Clean Air Act Final Interim Approval of Operating Permits Program for Glenn County, Lake County, Shasta County and Tehama County, California; Final Approval of State Implementation Plan Revision for the Issuance of Federally Enforceable State Operating Permits, Lake County, California

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 70

[CA77-2-7058; AD-FRL-5227-7]

Clean Air Act Final Interim Approval of Operating Permits Program

for Glenn County, Lake County, Shasta County and Tehama County,

California; Final Approval of State Implementation Plan Revision for

the Issuance of Federally Enforceable State Operating Permits, Lake

County, California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is promulgating interim approval of the Operating

Permits Programs submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB)

on behalf of Glenn County Air Pollution Control District (APCD), Lake

County Air Quality Management District (AQMD), Shasta County AQMD, and

Tehama County APCD, California (the four districts) for the purpose of

complying with Federal requirements for an approvable State program to

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

other sources. In addition, EPA is promulgating final approval of a

revision to Lake County's portion of the California State

Implementation Plan (SIP) regarding synthetic minor regulations for the

issuance of federally enforceable state operating permits (FESOP)

limiting emissions of criteria pollutants. In order to extend the

federal enforceability of state operating permits to hazardous air

pollutants (HAP), EPA is also finalizing approval of Lake County's

synthetic minor regulations pursuant to section 112(l) of the Clean Air

Act (CAA or Act).

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 14, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the four districts' submittals and other

supporting information used in developing the final interim approval

are available for inspection during normal business hours at the

following location: Operating Permits Section, A-5-2, Air and Toxics

Division, U.S. EPA-Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco,

California 94105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the Lake County

program and SIP, please contact: Ed Pike, (415) 744-1248. For

information on the programs for the other districts, please contact:

Sara Bartholomew, (415) 744-1170.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Purpose

A. Introduction

Title V of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (sections 501-507 of

the Act), and implementing regulations at 40 Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR) Part 70 require that States develop and submit

operating permits programs to EPA by November 15, 1993, and that EPA

act to approve or disapprove each program within 1 year after receiving

the submittal. The EPA's program review occurs pursuant to section 502

of the Act and the part 70 regulations, which together outline criteria

for approval or disapproval. Where a program substantially, but not

fully, meets the requirements of part 70, EPA may grant the program

interim approval for a period of up to 2 years. If EPA has not fully

approved a program by 2 years after the November 15, 1993 date, or by

the end of an interim program, it must establish and implement a

Federal program. On November 29, 1994, EPA proposed disapproval, or in

the alternative, interim approval of the operating permits program for

Glenn County, Lake County, Shasta County and Tehama County, California.

See 54 FR 60931. The proposed disapproval was due to deficiencies in

the districts' upset/breakdown rules. The EPA received public comment

on the proposal, and is responding to those comments in this document

and in a separate ``Response to Comments'' document that is available

in the docket. The EPA also compiled a Technical Support Document (TSD)

for each of the four districts, which describes the operating permits

program in greater detail.

In this notice EPA is taking final action to promulgate interim

approval of the operating permits program for Glenn County APCD, Lake

County AQMD, Shasta County AQMD, and Tehama County APCD, California.

On June 28, 1989 (54 FR 27274), EPA published criteria for

approving and incorporating into the SIP regulatory programs for the

issuance of federally enforceable state operating permits. Permits

issued pursuant to an operating permit program meeting these criteria

and approved into the SIP are considered federally enforceable for

criteria pollutants. The synthetic minor mechanism may also be used to

create federally enforceable limits for emissions of hazardous air

pollutants (HAP) if it is approved pursuant to section 112(l) of the

Act.

In the November 29, 1994 Federal Register, EPA also proposed

approval of Lake County's synthetic minor program for creating

federally enforceable limits in District operating permits. In this

notice, EPA is promulgating approval of the synthetic minor program for

Lake County as a revision to Lake County's SIP.

[[Page 36066]]

II. Final Action and Implications

A. Analysis of State Submission and Response to Public Comments

EPA received two comment letters on the proposed rulemaking for the

four districts, one from the National Environmental Development

Associations Clean Air Regulatory Project (``NEDA/CARP''), and one from

the American Forest & Paper Association (``AF&PA''). The issues

discussed in the November 29, 1994 proposal were not changed as a

result of public comment with the exception of the implementation of

section 112(g) from the effective date of the title V program. EPA's

final action is being revised from the proposed notice with respect to

this issue. This change is discussed below along with other issues

raised during the public comment period.

1. Section 112(g) Implementation

NEDA/CARP and AF&PA both submitted comments regarding EPA's

proposed use of the four California districts' preconstruction

permitting program for the purpose of implementing section 112(g)

during the transition period between title V approval and adoption of a

District rule implementing EPA's section 112(g) regulations. In

opposition to the proposed action, the commenters argued that the four

districts should not, and cannot, implement section 112(g) until: (1)

EPA has promulgated a section 112(g) regulation; and (2) the District

has a section 112(g) program in place.

EPA received many comments nationally on this issue, and agrees

that it is not reasonable to expect the states and districts to

implement section 112(g) before a rule is issued. EPA has therefore

published an interpretive notice in the Federal Register regarding

section 112(g) of the Act: 60 FR 8333 (February 14, 1995). This

document outlines EPA's revised interpretation of 112(g) applicability

prior to EPA's issuing the final 112(g) rule. The action states that

major source modifications, constructions, and reconstructions will not

be subject to 112(g) requirements until the final rule is promulgated.

EPA expects to issue the 112(g) final rule in September 1995.

The action further explains that EPA is considering whether the

effective date of section 112(g) should be delayed beyond the date of

promulgation of the Federal rule so as to allow States time to adopt

rules implementing the Federal rule, and that EPA will provide for any

such additional delay in the final section 112(g) rulemaking. Unless

and until EPA provides for such an additional postponement of section

112(g), the four districts must be able to implement section 112(g)

during the period between promulgation of the Federal section 112(g)

rule and adoption of implementing State regulations.

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

districts' preconstruction review programs as a mechanism to implement

section 112(g) during the transition period between promulgation of the

section 112(g) rule and adoption by the four districts of rules

specifically designed to implement section 112(g). However, since

approval is intended solely to confirm that the districts have

mechanisms to implement section 112(g) during the transition period,

the approval itself will be without effect if EPA decides in the final

section 112(g) rule that there will be no transition period. The EPA is

limiting the duration of this proposal to 12 months following

promulgation by EPA of the section 112(g) rule.

2. Insignificant Activities

NEDA/CARP and AF&PA both assert that EPA lacks the legal footing

for rejecting the districts' present ``insignificant levels,'' and that

EPA has no authority to hold out ``suggested'' emission levels as a

threshold for receiving full approval.

EPA disagrees that it lacks authority to reject inappropriate or

unsupported insignificance levels, or to articulate on a program-by-

program basis levels that it definitely would accept. Part 70 allows

States to deem certain activities or emission levels insignificant if

they are listed in the program submitted to EPA and approved by EPA,

but does not grant States authority to create new exemptions without

EPA approval. Section 70.4(b)(2) requires the submittal of criteria

used to determine insignificant activities, and Sec. 70.5(c) does not

allow States to create an insignificant activities permit exemption if

the exemption will interfere with the imposition of applicable

requirements or the collection of fees. In addition, part 70 explicitly

authorizes EPA to approve insignificant activities based on an emission

level (Sec. 70.5(c)). EPA has the legal authority to reject district

provisions that contravene these part 70 requirements.

As stated in the proposal, the four districts provided EPA with no

criteria or information on the level of emissions of activities on the

districts' exemption lists. In addition, the specific insignificant

activities provisions submitted by the districts have raised concerns

with EPA regarding the districts' ability to ensure that applicable

requirements are included in permits. None of the four districts

provided EPA with a demonstration to the contrary. For these reasons,

the four districts' lists of insignificant activities are not

acceptable.

In the proposed rulemaking EPA suggested insignificance levels that

the Agency would find acceptable even without a further demonstration.

Neither of the commenters specifically addressed these suggested

insignificance levels. EPA would like to note that the four districts

have the flexibility to modify their regulations and submit criteria

for EPA approval of new exemptions, as long as each district

demonstrates, or EPA is otherwise satisfied, that such alternative

emission levels are insignificant compared to the level of emissions

and types of units that are permitted or subject to applicable

requirements.

3. Public Petitions to EPA

NEDA/CARP and AF&PA both registered their concern regarding the

public petition requirements, notification and other procedural

requirements, stating that they believe these requirements will thwart

efforts in California to develop market incentive approaches to

emissions reductions.

Provisions for public participation, notification and public

petitions are required under title V of the Clean Air Act (CAA

502(b)(6) for public participation, and CAA 505(b)(2) for public

petitions), and are therefore included in part 70, the regulations that

implement title V. EPA believes public participation does not preclude

a district from developing market based incentive programs.

4. Enforcement Authorities

NEDA/CARP and AF&PA both contend that EPA should provide specific

modifications to the districts' equipment breakdown/upset rules

necessary to assure consistency with the intent and the operation of

the part 70 rules, instead of proposing disapproval of the programs on

this issue.

EPA recommended changes concerning the breakdown/upset rules of the

four districts in the TSDs accompanying the proposed rulemaking. Since

the proposed rulemaking, EPA has worked with the districts to correct

the provisions in the districts' equipment breakdown/upset rules which

stood in the way of interim approval. At this time, Glenn and Tehama

have corrected these rules satisfactorily, and Lake and Shasta have

corrected their rules sufficiently to receive interim approval on this

issue. EPA proposed disapproval originally,

[[Page 36067]]

however, because the previous exemptions in the rules potentially

allowed permitted sources to avoid compliance with certain applicable

requirements.

A permitting program that includes rules specifically stating that

excess emissions during malfunctions or shutdowns are not violations

cannot meet the minimum requirements of Sec. 70.11 (Requirements for

enforcement authority). These rules may also compromise the ability of

the Districts to issue permits that assure compliance with all

applicable requirements. The ability to enforce permits as specified in

Sec. 70.11 and issue permits that assure compliance with all applicable

requirements are identified as minimum elements for interim approval of

title V programs in Sec. 70.4 (d)(3). Programs that do not have the

minimum requirements listed in Sec. 70.4 (d)(3) and otherwise do not

substantially meet the requirements of part 70 are subject to

disapproval.

5. Compliance Certification

NEDA/CARP and AF&PA both contend that EPA has misread its own rule

in requiring that the full text of the responsible official's

certification be included in both the application content and permit

content. They argue that the provision of Sec. 70.5 (d) sets out the

terms and conditions for any certification of an application form,

report or compliance made pursuant to the rules, but does not establish

a signatory statement that must be attested to by the responsible

official to the exclusion of all other statements (emphasis in comment

letters).

EPA disagrees with the above comment. Section 70.5 requires that:

``This certification . . . shall state that, based on information and

belief formed after reasonable inquiry, the statements and information

in the document are true, accurate, and complete.'' (emphasis added)

This indicates that it is not sufficient merely for the responsible

official to sign the certification; the certificate must state that he

or she considered the issue carefully. The statement must contain the

essential elements of Sec. 70.5 (d), and include the words quoted

above. EPA does not rule out having a pre-printed statement on the

certificate for convenience.

6. Deviation Reporting

NEDA/CARP and AF&PA both contend that it is necessary for EPA to

revise several of its earlier interim approval notices, in which the

Agency conditioned final approval on including a definition of

``prompt'' in the state operating permits program, in order to provide

a consistent application of the appropriate interpretation of its

rules.

In the proposed interim approval notice EPA stated that the four

districts' regulations should define the meaning of ``prompt'' as used

in the requirement found at 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(B), which requires

``prompt'' reporting of deviations from applicable requirements. The

Agency indicated that an acceptable alternative to defining in the

regulation what constitutes ``prompt'' is to define ``prompt'' in each

individual permit.

NEDA/CARP and AF&PA both support this approach. EPA has

consistently asserted that this is an acceptable alternative to

defining ``prompt'' in the body of the permitting regulations, and sees

no need to revisit past interim approval actions to clarify this

interpretation of the definition of what constitutes ``prompt''

reporting of deviations from applicable requirements.

B. Final Action

1. Title V Operating Permits Program

Since the time that EPA proposed disapproval (or interim approval

in the alternative), the four districts have each adopted regulations

to correct identified disapproval issues based on deficiencies in their

enforcement authorities. The primary deficiency lay in provisions in

the four districts' equipment breakdown/upset rules that stated that

excess emissions during equipment breakdowns or upsets were not

violations. This amounted to an a priori exemption that eliminated the

districts' authority to enforce against certain violations of permit

terms or conditions. Section 70.11 requires that districts must have

the authority to enforce against all violations of permit terms and

conditions. In addition, the Glenn, Lake, and Shasta Districts had

rules that stated that excess emissions during equipment shutdown for

maintenance were not violations. There is a more detailed discussion of

the deficiencies in these rules in the proposed notice. See 54 FR

60931.

In the alternative, EPA proposed to grant source-category limited

interim approval to any of these four programs for which, prior to the

final disapproval action, the district adopted and CARB submitted to

EPA, revisions to the breakdown/shutdown rules that removed the ``no

violation'' language. For the breakdown rules, EPA stated that the four

districts could either adopt the language of Sec. 70.6 (g) that an

emergency constitutes an affirmative defense to noncompliance with

technology-based emission limitations, or revise the rules to provide

that emissions exceeding emission limitations during equipment

breakdowns constitute a violation of district rules.

CARB submitted revisions to each of the four districts' upset/

breakdown rules and, except for Tehama County, equipment shutdown

rules. Glenn County APCD and Tehama County APCD have removed the ``no

violation'' language and adequately corrected the deficiencies. Shasta

County and Lake County must each make the additional changes to their

rules, as discussed below, before full approval can be granted.

Shasta County AQMD's Excess Emissions Rule. On January 3, 1995

Shasta County adopted revisions to Rule 3:10 to substantially meet

EPA's objections. Under the new rule, changed from ``Excusable

Malfunctions'' to ``Excess Emissions,'' the ``no violation'' language

was removed, as EPA requested. A new paragraph (g) was added to the

rule, however, which says that ``Excess emissions during start-up and

shutdown shall be considered a violation... if the owner or operator

cannot demonstrate that the excess emissions are unavoidable when

requested to do so by the APCO.'' It is inaccurate to say that only the

APCO can request such a demonstration, since EPA also has enforcement

authority over these sources. In addition, 3:10(g) states that the

``APCO may specify for a particular source the amount, time, duration,

and under what circumstances excess emissions are allowed during start-

up and shut-down.'' The rule is not clear, however, as to where these

conditions will be specified, which is not acceptable to EPA because

the establishment of such conditions must be subject to a public review

process.

EPA is promulgating interim approval of Shasta's program but is

requiring additional changes for full approval because the district has

substantially, but not fully, revised their rule to meet EPA's

objection, as stated in the November 29, 1994 proposal. The changes

described below will therefore be necessary for full approval:

Shasta County AQMD must revise paragraph (g) of Rule 3:10 (Excess

Emissions) to include a provision that EPA, as well as the APCO, can

request a demonstration that the excess emissions are unavoidable. In

addition, the rule must clarify that the APCO will specify in the

permit the amount, time, duration, and under what circumstances excess

emissions are allowed during start-up and shut-down.

Lake County Upset/Breakdown Rule. On November 8, 1994 Lake County

[[Page 36068]]

adopted revisions to sections 500 and 510, and added section 512. These

changes substantially meet EPA's objection, as set out in the November

29, 1994 notice of proposed rulemaking. Under the revised section 510,

the Director will determine whether an enforcement action for an upset

or breakdown condition can be pursued based on a number of

circumstances. The requirements on sources include, but are not limited

to, the following: prompt reporting, minimizing emissions, following

good operating practices, shutting down the facility within 24 hours,

and not threatening air quality standards or public health. In

addition, the maintenance exemption no longer applies if a source

violates permitted emission limits.

EPA is promulgating interim approval of Lake's program but is

requiring additional changes for full approval because the district has

substantially, but not fully, revised their rule to meet EPA's

objection, as stated in the November 29, 1994 proposal. The changes

described below will therefore be necessary for full approval:

a. Maintenance Exemption. The District's maintenance exemption in

section 500 was substantially narrowed by eliminating exemptions for

equipment shut-downs that cause violations of permit emission limits.

The rule no longer excuses a source that shuts down control equipment

for maintenance and violates a numerical emission limit in a part 70

permit. However, the rule does not prohibit sources from violating

other types of permit terms (including those that limit emissions, such

as a work practice standard or a requirement to continuously apply a

control technology) while shutting down control equipment for

maintenance. Therefore, the current rule does not allow the District

the authority to enforce against all types of violations, as required

under Sec. 70.11. The District must further narrow the maintenance

exemption in section 500 to state that violations of applicable federal

requirements including part 70 permit terms may not be automatically

exempted.

b. Citizen Relief. Section 304 of the Clean Air Act expressly

provides citizens with enforcement authority for Clean Air Act

requirements. Therefore, the District rule must clarify that citizen

enforcement, as well as EPA enforcement, of Clean Air Act requirements

is not affected by APCO discretion, as expressed in sections 500 and

510, to not pursue an enforcement action.

c. Clarifying Restrictions on Upset/Maintenance Exemption. Section

510 must be clarified because the first and second sentences could be

interpreted as expressing two distinct and possibly conflicting options

for qualifying for an exemption. The best reading of the District's

rule is that conditions ``beyond the reasonable control of the source

operator'' must also meet the nine criteria for qualifying for an

exemption. EPA believes that these nine criteria are necessary to

appropriately limit the scope of the upset/breakdown provisions. For

instance, sources should not escape liability for violations due to

improper operation or maintenance or that create a public health

threat. Therefore, the rule must clearly state that actions that are

``beyond the reasonable control of the source operator'' must also meet

the nine criteria for qualifying for an exemption.

The EPA is promulgating interim approval of the operating permits

program submitted by CARB on behalf of Glenn County APCD (complete

submittal received on December 27, 1993), Lake County AQMD (complete

submittal received on March 15, 1994), Shasta County AQMD (complete

submittal received on November 16, 1993), and Tehama County APCD

(complete submittal received on December 6, 1993), California.

The four districts must make the changes that were specified in the

proposed rulemaking, under II.C. District Title V Interim Approval

Issues Common to All Four Districts and Section III. Individual

District Title V Interim Approval Issues of the November 29, 1994 FR

notice in order to be granted full approval. In addition, Lake County

and Shasta County must make the changes specified above.

The part 70 programs submitted by Glenn County, Lake County, Shasta

County and Tehama County and approved in this notice apply to all part

70 sources (as defined in the approved program) within the four

districts, except any sources of air pollution over which an Indian

Tribe has jurisdiction. See, e.g., 59 FR 55813, 55815-55818 (Nov. 9,

1994). The term ``Indian Tribe'' is defined under the Act as ``any

Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or community,

including any Alaska Native village, which is Federally recognized as

eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United

States to Indians because of their status as Indians.'' See section

302(r) of the CAA; see also 59 FR 43956, 43962 (Aug. 25, 1994); 58 FR

54364 (Oct. 21, 1993).

This interim approval, which may not be renewed, extends until

August 13, 1997. During this interim approval period, Glenn County,

Lake County, Shasta County and Tehama County, California are protected

from sanctions, and EPA is not obligated to promulgate, administer and

enforce a Federal operating permits program in the four districts.

Permits issued under a program with interim approval have full standing

with respect to part 70, and the 1-year time period for submittal of

permit applications by subject sources begins upon the effective date

of this interim approval, as does the 3-year time period for processing

the initial permit applications.

If Glenn County, Lake County, Shasta County or Tehama County,

California fails to submit a complete corrective program for full

approval by February 13, 1997, EPA will start an 18-month clock for

mandatory sanctions. If any of the four districts then fails to submit

a corrective program that EPA finds complete before the expiration of

that 18-month period, EPA will apply sanctions to that district as

required by section 502(d)(2) of the Act, which will remain in effect

until EPA determines that the district has corrected the deficiency by

submitting a complete corrective program.

If EPA disapproves a complete corrective program submitted by

either Glenn County, Lake County, Shasta County or Tehama County, EPA

will apply sanctions to that district as required by section 502(d)(2)

on the date 18 months after the effective date of the disapproval,

unless prior to that date the district or districts has submitted a

revised program and EPA has determined that the district or districts

corrected the deficiencies that prompted the disapproval.

In addition, discretionary sanctions may be applied where warranted

any time after the expiration of an interim approval period if Glenn

County, Lake County, Shasta County or Tehama County has not timely

submitted a complete corrective program or EPA has disapproved its

submitted corrective program. Moreover, if EPA has not granted full

approval to all of the four districts' programs by the expiration of

this interim approval and that expiration occurs after November 15,

1995, EPA must promulgate, administer and enforce a Federal permits

program for those districts lacking full approval, upon interim

approval expiration.

Requirements for approval, specified in 40 CFR 70.4(b), encompass

section 112(l)(5) requirements for approval of a program for delegation

of section 112 standards as promulgated by EPA as they apply to part 70

sources. Section 112(l)(5) requires that the State's

[[Page 36069]]

program contain adequate authorities, adequate resources for

implementation, and an expeditious compliance schedule, which are also

requirements under part 70. Therefore, the EPA is also promulgating

approval under section 112(l)(5) and 40 CFR 63.91 of the four

districts' programs for receiving delegation of section 112 standards

that are unchanged from Federal standards as promulgated. This program

for delegations only applies to sources covered by the part 70 program.

2. State Operating Permit Program for Synthetic Minors

EPA is promulgating full approval of Lake County AQMD's synthetic

minor operating permit program submitted to EPA by the California Air

Resources Board, on behalf of Lake County AQMD. The synthetic minor

operating permit program is being approved into Lake County's SIP

pursuant to part 52 and the approval criteria set out in the June 28,

1989 Federal Register document (54 FR 27282). EPA considers the changes

to Lake County's enforcement authority sufficient to grant approval,

and expects future changes to clarify this authority under part 70 to

also clarify this authority for synthetic minor permits.

EPA will consider all operating permits processed pursuant to Lake

County's synthetic minor regulations and consistent with the five

approval criteria set out in the June, 1989 document to be federally

enforceable with the promulgation of this approval, provided that Lake

County submit any permits that it wishes to make federally enforceable

to EPA, accompanied by documentation that the procedures approved today

have been followed. EPA will expeditiously review any individual

permits so submitted to ensure their conformity to the program

requirements. (See 57 FR 59931.)

Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or

allowing or establishing a precedent for any future implementation

plan. Each request for revision to the state implementation plan shall

be considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and

environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

Copies of the four districts' submittals and other information

relied upon for the final interim approval, including two public

comments received and reviewed by EPA on the proposal, are contained in

docket number CA-NONGR4-94-01-OPS, maintained at the EPA Regional

Office. The docket is an organized and complete file of all the

information submitted to, or otherwise considered by, EPA in the

development of this final interim approval. The docket is available for

public inspection at the location listed under the ADDRESSES section of

this document.

B. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action from

Executive Order 12866 review.

The EPA's actions under section 502 of the Act do not create any

new requirements, but simply address operating permits programs

submitted to satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR part 70. Because this

action does not impose any new requirements, it does not have a

significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The EPA's actions under sections 502, 110, and 112 of the Act do

not create any new requirements, but simply address operating permit

programs submitted to satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR part 70.

Because these actions do not impose any new requirements, they do not

have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

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

must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or

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

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

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

must select the most cost- effective and least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan

for informing and advising any small governments that may be

significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated today does

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

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

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

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

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

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

action.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides,

Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 70

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Operating permits,

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: June 19, 1995.

David P. Howekamp,

Acting Regional Administrator.

Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended

as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart F--California

2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(217)(i)(B) to

read as follows:

Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c)* * *

(217)* * *

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(B) Lake County Air Pollution Control District.

(1) New Regulation 12, section 12.200 (a4), (c2), (d1), (d2), (d3),

(e3), (f1), (f2), (m1), (o1), (p1), (p2), (s3), and sections 12.800-

12.850, adopted October 19, 1993.

* * * * *

PART 70--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 70 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

2. Appendix A to part 70 is amended by adding paragraphs (h), (l),

(bb), and (ee) to the entry for California to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 70--Approval Status of State and Local Operating

Permits Programs

California

* * * * *

(h) Glenn County APCD (complete submittal received on December

27, 1993); interim approval effective on August 14,

[[Page 36070]]

1995; interim approval expires August 13, 1997.

* * * * *

(l) Lake County AQMD (complete submittal received on March 15,

1994); interim approval effective on August 14, 1995; interim

approval expires August 13, 1997.

* * * * *

(bb) Shasta County AQMD (complete submittal received on November

16, 1993); interim approval effective on August 14, 1995; interim

approval expires August 13, 1997.

* * * * *

(ee) Tehama County APCD (complete submittal received on December

6, 1993); interim approval effective on August 14, 1995; interim

approval expires August 13, 1997.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 95-17218 Filed 7-12-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P