Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 14, 1995 / Proposed Rules 13683

D. Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership under Executive Order

12875

In compliance with Executive Order

12875 we have involved state, local, and

tribal governments in the development

of this rule. State and local air pollution

control associations participated in

work group meetings and made

comments which were incorporated in

the proposed rule.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection

requirements in this proposed rule have

been submitted for approval to OMB

under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An Information

Collection Request (ICR) document has

been prepared by the EPA (ICR No.

1739.01) and a copy may be obtained

from Sandy Farmer, Information Policy

Branch, EPA, 401 M Street SW., (2136),

Washington, DC 20460 or by calling

(202) 260–2740.

The public reporting burden for this

collection of information is estimated to

average 251 hours per respondent for

the first year after the date of

promulgation of the rule, including time

for reviewing instructions, searching

existing data sources, gathering and

maintaining the data needed, and

completing and reviewing the collection

of information.

Send comments regarding the burden

estimate or any other aspect of this

collection of information, including

suggestions for reducing this burden, to

Chief, Information Policy Branch, 2136,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

401 M Street SW., Washington, DC

20460; and to the Office of Management

and Budget, Washington, DC 20503,

marked ‘‘Attention: Desk Officer for the

EPA.’’ The final rule will respond to any

OMB or public comments on the

information collection requirements

contained in this proposal.

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (or

RFA, Public Law 96–354, September 19,

1980) requires Federal agencies to give

special consideration to the impact of

regulation on small businesses. The

RFA specifies that a final regulatory

flexibility analysis must be prepared if

a proposed regulation will have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities. To

determine whether a final RFA is

required, a screening analysis, otherwise

known as an initial RFA, is necessary.

Regulatory impacts are considered

significant if:

(1) Annual compliance costs increase

total costs of production by more than

5 percent, or

(2) Annual compliance costs as a

percent of sales are at least 20 percent

higher for small entities, or

(3) Capital cost of compliance

represent a significant portion of capital

available to small entities, or

(4) The requirements of the regulation

are likely to result in closures of small

entities.

A ‘‘substantial number’’ of small

entities is generally considered to be

more than 20 percent of the small

entities in the affected industry.

In addition to the requirement above,

the Agency requires a final RFA if any

small business impacts are attributed to

a regulatory action for any action

initiated after April 1992. In this case,

the regulatory action began before April

1992, so the former RFA requirements

are pertinent.

Consistent with Small Business

Administration (SBA) size standards, a

firm is classified as a small entity if it

has less than 500 employees for most of

the affected industries at the 4-digit SIC

code level, 750 for 3 affected industries

at that level (2656—sanitary food

containers, 2657—folding paperboard

boxes, and 3221—glass containers), and

1,000 for 1 affected industry (3411—

metal cans); and is unaffiliated with a

larger entity.

Using the information above, none of

the firms in the publication gravure

sector are small. For the packaging and

product gravure sector, 29 out of 60

firms, or 48.3 percent are classified as

small. For the flexographic sector,

virtually all of the affected firms are

small.

Data were available to examine all

four of the criteria.

For the first criterion, the maximum

increase in the total cost of production

from compliance with the standard is,

on average, 1.4 percent for affected

small entities. This is not a significant

increase. For the second, annual

compliance costs as a percentage of

sales were calculated to be 9 percent

higher for small entities, and this is not

significant. For the third criterion, the

increase in costs from compliance as a

percentage of assets and as a percentage

of equity was negligible (less than 1

percent). For the fourth and final

criterion, no small firms are at risk of

closure due to the standard.

In conclusion, and pursuant to section

605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Administrator

certifies that this rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

The basis for the certification is that the

economic impacts for small entities do

not meet or exceed the criteria in the

Guidelines to the Regulatory Flexibility

Act of 1980, as shown above. Further

information on the initial RFA is

available in the background information

document.

G. Clean Air Act Section 117

In accordance with section 117 of the

Act, publication of this proposal was

preceded by consultation with

appropriate advisory committees,

independent experts, and Federal

departments and agencies. The

Administrator welcomes comment on

all aspects of the proposed regulation,

including health, economic,

technological, or other aspects.

H. Regulatory Review

In accordance with sections 112(d)(6)

and 112(f)(2) of the Act, this regulation

will be reviewed within 8 years from the

date of promulgation. This review may

include an assessment of such factors as

evaluation of the residual health risk,

any overlap with other programs, the

existence of alternative methods,

enforceability, improvements in

emission control technology and health

data, and the recordkeeping and

reporting requirements.

VII. Statutory Authority

The statutory authority for this

proposal is provided by sections 101,

112, 114, 116, and 301 of the Clean Air

Act, as amended; 42 U.S.C., 7401, 7412,

7414, 7416, and 7601.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hazardous

substances, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Standard

for printing and publishing industry.

Dated: March 1, 1995.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–5983 Filed 3–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 70

[AD-FRL–5172–5]

Clean Air Act Proposed Full/Interim

Approval of Title V Operating Permits

Program; Clark County Health District,

Nevada

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes interim

approval of the Operating Permits

Program submitted by Nevada’s Clark

County Health District. Alternatively,

EPA proposes to grant full approval if

specified changes are made. Clark
13684 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 14, 1995 / Proposed Rules

County’s Operating Permit Program was

submitted for the purpose of complying

with Federal requirements which

mandate that States develop, and submit

to EPA, programs for issuing operating

permits to all major stationary sources,

and to certain other sources.

DATES: Comments on this proposed

action must be received in writing by

April 13, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

addressed to Ed Pike at the Region IX

address below. Copies of the State’s

submittal and other supporting

information used in developing the

proposed rule are available for

inspection during normal business

hours at the following location: US EPA,

75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA

94105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ed

Pike (telephone 415/744–1248), Mail

Code A–5–2, US EPA, Region IX, Air &

Toxics Division, 75 Hawthorne Street,

San Francisco, CA 94105.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Purpose

A. Introduction

As required under title V of the Clean

Air Act (‘‘the Act’’) as amended (1990),

EPA has promulgated rules that define

the minimum elements of an approvable

State operating permits program and the

corresponding standards and

procedures by which EPA will approve,

oversee, and withdraw approval of State

operating permits programs (see 57 FR

32250 (July 21, 1992)). These rules are

codified at 40 Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR) Part 70. Title V

requires States to develop, and submit

to EPA, programs for issuing these

operating permits to all major stationary

sources and to certain other sources.

The Act requires that States develop

and submit these programs to EPA by

November 15, 1993, and that EPA act to

approve or disapprove each program

within one year after receiving the

submittal. 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 two years.

If EPA has not fully approved a program

by two years after the November 15,

1993 date, or by the end of an interim

program, it must establish and

implement a Federal program.

II. Proposed Action and Implications

A. Analysis of State Submission

The analysis in this notice focuses on

the specific elements of Clark County’s

title V program that must be corrected

to meet the minimum requirements of

40 CFR part 70. The full program

submittal, the Technical Support

Document, and other relevant materials

are available for inspection as part of the

public docket. The docket may be

viewed during regular business hours at

the address listed above.

1. Support Materials

The Clark County Health District

(‘‘District’’), which is delegated

authority to implement part 70 under

state law (Nevada Revised Statues

‘‘NRS’’ section 445.546), submitted an

administratively complete part 70

permitting program on January 20, 1994

with a letter requesting EPA’s approval.

The submittal contained regulations

adopted by the District Board of Health

on November 18, 1993. The District

Counsel concurrently submitted an

opinion that the Health District has

sufficient authority to implement the

program. The District adopted several

rule modifications on May 26, 1994 and

submitted these modifications on July

18, 1994.

The submittal contains a description

of how the District will implement the

program consistent with the Clean Air

Act Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C.

7401–7671q) and 40 CFR part 70. The

submittal also includes sample permits,

permit applications, and reporting

forms. EPA intends to develop an

implementation agreement with the

District by the time EPA takes final

action on the program.

2. Title V Regulations and Program

Implementation

The District adopted section nineteen

and revised section zero of the Air

Pollution Control Regulations to meet

the requirements of part 70. The District

also relies on sections two, four, five,

six, seven, eight, nine, ten, and eighteen

of its Air Pollution Control Regulations

(‘‘APCR’’) to implement the permitting

program consistent with part 70

requirements.

a. Applicability (40 CFR 70.2 and

70.3): The District will permit all major

sources and all acid rain sources as

required by part 70. The District will

also permit non-major sources subject to

New Source Performance Standards or

National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants. (APCR

section 19.3)

b. Permit Content (40 CFR 70.6): Each

part 70 permit must contain emission

limitations and standards based on all

applicable emission limitations as well

as monitoring, recordkeeping, and other

compliance terms sufficient to ensure

compliance with all applicable

requirements. Sources may request

provisions for operational flexibility.

(APCR sections 19.4 and 19.7)

c. Public Participation and EPA

oversight (40 CFR 70.7): The public will

be provided notice of and an

opportunity to comment on each

proposed part 70 source permit, permit

renewal, and significant modification.

Each part 70 permit, permit renewal,

significant modification, and minor

permit modification is subject to EPA

oversight and veto. (APCR section 19.5)

d. Variances (40 CFR 70.11):

Variances may not be granted from

either applicable requirements or part

70 requirements. Therefore, the variance

provisions of the rule will not affect the

enforcement authority required under

part 70. (May 26, 1994 amendment to

APCR section 7)

e. Permit Modifications (40 CFR 70.7):

Sources may apply for expedited permit

changes for minor permit modifications.

Significant modifications must undergo

the full part 70 permit issuance

procedures. Significant modifications

include all title I modifications and all

changes to case-by-case emissions limits

such as New Source Review limits.

(APCR section 19.5)

3. Permit Fee Demonstration

Clark County will collect permit and

emissions-based fees that are projected

at $289,000 ($33.16 per ton of pollutant

subject to the presumptive minimum)

by the end of the ramp-up period in

1995 and $387,000 in 1996. Fees will be

adjusted annually by the Consumer

Price Index beginning in 1997. The

District’s fees for the first four years of

the program exceed, in the aggregate,

the fees presumed sufficient to fund the

program (40 CFR 70.9). Therefore, EPA

believes that the County will collect

sufficient fees to implement the part 70

permitting program.

4. Provisions Implementing the

Requirements of Other Titles of the Act

a. Title III—The District has

demonstrated in its title V program

submittal broad legal authority to

incorporate into permits and enforce all

applicable requirements, including

section 112 standards. The District also

made a commitment to implement all

section 112 requirements (July 18, 1994

program update). The EPA regards the

program submittal and commitment as a

demonstration that the District currently

has statutory and regulatory authority to

carry out all section 112 requirements
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 14, 1995 / Proposed Rules 13685

required by part 70 and an

acknowledgment by the District that it

is obligated to obtain any further

regulatory authority needed to issue

permits that assure compliance with

section 112 applicable requirements.

EPA is interpreting the above legal

authority and commitment to mean that

the District is able to carry out all

section 112 activities. For further

discussion, please refer to the Technical

Support Document and the April 13,

1993 guidance memorandum titled

‘‘Title V Program Approval Criteria for

Section 112 Activities,’’ signed by John

Seitz, Director of EPA’s Office of Air

Quality Planning and Standards.

b. Title IV—The District committed in

its July 18, 1994 program update to

obtain by January 1, 1995 the necessary

regulatory authority to administer an

acid rain program and to make

regulatory revisions as necessary to

accommodate federal revisions and

additions. The District has drafted, but

not officially adopted, the necessary

regulations. EPA anticipates that these

regulations will be adopted by the time

EPA takes final action on this program.

B. Options for Approval/Disapproval

and Implications

1. Changes Necessary for Full Approval

EPA is proposing to grant full

approval under section 502 of the Act to

the program if the changes listed below

are made. If the District has not adopted

regulations incorporating these

provisions and submitted them to EPA

as part of its operating permit program

by the time EPA takes final rulemaking

action, EPA will grant the District’s

program interim approval at that time.

Please refer to the Technical Support

Document, which is included in the

docket, for additional details.

a. Enforcement Commitments. The

District must submit documentation and

commitments for implementing its

enforcement and compliance tracking

program. Part 70 requires that the

District submit enforcement policies,

including agreements with the EPA, and

a description of the District’s

enforcement program, compliance

tracking activities, and inspection

strategies. (40 CFR 70.4(b)(4) and (5)) In

addition, failure to act on violations of

permits or other program requirements,

failure to seek adequate penalties and

fines and collect all assessed penalties

and fines, and failure to inspect and

monitor activities subject to regulation

are grounds for withdrawing program

approval. (40 CFR 70.10(c)(iii))

Therefore, the District must submit the

descriptions and/or commitments

required under sections 70.4(b)(4) and

(5) to qualify for full approval and

should ensure that the commitments

meet the criteria in section 70.10(c)(iii).

b. Operational Flexibility Gatekeeper.

The District’s operational flexibility

gatekeeper (APCR section 19.4.1.8) is

not explicitly as broad as the section

70.4(b)(12) gatekeeper for section

502(b)(10) changes. Part 70 prohibits

operational flexibility for

‘‘modifications under any provision of

title I of the Act.’’ In contrast, the

District prohibits these changes for any

‘‘New Source Review modifications

under any provision of title I of the

Act,’’ which does not expressly include

modifications under sections 111 and

112. EPA expects that most section 111

or 112 modifications will be subject to

the District’s New Source Review

program; however, in certain cases the

section 111 or 112 modification

definition will be more inclusive than

the District’s New Source Review rule.

Therefore, revising the rule to explicitly

prohibit section 502(b)(10) changes for

all title I modifications is a requirement

for full approval.

c. Confidential Business Information.

The District Counsel’s opinion does not

document that the District’s definition

of confidential business information

(‘‘CBI’’), which is not available to the

public, is as narrow as EPA’s. Section

19.3.1.3 states that ‘‘emissions’’ may not

be considered confidential. EPA’s

regulation states that ‘‘emissions data’’

may not be considered confidential. (40

CFR 2.301) The District must adopt

EPA’s narrower definition of

confidential information. Alternatively,

the District Counsel must issue a

statement that the District’s program

does not contain more restrictions on

public access to information than the

federal regulations.

d. Insignificant Activities. The District

submitted criteria defining which units

that are not subject to the part 70

permitting program. For criteria

pollutants, the rule exemption threshold

is based on potential emissions of either

one or two tons per year. EPA believes

these criteria pollutant thresholds are

acceptable. The rule also exempts units

with potential emissions of 200 pounds

per year of hazardous air pollutants

(HAPs). EPA believes that this threshold

is acceptable except for very hazardous

substances for which EPA has

promulgated or proposed a lower title I

modification threshold. To receive full

approval, the District’s exemption

should be no less stringent than these

thresholds. In addition, the program

must require sources to identify permit

exemptions on their applications. (40

CFR 70.5(c)).

e. Applicable Requirements and

National Ambient Air Quality

Standards (NAAQS). The District must

add NAAQS, visibility, and increment

requirements for temporary sources to

the definition of applicable

requirements (40 CFR 70.3). Sources

that temporarily operate at multiple

locations, such as non-metallic minerals

processors or asphalt batch plants, may

qualify for temporary source permits.

The temporary source permits issued to

these sources must require compliance

with applicable requirements, as

defined in part 70, at each location.

f. Early reductions permit deadline.

The District must add a deadline of nine

months or less for early reductions

permits issued under section 112(i)(5) of

the Act (40 CFR 70.4(b)(11)).

2. Interim Approval

The program substantially meets the

requirements of part 70 as required

under section 70.4. The EPA proposes to

grant interim approval to the operating

permits program submitted by the

District on January 20, 1994 and

updated on July 18, 1994 if the changes

listed above are not made prior to the

final action on the program. This

interim approval would be changed to a

full approval if the County subsequently

makes the changes necessary for full

approval. Permits issued under a

program with interim approval have full

standing with respect to part 70, and the

one year time period for submittal of

permit applications by subject sources

begins upon interim approval, as does

the three year time period for processing

the initial permit applications.

3. Sanctions and Federal Program

If EPA were to finalize this proposed

interim approval, it would extend for

two years following the effective date of

final interim approval, and could not be

renewed. During the interim approval

period, the District would be protected

from sanctions, and EPA would not be

obligated to promulgate, administer and

enforce a Federal permits program in

Clark County.

Following final interim approval, if

the District failed to submit a complete

corrective program for full approval by

the date 6 months before expiration of

the interim approval, EPA would start

an 18-month clock for mandatory

sanctions. If the District then failed to

submit a corrective program that EPA

found complete before the expiration of

that 18-month period, EPA would be

required to apply one of the sanctions

in section 179(b) of the Act, which

would remain in effect until EPA

determined that the District had

corrected the deficiency by submitting a
13686 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 14, 1995 / Proposed Rules

complete corrective program. Moreover,

if the Administrator found a lack of

good faith on the part of the District,

both sanctions under section 179(b)

would apply after the expiration of the

18-month period until the

Administrator determined that the

District had come into compliance. In

any case, if, six months after application

of the first sanction, the District still had

not submitted a corrective program that

EPA found complete, a second sanction

would be required.

If, following final interim approval,

EPA were to disapprove the District’s

complete corrective program, EPA

would 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

District had submitted a revised

program and EPA had determined that

it corrected the deficiencies that

prompted the disapproval. Moreover, if

the Administrator found a lack of good

faith on the part of the District, both

sanctions under section 179(b) would

apply after the expiration of the 18-

month period until the Administrator

determined that the District had come

into compliance. In all cases, if, six

months after EPA applied the first

sanction, the District had not submitted

a revised program that EPA had

determined corrected the deficiencies

that prompted disapproval, a second

sanction would be required.

In addition, discretionary sanctions

may be applied where warranted any

time after the end of an interim approval

period if the District has not timely

submitted a complete corrective

program or EPA has disapproved a

submitted corrective program.

Moreover, if EPA has not granted full

approval to the District’s program by the

expiration of an interim approval and

that expiration occurs after November

15, 1995, EPA must promulgate,

administer and enforce a Federal

permits program for the District upon

interim approval expiration.

4. Approval of Preconstruction Program

for Section 112(g) Case-by-Case MACT

Determinations

Clark County will be required to

implement the Maximum Achievable

Control Technology requirements of

section 112(g) of the Act as a component

of the part 70 program. The EPA is

proposing to approve the District’s

preconstruction permitting program,

found in section 12 of the District rules,

under the authority of title V and part

70 solely for the purpose of

implementing section 112(g) during the

transition period between the effective

date of 112(g) and District adoption of

a 112(g) rule. EPA has published an

interpretive notice in the Federal

Register that interprets section 112(g) to

allow State and local agencies to delay

implementing 112(g) of the Act until

EPA promulgates a final 112(g) rule.

Alternatively, State and local agencies

may implement the requirements of

112(g) prior to EPA promulgation of the

112(g) rule as a matter of State or local

law. 60 FR 8333 (February 14, 1995) The

notice also states that EPA is

considering whether to further delay the

effective date of section 112(g) beyond

the date of promulgation of the Federal

rule so as to allow State and local

agencies time to adopt rules

implementing the Federal rule. 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), the District 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 and

may choose to implement section 112(g)

sooner as a matter of local law.

For this reason, EPA is proposing to

approve the District’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 District

adoption of rules specifically designed

to implement section 112(g). However,

since approval is intended solely to

confirm that State and local agencies

have 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. The EPA is proposing that

twelve months will be adequate for the

District to adopt implementing

regulations but solicits comments on

whether this timeframe will be

adequate.

5. Approval of Program for Straight

Delegation of Section 112 Standards

Under the Authority of Section 112(l) of

the Act

Requirements for approval, specified

in 40 CFR 70.4(b), encompass section

112(l)(5) requirements for approval of a

program for delegation of section 112

General Provisions subpart A and

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, the EPA is also

proposing to grant approval under

section 112(l)(5) and 40 CFR 63.91 of

the District’s program for receiving

delegation of section 112 standards that

are unchanged from Federal standards

as promulgated. This program for

delegations only applies to sources

covered by the part 70 program.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Request for Public Comments

The EPA is requesting comments on

all aspects of this proposed full/interim

approval. Copies of the State’s submittal

and other information relied upon for

the proposed interim approval are

contained in a docket 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 proposed full/interim approval.

The principal purposes of the docket

are:

(1) to allow interested parties a means

to identify and locate documents so that

they can effectively participate in the

approval/disapproval process, and

(2) to serve as the record in case of

judicial review. The EPA will consider

any comments received by April 13,

1995.

B. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this regulatory action

from Executive Order 12866 review.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The EPA’s actions under section 502

of the Act do not create any new

requirements, but simply address

operating permits programs submitted

to satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR

Part 70. Because this action does not

impose any new requirements, it does

not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70

Environmental Protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Operating permits, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

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

Dated: February 25, 1995.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–6267 Filed 3–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P