[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 136 (Wednesday, July 16, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42172-42173]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-17971]



[[Page 42171]]

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

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 52



Interim Final Determination That State of California Has Corrected 
Deficiencies and Stay and Deferral of Sanctions; Approval and 
Promulgation of Ozone Attainment Plan; State of California, San 
Francisco Bay Area; Interim Final Rule and Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2003 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 42172]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 258-0397(B); FRL-7528-9]


Interim Final Determination That State of California Has 
Corrected Deficiencies and Stay and Deferral of Sanctions; San 
Francisco Bay Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Interim final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Based on a proposed approval of revisions to the California 
State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the San Francisco Bay Area ozone 
nonattainment area, published elsewhere in today's Federal Register, 
EPA is making an interim final determination that California has 
corrected the deficiencies for which a sanctions clock began on October 
22, 2001. This action will stay the imposition of the offset sanctions 
and defer the imposition of the highway sanction.

DATES: This interim final determination is effective on July 16, 2003. 
However, comments will be accepted until August 15, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Mail comments to Ginger Vagenas, Planning Office (AIR-2), 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 
San Francisco, CA 94105.
    You may inspect copies of the submitted plan at our Region IX 
office during normal business hours. The address is: Planning Office 
(AIR-2), Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 
75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.
    You may also see copies of the submitted plan at the following 
locations:

Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 939 Ellis Street, San 
Francisco, CA 94109.
California Air Resources Board, Public Information Office, 1001 
``I'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.

    A copy of the plan is also available via the Internet at http://www.baaqmd.gov/planning/2001sip/2001sip.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ginger Vagenas, EPA Region IX, (415) 
972-3964.

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

I. Background

    On September 20, 2001 (66 FR 48340), we published a partial 
approval and partial disapproval of the San Francisco Bay Area's 1999 
Ozone Attainment Plan (1999 Plan) as adopted by the Bay Area Air 
Quality Management District on June 16, 1999, the Association of Bay 
Area Governments on June 17, 1999, and the Metropolitan Transportation 
Commission on June 23, 1999. These agencies are known collectively as 
the co-lead agencies. The 1999 Plan was submitted to EPA by the State 
on August 12, 1999. We based our partial disapproval action on 
deficiencies in the submittal regarding the attainment \1\ and 
reasonably available control measure (RACM) requirements of the Clean 
Air Act (CAA). CAA section 172(c)(1). This disapproval action started a 
sanctions clock for imposition of the offset sanction 18 months after 
October 22, 2001 and the highway sanction 6 months later, pursuant to 
section 179 of the CAA and our regulations at 40 CFR 52.31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In this final action, references to attainment include the 
associated motor vehicle emission budgets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 24, 2001, the co-lead agencies adopted the San Francisco 
Bay Area 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan (2001 Plan), which was in part 
intended to correct the deficiencies identified in our disapproval 
action. On November 30, 2001, the State submitted these revisions to 
EPA. In the Proposed Rules section of today's Federal Register, we have 
proposed approval of this submittal. Based on today's this proposed 
approval, we believe that it is more likely than not that the State has 
corrected the attainment and RACM deficiencies. Therefore we are taking 
this final rulemaking action, effective on publication, to stay the 
imposition of the offset sanction and to defer the imposition of the 
highway sanction triggered by our September 20, 2001 disapproval.
    EPA is providing the public with an opportunity to comment on this 
final action. If comments are submitted that change our assessment 
described in this final determination and the proposed approval of the 
attainment and RACM provisions of the 2001 Plan, we intend to take 
subsequent final action to reimpose sanctions pursuant to 40 CFR 
52.31(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 approval of the attainment and RACM 
provisions of the 2001 Plan.

II. EPA Action

    We are making an interim final determination that the State has 
corrected the deficiencies that started the sanctions clock. Based on 
this action, the imposition of the offset sanction will be stayed and 
the imposition of the highway sanction will be deferred until we take 
final action to approve the attainment and RACM provisions of the 2001 
Plan or we take final action to disapprove these provisions.
    Because EPA has preliminarily determined that the State has 
corrected the deficiencies identified in EPA's partial disapproval 
action of the 1999 Plan, 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 submittal 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 submittal. 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

[[Page 42173]]

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 action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. Sec.  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. Sec.  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 July 16, 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 September 15, 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

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

    Dated: July 7, 2003.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 03-17971 Filed 7-15-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P