[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 194 (Friday, October 6, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52332-52336]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-24453]



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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 70

[AD-FRL-5307-9]


Clean Air Act Final Interim Approval of Operating Permits 
Program; Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control 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 Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution 
Control District (Monterey 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.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 6, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Copies of Monterey's submittal and other supporting 
information used in developing the final interim approval are available 
for inspection (docket number CA-MN-95-1-OPS) during normal business 
hours at the following location: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region IX, Air and Toxics Division, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 
CA 94105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Regina Spindler (telephone 415-744-
1251), Mail Code A-5-2, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 
IX, Air and Toxics 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 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 May 16, 1995, EPA proposed interim approval of the operating 
permits program for the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control 
District. See 60 FR 26013. The EPA received public comment on the 
proposal and is responding to those comments in this document and in a 
separate ``Response to Comments'' document contained in the docket at 
the Regional Office. As a result of public comment, EPA has modified 
one of the interim approval issues set forth in the May 16, 1995 
proposal. The EPA's proposed action on the operating permits program is 
therefore being revised to reflect the modification of the interim 
approval issue. This change is discussed below in II.B. along with the 
other issues raised during the public comment period. The May 16, 1995 
Federal Register notice also proposed approval of Monterey's interim 
mechanism for implementing section 112(g) and proposed approval under 
section 112(l) of the District's program for accepting delegation of 
section 112 standards as promulgated. The EPA did not receive any 
public comment on these proposed actions. With the exception of the 
modification to the interim approval issue discussed above, the 
proposed actions discussed above have not been altered as a result of 
public comment. In this notice EPA is taking final action to promulgate 
interim approval of the operating permits program and approving the 
section 112(g) mechanism and section 112(l) program for delegation 
noted above for Monterey.

II. Final Action and Implications

A. Analysis of District Submission

    Monterey's original title V program was submitted by the California 
Air Resources Board (CARB) on December 6, 1993. Additional material was 
submitted on February 2, 1994 and April 7, 1994. The submittal was 
found to be complete on February 4, 1994. The EPA determined in its 
evaluation of Monterey's program that Rule 218, the 

[[Page 52333]]
District's permitting regulation, contained several deficiencies that 
were cause for disapproval of the program. The EPA described these 
deficiencies and the corrections necessary to make the program eligible 
for interim approval in a letter from Felicia Marcus, EPA Region IX 
Administrator, to Abra Bennett, Monterey Air Pollution Control Officer 
(APCO), dated July 22, 1994. In response, Monterey adopted a revised 
regulation which was submitted by CARB on the District's behalf on 
October 13, 1994. On May 16, 1995, EPA proposed interim approval of 
Monterey's 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 in the proposed document remains 
unchanged and will not be repeated in this final document. With the 
exception of the modification to the interim approval issue regarding 
affected state review discussed below in II.B.5., the program 
deficiencies identified in the proposed document, and outlined below in 
II.C., remain unchanged and must be corrected for the District to have 
a fully approvable program.
    At the time of proposal, EPA believed that an implementation 
agreement would be completed prior to final interim approval. The EPA 
and Monterey have not yet finalized the implementation agreement, but 
are working to do so as soon as practicable.

B. Public Comments and Responses

    The EPA received comments on the proposed interim approval of the 
Monterey program from one public commenter, the Monterey Bay Unified 
Air Pollution Control District. These comments are discussed below.
1. Insignificant Activities
    Monterey commented that it would like to propose, for full title V 
program approval, emission levels for insignificant activities of 2 
tons per year for criteria pollutants and the lesser of 1000 pounds per 
year, section 112(g) de minimis levels, or other title I significant 
modification levels for hazardous air pollutants and other toxics. The 
District commented that it believes these levels to be sufficiently 
below the applicability thresholds for all applicable requirements and 
will ensure that no unit potentially subject to an applicable 
requirement is left off of a title V permit application.
    In the May 16, 1995 proposed interim approval of Monterey's 
program, EPA stated that it had proposed to accept, as sufficient for 
full approval of other state and district programs, the emission levels 
for insignificant activities as described above in Monterey's comment. 
The EPA stated that it believes these levels to be sufficiently below 
the applicability thresholds of many applicable requirements to assure 
that no unit potentially subject to an applicable requirement is left 
off a title V application. Monterey has commented that it believes 
these levels to be appropriate for determining insignificant activities 
in the District. If Monterey establishes these emission levels for 
defining insignificant activities in its program and submits this as a 
title V program revision to EPA, EPA will find that aspect of the 
insignificant activity definition fully approvable. As discussed below 
in II.C.7., to receive full approval of its insignificant activity 
provisions, Monterey must also revise Rule 218 to require that 
insignificant activities that are exempted because of size or 
production rate be listed in the permit application and to require that 
an application may not omit information needed to determine the 
applicability of, or to impose, any applicable requirement, or to 
evaluate the fee amount required.
2. ``Title I Modification''
    Monterey commented that ``title I modifications'' should not be 
interpreted to include minor new source review and endorsed the 
recommendations and legal arguments made by CARB in its September 27, 
1994 letter from Michael Scheible to the EPA Air Docket.
    At the time of the May 16, 1995 proposed interim approval, EPA was 
in the process of determining the proper definition of title I 
modification, and therefore did not identify Monterey's treatment of 
title I modification as necessary grounds for either interim approval 
or disapproval. In an August 29, 1994 rulemaking proposal, EPA 
explained its view that the better reading of ``title I modifications'' 
includes minor NSR. However, the Agency solicited public comment on 
whether the phrase should be interpreted to mean literally any change 
at a source that would trigger permitting authority review under 
regulations approved or promulgated under title I of the Act. (59 FR 
44572, 44573). This would include state preconstruction review programs 
approved by EPA as part of the State Implementation Plan under section 
110(a)(2)(C) of the Clean Air Act.
    The EPA has not yet taken final action on the August 29, 1994 
proposal. However, in response to public comment on that proposal, the 
Agency has decided that the definition of ``title I modifications'' is 
best interpreted as not including changes reviewed under minor NSR 
programs. This decision was announced in a June 20, 1995 letter from 
Mary D. Nichols, EPA Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, to 
Congressman John D. Dingell, and will be included in a supplemental 
rulemaking proposal that will be published in September, 1995. Thus, 
EPA expects to confirm that Monterey's definition of ``title I 
modification'' is fully consistent with part 70.
    The August 29, 1994 action proposed to, among other things, allow 
state programs with a more narrow definition of ``title I 
modifications'' to receive interim approval (59 FR 44572). The Agency 
stated that if, after considering the public comments, it continued to 
believe that the phrase ``title I modifications'' should be interpreted 
as including minor NSR changes, it would revise the interim approval 
criteria as needed to allow states with a narrower definition to be 
eligible for interim approval. If EPA does conclude, during this 
rulemaking, that Title I modifications should be read to include minor 
NSR, it will implement the interim approval option spelled out in the 
August 29, 1994 proposal.
3. Implementation Agreement
    In the May 16, 1995 proposed interim approval, EPA stated that an 
implementation agreement is currently being developed by EPA and 
Monterey. Monterey commented that they disagree with EPA over the 
structure and the basis for an implementation agreement and take 
exception to the implementation agreement language contained in the 
notice and therefore suggest that it be removed prior to publication of 
the final notice. Since Monterey submitted this comment, EPA and the 
District have engaged in numerous conversations regarding the 
implementation agreement and Monterey has indicated that it does intend 
to develop an agreement with EPA. EPA and the District are currently 
negotiating the appropriate format and content of that agreement.
4. District Rule 201 Correction
    Monterey commented that EPA had incorrectly stated in the May 16, 
1995 proposal that Rule 201 ``was adopted or revised to implement title 
V.'' The District pointed out that Rule 201 was adopted prior to 
promulgation of part 70 and was not revised to implement title V. The 
EPA therefore revises the statement made in the May 16, 1995 proposal 
to state that Rule 201 was submitted as a supporting regulation of 

[[Page 52334]]
the Monterey title V program. This change does not affect EPA's May 16, 
1995 proposed action.
5. Affected State Review
    In the May 16, 1995 proposed interim approval, EPA proposed that in 
order to receive full approval Monterey must revise Rule 218 to define 
and provide for giving notice to affected states per Secs. 70.2 and 
70.8(b). The EPA reasoned that although emissions from Monterey may not 
currently affect any neighboring states, Native American tribes may in 
the future apply for treatment as states for air program purposes and 
if granted such status would be entitled to affected state review under 
title V. (See EPA's proposed Tribal Air Rule at 59 FR 43956, August 25, 
1994.) Monterey commented that it would be appropriate to revise Rule 
218 to provide for giving notice to affected states at such time as a 
Native American tribe or tribes apply for treatment as a state. The EPA 
is concerned about the timing issues involved with delaying the 
adoption of affected state notice provisions in Monterey's program 
until tribes apply for state status. Although the federal rule that 
will enable tribes to apply for treatment as states has not yet been 
finalized, and there are no tribes currently eligible for treatment as 
a state under the Act, EPA believes that the likelihood of Native 
American tribes qualifying as affected states under part 70 is great 
and that Monterey will ultimately need to revise its rule to address 
this outcome. Nonetheless, EPA is willing to accept as an alternative 
to adopting affected state notice provisions up front, a commitment to: 
(1) Initiate rule revisions upon being notified by EPA of an 
application by an affected tribe for state status, and (2) provide 
affected state notice to tribes upon their filing for state status 
(i.e., prior to Monterey revising Rule 218 to incorporate affected 
state notice procedures).

C. Final Action

1. Monterey's Title V Operating Permits Program
    The EPA is promulgating interim approval of the operating permits 
program submitted by the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control 
District. The District must make the following changes, or changes that 
have the same effect, to receive full approval:
    (1) Revise section 1.3 to require that, regardless of the source's 
actual or potential emissions, acid rain sources and solid waste 
incineration units required to obtain a permit pursuant to section 
129(e) of the Act may not be exempted from the requirement to obtain a 
permit pursuant to Rule 218. Section 70.3(b) requires that major 
sources, affected sources (acid rain sources), and solid waste 
incinerators may not be exempted from the program. Monterey's deferral 
for certain major sources other than acid rain sources and solid waste 
incinerators is allowable under EPA's ``Interim Approval Guidance,'' 
issued by John Seitz on August 2, 1993.
    (2) Revise section 2.1.4 of the definition of ``Administrative 
Permit Amendments'' as follows:

``requires more frequent monitoring or reporting for the stationary 
source; or''

    Increasing monitoring requirements could be a significant change to 
these requirements. Significant changes in monitoring must be processed 
as significant permit modifications. (Sec. 70.7(d)(1)(iii), 
Sec. 70.7(e)(4))
    (3) Revise the definition of ``Federally Enforceable Requirement'' 
in section 2.12 to include any standard or other requirement provided 
for in the State Implementation Plan approved or promulgated by EPA. 
This revision is necessary to make the section 2.12 definition 
consistent with the part 70 definition of ``Applicable requirement'' 
and with the Rule 218, section 4.2.4 requirement that each permit 
require compliance with any standard or requirement set forth in the 
applicable implementation plan.
    (4) Revise section 2.18.4 of the definition of ``Minor Permit 
Modification'' to require that a minor permit modification may not 
establish or change a permit condition used to avoid a federally 
enforceable requirement to which the source would otherwise be subject. 
(Sec. 70.7(e)(2)(i)(A)(4))
    (5) Revise section 3.1.6.12 to require that the compliance 
certification within the permit application include a statement 
indicating the source's compliance status with any applicable enhanced 
monitoring and compliance certification requirements of the Act. 
(Sec. 70.5(c)(9)(iv))
    (6) Revise section 3.1.6.13 as follows to be consistent with 
Sec. 70.5(c)(8)(iii)(C):

    * * * a schedule of compliance approved by the District hearing 
board that identifies remedial measures, including an enforceable 
sequence of actions, with specific increments of progress, a final 
compliance date, testing and monitoring methods, recordkeeping 
requirements, and a schedule for submission of certified progress 
reports to the USEPA and the APCO at least every 6 months. This 
schedule of compliance shall resemble and be at least as stringent 
as that contained in any judicial consent decree or administrative 
order to which the source is subject; and * * *''

    (7) Provide a demonstration that activities that are exempt from 
permitting under Rule 218 (pursuant to Rule 201, the District's permit 
exemption list) are truly insignificant and are not likely to be 
subject to an applicable requirement. Alternatively, Rule 218 may 
restrict the exemptions to activities that are not likely to be subject 
to an applicable requirement and emit less than District-established 
emission levels. The District should establish separate emission levels 
for HAP and for other regulated pollutants and demonstrate that these 
emission levels are insignificant compared to the level of emissions 
from and type of units that are required to be permitted or subject to 
applicable requirements. Revise Rule 218 to require that insignificant 
activities that are exempted because of size or production rate be 
listed in the permit application. Revise Rule 218 to require that an 
application may not omit information needed to determine the 
applicability of, or to impose, any applicable requirement, or to 
evaluate the fee amount required. (Sec. 70.5(c), Sec. 70.4(b)(2))
    (8) Revise section 3.5.3 to provide that the APCO shall also give 
public notice ``by other means if necessary to assure adequate notice 
to the affected public.'' (Sec. 70.7(h)(1))
    (9) Revise Rule 218 to include the contents of the public notice as 
specified by Sec. 70.7(h)(2).
    (10) Revise Rule 218 to provide that the District shall keep a 
record of the commenters and of the issues raised during the public 
participation process so that the Administrator may fulfill her 
obligation to determine whether a citizen petition may be granted. 
(Sec. 70.7(h)(5))
    (11) The EPA must be provided with 45 days to review the version of 
the permit that incorporates any public comments and that the District 
proposes to issue. Rule 218 indicates that the District intends to 
provide for concurrent public and EPA review of the draft permit. 
Therefore, the District must revise the rule to provide that EPA will 
have an additional 45 days to review the proposed permit if it is 
revised as a result of comments received from the public. 
(Sec. 70.8(a)(1))
    (12) Revise Rule 218 to define and provide for giving notice to 
affected states per Secs. 70.2 and 70.8(b). Alternatively, Monterey may 
make a commitment to: (1) Initiate rule revisions upon being notified 
by EPA of an application by an affected tribe for state status, and (2) 
provide affected 

[[Page 52335]]
state notice to tribes upon their filing for state status (i.e., prior 
to Monterey's adopting affected state notice rules).
    (13) Revise section 3.7.1 to require that the permit shall be 
reopened under the circumstances listed in sections 3.7.1.1 to 3.7.1.3. 
(Sec. 70.7(f)(1))
    (14) Revise section 3.8.2 to provide, consistent with 
Sec. 70.7(e)(2)(iv), that the District shall take action on a minor 
permit modification application within 90 days of receipt of the 
application or 15 days after the end of the 45-day EPA review period, 
whichever is later. Currently, the District rule provides that the 
permit be issued within 90 days after the application is deemed 
complete (section 3.3.2 provides 30 days from receipt for a 
completeness determination) or 60 days after written notice and 
concurrence from EPA, whichever is later. The EPA will not necessarily 
provide written notice and concurrence on minor permit modifications 
and the District rule does not address what action is taken should EPA 
not provide written notice. (Sec. 70.7(e)(2)(iv))
    (15) Revise section 3.8.2 to provide that the action taken on a 
minor permit modification application in the timeframes discussed above 
in (14) shall be one of the following:
    (a) Issue the permit modification as proposed;
    (b) Deny the permit modification application;
    (c) Determine that the requested modification does not meet the 
minor permit modification criteria and should be reviewed under the 
significant modification procedures; or
    (d) Revise the draft permit modification and transmit to the 
Administrator the new proposed permit modification.
    The current District rule states that the minor permit modification 
shall be completed within the timeframes discussed above in (14), but 
does not specify that the District must take one of the actions listed 
above. (Sec. 70.7(e)(2)(iv))
2. California Enabling Legislation--Legislative Source Category Limited 
Interim Approval Issue
    Because California State law currently exempts agricultural 
production sources from permit requirements, the California Air 
Resources Board had requested source category-limited interim approval 
for all California districts. The May 16, 1995 proposed interim 
approval included a proposal to grant source category-limited interim 
approval to Monterey. The EPA is finalizing this source category-
limited interim approval. In order for this program to receive full 
approval (and to avoid a disapproval upon the expiration of this 
interim approval), the California Legislature must revise the Health 
and Safety Code to eliminate the exemption of agricultural production 
sources from the requirement to obtain a permit.
    The above described program and legislative deficiencies must be 
corrected before Monterey can receive full program approval.
    The scope of Monterey's part 70 program approved in this notice 
applies to all part 70 sources (as defined in the approved program) 
within the 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).
    This interim approval, which may not be renewed, extends until 
November 6, 1997. During this interim approval period, Monterey 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 Monterey fails to submit a complete corrective program for full 
approval by May 6, 1997, EPA will start an 18-month clock for mandatory 
sanctions. If Monterey then fails to submit a corrective program that 
EPA finds complete before the expiration of that 18-month period, EPA 
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 Monterey, both sanctions under section 179(b) will apply 
after the expiration of the 18-month period until the Administrator 
determined that the District had 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 Monterey'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 the District, both sanctions under section 179(b) shall 
apply after the expiration of the 18-month period until the 
Administrator determines that Monterey has come into compliance. In all 
cases, if, six months after EPA applies the first sanction, Monterey 
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 Monterey 
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 and that expiration occurs after November 15, 1995, 
EPA must promulgate, administer and enforce a federal permits program 
for Monterey upon interim approval expiration.
3. District Preconstruction Permit Program Implementing Section 112(g)
    The EPA is approving the use of Monterey's preconstruction review 
program as a mechanism to implement section 112(g) during the 
transition period between promulgation of EPA's section 112(g) rule and 
adoption by Monterey of rules specifically designed to implement 
section 112(g). The EPA is limiting the duration of this approval to 12 
months following promulgation by EPA of the section 112(g) rule.
4. 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 the 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 

[[Page 52336]]
112(l)(5) and 40 CFR 63.91 of the state's program for receiving 
delegation of section 112 standards that are unchanged from federal 
standards as promulgated. This program for delegations only applies to 
sources covered by the Part 70 program.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

    Copies of the District's submittal and other information relied 
upon for the final interim approval, including one public comment 
letter received and reviewed by EPA on the proposal, are contained in 
docket number CA-MN-95-1-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. Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action from 
Executive Order 12866 review.

C. 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.

D. 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.

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: September 21, 1995.
John Wise,
Acting 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 (r) to the 
entry for California to read as follows:

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

* * * * *
    The following district program was submitted by the California 
Air Resources Board on behalf of:
    (r) Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District: 
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 November 6, 1997.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 95-24453 Filed 10-5-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P