![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Clean Air Act Proposed Full Approval of Operating Permit Program; Ventura County Air Pollution Control District
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 53174-53178]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr19oc01-36]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 70
[CA 043-OPP; FRL-7086-9]
Clean Air Act Proposed Full Approval of Operating Permit Program;
Ventura County Air Pollution Control District
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA proposes to fully approve the operating permit program of
the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (District). The
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' jurisdiction.
On November 1, 1995, EPA granted interim approval to the District's
operating permit program. The District has revised its operating permit
program (Rule 33) to satisfy the conditions of the interim approval and
this action proposes approval of these revisions made since the interim
approval was granted.
DATES: Written comments must be received by November 19, 2001.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to
Gerardo Rios, Permits Office, Air Division (AIR-3), EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California, 94105. You can inspect
copies of the District's submittals, and other supporting documentation
relevant to this action, during normal business hours at Air Division,
EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105.
You may also see copies of the submitted Title V program at the
following locations:
California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source
Division, Rule Evaluation Section, 1001 ``I'' Street, Sacramento, CA
95814.
Ventura County Air Pollution Control District: 669 County
Square Drive, Ventura, CA 93003.
You may review the District rules by retrieving them from the
California Air Resources Board (ARB) website. The location of the
District rules is http://www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/ven/cur.htm. 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gerardo Rios, EPA Region IX, at (415)
744-1259 (rios.gerardo@epa.gov) or Nahid Zoueshtiagh at (415) 744-1261.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.
Table of Contents:
I. District's Part 70 Permits
A. What Is the Operating Permit Program?
B. What Is Being Addressed in This Document?
C. Are There Other Issues With the Program?
D. What Are the Program Changes That EPA Is Proposing To
Approve?
E. What Is Involved in This Proposed Action?
II. Request for Public Comment
I. District's Part 70 Permits
A. What Is the Operating Permit Program?
Title V of the Clean Air Act 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
[[Page 53175]]
programs, the permitting authorities require certain sources of air
pollution to obtain permits that contain all applicable requirements
under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The focus of the operating permit
program is to improve enforcement 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 or more of any single hazardous air pollutant
(HAP) listed under the CAA; or those that emit 25 tons per year or more
of a combination of HAPs. In areas that are not meeting the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone, carbon monoxide, or
particulate matter, major sources are defined by the gravity of the
non-attainment classification.
Ventura County is classified as a severe non-attainment area for
ozone. Therefore, for reactive organic compounds or nitrogen oxides,
the threshold for obtaining an operating permit is 25 tons per year or
more of either reactive organic compounds or nitrogen oxides. Ventura
County meets the NAAQS for all other pollutants.
B. What Is Being Addressed in This Document?
Where an 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
contingent on the state revising its program to correct any
deficiencies. Because the District's operating permit program
substantially, but not fully, met the requirements of part 70, EPA
granted interim approval to the District's program on November 1, 1995.
This Federal Register document describes the changes that the
District has made to its Rule 33 (District's operating permit program)
since interim approval was granted.
C. 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 letter from one person who commented on what he
believes to be deficiencies with respect to title V programs in
California. We are not taking any actions 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.
D. What Are the Program Changes That EPA Is Proposing To Approve?
As discussed above, EPA granted final interim approval on November
1, 1995 (60 FR 55460) to the District's title V program. As stipulated
in that rulemaking, full approval of the District operating permit
program was made contingent upon satisfaction of certain conditions. In
response to EPA's interim approval action, the District revised its
Rule 33 (operating permit program) to remove the deficiencies
identified by EPA. The District held a workshop (November 30, 2000),
made the draft revised rule available to public review and comments
(March/April 2001), and adopted the revisions on April 10, 2001. The
revised program was submitted to EPA on May 21, 2001. We have included
below a discussion of each of the interim approval deficiency issues
(as enumerated and explained in EPA's proposed action in 1994 (see 59
FR 60104)), our conditions for correction, and a summary of how the
District has corrected each of these deficiency issues. The Technical
Support Document (TSD) for this action includes the District's
submittal and details of the revisions made.
Issue a. Insignificant activities--Rules 33.2 and 23 provide the
framework for Ventura's insignificant activities provisions. For its
program to be fully approvable, Ventura needed to provide a
demonstration that activities classified as ``insignificant'' are truly
insignificant and are not likely to be subject to an applicable
requirement. Alternatively, the District could restrict insignificant
activities to those that are not likely to be subject to an applicable
requirement and emit less than District-established emission levels.
The District needed to establish separate emission levels for HAPs and
for other regulated pollutants and demonstrate that these emission
levels are insignificant compared to the level of emissions from and
type of units that are required to be permitted or subject to
applicable requirements. (Reference: 40 CFR 70.4(b)(2) and 70.5(c))
District's response to issue a. The District revised its Rule 33 to
add a new term under its Rule 33.1.10. The new term defines and
specifies ``Insignificant Activity'' to address EPA's deficiency issue.
The revision satisfies the part 70 requirements.
Issue b. Revision process for significant changes to monitoring
terms and conditions--the definitions of ``minor permit modification''
and ``significant part 70 permit modification'' in Rule 33.1 needed to
be revised to ensure that significant changes to existing monitoring
permit terms or conditions are processed as significant permit
modifications. (Reference: 40 CFR 70.7(e)(4)).
District's response to Issue b. The District revised its Rule 33 to
address EPA's requirement. The newly adopted Rule 33.1.11.d states that
the modification does not involve any significant change to any
existing federally-enforceable monitoring term or condition or involve
any relaxation of reporting or recordkeeping requirements in the part
70 permit.
Issue c. Operation of modifications prior to permit revision--
except in the case when a federally enforceable permit condition would
prohibit it, Ventura's Rule 33.9 A.1. allowed sources to make
significant
[[Page 53176]]
modifications prior to receiving a part 70 permit revision. In order to
be consistent with part 70, Ventura was required to revise its rule so
that the only changes that may be operated prior to receiving a part 70
permit revision are those modifications subject to section 112(g) and
title I, parts C and D of the Act, and those that are not prohibited by
the existing part 70 permit. Under part 70, if a proposed change does
not meet these criteria, the source may not make the change until the
permitting authority has revised the source's part 70 permit.
(Reference 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(ii)).
District's response to Issue c. The District replaced the last
paragraph of its Rule 33.9.A.1 with the following: ``The protection
granted by this subsection for a significant part 70 permit
modification shall not be applicable unless the modification was
subject to section 112(g), or part C or D of title I of the federal
Clean Air Act and the existing part 70 permit for the stationary source
does not prohibit the modification. If either of these conditions is
not met, the modified portion of the stationary source shall not be
operated until the modified part 70 permit is issued.''
Issue d. Public notice--VCAPCD needed to revise Rule 33.7 B. to
include notice ``by other means if necessary to assure adequate notice
to the affected public.'' (Reference: 40 CFR 70.7(h)(1)).
District's response to Issue d. The District added a new section to
its Rule 33.7. This new section (33.7.B.2.g) requires the District to
provide notice by other means if necessary to assure adequate notice to
the affected public.
Issue e. Permit Content--Ventura's permit content requirements are
found in Rules 33.3 and 33.9. At the time of interim approval, these
regulatory provisions adequately addressed nearly all of the part 70
requirements. Certain elements (e.g., Secs. 70.6(a)(3)(ii)(B) and
70.6(a)(6)(i)), are more fully detailed in the General Part 70 Permit
conditions, which were submitted in Appendix B.2.b. of Ventura's part
70 program submittal. Ventura needed to establish a binding requirement
that the General Part 70 Permit Conditions will be included in all part
70 permits. Ventura could accomplish this by modifying its regulation
to reference the general conditions that were submitted and approved by
EPA, or by more fully addressing the conditions within the regulation.
(Reference: 40 CFR 70.6(a)).
District's response to Issue e. The District significantly revised
Sections A and B of its Rule 33.3 to incorporate EPA's requirements.
For example, Rule 33.3.A.3 now requires conditions that establish all
applicable emissions monitoring and analysis procedures, emissions test
methods or continuous monitoring equipment required under all
applicable requirements, and related recordkeeping and reporting
requirements. It also requires, as necessary, conditions concerning the
use, maintenance, and, where appropriate, installation of monitoring
equipment or methods. Further, all applicable recordkeeping and
monitoring requirements must include details such as date, place and
time of sampling or measurements.
Issue f. Recordkeeping requirements--VCAPCD needed to revise the
permit content requirements of Rule 33.3 to provide adequate
specificity with regard to the applicable recordkeeping requirements.
(Reference: 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(C)(ii)).
District's response to Issue f. The District incorporated all of
the above requirements in Rule 33.3.A.3. For example, the rule now
specifies that permits incorporate all applicable data such as:
Date, place as defined in the permit, and time of sampling
or measurements;
Date(s) analyses were performed;
Company or entity that performed the analyses;
Analytical techniques or methods used;
Results of such analyses; and
Operating conditions as existing at the time of sampling
or measurements.
Support information includes all calibration and maintenance
records and all original strip chart recordings for continuous
monitoring instrumentation, and copies of all reports required by the
part 70 permit.
Issue g. Emissions trading under applicable requirements--Ventura
County needed to add emissions trading provisions consistent with
Sec. 70.6(a)(10), which requires that trading must be allowed where an
applicable requirement provides for trading increases and decreases
without a case-by-case approval. (Reference 40 CFR 70.6(a)(10)).
District's response to Issue g. The District included EPA's
requirement in its Rule 33.3.A.6, which states that: ``Applicable
conditions for allowing trading under a voluntary emission cap accepted
by the permittee, and for allowing trading under applicable
requirements to the extent that such requirements provide for trading
emissions without a case by case approval of each trade. Such
conditions shall include all terms required under section A of this
rule to determine compliance and shall meet all applicable
requirements.''
Issue h. Compliance schedule--At the time of interim approval, Rule
33.3 B.2, which requires that a schedule of compliance be included in
the permit, did not create an explicit link with Rule 33.9 B.4., which
details the contents of a compliance schedule. Thus, VCAPCD needed to
revise Rule 33.3's permit content requirements to ensure that all
elements of the compliance schedule under Sec. 70.5(c) are incorporated
into the permit. (Reference: 40 CFR 70.6(c)(3), 70.6(c)(4)).
District's response to Issue h. The District revised its Rule 33.3
to include EPA's requirements. Rule 33.3.A.8 now requires that if the
stationary source is not in compliance with any federally-enforceable
requirement, it must have a schedule of compliance that is approved by
the District Hearing Board, meets all requirements of Rule 33.2.A.7,
and includes a condition that requires submittal of a progress report
on the schedule of compliance at least semiannually.
Issue i. EPA notification of operational flexibility changes--Rule
33.5.D needed to be revised to incorporate EPA notification of changes
made under the operational flexibility provisions, either by providing
for it within the regulation, or by making the general permit
conditions, which do specify EPA notification, required elements of
each permit. (Reference 40 CFR 70.4(b)(14)(ii)).
District's response to Issue i. The District revised the first
paragraph of its Rule 33.4.D to reflect EPA's requirements. The revised
paragraph is as follows: ``The owner or operator of any stationary
source required to obtain a part 70 permit will be allowed to
contravene an express part 70 permit condition with 30 days written
notification to both EPA and the District unless the District objects
in writing to the change within the 30 day notice period.''
Issue j. State-wide agricultural permitting exemption--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
[[Page 53177]]
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, 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.
E. What Is Involved in This Proposed Action?
Today, we are proposing to fully approve the District's revised
Rule 33 (operating permit program). We have determined that the
revisions made by the District remove the deficiencies identified by us
in 1995. We will make our final decision on our proposal after
considering public comments submitted during the 30-day period from
this publication date.
II. Request for Public Comment
EPA requests comments on the program revisions discussed in this
proposed action. Copies of the District submittal and other supporting
documentation used in developing the proposed full approval are
contained in docket files maintained at the EPA Region 9 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
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 (May 22, 2001), because it
is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This action will not impose any collection of information subject to
the
[[Page 53178]]
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 11, 2001.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 01-26421 Filed 10-18-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P