[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 203 (Friday, October 19, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53159-53163]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-26419]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 70

[CA 044-OPP; FRL-7087-8]


Clean Air Act Proposed Full Approval of Operating Permit Program; 
San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to fully approve the operating permit program of 
the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (District). 
The 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.
    On November 1, 1995, EPA granted interim approval to the District's 
operating permit program (60 FR 55460). The District has revised its 
operating permit program (Rule 216) to satisfy the conditions of the 
interim approval and this action proposes approval of these revisions 
made since the interim approval was granted. In addition, EPA proposes 
to approve two other changes that were made by the District but were 
not required to correct an interim approval issue.

DATES: Written comments must be received 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 the District's submittals, and other supporting 
documentation relevant to this action, during normal business hours at 
Air Division, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 
California, 94105. You may also see copies of the submitted Title V 
program at the following locations:
     California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source 
Division, Rule Evaluation Section, 1001 ``I'' Street, Sacramento, CA 
95814.
     San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District: 
3433 Roberto Court, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401.
    You may review all the District rules by retrieving them from the 
California Air Resources Board (ARB) Web site. The location of the 
District rules on the ARB Web site is http://arbis.arb.ca.gov/drdb/slo/cur.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gerardo Rios, EPA Region IX, at (415) 
744-1259 ([email protected]) or Nahid Zoueshtiagh at (415) 744-1261.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and 
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. District's Operating Permit Program
    A. What Is the Operating Permit Program?
    B. What Is Being Addressed in this Document?
    C. Are There Other Issues with the Program?
    D. What Are the Program Changes That EPA Is Proposing to 
Approve?
    E. What Is Involved in this Action?
II. Request For Public Comment

I. District's Operating Permit Program

A. What Is the Operating Permit Program?

    Title V of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 required all State 
and local permitting authorities to develop operating permit programs 
that met certain federal criteria. In implementing the operating permit 
programs, the permitting authorities require certain sources of air 
pollution to obtain permits that contain all applicable requirements 
under the Clean Air Act (CAA). One goal 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 or more of any single hazardous air pollutant 
(HAP) listed under the CAA; or those that emit 25 tons per year or more 
of a combination of HAPs. In areas that are not meeting the National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone, carbon monoxide, or 
particulate matter, major sources are defined by the gravity of the 
non-attainment classification.
    San Luis Obispo County is classified as an attainment area for all 
NAAQS.

B. What Is Being Addressed in This Document?

    Where an 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 any 
deficiencies. Because the District's operating permit program 
substantially, but not fully, met the requirements of part 70, EPA 
granted interim approval to the District's program on November 1, 1995 
(60 FR 55460).
    This Federal Register notice describes the changes that the 
District has made to its Rule 216 (District's Operating Permit Program) 
since interim approval was granted. The District also revised its Rule 
201 (Equipment Not Requiring a Permit) to correct one of the deficiency 
issues. Our notice also describes the change to this rule.

C. Are There Other Issues With the Program?

    On May 22, 2000, EPA promulgated a rulemaking that extended the 
interim approval period of 86 operating permits programs until December 
1, 2001, (65 FR 32035). The action was subsequently challenged by the 
Sierra Club and the

[[Page 53160]]

New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG). In settling the 
litigation, EPA agreed to publish a notice in the Federal Register that 
would alert the public that they may identify and bring to EPA's 
attention alleged programmatic and/or implementation deficiencies in 
Title V programs and that EPA would respond to their allegations within 
specified time periods if the comments were made within 90 days of 
publication of the Federal Register notice.
    EPA received a letter from one organization who commented on what 
they believe to be deficiencies with respect to Title V programs in 
California. We are not taking any actions on those comments in today's 
action and will respond to them by December 1, 2001. As stated in the 
Federal Register notice published on December 11, 2000, (65 FR 77376) 
EPA will respond by December 1, 2001 to timely public comments on 
programs that have obtained interim approval; and EPA will respond by 
April 1, 2002 to timely comments on fully approved programs. We will 
publish a notice of deficiency (NOD) when we determine that a 
deficiency exists, or we will notify the commenter in writing to 
explain our reasons for not making a finding of deficiency. A NOD will 
not necessarily be limited to deficiencies identified by citizens and 
may include any deficiencies that we have identified through our 
program oversight.

D. What Are the Program Changes That EPA Is Proposing To Approve?

    As discussed above, EPA granted final interim approval on November 
1, 1995 (60 FR 55460) to the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution 
Control District's (``District'') Title V program. As stipulated in 
that rulemakings, full approval of the District operating permit 
program was made contingent upon satisfaction of certain conditions. In 
response to EPA's interim approval action, the District made major 
revisions to its Rule 216 (Operating Permit Program), and some 
revisions to its Rule 201 (Equipment not Requiring a Permit) to remove 
the deficiencies identified by EPA. The District made its revised rule 
available to public review and comment, and held a hearing on its 
proposed action on March 28, 2001. After adoption on March 28, 2001, 
these revised rules were submitted to EPA via the California Air 
Resources Board (CARB) on May 18, 2001. We have included below a 
discussion of each interim approval deficiency issue (as enumerated and 
explained in our 1995 proposed and final actions on the District's 
operating permits program (see 60 FR 45685 and 60 FR 55460)), our 
conditions for correction, followed by a summary of how the District 
has corrected the deficiency. The Technical Support Document (TSD) for 
this action includes the District's submittal and details on the 
revisions made.
    Issue 1. In our 1995 action, we identified two problematic items 
related to dealing with insignificant activities in the District's 
Operating Permits Program. These identified items were in the 
District's Rule 201 (Equipment not Requiring a Permit). The District 
was required to remove any activities from the District's list of 
insignificant activities that are subject to a unit-specific applicable 
requirement. (Reference 40 CFR 70.4(b)(2) and 70.5(c)).
    District's Response to Issue 1. The District corrected this 
deficiency by amending its Rule 201.M to require a permit for any 
comfort air conditioning and refrigerant unit that contains more than 
50 pounds of refrigerant. The District also added a new section to Rule 
201.A about agricultural equipment. The revised rule now states that a 
Federal Title V Permit shall always be required for any source that is 
subject to District Rule 216, Federal Part 70 Permits, including 
agricultural sources as allowed for in the California Health and Safety 
Code. With this addition, the District will not need to revise its 
operating permit rule should California law change on exempting 
agricultural equipment.
    Issue 2. The District was required to revise the definitions of 
``Minor Part 70 Permit Modification'' in Rule 216 C.13, to ensure that 
significant changes to existing monitoring permit terms or conditions, 
rather than just relaxations of existing monitoring terms, are 
processed as significant permit modifications. (Reference: 40 CFR 
70.7(e)(4)).
    District's Response to Issue 2. The District revised Rule 
216.C.15.d. to state that minor modifications do not involve any 
significant change to any existing federally-enforceable monitoring 
term or condition or involve any relaxation of reporting or 
recordkeeping requirements in the Part 70 Permit.
    Issue 3. The District was required to revise Rule 216 J.1.b. to 
include notice ``by other means if necessary to assure adequate notice 
to the affected public.''(Reference 40 CFR 70.7(h)(1)).
    District's Response to Issue 3. The District added 216.J.1.b.3 to 
address EPA's concerns. The revised rule now requires that any notice 
of a preliminary decision shall be provided by other means if necessary 
to assure adequate notice to the affected public.
    Issue 4. San Luis Obispo County was required revise Rule 216 
H.1.a.4. and L.1.e. to further limit the types of significant permit 
modifications that may be operated prior to receiving a final part 70 
permit revision to only those modifications that are subject to section 
112(g) or required to have a permit under Title I, parts C and D of the 
CAA and that are not otherwise prohibited by an existing part 70 
permit. (Reference 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(ii)).
    District's Response to Issue 4. The District made several changes 
to correct the deficiency issues. Several parts of Section H of Rule 
216 were revised to clarify the timing for implementing various types 
of modification requests. These changes are as follows.
     Significant Part 70 Permit Actions--APCO must take final 
action to approve the application before the source may be operated 
pursuant to the modification (Rule 216.H.1.a.4).
     Minor Part 70 Permit Modifications--APCO must take final 
action to approve the application before the source may be operated 
pursuant to the modification (Rule 216.H.3.a).
     Non-Federal Minor Changes--a source requesting a non-
federal minor change to its Part 70 Permit must submit an application 
for a modified Part 70 Permit to the District, with a copy to the EPA 
(Rule 216.H.4.a).
    In addition Section L was revised as follows:
     Rule 216.L requires that when a complete application to 
modify a Part 70 Permit has been submitted, the stationary source must 
be operated in compliance with all applicable conditions on its Part 70 
Permit, except as allowed under ``Administrative Part 70 Permit 
Amendment'', and all applicable conditions on an Authority to Construct 
for the modification issued pursuant to Rule 202 (Permits), and Rule 
218 (Federal Requirements for Hazardous Air Pollutants), until the Part 
70 Permit is revised or the modification is denied.
     Section 216.L.1.e. clarifies the requirements by stating 
that the protection granted by Subsections L.1.a through c for a 
significant Part 70 Permit modification shall not be applicable where a 
federally-enforceable condition of an existing Part 70 Permit would 
prohibit the modification of a source corresponding to the significant 
Part 70 Permit modification. In this case, the source shall obtain such 
modification to the source's Part 70 Permit prior to commencing 
operation of the modified portion of the source.
    Issue 5. The District was required to revise Rule 216 to establish 
a binding requirement that the Part 70 Permit

[[Page 53161]]

Format will be included in all part 70 permits or revise Rule 216 to 
fully address all part 70 permit content requirements within the Rule. 
(Reference 40 CFR 70.6).
    District's Response to Issue 5. The District significantly revised 
its Rule 216.F to ensure that each Part 70 Permit conforms to an EPA 
approved format and includes EPA's required elements. The revised Rule 
216.F now requires more specific information instead of referencing to 
an approved format. For example it requires that Part 70 permit include 
the following elements:
     Monitoring requirements that assure use of terms, test 
methods, units, averaging periods, and other statistical conventions 
consistent with the applicable requirement.
     Requirements concerning the use, maintenance, and, where 
appropriate, installation of monitoring equipment or methods.
     Detailed records of required monitoring information.
    Other revisions to Rule 216.F include:
     A new provision stating 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.
     Specifying ``prompt'' reporting requirements as a verbal 
report as soon as reasonably possible, but in any case within four (4) 
hours after the deviation's detection, followed by a written report 
within 10 calendar days of having corrected the deviation.
     Clarify requirements for inspection and entry to 
facilities.
    In addition the District revised its Rule 216.G to:
     Require applicants to include EPA in their notification 
when they are permitted to operate under an emissions cap that allows 
them to trade emissions within the emissions cap with 30 calendar days 
written notification. If the District objects to the emissions trade, 
the source, the District, and the EPA shall attach each such notice to 
their copy of the relevant permit.
     Include EPA in notification requirements under operational 
flexibility.
    Issue 6. The District was required to revise Rule 216 to define and 
provide for giving notice to and responding to comments from affected 
States. Alternatively, San Luis Obispo could have made a commitment to: 
(1) Initiate rule revisions upon being notified by EPA of an 
application by a tribe for State status, and (2) provide affected State 
notice to tribes upon their filing for State status (i.e., prior to 
revising Rule 216 to incorporate affected State notice procedures). 
(Reference 40 CFR 70.2, 70.7(e)(2)(iii), and 70.8(b)).
    District's Response to Issue 6. The District revised Rule 216.C.3 
to define ``Affected State'' as:
    (a) Whose air quality may be affected by the issuance, 
modification, or re-issuance of a Part 70 permit and that is contiguous 
to the State of California; or
    (b) That is within 50 miles of the permitted source.
    The District also revised Rule Section 2 of 216.J.2.b (Minor Part 
70 Permit Modifications) and 216.J.2.c (Significant Part 70 Permit 
Actions) to provide that the APCO shall provide, to the EPA and any 
affected State, written notification of any refusal by the District to 
accept all recommendations that an ``affected'' State submitted for the 
Part 70 permit. The notice shall include the District's reasons for not 
accepting such recommendations.
    Issue 7. The District was required to revise the rule to limit the 
exemption in Rule 216 D.4 for solid waste incineration units required 
to obtain a permit pursuant to section 3005 of the Solid Waste Disposal 
Act to those units that are not a major source. Section 70.3(b) states 
that all major sources, affected sources (acid rain sources), and solid 
waste incinerators regulated pursuant to section 129(e) of the CAA may 
not be exempted from Title V permitting. Although section 129(g)(1) of 
the CAA exempts solid waste incineration units subject to section 3005 
of the Solid Waste Disposal Act from regulation under section 129, 
these units are still subject to Title V and part 70 if they are also 
major sources. (Reference: 40 CFR 70.3(a)(1)).
    District's Response to Issue 7. The District deleted its Rule 
216.D.4, therefore removing any exemptions from permitting of solid 
waste incineration units subject to Section 3005 of the Solid Waste 
Disposal Act.
    Issue 8. San Luis Obispo County was required to revise Rule 216 
H.4. to require that the permittee keep records describing non-federal 
minor changes (e.g., off-permit changes) and the emissions resulting 
from these changes. (Reference: 40 CFR 70.4(b)(14)(iv)).
    District's Response to Issue 8. The District responded that while 
the District's original program submittal envisioned allowing off-
permit non-federal minor changes, such actions were not allowed under 
the actual program that was implemented. In fact, any source subject to 
an applicable requirement in the District must first notify the 
District. For example, the District Rule 202 requires that an 
application be filed and approved before a non-federal minor change can 
be made, and failing to do so is a misdemeanor under California law and 
subject to fines and penalties. In sum, the District does not and will 
not allow off-permit changes. We agree with the District that the issue 
is moot because the District's revised Rule 216 has now clarified its 
procedure for various types of permit modification requests. In 
correcting our deficiency issue 4, the District has also responded to 
issue 8 and addressed our concerns resulting from the description of 
off-permit changes in the original program submittal.
    Issue 9. One of EPA's conditions for full title V program approval 
was the California Legislature's revision of the Health and Safety Code 
to eliminate the provision that exempts ``any equipment used in 
agricultural operations in the growing of crops or the raising of fowl 
or animals' from the requirement to obtain a permit. See California 
Health and Safety Code section 42310(e). Even though the local 
Districts have, in many cases, removed the title V exemption for 
agricultural sources from their own rules, the Health and Safety Code 
has not been revised to eliminate this provision.
    In evaluating the impact of the Health and Safety Code exemption, 
EPA believes there are a couple of key factors to consider. First, many 
post-harvest activities are not covered by the exemption and, thus, are 
still subject to title V permitting. For example, according to the 
California Air Resources Board (CARB), the Health and Safety Code 
exemption does not include activities such as milling and crushing, or 
canning or cotton ginning operations. Activities such as these are 
subject to review under the State's title V programs. See letter from 
Michael P. Kenny, Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board, to 
Jack Broadbent, Director, Air Division, U.S. EPA Region 9, dated 
September 19, 2001. In addition, since the granting of interim 
approval, the EPA has discovered that, in general, there is not a 
reliable or complete inventory of emissions associated with 
agricultural operations in California that are subject to the 
exemption. Although further research on this issue is needed, many 
sources with activities covered by the exemption may not have emission 
levels that would subject them to title V, and the State and/or 
individual Districts may be able to demonstrate that none of the 
sources that are exempt under the State law are subject to title V.
    Based, in part, on these factors, EPA has tentatively concluded 
that requiring the immediate commencement of title V

[[Page 53162]]

permitting of the limited types of agricultural activities presently 
subject to the exemption, without a better understanding of the sources 
and their emissions, would not be an appropriate utilization of limited 
local, state and federal resources. As a result, despite the State of 
California's failure to eliminate the agricultural permitting 
exemption, EPA is proposing to grant full approval to local Air 
District operating permit programs and allow a deferral of title V 
permitting of agricultural operations involved in the growing of crops 
or the raising of fowl or animals for a further brief period, not to 
exceed three years. During the deferral period, we expect to develop 
the program infrastructure and experience necessary for effective 
implementation of the title V permitting program to this limited 
category of sources.
    EPA believes it is appropriate to defer permitting for this limited 
category of agricultural sources because the currently available 
techniques for determining emissions inventories and for monitoring 
emissions (e.g., from irrigation pumps and feeding operations) are 
problematic and will be dramatically enhanced by several efforts 
currently being undertaken with the cooperation and participation of 
the operators and agricultural organizations, as well as EPA, other 
federal agencies, and the State and local air pollution agencies. For 
example, the National Academy of Sciences is undertaking a study 
addressing emissions from animal feeding operations. Their report is 
due next year. In addition, EPA's Office of Air and Radiation is 
working with the U.S. Department of Agriculture to better address the 
impact of agricultural operations on air quality. We consider the 
effort to evaluate the existing science, improve on assessment tools, 
collect additional data, remove any remaining legal obstacles, and 
issue any necessary guidance within the three year deferral time frame 
to be ambitious. We welcome comments on other areas that might also 
warrant study, as well as ways that this work might be done more 
quickly.
    During the interim deferral period, EPA will continue to work with 
the agricultural industry and our state and federal regulatory partners 
to pursue, wherever possible, voluntary emission reduction strategies. 
At the end of this period, EPA will, taking into consideration the 
results of these studies, make a determination as to how the title V 
operating permit program will be implemented for any potential major 
agricultural stationary sources.
Other District Revisions
    In addition to the changes necessary to correct interim approval 
issues, the District made two other changes to its rule that we propose 
to approve as part of today's action. First, the District expanded 
Section A of its Rule 216 to allow the District's program to be 
suspended during any time period in which a 40 CFR Part 71 operating 
permit program is being administered. The two exceptions to this are 
when EPA objects to a permit or when EPA and the District agree, via a 
delegation agreement, to not suspend all or part of the District's 
rules. In the latter case, the delegation agreement would describe the 
terms, conditions and scope of the District's authority for 
implementing Part 71. This is approvable because it clarifies how the 
District's program will be administered during time periods where Part 
71 is in place.
    Second, the District added a statement to its definition of 
potential to emit (``PTE'') at Rule 216.C.18 to state that limiting 
conditions must be legally and practicably enforceable by EPA and 
citizens or by the District. The last paragraph of Rule 216.C.18 
(previously Rule 216.C.6) now reads as follows:

    The potential to emit for an emissions unit is the maximum 
quantity of each air pollutant that may be emitted by the emissions 
unit, based on the emissions unit's physical and operational design. 
Physical and operational design shall include limitations that 
restrict emissions, such as hours of operation and type or amount of 
material combusted, stored or processed, provided such limitations 
are legally and practicably enforceable by EPA and citizens or by 
the District.

    We propose to approve this revision because even though the new 
definition is not consistent with Part 70, it is consistent with the 
new meaning of potential to emit at 40 CFR Sec. 70.2 as established by 
a 1996 court decision. In Clean Air Implementation Project v. EPA, No. 
96-1224 (D.C. Cir. June 28, 1996), the court remanded and vacated the 
requirement for federal enforceability for potential to emit limits 
under part 70. Therefore, even though part 70 has not been revised, it 
should be read to mean, ``federally enforceable or legally and 
practicably enforceable by a state or local air pollution control 
agency.''\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See also, National Mining Association (NMA) v. EPA, 59 F.3d 
1351 (D.C. Cir. July 21, 1995) (Title III) and Chemical 
Manufacturing Ass'n (CMA) v. EPA, No. 89-1514 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 15 
1995) (Title I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has issued several guidance memoranda that discuss how the 
court rulings affect the definition of potential to emit under CAA 
Sec. 112, New Source Review (NSR) and Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration (PSD) programs, and title V.\2\ In particular, the 
memoranda reiterate the Agency's earlier requirements for practicable 
enforceability for purposes of effectively limiting a source's 
potential to emit.\3\ For example, practicable enforceability for a 
source-specific permit means that the permit's provisions must, at a 
minimum: (1) Be technically accurate and identify which portions of the 
source are subject to the limitation; (2) specify the time period for 
the limitation (hourly, daily, monthly, and annual limits such as 
rolling annual limits); (3) be independently enforceable and describe 
the method to determine compliance including appropriate monitoring, 
recordkeeping and reporting; (4) be permanent; and (5) include a legal 
obligation to comply with the limit. EPA will rely on San Luis Obispo 
County implementing this new definition in a manner that is consistent 
with the court's decisions and EPA policies. In addition, EPA wants to 
be certain that absent federal and citizen's enforceability, San Luis 
Obispo County's enforcement program still provides sufficient incentive 
for sources to comply with permit limits. This proposed rulemaking 
serves as notice to San Luis Obispo County about our expectations for 
ensuring the permit limits they impose are enforceable as a practical 
matter (i.e., practicably enforceable) and that its enforcement program 
will still provide sufficient compliance incentive. In the future, if 
San Luis Obispo County does not implement the new definition consistent 
with our guidance, and/or

[[Page 53163]]

has not established a sufficient compliance incentive absent Federal 
and citizen's enforceability, EPA could find that the District has 
failed to administer or enforce its program and may take action to 
notify the District of such a finding as authorized by 40 CFR 
70.10(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See, e.g., January 22, 1996, Memorandum entitled, ``Release 
of Interim Policy on Federal Enforceability of Limitations on 
Potential to Emit'' from John Seitz, Director, OAQPS and Robert I. 
Van Heuvelen, Director, Office of Regulatory Enforcement to EPA 
Regional Offices; January 31, 1996 paper to the Members of the 
Subcommittee on Permit, New Source Review and Toxics Integration 
from Steve Herman, OECA, and Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator 
of Air and Radiation; and the August 27, 1996 Memorandum entitled, 
``Extension of January 25, 1995 Potential to Emit Transition 
Policy'' from John Seitz, Director, OAQPS and Robert Van Heuvelen, 
Director, Office of Regulatory Enforcement.
    \3\ See, e.g., June 13, 1989 Memorandum entitled, ``Guidance on 
Limiting Potential to Emit in new Source Permitting, from Terrell F. 
Hunt, Associate Enforcement Counsel, OECA, and John Seitz, Director, 
OAQPS, to EPA Regional Offices. This guidance is still the most 
comprehensive statement from EPA on this subject. Further guidance 
was provided on January 25, 1995 in a memorandum entitled ``Options 
for Limiting the Potential to Emit (PTE) of a Stationary Source 
Under Section 112 and Title V of the Clean Air Act (Act),'' from 
John Seitz, Director, OAQPS and Robert I. Van Heuvelen, Director, 
ORE to Regional Air Directors. Also please refer to the EPA Region 7 
database at http://www.epa.gov/region07/programs/artd/air/policy/policy.htm for more information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. What Is Involved in This Action?

    We have determined that the District has addressed our specific 
concerns identified as interim approval issues. Therefore, we are now 
proposing to fully approve the District's Operating Permit Program. We 
are also proposing to approve two additional changes that were made 
beyond those necessary to correct interim approval issues.

II. Request for Public Comment

    EPA requests comments on the program revisions discussed in this 
proposed action. Copies of the District 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 state law as 
meeting federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements 
beyond those imposed by state 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 state law and does not impose any additional 
enforceable duties beyond that required by state 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 
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, 
``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). The rule merely proposes 
to approve existing requirements under state law, and does not alter 
the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the State 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 State operating permit programs submitted pursuant to 
Title V of the Clean Air Act, EPA will approve State 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 State to use voluntary 
consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a State 
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 State program that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements 
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer.

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 11, 2001.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 01-26419 Filed 10-18-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P