[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 202 (Thursday, October 18, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52882-52886]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-26264]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 70

[AZ056-OPP; FRL-7086-6]


Clean Air Act Proposed Full Approval of Operating Permit 
Programs; Maricopa County Environmental Services Department, Arizona

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Maricopa County 
Environmental Services Department (Maricopa or District) operating 
permit program. The Maricopa operating permit program was submitted in 
response to the directive in 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 the Maricopa operating permit program 
on October 30, 1996 (61 FR 55910). The District has revised its program 
to satisfy the conditions of the interim approval and this action 
proposes approval of those revisions and certain other revisions made 
since interim approval was granted. EPA is proposing full approval of 
the Maricopa operating permits program based on the revisions submitted 
on September 7, 2001.

DATES: Comments on the program revisions discussed in this proposed 
action must be received in writing by November 19, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to 
Gerardo Rios, Acting Chief, Permits Office, Air Division (AIR-3), EPA 
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California, 94105. You 
can inspect copies of Maricopa's submittal and other supporting 
documentation relevant to this action during normal business hours at 
the Air Division of EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 
California, 94105. You may also see copies of the submitted title V 
program at the following location:
    Maricopa County Environmental Services Department, Air Quality 
Division, 1001 North Central Avenue, Suite 201, Phoenix, Arizona 85004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ginger Vagenas, EPA Region IX, Permits 
Office (AIR-3), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 
744-1252 or [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This section provides additional information 
by addressing the following questions:

    I. What is the operating permit program?
    II. What is EPA's proposed action?
    III. What are the program changes that EPA is approving?
    IV. What is the effect of this proposed action?

I. What Is the Operating Permit Program?

    The CAA Amendments of 1990 required all District and local 
permitting authorities to develop operating permit programs that met 
certain federal criteria. In implementing the operating permit 
programs, permitting authorities require certain sources of air 
pollution to obtain permits that contain all applicable requirements 
under the CAA. The focus of the operating permit program is to improve 
compliance 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 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 permits. Examples of major sources include those that have 
the potential to emit 100 tons per year or more of volatile organic 
compounds, carbon monoxide, lead, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides ( 
NOX), or particulate matter (PM10); those that 
emit 10 tons per year of any single hazardous air pollutant 
(specifically listed under the CAA); or those that emit 25 tons per 
year or more of a combination of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). In 
areas that are not meeting the national ambient air quality standards 
for ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate matter, 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 tons per year 
or more of volatile organic compounds or nitrogen oxides.

II. What Is EPA's Proposed Action?

    Because the operating permit program originally submitted by 
Maricopa substantially, but not fully, met the

[[Page 52883]]

criteria outlined in the implementing regulations codified at 40 Code 
of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 70, EPA granted interim approval to 
the program in a rulemaking published on October 30, 1996 (61 FR 
55910). The interim approval notice described the conditions that had 
to be met in order for the Maricopa program to receive full approval. 
Today's Federal Register notice describes the changes Maricopa has made 
to its operating permit program to correct conditions and obtain full 
approval.
    EPA is proposing full approval of the operating permits program 
submitted by Maricopa based on the revisions submitted on September 7, 
2001. These revisions satisfactorily address the program deficiencies 
identified in EPA's October 30, 1996 rulemaking. See 61 FR 55910. EPA 
is also proposing to approve, as a title V operating permit program 
revision, certain additional changes to the rules that have been made 
since Maricopa was granted interim approval. The interim approval 
issues, Maricopa's corrections, and the additional changes EPA is 
proposing to approve are described below under the section entitled, 
``What are the program changes that EPA is approving?''

III. What Are the Program Changes That EPA Is Approving?

A. Corrections to Interim Approval Issues

    In its October 30, 1996 rulemaking, EPA made full approval of 
Maricopa's operating permit programs contingent upon the correction of 
a number of interim approval issues. Each issue, along with the 
District's correction, is described below.
    1. Rule deficiency: Maricopa's definition of ``Building, Structure, 
Facility, or Installation'' includes the caveat that, ``[p]roperties 
shall not be considered contiguous if they are connected only by 
property upon which is located equipment utilized solely in 
transmission of electrical energy.'' This language, which is linked to 
the District's definition of stationary source, is not consistent with 
the stationary source definition in Sec. 70.2. In order to correct this 
deficiency, EPA required that the district delete the language from 
Regulation I, Rule 100, section 224 (the definition of ``Building, 
Structure, Facility, or Installation'').
    Rule change: The ``Building, Structure, Facility, or Installation'' 
definition has been revised to correct the deficiency. The definition 
now reads: ``All the pollutant-emitting equipment and activities that 
belong to the same industrial grouping, that are located on one or more 
contiguous or adjacent properties, and that are under the control of 
the same person or persons under common control, except the activities 
of any vessel. Pollutant emitting activities shall be considered as 
part of the same industrial grouping if they belong to the same ``Major 
Group'' as described in the ``Standard Industrial Classification 
Manual, 1987.''
    2. Rule deficiency: Regulation I, Rule 100, section 251.2 (part of 
the definition of ``major source'') did not clearly require that 
fugitive emissions of HAPs be included when determining a source's 
potential to emit. In order to correct the deficiency, the definition 
needed to be revised so that it would be clear that fugitive emissions 
of HAPs must be considered in determining whether the source is major 
for purposes of both the 10 ton per year and 25 ton per year HAP major 
source thresholds. See 40 CFR 70.2.
    Rule change: The definition of major source has been revised to 
correct the deficiency. It now defines a major source under section 112 
of the CAA to include, ``for pollutants other than radionuclides, any 
stationary source that emits, or has the potential to emit, in the 
aggregate and including fugitive emissions, 10 tons per year or more of 
any hazardous air pollutant which has been listed pursuant to section 
112(b) of the CAA, 25 tons per year of any combination of such 
hazardous air pollutants * * *. '' (Emphasis added.)
    3. Rule deficiency: Part 70 requires that certain records must be 
retained for five years. See Sec. 70.6(a)(3)(ii)(B). In order to ensure 
this provision is implemented, EPA required that Regulation I, Rule 
100, section 505 be revised to clarify that for title V sources, 
records of all required monitoring data and support information must be 
retained for a period of five years, as provided in Regulation II, Rule 
210, section 302.1(d)(2).
    Rule change: Maricopa has resolved this issue by amending 
Regulation I, Rule 100, section 505 to require that ``[i]nformation and 
records required by applicable requirements and copies of summarizing 
reports recorded by the owner and/or operator and submitted to the 
Control Officer shall be retained by the owner and/or operator for 5 
years after the date on which the information is recorded or the report 
is submitted. Non-title V sources may retain such information, records, 
and reports for less than 5 years, if otherwise allowed by these 
rules.''
    4. Rule deficiency: In order to ensure that the permits are 
available to the public, EPA required that Maricopa revise Regulation 
I, Rule 100, section 506 to clarify that for title V sources, all 
permits, including all elements of permit content specified in Rule 
210, section 302, shall be available to the public, as provided in 
Regulation II, Rule 200, section 411.1. See Sec. 70.4(b)(3)(viii).
    Rule change: Regulation I, Rule 100 now specifies under section 
402.1 that ``[t]he Control Officer shall make all permits, including 
all elements required to be in the permit under rule 210 (Title V 
Permit Provisions) of these rules and Rule 220 (Non-Title V Permit 
Provisions) of these rules, available to the public.''
    5. Rule deficiency: In its interim approval, EPA noted that 
Maricopa's provisions regarding applicability needed to be clarified. 
In order to correct these deficiencies, EPA required that Maricopa 
revise Regulation II, Rule 200, section 312.2 to define when sources 
become subject to the requirements of Title V. In addition, EPA 
required that the District revise section 312.5 to require existing 
sources that do not hold a valid installation or operating permit to 
submit an application within 12 months of becoming subject to the 
requirements of title V.
    Rule change: Maricopa added a new section 312.2 to Regulation II, 
Rule 200. The rule now reads, ``[f]ollowing November 29, 1996, the 
effective date of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) final 
interim approval of Maricopa County's Title V permit program, a source 
becomes subject to the requirements of the Title V permit program, when 
the source meets the applicability requirements as provided in this 
rule.'' Regulation II, Rule 200, section 312.5(c) has been amended to 
require that ``[a]ll sources in existence on the date these rules 
become effective and not holding a valid installation permit and/or a 
valid operating permit issued by the Control Officer, which have not 
applied for a Title V permit pursuant to these rules, shall submit to 
the Control Officer a title V permit application no more than 12 months 
after becoming subject to title V permit requirements.''
    6. Rule deficiency: In its initial program, Maricopa's Regulation 
II, Rule 210, section 301.5(g) allowed any emissions source, equipment, 
or item listed under Regulation II, Rule 200, section 303.4(c) to be 
treated as ``insignificant.'' That is, applicants were not required to 
provide emissions data regarding the items listed under 303.4(c). Part 
70 does allow certain equipment to be treated in this manner, but 
requires that the list be part of the approved title V program 
(Sec. 70.5(c)) and

[[Page 52884]]

that the permitting authority submit a demonstration that the 
activities are truly insignificant. See Sec. 70.4(b)(2). Maricopa's 
failure to provide a demonstration that the activities listed in 
Regulation II, Rule 200, section 303.4(c) are insignificant was 
identified by EPA as an interim approval issue. EPA noted that Maricopa 
could correct the deficiency by removing from the list any activities 
that are subject to a unit-specific applicable requirement or by adding 
emissions cut-offs or size limitations to ensure that the listed 
activities are below any applicability thresholds for applicable 
requirements.
    Rule changes: To correct the deficiency, Maricopa has submitted a 
demonstration and made changes to the following rules: (1) Regulation 
I, Rule 100, section 200.58; (2) Regulation II, Rule 200, section 
308.1; (3) Regulation II, Rule 210, section 301.4(h); and (4) appendix 
D.
    The first change is the addition of a definition of insignificant 
activity at Regulation I, Rule 100 section 200.58. It specifies that in 
order to be treated as an insignificant activity, an activity, process, 
or emissions unit cannot emit more than two tons per year of a 
regulated air pollutant, one-half ton per year of a hazardous air 
pollutant, and may not be subject to a source-specific applicable 
requirement. In addition, the activity must either be listed in 
appendix D or approved by the District and EPA as meeting the criteria 
for treatment as an insignificant activity.
    The second change, at Regulation II, Rule 200, section 308.1, sets 
out how insignificant activities may be addressed in applications. 
Insignificant activities may be listed and generally grouped, and 
detailed information about the activities need not be supplied. It also 
provides that in its application a source may request that certain 
activities be treated as insignificant. Finally, it includes a caveat 
that, notwithstanding the provisions of the rules regarding 
insignificant activities, the following types of information may not be 
omitted from any application: information needed to determine the 
applicability of or to impose any requirement; information needed to 
determine the compliance status of the source; or information needed to 
determine the amount of fees the source must pay.
    The third change, at Regulation II, Rule 210, section 301.4(h), 
occurs in the District's provisions regarding permit application 
processing procedures. It requires that, to be complete, an application 
must include a listing of insignificant activities.
    The fourth change is the inclusion of appendix D, which is a list 
of activities that the District has determined may be treated as 
insignificant in accordance with the criteria set out in the definition 
of insignificant activity in Regulation I, Rule 100. It also reiterates 
the provisions of Regulation II, Rule 200, section 308.1 that require 
the applicant provide all information necessary to determine the 
applicability of requirements, to determine compliance, and to impose 
fees. The District included in its submittal a demonstration that the 
listed activities qualify for treatment as insignificant.
    7. Rule deficiency: Section 70.6(a)(8) requires that title V 
permits contain a provision that ``no permit revision shall be required 
under any approved economic incentives, marketable permits, emissions 
trading and other similar programs or processes for changes that are 
provided for in the permit.'' Regulation II, Rule 210, section 302.1(j) 
included this exact provision but also included a sentence that negated 
this provision. EPA required that Maricopa either delete or revise the 
negating sentence to make the rule consistent with part 70.
    Rule change: The problematic sentence has been deleted from the 
District's rule.
    8. Rule deficiency: Section 70.4(b)(12) allows sources to make 
changes within a permitted facility without requiring a permit 
revision, if the changes are not modifications under any provision of 
title I of the Act and the changes do not exceed the emissions 
allowable under the permit. The District's rules provided for such 
permit conditions but did not restrict the allowable changes to those 
that are not modifications under title I of the Act and those that do 
not exceed the emissions allowable under the permit. Maricopa was 
required to revise Regulation II, Rule 210, section 302.1(n) to add 
these conditions. In addition, EPA required that Maricopa revise this 
provision to specify that the notice required by sections 403.4 and 
403.5 will also describe how the increases and decreases in emissions 
will comply with the terms and conditions of the permit. See 
Sec. 70.4(b)(12).
    Rule change: Regulation II, Rule 210, section 302.1(n) has been 
revised to correct the deficiency by including the following language: 
``Changes made under this subsection shall not include modifications 
under any provision of title I of the Act and may not exceed emissions 
allowable under the permit. The terms and conditions shall include 
notice that (1) conforms to subsection 403.4 and subsection 403.5 of 
this rule and (2) describes how the increases or decreases in emission 
will comply with the terms and conditions of the permit.''
    9. Rule deficiency: Maricopa's Regulation II, Rule 210, section 
404.1(e) provided that equipment removal that does not result in an 
increase in emissions could be processed as an administrative permit 
amendment. Equipment removal, even if it does not result in an increase 
in emissions, is not similar to the types of changes that EPA has 
included in the part 70 definition of ``administrative permit 
amendment.'' In some cases removal of equipment, such as monitoring 
equipment, will require processing as a significant permit revision. In 
other situations removal of equipment may qualify for processing as a 
minor permit revision or possibly for treatment under the operational 
flexibility provisions. See Secs. 70.7(d) and 70.7(e)(4). In order to 
correct the deficiency, EPA required that Maricopa remove this 
provision from the list of changes that may be processed as 
administrative amendments.
    Rule change: Section 404.1(e) of Regulation II, Rule 210 has been 
deleted.
    10. Rule deficiency: The following language was included in 
Maricopa's Regulation II, Rule 210, section 405.1(c) as an exception to 
the prohibition against allowing case-by-case determinations to be 
processed as minor permit revisions:
    ``* * * other than a determination of RACT pursuant to Rule 241, 
Section 302 of these rules * * *.''

The definition of RACT in section 272 of Rule 100 states that, ``RACT 
for a particular facility, other than a facility subject to Regulation 
III, is determined on a case-by-case basis * * *'' Rule 241 is not in 
Regulation III, so RACT determinations made pursuant to this rule are 
done so on a case-by-case basis. Excepting RACT determinations from the 
prohibition against processing case-by-case determinations through the 
minor permit revision process violates the requirement of 
Sec. 70.7(e)(2)(i)(A)(3). To correct this deficiency, EPA required that 
exception for case-by-case RACT determinations be deleted from the 
rule.
    Rule change: The specified language has been deleted.
    11. Rule deficiency: Section 70.7(h)(1) requires that permitting 
authorities provide public notice of certain types of permit actions. 
In addition to requiring newspaper notices and mailing list 
notification, part 70 includes a requirement that notice be provided 
``by other means if necessary to assure adequate notice to the affected 
public.'' Because Maricopa's rules lacked such a provision, EPA 
required that the District revise Regulation II, Rule 210, section 408 
to include it.

[[Page 52885]]

    Rule change: Section 408.3(c) has been added. It requires that 
``[t]he Control Officer shall give notice by any other means if 
necessary to assure adequate notice to the affected public.''

B. Other Changes

    The rules the District has submitted for EPA approval incorporate 
extensive changes other than those necessary to correct interim 
approval deficiencies. Because of time constraints, we have limited our 
review to those sections that include interim approval issues. In this 
action EPA is, where possible, proposing to approve as a title V 
operating permit program revision additional program changes that are 
included in sections that were revised to correct interim approval 
issues or are relied upon or cross-referenced by those sections. EPA is 
not taking action on rules or sections that are not listed in Table 1, 
below.
    One of these changes requires special explanation. Paragraph (c) of 
Maricopa's definition of major source lists source categories that must 
count fugitives. Maricopa revised subparagraph xxvii to read: ``All 
other stationary source categories regulated by a standard promulgated 
as of August 7, 1980 under section 111 or 112 of the Act, but only with 
respect to those air pollutants that have been regulated for that 
category.'' Emphasis added. The addition of this 1980 cutoff date 
restricts the types of sources that are required to count fugitives 
towards the major source threshold, which is inconsistent with the 
current version of part 70. EPA has, however, proposed a revision to 
part 70's major source definition that will incorporate the 1980 cutoff 
date. See 60 FR 45530 (August 31, 1995). We are therefore proposing to 
approve the District's definition of major source contingent upon EPA 
finalization of revisions to 40 CFR part 70 that will make the change 
approvable. If EPA does not finalize the changes to part 70 described 
above, Maricopa's major source definition will conflict with the 
operative version of part 70 and we will be unable to approve it. The 
remedy to one of Maricopa's interim approval issues (described above 
under III.A.2) resides within that same definition, so if we are barred 
from approving Maricopa's new major source definition because of the 
1980 date, we will be unable to grant full approval to Maricopa's title 
V program. As a result, Maricopa would lose its authority to implement 
its title V operating permits program on December 1, 2001, and part 71 
would be in effect.
    Maricopa made a number of additional changes to the rules that 
implement their part 70 program, many of which were non-substantive 
(e.g., recodifications) or apply only to non-title V sources. A general 
description of the more substantive changes we are proposing to approve 
follows. For more detail on the all of the changes, refer to the 
technical support document.
    Maricopa added new provisions to its rules that address the concept 
of trivial activities. EPA's title V implementation guidance document, 
``White Paper for Streamlined Development of Part 70 Permit 
Applications,'' (July 10, 1995) explains that the inherent flexibility 
in Sec. 70.5(c) ``encompasses the idea that certain activities are 
clearly trivial (i.e., emissions units and activities with specific 
applicable requirements and with extremely small emissions) can be 
omitted from the application even if they are not included on a list of 
insignificant activities approved in a State's part 70 program pursuant 
to Sec. 70.5(c).'' Maricopa's treatment of trivial activities matches 
that of EPA's guidance. EPA is therefore proposing to approve the 
District's provisions regarding trivial activities.
    In addition to the change that corrects an interim approval issue 
related to public availability of information (described above under 
II.A.4), Maricopa has made other changes to its provisions that pertain 
to the confidentiality of records and has amended the definition of 
trade secret. The revised confidentiality of information procedures, in 
conjunction with the revised definition of trade secret, include the 
following key elements: (1) The presumption is that information is 
public unless a source notifies the Control Officer in writing that it 
is making a claim of confidentiality; (2) information cannot be 
withheld from the Control Officer; and (3) emissions information cannot 
be considered confidential. EPA finds these additional changes to 
Maricopa's confidentiality provisions and to the definition of trade 
secret to be consistent with Sec. 70.4(b)(3)(viii) and therefore 
approvable.
    The emergency provisions that implement Sec. 70.6(g) have been 
modified by the District to include a requirement that in the event of 
an emergency a source must notify the Control Officer by telephone as 
soon as possible. The rule did not previously require telephone 
notification, and this change ensures that the District will be 
notified more promptly than would have been the case under the older 
version of the rule.
    Maricopa has also added language that clarifies that sources must 
obtain an air quality permit before beginning to construct. Because 
Maricopa's title V and preconstruction permitting programs are merged 
into a unitary permitting system, this approach is consistent with part 
70.

IV. What Is the Effect of This Proposed Action?

    Maricopa has adopted and submitted rule changes and requested 
program revisions that address the issues identified in EPA's interim 
approval and are described above. The rules proposed for approval today 
listed in Table 1.

                                                     Table 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Rule title and specific sections       Adoption
                         Rule No.                                    proposed for approval               date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation I, Rule 100....................................  General Provisions and Definitions--         8/22/01
                                                             The following provisions from
                                                             Sec.  200 Definitions:.
                                                            Sec.  200.26 ``Building, Structure,
                                                             Facility, or Installation''.
                                                            Sec.  200.58 ``Insignificant Activity''
                                                            Sec.  200.60 ``Major Source''..........
                                                            Sec.  200.107 ``Trade Secret''.........
                                                             Sec.  200.108 ``Trivial Activity''....
                                                             Sec.  402, Confidentiality of
                                                             Information.
                                                             Sec.  500 Monitoring of
                                                             Records.
Regulation I, Rule 130....................................  Emergency Provisions...................      7/26/00
Regulation II Rule 200....................................  Permit Requirements....................      8/22/01
                                                             Sec.  308--Standards for
                                                             Applications.
                                                             Sec.  312--Transition from
                                                             Installation and Operating Permit
                                                             Program to Unitary Permit Program.

[[Page 52886]]

 
Regulation II, Rule 210...................................  Title V Permit Provisions..............       2/7/01
                                                             Sec.  301.4(h)................
                                                             Sec.  302.1(j)................
                                                             Sec.  302.1(n)................
                                                             Sec.  404--Administrative
                                                             Permit Amendments.
                                                             Sec.  405.1...................
                                                             Sec.  408--Public
                                                             Participation.
Appendix D................................................  List of Insignificant Activities.......      8/22/01
Appendix E................................................  List of Trivial Activities.............      8/22/01
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, Maricopa has adopted and submitted the required 
changes and has fulfilled the conditions of the interim approval 
granted on October 30, 1996 (61 FR 55910). EPA is therefore proposing 
full approval of the Maricopa operating permit program, contingent on 
EPA finalizing its proposed change to the part 70 definition of major 
source.

Request for Public Comments

    EPA requests comments on the program revisions discussed in this 
proposed action. Copies of the Maricopa submittal and other supporting 
documentation used in developing the proposed full approval are 
contained in docket files maintained at the EPA Region 9 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 November 19, 2001.

Administrative Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed action is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' and therefore is not subject to review by the 
Office of Management and Budget. Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) the Administrator certifies that this proposed 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities because it merely approves District law as 
meeting federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements 
beyond those imposed by District law. This rule does not contain any 
unfunded mandates and does not significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(Public Law 104-4) because it proposes to approve pre-existing 
requirements under District law and does not impose any additional 
enforceable duties beyond that required by District law. This rule also 
does not have tribal implications because it will not have a 
substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the 
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175, 
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 
67249, November 9, 2000). This rule also does not have Federalism 
implications because it will not have substantial direct effects on the 
Districts, on the relationship between the national government and the 
Districts, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among 
the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 
13132, ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). The rule merely 
proposes to approve existing requirements under District law, and does 
not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities between the District and the Federal government 
established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also is not 
subject to Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997) or Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 
(May 22, 2001), because it is not a significantly regulatory action 
under Executive Order 12866. This action will not impose any collection 
of information subject to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., other than those previously approved and 
assigned OMB control number 2060-0243. For additional information 
concerning these requirements, see 40 CFR part 70. An agency may not 
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a 
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB 
control number.
    In reviewing District operating permit programs submitted pursuant 
to Title V of the Clean Air Act, EPA will approve District programs 
provided that they meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act and EPA's 
regulations codified at 40 CFR part 70. In this context, in the absence 
of a prior existing requirement for the District to use voluntary 
consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a 
District 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 a District program 
that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 
requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and 
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 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.

    Dated: October 5, 2001.
Keith Takata,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 01-26264 Filed 10-17-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P