Clean Air Act Proposed Disapproval of Operating Permits Program; Commonwealth of Virginia

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 70

[AD-FRL-5298-1]

Clean Air Act Proposed Disapproval of Operating Permits Program;

Commonwealth of Virginia

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed disapproval.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to disapprove the Commonwealth of Virginia's

Operating Permits Program, which Virginia submitted in response to

Federal requirements that States adopt programs providing for the

issuance of operating permits to all major stationary sources and to

certain other sources. EPA is proposing disapproval of Virginia's

submittal because Virginia's program does not afford all persons who

are entitled to seek judicial review of operating permits with the

legal standing to obtain such review, does not assure that all sources

required by the Clean Air Act (CAA) to obtain Title V permits will be

required to obtain such permits, and does not contain an adequate

provision for collection of Title V program fees.

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

October 19, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted to Ray Chalmers, USEPA Region

III; Air, Radiation, & Toxics Division; 841 Chestnut Building;

Philadelphia, PA 19107.

Copies of the State's submittal and other supporting information

used in developing the proposed disapproval are available for

inspection during normal business hours at the following location: U.S.

EPA Region III; Air, Radiation, & Toxics Division; 841 Chestnut

Building; Philadelphia, PA 19107.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ray Chalmers, 3AT23; U.S. EPA Region

III; Air, Radiation, & Toxics Division; 841 Chestnut Building;

Philadelphia, PA 19107. (215) 597-9844.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

Title V of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. Secs. 7661-7611f, requires that

States develop programs for issuing operating permits to all major

stationary sources and to certain other sources, that they submit those

programs to EPA by November 15, 1993, and that EPA approve or

disapprove each program within 1 year after receiving the submittal.

The EPA's program review occurs pursuant to section 502 of the CAA and

regulations promulgated at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part

70. The regulations promulgated at 40 CFR Part 70 define the minimum

elements of an approvable State operating permits program and the

corresponding standards and procedures by which the EPA will approve or

disapprove and oversee implementation of State operating permits

programs (see 57 FR 32250 (July 21, 1992)). Where a program

substantially, but not fully, meets the requirements of section 502 of

the CAA or of Part 70, EPA may grant the program interim approval for a

period of up to 2 years. If EPA has not fully approved a program by 2

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

program, it must establish and implement a Federal program.

Due in part to pending litigation over several aspects of the Part

70 rule promulgated on July 21, 1992, Part 70 is in the process of

being revised. When the final revisions to Part 70 are promulgated, the

requirements of the revised Part 70 will define EPA's criteria for the

minimum elements of an approvable State operating permits program and

the corresponding standards and procedures by which EPA will review

State operating permits program submittals. Until the date on which the

revisions to Part 70 are promulgated, the currently effective July 21,

1992 version of Part 70 shall be used as the basis for EPA review.

[[Page 48436]]

Virginia submitted a Title V program to EPA on November 12, 1993.

The submittal included regulations, an Attorney General's opinion, a

program description, permitting program documentation, and other

required elements. On January 14, 1994, Virginia submitted a

supplemental letter pertaining to enhanced monitoring. In a Federal

Register notice published December 5, 1994 (59 Fed. Reg. 62324), EPA

disapproved this program.1 On January 9, 1995, Virginia submitted

revised regulations and a revised Attorney General's opinion as

amendments to its original program, and asked that EPA approve the

revised program. On January 17, 1995, Virginia submitted an additional

copy of the revised regulations (the version published in the Virginia

Register). On April 18, 1995, EPA found Virginia's January 9, 1995

submittal to be administratively complete, pursuant to 40 CFR

70.4(e)(1). Finally, on May 17, 1995, Virginia again amended its

program by submitting revised statutory language and an amended

Attorney General's opinion.

\1\The Commonwealth of Virginia filed an appeal of this

rulemaking in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth

Circuit (Case No. 95-1052).

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

The analysis contained in this document focuses on the major

corrections required in Virginia's operating permit program submittals

to enable Virginia's program to meet the minimum requirements of 40 CFR

Part 70 and the CAA. The full program submittal, the Technical Support

Document (TSD), providing additional analysis of Virginia's submittal,

and other relevant materials providing more detailed information are

available as part of the public docket.

II. Analysis of State Submittal

A. Statutes, Regulations and Program Implementation

Virginia's operating program submittal does not substantially meet

the requirements of the CAA and of the implementing regulations at 40

CFR Part 70 because it: (1) Does not adequately afford persons the

opportunity to seek judicial review of final permit decisions; (2) does

not assure that all sources required by the CAA to obtain Title V

permits will be required to obtain such permits; and (3) does not

contain an adequate provision for collection of Title V program fees.

These issues are discussed below, and in the TSD. In addition, this

notice and the TSD specify other deficiencies which must be corrected

before EPA can grant full approval to Virginia's operating permits

program.

1. Standing for Judicial Review

EPA is proposing to disapprove Virginia's Title V program because

it does not adequately provide interested parties with adequate

standing to obtain judicial review of final Title V permit decisions.

As described in the December 5, 1994 final disapproval notice, EPA

interprets section 502(b)(6) of the CAA and 40 CFR 70.4(b)(3)(x) as

requiring that approvable Title V permit programs provide any party who

participated in the public comment process on a permit action and who

meets the threshold standing requirements of Article III of the U.S.

Constitution with the opportunity to obtain judicial review of an

operating permit in State court. (See 59 FR 62325). The Commonwealth's

January 9, 1995, submittal did not correct the previously identified

deficiency in Virginia's standing provisions. In particular, Virginia

did not amend the standing provisions of Section 10.1-1318(B) of the

Code of Virginia. Those provisions continue to extend the right to seek

judicial review only to persons who have suffered an ``actual,

threatened, or imminent injury * * *'' where ``such injury is an

invasion of an immediate, legally protected, pecuniary and substantial

interest which is concrete and particularized * * *'' Virginia's

statute does not enable a party who meets the minimum threshold

standing requirements of Article III of the U.S. Constitution to obtain

access to Virginia's court system and therefore it fails to meet the

minimum requirements for providing an opportunity for judicial review

as required by section 502(b)(6) of the CAA and 40 CFR 70.4(b)(3)(x).

The Commonwealth's Attorney General has questioned the validity of

EPA's interpretation of section 502(b)(6) of the CAA and, if that

interpretation is valid, of the constitutionality of the CAA. EPA

believes that its interpretation of section 502(b)(6) of the CAA is

reasonable and is supported by the language of the CAA, its legislative

history, and the goals Congress sought to achieve under Title V of the

CAA. In addition, EPA believes that Title V of CAA and its related

sanctions provisions do not violate the U.S. Constitution. (See 59 FR

62325-62327).

EPA must disapprove Virginia's program and cannot merely grant it

interim approval on this issue because this deficiency is so

significant that it prevents the entire program from substantially

meeting the requirements of 40 CFR Part 70. If Virginia is permitted to

narrowly preclude public commenters from exercising judicial review

rights, one of the chief incentives for permit decision makers to fully

consider public comments would be significantly reduced and the public

comments process would thereby be rendered less meaningful. The guiding

principle that EPA considers in all evaluations of approvability of

interim programs is whether the proposed program can ensure the

issuance of good permits. Only after a permit program is found to

substantially meet the requirements of Part 70 can the criteria in 40

CFR Sec. 70.4(d)(3) be applied to determine if the program is eligible

for interim approval.

EPA cannot approve Virginia's operating permit program until

Virginia amends Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1318(B) to correct this deficiency.

2. Applicability Under the Operating Permits Program

EPA is also proposing to disapprove Virginia's submittal because it

does not ensure the applicability of the Title V operating permit

program to all sources subject to the program under 40 CFR 70.3.

Virginia's regulations provide that the operating permit program

applies to sources subject to certain listed air pollution control

requirements. (See Sec. 120-08-0501 and Sec. 120-08-0601.) In these

applicability sections the Commonwealth should have listed all the CAA

requirements which trigger Title V applicability, as they are set forth

at 40 CFR 70.3. Instead, Virginia lists, in several cases, its own air

pollution control regulations, in which Virginia incorporates federal

CAA Sec. 111 and Sec. 112 requirements. Virginia states in Rule 8-5,

Sec. 120-08-0501, and in Rule 8-6, Sec. 120-08-0601, that sources are

subject to its operating permits rule if they are subject to Virginia's

regulatory provisions of Parts IV, V and VI as adopted pursuant to

sections 111 and 112 of the CAA. To meet the requirements of 40 CFR

70.3, Virginia must revise Sec. 120-08-0501 and Sec. 120-08-0601 to

state that sources are subject to the operating permits rule if they

are subject to a standard, limitation or other requirement under

sections 111 or 112 of the CAA.

EPA cannot approve Virginia's operating permit program until

Virginia corrects the deficiencies discussed above.

3. Permit Fee Demonstration

EPA is also proposing to disapprove Virginia's submittal because it

does not contain an adequate permit fee demonstration. Virginia's Rule

8-6, entitled ``Permit Program Fees for Stationary Sources,'' includes

a formula to be used for calculating permit fees. Under this formula a

base year fee

[[Page 48437]]

amount is to be increased each year by the amount of inflation as

measured by the consumer price index for all urban consumers. This part

of the formula meets the permit fee requirements of 40 CFR Sec. 70.9.

However, in the formula Virginia defines the base year amount not

as $25, which is the minimum required for EPA to presume a State fee to

be adequate, as specified under 40 CFR Sec. 70.9, but rather as ``the

base year amount specified in Sec. 10.1-1322(B) of the Virginia Air

Pollution Control Law, expressed in dollars per ton.'' Section 10.1-

1322(B) does not define a certain base year fee, but states only that

``The annual permit program fees shall not exceed a base year amount of

twenty-five dollars per ton using 1990 as the base year, and shall be

adjusted annually by the Consumer Price Index as described in Sec. 502

of the federal Clean Air Act.'' For Virginia's program to be

approvable, the fee assessment formula in Virginia Rule 8-6 must be

revised to specify a base year fee amount of $25 per ton, with a base

year of 1989 adjusted for inflation, as provided for under 40 CFR

Sec. 70.9. Also, Sec. 10.1-1322(B) should be changed to specify a base

year of 1989.

Virginia Rule 8-6 also includes a provision, in Secs. 120-08-

0604.D. and E., which allows Virginia to assess a fee of less than $25

per ton (1989 dollars) adjusted for inflation, if Virginia determines

that it would collect more money than required to fund its Title V

program if it assessed the full $25 per ton fee (1989 dollars),

adjusted for inflation. If Virginia chooses in the future to collect a

fee of less than $25 (1989 dollars), adjusted for inflation, its fee

assessment would no longer meet the requirement for presumed adequacy

under 40 CFR Sec. 70.9. Accordingly, Virginia would trigger the

requirements under 40 CFR Sec. 70.9(b)(5) that it provide EPA with a

detailed accounting that its fee schedule meets the requirements of 40

CFR Sec. 70.9(b)(1).

Before the Commonwealth assesses a fee lower than the presumptive

minimum of Sec. 25 per ton (1989 dollars), adjusted for inflation, it

must obtain EPA approval of such a fee. EPA would approve such a fee if

Virginia submitted a detailed accounting showing that the fee would

result in the collection of sufficient funds to run a fully adequate

Title V program. This requirement for EPA approval of any fee lower

than the presumptive minimum is consistent with the requirements of 40

CFR Sec. 70.9, and is implied by Sec. 120-08-0604.D. which states that

``Any adjustments made to the annual permit program fee shall be made

within the constraints of 40 CFR Sec. 70.9.''

4. Insignificant Activities

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

programs any criteria used to determine insignificant activities or

emission levels for the purposes of determining complete applications.

Section 70.5(c) provides that an application for a Part 70 permit may

not omit information needed to determine the applicability of, or to

impose, any applicable requirement, or to evaluate appropriate fee

amounts. Section 70.5(c) further states that EPA may approve, as part

of a State program, a list of insignificant activities and emissions

levels which need not be included in permit applications. Under Part

70, a State may approve as part of that State's program any activity or

emission level that the State wishes to consider insignificant. Part

70, however, does not establish specific emission levels for

insignificant activities, relying instead on a case-by-case

determination of appropriate levels based on the particular

circumstances of the Part 70 program under review.

In Appendix W of Rules 8-5 and 8-6 Virginia defines various

specified types of emission units as insignificant for purposes of

Title V permitting, and states that these units are not required to be

identified in Title V applications. The Appendix also states that other

unspecified types of units can be considered insignificant if their

emissions or their size or production rate are below certain levels.

These units must be listed in Title V applications, and their

emissions, size, or production rate must be given, whichever is

relevant, but no additional information must be supplied regarding

them.

EPA has several concerns regarding Virginia's classifications of

insignificant sources. One overall concern is that under Virginia Rule

8-5 and Appendix W the determination of whether or not a source is

subject to the operating permit program can be done without taking into

account emissions from units considered to be insignificant. If the

total emissions from units subject to Title V requirements were just

below the level which would trigger Title V program applicability,

failure to take into account additional emissions from units which are

exempt could result in a source avoiding Title V requirements when it

should be subject to those requirements. EPA recommends that Virginia

correct this deficiency by modifying the statements found in Sec. 120-

08-505D(1)(a)(2) and in Appendix W(I)(A)(4), which require that ``the

emissions from any emissions unit shall be included in the permit

application if the omission of those emission units from the

application would interfere with the determination or imposition of any

applicable requirement or the calculation of permit fees.'' The last

portion of this statement should be modified to state ``if the omission

of those emission units would interfere with the determination of Title

V applicability, the determination or imposition of an applicable

requirement, or the calculation of permit fees.''

EPA is also concerned that when Virginia defined emissions units as

insignificant based on their emissions levels, Virginia used emissions

levels which are too high. Specifically, EPA is concerned that Virginia

defined as insignificant all emissions units with uncontrolled

emissions of less than 10 tons per year of nitrogen dioxide, sulfur

dioxide, and total suspended particulates or particulate matter (PM10),

less than seven tons per year of volatile organic compounds, and less

than 100 tons per year of carbon monoxide. Virginia defines

``uncontrolled emissions'' as emissions from a source when operating at

maximum capacity without air pollution control equipment. Insignificant

activity thresholds that are considered to be ``sound'' by EPA would

fall in the range of 1 to 2 tons per year for criteria pollutants. EPA

is also concerned that Virginia defined as insignificant all other

pollutant emission sources (many of them hazardous emission sources)

with emissions less than the section 112(g) de minimis levels set forth

at 40 CFR Sec. 63.44 or the accidental release threshold levels found

at 40 CFR Sec. 68.130. These levels are appropriate in many cases, but

are too high in others. Accordingly, EPA believes that Virginia should

modify this provision to indicate that sources emitting other air

pollutants are considered insignificant if their emissions are below

the lesser of the Sec. 112(g) threshold levels set forth at 40 CFR

Sec. 63.44, the accidental release thresholds set forth at 40 CFR

Sec. 68.130, or 1000 pounds per year. EPA believes that the above

criteria and other pollutant emission levels are sufficiently below the

applicability thresholds for many applicable requirements to assure

that no unit potentially subject to an applicable requirement would be

omitted from a Title V application.

EPA is concerned that Virginia did not provide EPA with sufficient

information to properly evaluate whether or not all of the activities

[[Page 48438]]

which Virginia included on its list of insignificant activities are

appropriate. Of key importance to EPA in reviewing such lists is that

no source subject to an applicable federal requirement should be

included on the list, pursuant to 40 CFR Sec. 70.5. Virginia did not

provide a demonstration that the activities it listed are not likely to

be subject to such requirements. Also important in reviewing such lists

is that the emissions from the activities listed be truly

insignificant, and Virginia did not provide EPA with information on the

likely emissions of the activities listed. However, it is clear that

Virginia has incorrectly listed as insignificant both ``comfort air

conditioning'' and ``refrigeration systems,'' which are subject to

stratospheric ozone protection requirements established by Title VI of

the CAA. Virginia should remove both comfort air conditioning and

refrigeration systems from the insignificant activities list.

EPA cannot fully approve Virginia's operating permit program until

Virginia corrects the deficiencies discussed above.

5. Variance Provision

While not a disapproval issue, it should be noted that Virginia has

the authority to issue a variance from requirements imposed by Virginia

law. The variance provision at Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1307.C. empowers the

Air Pollution Control Board, after a public hearing, to grant a local

variance from any regulation adopted by the board. EPA regards this

provision as wholly external to the program submitted for approval

under Part 70, and consequently is proposing to take no action on this

provision of Virginia law. EPA has no authority to approve provisions

of State law, such as the variance provision referred to, which are

inconsistent with the CAA. EPA does not recognize the ability of a

permitting authority to grant relief from the duty to comply with a

federally enforceable permit, except where such relief is consistent

with the applicable requirements of the CAA and is granted through

procedures allowed by Part 70. EPA reserves the right to enforce the

terms of the permit where the permitting authority purports to grant

relief from the duty to comply with a permit in a manner inconsistent

with the CAA and Part 70 procedures.

B. Provisions Implementing Other CAA Requirements

1. Authority and Commitments for Section 112 Implementation

Virginia requested that EPA grant Virginia ``delegation of

authority upon approval of the operating permit program for all Section

112 programs except Section 112(r), prevention of accidental

releases.'' Because EPA is disapproving Virginia's Title V submittal,

Virginia's request for delegation has not been triggered.

Virginia demonstrated that it has in Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1322.A. and

Rule 8-5 the broad legal authority to incorporate into permits and to

enforce most applicable CAA section 112 requirements. However, Virginia

also indicated that it may require additional authority to conduct

certain specific section 112 activities. Virginia supplemented its

broad legal authority with a commitment to ``develop the state

regulatory provisions as necessary to carry out these programs and the

responsibilities under the delegation after approval of the operating

permit program and EPA has issued the prerequisite guidance for

development of these title III programs.'' Also, Virginia has the

authority under Sec. 120-08-0505.K. to require that an applicant state

that the source has complied with CAA Sec. 112(r) or state in the

compliance plan that the source intends to comply and has set a

schedule to do so.

EPA had until recently interpreted the CAA as requiring sources to

comply with section 112(g) beginning on the date of approval of a Title

V program regardless of whether or not EPA had completed its section

112(g) rulemaking. EPA has since revised this interpretation of the CAA

as described in a February 14, 1995 Federal Register notice (see 60 FR

83333). The revised interpretation postpones the effective date of

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

provision. The rationale for the revised interpretation is set forth in

detail in the February 14, 1995 interpretive notice.

The section 112(g) interpretive notice explains that EPA is still

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

delayed beyond the date of promulgation of the federal rule to allow

States time to adopt rules implementing the federal rule, and that EPA

will provide for any such additional delay in the final section 112(g)

rulemaking. Unless and until EPA provides for such an additional

postponement of section 112(g), Virginia would be required, if it were

delegated authority to implement section 112(g), to be able to

implement section 112(g) during the transition period between

promulgation of the federal section 112(g) rule and adoption of

implementing Virginia regulations.

2. Acid Rain Provisions

Virginia's program does not contain all provisions required

relating to acid rain sources, but Virginia has committed to submit the

required provisions shortly, and EPA find Virginia's commitment

acceptable. Virginia's program properly requires ``affected sources''

to obtain operating permits, and Virginia defines an ``affected

source'' as a source containing one or more ``affected units,'' which

are themselves defined as ``a unit subject to any acid rain emissions

reduction requirement or acid rain emissions limitation under 40 CFR

Parts 72, 73, 75, 76, 77, or 78.'' However, Virginia has not defined as

an ``applicable requirement'' any of these acid rain emissions

reduction requirements or limitations. Therefore, Virginia's operating

permits would not be required to include any of these requirements.

Virginia is aware of this deficiency and has committed to correct

it. In Virginia's operating permits program submittal of January 9,

1995, Virginia committed to adopting an acid rain regulation by the

latter half of 1995. Virginia stated that under this regulation it

would issue acid rain sources operating permits which would include all

requirements of the acid rain program. In a statement included in that

submittal, Virginia's Attorney General also committed to provide EPA,

when Virginia submits its acid rain regulation, with the required legal

opinion regarding Virginia's legal authority to carry out the acid rain

portion of the operating permits program.

III. Proposed Action and Implications

The EPA is proposing to disapprove the operating permits program

contained in submittals from Virginia dated November 12, 1993, January

14, 1994, January 9, 1995, January 17, 1995, and May 17, 1995. If

promulgated, this disapproval would constitute a disapproval under

section 502(d) of the CAA (see generally 57 FR 32253-54). As provided

under section 502(d)(1) of the CAA, Virginia would have up to 180 days

from the date of EPA's notification of disapproval to the Governor to

revise and resubmit the program.

If EPA finalizes this proposed disapproval, Virginia may become

subject to sanctions under the CAA. Pursuant to section 502(d)(2)(A) of

the CAA, EPA may, at its discretion, apply any of the sanctions in

section 179(b) at any time following the effective date of

[[Page 48439]]

a final disapproval. The available sanctions include a prohibition on

the approval by the Secretary of Transportation of certain highway

projects or the awarding of certain federal highway funding, and a

requirement that new or modified stationary sources or emissions units

for which a permit is required under Part D of Title I of the CAA

achieve an emissions reductions-to-increases ratio of at least 2-to-1.

In addition, EPA is required by section 502(d)(2)(B) of the CAA to

apply one of the sanctions in section 179(b), as selected by the

Administrator, on the date 18 months after the effective date of a

final disapproval, unless prior to that date Virginia has submitted a

revised operating permits program and EPA has determined that it

corrects the deficiencies that prompted the final disapproval.

Moreover, if the Administrator finds a lack of good faith on the part

of Virginia, both sanctions shall apply after the expiration of the 18-

month period until the Administrator determines that Virginia has come

into compliance. In all cases, if, six months after EPA applies the

first sanction, Virginia has not submitted a revised program that EPA

has determined corrects the disapproved program's deficiencies, a

second sanction is required. Finally, if EPA has not granted full

approval to Virginia's program by November 15, 1995, and Virginia's

program at that point does not have interim approval status, EPA must

promulgate, administer and enforce a Federal permits program for

Virginia on that date.

EPA first disapproved Virginia's operating permits program in a

Federal Register notice published on December 5, 1994, which became

effective on January 5, 1995. As a result, EPA's authority to apply

discretionary sanctions to Virginia arose on January 5, 1995, and the

18-month period before which EPA is required to apply sanctions also

began on that date.

Consequently, following today's proposed disapproval EPA continues

to have the authority to apply discretionary sanctions to Virginia and

will be required to apply sanctions on July 5, 1996, unless by that

date EPA determines Virginia has corrected each of the deficiencies

that prompted EPA's original disapproval. Moreover, if today's proposed

disapproval is finalized, EPA would be required to apply sanctions 18

months after the effective date of such action, unless by that date EPA

determines Virginia has corrected each of the deficiencies that

prompted EPA's disapproval and that were not the subject of the

original final disapproval action.

IV. Proposed Action

EPA is proposing to disapprove the submittals made on January 9,

1995 and May 17, 1995 by the Commonwealth of Virginia to satisfy the

requirements for the operating permits program required by Title V of

the Clean Air Act for the reasons outlined in this notice.

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Request for Public Comments

The EPA is requesting comments on all aspects of this proposed

disapproval. Copies of the State's submittal and other information

relied upon for the proposed disapproval are contained in a docket

maintained at the EPA Regional Office. The docket is an organized and

complete file of all the information submitted to, or otherwise

considered by, EPA in the development of this proposed disapproval. The

principal purposes of the docket are: (1) To allow interested parties a

means to identify and locate documents so that they can effectively

participate in the disapproval process; and (2) to serve as the record

in case of judicial review. The EPA will consider any comments received

by October 19, 1995.

B. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action from

Executive Order 12866 review.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

new requirements, but simply address operating permits programs

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

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

significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

D. Federal Mandates

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

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

must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or

final action that includes a Federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under

section 205, EPA must consider the most cost-effective and least

burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is

consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to

establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule. EPA has

determined that this proposed disapproval action of Virginia's Title V

Operating Permits Program does not include a Federal mandate that may

result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State,

local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private

sector. This Federal action disapproves pre-existing requirements under

State or local law, and imposes no new Federal requirements.

Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Operating permits,

and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

Dated: September 8, 1995.

W. Michael McCabe,

Regional Administrator, Region III.

[FR Doc. 95-23204 Filed 9-18-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P