Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 122 / Monday, June 24, 1996 / Proposed Rules 32391

revised SIP will provide for

maintenance for an additional ten years.

Proposed Action

EPA proposes approval of the State of

Tennessee’s request to redesignate to

attainment the Middle Tennessee O3

nonattainment area, and the Middle

Tennessee and maintenance plan

contingent upon a full and final

approval of the outstanding

requirements discussed above

(emissions inventory, RACT catch-ups,

emissions statements, and NOX

requirements). EPA also proposes to

approve the 1990 baseline inventory

and the 1994 base year inventory for the

Middle Tennessee nonattainment area.

The OMB has exempted these actions

from review under Executive Order

12866.

Nothing in this action shall be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for a revision to any state

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.

Unfunded Mandates

Under sections 202, 203, and 205 of

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995 (‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’),

signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA

must undertake various actions in

association with proposed or final rules

that include a Federal mandate that may

result in estimated costs of $100 million

or more to the private sector, or to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate.

Through submission of this state

implementation plan or plan revision,

the State and any affected local or tribal

governments have elected to adopt the

program provided for under section

107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. These rules

may bind State, local and tribal

governments to perform certain actions

and also require the private sector to

perform certain duties. EPA has

examined whether the rules being

proposed for approval by this action

would impose any new requirements.

Since such sources are already subject

to these regulations under State law, no

new requirements are imposed by this

proposed approval. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action, and therefore

there will be no significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603

and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and government entities

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000.

Redesignation of an area to attainment

under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA

does not impose any new requirements

on small entities. Redesignation is an

action that affects the status of a

geographical area and does not impose

any regulatory requirements on sources.

The Administrator certifies that the

approval of the redesignation request

will not affect a substantial number of

small entities.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

40 CFR Part 81

Air pollution control, National parks,

Wilderness areas.

Dated: June 13, 1996.

A. Stanley Meiburg,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–16022 Filed 6–21–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 70

[MI001; FRL–5524–6]

Proposed Interim Approval of the

Operating Permits Program; Michigan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed interim approval.

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes interim

approval of the Operating Permits

Program submitted by the State of

Michigan for the purpose of complying

with Federal requirements for an

approvable State program to issue

operating permits to all major stationary

sources, and to certain other sources,

with the exception of sources on Indian

lands.

DATES: Comments on this proposed

action must be received in writing by

July 24, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to: Robert Miller, Chief,

Permits and Grants Section (AR–18J),

EPA, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604.

Copies of the State’s submittal and

other supporting information used in

developing the proposed interim

approval are available for inspection

during normal business hours at the

following location: EPA Region 5, Air

and Radiation Division (AR–18J), 77

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beth

Valenziano, Permits and Grants Section

(AR–18J), EPA, 77 West Jackson

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,

(312) 886–2703. E-mail address:

valenziano.beth@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Purpose

A. Introduction

As required under title V of the Clean

Air Act (Act) as amended (1990), EPA

has promulgated rules which 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 1 year after receiving the

submittal. If the State’s submission is

materially changed during the 1-year

review period, 40 CFR 70.4(e)(2) allows

EPA to extend the review period for no

more than 1 year following receipt of

the additional material. The EPA

received material changes to Michigan’s

May 16, 1995 submittal on July 20,

1995, and therefore considers EPA’s

review period to begin from the latter

date.

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.
32392 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 122 / Monday, June 24, 1996 / Proposed Rules

1This is not a determination that MDEQ could

not possibly demonstrate jurisdiction over sources

within the exterior boundaries of Indian

reservations in Michigan. However, no such

showing has been made.

2Tribes may also have inherent sovereign

authority to regulate air pollutants from sources on

tribal lands.

3As amended by the January 22, 1996 interim

policy memorandum.

II. Proposed Action and Implications

A. Analysis of State Submission

1. Support Materials

The EPA received Michigan’s title V

operating permits program from the

governor’s designee, the Director of the

Michigan Department of Natural

Resources (MDNR) on May 16, 1995.

The EPA received supplemental

program submittals from the Acting

Chief of the Air Quality Division,

MDNR, on July 20, 1995, and October 6,

1995. The EPA also received

supplemental program submittals from

the Chief of the Air Quality Division of

the newly formed Michigan Department

of Environmental Quality on November

7, 1995 and January 8, 1996. Based on

the May 16, 1995 and the July 20, 1995

submittals, EPA deemed Michigan’s

program complete in a letter to the

MDNR Director dated August 16, 1995.

Together, Michigan’s program

submittals contain all required elements

of 40 CFR 70.4, including a description

of Michigan’s operating permits

program, permitting program

documentation, and the Attorney

General’s legal opinion that the laws of

the State of Michigan provide adequate

authority to carry out all aspects of the

program required by the Act.

Michigan’s November 7, 1995

supplement to its title V program

submittal included Governor John

Engler’s Executive Order No. 1995–18.

This executive order, effective October

1, 1995, created the Michigan

Department of Environmental Quality

(MDEQ) and transferred the authority

for implementation of title V from

MDNR to MDEQ. Michigan’s November

7, 1995 supplemental submittal stated

that this administrative transfer does not

affect Michigan’s part 70

implementation program.

Section 1.1 of Michigan’s program

description states that MDNR (now

MDEQ) is responsible for implementing

and administering the title V program

for all geographical areas of the State.

The submittal includes no further

discussion of any basis under which

MDEQ might assert jurisdiction over

sources on tribal lands.

Because MDEQ has not demonstrated,

consistent with applicable principles of

Indian law and Federal Indian policies,

legal authority to regulate sources on

tribal lands, the proposed interim

approval of Michigan’s operating

permits program will not extend to

lands within the exterior boundaries of

any Indian reservation in the State of

Michigan.1 Title V sources located

within the exterior boundaries of Indian

reservations in Michigan will be subject

to either the Federal operating permits

program, to be promulgated at 40 CFR

part 71, or to a tribal operating permits

program approved pursuant to title V

and the regulations that will be

promulgated under section 301(d) of the

Act. The section 301(d) regulations will

authorize EPA to treat tribes in the same

manner as States for appropriate Act

provisions.2

2. Regulations and Program

Implementation

Michigan’s operating permits

program, including the operating

permits program regulations (found in

Michigan’s administrative rules for air

pollution control, R 336.1101 et. seq.)

substantially meet the requirements of

40 CFR part 70, including: sections 70.2

and 70.3 with respect to applicability;

section 70.5 with respect to application

forms, completeness requirements, and

criteria for defining insignificant

activities; sections 70.4, 70.5, and 70.6

with respect to permit content

(including operational flexibility);

sections 70.7 and 70.8 with respect to

permit processing requirements

(including minor permit modifications

and public participation); and section

70.11 with respect to enforcement

authority.

For a detailed analysis of Michigan’s

program submittal, please refer to the

Technical Support Document (TSD) for

this proposed action, which is available

in the informal docket at the address

noted above. The TSD shows that all

operating permits program requirements

of title V of the Act, 40 CFR part 70, and

relevant guidance were met by

Michigan’s submittal, with the

exception of those requirements

described in subpart II.B. below.

a. Delegation of State Program to

Local Governments. Section 324.5523 of

Michigan’s Natural Resources and

Environmental Protection Act (NREPA)

provides the authority to delegate the

State’s title V operating permits program

to certain county governments. MDEQ

acknowledges in the State’s program

submittal that the Wayne County

Department of Environment, Air Quality

Management Division, intends to seek

delegation of the State’s title V program,

and that a program revision to EPA may

be necessary to address any such

delegation.

b. Definition of Potential to Emit. The

Michigan definition of ‘‘potential to

emit’’ in R 336.1116(m) provides that

physical and operational limits on a

source’s capacity can be considered in

determining ‘‘potential to emit, ’’

provided that such limits are ‘‘legally

enforceable. ’’ The 40 CFR 70.2

definition of ‘‘potential to emit’’

requires such limits to be federally

enforceable.

Although two recent court cases have

challenged the ‘‘federally enforceable’’

requirement in other Act programs, the

provision is still required by part 70.

The EPA issued a memorandum on

January 22, 1996 entitled ‘‘Release of

Interim Policy on Federal Enforceability

of Limitations on Potential to Emit’’ that

addresses the court cases and their

effect on the Act’s programs. In response

to the court cases (and a pending

challenge to the part 70 ‘‘potential to

emit’’ requirements), the memorandum

also states EPA’s intention to propose

rulemaking actions in the spring of 1996

that would address the Federal

enforceability issue as it relates to title

V and other Act programs. At this time,

however, the title V Federal

enforceability requirements remain

unaffected, and therefore EPA is

proposing that the State revise its

definition to include the Federal

enforceability requirement in its

‘‘potential to emit’’ definition as a

condition of full approval.

This interim approval condition does

not affect the State’s ability to utilize the

January 25, 1995 EPA memorandum

entitled, ‘‘Options for Limiting the

Potential to Emit (PTE) of a Stationary

Source under Section 112 and Title V of

the Clean Air Act (Act), ’’ 3 which

provides a transition policy through

January 25, 1997 for establishing

federally enforceable mechanisms for

limiting PTE. In addition, this issue

would no longer be a condition for full

approval if the final EPA rulemaking

referred to above were to no longer

require Federal enforceability in

limiting ‘‘potential to emit’’ as part of

the title V program. After EPA finalizes

its rulemaking on this issue, it will work

with Michigan to assure that the State’s

regulations are consistent with national

requirements.

c. Use of Old Permits to Limit

Potential to Emit. R 336.1209 provides

a mechanism for sources to limit their

potential to emit through certain

existing permits, and therefore avoid

being subject to the title V operating

permit program. The EPA notes that

existing State permits can establish
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 122 / Monday, June 24, 1996 / Proposed Rules 32393

federally enforceable limits on potential

to emit to the extent that the permits

have been issued pursuant to an

approved State Implementation Plan

(SIP), and are also practically

enforceable. The EPA understands that

Michigan will be submitting R 336.1209

as a SIP revision to ensure that such

permits are federally enforceable. For

additional information, see the January

25, 1995 and the January 22, 1996 EPA

memoranda referenced in subpart

II.A.2.b. above.

d. Definition of Title I Modification.

40 CFR part 70 uses the term

‘‘modifications under any provision of

title I of the Act’’ in establishing

requirements for operational flexibility,

off permit provisions, and minor permit

modifications. Because this term was

not specifically defined in Federal

regulations, there have been differing

interpretations regarding whether the

term includes or excludes modifications

under States’ minor New Source Review

(NSR) Programs. The Michigan

regulations use this term in addressing

the State’s operational flexibility [R

336.1215(2)], off permit [R 336.1215(3)],

minor permit modification [R

336.1216(2)], and significant

modification [R 336.1216(3)] provisions.

In addition, the State’s minor permit

modification provisions specifically

exclude minor State NSR modifications

in R 336.1216(2)(a)(v), which is the

State’s interpretation of 40 CFR

70.7(e)(2)(i)(A)(5).

In an August 29, 1994 rulemaking

proposal, EPA explained its view that

‘‘modifications under any provision of

title I of the Act’’ include minor NSR.

However, EPA solicited public comment

on whether the phrase should be

interpreted to mean literally any change

at a source that would trigger permitting

authority review under regulations

approved or promulgated under title I of

the Act. 59 FR 44572. This would

include State NSR programs approved

by EPA as part of the SIP under section

110(a)(2)(C) of the Act.

The EPA has not yet taken final action

on the August 29, 1994 proposal.

However, in response to public

comment on that proposal, EPA has

decided that the definition of

‘‘modifications under any provision of

title I of the Act’’ is best interpreted as

not including changes reviewed under

minor NSR programs. This decision was

included in the supplemental 40 CFR

part 70 rulemaking proposal published

on August 31, 1995. 60 FR 45545.

Therefore, Michigan’s interpretation of

this term in its minor permit

modification provisions is consistent

with the requirements of part 70.

e. Research and Development

Activities. R 336.1211(3) provides that

process and process equipment which is

used exclusively for research and

development (R&D), and that is located

on the same contiguous site as other

process or process equipment used for

manufacturing a product shall be treated

as a separate source for purposes of

determining operating permit program

applicability. The Michigan regulations

define R&D activities in R 336.1283, and

specifically exclude activities that

include the production of a product for

sale, unless such sale is incidental to the

process.

The EPA stated in the preamble to the

final part 70 rule that ‘‘in many cases

States will have the flexibility to treat an

R&D facility * * * as though it were a

separate source, and [the R&D facility]

would then be required to have a title

V permit only if the R&D facility itself

would be a major source.’’ 57 FR 32264

and 32269. Read consistently with the

major source definition in 40 CFR 70.2,

this statement means that separate

source treatment would occur only in

situations where the co-located R&D

portion of a source has its own two-digit

Standard Industrial Classification code

and is not a support facility. As

explained in the supplemental proposal

to revise part 70, EPA believes that R&D

should be treated as having its own

industrial grouping for purposes of

determining major source status, and

has proposed to revise 40 CFR part 70

accordingly. 60 FR 45556–45558.

It is important to note that separate

treatment will not exempt R&D facilities

in all cases. Some R&D activities may

still be subject to permitting because

they are either individually major or are

a support facility that makes significant

contributions to the product of a colocated major facility. The support

facility test dictates that, even where

there are two or more industrial

groupings at a commonly owned

facility, these groupings should be

considered together if the output of one

is more than 50 percent devoted to

support of another. Although

Michigan’s program does not

specifically reference the support

facility test for R&D activities, EPA

expects that such a test will be applied

in making major source applicability

determinations as established under the

NSR program and continued under title

V.

f. Insignificant Activities. Michigan’s

insignificant activities rule, R

336.1212(1), lists various activities that

are excluded from calculations of

potential to emit for purposes of

determining whether a source is major.

The part 70 rule does not provide for

such an exception to major source

determinations. Although the listed

activities might qualify as

‘‘insignificant’’ under 40 CFR 70.5(c) or

even ‘‘trivial’’ (as described in EPA’s

‘‘white paper’’ on permit applications),

these concepts relate to the need to

describe activities in permit

applications, and not to whether such

activities need to be considered in a

major source determination. Major

source determinations are intended to

be based on the potential impact of a

source, as measured by its potential to

emit, and not merely on those activities

at the source which have historically

been regulated. In addition, it should be

noted that any emissions from these

units can have the same effect on public

health and the environment as similar

amounts from the regulated emissions

units at the plant. The EPA is therefore

proposing to require the State to revise

its regulations to delete these

exemptions from major source

determinations as a condition of full

approval. This interim approval

condition does not apply to the State’s

use of R 336.1212(1) as an insignificant

activities list pursuant to 40 CFR

70.5(c).

The EPA does agree with the concern

underlying these provisions, that

significant resources not be expended

on calculation of emissions from

activities such as these which normally

do not implicate clean air regulations.

The EPA expects that emissions from

activities such as those exempted by R

336.1212(1) would only be examined

where those emissions might actually

impact whether the source is major. The

EPA expects that, where EPA has not

spoken to this issue precisely, sources

will exercise their judgment (as guided

by the permitting authority) in deciding

the rigor of analysis appropriate to

calculate PTE for different insignificant

activities at the source. For example, a

rough estimate based on engineering

judgment may be all that is necessary.

The EPA believes that following such a

‘‘rule of reason’’ approach should

alleviate the concerns underlying the

State’s exemptions.

g. Source Category Limited Interim

Approval. Michigan’s permit fee

program relies on a 4 year initial permit

issuance schedule to demonstrate that

the fees are sufficient to cover the

State’s operating permit program costs.

Because of this, the State has requested

that EPA approve a 4 year initial permit

issuance schedule under source

category limited interim approval. See

the EPA guidance memorandum

entitled ‘‘Interim Title V Program

Approvals,’’ signed by John S. Seitz,

Director of EPA’s Office of Air Quality
32394 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 122 / Monday, June 24, 1996 / Proposed Rules

Planning and Standards, August 2,

1993. In accordance with this guidance,

Michigan’s program submittal

demonstrates compelling reasons why

the State cannot permit initial sources

in 3 years, including a short term

funding deficit that is eliminated under

a 4 year permit issuance schedule, a

large and complex source population,

and an exceptional ramp up workload

caused primarily by the State never

having implemented an operating

permit program similar to the title V

program. The State also demonstrates

that its proposed 4 year issuance

schedule substantially meets the

requirements of 40 CFR part 70 by

permitting 60 percent of the title V

sources and 80 percent of the emissions

during the first 3 years of the program.

However, EPA cannot grant Michigan

source category limited interim

approval until after Michigan finalizes

revisions to its permit issuance schedule

regulation [R 336.1210(13)]. This

regulation currently requires a 3 year

issuance schedule. In other words,

because the State’s regulations currently

meet the 40 CFR 70.4(b)(11)(ii)

requirement to issue initial permits in 3

years, source category limited interim

approval is not warranted. However,

because EPA recognizes MDEQ’s

proposed 4 year permit issuance

schedule for the purposes of

determining fee schedule sufficiency,

EPA may grant source category limited

interim approval to the State after it

revises its regulations to incorporate a 4

year permit issuance schedule, provided

that the State continues to meet the

requirements for source category limited

interim approval. Therefore, EPA is

proposing full approval of the State’s

permit issuance schedule. In the

alternative, EPA is proposing source

category limited interim approval,

provided: (1) The State finalizes

regulatory revisions to its permit

issuance schedule that are consistent

with the current draft revisions, and (2)

the State program continues to meet the

requirements for source category limited

interim approval outlined in the August

2, 1993 guidance.

h. Startup, Shutdown, and

Malfunction Provisions. R 336.1912, R

336.1913, and R 336.1914 include

provisions relating to startups,

shutdowns, and malfunctions (SSM) of

sources. The EPA reviewed these

regulations as a part of Michigan’s title

V program to determine whether these

rules affect the State’s ability to meet the

requirements of 40 CFR 70.4(b)(3)(i).

This provision requires that a title V

program must have the authority to

issue permits and assure compliance

with all applicable requirements,

including the requirements of the title V

program, by all part 70 sources.

The Michigan SSM regulations

provide an affirmative defense from

violations of permit conditions which

occur during SSM, provided that

sources meet the requirements in these

State rules. These requirements include

the implementation of written

preventative maintenance and

malfunction abatement plans and other

operating, recordkeeping, and reporting

requirements. Michigan’s title V

Attorney General’s opinion

acknowledges that the rules establish an

affirmative defense for certain

violations. Structured as they are, the

SSM provisions cannot be characterized

as being based on enforcement

discretion.

The only affirmative defense allowed

in the title V regulations (other than any

defense or other enforcement relief

provided for in the applicable

requirements themselves) is the

emergency defense provisions in 40 CFR

70.6(g). The emergency defense is

available only for exceedances of

technology based emission limitations

attributable to an emergency, as defined

in 40 CFR 70.6(g)(1). The Michigan SSM

affirmative defense is broader than the

emergency defense in these two

respects. First, the Michigan defense

extends to exceedances beyond

emergency situations, and applies to

exceedances caused by startups,

shutdowns, and malfunctions. Second,

the Michigan defense applies to

exceedances of any emission standard

and any violation of a continuous

emission, parametric monitoring, or

automated recordkeeping requirement.

In contrast, the emergency defense may

only apply to exceedances of technology

based emission limitations. Because

Michigan’s SSM affirmative defense is

broader than the defense provided by

part 70, the State does not have the

authority to issue permits and assure

compliance with all applicable

requirements, as required by 40 CFR

70.4(b)(3)(i). Therefore, EPA is

proposing that Michigan revise its SSM

regulations to be consistent with the

affirmative defense in 40 CFR 70.6(g) as

a condition of full approval.

The EPA notes that Michigan’s SSM

regulations contain certain provisions

similar to certain SSM operating

requirements found in 40 CFR part 63

(general provisions for National

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants, section 112), 40 CFR part 60

(general provisions for New Source

Performance Standards, section 111),

and EPA’s SIP policy regarding

treatment of SSM. See EPA’s policy

memorandum dated February 15, 1983

from Kathleen M. Bennett, Assistant

Administrator for Air, Noise, and

Radiation entitled ‘‘Policy on Excess

Emissions During Startup, Shutdown,

Maintenance, and Malfunctions’’.

However, these provisions of the part 60

and 63 regulations do not apply

uniformly to all Federal standards, and

the 1983 policy does not establish an

affirmative defense from violations

caused by SSM conditions.

The EPA may consider alternative

approaches for resolving this condition

for full approval, such as an approach

that relies on enforcement discretion

(see the February 15, 1983 Bennett

memorandum), and is willing to work

with the State as necessary. There may

be various ways in which to structure

such an enforcement discretion

approach, and EPA will not attempt to

provide detailed guidance in this

document. However, EPA notes that

certain issues would have to be

addressed by the State if it were to craft

such an approach using the current

State rule as a starting point. Among

these, the definition of ‘‘malfunction’’ in

R 336.1113(d) does not limit

malfunctions to failures that are

‘‘infrequent’’ and ‘‘not reasonably

preventable’’, and is therefore broader

than the Federal definition in 40 CFR

60.2 and 63.2. The State’s air pollution

control bypass provisions in R

336.1913(3)(b) and R 336.1914(4)(b) are

broader than that provided by the Act.

See the February 15, 1983 Bennett

memorandum. The alternate emission

limitations for startups and shutdowns

in R 336.1914(4)(d) would allow

relaxations of Act requirements,

including NSR limitations, New Source

Performance Standards, toxics

requirements (NESHAP, MACT), etc.

Finally, the State SSM regulations

provide no authority for MDEQ to

review and require revisions to a

source’s written emission minimization

plan for normal or usual startups and

shutdowns. Such authority is

appropriate to ensure that operating

practices for startups and shutdowns

meet good engineering practice for

minimizing emissions, similar to the

authority R 336.1911 currently provides

for State review and revision of written

preventative maintenance and

malfunction abatement plans.

i. Environmental Audit Privilege and

Immunity Law. Sections 502(b)(5) (A)

and (E) of the Act require that

approvable State title V programs must

have adequate authority to assure that

sources comply with all applicable Act

requirements, as well as the authority to

enforce permits and recover minimum

civil penalties and appropriate criminal

penalties. In addition, part 70 explicitly
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 122 / Monday, June 24, 1996 / Proposed Rules 32395

requires States to have certain

enforcement authorities, including the

authority to seek injunctive relief to

enjoin a violation, to bring suit to

restrain persons where a facility is

posing an imminent and substantial

endangerment to public health or

welfare, and to recover appropriate

criminal and civil penalties. Section

113(e) of the Act sets forth penalty

factors for EPA or a court to consider in

assessing penalties for civil or criminal

violations of the Act, factors which

necessarily apply to penalties for

violations of title V permits. The EPA is

concerned about the potential impact of

some State audit privilege and

immunity laws on the ability of the

States to enforce Federal requirements,

including those under title V of the Act.

Upon review and consideration of the

statutory and regulatory provisions

discussed above, EPA issued guidance

on April 5, 1996, entitled ‘‘Effect of

Audit Immunity/Privilege Laws on

States’ Ability to Enforce Title V

Requirements’’. This guidance outlines

certain elements of the State audit

immunity and privilege laws which, in

EPA’s view, may so hamper the State’s

ability to enforce as to render the

Agency unable to approve the title V

operating permit program. The guidance

is consistent with EPA’s December 22,

1995 audit policy, ‘‘Incentives for SelfPolicing: Discovery, Disclosure,

Correction and Prevention of

Violations’’. 60 FR 66706.

On March 18, 1996, Michigan

Governor John Engler signed the State’s

Environmental Audit Privilege and

Immunity Law, part 148 of Michigan’s

Natural Resources and Environmental

Protection Act (NREPA). This law

provides that sources can hold

confidential broad categories of

information contained in a voluntary

environmental audit report. The law

also provides sources and persons

immunity from certain State civil and

criminal penalties for violations

discovered through an environmental

self audit, provided the violations are

promptly reported and corrected.

In the April 5, 1996 memorandum

referenced above, EPA set out specific

authorities, based upon the

requirements of 40 CFR 70.11, that

cannot be affected by State privilege and

immunity laws if a State is to receive

full approval of its title V program. The

EPA has identified several sections of

Michigan’s privilege and immunity law,

described below, which appear to

conflict with the requirements of part

70.

Section 14802 of Michigan’s

Environmental Audit Privilege and

Immunity Law provides for the

protection of factual data disclosed

during an environmental audit. In

conjunction with the definition of

‘‘environmental audit’’ and

‘‘environmental audit report’’ contained

in section 14801, Michigan’s audit

privilege is so broad that it may be

interpreted as restricting access to data

and preventing testimony which is

necessary to determine whether a civil

or criminal violation has occurred or is

imminent. Similarly, the broad language

of section 14809 may be interpreted as

prohibiting the State from assessing

civil penalties for violations of

regulations, permits, consent orders or

agreements; violations which reflect a

parent company’s pattern of violations

at various facilities; and violations

which result in serious harm or

imminent and substantial

endangerment. In addition, section

14809 appears to allow sources to retain

economic benefit from a violation, even

if substantial or deliberately obtained.

Although section 14802 appears to

contain several exemptions from the

otherwise broad scope of the privilege,

EPA is unable to determine the extent

to which the exemption limits the

application of the privilege provisions.

Furthermore, EPA does not believe that

the section 14802 exemption applies to

any portion of the penalty immunity

contained in section 14809.

For these reasons, EPA believes that

Michigan’s privilege and immunity law

affects the State’s authority to assure

compliance with part 70 permits and

the requirements of the operating permit

program [40 CFR 70.4(b)(3)(i)], as well

as the authority to enforce permits and

the requirement to obtain a permit [40

CFR 70.4(b)(3)(vii)]. In addition, EPA

believes that the law affects Michigan’s

authority to recover civil penalties in

accordance with 40 CFR 70.11(a)(3)(i).

Therefore, EPA is proposing that

Michigan must revise its privilege and

immunity law, part 148 of NREPA, to

ensure that the State meets these title V

enforcement requirements as a

condition of full approval. The EPA is

also proposing that Michigan must

submit a revised title V Attorney

General’s opinion that addresses the

concerns listed above, and certifies that

the State title V program meets the

enforcement requirements of 40 CFR

70.4(b)(3)(i), 40 CFR 70.4(b)(3)(vii), and

40 CFR 70.11(a)(3)(i) as a condition of

full approval.

The EPA acknowledges that Michigan

may have a different interpretation of

the provisions in the State’s privilege

and immunity law. If Michigan believes

that its current law does not affect the

part 70 enforcement requirements

addressed above, Michigan need only

submit a revised title V Attorney

General’s opinion certifying that the

State title V program meets the

enforcement requirements of 40 CFR

70.4(b)(3)(i), 40 CFR 70.4(b)(3)(vii), and

40 CFR 70.11(a)(3)(i) as a condition of

full approval. The Attorney General’s

opinion must also specifically address

why EPA’s interim approval provision

requiring revisions to the currently

enacted law is not valid.

To further ensure that Michigan’s

privilege and immunity law does not

affect other requirements of the title V

program, EPA believes that it is also

necessary for the State to submit a

supplemental Attorney General’s

opinion as a condition of full approval.

This supplemental Attorney General’s

opinion must certify that any other title

V requirements that may be affected by

the privilege and immunity law are met,

including: Michigan’s authority to bring

suit to restrain any person from

engaging in any activity in violation of

a permit that is presenting an imminent

and substantial endangerment [40 CFR

70.11(a)(1)]; Michigan’s authority to

seek injunctive relief to enjoin any

violation of any program requirement,

including permit conditions [40 CFR

70.11(a)(2)]; Michigan’s authority to

recover criminal fines [40 CFR

70.11(a)(3) (ii) and (iii)]; and the

requirement that the burden of proof for

establishing civil and criminal

violations is no greater than the burden

of proof required under the Act [40 CFR

70.11(b)]. The EPA intends to work with

Michigan to ensure that the

supplemental Attorney General’s

opinion specifically addresses all

potential areas of concern regarding the

State’s privilege and immunity law.

3. Permit Fee Demonstration

Michigan’s operating permits program

fee schedule is established in section

324.5522, NREPA. The State’s program

submittal includes a detailed

demonstration that Michigan’s fee

schedule is sufficient to cover the

State’s operating permit program costs.

Because the sufficiency of the fee

schedule is based on a 4 year initial

permit issuance schedule, Michigan has

requested that EPA approve a 4 year

initial permit issuance schedule under

source category limited interim

approval (see the discussion on source

category limited interim approval in

subpart II.A.2.g. above).

Michigan’s fee schedule consists of an

annual fee equal to a facility charge plus

an emissions charge. The facility charge

is $2,500.00 for major sources of criteria

pollutants, and $1,000.00 for major

sources of hazardous air pollutants. The

emissions charge is $25.00 per ton of
32396 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 122 / Monday, June 24, 1996 / Proposed Rules

actual emissions, with a facility cap of

4,000 tons. Sources with total actual

emissions less than 4,000 tons have a

1,000 ton per pollutant cap.

4. Provisions Implementing the

Requirements of Other Titles of the Act

a. Authority for Section 112

Implementation. Michigan has

demonstrated in its title V program

submittal adequate legal authority to

implement and enforce all section 112

toxics requirements through the title V

permit. This legal authority is contained

in Michigan’s enabling legislation and

in regulatory provisions that define

‘‘applicable requirements’’ and provide

that the permit must incorporate all

applicable requirements. The EPA has

determined that this legal authority is

sufficient to allow Michigan to issue

permits to part 70 sources that assure

compliance with all section 112

requirements.

The EPA is interpreting the above

legal authority to mean that Michigan is

able to carry out all section 112

activities for part 70 sources. For further

rationale on this interpretation, please

refer to the TSD for this proposed

action.

b. Implementation of Section 112(g).

Section 112(g) of the Act requires States

to issue case-by-case Maximum

Achievable Control Technology (MACT)

determinations to sources that modify,

construct, or reconstruct, if EPA has not

established MACT for that particular

source category. According to the

interpretive notice published in the

Federal Register on February 14, 1995,

the requirements of section 112(g) will

not become effective until after EPA has

promulgated a regulation addressing

that provision. The notice sets forth in

detail the rationale for this

interpretation. See 60 FR 8333. At the

time of Michigan’s program submittal

and EPA’s subsequent review period,

EPA has not promulgated a Federal

regulation containing the specific

requirements of section 112(g).

The section 112(g) interpretative

notice explains that EPA is still

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), Michigan must be able to

implement section 112(g) during the

transition period between promulgation

of the Federal section 112(g) rule and

adoption of implementing State

regulations.

The EPA is aware that Michigan lacks

a program designed specifically to

implement section 112(g). However,

Michigan does have a preconstruction

review program that can serve as an

adequate implementation vehicle during

the transition period. Therefore, EPA is

proposing approval under title V and

part 70, of the use of Michigan’s

preconstruction permit program as the

procedural mechanism for establishing

federally enforceable case-by-case

MACT emission limits for hazardous air

pollutants (HAP) during the transition

period. However, since the approval is

for the single purpose of providing 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 sources are not subject to the

requirements of the rule until State

regulations are adopted. This proposed

approval is limited solely to the

issuance of federally enforceable HAP

emission limits to comply with the

requirements of section 112(g), and is

not an approval under section 110 of the

Act.

This approval is for an interim period

only, until such time as the State adopts

regulations consistent with any

regulations promulgated by EPA to

implement section 112(g). Accordingly,

EPA is proposing to limit the duration

of this approval to a reasonable time

following promulgation of section

112(g) regulations so that Michigan,

acting expeditiously, will be able to

adopt regulations consistent with the

section 112(g) regulations. The EPA is

proposing here to limit the duration of

this approval to 18 months following

promulgation by EPA of section 112(g)

regulations.

Michigan’s construction permit

regulations [R 336.1205(2)] assume that

section 112(g) authority is delegated to

the State by EPA. The implementation

of section 112(g) by the State for sources

subject to title V is a requirement for

approval of the State’s title V program,

and is therefore not a delegated

program. To address the requirements in

R 336.1205(2), the State should refer

instead to EPA’s forthcoming final

rulemaking on Michigan’s title V

program and to the section 112(g)

implementation requirements to be

promulgated in the final section 112(g)

regulations.

c. Program for Straight Delegation of

Section 112 Standards. Requirements

for operating permits program approval,

specified in 40 CFR 70.4(b), also address

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 State’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 proposing to

grant approval under section 112(l)(5)

and 40 CFR 63.91 of Michigan’s

program for receiving delegation of

section 112 standards that are

unchanged from the Federal standards

as promulgated. Because Michigan has

the authority under section 324.5506(6),

NREPA, to include any conditions in an

operating permit that are necessary to

assure compliance with the Act

(including section 112 requirements),

EPA proposes to approve the delegation

of section 112 standards through

straight delegation. The details of this

delegation mechanism will be set forth

in a Memorandum of Agreement

between Michigan and EPA. The State

of Michigan requested delegation of

section 112 standards in a letter from

Russell J. Harding, Director, MDEQ,

dated October 12, 1995. This proposed

approval of Michigan’s program for

delegations applies to both existing and

future standards, but is limited to

sources covered by the part 70 program.

d. Implementation of Title IV.

Michigan’s operating permits program

contains adequate authority to issue

permits that include the requirements of

the title IV acid rain program. The State

has incorporated the requirements of 40

CFR part 72 by reference in R

336.1299(d).

B. Options for Approval/Disapproval

and Implications

The EPA is proposing to grant interim

approval to the State of Michigan’s

operating permits program received on

May 16, 1995, July 20, 1995, October 6,

1995, November 7, 1995, and January 8,

1996. This interim approval of

Michigan’s operating permits program

applies to all title V sources, with the

exception of 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).
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 122 / Monday, June 24, 1996 / Proposed Rules 32397

1. Proposal in the Alternative

The EPA proposes full approval of the

State’s 3 year initial permit issuance

schedule. In the alternative, EPA

proposes source category limited

interim approval of the State’s 4 year

permit issuance schedule, provided: (1)

the State finalizes regulatory revisions

to its permit issuance schedule that are

consistent with the State’s November 7,

1995 supplemental title V program

submittal, and (2) the State program

continues to meet the requirements for

source category limited interim

approval.

2. Proposed Interim Approval Issues

If interim approval of Michigan’s

operating permits program is

promulgated as proposed today, the

State must make the following changes

to receive full approval.

a. Revise the definition of ‘‘potential

to emit’’ in R 336.1116(m) to require

that physical and operational limits on

a source’s capacity must be federally

enforceable. Federal enforceability is

required by the definition of ‘‘potential

to emit’’ in 40 CFR 70.2. However, this

issue would cease to be a condition of

full approval if EPA revises the 40 CFR

70.2 definition to no longer require

Federal enforceability in limiting

‘‘potential to emit.’’

b. Revise the definition of ‘‘schedule

of compliance’’ in R 336.1119(a) to

provide that the schedule of compliance

for sources that are not in compliance

shall resemble and be at least as

stringent as that contained in any

judicial consent decree or

administrative order to which the

source is subject. This provision is

required by 40 CFR 70.5(c)(8)(iii)(C).

c. Revise the definition of ‘‘stationary

source’’ in R 336.1119(q) to provide that

the definition includes all of the process

and process equipment which are

located at one or more contiguous or

adjacent properties. The emphasized

phrase is not currently included in the

State regulation. This provision is

required in the definition of ‘‘major

source’’ in 40 CFR 70.2.

d. Revise R 336.1211(l) to provide that

nonmajor solid waste incineration units

required to obtain a permit pursuant to

section 129(e) of the Act are subject to

the title V permits program. The

permitting deferral for nonmajor section

111 sources in 40 CFR 70.3(b) does not

apply to solid waste incineration units

required to obtain a permit pursuant to

section 129(e) of the Act.

e. Revise R 336.1212(l) to delete the

exemption of certain activities from

determining major source status. Part 70

and other relevant Act programs do not

provide for such exemptions from major

source determinations. This interim

approval issue does not apply to the

State’s use of R 336.1212(l) as an

insignificant activities list pursuant to

40 CFR 70.5(c).

f. Revise the State statutes or

regulations, as appropriate, to require

that permit applications include a

certification of compliance with all

applicable requirements and a statement

of the methods used for determining

compliance, as specified in 40 CFR

70.5(c)(9). Although Michigan’s permit

application forms include compliance

certification requirements, EPA believes

that neither the State statutes nor the

State regulations clearly require

applications to include this information.

g. Revise the definition of

‘‘emergency’’ in section 324.5527(1),

NREPA, to ensure that the State’s

definition is not broader than that

provided by 40 CFR 70.6(g)(1). The

definition of ‘‘emergency’’ in 40 CFR

70.6(g)(1) includes, in part, ‘‘any

situation arising from sudden and

reasonably unforeseeable events beyond

the control of the source, including acts

of God.’’

h. Remove the provisions of section

324.5534, NREPA, which provide for

exemptions from penalties or fines for

violations caused by an act of God, war,

strike, riot, catastrophe, or other

condition as to which negligence or

willful misconduct was not the

proximate cause. Title V does not

provide for such broad penalty and fine

exemptions.

i. Revise R 336.1913 and R 336.1914

to be consistent with either the

affirmative defense provisions in 40

CFR 70.6(g), or EPA’s enforcement

discretion policy. These State

regulations provide an affirmative

defense that is broader than that

provided by 40 CFR 70.6(g), and

therefore affect State’s ability to assure

compliance with all applicable

requirements and the requirements of

part 70 [40 CFR 70.4(b)(3)(i)].

j. Address all of the following issues

relating to the State’s audit privilege and

immunity law, part 148 of NREPA.

These conditions are proposed interim

approval issues to the extent that they

affect the State’s title V operating

permits program and the requirements

of part 70.

i. Narrow the applicability of the

privilege provided in section 14802,

part 148 of NREPA, and narrow the

applicability of the immunity provided

by section 14809, part 148 of NREPA, to

ensure that the State title V program has

the authority to: assure compliance with

part 70 permits and the requirements of

the operating permits program [40 CFR

70.4(b)(3)(i)]; enforce permits and the

requirement to obtain a permit [40 CFR

70.4(b)(3)(vii)]; and recover civil

penalties in accordance with 40 CFR

70.11(a)(3)(i).

ii. Submit a revised title V Attorney

General’s opinion that addresses EPA’s

concerns in subpart II.A.2.i. above, and

certifies that the revised part 148 does

not affect Michigan’s ability to meet the

enforcement requirements of 40 CFR

70.4(b)(3)(i), 40 CFR 70.4(b)(3)(vii), and

40 CFR 70.11(a)(3)(i).

iii. In lieu of subparts i. and ii. above,

submit a revised title V Attorney

General’s opinion certifying that the

current part 148 does not affect the

enforcement requirements of 40 CFR

70.4(b)(3)(i), 40 CFR 70.4(b)(3)(vii), and

40 CFR 70.11(a)(3)(i). The Attorney

General’s opinion must also specifically

address why EPA’s interim approval

provision requiring revisions to the

currently enacted law is not valid.

iv. Submit a supplemental Attorney

General’s opinion certifying that all

other title V authorities that may be

affected by part 148 are met, including:

Michigan’s authority to bring suit to

restrain any person from engaging in

any activity in violation of a permit that

is presenting an imminent and

substantial endangerment [40 CFR

70.11(a)(1)]; Michigan’s authority to

seek injunctive relief to enjoin any

violation of any program requirement,

including permit conditions [40 CFR

70.11(a)(2)]; Michigan’s authority to

recover criminal fines [40 CFR

70.11(a)(3) (ii) and (iii)]; and the

requirement that the burden of proof for

establishing civil and criminal

violations is no greater than the burden

of proof required under the Act [40 CFR

70.11(b)]. The supplemental Attorney

General’s opinion must specifically

address these requirements in light of

the provisions contained in the State’s

privilege and immunity law.

This interim approval, which may not

be renewed, extends for a period of up

to 2 years. During the 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 State.

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 interim approval, as does the 3-

year time period for processing the

initial permit applications.

3. Other Proposed Actions

As outlined in subpart II.A.4.c., EPA

is proposing to grant approval under

section 112(1)(5) and 40 CFR 63.91 of
32398 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 122 / Monday, June 24, 1996 / Proposed Rules

the State’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.

As outlined in subpart II.A.4.b., EPA

is also proposing to grant approval of

Michigan’s preconstruction permit

program, found in R 336.1201, under

the authority of title V and part 70

solely for the purpose of implementing

section 112(g) to the extent necessary

during the transition period between

promulgation of the Federal section

112(g) rule and adoption of any

necessary State rules to implement

EPA’s section 112(g) regulations. The

EPA proposes to limit the duration of

this approval to 18 months following

promulgation by EPA of section 112(g)

regulations, to provide Michigan

adequate time to adopt any necessary

regulations consistent with the Federal

requirements.

C. Federal Oversight and Sanctions

If EPA were to finalize this proposed

interim approval, it would extend for 2

years following the effective date of

final interim approval, and could not be

renewed. During the interim approval

period, Michigan would be protected

from sanctions, and EPA would not be

obligated to promulgate, administer and

enforce a Federal permits program for

the State. 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 interim

approval, as does the 3-year time period

for processing the initial permit

applications.

Following final interim approval, if

the State 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 State 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 State had corrected

the deficiency by submitting a complete

corrective program. Moreover, if the

Administrator found a lack of good faith

on the part of the State, both sanctions

under section 179(b) would apply after

the expiration of the 18-month period

until the Administrator determined that

the State had come into compliance. In

any case, if, 6 months after application

of the first sanction, the State 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 State’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

State 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 State, both sanctions

under section 179(b) would apply after

the expiration of the 18-month period

until the Administrator determined that

the State had come into compliance. In

all cases, if, 6 months after EPA applied

the first sanction, the State 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 a State 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 a State 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 that State upon

interim approval expiration.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Request for Public Comments

The EPA is requesting comments on

all aspects of this proposed interim

approval. Copies of the State’s submittal

and other information relied upon for

the proposed interim approval are

contained in an informal docket

maintained at the EPA Regional Office.

This docket is an organized and

complete file of all the information

submitted to, or otherwise considered

by, EPA in the development of this

proposed interim approval. The

principal purposes of this docket are:

(1) to allow interested parties a means

to identify and locate documents so that

they can effectively participate in the

approval process, and

(2) to serve as the record in case of

judicial review. The EPA will consider

any comments received by July 24,

1996.

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 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.

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.

The EPA has determined that the

proposed 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 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. 7401–7671q.

Dated: June 13, 1996.

Margaret McCue,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–15886 Filed 6–21–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P