[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 88 (Tuesday, May 7, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30589-30591]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-11173]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 261-0337c; FRL-7171-5]


Interim Final Determination That State has Corrected a Deficiency 
in the California State Implementation Plan, San Joaquin Valley Unified 
Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Interim final determination.

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

SUMMARY: Elsewhere in today's Federal Register, EPA has published a 
direct final rulemaking fully approving a revision to the California 
State Implementation Plan (SIP). EPA has also published a proposed 
rulemaking to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on 
EPA's action. If a person submits adverse comments on EPA's direct 
final action, EPA will withdraw its direct final rule and will consider 
any comments received before taking final action on the State's 
submittal. Based on the proposed approval, EPA is making an interim 
final determination by this action that the State has corrected the 
deficiencies for which a sanctions clock began on October 13, 2000. 
This action will defer the imposition of offset and highway sanctions. 
Although this action is effective upon publication, EPA will take 
comment. If no comments are received on EPA's approval of the State's 
submittal, the direct final action published in today's Federal 
Register will also finalize EPA's determination that the State has 
corrected the deficiency that started the sanctions clock. If comments 
are received on EPA's approval and this interim final action, EPA will 
publish a final notice taking into consideration any comments received.

DATES: This interim final determination is effective May 7, 2002. 
Comments must be received by June 6, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Written comments must be submitted to Andy Steckel at the 
Region IX office listed below. Copies of the rule revision and EPA's 
evaluation report for the rule are available for public inspection at 
EPA's Region IX office during normal business hours. Copies of the 
submitted rule revisions are also available for inspection at the 
following locations:

Rulemaking Office (AIR-4), Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.
Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket (6102), 401 ``M'' Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20460.
California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule 
Evaluation Section, 1001 ``I'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, 1990 E. 
Gettysburg, Fresno, CA 93726.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yvonne Fong, Rulemaking Office, AIR-4, 
Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, Telephone: (415) 947-4117.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On September 29, 1998, the State submitted a revision to the SIP, 
which EPA disapproved in part on September 13, 2000. (65 FR 55193). 
EPA's disapproval action started an 18-month clock for the imposition 
of one sanction

[[Page 30590]]

(followed by a second sanction 6 months later) and a 24-month clock for 
promulgation of a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). The State 
subsequently submitted a revised rule on February 20, 2002. EPA has 
taken direct final action on this submittal pursuant to its modified 
direct final policy set forth at 59 FR 24054 (May 10, 1994). In the 
Rules section of today's Federal Register, EPA has issued a direct 
final full approval of the State of California's submittal of its 
revision to the SIP. In addition, in the Proposed Rules section of 
today's Federal Register, EPA has proposed full approval of the State's 
submittal.
    Based on the proposed approval set forth in today's Federal 
Register, EPA believes that it is more likely than not that the State 
has corrected the original disapproval deficiencies. Therefore, EPA is 
taking this final rulemaking action, effective on publication, finding 
that the State has corrected the deficiencies. However, EPA is also 
providing the public with an opportunity to comment on this final 
action. If, based on any comments on this action and any comments on 
EPA's proposed full approval of the State's submittal, EPA determines 
that the State's submittal is not fully approvable and this final 
action was inappropriate, EPA will either propose or take final action 
finding that the State has not corrected the original disapproval 
deficiencies. As appropriate, EPA will also issue an interim final 
determination or a final determination that the deficiencies have been 
corrected.
    This action does not stop the sanctions clock that started for this 
area on October 13, 2000. However, this action will defer the 
imposition of offsets and highway sanctions. If EPA's direct final 
action fully approving the State's submittal becomes effective, such 
action will permanently stop the sanctions clock and will permanently 
lift any imposed, stayed or deferred sanctions. If EPA must withdraw 
the direct final action based on adverse comments and EPA subsequently 
determines that the State, in fact, did not correct the disapproval 
deficiencies, EPA will also determine that the State did not correct 
the deficiencies and the sanctions consequences described in the 
sanctions rule will apply. See 40 CFR 52.31.

II. EPA Action

    EPA is taking interim final action finding that the State has 
corrected the disapproval deficiencies that started the sanctions 
clock. Based on this action, imposition of offset and highway sanctions 
will be deferred until EPA's direct final action fully approving the 
State's submittal becomes effective or until EPA takes action proposing 
or finally disapproving in whole or part the State submittal. If EPA's 
direct final action fully approving the State submittal becomes 
effective, at that time any sanctions clocks will be permanently 
stopped and any imposed, stayed or deferred sanctions will be 
permanently lifted.
    Because EPA has preliminarily determined that the State has an 
approvable plan, relief from sanctions should be provided as quickly as 
possible. Therefore, EPA is invoking the good cause exception to the 
30-day notice requirement of the Administrative Procedure Act because 
the purpose of this notice is to relieve a restriction. See 5 U.S.C. 
553(d)(1).

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

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

B. Executive Order 13211

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

C. Executive Order 13045

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

D. Executive Order 13132

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

E. Executive Order 13175

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, 
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the 
Federal government and Indian tribes.''

[[Page 30591]]

    This final rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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 in Executive Order 13175. 
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies 
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small 
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental 
jurisdictions.
    This final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial 
number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and 
subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new 
requirements but simply act on requirements that the State is already 
imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create 
any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under 
the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute 
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The 
Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such 
grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

G. Unfunded Mandates

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

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

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

I. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

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

J. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 8, 2002. 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 regulations, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: March 29, 2002.
Laura Yoshii,
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 02-11173 Filed 5-6-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P