Clean Air Act Proposed Interim Approval of Operating Permits Program; Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 70

[AD-FRL-5216-8]

Clean Air Act Proposed Interim Approval of Operating Permits

Program; Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed interim approval.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes interim approval of the Operating Permits

Program submitted by the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management

District (``Sacramento'' or ``District'') for the purpose of complying

with Federal requirements for an approvable State program to issue

operating permits to all major stationary sources, and to certain other

sources.

DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by

July 6, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Ed Pike at the Region IX

address. Copies of the State's submittal and other supporting

information used in developing the proposed interim approval are

available for inspection [[Page 29810]] during normal business hours at

the following location: Air and Toxics Division, US EPA-Region IX, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ed Pike (telephone 415/744-1248), Operating Permits Section, A-5-2, Air

and Toxics Division, US EPA-Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, California 94105.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Purpose

A. Introduction

As required under title V of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments

(sections 501-507 of the Clean Air Act (``the Act'')), EPA has

promulgated rules which 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 Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR) part 70. Title V requires States to develop, and submit to EPA,

programs for issuing these 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 after receiving the submittal. The EPA's

program review occurs pursuant to section 502 of the Act and the part

70 regulations, which together outline criteria for approval or

disapproval. Where a program substantially, but not fully, meets the

requirements of part 70, EPA may grant the program interim approval for

a period of up to 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.

B. Federal Oversight and Sanctions

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,

the District 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 the District 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 the

District'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, the District 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 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.

II. Proposed Action and Implications

A. Analysis of State Submission

EPA is proposing to grant interim approval to the District's part

70 operating permit program. The program qualifies for interim approval

because it substantially, but not fully, meets the requirements of part

70 and meets the requirements for interim approval in 40 CFR 70.4(d).

The Technical Support Document (``TSD''), which is included in the

docket, includes a detailed analysis of the program elements that meet

the requirements of part 70 and the program elements that must be

revised to qualify for full approval.

1. Support Materials

The California Air Resources Board (``ARB'') submitted an

administratively complete part 70 permitting program on behalf of the

District on August 1, 1994 with a letter requesting source-category

limited interim approval. California law currently exempts agricultural

sources from permitting requirements, including title V. The ARB

submitted a statement from the California Attorney General and copies

of state enabling legislation on behalf of all California air districts

on November 16, 1993. The Attorney General stated that California law

provides air districts with sufficient authority, including enforcement

authority, to implement title V except for permitting agricultural

sources.

Sacramento's program includes a description of the permitting

program, permitting rules, permit forms, and the District requirements

for permit applications (which are contained in Sacramento's ``List and

Criteria''). EPA intends to finalize an implementation agreement prior

to final interim approval of the program. The implementation agreement

will address data management, a mechanism for straight delegation of

section 112 standards under section 112(1) of the Act, and other

implementation details.

2. Regulations and Program Implementation

Sacramento's submittal contains three rules with part 70

requirements. District rule 207 (adopted June 7, 1994) contains most

permit program requirements. Rule 201 (as amended June 7, 1994)

contains permit exemptions and rule 301 (as amended June 7, 1994)

contains fee requirements. The District also submitted its ``List and

Criteria'' and permit application forms to specify the permit

application requirements. The program substantially meets part 70

[[Page 29811]] requirements as described below and in the TSD.

a. Applicability. The District's regulation requires that all part

70 sources, except agricultural sources exempted under state law, apply

for a part 70 permit (rule 207 section 102). Initial applications are

due within one year of EPA's approval of the program, except that

sources with actual emissions below certain levels are given three

years from the date of EPA's approval of the program to apply for

permits. The program does not require non-major sources subject to New

Source Performance Standards (NSPS) or National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) to obtain permits except as required

by EPA.

Sacramento opted for source category limited interim approval. In

addition to agricultural sources exempted under state law, the District

temporarily excluded sources with the potential to emit at major source

levels but actual emissions below certain levels. During the initial

three years, Sacramento will defer permitting sources with actual

emissions less than fifty percent of the major source threshold for

criteria pollutants. The deferred sources must also have hazardous air

pollutant (HAP) emissions of less than seven tons per year of each HAP

and fifteen tons per year of total HAPs. The District submitted a

demonstration that sixty percent of all major sources and eighty

percent of the title V emissions inventory will be permitted within the

first three years after the program is approved. The District intends

to use this time to create federally-enforceable potential to emit

limits. These deferred sources must be permitted within the first five

years of the program if they do not obtain federally enforceable limits

on their potential to emit. The program is consistent with EPA's August

2, 1993 guidance on source-category limited interim approval

(memorandum signed by John Seitz, Director of the Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards) except for the District permit issuance

deadlines, which must be revised as described under Requirements for

Full Approval.

EPA is in the process of changing the District's attainment status

for ozone from serious to severe. The redesignation will reduce the

major source potential to emit threshold from 50 tons per year to 25

tons per year for nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds. EPA

expects that this change will be promulgated and effective by June 1,

1995, which is prior to EPA's deadline for final action on the

District's title V permitting program. The District's major stationary

source definition (District rule 207 section 219) references the title

I major source definitions and will automatically incorporate this

change.

b. Permit applications. The program meets the part 70 requirements

for permit application deadlines and permit application content. Rule

207 contains the correct permit application deadlines and requires that

sources submit a complete permit application (section 301). The ``List

and Criteria'' and the permit application forms meet the requirements

for permit application content and require that sources submit

information to verify all applicable requirements and fees. Rule 207

section 208 states that a complete application must contain the

requirements in the ``List and Criteria'' and section 401 states that

the District will use the ``List and Criteria'' to determine whether

the application is complete. Rule 207 requires complete applications

but does not contain the specific permit application content

requirements. EPA is approving the ``List and Criteria'' and the permit

application forms as part of the title V permitting program to ensure

that the permit application content requirements are met.

c. Permit content. Each part 70 permit must contain emission

limitations and standards that assure compliance with all applicable

requirements (rule 207 section 305.1). The permit must also contain

monitoring, recordkeeping, and other compliance terms sufficient to

ensure compliance with the permit terms. The program allows alternative

operating scenarios and operational flexibility (rule 207 sections 305

and 308.1).

d. Public participation and EPA oversight. The District will

provide the public with notice of and an opportunity to comment on all

initial permits, permit renewals, reopenings, and significant

modifications. Each initial permit, renewal, and significant and minor

modification is subject to EPA oversight and veto (rule 207 sections

403 through 406).

e. Variances. The District has the authority to issue a variance

from requirements (except the requirement to obtain a permit to

construct or operate) imposed by state and local law. (See California

Health and Safety Code sections 42350-42364 and Sacramento rule 601.)

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.)

The EPA regards the State and District variance provisions as

wholly external to the program submitted for approval under part 70 and

consequently is proposing to take no action on these provisions of

state and local law. The EPA has no authority to approve provisions of

state law that are inconsistent with the CAA. The EPA does not

recognize the ability of a permitting authority 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 40 CFR 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.''

f. Title I modification definition. Sacramento's rule requires a

significant permit modification for a permit change that involves a

``title I modification'' but does not explicitly define the term (rule

207 section 233). The significant modification definition explicitly

states that title I modification includes modifications under 40 CFR

parts 61 and 63 and case-by-case determinations of emissions limits and

standards, but does not explicitly include changes reviewed under the

District's minor new source review program (``minor NSR changes''). The

EPA is currently in the process of determining the proper definition of

``title I modification.'' As further explained below, EPA has solicited

public comment on whether the phrase ``modification under any provision

of title I of the Act'' in 40 CFR 70.7(e)(2)(i)(A)(5) 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. This would include State preconstruction

review programs, including the District's, approved by EPA as part of

the State Implementation Plan under section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Clean

Air Act.

On August 29, 1994, EPA proposed revisions to the interim approval

criteria in 40 CFR 70.4(d) to, among other [[Page 29812]] things, allow

State programs with a more narrow definition of ``title I

modifications'' to receive interim approval (59 FR 44572). The Agency

explained its view that the better reading of ``title I modifications''

includes minor NSR, and solicited public comment on the proper

interpretation of that term (59 FR 44573). 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.

The EPA hopes to finalize its rulemaking revising the interim

approval criteria under 40 CFR 70.4(d) expeditiously. If EPA

establishes in its rulemaking that the definition of ``title I

modifications'' can be interpreted to exclude changes reviewed under

minor NSR programs, Sacramento's definition of ``title I modification''

would be fully consistent with part 70. Conversely, if EPA establishes

through the rulemaking that the definition must include changes

reviewed under minor NSR, Sacramento's lack of a ``title I

modifications'' definition that explicitly includes minor NSR will

become a basis for interim approval. If the definition becomes a basis

for interim approval as a result of EPA's rulemaking, Sacramento would

be required to revise its definition to conform to the requirements of

part 70.

Accordingly, today's proposed approval does not identify

Sacramento's lack of a ``title I modification'' definition that

explicitly includes minor NSR as necessary grounds for either interim

approval or disapproval. For similar reasons, the EPA will not construe

40 CFR 70.7(e)(2)(i)(A)(3) to prohibit Sacramento from allowing minor

NSR changes to be processed as minor permit modifications. See 59 FR

44573-44574. Again, although EPA has reasons for believing that the

better interpretation of ``title I modifications'' is the broader one,

EPA does not believe that it is appropriate to determine whether this

is a program deficiency until EPA completes its rulemaking on this

issue.

g. Insignificant activities. Section 70.4(b)(2) requires that

States include in their part 70 programs any criteria used to determine

insignificant activities or emission levels for the purposes 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. Instead, the rule requires a case-by-case

determination of appropriate levels based on the particular

circumstances of the part 70 program under review.

Sacramento provided its current permit exemption lists as its list

of insignificant activities. The District did not provide criteria or

information on the level of emissions of activities, did not

demonstrate that these activities are not likely to be subject to an

applicable requirement or fees, and did not explain the basis for

determining that these activities are insignificant. Therefore, EPA

cannot propose full approval of the program without additional

information and/or revisions to the list of insignificant activities.

h. Enhanced new source review changes. New source review

modifications that undergo ``enhanced'' NSR may be administratively

incorporated into title V permits to avoid a second review process.

Rule 207 section 202.5 requires that enhanced NSR modifications meet

the NSR requirements of rule 202, the title V procedural requirements

of rule 207 (sections 401 through 408), and the compliance requirements

of rule 207 (section 305).

3. Permit Fee Demonstration

The District assesses three types of fees. The District collects

equipment fees and emissions fees based on actual emissions. The

District stated that at least one quarter of these fees will be used

for title V activities. The District also collects separate fees based

on the amount of staff time required to issue a title V permit. The

District stated that a total of $744,722 will be collected for

implementing the title V program during the first three years and that

an average of $97 per ton of regulated pollutant (for fee purposes)

will be collected. These fees are above the presumptive minimum ($25

adjusted by the Consumer Price Index since 1989) in Sec. 70.9.

Therefore, EPA believes that these fees are sufficient to fund the

program.

4. Provisions Implementing the Requirements of Other Titles of the Act

a. Authority and commitments for section 112 implementation.

Sacramento has demonstrated in its title V program submittal 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 rule 207 provisions

defining ``applicable federal requirements'' (section 206) and stating

that the permit must incorporate all applicable federal requirements

(see section 305). EPA has determined that this legal authority is

sufficient to allow Sacramento to issue permits that assure compliance

with all section 112 requirements.

EPA is interpreting the above legal authority to mean that

Sacramento is able to carry out all section 112 activities. For further

rationale on this interpretation, please refer to the Technical Support

Document 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 of the Office of Air

Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA.

b. District preconstruction permit program to implement 112(g).

Sacramento will be required to implement the Maximum Achievable Control

Technology requirements of section 112(g) of the Act as a component of

the part 70 program. Under the interpretive notice EPA has published in

the Federal Register, State and local agencies may delay implementing

112(g) of the Act until EPA promulgates a final 112(g) rule.

Alternatively, State and local agencies may implement the requirements

of 112(g) prior to EPA promulgation of the 112(g) rule as a matter of

State or local law. See 60 FR 8333 (February 14, 1995). The notice also

states that EPA is considering whether to further delay the effective

date of section 112(g) beyond the date of promulgation of the Federal

rule so as to allow State and local agencies time to adopt rules

implementing the Federal rule. EPA will provide for any such additional

delay in the final section 112(g) rulemaking. Unless and until EPA

provides for such an additional postponement of section 112(g), the

District 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 and may choose to implement section

112(g) sooner as a matter of local law. [[Page 29813]]

For this reason, EPA is proposing to approve the use of the

District's preconstruction review program (District rule 202) and the

District's New Source Guidelines for Toxics (Appendix B-6 of submittal)

solely as a mechanism to implement section 112(g) during the transition

period between promulgation of the section 112(g) rule and District

adoption of rules specifically designed to implement section 112(g).

However, since approval is intended soley to confirm that State and

local agencies have 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 proposing that twelve months will be

adequate for the District to adopt implementing regulations but

solicits comments on whether this timeframe will be adequate.

c. 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 District's program

contain adequate authorities, adequate resources for implementation,

and an expeditious compliance schedule, which are also requirements

under part 70. Therefore, the EPA is also proposing to grant approval

under section 112(l)(5) and 40 CFR 63.91 to Sacramento's program for

receiving delegation of section 112 standards that are unchanged from

the Federal standards as promulgated. Sacramento can accept delegation

of section 112 standards through automatic delegation, as provided for

by sections 39658 and 42301.10 of the California Health and Safety

Code. The details of this delegation mechanism will be set forth in an

implementation agreement between Sacramento and EPA, and EPA expects to

complete this agreement prior to approval of Sacramento's section

112(l) program for straight delegations. This program applies to both

existing and future standards but is limited to sources covered by the

part 70 program.

d. Commitments for title IV implementation. Sacramento stated in

the program description that no title IV affected sources are located

in the District. Therefore, EPA is not requiring that the District

adopt an acid rain program prior to receiving interim approval. If acid

rain sources are constructed in the District or existing sources become

subject to the program, the District will be required to adopt an acid

rain program expeditiously.

B. Requirements for Full Approval

The EPA is proposing to grant interim approval to the operating

permits program submitted by Sacramento on August 1, 1994. If this

interim approval is promulgated, the State and the District must make

the following changes to receive full approval:

1. Necessary Change to California Enabling Legislation

a. Legislative source category limited interim approval issue.

Because California state law currently exempts agricultural production

sources from permit requirements, the California Air Resources Board

has requested source category limited interim approval for all

California air districts. EPA is proposing to grant source category

limited interim approval to the operating permits program submitted by

the California Air Resources Board on behalf of the District on August

1, 1994. In order for this program to receive full approval (and to

avoid a disapproval upon the expiration of this interim approval), the

California Legislature must revise the Health and Safety Code to

eliminate the exemption of agricultural production sources from the

requirement to obtain a permit.

2. Necessary Changes to Sacramento's Rule

a. Agricultural exemption. The District permit exemption rule also

contains a blanket exemption for agricultural operations. The District

must also remove the agricultural permit exemption to qualify for full

approval.

b. Insignificant activities. EPA cannot propose full approval of

the District's list of permit exemptions under the insignificant

activities provisions of Sec. 70.5(c) because the District did not

submit information justifying these exemptions. In addition, EPA has

noted several types of activities in rule 201 that are likely to be

subject to applicable requirements. For instance, the exemption for

internal combustion engines (rule 201 section 112) could apply to a

source near the major source threshold. The exemption for cooling

systems (rule 201 section 115) will apply to large systems subject to

emission standards under title VI. Therefore, the District must revise

the list of insignificant activities and provide criteria for

determining insignificant activities. The District must also show that

information omitted from permit applications will not be necessary to

determine the applicability of, or to impose, any applicable

requirement or fee.

For other State and local programs, EPA has proposed to accept, as

sufficient for full approval, emission levels for insignificant

activities of two tons per year and the lesser of 1000 pounds per year,

section 112(g) de minimis levels, or other title I significant

modification levels for HAPs and other toxics (40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)(i)).

EPA believes that these levels, or lower levels for non-attainment

pollutants, are sufficiently below applicability thresholds for many

applicable requirements to assure that it is unlikely that a unit

potentially subject to an applicable requirement will be left off a

title V application. EPA is requesting comments on whether these

thresholds are appropriate. This request for comment is not intended to

restrict Sacramento's ability to propose other emission levels for EPA

approval if Sacramento demonstrates that such alternative emission

levels are insignificant compared to the types of units that are

permitted or subject to applicable requirements and the level of

emissions from these units.

c. Operational flexibility. The District's limits on operational

flexibility are not as explicitly restrictive as the limits in part 70.

Section 308.3 of rule 207 does not allow operational flexibility for

title I modifications, which is consistent with 70.4(b)(12)(i);

however, the reference to ``title I modification'' is unclear. EPA has

interpreted the term title I modification to include all modifications

under title I of the Act, and has specifically determined that the term

includes section 111 modifications (New Source Performance Standards)

and section 112(g) modifications. See 56 FR 21746. Sacramento's use of

the term ``title I modification'' should also be read to include these

requirements. Therefore, the District must clarify the rule through

guidance or rulemaking changes to explicitly restrict operational

flexibility for NSPS and section 112(g) modifications.

On August 29, 1994 (59 FR 44573), EPA requested public comment on

whether the definition of title I modification should include other

section 112 modifications and minor NSR modifications. EPA may require

that the District explicitly add additional restrictions based on the

outcome of this rulemaking. EPA believes that other restrictions in

section 308.8 of rule 207 are sufficiently clear to prohibit this type

of operational flexibility for major NSR modifications.

Sacramento's rule also allows sources to accept a federally

enforceable [[Page 29814]] emissions cap and trade emissions increases

and decreases within the facility to meet this cap but does not

prohibit this trading if it involves a title I modification. This

restriction must be added to the rule along with the correct definition

of title I modification (Sec. 70.4(b)(12)).

d. Permit issuance deadlines. The District must change rule 207 and

adopt appropriate permit issuance deadlines for sources that are

initially deferred from the program due to their actual emissions but

do not obtain federally enforceable limits on their potential to emit.

These deadlines must ensure that all permits are issued by December 15,

1999, which is required by EPA's August 2, 1993 guidance on source-

category limited interim approval.

e. Emissions trading under applicable requirements. Sacramento must

add emissions trading provisions consistent with Sec. 70.6(a)(10). The

permit content section of the rule must allow provisions for trading

within the permitted facility where an applicable requirement provides

for trading increases and decreases without case-by-case approval.

f. Inclusion of fugitive emissions in the permit. The rule must

explicitly require that the permit include fugitive emissions in the

same manner as stack emissions (Sec. 70.3(d)).

g. Public participation. The District rule must state that the

District will provide public notice by means other than newspaper

notice and a mailing list when necessary to ensure that adequate notice

is given (Sec. 70.7(h)).

C. Effect of Interim Approval

This interim approval, which may not be renewed, extends for a

period of up to two years. During the interim approval period, the

District is protected from sanctions for failure to have a program, and

EPA is not obligated to promulgate a Federal permits program in the

District. Permits issued under a program with interim approval have

full standing with respect to part 70. The one year time period for

submittal of permit applications by subject sources and the three year

time period for processing the initial permit applications begin upon

interim approval.

The scope of the part 70 program EPA is proposing to approve in

this notice applies to all part 70 sources (as defined in the approved

program) within the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management

District except any sources of air pollution over which an Indian Tribe

has jurisdiction. See, e.g., 59 FR 55813, 55815-18 (Nov. 9, 1994). The

term ``Indian Tribe'' is defined under the Act as ``any Indian tribe,

band, nation, or other organized group or community, including any

Alaska Native village, which is Federally recognized as eligible for

the special programs and services provided by the United States to

Indians because of their status as Indians.'' See section 302(r) of the

CAA; see also 59 FR 43956, 43962 (Aug. 25, 1994); 58 FR 54364 (Oct. 21,

1993).

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 District's program contain

adequate authorities, adequate resources for implementation, and an

expeditious compliance schedule, which are also requirements under part

70. Therefore, the EPA is also proposing to grant approval under

section 112(l)(5) and 40 CFR 63.91 of the State's program for receiving

delegation of section 112 standards that are unchanged from Federal

standards as promulgated. This program for delegations only applies to

sources covered by the part 70 program.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Request for Public Comments

The EPA is requesting comments on all aspects of this proposed

interim approval. Copies of the State'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 July 6, 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

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA

must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or

final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated

costs to state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to

the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, EPA

must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan

for informing and advising any small governments that may be

significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated today does

not include a federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of

$100 million or more to either state, local, or tribal governments in

the aggregate, or to the private sector. This federal action approves

pre-existing requirements under state or local law, and imposes no new

federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to state, local,

or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this

action.

List of Subjects 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: May 23, 1995.

David P. Howekamp,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95-13788 Filed 6-5-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P