[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 235 (Thursday, December 8, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-30214]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: December 8, 1994]


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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 70

[AD-FRL-5118-6]

 

Clean Air Act Proposed Interim Approval of the Title V Operating 
Permit Programs for Nineteen California Air Pollution Control Districts

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes source-category-limited interim approval of 
the Operating Permits Programs submitted by the California Air 
Resources Board on behalf of Amador County Air Pollution Control 
District (APCD), Butte County APCD, Calaveras County APCD, Colusa 
County APCD, El Dorado County APCD, Feather River Air Quality 
Management District (AQMD), Great Basin Unified APCD, Imperial County 
APCD, Kern County APCD, Lassen County APCD, Mendocino County APCD, 
Modoc County APCD, North Coast Unified AQMD, Northern Sierra AQMD, 
Northern Sonoma County APCD, Placer County APCD, Siskiyou County APCD, 
Tuolumne County APCD, and Yolo-Solano AQMD. These Programs were 
submitted for the purpose of complying with Federal requirements in 
title V of the Clean Air Act which mandates that States develop, and 
submit to the 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 
January 9, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments on these programs should be addressed to Sara 
Bartholowmew, Operating Permits Section, A-5-2, Air and Toxics 
Division, U.S. EPA-Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 
California 94105.
    Copies of the submissions and other supporting information used in 
developing the proposed interim approvals of these programs including 
the Technical Support Documents are available for inspection during 
normal business hours at the following location: Operating Permits 
Section, A-5-2, Air and Toxics Division, U.S. EPA-Region IX, 75 
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information, please contact: Sara 
Bartholowmew, Operating Permits Section, A-5-2, Air and Toxics 
Division, U.S. EPA-Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 
California 94105, (415) 744-1170.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Purpose

A. Introduction

    As required under title V of the Clean Air Act (``the Act'') as 
amended (1990), the EPA has promulgated rules that define the minimum 
elements of an approvable State operating permits program and the 
corresponding standards and procedures by which the EPA will approve, 
oversee, and withdraw approval of State operating permits programs (see 
57 FR 32250 (July 21, 1992)). These rules are codified at 40 CFR part 
70. Title V requires States to develop, and submit to EPA, programs for 
issuing these operating permits to all major stationary sources and to 
certain other sources.
    The Act requires that States develop and submit these programs to 
the EPA by November 15, 1993, and that EPA act to approve or disapprove 
each program within one year after receiving the submittal. The EPA's 
program review occurs pursuant to section 502 of the Act and the part 
70 regulations, which together outline criteria for approval or 
disapproval. Where a program substantially, but not fully, meets the 
requirements of part 70, the EPA may grant the program interim approval 
for a period of up to 2 years. If the 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 document focuses on the major 
elements of the Districts' title V operating permits program 
submissions and on specific elements that must be corrected to meet the 
minimum requirements of 40 CFR part 70. The nineteen District programs 
are based on a model rule and program description developed by the 
California Air Resources Board (CARB). As a result, the programs are 
very similar. A detailed analysis of each program can be found in 
Technical Support Document (TSDs) for each District. The full program 
submittals, TSDs, and other relevant materials are available for public 
review in the public docket for this proposal. The docket may be viewed 
during regular business hours at the address listed above.
1. Title V Support Materials
    In submitting each District's title V program, CARB requested 
source category-limited interim approval for the program because 
California statute (Health and Safety Code (H.S.C.) section 42310 (e)) 
currently exempts agricultural sources from all permitting requirements 
including title V. Each District's submission contains a complete 
program description, District implementing and supporting regulations, 
application and reporting forms, and other supporting information. In 
addition, CARB submitted for all Districts in the State a single 
Attorney General's opinion, enabling legislation, and certain other 
information regarding State law.
    EPA has reviewed each District's program to assure that it contains 
all the elements required by Sec. 70.4(b) (Elements of the initial 
program submission). EPA has found each program complete pursuant to 
Sec. 70.4(e)(1) in letters to CARB on January 13, 1994 (El Dorado and 
Kern), January 28, 1994 (Tuolumne), February 4, 1994 (Butte, Great 
Basin, Lassen, Mendocino, and Siskiyou), March 4, 1994 (Feather River, 
Modoc, Northern Sonoma, and Placer), April 22, 1994 (Colusa and North 
Coast), May 20, 1994 (Imperial), June 22, 1994 (Northern Sierra), 
October 19, 1994 (Amador), October 26, 1994 (Yolo-Solano), and November 
9, 1994 (Calaveras).
    Prior to final action to approve these operating permit programs, 
EPA intends to have in place an implementation agreement with each 
District that will address data management, acid rain provisions, 
procedures for delegation of hazardous air pollutant standards under 
section 112(l) of the Act, and other elements regarding the 
implementation of the District's title V program.
2. Title V Operating Permit Regulations and Program Implementation
    This section discusses how the Districts' rules in general comply 
with the requirements of part 70. In each case, the District's rules/
regulations are identical to or very similar to the CARB model; 
therefore, the discussion below is applicable to all nineteen programs. 
If a District's program differs substantially from the CARB model in a 
way that is not fully approvable under part 70, it is noted in the 
discussion on each District later in this document.
    Applicability. All programs meet the source applicability 
requirements of Secs. 70.2 (Definitions) and 70.3 (Applicability) 
except that current California law exempts agricultural sources from 
all permitting requirements including title V. This exemption must be 
removed from State law in order for the District programs to receive 
full approval. All programs opted to defer the permitting of minor 
sources subject to New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) or National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) as allowed 
under Sec. 70.3 (b)(1).
    Permit application. The programs substantially meet the application 
deadlines and application content requirements of Sec. 70.5 (Permit 
applications). Each program contains the application forms that the 
District intends to use for initial permit, permit renewal, and permit 
modification applications. In this action, the EPA is proposing to 
approve the application forms as part of each District's program. All 
rules require sources to list all emission units in sufficient detail 
to establish applicable requirements and permit fees. EPA has 
identified several interim approval issues regarding permit application 
requirements that must be corrected for full approval. The interim 
approval issues are discussed in detail later in this document. In the 
TSD, EPA has also identified other recommended changes that are not 
required for full approval but would improve, clarify, or strengthen 
the Districts' part 70 programs.
    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 the part 70 program under review.
    Except for Mendocino County, each Districts provided its current 
permit exemption list as its list of insignificant activities. Several 
of these lists provide unbounded discretion to the APCO to determine 
additional exemptions. Most programs either provided no criteria or 
stated that their criteria for insignificance was the list of 
activities in their current permit exemption list. Only in the Northern 
Sonoma County APCD program provided detailed information on the 
emission levels from the exempted activities. Because EPA was provided 
no criteria or information on the level of emissions of activities on 
most Districts' exemptions list and no demonstration that these 
activities are unlikely to be subject to an applicable requirement, EPA 
cannot propose full approval of these exemption lists as the basis for 
determining insignificant activities.
    Several programs (including Mendocino) stated that their criteria 
for insignificant activities was the significance levels for their new 
source review regulations. These signficance levels are the federal 
major modification thresholds and are set at a substantial fraction of 
the major source thresholds for all areas and would almost certainly 
exclude units with applicable requirements. EPA, therefore, finds that 
emission levels at the federal major modification thresholds are too 
high to be considered insignificant.
    For other State programs, EPA has proposed to accept, as sufficient 
for full approval, emission levels for insignificant activities of 2 
tons per year of regulated air 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 most applicable requirements to assure 
that no unit potentially subject to an applicable requirement is left 
off a part 70 application and are consistent with current permitting 
thresholds for the nineteen Districts under consideration here. EPA is 
requesting comment on the appropriateness of these emission levels for 
determining insignificant activities in these Districts. This request 
for comment is not intended to restrict the ability of individual 
Districts 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.
    Permit content. The rules substantially meet the permit content 
requirements of Sec. 70.6 (Permit content) including assuring 
compliance with all applicable requirements, monitoring and related 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements, compliance requirements, and 
emergency provisions. None of the programs opted to use general permits 
or the permit shield.1 In addition, the programs substantially 
meet the operational flexibility requirements of Sec. 70.4(b)(12). EPA 
has identified several problems with the permit content and the 
operational flexibility provisions that must be corrected for full 
approval. The interim approval issues are discussed in detail later in 
this document. In the TSD, EPA has also identified other recommended 
changes that are not required for full approval but would improve, 
clarify, or strengthen the Districts' part 70 programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\The Placer County program description contains a discussion 
of the District's intent to implement a permit shield. Placer's part 
70 rule, however, does not provide for the permit shield in 
Sec. 70.6(f) but rather contains conditions for the application 
shield in Sec. 70.5(a)(2) and provisions for implementing 
modifications prior to EPA review which do not meet the requirements 
of Sec. 70.7 and Sec. 70.8. This is discussed further in the TSD and 
in the discussion of the Placer program later in this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Permit issuance and modifications. All programs provide adequate 
criteria and procedures for deeming applications complete as required 
by Sec. 70.5(a)(2). Most programs provide deadlines and procedures 
(including public participation and EPA/affected state review) for 
acting on permits consistent with Sec. 70.7 (a) (Action on 
applications) and (h) (Public participation) and Sec. 70.8 (Permit 
review by EPA and affected States); the exceptions are noted in the 
discussions of each District's program. All programs have permit 
modification procedures that are, for the most part, consistent with 
Sec. 70.7 (e) (Permit modifications). All programs contain procedures 
that allow new emission units that do not trigger major source NSR, are 
not acid rain units, and whose operations are not addressed or 
prohibited by the existing part 70 permit to be handled ``off-permit.'' 
EPA has identified several problems with the permit issuance and 
modification procedures that must be corrected for full approval. The 
interim approval issues are discussed in detail later in this document. 
In the TSD, EPA has also identified other recommended changes that are 
not required for full approval but would improve, clarify, or 
strengthen the Districts' part 70 programs.
    Definition of title I modification. Part 70 prohibits changes that 
are modifications under any provisions of title I of the Clean Air Act 
(``title I modifications'') from being treated as minor permit 
modifications, being made ``off-permit,'' or being made under an 
operational flexibility provision. None of the Districts' programs 
specifically define ``title I modification'' although it is clear from 
the use of the term that the programs do not treat changes reviewed 
under a minor source preconstruction review program (``minor NSR 
changes'') as title I modifications. See, for example, the distinction 
made between ``a modification under Title I of the CAA'' and ``any 
provision of [the District NSR and PSD rules]'' in Amador's Rule 500, 
sections V.I. and V.I.3.c. See also the discussion on operational 
flexibility in each District's Program Description: ``Title I 
modifications include a modification that is major under federal NSR * 
* *, a modification that is major under PSD * * *.'' (Emphasis added).
    The EPA is currently in the process of determining the proper 
definition of title I modification. As further explained below, EPA has 
solicited public comment on whether the phrase ``modification under any 
provision of title I of the Act'' 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 and District 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 treatment or definition of title I modifications to 
receive interim approval (59 FR 44572). In that notice, EPA explained 
its view that the better reading of title I modifications includes 
minor NSR, and solicited public comment on the proper interpretation of 
that term (59 FR 44573). EPA stated that if, after considering the 
public comments, it continues 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/Districts with narrower definitions 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.2 If EPA 
establishes in its rulemaking that the definition of title I 
modifications can be interpreted to exclude changes reviewed under 
minor NSR programs, the Districts' treatment of title I modifications 
would be fully consistent with part 70. Conversely, if EPA establishes 
through the rulemaking that the definition must include changes 
reviewed under minor NSR, the Districts' treatment of title I 
modifications will become a basis for interim approval. If the 
treatment becomes a basis for interim approval as a result of EPA's 
rulemaking, each of the nineteen Districts would be required to revise 
its treatment of title I modifications to conform to the requirements 
of part 70.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\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 the 
Districts' treatment of title I modification as necessary grounds for 
interim approval. 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. District Title V Compliance Provisions
    California statute and District rules and regulations provide the 
Districts with the enforcement authorities required by Sec. 70.11 
(Requirements for enforcement authority). See the California Attorney 
General's Opinion and the TSDs (especially Attachments A and F) for 
further detail.
    Variances. The Hearing Boards of all nineteen Districts have the 
authority to issue variances from requirements imposed by State and 
local law. See H.S.C. sections 42350 et seq. In the legal 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.)
    EPA regards State and District variance provisions as wholly 
external to the programs submitted for approval under part 70 and 
consequently is proposing to take no action on these provisions of 
State and local law. EPA has no authority to approve provisions of 
state and local law that are inconsistent with the Act. EPA does not 
recognize the ability of a District 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 Sec. 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.''
    Prompt reporting of deviations. Section 70.6 (a)(3)(iii)(B) states 
that permits must require prompt reporting of deviations from the 
permit requirements and that the District shall define ``prompt'' in 
relation to the degree and type of deviation likely to occur and the 
applicable requirements. The Districts' rules do not define ``prompt'' 
and instead leave the determination of what constitutes ``prompt'' to 
the discretion of the Air Pollution Control Officer. Although the 
permit program regulations should define ``prompt'' for purposes of 
administrative efficiency and clarity, it is acceptable to define the 
term in each individual permit. The EPA believes that prompt means 
reporting a deviation within two to ten days of the deviation. Two to 
ten days is sufficient time in most cases to protect public health and 
safety as well as to provide a forewarning of potential problems. For 
sources with a low level of excess emissions, a longer time period may 
be acceptable. However, prompt reporting must be more frequent than the 
semiannual reporting requirement, since this is a separate reporting 
obligation under Sec. 70.6 (a)(3)(iii)(A). Where ``prompt'' is defined 
in the individual permit but not in the program regulations, the EPA 
may veto permits that do not require sufficiently prompt reporting of 
deviations.
4. Permit Fee Demonstration
    Section 502 (b)(3) of the Act and Sec. 70.9 (a) require 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 part 70 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)). All nineteen Districts have opted to make a 
presumptive minimum fee demonstration.
    Currently, the nineteen Districts charge fees for permitting based 
on some combination of equipment type and/or size, number of emission 
units, permitting action, and actual cost of services. All Districts 
have adopted supplemental fee rules or revised existing fee rules to 
assure that title V sources (either individually or in the aggregate) 
will pay fees that will remain at or above the CPI-adjusted presumptive 
minimum. Most of these fees are at $29.26 per ton. All nineteen 
Districts demonstrated in their program descriptions that the 
presumptive minimum fees are adequate to cover the direct and indirect 
costs of their part 70 programs.
5. Provisions Implementing the Requirements of Other Titles of the Act
    a. Section 112-hazardous air pollutants. The Districts have 
demonstrated in their part 70 program submissions adequate legal 
authority to implement and enforce all section 112 requirements through 
the part 70 permit. This legal authority is contained in the State of 
California enabling legislation and in regulatory provisions in each 
District's rule defining ``applicable requirements'' and mandating that 
all applicable requirements must be incorporated into permits. The EPA 
has determined that this legal authority is sufficient to allow the 
Districts to issue permits that assure compliance with all section 112 
requirements. For further discussion on the District's legal authority, 
please refer to the TSDs accompanying this action and the April 13, 
1993 guidance memorandum entitled, ``Title V Program Approval Criteria 
for Section 112 Activities,'' signed by John Seitz, Director, Office of 
Air Quality Planning and Standards, USEPA.
    b. Title IV-acid rain. No Districts in California have Phase I acid 
rain sources and only two of the nineteen Districts whose part 70 
programs are being considered in this document have identified Phase II 
sources. These two Districts are North Coast Unified AQMD and Imperial 
County APCD. Neither of these two Districts has submitted complete acid 
rain programs nor has committed to adopt such programs by January 1, 
1995. The adoption of complete acid rain programs is an interim 
approval issue for both of these two Districts. Many of the other 
Districts have provided commitments to expeditiously adopt the 
appropriate regulatory authority necessary to issue a timely title IV 
permit to any new or existing source in the District that becomes 
subject to, or wants to opt into, the acid rain program. For Districts 
that have not made this commitment and do not have any identified Phase 
II sources, the EPA will require this commitment as part of the 
District-EPA implementation agreement.

B. Proposal for and Implications of Interim Approval

    Because the programs substantially meet the requirements of part 
70, the EPA is proposing to grant source-category limited interim 
approval to the operating permits programs submitted by the California 
Air Resources Board on behalf of Amador County APCD (received: December 
27, 1993, August 5 and September 20, 1994), Butte County APCD 
(received: November 16, 1993), Calaveras County APCD (received: October 
31, 1994), Colusa County APCD (received: February 24, 1994), El Dorado 
County APCD (received: November 16, 1993), Feather River AQMD 
(received: December 27, 1993), Great Basin Unified APCD (received: 
January 12, 1994), Imperial County APCD (received: January 12 and March 
24, 1994), Kern County APCD (received: November 16, 1993), Lassen 
County APCD (received: January 12, 1994), Mendocino County APCD 
(received: December 27, 1993), Modoc County APCD (received: December 
27, 1993), North Coast Unified AQMD (received: February 24, 1994), 
Northern Sierra AQMD (received: June 3, 1994), Northern Sonoma County 
APCD (received: January 12, 1994), Placer County APCD (received: 
December 27, 1993), Siskiyou County APCD (received: December 6, 1993), 
Tuolumne County APCD (received: November 16, 1993), and Yolo-Solano 
AQMD (received: June 6 and October 14, 1994).
    If EPA were to finalize these proposed interim approvals, they 
would extend for two years following the effective date of the final 
interim approvals and could not be renewed. During the interim approval 
period, each District 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 the interim approval, as does 
the 3-year time period for processing the initial permit applications.
    Following final interim approval, if the District fails to submit a 
complete corrective program for full approval by the date six months 
before expiration of the interim approval, EPA will start an 18-month 
clock for mandatory sanctions. If the District then fails to submit a 
corrective program that EPA finds complete before the expiration of 
that 18-month period, EPA will be required to apply one of the 
sanctions in section 179(b) of the Act,3 which would then remain 
in effect until EPA determines that the District has corrected the 
deficiency by submitting a complete corrective program. Moreover, if 
the Administrator found a lack of good faith on the part of a District 
with a non-attainment area, both sanctions under section 179(b) would 
apply after the expiration of the 18-month period until the 
Administrator determines that the District has come into compliance. 
For Districts with non-attainment areas, a second sanction would be 
imposed if, six months after application of the first sanction, the 
District still has not submitted a corrective program that EPA has 
found complete.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\There are two sanctions available under sections 502 
(d)(2)(B) and 179 (b) of the Act. The first is a prohibition on 
highway funding and approvals and the second one is an increase in 
the emissions offset ratio for new or modified sources. The latter 
sanction is available only in areas designated non-attainment for 
one or more criteria pollutant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If, following final interim approval, EPA disapproves the 
District's complete corrective program, EPA will 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 has submitted a revised program and EPA has determined that it 
corrected the deficiencies that prompted the disapproval. Moreover, if 
the Administrator finds a lack of good faith on the part of a District 
with a non-attainment area, both sanctions under section 179(b) would 
apply after the expiration of the 18-month period until the 
Administrator determines that the District has come into compliance. 
For Districts with non-attainment areas, a second sanction would be 
imposed if, six months after application of the first sanction, the 
District still has not submitted a revised program that EPA has 
determined corrects the deficiencies.
    In addition, discretionary sanctions may be applied when warranted 
any time after the end of an interim approval period if a 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 District 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 District upon interim approval expiration.

C. District Interim Approval Issues Common to All Nineteen Districts

    In order to receive full approval for its part 70 program and rule, 
each District must make the following changes:
    (1) 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 (including any director's discretion 
provisions) 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. This is a condition for full approval for all 
Districts except for Mendocino County AQMD and Northern Sonoma County 
APCD.
    (2) Revise the exemption list to remove the general exemption for 
agricultural production sources or to restrict the exemptions to non-
title V sources. Insignificant activities at agricultural production 
sources may still be listed. This is a condition for full approval for 
all District programs except for Great Basin Unified APCD and Lassen 
County APCD which do not have general exemptions for agricultural 
operations in their exemption lists and for Mendocino County which did 
not provide a list of exempted activities.
    (3) Revise the rule's application content requirements so that any 
compliance schedule required by the rule for a source not in compliance 
must resemble and be at least as stringent as that contained in any 
judicial consent decree, administrative order, or schedule approved by 
the hearing board to which the source is subject as required by 
Sec. 70.5 (c)(4)(iii)(C) rather than simply a schedule of compliance 
approved by the District's hearing board.
    (4) Revise the rule's application content requirements to clarify 
that all reports and other documents submitted in the permit 
application must be certified by the responsible official as required 
by Sec. 70.5 (d) and to provide the full text of the responsible 
official's certification in Sec. 70.5 (d). This is an interim approval 
issue for all Districts except Yolo-Solano AQMD whose rule already 
requires this.
    (5) Provide in the rule a permit application deadline for sources 
that become subject to the District's part 70 rule after the rule's 
effectiveness date for reasons other than commencing operation. This 
deadline cannot be any later than 12 months after the source becomes 
subject to the rule as required by Sec. 70.5 (a)(1). This is a 
condition for full approval for all District programs except for 
Northern Sierra AQMD and Yolo-Solano AQMD whose rules already contain 
this deadline.
    (6) Revise the rule's permit issuance procedures to provide for 
notifying the EPA and affected States in writing of any refusal by the 
District to accept all recommendations for the proposed permit that the 
Affected State submitted during the public/Affected State review period 
as required by Sec. 70.8 (b)(2).
    (7) Incorporate in the rule provisions citing the right of the 
public to petition EPA under Sec. 70.8 (d) after the expiration of the 
EPA's 45-day review period and prohibiting the District from issuing a 
permit, if it has not already done so, until the EPA's objections in 
response to the petition are resolved as required by Sec. 70.8 (d).
    (8) Revise the rule to provide for public notice of permitting 
actions by other means if necessary to assure adequate notice to the 
affected public as required by Sec. 70.7 (h)(1).
    (9) Revise the rule's permit content requirements to clarify that 
all reports and other documents required by the permit must be 
certified by a responsible official as required by Sec. 70.6 (c)(1) and 
to provide the full text of the responsible official's certification in 
Sec. 70.5 (d).
    (10) Revise the rule's permit content requirements to require that 
any compliance schedule for a source not in compliance must resemble 
and be at least as stringent as that contained in any judicial consent 
decree, administrative order, or schedule approved by the hearing board 
to which the source is subject as required by Secs. 70.6 (c)(3) and 
70.5 (c)(8)(iii)(C). This is an interim approval issue for all 
Districts except Yolo-Solano AQMD whose rule already provides for this.
    (11) Revise the rule's permit content requirements to require the 
submission of compliance certifications more frequently than annually 
if a more frequent period is specified in the applicable requirement or 
by the District as required by Sec. 70.6 (c)(5)(i). This is an interim 
approval issue for all Districts except Yolo-Solano AQMD whose rule 
already provides for this.

D. Basis for Source Category-Limited Interim Approval

    California state law currently exempts agricultural production 
sources from permit requirements (H.S.C. Sec. 42310 (e)); therefore, 
the EPA is proposing to grant source category-limited interim approval 
to the operating permits program of these nineteen Districts. At this 
time, none of the Districts has identified any agricultural production 
sources as potential title V sources. In order for these programs 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.

III. Individual District Interim Approval Issues

A. Amador County APCD

    In addition to the interim approval issues noted above for all 
Districts, the Amador District must make the following changes to its 
part 70 rule, Rule 500--Procedures for Issuing Permits to Operate for 
Sources Subject to Title V of the Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 
1990, amended July 5, 1994, in order to receive full approval:
    (1) Revise all deadlines for final permit action in Rule 500 
V.C.4 (except for C.1. and C.5.) to be no later than the 
appropriate number of months after the complete application is 
received, rather than after the application is deemed to be complete, 
as required by Secs. 70.4 (b)(11)(iii) and 70.7 (a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The EPA has cited specific sections of District rules and 
regulations to illustrate appropriate places for making the 
revisions/changes necessary for full approval. The District may, 
however, revise other sections of their rules to satisfy the interim 
approval issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Revise the definition of ``potential to emit'' in Rule 500 
II.AA. to clarify that only federally-enforceable limitations may be 
considered in determining a source's potential to emit.
    (3) Revise Rule 500 V.I.2 and 3 to require notification by the 
source of operational flexibility changes to both the EPA and the 
District as required by Sec. 70.4 (b)(12).
    (4) Revise the definition of ``affected state'' in Rule 500 II.C. 
to allow for the treatment of Tribal Authorities as affected states if 
the Authority request such treatment under the Tribal Air Regulations.

B. Butte County APCD

    In addition to the interim approval issues noted above for all 
Districts, the Butte District must make the following changes to its 
part 70 rule, Rule 1101--Federal Operating Permits, adopted November 9, 
1993, in order to receive full approval:
    (1) Revise Rule 1101 V.C.6. to take final action on early reduction 
applications within nine months of receipt of the complete application 
rather than within nine months of the date the application was deemed 
complete as required by Sec. 70.4 (b)(11)(iii).
    (2) Revise Rule 1101 IV.B.4. to incorporate the compliance 
provisions of Sec. 70.7 (e)(2)(v). Rule 1101 IV.B.4. allows the air 
pollution control officer (APCO) to approve minor permit modifications 
when the proposed permit revision is sent to EPA for review. While this 
is allowed under Sec. 70.7 (e)(2)(v), Rule 1101 does not state, as does 
Sec. 70.7 (e)(2)(v), that until the District takes final action to 
issue or deny the requested permit modification or determines that it 
is a significant modification, the source must comply with both the 
applicable requirements governing the change and the proposed permit 
terms and conditions, but the source need not comply with the existing 
permit terms and conditions being modified. Rule 1101 should also be 
revised to state that if the source fails to comply with the permit 
terms and conditions in the requested modification, the existing permit 
terms and conditions being modified may be enforced against it.
    (3) Revise Rule 1101 IV.B.3. to limit the discretion of the APCO to 
authorize sources to commence operations of significant permit 
modifications prior to final permit action to when the changes meet the 
criteria of Sec. 70.5 (a)(1)(ii). Rule 1101 IV.B.3. allows the APCO to 
authorize sources to commence operations of significant permit 
modifications when the proposed permit revision is publicly noticed but 
prior to final permit action. Part 70 prohibits sources from making 
significant permit modification changes prior to final permit issuance 
unless the changes are subject to preconstruction review under section 
112 (g) of the Act or preconstruction review programs approved into the 
SIP pursuant to part C or D of title I of the Act, and the changes are 
not otherwise prohibited by the source's existing part 70 permit. See 
Sec. 70.5 (a)(1)(ii). The authority in Rule 1101 IV.B.3. is 
discretionary with the APCO, and the EPA expects that the APCO will 
exercise that authority during the interim approval period only where 
the changes meet the criteria of Sec. 70.5 (a)(1)(ii).

C. Calaveras County APCD

    The Calaveras District has no additional interim approval issues. 
Calaveras' part 70 rule is Regulation X--Additional Procedures for 
Issuing Permits to Operate for Sources Subject to Title V of the 
Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, adopted August 29, 1994.

D. Colusa County APCD

    In addition to the interim approval issues noted above for all 
Districts, the Colusa District must make the following changes to its 
part 70 rule, Rule 3.17--Permits to Operate for Sources Subject to 
Title V of the Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, adopted 
January 11, 1994, in order to receive full approval:
    (1) Revise Rule 3.17 d.2.D. to incorporate the compliance 
provisions of Sec. 70.7(e)(2)(v). Rule 3.17 d.2.D. allows the APCO to 
approve minor permit modifications when the proposed permit revision is 
sent to EPA for review. While this is allowed under Sec. 70.7(e)(2)(v), 
Rule 3.17 does not state, as does Sec. 70.7(e)(2)(v), that until the 
District takes final action to issue or deny the requested permit 
modification or determines that it is a significant modification, the 
source must comply with both the applicable requirements governing the 
change and the proposed permit terms and conditions, but the source 
need not comply with the existing permit terms and conditions being 
modified. Rule 3.17 should also be revised to state that if the source 
fails to comply with the permit terms and conditions in the requested 
modification, the existing permit terms and conditions being modified 
may be enforced against it.
    (2) Revise Rule 3.17 d.2.C. to limit the discretion of the APCO to 
authorize sources to commence operations of significant permit 
modifications prior to final permit action to when the changes meet the 
criteria of Sec. 70.5(a)(1)(ii). Rule 3.17 d.2.C. allows the APCO to 
authorize sources to commence operations of significant permit 
modifications when the proposed permit revision is publicly noticed but 
prior to final permit action. Part 70 prohibits sources from making 
significant permit modification changes prior to final permit issuance 
unless the changes are subject to preconstruction review under section 
112(g) of the Act or preconstruction review programs approved into the 
SIP pursuant to part C or D of title I of the Act and the changes are 
not otherwise prohibited by the source's existing part 70 permit. See 
Sec. 70.5(a)(1)(ii). The authority in Rule 3.17 d.2.C. is discretionary 
with the APCO, and the EPA expects that the APCO will exercise that 
authority during the interim approval period only where the changes 
meet the criteria of Sec. 70.5(a)(1)(ii).

E. El Dorado County APCD

    In addition to the interim approval issues noted above for all 
Districts, the El Dorado District must make the following changes to 
its part 70 rule, Rule 522--Title V--Federal Operating Permit Program, 
adopted November 2, 1993, in order to receive full approval:
    (1) Revise Rule 522 to restrict the use of minor permit 
modification procedures to be consistent with Sec. 70.7(e)(2)(i)(B). 
Rule 522 by default allows minor permit modification procedures to be 
used for those permit modifications that involve the use of economic 
incentives, marketable permits, emissions trading, and other similar 
approaches. Section 70.7(e)(2)(i)(B) constrains the use of the minor 
permit modification procedures for these approaches only when minor 
permit modification procedures are explicitly provided for in the 
applicable implementation plan or in the applicable requirements 
promulgated by the EPA.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\For most District programs addressed in this notice, EPA 
considers this revision to be a recommended change because most 
Districts do not and likely will not have economic incentives, 
marketable permits, emission trading, and other similar approaches 
as part of their applicable implementation plans. However, the El 
Dorado, Feather River, Placer, and Yolo-Solano Districts are part of 
the Sacramento ozone nonattainment area for which EPA will be 
issuing a federal implementation plan (FIP) in early 1995. This FIP 
may contain such approaches and programs. Because of the probability 
that these areas will shortly have such programs as elements of 
their application implementation plans, the EPA has raised this 
issue from a recommended change to an interim approval issue for 
these four Districts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Revise Rule 522's permit content requirements to provide that 
every permit contain a provision stating that no permit revision shall 
be required, under any approved economic incentives, marketable 
permits, emissions trading, and other similar programs or processes for 
changes that are provided for in the permit as required by 
Sec. 70.6(a)(8). See footnote 5.

F. Feather River AQMD

    In addition to the interim approval issues noted above for all 
Districts, the Feather River must make the following changes to its 
part 70 rule, Rule 10.3--Federal Operating Permits, adopted November 
11, 1993, in order to receive full approval:
    (1) Revise Rule 10.3 to restrict the use of minor permit 
modification procedures to be consistent with Sec. 70.7(e)(2)(i)(B). 
Rule 10.3 by default allows minor permit modification procedures to be 
used for those permit modifications that involve the use of economic 
incentives, marketable permits, emissions trading, and other similar 
approaches. Section 70.7(e)(2)(i)(B) constrains the use of the minor 
permit modification procedures for these approaches only when minor 
permit modification procedures are explicitly provided for in the 
applicable implementation plan or in the applicable requirements 
promulgated by the EPA. See footnote 5.
    (2) Revise Rule 10.3's permit content requirements to provide that 
every permit contain a provision stating that no permit revision shall 
be required, under any approved economic incentives, marketable 
permits, emissions trading, and other similar programs or processes for 
changes that are provided for in the permit as required by 
Sec. 70.6(a)(8). See footnote 6.
    (3) Revise Rule 10.3 D.2.c. to limit the discretion of the APCO to 
authorize sources to commence operations of significant permit 
modifications prior to final permit action to when the such changes 
meet the criteria of Sec. 70.5(a)(1)(ii). Rule 10.3 D.2.c. allows the 
APCO to authorize sources to commence operations of significant permit 
modifications when the proposed permit revision is publicly noticed but 
prior to final permit action. Part 70 prohibits sources from making 
significant permit modification changes prior to final permit issuance 
unless the changes are subject to preconstruction review under section 
112(g) of the Act or preconstruction review programs approved into the 
SIP pursuant to part C or D of title I of the Act and the changes are 
not otherwise prohibited by the source's existing part 70 permit. See 
Sec. 70.5(a)(1)(ii). The authority in Rule 10.3 D.2.c. is discretionary 
with the APCO, and the EPA expects that the APCO will exercise that 
authority during the interim approval period only where the change 
meets the criteria of Sec. 70.5(a)(1)(ii).

G. Great Basin Unified APCD

    In addition to the interim approval issues noted above for all 
Districts, the Great Basin District must make the following changes to 
its part 70 rule, Rule 217--Additional Procedures for Issuing Permits 
to Operate for Sources Subject to Title V of the Federal Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1990, adopted September 15, 1993, in order to receive 
full approval:
    (1) Revise Rule 217 IV.B.1.b. to delete the phrase ``or is 
discovered to be subject.'' Rule 217 IV.B.1.b. establishes a deadline 
for applications from sources which are ``discovered to be subject to 
Rule 217 after the date the rule becomes effective.'' It is a source's 
obligation to determine if it is or is not subject to title V and Rule 
217. A source that is subject but fails to apply for a permit in the 
appropriate timeframes is in violation of its Clean Air Act section 
502(a) obligation to apply for a part 70 permit and is subject to 
appropriate enforcement action. Discovery of a source that should have 
applied for a part 70 permit at an earlier date should not 
automatically provide that source twelve additional months to apply for 
a permit. The period for permit application should be decided in the 
context of the enforcement action against the source for failing to 
apply for and/or have a valid part 70 permit.
    (2) Revise all deadlines for final permit action in Rule 217 V.C. 
(except for C.1. and C.5.) to be no later than the appropriate number 
of months after the complete application is received, rather than after 
the application is deemed complete, as required by Secs. 70.4 
(b)(11)(iii) and 70.7 (a)(2).
    (3) Revise Rule 217 V.I.2 and V.I.3.e. to require notification by 
the source of operational flexibility changes to both the EPA and the 
District as required by Sec. 70.4 (b)(12).

H. Imperial County APCD

    In addition to the interim approval issues noted above for all 
Districts, the Imperial District must make the following changes to its 
title V program and rule, Rule 900--Procedures for Issuing Permits to 
Operate for Sources Subject to Title V of the Federal Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1990, adopted December 14, 1993, in order to receive full 
approval:
    (1) Revise Rule 900 E.3.f. to take final action on early reduction 
applications within nine months of receipt of the complete application 
rather than the date the application was deemed complete as required by 
Sec. 70.4 (b)(11)(iii).
    (2) Submit a complete Acid Rain Program consistent with 40 CFR part 
72 and title IV of the Act.
    (3) Revise Rule 900 E.9.b. and c. to require notification by the 
source of operational flexibility changes to both the EPA and the 
District as required by Sec. 70.4 (b)(11)(iii).

I. Kern County APCD

    The Kern District has no additional interim approval issues. Kern's 
part 70 rule is Rule 201.1--Permits to Operate for Sources Subject to 
Title V of the Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, adopted 
November 1, 1993.

J. Lassen County APCD

    In addition to the interim approval issues noted above for all 
Districts, the Lassen District must make the following changes to its 
part 70 rule, Regulation VII--Permits to Operate for Sources Subject to 
Title V of the Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, adopted 
December 21, 1993, in order to receive full approval:
    (1) Revise all deadlines for final permit action in Rule 7:5 c. 
(except for c.1. and c.5.) to be no later than the appropriate number 
of months after the complete application is received, rather than after 
the application is deemed complete as required, by Secs. 70.4 
(b)(11)(iii) and 70.7 (a)(2).
    (2) Revise Rule 7:5 b.4. to clarify that the APCO's approval of a 
minor permit modification prior to EPA's review is not a final permit 
action. Rule 7:5 b.4. allows the APCO to approve minor permit 
modifications changes prior to EPA's review; however, 
Sec. 70.7(e)(2)(iv) precludes the District from issuing a final permit 
modification until after EPA's review period or until EPA has notified 
the District that EPA will not object, although the District may 
approve the permit modification prior to that time.
    (3) Revise Rule 7.5 b.4. to incorporate the compliance provisions 
of Sec. 70.7 (e)(2)(v). Rule 7:5 b.4. allows the APCO to approve minor 
permit modifications prior to the EPA's review. While this is allowed 
under Sec. 70.7 (e)(2)(v), Regulation VII does not state, as does 
Sec. 70.7 (e)(2)(v), that until the District takes final action to 
issue or deny the requested permit modification or determines that it 
is a significant modification, the source must comply with both the 
applicable requirements governing the change and the proposed permit 
terms and conditions, but the source need not comply with the existing 
permit terms and conditions being modified. Regulation VII should also 
be revised to state that if the source fails to comply with the permit 
terms and conditions in the requested modification, the existing permit 
terms and conditions being modified may be enforced against it.
    (4) Revise Rule 7:5 b.3. to limit the discretion of the APCO to 
authorize sources to commence operations of significant permit 
modifications prior to final permit action to when the changes meet the 
criteria of Sec. 70.5 (a)(1)(ii). Rule 7:5 b.3. allows the APCO to 
approve significant permit modifications and the source to commence 
operations of those modifications prior to the EPA's review and final 
permit action. Part 70 prohibits sources from making significant permit 
modification changes prior to final permit issuance unless the changes 
are subject to preconstruction review under section 112 (g) of the Act 
or preconstruction review programs approved into the SIP pursuant to 
part C or D of title I of the Act and the changes are not otherwise 
prohibited by the source's existing part 70 permit. See Sec. 70.5 
(a)(1)(ii). The authority in Rule 7:5 b.3. is discretionary with the 
APCO, and the EPA expects that the APCO will exercise that authority 
during the interim approval period only where the changes meet the 
criteria of Sec. 70.5 (a)(1)(ii).
    (5) Revise Rule 7:6 i.2. and 3. to require notification by the 
source of operational flexibility changes to both the EPA and the 
District as required by Sec. 70.4 (b)(11)(iii).

K. Mendocino County APCD

    In addition to the interim approval issues noted above for all 
Districts, the Mendocino District must make the following changes to 
its part 70 program and rule, Regulation 5--Procedures for Issuing 
Permits to Operate for Sources Subject to Title V of the Federal Clean 
Air Act Amendments of 1990, adopted September 14, 1993, in order to 
receive full approval:
    (1) Revise all deadlines for final permit action in Regulation 5, 
Rule 5.520 (except for (a) and (e)) to be no later than the appropriate 
number of months after the complete application is received, rather 
than after the application is deemed complete, as required by 
Secs. 70.4 (b)(11)(iii) and 70.7 (a)(2).
    (2) Revise Regulation 5, Rule 5.580 (b) and (c) to require 
notification by the source of operational flexibility changes to both 
the EPA and the District as required by Sec. 70.4 (b)(11)(iii).
    (3) Restrict insignificant activities to those 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.

L. Modoc County APCD

    In addition to the interim approval issues noted above for all 
Districts, the Modoc District must make the following changes to its 
part 70 rule, Rule 2.13--Additional Procedures for Issuing Permits to 
Operate for Sources Subject to Title V of the Federal Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1990, adopted November 16, 1993, in order to receive full 
approval:
    (1) Revise all deadlines for final permit action in Rule 2.13 IV.C. 
(except for C.1. and C.5.) to be no later than the appropriate number 
of months after the complete application is received, rather than after 
the application is deemed to be complete, as required by Secs. 70.4 
(b)(11)(iii) and 70.7 (a)(2).
    (2) Revise Rule 2.13 IV.B.4. to clarify that the APCO's approval of 
a minor permit modification prior to EPA's review is not a final permit 
action. Rule 2.13 IV.B.4. allows the APCO to approve minor permit 
modifications changes prior to the EPA's review; however, 
Sec. 70.7(e)(2)(iv) precludes the District from issuing a final permit 
modification until after EPA's review period or until the EPA has 
notified the District that EPA will not object, although the District 
may approve the permit modification prior to that time.
    (3) Revise Rule 2.13 IV.B.4. to incorporate the compliance 
provisions of Sec. 70.7 (e)(2)(v). Rule 2.13 IV.B.4. allows the APCO to 
approve minor permit modifications prior to the EPA's review. While 
this is allowed under Sec. 70.7 (e)(2)(v), Rule 2.13 does not state, as 
does Sec. 70.7 (e)(2)(v), that until the District takes final action to 
issue or deny the requested permit modification or determines that it 
is a significant modification, the source must comply with both the 
applicable requirements governing the change and the proposed permit 
terms and conditions, but the source need not comply with the existing 
permit terms and conditions being modified. Rule 2.13 should also be 
revised to state that if the source fails to comply with the permit 
terms and conditions in the requested modification, the existing permit 
terms and conditions being modified may be enforced against it.
    (4) Revise Rule 2.13 IV.B.3. to limit the discretion of the APCO to 
authorize sources to commence operations of significant permit 
modifications prior to final permit action to when the changes meet the 
criteria of Sec. 70.5 (a)(1)(ii). Rule 2.13 IV.B.3. allows the APCO to 
approve significant permit modifications and the source to commence 
operations of those modifications prior to the EPA's review and final 
permit action. Part 70 prohibits sources from making significant permit 
modification changes prior to final permit issuance unless the changes 
are subject to preconstruction review under section 112 (g) of the Act 
or preconstruction review programs approved into the SIP pursuant to 
part C or D of title I of the Act and the changes are not otherwise 
prohibited by the source's existing part 70 permit. See Sec. 70.5 
(a)(1)(ii). The authority in Rule 2.13 IV.B.3. is discretionary with 
the APCO, and the EPA expects that the APCO will exercise that 
authority during the interim approval period only where the changes 
meet the criteria of Sec. 70.5 (a)(1)(ii).
    (5) Revise Rule 2.13 V.I.2 and V.I.3. to require notification by 
the source of operational flexibility changes to both the EPA and the 
District as required by Sec. 70.4 (b)(11)(iii).

M. North Coast Unified AQMD

    In addition to the interim approval issues noted above for all 
Districts, the North Coast District must make the following changes to 
its part 70 rule, Regulation 5--Procedures for Issuing Permits to 
Operate for Sources Subject to Title V of the Federal Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1990, adopted December 12, 1993, in order to receive full 
approval:
    (1) Revise Regulation 5, Rule 520 (f) to take final action on early 
reduction applications within nine months of receipt of the complete 
application rather than the date the application was deemed complete as 
required by Sec. 70.4 (b)(11)(iii).
    (2) Submit a complete Acid Rain Program consistent with 40 CFR part 
72 and title IV of the Act.
    (3) Revise Regulation 5, Rule 580 (b) and (c) to require 
notification by the source of operational flexibility changes to both 
the EPA and the District as required by Sec. 70.4(b)(11)(iii).

N. Northern Sierra AQMD

    The Northern Sierra District has no additional interim approval 
issues. Northern Sierra's part 70 rule is Rule 522--Title V Federal 
Operating Permits, adopted May 11, 1994.

O. Northern Sonoma County APCD

    In addition to the interim approval issues noted above for all 
Districts, the Northern Sonoma District must make the following changes 
to its title V program and rule, Regulation 5--Procedures for Issuing 
Permits to Operate for Sources Subject to Title V of the Federal Clean 
Air Act Amendments of 1990, adopted October 12, 1993, in order to 
receive full approval:
    (1) Revise all deadlines for final permit action in Rule 5.520 
(except for (a) and (e)) to be no later than the appropriate number of 
months after the complete application is received rather than after the 
application is deemed complete as required by Secs. 70.4(b)(11)(iii) 
and 70.7(a)(2).
    (2) Revise Rule 5.580 (b) and (c) to require notification by the 
source of operational flexibility changes to both the EPA and the 
District as required by Sec. 70.4(b)(11)(iii).
    (3) Revise Policy A-33A (Small Emission Source Exemptions) to state 
that the APCO may not exempt from the requirement for permitting any 
process, article, machine, equipment, device or contrivance at a title 
V source if that process, etc. is subject to an applicable federal 
requirement. Also, revise the Policy to restrict the exemptions 
(including any director's discretion provisions) to activities that 
emit less than District-established emission levels for HAPs. The 
District should 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.

P. Placer County APCD

    In addition to the interim approval issues noted above for all 
Districts, the Placer District must make the following changes to its 
part 70 rule, Rule 507--Federal Operating Permit Program, adopted 
October 19, 1993, in order to receive full approval:
    (1) Revise the definition of Major Source, section 219 of Rule 507, 
as follows:
    (a) Revise section 219.1 to reference the ``major source'' 
definition in CAA section 112, rather than the CAA section 112 
``source'' definition.
    (b) Because ``source'' is not defined in Rule 507, revise section 
219.2 to refer to a ``stationary source'' with a potential to emit, 
rather than a ``source''.
    (2) Revise section 302.6 of Rule 507 to limit the discretion of the 
APCO to authorize sources to commence operations of significant permit 
modifications prior to final permit action to when the changes meet the 
criteria of Sec. 70.5(a)(1)(ii). Section 302.6 of Rule 507 allows the 
APCO to authorize sources to commence operations of significant permit 
modifications when the proposed permit is publicly noticed but prior to 
final permit modification. Part 70 prohibits sources from making 
significant permit modification changes prior to final permit issuance 
unless the changes are subject to preconstruction review under section 
112(g) of the Act or preconstruction review programs approved into the 
SIP pursuant to part C or D of title I of the Act and the changes are 
not otherwise prohibited by the source's existing part 70 permit. See 
Sec. 70.5(a)(1)(ii). The authority in section 302.6 of Rule 507 is 
discretionary with the APCO, and the EPA expects that the APCO will 
exercise that authority during the interim approval period only where 
the changes meet the criteria of Sec. 70.5(a)(1)(ii).
    (3) Revise section 302.7 of Rule 507 to restrict the use of minor 
permit modification procedures consistent with Sec. 70.7(e)(2)(i)(B). 
Rule 507 by default allows minor permit modification procedures to be 
used for those permit modifications that involve the use of economic 
incentives, marketable permits, emissions trading, and other similar 
approaches. Section 70.7(e)(2)(i)(B) constrains the use of the minor 
permit modification procedures for these approaches only to when minor 
permit modification procedures are explicitly provided for in the 
applicable implementation plan or in the applicable requirements 
promulgated by EPA. See footnote 5.
    (4) Revise Rule 507's permit content requirements (section 402) to 
provide that every permit contain a provision stating that no permit 
revision shall be required, under any approved economic incentives, 
marketable permits, emissions trading, and other similar programs or 
processes for changes that are provided for in the permit as required 
by Sec. 70.6(a)(8). See also footnote 5.
    (5) Revise all deadlines for final permit action in section 401.3 
of Rule 507 (except for a. and e.) to be no later than the appropriate 
number of months after the complete application is received, rather 
than after the application is deemed complete, as required by 
Secs. 70.4(b)(11)(iii) and 70.7(a)(2).
    (6) Revise section 401.9 of Rule 507 to require notification by the 
source of operational flexibility changes to both the EPA and the 
District as required by Sec. 70.4(b)(11)(iii).

Q. Siskiyou County APCD

    In addition to the interim approval issues noted above for all 
Districts, the Siskiyou District must make the following changes to its 
part 70 rule, Rule 2.13--Additional Procedures for Issuing Permits to 
Operate for Sources Subject to Title V of the Federal Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1990, adopted October 26, 1993, in order to receive full 
approval:
    (1) Revise all deadlines for final permit action in Rule 2.13 IV.C. 
(except for C.1. and C.5.) to be no later than the appropriate number 
of months after the complete application is received, rather than after 
the application is deemed complete, as required by 
Secs. 70.4(b)(11)(iii) and 70.7(a)(2).
    (2) Revise Rule 2.13 IV.B.4. to clarify that the APCO's approval of 
a minor permit modification prior to EPA's review is not a final permit 
action. Rule 2.13 IV.B.4. allows the APCO to approve minor permit 
modifications changes prior to the EPA's review; however, 
Sec. 70.7(e)(2)(iv) precludes the District from issuing a final permit 
modification until after EPA's review period or until EPA has notified 
the District that EPA will not object, although the District may 
approve the permit modification prior to that time.
    (3) Revise Rule 2.13 IV.B.4. to incorporate the compliance 
provisions of Sec. 70.7(e)(2)(v). Rule 2.13 IV.B.4. allows the APCO to 
approve minor permit modification changes prior to the EPA's review. 
While this is allowed under Sec. 70.7(e)(2)(v), Rule 2.13 does not 
state, as does Sec. 70.7(e)(2)(v), that until the District takes final 
action to issue or deny the requested permit modification or determines 
that it is a significant modification, the source must comply with both 
the applicable requirements governing the change and the proposed 
permit terms and conditions, but the source need not comply with the 
existing permit terms and conditions being modified. Rule 2.13 should 
also be revised to state that if the source fails to comply with the 
permit terms and conditions in the requested modification, the existing 
permit terms and conditions being modified may be enforced against it.
    (4) Revise Rule 2.13 IV.B.3. to limit the discretion of the APCO to 
authorize sources to commence operations of significant permit 
modifications prior to final permit action to when the changes meet the 
criteria of Sec. 70.5(a)(1)(ii). Rule 2.13 IV.B.3. allows the APCO to 
approve significant permit modifications and the source to commence 
operations of those modifications prior to the EPA's review and final 
permit action. Part 70 prohibits sources from making significant permit 
modification changes prior to final permit issuance unless the changes 
are subject to preconstruction review under section 112(g) of the Act 
or preconstruction review programs approved into the SIP pursuant to 
part C or D of title I of the Act and the changes are not otherwise 
prohibited by the source's existing part 70 permit. See 
Sec. 70.5(a)(1)(ii). The authority in Rule 2.13 IV.B.3. with 
discretionary to the APCO, and the EPA expects that the APCO will 
exercise that authority during the interim approval period only where 
the changes meet the criteria of Sec. 70.5(a)(1)(ii).
    (5) Revise Rule 2.13 V.I.2 and V.I.3. to require notification by 
the source of operational flexibility changes to both the EPA and the 
District as required by Sec. 70.4(b)(11)(iii).

R. Tuolumne County APCD

    In addition to the interim approval issues noted above for all 
Districts, the Tuolumne District must make the following changes to its 
part 70 rule, Rule 500--Additional Procedures for Issuing Permits to 
Operate for Sources Subject to Title V of the Federal Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1990, adopted September 28, 1993, in order to receive 
full approval:
    (1) Revise all deadlines for final permit action in Rule 500 V.C. 
(except for C.1. and C.5.) to be no later than the appropriate number 
of months after the complete application is received, rather than after 
the application is deemed complete, as required by 
Secs. 70.4(b)(11)(iii) and 70.7(a)(2).
    (2) Revise the definition of ``potential to emit'' in Rule 500 
II.Y. to clarify that only federally-enforceable limitations may be 
considered in determining a source's potential to emit.
    (3) Revise Rule 500 V.I.2 and 3 to require notification to the EPA 
as well as the District by the source of operational flexibility 
changes as required by Sec. 70.4(b)(11)(iii).

S. Yolo-Solano AQMD

    In addition to the interim approval issues noted above for all 
Districts, the Yolo-Solano District must make the following changes to 
its title V, Rule 3.8--Additional Procedures for Issuing Permits to 
Operate for Sources Subject to Title V of the Federal Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1990, adopted January 26, 1994 as Rule 3.19 and 
renumbered February 23, 1994, in order to receive full approval:
    (1) Revise Rule 3.8 to restrict the use of minor permit 
modification procedures consistent with Sec. 70.7(e)(2)(i)(B). Rule 507 
by default allows minor permit modification procedures to be used for 
those permit modifications that involve the use of economic incentives, 
marketable permits, emissions trading, and other similar approaches. 
Section 70.7(e)(2)(i)(B) constrains the use of the minor permit 
modification procedures for these approaches only when minor permit 
modification procedures are explicitly provided for in the applicable 
implementation plan or in the applicable requirements promulgated by 
the EPA. See footnote 5.
    (2) Revise Rule 3.8's permit content requirements to provide that 
every permit contain a provision stating that no permit revision shall 
be required, under any approved economic incentives, marketable 
permits, emissions trading, and other similar programs or processes for 
changes that are provided for in the permit as required by 
Sec. 70.6(a)(8). See also footnote 5.

IV. Approvals Under Section 112 of the Act

A. Implementation of 112(g) Upon Program Approval

    As a condition of approval of its part 70 program, each District is 
required to implement section 112(g) of the Act from the effective date 
of its part 70 program. Imposition of case-by-case determinations of 
maximum achievable control technology (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 each District's preconstruction permitting program 
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. The EPA believes this approval is necessary so that 
each District 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) of the Act generally provides 
the authority for approval of State and local air toxics programs, 
title V and section 112(g) also 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 a District does not 
wish to implement section 112(g) through its preconstruction permit 
program and can demonstrate prior to final action to approve its part 
70 program that an alternative means of implementing section 112(g) 
exists, the EPA may approve the alternative instead.
    This approval is for an interim period only, until such time as 
each District is able to adopt regulations consistent with 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 each 
District, 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 each 
District's procedures for adoption of regulations.

B. Program for Delegation of Section 112 Standards as Promulgated

    Requirements for approval of part 70 programs, specified in 
Sec. 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 each 
State's and/or local'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 part 
63.91 of each District's program for receiving delegation of section 
112 standards that are unchanged from the Federal standards as 
promulgated. California H.S.C. section 39658 provides for automatic 
adoption by CARB of section 112 standards upon promulgation by EPA. 
H.S.C. section 29666 requires that Districts then implement and enforce 
these standards. Thus, when section 112 standards are automatically 
adopted pursuant to Sec. 39658, each District will have the authority 
necessary to accept delegation of these standards without further 
regulatory action by the District. The details of this mechanism and 
the means for finalizing delegation of standards will be set forth in a 
Memorandum of Agreement as part of the implementation agreement between 
each District and EPA. This MOA is expected to be completed prior to 
approval of the District's section 112(l) program for delegations of 
section 112 standards as promulgated. This program applies to both 
existing and future standards but is limited to sources covered by the 
part 70 program.

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Request for Public Comments

    The EPA is requesting comments on all aspects of this proposed 
interim approval. Copies of the Districts' submittals 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 and EPA's detailed analysis of each Program. 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/
disapproval process, and
    (2) to serve as the record in case of judicial review.
    The EPA will consider any comments received by January 9, 1995.
    The docket number for this proposal is CA-MULTI-94-2-OPS. The 
docket for each of the nineteen Districts is located in separate 
section of this overall docket.

B. Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action from 
Executive Order 12866 review.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    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 28, 1994.
John Wise,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-30214 Filed 12-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P