[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 39 (Thursday, February 27, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8878-8883]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4887]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 70
[AD-FRL-5691-3]
Clean Air Act Final Interim Approval of Operating Permits
Program; South Coast Air Quality Management District, California
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final interim approval.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is promulgating interim approval of the Operating
Permits Program submitted by the California Air Resources Board on
behalf of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast
or District), for the purpose of complying with federal requirements
for an approvable state program to issue operating permits to all major
stationary sources, and to certain other sources.
DATES: The final interim approval of the South Coast program is
effective on March 31, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the District's submittals and other supporting
information used in developing the final interim approval and direct
final interim approval are available for inspection (docket number CA-
SC-96-1-OPS) during normal business hours at the following location:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, CA 94105.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ginger Vagenas (telephone 415-744-
1252), Mail Code AIR-3, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
IX, Air Division, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background and Purpose
Title V of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (sections 501-507 of
the Clean Air Act (the Act), and implementing regulations at 40 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 70 require that states develop and
submit operating permits programs to EPA by November 15, 1993, and that
EPA act to approve or disapprove each program within 1 year after
receiving the submittal. The EPA's program review occurs pursuant to
section 502 of the Act and the part 70 regulations, which together
outline criteria for approval or disapproval. Where a program
substantially, but not fully, meets the requirements of Part 70, EPA
may grant the program interim approval for a period of up to 2 years.
If EPA has not
[[Page 8879]]
fully approved a program by 2 years after the November 15, 1993 date,
or by the end of an interim program, it must establish and implement a
federal program. On July 1, 1996, EPA promulgated the part 71
regulations that govern EPA's implementation of a federal operating
permits program in a state or tribal jurisdiction. See 61 FR 34202. On
July 31, 1996, EPA published a notice at 61 FR 39877 listing those
states whose part 70 operating permits programs had not been approved
by EPA and where a part 71 federal operating permit program was
therefore effective. In that notice EPA stated that part 71 is
effective in the South Coast. The EPA also stated its belief that it
would promulgate interim approval of the South Coast part 70 program
prior to the deadline for sources to submit permit applications under
part 71. Today's action cancels the applicability of a part 71 federal
operating permits program in the District. The part 71 application
deadline contained in the July 31, 1996 notice is now superseded by the
South Coast part 70 application deadlines.
On August 29, 1996, EPA published a notice of direct final
rulemaking (NDFR) in which it promulgated direct final interim approval
of the operating permits program for the South Coast Air Quality
Manangement District. See 61 FR 45330. The notice stated that if EPA
recieved adverse comment, it would withdraw the final action. On the
same date, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) that
would serve as a proposal for interim approval, if EPA were to receive
adverse comments on the direct final rule. See 61 FR 45379. The NDFR
identified several deficiencies in the District program and proposed
that the South Coast make specified changes to correct those
deficiencies as a condition of full approval.
EPA received four letters addressing the NDFR, three of which
contained adverse comments. The Agency published a notice on November
4, 1996, withdrawing its direct final rule. See 61 FR 56631.
The majority of comments received by EPA were directed toward
questions of program implementation, rather than the action EPA
proposed to take on the District program. In this document, EPA is
responding to those comments that relate to the interim approval
action, along with certain other issues raised during the public
comment period. The EPA has addressed all of the comments received on
the proposal in a separate ``Response to Comments'' document contained
in the docket at the Regional Office. After considering the comments,
EPA has affirmed that the changes proposed in the NDFR are necessary.
In this final interim approval, EPA has not therefore modified the list
of changes (``interim approval issues'') that was set forth in section
II.B. of the NDFR.
The EPA's NDFR also proposed approval, under section 112(l), of
South Coast's mechanism for accepting delegation of section 112
standards as promulgated. The EPA did not receive public comment on
this proposed action for the District program.
II. Final Action and Implications
A. Analysis of State Submission
South Coast's title V program was submitted by the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) on December 27, 1993. The South Coast submittal
included the following implementing and supporting regulations:
Regulation XXX--Title V Permits; Rule 204--Permit Conditions; Rule
206--Posting of Permit to Operate; Rule 210--Applications; Rule 301--
Permit Fees; Rule 518--Hearing Board Procedures for Title V Facilities;
and Rule 219--Equipment not Requiring a Written Permit Pursuant to
Regulation II. The EPA found the program to be incomplete on March 4,
1994 because it lacked permit application forms. On March 6, 1995, the
District submitted its forms and EPA deemed the program complete on
March 30, 1995. On February 10, 1995, the District adopted a rule to
implement title IV. EPA deemed the South Coast acid rain program
acceptable on March 29, 1995 (see 60 FR 16127) and on April 11, 1995,
it was submitted to EPA as part of the District's title V program. On
August 11, 1995, the District amended the regulatory portion of its
submittal. On September 26, 1995, EPA received from CARB, on behalf of
the District, the revised Regulation XXX, revised Rule 518--Variance
Procedures for Title V Facilities, and a new rule, Rule 518.1--Permit
Appeal Procedures for Title V Facilities. Additional materials were
received on April 24, 1996, including draft revised application forms,
a demonstration of adequacy of the District's group processing
provisions, and several additional rules, including the following,
which are relied upon to implement the title V program: Rule 219--
Equipment not Requiring a Written Permit Pursuant to Regulation II,
adopted August 12, 1994 (supersedes previously submitted version); Rule
301--Permit Fees, adopted October 13, 1995 (supersedes previously
submitted version); and Rule 441--Research Operations, adopted May 5,
1976. In conjunction with its evaluation of the South Coast's title V
operating permits program, EPA reviewed all of the rules, including
Regulations XX and XIII, submitted by the District. While EPA is not
specifically approving rules not directly relied upon to implement part
70 as part of the District's operating permits program, changes to
these rules will be reviewed by EPA to ensure implementation of the
part 70 program is not compromised. See the technical support document
(TSD) for a complete listing of rules submitted by the District.
On May 6, 1996 application completeness criteria were received and
on June 5, 1996 revised application forms were received. The District
submitted a demonstration that shows South Coast will permit 60% of its
title V sources and 80% of emissions attributable to title V sources
within three years of program approval along with a sample of facility
permit application on May 23, 1996. Finally, on July 29, 1996, the
District submitted revised application forms and completeness criteria.
Enabling legislation for the State of California and the Attorney
General's legal opinion were submitted by CARB for all districts in
California and therefore were not included separately in South Coast's
submittal. The South Coast submission now contains a Governor's letter
requesting source category-limited interim approval, District
implementing and supporting regulations, and all other program
documentation required by Sec. 70.4.
On August 29, 1996, EPA proposed interim approval of the South
Coast title V operating permits program in accordance with
Sec. 70.4(d), on the basis that the program ``substantially meets''
part 70 requirements.
The analysis of the District submittal given in the August 29th
action is supplemented by the discussion of public comments made on the
NDFR. The analysis in the NDFR document remains unchanged and will not
be repeated in this final document. The program deficiencies that were
identified in the NDFR must be corrected for the South Coast to have a
fully approvable program. These program deficiencies, or interim
approval issues, are enumerated in II.B. of the August 29, 1996 NDFR.
B. Public Comments and Responses
The EPA received comments on the NDFR for the South Coast program
from four interested parties. Many of the comments are discussed below.
Comments that are not addressed in this notice are addressed in a
separate ``Response to Comments'' document
[[Page 8880]]
contained in the docket (CA-SC-96-1-OPS).
1. Insignificant Activities
Under part 70, if an activity has been classified as
``insignificant,'' an applicant need not include it in its application,
except that activities that are insignificant based upon size or
production rate must be listed. In order to be considered
insignificant, an activity should have relatively low emissions. Such
activities may not be subject to any applicable requirement under the
Act, with the exception of certain generically applicable requirements,
which, by their nature, need not always be addressed in a permit on a
unit specific basis. The most common of such requirements are the
broadly applicable opacity standards. In addition, as specified by
70.5(c), applications may not omit information needed to determine the
applicability of, or to impose, any applicable requirement. The
applicant is required to certify its compliance status with respect to
any requirements that apply to insignificant activities, and the permit
must contain terms and conditions that will ensure compliance with any
requirements that apply to insignificant activities. The South Coast
program meets these criteria, with the exception that some of the
listed activities do not appear to qualify as ``insignificant.''
One commenter urged EPA to accept the submittal of Rule 219 as
sufficient documentation of insignificant activities and asked that EPA
not impose new requirements on the District. A second commenter
disagreed that part 70 requires the District to provide supporting
criteria to justify its list of insignificant activities. This
commenter interprets Sec. 70.4(b)(2) as requiring the submittal of
criteria only to the extent that such criteria are available. The
commenter believes that the development of criteria to justify the
inclusion of each and every activity on the list submitted by the
permitting authority is not required.
As noted in the proposal, EPA believes that many of the activities
on the South Coast list appear to be appropriately treated as
``insignificant.'' The Agency does not anticipate that sweeping changes
to the list will be necessary. However, EPA does believe that there are
items on South Coast's list that could emit significant amounts of
pollutants and/or could be subject to unit-specific (non-general)
applicable requirements and are therefore not appropriately treated as
insignificant. EPA is requiring that for full approval, South Coast
must demonstrate that the activities on its list are insignificant. EPA
agrees that such a demonstration would not necessarily entail the
development of criteria to justify each and every activity on the list.
However, EPA disagrees with the assertion that criteria need only be
submitted ``where available.'' This qualifier is not in the rule. The
rule simply requires the submittal of criteria to justify insignificant
activities lists. EPA is interpreting this reasonably to require the
submittal of criteria only where there is a question about the
appropriateness of a listed activity. EPA will work with the District
to identify these areas and thereby reduce the justification burden
that would be imposed by a literal reading of Sec. 70.4(b)(2).
The District must revise the list to ensure that no activity on the
list emits significant amounts of pollutants or will be subject to a
unit-specific requirement. In some cases, this may require removing
some items from the list completely. Another option is to add emissions
cutoffs or size limitations to items on the list to ensure that the
listed activities emit relatively low quantities of pollutants and that
the listed activities are below any applicability thresholds for non-
general applicable requirements.
2. De Minimis Significant Permit Revisions
Two commenters expressed their support for the District's
provisions for the de minimis significant permit revision track, which
can be used to process NSPS and NESHAP modifications, establishment of
or changes to case-by-case emissions limitations, and changes to permit
conditions that the source has assumed to avoid an applicable
requirement, providing the change does not result in emissions
increases greater than 5.5 tons per year (tpy) of VOC, HAPs, or PM10;
7.3 tpy of NOX; 11 tpy of SOX; and 40 tpy of CO. EPA
identified these provisions as interim approval issues.
Part 70 requires that title I modifications (including NSPS and
NESHAP modifications), establishment of or changes to case-by-case
emissions limitations, and changes to permit conditions that the source
has assumed to avoid an applicable requirement be treated as
significant permit revisions. (See Secs. 70.7(e)(2)(I)(3),(4), and
(4)(A)). As such, these changes are subject to EPA and public review.
In the latter two cases, this requirement is independent of any changes
in emissions. By defining ``de minimis significant permit revisions''
to include these changes, the District has excluded them from public
review. EPA does not believe there is any basis for an interpretation
of the regulation that would allow for the exclusion of public review
of these changes.
In expressing its support for the South Coast de minimis
significant permit revisions provisions, one commenter paraphrased
EPA's discussion of a different aspect of the District's regulation.
The commenter said ``[a]s EPA points out in the preamble, requiring
full public participation procedures for modifications that result in
emissions increases below the levels specified in Regulation XXX would
be unworkable and would dilute attention that should be focused on more
significant changes.''
Part 70 requires all title I modifications, including modifications
subject to major new source review (NSR), to be processed as
significant permit revisions. Under the Clean Air Act, the size of the
emissions increase that triggers NSR varies with the attainment status
of the area. For example, a 40 ton per year increase of VOC would
trigger major NSR in a moderate ozone nonattainment area. Because the
South Coast is an extreme ozone non-attainment area (the only one in
the country), any increase of NOX or VOC is subject to major NSR.
The South Coast included in its rule provisions allowing
modifications that result in cumulative (over the 5 year term of the
permit) emissions increases of up to 40 pounds per day (about 7.3 tons
per year) of NOX and 30 pounds per day (about 5.5 tons per year)
of increases of VOC to be processed without a public comment period.
EPA proposed to approve this provision of the South Coast program
because it believes that requiring full participation for major NSR
modifications that result in emissions increases below the District's
cut-off levels would be unworkable. EPA did not receive adverse comment
on this aspect of the proposal.
In paraphrasing EPA's discussion regarding major NSR, the commenter
attempts to extend EPA's reasoning on the NSR question to the other
``gatekeepers'' (NSPS and NESHAP modifications, establishment of or
changes to case-by-case emissions limitations, and changes to permit
conditions that the source has assumed to avoid an applicable
requirement) in the rule. EPA notes that, unlike the NSR major
modification triggers, the other gatekeepers are implemented in the
same way throughout the country. Every other permitting authority in
the United States and every other title V source in the United States
is subject to these
[[Page 8881]]
requirements. EPA finds no basis for applying a different standard to
the South Coast.
3. Reporting and Periodic Monitoring
One commenter stated that where reporting requirements are not
specified or are specified as less frequently than every six months,
those requirements should be deemed sufficient for title V purposes.
Another said that existing monitoring and reporting requirements are
sufficient to assure compliance with applicable requirements. Both of
these commenters stated that where District rules or permits do not
impose specific monitoring requirements this was done based on a
determination that monitoring was not necessary, and that no new
monitoring should be imposed.
Part 70 requires the submittal of reports of required monitoring at
least every six months. (See Sec. 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A).) This requirement
is in addition to the reporting requirements in existing rules and
regulations. However, where this is redundant with reports required by
applicable rules and regulations, it may be possible for one report to
satisfy more than one reporting requirement. In order to meet the
minimum part 70 requirements, the report would have to be submitted at
least every 6 months, it would have to include clear identification of
deviations from permit requirements and it would have to be certified
by the responsible official. If these requirements are met by existing
reporting requirements, there is no need to require a facility to
submit the same report twice.
The periodic monitoring requirements of part 70 are set forth at
Sec. 70.6(a)(3)(i). This provision requires that the permit contain
``periodic monitoring sufficient to yield reliable data from the
relevant time period that are representative of the source's compliance
with the permit. * * *'' If the applicable requirement does not require
periodic monitoring, the permitting authority must add it to the title
V permit. EPA has previously explained that periodic monitoring need
not be added where doing so would not make an appreciable difference in
the ability of the permit to assure compliance. An example of this
would be where a boiler is subject to an SO2 limit and is required to
fire only on natural gas. In this case, a requirement that the source
keep records of fuel use would meet the source's obligation to do
periodic monitoring. Another example is the case of insignificant
activities subject to generally applicable SIP limits, as discussed in
White Paper #2.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On March 5, 1996, EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards issued ``White Paper Number 2 for Improved Implementation
of the Part 70 Operating Permits Program.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Compliance Certification Language
South Coast Rule 3003(c) requires that the responsible official
certify that, based on information and belief formed after reasonable
inquiry, the statements and information contained in the submitted
document are true, accurate, and complete. The District's application
forms include the following certification language: ``* * * I have
personally examined and am familiar with the statements and information
submitted in this document and all of its attachments. * * * Based on
my inquiry of those individuals with primary responsibility for
obtaining the information, I certify that the following statements and
information are to the best of my knowledge true, accurate and
complete.''
One commenter stated that ``[i]t appears the current compliance
certification language goes beyond the best efforts required by
California (sic) White Paper 1.'' 2 The commenter feels that it is
unrealistic to expect this level of personal knowledge on the part of
responsible officials at very large sources covered by title V. The
commenter proposes that the following language be deleted from the
first paragraph of the certification: ``and that I have personally
examined, and am familiar with, the statements and information
submitted in this document and all of its attachments.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ On July 10, 1995, EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards issued ``White Paper for Streamlined Development of Part
70 Permit Applications.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's White Paper 1 addresses one narrow aspect of the compliance
certification. The guidance provides that companies are not federally
required to reconsider previous applicability determinations as part of
their inquiry in preparing part 70 permit applications. Although it
does not appear that the District's compliance certification language
would require such reconsideration, EPA notes that nothing in EPA
guidance or part 70 would constrain the District from doing so.
EPA finds the compliance certification provisions of the South
Coast program to be consistent with the requirements of part 70 and EPA
guidance.
5. Timing of EPA Action on District Program
Two commenters suggested that EPA defer any action to grant interim
approval to the South Coast title V program. One of the commenters
requested that EPA delay action until resolution of their issues is
achieved. The other commenter noted that, given the District's plans to
amend Regulation XXX in the near future, it may be appropriate for EPA
to delay action on the South Coast title V program.
EPA has a statutory obligation to take action on title V programs
within one year of the submittal of a complete title V program. The
year has elapsed and part 71 is currently effective in the District. If
EPA's approval of the District's program is further delayed, sources
will be required to submit part 71 applications. EPA will continue to
work with the District and with the regulated community to resolve
implementation issues. When the District amends its part 70 program,
EPA will take action on the submittal as quickly as possible.
C. Final Action
1. Title V Operating Permits Program
The EPA is promulgating interim approval of the operating permits
program submitted by the California Air Resources Board on behalf of
the South Coast Air Quality Management District on December 27, 1993 as
supplemented by additional materials as referenced in II.A of this
document. The areas in which the South Coast program is deficient and
requires corrective action prior to full approval are set out in II.B.
of the NDFR. See 61 FR 45333; August 29, 1996.
This interim approval, which may not be renewed, extends until
March 29, 1999. During this interim approval period, the South Coast is
protected from sanctions, and EPA is not obligated to promulgate,
administer and enforce a Federal operating permits program in the
District. Permits issued under a program with interim approval have
full standing with respect to part 70, and the 1-year time period for
submittal of permit applications by subject sources begins upon the
effective date of this interim approval, as does the 3-year time period
for processing the initial permit applications.
If the District fails to submit a complete corrective program for
full approval by September 28, 1998, EPA will start an 18-month clock
for mandatory sanctions. If the South Coast then fails to submit a
corrective program that EPA finds complete before the expiration of
that 18-month period, EPA
[[Page 8882]]
will be required to apply one of the sanctions in section 179(b) of the
Act, which will remain in effect until EPA determines that the District
has corrected the deficiency by submitting a complete corrective
program. Moreover, if the Administrator finds a lack of good faith on
the part of the District, both sanctions under section 179(b) will
apply after the expiration of the 18-month period until the
Administrator determines that the District has come into compliance. In
any case, if, six months after application of the first sanction, the
District still has not submitted a corrective program that EPA has
found complete, a second sanction will be required.
If EPA disapproves the South Coast's complete corrective program,
EPA will be required to apply one of the section 179(b) sanctions on
the date 18 months after the effective date of the disapproval, unless
prior to that date the District has submitted a revised program and EPA
has determined that it corrected the deficiencies that prompted the
disapproval. Moreover, if the Administrator finds a lack of good faith
on the part of District, both sanctions under section 179(b) shall
apply after the expiration of the 18-month period until the
Administrator determines that the District has come into compliance. In
all cases, if, six months after EPA applies the first sanction, the
District has not submitted a revised program that EPA has determined
corrects the deficiencies, a second sanction is required.
In addition, discretionary sanctions may be applied where warranted
any time after the expiration of an interim approval period if the
District has not timely submitted a complete corrective program or EPA
has disapproved its submitted corrective program. Moreover, if EPA has
not granted full approval to the District program by the expiration of
this interim approval, EPA must promulgate, administer and enforce a
Federal permits program for the South Coast upon interim approval
expiration.
The scope of the part 70 program approved in this notice applies to
all part 70 sources (as defined in the approved program) within the
South Coast Air Quality Manangement District, except any sources of air
pollution over which an Indian Tribe has jurisdiction. See, e.g., 59 FR
55813, 55815-18 (Nov. 9, 1994). The term ``Indian Tribe'' is defined
under the Act as ``any Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized
group or community, including any Alaska Native village, which is
Federally recognized as eligible for the special programs and services
provided by the United States to Indians because of their status as
Indians.'' See section 302(r) of the CAA; see also 59 FR 43956, 43962
(Aug. 25, 1994); 58 FR 54364 (Oct. 21, 1993).
2. Program for Delegation of Section 112 Standards as Promulgated
Requirements for approval, specified in 40 CFR 70.4(b), encompass
section 112(l)(5) requirements for approval of a program for delegation
of section 112 standards as promulgated by EPA as they apply to part 70
sources. Section 112(l)(5) requires that a state's program contain
adequate authorities, adequate resources for implementation, and an
expeditious compliance schedule, which are also requirements under part
70. Therefore, EPA is also promulgating approval under section
112(l)(5) and 40 CFR 63.91 of South Coast's program for receiving
delegation of section 112 standards that are unchanged from the federal
standards as promulgated and that apply to sources covered by the part
70 program. California Health and Safety Code section 39658 provides
for automatic adoption by CARB of section 112 standards upon
promulgation by EPA. Section 39666 of the Health and Safety Code
requires that districts then implement and enforce these standards.
Thus, when section 112 standards are automatically adopted pursuant to
section 39658, South Coast will have the authority necessary to accept
delegation of these standards without further regulatory action by the
District. The details of this mechanism and the means for finalizing
delegation of standards will be set forth in an implementation
agreement between South Coast and EPA. This program applies to both
existing and future standards but is limited to sources covered by the
part 70 program.
III. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
Copies of the South Coast Air Quality Management District's
submittals and other information relied upon for the final interim
approval, including public comments on the proposal from four different
parties, are contained in docket number CA-SC-96-1-OPS maintained at
the EPA Regional Office. The docket is an organized and complete file
of all the information submitted to, or otherwise considered by, EPA in
the development of this final interim approval. The docket is available
for public inspection at the location listed under the ADDRESSES
section of this document.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The EPA's actions under section 502 of the Act do not create any
new requirements, but simply address operating permits programs
submitted to satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR part 70. Because this
action does not impose any new requirements, it does not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
C. 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.
The EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated today
does not include a federal mandate that may result in estimated costs
of $100 million or more to either state, local, or tribal governments
in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This federal action
approves pre-existing requirements under state or local law, and
imposes no new federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs
to state, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector,
result from this action.
D. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) of the Administrative Procedures Act
(APA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996, EPA submitted 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 General Accounting
Office prior to publication of the rule in today's Federal Register.
This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2) of the
APA as amended.
E. Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action from
Executive Order 12866 review.
[[Page 8883]]
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70
Environmental protection, Intergovernmental relations, Operating
permits, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Administrative
practice and procedure, Air pollution control.
Dated: February 7, 1997.
Felicia Marcus,
Regional Administrator.
Part 70, 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 adding paragraph (dd) to the
entry for California to read as follows:
Appendix A to Part 70--Approval Status of State and Local Operating
Permits Programs
* * * * *
California
* * * * *
(dd) South Coast Air Quality Management District: 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.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 97-4887 Filed 2-26-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
