[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 194 (Monday, October 7, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 62388-62389]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-25296]



[[Page 62388]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 272-0369c; FRL-7387-2]


Interim Final Determination To Stay Sanctions, Bay Area Air 
Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Interim final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is making an interim final determination to stay 
imposition of sanctions based on a proposed approval of revisions to 
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) portion of the 
California State Implementation Plan (SIP) published elsewhere in this 
issue of the Federal Register. The revisions concern BAAQMD Rule 9-10.

DATES: This interim final determination is effective on October 7, 
2002. However, comments will be accepted until November 6, 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
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 939 Ellis Street, San 
Francisco, CA 94109

    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: Charnjit Bhullar, EPA Region IX, (415) 
972-3960.

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

I. Background

    On March 29, 2001 (66 FR 17078), we published a limited approval 
and limited disapproval of BAAQMD Rule 9-10 as adopted locally on 
January 5, 1994 and submitted by the State on July 23, 1996. 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 April 30, 2001 and 
highway sanctions 6 months later, pursuant to section 179 of the Clean 
Air Act (CAA) and our regulations at 40 CFR 52.31.
    On July 17, 2002, BAAQMD adopted revisions to Rule 9-10 that were 
intended to correct the deficiencies identified in our limited 
disapproval action. On August 12, 2002, the State submitted these 
revisions to EPA. In the Proposed Rules section of today's Federal 
Register, we have proposed approval of this submittal because we 
believe it corrects the deficiencies identified in our March 29, 2001 
disapproval action. In the final rule section of today's Federal 
Register, we have also published a parallel direct final rule approving 
the revisions to BAAQMD Rule 9-10. Based on today's proposed approval 
and parallel direct final approval, we are taking this final rulemaking 
action, effective on publication, to stay imposition of sanctions that 
were triggered by our March 29, 2001 limited disapproval.
    EPA is providing the public with an opportunity to comment on this 
stay of sanctions. If comments are submitted that change our assessment 
described in this final determination and the proposed full approval of 
the revised BAAQMD Rule 9-10, we will take final action finding that 
the state has not corrected the original disapproval deficiencies and 
reimpose sanctions pursuant to 40 CFR 51.31(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 CAA section 
179 sanctions associated with BAAQMD Rule 9-10 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 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. 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. 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 
stays federal sanctions and imposes no additional requirements. 
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 sanctions, and does not impose any additional 
enforceable duty, 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

[[Page 62389]]

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 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.
    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 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.
    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 October 7, 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. 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 December 7, 2002. 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, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    Dated: September 13, 2002.
Keith Takata,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 02-25296 Filed 10-4-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P