Document ID: EPA-R09-OAR-2005-AZ-0007-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Notice
Title: Fed Register
Posted Date: 2005-11-10T14:58:45Z

[Federal Register: November 10, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 217)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 68337-68339]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr10no05-5]                         

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[R09-OAR-2005-AZ-0007, FRL-7994-6]

 
Interim Final Determination to Stay and/or Defer Sanctions, Pinal 
County Air Quality Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Interim final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is making an interim final determination to stay and/or 
defer imposition of sanctions based on a proposed approval of a 
revision to the Pinal County Air Quality Control District (PCAQCD) 
portion of the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP) published 
elsewhere in today's Federal Register. The revisions concern PCAQCD 
Rule 2-8-300.

DATES: This interim final determination is effective on November 10, 
2005. However, comments will be accepted until December 12, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number R09-OAR-2005-
AZ-0007, by one of the following methods:
     Agency Website: http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/. EPA prefers 

receiving comments through this electronic public docket and comment 
system. Follow the on-line instructions to submit comments.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 

Follow the on-line instructions.
     E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov.
     Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 
Francisco, CA 94105.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket 
without change and may be made available online at http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/
, 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 the 
agency website, eRulemaking portal, or e-mail. The agency website and 
eRulemaking portal are Aanonymous access'' systems, 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: The index to the docket for this action is available 
electronically at http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub 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.,

[[Page 68338]]

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 below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al Petersen, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-
4118, petersen.alfred@epa.gov.

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

I. Background

    On April 28, 2004 (69 FR 23103), we published a limited approval 
and limited disapproval of PCAQCD Rule 2-8-300 as adopted locally on 
June 29, 1993 and submitted by the State on November 27, 1995. We based 
our limited disapproval action a deficiency in the submittal. This 
disapproval action started a sanctions clock for imposition of offset 
sanctions 18 months after May 28, 2005 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 May 18, 2005, PCAQCD adopted revisions to Rule 2-8-300 that were 
intended to correct the deficiency identified in our limited 
disapproval action. On September 12, 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 deficiency identified in our April 28, 2004 
disapproval action. Based on today's proposed approval, we are taking 
this final rulemaking action, effective on publication, to stay and/or 
defer imposition of sanctions that were triggered by our April 28, 2004 
limited disapproval.
    EPA is providing the public with an opportunity to comment on this 
stay/deferral of sanctions. If comments are submitted that change our 
assessment described in this final determination and the proposed full 
approval of revised PCAQCD Rule 2-8-300, 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 and/or defer 
CAA section 179 sanctions associated with PCAQCD Rule 2-8-300 based on 
our concurrent proposal to approve the State's SIP revision as 
correcting a deficiency that initiated sanctions.
    Because EPA has preliminarily determined that the State has 
corrected the deficiency 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, 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 initially impose 
sanctions or 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 and/or 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)).

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action stays and/or 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 therefor, and established an effective 
date of November 10, 2005. 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

[[Page 68339]]

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 
January 9, 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, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    Dated: October 19, 2005.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 05-22378 Filed 11-9-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P