[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 127 (Monday, July 2, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34901-34906]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-16570]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 70

[FL-T5-2001-01a; FRL-7006-4]


Clean Air Act Proposed Full Approval of Operating Permit Program; 
State of Florida

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed full approval.

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

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to fully approve the operating permit program of 
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). Florida's 
operating permit program was submitted in response to the directive in 
title V of the 1990 Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments that permitting 
authorities develop, and submit to EPA, programs for issuing operating 
permits to all major stationary sources and to certain other sources 
within the permitting authorities' jurisdiction. EPA granted interim 
approval to Florida's Title V operating permit program on September 25, 
1995. The State revised its program to satisfy the conditions of the 
interim approval and this action proposes approval of those revisions. 
Also, other program changes made by the State since the interim 
approval are being proposed for approval as part of this action.

DATES: Comments on the program revisions discussed in this proposed 
action must be received in writing by August 31, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to Gracy 
R. Danois, Air Permits Section, Air & Radiation Technology Branch, EPA 
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8909. Copies of 
Florida's submittals and other supporting documentation relevant to 
this proposed action are available for inspection during normal 
business hours at EPA Region 4, Air & Radiation Technology Branch, 61 
Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8909.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gracy R. Danois, Air Permits Section, 
EPA Region 4, at (404) 562-9119 or [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This section provides additional information 
by addressing the following questions:
    What is the operating permit program?
    What is being addressed in this document?
    What are the program changes that EPA is approving?
    What is involved in this final action?

What Is the Operating Permit Program?

    Title V of the CAA Amendments of 1990 required all state and local 
permitting authorities to develop operating permit programs that met 
certain federal criteria. In implementing the title V operating permit 
programs, the permitting authorities require certain sources of air 
pollution to obtain permits that contain all applicable requirements 
under the CAA. The focus of the title V operating permit program is to 
improve enforcement by issuing each source a permit that consolidates 
all of the applicable CAA requirements into a federally enforceable 
document. By consolidating all of the applicable

[[Page 34902]]

requirements for a facility, the source, the public, and the permitting 
authorities can more easily determine what CAA requirements apply and 
how compliance with those requirements is determined.
    Sources required to obtain an operating permit under this program 
include: ``major'' sources of air pollution and certain other sources 
specified in the CAA or in EPA's implementing regulations. For example, 
all sources regulated under the acid rain program, regardless of size, 
must obtain operating permits. Examples of major sources include those 
that have the potential to emit 100 tons per year (tpy) or more of 
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), carbon monoxide (CO), lead, sulfur 
dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides ( NOX), or 
particulate matter (PM10); those that emit 10 tpy of any 
single hazardous air pollutant (specifically listed under the CAA); or 
those that emit 25 tpy or more of a combination of hazardous air 
pollutants (HAPs). In areas that are not meeting the National Ambient 
Air Quality Standards for ozone, CO, or PM10, major sources 
are defined by the gravity of the nonattainment classification. For 
example, in ozone nonattainment areas classified as ``serious,'' major 
sources include those with the potential of emitting 50 tpy or more of 
VOCs or NOX.

What Is Being Addressed in This Document?

    Where a title V operating permit program substantially, but not 
fully, met the criteria outlined in the implementing regulations 
codified at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 70, EPA granted 
interim approval contingent on the State revising its program to 
correct the deficiencies. Because Florida 's operating permit program 
substantially, but not fully, met the requirements of part 70, EPA 
granted interim approval to the program in a rulemaking published on 
September 25, 1995 (60 FR 49343). The interim approval notice 
stipulated four conditions that had to be met in order for the State's 
program to receive full approval. Florida submitted seven revisions to 
its interimly approved operating permit program; these revisions were 
dated April 29, 1996, February 11, 1998, June 11, 1998, April 9, 1999 
(two submittals), July 1, 1999, and October 1, 1999. This Federal 
Register notice describes changes that have been made to Florida's 
operating permit program since interim approval was granted.

What Are the Program Changes That EPA Proposes To Approve?

    As stipulated in EPA's September 25, 1995 rulemaking, full approval 
of Florida's Title V operating permit program was made contingent upon 
the following rule changes:

I. Insignificant Activities Provisions

    A. Provide EPA with an acceptable justification for establishing a 
source's aggregate emissions threshold of 50 tpy for triggering the 
State's CO reporting requirements in the permit application. Otherwise, 
the State must establish CO emissions thresholds that are consistent 
with its emissions thresholds for PM10, SO2, 
NOX, and VOCs. In response to this deficiency, the State 
revised Rule 62-213.420(3)(c)3.a., Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) 
to include a reduced reporting threshold of 5 tpy for CO. The state-
effective rule revision was submitted to EPA on April 29, 1996.
    B. Revise Rules 62-4.040(1)(b), 62-210.300(3), and 62-213.400, 
F.A.C. to provide that:
    (1) Permit applications do not omit information needed to determine 
or impose applicable requirements (as defined in Rule 62-213.200(6), 
F.A.C.);
    (2) Insignificant activities or emission units will be included in 
the determination of whether a source is major; and
    (3) Emissions thresholds for insignificant activities or emission 
units will not exceed 5 tpy for regulated air pollutants and 1000 
pounds per year for individual HAPs, or different thresholds that the 
State demonstrates are insignificant.
    In response to these deficiencies, the State revised Rule 62-
210.300(3), F.A.C. to establish that the list of activities ``exempted 
from permitting requirements'' contained in Rule 62-210.300(3), F.A.C. 
and the general exemption contained in Rule 62-4.040, F.A.C. can only 
be used for title V purposes if the activities proposed for 
consideration as ``insignificant'' also comply with the criteria 
contained in Rule 62-213.430(6)(b), F.A.C. Rule 62-213.430(6)(b), 
F.A.C., in turn, establishes the emission thresholds for individual 
activities or units, which are no more than 500 pounds per year of lead 
and lead compounds expressed as lead, 1,000 pounds per year of any 
individual HAPs, 2,500 pounds per year of total HAPs, and 5 tpy of 
regulated air pollutants. Rule 62-210.300(3), F.A.C. also establishes 
that ``the emissions from the exempt units or activities shall be 
considered in determining whether a facility containing such emissions 
units or activities would be subject to any applicable requirement'', 
which adequately addresses the deficiency noted in B.(2) above. 
Further, Rule 62-213.400, F.A.C. was revised to delete all references 
to Rules 62-210.300(3) and 62-4.040, F.A.C. The state-effective rule 
revision was submitted to EPA on April 29, 1996.
    With regard to the deficiency noted in item B.(1) above, Rule 62-
213.420(3)(n), F.A.C. was revised to require the applicant to submit 
any information needed to demonstrate that the units or activities are 
considered insignificant under the provisions of Rule 62-213.430(6), 
F.A.C. This rule revision was also submitted to EPA on April 29, 1996. 
Of note is that the citation for the definition of applicable 
requirement given in item B.(1) is no longer correct; the correct 
citation is now Rule 62-210.200(31), F.A.C.
    In addition, in the discussion regarding insignificant activities 
contained in the Federal Register notice granting final interim 
approval to Tennessee's operating permit program (61 FR 39335, July 29, 
1996), EPA responded to the June 17, 1996, Ninth Circuit Court of 
Appeals decision in Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) v. EPA, 
No. 95-700034 (June 17, 1996) [87 F.3d 280 (9th Cir. 1996)] by stating 
that the language contained in Florida's Rule 62-210.300(3) ``can be 
read as creating an exemption from permit content.'' In a February 14, 
1997, letter to Florida (R. Douglas Neeley, Chief, Air & Radiation 
Technology Branch, EPA Region 4, to Howard L. Rhodes, Director, 
Division of Air Resources Management, FDEP), EPA identified additional 
problematic language in Rules 62-4.040(1) and 62-213.430(6)(a), F.A.C. 
In response to EPA's concerns, Florida deleted the language ``exempted 
from permitting'' and replaced it with ``considered insignificant'' in 
Rules 62-213.300 and 62-213.430, F.A.C. And though Rules 62-4.040(1) 
and 62-210.300(3), F.A.C. still provide for exemptions from permitting, 
Rules 62-213.300(3)(a) and 62.213.430(6)(b), F.A.C. take precedence and 
dictate how the other rules are to be applied for title V purposes. The 
State voluntarily took this action in order to avoid any further 
misinterpretations of their intent to consider certain emission units 
or activities ``insignificant'' for title V purposes. The state-
effective rule revisions rules were submitted to EPA on February 11, 
1998.
    C. Remove or revise the following specific exemptions:
    (1) Rule 62-210.300(3)(a), F.A.C. exempting ``(s)team and hot water

[[Page 34903]]

generating units located within a single facility and having a total 
heat input, individually or collectively, equaling 50 million BTU/hr or 
less, and fired exclusively by natural gas except for periods of 
natural gas curtailment during which fuel oil containing no more than 
one percent sulfur is fired * * *.''
    (2) Rule 62-210.300(3)(r), F.A.C. exempting ``[p]erchloroethylene 
dry cleaning facilities with a solvent consumption of less than 1,475 
gallons per year.''
    (3) Rule 62-210.300(3)(u), F.A.C. exempting ``[e]mergency 
electrical generators, heating units, and general purpose diesel 
engines operating no more than 400 hours per year * * *.''
    (4) Rule 62-210.300(3)(x), F.A.C. exempting ``[p]hosphogypsum 
disposal areas and cooling ponds.''
    In response to these deficiencies, Florida made the following 
revisions to Rule 62-210.300(3), F.A.C. and submitted the state-
effective rule revisions to EPA on April 29, 1996:
    (a) Rule 62-210.300(3)(a), F.A.C. was changed to limit the units to 
operate no more than 3000 hours per year while firing natural gas and 
no more than 400 hours per year while firing fuel oil containing no 
more than 1.0% sulfur. In a subsequent rulemaking, this exemption was 
redefined to address steam and hot water generating units located 
within a single facility and having a total heat input, individually or 
collectively, equaling 100 million BTU/hr or less. All references to 
units with a total heat input of 50 million BTU/hr or less were deleted 
from the rule language. The new exemption restricts the annual use of 
fuel oil containing no more than 1.0% sulfur to 145,000 gallons, fuel 
oil containing no more than 0.5% sulfur to 290,000 gallons, fuel oil 
containing no more than 0.05% sulfur to one million gallons, natural 
gas to no more than 150 million standard cubic feet, or propane to no 
more than one million gallons;
    (b) Rule 62-210.300(3)(a)20, F.A.C. (previously 62-210.300(3)(r), 
F.A.C.) was changed to limit the fuel consumption of emergency 
generators to 32,000 gallons per year diesel fuel, 4,000 gallons per 
year of gasoline, 4.4 million standard cubic feet per year of natural 
gas or propane, or an equivalent prorated amount if multiple fuels are 
used; and,
    (c) Rule 62-210.300(a)25, F.A.C. (previously Rule 62-210.300(3)(x), 
F.A.C.) was modified to provide an exemption only for phosphogypsum 
cooling ponds and inactive phosphogypsum stacks that have demonstrated 
compliance with the requirements of 40 CFR 61, Subpart R.
    To address item C.(2) above, Florida deleted the temporary 
exemption for small dry cleaners contained in Rule 62-210.300.(3)(b)2., 
F.A.C. (previously contained in Rule 62-210.300(3)(r), F.A.C.), because 
these facilities were going to be permitted under a title V general 
permit. In addition to redefining the exemptions described above to 
ensure that potential major sources are not inadvertently exempted from 
state permitting requirements, the State included language in Rule 62-
210.300(3)(a), F.A.C., to clarify that in order for the exemptions to 
be considered insignificant for title V purposes, they must also meet 
the criteria contained in Rules 62-213.300(3)(a) and 62.213.430(6)(b), 
F.A.C. The State submitted the state-effective rule revisions to EPA on 
February 11, 1998.

II. Permit Reopening Provisions

    The State was required to make the regulatory provisions for permit 
reopenings for cause consistent with 40 CFR 70.7(f)(1) (i), (iii), and 
(iv). In response, Florida revised Rules 62-213.430(4) and 62-
213.430(5), F.A.C. to reference the provisions contained in 40 CFR 
70.7(f). The State submitted the revised rules to EPA on April 29, 
1996.

III. Other Program Revisions

    In addition to the changes described above, the State of Florida 
made the following substantive changes to its program after it received 
interim approval:
A. Rule Repeals/Conforming Amendments
    In response to an Executive Order from the Florida Governor, all of 
the State's agencies were required to significantly reduce their number 
of administrative rules. To address that order, the Florida Department 
of Environmental Protection repealed rules in Chapters 62-213 and 62-
214, F.A.C., and made conforming amendments within Chapters 62-210, 62-
213, and 62-214, F.A.C. In most cases, the language in the various 
rules was moved without changes. The title V-related rule changes 
primarily involved corrections to internal rule citations that were 
made necessary by the rule reorganization. The following substantive 
changes were submitted for EPA's approval on April 29, 1996:
    (1) All of the definitions in Rules 62-210, 62-213, 62-214, 62-296, 
and 62-297, F.A.C. were consolidated in Rule 62-210.200, F.A.C.;
    (2) The definition of ``applicable requirement'' in Rule 62-
210.200(29), F.A.C. was modified to include permit conditions contained 
in a federally enforceable state operating permit (FESOP);
    (3) The definition of ``major source of air pollution or title V 
source'' in Rule 62-210.200(172), F.A.C. was revised to exclude the 
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code when determining whether 
a facility is a major source of HAPs; and,
    (4) The definition of ``modification'' in Rule 62-210.200(182), 
F.A.C. was revised to include the terms from the definition of 
``modification'' in former Rule 62-213.200, F.A.C.
B. Incorporation of White Paper Guidance
    Florida revised Rules 62-210.900(1), 62-210.900(2), and 62-
213.420(3), F.A.C. to incorporate the flexibility described in the 
EPA's July 10, 1995, guidance memorandum entitled ``White Paper for 
Streamlined Development of Part 70 Permit Applications.'' The following 
revisions were submitted to EPA for approval on April 29, 1996:
    (1) The title V permit application now requires identification 
only, at the facility level, of all pollutants with potential to emit 
(PTE) equal to or greater than a major source thresholds, all 
synthetically minor pollutants, and all pollutants subject to a 
numerical emissions limitation or work practice standard at one or more 
emissions unit at the facility;
    (2) As a result of the change described in item (1), the 
requirement to perform facility-wide reporting was eliminated from the 
permit application requirements, except for those sources subject to a 
facility-wide emissions cap;
    (3) The permit application requirements were modified to clarify 
that for regulated emissions units (i.e., those which emit at least one 
emission-limited pollutant or are subject to a unit-specific work 
practice standard for the control of a pollutant or family of 
pollutants or to a unit-specific visible emissions standard), all parts 
of the application must be completed. However, only quantitative 
emissions information needs to be provided for the emissions-limited 
pollutants;
    (4) For unregulated emissions units (i.e., those with no emission-
limited pollutants and no applicable work practice standards), the 
permit application requirements were modified to require descriptions, 
not quantification, of the pollutants emitted. The required information 
also includes the pertinent SIC code, the maximum emission rate, and 
descriptions of the

[[Page 34904]]

emission units and any air pollution control equipment; and,
    (5) For all emission units, the permit application requirements 
were modified to require identification of all pollutants emitted at a 
source as follows:
    (a) Each emission-limited pollutant (for regulated emissions units 
only); and,
    (b) Each pollutant emitted in a significant amount. Specifically, 
CO, NOX, SO2, PM10, and VOC must be 
identified if the emissions unit has a PTE equal to or greater than 5 
tpy. Lead must be identified if the emissions unit has a PTE equal to 
or greater than 500 pounds per year. Each HAP must be identified if the 
emissions unit has a PTE equal to or greater than 1000 pounds per year 
and the facility is major for such HAP. Total HAPs must be identified 
if the emissions unit has a PTE equal to or greater than 2,500 pounds 
per year and the facility is major for total HAPs.
C. Title V General Permits
    Florida's definition of a title V source includes any source 
subject to standards or regulations under section 112 of the CAA, 
except that a source is not subject to the State's operating permit 
program solely because it is regulated under section 112(r) of the CAA 
or solely because it is subject to a reporting requirement under 
section 112. The effect of this provision is to bring all sources 
subject to the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants (NESHAPs) program into the State's Title V program even 
though EPA has allowed ``area sources'' to be deferred from permitting. 
An ``area source'' is defined as any stationary source of HAPs that 
does not emit more than 10 tpy of any single HAP or 25 tpy of any 
combination of HAPs.
    To reduce the burden of permitting area sources, Florida developed 
five general permits covering the following NESHAP requirements: 
asbestos manufacturing and fabrication facilities (40 CFR 61, Subpart 
M), perchloroethylene dry cleaning facilities (40 CFR 63, Subpart M), 
chromium electroplating and anodizing facilities (40 CFR 63, Subpart 
N), ethylene oxide sterilization facilities (40 CFR 63, Subpart O), and 
halogenated solvent degreasing facilities (40 CFR 63, Subpart T). 
Florida's general permits are permits-by-rule and are contained in Rule 
62-213.300, F.A.C. Approximately 1,280 facilities in Florida are 
operating under these general permits, and most of them are 
perchloroethylene dry cleaning facilities.
    The State submitted a request for approval of its general permit 
provisions to EPA on February 11, 1998. A revised request for approval 
of Rule 62-213.300, F.A.C. was submitted on April 9, 1999. In the 
revised request, the State asked for EPA's approval of an adjustment to 
the requirement for perchloroethylene dry cleaning facilities to submit 
semiannual startup, shutdown, and malfunction reports. The State 
requested that, in lieu of submitting semiannual reports, these 
facilities be allowed to retain the records onsite and submit reports 
of such deviations during facility inspections and with the annual 
compliance certifications required by 40 CFR 70.7(c)(5). The State's 
revised request was also submitted pursuant to section 112(l) of the 
CAA and EPA granted approval of the section 112(l) request on December 
28, 1999 (64 FR 72568). However, as stated in the notice, this change 
does not exempt or delay any title V recordkeeping and compliance 
reporting requirements required of all title V sources in Florida.
    Florida's implementation of its general permits program has brought 
about 85% of the covered area sources into compliance; sources that 
would otherwise be deferred from permitting requirements. Success of 
the State's program has been attributed to periodic inspection of the 
sources to ensure that the requirements of the general permits are 
being properly implemented. In addition, Florida has documented that 
perchloroethylene use has decreased throughout the state, thus 
contributing to a significant reduction in emissions from 
perchloroethylene dry cleaning facilities.
D. Fee Reassessment
    On June 11, 1998, Florida sent a letter to EPA redefining the costs 
eligible for funding with title V fee revenues. Title V-related ambient 
air monitoring and State Implementation Plan development activities 
were deleted from Florida's list of eligible costs because the 
activities were being funded with other monies. As a result of this 
action, Florida expects to avoid a fee increase until the year 2003.
    Additionally, Florida submitted an update regarding its title V fee 
program on October 1, 1999. The information provided in this update 
showed that no significant changes have been made to the State's fee 
program and it also demonstrated that Florida's Title V program is 
adequately funded by the fees collected. Because Florida has 
demonstrated that its operating permit program is adequately funded, 
EPA finds that the program satisfies the fee requirements of 40 CFR 
70.9.
E. Minor Source Air Construction Permits (New Source Review) Partially 
Merged Program
    On January 22, 1999, the State of Florida adopted amendments to 
Rule 62-210.300(1)(b)1., F.A.C. allowing conditions in minor source air 
construction permits to be changed when a title V permit or a FESOP 
containing these conditions is issued. These actions are, however, 
limited to changes that do not constitute modifications under Title I 
of the CAA (i.e., physical changes in, changes in the method of 
operation of, or additions to facilities that would result in increased 
emissions). The practical effect of these rule changes is to streamline 
the permitting process by eliminating the need for permittees to 
request that old minor source construction permits be reissued to make 
the changes approvable and federally enforceable before incorporating 
them into a FESOP or title V permit. The state-effective rule revision 
was submitted to EPA on April 9, 1999.
F. Compliance Assurance Monitoring (CAM) Rule Adoption
    On April 7, 1998, the State of Florida adopted the CAM rule (40 CFR 
part 64) by reference into Rule 62-204.800(11), F.A.C. and made 
conforming amendments to Rule 62-213.440, F.A.C. These rule revisions 
were submitted to EPA on April 9, 1999.
G. Periodic Monitoring Rule
    On July 7, 1998, EPA sent a letter to the State of Florida (from 
Winston A. Smith, Director, Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management 
Division, EPA Region 4, to Howard L. Rhodes, Director, Division of Air 
Resources Management, FDEP) declaring that the State was inadequately 
administering its title V operating permit program by failing to 
include adequate periodic monitoring requirements in its title V 
permits (pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6). The State was also notified that EPA 
would issue a formal notification of deficiency, in accordance with the 
procedures outlined in 40 CFR 70.10, if action was not taken to rectify 
the deficiency. The basis for EPA's finding of deficiency was the 
State's assertion that it lacked regulatory authority to require 
periodic monitoring beyond that already included in the underlying 
applicable requirement. EPA had granted interim approval to Florida's 
Title V program with the understanding that since Florida's rules were 
essentially identical to the part 70 rule, the State would implement 
its program consistent with EPA's interpretation of 40 CFR 70.6 by

[[Page 34905]]

requiring insufficient monitoring already contained in applicable 
requirements to be supplemented with periodic monitoring requirements 
in title V permits. However, in practice, the State did not interpret 
its regulatory language in this manner and as a result was preparing 
permits that did not require monitoring sufficient to assure compliance 
with applicable requirements.
    In response to the issues described in the July 7, 1998 letter, 
Florida initiated rulemaking and submitted revisions to Chapter 62-213, 
F.A.C. to EPA on July 1, 1999. The following rule changes became state-
effective on July 15, 1999:
    (1) Rule 62-213.420, F.A.C. was amended to clarify that the State 
may require additional periodic monitoring related information in the 
title V permit application in order to better evaluate the sufficiency 
of the monitoring requirements; and, (2) Rule 62-213.440, F.A.C. was 
amended to require the inclusion of periodic monitoring requirements in 
title V permits, to clarify what constitutes sufficient monitoring, to 
state the conditions under which monitoring records must be retained, 
and to provide examples of applicable requirements that contain 
sufficient monitoring requirements.
    EPA believes that the changes described in this portion of the 
notice are appropriate and it is therefore proposing to approve these 
regulatory changes along with the State's Title V program final full 
approval.

What Is involved in This Final Action?

    The Florida Department of Environmental Protection has fulfilled 
the conditions of the interim approval granted on September 25, 1995, 
and EPA is proposing full approval of the State's operating permit 
program. EPA is also proposing approval of other program changes made 
by the State since the interim approval was granted.

Administrative Requirements

I. Request for Public Comments

    EPA requests comments on the program revisions discussed in this 
proposed action. Copies of the Florida submittals and other supporting 
documentation used in developing the proposed full approval are 
contained in a docket maintained at the EPA Region 4 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 approval. The primary purposes of the docket are: (1) To allow 
interested parties a means to identify and locate documents so that 
they can effectively participate in the approval process, and (2) to 
serve as the record in case of judicial review. EPA will consider any 
comments received in writing by August 1, 2001.

II. Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this regulatory 
action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and 
Review.''

III. Executive Order 12988

    As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, 
February 7, 1996), in issuing this proposed rule, EPA has taken the 
necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize 
potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected 
conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 
15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in 
accordance with the ``Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for 
the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued 
under the Executive Order. This proposed rule does not impose an 
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

IV. Executive Order 13045

    Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) is 
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under 
Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or 
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate 
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, EPA 
must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned 
rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable 
to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives 
considered by the Agency.
    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because 
it is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined in 
Executive Order 12866, and it does not involve decisions intended to 
mitigate environmental health or safety risks.

V. Executive Order 13084

    Under Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those 
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a 
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature 
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop 
an effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful 
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters 
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
    Today's proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian tribal governments. This proposed action does not 
involve or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. 
Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 
do not apply to this proposed rule.

VI. Executive Order 13132

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces 
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the 
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to 
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input 
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies 
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a 
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless 
the federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by state and local governments, or EPA 
consults with state and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation 
that

[[Page 34906]]

has federalism implications and that preempts state law unless the 
Agency consults with state and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    This proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on the 
states, on the relationship between the national government and the 
states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, 
because it merely approves a state rule implementing a federal 
standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of 
power and responsibilities established in the CAA. Thus, the 
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this 
proposed rule.

VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to 
conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice 
and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that 
the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 
small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    This proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities because part 70 approvals under 
section 502 of the Act do not create any new requirements but simply 
approve requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, 
because this proposed approval does not create any new requirements, I 
certify that this proposed action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    Moreover, due to the nature of the federal-state relationship under 
the CAA, preparation of a flexibility analysis would constitute federal 
inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The CAA 
forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds (see 
Union Electric Co. v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 
7410(a)(2)).

VIII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 
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 this proposed approval action 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 proposed federal action 
approves pre-existing requirements under state or local law and imposes 
no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to state, local, 
or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this 
proposed action.

IX. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as 
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency 
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy 
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller 
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this 
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House 
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States 
prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule 
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This proposed action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 
U.S.C. section 804(2).

X. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this proposed action must be filed in the United States Court of 
Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 31, 2001. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this proposed rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial 
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial 
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such 
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings 
to enforce its requirements. [See section 307(b)(2) of the CAA.]

XI. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires federal agencies to evaluate existing 
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with 
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards'' 
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies 
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impractical.
    In reviewing operating permit programs, EPA's role is to approve 
state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this 
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State 
to use VCS, EPA has no authority to disapprove an operating permit 
program for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with 
applicable law for EPA, when it reviews an operating permit program, to 
use VCS in place of an operating permit program that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Therefore, the requirements of 
section 12(d) of NTTAA do not apply.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70

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

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

    Dated: June 22, 2001.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 01-16570 Filed 6-29-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P