Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 19/Thursday, January 29, 2015/Rules and Regulations 4795

agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy ofthe rule, to each House ofthe Congress and to the Comptroller General ofthe United States. EPAwill submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House ofRepresentatives, and the Comptroller General ofthe United States priorto publication ofthe rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannottake 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. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) ofthe Clean AirAct, petitions forjudicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court ofAppeals forthe appropriate circuit by March 30, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator ofthis final rule does not affectthe finality ofthis action for the purposes ofjudicial review nOr does
it extend the time within which a petition for.judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness ofsuch rule oraction. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See CAA section 307(b)(2).)

List ofSubjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference,

•Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 etseq. Dated: November3, 2014.
Shaun L. McGrath, Regional’Administralor,,Regfon 8.
Forthe reasons stated~in the, preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency amends 40 CFR part 52 as follows:

PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

• 1. Theauthoritycitation forPart52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 etseq.
Subpart BB—Montana

• 2. Section 52.1370 is amendedby adding paragraph (c)(74) to read as follows:
§52.1370 Identification of plan.

* * * * * (c)

* * * (74) On June 4, 2013 the State of Montana submitted revisions to the Administrative Rules ofMontana (ARM), AirQuality, Subchapter 8, Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration ofAir Quality, 17.8.801, Definitions, and 17.8.818, ReviewofMajorStationary Sources and MajorModifications— SourceApplicabilityand Exemptions. (i) Incorporation by reference (A) Administrative Rules ofMontana, Air Quality, Subchapter 8, Prevention of Significant Deterioration ofAirQuality, 17.8.801, Definitions, (20) introductory text, (20)(a); (22) introductorytext, (22)(b); (25); (28) introductory text, (28)(a), exceptforthe phrase “nitrogen oxides (NOx)”; and, 17.8.818, Reviewof MajorStationarySources and Major Modifications—SourceApplicability and Exemptions, (7) introductorytext, (7)(a) introductorytext, (7)(a)(vi), effective 10/12/2012, [FR Doc. 2015—01490 Filed 1—28—15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560—50—P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52 [EPA—R09—OAR—2014—01 78; FRL—9921—99— Region 9]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of California; Sacramento Metro Area; Attainment Plan for 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve state implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted bythe State of Californiathat provide for attainment of the 1997 8-hourozone national ambient air quality standard (“standard” or NAAQS) in the Sacramento Metro nonattainment area. The EPA is approving the emissions inventories, air quality modeling, reasonably available control measures, provisions for transportation control strategies and
measures, rate ofprogress and reasonable further progress (RFP) demonstrations, attainment demonstration, transportation conformity motorvehicle emissions budgets, and contingency measures for failure to make RFP orattain. The EPA is also approving commitments for

measures bythe Sacramento Metro nonattainment area air districts. DATES: This final rule is effective on March 2, 2015. ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket forthis action: Docket ID No. EPA—R09—OAR—2014—01 78. Generally, documents in the docketforthis action

are available electronicallyat www.regulations.govand in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov, some information maybe publicly available only atthe 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 CONTACTsection.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Ungvarsky, Air Planning Office (AIR—2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region LX, (415) 972—3963, ungvarsky.john@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” referto the EPA.

Table ofContents

I. Summary ofProposed Action A. Regulatory Background B. CARB’s Submittals C. The EPA’s Proposed Approval II. What comments did the EPA receive on the proposed rule? III. What action is the EPAtaking? IV. Statutory and Executive OrderReviews

I. Summary ofProposed Action
On October 15, 2014 (79 FR 61799), undersection 110(k) ofthe Clean Air Act (Act or CAA), the EPA proposed approval ofa series ofsubmittals from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) as revisions to the California state implementation plan (SIP) forthe Sacramento Metro ozone nonattainment

area (SMA).1 The principal submittals

--

• Sacramento Regional

- Nonattainment Area 8-HciurOzone Reasonable Further Progress Plan 2002— 2008 (“2002—2008 RFP Plan”), February 2006;

• Sacramento Regional 8-HourOzone Attainment Plan and Reasonable Further Progress Plan, March 26, 2009

I The SMA consists ofSacramento and Yolo
counties and portions of El Dorado, Placer, Solano and Sutter counties. Fora precise description ofthe geographic boundaries ofthe SMA, see 40 CFR 81.305. Sacramento County is under the jurisdiction ofthe Sacramento Metropolitan AirQuality Management District (SMAQMD). Yolo County and the eastern portion ofSolano County comprise the Yolo-Solano AQMD (YSAQMD). The southern portion ofSutterCounty is part ofthe Feather River AQMD (FRAQMD). Thewestern portion ofPlacer County is part ofthe PlacerCountyAirPollution Control District (PCAPCD). Lastly, the western portion ofEl Dorado County is part ofthe El Dorado County AQMD (EDCAQMD). Collectively, we refer to these five districts as the “Districts.”

### 4796 Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 19/Thursday, January 29, 2015/Rules and Regulations

(“2009 Ozone Attainment 

### and RFP Plan” or “2009 Plan”);

• Elements ofCARB’s 2007 State Strategy (“2007 State Strategy”), adopted by CARB on September 27, 2007, as applicable in the SMA;

• Elements ofthe Status Report on the State Strategyfor California’s 2007 State Implementation Plan (SIP) and Proposed Revision to the SIP Reflecting Implementation ofthe 2007 State Strategy (“Revised 2007 State Strategy”),2 March 24, 2009, as applicable in the SMA; and

• Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan and Reasonable Further Progress Plan, 2013 SIP Revisions (“2013 Ozone Attainmentand RFP Plan” or “2013 Plan Update”), September 26, 2013. We referto these submittals collectively as the “Sacramento 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan” or “Sacramento Ozone Plan.” The SMA is classified as “severe-iS” with an attainment date no laterthan June 15, 2019.~ See 75 

### FR 24409. The following paragraphs summarize the regulatory background, CARB’s submittals, and the EPA’s rationale for proposing approval. Foradditional details concerning these topics, please see ourOctober 15, 2014 proposed rule.

A. RegulatoryBackground
The specific CAA requirementthat is relevantforthe purposes ofthis action is Title I, Part D ofthe CAA, under which states must implement the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. Title I, Part D of the CAA includes section 172, “Nonattainment plan provisions,” and subpart 2, “Additional Provisions for Ozone NonattainmentAreas” (sections

181 185). In orderto assist states in developing effective plans to address their ozone nonattainment problem, the EPA issued the 8-hour ozone implementation rule.

2 On July 21, 2011, cARD further revised the Stste Strstegy (i.e., Progress Report on Implementstion of PM2~ Stste Implementstion Plans (SW) forthe south coast and San Joaquin valleyAir Basins and Proposed SIP Revisions). Although the 2011 revision wss specific to the South coast and San Joaquin vslley ozone nonettainment aress, it contsined Appendix E, an assessment ofthe impacts ofthe economic recession on emissions from the goods movement sector. The growth projections developed for emissions inventories in the Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan and Reasonable Further Progress Plan (2013 Revisions) also rely on the recessionary impacts in Appendix E.

~ the 2008 ozone standard, we also designated
the SMA as nonattainment and classified the area
as “severe-is.” See 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012). The SMA attainment date forthe 2008 a-hour ozone atandard is as expeditious as practicable but no laterthan December 31, 2027. Today’s action does not address requirementa concerning the 2008 8- hour ozone standard. This rule was finalized in two phases. The first phase ofthe rule addresses classifications forthe 1997 8-hour ozone standard, applicable attainment dates forthe various classifications, and the timing ofemissions reductions needed forattainment. See 69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004). The second phase addresses SIP submittal dates and the requirements for reasonably available control technology and measures (RACT and RACM), RFP, modeling and attainment demonstrations, contingency
measures, and new source review. See 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005). The rule is codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpartX.~ We discussed each ofthese CAA and regulatory requirements for 8- hourozone nonattainment plans in

more detail in our October 15, 2014 proposal.

B. GARB’s Submittals

The 2002—2008 RFP Plan was adopted bythe Districts’ governing boards during theJanuary—February 2006 time frame and then by CARE Executive Order C—125—335 on February 24, 2006. The 2002—2008 RFP Plan includes an RFP demonstration forthe 2002—2008 period, an amended Rate ofProgress Plan forthe 1990—1996 period, and motor-vehicle emissions budgets (MVEB

or “budgets”) used fortransportation conformity purposes. The 2009 Ozone Attainment and RFP Plan was adopted bythe Districts’ governing boards during the January— February 2009 time frame and then by CARB on March 26, 2009. The 2009 Ozone Attainment and RFP Plan includes an attainment demonstration, commitments bythe Districts to adopt control measures to achieve emissions reductions from sources under its jurisdiction (primarily stationary sources), and budgets used for transportation conformity purposes. The attainment demonstration includes air quality modeling, an RFP plan, an analysis ofRACM/RACT, base year and projected year emissions inventories, and contingency measures. The 2009 Ozone Attainment and RFP Plan also includes a demonstration thatthe most expeditious date forattaining the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the SMA is June 15, 2018. In late 2013, SMAQMD and CARE adopted the 2013 Plan Update, which

4The EPA has revised or proposed to revise several elements ofthe 8-hour ozone implementation rule since its initial promulgation in 2004. See, e.g., 74 FR 2936 (January 16, 2009); 75 FR 51960 (August 24, 2010); and 75 FR 80420 (December22, 2010). None ofthese revisions affect
any provision ofthe rule that is applicable to the EPA’s proposed action on the Sacramento 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan. revised portions ofthe 2009 Plan. The 2013 Plan Update included a revised emissions inventorythat accounted for control measures adopted through 2011, revised attainment and RFP demonstrations, the effects ofthe economic recession, and updated transportation activity projections provided bythe Sacramento Area Council ofGovernments (SACOG). On June 19, 2014, CARE submitted a technical supplement to the Sacramento Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) emissions offset demonstration in the 2013 Plan Update.a CARB’s technical supplement includes a revised set of motorvehicle emissions estimates reflecting technical changes to the inputs used to develop the original set ofcalculations.e While the vehicle emissions estimates in CARE’s technical supplement differfrom those contained in the demonstration in the 2013 Plan Update, the conclusions in the revised analysis remain the same as those in the 2013 Plan Update.
To demonstrate attainment, the Sacramento Ozone Plan relies to a large extent on measures in CARE’s 2007 State Strategy. The 2007 State Strategy

was adopted by CARB on September 27, 2007 and submitted to the EPA on November 16, 2007.~ The 2007 State Strategy describes CARB’s overall approach to addressing, in conjunction with local plans, attainment ofboth the 1997 Fine Particulate Matter (PM25) and 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS not only in the SMA but also in California’s other nonattainment areas, such as the South CoastAir Basin and the San Joaquin Valley. It also includes CARB’s commitments to obtain emissions reductions ofNOx and VOC from


### sources underthe State’sjurisdiction, primarily on- and off-road motor vehicles and engines, through the

~ letter from Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Officer, cARB, to Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, EPA Region 9, June 19, 2014, with encloaurea. On July 25, 2014, CARB sent the EPA

a revised technical supplementthat corrected minor typographical errors. See record ofJuly 25, 2014 email and attachment from Jon Taylor, CARB, to Matt Lakin, EPA, included in the docket.

~ principal difference between the two sets of
calculations is that CARD’s technical supplement includes running exhaust, start exhaust, hot soak, and running loss emissions ofVOCa in all ofthe emissions scenarios. These processea are directly related to VMT and vehicle trips. The revised calculation excludes diurnal and resting loss emissions ofVoca from all ofthe emissions scenarios becauae such evaporative emissions are related to vehicle population ratherthan to VMT or vehicle trips.

7 CARD Resolution No. 07—28, September 27, 2007 with attachmenta and letter, James N. Goldatene, Executive Officer, CARD, to Wayne Naatri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, November 16, 2007 with encloeuraa.Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 19/Thursday, January 29, 2015 /Rules and Regulations 4797

implementation of 15 defined State measures.8 On August 12, 2009, CARB submitted the Revised 2007 State Strategy, dated March 24, 2009 and adopted April 24, 2009.~ 10 This submittal updated the 2007 State Strategyto reflect its~ implementation.during 2007 and 2008 and calculated emission reductions in the SMA from implementation ofthe State Strategy. The 2013 Plan Update incorporates the Revised 2007 State Strategy ahd updates NOx and VOC emissions reductions estimates from adopted State measures and commitments. In our proposal and in the context ofthe Sacramento Ozone Plan, we only evaluated the State

measuresthat are included in the Revised 2007 State Strategy and applicable in the SMA. For additional background on the submittals and CAA procedural and administrative requirements for SIP submittals, see the October 15, 2014 proposal.

C. The EPA’s ProposedApproval
As noted above, on October 15, 2014, the EPA proposed to approve California’s attainment SIP forthe SMA forthe 1997 8-hourOzone NAAQS. This SIP iscomprised ofa series of submittals desci4bed above. In its proposal, the EPA proposed to approve under CAA section 110(k)(3) the following elements ofthe Sacramento Ozone Plan: 1. The revised 2002 baseyear emissions inventoryas meeting the requirements ofCAA section 182(a)(1) and 40 CFR 5 1.915; 2. The reasonably available control

measure demonstration as meeting the requirements~ofCAA section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.912(d); 3. The rate ofprogress and reasonable further progrpss demonstrations as meeting the requirements ofCAA sections 172(c)(2) and 182(c)(2)(B) and 40 CFR 51.910 and 51.905;

4:The attainment demonstration as meeting the requirements ofCAA section 182(c)(2)(A) and 40 CFR 51.908;

eme 2007 State Strategy alao includea meaaurea (i.e., Smog Check improvements) to be implemented by the California Bureau of Automotive Repair. See 2007 State Strategy, pp. 64— 65 and CARB Reaolution 7—28, Attachment B, p. 8.

5 CARB Reaolution No. 09—34, April 24, 2009 and letter, James N. Goldatene, Executive Officer, CARB to Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, Auguat.12, 2009 with encloaurea. Only pages 11—27 ofthe Reviaed 2007 State Strategy

were aubmitted aa a SIP revision. The buiance ofthe report waa for informational purpoaee only. See Attachment A to CARB Resolution No. 09—34.

leThe EPA haa previouslyapproved portiona of CARB’a 2007 State Strategyand the Revieed 2007 State Strategy thatare relevant forattainment ofthe 1997 8-hour ozone standard in theSan Joaquin Valley. See 77 FR 12674 (March 1, 2012). 5. The contingency.measure provisions forfailure to make RFP and to attain as meetingthe requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9); 6. .The demonstration thatthe SIP provides fortransportation control strategies and measures sufficient to offset any growth in emissions from growth in VMT orthe,number ofvehicle trips, and to provide for REP and attainment, as meeting the requirements ofCAA section 182(d)(1)(A);

7. The revised motorvehicle emissions budgets for 2017 and forthe attainmentyearof2018 because they are derived from approvable REP and attainmentdemonstrations and meet-the requirements ofCAA section 176(c) and 40 CFR part 93, subpartA;

~ and 8. The Districts’ commitments to adopt and implement certain defined
measures, as summarized in table 7—5
on page 7-r32 ofthe 2013 Plan Update,

as strengthening the SIP.12 The EPA’s analysis and findings are summarized in ourOctober 15, 2014 proposal and are described in more detail in the Technical Support Document (TSD) forthe proposal, which is available online at www.regulations.gov in the docket, EPA—R09—OAR—2014—0178, orfrom the EPA contact listed atthe beginning of this notice.

II. What comments did the EPA receive

on the proposed rule?
Out October 15, 2014 proposed rule provided fora 30-day comment period. During this period, we received a comment letterjointly signed by Larry Greene, Executive Director/AW Pollution Control Officer atthe SMAQMD, and Mike McKeever, Chief Executive Officer at SACOC. We provide our response to the comment lettei~ below. Comment: The SMAQMD notes

### that the 2013 Plan Update contains NOx reductionsthat exceed by 1.0 tons per day (tpd) the amount ofreductions of NOx needed to meetthe attainment target for 2018. They referto this excess
as a “buffer” intended for possible use, ifnecessary, to demonstrate general conformityforfuture federal projects. In

~1 Motorvehicle emission budgeta (MVEBa) for 2011, 2014, and 2017 were previously found adequate by the EPA on July 28, 2009 (74 FR 37210). New MVEBe for 2014, 2017, and 2018 in the 2013 Plan Update were determined to be adequate on July 25, 2014. The adequacyfinding

was published on August 8, 2014 (79 FR 46436) with an effective date ofAugust 25, 2014.

12 October 15, 2014 proposal incorrectly
refers to table 7—2 on pages 7—5 and 7—6 ofthe 2013 Plan Update as the location ofthe Districts’ commitments to adopt and implement certain defined meaeures. The correct cite is Table 7—5 on page 7—32. The Districts’ measuresare further described in Section 7.5 ofthe 2013 Plan Update. its proposal, the EPA did not credit all reductions in the 2013 Plan Update, and the attainment demonstration adjusted bythe EPA results in excess NOx reductions in 2018 ofonly 0.1 tpd. The 2018 metorvehicle emissions budget (MVEB) in the 2013 Plan Update includes a 2018 safety margin of3.0 tpd ofNOx. In their comment letter, SMAQMD requests thatthe EPA reallocate 0.9 tpd ofNOx from the 2018 MVEB safety margin to the “general conformity NOx buffer.” This would leave 2.1 tpd in the 2018 NOx safety margin and 1.0 tpd ofNOx (i.e., 0.9 tpd from the safety margin plus 0.1 tpd

excess in the adjusted attainment demonstration) available, ifneeded, for general confo;mity~ Response: The SMAQMD is correct that, in proposing approval ofthe attaipment demonstration,.the EPA did not credit all ofthe emissions reductions claimed in the plan but found thatthe plan nonetheless provides sufficient, creditable, emissions reductions to meetthe emissionstargets necessaryto attain the

ozone standard by 2018. The EPA, however, did credit some ofthe local

measures included as “remaining regional/local control measures” in line 

## J oftable 8—1 in the 2013 Plan Update forattainment demo~istration purposes because, bythe time’ofour proposed. rule, certain individual rules had been adopted, submitted, and approved by the EPA (e.g. YSAQMD Rule 2.37). See table 10 ofthe October 15, 2014 proposed rule. The emissions reductions that EPA discounted in its evaluation ofthe attainment demonstration include those associated with (1) local rules that, while adopted, have notyet been submitted or approved 14’ the EPA but forwhich credit is taken as part of.the emissipn inventorybaseline for 2018 (see page 14 ofthe EPA’s TSD forthe October 15, 2014 prdposed rule); (2) certain mobile sourpe incentive programs forwhich credit is taken as part ofthe’emission inventorybaseline for 2018 (see page 14 ofthe TSD); (3) local rules included as “remaining regional/local control measures” (see pages 7—27 thtough 7—31 ofthe 2q13, Plan Update) included inline Tin table 8—1 ofthe 2013 Plan Update thathave not been adopted or’submitted to the EPA forapproval as part ofthe SIP; (4) regional non-regulatory measures (inbluded in line

## J in table 8—1 ofthe 2013 Plan Update); and (5) the “Remaining State/Federal Control Measures” (shown in line K in table 8— 1 ofthe 2013 Plan Update): Bythe EPA’s accounting, as SMAQMD contends, the “buffer” is4798 Federal Register

### /Vol. 80, No. 19

### /Thursday, January 29, 2015/Rules and Regulations

only

### 0.1 tpd for NON, not 1.0 tpd as claimed in the plan. The calculated “buffer” itselfreflects a 2018 MVEB “safety margin” of3 tpd of NOx, and therefore, there are surplus NOx reductions that could be reallocated from the MVEB ‘~safety margin” to other purposes, such as a set-aside forgeneral conformity. However, to effectuate such

a reallocation, the CARB and the Districts should adopt and submit a revised plan to EPA as a revision to the SIP. The EPA contacted the SMAQMD concerning this matter, and the SMAQMD expressed support for completion ofthe current rulemaking

even ifthe EPA cannotgiantthe request to reallocate a portion ofthe NOx MVEB atthis time.’3 Therefore, we are taking final action todaS’ consistent With our October 15, 2014 proposed rule and will considerthe reallocation ofthe MVEB safety margin once a revised SIP is submitted.

III. What action is the EPAtaking?

Forthe reasons discussed in our October 15, 2014 proposal and summarized above, the EPA is

• approving California’s attainment SIP forthe Sacramento Metro Area forthe

1997 8-hourOzone NAAQS. This SIP is comprised ofthe Sacramento Regional Nonattainment Area 8-HourOzone Reasonable Further Progress Plan 2002— 2008 (February 2006), Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan and Reasonable Further Progress Plan (March 26, 2009), CARB’s 2007 State Strategy (adopted by CARB on September 27, 2007) and Revised 2007 State Strategy (March 24, 2009) (specifically, the portions applicable to the SMA), and the Sacramento Regional 8-HourOzone Attainment Plan and Readonable Further Progress Plan. (September 26, 2013). Under section 1t0(k)(3), the EPA is approving the following elements ofthe Sacramentà Ozone Plan: 1. The revised 2002 baseyear emissions inventory as meeting the requirements ofCAA section 182(a)(1) and 40 CFR 51.915;

2. The reasonablyavailable control

measure demonstration as meeting the requfrements ofCAA section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.912(d); 3. The rate ofprogress and reasonable further progress demonstrations as meeting the requirements ofCAA sections 172(c)(2) and 182(c)(2)(B) and 40 CFR 51.910 and 51.905;

‘3 See email from Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, EPA Region IX, dated December 17, 2014, summarizing a December 3rd telephone conversation between herselfand Larry Greene at the SMAQMD. 4. The attainment demonstration as meeting the requirements ofCAA section 182(c)(2)(A) and 40 CFR 51.908;

5. The contingency measure provisions forfailureto make RFP and to attain as meeting the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9); 6. The demonstration thatthe SIP provided fortransportation control strategies and measures sufficient to offset any growth in emissions from growth in VMT orthe number ofvehicle trips, and to provide for RFP and attainment, as meeting the requireMents ofCAA section 182(d)(1)(A);

• 7. The revised motorvehicle emissions budgets for 2017 and forthe attainmentyear of2018, becau~e they

are derived from approvable RFP and attainment demonstrations and meetthe requirements ofCAA section 176(c) and 40 CFR part 93, subpartA;’~ and 8. The Districts’ commitments to adopt and implementcertain definçd
measures, as summarized in table 7—5

on page 7—32 ofthe 2013 Plan Update.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

The Administrator is required

### td approVe a SIP submission that complies with the provisions ofthe Clean AirAct and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, inreviewing SIP submissions, the EPA’s role is to approve state choices, provided thatthey meetthe criteria of the Clean AirAct. Accordingly, this action merelyapproves state plan revisions as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Forthese reasons, this final action:

• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subjectto review bythe Office ofManagement and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4,1993);

• Does not impose an information collection burden underthe provisions ofthe Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 etseq.);

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial,number ofsmall entities underthe Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 etseq.);

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104—4);

‘4The MVEBs approved in today’s action are the following (in tons per day, average aummer weekday): 18 tpd and 39 tpd ofVOC and N0x for 2017, respectively, and 17 tpd and 37 tpd ofV0C and NOx, respectively, for 201g. • Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subjectto Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

‘. Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, Ma~y22, 2001);

• Is not subjectto requirements of Section 12(d) ofthe National TechnologyTransfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application ofthose requirements would be inconsistentwith the CAA; and

• Does not provide the EPAwith the discretionary authorityto address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible’ methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), norwill it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempttribal law. The Congressional Review. Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 etseq., as added bythe Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,,generally provides that before a rule maytake effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes.a copy ofthe rule,to each House ofthe Congress and•to the ComptrollerGeneral ofthe United States. The EPAwill submit a report containingthis action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of. Representatives, and the Comptroller General ofthe United States priorto publication ofthe rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannottake effect until 60 liays after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by5 U.S.c. 804(2). Under sedtiàn 307(b)(1) ofthe CAA, petitions forjudicial review ofthis action thust befiled in the United States Court ofAppeals forthe appropriate circuit by March 30, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration bythe Administrator ofthis final rule does not affectthe finality ofthis action forthe purposes ofjudicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition forjudicial review maybe filed, and shall not postponethe effectiveness of such rule or action, This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

### Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 19/Thursday, January 29, 2015 /Rules and Regulations 4799



### List ofSubjects 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. Authority: 42 U.s.c. 7401 etseq. Dated: January 9, 2015. Jared Blumenfeld, RegionalAdministrator, EPA Region 9.
Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations is amended as follows:



### PART52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

• 1. Theauthoritycitation forPart52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 etseq. 

### Subpart F—California

• 2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(450), (c)(451) and (c)(452) to read as read as follows: 

### §52.220 

### Identification ofplan.

* * * * * (c)

* * * (450) The following plan was submitted on February 24, 2006 bythe Governor’s designee. (i) [Reserved] (ii) Additional materials. (A) Sacramento Metro 1997 EightHour Ozone Planning Area. (1) Sacramento Regionol NonattainmentArea 8-Hour Ozone Rate-of-Progress Plan, Final Draft, December 2005. (451) The following plan was submitted on April 17, 2009 by the Governor’s designee. (i) [Reserved] (ii) Additional materials. (A) Sacramento Metro 1997 EightHour Ozone Planning Area. (1) Sacramento Regional 8-Hour OzoneAttainment and Reasonable FurtherProgress Plan (With Errata Sheets Incorporated), March 26, 2009 (Reasonable further progress demonstration and related contingency demonstration for milestone year 2011

as presented in chapter 13 (“Reasonable Further Progress Demonstrations”) only). (452) The following plan was submitted on December 31, 2013 bythe Governor’s designee. (i) [Reserved] (ii) Additional materials. (A) Sacramento Metro 1997 EightHour Ozone Planning Area. (1) Sacramento Regional 8-Hour OzoneAttainment and Reasonable FurtherProgress Plan (2013 SIP Revisions), September 26, 2013, including appendices. (2) Supplemental information, titled “Sacramento Federal Ozone NonattainmentArea, July 24, 2014,” for Appendix F—i (“Vehicle Miles Traveled Offset Demonstration”) ofthe Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan (2013 SIP Revisions).
IFRDoc. 2015—01609 Filed 1—28—15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560—50—P



### ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part52

[EPA—R08--OAR—201 1—0725, FRL—9922—04— 

### Region 8] 

### Promulgation ofState Implementation Plan Revisions; Infrastructure Requirements forthe 1997and 2006 PM2.5, 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone, and 2010 NO2 National AmbientAirQuality Standards; South Dakota

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving elements of State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions from the State ofSouth Dakota to demonstrate the State meets infrastructure requirements ofthe Clean AirAct (CAA) forthe National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) promulgated forfine .particulate matter (PM25) on July 18, 1997 and October 17, 2006; lead (Pb) on October 15, 2008;

ozone on March 12, 2008; and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) on January 22, 2010. EPA is also approving SIP revisions the State submitted updating the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program and provisions regarding state boards. Section 110(a) ofthe CAA requires that each state submit a SIP forthe implementation, maintenance, and enforcement ofeach NAAQS promulgated by EPA.
DATES: This rule is effective on March 2, 2015.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket forthis action under Docket ID No. EPA—R08—OAR—20i1—0725. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.govWeb site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copyform. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.govor in hard copy at the Air Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202—1129. EPA requests that ifat all possible, you contactthe individual 

### listed in 

### the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACTsection 

### toviewthe hard copy ofthe docket. You mayviewthe hard copy ofthe docket Mondaythrough Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Abby Fulton, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P—AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202—1129, 303—312—6563, fulton.abby@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:


### Table ofContents

I. Background II. Responseto Comments III. Final Action IV. Statutoryand Executive Orders Review

I. Background

Infrastructure requirements for SIPs

are provided in section 110(a)(i) and (2) ofthe CAA. Section iio(a)(2) lists the specific infrastructure elements that a SIP must contain or satisfy. The elements that are the subject ofthis action are described in detail in our notice ofproposed rulemaking (NPR) published on December 1, 2014 (79 FR 71040). The NPR proposed approval ofSouth Dakota’s submissions with respect to the following infrastructure elements forthe 1997 and 2006 PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008
ozone, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS: CAA liO(a)(2) (A), (B), (C) with respectto minor new source review (NSR) and PSD requirements, (D)(i)(II) prongs 3 and 4, (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), 

## (J), (K), (L), and (M). The reasons for our approval are provided in detail in the NPR. For reasons explained in the NPR, EPA also proposed to approve revisions to the Administrative Rules ofSouth Dakota (ARSD) 74:36:09 submitted on July 29, 2013, which incorporate by reference the requirements ofEPA’s September 29, 2010 PM2.5 Increment Rule. Specifically, we proposed to approve the adoption ofthe text of40 CFR 52.21, paragraphs (b)(14)(i),(ii),(iii), (b)(i5)(i),(ii), and paragraph (c) as they existed on July 1, 2012 by approving revisions to: ARSD 74:34:09:02