[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