Jump to main content.

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California State Implementation Plan Revision, South Coast Air Quality Management District

Related Material

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

 




[Federal Register: February 29, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 40)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 10713-10717]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr29fe00-20]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 181-0224; FRL-6541-9]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California
State Implementation Plan Revision, South Coast Air Quality Management
District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing disapproval of Rule 1623 of the South Coast
Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) which has been submitted as a
revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP). EPA proposed
disapproval of this revision in the Federal Register on January 18,
2000. Rule 1623, Credits for Lawn and Garden Equipment, provides a
mechanism for issuing mobile source emission reduction credits (MSERCs)
to entities who sell or replace old engine-powdered lawn and garden
equipment with new low- or zero-emission lawn and garden equipment. EPA
is finalizing disapproval under CAA provisions regarding EPA action on
SIP submittals and general rulemaking authority because this revision
is not consistent with applicable CAA requirements.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effective on March 30, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the submitted rule and EPA's evaluation report on
the rule are available for public inspection at EPA's Region IX office
during normal business hours. Copies of the submitted rules are also
available for inspection at the following locations:

California Air Resources Board, 2020 L Street, Sacramento, CA 95814
South Coast Air Quality Management District, 21865 E. Copley Drive,
Diamond Bar, California 91765-4182

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roxanne Johnson, Air Planning Office,
AIR-2, Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX,
75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901, Telephone: (415)
744-1225.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Applicability

    EPA is disapproving SCAQMD Rule 1623--Credits for Clean Lawn and
Garden Equipment. SCAQMD adopted Rule 1623 on May 10, 1996, and the
California Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted the rule to EPA on
August 28, 1996.

II. Background

    Rule 1623 claims to provide opportunities for stationary sources to
generate oxides of nitrogen (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate (PM) mobile source emission
reduction credits (MSERCs). Any entity interested in participating in
Rule 1623 could implement one of three strategies to generate credits:
(1) before January 1, 1999, permanently scrap and replace existing lawn
and garden equipment with equipment which meets the 1995 California
Emission Standards for Utility and Lawn and Garden Engines; (2)
permanently scrap and replace existing gasoline-powered lawn and garden
equipment with new low- or zero-emission equipment; or (3) after May
10, 1996 and prior to January 1, 1999, direct sale to an end user of
new low-emission lawn and garden equipment, or on or after January 1,
1991, direct sale to an end user of new zero-emission equipment.
    The Act broadly encourages, and under certain circumstances Title I
of the Act mandates, States to develop and

[[Page 10714]]

facilitate market-based approaches for achieving the environmental
goals of the Act for attainment and maintenance of the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), and to meet associated emission
reduction milestones. EPA has developed comprehensive guidance and
rules (as required by the Act) for States and individual sources to
follow in designing and adopting such programs for inclusion in SIPs.
The Economic Incentive Program (EIP) Rules (40 CFR part 51, subpart U)
provide a broad framework for the development and use of a wide variety
of incentive strategies for stationary, area, and/or mobile sources.
One such approach is the generation and trading of emission reduction
credits, which historically have been allowed under guidance provided
in the 1986 Emission Trading Policy Statement (see 51 FR 43631,
December 4, 1986). In certain areas where emission control costs for
stationary sources may be high relative to mobile source control costs,
creating EIPs which allow for the trading of emission reduction credits
from mobile sources to stationary sources can be beneficial.
    Rule 1623 is a voluntary program, and the exact emission reductions
are unknown. EPA can only approve Rule 1623 in the SIP, if the
reductions are surplus and are quantifiable. In our January 18, 2000
(65 FR 2557) we proposed disapproval for Rule 1623 because the rule
does not meet federal requirements including the requirement that
emission reductions be real, quantifiable, enforceable, and surplus.

III. Response to Comments

    EPA received comments from the South Coast Air Quality Management
District (``District'') and comments from Communities for a Better
Environment. The following comments were submitted by the District. The
District objects to EPA's proposed disapproval and requests that it be
revised to a proposed conditional approval.
    District Comment #1: This comment is entitled ``Are Emission
Reductions Surplus?'' The District states that ``EPA is insisting on
administrative requirements so burdensome they would destroy the value
of the rule.'' The District further states that it is ``wholly
impractical to source-test each piece of law and garden equipment'' and
that the District properly relied upon emissions data developed by the
California Air Resources Board (``CARB''). Finally, the District claims
that, contrary EPA's analysis, the rule provides for sufficient
``procedures to ensure that engines being scrapped or replaced are
operable.''
    Response to District Comment #1: The District misunderstands the
Agency's point regarding quantification, completely ignores the
requirement that claimed emission reductions must be demonstrated to be
surplus, and is mistaken in asserting that procedures to ensure that
engines being scrapped or replaced are operable can be developed in
scrappage plans rather than being set forth in the rule. EPA did not
propose to disapprove Rule 1623 for its failure to require that each
piece of lawn and garden equipment be source-tested. The problem with
Rule 1623 is that the emissions rates are merely set forth without any
substantiation, in the technical support document or anywhere in the
supporting materials for Rule 1623, showing that these figures are
accurate. EPA might be able to accept emission rates in this form if
there was sufficient data showing that the rates represented an
accurate average of emissions from such sources and that the deviation
from the average was relatively small and thus acceptable for
quantification purposes. Lacking such data and justification, EPA
cannot accept unsubstantiated emission rates as the basis for emission
quantification.
    A credit generating rule cannot be approved unless it is shown that
the credits which would be generated are ``surplus,'' i.e., not
required by or assumed in the air basin's current EPA-approved
implementation plan, inventory, or attainment demonstration. This is
especially important in a rule, like Rule 1623, which claims to
generate surplus credits through the accelerated retirement of
equipment and its early replacement with cleaner equipment. Older and
worn out equipment is constantly being replaced. This replacement cycle
is assumed, and indeed relied upon, in virtually all air quality plans.
If credits were given for this normal turnover, those credits would be
invalid and would damage air quality and the planning process designed
to protect it. Therefore, to be acceptable a rule which would generate
credits from the accelerated retirement and replacement of equipment
must demonstrate that implementation of the rule would actually reduce
emissions below the level assumed in the SIP. In addition, the rule
would have to be designed to grant credits only to the accelerated
retirement and replacement, and not to the normal equipment turnover
which would happen in any case.
    Finally, elements of a rule which are critical to its integrity
must be contained in the rule. Rule 1623 does not contain specific
provisions to ensure that engines being scrapped or replaced pursuant
to the rule are operable and have useful remaining life. If the engines
being replaced are not operable, or if they do not have the remaining
life assumed by the rule, inappropriate credits will be generated.
Provisions to prevent this invalid credit need to be in Rule 1623, and
may not be created afterward in scrappage project plans as the District
suggests. This would delegate too much discretion to the District in
implementation of the rule and EPA would be left with insufficient
information to judge the validity of credits and, through oversight,
ensure the effectiveness of the rule.
    The problems with Rule 1623 described above are not new to the
District. These problems, in varying degrees and forms, were
experienced by the District in its implementation of a companion to
Rule 1623--Rule 1610. Rule 1610 implements a car scrappage credit
generating program which, according to the District's own analysis, has
suffered from defects relating to emissions quantification, surplus,
and operable vehicles.
    District Comment #2: This comment objects to EPA's statement that
penalty provisions of Rule 1623 ``are not clearly defined'' and thus
are not practically enforceable. The District believes EPA is insisting
that the underlying legal authority, California's Health & Safety Code,
be repeated in the rule.
    Response to District Comment #2: EPA is not insisting that the
penalty authority in California's Health & Safety Code be repeated in
Rule 1623. However, we do have at least two major problems with the
enforcement language set forth in section (j) of Rule 1623.
    Section (j) does not define the duration of a violation and this is
critical in creating sufficient deterrent in enforcement. For example,
providing inaccurate data could be a single violation, based on the
date of submittal, and thus penalty authority could be limited to a
single day. The provisions of Rule 1623 could be interpreted in this
manner. In contrast, violations could be defined as continuing from the
date of submittal until such time that the inaccuracies were corrected.
To create clear and sufficient deterrent, Rule 1623 must define
violations as continuing until they are corrected.
    Section (j) incorrectly limits injunctive relief to denying or
voiding credits where a generator has violated the requirements of Rule
1623. If, in violating the requirements of Rule 1623, a person has
generated invalid credits

[[Page 10715]]

which have been used by another source, the generator should be subject
to injunctive relief which would require replacement of those invalid
credits.
    District Comment #3: In this comment, the District states that it
is unable to respond to EPA's belief that a survey should be
implemented with Rule 1623. The District suggests that EPA specify the
information needed so the District can determine if a survey is needed.
    Response to District Comment #3: In itself, the failure to have a
survey would probably not prompt EPA to disapprove Rule 1623. However,
EPA believes that a survey is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of
Rule 1623, if it is eventually implemented. The District already has
such a survey for Rule 1610, discussed earlier, and the same type of
information would be important to evaluate Rule 1623.
    District Comment #4: In this comment, the District states that
destruction of all engine parts should not be necessary, given the
small value of the engines involved.
    Response to District Comment #4: The destruction of all engine
parts should not be a real burden, since that would be the normal
course unless those parts were made available for scavenging or as
rebuildable ``cores.'' Under the guidelines established by the CARB for
car scrappage, the entire vehicle must be scrapped to avoid parts being
returned to the market to extend the life of the remaining older cars.
The same principle should applies to all programs which would generate
credits from the accelerated retirement of equipment.
    District Comment #5: In this comment, the District questions
whether it is necessary to provide definitions for eight terms
(``useful life,'' ``surplus,'' ``certified engine,'' ``project plan,''
``baseline emission standards,'' ``load factor,'' ``equipment
operator,'' and ``permanent replacement'') which EPA believed should be
further defined and clarified in Rule 1623.
    Response to District Comment #5: With the exception of ``surplus,''
EPA would probably not have proposed to disapprove Rule 1623 for lack
of further definition and clarification of these terms. This list of
terms was intended to be a suggestion to help clarify the rule.
    However, as set forth in the response to comment #1, above, EPA
believes that the District has failed to demonstrate that emission
reductions claimed pursuant to Rule 1623 would be, in fact, suprlus.
For Rule 1623, the District would have to demonstrate that
implementation of the rule would result in an accelerated rate of
equipment retirement. In addition, the rule would have to be designed
to grant credits only to the accelerated retirement and replacement,
and not to the normal equipment turnover which would happen in any
case.
    District Comment #6a: ``EPA's objection to a section allowing
credits under certain circumstances before January 1, 1999 (p. 3) is
meritless. The fact the date has passed is no reason to reject the
remainder of the rule.''
    Response to District Comment #6a: EPA agrees with this comment. We
misstated our objection, which should have been tied to Option 2 of the
rule and the delay in CARB's promulgation of its Tier II Lawn & Garden
rule.
    District Comment #6b: In this comment, the District dismisses EPA's
concern that a rule which CARB intends to develop for the small off-
road engines (``SORE'') category would conflict with Rule 1623 and
result in double-counting. The District states that its rule cannot
predict and address all possible future rules. The District also
suggests that CARB could address double-counting in its rule making.
    Response to District Comment #6b: Rule 1623 can and should
anticipate the SORE rule. The SORE rule has been in development for
some time and the District has had ample opportunity to avoid any
issues of double-counting in crafting the provisions of Rule 1623. To
avoid the possibility of double-counting due to the SORE rule, or any
other intervening rule, Rule 1623 could provide for a yearly check on
the surplus status of credits from ongoing scrappage projects. If an
activity from a credit generating project becomes required by another
rule, the stream of credits from that activity could be terminated on
the basis that the project no longer meets the surplus requirement.
    District Comment #6c: ``EPA is concerned about the definitions of
specialty vehicles and golf carts. Since these are not included in the
rule at present, there is no need for concern about them.''
    Response to District Comment #6c: Since Rule 1623 must be
significantly revised to be approvable, the District can remove
references to specialty vehicles and golf carts.
    District Comment #6d: In this comment, the District agrees that
delay in implementation of CARB's Tier II Lawn & Garden emission
standards needs to be addressed. The District suggests that this could
be done through adjusting the credit tables in Rule 1623 and this
should be made a condition in a reproposal to conditionally approve
Rule 1623.
    Response to District Comment #6d: CARB's Tier II Lawn & Garden rule
is critical to the implementation of Rule 1623. The emissions rates set
forth in Tables 2 and 3 of Rule 1623 as ``Meeting 1999 Standards'' rely
on Tier II. In addition, the engine certification process in Tier II is
necessary to ensure that engines purchased actually meet emissions
rates set forth in Rule 1623. Without this basis, the quantification
procedures set forth in Rule 1623 cannot be legitimately used. It is
not adequate, as the District suggests, to cure this defect through a
conditional approval.
    District Comment #6e: In this comment, the District states that it
does not understand EPA's objection to the section (h) of Rule 1623
which allows the use of credits generated pursuant to the rule in a
number of other setting, e.g., as RECLAIM trading credits, alternate
compliance for Regulation XI rules, etc. The District appears to
believe that EPA wants projects pursued under Rule 1623 to be
individually approved into the implementation plan.
    Response to District Comment #6e: EPA has no desire to have
projects pursued under Rule 1623 to be individually approved into the
implementation plan. EPA's objection to section h stems from our
experience with credits generated via Rule 1610 being used for
alternative compliance for Regulation XI requirements. The main problem
is that Regulation XI rules do not have protocols for calculating mass
emissions. This has allowed sources and the District to create their
own emissions quantification protocols. The results have been extremely
poor. In two instances, where EPA is currently taking enforcement
actions, the available evidence indicates that the sources, with the
District's approval, used quantification protocols which undercounted
emissions subject to Regulation XI requirements by as much as two
orders of magnitude. EPA has been able to address the situation through
enforcement only because Rule 1610 has not been approved into the
implementation plan. Rule 1623 shares the same flaw as Rule 1610 in
allowing quantification protocols to be created ad-hoc. Such provisions
are not practically enforceable, lack integrity, and would delegate
unacceptable discretion to the District.
    District Comment #6f: ``EPA states one reason for disapproval as
`evidence that the program has not been implemented and enforced in a
way that results in the achievement of cleaner air.' (p. 7) This
objection makes no sense. The program has not been implemented at all,
so EPA

[[Page 10716]]

cannot have any evidence of improper implementation.''
    Response to District Comment #6f: The District is correct in noting
that EPA's objection, as written, makes no sense. It was the result of
a drafting error. The intent was to make reference, as was done in
response to comment #6e, above, to failures in the implementation and
enforcement of Rule 1610. Since Rule 1623 shares many of the
characteristics of Rule 1610, our intent was to point out that
proceeding with Rule 1623 would result in the same types of problems.
    District Comment entitled ``Conclusion'': In the conclusion to its
comments, the District claims that it has addressed ``most of EPA's
objections'' and suggests that EPA revise its proposed disapproval to a
proposed conditional approval.
    Response to District Comment entitled ``Conclusion'': In its
current form and without much greater substantiation of critical
points, EPA believes that Rule 1623 is fatally flawed. The issues
concerning emissions quantification, surplus, enforceability, potential
double-counting, and unacceptable delegation of discretion to the
District prevent EPA from approving Rule 1623 into the implementation
plan for the District.
    Communities for a Better Environment Comment: CBE submitted
comments in support of EPA disapproval of Rule 1623. Two specific
reasons included: (1) mobile to stationary source trading, especially
in highly toxic compounds, is a concept that impedes the goal of
environmental justice; and (2) Rule 1623 does not ensure that the
reductions it credits are quantifiable, enforceable and surplus. CBE
also urged that EPA should completely disallow trading of toxic
pollutants, should disallow cross-pollutant trading, especially trading
of carbon monoxide and particulate matter. Finally, CBE commented that
local air district rules must not frustrate federal law; scrapping
under Rule 1623 does not create ``quantifiable'' and ``surplus''
reductions; and allowing credits to sellers of low-emitting equipment
is nonsensical.
    Response to CBE Comment: EPA's final action is consistent with
CBE's comments.

IV. EPA Action

    EPA is finalizing disapproval of Rule 1623 because it does not meet
applicable CAA requirements. The effect of this action is that the
federally enforceable California SIP remains unchanged. Because the CAA
does not require this rule and because today's action maintains the
stringency of the current SIP, EPA's disapproval of the submitted rule
does not trigger sanctions or Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) clocks
under section 179 of the CAA.
    As Rule 1623 is a substitute for existing requirements, EPA does
not believe that disapproval of the program will have any effect on air
quality in the South Coast Air Basin. Regulated entities which may have
been using Rule 1623 to comply with control technology requirements
have the opportunity to apply control or otherwise comply directly (in
the case of ridesharing requirements) in lieu of purchasing credits
generated under Rule 1623.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any state implementation plan. Each request for revision to
the state implementation plan shall be considered separately in light
of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and
Review.

B. Executive Order 13132

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces
Executive Order 12612, Federalism, and Executive Order 12875, Enhancing
the Intergovernmental Partnership. Executive Order 13132 requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have
federalism implications'' is defined in Executive Order 13132 to
include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may
not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes
substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by
statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to
pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local
governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in
the process of developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not
issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts
State law unless the Agency consults with State and local officials
early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.
    This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, the
requirements of section 6 of Executive Order 13132 do not apply to this
rule.

C. Executive Order 13045

    Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under
Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the
Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the
planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible
alternatives considered by the Agency. This rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not involve decisions intended to
mitigate environmental health or safety risks.

D. Executive Order 13084

    Under Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not
required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition,

[[Page 10717]]

Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop an effective process
permitting elected officials and other representatives of Indian tribal
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development
of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect
their communities.'' Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely
affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to
this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions. This rule will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities because disapprovals of SIP
revisions under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air
Act do not affect any existing requirements applicable to small
entities. Any existing Federal requirements will remain in place.
Federal disapproval of the State SIP submittal will not affect State-
enforceability. Moreover, EPA's disapproval of the submittal would not
impose any new Federal requirements. Therefore, I certify that this
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.

F. 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
annual costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate;
or to 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.
    EPA has determined that this disapproval action does not include a
Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs of $100
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate, or to the private sector. The disapproval will not change
existing requirements and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no
additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the
private sector, result from this action.

G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit 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 United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This rule is not a ``major'' rule as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards''
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical.
    The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to
the use of VCS.

I. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 1, 2000. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: February 15, 2000.
Felicia Marcus,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart F--California

    2. Part 52 is amended by adding Sec. 52.242 to read as follows:

Sec. 52.242  Disapproved rules and regulations.

    (a) The following Air Pollution Control District rules are
disapproved because they do not meet the requirements of section 110 of
the Clean Air Act.
    (1) South Coast Air Quality Management District.
    (i) Rule 1623, Credits for Lawn and Garden Equipment, submitted on
August 28, 1996 and adopted on May 10, 1996.
[FR Doc. 00-4785 Filed 2-28-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

 
 

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.