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 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 action 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. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by March 30, 2015.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of this final rule does

not affect the finality of this action 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 CAA

section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects 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 et seq.

Dated: November 3, 2014.

Shaun L. McGrath,

Regional’Administralor,,Regfon 8.

For the 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. The authority citation for Part 52

continues to read as follows:

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

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 of Montana

(ARM), Air Quality, Subchapter 8,

Prevention of Significant Deterioration

ofAir Quality, 17.8.801, Definitions, and

17.8.818, Review of Major Stationary

Sources and Major Modifications—

Source Applicability and Exemptions.

(i) Incorporation by reference

(A) Administrative Rules of Montana,

Air Quality, Subchapter 8, Prevention of

Significant Deterioration ofAir Quality,

17.8.801, Definitions, (20) introductory

text, (20)(a); (22) introductory text,

(22)(b); (25); (28) introductory text,

(28)(a), except for the phrase “nitrogen

oxides (NOx)”; and, 17.8.818, Review of

Major Stationary Sources and Major

Modifications—Source Applicability

and Exemptions, (7) introductory text,

(7)(a) introductory text, (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 by the State of

California that provide for attainment of

the 1997 8-hour ozone 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 of progress and

reasonable further progress (RFP)

demonstrations, attainment

demonstration, transportation

conformity motor vehicle emissions

budgets, and contingency measures for

failure to make RFP or attain. The EPA

is also approving commitments for

measures by the Sacramento Metro

nonattainment area air districts.

DATES: This final rule is effective on

March 2, 2015.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a

docket for this action: Docket ID No.

EPA—R09—OAR—2014—01 78. 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. 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 LX, (415) 972—3963,

ungvarsky.john@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document, “we,” “us”

and “our” refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Summary of Proposed 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 EPA taking?

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Summary of Proposed Action

On October 15, 2014 (79 FR 61799),

under section 110(k) of the Clean Air

Act (Act or CAA), the EPA proposed

approval of a series of submittals from

the California Air Resources Board

(CARB) as revisions to the California

state implementation plan (SIP) for the

Sacramento Metro ozone nonattainment

area (SMA).1 The principal submittals

--

• Sacramento Regional -

Nonattainment Area 8-Hciur Ozone

Reasonable Further Progress Plan 2002—

2008 (“2002—2008 RFP Plan”), February

2006;

• Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone

Attainment Plan and Reasonable

Further Progress Plan, March 26, 2009

I The SMA consists of Sacramento and Yolo

counties and portions of El Dorado, Placer, Solano

and Sutter counties. For a precise description of the

geographic boundaries of the SMA, see 40 CFR

81.305. Sacramento County is under the jurisdiction

of the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality

Management District (SMAQMD). Yolo County and

the eastern portion of Solano County comprise the

Yolo-Solano AQMD (YSAQMD). The southern

portion of Sutter County is part of the Feather River

AQMD (FRAQMD). The western portion of Placer

County is part of the Placer County Air Pollution

Control District (PCAPCD). Lastly, the western

portion of El Dorado County is part of the 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 of CARB’s 2007 State

Strategy (“2007 State Strategy”),

adopted by CARB on September 27,

2007, as applicable in the SMA;

• Elements of the Status Report on the

State Strategy for California’s 2007 State

Implementation Plan (SIP) and

Proposed Revision to the SIP Reflecting

Implementation of the 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 Attainment and

RFP Plan” or “2013 Plan Update”),

September 26, 2013.

We refer to 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 later than 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.

For additional details concerning these

topics, please see our October 15, 2014

proposed rule.

A. Regulatory Background

The specific CAA requirement that is

relevant for the purposes of this action

is Title I, Part D of the 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 Nonattainment Areas” (sections

181 185).

In order to 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) for the

south coast and San Joaquin valley Air 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 of the

impacts of the 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 for the 2008 a-hour ozone

atandard is as expeditious as practicable but no

later than 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 of the rule addresses

classifications for the 1997 8-hour ozone

standard, applicable attainment dates

for the various classifications, and the

timing of emissions reductions needed

for attainment. 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,

subpart X.~ We discussed each of these

CAA and regulatory requirements for 8-

hour ozone nonattainment plans in

more detail in our October 15, 2014

proposal.

B. GARB’s Submittals

The 2002—2008 RFP Plan was adopted

by the Districts’ governing boards

during the January—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 for the 2002—2008

period, an amended Rate of Progress

Plan for the 1990—1996 period, and

motor-vehicle emissions budgets (MVEB

or “budgets”) used for transportation

conformity purposes.

The 2009 Ozone Attainment and RFP

Plan was adopted by the 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 by the 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 of RACM/RACT, base year and

projected year emissions inventories,

and contingency measures. The 2009

Ozone Attainment and RFP Plan also

includes a demonstration that the most

expeditious date for attaining 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 of the 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

(December 22, 2010). None of these revisions affect

any provision of the rule that is applicable to the

EPA’s proposed action on the Sacramento 8-Hour

Ozone Attainment Plan.

revised portions of the 2009 Plan. The

2013 Plan Update included a revised

emissions inventory that accounted for

control measures adopted through 2011,

revised attainment and RFP

demonstrations, the effects of the

economic recession, and updated

transportation activity projections

provided by the Sacramento Area

Council of Governments (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

motor vehicle emissions estimates

reflecting technical changes to the

inputs used to develop the original set

of calculations.e While the vehicle

emissions estimates in CARE’s technical

supplement differ from 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 of both 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

Coast Air Basin and the San Joaquin

Valley. It also includes CARB’s

commitments to obtain emissions

reductions of NOx and VOC from

sources under the State’s jurisdiction,

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 supplement that corrected minor

typographical errors. See record of July 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 of VOCa in all of the

emissions scenarios. These processea are directly

related to VMT and vehicle trips. The revised

calculation excludes diurnal and resting loss

emissions of Voca from all of the emissions

scenarios becauae such evaporative emissions are

related to vehicle population rather than 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 Strategy to reflect its~

implementation. during 2007 and 2008

and calculated emission reductions in

the SMA from implementation of the

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 of the Sacramento Ozone

Plan, we only evaluated the State

measures that 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 Proposed Approval

As noted above, on October 15, 2014,

the EPA proposed to approve

California’s attainment SIP for the SMA

for the 1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS. This

SIP iscomprised of a series of

submittals desci4bed above.

In its proposal, the EPA proposed to

approve under CAA section 110(k) (3)

the following elements of the

Sacramento Ozone Plan:

1. The revised 2002 base year

emissions inventory as meeting the

requirements of CAA section 182(a)(1)

and 40 CFR 5 1.915;

2. The reasonably available control

measure demonstration as meeting the

requirements~of CAA section 172(c)(1)

and 40 CFR 51.912(d);

3. The rate of progress and reasonable

further progrpss demonstrations as

meeting the requirements of CAA

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 of CAA

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 of the Reviaed 2007 State Strategy

were aubmitted aa a SIP revision. The buiance of the

report waa for informational purpoaee only. See

Attachment A to CARB Resolution No. 09—34.

le The EPA haa previously approved portiona of

CARB’a 2007 State Strategy and the Revieed 2007

State Strategy that are relevant for attainment of the

1997 8-hour ozone standard in the San Joaquin

Valley. See 77 FR 12674 (March 1, 2012).

5. The contingency. measure

provisions for failure to make RFP and

to attain as meetingthe requirements of

CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9);

6. .The demonstration that the SIP

provides for transportation control

strategies and measures sufficient to

offset any growth in emissions from

growth in VMT or the, number of vehicle

trips, and to provide for REP and

attainment, as meeting the requirements

of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A);

7. The revised motor vehicle

emissions budgets for 2017 and for the

attainment year of 2018 because they are

derived from approvable REP and

attainment demonstrations and meet-the

requirements of CAA section 176(c) and

40 CFR part 93, subpart A; ~ and

8. The Districts’ commitments to

adopt and implement certain defined

measures, as summarized in table 7—5

on page 7-r32 of the 2013 Plan Update,

as strengthening the SIP.12

The EPA’s analysis and findings are

summarized in our October 15, 2014

proposal and are described in more

detail in the Technical Support

Document (TSD) for the proposal, which

is available online at

www.regulations.gov in the docket,

EPA—R09—OAR—2014—0178, or from the

EPA contact listed at the beginning of

this notice.

II. What comments did the EPA receive

on the proposed rule?

Out October 15, 2014 proposed rule

provided for a 30-day comment period.

During this period, we received a

comment letter jointly signed by Larry

Greene, Executive Director/AW

Pollution Control Officer at the

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

reductions that exceed by 1.0 tons per

day (tpd) the amount of reductions of

NOx needed to meet the attainment

target for 2018. They refer to this excess

as a “buffer” intended for possible use,

if necessary, to demonstrate general

conformity for future federal projects. In

~1 Motor vehicle 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 adequacy finding

was published on August 8, 2014 (79 FR 46436)

with an effective date of August 25, 2014.

12 October 15, 2014 proposal incorrectly

refers to table 7—2 on pages 7—5 and 7—6 of the 2013

Plan Update as the location of the Districts’

commitments to adopt and implement certain

defined meaeures. The correct cite is Table 7—5 on

page 7—32. The Districts’ measures are further

described in Section 7.5 of the 2013 Plan Update.

its proposal, the EPA did not credit all

reductions in the 2013 Plan Update, and

the attainment demonstration adjusted

by the EPA results in excess NOx

reductions in 2018 of only 0.1 tpd. The

2018 metor vehicle emissions budget

(MVEB) in the 2013 Plan Update

includes a 2018 safety margin of 3.0 tpd

of NOx. In their comment letter,

SMAQMD requests that the EPA

reallocate 0.9 tpd of NOx 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 of NOx (i.e., 0.9 tpd

from the safety margin plus 0.1 tpd

excess in the adjusted attainment

demonstration) available, if needed, for

general confo;mity~

Response: The SMAQMD is correct

that, in proposing approval of the

attaipment demonstration,.the EPA did

not credit all of the emissions

reductions claimed in the plan but

found that the plan nonetheless

provides sufficient, creditable,

emissions reductions to meet the

emissions targets necessary to attain the

ozone standard by 2018. The EPA,

however, did credit some of the local

measures included as “remaining

regional/local control measures” in line

J of table 8—1 in the 2013 Plan Update

for attainment demo~istration purposes

because, by the time’of our proposed.

rule, certain individual rules had been

adopted, submitted, and approved by

the EPA (e.g. YSAQMD Rule 2.37). See

table 10 of the October 15, 2014

proposed rule.

The emissions reductions that EPA

discounted in its evaluation of the

attainment demonstration include those

associated with (1) local rules that,

while adopted, have not yet been

submitted or approved 14’ the EPA but

for which credit is taken as part of.the

emissipn inventory baseline for 2018

(see page 14 of the EPA’s TSD for the

October 15, 2014 prdposed rule); (2)

certain mobile sourpe incentive

programs for which credit is taken as

part of the’ emission inventory baseline

for 2018 (see page 14 of the TSD); (3)

local rules included as “remaining

regional/local control measures” (see

pages 7—27 thtough 7—31 of the 2q13,

Plan Update) included inline Tin table

8—1 of the 2013 Plan Update thathave

not been adopted or’submitted to the

EPA for approval as part of the SIP; (4)

regional non-regulatory measures

(inbluded in line J in table 8—1 of the

2013 Plan Update); and (5) the

“Remaining State/Federal Control

Measures” (shown in line K in table 8—

1 of the 2013 Plan Update):

By the EPA’s accounting, as

SMAQMD contends, the “buffer” is
4798 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” itself reflects a 2018 MVEB

“safety margin” of 3 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 for general

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 of the current rulemaking

even if the EPA cannot giant the request

to reallocate a portion of the NOx MVEB

at this time.’3 Therefore, we are taking

final action todaS’ consistent With our

October 15, 2014 proposed rule and will

consider the reallocation of the MVEB

safety margin once a revised SIP is

submitted.

III. What action is the EPA taking?

For the reasons discussed in our

October 15, 2014 proposal and

summarized above, the EPA is

• approving California’s attainment SIP

for the Sacramento Metro Area for the

1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS. This SIP is

comprised of the Sacramento Regional

Nonattainment Area 8-Hour Ozone

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-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan and

Readonable Further Progress Plan.

(September 26, 2013).

Under section 1t0(k)(3), the EPA is

approving the following elements of the

Sacramentà Ozone Plan:

1. The revised 2002 base year

emissions inventory as meeting the

requirements of CAA section 182(a)(1)

and 40 CFR 51.915;

2. The reasonably available control

measure demonstration as meeting the

requfrements of CAA section 172(c)(1)

and 40 CFR 51.912(d);

3. The rate of progress and reasonable

further progress demonstrations as

meeting the requirements of CAA

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 herself and Larry Greene at

the SMAQMD.

4. The attainment demonstration as

meeting the requirements of CAA

section 182(c)(2)(A) and 40 CFR 51.908;

5. The contingency measure

provisions for failure to make RFP and

to attain as meeting the requirements of

CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9);

6. The demonstration that the SIP

provided for transportation control

strategies and measures sufficient to

offset any growth in emissions from

growth in VMT or the number of vehicle

trips, and to provide for RFP and

attainment, as meeting the requireMents

of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A);

• 7. The revised motor vehicle

emissions budgets for 2017 and for the

attainment year of 2018, becau~e they

are derived from approvable RFP and

attainment demonstrations and meet the

requirements of CAA section 176(c) and

40 CFR part 93, subpartA;’~ and

8. The Districts’ commitments to

adopt and implement certain definçd

measures, as summarized in table 7—5

on page 7—32 of the 2013 Plan Update.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order

Reviews

The Administrator is required td

approVe a SIP submission that complies

with the provisions of the Clean Air Act

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 that they meet the criteria of

the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this

action merely approves state plan

revisions as meeting federal

requirements and does not impose

additional requirements beyond those

imposed by state law. For these reasons,

this final action:

• Is not a “significant regulatory

action” subject to review by the Office

of Management and Budget under

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,

October 4,1993);

• Does not impose an information

collection burden under the provisions

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44

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

• Is certified as not having a

significant economic impact on a

substantial, number of small entities

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

• 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 of VOC and N0x for

2017, respectively, and 17 tpd and 37 tpd of V0C

and NOx, respectively, for 201g.

• Does not have Federalism

implications as specified in Executive

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999);

• Is not an economically significant

regulatory action based on health or

safety risks subject to Executive Order

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

‘. Is not a significant regulatory action

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR

28355, Ma~y 22, 2001);

• Is not subject to requirements of

Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because

application of those requirements would

be inconsistent with the CAA; and

• Does not provide the EPA with the

discretionary authority to 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), nor will it impose

substantial direct costs on tribal

governments or preempt tribal law.

The Congressional Review. Act, 5

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996,,generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes.a

copy of the rule,to each House of the

Congress and•to the Comptroller General

of the United States. The EPA will

submit a report containing this action

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 liays 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 sedtiàn 307(b)(1) of the CAA,

petitions for judicial review of this

action thust befiled in the United States

Court of Appeals for the appropriate

circuit by March 30, 2015. Filing a

petition for reconsideration by the

Administrator of this final rule does not

affect the finality of this action 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)).
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 19/Thursday, January 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4799

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.

Authority: 42 U.s.c. 7401 et seq.

Dated: January 9, 2015.

Jared Blumenfeld,

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9.

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 52—APPROVAL AND

PROMULGATION OF

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

• 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

adding paragraphs (c)(450), (c)(451) and

(c)(452) to read as read as follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(450) The following plan was

submitted on February 24, 2006 by the

Governor’s designee.

(i) [Reserved]

(ii) Additional materials.

(A) Sacramento Metro 1997 EightHour Ozone Planning Area.

(1) Sacramento Regionol

Nonattainment Area 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

Ozone Attainment and Reasonable

Further Progress 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 by the

Governor’s designee.

(i) [Reserved]

(ii) Additional materials.

(A) Sacramento Metro 1997 EightHour Ozone Planning Area.

(1) Sacramento Regional 8-Hour

Ozone Attainment and Reasonable

Further Progress Plan (2013 SIP

Revisions), September 26, 2013,

including appendices.

(2) Supplemental information, titled

“Sacramento Federal Ozone

Nonattainment Area, July 24, 2014,” for

Appendix F—i (“Vehicle Miles Traveled

Offset Demonstration”) of the

Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone

Attainment and Reasonable Further

Progress Plan (2013 SIP Revisions).

IFR Doc. 2015—01609 Filed 1—28—15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560—50—P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

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

Region 8]

Promulgation of State Implementation

Plan Revisions; Infrastructure

Requirements for the 1997 and 2006

PM2.5, 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone, and

2010 NO2 National Ambient Air Quality

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 of South Dakota

to demonstrate the State meets

infrastructure requirements of the Clean

Air Act (CAA) for the National Ambient

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)

promulgated for fine .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) of the CAA requires that

each state submit a SIP for the

implementation, maintenance, and

enforcement of each NAAQS

promulgated by EPA.

DATES: This rule is effective on March 2,

2015.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a

docket for this action under Docket ID

No. EPA—R08—OAR—20i1—0725. All

documents in the docket are listed on

the www.regulations.gov Web 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 copy form.

Publicly available docket materials are

available either electronically through

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at

the Air Program, Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8,

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado

80202—1129. EPA requests that if at all

possible, you contact the individual

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to view the hard copy

of the docket. You may view the hard

copy of the docket Monday through

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 of Contents

I. Background

II. Response to Comments

III. Final Action

IV. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

I. Background

Infrastructure requirements for SIPs

are provided in section 110(a)(i) and (2)

of the CAA. Section iio(a)(2) lists the

specific infrastructure elements that a

SIP must contain or satisfy. The

elements that are the subject of this

action are described in detail in our

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR)

published on December 1, 2014 (79 FR

71040).

The NPR proposed approval of South

Dakota’s submissions with respect to the

following infrastructure elements for the

1997 and 2006 PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008

ozone, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS: CAA

liO(a)(2) (A), (B), (C) with respect to

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 of South

Dakota (ARSD) 74:36:09 submitted on

July 29, 2013, which incorporate by

reference the requirements of EPA’s

September 29, 2010 PM2.5 Increment

Rule. Specifically, we proposed to

approve the adoption of the text of 40

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