[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 1, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55516-55521]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-27144]



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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 70

[CA163-1-7251; AD-FRL-5323-4]


Clean Air Act Proposed Approval of the Federal Operating Permits 
Program; California State Implementation Plan Revision; San Joaquin 
Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing interim approval for the Federal 
Operating Permits Program submitted by the California Air Resources 
Board on behalf of the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 
District (San Joaquin or District). This Program was 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 EPA, programs 
for issuing operating permits to all major stationary sources and to 
certain other sources. As part of San Joaquin's program, EPA is also 
proposing to approve Rule 2530 Federally Enforceable Potential to Emit 
under Clean Air Act sections 110 and 112(l). This rule creates 
federally-enforceable limits on potential to emit for sources with 
actual emissions less 

[[Page 55517]]
than 50 percent of the major source thresholds.

DATE: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by 
December 1, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Frances Wicher, Mail Code A-
5-2, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, Air and Toxics 
Division, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105.
    Copies of the District's submission and other supporting 
information used in developing the proposed interim approval including 
the Technical Support Document 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: Frances Wicher, (415) 744-1250, 
Operating Permits Section, A-5-2, Air and Toxics Division, U.S. EPA-
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Purpose

A. Title V

    As required under title V of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990, 
EPA has promulgated rules that define the minimum elements of an 
approvable State operating permits program and the corresponding 
standards and procedures by which the EPA will approve, oversee, and 
withdraw approval of State operating permits programs (see 57 FR 32250 
(July 21, 1992)). These rules are codified at 40 CFR part 70. Title V 
requires States to develop, and submit to EPA, programs for issuing 
operating permits to all major stationary sources and to certain other 
sources. EPA has also issued numerous policy documents on implementing 
part 70, many of which are contained in the docket for this proposal.
    The Act requires that States develop and submit operating permit 
programs to EPA by November 15, 1993, and that EPA act to approve or 
disapprove each program within one year of receiving the submission. 
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 for 
a period of up to two years. If EPA has not fully approved a program by 
two years after the November 15, 1993 date, or by the end of an interim 
program, it must establish and implement a Federal program.

B. Federally-Enforceable Limits on Potential to Emit

    Section 502(a) of the Act requires all major sources obtain title V 
operating permits. To determine whether a source is major, the Act 
focuses not only on a source's actual emissions, but also on its 
potential emissions. Thus, a source that has maintained actual 
emissions at levels below the major source threshold could still be 
subject to title V permitting if it has the potential to emit (PTE) 
major amounts of air pollutants.
    However, in situations where unrestricted operation of a source 
would result in a PTE above major-source levels, such sources may 
legally avoid permitting by taking federally-enforceable PTE limits 
below the applicable major source threshold. Federally-enforceable 
limits are enforceable by EPA or by citizens in addition to the State 
or Local agency. There are numerous mechanisms for creating federally-
enforceable limits including prohibitory rules that are approved into 
the state implementation plan and, for limiting PTE for hazardous air 
pollutants, under section 112(l) of the Act.

II. Proposed Action and Implications

A. Analysis of State Submission

    The analysis contained in this notice focuses on the major elements 
of San Joaquin's title V operating permit program and on the specific 
elements that must be corrected to meet the minimum requirements of 
part 70. The full program submittal, the Technical Support Document 
(TSD), which contains a detailed analysis of the submittal, and other 
relevant materials are available for inspection as part of the public 
docket. The docket may be viewed during regular business hours at the 
address listed above.
1. Title V Program Support Materials
    San Joaquin's program was submitted for approval under title V and 
part 70 by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) on July 3 and 
August 17, 1995. Additional material was submitted by the District on 
September 6 and 21, 1995. In submitting the District's title V program, 
CARB requested source category-limited interim approval for the program 
because California law currently exempts agricultural sources from all 
permitting requirements including title V. The 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, State enabling 
legislation, and certain other information regarding State law.
    San Joaquin's Rule 2530 Federally Enforceable Potential to Emit was 
submitted by CARB as a revision to the SIP and for approval under 
section 112(l) of the Act on October 24, 1995.
    EPA reviewed the District's program to assure that it contains all 
the elements required by Sec. 70.4(b) (elements of the initial program 
submission) and has found the program complete pursuant to 
Sec. 70.4(e)(1) in a letter to the CARB on October 18, 1995. Rule 2530 
was found to be complete pursuant to EPA's completeness criteria for 
SIP revisions that are set forth in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V.
2. Title V Operating Permit Regulations and Program Implementation
    The rules that constitute San Joaquin's title V program are Rules 
2520 Federally Mandated Operating Permits (adopted June 15, 1995), Rule 
2530 Federally Enforceable Potential to Emit (adopted June 15, 1995), 
and elements of Rule 2201 New and Modified Stationary Source Review 
(amended June 15, 1995). Other District rules that were submitted in 
support of the District's title V program are Rules 1080 Stack 
Monitoring (amended December 17, 1992), 1081 Source Sampling (amended 
December 17, 1992), 2010 Permits Required (amended December 16, 1993), 
2020 Exemptions (amended October 26, 1993), and 3010 Fees (amended July 
21, 1995).1 These rules, along with the authorities granted the 
District under California State law, substantially meet the 
requirements of Secs. 70.2 (Definitions) and 70.3 (Applicability) for 
applicability; Sec. 70.5(c) (Standard application form and required 
information) for criteria that define insignificant activities and for 
complete application forms; Secs. 70.4(b)(12) (Section 502(b)(10) 
changes) and 70.6 (Permit content) for permit content including 
operational flexibility; Sec. 70.7 (Permit issuance, renewal, 
reopenings, and revisions) for public participation, permit issuance, 
and permit modifications; Sec. 70.9 (Fee 

[[Page 55518]]
determination and certification) for fees; and Sec. 70.11 for 
enforcement authority.

    \1\EPA is only approving the portions of these Rules that are 
necessary to implement the District's title V program. Except for 
Rule 2530, this approval does not constitute approval or indicate 
the approvability of these rules under any other provisions of the 
Act or EPA regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has identified several interim approval issues affecting 
applicability, application content, permit content, and permit issuance 
and modifications procedures that must be corrected in order for the 
San Joaquin program to receive full approval. These interim approval 
issues are discussed in Section II.B.2. of this notice and detailed in 
the TSD. EPA has also included in the summary section of the TSD its 
understandings and interpretations of certain elements of the San 
Joaquin rule including the use of EPA's January 25, 1995 transition 
memorandum on limiting potential to emit; limits on EPA's objections to 
permits; limits on the permit shield; consolidation of overlapping 
applicable requirements; variances; the effective definition of title I 
modifications; and administrative permit amendments. A copy of this 
summary section may be obtained by contacting Frances Wicher at the 
address listed at the beginning of this notice.
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 submission 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)). For 
FY 1996, the presumptive fee level is $30.93.
    San Joaquin has opted to make a presumptive minimum fee 
demonstration in order to show fee adequacy and meet the requirements 
of Sec. 70.9 (Fee determination and certification). San Joaquin's fee 
schedule (Rule 3010) requires title V facilities to pay an application 
fee for initial permits, permit renewals, and permit modifications of 
$15 per unit creditable to a $46 per hour processing fee. In addition, 
the District charges an annual fee for permits to operate and a fee for 
sources applying for preconstruction permits under Rule 2201. In 
aggregate, title V sources in the Valley will pay a total annual fee of 
$32.09 per ton in 1996. This amount is over the $30.93 per ton 
presumptive minimum fee level for FY 1996.
4. Provisions Implementing the Requirements of Other Titles of the Act
    a. Authority and Commitments for Section 112 Implementation. San 
Joaquin has demonstrated in its title V program submission adequate 
legal authority to implement and enforce all section 112 requirements 
through the title V permit. This legal authority is contained in the 
State of California enabling legislation and in regulatory provisions 
defining ``federally enforceable requirements'' and stating that the 
permit must incorporate conditions and terms to ensure compliance with 
all applicable requirements. EPA has determined that this legal 
authority is sufficient to allow San Joaquin to issue permits that 
assure compliance with all section 112 requirements.
    b. Authority for Title IV (Acid Rain) Implementation. San Joaquin's 
title V program contains minimal elements of an acid rain program; 
however, the District has committed to adopt all missing elements of an 
acid rain program as soon as possible. At this time, EPA does not 
believe that there are any phase II acid rain sources in the Valley, 
therefore, the District's commitment to adopt an acid rain program 
expeditiously should ensure appropriate regulatory authority exists 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.

B. Proposed Action

1. Title V Operating Permits Program
    The EPA is proposing to grant interim approval to the operating 
permit program for the San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD submitted on 
July 3 and August 17, 1995, and supplemented on September 6 and 21, 
1995. If EPA finalizes this proposed interim approval, it will extend 
for two years following the effective date of final interim approval 
and cannot be renewed. During the interim approval period, San Joaquin 
will be protected from sanctions, and EPA is not 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 one-year time period for 
submittal of permit applications by subject sources begins upon the 
effective date of interim approval, as does the three-year time period 
for processing the initial permit applications.
    Following final interim approval, if the District fails to submit a 
complete corrective program by the date six months before expiration of 
the interim approval, the District will be subject to a sanction clock 
or potentially subject to sanctions under section 502(d)(2) of the Act. 
If EPA has not granted full approval to the District's title V program 
by the end of the interim period, then the District will be subject to 
a federally-imposed operating permits program.
2. Interim Approval Issues for San Joaquin's Title V Operating Permits 
Program
    If EPA finalizes this interim approval, San Joaquin must make the 
following changes, or changes that have the same effect, to receive 
full approval:
    (1) Revise the applicability language in Rule 2520 2.2 and the 
definitions of Major Air Toxics Source (Rule 2520 3.18) and Major 
Source (Rule 2520 3.19) to be consistent with the Act and part 70 to 
cover sources that emit at major source levels. Currently, these 
sections of Rule 2520 define major source solely on a source's 
potential to emit; however, both the Act and part 70 define a major 
source as a source that emits or has the potential to emit at major 
source levels. These revisions to Rule 2520 will assure sources whose 
potential to emit is less than major source levels but whose actual 
emissions are at major source levels because of non-compliance with or 
ineffective limits on potential to emit are subject to permitting under 
Rule 2520.
    (2) Limit the exemption for non-major sources in Rule 2520 4.1 so 
that it does not exempt non-major sources for which EPA determines, 
upon promulgation of a section 111 or 112 standard, must obtain title V 
permits.
    (3) Either revise the definition of ``stationary source'' in Rule 
2201 3.29 so that the exception to the Major SIC Group requirement for 
oil and gas production sources in Rule 2201 3.29.4 does not apply for 
determining the applicability of Rule 2520 or demonstrate that the 
definition is as stringent as part 70.
    Rule 2201 3.29.4 is a provision applicable to any facility located 
totally within the Western or Central Kern County Oil Fields or the 
Fresno County Oil Fields that is used for the production of light oil, 
heavy oil or gas. This provision states that all sources under common 
control or ownership within each field shall be considered a single 
stationary source even if they are located on non-contiguous or 
adjacent properties. However, the section also states that light oil 
production, heavy oil production, and gas production shall 

[[Page 55519]]
constitute separate stationary sources. While the former provision is 
more stringent that part 70, the latter provision is not. Part 70's 
definition of ``major source'' requires aggregating all emission points 
under common control or ownership that are on contiguous or adjacent 
properties and belong to the same Major Group as described in the 
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Manual. See Sec. 70.2 ``Major 
source.'' Light oil production, heavy oil production and gas production 
are all in the same Major Group. It is unclear whether or not San 
Joaquin's program would require permitting of the same emission units 
as part 70. If the District can make this demonstrate then EPA proposes 
not to require any revision to Rule 2201 3.29 as it applies to 
applicability determinations under Rule 2520.
    While Sec. 70.2 ``Major source'' (1)(i) does not require emissions 
from any oil or gas exploration or production well be aggregated with 
emissions from other such units in determining whether such units are a 
major source, this allowance is limited to determining HAPs major 
source status. Emissions of other regulated pollutants must be 
aggregated within the stationary source for determining major source 
status.
    (4) Revise Rule 2520 7.1.3.2 to eliminate the requirement that 
fugitive emission estimates need only be submitted in the application 
if the source is in a source category identified in the major source 
definition in 40 CFR part 70.2. Fugitive emissions need only be counted 
to determine the applicability of part 70 if a source is in a source 
category listed in the Sec. 70.2. major source definition. However, 
once applicability is determined, all sources must submit information 
on fugitive emissions in their applications to the extent the 
information is required by part 70. See Sec. 70.3(d).
    (5) Revise Rule 2520 to provide that unless the District requests 
additional information or otherwise notifies the applicant of 
incompleteness within 60 days of receipt of an application, the 
application shall be deemed complete. See Secs. 70.5(a)(2) and 
70.7(a)(4).
    (6) Revise Rule 2520 sections 11.1.4.2 and 11.3.1.1 and Rule 2201 
5.3.1.1.1 to include notice ``by other means if necessary to assure 
adequate notice to the affected public.'' See Sec. 70.7(h)(1).
    (7) Revise Rule 2520's permit issuance procedures to provide for 
notifying EPA and affected states in writing of any refusal by the 
District to accept all recommendations for the proposed permit that an 
affected state submitted during the public/affected state review 
period. See Sec. 70.8(b)(2).
    (8) Either delete section 11.7.5 in Rule 2520 and section 5.3.1.8.5 
in Rule 2201, which purport to limit the grounds upon which EPA may 
object to a permit to compliance with applicable requirements, or 
revise them to be fully consistent with Sec. 70.8(c).
    Rule 2520 11.7.5 and Rule 2201 5.3.1.8.5 purport to limit the 
grounds on which EPA may object to a permit to compliance with 
applicable requirements. Section 70.8(c)(1) provides that EPA will 
object to the issuance of any proposed permit that is not ``in 
compliance with applicable requirements or requirements under this part 
[part 70].'' (emphasis added). EPA's authority to object to issuance of 
permits derives from section 505(b) of the Act. No state or local 
agency may restrict authorities granted EPA under the Clean Air Act; 
therefore, EPA views section 11.7.5 of Rule 2520 and Section 5.3.1.8.5 
of Rule 2201 as not binding upon its actions. EPA will exercise its 
authority to object to permits consistent with Sec. 70.8(c) and without 
regard to the restriction on that authority in San Joaquin's title V 
program. Should the District issue a permit to which EPA has objected 
and the District has not revised or reissued to meet the objection, EPA 
will consider the permit invalid and will require the District to 
revise and reissue the proposed permit or will revoke, revise, and 
reissue the permit itself. EPA has made these revisions to Rule 2520 an 
interim approval issue in order to clarify its authority.
    (9) Revise Rule 2520 2.4 to clarify that the sentence in section 
2.4 that ``[o]nly the affected emissions units within the stationary 
source shall be subject to part 70 permitting requirements'' applies 
only to stationary sources that are also area sources. Rule 2520 2.4 
requires any emission unit, including an area source subject to a 
standard or other requirement promulgated pursuant to section 111 or 
112 of the CAA published after July 21, 1992, to obtain a part 70 
permit but also states that only the affected emissions unit within a 
stationary source shall be subject to the part 70 permitting 
requirements. Section 70.3(c) requires all emission units subject to 
any applicable requirement at major sources be included in a part 70 
permit. Only at non-major sources does part 70 allow the permit to 
cover only the units causing the source to be subject to part 70.
    (9) Revise Rule 2520 8.1 to provide that model general permits and 
model general permit templates will have a permit term not to exceed 5 
years instead of being valid until revoked, suspended, or modified. 
During the interim approval period, EPA recommends that the District 
issue all model general permits and model general permit templates with 
a permit term not to exceed 5 years to avoid having to reopen all model 
general permits and model general permit templates issued during the 
interim approval period to incorporate the correct permit term.
    (10) Revise Rule 2520 8.1 to provide that any permit for a solid 
waste incineration unit that has a permit term of more than 5 years 
shall be subject to review, including public notice and comment, at 
least every 5 years. See Sec. 70.6(a)(2).
    (11) Revise Rule 2520 13.2.3 to state that the permit shield will 
apply only to requirements addressed in the permit. Rule 2520 13.2.3 
currently extends the permit shield to requirements addressed by the 
District in written application reviews. Section 504(f) of the Act and 
Sec. 70.6 (f) are both clear that the permit shield may only extend to 
requirements that are addressed in the permit. EPA will not consider a 
source shielded from an enforcement action for failure to comply with 
an applicable requirement if that applicable requirement is addressed 
only in the written reviews supporting permit issuance and not in the 
permit. Further, EPA will veto any permit that extends the permit 
shield to conditions, terms, or findings of non-applicability that are 
not included in the permit.
    (12) Revise Rule 2520 9.12 to require the permit to contain terms 
and conditions for the trading of emission increases and decreases in 
the permitted facility to the extent that any applicable requirement 
provides for such trading without case by case approval. Rule 2520 9.12 
currently restricts permit terms and conditions to trades allowed under 
the District's new source review rule, Rule 2201. See Sec. 70.6 
(a)(10).
    (13) Revise Rule 2520, Section 9.0 (permit content) to include the 
Sec. 70.6 (c)(3) requirement for schedules of compliance for applicable 
requirements for which the source is in compliance or that will become 
effective during the permit term. Section 70.6(c)(3), reflecting the 
language of Clean Air Act section 504(a) (``Each permit issued * * * 
shall include * * * a schedule of compliance* * * .''), requires that 
the permit contain a schedule of compliance even when the source is in 
compliance with all applicable requirements. Rule 2520 9.15 only 
requires a schedule of compliance when the source is in violation of 
any applicable requirement. During the interim period, the District 
should incorporate schedules of compliance, as 

[[Page 55520]]
required by Sec. 70.6(c)(3), into all issued permits.
    (14) Revise Rule 2520 to treat changes made under the prevention of 
significant deterioration (PSD) provisions of the Act and EPA' PSD 
regulations in the same manner as ``title I modifications'' as that 
term is defined in Rule 2520 and Rule 2201. PSD modifications are 
considered ``modifications under title I'' in part 70.
    (15) Revise Rule 2520 to state that, notwithstanding the permit 
shield provisions, if a source that is operating under a general permit 
is later determined not to qualify for the terms and conditions of that 
general permit, then the source is subject to enforcement action for 
operation without a part 70 permit. See Sec. 70.6(d).
    (16) Because California State law currently exempts agricultural 
production sources from permit requirements, CARB has requested source 
category-limited interim approval for all California districts. EPA is 
proposing to grant source category-limited interim approval to the San 
Joaquin program. In order for this program to receive full approval, 
the Health and Safety Code must be revised to eliminate the exemption 
of agricultural production sources from the requirement to obtain a 
title V permit. Once the California statute has revised, the District 
must also revise its permit exemption rules to eliminate any blanket 
exemption granted agricultural sources.
3. District Program Implementing Section 112(g)
    The EPA has published an interpretive notice in the Federal 
Register regarding section 112(g) of the Act (60 FR 8333; February 14, 
1995). The revised interpretation postpones the effective date of 
section 112(g) until after EPA has promulgated a rule addressing that 
provision. The interpretive 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), San Joaquin must be able to implement section 112(g) 
during the period between promulgation of the federal section 112(g) 
rule and adoption of implementing District regulations.
    For this reason, EPA is proposing to approve the use of San 
Joaquin's preconstruction review program (Rule 2201) as a mechanism to 
implement section 112(g) during the transition period between 
promulgation of the section 112(g) rule and adoption by San Joaquin of 
rules specifically designed to implement section 112(g). However, since 
the sole purpose of this approval is to confirm that the District has a 
mechanism to implement section 112(g) during the transition period, the 
approval itself will be without effect if EPA decides in the final 
section 112(g) rule that there will be no transition period. The EPA is 
limiting the duration of this proposed approval to 12 months following 
promulgation by EPA of the section 112(g) rule.
4. 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 program contain 
adequate authorities, adequate resources for implementation, and an 
expeditious compliance schedule, which are also requirements under part 
70. Therefore, EPA is proposing to grant approval under section 
112(l)(5) and 40 CFR part 63.91 of San Joaquin's program for receiving 
delegation of section 112 standards that are unchanged from federal 
standards as promulgated. California Health and Safety Code section 
39658 provides for automatic adoption by CARB of section 112 standards 
upon promulgation by EPA. Section 39666 of the Health and Safety Code 
requires that districts then implement and enforce these standards. 
Thus, when section 112 standards are automatically adopted pursuant to 
section 39658, San Joaquin 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 
between San Joaquin and EPA, expected to be completed prior to approval 
of the District's section 112(l) program for delegation of unchanged 
federal standards. This program applies to both existing and future 
standards but is limited to sources covered by the part 70 program.
5. Proposed Approval of Rule 2530 Federally Enforceable Potential To 
Emit
    On October 24, 1995, CARB submitted for approval into the San 
Joaquin Valley's portion of the California State Implementation Plan 
(SIP), Rule 2530 Federally Enforceable Potential to Emit. This Rule 
creates a streamlined process for limiting the potential to emit of 
sources that emit less that 50 percent of major source levels but whose 
potential to emit is above those levels. Sources complying with this 
Rule will have federally-enforceable limits on their potential to emit 
and will avoid being subject to title V.
    The basic requirement for approving into the SIP rules to limit 
potential to emit is that the limits in the rule are practically 
enforceable. For a discussion of general principle of practical 
enforceability, see Memorandum from John Seitz to Regional Air 
Directors ``Options for Limiting the Potential to Emit (PTE) of a 
Stationary Source Under Section 112 and Title V of the Clean Air Act 
(Act),'' January 25, 1995, found in the docket for this rulemaking. 
Rule 2530 meets these requirements for practical enforceability for 
limiting potential to emit through general prohibitory rules in SIPs. 
Please refer to the TSD for further analysis of the Rule.
    CARB also submitted Rule 2520 for approval under section 112(l) of 
the Act. The separate request for approval under section 112(l) is 
necessary because the proposed SIP approval discussed above only 
provides a mechanism for controlling criteria pollutants. EPA has 
determined that the practical enforceability criterion for SIPs is also 
appropriate for evaluating and approving Rule 2530 under section 
112(l). In addition, Rule 2530 must meet the statutory criteria for 
approval under section 112(l)(5). For a discussion of EPA's authority 
to approve rules under section 112 (l), see 59 FR 60944 (November 29, 
1994).
    EPA proposes approval of Rule 2530 under 112(l) because the Rule 
meets all of the approval criteria specified in section 112(l)(5) of 
the Act. EPA believes Rule 2530 contains adequate authority to assure 
compliance with section 112 requirements because it does not waive any 
section 112 requirements applicable to non-major sources. Regarding 
adequate resources, Rule 2530 is a supporting element of the District's 
title V program which has demonstrated adequate funding. Furthermore, 
EPA believes that Rule 2530 provides for an expeditious schedule for 
assuring compliance because it provides a streamlined approval that 
allows sources to establish limits on potential to emit and avoid being 
subject to a federal Clean Air Act requirement applicable on a 
particular date. Finally, Rule 2530 is consistent with the objectives 
of the section 112 program because its purpose is to enable sources to 
obtain federally enforceable 

[[Page 55521]]
limits on potential to emit to avoid major source classification under 
section 112. The EPA believes this purpose is consistent with the 
overall intent of section 112.
    Rule 2530 is modeled on the California model prohibitory rule 
developed by the California Association of Air Pollution Control 
Officers, CARB, and EPA. In its agreement on the model rule, EPA 
expressed certain understandings and caveats. See letter, Lydia Wegman, 
Deputy Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA 
to Peter D. Venturini, Chief, Stationary Source Division, CARB, January 
11, 1995. A copy of this letter is in the docket for this rulemaking. 
These understandings and caveats are incorporated into EPA's proposed 
approval of Rule 2530.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Request for Public Comments

    The EPA is requesting comments on all aspects of this proposed 
interim approval. Comments should be submitted by December 1, 1995. 
Copies of the District's submittal and other information relied upon 
for the proposed interim approval are contained in a docket maintained 
at the EPA Regional Office.

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 Act

    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

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, 
Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides, 
Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 70

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

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

    Dated: October 19, 1995.
John Wise,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-27144 Filed 10-31-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P