Interim Final Determination To Stay and/or Defer Sanctions, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, 53935-53936 [05-18020]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Rules and Regulations PART 51—[AMENDED] ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 1. The authority citation for Part 51 continues to read as follows: I 40 CFR Part 52 Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401– 7671q. [CA–319–0488c; FRL–7966–5] 2. Section 51.100 is amended by adding paragraph (s)(6) to read as follows: Interim Final Determination To Stay and/or Defer Sanctions, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District I § 51.100 Definitions. * * * * * (s) * * * (6) For the purposes of determining compliance with California’s aerosol coatings reactivity-based regulation, (as described in the California Code of Regulations, Title 17, Division 3, Chapter 1, Subchapter 8.5, Article 3), any organic compound in the volatile portion of an aerosol coating is counted towards that product’s reactivity-based limit. Therefore, the compounds identified in paragraph (s) of this section as negligibly reactive and excluded from EPA’s definition of VOCs are to be counted towards a product’s reactivity limit for the purposes of determining compliance with California’s aerosol coatings reactivitybased regulation. * * * * * PART 52—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: I Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Subpart F—California 2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(338) to read as follows: I § 52.220 Identification of plan. * * * * * (c) * * * (338) New and amended regulations for the following agency were submitted on March 13, 2002, by the Governor’s designee. (i) Incorporation by reference. (A) California Air Resources Board. (1) California Code of Regulations, Title 17, Division 3, Chapter 1, Subchapter 8.5, Consumer Products, Article 3, Aerosol Coating Products, Sections 94520 to 94528, and Subchapter 8.6, Maximum Incremental Reactivity, Article 1, Tables of Maximum Incremental Reactivity (MIR) Values, Sections 94700 to 94701, both adopted on May 1, 2001. * * * * * [FR Doc. 05–18016 Filed 9–12–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:30 Sep 12, 2005 Jkt 205001 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) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) published elsewhere in today’s Federal Register. The revisions concern San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Rule 4623—Storage of Organic Liquids. This interim final determination is effective on September 13, 2005. However, comments will be accepted until October 13, 2005. ADDRESSES: Send comments to Andy Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR– 4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105 or email to steckel.andrew@epa.gov, or submit comments at http:// www.regulations.gov. You can inspect copies of the submitted rule revisions, EPA’s technical support document (TSD), and public comments at our Region IX office during normal business hours by appointment. You may also see copies of the submitted rule revisions by appointment at the following locations: Rulemaking Office (AIR–4), Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105; California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule Evaluation Section, 1001 ‘‘I’’ Street, Sacramento, CA 95814; and 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:// 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 rule that was submitted to EPA. PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerald S. Wamsley, EPA Region IX, at either (415) 947–4111, or wamsley.jerry@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: DATES: 53935 Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. I. Background On January 22, 2004 (69 Federal Register (FR) 3012), we published a limited approval and limited disapproval of SJVUAPCD Rule 4623 as adopted locally on December 20, 2001 and submitted by the State on March 15, 2002. We based our limited disapproval action on certain deficiencies in the submittal. This disapproval action started a sanctions clock for imposition of offset sanctions 18 months after February 23, 2004 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 May 19, 2005, SJVUAPCD adopted revisions to Rule 4623 that were intended to correct the deficiencies identified in our limited disapproval action. On July 15, 2005, the State submitted these revisions to EPA. In the Proposed Rules section of today’s Federal Register, we have proposed approval of this submittal because we believe it corrects the deficiencies identified in our January 22, 2004 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 January 22, 2004 limited disapproval. 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 and the proposed full approval of revised SJVUAPCD Rule 4623, we intend to take subsequent final action to reimpose 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 SJVUAPCD Rule 4623 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 E:\FR\FM\13SER1.SGM 13SER1 53936 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Rules and Regulations limited disapproval 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-andcomment 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 noticeand-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 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. 601 et seq.). VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:30 Sep 12, 2005 Jkt 205001 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 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 September 13, 2005. 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). PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 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 November 14, 2005. 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, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: August 19, 2005. Laura Yoshii, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. [FR Doc. 05–18020 Filed 9–12–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [CA–319–0488a; FRL–7966–4] Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. AGENCY: SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from facilities storing and processing organic liquids such as crude oil and petroleum by-products. We are approving SJVUAPCD Rule 4623, a rule regulating these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). DATES: This rule is effective on November 14, 2005 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by October 13, 2005. If we receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that this direct final rule will not take effect. E:\FR\FM\13SER1.SGM 13SER1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 13, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53935-53936]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18020]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA-319-0488c; FRL-7966-5]


Interim Final Determination To Stay and/or Defer 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) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
published elsewhere in today's Federal Register. The revisions concern 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Rule 4623--
Storage of Organic Liquids.

DATES: This interim final determination is effective on September 13, 
2005. However, comments will be accepted until October 13, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Andy Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR-
4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105 or e-mail to steckel.andrew@epa.gov, or 
submit comments at http://www.regulations.gov.
    You can inspect copies of the submitted rule revisions, EPA's 
technical support document (TSD), and public comments at our Region IX 
office during normal business hours by appointment. You may also see 
copies of the submitted rule revisions by appointment at the following 
locations:

Rulemaking Office (AIR-4), Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105;
California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule 
Evaluation Section, 1001 ``I'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95814; and
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:/
/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 rule that 
was submitted to EPA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerald S. Wamsley, EPA Region IX, at 
either (415) 947-4111, or wamsley.jerry@epa.gov.

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

I. Background

    On January 22, 2004 (69 Federal Register (FR) 3012), we published a 
limited approval and limited disapproval of SJVUAPCD Rule 4623 as 
adopted locally on December 20, 2001 and submitted by the State on 
March 15, 2002. We based our limited disapproval action on certain 
deficiencies in the submittal. This disapproval action started a 
sanctions clock for imposition of offset sanctions 18 months after 
February 23, 2004 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 May 19, 2005, SJVUAPCD adopted revisions to Rule 4623 that were 
intended to correct the deficiencies identified in our limited 
disapproval action. On July 15, 2005, the State submitted these 
revisions to EPA. In the Proposed Rules section of today's Federal 
Register, we have proposed approval of this submittal because we 
believe it corrects the deficiencies identified in our January 22, 2004 
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 January 22, 
2004 limited disapproval.
    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 and the proposed full 
approval of revised SJVUAPCD Rule 4623, we intend to take subsequent 
final action to reimpose 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 SJVUAPCD Rule 4623 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

[[Page 53936]]

limited disapproval 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 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 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. 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 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 September 13, 2005. 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 November 14, 2005. 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, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 
organic compounds.

    Dated: August 19, 2005.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 05-18020 Filed 9-12-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P