Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 65637

section 461(f). (i) A taxpayer using an 

accrual method of accounting is not 

allowed a deduction under section 

461(f) in the taxable year of the transfer 

unless economic performance has 

occurred. 

(ii) Economic performance occurs for 

liabilities requiring payment to another 

person arising out of any workers 

compensation act or any tort, or any 

other liability designated in § 1.461–

4(g), as payments are made to the person 

to which the liability is owed. Except as 

provided in section 468B or the 

regulations thereunder, economic 

performance does not occur when a 

taxpayer transfers money or other 

property to a trust, an escrow account, 

or a court to provide for the satisfaction 

of an asserted workers compensation, 

tort, or other liability designated under 

§ 1.461–4(g) that the taxpayer is 

contesting unless the trust, escrow 

account, or court is the person to which 

the liability is owed or the taxpayer’s 

payment to the trust, escrow account, or 

court discharges the taxpayer’s liability 

to the claimant. Rather, economic 

performance occurs in the taxable year 

the taxpayer transfers money or other 

property to the person that is asserting 

the workers compensation, tort, or other 

liability designated under ‘‘§ 1.461–4(g) 

that the taxpayer is contesting or in the 

taxable year that payment is made from 

a trust, an escrow account, or a court 

registry funded by the taxpayer to the 

person to which the liability is owed. 

(3) Examples. The provisions of this 

paragraph (e) are illustrated by the 

following examples:

Example 1. [Reserved]. For further 

guidance, see § 1.461–2(e)(3), Example 1.

Example 2. Corporation X is a defendant in 

a class action suit for tort liabilities. In 2002, 

X establishes a trust for the purpose of 

satisfying the asserted liability and transfers 

$10,000,000 to the trust. The trust does not 

satisfy the requirements of section 468B or 

the regulations thereunder. In 2004, the 

trustee pays $10,000,000 to the plaintiffs in 

settlement of the litigation. Under paragraph 

(e)(2) of this section, economic performance 

with respect to X’s liability to the plaintiffs 

occurs in 2004. X may deduct the 

$10,000,000 payment to the plaintiffs in 

2004.

(f) [Reserved]. For further guidance, 

see § 1.461–2(f). 

(g) Effective date. (1) Except as 

otherwise provided, this section applies 

to transfers of money or other property 

in taxable years beginning after 

December 31, 1953, and ending after 

August 16, 1954. 

(2) Paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(E) of this 

section applies to transfers of any stock 

of the taxpayer or any stock or 

indebtedness of a person related to the 

taxpayer on or after November 19, 2003. 

(3) Paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this section 

applies to transfers of money or other 

property after July 18, 1984. 

(4) Paragraphs (e)(2)(ii) and (e)(3) of 

this section apply to—

(i) Transfers after July 18, 1984, of 

money or other property to provide for 

the satisfaction of an asserted workers 

compensation or tort liability; and 

(ii) Transfers in taxable years 

beginning after December 31, 1991, of 

money or other property to provide for 

the satisfaction of asserted liabilities 

designated in § 1.461–4(g) (other than 

liabilities for workers compensation or 

tort).

Approved: November 12, 2003. 

Mark E. Matthews, 

Deputy Commissioner for Services and 

Enforcement. 

Approved: November 12, 2003. 

Pamela F. Olson, 

Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.

[FR Doc. 03–29161 Filed 11–19–03; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 70 

[CA107–OPP—FRL–7589–8] 

Final Approval of Revision of 34 Clean 

Air Act Title V Operating Permits 

Programs

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to 

approve a revision of the following 34 

Clean Air Act (CAA) title V Operating 

Permits Programs in the State of 

California: Amador County Air 

Pollution Control District (APCD), Bay 

Area AQMD, Butte County AQMD, 

Calaveras County APCD, Colusa County 

APCD, El Dorado County APCD, Feather 

River AQMD, Glenn County APCD, 

Great Basin Unified APCD, Imperial 

County APCD, Kern County APCD, Lake 

County AQMD, Lassen County APCD, 

Mariposa County APCD, Mendocino 

County APCD, Modoc County APCD, 

Mojave Desert AQMD, Monterey Bay 

Unified APCD, North Coast Unified 

AQMD, Northern Sierra AQMD, 

Northern Sonoma County APCD, Placer 

County APCD, Sacramento Metro 

AQMD, San Diego County APCD, San 

Joaquin Valley Unified APCD, San Luis 

Obispo County APCD, Santa Barbara 

County APCD, Shasta County APCD, 

Siskiyou County APCD, South Coast 

AQMD, Tehama County APCD, 

Tuolumne County APCD, Ventura 

County APCD, and Yolo-Solano AQMD.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This action will become 

effective on January 1, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the 

documentation in the administrative 

record for this action are available for 

inspection during normal business 

hours at Air Division, EPA Region 9, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California, 94105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gerardo Rios, EPA Region 9, Air 

Division, Permits Office (AIR–3), at 

(415) 972–3974 or rios.gerardo@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’

or ‘‘our’’ means EPA.

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Comments received by EPA on our 

proposed rulemaking and EPA’s responses 

III. Description of EPA’s final action 

IV. Effect of EPA’s rulemaking 

V. Administrative requirements

I. Background 

Title V of the CAA Amendments of 

1990 required all State permitting 

authorities to develop operating permits 

programs that met certain federal 

criteria codified at 40 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) part 70. On 

November 30, 2001, we promulgated 

final full approval of 34 California 

districts’ title V operating permits 

programs. See 66 FR 63503 (December 

7, 2001). Our final rulemaking was 

challenged by several environmental 

and community groups alleging that the 

full approval was unlawful based, in 

part, on an exemption in section 

42310(e) of the California Health and 

Safety Code of major agricultural 

sources from title V permitting. EPA 

entered into a settlement of this 

litigation which required, in part, that 

the Agency propose to partially 

withdraw approval of the 34 fully 

approved title V programs in California. 

Sections 70.10(b) and 70.10(c) provide 

that EPA may withdraw a 40 CFR part 

70 program approval, in whole or in 

part, whenever the permitting 

authority’s legal authority does not meet 

the requirements of part 70 and the 

permitting authority fails to take 

corrective action. To commence 

regulatory action to partially withdraw 

title V program approval, EPA 

published a Notice of Deficiency (NOD) 

in the Federal Register. See 67 FR 

35990 (May 22, 2002). Pursuant to 40 

CFR 70.10(b)(2), publication of the NOD 

commenced a 90-day period during 

which the State of California had to take 

significant action to assure adequate 

administration and enforcement of the 

65638 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 

local districts’ programs. As described 

in EPA’s NOD, the Agency determined 

that ‘‘significant action’’ in this instance 

meant the revision or removal of 

California Health and Safety Code 

42310(e), so that the local air pollution 

control districts could adequately 

administer and enforce the title V 

permitting program for stationary 

agricultural sources that are major 

sources of air pollution.

During the 90-day period provided to 

the State to take the necessary corrective 

action, EPA proposed to partially 

withdraw title V program approval in 

each of the 34 California districts with 

full program approval. See 67 FR 48426 

(July 24, 2002). Since the State did not 

take the necessary action to assure 

adequate administration and 

enforcement of the title V program 

within the specified time frame, EPA 

took final action, pursuant to our 

authority at 40 CFR 70.10(b)(2)(i), to 

partially withdraw approval of the title 

V programs for the 34 local air districts 

listed above. See 67 FR 63551 (October 

15, 2002). 

On September 22, 2003, the Governor 

of California signed SB 700, which 

revised State law to remove the 

agricultural permitting exemption. The 

legislation eliminated the exemption 

and therefore corrected the deficiency 

we identified in the May 22, 2002 NOD. 

Therefore, on October 8, 2003, EPA 

proposed to approve a revision to the 34 

district title V programs because 

districts now have the authority to 

permit all major stationary sources, 

including those agricultural sources that 

were formerly exempt from title V under 

State law (68 FR 58055). Based on this 

change in state law and our receipt of 

a legal opinion from the California 

Attorney General that confirms that the 

elimination of the agricultural 

permitting exemption from State law 

provides the 34 districts with authority 

to issue title V permits to major 

stationary agricultural sources, we are 

finalizing the program revision today. 

II. Comments Received by EPA on Our 

Proposed Rulemaking and EPA’s 

Responses 

EPA received one set of comments. 

Copies of these comments are available 

for inspection during normal business 

hours at Air Division, EPA Region 9, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California, 94105. 

A summary of the significant 

comments, and our response thereto, 

follow. 

Comment: The commenter alleges that 

the proposed rule requires review by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB), and alleges that ‘‘farmers were 

not included’’ in the OMB review of the 

proposed part 70 rule in 1992. In 

addition, the commenter claims that 

regulation of stationary agricultural 

sources by California air pollution 

control districts will result in economic 

hardship for California farmers. 

Response: It is difficult to determine 

the legal requirement that the 

commenter alleges EPA violated 

because the comment does not cite to 

any particular statutory, regulatory or 

executive requirement. To the extent the 

comment asserts that the rule must 

undergo OMB review, EPA disagrees. As 

we stated in the proposed rule, under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993), this action is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’, and 

therefore not subject to OMB review. 

With regard to OMB review in 1992, it 

is not clear which rulemaking the 

commenter is referring to. If he is 

referring to the final part 70 rule, his 

statement is incorrect because the part 

70 rule did undergo OMB review. The 

rule was judged to be ‘‘major’’ under 

Executive Order 12291, and a 

Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) was 

prepared and made available for public 

comment as part of EPA’s May 10, 1991 

proposal of part 70 [56 FR 21712]. All 

interested parties, including farmers, 

had access to the RIA and an 

opportunity to comment on it. If the 

commenter is referring to EPA’s 

rulemaking actions to grant interim 

approval to individual district title V 

programs in California, he is incorrect 

because OMB exempted those statespecific actions from review. See, for 

example, EPA’s April 24, 1996 final rule 

granting interim approval of the San 

Joaquin Valley Unified APCD title V 

operating permit program [61 FR 

18083]. 

EPA also disagrees with the 

commenter’s claim that approval of this 

program revision for 34 title V 

Operating Permits Programs will result 

in economic hardship for California 

farmers. Today’s action affects only 

major agricultural stationary sources 

that already are subject to EPA’s part 71 

title V permitting program, and will not 

result in regulation of the majority of 

farms which are not subject to title V. 

The title V program revision EPA is 

approving, and EPA’s termination of its 

implementation of a part 71 federal 

operating permit program for Stateexempt major stationary agricultural 

sources, merely transfers the authority 

to permit such sources from EPA to the 

34 districts. As stated in the 

Administrative Requirements section of 

this notice, this action merely approves 

state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator has certified that this 

final rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). In 

making this certification, we note that 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires a 

certification only as to entities directly 

regulated by a rulemaking (e.g., farms 

that are major stationary sources under 

the Clean Air Act); it does not require 

us to look at small farms not subject to 

the final rule, or to downstream 

businesses or consumers that deal with 

the larger farms. See Cement Kiln 

Recycling Coalition v. EPA, 255 F.3d 

855 (D.C. Cir. 2001). 

III. Description of EPA’s Final Action 

We are approving the program 

revision of the 34 Clean Air Act title V 

Operating Permits programs in the State 

of California. Our action is based on a 

legal opinion from the California 

Attorney General that confirms that the 

elimination of the agricultural 

permitting exemption from State law 

provides the 34 districts with authority 

to issue title V permits to major 

stationary agricultural sources.

IV. Effect of EPA’s Rulemaking 

Our final action means that the 34 

districts have title V programs that 

require all major stationary sources to 

obtain title V operating permits. It also 

terminates EPA’s implementation of a 

part 71 federal operating permit 

program for formerly State-exempt 

major stationary agricultural sources 

within the jurisdiction of the 34 

California air districts listed at the 

beginning of this final rule. EPA will not 

issue any permits to these sources, since 

the 34 districts will have the authority 

to issue title V permits to major 

agricultural stationary sources 

beginning on January 1, 2004. Therefore, 

EPA is no longer requiring major 

stationary agricultural sources to submit 

part 71 permit applications and 

suspends any outstanding application 

deadlines. 

The May 22, 2002 NOD started an 18 

month sanctions clock pursuant to CAA 

section 179(b). CAA Sec. 502(i)(1) and 

(2), 40 CFR 70.4(k) and 70.10(b)(2)–(4). 

California has undertaken all of the 

required corrections in response to the 

NOD. Therefore, the sanctions clock is 

terminated as of November 13, 2003, 

even though EPA’s implementation of 

the Part 71 program will not be 

terminated until January 1, 2004. 

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 65639

V. Administrative Requirements 

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 

(Pub. L. 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 revisions to state 

operating permit programs submitted 

pursuant to Title V of the CAA, EPA 

will approve such revisions provided 

that they meet the criteria of the Clean 

Air Act and EPA’s regulations codified 

at 40 CFR part 70. 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 Part 70 program revision 

for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a Part 70 program 

revision, to use VCS in place of a Part 

70 program revision 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 

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 January 20, 2004. 

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 70 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Operating permits, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: November 13, 2003. 

Laura Yoshii, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

■ 40 CFR part 70, chapter I, 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 revising the entry for California to 

read as follows: 

Appendix A to Part 70—Approval 

Status of State and Local Operating 

Permits Programs

* * * * *

California 

The following district programs were 

submitted by the California Air 

Resources Board on behalf of: 

(a) Amador County Air Pollution 

Control District (APCD): 

(1) Complete submittal received on 

September 30, 1994; interim approval 

effective on June 2, 1995; interim 

approval expires December 1, 2001. 

(2) Revisions were submitted on April 

10, 2001. Amador County Air Pollution 

Control District was granted final full 

approval effective on November 30, 

2001. 

(3) Approval is withdrawn for stateexempt major stationary agricultural 

sources, effective on November 14, 

2002. 

(4) Revision submitted on November 

7, 2003 containing approved program 

for major stationary agricultural sources, 

effective on January 1, 2004. 

(b) Bay Area Air Quality Management 

District (AQMD):

(1) Submitted on November 16, 1993, 

amended on October 27, 1994, and 

effective as an interim program on July 

24, 1995. Revisions to interim program 

submitted on March 23, 1995, and 

effective on August 22, 1995, unless 

adverse or critical comments are 

received by July 24, 1995. Approval of 

interim program, including March 23, 

1995, revisions, expires December 1, 

2001. 

(2) Revisions were submitted on May 

30, 2001. Bay Area Air Quality 

Management District was granted final 

full approval effective on November 30, 

2001. 

(3) Approval is withdrawn for stateexempt major stationary agricultural 

sources, effective on November 14, 

2002. 

(4) Revision submitted on November 

7, 2003 containing approved program 

for major stationary agricultural sources, 

effective on January 1, 2004. 

(c) Butte County APCD:

(1) Complete submittal received on 

December 16, 1993; interim approval 

effective on June 2, 1995; interim 

approval expires December 1, 2001. 

(2) Revisions were submitted on May 

17, 2001. Butte County APCD was 

65640 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 

granted final full approval effective on 

November 30, 2001. 

(3) Approval is withdrawn for stateexempt major stationary agricultural 

sources, effective on November 14, 

2002. 

(4) Revision submitted on November 

7, 2003 containing approved program 

for major stationary agricultural sources, 

effective on January 1, 2004. 

(d) Calaveras County APCD:

(1) Complete submittal received on 

October 31, 1994; interim approval 

effective on June 2, 1995; interim 

approval expires December 1, 2001. 

(2) Revisions were submitted on July 

27, 2001. Calaveras County APCD was 

granted final full approval effective on 

November 30, 2001. 

(3) Approval is withdrawn for stateexempt major stationary agricultural 

sources, effective on November 14, 

2002.

(4) Revisions submitted on November 

7, 2003 containing approved program 

for major stationary agricultural sources, 

effective on January 1, 2004. 

(e) Colusa County APCD:

(1) Complete submittal received on 

February 24, 1994; interim approval 

effective on June 2, 1995; interim 

approval expires December 1, 2001. 

(2) Revisions were submitted on 

August 22, 2001 and October 10, 2001. 

Colusa County APCD was granted final 

full approval effective on November 30, 

2001. 

(3) Approval is withdrawn for stateexempt major stationary agricultural 

sources, effective on November 14, 

2002. 

(4) Revision submitted on November 

7, 2003 containing approved program 

for major stationary agricultural sources, 

effective on January 1, 2004. 

(f) El Dorado County APCD:

(1) Complete submittal received on 

November 16, 1993; interim approval 

effective on June 2, 1995; interim 

approval expires December 1, 2001. 

(2) Revisions were submitted on 

August 16, 2001. El Dorado County 

APCD was granted final full approval 

effective on November 30, 2001. 

(3) Approval is withdrawn for stateexempt major stationary agricultural 

sources, effective on November 14, 

2002. 

(4) Revision submitted on November 

7, 2003 containing approved program 

for major stationary agricultural sources, 

effective on January 1, 2004. 

(g) Feather River AQMD:

(1) Complete submittal received on 

December 27, 1993; interim approval 

effective on June 2, 1995; interim 

approval expires December 1, 2001. 

(2) Revisions were submitted on May 

22, 2001. Feather River AQMD was 

granted final full approval effective on 

November 30, 2001. 

(3) Approval is withdrawn for stateexempt major stationary agricultural 

sources, effective on November 14, 

2002. 

(4) Revision submitted on November 

7, 2003 containing approved program 

for major stationary agricultural sources, 

effective on January 1, 2004. 

(h) Glenn County APCD:

(1) Complete submittal received on 

December 27, 1993; interim approval 

effective on August 14, 1995; interim 

approval expires December 1, 2001. 

(2) Revisions were submitted on 

September 13, 2001. Glenn County 

APCD was granted final full approval 

effective on November 30, 2001. 

(3) Approval is withdrawn for stateexempt major stationary agricultural 

sources, effective on November 14, 

2002. 

(4) Revision submitted on November 

7, 2003 containing approved program 

for major stationary agricultural sources, 

effective on January 1, 2004. 

(i) Great Basin Unified APCD:

(1) Complete submittal received on 

January 12, 1994; interim approval 

effective on June 2, 1995; interim 

approval expires December 1, 2001. 

(2) Revisions were submitted on May 

18, 2001. Great Basin Unified APCD was 

granted final full approval effective on 

November 30, 2001. 

(3) Approval is withdrawn for stateexempt major stationary agricultural 

sources, effective on November 14, 

2002. 

(4) Revision submitted on November 

7, 2003 containing approved program 

for major stationary agricultural sources, 

effective on January 1, 2004. 

(j) Imperial County APCD:

(1) Complete submittal received on 

March 24, 1994; interim approval 

effective on June 2, 1995; interim 

approval expires December 1, 2001. 

(2) Revisions were submitted on 

August 2, 2001. Imperial County APCD 

was granted final full approval effective 

on November 30, 2001. 

(3) Approval is withdrawn for stateexempt major stationary agricultural 

sources, effective on November 14, 

2002. 

(4) Revision submitted on November 

7, 2003 containing approved program 

for major stationary agricultural sources, 

effective on January 1, 2004. 

(k) Kern County APCD:

(1) Complete submittal received on 

November 16, 1993; interim approval 

effective on June 2, 1995; interim 

approval expires December 1, 2001. 

(2) Revisions were submitted on May 

24, 2001. Kern County APCD was 

granted final full approval effective on 

November 30, 2001. 

(3) Approval is withdrawn for stateexempt major stationary agricultural 

sources, effective on November 14, 

2002. 

(4) Revision submitted on November 

7, 2003 containing approved program 

for major stationary agricultural sources, 

effective on January 1, 2004. 

(l) Lake County AQMD:

(1) Complete submittal received on 

March 15, 1994; interim approval 

effective on August 14, 1995; interim 

approval expires December 1, 2001. 

(2) Revisions were submitted on June 

1, 2001. Lake County AQMD was 

granted final full approval effective on 

November 30, 2001. 

(3) Approval is withdrawn for stateexempt major stationary agricultural 

sources, effective on November 14, 

2002.

(4) Revision submitted on November 

7, 2003 containing approved program 

for major stationary agricultural sources, 

effective on January 1, 2004. 

(m) Lassen County APCD:

(1) Complete submittal received on 

January 12, 1994; interim approval 

effective on June 2, 1995; interim 

approval expires December 1, 2001. 

(2) Revisions were submitted on 

August 2, 2001. Lassen County APCD 

was granted final full approval effective 

on November 30, 2001. 

(3) Approval is withdrawn for stateexempt major stationary agricultural 

sources, effective on November 14, 

2002. 

(4) Revision submitted on November 

7, 2003 containing approved program 

for major stationary agricultural sources, 

effective on January 1, 2004. 

(n) Mariposa County APCD:

(1) Submitted on March 8, 1995; 

approval effective on February 5, 1996 

unless adverse or critical comments are 

received by January 8, 1996. Interim 

approval expires on December 1, 2001. 

(2) Revisions were submitted on 

September 20, 2001. Mariposa County 

APCD was granted final full approval 

effective on November 30, 2001. 

(3) Approval is withdrawn for stateexempt major stationary agricultural 

sources, effective on November 14, 

2002. 

(4) Revision submitted on November 

7, 2003 containing approved program 

for major stationary agricultural sources, 

effective on January 1, 2004. 

(o) Mendocino County APCD:

(1) Complete submittal received on 

December 27, 1993; interim approval 

effective on June 2, 1995; interim 

approval expires December 1, 2001. 

(2) Revisions were submitted on April 

13, 2001. Mendocino County APCD was 

granted final full approval effective on 

November 30, 2001. 

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 65641

(3) Approval is withdrawn for stateexempt major stationary agricultural 

sources, effective on November 14, 

2002. 

(4) Revision submitted on November 

7, 2003 containing approved program 

for major stationary agricultural sources, 

effective on January 1, 2004. 

(p) Modoc County APCD:

(1) Complete submittal received on 

December 27, 1993; interim approval 

effective on June 2, 1995; interim 

approval expires December 1, 2001. 

(2) Revisions were submitted on 

September 12, 2001. Modoc County 

APCD was granted final full approval 

effective on November 30, 2001. 

(3) Approval is withdrawn for stateexempt major stationary agricultural 

sources, effective on November 14, 

2002. 

(4) Revision submitted on November 

7, 2003 containing approved program 

for major stationary agricultural sources, 

effective on January 1, 2004. 

(q) Mojave Desert AQMD:

(1) Complete submittal received on 

March 10, 1995; interim approval 

effective on March 6, 1996; interim 

approval expires December 1, 2001. 

(2) Revisions were submitted on June 

4, 2001 and July 11, 2001. Mojave Desert 

AQMD was granted final full approval 

effective on November 30, 2001. 

(3) Approval is withdrawn for stateexempt major stationary agricultural 

sources, effective on November 14, 

2002. 

(4) Revision submitted on November 

7, 2003 containing approved program 

for major stationary agricultural sources, 

effective on January 1, 2004. 

(r) Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution 

Control District:

(1) Submitted on December 6, 1993, 

supplemented on February 2, 1994 and 

April 7, 1994, and revised by the 

submittal made on October 13, 1994; 

interim approval effective on November 

6, 1995; interim approval expires 

December 1, 2001. 

(2) Revisions were submitted on May 

9, 2001. Monterey Bay Unified Air 

Pollution Control District was granted 

final full approval effective on 

November 30, 2001. 

(3) Approval is withdrawn for stateexempt major stationary agricultural 

sources, effective on November 14, 

2002.

(4) Revision submitted on November 

7, 2003 containing approved program 

for major stationary agricultural sources, 

effective on January 1, 2004. 

(s) North Coast Unified AQMD:

(1) Complete submittal received on 

February 24, 1994; interim approval 

effective on June 2, 1995; interim 

approval expires December 1, 2001. 

(2) Revisions were submitted on May 

24, 2001. North Coast Unified AQMD 

was granted final full approval effective 

on November 30, 2001. 

(3) Approval is withdrawn for stateexempt major stationary agricultural 

sources, effective on November 14, 

2002. 

(4) Revision submitted on November 

7, 2003 containing approved program 

for major stationary agricultural sources, 

effective on January 1, 2004. 

(t) Northern Sierra AQMD:

(1) Complete submittal received on 

June 6, 1994; interim approval effective 

on June 2, 1995; interim approval 

expires December 1, 2001. 

(2) Revisions were submitted on May 

24, 2001. Northern Sierra AQMD was 

granted final full approval effective on 

November 30, 2001. 

(3) Approval is withdrawn for stateexempt major stationary agricultural 

sources, effective on November 14, 

2002. 

(4) Revision submitted on November 

7, 2003 containing approved program 

for major stationary agricultural sources, 

effective on January 1, 2004. 

(u) Northern Sonoma County APCD:

(1) Complete submittal received on 

January 12, 1994; interim approval 

effective on June 2, 1995; interim 

approval expires December 1, 2001. 

(2) Revisions were submitted on May 

21, 2001. Northern Sonoma APCD was 

granted final full approval effective on 

November 30, 2001. 

(3) Approval is withdrawn for stateexempt major stationary agricultural 

sources, effective on November 14, 

2002. 

(4) Revision submitted on November 

7, 2003 containing approved program 

for major stationary agricultural sources, 

effective on January 1, 2004. 

(v) Placer County APCD:

(1) Complete submittal received on 

December 27, 1993; interim approval 

effective on June 2, 1995; interim 

approval expires December 1, 2001. 

(2) Revisions were submitted on May 

4, 2001. Placer County APCD was 

granted final full approval effective on 

November 30, 2001. 

(3) Approval is withdrawn for stateexempt major stationary agricultural 

sources, effective on November 14, 

2002. 

(4) Revision submitted on November 

7, 2003 containing approved program 

for major stationary agricultural sources, 

effective on January 1, 2004. 

(w) The Sacramento Metropolitan Air 

Quality Management District:

(1) Complete submittal received on 

August 1, 1994; interim approval 

effective on September 5, 1995; interim 

approval expires December 1, 2001. 

(2) Revisions were submitted on June 

1, 2001. The Sacramento Metropolitan 

Air Quality Management District was 

granted final full approval effective on 

November 30, 2001. 

(3) Approval is withdrawn for stateexempt major stationary agricultural 

sources, effective on November 14, 

2002. 

(4) Revision submitted on November 

7, 2003 containing approved program 

for major stationary agricultural sources, 

effective on January 1, 2004. 

(x) San Diego County Air Pollution 

Control District:

(1) Submitted on April 22, 1994 and 

amended on April 4, 1995 and October 

10, 1995; approval effective on February 

5, 1996, unless adverse or critical 

comments are received by January 8, 

1996. Interim approval expires on 

December 1, 2001. 

(2) Revisions were submitted on June 

4, 2001. The San Diego County Air 

Pollution Control District was granted 

final full approval effective on 

November 30, 2001.

(3) Approval is withdrawn for stateexempt major stationary agricultural 

sources, effective on November 14, 

2002. 

(4) Revision submitted on November 

7, 2003 containing approved program 

for major stationary agricultural sources, 

effective on January 1, 2004. 

(y) San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD:

(1) Complete submittal received on 

July 5 and August 18, 1995; interim 

approval effective on May 24, 1996; 

interim approval expires May 25, 1998. 

Interim approval expires on December 

1, 2001. 

(2) Revisions were submitted on June 

29, 2001. San Joaquin Valley Unified 

APCD was granted final full approval 

effective on November 30, 2001. 

(3) Approval is withdrawn for stateexempt major stationary agricultural 

sources, effective on November 14, 

2002. 

(4) Revision submitted on November 

7, 2003 containing approved program 

for major stationary agricultural sources, 

effective on January 1, 2004. 

(z) San Luis Obispo County APCD:

(1) Complete submittal received on 

November 16, 1995; interim approval 

effective on December 1, 1995; interim 

approval expires December 1, 2001. 

(2) Revisions were submitted on May 

18, 2001. San Luis Obispo County APCD 

was granted final full approval effective 

on November 30, 2001. 

(3) Approval is withdrawn for stateexempt major stationary agricultural 

sources, effective on November 14, 

2002. 

(4) Revision submitted on November 

7, 2003 containing approved program 

65642 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 

for major stationary agricultural sources, 

effective on January 1, 2004. 

(aa) Santa Barbara County APCD:

(1) Submitted on November 15, 1993, 

as amended March 2, 1994, August 8, 

1994, December 8, 1994, June 15, 1995, 

and September 18, 1997; interim 

approval effective on December 1, 1995; 

interim approval expires on December 

1, 2001. 

(2) Revisions were submitted on April 

5, 2001. Santa Barbara County APCD 

was granted final full approval effective 

on November 30, 2001. 

(3) Approval is withdrawn for stateexempt major stationary agricultural 

sources, effective on November 14, 

2002. 

(4) Revision submitted on November 

7, 2003 containing approved program 

for major stationary agricultural sources, 

effective on January 1, 2004. 

(bb) Shasta County AQMD:

(1) Complete submittal received on 

November 16, 1993; interim approval 

effective on August 14, 1995; interim 

approval expires December 1, 2001. 

(2) Revisions were submitted on May 

18, 2001. Shasta County AQMD was 

granted final full approval effective on 

November 30, 2001. 

(3) Approval is withdrawn for stateexempt major stationary agricultural 

sources, effective on November 14, 

2002. 

(4) Revision submitted on November 

7, 2003 containing approved program 

for major stationary agricultural sources, 

effective on January 1, 2004. 

(cc) Siskiyou County APCD:

(1) Complete submittal received on 

December 6, 1993; interim approval 

effective on June 2, 1995; interim 

approval expires December 1, 2001. 

(2) Revisions were submitted on 

September 28, 2001. Siskiyou County 

APCD was granted final full approval 

effective on November 30, 2001. 

(3) Approval is withdrawn for stateexempt major stationary agricultural 

sources, effective on November 14, 

2002. 

(4) Revision submitted on November 

7, 2003 containing approved program 

for major stationary agricultural sources, 

effective on January 1, 2004. 

(dd) South Coast Air Quality 

Management District:

(1) 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. Interim 

approval expires on December 1, 2001.

(2) Revisions were submitted on 

August 2, 2001 and October 2, 2001. 

South Coast AQMD was granted final 

full approval effective on November 30, 

2001. 

(3) Approval is withdrawn for stateexempt major stationary agricultural 

sources, effective on November 14, 

2002. 

(4) Revision submitted on November 

7, 2003 containing approved program 

for major stationary agricultural sources, 

effective on January 1, 2004. 

(ee) Tehama County APCD:

(1) Complete submittal received on 

December 6, 1993; interim approval 

effective on August 14, 1995; interim 

approval expires December 1, 2001. 

(2) Revisions were submitted on June 

4, 2001. Tehama County APCD was 

granted final full approval effective on 

November 30, 2001. 

(3) Approval is withdrawn for stateexempt major stationary agricultural 

sources, effective on November 14, 

2002. 

(4) Revision submitted on November 

7, 2003 containing approved program 

for major stationary agricultural sources, 

effective on January 1, 2004. 

(ff) Tuolumne County APCD:

(1) Complete submittal received on 

November 16, 1993; interim approval 

effective on June 2, 1995; interim 

approval expires December 1, 2001. 

(2) Revisions were submitted on July 

18, 2001. Tuolumne County APCD was 

granted final full approval effective on 

November 30, 2001. 

(3) Approval is withdrawn for stateexempt major stationary agricultural 

sources, effective on November 14, 

2002. 

(4) Revision submitted on November 

7, 2003 containing approved program 

for major stationary agricultural sources, 

effective on January 1, 2004. 

(gg) Ventura County APCD:

(1) Submitted on November 16, 1993, 

as amended December 6, 1993; interim 

approval effective on December 1, 1995; 

interim approval expires December 1, 

2001. 

(2) Revisions were submitted on May 

21, 2001. Ventura County APCD was 

granted final full approval effective on 

November 30, 2001. 

(3) Approval is withdrawn for stateexempt major stationary agricultural 

sources, effective on November 14, 

2002. 

(4) Revision submitted on November 

7, 2003 containing approved program 

for major stationary agricultural sources, 

effective on January 1, 2004. 

(hh) Yolo-Solano AQMD:

(1) Complete submittal received on 

October 14, 1994; interim approval 

effective on June 2, 1995; interim 

approval expires December 1, 2001. 

(2) Revisions were submitted on May 

9, 2001. Yolo-Solano AQMD is hereby 

granted final full approval effective on 

November 30, 2001. 

(3) Approval is withdrawn for stateexempt major stationary agricultural 

sources, effective on November 14, 

2002. 

(4) Revision submitted on November 

7, 2003 containing approved program 

for major stationary agricultural sources, 

effective on January 1, 2004.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 03–29178 Filed 11–20–03; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P