[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 40 (Friday, February 28, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9561-9565]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-4628]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 266-0383; FRL-7454-4]


Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Ventura 
Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing approval of revisions to the Ventura Air 
Pollution Control District (``District'') portion of the California 
State Implementation Plan (``SIP''). These revisions were proposed in 
the Federal Register on June 24, 2002, and concern the District's new 
source review (``NSR'') rules. We are now approving these revisions 
under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (``CAA'' or ``the Act'').

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on March 31, 2003.

ADDRESSES: You can inspect copies of the administrative record for this 
action at EPA's Region IX office during normal business hours. You can 
inspect copies of the submitted SIP revisions at the following 
locations:

Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 
Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Room B-102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., (Mail 
Code 6102T), Washington, DC 20460.
California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule 
Evaluation Section, 1001 ``I'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, 669 County Square Drive, 
Ventura, California 93003.

    A copy of the rules is also available via the Internet at http://arbis.arb.ca.gov/drdb/ven/cur.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nahid Zoueshtiagh, EPA Region IX, 
(415) 972-3978. E-mail address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and 
``our'' refer to EPA.

List of Contents:

I. Proposed Action
    A. How the Deficiencies Were Corrected
    B. Creation of an Annual Equivalency Program
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Proposed Action

    On June 24, 2002, we proposed to approve certain District rules 
into the California SIP. 67 FR 42516. We are finalizing that action 
today by approving the following District rules into the SIP:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Rule No.                            Rule title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10........................................  Permits Required.
26.1......................................  New Source Review--
                                             Definitions.
26.2......................................  New Source Review--
                                             Requirements.
26.3......................................  New Source Review--
                                             Exemptions.
26.4......................................  New Source Review--Emission
                                             Banking.
26.6......................................  New Source Review--
                                             Calculations.
26.11.....................................  New Source Review--ERC
                                             Evaluation At Time of Use.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. How the Deficiencies Were Corrected

    We proposed to approve the District rules because we determined 
that they complied with the relevant CAA requirements, namely part D of 
title I and section 110(k) of the CAA. In the proposed action, we found 
that the District had corrected all of the deficiencies initially 
identified in our limited approval and limited disapproval published in 
the Federal Register on December 7, 2000. 65 FR 76567. The California 
Air Resources Board (``CARB'') submitted the District's revised rules 
addressing our identified deficiencies on May 20, 2002. In our proposed 
approval, we found that the District had corrected the following 
deficiencies: (1) Lack of a requirement for relocating sources to 
obtain an authority to construct (``ATC'') permit, (2) failure to 
require that emission reduction credits (``ERCs'') used as NSR emission 
offsets be surplus at the time of use, (3) failure to provide for 
denial of permits for sources in violation of Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration (``PSD'') increments, and (4) improper reliance on the 
California Environmental Quality Act (``CEQA'') analysis for the 
alternatives analysis required by section 173(a)(5) of the CAA. We 
received no comments on deficiency numbers 1, 3 and 4 or how the 
District corrected them. As such, for the complete discussion on these 
deficiencies and the corrections, please review our proposed approval 
and the TSD for that proposed action. We discuss the correction for 
deficiency number 2 in greater detail in this notice.

B. Creation of an Annual Equivalency Demonstration Program

    As part of the its revised NSR rules, the District created an 
annual equivalency demonstration program to correct the deficiency that 
ERCs used for NSR offset purposes are not required by the District to 
be surplus at the time of use.\1\ The basis for the approval of the

[[Page 9562]]

annual equivalency demonstration program is contained in CAA section 
173(a)(1)(A)'s mandate that new and modified stationary sources seeking 
to commence operating in a nonattainment area must be required by the 
state permitting program to obtain sufficient offsetting emission 
reductions (``offsets'') such that ``the total allowable emissions from 
existing sources in the region, from new or modified sources which are 
not major emitting facilities, and from the proposed source will be 
sufficiently less than total emissions from existing sources * * * so 
as to represent reasonable further progress * * *.'' This statutory 
focus on total regional emissions supports the approval of a District 
offset program that ensures equivalency with the federal NSR offset 
requirements on an annual aggregate basis. EPA is also working with 
other California Districts to help them craft approvable annual 
equivalency demonstration programs.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Actually, all emission reductions used for NSR purposes must 
be surplus at the time of use in order to be creditable, not just 
ERCs, which are credits for emission reductions that have been 
banked. We are focusing on ERCs, however, because these are the only 
emission reductions used for NSR offset purposes with a risk of 
being non-surplus because the credits were generated and banked at 
an earlier time. Moreover, since the District's rules primarily rely 
upon ERCs generated and banked within the District for compliance 
with offset requirements, it is appropriate to focus the surplus 
discussion on ERCs.
    \2\ For example, on February 13, 2003, EPA proposed to approve 
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District's NSR program, 
which includes an annual equivalency demonstration. 68 FR 7330. On 
September 18, 2000, EPA also published a proposed limited approval 
and limited disapproval for a NSR program that would allow an annual 
equivalency demonstration program for the Bay Area Air Quality 
Management District. 65 FR 56284. On December 4, 1996, EPA approved 
South Coast Air Quality Management District NSR rule revisions based 
in part on the District's commitment to implement a tracking system 
to show that in the aggregate it will provide for the offsets 
required by the CAA. 61 FR 64291.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The goal of the District's offset equivalency tracking system and 
annual reports, therefore, is to show that the District's rules are 
requiring appropriately discounted \3\ ERCs that are, in the aggregate, 
equivalent to the credits that would be required under the federal 
major source NSR offset requirements. To show equivalency, pursuant to 
District Rule 26.11, the District intends to rely upon ERCs used in 
minor source permitting actions \4\ to make up for any loss in the 
creditable amount of ERCs provided by a permit applicant for major 
source NSR permits due to surplus adjustment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The words ``discount'' and ``adjust'' are used synonymously 
in this action, and generally refer to a reduction of an ERC by the 
portion of the original emission reduction that is no longer 
surplus.
    \4\ Though the CAA requires that permitting authorities, 
including local air districts, have minor source permitting 
programs, it does not require that minor sources obtain offsets. As 
such, ERCs used to offset new emissions from minor sources may be 
available for use in the annual equivalency demonstration if the 
District can demonstrate that the emission reductions underlying the 
ERCs are surplus to all other requirements of the Act, and are 
otherwise creditable for federal purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To ensure appropriate District implementation and EPA oversight of 
the annual equivalency program, the District and EPA entered into a 
memorandum of understanding (``MOU'') on February 18, 2003 describing 
in detail how the District will implement the annual equivalency 
program. Generally, the MOU sets forth the records to be maintained by 
the District, the information the District must include in each annual 
report submitted to EPA, and the necessary surplus analysis to be 
performed by the District at the time of permitting. The MOU also 
describes the proper use of the hammer provision, District Rule 
26.11.C.6., which requires that the District discontinue the use of the 
equivalency program once an annual report demonstrates a deficit of 
creditable ERCs compared to the amount of reductions necessary to 
offset emissions for new or modified major NSR sources. As of the time 
the report demonstrates a deficit, the District rules require that 
sources provide enough surplus-adjusted ERCs to cover any required NSR 
offsets at the time of permitting. A copy of the MOU is in the Docket 
and is available to the public from the Region IX contact listed in 
this notice.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. 
During this period, we received comments from the following parties:
    [sbull] CARB; \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Since CARB only stated its general opinion regarding annual 
equivalency programs and did not provide any specific comments for 
this action that required a response, none of CARB's comments have 
been addressed in this Public Comments and EPA Responses section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [sbull] California Council for Environment and Economic Benefit 
(``CCEEB'');
    [sbull] The District; and
    [sbull] Pillsbury Winthrop on behalf of Western States Petroleum 
Association (``WSPA'').
    The commentors generally supported our action to approve the 
District rules into the SIP and the creation of the annual equivalency 
demonstration program. The majority of substantive comments focused on 
our interpretation of what emission reductions are considered non-
surplus under Section 173(c)(2). This interpretation is important since 
the NSR District rules being approved closely track the language of 
section 173(c)(2), which explicitly excludes emission reductions that 
are ``otherwise required by'' the CAA from use as an NSR offset. As 
section 173(c)(2) does not specifically delineate the type of 
requirements included within its scope, EPA's interpretation of the 
application of the provision is very important for proper 
implementation of the NSR program.
    In our proposed approval, we described six categories of emission 
reductions that we consider non-surplus for NSR offset purposes. 
Emission reductions falling under any of these categories are therefore 
not available for use as NSR offsets, whether directly in a permitting 
action or through their use in an annual equivalency demonstration. In 
response to comments received on the proposed approval and after 
further consideration, we are slightly revising item numbers 2 and 5 to 
be more consistent with the CAA.\6\ Since this list of non-surplus 
reductions is only EPA's interpretation of section 173(c)(2) and 
District Rule 26.1.28.b. and does not require any change to the 
District's rules being approved today, the revision of the list does 
not affect the approvability of the District's rules. Moreover, the 
finalized list has been incorporated into the MOU between the District 
and EPA, which further ensures that the annual equivalency 
demonstration program, including surplus adjustment of ERCs, will be 
properly implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The changes to item number 5 is discussed in the response to 
comment number 4. The change in item number 2 was the addition of 
the language ``or contained in an approved attainment plan.'' Though 
EPA received no comments on this item, we included this language to 
ensure that any and all reductions relied upon or required for 
attainment purposes be considered non-surplus, whether or not the 
reduction is explicitly set forth in an attainment plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following is the revised and final list of what we consider to 
be non-surplus emission reduction categories:
    (1) Any emission reduction required by a stand-alone federal 
requirement or regulation, including, but not limited to, Acid Rain, 
New Source Performance Standard, Reasonably Available Control 
Technology, and Maximum Achievable Control Technology, whether or not 
the requirements are part of the State Implementation Plan (``SIP'') or 
a local attainment plan.
    (2) Any emission reduction relied upon by a permitting authority 
for attainment purposes, or contained in an approved attainment plan, 
including emission reductions relied upon for Reasonable Further 
Progress calculations. Reference 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(G).
    (3) Any emission reduction whose original emission is not included 
in the District's emission inventory. Reference 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C)(1).
    (4) Any emission reduction based on a source-specific or source 
category-specific SIP provision used to comply with CAA requirements.

[[Page 9563]]

    (5) Any emission reduction required by a condition of a permit 
issued to comply with CAA new source review requirements. Any emission 
reduction required by a permit condition placed on a permit solely: 1) 
to make the reduction federally enforceable to meet federal 
creditability criteria for use of the reduction as an offset for new 
source review purposes, or 2) to assure compliance with a state or 
local requirement that is not federally enforceable shall not be 
included in this class. Reference 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(G).
    (6) Any emission reduction based on a source-specific emission 
limitation resulting from an Environmental Protection Agency 
enforcement case.
    The specific comments and EPA responses are summarized below:
    Comment 1: CCEEB commented that ``Section 173(c)(2) * * * does not 
provide that banked emission reductions, which were not required when 
banked, must be adjusted again to reflect later-adopted emission 
reduction requirements. Further, EPA has not promulgated any regulation 
to require such discounting.'' WSPA provided an almost identical 
comment.
    Response 1: We disagree with CCEEB's and WSPA's comments. The 
requirement for discounting at the time of use derives from the 
statutory requirement that emission reductions be surplus of CAA 
requirements. CAA section 173(c)(2). In a 1994 memorandum, EPA set 
forth its policy that banked ERCs used as NSR offsets must be adjusted 
at the time of permit issuance to ensure that they are surplus as 
required by section 173(c)(2). Memo from John S. Seitz, Dir., OAQPS to 
David Howekamp, Dir., Region IX Air and Toxics Div. (Aug. 26, 1994) 
(``1994 Seitz Memo''). This is important to ensure that emission 
reductions are not ``double-counted'' for CAA purposes, something 
prohibited by the CAA. Double counting can occur where emission 
reductions are the result of, or would have been achieved by, controls 
expressly required by the Act or controls used to satisfy requirements 
of the Act. For example, a source may voluntarily reduce its emission 
of hazardous air pollutants (``HAPs'') and bank those credits at the 
time of reduction. Some time after these reductions are achieved, EPA 
promulgates a Maximum Achievable Control Technology (``MACT'') standard 
that applies to the source. Though these credits may be permanent, 
real, quantifiable, and enforceable, the promulgation of the new MACT 
standard would render the portion of the banked ERC that would have 
been required by the new MACT standard unavailable for NSR offset 
purposes because it is no longer in excess of requirements under the 
Act. This is important since many HAPs are also considered volatile 
organic compounds (``VOCs''). Without a requirement to discount ERCs at 
the time of use, sources could be relying upon emission reductions that 
were otherwise required by the CAA. Moreover, the SIP may take credit 
for the reductions achieved by this MACT rule, raising the further 
possibility that the reductions would be double-counted for attainment 
purposes if not surplus adjusted at the time of use.
    More than just preventing possible double counting, however, 
adjusting at the time of use is important to generally ensure proper 
implementation of the NSR program. The CAA does not require or provide 
for ERC banking programs, which means that there are no federal 
requirements ensuring the quality of banks or banked credits for 
federal offset purposes. Because of this, a surplus at the time of use 
analysis and appropriate adjustment provides an important first and 
only review of the proposed ERC's consistency with NSR CAA offset 
requirements. Without such a review, EPA could not assure that sources 
were complying with NSR offset requirements of the CAA since most ERCs 
were banked without EPA review and many without supporting 
documentation or information.
    Despite the necessity for surplus adjustment at the time of use, 
EPA has worked with the District to create a system where sources may 
be able to rely on banked ERCs while at the same time maintaining the 
integrity and legality of the District's NSR program. Through the use 
of the annual equivalency demonstration program, EPA is allowing the 
District to give full credit to ERCs provided by major sources for NSR 
permitting activities as long as the District can identify other 
retired or used creditable emission reductions that make up for the 
difference within the year accounting period.
    Comment 2: Item number 3 in the list of categories of non-surplus 
emission reductions in the proposed approval reads ``any emission 
reduction whose original emission reduction is not included in the 
District's emission inventory. See 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C)(1).'' The 
District commented that ``[t]he citation [40 CFR Sec.  
51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C)(1)] refers * * * only to `(e)missions reductions 
achieved by shutting down an existing source or curtailing production 
or operating hours below baseline levels'. There is not a requirement 
in the Code of Federal Regulations to include an emission reduction 
resulting from a source employing emission reduction techniques, not 
otherwise required by the federal CAA, in the District's emission 
inventory.''
    Response 2: 40 CFR 51.165 describes the minimum regulatory 
requirements for an approvable state NSR permitting program. 40 CFR 
51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C)(1), which deals with offsets, states that 
reductions achieved by shutting down an existing source or curtailing 
production or operating hours below baseline levels may generally be 
credited in NSR permitting actions if such reductions are permanent, 
quantifiable, and federally enforceable, and if the area has an EPA-
approved attainment plan. In contrast to the meaning given to it in the 
District's comment, the provision serves the narrow purpose of stating 
that ERCs generated by shutting down a source or curtailing production 
or operating hours can only be used if there is an EPA-approved 
attainment plan and if the item is ``explicitly'' included in the most 
recent emissions inventory. The provision is essentially a safeguard to 
make sure that emissions from defunct sources are not replaced with new 
emissions without appropriate review to ensure that such replacements 
are consistent with attainment purposes for the area. The provision in 
no way limits or changes the necessity that all emission reductions 
used for NSR offsetting purposes be incorporated into the area's 
emission inventory, either explicitly or implicitly. The use of 
emission reductions for NSR purposes whose original emissions are not 
included in the emissions inventory, and therefore not considered in 
the planning process, would be adding new unaccounted emissions into 
the area thus potentially jeopardizing attainment goals. As such, EPA 
has maintained the definition for this category as originally proposed.
    Comment 3: CCEEB commented that ``if an air district includes 
banked ERCs as a line item in its portion of the SIP, the ERCs are 
accounted for as emissions in the air and are mitigated by measures in 
the plan. To discount such ERCs at the time of use would result in a 
``double mitigation.'' CCEEB requests that EPA clarify in the future 
related notices that EPA does not require discounting of ERCs at time 
of use where the use of ERCs has been mitigated by other specific 
measures for rate of progress or attainment demonstration purposes.''
    Response 3: EPA disagrees with CCEEB on its comment. CCEEB's 
approach would essentially allow any

[[Page 9564]]

emission reduction to be used for NSR offset purposes even if it was 
required by a provision of the CAA as long as it was incorporated into 
the area's emissions inventory and accounted for in the area's 
attainment plan. CCEEB justifies this proposition by the fact that the 
ERC ``has been mitigated by other specific measures for rate of 
progress or attainment demonstration purposes,'' and therefore should 
be allowed as an NSR offset. Allowing the use of such an ERC as an NSR 
offset, however, would be counter to section 173(c)(2)'s prohibition 
against use of emission reductions that are otherwise required by the 
CAA. The mere fact that an ERC is recognized in the inventory and 
accounted for in the attainment plan and rate of progress in no way 
``mitigates'' the fact that the reduction was elsewhere required under 
the CAA.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In fact, emission reductions used for NSR offset purposes 
must be included in an area's inventory and attainment plan to be 
considered for use as an offset in the first place. The 1992 
``General Preamble for the Implementation of title I of the Clean 
Air Act Amendments of 1990'' (``General Preamble'') describes the 
planning requirements of the Act as amended in 1990. 57 FR 13498 
(April 16, 1992). The General Preamble addresses the issue of the 
use emission reductions for NSR purposes and how areas need to 
ensure the use of these does not conflict with planning. The two 
types of planning actions that need to reflect the use of emission 
reduction credits are rate of progress plans and attainment 
demonstrations. See id. at 13508-509 and 13552-54; see also 1994 
Seitz Memo. Thus, inclusion of ERCs in required plans is a 
precondition to satisfying the statutory requirements of section 
173(c)(2), but does not by itself fulfill the statutory 
requirements.
    CCEEB and WSPA may be taking their argument one step further, 
however, by implying that the creation of a growth allowance in an 
attainment plan would enable a permitting authority to issue permits 
that allow new emissions despite the source's reliance on non-
surplus ERCs. A growth allowance is defined as a ``pollutant-
specific allowance for additional growth in any designated 
nonattainment area by controlling existing source emissions beyond 
the amount of reduction required to demonstrate [reasonable further 
progress].'' 57 FR 13554 (April 16, 1992). CCEEB and WSPA cannot 
rely upon a growth allowance as a justification for use of non-
surplus ERCs, however, as the 1990 CAA amendments restricted the use 
of new growth allowances with the exception of areas that have been 
targeted by the administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of 
Housing and Urban Development (``HUD''), for economic growth. Id.; 
see also CAA sections 172(c)(4) and 173(a)(1)(B). Ventura County is 
not a designated economic growth area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 4: Item number 5 in the list of categories of non-surplus 
emission reductions in the proposed approval reads ``any emission 
reduction required by a condition of a permit issued to comply with NSR 
CAA requirements.'' CCEEB commented that ``[t]his item is of concern 
because air permits in California will typically include requirements 
that are not required under Federal law. Such requirements are not 
required by the federal Clean Air Act and should be considered surplus 
to Federal requirements. This item should not be listed in its current 
form as an emission reduction that is required by the Act.'' WSPA 
provided an almost identical comment.
    Response 4: We agree with CCEEB and WSPA, and modified item number 
5 accordingly. Specifically, in the updated interpretation provided in 
this final action and embodied in the MOU, we recognize that the 
following requirements contained in a federally enforceable NSR permit 
should not automatically disqualify the emission reduction from use as 
an NSR offset: (1) Requirements to make the reduction federally 
enforceable to meet Federal creditability criteria for use of the 
reduction as an offset for new source review purposes, or (2) 
requirements to assure compliance with a state or local requirement 
that is not federally enforceable. This change addresses the 
commentors' concerns.

III. EPA Action

    No comments were submitted that change our assessment that the 
submitted rules comply with the relevant CAA requirements. Therefore, 
as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is approving these 
rules into the California SIP.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ On February 13, 2003, EPA proposed to find that the 
California SIP was substantially inadequate due to Health & Safety 
Code Section 42310(e), which exempts certain agricultural sources 
from all permitting actions, including NSR permitting actions. 68 FR 
7237. This SIP-call, if finalized, will not reactivate the sanctions 
clock permanently stopped by this final action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this 
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action 
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes 
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because 
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does 
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by 
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism 
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule 
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or 
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean 
Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically 
significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In 
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the 
State to use voluntary consensus standards (``VCS''), EPA has no 
authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It 
would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews 
a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that 
otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 
requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and 
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule 
does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as 
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency 
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy 
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller 
General of the

[[Page 9565]]

United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
section 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 29, 2003. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial 
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial 
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such 
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings 
to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: February 18, 2003.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

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

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart F--California

    2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(305) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (305) Amended regulations for the following APCD were submitted on 
May 20, 2002 by the Governor's designee.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Ventura County Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) Rules 10, 26.1, 26.2, 26.3, 26.4, 26.6, and 26.11 adopted on 
May 14, 2002.
* * * * *

[FR Doc. 03-4628 Filed 2-27-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P