[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 21 (Wednesday, February 1, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5174-5176]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-893]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2005-0557c; FRL-8024-9]


Interim Final Determination to Stay and/or Defer Sanctions, Yolo-
Solano Air Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Interim final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is making an interim final determination to stay sanctions 
based on a proposed approval of revisions to the Yolo-Solano Air 
Quality Management District (YSAQMD) portion of the California State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) published elsewhere in today's Federal 
Register. The revisions concern Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management 
District Rule 2.21, Organic Liquid Storage and Transfer.

DATES: This interim final determination is effective on February 1, 
2006. However, comments will be accepted until March 3, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number [DOCKET 
NUMBER], by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the on-line instructions.
    2. E-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#20535445434b454c0e414e44524557604550410e474f56"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fa898e9f99919f96d49b949e889f8dba9f8a9bd49d958c">[email protected]</span></a>.
    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 http://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 http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. http://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

[[Page 5175]]

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 http://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 INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerald S. Wamsley, EPA Region IX, at 
either (415) 947-4111, or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0374626e706f667a2d696671717a436673622d646c75"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f98e98948a959c80d7939c8b8b80b99c8998d79e968f">[email protected]</span></a>.

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

I. Background

    On January 22, 2004 (69 FR 3012), we published a limited approval 
and limited disapproval of Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District 
Rule 2.21 as adopted locally on June 12, 2002 and submitted by the 
State on August 6, 2002. 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 
January 22, 2004 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 September 14, 2005, YSAQMD adopted revisions to Rule 2.21 that 
were intended to correct the deficiencies identified in our limited 
disapproval action. On October 20, 2005, 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 January 22, 2004 
disapproval action. Based on today's proposed approval, we are taking 
this final rulemaking action, effective on publication, to stay 
sanctions that were triggered by our January 22, 2004 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 
revised YSAQMD Rule 2.21, we intend to take subsequent final action to 
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 YSAQMD Rule 2.21 based on our concurrent 
proposal to approve the State's SIP revision as correcting deficiencies 
that initiated sanctions.
    Because EPA has determined preliminarily 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 is 
indicating through our proposed action that, more likely than not, the 
State has corrected the deficiencies that started the sanctions clocks. 
Therefore, it is not in the public interest to impose sanctions 
initially or to keep sanctions applied and 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 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 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

[[Page 5176]]

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 
February 1, 2006. 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 April 3, 2006. 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, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 
organic compounds.

    Dated: January 6, 2006.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 06-893 Filed 1-31-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>