Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 30 / Thursday, February 13, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 7321

1The Proposed Rules section of today’s Federal 

Register also contains our proposal to find that the 

approved California SIP is substantially inadequate 

because it cannot provide ‘‘necessary assurances’’

that no State law prohibits the State or districts 

from carrying out the Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) or nonattainment New Source 

Review (NSR) portions of the SIP because California 

Health & Safety Code section 42310(e) exempts 

agricultural sources from permitting requirements. 

This additional action will require the State to 

provide the necessary assurances of authority 

required to implement the NSR program in the 

District as it applies to major agricultural sources.

(1) If the Department determines that 

a candidate does not present a risk to 

aviation or national security as a result 

of the preliminary risk assessment, the 

candidate or the Provider will be 

notified electronically that the Provider 

may supply the candidate with the 

appropriate materials and instructions 

to complete the fingerprinting process 

described in § 105.13(c) and (d) of this 

part. 

(2) If the Department determines that 

the candidate presents a risk to aviation 

or national security, when appropriate, 

it will notify the Provider electronically 

that training is prohibited. 

(3) For each complete training request 

submitted by a Provider, the Department 

will promptly conduct an appropriate 

risk assessment. Every effort will be 

made to respond to a training request in 

the briefest time possible. In routine 

cases, the Department anticipates 

granting approval to train within a 

fraction of the 45-day notification 

period after receiving a complete, 

properly submitted request, including 

fingerprints. In the unlikely event that 

no notification or authorization by the 

Department has occurred within 45 days 

after the proper submission under these 

regulations of all the required 

information, the Provider may proceed 

with the training, upon establishing the 

candidate’s identity in accordance with 

paragraph (c) of this section. 

(c) Providers must ascertain the 

identity of each candidate. For 

candidates who are not citizens or 

nationals of the United States 

designated by the Under Secretary of 

Transportation for Security, a Provider 

must inspect the candidate’s passport 

and visa to verify the candidate’s 

identity before providing training. 

Candidates who are citizens or nationals 

of the United States must present the 

documentation described in § 105.11(a) 

of this part. If the candidate’s identity 

cannot be verified, then the Provider 

cannot proceed with training. 

(d) If, at any time after training has 

begun, the Department determines that 

a candidate subject to this section being 

trained by a Provider presents a risk to 

aviation or national security, the 

Department shall notify the Provider to 

cease training. A Provider so notified 

shall immediately cease providing any 

training to the person, regardless of 

whether or in what manner such 

training commenced or had been 

authorized. The Provider who submitted 

the candidate’s identifying information 

will be responsible for ensuring that the 

training is promptly halted, regardless 

of whether another Provider is currently 

training the candidate. 

(e) With regard to any determination 

as to an alien candidate’s eligibility for 

training, when appropriate, the 

Department will inform the Secretary of 

State and the Secretary of Homeland 

Security as to the identity of the alien 

and the determination made.

Dated: February 6, 2003. 

John Ashcroft, 

Attorney General.

[FR Doc. 03–3384 Filed 2–12–03; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–19–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[CA280–0390B; FRL–7451–1] 

Interim Final Determination That State 

Has Corrected Rule Deficiencies and 

Stay and/or Deferral of 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 

or District) portion of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

published elsewhere in today’s Federal 

Register. The revisions concern 

SJVUAPCD Rules 2020 and 2201.

DATES: This interim final determination 

is effective on February 13, 2003. 

However, comments will be accepted 

until March 17, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Mail comments to Ed Pike, 

Permits Office (AIR–3), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, CA 94105. 

You can inspect copies of the 

submitted rules that are the basis for 

today’s action at our Region IX office 

during normal business hours: Permits 

Office (AIR–3), Air Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, CA 94105. 

You may also see copies of the 

submitted rules at the following 

locations:

California Air Resources Board, 

Stationary Source Division, Rule 

Evaluation Section, 1001 ‘‘I’’ Street, 

Sacramento, CA 95814. 

San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD, 1990 

E. Gettysburg, Fresno, CA 93726.

A copy of the rules 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 rules that were submitted 

to EPA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ed 

Pike, EPA Region IX, (415) 972–3970 or 

send email to pike.ed@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

I. Background 

On July 19, 2001, we published a 

limited approval and limited 

disapproval of SJVUAPCD Rules 2020 

and 2201 as adopted locally on 

September 17, and August 20, 1998, 

respectively, and submitted by the State 

on October 27, and September 29, 1998, 

respectively. 66 FR 37587 (July 19, 

2001). We based our limited disapproval 

action on certain deficiencies in the 

submittal. This limited disapproval 

action started a sanctions clock for 

imposition of offset sanctions 18 months 

after August 19, 2001 (the effective date 

of our limited disapproval) and highway 

sanctions six months after the offset 

sanction is imposed, pursuant to section 

179 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and our 

regulations at 40 CFR 52.31. 

On December 19, 2002, the 

SJVUAPCD adopted revisions to Rules 

2020 and 2201 that were intended to 

correct the deficiencies identified in our 

limited disapproval action. On 

December 23, 2002, the State submitted 

these revisions to EPA. 

In the Proposed Rules section of 

today’s Federal Register, we have 

proposed approval of revised Rules 

2020 and 2201 because we believe the 

revisions correct the deficiencies 

specified in our July 19, 2001, limited 

disapproval action.1 Based on our 

proposed approval of the District’s 

revisions to Rules 2020 and 2201, we 

are taking this final rulemaking action, 

effective on publication, to stay and/or 

defer imposition of sanctions that were 

triggered by our July 19, 2001, limited 

disapproval.

7322 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 30 / Thursday, February 13, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 

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, or 

our proposed approval of revised Rules 

2020 and 2201, we may take subsequent 

final action to reimpose sanctions 

pursuant to 40 CFR 51.31(d). If no 

comments are submitted that change our 

assessment, then the sanctions and 

sanction clocks that were triggered by 

our July 19, 2001 limited disapproval 

will be permanently terminated on the 

effective date of a final rule approval of 

SJVUAPCD Rules 2020 and 2201. 

II. EPA Action 

We are making an interim final 

determination to stay and/or defer CAA 

section 179 sanctions associated with 

SJVUAPCD Rules 2020 and 2201 based 

on our proposal to approve the State’s 

SIP revisions as correcting the specified 

deficiencies that prompted the finding 

to initiate sanctions. 

Because EPA has preliminarily 

determined that the SJVUAPCD has 

corrected the specified deficiencies 

prompting EPA’s limited disapproval 

action, and has also proposed to find 

that a State-wide agricultural exemption 

must be corrected, we have determined 

that it is appropriate to relieve the 

SJVUAPCD from sanctions 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 

SJVUAPCD’s and State’s submittal and, 

through our proposed approval of the 

District’s corrections, is indicating that 

it is more likely than not that the 

SJVUAPCD has corrected the 

deficiencies specified in the limited 

disapproval. Therefore, it is not in the 

public interest to impose sanctions 

solely on the District when the 

SJVUAPCD has most likely done all it 

can to correct the deficiencies that 

triggered the sanctions clocks. 

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 SJVUAPCD’s revisions of Rules 

2020 and 2201. 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 (Public Law 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 

February 13, 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 April 14, 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 CAA 

section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

regulations, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: January 31, 2003. 

Wayne Nastri, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 03–3417 Filed 2–12–03; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P