37926 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 118 / Monday, June 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on June 9,

2000.

Eric Bries,

Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–15425 Filed 6–16–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[AZ092–002; FRL–6718–9]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Arizona—

Maricopa County PM–10

Nonattainment Area; Serious Area Plan

for Attainment of the Annual PM–10

Standard; Reopening of Comment

Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of

comment period.

SUMMARY: EPA is reopening the

comment period for its proposed action

to approve provisions of the Revised

MAG 1999 Serious Area Particulate Plan

for PM–10 for the Maricopa County

(Phoenix) Nonattainment Area,

February 2000, and the control

measures on which it relies, that

address the annual PM–10 national

ambient air quality standard. As part of

this proposal, we also proposed to grant

Arizona’s request to extend the Clean

Air Act deadline for attaining the

annual PM–10 standard in the Phoenix

area from 2001 to 2006 and to approve

two particulate matter rules adopted by

the Maricopa County Environmental

Services Department and Maricopa

County’s Residential Woodburning

Restrictions Ordinance.

DATES: Any comments on this proposal

must arrive by July 3, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Mail comments to Frances

Wicher, Air Planning Office (AIR–2),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105–3901.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Frances Wicher, Air Planning Office

(AIR–4), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IX, (415) 744–1248.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April

13, 2000, we proposed to approve the

serious area air quality plan for

attainment of the annual PM–10

standard in the Phoenix, Arizona,

metropolitan area. The proposed actions

are based on our initial determination

that this plan complies with the Clean

Air Act’s requirements for attainment of

the annual PM–10 standard in serious

PM–10 nonattainment areas.

Specifically, we proposed to approve

the following elements of the plan as

they apply to the annual PM–10

standard:

• The base year emissions inventory

of PM–10 sources,

• The demonstration that the plan

provides for implementation of

reasonably available control measures

(RACM) and best available control

measures (BACM),

• The demonstration that attainment

of the PM–10 annual standard by the

Clean Air Act deadline of December 31,

2001 is impracticable,

• The demonstration that attainment

of the PM–10 annual standard will

occur by the most expeditious

alternative date practicable, in this case,

December 31, 2006,

• The demonstration that the plan

provides for reasonable further progress

and quantitative milestones,

• The demonstration that the plan

includes to our satisfaction the most

stringent measures found in the

implementation plan of another state or

are achieved in practice in another state,

and can feasibly be implemented in the

area,

• The demonstration that major

sources of PM–10 precursors such as

nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide do

not contribute significantly to violations

of the annual PM–10 standard, and

• The transportation conformity

budget.

We also proposed to grant Arizona’s

request to extend the attainment date for

the annual PM–10 standard from

December 31, 2001 to December 31,

2006.

Finally, we are proposing to approve

Maricopa County’s fugitive dust rules,

Rules 310 and 301.01, and its residential

woodburning restriction ordinance.

The proposal action provided a 60

day public comment period that ended

on June 12, 2000. In response to a

request from City of Tempe, Arizona, we

are reopening the comment period for

an additional 14 days.

Dated: June 10, 2000.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 00–15394 Filed 6–16–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[CA–019–FOI, FRL–6719–2]

Clean Air Act Reclassification and

Finding of Failure to Implement a State

Implementation Plan; California, San

Joaquin Valley Nonattainment Area;

Ozone

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to find that the

San Joaquin Valley serious ozone

nonattainment area did not attain the 1-

hour ozone national ambient air quality

standard by November 15, 1999, the

Clean Air Act’s (CAA) attainment

deadline for serious ozone

nonattainment areas. If EPA makes final

this proposed finding, the San Joaquin

Valley nonattainment area will be

reclassified by operation of law to

severe.

EPA also proposes to find that the

approved serious area ozone State

Implementation Plan for the San

Joaquin Valley nonattainment area has

not been fully implemented. If EPA

makes final this proposed

nonimplementation finding, the San

Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution

Control District will have to correct the

specified deficiencies within 18 months

of the final finding or be subject to

sanctions pursuant to section 179(b) of

the CAA.

DATES: Comments on these proposed

actions must be received by July 19,

2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed

to: John Ungvarsky, Planning Office

(AIR–2), Air Division, EPA Region IX,

75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA

94105; ungvarsky.john@epa.gov.

Copies of the proposed rule, the

technical support document for this

rulemaking, and EPA policies governing

nonattainment and nonimplementation

findings are contained in the docket for

this rulemaking. The docket is available

for inspection during normal business

hours at the address listed above. A

copy of this proposed rule and the TSD

are also available in the air programs

section of EPA Region 9’s website, http:/

/www.epa.gov/region09.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

Ungvarsky, Planning Office (AIR–2), Air

Division, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415)

744–1286.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 118 / Monday, June 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules 37927

1 If a state does not have the clean data necessary

to show attainment of the 1-hour standard but does

have clean air in the year immediately preceding

the attainment date and has fully implemented its

applicable SIP, it may apply to us, under CAA

section 181(a)(5), for a one-year extension of the

attainment date. We do not discuss this provision

further in today’s proposal because California did

not apply for an extension of the attainment date

for the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area, the

area did not have the requisite clean air data, and,

as we propose to find, the State has not

implemented its applicable SIP.

2See generally 57 FR 13506 (April 16, 1992) and

Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, Acting Director,

Air Quality Management Division, EPA, to Regional

Air Office Directors; ‘‘Procedures for Processing

Bump Ups and Extensions for Marginal Ozone

Nonattainment Areas,’’ February 3, 1994. While

explicitly applicable only to marginal areas, the

general procedures for evaluating attainment in this

memorandum apply regardless of the initial

classification of an area because all findings of

attainment are made pursuant to the same Clean Air

Act requirements in section 181(b)(2).

I. The Proposed Finding of Failure To

Attain

A. The San Joaquin Valley’s Current

Status for the 1-Hour Ozone Standard

The San Joaquin Valley ozone

nonattainment area includes the

southern portion of California’s central

valley and the eastern part of Kern

County that is located in the Southeast

Desert Air Basin. The local air pollution

control agency for the Valley portion of

the nonattainment area is the San

Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution

Control District (SJVUAPCD) and for

eastern Kern, the Kern County Air

Pollution Control District (KCAPCD).

The area is currently classified as

serious for the 1-hour ozone national

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS).

40 CFR § 81.305.

When the Clean Air Act (CAA)

Amendments were enacted in 1990,

each area of the Country that was

designated nonattainment for the 1-hour

ozone standard, including the San

Joaquin Valley, was classified by

operation of law as ‘‘marginal,’’

‘‘moderate,’’ ‘‘serious,’’ ‘‘severe,’’ or

‘‘extreme’’ depending on the severity of

the area’s air quality problem. CAA

sections 107(d)(1)(C) and 181(a). Based

on its air quality during the 1987–1989

period, the San Joaquin Valley

nonattainment area was initially

classified as serious with an attainment

date of no later than November 15, 1999.

See 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991)

and CAA section 181(a)(1).

B. Clean Air Act Requirements for

Attainment Findings

Under CAA section 181(b)(2)(A), we

must determine within six months of

the applicable attainment date whether

an ozone nonattainment area has

attained the 1-hour ozone standard. If

we find that a serious area has not

attained the standard and does not

qualify for an extension, it is reclassified

by operation of law to severe.1 CAA

section 181(b)(2)(A) requires us to base

our determination of attainment or

failure to attain on the area’s design

value as of its applicable attainment

date, which for the San Joaquin Valley

nonattainment area is November 15,

1999.

The 1-hour ozone NAAQS is 0.12

ppm not to be exceeded on average

more than one day per year over any

three year period. 40 CFR § 50.9 and

Appendix H. Under our policies, we

determine if an area has attained the

one-hour standard by calculating, at

each monitor, the average number of

days over the standard per year during

the preceding three year period.2 40

CFR part 50, Appendix H. This means

that if an area has four or more

exceedances at a single monitor during

a 3-year period, the average number of

exceedance days per year exceeds one

and the area has not attained the

standard. For this proposal, we have

based our determination of whether the

San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area

attained the 1-hour ozone standard by

November 15, 1999 on both the area’s

design value and the average number of

exceedance days per year during the

1997 to 1999 period.

The effect of a reclassification to

severe on the San Joaquin Valley

nonattainment area is to set a new

attainment deadline for the area of

November 15, 2005 and to require the

State to submit a new attainment plan

that meets the CAA’s requirements for

severe ozone nonattainment areas. CAA

sections 181(a) and 182(i). Under

section 182(i), we may set the submittal

deadlines for these new planning

requirements.

C. The San Joaquin Valley

Nonattainment Area Failed to Attain by

its CAA Deadline

Table 1 lists each monitoring site in

the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment

area that experienced 4 or more days

over the standard in the period 1997 to

1999. For each of these monitors, the

table lists the number of days over the

standard, average number of days per

year over the standard, and the design

value during the 1997 to 1999 period.

For each of these sites, the average

number of exceedance days per year

over the 3-year period 1997–1999

exceeds one. The area’s design value,

which is the highest design value among

the area’s monitors, is 0.161 at the

Clovis monitor. Because the average

number of exceedance days per year for

1997–99 exceeds one and the area’s

design value is above the 1-hour ozone

standard of 0.12 ppm, we are proposing

the find that the San Joaquin Valley

serious ozone nonattainment area failed

to attain by its applicable CAA deadline

of November 15, 1999.

TABLE 1.—OZONE AIR QUALITY IN THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY NONATTAINMENT AREA (1997–1999)

Monitoring site

Number of

days over

the standard

1997–1999

Average

number of

exceedance

days per year

Site design

value (ppm)

Fresno—4706 E. Drummond ................................................................................................................. 12 4.0 0.137

Fresno—3425 N. First ........................................................................................................................... 20 6.7 0.146

Fresno—Sierra Skypark#2 .................................................................................................................... 15 5.0 0.141

Parlier ..................................................................................................................................................... 36 12.0 0.145

Clovis ..................................................................................................................................................... 40 13.3 0.161

Edison .................................................................................................................................................... 27 8.3 0.154

Maricopa (97–98 only) ........................................................................................................................... 8 4 0.137

Arvin ....................................................................................................................................................... 28 6.3 0.137

Hanford .................................................................................................................................................. 7 2.3 0.128

Turlock ................................................................................................................................................... 4 1.3 0.127

Visalia .................................................................................................................................................... 8 2.7 0.127

Merced ................................................................................................................................................... 5 1.7 0.132

37928 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 118 / Monday, June 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules

3The Edwards monitor is a special purpose

monitor (SPM) operated by the Air Force on

Edwards Air Force Base in eastern Kern County.

Under applicable Agency policy, we make

attainment determinations for ozone nonattainment

areas using all available, quality-assured air quality

data including any available quality-assured data

from SPM sites that meet the requirements of 40

CFR § 58.13. See Memorandum John Seitz, Director,

OAQPS, to Regional Air Directors; ‘‘Agency Policy

on the Use of Ozone Special Purpose Monitoring

Data,’’ August 22, 1997. We have evaluated the

Edwards site and its quality assurance information

and have determined that its data are valid for this

attainment determination and therefore should be

used in making the finding of nonanttainment.

4Under the California Clean Air Act, air districts

must submit a progress report and plan revision to

the State every three years. The deadline for the

next triennial update is December 2000. (See

California Health & Safety Code Sections 40924(b)

and 40925(a).)

5Ozone is not emitted directly into the air, but

is formed through the photochemical reaction of

NOX and VOCs.

6Section 182(d)(3) sets a deadline of December

31, 2000 to submit the plan revision requiring fees

for major sources should the area fail to attain. This

date can be adjusted pursuant to CAA section

182(i). We propose to adjust this date to coincide

with the submittal deadline for the rest of the severe

area plan requirements.

7The CCAA requires that California air districts

develop attainment plans that achieve a five percent

per year reduction in each nonattainment pollutant

(or its precursors) or that rely on the

implementation of all feasible measures to reach

attainment (California Health & Safety Code Section

40914). CARB continually evaluates State air plans

against the all feasible measures criteria. CARB’s

most recent evaluation of the San Joaquin Valley’s

compliance with the all feasible measures provision

of the CCAA was released in the October 8, 1999

staff report entitled ‘‘Public hearing to Consider

Approval of the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air

Pollution Control District’s Triennial Progress

Report and Plan Revision 1995–1997 Under the

California Clean Air Act.’’

8Section 182(i) of the CAA allows EPA to adjust

any applicable deadlines ‘‘* * * to the extent such

adjustment is necessary or appropriate to assure

consistency among the required submissions.’’

TABLE 1.—OZONE AIR QUALITY IN THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY NONATTAINMENT AREA (1997–1999)—Continued

Monitoring site

Number of

days over

the standard

1997–1999

Average

number of

exceedance

days per year

Site design

value (ppm)

Edwards 3 ............................................................................................................................................... 6 2.0 0.139

D. Failure To Attain Triggers

Reclassification to Severe

Nonattainment and Required Submittal

of a Severe Area Plan

Under section 181(a)(1) of the Act,

the attainment deadline for serious

ozone nonattainment areas reclassified

to severe under section 181(b)(2) is as

expeditiously as practicable but no later

than November 15, 2005. Under section

182(i), such areas are required to submit

SIP revisions addressing the severe area

requirements for the 1-hour ozone

NAAQS. These requirements are found

in CAA section 182(d). Section 182(i)

further provides that we may adjust the

CAA deadlines for submitting these

severe area SIP requirements.

Pursuant to section 182(i), we intend

to require submittal of the severe area

SIP revisions no later than 18 months

from the effective date of the area’s

reclassification. We believe that an 18-

month schedule is appropriate because

of the complexities of developing a

revised attainment and rate of progress

plan for the area and then preparing a

new, severe area plan. Furthermore, it

allows the San Joaquin Valley to

incorporate into the federally-required

severe area plan elements of the

California Clean Air Act-mandated

revisions to its state plan that are due in

December 2000.4

Under section 182(d), severe area

plans are required to meet all the

requirements for serious area plans plus

the requirements for severe areas,

including, but not limited to: (1) a 25

ton per year major stationary source

threshold; (2) additional reasonably

available control technology (RACT)

rules for sources subject to the new

lower major source applicability cutoff;

(3) a new source review (NSR) offset

requirement of at least 1.3 to 1; (4) a rate

of progress in emission reductions of

ozone precursors of at least 3 percent

per year from 2000 until the attainment

year; and (5) a fee requirement for major

sources of volatile organic compounds

(VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) 5

should the area fail to attain by 2005.6

We have issued a ‘‘General Preamble for

the Implementation of Title I of the

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990’’

that sets forth our preliminary views on

these section 182 requirements and how

we will act on SIPs submitted under

Title I. See generally 57 FR 13498 (April

16, 1992) and 57 FR 18070 (April 28,

1992).

The San Joaquin Valley’s severe area

plan must also contain adopted

regulations, and/or enforceable

commitments to adopt and implement

control measures in regulatory form by

specified dates, sufficient to make the

required rate of progress and to attain

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS as

expeditiously as practicable but no later

than November 15, 2005. It is the

responsibility of the California Air

Resources Board (CARB) and the air

districts to determine the appropriate

mix of measures. Nevertheless, for the

SJVUAPCD, we strongly suggest that

consideration be given to including in

the revised plan measures for source

categories where CARB has identified

the current San Joaquin Valley

requirements as not meeting the State’s

‘‘all feasible measures’’ criteria. These

source categories are: Restaurants, Chain

Driven Charbroilers; Stationary IC

Engines; Bakery Ovens; Fugitive

Emissions of VOC from Oil and Gas

Production and Processing Facilities;

Refineries; Chemical Plants and

Pipeline Transfer Stations; Refinery

Boilers (also Small Industrial,

Institutional and Commercial Boilers,

Steam Generators and Process Heaters);

Adhesives and Sealants; Automotive

Refinishing; Pleasure Craft Coating

Operations; Stationary Gas Turbines;

and Polymeric Foam Product

Manufacturing.7

The new attainment demonstration

should be based on the best information

available. Currently, there is a

comprehensive ozone study being

undertaken in the Central Valley, called

the Central California Ozone Study

(CCOS). While we realize that the

results from CCOS may not be

completed in time to develop a new air

quality model for use in the severe area

plan, the State should, to the extent

possible, use available new data from

CCOS to improve the performance of the

existing model.

Two of the new severe area SIP

requirements, the 25 ton per year (tpy)

major source cutoff for VOC and NOX

and the NSR offset ratio of 1.3:1, will

require revisions to existing SJVUAPCD

and KCAQMD regulations. We discuss

the timeframes for these revisions

below.

1. San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD

We propose that San Joaquin Valley

Rule 2201, which implements the

federal NSR program, must be revised

within 180 days of the final date of the

reclassification to ensure that the

District’s definitions of ‘‘Major Source’’

and ‘‘Distance Offset Ratio’’ reflect the

new severe area requirements.8 We

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 118 / Monday, June 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules 37929

9Letter from David P. Howekamp, Director of the

Air & Toxics Division, EPA Region IX, to James

Boyd, Executive Officer, CARB, dated June 8, 1995.

10 Kern County Rule 210.1 already requires an

offset ratio of 1:1.3, so the District does not have

to revise the rule to meet this CAA requirement for

severe areas.

propose to set the deadline to complete

and submit such rule revisions at 180

days because it is consistent with the 6

month time frame we gave Sacramento

to revise its NSR rule following a

reclassification to severe 9 and with the

time frame provided for similar changes

in the Title V operating permits arena

(40 CFR part 70.4(i)). See below. If

SJVUAPCD fails to submit NSR rule

revisions that address the new severe

area requirements within the 180-day

deadline, we will start a sanctions clock

pursuant to CAA section 179(a)(1) for

failure to submit a required SIP revision.

San Joaquin Valley Rule 2520, which

implements the federal Title V operating

permits program, must also be revised

within 180 days of the final date of the

reclassification to ensure that the

District’s definition of ‘‘major source’’

(and hence, Title V applicability)

reflects the lower VOC and NOX

threshold (40 CFR part 70.4(i)). Since

the District’s definition of ‘‘Major

Source’’ in Rule 2520 references the

District’s NSR definition of ‘‘New and

Modified Stationary Source,’’ the

necessary revision could be

accomplished simply by modifying NSR

Rule 2201. If the required revision is not

made within 180 days, then the San

Joaquin Valley will be subject to the

sanctions provisions outlined in 40 CFR

sections 70.10(a)(1)(i) and (ii).

The lowering of the major source

threshold from 50 tpy to 25 tpy will

make sources previously considered

nonmajor to become major, thereby

subjecting them to Title V. These newly

major sources must submit Title V

permit applications within one year of

the date that the SJVUAPCD makes the

required revision to Rule 2520. The

District then has 18 months from receipt

of a complete application to take final

action on each permit application (40

CFR part 70.7(a)(2)). We recognize that

the new lower threshold of 25 tpy is

expected to result in an almost doubling

of Title V sources in the San Joaquin

Valley. We will work with the District

in meeting the 18-month permit

issuance deadline and will evaluate

their progress at that time.

2. Kern County APCD

We propose that Kern County Rule

210.1, which implements the federal

NSR program, must be revised within

180 days of the final date of the

reclassification to ensure that the

District’s definition of ‘‘Major Source’’

reflects the new severe area

requirements. We propose to set the

deadline to complete and submit such

rule revisions at 180 days because it is

consistent with the 6 month time frame

we gave Sacramento to revise its NSR

rule following a reclassification to

severe and with the time frame provided

for similar changes in the Title V

operating permits arena (40 CFR part

70.4(i)). (See below.) If KCAPCD fails to

submit NSR rule revisions that address

the new severe area requirements within

the 180-day deadline, we will start a

sanctions clock pursuant to CAA section

179(a)(1) for failure to submit a required

SIP revision.10

Kern County Rule 201.1, which

implements the federal Title V operating

permits program, must also be revised

within 180 days of the final date of the

reclassification to ensure that the

District’s definition of ‘‘major source’’

(and hence, Title V applicability)

reflects the lower VOC and NOX

threshold (40 CFR part 70.4(i)). If the

required revision is not made within

180 days, then KCAPCD will be subject

to the sanctions provisions outlined in

40 CFR sections 70.10(a)(1)(i) and (ii).

The lowering of the major source

threshold from 50 tpy to 25 tpy will

make sources previously considered

nonmajor become major, thereby

subjecting them to Title V. These newly

major sources must submit Title V

permit applications within one year of

the date that KCAPCD makes the

required revision to Rule 210.1. The

District then has 18 months from receipt

of a complete application to take final

action on each permit application (40

CFR part 70.7(a)(2)). We recognize that

the new lower threshold of 25 tpy will

likely increase the number of Title V

sources in eastern Kern County. We will

work with the District in meeting the

18-month permit issuance deadline and

will evaluate its progress at that time.

E. Transportation Conformity

Implications of Reclassification

The ozone reclassification would not

immediately affect the transportation

conformity budgets in the San Joaquin

Valley. The existing approved VOC and

NOx serious attainment budgets limit

emissions of ozone precursors for the

attainment year 1999. Currently, since

no future year ozone budgets have been

developed, these budgets apply to all

future years. However, once new severe

area budgets are submitted and have

been determined adequate, those severe

budgets would set emission caps for any

milestone years (2002), the new

attainment year (2005), and all years

beyond the attainment year. The serious

budgets would only apply for the year

1999 and all subsequent years until the

new milestone or attainment budget

dates.

Establishing new severe budgets in

the San Joaquin Valley is particularly

challenging because there are eight

separate transportation agencies within

the nonattainment boundary. The severe

area SIP should clearly identify and

precisely quantify conformity budgets

for any milestone years (2002), the

attainment year (2005), and, if desired,

future years. To be adequate, the severe

attainment demonstration must also

contain emissions and air dispersion

modeling that show motor vehicle

emissions at the budget levels will

achieve the required rate of progress

milestones and timely attainment

(taking into consideration all emission

sources and growth). The modeling

should be done for all years that

establish conformity budgets. The data

(vehicle miles traveled [VMT]) for the

modeling and the budgets should be

established in consultation with

appropriate local, state and federal

agencies to assure that the latest

estimates of growth are incorporated

into the SIP.

The attainment demonstration may

establish emissions budgets for subareas

within the region only if the modeling

in the SIP demonstrates that, when all

subarea budgets are considered, the area

will still result in attainment of the

standard. Establishment of subarea

budgets, however, must be fully

supported in the SIP documentation

since development of the subarea

budgets would allow individual

subareas (e.g., counties) to complete

separate conformity determinations. In

addition, the subarea budgets would

limit growth of emissions in each

individual area—there would be no

allowance for shifting of growth from

one subarea to another subarea within

the nonattainment area.

II. The Proposed Nonimplementation

Finding

A. San Joaquin Valley Serious Area

Ozone Nonattainment Plan

The CAA required California to

submit a serious area ozone SIP for the

San Joaquin Valley that demonstrated a

minimum rate of progress towards

attainment and attainment of the 1-hour

ozone NAAQS as expeditiously as

practicable but no later than November

15, 1999. CAA sections 181(a) and

182(c). The deadline for the submittal of

this SIP was November 15, 1994. CAA

section 182(c)(2).

37930 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 118 / Monday, June 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules

11See Table 4–1 in ‘‘The Ozone Attainment

Demonstration Plan,’’ SJVAPCD, adopted November

14, 1994.

12As noted before, the SJV nonattainment area

also includes eastern Kern County which is under

the separate jurisdiction of the Kern County APCD.

Because we are proposing no sanctionable findings

applicable to the area under the jurisdiction of the

KCAPCD, any sanctions that go into effect in the

rest of the SJV nonattainment area because of this

proposed nonimplementation finding will not

apply to eastern Kern County. We note that a

finding of failure to attain pursuant to CAA section

181(b)(1)(A) is not sanctionable under the Act.

On November 15, 1994, the California

Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted

‘‘The 1994 California State

Implementation Plan for Ozone,’’ a

comprehensive ozone plan for the State

of California that included a local

nonattainment plan developed for the

San Joaquin Valley by the SJVUAPCD

(1994 San Joaquin Valley plan).

B. EPA’s Approval of the San Joaquin

Valley Serious Area Ozone Plan

In order to be approved, the 1994 San

Joaquin Valley plan had to meet the

requirements for serious ozone

nonattainment areas in CAA section

182(c). We reviewed the 1994 San

Joaquin Valley plan against these

requirements and approved it as part of

the California Ozone SIP on January 8,

1997. Among other things, the plan

demonstrated that, through a

combination of State and local control

measures, the San Joaquin Valley would

attain the 1-hour ozone standard by

November 15, 1999. For a detailed

discussion of our approval, please refer

to the proposed and final rulemakings

published in the Federal Register on

March 18, 1996 (61 FR 10920) and

January 8, 1997 (62 FR 1150).

C. CAA Requirements for Plan

Implementation and NAAQS

Attainment

Following our approval of a

nonattainment plan, the plan must be

implemented to assure that the

necessary progress toward and

attainment of the relevant air quality

standard by the applicable deadline.

CAA section 179(a)(4).

Under CAA section 179(a)(4), we have

the discretionary authority to make a

finding of nonimplementation if we

determine that a state has failed to

implement any requirement of an

approved plan or approved part of a

plan. If we make a final finding of

nonimplementation after public notice

and comment, the State must correct the

failure to implement within 18 months

or sanctions will be applied to the area

pursuant to CAA sections 179(a) and (b).

D. Proposed Finding of Failure To

Implement the 1994 San Joaquin Valley

Plan

In its most basic sense, plan

implementation means that the control

(and other) measures relied on for

attainment are being adopted, are in

effect, and are achieving their specified

emissions reductions. Plan

implementation can also apply to any

other requirement in a plan such as a

requirement for a reasonable further

progress demonstration. When a

requirement in a plan has a future date

associated with it, there can be no

failure to implement that requirement

until the date associated with it has

passed.

The 1994 San Joaquin Valley plan

identifies 20 local stationary and area

source control measures or control

measure revisions and several

transportation control measures that

together were projected to achieve a

31.9 ton per day (tpd) reduction in

volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and

a 37.2 tpd reduction in nitrogen oxides

(NOX).11 These measures were to be

adopted by the SJVUAPCD. We are

proposing to find that the SJVUAPCD

has failed to implement the 1994 San

Joaquin Valley plan because the

deadlines in the plan for adopting and

implementing six of the 20 measures

(see list in Table 2) have passed and the

measures have not been adopted or

implemented. These six measures were

projected to achieve a total of 8.09 tpd

reductions in VOC emissions in 1999.11

TABLE 2.—IMPLEMENTATION DEFICIENCIES IN THE 1994 SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY PLAN

Control measure title Date when rule was

required to be adopted

Date when rule was

required to be implemented

Projected emissions

reductions

Rule 4601 Architectural Coatings ......................................................... 1Q/96 .......................... 1Q/98 .......................... 1.51 tpd VOC.

Rule 4662 Organic Solvent Degreasing ............................................... 1Q/96 .......................... 1Q/98 .......................... 2.44 tpd VOC.

Rule 4692 Commercial Charbroiling ..................................................... 2Q/96 .......................... 2Q/98 .......................... 0.39 tpd VOC.

Rule 4623 Organic Liquid Storage ....................................................... 3Q/95 .......................... 3Q/98* ........................ 3.0 tpd VOC.

Rule 4411 Oil Production Well Cellars ................................................. 2Q/96 .......................... 2Q/98 .......................... 0.56 tpd VOC.

Rule 4663 Organic Solvent Waste ....................................................... 2Q/96 .......................... 2Q/98 .......................... 0.19 tpd VOC.

The SIP indicated that implementation of this Rule could extend beyond 1999.

If we make final this proposed

nonimplementation finding, SJVUAPCD

must correct the implementation

deficiencies in order to stop sanction

clocks triggered by the finding under

CAA section 179(a). In order to correct

the implementation deficiencies and

stop the sanction clocks, SJVUAPCD

must adopt as rules and implement the

measures listed in Table 2 in a manner

that will achieve in total the 8.09 tpd of

emissions reductions specified in the

SIP for them. SJVUAPCD must adopt

these rules as expeditiously as

practicable. Additionally, it must also

provide for the implementation of the

rules as expeditiously as practicable but

implementation should be no later than

November 15, 2002, the first rate of

progress milestone.

E. Sanction Clocks for the Failure To

Implement

Under CAA section 179(a)(4), if we

make a finding that a requirement of an

approved plan is not being

implemented, then the deficiency

identified in the finding must be

corrected within 18 months or sanctions

will be applied. There are two types of

sanctions: (1) Highway sanctions (CAA

section 179(b)(1)) and (2) offset

sanctions (CAA section 179(b)(2)).

Under these sanction provisions, if

SJVUAPCD has not adopted the

measures listed in Table 2 with

implementation deadlines of on or

before November 15, 2002 within 18

months of the effective date of a final

finding, the 2 to 1 offset sanction in

CAA section 179(b) will apply to that

portion of the San Joaquin Valley

nonattainment area under the

jurisdiction of the SJVUAPCD.12 This

sanction requires a company that is

constructing a new or modifying an

existing facility over a certain size to

reduce emissions in the area by 2 tons

of VOCs or NOx for every new ton of

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 118 / Monday, June 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules 37931

VOC or NOx the new/modified facility

will emit.

If the SJVUAPCD still has not

corrected the deficiencies six months

after the offset sanction is imposed, then

the highway approval and funding

sanction will apply in the San Joaquin

Valley portion of nonattainment area.

This sanction prohibits the U.S.

Department of Transportation from

approving or funding all but a few

specific types of transportation projects.

The order of sanctions, offsets

sanctions first then highway sanctions,

is set in EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR

52.31. If sanctions have been imposed,

they will be lifted when we determine,

after an opportunity for public

comment, that the implementation

deficiencies have been corrected.

III. Summary of EPA Proposals

We propose to find that the San

Joaquin Valley ozone nonattainment

area has failed to attain the federal 1-

hour ozone standard by its CAA

deadline of November 15, 1999. If we

make final this finding, the San Joaquin

Valley nonattainment area will be

reclassified by operation of law to

severe and California must submit to

EPA, within 18 months of the effective

date of the finding, a severe area

nonattainment plan that provides for the

attainment of the federal 1-hour ozone

standard as expeditiously as practicable,

but no later than November 15, 2005

and meets the requirements of CAA

section 182(d).

We also propose to find that the

SJVUAPCD has failed to fully

implement the approved 1994 San

Joaquin Valley ozone plan. If we make

final this finding, in order to avoid CAA

sanctions, SJVUAPCD must adopt

within 18 months the six measures

listed in Table 2 of this preamble and

provide for their implementation as

expeditiously as practicable but no later

than November 15, 2002. These

measures must be sufficient to achieve

an 8.09 tpd reduction in VOC. If

sanctions are imposed, they will be

terminated once we find that all the

deficiencies have been corrected.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866 (E.O. 12866)

Under E.O. 12866, (58 FR 51735,

October 4, 1993), EPA is required to

determine whether today’s proposal is a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ within

the meaning of the E.O., and therefore

should be subject to OMB review,

economic analysis, and the

requirements of the E.O. See E.O. 12866,

sec. 6(a)(3). The E.O. defines, in sec.

3(f), a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as

a regulatory action that is likely to result

in a rule that may meet at least 1 of 4

criteria identified in section 3(f),

including, (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.

EPA has determined that neither the

finding of failure to attain, nor the

finding of nonimplementation, would

result in any of the effects identified in

E.O. 12866 sec. 3(f). As discussed above,

findings of failure to attain under

section 181(b)(2) of the Act are based

upon air quality considerations, and

reclassifications must occur by

operation of law in light of certain air

quality conditions. These findings do

not, in and of themselves, impose any

new requirements on any sectors of the

economy. In addition, because the

statutory requirements are clearly

defined with respect to the differently

classified areas, and because those

requirements are automatically triggered

by classifications that, in turn, are

triggered by air quality values, findings

of failure to attain and reclassification

cannot be said to impose a materially

adverse impact on State, local, or tribal

governments or communities. Similarly,

the finding of failure to implement the

SIP merely ensures the implementation

of already existing requirements by

creating the potential for the imposition

of sanctions and therefore does not

adversely affect entities.

B. Executive Order 13132

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘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.

These proposed findings will not have

substantial direct effects on California,

on the relationship between the national

government and California, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132.

EPA is proposing two actions: a

finding that the San Joaquin Valley

ozone nonattainment area has failed to

attain the ozone NAAQS by the

statutory deadline and a finding that the

San Joaquin Valley ozone plan, adopted

by the State and approved by EPA, has

not been fully implemented. Findings of

failure to attain under section 181(b)(2)

of the Act are based upon air quality

considerations, and reclassifications

must occur by operation of law in light

of certain air quality conditions. These

findings do not, in and of themselves,

impose any new requirements. In

addition, because the statutory

requirements are clearly defined with

respect to the differently classified

areas, and because those requirements

are automatically triggered by

classifications that, in turn, are triggered

by air quality values, findings of failure

to attain and reclassification cannot be

said to impose a materially adverse

impact on State, local, or tribal

governments or communities. A finding

of nonimplementation has no direct

effects on the State; there is simply a

potential for the imposition of sanctions

if the State does not adopt the rules to

which it has committed under its own

State plan. Thus, the requirements of

section 6 of the Executive Order do not

apply to this rule.

C. Executive Order 13045

Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),

37932 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 118 / Monday, June 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules

applies to any rule that: (1) Is

determined to be ‘‘economically

significant’’ as defined under E.O.

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. These

proposed findings are not subject to E.O.

13045 because they do not involve

decisions intended to mitigate

environmental health or safety risks.

D. Executive Order 13084

Under Executive Order 13084,

Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments, EPA may

not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly or

uniquely affects the communities of

Indian tribal governments, and that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs on those communities, unless the

Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments, or EPA consults with

those governments. If EPA complies by

consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to provide to the Office of

Management and Budget, in a separately

identified section of the preamble to the

rule, a description of the extent of EPA’s

prior consultation with representatives

of affected tribal governments, a

summary of the nature of their concerns,

and a statement supporting the need to

issue the regulation. In addition,

Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to

develop an effective process permitting

elected officials and other

representatives of Indian tribal

governments ‘‘to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory policies on matters that

significantly or uniquely affect their

communities.’’ Today’s proposed

findings do not significantly or uniquely

affect the communities of Indian tribal

governments. Accordingly, the

requirements of section 3(b) of E.O.

13084 do not apply to this rulemaking.

E. 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. These

proposed findings will not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities for the reasons

set forth in section VI.B. above.

Therefore, because these proposed

findings do not create any new

requirements, I certify that they will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Moreover, due to the nature of the

Federal-State relationship under the

Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility

analysis would constitute Federal

inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S.

EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42

U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), 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 annual costs to

State, local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to 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

proposed findings do not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated annual costs of $100 million

or more to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector for the reasons set forth in

section IV.B. above. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from these actions.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen

oxides, Ozone, Volatile organic

compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, National parks,

Wilderness areas.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Dated: June 7, 2000.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 00–15391 Filed 6–16–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 268

[FRL–6718–8]

RIN 2050–AE53

Land Disposal Restrictions: Advance

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed

rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) is giving advance notice

of issues and potential directions we are

considering for improving the Land

Disposal Restrictions (LDR) program for

treating hazardous waste under the

Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act (RCRA). These issues and directions

arise from a number of internal and

external sources, including the

participants at two LDR roundtable

meetings. We are requesting comments

on all of these issues, directions, and

options. In some cases we are requesting

additional data that will allow us to

better evaluate possible changes to the

LDR regulations.

DATES: To make sure we consider your

comments we must receive them by

September 18, 2000.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment on

this advanced notice of proposed

rulemaking (ANPRM), you must send an

original and two copies of the comments

referencing Docket Number F–2000–

LRRP–FFFFF to: RCRA Docket

Information Center, Office of Solid

Waste (5305G), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency Headquarters (EPA

HQ), Ariel Rios Building, 1200

Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20460, or (2) if using

special delivery, such as overnight

express service. Hand deliveries of

comments should be made to the

Arlington, VA address listed below. You

may also submit comments

electronically by sending electronic

mail through the Internet to: rcradocket@epamail.epa.gov. You should