Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 61799 

requirements for inclusion into the SIP. 

Accordingly, it affords no opportunity 

for EPA to fashion for small entities less 

burdensome compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables or 

exemptions from all or part of the rule. 

Therefore, this proposed action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

We continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of this proposed rule 

on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no Federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538 for State, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector.’’ EPA 

has determined that the proposed 

disapproval and limited disapproval 

portions of this action 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 proposes to 

disapprove pre-existing requirements 

under State or local law, and imposes 

no new requirements. Accordingly, no 

additional costs to State, local, or tribal 

governments, or to the private sector, 

result from this action. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that 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.’’ 

This proposed action does not have 

federalism implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely disapproves certain State 

requirements for inclusion into the SIP 

and does not alter the relationship or 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act. Thus, Executive Order 13132 

does not apply to this proposed action. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed action does not have 

tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP EPA 

is proposing to disapprove would not 

apply in Indian country located in the 

state, and EPA notes that it will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this proposed action. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only 

to those regulatory actions that concern 

health or safety risks, such that the 

analysis required under section 5–501 of 

the EO has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This proposed action is not 

subject to EO 13045 because it is not an 

economically significant regulatory 

action based on health or safety risks 

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997). These proposed 

actions under section 110 and 

subchapter I, part C of the Clean Air Act 

will not in-and-of itself create any new 

regulations but simply disapproves 

certain State requirements for inclusion 

into the SIP. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This proposed rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, 

May 22, 2001) because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

The EPA believes that this action is 

not subject to requirements of Section 

12(d) of NTTAA because application of 

those requirements would be 

inconsistent with the Clean Air Act. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Population 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 

7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA lacks the discretionary authority 

to address environmental justice in this 

rulemaking. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: September 30, 2014. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2014–24506 Filed 10–14–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0178; FRL–9917–85– 

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: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

state implementation plan (SIP) 

revisions submitted by the State of 

California to provide for attainment of 

the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient 

air quality standard (‘‘standard’’ or 

NAAQS) in the Sacramento Metro 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
61800 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

1California plans sometimes use the term 

Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) for VOC. These terms 

are essentially synonymous. For simplicity, we use 

the term VOC herein to mean either VOC or ROG. 

nonattainment area. EPA is proposing to 

approve 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. EPA is 

also proposing to approve commitments 

for measures by the Sacramento Metro 

nonattainment area air districts. 

DATES: Any comments must be 

submitted by November 14, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2014–0178, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

• Email: ungvarsky.john@epa.gov. 

• Mail or deliver: John Ungvarsky, 

Office of Air Planning (AIR–2), 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 email. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site 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 

email directly to EPA, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the public 

comment. If EPA cannot read your 

comments due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site and 

in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California 94105. While all documents 

in the docket are listed in the index, 

some information may be publicly 

available only at the hard copy location 

(e.g., copyrighted material), and some 

may not be publicly available at either 

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

copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 

below. 

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 EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS and the 

Sacramento Metro Ozone Nonattainment 

Area 

A. Background on the 8-Hour Ozone 

NAAQS 

B. The Sacramento Metro 8-Hour Ozone 

Nonattainment Area 

II. CAA and Regulatory Requirements for 

Ozone Nonattainment SIPs 

III. California’s State Implementation Plan 

Submittals To Address 8-Hour Ozone 

Nonattainment in the Sacramento Metro 

Area 

A. California’s SIP Submittals 

B. CAA Procedural and Administrative 

Requirements for SIP Submittals 

IV. Review of the Sacramento Ozone Plan 

and the Sacramento Portion of the State 

Strategy 

A. Summary of EPA’s Proposed Actions 

B. Emissions Inventories 

C. Reasonably Available Control Measure 

Demonstration and Adopted Control 

Strategy 

D. Attainment Demonstration 

E. Rate of Progress and Reasonable Further 

Progress Demonstrations 

F. Contingency Measures 

G. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for 

Transportation Conformity 

H. Vehicle Miles Travelled Emissions 

Offset Demonstration 

V. EPA’s Proposed Actions 

A. EPA’s Proposed Approvals 

B. Request for Public Comments 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS and the 

Sacramento Metro Ozone 

Nonattainment Area 

A. Background on the 8-Hour Ozone 

NAAQS 

Ground-level ozone is formed when 

oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and volatile 

organic compounds (VOC) react in the 

presence of sunlight.1 These two 

pollutants, referred to as ozone 

precursors, are emitted by many types of 

pollution sources, including on- and offroad motor vehicles and engines, power 

plants and industrial facilities, and 

smaller area sources such as lawn and 

garden equipment and paints. 

Scientific evidence indicates that 

adverse public health effects occur 

following exposure to ozone, 

particularly in children and adults with 

lung disease. Breathing air containing 

ozone can reduce lung function and 

inflame airways, which can increase 

respiratory symptoms and aggravate 

asthma or other lung diseases. Ozone 

exposure also has been associated with 

increased susceptibility to respiratory 

infections, medication use, doctor visits, 

and emergency department visits and 

hospital admissions for individuals with 

lung disease. Ozone exposure also 

increases the risk of premature death 

from heart or lung disease. Children are 

at increased risk from exposure to ozone 

because their lungs are still developing 

and they are more likely to be active 

outdoors, which increases their 

exposure. See ‘‘Fact Sheet, Proposal to 

Revise the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards for Ozone,’’ January 

6, 2010 and 75 FR 2938 (January 19, 

2010). 

In 1979, under section 109 of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA established 

primary and secondary national ambient 

air quality standards (NAAQS or 

standard) for ozone at 0.12 parts per 

million (ppm) averaged over a 1-hour 

period. 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979). 

On July 18, 1997, EPA revised the 

primary and secondary NAAQS for 

ozone to set the acceptable level of 

ozone in the ambient air at 0.08 ppm, 

averaged over an 8-hour period (‘‘1997 

8-hour ozone standard’’). 62 FR 38856 

(July 18, 1997). EPA set the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard based on scientific 

evidence demonstrating that ozone 

causes adverse health effects at lower 

concentrations and over longer periods 

of time than was understood when the 

pre-existing 1-hour ozone standard was 

set. EPA determined that the 1997 8- 

hour standard would be more protective 

of human health, especially children 

and adults who are active outdoors, and 

individuals with a pre-existing 

respiratory disease, such as asthma. 

On March 27, 2008, EPA revised and 

further strengthened the primary and 

secondary NAAQS for ozone by setting 

the acceptable level of ozone in the 

ambient air at 0.075 ppm, averaged over 

an 8-hour period (‘‘2008 8-hour ozone 

standard’’). 73 FR 16436. On May 21, 

2012, EPA designated areas of the 

country with respect to the 2008 8-hour 

ozone standard. 77 FR 30088 and 40 

CFR 81.330. Today’s action only applies 

to the 1997 8-hour ozone standard and 

does not address requirements of the 

2008 8-hour ozone standard. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 61801 

2See SCAQMD Governing Board Resolution No. 

07–9 (June 1, 2007), p. 12; CARB Resolution No. 

07–41 (September 27, 2007), p. 8; and letter, James 

Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB to Wayne 

Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, 

November 28, 2007. 

3For the 2008 ozone standard, we also designated 

the SMA as nonattainment and classified the area 

as ‘‘severe-15.’’ See 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012). 

The SMA attainment date for the 2008 8-hour ozone 

standard is as expeditious as practicable but no 

later than December 31, 2027. Today’s action does 

not address requirements concerning the 2008 8- 

hour ozone standard. 

4See EPA Air Quality System Quick Look Report 

dated June 10, 2014 in the docket for today’s action. 

A design value is an ambient concentration 

calculated using a specific methodology to evaluate 

monitored air quality data and is used to determine 

whether an area’s air quality is meeting a NAAQS. 

The methodology for calculating design values for 

the 8-hour ozone NAAQS is found in 40 CFR part 

50, Appendix I. This value is based on complete, 

validated, and certified data for the 2011–2013 

timeframe. 

5EPA 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 EPA’s proposed action on 

the Sacramento 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan. 

6On July 21, 2011, CARB further revised the State 

Strategy (i.e., Progress Report on Implementation of 

PM2.5 State Implementation Plans (SIP) for the 

South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins and 

Proposed SIP Revisions). Although the 2011 

revision was specific to the South Coast and San 

Joaquin Valley ozone nonattainment areas, they 

contained 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. 

B. The Sacramento Metro 8-Hour Ozone 

Nonattainment Area 

Following promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS, EPA is required by the 

CAA to designate areas throughout the 

nation as attaining or not attaining the 

NAAQS. Effective June 15, 2004, we 

designated nonattainment areas for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. At the same 

time, we assigned classifications to 

many of these areas based upon their 

ozone ‘‘design value,’’ in accordance 

with the structure of part D, subpart 2 

of Title I of the Clean Air Act. See 69 

FR 23858 (April 30, 2004) and 40 CFR 

51.903(a). The designations and 

classifications for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard for California areas are 

codified at 40 CFR 81.305. EPA 

classified the Sacramento Metro Area 

(SMA) as ‘‘serious’’ nonattainment for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, with an 

attainment date no later than June 15, 

2013, and published a rule governing 

certain facets of implementation of the 

8-hour ozone standard (Phase 1 Rule) 

(69 FR 23858 and 69 FR 23951, 

respectively, April 30, 2004). In a 

February 14, 2008 letter, the California 

Air Resources Board (CARB) requested 

that EPA reclassify the SMA from 

‘‘serious’’ to ‘‘severe-15’’ under CAA 

section 181(b)(3).2 On May 5, 2010, EPA 

finalized the reclassification of the SMA 

to ‘‘severe-15’’ with an attainment date 

no later than June 15, 2019.3 75 FR 

24409. 

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 YoloSolano 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.’’ Under 

California law, each air district is 

responsible for adopting and 

implementing stationary source rules, 

while the CARB adopts and implements 

consumer products and mobile source 

rules. The Districts and State rules are 

submitted to EPA by CARB. 

Ambient 8-hour ozone levels in the 

Sacramento area are well above the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. The maximum 

design value for the area, based on 

monitored readings at the Folsom 

monitor in Sacramento County, is 0.090 

ppm for the 2011–2013 period.4

II. CAA and Regulatory Requirements 

for Ozone Nonattainment SIPs 

States must implement the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard under Title 1, Part 

D of the CAA, which 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, EPA issued the 

8-hour ozone implementation rule. 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), reasonable further progress 

(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.5

We discuss each of these CAA and 

regulatory requirements for 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment plans in more 

detail below. 

III. California’s State Implementation 

Plan Submittals To Address 8-Hour 

Ozone Nonattainment in the 

Sacramento Metro Area 

A. California’s SIP Submittals 

Designation of an area as 

nonattainment starts the process for a 

state to develop and submit to EPA a 

SIP providing for attainment of the 

NAAQS under title 1, part D of the 

CAA. For 8-hour ozone areas designated 

as nonattainment effective June 15, 

2004, this attainment SIP was due by 

June 15, 2007. See CAA section 172(b) 

and 40 CFR 51.908(a) and 51.910. 

California has made several SIP 

submittals to address the CAA’s 

planning requirements for attaining the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard in the SMA. 

The principal submittals are: 

• 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 (‘‘2007 

State Strategy’’); 

• 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’’); 6 and 

• Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone 

Attainment Plan and Reasonable 

Further Progress Plan (2013 SIP 

Revisions), September 26, 2013. 

We refer to these submittals 

collectively as the ‘‘Sacramento 8-Hour 

Ozone Attainment Plan’’ or 

‘‘Sacramento Ozone Plan.’’ 

1. Sacramento Regional Nonattainment 

Area 8-Hour Ozone Reasonable Further 

Progress Plan 2002–2008 

The Sacramento Regional 

Nonattainment Area 8-Hour Ozone 

Reasonable Further Progress Plan 2002– 

2008 (‘‘2002–2008 RFP Plan’’) was 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
61802 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

7See letter from Catherine Witherspoon, 

Executive Officer, CARB to Wayne Nastri, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9, February 24, 2006, 

with enclosures. 

8See letter from James N. Goldstene, Executive 

Officer, CARB to Laura Yoshii, Acting Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9, April 19, 2009, with 

enclosures. 

9See letter from Richard W. Corey, Executive 

Officer, CARB to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9, December 31, 2013, 

with enclosures. 10See letter from Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive 

Officer, CARB, to Deborah Jordan, Director, Air 

Division, EPA Region 9, June 19, 2014, with 

enclosures. On July 25, 2014, CARB sent 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. 

11The principal difference between the two sets 

of calculations is that CARB’s technical supplement 

includes running exhaust, start exhaust, hot soak, 

and running loss emissions of VOCs in all of the 

emissions scenarios. These processes are directly 

related to VMT and vehicle trips. The revised 

calculation excludes diurnal and resting loss 

emissions of VOCs from all of the emissions 

scenarios because such evaporative emissions are 

related to vehicle population rather than to VMT or 

vehicle trips. 

12See CARB Resolution No. 07–28, September 27, 

2007 with attachments and letter, James N. 

Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to Wayne 

Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, 

November 16, 2007 with enclosures. 

13The 2007 State Strategy also includes measures 

(i.e., Smog Check improvements) to be 

implemented by the California Bureau of 

Automotive Repair. See 2007 State Strategy, pp. 64– 

65 and CARB Resolution 7–28, Attachment B, p. 8. 

14See CARB Resolution No. 09–34, April 24, 

2009 and letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive 

Officer, CARB to Wayne Nastri, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9, August 12, 2009 with 

enclosures. Only pages 11–27 of the Revised 2007 

State Strategy were submitted as a SIP revision. The 

balance of the report was for informational 

purposes only. See Attachment A to CARB 

Resolution No. 09–34. 

15EPA has previously approved portions of 

CARB’s 2007 State Strategy and the Revised 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). 

adopted by the Districts’ governing 

boards during January–February 2006 

and then by CARB Executive Order G– 

125–335 on February 24, 2006. See table 

1 for the Districts’ adoption dates and 

resolution or order numbers. CARB 

submitted the 2002–2008 RFP Plan to 

EPA on February 24, 2006.7

TABLE 1—AGENCIES AND ADOPTION

DATES FOR SACRAMENTO REGIONAL

8-HOUR OZONE ATTAINMENT AND

REASONABLE FURTHER PROGRESS

PLAN

Agency Hearing and 

adoption dates 

Board 

resolution 

SMAQMD January 26, 2006 2006–010 

FRAQMD February 6, 2006 2006–01 

EDCAQMD.February 7, 2006 040–2006 

YSAQMD February 8, 2006 06–01 

PCAPCD February 19, 2006 06–01 

The 2002–2008 RFP Plan includes an 

RFP demonstration for the 2002–2008 

timeframe, an amended Rate of Progress 

Plan for the 1990–1996 timeframe, and 

motor-vehicle emissions budgets used 

for transportation conformity purposes. 

2. Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone 

Attainment Plan 

The Sacramento Regional 8-Hour 

Ozone Attainment Plan and Reasonable 

Further Progress Plan (‘‘2009 Ozone 

Attainment and RFP Plan’’ or ‘‘2009 

Plan’’) was adopted by the Districts’ 

governing boards during January– 

February 2009 and then by CARB on 

March 26, 2009. See table 2 for adoption 

dates and resolution numbers. CARB 

submitted the 2009 Ozone Attainment 

and RFP Plan to EPA on April 19, 

2009.8

TABLE 2—AGENCIES AND ADOPTION

DATES FOR 2009 OZONE ATTAINMENT AND RFP PLAN

Agency Hearing and 

adoption dates 

Board 

resolution 

SMAQMD January 22, 2009 2009–001 

FRAQMD February 2, 2009 2009–02 

EDCAQMD.February 10, 2009 021–2009 

YSAQMD February 11, 2009 09–02 

PCAPCD February 19, 2009 09–01 

CARB ..... March 26, 2009 .... 09–19 

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 motor-vehicle 

emissions budgets used for 

transportation conformity purposes. The 

attainment demonstration includes air 

quality modeling, an RFP plan, an 

analysis of reasonably available control 

measures/reasonably available control 

technology (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 CARB 

updated and revised the Sacramento 

Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan 

and Reasonable Further Progress Plan 

(‘‘2013 Ozone Attainment and RFP Plan 

Update’’ or ‘‘2013 Plan Update’’). 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). See 

table 3 for relevant hearing and 

adoption dates and board resolutions. 

CARB submitted the 2013 Plan Update 

to EPA on December 31, 2013.9

TABLE 3—AGENCIES AND ADOPTION

DATES FOR THE 2013 OZONE ATTAINMENT AND RFP PLAN UPDATE

Agency Hearing and 

adoption dates 

Board 

resolution 

SMAQMD September 26, 

2013.

2013–026 

CARB ..... November 21, 

2013.

13–39 

On June 19, 2014, CARB submitted a 

technical supplement to the Sacramento 

Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) 

emissions offset demonstration in the 

2013 Plan Update.10 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.11 While the vehicle 

emissions estimates in CARB’s technical 

supplement differ from those contained 

in the demonstration in the 2013 Plan 

Update, the conclusions of the analysis 

remain the same. 

3. CARB State Strategy 

To demonstrate attainment, the 

Sacramento Ozone Plan relies to a large 

extent on measures in CARB’s 2007 

State Strategy. The 2007 State Strategy 

was adopted by CARB on September 27, 

2007 and submitted to EPA on 

November 16, 2007.12

The 2007 State Strategy describes 

CARB’s overall approach to addressing, 

in conjunction with local plans, 

attainment of both the 1997 Fine 

Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 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 

implementation of 15 defined State 

measures.13

On August 12, 2009, CARB submitted 

the Revised 2007 State Strategy, dated 

March 24, 2009 and adopted April 24, 

2009.14 15 This submittal updated the 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 61803 

16Motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for 

2011, 2014, and 2017 were previously found 

adequate by EPA on July 28, 2009 (74 FR 37210). 

New MVEBs 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. 

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 and updates NOX and VOC 

emissions reductions estimates from 

adopted State measures and 

commitments. In today’s proposal and 

in the context of the Sacramento Ozone 

Plan, we are only evaluating the State 

measures that are included in the 

Revised 2007 State Strategy and 

applicable in the SMA. 

B. CAA Procedural and Administrative 

Requirements for SIP Submittals 

CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and 

110(l) require a state to provide 

reasonable public notice and 

opportunity for public hearing prior to 

the adoption and submittal of a SIP or 

SIP revision. To meet this requirement, 

every SIP submittal should include 

evidence that adequate public notice 

was given and an opportunity for a 

public hearing was provided consistent 

with EPA’s implementing regulations in 

40 CFR 51.102. 

The Districts and CARB have satisfied 

applicable statutory and regulatory 

requirements for reasonable public 

notice and hearing prior to adoption and 

submittal of the 2009 Ozone Attainment 

and RFP Plan and 2013 Plan Update. 

The Districts conducted public 

workshops, provided public comment 

periods, and held public hearings prior 

to the adoption of the 2002–2008 RFP 

Plan, 2009 Ozone Attainment and RFP 

Plan and 2013 Plan Update. See 

discussions above in III.A.1, III.A.2, and 

III.A.3 for hearing and adoption dates. 

CARB conducted public workshops, 

provided public comment periods, and 

held a public hearing prior to the 

adoption of the 2007 State Strategy on 

September 27, 2007. See CARB 

Resolution No. 07–28. CARB also 

provided the required public notice, 

opportunity for public comment, and a 

public hearing prior to its April 24, 2009 

adoption of the Revised 2007 State 

Strategy. See CARB Resolution 09–34. 

CARB also provided the required public 

notice, opportunity for public comment, 

and a public hearing prior to its 

November 21, 2013 adoption of the 2013 

Plan Update. See CARB Resolution No. 

13–39. 

The SIP submittals include proof of 

publication for notices of the Districts’ 

and CARB’s public hearings, as 

evidence that all hearings were properly 

noticed. We find, therefore, that the 

submittals meet the procedural 

requirements of CAA sections 110(a) 

and 110(l). 

CAA section 110(k)(1)(B) requires that 

EPA determine whether a SIP submittal 

is complete within 60 days of receipt. 

This section also provides that any plan 

that EPA has not affirmatively 

determined to be complete or 

incomplete will become complete six 

months after the date of submittal by 

operation of law. EPA’s SIP 

completeness criteria are found in 40 

CFR part 51, Appendix V. The 

Sacramento Ozone Plan submittals were 

deemed complete by operation of law 

on the dates listed in table 4. 

TABLE 4—SUBMITTALS AND COMPLETENESS DETERMINATIONS FOR SACRAMENTO OZONE PLAN

Submittal Submittal date Completeness date 

2002–2008 RFP Plan .............................................................................. February 24, 2006 ............................................. August 24, 2006. 

2007 State Strategy ................................................................................. November 16, 2007 ........................................... May 16, 2008. 

2009 Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan and RFP 

Plan.

April 19, 2009 .................................................... October 29, 2009. 

Revised 2007 State Strategy ................................................................... August 12, 2009 ................................................ February 12, 2010. 

2013 Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan and RFP 

Plan.

December 31, 2013 ........................................... May 31, 2014. 

IV. Review of the Sacramento Ozone 

Plan and the Sacramento Portion of the 

State Strategy 

We provide our evaluation of the 

Sacramento Ozone Plan’s compliance 

with applicable CAA and EPA 

regulatory requirements below. A more 

detailed evaluation can be found in the 

technical support document (TSD) for 

this proposal, which is available online 

at www.regulations.gov under docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0178, or 

from the EPA contact listed at the 

beginning of this notice. 

A. Summary of EPA’s Proposed Actions 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

2002–2008 RFP Plan, 2009 Ozone 

Attainment and RFP Plan, those 

portions of the 2007 State Strategy and 

Revised 2007 State Strategy specific to 

ozone attainment in the SMA, and the 

2013 Ozone Attainment and RFP Plan 

Update. 

We are proposing to approve the 

emissions inventories in these SIP 

revisions as meeting the applicable 

requirements of the CAA and ozone 

implementation rule. We are also 

proposing to approve the Districts’ 

commitments to specific measures in 

these SIP revisions as strengthening the 

SIP. 

We are proposing to approve the air 

quality modeling analysis on which the 

Sacramento Ozone Plan’s attainment, 

RACM, and RFP demonstrations are 

based because the Sacramento Ozone 

Plan includes sufficient documentation 

and analysis for EPA to determine the 

modeling’s adequacy. 

We are proposing to approve the 

RACM analysis and the RFP and 

attainment demonstrations and related 

contingency measures as meeting the 

applicable requirements of the CAA and 

ozone implementation rule. 

We are proposing to approve new 

transportation conformity motor vehicle 

emissions budgets for 2017 and 2018.16

We are proposing to approve the 

Sacramento VMT emissions offset 

demonstration as meeting the applicable 

requirements in section 182(d)(1)(A) of 

the Clean Air Act. 

EPA’s analysis and findings are 

summarized below and are described in 

more detail in the TSD for this 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. 

B. Emissions Inventories 

1. Requirements for Emissions 

Inventories 

CAA section 182(a)(1) requires each 

state with an ozone nonattainment area 

classified under subpart 2 to submit a 

‘‘comprehensive, accurate, current 

inventory of actual emissions from all 

sources’’ of the relevant pollutants in 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
61804 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

17 ‘‘2002 Base Year Emission Inventory SIP 

Planning: 8-Hour Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional Haze 

Programs’’ (EPA Memorandum from L. Wegman 

and P. Tsirigotis, November 18, 2002). 

18 ‘‘Emission Inventory Guidance for 

Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 

and Regional Haze Regulations’’ (EPA–454/R–05– 

001, August 2005, updated November 2005). 

19 ‘‘Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard—Phase 2’’ 

(70 FR 71612, November 29, 2005). 

20See 2013 Plan Update, Appendix A5: Recent 

Emission Inventory Adjustments, pages A5–1 

through A5–5. 

21See 78 FR 14533 (March 6, 2013) regarding EPA 

approval of the 2011 version of the California 

EMFAC model and announcement of its 

availability. The software and detailed information 

on the EMFAC vehicle emission model can be 

found on the following CARB Web site: http://

www.arb.ca.gov/msei/msei.htm. 

22Final 2013/16 Metropolitan Transportation 

Improvement Program, Amendment #1 to the MTP/ 

SCS 2035, and Air Quality Conformity Analysis. 

August 16, 2012. Federal Highway Administration 

approval December 14, 2012. 

23 Detailed information on CARB’s off-road motor 

vehicle emissions inventory methodologies is found 

at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/

categories.htm#offroad_motor_vehicles. 

24The CEIDARS database consists of two 

categories of information: source information and 

utility information. Source information includes the 

basic inventory information generated and collected 

on all point and area sources. Utility information 

generally includes auxiliary data, which helps 

categorize and further define the source 

information. Used together, CEIDARS is capable of 

generating complex reports based on a multitude of 

category and source selection criteria. 

25 Detailed information on the area-wide source 

category emissions is found on the CARB Web site: 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/ei/areasrc/areameth.htm. 

26Appendix A2 of the 2013 Plan Update 

Appendices contains the estimated VOC and NOX

stationary, area-wide and off-road forecast 

summaries by Emission Inventory Code categories 

for the Sacramento nonattainment area in CEPAM. 

(Appendix A2 is available separately in electronic 

file format.) A CEPAM inventory tool was created 

to support the development of the 2012 PM2.5 SIPs 

due at that time. The tool was designed to support 

all of the modeling, planning, and reporting 

requirements due at that time and includes updates 

for all the pollutants (e.g., NOX and VOC). 

accordance with guidance provided by 

the Administrator. Emissions 

inventories for ozone need to contain 

VOC and NOX emissions because these 

pollutants are precursors to ozone 

formation. The inventories should meet 

the data requirements of EPA’s 

Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule 

(codified at 40 CFR part 51 subpart A). 

A baseline emissions inventory is 

required for the attainment 

demonstration and for meeting RFP 

requirements. The baseline year for the 

SIP planning emissions inventory is 

identified as 2002 by EPA guidance 

memorandum.17 Additional EPA 

emission inventory guidance and the 

federal 8-hour ozone implementation 

rules set specific planning requirements 

pertaining to future milestone years for 

reporting RFP and to attainment 

demonstration years.18 19 Key RFP 

analysis years in the RFP demonstration 

include 2008 and every subsequent 3 

years out to the attainment date. The 

federal 8-hour ozone implementation 

rule also requires that for purposes of 

defining the data elements in emissions 

inventories for ozone nonnattainment 

areas, 40 CFR part 51 subpart A applies. 

2. Emissions Inventories in the 

Sacramento Ozone Plan 

The baseline planning inventories for 

the SMA ozone nonattainment area 

together with additional documentation 

for the inventories are found in Section 

5 and Appendix A of the 2013 Plan 

Update and in Appendix C of CARB’s 

Staff Report on Proposed Revisions to 

the 8-Hour Ozone State Implementation 

Plan for the Sacramento Federal 

Nonattainment Area, October 22, 2013 

(‘‘CARB 2013 Staff Report’’). The 

average summer weekday emissions 

typical of the ozone season are used for 

the 2002 base year planning inventory, 

RFP milestone years (e.g., 2014) and the 

2018 attainment year. These inventories 

incorporate reductions from federal, 

State, and Districts control measures 

adopted through January 2012 for 

mobile sources and through mid-2011 

for stationary and area-wide sources.20

Table 5 provides a summary of the 

average summer weekday NOX and VOC 

emissions inventories for the 2002 

baseline year and the 2018 attainment 

year. All inventories include NOX and 

VOC emissions from stationary, area, 

off-road mobile, and on-road mobile 

sources. 

The on-road motor vehicles inventory 

category consists of trucks, automobiles, 

buses, and motorcycles. California’s 

model for estimating emissions from onroad motor vehicles operating in 

California is referred to as ‘‘EMFAC’’ 

(short for EMission FACtor). EMFAC 

has undergone many revisions over the 

years, and the current on-road motor 

vehicles emission model is 

EMFAC2011, the CARB model approved 

by EPA for estimating on-road motor 

source emissions.21 Appendix A1 of the 

2013 Plan Update contains the latest onroad motor vehicle summer planning 

VOC and NOX inventories, vehicle 

population, Vehicle Miles Traveled 

(VMT) and trips for each EMFAC 

vehicle class category for the 

Sacramento Metro nonattainment area. 

The motor vehicle emissions in the 

Sacramento Ozone Plan are based on 

CARB’s EMFAC2011 emission factor 

model and the latest planning 

assumptions from SACOG’s 2013/2016 

Metropolitan Transportation 

Improvement Program (MTIP).22

The 2013 Plan Update contains offroad VOC and NOX inventories 

developed by CARB using categoryspecific methods and models.23 The offroad mobile source category includes 

aircraft, trains, ships, and off-road 

vehicles and equipment used for 

construction, farming, commercial, 

industrial, and recreational activities. 

Appendix A4 of the 2013 Plan Update 

contains the summary of in-use off-road 

equipment emissions, horsepower, 

population and activity data for the 

SMA using data outputs from CARB’s 

2011 In-Use Off-Road Equipment model. 

For those off-road emissions categories 

not updated with new methods and 

data, such as lawn and garden 

equipment, data outputs from CARB’s 

OFFROAD2007 model were used. 

The stationary source category of the 

emissions inventory includes nonmobile, fixed sources of air pollution 

comprised of individual industrial, 

manufacturing, and commercial 

facilities. Examples of stationary sources 

(a.k.a., point sources) include fuel 

combustion (e.g., electric utilities), 

waste disposal (e.g., landfills), cleaning 

and surface coatings (e.g., printing), 

petroleum production and marketing, 

and industrial processes (e.g., chemical). 

Stationary source operators report to the 

Districts the process and emissions data 

used to calculate emissions from point 

sources. The Districts then enter the 

information reported by emission 

sources into the California Emission 

Inventory Development and Reporting 

System (CEIDARS) database.24

The area sources category includes 

aggregated emissions data from 

processes that are individually small 

and widespread or not well-defined 

point sources. The area source 

subcategories include solvent 

evaporation (e.g., consumer products 

and architectural coatings) and 

miscellaneous processes (e.g., 

residential fuel combustion and farming 

operations). Emissions from these 

sources are calculated from product 

sales, population, employment data, and 

other parameters for a wide range of 

activities that generate air pollution 

across the Sacramento nonattainment 

region.25

The emission inventories in the 2013 

Plan Update were derived from the 

California Emission Projection Analysis 

Model (CEPAM).26 The CEPAM model 

run used in the Sacramento Ozone Plan 

is based on a 2005 baseline inventory 

developed using the methods or 

databases described above (e.g., 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 61805 

27The ‘‘General Preamble for the Implementation 

of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 

1990,’’ published at 57 FR 13498 on April 16, 1992, 

describes EPA’s preliminary view on how we 

would interpret various SIP planning provisions in 

title I of the CAA as amended in 1990, including 

those planning provisions applicable to the 1-hour 

ozone standard. EPA continues to rely on certain 

guidance in the General Preamble to implement the 

8-hour ozone standard under title I. 

28Available at www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/

t1pgm.html. 

29For ozone nonattainment areas classified as 

moderate or above, CAA section 182(b)(2) also 

requires implementation of RACT for all major 

sources of VOC and for each VOC source category 

for which EPA has issued a Control Techniques 

Guideline (CTG). CAA section 182(f) requires that 

RACT under section 182(b)(2) also apply to major 

stationary sources of NOX. In severe areas, a major 

source is a stationary source that emits or has the 

potential to emit at least 25 tons of VOC or NOX

per year. CAA section 182(d). Under the 8-hour 

ozone implementation rule, states were required to 

submit SIP revisions meeting the RACT 

requirements of CAA sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f) 

no later than 27 months after designation for the 8- 

hour ozone standard (September 15, 2006 for areas 

designated in April 2004) and to implement the 

required RACT measures no later than 30 months 

after that submittal deadline. See 40 CFR 51.912(a). 

California has submitted CAA section 182 RACT 

SIPs for the Districts comprising the Sacramento 

Metro ozone nonattainment area, and the status of 

the submittals is described in the TSD for this 

action. While any evaluation of a RACM 

demonstration needs to consider the potential effect 

of CAA section 182(b)(2) RACT on expeditious 

attainment, it does not require that there first be an 

approved RACT demonstration. 

EMFAC2011, CIEDERS, CARB’s 2011 

In-Use Off-Road Equipment model). The 

inventory was calibrated to 2005 

emissions and activity levels, and 

inventories for other years are back-cast 

(e.g., 2002) or forecast (e.g., 2018) using 

CEPAM from that base inventory. 

TABLE 5—SMA NOX AND VOC EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARIES FOR THE 2002 BASE YEAR AND 2018 ATTAINMENT

YEAR

[Average summer weekday emissions in tons per day, tpd] a

Category 

NOX VOC 

2002 2018 2002 2018 

Stationary Sources .......................................................................................... 12.2 10.9 17.5 22.6

Area Sources ................................................................................................... 3.1 3.1 32.5 30.5 

On-Road Mobile Sources ................................................................................ 99.1 36.6 51.9 17.1 

Off-Road Mobile Sources ................................................................................ 50.4 25.9 40.7 24.4 

Inventory Adjustments by CARB ..................................................................... 0 0.3 4.1 4.0 

Totals ........................................................................................................ 164.8 76.9 146.7 98.7 

a CARB 2013 Staff Report, tables C1–4. Because of rounding conventions, totals may not add up to exact estimates in categories. 

3. Proposed Action on the Emissions 

Inventories 

We have reviewed the emissions 

inventories in the Sacramento Ozone 

Plan and the inventory methodologies 

used by the Districts and CARB for 

consistency with CAA section 182(a)(1), 

the ozone implementation rule, and 

EPA’s guidance. We find that the base 

year and projected attainment year 

inventories are comprehensive, 

accurate, and current inventories of 

actual or projected emissions of NOX

and VOC in the SMA nonattainment 

area as of the date of their submittal. We 

propose, therefore, to approve these 

inventories as meeting the requirements 

of CAA section 172(c)(3), the ozone 

implementation rule and applicable 

EPA guidance. 

C. Reasonably Available Control 

Measures and Adopted Control Strategy 

1. RACM Requirements 

CAA section 172(c)(1) requires that 

each attainment plan ‘‘provide for the 

implementation of all reasonably 

available control measures as 

expeditiously as practicable (including 

such reductions in emissions from 

existing sources in the area as may be 

obtained through the adoption, at a 

minimum, of reasonably available 

control technology), and shall provide 

for attainment of the national primary 

ambient air quality standards.’’ 

EPA has previously provided 

guidance interpreting the RACM 

requirement in the General Preamble at 

13560 27 and in a memorandum entitled 

‘‘Guidance on Reasonably Available 

Control Measures (RACM) Requirements 

and Attainment Demonstration 

Submissions for the Ozone NAAQS,’’ 

John Seitz, November 30, 1999.28 (Seitz 

memo). In summary, EPA guidance 

provides that to address the requirement 

to adopt all RACM, states should 

consider all potentially reasonable 

control measures for source categories 

in the nonattainment area to determine 

whether they are reasonably available 

for implementation in that area and 

whether they would, if implemented 

individually or collectively, advance the 

area’s attainment date by one year or 

more. See Seitz memo and General 

Preamble at 13560; See also ‘‘State 

Implementation Plans; General 

Preamble for Proposed Rulemaking on 

Approval of Plan Revisions for 

Nonattainment Areas,’’ 44 FR 20372 

(April 4, 1979) and Memorandum dated 

December 14, 2000, from John S. Seitz, 

Director, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, ‘‘Additional Submission 

on RACM from States with Severe OneHour Ozone Nonattainment Area SIPs.’’ 

Any measures that are necessary to 

meet these requirements that are not 

already either federally promulgated, 

part of the state’s SIP, or otherwise 

creditable in SIPs must be submitted in 

enforceable form as part of a state’s 

attainment plan for the area. 72 FR 

20586, at 20614.29

CAA section 172(c)(6) requires 

nonattainment plans to ‘‘include 

enforceable emission limitations, and 

such other control measures, means or 

techniques (including economic 

incentives such as fees, marketable 

permits, and auctions of emission 

rights), as well as schedules and 

timetables for compliance, as may be 

necessary or appropriate to provide for 

attainment of such standard in such area 

by the applicable attainment date.’’ See 

also CAA section 110(a)(2)(A). The 

ozone implementation rule requires that 

all control measures needed for 

attainment be implemented no later 

than the beginning of the attainment 

year ozone season. 40 CFR 51.908(d). 

The attainment year ozone season is 

defined as the ozone season 

immediately preceding a nonattainment 

area’s attainment date. 40 CFR 

51.900(g). 

The purpose of the RACM analysis is 

to determine whether or not control 

measures exist that are technically 

reasonable and that provide emissions 

reductions that would advance the 

attainment date for nonattainment areas. 

Control measures that would advance 

the attainment date are considered 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
61806 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

30The Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality 

Standards Attainment Program (‘‘Carl Moyer 

Program’’) provides incentive grants for engines, 

equipment and other sources of pollution that are 

cleaner than required, providing early or extra 

emission reductions. Eligible projects include 

cleaner on-road, off-road, marine, locomotive and 

stationary agricultural pump engines. The program 

achieves near-term reductions in emissions of NOX, 

PM, and VOC or reactive organic gas (ROG) which 

are necessary for California to meet its clean air 

commitments under the SIP. 

RACM and must be included in the SIP 

to ensure that the attainment is achieved 

‘‘as expeditiously as practicable.’’ 

RACM is defined by EPA as any 

potential control measure for 

application to point, area, on-road and 

non-road emission source categories 

that meets the following criteria: (1) 

Technologically feasible; (2) 

economically feasible; (3) does not 

cause ‘‘substantial widespread and longterm adverse impacts’’; (4) is not 

‘‘absurd, unenforceable, or 

impracticable’’; and (5) can advance the 

attainment date by at least one year. 

General Preamble at 13560. 

2. RACM Demonstration in the SIP 

CARB and the Districts have 

rulemaking processes for development, 

adoption and implementation of RACM. 

The State and Districts have adopted 

numerous measures since 2002, the base 

year for the Sacramento Ozone Plan, 

and included enforceable commitments 

for measures that are scheduled to be 

adopted in the future. The RACM 

analysis for the Sacramento Ozone Plan 

includes an evaluation of the State’s, 

Districts’, and the Sacramento Area 

Council of Governments’ (SACOG) new 

stationary, area and mobile sources 

measures that have been adopted since 

the base year and commitments for 

future adoption, as discussed in more 

detail below. See 2009 Plan and the 

2013 Plan Update, Appendix H— 

Reasonably Available Control Measures 

(for stationary and area sources) and 

Appendix D—Transportation Control 

Measures (for transportation control 

measures), and 2007 State Strategy, 

Appendix G. 

For the Sacramento Ozone Plan, the 

Districts, CARB, and SACOG each 

undertook a process to identify and 

evaluate potential RACM that could 

contribute to expeditious attainment of 

the 8-hour ozone standards in the SMA. 

We describe each agency’s efforts below. 

a. Districts’ RACM Analysis and 

Adopted Control Strategy 

The Districts’ RACM analysis, which 

focuses on stationary and area source 

controls, is briefly described in Chapter 

7 and detailed in Appendix H of both 

the 2009 Plan and the 2013 Plan 

Update. 

Since the 1970s, the Districts have 

adopted stationary source control rules 

that have resulted in significant 

improvement of air quality in the SMA. 

These regulations and strategies have 

yielded significant emissions reductions 

from sources under the Districts’ 

jurisdiction. The Districts are also using 

economic incentive approaches, such as 

the Carl Moyer program,30 to achieve 

additional reductions. 

To identify all available RACM, the 

Districts conducted a thorough process 

that involved public meetings to solicit 

input, evaluation of EPA-suggested 

RACM and RACT, and evaluation of 

other air agencies’ regulations. See 2009 

Plan and 2013 Plan Update, Appendix 

H—Reasonably Available Control 

Measures. The Districts’ staffs 

conducted internal reviews, consulted 

with CARB staff, solicited ideas from 

technical consultants, and attended a 

technology forum summit at the South 

Coast Air Quality Management District. 

In addition, the Districts’ staff reviewed 

the following documents: 

• ‘‘Final 2007 Air Quality 

Management Plan,’’ South Coast Air 

Quality Management District, June 2007; 

• ‘‘2007 Ozone Plan,’’ San Joaquin 

Valley Air Pollution control District, 

April 30, 2007; and 

• ‘‘Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy— 

Appendix C, Stationary and Mobile 

Source Control Measure Descriptions,’’ 

Bay Area Air Quality Management 

District, January 4, 2006. 

District staff compared requirements 

in place in the SMA with adopted rules 

in the following air districts: 

• South Coast Air Quality 

Management District; 

• Bay Area Air Quality Management 

District; 

• Ventura County Air Pollution 

Control District; and 

• San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution 

Control District. 

Each of the Districts was responsible 

for preparing the RACM analysis for the 

stationary measures in its jurisdiction. 

The regional mobile source and land use 

measures were evaluated by technical 

consultants for the Districts on behalf of 

the region. 

From these analyses, staff compiled 

the proposed control measures, 

‘‘Sacramento Regional 8-hour Ozone 

Attainment Plan—Control Measures: 

Draft, October 2006.’’ The Districts’ 

staffs conducted public workshops at 

four locations throughout the 

Sacramento region to solicit comments 

on the proposed control measures and 

ideas for additional control measures to 

be considered. Following the public 

workshops, staff evaluated public 

comments and suggestions, reviewed 

the final plan documents noted above, 

and compiled the proposed control 

measures included in this plan. 

The following is a summary of the 

Districts’ staff’s findings: 

1. The Districts’ staff evaluated and 

analyzed all reasonable control 

measures that were currently available 

for inclusion in the Sacramento Ozone 

Plan. 

2. The Districts’ staff identified new 

or amended stationary control measures, 

and mobile source and land use control 

measures that are included in the 

Sacramento Ozone Plan. 

3. The Sacramento Ozone Plan 

includes all RACM provided by the 

public and experts. 

4. The available control measures that 

are not included collectively would not 

advance the attainment date or 

contribute to RFP for the SMA because 

of the insignificant or non-quantifiable 

amount of emissions reductions that 

they may potentially generate. Tables 

H–1 through H–6 of Appendix H of the 

2009 Plan and 2013 Plan Update 

contain a list of the measures and a brief 

discussion of the conclusions. 

5. The RACM demonstration for 

transportation control measures was 

prepared by SACOG and is discussed 

separately in Appendix D— 

Transportation Control Measures of the 

2009 Plan and 2013 Plan Update. 

In general, EPA finds that with 

respect to emissions of ozone precursors 

the Districts’ current rules and 

regulations are equivalent to or more 

stringent than those developed by other 

air districts, with a few exceptions 

where more stringent controls are 

technically feasible but not cost 

effective and/or would not advance 

attainment. 

Based on their RACM evaluations, the 

Districts committed to approximately 

twenty-two new or revised stationary 

source control measures for 

development and adoption, including 

measures at least as stringent as those 

identified in other California districts, 

as well as some new innovative 

measures. The Districts determined that 

the few available measures that were not 

included in the attainment strategy 

would not advance the attainment date 

or contribute to RFP due to the 

insignificant or unquantifiable 

emissions reductions they would 

potentially generate. See Appendix H in 

both the 2009 Plan and 2013 Plan 

Update for additional discussion of cost 

and advancement of attainment 

considerations used in the RACM 

analysis. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 61807 

31See Resolution 2009–001, Board of Directors of 

the SMAQMD, January 22; 2009; Resolution 021– 

2009, Board of Directors of the EDCAQMD, 

February 10, 2009; Resolution 2009–002, Board of 

Directors of the FRAQMD, April 7, 2009; Resolution 

09–01, Board of Directors of the PCAQMD, February 

19, 2009; Resolution 09–02, Board of Directors of 

the YSAQMD, February 11, 2009. 

32See Resolution 2009–001, Board of Directors of 

the SMAQMD, January 22; 2009. The FRAQMD and 

PCAPCD also adopted this commitment. See 

Resolution 2009–002, Board of Directors of the 

FRAQMD, April 7, 2009, and Resolution 09–01, 

Board of Directors of the PCAQMD, February 19, 

2009. SMAQMD administers the Sacramento 

Emergency Clean Air & Transportation Grant 

Program (SECAT), which is expected to be the 

primary source of emission reductions for the 

Regional On-road Mobile Incentive Program. The 

emission reductions commitment for Regional Onroad Mobile Incentive Program is also part of the 

commitment for new control measures to achieve 

emissions reductions of 3 tons per day VOC and 3 

tons per day NOX in the SMA. 

33See page 7–13 of the 2013 Plan Update. Table 

7–5 in the 2013 Plan Update provides additional 

details regarding the Districts commitments. 

Since 2002, the Districts have adopted 

or amended approximately fifty-seven 

NOX and VOC rules. In the context of 

the SIP, these can be broken into three 

groups: Thirty-six have been approved 

into the SIP; thirteen have been 

submitted and are awaiting processing 

(e.g., approval into the SIP); and thirteen 

have not yet been submitted by the 

State. Reductions from rules not 

approved into the SIP will not receive 

credit towards attainment. A detailed 

summary of the Districts’ NOX and VOC 

rules adopted between 2002 and 2013 is 

provided in the TSD. These rules 

include controls on various NOX and 

VOC emissions from sources such as: 

Boilers, process heaters, and steam 

generators; internal combustion engines; 

various coating operations; and solvent 

cleaning operations. 

The 2009 Plan includes commitments 

by the Districts ‘‘to adopt and 

implement new control measures that 

satisfy federal Reasonably Achievable 

Control Measure requirements and 

achieve, collectively with measures 

adopted by [the Districts], total emission 

reductions of 3 tons per day VOC and 

3 tons per day NOX in the [SMA].’’ 31

The 2009 Plan also includes a 

commitment by SMAQMD ‘‘to adopt 

and implement the Regional On-road 

Mobile Incentive Program that achieves 

total emission reductions of 0.1 ton per 

day of VOC and 0.7 ton per day of NOX

in 2011; 0.1 ton per day of VOC and 0.8 

ton per day of NOX in 2014; 0.9 ton per 

day of NOX in 2017 and 2018 in the 

[SMA].’’ 32 In 2013, the Districts 

updated the list of control measures that 

they committed to adopt and 

implement. The update reflected 

progress since adoption of the 2009 Plan 

and changes resulting from the revised 

attainment demonstration in the 2013 

Plan Update. Tables 6 and 7 list rule 

commitments by the Districts in the 

2013 Plan Update. The Districts’ rule 

commitments in the 2013 Plan Update 

are expected to achieve emissions 

reductions of approximately 1 tpd of 

NOX and 3 tpd of VOC. See 2013 Plan 

Update, Section 7, Table 7–5. The 

commitments include new or amended 

rules for categories such as: 

Architectural coatings, degreasing/

solvent cleaning, automotive 

refinishing, and large water heaters and 

small boilers, and a mobile source 

incentive program. The 2009 Plan and 

2013 Plan Updates also explain that if 

a particular measure or a portion thereof 

is found infeasible or does not get its 

expected emission reductions, the 

Districts still commit to achieving the 

total emission reductions necessary to 

attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. 

The specific control measures as 

adopted may provide more or less 

reductions than estimated in the 2013 

Plan Update, and if ‘‘future air quality 

modeling or air quality improvements 

indicate that all of the emission 

reductions from the new measures are 

not necessary for attainment and an 

infeasibility finding is made for a 

control measure or a portion thereof, the 

region’s SIP commitment can be 

adjusted downward.’’ 33 Tables 6 and 7 

show that the Districts have already 

adopted and implemented several new 

rules that help fulfill their 

commitments, and of these, EPA has 

approved or proposed to approve 

submitted measures achieving 

approximately 1.0 tpd of NOX and 0.3 

tpd of VOC. See table 10 in today’s 

notice. 

TABLE 6—DISTRICTS’ RULE ADOPTION COMMITMENTS AND EXPECTED REDUCTIONS FOR NOX IN SACRAMENTO OZONE

PLAN

Title District Rule No. Adoption year 

Expected 

reduction 

(tpd) 

Status 

Boilers, Steam Generator, and 

Process Heaters.

YSAQMD .......... 2.27 ................... 2016 .................. 0.2 Not yet adopted. 

IC Engines ...................................... FRAQMD .......... 3.22 ................... 2010 .................. <0.1 77 FR 12493 (March 1, 2012). 

Large Water Heaters and Small 

Boilers.

EDCAQMD ........ 239 .................... 2015 .................. <0.1 Not yet adopted. 

FRAQMD .......... 3.23 ................... 2016 .................. 0.0 Not yet adopted. 

PCAPCD ........... CM2 (247) ......... 2015 .................. <0.1 Proposed rulemaking and direct 

Final notices signed on September 5, 2014 and pending 

publication. 

YSAQMD .......... 2.37 ................... 2009 .................. 0.2 75 FR 25778 (May 10, 2010). 

Regional Non-regulatory and Incentive Measures a.SMAQMD .......... various .............. various .............. 0.5 Not yet adopted. 

Total ......................................... ........................... ........................... ........................... 1.1 

a Includes Regional Mobile Incentive Programs for On-Road (e.g., SECAT) and Off-Road sources, SACOG Transportation Control Measures, 

Spare the Air Program, and Urban Forest Development Program. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
61808 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

34See 2007 State Strategy, Appendix G, and 69 

FR 5412 (February 4, 2004), 69 FR 30006 (May 26, 

2004) (proposed and final approval of San Joaquin 

Valley PM10 plan). Also see 76 FR 57872 at 57879 

(September 16, 2011), 77 FR 12674 at 12693 (March 

1, 2012) (proposed and final approval of South 

Coast 2007 Air Quality Management Plan for 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard). 35More information on this public process, 

including presentations from the workshops and 

symposium that preceded the adoption of the 2007 

State Strategy, can be found at www.arb.ca.gov/

planning/sip/2007sip/2007sip.htm. 

TABLE 7—DISTRICTS’ RULE ADOPTION COMMITMENTS AND EXPECTED VOC REDUCTIONS IN THE SACRAMENTO OZONE

PLAN

Title District Rule No. Adoption year 

Expected 

reduction 

(tpd) 

Status 

Architectural Coatings ................... EDCAQMD ....... 215 ................... 2013 ................. 0.1 .................... Not yet adopted. 

FRAQMD ......... 3.15 .................. 2014 ................. <0.1 .................. Not yet adopted. 

PCAPCD .......... 218 ................... 2012 ................. 0.2 .................... 76 FR 75795 (December 5, 

2011). 

SMAQMD ......... 442 ................... 2014 ................. 0.9 .................... Not yet adopted. 

YSAQMD ......... 2.14 .................. 2014 ................. 0.2 .................... Not yet adopted. 

Automotive Refinishing ................. FRAQMD ......... 3.19 .................. 2016 ................. <0.1 .................. Not yet adopted. 

PCAPCD .......... 234 ................... 2015 ................. <0.1 .................. Not yet adopted 

SMAQMD ......... 459 ................... 2011 ................. 0.1 .................... 77 FR 47536 (August 9, 2012). 

YSAQMD ......... 2.26 .................. 2008 ................. <0.1 .................. Adopted but not yet submitted to 

EPA. 

Degreasing/Solvent Cleaning ....... FRAQMD ......... 3.14 .................. 2011 ................. <0.1 .................. Submitted to EPA on February 

10, 2014. 

YSAQMD ......... 2.24/2.31 .......... 2008 ................. 0.7 .................... Submitted to EPA on February 

10, 2014. 

Graphic Arts .................................. YSAQMD ......... 2.29 .................. 2016 ................. not available ..... Not yet adopted. 

Miscellaneous Metal Parts ............ PCAPCD .......... 245 ................... 2008 ................. <0.1 .................. 76 FR 30025 (May 24, 2011). 

Natural Gas Production and Processing.SMAQMD ......... 461 ................... 2014 ................. 0.1 .................... Not yet adopted. 

Regional Non-regulatory and Incentive Measures a.SMAQMD ......... various ............. various ............. 0.1 .................... Not yet adopted. 

Total ....................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... 2.7 ....................

a Includes Regional Mobile Incentive Programs for On-Road (e.g., SECAT) and Off-Road sources, SACOG Transportation Control Measures, 

Spare the Air Program, and Urban Forest Development Program. 

b. CARB’s RACM Analysis and Adopted 

Control Strategy 

Source categories for which CARB has 

primary responsibility for reducing 

emissions in California include most 

new and existing on- and off-road 

engines and vehicles, motor vehicle 

fuels, and consumer products. In 

addition, California has unique 

authority under CAA section 209 

(subject to a waiver by EPA) to adopt 

and implement new emission standards 

for many categories of on-road vehicles 

and engines, and new and in-use offroad vehicles and engines. 

Given the need for significant 

emissions reductions from mobile and 

area sources to meet the NAAQS in 

California nonattainment areas, the 

State of California has been a leader in 

the development of some of the most 

stringent control measures nationwide 

for on-road and off-road mobile sources 

and the fuels that power them. These 

standards have reduced new car 

emissions by 99 percent and new truck 

emissions by 90 percent from 

uncontrolled levels. 2007 State Strategy, 

p. 37. The State is also working with 

EPA on goods movement activities and 

is implementing programs to reduce 

emissions from ship auxiliary engines, 

locomotives, harbor craft and new cargo 

handling equipment. In addition, the 

State has standards for lawn and garden 

equipment, recreational vehicles and 

boats, and other off-road sources that 

require newly manufactured equipment 

to be 80–98 percent cleaner than their 

uncontrolled counterparts. Id. Finally, 

the State has adopted many measures 

that focus on achieving reductions from 

in-use mobile sources that include more 

stringent inspection and maintenance 

(I/M) or ‘‘Smog Check’’ requirements, 

truck and bus idling restrictions, and 

various incentive programs. Since 1994 

alone, the State has taken more than 45 

rulemaking actions and achieved most 

of the emissions reductions needed for 

attainment in the State’s nonattainment 

areas. See 2007 State Strategy, pp. 36– 

40. As is noted in the 2007 State 

Strategy, EPA has approved California’s 

mobile source program as representing 

best available control measures.34

CARB developed its 2007 State 

Strategy after an extensive public 

consultation process to identify 

potential SIP measures.35 From this 

process, CARB identified and 

committed to propose 15 new defined 

measures. These measures focus on 

cleaning up the in-use fleet as well as 

increasing the stringency of emissions 

standards for a number of engine 

categories, fuels, and consumer 

products. Many, if not most, of these 

measures have been adopted or are 

being proposed for adoption for the first 

time anywhere in the nation. They build 

on CARB’s already comprehensive 

program described above that addresses 

emissions from all types of mobile 

sources and consumer products, 

through both regulations and incentive 

programs. 

During its March 2009 adoption of the 

2009 Plan, CARB committed to ‘‘achieve 

reductions of nitrogen oxide (NOX) 

emissions of 13 tons per day (tpd) and 

reductions or reactive organic gas (ROG) 

emissions of 11 tpd through the 

implementation of measures identified 

in the 2007 State Strategy.’’ See 

Resolution 09–19, CARB, March 26, 

2009. 

In April 2009, CARB adopted the 

Revised 2007 State Strategy. 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. 

See Revised 2007 State Strategy, pages 

12 and 19. Reductions in the SMA from 

the statewide measures in the 2007 State 

Strategy had not been quantified at that 

time and were not reflected in the 

Revised 2007 State Strategy. Table 8 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 61809 

36See Staff Report, Analysis of Sacramento Metro 

Area’s 2009 State Implementation Plan for Ozone, 

CARB, March 12, 2009 (‘‘CARB 2009 Staff Report’’). 37The 2013 Plan Update and CARB’s 2013 Staff 

Report include ‘‘Accelerated Introduction of 

Cleaner Line-Haul Locomotives’’ as a State measure 

in the Sacramento ozone nonattainment area, but 

this measure was not included in the Revised 2007 

State Strategy and CARB 2009 Staff Report as part 

of the State’s original commitment. 

38The only remaining commitment measure in 

CARB’s Revised 2007 State Strategy as applicable 

in the SMA is a measure for new emissions 

standards for recreational boats. This measure is 

currently scheduled for a CARB Board hearing in 

February 2015. 

below lists the defined measures and 

expected reductions in the Revised 2007 

State Strategy, including a measure from 

the California Bureau of Automotive 

Repair.36 The Revised 2007 State 

Strategy indicates that the State expects 

to achieve these emission reductions by 

the projected attainment year of 2018. In 

the Revised 2007 State Strategy, CARB 

provided estimated emissions 

reductions for each measure to show 

that, when considered together, these 

measures can meet the total 

commitment. CARB states, however, 

that its enforceable commitment is to 

achieve specific emissions reductions 

for each pollutant by the given dates 

and not for a specific level of reductions 

from any specific measure. See Revised 

2007 State Strategy, p. 13. A summary 

of the estimated and expected 

reductions from the proposed measures 

is provided in table 8 below.37 As 

shown, the State has already adopted 

almost all of the measures. 

TABLE 8—EXPECTED EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FROM DEFINED MEASURES IN THE REVISED 2007 STATE STRATEGY AS APPLICABLE TO SMA, CARB ADOPTION DATE, EXPECTED EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS (2018 PLANNING INVENTORY, TPD) 

AND CURRENT STATUS

Defined State measure Adoption date 2018 NOX 2018 VOC Current status 

Smog Check Improvements .......................... August 31, 2009 ....... 1.4 1.3 Elements approved, 75 FR 38023 (July 1, 

2010). 

Expanded Vehicle Retirement ...................... June 26, 2009 ........... 0.3 0.2 Not submitted to EPA. 

Modifications to Reformulated Gasoline Program.June 14, 2007 ........... .................... 1.1 Approved, 75 FR 26653 (May 12, 2010). 

Cleaner In-use Heavy Duty Trucks ............... December 16, 2010 .. 9.5 0.8 Approved, 77 FR 20308, April 4, 2012. 

Clean Up Existing Harbor Crafts ................... November 15, 2007 .. 0.2 0.0 Authorization granted, 76 FR 77521, December 13, 2011. 

Cleaner In-Use Off-Road Equipment (over 

25 hp).

December 17, 2010 .. 1.9 0.4 Authorization granted, 78 FR 58090, September 20, 2013. 

New Emissions Standards for Recreational 

Boats.

February 2015 .......... 0.3 3.0 Not yet adopted. 

Expanded Off-Road Recreational Vehicle 

Emissions Standards.

July 25, 2013 ............ 0.0 2.7 Not yet approved by California’s Office of 

Administrative Law. 

Additional Evaporative Emission Standards 

(for Off-Road Sources) (e.g., Portable 

Outboard Marine Tanks and Components).

September 25, 2008 .................... 0.4 Similar to federal requirement at 40 CFR 

1060.105. 

Consumer Products Program ........................ November 17, 2007 .. .................... 1.9 Approved, 74 FR 57074, November 4, 

2009. 

June 26, 2008 ........... .................... .................... Approved, 76 FR 27613, May 12, 2011. 

September 24, 2009 .................... .................... Approved, 77 FR 7535, February 13, 2012. 

November 18, 2010 .. .................... .................... Proposed rulemaking and direct final notices signed on August 5, 2014 and 

pending publication. 

Total Emissions Reduction Commitment From CARB Measures 13 11 

The TSD includes a list of all 

measures adopted by CARB between 

1990 and 2013. These measures, 

reductions from which are reflected in 

the Sacramento Ozone Plan’s baseline 

inventories, fall into two categories: 

Measures that are subject to a waiver of 

federal preemption or authorization to 

adopt under CAA section 209 (‘‘waiver 

or authorization measures’’) and those 

for which the State is not required to 

obtain a waiver or authorization (‘‘nonwaiver or non-authorization measures’’). 

Emissions reductions from waiver or 

authorization measures are fully 

creditable in attainment and RFP 

demonstrations and may be used to 

meet other CAA requirements, such as 

contingency measures. See EPA’s 

proposed approval of the San Joaquin 

Valley 1-hour ozone plan at 74 FR 

33933, 33938 (July 14, 2009) and final 

approval at 75 FR 10420 (March 8, 

2010). The State’s baseline non-waiver 

or non-authorization measures have 

generally all been approved by EPA into 

the SIP and as such are fully creditable 

for meeting CAA requirements. Based 

on CARB’s adoption and 

implementation of measures in table 8 

and emissions inventory estimates 

provided in CARB’s 2013 Staff Report, 

EPA has determined that CARB has 

essentially met its commitments in 

Resolution 09–19.38

c. The Local Jurisdiction’s RACM 

Analysis 

The local jurisdiction’s RACM 

analysis was conducted by the 

metropolitan planning organization 

(MPO) for the Sacramento Metro region, 

the Sacramento Area Council of 

Governments (SACOG). This analysis, 

which focused on transportation control 

measures (TCMs), and its results are 

described in Appendix D of the 2009 

Plan and 2013 Plan Update. 

SACOG and SMAQMD jointly 

compiled a list of potential control 

measures from the following sources: 

Clean Air Act Section 108(f) measures; 

Measures considered in the San 

Francisco Bay Area, San Joaquin Valley 

and South Coast Air Quality 

Management District RACM analyses; a 

SMAQMD Workshop; and the 

Metropolitan Transportation Plan 2035 

Draft Project List. The TCM 

development process and draft lists of 

potential TCMs were presented at 

public meetings on ten different dates 

from September 10, 2007–March 6, 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
61810 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

39The Land Use, Housing and Air Quality 

Committee subsequently became the Climate and 

Air Quality Committee and later became part of 

Land Use and Natural Resource Committee. 

40 ‘‘Guidance on the Use of Models and Other 

Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air 

Quality Goals for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5

NAAQS and Regional Haze’’, EPA–454/B–07–002, 

April 2007. Additional EPA modeling guidance can 

be found in ‘‘Guideline on Air Quality Models’’ in 

40 CFR part 51, Appendix W. 

41 ‘‘Photochemical Modeling Protocol for 

Developing Strategies to Attain the Federal 8-hour 

Ozone Air Quality Standard in Central California,’’ 

California Air Resources Board, May 22, 2007. 

2008. These included discussions at 

SACOG’s Regional Planning 

Partnership; Land Use, Housing and Air 

Quality Committee; 39 Transportation 

Committee; Flood Management 

Committee; Government Relations and 

Public Affairs Committee; and by the 

Board of Directors. This process resulted 

in a thorough list of control measures 

for consideration as potential TCMs, 

which could be considered as RACM. 

Attachment A–2 in Appendix D of the 

2013 Plan Update lists the potential 

control measures, organized by category, 

and notes whether they are considered 

RACM, and if not, the reasoned 

justification they were not found to be 

RACM. The measures that have been 

determined to be RACM were included 

in the Sacramento Ozone Plan as TCMs. 

3. Proposed Actions on RACM and 

Adopted Control Strategy 

The State, Districts, and SACOG have 

identified and otherwise provided for 

the implementation of a comprehensive 

set of measures that are among the most 

stringent in the nation, and we are 

proposing to approve the RACM 

demonstration in the Sacramento Ozone 

Plan. 

Because they will strengthen the 

California SIP and were included in the 

Districts’ list of RACM measures, we are 

proposing to approve the Districts’ 

commitments to adopt and implement 

specific control measures, to the extent 

that these commitments have not 

already been fulfilled, by the specific 

years described in tables 6 and 7 above 

and in Section 7 of the 2013 Plan 

Update. 

Based on our review of the State’s 

RACM analysis and adopted rules, we 

propose to find that the Sacramento 

Ozone Plan provides for 

implementation of all RACM necessary 

to demonstrate expeditious attainment 

of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard and 

to meet any related RFP requirements in 

the SMA, consistent with the applicable 

requirements of CAA section 172(c)(1) 

and 40 CFR 51.912. 

D. Attainment Demonstration 

1. Requirements for Attainment 

Demonstrations 

CAA section 172(c) and 182 requires 

a state to submit a plan for each of its 

subpart 2 nonattainment areas that 

demonstrates attainment of the 

applicable ambient air quality standard 

as expeditiously as practicable but no 

later than the specified attainment date. 

Under the ozone implementation rule, 

an attainment demonstration must meet 

the requirements of 40 CFR 51.112. The 

adequacy of an attainment 

demonstration shall be demonstrated by 

means of a photochemical grid model or 

any other analytical method determined 

by the Administrator, in the 

Administrator’s discretion, to be at least 

as effective. CAA section 182(c)(2)(A). 

For each nonattainment area, the state 

must provide for implementation of all 

control measures needed for attainment 

no later than the beginning of the 

attainment year ozone season. 

2. Air Quality Modeling 

CAA section 182(c)(2)(A) requires 

SIPs for ozone nonattainment areas to 

include a ‘‘demonstration that the plan, 

as revised, will provide for attainment 

of the ozone [NAAQS] by the applicable 

attainment date. This attainment 

demonstration must be based on 

photochemical grid modeling or any 

other analytical method determined by 

the Administrator, in the 

Administrator’s discretion, to be at least 

as effective.’’ Air quality modeling is 

used to establish emissions attainment 

targets, that is, the combination of 

emissions of ozone precursors that the 

area can accommodate without 

exceeding the relevant standard, and to 

assess whether the proposed control 

strategy will result in attainment of that 

standard. Air quality modeling is 

performed for a base year and compared 

to air quality monitoring data from that 

year in order to evaluate model 

performance. Once the performance is 

determined to be acceptable, future year 

changes to the emissions inventory are 

simulated to determine the relationship 

between emissions reductions and 

changes in ambient air quality 

throughout the air basin. The 

procedures for modeling ozone as part 

of an attainment demonstration are 

contained in EPA’s ‘‘Guidance on the 

Use of Models and Other Analyses for 

Demonstrating Attainment of Air 

Quality Goals for the 8-Hour Ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS and Regional Haze’’ 40

(‘‘Guidance’’). 

The air quality modeling that 

underpins the 2013 Plan Update is 

described in Chapter 6 and documented 

in Appendix B. We provide a brief 

description of the modeling and a 

summary of our evaluation of it below. 

More detailed information about the 

modeling and our evaluation are 

available in section V of the TSD. 

The 2013 Plan Update uses the same 

model results, including the modeling 

protocol,41 air quality modeling 

selection, episode selection, model 

domain and spatial resolution, 

boundary and initial conditions, 

meteorological model selection and setup, and emission inventory set-up as 

was used in the 2007 San Joaquin Valley 

(SJV) Ozone Plan approved by EPA on 

March 1, 2012 (77 FR 12652). The 2007 

SJV Ozone Plan also includes an 

extensive meteorological and air quality 

model performance evaluation over the 

modeling domain. 

The 2013 Plan Update, Appendix B, 

includes an additional air quality model 

performance evaluation over the 

Sacramento nonattainment area, 

including a statistical analysis 

demonstrating adequate overall model 

performance. The attainment 

demonstration for a given monitoring 

location used only those days that 

satisfied a number of performance 

criteria. 

The 2013 Plan Update’s Appendix B 

also includes documentation on the 

Relative Reduction Factors, which are 

the key results from the model for use 

in the attainment test. Additionally, 

results of modeling runs with various 

combinations of VOC and NOX

reductions are included to illustrate 

alternative control strategies and 

establish a ‘‘carrying capacity,’’ a 

combination of VOC and NOX emissions 

consistent with attainment of the ozone 

standard. Emission reductions using an 

updated baseline and future emission 

inventory were also compared to 

existing model results and found 

sufficient to achieve attainment. EPA 

proposes to conclude that the 

attainment tests are adequate and 

consistent with EPA guidance. 

In addition to a modeled attainment 

demonstration, which focuses on 

locations with an air quality monitor, 

EPA generally requires an unmonitored 

area analysis. The unmonitored area 

analysis uses a combination of model 

output and ambient data to identify 

areas that might exceed the NAAQS if 

monitors were located there. It ensures 

that a control strategy leads to 

reductions in ozone in unmonitored 

locations that might have baseline (and 

future) ambient ozone levels exceeding 

the NAAQS. In order to examine 

unmonitored areas in all portions of the 

modeling domain, EPA recommends use 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 61811 

42The 2013 Plan Update and CARB’s 2013 Staff 

Report describe nonregulatory programs providing 

emissions reductions through agreements resulting 

in replacement of older locomotives with cleaner 

engines. The Union Pacific (UP) rail yard located 

in Roseville has benefitted from programs targeting 

NOX and Particulate Matter (PM) emissions. ARB 

utilized Proposition 1B Goods Movement Emission 

Reduction Program (‘‘Prop 1B’’) funding for 15 Tier 

2 ‘‘regional’’ line haul locomotives. UP also 

operates six ultra-low emitting genset switch 

locomotives within the Roseville rail yards. The UP 

9900, an experimental Tier 3+ locomotive (Tier 4 

PM, and Tier 3+ NOX), has been assigned to UP 

Roseville and operates primarily in Northern 

California. CARB’s 2013 Staff Report indicates 0.07 

tpd of NOX reduction from the State’s Prop 1B. EPA 

is not crediting the 0.07 tpd NOX reduction 

associated with Prop 1B in the Sacramento 

attainment demonstration because an enforceable 

measure supporting the reductions has not been 

submitted to and approved by EPA for inclusion in 

the SIP. EPA has adopted federal engines standards 

for locomotives and the resulting reductions from 

the federal standards are credited in the 2018 

inventory. See 73 FR 37096 (June 30, 2008) and 40 

CFR part 1033, 1065, and 1068 for more details 

regarding the federal locomotive standards. 

43On July 25, 2013, the CARB Board adopted a 

measure to reduce emissions from off-highway 

recreational vehicles. The final rulemaking package 

has not been approved by State’s OAL. For 

additional information about this measure and its 

status, see http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2013/

ohrv2013/ohrv2013.htm. 

of interpolated spatial fields of ambient 

data combined with gridded modeled 

outputs. Guidance, p. 29. The CARB 

Staff Report, Appendix F includes an 

unmonitored area analysis using EPA’s 

MATS software. Based on this analysis 

CARB concluded that there are no 

unmonitored ozone peaks in the 

modeling domain that would violate the 

1997 8-hour ozone standards. 

Finally, the 2013 Ozone Plan’s 

Chapter 10 includes a ‘‘weight-ofevidence demonstration,’’ containing 

supplemental analyses in support of the 

attainment demonstration. These 

analyses include ozone air quality 

trends, meteorologically adjusted ozone 

trends, and precursor emission trends, 

all of which show continued progress 

and support the conclusion that the 

attainment demonstration is sound. 

Based on our review, EPA proposes to 

find that the air quality modeling 

provides an adequate basis for the 

RACM/RACT, RFP, and attainment 

demonstrations in the Sacramento 2013 

8-Hour Ozone SIP. 

3. Attainment Demonstration 

EPA’s review and analysis of the 

State’s attainment demonstration 

involves evaluating measures adopted 

and approved by EPA (through 

rulemaking, waiver, or authorizations) 

and measures not yet submitted to EPA. 

Tables 9 and 10 show State and Districts 

measures approved by EPA and credited 

towards attainment.42

Although the majority of the measures 

in the State’s Revised 2007 State 

Strategy have been approved by EPA, a 

small number of measures have not, 

including Expanded Vehicle 

Retirement, Expanded Off-Road 

Recreational Vehicle Emissions 

Standards, and New Emissions 

Standards for Recreational Boats.43 Of 

these, only the latter measure has not 

yet been adopted by CARB. In 

Resolution 13–39 to adopt the 2013 Plan 

Update, the CARB Board indicated that 

the State and the Districts had 

completed adoption of regulations that 

achieve emissions reductions necessary 

to demonstrate attainment. The State 

did not rely on reductions from the 

three aforementioned measures in its 

attainment demonstration. 

TABLE 9—CREDITABLE STATE MEASURES APPLICABLE TO SMA, ADOPTION DATES, AND CURRENT STATUS

Defined State measures Adoption date EPA approval 

Smog Check Improvements ............................................. August 31, 2009 ................. Elements approved, 75 FR 38023 (July 1, 2010). 

Modifications to Reformulated Gasoline Program ............ June 14, 2007 .................... Approved, 75 FR 26653 (May 12, 2010). 

Cleaner In-use Heavy Duty Trucks .................................. December 16, 2010 a ......... Approved 77 FR 20308, April 4, 2012. 

Clean Up Existing Harbor Crafts ...................................... November 15, 2007 ........... Authorization granted; 76 FR 77521, December 13, 

2011. 

Cleaner In-Use Off-Road Equipment (over 25 hp) ........... December 17, 2010 ........... Authorization granted; (78 FR 58090, 9/20/13). 

Additional Evaporative Emission Standards (for Off-Road 

Sources) (e.g., Portable Outboard Marine Tanks and 

Components).

September 25, 2008 .......... Similar to federal requirement at 40 CFR 1060.105. 

Consumer Products Program ........................................... November 17, 2007 ........... Approved, 74 FR 57074, November 4, 2009. 

June 26, 2008 .................... Approved, 76 FR 27613, May 12, 2011. 

September 24, 2009 .......... Approved, 77 FR 7535, February 13, 2012. 

November 18, 2010 ........... Proposed rulemaking and direct final notices signed on 

August 5, 2014 and pending publication. 

aOn April 25, 2014, the CARB Board approved Resolution 14–3 to revise CARB’s Truck and Bus Rule. The final rulemaking package with the 

revisions to the Truck and Bus Rule has not yet been submitted to the State’s Office of Administrative Law (OAL) for their approval. 

The Districts have made progress in 

adopting measures committed to in the 

2009 Plan and 2013 Plan Update. Table 

10 lists the Districts’ prior commitment 

measures in the 2013 Plan Update that 

have been adopted and subsequently 

approved by EPA. These prior 

commitment measures provide 

reductions that EPA is now crediting in 

the State’s attainment demonstration 

below in table 11. 

TABLE 10—CREDITABLE REDUCTIONS FROM NEW DISTRICTS MEASURES APPROVED BY EPA, ESTIMATED EMISSIONS

REDUCTIONS (2018 PLANNING INVENTORY, TPD), AND CURRENT STATUS

Rule No. Rule title 

Reductions 

EPA approval 

NOX VOC 

YSAQMD 2.37 ................................... Large Water Heaters and Small Boilers.0.5 ¥ 75 FR 25778 (May 10, 2010). 

PCAPCD 218 ..................................... Architectural Coatings ....................... ¥ 0.2 75 FR 18068 (December 5, 2011). 

PCAPCD 245 ..................................... Surface Coating of Metal Parts and 

Products.

¥ <0.1 76 FR 30025 (May 24, 2011). 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
61812 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

44 In its March 18, 1996 proposed rulemaking, 

EPA proposed to approve the Sacramento post-1996 

ROP plan, and on January 8, 1997 EPA finalized the 

Sacramento post-1996 ROP. See 62 FR 1174. 

TABLE 10—CREDITABLE REDUCTIONS FROM NEW DISTRICTS MEASURES APPROVED BY EPA, ESTIMATED EMISSIONS

REDUCTIONS (2018 PLANNING INVENTORY, TPD), AND CURRENT STATUS—Continued 

Rule No. Rule title 

Reductions 

EPA approval 

NOX VOC 

SMAQMD 459 ................................... Automotive Refinishing ..................... ¥ 0.1 77 FR 47536 (August 9, 2012). 

FRAQMD 3.22 ................................... Internal Combustion Engines ............ <0.1 ¥ 77 FR 12493 (March 1, 2012). 

PCAPCD 247 ..................................... Natural Gas-Fired Water Heaters, 

Small Boilers, and Process Heaters.

0.5 ¥ Proposed rulemaking and direct 

final notices signed on September 

5, 2014 and pending publication. 

Totals .......................................... ............................................................ 1.0 0.3 

Table 11 below summarizes the 

attainment demonstration and 

associated reductions that are relied 

upon in the SMA to demonstrate 

attainment by June 15, 2019. Lines A 

and B are the 2002 and 2018 baseline 

inventories in CARB’s 2013 Staff Report. 

Line C1 in table 11 represents 

adjustments made by EPA to remove 

credit for reductions for measures that 

are not yet in the SIP but for which the 

State had taken credit for in the baseline 

inventory in line B. Line C2 represents 

adjustments made by EPA for 

reductions from recent measures 

approved into the SIP that were not 

credited by the State in Line B. The 

attainment target in line E was derived 

from the Sacramento Ozone Plan’s air 

quality modeling analysis. After 

accounting for all creditable measures 

and then comparing the remaining 

inventory against the attainment target, 

the NOX and VOC targets have been 

met. Therefore, the Sacramento Ozone 

Plan adequately demonstrates 

attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS 

by June 15, 2019. 

TABLE 11—SUMMARY OF SMA ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION FOR 8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS 

[Tons per average summer weekday] 

NOX VOC 

A. CARB adjusted 2002 emissions inventory with existing controls a ............................................................................................ 164.8 146.7 

B. CARB adjusted 2018 emissions inventory with existing controls a ............................................................................................ 76.9 98.7 

C1. EPA adjustments for measures credited by State in Line B for which EPA has determined are not creditable at this time b +0.5 +1.5 

C2. EPA adjustments for measures approved by EPA (see table 10) but not credited by State in adjusted 2018 inventory in 

Line B. .......................................................................................................................................................................................... ¥1.0 ¥0.3 

D. EPA adjusted 2018 inventory with controls (Line B + Line C1 + Line C2) ................................................................................ 76.4 99.9 

E. 2018 attainment target c .............................................................................................................................................................. 76.5 107.1 

Attainment target met? (Is Line D less than Line E?) ..................................................................................................................... Yes Yes 

a CARB 2013 Staff Report, tables C3 and C4, CARB, October 22, 2013. 

bSee TSD. 

c CARB 2013 Staff Report, table B2. 

4. Proposed Action on the Attainment 

Demonstration 

In order to approve a SIP’s attainment 

demonstration, EPA must make several 

findings and approve the plan’s 

proposed attainment date. 

First, we must find that the 

demonstration’s technical bases, 

including the emissions inventories and 

air quality modeling, are adequate. As 

discussed above in sections IV.B and 

IV.D.2, we are proposing to approve the 

emissions inventories and air quality 

modeling on which the Sacramento 

Ozone Plan’s attainment demonstration 

and other provisions are based. 

Second, we must find that the SIP 

submittal provides for expeditious 

attainment through the implementation 

of all RACM. As discussed above in 

section IV.C.2, we are proposing to 

approve the RACM demonstration in the 

Sacramento Ozone Plan as meeting the 

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

Third, EPA must find that the 

emissions reductions that are relied on 

for attainment are creditable. As 

discussed above in section IV.D.3, and 

detailed in the TSD, control measures 

providing creditable emission 

reductions sufficient to demonstrate 

attainment in the SMA have been 

approved by EPA. 

For the foregoing reasons, we are 

proposing to approve the attainment 

demonstration in the Sacramento Ozone 

Plan. 

E. Rate of Progress and Reasonable 

Further Progress Demonstrations 

1. Requirements for Rate of Progress 

Section 182(b)(1) requires, for areas 

classified as moderate or above, a SIP 

revision providing for rate of progress 

(ROP), defined as a reduction from the 

adjusted 1990 baseline emissions of at 

least 15% actual emissions of VOC, 

taking into account growth, during the 

first 6 years following 1990 (i.e., 3 

percent per year reduction from 1990 to 

1996). In addition, 40 CFR 51.905(a)(iii) 

provides that ‘‘If the area has an 

outstanding obligation for an approved 

1-hour ROP SIP, it must develop and 

submit to EPA all outstanding 1-hour 

ROP plans.’’ Because EPA has not yet 

approved the entire 1-hour ROP plan for 

the SMA, we are addressing the 

remaining requirement as part of today’s 

action.44

The CAA outlines and EPA guidance 

details the method for calculating the 

requirements for the 1990–1996 period. 

Section 182(b)(1) requires that 

reductions: (1) Be in addition to those 

needed to offset any growth in 

emissions between the base year and the 

milestone year; (2) exclude emission 

reductions from four prescribed federal 

programs (i.e., the federal motor vehicle 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 61813 

45See CARB Executive Order G–125–335 

(February 24, 2006) and letter from Catherine 

Witherspoon, Executive Officer, CARB, to Wayne 

Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, letter 

with enclosures (February 13, 2013). 

46The February 24, 2006 submittal letter from 

Catherine Witherspoon, Executive Officer, CARB, to 

Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 

9, highlights the 15 percent ROP demonstration as 

a significant part of the 2002–2008 RFP Plan 

submittal. See Executive Order G–125.335. In 

addition, the resolutions adopted by the Districts 

boards include language approving the 15% ROP 

demonstration. E.g., See SMAQMD Resolution No. 

2006–010. 

control program (FMVCP), the federal 

Reid vapor pressure (RVP) 

requirements, any RACT corrections 

previously specified by EPA, and any 

Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) 

program corrections necessary to meet 

the basic I/M level); and (3) be 

calculated from an ‘‘adjusted’’ baseline 

relative to the year for which the 

reduction is applicable. 

The adjusted base year inventory 

excludes the emission reductions from 

fleet turnover between 1990 and 1996 

and from Federal RVP regulations 

promulgated by November 15, 1990 or 

required under section 211(h) of the 

Act. The net effect of these adjustments 

is that states are not able to take credit 

for emissions reductions that would 

result from fleet turnover of current 

federal standard cars and trucks, or from 

already existing federal fuel regulations. 

However, the SIP can take full credit for 

the benefits of any new (i.e., post-1990) 

vehicle emissions standards, as well as 

any other new federal or state motor 

vehicle or fuel program that will be 

implemented in the nonattainment area, 

including Tier I exhaust standards, new 

evaporative emissions standards, 

reformulated gasoline, enhanced 

inspection and maintenance, California 

low emissions vehicle program, 

transportation control measures, etc. 

2. ROP Demonstration 

On November 15, 1993, in response to 

the 15 percent ROP requirements in 

section 182(b)(1)(A) of the Act, the State 

submitted ROP plans for Sacramento 

and other moderate and above 

nonattainment areas in California. The 

1993 submittal was superseded by 

revised ROP plans submitted one year 

later. On November 15, 1994, CARB 

submitted a revision to the ‘‘State of 

California Implementation Plan for 

Achieving and Maintaining the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards.’’ 45 The 

SIP revision included: (a) The State’s 

comprehensive ozone plan; (b) the 

State’s previously adopted regulations; 

and (c) local plans addressing the ozone 

attainment demonstration and ROP 

requirements, including the 

‘‘Sacramento Area Proposed Attainment 

and Rate-of-Progress Plans.’’ On 

December 29, 1994, the State replaced 

the Sacramento proposed Attainment 

and ROP Plan with the ‘‘Sacramento 

Area Attainment and Rate-of-Progress 

Plans.’’ 

In its March 18, 1996 notice of 

proposed rulemaking on the State’s 

submittals (See 61 FR 10920), EPA 

indicated they would defer action on 

the portion of the Sacramento ROP plan 

applying to the initial 15 percent 

demonstration. On January 8, 1997, EPA 

finalized its actions on the State’s ROP 

submittals, and again deferred action 

the portion of the Sacramento ROP plan 

addressing the 15 percent reduction for 

the 1990–1996 time frame (See 62 FR 

1174). 

On February 24, 2006, the State 

submitted the 2002–2008 RFP Plan, 

which included Appendix F, ‘‘1990– 

1996 15 Percent Reduction 

Demonstration’’ for the Sacramento 

ozone nonattainment area (‘‘15 percent 

ROP demonstration’’).46 The revised 15 

percent ROP demonstration uses a 1990 

average summer weekday emissions 

inventory as the base year inventory and 

addresses 1990–1996. A summary of the 

15 percent ROP demonstration is 

provided below in table 12. As the table 

shows, the Sacramento nonattainment 

area exceeds the required 15 percent 

reduction for 1990–1996 timeframe. 

Significant measures put in place prior 

to or during the 1990–1996 period and 

relied upon in 15 percent ROP Plan 

included: Reformulated Gasoline— 

Phases I and II, Low Emission Vehicles 

and Clean Fuels, Consumer Products— 

Phases I and II, and Antiperspirants/

Deodorants. In addition, the Districts 

adopted and implemented numerous 

solvent and coatings rules to reduce 

VOC emissions. The TSD for today’s 

action includes compilations of CARB’s 

and the Districts’ measures adopted 

since 1990. 

TABLE 12—15% RATE-OF-PROGRESS

ANALYSIS (1-HOUR OZONE) 

VOC emission calculations Tons/

day a

1. 1990 baseline VOC inventory ........ 236 

2. Non-creditable FMVCP/RVP adjustments ......................................... 7 

3. Adjusted 1990 baseline VOC inventory (Line 1¥Line 2) ................. 229 

4. 1996 VOC inventory forecast with 

existing controls + ERCs ................ 189 

5.a. 1996 Reductions from adjusted 

1990 baseline (Line 3¥Line 4) ...... 40 

5.b. Non-creditable RACT & I/M adjustments ......................................... 3 

TABLE 12—15% RATE-OF-PROGRESS

ANALYSIS (1-HOUR OZONE)—Continued 

VOC emission calculations Tons/

day a

6. 1996 Forecasted VOC creditable 

reductions since 1990 (Line 5.a— 

Line 5.b) .......................................... 37 

7. 1996 Forecasted % VOC creditable reductions since 1990 (Line 6 

÷ Line 3) .......................................... 16% 

8. RFP % Reduction required from 

1990 adjusted baseline VOC inventory .................................................. 15% 

9. Forecasted % VOC surplus (Line 

8¥Line 7) ....................................... 1% 

aSacramento Regional Nonattainment Area 

8-Hour Ozone Reasonable Further Progress 

Plan 2002–2008, February 2006, Appendix F: 

1990–1996 15 Percent Reduction 

Demonstration. 

3. Requirements for Reasonable Further 

Progress 

CAA sections 172(c)(2) and 182(b)(1) 

require plans for nonattainment areas to 

provide for reasonable further progress 

(RFP). RFP is defined in section 171(1) 

as ‘‘such annual incremental reductions 

in emissions of the relevant air pollutant 

as are required by this part or may 

reasonably be required by the 

Administrator for the purpose of 

ensuring attainment of the applicable 

[NAAQS] by the applicable date.’’ 

The ozone implementation rule 

requires submittal of an RFP plan at the 

same time as the attainment 

demonstration. CAA section 182(c)(2)(B) 

requires that ozone nonattainment areas 

classified as serious or higher to submit 

no later than 3 years after designation 

for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS an RFP 

SIP providing for an average of 3 

percent per year of VOC and/or NOX

emissions reductions for (1) the 6-year 

period immediately following the 

baseline year; and (2) all remaining 3- 

year periods after the first 6-year period 

out to the area’s attainment date. 

The RFP plan must describe the 

control measures that provide for 

meeting the reasonable further progress 

milestones for the area, the timing of 

implementation of those measures, and 

the expected reductions in emissions of 

attainment plan precursors. See 40 CFR 

51.910(a). 

a. NOX substitution 

The implementation rule interprets 

the RFP requirements for the 1997 

ozone standard, and requires that 8-hour 

nonattainment areas classified under 

subpart 2 as moderate and above 

achieve a 15 percent VOC emission 

reduction, accounting for growth, in the 

first 6 years after the baseline. 40 CFR 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
61814 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

47Environmental Protection Agency (OAQPS), 

‘‘NOX Substitution Guidance’’, December 1993. 

48See http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/regact.htm. 

51.910(a)(1). CAA Section 182(c)(2)(C) 

allows for the substitution of NOX

emission reductions in place of VOC 

reductions to meet the RFP 

requirements. Because Sacramento is 

classified as Severe-15, if the State 

intends to use NOX substitution to meet 

its RFP milestones, it must demonstrate, 

and EPA must approve, a demonstration 

showing a 15 percent VOC reduction in 

the first six years after the baseline for 

the Sacramento Area. See 40 CFR 

51.910(a)(1)(ii). Upon EPA approval of 

the 15 percent VOC reduction, any VOC 

reduction shortfalls in the RFP 

demonstration can be met by using NOX

emission reductions. According to 

EPA’s NOX Substitution Guidance,47 the 

substitution of NOX reductions for VOC 

reductions must be done on a 

percentage basis, rather than a straight 

ton-for-ton exchange. There are two 

steps for substituting NOX for VOC. 

First, an equivalency demonstration 

must show that the cumulative RFP 

emission reductions are consistent with 

the NOX and VOC emission reductions 

determined in the ozone attainment 

modeling demonstration. Second, 

specified reductions in NOX and VOC 

emissions should be accomplished in 

the interim period between the 2002 

base year and the attainment date, 

consistent with the continuous RFP 

emission reduction requirement. 

4. RFP Demonstrations 

The RFP demonstrations for the 1997 

ozone standard are found in three 

documents: The 2002–2008 RFP Plan, 

2009 Plan, and the 2013 Plan Update. 

The demonstrations address VOC and 

NOX for 2011, 2014, 2017 milestone 

years and the 2018 attainment year, and 

use the 2002 average summer weekday 

emissions inventory as the base year 

inventory. The most significant State 

measures providing reductions during 

the 2002–2018 time frame and relied 

upon for the RFP demonstration include 

Low Emission Vehicles II and III 

standards, Zero Emissions Vehicle 

standards, California Reformulated 

Gasoline Phase 3, and Cleaner In-Use 

Heavy-Duty Trucks. The TSD for today’s 

action includes a compilation of CARB 

measures adopted between 1990–2013. 

State measures adopted since 2007 and 

the estimated reductions, are described 

in the IV.C and IV.D of this notice. 

Additional information regarding 

implementation and expected 

reductions from CARB’s adopted 

measures is also available on CARB’s 

rulemaking activity Web site.48

The RFP demonstration is expressed 

in terms of cumulative emissions 

reductions and percent of emissions 

reductions per year. For example, see 

table 13–1 in the 2013 Ozone Plan. The 

demonstration in the 2013 Plan Update 

supersedes the previously submitted 

demonstration for 2014, 2017, and 2018 

in the 2009 Plan. For 2008 and 2011, 

EPA adjusted and revised the 

demonstrations in the 2002–2008 RFP 

Plan and 2009 Plan. This was necessary 

because the State’s 2013 Plan Update 

did not include RFP demonstrations for 

the milestones years that had already 

passed (i.e., 2008 and 2011). The 

corrections are detailed in the TSD 

supporting today’s action. 

The RFP demonstrations indicate the 

combination of VOC and NOX

reductions for each of the milestone 

years are in excess of the RFP targets. 

The excess serves as a contingency 

measure reserve and provides the 3 

percent of emission reductions 

necessary to meet the contingency 

measure requirement for each milestone 

year. See table 13–1 of 2013 Plan 

Update. We discuss this contingency 

reserve below in the section on 

contingency measures. For the purposes 

of our evaluation of the RFP 

demonstration as presented in table 13 

below, we have included the 

contingency reserve on Line 24. This 

allows us to evaluate if the 2013 Ozone 

Plan would demonstrate the required 

RFP with the contingency reserve. We 

note that the RFP demonstration 

presented in table 13 is based on the 

State’s estimate of the emissions levels 

needed for attainment in the 2013 Plan 

Update. 

TABLE 13—CALCULATION OF RFP DEMONSTRATIONS FOR SMA 

VOC emission calculations (tons/day) 2002 2008 a 2011 b 2014 c 2017 c 2018 c

1. 2002 Baseline VOC inventory c ............................................... 147 .......... 147 ........... 147 ........... 147 ........... 147 ........... 147 

2. Non-creditable FMVCP/RVP adjustments d ............................. 0 .............. 13 e ........... 11 e ........... 11 ............ 12 ............. 12 

3. Adjusted 2002 baseline VOC inventory (Line 1¥Line 2) ....... .................. 134 ........... 136 .......... 136 ........... 135 ........... 135 

4. VOC emissions forecast with existing controls + ERCs ......... .................. 120 e ......... 120 e ......... 106 ........... 100 ........... 99 

5. Adjustments to remove reductions from measures not yet 

approved by EPAf.

.................. — ............. 2 .............. 2 ............... 2 .............. 2 

6. RFP commitment for VOC reductions from new measures .... .................. — ............. 0 .............. 0 ............... 0 ............... 0 

7. Forecasted VOC creditable reductions since 2002 (ine 

3¥Line 4¥Line 5 + Line 6).

.................. 15 ............ 15 ............. 28 ............ 33 ............ 34 

8. Forecasted % VOC reductions since 2002 (Line 7 ÷ Line 3) .................. 11% ......... 11% ......... 21% ......... 25% ......... 26% 

9. RFP % reduction required from 2002 adjusted baseline VOC 

inventory g.

.................. 18% ......... 27% ......... 36% ......... 45% ......... 48% 

10. Forecasted % VOC shortfall (Line 9¥Line 8) ....................... .................. 7% ........... 16% ......... 15% ......... 20% ......... 22% 

11. VOC shortfall previously addressed provided by NOX substitution %................... — ............. 7% ........... 16% ......... 16% ......... 20% 

12. Actual VOC shortfall .............................................................. .................. 7% ........... 9% ........... 0% ........... 4% ........... 2% 

NOX Emission Calculations (tons/day) ........................................

13. 2002 Baseline NOX inventory a .............................................. 165 ........... 165 ........... 165 ........... 165 .......... 165 ........... 165 

14. Non-creditable FMVCP adjustments d ................................... 0 .............. 7 e ............. 11 e ........... 10 ............ 11 ............ 11 

15. Adjusted 2002 baseline NOX inventory (Line 13¥Line 14) .. .................. 158 .......... 154 ........... 155 ........... 154 ........... 154 

16. NOX emissions forecast with existing controls + ERCs ........ .................. 126 e ......... 126 e ......... 93 ............ 80 ............ 77 

17. Adjustments to remove reductions from measures not yet 

approved by EPAf

.

.................. .................. 0 ............... 3 .............. 1 ............... 1 

18. RFP commitment for NOX reductions from new measures .. .................. .................. 0 ............... 0 ............... 0 .............. 0 

19. Forecasted NOx creditable reductions since 2002 (Line 

15¥Line 16¥Line 17 + Line 18).

.................. 32 ............ 29 ............ 59 ............. 74 ............ 76 

20. Forecasted % NOX reductions since 2002 (Line 19 ÷ Line 

16).

.................. 21% ......... 19% ......... 38% ......... 48% ......... 50% 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 61815 

49Memorandum, G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/

Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch to Air Directors, 

‘‘Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon 

Monoxide (CO) Redesignations,’’ June 1, 1992. 

TABLE 13—CALCULATION OF RFP DEMONSTRATIONS FOR SMA—Continued 

VOC emission calculations (tons/day) 2002 2008 a 2011 b 2014 c 2017 c 2018 c

21. NOX previously used for VOC shortfall by NOX substitution 

%.

.................. 0% ........... 7% ........... 16% ......... 16% ......... 20% 

22. NOX available for VOC shortfall by NOX substitution and 

contingency %.

.................. 21% ......... 12% ......... 22% ......... 32% ......... 30% 

23. NOX substitution needed for VOC shortfall % (Same as 

Line 12).

.................. 7% ........... 9% ........... 0% ........... 4% ........... 2% 

24. Forecasted % NOX reduction surplus (Line 22¥Line 23) .... .................. 14% ......... 3% ........... 22% ......... 28% ......... 27% 

25. Contingency measure reserve achieved? ............................. .................. Yes .......... Yes .......... Yes .......... Yes .......... Yes 

26. RFP achieved? ...................................................................... .................. Yes .......... Yes .......... Yes .......... Yes .......... Yes 

aSacramento Regional Nonattainment Area 8-Hour Ozone Reasonable Further Progress Plan 2002–2008, February 2006, Chapter 6, table

6–1. bSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan, December 19, 2008, Chapter 5, tables 5–2 and 5–3, 

adjusted by EPA. cSacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan, September 26, 2013, Chapter 13, table 13–1. 

d CARB provided the non-creditable FMVCP/RVP adjustments in documents listed immediately above. 

eAdjusted by EPA for consistency with baseline in 2013 Ozone Plan. See TSD. 

fSee TSD. Does not include EPA adjustments for measures approved by EPA (see table 10) but not yet credited by State in RFP demonstration. g RFP reduction requirements contained in EPA’s Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS (Phase 2) published in the November 29, 

2005 Federal Register. See 70 FR 70612. 

Note: Because of rounding convention, values in table may not reflect sum of underlying numbers. 

5. Proposed Action on the ROP and RFP 

Demonstrations 

EPA has reviewed the ROP and RFP 

demonstrations in the 2002–2008 RFP 

Plan, 2009 Plan, and the 2013 Plan 

Update and has determined that they 

were prepared consistent with 

applicable EPA regulations and policies. 

As seen in table 12, the Sacramento 

nonattainment area achieves the 15 

percent VOC ROP for the 1990–1996 

timeframe. Because the Sacramento area 

has achieved a 15 percent VOC emission 

reduction, accounting for growth, in the 

first 6 years after the 1990 baseline, the 

area is eligible to use NOX substitution 

in its RFP demonstration for the 1997 

ozone standard. As seen in table 13, 

emissions reductions for VOC and NOX, 

after setting aside a 3 percent 

contingency measures reserve, are 

below the RFP percent reduction targets 

for 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017, and 2018 

and demonstrate that the SMA has met 

its RFP targets. 

Based on our evaluation above, we 

propose to find that: Appendix F of the 

2002–2008 RFP Plan provides for VOC 

reductions of at least 15 percent from 

1990 baseline emissions as required by 

CAA section 182(b)(1); the 2002–2008 

RFP Plan provides for at least an 18 

percent reduction (VOC with NOX

substitution) from 2002 baseline 

emissions as required by CAA section 

182(b)(1) and 40 CFR 51.910; and (3) the 

2009 Plan and 2013 Plan Update 

provide for at least a 3 percent annual 

reduction (VOC with NOX substitution) 

averaged over a consecutive 3-year 

period for the SMA to meet its RFP 

milestones for 2011, 2014, 2017, and 

2018 as required by CAA section 

182(c)(2)(B) and 40 CFR 51.910. 

F. Contingency Measures 

1. Requirements for Contingency 

Measures 

Under the CAA, ozone nonattainment 

areas classified under subpart 2 as 

moderate or above must include in their 

SIPs contingency measures consistent 

with sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9). 

Contingency measures are additional 

measures to be implemented in the 

event the area fails to meet an RFP 

milestone or fails to attain by the 

applicable attainment date. These 

contingency measures must be fully 

adopted rules or control measures that 

are ready to be implemented upon 

failure to meet the milestones or 

attainment. The SIP should contain 

trigger mechanisms for the contingency 

measures, specify a schedule for 

implementation, and indicate that the 

measure will be implemented without 

significant further action by the state or 

by EPA. See 68 FR 32802 at 32837 and 

70 FR 71612 at 71650. 

Additional guidance on the CAA 

contingency measure provisions is 

found in the General Preamble, 57 FR 

13498, 13510–13512 and 13520. The 

guidance indicates that states should 

adopt and submit contingency measures 

sufficient to provide a 3 percent 

emissions reduction from the adjusted 

RFP baseline. EPA concludes this level 

of reductions is generally acceptable to 

offset emission increases while states 

are correcting their SIPs. These 

reductions should be beyond what is 

needed to meet the attainment and/or 

RFP requirement. States may use 

reductions of either VOC or NOX or a 

combination of both to meet the 

contingency measure requirements. 57 

FR at 13520, footnote 6. 

EPA guidance provides that 

contingency measures may be 

implemented early, i.e., prior to the 

milestone or attainment date.49

Consistent with this policy, states are 

allowed to use excess reductions from 

already adopted measures to meet the 

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

contingency measures requirement. This 

is because the purpose of contingency 

measures is to provide extra reductions 

that are not relied on for RFP or 

attainment, and that will provide a 

cushion while the plan is being revised 

to fully address the failure to meet the 

required milestone. Nothing in the CAA 

precludes a state from implementing 

such measures before they are triggered. 

This approach has been approved by 

EPA in numerous SIPs. See 62 FR 15844 

(April 3, 1997) (approval of the Indiana 

portion of the Chicago area 15 percent 

ROP plan); 62 FR 66279 (December 18, 

1997) (approval of the Illinois portion of 

the Chicago area 15 percent ROP plan); 

66 FR 30811 (June 8, 2001) (proposed 

approval of the Rhode Island post-1996 

ROP plan); 66 FR 586 and 66 FR 634 

(January 3, 2001) (approval of the 

Massachusetts and Connecticut 1-hour 

ozone attainment demonstrations). In 

the only adjudicated challenge to this 

approach, the court upheld it. See LEAN 

v. EPA, 382 F.3d 575 (5th Cir. 2004). 70 

FR 71612 at 71651. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
61816 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

2. Contingency Measures in the 

Sacramento Ozone Plan 

The Sacramento Ozone Plan relies on 

emission reductions in excess of RFP as 

contingency measures if the SMA fails 

to meet RFP requirements. If the SMA 

fails to attain by June 15, 2019, the 

Sacramento Ozone Plan relies on 

additional incremental emissions 

reductions in 2019 from fleet turnover 

resulting from continued 

implementation of measures in the 

Revised 2007 State Strategy. 

Contingency measures for failure to 

make RFP. To provide for contingency 

measures for failure to make RFP, the 

SIP relies on surplus NOX reductions in 

the RFP demonstration. Table 13 

demonstrates that milestone years (i.e., 

2008, 2011, 2014, 2017) and the 

attainment year (i.e., 2018) have NOX

reductions exceeding what is required 

for RFP and the 3 percent contingency. 

Contingency measures for failure to 

attain. To provide contingency 

measures for failure to attain, the SIP 

relies on the additional incremental 

emissions reductions resulting from 

fleet turnover in calendar year 2019 (the 

year after the attainment year). 

Additional emissions reductions 

resulting from turnover in the on- and 

off-road mobile source fleet in 2019 may 

be used to meet the attainment 

contingency measure requirement. 

Table 14 below demonstrates that the 

Sacramento Ozone Plan has sufficient 

VOC reductions in 2019 to provide at 

least a three percent reserve for use as 

a possible attainment contingency 

measure. In addition, the Sacramento 

Ozone Plan also provides NOX

reductions in 2019 that are available for 

use in support of the attainment 

contingency measure, although the NOX

reductions alone do not provide a three 

percent reserve unless combined with a 

portion of the VOC reductions. 

TABLE 14—CALCULATION OF POST-2018 ATTAINMENT CONTINGENCY MEASURE

Emission calculations VOC tpd NOX tpd 

A. 2018 Attainment Year Inventory Target .......................................................................................................................... 107.1 ....... 76.5 

B. CARB 2019 Emissions Forecast .................................................................................................................................... 99.8 .......... 74.4 

C. EPA Adjustments to 2019 Inventory ............................................................................................................................... +1.5 ......... +0.5 

D. Adjusted 2019 Inventory (Line B + Line C) .................................................................................................................... 101.3 ....... 74.9 

E. Forecasted 2019 Creditable Reductions (Since 2018) Exceeding the Attainment Target Since 2018 (Line A¥Line 

D).

5.8 ........... 1.6 

F. Forecasted Percent Reductions Since 2018 (Line E ÷ Line D) ..................................................................................... 5.7% ........ 2.1% 

G. Percent Reduction Required From 2018 Adjusted Baseline Inventory ......................................................................... 3% ........... na a

H. Attainment Contingency Measure Met? (Is Line F > or = Line G?) ............................................................................... Yes .......... na a

a not applicable (na) because requirement already met by VOC reductions. 

These reductions are from fully 

creditable measures. They are not relied 

on to demonstrate either attainment or 

RFP. For these reasons, these post-2018 

emissions reductions may be used to 

fulfill the attainment contingency 

measure requirement. 

As discussed above, EPA is proposing 

to approve both the RFP and attainment 

demonstrations in the Sacramento 

Ozone Plan because we have 

determined the Sacramento Ozone Plan 

provides sufficient VOC emissions 

reductions to meet these requirements. 

3. Proposed Action on the Contingency 

Measures 

Contingency measures for failure to 

make RFP. As discussed above in 

section IV.D, we are proposing to 

approve the SMA’s RFP demonstration. 

As shown in the RFP demonstration in 

table 13, there are excess NOX

reductions of 3 percent or greater in 

each milestone year. These excess 

reductions are beyond those needed to 

meet the next RFP percent reduction 

requirement and address the RFP 

contingency measure requirement for 

2008, 2011, 2014, 2017, and 2018. 

Contingency measures for failure to 

attain. The incremental additional 

emissions reductions that will occur in 

2019 (the year after the attainment year) 

from the continuing implementation of 

both on- and off-road motor vehicle 

controls may be used to meet the 

contingency measure requirement for 

failure to attain. As shown in table 14, 

there is excess VOC reductions of 3 

percent or greater in 2019. These excess 

reductions fulfill the attainment 

contingency measure requirement for 

2019. 

The Sacramento Ozone Plan includes 

measures and reductions that 

collectively meet the CAA’s minimum 

requirements (e.g., no additional 

rulemaking, surplus to attainment and 

RFP needs) and allow us to determine 

the reductions are at least equivalent to 

the current estimate of one year’s worth 

of RFP. Therefore, we are proposing to 

approve the RFP and attainment 

contingency measure provisions in the 

Sacramento Ozone Plan. 

G. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for 

Transportation Conformity 

1. Requirements for Motor Vehicle 

Emissions Budgets 

CAA section 176(c) requires federal 

actions in nonattainment and 

maintenance areas to conform to the 

goals of SIPs. This means that such 

actions will not: (1) Cause or contribute 

to violations of a NAAQS, (2) worsen 

the severity of an existing violation, or 

(3) delay timely attainment of any 

NAAQS or any interim milestone. 

Actions that involve Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) or Federal 

Transit Administration (FTA) funding 

or approval are subject to EPA’s 

transportation conformity rule, which is 

codified in 40 CFR part 93, subpart A. 

Under this rule, metropolitan planning 

organizations (MPOs) in nonattainment 

and maintenance areas coordinate with 

state and local air quality and 

transportation agencies, EPA, FHWA, 

and FTA to demonstrate that an area’s 

regional transportation plans (RTP) and 

transportation improvement programs 

(TIP) conform to the applicable SIP. 

This demonstration is typically done by 

showing that estimated emissions from 

existing and planned highway and 

transit systems are less than or equal to 

the motor vehicle emissions budgets 

(MVEBs or ‘‘budgets’’) contained in the 

SIP. An attainment, maintenance, or 

RFP SIP establishes MVEBs for the 

attainment year, each required RFP year 

or last year of the maintenance plan, as 

appropriate. MVEBs are generally 

established for specific years and 

specific pollutants or precursors. 

Ozone attainment and RFP plans 

establish MVEBs for NOX and VOC. See 

40 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(i). 

Before an MPO may use MVEBs in a 

submitted SIP, EPA must first either 

determine that the MVEBs are adequate 

or approve the MVEBs. In order for us 

to find the MVEBs adequate and 

approvable, the submittal must meet the 

conformity adequacy requirements of 40 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 61817 

50See letter from Deborah Jordan, Director, Air 

Division, EPA Region 9, to James N. Goldstene, 

Executive Officer, CARB, July 16, 2009, with 

enclosure. 

51See letter, Deborah Jordan, Air Division 

Director, EPA Region 9, to James M. Goldstene, 

Executive Officer, CARB, ‘‘RE: Adequacy Status of 

Sacramento 8-Hour Reasonable Further Progress 

and Attainment Plan Motor Vehicle Emissions 

Budgets,’’ dated July 16, 2009. 

52Final 2013/16 MTIP, Amendment #1 to the 

Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable 

Communities Strategy 2035, and Air Quality 

Conformity Analysis, August 16, 2012. FHWA 

approval December 14, 2012. http://www.sandag.

org/uploads/2050RTP/F2050rtp_all.pdf. 

53See July 25, 2014 letter from Deborah Jordan, 

Director, Air Division, USEPA Region 9, to Richard 

W. Corey, Executive Officer, CARB. On August 8, 

a notice of adequacy was published in the Federal 

Register notifying the public that the Agency had 

found that the MVEBs for ozone for the years 2014, 

2017, and 2018 adequate for transportation 

conformity purposes. See 79 FR 46436. 

54On September 18, 2014, the SACOG Board of 

Directors approved the 2015/18 Metropolitan 

Transportation Improvement Program, Amendment 

#4 to the Metropolitan Transportation Plan/

Sustainable Communities Strategy 2035, and Air 

Quality Conformity Analysis. 

CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5) and be 

approvable under all pertinent SIP 

requirements. To meet these 

requirements, the MVEBs must be 

consistent with the approvable 

attainment and RFP demonstrations and 

reflect all of the motor vehicle control 

measures contained in the attainment 

and RFP demonstrations. See 40 CFR 

93.118(e)(4)(iii), (iv) and (v). For more 

information on the transportation 

conformity requirements and applicable 

policies on MVEBs, please visit our 

transportation conformity Web site at: 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/

stateresources/transconf/index.htm. 

EPA’s process for determining 

adequacy of a MVEB consists of three 

basic steps: (1) providing public 

notification of a SIP submission; (2) 

providing the public the opportunity to 

comment on the MVEB during a public 

comment period; and, (3) making a 

finding of adequacy or inadequacy. See 

40 CFR 93.118. 

2. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in 

the 2009 Plan 

On July 16, 2009, we found the 

budgets in the 2009 Plan to be adequate 

for the 2011, 2014, and 2017 milestone 

years and inadequate for the 2018 

attainment year for transportation 

conformity purposes.50 We determined 

that the attainment year budgets were 

inadequate because they lacked 

specificity and were not fully 

enforceable and, therefore, did not meet 

the criteria for adequacy in 40 CFR 

§ 93.118(e)(4).51 We published a notice 

of our findings at 74 FR 37210 (July 28, 

2009). 

3. Revised Vehicle Emissions Budgets in 

2013 Plan Update 

The 2013 Plan Update includes 

revised VOC and NOX MVEBs for 2014, 

2017, and 2018. See table 11–1 in the 

2013 Plan Update. The MVEBs in the 

2013 Plan Update replaced the original 

MVEBs in the 2009 Plan and account for 

changes in emission reductions 

associated with the revised 2007 State 

Strategy, an updated version of EMFAC 

(i.e., EMFAC2011), and the latest 

planning assumptions from the 

Sacramento Area Council of 

Governments (SACOG). 

The MVEBs contained in the 2013 

Plan Update are shown in table 15. The 

MVEBs are the projected on-road mobile 

source VOC and NOX emissions for the 

SMA for 2014, 2017, and 2018. They 

include the projected on-road mobile 

source emissions and safety margins 

and are rounded up to the next whole 

number tpd. The conformity rule allows 

for a safety margin to be included in the 

budgets. The overall emissions in the 

SMA with the addition of a small safety 

margin added to the on-road emissions 

are consistent with RFP and attainment 

of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. See 

40 CFR 93.124(a). The derivation of the 

MVEBs is discussed in section 11 of the 

2013 Plan Update. The MVEBs 

incorporate on-road motor vehicle 

emission inventory factors of 

EMFAC2011, updated vehicle activity 

data from SACOG, and recent 

amendments to the Metropolitan 

Transportation Improvement Plan 

(2013/16 MTIP).52

TABLE 15—MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS BUDGETS IN THE SACRAMENTO OZONE PLAN

[Tpd, average summer weekday] 

NOX VOC 

2014 2017 2018 2014 2017 2018 

On-Road Inventory a ........................................................ 46 37 34 21 17 16 

Safety Margin ................................................................... 3 2 3 2 1 1 

MVEBs b ........................................................................... 49 39 37 23 18 17 

a Includes adjustments for measures not reflected in EMFAC2011. 

b Rounded up to nearest ton. 

Source: Table 11–1 on page 11–4 of the 2013 Plan Update. 

The availability of the SIP submission 

with MVEBs was announced for public 

comment on EPA’s Adequacy Web site 

on May 20, 2014, at: http://

www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/

transconf/currsips.htm, which provided 

a 30-day public comment period that 

ended on June 19, 2014. EPA received 

no comments from the public. On July 

25, 2014, EPA determined the 2014, 

2017, and 2018 MVEBs were adequate.53

On August 8, 2014, the notice of 

adequacy was published in the Federal 

Register. See 79 FR 46436. The new 

MVEBs became effective on August 25, 

2014. After the effective date of the 

adequacy finding, the new MVEBs must 

be used in future transportation 

conformity determinations in the SMA 

area. EPA is not required under its 

transportation conformity rule to find 

budgets adequate prior to proposing 

approval of them, but in this instance, 

we have completed the adequacy review 

of these budgets prior to our final action 

on the 2013 Plan Update. 

In today’s notice, EPA is proposing to 

approve the 2017 and 2018 MVEBs in 

the 2013 Plan Update for transportation 

conformity purposes. EPA has 

determined through its thorough review 

of the submitted 2013 Plan Update that 

the 2017 and 2018 MVEBs are 

consistent with emission control 

measures in the SIP, RFP, and 

attainment in the SMA for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. EPA previously 

found the 2017 and 2018 MVEBs 

adequate and is now proposing to 

approve those budgets. The 2017 and 

2018 MVEBs are used in SACOG’s 

conformity determination for the 2015/ 

2018 Metropolitan Transportation 

Improvement Program 54 and will be 

used in future conformity 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
61818 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

55See footnote #53. 

56Memorandum from Karl Simon, Director, 

Transportation and Climate Division, Office of 

Transportation and Air Quality, to Carl Edland, 

Director, Multimedia Planning and Permitting 

Division, EPA Region 6, and Deborah Jordan, 

Director, Air Division, EPA Region 9, August 30, 

2012. 

determinations. The 2014 MVEBs are 

not used in SACOG’s conformity 

determination and will not be used in 

future conformity determinations 

because SACOG is not required to 

address any year prior to 2017. 

Therefore, EPA has determined that not 

approving the 2014 MVEBs would have 

no practical impact on the 

transportation planning agencies in the 

SMA. 

The details of EPA’s evaluation of the 

MVEBs for compliance with the budget 

adequacy criteria of 40 CFR 93.118(e) 

were provided in a separate adequacy 

letter 55 included in the docket of this 

rulemaking. 

4. Proposed Action on the Budgets 

As part of its review of the budgets’ 

approvability, EPA has evaluated the 

revised budgets using our adequacy 

criteria in 40 CFR 93.318(e)(4) and (5). 

We found that the 2017 and 2018 

budgets meet each adequacy criterion. 

We have completed our detailed review 

of the 2013 Plan Update, and are 

proposing to approve the SIP’s 

attainment and RFP demonstrations. We 

have also reviewed the proposed 

budgets submitted with the 2013 Plan 

Update and have found that the 2017 

and 2018 budgets are consistent with 

the attainment and RFP demonstrations, 

were based on control measures that 

have already been adopted and 

implemented, and meet all other 

applicable statutory and regulatory 

requirements including the adequacy 

criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5). 

Therefore, we are proposing to approve 

the 2017 and 2018 budgets as shown in 

table 15. 

As described above, the 2017 and 

2018 budgets were determined to be 

adequate on July 25, 2014 and became 

effective on August 25, 2014. The new 

budgets replace the budgets previously 

found adequate in 2009, and SACOG 

and the U.S. Department of 

Transportation are required to use the 

new budgets in transportation 

conformity determinations as of August 

25, 2014. If EPA later finalizes the 

approval of the 2017 and 2018 budgets, 

it will not affect SACOG and the U.S. 

Department of Transportation because 

they already are required to use the new 

budgets as of August 25, 2014. For 

conformity determinations, the plan 

emissions should be used at the same 

level of accuracy as in the revised 

updated budgets from the 2013 Plan 

Update. 

CARB requested that EPA limit the 

duration of its approval of the budgets 

submitted on December 31, 2013 as part 

of the 2013 Plan Update to last only 

until the effective date of EPA’s 

adequacy finding for any subsequently 

submitted budgets. See letter, Richard 

W. Corey, Executive Officer, California 

Air Resources Board, December 31, 

2013. 

The transportation conformity rule 

allows EPA to limit the approval of 

budgets. See 40 CFR 93.118(e)(1). 

However, we can only consider a state’s 

request to limit an approval of its MVEB 

if the request includes the following 

elements: 

• An acknowledgement and 

explanation as to why the budgets under 

consideration have become outdated or 

deficient; 

• A commitment to update the 

budgets as part of a comprehensive SIP 

update; and 

• A request that EPA limit the 

duration of its approval to the time 

when new budgets have been found to 

be adequate for transportation 

conformity purposes. 

See 67 FR 69141 (November 15, 2002) 

(limiting our prior approval of MVEB in 

certain California SIPs). 

Because CARB’s request does not 

include all of these elements, we cannot 

address it at this time. Once CARB has 

adequately addressed them, we intend 

to propose to limit the duration of our 

approval of the MVEBs in the 2013 Plan 

Update and provide the public an 

opportunity to comment. The duration 

of the approval of the budgets, however, 

is not limited until we complete such a 

rulemaking. 

H. Vehicle Miles Travelled Emissions 

Offset Demonstration 

CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) requires a 

state with areas classified as ‘‘Severe’’ or 

‘‘Extreme’’ to ‘‘submit a revision that 

identifies and adopts specific 

enforceable transportation control 

strategies and transportation control 

measures to offset any growth in 

emissions from growth in vehicle miles 

traveled or numbers of vehicle trips in 

such area.’’ Herein, we use ‘‘VMT’’ to 

refer to vehicle miles traveled and refer 

to the related SIP requirement as the 

‘‘VMT emissions offset requirement.’’ In 

addition, we refer to the SIP revision 

intended to demonstrate compliance 

with the VMT emissions offset 

requirement as the ‘‘VMT emissions 

offset demonstration.’’ Moreover, the 

SMA is subject to the VMT emissions 

offset requirement for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard by virtue of its 

classification as ‘‘Severe’’ for the 1997 

ozone standard. See 75 FR 24409 (May 

5, 2010); and 40 CFR 51.902(a). 

CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) also 

includes two additional elements 

requiring that the SIP include: (1) 

Transportation control strategies and 

transportation control measures as 

necessary to provide (along with other 

measures) the reductions needed to 

meet the applicable RFP requirement, 

and (2) include strategies and measures 

to the extent needed to demonstrate 

attainment. 

1. Evaluation of Revised Sacramento 

VMT Emissions Offset Demonstrations 

a. Section 182(d)(1)(A) and EPA’s 

August 2012 VMT Emissions Offset 

Demonstration Guidance 

As noted previously, the first element 

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

that areas classified as ‘‘Severe’’ or 

‘‘Extreme’’ submit a SIP revision that 

identifies and adopts transportation 

control strategies and transportation 

control measures sufficient to offset any 

growth in emissions from growth in 

VMT or the number of vehicle trips. In 

response to the Court’s decision in 

Association of Irritated Residents v. 

EPA, EPA issued a memorandum titled 

Guidance on Implementing Clean Air 

Act Section 182(d)(1)(A): Transportation 

Control Measures and Transportation 

Control Strategies to Offset Growth in 

Emissions Due to Growth in Vehicle 

Miles Travelled (herein referred to as the 

‘‘August 2012 guidance’’).56

The August 2012 Guidance discusses 

the meaning of the terms, 

‘‘transportation control strategies’’ 

(TCSs) and ‘‘transportation control 

measures’’ (TCMs), and recommends 

that both TCSs and TCMs be included 

in the calculations made for the purpose 

of determining the degree to which any 

hypothetical growth in emissions due to 

growth in VMT should be offset. 

Generally, TCSs is a broad term that 

encompasses many types of controls 

including, for example, motor vehicle 

emission limitations, inspection and 

maintenance (I/M) programs, alternative 

fuel programs, other technology-based 

measures, and TCMs, that would fit 

within the regulatory definition of 

‘‘control strategy.’’ See, e.g., 40 CFR 

51.100(n). TCMs are defined at 40 CFR 

51.100(r) as meaning ‘‘any measure that 

is directed toward reducing emissions of 

air pollutants from transportation 

sources. Such measures include, but are 

not limited to those listed in section 

108(f) of the Clean Air Act[,]’’ and 

generally refer to programs intended to 

reduce the VMT, the number of vehicle 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 61819 

trips, or traffic congestion, such as 

programs for improved public transit, 

designation of certain lanes for 

passenger buses and high-occupancy 

vehicles (HOVs), trip reduction 

ordinances, and the like. 

The August 2012 guidance explains 

how states may demonstrate that the 

VMT emissions offset requirement is 

satisfied in conformance with the 

Court’s ruling. States are recommended 

to estimate emissions for the 

nonattainment area’s base year and the 

attainment year. One emission 

inventory is developed for the base year, 

and three different emissions inventory 

scenarios are developed for the 

attainment year. For the attainment 

year, the state would present three 

emissions estimates, two of which 

would represent hypothetical emissions 

scenarios that would provide the basis 

to identify the ‘‘growth in emissions’’ 

due solely to the growth in VMT, and 

one that would represent projected 

actual motor vehicle emissions after 

fully accounting for projected VMT 

growth and offsetting emissions 

reductions obtained by all creditable 

TCSs and TCMs. See the August 2012 

guidance for specific details on how 

states might conduct the calculations. 

The base year on-road VOC emissions 

should be based on VMT in that year 

and it should reflect all enforceable 

TCSs and TCMs in place in the base 

year. This would include vehicle 

emissions standards, state and local 

control programs such as I/M programs 

or fuel rules, and any additional 

implemented TCSs and TCMs that were 

already required by or credited in the 

SIP as of that base year. 

The first of the emissions calculations 

for the attainment year would be based 

on the projected VMT and trips for that 

year, and assume that no new TCSs or 

TCMs beyond those already credited in 

the base year inventory have been put 

in place since the base year. This 

calculation demonstrates how emissions 

would hypothetically change if no new 

TCSs or TCMs were implemented, and 

VMT and trips were allowed to grow at 

the projected rate from the base year. 

This estimate would show the potential 

for an increase in emissions due solely 

to growth in VMT and trips. This 

represents a ‘‘no action’’ taken scenario. 

Emissions in the attainment year in this 

scenario may be lower than those in the 

base year due to the fleet that was on the 

road in the base year gradually being 

replaced through fleet turnover; 

however, provided VMT and/or 

numbers of vehicle trips will in fact 

increase by the attainment year, they 

would still likely be higher than they 

would have been assuming VMT had 

held constant. 

The second of the attainment year’s 

emissions calculations would also 

assume that no new TCSs or TCMs 

beyond those already credited have 

been put in place since the base year, 

but would also assume that there was no 

growth in VMT and trips between the 

base year and attainment year. This 

estimate reflects the hypothetical 

emissions level that would have 

occurred if no further TCMs or TCSs 

had been put in place and if VMT and 

trip levels had held constant since the 

base year. Like the ‘‘no action’’ 

attainment year estimate described 

above, emissions in the attainment year 

may be lower than those in the base year 

due to the fleet that was on the road in 

the base year gradually being replaced 

by cleaner vehicles through fleet 

turnover, but in this case they would 

not be influenced by any growth in 

VMT or trips. This emissions estimate 

would reflect a ceiling on the attainment 

emissions that should be allowed to 

occur under the statute as interpreted by 

the Court because it shows what would 

happen under a scenario in which no 

offsetting TCSs or TCMs have yet been 

put in place and VMT and trips are held 

constant during the period from the 

area’s base year to its attainment year. 

This represents a ‘‘VMT offset ceiling’’ 

scenario. These two hypothetical status 

quo estimates are necessary steps in 

identifying the target level of emissions 

from which states would determine 

whether further TCMs or TCSs, beyond 

those that have been adopted and 

implemented in reality, would need to 

be adopted and implemented in order to 

fully offset any increase in emissions 

due solely to VMT and trips identified 

in the ‘‘no action’’ scenario. 

Finally, the state would present the 

emissions that are actually expected to 

occur in the area’s attainment year after 

taking into account reductions from all 

enforceable TCSs and TCMs that in 

reality were put in place after the 

baseline year. This estimate would be 

based on the VMT and trip levels 

expected to occur in the attainment year 

(i.e., the VMT and trip levels from the 

first estimate) and all of the TCSs and 

TCMs expected to be in place and for 

which the SIP will take credit in the 

area’s attainment year, including any 

TCMs and TCSs put in place since the 

base year. This represents the ‘‘projected 

actual’’ attainment year scenario. If this 

emissions estimate is less than or equal 

to the emissions ceiling that was 

established in the second of the 

attainment year calculations, the TCSs 

or TCMs for the attainment year would 

be sufficient to fully offset the identified 

hypothetical growth in emissions. 

If, instead, the estimated projected 

actual attainment year emissions are 

still greater than the ceiling which was 

established in the second of the 

attainment year emissions calculations, 

even after accounting for post-baseline 

year TCSs and TCMs, the state would 

need to adopt and implement additional 

TCSs or TCMs to further offset the 

growth in emissions and bring the 

actual emissions down to at least the 

‘‘had VMT and trips held constant’’ 

ceiling estimated in the second of the 

attainment year calculations, in order to 

meet the VMT offset requirement of 

section 182(d)(1)(A) as interpreted by 

the Court. 

b. Sacramento VMT Emissions Offset 

Demonstrations 

For the Sacramento VMT emissions 

offset demonstrations, the State used 

EMFAC2011, the latest EPA-approved 

motor vehicle emissions model for 

California. The EMFAC2011 model 

estimates the on-road emissions from 

two combustion processes (i.e., running 

exhaust and start exhaust) and four 

evaporative processes (i.e., hot soak, 

running losses, diurnal losses, and 

resting losses). The EMFAC2011 model 

combines trip-based VMT data from the 

regional transportation planning 

agencies (i.e., SACOG), starts data based 

on household travel surveys, and 

vehicle population data from the 

California Department of Motor 

Vehicles. These sets of data are 

combined with corresponding emission 

rates to calculate emissions. 

Emissions from running exhaust, start 

exhaust, hot soak, and running losses 

are a function of how much a vehicle is 

driven. As such, emissions from these 

processes are directly related to VMT 

and vehicle trips, and the State included 

emissions from them in the calculations 

that provide the basis for the revised 

Sacramento VMT emissions offset 

demonstration. The State did not 

include emissions from resting loss and 

diurnal loss processes in the analysis 

because such emissions are related to 

vehicle population, not to VMT or 

vehicle trips, and thus are not part of 

‘‘any growth in emissions from growth 

in vehicle miles traveled or numbers of 

vehicle trips in such area’’ (emphasis 

added) under CAA section 182(d)(1)(A). 

The Sacramento VMT emissions offset 

demonstration addresses the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard and includes a 

2002 ‘‘base year’’ scenario for the 

purpose of the VMT emissions offset 

demonstration for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard. The ‘‘base year’’ for 

VMT emissions offset demonstration 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
61820 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

57 In this context, ‘‘attainment year’’ refers to the 

ozone season immediately preceding a 

nonattainment area’s attainment date. In the case of 

the SMA, the applicable attainment date is June 15, 

2019, and the ozone season immediately preceding 

that date will occur in year 2018. 

58The docket for today’s action includes a list of 

the post-1990 transportation control strategies. Per 

section 209 of the CAA, the EPA has previously 

waived (for control of emissions from new motor 

vehicles of new motor vehicle engines prior to 

March 30, 1966) or authorized (for control 

emissions of nonroad engines or vehicles) all such 

TCSs and TCMs relied upon for the VMT emissions 

offset demonstration. 

59See http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/regact.htm. 

purposes should generally be the same 

‘‘base year’’ used for nonattainment 

planning purposes. In today’s action, 

EPA is proposing to approve the 2002 

base year inventory for the SMA for the 

purposes of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard, and thus, the State’s selection 

of 2002 as the base year for the revised 

Sacramento VMT emissions offset 

demonstration for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard is appropriate. 

The demonstration also includes the 

previously described three different 

attainment year scenarios (i.e., no 

action, VMT offset ceiling, and 

projected actual) for 2018. The State’s 

selection of 2018 is appropriate given 

that the Sacramento Ozone Plan 

demonstrates attainment by the 

applicable attainment date of June 15, 

2019 based on the 2018 controlled 

emissions inventory.57 See 76 FR 57872, 

at 57885 (September 16, 2011) and 77 

FR 12674, at 12693 (March 1, 2012). 

Table 16 summarizes the relevant 

distinguishing parameters for each of 

the emissions scenarios and show the 

State’s corresponding VOC emissions 

estimates. Table 16 provides the 

parameters and emissions estimates for 

the revised VMT emissions offset 

demonstration for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard. 

TABLE 16—VMT EMISSIONS OFFSET INVENTORY SCENARIOS AND RESULTS FOR 1997 8-HOUR OZONE STANDARD

Scenario 

VMT Starts Controls VOC 

Emissions 

Year 1000/day Year 1000/day Year tpd 

Base Year ........................................................................ 2002 52,595 2002 7,935 2002 45 

No Action ......................................................................... 2018 64,709 2018 10,640 2002 28 

VMT Offset Ceiling ........................................................... 2002 52,595 2002 7,935 2002 19 

Projected Actual ............................................................... 2018 64,709 2018 10,640 2018 14 

Source: CARB’s Technical Supplement, July 24, 2014. 

For the ‘‘base year’’ scenario, the State 

ran the EMFAC2011 model for the 2002 

base year using VMT and starts data 

corresponding to those years. As shown 

in table 16, the State estimates SMA 

VOC emissions at 45 tpd in 2002. 

For the ‘‘no action’’ scenario, the State 

first identified the on-road motor 

vehicle control programs (i.e., TCSs or 

TCMs) put in place since the base year 

and incorporated into EMFAC2011 and 

then ran EMFAC2011 with the VMT and 

starts data corresponding to the 

applicable attainment year (i.e., 2018 for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard) 

without the emissions reductions from 

the on-road motor vehicle control 

programs put in place after the base 

year. Thus, the ‘‘no action’’ scenario 

reflects the hypothetical VOC emissions 

that would occur in the attainment year 

in the SMA if the State had not put in 

place any additional TCSs or TCMs after 

2002. As shown in table 16, the State 

estimates ‘‘no action’’ SMA VOC 

emissions at 28 tpd in 2018. 

For the ‘‘VMT offset ceiling’’ scenario, 

the State ran the EMFAC2011 model for 

the attainment year but with VMT and 

starts data corresponding to base year 

values. Like the ‘‘no action’’ scenario, 

the EMFAC2011 model was adjusted to 

reflect the VOC emissions levels in the 

attainment year without the benefits of 

the post-base-year on-road motor 

vehicle control programs. Thus, the 

‘‘VMT offset ceiling’’ scenario reflect 

hypothetical VOC emissions in the SMA 

if the State had not put in place any 

TCSs or TCMs after the base year and 

if there had been no growth in VMT or 

vehicle trips between the base year and 

the attainment year. 

The hypothetical growth in emissions 

due to growth in VMT and trips can be 

determined from the difference between 

the VOC emissions estimates under the 

‘‘no action’’ scenario and the 

corresponding estimate under the ‘‘VMT 

offset ceiling’’ scenario. Based on the 

values in table 16, the hypothetical 

growth in emissions due to growth in 

VMT and trips in the SMA would have 

been 9 tpd (i.e., 28 tpd minus 19 tpd) 

for the purposes of the revised VMT 

emissions offset demonstration for the 

8-hour ozone standard. This 

hypothetical difference establishes the 

level of VMT growth-caused emissions 

that need to be offset by the 

combination of post-baseline year TCMs 

and TCSs and any necessary additional 

TCMs and TCSs. 

For the ‘‘projected actual’’ scenario 

calculation, the State ran the 

EMFAC2011 model for the attainment 

year with VMT and starts data at 

attainment year value and with the full 

benefits of the relevant post-baseline 

year motor vehicle control programs. 

For this scenario, the State included the 

emissions benefits from TCSs and TCMs 

put in place since the base year. 

The most significant State on-road 

and fuels measures providing 

reductions during the 2002 to 2018 time 

frame and relied upon for the VMT 

emissions offset demonstration include 

Low Emission Vehicles II and Zero 

Emissions Vehicle standards, California 

Reformulated Gasoline Phase 3, and 

Cleaner In-Use Heavy-Duty Trucks. 

Some of these measures were adopted 

prior to 2002, but all or part of their 

implementation occurred after 2002. 

The TSD for today’s action includes a 

list of TCSs and TCMs adopted by the 

State since 2002.58 State measures 

adopted since 2007, as part of the 

revised 2007 State Strategy, and their 

reductions are also described in the IV.C 

and IV.D of this notice. Additional 

information regarding implementation 

and expected reductions from CARB’s 

adopted measures is also available on 

CARB’s rulemaking activity Web site.59

As shown in table 16, the results from 

these calculations establish projected 

actual attainment-year VOC emissions 

of 14 tpd for the 1997 8-hour standard 

demonstration. The State then 

compared these values against the 

corresponding VMT offset ceiling value 

to determine whether additional TCMs 

or TCSs would need to be adopted and 

implemented in order to offset any 

increase in emissions due solely to VMT 

and trips. Because the ‘‘projected 

actual’’ emissions are less than the 

corresponding ‘‘VMT Offset Ceiling’’ 

emissions, the State concluded that the 

demonstration shows compliance with 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 61821 

60The offsetting VOC emissions reductions from 

the TCSs and TCMs put in place after the respective 

base year can be determined by subtracting the 

‘‘projected actual’’ emissions estimates from the ‘‘no 

action’’ emissions estimates in table 16. For the 

purposes of the 8-hour ozone demonstration, the 

offsetting emissions reductions, 14 tpd (28 tpd 

minus 14 tpd), exceed the growth in emissions from 

growth in VMT and vehicle trips (9 tpd). 

the VMT emissions offset requirement 

and that there are sufficient adopted 

TCSs and TCMs to offset the growth in 

emissions from the growth in VMT and 

vehicle trips in the SMA for 1997 8-hour 

standard. In fact, taking into account of 

the creditable post-baseline year TCMs 

and TCSs, the State showed that they 

offset the hypothetical differences by 14 

tpd for the 1997 8-hour standard, rather 

than merely the required 9 tpd.60

Based on our review of the State’s 

submittal, including the technical 

supplement, we find the State’s analysis 

to be acceptable and agree that the State 

has adopted sufficient TCSs and TCMs 

to offset the growth in emissions from 

growth in VMT and vehicle trips in the 

SMA for the purposes of the 1997 

8-hour ozone standard. As such, we find 

that the revised SMA VMT emissions 

offset demonstration, complies with the 

VMT emissions offset requirement in 

CAA section 182(d)(1)(A), and therefore, 

we propose approval of the revised 

SMA VMT emissions offset 

demonstration for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standards as a revision to the 

California SIP. 

Regarding the two additional 

elements in 182(d)(1)(A), as discussed 

above in section IV.D, we are proposing 

to find that the Sacramento Ozone Plan 

provides for RFP consistent with all 

applicable CAA and EPA regulatory 

requirements. Therefore, we also 

propose to find that the SIP meets 

requirement in CAA section 

182(d)(1)(A) to include TCSs and TCMs 

as necessary to provide (along with 

other measures) the reductions needed 

to meet the applicable RFP requirement. 

Finally, based on the discussion in 

sections IV.B and IV.C above, we are 

proposing to find that the Sacramento 

Ozone Plan provides for expeditious 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard. Therefore, we propose to find 

that the SIP meets the requirement in 

CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) to include 

strategies and measures to the extent 

needed to demonstrate attainment. 

Under CAA section 110(k)(3), and for 

the reasons set forth above, EPA is 

proposing to approve CARB’s 2013 Plan 

Update submittal, dated December 31, 

2013, of the Sacramento VMT emissions 

offset demonstration for the 1997 

8-hour ozone standards, as 

supplemented by CARB on June 19, 

2014, as a revision to the California SIP. 

We are proposing to approve this SIP 

revision because we believe that it 

demonstrates that California has put in 

place specific enforceable transportation 

control strategies and transportation 

control measures to offset the growth in 

emissions from the growth in VMT and 

vehicle trips in the SMA for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard, and thereby meets 

the applicable requirements in section 

182(d)(1)(A) of the Clean Air Act. 

V. EPA’s Proposed Actions 

A. EPA’s Proposed Approvals 

For the reasons discussed above, EPA 

is proposing to approve 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 and Revised 

2007 State Strategy (specifically the 

portions applicable to the SMA), and 

the Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone 

Attainment Plan and Reasonable 

Further Progress Plan (September 26, 

2013). 

EPA is proposing 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 51.915; 

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 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; 

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 

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 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, because they 

are derived from approvable RFP and 

attainment demonstrations and meet the 

requirements of CAA sections 176(c) 

and 40 CFR part 93, subpart A; and 

8. The Districts’ commitments to 

adopt and implement certain defined 

measures, as listed in table 7–2 on pages 

7–5 and 7–6 of the 2013 Plan Update. 

B. Request for Public Comments 

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

the issues discussed in this document or 

on other relevant matters. We will 

accept comments from the public on 

this proposal for the next 30 days. We 

will consider these comments before 

taking final action. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

The Administrator is required to 

approve a SIP submission that complies 

with the provisions of the Act and 

applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 

7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 

reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role 

is to approve state choices, provided 

that they meet the criteria of the Clean 

Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely 

proposes to approve a state plan 

revision as meeting federal requirements 

and does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. For these reasons, this 

proposed 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); 

• 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, May 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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
61822 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide 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 proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications as specified 

by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

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: September 24, 2014. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2014–24487 Filed 10–14–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0781; FRL–9917–86– 

Region 9] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Designation of 

Areas for Air Quality Planning 

Purposes; State of California; PM2.5; 

Redesignation of Yuba City-Marysville 

to Attainment; Approval of PM2.5

Redesignation Request and 

Maintenance Plan for Yuba CityMarysville 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve, 

as a revision of the California state 

implementation plan (SIP), the State’s 

request to redesignate the Yuba CityMarysville nonattainment area to 

attainment for the 2006 24-hour fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard. EPA is 

also proposing to approve the PM2.5

maintenance plan and the associated 

motor vehicle emissions budgets for use 

in transportation conformity 

determinations necessary for the Yuba 

City-Marysville area. Finally, EPA is 

proposing to approve the attainment 

year emissions inventory. EPA is 

proposing this action because the SIP 

revision meets the requirements of the 

Clean Air Act and EPA guidance for 

such plans and motor vehicle emissions 

budgets. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before November 14, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R09–OAR–2012–0781, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: ungvarsky.john@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: John Ungvarsky 

(AIR–2), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at http://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 

http://www.regulations.gov or email. 

http://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 

email directly to EPA, your email 

address will be automatically 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: The index to the docket and 

documents in the docket for this action 

are generally 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 IX, (415) 972–3963, 

ungvarsky.john@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

or ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. This 

supplementary information section is 

arranged as follows: 

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of Today’s Proposed Action 

II. What is the background for this action? 

A. The PM2.5 NAAQS 

B. Designation of PM2.5 Nonattainment 

Areas 

C. PM2.5 Planning Requirements 

III. Effect of the January 4, 2013, D.C. Circuit 

Decision Regarding PM2.5

Implementation Under Subpart 4 of Part 

D of Title I of the Clean Air Act 

A. Background 

B. Proposal on This Issue 

IV. Procedural Requirements for Adoption 

and Submittal of SIP Revisions 

V. Substantive Requirements for 

Redesignation 

VI. Evaluation of the State’s Redesignation 

Request for the Yuba City-Marysville 

PM2.5 Nonattainment Area 

A. Determination That the Area Has 

Attained the PM2.5 NAAQS 

B. The Area Must Have a Fully-Approved 

SIP Meeting Requirements Applicable 

for Purposes of Redesignation Under 

Clean Air Act Section 110 and Part D 

C. EPA Has Determined That the 

Improvement in Air Quality Is Due to 

Permanent and Enforceable Reductions 

in Emissions 

D. The Area Must Have a Fully Approved 

Maintenance Plan Under Clean Air Act 

Section 175A 

VII. Proposed Action and Request for Public 

Comment 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Summary of Today’s Proposed Action 

Under Clean Air Act (CAA or ‘‘the 

Act’’) section 107(d)(3)(D), EPA is 

proposing to approve the State’s request 

to redesignate the Yuba City-Marysville 

PM2.5 nonattainment area to attainment 

for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS 

or ‘‘standard’’). We are doing so based 

on our conclusion that the area has met 

the five criteria for redesignation under 

CAA section 107(d)(3)(E): (1) That the 

area has attained the 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS in the 2009–2011 time period 

and that the area continues to attain the 

PM2.5 standard since that time; (2) that 

relevant portions of the California SIP 

are fully approved; (3) that the 

improvement in air quality is due to 

permanent and enforceable reductions 

in emissions; (4) that California has met 

all requirements applicable to the Yuba 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS