[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 56 (Monday, March 24, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14159-14161]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-6812]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 275-0378c; FRL-7460-6]


Interim Final Determination To Stay and/or Defer Sanctions, Bay 
Area Air Quality Management District, Sacramento Metropolitan Air 
Quality Management District, and 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 proposed approvals of revisions 
to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), Sacramento 
Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD), and San Joaquin 
Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) portions of 
the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) published elsewhere in 
today's Federal Register. The revisions concern BAAQMD Rule 8-7, SMAQMD 
Rule 449, and SJVUAPCD Rule 4622.

DATES: This interim final determination is effective on March 24, 2003. 
However, comments will be accepted until April 23, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Mail comments to Andy Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR-
4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.
    You can inspect copies of the submitted rule revisions and EPA's 
technical support documents (TSDs) at our Region IX office during 
normal business hours. You may also see copies of the submitted rule 
revisions and TSDs 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), Ariel Rios 
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20460.
California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule 
Evaluation Section, 1001 ``I'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 939 Ellis Street, San 
Francisco, CA 94109.
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, 8411 
Jackson Road, Sacramento, CA 95826.
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, 1990 East 
Gettysburg Street, Fresno, CA 93726.

    A copy of the rule may also be available via the Internet at http:/
/

[[Page 14160]]

www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/drdbltxt.htm. Please be advised that this is not an 
EPA website and may not contain the same version of the rule that was 
submitted to EPA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al Petersen, Rulemaking Office (AIR-
4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX; (415) 947-4118.

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

I. Background

    On March 28, 2000, the State of California submitted a revision to 
Rule 8-7 in the BAAQMD portion of the SIP, which we disapproved in part 
on July 25, 2001 (66 FR 38561). On May 18, 1998, the State of 
California submitted a revision to Rule 449 in the SMAQMD portion of 
the SIP, which we disapproved in part on July 25, 2001 (66 FR 38561). 
On August 21, 1998, the State of California submitted a revision to 
Rule 4622 in the SJVUAPCD portion of the SIP, which we disapproved in 
part on July 25, 2001 (66 FR 38561). We based our disapprovals action 
on certain deficiencies in the submittals. This disapprovals action 
started sanctions clocks for imposition of offset sanctions 18 months 
after August 24, 2001 and highway sanctions 6 months later, pursuant to 
section 179 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and our regulations at 40 CFR 
52.31.
    On November 6, 2002, BAAQMD adopted revisions to Rule 8-7; on 
September 26, 2002, SMAQMD adopted revisions to Rule 449; and on 
September 19, 2002, SJVUAPCD adopted revisions to Rule 4622 that were 
intended to correct the deficiencies identified in our disapprovals 
action. On December 12, 2002, November 19, 2002, and November 19, 2002, 
respectively, the State submitted these revisions to EPA. In the 
Proposed Rules section of today's Federal Register, we have proposed 
approval of these submittals because we believe they correct the 
deficiencies identified in our July 25, 2001 disapproval action. Based 
on today's proposed approval, we are taking this final rulemaking 
action, effective on publication, to stay and/or defer imposition of 
sanctions that were triggered by our July 25, 2001 disapprovals.
    EPA is providing the public with an opportunity to comment on this 
stay and/or deferral of sanctions. If comments are submitted that 
change our assessment described in this intermim final determination 
and the proposed approvals of revised BAAQMD Rule 8-7, SMAQMD Rule 449, 
and SJVUAPCD Rule 4622, we intend to take subsequent final action to 
reimpose relevant sanctions pursuant to 40 CFR 51.31(d). If no comments 
are submitted that change our assessment, then all sanctions and 
sanction clocks will be permanently terminated on the effective date of 
a final rule approval.

II. EPA Action

    We are making an interim final determination to stay and/or defer 
CAA section 179 sanctions associated with BAAQMD Rule 8-7, SMAQMD Rule 
449, and SJVUAPCD Rule 4622 based on our concurrent proposal to approve 
the State's SIP revision as correcting deficiencies that initiated 
sanctions.
    Because EPA has preliminarily determined that the State has 
corrected the deficiencies identified in EPA's limited disapprovals 
action, relief from sanctions should be provided 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 State's submittals and, through 
its proposed action, is indicating that it is more likely than not that 
the State has corrected the deficiencies that started the sanctions 
clocks. Therefore, it is not in the public interest to initially impose 
sanctions or to keep applied sanctions in place when the State has most 
likely done all it can to correct the deficiencies that triggered the 
sanctions clocks. Moreover, it would be impracticable to go through 
notice-and-comment rulemaking on a finding that the State has corrected 
the deficiencies prior to the rulemaking approving the State's 
submittal. 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 
State's submittals. 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 (Pub. L. 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

[[Page 14161]]

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 
March 24, 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 May 23, 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 section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Air pollution control, Environmental protection, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental regulations, Ozone, Reporting and 
recordkeeping, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: February 13, 2003.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 03-6812 Filed 3-21-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P