Billing Code 6560-50

Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 signed the following rule on November 9, 2012, 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-2012-0734.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0734; FRL- ]

Withdrawal of Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans and Findings of Failure to Submit 

Required Plans; California; San Joaquin Valley; 1-Hour and 8-Hour Ozone Extreme Area Plan

Elements

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

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is withdrawing its March 8, 2010 final action approving State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by California to provide for attainment of the 1-

hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in the San Joaquin Valley 

extreme ozone nonattainment area. In addition, EPA is withdrawing its March 1, 2012 

determination that the California SIP satisfies the requirement regarding offsetting emissions 

growth caused by growth in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) under the Clean Air Act (CAA) for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley. Finally, EPA is finding that 

California has failed to submit required SIP revisions to provide for attainment of the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS and to address the VMT emissions offset requirement for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley. Under the CAA, these findings of failure to submit trigger 

the 18-month time clock for mandatory imposition of sanctions and the two-year time clock for 

EPA to promulgate federal implementation plans.

DATE: The rule is effective [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 
2

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

November 9, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

REGISTER].

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0734 for this action. 

The index to the docket is 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 in the index, some 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frances Wicher, Air Planning Office (AIR2), (415) 972-3957, wicher.frances@epa.gov. 

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

refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. San Joaquin Valley 2004 1-Hour Ozone Plan

A. Withdrawal of EPA’s Approval of the 2004 1-Hour Ozone Plan

B. Finding of Failure to Submit a SIP to Provide for Attainment of the 1-Hour Ozone 

Standards in the SJV Extreme 1-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area

II. VMT Emissions Offset Requirement for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standards

A. Withdrawal of EPA’s Determination that the 2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan Satisfies the 

VMT Emissions Offset Requirement in CAA Section 182(d)(1)(A) 

B. Finding of Failure to Submit a SIP Meeting the CAA Section 182(d)(1)(A) VMT 

Emissions Offset Requirement for the SJV Extreme 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area

III. Final Actions
3

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

November 9, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. San Joaquin Valley 2004 1-Hour Ozone Plan

A. Withdrawal of EPA’s Approval of the 2004 1-Hour Ozone Plan

EPA is withdrawing its March 8, 2010 final action approving SIP revisions submitted by 

California under the CAA to provide for attainment of the 1-hour ozone national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS) in the San Joaquin Valley (SJV) extreme ozone nonattainment area

(2004 1-Hour Ozone Plan) (75 FR 10420). The effect of this action is to entirely withdraw the 

2004 1-Hour Ozone Plan from the applicable California SIP. We proposed this action on 

September 19, 2012 (77 FR 58078) and provided a 30-day period for the public to submit 

comments. We received no comments.

EPA is taking this action in response to a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit in Sierra Club et. al v. EPA, 671 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2012) (Sierra Club). For 

further background on this court decision and EPA’s rationale for today’s action, please see our 

proposed rule at 77 FR 58078. 

B. Finding of Failure to Submit a SIP to Provide for Attainment of the 1-Hour Ozone 

Standards in the SJV Extreme 1-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area

Following our proposed rule to withdraw our March 8, 2010 approval of the 2004 1-Hour 

Ozone Plan into the SIP, California submitted a letter stating its intention to withdraw its 

submission of this plan to EPA, effective immediately upon EPA’s final withdrawal of the 

March 8, 2010 approval. See letter dated October 15, 2012, from James N. Goldstene, Executive 

Officer, California Air Resources Board, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA 

Region 9. As a consequence of EPA’s final withdrawal of our approval of the 2004 1-Hour 

Ozone Plan and California’s simultaneous withdrawal of the 2004 1-Hour Ozone Plan from 
4

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

November 9, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

EPA, the State is now in default of its obligation to submit a SIP to provide for attainment of the 

1-hour ozone NAAQS in the SJV extreme ozone nonattainment area.

1

Therefore, simultaneously 

with this withdrawal of approval, EPA is finding that California has failed to submit an extreme 

area plan to provide for attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in the SJV nonattainment area.

As explained in our proposed rule (77 FR at 58079-80), the plan elements under subparts

1 and 2 of part D, title I of the CAA that California is required to submit for the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS for the SJV are as follows: (1) a rate of progress (ROP) demonstration meeting the 

requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(2) and 182(c)(2); (2) ROP contingency measures meeting 

the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9); (3) an attainment demonstration 

meeting the requirements of CAA sections 182(c)(2)(A) and 172(a)(2); (4) attainment 

contingency measures meeting the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9); (5) a reasonably 

available control measures (RACM) demonstration meeting the requirements of CAA section 

172(c)(1); (6) provisions satisfying the requirements for clean fuels/clean technologies for 

boilers in CAA 182(e)(3); and (7) provisions satisfying the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) 

provisions of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A). See 40 CFR 51.905(a)(1) and 51.900(f); see also 75 FR 

10420, 10436-37.

This finding of failure to submit is not subject to the notice-and-comment requirements of 

the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b). EPA believes that because of the 

 

1 California was obligated to submit SIP revisions to address the requirement in CAA section 

182(d)(1)(A) regarding offsetting emissions growth caused by growth in VMT for the 1-hour 

ozone standard in SJV no later than May 31, 2002, and additional SIP revisions meeting the 

CAA’s extreme area requirements for the 1-hour ozone standard in SJV no later than November 

15, 2004. See 66 FR 56476, 56481 (November 8, 2001) (final rule finding that SJV failed to 

attain 1-hour ozone NAAQS by applicable attainment date and reclassifying SJV from “serious” 

to “severe” nonattainment, effective December 10, 2001) and 69 FR 20550 (April 16, 2004) 

(final rule reclassifying SJV from “severe” to “extreme” nonattainment for 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS, effective May 17, 2004). 
5

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

November 9, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

limited time provided by the CAA to make findings of failure to submit, Congress did not intend 

such findings to be subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking. However, to the extent such 

findings are subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking, we invoke the good cause exception 

pursuant to APA section 553(b)(3)(B). Notice and comment are unnecessary because no EPA 

judgment is involved in making a non-substantive finding of failure to submit SIPs required by 

the CAA. Furthermore, notice and comment would be contrary to the public interest because it 

would divert EPA resources from the critical substantive review of complete SIPs. See 58 FR 

51270, 51272, note 7 (October 1, 1993); 59 FR 39832, 39853 (August 4, 1994). 

II. VMT Emissions Offset Requirement for 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standards

A. Withdrawal of EPA’s Determination that the 2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan Satisfies the 

VMT Emissions Offset Requirement in CAA Section 182(d)(1)(A) 

EPA is withdrawing its March 1, 2012 determination that California’s SIP to provide for

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS2in the SJV extreme ozone nonattainment area 

(2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan) satisfies the requirement regarding emissions growth caused by 

growth in vehicle miles traveled in CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. Section 182(d)(1)(A) of the Act requires, in relevant part, that each state containing a 

“severe” or “extreme” ozone nonattainment area submit a SIP revision that identifies and adopts 

specific enforceable transportation control strategies and measures to offset any growth in 

emissions from growth in vehicle miles traveled or numbers of vehicle trips in the area (VMT

 

2 All references in this preamble to the 8-hour NAAQS are to the 0.08 parts per million standards

established in 1997 at 40 CFR 50.10(b).
6

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

November 9, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

emissions offset requirement).

3 We proposed this action on September 19, 2012 (77 FR 58078) 

and provided a 30-day period for the public to submit comments. We received no comments. 

EPA is taking this action in response to a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit in Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 632 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2011), 

reprinted as amended on January 27, 2012, 686 F.3d 668, further amended February 13, 2012

(AIR). For further background on this court decision and EPA’s rationale for today’s action, 

please see our proposed rule at 77 FR 58078.

This withdrawal of approval is limited to our determination that the 2007 8-Hour Ozone 

Plan satisfies the VMT emissions offset requirement in CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. All other determinations in our March 1, 2012 final rule approving the 

2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan at 77 FR 12652 remain unchanged and in effect. 

B. Finding of Failure to Submit a SIP Meeting the CAA Section 182(d)(1)(A) VMT 

Emissions Offset Requirement for the SJV 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area

EPA’s determination that the 2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan satisfies the VMT emissions 

offset requirement for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS was made in the absence of any specific

demonstration submitted by the State for this purpose and was based on EPA’s evaluation of 

emissions inventory data submitted as part of the 2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan. See 76 FR 57846, 

57863 (September 16, 2011) and 77 FR 12652, 12666 and 12670 (March 1, 2012). Thus, as a 

consequence of our withdrawal of our determination that the 2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan satisfies 

the VMT emissions offset requirement in CAA section 182(d)(1)(A), California is now in default 

of its obligation to submit a SIP revision meeting this CAA requirement for the 1997 8-hour 

 

3 CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) also requires states to adopt transportation control strategies and 

measures as necessary to demonstrate attainment and reasonable further progress. These 

requirements of section 182(d)(1)(A) are not at issue in this action.
7

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

November 9, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

ozone NAAQS in the SJV extreme ozone nonattainment area.

4

Therefore, simultaneously with 

this withdrawal of approval, EPA is finding that California has failed to submit a required SIP 

revision to meet the VMT emissions offset requirement in CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the SJV extreme ozone nonattainment area. 

This finding of failure to submit is not subject to the notice-and-comment requirements of 

the APA. EPA believes that because of the limited time provided by the CAA to make findings 

of failure to submit, Congress did not intend such findings to be subject to notice-and-comment 

rulemaking. However, to the extent such findings are subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking, 

we invoke the good cause exception pursuant to APA section 553(b)(3)(B). Notice and comment 

are unnecessary because no EPA judgment is involved in making a non-substantive finding of 

failure to submit SIPs required by the CAA. Furthermore, notice and comment would be contrary 

to the public interest because it would divert EPA resources from the critical substantive review 

of complete SIPs. See 58 FR 51270, 51272, note 7 (October 1, 1993); 59 FR 39832, 39853 

(August 4, 1994).

III. Final Actions

A. Withdrawals of Approvals

 

4 Consistent with CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) and EPA’s implementation regulations for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS at 40 CFR part 51, subpart X, we interpret the 2-year timeframe for 

submission of the VMT emissions offset SIP for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS to run from the 

effective date of EPA’s reclassification of SJV from “serious” to “extreme” nonattainment for 

this standard. Accordingly, California was obligated to submit a VMT emissions offset SIP for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the SJV area no later than June 4, 2012. See 75 FR 24409 

(May 5, 2010) (final rule reclassifying SJV from “serious” to “extreme” nonattainment for 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS, effective June 4, 2010). 
8

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

November 9, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

EPA is withdrawing its March 8, 2010 final action approving the 2004 1-Hour Ozone 

Plan, which California submitted to provide for attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in the 

SJV extreme ozone nonattainment area (75 FR 10420, March 8, 2010).

In addition, EPA is withdrawing its March 1, 2012 determination that the 2007 8-Hour

Ozone Plan, which California submitted to provide for attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS in the SJV, satisfies the VMT emissions offset requirement in CAA section 

182(d)(1)(A) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the SJV extreme ozone nonattainment area 

(77 FR 12652 at 12670, March 1, 2012).

B. Findings of Failure to Submit Required SIP Revisions

As a consequence of EPA’s final withdrawal of our previous approval of the 2004 1-Hour 

Ozone Plan and California’s simultaneous withdrawal of its submission of the 2004 1-Hour 

Ozone Plan, EPA is finding that California has failed to submit a required SIP revision to 

provide for attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in the SJV extreme ozone nonattainment 

area. 

In addition, as a consequence of EPA’s withdrawal of our determination that the 2007 8-

Hour Ozone Plan satisfies the VMT emissions offset requirement in CAA section 182(d)(1)(A)

for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, EPA is finding that California has failed to submit a

required SIP revision that identifies and adopts transportation control strategies and measures to 

offset any growth in emissions from growth in VMT or the numbers of vehicle trips as required 

by CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the SJV extreme ozone 

nonattainment area.

Under CAA section 179(a), a finding of failure to submit a plan or plan element required 

by part D of title I of the Act triggers sanction clocks under CAA section 179(b). These clocks
9

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

November 9, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

run from the effective date of EPA’s finding. The first sanction, the offset sanction in CAA 

section 179(b)(2), will apply in the SJV extreme ozone nonattainment area 18 months from 

[INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. The second 

sanction, highway funding sanctions in CAA section 179(b)(1), will apply in the area six months 

after the offset sanction is imposed, in accordance with 40 CFR 52.31. The State can end these 

sanction clocks or lift any imposed sanctions by making complete SIP submittals addressing the 

CAA’s extreme area requirements for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and the VMT emissions offset 

requirement for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the SJV area. 

In addition to these sanctions, CAA section 110(c)(1) provides that EPA must promulgate 

a federal implementation plan addressing the CAA’s extreme area requirements for the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS and the VMT emissions offset requirement for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in 

the SJV area, no later than two years after [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER], unless the State submits and EPA approves SIP revisions addressing 

these requirements before that date.

C. Effective Date under the Administrative Procedure Act

These actions will be effective on [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER]. Under APA section 553(d)(3), an agency rulemaking may take effect 

before 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register if an agency has good cause to 

specify an earlier effective date. Today’s actions to withdraw EPA’s previous approval of the 

2004 1-Hour Ozone Plan and to withdraw EPA’s previous determination that the 2007 8-Hour 

Ozone Plan satisfies the VMT emissions offset requirement in CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS are being taken in response to the Ninth Circuit’s decisions in the 

Sierra Club and AIR decisions, as discussed above and in our proposed rule. The purpose of a 
10

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

November 9, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

delayed effective date is to ensure that regulated entities have advance notice of obligations with 

which they must comply. Because today’s withdrawal actions do not place a burden on any 

entity, a delayed compliance date is unnecessary. Moreover, because the court has ruled that 

these prior determinations were inconsistent with the CAA, it is in the public interest for the 

effective date of our actions withdrawing these approvals to become effective immediately. 

These reasons support an effective date prior to 30 days after the date of publication of these

withdrawals of approval.

In addition, EPA’s finding that California has failed to submit an extreme area plan to 

provide for attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in the SJV is a necessary consequence of 

EPA’s withdrawal of approval of the 2004 1-Hour Ozone Plan and California’s simultaneous 

withdrawal of this plan from EPA. Similarly, EPA’s finding that California has failed to submit a 

VMT emissions offset SIP under CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS

for the SJV is a necessary consequence of EPA’s withdrawal of its determination that the 2007 8-

Hour Ozone Plan satisfies this requirement. These findings of failure to submit concern required 

CAA submittals that are overdue. We previously cautioned California and the public that we 

would make such findings and that these findings would be effective upon publication in the 

Federal Register. See 77 FR 58078 at 58079, 58080. Finally, these findings of failure to submit 

simply start clocks that will not result in sanctions against the State for 18 months and that the 

State may turn off by making complete SIP submittals. These reasons support an effective date 

prior to 30 days after the date of publication of these findings.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review 
11

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

November 9, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 

12866 and is therefore not subject to review under it. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

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 Flexibility 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-forprofit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.

This action to withdraw previous EPA approvals and determinations and to make 

findings of failure to submit under the CAA will not have a significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities because this action does not create any new requirements. This action

relates to the existing requirements in the CAA that states submit SIPs to provide for attainment 

and to meet other applicable CAA requirements in each of their 1-hour ozone nonattainment

areas and to submit transportation control strategies and measures to offset emissions growth 

from growth in VMT or the numbers of vehicle trips in each of their severe and extreme 8-hour

ozone nonattainment areas. Therefore, because this action does not create any new requirements, 

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 

small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
12

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

November 9, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

Under sections 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 to withdraw previous EPA approvals and 

determinations and to make findings of failure to submit under the CAA 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 action relates to the existing

requirements in the CAA that states submit SIPs to provide for attainment and to meet other 

applicable CAA requirements in each of their 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas and to submit 

transportation control strategies and measures to offset emissions growth from growth in VMT 

or the numbers of vehicle trips in each of their severe and extreme 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

areas. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private 

sector, result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the State, or on the 

distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. The CAA establishes the scheme whereby states take the lead in 
13

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

November 9, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

developing SIPs including SIPs to attain the NAAQS and to meet other applicable CAA 

requirements including the VMT emissions offset requirement in CAA section 182(d)(1)(A)). 

This action will not modify this relationship. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this 

action.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments

This final action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. 

It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this final action.

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 action is 

not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is withdrawing previous EPA approvals and 

determinations and making findings that California has failed to submitted a SIP that meets the 

requirements of CAA the SJV extreme ozone nonattainment area. The findings of failure to 

submit establish a 24-month deadline for EPA to promulgate a FIP to address the outstanding 

SIP requirements unless, prior to that time, California submits, and EPA approves, the required 

SIPs.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 
14

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

November 9, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

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 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 12898 (59 FR 7629 (February 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 lowincome populations in the United States.

EPA has determined that this final action will not have disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it 

does not directly affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. This 

notice is withdrawing previous EPA approvals and determinations and making findings that 
15

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

November 9, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

California has failed to submit SIPs that meet certain requirements of CAA for the SJV extreme 

ozone nonattainment area.

K. Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 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 published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 

U.S.C. section 804(2). This rule is effective on [[INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN 

THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

L. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under CAA section 307(b)(1), 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 THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of this final action 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
16

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

November 9, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen Dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

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

November 9, 2012 /s/

_________________________ __________________________________

Dated: Jared Blumenfeld,

EPA Regional Administrator, Region 9
17

This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 on 

November 9, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

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 deleting paragraphs (c)(317)(i)(B), (c)(339)(i)(B), 

(c)(339)(ii)(C)(1) and (c)(339)(ii)(C)(2) and by deleting and reserving paragraphs (c)(369) and 

(c)(370)

§ 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(369) [Reserved]

(370) [Reserved]

* * * * *