[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 62 (Monday, April 1, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15336-15337]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-7633]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[CA 255-0320b; FRL-7164-7]
Interim Final Determination That the State of California Has
Conditionally Corrected Deficiencies and Stay of Sanctions, San Joaquin
Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Interim final determination.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Based on a proposed conditional approval, EPA is making an
interim final determination by this action that California has
corrected the deficiencies for which a sanctions clock began on April
7, 2000. This action will stay the imposition of the offset sanction
and defer the imposition of the highway sanction. Although this action
is effective upon publication, we will take comment on the proposed
rulemaking and publish a final rule taking into consideration any
comments received. Elsewhere in today's Federal Register, EPA has
published a proposed rulemaking conditionally approving the State of
California's submittal of a revision to the San Joaquin Valley Unified
Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) PM-10 portion of the
California State Implementation Plan (SIP). That proposed rulemaking
provides the public with an opportunity to comment on EPA's action. We
will consider any comments received before taking final action on the
State's submittal.
DATES: This interim final determination is effective on April 1, 2002.
Comments will be accepted until May 31, 2002.
ADDRESSES: Mail comments to Andy Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR-
4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.
You can inspect copies of the submitted rule revisions and EPA's
technical support document (TSD) at our Region IX office during normal
business hours. You may also see copies of the submitted rule revisions
and TSD at the following locations: Rulemaking Office (AIR-4), Air
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.
California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule
Evaluation Section, 1001 ``I'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95814. San
Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, 1990 East
Gettysburg Street, Fresno, CA 93726.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Irwin, Planning Office (AIR-2),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX; (415) 947-4116.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.
I. Background
On July 23, 1996, the State of California submitted a revision to
the SJVUAPCD portion of the PM-10 SIP, for which we published a limited
approval and limited disapproval on March 8, 2000 (65 FR 12118). Our
disapproval action started an 18-month clock beginning on April 7,
2000, for the imposition of the offset sanction (followed by a highway
sanction 6 months later). The State subsequently submitted revised SIP
rules on December 6, 2001. In the Proposed Rules section of today's
Federal Register, we have proposed conditional approval of the State's
December 6, 2001, submittal. Based on that proposal, we believe that it
is more likely than not that the State has corrected the original
section 189(a) and section 110(a) disapproval deficiencies. Therefore,
EPA is taking this final rulemaking action, effective on publication,
finding that the State has corrected the deficiencies identified in the
March 8, 2000, final action that started the clock for imposition of
sanctions. However, EPA is also providing the public with an
opportunity to comment on this final action. If, based on any comments
on this action and any comments on EPA's proposed conditional approval
of the State's submittal, EPA determines that the State's submittal is
not conditionally approvable and this final action was inappropriate,
EPA will either propose or take final action finding that the State has
not corrected the original disapproval deficiencies. At that time, EPA
will also issue an interim final determination or a final determination
that the deficiencies have not been corrected. Until EPA takes such an
action, the application of sanctions will continue to be deferred and/
or stayed.
This action does not stop the sanctions clock that started for this
area on April 7, 2000. However, this action will temporarily stay the
imposition of the offsets sanction and will defer the imposition of the
highway sanction until we finalize the conditional approval or withdraw
it based on adverse comments. If we must withdraw the proposed
conditional approval action based on adverse comments or we
subsequently determine that the State, in fact, did not correct the
disapproval deficiencies or subsequently does not fulfill the
conditions of the conditional approval, the sanctions consequences
described in the sanctions rule will apply (59 FR 39832, August 4,
1994, codified at 40 CFR 52.31).
II. EPA Action
We are making an interim final determination that the State has
corrected the prior disapproval deficiencies that are associated with
sanctions. Based on this action, imposition of the offset sanction will
be stayed and imposition of the highway sanction will be deferred until
we take action proposing or finally disapproving in whole or part the
State submittal. After EPA has reviewed any comments, EPA will either
finalize its conditional approval and issue a final determination to
stay the offset sanction and defer the highway funding sanction, or EPA
will withdraw this interim final determination and the sanctions will
be reimposed in accordance with 40 CFR 51.31(d).
Because EPA has preliminarily determined that the State has
corrected the deficiencies identified in EPA's 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)).\1\ EPA
believes that notice-and-comment rulemaking before the effective date
of this action is impracticable and contrary to the public
[[Page 15337]]
interest. EPA has reviewed the State's submittal and, through its
proposed action, is indicating that it is more likely than not that the
State has corrected the deficiencies that started the sanctions clocks.
Therefore, it is not in the public interest to initially impose
sanctions or to keep applied sanctions in place when the State has most
likely done all it can to correct the deficiencies that triggered the
sanctions clocks. Moreover, it would be impracticable to go through
notice-and-comment rulemaking on a finding that the State has corrected
the deficiencies prior to the rulemaking approving the State's
submittal. Therefore, EPA believes that it is necessary to use the
interim final rulemaking process to temporarily stay 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 action is to relieve
a restriction (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As previously noted, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Administrative 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
merely stays and defers federal sanctions. 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
only stays an imposed sanction and defers the imposition of another, it
does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). For the same reason, this rule also
does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of tribal
governments, as specified by Executive Order 13084 (63 FR 27655, May
10, 1998). 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 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely stays a sanction and
defers another one, 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 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
This rule does not contain technical standards, 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. As required
by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996),
in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate
drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and
provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied
with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining
the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the ``Attorney
General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and
Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued under the executive order.
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. However, section 808 provides that any rule for which
the issuing agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding
and a brief statement of reasons therefor in the rule) 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). As stated
previously, EPA has made such a good cause finding, including the
reasons therefor, and established an effective date of April 1, 2002.
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. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
regulations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: March 20, 2002.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 02-7633 Filed 3-29-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P