[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 6, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 76046-76048]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31184]



40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0881; FRL-9499-4]

Interim Final Determination To 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 defer 
imposition of sanctions based on a proposed approval of revisions to 
the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD 
or District) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
published elsewhere in today's Federal Register. The revisions concern 
SJVUAPCD Rules 2020 and 2201.

DATES: This interim final determination is effective on December 6, 
2011. However, comments will be accepted until January 5, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2011-0881, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the on-line instructions.
     Email: [email protected].
     Mail or deliver: Gerardo Rios (Air-3), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 
    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: The index to the docket for this action is 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 in the index, some information may be publicly 
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), 
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 

972-3534 or send email to [email protected].

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

I. Background

    On May 11, 2010 (75 FR 26102), we finalized a limited approval and 
limited disapproval of San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 
District (``SJVUAPCD'' or ``District'') Rules 2020 (Exemptions) and 
2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule), which were 
submitted to EPA by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). These 
rules strengthened the SIP, but contained deficiencies in 
enforceability that prevented full approval. Both rules contained 
references to California Health and Safety Code (CH&SC) under 
circumstances where the State law has not been submitted to EPA for 
approval into the SIP. This disapproval action started a sanctions 
clock for imposition of sanctions 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. The effective date of our 
May 11, 2010 final rule was June 10, 2010, and thus, the offset 
sanctions will apply beginning on December 10, 2011, unless we 
determine that the deficiencies forming the basis of the disapproval 
have been corrected.

[[Page 76047]]

    On August 18, 2011 and April 21, 2011, SJVUAPCD adopted revisions 
to Rule 2020 and Rule 2201, respectively, that were intended, among 
other purposes, to correct the deficiencies identified in our limited 
disapproval action. On September 28, 2011 and May 19, 2011, the State 
submitted amended SJVUAPCD Rule 2020 and amended SJVUAPCD Rule 2201, 
respectively, to EPA as revisions to the California SIP. In the 
Proposed Rules section of today's Federal Register, we have proposed 
full approval of the amended rules because we believe that they correct 
the deficiencies in the rules identified in our May 11, 2010 
disapproval action, and they otherwise meet all applicable CAA 
requirements. Based on today's proposed approval, we are taking this 
final rulemaking action, effective on publication, to defer the 
imposition of sanctions triggered by our May 11, 2010 limited 
    EPA is providing the public with an opportunity to comment on this 
deferral of sanctions. If comments are submitted that change our 
assessment described in this final determination and the proposed full 
approval of revised SJVUAPCD Rules 2020 and 2201, 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 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 defer CAA section 
179 sanctions associated with SJVUAPCD Rules 2020 and 2201 based on our 
proposal to approve the State's SIP revisions as correcting the 
specified deficiencies that prompted the finding to initiate sanctions 
    Because EPA has preliminarily determined that the SJVUAPCD has 
corrected the specified deficiencies prompting EPA's limited 
disapproval action, we have determined that it is appropriate to 
relieve the SJVUAPCD from the pending imposition of sanctions 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 of the 
District's amended rules 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 impose sanctions 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 defer sanctions while EPA completes 
its rulemaking process on the approvability of the State's submittal of 
amended District Rules 2020 and 2201. 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 defers Federal sanctions and imposes no additional 
    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 therefore, and established an effective 
date of December 6, 2011. 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. 
    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 February 6, 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

[[Page 76048]]

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 regulations, Reporting and recordkeeping 

    Dated: November 22, 2011.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2011-31184 Filed 12-5-11; 8:45 am]