[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 186 (Tuesday, September 26, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49533-49537]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-23839]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 70

[GA-95-01-FRL-5303-4]


Clean Air Act Proposed Interim Approval of Operating Permits 
Program; Georgia

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed interim approval.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes interim approval of the Operating Permits 
Program submitted by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, 
Environmental Protection Division (EPD) for the purpose of complying 
with Federal requirements which mandate that states develop, and submit 
to EPA, programs for issuing operating permits to all major stationary 
sources, and to certain other sources.

DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by 
October 26, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to Carla 
E. Pierce, Chief, Air Toxics Unit/Title V Program Development Team, Air 
Programs Branch, at the EPA Region 4 office listed below. Copies of the 
State's submittal and other supporting information used in developing 
the proposed interim approval are available for inspection during 
normal business hours at the following location: U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Air Programs Branch, Region 4, 345 Courtland Street, 
NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30365.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yolanda Adams, Title V Program 
Development Team, Air Programs Branch, Air, Pesticides & Toxics 
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 
345 Courtland Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30365, (404) 347-3555, 
Ext. 4149.

[[Page 49534]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Purpose

A. Introduction

    As required under title V of the Clean Air Act Amendments (sections 
501-507 of the Clean Air Act (``the Act'')), EPA has promulgated rules 
which 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 Code of Federal Regulations (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 
EPA by November 15, 1993, and that EPA act to approve or disapprove 
each program within 1 year after receiving the submittal. If the 
state's submission is materially changed during the one-year review 
period, 40 CFR 70.4(e)(2) allows EPA to extend the review period for no 
more than one year following receipt of the additional material. EPA 
received EPD's title V operating permit program submittal on November 
12, 1993. The State provided EPA with additional material in 
supplemental submittals dated June 24, 1994, November 14, 1994, and 
June 5, 1995. Because these supplements materially changed the State's 
title V program submittal, EPA has extended the review period and will 
work expeditiously to promulgate a final decision on the State's 
program.
    The EPA's program review occurs pursuant to section 502 of the Act 
and the part 70 regulations, which together outline criteria for 
approval or disapproval. Where a program substantially, but not fully, 
meets the requirements of part 70, EPA may grant the program interim 
approval from a period of up to 2 years. If EPA has not fully approved 
a program by November 15, 1995, or by the end of an interim program, it 
must establish and implement a Federal program.

B. Federal Oversight and Sanctions

    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, 
the State of Georgia would be protected from sanctions, and EPA would 
not be obligated to promulgate, administer and enforce a federal 
permits program for Georgia. 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 Georgia 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 State of EPA 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 EPA 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 State of 
Georgia, both sanctions under section 179(b) would apply after the 
expiration of the 18-month period until the Administrator determined 
that Georgia had come into compliance. In any case, if, six months 
after EPA applied the first sanction, the State of Georgia had not 
submitted a revised program that EPA had determined corrected the 
deficiencies that prompted disapproval, a second sanction would be 
required.
    If, following final interim approval, EPA were to disapprove 
Georgia'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 Georgia 
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 State 
of Georgia, both sanctions under section 179(b) would apply after the 
expiration of the 18-month period until the Administrator determined 
that Georgia had come into compliance. In all cases, if, six months 
after EPA applied the first sanction, the State of Georgia 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 Georgia 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 Georgia's 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 the 
State of Georgia upon interim approval expiration.

II. Proposed Action and Implications

A. Analysis of State Submission

    EPA has concluded that the operating permit program submitted by 
Georgia substantially meets the requirements of title V and part 70, 
and proposes to grant interim approval to the program. For detailed 
information on the analysis of the State's submission, please refer to 
the Technical Support Document (TSD) contained in the docket at the 
address noted above.
1. Support Materials
    Pursuant to section 502(d) of the Clean Air Act as amended (1990 
Amendments, the Governor of each state must develop and submit to the 
Administrator an operating permits program under State or local law or 
under an interstate compact meeting the requirements of title V of the 
Act. Georgia submitted, under the signature of Governor Zell Miller, 
the operating permits program, prepared by the EPD, to be implemented 
in all areas of the State of Georgia.
    The EPD submittal, provided as Section 1--``Program Description'', 
addresses 40 CFR 70.4(b)(1) by describing how the EPD intends to carry 
out its responsibilities under the part 70 regulations. This program 
description has been deemed to be appropriate for meeting the 
requirement of 40 CFR 70.4(b)(1).
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 70.4(b)(3), the Governor is required to submit a 
legal opinion from the attorney general (or the attorney for the State 
air pollution control agency that has independent legal counsel) 
demonstrating adequate authority to carry out all aspects of a title V 
operating permits program. The State of Georgia submitted a legal 
opinion from Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General of the State of 
Georgia, demonstrating adequate legal authority to carry out the 
issuance of permits to all sources subject to the requirements of the 
part 70 regulations, and to promulgate regulations in compliance with 
applicable State and Federal laws. This opinion including a supplement 
to the opinion adequately addresses the thirteen provisions listed at 
40 CFR 70.4(b)(3)(i)-(xiii).

[[Page 49535]]

    Section 70.4(b)(4) requires the submission of relevant permitting 
program documentation not contained in the regulations, such as permit 
application forms, permit forms and relevant guidance to assist in the 
implementation of the permit program. Section 4 of the EPD submittal 
includes the permit application form with instructions, and a 
permitting procedures manual as guidance to assist in the 
implementation of the permit program. In addition, an updated permit 
application was included in the November 14, 1994, supplemental 
submittal. It has been determined that the application forms and 
permitting procedures manual substantially meet the requirements of 40 
CFR 70.5(c).
2. Regulations and Program Implementation
    The State of Georgia has submitted Rule 391-3-1-.03(10), ``Title V 
Operating Permits,'' and Rule 391-3-1-.03(9), ``Permit Fees,'' for 
implementing the State part 70 programs as required by 40 CFR 
70.4(b)(2). Sufficient evidence of their procedurally correct adoption 
was included in Section 2 of the submittal. Copies of all applicable 
State statutes and regulations which authorize the part 70 program, 
including those governing State administrative procedures, were 
submitted with the State's program.
    The Georgia operating permits regulations closely follow the 
Federal part 70 regulations. Georgia's program meets the following 
requirements set out in the part 70 program. These requirements are 
addressed in Georgia's Rule 391-3-1-.03(10) as follows: (A) 
Applicability requirements (40 CFR 70.3(a)), Rule 391-3-1-.03(10)(b); 
(B) Permit applications (40 CFR 70.5), Rule 391-3-1-.03(10)(c); (C) 
Provisions for permit content (40 CFR 70.6), Rule 391-3-1-.03(10)(d); 
(D) Provisions for permit issuance, renewals, reopenings and revisions, 
including public participation (40 CFR 70.7), Rule 391-3-1-.03(10)(e); 
and (E) Permit review by EPA and affected States (40 CFR 70.8), Rule 
391-3-1-.03(10)(f). The Georgia Air Quality Act, Official Code of 
Georgia Annotated (OCGA) sections 12-9-12, 12-9-13, 12-9-14, 12-9-23, 
and 12-9-24, satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 70.11, for enforcement 
authority.
    The Georgia program in Rule 391-3-1-.03(10) substantially meets the 
requirements of 40 CFR 70.4(b)(12) with regard to operational 
flexibility. Any state that seeks to administer a program under part 70 
is required by Sec. 70.4(b) to submit a plan which contains provisions 
to allow for changes within a permitted facility without requiring a 
permit revision provided that the facility provides the Administrator 
and the permitting authority with written notification in advance of 
the proposed changes, which shall be a minimum of 7 days. Section 
70.4(b)(12)(iii)(A) states that the written notification shall state 
when the changes will occur and shall describe the changes in emissions 
that will result and how these increases and decreases in emissions 
will comply with the terms and conditions of the permit. In addition, 
Sec. 70.4(b)(12)(iii)(B) states that the permit shield may extend to 
terms and conditions that allow such increases and decreases in 
emissions. Georgia Rule 391-3-1-(10)(d)1.(ii) allows for a permit to 
include terms and conditions allowing for trading of emissions changes 
in the permitted facility solely for the purpose of complying with a 
Federally enforceable emissions cap that is established in the permit 
independent of otherwise applicable requirements; however, it does not 
provide for the notification requirements and permit shield extension 
found in Sec. 70.4(b)(12)(iii). Therefore, as a condition of full 
approval, this rule must be revised to provide for the notification 
requirements and the permit shield extension in part 70.
    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 may approve as part of that state's program 
any activity or emission level that the state wishes to consider 
insignificant.
    The EPD provided its current permit exemption list found in Rule 
391-3-1-.03(6) as its list of insignificant activities. Rule 391-3-1-
.03(6) states that these exemptions may not be used to lower the 
potential to emit below ``major source'' thresholds or to avoid any 
``applicable requirement''. This provision ensures that listed 
facilities, units, or activities do not interfere with the 
determination of applicable requirements or the determination of 
whether or not a source is major under the Act. In addition, Georgia 
Rule 391-3-1-.03(10)(c)2. incorporates 40 CFR 70.5(c) by reference, 
thereby ensuring that an application for a part 70 permit does not omit 
information needed to determine the applicability of, or to impose, any 
applicable requirement, or to evaluate appropriate fee amounts. 
However, Georgia's rule exempts source activities from permitting, 
rather than from the obligation of including the activity in the permit 
application.
    Georgia's exemption rule does not make a distinction among 
activities which can be omitted from permit applications and those 
which are still considered insignificant but which must be listed in 
the permit application. In addition, the EPD rule exempts facilities 
from listing pollutants in the permit application, rather than 
exempting the activity itself. The approaches mentioned above found in 
Georgia's exemptions rule are not consistent with the insignificant 
activities approach in part 70; therefore, EPA cannot propose full 
approval of Georgia's exemptions list as the basis for determining 
insignificant activities.
    Part 70 of the operating permits regulations requires prompt 
reporting of deviations from the permit requirements. Section 
70.6(a)(3)(iii)(B) requires the permitting authority to define prompt 
in relation to the degree and type of deviation likely to occur and the 
applicable requirements. Although the permit program regulations should 
define prompt for purposes of administrative efficiency and clarity, an 
acceptable alternative is to define prompt in each individual permit. 
EPA believes that prompt should generally be defined as requiring 
reporting 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, given that this is a distinct 
reporting obligation under 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). Although Georgia 
Rule 391-3-1-.03(10)(d)1.(1) adopts part 70.6(a) by reference, it does 
not define prompt within the regulation. Where ``prompt'' is defined in 
the individual permit but not in the program regulations, EPA may veto 
permits that do not require sufficiently prompt reporting of 
deviations.
    Rule 391-3-1-.05, allows the EPD discretion to grant relief from 
compliance with State rules and regulations under certain conditions. 
The EPA regards Rule 391-3-1-.05 as wholly external to the program 
submitted for approval under part 70, and consequently proposes to take 
no 

[[Page 49536]]
action on these provisions of State and local law in this rulemaking. 
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. In other words, a variance does not affect the 
title V source until the title V permit is modified pursuant to the 
procedures in part 70. EPA reserves the right to enforce the terms of 
the part 70 permit where the permitting authority purports to grant 
relief from the duty to comply with a part 70 permit in a manner 
inconsistent with part 70 procedures. A part 70 permit may also 
incorporate, via part 70 permit issuance or modification 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.''
    The complete Georgia operating permits program submittal and the 
TSD are available for review for more detailed information. The TSD 
contains the detailed analysis of Georgia's program and describes the 
manner in which the State's program meets all of the operating permit 
program requirements of 40 CFR part 70.
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 the fee adequacy or a demonstration that 
aggregate fees collected from title V sources meet or exceed $25 per 
ton per year (Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjusted from 1989). 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.''
    The EPD elected to adopt the ``presumptive minimum'' of $25/ton 
(annually adjusted by the CPI), for each regulated pollutant whose 
emissions are above the threshold for that pollutant, except carbon 
monoxide. EPD's title V fee will be assessed on the first 4,000 tons 
per regulated pollutant per facility. In addition, Georgia has 
demonstrated that the fees collected will be sufficient to administer 
the program.
4. Provisions Implementing the Requirements of Other Titles of the Act
a. Authority and/or Commitments for Section 112 Implementation
    Georgia has demonstrated in its title V program submittal broad 
legal authority to incorporate into permits and enforce all applicable 
requirements. This legal authority is contained in Georgia's enabling 
legislation and in regulatory provisions defining ``applicable 
requirements'' and stating that the permit must incorporate all 
applicable requirements. Georgia has further supplemented its broad 
legal authority with a commitment to ``take action, following 
promulgation by EPA of regulations implementing section 112 of title 
III of the Clean Air Act to either incorporate such new or revised 
provisions by reference into State rules or submit State-drafted rules, 
for EPA approval, to implement these provisions.'' EPA has determined 
that this commitment, in conjunction with Georgia's broad statutory and 
regulatory authority, adequately assures compliance with all section 
112 requirements. EPA regards this commitment as an acknowledgement by 
Georgia of its obligation to obtain further regulatory authority as 
needed to issue permits that assure compliance with section 112 
applicable requirements. This commitment does not substitute for 
compliance with part 70 requirements that must be met at the time of 
program approval.
    EPA is interpreting the above legal authority and commitment to 
mean that Georgia is able to carry out all section 112 activities. For 
further rationale on this interpretation, please refer to the Technical 
Support Document accompanying this proposed interim approval.
b. Implementation of Section 112(g) Upon Program Approval
    EPA issued an interpretive notice on February 14, 1995 (60 FR 
8333), which outlines EPA's revised interpretation of section 112(g) 
applicability. The notice postpones the effective date of section 
112(g) until after EPA has promulgated a rule addressing that 
provision. The notice sets forth in detail the rationale for the 
revised interpretation.
    The section 112(g) interpretative notice explains that EPA is 
considering whether the effective date of section 112(g) should be 
delayed beyond the date of promulgation of the Federal rule so as to 
allow states time to adopt rules implementing the Federal rule, and 
that EPA will provide for any such additional delay in the final 
section 112(g) rulemaking. Unless and until EPA provides for such an 
additional postponement of section 112(g), Georgia must have a 
Federally enforceable mechanism for implementing section 112(g) during 
the period between promulgation of the Federal section 112(g) rule and 
adoption of implementing State regulations.
    EPA is aware that Georgia lacks a program designed specifically to 
implement section 112(g). However, Georgia does have a preconstruction 
review program that can serve as an adequate implementation vehicle 
during the transition period because it would allow the State to select 
control measures that would meet the maximum achievable control 
technology (MACT), as defined in section 112, and incorporate these 
measures into a Federally enforceable preconstruction permit.
    For this reason, EPA proposes to approve the use of Georgia's 
preconstruction review program found in Rule 391-3-1-.03, under the 
authority of title V and part 70, solely for the purpose of 
implementing section 112(g) to the extent necessary during the 
transition period between section 112(g) promulgation and adoption of a 
State rule implementing EPA's section 112(g) regulations. Although 
section 112(l) generally provides authority for approval of state air 
programs to implement section 112(g), title V and section 112(g) 
provide for this limited approval because of the direct linkage between 
the 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 purpose of any other provision under the Act (e.g., 
section 110). This approval will be without effect if EPA decides in 
the final section 112(g) rule that sources are not subject to the 
requirements of the rule until State regulations are adopted. The 
duration of this approval is limited to 18 months following 
promulgation by EPA of the section 112(g) rule to provide adequate time 
for the State to adopt regulations consistent with the Federal 
requirements.
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 State's program contain 
adequate authorities, 

[[Page 49537]]
adequate resources for implementation, and an expeditious compliance 
schedule, which are also requirements under part 70. Therefore, EPA is 
also proposing to grant approval under section 112(l)(5) and 40 CFR 
63.91 of the State's program for receiving delegation of future section 
112 standards and programs that are unchanged from the Federal rules as 
promulgated, and to delegate existing standards and programs under 40 
CFR parts 61 and 63 for part 70 sources and non-part 70 sources.\1\ 
Georgia has informed EPA that it intends to accept delegation of 
section 112 standards through adoption by reference. This program for 
delegation applies to both existing and future standards, and to both 
part 70 and non-part 70 sources. The details of the State's delegation 
mechanism is set forth in a letter dated June 5, 1995, submitted by 
Georgia as a title V program addendum.

    \1\ The radionuclide National Emission Standards for Hazardous 
Air Pollutant (NESHAP) is a section 112 regulation and therefore, 
also an applicable requirement under the State operating permits 
program for part 70 sources. There is not yet a Federal definition 
of ``major'' for radionuclide sources. Therefore, until a major 
source definition for radionuclide is promulgated, no source would 
be a major section 112 source solely due to its radionuclide 
emissions. However, a radionuclide source may, in the interim, be a 
major source under part 70 for another reason, thus requiring a part 
70 permit. The EPA will work with the State in the development of 
its radionuclide program to ensure that permits are issued in a 
timely manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Commitment To Implement Title IV of the Act
    The State of Georgia developed acid rain permit rules in Rule 391-
3-1-.13, which was submitted as part of the operating permits program. 
The State also submitted standard acid rain permit application forms 
which will be revised as updated forms are provided by the EPA. These 
rules and permit application forms meet the requirements of the acid 
rain program.

B. Proposed Actions

    The EPA is proposing to grant interim approval to the operating 
permits program submitted by Georgia on November 12, 1993, and as 
supplemented on June 24, 1994, November 14, 1994, and June 5, 1995. If 
this approval is promulgated, the State must make the following changes 
to receive full approval: (1) revise Rule 391-3-1-(10)(d)1.(ii) to 
provide for the notification requirements and permit shield extension 
found in Sec. 70.4(b)(12)(iii); and (2) correct all deficiencies in its 
insignificant activities regulation.
    This interim approval, which may not be renewed, extends for a 
period of up to 2 years. During the interim approval period, the State 
is protected from sanctions for failure to have a program, and EPA is 
not obligated to promulgate a Federal permits program in the State. 
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 interim approval, as 
does the 3-year time period for processing the initial permit 
applications.
    As discussed previously in section II.A.4.b., EPA proposes to 
approve Georgia's preconstruction review program found in Rule 391-3-1-
.03, under the authority of title V and part 70 solely for the purpose 
of implementing section 112(g) to the extent necessary during the 
transition period between 112(g) promulgation and adoption of a State 
rule implementing EPA's section 112(g) regulations.
    In addition, as discussed in section II.A.4.c., EPA proposes to 
grant approval under section 112(l)(5) and 40 CFR 63.91 to the State's 
program for receiving delegation of future section 112 standards and 
programs that are unchanged from Federal rules as promulgated. 
Additionally, EPA is proposing to delegate existing standards and 
programs under 40 CFR parts 61 and 63. This program for delegation 
applies to both part 70 and non-part 70 sources.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Request for Public Comments

    The EPA is requesting comments on all aspects of this proposed 
interim approval. Copies of the State's submittal and other information 
relied upon for the proposed interim approval are contained in docket 
number GA-95-01 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 October 26, 1995.

B. Executive Order 12866

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

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The EPA's actions under section 502 of the Act do not create any 
new requirements, but simply address operating permits programs 
submitted to satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR part 70. Because this 
action does not impose any new requirements, it does not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to 
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA 
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with 
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan 
for informing and advising any small governments that may be 
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that the proposed approval action promulgated 
today does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal 
governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal 
action approves pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and 
imposes no new Federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs 
to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, 
result from this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Operating permits, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: September 15, 1995.
John H. Hankinson, Jr.,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-23839 Filed 9-25-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M