53936 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

limited disapproval action, relief from 

sanctions should be provided as quickly 

as possible. Therefore, EPA is invoking 

the good cause exception under the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in 

not providing an opportunity for 

comment before this action takes effect 

(5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)). However, by this 

action, EPA is providing the public with 

a chance to comment on EPA’s 

determination after the effective date, 

and EPA will consider any comments 

received in determining whether to 

reverse such action. 

EPA believes that notice-andcomment rulemaking before the 

effective date of this action is 

impracticable and contrary to the public 

interest. EPA has reviewed the State’s 

submittal and, through its proposed 

action, is indicating that it is more likely 

than not that the State has corrected the 

deficiencies that started the sanctions 

clocks. Therefore, it is not in the public 

interest to initially impose sanctions or 

to keep applied sanctions in place when 

the State has most likely done all it can 

to correct the deficiencies that triggered 

the sanctions clocks. Moreover, it would 

be impracticable to go through noticeand-comment rulemaking on a finding 

that the State has corrected the 

deficiencies prior to the rulemaking 

approving the State’s submittal. 

Therefore, EPA believes that it is 

necessary to use the interim final 

rulemaking process to stay and/or defer 

sanctions while EPA completes its 

rulemaking process on the approvability 

of the State’s submittal. Moreover, with 

respect to the effective date of this 

action, EPA is invoking the good cause 

exception to the 30-day notice 

requirement of the APA because the 

purpose of this notice is to relieve a 

restriction (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1)). 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This action stays and/or defers federal 

sanctions and imposes no additional 

requirements. 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and 

therefore is not subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget. 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is 

not a significant regulatory action. 

The administrator certifies that this 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.). 

This rule does not contain any 

unfunded mandate or significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments, as 

described in the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4). 

This rule does not have tribal 

implications because it will not have a 

substantial direct effect on one or more 

Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

This action does not have Federalism 

implications because it does not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of Children 

from Environmental Health Risks and 

Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 

1997), because it is not economically 

significant. 

The requirements of section 12(d) of 

the National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272) do not apply to this rule because 

it imposes no standards. 

This rule does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report to Congress and the 

Comptroller General. However, section 

808 provides that any rule for which the 

issuing agency for good cause finds that 

notice and public procedure thereon are 

impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 

to the public interest, shall take effect at 

such time as the agency promulgating 

the rule determines. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). 

EPA has made such a good cause 

finding, including the reasons therefor, 

and established an effective date of 

September 13, 2005. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by November 14, 2005. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this rule for the 

purpose of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

regulations, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: August 19, 2005. 

Laura Yoshii, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 05–18020 Filed 9–12–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[CA–319–0488a; FRL–7966–4] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, San Joaquin 

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 

District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action to approve revisions to the San 

Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution 

Control District (SJVUAPCD) portion of 

the California State Implementation 

Plan (SIP). These revisions concern 

volatile organic compound (VOC) 

emissions from facilities storing and 

processing organic liquids such as crude 

oil and petroleum by-products. We are 

approving SJVUAPCD Rule 4623, a rule 

regulating these emission sources under 

the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 

(CAA or the Act). 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

November 14, 2005 without further 

notice, unless EPA receives adverse 

comments by October 13, 2005. If we 

receive such comments, we will publish 

a timely withdrawal in the Federal 

Register to notify the public that this 

direct final rule will not take effect. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 53937 

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Andy 

Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR–

4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901, 

or e-mail to steckel.andrew@epa.gov, or 

submit comments at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

You can inspect copies of the 

submitted SIP revisions, EPA’s technical 

support document (TSD), and public 

comments at our Region IX office during 

normal business hours by appointment. 

You may also see copies of the 

submitted SIP revisions by appointment 

at the following locations: 

Air and Radiation Docket and 

Information Center, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Room B–102, 1301 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., (Mail Code 6102T), 

Washington, DC 20460; 

California Air Resources Board, 

Stationary Source Division, Rule 

Evaluation Section, 1001 ‘‘I’’ Street, 

Sacramento, CA 95814; and, 

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District, 1990 East 

Gettysburg Street, Fresno, CA 93726. 

A copy of the rule may also be 

available via the Internet at http:// 

www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/drdbltxt.htm. 

Please be advised that this is not an EPA 

website and may not contain the same 

version of the rule that was submitted 

to EPA. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jerald S. Wamsley, EPA Region IX, at 

either (415) 947–4111, or 

wamsley.jerry@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal. 

A. What Rule Did the State Submit? 

B. Are There Other Versions of This Rule? 

C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted 

Rule Revisions? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action. 

A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rule? 

B. Does the Rule Meet the Evaluation 

Criteria? 

C. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Rule. 

D. Public Comment and Final Action. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews. 

I. The State’s Submittal. 

A. What Rule Did the State Submit? 

Table 1 lists the rule we are approving 

with the dates that it was adopted by the 

local air agencies and submitted by the 

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 

TABLE 1.—SUBMITTED RULES

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted 

SJVUAPCD ......... 4623 Storage of Organic Liquids .................................................................................. 05/19/05 07/15/05 

On August 18, 2005, EPA found this 

rule submittal met the completeness 

criteria in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V. 

These criteria must be met before formal 

EPA review may begin. 

B. Are There Other Versions of This 

Rule? 

On January 22, 2004, EPA gave a 

limited approval and limited 

disapproval and incorporated into the 

SIP a prior version of Rule 4623 (see 69 

Federal Register (FR) 3012.) This 

version of Rule 4623 was adopted by the 

SJVUAPCD Governing Board on 

December 20, 2001. CARB has made no 

intervening submittals of Rule 4623 to 

EPA. 

C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted 

Rule Revisions? 

VOCs help produce ground-level 

ozone and smog, which harm human 

health and the environment. Section 

110(a) of the CAA requires states to 

submit regulations that control VOC 

emissions. SJVUAPCD Rule 4623—

Storage of Organic Liquids is designed 

to reduce VOC emissions at industrial 

sites engaged in storing any organic 

liquids with a vapor pressure greater 

than 0.5 pounds per square inch 

atmospheric. VOCs are emitted from 

containment vessels such as tanks and 

transfer lines due to the vapor pressure 

of the processed crude oil and organic 

liquids. Tanks and systems of tanks 

must have a vapor recovery system that 

recovers at least 95% of VOC vapors by 

weight or combusts excess vapors. Also, 

Rule 4623 sets specific requirements for 

vapor loss control devices, closure 

devices, external floating roofs, internal 

floating roofs, tank degassing and 

cleaning, and tank inspections. Our 

Technical Support Document (TSD) has 

more information about this rule. 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rule? 

Generally, SIP rules must be 

enforceable (see section 110(a) of the 

Act), must require Reasonably Available 

Control Technology (RACT) for major 

sources in nonattainment areas (see 

section 182(a)(2)(A)), and must not relax 

existing requirements (see sections 

110(l) and 193). The SJVUAPCD 

regulates an ozone nonattainment area 

(see 40 CFR part 81), so Rule 4623 must 

fulfill RACT. 

We used the following guidance and 

policy documents to evaluate 

consistently specific enforceability and 

RACT requirements: 

1. Portions of the proposed post-1987 

ozone and carbon monoxide policy that 

concern RACT, 52 FR 45044, November 

24, 1987; 

2. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation 

Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and 

Deviations,’’ EPA, May 25, 1988 (the 

Bluebook); 

3. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting 

Common VOC & Other Rule 

Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21, 

2001 (the Little Bluebook); 

4. ‘‘Control of Volatile Organic 

Emissions from Petroleum Liquid 

Storage in External Floating Roof 

Tanks,’’ EPA–450/2–78–047, USEPA, 

December 1978; and 

5. ‘‘Control of Volatile Organic 

Emissions from Storage of Petroleum 

Liquids in Fixed-Roof Tanks, ‘‘ EPA–

450/2–77–036, USEPA, December 1977. 

B. Does the Rule Meet the Evaluation 

Criteria? 

We believe SJVUAPCD Rule 4623 is 

consistent with the relevant policy and 

guidance regarding enforceability, 

RACT, and SIP relaxations. In our 

January 22, 2004 action, EPA identified 

two deficiencies as providing the basis 

for our limited disapproval of the Rule 

4623. The first deficiency identified two 

problems within Section 5.6.1. The 

second deficiency concerned Section 

7.1 having a missing compliance date 

and conflicting dates in its last sentence. 

SJVUAPCD has remedied these 

deficiencies. Section 5.6.1 has been 

amended to clarify the requirements for 

vapor recovery systems and where test 

methods in Section 6.4.6 apply. The 

deficiency within Section 7.1 is 

remedied by removal of the section and 

its expired compliance dates. The TSD 

has more information on our evaluation. 

C. EPA Recommendations to Further 

Improve the Rule 

The TSD describes an additional rule 

revision that does not affect EPA’s 

current action but is recommended for 

53938 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

the next time the local agency modifies 

the rule. 

D. Public Comment and Final Action 

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of 

the Act, EPA is fully approving 

SJVUAPCD Rule 4623 because we 

believe it fulfills all relevant 

requirements. We do not think anyone 

will object to this approval, so we are 

finalizing it without proposing it in 

advance. However, in the Proposed 

Rules section of this Federal Register, 

we are simultaneously proposing 

approval of the same submitted rule. If 

we receive adverse comments by 

October 13, 2005, we will publish a 

timely withdrawal in the Federal 

Register to notify the public that the 

direct final approval will not take effect 

and we will address the comments in a 

subsequent final action based on the 

proposal. If we do not receive timely 

adverse comments, the direct final 

approval will be effective without 

further notice on November 14, 2005. 

This approval action will incorporate 

this rule into the federally enforceable 

SIP. Also, our final approval of Rule 

4623 will remove any federal sanctions 

associated with our January 22, 2004 

limited disapproval action. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

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. For 

this reason, this action is also not 

subject to Executive Order 13211, 

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This action merely approves 

state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. Accordingly, 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.). Because this 

rule approves pre-existing requirements 

under state law and does not impose 

any additional enforceable duty beyond 

that required by state law, it does not 

contain any unfunded mandate or 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4). 

This rule also 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 also 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 action merely 

approves a state rule implementing a 

Federal standard, and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

Clean Air Act. This rule also 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. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the 

absence of a prior existing requirement 

for the State to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. 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, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. 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 action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by November 14, 

2005. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of 

this final rule does not affect the finality 

of this rule for the purposes of judicial 

review nor does it extend the time 

within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. This action may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: August 19, 2005. 

Laura Yoshii, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

■ Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart F—California 

■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(337) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(337) New and amended regulations 

for the following APCDs were submitted 

on July 15, 2005, by the Governor’s 

designee. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District. 

(1) Rule 4623, adopted on April 11, 

1991 and amended on May 19, 2005. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 05–18019 Filed 9–12–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P