![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Clean Air Act Proposed Full Approval of Operating Permit Program; South Coast Air Quality Management District, California
Related Material
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: October 19, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 203)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 53170-53174]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr19oc01-35]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 70
[CA052-OPP; FRL-7086-8]
Clean Air Act Proposed Full Approval of Operating Permit Program;
South Coast Air Quality Management District, California
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve certain revisions of Rule 3000
(General), Rule 3002 (Requirements), Rule 3004 (Permit Types and
Content), and Rule 3005 (Permit Revisions), which are part of the
operating permit program of the South Coast Air Quality Management
District (``South Coast'' or ``District''). The District operating
permit program was submitted in response to the directive in the 1990
Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments that permitting authorities develop, and
submit to EPA, programs for issuing operating permits to all major
stationary sources and to certain other sources within the permitting
authorities' jurisdictions. EPA granted interim approval to the
District operating permit program on August 29, 1996, but listed
certain deficiencies in the program preventing full approval. The
District has revised Rules 3000, 3002, 3004, and 3005 to correct the
deficiencies of the interim approval and this action proposes full
approval of those revisions. South Coast has made other changes to its
part 70 program since EPA granted interim approval to the program. EPA
is not taking action on these other changes at this time.
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received in writing by
November 19, 2001.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to
Gerardo Rios, Chief, Permits Office, Air Division (AIR-3), EPA Region
IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California, 94105. You can
inspect copies of the South Coast submittals, and other supporting
documentation relevant to this action, during normal business hours at
Air Division, EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco,
California 94105. You may also see copies of the District's submitted
operating permit program at the following locations:
California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule
Evaluation Section, 1001 ``I'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
The South Coast Air Quality Management District, 21865 E. Copley
Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765-4182.
An electronic copy of South Coast's operating permit program
(Regulation XXX, rules 3000-3007, Title V Permits) may be available via
the Internet at http://www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/sc/cur.htm. 
However, the
versions of District rules 3000, 3002, 3004, and 3005 may be different
from the versions submitted to EPA for approval. Readers are cautioned
to verify that the adoption dates of rules 3000, 3002, 3004, and 3005
are the same
[[Page 53171]]
dates as the rules submitted to EPA for approval. The official
submittal is available only at the three addresses listed above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Sims, EPA Region IX, Permits
Office (AIR-3), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415)
744-1229 or sims.mark@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This section provides additional information
by addressing the following questions:
What is the operating permit program?
What is being addressed in this document?
Are there other issues with the program?
What are the program changes that EPA is approving?
What is involved in this proposed action?
What Is the Operating Permit Program?
Title V of the CAA Amendments of 1990 required all state and local
permitting authorities to develop operating permit programs that met
certain federal criteria. In implementing the operating permit
programs, the permitting authorities require certain sources of air
pollution to obtain permits that contain all applicable requirements
under the CAA. A goal of the operating permit program is to improve
compliance by issuing each source a permit that consolidates all of the
applicable CAA requirements into a federally enforceable document. By
consolidating all of the applicable requirements for a facility, the
source, the public, and the permitting authorities can more easily
determine what CAA requirements apply and how compliance with those
requirements is determined.
Sources required to obtain an operating permit under this program
include ``major'' sources of air pollution and certain other sources
specified in the CAA or in EPA's implementing regulations. For example,
all sources regulated under the acid rain program, regardless of size,
must obtain permits. Examples of major sources include those that have
the potential to emit 100 tons per year or more of volatile organic
compounds, carbon monoxide, lead, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides (
NOX), or particulate matter (PM10); those that
emit 10 tons per year of any single hazardous air pollutant
(specifically listed under the CAA); or those that emit 25 tons per
year or more of a combination of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). In
areas that are not meeting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate matter, major sources are
defined by the gravity of the nonattainment classification. For
example, in ozone nonattainment areas classified as ``extreme,'' major
sources include those with the potential of emitting 10 tons per year
or more of volatile organic compounds or nitrogen oxides. EPA has
classified the South Coast Air Basin as an extreme nonattainment area
for ozone and a serious nonattainment area for PM10 (70 ton
per year major source threshold). (See 40 CFR 81.305).
What Is Being Addressed In This Document?
The California Air Resources Board submitted to EPA the District's
title V program on December 27, 1993, except for the District permit
application forms, which were submitted on March 6, 1995. On March 30,
1995, EPA deemed the District's operating permit program to be
administratively complete. Because the District's operating permit
program substantially, but not fully, met the criteria outlined in the
implementing regulations codified at 40 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) part 70, EPA granted interim approval of the program, and
conditioned full approval on the District revising its program to
correct the deficiencies. Thus, EPA granted interim approval to the
District's program in a rulemaking published on August 29, 1996 (61 FR
45330). The interim approval notice described the program deficiencies
and revisions that had to be made in order for the District program to
receive full approval. Since that time, the District has revised and
the California Air Resources Board, on behalf of the District, has
submitted revisions to the District's operating permit program on
August 2, 2001, and October 2, 2001. This Federal Register notice
describes the changes that South Coast has made to its operating permit
program to correct interim approval deficiencies, and the basis for EPA
proposing full approval of these changes. EPA is not taking action on
other rule changes made since interim approval.
Are There Other Issues With The Program?
On May 22, 2000, EPA promulgated a rulemaking that extended the
interim approval period of 86 operating permits programs until December
1, 2001. (65 FR 32035) The action was subsequently challenged by the
Sierra Club and the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG).
In settling the litigation, EPA agreed to publish a document in the
Federal Register that would alert the public that they may identify and
bring to EPA's attention alleged programmatic and/or implementation
deficiencies in Title V programs and that EPA would respond to their
allegations within specified time periods if the comments were made
within 90 days of publication of the Federal Register document.
EPA received a comment letter from one organization on what they
believe to be deficiencies with respect to Title V programs in
California. EPA takes no action on those comments in today's action and
will respond to them by December 1, 2001. As stated in the Federal
Register document published on December 11, 2000, (65 FR 77376) EPA
will respond by December 1, 2001 to timely public comments on programs
that have obtained interim approval; and EPA will respond by April 1,
2002 to timely comments on fully approved programs. We will publish a
notice of deficiency (NOD) when we determine that a deficiency exists,
or we will notify the commenter in writing to explain our reasons for
not making a finding of deficiency. A NOD will not necessarily be
limited to deficiencies identified by citizens and may include any
deficiencies that we have identified through our program oversight.
What Are the Program Changes That EPA Is Approving?
As discussed in the August 29, 1996 (61 FR 45330) rulemaking, full
approval of the South Coast operating permit program was made
contingent upon satisfaction of the following conditions:
Issue (1): One of EPA's conditions for full title V program
approval was the California Legislature's revision of the Health and
Safety Code to eliminate the provision that exempts ``any equipment
used in agricultural operations in the growing of crops or the raising
of fowl or animals'' from the requirement to obtain a permit. See
California Health and Safety Code section 42310(e). Even though the
local Districts have, in many cases, removed the title V exemption for
agricultural sources from their own rules, the Health and Safety Code
has not been revised to eliminate this provision.
In evaluating the impact of the Health and Safety Code exemption,
EPA believes there are a couple of key factors to consider. First, many
post-harvest activities are not covered by the exemption and, thus, are
still subject to title V permitting. For example, according to the
California Air Resources Board (CARB), the Health and Safety Code
exemption does not include activities such as milling and crushing, or
canning or cotton ginning operations. Activities such as these are
subject to review under the State's title V programs. See letter from
Michael P. Kenny, Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board, to
Jack Broadbent,
[[Page 53172]]
Director, Air Division, U.S. EPA Region 9, dated September 19, 2001. In
addition, since the granting of interim approval, the EPA has
discovered that, in general, there is not a reliable or complete
inventory of emissions associated with agricultural operations in
California that are subject to the exemption. Although further research
on this issue is needed, many sources with activities covered by the
exemption may not have emission levels that would subject them to title
V, and the State and/or individual Districts may be able to demonstrate
that none of the sources that are exempt under the State law are
subject to title V.
Based, in part, on these factors, EPA has tentatively concluded
that requiring the immediate commencement of title V permitting of the
limited types of agricultural activities presently subject to the
exemption, without a better understanding of the sources and their
emissions, would not be an appropriate utilization of limited local,
state and federal resources. As a result, despite the State of
California's failure to eliminate the agricultural permitting
exemption, EPA is proposing to grant full approval to local Air
District operating permit programs and allow a deferral of title V
permitting of agricultural operations involved in the growing of crops
or the raising of fowl or animals for a further brief period, not to
exceed three years. During the deferral period, we expect to develop
the program infrastructure and experience necessary for effective
implementation of the title V permitting program to this limited
category of sources.
EPA believes it is appropriate to defer permitting for this limited
category of agricultural sources because the currently available
techniques for determining emissions inventories and for monitoring
emissions (e.g., from irrigation pumps and feeding operations) are
problematic and will be dramatically enhanced by several efforts
currently being undertaken with the cooperation and participation of
the operators and agricultural organizations, as well as EPA, other
federal agencies, and the State and local air pollution agencies. For
example, the National Academy of Sciences is undertaking a study
addressing emissions from animal feeding operations. Their report is
due next year. In addition, EPA's Office of Air and Radiation is
working with the U.S. Department of Agriculture to better address the
impact of agricultural operations on air quality. We consider the
effort to evaluate the existing science, improve on assessment tools,
collect additional data, remove any remaining legal obstacles, and
issue any necessary guidance within the three year deferral time frame
to be ambitious. We welcome comments on other areas that might also
warrant study, as well as ways that this work might be done more
quickly.
During the interim deferral period, EPA will continue to work with
the agricultural industry and our state and federal regulatory partners
to pursue, wherever possible, voluntary emission reduction strategies.
At the end of this period, EPA will, taking into consideration the
results of these studies, make a determination as to how the title V
operating permit program will be implemented for any potential major
agricultural stationary sources.
Issue (2): The District was required to revise its insignificant
activities permit exemption list or submit information or criteria
justifying these exemptions. (40 CFR 70.5(c)).
Rule or Program Change: In 1998, the District revised its Technical
Guidance Document by deleting the List of Insignificant Activities. The
District now requires Title V permit applicants to list all equipment
claimed as exempt from New Source Review permit requirements (per Rule
219). The District created Form 500-B, List of Exempt Equipment, for
this purpose. EPA interprets this list of ``exempt'' equipment to apply
only to New Source Review requirements. Any equipment exempt from
permitting per Rule 219 is not exempt from the Title V permit program,
is subject to all applicable requirements, and must be listed in the
Title V permit along with all applicable requirements.
Issue (3): The District was required to revise its minor permit
modification procedures to not allow significant permit modifications
to be processed as minor permit modifications. (40 CFR
70.7(e)(2)(i)(3),(4), and (4)(A).)
Rule or Program Change: The District revised Rules 3000(b)(12) and
3005(c) to correct this deficiency. Rule 3005(c) now allows minor
permit revision procedures to be used only for permit revisions
described in Rule 3000(b)(12), and does not allow modifications which
result in emission increases up to the higher ``de minimis'' emission
thresholds contained in Rule 3000(b)(6) to be processed as minor permit
revisions. The District made the following three revisions to correct
the deficiencies specifically cited in the 1996 Federal Register
document:
(1) The District added to Rule 3000(b)(12)--Minor Permit Revision--
sections (viii) and (ix) that allow minor permit revisions for NSPS and
NESHAP sources provided that the source ``is not an installation of a
new permit unit subject to an NSPS pursuant to 40 CFR part 60, or a
NESHAP pursuant to 40 CFR part 61 or 63; and is not a modification or
reconstruction of an existing permit unit, resulting in new or
additional NSPS requirements pursuant to 40 CFR part 60, or new or
additional NESHAP requirements pursuant to 40 CFR part 61 or 63;''
(2) The District revised Rule 3005(c) to refer to a minor permit
revision definition consistent with 40 CFR part 70, and does not allow
revisions that trigger other regulatory requirements such as New Source
Review. In addition, Rule 3005(d), Group Processing Procedures for
Multiple Minor Permit Revisions, only allows minor permit revisions if
emissions from such changes are collectively below 5 tons per year of
criteria pollutants; and
(3) District Rule 3000(b)(12)(vii) only allows minor permit
revisions for any Title V permit revision that does not establish or
change a permit condition that a facility has assumed to avoid an
applicable requirement.
Issue (4): Initial implementation of the District program did not
include all Title V sources and the District received source category
limited interim approval. The District's regulation, however, included
language that expanded the applicability of the program three years
after the program effective date, and ensured that all Title V sources
will be permitted within five years of full, partial, or interim
approval by EPA of the District Title V program. Although EPA
considered this ``phase-in'' to be an interim approval issue, no change
to the regulation is required to resolve the issue.
Rule or Program Change: No rule revision was necessary to correct
this deficiency, since the phase-in period ended in February 2000 and
the issue is now moot. All known Title V sources have by this time
submitted Title V permit applications as required by Rules 3001(b) and
3003(a)(3).
Issue (5): The District was required to amend Rule 3005(d), Group
Processing Procedures for Multiple Minor Permit Revisions, to delete
reference to Rule 3000(b)(6), the District's higher de minimis
significant permit revision levels when instructing an applicant of its
responsibilities.
Rule or Program Change: To correct this deficiency, the District
revised Rule 3005(c)(1), Minor Permit Revisions Applicability, to
delete the reference to the higher de minimis significant permit
revision levels contained in Rule 3000(b)(6). Rule 3005(d)(1) now
clearly states that group processing procedures
[[Page 53173]]
for multiple minor permit revision applications are only valid for
emissions collectively below 5 tons per year. Although still
referencing Rule 3000(b)(6), Rule 3005(d)(2) now has no bearing on
whether applications subject to group processing provisions qualify as
minor permit revisions.
Issue (6): The District was required to amend Rule 3004(a)(4)(C) to
conform with part 70 language. The rule required that the permit
include periodic monitoring or recordkeeping representative of the
source's compliance for the terms of the permit'' rather than ``with
the terms of the permit.'' 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(i)(B).
Rule or Program Change: To correct this deficiency, the District
revised the language of Rule 3004(a)(4)(C) from ``for the term of the
permit'' to ``with the terms of the permit.''
Issue (7): The District was required to revise Rule 3004(a)(9) to
specify that any trading of emission increases and decreases allowed
without changes to the permit must meet the requirements of the part 70
program. 40 CFR 70.6(a)(10)(iii).
Rule or Program Change: To correct this deficiency, the District
revised Rule 3004(a)(9)(C) to state that the terms and conditions of
emission trades ``must meet all applicable requirements and
requirements of this regulation.''
Issue (8): The District was required to amend its operating permit
program to provide that a source that is granted a general permit shall
be subject to enforcement action for operating without a permit if the
source is later determined not to qualify for the conditions and terms
of the general permit, regardless of any applicable shield provisions.
40 CFR 70.6(d)(1).
Rule or Program Change: The District added Rule 3004(e)(8) to
correct this deficiency. The rule states that if the equipment that has
been approved for coverage under a general permit is later determined
not to qualify for the conditions and terms of the general permit, the
Title V facility shall be subject to enforcement action for operating
without a Title V permit.
Issue (9): The District was required to amend Rule 3002(g)(1). The
rule allows an emergency to constitute an affirmative defense if
properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs or other credible
evidence are kept at the facility, but the rule did not require the
logs or other evidence to demonstrate that conditions set out in the
rule were met by the facility. 40 CFR 70.6(g)(3).
Rule or Program Change: To correct this deficiency, the District
revised Rule 3002(g)(1) to require that properly signed,
contemporaneous operating logs or other credible evidence that
demonstrates compliance with the rule are kept at the facility.
Issue (10): The District was required to modify the definition of
``renewal'' in Rule 3000(b)(22) to clarify that permits will be renewed
at least every 5 years, regardless of whether renewal is necessary to
incorporate new regulatory requirements.
Rule or Program Change: To correct this deficiency, the District
revised Rule 3000(b)(22) to reference Rule 3004(f), Permit Expiration
and Renewal, which specifies that except for solid waste incineration
facilities, Title V permits expire 5 years from the date of issuance
unless such permits have been renewed. Rule 3004(f) further states that
Title V permits for solid waste incineration facilities subject to
section 129(e) of the Clean Air Act expire 12 years after issuance, but
must be reviewed every 5 years. See 40 CFR 70.4(b)(3)(iii) and (iv).
Issue (11): The District was required to revise Rule 3005(g)(1),
changes that violate an express permit term or condition, to not allow
changes that would violate compliance certification requirements
instead of compliance plan requirements. Clean Air Act Section
502(b)(10).
Rule or Program Change: To correct this deficiency, the District
revised Rule 3005(i)(1)(C)(i) from ``compliance plan requirements'' to
``compliance certification requirements.'' The rule now correctly
states that changes that would violate compliance certification
requirements are not allowed.
Issue (12): The District was required to revise Rule 3005(g) to
specify that the District and the source must attach a copy of any
notice of Clean Air Act Section 502(b)(10) changes to the permit. 40
CFR 70.4(b)(12).
Rule or Program Change: To correct this deficiency, the District
added Rule 3005(i)(1)(D) which states that the District and the
facility have attached the written notice to their copy of the relevant
permit.
Issue (13): The District was required to add provisions to Rule
3005(i) to specify the following: (1) Any change allowed under this
section must meet all applicable requirements and shall not violate
existing permit terms; (2) the source must provide contemporaneous
notice to the District and EPA; and (3) the source must keep a record
of the change. 40 CFR 70.4(b)(14).
Rule or Program Change: To correct this deficiency, the District
revised Rule 3005(k), Prohibition on Changes Not Specifically Allowed
by Permit, and Rule 3005(i), Operational Flexibility. Rule
3005(i)(1)(C)(i) requires a change to meet all regulatory requirements;
Rule 3005(i)(1)(A) requires contemporaneous notice; and Rule
3005(i)(1)(D) requires recordkeeping in that the written notice must be
attached to the relevant permit. Rule 3005(i)(1) prohibits the
violation of express permit terms as required under 40 CFR 70.4(b)(14).
Issue (14): The District was required to either submit to EPA an
approvable version of Rule 430, Breakdown Provisions, for inclusion
into the State Implementation Plan, or revise Rule 3002(g), Emergency
Provisions, by deleting the reference to Rule 430 as a requirement a
source must meet to avail itself of an affirmative defense. 40 CFR
70.6(g).
Rule or Program Change: On October 2, 2001, the California Air
Resources Board on behalf of the District requested to EPA that Rule
3002(g)(6), the reference to Rule 430, be withdrawn from the original
Title V program and from the August 2, 2001, submittal. By removing
Rule 3002(g)(6) from the federal Title V program, the District
corrected this program deficiency.
What Is Involved in This Proposed Action?
South Coast has corrected the deficiencies cited in the interim
approval on August 29, 1996 (61 FR 45330), and EPA proposes full
approval the South Coast operating permit program. EPA is only taking
action to approve program changes made by South Coast to correct
interim approval deficiencies. EPA is not taking action on other
program changes made since interim approval was granted, but will
evaluate these additional changes and take appropriate action at a
later date.
Request for Public Comment
EPA requests comments on the program revisions discussed in this
proposed action. Copies of the South Coast submittals and other
supporting documentation used in developing the proposed full approval
are contained in docket files maintained at the EPA Region IX office.
The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information
submitted to, or otherwise considered by, EPA in the development of
this proposed full approval. The primary purposes of the docket are:
(1) To allow interested parties a means to identify and locate
documents so that they can effectively participate in the approval
process, and (2) to serve as the record in case of judicial review. EPA
will consider any comments received in writing by November 19, 2001.
Administrative Requirements
Under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58
[[Page 53174]]
FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed action is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' and therefore is not subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget. Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) the Administrator certifies that this proposed
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities because it merely approves State law as
meeting federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements
beyond those imposed by State law. This rule does not contain any
unfunded mandates and does not significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Public Law 104-4), because it proposes to approve pre-existing
requirements under State law and does not impose any additional
enforceable duties beyond that required by State law. This rule also
does not have tribal implications because it will not have a
substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175,
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000). This rule also does not have Federalism
implications because it will not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132,
``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). The rule merely proposes
to approve existing requirements under State law, and does not alter
the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the State and the Federal Government established in the Clean
Air Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order
13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) or Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 on May 22, 2001), because
it is not a significantly regulatory action under Executive Order
12866. This action will not impose any collection of information
subject to provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq., other than those previously approved and assigned OMB control
number 2060-0243. For additional information concerning these
requirements, see 40 CFR part 70. An agency may not conduct or sponsor,
and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
In reviewing State operating permit programs submitted pursuant to
Title V of the Clean Air Act, EPA will approve State programs provided
that they meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act and EPA's
regulations codified at 40 CFR part 70. In this context, in the absence
of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary
consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a State
operating permit program for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews an operating
permit program, to use VCS in place of a State program that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.
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: October 12, 2001.
Sally Seymour,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 01-26420 Filed 10-18-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P