteen (18) months or a shorter

period.

7. A condition that the source is responsible for providing

sampling and testing facilities at its own expense.

8. A condition that continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS)

will be used for enforcement purposes.

9. Reporting requirements which enable the agency to monitor the

following:

(a) Progress of source construction including the date by which

construction is completed; and

(b) Compliance with (1) emission limitations, (2) operational

limitations, (3) and work practice standards; the reporting

requirements should include excess emissions reports and source test

results.

10. Permits issued under this delegation should contain language

certifying that the federal PSD requirements have been satisfied.

11. As a courtesy to sources exempted from PSD review due to

federally enforceable operational or process restrictions, or the use

of controls more stringent than required by applicable SIP limits, the

source shall be advised that any relaxation of those limits may subject

the entire source to full PSD review as if construction had not yet

begun. Suggested language is as follows:

This source is exempt from PSD review because of * * * (state

reason, for example, ``the requirement that limits operation to

eight hours per day''). Any relaxation in this limit which increases

your potential to emit above the applicable PSD threshold will

require a full PSD review of the affected source as if construction

had not yet commenced.

[FR Doc. 94-802 Filed 1-11-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[FRL-4825-2]

Prevention of Significant Deterioration; Rescission of Authority;

Fresno County, CA

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Rescission of local PSD permitting authority.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Director, Air & Toxics Division, for EPA Region IX, San

Francisco has rescinded local Prevention of Significant Deterioration

(PSD) permitting authority in Fresno County, California.

DATES: Rescission of local PSD permitting authority is effective April

9, 1993.

ADDRESSES: David L. Crow, Executive Director/APCO, San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District, 1999 Tuolumne Street, suite

200, Fresno, CA 93721.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jessica Gaylord, Air and Toxics

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 75 Hawthorne Street (A-

5-1), San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 744-1256.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In September 1991, the State of California

passed legislation that effectively required the eight separate

counties of the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin to form a single air

pollution control district (APCD). EPA had delegated PSD authority to

Fresno County APCD by an agreement dated December 23, 1985. Because the

San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD has chosen to defer to EPA the

regulation of sources subject to PSD rules at 40 CFR 52.21, EPA is

responding to their request to rescind PSD authority previously

delegated to Fresno County APCD. The following letter represents the

terms and conditions of the rescission.

The PSD Delegation of Authority is reviewable under section

307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act only in the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals. A petition for review must be filed by March 14, 1994.

Dated: December 10, 1993.

David P. Howekamp,

Director, Air and Toxics Division, Region IX.

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

April 9, 1993.

David L. Crow,

Executive Director/APCO, San Joaquin Valley, Unified Air Pollution

Control District, 1999 Tuolumne Street, Suite 200, Fresno, CA 93721.

Dear Mr. Crow: This letter responds to your request to EPA to

rescind Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting

authority in Fresno and Kern counties. We recognize that the

request, dated March 16, 1993, and received by this office on March

19, 1993, is consistent with ongoing efforts to attain a more

coordinated approach to air quality management in the San Joaquin

Valley.

In September 1991, the State of California passed legislation

that effectively required the formation of a single air pollution

control district in the Valley Air Basin. To that end, eight

counties joined efforts in March 1992 to form the San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District. The District comprises the

counties of Fresno, Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus,

and Tulare counties, as well as that part of Kern County located in

the Valley Air Basin. By August 1992, the California Air Resources

Board certified that the District met the requirements stated in SB

124.

EPA had specifically transferred PSD authority to Fresno County

APCD by a delegation agreement, dated December 23, 1985. As

mentioned in your letter, the District has chosen to defer to EPA

the regulation of sources subject to PSD rules at 40 CFR 52.21.

Therefore, EPA hereby rescinds authority delegated to Fresno County

APCD to regulate sources subject to the federal PSD rules. Please

note that no such agreement was made between EPA and Kern County, so

that your request to rescind PSD authority in that county requires

no further action.

Pursuant to grant conditions under Sec. 105 (Program Objective

5), the District shall continue to provide to EPA notification, as

soon as possible and prior to deeming the application complete, of

all new major stationary sources and major modifications that may be

subject to the federal PSD regulation. Specifically, this affects

major stationary sources and major modifications to existing

sources, as defined under part 52.21(b), that are located in areas

designated as attainment within the San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD.

The District should also provide notification to sources potentially

affected by the federal PSD requirements. These sources must submit

PSD permit applications to EPA and may be subject to enforcement

action if construction commences before EPA issues a final PSD

permit.

We look forward to continued cooperation with you and your

staff, so that permits may be issued in a timely and effective

manner. If you have further questions regarding this matter, please

contact Jessica Gaylord of my staff at (415) 744-1256.

Sincerely,

Carl C. Kohnert, Jr.,

Acting for David P. Howekamp, Director, Air & Toxic Division.

[FR Doc. 94-803 Filed 1-11-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[OPP-42024H; FRL-4743-5]

Notice of Approval of Amendment to Texas Plan for Certification

of Applicators of Compound 1080 Livestock Protection Collars

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of approval of amended certification plan.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On August 13, 1993, EPA announced its intention to approve an

amendment to the Texas Plan for Certification of Applicators of

Compound 1080 Livestock Protection Collars (LPC's). Public comments

were solicited on this amended plan. The amended plan permits pooling

of LPC's among certified LPC applicators. No comments were received and

EPA therefore approves the amended plan.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry Oglesby, Pesticides and Toxic

Substances Branch, Region VI, Environmental Protection Agency, 1445

Ross Ave., Dallas, TX 75202-2733, Telephone: 214-655-7563.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the provision of section

11(a)(2) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

(FIFRA) and 40 CFR part 171, the Texas Department of Agriculture

submitted to EPA for approval, revisions to its current plan for

certification of LPC applicators. The amendment to the Texas LPC

certification plan permits the designation of collar pool agents.

Certified LPC applicators are permitted to participate in a collar pool

administered by a collar pool agent. The purpose of the collar pool is

to reduce the number of LPC's in circulation by a pooling of LPC's.

Certified LPC applicators will check out the LPC's from the collar pool

agent immediately prior to use. When no longer needed, a LPC will be

returned to the collar pool agent for distribution to another certified

LPC applicator. All collar pool agents are considered agents of the

registrant and are required to keep the same records. Further, the

collar pool system will not affect the recordkeeping or reporting

requirements of LPC users. EPA announced its intention to approve the

amended plan in the Federal Register of August 13, 1993 (58 FR 43115),

and solicited comments. No comments were received and EPA therefore

approves the amended plan.

Copies of the amended plan are available for review at the

following locations during normal business hours:

1. Texas Department of Agriculture, Stephen F. Austin Building, Rm.

1034F, 17th St. and Congress Ave., Austin, TX 78711, Telephone 512-463-

0013.

2. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VI, 1445 Ross Ave., 12th

Floor, Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75202, Telephone: 214-655-7239.

Dated: December 6, 1993.

Allyn M. Davis,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region VI.

[FR Doc. 94-497 Filed 1-11-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-F