The EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld signed the following final 

rule on June 12, 2013 and EPA is submitting it for publication in the Federal 

Register (FR). While we have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this 

Internet version of the final rule, it is not the official version of the 

final rule. Please refer to the official version in a forthcoming FR 

publication appearing on the Government Printing Office’s FDsys website, 

http://fdsys.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/home.action and on Regulation.gov in Docket 

Number EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0384, http://www.regulations.gov.

Billing Code: 6560-50-P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0384; FRL-] 

Interim Final Determination to Defer Sanctions; California; 

South Coast Air Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Interim final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is making an interim final determination to defer 

the imposition of sanctions based on a proposed approval of 

revisions to the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s 

(SCAQMD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) published elsewhere in this Federal Register. The 

revisions concern the Clean Air Act (CAA) contingency measure 

requirement for the 1997 annual and 24-hour national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) in 

the Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin (South Coast). 

DATES: This interim final determination is effective on [Insert 

date of publication in the Federal Register]. However, comments 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on June 12, 2013. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

2 

will be accepted until [Insert date 30 days from date of 

publication in the Federal Register].

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPAR09-OAR-2013-0384, by one of the following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions. 

2. E-mail: lo.doris@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Doris Lo (Air-2), 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 e-mail. 

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 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on June 12, 2013. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

3 

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: Doris Lo, EPA Region IX, (415) 

972-3959, lo.doris@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, “we,” “us” 

and “our” refer to EPA. 

I. Background 

On November 9, 2012 (76 FR 69928), we published a partial 

approval and partial disapproval of the South Coast 2007 AQMP 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on June 12, 2013. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

4 

and the 2007 State Strategy (collectively the “South Coast PM2.5 

SIP”). As part of this action, EPA disapproved the contingency 

measure provisions in the South Coast PM2.5 SIP as failing to 

meet the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 

51.1012, which require that the SIP for each PM2.5 nonattainment 

area contain contingency measures to be implemented if the area 

fails to make reasonable further progress or to attain the NAAQS 

by the applicable attainment date. See 76 FR 41562, 41578 to 

41580 (July 14, 2011) and 76 FR 69928, 69947 and 69952 (November 

9, 2011). This disapproval action became effective on January 

9, 2012 and started a sanctions clock for imposition of offset 

sanctions 18 months after January 9, 2012 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 will apply on July 9, 2013 and highway sanctions will 

apply on January 9, 2014, unless EPA determines that the 

deficiency forming the basis of the disapproval has been 

corrected. 

On November 14, 2011, the State of California submitted the 

“South Coast Air Quality Management District Proposed 

Contingency Measures for the 2007 PM2.5 SIP” (dated October 

2011) as a SIP revision to correct the deficiency identified in 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on June 12, 2013. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

5 

our partial disapproval action. On April 13, 2013, the SCAQMD 

submitted a technical clarification to the SIP revision, 

including updated emissions data for the year 2012. In the 

Proposed Rules section of today’s Federal Register, we have 

proposed to approve this submittal because we believe it 

corrects the deficiency identified in our November 9, 2011 

partial disapproval action. Based on today’s proposed approval, 

we are taking this final rulemaking action, effective on 

publication, to defer the imposition of offset and highway 

sanctions triggered by our November 9, 2011 partial disapproval. 

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 full approval of the SIP revision, we intend to 

take subsequent final action to impose sanctions pursuant to 40 

CFR 52.31(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 defer CAA 

section 179 sanctions associated with our partial disapproval of 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on June 12, 2013. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

6 

the South Coast PM2.5 SIP based on our concurrent proposal to 

approve the State’s SIP revision as correcting the deficiency 

that initiated sanctions. 

Because EPA has preliminarily determined that the State has 

corrected the deficiency identified in EPA’s partial 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 deficiency that 

started the sanctions clocks. Therefore, it is not in the 

public interest to initially impose sanctions when the State has 

most likely done all it can to correct the deficiency that 

triggered the sanctions clocks. Moreover, it would be 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on June 12, 2013. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

7 

impracticable to go through notice-and-comment rulemaking on a 

finding that the State has corrected the deficiency prior to the 

rulemaking approving the State’s submittal. 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)). 

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. 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on June 12, 2013. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

8 

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 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 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on June 12, 2013. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

9 

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 [FR Office: insert date of publication]. 

EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required 

information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on June 12, 2013. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

10 

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 [FEDERAL REGISTER: 

insert date 60 days from date of publication of this document].

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, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 

 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Regional 

Administrator Jared Blumenfeld on June 12, 2013. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

11 

__________________________ ________________________ 

Date Jared Blumenfeld, 

 Regional Administrator, 

Region IX.