Clean Air Act Proposed Approval of the Federal Operating Permits Program; California State Implementation Plan Revision; San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 70

[CA163-1-7251; AD-FRL-5323-4]

Clean Air Act Proposed Approval of the Federal Operating Permits

Program; California State Implementation Plan Revision; San Joaquin

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District

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 Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control

District (San Joaquin 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. As part of San Joaquin's program, EPA is also

proposing to approve Rule 2530 Federally Enforceable Potential to Emit

under Clean Air Act sections 110 and 112(l). This rule creates

federally-enforceable limits on potential to emit for sources with

actual emissions less

[[Page 55517]]

than 50 percent of the major source thresholds.

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

December 1, 1995.

ADDRESSES: 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

A. Title V

As required under title V of the Clean Air Act as amended in 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. EPA has also issued numerous policy documents on implementing

part 70, many of which are contained in the docket for this proposal.

The Act requires that States develop and submit operating permit

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.

B. Federally-Enforceable Limits on Potential to Emit

Section 502(a) of the Act requires all major sources obtain title V

operating permits. To determine whether a source is major, the Act

focuses not only on a source's actual emissions, but also on its

potential emissions. Thus, a source that has maintained actual

emissions at levels below the major source threshold could still be

subject to title V permitting if it has the potential to emit (PTE)

major amounts of air pollutants.

However, in situations where unrestricted operation of a source

would result in a PTE above major-source levels, such sources may

legally avoid permitting by taking federally-enforceable PTE limits

below the applicable major source threshold. Federally-enforceable

limits are enforceable by EPA or by citizens in addition to the State

or Local agency. There are numerous mechanisms for creating federally-

enforceable limits including prohibitory rules that are approved into

the state implementation plan and, for limiting PTE for hazardous air

pollutants, under section 112(l) of the Act.

II. Proposed Action and Implications

A. Analysis of State Submission

The analysis contained in this notice focuses on the major elements

of San Joaquin'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 Joaquin's program was submitted for approval under title V and

part 70 by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) on July 3 and

August 17, 1995. Additional material was submitted by the District on

September 6 and 21, 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 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.

San Joaquin's Rule 2530 Federally Enforceable Potential to Emit was

submitted by CARB as a revision to the SIP and for approval under

section 112(l) of the Act on October 24, 1995.

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 October 18, 1995. Rule 2530

was found to be complete pursuant to EPA's completeness criteria for

SIP revisions that are set forth in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V.

2. Title V Operating Permit Regulations and Program Implementation

The rules that constitute San Joaquin's title V program are Rules

2520 Federally Mandated Operating Permits (adopted June 15, 1995), Rule

2530 Federally Enforceable Potential to Emit (adopted June 15, 1995),

and elements of Rule 2201 New and Modified Stationary Source Review

(amended June 15, 1995). Other District rules that were submitted in

support of the District's title V program are Rules 1080 Stack

Monitoring (amended December 17, 1992), 1081 Source Sampling (amended

December 17, 1992), 2010 Permits Required (amended December 16, 1993),

2020 Exemptions (amended October 26, 1993), and 3010 Fees (amended July

21, 1995).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

[[Page 55518]]

determination and certification) for fees; and Sec. 70.11 for

enforcement authority.

\1\EPA is only approving the portions of these Rules that are

necessary to implement the District's title V program. Except for

Rule 2530, this approval does not constitute approval or indicate

the approvability of these rules under any other provisions of the

Act or EPA regulations.

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

EPA has identified several interim approval issues affecting

applicability, application content, permit content, and permit issuance

and modifications procedures that must be corrected in order for the

San Joaquin program to receive full approval. These interim approval

issues are discussed in Section II.B.2. of this notice and detailed in

the TSD. EPA has also included in the summary section of the TSD its

understandings and interpretations of certain elements of the San

Joaquin rule including the use of EPA's January 25, 1995 transition

memorandum on limiting potential to emit; limits on EPA's objections to

permits; limits on the permit shield; consolidation of overlapping

applicable requirements; variances; the effective definition of title I

modifications; and administrative permit amendments. A copy of this

summary section may be obtained by contacting Frances Wicher at the

address listed at the beginning of this notice.

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)). For

FY 1996, the presumptive fee level is $30.93.

San Joaquin 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 Joaquin's fee

schedule (Rule 3010) requires title V facilities to pay an application

fee for initial permits, permit renewals, and permit modifications of

$15 per unit creditable to a $46 per hour processing fee. In addition,

the District charges an annual fee for permits to operate and a fee for

sources applying for preconstruction permits under Rule 2201. In

aggregate, title V sources in the Valley will pay a total annual fee of

$32.09 per ton in 1996. This amount is over the $30.93 per ton

presumptive minimum fee level for FY 1996.

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

a. Authority and Commitments for Section 112 Implementation. San

Joaquin 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 conditions and terms to ensure compliance with

all applicable requirements. EPA has determined that this legal

authority is sufficient to allow San Joaquin to issue permits that

assure compliance with all section 112 requirements.

b. Authority for Title IV (Acid Rain) Implementation. San Joaquin's

title V program contains minimal elements of an acid rain program;

however, the District has committed to adopt all missing elements of an

acid rain program as soon as possible. At this time, EPA does not

believe that there are any phase II acid rain sources in the Valley,

therefore, the District's commitment to adopt an acid rain program

expeditiously should ensure appropriate regulatory authority exists to

issue a timely title IV permit to any new or existing source in the

District that becomes subject to, or wants to opt into, the acid rain

program.

B. Proposed Action

1. Title V Operating Permits Program

The EPA is proposing to grant interim approval to the operating

permit program for the San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD submitted on

July 3 and August 17, 1995, and supplemented on September 6 and 21,

1995. If EPA finalizes this proposed interim approval, it will extend

for two years following the effective date of final interim approval

and cannot be renewed. During the interim approval period, San Joaquin

will be protected from sanctions, and EPA is not 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 fails to submit a

complete corrective program by the date six months before expiration of

the interim approval, the District will be subject to a sanction clock

or potentially subject to sanctions under section 502(d)(2) of the Act.

If EPA has not granted full approval to the District's title V program

by the end of the interim period, then the District will be subject to

a federally-imposed operating permits program.

2. Interim Approval Issues for San Joaquin's Title V Operating Permits

Program

If EPA finalizes this interim approval, San Joaquin must make the

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

full approval:

(1) Revise the applicability language in Rule 2520 2.2 and the

definitions of Major Air Toxics Source (Rule 2520 3.18) and Major

Source (Rule 2520 3.19) to be consistent with the Act and part 70 to

cover sources that emit at major source levels. Currently, these

sections of Rule 2520 define major source solely on a source's

potential to emit; however, both the Act and part 70 define a major

source as a source that emits or has the potential to emit at major

source levels. These revisions to Rule 2520 will assure sources whose

potential to emit is less than major source levels but whose actual

emissions are at major source levels because of non-compliance with or

ineffective limits on potential to emit are subject to permitting under

Rule 2520.

(2) Limit the exemption for non-major sources in Rule 2520 4.1 so

that it does not exempt non-major sources for which EPA determines,

upon promulgation of a section 111 or 112 standard, must obtain title V

permits.

(3) Either revise the definition of ``stationary source'' in Rule

2201 3.29 so that the exception to the Major SIC Group requirement for

oil and gas production sources in Rule 2201 3.29.4 does not apply for

determining the applicability of Rule 2520 or demonstrate that the

definition is as stringent as part 70.

Rule 2201 3.29.4 is a provision applicable to any facility located

totally within the Western or Central Kern County Oil Fields or the

Fresno County Oil Fields that is used for the production of light oil,

heavy oil or gas. This provision states that all sources under common

control or ownership within each field shall be considered a single

stationary source even if they are located on non-contiguous or

adjacent properties. However, the section also states that light oil

production, heavy oil production, and gas production shall

[[Page 55519]]

constitute separate stationary sources. While the former provision is

more stringent that part 70, the latter provision is not. Part 70's

definition of ``major source'' requires aggregating all emission points

under common control or ownership that are on contiguous or adjacent

properties and belong to the same Major Group as described in the

Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Manual. See Sec. 70.2 ``Major

source.'' Light oil production, heavy oil production and gas production

are all in the same Major Group. It is unclear whether or not San

Joaquin's program would require permitting of the same emission units

as part 70. If the District can make this demonstrate then EPA proposes

not to require any revision to Rule 2201 3.29 as it applies to

applicability determinations under Rule 2520.

While Sec. 70.2 ``Major source'' (1)(i) does not require emissions

from any oil or gas exploration or production well be aggregated with

emissions from other such units in determining whether such units are a

major source, this allowance is limited to determining HAPs major

source status. Emissions of other regulated pollutants must be

aggregated within the stationary source for determining major source

status.

(4) Revise Rule 2520 7.1.3.2 to eliminate the requirement that

fugitive emission estimates need only be submitted in the application

if the source is in a source category identified in the major source

definition in 40 CFR part 70.2. Fugitive emissions need only be counted

to determine the applicability of part 70 if a source is in a source

category listed in the Sec. 70.2. major source definition. However,

once applicability is determined, all sources must submit information

on fugitive emissions in their applications to the extent the

information is required by part 70. See Sec. 70.3(d).

(5) Revise Rule 2520 to provide that unless the District requests

additional information or otherwise notifies the applicant of

incompleteness within 60 days of receipt of an application, the

application shall be deemed complete. See Secs. 70.5(a)(2) and

70.7(a)(4).

(6) Revise Rule 2520 sections 11.1.4.2 and 11.3.1.1 and Rule 2201

5.3.1.1.1 to include notice ``by other means if necessary to assure

adequate notice to the affected public.'' See Sec. 70.7(h)(1).

(7) Revise Rule 2520's permit issuance procedures to provide for

notifying EPA and affected states in writing of any refusal by the

District to accept all recommendations for the proposed permit that an

affected state submitted during the public/affected state review

period. See Sec. 70.8(b)(2).

(8) Either delete section 11.7.5 in Rule 2520 and section 5.3.1.8.5

in Rule 2201, which purport to limit the grounds upon which EPA may

object to a permit to compliance with applicable requirements, or

revise them to be fully consistent with Sec. 70.8(c).

Rule 2520 11.7.5 and Rule 2201 5.3.1.8.5 purport to limit the

grounds on which EPA may object to a permit to compliance with

applicable requirements. Section 70.8(c)(1) provides that EPA will

object to the issuance of any proposed permit that is not ``in

compliance with applicable requirements or requirements under this part

[part 70].'' (emphasis added). EPA's authority to object to issuance of

permits derives from section 505(b) of the Act. No state or local

agency may restrict authorities granted EPA under the Clean Air Act;

therefore, EPA views section 11.7.5 of Rule 2520 and Section 5.3.1.8.5

of Rule 2201 as not binding upon its actions. EPA will exercise its

authority to object to permits consistent with Sec. 70.8(c) and without

regard to the restriction on that authority in San Joaquin's title V

program. Should the District issue a permit to which EPA has objected

and the District has not revised or reissued to meet the objection, EPA

will consider the permit invalid and will require the District to

revise and reissue the proposed permit or will revoke, revise, and

reissue the permit itself. EPA has made these revisions to Rule 2520 an

interim approval issue in order to clarify its authority.

(9) Revise Rule 2520 2.4 to clarify that the sentence in section

2.4 that ``[o]nly the affected emissions units within the stationary

source shall be subject to part 70 permitting requirements'' applies

only to stationary sources that are also area sources. Rule 2520 2.4

requires any emission unit, including an area source subject to a

standard or other requirement promulgated pursuant to section 111 or

112 of the CAA published after July 21, 1992, to obtain a part 70

permit but also states that only the affected emissions unit within a

stationary source shall be subject to the part 70 permitting

requirements. Section 70.3(c) requires all emission units subject to

any applicable requirement at major sources be included in a part 70

permit. Only at non-major sources does part 70 allow the permit to

cover only the units causing the source to be subject to part 70.

(9) Revise Rule 2520 8.1 to provide that model general permits and

model general permit templates will have a permit term not to exceed 5

years instead of being valid until revoked, suspended, or modified.

During the interim approval period, EPA recommends that the District

issue all model general permits and model general permit templates with

a permit term not to exceed 5 years to avoid having to reopen all model

general permits and model general permit templates issued during the

interim approval period to incorporate the correct permit term.

(10) Revise Rule 2520 8.1 to provide that any permit for a solid

waste incineration unit that has a permit term of more than 5 years

shall be subject to review, including public notice and comment, at

least every 5 years. See Sec. 70.6(a)(2).

(11) Revise Rule 2520 13.2.3 to state that the permit shield will

apply only to requirements addressed in the permit. Rule 2520 13.2.3

currently extends the permit shield to requirements addressed by the

District in written application reviews. Section 504(f) of the Act and

Sec. 70.6 (f) are both clear that the permit shield may only extend to

requirements that are addressed in the permit. EPA will not consider a

source shielded from an enforcement action for failure to comply with

an applicable requirement if that applicable requirement is addressed

only in the written reviews supporting permit issuance and not in the

permit. Further, EPA will veto any permit that extends the permit

shield to conditions, terms, or findings of non-applicability that are

not included in the permit.

(12) Revise Rule 2520 9.12 to require the permit to contain terms

and conditions for the trading of emission increases and decreases in

the permitted facility to the extent that any applicable requirement

provides for such trading without case by case approval. Rule 2520 9.12

currently restricts permit terms and conditions to trades allowed under

the District's new source review rule, Rule 2201. See Sec. 70.6

(a)(10).

(13) Revise Rule 2520, Section 9.0 (permit content) to include the

Sec. 70.6 (c)(3) requirement for schedules of compliance for applicable

requirements for which the source is in compliance or that will become

effective during the permit term. Section 70.6(c)(3), reflecting the

language of Clean Air Act section 504(a) (``Each permit issued * * *

shall include * * * a schedule of compliance* * * .''), requires that

the permit contain a schedule of compliance even when the source is in

compliance with all applicable requirements. Rule 2520 9.15 only

requires a schedule of compliance when the source is in violation of

any applicable requirement. During the interim period, the District

should incorporate schedules of compliance, as

[[Page 55520]]

required by Sec. 70.6(c)(3), into all issued permits.

(14) Revise Rule 2520 to treat changes made under the prevention of

significant deterioration (PSD) provisions of the Act and EPA' PSD

regulations in the same manner as ``title I modifications'' as that

term is defined in Rule 2520 and Rule 2201. PSD modifications are

considered ``modifications under title I'' in part 70.

(15) Revise Rule 2520 to state that, notwithstanding the permit

shield provisions, if a source that is operating under a general permit

is later determined not to qualify for the terms and conditions of that

general permit, then the source is subject to enforcement action for

operation without a part 70 permit. See Sec. 70.6(d).

(16) 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 San

Joaquin program. In order for this program to receive full 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.

3. District 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 Joaquin 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

Joaquin's preconstruction review program (Rule 2201) as a mechanism to

implement section 112(g) during the transition period between

promulgation of the section 112(g) rule and adoption by San Joaquin 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.

4. 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 proposing to grant approval under section

112(l)(5) and 40 CFR part 63.91 of San Joaquin'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 Joaquin 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 Joaquin 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.

5. Proposed Approval of Rule 2530 Federally Enforceable Potential To

Emit

On October 24, 1995, CARB submitted for approval into the San

Joaquin Valley's portion of the California State Implementation Plan

(SIP), Rule 2530 Federally Enforceable Potential to Emit. This Rule

creates a streamlined process for limiting the potential to emit of

sources that emit less that 50 percent of major source levels but whose

potential to emit is above those levels. Sources complying with this

Rule will have federally-enforceable limits on their potential to emit

and will avoid being subject to title V.

The basic requirement for approving into the SIP rules to limit

potential to emit is that the limits in the rule are practically

enforceable. For a discussion of general principle of practical

enforceability, see Memorandum from John Seitz to Regional Air

Directors ``Options for Limiting the Potential to Emit (PTE) of a

Stationary Source Under Section 112 and Title V of the Clean Air Act

(Act),'' January 25, 1995, found in the docket for this rulemaking.

Rule 2530 meets these requirements for practical enforceability for

limiting potential to emit through general prohibitory rules in SIPs.

Please refer to the TSD for further analysis of the Rule.

CARB also submitted Rule 2520 for approval under section 112(l) of

the Act. The separate request for approval under section 112(l) is

necessary because the proposed SIP approval discussed above only

provides a mechanism for controlling criteria pollutants. EPA has

determined that the practical enforceability criterion for SIPs is also

appropriate for evaluating and approving Rule 2530 under section

112(l). In addition, Rule 2530 must meet the statutory criteria for

approval under section 112(l)(5). For a discussion of EPA's authority

to approve rules under section 112 (l), see 59 FR 60944 (November 29,

1994).

EPA proposes approval of Rule 2530 under 112(l) because the Rule

meets all of the approval criteria specified in section 112(l)(5) of

the Act. EPA believes Rule 2530 contains adequate authority to assure

compliance with section 112 requirements because it does not waive any

section 112 requirements applicable to non-major sources. Regarding

adequate resources, Rule 2530 is a supporting element of the District's

title V program which has demonstrated adequate funding. Furthermore,

EPA believes that Rule 2530 provides for an expeditious schedule for

assuring compliance because it provides a streamlined approval that

allows sources to establish limits on potential to emit and avoid being

subject to a federal Clean Air Act requirement applicable on a

particular date. Finally, Rule 2530 is consistent with the objectives

of the section 112 program because its purpose is to enable sources to

obtain federally enforceable

[[Page 55521]]

limits on potential to emit to avoid major source classification under

section 112. The EPA believes this purpose is consistent with the

overall intent of section 112.

Rule 2530 is modeled on the California model prohibitory rule

developed by the California Association of Air Pollution Control

Officers, CARB, and EPA. In its agreement on the model rule, EPA

expressed certain understandings and caveats. See letter, Lydia Wegman,

Deputy Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA

to Peter D. Venturini, Chief, Stationary Source Division, CARB, January

11, 1995. A copy of this letter is in the docket for this rulemaking.

These understandings and caveats are incorporated into EPA's proposed

approval of Rule 2530.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Request for Public Comments

The EPA is requesting comments on all aspects of this proposed

interim approval. Comments should be submitted by December 1, 1995.

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.

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 aggregate, or to the private sector. This federal

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

imposes no new federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs

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

result from this action.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations,

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

Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 70

Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control,

Environmental protection Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental

relations, Operating permits, and Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

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

Dated: October 19, 1995.

John Wise,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95-27144 Filed 10-31-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P