Clean Air Act Final Interim Approval of the Operating Permits Programs; San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District, Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District, and Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, California

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 70

[FRL-5323-5]

Clean Air Act Final Interim Approval of the Operating Permits

Programs; San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District, Santa

Barbara County Air Pollution Control District, and Ventura County Air

Pollution Control District, California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final interim approval.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is promulgating interim approval of the Operating

Permits Programs submitted by the California Air Resources Board on

behalf of the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District,

the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District, and the

Ventura County Air Pollution Control District for the purpose of

complying with Federal requirements for an approvable State program to

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

other sources.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 1, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Districts' submittals and other supporting

information used in developing the final interim approvals 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 San Luis Obispo's

program, contact Frances Wicher (telephone: 415/744-1250), Mail Code A-

5-2, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, Air & Toxics

Division, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. For information

on Santa Barbara's program or Ventura's program, contact Martha Larson

(telephone: 415/744-1238) at the same address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Purpose

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 one year after

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

section 502 of the Act and the part 70 regulations, which together

outline criteria for

[[Page 55461]]

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.

EPA proposed interim approval of San Luis Obispo's title V

operating permits program on September 1, 1995 (60 FR 45685), Santa

Barbara's program on July 10, 1995 (60 FR 35538), and Ventura's program

on November 22, 1994 (59 FR 60104). In these Federal Register

documents, EPA also proposed approval of each District's interim

mechanism for implementing sections 112(g) and, under 112(l), its

program for delegation of section 112 standards as promulgated. Public

comment was solicited on all these proposed actions. EPA received

comments on the proposed approval of Santa Barbara's and Ventura's

operating permits program and is responding to these comments in this

document. EPA did not receive any comments on its proposed interim

approval of San Luis Obispo's program. The proposed actions to

interimly approve the Districts' operating permit programs and approve

their 112(g) and delegation mechanisms have not been altered as a

result of public comment.

II. Final Action and Implications

A. Analysis of State Submissions

San Luis Obispo's title V operating permits program was submitted

by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) on November 15, 1993.

Additional material was submitted on February 18, 1994, and May 3, May

23 and August 21, 1995.

Santa Barbara's title V operating permits program was submitted by

the CARB on November 15, 1993. Additional material was submitted on

March 2, August 8, and December 8, 1994, and June 15, 1995.

Ventura's title V operating permits program was submitted by CARB

on November 16, 1993. Additional material was submitted on December 6,

1993. Since the time that EPA proposed interim approval, Ventura has

adopted regulations to implement title IV of the Act. On March 14,

1995, Ventura incorporated part 72 by reference into District Rule 34.

Rule 34 was submitted to EPA on April 28, 1995.

EPA proposed interim approval of each District's program in

accordance with Sec. 70.4(d), on the basis that the program

``substantially meets'' part 70 requirements. The analyses of the

Districts' programs in the proposed approvals remain unchanged and will

not be repeated in this final document. The program deficiencies

identified for each program in the proposed approvals also remain

unchanged except for a change to Santa Barbara's interim approval issue

related to the definition of title I modifications. This change is

discussed in II.B.1.b. below. Each District must correct the program

deficiencies listed in its proposed interim approval in order to

receive full approval.

At the time of proposals for each District, EPA believed that an

implementation agreement between EPA and each District would be

completed prior to final interim approval. EPA and the Districts have

not yet finalized implementation agreements but are working to do so as

soon as practicable.

B. Public Comment

EPA received comments on the proposed interim approvals for Santa

Barbara and Ventura. No comments were received on the proposed interim

approval for San Luis Obispo.

1. Comments on the Proposed Interim Approval for Santa Barbara

EPA received comments on the proposed interim approval of the Santa

Barbara program from two public commenters: Vandenberg Air Force Base

(Vandenberg), and the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control

District. These comments are discussed below.

a. Insignificant Activities. Vandenberg submitted comments

regarding EPA's discussion of insignificant activities in the July 10,

1995 proposal notice. Primarily, Vandenberg requested that EPA clarify

the requirements that Santa Barbara must meet with respect to

insignificant activities for full approval of its part 70 program.

Vandenberg commented that, because of the size of the Air Force Base,

determinations of insignificant activities based on potential emissions

and based on source category emissions rather than unit emissions would

be burdensome, because the aggregated source-category emissions at

Vandenberg would prevent any units from being determined to be

insignificant. Vandenberg specifically asked (1) whether EPA required

Santa Barbara to include insignificant emission levels and other

``gatekeepers'' in Rule XIII as well as providing documentation

demonstrating that the activities listed in Rule 202 are insignificant,

(2) whether the insignificant emission levels may be expressed in terms

of actual emissions, and (3) whether insignificant emission levels were

intended to be applied on a device basis or on a source category basis.

Section 70.4(b)(2) requires States to include in their part 70

programs any criteria used to determine insignificant activities or

emission levels for the purpose of determining complete 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. Santa Barbara submitted District Rule

202, its current permit exemption rule, as its list of insignificant

activities. Santa Barbara did not provide EPA with criteria used to

develop the exemptions list, information on the level of emissions from

the activities, or with a demonstration that these activities are not

likely to be subject to an applicable requirement.

Santa Barbara has two options with regards to insignificant

activities. Under one option, Santa Barbara would provide a

demonstration that activities exempted from permitting under Rule XIII

(pursuant to Rule 202, the District's permit exemption list) are truly

insignificant and are not likely to be subject to an applicable

requirement. Santa Barbara's alternative would be to revise Rule XIII

to include a restriction that may be used in conjunction with Rule 202

to define insignificant activities. Rule XIII would be revised to

include District-established emission levels. These District-

established levels must include separate emission levels for HAPs and

for other regulated air pollutants. Santa Barbara would then only have

to demonstrate that these emission levels are insignificant compared to

the level of emissions from and type of units that are required to be

permitted or subject to applicable requirements.

The District may establish insignificant emission levels in terms

of actual or potential emissions, and may define insignificant

activities either on a unit-by-unit basis, or a source-category basis.

The emission levels, in conjunction with the insignificant activity

list and the Sec. 70.5(c) requirement that applications may not omit

information needed to determine the applicability of, or to impose, any

applicable requirement, or to evaluate the fees, would be used to

define insignificant activities. Also note that emissions from

insignificant activities must be included in determining whether a

facility is a major source subject to title V.

In the proposed rulemaking EPA suggested insignificance levels that

the

[[Page 55462]]

Agency would find acceptable without a further demonstration. EPA's

limits are provided as an example of what may be acceptable. However,

EPA clearly stated in the proposal notice that our request for comment

on these proposed levels is not intended to restrict the ability of the

District to propose and EPA to approve other emission levels if the

District demonstrates that such alternative emission levels are

insignificant compared to the levels of emission from types of units

that are permitted or subject to applicable requirements.

EPA would like to note that Santa Barbara has the flexibility to

modify its regulations and submit criteria for EPA approval of new

exemptions, as long as the 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 required

to be permitted or subject to applicable requirements. EPA is not

prohibiting Santa Barbara from setting its own limits, as long as

limits are demonstrated to be truly insignificant and the activities or

units are not likely to be subject to applicable requirements. With

this understanding, one of Santa Barbara's options would be to revise

its Rule 1301 definitions of ``insignificant emissions'' and

``insignificant emission levels'' to meet the part 70 requirements and

to link the two definitions, so that insignificant emission levels are

defined as criteria for determining insignificant activities. An option

for revising Santa Barbara's definition of ``insignificant emission

levels'' would be ```Insignificant Emissions Levels' mean the emission

levels that, for regulated air pollutants, are exempt from District

permitting pursuant to Section A.3. of District Rule 202 and

additionally for HAPs, do not exceed Section 112(g) de minimis levels

or other title I significant modification levels for hazardous air

pollutants and other toxics.''

b. Title I Modifications. The July 10, 1995 proposal notice

identified Santa Barbara's omission of certain part 60 modifications

from the definitions of ``title I (or major) modification'' and

``significant part 70 permit revision'' as an interim approval issue.

See 60 FR 35538. Based on a June 15, 1995 commitment letter from Santa

Barbara, EPA proposed that Santa Barbara must correct these definitions

for full approval. Additionally, EPA required that Santa Barbara

provide interpretive guidance demonstrating that all modifications

under part 60 will be treated as significant permit modifications in

order to receive final interim approval.

Santa Barbara commented to request that its final interim approval

not be conditioned upon the District's issuing interpretive guidance

explaining how all modifications under part 60 would be treated as

significant permit modifications. Santa Barbara reiterated its June 15,

1995 commitment to issue this guidance. However, citing program rules,

the District stated that it could not undertake this kind of activity

prior to EPA's final interim approval of its part 70 operating permits

program. Santa Barbara committed to having the interpretive guidance in

place prior to revising any part 70 permits involving modifications

under part 60.

Santa Barbara's definition of ``title I modification'' does not

include modifications under part 60. Santa Barbara's definition of

``significant part 70 permit modification'' includes only ``Any

equivalent or identical replacement of an emission unit that is subject

to standards promulgated under CAA, section 111 or 112.'' Therefore,

Santa Barbara's rule would not require all modifications under part 60

to be processed as significant permit revisions. Part 70 requires all

modifications under title I of the Act to be processed as significant

permit modifications (Sec. 70.7(e)(2)(i)(A)(5)). EPA's initial part 70

proposal (56 FR 21712) identified part 60 modifications as title I

modifications.

Neither EPA's August 29, 1994 proposed revisions to part 70 (59 FR

44460) nor EPA's August 31, 1995 supplemental proposal (60 FR 45530)

removes part 60 from the definition of ``title I modifications.'' The

August 31, 1995 notice's proposed definition of ``title I

modification'' includes a reference to 111(a)(4), which is the enabling

legislation for part 60 modifications: ``Title I modification or

modification under any provision of title I of the Act means any

modification under parts C and D of title I or sections 111(a)(4),

112(a)(5), or 112(g) of the Act; under regulations promulgated by EPA

thereunder or in 61.07 of part 61 of this chapter; or under State

regulations approved by EPA to meet such requirements.'' EPA has

determined that inclusion of part 60 modifications under the definition

of title I modification, and thus under the definition of significant

part 70 modification, is necessary for full approval. In the July 10,

1995 notice proposing interim approval of Santa Barbara's rule, EPA

proposed that the interpretive guidance be issued prior to any permit

modifications, and therefore required the issuance of this guidance as

a condition of final interim approval. However, EPA is confident that,

based on Santa Barbara's June 15, 1995 and August 9, 1995 commitments,

Santa Barbara will implement its rule consistently with part 70's

definition of title I modification. Through oversight, EPA will monitor

the District's rule implementation, and any permit modification that

does not treat part 60 modifications as significant permit

modifications is subject to EPA objection. Therefore, EPA has

determined that Santa Barbara's commitment is adequate for final

interim approval.

2. Comments on the Proposed Interim Approval for Ventura

EPA received comments on the proposed interim approval of the

Ventura County program from four public commenters: the National

Environmental Development Association Clean Air Regulatory Project

(NEDA/CARP), the American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA), the

California Air Resource Board (CARB), and the Ventura County Air

Pollution Control District (APCD).

a. Section 112(g) Implementation. The APCD comments expressed

concerns with implementing a 112(g) program prior to EPA's promulgation

of 112(g) guidance. AF&PA and NEDA/CARP also commented that EPA should

not approve use of the District's preconstruction permitting program

for the purposes of implementing 112(g) prior to EPA's promulgation of

a 112(g) rule. The AF&PA and NEDA/CARP objected to the implementation

of 112(g) without EPA's guidance on de minimis emission increases,

offsets, and applicability under 112(g). The AF&PA and NEDA/CARP

believe that the District would not be able to appropriately determine

applicability of MACT standards prior to promulgation of the 112(g)

rule. AF&PA stated that the lack of guidance would cause the District

to implement a 112(g) program in such a manner that could unfairly put

sources at risk of enforcement action if it was later found that the

District's implementation of 112(g) was not consistent with EPA's

112(g) rule.

Section 112(g)(2) of the Clean Air Act prohibits the construction,

reconstruction, and modification of any major source of hazardous air

pollutants after the effective date of a title V program unless the

source meets MACT. EPA received many comments on 112(g) implementation

and agrees that it is not reasonable to expect the States and Districts

to implement section 112(g) before a Federal 112(g) 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).

[[Page 55463]]

The interpretive notice outlines EPA's revised interpretation of

section 112(g) applicability prior to EPA's issuing the final section

112(g) rule. The interpretive notice allows State and local agencies to

decide whether to delay implementing 112(g) of the Act until EPA

promulgates a final 112(g) rule unless they choose to implement the

requirements of 112(g) as a matter of state or local law prior to EPA

promulgation of the 112(g) rule. Major source modifications,

constructions, and reconstructions will not be subject to section

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

The interpretive notice 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

the effective date of section 112(g), Ventura 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.

Therefore, EPA is approving the use of Ventura's preconstruction

program as an interim mechanism, as proposed.

However, since approval is intended solely 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 APCD and CARB commented that EPA should allow at least 18

months, rather than 12 months, to develop section 112(g) regulations

following EPA's promulgation of the Federal section 112(g) rule. The

District stated that 12 months may not be sufficient time to both

undergo the regulatory development process and prepare a section 112(l)

equivalency package for approval of the District's regulation to be

used in lieu of the Federal 112(g) rule. Additionally, CARB commented

that, contingent upon a District submitting a 112(l) equivalency

package within 18 months of EPA's promulgation of a 112(g) rule, EPA

should extend the interim approval of the District's preconstruction

permit program for implementing a 112(g) program until EPA has finally

approved or disapproved the District's 112(l) submittal.

EPA has approved an 18-month transition period in other states and

does not see a unique reason to limit Ventura, Santa Barbara or San

Luis Obispo to 12 months. If in the final section 112(g) rule, however,

the transition period is eliminated, the Districts must follow the

implementation time lines set out in that rulemaking. In addition, EPA

believes that, in most cases, 18 months will be an adequate period of

time for (1) districts to adopt a 112(g) rule, (2) districts to make a

complete submittal, (3) EPA to determine the submittal complete, and

(4) EPA to approve the submittal under 112(l). Under EPA's 112(l) rule

(``Approval of State Programs and Delegation of Federal Authority,'' 58

FR 62262), EPA is required to process a submittal within 6 months of

determining the submittal complete. EPA believes that approval of a

longer time period could inappropriately delay implementation of a

112(g) program.

b. Insignificant Activities. The APCD commented that the District's

categorical permit exemption list should be accepted as its list of

insignificant activities. The APCD stated that the list was a result of

the District's experience over many years, and so represents the best

approach to determining insignificant activities. AF&PA and NEDA/CARP

also recommend that the District's current list be accepted.

EPA recognizes that information about insignificant emissions units

may not be needed in some cases to assure compliance with all

applicable requirements or to determine applicability. Therefore, part

70 allows state and local agencies to submit a list for approval of

insignificant activities and emissions levels. This list must be

accompanied with some sort of justification or selection criteria that

assure insignificance with respect to Federal applicable requirements

(section 70.4(b)(2)). The fact that the District has a preexisting

exemption list does not constitute sufficient justification. As stated

in the proposal, Ventura's program provided EPA with no criteria or

information on the level of emissions from activities on the District's

exemption lists. In addition, the specific insignificant activities

provisions submitted by Ventura have raised concerns with EPA regarding

the District's ability to ensure that applicable requirements are

included in permits. Ventura did not provide EPA with a demonstration

to the contrary. Because Ventura has not provided EPA with

justification for each categorical exemption, EPA does not have

adequate information on which to evaluate the activities, and cannot

approve the District's exemption list.

The APCD commented that EPA's requirement that emission levels be

set is impractical, because levels based on potential emissions would

exempt few sources, while levels based on actual emissions would

require that sources keep records to demonstrate emissions are below

the levels, which would be burdensome.

EPA disagrees that setting emission levels is impractical or

burdensome. These emission levels could be evaluated based on actual

emissions, although demonstrations could also be made based upon

potential emissions. Nothing in part 70 requires sources to keep

ongoing records to demonstrate eligibility for insignificant activity

status.

AF&PA and NEDA/CARP commented that EPA's suggested ``acceptable''

emissions levels are too stringent, and that EPA is not providing the

District opportunity to define alternative thresholds, and that EPA has

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

for receiving full approval.

In the proposed rulemaking EPA suggested insignificance levels that

the Agency would find acceptable even without a further demonstration.

EPA's limits are provided as an example of what may be acceptable.

However, EPA clearly stated in the proposal notice that its request for

comment on these proposed levels ``is not intended to restrict the

ability of the District to propose and EPA to approve other emission

levels if the District demonstrates that such alternative emission

levels are insignificant compared to the levels of emission from types

of units that are permitted or subject to applicable requirements.''

EPA would like to note that Ventura has the flexibility to modify

its regulations and submit criteria for EPA approval of new exemptions,

as long as the 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. EPA is not prohibiting Ventura from setting

its own limits, as long as limits are demonstrated to be truly

insignificant and not likely to be subject to an applicable

requirement.

c. Title I Modifications. Ventura commented that ``title I

modifications'' should not be interpreted to include minor NSR. NEDA/

CARP and AF&PA supported EPA's decision that inclusion of minor NSR in

the definition of ``title I modification'' not be an interim approval

issue.

[[Page 55464]]

NEDA/CARP and AF&PA both contend that neither EPA nor the District

has authority to include as ``title I modifications'' those changes

made pursuant to a preconstruction permitting program approved under

the SIP. Furthermore, the commenters state that requiring Ventura's

program regulations to include the more encompassing definition of

``title I modification'' would constitute a revision to the Agency's

current operating permits rule. However, both commenters support EPA's

position of not making title I modifications an issue in granting

interim approval to Ventura's title V program, and therefore are not

asking for any changes to be made.

In an August 29, 1994 rulemaking proposal, the Agency solicited

public comment on whether ``title I modifications'' 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 is published in a supplemental

rulemaking proposal in the Federal Register. 60 FR 45530 (August 31,

1995). Thus, EPA expects to confirm that Ventura'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.

d. Emissions Trading. AF&PA and NEDA/CARP supported EPA's

identification of emission trading as an interim approval issue. The

commenters agreed that Ventura should be required to revise its

regulation to provide for emission trading where an applicable

requirement provides for trading increases and decreases without a

case-by-case approval as a condition of full program approval. Ventura

has commented that the District plans to revise its regulations to

include applicable requirement emission trading.

e. Significant Changes to Monitoring Terms and Conditions. Ventura

requested EPA's guidance in defining ``significant'' with respect to

changes to monitoring terms and conditions. AF&PA and NEDA/CARP

commented that this change should not be an interim approval issue, for

the reasons that EPA has not adequately defined ``significant'' for

these purposes, and because EPA has requested public comment on more

flexible requirements for permit modifications due to significant

changes to monitoring terms and conditions.

Part 70 does not specifically define ``significant'' with respect

to significant modifications to monitoring terms and conditions. This

gives permitting authorities discretion in determining which changes

are considered to be ``significant.'' Part 70 does distinguish between

``significant'' changes, and ``relaxations'' to other types of

permitting terms and conditions. Significant permit changes would

encompass relaxations and other changes. EPA has not specifically

defined the term ``significant''; however, EPA has given examples of

how changes in monitoring terms and conditions would be classified with

respect to permit modification tracks in EPA's response to comments on

the proposed part 70 rule, (see ``Response to Comments on the 40 CFR

Part 70 Rulemaking,'' Docket No. A-90-33), and also in the final part

70 rule.

EPA does not agree that this deficiency should be dropped as an

interim approval issue pending the revisions to part 70. EPA proposed,

in the August 31, 1995 Federal Register, to revise current part 70

requirements for permit modifications. See 60 FR 45530. However, EPA

must approve current programs according to the existing part 70 rule

until the time that the part 70 program is revised. Therefore, this

remains an interim approval issue.

f. Modifications Prior to Permit Conditions. The APCD commented

that requiring permit revisions to be made prior to the actual

modifications is impractical because implementation of the actual

change may necessitate further changes to the permit.

This comment goes to the structure of part 70 rather than the

approvability of Ventura's program. Therefore, EPA believes that no

change to EPA's proposed action on the approvability of Ventura's title

V program is required in response to this comment. On August 31, 1995,

EPA proposed a supplement to part 70 that includes revisions to the

current permit modification procedures, with the opportunity for public

comment (60 FR 45530). However, until revisions to part 70 are

promulgated, all part 70 programs must be consistent with the current

part 70 rule, which requires that, unless modifications are subject to

section 112(g) or title I, parts C and D of the Act, and are not

prohibited by the existing part 70 permit, significant permit

modifications must be approved prior to their implementation.

B. Final Action

1. Interim Approvals

EPA is promulgating interim approval of the operating permit

programs for San Luis Obispo County, Santa Barbara County, and Ventura

County, California. The part 70 programs approved in this document

apply to all part 70 sources (as defined in the approved program)

within the each District including any title V sources on the outer

continental shelf within 25 miles of shore, except any sources of air

pollution over which an Indian Tribe has jurisdiction. See, e.g., 59 FR

55813, 55815-55818 (November 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).

These interim approvals, which may not be renewed, extend until

December 1, 1997. During this interim approval period, each District is

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

administer and enforce a Federal operating permits program in any of

these 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

[[Page 55465]]

processing the initial permit applications.

If any of the three Districts fails to submit a complete corrective

program for full approval by June 2, 1997, EPA will start an 18-month

clock for mandatory sanctions for that District. If the District then

fails to submit a corrective program that EPA finds complete before the

expiration of that 18-month period, EPA will be required to apply one

of the sanctions in section 179(b) of the Act to the District and that

sanction will remain in effect until EPA determines that the District

has corrected the deficiency by submitting a complete corrective

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

the part of the District, both sanctions under section 179(b) will

apply after the expiration of the 18-month period until the

Administrator determines that the District has come into compliance. In

any case, if, six months after application of the first sanction, the

District still has not submitted a corrective program that EPA has

found complete, a second sanction will be required.

If EPA disapproves a District's complete corrective program, EPA

will 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 has submitted a revised program and EPA

has determined that it corrected the deficiencies that prompted the

disapproval. Moreover, if the Administrator finds a lack of good faith

on the part of the District, both sanctions under section 179(b) shall

apply after the expiration of the 18-month period until the

Administrator determines that the District has come into compliance. In

all cases, if, six months after EPA applies the first sanction, the

District has not submitted a revised program that EPA has determined

corrects the deficiencies, a second sanction is required.

In addition, discretionary sanctions may be applied where warranted

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

District has not submitted a timely and complete corrective program or

EPA has disapproved its submitted corrective program. Moreover, if EPA

has not granted full approval to the District's program 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 the District upon interim approval

expiration.

a. San Luis Obispo's Title V Operating Permits Program. The EPA is

promulgating interim approval of San Luis Obispo's title V operating

permits program. The program deficiencies described in the proposed

rulemaking, under Section II.B.2., Interim Approval Issues for San Luis

Obispo's Title V Operating Permits Program, and the legislative

deficiency outlined under Section II.B.3., California Enabling

Legislation--Legislative Source Category Limited Interim Approval Issue

(see 60 FR 45685 (September 1, 1995)), must be corrected in order for

the District to be granted full approval.

b. Santa Barbara's Title V Operating Permits Program. EPA is

promulgating interim approval of Santa Barbara's operating permits

program submitted on November 15, 1993, and amended March 2, August 8,

and December 8, 1994, and June 15, 1995. Excepted as noted below, the

program deficiencies described in the proposed rulemaking, under

Section II.B.1., Santa Barbara's Title V Operating Permits Program, and

the legislative deficiency outlined under Section II.B.2., California

Enabling Legislation--Legislative Source Category Limited Interim

Approval Issue (see 60 FR 35538 (July 10, 1995)), must be corrected in

order for the District to be granted full approval. In response to

comments received, EPA has modified the interim approval issued related

to the definition of title I modifications (Issue m in the proposal).

In addition to the other interim approval issues noted in the proposed

approval, the District must make the following change to receive full

approval:

Definition of Title I Modifications and Significant Part 70 Permit

Modifications

Rule 1301 defines ``modification'' to include all modifications

under 40 CFR part 60. However, the definitions of ``title I (or major)

modification'' and ``significant part 70 permit modification'' do not

clearly define all modifications under part 60 as title I modifications

and do not clearly ensure they will be treated as significant permit

modifications. See discussion in Section II.B.1.b. of this notice.

Santa Barbara submitted a June 15, 1995 letter from Peter Cantle,

Engineering Division Manager, Santa Barbara County Air Pollution

Control District, committing to provide interpretive guidance

demonstrating that all modifications under 40 CFR part 60 will be

treated as significant permit modifications. In order to receive full

approval, Santa Barbara must finalize and submit to EPA interpretive

guidance demonstrating that all modifications under 40 CFR part 60 will

be treated as significant permit modifications. Additionally, in order

to receive full approval, Santa Barbara must clarify the definitions of

``title I (or major) modification'' and ``significant part 70 permit

modification'' to include all modifications under 40 CFR part 60.

c. Ventura's Title V Operating Permits Program. The EPA is

promulgating interim approval of Ventura's operating permits program

submitted on November 16, 1993 and amended December 6, 1993. The

program deficiencies described in the proposed rulemaking, under

Section II.B.1., Ventura's Title V Operating Permits Program, and the

legislative deficiency outlined under Section II.B.2., California

Enabling Legislation--Legislative Source Category Limited Interim

Approval Issue (see 59 FR 60104 (November 22, 1994)), must be corrected

in order for the District to be granted full approval.

2. Districts' Preconstruction Permit Program Implementing Section

112(g)

EPA is approving the use of each District's preconstruction review

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

transition period between promulgation of EPA's section 112(g) rule and

adoption by each District of rules specifically designed to implement

section 112(g). EPA is limiting the duration of this approval to 18

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

3. Program for Delegation of Section 112 Standards as Promulgated

Requirements for part 70 program approval, specified in 40 CFR

section 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 a

permitting authority's title V program contain adequate authorities,

adequate resources for implementation, and an expeditious compliance

schedule, which are also requirements under part 70. Therefore, EPA is

also promulgating approval under section 112(l)(5) and 40 CFR section

63.91 of each of the District's programs for receiving delegation of

section 112 standards that are unchanged from the federal standards as

promulgated. These programs for delegations apply to both existing and

future standards but is limited to sources covered by the part 70

program.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

Copies of submittal for San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura

as well as other information relied upon

[[Page 55466]]

for the final interim approvals are contained in docket numbers CA-SLO-

95-01-OPS (for San Luis Obispo), CA-SB-95-1-OPS (for Santa Barbara),

and CA-VT-94-1-OPS (for Ventura) maintained at the EPA Regional Office.

Each 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 dockets are 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.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The EPA's actions under sections 502 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 interim approval action promulgated

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

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

governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This federal

action approves pre-existing requirements under state or local law, and

imposes no new federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs

to state, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental

relations, Operating permits, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: October 23, 1995.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator.

Part 70, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

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 (z), (aa),

and (gg) to the entry for California to read as follows:

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

Permits Programs

* * * * *

California

The following district program was submitted by the California

Air Resources Board on behalf of:

* * * * *

(z) San Luis Obispo County APCD (complete submittal received on

November 16, 1995); interim approval effective on December 1, 1995;

interim approval expires December 1, 1997.

(aa) Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (APCD)

submitted on November 15, 1993, as amended March 2, 1994, August 8,

1994, December 8, 1994, and June 15, 1995; interim approval

effective on December 1, 1995; interim approval expires December 1,

1997.

* * * * *

(gg) Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (APCD)

submitted on November 16, 1993, as amended December 6, 1993; interim

approval effective on December 1, 1995; interim approval expires

December 1, 1997.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 95-27142 Filed 10-31-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P