[Federal Register: March 24, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 56)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 14159-14161]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24mr03-15]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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