[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 236 (Friday, December 7, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63503-63512]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-30368]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 70
[CA065-Pt 70; FRL-7113-5]
Clean Air Act Full Approval of 34 Operating Permits Programs in
California
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to fully approve the operating
permits programs submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
on behalf of the following 34 air districts: Amador County Air
Pollution Control District (APCD), Bay Area Air Quality Management
District (AQMD), Butte County 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, Mojave Desert AQMD, Monterey Bay
Unified APCD, North Coast Unified AQMD, Northern Sierra AQMD, Northern
Sonoma County APCD, Placer County APCD, Sacramento Metro AQMD, San
Diego County APCD, San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD, San Luis Obispo
County APCD, Santa Barbara County APCD, Shasta County APCD, Siskiyou
County APCD, South Coast AQMD, Tehama County APCD, Tuolumne County
APCD, Ventura County APCD, and Yolo-Solano AQMD. These 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. On the dates listed in Table 1 below, EPA granted interim
approval to the 34 operating permits programs. All 34 air districts
revised their programs to satisfy the conditions of the interim
approval, and EPA proposed full approval in the Federal Register on
[[Page 63504]]
the dates listed in Table 1. EPA received comments from several
commenters on our proposed actions. After carefully reviewing and
considering the issues raised by the commenters, EPA is taking final
action to fully approve all 34 operating permits programs. EPA
published 11 separate proposals to approve the 34 districts' title V
operating permits programs. Today we are consolidating our final
actions on those proposals into one final rule.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on November 30, 2001.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the 34 submittals and other supporting information
used in developing these final full approvals are available for
inspection during normal business hours at the following location: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, California 94105.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gerardo Rios, EPA Region 9, at 415-
972-3974 or [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This section contains additional information
about our final rulemaking, organized as follows:
I. Background on the 34 operating permits programs.
II. Comments received by EPA on our proposed rulemakings and EPA's
responses.
A. Comments received by EPA that apply to some or all of the 34
districts.
B. Comments received by EPA that are specific to Bay Area Air
Quality Management District.
1. Comments from Communities for a Better Environment.
2. Comments from Our Children's Earth
3. Comments from Commonweal
III. EPA's final action.
IV. Effective date of EPA's full approval of the 34 operating
permits programs.
V. What is the scope of EPA's full approval?
VI. Citizen comments on operating permits programs
I. Background on the 34 Operating Permits Programs
The Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1990 required all state and
local permitting authorities to develop operating permits programs that
meet certain federal criteria. The 34 California operating permits
programs were submitted in response to this directive. Because the
programs substantially, but not fully, met the requirements of part 70,
EPA granted interim approval to the programs. The interim approval
notices described the conditions that had to be met in order for the 34
programs to receive full approval. After the 34 air districts revised
their programs to address the conditions of the interim approval, EPA
promulgated proposals to fully approve these title V operating permits
programs. Table 1 lists the dates and Federal Register citations for
EPA's actions finalizing interim approval and proposing full approval
of the 34 operating permits programs.
Table 1.--Federal Register Citations and Program Submittal Dates for the 34 Operating Permits Programs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of
Interim Approval Revised Proposed Full Approval Federal Register
District Federal Register Program Citation
Citation Submittals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amador County APCD............. 60 FR 21720; 5/3/95... 4/10/01 66 FR 53354; 10/22/01
Bay Area AQMD.................. 60 FR 32606; 6/23/95.. 5/30/01 66 FR 53104; 10/19/01
Butte County AQMD.............. 60 FR 21720; 5/3/95... 5/17/01 66 FR 53354; 10/22/01
Calaveras County APCD.......... 60 FR 21720; 5/3/95... 7/27/01 66 FR 53354; 10/22/01
Colusa County APCD............. 60 FR 21720; 5/3/95... 8/22/01 and 66 FR 53354; 10/22/01
10/10/01
El Dorado County APCD.......... 60 FR 21720; 5/3/95... 8/16/01 66 FR 53354; 10/22/01
Feather River AQMD............. 60 FR 21720; 5/3/95... 5/22/01 66 FR 53354; 10/22/01
Glenn County APCD.............. 60 FR 36065; 7/13/95.. 9/13/01 66 FR 53354; 10/22/01
Great Basin Unified APCD....... 60 FR 21720; 5/3/95... 5/18/01 66 FR 53354; 10/22/01
Imperial County APCD........... 60 FR 21720; 5/3/95... 8/2/01 66 FR 53354; 10/22/01
Kern County APCD............... 60 FR 21720; 5/3/95... 5/24/01 66 FR 53354; 10/22/01
Lake County AQMD............... 60 FR 36065; 7/13/95.. 6/1/01 66 FR 53354; 10/22/01
Lassen County APCD............. 60 FR 21720; 5/3/95... 8/2/01 66 FR 53354; 10/22/01
Mariposa County APCD........... 60 FR 62758; 12/7/95.. 9/20/01 66 FR 53354; 10/22/01
Mendocino County APCD.......... 60 FR 21720; 5/3/95... 4/13/01 66 FR 53354; 10/22/01
Modoc County APCD.............. 60 FR 21720; 5/3/95... 9/12/01 66 FR 53354; 10/22/01
Mojave Desert AQMD............. 61 FR 4217; 2/5/96.... 7/11/01 and 66 FR 53163 10/19/01
6/4/01
Monterey Bay Unified APCD...... 60 FR 52332; 10/6/95.. 5/9/01 66 FR 53178; 10/19/01
North Coast Unified AQMD....... 60 FR 21720; 5/3/95... 5/24/01 66 FR 53354; 10/22/01
Northern Sierra AQMD........... 60 FR 21720; 5/3/95... 5/24/01 66 FR 53354; 10/22/01
Northern Sonoma County APCD.... 60 FR 21720; 5/3/95... 5/21/01 66 FR 53354; 10/22/01
Placer County APCD............. 60 FR 21720; 5/3/95... 5/4/01 66 FR 53354; 10/22/01
Sacramento Metro AQMD.......... 60 FR 39862; 8/4/95... 6/1/01 66 FR 53167; 10/19/01
San Diego County APCD.......... 60 FR 62753; 12/7/95.. 6/4/01 66 FR 53148; 10/19/01
San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD 61 FR 18083; 4/24/96.. 6/29/01 66 FR 53151; 10/19/01
San Luis Obispo County APCD.... 60 FR 21720; 5/3/95... 5/18/01 66 FR 53159; 10/19/01
Santa Barbara County APCD...... 60 FR 55460; 11/1/95.. 4/5/01 66 FR 53155; 10/19/01
Shasta County APCD............. 60 FR 36065; 7/13/95.. 5/18/01 66 FR 53354; 10/22/01
Siskiyou County APCD........... 60 FR 21720; 5/3/95... 9/28/01 66 FR 53354; 10/22/01
South Coast AQMD............... 61 FR 45330; 8/29/96.. 8/2/01 66 FR 53170; 10/19/01
Tehama County APCD............. 60 FR 36065; 7/13/95.. 6/4/01 66 FR 53354; 10/22/01
Tuolumne County APCD........... 60 FR 21720; 5/3/95... 7/18/01 66 FR 53354; 10/22/01
Ventura County APCD............ 60 FR 55460; 11/1/95.. 5/21/01 66 FR 53174; 10/19/01
[[Page 63505]]
Yolo-Solano AQMD............... 60 FR 21720; 5/3/95... 5/9/01 66 FR 53354; 10/22/01
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Comments Received by EPA on Our Proposed Rulemakings and EPA's
Responses
We received several comment letters on EPA's proposed approval of
the title V operating permits programs in California. Four comment
letters applied to some or all of the 34 districts in California; a
summary of these comments and our response are included in section
II.A, below. Three other comment letters were directed specifically at
our proposed approval of the Bay Area AQMD's operating permits program;
a summary of the comments specific to Bay Area AQMD and our responses
are included in section II.B below.
A. Comments Received by EPA That Apply to Some or All of the 34
Districts
We received four comment letters that specifically address the
EPA's proposed approach of granting full program approval to the
California districts' title V operating permits programs while
deferring the permitting of agricultural operations involved in the
growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals for a brief period,
not to exceed three years. We received comments objecting to our
proposed approach on this issue from two coalitions of environmental
groups and comments supporting our approach from a coalition of
agricultural industry representatives and from the California Air
Resources Board (CARB).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ We also received a comment objecting to our proposal on this
matter as it relates to the Bay Area AQMD operating permits program.
See section II.B, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The adverse comments we received from the environmental groups
oppose EPA's proposed approach on both legal and technical grounds. The
groups' comments assert that since the repeal of the statewide
agricultural permitting exemption was a condition established by EPA
for full title V program approval and the exemption is still in place,
EPA cannot grant full approval to the California districts' operating
permits programs. Moreover, they argue that the three-year deferral
represents an inappropriate continuation of interim approval. In
addition, they comment that EPA cannot exempt any major sources from
title V permitting under the Act.
Their comments also question EPA's assertion that there is not a
complete inventory of emissions associated with agricultural operations
in California and maintain that there are reliable methodologies to
determine emissions from certain animal feeding operations (e.g.,
dairies). The groups' comments also dispute the need for additional
research on emissions from agricultural sources prior to implementing
title V permitting of these sources and cite the results of San Joaquin
Air District and CARB reports regarding the impact of agricultural
pollution sources on air quality in the San Joaquin Valley. Finally,
the groups request that EPA disapprove the California districts' title
V operating permits programs, although they express support for EPA
delegating part 71 to the local permitting authorities for all sources
not subject to the agricultural exemption, if the Agency were to
disapprove the districts' part 70 programs.
Comments received from the coalition of agricultural industry
associations support EPA's proposed approval of the San Joaquin Valley
Unified APCD's title V program as well as EPA's proposal to defer title
V permitting of in-field agricultural operations for three years for
all California air districts. The groups' comments confirm that
reliable data and a complete inventory of emissions associated with
production agricultural operations are not currently available and
commit the California agricultural industry to participating in
research efforts to better determine emission levels associated with
in-field activities. CARB's comments also support EPA's proposal to
grant full approval to all of the local title V programs in the State
and to defer the permitting of State-exempted agricultural sources for
a three-year period. CARB maintains that local districts have corrected
all of the interim title V program deficiencies within their authority.
CARB also reiterates the position conveyed in their September 19, 2001
letter to Jack Broadbent, Region 9 Air Director, that emissions from
much of the equipment used in the pre-harvest activities exempted by
State law cannot be included in title V applicability determinations,
and that the potential to emit of California's exempt agricultural
equipment is likely to be below title V major source thresholds.
EPA considered the comments raised in response to our proposed
approval, and has decided to grant full approval to the title V
operating permits programs in the State and to defer permitting of the
limited category of State-exempt agricultural sources for a period of
no more than three years. This approach will allow EPA and the State to
evaluate the existing science, improve on assessment tools, collect and
analyze additional data, remove any remaining legal obstacles, and
issue any necessary guidance on implementation of the title V operating
permits program for major agricultural stationary sources. At the same
time, this approach will not impede local permitting authorities from
issuing all of their initial round of title V permits as expeditiously
as possible.
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, emission reduction strategies. At the end
of this period, EPA will, taking into consideration the additional data
gathered during the deferral, make a determination as to how the title
V operating permits program will be implemented for any major
agricultural stationary sources in the State.
B. Comments received by EPA That Are Specific to Bay Area Air Quality
Management District
In addition to the comments discussed in II.A above that apply to
all programs in California, EPA received several comment letters
specific to our proposed full approval of the operating permits program
for the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (``Bay Area,''
``District'' or ``BAAQMD''). These comments were received by EPA on
November 19, 2001 from three organizations: Communities for a Better
Environment (``CBE''); the Golden Gate University Environmental Law and
Justice Clinic, acting on behalf of Our
[[Page 63506]]
Children's Earth (``OCE''); and a Bay Area environmental organization
called Commonweal. The following is a summary of the comments--and our
responses--related to our proposed full approval of the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District operating permits program.
1. Comments from Communities for a Better Environment
The CBE comments addressed our proposed approval of the District's
revision of its definition of potential to emit (``PTE'') at 2-6-218.
We had proposed to approve this revised definition which allows a
permit limitation, or the effect it would have on emissions, to be
``enforceable by the District or EPA.'' The phrase, ``enforceable by
the District or EPA'' replaced the term, ``federally enforceable.''
CBE stated that EPA should reject BAAQMD's revision to the
definition of potential to emit at 2-6-218, or in the alternative, find
the revision deficient and order BAAQMD to revise the definition. CBE
stated that the proposed change to 2-6-218 is illegal because the rule
change expands the definition of potential to emit beyond the bounds of
the federal case law and EPA guidance on the subject. They assert that
our position--that the new District definition of potential to emit is
consistent with the new meaning under federal law as defined by the
courts--is simply wrong. They claim that the phrase, ``enforceable by
the District or EPA'' is vague, much broader than the current case law,
and not defined anywhere in the District rule. CBE stated that it makes
no sense to define ``federally enforceable'' in Rule 2-6-207 and then
use a different phrase in the definition of potential to emit. CBE also
discussed how the Manual of Procedures (``MOP''), without expressly
saying so, appears to define the phrase, ``enforceable by the
district'' as ``a district or state requirement that has not been
approved for inclusion in the SIP by EPA is not federally enforceable
but can limit potential to emit for the purposes of major facility
review.'' (MOP at page 3-2). CBE stated that if this is how the
District intends to define the phrase, then it is much broader than
what the courts allowed (see Clean Air Implementation Project v. EPA
No. 96-1224 (D.C. Cir. June 28, 1996)). CBE also was opposed to our
proposed action on this matter in which we rely on the District to
implement its new definition of PTE to be consistent with federal case
law. They said it is improper for us to approve the ``vague and overly
broad rule'' and rely on our enforcement discretion as a means to
correct any misapplication of the definition.
Finally, CBE stated that the definition of federally enforceable in
the NSR rule is not consistent with the definition in the part 70
program and this would cause confusion, misinterpretation, and
ambiguity surrounding enforcement actions. In particular, CBE is
concerned that previous NSR actions where federally enforceable limits
on the source's PTE were created under the NSR definition of PTE, could
be altered under title V using ``the expanded definition'' to allow
sources to no longer have limits on potential to emit that are
federally enforceable.
EPA Response to CBE Comments: The comments made by CBE do not alter
our position and today's final action approves the definition of
potential to emit at District rule 2-6-218 (amended by BAAQMD on May
17, 2001). We hold to our proposed position in today's final action
because the District's definition is consistent with federal case law
and EPA policies. CBE is concerned that the phrase, ``enforceable by
the District or EPA,'' which replaced, ``federally enforceable,'' is
not consistent with the federal case law and EPA policies. Although the
definition does not include the clarifying phrase that the state and
local limits shall be, ``legally and practicably enforceable'' (See
Clean Air Act Implementation v. EPA No. 96-1224 (D.C. Cir. June 28,
1996)), EPA does not believe that this phrase must be included before
we can approve the definition in a part 70 rule. In our proposed
rulemaking for Bay Area, we notified the BAAQMD of the practicable
enforceability criteria and of our expectations as they implement the
definition. Furthermore, the requirement that a limitation be
``effective'' or ``practically enforceable'' is inherent in any PTE
limit.
In general, we agree with CBE that there could be ambiguity about
the interpretation of the definition of potential to emit if it is
defined differently under NSR compared to Part 70. While these
differences may exist, the NSR rule is independent from the part 70
program and, therefore, a different definition of PTE in the NSR rule
does not necessarily affect our ability to approve the District's
definition of PTE for part 70 purposes. In response to CBE's concerns
that sources would argue that certain limits on their PTE obtained
during an earlier NSR action would no longer need to be federally
enforceable under part 70, such arguments would not be valid because
the District's NSR rules are SIP-approved and all terms and conditions
of permits issued pursuant to the SIP-approved rules are federally
enforceable applicable requirements for part 70 purposes.
2. Comments From Our Children's Earth
OCE provided comments on four interim approval issues, five program
implementation issues, and several other changes the Bay Area had made
to its rules which were not required to correct interim approval
issues. We find that the five comments made by OCE on possible program
implementation issues, are not related to Bay Area rule changes and
are, therefore, outside the scope of today's rulemaking. (See OCE
comments B.2, B.3, B.4, B.5, and B.6). Our proposal was limited to
specific rule changes the district has made to its operating permits
rule or program since interim approval was granted. The changes that we
had identified in our proposal were made by Bay Area to either correct
interim approval issues that we had earlier identified or to clarify
the rule. The following are the comments that are within the scope of
the rulemaking; our response follows each comment.
Issue #1--Insignificant Activities: OCE objected to our proposed
approval because Bay Area did not provide a basis for defining
significant source as those emission units with Hazardous Air Pollutant
(HAP) emissions above 400 pounds.
EPA Response: The Bay Area established as ``significant source''
any emission unit that has a potential to emit of more than 2 tons per
year of any regulated air pollutant or more than 400 pounds per year of
any HAP. (See BAAQMD rule 2-6-238). Although the District has not
provided a detailed determination of how they established this level,
the emission levels for HAPs are well within the guidance EPA provided
to California agencies on this matter. (See letter to Mike Tollstrup,
CARB, from Gerardo Rios, EPA Region IX, dated February 22, 2001). This
guidance originated from EPA's own title V permitting regulations at 40
CFR 71.5(c)(11)(ii)(B) in which we state that, ``potential to emit of
any HAP from any single emission unit shall not exceed 1,000 pounds per
year * * *'' Therefore, for this reason and the reasons described in
our proposed approval action, EPA finds that the District has corrected
the interim approval issue #1 and approves the District's definition of
significant source.
Issue 11--Emissions Trading: OCE asserted that the District does
not appear to have an emissions trading scheme in place to allow for
emissions trading for Title V facilities. They said
[[Page 63507]]
that the inclusion of emissions trading procedures into the Title V
program is inappropriate unless there are rules in place to implement
emissions trading. Until this deficiency is remedied, they asked that
full approval of the District's title V program be denied.
EPA Response: While we agree with the commenter that the District
does not appear to have a SIP-approved rule to allow for emissions
trading at title V sources, EPA does not agree that such provisions be
in place before the District can adopt, and EPA can approve, part 70
program changes that would allow such trading consistent with 40 CFR
70.6(a)(10) once the applicable requirement allows for it. 40 CFR
70.6(a)(10) requires the part 70 permit contain ``terms and conditions,
if the permit applicant requests them, for the trading of emissions * *
* to the extent that the applicable requirements provide for trading
such increases and decreases * * *'' [emphasis added]. Even if a
permitting authority does not have applicable requirements (e.g., a
SIP) that provide for such trading, it can still have provisions in its
part 70 program to allow for such trading.
Issue #16--Regulated Air Pollutant: OCE was concerned about our
approval of the definition of Regulated Air Pollutant at section 2-6-
222.3 which includes, ``[a]ny Class I or Class II ozone depleting
substance subject to a standard promulgated under Title VI of the Clean
Air Act.'' OCE felt that this definition is inconsistent with 40 CFR
70.2(4) which only states that ``[a]ny Class I or Class II subject to a
standard promulgated under or established by title VI of the Act.'' OCE
felt that by specifying ``ozone depleting substance'' in its
regulations, the District may unnecessarily be narrowing the definition
of a Class I or Class II substance. Therefore, they stated, the phrase
`ozone depleting substance' should be deleted from Regulation 2-6-222.3
to parallel the definition in 40 CFR 70.2(4). Further, OCE requested
that Regulation 2-6-222.5 be amended to include the expanded language
in 40 CFR 70.2(5) since the federal regulations set out a more specific
explanation of regulated air pollutants. In the very least, they
requested that EPA require the District to reference 40 CFR 70.2(5) in
Regulation 2-6-222.5 before granting full program approval.
EPA Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter. We do not believe
that the District's definition conflicts with Part 70's definition of
regulated air pollutant; rather, we find it is redundant with the
definition since Class I or Class II substances can reasonably be
called, ``ozone depleting substances.'' A Class I substance is a
substance that, ``the Administrator finds causes or contributes
significantly to harmful effects on the stratospheric ozone layer.'' A
Class II substance is, ``any other substances that the Administrator
finds is known or may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute
to harmful effects on the stratospheric ozone layer.'' (See CAA section
602(a) and (b), respectively). Further, we disagree with OCE's comment
that we should require the District to include a more complete
reference of regulated pollutant at 40 CFR 70.2(5). In our interim
approval notice we required that the District add the references to
section 112 provisions because this was the only aspect of the
definition that we found to be deficient. The District has made the
required correction.
Issue #17--Agricultural Exemption: OCE commented that the
District's Title V program is inadequate and should be denied because
the California Legislature has failed to amend the Health and Safety
Code to remove the agricultural exemption. OCE was concerned with EPA's
proposal to grant the District full approval while agricultural sources
remain exempt from the Title V program and stated that EPA cannot grant
full approval to the District while allowing the deferral of Title V
permitting of agricultural operations.
EPA Response to OCE Comment #4: Although this comment is specific
to Bay Area, it is a statewide issue. Our response to this comment is
provided in section II.A, above.
Comments received from OCE on non-interim approval rule changes:
The following comments were made by OCE on our proposal to approve
other rule changes made by Bay Area that were not required to correct
interim approval deficiencies. We find that these comments are within
the scope of the rulemaking and our response to these comments follow.
OCE Comment #5: Rule 2-6-113 (Exemption, Registered Portable
Engines)--OCE expressed concern that the District exempts registered
portable engines from its Title V program purportedly because the
District does not regulate them.
EPA Response to OCE Comment #5: Rule 2-6-113 is not a provision
that we proposed to approve (see table 2 in our proposed full approval
dated October 19, 2001, 66 FR 53140), and therefore the comment is
outside the scope of today's final rulemaking. Since the provision at
2-6-113 is not included in our final action, the provision does not
exist in the federally approved part 70 program for Bay Area. Thus, the
exemption for portable equipment at 2-6-113 is not available to sources
in the Bay Area under the federally approved part 70 program.
OCE Comment #6: Rule 2-6-201 (Administrative Permit Amendment)--
This provision defines ``administrative permit amendment'' and lists
the changes at a title V source that can be considered for
administrative permit amendment procedures. To correct an interim
approval issue (see issue #6 in the proposed rulemaking) with this
definition, Bay Area eliminated the phrase, ``but not necessarily
limited to'' from the sentence introducing the list of what can be
considered an administrative permit amendment. OCE commented that the
definition still suffers from lack of clarity because it still uses the
word ``include'' to introduce the list of what can be an administrative
permit amendment. Further, they asked that the phrase ``or new'' be
eliminated because new monitoring requirements are significant permit
modifications to which the public ought to be able to comment.
EPA Response to OCE Comment #6: EPA disagrees with OCE's comment
that the definition of Administrative Permit Amendment is still
unclear. The District's deletion of the language, ``not necessarily
limited to'' in the current rule must be considered to mean that the
District considers this list to be exhaustive. Therefore, EPA considers
the list to be all that is allowed. Regarding the request that the
term, ``new or'' be eliminated, EPA does not believe it is necessary
because we view ``new'' monitoring at an existing source to mean
increasing the frequency of the existing monitoring. Furthermore, any
significant change in monitoring is required to undergo a significant
permit revision as defined at 2-6-226.
OCE Comment #7: Definition of Potential to Emit--OCE objected to
the District replacing the phrase, ``federally enforceable'' with the
phrase, ``enforceable by the District.'' They stated that EPA has not
yet made final decisions based on the recent court decisions, and they
believed that EPA should await completion of its decision making
process to review any proposed rules on potential to emit. In the
alternative, they said that the phrase, ``enforceable by the District
or EPA'' should be substituted with ``federally enforceable or legally
and practically enforceable by the District'' consistent with EPA's
guidance and comments in the proposed approval.
EPA Response to OCE Comment #7: EPA disagrees with the comment that
the definition cannot be approved with the phrase, ``enforceable by the
District.'' Further, we can approve the
[[Page 63508]]
provision because the requirement that a limitation be ``effective'' or
``practically enforceable'' is inherent in any PTE limit. See also our
response to the CBE comment above.
OCE Comment #8: Rule 2-6-231 (Synthetic Minor Operating Permit)
means ``a District operating permit that has been modified to include
conditions imposing enforceable condition on a facility or source.''
OCE stated that the rule should reference Rule 2-6-218 ``potential to
emit.'' They felt that the title V program should not be approved
without the clarification in this rule that exceedance of the synthetic
minor limit voids the minor permit.
EPA's Response to OCE Comment #8: In light of the comments, we have
re-considered our proposed action and find that EPA should defer final
action on this provision. We are choosing to not take final action on
this provision at this time and will complete our analysis and take
appropriate action in the near future. For the time being, however, it
is not part of the approved part 70 program for Bay Area.
OCE Comment #9: Rule 2-6-314 (Revocation): OCE stated that Part 70
requires a provision stating that the permittee must comply with all
conditions of the Title V permit and that any noncompliance constitutes
a violation of the Act and is grounds for enforcement action, and for
permit termination and revocation, among other things. They stated that
the Manual of Procedures makes clear that such a provision is part of a
title V permit. However, OCE objected to EPA's proposed program
approval to the extent that Rule 2-6-314 may be read to restrict any
resources the citizen may have to enforce permit terms. In addition,
they stated that the discretion to request the Hearing Board to hold a
hearing should not reside solely with the Air Pollution Control
Officer. They commented that any interested public member should be
allowed to request the Hearing Board to hold a hearing to determine
whether a major facility permit should be revoked.
EPA Response to OCE Comment #9: As the commenter acknowledges,
BAAQMD's program is consistent with 70.6(a)(6)(i)'s requirements for
permit content regarding non-compliance. The revocation procedures at
2-6-314 are a requirement of State law (see Health and Safety Code
Sec. 42307) and are not inconsistent with part 70 procedures, thus it
is an approvable provision. In fact, part 70 does not require specific
hearing board procedures for permitting agencies; therefore, the
District can proceed in this way. Members of the public may avail
themselves of federal remedies, including requesting revocation, under
section 304 of the Clean Air Act.
OCE Comment #10: Rule 2-6-404 (Timely Application): OCE stated that
there is no justification for extending the deadline for certain
applications to October 20, 2000 and, for this reason, the program
should not be approved.
EPA Response to OCE Comment #10: Rule 2-6-404.8 states that, ``the
initial application for a major facility review permit for a existing
major facility with actual emissions lower than 50 tons per year of
each regulated pollutant and 7 tons per year of any hazardous air
pollutant shall be submitted by the applicant by October 20, 2000.''
This provision was adopted by the District Board on October 19, 1999
and provided warning to sources whose emissions were less than those
specified, but whose PTE exceeded major source levels, that and initial
application was due in one year. EPA finds that this provision is
approvable because it was more restrictive than EPA policy on the
matter at this time.\2\ EPA's policy allowed a source to temporarily
establish a potential to emit limit based on actual emissions to avoid
major source status under section 112 and title V of the Clean Air Act.
EPA's transition policy expired on December 31, 2000, which was after
the October 20, 2000 date established by the District in its rule for
these type of sources to submit timely title V applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See January 25, 1995 Memorandum from John Seitz, Director,
OAQPS and Robert Van Heuvelen, Director, Office of Regulatory
Enforcement, to various Regional EPA Air Program Directors,
entitled, ``Options for Limiting the Potential to Emit (PTE) of a
Stationary Source Under section 112 and Title V of the Clean Air
Act.'' See also, Memorandum dated December 20, 1999 entitled,
``Third Extension of January 25, 1995 Potential to Emit Transition
Policy,'' from John Seitz, Director, OAQPS and Eric Schaeffer,
Director, Office of Regulatory Enforcement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OCE Comment #11: Rule 2-6-409 (Permit Content): The testing,
monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping section of the rule should
contain the requirement in 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(i)(C) for the
requirements, as necessary, concerning the use, maintenance and, where
appropriate, installation of monitoring equipment. This requirement
could be included in Rule 2-6-503.
EPA Response to Comment #11: District rule 2-6-409.2 requires that
permits include ``all applicable requirements for monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting, including applicable test methods and
analysis procedures.'' Furthermore, the District MOP at 4.6 includes a
reference to numerous federal and local regulations that require
monitoring (e.g., Federal New Source Performance Standards, etc.) and a
statement that, ``the requirements in the above regulations contain
extensive instructions on monitoring procedures. They include details
on the calibration of instruments, source testing for verification,
number of data points per time period, averaging and statistical
analysis. Such requirements will be included in the permit by
reference.'' EPA finds that the MOP at section 4.6, and the general
requirement at 2-6-409.2, adequately satisfy the part 70 requirement
cited by the commenter. Therefore, we are approving 2-6-409.2.
OCE Comment #12: Rule 2-6-415 (Reopening for Cause): OCE objected
to EPA's proposed program approval to the extent that Rule 2-6-314 may
be read to restrict any resources the citizen may have to request
revocation of permits. They stated that, consistent with the right
provided to the public to enforce the terms of Title V permits and
consistent with 40 CFR 70.6(a)(6)(i), any interested public member
should be allowed to seek the remedy of revocation.
EPA Response to OCE Comment #12: We disagree with the comment. Part
70 does not require specific hearing board procedures to allow citizens
to reopen or revoke a permit, but the Clean Air Act allows members of
the public to sue to enforce permit requirements and to request
appropriate relief from a court. See also our response to comment #9,
above.
3. Comments From Commonweal
Commonweal raised concerns regarding provision 2-6-314,
``Revocation'' which states, ``the Air Pollution Control Officer (APCO)
may request the Hearing Board to hold a hearing to determine whether a
major facility permit should be revoked if it is found that the holder
of the permit is violating any provision in the permit or any
applicable permit.'' Commonweal commented that this provision needs
more specificity concerning when the APCO requests a hearing.
Commonweal also stated it is necessary to require that the APCO
``must'' request the Hearing Board to hold a hearing about whether a
permit should be revoked when a consistent pattern of permit violations
has occurred. Commonweal provided two slightly different options for
what they would like to the revocation language to state.
EPA's Response to Commonweal's Comment: EPA does not agree that the
provision at 2-6-314 needs to be modified before it can be approved as
part of the Bay Area's part 70 permitting
[[Page 63509]]
program. Part 70 does not require that the APCO request a public
hearing to determine if a permit should be revoked. The permit
revocation procedure described in 2-6-314, including all District
Hearing Board proceedings, is an attribute of California State Law and
is not inconsistent with any provision in Part 70 (see California
Health and Safety Code Sec. 42307). In general, part 70 requires that
all permit proceedings undergo adequate public notice requirements
including ``offering an opportunity for public comment and a hearing on
the draft permit.'' (See Sec. 70.7(h)). Also, part 70 describes the
procedures that must be followed if ``the Administrator or the
permitting authority determines that the permit must be revised or
revoked to assure compliance with the applicable requirements.'' (See
Sec. 70.7(f)(1)(iv)).
III. EPA's Final Action
EPA is granting full approval to the 34 operating permits programs
submitted by CARB based on the revisions submitted by the 34 districts,
which satisfactorily address the program deficiencies identified in
EPA's interim approvals for these districts. In addition, EPA is
approving, as title V operating permits program revisions, other
changes made by some districts that are unrelated to the changes
required by EPA for full program approval. EPA is not taking action on
certain other changes made by some districts that are also unrelated to
the changes required by EPA for full program approval. For detailed
descriptions of these changes and the basis for EPA's actions, readers
should refer to the Federal Register notices published on October 19,
2001 and October 22, 2001 (see Table 1 above for Federal Register
citations), in which EPA proposed full approval of the 34 operating
permit programs, as well as the Technical Support Documents associated
with those proposals.
Today EPA is also approving, as part of their revised operating
permits programs, changes to the definition of potential to emit (PTE)
made by Kern County APCD (KCAPCD) and Amador County APCD (ACAPCD). Both
districts had revised the PTE definition in their local rules such that
the requirement to count fugitives towards the major source threshold
was inconsistent with the requirement in the definition of major source
in 40 CFR Part 70, and was therefore not approvable. However, when EPA
proposed to fully approve the KCAPCD and ACAPCD operating permits
programs, on October 22, 2001 (66 FR 53354), the Agency proposed to
approve the KCAPCD and ACAPCD definitions of potential to emit provided
that EPA finalized revisions to the part 70 rule that would make the
revised PTE definitions of KCAPCD and ACAPCD approvable. EPA
promulgated a final rule on November 27, 2001 (66 FR 59161) that
revised the definition of major source in part 70; the KCAPCD and
ACAPCD definitions are now consistent with part 70 and EPA is approving
them as part of these districts' revised title V programs.
Finally, for the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's
operating permits program, our full approval includes all provisions
except for:
--Provisions identified in table 2 from our proposed FR notice dated
October 19, 2001. (66 FR 53140); and
--the definition of Synthetic Minor Operating Permit. Section 2-6-231.
IV. Effective Date of EPA's Full Approval of the 34 Operating
Permits Programs
EPA is using the good cause exception under the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA) to make the full approval of the 34 districts'
programs effective on November 30, 2001. In relevant part, the APA
provides that publication of ``a substantive rule shall be made not
less than 30 days before its effective date, except-- * * * (3) as
otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published
with the rule.'' 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the APA
provides that good cause may be supported by an agency determination
that a delay in the effective date is impracticable, unnecessary, or
contrary to the public interest. EPA finds that it is necessary and in
the public interest to make this action effective sooner than 30 days
following publication. In this case, EPA believes that it is in the
public interest for the programs to take effect before December 1,
2001. EPA's interim approval of the 34 districts' programs expires on
December 1, 2001. In the absence of this full approval of 34 districts'
amended programs taking effect on November 30, the federal program
under 40 CFR part 71 would automatically take effect in the 34
districts and would remain in place until the effective date of the
fully-approved state program. EPA believes it is in the public interest
for sources, the public and 34 districts to avoid any gap in coverage
of the district programs, as such a gap could cause confusion regarding
permitting obligations. Furthermore, a delay in the effective date is
unnecessary because the 34 districts have been administering the title
V permit program for approximately six years under interim approvals.
Through this action, EPA is approving a few revisions to the existing
and currently operational programs. The change from the interim
approved programs which substantially met the part 70 requirements, to
the fully approved programs is relatively minor, in particular if
compared to the changes between a district-established and administered
program and the federal program.
V. What Is the Scope of EPA's Full Approval?
In its program submission, the 34 districts did not assert
jurisdiction over Indian country. To date, no tribal government in
California has applied to EPA for approval to administer a title V
program in Indian country within the state. EPA regulations at 40 CFR
part 49 govern how eligible Indian tribes may be approved by EPA to
implement a title V program on Indian reservations and in non-
reservation areas over which the tribe has jurisdiction. EPA's part 71
regulations govern the issuance of federal operating permits in Indian
country. EPA's authority to issue permits in Indian country was
challenged in Michigan v. EPA, (D.C. Cir. No. 99-1151). On October 30,
2001, the court issued its decision in the case, vacating a provision
that would have allowed EPA to treat areas over which EPA determines
there is a question regarding the area's status as if it is Indian
country, and remanding to EPA for further proceedings. EPA will respond
to the court's remand and explain EPA's approach for further
implementation of part 71 in Indian country in a future action.
VI. Citizen Comments on Operating Permits Programs
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.
One member of the public commented on what he believes to be
deficiencies with respect to the California title V programs. As stated
in the Federal Register notices published on October
[[Page 63510]]
19, 2001 and October 22, 2001 proposing to fully approve the 34
operating permits programs, EPA takes no action on those comments in
today's action. Rather, EPA will respond by December 14, 2001 to timely
public comments on programs that have obtained interim approval, and by
April 1, 2002 to timely comments on fully approved programs. We will
publish a notice of deficiency (NOD) when we determine that a
deficiency exists, or we will notify the commenter in writing to
explain our reasons for not making a finding of deficiency. In
addition, we will publish a notice of availability in the Federal
Register notifying the public that we have responded in writing to
these comments and how the public may obtain a copy of our response. 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. Furthermore, in the future, EPA may
issue an additional NOD if EPA or a citizen identifies other
deficiencies.
Administrative Requirements
Under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this final approval 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 final
approval 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
(Pub. L. 104-4) because it approves 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). This rule merely approves 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 final approval 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 significant 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.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective on November 30, 2001.
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 5, 2002. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
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: November 29, 2001.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region 9.
40 CFR part 70, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 70--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 70 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
2. Appendix A to part 70 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)
through (hh) under California to read as follows:
Appendix A to Part 70--Approval Status of State and Local Operating
Permits Programs
* * * * *
California
* * * * *
(a) Amador County Air Pollution Control District (APCD):
(1) Complete submittal received on September 30, 1994; interim
approval effective on June 2, 1995; interim approval expires
December 1, 2001.
(2) Revisions were submitted on April 10, 2001. The rule
amendments contained in the April 10, 2001 submittal adequately
addressed the conditions of the interim approval effective on June
2, 1995. Amador County Air Pollution Control District is
[[Page 63511]]
hereby granted final full approval effective on November 30, 2001.
(b) Bay Area Air Quality Management District (AQMD):
(1) Submitted on November 16, 1993, amended on October 27, 1994,
and effective as an interim program on July 24, 1995. Revisions to
interim program submitted on March 23, 1995, and effective on August
22, 1995, unless adverse or critical comments are received by July
24, 1995. Approval of interim program, including March 23, 1995,
revisions, expires December 1, 2001.
(2) Revisions were submitted on May 30, 2001. The rule
amendments contained in the May 30, 2001 submittal adequately
addressed the conditions of the interim approval effective on July
24, 1995. Bay Area Air Quality Management District is hereby granted
final full approval effective on November 30, 2001.
(c) Butte County APCD:
(1) Complete submittal received on December 16, 1993; interim
approval effective on June 2, 1995; interim approval expires
December 1, 2001.
(2) Revisions were submitted on May 17, 2001. The rule
amendments contained in the May 17, 2001 submittal adequately
addressed the conditions of the interim approval effective on June
2, 1995. Butte County APCD is hereby granted final full approval
effective on November 30, 2001.
(d) Calaveras County APCD:
(1) Complete submittal received on October 31, 1994; interim
approval effective on June 2, 1995; interim approval expires
December 1, 2001.
(2) Revisions were submitted on July 27, 2001. The rule
amendments contained in the July 27, 2001 submittal adequately
addressed the conditions of the interim approval effective on June
2, 1995. Calaveras County APCD is hereby granted final full approval
effective on November 30, 2001.
(e) Colusa County APCD:
(1) Complete submittal received on February 24, 1994; interim
approval effective on June 2, 1995; interim approval expires
December 1, 2001.
(2) Revisions were submitted on August 22, 2001 and October 10,
2001. The rule amendments contained in the August 22, 2001 and
October 10, 2001 submittals adequately addressed the conditions of
the interim approval effective on June 2, 1995. Colusa County APCD
is hereby granted final full approval effective on November 30,
2001.
(f) El Dorado County APCD:
(1) Complete submittal received on November 16, 1993; interim
approval effective on June 2, 1995; interim approval expires
December 1, 2001.
(2) Revisions were submitted on August 16, 2001. The rule
amendments contained in the August 16, 2001 submittals adequately
addressed the conditions of the interim approval effective on June
2, 1995. El Dorado County APCD is hereby granted final full approval
effective on November 30, 2001.
(g) Feather River AQMD:
(1) Complete submittal received on December 27, 1993; interim
approval effective on June 2, 1995; interim approval expires
December 1, 2001.
(2) Revisions were submitted on May 22, 2001. The rule
amendments contained in the May 22, 2001 submittal adequately
addressed the conditions of the interim approval effective on June
2, 1995. Feather River AQMD is hereby granted final full approval
effective on November 30, 2001.
(h) Glenn County APCD:
(1) Complete submittal received on December 27, 1993; interim
approval effective on August 14, 1995; interim approval expires
December 1, 2001.
(2) Revisions were submitted on September 13, 2001. The rule
amendments contained in the September 13, 2001 submittal adequately
addressed the conditions of the interim approval effective on August
14, 1995. Glenn County APCD is hereby granted final full approval
effective on November 30, 2001.
(i) Great Basin Unified APCD:
(1) Complete submittal received on January 12, 1994; interim
approval effective on June 2, 1995; interim approval expires
December 1, 2001.
(2) Revisions were submitted on May 18, 2001. The rule
amendments contained in the May 18, 2001 submittal adequately
addressed the conditions of the interim approval effective on June
2, 1995. Great Basin Unified APCD is hereby granted final full
approval effective on November 30, 2001.
(j) Imperial County APCD:
(1) Complete submittal received on March 24, 1994; interim
approval effective on June 2, 1995; interim approval expires
December 1, 2001.
(2) Revisions were submitted on August 2, 2001. The rule
amendments contained in the August 2, 2001 submittal adequately
addressed the conditions of the interim approval effective on June
2, 1995. Imperial County APCD is hereby granted final full approval
effective on November 30, 2001.
(k) Kern County APCD:
(1) Complete submittal received on November 16, 1993; interim
approval effective on June 2, 1995; interim approval expires
December 1, 2001.
(2) Revisions were submitted on May 24, 2001. The rule
amendments contained in the May 24, 2001 submittal adequately
addressed the conditions of the interim approval effective on June
2, 1995. Kern County APCD is hereby granted final full approval
effective on November 30, 2001.
(l) Lake County AQMD:
(1) Complete submittal received on March 15, 1994; interim
approval effective on August 14, 1995; interim approval expires
December 1, 2001.
(2) Revisions were submitted on June 1, 2001. The rule
amendments contained in the June 1, 2001 submittal adequately
addressed the conditions of the interim approval effective on August
14, 1995. Lake County AQMD is hereby granted final full approval
effective on November 30, 2001.
(m) Lassen County APCD:
(1) Complete submittal received on January 12, 1994; interim
approval effective on June 2, 1995; interim approval expires
December 1, 2001.
(2) Revisions were submitted on August 2, 2001. The rule
amendments contained in the August 2, 2001 submittal adequately
addressed the conditions of the interim approval effective on June
2, 1995. Lassen County APCD is hereby granted final full approval
effective on November 30, 2001.
(n) Mariposa County APCD:
(1) Submitted on March 8, 1995; approval effective on February
5, 1996 unless adverse or critical comments are received by January
8, 1996. Interim approval expires on December 1, 2001.
(2) Revisions were submitted on September 20, 2001. The rule
amendments contained in the September 20, 2001 submittal adequately
addressed the conditions of the interim approval effective on
February 5, 1996. Mariposa County APCD is hereby granted final full
approval effective on November 30, 2001.
(o) Mendocino County APCD:
(1) Complete submittal received on December 27, 1993; interim
approval effective on June 2, 1995; interim approval expires
December 1, 2001.
(2) Revisions were submitted on April 13, 2001. The rule
amendments contained in the April 13, 2001 submittal adequately
addressed the conditions of the interim approval effective on June
2, 1995. Mendocino County APCD is hereby granted final full approval
effective on November 30, 2001.
(p) Modoc County APCD:
(1) Complete submittal received on December 27, 1993; interim
approval effective on June 2, 1995; interim approval expires
December 1, 2001.
(2) Revisions were submitted on September 12, 2001. The rule
amendments contained in the September 12, 2001 submittal adequately
addressed the conditions of the interim approval effective on June
2, 1995. Modoc County APCD is hereby granted final full approval
effective on November 30, 2001.
(q) Mojave Desert AQMD:
(1) Complete submittal received on March 10, 1995; interim
approval effective on March 6, 1996; interim approval expires
December 1, 2001.
(2) Revisions were submitted on June 4, 2001 and July 11, 2001.
The rule amendments contained in the June 4, 2001 and July 11, 2001
submittals adequately addressed the conditions of the interim
approval effective on March 6, 1995. Mojave Desert AQMD is hereby
granted final full approval effective on November 30, 2001.
(r) Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District:
(1) Submitted on December 6, 1993, supplemented on February 2,
1994 and April 7, 1994, and revised by the submittal made on October
13, 1994; interim approval effective on November 6, 1995; interim
approval expires December 1, 2001.
(2) Revisions were submitted on May 9, 2001. The rule amendments
contained in the May 9, 2001 submittal adequately addressed the
conditions of the interim approval effective on November 6, 1995.
Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District is hereby
granted final full approval effective on November 30, 2001.
(s) North Coast Unified AQMD:
(1) Complete submittal received on February 24, 1994; interim
approval effective on June 2, 1995; interim approval expires
December 1, 2001.
(2) Revisions were submitted on May 24, 2001. The rule
amendments contained in the May 24, 2001 submittal adequately
addressed
[[Page 63512]]
the conditions of the interim approval effective on June 2, 1995.
North Coast Unified AQMD is hereby granted final full approval
effective on November 30, 2001.
(t) Northern Sierra AQMD:
(1) Complete submittal received on June 6, 1994; interim
approval effective on June 2, 1995; interim approval expiresDecember
1, 2001.
(2) Revisions were submitted on May 24, 2001. The rule
amendments contained in the May 24, 2001 submittal adequately
addressed the conditions of the interim approval effective on June
2, 1995. Northern Sierra AQMD is hereby granted final full approval
effective on November 30, 2001.
(u) Northern Sonoma County APCD:
(1) Complete submittal received on January 12, 1994; interim
approval effective on June 2, 1995; interim approval expires
December 1, 2001.
(2) Revisions were submitted on May 21, 2001. The rule
amendments contained in the May 21, 2001 submittal adequately
addressed the conditions of the interim approval effective on June
2, 1995. Northern Sonoma APCD is hereby granted final full approval
effective on November 30, 2001.
(v) Placer County APCD:
(1) Complete submittal received on December 27, 1993; interim
approval effective on June 2, 1995; interim approval expires
December 1, 2001.
(2) Revisions were submitted on May 4, 2001. The rule amendments
contained in the May 4, 2001 submittal adequately addressed the
conditions of the interim approval effective on June 2, 1995. Placer
County APCD is hereby granted final full approval effective on
November 30, 2001.
(w) The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District:
(1) Complete submittal received on August 1, 1994; interim
approval effective on September 5, 1995; interim approval expires
December 1, 2001.
(2) Revisions were submitted on June 1, 2001. The rule
amendments contained in the June 1, 2001 submittal adequately
addressed the conditions of the interim approval effective on
September 5, 1995. The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality
Management District is hereby granted final full approval effective
on November 30, 2001.
(x) San Diego County Air Pollution Control District:
(1) Submitted on April 22, 1994 and amended on April 4, 1995 and
October 10, 1995; approval effective on February 5, 1996, unless
adverse or critical comments are received by January 8, 1996.
Interim approval expires on December 1, 2001.
(2) Revisions were submitted on June 4, 2001. The rule
amendments contained in the June 4, 2001 submittal adequately
addressed the conditions of the interim approval effective on
February 5, 1996. The San Diego County Air Pollution Control
District is hereby granted final full approval effective on November
30, 2001.
(y) San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD:
(1) Complete submittal received on July 5 and August 18, 1995;
interim approval effective on May 24, 1996; interim approval expires
May 25, 1998. Interim approval expires on December 1, 2001.
(2) Revisions were submitted on June 29, 2001. The rule
amendments contained in the June 29, 2001 submittal adequately
addressed the conditions of the interim approval effective on May
24, 1996. San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD is hereby granted final
full approval effective on November 30, 2001.
(z) San Luis Obispo County APCD:
(1) Complete submittal received on November 16, 1995; interim
approval effective on December 1, 1995; interim approval expires
December 1, 2001.
(2) Revisions were submitted on May 18, 2001. The rule
amendments contained in the May 18, 2001 submittal adequately
addressed the conditions of the interim approval effective on
December 1, 1995. San Luis Obispo County APCD is hereby granted
final full approval effective on November 30, 2001.
(aa) Santa Barbara County APCD:
(1) Submitted on November 15, 1993, as amended March 2, 1994,
August 8, 1994, December 8, 1994, June 15, 1995, and September 18,
1997; interim approval effective on December 1, 1995; interim
approval expires on December 1, 2001.
(2) Revisions were submitted on April 5, 2001. The rule
amendments contained in the April 5, 2001 submittal adequately
addressed the conditions of the interim approval effective on
December 1, 1995. Santa Barbara County APCD is hereby granted final
full approval effective on November 30, 2001.
(bb) Shasta County AQMD:
(1) Complete submittal received on November 16, 1993; interim
approval effective on August 14, 1995; interim approval expires
December 1, 2001.
(2) Revisions were submitted on May 18, 2001. The rule
amendments contained in the May 18, 2001 submittal adequately
addressed the conditions of the interim approval effective on August
14, 1995. Shasta County AQMD is hereby granted final full approval
effective on November 30, 2001.
(cc) Siskiyou County APCD:
(1) Complete submittal received on December 6, 1993; interim
approval effective on June 2, 1995; interim approval expires
December 1, 2001.
(2) Revisions were submitted on September 28, 2001. The rule
amendments contained in the September 28, 2001 submittal adequately
addressed the conditions of the interim approval effective on June
2, 1995. Siskiyou County APCD is hereby granted final full approval
effective on November 30, 2001.
(dd) South Coast Air Quality Management District:
(1) Submitted on December 27, 1993 and amended on March 6, 1995,
April 11, 1995, September 26, 1995, April 24, 1996, May 6, 1996, May
23, 1996, June 5, 1996 and July 29, 1996; approval effective on
March 31, 1997. Interim approval expires on December 1, 2001.
(2) Revisions were submitted on August 2, 2001 and October 2,
2001. The rule amendments contained in the August 2, 2001 and
October 2, 2001 submittals adequately addressed the conditions of
the interim approval effective on March 31, 1997. South Coast AQMD
is hereby granted final full approval effective on November 30,
2001.
(ee) Tehama County APCD:
(1) Complete submittal received on December 6, 1993; interim
approval effective on August 14, 1995; interim approval expires
December 1, 2001.
(2) Revisions were submitted on June 4, 2001. The rule
amendments contained in the June 4, 2001 submittal adequately
addressed the conditions of the interim approval effective on August
14, 1995. Tehama County APCD is hereby granted final full approval
effective on November 30, 2001.
(ff) Tuolumne County APCD:
(1) Complete submittal received on November 16, 1993; interim
approval effective on June 2, 1995; interim approval expires
December 1, 2001.
(2) Revisions were submitted on July 18, 2001. The rule
amendments contained in the July 18, 2001 submittal adequately
addressed the conditions of the interim approval effective on June
2, 1995. Tuolumne County APCD is hereby granted final full approval
effective on November 30, 2001.
(gg) Ventura County APCD:
(1) Submitted on November 16, 1993, as amended December 6, 1993;
interim approval effective on December 1, 1995; interim approval
expires December 1, 2001.
(2) Revisions were submitted on May 21, 2001. The rule
amendments contained in the May 21, 2001 submittal adequately
addressed the conditions of the interim approval effective on
December 1, 1995. Ventura County APCD is hereby granted final full
approval effective on November 30, 2001.
(hh) Yolo-Solano AQMD:
(1) Complete submittal received on October 14, 1994; interim
approval effective on June 2, 1995; interim approval expiresDecember
1, 2001.
(2) Revisions were submitted on May 9, 2001. The rule amendments
contained in the May 9, 2001 submittal adequately addressed the
conditions of the interim approval effective on June 2, 1995. Yolo-
Solano AQMD is hereby granted final full approval effective on
November 30, 2001.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 01-30368 Filed 12-6-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P