Partial Withdrawal of Approval of 34 Clean Air Act Part 70 Operating Permits Programs in California; Announcement of a Part 71 Federal Operating Permits Program

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

[Federal Register: October 15, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 199)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 63551-63565]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15oc02-12]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 70
[CA085-WDL; FRL-7393-6]
 
Partial Withdrawal of Approval of 34 Clean Air Act Part 70 
Operating Permits Programs in California; Announcement of a Part 71 
Federal Operating Permits Program

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

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to our authority under the federal operating permits 
program regulations, EPA is taking final action to withdraw, in part, 
approval of the following 34 Clean Air Act title V operating permits 
programs in the State of California: Amador County Air Pollution 
Control District (APCD), Bay Area Air Quality Management District 
(AQMD), Butte County 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, Mojave Desert AQMD, Monterey Bay Unified APCD, North 
Coast Unified AQMD, Northern Sierra AQMD, Northern Sonoma County APCD, 
Placer County APCD, Sacramento Metro AQMD, San Diego County APCD, San 
Joaquin Valley Unified APCD, San Luis Obispo County APCD, Santa Barbara 
County APCD, Shasta County APCD, Siskiyou County APCD, South Coast 
AQMD, Tehama County APCD, Tuolumne County APCD, Ventura County APCD, 
and Yolo-Solano AQMD. Our partial withdrawal of title V program 
approval is based upon EPA's finding that the State's agricultural 
permitting exemption at Health and Safety Code 42310(e) unduly 
restricts the 34 local districts' ability to adequately administer and 
enforce their title V programs, which have previously been granted full 
approval status. Therefore, EPA is withdrawing approval of those 
portions of the 34 district title V programs that relate to sources 
that are subject to title V but are not being permitted because of the 
state's agricultural permitting exemption (``state-exempt major 
stationary agricultural sources''). This notice also fulfills EPA's 
obligation to inform the public of the implementation of a part 71 
federal operating permits program (``part 71 program'') for state-
exempt major stationary agricultural sources in California.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This action will become effective on November 14, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documentation in the administrative record for 
this action are available for inspection during normal business hours 
at Air Division, EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 
California, 94105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gerardo Rios, EPA Region 9, Air 
Division, Permits Office (AIR-3), at (415) 972-3974 or 
rios.gerardo@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,'' or 
``our'' means EPA.

[[Page 63552]]

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Comments Received by EPA on Our Proposed Rulemaking and EPA's 
Responses
III. Description of EPA's Final Action
IV. Effect of EPA's Rulemaking
V. Notification of Part 71 Program Effectiveness
VI. Administrative Requirements

I. Background

    Title V of the CAA Amendments of 1990 required all state permitting 
authorities to develop operating permits programs that met certain 
federal criteria codified at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 
70. On November 30, 2001, we promulgated final full approval of 34 
California districts' title V operating permits programs. See 66 FR 
63503 (December 7, 2001).\1\ Our final rulemaking was challenged by 
several environmental and community groups alleging that the full 
approval was unlawful based, in part, on an exemption in section 
42310(e) of the California Health and Safety Code of major agricultural 
sources from title V permitting. EPA entered into a settlement of this 
litigation which required, in part, that the Agency propose to 
partially withdraw approval of the 34 fully approved title V programs 
in California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Although there are 35 separate permitting authorities in 
California, one permitting authority, Antelope Valley APCD, was not 
included in our final action because it only recently obtained its 
authority to issue part 70 permits and is still under its initial 
interim approval status granted on December 19, 2000 (65 FR 79314).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sections 70.10(b) and 70.10(c) provide that EPA may withdraw a 40 
CFR part 70 program approval, in whole or in part, whenever the 
permitting authority's legal authority does not meet the requirements 
of part 70 and the permitting authority fails to take corrective 
action. To commence regulatory action to partially withdraw title V 
program approval, EPA's part 70 regulations require as a prerequisite 
that the affected permitting authority be notified of any finding of 
deficiency by the Administrator and that the notice be published in the 
Federal Register. Our determination regarding the inadequacy of the 34 
districts' title V programs was published in a Notice of Deficiency 
(NOD). See 67 FR 35990 (May 22, 2002). Publication of the NOD fulfilled 
our obligation under part 70 to provide notice to the title V 
permitting authorities in the State that they are not adequately 
administering or enforcing their title V operating permits programs. 
Pursuant to 40 CFR 70.10(b)(2), publication of the NOD commenced a 90-
day period during which the State of California had to take significant 
action to assure adequate administration and enforcement of the local 
districts' programs. As described in EPA's NOD, the Agency determined 
that ``significant action'' in this instance meant the revision or 
removal of California Health and Safety Code 42310(e), so that the 
local air pollution control districts could adequately administer and 
enforce the title V permitting program for stationary agricultural 
sources that are major sources of air pollution.
    During the 90-day period that the State was provided to take the 
necessary corrective action, EPA proposed to partially withdraw title V 
program approval in each of the 34 California districts with full 
program approval. See 67 FR 48426 (July 24, 2002). Our notice indicated 
that we were proposing the partial withdrawal of program approval in 
anticipation that the State of California would not effect the 
necessary change in state law prior to the end of the 90-day period on 
August 19, 2002, but that the Agency's final action on the proposal 
would only occur after the 90 days for the State to take significant 
action had fully elapsed. Since the State did not take the necessary 
action to assure adequate administration and enforcement of the title V 
program within the required time frame, EPA is now taking final action, 
pursuant to our authority at 40 CFR 70.10(b)(2)(i), to partially 
withdraw approval of the title V programs for the 34 local air 
districts listed above.

II. Comments Received by EPA on Our Proposed Rulemaking and EPA's 
Responses

    EPA received ten sets of comments on our proposal to partially 
withdraw approval of the 34 local districts' title V programs. Copies 
of these comments are available for inspection during normal business 
hours at Air Division, EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 
Francisco, California 94105. A summary of the significant comments, and 
our response thereto, follow.
    Comment 1: One commenter argues that EPA's proposed partial 
withdrawal exceeded the Agency's authority because, although the Act 
authorizes partial state programs, the Act does not authorize 
``hybrid'' programs. The commenter claims that ``partial'' in the 
context of part 70 has a ``solely geographic meaning.'' Thus, the 
commenter continues, a permissible partial withdrawal of approval of 
California's part 70 program would be one in which EPA withdrew 
approval for some but not all of California district title V programs. 
The commenter concludes that title V allows only geographic partial 
programs because simultaneous operation of federal and state permitting 
programs in a single geographic area could lead to confusion, 
inconsistency and inefficiency.
    Response: The Act does allow for a partial part 70 program that is 
not based on geographic distinctions. The Act grants EPA broad 
discretion to withdraw approval of a title V program, without regard to 
whether the basis for withdrawal is geographic or not. Section 502(i) 
states: ``Whenever the Administrator makes a determination that a 
permitting authority is not adequately administering or enforcing a 
program, or portion thereof * * * the Administrator shall provide 
notice to the State. * * * [U]nless the State has corrected such 
deficiency within 18 months after the date of such finding, the 
Administrator shall * * *promulgate, administer, and enforce a program 
under this subchapter for that State.'' The statute does not impose a 
geographic limitation on partial withdrawal of approval of a title V 
program.
    EPA's title V regulations also do not limit the Agency's ability to 
withdraw approval of a state's title V program according to non-
geographic criteria. Unlike partial approvals, which EPA did limit to 
geographic areas per regulation, partial withdrawals are not so 
limited. The commenter refers to EPA's authority to approve state 
program submittals under 40 CFR 70.4 for its position that `a partial 
part 70 program is one that applies to ``all part 70 sources within a 
limited geographic area.' '' As the full context of this provision 
makes clear, 40 CFR 70.4(c) sets forth EPA's authority to grant 
approval to a part 70 program based on geographic criteria. This 
provision is distinct from the authority under which we are acting 
today. California has had interim approval for its title V programs 
since 1995 and final approval of its programs since December 2001; 
thus, we are not partially approving programs under 40 CFR 70.4, but 
rather partially withdrawing approval under 40 CFR 70.10.
    Section 70.10(b), which authorizes EPA to ``withdraw approval of 
the program or portion thereof * * *'' does not limit EPA's authority 
to partially withdraw approval of approved title V programs to 
geographic boundaries. We therefore, interpret part 70 as allowing us 
the discretion to partially withdraw approval of an approved title V 
program in a manner that is appropriate to the scope and scale of the 
determination of inadequate administration or enforcement. The approach 
EPA has taken here is more appropriate than the

[[Page 63553]]

full withdrawal of the 34 part 70 programs supported by commenters. The 
commenters' approach would require EPA to assume full responsibility 
from California's local air agencies for permitting all types of 
sources in the title V program, from refineries to power plants to wood 
products manufacturers, because of a state law problem that pertains 
only to the agricultural sector. Today's action is appropriately 
tailored to the problem it has identified--the inability of 
California's air districts to require major stationary agricultural 
sources of air pollution to apply for and obtain title V permits 
because of an exemption in state law. To subject all major sources 
within California to part 71 without regard to a problem that is 
actually narrow in scope would be an overly broad remedy that could 
also entail substantial confusion and inefficiency. Such disruption to 
the programs that the California air districts have been implementing 
for approximately 7 years is unwarranted.
    We also do not agree with the comment that having some sources 
subject to a local part 70 program and other sources subject to a 
federal part 71 program would lead to confusion. First, many sources 
already successfully comply with multiple permitting schemes; for 
instance, a new or modified major source may have to comply with both 
nonattainment New Source Review and Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration (``PSD'') permitting programs. In fact, in some locations 
in California, the nonattainment program is administered by the local 
agency and the PSD program is administered by EPA. Second, EPA does not 
anticipate that major agricultural sources covered by the federal part 
71 program will also be subject to a local part 70 program.
    Finally, we note that it is EPA's preference for the State and the 
local air districts to be the permitting authorities for the 
agricultural sources affected by today's rule. If and when these 
agencies have the ability to administer and enforce the title V program 
as required by the Act and its implementing regulations, EPA intends to 
take the actions necessary to hand regulatory authority over these 
sources to the State and local air agencies.
    Comment 2: One commenter claims that EPA's proposed action is 
inconsistent with 40 CFR Sec.  71.4(f). According to the commenter, 
section 71.4(f) does not authorize a permitting authority to be subject 
to portions of a part 71 program. This commenter also states that 
section 71.4(f) contemplates borrowing from a state program to 
implement a federal program, not vice versa. To be lawful, the 
commenter continues, EPA's action should completely withdraw approval 
of the California air districts' part 70 programs and implement a part 
71 program covering all sources within the air districts' geographic 
area; EPA could then borrow portions of California's former part 
70program to help implement the new federal part 71 program.
    Response: We disagree with the commenter's statement, as our action 
is consistent with our authority in part 71. Section 71.4(f) describes 
EPA's discretionary authority for issuing permits to individual 
sources, which we may do under ``any or all of the provisions of [part 
71]
* * * or [after appropriate rulemaking, under ]
* * * portions of a 
state or Tribal permit program in combination with the provisions of 
[part 71].'' By our action today, EPA intends to issue permits to 
state-exempt major stationary agricultural sources under the provisions 
of part 71. We do not believe at this time that additional rulemaking 
to adopt portions of the California programs will be necessary to 
complete this process. In addition, contrary to the comment, our action 
today does not require us to ``borrow'' from a federal program to 
implement a state program. As explained elsewhere in this notice, we 
are not implementing a state program; rather, we are using our 
authority under section 502(i) of the Act and 40 CFR 71.4(c) to 
implement a Federal operating permits program where a state has failed 
to adequately administer and enforce its own state operating permits 
program.
    Comment 3: One commenter notes that EPA's action is inconsistent 
with the timing requirements of title V. The commenter contends that 
EPA's action should be governed by 40 CFR 70.10(a) (``Failure to submit 
an approvable program''), not, as EPA has proposed, 40 CFR 70.10(b) 
(``Failure to adequately administer or enforce'') and (c) (``Criteria 
for withdrawal of State programs''). The commenter claims that if EPA 
were proceeding under 40 CFR 70.10(a), rather than 70.10(b) and (c), 
California would have had 18 months to correct the deficiency before 
mandatory sanctions would apply, and a part 71 program for California 
would not be effective until June 1, 2003. The commenter states that 
according to EPA's current view of section 42310(e), California never 
submitted an approvable program; therefore, EPA should have disapproved 
the programs and allowed California's interim approvals to expire.
    Response: We disagree with the comment and believe that today's 
action is an appropriate exercise of our authority under 40 CFR 
70.10(b) and (c) and that the timing of sanctions and a federal program 
are consistent with the Act and our regulations. The provisions of 40 
CFR 71.4(a)(2) explain that the effective date of a federal operating 
permit program will be the date of expiration of interim approval of a 
state program. The expiration date of the interim approvals for 
California's title V programs was December 1, 2001; therefore, if EPA 
had allowed the interim approvals to expire, the effective date of a 
federal operating permits program would have been December 1, 2001 
(not, as the commenter suggests, June 1, 2003), and EPA would have been 
required to set the due date for applications no later than December 1, 
2002.
    To the extent the comment should be read as stating that EPA should 
have made a finding that the California air districts had failed to 
submit fully-approvable programs or required revisions thereto, we 
believe that such a comment would have been more appropriately raised 
during the rulemaking we took approximately one year ago in which we 
proposed and finalized action on the submitted programs by granting 
them full approval. See e.g., 66 FR 53354; 66 FR 63503. In that 
rulemaking, EPA allowed the public an adequate opportunity to comment 
on our action with respect to the California air districts' submittals. 
After we took action granting full approval, several entities 
challenged our action by filing petitions for review with the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. This particular commenter, 
however, did not petition the court for review of our action to approve 
the submitted programs rather than making a finding of failure to 
submit an approvable program.
    Comment 4: One commenter claims that the timeline in 40 CFR 
70.4(i)(1) should govern EPA's action because the agricultural 
permitting exemption is actually an issue of adequate legal authority. 
The commenter contends that if a permitting authority lacks legal 
authority to make a necessary revision, 40 CFR 70.4(i)(1) gives a 
permitting authority two years to make the revisions.
    Response: We disagree with the commenter because we believe that 
our action is an appropriate exercise of our authority under 40 CFR 
70.10(b) and (c). Section 70.4(i)(1) states, in part: ``The program 
shall be revised * * * within 2 years if the State demonstrates that 
additional legal authority is necessary to

[[Page 63554]]

make the program revision.'' Thus, this section allows, but does not 
require, EPA to grant a State up to two years to revise the deficient 
part 70 program. See, e.g., Part 70 NPRM, 56 FR 21712, 21731 (May 10, 
1991) (``The Agency might set a longer time up to 2 years where 
legislative action is required at the State level to address 
problems'') (emphasis added); Part 70 NFRM, 57 FR 32250, 32271 (July 
21, 1992) (``If the State demonstrates that additional legal authority 
is necessary to correct the deficiency, the period may be extended up 
to 2 years.'') (emphasis added).
    Moreover, this provision must be read in conjunction with 40 CFR 
70.10, which allows EPA to withdraw approval of the program (or a 
portion of the program) 90 days after issuing a Notice of Deficiency to 
the state, if the state fails to take significant action to correct the 
deficiency within that 90-day period. EPA interprets 40 CFR 70.4(i)(1) 
as placing an outer limit on the amount of time that EPA may give to a 
state to take the necessary steps to supply additional legal authority. 
EPA does not agree with the commenter that 40 CFR 70.4(i)(1) demands 
that EPA allow any state a full two years to correct a legal deficiency 
without regard to the facts and circumstances surrounding the issue.
    In addition, it would not be appropriate to give the State another 
full two years in this instance. First, we note that the State of 
California has made no demonstration to EPA that two years is necessary 
to correct the deficiency we have identified. In certain instances, two 
years might be necessary for a state to address a shortcoming in the 
legislation relied upon for administration or enforcement of a state's 
title V program. For example, EPA is aware that some state legislatures 
meet only every other year. States with such a legislative calendar 
might be able to demonstrate to EPA that two years is necessary to 
provide additional legal authority. California's legislature, however, 
is in session throughout the year, except for various relatively 
limited periods of recess.\2\ EPA's Notice of Deficiency was issued in 
May 2002 and efforts were under way to repeal the agricultural 
permitting exemption before August 31, which was the last day for each 
house to pass bills for the 2002 legislative session. The commenter did 
not provide a reason why the State might require a full two years to 
correct the problem we identified in our Notice of Deficiency. Given 
the state's legislative calendar, we believe that it is feasible for 
the California Legislature to supply the additional authority in a time 
frame less than two years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The California Legislature's calendar may be consulted at 
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/legislative_calendar.html. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, we informed California more than six years ago that the 
agricultural exemption (which has existed in the Health and Safety Code 
since the late 1970's) was a defect in the program that required 
correction. Indeed, the California Attorney General identified the 
exemption as defect in the state's legal authority in the legal opinion 
the State submitted with the original programs in the early 1990's. In 
addition, EPA's proposed and final interim approval notices in the mid-
1990's confirmed that the defect would have to be corrected in order 
for the state's programs to secure full approval. Thus, the State's 
long-standing awareness of this issue also weighs in favor of our 
invoking our discretion inherent in the part 70 regulations to 
establish a time frame for legislative action that is less than two 
years.
    Comment 5: One commenter argues that EPA has overreached in 
defining ``significant action'' by requiring action that must be taken 
within 90 days to avoid 40 CFR 70.10(b)(2) sanctions. The commenter 
contends that 40 CFR 70.10(b) allows California 18 months to revise or 
repeal the agricultural exemption before sanctions or implementation of 
a part 71 program may occur. The commenter continues that EPA's NOD and 
proposed rule, however, improperly treat complete correction of the 
identified deficiency as the ``significant action'' that California 
must take within 90 days. The commenter notes that other EPA NODs have 
distinguished between the ``significant action'' and actual correction 
of the identified deficiencies. Finally, the commenter states that EPA 
is also unreasonable to expect a state law to be revised or repealed in 
90 days because generally, the legislative process required to revise 
or repeal a statute under California law cannot be completed in 90 
days.
    Response: We disagree with the comment for several reasons. First, 
EPA is not aware of any significant action taken by the State of 
California to assure adequate administration and enforcement of the 
title V program during the 90-day period provided, and none of the 
commenters provided any evidence that the State took a ``significant 
action'' within that time frame that EPA should consider as such. Thus, 
even if we had not specifically identified removal of the exemption as 
the necessary ``significant action,'' no ``significant action'' 
occurred within the 90 days provided for in the regulations.
    Morever, the Clean Air Act and EPA's regulations do not require us 
to distinguish the ``significant action'' a state must take within 90 
days from the actual correction that must occur. The fact that we may 
have given a different State with different deficiencies and facts a 
different timeline does not indicate that our actions here were 
unlawful. In fact, the existence of statutory and regulatory 
authorities for discretionary sanctions demonstrate that no such 
distinction is required. For the reasons stated earlier (e.g., the 
State's longstanding knowledge the exemption was a problem; the 
legislature's calendar), we believe it was reasonable for us to 
identify removal of the exemption as the significant action in the NOD.
    The comment suggests that a distinction is essential because it 
entitles the state to an 18-month period following the issuance of an 
NOD to completely correct the issue during which time the state is 
insulated from the imposition of sanctions. However, section 502(i)(1) 
of the Act and our implementing regulations authorize us to impose 
discretionary sanctions earlier than 18 months after notifying the 
state of the deficiency. 42 U.S.C. 7661a(i)(1); 40 CFR 70.10(b)(2)(ii) 
and (iii). Thus, the suggestion that the State automatically has 18 
months during which it is ``insulated'' from sanctions before it must 
correct the deficiency is premised on a false assumption, since the 
State enjoys no 18-month period of insulation. Finally, we note that 
EPA has not imposed discretionary sanctions against California;rather, 
our NOD started an 18-month clock, expiration of which would result in 
mandatory sanctions if the State has not corrected the deficiency we 
identified. See 67 FR 35990 (May 22, 2002).
    Comment 6: One commenter contends that in a variety of prior 
correspondence, EPA has acknowledged that there are unique issues 
regarding the application of title V to agricultural operations and 
claims that the proposed rule ignores these previously acknowledged 
positions regarding agriculture's unique position. The commenter also 
claims that EPA's proposed action breaches our 1998 Memorandum of 
Understanding (MOU) with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 
where the agencies agreed to confer on agricultural air quality issues.
    Response: EPA agrees that agriculture is a unique industry and that 
the application of title V for this industry poses some special 
challenges. Section 502(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), 
however, requires that a title V permitting program apply to every 
major

[[Page 63555]]

source; it does not provide for an exemption based on the unique 
characteristics of the agricultural industry. As discussed in more 
detail below, the unique aspects of the agricultural industry can and 
will be addressed in how the title V program is implemented.
    With respect to the correspondence from Agency officials submitted 
by the commenter, we believe that in some cases the commenter 
misunderstood the meaning of the letters cited, and in other instances 
EPA's position has evolved from the time the letter was written. For 
example, the commenter references several EPA letters from the mid-
1990s explaining that a source's fugitive criteria pollutant emissions 
(such as fugitive dust) do not count when determining whether a source 
is subject to title V permitting requirements. Although EPA has not 
changed its position on this issue, thecommenter appears to have 
misinterpreted these letters as assurances from EPA that agricultural 
sources would not be subject to title V at all. Non-fugitive emissions 
from stationary agricultural sources, however, do count toward title V 
applicability determinations. Thus, putting into place a title V 
program that considers non-fugitive emissions for applicability 
purposes is consistent with the correspondence cited by the commenter.
    In other letters referenced by the commenter, EPA officials 
committed to working with the USDA on agricultural emissions issues and 
acknowledged the lack of sound emission factors for animal agriculture. 
EPA disagrees that our proposed rule somehow negates the MOU between 
our Agency and the USDA. EPA has conferred, and continues to confer, 
with USDA in an effort to develop a reasonable approach for 
implementing the title V program for major agricultural sources. We 
will continue to work with USDA on a host of issues related to the 
identification of major agricultural sources and the appropriate 
permitting of these sources under title V of the CAA.
    Comment 7: Several commenters argue that emission factors and other 
data used by environmental groups to argue that there are major 
agricultural sources in California are outdated and inaccurate. They 
contend that there is very little data on emissions from agricultural 
practices and those data are unreliable; therefore, they conclude, it 
is inappropriate to regulate these sources under title V at this time. 
Commenters state that, in December 2001, EPA admitted that reliable 
data and a complete inventory of emissions from agricultural operations 
were not available and supported deferred implementation for a three-
year period. They argue that this three-year deferral period is 
necessary to make informed and scientifically sound determinations as 
to agricultural emission inventories.
    Response: As noted above, section 502(a) of the Clean Air Act 
specifically prohibits EPA from exempting major sources of air 
pollution from title V. California has had numerous opportunities over 
several years to demonstrate that there are no major agricultural 
sources in California and has failed to do so. Thus, EPA's final action 
today is necessary to lay the legal groundwork for the permitting of 
major stationary agricultural sources in California, where the local 
permitting authorities are restricted by State law from issuing permits 
to such sources. Thus, while we may agree that data regarding emission 
factors could be better in three years, implementation of the title V 
permitting program for major stationary agricultural sources must move 
ahead based on the best data available at this time.
    Nonetheless, EPA's approach for implementing the title V program 
for major agricultural sources does, and will continue to, address 
concerns regarding emissions data. For example, today's action calls 
for applications from state-exempt stationary agricultural sources that 
are major due to emissions from diesel-powered engines first, to be 
followed approximately 3 months later by applications from any other 
state-exempt major stationary agricultural sources. This staggered 
application deadline is based, in part, upon the fact that more and 
better data are available with respect to emissions from agricultural 
engines than are available for other potentially major agricultural 
sources, such as Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). 
Agricultural sources using stationary diesel engines have more than 
enough information available to them to determine whether they are 
subject to title V based on emissions from these engines. Both EPA and 
the State of California have valid emission factors that can be used to 
calculate diesel engine emissions based on such considerations as the 
engine age, size, load factor, and annual hours of operation or fuel 
usage.
    With respect to other potential major agricultural sources of air 
pollution, EPA agrees that the level of information available is not as 
robust as it is for agricultural engines. For example, emissions from 
large animal feeding operations (e.g., dairies, poultry operations, 
swine facilities) are not as well characterized as are those from 
diesel agricultural engines. Although we acknowledge that 
implementation of title V must commence before concerns regarding data 
are fully resolved, we anticipate that the results of a study by the 
National Academy of Sciences (NAS), ``The Scientific Basis for 
Estimating Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations'' will be 
instrumental to the Agency in making the necessary implementation 
policy decisions. This study, which has received funding andsupport 
from both the EPA and USDA, is intended to assess ``the scientific 
issues involved in estimating air emissions from individual animal 
feeding operations (swine, beef, dairy, and poultry) as related to 
current animal production systems and practices in the United States.'' 
The Agency will continue its commitment to working closely with our 
sister federal agency, USDA, as we evaluate the NAS findings and 
results from other ongoing research efforts, and develop specific 
guidance for the implementation of the title V permitting program for 
animal agriculture. The additional guidance, which EPA will make widely 
available through direct outreach to potentially subject sources and 
through other means, will provide clearer direction as to the types and 
sizes of operations that are presumptively major under the title V 
program.
    Comment 8: One commenter stated that there is a lack of clarity in 
EPA's proposed rule as to which operations or agricultural activities 
meet the definition of ``major source.'' Specifically regarding 
dairies, the commenter argued that there is no reliable scientific 
basis at present for determining air emissions from these operations, 
and that California's estimates for ROGs/VOCs from dairies have been 
thoroughly discounted in the regulatory and scientific community.
    Response: This comment is similar to Comment 7 in that it, in part, 
argues that scientific information is not available to determine 
whether agricultural sources are major sources under title V. To the 
extent the comment is raising this concern, please see our response to 
Comment 7.
    As a general matter, it is a source's responsibility to determine 
whether it is a major source subject to permitting requirements. 
Nonetheless, we agree that agricultural sources in California may not 
be familiar with this process and we intend to provide additional 
guidance over the next several months.
    As for the comment that the proposed withdrawal notice was unclear 
in explaining which sources may be subject to title V, EPA disagrees. 
EPA

[[Page 63556]]

has provided information regarding the types of agricultural sources 
that may be subject to title V requirements, as well as information 
about certain activities that are not subject to the program. For 
example, stationary diesel irrigation engines are subject to title V 
permitting if their emissions alone, or in combination with other 
stationary source emissions at the same contiguous or adjacent site, 
rise above the title V threshold for the area in which they are 
located. In addition, EPA has made clear that, pursuant to our existing 
regulations, nonroad engines are not required to be permitted, and 
fugitive emissions of criteria pollutants (such as fugitive dust) are 
not considered in determining a source's title V applicability.
    In addition, a September 2001 letter submitted to EPA by CARB 
Executive Officer Michael P. Kenny describes numerous agricultural 
emission sources in California that are already subject to permitting. 
Post-harvest, out-of-field agricultural activities such as fumigation, 
ginning, milling, drying, and refining are not exempt under California 
law and are subject to permitting requirements, including title V. 
These sources are not, therefore, subject to part 71 permitting by EPA.
    Moreover, we also note that the part 71 program that applies once 
the partial withdrawal takes effect applies only to sources that were 
exempt under the state agricultural exemption. Thus, it is likely that 
sources know whether they were covered by the state exemption in the 
past and, therefore, that they may need to determine whether they are a 
major source for the part 71 program.
    With respect to the ROG emission factor currently used by the State 
of California to estimate dairy emissions, we acknowledge that there 
have been a number of concerns recently raised regarding the validity 
of the factor and the appropriateness of its use to characterize 
emissions from dairies.However, this factor has been relied upon for 
regulatory analysis by the State and EPA considers it to be part of the 
existing data that are currently under review by the NAS. Also, as we 
previously noted, EPA expects to take into account the final NAS 
report, as well as the results of other relevant research efforts, in 
making determinations regarding the appropriate emission factors for 
various types of animal agriculture, including dairies, sufficiently 
far in advance of the permit application deadline for subject sources.
    Comment 9: One commenter argues that multiple agricultural sources 
should not be grouped together as one source. The commenter contends 
that irrigation pumps should be classified separately from other 
farming activities because ``water mining'' has a distinct standard 
industrial classification (SIC) code. Another commenter urges EPA to 
develop a definition of ``source'' for title V that results in each 
individual diesel pump engine being a separate source.
    Response: These issues all address how EPA should implement the 
part 71 program that will become effective once the partial withdrawal 
occurs. They do not address the issue before EPA in this action, which 
is whether to partially withdraw approval of the California part 70 
programs and impose a federal part 71 program for state-exempt major 
stationary agricultural sources at this time.
    EPA is working with the USDA to determine how to best implement the 
part 71 program for agricultural sources. We will consider these 
comments as we move forward and develop our implementation strategy. 
The Agency will be providing more specific guidance on this subject 
sufficiently far in advance of the permit application deadlines to 
allow sources to determine and meet their permitting obligations.
    Comment 10: Some commenters note that many irrigation pumps are 
non-road engines and are therefore excluded from the definition of 
stationary source. Another commenter asserts that many potential 
emission sources at dairies should be considered mobile sources, and 
thus not counted for major source applicability purposes.
    Response: EPA agrees that emissions from engines that meet the 
``nonroad engine'' definition at 40 CFR 89.2 are not considered 
stationary source emissions and would not be regulated by title V. 
Irrigation pumps that meet the 40 CFR 89.2 definition of a nonroad 
engine would be those internal combustion engines that are ``portable 
or transportable, meaning designed to be and capable of being carried 
or moved from one location to another. Indicia of transportability 
include, but are not limited to, wheels, skids, carrying handles, 
dolly, trailer, or platform.'' EPA's regulations further clarify that 
portable or transportable engines would be considered stationary (as 
opposed to nonroad) if the engine remains at a location (i.e., any 
single site at a building, structure, facility, or installation) ``for 
more than 12 consecutive months or a shorter period of time for an 
engine located at a seasonal source.'' Although EPA agrees that some 
irrigation pumps would meet the 40 CFR 89.2 nonroad engine definition, 
others would not meet this definition under the current rules.
    The commenter that asserts that many potential emission sources at 
dairies should be considered mobile did not provide any specific 
examples of the types of emission sources at dairies that they consider 
to be ``mobile sources.'' This term is typically used to describe a 
wide variety of vehicles, engines, and equipment that generate air 
pollution and that move, or can be moved, from place to place. ``On-
road,'' or highway, sources include vehicles used on roads for 
transportation of passengers or freight. ``Nonroad,'' (also called 
``off-road'') sources include vehicles, engines, and equipment used for 
construction, agriculture, transportation, recreation, and many other 
purposes. The title V program is a stationary source permitting program 
and does not, therefore, require the permitting of mobile sources. 
Emissions from any mobile source at dairies (or at any other 
potentially major agricultural facility) are not regulated by title V.
    Comment 11: One commenter argues that CAFOs are indirect sources of 
emissions, rather than stationary sources, and thus are not subject to 
title V permitting requirements. The commenter notes that the Clean Air 
Act defines an indirect source as ``a facility, building, structure, 
installation, real property, road or highway which attracts, or may 
attract, mobile sources of pollution.'' Thus, the commenter continues, 
similar to a highway or a parking lot, a CAFO itself emits nothing; 
rather, it is the cows that are housed in barns and other structures 
that create organic emissions, not the facility itself. Furthermore, 
the commenter argues, the cattle located in a CAFO may be analogized to 
the automobiles on a highway or in a parking lot; their emissions 
potentially make the CAFO an indirect source of emissions.
    Response: EPA disagrees that CAFOs are indirect, as opposed to 
stationary, sources. The definition of ``indirect source'' cited by the 
commenter is located in section 110(a)(5)(C) of the Act and applies 
only to that paragraph, which addresses State Implementation Plans for 
indirect source review programs. The appropriate portion of the statute 
to consult for title V purposes is section 302(z) of the Act, which 
defines the term ``stationary source'' as ``generally any source of an 
air pollutant except those emissions resulting directly from an 
internal combustion engine for transportation purposes or from a 
nonroad engine or nonroad vehicle.'' Section 71.2 defines ``stationary 
source'' as ``any building, structure, facility, or installation that 
emits or may emit any regulated air pollutant or any pollutant listed 
under

[[Page 63557]]

section 112(b) of the Act.'' CAFOs plainly fit the definition of 
stationary source under section 302(z) of the CAA and the title V 
regulations.
    EPA also disagrees with the commenter's assertion that ``a CAFO 
itself emits nothing.'' CAFOs directly emit a variety of air pollutants 
from waste storage lagoons, barns, and other buildings, structures, and 
facilities where animals are confined. Moreover, we note that cows are 
not mobile sources regulated under title II of the Act.
    Comment 12: One commenter argues that the emissions from many 
operational practices and components of dairies are fugitive emissions 
and thus not subject to title V. Another commenter argues that 
emissions from certain CAFO sources (e.g., waste lagoons, hog barns, 
and poultry houses) are not fugitive and should be included in 
determining major source status. The commenter submitted several Agency 
documents discussing precedents and existing guidance relevant to the 
definition of ``fugitive emissions'' for purposes of title V.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See, e.g., memorandum from Thomas C. Curran, Director, 
Information Transfer and Program Integration Division, to Judith M. 
Katz, Director, Air Protection Division, EPA Region III, entitled 
``Interpretation of the Definition of Fugitive Emissions in Parts 70 
and 71,'' dated February 10, 1999, memorandum from Lydia Wegman, 
Deputy Director, OAQPS, to EPA Regional Air Directors, entitled 
``Consideration of Fugitive Emissions in Major Source 
Determinations,'' dated March 8, 1994, and memorandum from John S. 
Seitz, Director, OAQPS, to EPA Regional Air Directors, entitled 
``Classification of Emissions from Landfills for NSR Applicability 
Purposes,'' dated October 21, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: EPA agrees that any criteria pollutant emissions that are 
fugitive, even if emitted by a stationary source, would not count 
toward determination of major source status. See 40 CFR 71.2 
(definition of ``major source''). Thus, fugitive dust emissions from a 
dairy (or other livestock or crop-producing operation) are not counted 
for title V applicability.
    Section 71.2 defines ``fugitive emissions'' as ``those emissions 
which could not reasonably pass through a stack, chimney, vent, or 
other functionally-equivalent opening.'' Some of the concepts regarding 
fugitive emissions articulated in the EPA documents cited by commenters 
are: (1) Emissions which are actually collected are not fugitive 
emissions; (2) where emissions are not actually collected at a 
particular site, the determination as to whether emissions are fugitive 
or not should be made by the permitting authority on a case-by-case 
basis, depending on the specific factual circumstances present; (3) in 
determining whether emissions could``reasonably pass through a stack, 
chimney, vent, or other functionally-equivalent opening,'' 
reasonableness should be construed broadly and ``the existence of 
collection technology in use by other sources in a source category 
creates a presumption that collection is reasonable;'' and (4) where a 
source is not actually collecting its emissions but there is a 
presumption that it is reasonable for them to do so (based on such 
collection at other, similar sources), a permitting authority could 
consider costs in determining the validity of the presumption.
    While EPA believes that these concepts are important guideposts for 
determining the presumptive fugitive and non-fugitive emission sources 
at CAFOs, EPA is not making such policy decisions in this rulemaking. 
As noted above, EPA intends to provide more detailed guidance on the 
implementation of the title V permitting program for CAFOs and other 
potential major stationary agricultural sources.
    Comment 13: One commenter asserts that EPA is unfairly applying 
title V to agricultural sources only in California. The commenter 
argues that if the Agency is going to focus on permitting agricultural 
sources, then it should adopt a comprehensive approach that applies 
this program nationally, not just in one state.
    Response: EPA does not agree that we are unfairly applying the 
title V permitting program requirements to agricultural sources in 
California. The reason EPA is taking action to withdraw approval of the 
portions of the California title V programs that relate to state-exempt 
major stationary agricultural sources, thereby obligating the Agency to 
implement a part 71 federal operating permits program for these 
sources, is that California state law exempts these sources from 
permitting by state and local authorities. Since other states do not 
have such an exemption, title V permitting requirements already apply 
to any major stationary agricultural sources in other states.\4\ In 
addition, as noted in the September 2001 letter from CARB Executive 
Officer Michael P. Kenny, many agricultural emission sources in 
California are already subject to permitting. Post-harvest, out-of-
field agricultural activities such as fumigation, ginning, milling, 
drying, and refining are not exempt under California law and are 
subject to permitting requirements, including title V. EPA's final rule 
merely extends the title V permitting requirements to all major sources 
of air pollution in California, as required by the Clean Air Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The one exception that EPA is aware of is the State of 
Oregon, which has a similar permitting exemption in their state law. 
However, the Oregon Attorney General issued a letter confirming that 
none of the state-exempt agricultural operations are subject to 
title V (i.e., none of these operations are major sources of air 
pollution). EPA Region X granted the Oregon title V program full 
approval in 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 14: One commenter suggests that, although EPA's regulations 
authorize the Agency to establish an accelerated schedule for submittal 
of part 71 permit applications, the accelerated schedule is not 
realistic or supportable in this instance because of the difficulty in 
estimating emissions from agricultural sources. The commenter believes 
that EPA should have granted all sources the full 12 months to apply 
for a part 71 permit.
    Response: EPA does not agree that the application schedule 
established in our final rule is ``accelerated.'' As the commenter 
notes, 40 CFR 71.5(a)(1)(i) provides that major stationary sources 
which do not have an existing operating permit issued by a State (or 
local permitting authority) under an approved part 70 program, and 
which are applying for a part 71 permit for the first time, must submit 
an application within 12 months after becoming subject to the permit 
program or on or before such earlier date as the permitting authority 
may establish. Section 71.5(a)(1)(i) further provides that sources 
required to submit permit applications earlier than 12 months after 
becoming subject to part 71 must be notified of the earlier submittal 
date at least 6 months in advance of the date. With EPA's final rule, 
we are notifying state-exempt major stationary agricultural sources 
that they are subject to part 71 permitting requirements as of the 
effective date of this final rule, which provides these sources at 
least 6 months notice from the effective date. In fact, EPA is 
establishing a longer application period than the minimum required by 
our regulations for some agricultural sources (i.e., those that are 
major due to emissions other than from stationary diesel engines).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In addition, we note that if we had allowed the interim 
approval to lapse due to the state agricultural exemption, all part 
71 permit applications would have been due no later than December 1, 
2002, less than two months away.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, 40 CFR 71.4(i) requires EPA to take action on one-third 
of all applications annually over a period not to exceed three years 
after the effective date of the part 71 program. If we did not require 
any applications until the end of the first year, we would not be able 
to take action on one-third of them

[[Page 63558]]

annually over a three-year period and still have all permits issued 
within three years of the effective date of the part 71 program. 
Rather, we would only have taken action on two-thirds of the 
applications at the end of three years because we would not have been 
able to take any actions during the first year. Thus, it was 
appropriate to require some applications early enough into the first 
year to ensure we could take action on one-third within 12 months of 
the effective date of the program.
    Finally, EPA is committing to provide additional guidance regarding 
applicability and implementation of the title V permitting program for 
major stationary agricultural sources well in advance of the actual 
permit application deadlines. This guidance will assist individual 
sources in determining their permitting obligations, and will help 
ensure that all sources that are required to obtain a part 71 permit 
are able to submit their applications by the appropriate deadline.
    Comment 15: One commenter claims that EPA should not have created 
two separate categories for permit applications. In particular, the 
commenter finds EPA's reference to any ``remaining'' sources (other 
than stationary diesel-powered engines) to be unclear.
    Response: The Agency does not agree that the part 71 permitting 
strategy for major agricultural sources is unclear or that we erred in 
establishing two separate categories for permit application. EPA's 
final rule establishes a clear obligation for sources with stationary 
diesel engine emissions above the major source threshold to apply for a 
part 71 permit by the earlier deadline (May 2003). State-exempt 
stationary agricultural sources which do not have such emissions above 
the major source threshold, but which are otherwise major sources of 
air pollution, would need to apply by the later application deadline 
(August 2003). The specific guidance that EPA will be providing in the 
coming months on applicability and implementation of the title V 
permitting program for major stationary agricultural sources will 
further assist individual sources in determining their permitting 
obligations, as well as the appropriate deadline they must meet. As 
noted above, EPA's staggered application deadlines are based, in part, 
upon the fact that more and better data are available with respect to 
emissions from agricultural engines than are available for other 
potentially major stationary agricultural sources (such as CAFOs). 
Given this situation, it is appropriate to provide some additional time 
for the submittal of applications from sources which are major due to 
emissions other than from stationary diesel engines.
    Comment 16: One commenter cites several passages from the June 2002 
Interim Report of the NAS Committee on Air Emissions from Animal 
Feeding Operations and suggests that given the scientific uncertainty 
and lack of established emission factors for certain agricultural 
emission sources, EPA should provide a definitive exemption, by 
regulation, for certain categories of agricultural sources until such 
time as EPA has established emission factors.
    Response: As previously noted, the NAS study of air emissions from 
animal feeding operations, which is expected to be issued in final form 
by the end of 2002, will be instrumental to the Agency in making the 
necessary policy decisions (such as identifying appropriate emission 
factors or alternative approaches for estimating emissions for various 
animal agricultural operations) for implementing the title V permitting 
program in this sector. EPA does not agree that the NAS' interim report 
provides the basis to exempt any category of agricultural source from 
the requirements of title V. Also, as noted by other commenters, the 
Clean Air Act does not authorize any exemption from title V for major 
sources.
    Once the final report is released, the Agency intends to carefully 
evaluate the NAS findings and results, as well as the results of any 
other relevant research, and develop specific guidance for the 
implementation of the title V permitting program for animal 
agriculture.
    Comment 17: Two commenters note that title V must apply to all 
major sources, with one commenter specifically citing section 502(a) of 
the Act as explicitly prohibiting the Administrator from exempting any 
major source from the title V permitting requirements.
    Response: We agree that the Clean Air Act does not provide for any 
exemption from title V permitting for major sources. This clear 
prohibition compelled the Agency to find the California title V 
programs, which exempt certain major stationary agricultural sources, 
deficient, and to take action to partially withdraw title V program 
approval in the State.
    Comment 18: One commenter argues that dairy, chicken, and swine 
CAFOs all emit significant amounts of criteria air pollutants, 
including ozone precursor (VOC) emissions. The commenter further argues 
that the fact that many sources of agricultural emissions have not 
historically been quantified because of the State's exemption does not 
justify continued regulatory exemption of the agricultural industry. 
The commenter believes there should be a title V program implemented 
for CAFOs in California using currently available data, even while more 
research is conducted to develop a more rigorous model. Finally, the 
commenter notes that the title V permitting process itself is an 
important vehicle by which information on agricultural source emissions 
can be gathered.
    Response: EPA agrees that dairy, poultry, and swine CAFOs are all 
sources of criteria pollutant emissions. The NAS' Interim Report on air 
emissions from animal feeding operations (AFOs) notes that, 
``substantial emission of nitrogen, sulfur, carbon, particulate matter, 
and other substances from AFOs do occur.'' However, as we stated above, 
emissions from large animal feeding operations (e.g., dairies, poultry 
operations, swine facilities) are not as well characterized as are 
those from diesel agricultural engines. While EPA expects that the 
state of CAFO emission data will improve in the future, the 
implementation of the title V permitting program for state-exempt major 
stationary agricultural sources must move ahead based on the best data 
available at this time.
    Comment 19: Two commenters state that EPA should review its action 
in more detail for consistency with the Regulatory Flexibility Act 
(RFA). One commenter notes that EPA's proposed action inappropriately 
relied on previous analyses conducted in connection with the original 
rulemakings for parts 70 and 71. Commenters also challenged EPA's 
certification that the action would not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities for various reasons. For example, 
one commenter notes that the agricultural industry has unique needs for 
expediency and variability that will be affected by part 71 
requirements for public notification and permit issuance. These 
commenters also note that the lack of certainty surrounding emissions 
from agricultural sources will affect numerous small operations that 
must determine whether they need to submit applications for part 71 
permits. One commenter also states that although EPA's proposed rule 
stated that sources can become synthetic minors, this process is not 
necessarily simple.
    Response: The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an 
agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject 
to notice and comment rulemaking requirements

[[Page 63559]]

unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For the 
following reasons, EPA believes that its certification that this action 
will not result in a significant impact on a substantial number of 
small entities (SISNOSE) is appropriate; therefore, we disagree with 
the commenters.
    First, this action is a partial withdrawal of the part 70 program 
in 34 California air districts. It does not entail any substantive 
change to part 70. Rather, it merely revises Appendix A, which sets 
forth the status of state program approvals. Moreover, it involves no 
changes to part 71. Our action today withdraws part 70 approval for 
state-exempt major stationary agricultural sources; as a consequence of 
that partial withdrawal, the separate, existing part 71 program applies 
by operation of law. Because our action involves no revision to the 
regulations themselves, it is appropriate for EPA to rely on the RFA 
certifications of no SISNOSE made for those regulations.\6\ To the 
extent the comments reflect a concern that these 1992 and 1996 RFA 
certifications inadequately addressed small entities in the 
agricultural industry, these concerns would have been more 
appropriately raised during the comment period for the part 70 and part 
71 rulemakings, and in any challenges to those rulemakings. The part 71 
program, which becomes effective in California for state-exempt major 
stationary agricultural sources as a result of this action, was not 
challenged in the courts for any reason, let alone the RFA 
certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Indeed, it is questionable whether today's action has any 
direct impact on state-exempt agricultural sources because it is, in 
essence, a withdrawal of regulatory authority--we are partially 
withdrawing approval of the existing state program. That a federal 
program is automatically put into place upon such withdrawal is a 
requirement of the existing part 70 and part 71 regulations and not 
a new requirement established by today's actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, EPA continues to believe that any ``impact'' on the few 
small businesses that also are state-exempt major stationary 
agricultural sources potentially subject to part 71 would not be 
significant. Briefly, the primary, and in many cases only, impact will 
be the annual costs of applying for and maintaining the part 71 permit. 
State-exempt major stationary agricultural sources will not be required 
to purchase and install air pollution control equipment or purchase 
offsets under title V as at least one commenter alleged. It appears 
that this commenter was confusing the requirements of the New Source 
Review program with the requirements of title V.
    With regard to comments discussing the burdens small entities may 
face in evaluating their emissions to determine whether they must 
submit applications, these comments do not take into account a number 
of important factors. According to CARB, the state's agricultural 
permitting exemption does not apply to post-harvest, out-of-field 
activities; because the scope of today's action is limited to state-
exempt sources, it should have no effect on small businesses engaged in 
these non-exempt activities. In addition, as stated elsewhere in 
today's action, reliable data are available with respect to emissions 
from diesel engines used in agriculture. Sources with such units should 
be able to determine whether they must submit a part 71 application 
without a significant expenditure of resources. Finally, EPA and the 
local air districts will be working with the agricultural community to 
provide guidance for those state-exempt major stationary agricultural 
sources that may have to apply for a permit in order to minimize any 
burden associated with the applicability determination and permit 
application processes.
    In addition, although EPA recognizes that the agricultural industry 
desires flexibility in the timing and implementation of a permit 
program, EPA believes that such needs are compatible with an operating 
permit program and, thus, implementation of the part 71 program will 
not have a significant impact. Many manufacturing and industrial 
operations also desire a regulatory system that is flexible and 
adaptable to changes in market supply and demand. In response to a 
mandate from Congress in this regard (see, e.g., section 502(b)(10) of 
the Clean Air Act), EPA developed its title V regulations to allow for 
streamlined and flexible implementation of the state and federal 
operating permits programs. The part 71 program provisions for timely 
applications, application and permit shields, permit revisions, and 
operational flexibility are intended to allow any type of industry 
sector, including the agricultural industry, the ability to add or 
change equipment with minimal, if any, interference in daily 
operations. For example, part 71's application shield allows a source 
that submits a complete application for its initial part 71 permit to 
operate in compliance with that application until it receives its 
permit, which should address any concerns regarding the timing of 
actual permit issuance. See 40 CFR 71.5(a)(2). In addition, part 71's 
permit revision procedures do not require public notification for many 
types of changes at a facility and allow a facility to make these 
changes upon submittal of its application. See, 40 CFR 71.7(e)(1).
    Moreover, any impact should occur at only a few state-exempt major 
stationary agricultural sources that are small businesses for several 
reasons. Those reasons, discussed in more detail in the Administrative 
Requirements section of this notice, include (1) the monetary threshold 
for small agricultural businesses; (2) the fact that part 71 applies 
only to major sources of air pollution, which tend to be larger 
operations; and (3) the fact that fugitive emissions from farming 
operations (e.g., harvesting) are not counted towards major source 
applicability, reducing the number of agricultural sources likely to be 
subject to the program.
    With respect to the option of becoming a synthetic minor source, 
there are many other mechanisms available to limit potential emissions 
from a farm, including prohibitory rules and general permits. We note 
that USDA's comments to our proposed action observed that there are 
``relatively few'' small business farms that have actual emissions 
above the applicable major source thresholds. We intend to work with 
the USDA and local air districts to implement mechanisms for limiting 
potential emissions in time for the title V permit application 
deadlines and thereby appropriately limit the number of sources subject 
to the part 71 program.
    Comment 20: One commenter takes issue with EPA's view that E.O. 
13045 does not apply to the proposed rule because ``it does not involve 
decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.'' 
This commenter states that it does not seem reasonable for EPA to 
include major stationary agricultural sources in part 71 if no 
mitigation of environmental health risks is expected.
    Response: Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children 
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 
23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is determined to be 
``economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866, 
and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has 
reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. 
Today's action involves the exercise of our authority under part 70 and 
the implementation of part 71, which are title V operating permit 
programs that basically record and assure compliance with already-
existing applicable requirements; they do not require new

[[Page 63560]]

reductions in emissions or other emissions restrictions. Therefore, it 
does not involve any major new decisions directed towards the 
mitigation of environmental health or safety risks. Likewise we do not 
believe that today's decision will have a disproportional adverse 
effect on children. In addition, as discussed above, the regulation of 
state-exempt major stationary agricultural sources is required by title 
V of the Act. Finally, the thrust of commenter's claim that is that we 
should not apply part 71 to agricultural sources absent mitigation of 
environmental risks. By helping to assure compliance with applicable 
requirements, the application of part 71 to agricultural sources moves 
in the direction of reducing environmental risks to children (as well 
as adults). Thus, today's decision would be consistent with the 
purposes of Executive Order 13045 if it applied.

III. Description of EPA's Final Action

    After thorough consideration of the comments submitted in response 
to our proposed rule, EPA is taking action to withdraw, in part, 
approval of the 34 fully approved Clean Air Act title V (part 70) 
Operating Permits Programs in the State of California. We are only 
withdrawing approval of the portions of the programs that relate to 
state-exempt major stationary agricultural sources; because they have 
the ability to adequately administer and enforce their part 70 programs 
for non-exempt major stationary sources, each of the 34 local air 
districts will continue to administer their existing title V program 
for all other title V sources. As described more fully in the sections 
above and in our proposed rule, EPA's action is necessary because the 
local air districts in the State cannot issue, administer or enforce 
operating permits for certain major stationary agricultural sources, 
which are required to obtain permits under title V of the Act.

IV. Effect of EPA's Rulemaking

    As a result of the partial withdrawal of part 70 program approval 
effected by today's action, EPA will be implementing (as of the 
effective date of today's final rule) a federal operating permits 
program under 40 CFR part 71 (``part 71 program'') for state-exempt 
major stationary agricultural sources within the jurisdiction of the 34 
California air districts listed at the beginning of this notice. EPA is 
not promulgating a part 71 program with today's action, since such a 
program has already been promulgated by the Agency. See 61 FR 34202 
(July 1, 1996). Today's action to partially withdraw approval of the 
fully approved part 70 programs in the State merely establishes the 
effective date of the Agency's implementation of this existing part 71 
program for state-exempt major stationary agricultural sources.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 71.5(a)(1)(i), major stationary sources which do 
not have an existing operating permit issued by a State (or local 
permitting authority) under an approved part 70 program, and which are 
applying for a part 71 permit for the first time, must submit an 
application within 12 months after becoming subject to the permit 
program or on or before such earlier date as the permitting authority 
may establish. Section 71.5(a)(1)(i) further provides that sources 
required to submit permit applications earlier than 12 months after 
becoming subject to part 71 shall be notified of the earlier submittal 
date at least 6 months in advance of the deadline. We are today 
notifying state-exempt major stationary agricultural sources within the 
jurisdiction of the 34 California air districts that they are subject 
to part 71 permitting requirements as of the effective date of this 
final rule. We are also notifying these sources of the following permit 
application deadlines: (1) State-exempt stationary agricultural sources 
that are major sources, as defined in 40 CFR 71.2, due to emissions 
from diesel-powered engines must submit part 71 permit applications to 
the EPA Region IX Permits Office no later than May 14, 2003; and (2) 
any remaining state-exempt major stationary agricultural sources must 
submit part 71 permit applications to the EPA Region IX Permits Office 
no later than August 1, 2003.
    As we noted above in our response to comments, EPA is committing to 
provide additional guidance on the implementation of the part 71 
program for state-exempt major stationary agricultural sources. The 
additional guidance, which EPA will make widely available through 
direct outreach to potentially subject sources and through other means, 
will provide clearer direction as to the types and sizes of operations 
that are presumptively major under the title V program. It is also 
EPA's intention to develop, as part of this guidance, streamlined 
application forms, user-friendly instructions, and general permit 
templates and to disseminate these documents for use by subject 
sources.\7\ However, it is ultimately the responsibility of the source 
to submit a permit application if it is subject to the part 71 program, 
regardless of whether contact is initiated by EPA or any other 
regulatory authority. An owner or operator of a source may choose to 
submit a written request to EPA for a part 71 applicability 
determination. Pursuant to 40 CFR 71.3(e), the written request shall be 
made by the source's responsible official to the EPA Region IX Regional 
Administrator, shall include identification of the source and relevant 
facts about the source, and shall meet the certification requirements 
of 40 CFR 71.5(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ If an owner or operator of a subject source prefers to use 
the standard part 71 permit application, those forms, as well as 
instructions for completing the forms, are available electronically 
at www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/permits/p71forms.html. Part 71 permit 
applicants may also contact the EPA Region IX Air Permits Office as 
described in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Notification of Part 71 Program Effectiveness

    Section 71.4(g) requires that, in taking action to implement and 
enforce a part 71 program, EPA shall publish a notice in the Federal 
Register informing the public of such action and the effective date of 
any part 71 program. By this notice, EPA is informing the public of the 
Agency's implementation of a part 71 federal operating permits program 
for state-exempt major stationary agricultural sources located within 
the jurisdiction of the 34 California air districts listed at the 
beginning of this notice. The effective date of this program is 
November 14, 2002.
    In addition to the requirement to publish notice of the 
effectiveness of a part 71 program in the Federal Register, 40 CFR 
71.4(g) also requires that the Agency, ``to the extent practicable, 
publish notice in a newspaper of general circulation within the area 
subject to the part 71 program effectiveness.'' EPA will, to the extent 
practicable, publish notice in one or more newspapers of general 
circulation within the areas subject to the part 71 program 
effectiveness. Finally, in accordance with 40 CFR 71.4(g), EPA will be 
providing a letter to Winston H. Hickox, Secretary, California 
Environmental Protection Agency, as California Governor Gray Davis' 
designee, to provide notice of the effectiveness of EPA's part 71 
program for state-exempt major stationary agricultural sources.

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this regulatory 
action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and 
Review.''

[[Page 63561]]

B. Executive Order 13211

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

C. Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically 
significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns 
an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe 
may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory 
action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental 
health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain 
why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective 
and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does 
not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or 
safety risks.

D. Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 
1999) revokes and replaces Executive Orders 12612, Federalism and 
12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership. Executive Order 
13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that 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.'' Under 
Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has 
federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance 
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with 
State and local officials early in the process of developing the 
proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has 
federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    This rule 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, because it 
does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this 
rule.

E. Executive Order 13175

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951, November 6, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, 
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the 
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
    This final rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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 in Executive Order 13175. 
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. Moreover, in 
the spirit of Executive Order 13175, and consistent with EPA policy to 
promote communications between EPA and tribal governments, EPA 
specifically solicited comment on the proposed rule from tribal 
officials.

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies 
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small 
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental 
jurisdictions.
    This final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. In developing the original part 70 
regulations and the proposed revisions to part 70, the Agency 
determined that they would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. See 57 FR 32250, 32294 (July 21, 
1992), and 60 FR 45530, 45563 (August 31, 1995). Similarly, the same 
conclusion was reached in an initial regulatory flexibility analysis 
performed in support of the 1996 part 71 rulemaking. See 61 FR 34202, 
34227 (July 1, 1996); see also 64 FR 8262 (Feb. 19, 1999). Only a small 
subset of sources subject to the part 71 rule would be affected by 
today's action. The prior screening analyses for the part 70 and part 
71 rules were done on a nationwide basis without regard to whether 
sources were located within California and are, therefore, applicable 
to sources in California. Accordingly, EPA believes that the screening 
analyses are valid for purposes of today's action. And since the 
screening analyses for the prior rules found that the part 70 and 71 
rules as a whole would not have a significant impact on a substantial 
number of small entities, today's action, which would affect a much 
smaller number of entities than affected by the earlier rules, also 
will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.
    EPA believes that few if any small businesses involved in the 
production of crops or animals in California would be subject to part 
71 as a result of this rule. First, EPA notes that the Small Business 
Administration, pursuant to its authority under 15 U.S.C. 632(a) and 
634(b)(6), has established thresholds for various business sectors to 
be used in the determination of whether a business is ``small.'' See, 
13 CFR part 121. For most businesses involved in the production of 
crops or animals (those that would most likely be subject to part 71 
because of this rule), the SBA has set the ``small business'' threshold 
as $750,000 in annual receipts. (The threshold for cattle feedlots is 
$1.5 million; the threshold for chicken egg production is $10.5 
million.) See 13 CFR 121.201; see also, 13 CFR 121.104. Businesses that 
have annual receipts in excess of that threshold are not ``small 
businesses.'' Second, EPA's rule would require only major sources of 
air pollution to obtain a part 71 operating permit. For instance, in 
the San Joaquin Valley, the threshold for major sources of oxides of 
nitrogen or volatile organic compounds is 25 tons per year; the 
threshold for major sources of particulate matter is 70 tons per year.

[[Page 63562]]

Most other air districts in California have higher thresholds and 
consequently fewer sources in those districts would be subject to part 
71. Furthermore, EPA does not include a source's fugitive emissions of 
criteria pollutants in determining whether part 71 applies to it. In 
addition, for sources that might have the potential to emit above the 
major source threshold, but have actual emissions below the threshold, 
the Agency has issued several policy memoranda explaining mechanisms 
for these sources to become ``synthetic minors.'' These sources are 
recognized as not emitting pollutants in major quantities and may avoid 
the requirement to apply for a part 71 permit. Moreover, to the extent 
there is any impact, it will not be significant because part 71 imposes 
few if any additional substantive requirements. EPA intends to provide 
assistance to all sources that would become subject to part 71 as a 
result of this rulemaking.
    Consequently, I hereby certify that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

G. Unfunded Mandates

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to 
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA 
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with 
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan 
for informing and advising any small governments that may be 
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not 
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the 
aggregate, or to the private sector.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing 
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with 
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards'' 
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies 
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impractical.
    EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to today's action because it 
does not require the public to perform activities conducive to the use 
of VCS.

I. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The OMB has approved the information collection requirements 
contained in this action under the provisions of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB control 
number 2060-0336. The information is planned to be collected to enable 
EPA to carry out its obligations under the Act to determine which 
sources are subject to the Federal Operating Permits Program and what 
requirements should be included in permits for sources subject to the 
program. Responses to the collection of information will be mandatory 
under 40 CFR 71.5(a) which requires owners or operators of sources 
subject to the program to submit a timely and complete permit 
application and under 40 CFR 71.6 (a) and (c) which require that 
permits include requirements related to recordkeeping and reporting. As 
provided in 42 U.S.C. 7661b(e), sources may assert a business 
confidentiality claim for the information collected under section 
114(c) of the Act.
    In the Information Collection Request (ICR) document for the July 
1996 final part 71 rule (ICR Number 1713.02), EPA estimated that 1,980 
sources in 8 states would potentially be subject to part 71. EPA also 
estimated that the annual burden per source would be 329 hours, and the 
annual burden to the Federal government is 243 hours per source. EPA 
believes that these burden estimates are significantly higher than the 
burdens associated with today's rule. First, EPA estimates that the 
number of agricultural sources in California will be significantly less 
than the number on which the July 1996 estimates were based. In 
addition, State and local laws have traditionally exempted agricultural 
sources from many air pollution regulations. Therefore, agricultural 
sources will have fewer applicable requirements than the average part 
71 source; accordingly, the burdens associated with permit applications 
and recordkeeping and reporting requirements should be minimal and far 
less than those for the typical part 71 source. Today's action would 
impose no burden on State or local governments and no burden on Tribal 
agencies. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information; processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. 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. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are 
listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

J. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This rule is not a ``major'' rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).

K. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 16, 2002. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial 
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial 
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such 
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings 
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

[[Page 63563]]

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 2, 2002.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    40 CFR part 70, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 70--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 70 continues to read as follows:

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

    2. Appendix A to part 70 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) 
through (hh) under California to read as follows:

Appendix A To Part 70--Approval Status of State and Local Operating 
Permits Programs

* * * * *

California

    The following district programs were submitted by the California 
Air Resources Board on behalf of:
    (a) Amador County Air Pollution Control District (APCD):
    (1) Complete submittal received on September 30, 1994; interim 
approval effective on June 2, 1995; interim approval expires 
December 1, 2001.
    (2) Revisions were submitted on April 10, 2001. Amador County 
Air Pollution Control District was granted final full approval 
effective on November 30, 2001.
    (3) Approval is withdrawn for state-exempt major stationary 
agricultural sources, effective on November 14, 2002.
    (b) Bay Area Air Quality Management District (AQMD):
    (1) Submitted on November 16, 1993, amended on October 27, 1994, 
and effective as an interim program on July 24, 1995. Revisions to 
interim program submitted on March 23, 1995, and effective on August 
22, 1995, unless adverse or critical comments are received by July 
24, 1995. Approval of interim program, including March 23, 1995, 
revisions, expires December 1, 2001.
    (2) Revisions were submitted on May 30, 2001. Bay Area Air 
Quality Management District was granted final full approval 
effective on November 30, 2001.
    (3) Approval is withdrawn for state-exempt major stationary 
agricultural sources, effective on November 14, 2002.
    (c) Butte County APCD:
    (1) Complete submittal received on December 16, 1993; interim 
approval effective on June 2, 1995; interim approval expires 
December 1, 2001.
    (2) Revisions were submitted on May 17, 2001. Butte County APCD 
was granted final full approval effective on November 30, 2001.
    (3) Approval is withdrawn for state-exempt major stationary 
agricultural sources, effective on November 14, 2002.
    (d) Calaveras County APCD:
    (1) Complete submittal received on October 31, 1994; interim 
approval effective on June 2, 1995; interim approval expires 
December 1, 2001.
    (2) Revisions were submitted on July 27, 2001. Calaveras County 
APCD was granted final full approval effective on November 30, 2001.
    (3) Approval is withdrawn for state-exempt major stationary 
agricultural sources, effective on November 14, 2002.
    (e) Colusa County APCD:
    (1) Complete submittal received on February 24, 1994; interim 
approval effective on June 2, 1995; interim approval expires 
December 1, 2001.
    (2) Revisions were submitted on August 22, 2001 and October 10, 
2001. Colusa County APCD was granted final full approval effective 
on November 30, 2001.
    (3) Approval is withdrawn for state-exempt major stationary 
agricultural sources, effective on November 14, 2002.
    (f) El Dorado County APCD:
    (1) Complete submittal received on November 16, 1993; interim 
approval effective on June 2, 1995; interim approval expires 
December 1, 2001.
    (2) Revisions were submitted on August 16, 2001. El Dorado 
County APCD was granted final full approval effective on November 
30, 2001.
    (3) Approval is withdrawn for state-exempt major stationary 
agricultural sources, effective on November 14, 2002.
    (g) Feather River AQMD:
    (1) Complete submittal received on December 27, 1993; interim 
approval effective on June 2, 1995; interim approval expires 
December 1, 2001.
    (2) Revisions were submitted on May 22, 2001. Feather River AQMD 
was granted final full approval effective on November 30, 2001.
    (3) Approval is withdrawn for state-exempt major stationary 
agricultural sources, effective on November 14, 2002.
    (h) Glenn County APCD:
    (1) Complete submittal received on December 27, 1993; interim 
approval effective on August 14, 1995; interim approval expires 
December 1, 2001.
    (2) Revisions were submitted on September 13, 2001. Glenn County 
APCD was granted final full approval effective on November 30, 2001.
    (3) Approval is withdrawn for state-exempt major stationary 
agricultural sources, effective on November 14, 2002.
    (i) Great Basin Unified APCD:
    (1) Complete submittal received on January 12, 1994; interim 
approval effective on June 2, 1995; interim approval expires 
December 1, 2001.
    (2) Revisions were submitted on May 18, 2001. Great Basin 
Unified APCD was granted final full approval effective on November 
30, 2001.
    (3) Approval is withdrawn for state-exempt major stationary 
agricultural sources, effective on November 14, 2002.
    (j) Imperial County APCD:
    (1) Complete submittal received on March 24, 1994; interim 
approval effective on June 2, 1995; interim approval expires 
December 1, 2001.
    (2) Revisions were submitted on August 2, 2001. Imperial County 
APCD was granted final full approval effective on November 30, 2001.
    (3) Approval is withdrawn for state-exempt major stationary 
agricultural sources, effective on November 14, 2002.
    (k) Kern County APCD:
    (1) Complete submittal received on November 16, 1993; interim 
approval effective on June 2, 1995; interim approval expires 
December 1, 2001.
    (2) Revisions were submitted on May 24, 2001. Kern County APCD 
was granted final full approval effective on November 30, 2001.
    (3) Approval is withdrawn for state-exempt major stationary 
agricultural sources, effective on November 14, 2002.
    (l) Lake County AQMD:
    (1) Complete submittal received on March 15, 1994; interim 
approval effective on August 14, 1995; interim approval expires 
December 1, 2001.
    (2) Revisions were submitted on June 1, 2001. Lake County AQMD 
was granted final full approval effective on November 30, 2001.
    (3) Approval is withdrawn for state-exempt major stationary 
agricultural sources, effective on November 14, 2002.
    (m) Lassen County APCD:
    (1) Complete submittal received on January 12, 1994; interim 
approval effective on June 2, 1995; interim approval expires 
December 1, 2001.
    (2) Revisions were submitted on August 2, 2001. Lassen County 
APCD was granted final full approval effective on November 30, 2001.
    (3) Approval is withdrawn for state-exempt major stationary 
agricultural sources, effective on November 14, 2002.
    (n) Mariposa County APCD:
    (1) Submitted on March 8, 1995; approval effective on February 
5, 1996 unless adverse or critical comments are received by January 
8, 1996. Interim approval expires on December 1, 2001.
    (2) Revisions were submitted on September 20, 2001. Mariposa 
County APCD was granted final full approval effective on November 
30, 2001.
    (3) Approval is withdrawn for state-exempt major stationary 
agricultural sources, effective on November 14, 2002.
    (o) Mendocino County APCD:
    (1) Complete submittal received on December 27, 1993; interim 
approval effective on June 2, 1995; interim approval expires 
December 1, 2001.
    (2) Revisions were submitted on April 13, 2001. Mendocino County 
APCD was granted final full approval effective on November 30, 2001.
    (3) Approval is withdrawn for state-exempt major stationary 
agricultural sources, effective on November 14, 2002.
    (p) Modoc County APCD:
    (1) Complete submittal received on December 27, 1993; interim 
approval effective on June 2, 1995; interim approval expires 
December 1, 2001.
    (2) Revisions were submitted on September 12, 2001. Modoc County 
APCD was granted final full approval effective on November 30, 2001.
    (3) Approval is withdrawn for state-exempt major stationary 
agricultural sources, effective on November 14, 2002.

[[Page 63564]]

    (q) Mojave Desert AQMD:
    (1) Complete submittal received on March 10, 1995; interim 
approval effective on March 6, 1996; interim approval expires 
December 1, 2001.
    (2) Revisions were submitted on June 4, 2001 and July 11, 2001. 
Mojave Desert AQMD was granted final full approval effective on 
November 30, 2001.
    (3) Approval is withdrawn for state-exempt major stationary 
agricultural sources, effective on November 14, 2002.
    (r) Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District:
    (1) Submitted on December 6, 1993, supplemented on February 2, 
1994 and April 7, 1994, and revised by the submittal made on October 
13, 1994; interim approval effective on November 6, 1995; interim 
approval expires December 1, 2001.
    (2) Revisions were submitted on May 9, 2001. Monterey Bay 
Unified Air Pollution Control District was granted final full 
approval effective on November 30, 2001.
    (3) Approval is withdrawn for state-exempt major stationary 
agricultural sources, effective on November 14, 2002.
    (s) North Coast Unified AQMD:
    (1) Complete submittal received on February 24, 1994; interim 
approval effective on June 2, 1995; interim approval expires 
December 1, 2001.
    (2) Revisions were submitted on May 24, 2001. North Coast 
Unified AQMD was granted final full approval effective on November 
30, 2001.
    (3) Approval is withdrawn for state-exempt major stationary 
agricultural sources, effective on November 14, 2002.
    (t) Northern Sierra AQMD:
    (1) Complete submittal received on June 6, 1994; interim 
approval effective on June 2, 1995; interim approval expires 
December 1, 2001.
    (2) Revisions were submitted on May 24, 2001. Northern Sierra 
AQMD was granted final full approval effective on November 30, 2001.
    (3) Approval is withdrawn for state-exempt major stationary 
agricultural sources, effective on November 14, 2002.
    (u) Northern Sonoma County APCD:
    (1) Complete submittal received on January 12, 1994; interim 
approval effective on June 2, 1995; interim approval expires 
December 1, 2001.
    (2) Revisions were submitted on May 21, 2001. Northern Sonoma 
APCD was granted final full approval effective on November 30, 2001.
    (3) Approval is withdrawn for state-exempt major stationary 
agricultural sources, effective on November 14, 2002.
    (v) Placer County APCD:
    (1) Complete submittal received on December 27, 1993; interim 
approval effective on June 2, 1995; interim approval expires 
December 1, 2001.
    (2) Revisions were submitted on May 4, 2001. Placer County APCD 
was granted final full approval effective on November 30, 2001.
    (3) Approval is withdrawn for state-exempt major stationary 
agricultural sources, effective on November 14, 2002.
    (w) The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District:
    (1) Complete submittal received on August 1, 1994; interim 
approval effective on September 5, 1995; interim approval expires 
December 1, 2001.
    (2) Revisions were submitted on June 1, 2001. The Sacramento 
Metropolitan Air Quality Management District was granted final full 
approval effective on November 30, 2001.
    (3) Approval is withdrawn for state-exempt major stationary 
agricultural sources, effective on November 14, 2002.
    (x) San Diego County Air Pollution Control District:
    (1) Submitted on April 22, 1994 and amended on April 4, 1995 and 
October 10, 1995; approval effective on February 5, 1996, unless 
adverse or critical comments are received by January 8, 1996. 
Interim approval expires on December 1, 2001.
    (2) Revisions were submitted on June 4, 2001. The San Diego 
County Air Pollution Control District was granted final full 
approval effective on November 30, 2001.
    (3) Approval is withdrawn for state-exempt major stationary 
agricultural sources, effective on November 14, 2002.
    (y) San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD:
    (1) Complete submittal received on July 5 and August 18, 1995; 
interim approval effective on May 24, 1996; interim approval expires 
May 25, 1998. Interim approval expires on December 1, 2001.
    (2) Revisions were submitted on June 29, 2001. San Joaquin 
Valley Unified APCD was granted final full approval effective on 
November 30, 2001.
    (3) Approval is withdrawn for state-exempt major stationary 
agricultural sources, effective on November 14, 2002.
    (z) San Luis Obispo County APCD:
    (1) Complete submittal received on November 16, 1995; interim 
approval effective on December 1, 1995; interim approval expires 
December 1, 2001.
    (2) Revisions were submitted on May 18, 2001. San Luis Obispo 
County APCD was granted final full approval effective on November 
30, 2001.
    (3) Approval is withdrawn for state-exempt major stationary 
agricultural sources, effective on November 14, 2002.
    (aa) Santa Barbara County APCD:
    (1) Submitted on November 15, 1993, as amended March 2, 1994, 
August 8, 1994, December 8, 1994, June 15, 1995, and September 18, 
1997; interim approval effective on December 1, 1995; interim 
approval expires on December 1, 2001.
    (2) Revisions were submitted on April 5, 2001. Santa Barbara 
County APCD was granted final full approval effective on November 
30, 2001.
    (3) Approval is withdrawn for state-exempt major stationary 
agricultural sources, effective on November 14, 2002.
    (bb) Shasta County AQMD:
    (1) Complete submittal received on November 16, 1993; interim 
approval effective on August 14, 1995; interim approval expires 
December 1, 2001.
    (2) Revisions were submitted on May 18, 2001. Shasta County AQMD 
was granted final full approval effective on November 30, 2001.
    (3) Approval is withdrawn for state-exempt major stationary 
agricultural sources, effective on November 14, 2002.
    (cc) Siskiyou County APCD:
    (1) Complete submittal received on December 6, 1993; interim 
approval effective on June 2, 1995; interim approval expires 
December 1, 2001.
    (2) Revisions were submitted on September 28, 2001. Siskiyou 
County APCD was granted final full approval effective on November 
30, 2001.
    (3) Approval is withdrawn for state-exempt major stationary 
agricultural sources, effective on November 14, 2002.
    (dd) South Coast Air Quality Management District:
    (1) Submitted on December 27, 1993 and amended on March 6, 1995, 
April 11, 1995, September 26, 1995, April 24, 1996, May 6, 1996, May 
23, 1996, June 5, 1996 and July 29, 1996; approval effective on 
March 31, 1997. Interim approval expires on December 1, 2001.
    (2) Revisions were submitted on August 2, 2001 and October 2, 
2001. South Coast AQMD was granted final full approval effective on 
November 30, 2001.
    (3) Approval is withdrawn for state-exempt major stationary 
agricultural sources, effective on November 14, 2002.
    (ee) Tehama County APCD:
    (1) Complete submittal received on December 6, 1993; interim 
approval effective on August 14, 1995; interim approval expires 
December 1, 2001.
    (2) Revisions were submitted on June 4, 2001. Tehama County APCD 
was granted final full approval effective on November 30, 2001.
    (3) Approval is withdrawn for state-exempt major stationary 
agricultural sources, effective on November 14, 2002.
    (ff) Tuolumne County APCD:
    (1) Complete submittal received on November 16, 1993; interim 
approval effective on June 2, 1995; interim approval expires 
December 1, 2001.
    (2) Revisions were submitted on July 18, 2001. Tuolumne County 
APCD was granted final full approval effective on November 30, 2001.
    (3) Approval is withdrawn for state-exempt major stationary 
agricultural sources, effective on November 14, 2002.
    (gg) Ventura County APCD:
    (1) Submitted on November 16, 1993, as amended December 6, 1993; 
interim approval effective on December 1, 1995; interim approval 
expires December 1, 2001.
    (2) Revisions were submitted on May 21, 2001. Ventura County 
APCD was granted final full approval effective on November 30, 2001.
    (3) Approval is withdrawn for state-exempt major stationary 
agricultural sources, effective on November 14, 2002.
    (hh) Yolo-Solano AQMD:
    (1) Complete submittal received on October 14, 1994; interim 
approval effective on June 2, 1995; interim approval expires 
December 1, 2001.
    (2) Revisions were submitted on May 9, 2001. Yolo-Solano AQMD is 
hereby granted final full approval effective on November 30, 2001.

[[Page 63565]]

    (3) Approval is withdrawn for state-exempt major stationary 
agricultural sources, effective on November 14, 2002.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 02-26174 Filed 10-11-02; 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
Partial Withdrawal of Approval of 34 Clean Air Act Part 70 Operating Permits Programs in California; Announcement of a Part 71 Federal Operating Permits Program

Local Navigation
