ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation 

Plans; California; Determination of Termination of Section 

185 Fees 

[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0372; FRL-_] 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to determine that the State 

of California is no longer required to submit or implement 

section 185 fee program State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revisions for the Sacramento Metro 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area (Sacramento Metro Area) to satisfy antibacksliding requirements for the 1-hour ozone standard. 

The Sacramento Metro Area consists of both Sacramento and 

Yolo counties and portions of four adjacent counties 

(Solano, Sutter, Placer and El Dorado). This proposed 

determination (“Termination Determination”) is based on 

complete, quality-assured and certified ambient air quality 

monitoring data for 2007-2009, showing attainment of the 1- 

hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (1-hour 

ozone NAAQS or standard), which is due to permanent and 

enforceable emission reductions implemented in the area. 

Complete and quality-assured data for 2010 show that the 
2

area continues in attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. 

EPA is also proposing to exclude from use in determining 

attainment exceedances of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS that 

occurred on three days in 2008, because the exceedances are 

due to exceptional events (wildfires). 

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before 

[Insert date 30 days from date of publication in the 

Federal Register]. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. 

EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0372, by one of the following methods: 

1. Federal Rulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. E-mail: John J. Kelly at kelly.johnj@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: John J. Kelly, Air Planning Office (Air-2), 

at fax number 415-947-3579. 

4. Mail: John J. Kelly, Air Planning Office (Air-2), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 

75 Hawthorne, San Francisco, California 94105. 

5. Hand or Courier Delivery: John J. Kelly, Air 

Planning Section (Air-2), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne, San 

Francisco, California 94105. Such deliveries are 

only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of 
3

operation. Special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPAR09-OAR-2011-0372. EPA's policy is that all comments 

received 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 information claimed 

to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other 

information the disclosure of which is restricted by 

statute. Do not submit information through 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected from disclosure. The 

www.regulations.gov website is an anonymous access system, 

which means EPA will not know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA 

without going through www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured and included as part 

of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made 

available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and 

other contact information in the body of your comment and 

with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read 
4

your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot 

contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to 

consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the 

use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be 

free of any defects or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. 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, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 

Publicly available docket materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Planning Office (Air-2), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne, San Francisco, 

California 94105. EPA requests that if at all possible, 

you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER 

INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection 

during normal business hours. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John J. Kelly, (415) 947-

4151, or by email at kelly.johnj@epa.gov . 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document 

whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. 

Table of Contents
5

I. What Actions Is EPA Taking? 

II. Background 

III. What Is The Legal Rationale For This Proposed 

Termination Determination? 

IV. What Is The Effect Of This Proposed Termination 

Determination? 

V. What Is EPA's Analysis? 

a. Attainment of the 1-Hour Ozone Standard 

b. Permanent and Enforceable Emission Reductions 

VI. Proposed Actions 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What Actions Is EPA Taking? 

EPA is proposing to determine that California is no 

longer required to submit or implement Clean Air Act (CAA 

or the Act) section 185 fee program SIP revisions for the 

Sacramento Metro 1-hour ozone nonattainment area 

(Sacramento Metro Area) to satisfy anti-backsliding 

requirements associated with the transition from the 1-hour 

ozone standard (1-hour standard or 1-hour) to the 1997 8-

hour ozone standard (8-hour standard or 8-hour). This 

proposed Termination Determination is based on EPA’s belief 

that the area is attaining the 1-hour ozone standard due to 

permanent and enforceable emission reductions implemented 

in the area. In addition, EPA proposes to exclude from use 
6

in determining the area has attained the 1-hour ozone 

standard certain air quality monitoring data because they 

meet the criteria for ozone exceptional events that are 

caused by wildfires. If finalized, the effect of EPA’s 

determination that the area has attained the 1-hour ozone 

standard due to permanent and enforceable emission 

reductions would be to terminate the area’s obligations 

with respect to section 185 fee program requirements for 

the 1-hour ozone standard. In a separate interim final 

action, published in the Rules section in today’s Federal 

Register, we are deferring sanctions that would otherwise 

apply to the entire Sacramento Metro Area with the 

exception of Sacramento County, that is, the entirety of 

Yolo County and the Sacramento Metro Area portions of 

Solano, Sutter, Placer and El Dorado counties. This action 

addresses only the CAA section 185 requirements for the 1-

hour ozone standard for the Sacramento Metro Area, and not 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. 

II. Background 

 The Act requires us to establish NAAQS for certain 

widespread pollutants that cause or contribute to air 

pollution that is reasonably anticipated to endanger public 

health or welfare (sections 108 and 109 of the Act). In 

1979, we promulgated the revised 1-hour ozone standard of 
7

0.12 parts per million (ppm) (44 FR 8202, February 8, 

1979).1 

An area is considered to have attained the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS if there are no violations of the standard, as 

determined in accordance with the regulation codified at 40 

CFR section 50.9, based on three consecutive calendar years 

of complete, quality-assured and certified monitoring data. 

A violation occurs when the ambient ozone air quality 

monitoring data show greater than one (1.0) “expected 

number” of exceedances per year at any site in the area, 

when averaged over three consecutive calendar years.2 An 

exceedance occurs when the maximum hourly ozone 

concentration during any day exceeds 0.124 ppm. For more 

information, please see “National 1-hour primary and 

secondary ambient air quality standards for ozone” (40 CFR 

50.9) and “Interpretation of the 1-Hour Primary and 

Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone” 

(40 CFR part 50, Appendix H). 

 The Act, as amended in 1990, required EPA to designate 

as nonattainment any area that was violating the 1-hour 

 

1

 For ease of communication, many reports of ozone concentrations are 

given in parts per billion (ppb); ppb = ppm × 1000. Thus, 0.12 ppm 

becomes 120 ppb (or between 120 to 124 ppb, when rounding is 

considered). 

2

 An “expected number” of exceedances is a statistical term that refers 

to an arithmetic average. An “expected number” of exceedances may be 

equivalent to the number of observed exceedances plus an increment that 

accounts for incomplete sampling. See, 40 CFR part 50, Appendix H. 
8

ozone standard, generally based on air quality monitoring 

data from the 1987 through 1989 period (section 107(d)(4) 

of the Act; 56 FR 56694, November 6, 1991). The Act 

further classified these areas, based on the severity of 

their nonattainment problem, as Marginal, Moderate, 

Serious, Severe, or Extreme. 

The control requirements and date by which attainment 

of the 1-hour ozone standard was to be achieved varied with 

an area’s classification. Marginal areas were subject to 

the fewest mandated control requirements and had the 

earliest attainment date, November 15, 1993, while Severe 

and Extreme areas were subject to more stringent planning 

requirements and were provided more time to attain the 

standard. 

Sacramento Metro Area’s History

On November 6, 1991, EPA designated the Sacramento 

Metro Area as Serious nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone 

standard, with an attainment date no later than November 

15, 1999 (56 FR 56694). The Sacramento Metro Area consists 

of the entirety of both Sacramento and Yolo counties and 

portions of four adjacent counties (El Dorado, Placer, 

Solano and Sutter counties) (see 40 CFR section 81.305). 

Sacramento County is under the jurisdiction of the 

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District 
9

(SMAQMD). Yolo County and the eastern portion of Solano 

County comprise the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management 

District. The southern portion of Sutter County is part of 

the Feather River Air Quality Management District. The 

western portion of Placer County is part of the Placer 

County Air Pollution Control District. Lastly, the western 

portion of El Dorado County is part of the El Dorado County 

Air Quality Management District. Under California law, 

each air district is responsible for adopting and 

implementing stationary source rules, such as the rules 

required under CAA section 185, while the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB) adopts and implements consumer 

products and mobile source rules. The district and state 

rules are submitted to EPA by CARB. 

In 1995, EPA granted the State’s request to reclassify 

the Sacramento Metro Area as Severe. 60 FR 20237 (April 

25, 1995). The reclassification of the area as Severe 

required the State to adopt a SIP revision creating a 

penalty fee program under CAA section 185 that would apply 

if the area failed to meet the November 15, 2005 attainment 

date that applies to Severe 1-hour ozone areas and to 

submit that SIP revision to EPA by December 31, 2000 (CAA 

section 182(d)(3)). On September 26, 2002, SMAQMD adopted 

Rule 307 (”Clean Air Act Fees”). CARB submitted Rule 307 
10

to EPA as a SIP revision for the Sacramento County portion 

of the area on December 12, 2002 and EPA approved Rule 307 

on August 26, 2003 (68 FR 51184). The other affected air 

districts in the Sacramento Metro Area did not submit 1-

hour section 185 SIP revisions for their portions of the 

nonattainment area. EPA published findings of failure to 

submit on January 5, 2010 (75 FR 232).3 These findings 

started sanctions clocks for imposition of offset sanctions 

18 months after January 5, 2010 and highway sanctions six 

months after the offset sanctions, pursuant to section 179 

of the CAA and our regulations at 40 CFR section 52.31. 

In 1997, EPA promulgated a new, more protective 

standard for ozone based on an 8-hour average concentration 

(the 1997 8-hour ozone standard). In 2004, EPA published 

the 1997 8-hour ozone designations and classifications and 

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). 

By the Sacramento Metro Area’s 1-hour ozone 2005 

attainment deadline, EPA had revoked the 1-hour standard 

and designated the area as nonattainment for the 1997 8-

hour ozone NAAQS. See 40 CFR section 81.305. The area’s 

 

3

 EPA’s findings also addressed two other 1-hour ozone nonattainment 

areas in California, which are not at issue here: Southeast Desert and 

the Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin. 
11

initial classification for 8-hour ozone was Serious, but 

EPA subsequently granted CARB’s request to reclassify the 

area to Severe for the 8-hour ozone standard. See 75 FR 

24409, May 5, 2010. On July 7, 2010, and in an update on 

April 13, 2011, CARB requested that EPA find that the 

Sacramento Metro Area had attained the 1-hour ozone 

standard due to permanent and enforceable emission 

reductions, and that EPA terminate 1-hour ozone CAA section 

185 requirements for the area. See letters from James 

Goldstene, CARB Executive Officer, to Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region IX, with 

enclosures, dated July 7, 2010 and April 13, 2011. 

Section 185 1-Hour Ozone Anti-backsliding Requirements

Although EPA revoked the 1-hour ozone standard 

(effective June 15, 2005), during the transition from the 

1-hour ozone to the 8-hour ozone standard, 1-hour 

nonattainment areas remain subject to certain requirements 

based on their 1-hour ozone classification. The section 

185 fee program requirement applies to any ozone 

nonattainment area classified as Severe or Extreme, 

including any area that was classified Severe or Extreme 

under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS as of the effective date of 

the area’s 8-hour designation (see 40 CFR part 81). 
12

Initially, in our rules to address the transition from 

the 1-hour to the 8-hour ozone standard, EPA did not 

include the section 185 fee penalty requirement as one of 

the measures necessary to meet Clean Air Act antibacksliding requirements.4 However, on December 23, 2006, 

the United States Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit determined that EPA should not have 

removed from its anti-backsliding requirements the 

application of the section 185 fee provision for Severe and 

Extreme nonattainment areas that failed to attain the 1-

hour ozone standard by their attainment date. South Coast 

Air Quality Management District v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. 

Cir. 2006). In light of the Court’s decision, on January 

5, 2010 EPA issued guidance on the application of the 

section 185 1-hour anti-backsliding requirement.5 EPA’s 

guidance addressed, among other matters, alternative 

methods of satisfying the section 185 1-hour antibacksliding requirement, and the circumstances under which 

EPA would determine that the obligation was terminated. 

 

4

 Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard—Phase 1, 69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004). 

5

 Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, to Air Division Directors, “Guidance on 

Developing Fee Programs Required by Clean Air Act Section 185 for the 

1-hour Ozone NAAQS,” January 5, 2010. This memorandum is in the docket 

to this proposed action and can also be found on the Internet at: 

http://www.epa.gov/groundlevelozone/pdfs/20100105185guidance.pdf 
13

After the 1-hour ozone standard was revoked, and in 

accordance with anti-backsliding regulations that remain 

unchallenged, EPA was no longer obligated to find that an 

area attained by its 1-hour attainment date, nor to 

reclassify 1-hour areas under CAA Sections 181(b)(2) or 

179(c) (40 CFR 51.905(e)). (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004). 

III. What Is The Legal Rationale For This Proposed 

Termination Determination? 

As a result of the court decision in South Coast Air 

Quality Management District v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 

2006), states with areas classified as Severe or Extreme 

nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone standard at the time of 

the area’s initial nonattainment designation for the 1997 

8-hour standard are no longer categorically exempt from the 

anti-backsliding requirements imposed by section 185. EPA 

has issued guidance for states related to developing 1-hour 

ozone section 185 fee programs.6 As set forth in this 

guidance, EPA believes that states can meet the 1-hour 

ozone section 185 obligation through a SIP revision 

containing either the fee program prescribed in section 185 

of the Act, or an equivalent alternative program, as 

further explained below. EPA believes that an alternative 

program may be acceptable if EPA determines, through 

 

6 Id. 
14

notice-and-comment rulemaking, that it is consistent with 

the principles of section 172(e) of the CAA. 

Section 172(e) is an anti-backsliding provision of the 

CAA that requires EPA to develop regulations to ensure that 

controls in a nonattainment area are “no less stringent” 

than those that applied to the area before EPA revised a 

NAAQS to make it less stringent. In the Phase 1 ozone 

implementation rule for the 1997 ozone NAAQS published on 

April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23951), EPA determined that although 

section 172(e) does not directly apply where EPA has 

strengthened the NAAQS, as it did in 1997, it was 

reasonable to apply the same anti-backsliding principle 

that would apply to the relaxation of a standard for the 

transition from the 1-hour NAAQS to the more stringent 1997 

8-hour NAAQS. As part of applying the principle in section 

172(e) for purposes of the transition from the 1-hour 

standard to the 1997 8-hour standard, EPA can either 

require states to retain programs that applied for purposes 

of the 1-hour standard, or alternatively can allow states 

to adopt alternative programs, but only if such 

alternatives are determined through notice-and-comment 

rulemaking to be “no less stringent” than the mandated 

program. 
15

EPA is electing to consider alternative programs to 

satisfy the 1-hour ozone section 185 fee program SIP 

revision requirement. States choosing to adopt an 

alternative program to the section 185 fee program must 

demonstrate that the alternative program is no less 

stringent than the otherwise applicable section 185 fee 

program and EPA can only approve such demonstration after 

notice-and-comment rulemaking. 

As set forth in EPA’s January 5, 2010 guidance, EPA 

believes that for an area that we determine is attaining 

either the 1-hour ozone or 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, based 

on permanent and enforceable emission reductions, the area 

would no longer be obligated to satisfy the section 185 

anti-backsliding requirements associated with the 

transition from the 1-hour ozone standard to the 1997 8-

hour ozone standard. In such cases, an area’s existing SIP 

could be considered an adequate alternative program. Our 

reasoning follows from the fact that an area’s existing SIP 

measures, in conjunction with other enforceable federal 

measures, are adequate for the area to achieve attainment, 

which is the purpose of the section 185 program. The 

section 185 fee program is an element of an area’s 

attainment demonstration and its objective is to bring 

about attainment after a failure of an area to attain by 
16

its attainment date. Thus, areas that have attained the 1-

hour ozone standard, the standard for which the fee program 

was originally required, as a result of permanent and 

enforceable emission reductions, would have a SIP that is 

no less stringent than the SIP required under section 185. 

Therefore, EPA concludes that the obligation to submit a 

rule or to collect fees terminates once EPA determines that 

the area has attained the 1-hour ozone standard based on 

permanent and enforceable emission reductions. 

There is also an additional, independent basis for 

EPA's approach to determining that the anti-backsliding 

requirements associated with section 185 have been 

satisfied. Although section 185 provides that fees are to 

continue until the area is redesignated to attainment for 

ozone, EPA no longer promulgates redesignations for the 1-

hour ozone standard because that standard has been revoked. 

Therefore, relief from the 1-hour section 185 fee program 

requirements under the terms of the statute is an 

impossibility, since the conditions the statute envisioned 

for relieving an area of its fee program obligation no 

longer can exist. There is thus a gap in the statute which 

must be filled by EPA. We believe that under these 

circumstances we must exercise our discretion under Chevron 

USA, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 
17

837 (1984), to fill this gap, so as to carry out 

Congressional intent in the unique context of antibacksliding requirements for a revoked standard. We 

believe that it is reasonable for the fee program 

obligation that applies for purposes of anti-backsliding to 

cease upon a determination, based on notice-and-comment 

rulemaking, that an area has attained the 1-hour ozone 

standard due to permanent and enforceable measures. This 

determination centers on the core criteria for 

redesignations under CAA section 107(d)(3). We believe 

these criteria provide reasonable assurance that the 

purpose of the 1-hour anti-backsliding fee program 

obligation has been fulfilled in the context of a 

regulatory regime where the area remains subject to other 

applicable 1-hour anti-backsliding and 8-hour nonattainment 

measures. Under these circumstances, retention of the fee 

program under the anti-backsliding rule is no longer 

necessary for the purpose of achieving attainment of the 8-

hour standard. See EPA’s January 5, 2010 guidance 

(footnote 5, above). 

IV. What Is The Effect Of This Proposed Termination 

Determination? 

 If this proposed determination to terminate the 

section 185 fee anti-backsliding requirement for the 1-hour 
18

ozone standard is finalized, the requirement for the State 

of California to submit section 185 penalty fee program SIP 

revisions for the portions of the area for which we made 

findings of failure to submit, which would require major 

stationary sources under the Sacramento Metro Area 1-hour 

ozone Severe nonattainment classification to pay fees as a 

penalty for the area’s failure to attain the 1-hour ozone 

standard by the area’s 1-hour ozone attainment date, as 

well as the requirement for the Sacramento Metropolitan Air 

Quality Management District portion of the area to 

implement its 1-hour ozone section 185 fee program, would 

be removed. 

 A final Termination Determination for the 1-hour 

standard section 185 measures will not be rescinded based 

on subsequent nonattainment of the 1-hour ozone standard. 

After EPA has determined that an area has attained the 1-

hour standard due to permanent and enforceable emission 

reductions, EPA believes that it would be unduly punitive, 

confusing, and potentially destabilizing to re-impose the 

years-old penalty requirements if at some point in the 

future the area lapses back into 1-hour nonattainment. 

Moreover, EPA believes that under current circumstances, it 

would not be in keeping with the intent of Congress. 

First, we note that had the area attained the 1-hour ozone 
19

standard prior to its attainment date, no penalties at all 

would have been imposed even if the area subsequently 

lapsed into nonattainment. Second, the statute provides 

that penalties for failure to attain by an area’s 

attainment date would be terminated by redesignation of the 

area. Now that the 1-hour ozone standard has been revoked 

and EPA is no longer promulgating redesignations for that 

standard, relief from the 1-hour section 185 fee program 

requirements under the terms of the statute is an 

impossibility — the mechanism the statute envisioned for 

relief no longer exists. As EPA explains in its January 5, 

2010 guidance, we have reasonably concluded in these 

circumstances that a determination of attainment due to 

permanent and enforceable emission reductions, along with 

the area’s existing SIP and its continuing obligations to 

meet ever more stringent ozone standards, are a reasonable 

alternative means for terminating these unique antibacksliding penalty provisions. EPA believes that, given 

the gap in the statute, and the intent of Congress as 

expressed in quite different regulatory circumstances, it 

would be counterproductive and in conflict with that intent 

for EPA’s determination to merely suspend rather than 

permanently terminate the 1-hour anti-backsliding penalty 

fees. Requiring areas to remain subject to the threat of 
20

reviving stale penalty fees for an old revoked standard, 

when these areas and the sources subject to the penalties 

must now muster their resources to focus on meeting newer 

more stringent standards, would be at odds with the 

purposes of the Act and in conflict with the principle that 

penalty provisions should be narrowly construed. This is 

also true because the area is subject to a host of ongoing 

obligations for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard as well as 

the future anticipated new 8-hour ozone standard,7 when it 

has already shown great improvement towards meeting the 1-

hour and 1997 8-hour ozone standards. 

V. What Is EPA's Analysis? 

 EPA’s proposed Termination Determination is based 

upon EPA’s belief that the area is attaining the 1-hour 

ozone standard due to permanent and enforceable emission 

reductions implemented in the area. In its January 5, 2010 

guidance, EPA set forth its views as to potential 

rationales for terminating section 185 obligations for 1-

hour ozone. This notice formally sets forth EPA's legal 

interpretation concerning the basis for terminating those 

obligations. 

 

7

 EPA anticipates announcing the reconsidered 8-hour ozone standard in 

July 2011. 
21

 As explained above, EPA set forth our belief in our 

January 5, 2010 guidance that for an area that we determine 

is attaining either the 1-hour ozone or 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, based on permanent and enforceable emission 

reductions, that the area would no longer be obligated to 

satisfy the anti-backsliding requirements associated with 

the transition from the 1-hour ozone standard to the 1997 

8-hour ozone standard. 

a. Attainment of the 1-Hour Ozone Standard 

 A determination of whether an area’s air quality 

meets the 1-hour ozone NAAQS is generally based upon the 

most recent three years of complete, quality-assured and 

certified air quality monitoring data gathered at 

established National Air Monitoring Stations (“NAMS”) or 

State and Local Air Monitoring Stations (“SLAMS”) in the 

nonattainment area and entered into the EPA’s Air Quality 

System (AQS) database. Data from air monitors operated by 

state/local agencies in compliance with EPA monitoring 

requirements must be submitted to the AQS database. 

Monitoring agencies annually certify that these data are 

accurate to the best of their knowledge. Accordingly, EPA 

relies primarily on data in its AQS database when 

determining the attainment status of an area. See 40 CFR 

section 50.9; 40 CFR part 50, Appendix H; 40 CFR part 53; 
22

40 CFR part 58, Appendices A, C, D and E. All data are 

reviewed to determine the area’s air quality status in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 50, Appendix H. 

 Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR section 50.9, the 1-

hour ozone standard is attained at a monitoring site when 

the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum 

hourly average concentrations above 0.12 parts per million 

(235 micrograms per cubic meter) is equal to or less than 

1, as determined by 40 CFR part 50, Appendix H. 

 EPA proposes to determine that the Sacramento Metro 

Area has attained the 1-hour ozone standard; that is, the 

number of expected exceedances at any site in the 

nonattainment area is not greater than one per year.8 This 

proposed determination is based on three years of complete, 

quality-assured and certified ambient air quality 

monitoring data in AQS showing attainment of the 1-hour 

ozone standard for the 2007-2009 monitoring period, and 

complete, quality-assured data in AQS for 2008-2010 that 

show continued attainment. As explained below, in 

determining the area’s attainment of the 1-hour ozone 

standard, EPA is also proposing to exclude from 

 

8

 The average number of expected exceedances is determined by averaging 

the expected exceedances of the 1-hour ozone standard over a 

consecutive three calendar year period. See 40 CFR part 50 Appendix H. 
23

consideration exceedances that occurred on three days in 

2008, because they are due to wildfire exceptional events. 

Monitoring Network

 In the Sacramento Metro Area, the agencies 

responsible for assuring that the area meets air quality 

monitoring requirements include CARB, Sacramento 

Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD), 

Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) and 

Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District (YSAQMD). Both 

CARB and SMAQMD submit annual monitoring network plans to 

EPA. SMAQMD Network Plans describe the monitoring network 

the district operates; CARB’s Network Plans describe the 

monitoring sites CARB operates, in addition to monitoring 

sites operated by smaller air districts, namely, for the 

Sacramento Metro Area, PCAPCD and YSAQMD. These plans 

discuss the status of the air monitoring network, as 

required under 40 CFR section 58.10. 

 Since 2007, EPA regularly reviews these annual plans 

for compliance with the applicable reporting requirements 

in 40 CFR part 58. With respect to ozone, EPA has found 

that the area’s network plans meet the applicable 

requirements under 40 CFR part 58. See EPA letters to CARB 

and SMAQMD approving their annual network plans for years 
24

2007, 2009 and 2010.9 Furthermore, we concluded in our 

Technical System Audit of the CARB Primary Quality 

Assurance Organization (PQAO),10 conducted during Summer 

2007, that the combined ambient air monitoring network 

operated by CARB and the local air districts in their PQAO 

currently meets or exceeds the requirements for the minimum 

number of SLAMS monitoring sites for all criteria 

pollutants, and that all of the monitoring sites are 

properly located with respect to monitoring objectives, 

spatial scales and other site criteria, as required by 40 

CFR part 58, Appendix D. See letter from Deborah Jordan, 

Director, Air Division, U.S. EPA Region IX, to James 

Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, transmitting “Technical 

System Audit of the California Environmental Protection 

Agency Air Resources Board: 2007,” with enclosure, August 

18, 2008. Also, CARB annually certifies that the data it 

submits to AQS are complete and quality-assured. See, 

e.g., letter from Karen Magliano, Chief, Air Quality Data 

Branch, Planning and Technical Support Division, CARB, to 

Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region 

 

9

 Neither CARB nor SMAQMD proposed modifications to their networks in 

2008; therefore, neither agency was required to submit a network plan 

to EPA for approval that year. 

10 A primary quality assurance organization is responsible for a group 

of monitoring stations for which data quality assessments can be pooled 

See 40 CFR section 58.1. CARB is the lead PQAO for all the air 

districts in the Sacramento Metro Area. 
25

IX, certifying calendar year 2009 ambient air quality data 

and quality assurance data, May 19, 2010. 

 There were 16 ozone monitoring sites located 

throughout the Sacramento Metro Area in calendar years 

2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010.11 Sacramento Metro AQMD operates 

six ozone monitors in Sacramento County: Elk Grove 

(southwest Sacramento County), Del Paso Manor (northeast 

City of Sacramento), Folsom (City of Folsom), SacramentoGoldenland Court12 (northwest City of Sacramento), North 

Highlands (north Sacramento County) and Sloughhouse Road 

(west Sacramento County). CARB operates six ozone monitors 

in the Sacramento Metro Area: Sacramento-T Street (City of 

Sacramento) in Sacramento County; Cool (City of Cool), Echo 

Summit (in the Sierra Nevada Mountains) and Placerville 

(City of Placerville) in El Dorado County; Roseville (City 

of Roseville) in Placer County; and Davis (City of Davis) 

in Yolo County. Placer County APCD operates two ozone 

monitors in the Sacramento Metro Area: Colfax (City of 

Colfax) and Auburn (City of Auburn). Yolo-Solano AQMD 

 

11 Enclosure 2 of CARB’s July 7, 2010 request includes a map on page 3.2 

showing locations of all ozone monitors in the Sacramento Metro Area. 

Letter from James Goldstene, CARB Executive Officer, to Jared 

Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region IX, dated July 7, 

2010, requesting termination of CAA section 185 requirements as they 

pertain to the Sacramento Metro Area. The document can be found on the 

Internet at: 

http://www.airquality.org/notices/1hour/AttainmentReport.pdf 

12 The Sacramento-Airport Road site was relocated to SacramentoGoldenland Court in August 2008. 
26

operates two ozone monitors in the Sacramento Metro Area: 

Vacaville (City of Vacaville) in Solano County, and 

Woodland (City of Woodland) in Yolo County. 

 All Sacramento Metro Area sites monitor ozone 

concentrations on a continuous basis using ultraviolet 

absorption monitors.13 EPA defines specific monitoring site 

types and spatial scales of representativeness to 

characterize the nature and location of required monitors. 

See 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D, §1. Table 1 below lists 

the site types and spatial scale for each ozone monitoring 

site in the Sacramento Metro Area. Due to ozone precursor 

source distribution and general meteorological patterns in 

the area, the highest ozone concentrations for the past 

several years have typically occurred at the Folsom and 

Sloughhouse Road sites. 

Table 1 – Site Type and Spatial Scalea 

Site Name Site 

Typeb 

Spatial 

Scalec 

Placerville (06-017-0010) HC, TR RS 

Echo Summit (06-017-0012) HC, TR RS 

Cool (06-017-0020) HC, TR RS 

Auburn (06-061-0002) HC US 

Colfax (06-061-0004) HC US 

Roseville (06-061-0006) HC US 

 

13 Sacramento Metro Area monitoring agencies operate federal equivalent 

method (FEM) monitors for ozone, specifically, API 400 Series 

ultraviolet absorption monitors. See SMAQMD’s “Annual Network Plan 

Report” (July 2010) and CARB’s “Monitoring Network Report for Small 

Districts in California” (July 2010). These monitoring devices have an 

EPA designation number EQOA-0992-087. See EPA “List of Designated 

Reference and Equivalent Methods, page 27 (February 1, 2011), available 

on the Internet at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/criteria.html 
27

North Highlands (06-067-0002) RC NS 

Sacramento-Del Paso Manor (06-

067-0006) 

HC NS 

Sacramento-T Street(06-067-0010) RC US 

Elk Grove (06-067-0011) RC NS 

Folsom (06-067-0012) HC NS 

Sacramento-Airport Road (06-067-

0013) 

RC NS 

Sacramento-Goldenland Court (06-

067-0014) 

RC NS 

Sloughhouse Rd. (06-067-5003) RC NS 

Vacaville (06-095-3003) HC, TR RS 

Davis (06-113-0004) HC US 

Woodland (06-113-1003) HC US 

a Source: SMAQMD’s “Annual Network Plan Report” (July 

2010) and CARB’s “Monitoring Network Report for Small 

Districts in California” (July 2010). 

b Site types are defined in 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D 

section 1.1.1. The site types utilized in the Sacramento 

Metro Area include high concentration (HC), representative 

concentration (RC) and pollutant transport (TR). 

c Spatial scales are defined in 40 CFR part 58 Appendix D 

section 1.2. The monitoring sites in the Sacramento Metro 

Area are either neighborhood scale (NS), urban scale (US) 

or regional scale (RS) sites. 

 

Exceptional Events

 On March 22, 2007, EPA adopted a final rule, 

“Treatment of Data Influenced by Exceptional Events,” also 

known as the Exceptional Events Rule (EER), to govern the 

review and handling of certain air quality monitoring data 

for which the normal planning and regulatory processes are 

not appropriate (72 FR 13560). Under the EER, EPA may 

exclude data from use in determinations of NAAQS 

exceedances and violations if a state demonstrates that an 
28

“exceptional event” caused the exceedance or exceedances. 

40 CFR §§ 50.1, 50.14. Before EPA can exclude data from 

these regulatory determinations, the state must flag the 

data in EPA’s AQS database and, after public notice and 

opportunity for comment, submit a demonstration to EPA to 

justify the exclusion. EPA considers the demonstration and 

concurs or nonconcurs with the state’s flag. After noticeand-comment rulemaking, EPA determines whether to exclude 

the data from use when making a determination of 

attainment. 

 In submittals dated September 17, 2009 and March 30, 

2011, CARB provided documentation for ozone exceedances 

that occurred at the Folsom monitor on three days in Summer 

2008 which the state had flagged as due to wildfire 

exceptional events. EPA reviewed the documentation and 

concurred with the June 23, June 27 and July 10, 2008 flags 

in a letter from Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, 

U.S. EPA Region IX, to Mary D. Nichols, Chairman, CARB, 

dated April 13, 2011. EPA included with the letter a 

document setting forth in detail the bases for EPA’s 

concurrences. See “Review of Exceptional Events Request: 

Folsom, CA; 1-hour ozone; June 23, June 27 and July 10, 

2008,” dated April 13, 2011 (in the docket for this 

proposed rulemaking). For the reasons set forth in the 
29

concurrence letter and its enclosure, EPA is proposing to 

exclude from regulatory consideration data showing 

exceedances at the Folsom monitoring site on June 23, June 

27 and July 10, 2008. 

Monitoring Data

EPA’s proposal to exclude ozone exceedances monitored 

at the Folsom site on June 23, June 27 and July 10, 2008, 

if finalized, would result in a revision of the number of 

exceedances (as determined by 40 CFR part 50, Appendix H 

and described in section II of this notice) for 2008 and, 

therefore, the average number of expected exceedances for 

the 2007-2009 period. With the exclusion of the data for 

these three days, the highest three-year average of 

expected exceedances at any site in the Sacramento Metro 

Area for 2007-2009 is 1.0, which shows attainment of the 1-

hour ozone standard (a three-year average of expected 

exceedances less than or equal to 1). For more 

information, please see “National 1-hour primary and 

secondary ambient air quality standards for ozone” (40 CFR 

section 50.9) and “Interpretation of the 1-Hour Primary and 

Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone” 

(40 CFR part 50, Appendix H). Consistent with 40 CFR part 

50, Appendix H, Tables 2 and 3 set forth the 1-hour ozone 
30

data for the Sacramento Metro Area monitors that show that 

the area is currently attaining the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. 

Table 2 – 1-Hour Ozone Data for the Sacramento Metro 1-

Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area a

Site (Monitor ID) Expected 

Exceedances by 

Year 

Expected 

Exceedances 

3-yr average 

2007 2008 2009 2007-2009 

Placerville (06-017-

0010) 

0.0 2.0 0.0 0.7 

Echo Summit (06-017-

0012) 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Cool (06-017-0020) 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.7 

Auburn (06-061-0002) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Colfax (06-061-0004) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Roseville (06-061-

0006) 

0.0 2.0 0.0 0.7 

North Highlands (06-

067-0002) 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Sacramento-Del Paso 

Manor 

(06-067-0006) 

1.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 

Sacramento-T Street 

(06-067-0010) 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Elk Grove (06-067-

0011) 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Folsom (06-067-0012) 1.0 2.0b 0.0 1.0 

Sacramento-Airport 

Road 

(06-067-0013) 

0.0 0.0c NA NA 

Sacramento-Goldenland 

Court (06-067-0014) 

NA 0.0c 0.0 0.0 

Sloughhouse Rd. (06-

067-5003) 

0.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 

Vacaville (06-095-

3003) 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Davis (06-113-0004) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Woodland (06-113-1003) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Source: Quicklook Report, May 3, 2011 (in the docket to 

this proposed action). 

a

 40 CFR part 50, Appendix H—Interpretation of the 1-Hour 

Primary and Secondary National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards for Ozone. 
31

b Data shown exclude exceedances on June 23, June 27 and 

July 10, 2008 due to exceptional events. 

c The Airport Road site was relocated to the Goldenland 

Court site in August 2008. 

NA – Data is not available. 

The data in Table 2 indicate a long-term trend 

observed in the Sacramento Metro Area. As described in 

CARB’s July 7, 2010 letter requesting a Termination 

Determination, the monitoring sites that historically 

experienced exceedances of the 1-hour ozone standard are 

the Cool, Sloughhouse, Folsom and Del Paso Manor sites. 

For example, in 1998 five exceedances were monitored at 

Cool and ten at Folsom. In 2009, by contrast, there were 

no exceedances at any monitor in the entire Sacramento 

Metro Area. 

In sum, EPA believes that, if the exceedances 

resulting from wildfire exceptional events on three days in 

2008 are excluded from consideration, the 2007-2009 ambient 

air monitoring data for the Sacramento Metro Area show 

attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. In addition, if 

EPA’s proposal to exclude exceedances on three days due to 

wildfire exceptional events is finalized, the data for 2010 

(complete and quality-assured but not yet certified), shown 

in Table 3 for the 2008-2010 monitoring period, show 
32

continued attainment. Preliminary data available for 2011 

are also consistent with continued attainment. 

Table 3 – 2010 1-Hour Ozone Data for the Sacramento Metro 

1-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area Showing Continued 

Attainment a

Site (Monitor ID) Expected 

Exceedances by 

Year 

Expected 

Exceedances 

3-yr average 

2008 2009 2010 b 2008-2010 b

Placerville (06-017-

0010) 

2.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 

Echo Summit (06-017-

0012) 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Cool (06-017-0020) 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 

Auburn (06-061-0002) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Colfax (06-061-0004) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Roseville (06-061-0006) 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 

North Highlands (06-067-

0002) 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Sacramento-Del Paso 

Manor 

(06-067-0006) 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Sacramento-T Street 

(06-067-0010) 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Elk Grove (06-067-0011) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Folsom (06-067-0012) 2.0c 0.0 0.0 0.7 

Sacramento-Airport Road 

(06-067-0013) 

0.0d NA NA NA 

Sacramento-Goldenland 

Court (06-067-0014) 

0.0d 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Sloughhouse Rd. (06-067-

5003) 

3.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 

Vacaville (06-095-3003) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Davis (06-113-0004) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Woodland (06-113-1003) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Source: Quicklook Report, May 3, 2011 (in the docket to 

this proposed action).

a

 40 CFR part 50, Appendix H—Interpretation of the 1-Hour 

Primary and Secondary National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards for Ozone. 

b

 Data from 2010 are complete but have not yet been 

certified. 
33

c Data exclude exceedances on June 23, June 27 and July 10, 

2008 due to exceptional events. 

d The Airport Road site was relocated to the Goldenland 

Court site in August 2008. 

NA – Data are not available. 

b. Permanent and Enforceable Emission Reductions 

 EPA believes that the State has demonstrated that the 

observed air quality improvements in the Sacramento Metro 

Area with respect to the 1-hour ozone standard are due to 

permanent and enforceable emission reductions through the 

implementation of state and district emission controls 

contained in the SIP and not due to favorable meteorology 

or temporary reductions in emission rates, such as 

temporary adverse economic conditions. See letter and 

accompanying documentation (Enclosure 2, Sacramento 

Metropolitan Air Quality Management District 1-Hour Ozone 

Attainment Demonstration Request for the Sacramento Federal 

Ozone Nonattainment Area) from James Goldstene, CARB 

Executive Officer, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, U.S. EPA Region IX, dated July 7, 2010, 

requesting termination of CAA section 185 requirements as 

they pertain to the Sacramento Metro Area (July 7, 2010 

request). 

 In 1994, California submitted a comprehensive ozone 

plan for all ozone nonattainment areas in California 
34

including the Sacramento Metro Area (1994 SIP), which EPA 

approved on January 8, 1997 (62 FR 1150). The plan 

provided a blueprint for attaining the 1-hour ozone 

standard that relied on a combination of stationary and 

mobile source measures by the districts, and state and 

federal governments. In addition, California air districts 

in the Sacramento Metro Area adopted and implemented 

emission control rules requiring many existing sources of 

oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs)14 to meet, at minimum, Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT). These requirements apply to sources in 

categories covered by Control Technology Guidelines (CTGs) 

and major non-CTG sources. 

Meteorology

 In its July 7, 2010 request (Enclosure 2, Sacramento 

Metropolitan Air Quality Management District 1-Hour Ozone 

Attainment Demonstration Request for the Sacramento Federal 

Ozone Nonattainment Area), CARB provided documentation that 

the improvement in air quality in the Sacramento Metro Area 

is not due to favorable meteorology. CARB showed that the 

weather patterns in the last decade have not been unusually 

favorable. For example, looking at days equal to or over 

95 degrees Fahrenheit in each of the last thirteen years 

 

14 NOx and VOCs are chemical precursors to ozone. 
35

(1997 to 2009) as an indicator of conditions conducive to 

ozone formation, the area had an annual average of 37 such 

“high temperature” days, while in the last four years 

(2006-2009), the area also had an annual average of 37 high 

temperature days. 

Economic Activity

 The State provided documentation showing that the 

improvement in air quality leading to 1-hour ozone 

attainment in the Sacramento Metro Area is not due to a 

temporary economic downturn. See July 7, 2010 request 

(Enclosure 2, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality 

Management District 1-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration 

Request for the Sacramento Federal Ozone Nonattainment 

Area). As an indicator of economic activity, this analysis 

presented information on gasoline and diesel sales in 

California from 2000 to 2009. Fuel sales are an indicator 

of economic activity, and represent an indicator of 

emissions trends of both VOCs and NOx as well. The 

Sacramento Metro Area’s emissions inventory is dominated by 

mobile sources. See Table 7, below and Table 4.1 of 

Enclosure 2 of July 7, 2010 request. Although fuel sales 

have decreased in the last several years, perhaps 

coinciding with an overall economic downturn in California 

and nationally, we note that the decrease has been slight 
36

and that the last year presented, 2009, still had a higher 

level (14.8 billion gallons of fuel sold) than the first 

year presented (2001, at 14.5 billion gallons). Between 

those years, fuel sales increased gradually to a peak 

between 2005 and 2006 (both at 15.9 billion gallons sold 

per year), before gradually declining. 

 Given that the earliest years in that ten-year period 

were years when the area was not attaining the 1-hour ozone 

standard, EPA believes that any temporary emission 

reductions due to the more recent economic downturn in 2008 

and later are relatively small and not a significant factor 

in the attainment of the 1-hour standard. Therefore, we 

conclude that economic conditions are not a source of 

temporary reductions in emission rates. On the contrary, 

EPA believes that the steady decline of emissions of NOx 

and VOCs during the same ten-year period is attributable to 

fleet turnover with newer vehicles having lower evaporative 

and tailpipe emissions, as well as greater fuel economy. 

Additionally, EPA notes that CARB’s emissions database 

(http://www.arb.ca.gov/ei/emissiondata.htm) shows that 

during 2006 through 2009, the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) 

have increased from approximately 68 million miles per day 

to 72 million miles per day in the Sacramento Valley Air 

Basin. See CEPAM: 2009 Almanac – Population and Vehicle 
37

Trends Tool, Sacramento Valley Air Basin, Daily Vehicle 

Miles Traveled, All Vehicles. 

Local Districts’ Measures since 1990

 Since 1990, the Districts have adopted, implemented 

and submitted for EPA approval dozens of stationary source 

rules which achieve NOx and VOC emission reductions and 

have thus helped reduce ozone levels. Tables 4 through 7 

below summarize the local air district rules adopted since 

1990 and approved into the California SIP. 15, 16

Table 4 – Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District Rules 

Adopted Since 1990 and Approved into the California State 

Implementation Plan 

Rule 

No. Rule 

Date Rule 

Adopted by 

District 

Date Rule 

Approved 

into SIP 

Federal 

Register 

Citation 

NOx VOC 

411 

NOx from 

Boilers, 

Process 

Heaters and 

Steam 

Generators 

08/23/2007 5/6/2009 74 FR 20880 X 

412 

Stationary 

Internal 

Combustion 

Engine 

06/01/1995 4/30/1996 61 FR 18959 X 

413 

Stationary 

Gas 

Turbines 

03/24/2005 1/10/2008 73 FR 1819 X 

414 

Natural 

Gas-fired 

Water 

Heater 

08/01/1996 4/20/1999 64 FR 19277 X 

 

15 Feather River Air Quality Management District (FRAQMD) does not have 

any rules listed in the table because, since 1990, no additional FRAQMD 

VOC or NOx rules have been added to the SIP. FRAQMD consists of the 

entirety of both Sutter and Yuba counties. Only the very southern 

portion of Sutter County falls within the Sacramento Metro Area, and 

that portion includes no major NOx or VOC stationary sources. 

16 EPA is currently evaluating approximately 30 additional rules that 

have been adopted by Sacramento Metro Area air districts to control VOC 

and/or NOx and that were submitted to EPA as SIP revisions. Although 

EPA has not yet taken action on these submitted rules, they are 

currently being implemented by the air districts. 
38

442 

Architectural 

Coatings 

09/05/1996 11/9/1998 63 FR 60214 X 

443 

Leaks from 

Synthetic 

Organic 

Chemical & 

Polymer 

Manufacturing 

09/05/1996 11/9/1998 63 FR 60214 X 

446 

Storage of 

Petroleum 

Products 

11/16/1993 9/16/1994 59 FR 47544 X 

447 

Organic 

Liquid 

Loading 

04/02/1998 11/26/1999 64 FR 66393 X 

448 

Gasoline 

Transfer 

into 

Stationary 

Storage 

Containers 

02/02/1995 1/23/1996 61 FR 1716 X 

449 

Transfer of 

Gasoline 

into 

Vehicle 

Fuel Tanks 

09/26/2002 3/24/2003 68 FR 14156 X 

450 Graphic 

Arts 10/23/2008 4/9/2010 75 FR 18068 X 

452 Can Coating 09/25/2008 4/9/2010 75 FR 18068 X 

454 Degreasing 

Operations 09/25/2008 4/9/2010 75 FR 18068 X 

456 

Aerospace 

Assembly 

and 

Component 

Coating 

Operations 

10/23/2008 7/14/2010 75 FR 40726 X 

458 

Large 

Commercial 

Bread 

Bakeries 

09/05/1996 11/9/1998 63 FR 60214 X 

459 

Automotive, 

Truck and 

Heavy 

Equipment 

Refinishing 

Operations 

10/02/1997 11/13/1998 63 FR 63410 X 

463 

Wood 

Products 

Coatings 

09/25/2008 4/9/2010 75 FR 18068 X 

464 

Organic 

Chemical 

Manufacturing 

Operations 

07/23/1998 4/19/2000 65 FR 20912 X 
39

466 Solvent 

Cleaning 05/23/2002 5/5/2010 75 FR 24406 X 

Table 5 – El Dorado County Air Quality Management District Rules 

Adopted Since 1990 and Approved into the California State 

Implementation Plan 

Rule 

No. Rule 

Date Rule 

Adopted by 

District 

Date Rule 

Approved 

into SIP 

Federal 

Register 

Citation 

NOx VOC 

215 Architectural 

Coatings 9/27/1994 7/18/1996 61 FR 37390 X 

224 

Cutback 

Asphalt 

Paving 

Material 

9/27/1994 8/21/1995 60 FR 

43383 X 

225 

Solvent 

Cleaning 

(Degreasing) 

9/27/1994 8/21/1995 60 FR 

43383 X 

229 

Industrial, 

Institutional, and 

Commercial 

Boilers, 

Steam 

Generators, 

and Process 

Heaters 

1/23/2001 10/10/2001 66 FR 

51578 X 

230 

Motor Vehicle 

& Mobile 

Equipment 

Coating 

9/27/1994 4/30/1996 61 FR 

18962 X 

231 Graphic Arts 9/27/1994 7/11/1997 62 FR 

37136 X 

232 Biomass 

Boilers 9/25/2001 10/14/2003 68 FR 59121 X 

233 

Stationary 

Internal 

Combustion 

Engines 

6/11/2002 9/13/2002 67 FR 

57960 X 

234 

VOC RACT Rule 

- Sierra 

Pacific 

Industries 

4/25/1995 9/12/1995 60 FR 

47273 X 

235 

Surface 

Preparation 

and Cleanup 

6/27/1995 4/30/1996 61 FR 

18962 X 

236 Adhesives 7/25/1995 7/18/1996 61 FR 

37390 X 

237 Wood Products 

Coatings 6/27/1995 7/18/1996 61 FR 37390 X 

238 

Gasoline 

Transfer and 

Dispensing 

3/27/2001 8/27/2001 66 FR 

44974 X 

239 Natural Gas- 3/24/1998 3/30/1999 64 FR X 
40

fired 

Residential 

Water Heaters 

15129 

240 

Polyester 

Resin 

Operations 

2/15/2000 7/17/2001 66 FR 

37154 X 

244 

Organic 

Liquid 

Loading and 

Transport 

Vessels 

9/25/2001 7/8/2002 67 FR 

45067 X 

245 Valves and 

Flanges 3/27/2001 8/27/2001 66 FR 44974 X 

Table 6 – Placer County Air Pollution Control Agency Rules Adopted 

Since 1990 and Approved into the California State Implementation Plan 

Rule 

No. Rule 

Date Rule 

Adopted by 

District 

Date Rule 

Approved 

into SIP 

Federal 

Register 

Citation 

NOx VOC 

212 

Storage Of 

Organic 

Liquids 

6/19/1997 6/11/2009 74 FR 

27714 X 

213 

Gasoline 

Transfer 

Into 

Stationary 

Storage 

Containers 

10/19/1993 3/3/1997 62 FR 

23365 X 

214 

Transfer Of 

Gasoline 

Into Vehicle 

Fuel Tanks 

10/19/1993 4/30/1997 62 FR 

23365 X 

215 

Transfer Of 

Gasoline 

Into Tank 

Trucks, 

Trailers and 

Railroad 

Tank Cars At 

Loading 

Facilities 

6/19/1997 1/31/2011 76 FR 5277 X 

216 

Organic 

Solvent 

Cleaning And 

Degreasing 

Operations 

12/11/2003 5/5/2010 75 FR 

24406 X 

217 

Cutback And 

Emulsified 

Asphalt 

Paving 

Materials 

10/19/1993 4/30/1997 62 FR 

23365 X 

218 

Architectural 

Coatings 

02/09/1995 7/18/1996 61 FR 

37390 X 

219 Organic 10/19/1993 4/30/1997 62 FR X 
41

Solvents 23365 

223 

Metal 

Container 

Coating 

10/6/1994 3/23/1995 60 FR 

15241 X 

229 

Fiberboard 

Manufacturing 6/28/1994 6/8/2001 66 FR 

30815 X 

230 

Plastic 

Products And 

Materials - 

Paper 

Treating 

Operation 

6/28/1994 12/14/1994 59 FR 

64336 X 

233 Biomass 

Boilers 10/06/1994 4/30/1996 61 FR 18959 X 

235 Adhesives 6/08/1995 7/18/1996 61 FR 

37390 X 

236 

Wood 

Products 

Coating 

Operations 

2/09/1995 4/30/1996 61 FR 

18962 X 

238 

Factory 

Coating Of 

Flat Wood 

Paneling 

6/18/1995 2/12/1996 61 FR 5288 X 

239 Graphic Arts 

Operations 2/13/1997 11/13/1998 63 FR 63410 X 

244 

Semiconductor 

Operations 

2/9/1995 7/25/1996 61 FR 

38571 X 

250 Stationary 

Gas Turbines 10/17/1994 8/23/1995 60 FR 43713 X 

Table 7 – Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District Rules Adopted 

Since 1990 and Approved into the California State Implementation Plan 

Rule 

No. Rule 

Date Rule 

Adopted by 

District 

Date Rule 

Approved 

into SIP 

Federal 

Register 

Citation 

NOx VOC 

2.13 Organic 

Solvents 5/24/1994 4/30/1996 61 FR 18962 X 

2.14 

Architectural 

Coatings 

11/14/2001 1/2/2004 69 FR 34 X 

2.21 

Organic 

Liquid 

Storage & 

Transfer 

9/14/2005 10/31/2006 71 FR 

63694 X 

2.22 

Gasoline 

Dispensing 

Facilities 

6/12/2002 1/23/2003 68 FR 3190 X 

2.23 Fugitive 

Hydrocarbon 8/13/1997 11/26/1999 64 FR 66393 X 

2.24 Solvent 

Cleaning 11/14/1990 12/13/1994 59 FR 64130 X 
42

Operations 

(Degreasing) 

2.25 

Surface 

Coating or 

Manufactured Metal 

Parts and 

Products 

4/27/1994 2/12/1996 61 FR 5288 X 

2.26 

Motor 

Vehicle & 

Mobile 

Equipment 

Coating 

11/30/1994 4/30/1996 61 FR 

18962 X 

2.27 

Industrial, 

Institutional, and 

Commercial 

Boilers, 

Steam 

Generators, 

and Process 

Heaters 

8/14/1996 6/17/1997 62 FR 

32691 X 

2.28 

Cutback & 

Emulsified 

Asphalt 

5/25/1994 2/5/1996 61 FR 4215 X 

2.29 

Graphic 

Arts 

Printing 

Operations 

5/25/1994 8/21/1998 63 FR 

44792 X 

2.30 

Polyester 

Resin 

Operation 

4/14/1999 7/21/1999 64 FR 

39037 X 

2.31 

Surface 

Preparation 

and Cleanup 

04/27/1994 4/2/1999 64 FR 

15922 X 

2.32 

Stationary 

Internal 

Combustion 

Engines 

10/10/2001 1/28/2002 67 FR 3816 X X 

2.33 Adhesives 

Operation 3/12/2003 3/22/2004 69 FR 13234 X 

2.34 

Stationary 

Gas 

Turbines 

7/13/1994 9/3/1998 63 FR 

46892 X 

2.35 

Pharmaceutical 

Manufacturing 

Operations 

11/30/1994 2/24/1997 62 FR 8172 X 

2.37 

Natural 

Gas-Fired 

Water 

Heaters and 

Small 

Boilers 

4/8/2009 5/10/2010 75 FR 

25778 X 
43

2.42 Nitric Acid 

Production 5/13/2009 5/10/2010 75 FR 25778 X 

 

California State Measures

 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 off-road vehicles and 

engines. 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 measures have helped reduce ozone levels 

in the Sacramento Metro Area and throughout the state. 

 CARB’s 2007 State Strategy provides a recent summary 

of the measures adopted and implemented by the state. See 

“Air Resources Board’s Proposed State Strategy for 

California’s 2007 State Implementation Plan,” release date: 

April 26, 2007. From 1994 to 2006, the state has taken 

more than 45 rulemaking actions which have achieved 

significant emission reductions needed for the state's 

nonattainment areas such as the Sacramento Metro Area. See 
44

2007 State Strategy, p. 38.17 These measures include new 

emission standards and in-use requirements and have 

resulted in significant reductions in VOC and NOx emissions 

from categories such as passenger cars, trucks, buses, 

motorcycles, locomotives, recreational boats, lawn and 

garden equipment and consumer products. EPA has generally 

approved all of the State’s measures that are not subject 

to the CAA section 209 waiver process. 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). See also, EPA’s proposed partial 

approval/partial disapproval of the San Joaquin Valley 

PM2.5 plan at 75 FR 74518, 74526-7 (November 30, 2010) and 

EPA’s proposed partial approval/partial disapproval of the 

South Coast PM2.5 plan at 75 FR 71294, 71302-3 (November 

22, 2010). 

Federal Measures

 Finally, in addition to the local district and state 

rules discussed above, the Sacramento Metro Area has also 

benefited from federal mobile source measures such as 

emissions standards for new locomotive Tier 1 and Tier 2 

engines, nationwide heavy-duty on-highway trucks, and new 

 

17 This document can be found on the Internet at: 

http://arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2007sip/apr07draft/sipback.pdf
45

emission standards for pre-empted farm and construction 

equipment. 

Summary/Conclusion

 Based on the above discussion, EPA believes that the 

progress made to reduce emissions in the Sacramento Metro 

Area during the 1990-2009 timeframe resulting in achieving 

attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard is from permanent 

and enforceable measures which achieved significant 

reductions as summarized in Table 8 below:

Table 8 – Summary of Emissions for the Sacramento Metro 1-

Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area (tons per day) 

1990 VOC 2008 VOC 1990 NOx 2008 NOx 

Stationary 

Area-wide 

On-road 

Other mobile 

39 

34 

140 

49 

22 

28 

45 

41 

22 

4 

148 

69 

15 

3 

95 

53 

Total 262 136 242 167 

Source: Letter from James Goldstene, CARB Executive 

Officer, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, U.S. 

EPA Region IX, dated July 7, 2010, Table 4.1 of Enclosure 

2, “1-Hour Ozone Attainment Determination Request for the 

Sacramento Federal Ozone Nonattainment Area,” April 26, 

2010, prepared by: Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality 

Management District. 

 

 The emission reduction trends shown in Table 8 are 

not only expected to be maintained at current levels, but 

are expected to continue in the next several decades, in 

spite of increasing population in the area, due to the 

continued replacement of older vehicles and engines with 
46

newer units subject to more stringent California and 

federal emission control requirements. The exception is 

that there is projected to be a slight (1% annually) growth 

in VOC emissions starting in 2020, as activity growth 

overcomes emission reductions. See Letter from James 

Goldstene, CARB Executive Officer, to Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region IX, dated July 7, 

2010, Section 4.2 of Enclosure 2, “1-Hour Ozone Attainment 

Determination Request for the Sacramento Federal Ozone 

Nonattainment Area,” April 26, 2010, prepared by: 

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. 

 EPA believes the preceding discussion demonstrates 

that permanent and enforceable emission reduction measures 

adopted and implemented by the state have been effective in 

reaching attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard, and that 

the improvement in the Sacramento Metro Area’s air quality 

is due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions. 

VI. Proposed Actions 

 EPA is proposing to make a determination to terminate 

the 1-hour ozone section 185 penalty fee requirement 

(Termination Determination) for the Sacramento Metro Area. 

Our proposed determination is based on our finding that the 

Sacramento Metro Area is attaining the 1-hour ozone NAAQS 

due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions. 
47

In proposing this determination, EPA is also proposing to 

exclude 1-hour ozone NAAQS exceedances that occurred at the 

Folsom monitor on three days in 2008 because they were 

caused by wildfire exceptional events. For the reasons set 

forth in this notice, EPA’s proposed 1-hour ozone section 

185 Termination Determination is based on EPA’s 

determination that the area has attained and continues to 

attain the 1-hour ozone standard due to permanent and 

enforceable emission reductions. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

This action proposes to make a determination of 

attainment and a determination of termination of the CAA 

section 185 penalty fee requirements based on attainment of 

the 1-hour ozone standard due to permanent and enforceable 

emission reductions, and would, if finalized, result in the 

termination of the section 185 fee requirements for the 1-

hour standard, and would not impose any additional 

requirements. For that reason, 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.); 
48

• 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 the 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 

Clean Air Act; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority 

to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using practicable and 

legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 
49

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), 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, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

May 9, 2011 //signed// 

_____________________ __________________________ 

Dated: Jared Blumenfeld 

 Regional Administrator, 

 Region IX.