Clean Air Act Final Interim Approval of the Federal Operating Permits Program; San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 70

[AD-FRL-5460-9]

Clean Air Act Final Interim Approval of the Federal Operating

Permits Program; San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control

District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final Interim Approval.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is promulgating interim approval of the Operating

Permits Program submitted by the California Air Resources Board on

behalf of the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District

for the purpose of complying with Federal requirements which mandate

that States develop, and submit to EPA, programs for issuing operating

permits to all major stationary sources, and to certain other sources.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 24, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the District's submittal and other supporting

[[Page 18084]]

information used in developing the proposed interim approval including

the Technical Support Document with response to comments 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. Introduction

Title V of the Clean Air Act (the Act), and implementing

regulations at 40 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 approval or disapproval. Where a program

substantially, but not fully, meets the requirements of part 70, EPA

may grant the program interim approval for a period of up to 2 years.

On November 1, 1995, EPA proposed interim approval of the operating

permits program for the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution

Control District (San Joaquin Valley or District). See 60 FR 55516. The

EPA received comments on the proposal and has summarized its response

to the major comments in this notice and has fully responded to all

comments in the Technical Support Document (TSD) accompanying this

rulemaking. The TSD also describes the operating permits program in

greater detail. In this notice, EPA is taking final action to

promulgate interim approval of the operating permits program for San

Joaquin Valley.

In the November 1, 1995 proposal, EPA also proposed approval of the

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

as a revision to San Joaquin Valley portion of the California State

Implementation Plan and under section 112(l) of the Act. In a separate

notice, EPA has taken final action to approve Rule 2530.

II. Final Action and Implications

A. Response to Comments

EPA received comments from four groups during the comment period:

Caufield Enterprises (an independent oil producer in the southern San

Joaquin Valley), the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA),

Chevron, and the San Joaquin Valley District. EPA's response to the

major comments is summarized below. A full response to each comment is

in the TSD.

1. Stationary Source Definition

The District's title V program defines stationary source by

combining elements of part 70's definitions of ``major source'' and

``stationary source.'' The District's definition of stationary source,

which is common to both its title V program and its new source review

program, contains a provision applicable to any facility located

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

Fresno County Oil Field 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. This provision is more stringent than part 70;

however, the section also states that light oil production, heavy oil

production, and gas production shall constitute separate stationary

sources. Part 70's definition of ``major source'' requires aggregating

all emission points that 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. EPA proposed as an interim

approval issue that the District either revise the SIC code exemption

in its definition of stationary source or show that it is as stringent

as part 70.

The District stated that changing the definition of stationary

source from its historic usage in the new source review (NSR) program

would complicate permitting actions under title V. The District also

provided data that few emission units (and few emissions) would be

added to the program compared to the number of the units and emissions

that would be lost from the program if part 70's definition were used

to determine applicability. WSPA and Chevron also raised concerns

regarding changing from the historic NSR definition of stationary

source.

EPA has reviewed the information provided by the San Joaquin

District on the number and type of additional emission units that would

be included should the District change to EPA's definition of major

source. These units are relatively few in number, have insignificant

emissions, are attached to otherwise major sources, and would for the

most part qualify for treatment as insignificant activities or

insignificant emission units. Overall, San Joaquin Valley's definition

of stationary source is neither inconsistent with nor less stringent

than EPA's definition of major source; therefore, EPA is removing the

proposed interim approval issue regarding it.

Caufield Enterprises commented that the District's part 70 program

as proposed is in conflict with the Clean Air Act because both section

502 of the Act and Sec. 70.2 define a major source to be a contiguous

source while San Joaquin Valley's program combines non-contiguous

properties into a single source. The commenter stated that it was

immaterial whether this provision is stricter or less strict than

federal law since it was the intent of Congress to implement the title

V program uniformly throughout the United States and that allowing the

District to use a different definition for stationary source and major

source for title V permitting is inconsistent with this intent.

EPA believes that it is the intent of Congress to require states to

implement operating permit programs that all contain certain minimum

elements. See section 502(b). EPA also believes that Congress did not

intend to bar States from establishing additional permitting

requirements provided that those requirements were not inconsistent

with the Act. See section 506(a).

While it is true that section 501(2) of the Act defines major

source as ``any stationary source (or group of stationary sources

located within a contiguous area and under common control) * * * '',

this definition serves to define the sources Congress, at a minimum,

intended to be included in the program. The definition of major source

in section 501(2) does not define the only sources that a state may

include in its operating permit program. Clearly, states are allowed to

include a broader range of sources in their programs than the Act

nominally requires.

San Joaquin Valley's definition of major source (which encompasses

its definition of stationary source in its NSR program) differs from

the definition of major source in section 501(2) by grouping all

sources within an oil field that are under common control or ownership

regardless of whether the sources are on contiguous or adjacent

properties. This provision of San

[[Page 18085]]

Joaquin's stationary source definition will bring into its part 70

program more sources than EPA's definition. On the other hand, the

provision does not effectively exclude any sources subject to title V

under the federal definition. As a result, the non-contiguous and non-

adjacent requirement in San Joaquin Valley's definition constitutes an

additional permitting requirement that is not inconsistent with the Act

and is allowed by section 506(a) of the Act.

2. Permit Terms for Model General Permits and Model General Permit

Templates

Chevron, WSPA, and the District commented that model general

permits and model general permit templates should not be required to

have permit terms of five years or less as proposed in interim approval

issue 9. All three commenters recommended that these model permits have

indefinite terms and require revision only when an applicable

requirement changes or needs to be added. WSPA and Chevron noted that

if EPA or the District believes that a correction is needed in a model

permit/template then they have the ability to effect such a change and

modify all associated permits.

Title V and part 70 requires all elements of part 70 permits,

whether or not they are based on model permits or permit templates, to

undergo public, affected state, and EPA review at least once every five

years. Rule 2520 sections 11.3.8, 11.7.6 and 11.7.7 limit public and

EPA comment to the applicability of the permit/template to a source and

thus prohibit public or EPA comment on the internal elements of a model

permit/template after that model permit/template is issued. In effect,

these provisions of the Rule bar regular public, affected state, and

EPA review of the conditions and terms of a source's part 70 permit

that are based on a model permit/template. The ability to comment on

the applicability of a model general permit or permit template does not

replace the ability to comment on the internal elements of that permit

because not all issues will be ones of applicability. Hence there is a

need to provide some mechanism to assure regular public, affected

state, and EPA review of the model general permits and permit

templates. Therefore, EPA is retaining this interim approval issue.

In reviewing this issue, EPA did determine that it is not necessary

that the model general permits/permit templates to contain five-year

permit terms but rather that the District's part 70 program provide

some mechanism that requires regular public, affected state, and EPA

review of the internal provisions of each model general permit or

permit template at least once every five years. EPA, therefore, has

revised the interim approval issue.

EPA does not argue with the commenters that EPA has the ability to

reopen model permits/templates when necessary, but this ability does

not replace the requirement for regular public and affected state

review. EPA would also note that regulatory changes are not the sole

reason why model general permits/permit templates may need to be

changed.

3. Permit Shield Provision for General Permits and Permit Templates

Proposed interim approval issue 15 required that Rule 2520 be

revised to state, as required by Sec. 70.6(d), 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. The District

declined to revise Rule 2520 to add this language arguing it was

unnecessary because its general permit provisions are more stringent

than part 70. The District noted that any general permit obtained by a

source under Rule 2520 would include qualification criteria and the

applicable requirements, thus any deviation from the general permit

should be treated like any other part 70 permit violation.

EPA agrees that the District's general permit provisions are

different from the provisions in part 70 in that the District's program

gives each source a part 70 permit derived from the model general

permit rather than issuing one permit that applies to multiple sources.

EPA, however, is retaining this interim approval issue.

At issue is not whether a source is complying with the terms of its

permit but rather whether the permit the source has is the correct

permit for that source. A source that applies to use a model general

permit and receives a permit based on that model when it does not

qualify is not substantially different from a source that fails to

apply for and receive any permit because both sources do not have

permits applicable to them. The former source may appear to have a

permit and may appear to comply with some of the terms of that permit,

but, because the permit was not crafted for that source, there is in

fact no valid permit with which to comply. The source should be treated

as operating without a part 70 permit rather than not operating in

compliance with a part 70 permit.

Chevron and WSPA requested clarification that this interim approval

issue does not carry over into the application and use of general

permit templates. The commenters noted that a general permit template

is only a partial coverage for certain emission units. The commenters

also recommended extending this concept to general permits in cases

where the non-applicability represents failure to properly manage

change at the facility, in contrast to a misrepresentation of the

source at the time of permit application.

EPA agrees with the commenters and has clarified the interim

approval issue. If a general permit template is later determined not to

be applicable to the sources then the emission units or the portion of

the facility that was covered by the terms of the general permit

template would be subject to enforcement action for operating without a

title V permit and the balance of the facility, where the permit

remains in force, would not be subject to the enforcement action.

EPA does not believe there is any need to extend this concept to

general permits where the source modifies so as to no longer qualify

for the general permit. EPA interprets the requirement in Sec. 70.6(d)

to apply only to sources that misrepresented their qualifications for a

general permit at the time of initial issuance or renewal.

4. Other Comments

The District addressed each of EPA's 17 proposed interim approval

issues and in most cases stated it would propose language changes to

Rule 2520 to address the interim approval issue. EPA appreciates the

District's responses on these issues. For several interim approval

issues, the District stated that it did not believe Rule revisions were

warranted. These issues are discussed below. Please note that the issue

numbers reflect those in the proposal and not the revised numbering in

this notice.

Interim Approval Issue 9: Clarify minor source applicability. The

District believes that section 2.4 of Rule 2520 clearly applies only to

area sources and that it is not necessary to clarify 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. The

District noted that any major source subject to an NSPS would be

subject to title V permitting by its major source status.

EPA agrees with the District that any major source regulated under

an NSPS or section 112 standard would be

[[Page 18086]]

subject to the District's rule under the major source requirement in

section 2.3 of Rule 2520; however, it is also true that such a source

would also be subject to Rule 2520 under the ``subject to an NSPS or

112 standard'' requirement in section 2.4. In fact, it will be common

for sources to be subject to the District's rule on a number of grounds

(e.g., a major source subject to an NSPS). Therefore, the exclusivity

of section 2.4 to area sources is not inherent in the rule. In

addition, section 2.4 of Rule 2520 parallels the language of

Sec. 70.3(a)(3) which reads ``any source, including an area source,

subject to a standard * * *''. EPA does not interpret Sec. 70.3(a)(3)

to apply only to area sources and would not agree that section 2.4

applies only to area sources. EPA is therefore retaining this interim

approval issue.

Interim Approval Issue 10: Review and public notice municipal waste

incinerator permits every five years, even in the event that permit

expiration may be every 12 years. The District noted that

Sec. 70.6(a)(2) does require that the District review permits for

municipal waste incinerators every five years, but it does not require

public notice and comment.

Part 70 does not fully repeat the Act's requirement that title V

permits for municipal waste incinerators be subject to public review

every five years. The requirement is a provision of section 129(e) of

the Act and not of title V. Section 129(e) of the Act requires that all

municipal waste incinerators obtain title V permits and that those

permits may have a permit term of up to 12 years, shall be reviewed

every 5 years, and shall remain in effect until the date of

termination, unless EPA or the permitting authority determines that the

unit is not in compliance with all standards and conditions contained

in the permit. Under section 129(e), such determination shall be made

at regular intervals during the term of the permit, such intervals not

to exceed five years, and only after public comment and public hearing.

Based on the explicit language of section 129(e) requiring public

comment and hearing, EPA is retaining this interim approval issue.

Interim Approval Issue 12: Allow trading of emission increases and

decreases without a case-by-case review to the extent allowed by an

applicable requirement, and not merely those allowed by Rule 2301. The

District commented that District Rule 2301, ``Emission Reduction Credit

Banking'' states that the rule is applicable to all transfers or uses

of emission reduction credits in the San Joaquin Valley, and that the

District does not propose to change this provision. The District also

commented that the permit terms will identify circumstances under which

credits can be transferred without a case-by-case review, that under

these circumstances, the language in Rule 2520 which requires that

emission reduction transfers be consistent with Rule 2301 is

appropriate, and that the District does not propose to change it.

EPA notes that proposed interim approval issue 12 did not address

the part of Rule 2520, section 9.12 that restricts the use of emission

reduction credits. Rather, this interim approval issue addresses the

first provision in section 9.12 that restricted terms and conditions in

a permit for the trading of emission increases and decreases in the

permitted facility to those allowed by Rule 2201. Section 70.6(a)(10)

requires permitting authorities to include terms for emission trading

without case-by-case approvals to the extent applicable requirements

allow them. EPA's interim approval issue is to remove Rule 2520's

restriction to Rule 2201 and expand it to encompass any applicable

requirement, such as the Hazardous Organic NESHAP, that allows for

emission trading without case-by-case approval. EPA, therefore, is

retaining this interim approval issue but is clarifying that it does

not affect the emission reduction credit provisions in Rule 2520,

section 9.12.

Interim Approval Issue 13: Require a schedule of compliance be

included in the permit even if the source is in compliance with all

applicable requirements. The District argues, based on language in part

70 and title V, that neither title V nor part 70 requires that each

permit issued contain a schedule of compliance unless the source is in

non-compliance.

The District is correct in stating that Sec. 70.6(c)(3) merely

requires that a permit contain a schedule of compliance consistent with

Sec. 70.5(c)(8); that Sec. 70.5(c)(8) requires a compliance plan be

submitted with the application, part of which is a compliance schedule;

and finally that Sec. 70.5(c)(8)(iii) lists what constitutes a

compliance schedule and that for non-complying source, this is the

``schedule of compliance'' in Sec. 70.5(c)(8)(iii)(C).

The District is also correct in stating that section 504 of the Act

requires that ``each permit issued under this title shall include * * *

a schedule of compliance * * *'' However, the District is not correct

in stating that facilities are not required to submit a schedule of

compliance with their applications unless they are out of compliance.

Section 503 clearly requires all permit applications, without regard to

the source's compliance status, to include a ``compliance plan

describing how the source will comply with all applicable requirements

* * *'' and that the ``[c]ompliance plan shall include a schedule of

compliance * * *''.

Part 70 and the Act need to be read with the understanding that the

terms ``compliance schedule'' and ``schedule of compliance'' are

synonymous. With this understanding, it is clear that all sources,

complying and non-complying, must include a schedule of compliance

(i.e., a compliance schedule) in their applications and that all

permits must have schedules of compliance (i.e., compliance schedules)

in them. For complying sources and sources that have future-effective

applicable requirements, the compliance schedule is a simple statement

that the source will continue to comply or will comply in a timely

manner. Only for non-complying sources are there detailed requirements

for the contents of a schedule of compliance. Given the requirements of

the Act and part 70, EPA is retaining this interim approval issue.

B. Interim Approval

The EPA is promulgating interim approval of the operating permits

program submitted by the California Air Resources Board on behalf of

the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District on July 3

and August 17, 1995, and supplemented on September 6 and 21, 1995. The

District or the State must make the following changes 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.

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

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

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

permits. Sec. 70.3(b)(2)

(3) 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. See Sec. 70.3(d).

(4) 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).

[[Page 18087]]

(5) 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).

(6) 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).

(7) 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).

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 ensure that the Rule 2520 clearly states EPA's

authority to object to permits.

(8) 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.

(9) Revise Rule 2520 8.1 to provide that each model general permit

and model general permit templates will be subject to public, affected

state, and EPA review consistent with initial permit issuance at least

once every 5 years.

(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 once every five 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. 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 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. The District

may limit transfers of emission reduction credits in accordance with

District Rules 2201 and 2301. 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. During the interim period, the

District should incorporate compliance schedules, as 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.

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

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

or general permit template is later determined not to qualify for the

terms and conditions of that general permit or template, then the

source is subject to enforcement action for operation without a part 70

permit. For sources operating under a general permit template, if a

source is later determined not to qualify for the template, only the

portion of the facility covered by the template shall be 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

granting 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 been revised, the District

must also revise its permit exemption rules to eliminate any blanket

exemption granted agricultural sources.

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

25, 1998. During this interim approval period, the State is protected

from sanctions for failure to have a program, and EPA is not obligated

to promulgate a Federal permits program in 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.

If the District fails to submit a complete program through the

State for full approval by November 24, 1997, EPA will start an 18-

month clock for mandatory sanctions. If the District fails to submit a

complete program before the expiration of that 18-month period, EPA

would impose sanctions. If EPA disapproves the District's corrective

program, and has not granted full approval within 18 months after the

disapproval, then EPA must impose mandatory sanctions. In both cases,

if the District has not come into compliance within 6 months after EPA

applies the first sanction, a second sanction is required. In addition,

discretionary sanctions may be applied where warranted any time after

the end of the interim approval period. If the EPA has not granted full

approval to the District program by May 25, 1998, EPA must promulgate,

administer, and enforce a Federal permits program for San Joaquin

Valley.

C. District Program Implementing Section 112(g)

EPA is approving the use of San Joaquin Valley's preconstruction

review program (Rule 2201) as a mechanism to implement section 112(g)

during the transition period between promulgation of EPA's section

112(g) rule and adoption by San Joaquin Valley 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.

D. Program for Delegation of Section 112 Standards as Promulgated

Requirements for part 70 program 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)

[[Page 18088]]

requires that the District's 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 63.91 of

San Joaquin Valley's program for receiving delegation of section 112

standards that are unchanged from the federal standards as promulgated.

This program for delegations applies to both existing and future

standards but is limited to sources covered by the part 70 program.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

Copies of the District's submittal and other information relied

upon for the final interim approval, including all comments received on

the proposal and EPA's responses to those comments, are contained in

docket number CA-SJV-95-001 maintained at the EPA Regional Office. The

docket is available for public inspection at the location listed under

the ADDRESSES section of this document.

B. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action from

Executive Order 12866 review.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The EPA's action under section 502 of the Act does not create any

new requirements but simply addresses the operating permits program

developed and submitted by the San Joaquin Valley District to meet the

requirements of 40 CFR part 70. EPA evaluated the impact on small

businesses of the title V operating permit program as part of its

promulgation of part 70 and determined that operating permit programs

required by part 70 would not have a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small business and no Regulatory Flexibility Act

analysis was necessary.

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 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 and therefore, no budgetary

impact statement is necessary.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70

Environmental Protection, Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Operating permits,

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: April 10, 1996.

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 paragraph (y) to the

entry for California to read as follows:

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

Permits Programs

* * * * *

California

* * * * *

(y) San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD (complete submittal received on

July 5 and August 18, 1995); interim approval effective on May 24,

1996; interim approval expires May 25, 1998.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 96-10094 Filed 4-23-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-W