[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 24 (Monday, February 5, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4220-4224]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-2358]



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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 70

[OK-FRL-5407-9]


Clean Air Act Final Interim Approval of Operating Permits 
Program; the State of Oklahoma

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final source category-limited interim approval.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is promulgating source category-limited interim 
approval of the Operating Permits Program submitted by the Oklahoma 
Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) for the State of Oklahoma 
for the purpose of complying with Federal requirements for an 
approvable State program to issue operating permits to all major 
stationary sources, except any sources of air pollution over which an 
Indian Tribe has jurisdiction, and to certain other sources.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 6, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the State's submittal and other supporting 
information used in developing this source category-limited interim 
approval are available for inspection during normal business hours at 
the following location:

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Air Programs Branch 
(6T-AN), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Program, 4545 
North Lincoln Blvd, Suite 250, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105-3483.
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wm. Nicholas Stone, New Source Review 
Section (6T-AN), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross 
Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone (214) 665-7226.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Purpose

A. Introduction

    Title V of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (sections 501-507 of 
the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``the Act'')), and implementing regulations 
at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 70 require that States 
develop and submit operating permits programs to the EPA by November 
15, 1993, and that the EPA act to approve or disapprove each program 
within one year after receiving the submittal. The EPA's program review 
occurs pursuant to section 502 of the Act and the part 70 regulations, 
which together outline criteria for approval or disapproval. Where a 
program substantially, but not fully, meets the requirements of part 
70, the EPA may grant the program interim approval for a period of up 
to two years. If the EPA has not fully approved a program by two years 
after November 15, 1993, or by the end of an interim program, it must 
establish and implement a Federal program.
    On March 10, 1995, the EPA proposed source category-limited interim 
approval of the operating permits program for the State of Oklahoma. 
See 60 Federal Register (FR) 13088 (March 10, 1995). The EPA received 
comments on the proposal and compiled a Technical Support Document 
which describes the operating permits program in greater detail. In 
this document, the EPA is taking final action to promulgate source 
category-limited interim approval of the operating permits program for 
the State of Oklahoma.

II. Final Action and Implications

A. Analysis of State Submission

    The State of Oklahoma submitted to the EPA, under a cover letter 
from the Governor dated January 7, 1994, the State's operating permits 
program. The submittal has adequately addressed all sixteen elements 
required for full approval as discussed in part 70, with the exception 
of seven interim issues listed in the proposal: (1) Revision of 
Subchapter 8 to incorporate the new transition schedule included in the 
Governor's request for source category-limited interim approval, (2) 
regulation revision to make the definition of ``major source'' 
consistent with part 70, (3) revision of the regulation to make the 
provisions for insignificant activities consistent with part 70, (4) 
revision of the regulation to make the permit content provisions 
consistent with part 70, (5) revision of the regulation to make the 
provisions regarding standing for judicial review consistent with part 
70, (6) revision of the regulation to make the administrative 
amendments provisions consistent with part 70, and (7) submission of a 
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for Subchapter 7 consistent 
with Subchapter 8 and 40 CFR part 70.
    The proposal noted three conditions that had to be met before the 
EPA could complete the approval process. The State of Oklahoma has 
adequately addressed each of these issues as shown below:
1. Acid Rain Incorporation by Reference
    The State had not completed the rulemaking process for the acid 
rain rules when the proposal was sent to publication. The State of 
Oklahoma incorporated the acid rain rules by reference as an emergency 
rule signed January 5, 1995. This provision appears at Oklahoma 
Administrative Code (OAC) 252:100-8-6(i)(8) and became a permanent 
rule, due to inaction by the Legislature, on March 29, 1995.
2. Request for Source Category-Limited Interim Approval
    The Governor of Oklahoma, in a letter dated May 26, 1995, requested 
source category-limited approval for the operating permits program. The 
Executive Director of the ODEQ submitted a detailed transition schedule 
in a letter dated January 23, 1995, for the source category-limited 
interim approval.
3. Supplemental Attorney General's Opinion
    The State of Oklahoma provided the EPA with a supplemental Attorney 
General Opinion, dated June 23, 1995, which clarified the State's 
interpretation of the criminal liability statute. The EPA required this 
clarification to ensure that the criminal liability provision in the 
State statute would not preclude daily fines up to $10,000 for on-going 
violations.
    The State of Oklahoma appropriately addressed all requirements 
necessary to receive source category-limited interim approval of the 
State operating permits 

[[Page 4221]]
program pursuant to title V of the Act and 40 CFR part 70.

B. Response to Comments

    Comments were received from six parties during the comment period 
that ran from March 10, 1995, until April 10, 1995. Several of the 
comments requested additional time so that comments could be made after 
the Air Quality Council meeting on April 18, 1995. The EPA extended the 
comment period until May 10, 1995, in a Federal Register document 
published April 26, 1995. Three additional parties submitted comments 
during the extension. Below is the EPA's response to comments received 
on the proposed source category-limited interim approval for the 
Oklahoma Operating Permits Program.
1. Section 112(g)  Implementation
    Comments were made that the EPA should reiterate its present 
interpretation of section 112(g) as published in the Federal Register 
on February 14, 1995.
    The EPA concurs with the comment. The EPA proposed to approve the 
State's preconstruction review program for the purpose of implementing 
section 112(g) during the transition period before promulgation of a 
Federal rule implementing section 112(g). This proposal was based in 
part on an interpretation of the Act that would require sources to 
comply with section 112(g) beginning on the date of approval of the 
title V program, regardless whether the EPA had completed its section 
112(g) rulemaking. The EPA has since revised this interpretation of the 
Act in a Federal Register document published on February 14, 1995, 60 
FR 8333. The revised interpretation postpones the effective date of 
section 112(g) until after the EPA has promulgated a rule addressing 
that provision. The revised notice sets forth in detail the rationale 
for the revised interpretation.
    The section 112(g) interpretive notice explains that the EPA is 
still 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 the EPA will provide for any such additional delay in the final 
section 112(g) rulemaking. Unless and until the EPA provides for such 
an additional postponement of section 112(g), Oklahoma must be able to 
implement section 112(g) during the transition period between 
promulgation of the Federal section 112(g) rule and adoption of 
implementing State regulations.
    For this reason, the EPA is finalizing its approval of Oklahoma's 
preconstruction review program. This approval clarifies that the 
preconstruction review program is available as a mechanism to implement 
section 112(g) during the transition period between promulgation of the 
section 112(g) rule and adoption by Oklahoma of rules established to 
implement section 112(g). However, since the approval is for the single 
purpose of providing a mechanism to implement section 112(g) during the 
transition period, the approval itself will be without effect if the 
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. Further, the EPA is limiting the duration of this approval to 
18 months following promulgation by the EPA of the section 112(g) rule.
    The EPA believes that, although Oklahoma currently lacks a program 
designed specifically to implement section 112(g), the State's 
preconstruction review program will serve as an adequate implementation 
vehicle during a transition period because it will allow Oklahoma to 
select control measures that would meet the maximum achievable control 
technology, as defined in section 112, and incorporate these measures 
into a federally enforceable preconstruction permit.
2. Major Source Definition
    Several comments questioned the EPA's position on the State's 
definition of ``major source'' because it requires the State to revise 
its definition to delete the non-aggregation provision for criteria 
pollutants at oil & gas facilities. Some of the comments cited section 
112(n)(4) of the Act and interpreted the Federal statute to mean that 
emissions at oil and gas facilities cannot be aggregated.
    The EPA does not agree with these comments. The EPA has required 
the State to revise the non-aggregation provision for criteria 
pollutants because, as written, the regulation could be interpreted to 
allow non-aggregation of criteria pollutants at oil and gas facilities. 
Section 112 of the Act applies only to hazardous air pollutants and no 
similar non-aggregation provision is found in title V of the Clean Air 
Act Amendments of 1990 for criteria pollutants at oil and gas 
facilities. Without this required change, the definition of ``major 
source'' will also be inconsistent with the definition of ``major 
source'' at 40 CFR 52.21 which contains the Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration (PSD) requirements.
3. Insignificant Activities
    Several comments complained that EPA's approval of an insignificant 
activities list would limit State discretion. The comments also noted 
that the State should maintain this list as a guidance document and not 
as a part of the regulations. Further, comments were made that the 
insignificant emissions level of 10% of the permit limit or major 
source threshold was consistent with State law. Some of the comments 
noted that measurement equipment often has a 10% margin of error and 
that the current regulation is consistent with the limits of the 
equipment used. One comment suggested that the EPA complete formal 
rulemaking before imposing an insignificant emissions level.
    The EPA does not agree with these comments. Regarding the need for 
prior approval by the EPA, the rule at 40 CFR 70.5(c) clearly requires 
the Administrator's approval of the State's insignificant activities 
list. Contrary to one individual's comment, even though insignificant 
activities are not a required element of a part 70 program, a State 
that opts to establish such activities must nevertheless meet certain 
requirements, including prior approval by the EPA. Though this list 
does not have to be a part of the regulations, the EPA must approve it 
to assure that all applicable requirements are met and that consistency 
among the various states is maintained. The insignificant activities 
list may exist as a guidance document and not as part of the State 
regulations, provided, of course, that this will allow for its 
effective implementation as a matter of State law. However, the list 
and any changes to the list must be submitted to the EPA for review and 
approval before they can be federally recognized.
    The EPA plans to issue guidance addressing activities that it 
considers ``trivial'' in the sense that they never implicate applicable 
requirements. Such activities can be exempted from permit applications 
without the need for prior EPA approval. The State may act consistent 
with this guidance. However, activities that are ``insignificant'' (as 
opposed to ``trivial'') because they are not clearly unrelated to 
applicable requirements, must first be approved by the EPA.
    Another element of the EPA's proposed approval was that the State 
eliminate the provision defining as insignificant increases in 
emissions less than 10 percent of a permit limit or 10 

[[Page 4222]]
percent of the baseline potential to emit. The EPA continues to believe 
that defining insignificance levels relative to percentages of 
permitted limits or potential emissions is inappropriate, because it 
can result in increases being deemed insignificant that are large 
enough to trigger New Source Review (NSR) or other applicable 
requirements. In addition, use of a percentage of permit limits could 
be read to imply that sources may exceed those limits without incurring 
liability. Title V provides no authorization for this.
    Several comments suggested that the State's insignificance levels 
should be approved because the equipment used to monitor emissions has 
a 10 percent margin of error. These comments misunderstand the role of 
insignificant activities. Insignificant activities or levels are not 
relevant to determining compliance with applicable requirements. The 
limits of verifiability for any particular emissions limits are 
therefore irrelevant to the EPA's approval of insignificant emissions 
limits.
    Comments also asserted, with regard to the 10% levels discussed 
above, that these limits are additive to the 1 pound per hour (lb/hr) 
limits established for individual emissions units, and serve to limit 
the accumulation of exempted emissions units across an entire facility. 
While the establishment of ``tiered'' insignificance levels at the 
emissions unit and facility-wide level could be approvable (provided 
the levels were acceptable), the EPA does not read the State's rule to 
effect this result. Section 252:100-8-3(e)(3) defines as insignificant, 
``in addition'' to units qualifying under 252:100-8-3(e) (1) or (2), 
any ``individual or combination of air emissions sources'' that is 
below the 10 percent levels. This provision might be redrafted to make 
clear that the 10 percent level does not supersede the 1 lb/hr and de 
minimis levels for individual emissions units. However, the EPA 
maintains that use of percentage levels for determining insignificant 
activities is inappropriate.
    The EPA proposed that the 1 lb/hr level on insignificant activities 
for individual emissions units was excessive, and further proposed that 
the State could obtain full approval by changing this to a limit on 
potential, rather than actual emissions. One comment stated that the 
EPA lacks authority to reject the State's limits, and moreover cannot 
impose a specific emissions level except through rulemaking.
    The EPA has authority under part 70 to reject insignificance levels 
that will interfere with the permitting authority's ability to 
determine and impose applicable requirements. Oklahoma has not 
attempted to show that the 1 lb/hr limit will not so interfere with 
this obligation. In the absence of such a demonstration, the EPA must 
exercise its judgement in light of applicable requirements. The EPA has 
serious concerns in this regard with the 1 lb/hr limit. The EPA agrees 
that it cannot impose a specific limit except through rulemaking. The 
EPA is stating here that it will fully approve a 1 lb/hr limit based on 
potential to emit. No comments objected to this. It will also approve a 
higher threshold if the State demonstrates that the level is in fact 
insignificant.
4. Permit Content Language
    Some comments questioned the EPA's requirement that the State 
delete the phrase ``to the extent practicable'' from the regulation's 
requirement at OAC 252:100-8-6 that the permit include all applicable 
requirements. It was noted that some industries are concerned about 
applicable requirements which become effective after the application 
but before permit issuance would be included in the permit.
    The EPA does not agree with these comments. The rule at 40 CFR 
70.6(a)(1) requires the permit to contain emission limitations and 
standards, including those operational requirements and limitations 
that assure compliance with all applicable requirements at the time of 
permit issuance. Therefore, if an applicable requirement becomes 
effective after the application is determined complete, the draft 
permit must reflect the new requirement.
    The EPA notes that it has proposed a revision to part 70 which 
would allow States flexibility in dealing with requirements promulgated 
near permit issuance. See 59 FR 44519 (August 29, 1994). Even under 
this proposed approach, however, the State rule would not be fully 
approvable, because the phrase ``to the extent practicable'' is 
unbounded.
5. Administrative Amendment Language
    Comments were made that it was inappropriate for the EPA to 
disallow less frequent monitoring than was originally in the permit via 
the State's administrative amendment procedure at OAC 252:100-8-
7(d)(1)(C).
    The EPA does not agree with these comments. Although section 
70.7(d)(1)(vi) allows the EPA to approve provisions for administrative 
amendments similar to those specified in part 70, less frequent 
monitoring is not sufficiently similar. Administrative amendments are 
appropriate for incorporation of actions that do not require a case by 
case judgement. Switching to more frequent monitoring or reporting will 
always be more stringent, and therefore does not require case by case 
approval. However, switching to less frequent monitoring has the 
potential to adversely impact the enforceability of a requirement, and 
would therefore need to be reviewed on a case by case basis through a 
minor or significant permit modification.
    Another comment noted that the proposed revisions to part 70, see 
FR 44519 (August 29, 1994), would allow changes using the Oklahoma NSR 
procedures that would satisfy the requirements of part 70. If the 
Oklahoma regulation meets the requirements of part 70 after the 
revision is promulgated, then the State would not be required to change 
the regulation.
6. Judicial Review for Oral Comments
    One comment was made requesting clarification of the EPA's 
requirement that the State regulations assure that review is available 
for comments made at hearings. The comment asserted that the State's 
rule is consistent with general administrative law, which the 
individual commenting believes requires a written record of oral 
comments.
    The EPA disagrees with this comment. Section 502(b)(6) of the Act 
and section 70.4(b)(3)(x) do not distinguish participation in a public 
comment period through oral as opposed to written comments. The 
requirement that Oklahoma delete the word ``written'' from OAC 252:100-
8-7(j)(2)(A) was made to ensure that all comments would be covered 
under the judicial review provisions of subchapter 8 of the State's 
regulations. Though written records of comments made at public hearings 
are normally made in Oklahoma, removal of the word ``written'' will 
make the regulation clear so that judicial review is available to all 
those who comment.
    The EPA has elsewhere found a lack of standing to be grounds for 
program disapproval. See 59 FR 62324, December 5, 1994, (Virginia). The 
standing deficiency in the Virginia title V program is considerably 
more far-reaching than that noted here. Regarding the need for written 
comments, citizens wishing to comment on permits in Oklahoma, if they 
are aware of the provision at issue, may reduce their comments to 
writing so as to avoid the potential bar to judicial review. The bar to 
standing in the Virginia program is not so easily avoided.
    Oklahoma's other judicial review deficiency is that the State's 
regulations 

[[Page 4223]]
are unclear as to whether judicial review is available for minor 
modifications and administrative amendments. The EPA is requiring the 
State to clarify that such review is available.
    The seriousness of the deficiencies regarding judicial review in 
Oklahoma is minor relative to those identified for Virginia, and so 
does not merit full disapproval. In addition, Oklahoma has not 
indicated any reluctance to change its rules as necessary to obtain 
full approval on these issues. Therefore, the EPA is granting interim 
approval for the Oklahoma program.
7. Variance Provisions
    A comment was made objecting to the EPA's position that variance 
provisions under State statute may not apply to title V permits unless 
title V processes are followed.
    The EPA does not agree with this comment. As discussed in the 
proposed notice, the EPA recognizes the State's statutory authority to 
grant variances as a matter of State law. However, 40 CFR part 70 does 
not allow States to grant variances from title V requirements. The EPA 
recognizes that title V permits may include compliance schedules for 
sources which are out of compliance with applicable requirements. 
However, such measures to bring a source into compliance are not the 
same as variances, which normally provide a complete exemption from a 
requirement. The EPA also recognizes that Oklahoma may exercise 
enforcement discretion when addressing permit violations, but this, 
likewise, is not analogous to the issuance of variances.
8. Fee Demonstration
    One comment was received in support of the proposed annual fee of 
$15.19 per ton. No adverse comments were received on the proposed fee. 
The EPA has concluded that the fee proposed in the workload analysis 
and fee demonstration of $15.19 per ton per year will be adequate to 
fund the title V program in the State of Oklahoma. The EPA will, as 
part of its oversight role, review the program periodically to ensure 
that adequate funding is maintained.
9. Phased Application Schedule
    Several comments requested that the State of Oklahoma utilize a 
phased application schedule during the transition period.
    The EPA concurs with these comments. The State has, under the 
signature of the Governor, requested source category-limited interim 
approval. This form of approval provides a one-year time period for the 
submission of applications to be permitted during the two year interim 
approval period. Then, the State has another one-year time period for 
the submission of all other applications to be permitted during the 
first three years of full approval. In this way, all sources will be 
permitted within five years after approval with the sources submitting 
applications in two phases.

C. Final Action

    The EPA is promulgating source category-limited interim approval of 
the operating permits program submitted by the State of Oklahoma on 
January 12, 1994. The State must make the following changes to receive 
full approval:
1. Revise Subchapter 8 To Include Transition Schedule
    The State must revise subchapter 8 to reflect a transition schedule 
providing for permitting certain sources during the two year interim 
approval period and then permitting all other sources during the first 
three years of full approval. This revision was signed by the Governor 
as an emergency and permanent rule on November 4, 1995. During the 
interim approval period the State will submit the revised regulation as 
part of the corrected program.
2. Revise Subchapter 8 Definition of ``Major Source''
    The language at OAC 252:100-8-2 must be revised to clarify that for 
criteria pollutants, units cannot be considered separately at a 
facility when determining a source is major.
3. Revise Subchapter 8 Insignificant Activities Provisions
    The State must revise OAC 252:100-8-3(e) to reflect an 
insignificant emissions level of 1 lb/hr of operation, based on 
potential to emit, or such other level as the State may demonstrate is 
insignificant with respect to applicable requirements.
4. Revise Subchapter 8 Permit Content Language
    The language at OAC 252:100-8-6(a) must be revised to delete the 
phrase, ``to the extent practicable.''
5. Revise Subchapter 8 Judicial Review Provisions
    The language at OAC 252:100-8-7(j) must be revised to provide 
judicial review for comments made during public review and provide 
judicial review for all final permit actions.
6. Revise Subchapter 8 Administrative Amendment Provisions
    The language at OAC 252:100-8-7(d) must be revised to delete the 
phrase ``or less'' from subpart (1)(d) and be amended to define the 
term ``Enhanced NSR procedures'' consistent with part 70.
7. Submission of a SIP Revision for Subchapter 7
    The State must revise subchapter 7 consistent with subchapter 8 and 
40 CFR part 70. This revised regulation must be submitted as a SIP 
revision within 18 months after interim approval is granted to ensure 
consistency between the SIP and title V for major sources.
    The scope of the Oklahoma part 70 program approved in this notice 
applies to all part 70 sources (as defined in the approved program) 
within the State of Oklahoma, except any sources of air pollution over 
which an Indian Tribe has jurisdiction. See, e.g., 59 FR 55813, 55815-
18 (November 9, 1994). The term ``Indian Tribe'' is defined under the 
Act as ``any Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or 
community, including any Alaska Native village, which is Federally 
recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided 
by the United States to Indians because of their status as Indians.'' 
See section 302(r) of the CAA; see also 59 FR 43956, 43962 (August 25, 
1994); 58 FR 54364 (October 21, 1993).
    This interim approval, which may not be renewed, extends until 
March 5, 1998. During this interim approval period, the State of 
Oklahoma is protected from sanctions, and the EPA is not obligated to 
promulgate, administer, and enforce a Federal operating permits program 
in the State of Oklahoma. Permits issued under a program with source 
category-limited 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 this 
interim approval. The State will issue permits to these sources during 
the interim approval period and then have an additional one year time 
period for application submittal of all remaining sources. The State 
will issue permits to all remaining sources during the first three 
years after full approval.
    If Oklahoma fails to submit a complete corrective program for full 
approval by September 5, 1997, the EPA will start an 18-month clock for 
mandatory sanctions. If Oklahoma then fails to submit a corrective 
program that the EPA finds complete before the 

[[Page 4224]]
expiration of that 18-month period, the EPA will apply sanctions as 
required by section 502(d)(2) of the Act, which will remain in effect 
until the EPA determines that the State of Oklahoma has corrected the 
deficiency by submitting a complete corrective program.
    If the EPA disapproves Oklahoma's complete corrective program, the 
EPA will apply sanctions as required by section 502(d)(2) on the date 
18 months after the effective date of the disapproval, unless prior to 
that date Oklahoma has submitted a revised program and the EPA has 
determined that it corrected the deficiencies that prompted the 
disapproval.
    In addition, discretionary sanctions may be applied where warranted 
any time after the expiration of an interim approval period if the 
State of Oklahoma has not timely submitted a complete corrective 
program or the EPA has disapproved its submitted corrective program. 
Moreover, if the EPA has not granted full approval to the Oklahoma 
program by the expiration of this interim approval and that expiration 
occurs after November 15, 1995, the EPA must promulgate, administer and 
enforce a Federal permits program for the State of Oklahoma upon 
interim approval expiration.
    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 the EPA as they apply to 
part 70 sources. Section 112(l)(5) requires that the State's program 
contain adequate authorities, adequate resources for implementation, 
and an expeditious compliance schedule, which are also requirements 
under part 70. Therefore, the EPA is also promulgating approval under 
section 112(l)(5) and 40 CFR 63.91 of the State's program for receiving 
delegation of section 112 standards that are unchanged from Federal 
standards as promulgated. This program for delegations only applies to 
sources covered by the part 70 program.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

    Copies of the State's submittal and other information relied upon 
for the final source category-limited interim approval, including the 
thirteen public comment letters received and reviewed by the EPA on the 
proposal, are contained in docket number OPP-6-9-1 maintained at the 
EPA Regional Office. The docket is an organized and complete file of 
all the information submitted to, or otherwise considered by, the EPA 
in the development of this final source category-limited interim 
approval. The docket is available for public inspection at the location 
listed under the ADDRESSES section of this document.

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, the 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, the 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 the EPA to establish a 
plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be 
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    The EPA has determined that the 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 preexisting 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.

    Dated: January 11, 1996.
Jane N. Saginaw,
Regional Administrator (6A).

    Part 70, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as 
follows:

PART 70--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 70 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

    2. Appendix A to part 70 is amended by adding the entry for the 
State of Oklahoma in alphabetical order to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 70--Approval Status of State and Local Operating 
Permits Programs

* * * * *
    Oklahoma
    (a) The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality submitted its 
operating permits program on January 12, 1994, for approval. Source 
category--limited interim approval is effective on March 6, 1996. 
Interim approval will expire March 5, 1998. The scope of the approval 
of the Oklahoma part 70 program excludes all sources of air pollution 
over which an Indian Tribe has jurisdiction.
    (b) Reserved
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-2358 Filed 2-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P