Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 signed the following proposed rule on May 5, 2014, 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 proposed rule, it is not the official version of the proposed rule for purposes of public 

comment. 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-2013-0823.

6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0823; FRL-] 

Interim Final Determination to Defer Sanctions, State of 

California, Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin

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

ACTION: Interim final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is making an 

interim final determination to defer the imposition of sanctions 

based on a proposed approval published elsewhere in this Federal

Register of a state implementation plan revision submitted by 

the State of California to meet the vehicle miles traveled

emissions offset requirement under the Clean Air Act for the 1-

hour ozone and 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS) in the Los Angeles–South Coast Air Basin

(South Coast).

DATES: This interim final determination is effective on [Insert 

date of publication in the Federal Register]. However, comments 

will be accepted until [Insert date 30 days from date of 

publication in the Federal Register].
2

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

May 5, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPAR09-OAR-2013-0823, by one of the following methods:

 Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions.

 E-mail: ungvarsky.john@epa.gov.

 Mail or deliver: John Ungvarsky, Air Planning Office (AIR2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.

Instructions: All comments will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or 

otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or e-mail.

www.regulations.gov is an “anonymous access” system, and EPA 

will not know your identity or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. If you send e-mail 

directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be automatically 
3

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

May 5, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

captured and included as part of the public comment. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and 

cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to 

consider your comment. 

Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action 

are available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard 

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

California 94105-3901. While all documents in the docket are 

listed at www.regulations.gov, some information may be publicly 

available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 

material, large maps), and some may not be publicly available in 

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, 

please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with 

the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Ungvarsky, Air Planning 

Office (AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 

(415) 972-3963, ungvarsky.john@epa.gov.

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

and “our” refer to the EPA.

I. Background 
4

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

May 5, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

On March 28, 2013 (78 FR 18849), we published a final 

action to disapprove 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 ozone and 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS in the South Coast nonattainment area. Under section 

110(k) of the CAA, we disapproved these plan elements because 

they reflect an approach to showing compliance with section

182(d)(1)(A) that was rejected by the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals in Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA. This 

disapproval action became effective on April 29, 2013 and 

started a sanctions clock for imposition of offset sanctions 18 

months after April 29, 2013 and highway sanctions 6 months 

later, pursuant to CAA section 179 and our regulations at 40 CFR 

52.31. As such, offset sanctions will be applied on October 29, 

2014, and highway sanctions will be applied on April 29, 2015, 

unless EPA determines the disapproval has been corrected.

On February 13, 2013, the State of California submitted, as 

a revision to the California SIP, the Final 2012 Air Quality 

Management Plan (2012 South Coast AQMP) for the South Coast Air 
5

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

May 5, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

Basin (2012 South Coast AQMP). The 2012 South Coast AQMP 

submittal includes Appendix VIII, Vehicle Miles Traveled 

Emissions Offset Demonstration (“Appendix VIII”). On April 3, 

2014, the State of California submitted a technical supplement

to the VMT offset demonstrations in Appendix VIII of the 2012 

South Coast AQMP. 

In the Proposed Rules section of today’s Federal Register, 

we are proposing to approve Appendix VIII and the related 

technical supplement as a SIP revision because we believe that 

it corrects the deficiency identified in our March 28, 2013

disapproval action. Based on today’s proposed approval, we are 

taking this interim final rulemaking action, effective on

publication, to defer the imposition of the offset sanctions and 

highway sanctions triggered by our March 28, 2013 disapproval.

EPA is providing the public with an opportunity to comment 

on this deferral of sanctions. If comments are submitted that 

change our assessment described in this interim final 

determination and the proposed full approval of the South Coast 

VMT Emissions Offset Demonstrations in Appendix VIII, we intend 

to take subsequent final action to reimpose sanctions pursuant 

to 40 CFR 52.31(d). If no comments are submitted that change our 
6

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

May 5, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

assessment, then all sanctions and sanction clocks will be 

permanently terminated on the effective date of a final rule 

approval.

II. EPA Action

We are making an interim final determination to defer the 

imposition of sanctions associated with our disapproval of 

revisions to the California SIP based on our concurrent proposal 

to approve the State’s revision to the Los Angeles-South Coast 

portion of the California SIP as correcting the deficiency that 

initiated sanctions.

Because EPA has preliminarily determined that the State has

corrected the deficiencies identified in EPA’s disapproval 

action, relief from sanctions should be provided as quickly as 

possible. Therefore, EPA is invoking the good cause exception 

under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in not providing an 

opportunity for comment before this action takes effect (5 

U.S.C. 553(b)(3)). However, by this action EPA is providing the 

public with a chance to comment on EPA’s determination after the 

effective date, and EPA will consider any comments received in 

determining whether to reverse such action. 
7

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

May 5, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

EPA believes that notice-and-comment rulemaking before the 

effective date of this action is impracticable and contrary to 

the public interest. EPA has reviewed the State’s submittal and, 

through its proposed action, is indicating that it is more 

likely than not that the State has corrected the deficiencies 

that started the sanctions clocks. Therefore, it is not in the 

public interest to initially impose sanctions or to keep applied 

sanctions in place when the State has most likely done all it 

can to correct the deficiencies that triggered the sanctions 

clocks. Moreover, it would be impracticable to go through 

notice-and-comment rulemaking on a finding that the State has 

corrected the deficiencies prior to the rulemaking approving the 

State’s submittal. Therefore, EPA believes that it is necessary 

to use the interim final rulemaking process to defer sanctions 

while EPA completes its rulemaking process on the approvability 

of the State’s submittal. Moreover, with respect to the 

effective date of this action, EPA is invoking the good cause 

exception to the 30-day notice requirement of the APA because 

the purpose of this notice is to relieve a restriction (5 U.S.C. 

553(d)(1)).

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
8

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

May 5, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

This action defers federal sanctions and imposes no 

additional requirements. 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), 

this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and 

therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management 

and Budget. 

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, 

“Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 

Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) 

because it is not a significant regulatory action.

The administrator certifies that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et 

seq.). 

This rule does not contain any unfunded mandate or 

significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). 

This rule does not have tribal implications because it will 

not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian 

tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and 
9

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

May 5, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

responsibilities between the federal government and Indian 

tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000). 

This action does not have Federalism implications because 

it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on 

the relationship between the national government and the States, 

or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 

13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). 

This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, 

“Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and 

Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not 

economically significant.

The requirements of section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272) 

do not apply to this rule because it imposes no standards. 

This rule does not impose an information collection burden 

under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as 

added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
10

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

May 5, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, 

the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report to 

Congress and the Comptroller General. However, section 808 

provides that any rule for which the issuing agency for good 

cause finds that notice and public procedure thereon are 

impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, 

shall take effect at such time as the agency promulgating the 

rule determines. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). EPA has made such a good cause 

finding, including the reasons therefore, and established an 

effective date of [Insert date of publication]. 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 rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial 

review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 

of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by [Insert date 60 days 

from date of publication of this document]. Filing a petition 
11

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

May 5, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this rule for the purpose of judicial 

review nor does it extend the time within which petition for 

judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the 

effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see 

section 307(b)(2)).
12

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

May 5, 2014. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, 

Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental regulations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

________________ ______________________

Dated: Jared Blumenfeld,

Regional Administrator,

Region IX.