+(,121/,1(

Citation: 59 Fed. Reg. 1730 1994 

Content downloaded/printed from 

HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org)

Mon Jun 18 14:43:46 2012

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance

 of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license

 agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from 

 uncorrected OCR text.
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 1994 / Notices

a.m. on February 7, and 12:30 p.m. on

February 8, and ending each day at 5

p.m. unless concluded earlier.

Registration will occur one half hour

before the meeting is scheduled to begin

on both days. The second day will only

proceed if there are more confirmed

presenters than can be accommodated

on the first day.

Requests to present oral testimony

must be received on or before February

1, 1994, and will be scheduled on a

first-come, first-served basis. Written

comments must be received on or before

March 10, 1994.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at:

EPA Headquarters, Auditorium, 401 M

St., SW., Washington, DC.

Written comments on the concept

paper, discussed in Unit II. of this

document, and other aspects of

implementation of section 503 should

be sent to Eun-Sook Goidel (7409),

Office of Pollution Prevention and

Toxics, Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington,

DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Claudia O'Brien (7406), Office of

Pollution Prevention and Toxics,

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460;

Telephone (202) 260--0688; Fax (202)

260-0981.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On October 20, 1993, President

Clinton signed Executive Order 12873,

entitled "Federal Acquisition, Recycling

and Waste Prevention," (58 FR 5411,

October 22, 1993). Section 503 of

Executive Order 12873 requires EPA to

"issue guidance that recommends

principles that Executive agencies

should use in making determinations for

the preference and purchase of

environmentally preferable products."

Draft guidance for implementing this

provision is to be published in the

Federal Register by EPA within 180

days from the effective date of the

Executive Order (April 18, 1994). The

Executive Order also allows the Agency

to issue additional guidance for public

comment on how the principles can be

applied to specific product categories.

H. Process

To implement section 503 of

Executive Order 12873, the Agency is

establishing a process whereby public

input is solicited from all interested

persons and organizations. This process

will include public meetings and

discussions with stakeholders where

interested parties will be given an

opportunity tO comment on a concept

paper. This concept paper will be

available in late January and will

describe the Agency's preliminary

proposal on guiding principles that

Federal agencies should use when

making determinations for the

preference and purchase of

environmentally preferable products.

To schedule oral testimony at the

public meeting and to obtain a copy of

the concept paper, contact EPA's Public

Hearing Hotline, 110 Hartwell Avenue,

Lexington, MA 02173-3198; telephone

(617) 674-7374. Callers will receive

mail confirmation of their scheduled

testimony and logistical information.

Persons who wish to make oral

presentations must restrict testimony to

7 minutes and are also expected to

provide three written copies of their

completed comments for inclusion in

the official record. If interested parties

are unable to attend the public

meetings, they are invited to submit

written comments to the Agency.

Finally, the Agency plans to hold a

series of stakeholder meetings beginning

in February, as time allows, at EPA

Headquarters. The Agency will accept

requests for participation in stakeholder

meetings on a first-come, first-served

basis. Persons or organizations wishing

to sign up for stakeholder meetings with

Agency representatives should contact

Claudia O'Brien at the telephone

number listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. Due to the

limited amount of time available to

develop the draft guidance, the Agency

requests that organizations and

companies with similar interests arrange

to meet with Agency representatives

during the same time period. The

Agency may also hold a limited number

of audio or video conferences for

persons or organizations lacking travel

funding. Interested persons should

contact Claudia O'Brien at the telephone

number listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT.

M. Approach

The Agency has been directed by

Executive Order 12873 to develop an

approach for Federal acquisition of

environmentally preferable products

that not only minimizes environmental

burden, but also provides incentives to

industry to continuously improve the

environmental performance of products

and services to the Federal government.

Ideally, the approach would guide

Federal agencies in comparing

environmental performance among

competing products and services, so

that the environmental impact becomes

a criterion like cost or performance

against which Federal agencies may

select products or services. '

As currently envisioned, the Agency's

guidance on acquisition of

environmentally preferable products

would include three components: (1)

General principles and procedures that

apply across product categories and that

Federal agencies can use when

implementing acquisition programs for

the purchase of environmentally

preferable products; (2) guidance for

applying these principles to specific

products or product categories (to be

developed as appropriate at a later date);

and (3) a code of practice that Federal

agencies could use when judging the

credibility of non-governmental

environmental certification or ecolabeling programs.

Dated: January 7, 1994.

Lynn I. Goldman,

Assistant Administrator for Prevention,

Pesticides and Toxic Substances.

[FR Doc. 94-858 Filed 1-11-94; 8:45 am]

BILUNG CODE 6560-O-F

[FRL-4825-1]

Prevention of Significant Deterioration;

Delegation of Authority; Maricopa

County, AZ

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Delegation of authority.

SUMMARY: The Regional Administrator

for EPA Region 9, San Francisco, has

delegated full authority to Maricopa

County to implement and enforce the

federal Prevention of Significant

Deterioration (PSD) program.

DATES: The effective date of the

delegation agreement is November 22,

1993.

ADDRESSES: Environmental Management

and Transportation Agency, Maricopa

County Division of Air Pollution

Control, 2406 South 24th Street, suite

E-214, Phoenix, AZ 85034.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jessica Gaylord, Air and Toxics

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 75 Hawthorne Street (A-5-1),

San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 744-

1256.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency has

delegated, under the provisions which

are found in 40 CFR 52.21(u), to

Maricopa County: (a) The authority for

all sources in that County subject to

review for the prevention of significant

deterioration (PSD) of air quality,

pursuant to Part C of Title I of the Clean

Air Act, as amended August 7, 1977,

and the requirements promulgated in

1730

HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 1730 1994
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 1994 / Notices

the July 1, 1992, edition of 40 CFR

52.21, as amended August 7, 1980,

under authority of sections 101, 110,

and 160-169 of the Clean Air Act: and

(b) the authority to review, administer,

and enforce throughout the County the

PSD requirements imposed by the Clean

Air Act sections 101, 110, and 160-169,

and 40 CFR 52.21, as amended August

7, 1980.

The following letter and attached

agreement represent the terms and

conditions of the amended delegation.

The PSD Delegation of Authority is

reviewable under section 307(b)(1) of

the Clean Air Act only in the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. A petition for

review must be filed by March 14, 1994.

Dated: December 13, 1993.

David P. Howekamp,

Director, Air and Toxics Division, Region IX.

United States Environmental Protection

Agency

Region IX-75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105-3901

December 16,1993.

Karen J. Heidel. Ph.D., Environmental

Management & Transportation Agency, 2406

South 24th Street, Suite E-214, Phoenix. AZ

85034.

Re: PSD Delegation Agreement for Maricopa

County

Dear Dr. Heidel: I am pleased to transmit

to you two signed originals of the delegation

agreement for the Prevention of Significant

Deterioration program. Please note that the

delegation is effective on the date of the

Regional Administrator's signature. EPA will

shortly publish a notice in the Federal

Register announcing the delegation.

EPA will continue to provide any guidance or technical assistance that may be needed

for Maricopa County's implementation of this

agreement. EPA is committed to including

the Division of Air Pollution Control in

decisions relating to determinations of

noncompliance with permits Issued under

this agreement, intended PSD enforcement

actions, and in any intended revocation

proceedings related to this agreement. We are also committed to maintaining, as I know you

are, unobstructed channels of

communication between our agencies. We

look forward to a continuing partnership in

the permitting program.

Sincerely,

David P. Howekamp,

Director, Air and Toxics Division.

Agreement for Delegation of Authority

of the Regulations for Prevention of

Significant Deterioration of Air Quality

(40 CFR 52.21) Between U.S. EPA and

MC

The undersigned, on behalf of the

Mari'copa County (MC) and the United

States Environmental Protection Agency

(U.S. EPA), hereby agree'to the

delegation of authority. for the*

administrative, techhical and

enforcement elements of the source

review provisions of 40 CFR 52.21,

Prevention of Significant Deterioration

(PSD), as they may be amended and in

accordance with the permit review

requirements in 40 CFR part 124

subparts A and C, from U.S. EPA to MC,

subject to the terms and conditions

below. This delegation is executed

pursuant to 40 CFR 52.21(u), Delegation

of Authority.

I. General Delegation Conditions

A. Authority is delegated for all

sources under the jurisdiction of MC

that are subject to review for PSD. This

includes all source categories listed In

40 CFR 52.21 for each pollutant

regulated by the Clean Air Act.

B. This delegation may be amended at

any time by the formal written

agreement of both MC and U.S. EPA,

including amendments to add, change.

or remove conditions or terms of this

Agreement.

C. If the Regional Administrator

determines that the County is not

implementing or enforcing the PSD

program in accordance with the terms

and conditions of this delegation, the

requirements of 40 CFR 52.21, 40 CFR

124, or the Clean Air Act, this

delegation, after consultation with MC,

may be revoked in whole or in part. Any

such revocation shall be effective as of

the date speciffed in a Notice of

Revocation to the County. Nothing In

this paragraph shall preclude U.S. EPA

from exercising its enforcement

authority, as provided in paragraph V.B.

below.

D. The permit appeal provisions of 40

CFR 124.19 shall apply to all appeals to

the Administrator on permits issued by

MC under this delegation. For purposes

of implementing the federal permit

appeal provisions under this delegation,

if there is a public comment requesting

a change in a draft preliminary

determination or draft permit

conditions, the final permit issued by

MC is required to contain statements

which indicate that for Federal PSD

purposes and in accordance with 40

CFR 124.15 and 124.19, (1) the effective

date of the permit is 30 days after the

final decision to issue, modify, revoke

and reissue the permit; and (2) if an

appeal is made to the Administrator, the

effective date of the permit Is suspended

until such time as the appeal is

resolved. MC shall inform U.S. EPA

(Region IX) in accordance with

conditions of this delegation when there

is public comment requesting a change

in the preliminary determination or in

a draft permit condition. Failure by MC

to comply with the terms of this

paragraph shall render the subject

permit Invalid for Federal PSD

purposes.

E. By this agreement, MC assumes

authority for enforcement and permit

modification/amendment for EPA

issued NSR/PSD permits.

F. This delegation of authority

becomes effective upon the date that

both parties have signed the Agreement.

IL Communications Between U.S. EPA

and MC

MC and U.S. EPA will use the

following communication procedures:

A. MC shall report to U.S. EPA on a

quarterly basis the compliance status of

the sources that have received a PSD

permit from either MC or U.S. EPA, The

Aerometric Information Retrieval

System (AIRS) will be used for this

purpose. Compliance determinations

will be made with respect to the

conditions established in the PSD

permits.

B. MC shall forward to U.S. EPA, at

the beginning of the public comment

period for each PSD permit, a summary

of (1) the findings related to each PSD

application, (2) the justification for MC's

preliminary determination, and (3) a

copy of the draft permit. Should there

be any comments or concerns about the

pending PSD permit, U.S. EPA shall

communicate these comments and

concerns to MC as soon as possible prior

to the close of the public comment

period.

C. MC shall forward to EPA Region IX

(attn: A-5-1) copies of the final action

on the PSD permit applications at the

time of issuance, as well as copies of

substantive public comments. MC must

address any public comments not

incorporated into the permit, and shall

provide a summary of the responses.

D. MC shall send U.S. EPA copies of

preliminary determinations on PSD

permit modifications and amendments

at or prior to the beginning of the public

comment period. U.S. EPA will provide

comments to MC prior to the close of

the public comment period.

' E. MC shall send to EPA a copy of all

applicability determinations and

justifications made that would involve

PSD exemptions due to offsetting or

netting (40 CFR 52.21(b)(3) and

52.21(b)(21).

1I. Revisions to Title 40 CFR 52.21

A. This delegation covers any

revisions that are promulgated for 40

CFR 52.21 and 40 CFR 124. The terms

"40 CFR 52.21" and "40 CFR 124" as

used in the delegation request and

throughout this Agreement, include

such regulations as are in effect on the

date this Agreement is executed and any

1731

HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 1731 1994
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 1994 /. Notices

revisions that are promulgated after that

date.

B. In addition, the following U.S. EPA

policies shall apply to PSD review:

1. U.S. EPA is responsible for the

issuance of PSD permits on Indian

Lands, under sections 110(c) and 301 of

the Clean Air Act. States (or their

delegates) have no authority to establish

air pollution control requirements on

Indian Reservations, unless requested to

by the Tribal Governing Body.

2. According to U.S. EPA guidance

published on September 22, 1987 and

supplemental guidance published on

July 28, 1988, all delegated agencies

must now consider pollutants not

subject to the Clean Air Act in their Best

Available Control Technology (BACT)

determinations. The BACT

determinations must include a review of

the toxic effects of unregulated

pollutants and the impact of the

proposed BACT on the emissions of

these pollutants.

3. MC shall consult with the

appropriate Federal, State, and local

land use agencies prior to issuance of

preliminary determinations on PSD

permits. In particular, U.S. EPA requires

that MC shall:

(a) Notify the Fish and Wildlife

Service (FWS) and U.S. EPA when a

PSD permit application has been

received, in order to assist U.S. EPA in

carrying out its non-delegable

responsibilities under section 7 of the

Endangered Species Act (PL 97-304).

(b) Notify potential applicants of the

potential need for consultation between

U.S. EPA and the FWS if an endangered

species may be affected by the project.

U.S. EPA's data sheet may be used for

this process (copy enclosed).

(cl Refrain from issuing a final PSD

permit unless the FWS has determined

that the proposed project will not

adversely affect any endangered species.

4. MC shall consider a dry scrubber

for sulfur dioxide control, a baghouse or

electrostatic precipitator for particulate

control, and efficient combustion

techniques for carbon monoxide control

in their BACT determinations for

municipal waste combustors pursuant

to U.S. EPA guidance published on June

26, 1987.

5. MC shall begin any BACT

determination with the most stringent

control options available for that

category, pursuant to additional BACT

guidance issued on December 1, 1987.

U.S. EPA will consider as deficient any

BACT determination not complying

with this "top-down" requirement.

6. Upon notification from EPA, MC

shall implement such new regulations

or directives pending revision of this

Agreement.

IV. Permits

A. In any matter involving

interpretation of sections 160-169 of the

Clean Air Act, or 40 CFR 52.21, and of

40 CFR 124 where guidance on the

implementation, review, administration,

or enforcement of these sections has not

been sent to MC, U.S. EPA will be

contacted and requested to provide the

appropriate guidance.

B. MC shall at no time grant any

waiver to the PSD permit requirements.

C. Permits issued under this

delegation shall contain language

certifying that the Federal PSD

requirements have been satisfied.

D. Authorities to Construct must

include appropriate provisions, as

specified in Attachment A, to ensure

permit enforceability. Permit conditions

shall, at a minimum, contain reporting

requirements on initiation of

construction, startup, and where

applicable, source testing and

continuous emissions monitoring

systems (CEMS). In all cases where tests

are required, the tests methods shall be

specified. All cases where CEMS are

required, appropriate testing and

reporting requirements shall be

included. Upset/breakdown and

malfunction conditions shall be

included in all permits.

E. U.S. EPA will assist MC in the

BACT determination for all PSD permit

applications filed with MC, such that

U.S. EPA and MC jointly concur on each

BACT determination. The signatures of

U.S. EPA and MC on the final permit

shall constitute concurrence on the

BACT determinations

F. All modeling analyses for

determination of increment

consumption and compliance with the

NAAQS will require the joint

concurrence of U.S. EPA and MC. The

signatures of U.S. EPA and MC on the

final permit shall constitute

concurrence on the modeling analyses.

G. Separate from conditions E and F

and for a given time as specified in this

subpart, U.S. EPA and MC shall jointly

concur on the entire analysis and permit

conditions for each PSD permit issued.

This requirement for dual concurrence

shall be waived beginning with the first

application submitted and deemed

complete two (2) years after the date of

this agreement, or after U.S. EPA

concurs with MC on ten (10) final

permits issued pursuant to this

delegation agreement, whichever occurs

later. In any event, U.S. EPA shall

provide written notice to MC when the

requirement for dual concurrence no

longer applies.

H. MC shall conduct an annual review

of the NO2 increment status for each

Section 107 area designated as

attainment over which it has

jurisdiction and shall prepare a

summary report of the review. Such

review shall be made in accordance

with current U.S. EPA guidance as

provided to MC. Emissions from the

following sources consume NO 2

increment: (1) any new major stationary

source or modification of a major

stationary source on which construction

begins after February 8, 1988; and (2)

minor, area, and mobile sources, after

the minor source baseline date, as it is

defined by 40 CFR 52.21. The initial

review of the NO2 increment status shall

address the consumption of NO2

increment between February 8, 1988,

and the effective date of this agreement.

I. MC shall conduct an annual review,

similar to the one in preceeding subpart

H, on the status of the PMo increment.

For that part of Maricopa County

designated nonattainment for TSP, the

requirement for tracking PM1o

increment consumption becomes

effective on the date of receipt of the

first major source application deemed

complete after the June 3, 1994,

implementation date for PM,0

increments. For all other areas within

Maricopa County, the minor source

baseline date established for TSP

remains in effect, but PMio increments

replace TSP increments as the

particulate matter indicator.

J. U.S. EPA shall retain the

responsibility of issuing the PSD permit

for Palo Verde Steel, but enforcement of

the final permit terms and conditions on

the source shall be under local

authority.

V. Permit Enforcement

A. The primary responsibility for'

enforcement of the PSD regulations as

found in 40 CFR part 52 in Maricopa

County will rest with MC, except where

responsibility is vested in the State of

Arizona. Pursuant to A.R.S. 49-402, the

State of Arizona has original jurisdiction

over the following sources in Maricopa

County:

1. Smelting of metal ore.

2. Petrolebm refineries.

3. Coal fired electrical generating

stations.

4. Portland cement plants.

5. Air pollution generated by portable

sources unless delegated to MC.

6. Air pollution by mobile sources for

the purpose of regulating those sources

as prescribed by A.R.S. Title 49, Chapter

3, Articles 4 & 5.

MC will enforce the provisions that

pertain to the PSD program, except in

those cases where the rules or policy of

MC are more stringent. In such cases,

1732

HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 1732 1994
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 1994 / Notices

MC may elect to implement the more

stinigent requirements.

B. Nothing in this delegation

agreement shall prohibit EPA from

enforcing the PSD provisions of the

Clean Air Act, the PSD regulations or

any PSD permit issued by MC pursuant

to this Agreement.

C. In the event that MC is unwilling

or unable to enforce a provision of this

delegation with respect to a source

subject to the PSD regulations, MC will

immediately notify the Regional

Administrator. Failure to notify the

Regional Administrator does not

preclude U.S. EPA from exercising its

enforcement authority.

Dated: November 9, 1993.

James D. Bruner,

Chairman, Maricopa County Board of

Supervisors.

Dated: November 22, 1993.

John Wise,

Acting for

Felicia A. Marcus,

Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region IX.

Attachment A

All Authorities to Construct, where

applicable, shall contain:

1. Identification of all points of

emission, both stack and fugitive.

2. Specification of a numerical

emission limitation for each point of

emission in terms of mass rate and/or

concentration limitations. If emission

testing based on a numerical emission

limitation is infeasible, the permit may instead prescribe a design, operational,

or equipment standard. Any permits

issued without numerical emission

limitations must contain conditions

which assure that the design

characteristics or equipment will be

properly maintained or that the

operational conditions will be properly

performed so as to continuously achieve

the assumed degree of control.

3. Limitations or factors which were

the basis for the air quality impact

analysis must be specified (e.g. hours of

operation, stack height, materials

processed which affect emissions).

4. Methods and frequency of

determining contibued compliance for

each point of emission (such as from the

SIP or if the source is subject to New

Source Performance Standards [NSPS]

or National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants [NESHAP] or

explicitly identified if a reference

method is not used.

5. Recordkeeping requirements which

enable the agency to ascertain continued

compliance, especially where factors

such as hours of operation, throughput

of materials, sulfur contAnt of fuels, fuel

usage, and type or quantity of materials

processed are conditions of the permit.

6. A condition that the permit such

that it will expire if construction is not

commenced within eighteen (18)

months or a shorter period.

7. A condition that the source is

responsible for providing sampling and

testing facilities at its own expense.

8. A confition that continuous

emission monitoring systems (CEMS)

will be used for enforcement purposes.

9. Reporting requirements which

enable the agency to monitor the

following:

(a) Progress of source construction

including the date by which

construction is completed; and

(b) Compliance with (1) emission

limitations, (2) operationai limitations,

(3) and work practice standards; the

reporting requirements should include

excess emissions reports and source test

results.

10. Permits issued under this

delegation should contain language

certifying that the federal PSD

requirements have been satisfied.

11. As a courtesy to sources exempted

from PSD review due to federally

enforceable operational or process

restrictions, or the use of controls more

stringent than required by applicable

SIP limits, the source shall be advised

that any relaxation of those limits may

subject the entire source to full PSD

review as if construction had not yet

begun. Suggested language is as follows:

This source is exempt from PSD review

because of * * * (state reason, for example, "the requirement that limits operation to

eight hours per day"). Any relaxation in this

limit which increases your potential to emit

above the applicable PSD threshold will

require a full PSD review of the affected

source as if construction had not yet commenced.

[FR Doc. 94-802 Filed 1-11-94; 8:45 am)

BILUNG CODE 60-P

[FRL-4825-2]

Prevention of Significant Deterioration;

Rescission of Authority; Fresno

County, CA

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Rescission of local PSD

permitting authority.

SUMMARY: The Director, Air & Toxics

Division, for EPA Region IX, San

Francisco has rescinded local

Prevention of Significant Deterioration

(PSD) permitting authority in Fresno

County, California.

DATES: Rescission of local PSD

permitting authority is effective April 9,.

1993.

ADDRESSES: David L. Crow, Executive

Director/APCO, San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District,

1999 Tuolumne Street, suite 200,

Fresno, CA 93721.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jessica Gaylord, Air and Toxics 1

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 75 Hawthorne Street (A-5-1),

San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 744-

1256.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In

September 1991, the State of California

passed legislation that effectively

required the eight separate counties of

the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin to form

a single air pollution control district

(APCD). EPA had delegated PSD

authority to Fresno County APCD by an

agreement dated December 23, 1985.

Because the San Joaquin Valley Unified

APCD has chosen to defer to EPA the

regulation of sources subject to PSD

rules at 40 CFR 52.21, EPA is

responding to their request to rescind

PSD authority previously delegated to

Fresno County APCD. The following

letter represents the terms and

conditions of the rescission.

The PSD Delegation of Authority is

reviewable under section 307(b)(1) of

the Clean Air Act only in the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. A petition for

review must be filed by March 14, 1994.

Dated: December 10, 1993.

David P. Howekamp,

Director, Air and Toxics Division, Region IX.

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY'

April 9, 1993.

David L. Crow,

Executive Director/APCO, San Joaquin

Valley, Unified Air Pollution Control

District, 1999 Tuolumne Street, Suite

200, Fresno, CA 93721.

Dear Mr. Crow: This letter responds to your

request to EPA to rescind Prevention of

Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting

authority in Fresno and Kern counties. We

recognize that the request, dated March 16,

1993, and received by this office on March

19, 1993, is consistent with ongoing efforts to

attain a more coordinated approach to air

quality management in the San Joaquin

Valley.

In September 1991, the State of California

passed legislation that effectively required

the formation of a single air pollution control

district in the Valley Air Basin. To that end,

eight counties joined efforts in March 1992

to form the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air

Pollution Control District. The District

comprises the counties of Fresno, Kings,

Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus,

and Tulare counties, as well as that part of

Kern County located in the Valley Air Basin.

1733

HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 1733 1994