[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 30 (Thursday, February 13, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7321-7322]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-3417]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA280-0390B; FRL-7451-1]


Interim Final Determination That State Has Corrected Rule 
Deficiencies and Stay and/or Deferral of Sanctions, San Joaquin Valley 
Unified Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Interim final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is making an interim final determination to stay and/or 
defer imposition of sanctions based on a proposed approval of revisions 
to the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 
(SJVUAPCD or District) portion of the California State Implementation 
Plan (SIP) published elsewhere in today's Federal Register. The 
revisions concern SJVUAPCD Rules 2020 and 2201.

DATES: This interim final determination is effective on February 13, 
2003. However, comments will be accepted until March 17, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Mail comments to Ed Pike, Permits Office (AIR-3), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 
Francisco, CA 94105.
    You can inspect copies of the submitted rules that are the basis 
for today's action at our Region IX office during normal business 
hours: Permits Office (AIR-3), Air Division, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 
94105.
    You may also see copies of the submitted rules at the following 
locations:

California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule 
Evaluation Section, 1001 ``I'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD, 1990 E. Gettysburg, Fresno, CA 93726.

    A copy of the rules may also be available via the Internet at 
http://www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/drdbltxt.htm. Please be advised that this is 
not an EPA Web site and may not contain the same version of the rules 
that were submitted to EPA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ed Pike, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3970 
or send email to [email protected].

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

I. Background

    On July 19, 2001, we published a limited approval and limited 
disapproval of SJVUAPCD Rules 2020 and 2201 as adopted locally on 
September 17, and August 20, 1998, respectively, and submitted by the 
State on October 27, and September 29, 1998, respectively. 66 FR 37587 
(July 19, 2001). We based our limited disapproval action on certain 
deficiencies in the submittal. This limited disapproval action started 
a sanctions clock for imposition of offset sanctions 18 months after 
August 19, 2001 (the effective date of our limited disapproval) and 
highway sanctions six months after the offset sanction is imposed, 
pursuant to section 179 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and our regulations 
at 40 CFR 52.31.
    On December 19, 2002, the SJVUAPCD adopted revisions to Rules 2020 
and 2201 that were intended to correct the deficiencies identified in 
our limited disapproval action. On December 23, 2002, the State 
submitted these revisions to EPA.
    In the Proposed Rules section of today's Federal Register, we have 
proposed approval of revised Rules 2020 and 2201 because we believe the 
revisions correct the deficiencies specified in our July 19, 2001, 
limited disapproval action.\1\ Based on our proposed approval of the 
District's revisions to Rules 2020 and 2201, we are taking this final 
rulemaking action, effective on publication, to stay and/or defer 
imposition of sanctions that were triggered by our July 19, 2001, 
limited disapproval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Proposed Rules section of today's Federal Register also 
contains our proposal to find that the approved California SIP is 
substantially inadequate because it cannot provide ``necessary 
assurances'' that no State law prohibits the State or districts from 
carrying out the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) or 
nonattainment New Source Review (NSR) portions of the SIP because 
California Health & Safety Code section 42310(e) exempts 
agricultural sources from permitting requirements. This additional 
action will require the State to provide the necessary assurances of 
authority required to implement the NSR program in the District as 
it applies to major agricultural sources.

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

[[Page 7322]]

    EPA is providing the public with an opportunity to comment on this 
stay/deferral of sanctions. If comments are submitted that change our 
assessment described in this final determination, or our proposed 
approval of revised Rules 2020 and 2201, we may take subsequent final 
action to reimpose sanctions pursuant to 40 CFR 51.31(d). If no 
comments are submitted that change our assessment, then the sanctions 
and sanction clocks that were triggered by our July 19, 2001 limited 
disapproval will be permanently terminated on the effective date of a 
final rule approval of SJVUAPCD Rules 2020 and 2201.

II. EPA Action

    We are making an interim final determination to stay and/or defer 
CAA section 179 sanctions associated with SJVUAPCD Rules 2020 and 2201 
based on our proposal to approve the State's SIP revisions as 
correcting the specified deficiencies that prompted the finding to 
initiate sanctions.
    Because EPA has preliminarily determined that the SJVUAPCD has 
corrected the specified deficiencies prompting EPA's limited 
disapproval action, and has also proposed to find that a State-wide 
agricultural exemption must be corrected, we have determined that it is 
appropriate to relieve the SJVUAPCD from sanctions as quickly as 
possible. Therefore, EPA is invoking the good cause exception under the 
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in not providing an opportunity for 
comment before this action takes effect (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)). However, 
by this action EPA is providing the public with a chance to comment on 
EPA's determination after the effective date, and EPA will consider any 
comments received in determining whether to reverse such action.
    EPA believes that notice-and-comment rulemaking before the 
effective date of this action is impracticable and contrary to the 
public interest. EPA has reviewed the SJVUAPCD's and State's submittal 
and, through our proposed approval of the District's corrections, is 
indicating that it is more likely than not that the SJVUAPCD has 
corrected the deficiencies specified in the limited disapproval. 
Therefore, it is not in the public interest to impose sanctions solely 
on the District when the SJVUAPCD has most likely done all it can to 
correct the deficiencies that triggered the sanctions clocks. 
Therefore, EPA believes that it is necessary to use the interim final 
rulemaking process to stay and/or defer sanctions while EPA completes 
its rulemaking process on the approvability of the SJVUAPCD's revisions 
of Rules 2020 and 2201. Moreover, with respect to the effective date of 
this action, EPA is invoking the good cause exception to the 30-day 
notice requirement of the APA because the purpose of this notice is to 
relieve a restriction (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1)).

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action stays and/or defers federal sanctions and imposes no 
additional 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 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.
    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.).
    This rule 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 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 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 rule 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.
    The requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology 
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272) do not apply to 
this rule because it imposes no standards.
    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 to Congress and the Comptroller 
General. However, section 808 provides that any rule for which the 
issuing agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure 
thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public 
interest, shall take effect at such time as the agency promulgating the 
rule determines. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). EPA has made such a good cause 
finding, including the reasons therefor, and established an effective 
date of February 13, 2003. 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).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by April 14, 2003. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this rule for the purpose of judicial review nor does 
it extend the time within which 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 CAA section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
regulations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: January 31, 2003.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 03-3417 Filed 2-12-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P