[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 139 (Thursday, July 19, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37587-37591]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-17705]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 217-0285; FRL-6995-7]


Final Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; 
California State Implementation Plan Revision, San Joaquin Valley 
Unified 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 September 28, 2000. This limited approval and 
limited disapproval action will incorporate Rules 2020 and 2201 of San 
Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution District (District) into the 
federally approved 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 correct 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.

DATES: This action is effective on August 20, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the state submittal and other supporting 
information used in developing the final action are available for 
public inspection (Docket Numbers NSRR 00-13-CA and NSRR 00-16-CA) at 
EPA's Region IX office during normal business hours. Copies of the 
District Rules and submittal are also available at the following 
locations: San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, 
1990 E. Gettysburg Avenue, Fresno, California 93726. California Air 
Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule Evaluation Section, 
1001 ``I'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95812.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ed Pike, Permits Office, (AIR-3), Air 
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901; by telephone at (415) 744-1211; 
or by email at [email protected].

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 Response
    IV. EPA Final Action and Required Corrections to District Rules 
2020 and 2201
    V. Administrative Requirements

I. What Action Is EPA Finalizing?

    EPA is finalizing a limited approval and limited disapproval of 
revisions to the California SIP for District Rules 2020 and 2201. This 
final action replaces previous New Source Review and Permit Exemption 
Rules in the following SIPs: Fresno County, a portion of Kern County, 
\1\ Kings County, Madera County, Merced County, San Joaquin County, 
Stanislaus County, and Tulare County. Please see the Technical Support 
Document for a complete list of the Rules that will be replaced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See the Technical Support Document and 64 FR 51493 for more 
background information on the District and its jurisdiction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 2020 was adopted by the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 
Pollution Control District on September 17, 1998, and submitted to EPA 
by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) on October 27, 1998. Rule 
2201 was adopted by the District on August 20, 1998 and submitted to 
EPA by CARB on September 29, 1998. This proposed limited approval and 
limited disapproval does not include sections 5.9 and 6.0 of Rule 2201, 
which specify requirements for sources that request permit 
modifications that also meet title V requirements. The title V 
requirements in Rule 2201 (based on a prior version of Rule 2201) were 
given interim approval as part of the District's title V operating 
permits program in EPA's April 24, 1996 rulemaking on that program (see 
60 FR 55517 and 61 FR 18083). The District has not submitted any 
substantive changes to the title V sections of Rule 2201 since that 
approval.

II. Background

    The background of this action is more lengthy than our usual 
consideration of SIP rules. Initially, on September 23, 1999, EPA 
proposed to grant full approval of Rules 2201 and 2020 and requested 
public comment (64 FR 51493). On October 25, 1999, EPA received a 
comment (as explained in the ``Response to Comments'' section below) 
from the California Unions for Reliable Energy (``CURE'') contending 
that full approval of a provision of Rule 2201 would be inconsistent 
with federal law. After we evaluated the comment, we determined that 
finalizing full approval of Rule 2201 would be inappropriate, but we 
also determined that full disapproval would be inappropriate because 
Rules 2201 and 2020 overall will strengthen the SIP.
    EPA, instead, proposed on September 28, 2000, to grant Rules 2201 
and 2020 limited approval and limited disapproval (65 FR 58252). In our 
September 28, 2000, proposal, EPA stated that we would respond to the 
comments submitted on both proposals (i.e. the proposal to grant full 
approval in September 1999 and subsequent proposal to grant limited 
approval and limited disapproval in September 2000) when taking final 
action. In that proposed limited approval and limited disapproval, EPA 
concluded that including Rules 2020 and 2201 would generally strengthen 
the SIP. However, EPA also identified the following deficiencies in 
District Rules 2020 and 2201 preventing full approval. (See the 
September 28, 2000, proposal at 65 FR 58252 for an additional 
description of the necessary corrections to these two rules).
    1. The District must remove the agricultural exemption from 
District Rule 2020.
    2. The District must revise Rule 2201 to provide a mandatory and 
enforceable remedy to cure any annual shortfall and, in the future, 
prevent shortfalls in the District's New Source Review Offset 
Equivalency Tracking System.
    3. The District must revise Rule 2201 to ensure that all sources 
meet the Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) \2\ if they are allowed 
to make a significant increase in their actual emission rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Please note that many California Districts use the term 
``Best Available Control Technology'' with a definition equivalent 
to LAER--please see the TSD for additional information on the 
District's definition of BACT.

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

[[Page 37588]]

III. Public Comments and EPA Response

    As noted above, we provided a 30-day public comment period on our 
September 23, 1999, proposal to grant full approval of Rules 2201 and 
2020. EPA received comments from California Utilities for Reliable 
Energy (``CURE'') and Enron North America Corporation. EPA also 
provided a 30-day public comment period on its September 28, 2000, 
proposal to grant limited approval and limited disapproval. EPA 
received additional comments from CURE, and comments from the Sierra 
Club. The comments on our most recent proposal and our responses appear 
below. (EPA has provided responses to earlier comments in a separate 
Technical Support Document.)

CURE Comment #1

    CURE's comment on EPA's September 2000 proposed limited approval 
and limited disapproval contends that the District's Offset Equivalency 
Tracking System (which aggregates and tracks Emission Reduction 
Credits, or ERCs, on an annual basis) is inconsistent with federal law. 
CURE asserts that federal law requires a demonstration that every ERC 
is surplus to all other requirements of the SIP before it can be used 
as a valid offset. The District's annual Offset Equivalency Tracking 
System will demonstrate that ERCs (which may have been used previously 
during the year to offset emissions increases) are surplus to other 
requirements only at the end of each year (on a 3 year rolling 
average).
EPA Response to Comment Regarding Tracking System
    EPA's August 30, 1999, Technical Support Document (TSD) for its 
proposed full approval of Rules 2201 and 2020 discussed in detail the 
statutory offset requirements in the Clean Air Act and the reasons the 
District's Offset Equivalency Tracking System, combined with the 
requirement for a mandatory and enforceable remedy for any shortfall, 
complies with the Act. Generally, the Offset Equivalency Tracking 
System allows the District to demonstrate annually (at the end of each 
year) that it has required sufficient offsets that meet all federal 
offset requirements. EPA has also agreed that the District may include 
the prior two years' data (for a total of three years) to demonstrate 
equivalency, as long as the demonstration is still conducted annually. 
During each of the first two years of the tracking system, the District 
must either provide a demonstration using only the data collected since 
the beginning of the tracking system, or review all prior permitting 
actions during the prior year or two to create a three-year rolling 
average.
    EPA's 1999 TSD explains that on a case-by-case basis the District's 
ERCs do not meet all federal requirements.\3\ Primarily, the District 
does not require an individual ERC to be ``surplus at the time of 
use.'' See, e.g., In Re: Operating Permit Formaldehyde Plant Borden 
Chemical, Inc., Petition No. 6-01-1 (Adm'r Dec. 21, 2000) (``Borden 
Order''), at page 18 (``Under Clean Air Act section 173(c)(2), ERCs 
must be surplus at the time they are used as offsets.''); Memorandum 
From John Seitz to David Howekamp Re: Response to Request for Guidance 
on Use of Pre-1990 ERC's and Adjusting for RACT at Time of Use ``Seitz 
Memo''), at p. 2 (``At a minimum, States must ensure a RACT level of 
reductions on an area basis for all applicable RACT requirements at 
time of ERC use [footnote omitted] (e.g., at the time of NSR permit 
issuance).'') In contrast, the District evaluates whether ERCs are 
surplus to other legal requirements at the time a source submits an 
application to generate an ERC--not when the ERC is used. During the 
time between the initial application to generate the ERC and 
application to use an ERC, new legal requirements can become effective. 
Those new requirements affect whether the ERC, or a portion of the ERC, 
is surplus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As explained in the TSD, the District must include a number 
of situations in the offset tracking system that will be used to 
determine equivalency. Rule 2201 differs from federal requirements 
because it does not ensure that sources provide offsets that are 
surplus of all regulatory requirements at the time of use, rather 
than when an application to generate offsets is filed. In addition, 
Rule 2201 allows some sources to determine offset applicability and 
quantities based on potential to emit. It also does not require that 
new major sources offset their full permitted emissions, as they are 
required to offset only the quantity of emissions that exceed the 
District offset trigger. Please see EPA's Technical Support Document 
(TSD) for additional information on the potential offset short-falls 
in the District regulation that must be included in the offset 
tracking system, as well as an explanation of situations when 
sources are expected to provide more valid credits under the 
District regulations than under federal offset requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CURE's comment does not oppose EPA's conclusion that ERCs must be 
surplus at the time of use. Rather, CURE's comment challenges EPA's 
conclusion that an annual equivalency demonstration satisfies section 
173 of the Clean Air Act. CURE contends that the Act requires the 
District to demonstrate that an ERC meets all federal requirements 
before any permit relying on that ERC may be issued.
    EPA does not believe that our approval of the District's Offset 
Equivalency Tracking System allows the District to violate any federal 
requirement. The District must demonstrate compliance with all federal 
requirements, but only requires a demonstration of compliance on an 
aggregate basis at the end of each year (on a 3 year rolling average). 
Thus, The District must demonstrate that in the aggregate the ERCs it 
allowed to be used met or exceeded the surplus requirements and all 
other federal requirements. We have concluded that the Act allows EPA 
discretion to approve an annual demonstration of equivalency (in the 
aggregate) with the federal requirements, based in part on the express 
language in section 173(c)(1)(A), stating:

    by the time the source is to commence operation, sufficient 
offsetting emissions reductions have been obtained, such that total 
allowable emissions from existing sources in the region, from new or 
modified sources which are not major emitting facilities and from 
the proposed source will be sufficiently less than total emissions 
from existing sources (as determined in accordance with the 
regulations under this paragraph) prior to the application for such 
permit to construct or modify so as to represent when considered 
together with the plan provisions required under section 7502 of 
this title) reasonable further progress (as defined in section 7501 
of this title); (emphasis added)

    The Seitz Memo, referenced above, discusses in part the 
circumstances under which a state could use ERCs generated before 1990. 
The Seitz Memo concluded that such ERCs could be used if the state 
could ``show that the magnitude of pre-1990 ERC's (in total tonnage) 
was included in the growth factor'' and explicitly listed in attainment 
plan inventories as such. Seitz Memo , at p. 1. When the Seitz Memo 
further considered whether ERCs were required to be surplus at the time 
of use, EPA stated that ``States must ensure a RACT level of reductions 
on an area basis for all applicable RACT requirements at the time of 
ERC use [footnote omitted] (e.g. at the time of NSR permit issuance).'' 
Seitz Memo at p. 2. EPA's reasoning that we can approve the District's 
annual aggregate offset equivalency demonstration under the Act is 
further strengthened by our approval of the RECLAIM Trading Program for 
implementation of both RACT and NSR in the South Coast Air Quality 
Management District, based in part on an offset tracking system that 
operates on an aggregate basis (61 FR 64292).
    Further support for EPA's determination that it can allow the 
District to demonstrate equivalency on an annual basis rather than for 
each permit lies in the fact that the Clean Air Act generally 
establishes pollution

[[Page 37589]]

limitations on an annual basis for purposes of permit issuance. For 
example, section 182(c) defines major sources in serious ozone non-
attainment areas based on the tons per year of pollutants emitted, and 
section 182(c)(10) relies on this definition to specify the quantity of 
ERCs that are required. In addition, although ERCs must be 
``enforceable'' at the time of permit issuance, the language of section 
173(c)(1) requires that an ERC be ``in effect'' when a major stationary 
source is ready to commence operations. As a practical matter, there is 
generally a lengthy time between when a source is permitted and when it 
commences operations, providing the District with time to conduct the 
equivalency demonstration.
    The District will demonstrate annually that the offsets issued 
during the year are surplus to emission reductions required under the 
Clean Air Act and the State Implementation Plan. This demonstration 
does not change any of the requirements in the Clean Air Act for ERCs 
to be creditable. It is an accounting exercise allowing the District to 
demonstrate yearly that sufficient creditable offsets have been 
provided on an aggregate basis. EPA believes that it is reasonable to 
interpret section 173, as discussed in the August 26, 1994 memo and 
Borden Order, to allow approval of an annual equivalency demonstration.

CURE Comment #2

    CURE also commented that EPA should clarify that the District's 
tracking system applies only to ozone precursors.
EPA Response to Comment Regarding Types of Pollutants Covered by 
Tracking System
    EPA disagrees with CURE because we believe that Clean Air Act 
section 173 allows approval of an aggregate offset tracking system for 
pollutants other than ozone precursors to demonstrate that ``surplus'' 
requirements are met. Although the August 26, 1994 memo only 
specifically considered ozone precursor emissions, the reasoning 
underlying the memo was not limited to one pollutant. Therefore, EPA 
believes it is appropriate to extend the reasoning in the August 26, 
1994 memo to pollutants contributing to nonattainment with National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards for particulate matter under 10 microns 
in diameter, including precursors such as sulfur oxides, provided the 
facts and science concerning other emissions are sufficiently similar 
to the science that was considered for ozone precursors.
    For instance, we believe that PM10 precursors in the San 
Joaquin Valley are similar to ozone precursors in several ways. These 
precursors must react with other compounds in the atmosphere before 
forming PM10, and continue to react over time and distance 
as they encounter other pollutants in the atmosphere and different 
meteorological conditions.\4\ Therefore, they tend to have a Regional 
basis, rather than a localized basis, because they are generally 
dispersed outside of a localized area before reacting to form 
PM10 and can appropriately be included in the aggregate 
system for demonstrating compliance with EPA offset requirements. In 
addition, the District rule prohibits any individual source from 
causing or making worse a violation of an Ambient Air Quality Standard 
(section 4.14.2). Sources must perform modeling using EPA-approved 
modeling guidelines (section 4.14.2) to verify that the stationary 
source will not cause or contribute to an Ambient Air Quality Standard 
(except for certain non-major sources that are below the public notice 
thresholds). These air quality and modeling requirements include 
PM10 and PM10 precursors (in addition to other 
pollutants).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For example, see Meng Zhaoyue and John H. Seinfeld, ``Time 
scales to achieve atmospheric gas-aerosol equilibrium for volatile 
species'', Atmospheric Environment, Volume 30, Issue 16, August 
1996, Pages 2889-2900.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the District has certified to EPA (see December 7, 
1999 letter from Seyed Sadredin to Matt Haber) that the directly 
emitted PM10 from stationary sources is only about 0.22% of 
the inventory of directly-emitted PM10. For this reason, the 
exact location of an individual stationary source either generating or 
using offsets of directly-emitted PM10 is unlikely to 
directly create or worsen a localized PM10 non-attainment 
problem in the San Joaquin Valley. (Please note that the District must 
ensure, via the offset tracking system, that an amount of ``surplus'' 
PM10 and PM10 precursor offsets are provided in 
the District that are at least equal to the amount required under 
federal NSR requirements.) Instead, stationary sources are more likely 
to emit precursors that contribute to an area-wide problem and are 
appropriately regulated in the aggregate for the purposes of the offset 
tracking system.
    Further, the District does not expect to adopt any new stationary 
source control measures for directly-emitted PM10 and 
believes that existing ERCs are surplus of existing SIP requirements. 
Therefore, it is extremely unlikely that the District will need to make 
any special showing in its annual equivalency demonstration that the 
offsets being used for directly emitted PM10 are surplus. In 
other words, all of the existing and generated offsets that could be 
used for a new source of directly-emitted PM10 should 
already be surplus to SIP rule requirements. Therefore, EPA believes 
that demonstrating, via the offset tracking system, that sufficient 
PM10 offsets are obtained on a program-wide basis will not 
cause or worsen any local air quality violation in the San Joaquin 
Valley.

CURE Comment #3

    CURE commented favorably on (1) EPA's decision not to finalize a 
full approval of District Rule 2201 and (2) the decision to repropose 
the action as a limited disapproval based on the District's failure to 
include in Rule 2201 a specific and mandatory remedy for any shortfall 
in the annual equivalency system.
EPA Response
    EPA agrees with this comment and is finalizing the requirement 
supported by the commentor.

Sierra Club Comment

    The Sierra Club commented that it supports EPA's proposed limited 
approval and limited disapproval. In particular, the Sierra Club 
supports the disapproval of the blanket exemption for agricultural 
sources, and comments that large agricultural facilities must be 
required to comply with Clean Air Act standards to achieve clean air 
goals in the San Joaquin Valley.
EPA Response
    EPA agrees with this comment and is finalizing the requirement 
supported by the commentor.

IV. EPA Final Action and Required Corrections to District Rules 
2020 and 2201

    For the reasons explained above, the comments submitted on our 
September 28, 2000 proposal have not changed our evaluation of the 
rules as described in our proposed limited approval and limited 
disapproval. EPA is, therefore, finalizing its limited approval and 
limited disapproval of District Rules 2020 and 2201. Our final action 
is a limited approval and limited disapproval because the Rules contain 
deficiencies and are not fully consistent with Clean Air Act 
requirements, EPA regulations and EPA policy. The District must revise 
Rule 2020 and 2201 to address the following deficiencies, as described 
in our September 28, 2000 proposal:

[[Page 37590]]

    1. The District must remove the agricultural exemption from 
District Rule 2020.
    2. The District must revise Rule 2201 to provide a mandatory and 
enforceable remedy to cure any annual shortfall and prevent future 
shortfalls in the District's New Source Review Offset Equivalency 
Tracking System. This remedy must take effect automatically if the 
District does not demonstrate equivalency each year. For instance, the 
District has suggested requiring that major sources and title I 
modifications meet federal offset requirements, including using credits 
that are surplus at time of use and using EPA requirements for 
calculating offset baselines and quantities.
    3. The District must revise Rule 2201 to ensure that all sources 
install LAER if they are allowed to make a significant increase in 
their actual emission rate. (See 65 FR 58252 for additional 
information.) For instance, the District could adopt a rule amendment 
requiring that these sources comply with LAER.
    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 already been adopted by 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.
    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).

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. 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 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), nor will it 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 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 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 
because it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In 
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the 
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements 
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 
of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing 
this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting 
errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a 
clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with 
Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the 
takings implications of the rule in accordance with the ``Attorney 
General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and 
Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued under the executive order. 
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. 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. 
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 September 17, 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

[[Page 37591]]

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: May 25, 2001.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting 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 (c)(260)(i)(B) 
and (c)(266)(i)(B)(3) to read as follows:


Sec. 52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (260) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (B) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) Rule 2020 adopted on September 17, 1998.
* * * * *
    (266) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (B) * * *
    (3) Rule 2201 adopted on August 20, 1998.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 01-17705 Filed 7-18-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P