
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 81 (Thursday, April 26, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24857-24858]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10077]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0266; FRL-9665-5]


Interim Final Determination To Stay and Defer Sanctions, San 
Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Interim final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is making an interim final determination to stay the 
imposition of offset sanctions and to defer the imposition of highway 
sanctions based on a proposed approval of revisions to the San Joaquin 
Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) portion of the 
California State Implementation Plan (SIP) published elsewhere in this 
Federal Register. The revisions concern SJVUAPCD Rule 4352, Solid Fuel 
Fired Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters.

DATES: This interim final determination is effective on April 26, 2012. 
However, comments will be accepted until May 29, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2012-0266, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. Email: steckel.andrew@epa.gov.
    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket 
without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, 
including any personal information provided, unless the comment 
includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you 
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as 
such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email. 
www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not 
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the 
body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your email 
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the 
public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical 
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be 
able to consider your comment.
    Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are 
available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA 
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all 
documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov, some 
information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location 
(e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be publicly 
available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy 
materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours 
with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Steckel, EPA Region IX, (415) 
947-4115, steckel.andrew@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and 
``our'' refer to EPA.

I. Background

    On October 1, 2010 (75 FR 60623), we published a limited approval 
and limited disapproval of SJVUAPCD Rule 4352 as adopted locally on May 
18, 2006 and submitted by the State on October 5, 2006. We based our 
limited disapproval action on certain deficiencies in the submittal. 
This disapproval action started a sanctions clock for imposition of 
offset sanctions 18 months after November 1, 2010 and highway sanctions 
6 months later, pursuant to section 179 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and 
our regulations at 40 CFR 52.31. Under 40 CFR 52.31(d)(1), offset 
sanctions apply eighteen months after the effective date of a 
disapproval and highway sanctions apply six months after the offset 
sanctions, unless we determine that the deficiencies forming the basis 
of the disapproval have been corrected.
    On December 15, 2011, SJVUAPCD adopted revisions to Rule 4352 that 
were intended to correct the deficiencies identified in our October 1, 
2010 limited approval and limited disapproval action. On February 23, 
2012, the State submitted the revised rule to EPA. In the Proposed 
Rules section of today's Federal Register, we are proposing to fully 
approve this revised rule because we believe it corrects the 
deficiencies identified in our October 1, 2010 disapproval action. 
Based on today's proposed approval, we are taking this final rulemaking 
action, effective on publication, to stay the imposition of the offset 
sanctions and to defer the imposition of the highway sanctions that 
were triggered by our October 1, 2010 limited disapproval.
    EPA is providing the public with an opportunity to comment on this 
stay/deferral of sanctions. If comments are submitted that change our 
assessment described in this final determination and the proposed full 
approval of

[[Page 24858]]

revised SJVUAPCD Rule 4352, we intend to take subsequent final action 
to reimpose sanctions pursuant to 40 CFR 52.31(d). If no comments are 
submitted that change our assessment, then all sanctions and sanction 
clocks will be permanently terminated on the effective date of a final 
rule approval.

II. EPA Action

    We are making an interim final determination to stay the imposition 
of the offset sanctions and to defer the imposition of the highway 
sanctions associated with SJVUAPCD Rule 4352 based on our concurrent 
proposal to approve the State's SIP revision as correcting deficiencies 
that initiated sanctions.
    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)). 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-and-comment 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 
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 stay and 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 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 April 26, 2012. 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 June 25, 2012. 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 13, 2012.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2012-10077 Filed 4-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


