### 894 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

relevant requirements of the CAA prior to the time the sanctions would take effect. Lastly, we are taking final action to apply the provisions in 40 CFR 52.31 regarding staying the sanctions clock and deferring the imposition of sanctions where we make a preliminary finding that it is more likely than not that the deficiency has been corrected. A FIP clock triggered by a finding of failure to submit or a disapproval of a submitted SIP can be stopped only by EPA approval of a SIP revision correcting the SIP deficiency. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under the CAA, a finding of substantial inadequacy and subsequent obligation on a State to revise its SIP arise out of section 110(a) and 110(k)(5). The finding and State obligation do not directly impose any new regulatory requirements. In addition, the State obligation is not legally enforceable by a court of law. EPA would review its intended action on any SIP submittal in response to the finding in light of applicable statutory and Executive Order requirements, in subsequent rulemaking acting on such SIP submittal. For those reasons, this rule:

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. );

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. );

• 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);

• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and • Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the Tribes with Indian country in the subject ozone nonattainment area would not be subject to the deadline established herein for the State of California nor would they be subject to the imposition of mandatory sanctions if California were to fail to submit a complete SIP revision or if EPA were to disapprove the SIP revision submitted by California in response to this final SIP call, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

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. EPA will submit a report containing this action 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 CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 8, 2013. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a 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 relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: December 19, 2012. Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2012–31642 Filed 1–4–13; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**40 CFR Part 52**

**[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0960; FRL–9766–4]**

**Interim Final Determination To Stay Sanctions, Imperial County Air**  **Pollution Control 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 Imperial County Air Pollution Control District (ICAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) published elsewhere in this Federal Register . The revisions concern local rules that regulate inhalable particulate matter (PM 10 ) emissions from sources of fugitive dust such as unpaved roads and disturbed soils in open and agricultural areas in Imperial County.

**DATES :**  This interim final determination is effective on January 7, 2013. However, comments will be accepted until February 6, 2013.

**ADDRESSES :**  Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA–R09– OAR–2012–0960, by one of the following methods:

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions.

2. Email: 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 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


### 895 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

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: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are 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 at 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 :**  Christine Vineyard, EPA Region IX, (415) 947–4125, vineyard.christine@epa.gov

.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. I. Background

On July 8, 2010 (75 FR 39366), we published a limited approval and limited disapproval of the following rules listed in Table 1, as adopted locally on November 9, 2005 and submitted by the State on June 16, 2006.



### TABLE 

### 1

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted

ICAPCD ........................................ 800 General Requirements for Controls of Fine Particulate Matter ........ 11/08/05 06/16/06 ICAPCD ........................................ 804 Open Areas ................................................................... .................... 11/08/05 06/16/06 ICAPCD ........................................ 805 Paved & Unpaved Roads ........................................................ ......... 11/08/05 06/16/06 ICAPCD ........................................ 806 Conservation Management Practices ............................................ ... 11/08/05 06/16/06

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 August 9, 2010 and highway sanctions 6 months later, pursuant to section 179 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and our regulations at 40 CFR 52.31. As such, offset sanctions began on February 9, 2012 and highway sanctions began on August 9, 2012.

On October 16, 2012, ICAPCD adopted revisions to Rules 800, 804, 805, and 806 that were intended to correct the deficiencies identified in our limited disapproval action. On November 7, 2012, 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 July 8, 2010 disapproval action. Based on today’s proposed approval, we are taking this final rulemaking action, effective on publication, to stay imposition of sanctions that were triggered by our July 8, 2010 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 ICAPCD Rules 800, 804, 805, and 806, 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 ICAPCD Rules 800, 804, 805, and 806 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-andcomment 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 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. 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 (Public Law 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


### 896 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 4 / Monday, January 7, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

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 January 7, 2013. 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 March 8, 2013. 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, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: December 17, 2012. Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2012–31732 Filed 1–4–13; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**40 CFR Part 52**

**[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0274; FRL–9730–4]**

**Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Imperial County**  **Air Pollution Control District**

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

**ACTION :**  Final rule.

**SUMMARY :**  EPA is finalizing approval of revisions to the Imperial County Air Pollution Control District (ICAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This action was proposed in the Federal Register on April 27, 2012 and concerns oxides of nitrogen (NO

x ) emissions from certain boilers, process heaters and steam generators. We are approving a local rule that regulates these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).

**DATES :**  This rule will be effective on February 6, 2013.

**ADDRESSES :**  EPA has established docket number EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0274 for this action. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are available electronically at http:// www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed at http://www.regulations.gov, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g.,copyrighted material, large maps, multivolume reports), and some may not be available in either location (e.g., confidential business information (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 :**  Idalia Pe  ́ rez, EPA Region IX, (415) 972– 3248, perez.idalia@epa.gov

.
**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Proposed Action II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Proposed Action

On April 27, 2012 (77 FR 25109), EPA proposed to approve the following rule into the California SIP.

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted

ICAPCD ...................... 400.2 Boilers, Process Heaters and Steam Generators ........................................ 02/23/10 07/20/10

We proposed to approve this rule because we determined that it complied with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action contains more information on the rule and our evaluation. II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

EPA’s proposed action provided a 30- day public comment period. During this period, we received no comments.

III. EPA Action

No comments were submitted. Therefore, as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving this rule into the California SIP. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the