[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