8878 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 39 / Thursday, February 27, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

239.34). All other submission types used for Rule

462(b) filings were added to the EDGAR system in

November 1995. See Release No. 33–7241

(November 13, 1995) (60 FR 57682).

105 U.S.C. 553(b)

115 U.S.C. 601–612.

12 15 U.S.C. 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j and 77s(a).

13 15 U.S.C. 78c, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o, 78w and 78ll.

14 15 U.S.C. 79t.

15 15 U.S.C. 77sss.

16 15 U.S.C. 80a–8, 80a–29, 80a–30 and 80a–37.

Rule 301 of Regulation S–T also is

being amended to provide for the

incorporation by reference of the Filer

Manual into the Code of Federal

Regulations, which incorporation by

reference was approved by the Director

of the Federal Register in accordance

with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR Part 51.

The revised Filer Manual and the

amendment to Rule 301 will be effective

on March 10, 1997.

Paper copies of the updated Filer

Manual may be obtained at the

following address: Public Reference

Room, U.S. Securities and Exchange

Commission, Mail Stop 1–2, 450 Fifth

Street, N.W., Washington D.C. 20549.

Electronic format copies will be

available on the EDGAR electronic

bulletin board. Copies also may be

obtained from Disclosure Incorporated,

the paper and microfiche contractor for

the Commission, at (800) 638–8241.

Since the Filer Manual relates solely

to agency procedure or practice,

publication for notice and comment is

not required under the Administrative

Procedure Act.10 It follows that the

requirements of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act 11 do not apply.

The effective date for the updated

Filer Manual and the rule amendment is

March 10, 1997. In accordance with the

Administrative Procedure Act 5 U.S.C.

553(d)(3), the Commission finds that

there is good cause to establish an

effective date less than 30 days after

publication of these rules. The EDGAR

system is scheduled to be upgraded to

Release 5.20 on March 8, 1997. The

Commission believes that it is necessary

to coordinate the effectiveness of the

updated Filer Manual with the

scheduled system upgrade in order to

avoid confusion to EDGAR filers.

Statutory Basis

The amendment to Regulation S–T is

being adopted under Sections 6, 7, 8, 10,

and 19(a) of the Securities Act of 1933,12

Sections 3, 12, 13, 14, 15, 23, and 35A

of the Securities Exchange Act of

1934,13 Section 20 of the Public Utility

Holding Company Act of 1935,14

Section 319 of the Trust Indenture Act

of 1939,15 and Sections 8, 30, 31, and 38

of the Investment Company Act.16

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 232

Incorporation by reference;

Investment companies; Registration

requirements; Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements; Securities.

Text of the Amendment

In accordance with the foregoing,

Title 17, Chapter II of the Code of

Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 232—REGULATION S–T—

GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS

FOR ELECTRONIC FILINGS

1. The authority citation for Part 232

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j,

77s(a), 77sss(a), 78c(b), 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o(d),

78w(a), 78ll(d), 79t(a), 80a–8, 80a–29, 80a–30

and 80a–37.

2. Section 232.301 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 232.301 EDGAR Filer Manual.

Electronic filings shall be prepared in

the manner prescribed by the EDGAR

Filer Manual, promulgated by the

Commission, which sets out the

technical formatting requirements for

electronic submissions. The March 1997

edition of the EDGAR Filer Manual:

Guide for Electronic Filing with the U.S.

Securities and Exchange Commission

(Release 5.20) is incorporated into the

Code of Federal Regulations by

reference, which action was approved

by the Director of the Federal Register

in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and

1 CFR Part 51. Compliance with the

requirements found therein is essential

to the timely receipt and acceptance of

documents filed with or otherwise

submitted to the Commission in

electronic format. Paper copies of the

EDGAR Filer Manual may be obtained at

the following address: Public Reference

Room, U.S. Securities and Exchange

Commission, Mail Stop 1–2, 450 5th

Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20549.

They also may be obtained from

Disclosure Incorporated by calling (800)

638–8241. Electronic format copies are

available through the EDGAR electronic

bulletin board. Information on becoming

an EDGAR E-mail/electronic bulletin

board subscriber is available by

contacting CompuServe Inc. at (800)

848–8199.

Dated: February 21, 1997.

By the Commission.

Jonathan G. Katz,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–4797 Filed 2–26–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–P

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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 39 / Thursday, February 27, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 70.4.

On August 29, 1996, EPA proposed

interim approval of the South Coast title

V operating permits program in

accordance with § 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
8880 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 39 / Thursday, February 27, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

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 § 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

§ 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 §§ 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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 39 / Thursday, February 27, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 8881

1On 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.’’

2On July 10, 1995, EPA’s Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards issued ‘‘White Paper for

Streamlined Development of Part 70 Permit

Applications.’’

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

§ 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 § 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

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.’’

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
8882 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 39 / Thursday, February 27, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

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 costeffective 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.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 39 / Thursday, February 27, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 95–72; Notice 2]

RIN 2127–AF75

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards; Lamps, Reflective Devices

and Associated Equipment

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Termination of rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This document terminates

rulemaking under which NHTSA had

asked for comments on whether the

performance and installation of front

and rear fog lamps should be regulated

by Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No.

108. Although commenters supported a

rule in principle, they pointed out the

lack of an acceptable and harmonized

reference upon which Federal

requirements could be based. In

response to these comments, the SAE

has established a Fog Lamp Task Force

to develop an internationally-acceptable

fog lamp standard, on which a Federal

standard could be based. NHTSA is

terminating rulemaking so that the

agency can actively participate in a

cooperative effort to develop a fog lamp

standard.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rich

Van Iderstine, Office of Safety

Performance Standards, NHTSA,

(Phone: 202–366–5275; FAX 202–366–

4329).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

October 26, 1995, NHTSA proposed

amendments to Standard No. 108, the

Federal motor vehicle safety standard

on lighting, which were intended to

harmonize the Standard’s geometric

visibility requirements for signal lamps

and rear side marker color with those of

the United Nation’s Economic

Commission for Europe (ECE) (60 FR

54833). With the international

harmonization of standards in mind, the

agency also sought comments on

whether the performance and

installation of front and rear fog lamps

ought to be regulated by Standard No.

108.

Twenty-four comments were received

in response to the notice, 12 of which

commented specifically on the issue of

fog lamps. These commenters were

Truck Safety Equipment Institute,

Chrysler Corporation, Advocates for

Highway and Auto Safety, MercedesBenz of North America, Porsche Cars

North America, Ichikoh Industries,

Groupe de Travail Bruxelles (GTB),

Hella, Volvo Cars of North America,

Volkswagen of America, Wisconsin

Department of Transportation, and

American Automobile Manufacturers

Association. All supported Federal

regulation of fog lamps. Some American

commenters pointed out the existence of

vastly differing State laws, and the

benefit of simplicity that a Federal preemptive standard would bring. Several

European commenters recommended

that NHTSA adopt the provisions of

ECE R48 governing fog lamps. However,

others cautioned that there is no

generally satisfactory industry standard

nor government regulation anywhere

that could form the basis of a suitable

Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

Many urged that any Federal standard

for fog lamps should be one that is

harmonized with the standards of Japan

and the ECE. Vehicle and lighting

manufacturers, concerned about the lack

of an acceptable standard,

recommended that the Society of

Automotive Engineers (SAE), in

conjunction with GTB and interested

participants from around the world,

develop a harmonized standard that

could be used by national governments.

In the aftermath of these comments, in

April 1996, SAE established a Fog Lamp

Task Force that will undertake this

effort, recognizing that its existing

requirements need to be modified to

adequately address all fog lamp issues.

NHTSA has decided to terminate its

rulemaking on fog lamps. The agency

believes that it is appropriate for it to

actively participate in the cooperative

effort to develop fog lamp standards.

Future agency rulemaking in this area

will be based on NHTSA’s assessment of

the success of this cooperative effort.

The agency’s termination covers fog

lamps only. NHTSA is continuing its

analysis of the comments on geometric

visibility and rear side marker lamp

color.

Issued on: February 24, 1997.

L. Robert Shelton,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 97–4940 Filed 2–26–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 961107312–7021–02; I.D.

022197A]

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic

Zone Off Alaska; Offshore Component

Pollock in the Aleutian Islands Subarea

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Inseason adjustment; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS issues an inseason

adjustment prohibiting directed fishing

for pollock by vessels catching pollock

for processing by the offshore

component in the Aleutian Islands

subarea (AI) of the Bering Sea and

Aleutian Islands management area

(BSAI). This adjustment is necessary to

prevent the underharvest of pollock by

vessels catching pollock for processing

by the offshore component in the AI of

the BSAI.

DATES: 2400 hrs, Alaska local time

(A.l.t.), February 23, 1997, until 2400

hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 1997.

Comments must be received at the