Clean Air Act Final Interim Approval of Operating Permits Program; South Coast Air Quality Management District, California

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