The EPA Region 9 Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, signed the following interim final rule on August 15, 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 

interim final rule, it is not the official version of the rule for purposes of compliance. Please refer to the official version in a forthcoming 

FR publication, which will appear on the Government Printing Office’s FDsys website (http://fedsys.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/home.action) 

and on Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov) in Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0534.

6560-50

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0534; FRL- ]

Interim Final Determination to Stay and Defer Sanctions; California; San Joaquin Valley

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Interim final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is making an interim final determination to stay the imposition of offset 

sanctions and to defer the imposition of highway sanctions based on a proposed approval of 

revisions to the San Joaquin Valley portion of the California State Implementation Plan 

published elsewhere in this Federal Register. The revisions concern the Clean Air Act 

nonattainment area contingency measure requirement for the 1997 annual and 24-hour national 

ambient air quality standards for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) in the San Joaquin Valley.

DATES: This interim final determination is effective on [Federal Register Office: insert date 

of publication in the Federal Register]. However, comments will be accepted until [Federal 

Register Office: insert date 30 days from publication in the Federal Register.].

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0534, by 

one of the following methods:

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

 E-mail: wicher.frances@epa.gov.

 Mail or deliver: Frances Wicher (AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 

9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.

Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket without change and may be 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on August 15, 2013. We 

have take steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it not the official version.

2

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 9, 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: Frances Wicher, EPA Region 9, (415) 972-

3957, wicher.frances@epa.gov.

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

refer to EPA.

I. BACKGROUND 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on August 15, 2013. We 

have take steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it not the official version.

3

On November 9, 2011 (76 FR 69896), we published a partial approval and partial

disapproval of the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District’s (SJVUAPCD or 

District) 2008 PM2.5 Plan and the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) 2007 State Strategy 

(collectively the “SJV PM2.5 SIP”). As part of this action, EPA disapproved the contingency 

measure provisions in the SJV PM2.5 SIP as failing to meet the requirements of Clean Air Act 

(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 

41338, 41357 to 41559 (July 13, 2011) and 76 FR 69896, 69924 (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 CAA section 179 and our regulations at 40 CFR 52.31. As such, offset 

sanctions applied on July 9, 2013 and will continue to apply, 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 July 3, 2013, the State of California submitted as a SIP revision the SJVUAPCD’s

“Quantifying Contingencies for the 2008 PM2.5 Plan” (dated June 20, 2013) (“Contingency 

Measure SIP”). In the Proposed Rules section of today’s Federal Register, we are proposing to 

approve this SIP revision because we believe that 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 stay the imposition of the offset 

sanctions and to defer the imposition of the highway sanctions triggered by our November 9, 

2011 partial disapproval. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on August 15, 2013. We 

have take steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it not the official version.

4

EPA is providing the public with an opportunity to comment on this stay and deferral of 

sanctions. If comments are submitted that change our assessment described in this final 

determination and the proposed full approval of the Contingency Measure SIP, we intend to take 

subsequent final action to re-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 stay the imposition of the offset 

sanctions and to defer the imposition of the highway sanctions associated with our partial 

disapproval of the SJV PM2.5 SIP, based on our concurrent proposal to approve the State’s SIP 

revision as correcting the deficiency that initiated these 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 or to keep applied sanctions in place when the State has most likely 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on August 15, 2013. We 

have take steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it not the official version.

5

done all it can to correct the deficiency 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 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 stay and 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 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 (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 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on August 15, 2013. We 

have take steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it not the official version.

6

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 [Federal Register Office: insert date of 

publication in the Federal Register]. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on August 15, 2013. We 

have take steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it not the official version.

7

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 [Federal Register 

Office: insert date 60 days from publication in the Federal Register]. 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.

__________________________ __________________________________________

Date Jared Blumenfeld,

Regional Administrator,

Region 9