[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 19 (Thursday, January 29, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4795-4799]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01609]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d0a5beb7a6b1a2a3bba9febabfb8be90b5a0b1feb7bfa6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c8bda6afbea9babba3b1e6a2a7a0a688adb8a9e6afa7be">[email protected]</span></a>.

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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The SMA consists of Sacramento and Yolo counties and 
portions of El Dorado, Placer, Solano and Sutter counties. For a 
precise description of the geographic boundaries of the SMA, see 40 
CFR 81.305. Sacramento County is under the jurisdiction of the 
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD). 
Yolo County and the eastern portion of Solano County comprise the 
Yolo-Solano AQMD (YSAQMD). The southern portion of Sutter County is 
part of the Feather River AQMD (FRAQMD). The western portion of 
Placer County is part of the Placer County Air Pollution Control 
District (PCAPCD). Lastly, the western portion of El Dorado County 
is part of the El Dorado County AQMD (EDCAQMD). Collectively, we 
refer to these five districts as the ``Districts.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [ssquf] Sacramento Regional Nonattainment Area 8-Hour Ozone 
Reasonable Further Progress Plan 2002-2008 (``2002-2008 RFP Plan''), 
February 2006;
    [ssquf] Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan and 
Reasonable Further Progress Plan, March 26, 2009

[[Page 4796]]

(``2009 Ozone Attainment and RFP Plan'' or ``2009 Plan'');
    [ssquf] Elements of CARB's 2007 State Strategy (``2007 State 
Strategy''), adopted by CARB on September 27, 2007, as applicable in 
the SMA;
    [ssquf] 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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ On July 21, 2011, CARB further revised the State Strategy 
(i.e., Progress Report on Implementation of PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [ssquf] 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 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.
    \6\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) 
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 NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC from sources 
under the State's jurisdiction, primarily on- and off-road motor 
vehicles and engines, through the

[[Page 4797]]

implementation of 15 defined State measures.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 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.
    \8\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 12, 2009, CARB submitted the Revised 2007 State Strategy, 
dated March 24, 2009 and adopted April 24, 2009.<SUP>9 10</SUP> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See 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.
    \10\ The 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Motor 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
NO<INF>X</INF> reductions that exceed by 1.0 tons per day (tpd) the 
amount of reductions of NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
NO<INF>X</INF>. In their comment letter, SMAQMD requests that the EPA 
reallocate 0.9 tpd of NO<INF>X</INF> from the 2018 MVEB safety margin 
to the ``general conformity NO<INF>X</INF> buffer.'' This would leave 
2.1 tpd in the 2018 NO<INF>X</INF> safety margin and 1.0 tpd of 
NO<INF>X</INF> (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

[[Page 4798]]

only 0.1 tpd for NO<INF>X</INF>, not 1.0 tpd as claimed in the plan. 
The calculated ``buffer'' itself reflects a 2018 MVEB ``safety margin'' 
of 3 tpd of NO<INF>X</INF>, and therefore, there are surplus 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See email from Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, EPA 
Region IX, dated December 17, 2014, summarizing a December 3rd 
telephone conversation between herself and Larry Greene at the 
SMAQMD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The MVEBs approved in today's action are the following (in 
tons per day, average summer weekday): 18 tpd and 39 tpd of VOC and 
NO<INF>X</INF> for 2017, respectively, and 17 tpd and 37 tpd of VOC 
and NO<INF>X</INF>, respectively, for 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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:
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
    <bullet> 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.);
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
    <bullet> Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
    <bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
    <bullet> 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
    <bullet> 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)).

[[Page 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

0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(450), (c)(451) 
and (c)(452) to read as read as follows:


Sec.  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 Eight-Hour 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 Eight-Hour 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 Eight-Hour 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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>