The EPA Region 9 Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, signed the following interim final rule on August 15, 2013, an d 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

E NVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION A GENCY

40 CFR Part 52 [ EPA
- R09
- OAR
- 2013
- 0534; FRL
- ] Interim Final D etermination 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 t hi s 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 (PM 2.5 ) 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 ( A IR

- 2 ), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region
9 , 7 5 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105

. Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket without change and may beThis 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 shou ld 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 informa tion 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 can not 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 a t 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., c opyrighted 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) 97 2

- 3957 , wicher.frances@epa.gov

. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, “ we, ” “ us ” and “ our ” refer to EPA.
I. BACKGROUNDThis 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, 201 1 ( 76 FR 69 896 ), we published a partial approval and partial disapproval of the S an Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District’s (SJVUAPCD or District) 200 8 PM 2.5 Plan and the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) 2007 State Strategy (collectively the “ S JV PM 2.5 SIP”). As part of this action, EPA disapproved the contingency measure provisions in the SJV PM 2.5 SIP as failing to meet the requirements of C lean Air Act (C AA ) section 172(c)(9) and 40 CFR 51.1012, which require that the SIP for each PM 2.5 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
41 338 , 41 357 to 415 59 (July 1 3 , 2011) and 76 FR 69896 , 69 924 (Novem ber 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 s ection 179 and our regulations at 40 CFR 52.31. As such, offset sanctions appl ied on July 9 , 201 3 and will continue to apply, and highway sanctions will apply

on January 9 , 201 4 , 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 SJV UAPCD’s

“ Quantifying Contingenc i es for the 2008 PM 2.5 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 deficienc y identified in our November 9 , 201 1 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 sanction s and to defer the i mposition of the highway sanctions triggered by our November 9 , 20 1 1 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 c omments 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 5 2 .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 t he offset sanctions and to defer the imposition of the highway sanctions associated with o ur partial disapproval of the SJV PM 2.5 SIP , based on our concurrent proposal to approve the State ’ s SIP revision as correcting the deficienc y that initiated these sanctions. Because EPA has preliminarily determined that the State has corrected the deficienc y identified in EPA ’ s partial disapproval action, relief from sanctions should be provided as quickly as possible. Therefore, EPA is invoking the good cause exce ption under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in not providing an opportunity for comment before thi s 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 t he effective date, and EPA will consider any comments received in determining w hether 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. EP A 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 deficienc y that started the sanctions clocks. Therefore, it is not in the public interest
to initially imp ose sanctions or to keep applied sanctions in place when the State has most likelyThis 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 deficienc y that triggered the sanctions clocks. Moreover, it would be impracticable to go through notice

- and

- comment rulemaking on a finding t hat the State has corrected the deficienc y 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

s anctions while EPA completes its rulemaking proc ess 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 restrict ion (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1)). III. STATUTORY AND EXECUTIVE ORDER REVIEWS This action stays and defers f ederal 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 28 355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action. The A dministrator 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

s eq .). 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 f ederal government andThis 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 f ederal government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executiv e Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action does not have f ederalism 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 Safe ty 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 Fa irness 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 e , 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 otherThis 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 th e 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 th e 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 proceeding s to enforce its requirements ( s ee 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