Clean Air Act Proposed Full Approval of the Title V OperatingPermit Programs for Twenty-Four California Air Pollution Control Districts

Related Material

Other Related Documents

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

[Federal Register: October 22, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 204)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 53354-53370]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr22oc01-18]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 70
[CA 054-OPP; FRL-7087-9]

Clean Air Act Proposed Full Approval of the Title V
OperatingPermit Programs for Twenty-Four California Air Pollution
Control Districts

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to fully approve the operating permit programs
submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) on behalf of
Amador County Air Pollution Control District (APCD), Butte County Air
Quality Management District (AQMD), Calaveras County APCD, Colusa
County APCD, El Dorado County APCD, Feather River AQMD, Glenn County
APCD, Great Basin Unified APCD, Imperial
County APCD, Kern County APCD, Lake County AQMD, Lassen County APCD,
Mariposa County APCD, Mendocino County APCD, Modoc County APCD, North
Coast Unified AQMD, Northern Sierra AQMD, Northern Sonoma County APCD,
Placer County APCD, Shasta County APCD, Siskiyou County APCD, Tehama
County APCD, Tuolumne County APCD, and Yolo-Solano AQMD. All twenty-
four operating permit programs were 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. EPA
granted final interim approval to nineteen of the twenty-four
districts' operating permit programs on May 3, 1995 (60 FR 21720). The
five districts that were not included in that rulemaking were Glenn
County APCD, Tehama County APCD, Lake County AQMD, Shasta County APCD,
and Mariposa APCD. EPA granted final interim approval to Mariposa
APCD's operating permit program on December 7, 1995 (60 FR 62758) and
to the other four districts' programs on July 13, 1995 (60 FR 36065).
All twenty-four districts revised their programs to satisfy the
conditions of the interim approval and this action proposes approval of
those revisions. In addition, many districts made other changes to
their rules that were not required to correct an interim approval
issue; EPA proposes to approve most of these other changes districts
have made.

DATES: Comments on the program revisions discussed in this proposed
action must be received in writing by November 21, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this proposed action should be addressed
to Gerardo Rios, Acting Chief, Permits Office, Air Division (AIR-3),
EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105.
You can inspect copies of the program submittals, and other supporting
documentation relevant to this action, during normal business hours at
Air

[[Page 53355]]

Division, EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California
94105. You may also see copies of the submitted title V programs at the
California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule
Evaluation Section, 1001 ``I'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95814, and at the
appropriate local Air Pollution Control District office (current
District addresses are listed on the Internet at http://www.arb.ca.gov/
capcoa/roster.htm)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gerardo Rios, EPA Region IX, at (415)
744-1259 or rios.gerardo@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This section provides additional information
by addressing the following questions:

I. What is the operating permit program?
II. What is being addressed in this document?
III. Are there other issues with the program?
IV. What are the program changes that EPA proposes to approve?
A. Changes Made for Full Approval
1. Group 1--Changes Required of All Districts
2. Group 2--District-Specific Changes
B. Other District-Specific Changes Submitted Since EPA Granted
Final Interim Approval
V. What is involved in this proposed action?

I. What Is the Operating Permit Program?

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.
One 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 (
NO_X), 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 ``serious,'' major
sources include those with the potential of emitting 50 tons per year
or more of volatile organic compounds or nitrogen oxides.

II. 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 the
deficiencies. Because all twenty-four operating permit programs
substantially, but not fully, met the requirements of part 70, EPA
granted interim approval to each program in three separate rulemakings,
published on May 3, 1995 (60 FR 21720) for nineteen of the twenty-four
districts, on July 13, 1995 (60 FR 36065) for Glenn County APCD, Tehama
County APCD, Lake County AQMD, and Shasta County APCD, and on December
7, 1995 (60 FR 62758) for Mariposa County APCD. Each interim approval
notice described the conditions that had to be met in order for the
programs to receive full approval. Since that time, each of the twenty-
four districts have revised their interimly approved operating permit
program at least once. These changes were necessary to correct the
conditions for full approval; but some districts made other changes as
well. Table 1 below lists the dates of submission by CARB of each of
the revised district programs.

Table 1.--Rule Number, Name, Adoption Date(s), and Program Submission Dates, for California Non-Grantee
Districts' Operating Permit Programs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of
District name Rule No. and name Date(s) of adoption of submission by
revised rule CARB
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amador County APCD.................... Rule 500--Procedures for 3/27/01 and 2/27/97..... 04/10/01
Issuing Permits to Operate
for Sources Subject to Title
V of the Federal Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990.
Butte County AQMD..................... Rule 1101--Title V--Federal 4/26/01 and 6/24/99..... 5/17/01
Operating Permits.
Calaveras County APCD................. Regulation X--Additional 6/11/01................. 7/27/01
Procedures for Issuing
Permits to Operate for
Sources Subject to Title V of
the Federal Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990.
Rule 1001--Purpose and General
Requirements of Regulation X.
Rule 1002--Definitions........
Rule 1003--Applicability......
Rule 1004--Administrative
Procedures for Sources.
Rule 1005--District
Administrative Procedures.
Rule 1006--Permit Content
Requirements.
Rule 1007--Supplemental Annual
Fee.
Colusa County APCD.................... Rule 3-17--Permits to Operate 8/7/01.................. 8/22/01
for Sources Subject to Title
V.
El Dorado County APCD................. Rule 522--Title V Federal 7/10/01................. 8/16/01
Operating Permit Program.
Feather River AQMD.................... Rule 10.3--Federal Operating 5/7/01 and 12/4/00...... 5/22/01
Permits.
Glenn County APCD..................... Article VIII--Additional 6/19/01 and 1/30/01..... 9/13/01
Procedures for Issuing
Permits to Operate for
Sources Subject to Title V of
the Federal Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990.

[[Page 53356]]

Great Basin Unified APCD.............. Rule 217--Additional 5/9/01 and 3/8/95....... 5/18/01
Procedures for Issuing
Permits to Operate for
Sources Subject to Title V of
the Federal Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990.
Imperial County APCD.................. Rule 900--Procedures for 6/26/01 and 4/4/00...... 8/2/01
Issuing Permits to Operate
for Sources Subject to Title
V of the Federal Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990.
Kern County APCD...................... Rule 201.1--Permits to Operate 5/3/01 and 1/9/97....... 5/24/01
for Sources Subject to Title
V of the Federal Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990.
Lake County AQMD...................... Chapter XII--Requirements for 5/22/01 and 12/5/00..... 6/1/01
Issuing Permits to Operate
for Sources Subject to Title
V of the Federal Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990.
Article I--Purpose and General
Requirements.
Article III--Applicability....
Article IV--Administrative
Procedures for Sources.
Article V--District
Administrative Procedures.
Article VI--Permit Content....
Article VII--Permit Fees......
Article VIII--Designated Non-
major Stationary Source.
Lassen County APCD.................... Regulation VII--Title V-- 7/2/01.................. 8/2/01
Permits to Operate for
Sources Subject to Title V of
the Federal Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990.
Rule 7-1--Purpose and General
Requirements.
Rule 7-2--Applicability.......
Rule 7-3--Exemptions..........
Rule 7-4--Definitions.........
Rule 7-5--Administrative
Procedures for Sources.
Rule 7-6--District
Administrative Procedures.
Rule 7-7--Permit Content
Requirements.
Rule 7-8--Annual Fees.........
Mariposa County APCD.................. Regulation X--Additional 9/4/01.................. 9/20/01
Procedures for Issuing
Permits to Operate for
Sources Subject to Title V of
the Federal Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990.
Rule 1001--Purpose and General
Requirements of Regulation X.
Rule 1002--Definitions........
Rule 1003--Applicaibility.....
Rule 1004--Administrative
Procedures for Sources.
Rule 1005--District
Administrative Procedures.
Rule 1006--Permit Content
Requirements.
Rule 1007--Supplemental Annual
Fee.
Mendocino County APCD................. Regulation V--Procedures for 11/14/00................ 4/13/01
Issuing Permits to Operate
for Sources Subject to Title
V of the Federal Clean Air
Act Amendment of 1990.
Chapter I--Purpose and General
Requirements.
Chapter II--Definitions.......
Chapter III--Applicability....
Chapter IV--Administrative
Procedures for Sources.
Chapter V--District
Administrative Procedures.
Chapter VI--Permit Content....
Modoc County APCD..................... Rule 2.13--Additional 7/24/01................. 9/12/01
Procedures for Issuing
Permits to Operate for
Sources Subject to Title V of
the Federal Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990.
North Coast Unified AQMD.............. Regulation V--Procedures for 5/18/01 and 11/21/94.... 5/24/01
Issuing Permits to Operate
for Sources Subject to Title
V.
Chapter 1--Purpose and General
Requirements; Rules 100, 110,
and 120.
Chapter 2--Definitions; Rule
200--Definitions.
Chapter 3--Applicability; Rule
300--Applicability.
Chapter 4--Administrative
Procedures for Sources; Rules
400, 405, 410, 415, 425, 430,
440, 450, 455, 460, and 470.
Chapter 5--District
Administrative Procedures;
Rules 500, 510, 520, 530,
540, 545, 550, 560, 570, and
580.
Chapter 6--Permit Content;
Rules 600, 610, 615, 620,
625, 630, 635, 640, 645, 650,
660, 670, 675, 680, and 690.
Northern Sierra AQMD.................. Rule 522--Title V Federal 3/8/01 and 9/11/94...... 5/24/01
Operating Permits.
Northern Sonoma County APCD........... Regulation V--Procedures for 5/8/01.................. 5/21/01
Issuing Permits to Operate
for Sources Subject to Title
V of the Federal Clean Air
Act Amendment of 1990.
Chapter I--Purpose and General
Requirements.

[[Page 53357]]

Chapter II--Definitions Used
in Regulation 5.
Chapter III--Applicability of
Regulation 5.
Chapter IV--Administrative
Procedures for Sources.
Chapter V--District
Administrative Procedures.
Chapter VI--Permit Content
Requirements.
Placer County APCD.................... Rule 507--Federal Operating 4/17/01 and 8/24/95..... 5/4/01
Permit Program.
Shasta County APCD.................... Rule 5-0--Additional 5/8/01.................. 5/18/01
Procedures for Issuing
Permits to Operate for
Sources Subject to Title V of
the Federal Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990.
Siskiyou County APCD.................. Rule 2.13--Additional 9/25/01................. 9/28/01
Procedures for Issuing
Permits to Operate for
Sources Subject to Title V of
the Federal Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990.
Tehama County APCD.................... Rule 7:1--Federal Operating 5/22/01................. 6/4/01
Permit Program.
Tuolumne County APCD.................. Rule 500--Additional 6/19/01................. 7/18/01
Procedures for Issuing
Permits to Operate for
Sources Subject to Title V of
the 1990 Federal Clean Air
Act Amendments.
Yolo-Solano AQMD...................... Rule 3.8--Federal Operating 4/11/01 and renumbered 5/9/01
Permits Additional Procedures on 2/23/94 (from 3.19
for Issuing Permits to to 3.8).
Operate for Sources Subject
to Title V of the Federal
Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This document describes changes that have been made to the twenty-
four operating permit programs since EPA granted interim approval.
These changes include those made by the districts to resolve interim
approval deficiencies, as well as other rule and program changes
submitted to EPA for approval.

III. 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 notice 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 notice.
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 notice 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. 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.

IV. What Are the Program Changes That EPA Proposes To Approve?

A. Changes Made for Full Approval

As discussed earlier, the title V programs for the twenty-four
districts included in today's rulemaking were given interim approval on
May 3, 1995 (60 FR 21720) for nineteen of the twenty-four Districts; on
July 13, 1995 (60 FR 36065) for Glenn County APCD, Tehama County APCD,
Lake County AQMD, and Shasta County APCD; and on December 7, 1995 (60
FR 62758) for Mariposa County APCD. As stipulated in each of those
rulemakings, full approval of the specific district operating permit
program was made contingent upon satisfaction of certain conditions. We
have included below a discussion of these conditions and a summary of
how the twenty-four districts revised their part 70 programs and rules
to meet the conditions required for full program approval. We have
structured this section by categorizing each of the required changes
into either Group 1 or Group 2. Group 1 consists of the eleven (11)
conditions that are common to all twenty-four districts,\1\ unless
otherwise noted. Group 2 consists of all other conditions that are
specific to each district and may or may not apply to more than one
district. The district's rule (or program) correction follows the
description of the required changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ The reason for the similarity among the title V programs
included in today's proposed action is that all twenty-four
districts originally replicated a model title V rule developed by
the California Air Resources Board (CARB). EPA Region 9 worked with
the CARB to develop language to correct the deficiencies in the
model rule that EPA identified as interim approval issues. In most
cases, the language changes agreed to by EPA and CARB were adopted
verbatim by the local Air District Boards. Please see the Technical
Support Documents, included in the docket for this rulemaking, for
more information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Group 1--Changes Required of All Districts
Unless otherwise noted, the following eleven conditions are common
to all twenty-four districts that are the subject of today's proposed
action.
Issue (1): Each district needed to provide a demonstration that
activities that are exempt from part 70 permitting are truly
insignificant and are not likely to be subject to an applicable
requirement. Alternatively, districts could restrict the exemptions
(including any director's discretion provisions) to activities that are
not likely to be subject to an applicable requirement and emit less
than district-established emission levels. Districts 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

[[Page 53358]]

are required to be permitted or subject to applicable requirements.
This was a condition for full approval for all districts except for
Mendocino County AQMD and Northern Sonoma County APCD.
Districts' Response: Districts addressed this requirement by
implementing one of two options for defining insignificant activities
in their part 70 (title V) programs. Option 1 involved adopting the
Model List of Insignificant Activities for Title V Permit Programs
developed by EPA and CARB. The Model List includes criteria for 24
specific source categories that are presumptively insignificant, as
well as general criteria that define an insignificant activity as any
activity that is not subject to a source-specific requirement and that
emits no more than 0.5 tons per year (tpy) of a federal hazardous air
pollutant (HAP) and no more than two tpy of a regulated pollutant that
is not a HAP. Option 2 allowed districts to adopt the general criteria
from Option 1 (i.e., any activities that are not subject to a source-
specific requirement and emit below the 0.5 and 2 tpy emission
thresholds) into their part 70 program rules. Of the districts for
which this was a condition of full approval, only Amador, El Dorado,
Feather River, Imperial, North Coast, Placer and Shasta elected Option
1; the remainder elected Option 2.
Issue (2): Districts were required to revise the exemption list to
remove the general exemption for agricultural production sources or to
restrict the exemptions to non-title V sources. This was a condition
for full approval for all district programs except for Great Basin
Unified APCD and Lassen County APCD which did not have general
exemptions for agricultural operations in their exemption lists and for
Mendocino County which did not provide a list of exempted activities.
Districts' Response: In general, districts addressed this
requirement by revising their title V rules and/or programs, where
necessary, to delete the reference to the previously submitted permit
exemption list. Further, districts added the following language to
their part 70 programs: ``Upon amendment of the California Health and
Safety Code to allow the issuance of title V permits to agricultural
production sources, such sources shall be subject to evaluation for
applicability to the requirements of title V.''
In addition, 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, 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 (3): Districts needed to revise their rules' application
content requirements so that any compliance schedule required by the
rule for a source not in compliance resembles and is at least as
stringent as that contained in any judicial consent decree,
administrative order, or schedule approved by the hearing board to
which the source is subject as required by 40 CFR 70.5(c)(8)(iii)(C),
rather than simply a schedule of compliance approved by the district's
hearing board.
Districts' Response: Districts addressed this requirement by
revising the application content portion of their part 70 program rules
to include the specific language from part 70 regarding the stringency
of a schedule of compliance for sources that are not in compliance with
all applicable

[[Page 53359]]

requirements at the time of permit issuance.
Issue (4): Districts were required to revise their rules'
application content requirements to clarify that all reports and other
documents submitted in the permit application must be certified by the
responsible official as required by 40 CFR 70.5(d) and to provide the
full text of the responsible official's certification in Sec. 70.5(d).
This was an interim approval issue for all twenty-four district
programs except Yolo-Solano AQMD whose part 70 program rule already
required this.
Districts' Response: Districts addressed this requirement by
revising the application content portion of their part 70 program rules
to require that all reports and documents submitted in the permit
application be certified by a responsible official and to further
require that the certification must state that, based on information
and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, the statements and
information in the document are true, accurate, and complete.
Issue (5): Districts needed to provide in their rules a permit
application deadline for sources that become subject to the district's
part 70 rule after the rule's effectiveness date for reasons other than
commencing operation. This deadline cannot be any later than 12 months
after the source becomes subject to the rule as required by 40 CFR
70.5(a)(1). This was a condition for full approval for all twenty-four
district programs except for Northern Sierra AQMD and Yolo-Solano AQMD
whose rules already contained this deadline.
Districts' Response: Districts addressed this requirement by
revising their part 70 program rules to require a source to submit a
permit application within 12 months of the source commencing operation
``or of otherwise becoming subject to'' the district's part 70 program
rule.
Issue (6): Districts needed to revise their rules' permit issuance
procedures to provide for notifying the EPA and affected States in
writing of any refusal by the district to accept all recommendations
for the proposed permit that the affected State submitted during the
public/affected State review period as required by 40 CFR 70.8(b)(2).
Districts' Response: Districts addressed this requirement by
revising their part 70 program rules to require such written
notification to EPA and to affected States as part of their permit
issuance procedures.
Issue (7): Districts were required to incorporate into their rules
provisions citing the right of the public to petition EPA under 40 CFR
70.8(d) after the expiration of the EPA's 45-day review period and
prohibiting the district from issuing a permit, if it has not already
done so, until the EPA's objections in response to the petition are
resolved as required by Sec. 70.8(d).
Districts' Response: Districts addressed this requirement by
incorporating the public petition provision and the post-petition
permit issuance prohibition into their part 70 program rules.
Issue (8): Districts had to revise their rules to provide for
public notice of permitting actions by other means if necessary to
assure adequate notice to the affected public as required by 40 CFR
70.7(h)(1).
Districts' Response: Districts addressed this requirement by
modifying their part 70 programs' public notice procedures. In addition
to publication in a newspaper of general circulation, districts added
the requirement to provide notice by other means if necessary to assure
adequate notice to the affected public.
Issue (9): Districts were required to revise their rules' permit
content requirements to clarify that all reports and other documents
required by the permit must be certified by a responsible official as
required by 40 CFR 70.6(c)(1) and to provide the full text of the
responsible official's certification in Sec. 70.5(d). This condition is
very similar to issue #4 above, except that it applies to the district
rules' permit content requirements instead of the permit application
requirements.
Districts' Response: Districts addressed this requirement by
revising the permit content requirements of their part 70 program rules
to require that any such reports or documents are certified by a
responsible official and to further require that the certification must
state that, based on information and belief formed after reasonable
inquiry, the statements and information in the documents are true,
accurate, and complete.
Issue (10): Districts needed to revise their rules' permit content
requirements to require that any compliance schedule for a source not
in compliance must resemble and be at least as stringent as that
contained in any judicial consent decree, administrative order, or
schedule approved by the hearing board to which the source is subject
as required by 40 CFR 70.6(c)(3) and 70.5(c)(8)(iii)(C). This was an
interim approval issue for all districts except Yolo-Solano AQMD whose
rule already provided for this. This condition is very similar to issue
#3 above, except that it applies to the district rules' permit content
requirements instead of the permit application requirements.
Districts' Response: Districts addressed this requirement by
revising their part 70 program rules to include the specific language
from part 70 regarding the stringency of a schedule of compliance for
sources that are not in compliance with all applicable requirements at
the time of permit issuance.
Issue (11): Districts were required to revise their rules' permit
content requirements to require the submission of compliance
certifications more frequently than annually if a more frequent period
is specified in the applicable requirement or by the district as
required by 40 CFR 70.6(c)(5)(i). This was an interim approval issue
for all districts except Yolo-Solano AQMD whose rule already provided
for this.
Districts' Response: Districts addressed this requirement by
revising their part 70 programs' permit content requirements to require
more frequent submission of compliance certifications as stipulated by
40 CFR 70.6(c)(5)(i).

Group 2--District-Specific Changes

In addition to the interim approval conditions noted above for all
districts, numerous district-specific changes were also identified by
EPA as conditions for full approval of districts' operating permit
programs. These conditions are discussed below:
(1) Amador County APCD: (a) Amador County APCD (ACAPCD) was
required to revise all deadlines for final permit action in Rule 500
V.C. (except for C.1. and C.5.) to be no later than the appropriate
number of months after the complete application is received, rather
than after the application is deemed to be complete, as required by 40
CFR 70.4(b)(11)(iii) and 70.7(a)(2).
ACAPCD addressed this condition by revising Rule 500 to require
final action no later than the appropriate number of months ``after the
complete application is received'' rather than ``after the application
is deemed complete.''
(b) ACAPCD was required to revise the definition of ``potential to
emit'' in Rule 500 II.AA. to clarify that only federally-enforceable
limitations may be considered in determining a source's potential to
emit under title V. Subsequent litigation has affected EPA's
consideration of this issue. In Clean Air Implementation Project vs.
EPA, No. 96-1224 (D.C. Cir. June 28, 1996), the court remanded and
vacated the requirement forfederal enforceability for potential to emit
limits under part 70. Even though part 70 has not been revised it
should be read to mean, ``federally enforceable or legally and
practicably enforceable by

[[Page 53360]]

a state or local air pollution control agency.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ See also, National Mining Association (NMA) v. EPA, 59 F.3d
1351 (D.C. Cir. July 21, 1995) and Chemical Manufacturing Ass'n
(CMA) v. EPA, No. 89-1514 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 15, 1995) (regarding
federal enforceability of potential to emit limits for Title III and
Title I of the Act, respectively).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ACAPCD revised the definition which now states that ``[p]hysical
and operational limitations on the emissions unit shall be treated as
part of its design, if the limitations are set forth in permit
conditions or in rules or regulations that are legally and practicably
enforceable by U.S. EPA and citizens or by the District.'' EPA proposes
to approve this revision because ACAPCD's rule is consistent with the
current meaning of potential to emit at 40 CFR 70.2. EPA has issued
several guidance memoranda that discuss how the court rulings affect
the definition of potential to emit under CAA Sec. 112, New Source
Review (NSR) and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
programs, and title V.\3\ In particular, the memoranda reiterate the
Agency's earlier requirements for practicable enforceability for
purposes of effectively limiting a source's potential to emit.\4\ For
example, practicable enforceability for a source-specific permit means
that the permit's provisions must, at a minimum: (1) Be technically
accurate and identify which portions of the source are subject to the
limitation; (2) specify the time period for the limitation (hourly,
daily, monthly, and annual limits such as rolling annual limits); (3)
be independently enforceable and describe the method to determine
compliance including appropriate monitoring, recordkeeping and
reporting; (4) be permanent; and (5) include a legal obligation to
comply with the limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ See, e.g., January 22, 1996, Memorandum entitled, ``Release
of Interim Policy on Federal Enforceability of Limitations on
Potential to Emit'' from John Seitz, Director, OAQPS and Robert I.
Van Heuvelen, Director, Office of Regulatory Enforcement to EPA
Regional Offices; January 31, 1996 paper to the Members of the
Subcomittee on Permit, New Source Review and Toxics Integration from
Steve Herman, OECA, and Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator of Air
and Radiation; and the August 27, 1996 Memorandum entitled,
``Extension of January 25, 1995 Potential to Emit Transition
Policy'' from John Seitz, Director, OAQPS and Robert Van Heuvelen,
Director, Office of Regulatory Enforcement.
\4\ See, e.g., June 13, 1989 Memorandum entitled, ``Guidance on
Limiting Potential to Emit in New Source Permitting, from Terrell F.
Hunt, Associate Enforcement Counsel, OECA, and John Seitz, Director,
OAQPS, to EPA Regional Offices. This guidance is still the most
comprehensive statement from EPA on this subject. Further guidance
was provided on January 25, 1995 in a 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),'' from
John Seitz, Director, OAQPS and Robert I. Van Heuvelen, Director,
ORE to Regional Air Directors. Also please refer to the EPA Region 7
database at http://www.epa.gov/region07/programs/artd/air/policy/
policy.htm for more information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPA will rely on ACAPCD implementing this new definition in a
manner that is consistent with the court's decisions and EPA policies.
In addition, EPA wants to be certain that absent federal and citizen's
enforceability, Amador County's enforcement program still provides
sufficient incentive for sources to comply with permit limits. This
proposal provides notice to Amador about our expectations for ensuring
the permit limits they impose are enforceable as a practical matter
(i.e., practicably enforceable) and that its enforcement program will
still provide sufficient compliance incentive. In the future, if ACAPCD
does not implement the new definition consistent with our guidance,
and/or has not established a sufficient compliance incentive absent
Federal and citizen's enforceability, EPA could find that the District
has failed to administer or enforce its program and may take action to
notify the District of such a finding as authorized by 40 CFR
70.10(b)(1).
(c) ACAPCD was required to revise Rule 500 V.I.2 and 3 to require
notification by the source of operational flexibility changes to both
the EPA and the District as required by 40 CFR 70.4(b)(12).
ACAPCD addressed this condition by revising both sections of Rule
500 to require that written notice be provided to both USEPA and the
APCO as required by 40 CFR 70.4(b)(12).
(d) ACAPCD was required to revise the definition of ``affected
state'' in Rule 500 II.C. to allow for the treatment of Tribal
Authorities as affected states if the Authority request such treatment
under the Tribal Air Regulations.
ACAPCD addressed this requirement by revising this definition,
which now states that an affected State ``is any State that: (1) Is
contiguous with California and whose air quality may be affected by a
permit action, or (2) is within 50 miles of the source for which a
permit action is being proposed.''
(2) Butte County AQMD: (a) Butte County AQMD (BCAQMD) was required
to revise Rule 1101 V.C.6. to take final action on early reduction
applications within nine months of receipt of the complete application
rather than within nine months of the date the application was deemed
complete as required by 40 CFR 70.4(b)(11)(iii).
BCAQMD addressed this condition by revising Rule 1101 Section 5.3.6
(please note that BCAQMD has renumbered its rule) to require final
action no later than nine months ``after the complete application is
received'' rather than ``after the application is deemed complete.''
(b) BCAQMD was required to revise Rule 1101 IV.B.4. to incorporate
the compliance provisions of 40 CFR 70.7(e)(2)(v). Rule 1101 did not
state, as does Sec. 70.7(e)(2)(v), that until the District takes final
action to issue or deny the requested permit modification or determines
that it is a significant modification, the source must comply with both
the applicable requirements governing the change and the proposed
permit terms and conditions, but the source need not comply with the
existing permit terms and conditions being modified. Rule 1101 also
needed to be revised to state that if the source fails to comply with
the permit terms and conditions in the requested modification, the
existing permit terms and conditions being modified may be enforced
against it.
BCAQMD addressed this requirement by revising Rule 1101 Section
4.2.4 to eliminate the ability for sources to commence operation of
proposed modifications until the APCO takes final action to approve the
permit. This revision corrects the deficiencies in Rule 1101 that EPA
had identified as interim approval issues.
(c) BCAQMD was required to revise Rule 1101 IV.B.3. to limit the
discretion of the APCO to authorize sources to commence operations of
significant permit modifications prior to final permit action to when
the changes meet the criteria of 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(ii). Rule 1101
IV.B.3. allowed the APCO to authorize sources to commence operations of
significant permit modifications when the proposed permit revision is
publicly noticed but prior to final permit action. Part 70 prohibits
sources from making significant permit modification changes prior to
final permit issuance unless the changes are subject to preconstruction
review under Sec. 112(g) of the Act or preconstruction review programs
approved into the SIP pursuant to part C or D of title I of the Act,
and the changes are not otherwise prohibited by the source's existing
part 70 permit. See 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(ii).
BCAQMD addressed this requirement by revising Rule 1101 Section
4.2.3 to limit the discretion of the APCO to authorize sources to
commence operations of a significant permit modification prior to final
action only where the changes meet the criteria of 40 CFR
70.5(a)(1)(ii).
(3) Calaveras County APCD did not have to make any additional
corrections.
(4) Colusa County APCD: (a) The District was required to revise
Rule 3.17

[[Page 53361]]

d.2.D. to incorporate the compliance provisions of 40 CFR
70.7(e)(2)(v). Rule 3.17 did not state, as does Sec. 70.7(e)(2)(v),
that until the District takes final action to issue or deny the
requested permit modification or determines that it is a significant
modification, the source must comply with both the applicable
requirements governing the change and the proposed permit terms and
conditions, but the source need not comply with the existing permit
terms and conditions being modified. Rule 3.17 also needed to be
revised to state that if the source fails to comply with the permit
terms and conditions in the requested modification, the existing permit
terms and conditions being modified may be enforced against it.
Colusa County APCD (CCAPCD) addressed this requirement by revising
Rule 3.17 d.2.D to include the appropriate compliance provisions from
40 CFR 70.7(e)(2)(v).
(b) The District needed to revise Rule 3.17 d.2.C. to limit the
discretion of the APCO to authorize sources to commence operations of
significant permit modifications prior to final permit action to when
the changes meet the criteria of 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(ii). At the time of
interim approval, Rule 3.17 d.2.C. allowed the APCO to authorize
sources to commence operations of significant permit modifications when
the proposed permit revision was publicly noticed but prior to final
permit action. Part 70 prohibits sources from making significant permit
modification changes prior to final permit issuance unless the changes
are subject to preconstruction review under Sec. 112(g) of the Act or
preconstruction review programs approved into the SIP pursuant to part
C or D of title I of the Act and the changes are not otherwise
prohibited by the source's existing part 70 permit. See 40 CFR
70.5(a)(1)(ii).
CCAPCD addressed this requirement by revising Rule 317 d.2.C to
limit the discretion of the APCO to authorize sources to commence
operations of a significant permit modification prior to final action
only where the changes meet the criteria of 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(ii).
(5) El Dorado County APCD: (a) The District needed to revise Rule
522 to restrict the use of minor permit modification procedures to be
consistent with 40 CFR 70.7(e)(2)(i)(B). Rule 522, by default, allowed
minor permit modification procedures to be used for those permit
modifications that involve the use of economic incentives, marketable
permits, emissions trading, and other similar approaches. 40 CFR
70.7(e)(2)(i)(B) constrains the use of the minor permit modification
procedures for these approaches to situations where minor permit
modification procedures are explicitly provided for in the applicable
implementation plan or in the applicable requirements promulgated by
the EPA.
El Dorado County APCD (EDCAPCD) addressed this requirement by
revising its definition of minor modification in Rule 522.2(U) to
include the constraining language from 40 CFR 70.7(e)(2)(i)(B)
regarding minor permit modification procedures.
(b) EDCAPCD was required to revise Rule 522's permit content
requirements to provide that every permit contain a provision stating
that no permit revision shall be required, under any approved economic
incentives, marketable permits, emissions trading, and other similar
programs or processes for changes that are provided for in the permit
as required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(8). EDCAPCD addressed this requirement by
modifying Rule 522.6(B)(21) to add this provision from Sec. 70.6(a)(8).
(6) Feather River AQMD: (a) The District needed to revise Rule 10.3
to restrict the use of minor permit modification procedures to be
consistent with 40 CFR 70.7(e)(2)(i)(B). Rule 10.3, by default, allowed
minor permit modification procedures to be used for those permit
modifications that involve the use of economic incentives, marketable
permits, emissions trading, and other similar approaches. 40 CFR
70.7(e)(2)(i)(B) constrains the use of minor permit modification
procedures for these approaches to situations where minor permit
modification procedures are explicitly provided for in the applicable
implementation plan or in the applicable requirements promulgated by
the EPA.
Feather River AQMD (FRAQMD) addressed this requirement by revising
their definition of minor permit modification in Rule 10.3 B.21 to
include the constraining language from 40 CFR 70.7(e)(2)(i)(B)
regarding minor permit modification procedures.
(b) Feather River AQMD needed to revise Rule 10.3's permit content
requirements to provide that every permit contain a provision stating
that no permit revision shall be required, under any approved economic
incentives, marketable permits, emissions trading, and other similar
programs or processes for changes that are provided for in the permit
as required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(8).
FRAQMD addressed this requirement by modifying Rule 10.3 F.2.u to
add this provision from Sec. 70.6(a)(8).
(c) The District was required to revise Rule 10.3 D.2.c. to limit
the discretion of the APCO to authorize sources to commence operation
of significant permit modifications prior to final permit action to
when such changes meet the criteria of 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(ii). At the
time of interim approval, Rule 10.3 D.2.c. allowed the APCO to
authorize sources to commence operations of significant permit
modifications when the proposed permit revision was publicly noticed
but prior to final permit action. Part 70 prohibits sources from making
significant permit modification changes prior to final permit issuance
unless the changes are subject to preconstruction review under
Sec. 112(g) of the Act or preconstruction review programs approved into
the SIP pursuant to part C or D of title I of the Act and the changes
are not otherwise prohibited by the source's existing part 70 permit.
See 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(ii).
FRAQMD addressed this requirement by revising Rule 10.3 D.2.c. to
limit the discretion of the APCO to authorize sources to commence
operation of a significant permit modification prior to final action
only where the changes meet the criteria of 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(ii).
(7) Glenn County APCD: (a) Glenn County APCD (GCAPCD) needed to
revise the rule's operational flexibility provisions to require
notification by the source of operational flexibility changes to both
the EPA and the District as required by 40 CFR 70.4(b)(12).
GCAPCD addressed this requirement by revising Article VIII Section
V.I.3.e to require that written notice be provided to both USEPA and
the APCO as required by 40 CFR 70.4(b)(12).
(b) GCAPCD was required to revise Article VIII V.C.6.3. to take
final action on early reduction applications within nine months of
receipt of the complete application rather than within nine months of
the date the application was deemed complete as required by 40 CFR
70.4(b)(11)(iii).
GCAPCD addressed this condition by revising Article VIII V.C.6.3 to
require final action no later than nine months ``after the complete
application is received'' rather than ``after the application is deemed
complete.''
(8) Great Basin Unified APCD: (a) The District needed to revise
Rule 217 IV.B.1.b. to delete the phrase ``or is discovered to be
subject.'' When EPA granted the District interim approval, Rule 217
IV.B.1.b. established a 12-month deadline for applications from sources
which are ``discovered to be subject to Rule 217 after the date the
rule becomes effective.'' It is a source's obligation to determine if
it is or is not subject to title V and Rule 217. A source that is
subject but fails to apply for a permit in the appropriate timeframes
is in violation of its Clean Air Act section

[[Page 53362]]

502(a) obligation to apply for a part 70 permit and is subject to
appropriate enforcement action. Discovery of a source that should have
applied for a part 70 permit at an earlier date should not
automatically provide that source twelve additional months to apply for
a permit. The period for permit application should be decided in the
context of the enforcement action against the source for failing to
apply for and/or have a valid part 70 permit.
Great Basin Unified APCD (GBUAPCD) addressed this requirement by
deleting the phrase ``or is discovered to be subject'' from Rule 217
IV.B.1.b.
(b) The District was required to revise all deadlines for final
permit action in Rule 217 V.C. (except for C.1. and C.5.) to be no
later than the appropriate number of months after the complete
application is received, rather than after the application is deemed
complete, as required by 40 CFR 70.4(b)(11)(iii) and 70.7(a)(2).
GBUAPCD addressed this requirement by changing the deadlines in
Rule 217 V.C.2, C.3, C.4, and C.6 to require final action no later than
the appropriate number of months ``after the complete application is
received'' rather than ``after the application is deemed complete.''
(c) The District needed to revise Rule 217 V.I.2 and V.I.3.e. to
require notification by the source of operational flexibility changes
to both the EPA and the District as required by 40 CFR 70.4(b)(12).
GBUAPCD addressed this requirement by modifying Rule 217 V.I.2 and
V.I.3.e to require that written notice be provided to both USEPA and
the APCO as required by 40 CFR 70.4(b)(12).
(9) Imperial County APCD: (a) Imperial County APCD (ICAPCD) was
required to revise Rule 900 E.3.f. to take final action on early
reduction applications within nine months of receipt of the complete
application rather than the date the application was deemed complete as
required by 40 CFR 70.4(b)(11)(iii).
ICAPCD addressed this condition by revising Rule 900 to require
final action no later than nine months ``after the complete application
is received'' rather than ``after the application is deemed complete.''
(b) ICAPCD was required to submit a complete Acid Rain Program
consistent with 40 CFR part 72 and title IV of the Act. ICAPCD
submitted a complete Acid Rain program (Rule 901) that was determined
to be acceptable to the EPA Administrator as part of the District's
title V operating permits program. (See 60 FR 52911, October 11, 1995).
(c) ICAPCD was required to revise Rule 900 E.9.b. and c. to require
notification by the source of operational flexibility changes to both
the EPA and the District as required by 40 CFR 70.4(b)(11)(iii).
ICAPCD revised both sections of Rule 900 to require that written
notice be provided to both USEPA and the APCO as required by
Sec. 70.4(b)(12).
(10) Kern County APCD did not have to make any additional
corrections.
(11) Lake County AQMD: (a) Lake County AQMD (LCAQMD) was required
to revise the rule's operational flexibility provisions to require
notification by the source of operational flexibility changes to both
the EPA and the District as required by 40 CFR 70.4(b)(12).
LCAQMD addressed this condition by adding new Section 12.580(a)(5)
to require that EPA and the District be notified by the source in
writing of all operational flexibility changes at least 30 days prior
to the change as required by 40 CFR 70.4(b)(12).
(b) The District's maintenance exemption in Section 500 did not
prohibit sources from violating some types of permit terms (including
those that limit emissions, such as a work practice standard or a
requirement to continuously apply a control technology) while shutting
down control equipment for maintenance and, therefore, the rule did not
allow the District the authority to enforce against all types of
violations, as required under 40 CFR 70.11. The District was required
to narrow the maintenance exemption in Section 500 to state that
violations of applicable federal requirements including part 70 permit
terms may not be automatically exempted.
LCAQMD addressed this requirement by narrowing Section 500 to
require that all applicable federal requirements be met during periods
when maintenance and scheduled outages of abatement or control
equipment occur.
(c) The District rule needed to be clarified to state that citizen
enforcement, as well as EPA enforcement, of Clean Air Act requirements
is not affected by APCO discretion, as expressed in Sections 500 and
510, to not pursue an enforcement action.
LCAQMD addressed this condition by revising Section 500 to clarify
that any discretion exercised by the APCO shall not impede or otherwise
interfere with the ability of the EPA, or citizens, to bring an
enforcement action or suit under the CAA.
(d) The District was required to revise Section 510 to require the
actions that are ``beyond the reasonable control of the source
operator'' to also meet the criteria in the rule for qualifying for an
exemption.
LCAQMD addressed this requirement by amending Section 510 to
require that all the listed criteria must be met in order for the Air
Pollution Control Officer to not pursue an enforcement action. Further,
Lake County amended the rule to eliminate the phrase, ``are not a
violation of an emission limitation contained in a permit or rule,''
and added a statement to clarify that any discretion exercised by the
APCO shall not impede or otherwise interfere with the ability of the
EPA, or citizens, to bring an enforcement action or suit under the CAA.
(e) Lake County was required to revise all deadlines for final
permit action in Chapter VII, Section 12.520 (except for (a) and (e))
to be no later than the appropriate number of months after the complete
application is received, rather than after the application is deemed
complete, as required by 40 CFR 70.4(b)(11)(iii) and 70.7(a)(2).
LCAQMD addressed this condition by revising Sections 12.520(b),
(c), (d) and (f) to require final action no later than the appropriate
number of months ``after the complete application is received'' rather
than ``after the application is deemed complete.''
(12) Lassen County APCD: (a) The District was required to revise
all deadlines for final permit action in Rule 7:5 c. (except for c.1.
and c.5.) to be no later than the appropriate number of months after
the complete application is received, rather than after the application
is deemed complete as required, by 40 CFR 70.4(b)(11)(iii) and
70.7(a)(2).
Lassen County APCD (LCAPCD) addressed this condition by revising
Rule 7:6 c.2, 3, 4, and 6 to require final action no later than the
appropriate number of months ``after the complete application is
received'' rather than ``after the application is deemed complete.''
(b) LCAPCD needed to revise Rule 7:5 b.4. to clarify that the
APCO's approval of a minor permit modification prior to EPA's review is
not a final permit action. Rule 7:5 b.4. allowed the APCO to approve
minor permit modifications changes prior to EPA's review; however, 40
CFR 70.7(e)(2)(iv) precludes the District from issuing a final permit
modification until after EPA's review period or until EPA has notified
the District that EPA will not object, although the District may
approve the permit modification prior to that time.
LCAQMD addressed this condition by revising Rule 7:5 b.4 to
eliminate the ability for sources to commence

[[Page 53363]]

operation of proposed modifications until the APCO takes final action
to approve the permit. This revision corrects the deficiencies in Rule
7:5 b.4 EPA had identified as interim approval issues.
(c) LCAPCD was required to revise Rule 7.5 b.4. to incorporate the
compliance provisions of 40 CFR 70.7(e)(2)(v). Regulation VII did not
state, as does Sec. 70.7(e)(2)(v), that until the District takes final
action to issue or deny the requested permit modification or determines
that it is a significant modification, the source must comply with both
the applicable requirements governing the change and the proposed
permit terms and conditions, but the source need not comply with the
existing permit terms and conditions being modified. Regulation VII
also needed to be revised to state that if the source fails to comply
with the permit terms and conditions in the requested modification, the
existing permit terms and conditions being modified may be enforced
against it.
LCAQMD addressed this condition by revising Rule 7:5.b.4 to
eliminate the ability for sources to commence operation of proposed
modifications until the APCO takes final action to approve the permit.
See above.
(d) LCAPCD needed to revise Rule 7:5 b.3. to limit the discretion
of the APCO to authorize sources to commence operations of significant
permit modifications prior to final permit action to when the changes
meet the criteria of 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(ii). Rule 7:5 b.3. allowed the
APCO to approve significant permit modifications and the source to
commence operations of those modifications prior to the EPA's review
and final permit action. Part 70 prohibits sources from making
significant permit modification changes prior to final permit issuance
unless the changes are subject to preconstruction review under
Sec. 112(g) of the Act or preconstruction review programs approved into
the SIP pursuant to part C or D of title I of the Act and the changes
are not otherwise prohibited by the source's existing part 70 permit.
See 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(ii).
LCAQMD addressed this requirement by revising Rule 7:5 b.3 to limit
the discretion of the APCO to authorize sources to commence operations
of a significant permit modification prior to final action only where
the changes meet the criteria of 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(ii).
(e) LCAPCD was required to revise Rule 7:6 i.2. and 3. to require
notification by the source of operational flexibility changes to both
the EPA and the District as required by 40 CFR 70.4(b)(11)(iii).
LCAQMD addressed this condition by revising Rule 7:6 i.2 and 3 to
require that written notice be provided to both USEPA and the APCO as
required by 40 CFR 70.4(b)(12).
(13) Mariposa County APCD did not have to make any additional
corrections.
(14) Mendocino County APCD: (a) The District was required to revise
all deadlines for final permit action in Regulation 5, Rule 5.520
(except for (a) and (e)) to be no later than the appropriate number of
months after the complete application is received, rather than after
the application is deemed complete, as required by 40 CFR
70.4(b)(11)(iii) and 70.7(a)(2).
Mendocino County APCD (MCAPCD) addressed this requirement by
revising the necessary portions of Rule 5.520 to require final action
no later than the appropriate number of months ``after the complete
application is received'' rather than ``after the application is deemed
complete.''
(b) MCAPCD was required to revise Regulation 5, Rule 5.580(b) and
(c) to require notification by the source of operational flexibility
changes to both the EPA and the District as required by 40 CFR
70.4(b)(11)(iii).
MCAPCD addressed this condition by revising Rule 5.580(b) and (c)
to require that written notice be provided to both USEPA and the APCO
as required by 40 CFR 70.4(b)(12).
(c) MCAPCD was required to restrict insignificant activities to
those that are not likely to be subject to an applicable requirement
and emit less than-District-established emission levels. EPA had
recommended that the District 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 the type of units that are required to be permitted or subject to
applicable requirements.
MCAPCD addressed this condition by adding a definition of
insignificant activities at Rule 5.200(i2) to be any activity, or
combination of similar activities, that generates less than 5 tons per
year of carbon monoxide, or less than 2 tons per year of any other
criteria pollutant (VOC, PM, NO_X, SO_X,
O₃, Pb). Further, the definition states that an
insignificant activity must generate less than 1000 pounds per year of
a compound listed under the Federal Clean Air Act Amendment for 1990
Sec. 112(b)(1) as amended, or less than the daily outputs listed in
Regulation 1, Rule 130(s2), whichever is smaller. In addition, a
section to Rule 5.415 was added to require that a permit application
may not omit information needed to determine the applicability of, or
to impose, any applicable requirement, or to evaluate the fee amount.
(15) Modoc County APCD: (a) MCAPCD was required to revise all
deadlines for final permit action in Rule 2.13 IV.C. (except for C.1.
and C.5.) to be no later than the appropriate number of months after
the complete application is received, rather than after the application
is deemed to be complete, as required by 40 CFR 70.4(b)(11)(iii) and
70.7(a)(2).
MCAPCD revised Rule 2.13 to require final action no later than the
appropriate number of months ``after the complete application is
received'' rather than ``after the application is deemed complete.''
(b) MCAPCD was required to revise Rule 2.13 IV.B.4. to clarify that
the APCO's approval of a minor permit modification prior to EPA's
review is not a final permit action. Rule 2.13 IV.B.4. allowed the APCO
to approve minor permit modification changes prior to the EPA's review;
however, 40 CFR 70.7(e)(2)(iv) precludes the District from issuing a
final permit modification until after EPA's review period or until the
EPA has notified the District that EPA will not object, although the
District may approve the permit modification prior to that time.
MCAPCD addressed this requirement by adding language to Rule 2.13
that clarifies the conditions under which a source can implement a
permit modification that has not yet been approved by the APCO and EPA.
The new language includes the criteria that a source must satisfy in
order to make a change prior to permit issuance, and states that
``[a]llowing a stationary source to make a change prior to permit
issuance does not constitute final action and does not preclude the
District from denying the change or requiring the change to be
processed as a significant permit modification, nor does it preclude
the U.S. EPA from objecting to the permit modification.''
(c) MCAPCD was required to revise Rule 2.13 IV.B.4. to incorporate
the compliance provisions of 40 CFR 70.7(e)(2)(v). Rule 2.13 did not
state, as does Sec. 70.7(e)(2)(v), that until the District takes final
action to issue or deny the requested permit modification or determines
that it is a significant modification, the source must comply with both
the applicable requirements governing the change and the proposed
permit terms and conditions, but the source need not comply with the
existing permit terms and conditions being modified. Rule 2.13 also had
to be revised to state that if the source fails to comply with the
permit terms and

[[Page 53364]]

conditions in the requested modification, the existing permit terms and
conditions being modified may be enforced against it.
MCAPCD addressed this requirement by revising Rule 2.13 to include
the appropriate compliance provisions from 40 CFR 70.7(e)(2)(v).
(d) MCAPCD was required to revise Rule 2.13 IV.B.3. to limit the
discretion of the APCO to authorize sources to commence operations of
significant permit modifications prior to final permit action to when
the changes meet the criteria of 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(ii). Rule 2.13
IV.B.3. allowed the APCO to approve significant permit modifications
and the source to commence operations of those modifications prior to
the EPA's review and final permit action. Part 70 prohibits sources
from making significant permit modification changes prior to final
permit issuance unless the changes are subject to preconstruction
review under Sec. 112(g) of the Act or preconstruction review programs
approved into the SIP pursuant to part C or D of title I of the Act and
the changes are not otherwise prohibited by the source's existing part
70 permit. See 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(ii).
MCAPCD addressed this condition by revising Rule 213 to limit the
discretion of the APCO to authorize sources to commence operations of a
significant permit modification prior to final action only where the
changes meet the criteria of 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(ii).
(e) MCAPCD was required to revise Rule 2.13 V.I.2 and V.I.3. to
require notification by the source of operational flexibility changes
to both the EPA and the District as required by 40 CFR
70.4(b)(11)(iii).
MCAPCD revised both sections of Rule 2.13 to require that written
notice be provided to both USEPA and the APCO as required by 40 CFR
70.4(b)(12).
(16) North Coast Unified AQMD: (a) North Coast Unified AQMD
(NCUAQMD) was required to revise Regulation 5, Rule 520(f) to take
final action on early reduction applications within nine months of
receipt of the complete application rather than the date the
application was deemed complete as required by 40 CFR 70.4(b)(11)(iii).
NCUAQMD addressed this condition by revising Rule 520 to require
final action no later than nine months ``after the complete application
is received'' rather than ``after the application is deemed complete.''
(b) NCUAQMD was required to submit a complete Acid Rain Program
consistent with 40 CFR part 72 and title IV of the Act.
NCUAQMD submitted a complete Acid Rain Program (Rules 300 and 690)
that was determined to be acceptable to the EPA Administrator as part
of the District's title V operating permits program. (See 60 FR 52911,
October 11, 1995).
(c) NCUAQMD was required to revise Regulation 5, Rule 580(b) and
(c) to require notification by the source of operational flexibility
changes to both the EPA and the District as required by 40 CFR
70.4(b)(11)(iii).
NCUAQMD addressed this condition by revising both sections of Rule
580 to require that written notice be provided to both USEPA and the
APCO as required by 40 CFR 70.4(b)(12).
(17) Northern Sierra AQMD was not required to make any additional
corrections.
(18) Northern Sonoma County APCD: (a) Northern Sonoma County APCD
(NSCAPCD) was required to revise all deadlines for final permit action
in Rule 5.520 (except for (a) and (e)) to be no later than the
appropriate number of months after the complete application is received
rather than after the application is deemed complete as required by 40
CFR 70.4(b)(11)(iii) and 70.7(a)(2).
NSCAPCD addressed this requirement by changing the deadlines in
Rule 5.520(b),(c),(d), and (f) to require final action no later than
the appropriate number of months ``after the complete application is
received'' rather than ``after the application is deemed complete.''
(b) NSCAPCD needed to revise Rule 5.580(b) and (c) to require
notification by the source of operational flexibility changes to both
the EPA and the District as required by 40 CFR 70.4(b)(11)(iii).
NSCAPCD addressed this requirement by modifying Rule 5.580(b) and
(c) to require sources to provide written notice to USEPA, in addition
to the APCO, in advance of implementing the operational flexibility
provisions of the District's Rule.
(c) The District needed to revise Policy A-33A (Small Emission
Source Exemptions) to state that the APCO may not exempt from the
requirement for permitting any process, article, machine, equipment,
device or contrivance at a title V source if that process, etc. is
subject to an applicable federal requirement. NSCAPCD also had to
revise the Policy to restrict the exemptions (including any director's
discretion provisions) to activities that emit less than District-
established emission levels for HAPs. EPA also required the District to
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.
NSCAPCD elected to address this requirement by eliminating the
Small Emission Sources Exemptions Policy (A-33A) from their operating
permits program.
(19) Placer County APCD: (a) Placer County APCD (PCAPCD) needed to
revise the definition of ``major source,'' section 219 of Rule 507, to
reference the ``major source'' definition in CAA Sec. 112, rather than
the CAA Sec. 112 ``source'' definition. Also, since ``source'' is not
defined in Rule 507, PCAPCD had to revise section 219.2 to refer to a
``stationary source'' with a potential to emit, rather than a
``source.''
PCAPCD addressed this requirement by revising Sections 219.1 and
219.2 of Rule 507 to make the required changes regarding the definition
of ``major stationary source.''
(b) The District was required to revise Section 302.6 of Rule 507
to limit the discretion of the APCO to authorize sources to commence
operations of significant permit modifications prior to final permit
action to when the changes meet the criteria of 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(ii).
At the time of interim approval, Section 302.6 of Rule 507 allowed the
APCO to authorize sources to commence operation of significant permit
modifications when the proposed permit was publicly noticed but prior
to final permit modification. Part 70 prohibits sources from making
significant permit modification changes prior to final permit issuance
unless the changes are subject to preconstruction review under
Sec. 112(g) of the Act or preconstruction review programs approved into
the SIP pursuant to part C or D of title I of the Act and the changes
are not otherwise prohibited by the source's existing part 70 permit.
See 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(ii).
PCAPCD addressed this requirement by revising Section 302.6 of Rule
507 to limit the discretion of the APCO to authorize sources to
commence operation of a significant permit modification prior to final
action only where the changes meet the criteria of 40 CFR
70.5(a)(1)(ii).
(c) Placer County APCD needed to revise Section 302.7 of Rule 507
to restrict the use of minor permit modification procedures consistent
with 40 CFR 70.7(e)(2)(i)(B). Rule 507, by default, allowed minor
permit modification procedures to be used for those permit
modifications that involve the use of economic incentives, marketable
permits, emissions trading,

[[Page 53365]]

and other similar approaches. 40 CFR 70.7(e)(2)(i)(B) constrains the
use of the minor permit modification procedures for these approaches to
situations where minor permit modification procedures are explicitly
provided for in the applicable implementation plan or in the applicable
requirements promulgated by EPA.
PCAPCD addressed this requirement by revising their definition of
minor modification in Rule 507, Section 220, to include the
constraining language from 40 CFR 70.7(e)(2)(i)(B) regarding minor
permit modification procedures.
(d) The District was required to revise Rule 507's permit content
requirements (Section 402) to provide that every permit contain a
provision stating that no permit revision shall be required, under any
approved economic incentives, marketable permits, emissions trading,
and other similar programs or processes for changes that are provided
for in the permit as required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(8).
PCAPCD addressed this requirement by modifying Rule 507, Section
402.2(u) to add this provision from 40 CFR 70.6(a)(8).
(e) The District needed to revise all deadlines for final permit
action in section 401.3 of Rule 507 (except for a. and e.) to be no
later than the appropriate number of months after the complete
application is received, rather than after the application is deemed
complete, as required by 40 CFR 70.4(b)(11)(iii) and 70.7(a)(2).
PCAPCD addressed this requirement by changing the deadlines in Rule
507, Sections 401.3(b), (c), (d), and (f) to require final action no
later than the appropriate number of months ``after the complete
application is received'' rather than ``after the application is deemed
complete.''
(f) Placer County APCD needed to revise Section 401.9 of Rule 507
to require notification by the source of operational flexibility
changes to both the EPA and the District as required by 40 CFR
70.4(b)(11)(iii).
PCAPCD addressed this requirement by modifying Sections 401.9(b)
and (c) of Rule 507 to require sources to provide written notice to
USEPA, in addition to the APCO, in advance of implementing the
operational flexibility provisions of the District's Rule.
(20) Shasta County APCD: (a) Shasta County APCD (SCAPCD) needed to
revise the rule's operational flexibility provisions to require
notification by the source of operational flexibility changes to both
the EPA and the District as required by 40 CFR 70.4(b)(12).
SCAPCD addressed this requirement by revising Rule 5, Section
V.I.2.c to require this dual notification of operational flexibility
changes, as required by part 70.
(b) SCAPCD was required to revise all deadlines for final permit
action in Rule 5 IV.C. (except for C.1. and C.5.) to be no later than
the appropriate number of months after the complete application is
received, rather than after the application is deemed complete, as
required by 40 CFR 70.4(b)(11)(iii) and 70.7(a)(2).
SCAPCD addressed this requirement by modifying Rule 5, Sections
V.C(2), (C)(3), (C)(4), and (C)(6) to refer to the appropriate number
of months ``after the complete application is received.''
(c) SCAPCD needed to revise Rule 3:10 (Excess Emissions) to remove
the prohibition on the use of reports required by Rule 3:10 in
enforcement/permitting actions.
SCAPCD addressed this requirement by removing this prohibition from
Rule 3:10.
(d) SCAPCD was required to revise paragraph (g) of Rule 3:10 to
include a provision that EPA, as well as the APCO, can request a
demonstration that the excess emissions are unavoidable. In addition,
the rule needed to clarify that the APCO will specify in the permit the
amount, time, duration, and under what circumstances excess emissions
are allowed during start-up and shut-down.
SCAPCD addressed this requirement by revising paragraph (g) of Rule
3:10 to allow EPA to request a demonstration that excess emissions are
unavoidable, and clarified in Rule 3:10 that the APCO will specify
certain limits and restrictions regarding excess emissions during
start-up and shut-down in the permit.
(21) Siskiyou County APCD: (a) Siskiyou County APCD (SCAPCD) was
required to revise all deadlines for final permit action in Rule 2.13
IV.C. (except for C.1. and C.5.) to be no later than the appropriate
number of months after the complete application is received, rather
than after the application is deemed complete, as required by 40 CFR
70.4(b)(11)(iii) and 70.7(a)(2).
SCAPCD addressed this requirement by revising rule 2.13 to require
final action no later than nine months ``after the complete application
is received'' rather than ``after the application is deemed complete.''
(b) SCAPCD needed to revise Rule 2.13 IV.B.4. to clarify that the
APCO's approval of a minor permit modification prior to EPA's review is
not a final permit action. Rule 2.13 IV.B.4. allowed the APCO to
approve minor permit modifications changes prior to the EPA's review;
however, 40 CFR 70.7(e)(2)(iv) precludes the District from issuing a
final permit modification until after EPA's review period or until EPA
has notified the District that EPA will not object, although the
District may approve the permit modification prior to that time.
SCAPCD addressed this requirement by revising Rule 2.13 IV.B.4. to
state the following: ``allowing a stationary source to make a change
prior to permit issuance does not constitute final action and does not
preclude the District from denying the change or requiring the change
to be processed as a significant permit modification, nor does it
preclude the U.S. EPA from objecting to the permit modification.''
(c) SCAPCD was required to revise Rule 2.13 IV.B.4. to incorporate
the compliance provisions of 40 CFR 70.7(e)(2)(v). Rule 2.13 IV.B.4
allowed the APCO to approve minor permit modifications prior to the
EPA's review. While this is allowed under 40 CFR 70.7(e)(2)(v), Rule
2.13 did not state, as does Sec. 70.7(e)(2)(v), that until the District
takes final action to issue or deny the requested permit modification
or determines that it is a significant modification, the source must
comply with both the applicable requirements governing the change and
the proposed permit terms and conditions, but the source need not
comply with the existing permit terms and conditions being modified.
Rule 2.13 also needed to be revised to state that if the source fails
to comply with the permit terms and conditions in the requested
modification, the existing permit terms and conditions being modified
may be enforced against it.
SCAPCD addressed this condition by revising Rule 2.13 IV.B.4 to
include the appropriate compliance provisions from 40 CFR
70.7(e)(2)(v).
(d) SCAPCD was required to revise Rule 2.13 IV.B.3. to limit the
discretion of the APCO to authorize sources to commence operations of
significant permit modifications prior to final permit action to when
the changes meet the criteria of 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(ii). Rule 2.13
IV.B.3. allowed the APCO to approve significant permit modifications
and the source to commence operations of those modifications prior to
the EPA's review and final permit action. Part 70 prohibits sources
from making significant permit modification changes prior to final
permit issuance unless the changes are subject to preconstruction
review under Sec. 112(g) of the Act or preconstruction review programs
approved into the SIP pursuant to part C or D of title I of the Act and
the changes are not otherwise prohibited by

[[Page 53366]]

the source's existing part 70 permit. See 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(ii).
SCAPCD addressed this requirement by revising Rule 2.13 IV.B.3 to
limit the discretion of the APCO to authorize sources to commence
operations of a significant permit modification prior to final action
only where the changes meet the criteria of 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(ii).
(e) SCAPCD was required to revise Rule 2.13 V.I.2 and V.I.3. to
require notification by the source of operational flexibility changes
to both the EPA and the District as required by 40 CFR
70.4(b)(11)(iii).
SCAPCD addressed this condition by revising Rule 2.13 V.I.2 and
V.I.3 to require that EPA and the District be notified by the source in
writing of all operational flexibility changes at least 30 days prior
to the change.
(22) Tehama County APCD: (a) Tehama County APCD (TCAPCD) was
required to revise the rule's operational flexibility provisions to
require notification by the source of operational flexibility changes
to both the EPA and the District as required by 40 CFR 70.4(b)(12).
TCAPCD addressed this condition by revising Rule 7:1 E.9.a.2.b. to
require that USEPA and the District be notified by the source in
writing of all operational flexibility changes at least 30 days prior
to the change.
(b) TCAPCD was required to revise Rule 7:1 IV.B.4. to incorporate
the compliance provisions of 40 CFR 70.7(e)(2)(v). Rule 7:1 did not
state, as does Sec. 70.7(e)(2)(v), that until the District takes final
action to issue or deny the requested permit modification or determines
that it is a significant modification, the source must comply with the
applicable requirements governing the change and the proposed permit
terms and conditions in lieu of complying with the existing permit
terms and conditions being modified. Rule 7:1 also needed to be revised
to state that if the source fails to comply with the permit terms and
conditions in the requested modification, the existing permit terms and
conditions may be enforced against it.
TCAPCD addressed this condition by revising Rule 7:1 D.2.d (note
that the rule has been renumbered) to include the appropriate
compliance provisions from Sec. 70.7(e)(2)(v).
(c) TCAPCD was required to revise Rule 7:1 IV.B.3. to limit the
discretion of the APCO to authorize sources to commence operation of
significant permit modifications prior to final permit action to when
the changes meet the criteria of 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(ii). Rule 7:1
IV.B.3. allowed the APCO to authorize sources to commence operation of
significant permit modifications when the proposed permit revision is
publicly noticed but prior to final permit action. Part 70 prohibits
sources from making significant permit modification changes prior to
final permit issuance unless the changes have undergone preconstruction
review pursuant to Sec. 112(g) or a program approved into the SIP
pursuant to part C or D of title I, and the changes are not otherwise
prohibited by the source's existing part 70 permit. See 40 CFR
70.5(a)(1)(ii).
TCAPCD addressed this requirement by revising Rule 7:1 D.2.c to
limit the discretion of the APCO to authorize sources to commence
operations of a significant permit modification prior to final action
only where the changes meet the criteria of 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(ii).
(23) Tuolumne County APCD: (a) Tuolumne County APCD (TCAPCD) was
required to revise all deadlines for final permit action in Rule 500
V.C. (except for C.1. and C.5.) to be no later than the appropriate
number of months after the complete application is received, rather
than after the application is deemed complete, as required by 40 CFR
70.4(b)(11)(iii) and 70.7(a)(2).
TCAPCD addressed this condition by revising Rule 500 to require
final action no later than the appropriate number of months ``after the
complete application is received'' rather than ``after the application
is deemed complete.''
(b) TCAPCD was required to revise the definition of ``potential to
emit'' in Rule 500 II.Y. to clarify that only federally-enforceable
limitations may be considered in determining a source's potential to
emit under title V.
TCAPCD addressed this condition by revising this definition, which
now states that ``physical and operational limitations on the emissions
unit shall be treated as part of its design, if the limitations are set
forth in permit conditions or in rules or regulations that are legally
and practicably enforceable by U.S. EPA and citizens or by the
District.'' For a discussion of how subsequent litigation has affected
EPA's consideration of this issue, please refer to the Amador County
portion of Section IV.A.2. of this Federal Register. EPA's description
of the potential to emit issue for Amador County also applies to
TCAPCD, which made the same rule change.
(24) Yolo-Solano AQMD: (a) The District was required to revise Rule
3.8 to restrict the use of minor permit modification procedures
consistent with 40 CFR 70.7(e)(2)(i)(B). Rule 507, by default, allowed
minor permit modification procedures to be used for those permit
modifications that involve the use of economic incentives, marketable
permits, emissions trading, and other similar approaches. 40 CFR
70.7(e)(2)(i)(B) constrains the use of the minor permit modification
procedures for these approaches to situations where minor permit
modification procedures are explicitly provided for in the applicable
implementation plan or in the applicable requirements promulgated by
the EPA.
Yolo-Solano AQMD (YSAQMD) addressed this requirement by revising
its definition of minor modification in Rule 3.8, Section 222, to
include the constraining language from 40 CFR 70.7(e)(2)(i)(B)
regarding minor permit modification procedures.
(b) The District needed to Revise Rule 3.8's permit content
requirements to provide that every permit contain a provision stating
that no permit revision shall be required, under any approved economic
incentives, marketable permits, emissions trading, and other similar
programs or processes for changes that are provided for in the permit
as required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(8).
YSAQMD addressed this requirement by modifying Rule 3.8 Section
302.22 to add this provision from Sec. 70.6(a)(8).

A. Other District-Specific Changes Submitted Since EPA Granted Final
Interim Approval

In addition to the changes each district made to correct interim
approval issues, most districts also made other changes to their rule
(or program) that go beyond those necessary to receive full approval.
This section describes, in general terms, the additional rule or
program changes that districts have made. EPA proposes approval of most
of the additional changes described below. For one rule change, made by
several of the districts, EPA is taking no action. For a complete
description of the rule changes and the basis for our decision to
propose approval, or to take no action, please see the Technical
Support Documents.
Most of the districts made at least one of four changes recommended
by the California Air Resources Board in its January 18, 2001 table
entitled, ``Summary of Title V Interim Approval Issues.'' Because these
changes are common to many districts, we will discuss them here and
refer back to the changes, where necessary, in the discussion of
district-specific changes below. For three of the common changes, EPA
is proposing approval, and for the fourth change, EPA is taking no
action today. The three common changes that EPA is proposing to approve
are:

[[Page 53367]]

(a) Definition of Potential to Emit: Many districts changed the
definition of ``potential to emit'' (PTE) to clarify wording and to add
that the emissions limits be ``legally and practicably enforceable by
U.S. EPA and citizens or by the District.'' Enforceability of PTE
limits was an interim approval deficiency for Amador County APCD and
Tuolumne County APCD and each has made the necessary change to resolve
the deficiency (see Section IV.A.2). Ten other districts also made the
same change to their definition of PTE, although the revision did not
address an interim approval deficiency in these cases. EPA proposes to
approve this rule revision for all of the districts that made the
change, as identified below. For a discussion of why EPA is proposing
to approve districts' revision to the definition of PTE, please refer
to the Amador County portion of Section IV.A.2. of this Federal
Register and to the TSD.
(b) Owner/Operator Change: Some districts changed the term ``owner/
operator'' to ``responsible official'' in the permit content portion
(and perhaps other sections) of their rule. It was not identified as an
interim approval deficiency for any districts and it is an important
change that EPA proposes to approve.
(c) Applicability Section Clarification: Many Districts revised the
Applicability section of their rule to clarify wording regarding
sources that are exempt from the title V program (e.g., residential
wood heaters, asbestos NESHAP-regulated sources, and other sources in a
source category that EPA has deferred). This wording clarification
improves the programs and EPA proposes to approve the clarification.
The fourth common change that several districts made was a revision
to the effective date of their rules. EPA is currently evaluating the
approvability of the change to the effective date of the districts'
operating permits rules. Because EPA has not yet determined whether
this change is approvable under the requirements of 40 CFR part 70, and
since this change was not required by EPA for any district to receive
full program approval, the Agency is taking no action at this time.
The following changes beyond those necessary for full approval have
been submitted to EPA since interim approval was granted. EPA proposes
full approval of all the following changes, except for the effective
date change, as noted above. Please refer to the TSD for details on the
rule/program changes and the basis for our proposed approval or
decision to take no action.
(1) Amador County APCD. Amador County APCD made all four of the
common changes noted above. However, the revision of the definition of
``potential to emit'' was done to address an interim approval
deficiency. This change is therefore described in Section IV.A.2.
above. EPA is also proposing to approve the District's replacement of
the term owner/operator at Section IV.C.K.1.a and Amador County APCD's
clarification of its exempt sources list at Section III.B. EPA is
taking no action on the District's change to the effective date of Rule
500 at Section I.
In addition to the changes noted above, EPA is proposing to approve
revisions to sections I through VII Rule 500 adopted by ACAPCD on
February 25, 1997. The purpose of the 1997 rule changes was to make
Rule 500 consistent with EPA guidance on permit streamlining. See
``White Paper Number 2 for Improved Implementation of The Part 70
Operating Permits Program'', March 5, 1996.
ACAPCD's definition of potential to emit in Section II.BB.2 of Rule
500 lists source categories that must count fugitives for the purposes
of determining potential to emit. In the part of the definition that
addresses stationary sources, subparagraph 3 has been modified to read:
``any other stationary source category regulated under section 111 or
112 of the CAA, and for which the U.S. EPA has made an affirmative
determination by rule under section 302(j) of the CAA.'' (emphasis
added) The addition of the 302(j) requirement restricts the types of
sources that are required to count fugitives towards the major source
threshold. This is inconsistent with the current version of part 70 and
is not approvable.
EPA has, however, proposed to revise the major source definition to
incorporate a 1980 cutoff date, consistent with EPA's New Source Review
regulations. EPA final action would mean that Rule 500 would be
consistent with part 70 with respect to which sources must count
fugitives. We are therefore proposing to approve the District's
definition of potential to emit provided that EPA finalizes revisions
to the part 70 rule that will make the change approvable.
Alternatively, if EPA does not finalize the changes to part 70
described above, a portion of ACAPCD's potential to emit definition
will conflict with the operative version of the major source definition
in part 70 and we will be unable to approve it.
The change that EPA will make to part 70 will make that rule
consistent with EPA's New Source Review regulations in parts 51 and 52
with respect to the treatment of fugitives in major source
determinations. The revised part 70 language will require that
fugitives be counted for ``Any other stationary source category which,
as of August 7, 1980, is being regulated under section 111 or 112 of
the Act.'' This differs from the ACAPCD language cited above, which
relies on 302(j) rulemaking instead of the 1980 cut-off date to
determine which sources must count fugitives. However, at the present
time, the 302(j) requirement in Rule 500 captures the same sources as
the revised part 70 will, since EPA has not done any 302(j) rulemakings
to expand the types of sources for which fugitive emissions are counted
to determine title V applicability. If EPA does 302(j) rulemakings in
the future, the Agency will have to revise part 70 to ensure that
fugitives are counted for the new source category. The advantage of
ACAPCD's language is that Rule 500 will not have to be revised if the
universe of source categories for which fugitives are counted is
expanded by EPA via 302(j) rulemakings.
In addition to the rule changes, ACAPCD's April 10, 2001 submittal
of its amended title V program to EPA included one programmatic change.
The District will use California Air Resource Board (CARB) model
application forms instead of the forms initially approved by EPA for
use in the District's title V program. EPA is also proposing to approve
the use of these forms as part of ACAPCD's title V program. Copies of
the forms are available in the docket for this rulemaking.
(2) Butte County AQMD. Butte County made all four of the common
changes noted above to Rule 1101. EPA proposes to approve the
modification of the definition of potential to emit at Section 2.23.1,
the replacement of the term owner/operator at Section 6.5.14.1, and the
District's clarification of its exempt sources list at Section 3.2. EPA
is taking no action on Butte County AQMD's change to the effective date
of Rule 1101 in Section I. In addition, on June 24, 1999, the District
modified its title V rules to: (1) Create new Rule 505 ``Title V Fees''
which replaced section 7 of previous Regulation V, Rule 1101; and (2)
to completely recodify rule 1101 including related references in the
rule. EPA proposes to approve these changes.
(3) Calaveras County APCD. Calaveras County APCD made three of the
four common changes noted above to Regulation X. They modified the
definition of potential to emit, at Rule 1002, replaced the term owner/
operator at rule 1006--section B.14.(a), and clarified its exempt
sources list at Rule

[[Page 53368]]

1003--``Applicability'' subsections B.1, B.2, and B.3. EPA proposes to
approve all of these changes.
(4) Colusa County APCD. Colusa County APCD made all four of the
common changes noted above to Rule 3.17. EPA proposes to approve the
modification of the definition of potential to emit at Section
3.17(b)(23)(A), the replacement of the term owner/operator at Sections
3.17(d)(2) and 3.17(f)(2), and the District's clarification of its
exempt sources list at Section 3.17(c)(2). EPA is taking no action on
Colusa County APCD's change to the effective date of Rule 3.17 at
Sections 3.17(a)(3) and 3.17(b)(12).
(5) El Dorado County APCD. El Dorado County APCD made all four of
the common changes noted above to Rule 522. EPA proposes to approve the
modification of the definition of potential to emit at Section
522.2(W)(1), the replacement of the term owner/operator at Section
522.6(B)(14)(a), and the District's clarification of its exempt sources
list at Section 522.3(B). EPA is taking no action on El Dorado County
APCD's change to the effective date of Rule 522 at Sections 522.1 and
522.2(L). El Dorado County APCD also clarified their reporting
requirements for permit deviations at Section 522.6(B)(7)(a), and
corrected several regulatory citations at Sections 522.4(D) and
522.5(G). EPA proposes to approve these changes.
(6) Feather River AQMD. Feather River AQMD made all four of the
common changes noted above to Rule 10.3. EPA proposes to approve the
modification of the definition of potential to emit at Section
10.3(B)(23), the replacement of the term owner/operator at Sections
10.3(D)(2)(c)(1) and 10.3(F)(2)(n)(1), and the District's clarification
of its exempt sources list at Section 10.3(C)(2). EPA is taking no
action on Feather River AQMD's change to the effective date of Rule
10.3 at Section A. Feather River AQMD also clarified the federal
regulatory citation for its definitions at Section 10.3(B), made a
small correction to its definition of ``regulated air pollutant'' at
Section 10.3(B)(25)(e), made a minor clarification to its application
content requirements at Section 10.3(D)(3)(a)(6)(c), and changed the
basis of its fee collection from actual to potential emissions in
Section 10.3(G). EPA proposes to approve these changes.
(7) Glenn County APCD. Glenn County made two of the four common
changes noted above to Article VII. The District modified its
definition of potential to emit at Section II.W.I, and clarified its
exempt sources list at Section III(B). EPA proposes to approve these
two changes.
(8) Great Basin Unified APCD. Great Basin Unified APCD made two of
the common changes noted above to Rule 217. The District modified its
definition of potential to emit at Section 217.II(Z) and clarified its
exempt sources list at Section 217.III(B). Great Basin Unified APCD
also specified the timeframes for reporting permit deviations at
Section 217.VI(B)(7)(a), added a definition for ``emissions allowable
under the permit'' at Section 217.II(N), clarified the definitions of
``applicable federal requirement'' at section 217.II(E)(1)(c) and
``responsible official'' at Section 217.II(CC), revised Section
217.VI(B)(3) regarding the requirement to specify the origin and
authority for every permit condition, and made a clarification to the
requirement for sources to submit compliance reports at Section
217.VI(B)(7)(b). EPA proposes to approve all of the additional changes
made by Great Basin Unified APCD.
(9) Imperial County APCD. Imperial County APCD made three of the
four common changes noted above. EPA is proposing to approve the
District's modification to its definition of potential to emit at
Section B.24, the replacement of the term owner/operator at Sections D,
E, F, and G, and the District's clarification of its exempt sources
list at Section C.2. In addition to these changes, EPA is proposing to
approve revisions to Rule 900 adopted by ICAPCD on April 4, 2000. These
changes are the addition of a definition of permit shield at Section
B.23, and the addition of a permit shield provision at Section D.2. EPA
proposes to approve these changes.
(10) Kern County APCD. Kern County APCD (KCAPCD) made three of the
four common changes noted above. EPA proposes to approve the
replacement of the term owner/operator at Sections IV.C.k and VI.B and
the District's clarification of its exempt sources list at Section
III.B. EPA is taking no action on Kern County APCD's change to the
effective date of 201.1 at Section II.M. In addition, EPA is proposing
to approve revisions to Sections I through VI of Rule 201.1 adopted by
the District on January 9, 1997. The purpose of the 1997 rule changes
was to make Rule 201.1 consistent with EPA guidance on permit
streamlining. See ``White Paper Number 2 for Improved Implementation of
The Part 70 Operating Permits Program'', March 5, 1996. The reader is
referred to the Docket for this rulemaking for the exact text of these
rule changes.
KCAPCD's definition of potential to emit in Section II.X of Rule
201.1 lists source categories that must count fugitives for the
purposes of determining potential to emit. In subparagraph 2, which
addresses stationary sources, the definition has been modified to read:
``any other stationary source category regulated under section 111 or
112 of the CAA, and for which the U.S. EPA has made an affirmative
determination by rule under section 302(j) of the CAA.'' (emphasis
added) The addition of the 302(j) requirement restricts the types of
sources that are required to count fugitives towards the major source
threshold. This is inconsistent with the current version of part 70 and
is not approvable.
EPA has, however, proposed to revise the major source definition to
incorporate a 1980 cutoff date, consistent with EPA's New Source Review
regulations. We are therefore proposing to approve the District's
definition of potential to emit provided that EPA finalizes revisions
to the part 70 rule that will make the change approvable.
Alternatively, if EPA does not finalize the changes to part 70
described above, a portion of KCAPCD's potential to emit definition
will conflict with the operative version of the major source definition
in part 70 and we will be unable to approve it.
The change that EPA will make to part 70 will make that rule
consistent with EPA's New Source Review regulations in parts 51 and 52
with respect to the treatment of fugitives in major source
determinations. The revised part 70 language will require that
fugitives be counted for ``Any other stationary source category which,
as of August 7, 1980, is being regulated under section 111 or 112 of
the Act.'' This differs from the KCAPCD language cited above, which
relies on 302(j) rulemaking instead of the 1980 cut-off date to
determine which sources must count fugitives. However, at the present
time, the 302(j) requirement in Rule 201.1 captures the same sources as
the revised part 70 will, since EPA has not done any 302(j) rulemakings
to expand the types of sources for which fugitive emissions are counted
to determine title V applicability. If EPA does 302(j) rulemakings in
the future, the Agency will have to revise part 70 to ensure that
fugitives are counted for the new source category. The advantage of
KCAPCD's language is that Rule 201.1 will not have to be revised if the
universe of source categories for which fugitives are counted is
expanded by EPA via 302(j) rulemakings.
(11) Lake County AQMD. Lake County made only one of the four common
changes noted above to Chapter XII. The

[[Page 53369]]

District revised its definition of potential to emit at Rule 12.200
(p2). In addition, Lake County made two additions to its list of
sources exempt from the requirements of Chapter XII: (1) ``Any
insignificant source at a facility not requiring a title V permit;''
and (2) ``When EPA finalizes the underlying requirements in 40 CFR part
70, a source classified as a major source solely because it has the
potential to emit major amounts of a pollutant listed at Sec. 112(r)(3)
of the CAA, and is not otherwise a major source as defined in 12.200.''
(See Rule 12.300 (b)(5)). EPA proposes to approve all of these
additional changes made by Lake County AQMD. The second addition to the
District's list of sources exempt from the requirements of Chapter XII
is approvable because the exception is only allowed after EPA changes
part 70.
(12) Lassen County APCD. Lassen County made three of the four
common changes noted above to Rule 7. EPA proposes to approve the
District's revision to its definition of potential to emit at Rule
7:4.w.1 and the clarification of its list of sources exempt from title
V at Rule 7:3. EPA is taking no action on the District's change to the
effective date at Rule 7:1.b. and Rule 7:4.l. Lassen County APCD made
two other revisions that EPA is proposing to approve. The District
added a definition of minor permit modification at Rule 7:4.u
(consistent with 40 CFR 70.7(e)(2)(i)(B)) and added Rule subsection
7:6.d.1.b.4, a requirement that the public notice include, ``the
location where the public may inspect the complete application, the
District analysis, and the proposed permit.''
(13) Mariposa County APCD. Mariposa County APCD did not make any
other changes.
(14) Mendocino County APCD. Mendocino County APCD made only one of
the four changes noted above to Rule 5. The District revised its
definition of potential to emit at Rule 5.200(p2). EPA proposes to
approve this change.
(15) Modoc County APCD. Modoc County APCD made three of the four
common changes noted above. EPA proposes to approve the District's
modification to its definition of potential to emit at Section II.W and
the clarification of its exempt sources list at Section III.B. EPA is
taking no action on the District's change to the effective date of Rule
2.13 at Section II.L.
(16) North Coast Unified AQMD. North Coast Unified AQMD made two of
the four changes noted above. The District modified its definition of
potential to emit in Rule 200, and clarified its exempt sources list in
Rule 300.b. EPA proposes to approve both of these changes.
(17) Northern Sierra AQMD. Northern Sierra made all four changes
noted above to its Rule 522. EPA proposes to approve the District's
modification to its definition of potential to emit at Section 2.24.1,
the replacement of the term owner/operator at Section 6.2.14.a, and the
clarification of its exempt sources list at Section 3.2. EPA is taking
no action on the District's change to the effective date of Rule 522 at
522.2, Part 1.0.
(18) Northern Sonoma County APCD. Northern Sonoma County made three
of the common changes noted above to Regulation 5. EPA is proposing to
approve the District's modification to its definition of potential to
emit at Section 5.200(p)(2) and the clarification of its exempt sources
list at Section 5.300(b). EPA is taking no action on the District's
change to the effective date of Regulation 5 at Section 5.200(e)(1).
(19) Placer County APCD. Placer County APCD made three of the
common changes noted above to Rule 507. EPA is proposing to approve the
District's modification to its definition of potential to emit at
Section 223.1 and the clarification of its exempt sources list at
Section 110. EPA is taking no action on the District's change to the
effective date of Rule 507 at Section 101. Placer County also revised
their definition of ``major source'' at Section 219 to lower the
emission thresholds for nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds,
made a minor language change to Rule 507's application requirements at
Section 302.1, and clarified the specific dates by which certain
permitting-related actions are required in Sections 302.2, 302.3, and
401.3. EPA proposes to approve these changes.
(20) Shasta County APCD. Shasta County APCD made three of the
common changes noted above to Rule 5. EPA proposes to approve the
District's modification to its definition of potential to emit at
Section II.X.1 and the clarification of its exempt sources list at
Section III.B. EPA is taking no action on the District's change to the
effective date of Rule 5 at Section I. Shasta County also made some
minor wording revisions to a few of their definitions in Sections II.E,
II.L, and II.N, clarified the application requirements in Section
IV.B(1)(a), added a requirement to Section IV.C(1)(q) for sources
submitting compliance certifications, modified their procedures for
operational flexibility in Section V.I(2), clarified the reporting
requirements in Section VI.B(7), and added a condition to Section
VI.B(18)(e) regarding voluntary emission caps. In addition to these
rule changes, Shasta County made several program changes including
adopting Rule 2.3 (Toxics New Source Review) to comply with CAA
Sec. 112(g) requirements, updating their title V staff description,
their fee requirements and the expected operating permit program costs,
revising their title V source list, and updating their permit
application forms. With the exception of the effective date change, EPA
proposes to approve all of the additional changes made by Shasta County
APCD.
(21) Siskiyou County APCD. Siskiyou County APCD made three of the
four changes noted above to rule 2.13. EPA proposes to approve the
District's revision to its definition of potential to emit at Rule
2.13.II.W.1 and the clarification of its exempt sources list at
2.13.III.B. EPA is taking no action on the District's change to the
effective date at Rule 2.13.I and 2.13.II.L.
(22) Tehama County APCD. Tehama County APCD made all four of the
common changes noted above to Rule 7:1. EPA proposes to approve the
District's modification to its definition of potential to emit at
Section B.1.w.1, the replacement of the term owner/operator at Sections
F.1.a.14.1, and the clarification of its exempt sources list at Section
C.2.a. EPA is taking no action on the District's change to the
effective date of Rule 7:1 at Sections A.1 and B.1.
(23) Tuolumne County APCD. Tuolumne County APCD made two of the
four changes noted above. However, the revision of definition of
``potential to emit'' was done to address an interim approval
deficiency. This change is therefore described in the Section IV.A.2.
above. The other change that EPA is proposing to approve is the
District's clarification of its exempt sources list at Section III.B.
(24) Yolo-Solano AQMD. Yolo-Solano AQMD made three of the common
changes noted above to Rule 3.8. EPA proposes to approve the District's
modification to its definition of potential to emit at Section 224 and
the clarification of its exempt sources list at Section 110. EPA is
taking no action on the District's change to the effective date of Rule
3.8 at Sections 101 and 213. In addition to these changes, Yolo-Solano
also modified their definition of ``administrative permit amendment''
in Section 203, incorporated lower emission thresholds for nitrogen
oxides and volatile organic compounds into their ``major source''
definition in Section 221, and corrected typographical errors in
Sections 222 and 302. EPA proposes to approve these changes.

[[Page 53370]]

V. What Is Involved in This Proposed Action?

All twenty-four districts have fulfilled the conditions of the
interim approval granted on May 3, 1995, July 13, 1995, or December 7,
1995, and EPA proposes full approval of their title V operating permit
programs.
As discussed above, many of the twenty-four districts that are the
subject of today's proposed action also made additional changes to
their operating permits programs. These changes were not required by
EPA to address conditions of the interim approval granted to the
twenty-four districts on May 3, 1995, July 13, 1995, or December 7,
1995. However, EPA has reviewed all changes and proposes to approve all
of them except the change to the effective date many districts made.

Request for Public Comment

EPA requests comments on the program revisions discussed in this
proposed action. Copies of these submittals 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 21, 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 significantly regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This action will not impose any collection of information subject to
the 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. 01-26529 Filed 10-19-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

Clean Air Act Proposed Full Approval of the Title V OperatingPermit Programs for Twenty-Four California Air Pollution Control Districts

Related Material

Local Navigation