Interim Final Determination To Defer Sanctions, Sacramento Metro 1-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area, California, 28661-28662 [2011-12062]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 96 (Wednesday, May 18, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28661-28662]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-12062]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0372; FRL-9307-3]


Interim Final Determination To Defer Sanctions, Sacramento Metro 
1-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area, California

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 determination, published 
elsewhere in this Federal Register, that the State of California is no 
longer required to submit or implement a Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 
185 fee program (Termination Determination) for the Sacramento Metro 1-
hour Ozone nonattainment area (Sacramento Metro Area) to satisfy anti-
backsliding requirements for the 1-hour Ozone standard.

DATES: This interim final determination is effective on May 18, 2011. 
However, comments will be accepted until June 17, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2011-0372, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the on-line instructions.
    2. E-mail: 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 https://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 https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. https://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 e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail 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 https://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 https://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: Lily Wong, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-
4114, wong.lily@epa.gov.

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

I. Background

    On January 5, 2010 (75 FR 232), we published a finding that the 
State of California failed to submit State Implementation Plans (SIPs) 
to satisfy CAA section 185 for three 1-hour Ozone nonattainment areas: 
Sacramento Metro Area, Southeast Desert, and Los Angeles-South Coast 
Air Basin. As discussed in our January 2010 action, the finding 
regarding the Sacramento Metro Area addressed the Yolo/Solano Air 
Quality Management District, Feather River Air Quality Management 
District, Placer County Air Pollution Control District and El Dorado 
County Air Quality Management District. It did not address the 
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. This finding 
started a sanctions clock for imposition of offset sanctions 18 months 
after January 5, 2010 and highway sanctions 6 months later, pursuant to 
section 179 of the CAA and our regulations at 40 CFR 52.31.
    On July 7, 2010 and in an update on April 13, 2011, the California 
Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted a request that EPA determine that 
the CAA section 185 obligation has been terminated for the Sacramento 
Metro Area. This termination determination request was supported by 
data demonstrating that the Sacramento Metro Area has attained the 1-
hour Ozone standard based on the most recent three years of complete, 
quality-assured and certified data (2007-2009), and that the 
improvement in air quality resulted from permanent and enforceable 
emissions reductions. In the Proposed Rules section of today's Federal 
Register, we have proposed approval of this submittal. Based on today's 
proposed approval, we are taking this final rulemaking action, 
effective on publication, to defer imposition of sanctions that were 
triggered by our January 5, 2010 finding of failure to submit for the 
Sacramento Metro Area based on a finding that it is more likely than 
not that the Sacramento Metro Area is no longer obligated to submit a 
185 program.
    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 CAA 
section 185 termination determination for the Sacramento Metro Area, we 
would take final action proposing to deny or denying the termination 
determination request and lifting this deferral of the sanctions. If no 
comments are submitted that change our assessment, then with regard to 
the finding of failure to submit discussed previously, any imposed 
sanctions would no longer apply and any sanction clocks would be 
permanently terminated on the effective date of a final CAA section 185 
termination determination.

II. EPA Action

    We are making an interim final determination to defer CAA section 
179 sanctions associated with the Sacramento Metro Area's 1-hour Ozone 
CAA section 185 obligation based on our concurrent proposal to approve 
a CAA section 185 termination determination which would remove the 
obligation of the state to submit a section 185 SIP when finalized.
    Because EPA has preliminarily determined that the State is not 
obligated to submit the SIP that was the basis of EPA's finding of 
failure to submit, 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

[[Page 28662]]

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 is no longer obligated to submit the plan that was the basis 
for the finding that started the sanctions clocks. Therefore, it is not 
in the public interest to impose sanctions. Moreover, it would be 
impracticable to go through notice-and-comment rulemaking on a finding 
that the State no longer is required to submit the plan prior to the 
rulemaking approving the State's termination determination. 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. 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)).
    Note that today's action has no impact on the January 5, 2010 (75 
FR 232) findings regarding the Southeast Desert and the Los Angeles-
South Coast Air Basin.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action 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 therefore, and established an effective 
date of May 18, 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. 
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 July 18, 2011. 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, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental regulations, Ozone, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 9, 2011.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2011-12062 Filed 5-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P