Clean Air Act Proposed Approval of the Federal Operating Permits Program; San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District, California

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 70

[AD-FRL-5290-3]

Clean Air Act Proposed Approval of the Federal Operating Permits

Program; San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District, California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing interim approval for the Federal

Operating Permits Program submitted by the California Air Resources

Board on behalf of the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control

District (San Luis Obispo or District). This Program was submitted for

the purpose of complying with Federal requirements in title V of the

Clean Air Act which mandates that States develop, and submit to EPA,

programs for issuing operating permits to all major stationary sources

and to certain other sources.

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

October 2, 1995.

ADDRESS: Comments should be addressed to Frances Wicher, Mail Code A-5-

2, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, Air and Toxics

Division, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105.

Copies of the District's submission and other supporting

information used in developing the proposed interim approval including

the Technical Support Document are available for inspection during

normal business hours at the following location: Operating Permits

Section, A-5-2, Air and Toxics Division, U.S. EPA-Region IX, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frances Wicher, (415) 744-1250,

Operating Permits Section, A-5-2, Air and Toxics Division, U.S. EPA-

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Purpose

As required under title V of the Clean Air Act (``the Act'') as

amended (1990), EPA has promulgated rules that define the minimum

elements of an approvable State operating permits program and the

corresponding standards and procedures by which the EPA will approve,

oversee, and withdraw approval of State operating permits programs (see

57 FR 32250 (July 21, 1992)). These rules are codified at 40 CFR part

70. Title V requires States to develop, and submit to EPA, programs for

issuing operating permits to all major stationary sources and to

certain other sources.

The Act requires that States develop and submit these programs to

EPA by November 15, 1993, and that EPA act to approve or disapprove

each program within one year of receiving the submission. The EPA's

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

70 regulations, which together outline criteria for approval or

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

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

a period of up to two years. If EPA has not fully approved a program by

two years after the November 15, 1993 date, or by the end of an interim

program, it must establish and implement a Federal program.

II. Proposed Action and Implications

A. Analysis of State Submission

The analysis contained in this notice focuses on the major elements

of San Luis Obispo's title V operating permit program and on the

specific elements that must be corrected to meet the minimum

requirements of part 70. The full program submittal, the Technical

Support Document (TSD), which contains a detailed analysis of the

submittal, and other relevant materials are available for inspection as

part of the public docket. The docket may be viewed during regular

business hours at the address listed above.

1. Title V Program Support Materials

San Luis Obispo's title V program was submitted by the California

Air Resources Board (CARB) on November 15, 1993. Additional material

was submitted by CARB on May 23 and August 21, 1995 and by the District

on February 18, 1994 and May 3, 1995. In submitting the District's

title V program, CARB requested source category-limited interim

approval for the program because California law currently exempts

agricultural sources from all permitting requirements including title

V. The District's submission contains a complete program description,

District implementing and supporting regulations, application and

reporting

[[Page 45686]]

forms, and other supporting information. In addition, CARB submitted

for all Districts in the State a single Attorney General's opinion,

State enabling legislation, and certain other information regarding

State law.

EPA reviewed the District's program to assure that it contains all

the elements required by Sec. 70.4(b) (elements of the initial program

submission) and has found the program complete pursuant to

Sec. 70.4(e)(1) in a letter to the CARB on January 13, 1994. An

implementation agreement is currently being developed between San Luis

Obispo and EPA.

2. Title V Operating Permit Regulations and Program Implementation

The rules that San Luis Obispo adopted to implement its title V

program are Rules 216 Federal Part 70 Permits (adopted October 26,

1993) and Rules 217 Federal Part 72 Permits (adopted March 29, 1995).

Other District rules that were submitted in support of the District's

title V program are Rules 103 Conflicts between District, State and

Federal Rules (no date), 105 Definitions (revised October 26, 1993),

107 Breakdown or Upset Conditions and Emergency Variances (revised

March 29, 1995), 201 Equipment Not Requiring a Permit (revised November

5, 1991), 206 Conditional Approval (revised November 5, 1991) and 301-

308 Fees (various adoption and revision dates).1 These rules,

along with the authorities granted the District under California State

law, substantially meet the requirements of Secs. 70.2 (Definitions)

and 70.3 (Applicability) for applicability; Sec. 70.5(c) (Standard

application form and required information) for criteria that define

insignificant activities and for complete application forms;

Secs. 70.4(b)(12) (Section 502(b)(10) changes) and 70.6 (Permit

content) for permit content including operational flexibility;

Sec. 70.7 (Permit issuance, renewal, reopenings, and revisions) for

public participation, permit issuance, and permit modifications;

Sec. 70.9 (Fee determination and certification) for fees; and

Sec. 70.11 for enforcement authority.

\1\ EPA is only approving those portions of Rules 105, 107, 206

and 301-308 that are necessary to implement the District's title V

program. More specifically, EPA is not approving the emergency

variance provisions of Rule 107 B. This approval does not constitute

approval under any other provisions of the Act.

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

EPA has identified several interim approval issues affecting permit

content, permit modifications and notice to the public and affected

states that must be corrected in order for the San Luis Obispo program

to receive full approval. These interim approval issues are discussed

below and detailed in the TSD. EPA has also identified in the TSD other

recommended changes that are not required for full approval but would

improve, clarify, or strengthen the District's title V program.

a. Variances

The San Luis Obispo District Hearing Board has authority to issue

variances from requirements imposed by State and local law. See

California Health and Safety Code 42350 et seq. and District Rule 107

and Regulation VII. In the opinion submitted with California operating

permit programs, California's Attorney General states that ``(t)he

variance process is not part of the Title V permitting process and does

not affect federal enforcement for violations of the requirements set

forth in a Title V permit.'' (Emphasis in original.)

EPA regards State and District variance provisions as wholly

external to the programs submitted for approval under part 70 and

consequently is proposing to take no action on these provisions of

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

state law that are inconsistent with the Act. EPA does not recognize

the ability of a District to grant relief from the duty to comply with

a federally-enforceable part 70 permit, except where such relief is

granted through procedures allowed by part 70. A part 70 permit may be

issued or revised, consistent with part 70 permitting procedures, to

incorporate those terms of a variance that are consistent with

applicable requirements. A part 70 permit may also incorporate, via

part 70 permit issuance or revision procedures, the schedule of

compliance set forth in a variance. However, EPA reserves the right to

pursue enforcement of applicable requirements notwithstanding the

existence of a compliance schedule in a permit to operate. This is

consistent with Sec. 70.5(c)(8)(iii)(C), which states that a schedule

of compliance ``shall be supplemental to, and shall not sanction

noncompliance with, the applicable requirements on which it is based.''

b. Permit Content

San Luis Obispo's permit content requirements are found in sections

F. and L. of Rule 216 and in the District's Part 70 Permit Format. The

Part 70 Permit Format is San Luis Obispo's sample permit form and was

submitted as part of the District's title V program. The regulatory

provisions adequately address nearly all of the part 70 requirements;

however, certain elements (e.g., Secs. 70.6(a)(3)(ii)(A) and

70.6(a)(6)(i)), are addressed or more fully detailed only in the Part

70 Permit Format. Nothing in the District's program requires the use of

the Part 70 Permit Format for every permit issued pursuant to Rule 216.

EPA is, therefore, requiring, as a condition for full approval, that

San Luis Obispo establish a binding requirement that the Part 70 Permit

Format be included in all part 70 permits or that the District fully

address all part 70 permit content requirements in Rule 216.

EPA is specifically approving the Part 70 Permit Format (dated

November 13, 1993) contained in Appendix B-6 of the District November

15, 1993 submittal. Any modifications to the conditions established in

this Format must be approved by EPA. Failure to include these

conditions in part 70 permits will be cause for EPA to object to a

District operating permit. See Sec. 70.8(c)(1).

c. Insignificant Activities

Section 70.4(b)(2) requires States to include in their title V

programs any criteria used to determine insignificant activities or

emission levels for the purpose of determining complete applications.

Section 70.5(c) states that an application for a part 70 permit may not

omit information needed to determine the applicability of, or to

impose, any applicable requirement, or to evaluate appropriate fee

amounts. Section 70.5(c) also states that EPA may approve, as part of a

State program, a list of insignificant activities and emissions levels

which need not be included in permit applications. Under part 70, a

State must request and EPA must approve as part of that State's program

any activity or emission level that the State wishes to consider

insignificant. Part 70, however, does not establish appropriate

emission levels for insignificant activities, relying instead on a

case-by-case determination of appropriate levels based on the

particular circumstances of the part 70 program under review.

San Luis Obispo submitted, as an insignificant activities list, its

permit exemption rule (Rule 201) which specifies a specific list of

activities and, for unlisted activities, an emissions cap of 2 lb/day

(0.365 tons per year) that will be considered insignificant in the

District's title V program. Rule 201, however, does not allow any

activities that are subject to a New Source Performance Standard or

National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants to be

considered insignificant. In addition, the District submitted an

emissions analysis of its list of insignificant activities.

[[Page 45687]]

San Luis Obispo County is designated attainment for all criteria

pollutants; therefore, the major source threshold for all non-HAPs

regulated air pollutants is 100 tons per year and, for HAPs, 10 tons

per year for a single HAP and 25 tpy for a combination of HAPs. The

District's emissions cap for insignificant activities is less than \1/

2\ of 1 percent of the major source threshold for all non-HAPs

regulated air pollutants and less than 5 percent of the major source

threshold for HAPs. EPA finds these levels to be insignificant and the

2 lb/day cap to be fully approvable.

EPA, however, in reviewing the District list of specific activities

did find several activities that are potentially subject to a unit-

specific applicable requirement. Rule 201 M.1. and 2. exempts air

conditioning and refrigeration units regardless of size. Such units, if

they have a charge rate of 50 pounds or more of a Class I or II ozone-

depleting compounds, would be subject to applicable requirements and

could not be considered insignificant.

The TSD provides a detailed review of the District's insignificant

activities list. For interim approval, EPA is relying on San Luis

Obispo's Rule 216 which requires the inclusion in each permit

application of a list of all activities that are insignificant based on

size or production rate and all information necessary to determine the

applicability of, and to impose applicable requirements. For full

program approval San Luis Obispo must revise its list of insignificant

activities for title V permitting as discussed in section B.2. of this

notice.

d. Definition of Title I Modification

The San Luis Obispo program does not explicitly define the term

``title I modification,'' however, the program effectively defines the

term to mean ``the modification does not involve any addition,

deletion, or revision to a part 70 permit condition under section

112(g) of Title I of the CAA, or under EPA regulations promulgated

pursuant to Title I of the CAA, including 40 CFR parts 51, 52, 60, 61,

and 62.'' See, for example, Rule 216 C.13., definition of ``Minor Part

70 Permit Modification.'' While this effective definition is broad

enough to cover minor new source review (minor NSR) changes because it

includes changes under parts 51 and 52, it is clear from the Program

Description that the District does not intend that minor NSR be

considered a title I modification.

In an August 29, 1994 rulemaking proposal, EPA explained its view

that the better reading of ``title I modifications'' includes minor

NSR. However, the Agency solicited public comment on whether the phrase

should be interpreted to mean literally any change at a source that

would trigger permitting authority review under regulations approved or

promulgated under title I of the Act. (59 FR 44572, 44573). This would

include State preconstruction review programs approved by EPA as part

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

Clean Air Act.

The EPA has not yet taken final action on the August 29, 1994

proposal. However, in response to public comment on that proposal, the

Agency has decided that the definition of ``title I modifications'' is

best interpreted as not including changes reviewed under minor NSR

programs. This decision was announced in a June 20, 1995 letter from

Mary D. Nichols, EPA Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, to

Congressman John D. Dingell, and will be included in a supplemental

rulemaking proposal that will be published in August, 1995. Thus, EPA

expects to confirm that San Luis Obispo's definition of ``title I

modification'' is fully consistent with part 70.

The August 29, 1994 action proposed to, among other things, allow

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

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

stated that if, after considering the public comments, it continued to

believe that the phrase ``title I modifications'' should be interpreted

as including minor NSR changes, it would revise the interim approval

criteria as needed to allow states with a narrower definition to be

eligible for interim approval. If EPA does conclude, during this

rulemaking, that Title I modifications should be read to include minor

NSR, it will implement the interim approval option spelled out in the

August 29, 1994 proposal.

e. Affected State Notification

The San Luis Obispo program neither defines ``affected state'' nor

includes any procedures for notifying and dealing with comments from

affected states as required by Sec. 70.2 ``Affected state'',

Sec. 70.8(b) and Sec. 70.7(e)(2)(ii). In its program submittal, the

District argued that it need not include these procedures because its

location (on the coastline in the middle of California) precludes

emissions from its sources from affecting any other states. EPA would

agree with this position if the definition of ``affected state'' was

not being revised to include tribal governments that request treatment

as affected states. Because there are tribal lands that could qualify

as affected states for San Luis Obispo, the District may in the future

need to have affected state notification and response procedures in its

title V program.

EPA has not finalized the rulemaking that will allow tribal

governments to seek affected state status. EPA is proposing, as an

interim approval issue for the District, that Rule 216 be revised to

define and provide for giving notice to and responding to comments from

affected states. Since it remains uncertain whether any tribes will

seek affected state status for the San Luis Obispo District, EPA is

proposing as an alternative that the District may satisfy the interim

approval issue by making a commitment to: (1) Initiate rule revisions

upon being notified by EPA of an application by a tribe for state

status, and (2) provide affected state notice to tribes upon their

filing for state status (i.e., prior to San Luis Obispo's revising Rule

216 to incorporate affected state notice procedures).

3. Permit Fee Demonstration

Section 502(b)(3) of the Act requires that each permitting

authority collect fees sufficient to cover all reasonable direct and

indirect costs required to develop and administer its title V operating

permits program. Each title V program submission must contain either a

detailed demonstration of fee adequacy or a demonstration that

aggregate fees collected from title V sources meet or exceed $25 per

ton of emissions per year (adjusted from 1989 by the Consumer Price

Index (CPI)). The $25 per ton amount is presumed, for program approval,

to be sufficient to cover all reasonable program costs and is thus

referred to as the ``presumptive minimum,'' (Sec. 70.9(b)(2)(i)).

San Luis Obispo has opted to make a presumptive minimum fee

demonstration in order to show fee adequacy and meet the requirements

of Sec. 70.9 (Fee determination and certification). San Luis Obispo's

existing fee schedule (Rules 301-308) requires title V facilities to

pay an amount equivalent to $61 per ton in annual operating fees (1991

figures). This amount is well over the $25 per ton per year (CPI

adjusted from 1989) presumptive minimum.

San Luis Obispo determined its fee level at the $61 per ton

equivalent amount by assessing its 1991 fee revenue and costs, and the

additional costs posed by title V. San Luis Obispo is prepared to

increase fees, as needed, to reflect actual program implementation

costs.

[[Page 45688]]

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

a. Authority and Commitments for Section 112 Implementation

San Luis Obispo has demonstrated in its title V program submission

adequate legal authority to implement and enforce all section 112

requirements through the title V permit. This legal authority is

contained in the State of California enabling legislation and in

regulatory provisions defining ``federally enforceable requirements''

and stating that the permit must incorporate all applicable

requirements. EPA has determined that this legal authority is

sufficient to allow San Luis Obispo to issue permits that assure

compliance with all section 112 requirements. For further discussion on

the District's legal authority, please refer to the TSD accompanying

this rulemaking and the April 13, 1993 guidance memorandum titled

``Title V Program Approval Criteria for Section 112 Activities,''

signed by John Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and

Standards, U.S. EPA.

b. Authority for Title IV (Acid Rain) Implementation

On May 23, 1995, CARB submitted on behalf of San Luis Obispo, the

District's rule Rule 217 Federal Part 72 Permits (adopted March 29,

1995). Rule 217 incorporates by reference 40 CFR part 72 (Acid Rain)

Permit Regulation and provides the District adequate authority to issue

permits to affected acid rain sources under title IV.

B. Proposed Action

1. Title V Operating Permits Program

The EPA is proposing to grant interim approval to the operating

permits program submitted by CARB on behalf of the San Luis Obispo

County Air Pollution Control District on November 15, 1993, and

supplemented on February 18, 1994, and May 3, May 23 and August 21,

1995. If EPA were to finalize this proposed interim approval, it would

extend for two years following the effective date of final interim

approval, and could not be renewed. During the interim approval period,

San Luis Obispo would be protected from sanctions, and EPA would not be

obligated to promulgate, administer and enforce a federal permits

program for the District. Permits issued under a program with interim

approval have full standing with respect to part 70, and the one-year

time period for submittal of permit applications by subject sources

begins upon the effective date of interim approval, as does the three-

year time period for processing the initial permit applications.

Following final interim approval, if the District failed to submit

a complete corrective program for full approval by the date six months

before expiration of the interim approval, EPA would start an 18-month

clock for mandatory sanctions. If San Luis Obispo then failed to submit

a corrective program that EPA found complete before the expiration of

that 18-month period, EPA would be required to apply one of the

sanctions in section 179(b) of the Act, which would remain in effect

until EPA determined that the District had corrected the deficiency by

submitting a complete corrective program. Moreover, if the

Administrator found a lack of good faith on the part of the District,

both sanctions under section 179(b) would apply after the expiration of

the 18-month period until the Administrator determined that the

District had come into compliance. In any case, if, six months after

application of the first sanction, the District still had not submitted

a corrective program that EPA found complete, a second sanction would

be required.

If, following final interim approval, EPA were to disapprove San

Luis Obispo's complete corrective program, EPA would be required to

apply one of the section 179(b) sanctions on the date 18 months after

the effective date of the disapproval, unless prior to that date the

District had submitted a revised program and EPA had determined that it

corrected the deficiencies that prompted the disapproval. Moreover, if

the Administrator found a lack of good faith on the part of the

District, both sanctions under section 179(b) would apply after the

expiration of the 18-month period until the Administrator determined

that the District had come into compliance. In all cases, if, six

months after EPA applied the first sanction, San Luis Obispo had not

submitted a revised program that EPA had determined corrected the

deficiencies that prompted disapproval, a second sanction would be

required.

In addition, discretionary sanctions may be applied where warranted

any time after the end of an interim approval period if a district has

not timely submitted a complete corrective program or EPA has

disapproved a submitted corrective program. Moreover, if EPA has not

granted full approval to a District title V operating permits program

by the expiration of an interim approval and that expiration occurs

after November 15, 1995, EPA must promulgate, administer and enforce a

federal permits program for that district upon interim approval

expiration.

2. Interim Approval Issues for San Luis Obispo's Title V Operating

Permits Program

If EPA finalizes this interim approval, San Luis Obispo must make

the following changes, or changes that have the same effect, to receive

full approval:

(1) Remove any activities from the District's list of insignificant

activities that are subject to a unit-specific applicable requirement.

See Secs. 70.4(b)(2) and 70.5(c).

(2) Revise the definitions of ``Minor Part 70 Permit Modification''

in Rule 216 C.13, to ensure that significant changes to existing

monitoring permit terms or conditions, rather than just relaxations of

existing monitoring terms, are processed as significant permit

modifications. See Sec. 70.7(e)(4).

(3) Revise Rule 216 J.1.b. to include notice ``by other means if

necessary to assure adequate notice to the affected public.'' See

Sec. 70.7(h)(1).

(4) Revise Rule 216 H.1.a.4. and L.1.e. to further limit the types

of significant permit modifications that may be operated prior to

receiving a final part 70 permit revision to only those modifications

that are subject to section 112(g) or required to have a permit under

title I, parts C and D of the Act and that are not otherwise prohibited

by an existing part 70 permit. See Sec. 70.5(a)(1)(ii).

(5) Revise Rule 216 to establish a binding requirement that the

Part 70 Permit Format will be included in all part 70 permits or revise

Rule 216 to fully address all part 70 permit content requirements

within the Rule. See Sec. 70.6.

(6) Revise Rule 216 to define and provide for giving notice to and

responding to comments from affected states. Alternatively, San Luis

Obispo may make a commitment to: (1) Initiate rule revisions upon being

notified by EPA of an application by a tribe for state status, and (2)

provide affected state notice to tribes upon their filing for state

status (i.e., prior to revising Rule 216 to incorporate affected state

notice procedures). See Secs. 70.2 ``Affected state,'' 70.7(e)(2)(iii),

and 70.8(b).

(7) Limit the exemption in Rule 216 D.4 for solid waste

incineration units required to obtain a permit pursuant to section 3005

of the Solid Waste Disposal Act to those units that are not a major

source. Section 70.3(b) states that all major sources, affected sources

(acid rain sources), and solid waste incinerators regulated pursuant to

section 129(e) of the CAA may not be exempted from title V permitting.

[[Page 45689]]

Although section 129(g)(1) of the CAA exempts solid waste incineration

units subject to section 3005 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act from

regulation under section 129, these units are still subject to title V

and part 70 if they are also major sources. See Sec. 70.3(a)(1).

(8) Revise Rule 216 H.4. to require that the permittee keep records

describing non-federal minor changes (e.g., off-permit changes) and the

emissions resulting from these changes. See Sec. 70.4(b)(14)(iv).

3. California Enabling Legislation--Legislative Source Category Limited

Interim Approval Issue

Because California State law currently exempts agricultural

production sources from permit requirements, CARB has requested source

category-limited interim approval for all California districts. EPA is

proposing to grant source category-limited interim approval to the

operating permits program submitted by CARB on behalf of San Luis

Obispo on November 15, 1993. In order for this program to receive full

approval (and to avoid a disapproval upon the expiration of this

interim approval), the Health and Safety Code must be revised to

eliminate the exemption of agricultural production sources from the

requirement to obtain a title V permit. Once the California statute has

revised, the District must also revise its permit exemption rules to

eliminate any blanket exemption granted agricultural sources.

The above described program and legislative deficiencies must be

corrected before San Luis Obispo can receive full program approval. For

additional information, please refer to the TSD, which contains a

detailed analysis of San Luis Obispo's operating permits program and

California's enabling legislation.

4. District Preconstruction Permit Program Implementing Section 112(g)

The EPA has published an interpretive notice in the Federal

Register regarding section 112(g) of the Act (60 FR 8333, February 14,

1995). The revised interpretation postpones the effective date of

section 112(g) until after EPA has promulgated a rule addressing that

provision. The interpretive notice explains that EPA is considering

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

the date of promulgation of the federal rule so as to allow States time

to adopt rules implementing the federal rule, and that EPA will provide

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

Unless and until EPA provides for such an additional postponement of

section 112(g), San Luis Obispo must be able to implement section

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

112(g) rule and adoption of implementing District regulations.

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

Obispo's preconstruction review program as a mechanism to implement

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

section 112(g) rule and adoption by San Luis Obispo of rules

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

sole purpose of this approval is to confirm that the District has a

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

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

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

limiting the duration of this proposed approval to 12 months following

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

5. Program for Delegation of Section 112 Standards as Promulgated

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

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

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

sources. Section 112(l)(5) requires that the state program contain

adequate authorities, adequate resources for implementation, and an

expeditious compliance schedule, which are also requirements under part

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

112(l)(5) and 40 CFR part 63.91 of San Luis Obispo's program for

receiving delegation of section 112 standards that are unchanged from

federal standards as promulgated. California Health and Safety Code

section 39658 provides for automatic adoption by CARB of section 112

standards upon promulgation by EPA. Section 39666 of the Health and

Safety Code requires that districts then implement and enforce these

standards. Thus, when section 112 standards are automatically adopted

pursuant to section 39658, San Luis Obispo will have the authority

necessary to accept delegation of these standards without further

regulatory action by the District. The details of this mechanism and

the means for finalizing delegation of standards will be set forth in a

Memorandum of Agreement between San Luis Obispo and EPA, expected to be

completed prior to approval of the District's section 112(l) program

for delegation of unchanged federal standards. This program applies to

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

the part 70 program.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Request for Public Comments

The EPA is requesting comments on all aspects of this proposed

interim approval. Copies of the District's submittal and other

information relied upon for the proposed interim approval are contained

in a docket maintained at the EPA Regional Office. The docket is an

organized and complete file of all the information submitted to, or

otherwise considered by, EPA in the development of this proposed

interim approval. The principal purposes of the docket are:

(1) To allow interested parties a means to identify and locate

documents so that they can effectively participate in the approval

process, and

(2) To serve as the record in case of judicial review. The EPA will

consider any comments received by October 2, 1995.

B. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action from

Executive Order 12866 review.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

new requirements, but simply address operating permits programs

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

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

significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Act

Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

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

must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or

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

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

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

must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan

for informing and advising any small governments that may be

significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the proposed approval action promulgated

today does not include a federal mandate that may result in estimated

costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the

[[Page 45690]]

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

existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new

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

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

action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Operating permits,

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

Dated: August 21, 1995.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95-21761 Filed 8-31-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P