[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 12, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-497]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: January 12, 1994]



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

[FRL-4825-1]

Prevention of Significant Deterioration; Delegation of Authority; 
Maricopa County, AZ

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).


ACTION: Delegation of authority.

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

SUMMARY: The Regional Administrator for EPA Region 9, San Francisco, 
has delegated full authority to Maricopa County to implement and 
enforce the federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 
program.

DATES: The effective date of the delegation agreement is November 22, 
1993.

ADDRESSES: Environmental Management and Transportation Agency, Maricopa 
County Division of Air Pollution Control, 2406 South 24th Street, suite 
E-214, Phoenix, AZ 85034.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jessica Gaylord, Air and Toxics 
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 75 Hawthorne Street (A-
5-1), San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 744-1256.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has 
delegated, under the provisions which are found in 40 CFR 52.21(u), to 
Maricopa County: (a) The authority for all sources in that County 
subject to review for the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) 
of air quality, pursuant to Part C of Title I of the Clean Air Act, as 
amended August 7, 1977, and the requirements promulgated in the July 1, 
1992, edition of 40 CFR 52.21, as amended August 7, 1980, under 
authority of sections 101, 110, and 160-169 of the Clean Air Act: and 
(b) the authority to review, administer, and enforce throughout the 
County the PSD requirements imposed by the Clean Air Act sections 101, 
110, and 160-169, and 40 CFR 52.21, as amended August 7, 1980.
    The following letter and attached agreement represent the terms and 
conditions of the amended delegation.
    The PSD Delegation of Authority is reviewable under section 
307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act only in the Ninth Circuit Court of 
Appeals. A petition for review must be filed by March 14, 1994.

    Dated: December 13, 1993.
David P. Howekamp,
Director, Air and Toxics Division, Region IX.

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Region IX--75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901

December 16, 1993.
    Karen J. Heidel, Ph.D., Environmental Management & 
Transportation Agency, 2406 South 24th Street, Suite E-214, Phoenix, 
AZ 85034.

Re: PSD Delegation Agreement for Maricopa County
    Dear Dr. Heidel: I am pleased to transmit to you two signed 
originals of the delegation agreement for the Prevention of 
Significant Deterioration program. Please note that the delegation 
is effective on the date of the Regional Administrator's signature. 
EPA will shortly publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing 
the delegation.
    EPA will continue to provide any guidance or technical 
assistance that may be needed for Maricopa County's implementation 
of this agreement. EPA is committed to including the Division of Air 
Pollution Control in decisions relating to determinations of 
noncompliance with permits issued under this agreement, intended PSD 
enforcement actions, and in any intended revocation proceedings 
related to this agreement. We are also committed to maintaining, as 
I know you are, unobstructed channels of communication between our 
agencies. We look forward to a continuing partnership in the 
permitting program.
    Sincerely,
David P. Howekamp,
Director, Air and Toxics Division.

Agreement for Delegation of Authority of the Regulations for Prevention 
of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality (40 CFR 52.21) Between U.S. 
EPA and MC

    The undersigned, on behalf of the Maricopa County (MC) and the 
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), hereby agree 
to the delegation of authority for the administrative, technical and 
enforcement elements of the source review provisions of 40 CFR 52.21, 
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), as they may be amended 
and in accordance with the permit review requirements in 40 CFR part 
124 subparts A and C, from U.S. EPA to MC, subject to the terms and 
conditions below. This delegation is executed pursuant to 40 CFR 
52.21(u), Delegation of Authority.

I. General Delegation Conditions

    A. Authority is delegated for all sources under the jurisdiction of 
MC that are subject to review for PSD. This includes all source 
categories listed in 40 CFR 52.21 for each pollutant regulated by the 
Clean Air Act.
    B. This delegation may be amended at any time by the formal written 
agreement of both MC and U.S. EPA, including amendments to add, change, 
or remove conditions or terms of this Agreement.
    C. If the Regional Administrator determines that the County is not 
implementing or enforcing the PSD program in accordance with the terms 
and conditions of this delegation, the requirements of 40 CFR 52.21, 40 
CFR 124, or the Clean Air Act, this delegation, after consultation with 
MC, may be revoked in whole or in part. Any such revocation shall be 
effective as of the date specified in a Notice of Revocation to the 
County. Nothing in this paragraph shall preclude U.S. EPA from 
exercising its enforcement authority, as provided in paragraph V.B. 
below.
    D. The permit appeal provisions of 40 CFR 124.19 shall apply to all 
appeals to the Administrator on permits issued by MC under this 
delegation. For purposes of implementing the federal permit appeal 
provisions under this delegation, if there is a public comment 
requesting a change in a draft preliminary determination or draft 
permit conditions, the final permit issued by MC is required to contain 
statements which indicate that for Federal PSD purposes and in 
accordance with 40 CFR 124.15 and 124.19, (1) the effective date of the 
permit is 30 days after the final decision to issue, modify, revoke and 
reissue the permit; and (2) if an appeal is made to the Administrator, 
the effective date of the permit is suspended until such time as the 
appeal is resolved. MC shall inform U.S. EPA (Region IX) in accordance 
with conditions of this delegation when there is public comment 
requesting a change in the preliminary determination or in a draft 
permit condition. Failure by MC to comply with the terms of this 
paragraph shall render the subject permit invalid for Federal PSD 
purposes.
    E. By this agreement, MC assumes authority for enforcement and 
permit modification/amendment for EPA issued NSR/PSD permits.
    F. This delegation of authority becomes effective upon the date 
that both parties have signed the Agreement.

II. Communications Between U.S. EPA and MC

    MC and U.S. EPA will use the following communication procedures:
    A. MC shall report to U.S. EPA on a quarterly basis the compliance 
status of the sources that have received a PSD permit from either MC or 
U.S. EPA. The Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS) will be 
used for this purpose. Compliance determinations will be made with 
respect to the conditions established in the PSD permits.
    B. MC shall forward to U.S. EPA, at the beginning of the public 
comment period for each PSD permit, a summary of (1) the findings 
related to each PSD application, (2) the justification for MC's 
preliminary determination, and (3) a copy of the draft permit. Should 
there be any comments or concerns about the pending PSD permit, U.S. 
EPA shall communicate these comments and concerns to MC as soon as 
possible prior to the close of the public comment period.
    C. MC shall forward to EPA Region IX (attn: A-5-1) copies of the 
final action on the PSD permit applications at the time of issuance, as 
well as copies of substantive public comments. MC must address any 
public comments not incorporated into the permit, and shall provide a 
summary of the responses.
    D. MC shall send U.S. EPA copies of preliminary determinations on 
PSD permit modifications and amendments at or prior to the beginning of 
the public comment period. U.S. EPA will provide comments to MC prior 
to the close of the public comment period.
    E. MC shall send to EPA a copy of all applicability determinations 
and justifications made that would involve PSD exemptions due to 
offsetting or netting (40 CFR 52.21(b)(3) and 52.21(b)(21).

III. Revisions to Title 40 CFR 52.21

    A. This delegation covers any revisions that are promulgated for 40 
CFR 52.21 and 40 CFR 124. The terms ``40 CFR 52.21'' and ``40 CFR 124'' 
as used in the delegation request and throughout this Agreement, 
include such regulations as are in effect on the date this Agreement is 
executed and any revisions that are promulgated after that date.
    B. In addition, the following U.S. EPA policies shall apply to PSD 
review:
    1. U.S. EPA is responsible for the issuance of PSD permits on 
Indian Lands, under sections 110(c) and 301 of the Clean Air Act. 
States (or their delegates) have no authority to establish air 
pollution control requirements on Indian Reservations, unless requested 
to by the Tribal Governing Body.
    2. According to U.S. EPA guidance published on September 22, 1987 
and supplemental guidance published on July 28, 1988, all delegated 
agencies must now consider pollutants not subject to the Clean Air Act 
in their Best Available Control Technology (BACT) determinations. The 
BACT determinations must include a review of the toxic effects of 
unregulated pollutants and the impact of the proposed BACT on the 
emissions of these pollutants.
    3. MC shall consult with the appropriate Federal, State, and local 
land use agencies prior to issuance of preliminary determinations on 
PSD permits. In particular, U.S. EPA requires that MC shall:
    (a) Notify the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and U.S. EPA when a 
PSD permit application has been received, in order to assist U.S. EPA 
in carrying out its non-delegable responsibilities under section 7 of 
the Endangered Species Act (PL 97-304).
    (b) Notify potential applicants of the potential need for 
consultation between U.S. EPA and the FWS if an endangered species may 
be affected by the project. U.S. EPA's data sheet may be used for this 
process (copy enclosed).
    (c) Refrain from issuing a final PSD permit unless the FWS has 
determined that the proposed project will not adversely affect any 
endangered species.
    4. MC shall consider a dry scrubber for sulfur dioxide control, a 
baghouse or electrostatic precipitator for particulate control, and 
efficient combustion techniques for carbon monoxide control in their 
BACT determinations for municipal waste combustors pursuant to U.S. EPA 
guidance published on June 26, 1987.
    5. MC shall begin any BACT determination with the most stringent 
control options available for that category, pursuant to additional 
BACT guidance issued on December 1, 1987. U.S. EPA will consider as 
deficient any BACT determination not complying with this ``top-down'' 
requirement.
    6. Upon notification from EPA, MC shall implement such new 
regulations or directives pending revision of this Agreement.

IV. Permits

    A. In any matter involving interpretation of sections 160-169 of 
the Clean Air Act, or 40 CFR 52.21, and of 40 CFR 124 where guidance on 
the implementation, review, administration, or enforcement of these 
sections has not been sent to MC, U.S. EPA will be contacted and 
requested to provide the appropriate guidance.
    B. MC shall at no time grant any waiver to the PSD permit 
requirements.
    C. Permits issued under this delegation shall contain language 
certifying that the Federal PSD requirements have been satisfied.
    D. Authorities to Construct must include appropriate provisions, as 
specified in Attachment A, to ensure permit enforceability. Permit 
conditions shall, at a minimum, contain reporting requirements on 
initiation of construction, startup, and where applicable, source 
testing and continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS). In all 
cases where tests are required, the tests methods shall be specified. 
All cases where CEMS are required, appropriate testing and reporting 
requirements shall be included. Upset/breakdown and malfunction 
conditions shall be included in all permits.
    E. U.S. EPA will assist MC in the BACT determination for all PSD 
permit applications filed with MC, such that U.S. EPA and MC jointly 
concur on each BACT determination. The signatures of U.S. EPA and MC on 
the final permit shall constitute concurrence on the BACT 
determinations
    F. All modeling analyses for determination of increment consumption 
and compliance with the NAAQS will require the joint concurrence of 
U.S. EPA and MC. The signatures of U.S. EPA and MC on the final permit 
shall constitute concurrence on the modeling analyses.
    G. Separate from conditions E and F and for a given time as 
specified in this subpart, U.S. EPA and MC shall jointly concur on the 
entire analysis and permit conditions for each PSD permit issued. This 
requirement for dual concurrence shall be waived beginning with the 
first application submitted and deemed complete two (2) years after the 
date of this agreement, or after U.S. EPA concurs with MC on ten (10) 
final permits issued pursuant to this delegation agreement, whichever 
occurs later. In any event, U.S. EPA shall provide written notice to MC 
when the requirement for dual concurrence no longer applies.
    H. MC shall conduct an annual review of the NO2 increment 
status for each Section 107 area designated as attainment over which it 
has jurisdiction and shall prepare a summary report of the review. Such 
review shall be made in accordance with current U.S. EPA guidance as 
provided to MC. Emissions from the following sources consume NO2 
increment: (1) any new major stationary source or modification of a 
major stationary source on which construction begins after February 8, 
1988; and (2) minor, area, and mobile sources, after the minor source 
baseline date, as it is defined by 40 CFR 52.21. The initial review of 
the NO2 increment status shall address the consumption of NO2 
increment between February 8, 1988, and the effective date of this 
agreement.
    I. MC shall conduct an annual review, similar to the one in 
preceeding subpart H, on the status of the PM10 increment. For 
that part of Maricopa County designated nonattainment for TSP, the 
requirement for tracking PM10 increment consumption becomes 
effective on the date of receipt of the first major source application 
deemed complete after the June 3, 1994, implementation date for 
PM10 increments. For all other areas within Maricopa County, the 
minor source baseline date established for TSP remains in effect, but 
PM10 increments replace TSP increments as the particulate matter 
indicator.
    J. U.S. EPA shall retain the responsibility of issuing the PSD 
permit for Palo Verde Steel, but enforcement of the final permit terms 
and conditions on the source shall be under local authority.

V. Permit Enforcement

    A. The primary responsibility for enforcement of the PSD 
regulations as found in 40 CFR part 52 in Maricopa County will rest 
with MC, except where responsibility is vested in the State of Arizona. 
Pursuant to A.R.S. 49-402, the State of Arizona has original 
jurisdiction over the following sources in Maricopa County:
    1. Smelting of metal ore.
    2. Petroleum refineries.
    3. Coal fired electrical generating stations.
    4. Portland cement plants.
    5. Air pollution generated by portable sources unless delegated to 
MC.
    6. Air pollution by mobile sources for the purpose of regulating 
those sources as prescribed by A.R.S. Title 49, Chapter 3, Articles 4 & 
5.
    MC will enforce the provisions that pertain to the PSD program, 
except in those cases where the rules or policy of MC are more 
stringent. In such cases, MC may elect to implement the more stringent 
requirements.
    B. Nothing in this delegation agreement shall prohibit EPA from 
enforcing the PSD provisions of the Clean Air Act, the PSD regulations 
or any PSD permit issued by MC pursuant to this Agreement.
    C. In the event that MC is unwilling or unable to enforce a 
provision of this delegation with respect to a source subject to the 
PSD regulations, MC will immediately notify the Regional Administrator. 
Failure to notify the Regional Administrator does not preclude U.S. EPA 
from exercising its enforcement authority.

    Dated: November 9, 1993.
James D. Bruner,
Chairman, Maricopa County Board of Supervisors.
    Dated: November 22, 1993.
John Wise,
Acting for
Felicia A. Marcus,
Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region IX.

Attachment A

    All Authorities to Construct, where applicable, shall contain:
    1. Identification of all points of emission, both stack and 
fugitive.
    2. Specification of a numerical emission limitation for each point 
of emission in terms of mass rate and/or concentration limitations. If 
emission testing based on a numerical emission limitation is 
infeasible, the permit may instead prescribe a design, operational, or 
equipment standard. Any permits issued without numerical emission 
limitations must contain conditions which assure that the design 
characteristics or equipment will be properly maintained or that the 
operational conditions will be properly performed so as to continuously 
achieve the assumed degree of control.
    3. Limitations or factors which were the basis for the air quality 
impact analysis must be specified (e.g. hours of operation, stack 
height, materials processed which affect emissions).
    4. Methods and frequency of determining continued compliance for 
each point of emission (such as from the SIP or if the source is 
subject to New Source Performance Standards [NSPS] or National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants [NESHAP] or explicitly 
identified if a reference method is not used.
    5. Recordkeeping requirements which enable the agency to ascertain 
continued compliance, especially where factors such as hours of 
operation, throughput of materials, sulfur content of fuels, fuel 
usage, and type or quantity of materials processed are conditions of 
the permit.

    6. A condition that the permit such that it will expire if 
construction is not commenced within eighteen (18) months or a shorter 
period.

    7. A condition that the source is responsible for providing 
sampling and testing facilities at its own expense.

    8. A condition that continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) 
will be used for enforcement purposes.

    9. Reporting requirements which enable the agency to monitor the 
following:

    (a) Progress of source construction including the date by which 
construction is completed; and

    (b) Compliance with (1) emission limitations, (2) operational 
limitations, (3) and work practice standards; the reporting 
requirements should include excess emissions reports and source test 
results.
    10. Permits issued under this delegation should contain language 
certifying that the federal PSD requirements have been satisfied.
    11. As a courtesy to sources exempted from PSD review due to 
federally enforceable operational or process restrictions, or the use 
of controls more stringent than required by applicable SIP limits, the 
source shall be advised that any relaxation of those limits may subject 
the entire source to full PSD review as if construction had not yet 
begun. Suggested language is as follows:

    This source is exempt from PSD review because of * * * (state 
reason, for example, ``the requirement that limits operation to 
eight hours per day''). Any relaxation in this limit which increases 
your potential to emit above the applicable PSD threshold will 
require a full PSD review of the affected source as if construction 
had not yet commenced.

[FR Doc. 94-802 Filed 1-11-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

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

[FRL-4825-2]

Prevention of Significant Deterioration; Rescission of Authority; 
Fresno County, CA

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Rescission of local PSD permitting authority.

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

SUMMARY: The Director, Air & Toxics Division, for EPA Region IX, San 
Francisco has rescinded local Prevention of Significant Deterioration 
(PSD) permitting authority in Fresno County, California.

DATES: Rescission of local PSD permitting authority is effective April 
9, 1993.

ADDRESSES: David L. Crow, Executive Director/APCO, San Joaquin Valley 
Unified Air Pollution Control District, 1999 Tuolumne Street, suite 
200, Fresno, CA 93721.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jessica Gaylord, Air and Toxics 
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 75 Hawthorne Street (A-
5-1), San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 744-1256.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In September 1991, the State of California 
passed legislation that effectively required the eight separate 
counties of the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin to form a single air 
pollution control district (APCD). EPA had delegated PSD authority to 
Fresno County APCD by an agreement dated December 23, 1985. Because the 
San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD has chosen to defer to EPA the 
regulation of sources subject to PSD rules at 40 CFR 52.21, EPA is 
responding to their request to rescind PSD authority previously 
delegated to Fresno County APCD. The following letter represents the 
terms and conditions of the rescission.
    The PSD Delegation of Authority is reviewable under section 
307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act only in the Ninth Circuit Court of 
Appeals. A petition for review must be filed by March 14, 1994.

    Dated: December 10, 1993.
David P. Howekamp,
Director, Air and Toxics Division, Region IX.

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

April 9, 1993.
David L. Crow,
Executive Director/APCO, San Joaquin Valley, Unified Air Pollution 
Control District, 1999 Tuolumne Street, Suite 200, Fresno, CA 93721.

    Dear Mr. Crow: This letter responds to your request to EPA to 
rescind Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting 
authority in Fresno and Kern counties. We recognize that the 
request, dated March 16, 1993, and received by this office on March 
19, 1993, is consistent with ongoing efforts to attain a more 
coordinated approach to air quality management in the San Joaquin 
Valley.
    In September 1991, the State of California passed legislation 
that effectively required the formation of a single air pollution 
control district in the Valley Air Basin. To that end, eight 
counties joined efforts in March 1992 to form the San Joaquin Valley 
Unified Air Pollution Control District. The District comprises the 
counties of Fresno, Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, 
and Tulare counties, as well as that part of Kern County located in 
the Valley Air Basin. By August 1992, the California Air Resources 
Board certified that the District met the requirements stated in SB 
124.
    EPA had specifically transferred PSD authority to Fresno County 
APCD by a delegation agreement, dated December 23, 1985. As 
mentioned in your letter, the District has chosen to defer to EPA 
the regulation of sources subject to PSD rules at 40 CFR 52.21. 
Therefore, EPA hereby rescinds authority delegated to Fresno County 
APCD to regulate sources subject to the federal PSD rules. Please 
note that no such agreement was made between EPA and Kern County, so 
that your request to rescind PSD authority in that county requires 
no further action.
    Pursuant to grant conditions under Sec. 105 (Program Objective 
5), the District shall continue to provide to EPA notification, as 
soon as possible and prior to deeming the application complete, of 
all new major stationary sources and major modifications that may be 
subject to the federal PSD regulation. Specifically, this affects 
major stationary sources and major modifications to existing 
sources, as defined under part 52.21(b), that are located in areas 
designated as attainment within the San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD. 
The District should also provide notification to sources potentially 
affected by the federal PSD requirements. These sources must submit 
PSD permit applications to EPA and may be subject to enforcement 
action if construction commences before EPA issues a final PSD 
permit.
    We look forward to continued cooperation with you and your 
staff, so that permits may be issued in a timely and effective 
manner. If you have further questions regarding this matter, please 
contact Jessica Gaylord of my staff at (415) 744-1256.
    Sincerely,
Carl C. Kohnert, Jr.,
Acting for David P. Howekamp, Director, Air & Toxic Division.
[FR Doc. 94-803 Filed 1-11-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[OPP-42024H; FRL-4743-5]

 
Notice of Approval of Amendment to Texas Plan for Certification 
of Applicators of Compound 1080 Livestock Protection Collars

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of approval of amended certification plan.

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

SUMMARY: On August 13, 1993, EPA announced its intention to approve an 
amendment to the Texas Plan for Certification of Applicators of 
Compound 1080 Livestock Protection Collars (LPC's). Public comments 
were solicited on this amended plan. The amended plan permits pooling 
of LPC's among certified LPC applicators. No comments were received and 
EPA therefore approves the amended plan.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry Oglesby, Pesticides and Toxic 
Substances Branch, Region VI, Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 
Ross Ave., Dallas, TX 75202-2733, Telephone: 214-655-7563.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the provision of section 
11(a)(2) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 
(FIFRA) and 40 CFR part 171, the Texas Department of Agriculture 
submitted to EPA for approval, revisions to its current plan for 
certification of LPC applicators. The amendment to the Texas LPC 
certification plan permits the designation of collar pool agents. 
Certified LPC applicators are permitted to participate in a collar pool 
administered by a collar pool agent. The purpose of the collar pool is 
to reduce the number of LPC's in circulation by a pooling of LPC's. 
Certified LPC applicators will check out the LPC's from the collar pool 
agent immediately prior to use. When no longer needed, a LPC will be 
returned to the collar pool agent for distribution to another certified 
LPC applicator. All collar pool agents are considered agents of the 
registrant and are required to keep the same records. Further, the 
collar pool system will not affect the recordkeeping or reporting 
requirements of LPC users. EPA announced its intention to approve the 
amended plan in the Federal Register of August 13, 1993 (58 FR 43115), 
and solicited comments. No comments were received and EPA therefore 
approves the amended plan.
    Copies of the amended plan are available for review at the 
following locations during normal business hours:
    1. Texas Department of Agriculture, Stephen F. Austin Building, Rm. 
1034F, 17th St. and Congress Ave., Austin, TX 78711, Telephone 512-463-
0013.
    2. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VI, 1445 Ross Ave., 12th 
Floor, Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75202, Telephone: 214-655-7239.

    Dated: December 6, 1993.
Allyn M. Davis,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region VI.
[FR Doc. 94-497 Filed 1-11-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F