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 Docke t 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 Finding s of Failure to Submit Required Plan s ; California; San Joaquin Valley; 1

- Hour and 8

- Hour Ozone Extreme Area Plan Element s AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY : EPA is withdrawing its March 8, 2010 final action approving State Implemen t ation 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 de termination 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 revision s 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, th ese f inding s 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 plan s . DATE: The rule is effective [ INSER T DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL2

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

- 0 734 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. Whil e 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, ple ase 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 (AIR

2), (415) 972

- 3957, wicher.frances@epa.gov. SUPPLEME NTARY 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 Standard s in the SJV Extreme 1

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

- Hour Ozone Standard s 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 Actions3

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 E xecutive 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
200 4 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 decisio n 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 Standard s 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

. A s 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

- Ho ur Ozone Plan from4

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 findi ng that Ca lifornia 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 subpart s 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 conting ency 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 section s 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 Admini strative Procedure Act (APA) , 5 U.S.C. 553(b) . EPA believes that because of the

1 Ca lifornia 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 revision s 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 ex tent such findings are subject to notice

- and

- commen t 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 substanti v e review of complete SIPs. See 58 FR 51270, 51272, no te 7 (October 1, 1993); 59 F R 39832, 39853 (August 4, 1994). II. VMT Emissions Offset Requirement for 1997 8
- Hour Ozone Standard s 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 NAAQS 2 in the SJV extreme ozone nonattainment area (2007 8

- Hour Ozone Plan ) satisfies the requirement regarding emissions growth cau sed by growth in vehicle miles traveled in CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) for the 1997 8

- hour ozone NAAQS

. S ection 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 standard s 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 provide d 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 th is court decision and EPA’s rationale for today’s actio n , please see our propos ed 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, a s a consequence of our wit hdrawal of our determination that the 2007 8

- Hour Oz one Plan satisfies the VMT e missions o ffset requirement in CAA section 18 2(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 s ection 182(d)(1)(A) also requires states to adopt transport ation 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 CA A section 182(d)(1)(A) for the 1997 8

- hour ozone NAAQS in the SJV extreme ozone nonattainment area

. T his 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 (Oct ober 1, 1993); 59 FR 39832, 39853 (August 4, 1994). III. Final Actions
A. Withdrawals of Approval s

4 Consistent with CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) and EPA’s implementation re gulations 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 “s erious” 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 reclassi fying 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 oz one NAAQS in the
SJV extreme ozone nonattainment area (75 FR 10420 , March 8, 2010 ). In addition, EPA is withdraw ing its March 1, 2012 determination that the 2007 8

- Hour Ozone Plan , which Califo r nia 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 determinatio n 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 measur es to offset any growth in emissions from growth in VMT or the number s 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 s ubmit a plan or plan element required by part D of title I of the Act triggers sanction clocks under CAA section 179(b) . These clocks9

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 [ INSER T 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 impose d , in accordance with 40 CFR 52.31. The State can end these sanction clocks or lift any imposed sanctions by making complete SIP submittal s 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 requirement s for the 1

- hour ozone NAAQS and the VMT em issions offset requirement for the 1997 8

- hour ozone NAAQS in the SJV area , no later than two years after [ INSER T DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER ], unless the State submits and EPA approve s SIP revisions addressing these requirements before tha t date

. C. Effective Date under the Administrative Procedure Act
T hese action s will be effective on [ INSER T 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 O zone 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 decision s i n the Sierra Club and AIR decisions, as discussed above an d in our proposed rule

. The purpose of a10

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 actio ns do not p lace a burden on any entity, a delayed compliance date is unnecessary. Moreover, because the court has ruled that these prior determinations we re inconsistent with the CAA, it is in the public interest for the effective date of our action s withdrawing th e se approvals to be come effective immediate ly

. These reasons support an effective date prior to 30 days after the date of publication of the se withdrawal s of approval

. In addition, EPA’s finding that California has failed to submit an extre me 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 th at 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 requ irement. T hese findings of failure to submit concern required CAA submittals that are overdue

. We previously cautioned California and the public that we would make such finding s and that these finding s would be effective upon publication in the Federal Register . See 77 FR 58078 at 58079, 58080. Finally, th ese finding s of failure to submit simply start clock s that will not result in sanctions against the State for 18 months and that the State may turn off by making complete SIP submittal s . These reasons s upport an effective date prior to 30 days after the date of publication of these findings

. I V . Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review11

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. Th is action is not a “ significant regulatory action” under the te rms 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 de fined 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 cert ifies 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 action to withdraw previous EPA approvals and determination s and to make finding s of failure to submit under the CAA will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because this action do es not create any new requirements

. This action relates to the existing requirement s in the CAA that states submit SIP s 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 do es not create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not hav e a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act12

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 budg etary 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 consisten t 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 determination s and to make finding s 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 requirement s in the CAA that states submit SIP s 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 seve re 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 implicati ons. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the na tional 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 in13

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. develop ing SIPs including SIP s 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 relations hip. Thus, Executive Order 13132 do es 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 actio ns 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 app rovals and determination s and making finding s that California has failed to submitted a SIP that meets the requirements of CAA the SJV extreme ozone nonattainment area

. The finding s of failure to submit establish a 24

- month deadline for EPA to promulgate a FIP to address the outstanding SIP requirement s unless, prior to that time, California submit s , and EPA approves, the required
SI P s . H. Executive Order 13211, Actions that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use14

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 Tran sfer 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 acti on 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 (Feb ruary 16, 1 994)) 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 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 previo us EPA a pprovals and determinations and making finding s that15

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 S IP s 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 [ [ INSER T 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 pet ition 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 5216

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. Environm ental 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 917

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)(3 17)(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]

* * * * *