32606 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 121 / Friday, June 23, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

Air pollution control, Carbon

monoxide, Hydrocarbons, Incorporation

by reference, Intergovernmental

relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide,

Ozone, Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides,

Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 70

Administrative practice and

procedure, Air pollution control,

Environmental protection, Hazardous

substances, Intergovernmental relations,

Operating permits, and Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Note: Incorporation by reference of the

State Implementation Plan for the State of

California was approved by the Director of

the Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

Dated: May 25, 1995.

David P. Howekamp,

Acting Regional Administrator.

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:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart F—California

2. Section 52.220 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(216)(i)(B) to read

as follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(216) * * *

(i) * * *

(B) Bay Area Air Quality Management

District.

(1) Amended Regulation 2, Rule 1,

Section 129 adopted on February 1,

1995; Amended Regulation 2, Rule 6,

Sections 232, 234, 310, 311, 403, 404,

420, 421, 422, 423 adopted on February

1, 1995.

* * * * *

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 paragraph (b) to the entry for

California to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 70—Approval

Status of State and Local Operating

Permits Programs

* * * * *

(b) Bay Area Air Quality Management

District: 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 July 23, 1997.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 95–15037 Filed 6–22–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Parts 52 and 70

[CA 77–1–6996; AD–FRL–5216–5]

Clean Air Act Final Interim Approval of

the Operating Permits Program; Final

Approval of State Implementation Plan

Revision for the Issuance of Federally

Enforceable State Operating Permits;

Bay Area Air Quality Management

District, California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is promulgating

interim approval of the title V operating

permits program submitted by the Bay

Area Air Quality Management District

(Bay Area, BAAQMD, or District) for the

purpose of complying with federal

requirements that mandate that states

develop, and submit to EPA, programs

for issuing operating permits to all

major stationary sources and to certain

other sources. In addition, EPA is

promulgating final approval of a

revision to Bay Area’s portion of the

California State Implementation Plan

(SIP) regarding synthetic minor

regulations for the issuance of federally

enforceable state operating permits

(FESOP). In order to extend the federal

enforceability of state operating permits

to hazardous air pollutants (HAP), EPA

is also finalizing approval of Bay Area’s

synthetic minor regulations pursuant to

section 112(l) of the Clean Air Act (CAA

or Act). Finally, today’s action grants

final approval to Bay Area’s mechanism

for receiving delegation of section 112

standards as promulgated.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 24, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Copies of Bay Area’s

submittals and other supporting

information used in developing the final

approvals are available for inspection

(docket number CA-BA–94–1–OPS)

during normal business hours at the

following location: U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region IX, Air &

Toxics Division, 75 Hawthorne Street,

San Francisco, CA 94105. Copies of the

regulations being incorporated by

reference in today’s rule are also

available for inspection at the following

location: Air Docket (6102), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Celia Bloomfield (telephone 415/744–

1249), Mail Code A–5–2, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, Air & Toxics Division, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA

94105.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Purpose

Title V of the 1990 Clean Air Act

Amendments (sections 501–507 of the

Clean Air Act (Act)), and implementing

regulations at 40 Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR) part 70, require that

states develop and submit operating

permits programs to EPA by November

15, 1993, and that EPA act to approve

or disapprove each program within 1

year after receiving the submittal. The

EPA’s program review occurs pursuant

to section 502 of the Act and the part

70 regulations, which together outline

criteria for approval or disapproval.

Where a program substantially, but not

fully, meets the requirements of part 70,

EPA may grant the program interim

approval for a period of up to 2 years.

If EPA has not fully approved a program

by 2 years after the November 15, 1993

date, or by the end of an interim

program, it must establish and

implement a federal program.

On November 29, 1994, EPA proposed

interim approval of the operating

permits program for Bay Area,

California. See 59 FR 60939. The

November 29, 1994 Federal Register

document also proposed approval of

Bay Area’s interim mechanism for

implementing section 112(g) and

program for delegation of section 112

standards as promulgated. Public

comment was solicited on these

proposed actions. EPA received public

comment on the proposal and is

responding to those comments in this

document and in a separate ‘‘Response

to Comments’’ document that is

available in the docket at the Regional

office. In this notice, EPA is

promulgating interim approval of Bay

Area’s operating permits program and

approving the section 112(g) and section

112(l) mechanisms noted above.

On June 28, 1989 (54 FR 27274), EPA

published criteria for approving and

incorporating into the SIP regulatory

programs for the issuance of federally

enforceable state operating permits.

Permits issued pursuant to a program

meeting the June 28, 1989 criteria and

approved into the SIP are considered
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 121 / Friday, June 23, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 32607

federally enforceable for criteria

pollutants. The synthetic minor

mechanism may also be used to create

federally enforceable limits for

emissions of hazardous air pollutants

(HAP) if it is approved pursuant to

section 112(l) of the Act.

In the November 29, 1994 Federal

Register document, EPA also proposed

approval of Bay Area’s synthetic minor

program for creating federally

enforceable limits in District operating

permits. In this notice, EPA is

promulgating approval of the synthetic

minor program for the Bay Area as a

revision to Bay Area’s SIP and pursuant

to section 112(l) of the Act.

II. Final Action and Implications

A. Analysis of State Submission and

Response to Public Comments

On November 29, 1994, EPA proposed

interim approval of Bay Area’s title V

operating permits program as it was

submitted on November 16, 1993 and

amended on October 27, 1994. Since the

time that EPA proposed interim

approval, Bay Area adopted regulations

to implement title IV of the Act. On

September 21, 1994, Bay Area

incorporated part 72 by reference into

District Regulation 2, Rule 7. Regulation

2, Rule 7 was submitted to EPA on

December 29, 1994, and it corrects the

first program deficiency (i.e., acid rain

definitions) identified in the proposed

interim approval notice by

incorporating the federal acid rain

definitions by reference and by stating

that ‘‘if the provisions or requirements

of 40 CFR Part 72 are determined to

conflict with Regulation 2, Rule 6, the

provisions and requirements of Part 72

shall apply and take precedence.’’

EPA recently became aware that the

November 29, 1994 proposal incorrectly

identified District Regulation 1, sections

431–433. Those regulations are SIPapproved District breakdown provisions

(September 2, 1981, 46 FR 43968) and

are recognized by EPA.

EPA received comments on the

proposed interim approval of the Bay

Area program from three public

commenters: New United Motor

Manufacturing Inc. (NUMMI),

BAAQMD, and the National Stone

Association (NSA). Several interim

approval issues set forth in the

November 29, 1994 proposal were

modified as a result of public comment.

These changes are discussed below

along with other issues raised during

the public comment period. EPA’s final

action, as set forth in section II.B. below,

is being revised from the proposed

notice in response to public comment.

EPA received no adverse public

comment on the proposed approval of

Bay Area’s synthetic minor program or

program for receiving section 112(l)

standards as promulgated.

1. Section 112(g) Implementation

One commenter stated that in the

absence of a final section 112(g)

regulation, Bay Area should be allowed

to use its existing air toxics program and

de minimis levels to determine case-bycase Maximum Achievable Control

Technology (MACT) for new,

reconstructed, and modified sources.

The commenter further stated that the

broad statutory requirements of section

112(g) should not supersede Bay Area’s

existing toxics program.

EPA has received many comments on

various state part 70 programs

concerning this issue and agrees that it

is not reasonable to expect the states

and districts to implement section

112(g) before a rule is issued. EPA has

therefore published an interpretive

notice in the Federal Register regarding

section 112(g) of the Act: 60 FR 8333

(February 14, 1995). This notice outlines

EPA’s revised interpretation of section

112(g) applicability prior to EPA’s

issuing the final section 112(g) rule. The

notice states that major source

modifications, constructions, and

reconstructions will not be subject to

section 112(g) requirements until the

final rule is promulgated. EPA expects

to issue the final section 112(g) rule in

September 1995.

The interpretative notice further

explains that EPA is considering

whether the effective date of section

112(g) should be delayed beyond the

date of promulgation of the federal rule

so as to allow states time to adopt rules

implementing the federal rule, and that

EPA will provide for any such

additional delay in the final section

112(g) rulemaking. Unless and until

EPA provides for such an additional

postponement of section 112(g), Bay

Area must be able to implement section

112(g) during the period between

promulgation of the federal section

112(g) rule and adoption of

implementing District regulations.

In the November 29, 1994 Federal

Register notice proposing interim

approval for the Bay Area’s title V

program, EPA also proposed to approve

the use of Bay Area’s preconstruction

review program as a mechanism to

implement section 112(g) during the

transition period between promulgation

of the section 112(g) rule and adoption

by the Bay Area of rules specifically

designed to implement section 112(g).

Since approval is intended solely to

confirm that the District has a

mechanism to implement section 112(g)

during the transition period, the

approval itself will be without effect if

EPA decides in the final section 112(g)

rule that there will be no transition

period.

Bay Area commented that EPA should

allow California districts 18 months,

rather than 12 months, to develop

section 112(g) regulations following

EPA’s promulgation of the federal

section 112(g) rule. Bay Area stated that

12 months is not sufficient time to both

undergo the regulatory development

process and prepare a section 112(l)

equivalency package for approval of the

District’s regulation to be used in lieu of

the federal section 112(g) rule.

EPA has approved an 18-month

transition period in other states and

does not see a unique reason to limit the

Bay Area to 12 months. Therefore, EPA

will allow Bay Area 18 months from the

date of EPA’s final section 112(g) rule to

develop and submit district regulations

for the implementation of section

112(g). If the final section 112(g) rule,

however, eliminates the transition

period, Bay Area must follow the

implementation time lines set out in

that rulemaking.

2. Certification by a Responsible Official

One commenter objected to EPA’s

statement, under program deficiencies,

that any document submitted in

conjunction with a title V permit must

be certified by a responsible official.

The commenter stated that part 70

specifies which documents must be

certified and that requiring ‘‘any

document’’ to be certified represents an

overly strict interpretation of section

70.6(c)(1).

EPA disagrees that the requirement to

certify ‘‘any document’’ required by the

permit is either redundant or

unwarranted. The use of the term ‘‘any

document’’ is necessary to ensure that

all documents required to be certified

under part 70 will be certified.

Including the language in section

70.6(c)(1) should not create any

additional burden than if the documents

were all specifically listed. As the Bay

Area’s program is currently written,

only semiannual reports and annual

compliance certifications need to be

certified by a responsible official. The

Bay Area’s program fails to specify

certification of other required

documents such as progress reports

associated with a compliance schedule

(section 70.6(c)(4)) or prompt reports of

permit deviations (section

70.6(a)(3)(iii)(B)). Adding a requirement

consistent with section 70.6(c)(1) would

correct such omissions.

On a related note, EPA believes that,

in one respect, the language suggested
32608 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 121 / Friday, June 23, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

in the November 29, 1994 Federal

Register proposal may have been an

overly inclusive interpretation of

section 70.6(c)(1). Section 70.6(c)(1)

reads, ‘‘Any document (including

reports) required by a part 70 permit

shall contain a certification by a

responsible official * * *’’ While the

commenter focused on the words ‘‘any

document,’’ EPA believes that the overly

inclusive language in the proposed

interim approval is the reference to any

document submitted ‘‘in conjunction

with’’ a permit. Therefore, Bay Area

may substitute the phrase ‘‘required

by,’’ rather than ‘‘in conjunction with,’’

when correcting the above deficiency.

3. Insignificant Activities

Two commenters responded to EPA’s

identification of deficiencies regarding

Bay Area’s insignificant activities list

and significance thresholds. The

commenters raised several points, the

first being that EPA’s recommended

insignificance levels would impose

unnecessary administrative burdens.

EPA does not agree that the cut-off

levels proposed in the November 29,

1994 notice of 2 tons per year (tpy) for

criteria pollutants and the lesser of 1000

pounds per year or the section 112(g) de

minimis levels for hazardous air

pollutants (HAP) would create an

unreasonable administrative burden.

Insignificant activities are relevant only

during the initial application phase

when the source has to determine what

information must be included in its

permit application. Regardless of the list

of insignificant activities or the cut-off

emissions levels, the source may not

omit from its application any

information that is necessary to

determine applicability, impose an

applicable requirement, or assess fees

(section 70.5(c)).

EPA also disagrees that the

requirement to describe emissions from

activities not qualifying as insignificant

is overly burdensome. First, sources can

use reliable emissions factors rather

than extensive testing and monitoring.

Second, the source descriptions

required by section 70.5(c)(3)(ii) need

only include sufficient detail to

determine fees and the applicability of

requirements of the Act. Finally, in

many cases, smaller units can be

aggregated and described in general

terms if such an approach would not

interfere with determining whether and

how an applicable requirement applies

at a source.

A second point raised in comment

was that the redesignation of Bay Area

to attainment status for ozone justifies a

higher insignificance threshold for

criteria pollutants. EPA agrees that

emissions cut-offs for insignificant

activities should be based on areaspecific circumstances and analysis.

The proposed notice recommended a 2

tpy cut-off for criteria pollutants for the

Bay Area because of the large number of

sources and emissions in the District,

the high population density, and the

distinct relationship between regulatory

compliance and air quality

improvement in the Bay Area. While

EPA is open to evaluating alternative

emissions cut-offs, such a proposal must

clearly demonstrate that the higher level

of emissions are insignificant for the

Bay Area.

An industry commenter also

requested that EPA accept Bay Area’s

categorical permit exemption list as its

list of insignificant activities. While part

70 allows state and local agencies to

submit a list of insignificant activities

and emissions levels for approval, this

list must be accompanied by selection

criteria that will assure insignificance

with respect to federal applicable

requirements (sections 70.4(b)(2) and

70.5(c)). The fact that the District has a

preexisting exemption list does not

constitute sufficient justification of

insignificance. Because Bay Area has

not provided EPA with justification for

each categorical exemption, EPA does

not have adequate information on which

to evaluate the activities.

A fourth point raised in response to

EPA’s recommended insignificance

thresholds was the suggestion that a

single emissions cut-off be used to

define insignificant activities for HAPemitting sources. The commenter

suggested that a single threshold would

be more appropriate than the section

112(g) de minimis values since the Act

uses a broad 10 tpy applicability

threshold.

EPA recommended using the

proposed section 112(g) de minimis

levels because they define what EPA,

through research and science, has

determined to be significant enough to

warrant review by the public and EPA

on a facility-wide basis. EPA believes

that the section 112(g) de minimis levels

would more easily allow the permitting

authority to verify independently the

applicability of requirements and

should serve as an upper bound on

which activities may be excluded from

permit applications. The same result

may be achieved, however, with a single

cut-off of 1000 pounds per year if the

threshold is accompanied by a caveat

that activities and emissions necessary

for determining the applicability of, or

imposing an applicable requirement on,

the source may not be omitted from the

permit application.

A fifth comment regarding

insignificant activities was Bay Area’s

objection to adding an ‘‘applicable

requirement gatekeeper’’ that excludes

activities subject to an applicable

requirement from classification as

insignificant. Bay Area asserted that the

applicable requirement gatekeeper for

insignificant activities is too stringent

since some state implementation plans

(SIPs) contain requirements such as

opacity limits that would generally

apply to all activities at the facility

regardless of size.

EPA understands Bay Area’s concerns

and believes that the applicable

requirement gatekeeper can be added to

Bay Area’s program without nullifying

the usefulness of insignificant activities.

EPA recognizes that certain

requirements approved into the SIP,

such as opacity standards, are

applicable not to specific emissions

units, but instead to the facility as a

whole. Therefore, the presence of an

applicable opacity limit does not mean

that every emissions unit at the facility

must be described in the application

since the applicability of the

requirement is clear.

4. Notice to the Public and Affected

States

Bay Area disagreed with the public

and affected state notice deficiencies

identified by EPA in the proposed

interim approval notice. First, Bay Area

objected to revising its program to

include affected state notice provisions

for Native American tribes since there is

not currently a potentially affected tribe

that is eligible for treatment as a state.

EPA is concerned about Bay Area’s

proposal to delay adoption of affected

state notice provisions until tribes apply

for state status. Although the federal

rule that will enable tribes to apply for

treatment as states has not yet been

finalized, and there are no tribes

currently eligible for treatment as a state

under the Act, EPA believes that the

likelihood of Native American tribes

qualifying as affected states under part

70 is great and that Bay Area will

ultimately need to revise its rule to

address this outcome. Nonetheless, as

an alternative to up-front adoption of

affected state notice provisions, EPA

will accept a commitment from Bay

Area to: (1) initiate rule revisions upon

notification from EPA that an affected

tribe has applied for state status, and (2)

provide affected state notice to tribes

upon their filing for state status, that is,

prior to the District’s adoption of

affected state notice rules. Second, Bay

Area also objected to adding the phrase

‘‘by other means if necessary to assure

adequate notice to the affected public’’
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 121 / Friday, June 23, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 32609

to the District’s public notice

procedures. Bay Area claimed that its

existing public notice procedures

already assure adequate notice to the

affected public.

EPA acknowledges that the Bay Area

has an extensive public notice process

and that it is adequate in most

circumstances. However, EPA also

realizes that the United States, in

general, and the Bay Area, in particular,

consist of diverse communities with

varying ties to the publications used for

public notification. EPA proposed

adding the phrase ‘‘by other means if

necessary to assure adequate notice to

the affected public * * * ’’ to Bay Area’s

public notice provisions to give Bay

Area the legal authority to expand its

notification procedures if notice under

existing procedures is ever inadequate.

The additional language is not intended

to require the Bay Area to expand its

routine notification procedures, but

rather to allow the District to take extra

steps when circumstances dictate.

5. Alternative Emission Limits

Bay Area believes that EPA’s concerns

regarding alternative emission limits

can be handled on a permit-by-permit

basis rather than by revising the

District’s Manual of Procedures (MOP).

Bay Area’s MOP states that alternative

emission control plans issued pursuant

to District Regulation 8 may be

incorporated into title V permits. In the

proposed interim approval notice, EPA

stated that the permit may contain an

alternative emission limit only if it has

been approved into Bay Area’s SIP. The

MOP provides no assurance that an

alternative emission control plan in

District Regulation 8 is SIP-approved

before it is incorporated into a title V

permit. In response, Bay Area

commented that if the alternative

emission control plan in District

Regulation 8 has been approved into the

SIP, it will become part of the federally

enforceable portion of the permit; if it

has not been approved into the SIP, it

will become part of the state-only

portion of the permit.

EPA finds this permit-by-permit

approach acceptable. However, the

current language in the MOP does not

distinguish between alternative

emission control plans in District

Regulation 8 that have been approved

into the SIP and alternative emission

control plans in Regulation 8 that have

not been approved into the SIP.

Therefore, in order to correct this

deficiency, the District must add a

provision to the MOP (section 4.1)

stating that only alternative emission

control plans that have been approved

into the SIP may be incorporated into

the federally enforceable portion of the

permit.

6. Emissions Trading

Bay Area commented that the

emissions trading provisions of section

70.6(a)(10) should not be required for

the Bay Area since the District’s new

source review program prohibits

emissions increases at a facility without

a case-by-case approval. EPA does not

support Bay Area’s position on this

matter. Bay Area must include a

provision consistent with section

70.6(a)(10) to ensure that the District

can implement mandatory trading

opportunities that may arise in specific

federal requirements.

7. Particulate Matter (PM) Issues

The National Stone Association raised

several issues regarding PM that were

not relevant to EPA’s proposed interim

approval of Bay Area’s operating

permits program. Therefore, EPA is

addressing these comments in the

Response to Comments Document

(located in the docket at the Regional

Office) and not in this final interim

approval notice.

B. Final Action

1. Title V Operating Permits Program

The EPA is promulgating interim

approval of Bay Area’s title V operating

permits program as submitted on

November 16, 1993 and amended on

October 27, 1994. Bay Area must make

the following changes to receive full

approval:

(1) Provide a demonstration that each

activity on Bay Area’s insignificant

activities list (See p. II–3 of program

description, 2–6–405.4, and list in

Appendix B.) is truly insignificant and

is not likely to be subject to an

applicable requirement. Alternatively,

the District may establish emissions

level cut-offs, in which activities

emitting below the cut-offs would

qualify as insignificant. In the latter

case, the District must demonstrate that

the cut-off emissions levels are

insignificant compared to the level of

emissions from and type of units that

are required to be permitted or subject

to applicable requirements. In addition,

Bay Area must revise Regulation 2, Rule

6 to state that activities needed to

determine the applicability of, or

impose applicable requirements on, the

facility may not qualify as insignificant

activities. (§§ 70.5(c) and 70.4(b)(2))

(2) Include a term consistent with the

part 70 definition of ‘‘applicable

requirement,’’ and use that term

consistently in rules 2–6–409.1, 2–6–

409.2 and throughout the regulation. As

currently written, Bay Area’s regulation

requires that ‘‘all federal * * * air

quality requirements’’ be incorporated

into permits (2–6–409.1); yet, the term

is never defined. Bay Area’s program

does define ‘‘applicable requirement’’

(2–6–202), but the definition deviates

from the part 70 definition and includes

non-federally enforceable District and

State requirements. Bay Area’s

definition of ‘‘federally enforceable’’ (2–

6–207) appears to address the federal

definition of ‘‘applicable requirement’’;

however, it does not include the entire

list of applicable requirements, and it is

not clearly used in the permit content

section of Regulation 2–6.

(3) Rule 2–6–409 must be revised to

require that permit terms and conditions

assure compliance with all applicable

requirements (§ 70.7(a)(1)(iv)) and that

permits contain emission limitations

and standards (§ 70.6(a)(1)) and

compliance certification requirements

(§ 70.6(c)(1)) that assure compliance

with all applicable requirements. As

Regulation 2–6 is currently written, the

District’s title V permits only have to

include requirements for testing,

monitoring, reporting, and

recordkeeping sufficient to assure

compliance with the terms and

conditions of the permit and the

applicable requirements themselves. (2–

6–409.1 and 2–6–409.2)

(4) Require that certifications by the

responsible official affirmatively state

that they are based on truth, accuracy,

and completeness and that they are

based on information and belief formed

after reasonable inquiry. Bay Area must

revise 2–6–405.9, 2–6–502, MOP (4.5

and 4.7), and any other certification

provisions to ensure that both elements

are explicitly required. (§ 70.5(d))

(5) Revise Regulation 2–6 to define

and require notice to, affected states.

Alternatively, Bay Area may make a

commitment to: (1) Initiate rule

revisions upon being notified by EPA of

an application by an affected tribe for

state status, and (2) provide affected

state notice to tribes upon their filing for

state status (i.e., prior to Bay Area’s

adopting affected state notice rules).

(6) Eliminate the phrase ‘‘but not

limited to’’ from the definition of

‘‘administrative permit amendment’’ (2–

6–201). Only changes identified in the

rule and approved as part of Bay Area’s

program may be processed as

administrative amendments.

(§ 70.7(d)(1)(vi))

(7) Revise 2–6–404.3 to limit the

universe of significant permit

modification applications due 12

months after commencing operations to

only those applications for revisions

pursuant to section 112(g) and title I,
32610 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 121 / Friday, June 23, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

parts C and D of the Act that are not

prohibited by an existing part 70 permit.

Except in the above circumstances, a

source is not allowed to operate the

proposed change until the permitting

authority has revised the source’s part

70 permit. (§ 70.5(a)(1)(ii))

(8) In minor permit modification

procedures, eliminate the extended

review period (2–6–414.2) that is

inconsistent with 2–6–410.2 and

§ 70.7(e)(2)(iv). This extension

inappropriately lengthens the time that

the source can operate under new

conditions without a formal permit

revision.

(9) Revise 2–6–412.1 to include notice

‘‘by other means if necessary to assure

adequate notice to the affected public.’’

(§ 70.7(h)(1))

(10) Add a provision to the Manual of

Procedures (section 4.1) stating that

only alternative emission control plans

that have been approved into the SIP

may be incorporated into the federally

enforceable portion of the permit.

(§ 70.6(a)(1)(iii))

(11) Add emissions trading provisions

consistent with § 70.6(a)(10), which

requires that trading must be allowed

where an applicable requirement

provides for trading increases and

decreases without a case-by-case

approval.

(12) Add a requirement to Regulation

2–6 that any document required by a

part 70 permit must be certified by a

responsible official. (§ 70.6(c)(1))

(13) Revise 2–6–224 and 2–6–409.10

to specify that all progress reports must

include: (1) Dates when activities,

milestones, or compliance required in

the schedule of compliance were

achieved; and (2) an explanation of why

any dates in the schedule of compliance

were not or will not be met and any

preventive or corrective measures

adopted. (§ 70.6(c)(4) (i) and (ii))

(14) Revise section 4.5 of the MOP

and add a provision to 2–6–409 to

require that compliance certifications be

submitted more frequently than

annually if specified in an underlying

applicable requirement. (§ 70.6(c)(4))

(15) Bay Area has indicated in its

program description that it intends to

process new units that do not affect any

federally enforceable permit condition

‘‘off-permit’’ (Section II, p. 21 and Staff

Report, pp. 3–4). However, Regulation

2–6 does not include any of the offpermit provisions required by §§ 70.4(b)

(14) and (15). The part 70 off-permit

provisions provide several safeguards

such as notice to EPA and

recordkeeping requirements that must

be incorporated into Bay Area’s

program. In order to receive full

approval in this regard, Bay Area may

submit a letter revising its program

description to indicate that it will not

process new units ‘‘off-permit’’ or it may

revise its rule to include the part 70 offpermit provisions.

(16) Revise 2–6–222 defining

‘‘regulated air pollutant’’ to be

consistent with the federal definition

(§ 70.2) and include pollutants subject

to any requirement established under

section 112 of the Act, including

sections 112 (g), (j), and (r).

(17) In addition to the District-specific

issues arising from Bay Area’s program

submittal and locally adopted

regulations, California state law

currently exempts agricultural

production sources from permit

requirements. In order for this program

to receive full approval (and avoid a

disapproval upon the expiration of this

interim approval), the California

Legislature must revise the Health and

Safety Code to eliminate the exemption

of agricultural production sources from

the requirement to obtain a permit.

The scope of the Bay Area’s part 70

program approved in this notice applies

to all part 70 sources (as defined in the

approved program) within the Bay Area,

California, except any sources of air

pollution over which an Indian tribe has

jurisdiction. See, e.g., 59 FR 55813,

55815–18 (Nov. 9, 1994). The term

‘‘Indian tribe’’ is defined under the Act

as ‘‘any Indian tribe, band, nation, or

other organized group or community,

including any Alaska Native village,

which is federally recognized as eligible

for the special programs and services

provided by the United States to Indians

because of their status as Indians.’’ See

section 302(r) of the Act; see also 59 FR

43956, 43962 (Aug. 25, 1994); 58 FR

54364 (Oct. 21, 1993).

This interim approval, which may not

be renewed, extends until July 23, 1997.

During this interim approval period, the

Bay Area is protected from sanctions,

and EPA is not obligated to promulgate,

administer and enforce a federal

operating permits program in the Bay

Area. Permits issued under a program

with interim approval have full standing

with respect to part 70, and the 1-year

time period for submittal of permit

applications by subject sources begins

upon the effective date of this interim

approval, as does the 3-year time period

for processing the initial permit

applications.

If the Bay Area fails to submit a

complete corrective program for full

approval by January 23, 1997, EPA will

start an 18-month clock for mandatory

sanctions. If the Bay Area then fails to

submit a corrective program that EPA

finds complete before the expiration of

that 18-month period, EPA will be

required to apply one of the sanctions

in section 179(b) of the Act, which will

remain in effect until EPA determines

that the Bay Area has corrected the

deficiency by submitting a complete

corrective program. Moreover, if the

Administrator finds a lack of good faith

on the part of the Bay Area, both

sanctions under section 179(b) will

apply after the expiration of the 18-

month period until the Administrator

determines that the Bay Area has come

into compliance. In any case, if, six

months after application of the first

sanction, the Bay Area still has not

submitted a corrective program that EPA

has found complete, a second sanction

will be required.

If EPA disapproves the Bay Area’s

complete corrective program, EPA will

be required to apply one of the section

179(b) sanctions on the date 18 months

after the effective date of the

disapproval, unless prior to that date the

Bay Area has submitted a revised

program and EPA has determined that it

corrected the deficiencies that prompted

the disapproval. Moreover, if the

Administrator finds a lack of good faith

on the part of the Bay Area, both

sanctions under section 179(b) shall

apply after the expiration of the 18-

month period until the Administrator

determines that the Bay Area has come

into compliance. In all cases, if, six

months after EPA applies the first

sanction, the Bay Area has not

submitted a revised program that EPA

has determined corrects the

deficiencies, a second sanction is

required.

In addition, discretionary sanctions

may be applied where warranted any

time after the expiration of an interim

approval period if the Bay Area has not

submitted a timely and complete

corrective program or EPA has

disapproved its submitted corrective

program. Moreover, if EPA has not

granted full approval to the Bay Area

program by the expiration of this

interim approval and that expiration

occurs after November 15, 1995, EPA

must promulgate, administer and

enforce a federal permits program for

the Bay Area upon interim approval

expiration.

2. District Preconstruction Permit

Program Implementing Section 112(g)

EPA is approving the use of Bay

Area’s preconstruction review program

found in Regulation 2, Rule 2 as a

mechanism to implement section 112(g)

during the transition period between

promulgation of EPA’s section 112(g)

rule and adoption by the Bay Area of

rules specifically designed to implement

section 112(g). EPA is limiting the
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 121 / Friday, June 23, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 32611

duration of this approval to 18 months

following promulgation by EPA of the

section 112(g) rule.

3. Program for Delegation of Section 112

Standards as Promulgated

Requirements for part 70 program

approval, specified in 40 CFR section

70.4(b), encompass section 112(l)(5)

requirements for approval of a program

for delegation of section 112 standards

as promulgated by EPA as they apply to

part 70 sources. Section 112(l)(5)

requires that the District’s program

contain adequate authorities, adequate

resources for implementation, and an

expeditious compliance schedule,

which are also requirements under part

70. Therefore, EPA is also promulgating

approval under section 112(l)(5) and 40

CFR section 63.91 of Bay Area’s

program for receiving delegation of

section 112 standards that are

unchanged from the federal standards as

promulgated. This program for

delegations applies to both existing and

future standards but is limited to

sources covered by the part 70 program.

4. State Operating Permit Program for

Synthetic Minors

EPA is promulgating full approval of

Bay Area’s synthetic minor operating

permit program submitted to EPA by the

California Air Resources Board, on

behalf of the Bay Area, on February 28,

1994 (supplemented April 29, 1994).

The synthetic minor operating permit

program is being approved into Bay

Area’s SIP pursuant to part 52 and the

five approval criteria set out in the June

28, 1989 Federal Register document (54

FR 27282). EPA is also promulgating

full approval pursuant to section

112(l)(5) of the Act so that HAP

emission limits in synthetic minor

operating permits may be deemed

federally enforceable.

Bay Area has already begun to issue

permits containing voluntarily accepted

limits pursuant to the District’s

synthetic minor regulations. If the

District followed its own procedures,

each of those permits was subject to

public notice and prior EPA review.

Therefore, EPA will consider all

operating permits issued pursuant to

Bay Area’s synthetic minor regulations

being approved in today’s notice to be

federally enforceable with the

promulgation of this approval provided

that Bay Area submit any permits that

it wishes to make federally enforceable

to EPA, accompanied by documentation

that the procedures approved today

have been followed. EPA will

expeditiously review any individual

permits so submitted to ensure their

conformity to the program requirements.

(See 57 FR 59931.)

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

implementation plan. Each request for

revision to the state implementation

plan shall be considered separately in

light of specific technical, economic,

and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

Copies of Bay Area’s submittal and

other information relied upon for the

final interim approval, including the

three public comment letters received

and reviewed by EPA on the proposal,

are contained in docket number CA–

BA–94–1–OPS maintained at the EPA

Regional Office. The docket is an

organized and complete file of all the

information submitted to, or otherwise

considered by, EPA in the development

of this final interim approval. The

docket is available for public inspection

at the location listed under the

ADDRESSES section of this document.

B. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this action from review

under Executive Order 12866 review.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The EPA’s actions under sections 502,

110, and 112 of the Act do not create

any new requirements, but simply

address operating permit programs

submitted to satisfy the requirements of

40 CFR part 70. Because these actions

do not impose any new requirements,

they do not have a significant impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a federal mandate that

may result in estimated costs to state,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to the private sector, of

$100 million or more. Under Section

205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203

requires EPA to establish a plan for

informing and advising any small

governments that may be significantly

or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action promulgated today does not

include a federal mandate that may

result in estimated costs of $100 million

or more to either state, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under state or local law, and imposes no

new federal requirements. Accordingly,

no additional costs to state, local, or

tribal governments, or to the private

sector, result from this action.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

Air pollution control, Carbon

monoxide, Hydrocarbons, Incorporation

by reference, Intergovernmental

relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide,

Ozone, Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides,

Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 70

Administrative practice and

procedure, Air pollution control,

Environmental protection, Hazardous

substances, Intergovernmental relations,

Operating permits, and Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Note: Incorporation by reference of the

State Implementation Plan for the State of

California was approved by the Director of

the Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

Dated: May 25, 1995.

David P. Howekamp,

Acting Regional Administrator.

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:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart F—California

2. Section 52.220 is amended by

adding paragraphs (c) (217) and (218) to

read as follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(217) New and amended regulations

for the following APCDs were submitted

on February 28, 1994, by the Governor’s

designee.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Bay Area Air Quality Management

District.

(1) Amended Regulation 2, Rule 1,

Sections 102, 129, 204, 213, 214, 215,

216, 217, 218, 219, 302, 408, 411

adopted November 3, 1993; and New

Regulation 2, Rule 6, Sections 206, 207,

210, 212, 213, 214, 218, 222, 230, 231,
32612 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 121 / Friday, June 23, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

301, 311, 401, 402, 403, 404, 420, 421,

422, 602 adopted November 3, 1993.

(218) New and amended regulations

for the Bay Area Air Quality

Management District were submitted on

April 29, 1994 by the Governor’s

designee.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) New Regulation 2, Rule 6,

Sections 310 and 423 adopted

November 3, 1993.

* * * * *

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 adding paragraph (b) to the entry for

California to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 70—Approval

Status of State and Local Operating

Permits Programs

* * * * *

(b) Bay Area Air Quality Management

District: submitted on November 16,

1993 and amended on October 27, 1994;

interim approval effective on July 24,

1995, interim approval expires July 23,

1997.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 95–15038 Filed 6–22–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 86

Evaporative Emission Enclosure

Calibrations

CFR Correction

In title 40 of the Code of Federal

Regulations, parts 86 to 99, revised as of

July 1, 1994, in § 86.1217–90 the first

paragraph (c) and the second paragraph

(b) appearing on pages 909 and 910

should be removed.

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D

FEDERAL EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT AGENCY

44 CFR Part 64

[Docket No. FEMA–7619]

List of Communities Eligible for the

Sale of Flood Insurance

AGENCY: Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule identifies

communities participating in the

National Flood Insurance Program

(NFIP). These communities have

applied to the program and have agreed

to enact certain floodplain management

measures. The communities’

participation in the program authorizes

the sale of flood insurance to owners of

property located in the communities

listed.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The dates listed in the

third column of the table.

ADDRESSES: Flood insurance policies for

property located in the communities

listed can be obtained from any licensed

property insurance agent or broker

serving the eligible community, or from

the NFIP at: Post Office Box 6464,

Rockville, MD 20849, (800) 638–6620.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert F. Shea, Jr., Division Director,

Program Implementation Division,

Mitigation Directorate, 500 C Street,

SW., room 417, Washington, DC 20472,

(202) 646–3619.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP

enables property owners to purchase

flood insurance which is generally not

otherwise available. In return,

communities agree to adopt and

administer local floodplain management

measures aimed at protecting lives and

new construction from future flooding.

Since the communities on the attached

list have recently entered the NFIP,

subsidized flood insurance is now

available for property in the community.

In addition, the Director of the

Federal Emergency Management Agency

has identified the special flood hazard

areas in some of these communities by

publishing a Flood Hazard Boundary

Map (FHBM) or Flood Insurance Rate

Map (FIRM). The date of the flood map,

if one has been published, is indicated

in the fourth column of the table. In the

communities listed where a flood map

has been published, Section 102 of the

Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, as

amended, 42 U.S.C. 4012(a), requires

the purchase of flood insurance as a

condition of Federal or federally related

financial assistance for acquisition or

construction of buildings in the special

flood hazard areas shown on the map.

The Director finds that the delayed

effective dates would be contrary to the

public interest. The Director also finds

that notice and public procedure under

5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and

unnecessary.

National Environmental Policy Act

This rule is categorically excluded

from the requirements of 44 CFR Part

10, Environmental Considerations. No

environmental impact assessment has

been prepared.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Associate Director certifies that

this rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities in accordance

with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5

U.S.C. 601 et seq., because the rule

creates no additional burden, but lists

those communities eligible for the sale

of flood insurance.

Regulatory Classification

This final rule is not a significant

regulatory action under the criteria of

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of

September 30, 1993, Regulatory

Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not involve any

collection of information for purposes of

the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.

Executive Order 12612, Federalism

This rule involves no policies that

have federalism implications under

Executive Order 12612, Federalism,

October 26, 1987, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp.,

p. 252.

Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice

Reform

This rule meets the applicable

standards of section 2(b)(2) of Executive

Order 12778, October 25, 1991, 56 FR

55195, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 309.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64

Flood insurance, Floodplains.

Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is

amended as follows:

PART 64—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 64

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.,

Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR,

1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367,

3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376.

§ 64.6 [Amended]

2. The tables published under the

authority of § 64.6 are amended as

follows: