[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 226 (Friday, November 24, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58033-58038]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-28489]



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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 70

[KY-JEFF-95-01; FRL-5334-6]


Clean Air Act Proposed Full Approval of Operating Permits 
Program; Jefferson County, Kentucky

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed full approval, or proposed interim approval in the 
alternative.

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

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to grant full approval to the Operating Permits 
Program submitted by the Jefferson County, Kentucky Air Pollution 
Control District (District) located in the geographic area of Jefferson 
County, Kentucky. Alternatively, EPA proposes to grant interim approval 
if specified changes are not adopted prior to final promulgation of 
this rulemaking. The Jefferson County, Kentucky program was submitted 
for the purpose of complying with Federal requirements which mandate 
that state and local agencies develop, and submit to EPA programs for 
issuing operating permits to all major stationary sources, and to 
certain other sources.

DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by 
December 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 District's submittal and other supporting information 
used in developing the proposed full approval are available for 
inspection during normal business hours at the following location: U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 345 Courtland Street, NE, 
Atlanta, GA 30365. Interested persons wanting to examine these 
documents should make an appointment with the appropriate office at 
least 24 hours before the visiting day.

 
[[Page 58034]]

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leonardo Ceron, Title V Program 
Development Team, Air Programs Branch, Air Pesticides & Toxics 
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 
345 Courtland Street, NE, Atlanta, GA 30365, (404) 347-3555 extension 
4196.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Purpose

    As required under title V of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 
(Clean Air Act (``Act'') sections 501-507), EPA has promulgated rules 
that define the minimum elements of an approvable operating permits 
program and the corresponding standards and procedures by which the EPA 
will approve, oversee, and withdraw approval of state or local agency 
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 and part 70 require states or authorized local agencies to 
develop, and submit to EPA, programs for issuing operating permits to 
all major stationary sources and to certain other sources.
    The Act requires that states or authorized local agencies develop 
and submit these programs to EPA by November 15, 1993, and that EPA act 
to approve or disapprove each program within one year after receiving 
the submittal. If the state's or authorized local agency'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 the 
District's title V operating permit program submittal on February 1, 
1994. The District provided EPA with additional materials in 
supplemental submittals dated November 15, 1994; May 3, 1995; and July 
14, 1995. Because these supplements materially changed the District's 
title V program submittal, EPA extended the review period and will work 
expeditiously to promulgate a final decision on the District's program.
    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 
November 15, 1995, or by the end of an interim program, it must 
establish and implement a Federal operating permits program.

II. Proposed Action and Implications

A. Analysis of District Submission

    The District has requested full approval of its part 70 operating 
permits program, which covers the partial geographic area of Jefferson 
County, Kentucky within the Commonwealth of Kentucky. EPA has concluded 
that the operating permit program submitted by the District meets the 
requirements of title V and part 70, and proposes to grant full/interim 
approval to the program.
    What follows are brief explanations indicating how the submittal 
meets the requirements of part 70. The reader may consult the Technical 
Support Document (TSD) contained in the docket at the address noted 
above for a more detailed explanation of these topics.
1. Program Support Materials
    Pursuant to section 502(d) of the Act, 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. The Governor of the 
Commonwealth of Kentucky, Brereton C. Jones, requested full approval of 
the District's operating permits program through the Commonwealth's 
title V submittal. The Air Pollution Control Board of Jefferson County 
has full authority to administer the District's program for the 
geographic area of Jefferson County, Kentucky.
    The District's part 70 program submittal includes section II 
entitled ``Complete Program Description'' which addresses the 
requirements of 40 CFR 70.4(b)(1) by describing how the District 
intends to carry out its responsibilities under the part 70 
regulations. The 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/
local 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 District submitted a legal opinion from 
the Commissioner of the Department of Law at the Kentucky Natural 
Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet and a supplemental legal 
opinion demonstrating adequate legal authority as required by Federal 
law. See section V of the District's submittal dated January 31, 1994, 
and section II.2 of the submittal dated July 14, 1995.
    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 
District's implementation of its permit program. Section II of the 
District submittal dated January 31, 1994, includes the permit 
application forms and permit forms. It has been determined that the 
application forms and the permit forms meet the requirements of 40 CFR 
70.5 and 40 CFR 70.6, respectively.
2. Regulations and Program Implementation
    The District has submitted regulation 2.16 entitled ``Title V 
Operating Permits'' and Regulation 2.08 entitled ``Emissions Fees, 
Permit Fees, And Permit Renewal Procedures'' for implementing the part 
70 program as required by 40 CFR 70.4(b)(2). Sufficient evidence of 
their procedurally correct adoption is included in Section I of the 
District's title V program submittal. Copies of all applicable state 
statutes and regulations which authorize the part 70 program, including 
those governing the District administrative procedures, were submitted 
with the District's program.
    The District's operating permits regulations closely follow the 
Federal part 70 regulations. The following requirements set out in the 
part 70 program are met by the District's program and are specifically 
addressed in the following sections of Regulation 2.16: (A) 
applicability requirements, (40 CFR 70.3(a)): Section 1; (B) permit 
applications requirements, (40 CFR 70.5): Section 3, (c) provisions for 
permit content, (40 CFR 70.6): Section 4; (D) operational flexibility 
provisions,(40 CFR 70.4(b)(12)): Section 5.8; (E) permit review by EPA 
and affected states, (40 CFR 70.8): Section 5; (F) provisions for 
permit issuance, renewals, reopenings and revisions, (40 CFR 70.7): 
Section 5.
    Regarding the District's rules for permit revisions, it is EPA's 
understanding that any changes that affect a federally enforceable term 
or would change a federally enforceable term must be processed through 
the ``Minor Permit Revision'' provisions as specified in the District's 
Regulation 2.16, and therefore would be federally approvable. EPA 
further understands the District's regulations provide for emissions 
trading under federal enforceable permit caps, as required by 
70.4(b)(12)iii. 

[[Page 58035]]

    The District has established an enforcement agreement with the 
Commonwealth of Kentucky to carry out provisions for the enforcement 
authority requirements of 40 CFR 70.11. The Commonwealth's KRS 77.235 
and 77.240, satisfy the requirements of part 70. The District has also 
established Regulation 2.07, which satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 
70.7(h), for the public participation requirements.
    Section 70.4(b)(2) requires state and local agencies to include in 
their part 70 programs any criteria used to determine insignificant 
activities or emission levels for the purpose 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 or local program, a list of insignificant 
activities and emissions levels which need not be included in permit 
applications. Under part 70, a state or local agency must request and 
EPA may approve as part of that state or local's program any activity 
or emission level that the state or local wishes to consider 
insignificant. Part 70, however does not establish emissions thresholds 
for insignificant activities. EPA has accepted emissions thresholds of 
five tons per year for criteria pollutants and the lesser of 1000 
pounds per year or section 112(g) de minimis levels for HAPs as 
reasonable.
    The District established Regulation 2.02, section 2, entitled 
``Exemptions'' which specifically provide for certain exemptions for 
emission units and activities, as listed in this regulation, from 
application and permit requirements. Notwithstanding Regulation 2.02, 
the District's Regulation 2.16 requires title V permit applications to 
include all information needed to determine the applicability of or to 
impose an applicable requirement. Information is also required for the 
collection of any permit fees owed under the approved fee schedule. For 
insignificant activities which are exempt because of size or production 
rate, a list of such insignificant activities must be included in the 
permit application according to Regulation 2.16. The District has 
defined insignificant activities as: ``those facilities exempted from 
permitting requirements pursuant to Regulation 2.02, provided that such 
facilities are not subject to an affected facility category-specific 
applicable requirement.'' EPA has determined that the District's 
insignificant activities provisions will not interfere with 
implementation of an adequate title V program.
    Part 70 requires prompt reporting of deviations from any 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). 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.
    The District's Regulation 1.07 ``Emissions During Shutdowns, 
Malfunctions, Startups, and Emergencies'' specifies how a source should 
notify the District in the event of a planned shutdown or startup, 
malfunction, and/or emergency. Prompt reporting for a planned shutdown 
or startup is required three days prior to a planned event. If a 
shutdown or startup is required by a facility where the owner or 
operator could not reasonably notify the District three days before the 
event then the facility is required to report such an event to the 
District no later than one day after such an event has begun. During 
emergency or malfunction events a facility is required to report by 
telephone to the District no later than one hour following the start of 
the malfunction or emergency. Additionally, the District should also be 
notified in writing of a malfunction or emergency within two days of 
such event.
    The provisions addressing shutdowns, malfunctions, startups, and 
emergencies in Regulation 1.07, section 2.1, provide sources the legal 
mechanism of affirmative defense, to address enforcement actions 
brought about as a result of excess emissions from shutdowns, startups, 
or malfunctions which temporarily exceed standards. However, 40 CFR 
70.6(g) only allows sources to use the legal mechanism of affirmative 
defense when excess emissions are emitted from a source during an 
emergency situation. Based on the District's deviation from the Federal 
requirements, EPA will not recognize or approve the affirmative defense 
provisions in the District's Regulation 1.07, section 2.1. However, the 
District has committed to the adoption of language which clarifies 
Regulation 1.07, section 2.1 by only allowing sources to use the 
affirmative defense in situations where excess emissions are a result 
of emergency situations, as specified in 40 CFR 70.6(g).
    Additionally, Regulation 1.07, section 2.2 provides for the 
classification of excess emissions from emergencies to be deemed not in 
violation of specified standards. However, 40 CFR Part 70 requires any 
emissions not permitted at a source to be in violation of permit terms 
and conditions. Specifically, 40 CFR 70.6(g) classifies excess 
emissions due to emergency situations as a violation of an existing 
permit. Based on the District's deviation from this Federal requirement 
in part 70, EPA will not recognize or approve the classification of 
emergency emissions as not in violation of a permit within the 
District's Regulation 1.07, section 2.2. However, the District has 
committed to the adoption of language which clarifies Regulation 1.07, 
section 2.2 by classifying excess emissions due to emergencies as 
violations in section 2.2.
    Based on the District's proposed adoption of changes to Regulation 
1.07 which were outlined in a letter to EPA dated November 6, 1995, and 
as a condition of full approval, the District plans to expeditiously 
adopt the proposed changes to Regulation 1.07, prior to EPA's final 
action on the District's title V program. Alternatively, the District 
will be required to modify Regulation 1.07 during the specified interim 
approval period.
    In accordance with procedures specified in the Commonwealth of 
Kentucky KRS 77.225-77.230 and 77.245-77.270, and as specified in the 
District's State Implementation Plan (SIP) Regulation 1.08, section 4, 
entitled ``Variance Procedures,'' the District maintains authority to 
grant individual variances. This authority may be exercised by the 
District upon request by any person or if the time necessary to correct 
unlawful emissions is anticipated to exceed 30 days. The EPA regards 
this provision as wholly external to the program submitted for approval 
under part 70, and consequently is proposing to take no 

[[Page 58036]]
action on this provision of the District's regulations. The EPA has no 
authority to approve provisions of the District's law, such as the 
variance provisions referred to, which are inconsistent with the Act. 
The EPA does not recognize the ability of a permitting authority to 
grant relief from the duty to comply with a Federally enforceable part 
70 permit, except where such relief is granted through procedures 
allowed by part 70. A part 70 permit may be issued or revised 
(consistent with part 70 permitting procedures) to incorporate those 
terms of a variance that are consistent with applicable requirements. A 
part 70 permit may also incorporate, via part 70 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 in which it is based.''
    The District's title V program submittal and TSD are available for 
review for more detailed information. The aforementioned TSD contains 
the detailed analysis of the District's program and describes the 
manner in which the 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 a title V operating 
permits program. Each title V program submittal must contain either a 
detailed demonstration of fee adequacy or a demonstration that 
aggregate fees collected from title V sources meet or exceed $25 per 
ton per year (tpy), as adjusted annually for inflation. 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 District has elected to assess the annual presumptive minimum 
fee as adjusted by the CPI each year beginning in the year of program 
approval by EPA. The total assessed fee will be calculated by 
multiplying the presumptive minimum amount by the total actual 
emissions of a source. For the fiscal year of 1996 (July 1, 1995, 
through June 30, 1996) a presumptive amount of $37.70 shall be used to 
calculate emissions fees. A maximum of 4,000 tpy of actual emissions of 
a single pollutant will be counted toward the total emissions of a 
source. EPA has determined that the District's assessed fees will 
adequately fund the anticipated cost of the program consistent with the 
requirements of 40 CFR 70.9.
4. Provisions Implementing the Requirements of Other Titles of the Act
    a. Authority and/or Commitments for Section 112 Implementation. In 
its program submittal, the District has demonstrated adequate legal 
authority to implement and enforce section 112 requirements through the 
title V permit. The District has also committed to ``adopt Federal rule 
or standard when the Federal rule is promulgated.'' EPA has determined 
that this commitment, in conjunction with the District's broad 
statutory and regulatory authority, adequately assures compliance with 
all section 112 requirements. For further rationale on this 
interpretation, please refer to the TSD.
    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 and local agencies 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), the District 
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 the implementing District regulations.
    EPA is aware that the District lacks a program designed 
specifically to implement section 112(g). However, the District 
currently has a preconstruction program that can serve as an adequate 
implementation vehicle during the transition period because it would 
allow the District 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 the District's 
preconstruction program found in Regulation 2.03 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 District rule 
implementing EPA's section 112(g) regulations. Although section 112(l) 
generally provides authority for approval of state and local 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 purposes 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 District 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 District to adopt regulations consistent with the Federal 
requirements.
    c. Program for Delegation of Section 112 Standards as Promulgated. 
The requirements for part 70 program 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 title V sources. Section 112(l)(5) requires that the 
District's program contain adequate authorities, adequate resources for 
implementation, and an expeditious compliance schedule, which are also 
requirements under part 70. Therefore, EPA also proposes to grant 
approval, under section 112(l)(5) and 40 CFR 63.91, of the District's 
program for receiving delegation of future section 112 standards and 
programs that are unchanged from the Federal requirements as 
promulgated. In addition, EPA proposes delegation of all existing 
standards and programs under 40 CFR parts 61 and 63 for part 70 sources 
and non-part 70 sources.1

    \1\ The radionuclide National Emission Standards for Hazardous 
Air Pollutant (NESHAP) is a section 112 regulation and therefore, 
also an applicable requirement under the District's 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. EPA will work with the District in the development of its 
radionuclide program to ensure that permits are issued in a timely 
manner. 

[[Page 58037]]

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

    The District has informed EPA that it intends to accept the 
delegation of future section 112 standards using the mechanisms of 
adoption-by-reference and case-by-case delegation. The details of the 
District's use of these delegation mechanisms are set forth in a letter 
dated August 9, 1995, submitted by the District as a title V program 
addendum.
    d. Commitment to Implement Title IV of the Act. On June 21, 1995, 
the District's acid rain rule for the Phase II permitting of acid rain 
sources became District-effective. The District incorporated by 
reference 40 CFR part 72 into Regulation 6.47 and 7.82, which was 
submitted to EPA on July 11, 1995. The District has also committed to 
the incorporation of amendments or additions to the Federal Acid Rain 
rule as promulgated by EPA.

B. Proposed Actions

1. Full Approval
    EPA proposes to fully approve the operating permits program 
submitted to EPA by the Jefferson County, Kentucky Air Pollution 
Control District, if appropriate revisions consistent with 40 CFR 
70.6(g) are incorporated into the District's Regulation 1.07, sections 
2.1 & 2.2, and adopted prior to the final promulgation of this 
rulemaking. EPA has determined that the District's program is otherwise 
adequate to meet the minimum elements of the part 70 requirements for 
an operating permits program in a partial geographic area.
2. Interim Approval
    Alternatively, EPA is proposing to grant interim approval under 40 
CFR 70.4(d) to the District's operating permits program if the changes 
required for full approval, as described above, are not made prior to 
final promulgation of this rulemaking. EPA can grant interim approval 
because the District's program substantially meets the requirements of 
part 70 as discussed in section II(A) of this notice. The interim 
approval issues noted above will not prevent the District from issuing 
permits that are consistent with the part 70 program.
    If EPA grants interim approval to the District's program, the 
interim approval would extend for two years following the effective 
date of final interim approval, and could not be renewed. During the 
interim approval period, the 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 are fully effective with respect 
to part 70. The 12-month time period for submittal of permit 
applications by sources subject to part 70 requirements and the three-
year time period for processing the initial permit applications begin 
upon the effective date of final interim approval.
    Following the granting of final interim approval, if District fails 
to submit a complete corrective program for full approval by the date 
six months before expiration of the interim approval, EPA would 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 is required to apply one of the 
sanctions in section 179(b) of the Act, which will remain in effect 
until EPA determines that the District has corrected the deficiencies 
by submitting a complete corrective program.
3. Other Actions
    EPA proposes to approve the District's preconstruction review 
program found in Regulation 2.03, 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 the District's regulation implementing 
EPA's section 112(g) regulations.
    As discussed above in section II.A.4.c, EPA is proposing to grant 
approval under section 112(l)(5) and 40 CFR 63.91, to the District's 
program for receiving delegation of section 112 standards and programs 
that are unchanged from Federal rules as promulgated. In addition, EPA 
proposes to delegate existing standards and programs under 40 CFR parts 
61 and 63 for both part 70 sources and non-part 70 sources.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Request for Public Comments

    EPA requests comments on all aspects of this proposed full/interim 
approval. Copies of the District's submittal and other information 
relied upon for the proposed full/interim approval are contained in 
docket number KY-JEFF-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 full/interim approval. The principal purposes of the 
docket are:
    To allow interested parties a means to identify and locate 
documents so that they can effectively participate in the approval 
process; and
    To serve as the record in case of judicial review. EPA will 
consider any comments received by December 26, 1995.

B. Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this regulatory 
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.

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.


[[Page 58038]]

    Dated: November 8, 1995.
Patrick M. Tobin,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-28489 Filed 11-22-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P