Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 28661 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. 

§ 52.21 [Amended] 

■ 2. In § 52.21, remove paragraph 

(i)(1)(xi). 

[FR Doc. 2011–12089 Filed 5–17–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

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: http:// 

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 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 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 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 at 

http://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, qualityassured 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 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
28662 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 18, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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 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 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0058; EPA–HQ–2003– 

0119; FRL–9308–6] 

RIN 2060–AQ25; 2060–AO12 

Industrial, Commercial, and 

Institutional Boilers and Process 

Heaters and Commercial and Industrial 

Solid Waste Incineration Units 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rules; Delay of effective 

dates. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is delaying the 

effective dates for the final rules titled 

‘‘National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major 

Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and 

Institutional Boilers and Process 

Heaters’’ and ‘‘Standards of Performance 

for New Sources and Emission 

Guidelines for Existing Sources: 

Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste 

Incineration Units’’ under the authority 

of the Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA) until the proceedings for judicial 

review of these rules are completed or 

the EPA completes its reconsideration of 

the rules, whichever is earlier. 

DATES: The effective dates of the final 

rules published in the Federal Register 

on March 21, 2011 (76 FR 15608 and 76 

FR 15704), are delayed until such time 

as judicial review is no longer pending 

or until the EPA completes its 

reconsideration of the rules, whichever 

is earlier. The Director of the Federal 

Register has reviewed certain 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1