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

1The SMA consists of Sacramento and Yolo 

counties and portions of El Dorado, Placer, Solano 

and Sutter counties. For a precise description of the 

geographic boundaries of the SMA, see 40 CFR 

81.305. Sacramento County is under the jurisdiction 

of the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality 

Management District (SMAQMD). Yolo County and 

the eastern portion of Solano County comprise the 

Yolo-Solano AQMD (YSAQMD). The southern 

portion of Sutter County is part of the Feather River 

AQMD (FRAQMD). The western portion of Placer 

County is part of the Placer County Air Pollution 

Control District (PCAPCD). Lastly, the western 

portion of El Dorado County is part of the El Dorado 

County AQMD (EDCAQMD). Collectively, we refer 

to these five districts as the ‘‘Districts.’’ 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

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

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by March 30, 2015. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this action for 

the purposes of judicial review nor does 

it extend the time within which a 

petition for judicial review may be filed, 

and shall not postpone the effectiveness 

of such rule or action. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See CAA 

section 307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: November 3, 2014. 

Shaun L. McGrath, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Environmental Protection 

Agency amends 40 CFR part 52 as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart BB—Montana 

■ 2. Section 52.1370 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(74) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.1370 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(74) On June 4, 2013 the State of 

Montana submitted revisions to the 

Administrative Rules of Montana 

(ARM), Air Quality, Subchapter 8, 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

of Air Quality, 17.8.801, Definitions, and 

17.8.818, Review of Major Stationary 

Sources and Major Modifications— 

Source Applicability and Exemptions. 

(i) Incorporation by reference 

(A) Administrative Rules of Montana, 

Air Quality, Subchapter 8, Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration of Air Quality, 

17.8.801, Definitions, (20) introductory 

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

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

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

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

Major Stationary Sources and Major 

Modifications—Source Applicability 

and Exemptions, (7) introductory text, 

(7)(a) introductory text, (7)(a)(vi), 

effective 10/12/2012. 

[FR Doc. 2015–01490 Filed 1–28–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0178; FRL–9921–99– 

Region 9] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of 

California; Sacramento Metro Area; 

Attainment Plan for 1997 8-Hour Ozone 

Standard 

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action to 

approve state implementation plan (SIP) 

revisions submitted by the State of 

California that provide for attainment of 

the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient 

air quality standard (‘‘standard’’ or 

NAAQS) in the Sacramento Metro 

nonattainment area. The EPA is 

approving the emissions inventories, air 

quality modeling, reasonably available 

control measures, provisions for 

transportation control strategies and 

measures, rate of progress and 

reasonable further progress (RFP) 

demonstrations, attainment 

demonstration, transportation 

conformity motor vehicle emissions 

budgets, and contingency measures for 

failure to make RFP or attain. The EPA 

is also approving commitments for 

measures by the Sacramento Metro 

nonattainment area air districts. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

March 2, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action: Docket ID No. 

EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0178. Generally, 

documents in the docket for this action 

are available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents in the docket are listed at 

www.regulations.gov, some information 

may be publicly available only at the 

hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 

material, large maps), and some may not 

be publicly available in either location 

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

materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Ungvarsky, Air Planning Office (AIR–2), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region IX, (415) 972–3963, 

ungvarsky.john@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of Proposed Action 

A. Regulatory Background 

B. CARB’s Submittals 

C. The EPA’s Proposed Approval 

II. What comments did the EPA receive on 

the proposed rule? 

III. What action is the EPA taking? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Summary of Proposed Action 

On October 15, 2014 (79 FR 61799), 

under section 110(k) of the Clean Air 

Act (Act or CAA), the EPA proposed 

approval of a series of submittals from 

the California Air Resources Board 

(CARB) as revisions to the California 

state implementation plan (SIP) for the 

Sacramento Metro ozone nonattainment 

area (SMA).1 The principal submittals 

are: 

D Sacramento Regional 

Nonattainment Area 8-Hour Ozone 

Reasonable Further Progress Plan 2002– 

2008 (‘‘2002–2008 RFP Plan’’), February 

2006; 

D Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone 

Attainment Plan and Reasonable 

Further Progress Plan, March 26, 2009 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
4796 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 19 / Thursday, January 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

2On 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, it 

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. 

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. 

4The EPA has revised or proposed to revise 

several elements of the 8-hour ozone 

implementation rule since its initial promulgation 

in 2004. See, e.g., 74 FR 2936 (January 16, 2009); 

75 FR 51960 (August 24, 2010); and 75 FR 80420 

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

any provision of the rule that is applicable to the 

EPA’s proposed action on the Sacramento 8-Hour 

Ozone Attainment Plan. 

5See 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 the EPA 

a revised technical supplement that corrected minor 

typographical errors. See record of July 25, 2014 

email and attachment from Jon Taylor, CARB, to 

Matt Lakin, EPA, included in the docket. 

6The 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. 

7See 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. 

(‘‘2009 Ozone Attainment and RFP 

Plan’’ or ‘‘2009 Plan’’); 

D Elements of CARB’s 2007 State 

Strategy (‘‘2007 State Strategy’’), 

adopted by CARB on September 27, 

2007, as applicable in the SMA; 

D Elements of the Status Report on the 

State Strategy for California’s 2007 State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) and 

Proposed Revision to the SIP Reflecting 

Implementation of the 2007 State 

Strategy (‘‘Revised 2007 State 

Strategy’’),2 March 24, 2009, as 

applicable in the SMA; and 

D Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone 

Attainment Plan and Reasonable 

Further Progress Plan, 2013 SIP 

Revisions (‘‘2013 Ozone Attainment and 

RFP Plan’’ or ‘‘2013 Plan Update’’), 

September 26, 2013. 

We refer to these submittals 

collectively as the ‘‘Sacramento 8-Hour 

Ozone Attainment Plan’’ or 

‘‘Sacramento Ozone Plan.’’ The SMA is 

classified as ‘‘severe-15’’ with an 

attainment date no later than June 15, 

2019.3 See 75 FR 24409. The following 

paragraphs summarize the regulatory 

background, CARB’s submittals, and the 

EPA’s rationale for proposing approval. 

For additional details concerning these 

topics, please see our October 15, 2014 

proposed rule. 

A. Regulatory Background 

The specific CAA requirement that is 

relevant for the purposes of this action 

is Title I, Part D of the CAA, under 

which states must implement the 1997 

8-hour ozone standard. Title I, Part D of 

the CAA includes section 172, 

‘‘Nonattainment plan provisions,’’ and 

subpart 2, ‘‘Additional Provisions for 

Ozone Nonattainment Areas’’ (sections 

181–185). 

In order to assist states in developing 

effective plans to address their ozone 

nonattainment problem, the EPA issued 

the 8-hour ozone implementation rule. 

This rule was finalized in two phases. 

The first phase of the rule addresses 

classifications for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard, applicable attainment dates 

for the various classifications, and the 

timing of emissions reductions needed 

for attainment. See 69 FR 23951 (April 

30, 2004). The second phase addresses 

SIP submittal dates and the 

requirements for reasonably available 

control technology and measures (RACT 

and RACM), RFP, modeling and 

attainment demonstrations, contingency 

measures, and new source review. See 

70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005). The 

rule is codified at 40 CFR part 51, 

subpart X.4 We discussed each of these 

CAA and regulatory requirements for 8- 

hour ozone nonattainment plans in 

more detail in our October 15, 2014 

proposal. 

B. CARB’s Submittals 

The 2002–2008 RFP Plan was adopted 

by the Districts’ governing boards 

during the January–February 2006 time 

frame and then by CARB Executive 

Order G–125–335 on February 24, 2006. 

The 2002–2008 RFP Plan includes an 

RFP demonstration for the 2002–2008 

period, an amended Rate of Progress 

Plan for the 1990–1996 period, and 

motor-vehicle emissions budgets (MVEB 

or ‘‘budgets’’) used for transportation 

conformity purposes. 

The 2009 Ozone Attainment and RFP 

Plan was adopted by the Districts’ 

governing boards during the January– 

February 2009 time frame and then by 

CARB on March 26, 2009. The 2009 

Ozone Attainment and RFP Plan 

includes an attainment demonstration, 

commitments by the Districts to adopt 

control measures to achieve emissions 

reductions from sources under its 

jurisdiction (primarily stationary 

sources), and budgets used for 

transportation conformity purposes. The 

attainment demonstration includes air 

quality modeling, an RFP plan, an 

analysis of RACM/RACT, base year and 

projected year emissions inventories, 

and contingency measures. The 2009 

Ozone Attainment and RFP Plan also 

includes a demonstration that the most 

expeditious date for attaining the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS in the SMA is 

June 15, 2018. 

In late 2013, SMAQMD and CARB 

adopted the 2013 Plan Update, which 

revised portions of the 2009 Plan. The 

2013 Plan Update included a revised 

emissions inventory that accounted for 

control measures adopted through 2011, 

revised attainment and RFP 

demonstrations, the effects of the 

economic recession, and updated 

transportation activity projections 

provided by the Sacramento Area 

Council of Governments (SACOG). On 

June 19, 2014, CARB submitted a 

technical supplement to the Sacramento 

Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) 

emissions offset demonstration in the 

2013 Plan Update.5 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.6 While the vehicle 

emissions estimates in CARB’s technical 

supplement differ from those contained 

in the demonstration in the 2013 Plan 

Update, the conclusions in the revised 

analysis remain the same as those in the 

2013 Plan Update. 

To demonstrate attainment, the 

Sacramento Ozone Plan relies to a large 

extent on measures in CARB’s 2007 

State Strategy. The 2007 State Strategy 

was adopted by CARB on September 27, 

2007 and submitted to the EPA on 

November 16, 2007.7 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 19 / Thursday, January 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4797 

8The 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. 9See 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. 

10The EPA 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). 

11Motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for 

2011, 2014, and 2017 were previously found 

adequate by the 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. 

12The October 15, 2014 proposal incorrectly 

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

Plan Update as the location of the Districts’ 

commitments to adopt and implement certain 

defined measures. The correct cite is Table 7–5 on 

page 7–32. The Districts’ measures are further 

described in Section 7.5 of the 2013 Plan Update. 

implementation of 15 defined State 

measures.8

On August 12, 2009, CARB submitted 

the Revised 2007 State Strategy, dated 

March 24, 2009 and adopted April 24, 

2009.9 10 This submittal updated the 

2007 State Strategy to reflect its 

implementation during 2007 and 2008 

and calculated emission reductions in 

the SMA from implementation of the 

State Strategy. The 2013 Plan Update 

incorporates the Revised 2007 State 

Strategy and updates NOX and VOC 

emissions reductions estimates from 

adopted State measures and 

commitments. In our proposal and in 

the context of the Sacramento Ozone 

Plan, we only evaluated the State 

measures that are included in the 

Revised 2007 State Strategy and 

applicable in the SMA. 

For additional background on the 

submittals and CAA procedural and 

administrative requirements for SIP 

submittals, see the October 15, 2014 

proposal. 

C. The EPA’s Proposed Approval 

As noted above, on October 15, 2014, 

the EPA proposed to approve 

California’s attainment SIP for the SMA 

for the 1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS. This 

SIP is comprised of a series of 

submittals described above. 

In its proposal, the EPA proposed to 

approve under CAA section 110(k)(3) 

the following elements of the 

Sacramento Ozone Plan: 

1. The revised 2002 base year 

emissions inventory as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 182(a)(1) 

and 40 CFR 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 section 176(c) and 

40 CFR part 93, subpart A; 11 and 

8. The Districts’ commitments to 

adopt and implement certain defined 

measures, as summarized in table 7–5 

on page 7–32 of the 2013 Plan Update, 

as strengthening the SIP.12

The EPA’s analysis and findings are 

summarized in our October 15, 2014 

proposal and are described in more 

detail in the Technical Support 

Document (TSD) for the proposal, which 

is available online at 

www.regulations.gov in the docket, 

EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0178, or from the 

EPA contact listed at the beginning of 

this notice. 

II. What comments did the EPA receive 

on the proposed rule? 

Our October 15, 2014 proposed rule 

provided for a 30-day comment period. 

During this period, we received a 

comment letter jointly signed by Larry 

Greene, Executive Director/Air 

Pollution Control Officer at the 

SMAQMD, and Mike McKeever, Chief 

Executive Officer at SACOG. We 

provide our response to the comment 

letter below. 

Comment: The SMAQMD notes that 

the 2013 Plan Update contains NOX

reductions that exceed by 1.0 tons per 

day (tpd) the amount of reductions of 

NOX needed to meet the attainment 

target for 2018. They refer to this excess 

as a ‘‘buffer’’ intended for possible use, 

if necessary, to demonstrate general 

conformity for future federal projects. In 

its proposal, the EPA did not credit all 

reductions in the 2013 Plan Update, and 

the attainment demonstration adjusted 

by the EPA results in excess NOX

reductions in 2018 of only 0.1 tpd. The 

2018 motor vehicle emissions budget 

(MVEB) in the 2013 Plan Update 

includes a 2018 safety margin of 3.0 tpd 

of NOX. In their comment letter, 

SMAQMD requests that the EPA 

reallocate 0.9 tpd of NOX from the 2018 

MVEB safety margin to the ‘‘general 

conformity NOX buffer.’’ This would 

leave 2.1 tpd in the 2018 NOX safety 

margin and 1.0 tpd of NOX (i.e., 0.9 tpd 

from the safety margin plus 0.1 tpd 

excess in the adjusted attainment 

demonstration) available, if needed, for 

general conformity. 

Response: The SMAQMD is correct 

that, in proposing approval of the 

attainment demonstration, the EPA did 

not credit all of the emissions 

reductions claimed in the plan but 

found that the plan nonetheless 

provides sufficient, creditable, 

emissions reductions to meet the 

emissions targets necessary to attain the 

ozone standard by 2018. The EPA, 

however, did credit some of the local 

measures included as ‘‘remaining 

regional/local control measures’’ in line 

J of table 8–1 in the 2013 Plan Update 

for attainment demonstration purposes 

because, by the time of our proposed 

rule, certain individual rules had been 

adopted, submitted, and approved by 

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

table 10 of the October 15, 2014 

proposed rule. 

The emissions reductions that EPA 

discounted in its evaluation of the 

attainment demonstration include those 

associated with (1) local rules that, 

while adopted, have not yet been 

submitted or approved by the EPA but 

for which credit is taken as part of the 

emission inventory baseline for 2018 

(see page 14 of the EPA’s TSD for the 

October 15, 2014 proposed rule); (2) 

certain mobile source incentive 

programs for which credit is taken as 

part of the emission inventory baseline 

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

local rules included as ‘‘remaining 

regional/local control measures’’ (see 

pages 7–27 through 7–31 of the 2013 

Plan Update) included in line J in table 

8–1 of the 2013 Plan Update that have 

not been adopted or submitted to the 

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

regional non-regulatory measures 

(included in line J in table 8–1 of the 

2013 Plan Update); and (5) the 

‘‘Remaining State/Federal Control 

Measures’’ (shown in line K in table 8– 

1 of the 2013 Plan Update). 

By the EPA’s accounting, as 

SMAQMD contends, the ‘‘buffer’’ is 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
4798 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 19 / Thursday, January 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

13See email from Deborah Jordan, Director, Air 

Division, EPA Region IX, dated December 17, 2014, 

summarizing a December 3rd telephone 

conversation between herself and Larry Greene at 

the SMAQMD. 

14The MVEBs approved in today’s action are the 

following (in tons per day, average summer 

weekday): 18 tpd and 39 tpd of VOC and NOX for 

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

and NOX, respectively, for 2018. 

only 0.1 tpd for NOX, not 1.0 tpd as 

claimed in the plan. The calculated 

‘‘buffer’’ itself reflects a 2018 MVEB 

‘‘safety margin’’ of 3 tpd of NOX, and 

therefore, there are surplus NOX

reductions that could be reallocated 

from the MVEB ‘‘safety margin’’ to other 

purposes, such as a set-aside for general 

conformity. However, to effectuate such 

a reallocation, the CARB and the 

Districts should adopt and submit a 

revised plan to EPA as a revision to the 

SIP. The EPA contacted the SMAQMD 

concerning this matter, and the 

SMAQMD expressed support for 

completion of the current rulemaking 

even if the EPA cannot grant the request 

to reallocate a portion of the NOX MVEB 

at this time.13 Therefore, we are taking 

final action today consistent with our 

October 15, 2014 proposed rule and will 

consider the reallocation of the MVEB 

safety margin once a revised SIP is 

submitted. 

III. What action is the EPA taking? 

For the reasons discussed in our 

October 15, 2014 proposal and 

summarized above, the EPA is 

approving California’s attainment SIP 

for the Sacramento Metro Area for the 

1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS. This SIP is 

comprised of the Sacramento Regional 

Nonattainment Area 8-Hour Ozone 

Reasonable Further Progress Plan 2002– 

2008 (February 2006), Sacramento 

Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan 

and Reasonable Further Progress Plan 

(March 26, 2009), CARB’s 2007 State 

Strategy (adopted by CARB on 

September 27, 2007) and Revised 2007 

State Strategy (March 24, 2009) 

(specifically, the portions applicable to 

the SMA), and the Sacramento Regional 

8-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan and 

Reasonable Further Progress Plan 

(September 26, 2013). 

Under section 110(k)(3), the EPA is 

approving 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 section 176(c) and 

40 CFR part 93, subpart A;14 and 

8. The Districts’ commitments to 

adopt and implement certain defined 

measures, as summarized in table 7–5 

on page 7–32 of the 2013 Plan Update. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

The Administrator is required to 

approve a SIP submission that complies 

with the provisions of the Clean Air Act 

and applicable Federal regulations. 42 

U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, 

in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this 

action merely approves state plan 

revisions as meeting federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For these reasons, 

this final action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• 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 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), nor will it impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. The EPA will 

submit a report containing this action 

and other required information to the 

U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. A major rule cannot take effect 

until 60 days after it is published in the 

Federal Register. This action is not a 

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by March 30, 2015. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements (see section 

307(b)(2)). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 19 / Thursday, January 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4799 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental 

regulations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: January 9, 2015. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9. 

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart F—California 

■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by 

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

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

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(450) The following plan was 

submitted on February 24, 2006 by the 

Governor’s designee. 

(i) [Reserved] 

(ii) Additional materials. 

(A) Sacramento Metro 1997 EightHour Ozone Planning Area. 

(1) Sacramento Regional 

Nonattainment Area 8-Hour Ozone 

Rate-of-Progress Plan, Final Draft, 

December 2005. 

(451) The following plan was 

submitted on April 17, 2009 by the 

Governor’s designee. 

(i) [Reserved] 

(ii) Additional materials. 

(A) Sacramento Metro 1997 EightHour Ozone Planning Area. 

(1) Sacramento Regional 8-Hour 

Ozone Attainment and Reasonable 

Further Progress Plan (With Errata 

Sheets Incorporated), March 26, 2009 

(Reasonable further progress 

demonstration and related contingency 

demonstration for milestone year 2011 

as presented in chapter 13 (‘‘Reasonable 

Further Progress Demonstrations’’) 

only). 

(452) The following plan was 

submitted on December 31, 2013 by the 

Governor’s designee. 

(i) [Reserved] 

(ii) Additional materials. 

(A) Sacramento Metro 1997 EightHour Ozone Planning Area. 

(1) Sacramento Regional 8-Hour 

Ozone Attainment and Reasonable 

Further Progress Plan (2013 SIP 

Revisions), September 26, 2013, 

including appendices. 

(2) Supplemental information, titled 

‘‘Sacramento Federal Ozone 

Nonattainment Area, July 24, 2014,’’ for 

Appendix F–1 (‘‘Vehicle Miles Traveled 

Offset Demonstration’’) of the 

Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone 

Attainment and Reasonable Further 

Progress Plan (2013 SIP Revisions). 

[FR Doc. 2015–01609 Filed 1–28–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2011–0725, FRL–9922–04– 

Region 8] 

Promulgation of State Implementation 

Plan Revisions; Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5, 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone, and 

2010 NO2 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards; South Dakota 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving elements of 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revisions from the State of South Dakota 

to demonstrate the State meets 

infrastructure requirements of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) for the National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 

promulgated for fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5) on July 18, 1997 and October 17, 

2006; lead (Pb) on October 15, 2008; 

ozone on March 12, 2008; and nitrogen 

dioxide (NO2) on January 22, 2010. EPA 

is also approving SIP revisions the State 

submitted updating the Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) program 

and provisions regarding state boards. 

Section 110(a) of the CAA requires that 

each state submit a SIP for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of each NAAQS 

promulgated by EPA. 

DATES: This rule is effective on March 2, 

2015. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R08–OAR–2011–0725. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Program, Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. EPA requests that if at all 

possible, you contact the individual 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to view the hard copy 

of the docket. You may view the hard 

copy of the docket Monday through 

Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Abby Fulton, Air Program, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129, 303–312–6563, 

fulton.abby@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Response to Comments 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Orders Review 

I. Background 

Infrastructure requirements for SIPs 

are provided in section 110(a)(1) and (2) 

of the CAA. Section 110(a)(2) lists the 

specific infrastructure elements that a 

SIP must contain or satisfy. The 

elements that are the subject of this 

action are described in detail in our 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) 

published on December 1, 2014 (79 FR 

71040). 

The NPR proposed approval of South 

Dakota’s submissions with respect to the 

following infrastructure elements for the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008 

ozone, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS: CAA 

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

minor new source review (NSR) and 

PSD requirements, (D)(i)(II) prongs 3 

and 4, (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), 

(L), and (M). The reasons for our 

approval are provided in detail in the 

NPR. 

For reasons explained in the NPR, 

EPA also proposed to approve revisions 

to the Administrative Rules of South 

Dakota (ARSD) 74:36:09 submitted on 

July 29, 2013, which incorporate by 

reference the requirements of EPA’s 

September 29, 2010 PM2.5 Increment 

Rule. Specifically, we proposed to 

approve the adoption of the text of 40 

CFR 52.21, paragraphs (b)(14)(i),(ii),(iii), 

(b)(15)(i),(ii), and paragraph (c) as they 

existed on July 1, 2012 by approving 

revisions to: ARSD 74:34:09:02 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES