[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 224 (Tuesday, November 22, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-28713]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: November 22, 1994]


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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 70

[AD-FRL-5107-2]

 

Clean Air Act Proposed Interim Approval of Title V Operating 
Permits Program; Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, 
California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes interim approval of the Operating Permits 
Program submitted by the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District 
(APCD) for the purpose of complying with Federal requirements that 
mandate that states develop, and submit to EPA, programs for issuing 
operating permits to all major stationary sources, and to certain other 
sources.
DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by 
December 22, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Ginger Vagenas at the Region 
9 address.
    Copies of Ventura County APCD's submittal and other supporting 
information used in developing this proposed interim approval are 
available for inspection during normal business hours at the following 
location: USEPA, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ginger Vagenas, USEPA A-5-2; 75 
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105; (415) 744-1252.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Purpose

    As required under title V of the Clean Air Act (``the Act'') as 
amended (1990), EPA has promulgated rules that define the minimum 
elements of an approvable state operating permits program and the 
corresponding standards and procedures by which the EPA will approve, 
oversee, and withdraw approval of state operating permits programs (see 
57 FR 32250 (July 21, 1992)). These rules are codified at 40 CFR part 
70. Title V requires states to develop and submit to EPA, by November 
15, 1993, programs for issuing these operating permits to all major 
stationary sources and to certain other sources.
    The Act requires that EPA act to approve or disapprove each program 
within 1 year after receiving the submittal. The EPA's program review 
occurs pursuant to section 502 of the Act, which outlines 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. If EPA has not fully approved a 
program by 2 years after the November 15, 1993 date, or by the end of 
an interim program, it must establish and implement a Federal program.

II. Proposed Action and Implications

A. Analysis of State Submission

    The analysis contained in this notice focuses on specific elements 
of Ventura's title V operating permits program that must be corrected 
to meet the minimum requirements of 40 CFR part 70. The full program 
submittal, the Technical Support Document (TSD), which contains a 
detailed analysis of the submittal, and other relevant materials are 
available for inspection as part of the public docket. The docket may 
be viewed during regular business hours at the address listed above.
1. Title V Program Support Materials
    Ventura's title V program was submitted by the California Air 
Resources Board (CARB) on November 16, 1993. Additional material was 
submitted on December 6, 1993. The submittal was found to be 
administratively complete on February 4, 1994. The Governor's letter 
requesting source category-limited interim approval, California 
enabling legislation, and Attorney General's legal opinion were 
submitted by CARB for all districts in California and therefore were 
not included separately in Ventura's submittal. The Ventura submission 
does contain a complete program description, District implementing and 
supporting regulations, and all other program documentation required by 
Sec. 70.4. An implementation agreement is currently being developed 
between Ventura and EPA.
2. Title V Operating Permit Regulations and Program Implementation
    Ventura's regulations that implement part 70 include Rule 8, Access 
to Facilities; Rule 15, Standards for Permit Issuance; Rule 15.1, 
Sampling and Testing Facilities; Rule 23, Exemption from Permit; Rule 
26.1, New Source Review (definitions of ``modified emissions unit,'' 
``new emissions unit,'' and ``stationary source'' only); Rule 29, 
Conditions on Permits (paragraph C only); Rule 33, Part 70 Permits; and 
Rule 42, Permit Fees. These rules, in conjunction with authorities 
granted under California State law, substantially meet the requirements 
of 40 CFR part 70, sections 70.2 and 70.3 for applicability; sections 
70.4, 70.5, and 70.6 for permit content, including operational 
flexibility; section 70.7 for public participation and minor permit 
modifications; section 70.5 for complete application forms; and section 
70.11 for enforcement authority. Although the regulations substantially 
meet part 70 requirements, there are several program deficiencies that 
are outlined under section II.B. below as interim approval issues and 
further described in the Technical Support Document.
    Variances. Ventura County APCD has the authority to issue a 
variance from requirements (except the requirement to obtain a permit 
to construct or operate)imposed by state and local law. See California 
HSC sections 42350-42364 and Ventura Regulation VII. In the opinion 
submitted with California operating permit programs, California's 
Attorney General states that ``[t]he variance process is not part of 
the Title V permitting process and does not affect Federal enforcement 
for violations of the requirements set forth in a Title V permit.'' 
(Emphasis in original.)
    The EPA regards the State and District variance provisions as 
wholly external to the program submitted for approval under part 70 and 
consequently is proposing to take no action on these provisions of 
state and local law. The EPA has no authority to approve provisions of 
state law that are inconsistent with the CAA. The EPA does not 
recognize the ability of a permitting authority to grant relief from 
the duty to comply with a federally enforceable part 70 permit, except 
where such relief is granted through procedures allowed by part 70. A 
part 70 permit may be issued or revised (consistent with part 70 
permitting procedures), to incorporate those terms of a variance that 
are consistent with applicable requirements. A part 70 permit may also 
incorporate, via part 70 permit issuance or revision procedures, the 
schedule of compliance set forth in a variance. However, EPA reserves 
the right to pursue enforcement of applicable requirements 
notwithstanding the existence of a compliance schedule in a permit to 
operate. This is consistent with 40 CFR 70.5(c)(8)(iii)(C), which 
states that a schedule of compliance ``shall be supplemental to, and 
shall not sanction noncompliance with, the applicable requirements on 
which it is based.''
    Permit content. EPA is specifically approving the General part 70 
Permit Conditions that were submitted as part of Ventura's part 70 
program. Any modifications to these general conditions must be approved 
by EPA. Failure to include these conditions in part 70 permits will be 
cause for EPA to object to a District operating permit. See 
Sec. 70.8(c)(1).
    Ventura's permit content rule (Rule 33.3) does not include the 
level of detail regarding periodic monitoring found in 
Sec. 70.6(a)(3)(i)(B). Paragraphs A.1. and A.3. of Rule 33 more 
generally address the requirements for periodic monitoring. These 
paragraphs provide that operating permits issued pursuant to this rule 
will assure compliance with all applicable requirements and will 
include conditions establishing all applicable emissions monitoring and 
analysis procedures etc., required under all applicable requirements. 
Although the rule does not explicitly state that the periodic 
monitoring or testing will be ``sufficient to yield reliable data from 
the relevant time period that are representative of the source's 
compliance period * * *,'' the more general language cited above is 
consistent with this requirement. Should Ventura draft a permit that 
does not meet the requirements of Sec. 70.6(a)(3)(i)(B), EPA will 
exercise its authority under Sec. 70.8(c)(1) and will object to the 
permit.
    Insignificant activities. Section 70.4(b)(2) requires states to 
include in their part 70 programs any criteria used to determine 
insignificant activities or emission levels for the purposes of 
determining complete applications. Section 70.5(c) states that an 
application for a part 70 permit may not omit information needed to 
determine the applicability of, or to impose, any applicable 
requirement, or to evaluate appropriate fee amounts. Section 70.5(c) 
also states that EPA may approve, as part of a state program, a list of 
insignificant activities and emissions levels which need not be 
included in permit applications. Under part 70, a state must request 
and EPA must approve as part of that state's program any activity or 
emission level that the state wishes to consider insignificant. Part 
70, however, does not establish appropriate emission levels for 
insignificant activities, relying instead on a case-by-case 
determination of appropriate levels based on the particular 
circumstances of part 70 program under review.
    Ventura provided its current permit exemption list as its list of 
insignificant activities. Because EPA was provided no criteria or 
information on the level of emissions of activities on Ventura's 
exemptions list and no demonstration that these activities are not 
likely to be subject to an applicable requirement, EPA cannot propose 
full approval of the list as the basis for determining insignificant 
activities.
    For other state programs, EPA has proposed to accept, as sufficient 
for full approval, emission levels for insignificant activities of 2 
tons per year for criteria pollutants and the lesser of 1000 pounds per 
year, section 112(g) de minimis levels, or other title I significant 
modification levels for HAPs and other toxics (40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)(i)). 
EPA believes that these levels are sufficiently below applicability 
thresholds for many applicable requirements to assure that no unit 
potentially subject to an applicable requirement is left off a title V 
application and are consistent with current permitting thresholds in 
Ventura County. EPA is requesting comment on the appropriateness of 
these emission levels for determining insignificant activities in 
Ventura County. This request for comment is not intended to restrict 
the ability of the District to propose and EPA to approve other 
emission levels if the District demonstrates that such alternative 
emission levels are insignificant compared to the level of emissions 
from and types of units that are permitted or subject to applicable 
requirements.
    Definition of title I modification. Ventura's definition of ``title 
I modification'' does not include changes reviewed under a minor source 
preconstruction review program (``minor NSR changes''). The EPA is 
currently in the process of determining the proper definition of that 
phrase. As further explained below, EPA has solicited public comment on 
whether the phrase ``modification under any provision of title I of the 
Act'' in 40 CFR 70.7(e)(2)(i)(A)(5) should be interpreted to mean 
literally any change at a source that would trigger permitting 
authority review under regulations approved or promulgated under title 
I of the Act. This would include state preconstruction review programs 
approved by EPA as part of the State Implementation Plan under section 
110(a)(2)(C) of the Clean Air Act.
    On August 29, 1994, EPA proposed revisions to the interim approval 
criteria in 40 CFR 70.4(d) to, among other things, allow state programs 
with a more narrow definition of ``title I modifications'' to receive 
interim approval (59 FR 44572). The Agency explained its view that the 
better reading of ``title I modifications'' includes minor NSR and pre-
1990 NESHAP requirements, and solicited public comment on the proper 
interpretation of that term (59 FR 44573). The Agency stated that if, 
after considering the public comments, it continued to believe that the 
phrase ``title I modifications'' should be interpreted as including 
minor NSR changes, it would revise the interim approval criteria as 
needed to allow states with a narrower definition to be eligible for 
interim approval.
    The EPA hopes to finalize its rulemaking revising the interim 
approval criteria under 40 CFR 70.4(d) expeditiously.1 If EPA 
establishes in its rulemaking that the definition of ``title I 
modifications'' can be interpreted to exclude changes reviewed under 
minor NSR programs, Ventura's definition of ``title I modification'' 
would be fully consistent with part 70. Conversely, if EPA establishes 
through the rulemaking that the definition must include changes 
reviewed under minor NSR, Ventura's definition of ``title I 
modifications'' will become a basis for interim approval. If the 
definition becomes a basis for interim approval as a result of EPA's 
rulemaking, Ventura would be required to revise its definition to 
conform to the requirements of part 70.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Publication of the proposed interim approval criteria 
revisions was delayed until August 29, 1994, and EPA received 
several requests to extend the public comment period until November 
27, 1994. Given the importance of the issues in that rulemaking to 
states, sources and the public, but mindful of the need to take 
action quickly, EPA agreed to extend the comment period until 
October 28, 1994 (see 59 FR 52122 (October 14, 1994)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, today's proposed approval does not identify Ventura's 
definition of ``title I modification'' as necessary grounds for either 
interim approval or disapproval. Again, although EPA has reasons for 
believing that the better interpretation of ``title I modifications'' 
is the broader one, EPA does not believe that it is appropriate to 
determine whether this is a program deficiency until EPA completes its 
rulemaking on this issue.
3. Permit Fee Demonstration
    Section 502(b)(3) of the Act requires that each permitting 
authority collect fees sufficient to cover all reasonable direct and 
indirect costs required to develop and administer its title V operating 
permits program. Each title V program submittal must contain either a 
detailed demonstration of fee adequacy or a demonstration that 
aggregate fees collected from title V sources meet or exceed $25 per 
ton of emissions per year (adjusted from 1989 by the Consumer Price 
Index (CPI)). The $25 per ton amount is presumed, for program approval, 
to be sufficient to cover all reasonable program costs and is thus 
referred to as the ``presumptive minimum'' (Sec. 70.9(b)(2)(i)).
    Ventura has opted to make a presumptive minimum fee demonstration. 
Ventura's existing fee schedule requires title V facilities to pay an 
average of $65.34 per ton in annual renewal fees. Ventura calculated 
its fee level at $65.34 per ton by adding up the annual renewal fees 
paid by sources identified as title V facilities ($1,192,780), and 
dividing that number by the permitted emissions (tons per year of 
regulated air pollutants) of those facilities (18,254.2 tons per year). 
The numbers in the calculation underestimate fee revenues and 
overestimate actual emissions, and therefore result in a conservative 
calculation of the fees collected per ton of pollutant. Ventura's fee 
demonstration shows that currently assessed renewal fees will be 
adequate to cover program costs for the next four years. For more 
information, see section VI of Ventura's Title V Operating Permit 
Program Description, available in the docket.
4. Provisions Implementing the Requirements of Other Titles of the Act
    a. Authority and commitments for section 112 implementation. 
Ventura has demonstrated in its title V program submittal adequate 
legal authority to implement and enforce all section 112 requirements 
through the title V permit. This legal authority is contained in the 
State of California enabling legislation and in regulatory provisions 
defining ``federally enforceable requirements'' and stating that the 
permit must incorporate all applicable requirements. EPA has determined 
that this legal authority is sufficient to allow Ventura to issue 
permits that assure compliance with all section 112 requirements.
    EPA is interpreting the above legal authority to mean that Ventura 
is able to carry out all section 112 activities. For further rationale 
on this interpretation, please refer to the Technical Support Document 
accompanying this rulemaking and the April 13, 1993 guidance memorandum 
titled ``Title V Program Approval Criteria for Section 112 
Activities,'' signed by John Seitz, Director of the Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA.
    b. District preconstruction permit program to implement 112(g). As 
a condition of approval of the part 70 program, Ventura is required to 
implement section 112(g) of the Act from the effective date of the part 
70 program. Imposition of case-by-case determinations of MACT or 
offsets under section 112(g) will require the use of a mechanism for 
establishing federally enforceable restrictions on a source-specific 
basis. The EPA is proposing to approve Ventura's preconstruction 
permitting program found in Ventura's Regulation II under the authority 
of title V and part 70 solely for the purpose of implementing section 
112(g) during the transition period between title V approval and 
adoption of a District rule implementing EPA's section 112(g) 
regulations. EPA believes this approval is necessary so that Ventura 
has a mechanism in place to establish federally enforceable 
restrictions for section 112(g) purposes from the date of part 70 
approval. Although section 112(l) generally provides the authority for 
approval of state air toxics programs, title V and section 112(g) 
provide authority for this limited approval because of the direct 
linkage between implementation of section 112(g) and title V. The scope 
of this approval is narrowly limited to section 112(g), and does not 
confer or imply approval for purposes of any other provision under the 
Act. If Ventura does not wish to implement section 112(g) through its 
preconstruction permit program and can demonstrate that an alternative 
means of implementing section 112(g) exists, the EPA may, in the final 
action approving Ventura's part 70 program, approve the alternative 
instead.
    This approval is for an interim period only, until such time as the 
District is able to adopt regulations consistent with any regulations 
promulgated by EPA to implement section 112(g). Accordingly, EPA is 
proposing to limit the duration of this approval to a reasonable time 
following promulgation of section 112(g) regulations so that Ventura, 
acting expeditiously, will be able to adopt regulations consistent with 
the section 112(g) regulations. The EPA is proposing here to limit the 
duration of this approval to 12 months following promulgation by EPA of 
section 112(g) regulations. Comment is solicited on whether 12 months 
is an appropriate period considering Ventura's procedures for adoption 
of regulations.
    c. Program for delegation of section 112 standards as promulgated. 
Requirements for approval, specified in 40 CFR 70.4(b), encompass 
section 112(l)(5) requirements for approval of a program for delegation 
of section 112 standards as promulgated by EPA as they apply to part 70 
sources. Section 112(l)(5) requires that the District'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 proposing to grant approval under 
section 112(l)(5) and 40 CFR 63.91 of Ventura's program for receiving 
delegation of section 112 standards that are unchanged from the Federal 
standards as promulgated. Ventura has informed EPA that it intends to 
accept delegation of section 112 standards through automatic 
delegation, as provided for by sections 39658 and 42301.10 of the 
California Health and Safety Code. The details of this delegation 
mechanism will be set forth in an Implementation Agreement between 
Ventura and EPA, expected to be completed prior to approval of 
Ventura's section 112(l) program for straight delegations. This program 
applies to both existing and future standards but is limited to sources 
covered by the part 70 program.
    d. Commitments for title IV implementation. In a letter dated May 
26, 1994, Ventura's Air Pollution Control Officer (APCO) committed to 
propose to the District governing board (Board), a complete acid rain 
program, with sufficient time to submit the program to EPA by January 
1, 1995. The APCO stated his intent to propose to the Board that they 
incorporate by reference the relevant provisions of part 72. The letter 
further indicates that the incorporation by reference will 
automatically incorporate Federal revisions to part 72.

B. Proposed Interim Approval and Implications

    The EPA is proposing to grant interim approval to the operating 
permits program submitted by Ventura County APCD on December 6, 1993. 
If EPA were to finalize this proposed interim approval, it would extend 
for two years following the effective date of final interim approval, 
and could not be renewed. During the interim approval period, Ventura 
would be protected from sanctions, and EPA would not be obligated to 
promulgate, administer and enforce a Federal permits program for the 
District. Permits issued under a program with interim approval have 
full standing with respect to part 70, and the 1-year time period for 
submittal of permit applications by subject sources begins upon the 
effective date of interim approval, as does the 3-year time period for 
processing the initial permit applications.
    Following final interim approval, if Ventura failed to submit a 
complete corrective program for full approval by the date 6 months 
before expiration of the interim approval, EPA would start an 18-month 
clock for mandatory sanctions. If the District then failed to submit a 
corrective program that EPA found complete before the expiration of 
that 18-month period, EPA would be required to apply one of the 
sanctions in section 179(b) of the Act, which would remain in effect 
until EPA determined that Ventura had corrected the deficiency by 
submitting a complete corrective program. Moreover, if the 
Administrator found a lack of good faith on the part of the the 
District, both sanctions under section 179(b) would apply after the 
expiration of the 18-month period until the Administrator determined 
that the District had come into compliance. In any case, if, six months 
after application of the first sanction, the District still had not 
submitted a corrective program that EPA found complete, a second 
sanction would be required.
    If, following final interim approval, EPA were to disapprove 
Ventura's complete corrective program, EPA would be required to apply 
one of the section 179(b) sanctions on the date 18 months after the 
effective date of the disapproval, unless prior to that date the 
District had submitted a revised program and EPA had determined that it 
corrected the deficiencies that prompted the disapproval. Moreover, if 
the Administrator found a lack of good faith on the part of the 
District, both sanctions under section 179(b) would apply after the 
expiration of the 18-month period until the Administrator determined 
that the District had come into compliance. In all cases, if, six 
months after EPA applied the first sanction, Ventura had not submitted 
a revised program that EPA had determined corrected the deficiencies 
that prompted disapproval, a second sanction would be required.
    In addition, discretionary sanctions may be applied where warranted 
any time after the end of an interim approval period if a state or 
district has not timely submitted a complete corrective program or EPA 
has disapproved a submitted corrective program. Moreover, if EPA has 
not granted full approval to a title V operating permits program by the 
expiration of an interim approval and that expiration occurs after 
November 15, 1995, EPA must promulgate, administer and enforce a 
Federal permits program for that state of district upon interim 
approval expiration.
1. Ventura's Title V Operating Permits Program
    If interim approval is granted, Ventura must make the following 
changes to receive full approval:
    a. Insignificant activities. Rules 33.2 and 23 provide the 
framework for Ventura's insignificant activities provisions. For its 
program to be fully approvable, Ventura must provide a demonstration 
that activities that are exempt from part 70 permitting are truly 
insignificant and are not likely to be subject to an applicable 
requirement. Alternatively, the District may restrict the exemptions to 
activities that are not likely to be subject to an applicable 
requirement and emit less than District-established emission levels. 
The District should establish separate emission levels for HAPs and for 
other regulated pollutants and demonstrate that these emission levels 
are insignificant compared to the level of emissions from and type of 
units that are required to be permitted or subject to applicable 
requirements.
    b. Revision process for significant changes to monitoring terms and 
conditions. The definitions of ``minor permit modification'' and 
``significant part 70 permit modification'' in Rule 33.1 must be 
revised to ensure that significant changes to existing monitoring 
permit terms or conditions are processed as significant permit 
modifications. See Sec. 70.7(e)(4).
    c. Operation of modifications prior to permit revision. Except in 
the case when a federally enforceable permit condition would prohibit 
it, Ventura's Rule 33.9 A.1. allows sources to make significant 
modifications prior to receiving a part 70 permit revision. In order to 
be consistent with part 70, Ventura must revise its rule so that the 
only changes that may be operated prior to receiving a part 70 permit 
revision are those modifications subject to section 112(g) and title I, 
parts C and D of the Act, and that are not prohibited by the existing 
part 70 permit. Under part 70, if a proposed change does not meet these 
criteria, the source may not make the change until the permitting 
authority has revised the source's part 70 permit. See 
Sec. 70.5(a)(1)(ii).
     d. Public notice. Revise Rule 33.7 B. to include notice ``by other 
means if necessary to assure adequate notice to the affected public.'' 
See Sec. 70.7(h)(1).
    e. Permit content. Ventura's permit content requirements are found 
in Rules 33.3 and 33.9. These regulatory provisions adequately address 
nearly all of the part 70 requirements. Certain elements (e.g. 
Sec. Sec. 70.6(a)(3)(ii)(B), 70.6(a)(6)(i)), are more fully detailed in 
the General Part 70 Permit conditions, which were submitted in appendix 
B.2.b. of Ventura's part 70 program submittal. Ventura must establish a 
binding requirement that the General Part 70 Permit Conditions will be 
included in all part 70 permits. Ventura may accomplish this by 
modifying its regulation to reference the general conditions that were 
submitted and approved by EPA, or by more fully addressing the 
conditions within the regulation.
    f. Recordkeeping requirements. Revise Rule 33.3 permit content 
requirement to provide adequate specificity with regard to the 
applicable recordkeeping requirements. See Sec. 70.6(a)(3)(C)(ii).
    g. Emissions trading under applicable requirements. Add emissions 
trading provisions consistent with Sec. 70.6(a)(10), which require that 
trading must be allowed where an applicable requirement provides for 
trading increases and decreases without a case-by-case approval.
    h. Compliance schedule. Rule 33.3 B.2., which requires that a 
schedule of compliance be included in the permit, does not create an 
explicit link with 33.9 B.4., which details the contents of a 
compliance schedule. Revise Rule 33.3 permit content requirements to 
ensure that all elements of the compliance schedule under Sec. 70.5(c) 
are incorporated into the permit.
    i. EPA Notification of operational flexibility changes. Rule 33.5 
D. must be revised to incorporate EPA notification of changes made 
under the operational flexibility provisions, either by providing for 
it within the regulation, or by making the general permit conditions, 
which do specify EPA notification, required elements of each permit. 
See Sec. 70.4(b)(14)(ii)
2. California Enabling Legislation
    Legislative source category limited interim approval issue. Because 
California state law currently exempts agricultural production sources 
from permit requirements, the California Air Resources Board has 
requested source category limited interim approval for all California 
districts. EPA is proposing to grant source category limited interim 
approval to the operating permits program submitted by the California 
Air Resources Board on behalf of Ventura County on December 6, 1993. In 
order for this program to receive full approval (and to avoid a 
disapproval upon the expiration of this interim approval), the 
California Legislature must revise the Health and Safety Code to 
eliminate the exemption of agricultural production sources from the 
requirement to obtain a permit.
    The above described program and legislative deficiencies must be 
corrected before Ventura can receive full program approval. For 
additional information, please refer to the TSD, which contains a 
detailed analysis of Ventura's operating permits program and 
California's enabling legislation.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Request for Public Comments

    The EPA is requesting comments on all aspects of this proposed 
interim approval. Copies of Ventura's submittal and other information 
relied upon for the proposed interim approval are contained in a docket 
maintained at the EPA Regional Office. The docket is an organized and 
complete file of all the information submitted to, or otherwise 
considered by, EPA in the development of this proposed interim 
approval. The principal purposes of the docket are:

    (1) To allow interested parties a means to identify and locate 
documents so that they can effectively participate in the approval 
process; and
    (2) To serve as the record in case of judicial review. The EPA will 
consider any comments received by [insert date 30 days after date of 
publication].

B. Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this regulatory 
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.

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.

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

    Dated: November 9, 1994.
John Wise,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-28713 Filed 11-21-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F