![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Ventura Air Pollution Control District
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: February 28, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 40)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 9561-9565]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr28fe03-28]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[CA 266-0383; FRL-7454-4]
Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Ventura
Air Pollution Control District
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing approval of revisions to the Ventura Air
Pollution Control District (``District'') portion of the California
State Implementation Plan (``SIP''). These revisions were proposed in
the Federal Register on June 24, 2002, and concern the District's new
source review (``NSR'') rules. We are now approving these revisions
under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (``CAA'' or ``the Act'').
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on March 31, 2003.
ADDRESSES: You can inspect copies of the administrative record for this
action at EPA's Region IX office during normal business hours. You can
inspect copies of the submitted SIP revisions at the following
locations:
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Room B-102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., (Mail
Code 6102T), Washington, DC 20460.
California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule
Evaluation Section, 1001 ``I'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, 669 County Square Drive,
Ventura, California 93003.
A copy of the rules is also available via the Internet at http://
www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/ven/cur.htm. 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nahid Zoueshtiagh, EPA Region IX,
(415) 972-3978. E-mail address: zoueshtiagh.nahid@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.
List of Contents:
I. Proposed Action
A. How the Deficiencies Were Corrected
B. Creation of an Annual Equivalency Program
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Proposed Action
On June 24, 2002, we proposed to approve certain District rules
into the California SIP. 67 FR 42516. We are finalizing that action
today by approving the following District rules into the SIP:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule No. Rule title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10........................................ Permits Required.
26.1...................................... New Source Review--
Definitions.
26.2...................................... New Source Review--
Requirements.
26.3...................................... New Source Review--
Exemptions.
26.4...................................... New Source Review--Emission
Banking.
26.6...................................... New Source Review--
Calculations.
26.11..................................... New Source Review--ERC
Evaluation At Time of Use.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. How the Deficiencies Were Corrected
We proposed to approve the District rules because we determined
that they complied with the relevant CAA requirements, namely part D of
title I and section 110(k) of the CAA. In the proposed action, we found
that the District had corrected all of the deficiencies initially
identified in our limited approval and limited disapproval published in
the Federal Register on December 7, 2000. 65 FR 76567. The California
Air Resources Board (``CARB'') submitted the District's revised rules
addressing our identified deficiencies on May 20, 2002. In our proposed
approval, we found that the District had corrected the following
deficiencies: (1) Lack of a requirement for relocating sources to
obtain an authority to construct (``ATC'') permit, (2) failure to
require that emission reduction credits (``ERCs'') used as NSR emission
offsets be surplus at the time of use, (3) failure to provide for
denial of permits for sources in violation of Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (``PSD'') increments, and (4) improper reliance on the
California Environmental Quality Act (``CEQA'') analysis for the
alternatives analysis required by section 173(a)(5) of the CAA. We
received no comments on deficiency numbers 1, 3 and 4 or how the
District corrected them. As such, for the complete discussion on these
deficiencies and the corrections, please review our proposed approval
and the TSD for that proposed action. We discuss the correction for
deficiency number 2 in greater detail in this notice.
B. Creation of an Annual Equivalency Demonstration Program
As part of the its revised NSR rules, the District created an
annual equivalency demonstration program to correct the deficiency that
ERCs used for NSR offset purposes are not required by the District to
be surplus at the time of use.\1\ The basis for the approval of the
[[Page 9562]]
annual equivalency demonstration program is contained in CAA section
173(a)(1)(A)'s mandate that new and modified stationary sources seeking
to commence operating in a nonattainment area must be required by the
state permitting program to obtain sufficient offsetting emission
reductions (``offsets'') such that ``the total allowable emissions from
existing sources in the region, from new or modified sources which are
not major emitting facilities, and from the proposed source will be
sufficiently less than total emissions from existing sources * * * so
as to represent reasonable further progress * * *.'' This statutory
focus on total regional emissions supports the approval of a District
offset program that ensures equivalency with the federal NSR offset
requirements on an annual aggregate basis. EPA is also working with
other California Districts to help them craft approvable annual
equivalency demonstration programs.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Actually, all emission reductions used for NSR purposes must
be surplus at the time of use in order to be creditable, not just
ERCs, which are credits for emission reductions that have been
banked. We are focusing on ERCs, however, because these are the only
emission reductions used for NSR offset purposes with a risk of
being non-surplus because the credits were generated and banked at
an earlier time. Moreover, since the District's rules primarily rely
upon ERCs generated and banked within the District for compliance
with offset requirements, it is appropriate to focus the surplus
discussion on ERCs.
\2\ For example, on February 13, 2003, EPA proposed to approve
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District's NSR program,
which includes an annual equivalency demonstration. 68 FR 7330. On
September 18, 2000, EPA also published a proposed limited approval
and limited disapproval for a NSR program that would allow an annual
equivalency demonstration program for the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District. 65 FR 56284. On December 4, 1996, EPA approved
South Coast Air Quality Management District NSR rule revisions based
in part on the District's commitment to implement a tracking system
to show that in the aggregate it will provide for the offsets
required by the CAA. 61 FR 64291.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The goal of the District's offset equivalency tracking system and
annual reports, therefore, is to show that the District's rules are
requiring appropriately discounted \3\ ERCs that are, in the aggregate,
equivalent to the credits that would be required under the federal
major source NSR offset requirements. To show equivalency, pursuant to
District Rule 26.11, the District intends to rely upon ERCs used in
minor source permitting actions \4\ to make up for any loss in the
creditable amount of ERCs provided by a permit applicant for major
source NSR permits due to surplus adjustment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The words ``discount'' and ``adjust'' are used synonymously
in this action, and generally refer to a reduction of an ERC by the
portion of the original emission reduction that is no longer
surplus.
\4\ Though the CAA requires that permitting authorities,
including local air districts, have minor source permitting
programs, it does not require that minor sources obtain offsets. As
such, ERCs used to offset new emissions from minor sources may be
available for use in the annual equivalency demonstration if the
District can demonstrate that the emission reductions underlying the
ERCs are surplus to all other requirements of the Act, and are
otherwise creditable for federal purposes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To ensure appropriate District implementation and EPA oversight of
the annual equivalency program, the District and EPA entered into a
memorandum of understanding (``MOU'') on February 18, 2003 describing
in detail how the District will implement the annual equivalency
program. Generally, the MOU sets forth the records to be maintained by
the District, the information the District must include in each annual
report submitted to EPA, and the necessary surplus analysis to be
performed by the District at the time of permitting. The MOU also
describes the proper use of the hammer provision, District Rule
26.11.C.6., which requires that the District discontinue the use of the
equivalency program once an annual report demonstrates a deficit of
creditable ERCs compared to the amount of reductions necessary to
offset emissions for new or modified major NSR sources. As of the time
the report demonstrates a deficit, the District rules require that
sources provide enough surplus-adjusted ERCs to cover any required NSR
offsets at the time of permitting. A copy of the MOU is in the Docket
and is available to the public from the Region IX contact listed in
this notice.
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period.
During this period, we received comments from the following parties:
? CARB; \5\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Since CARB only stated its general opinion regarding annual
equivalency programs and did not provide any specific comments for
this action that required a response, none of CARB's comments have
been addressed in this Public Comments and EPA Responses section.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
? California Council for Environment and Economic Benefit
(``CCEEB'');
? The District; and
? Pillsbury Winthrop on behalf of Western States Petroleum
Association (``WSPA'').
The commentors generally supported our action to approve the
District rules into the SIP and the creation of the annual equivalency
demonstration program. The majority of substantive comments focused on
our interpretation of what emission reductions are considered non-
surplus under Section 173(c)(2). This interpretation is important since
the NSR District rules being approved closely track the language of
section 173(c)(2), which explicitly excludes emission reductions that
are ``otherwise required by'' the CAA from use as an NSR offset. As
section 173(c)(2) does not specifically delineate the type of
requirements included within its scope, EPA's interpretation of the
application of the provision is very important for proper
implementation of the NSR program.
In our proposed approval, we described six categories of emission
reductions that we consider non-surplus for NSR offset purposes.
Emission reductions falling under any of these categories are therefore
not available for use as NSR offsets, whether directly in a permitting
action or through their use in an annual equivalency demonstration. In
response to comments received on the proposed approval and after
further consideration, we are slightly revising item numbers 2 and 5 to
be more consistent with the CAA.\6\ Since this list of non-surplus
reductions is only EPA's interpretation of section 173(c)(2) and
District Rule 26.1.28.b. and does not require any change to the
District's rules being approved today, the revision of the list does
not affect the approvability of the District's rules. Moreover, the
finalized list has been incorporated into the MOU between the District
and EPA, which further ensures that the annual equivalency
demonstration program, including surplus adjustment of ERCs, will be
properly implemented.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The changes to item number 5 is discussed in the response to
comment number 4. The change in item number 2 was the addition of
the language ``or contained in an approved attainment plan.'' Though
EPA received no comments on this item, we included this language to
ensure that any and all reductions relied upon or required for
attainment purposes be considered non-surplus, whether or not the
reduction is explicitly set forth in an attainment plan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following is the revised and final list of what we consider to
be non-surplus emission reduction categories:
(1) Any emission reduction required by a stand-alone federal
requirement or regulation, including, but not limited to, Acid Rain,
New Source Performance Standard, Reasonably Available Control
Technology, and Maximum Achievable Control Technology, whether or not
the requirements are part of the State Implementation Plan (``SIP'') or
a local attainment plan.
(2) Any emission reduction relied upon by a permitting authority
for attainment purposes, or contained in an approved attainment plan,
including emission reductions relied upon for Reasonable Further
Progress calculations. Reference 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(G).
(3) Any emission reduction whose original emission is not included
in the District's emission inventory. Reference 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C)(1).
(4) Any emission reduction based on a source-specific or source
category-specific SIP provision used to comply with CAA requirements.
[[Page 9563]]
(5) Any emission reduction required by a condition of a permit
issued to comply with CAA new source review requirements. Any emission
reduction required by a permit condition placed on a permit solely: 1)
to make the reduction federally enforceable to meet federal
creditability criteria for use of the reduction as an offset for new
source review purposes, or 2) to assure compliance with a state or
local requirement that is not federally enforceable shall not be
included in this class. Reference 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(G).
(6) Any emission reduction based on a source-specific emission
limitation resulting from an Environmental Protection Agency
enforcement case.
The specific comments and EPA responses are summarized below:
Comment 1: CCEEB commented that ``Section 173(c)(2) * * * does not
provide that banked emission reductions, which were not required when
banked, must be adjusted again to reflect later-adopted emission
reduction requirements. Further, EPA has not promulgated any regulation
to require such discounting.'' WSPA provided an almost identical
comment.
Response 1: We disagree with CCEEB's and WSPA's comments. The
requirement for discounting at the time of use derives from the
statutory requirement that emission reductions be surplus of CAA
requirements. CAA section 173(c)(2). In a 1994 memorandum, EPA set
forth its policy that banked ERCs used as NSR offsets must be adjusted
at the time of permit issuance to ensure that they are surplus as
required by section 173(c)(2). Memo from John S. Seitz, Dir., OAQPS to
David Howekamp, Dir., Region IX Air and Toxics Div. (Aug. 26, 1994)
(``1994 Seitz Memo''). This is important to ensure that emission
reductions are not ``double-counted'' for CAA purposes, something
prohibited by the CAA. Double counting can occur where emission
reductions are the result of, or would have been achieved by, controls
expressly required by the Act or controls used to satisfy requirements
of the Act. For example, a source may voluntarily reduce its emission
of hazardous air pollutants (``HAPs'') and bank those credits at the
time of reduction. Some time after these reductions are achieved, EPA
promulgates a Maximum Achievable Control Technology (``MACT'') standard
that applies to the source. Though these credits may be permanent,
real, quantifiable, and enforceable, the promulgation of the new MACT
standard would render the portion of the banked ERC that would have
been required by the new MACT standard unavailable for NSR offset
purposes because it is no longer in excess of requirements under the
Act. This is important since many HAPs are also considered volatile
organic compounds (``VOCs''). Without a requirement to discount ERCs at
the time of use, sources could be relying upon emission reductions that
were otherwise required by the CAA. Moreover, the SIP may take credit
for the reductions achieved by this MACT rule, raising the further
possibility that the reductions would be double-counted for attainment
purposes if not surplus adjusted at the time of use.
More than just preventing possible double counting, however,
adjusting at the time of use is important to generally ensure proper
implementation of the NSR program. The CAA does not require or provide
for ERC banking programs, which means that there are no federal
requirements ensuring the quality of banks or banked credits for
federal offset purposes. Because of this, a surplus at the time of use
analysis and appropriate adjustment provides an important first and
only review of the proposed ERC's consistency with NSR CAA offset
requirements. Without such a review, EPA could not assure that sources
were complying with NSR offset requirements of the CAA since most ERCs
were banked without EPA review and many without supporting
documentation or information.
Despite the necessity for surplus adjustment at the time of use,
EPA has worked with the District to create a system where sources may
be able to rely on banked ERCs while at the same time maintaining the
integrity and legality of the District's NSR program. Through the use
of the annual equivalency demonstration program, EPA is allowing the
District to give full credit to ERCs provided by major sources for NSR
permitting activities as long as the District can identify other
retired or used creditable emission reductions that make up for the
difference within the year accounting period.
Comment 2: Item number 3 in the list of categories of non-surplus
emission reductions in the proposed approval reads ``any emission
reduction whose original emission reduction is not included in the
District's emission inventory. See 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C)(1).'' The
District commented that ``[t]he citation [40 CFR Sec.
51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C)(1)]
refers * * * only to `(e)missions reductions
achieved by shutting down an existing source or curtailing production
or operating hours below baseline levels'. There is not a requirement
in the Code of Federal Regulations to include an emission reduction
resulting from a source employing emission reduction techniques, not
otherwise required by the federal CAA, in the District's emission
inventory.''
Response 2: 40 CFR 51.165 describes the minimum regulatory
requirements for an approvable state NSR permitting program. 40 CFR
51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C)(1), which deals with offsets, states that
reductions achieved by shutting down an existing source or curtailing
production or operating hours below baseline levels may generally be
credited in NSR permitting actions if such reductions are permanent,
quantifiable, and federally enforceable, and if the area has an EPA-
approved attainment plan. In contrast to the meaning given to it in the
District's comment, the provision serves the narrow purpose of stating
that ERCs generated by shutting down a source or curtailing production
or operating hours can only be used if there is an EPA-approved
attainment plan and if the item is ``explicitly'' included in the most
recent emissions inventory. The provision is essentially a safeguard to
make sure that emissions from defunct sources are not replaced with new
emissions without appropriate review to ensure that such replacements
are consistent with attainment purposes for the area. The provision in
no way limits or changes the necessity that all emission reductions
used for NSR offsetting purposes be incorporated into the area's
emission inventory, either explicitly or implicitly. The use of
emission reductions for NSR purposes whose original emissions are not
included in the emissions inventory, and therefore not considered in
the planning process, would be adding new unaccounted emissions into
the area thus potentially jeopardizing attainment goals. As such, EPA
has maintained the definition for this category as originally proposed.
Comment 3: CCEEB commented that ``if an air district includes
banked ERCs as a line item in its portion of the SIP, the ERCs are
accounted for as emissions in the air and are mitigated by measures in
the plan. To discount such ERCs at the time of use would result in a
``double mitigation.'' CCEEB requests that EPA clarify in the future
related notices that EPA does not require discounting of ERCs at time
of use where the use of ERCs has been mitigated by other specific
measures for rate of progress or attainment demonstration purposes.''
Response 3: EPA disagrees with CCEEB on its comment. CCEEB's
approach would essentially allow any
[[Page 9564]]
emission reduction to be used for NSR offset purposes even if it was
required by a provision of the CAA as long as it was incorporated into
the area's emissions inventory and accounted for in the area's
attainment plan. CCEEB justifies this proposition by the fact that the
ERC ``has been mitigated by other specific measures for rate of
progress or attainment demonstration purposes,'' and therefore should
be allowed as an NSR offset. Allowing the use of such an ERC as an NSR
offset, however, would be counter to section 173(c)(2)'s prohibition
against use of emission reductions that are otherwise required by the
CAA. The mere fact that an ERC is recognized in the inventory and
accounted for in the attainment plan and rate of progress in no way
``mitigates'' the fact that the reduction was elsewhere required under
the CAA.\7\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ In fact, emission reductions used for NSR offset purposes
must be included in an area's inventory and attainment plan to be
considered for use as an offset in the first place. The 1992
``General Preamble for the Implementation of title I of the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990'' (``General Preamble'') describes the
planning requirements of the Act as amended in 1990. 57 FR 13498
(April 16, 1992). The General Preamble addresses the issue of the
use emission reductions for NSR purposes and how areas need to
ensure the use of these does not conflict with planning. The two
types of planning actions that need to reflect the use of emission
reduction credits are rate of progress plans and attainment
demonstrations. See id. at 13508-509 and 13552-54; see also 1994
Seitz Memo. Thus, inclusion of ERCs in required plans is a
precondition to satisfying the statutory requirements of section
173(c)(2), but does not by itself fulfill the statutory
requirements.
CCEEB and WSPA may be taking their argument one step further,
however, by implying that the creation of a growth allowance in an
attainment plan would enable a permitting authority to issue permits
that allow new emissions despite the source's reliance on non-
surplus ERCs. A growth allowance is defined as a ``pollutant-
specific allowance for additional growth in any designated
nonattainment area by controlling existing source emissions beyond
the amount of reduction required to demonstrate [reasonable further
progress].'' 57 FR 13554 (April 16, 1992). CCEEB and WSPA cannot
rely upon a growth allowance as a justification for use of non-
surplus ERCs, however, as the 1990 CAA amendments restricted the use
of new growth allowances with the exception of areas that have been
targeted by the administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of
Housing and Urban Development (``HUD''), for economic growth. Id.;
see also CAA sections 172(c)(4) and 173(a)(1)(B). Ventura County is
not a designated economic growth area.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 4: Item number 5 in the list of categories of non-surplus
emission reductions in the proposed approval reads ``any emission
reduction required by a condition of a permit issued to comply with NSR
CAA requirements.'' CCEEB commented that ``[t]his item is of concern
because air permits in California will typically include requirements
that are not required under Federal law. Such requirements are not
required by the federal Clean Air Act and should be considered surplus
to Federal requirements. This item should not be listed in its current
form as an emission reduction that is required by the Act.'' WSPA
provided an almost identical comment.
Response 4: We agree with CCEEB and WSPA, and modified item number
5 accordingly. Specifically, in the updated interpretation provided in
this final action and embodied in the MOU, we recognize that the
following requirements contained in a federally enforceable NSR permit
should not automatically disqualify the emission reduction from use as
an NSR offset: (1) Requirements to make the reduction federally
enforceable to meet Federal creditability criteria for use of the
reduction as an offset for new source review purposes, or (2)
requirements to assure compliance with a state or local requirement
that is not federally enforceable. This change addresses the
commentors' concerns.
III. EPA Action
No comments were submitted that change our assessment that the
submitted rules comply with the relevant CAA requirements. Therefore,
as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is approving these
rules into the California SIP.\8\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ On February 13, 2003, EPA proposed to find that the
California SIP was substantially inadequate due to Health & Safety
Code Section 42310(e), which exempts certain agricultural sources
from all permitting actions, including NSR permitting actions. 68 FR
7237. This SIP-call, if finalized, will not reactivate the sanctions
clock permanently stopped by this final action.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4).
This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does 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 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically
significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (``VCS''), EPA has no
authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It
would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews
a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that
otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule
does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 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
[[Page 9565]]
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 action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
section 804(2).
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 April 29, 2003. 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, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: February 18, 2003.
Wayne Nastri,
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. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(305) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(305) Amended regulations for the following APCD were submitted on
May 20, 2002 by the Governor's designee.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Ventura County Air Pollution Control District.
(1) Rules 10, 26.1, 26.2, 26.3, 26.4, 26.6, and 26.11 adopted on
May 14, 2002.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 03-4628 Filed 2-27-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P