[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