[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 40 (Tuesday, February 29, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10713-10717]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-4785]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

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


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

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

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

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


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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Applicability

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

II. Background

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

[[Page 10714]]

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

III. Response to Comments

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

[[Page 10715]]

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

[[Page 10716]]

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

IV. EPA Action

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

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

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

B. Executive Order 13132

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

C. Executive Order 13045

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

D. Executive Order 13084

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

[[Page 10717]]

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

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

F. Unfunded Mandates

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
annual costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; 
or to private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA 
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with 
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan 
for informing and advising any small governments that may be 
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that this disapproval action does not include a 
Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs of $100 
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the 
aggregate, or to the private sector. The disapproval will not change 
existing requirements and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no 
additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the 
private sector, result from this action.

G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

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

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

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

I. Petitions for Judicial Review

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

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

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart F--California

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


Sec. 52.242  Disapproved rules and regulations.

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