[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 204 (Monday, October 22, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53354-53370]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-26529]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 70

[CA 054-OPP; FRL-7087-9]


Clean Air Act Proposed Full Approval of the Title V 
OperatingPermit Programs for Twenty-Four California Air Pollution 
Control Districts

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to fully approve the operating permit programs 
submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) on behalf of 
Amador County Air Pollution Control District (APCD), Butte County Air 
Quality Management District (AQMD), Calaveras County APCD, Colusa 
County APCD, El Dorado County APCD, Feather River AQMD, Glenn County 
APCD, Great Basin Unified APCD, Imperial
County APCD, Kern County APCD, Lake County AQMD, Lassen County APCD, 
Mariposa County APCD, Mendocino County APCD, Modoc County APCD, North 
Coast Unified AQMD, Northern Sierra AQMD, Northern Sonoma County APCD, 
Placer County APCD, Shasta County APCD, Siskiyou County APCD, Tehama 
County APCD, Tuolumne County APCD, and Yolo-Solano AQMD. All twenty-
four operating permit programs were 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 final interim approval to nineteen of the twenty-four 
districts' operating permit programs on May 3, 1995 (60 FR 21720). The 
five districts that were not included in that rulemaking were Glenn 
County APCD, Tehama County APCD, Lake County AQMD, Shasta County APCD, 
and Mariposa APCD. EPA granted final interim approval to Mariposa 
APCD's operating permit program on December 7, 1995 (60 FR 62758) and 
to the other four districts' programs on July 13, 1995 (60 FR 36065). 
All twenty-four districts revised their programs to satisfy the 
conditions of the interim approval and this action proposes approval of 
those revisions. In addition, many districts made other changes to 
their rules that were not required to correct an interim approval 
issue; EPA proposes to approve most of these other changes districts 
have made.

DATES: Comments on the program revisions discussed in this proposed 
action must be received in writing by November 21, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this proposed 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 program submittals, and other supporting 
documentation relevant to this action, during normal business hours at 
Air

[[Page 53355]]

Division, EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 
94105. You may also see copies of the submitted title V programs at the 
California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule 
Evaluation Section, 1001 ``I'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95814, and at the 
appropriate local Air Pollution Control District office (current 
District addresses are listed on the Internet at http://www.arb.ca.gov/capcoa/roster.htm)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gerardo Rios, EPA Region IX, at (415) 
744-1259 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 being addressed in this document?
III. Are there other issues with the program?
IV. What are the program changes that EPA proposes to approve?
    A. Changes Made for Full Approval
    1. Group 1--Changes Required of All Districts
    2. Group 2--District-Specific Changes
    B. Other District-Specific Changes Submitted Since EPA Granted 
Final Interim Approval
V. What is involved in this proposed action?

I. What Is the Operating Permit Program?

    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 operating permit programs, the 
permitting authorities require certain sources of air pollution to 
obtain permits that contain all applicable requirements under the 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 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 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 the 
deficiencies. Because all twenty-four operating permit programs 
substantially, but not fully, met the requirements of part 70, EPA 
granted interim approval to each program in three separate rulemakings, 
published on May 3, 1995 (60 FR 21720) for nineteen of the twenty-four 
districts, on July 13, 1995 (60 FR 36065) for Glenn County APCD, Tehama 
County APCD, Lake County AQMD, and Shasta County APCD, and on December 
7, 1995 (60 FR 62758) for Mariposa County APCD. Each interim approval 
notice described the conditions that had to be met in order for the 
programs to receive full approval. Since that time, each of the twenty-
four districts have revised their interimly approved operating permit 
program at least once. These changes were necessary to correct the 
conditions for full approval; but some districts made other changes as 
well. Table 1 below lists the dates of submission by CARB of each of 
the revised district programs.

     Table 1.--Rule Number, Name, Adoption Date(s), and Program Submission Dates, for California Non-Grantee
                                      Districts' Operating Permit Programs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      Date of
             District name                     Rule No. and name         Date(s) of adoption of    submission by
                                                                              revised rule             CARB
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amador County APCD....................  Rule 500--Procedures for        3/27/01 and 2/27/97.....        04/10/01
                                         Issuing Permits to Operate
                                         for Sources Subject to Title
                                         V of the Federal Clean Air
                                         Act Amendments of 1990.
Butte County AQMD.....................  Rule 1101--Title V--Federal     4/26/01 and 6/24/99.....         5/17/01
                                         Operating Permits.
Calaveras County APCD.................  Regulation X--Additional        6/11/01.................         7/27/01
                                         Procedures for Issuing
                                         Permits to Operate for
                                         Sources Subject to Title V of
                                         the Federal Clean Air Act
                                         Amendments of 1990.
                                        Rule 1001--Purpose and General
                                         Requirements of Regulation X.
                                        Rule 1002--Definitions........
                                        Rule 1003--Applicability......
                                        Rule 1004--Administrative
                                         Procedures for Sources.
                                        Rule 1005--District
                                         Administrative Procedures.
                                        Rule 1006--Permit Content
                                         Requirements.
                                        Rule 1007--Supplemental Annual
                                         Fee.
Colusa County APCD....................  Rule 3-17--Permits to Operate   8/7/01..................         8/22/01
                                         for Sources Subject to Title
                                         V.
El Dorado County APCD.................  Rule 522--Title V Federal       7/10/01.................         8/16/01
                                         Operating Permit Program.
Feather River AQMD....................  Rule 10.3--Federal Operating    5/7/01 and 12/4/00......         5/22/01
                                         Permits.
Glenn County APCD.....................  Article VIII--Additional        6/19/01 and 1/30/01.....         9/13/01
                                         Procedures for Issuing
                                         Permits to Operate for
                                         Sources Subject to Title V of
                                         the Federal Clean Air Act
                                         Amendments of 1990.

[[Page 53356]]

 
Great Basin Unified APCD..............  Rule 217--Additional            5/9/01 and 3/8/95.......         5/18/01
                                         Procedures for Issuing
                                         Permits to Operate for
                                         Sources Subject to Title V of
                                         the Federal Clean Air Act
                                         Amendments of 1990.
Imperial County APCD..................  Rule 900--Procedures for        6/26/01 and 4/4/00......          8/2/01
                                         Issuing Permits to Operate
                                         for Sources Subject to Title
                                         V of the Federal Clean Air
                                         Act Amendments of 1990.
Kern County APCD......................  Rule 201.1--Permits to Operate  5/3/01 and 1/9/97.......         5/24/01
                                         for Sources Subject to Title
                                         V of the Federal Clean Air
                                         Act Amendments of 1990.
Lake County AQMD......................  Chapter XII--Requirements for   5/22/01 and 12/5/00.....          6/1/01
                                         Issuing Permits to Operate
                                         for Sources Subject to Title
                                         V of the Federal Clean Air
                                         Act Amendments of 1990.
                                        Article I--Purpose and General
                                         Requirements.
                                        Article III--Applicability....
                                        Article IV--Administrative
                                         Procedures for Sources.
                                        Article V--District
                                         Administrative Procedures.
                                        Article VI--Permit Content....
                                        Article VII--Permit Fees......
                                        Article VIII--Designated Non-
                                         major Stationary Source.
Lassen County APCD....................  Regulation VII--Title V--       7/2/01..................          8/2/01
                                         Permits to Operate for
                                         Sources Subject to Title V of
                                         the Federal Clean Air Act
                                         Amendments of 1990.
                                        Rule 7-1--Purpose and General
                                         Requirements.
                                        Rule 7-2--Applicability.......
                                        Rule 7-3--Exemptions..........
                                        Rule 7-4--Definitions.........
                                        Rule 7-5--Administrative
                                         Procedures for Sources.
                                        Rule 7-6--District
                                         Administrative Procedures.
                                        Rule 7-7--Permit Content
                                         Requirements.
                                        Rule 7-8--Annual Fees.........
Mariposa County APCD..................  Regulation X--Additional        9/4/01..................         9/20/01
                                         Procedures for Issuing
                                         Permits to Operate for
                                         Sources Subject to Title V of
                                         the Federal Clean Air Act
                                         Amendments of 1990.
                                        Rule 1001--Purpose and General
                                         Requirements of Regulation X.
                                        Rule 1002--Definitions........
                                        Rule 1003--Applicaibility.....
                                        Rule 1004--Administrative
                                         Procedures for Sources.
                                        Rule 1005--District
                                         Administrative Procedures.
                                        Rule 1006--Permit Content
                                         Requirements.
                                        Rule 1007--Supplemental Annual
                                         Fee.
Mendocino County APCD.................  Regulation V--Procedures for    11/14/00................         4/13/01
                                         Issuing Permits to Operate
                                         for Sources Subject to Title
                                         V of the Federal Clean Air
                                         Act Amendment of 1990.
                                        Chapter I--Purpose and General
                                         Requirements.
                                        Chapter II--Definitions.......
                                        Chapter III--Applicability....
                                        Chapter IV--Administrative
                                         Procedures for Sources.
                                        Chapter V--District
                                         Administrative Procedures.
                                        Chapter VI--Permit Content....
Modoc County APCD.....................  Rule 2.13--Additional           7/24/01.................         9/12/01
                                         Procedures for Issuing
                                         Permits to Operate for
                                         Sources Subject to Title V of
                                         the Federal Clean Air Act
                                         Amendments of 1990.
North Coast Unified AQMD..............  Regulation V--Procedures for    5/18/01 and 11/21/94....         5/24/01
                                         Issuing Permits to Operate
                                         for Sources Subject to Title
                                         V.
                                        Chapter 1--Purpose and General
                                         Requirements; Rules 100, 110,
                                         and 120.
                                        Chapter 2--Definitions; Rule
                                         200--Definitions.
                                        Chapter 3--Applicability; Rule
                                         300--Applicability.
                                        Chapter 4--Administrative
                                         Procedures for Sources; Rules
                                         400, 405, 410, 415, 425, 430,
                                         440, 450, 455, 460, and 470.
                                        Chapter 5--District
                                         Administrative Procedures;
                                         Rules 500, 510, 520, 530,
                                         540, 545, 550, 560, 570, and
                                         580.
                                        Chapter 6--Permit Content;
                                         Rules 600, 610, 615, 620,
                                         625, 630, 635, 640, 645, 650,
                                         660, 670, 675, 680, and 690.
Northern Sierra AQMD..................  Rule 522--Title V Federal       3/8/01 and 9/11/94......         5/24/01
                                         Operating Permits.
Northern Sonoma County APCD...........  Regulation V--Procedures for    5/8/01..................         5/21/01
                                         Issuing Permits to Operate
                                         for Sources Subject to Title
                                         V of the Federal Clean Air
                                         Act Amendment of 1990.
                                        Chapter I--Purpose and General
                                         Requirements.

[[Page 53357]]

 
                                        Chapter II--Definitions Used
                                         in Regulation 5.
                                        Chapter III--Applicability of
                                         Regulation 5.
                                        Chapter IV--Administrative
                                         Procedures for Sources.
                                        Chapter V--District
                                         Administrative Procedures.
                                        Chapter VI--Permit Content
                                         Requirements.
Placer County APCD....................  Rule 507--Federal Operating     4/17/01 and 8/24/95.....          5/4/01
                                         Permit Program.
Shasta County APCD....................  Rule 5-0--Additional            5/8/01..................         5/18/01
                                         Procedures for Issuing
                                         Permits to Operate for
                                         Sources Subject to Title V of
                                         the Federal Clean Air Act
                                         Amendments of 1990.
Siskiyou County APCD..................  Rule 2.13--Additional           9/25/01.................         9/28/01
                                         Procedures for Issuing
                                         Permits to Operate for
                                         Sources Subject to Title V of
                                         the Federal Clean Air Act
                                         Amendments of 1990.
Tehama County APCD....................  Rule 7:1--Federal Operating     5/22/01.................          6/4/01
                                         Permit Program.
Tuolumne County APCD..................  Rule 500--Additional            6/19/01.................         7/18/01
                                         Procedures for Issuing
                                         Permits to Operate for
                                         Sources Subject to Title V of
                                         the 1990 Federal Clean Air
                                         Act Amendments.
Yolo-Solano AQMD......................  Rule 3.8--Federal Operating     4/11/01 and renumbered            5/9/01
                                         Permits Additional Procedures   on 2/23/94 (from 3.19
                                         for Issuing Permits to          to 3.8).
                                         Operate for Sources Subject
                                         to Title V of the Federal
                                         Clean Air Act Amendments of
                                         1990.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This document describes changes that have been made to the twenty-
four operating permit programs since EPA granted interim approval. 
These changes include those made by the districts to resolve interim 
approval deficiencies, as well as other rule and program changes 
submitted to EPA for approval.

III. 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 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 comment letter from one organization on what they 
believe to be deficiencies with respect to title V programs in 
California. EPA takes no action 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. 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.

IV. What Are the Program Changes That EPA Proposes To Approve?

A. Changes Made for Full Approval

    As discussed earlier, the title V programs for the twenty-four 
districts included in today's rulemaking were given interim approval on 
May 3, 1995 (60 FR 21720) for nineteen of the twenty-four Districts; on 
July 13, 1995 (60 FR 36065) for Glenn County APCD, Tehama County APCD, 
Lake County AQMD, and Shasta County APCD; and on December 7, 1995 (60 
FR 62758) for Mariposa County APCD. As stipulated in each of those 
rulemakings, full approval of the specific district operating permit 
program was made contingent upon satisfaction of certain conditions. We 
have included below a discussion of these conditions and a summary of 
how the twenty-four districts revised their part 70 programs and rules 
to meet the conditions required for full program approval. We have 
structured this section by categorizing each of the required changes 
into either Group 1 or Group 2. Group 1 consists of the eleven (11) 
conditions that are common to all twenty-four districts,\1\ unless 
otherwise noted. Group 2 consists of all other conditions that are 
specific to each district and may or may not apply to more than one 
district. The district's rule (or program) correction follows the 
description of the required changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The reason for the similarity among the title V programs 
included in today's proposed action is that all twenty-four 
districts originally replicated a model title V rule developed by 
the California Air Resources Board (CARB). EPA Region 9 worked with 
the CARB to develop language to correct the deficiencies in the 
model rule that EPA identified as interim approval issues. In most 
cases, the language changes agreed to by EPA and CARB were adopted 
verbatim by the local Air District Boards. Please see the Technical 
Support Documents, included in the docket for this rulemaking, for 
more information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Group 1--Changes Required of All Districts
    Unless otherwise noted, the following eleven conditions are common 
to all twenty-four districts that are the subject of today's proposed 
action.
    Issue (1): Each district needed to provide a demonstration that 
activities that are exempt from part 70 permitting are truly 
insignificant and are not likely to be subject to an applicable 
requirement. Alternatively, districts could restrict the exemptions 
(including any director's discretion provisions) to activities that are 
not likely to be subject to an applicable requirement and emit less 
than district-established emission levels. Districts needed to 
establish separate emission levels for HAPs and for other regulated 
pollutants and demonstrate that these emission levels are insignificant 
compared to the level of emissions from and type of units that

[[Page 53358]]

are required to be permitted or subject to applicable requirements. 
This was a condition for full approval for all districts except for 
Mendocino County AQMD and Northern Sonoma County APCD.
    Districts' Response: Districts addressed this requirement by 
implementing one of two options for defining insignificant activities 
in their part 70 (title V) programs. Option 1 involved adopting the 
Model List of Insignificant Activities for Title V Permit Programs 
developed by EPA and CARB. The Model List includes criteria for 24 
specific source categories that are presumptively insignificant, as 
well as general criteria that define an insignificant activity as any 
activity that is not subject to a source-specific requirement and that 
emits no more than 0.5 tons per year (tpy) of a federal hazardous air 
pollutant (HAP) and no more than two tpy of a regulated pollutant that 
is not a HAP. Option 2 allowed districts to adopt the general criteria 
from Option 1 (i.e., any activities that are not subject to a source-
specific requirement and emit below the 0.5 and 2 tpy emission 
thresholds) into their part 70 program rules. Of the districts for 
which this was a condition of full approval, only Amador, El Dorado, 
Feather River, Imperial, North Coast, Placer and Shasta elected Option 
1; the remainder elected Option 2.
    Issue (2): Districts were required to revise the exemption list to 
remove the general exemption for agricultural production sources or to 
restrict the exemptions to non-title V sources. This was a condition 
for full approval for all district programs except for Great Basin 
Unified APCD and Lassen County APCD which did not have general 
exemptions for agricultural operations in their exemption lists and for 
Mendocino County which did not provide a list of exempted activities.
    Districts' Response: In general, districts addressed this 
requirement by revising their title V rules and/or programs, where 
necessary, to delete the reference to the previously submitted permit 
exemption list. Further, districts added the following language to 
their part 70 programs: ``Upon amendment of the California Health and 
Safety Code to allow the issuance of title V permits to agricultural 
production sources, such sources shall be subject to evaluation for 
applicability to the requirements of title V.''
    In addition, 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 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.
    Issue (3): Districts needed to revise their rules' application 
content requirements so that any compliance schedule required by the 
rule for a source not in compliance resembles and is at least as 
stringent as that contained in any judicial consent decree, 
administrative order, or schedule approved by the hearing board to 
which the source is subject as required by 40 CFR 70.5(c)(8)(iii)(C), 
rather than simply a schedule of compliance approved by the district's 
hearing board.
    Districts' Response: Districts addressed this requirement by 
revising the application content portion of their part 70 program rules 
to include the specific language from part 70 regarding the stringency 
of a schedule of compliance for sources that are not in compliance with 
all applicable

[[Page 53359]]

requirements at the time of permit issuance.
    Issue (4): Districts were required to revise their rules' 
application content requirements to clarify that all reports and other 
documents submitted in the permit application must be certified by the 
responsible official as required by 40 CFR 70.5(d) and to provide the 
full text of the responsible official's certification in Sec. 70.5(d). 
This was an interim approval issue for all twenty-four district 
programs except Yolo-Solano AQMD whose part 70 program rule already 
required this.
    Districts' Response: Districts addressed this requirement by 
revising the application content portion of their part 70 program rules 
to require that all reports and documents submitted in the permit 
application be certified by a responsible official and to further 
require that the certification must state that, based on information 
and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, the statements and 
information in the document are true, accurate, and complete.
    Issue (5): Districts needed to provide in their rules a permit 
application deadline for sources that become subject to the district's 
part 70 rule after the rule's effectiveness date for reasons other than 
commencing operation. This deadline cannot be any later than 12 months 
after the source becomes subject to the rule as required by 40 CFR 
70.5(a)(1). This was a condition for full approval for all twenty-four 
district programs except for Northern Sierra AQMD and Yolo-Solano AQMD 
whose rules already contained this deadline.
    Districts' Response: Districts addressed this requirement by 
revising their part 70 program rules to require a source to submit a 
permit application within 12 months of the source commencing operation 
``or of otherwise becoming subject to'' the district's part 70 program 
rule.
    Issue (6): Districts needed to revise their rules' permit issuance 
procedures to provide for notifying the EPA and affected States in 
writing of any refusal by the district to accept all recommendations 
for the proposed permit that the affected State submitted during the 
public/affected State review period as required by 40 CFR 70.8(b)(2).
    Districts' Response: Districts addressed this requirement by 
revising their part 70 program rules to require such written 
notification to EPA and to affected States as part of their permit 
issuance procedures.
    Issue (7): Districts were required to incorporate into their rules 
provisions citing the right of the public to petition EPA under 40 CFR 
70.8(d) after the expiration of the EPA's 45-day review period and 
prohibiting the district from issuing a permit, if it has not already 
done so, until the EPA's objections in response to the petition are 
resolved as required by Sec. 70.8(d).
    Districts' Response: Districts addressed this requirement by 
incorporating the public petition provision and the post-petition 
permit issuance prohibition into their part 70 program rules.
    Issue (8): Districts had to revise their rules to provide for 
public notice of permitting actions by other means if necessary to 
assure adequate notice to the affected public as required by 40 CFR 
70.7(h)(1).
    Districts' Response: Districts addressed this requirement by 
modifying their part 70 programs' public notice procedures. In addition 
to publication in a newspaper of general circulation, districts added 
the requirement to provide notice by other means if necessary to assure 
adequate notice to the affected public.
    Issue (9): Districts were required to revise their rules' permit 
content requirements to clarify that all reports and other documents 
required by the permit must be certified by a responsible official as 
required by 40 CFR 70.6(c)(1) and to provide the full text of the 
responsible official's certification in Sec. 70.5(d). This condition is 
very similar to issue #4 above, except that it applies to the district 
rules' permit content requirements instead of the permit application 
requirements.
    Districts' Response: Districts addressed this requirement by 
revising the permit content requirements of their part 70 program rules 
to require that any such reports or documents are certified by a 
responsible official and to further require that the certification must 
state that, based on information and belief formed after reasonable 
inquiry, the statements and information in the documents are true, 
accurate, and complete.
    Issue (10): Districts needed to revise their rules' permit content 
requirements to require that any compliance schedule for a source not 
in compliance must resemble and be at least as stringent as that 
contained in any judicial consent decree, administrative order, or 
schedule approved by the hearing board to which the source is subject 
as required by 40 CFR 70.6(c)(3) and 70.5(c)(8)(iii)(C). This was an 
interim approval issue for all districts except Yolo-Solano AQMD whose 
rule already provided for this. This condition is very similar to issue 
#3 above, except that it applies to the district rules' permit content 
requirements instead of the permit application requirements.
    Districts' Response: Districts addressed this requirement by 
revising their part 70 program rules to include the specific language 
from part 70 regarding the stringency of a schedule of compliance for 
sources that are not in compliance with all applicable requirements at 
the time of permit issuance.
    Issue (11): Districts were required to revise their rules' permit 
content requirements to require the submission of compliance 
certifications more frequently than annually if a more frequent period 
is specified in the applicable requirement or by the district as 
required by 40 CFR 70.6(c)(5)(i). This was an interim approval issue 
for all districts except Yolo-Solano AQMD whose rule already provided 
for this.
    Districts' Response: Districts addressed this requirement by 
revising their part 70 programs' permit content requirements to require 
more frequent submission of compliance certifications as stipulated by 
40 CFR 70.6(c)(5)(i).

Group 2--District-Specific Changes

    In addition to the interim approval conditions noted above for all 
districts, numerous district-specific changes were also identified by 
EPA as conditions for full approval of districts' operating permit 
programs. These conditions are discussed below:
    (1) Amador County APCD: (a) Amador County APCD (ACAPCD) was 
required to revise all deadlines for final permit action in Rule 500 
V.C. (except for C.1. and C.5.) to be no later than the appropriate 
number of months after the complete application is received, rather 
than after the application is deemed to be complete, as required by 40 
CFR 70.4(b)(11)(iii) and 70.7(a)(2).
    ACAPCD addressed this condition by revising Rule 500 to require 
final action no later than the appropriate number of months ``after the 
complete application is received'' rather than ``after the application 
is deemed complete.''
    (b) ACAPCD was required to revise the definition of ``potential to 
emit'' in Rule 500 II.AA. to clarify that only federally-enforceable 
limitations may be considered in determining a source's potential to 
emit under title V. Subsequent litigation has affected EPA's 
consideration of this issue. In Clean Air Implementation Project vs. 
EPA, No. 96-1224 (D.C. Cir. June 28, 1996), the court remanded and 
vacated the requirement forfederal enforceability for potential to emit 
limits under part 70. Even though part 70 has not been revised it 
should be read to mean, ``federally enforceable or legally and 
practicably enforceable by

[[Page 53360]]

a state or local air pollution control agency.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See also, National Mining Association (NMA) v. EPA, 59 F.3d 
1351 (D.C. Cir. July 21, 1995) and Chemical Manufacturing Ass'n 
(CMA) v. EPA, No. 89-1514 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 15, 1995) (regarding 
federal enforceability of potential to emit limits for Title III and 
Title I of the Act, respectively).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ACAPCD revised the definition which now states that ``[p]hysical 
and operational limitations on the emissions unit shall be treated as 
part of its design, if the limitations are set forth in permit 
conditions or in rules or regulations that are legally and practicably 
enforceable by U.S. EPA and citizens or by the District.'' EPA proposes 
to approve this revision because ACAPCD's rule is consistent with the 
current meaning of potential to emit at 40 CFR 70.2. 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.\3\ In particular, the memoranda reiterate the 
Agency's earlier requirements for practicable enforceability for 
purposes of effectively limiting a source's potential to emit.\4\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 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 
Subcomittee 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.
    \4\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA will rely on ACAPCD 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, Amador County's enforcement program still provides 
sufficient incentive for sources to comply with permit limits. This 
proposal provides notice to Amador 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 ACAPCD 
does not implement the new definition consistent with our guidance, 
and/or 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).
    (c) ACAPCD was required to revise Rule 500 V.I.2 and 3 to require 
notification by the source of operational flexibility changes to both 
the EPA and the District as required by 40 CFR 70.4(b)(12).
    ACAPCD addressed this condition by revising both sections of Rule 
500 to require that written notice be provided to both USEPA and the 
APCO as required by 40 CFR 70.4(b)(12).
    (d) ACAPCD was required to revise the definition of ``affected 
state'' in Rule 500 II.C. to allow for the treatment of Tribal 
Authorities as affected states if the Authority request such treatment 
under the Tribal Air Regulations.
    ACAPCD addressed this requirement by revising this definition, 
which now states that an affected State ``is any State that: (1) Is 
contiguous with California and whose air quality may be affected by a 
permit action, or (2) is within 50 miles of the source for which a 
permit action is being proposed.''
    (2) Butte County AQMD: (a) Butte County AQMD (BCAQMD) was required 
to revise Rule 1101 V.C.6. to take final action on early reduction 
applications within nine months of receipt of the complete application 
rather than within nine months of the date the application was deemed 
complete as required by 40 CFR 70.4(b)(11)(iii).
    BCAQMD addressed this condition by revising Rule 1101 Section 5.3.6 
(please note that BCAQMD has renumbered its rule) to require final 
action no later than nine months ``after the complete application is 
received'' rather than ``after the application is deemed complete.''
    (b) BCAQMD was required to revise Rule 1101 IV.B.4. to incorporate 
the compliance provisions of 40 CFR 70.7(e)(2)(v). Rule 1101 did not 
state, as does Sec. 70.7(e)(2)(v), that until the District takes final 
action to issue or deny the requested permit modification or determines 
that it is a significant modification, the source must comply with both 
the applicable requirements governing the change and the proposed 
permit terms and conditions, but the source need not comply with the 
existing permit terms and conditions being modified. Rule 1101 also 
needed to be revised to state that if the source fails to comply with 
the permit terms and conditions in the requested modification, the 
existing permit terms and conditions being modified may be enforced 
against it.
    BCAQMD addressed this requirement by revising Rule 1101 Section 
4.2.4 to eliminate the ability for sources to commence operation of 
proposed modifications until the APCO takes final action to approve the 
permit. This revision corrects the deficiencies in Rule 1101 that EPA 
had identified as interim approval issues.
    (c) BCAQMD was required to revise Rule 1101 IV.B.3. to limit the 
discretion of the APCO to authorize sources to commence operations of 
significant permit modifications prior to final permit action to when 
the changes meet the criteria of 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(ii). Rule 1101 
IV.B.3. allowed the APCO to authorize sources to commence operations of 
significant permit modifications when the proposed permit revision is 
publicly noticed but prior to final permit action. Part 70 prohibits 
sources from making significant permit modification changes prior to 
final permit issuance unless the changes are subject to preconstruction 
review under Sec. 112(g) of the Act or preconstruction review programs 
approved into the SIP pursuant to part C or D of title I of the Act, 
and the changes are not otherwise prohibited by the source's existing 
part 70 permit. See 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(ii).
    BCAQMD addressed this requirement by revising Rule 1101 Section 
4.2.3 to limit the discretion of the APCO to authorize sources to 
commence operations of a significant permit modification prior to final 
action only where the changes meet the criteria of 40 CFR 
70.5(a)(1)(ii).
    (3) Calaveras County APCD did not have to make any additional 
corrections.
    (4) Colusa County APCD: (a) The District was required to revise 
Rule 3.17

[[Page 53361]]

d.2.D. to incorporate the compliance provisions of 40 CFR 
70.7(e)(2)(v). Rule 3.17 did not state, as does Sec. 70.7(e)(2)(v), 
that until the District takes final action to issue or deny the 
requested permit modification or determines that it is a significant 
modification, the source must comply with both the applicable 
requirements governing the change and the proposed permit terms and 
conditions, but the source need not comply with the existing permit 
terms and conditions being modified. Rule 3.17 also needed to be 
revised to state that if the source fails to comply with the permit 
terms and conditions in the requested modification, the existing permit 
terms and conditions being modified may be enforced against it.
    Colusa County APCD (CCAPCD) addressed this requirement by revising 
Rule 3.17 d.2.D to include the appropriate compliance provisions from 
40 CFR 70.7(e)(2)(v).
    (b) The District needed to revise Rule 3.17 d.2.C. to limit the 
discretion of the APCO to authorize sources to commence operations of 
significant permit modifications prior to final permit action to when 
the changes meet the criteria of 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(ii). At the time of 
interim approval, Rule 3.17 d.2.C. allowed the APCO to authorize 
sources to commence operations of significant permit modifications when 
the proposed permit revision was publicly noticed but prior to final 
permit action. Part 70 prohibits sources from making significant permit 
modification changes prior to final permit issuance unless the changes 
are subject to preconstruction review under Sec. 112(g) of the Act or 
preconstruction review programs approved into the SIP pursuant to part 
C or D of title I of the Act and the changes are not otherwise 
prohibited by the source's existing part 70 permit. See 40 CFR 
70.5(a)(1)(ii).
    CCAPCD addressed this requirement by revising Rule 317 d.2.C to 
limit the discretion of the APCO to authorize sources to commence 
operations of a significant permit modification prior to final action 
only where the changes meet the criteria of 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(ii).
    (5) El Dorado County APCD: (a) The District needed to revise Rule 
522 to restrict the use of minor permit modification procedures to be 
consistent with 40 CFR 70.7(e)(2)(i)(B). Rule 522, by default, allowed 
minor permit modification procedures to be used for those permit 
modifications that involve the use of economic incentives, marketable 
permits, emissions trading, and other similar approaches. 40 CFR 
70.7(e)(2)(i)(B) constrains the use of the minor permit modification 
procedures for these approaches to situations where minor permit 
modification procedures are explicitly provided for in the applicable 
implementation plan or in the applicable requirements promulgated by 
the EPA.
    El Dorado County APCD (EDCAPCD) addressed this requirement by 
revising its definition of minor modification in Rule 522.2(U) to 
include the constraining language from 40 CFR 70.7(e)(2)(i)(B) 
regarding minor permit modification procedures.
    (b) EDCAPCD was required to revise Rule 522's permit content 
requirements to provide that every permit contain a 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 
as required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(8). EDCAPCD addressed this requirement by 
modifying Rule 522.6(B)(21) to add this provision from Sec. 70.6(a)(8).
    (6) Feather River AQMD: (a) The District needed to revise Rule 10.3 
to restrict the use of minor permit modification procedures to be 
consistent with 40 CFR 70.7(e)(2)(i)(B). Rule 10.3, by default, allowed 
minor permit modification procedures to be used for those permit 
modifications that involve the use of economic incentives, marketable 
permits, emissions trading, and other similar approaches. 40 CFR 
70.7(e)(2)(i)(B) constrains the use of minor permit modification 
procedures for these approaches to situations where minor permit 
modification procedures are explicitly provided for in the applicable 
implementation plan or in the applicable requirements promulgated by 
the EPA.
    Feather River AQMD (FRAQMD) addressed this requirement by revising 
their definition of minor permit modification in Rule 10.3 B.21 to 
include the constraining language from 40 CFR 70.7(e)(2)(i)(B) 
regarding minor permit modification procedures.
    (b) Feather River AQMD needed to revise Rule 10.3's permit content 
requirements to provide that every permit contain a 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 
as required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(8).
    FRAQMD addressed this requirement by modifying Rule 10.3 F.2.u to 
add this provision from Sec. 70.6(a)(8).
    (c) The District was required to revise Rule 10.3 D.2.c. to limit 
the discretion of the APCO to authorize sources to commence operation 
of significant permit modifications prior to final permit action to 
when such changes meet the criteria of 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(ii). At the 
time of interim approval, Rule 10.3 D.2.c. allowed the APCO to 
authorize sources to commence operations of significant permit 
modifications when the proposed permit revision was publicly noticed 
but prior to final permit action. Part 70 prohibits sources from making 
significant permit modification changes prior to final permit issuance 
unless the changes are subject to preconstruction review under 
Sec. 112(g) of the Act or preconstruction review programs approved into 
the SIP pursuant to part C or D of title I of the Act and the changes 
are not otherwise prohibited by the source's existing part 70 permit. 
See 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(ii).
    FRAQMD addressed this requirement by revising Rule 10.3 D.2.c. to 
limit the discretion of the APCO to authorize sources to commence 
operation of a significant permit modification prior to final action 
only where the changes meet the criteria of 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(ii).
    (7) Glenn County APCD: (a) Glenn County APCD (GCAPCD) needed to 
revise the rule's operational flexibility provisions to require 
notification by the source of operational flexibility changes to both 
the EPA and the District as required by 40 CFR 70.4(b)(12).
    GCAPCD addressed this requirement by revising Article VIII Section 
V.I.3.e to require that written notice be provided to both USEPA and 
the APCO as required by 40 CFR 70.4(b)(12).
    (b) GCAPCD was required to revise Article VIII V.C.6.3. to take 
final action on early reduction applications within nine months of 
receipt of the complete application rather than within nine months of 
the date the application was deemed complete as required by 40 CFR 
70.4(b)(11)(iii).
    GCAPCD addressed this condition by revising Article VIII V.C.6.3 to 
require final action no later than nine months ``after the complete 
application is received'' rather than ``after the application is deemed 
complete.''
    (8) Great Basin Unified APCD: (a) The District needed to revise 
Rule 217 IV.B.1.b. to delete the phrase ``or is discovered to be 
subject.'' When EPA granted the District interim approval, Rule 217 
IV.B.1.b. established a 12-month deadline for applications from sources 
which are ``discovered to be subject to Rule 217 after the date the 
rule becomes effective.'' It is a source's obligation to determine if 
it is or is not subject to title V and Rule 217. A source that is 
subject but fails to apply for a permit in the appropriate timeframes 
is in violation of its Clean Air Act section

[[Page 53362]]

502(a) obligation to apply for a part 70 permit and is subject to 
appropriate enforcement action. Discovery of a source that should have 
applied for a part 70 permit at an earlier date should not 
automatically provide that source twelve additional months to apply for 
a permit. The period for permit application should be decided in the 
context of the enforcement action against the source for failing to 
apply for and/or have a valid part 70 permit.
    Great Basin Unified APCD (GBUAPCD) addressed this requirement by 
deleting the phrase ``or is discovered to be subject'' from Rule 217 
IV.B.1.b.
    (b) The District was required to revise all deadlines for final 
permit action in Rule 217 V.C. (except for C.1. and C.5.) to be no 
later than the appropriate number of months after the complete 
application is received, rather than after the application is deemed 
complete, as required by 40 CFR 70.4(b)(11)(iii) and 70.7(a)(2).
    GBUAPCD addressed this requirement by changing the deadlines in 
Rule 217 V.C.2, C.3, C.4, and C.6 to require final action no later than 
the appropriate number of months ``after the complete application is 
received'' rather than ``after the application is deemed complete.''
    (c) The District needed to revise Rule 217 V.I.2 and V.I.3.e. to 
require notification by the source of operational flexibility changes 
to both the EPA and the District as required by 40 CFR 70.4(b)(12).
    GBUAPCD addressed this requirement by modifying Rule 217 V.I.2 and 
V.I.3.e to require that written notice be provided to both USEPA and 
the APCO as required by 40 CFR 70.4(b)(12).
    (9) Imperial County APCD: (a) Imperial County APCD (ICAPCD) was 
required to revise Rule 900 E.3.f. to take final action on early 
reduction applications within nine months of receipt of the complete 
application rather than the date the application was deemed complete as 
required by 40 CFR 70.4(b)(11)(iii).
    ICAPCD addressed this condition by revising Rule 900 to require 
final action no later than nine months ``after the complete application 
is received'' rather than ``after the application is deemed complete.''
    (b) ICAPCD was required to submit a complete Acid Rain Program 
consistent with 40 CFR part 72 and title IV of the Act. ICAPCD 
submitted a complete Acid Rain program (Rule 901) that was determined 
to be acceptable to the EPA Administrator as part of the District's 
title V operating permits program. (See 60 FR 52911, October 11, 1995).
    (c) ICAPCD was required to revise Rule 900 E.9.b. and c. to require 
notification by the source of operational flexibility changes to both 
the EPA and the District as required by 40 CFR 70.4(b)(11)(iii).
    ICAPCD revised both sections of Rule 900 to require that written 
notice be provided to both USEPA and the APCO as required by 
Sec. 70.4(b)(12).
    (10) Kern County APCD did not have to make any additional 
corrections.
    (11) Lake County AQMD: (a) Lake County AQMD (LCAQMD) was required 
to revise the rule's operational flexibility provisions to require 
notification by the source of operational flexibility changes to both 
the EPA and the District as required by 40 CFR 70.4(b)(12).
    LCAQMD addressed this condition by adding new Section 12.580(a)(5) 
to require that EPA and the District be notified by the source in 
writing of all operational flexibility changes at least 30 days prior 
to the change as required by 40 CFR 70.4(b)(12).
    (b) The District's maintenance exemption in Section 500 did not 
prohibit sources from violating some types of permit terms (including 
those that limit emissions, such as a work practice standard or a 
requirement to continuously apply a control technology) while shutting 
down control equipment for maintenance and, therefore, the rule did not 
allow the District the authority to enforce against all types of 
violations, as required under 40 CFR 70.11. The District was required 
to narrow the maintenance exemption in Section 500 to state that 
violations of applicable federal requirements including part 70 permit 
terms may not be automatically exempted.
    LCAQMD addressed this requirement by narrowing Section 500 to 
require that all applicable federal requirements be met during periods 
when maintenance and scheduled outages of abatement or control 
equipment occur.
    (c) The District rule needed to be clarified to state that citizen 
enforcement, as well as EPA enforcement, of Clean Air Act requirements 
is not affected by APCO discretion, as expressed in Sections 500 and 
510, to not pursue an enforcement action.
    LCAQMD addressed this condition by revising Section 500 to clarify 
that any discretion exercised by the APCO shall not impede or otherwise 
interfere with the ability of the EPA, or citizens, to bring an 
enforcement action or suit under the CAA.
    (d) The District was required to revise Section 510 to require the 
actions that are ``beyond the reasonable control of the source 
operator'' to also meet the criteria in the rule for qualifying for an 
exemption.
    LCAQMD addressed this requirement by amending Section 510 to 
require that all the listed criteria must be met in order for the Air 
Pollution Control Officer to not pursue an enforcement action. Further, 
Lake County amended the rule to eliminate the phrase, ``are not a 
violation of an emission limitation contained in a permit or rule,'' 
and added a statement to clarify that any discretion exercised by the 
APCO shall not impede or otherwise interfere with the ability of the 
EPA, or citizens, to bring an enforcement action or suit under the CAA.
    (e) Lake County was required to revise all deadlines for final 
permit action in Chapter VII, Section 12.520 (except for (a) and (e)) 
to be no later than the appropriate number of months after the complete 
application is received, rather than after the application is deemed 
complete, as required by 40 CFR 70.4(b)(11)(iii) and 70.7(a)(2).
    LCAQMD addressed this condition by revising Sections 12.520(b), 
(c), (d) and (f) to require final action no later than the appropriate 
number of months ``after the complete application is received'' rather 
than ``after the application is deemed complete.''
    (12) Lassen County APCD: (a) The District was required to revise 
all deadlines for final permit action in Rule 7:5 c. (except for c.1. 
and c.5.) to be no later than the appropriate number of months after 
the complete application is received, rather than after the application 
is deemed complete as required, by 40 CFR 70.4(b)(11)(iii) and 
70.7(a)(2).
    Lassen County APCD (LCAPCD) addressed this condition by revising 
Rule 7:6 c.2, 3, 4, and 6 to require final action no later than the 
appropriate number of months ``after the complete application is 
received'' rather than ``after the application is deemed complete.''
    (b) LCAPCD needed to revise Rule 7:5 b.4. to clarify that the 
APCO's approval of a minor permit modification prior to EPA's review is 
not a final permit action. Rule 7:5 b.4. allowed the APCO to approve 
minor permit modifications changes prior to EPA's review; however, 40 
CFR 70.7(e)(2)(iv) precludes the District from issuing a final permit 
modification until after EPA's review period or until EPA has notified 
the District that EPA will not object, although the District may 
approve the permit modification prior to that time.
    LCAQMD addressed this condition by revising Rule 7:5 b.4 to 
eliminate the ability for sources to commence

[[Page 53363]]

operation of proposed modifications until the APCO takes final action 
to approve the permit. This revision corrects the deficiencies in Rule 
7:5 b.4 EPA had identified as interim approval issues.
    (c) LCAPCD was required to revise Rule 7.5 b.4. to incorporate the 
compliance provisions of 40 CFR 70.7(e)(2)(v). Regulation VII did not 
state, as does Sec. 70.7(e)(2)(v), that until the District takes final 
action to issue or deny the requested permit modification or determines 
that it is a significant modification, the source must comply with both 
the applicable requirements governing the change and the proposed 
permit terms and conditions, but the source need not comply with the 
existing permit terms and conditions being modified. Regulation VII 
also needed to be revised to state that if the source fails to comply 
with the permit terms and conditions in the requested modification, the 
existing permit terms and conditions being modified may be enforced 
against it.
    LCAQMD addressed this condition by revising Rule 7:5.b.4 to 
eliminate the ability for sources to commence operation of proposed 
modifications until the APCO takes final action to approve the permit. 
See above.
    (d) LCAPCD needed to revise Rule 7:5 b.3. to limit the discretion 
of the APCO to authorize sources to commence operations of significant 
permit modifications prior to final permit action to when the changes 
meet the criteria of 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(ii). Rule 7:5 b.3. allowed the 
APCO to approve significant permit modifications and the source to 
commence operations of those modifications prior to the EPA's review 
and final permit action. Part 70 prohibits sources from making 
significant permit modification changes prior to final permit issuance 
unless the changes are subject to preconstruction review under 
Sec. 112(g) of the Act or preconstruction review programs approved into 
the SIP pursuant to part C or D of title I of the Act and the changes 
are not otherwise prohibited by the source's existing part 70 permit. 
See 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(ii).
    LCAQMD addressed this requirement by revising Rule 7:5 b.3 to limit 
the discretion of the APCO to authorize sources to commence operations 
of a significant permit modification prior to final action only where 
the changes meet the criteria of 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(ii).
    (e) LCAPCD was required to revise Rule 7:6 i.2. and 3. to require 
notification by the source of operational flexibility changes to both 
the EPA and the District as required by 40 CFR 70.4(b)(11)(iii).
    LCAQMD addressed this condition by revising Rule 7:6 i.2 and 3 to 
require that written notice be provided to both USEPA and the APCO as 
required by 40 CFR 70.4(b)(12).
    (13) Mariposa County APCD did not have to make any additional 
corrections.
    (14) Mendocino County APCD: (a) The District was required to revise 
all deadlines for final permit action in Regulation 5, Rule 5.520 
(except for (a) and (e)) to be no later than the appropriate number of 
months after the complete application is received, rather than after 
the application is deemed complete, as required by 40 CFR 
70.4(b)(11)(iii) and 70.7(a)(2).
    Mendocino County APCD (MCAPCD) addressed this requirement by 
revising the necessary portions of Rule 5.520 to require final action 
no later than the appropriate number of months ``after the complete 
application is received'' rather than ``after the application is deemed 
complete.''
    (b) MCAPCD was required to revise Regulation 5, Rule 5.580(b) and 
(c) to require notification by the source of operational flexibility 
changes to both the EPA and the District as required by 40 CFR 
70.4(b)(11)(iii).
    MCAPCD addressed this condition by revising Rule 5.580(b) and (c) 
to require that written notice be provided to both USEPA and the APCO 
as required by 40 CFR 70.4(b)(12).
    (c) MCAPCD was required to restrict insignificant activities to 
those that are not likely to be subject to an applicable requirement 
and emit less than-District-established emission levels. EPA had 
recommended that the District establish separate emission levels for 
HAPs and for other regulated pollutants and demonstrate that these 
emission levels are insignificant compared to the level of emissions 
from the type of units that are required to be permitted or subject to 
applicable requirements.
    MCAPCD addressed this condition by adding a definition of 
insignificant activities at Rule 5.200(i2) to be any activity, or 
combination of similar activities, that generates less than 5 tons per 
year of carbon monoxide, or less than 2 tons per year of any other 
criteria pollutant (VOC, PM, NOX, SOX, 
O3, Pb). Further, the definition states that an 
insignificant activity must generate less than 1000 pounds per year of 
a compound listed under the Federal Clean Air Act Amendment for 1990 
Sec. 112(b)(1) as amended, or less than the daily outputs listed in 
Regulation 1, Rule 130(s2), whichever is smaller. In addition, a 
section to Rule 5.415 was added to require that a permit application 
may not omit information needed to determine the applicability of, or 
to impose, any applicable requirement, or to evaluate the fee amount.
    (15) Modoc County APCD: (a) MCAPCD was required to revise all 
deadlines for final permit action in Rule 2.13 IV.C. (except for C.1. 
and C.5.) to be no later than the appropriate number of months after 
the complete application is received, rather than after the application 
is deemed to be complete, as required by 40 CFR 70.4(b)(11)(iii) and 
70.7(a)(2).
    MCAPCD revised Rule 2.13 to require final action no later than the 
appropriate number of months ``after the complete application is 
received'' rather than ``after the application is deemed complete.''
    (b) MCAPCD was required to revise Rule 2.13 IV.B.4. to clarify that 
the APCO's approval of a minor permit modification prior to EPA's 
review is not a final permit action. Rule 2.13 IV.B.4. allowed the APCO 
to approve minor permit modification changes prior to the EPA's review; 
however, 40 CFR 70.7(e)(2)(iv) precludes the District from issuing a 
final permit modification until after EPA's review period or until the 
EPA has notified the District that EPA will not object, although the 
District may approve the permit modification prior to that time.
    MCAPCD addressed this requirement by adding language to Rule 2.13 
that clarifies the conditions under which a source can implement a 
permit modification that has not yet been approved by the APCO and EPA. 
The new language includes the criteria that a source must satisfy in 
order to make a change prior to permit issuance, and states that 
``[a]llowing a stationary source to make a change prior to permit 
issuance does not constitute final action and does not preclude the 
District from denying the change or requiring the change to be 
processed as a significant permit modification, nor does it preclude 
the U.S. EPA from objecting to the permit modification.''
    (c) MCAPCD was required to revise Rule 2.13 IV.B.4. to incorporate 
the compliance provisions of 40 CFR 70.7(e)(2)(v). Rule 2.13 did not 
state, as does Sec. 70.7(e)(2)(v), that until the District takes final 
action to issue or deny the requested permit modification or determines 
that it is a significant modification, the source must comply with both 
the applicable requirements governing the change and the proposed 
permit terms and conditions, but the source need not comply with the 
existing permit terms and conditions being modified. Rule 2.13 also had 
to be revised to state that if the source fails to comply with the 
permit terms and

[[Page 53364]]

conditions in the requested modification, the existing permit terms and 
conditions being modified may be enforced against it.
    MCAPCD addressed this requirement by revising Rule 2.13 to include 
the appropriate compliance provisions from 40 CFR 70.7(e)(2)(v).
    (d) MCAPCD was required to revise Rule 2.13 IV.B.3. to limit the 
discretion of the APCO to authorize sources to commence operations of 
significant permit modifications prior to final permit action to when 
the changes meet the criteria of 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(ii). Rule 2.13 
IV.B.3. allowed the APCO to approve significant permit modifications 
and the source to commence operations of those modifications prior to 
the EPA's review and final permit action. Part 70 prohibits sources 
from making significant permit modification changes prior to final 
permit issuance unless the changes are subject to preconstruction 
review under Sec. 112(g) of the Act or preconstruction review programs 
approved into the SIP pursuant to part C or D of title I of the Act and 
the changes are not otherwise prohibited by the source's existing part 
70 permit. See 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(ii).
    MCAPCD addressed this condition by revising Rule 213 to limit the 
discretion of the APCO to authorize sources to commence operations of a 
significant permit modification prior to final action only where the 
changes meet the criteria of 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(ii).
    (e) MCAPCD was required to revise Rule 2.13 V.I.2 and V.I.3. to 
require notification by the source of operational flexibility changes 
to both the EPA and the District as required by 40 CFR 
70.4(b)(11)(iii).
    MCAPCD revised both sections of Rule 2.13 to require that written 
notice be provided to both USEPA and the APCO as required by 40 CFR 
70.4(b)(12).
    (16) North Coast Unified AQMD: (a) North Coast Unified AQMD 
(NCUAQMD) was required to revise Regulation 5, Rule 520(f) to take 
final action on early reduction applications within nine months of 
receipt of the complete application rather than the date the 
application was deemed complete as required by 40 CFR 70.4(b)(11)(iii).
    NCUAQMD addressed this condition by revising Rule 520 to require 
final action no later than nine months ``after the complete application 
is received'' rather than ``after the application is deemed complete.''
    (b) NCUAQMD was required to submit a complete Acid Rain Program 
consistent with 40 CFR part 72 and title IV of the Act.
    NCUAQMD submitted a complete Acid Rain Program (Rules 300 and 690) 
that was determined to be acceptable to the EPA Administrator as part 
of the District's title V operating permits program. (See 60 FR 52911, 
October 11, 1995).
    (c) NCUAQMD was required to revise Regulation 5, Rule 580(b) and 
(c) to require notification by the source of operational flexibility 
changes to both the EPA and the District as required by 40 CFR 
70.4(b)(11)(iii).
    NCUAQMD addressed this condition by revising both sections of Rule 
580 to require that written notice be provided to both USEPA and the 
APCO as required by 40 CFR 70.4(b)(12).
    (17) Northern Sierra AQMD was not required to make any additional 
corrections.
    (18) Northern Sonoma County APCD: (a) Northern Sonoma County APCD 
(NSCAPCD) was required to revise all deadlines for final permit action 
in Rule 5.520 (except for (a) and (e)) to be no later than the 
appropriate number of months after the complete application is received 
rather than after the application is deemed complete as required by 40 
CFR 70.4(b)(11)(iii) and 70.7(a)(2).
    NSCAPCD addressed this requirement by changing the deadlines in 
Rule 5.520(b),(c),(d), and (f) to require final action no later than 
the appropriate number of months ``after the complete application is 
received'' rather than ``after the application is deemed complete.''
    (b) NSCAPCD needed to revise Rule 5.580(b) and (c) to require 
notification by the source of operational flexibility changes to both 
the EPA and the District as required by 40 CFR 70.4(b)(11)(iii).
    NSCAPCD addressed this requirement by modifying Rule 5.580(b) and 
(c) to require sources to provide written notice to USEPA, in addition 
to the APCO, in advance of implementing the operational flexibility 
provisions of the District's Rule.
    (c) The District needed to revise Policy A-33A (Small Emission 
Source Exemptions) to state that the APCO may not exempt from the 
requirement for permitting any process, article, machine, equipment, 
device or contrivance at a title V source if that process, etc. is 
subject to an applicable federal requirement. NSCAPCD also had to 
revise the Policy to restrict the exemptions (including any director's 
discretion provisions) to activities that emit less than District-
established emission levels for HAPs. EPA also required the District to 
demonstrate that these emission levels are insignificant compared to 
the level of emissions from and type of units that are required to be 
permitted or subject to applicable requirements.
    NSCAPCD elected to address this requirement by eliminating the 
Small Emission Sources Exemptions Policy (A-33A) from their operating 
permits program.
    (19) Placer County APCD: (a) Placer County APCD (PCAPCD) needed to 
revise the definition of ``major source,'' section 219 of Rule 507, to 
reference the ``major source'' definition in CAA Sec. 112, rather than 
the CAA Sec. 112 ``source'' definition. Also, since ``source'' is not 
defined in Rule 507, PCAPCD had to revise section 219.2 to refer to a 
``stationary source'' with a potential to emit, rather than a 
``source.''
    PCAPCD addressed this requirement by revising Sections 219.1 and 
219.2 of Rule 507 to make the required changes regarding the definition 
of ``major stationary source.''
    (b) The District was required to revise Section 302.6 of Rule 507 
to limit the discretion of the APCO to authorize sources to commence 
operations of significant permit modifications prior to final permit 
action to when the changes meet the criteria of 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(ii). 
At the time of interim approval, Section 302.6 of Rule 507 allowed the 
APCO to authorize sources to commence operation of significant permit 
modifications when the proposed permit was publicly noticed but prior 
to final permit modification. Part 70 prohibits sources from making 
significant permit modification changes prior to final permit issuance 
unless the changes are subject to preconstruction review under 
Sec. 112(g) of the Act or preconstruction review programs approved into 
the SIP pursuant to part C or D of title I of the Act and the changes 
are not otherwise prohibited by the source's existing part 70 permit. 
See 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(ii).
    PCAPCD addressed this requirement by revising Section 302.6 of Rule 
507 to limit the discretion of the APCO to authorize sources to 
commence operation of a significant permit modification prior to final 
action only where the changes meet the criteria of 40 CFR 
70.5(a)(1)(ii).
    (c) Placer County APCD needed to revise Section 302.7 of Rule 507 
to restrict the use of minor permit modification procedures consistent 
with 40 CFR 70.7(e)(2)(i)(B). Rule 507, by default, allowed minor 
permit modification procedures to be used for those permit 
modifications that involve the use of economic incentives, marketable 
permits, emissions trading,

[[Page 53365]]

and other similar approaches. 40 CFR 70.7(e)(2)(i)(B) constrains the 
use of the minor permit modification procedures for these approaches to 
situations where minor permit modification procedures are explicitly 
provided for in the applicable implementation plan or in the applicable 
requirements promulgated by EPA.
    PCAPCD addressed this requirement by revising their definition of 
minor modification in Rule 507, Section 220, to include the 
constraining language from 40 CFR 70.7(e)(2)(i)(B) regarding minor 
permit modification procedures.
    (d) The District was required to revise Rule 507's permit content 
requirements (Section 402) to provide that every permit contain a 
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 as required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(8).
    PCAPCD addressed this requirement by modifying Rule 507, Section 
402.2(u) to add this provision from 40 CFR 70.6(a)(8).
    (e) The District needed to revise all deadlines for final permit 
action in section 401.3 of Rule 507 (except for a. and e.) to be no 
later than the appropriate number of months after the complete 
application is received, rather than after the application is deemed 
complete, as required by 40 CFR 70.4(b)(11)(iii) and 70.7(a)(2).
    PCAPCD addressed this requirement by changing the deadlines in Rule 
507, Sections 401.3(b), (c), (d), and (f) to require final action no 
later than the appropriate number of months ``after the complete 
application is received'' rather than ``after the application is deemed 
complete.''
    (f) Placer County APCD needed to revise Section 401.9 of Rule 507 
to require notification by the source of operational flexibility 
changes to both the EPA and the District as required by 40 CFR 
70.4(b)(11)(iii).
    PCAPCD addressed this requirement by modifying Sections 401.9(b) 
and (c) of Rule 507 to require sources to provide written notice to 
USEPA, in addition to the APCO, in advance of implementing the 
operational flexibility provisions of the District's Rule.
    (20) Shasta County APCD: (a) Shasta County APCD (SCAPCD) needed to 
revise the rule's operational flexibility provisions to require 
notification by the source of operational flexibility changes to both 
the EPA and the District as required by 40 CFR 70.4(b)(12).
    SCAPCD addressed this requirement by revising Rule 5, Section 
V.I.2.c to require this dual notification of operational flexibility 
changes, as required by part 70.
    (b) SCAPCD was required to revise all deadlines for final permit 
action in Rule 5 IV.C. (except for C.1. and C.5.) to be no later than 
the appropriate number of months after the complete application is 
received, rather than after the application is deemed complete, as 
required by 40 CFR 70.4(b)(11)(iii) and 70.7(a)(2).
    SCAPCD addressed this requirement by modifying Rule 5, Sections 
V.C(2), (C)(3), (C)(4), and (C)(6) to refer to the appropriate number 
of months ``after the complete application is received.''
    (c) SCAPCD needed to revise Rule 3:10 (Excess Emissions) to remove 
the prohibition on the use of reports required by Rule 3:10 in 
enforcement/permitting actions.
    SCAPCD addressed this requirement by removing this prohibition from 
Rule 3:10.
    (d) SCAPCD was required to revise paragraph (g) of Rule 3:10 to 
include a provision that EPA, as well as the APCO, can request a 
demonstration that the excess emissions are unavoidable. In addition, 
the rule needed to clarify that the APCO will specify in the permit the 
amount, time, duration, and under what circumstances excess emissions 
are allowed during start-up and shut-down.
    SCAPCD addressed this requirement by revising paragraph (g) of Rule 
3:10 to allow EPA to request a demonstration that excess emissions are 
unavoidable, and clarified in Rule 3:10 that the APCO will specify 
certain limits and restrictions regarding excess emissions during 
start-up and shut-down in the permit.
    (21) Siskiyou County APCD: (a) Siskiyou County APCD (SCAPCD) was 
required to revise all deadlines for final permit action in Rule 2.13 
IV.C. (except for C.1. and C.5.) to be no later than the appropriate 
number of months after the complete application is received, rather 
than after the application is deemed complete, as required by 40 CFR 
70.4(b)(11)(iii) and 70.7(a)(2).
    SCAPCD addressed this requirement by revising rule 2.13 to require 
final action no later than nine months ``after the complete application 
is received'' rather than ``after the application is deemed complete.''
    (b) SCAPCD needed to revise Rule 2.13 IV.B.4. to clarify that the 
APCO's approval of a minor permit modification prior to EPA's review is 
not a final permit action. Rule 2.13 IV.B.4. allowed the APCO to 
approve minor permit modifications changes prior to the EPA's review; 
however, 40 CFR 70.7(e)(2)(iv) precludes the District from issuing a 
final permit modification until after EPA's review period or until EPA 
has notified the District that EPA will not object, although the 
District may approve the permit modification prior to that time.
    SCAPCD addressed this requirement by revising Rule 2.13 IV.B.4. to 
state the following: ``allowing a stationary source to make a change 
prior to permit issuance does not constitute final action and does not 
preclude the District from denying the change or requiring the change 
to be processed as a significant permit modification, nor does it 
preclude the U.S. EPA from objecting to the permit modification.''
    (c) SCAPCD was required to revise Rule 2.13 IV.B.4. to incorporate 
the compliance provisions of 40 CFR 70.7(e)(2)(v). Rule 2.13 IV.B.4 
allowed the APCO to approve minor permit modifications prior to the 
EPA's review. While this is allowed under 40 CFR 70.7(e)(2)(v), Rule 
2.13 did not state, as does Sec. 70.7(e)(2)(v), that until the District 
takes final action to issue or deny the requested permit modification 
or determines that it is a significant modification, the source must 
comply with both the applicable requirements governing the change and 
the proposed permit terms and conditions, but the source need not 
comply with the existing permit terms and conditions being modified. 
Rule 2.13 also needed to be revised to state that if the source fails 
to comply with the permit terms and conditions in the requested 
modification, the existing permit terms and conditions being modified 
may be enforced against it.
    SCAPCD addressed this condition by revising Rule 2.13 IV.B.4 to 
include the appropriate compliance provisions from 40 CFR 
70.7(e)(2)(v).
    (d) SCAPCD was required to revise Rule 2.13 IV.B.3. to limit the 
discretion of the APCO to authorize sources to commence operations of 
significant permit modifications prior to final permit action to when 
the changes meet the criteria of 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(ii). Rule 2.13 
IV.B.3. allowed the APCO to approve significant permit modifications 
and the source to commence operations of those modifications prior to 
the EPA's review and final permit action. Part 70 prohibits sources 
from making significant permit modification changes prior to final 
permit issuance unless the changes are subject to preconstruction 
review under Sec. 112(g) of the Act or preconstruction review programs 
approved into the SIP pursuant to part C or D of title I of the Act and 
the changes are not otherwise prohibited by

[[Page 53366]]

the source's existing part 70 permit. See 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(ii).
    SCAPCD addressed this requirement by revising Rule 2.13 IV.B.3 to 
limit the discretion of the APCO to authorize sources to commence 
operations of a significant permit modification prior to final action 
only where the changes meet the criteria of 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(ii).
    (e) SCAPCD was required to revise Rule 2.13 V.I.2 and V.I.3. to 
require notification by the source of operational flexibility changes 
to both the EPA and the District as required by 40 CFR 
70.4(b)(11)(iii).
    SCAPCD addressed this condition by revising Rule 2.13 V.I.2 and 
V.I.3 to require that EPA and the District be notified by the source in 
writing of all operational flexibility changes at least 30 days prior 
to the change.
    (22) Tehama County APCD: (a) Tehama County APCD (TCAPCD) was 
required to revise the rule's operational flexibility provisions to 
require notification by the source of operational flexibility changes 
to both the EPA and the District as required by 40 CFR 70.4(b)(12).
    TCAPCD addressed this condition by revising Rule 7:1 E.9.a.2.b. to 
require that USEPA and the District be notified by the source in 
writing of all operational flexibility changes at least 30 days prior 
to the change.
    (b) TCAPCD was required to revise Rule 7:1 IV.B.4. to incorporate 
the compliance provisions of 40 CFR 70.7(e)(2)(v). Rule 7:1 did not 
state, as does Sec. 70.7(e)(2)(v), that until the District takes final 
action to issue or deny the requested permit modification or determines 
that it is a significant modification, the source must comply with the 
applicable requirements governing the change and the proposed permit 
terms and conditions in lieu of complying with the existing permit 
terms and conditions being modified. Rule 7:1 also needed to be revised 
to state that if the source fails to comply with the permit terms and 
conditions in the requested modification, the existing permit terms and 
conditions may be enforced against it.
    TCAPCD addressed this condition by revising Rule 7:1 D.2.d (note 
that the rule has been renumbered) to include the appropriate 
compliance provisions from Sec. 70.7(e)(2)(v).
    (c) TCAPCD was required to revise Rule 7:1 IV.B.3. to limit the 
discretion of the APCO to authorize sources to commence operation of 
significant permit modifications prior to final permit action to when 
the changes meet the criteria of 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(ii). Rule 7:1 
IV.B.3. allowed the APCO to authorize sources to commence operation of 
significant permit modifications when the proposed permit revision is 
publicly noticed but prior to final permit action. Part 70 prohibits 
sources from making significant permit modification changes prior to 
final permit issuance unless the changes have undergone preconstruction 
review pursuant to Sec. 112(g) or a program approved into the SIP 
pursuant to part C or D of title I, and the changes are not otherwise 
prohibited by the source's existing part 70 permit. See 40 CFR 
70.5(a)(1)(ii).
    TCAPCD addressed this requirement by revising Rule 7:1 D.2.c to 
limit the discretion of the APCO to authorize sources to commence 
operations of a significant permit modification prior to final action 
only where the changes meet the criteria of 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(ii).
    (23) Tuolumne County APCD: (a) Tuolumne County APCD (TCAPCD) was 
required to revise all deadlines for final permit action in Rule 500 
V.C. (except for C.1. and C.5.) to be no later than the appropriate 
number of months after the complete application is received, rather 
than after the application is deemed complete, as required by 40 CFR 
70.4(b)(11)(iii) and 70.7(a)(2).
    TCAPCD addressed this condition by revising Rule 500 to require 
final action no later than the appropriate number of months ``after the 
complete application is received'' rather than ``after the application 
is deemed complete.''
    (b) TCAPCD was required to revise the definition of ``potential to 
emit'' in Rule 500 II.Y. to clarify that only federally-enforceable 
limitations may be considered in determining a source's potential to 
emit under title V.
    TCAPCD addressed this condition by revising this definition, which 
now states that ``physical and operational limitations on the emissions 
unit shall be treated as part of its design, if the limitations are set 
forth in permit conditions or in rules or regulations that are legally 
and practicably enforceable by U.S. EPA and citizens or by the 
District.'' For a discussion of how subsequent litigation has affected 
EPA's consideration of this issue, please refer to the Amador County 
portion of Section IV.A.2. of this Federal Register. EPA's description 
of the potential to emit issue for Amador County also applies to 
TCAPCD, which made the same rule change.
    (24) Yolo-Solano AQMD: (a) The District was required to revise Rule 
3.8 to restrict the use of minor permit modification procedures 
consistent with 40 CFR 70.7(e)(2)(i)(B). Rule 507, by default, allowed 
minor permit modification procedures to be used for those permit 
modifications that involve the use of economic incentives, marketable 
permits, emissions trading, and other similar approaches. 40 CFR 
70.7(e)(2)(i)(B) constrains the use of the minor permit modification 
procedures for these approaches to situations where minor permit 
modification procedures are explicitly provided for in the applicable 
implementation plan or in the applicable requirements promulgated by 
the EPA.
    Yolo-Solano AQMD (YSAQMD) addressed this requirement by revising 
its definition of minor modification in Rule 3.8, Section 222, to 
include the constraining language from 40 CFR 70.7(e)(2)(i)(B) 
regarding minor permit modification procedures.
    (b) The District needed to Revise Rule 3.8's permit content 
requirements to provide that every permit contain a 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 
as required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(8).
    YSAQMD addressed this requirement by modifying Rule 3.8 Section 
302.22 to add this provision from Sec. 70.6(a)(8).

A. Other District-Specific Changes Submitted Since EPA Granted Final 
Interim Approval

    In addition to the changes each district made to correct interim 
approval issues, most districts also made other changes to their rule 
(or program) that go beyond those necessary to receive full approval. 
This section describes, in general terms, the additional rule or 
program changes that districts have made. EPA proposes approval of most 
of the additional changes described below. For one rule change, made by 
several of the districts, EPA is taking no action. For a complete 
description of the rule changes and the basis for our decision to 
propose approval, or to take no action, please see the Technical 
Support Documents.
    Most of the districts made at least one of four changes recommended 
by the California Air Resources Board in its January 18, 2001 table 
entitled, ``Summary of Title V Interim Approval Issues.'' Because these 
changes are common to many districts, we will discuss them here and 
refer back to the changes, where necessary, in the discussion of 
district-specific changes below. For three of the common changes, EPA 
is proposing approval, and for the fourth change, EPA is taking no 
action today. The three common changes that EPA is proposing to approve 
are:

[[Page 53367]]

    (a) Definition of Potential to Emit: Many districts changed the 
definition of ``potential to emit'' (PTE) to clarify wording and to add 
that the emissions limits be ``legally and practicably enforceable by 
U.S. EPA and citizens or by the District.'' Enforceability of PTE 
limits was an interim approval deficiency for Amador County APCD and 
Tuolumne County APCD and each has made the necessary change to resolve 
the deficiency (see Section IV.A.2). Ten other districts also made the 
same change to their definition of PTE, although the revision did not 
address an interim approval deficiency in these cases. EPA proposes to 
approve this rule revision for all of the districts that made the 
change, as identified below. For a discussion of why EPA is proposing 
to approve districts' revision to the definition of PTE, please refer 
to the Amador County portion of Section IV.A.2. of this Federal 
Register and to the TSD.
    (b) Owner/Operator Change: Some districts changed the term ``owner/
operator'' to ``responsible official'' in the permit content portion 
(and perhaps other sections) of their rule. It was not identified as an 
interim approval deficiency for any districts and it is an important 
change that EPA proposes to approve.
    (c) Applicability Section Clarification: Many Districts revised the 
Applicability section of their rule to clarify wording regarding 
sources that are exempt from the title V program (e.g., residential 
wood heaters, asbestos NESHAP-regulated sources, and other sources in a 
source category that EPA has deferred). This wording clarification 
improves the programs and EPA proposes to approve the clarification.
    The fourth common change that several districts made was a revision 
to the effective date of their rules. EPA is currently evaluating the 
approvability of the change to the effective date of the districts' 
operating permits rules. Because EPA has not yet determined whether 
this change is approvable under the requirements of 40 CFR part 70, and 
since this change was not required by EPA for any district to receive 
full program approval, the Agency is taking no action at this time.
    The following changes beyond those necessary for full approval have 
been submitted to EPA since interim approval was granted. EPA proposes 
full approval of all the following changes, except for the effective 
date change, as noted above. Please refer to the TSD for details on the 
rule/program changes and the basis for our proposed approval or 
decision to take no action.
    (1) Amador County APCD. Amador County APCD made all four of the 
common changes noted above. However, the revision of the definition of 
``potential to emit'' was done to address an interim approval 
deficiency. This change is therefore described in Section IV.A.2. 
above. EPA is also proposing to approve the District's replacement of 
the term owner/operator at Section IV.C.K.1.a and Amador County APCD's 
clarification of its exempt sources list at Section III.B. EPA is 
taking no action on the District's change to the effective date of Rule 
500 at Section I.
    In addition to the changes noted above, EPA is proposing to approve 
revisions to sections I through VII Rule 500 adopted by ACAPCD on 
February 25, 1997. The purpose of the 1997 rule changes was to make 
Rule 500 consistent with EPA guidance on permit streamlining. See 
``White Paper Number 2 for Improved Implementation of The Part 70 
Operating Permits Program'', March 5, 1996.
    ACAPCD's definition of potential to emit in Section II.BB.2 of Rule 
500 lists source categories that must count fugitives for the purposes 
of determining potential to emit. In the part of the definition that 
addresses stationary sources, subparagraph 3 has been modified to read: 
``any other stationary source category regulated under section 111 or 
112 of the CAA, and for which the U.S. EPA has made an affirmative 
determination by rule under section 302(j) of the CAA.'' (emphasis 
added) The addition of the 302(j) requirement restricts the types of 
sources that are required to count fugitives towards the major source 
threshold. This is inconsistent with the current version of part 70 and 
is not approvable.
    EPA has, however, proposed to revise the major source definition to 
incorporate a 1980 cutoff date, consistent with EPA's New Source Review 
regulations. EPA final action would mean that Rule 500 would be 
consistent with part 70 with respect to which sources must count 
fugitives. We are therefore proposing to approve the District's 
definition of potential to emit provided that EPA finalizes revisions 
to the part 70 rule that will make the change approvable. 
Alternatively, if EPA does not finalize the changes to part 70 
described above, a portion of ACAPCD's potential to emit definition 
will conflict with the operative version of the major source definition 
in part 70 and we will be unable to approve it.
    The change that EPA will make to part 70 will make that rule 
consistent with EPA's New Source Review regulations in parts 51 and 52 
with respect to the treatment of fugitives in major source 
determinations. The revised part 70 language will require that 
fugitives be counted for ``Any other stationary source category which, 
as of August 7, 1980, is being regulated under section 111 or 112 of 
the Act.'' This differs from the ACAPCD language cited above, which 
relies on 302(j) rulemaking instead of the 1980 cut-off date to 
determine which sources must count fugitives. However, at the present 
time, the 302(j) requirement in Rule 500 captures the same sources as 
the revised part 70 will, since EPA has not done any 302(j) rulemakings 
to expand the types of sources for which fugitive emissions are counted 
to determine title V applicability. If EPA does 302(j) rulemakings in 
the future, the Agency will have to revise part 70 to ensure that 
fugitives are counted for the new source category. The advantage of 
ACAPCD's language is that Rule 500 will not have to be revised if the 
universe of source categories for which fugitives are counted is 
expanded by EPA via 302(j) rulemakings.
    In addition to the rule changes, ACAPCD's April 10, 2001 submittal 
of its amended title V program to EPA included one programmatic change. 
The District will use California Air Resource Board (CARB) model 
application forms instead of the forms initially approved by EPA for 
use in the District's title V program. EPA is also proposing to approve 
the use of these forms as part of ACAPCD's title V program. Copies of 
the forms are available in the docket for this rulemaking.
    (2) Butte County AQMD. Butte County made all four of the common 
changes noted above to Rule 1101. EPA proposes to approve the 
modification of the definition of potential to emit at Section 2.23.1, 
the replacement of the term owner/operator at Section 6.5.14.1, and the 
District's clarification of its exempt sources list at Section 3.2. EPA 
is taking no action on Butte County AQMD's change to the effective date 
of Rule 1101 in Section I. In addition, on June 24, 1999, the District 
modified its title V rules to: (1) Create new Rule 505 ``Title V Fees'' 
which replaced section 7 of previous Regulation V, Rule 1101; and (2) 
to completely recodify rule 1101 including related references in the 
rule. EPA proposes to approve these changes.
    (3) Calaveras County APCD. Calaveras County APCD made three of the 
four common changes noted above to Regulation X. They modified the 
definition of potential to emit, at Rule 1002, replaced the term owner/
operator at rule 1006--section B.14.(a), and clarified its exempt 
sources list at Rule

[[Page 53368]]

1003--``Applicability'' subsections B.1, B.2, and B.3. EPA proposes to 
approve all of these changes.
    (4) Colusa County APCD. Colusa County APCD made all four of the 
common changes noted above to Rule 3.17. EPA proposes to approve the 
modification of the definition of potential to emit at Section 
3.17(b)(23)(A), the replacement of the term owner/operator at Sections 
3.17(d)(2) and 3.17(f)(2), and the District's clarification of its 
exempt sources list at Section 3.17(c)(2). EPA is taking no action on 
Colusa County APCD's change to the effective date of Rule 3.17 at 
Sections 3.17(a)(3) and 3.17(b)(12).
    (5) El Dorado County APCD. El Dorado County APCD made all four of 
the common changes noted above to Rule 522. EPA proposes to approve the 
modification of the definition of potential to emit at Section 
522.2(W)(1), the replacement of the term owner/operator at Section 
522.6(B)(14)(a), and the District's clarification of its exempt sources 
list at Section 522.3(B). EPA is taking no action on El Dorado County 
APCD's change to the effective date of Rule 522 at Sections 522.1 and 
522.2(L). El Dorado County APCD also clarified their reporting 
requirements for permit deviations at Section 522.6(B)(7)(a), and 
corrected several regulatory citations at Sections 522.4(D) and 
522.5(G). EPA proposes to approve these changes.
    (6) Feather River AQMD. Feather River AQMD made all four of the 
common changes noted above to Rule 10.3. EPA proposes to approve the 
modification of the definition of potential to emit at Section 
10.3(B)(23), the replacement of the term owner/operator at Sections 
10.3(D)(2)(c)(1) and 10.3(F)(2)(n)(1), and the District's clarification 
of its exempt sources list at Section 10.3(C)(2). EPA is taking no 
action on Feather River AQMD's change to the effective date of Rule 
10.3 at Section A. Feather River AQMD also clarified the federal 
regulatory citation for its definitions at Section 10.3(B), made a 
small correction to its definition of ``regulated air pollutant'' at 
Section 10.3(B)(25)(e), made a minor clarification to its application 
content requirements at Section 10.3(D)(3)(a)(6)(c), and changed the 
basis of its fee collection from actual to potential emissions in 
Section 10.3(G). EPA proposes to approve these changes.
    (7) Glenn County APCD. Glenn County made two of the four common 
changes noted above to Article VII. The District modified its 
definition of potential to emit at Section II.W.I, and clarified its 
exempt sources list at Section III(B). EPA proposes to approve these 
two changes.
    (8) Great Basin Unified APCD. Great Basin Unified APCD made two of 
the common changes noted above to Rule 217. The District modified its 
definition of potential to emit at Section 217.II(Z) and clarified its 
exempt sources list at Section 217.III(B). Great Basin Unified APCD 
also specified the timeframes for reporting permit deviations at 
Section 217.VI(B)(7)(a), added a definition for ``emissions allowable 
under the permit'' at Section 217.II(N), clarified the definitions of 
``applicable federal requirement'' at section 217.II(E)(1)(c) and 
``responsible official'' at Section 217.II(CC), revised Section 
217.VI(B)(3) regarding the requirement to specify the origin and 
authority for every permit condition, and made a clarification to the 
requirement for sources to submit compliance reports at Section 
217.VI(B)(7)(b). EPA proposes to approve all of the additional changes 
made by Great Basin Unified APCD.
    (9) Imperial County APCD. Imperial County APCD made three of the 
four common changes noted above. EPA is proposing to approve the 
District's modification to its definition of potential to emit at 
Section B.24, the replacement of the term owner/operator at Sections D, 
E, F, and G, and the District's clarification of its exempt sources 
list at Section C.2. In addition to these changes, EPA is proposing to 
approve revisions to Rule 900 adopted by ICAPCD on April 4, 2000. These 
changes are the addition of a definition of permit shield at Section 
B.23, and the addition of a permit shield provision at Section D.2. EPA 
proposes to approve these changes.
    (10) Kern County APCD. Kern County APCD (KCAPCD) made three of the 
four common changes noted above. EPA proposes to approve the 
replacement of the term owner/operator at Sections IV.C.k and VI.B and 
the District's clarification of its exempt sources list at Section 
III.B. EPA is taking no action on Kern County APCD's change to the 
effective date of 201.1 at Section II.M. In addition, EPA is proposing 
to approve revisions to Sections I through VI of Rule 201.1 adopted by 
the District on January 9, 1997. The purpose of the 1997 rule changes 
was to make Rule 201.1 consistent with EPA guidance on permit 
streamlining. See ``White Paper Number 2 for Improved Implementation of 
The Part 70 Operating Permits Program'', March 5, 1996. The reader is 
referred to the Docket for this rulemaking for the exact text of these 
rule changes.
    KCAPCD's definition of potential to emit in Section II.X of Rule 
201.1 lists source categories that must count fugitives for the 
purposes of determining potential to emit. In subparagraph 2, which 
addresses stationary sources, the definition has been modified to read: 
``any other stationary source category regulated under section 111 or 
112 of the CAA, and for which the U.S. EPA has made an affirmative 
determination by rule under section 302(j) of the CAA.'' (emphasis 
added) The addition of the 302(j) requirement restricts the types of 
sources that are required to count fugitives towards the major source 
threshold. This is inconsistent with the current version of part 70 and 
is not approvable.
    EPA has, however, proposed to revise the major source definition to 
incorporate a 1980 cutoff date, consistent with EPA's New Source Review 
regulations. We are therefore proposing to approve the District's 
definition of potential to emit provided that EPA finalizes revisions 
to the part 70 rule that will make the change approvable. 
Alternatively, if EPA does not finalize the changes to part 70 
described above, a portion of KCAPCD's potential to emit definition 
will conflict with the operative version of the major source definition 
in part 70 and we will be unable to approve it.
    The change that EPA will make to part 70 will make that rule 
consistent with EPA's New Source Review regulations in parts 51 and 52 
with respect to the treatment of fugitives in major source 
determinations. The revised part 70 language will require that 
fugitives be counted for ``Any other stationary source category which, 
as of August 7, 1980, is being regulated under section 111 or 112 of 
the Act.'' This differs from the KCAPCD language cited above, which 
relies on 302(j) rulemaking instead of the 1980 cut-off date to 
determine which sources must count fugitives. However, at the present 
time, the 302(j) requirement in Rule 201.1 captures the same sources as 
the revised part 70 will, since EPA has not done any 302(j) rulemakings 
to expand the types of sources for which fugitive emissions are counted 
to determine title V applicability. If EPA does 302(j) rulemakings in 
the future, the Agency will have to revise part 70 to ensure that 
fugitives are counted for the new source category. The advantage of 
KCAPCD's language is that Rule 201.1 will not have to be revised if the 
universe of source categories for which fugitives are counted is 
expanded by EPA via 302(j) rulemakings.
    (11) Lake County AQMD. Lake County made only one of the four common 
changes noted above to Chapter XII. The

[[Page 53369]]

District revised its definition of potential to emit at Rule 12.200 
(p2). In addition, Lake County made two additions to its list of 
sources exempt from the requirements of Chapter XII: (1) ``Any 
insignificant source at a facility not requiring a title V permit;'' 
and (2) ``When EPA finalizes the underlying requirements in 40 CFR part 
70, a source classified as a major source solely because it has the 
potential to emit major amounts of a pollutant listed at Sec. 112(r)(3) 
of the CAA, and is not otherwise a major source as defined in 12.200.'' 
(See Rule 12.300 (b)(5)). EPA proposes to approve all of these 
additional changes made by Lake County AQMD. The second addition to the 
District's list of sources exempt from the requirements of Chapter XII 
is approvable because the exception is only allowed after EPA changes 
part 70.
    (12) Lassen County APCD. Lassen County made three of the four 
common changes noted above to Rule 7. EPA proposes to approve the 
District's revision to its definition of potential to emit at Rule 
7:4.w.1 and the clarification of its list of sources exempt from title 
V at Rule 7:3. EPA is taking no action on the District's change to the 
effective date at Rule 7:1.b. and Rule 7:4.l. Lassen County APCD made 
two other revisions that EPA is proposing to approve. The District 
added a definition of minor permit modification at Rule 7:4.u 
(consistent with 40 CFR 70.7(e)(2)(i)(B)) and added Rule subsection 
7:6.d.1.b.4, a requirement that the public notice include, ``the 
location where the public may inspect the complete application, the 
District analysis, and the proposed permit.''
    (13) Mariposa County APCD. Mariposa County APCD did not make any 
other changes.
    (14) Mendocino County APCD. Mendocino County APCD made only one of 
the four changes noted above to Rule 5. The District revised its 
definition of potential to emit at Rule 5.200(p2). EPA proposes to 
approve this change.
    (15) Modoc County APCD. Modoc County APCD made three of the four 
common changes noted above. EPA proposes to approve the District's 
modification to its definition of potential to emit at Section II.W and 
the clarification of its exempt sources list at Section III.B. EPA is 
taking no action on the District's change to the effective date of Rule 
2.13 at Section II.L.
    (16) North Coast Unified AQMD. North Coast Unified AQMD made two of 
the four changes noted above. The District modified its definition of 
potential to emit in Rule 200, and clarified its exempt sources list in 
Rule 300.b. EPA proposes to approve both of these changes.
    (17) Northern Sierra AQMD. Northern Sierra made all four changes 
noted above to its Rule 522. EPA proposes to approve the District's 
modification to its definition of potential to emit at Section 2.24.1, 
the replacement of the term owner/operator at Section 6.2.14.a, and the 
clarification of its exempt sources list at Section 3.2. EPA is taking 
no action on the District's change to the effective date of Rule 522 at 
522.2, Part 1.0.
    (18) Northern Sonoma County APCD. Northern Sonoma County made three 
of the common changes noted above to Regulation 5. EPA is proposing to 
approve the District's modification to its definition of potential to 
emit at Section 5.200(p)(2) and the clarification of its exempt sources 
list at Section 5.300(b). EPA is taking no action on the District's 
change to the effective date of Regulation 5 at Section 5.200(e)(1).
    (19) Placer County APCD. Placer County APCD made three of the 
common changes noted above to Rule 507. EPA is proposing to approve the 
District's modification to its definition of potential to emit at 
Section 223.1 and the clarification of its exempt sources list at 
Section 110. EPA is taking no action on the District's change to the 
effective date of Rule 507 at Section 101. Placer County also revised 
their definition of ``major source'' at Section 219 to lower the 
emission thresholds for nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds, 
made a minor language change to Rule 507's application requirements at 
Section 302.1, and clarified the specific dates by which certain 
permitting-related actions are required in Sections 302.2, 302.3, and 
401.3. EPA proposes to approve these changes.
    (20) Shasta County APCD. Shasta County APCD made three of the 
common changes noted above to Rule 5. EPA proposes to approve the 
District's modification to its definition of potential to emit at 
Section II.X.1 and the clarification of its exempt sources list at 
Section III.B. EPA is taking no action on the District's change to the 
effective date of Rule 5 at Section I. Shasta County also made some 
minor wording revisions to a few of their definitions in Sections II.E, 
II.L, and II.N, clarified the application requirements in Section 
IV.B(1)(a), added a requirement to Section IV.C(1)(q) for sources 
submitting compliance certifications, modified their procedures for 
operational flexibility in Section V.I(2), clarified the reporting 
requirements in Section VI.B(7), and added a condition to Section 
VI.B(18)(e) regarding voluntary emission caps. In addition to these 
rule changes, Shasta County made several program changes including 
adopting Rule 2.3 (Toxics New Source Review) to comply with CAA 
Sec. 112(g) requirements, updating their title V staff description, 
their fee requirements and the expected operating permit program costs, 
revising their title V source list, and updating their permit 
application forms. With the exception of the effective date change, EPA 
proposes to approve all of the additional changes made by Shasta County 
APCD.
    (21) Siskiyou County APCD. Siskiyou County APCD made three of the 
four changes noted above to rule 2.13. EPA proposes to approve the 
District's revision to its definition of potential to emit at Rule 
2.13.II.W.1 and the clarification of its exempt sources list at 
2.13.III.B. EPA is taking no action on the District's change to the 
effective date at Rule 2.13.I and 2.13.II.L.
    (22) Tehama County APCD. Tehama County APCD made all four of the 
common changes noted above to Rule 7:1. EPA proposes to approve the 
District's modification to its definition of potential to emit at 
Section B.1.w.1, the replacement of the term owner/operator at Sections 
F.1.a.14.1, and the clarification of its exempt sources list at Section 
C.2.a. EPA is taking no action on the District's change to the 
effective date of Rule 7:1 at Sections A.1 and B.1.
    (23) Tuolumne County APCD. Tuolumne County APCD made two of the 
four changes noted above. However, the revision of definition of 
``potential to emit'' was done to address an interim approval 
deficiency. This change is therefore described in the Section IV.A.2. 
above. The other change that EPA is proposing to approve is the 
District's clarification of its exempt sources list at Section III.B.
    (24) Yolo-Solano AQMD. Yolo-Solano AQMD made three of the common 
changes noted above to Rule 3.8. EPA proposes to approve the District's 
modification to its definition of potential to emit at Section 224 and 
the clarification of its exempt sources list at Section 110. EPA is 
taking no action on the District's change to the effective date of Rule 
3.8 at Sections 101 and 213. In addition to these changes, Yolo-Solano 
also modified their definition of ``administrative permit amendment'' 
in Section 203, incorporated lower emission thresholds for nitrogen 
oxides and volatile organic compounds into their ``major source'' 
definition in Section 221, and corrected typographical errors in 
Sections 222 and 302. EPA proposes to approve these changes.

[[Page 53370]]

V. What Is Involved in This Proposed Action?

    All twenty-four districts have fulfilled the conditions of the 
interim approval granted on May 3, 1995, July 13, 1995, or December 7, 
1995, and EPA proposes full approval of their title V operating permit 
programs.
    As discussed above, many of the twenty-four districts that are the 
subject of today's proposed action also made additional changes to 
their operating permits programs. These changes were not required by 
EPA to address conditions of the interim approval granted to the 
twenty-four districts on May 3, 1995, July 13, 1995, or December 7, 
1995. However, EPA has reviewed all changes and proposes to approve all 
of them except the change to the effective date many districts made.

Request for Public Comment

    EPA requests comments on the program revisions discussed in this 
proposed action. Copies of these submittals 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 21, 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 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 11, 2001.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 01-26529 Filed 10-19-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P