ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0372; FRL-] 

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 [Insert 

date of publication in the Federal Register]. However, comments 

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

publication in the Federal Register]. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-

OAR-2011-0372, by one of the following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 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 
2

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 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 
3

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 
4

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, quality-assured 

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 
5

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 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 
6

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. 
7

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 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). 
8

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 [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 
9

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)). 
10

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, 

Intergovernmental regulations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

 

 May 9, 2011 //signed// 

________________ ______________________ 

Dated: Jared Blumenfeld, 

 Regional Administrator, 

Region IX.