Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 76 / Friday, April 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 19801 

with regard to any matter arising out of 

the employee’s official duties or the 

functions of the BBG unless testimony 

is being given on behalf of the United 

States (see also 5 CFR 2635.805). 

(d) The scheduling of an employee’s 

testimony, including the amount of time 

that the employee will be made 

available for testimony, will be subject 

to the BBG’s approval. 

§ 504.11 Restrictions that apply to 

released records. 

(a) The General Counsel may impose 

conditions or restrictions on the release 

of official records and information, 

including the requirement that parties to 

the proceeding obtain a protective order 

or execute a confidentiality agreement 

to limit access and any further 

disclosure. The terms of the protective 

order or of a confidentiality agreement 

must be acceptable to the General 

Counsel. In cases where protective 

orders or confidentiality agreements 

have already been executed, the BBG 

may condition the release of official 

records and information on an 

amendment to the existing protective 

order or confidentiality agreement. 

(b) If the General Counsel so 

determines, original BBG records may 

be presented for examination in 

response to a request, but they may not 

be presented as evidence or otherwise 

used in a manner by which they could 

lose their identity as official BBG 

records, nor may they be marked or 

altered. In lieu of the original records, 

certified copies may be presented for 

evidentiary purposes. 

§ 504.12 Procedure when a decision is not 

made prior to the time a response is 

required. 

If a response to a demand or request 

is required before the General Counsel 

can make the determination referred to 

in § 504.9, the General Counsel, when 

necessary, will provide the court or 

other competent authority with a copy 

of this part, inform the court or other 

competent authority that the request is 

being reviewed, provide an estimate as 

to when a decision will be made, and 

seek a stay of the demand or request 

pending a final determination. 

§ 504.13 Procedure in the event of an 

adverse ruling. 

If the court or other competent 

authority fails to stay a demand or 

request, the employee upon whom the 

demand or request is made, unless 

otherwise advised by the General 

Counsel, will appear, if necessary, at the 

stated time and place, produce a copy 

of this part, state that the employee has 

been advised by counsel not to provide 

the requested testimony or produce 

documents, and respectfully decline to 

comply with the demand or request, 

citing United States ex rel. Touhy v. 

Ragen, 340 U.S. 462 (1951). 

Subpart C—Schedule of Fees 

§ 504.14 Fees. 

(a) Generally. The General Counsel 

may condition the production of records 

or appearance for testimony upon 

advance payment of a reasonable 

estimate of the costs to the BBG. 

(b) Fees for records. Fees for 

producing records will include fees for 

searching, reviewing, and duplicating 

records, costs of attorney time spent in 

reviewing the request, and expenses 

generated by materials and equipment 

used to search for, produce, and copy 

the responsive information. Costs for 

employee time will be calculated on the 

basis of the hourly pay of the employee 

(including all pay, allowances, and 

benefits). Fees for duplication will be 

the same as those charged by the BBG 

in its Freedom of Information Act 

regulations at 22 CFR Part 503. 

(c) Witness fees. Fees for attendance 

by a witness will include fees, expenses, 

and allowances prescribed by the 

court’s rules. If no such fees are 

prescribed, witness fees will be 

determined based upon the rule of the 

Federal district court closest to the 

location where the witness will appear 

and on 28 U.S.C. 1821, as applicable. 

Such fees will include cost of time spent 

by the witness to prepare for testimony, 

in travel and for attendance in the legal 

proceeding, plus travel costs. 

(d) Payment of fees. A requester must 

pay witness fees for current BBG 

employees and any record certification 

fees by submitting to the General 

Counsel a check or money order for the 

appropriate amount made payable to the 

Treasury of the United States. In the 

case of testimony of former BBG 

employees, the requester must pay 

applicable fees directly to the former 

BBG employee in accordance with 28 

U.S.C. 1821 or other applicable statutes. 

(e) Waiver or reduction of fees. The 

General Counsel, in his or her sole 

discretion, may, upon a showing of 

reasonable cause, waive or reduce any 

fees in connection with the testimony, 

production, or certification of records. 

(f) De minimis fees. Fees will not be 

assessed if the total charge would be 

$10.00 or less. 

Subpart D—Penalties 

§ 504.15 Penalties. 

(a) An employee who discloses 

official records or information or gives 

testimony relating to official 

information, except as expressly 

authorized by the BBG, or as ordered by 

a Federal court after the BBG has had 

the opportunity to be heard, may face 

penalties as provided in any applicable 

enforcement statute. 

(b) A current BBG employee who 

testifies or produces official records and 

information in violation of this part 

shall be subject to disciplinary action 

and, if done for a valuable 

consideration, may subject that person 

to criminal prosecution. 

Dated: April 16, 2007. 

Carol F. Baker, 

Director, Office of Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–7559 Filed 4–19–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8610–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2007–0197; FRL–8300–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Revisions to the 

Nevada State Implementation Plan; 

Definition, Emergency Episode, and 

Monitoring Regulations 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action to approve revisions to the 

Nevada Department of Conservation and 

Natural Resources portion of the Nevada 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions concern a definition, an 

emergency episode regulation, and 

various monitoring regulations. We are 

approving state provisions that regulate 

emission sources under the Clean Air 

Act as amended in 1990 (Act or CAA). 

DATES: This rule is effective on June 19, 

2007 without further notice, unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by May 21, 

2007. If we receive such comments, we 

will publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register to notify the public 

that this direct final rule will not take 

effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09–

OAR–2007–0197, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions. 

2. E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air–4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with RULES
19802 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 76 / Friday, April 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

1Provisions that EPA promulgated under CAA 

section 110(c) in substitution of disapproved State 

provisions are referred to as Federal 

Implementation Plans (FIPs). 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at http://www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 

http://www.regulations.gov is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, and EPA 

will not know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the public 

comment. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

http://www.regulations.gov and in hard 

copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, California. While 

all documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available in 

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie 

A. Rose, EPA Region IX, (415) 947–

4126. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What Regulations Did the State Submit? 

B. What Is the Regulatory History of the 

Nevada SIP? 

C. What Is the Purpose of This 

Rulemaking? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Regulations? 

B. Do the Regulations Meet the Evaluation 

Criteria? 

C. Public Comment and Final Action 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What Regulations Did the State 

Submit? 

The Governor’s designee, the Nevada 

Department of Conservation and Natural 

Resources, Division of Environmental 

Protection (NDEP), submitted a revision 

to the applicable state implementation 

plan (SIP) on December 8, 2006. 

Most of the provisions submitted on 

December 8, 2006 concern permitting 

regulations which are the subject of a 

separate Federal Register proposed rule. 

The remaining regulations are being 

acted on in this rulemaking and concern 

clarifications made to harmonize State 

and Federally-enforceable requirements. 

The following table lists the 

provisions of the Nevada Administrative 

Code (NAC) addressed by this 

rulemaking with the dates they were 

submitted by NDEP. 

SUBMITTED PROVISIONS

NAC No. NAC title Adopted Submitted 

445B.134 .......... ‘‘Person’’ defined ...................................................................................................................... 09/06/06 12/08/06 

445B.230 .......... Plan for reduction of emissions ................................................................................................ 09/06/06 12/08/06 

445B.258 .......... Monitoring systems: Verification of operational status ............................................................. 09/06/06 12/08/06 

445B.259 .......... Monitoring systems: Performance evaluations ......................................................................... 09/06/06 12/08/06 

445B.260 .......... Monitoring systems: Components contracted for before September 11, 1974 ....................... 09/06/06 12/08/06 

The Nevada SIP includes previous 

versions of these regulations. We 

approved NAC 445B.134, 445B.258, 

445B.259, and 445B.260 on December 

11, 2006 (71 FR 71486) and approved 

NAC 445B.230 on March 27, 2006 (71 

FR 15040). The amended regulations 

submitted by NDEP on December 8, 

2006 were included as sections 2, 5, 6, 

7, and 8 of Regulation R151–06, which 

was adopted by the State Environmental 

Commission on September 6, 2006. 

B. What Is the Regulatory History of the 

Nevada SIP? 

Pursuant to the Clean Air 

Amendments of 1970, the Governor of 

Nevada submitted the original Nevada 

SIP to EPA in January 1972. EPA 

approved certain portions of the original 

SIP and disapproved other portions 

under CAA section 110(a). See 37 FR 

10842 (May 31, 1972). For some of the 

disapproved portions of the original SIP, 

EPA promulgated substitute provisions 

under CAA § 110(c).1 This original SIP 

included various rules, codified as 

articles within the Nevada Air Quality 

Regulations (NAQR), and various 

statutory provisions codified in chapter 

445 of the Nevada Revised Statutes 

(NRS). In the early 1980’s, Nevada 

reorganized and re-codified its air 

quality rules into sections within 

chapter 445 of the Nevada 

Administrative Code (NAC). Today, 

Nevada codifies its air quality 

regulations in chapter 445B of the NAC. 

Nevada adopted and submitted many 

revisions to the original set of 

regulations and statutes in the SIP, some 

of which EPA approved on February 6, 

1975 at 40 FR 5508; on March 26, 1975 

at 40 FR 13306; on January 9, 1978 at 

43 FR 1341; on January 24, 1978 at 43 

FR 3278; on August 21, 1978 at 43 FR 

36932; on July 10, 1980 at 45 FR 46384; 

on April 14, 1981 at 46 FR 21758; on 

August 27, 1981 at 46 FR 43141; on 

March 8, 1982 at 47 FR 9833; on April 

13, 1982 at 47 FR 15790; on June 18, 

1982 at 47 FR 26386; on June 23, 1982 

at 47 FR 27070; on March 27, 1984 at 

49 FR 11626. Between 1984 and 2005, 

EPA approved very few revisions to 

Nevada’s applicable SIP despite 

numerous changes that have been 

adopted by the State Environmental 

Commission. As a result, the version of 

the rules enforceable by NDEP was often 

quite different from the SIP version 

enforceable by EPA. 

Recently, Nevada submitted revisions 

to their SIP on February 16, 2005, 

January 12, 2006, and March 24, 2006. 

EPA approved various portions of these 

submittals on March 27, 2006 at 71 FR 

15040; on August 31, 2006 at 71 FR 

51766; on December 11, 2006 at 71 FR 

71486; and on January 3, 2007 at 72 FR 

11. 

C. What Is the Purpose of this 

Rulemaking? 

The purpose of this rulemaking is to 

bring the applicable SIP up to date. The 

regulations that are the subject of this 

rulemaking include a definition, a 

general rule for emergency episodes, 

and various monitoring regulations. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 76 / Friday, April 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 19803 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How Is EPA Evaluating the 

Regulations? 

Generally, SIP regulations must be 

enforceable (see section 110(a) of the 

Act) and must not relax existing 

requirements (see sections 110(l) and 

193). Relevant EPA guidance and policy 

documents that we used to help 

evaluate enforceability include ‘‘Review 

of State Implementation Plans and 

Revisions for Enforceability and Legal 

Sufficiency,’’ dated September 23, 1987, 

from J. Craig Potter, Assistant 

Administrator for Air and Radiation, et 

al. 

B. Do the Regulations Meet the 

Evaluation Criteria? 

We believe the following provisions 

are consistent with the relevant policy 

and guidance regarding enforceability 

and SIP relaxations: NAC 445B.134, 

NAC 445B.230, NAC 445B.258, NAC 

445B.259, and NAC 445B.260. 

Generally, these provisions have been 

revised by the addition of certain 

clarifications and enhancements. The 

Technical Support Document (TSD) 

dated March 5, 2007 has more 

information on our evaluation. 

C. Public Comment and Final Action. 

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of 

the Act, EPA is fully approving the 

submitted rules because we believe they 

fulfill all relevant requirements. We do 

not think anyone will object to this 

approval, so we are finalizing it without 

proposing it in advance. However, in 

the Proposed Rules section of this 

Federal Register, we are simultaneously 

proposing approval of the same 

submitted rules. If we receive adverse 

comments by May 21, 2007, we will 

publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register to notify the public 

that the direct final approval will not 

take effect and we will address the 

comments in a subsequent final action 

based on the proposal. If we do not 

receive timely adverse comments, the 

direct final approval will be effective 

without further notice on June 19, 2007. 

This will incorporate these rules into 

the federally enforceable SIP. 

Please note that if EPA receives 

adverse comment on an amendment, 

paragraph, or section of this rule and if 

that provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and 

therefore is not subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget. For 

this reason, this action is also not 

subject to Executive Order 13211, 

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This action merely approves 

state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this 

rule approves pre-existing requirements 

under state law and does not impose 

any additional enforceable duty beyond 

that required by state law, it does not 

contain any unfunded mandate or 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4). 

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 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

action also does not have Federalism 

implications because it does 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 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

approves a state rule implementing a 

Federal standard, and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

Clean Air Act. This 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), 

because it approves a state rule 

implementing a Federal standard. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. 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 SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission; 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

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. This rule does 

not impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

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). 

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 June 19, 2007. 

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 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: April 4, 2007. 

Jane Diamond, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

■ Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with RULES
19804 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 76 / Friday, April 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart DD—Nevada 

■ 2. Section 52.1470 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(62) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.1470 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(62) The following plan revision was 

submitted on December 8, 2006, by the 

Governor’s designee. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Nevada Division of Environmental 

Protection. 

(1) The following sections of Chapter 

445B of the Nevada Administrative 

Code were adopted on September 6, 

2006: 445B.134, 445B.230, 445B.258, 

445B.259, and 445B.260. 

[FR Doc. E7–7546 Filed 4–19–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 70 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2007–0090; FRL–8303–5] 

Clean Air Act Full Approval of 

Revisions to the State of Hawaii 

Operating Permit Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving revisions to 

the State of Hawaii’s (‘‘Hawaii’’ or 

‘‘State’’) operating permit program that 

amend Hawaii’s regulations for 

insignificant emissions units (IEUs). In 

an April 1, 2002 Notice of Deficiency 

published in the Federal Register, EPA 

notified Hawaii of EPA’s finding that 

Hawaii’s provisions for IEUs did not 

meet minimum Federal requirements. 

Hawaii has revised its program to 

correct the deficiency identified in the 

Notice of Deficiency and this action 

fully approves of those revisions. 

DATES: This operating permits program 

rule is effective on June 19, 2007 

without further notice, unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by May 21, 

2007. If we receive such comment, we 

will publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register to notify the public 

that these revisions will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09–

OAR–2007–0090, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. E-mail: Rios.Gerardo@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver to Gerardo Rios, 

Permits Office Chief, Air Division (AIR–

3), EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California, 94105. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 

www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send e-mail 

directly to EPA, your e-mail address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the public comment. 

If EPA cannot read your comment due 

to technical difficulties and cannot 

contact you for clarification, EPA may 

not be able to consider your comment. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available in 

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Baker, EPA Region IX, at (415) 

972–3979, (Baker.Robert@epa.gov). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. What Is the Operating Permit Program? 

II. What Is Being Addressed in This 

Document? 

III. What Are the Program Changes That EPA 

Is Approving? 

IV. What Is Involved in This Action? 

V. Public Comment and Final Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What Is the Operating Permit 

Program? 

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 

1990 required all state and local 

permitting authorities to develop 

operating permit programs that met 

certain federal criteria. In implementing 

the operating permit programs, the 

permitting authorities require certain 

sources of air pollution to obtain 

permits that contain all applicable 

requirements under the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). The focus of the operating 

permit program is to improve 

enforcement by issuing each source a 

permit that consolidates all of the 

applicable CAA requirements into a 

federally enforceable document. By 

consolidating all of the applicable 

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. Examples of major sources 

include those that have the potential to 

emit 100 tons per year or more of 

volatile organic compounds, carbon 

monoxide, lead, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen 

oxides (NOX), or particulate matter 

(PM10); those that emit 10 tons per year 

or more of any single hazardous air 

pollutant (HAP) listed under the CAA; 

or those that emit 25 tons per year or 

more of a combination of HAPs. 

Hawaii’s operating permits program 

was submitted to EPA in response to 

this directive. EPA granted interim 

approval to Hawaii’s air operating 

permits program on December 1, 1994 

(59 FR 61549). After Hawaii revised its 

program to address the conditions of the 

interim approval, EPA promulgated 

final full approval of Hawaii’s title V 

operating permits program on November 

26, 2001 (66 FR 62945). 

II. What Is Being Addressed in This 

Document? 

When an operating permit program 

does not fully meet the criteria outlined 

in the implementing regulations 

codified at 40 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) part 70, EPA may 

withdraw part 70 program approval if 

the permitting authority fails to take 

corrective action. 40 CFR 70.10(b) sets 

forth the procedures for program 

withdrawal, and requires as a 

prerequisite to withdrawal that the 

permitting authority be notified of any 

finding of deficiency by the 

Administrator and that the notice be 

published in the Federal Register. 

Deficiencies involving the provisions 

in the State’s program that exempt 

insignificant activities from part 70 

permitting requirements came to light as 

a result of the court decision in Western 

States Petroleum Association (WSPA) v. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with RULES