[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 236 (Thursday, December 7, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 76567-76572]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-31050]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 022-0239; FRL-6875-8]


Final Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; 
California State Implementation Plan Revision, Ventura County Air 
Pollution District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing limited approval and limited disapproval of 
revisions to the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) proposed in 
the Federal Register on March 9, 2000. This limited approval and 
limited disapproval action will incorporate Rules 10-15, 15.1, 16, 23-
24, 26, 26.1-26.10, 29 and 30 of Ventura County Air Pollution District 
(District) into the federally approved State Implementation Plan (SIP).
    The intended effect of finalizing this limited approval is to 
strengthen the federally approved SIP by incorporating these rules and 
by satisfying Federal requirements for an approvable nonattainment area 
new source review (NSR) SIP for the District. While strengthening the 
SIP, however, this SIP revision contains deficiencies which the 
District must address before EPA can grant full approval under section 
110(k)(3). Thus, EPA is finalizing simultaneous limited approval and 
limited disapproval as a revision to the California SIP under 
provisions of the Act regarding EPA action on SIP submittals, and 
general rulemaking authority.
    In addition to the above action, we are removing District Rules 18, 
21, and 25 from the SIP, and deleting the conditions identified by us 
in 1981 for the District's 1981 NSR rule.

DATE: This action is effective on January 8, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the state submittal and other supporting 
information used in developing the final action are available for 
public inspection (Docket Number CA 022-0239) at EPA's Region IX office 
during normal business hours and at the following locations:

[[Page 76568]]

    <bullet> Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, 669 County 
Square Drive, Ventura, California 93003.
    <bullet> California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source 
Division, Rule Evaluation Section, 2020 ``L'' Street, Sacramento, CA 
95812.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nahid Zoueshtiagh, Permits Office, 
(AIR-3), Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 
75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901, Telephone: (415) 
744-1261.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' are used we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What Action is EPA finalizing?
II. Background
III. Public Comments and EPA Responses
IV. EPA Evaluation and Final Action
V. Next Action
VI. Administrative Requirements
    1. Executive Order 12866
    2. Executive Order 13045
    3. Executive Order 13084
    4. Executive Order 13132
    5. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    6. Unfunded Mandates
    7. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
    8. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    9. Petitions for Judicial Review

I. What Action Is EPA Finalizing?

    EPA is finalizing limited approval and limited disapproval of Rules 
1-15, 15.1, 16, 23-24, 26, 26.1-26.10, 29 and 30. These rules are being 
approved into the California SIP. EPA is also removing Rules 18, 21, 
and 25 from the California SIP.

                                 Table 1.--Rules Subject to Today's Final Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     SIP approval
      Rule No.             Existing sip title            date            Current rule title        Adoption date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.................  Permits Required.............         6/18/82  Permits Required............         6/13/95
11.................  Application Contents.........         6/18/82  Definitions for Regulation           6/13/95
                                                                     II.
12.................  Statement by Engineer or               2/3/89  Application for Permits.....         6/13/95
                      Application Preparer.
13.................  Statement by Applicant.......         6/18/82  Action on Applications for           6/13/95
                                                                     an Authority to Construct.
14.................  Trial Test Runs..............         9/22/72  Action on Application for a          6/13/95
                                                                     Permit to Operate.
15.................  Permit Issuance..............         4/17/87  Standards for Permit                 6/13/95
                                                                     Issuance.
15.1...............  none.........................                  Sampling and Testing                10/12/93
                                                                     Facilities.
16.................  Permit Contents..............         6/18/82  BACT Certification..........         6/13/95
18.................  Permit to Operate-Application         9/22/72  none--Deleted...............         6/13/95
                      Required for Existing
                      Equipment.
21.................  Expiration of Applications            6/18/82  none--Deleted...............         6/13/95
                      and Permits.
23.................  Exemptions from Permits......         6/18/82  Exemptions from Permit......          7/9/96
24.................  Source Recordkeeping &                6/18/82  Source Recordkeeping &               9/15/92
                      Reporting.                                     Reporting.
25.................  Action on Applications.......         6/18/82  none--Deleted...............         6/13/95
26.................  New Source Review............          7/1/82  New Source Review...........        10/22/91
26.1...............  All New & Modified Stationary          7/1/82  New Source Review (NSR)              1/13/98
                      Sources.                                       Definitions.
26.2...............  All New & Modified Stationary          7/1/82  Requirements................         1/13/98
                      Sources-Attainment
                      Pollutants.
26.3...............  All New & Modified Stationary          7/1/82  Exemptions..................         1/13/98
                      Sources Non-Attainment
                      Pollutants.
26.4...............  None.........................                  Emission Banking............         1/13/98
26.5...............  Power Plants.................          7/1/82  Community Bank..............         1/13/98
26.6...............  Air Quality Impact Analysis &          7/1/82  Calculations................         1/13/98
                      Modification.
26.7...............  none.........................                  NSR-Notification............        12/22/92
26.8...............  none.........................                  NSR-Permit to Operate.......        10/22/91
26.9...............  none.........................                  Power Plants................        10/22/91
26.10..............  none.........................                  Prevention of Significant            1/13/98
                                                                     Deterioration (PSD).
29.................  Conditions on Permit.........         6/18/82  Conditions on Permits.......        10/22/91
30.................  Permit Renewal...............          5/3/84  Permit Renewal..............         5/30/89
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

    On March 9, 2000, in 65 FR 12495, EPA proposed limited approval and 
limited disapproval for the above listed District rules. In addition 
EPA proposed to delete four obsolete rules from the SIP and a 1981 
condition that no longer applies. We also solicited comments on the 
District's public notification requirements for its permitting actions. 
Please note that in EPA's March 9, 2000 proposal, there was a 
typographic error in Table 1 where the rule number for Rule 26.10 
(Prevention of Significant Deterioration) was erroneously shown as Rule 
26.1.
    In our proposal for limited approval and limited disapproval, we 
identified the following deficiencies in this set of permitting and NSR 
rules:
    1. Rule 10 does not require an authority to construct (ATC) for 
emission units relocating within five miles within the District.
    2. Rule 26 does not specify that emissions offsets must be surplus 
at the time of use.
    3. Rule 26 provides authority to the District to deny a permit for 
violating National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) but it does 
not provide for denial of a permit for sources that may violate PSD 
increments.
    4. Rule 26 relies entirely on California Environmental Quality Act 
(CEQA) for implementing alternatives analysis required by the CAA.

III. Public Comments and EPA Response

    A 30-day public comment period was provided on EPA's proposed 
rulemaking at 65 FR 12495. EPA only received two comments, both from 
the District. The District commented on one of the rule deficiency 
issues, and on public notification requirements. EPA's response follows 
a brief summary of the District comments.
    Comment #1: The District disagreed with EPA's interpretation that 
CAA Section 173(c) requires Ventura County emission reduction credits 
(``ERCs'') to

[[Page 76569]]

be ``surplus at the time of use''. (see Rule Deficiency #2 above). The 
District contends:
    <bullet> An emission reduction that generates an ERC is surplus 
because the District's attainment plan does not rely on that emission 
reduction to show attainment. All emission reductions submitted for 
ERCs are reduced to the amount to that the attainment plan identifies 
for the emission control that produced the emission reduction. Any 
amended attainment plan does not rely on reduction of banked ERCs.
    <bullet> An emission reduction that generates an ERC is creditable 
because it is not ``otherwise required by this Act''. Ventura County's 
ERCs are binding through local requirements established for the purpose 
of creating ERC. This local authority is separate from any requirements 
of CAA. Furthermore, the emission reduction that generated the ERC is 
not relied on for attainment.
    Response #1: We understand that the District has not relied on the 
banked emission reductions in developing its attainment or Air Quality 
Management Plan (AQMP) and on that basis considers all banked ERCs to 
be surplus to the requirements of the CAA. However, the CAA requirement 
for ERCs to be surplus from other requirements of the CAA is 
independent from the District's obligation to meet the National Ambient 
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). See Section 173 (c)(2) of the CAA. 42 
U.S.C. Sec. 7503(c)(2). EPA has interpreted this provision to require 
emissions reductions used as offsets to satisfy Section 173(c)(2), to 
be surplus to all other requirements of the CAA at the time the offset 
is used. See ``Response to Request for Guidance on Use of Pre-1990 
ERC's and Adjusting for RACT at Time of Use'' from Seitz to Howekamp, 
(August 26, 1994) at page 2, Note 1. We do not agree that any ERC 
banked in the District is automatically and always surplus because it 
is not relied upon for attainment. An ERC may be surplus at the time of 
generation but it not necessarily surplus at the time of use (or 
disbursement) because, for example, a Reasonably Available Control 
Technology (RACT) requirement that did not apply at the time the ERC 
was generated by a source category, becomes statutorily applicable 
before or at the time the ERC is used. In such a case, Sections 172(c) 
and 173(c)(2) of the CAA require discounting the ERC to RACT levels 
prior to use.
    We recognize that at the time of issuance (or banking), the 
District discounts ERCs under its Rule 26.4.C. However, this 
discounting procedure does not ensure that these ERCs are surplus to 
all requirements of the Act as set forth in Section 172(c), 42 U.S.C. 
Sec. 7502 (c), at the time of use. For example some VOC compounds are 
also hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). In these situations, at the time 
of use of an ERC for VOC, there may be a requirement for the HAP 
reduction pursuant to a MACT standard. Since a portion of the VOC is a 
HAP, and the reduction is required by a MACT standard under the CAA, 
the portion of the ERC associated with the HAP is not surplus simply 
because the District has not relied upon the reductions for Reasonable 
Further Progress (RFP), Rate of Progress (ROP) or the attainment 
demonstration. See August 26, 1994, Seitz Memo at page 3, Note 5. In 
sum, ERCs are not automatically surplus. Therefore it is important to 
ensure that ERCs are surplus to all requirements of the Act at the time 
they are used, even though they were discounted at the time of 
generation and even though the District has not relied on the ERCs for 
its attainment demonstration.
    Comment #2: In proposing this rule, EPA requested comments on the 
District's threshold for public notification of its permitting actions. 
Only the District commented on this subject.
    The District's rule provides public notice only for those permit 
actions that involve emission units with a combined potential to emit 
(PTE) in excess of one of the thresholds listed in its Rule 26.7. The 
District believes that PTE is the best measure of the ``size'' of 
project that should be subject to public notice. The District also 
clarified that the PTE thresholds for public comment are not based on 
the net emission increase from the emission units. It is, therefore, 
misleading to compare the public notice thresholds to the federal 
significance levels (which are based on net emission increases).
    Response #2: EPA solicited comments on the public notice thresholds 
to gauge public interest in being notified of permit actions for 
projects with a lower combined PTE than the rule's thresholds. The fact 
that we only received one comment (from the District) indicates that 
the District's requirements are sufficient for providing opportunity 
for public review and comment on its on permitting actions. Therefore, 
we agree with the District's comment on this subject and will finalize 
approval of Rule 26.7 for incorporation into the SIP.

IV. EPA Evaluation and Final Action

    For the reasons explained above, the comments submitted by the 
District have not changed our evaluation of the rules as described in 
our proposed action. EPA is, therefore, finalizing its limited approval 
and limited disapproval of District Rules 10-15, 15.1, 16, 23-24, 26, 
26.1-26.10, and 29-30. Our final action is a limited approval and 
limited disapproval because the Rules contain deficiencies and are not 
fully consistent with CAA requirements, EPA regulations and EPA policy. 
The District must revise its Rules 10 and 26 to address the following 
deficiencies:
    <bullet> Rule 10 must be clarified or set specific conditions for 
the exemption from an authority to construct (ATC) permit for 
relocating emission units. The rule must be made clear to avoid 
potential circumvention of BACT and public notice requirements for an 
ATC. The rule must specify that only very small units are eligible for 
this exemption for relocation within five miles in the District. The 
District must also revise Section A.3 of its Rule 26.3 (NSR exemption 
for relocated units) to reflect revisions made to Rule 10 in correcting 
the deficiency.
    <bullet> Rule 26 must be revised to address the following three 
deficiency issues:
    Emission Reduction Credits must be surplus at the time of use.
    This rule must be revised to ensure that ERCs required for 
offsetting air emission increases are surplus to reductions otherwise 
required by the CAA. Section 173(c)(2) of the CAA requires that sources 
provide offsets in order to obtain an ATC permit. Further, the Act 
requires that offsetting emission reductions must be federally 
enforceable at the time that the NSR permit is issued [section 173(a)], 
and in effect by the time the source commences operation [section 
173(c)(1)]. In addition, section 173(c)(2) requires that the offsets be 
surplus of all other requirements of the Act. The CAA does not allow 
the use of ERCs which were surplus some years ago when they were 
generated, but which are no longer surplus (for example to RACT or MACT 
requirements) at the time that the ERC is used. Thus, the District is 
required to amend its rule to provide for adjusting all ERCs to ensure 
that the requirement of section 173(c)(2) for surplus ERCs is met at 
the time that the ERCs are used.
    To be corrected, Rules 26.2.B and 26.6.D.7.b must prohibit the use 
of the ERCs that are not surplus to the CAA requirements at the time of 
use. The District must revise Rules 26.2.B and 26.6.D.7 to add this 
requirement. The District must also revise the definition of major 
modification in Rule 26.1.16, to add that in calculating 
contemporaneous net emission

[[Page 76570]]

increases, ERCs that are not surplus at the time of use shall not be 
included.
Violation of Ambient Air Increments
    Rule 26 must also be revised to provide authority to the District 
to deny a permit to operate to any source which would cause increases 
in pollution concentrations over the baseline concentration and would 
cause a violation of ambient air increments.
Alternative Analysis
    Rule 26's reliance on California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 
for the alternatives analysis required by Section 173(a)(5) of the Act 
must be revised. The alternatives analysis must not be circumvented by 
qualifying for a statutory or categorical exemptions, or a negative 
declaration pursuant to CEQA. The District must revise the rule to 
remove any exemptions. The District may revise the rule so that the 
District bases its independent conclusions for the alternatives 
analysis on materials developed under CEQA. However, the District must 
independently conclude that the alternatives analysis whether based on 
CEQA or other information demonstrates the benefits of the proposed 
source significantly outweigh the environmental and social cost.
    Because these rule deficiencies are inappropriate for inclusion in 
the SIP, EPA cannot grant full approval of these rules under section 
110(k)(3). Also, because the submitted rules are not composed of 
separable parts which meet all the applicable requirements of the CAA, 
EPA cannot grant partial approval of the rule under section 110(k)(3). 
However, EPA is granting final limited approval of the submitted rules 
under section 110(k)(3) in light of EPA's authority pursuant to section 
301(a) to adopt regulations necessary to further air quality by 
strengthening the SIP. The final approval is limited because EPA's 
action also contains a simultaneous limited disapproval. In order to 
strengthen the SIP, EPA is finalizing limited approval and limited 
disapproval of District rules under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of 
the CAA. It should be noted that the rules covered by this final 
rulemaking have been adopted by the District and are currently in 
effect in the District. EPA's final limited disapproval action does not 
prevent the District or EPA from enforcing these rules. Nothing in this 
action should be construed as permitting or allowing or establishing a 
precedent for any future request for revision to any SIP. 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. Next Action

    The District will have 18 months from the effective date of this 
final action to correct the deficiencies delineated by EPA in Section 
IV above, to avoid federal sanctions. See section 179(b) of the CAA. 
The District's failure to correct the deficiencies will also trigger 
the Federal implementation plan requirements under 110(c).

VI. Administrative Requirements

1. Executive Order 12866

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

2. Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045, entitled 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.

3. 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 affects 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. If the mandate is unfunded, 
EPA must 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, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop an 
effective process permitting elected 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.

4. Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13121, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 
1999) revokes and replaces Executive Orders 12612, Federalism and 
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 the 
Executive Order 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 (64 FR 
43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely approves a state rule 
implementing a

[[Page 76571]]

federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the 
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air 
Act. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not 
apply to this rule.

5. 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 final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial 
number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and 
subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new 
requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is already 
imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create 
any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under 
the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute 
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The 
Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such 
grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

6. 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 the approval action promulgated 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. This Federal action approves 
pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new 
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or 
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

7. 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).

8. 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.

9. 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 February 5, 2001. 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, Hydrocarbons, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 5, 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. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (b)(5), 
(c)(56)(ii)(C), (c)(95)(ii)(C), (c)(179)(i)(D)(2), (c)(187)(i)(B)(4), 
(c)(188)(i)(D)(4), (c)(190)(i)(A)(3), (c)(193)(i)(E), 
(c)(196)(i)(B)(2), (c)(225)(i)(G)(2), (c)(241)(i)(C)(3), and 
(c)(255)(i)(G) to read as follows:


Sec. 52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (5) Ventura County Air Pollution Control District.
    (i) Previously approved on September 22, 1972 and now deleted 
without replacement Rule 18.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (56) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (C) Previously approved on June 18, 1982 and now deleted without 
replacement Rule 25.
* * * * *
    (95) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (c) Previously approved on June 18, 1982 and now deleted without 
replacement Rule 21.
* * * * *
    (179) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (D) * * *
    (2) Rule 30 adopted on May 30, 1989.
* * * * *
    (187) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (B) * * *
    (4) Rules 26.A (``General''), 26.8 and 26.9 adopted on October 22, 
1991.
* * * * *

[[Page 76572]]

    (188) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (D) * * *
    (4) Rule 29 adopted on October 22, 1991.
* * * * *
    (190) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (3) Rule 24 adopted on September 15, 1992.
* * * * *
    (193) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (E) Ventura County Air Pollution Control District
    (1) Rule 26.7 adopted on December 22, 1992.
* * * * *
    (196) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (B) * * *
    (2) Rule 15.1 adopted on October 12, 1993.
* * * * *
    (225) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (G) * * *
    (2) Rules 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 adopted on June 13, 1995.
* * * * *
    (241) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (C) * * *
    (3) Rule 23 adopted on July 9, 1996.
* * * * *
    (255) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (G) Ventura County Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) Rules 26.1, 26.2, 26.3, 26.4, 26.5, 26.6 and 26.10 adopted on 
January 13, 1998.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 00-31050 Filed 12-6-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-60-P