Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 18083

under the APA because the IRA does

not preclude judicial review and the

agency action is not committed to

agency discretion by law within the

meaning of the APA.

While the Eighth Circuit decision

precludes the Secretary from taking into

trust the land at issue in that particular

case, new trust acquisitions will be

made on a case-by-case basis. The

procedure announced in today’s rule,

however, will apply to all pending and

future trust acquisitions.

The Department certifies that this

procedural rule meets the standards

provided in Sections 2(a) and 2(b)(2) of

Executive Order 12778.

The Department has determined that

this rule:

—Does not have significant federalism

effects.

—Will not have significant economic

impact on a substantial number of

small entities under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

—Does not have significant takings

implications under E.O. 12630.

—Does not have significant effects on

the economy, nor will it result in

increases in costs or prices for

consumers, individual industries,

Federal, State, or local governments,

agencies, or geographical regions.

—Does not have any adverse effects on

competition, employment,

investment, productivity, innovation,

or the export/import market.

—Is categorically excluded from the

National Environmental Policy Act of

1969 because it is of an

administrative, technical, and

procedural nature. Therefore, neither

an environmental assessment nor an

environmental impact statement is

warranted.

This rule is not a significant rule

under E.O. 12866 and does not require

approval by the Office of Management

and Budget.

This rule is not a major rule as

defined in 5 U.S.C. 804. The annual

number of tribal requests to place lands

in trust is small. There will be costs

incurred by a party seeking judicial

review. The author of this rule is: Mary

Jane Sheppard, Office of the Solicitor,

U.S. Department of the Interior.

Because this is a procedural rule

under Section 553(b)(3)(A) of the

Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5

U.S.C. 551 et seq., it is exempt from

requirements for notice and comment

rulemaking.

List of Subjects in 25 CFR Part 151

Indians—lands.

For reasons set out in the preamble,

Part 151 of Title 25, Chapter I of the

Code of Federal Regulations is amended

as set forth below.

PART 151—LAND ACQUISITIONS

(NONGAMING)

1. The authority for part 151

continues to read as follows:

Authority: R.S. 161: 5 U.S.C. 301. Interpret

or apply 46 Stat. 1106, as amended; 46 Stat.

1471, as amended; 48 Stat. 985, as amended;

49 Stat. 1967, as amended, 53 Stat. 1129; 63

Stat. 605; 69 Stat. 392, as amended; 70 Stat.

290, as amended; 70 Stat. 626; 75 Stat. 505;

77 Stat. 349; 78 Stat. 389; 78 Stat. 747; 82

Stat. 174, as amended, 82 Stat. 884; 84 Stat.

120; 84 Stat. 1874; 86 Stat. 216; 86 Stat. 530;

86 Stat. 744; 88 Stat. 78; 88 Stat. 81; 88 Stat.

1716; 88 Stat. 2203; 88 Stat. 2207; 25 U.S.C.

2, 9, 409a, 450h, 451, 464, 465, 487, 488, 489,

501, 502, 573, 574, 576, 608, 608a, 610, 610a,

622, 624, 640d–10, 1466, 1495, and other

authorizing acts.

2. Section 151.12, Action on requests,

is amended by designating the existing

text as paragraph (a) and by adding a

new paragraph (b) to read as follows:

§ 151.12 Title examination.

* * * * *

(b) Following completion of the Title

Examination provided in § 151.13 of

this part and the exhaustion of any

administrative remedies, the Secretary

shall publish in the Federal Register, or

in a newspaper of general circulation

serving the affected area a notice of his/

her decision to take land into trust

under this part. The notice will state

that a final agency determination to take

land in trust has been made and that the

Secretary shall acquire title in the name

of the United States no sooner than 30

days after the notice is published.

Dated: April 17, 1996.

Ada E. Deer,

Assistant Secretary, Indian Affairs.

[FR Doc. 96–9922 Filed 4–29–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–02–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

32 CFR Parts 375 and 379

Organizational Charter; Removal of

Parts

AGENCY: Department of Defense.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document removes

Department of Defense’s organizational

charters on the Assistant to the

Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs) and

the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense

(Atomic Energy) (ATSD(AE)) codified in

the CFR. The parts have served the

purpose for which they were intended

in the CFR and are no longer necessary.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 24, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: L.

Bynum or P. Toppings, 703–697–4111.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DoD

Directive 5122.5 (32 CFR part 375) has

been revised. A change was issued to

DoD Directive 5134.8 (32 CFR part 379),

changing the organizational name from

‘‘Assistant to the Secretary of Defense

for Atomic Energy (ATSD(AE))’’ to

‘‘Assistant to the Secretary of Defense

for Nuclear and Chemical and Biological

Defense Programs (ATSD(NSB)’’. Copies

of the basic Directives and changes

thereto may be obtained from the

National Technical Information Service

(NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road,

Springfield, VA 22161.

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Parts 375 and

379

Organization and functions.

PARTS 375 AND 379—[REMOVED]

Accordingly, by the authority of 10

U.S.C. 301, 32 CFR parts 375 and 379

are removed.

Dated: April 19, 1996.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison

Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 96–9994 Filed 4–23–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5000–04–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 70

[AD–FRL–5460–9]

Clean Air Act Final Interim Approval of

the Federal Operating Permits

Program; San Joaquin Valley Unified

Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final Interim Approval.

SUMMARY: The EPA is promulgating

interim approval of the Operating

Permits Program submitted by the

California Air Resources Board on

behalf of the San Joaquin Valley Unified

Air Pollution Control District 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.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 24, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the District’s

submittal and other supporting
18084 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

information used in developing the

proposed interim approval including

the Technical Support Document with

response to comments are available for

inspection during normal business

hours at the following location:

Operating Permits Section, A–5–2, Air

and Toxics Division, U.S. EPA-Region

IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco,

California 94105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Frances Wicher, (415) 744–1250,

Operating Permits Section, A–5–2, Air

and Toxics Division, U.S. EPA-Region

IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco,

California 94105.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and purpose

A. Introduction

Title V of the Clean Air Act (the Act),

and implementing regulations at 40 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 one 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.

On November 1, 1995, EPA proposed

interim approval of the operating

permits program for the San Joaquin

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control

District (San Joaquin Valley or District).

See 60 FR 55516. The EPA received

comments on the proposal and has

summarized its response to the major

comments in this notice and has fully

responded to all comments in the

Technical Support Document (TSD)

accompanying this rulemaking. The

TSD also describes the operating

permits program in greater detail. In this

notice, EPA is taking final action to

promulgate interim approval of the

operating permits program for San

Joaquin Valley.

In the November 1, 1995 proposal,

EPA also proposed approval of the San

Joaquin Valley’s Rule 2530 Federally

Enforceable Potential to Emit as a

revision to San Joaquin Valley portion

of the California State Implementation

Plan and under section 112(l) of the Act.

In a separate notice, EPA has taken final

action to approve Rule 2530.

II. Final Action and Implications

A. Response to Comments

EPA received comments from four

groups during the comment period:

Caufield Enterprises (an independent oil

producer in the southern San Joaquin

Valley), the Western States Petroleum

Association (WSPA), Chevron, and the

San Joaquin Valley District. EPA’s

response to the major comments is

summarized below. A full response to

each comment is in the TSD.

1. Stationary Source Definition

The District’s title V program defines

stationary source by combining

elements of part 70’s definitions of

‘‘major source’’ and ‘‘stationary source.’’

The District’s definition of stationary

source, which is common to both its

title V program and its new source

review program, contains a provision

applicable to any facility located totally

within the Western or Central Kern

County Oil Fields or the Fresno County

Oil Field that is used for the production

of light oil, heavy oil or gas. This

provision states that all sources under

common control or ownership within

each field shall be considered a single

stationary source even if they are

located on non-contiguous or adjacent

properties. This provision is more

stringent than part 70; however, the

section also states that light oil

production, heavy oil production, and

gas production shall constitute separate

stationary sources. Part 70’s definition

of ‘‘major source’’ requires aggregating

all emission points that belong to the

same Major Group as described in the

Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)

Manual. See § 70.2 ‘‘Major source.’’

Light oil production, heavy oil

production and gas production are all in

the same Major Group. EPA proposed as

an interim approval issue that the

District either revise the SIC code

exemption in its definition of stationary

source or show that it is as stringent as

part 70.

The District stated that changing the

definition of stationary source from its

historic usage in the new source review

(NSR) program would complicate

permitting actions under title V. The

District also provided data that few

emission units (and few emissions)

would be added to the program

compared to the number of the units

and emissions that would be lost from

the program if part 70’s definition were

used to determine applicability. WSPA

and Chevron also raised concerns

regarding changing from the historic

NSR definition of stationary source.

EPA has reviewed the information

provided by the San Joaquin District on

the number and type of additional

emission units that would be included

should the District change to EPA’s

definition of major source. These units

are relatively few in number, have

insignificant emissions, are attached to

otherwise major sources, and would for

the most part qualify for treatment as

insignificant activities or insignificant

emission units. Overall, San Joaquin

Valley’s definition of stationary source

is neither inconsistent with nor less

stringent than EPA’s definition of major

source; therefore, EPA is removing the

proposed interim approval issue

regarding it.

Caufield Enterprises commented that

the District’s part 70 program as

proposed is in conflict with the Clean

Air Act because both section 502 of the

Act and § 70.2 define a major source to

be a contiguous source while San

Joaquin Valley’s program combines noncontiguous properties into a single

source. The commenter stated that it

was immaterial whether this provision

is stricter or less strict than federal law

since it was the intent of Congress to

implement the title V program

uniformly throughout the United States

and that allowing the District to use a

different definition for stationary source

and major source for title V permitting

is inconsistent with this intent.

EPA believes that it is the intent of

Congress to require states to implement

operating permit programs that all

contain certain minimum elements. See

section 502(b). EPA also believes that

Congress did not intend to bar States

from establishing additional permitting

requirements provided that those

requirements were not inconsistent with

the Act. See section 506(a).

While it is true that section 501(2) of

the Act defines major source as ‘‘any

stationary source (or group of stationary

sources located within a contiguous area

and under common control) * * * ’’,

this definition serves to define the

sources Congress, at a minimum,

intended to be included in the program.

The definition of major source in

section 501(2) does not define the only

sources that a state may include in its

operating permit program. Clearly,

states are allowed to include a broader

range of sources in their programs than

the Act nominally requires.

San Joaquin Valley’s definition of

major source (which encompasses its

definition of stationary source in its

NSR program) differs from the

definition of major source in section

501(2) by grouping all sources within an

oil field that are under common control

or ownership regardless of whether the

sources are on contiguous or adjacent

properties. This provision of San
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 18085

Joaquin’s stationary source definition

will bring into its part 70 program more

sources than EPA’s definition. On the

other hand, the provision does not

effectively exclude any sources subject

to title V under the federal definition.

As a result, the non-contiguous and

non-adjacent requirement in San

Joaquin Valley’s definition constitutes

an additional permitting requirement

that is not inconsistent with the Act and

is allowed by section 506(a) of the Act.

2. Permit Terms for Model General

Permits and Model General Permit

Templates

Chevron, WSPA, and the District

commented that model general permits

and model general permit templates

should not be required to have permit

terms of five years or less as proposed

in interim approval issue 9. All three

commenters recommended that these

model permits have indefinite terms

and require revision only when an

applicable requirement changes or

needs to be added. WSPA and Chevron

noted that if EPA or the District believes

that a correction is needed in a model

permit/template then they have the

ability to effect such a change and

modify all associated permits.

Title V and part 70 requires all

elements of part 70 permits, whether or

not they are based on model permits or

permit templates, to undergo public,

affected state, and EPA review at least

once every five years. Rule 2520

sections 11.3.8, 11.7.6 and 11.7.7 limit

public and EPA comment to the

applicability of the permit/template to a

source and thus prohibit public or EPA

comment on the internal elements of a

model permit/template after that model

permit/template is issued. In effect,

these provisions of the Rule bar regular

public, affected state, and EPA review of

the conditions and terms of a source’s

part 70 permit that are based on a model

permit/template. The ability to

comment on the applicability of a model

general permit or permit template does

not replace the ability to comment on

the internal elements of that permit

because not all issues will be ones of

applicability. Hence there is a need to

provide some mechanism to assure

regular public, affected state, and EPA

review of the model general permits and

permit templates. Therefore, EPA is

retaining this interim approval issue.

In reviewing this issue, EPA did

determine that it is not necessary that

the model general permits/permit

templates to contain five-year permit

terms but rather that the District’s part

70 program provide some mechanism

that requires regular public, affected

state, and EPA review of the internal

provisions of each model general permit

or permit template at least once every

five years. EPA, therefore, has revised

the interim approval issue.

EPA does not argue with the

commenters that EPA has the ability to

reopen model permits/templates when

necessary, but this ability does not

replace the requirement for regular

public and affected state review. EPA

would also note that regulatory changes

are not the sole reason why model

general permits/permit templates may

need to be changed.

3. Permit Shield Provision for General

Permits and Permit Templates

Proposed interim approval issue 15

required that Rule 2520 be revised to

state, as required by § 70.6(d), that,

notwithstanding the permit shield

provisions, if a source that is operating

under a general permit is later

determined not to qualify for the terms

and conditions of that general permit,

then the source is subject to

enforcement action for operation

without a part 70 permit. The District

declined to revise Rule 2520 to add this

language arguing it was unnecessary

because its general permit provisions

are more stringent than part 70. The

District noted that any general permit

obtained by a source under Rule 2520

would include qualification criteria and

the applicable requirements, thus any

deviation from the general permit

should be treated like any other part 70

permit violation.

EPA agrees that the District’s general

permit provisions are different from the

provisions in part 70 in that the

District’s program gives each source a

part 70 permit derived from the model

general permit rather than issuing one

permit that applies to multiple sources.

EPA, however, is retaining this interim

approval issue.

At issue is not whether a source is

complying with the terms of its permit

but rather whether the permit the source

has is the correct permit for that source.

A source that applies to use a model

general permit and receives a permit

based on that model when it does not

qualify is not substantially different

from a source that fails to apply for and

receive any permit because both sources

do not have permits applicable to them.

The former source may appear to have

a permit and may appear to comply

with some of the terms of that permit,

but, because the permit was not crafted

for that source, there is in fact no valid

permit with which to comply. The

source should be treated as operating

without a part 70 permit rather than not

operating in compliance with a part 70

permit.

Chevron and WSPA requested

clarification that this interim approval

issue does not carry over into the

application and use of general permit

templates. The commenters noted that a

general permit template is only a partial

coverage for certain emission units. The

commenters also recommended

extending this concept to general

permits in cases where the nonapplicability represents failure to

properly manage change at the facility,

in contrast to a misrepresentation of the

source at the time of permit application.

EPA agrees with the commenters and

has clarified the interim approval issue.

If a general permit template is later

determined not to be applicable to the

sources then the emission units or the

portion of the facility that was covered

by the terms of the general permit

template would be subject to

enforcement action for operating

without a title V permit and the balance

of the facility, where the permit remains

in force, would not be subject to the

enforcement action.

EPA does not believe there is any

need to extend this concept to general

permits where the source modifies so as

to no longer qualify for the general

permit. EPA interprets the requirement

in § 70.6(d) to apply only to sources that

misrepresented their qualifications for a

general permit at the time of initial

issuance or renewal.

4. Other Comments

The District addressed each of EPA’s

17 proposed interim approval issues

and in most cases stated it would

propose language changes to Rule 2520

to address the interim approval issue.

EPA appreciates the District’s responses

on these issues. For several interim

approval issues, the District stated that

it did not believe Rule revisions were

warranted. These issues are discussed

below. Please note that the issue

numbers reflect those in the proposal

and not the revised numbering in this

notice.

Interim Approval Issue 9: Clarify

minor source applicability. The District

believes that section 2.4 of Rule 2520

clearly applies only to area sources and

that it is not necessary to clarify the

sentence in section 2.4 that ‘‘[o]nly the

affected emissions units within the

stationary source shall be subject to part

70 permitting requirements’’ applies

only to stationary sources that are also

area sources. The District noted that any

major source subject to an NSPS would

be subject to title V permitting by its

major source status.

EPA agrees with the District that any

major source regulated under an NSPS

or section 112 standard would be
18086 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

subject to the District’s rule under the

major source requirement in section 2.3

of Rule 2520; however, it is also true

that such a source would also be subject

to Rule 2520 under the ‘‘subject to an

NSPS or 112 standard’’ requirement in

section 2.4. In fact, it will be common

for sources to be subject to the District’s

rule on a number of grounds (e.g., a

major source subject to an NSPS).

Therefore, the exclusivity of section 2.4

to area sources is not inherent in the

rule. In addition, section 2.4 of Rule

2520 parallels the language of

§ 70.3(a)(3) which reads ‘‘any source,

including an area source, subject to a

standard * * *’’. EPA does not interpret

§ 70.3(a)(3) to apply only to area sources

and would not agree that section 2.4

applies only to area sources. EPA is

therefore retaining this interim approval

issue.

Interim Approval Issue 10: Review

and public notice municipal waste

incinerator permits every five years,

even in the event that permit expiration

may be every 12 years. The District

noted that § 70.6(a)(2) does require that

the District review permits for

municipal waste incinerators every five

years, but it does not require public

notice and comment.

Part 70 does not fully repeat the Act’s

requirement that title V permits for

municipal waste incinerators be subject

to public review every five years. The

requirement is a provision of section

129(e) of the Act and not of title V.

Section 129(e) of the Act requires that

all municipal waste incinerators obtain

title V permits and that those permits

may have a permit term of up to 12

years, shall be reviewed every 5 years,

and shall remain in effect until the date

of termination, unless EPA or the

permitting authority determines that the

unit is not in compliance with all

standards and conditions contained in

the permit. Under section 129(e), such

determination shall be made at regular

intervals during the term of the permit,

such intervals not to exceed five years,

and only after public comment and

public hearing. Based on the explicit

language of section 129(e) requiring

public comment and hearing, EPA is

retaining this interim approval issue.

Interim Approval Issue 12: Allow

trading of emission increases and

decreases without a case-by-case review

to the extent allowed by an applicable

requirement, and not merely those

allowed by Rule 2301. The District

commented that District Rule 2301,

‘‘Emission Reduction Credit Banking’’

states that the rule is applicable to all

transfers or uses of emission reduction

credits in the San Joaquin Valley, and

that the District does not propose to

change this provision. The District also

commented that the permit terms will

identify circumstances under which

credits can be transferred without a

case-by-case review, that under these

circumstances, the language in Rule

2520 which requires that emission

reduction transfers be consistent with

Rule 2301 is appropriate, and that the

District does not propose to change it.

EPA notes that proposed interim

approval issue 12 did not address the

part of Rule 2520, section 9.12 that

restricts the use of emission reduction

credits. Rather, this interim approval

issue addresses the first provision in

section 9.12 that restricted terms and

conditions in a permit for the trading of

emission increases and decreases in the

permitted facility to those allowed by

Rule 2201. Section 70.6(a)(10) requires

permitting authorities to include terms

for emission trading without case-bycase approvals to the extent applicable

requirements allow them. EPA’s interim

approval issue is to remove Rule 2520’s

restriction to Rule 2201 and expand it

to encompass any applicable

requirement, such as the Hazardous

Organic NESHAP, that allows for

emission trading without case-by-case

approval. EPA, therefore, is retaining

this interim approval issue but is

clarifying that it does not affect the

emission reduction credit provisions in

Rule 2520, section 9.12.

Interim Approval Issue 13: Require a

schedule of compliance be included in

the permit even if the source is in

compliance with all applicable

requirements. The District argues, based

on language in part 70 and title V, that

neither title V nor part 70 requires that

each permit issued contain a schedule

of compliance unless the source is in

non-compliance.

The District is correct in stating that

§ 70.6(c)(3) merely requires that a permit

contain a schedule of compliance

consistent with § 70.5(c)(8); that

§ 70.5(c)(8) requires a compliance plan

be submitted with the application, part

of which is a compliance schedule; and

finally that § 70.5(c)(8)(iii) lists what

constitutes a compliance schedule and

that for non-complying source, this is

the ‘‘schedule of compliance’’ in

§ 70.5(c)(8)(iii)(C).

The District is also correct in stating

that section 504 of the Act requires that

‘‘each permit issued under this title

shall include * * * a schedule of

compliance * * *’’ However, the

District is not correct in stating that

facilities are not required to submit a

schedule of compliance with their

applications unless they are out of

compliance. Section 503 clearly requires

all permit applications, without regard

to the source’s compliance status, to

include a ‘‘compliance plan describing

how the source will comply with all

applicable requirements * * *’’ and

that the ‘‘[c]ompliance plan shall

include a schedule of compliance

* * *’’.

Part 70 and the Act need to be read

with the understanding that the terms

‘‘compliance schedule’’ and ‘‘schedule

of compliance’’ are synonymous. With

this understanding, it is clear that all

sources, complying and non-complying,

must include a schedule of compliance

(i.e., a compliance schedule) in their

applications and that all permits must

have schedules of compliance (i.e.,

compliance schedules) in them. For

complying sources and sources that

have future-effective applicable

requirements, the compliance schedule

is a simple statement that the source

will continue to comply or will comply

in a timely manner. Only for noncomplying sources are there detailed

requirements for the contents of a

schedule of compliance. Given the

requirements of the Act and part 70,

EPA is retaining this interim approval

issue.

B. Interim Approval

The EPA is promulgating interim

approval of the operating permits

program submitted by the California Air

Resources Board on behalf of the San

Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution

Control District on July 3 and August

17, 1995, and supplemented on

September 6 and 21, 1995. The District

or the State must make the following

changes to receive full approval:

(1) Revise the applicability language

in Rule 2520 2.2 and the definitions of

Major Air Toxics Source (Rule 2520

3.18) and Major Source (Rule 2520 3.19)

to be consistent with the Act and part

70 to cover sources that emit at major

source levels.

(2) Limit the exemption for non-major

sources in Rule 2520 4.1 so that it does

not exempt non-major sources that EPA

determines, upon promulgation of a

section 111 or 112 standard, must obtain

title V permits. § 70.3(b)(2)

(3) Revise Rule 2520 7.1.3.2 to

eliminate the requirement that fugitive

emission estimates need only be

submitted in the application if the

source is in a source category identified

in the major source definition in 40 CFR

part 70.2. See § 70.3(d).

(4) Revise Rule 2520 to provide that

unless the District requests additional

information or otherwise notifies the

applicant of incompleteness within 60

days of receipt of an application, the

application shall be deemed complete.

See §§ 70.5(a)(2) and 70.7(a)(4).
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 18087

(5) Revise Rule 2520 sections 11.1.4.2

and 11.3.1.1 and Rule 2201 5.3.1.1.1 to

include notice ‘‘by other means if

necessary to assure adequate notice to

the affected public.’’ See § 70.7(h)(1).

(6) Revise Rule 2520’s permit issuance

procedures to provide for notifying EPA

and affected states in writing of any

refusal by the District to accept all

recommendations for the proposed

permit that an affected state submitted

during the public/affected state review

period. See § 70.8(b)(2).

(7) Either delete section 11.7.5 in Rule

2520 and section 5.3.1.8.5 in Rule 2201,

which purport to limit the grounds

upon which EPA may object to a permit

to compliance with applicable

requirements, or revise them to be fully

consistent with § 70.8(c).

EPA’s authority to object to issuance

of permits derives from section 505(b) of

the Act. No state or local agency may

restrict authorities granted EPA under

the Clean Air Act; therefore, EPA views

section 11.7.5 of Rule 2520 and Section

5.3.1.8.5 of Rule 2201 as not binding

upon its actions. EPA will exercise its

authority to object to permits consistent

with § 70.8(c) and without regard to the

restriction on that authority in San

Joaquin’s title V program. Should the

District issue a permit to which EPA has

objected and the District has not revised

or reissued to meet the objection, EPA

will consider the permit invalid and

will require the District to revise and

reissue the proposed permit or will

revoke, revise, and reissue the permit

itself. EPA has made these revisions to

Rule 2520 an interim approval issue in

order to ensure that the Rule 2520

clearly states EPA’s authority to object

to permits.

(8) Revise Rule 2520 2.4 to clarify that

the sentence in section 2.4 that ‘‘[o]nly

the affected emissions units within the

stationary source shall be subject to part

70 permitting requirements’’ applies

only to stationary sources that are also

area sources.

(9) Revise Rule 2520 8.1 to provide

that each model general permit and

model general permit templates will be

subject to public, affected state, and

EPA review consistent with initial

permit issuance at least once every 5

years.

(10) Revise Rule 2520 8.1 to provide

that any permit for a solid waste

incineration unit that has a permit term

of more than 5 years shall be subject to

review, including public notice and

comment, at least once every five years.

See § 70.6(a)(2).

(11) Revise Rule 2520 13.2.3 to state

that the permit shield will apply only to

requirements addressed in the permit.

EPA will not consider a source shielded

from an enforcement action for failure to

comply with an applicable requirement

if that applicable requirement is

addressed only in the written reviews

supporting permit issuance and not in

the permit. Further, EPA will veto any

permit that extends the permit shield to

conditions, terms, or findings of nonapplicability that are not included in the

permit.

(12) Revise Rule 2520 9.12 to require

the permit contain terms and conditions

for the trading of emission increases and

decreases in the permitted facility to the

extent that any applicable requirement

provides for such trading without case

by case approval. The District may limit

transfers of emission reduction credits

in accordance with District Rules 2201

and 2301. § 70.6(a)(10)

(13) Revise Rule 2520, Section 9.0

(permit content) to include the

§ 70.6(c)(3) requirement for schedules of

compliance for applicable requirements

for which the source is in compliance or

that will become effective during the

permit term. During the interim period,

the District should incorporate

compliance schedules, as required by

§ 70.6(c)(3), into all issued permits.

(14) Revise Rule 2520 to treat changes

made under the prevention of

significant deterioration (PSD)

provisions of the Act and EPA’ PSD

regulations in the same manner as ‘‘title

I modifications’’ as that term is defined

in Rule 2520 and Rule 2201.

(15) Revise Rule 2520 to state that,

notwithstanding the permit shield

provisions, if a source that is operating

under a general permit or general permit

template is later determined not to

qualify for the terms and conditions of

that general permit or template, then the

source is subject to enforcement action

for operation without a part 70 permit.

For sources operating under a general

permit template, if a source is later

determined not to qualify for the

template, only the portion of the facility

covered by the template shall be subject

to enforcement action for operation

without a part 70 permit. See § 70.6(d).

(16) Because California State law

currently exempts agricultural

production sources from permit

requirements, CARB has requested

source category-limited interim

approval for all California districts. EPA

is granting source category-limited

interim approval to the San Joaquin

program. In order for this program to

receive full approval, the Health and

Safety Code must be revised to

eliminate the exemption of agricultural

production sources from the

requirement to obtain a title V permit.

Once the California statute has been

revised, the District must also revise its

permit exemption rules to eliminate any

blanket exemption granted agricultural

sources.

This interim approval, which may not

be renewed, extends until May 25, 1998.

During this interim approval period, the

State is protected from sanctions for

failure to have a program, and EPA is

not obligated to promulgate a Federal

permits program in the District. 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 the

effective date of interim approval, as

does the three-year time period for

processing the initial permit

applications.

If the District fails to submit a

complete program through the State for

full approval by November 24, 1997,

EPA will start an 18-month clock for

mandatory sanctions. If the District fails

to submit a complete program before the

expiration of that 18-month period, EPA

would impose sanctions. If EPA

disapproves the District’s corrective

program, and has not granted full

approval within 18 months after the

disapproval, then EPA must impose

mandatory sanctions. In both cases, if

the District has not come into

compliance within 6 months after EPA

applies the first sanction, a second

sanction is required. In addition,

discretionary sanctions may be applied

where warranted any time after the end

of the interim approval period. If the

EPA has not granted full approval to the

District program by May 25, 1998, EPA

must promulgate, administer, and

enforce a Federal permits program for

San Joaquin Valley.

C. District Program Implementing

Section 112(g)

EPA is approving the use of San

Joaquin Valley’s preconstruction review

program (Rule 2201) as a mechanism to

implement section 112(g) during the

transition period between promulgation

of EPA’s section 112(g) rule and

adoption by San Joaquin Valley of rules

specifically designed to implement

section 112(g). EPA is limiting the

duration of this approval to 18 months

following promulgation by EPA of the

section 112(g) rule.

D. Program for Delegation of Section

112 Standards as Promulgated

Requirements for part 70 program

approval, specified in 40 CFR 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)
18088 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 24, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

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 63.91 of San Joaquin Valley’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.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

Copies of the District’s submittal and

other information relied upon for the

final interim approval, including all

comments received on the proposal and

EPA’s responses to those comments, are

contained in docket number CA–SJV–

95–001 maintained at the EPA Regional

Office. 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 Executive

Order 12866 review.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The EPA’s action under section 502 of

the Act does not create any new

requirements but simply addresses the

operating permits program developed

and submitted by the San Joaquin

Valley District to meet the requirements

of 40 CFR part 70. EPA evaluated the

impact on small businesses of the title

V operating permit program as part of its

promulgation of part 70 and determined

that operating permit programs required

by part 70 would not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small business and no

Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis was

necessary.

D. Unfunded Mandates Act

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 and therefore, no

budgetary impact statement is

necessary.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70

Environmental Protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Operating permits, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: April 10, 1996.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator.

Part 70, title 40 of the Code of Federal

Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 70—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 70

continues to read as follows:

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

2. Appendix A to part 70 is amended

by adding paragraph (y) to the entry for

California to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 70—Approval

Status of State and Local Operating

Permits Programs

* * * * *

California

* * * * *

(y) San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD

(complete submittal received on July 5

and August 18, 1995); interim approval

effective on May 24, 1996; interim

approval expires May 25, 1998.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 96–10094 Filed 4–23–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–W

40 CFR Part 261

[SW–FRL–5461–2]

Hazardous Waste Management

System; Identification and Listing of

Hazardous Waste; Final Exclusion

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA or Agency) today is

granting a petition submitted by

Bethlehem Steel Corporation (‘‘BSC’’),

Lackawanna, New York, to exclude (or

‘‘delist’’), on a one-time basis, certain

solid wastes contained in a landfill from

being listed hazardous wastes. This

action responds to BSC’s petition to

delist these wastes on a ‘‘generatorspecific’’ basis from the hazardous

waste lists. Based on careful analyses of

the waste-specific information provided

by the petitioner, the Agency has

concluded that BSC’s petitioned waste

will not adversely affect human health

and the environment. Accordingly, this

final rule excludes the petitioned waste

from the requirements of hazardous

waste regulations under Subtitle C of

the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act (RCRA).

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 24, 1996.

ADDRESSES: The RCRA regulatory

docket for this final rule is located at

Crystal Gateway #1, 1st Floor, 1235

Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA,

and is available for viewing from 9 a.m.

to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,

excluding Federal holidays. Call (703)

603–9230 for appointments. The

reference number for this docket is F–

96–B5EF–FFFFF. The public may copy

material from any regulatory docket at

no cost for the first 100 pages, and at a

cost of $0.15 per page for additional

copies.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: For

general information, contact the RCRA

Hotline, toll free at (800) 424–9346, or

at (703) 412–9810. For technical

information concerning this notice,

contact Chichang Chen, Waste

Identification Branch, Office of Solid

Waste (Mail Code 5304), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460,

(202) 260–7392.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Authority

Under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22,

facilities may petition the Agency to

remove their wastes from hazardous

waste control by excluding them from

the lists of hazardous wastes contained

in §§ 261.31 and 261.32. Specifically,

§ 260.20 allows any person to petition

the Administrator to modify or revoke

any provision of parts 260 through 265

and 268 of Title 40 of the Code of

Federal Regulations; and § 260.22

provides generators the opportunity to

petition the Administrator to exclude a

waste on a ‘‘generator-specific’’ basis

from the hazardous waste lists.

Petitioners must provide sufficient

information to EPA to allow the Agency

to determine that the waste to be

excluded does not meet any of the