[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 121 (Tuesday, June 24, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37447-37449]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-15899]



[[Page 37447]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA286-0404A; FRL-7518-1]


Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; 
California--San Joaquin Valley Ozone Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a state implementation plan (SIP) 
revision submitted by the State of California regarding the San Joaquin 
Valley ozone nonattainment area (San Joaquin Valley). The submittal 
revises commitments for adoption of control measures for attaining the 
1-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). EPA is 
proposing to approve the SIP revision under provisions of the Clean Air 
Act (CAA or the Act) regarding EPA action on SIP submittals. EPA is 
also proposing to find that the adoption and implementation of the 
measures that are the subject of this SIP revision correct a previous 
finding regarding non-implementation of the SIP. If finalized, this 
finding would terminate the sanctions and FIP clocks associated with 
the previous finding.

DATES: Written comments on this proposal must be received by July 24, 
2003.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to the EPA contact listed 
below. The rulemaking docket for this notice may be inspected by 
appointment at: EPA Region 9, Air Division Planning Office, 75 
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA.
    Copies of the SIP materials are also available for inspection at 
the following locations: California Air Resources Board, 1001 I Street, 
Sacramento, CA. San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 
District, 1990 East Gettysburg, Fresno, CA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doris Lo at (415) 972-3959, 
[email protected], or EPA Region 9 (AIR-2), 75 Hawthorne Street, San 
Francisco, California 94105-3901.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

    When the CAA was amended in 1990, each area of the Country that was 
designated nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone standard was classified 
by the severity of the area's air quality problem. See CAA sections 
107(d)(1)(C) and 181(a). The San Joaquin Valley \1\ was initially 
classified as ``serious'' with an attainment date of no later than 
November 15, 1999. See 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991) and CAA section 
181(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The San Joaquin Valley ozone nonattainment area includes the 
following counties in California's central valley: San Joaquin, part 
of Kern (see 66 FR 56476), Fresno, Kings, Madera, Merced, Stanislaus 
and Tulare.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 15, 1994, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) 
submitted an ozone SIP for the San Joaquin Valley (1994 SIP). On 
January 8, 1997 (62 FR 1149), EPA published a final approval of the 
1994 SIP which included, among other things, a list of commitments to 
adopt and implement 19 local control measures for volatile organic 
compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX), a rate of 
progress (ROP) demonstration and an attainment demonstration.
    On November 8, 2001 (66 FR 56476), EPA found that the San Joaquin 
Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD or District) 
had failed to implement six of the 19 control measure commitments in 
the 1994 SIP. On the effective date of this finding (December 10, 
2001), an 18 month 2:1 offset sanction clock and a 2-year highway 
sanction and FIP clock were started pursuant to CAA sections 110(c) and 
179. In order to terminate these clocks, EPA stated that the SJVUAPCD 
must adopt and implement the six control measures by November 15, 2002.

II. 2001 SIP Amendment

    On June 11, 2002, CARB submitted the San Joaquin Valley 2001 
Amendment to the 1994 ozone SIP (2001 Amendment). This submittal became 
complete by operation of law pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(1)(B) on 
December 11, 2002. The purpose of the 2001 Amendment was primarily to 
address EPA's non-implementation finding and to reflect more accurate 
information gathered during the rule development process. Table 1 
summarizes the relevant commitments in the 1994 SIP and the commitments 
in the 2001 Amendment.

                                                                         Table 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  1994 SIP                                  2001 Amendment
                             Rule                              -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Adopt       Implement          TPD           Adopt      Implement          TPD
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4601, Architectural Coatings..................................        1Q/96         1Q/98          1.51 (VOC)    10/31/01     11/30/01         1.3 (VOC)
4662, Organic Solvent Degreasing..............................        1Q/96         1Q/98          2.44 (VOC)      4/2001       5/2001       11.28 (VOC)
4692, Commercial Charbroiling.................................        2Q/96         2Q/98          0.39 (VOC)     3/31/02      4/30/02        0.39 (VOC)
4623, Organic Liquid Storage..................................        2Q/91         2Q/96          13.2 (VOC)    12/20/01      1/20/02         0.2 (VOC)
4411, Oil Production Well Cellars.............................        2Q/96         2Q/98          0.56 (VOC)        none         none              none
4663, Organic Solvent Waste \*\...............................        2Q/96         2Q/96          0.19 (VOC)     12/20/0      1/20/02       *0.73 (VOC)
4412, Oil Workover Rigs.......................................        2Q/96         2Q/98        0.87 (NOX)          none         none              none
4703, Stationary Gas Turbine Engines..........................  ............  ............  ................      4/19/02      5/19/02        1.8 (NOX)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ This estimated reduction also includes reductions from related modifications to Rules 4602, 4603, 4604, 4605, 4606, 4607, 4653, 4661, 4662, 4663 and
  4684.

    The District deleted the commitment for rule 4411 after evaluating 
an analogous but more stringent existing California requirement (see 
title 14, California Code of Regulations, section 1774). Similarly, the 
District deleted the commitment for rule 4412 because it was preempted 
by CARB's adoption of the Statewide Portable Equipment Registration 
Program (see 13 CCR 2450-2466). The 1.8 ton/day emission reduction in 
rule 4703 is a new commitment in the 2001 Amendment and, as such, does 
not replace a prior commitment.
    Some of the control measures that are the subject of commitments in 
the 2001 Amendment achieve more emission reductions than their 
analogues in the 1994 SIP, while others achieve fewer. The cumulative 
emission reductions achieved by the six measures in the 2001 Amendment 
(13.9 ton/day VOC

[[Page 37448]]

and 1.8 ton/day NOX) exceed the cumulative reductions 
committed to in the 1994 SIP (8.1 ton/day VOC and 0.9 ton/day 
NOX) for the replacement measures.
    The SJVUAPCD has adopted rules 4601, 4662, 4692, 4623, 4663 and 
4703. These rules, with minor exceptions,\2\ were all implemented by or 
before November 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See footnote 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Evaluation of the 2001 Amendment

    Section 110(l) of the CAA prohibits EPA from approving SIP 
revisions that would ``interfere with any applicable requirement 
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in 
section 171), or any other applicable requirement of this Act.'' EPA 
believes that the 2001 Amendment, in conjunction with 14 CCR 1774 and 
13 CCR 2450-2466, does not interfere with the statutory attainment date 
for the San Joaquin Valley area, no later than November 15, 2005, 
because it results in cumulative emission reductions of 5.8 tons/day 
VOC and 0.9 ton/day NOX beyond those to be achieved by the 
measures committed to in the 1994 SIP. Furthermore, since the 
commitments in the 2001 Amendment have been generally implemented, 
there will be no adverse impact on reasonable further progress 
requirements for the area.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ All of the requirements found in the 2001 Amendment rules 
have been implemented with the following exceptions: An aerospace 
exemption under rule 4662 expires in 2006; a requirement for 
retrofitting tanks under rule 4623 does not have to be implemented 
until 11/15/03; technology-forcing requirements for cleaning 
solvents under rule 4663 do not have to be implemented until 11/15/
03; and a technology forcing requirement for photochemical resins 
under rule 4663 does not have to be implemented until 6/30/05. EPA 
believes that the emissions reductions associated with these future 
implementation dates are small and do not impact attainment and 
reasonable further progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. The Non-Implementation Finding

    As discussed above, EPA issued its November 8, 2001, non-
implementation finding (66 FR 56476) because SJVUAPCD had failed to 
adopt and implement six control measures committed to in the 1994 SIP. 
The non-implementation finding stated that ``* * * the SJVUAPCD is 
obliged by its existing SIP to meet the specific requirements of its 
commitments. However, CARB and the District have the opportunity to 
amend the SIP by showing that reasonable further progress and other 
requirements of the CAA can be met with a revised schedule of controls 
and associated emission reductions.'' Based on the above evaluation, 
EPA believes that these requirements have been met and that the 
adoption and implementation of rules 4601, 4662, 4692, 4623, 4663 and 
4703 in the 2001 Amendment and 14 CCR 1774 and 13 CCR 2450-2466 are 
tantamount to the adoption and implementation of the analogous rules in 
the 1994 SIP.
    While our November 8, 2001, non-implementation finding specified 
that adoption and implementation of the six measures in the 1994 SIP 
would terminate sanctions, the measures in the 2001 Amendment should 
also be submitted to EPA for SIP approval. With the exception of rules 
4411 and 4412, all measures in Table 1 have been submitted and found 
complete. While we concur with the SJVUAPCD that it is not necessary to 
duplicate 17 CCR 1774 and 13 CCR 2450-2466 requirements by adopting 
rules 4411 and 4412, we believe these state requirements should be 
submitted for incorporation into the federally enforceable SIP. Based 
on discussions with CARB, we believe these requirements will be 
submitted to EPA in the next few months.

V. Proposed Action

    We are proposing to fully approve the 2001 Amendment under CAA 
section 110(k)(3) because EPA believes that approval is consistent with 
section 110(l) of the CAA. We are also proposing to find that the 
deficiencies that resulted in our November 8, 2001, non-implementation 
finding have been corrected by the adoption and implementation of rules 
4601, 4662, 4692, 4623, 4663 and 4703 in the 2001 Amendment and 14 CCR 
1774 and 13 CCR 2450-2466.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed 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.)

C. 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 proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities because the SIP approval and 
associated finding under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the 
Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements but simply approve 
requirements that the State is already imposing and terminate sanctions 
clocks. 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).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Under sections 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 proposed action 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 proposes to approve pre-
existing requirements under State or local law and proposes to find 
that portions of the state implementation plan have been implemented 
and, as such, imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional 
costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, 
result from this action.

[[Page 37449]]

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    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 proposed 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 approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard 
and terminates sanction clocks, 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.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 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.'' This proposed rule does not 
have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. 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. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 
apply to this rule.
    EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule 
from tribal officials.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    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.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    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.

I. 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.
    The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's 
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to 
the use of VCS.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: June 13, 2003.
Jack P. Broadbent,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 9.
[FR Doc. 03-15899 Filed 6-23-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P