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

3/14/2013, 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 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://fdsys.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/home.action) and on Regulations.gov 

(http://www.regulations.gov) in Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0713.

6560-50-P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0713; FRL-] 

Disapproval of Implementation Plan Revisions; State of 

California; South Coast VMT Emissions Offset Demonstrations 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to withdraw its previous 

approvals of state implementation plan revisions submitted by 

the State of California to meet the vehicle-miles-traveled 

emissions offset requirement under the Clean Air Act for the Los 

Angeles-South Coast Air Basin 1-hour and 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment areas. EPA is also taking final action to 

disapprove the same plan revisions. EPA is finalizing the 

withdrawal and disapproval actions in response to a remand by 

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Association of Irritated 

Residents v. EPA. The effect of this action is to trigger 

deadlines by which new plan revisions meeting the applicable 

requirements must be submitted by the State of California and 

approved by EPA to avoid sanctions and to avoid an obligation on 

EPA to promulgate a federal implementation plan. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA 

Region 9 on 3/14/2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the 

official version.

2 

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS 

FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION IN FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0713 for 

this action. The index to the docket for this action is 

available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in 

hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California, 94105-3901. 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., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available at 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: Wienke Tax, Air Planning 

Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, Mailcode 

AIR-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-

3901, 415-947-4192, tax.wienke@epa.gov. 

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

and “our” refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of Today’s Action 

II. Background 

III. Response to Public Comments 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA 

Region 9 on 3/14/2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the 

official version.

3 

IV. Final Action and Consequences of Final Disapproval 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Summary of Today’s Action 

EPA is taking final action to withdraw our previous 

approvals of revisions to the state implementation plan (SIP) 

submitted by the State of California to demonstrate compliance 

with the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) emissions offset 

requirement under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 182(d)(1)(A) with 

respect to the 1-hour and 8-hour ozone standard in the South 

Coast nonattainment area. EPA is taking this action in response 

to a decision by the Ninth Circuit in Association of Irritated 

Residents v. EPA. Under section 110(k) of the CAA, we are also 

taking final action to disapprove these same plan elements 

because they reflect an approach to showing compliance with 

section 182(d)(1)(A) that was rejected by the Ninth Circuit. 

Subject to our regulations at 40 CFR 52.31, our disapproval 

of the SIP revisions will trigger the new source review (NSR) 

offset sanction in CAA section 179(b)(2) and the highway funding 

sanction under CAA section 179(b)(1) in the South Coast ozone 

nonattainment area 18 months, and 24 months, respectively, after 

the effective date of this action unless we take final action 

approving SIP revisions meeting the relevant requirements of the 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA 

Region 9 on 3/14/2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the 

official version.

4 

CAA prior to the time the sanctions would take effect.1 In 

addition to the sanctions, CAA section 110(c) provides that EPA 

must promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP) addressing 

the deficiency that is the basis for this disapproval two years 

after the effective date of the disapproval unless we have 

approved a revised SIP before that date. 

II. Background 

On September 19, 2012 (77 FR 58067), we proposed the same 

actions that we are finalizing today. In our proposed rule, we 

reviewed the regulatory and SIP submittal history of the South 

Coast Air Basin 1-hour and 8-hour nonattainment areas with 

respect to the VMT emissions offset requirement under CAA 

section 182(d)(1)(A), the related EPA actions, and the ensuing 

litigation and court decision. We provide a summary of that 

discussion herein. For a more detailed discussion, please see 

our September 19, 2012 proposed rule at pages 58068-58070. 

The CAA requires EPA to promulgate national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS or "standards") for certain pervasive 

air pollutants to protect public health and welfare with an 

 

1 Under 40 CFR 52.31(d), the application of sanctions shall be deferred or 

stayed (depending on timing) if the State submits a new SIP that corrects the 

SIP deficiency and EPA proposes approval of that SIP and issues an interim 

final determination that the State has corrected the deficiency. This 

deferral or stay will continue unless and until EPA proposes to or takes 

final action to instead disapprove the new SIP, in which case sanctions would 

apply depending on the timing of EPA’s action with respect to the relevant 

18-month and 24-month periods. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA 

Region 9 on 3/14/2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the 

official version.

5 

adequate margin of safety. In 1979, EPA promulgated an ozone 

NAAQS of 0.12 parts per million (ppm), averaged over a 1-hour 

period. Under the CAA, EPA must also designate areas as 

attainment, nonattainment, or unclassifiable for the NAAQS, and 

States with designated nonattainment areas must submit revisions 

to their SIPs that provide for, among other things, attainment 

of the standards within certain prescribed periods. 

The control requirements and date by which attainment of 

the one-hour ozone standard was to be achieved varied with an 

area’s classification. Under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 

1990, EPA designated the Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin Area 

("South Coast")2 as “extreme” nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone 

standard, with an attainment date no later than November 15, 

2010. See 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991). Extreme areas were 

subject to the most stringent planning requirements and were 

provided the most time to attain the standard. The various ozone 

planning requirements to which Extreme ozone nonattainment areas 

were subject are set forth in section 172(c) and section 182(a)-

(e) of the CAA. Of particular importance for the purposes of 

this action, section 182(d)(1)(A) requires the following: 

 

2 The South Coast includes Orange County, the southwestern two-thirds of Los 

Angeles County, southwestern San Bernardino County, and western Riverside 

County (see 40 CFR 81.305).
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA 

Region 9 on 3/14/2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the 

official version.

6 

"Within 2 years after November 15, 1992, the State shall 

submit a revision that identifies and adopts specific 

enforceable transportation control strategies and 

transportation control measures to offset any growth in 

emissions from growth in vehicle miles traveled or numbers 

of vehicle trips in such area and to attain reduction in 

motor vehicle emissions as necessary, in combination with 

other emission reduction requirements of this subpart, to 

comply with the requirements of subsection (b)(2)(B) and 

(c)(2)(B) of this section (pertaining to periodic emissions 

reduction requirements). The State shall consider measures 

specified in section 7408(f) of this title, and choose from 

among and implement such measures as necessary to 

demonstrate attainment with the national ambient air 

quality standards; in considering such measures, the State 

should ensure adequate access to downtown, other 

commercial, and residential areas and should avoid measures 

that increase or relocate emissions and congestion rather 

than reduce them." 

As we discussed in our proposed rule, EPA believes that it 

is appropriate to treat the three required elements of section 

182(d)(1)(A) (i.e., offsetting emissions growth, attainment of 

the reasonable further progress (RFP) reduction, and attainment 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA 

Region 9 on 3/14/2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the 

official version.

7 

of the ozone NAAQS) as separable. As to the first element of CAA 

section 182(d)(1)(A) (i.e., offsetting emissions growth), EPA 

has historically interpreted this CAA provision to allow areas 

to meet the requirement by demonstrating that emissions from 

motor vehicles decline each year through the attainment year. 

See 57 FR 13498, at 13521-15323 (April 16, 1992). The proposed 

rule and this final rule relate only to the first element of 

section 182(d)(1)(A) (i.e., offsetting emissions growth). 

Herein, we refer to this element as the VMT emissions offset 

requirement. 

In 1997, EPA replaced the 1-hour ozone standard with an 8-

hour ozone standard of 0.08 ppm. See 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 

1997).3 EPA's anti-backsliding rules governing the transition 

from the 1-hour ozone standard to the 8-hour ozone standard 

revoked the 1-hour ozone standard effective June 2005 but also 

carried forward most of the SIP requirements, which had applied 

to an area by virtue of its 1-hour ozone classification, to 

areas designated as nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. 

See 69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004); 40 CFR 51.905(a)(1); and 40 

CFR 51.900(f). The VMT emission offset requirement is one of the 

 

3 In 2008, EPA tightened the 8-hour ozone NAAQS to 0.075 ppm, see 73 FR 16436 

(March 27, 2008). Today's action relates only to SIP requirements arising 

from the classifications and designations of the South Coast with respect to 

the 1979 1-hour ozone and 1997 8-hour ozone standards.
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA 

Region 9 on 3/14/2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the 

official version.

8 

requirements carried forward; thus, the South Coast, which is 

designated nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, 

remains subject to the VMT emissions offset requirement for the 

1-hour ozone standard notwithstanding the revocation of that 

standard in 2005. Moreover, the South Coast is subject to the 

VMT emissions offset requirement for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard itself by virtue of its classification, first as 

"Severe-17," and now as "Extreme," for the 1997 ozone standard. 

See 69 FR 23858 (April 30, 2004); 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 

2005); 75 FR 24409 (May 5, 2010); and 40 CFR 51.902(a). 

In 2008, to comply with the VMT emissions offset 

requirement for the 1-hour ozone standard, the South Coast Air 

Quality Management District (SCAQMD) submitted a demonstration 

showing decreases in aggregate year-over-year motor vehicle 

emissions in the South Coast from a base year through the 

applicable attainment year (2010).4 The following year, EPA 

approved the South Coast 1-hour ozone VMT emissions offset 

demonstration as meeting the VMT emissions offset requirement. 

See 74 FR 10176 (March 10, 2009). The State of California also 

submitted a VMT emissions offset demonstration for the South 

Coast for the 8-hour ozone standard, and it too demonstrated 

 

4 Letter from Elaine Chang, Deputy Executive Officer, South Coast Air Quality 

Management District, dated September 10, 2008, approved at 40 CFR 

52.220(c)(339)(ii)(B)(2). 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA 

Region 9 on 3/14/2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the 

official version.

9 

compliance through a showing of aggregate year-over-year motor 

vehicle emissions decreases from a base year (2002) through the 

applicable attainment year (2024).5

Meanwhile, as explained in more detail in our September 19, 

2012 proposed rule, EPA's approval of the SCAQMD's VMT emissions 

offset demonstration for the 1-hour ozone standard was 

challenged in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and in 2011, 

the court ruled against EPA, determining that EPA incorrectly 

interpreted the statutory phrase “growth in emissions” in 

section 182(d)(1)(A) as meaning a growth in “aggregate motor 

vehicle emissions.” In other words, the court ruled that 

additional transportation control strategies and measures are 

required whenever vehicle emissions are projected to be higher 

than they would have been had vehicle miles traveled not 

increased, even when aggregate vehicle emissions are actually 

decreasing. Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 632 F.3d 

584, at 596-597 (9th Cir. 2011), reprinted as amended on January 

27, 2012, 686 F.3d 668, further amended February 13, 2012 

("Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA"). 

Based on this reasoning, the court remanded the approval of 

the South Coast VMT emissions offset demonstration for the 1-

 

5 See pages 6-23 and 6-27 (table 6-12) of the Final 2007 Air Quality 

Management Plan, June 2007, prepared by the South Coast Air Quality 

Management District. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA 

Region 9 on 3/14/2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the 

official version.

10 

hour ozone standard back to EPA for further proceedings 

consistent with the opinion. In May 2011, EPA filed a petition 

for panel rehearing requesting the court to reconsider its 

decision as to the VMT emissions offset requirement. In January 

2012, the court denied the request and issued the mandate, but 

prior to the court's mandate, EPA took final action to approve 

the South Coast VMT emissions offset demonstration for the 1997 

8-hour ozone standard as part of a larger plan approval action. 

See 77 FR 12674 (March 1, 2012). Shortly thereafter, several 

environmental and community groups filed a lawsuit in the Ninth 

Circuit challenging EPA's approval of that larger plan (i.e., 

the South Coast 1997 8-hour ozone plan). Communities for a 

Better Environment, et al. v. EPA, No. 12-71340. 

In light of the remand in the Association of Irritated 

Residents v. EPA case and the current court challenge to EPA's 

approval of the same SIP element for the 8-hour ozone standard, 

EPA proposed to withdraw the Agency's previous approvals of the 

VMT emissions offset demonstrations submitted by the State of 

California to comply with the VMT emissions offset requirement 

under CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) for the 1-hour and the 1997 8-

hour ozone standards in the South Coast. EPA also proposed to 

disapprove those same submittals. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA 

Region 9 on 3/14/2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the 

official version.

11 

EPA proposed the withdrawals of previous approvals and the 

disapprovals because the Ninth Circuit rejected EPA's longstanding interpretation of the first element of section 

182(d)(1)(A) that states could demonstrate compliance with the 

VMT emissions offset requirement through submittal of aggregate 

motor vehicle emissions estimates showing year-over-year 

declines in such emissions and because the submitted 

demonstrations and related EPA approvals were predicated on the 

long-standing interpretation that was rejected by the court. 

Specifically, as explained in our September 19, 2012 proposed 

rule, we found that the submitted VMT emissions offset 

demonstrations are not consistent with the court’s ruling on the 

requirements of section 182(d)(1)(A) because they fail to 

identify, compared to a baseline assuming no VMT growth, the 

level of increased emissions resulting solely from VMT growth 

and to show how such increased emissions have been offset 

through adoption and implementation of transportation control 

strategies and transportation control measures. See the proposed 

rule at page 58070. 

III. Response to Public Comments 

Publication of our September 19, 2012 proposed rule in the 

Federal Register started a 30-day public comment period which 

ended on October 19, 2012. We received two comment letters, one 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA 

Region 9 on 3/14/2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the 

official version.

12 

from the California Air Resources Board (CARB), and one from the 

SCAQMD. Neither comment letter objects to our proposed 

withdrawal or disapproval actions. Rather, both comment letters 

address aspects of a non-binding and non-final guidance 

memorandum6 issued by EPA in response to the court's decision on 

the section 182(d)(1)(A) VMT emissions offset requirement. 

EPA appreciates the comments from CARB and the SCAQMD on 

the guidance. However, the comments are beyond the scope of this 

rulemaking, and EPA is not here taking any final action to 

respond to these comments or with respect to the non-final and 

non-binding guidance that they address. This final action simply 

withdraws EPA's previous approvals of the VMT emissions offset 

demonstrations for the South Coast with respect to the 1-hour 

and 8-hour ozone NAAQS and disapproves the same because they are 

based on a rationale for compliance with section 182(d)(1)(A) 

that was rejected by the Ninth Circuit in Association of 

Irritated Residents v. EPA. EPA is not relying on the non-final 

and non-binding section 182(d)(1)(A) guidance memorandum for 

today's final action. If a future SIP submission implements the 

guidance, EPA will take separate regulatory final action to 

 

6 Karl Simon, Director, Transportation and Climate Division, EPA Office of 

Transportation and Air Quality, to Carl Edlund and Deborah Jordan, "Guidance 

on Implementing Clean Air Act Section 182(d)(1)(A): Transportation Control 

Measures and Transportation Control Strategies to Offset Growth in Emissions 

Due to Growth in Vehicle Miles Travelled," August 30, 2012. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA 

Region 9 on 3/14/2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the 

official version.

13 

address that SIP and its satisfaction of section 182(d)(1)(A). 

Lastly, EPA appreciates CARB's and SCAQMD's willingness to 

respond promptly to the court decision and this final action, 

and to submit revisions to the South Coast portion of the 

California SIP to address the section 182(d)(1)(A) VMT emissions 

offset requirement for the 1-hour and 8-hour ozone standards. 

IV. Final Action and Consequences of Final Disapproval 

For the reasons provided in the proposed rule and 

summarized herein, EPA is taking final action to withdraw our 

previous approvals of SIP revisions submitted by the State of 

California to demonstrate compliance with the VMT emissions 

offset requirement under CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) with respect 

to the 1-hour and 8-hour ozone standards in the South Coast 

nonattainment area. EPA is taking this action in response to a 

decision of the Ninth Circuit in Association of Irritated 

Residents v. EPA. Under section 110(k), EPA is also taking final 

action to disapprove those same submittals because they reflect 

an approach to showing compliance with section 182(d)(1)(A) that 

was rejected by the court as inconsistent with the CAA section 

182(d)(1)(A) VMT emissions offset requirement. 

Pursuant to CAA section 179(a), our disapproval of the SIP 

revisions will trigger the NSR offset sanction in CAA section 

179(b)(2) and the highway funding sanction under CAA section 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA 

Region 9 on 3/14/2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the 

official version.

14 

179(b)(1) in the South Coast ozone nonattainment area 18 months, 

and 24 months, respectively, after the effective date of this 

action unless we take final action approving SIP revisions 

meeting the relevant requirements of the CAA prior to the time 

the sanctions would take effect. If we propose approval of a SIP 

revision meeting the relevant requirements of the CAA and 

determine at that time that it is more likely than not the 

deficiency has been corrected, sanctions will be deferred. See 

40 CFR 52.31 which sets forth when sanctions apply and when they 

may be stopped or deferred. 

In addition to the sanctions, CAA section 110(c) provides 

that EPA must promulgate a FIP addressing the deficiency that is 

the basis for this disapproval action two years after the 

effective date of the disapproval unless we have approved a 

revised SIP before that date. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review 

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 

regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled 

“Regulatory Planning and Review.” 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA 

Region 9 on 3/14/2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the 

official version.

15 

This action does not impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

C. Regulatory Reduction Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an 

agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule 

subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the 

agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small 

entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit 

enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. 

This rule will not have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals or 

SIP disapprovals under section 110 of the Clean Air Act do not 

create any new requirements but simply approve or disapprove 

requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, 

because the withdrawal of previous approvals of certain SIP 

revisions, and disapproval of the same, do not create any new 

requirements, I certify that this action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State 

relationship under the Clean Air Act, preparation of a 

flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA 

Region 9 on 3/14/2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the 

official version.

16 

economic reasonableness of State action. The Clean Air Act 

forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. 

Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 

U.S.C. 7410(a)(2). 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 (“Unfunded Mandates Act”), signed into law on March 22, 

1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany 

any proposed or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that 

may result in estimated costs to State, local, or tribal 

governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 

million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most 

cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves 

the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory 

requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for 

informing and advising any small governments that may be 

significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule. 

EPA has determined that this action does not include a 

Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 

million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in 

the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action 

withdraws previous approvals of certain pre-existing SIP 

elements and disapproves the same, and imposes no new 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA 

Region 9 on 3/14/2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the 

official version.

17 

requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, 

or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from 

this action. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and 

replaces Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875(Enhancing 

the Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 

requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 

“meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is 

defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that 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.” Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not 

issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that 

imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the 

funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by 

State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and 

local officials early in the process of developing the proposed 

regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA 

Region 9 on 3/14/2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the 

official version.

18 

federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the 

Agency consults with State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed regulation. 

This rule will 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, because it merely withdraws previous 

approvals of certain SIP revisions implementing a Federal 

standard and disapproves the same, and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities 

established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of 

section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal 

officials in the development of regulatory policies that have 

tribal implications.” This rule does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not 

have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA 

Region 9 on 3/14/2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the 

official version.

19 

relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, 

or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the 

Federal government and Indian tribes. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 

23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that 

concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to 

influence the regulation. This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045, because it withdraws previous approvals of certain 

SIP revisions implementing a Federal standard and disapproves 

the same. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

This rule 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 under Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 

Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA 

Region 9 on 3/14/2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the 

official version.

20 

evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new 

regulation. To comply with NTTAA, EPA must consider and use 

“voluntary consensus standards” (VCS) if available and 

applicable when developing programs and policies unless doing so 

would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. 

EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. 

Today's action does not require the public to perform activities 

conducive to the use of VCS. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Population 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) 

establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. 

Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest 

extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental 

justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as 

appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, policies, and 

activities on minority populations and low-income populations in 

the United States. 

EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address 

environmental justice in this rulemaking. In reviewing SIP 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA 

Region 9 on 3/14/2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the 

official version.

21 

submissions, EPA's role is to approve or disapprove state 

choices, based on the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely withdraws previous approvals of 

certain SIP revisions implementing a Federal standard and 

disapproves the same under section 110 of the Clean Air Act and 

will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements. 

Accordingly, it does not provide EPA with the discretionary 

authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally 

permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

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, 

which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress 

and to the Comptroller General of the United States. 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 the Federal Register. 

A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA 

Region 9 on 3/14/2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the 

official version.

22 

published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major 

rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

L. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 

judicial review of this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by [INSERT 

DATE 60 DAYS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION IN FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of 

this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for 

the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time 

within which a 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 relations, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

__________________ ________________________ 

Dated: Jared Blumenfeld, 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA 

Region 9 on 3/14/2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the 

official version.

23 

Regional Administrator, 

EPA Region IX. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA 

Region 9 on 3/14/2013. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the 

official version.

24 

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations is amended as follows: 

PART 52--[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as 

follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart F - California 

2. Section 52.220 is amended by removing and reserving 

paragraph (c)(339)(ii)(B)(2).