Clean Air Act Final Interim Approval of Operating Permits Program; the State of Oklahoma

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 70

[OK-FRL-5407-9]

Clean Air Act Final Interim Approval of Operating Permits

Program; the State of Oklahoma

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final source category-limited interim approval.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is promulgating source category-limited interim

approval of the Operating Permits Program submitted by the Oklahoma

Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) for the State of Oklahoma

for the purpose of complying with Federal requirements for an

approvable State program to issue operating permits to all major

stationary sources, except any sources of air pollution over which an

Indian Tribe has jurisdiction, and to certain other sources.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 6, 1996.

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

information used in developing this source category-limited interim

approval are available for inspection during normal business hours at

the following location:

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Air Programs Branch

(6T-AN), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Program, 4545

North Lincoln Blvd, Suite 250, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105-3483.

Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wm. Nicholas Stone, New Source Review

Section (6T-AN), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross

Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone (214) 665-7226.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Purpose

A. Introduction

Title V of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (sections 501-507 of

the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``the Act'')), and implementing regulations

at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 70 require that States

develop and submit operating permits programs to the EPA by November

15, 1993, and that the 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, the EPA may grant the program interim approval for a period of up

to two years. If the EPA has not fully approved a program by two years

after November 15, 1993, or by the end of an interim program, it must

establish and implement a Federal program.

On March 10, 1995, the EPA proposed source category-limited interim

approval of the operating permits program for the State of Oklahoma.

See 60 Federal Register (FR) 13088 (March 10, 1995). The EPA received

comments on the proposal and compiled a Technical Support Document

which describes the operating permits program in greater detail. In

this document, the EPA is taking final action to promulgate source

category-limited interim approval of the operating permits program for

the State of Oklahoma.

II. Final Action and Implications

A. Analysis of State Submission

The State of Oklahoma submitted to the EPA, under a cover letter

from the Governor dated January 7, 1994, the State's operating permits

program. The submittal has adequately addressed all sixteen elements

required for full approval as discussed in part 70, with the exception

of seven interim issues listed in the proposal: (1) Revision of

Subchapter 8 to incorporate the new transition schedule included in the

Governor's request for source category-limited interim approval, (2)

regulation revision to make the definition of ``major source''

consistent with part 70, (3) revision of the regulation to make the

provisions for insignificant activities consistent with part 70, (4)

revision of the regulation to make the permit content provisions

consistent with part 70, (5) revision of the regulation to make the

provisions regarding standing for judicial review consistent with part

70, (6) revision of the regulation to make the administrative

amendments provisions consistent with part 70, and (7) submission of a

State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for Subchapter 7 consistent

with Subchapter 8 and 40 CFR part 70.

The proposal noted three conditions that had to be met before the

EPA could complete the approval process. The State of Oklahoma has

adequately addressed each of these issues as shown below:

1. Acid Rain Incorporation by Reference

The State had not completed the rulemaking process for the acid

rain rules when the proposal was sent to publication. The State of

Oklahoma incorporated the acid rain rules by reference as an emergency

rule signed January 5, 1995. This provision appears at Oklahoma

Administrative Code (OAC) 252:100-8-6(i)(8) and became a permanent

rule, due to inaction by the Legislature, on March 29, 1995.

2. Request for Source Category-Limited Interim Approval

The Governor of Oklahoma, in a letter dated May 26, 1995, requested

source category-limited approval for the operating permits program. The

Executive Director of the ODEQ submitted a detailed transition schedule

in a letter dated January 23, 1995, for the source category-limited

interim approval.

3. Supplemental Attorney General's Opinion

The State of Oklahoma provided the EPA with a supplemental Attorney

General Opinion, dated June 23, 1995, which clarified the State's

interpretation of the criminal liability statute. The EPA required this

clarification to ensure that the criminal liability provision in the

State statute would not preclude daily fines up to $10,000 for on-going

violations.

The State of Oklahoma appropriately addressed all requirements

necessary to receive source category-limited interim approval of the

State operating permits

[[Page 4221]]

program pursuant to title V of the Act and 40 CFR part 70.

B. Response to Comments

Comments were received from six parties during the comment period

that ran from March 10, 1995, until April 10, 1995. Several of the

comments requested additional time so that comments could be made after

the Air Quality Council meeting on April 18, 1995. The EPA extended the

comment period until May 10, 1995, in a Federal Register document

published April 26, 1995. Three additional parties submitted comments

during the extension. Below is the EPA's response to comments received

on the proposed source category-limited interim approval for the

Oklahoma Operating Permits Program.

1. Section 112(g) Implementation

Comments were made that the EPA should reiterate its present

interpretation of section 112(g) as published in the Federal Register

on February 14, 1995.

The EPA concurs with the comment. The EPA proposed to approve the

State's preconstruction review program for the purpose of implementing

section 112(g) during the transition period before promulgation of a

Federal rule implementing section 112(g). This proposal was based in

part on an interpretation of the Act that would require sources to

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

title V program, regardless whether the EPA had completed its section

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

Act in a Federal Register document published on February 14, 1995, 60

FR 8333. The revised interpretation postpones the effective date of

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

that provision. The revised notice sets forth in detail the rationale

for the revised interpretation.

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

still 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 the EPA will provide for any such additional delay in the final

section 112(g) rulemaking. Unless and until the EPA provides for such

an additional postponement of section 112(g), Oklahoma must be able to

implement section 112(g) during the transition period between

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

implementing State regulations.

For this reason, the EPA is finalizing its approval of Oklahoma's

preconstruction review program. This approval clarifies that the

preconstruction review program is available as a mechanism to implement

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

section 112(g) rule and adoption by Oklahoma of rules established to

implement section 112(g). However, since the approval is for the single

purpose of providing a mechanism to implement section 112(g) during the

transition period, the approval itself will be without effect if the

EPA decides in the final section 112(g) rule that sources are not

subject to the requirements of the rule until State regulations are

adopted. Further, the EPA is limiting the duration of this approval to

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

The EPA believes that, although Oklahoma currently lacks a program

designed specifically to implement section 112(g), the State's

preconstruction review program will serve as an adequate implementation

vehicle during a transition period because it will allow Oklahoma to

select control measures that would meet the maximum achievable control

technology, as defined in section 112, and incorporate these measures

into a federally enforceable preconstruction permit.

2. Major Source Definition

Several comments questioned the EPA's position on the State's

definition of ``major source'' because it requires the State to revise

its definition to delete the non-aggregation provision for criteria

pollutants at oil & gas facilities. Some of the comments cited section

112(n)(4) of the Act and interpreted the Federal statute to mean that

emissions at oil and gas facilities cannot be aggregated.

The EPA does not agree with these comments. The EPA has required

the State to revise the non-aggregation provision for criteria

pollutants because, as written, the regulation could be interpreted to

allow non-aggregation of criteria pollutants at oil and gas facilities.

Section 112 of the Act applies only to hazardous air pollutants and no

similar non-aggregation provision is found in title V of the Clean Air

Act Amendments of 1990 for criteria pollutants at oil and gas

facilities. Without this required change, the definition of ``major

source'' will also be inconsistent with the definition of ``major

source'' at 40 CFR 52.21 which contains the Prevention of Significant

Deterioration (PSD) requirements.

3. Insignificant Activities

Several comments complained that EPA's approval of an insignificant

activities list would limit State discretion. The comments also noted

that the State should maintain this list as a guidance document and not

as a part of the regulations. Further, comments were made that the

insignificant emissions level of 10% of the permit limit or major

source threshold was consistent with State law. Some of the comments

noted that measurement equipment often has a 10% margin of error and

that the current regulation is consistent with the limits of the

equipment used. One comment suggested that the EPA complete formal

rulemaking before imposing an insignificant emissions level.

The EPA does not agree with these comments. Regarding the need for

prior approval by the EPA, the rule at 40 CFR 70.5(c) clearly requires

the Administrator's approval of the State's insignificant activities

list. Contrary to one individual's comment, even though insignificant

activities are not a required element of a part 70 program, a State

that opts to establish such activities must nevertheless meet certain

requirements, including prior approval by the EPA. Though this list

does not have to be a part of the regulations, the EPA must approve it

to assure that all applicable requirements are met and that consistency

among the various states is maintained. The insignificant activities

list may exist as a guidance document and not as part of the State

regulations, provided, of course, that this will allow for its

effective implementation as a matter of State law. However, the list

and any changes to the list must be submitted to the EPA for review and

approval before they can be federally recognized.

The EPA plans to issue guidance addressing activities that it

considers ``trivial'' in the sense that they never implicate applicable

requirements. Such activities can be exempted from permit applications

without the need for prior EPA approval. The State may act consistent

with this guidance. However, activities that are ``insignificant'' (as

opposed to ``trivial'') because they are not clearly unrelated to

applicable requirements, must first be approved by the EPA.

Another element of the EPA's proposed approval was that the State

eliminate the provision defining as insignificant increases in

emissions less than 10 percent of a permit limit or 10

[[Page 4222]]

percent of the baseline potential to emit. The EPA continues to believe

that defining insignificance levels relative to percentages of

permitted limits or potential emissions is inappropriate, because it

can result in increases being deemed insignificant that are large

enough to trigger New Source Review (NSR) or other applicable

requirements. In addition, use of a percentage of permit limits could

be read to imply that sources may exceed those limits without incurring

liability. Title V provides no authorization for this.

Several comments suggested that the State's insignificance levels

should be approved because the equipment used to monitor emissions has

a 10 percent margin of error. These comments misunderstand the role of

insignificant activities. Insignificant activities or levels are not

relevant to determining compliance with applicable requirements. The

limits of verifiability for any particular emissions limits are

therefore irrelevant to the EPA's approval of insignificant emissions

limits.

Comments also asserted, with regard to the 10% levels discussed

above, that these limits are additive to the 1 pound per hour (lb/hr)

limits established for individual emissions units, and serve to limit

the accumulation of exempted emissions units across an entire facility.

While the establishment of ``tiered'' insignificance levels at the

emissions unit and facility-wide level could be approvable (provided

the levels were acceptable), the EPA does not read the State's rule to

effect this result. Section 252:100-8-3(e)(3) defines as insignificant,

``in addition'' to units qualifying under 252:100-8-3(e) (1) or (2),

any ``individual or combination of air emissions sources'' that is

below the 10 percent levels. This provision might be redrafted to make

clear that the 10 percent level does not supersede the 1 lb/hr and de

minimis levels for individual emissions units. However, the EPA

maintains that use of percentage levels for determining insignificant

activities is inappropriate.

The EPA proposed that the 1 lb/hr level on insignificant activities

for individual emissions units was excessive, and further proposed that

the State could obtain full approval by changing this to a limit on

potential, rather than actual emissions. One comment stated that the

EPA lacks authority to reject the State's limits, and moreover cannot

impose a specific emissions level except through rulemaking.

The EPA has authority under part 70 to reject insignificance levels

that will interfere with the permitting authority's ability to

determine and impose applicable requirements. Oklahoma has not

attempted to show that the 1 lb/hr limit will not so interfere with

this obligation. In the absence of such a demonstration, the EPA must

exercise its judgement in light of applicable requirements. The EPA has

serious concerns in this regard with the 1 lb/hr limit. The EPA agrees

that it cannot impose a specific limit except through rulemaking. The

EPA is stating here that it will fully approve a 1 lb/hr limit based on

potential to emit. No comments objected to this. It will also approve a

higher threshold if the State demonstrates that the level is in fact

insignificant.

4. Permit Content Language

Some comments questioned the EPA's requirement that the State

delete the phrase ``to the extent practicable'' from the regulation's

requirement at OAC 252:100-8-6 that the permit include all applicable

requirements. It was noted that some industries are concerned about

applicable requirements which become effective after the application

but before permit issuance would be included in the permit.

The EPA does not agree with these comments. The rule at 40 CFR

70.6(a)(1) requires the permit to contain emission limitations and

standards, including those operational requirements and limitations

that assure compliance with all applicable requirements at the time of

permit issuance. Therefore, if an applicable requirement becomes

effective after the application is determined complete, the draft

permit must reflect the new requirement.

The EPA notes that it has proposed a revision to part 70 which

would allow States flexibility in dealing with requirements promulgated

near permit issuance. See 59 FR 44519 (August 29, 1994). Even under

this proposed approach, however, the State rule would not be fully

approvable, because the phrase ``to the extent practicable'' is

unbounded.

5. Administrative Amendment Language

Comments were made that it was inappropriate for the EPA to

disallow less frequent monitoring than was originally in the permit via

the State's administrative amendment procedure at OAC 252:100-8-

7(d)(1)(C).

The EPA does not agree with these comments. Although section

70.7(d)(1)(vi) allows the EPA to approve provisions for administrative

amendments similar to those specified in part 70, less frequent

monitoring is not sufficiently similar. Administrative amendments are

appropriate for incorporation of actions that do not require a case by

case judgement. Switching to more frequent monitoring or reporting will

always be more stringent, and therefore does not require case by case

approval. However, switching to less frequent monitoring has the

potential to adversely impact the enforceability of a requirement, and

would therefore need to be reviewed on a case by case basis through a

minor or significant permit modification.

Another comment noted that the proposed revisions to part 70, see

FR 44519 (August 29, 1994), would allow changes using the Oklahoma NSR

procedures that would satisfy the requirements of part 70. If the

Oklahoma regulation meets the requirements of part 70 after the

revision is promulgated, then the State would not be required to change

the regulation.

6. Judicial Review for Oral Comments

One comment was made requesting clarification of the EPA's

requirement that the State regulations assure that review is available

for comments made at hearings. The comment asserted that the State's

rule is consistent with general administrative law, which the

individual commenting believes requires a written record of oral

comments.

The EPA disagrees with this comment. Section 502(b)(6) of the Act

and section 70.4(b)(3)(x) do not distinguish participation in a public

comment period through oral as opposed to written comments. The

requirement that Oklahoma delete the word ``written'' from OAC 252:100-

8-7(j)(2)(A) was made to ensure that all comments would be covered

under the judicial review provisions of subchapter 8 of the State's

regulations. Though written records of comments made at public hearings

are normally made in Oklahoma, removal of the word ``written'' will

make the regulation clear so that judicial review is available to all

those who comment.

The EPA has elsewhere found a lack of standing to be grounds for

program disapproval. See 59 FR 62324, December 5, 1994, (Virginia). The

standing deficiency in the Virginia title V program is considerably

more far-reaching than that noted here. Regarding the need for written

comments, citizens wishing to comment on permits in Oklahoma, if they

are aware of the provision at issue, may reduce their comments to

writing so as to avoid the potential bar to judicial review. The bar to

standing in the Virginia program is not so easily avoided.

Oklahoma's other judicial review deficiency is that the State's

regulations

[[Page 4223]]

are unclear as to whether judicial review is available for minor

modifications and administrative amendments. The EPA is requiring the

State to clarify that such review is available.

The seriousness of the deficiencies regarding judicial review in

Oklahoma is minor relative to those identified for Virginia, and so

does not merit full disapproval. In addition, Oklahoma has not

indicated any reluctance to change its rules as necessary to obtain

full approval on these issues. Therefore, the EPA is granting interim

approval for the Oklahoma program.

7. Variance Provisions

A comment was made objecting to the EPA's position that variance

provisions under State statute may not apply to title V permits unless

title V processes are followed.

The EPA does not agree with this comment. As discussed in the

proposed notice, the EPA recognizes the State's statutory authority to

grant variances as a matter of State law. However, 40 CFR part 70 does

not allow States to grant variances from title V requirements. The EPA

recognizes that title V permits may include compliance schedules for

sources which are out of compliance with applicable requirements.

However, such measures to bring a source into compliance are not the

same as variances, which normally provide a complete exemption from a

requirement. The EPA also recognizes that Oklahoma may exercise

enforcement discretion when addressing permit violations, but this,

likewise, is not analogous to the issuance of variances.

8. Fee Demonstration

One comment was received in support of the proposed annual fee of

$15.19 per ton. No adverse comments were received on the proposed fee.

The EPA has concluded that the fee proposed in the workload analysis

and fee demonstration of $15.19 per ton per year will be adequate to

fund the title V program in the State of Oklahoma. The EPA will, as

part of its oversight role, review the program periodically to ensure

that adequate funding is maintained.

9. Phased Application Schedule

Several comments requested that the State of Oklahoma utilize a

phased application schedule during the transition period.

The EPA concurs with these comments. The State has, under the

signature of the Governor, requested source category-limited interim

approval. This form of approval provides a one-year time period for the

submission of applications to be permitted during the two year interim

approval period. Then, the State has another one-year time period for

the submission of all other applications to be permitted during the

first three years of full approval. In this way, all sources will be

permitted within five years after approval with the sources submitting

applications in two phases.

C. Final Action

The EPA is promulgating source category-limited interim approval of

the operating permits program submitted by the State of Oklahoma on

January 12, 1994. The State must make the following changes to receive

full approval:

1. Revise Subchapter 8 To Include Transition Schedule

The State must revise subchapter 8 to reflect a transition schedule

providing for permitting certain sources during the two year interim

approval period and then permitting all other sources during the first

three years of full approval. This revision was signed by the Governor

as an emergency and permanent rule on November 4, 1995. During the

interim approval period the State will submit the revised regulation as

part of the corrected program.

2. Revise Subchapter 8 Definition of ``Major Source''

The language at OAC 252:100-8-2 must be revised to clarify that for

criteria pollutants, units cannot be considered separately at a

facility when determining a source is major.

3. Revise Subchapter 8 Insignificant Activities Provisions

The State must revise OAC 252:100-8-3(e) to reflect an

insignificant emissions level of 1 lb/hr of operation, based on

potential to emit, or such other level as the State may demonstrate is

insignificant with respect to applicable requirements.

4. Revise Subchapter 8 Permit Content Language

The language at OAC 252:100-8-6(a) must be revised to delete the

phrase, ``to the extent practicable.''

5. Revise Subchapter 8 Judicial Review Provisions

The language at OAC 252:100-8-7(j) must be revised to provide

judicial review for comments made during public review and provide

judicial review for all final permit actions.

6. Revise Subchapter 8 Administrative Amendment Provisions

The language at OAC 252:100-8-7(d) must be revised to delete the

phrase ``or less'' from subpart (1)(d) and be amended to define the

term ``Enhanced NSR procedures'' consistent with part 70.

7. Submission of a SIP Revision for Subchapter 7

The State must revise subchapter 7 consistent with subchapter 8 and

40 CFR part 70. This revised regulation must be submitted as a SIP

revision within 18 months after interim approval is granted to ensure

consistency between the SIP and title V for major sources.

The scope of the Oklahoma part 70 program approved in this notice

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

within the State of Oklahoma, except any sources of air pollution over

which an Indian Tribe has jurisdiction. See, e.g., 59 FR 55813, 55815-

18 (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 (August 25,

1994); 58 FR 54364 (October 21, 1993).

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

March 5, 1998. During this interim approval period, the State of

Oklahoma is protected from sanctions, and the EPA is not obligated to

promulgate, administer, and enforce a Federal operating permits program

in the State of Oklahoma. Permits issued under a program with source

category-limited 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 this

interim approval. The State will issue permits to these sources during

the interim approval period and then have an additional one year time

period for application submittal of all remaining sources. The State

will issue permits to all remaining sources during the first three

years after full approval.

If Oklahoma fails to submit a complete corrective program for full

approval by September 5, 1997, the EPA will start an 18-month clock for

mandatory sanctions. If Oklahoma then fails to submit a corrective

program that the EPA finds complete before the

[[Page 4224]]

expiration of that 18-month period, the EPA will apply sanctions as

required by section 502(d)(2) of the Act, which will remain in effect

until the EPA determines that the State of Oklahoma has corrected the

deficiency by submitting a complete corrective program.

If the EPA disapproves Oklahoma's complete corrective program, the

EPA will apply sanctions as required by section 502(d)(2) on the date

18 months after the effective date of the disapproval, unless prior to

that date Oklahoma has submitted a revised program and the EPA has

determined that it corrected the deficiencies that prompted the

disapproval.

In addition, discretionary sanctions may be applied where warranted

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

State of Oklahoma has not timely submitted a complete corrective

program or the EPA has disapproved its submitted corrective program.

Moreover, if the EPA has not granted full approval to the Oklahoma

program by the expiration of this interim approval and that expiration

occurs after November 15, 1995, the EPA must promulgate, administer and

enforce a Federal permits program for the State of Oklahoma upon

interim approval expiration.

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 the EPA as they apply to

part 70 sources. Section 112(l)(5) requires that the State's program

contain adequate authorities, adequate resources for implementation,

and an expeditious compliance schedule, which are also requirements

under part 70. Therefore, the EPA is also promulgating approval under

section 112(l)(5) and 40 CFR 63.91 of the State's program for receiving

delegation of section 112 standards that are unchanged from Federal

standards as promulgated. This program for delegations only applies to

sources covered by the part 70 program.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

Copies of the State's submittal and other information relied upon

for the final source category-limited interim approval, including the

thirteen public comment letters received and reviewed by the EPA on the

proposal, are contained in docket number OPP-6-9-1 maintained at the

EPA Regional Office. The docket is an organized and complete file of

all the information submitted to, or otherwise considered by, the EPA

in the development of this final source category-limited interim

approval. 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 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

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

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

plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be

significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.

The 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. This Federal action

approves preexisting requirements under State or local law, and imposes

no new Federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State,

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

this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Operating permits,

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: January 11, 1996.

Jane N. Saginaw,

Regional Administrator (6A).

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 the entry for the

State of Oklahoma in alphabetical order to read as follows:

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

Permits Programs

* * * * *

Oklahoma

(a) The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality submitted its

operating permits program on January 12, 1994, for approval. Source

category--limited interim approval is effective on March 6, 1996.

Interim approval will expire March 5, 1998. The scope of the approval

of the Oklahoma part 70 program excludes all sources of air pollution

over which an Indian Tribe has jurisdiction.

(b) Reserved

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 96-2358 Filed 2-2-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P