Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 30 / Thursday, February 13, 2003 / Proposed Rules 7327

I certify under section 605(b) of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. et 

seq.) that this regulation will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposal contains no collectionof-information requirements subject to 

the Paperwork Reduction Act, Public 

Law No. 96–511, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35. 

Federalism Assessment 

This proposed rule has been reviewed 

in accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

13132, dated August 4, 1999, and it has 

been determined that this action does 

not have a substantial direct effect 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. This proposed 

rule will not limit the policymaking 

discretion of the States. Nothing in this 

proposal would directly preempt any 

State law or regulation. We are 

proposing this amendment primarily 

under the authority granted us by 49 

U.S.C. 41712 to prevent unfair methods 

of competition and unfair and deceptive 

practices in the sale of air 

transportation. We believe that the 

policy set forth in this proposed rule is 

consistent with the principles, criteria, 

and requirements of the Federalism 

Executive Order and the Department’s 

governing statute. Comments on these 

conclusions are welcomed and should 

be submitted to the docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 255 

Air carriers, Antitrust, Consumer 

protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Travel agents.

Accordingly, the Department of 

Transportation proposes to amend 14 

CFR part 255 as follows:

PART 255—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 255 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40101, 40102, 40105, 

40113, 41712.

2. Section 255.12 is revised to read as 

follows:

255.12. Termination. 

The rules in this part terminate on 

January 31, 2004.

Issued in Washington, DC on February 7, 

2003, under authority delegated by 49 CFR 

1.56a(h)2. 

Read C. Van de Water, 

Assistant Secretary for Aviation and 

International Affairs.

[FR Doc. 03–3606 Filed 2–12–03; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–62–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[CA086–SIP; FRL –7450–8] 

Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of 

Implementation Plan; Call for 

California State Implementation Plan 

Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to our authority in 

section 110(k)(5) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or Act), EPA is proposing to find 

that the California State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) is substantially inadequate for 

all nonattainment air pollution control 

districts in the State and for all 

attainment area districts that have an 

approved Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) program because the 

State cannot provide ‘‘necessary 

assurances’’ that it or the districts have 

authority to carry out the applicable 

nonattainment New Source Review 

(NSR) or PSD portions of the SIP. 

Specifically, sections 110(a)(2)(C) and (I) 

and 172 of the Act require the 

applicable implementation plan to 

contain a program for issuing permits to 

major stationary sources of air pollution 

pursuant to parts C and D of title I of 

the Act. In addition, section 110(a)(2)(E) 

requires that each SIP provide necessary 

assurances that the State or districts 

have adequate authority to carry out the 

SIP and that no state law prohibits the 

State or districts from carrying out any 

portion of the SIP. The California SIP 

does not meet these requirements 

because California Health & Safety Code 

section 42310(e) exempts new and 

modified major agricultural sources 

from all permitting, including PSD and 

NSR permitting otherwise required by 

parts C and D of title I of the Act. If EPA 

finalizes this proposed finding of 

substantial inadequacy, California will 

be required to amend its state law to 

eliminate the permitting exemption as it 

pertains to major agricultural sources of 

air pollution and submit the necessary 

assurances by November 23, 2003 to 

support an affirmative finding by EPA 

under section 110(a)(2)(E). If the State 

fails to submit the necessary assurances 

of authority or if EPA disapproves any 

such submittal in response to a final SIP 

call, sanctions will apply statewide 

pursuant to section 179 of the Act.

DATES: Comments must sent by March 

17, 2003. EPA will respond to 

comments in its final action on this 

proposal.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to: Gerardo 

Rios, Permits Office (AIR–3), Air 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

You can review and copy the existing 

SIP rules at EPA’s Region 9 office from 

8:30 am to 5 pm, Monday-Friday. A 

reasonable fee may be charged for 

copying. 

Copies of the SIP rules are also 

available for inspection at the following 

locations: California Air Resources 

Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule 

Evaluation Section, 1001 ‘‘I’’ Street, 

Sacramento, CA 95814.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Please call Gerardo Rios, EPA Region IX, 

at (415) 972–3974 or send e-mail to 

rios.gerardo@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. What action is EPA proposing? 

B. How does the California Health & Safety 

Code exemption affect the adequacy of 

the SIP? 

C. How can California correct the SIP 

inadequacy? 

D. Are individual districts required to 

revise approved SIP rules? 

E. What are the consequences if we finalize 

this proposed finding of substantial 

inadequacy? 

II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

D. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

E. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments 

F. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

G. Executive Order 13211, Actions that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

H. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act

I. Background 

A. What Action Is EPA Proposing? 

CAA section 110(k)(5) provides that 

whenever EPA finds the applicable 

implementation plan ‘‘is substantially 

inadequate to attain or maintain the 

relevant national ambient air quality 

7328 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 30 / Thursday, February 13, 2003 / Proposed Rules 

1EPA is using its authority in section 110(k)(5) to 

set a deadline that is less then 18 months. We 

believe the November 23, 2003, deadline is 

reasonable because action by this date is otherwise 

required to address the title V problems noted 

above.

2EPA has conducted a preliminary search for 

local rules exempting agricultural sources from NSR 

or PSD permitting requirements. The following 

districts may have one or more exemptions 

currently approved into the SIP: Bay Area, Butte, 

County, El Dorado, Feather River, Medocino, Placer, 

Sacramento and Yolo-Solano. As noted below, EPA 

will continue to evaluate the rules for all of the 

districts to identify more accurately any potentially 

problematic rule provisions in the SIP.

3We note that certain local exemptions are tied 

to exemptions such as Health and Safety Code 

section 42310(e) provided under State law. Removal 

of the exemption at the State level could 

automatically resolve authority problems at the 

district level. In addition, if the State legislature 

were to not only revise the language of Health and 

Safety Code section 42310(e) but also to clarify that 

any such local exemptions were also void, no 

further action by the districts may be necessary., 

Depending on the action at the State level, EPA may 

be able to make the required finding under 

110(a)(2)(E) that the authority to carry out the 

permitting programs is not prohibited by any State 

or local law.

standard, * * * or to otherwise comply 

with any requirement of this Act, the 

Administrator shall require the State to 

revise the plan as necessary to correct 

such inadequacies.’’ EPA today 

proposes to find that the approved 

California SIP is substantially 

inadequate because it cannot provide 

‘‘necessary assurances’’ that the State or 

districts have the authority to issue 

permits under their PSD and 

nonattainment NSR SIPs to all major 

sources because Health & Safety Code 

section 42310(e) exempts major 

agricultural stationary sources from 

these permitting requirements.

B. How Does the California Health & 

Safety Code Exemption for Agricultural 

Sources Affect the Adequacy of the SIP? 

For areas that fail to meet the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS), section 110 and title I, part D 

of the Act require SIPs to contain a 

program for issuing ‘‘permits for the 

construction and operation of new or 

modified major stationary sources 

anywhere in the nonattainment area, in 

accordance with section 173.’’ CAA 

section 172(c)(5). EPA regulations 

establish that an approvable SIP 

program for issuing preconstruction 

permits ‘‘shall apply to any new major 

stationary source or major modification 

that is major for the pollutant for which 

the area is designated nonattainment 

* * * .’’ 40 CFR 51.165(a)(2). Neither 

the Act nor EPA regulations allow any 

exemptions from permitting for new 

major sources, and our regulations 

contain only limited exemptions for 

major modifications. 40 CFR 

51.165(a)(1)(v)(C). 

For areas that attain the NAAQS, 

section 110 and title I, part C of the CAA 

require a PSD preconstruction 

permitting program for new and 

modified major stationary sources. See, 

e.g., CAA section 165. EPA regulations 

also set forth the requirements for PSD 

permitting programs. 40 CFR 51.166. 

Like nonattainment NSR, neither the 

Act nor the PSD regulations contain 

exemptions from permitting for new 

major sources, and our regulations 

provide only limited ones for major 

modifications. See 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(2)(iii). 

California Health & Safety Code 

section 42310(e) exempts from all air 

permitting ‘‘equipment used in 

agricultural operations in the growing of 

crops or the raising of fowl or animals.’’

As a result, the State and districts 

cannot issue permits to these 

agricultural sources, even if they are 

major stationary sources under the Act. 

The CAA NSR and PSD permitting 

requirements do not provide for this 

exemption. 

Section 110(a)(2)(E) of the Act 

requires the State to provide assurances 

that it has ‘‘adequate personnel, 

funding, and authority under State (and, 

as appropriate, local) law to carry out 

such implementation plan (and is not 

prohibited by any provision of Federal 

or State law from carrying out such 

implementation plan or portion thereof) 

* * * .’’ California Health & Safety 

Code section 42310(e) effectively 

prohibits the State and districts from 

fully implementing the SIP-approved 

NSR and PSD permitting programs for 

agricultural sources. Thus, the SIP does 

not comply with the requirement for the 

State to have adequate legal authority to 

fully implement the SIP. Therefore, the 

SIP for nonattainment areas and 

approved PSD programs in attainment 

areas in California is substantially 

inadequate and must be corrected. 

C. How Can California Correct the SIP 

Inadequacy? 

To correct the deficiency, EPA 

recommends that the State legislature 

amend Health & Safety Code section 

42310(e) to remove the exemption as it 

applies to major agricultural sources. 

The State is already subject to a 

sanctions clock based on the Notice of 

Deficiency (NOD) that EPA issued on 

May 22, 2002, 67 FR 35990, with respect 

to the State’s title V operating permits 

program. In that NOD, EPA explained 

that California Health & Safety Code 

section 42310(e) improperly exempted 

major agricultural sources from CAA 

title V permitting. The NOD stated: 

‘‘EPA has determined that significant 

action in this instance means the 

revision or removal of Health and Safety 

Code 42310(e) so that local air pollution 

control districts have the required 

authority to issue title V permits to 

stationary agricultural sources that are 

major sources of air pollution.’’ A 

similar correction with respect to NSR 

and PSD permitting is necessary to 

comply with this proposed action. 

The May 2002 NOD notes that the 

title V regulations instruct EPA to apply 

sanctions in accordance with section 

179(a) of the Act if California has not 

corrected the deficiency (removal or 

revision of the permitting exemption in 

Health and Safety Code section 

42310(e)) prior to November 23, 2003 

(18 months after the effective date of the 

NOD). The State legislature is required 

to take essentially the same action (i.e., 

remove the agricultural permitting 

exemption for major stationary sources) 

to correct the SIP inadequacy discussed 

in this proposed action. 

If EPA finalizes this SIP call and 

determines the State has failed to 

submit the necessary assurances 

addressing the deficiency by the 

required date, a sanctions clock would 

start for this SIP deficiency in 

accordance with section 179 of the Act. 

EPA proposes that if EPA determines 

the State fails to submit the necessary 

assurances to address the SIP call by 

November 23, 2003, or if EPA 

subsequently finds the correction does 

not adequately provide such assurances, 

sanctions would apply as specified 

under 40 CFR 52.31.1

D. Are Individual Districts Required To 

Revise Approved SIP Rules? 

EPA is not calling for specific 

revisions to district rules at this time. 

We note that several districts may have 

exemptions for agricultural sources in 

their local SIP-approved rules.2 We 

believe it is reasonable to wait for the 

State legislature to correct Health and 

Safety Code section 42310(e) first so that 

it is clear whether any such exemptions 

at the district level represent authority 

problems under section 110(a)(2)(E).3

EPA, nonetheless, encourages districts 

to evaluate their SIP-approved rules to 

ensure that exemptions do not create 

potential authority problems. Once the 

State acts to address Health and Safety 

Code section 42310(e), EPA will work 

with the districts to determine if further 

rulemaking is necessary to address 

specific local deficiencies that remain 

after the State law change.

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 30 / Thursday, February 13, 2003 / Proposed Rules 7329

4 It is unclear whether a requirement to submit a 

SIP revision would constitute a federal mandate. 

The obligation for a state to revise its SIP that arises 

out of sections 110(a) and 110(k)(5) of the CAA is 

not legally enforceable by a court of law, and at 

most is a condition for continued receipt of 

highway funds. Therefore, it is possible to view an 

action requiring such a submittal as not creating 

any enforceable duty within the meaning of section 

421(5)(9a)(I) of UMRA (2 U.S.C. 658 (a)(I)). Even if 

it did, the duty could be viewed as falling within 

the exception for a condition of Federal assistance 

under section 421(5)(a)(i)(I) of UMRA (2 U.S.C. 

658(5)(a)(i)(I)).

E. What Are the Consequences if We 

Finalize This Proposed Finding of 

Substantial Inadequacy? 

If EPA finalizes this SIP call, as 

proposed, the State would need to 

submit to EPA a SIP revision providing 

the necessary assurances that it (or the 

districts) can fully implement the 

required NSR and PSD programs within 

the State. If the State fails to submit the 

required assurances or if EPA finds the 

submittal incomplete or disapprovable, 

sanctions would apply in accordance 

with CAA sections 179(a) and (b) and 

EPA regulations at 40 CFR 52.31. There 

are two types of sanctions: highway 

funding sanctions (section 179(b)(1)) 

and offset sanctions (section 179(b)(2)). 

Pursuant to our regulations at 40 CFR 

52.31, offset sanctions will apply 18 

months following a finding by EPA 

under section 179(a); highway funding 

sanctions would apply six months later. 

II. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735 (October 4, 1993)), the Agency 

must determine whether the regulatory 

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore 

subject to OMB review and the 

requirements of the Executive Order. 

The Executive Order defines 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as one 

that is likely to result in a rule that may: 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or tribal governments or 

communities; 

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has historically exempted from 

Executive Order 12866 regulatory 

actions governing revisions to SIPs. It 

has been determined that today’s 

proposed call for revisions to the SIP 

would not, in any event, be a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

the terms of Executive Order 12866 and 

is therefore not subject to OMB review. 

B. 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.

Today’s proposed SIP call would not 

establish requirements applicable to 

small entities. Instead, it would require 

the State of California and several local 

air districts to develop, adopt, and 

submit SIP revisions that would provide 

the necessary assurances that the 

applicable NSR and PSD programs do 

not exempt major agricultural sources. 

This rule will not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities because the rule does not 

establish requirements applicable to 

small entities. Therefore, the 

Administrator certifies that this action 

will not have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Under sections 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 

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 action 

proposed 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. The 

proposed action will require the State of 

California and several local air districts 

to revise laws and regulations governing 

exemptions for agricultural sources. 

This requirement, even if considered a 

federal mandate,4 would not result in 

aggregate costs over $100 million to 

either the state or local districts. In 

addition, this proposed rule, if finalized, 

will not significantly or uniquely impact 

small governments.

D. 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 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 does 

not impose a new enforceable duty on 

the State (see infra note 1), 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. 

7330 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 30 / Thursday, February 13, 2003 / Proposed Rules 

E. 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 because it 

does not apply to any Tribes or 

otherwise 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, nonetheless, specifically solicits 

additional comment on this proposed 

rule from tribal officials.

F. 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. 

G. 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. 

H. 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, New Source Review, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds.

Dated: January 31, 2003. 

Wayne Nastri, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 03–3416 Filed 2–12–03; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[CA280–0390A ; FRL–7450–9] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, San Joaquin 

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 

District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District’s (SJVUAPCD 

or District) revised permit exemption 

and new source review (NSR) rules, 

Rules 2020 and 2201, respectively, for 

stationary sources. The District has 

revised Rules 2020 and 2201 and 

submitted them to EPA as a revision to 

the California State Implementation 

Plan (SIP). The revisions address 

deficiencies identified in our July 19, 

2001 limited approval and limited 

disapproval of the previous version of 

these rules. 

EPA is also publishing in today’s 

Federal Register an interim final 

determination that the District has 

corrected the deficiencies noted in the 

limited disapproval. The interim final 

determination will stay the sanctions 

clock triggered by the July 19, 2001 

limited approval/limited disapproval of 

the previous versions of Rules 2020 and 

2201. If EPA takes final action to 

approve these rules, the sanctions clock 

for this action will be stopped.

DATES: Comments must be sent by 

March 17, 2003. EPA will respond to 

comments in a final action on this 

proposed approval.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to: Ed Pike, 

Permits Office [AIR–3], Air Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

You can review and copy the 

submitted Rules 2020 and 2201, the 

existing SIP rules, and EPA’s Technical 

Support Document (TSD) at EPA’s 

Region 9 office from 8:30 am to 5 pm, 

Monday-Friday. A reasonable fee may 

be charged for copying. 

Copies of the submitted Rules are also 

available for inspection 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 Avenue, Fresno, CA 

93726.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Please call Ed Pike at (415) 972–3970 or 

send e-mail to pike.ed@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.

Table of Contents 

I. What is EPA proposing to approve? 

II. Background 

A. History of SJVUAPCD NSR SIP 

revisions. 

B. Deficiencies in SJVUAPCD NSR 

regulations and required action. 

C. How has SJVUAPCD corrected these 

rule deficiencies? 

1. Offset equivalency 

a. What is the basis for allowing an annual 

offset equivalency demonstration? 

b. What is the offset equivalency tracking 

system in Rule 2201 and how does it 

satisfy the deficiency noted in the 

limited disapproval? 

c. Does the tracking system replace 

applicable NSR requirements? 

d. What are the requirements for being an 

enforceable emission reduction? 

e. What kinds of emission reductions may 

be creditable? 

f. Are pre-1990 emission reductions 

creditable? 

2. Agricultural exemption 

a. How has the District corrected this 

deficiency? 

b. How is EPA addressing the State 

exemption? 

3. Lowest Achievable Emission Rate 

Applicability 

D. Summary 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act