Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 signed the following proposed rule on September 24, 

2014, and EPA is submitting it for publication in the Federal Register (FR). While we have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this Internet version of the proposed rule, it is not the official version for purposes of public comment. 

Please refer to the official version in a forthcoming FR publication, which will appear on the Government Printing 

Office's FDsys website (http://fdsys.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/home.action) and on Regulations.gov

(http://www.regulations.gov) in Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0178.

Billing Code: 6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0178; FRL- ]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of California; Sacramento 

Metro Area; Attainment Plan for 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve state 

implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of California to provide for

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (“standard” or 

NAAQS) in the Sacramento Metro nonattainment area. EPA is proposing to approve the 

emissions inventories, air quality modeling, reasonably available control measures, provisions 

for transportation control strategies and measures, rate of progress and reasonable further 

progress (RFP) demonstrations, attainment demonstration, transportation conformity motor 

vehicle emissions budgets, and contingency measures for failure to make RFP or attain. EPA is 

also proposing to approve commitments for measures by the Sacramento Metro nonattainment 

area air districts.

DATES: Any comments must be submitted by [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE

OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0178, by 

one of the following methods:

 Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions.
2

 E-mail: ungvarsky.john@epa.gov.

 Mail or deliver: John Ungvarsky, Office of Air Planning (AIR-2), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. 

Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket without change and may be 

made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 

unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise 

protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” 

system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be 

automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If EPA cannot read your 

comments due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available electronically on the 

www.regulations.gov website and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, California, 94105. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some 

information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), 

and some may not be publicly available at either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy 

materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below.
3

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Ungvarsky, Air Planning Office (AIR2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 972-3963, 

ungvarsky.john@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” 

refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS and the Sacramento Metro Ozone Nonattainment Area

A. Background on the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS

B. The Sacramento Metro 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area 

II. CAA and Regulatory Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment SIPs

III. California’s State Implementation Plan Submittals to Address 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment 

in the Sacramento Metro Area

A. California’s SIP Submittals

B. CAA Procedural and Administrative Requirements for SIP Submittals

IV. Review of the Sacramento Ozone Plan and the Sacramento Portion of the State Strategy

A. Summary of EPA’s Proposed Actions

B. Emissions Inventories

C. Reasonably Available Control Measure/Reasonably Available Control Technology

Demonstration and Adopted Control Strategy

D. Attainment Demonstration

E. Rate of Progress and Reasonable Further Progress Demonstrations

F. Contingency Measures 

G. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Transportation Conformity 
4

H. Vehicle Miles Travelled Emissions Offset Demonstration

V. EPA’s Proposed Actions

A. EPA’s Proposed Approvals

B. Request for Public Comments

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS and the Sacramento Metro Ozone Nonattainment Area 

A. Background on the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS

Ground-level ozone is formed when oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and volatile organic 

compounds (VOC) react in the presence of sunlight.1 These two pollutants, referred to as ozone 

precursors, are emitted by many types of pollution sources, including on- and off-road motor 

vehicles and engines, power plants and industrial facilities, and smaller area sources such as lawn 

and garden equipment and paints.

Scientific evidence indicates that adverse public health effects occur following exposure to 

ozone, particularly in children and adults with lung disease. Breathing air containing ozone can 

reduce lung function and inflame airways, which can increase respiratory symptoms and 

aggravate asthma or other lung diseases. Ozone exposure also has been associated with increased 

susceptibility to respiratory infections, medication use, doctor visits, and emergency department 

visits and hospital admissions for individuals with lung disease. Ozone exposure also increases 

the risk of premature death from heart or lung disease. Children are at increased risk from 

exposure to ozone because their lungs are still developing and they are more likely to be active

outdoors, which increases their exposure. See “Fact Sheet, Proposal to Revise the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone,” January 6, 2010 and 75 FR 2938 (January 19, 2010). 

 

1 California plans sometimes use the term Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) for VOC. These terms are essentially 

synonymous. For simplicity, we use the term VOC herein to mean either VOC or ROG.
5

In 1979, under section 109 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA established primary and 

secondary national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or standard) for ozone at 0.12 parts 

per million (ppm) averaged over a 1-hour period. 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979). 

On July 18, 1997, EPA revised the primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone to set the 

acceptable level of ozone in the ambient air at 0.08 ppm, averaged over an 8-hour period (“1997 

8-hour ozone standard”). 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997). EPA set the 1997 8-hour ozone standard 

based on scientific evidence demonstrating that ozone causes adverse health effects at lower 

concentrations and over longer periods of time than was understood when the pre-existing 1-hour 

ozone standard was set. EPA determined that the 1997 8-hour standard would be more protective 

of human health, especially children and adults who are active outdoors, and individuals with a 

pre-existing respiratory disease, such as asthma.

On March 27, 2008, EPA revised and further strengthened the primary and secondary 

NAAQS for ozone by setting the acceptable level of ozone in the ambient air at 0.075 ppm,

averaged over an 8-hour period (“2008 8-hour ozone standard”). 73 FR 16436. On May 21, 

2012, EPA designated areas of the country with respect to the 2008 8-hour ozone standard. 77 

FR 30088 and 40 CFR 81.330. Today’s action only applies to the 1997 8-hour ozone standard 

and does not address requirements of the 2008 8-hour ozone standard. 

B. The Sacramento Metro 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area

Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required by the CAA to 

designate areas throughout the nation as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. Effective June 

15, 2004, we designated nonattainment areas for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. At the same 

time, we assigned classifications to many of these areas based upon their ozone “design value,” 

in accordance with the structure of part D, subpart 2 of Title I of the Clean Air Act. See 69 FR 
6

23858 (April 30, 2004) and 40 CFR 51.903(a). The designations and classifications for the 1997 

8-hour ozone standard for California areas are codified at 40 CFR 81.305. EPA classified the 

Sacramento Metro Area (SMA) as “serious” nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, 

with an attainment date no later than June 15, 2013, and published a rule governing certain facets 

of implementation of the 8-hour ozone standard (Phase 1 Rule) (69 FR 23858 and 69 FR 23951, 

respectively, April 30, 2004). In a February 14, 2008 letter, the California Air Resources Board 

(CARB) requested that EPA reclassify the SMA from “serious” to “severe-15” under CAA 

section 181(b)(3).2 On May 5, 2010, EPA finalized the reclassification of the SMA to “severe15” with an attainment date no later than June 15, 2019.

3

75 FR 24409.

The SMA consists of Sacramento and Yolo counties and portions of El Dorado, Placer, 

Solano and Sutter counties. For a precise description of the geographic boundaries of the SMA, 

see 40 CFR 81.305. Sacramento County is under the jurisdiction of the Sacramento Metropolitan 

Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD). Yolo County and the eastern portion of Solano 

County comprise the 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.” Under California law, each air district is responsible for 

adopting and implementing stationary source rules, while the CARB adopts and implements 

 

2 See SCAQMD Governing Board Resolution No. 07-9 (June 1, 2007), p. 12; CARB Resolution No. 07-41 

(September 27, 2007), p. 8; and letter, James Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB to Wayne Nastri, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9, November 28, 2007.

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.
7

consumer products and mobile source rules. The Districts and State rules are submitted to EPA 

by CARB. 

Ambient 8-hour ozone levels in the Sacramento area are well above the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. The maximum design value for the area, based on monitored readings at the Folsom

monitor in Sacramento County, is 0.090 ppm for the 2011-2013 period.4

II. CAA and Regulatory Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment SIPs

States must implement the 1997 8-hour ozone standard under Title 1, Part D of the CAA,

which includes section 172, “Nonattainment plan provisions,” and subpart 2, “Additional 

Provisions for Ozone Nonattainment Areas” (sections 181-185). 

In order to assist states in developing effective plans to address their ozone nonattainment 

problem, EPA issued the 8-hour ozone implementation rule. This rule was finalized in two 

phases. The first phase of the rule addresses classifications for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, 

applicable attainment dates for the various classifications, and the timing of emissions reductions 

needed for attainment. See 69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004). The second phase addresses SIP 

submittal dates and the requirements for reasonably available control technology and measures 

(RACT and RACM), reasonable further progress (RFP), modeling and attainment 

demonstrations, contingency measures, and new source review. See 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 

2005). The rule is codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart X.5 We discuss each of these CAA and 

regulatory requirements for 8-hour ozone nonattainment plans in more detail below.

 

4 See EPA Air Quality System Quick Look Report dated June 10, 2014 in the docket for today’s action. A design 

value is an ambient concentration calculated using a specific methodology to evaluate monitored air quality data and 

is used to determine whether an area’s air quality is meeting a NAAQS. The methodology for calculating design 

values for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS is found in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I. This value is based on complete, 

validated, and certified data for the 2011-2013 timeframe. 

5 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 EPA’s proposed 

action on the Sacramento 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan.
8

III. California’s State Implementation Plan Submittals to Address 8-Hour Ozone 

Nonattainment in the Sacramento Metro Area

A. California’s SIP Submittals

Designation of an area as nonattainment starts the process for a state to develop and submit to 

EPA a SIP providing for attainment of the NAAQS under title 1, part D of the CAA. For 8-hour 

ozone areas designated as nonattainment effective June 15, 2004, this attainment SIP was due by 

June 15, 2007. See CAA section 172(b) and 40 CFR 51.908(a) and 51.910.

California has made several SIP submittals to address the CAA’s planning requirements for 

attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in the SMA. The principal submittals are:

 Sacramento Regional Nonattainment Area 8-Hour Ozone Reasonable Further Progress 

Plan 2002-2008, February 2006; 

 Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan and Reasonable Further Progress 

Plan, March 26, 2009;

 CARB’s 2007 State Strategy (“2007 State Strategy”);

 Status Report on the State Strategy for California’s 2007 State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

and Proposed Revision to the SIP Reflecting Implementation of the 2007 State Strategy 

(“Revised 2007 State Strategy”);

6

and

 Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan and Reasonable Further Progress 

Plan (2013 SIP Revisions), September 26, 2013.

 

6 On July 21, 2011, CARB further revised the State Strategy (i.e., Progress Report on Implementation of PM2.5 State 

Implementation Plans (SIP) for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins and Proposed SIP Revisions). 

Although the 2011 revision was specific to the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley ozone nonattainment areas, they 

contained Appendix E, an assessment of the impacts of the economic recession on emissions from the goods 

movement sector. The growth projections developed for emissions inventories in the Sacramento Regional 8-Hour 

Ozone Attainment Plan and Reasonable Further Progress Plan (2013 Revisions) also rely on the recessionary 

impacts in Appendix E. 
9

We refer to these submittals collectively as the “Sacramento 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan” 

or “Sacramento Ozone Plan.”

1. Sacramento Regional Nonattainment Area 8-Hour Ozone Reasonable Further Progress Plan 

2002-2008

The Sacramento Regional Nonattainment Area 8-Hour Ozone Reasonable Further Progress 

Plan 2002-2008 (“2002-2008 RFP Plan”) was adopted by the Districts’ governing boards during 

January-February 2006 and then by CARB Executive Order G-125-335 on February 24, 2006. 

See table 1 for the Districts’ adoption dates and resolution or order numbers. CARB submitted 

the 2002-2008 RFP Plan to EPA on February 24, 2006.

7

Table 1. Agencies and Adoption Dates for Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone 

Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan

Agency Hearing and Adoption 

Dates

Board Resolution 

SMAQMD January 26, 2006 2006-010

FRAQMD February 6, 2006 2006-01

EDCAQMD February 7, 2006 040-2006

YSAQMD February 8, 2006 06-01

PCAPCD February 19, 2006 06-01

The 2002-2008 RFP Plan includes an RFP demonstration for the 2002-2008 timeframe, an 

amended Rate of Progress Plan for the 1990-1996 timeframe, and motor-vehicle emissions 

budgets used for transportation conformity purposes.

2. Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan

 

7 See letter from Catherine Witherspoon, Executive Officer, CARB to Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA 

Region 9, February 24, 2006, with enclosures.
10

The Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan and Reasonable Further Progress 

Plan (“2009 Ozone Attainment and RFP Plan” or “2009 Plan”) was adopted by the Districts’ 

governing boards during January-February 2009 and then by CARB on March 26, 2009. See 

table 2 for adoption dates and resolution numbers. CARB submitted the 2009 Ozone Attainment 

and RFP Plan to EPA on April 19, 2009.

8

Table 2. Agencies and Adoption Dates for 2009 Ozone Attainment and RFP Plan

Agency Hearing and Adoption 

Dates

Board Resolution 

SMAQMD January 22, 2009 2009-001

FRAQMD February 2, 2009 2009-02

EDCAQMD February 10, 2009 021-2009

YSAQMD February 11, 2009 09-02

PCAPCD February 19, 2009 09-01

CARB March 26, 2009 09-19

The 2009 Ozone Attainment and RFP Plan includes an attainment demonstration, 

commitments by the Districts to adopt control measures to achieve emissions reductions from 

sources under its jurisdiction (primarily stationary sources), and motor-vehicle emissions budgets 

used for transportation conformity purposes. The attainment demonstration includes air quality 

modeling, an RFP plan, an analysis of reasonably available control measures/reasonably 

available control technology (RACM/RACT), base year and projected year emissions 

inventories, and contingency measures. The 2009 Ozone Attainment and RFP Plan also includes 

a demonstration that the most expeditious date for attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in 

the SMA is June 15, 2018. 

 

8 See letter from James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB to Laura Yoshii, Acting Regional Administrator, 

EPA Region 9, April 19, 2009, with enclosures.
11

In late 2013, SMAQMD and CARB updated and revised the Sacramento Regional 8-Hour 

Ozone Attainment Plan and Reasonable Further Progress Plan (“2013 Ozone Attainment and 

RFP Plan Update” or “2013 Plan Update”). The 2013 Plan Update included a revised emissions 

inventory that accounted for control measures adopted through 2011, revised attainment and RFP

demonstrations, the effects of the economic recession, and updated transportation activity 

projections provided by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG). See table 3 for 

relevant hearing and adoption dates and board resolutions. CARB submitted the 2013 Plan 

Update to EPA on December 31, 2013.

9

Table 3. Agencies and Adoption Dates for the 2013 Ozone Attainment and RFP Plan

Update

Agency Hearing and Adoption 

Dates

Board Resolution 

SMAQMD September 26, 2013 2013-026

CARB November 21, 2013 13-39

On June 19, 2014, CARB submitted a technical supplement to the Sacramento Vehicle Miles 

Travelled (VMT) emissions offset demonstration in the 2013 Plan Update.10 CARB’s technical 

supplement includes a revised set of motor vehicle emissions estimates reflecting technical 

changes to the inputs used to develop the original set of calculations.11 While the vehicle 

 

9 See letter from Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, CARB to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA 

Region 9, December 31, 2013, with enclosures.

10 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 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.

11 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.
12

emissions estimates in CARB’s technical supplement differ from those contained in the 

demonstration in the 2013 Plan Update, the conclusions of the analysis remain the same.

3. CARB State Strategy

To demonstrate attainment, the Sacramento Ozone Plan relies to a large extent on measures 

in CARB’s 2007 State Strategy. The 2007 State Strategy was adopted by CARB on September 

27, 2007 and submitted to EPA on November 16, 2007.12

The 2007 State Strategy describes CARB’s overall approach to addressing, in conjunction 

with local plans, attainment of both the 1997 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) and 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS not only in the SMA but also in California’s other nonattainment areas, such as 

the South Coast Air Basin and the San Joaquin Valley. It also includes CARB’s commitments to 

obtain emissions reductions of NOx and VOC from sources under the State’s jurisdiction,

primarily on- and off-road motor vehicles and engines, through the implementation of 15 defined 

State measures.

13

On August 12, 2009, CARB submitted the Revised 2007 State Strategy, dated March 24, 

2009 and adopted April 24, 2009.14, 15 This submittal updated the 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 

 

12 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.

13 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.

14 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.

15 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)
13

Strategy and updates NOx and VOC emissions reductions estimates from adopted State measures 

and commitments. In today's proposal and in the context of the Sacramento Ozone Plan, we are 

only evaluating the State measures that are included in the Revised 2007 State Strategy and 

applicable in the SMA.

B. CAA Procedural and Administrative Requirements for SIP Submittals

CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and 110(l) require a state to provide reasonable public notice 

and opportunity for public hearing prior to the adoption and submittal of a SIP or SIP revision. 

To meet this requirement, every SIP submittal should include evidence that adequate public 

notice was given and an opportunity for a public hearing was provided consistent with EPA’s 

implementing regulations in 40 CFR 51.102.

The Districts and CARB have satisfied applicable statutory and regulatory requirements for 

reasonable public notice and hearing prior to adoption and submittal of the 2009 Ozone 

Attainment and RFP Plan and 2013 Plan Update. The Districts conducted public workshops, 

provided public comment periods, and held public hearings prior to the adoption of the 2002-

2008 RFP Plan, 2009 Ozone Attainment and RFP Plan and 2013 Plan Update. See discussions

above in III.A.1, III.A.2, and III.A.3 for hearing and adoption dates.

CARB conducted public workshops, provided public comment periods, and held a public 

hearing prior to the adoption of the 2007 State Strategy on September 27, 2007. See CARB 

Resolution No. 07-28. CARB also provided the required public notice, opportunity for public 

comment, and a public hearing prior to its April 24, 2009 adoption of the Revised 2007 State 

Strategy. See CARB Resolution 09-34. CARB also provided the required public notice, 

opportunity for public comment, and a public hearing prior to its November 21, 2013 adoption of 

the 2013 Plan Update. See CARB Resolution No. 13-39.
14

The SIP submittals include proof of publication for notices of the Districts’ and CARB’s

public hearings, as evidence that all hearings were properly noticed. We find, therefore, that the 

submittals meet the procedural requirements of CAA sections 110(a) and 110(l).

CAA section 110(k)(1)(B) requires that EPA determine whether a SIP submittal is complete 

within 60 days of receipt. This section also provides that any plan that EPA has not affirmatively 

determined to be complete or incomplete will become complete six months after the date of 

submittal by operation of law. EPA’s SIP completeness criteria are found in 40 CFR part 51, 

Appendix V. The Sacramento Ozone Plan submittals were deemed complete by operation of law 

on the dates listed in table 4. 

Table 4. Submittals and Completeness Determinations for Sacramento Ozone Plan

Submittal Submittal Date Completeness Date 

2002-2008 RFP Plan February 24, 2006 August 24, 2006

2007 State Strategy November 16, 2007 May 16, 2008

2009 Sacramento Regional 8-

Hour Ozone Attainment Plan 

and RFP Plan

April 19, 2009 October 29, 2009

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

2013 Sacramento Regional 8-

Hour Ozone Attainment Plan 

and RFP Plan 

December 31, 2013 May 31, 2014

IV. Review of the Sacramento Ozone Plan and the Sacramento Portion of the State

Strategy

We provide our evaluation of the Sacramento Ozone Plan’s compliance with applicable CAA 

and EPA regulatory requirements below. A more detailed evaluation can be found in the 

technical support document (TSD) for this proposal, which is available online at 
15

www.regulations.gov under docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0178, or from the EPA contact 

listed at the beginning of this notice.

A. Summary of EPA’s Proposed Actions

EPA is proposing to approve the 2002-2008 RFP Plan, 2009 Ozone Attainment and RFP 

Plan, those portions of the 2007 State Strategy and Revised 2007 State Strategy specific to ozone 

attainment in the SMA, and the 2013 Ozone Attainment and RFP Plan Update.

We are proposing to approve the emissions inventories in these SIP revisions as meeting the 

applicable requirements of the CAA and ozone implementation rule. We are also proposing to 

approve the Districts’ commitments to specific measures in these SIP revisions as strengthening 

the SIP.

We are proposing to approve the air quality modeling analysis on which the Sacramento 

Ozone Plan’s attainment, RACM, and RFP demonstrations are based because the Sacramento 

Ozone Plan includes sufficient documentation and analysis for EPA to determine the modeling’s 

adequacy.

We are proposing to approve the RACM analysis and the RFP and attainment demonstrations 

and related contingency measures as meeting the applicable requirements of the CAA and ozone

implementation rule. 

We are proposing to approve new transportation conformity motor vehicle emissions budgets 

for 2017 and 2018.

16

We are proposing to approve the Sacramento VMT emissions offset demonstration as 

meeting the applicable requirements in section 182(d)(1)(A) of the Clean Air Act.

 

16 Motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for 2011, 2014, and 2017 were previously found adequate by EPA on 

July 28, 2009 (74 FR 37210). New MVEBs for 2014, 2017, and 2018 in the 2013 Plan Update were determined to 

be adequate on July 25, 2014. The adequacy finding was published on August 8, 2014 (79 FR 46436) with an 

effective date of August 25, 2014.
16

EPA’s analysis and findings are summarized below and are described in more detail in the 

TSD for this proposal which is available online at www.regulations.gov in the docket, EPA-R09-

OAR-2014-0178, or from the EPA contact listed at the beginning of this notice.

B. Emissions Inventories

1. Requirements for Emissions Inventories

CAA section 182(a)(1) requires each state with an ozone nonattainment area classified under 

subpart 2 to submit a “comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all 

sources” of the relevant pollutants in accordance with guidance provided by the Administrator.

Emissions inventories for ozone need to contain VOC and NOx emissions because these 

pollutants are precursors to ozone formation. The inventories should meet the data requirements 

of EPA’s Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule (codified at 40 CFR part 51 subpart A).

A baseline emissions inventory is required for the attainment demonstration and for meeting 

RFP requirements. The baseline year for the SIP planning emissions inventory is identified as 

2002 by EPA guidance memorandum.

17 Additional EPA emission inventory guidance and the 

federal 8-hour ozone implementation rules set specific planning requirements pertaining to future 

milestone years for reporting RFP and to attainment demonstration years.18, 19 Key RFP analysis 

years in the RFP demonstration include 2008 and every subsequent 3 years out to the attainment 

date. The federal 8-hour ozone implementation rule also requires that for purposes of defining 

the data elements in emissions inventories for ozone nonnattainment areas, 40 CFR part 51 

subpart A applies. 

 

17 “2002 Base Year Emission Inventory SIP Planning: 8-Hour Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional Haze Programs” (EPA 

Memorandum from L. Wegman and P. Tsirigotis, November 18, 2002).

18 “Emission Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations” (EPA-454/R-05-001, August 2005, updated November 2005).

19 “Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard – Phase 2” (70 FR 71612, 

November 29, 2005).
17

2. Emissions Inventories in the Sacramento Ozone Plan

The baseline planning inventories for the SMA ozone nonattainment area together with 

additional documentation for the inventories are found in Section 5 and Appendix A of the 2013 

Plan Update and in Appendix C of CARB’s Staff Report on Proposed Revisions to the 8-Hour 

Ozone State Implementation Plan for the Sacramento Federal Nonattainment Area, October 22, 

2013 (“CARB 2013 Staff Report”). The average summer weekday emissions typical of the ozone 

season are used for the 2002 base year planning inventory, RFP milestone years (e.g., 2014) and 

the 2018 attainment year. These inventories incorporate reductions from federal, State, and 

Districts control measures adopted through January 2012 for mobile sources and through mid2011 for stationary and area-wide sources.

20

Table 5 provides a summary of the average summer weekday NOx and VOC emissions 

inventories for the 2002 baseline year and the 2018 attainment year. All inventories include NOX

and VOC emissions from stationary, area, off-road mobile, and on-road mobile sources.

The on-road motor vehicles inventory category consists of trucks, automobiles, buses, and 

motorcycles. California’s model for estimating emissions from on-road motor vehicles operating 

in California is referred to as “EMFAC” (short for EMission FACtor). EMFAC has undergone 

many revisions over the years, and the current on-road motor vehicles emission model is

EMFAC2011, the CARB model approved by EPA for estimating on-road motor source 

emissions.21 Appendix A1 of the 2013 Plan Update contains the latest on-road motor vehicle 

summer planning VOC and NOX inventories, vehicle population, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) 

and trips for each EMFAC vehicle class category for the Sacramento Metro nonattainment area. 

 

20 See 2013 Plan Update, Appendix A5: Recent Emission Inventory Adjustments, pages A5-1 through A5-5.

21 See 78 FR 14533 (March 6, 2013) regarding EPA approval of the 2011 version of the California EMFAC model 

and announcement of its availability. The software and detailed information on the EMFAC vehicle emission model 

can be found on the following CARB web site: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/msei.htm.
18

The motor vehicle emissions in the Sacramento Ozone Plan are based on CARB’s EMFAC2011 

emission factor model and the latest planning assumptions from SACOG’s 2013/2016 

Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP).22

The 2013 Plan Update contains off-road VOC and NOX inventories developed by CARB 

using category-specific methods and models.23 The off-road mobile source category includes 

aircraft, trains, ships, and off-road vehicles and equipment used for construction, farming, 

commercial, industrial, and recreational activities. Appendix A4 of the 2013 Plan Update 

contains the summary of in-use off-road equipment emissions, horsepower, population and 

activity data for the SMA using data outputs from CARB’s 2011 In-Use Off-Road Equipment 

model. For those off-road emissions categories not updated with new methods and data, such as 

lawn and garden equipment, data outputs from CARB’s OFFROAD2007 model were used. 

The stationary source category of the emissions inventory includes non-mobile, fixed sources 

of air pollution comprised of individual industrial, manufacturing, and commercial facilities. 

Examples of stationary sources (a.k.a., point sources) include fuel combustion (e.g., electric 

utilities), waste disposal (e.g., landfills), cleaning and surface coatings (e.g., printing), petroleum 

production and marketing, and industrial processes (e.g., chemical). Stationary source operators 

report to the Districts the process and emissions data used to calculate emissions from point 

sources. The Districts then enter the information reported by emission sources into the California 

Emission Inventory Development and Reporting System (CEIDARS) database.24

 

22 Final 2013/16 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program, Amendment #1 to the MTP/SCS 2035, and Air 

Quality Conformity Analysis. August 16, 2012. Federal Highway Administration approval December 14, 2012.

23 Detailed information on CARB’s off-road motor vehicle emissions inventory methodologies is found at: 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/categories.htm#offroad_motor_vehicles.

24 The CEIDARS database consists of two categories of information: source information and utility information. 

Source information includes the basic inventory information generated and collected on all point and area sources. 

Utility information generally includes auxiliary data, which helps categorize and further define the source 

information. Used together, CEIDARS is capable of generating complex reports based on a multitude of category 

and source selection criteria.
19

The area sources category includes aggregated emissions data from processes that are 

individually small and widespread or not well-defined point sources. The area source 

subcategories include solvent evaporation (e.g., consumer products and architectural coatings) 

and miscellaneous processes (e.g., residential fuel combustion and farming operations). 

Emissions from these sources are calculated from product sales, population, employment data, 

and other parameters for a wide range of activities that generate air pollution across the 

Sacramento nonattainment region.

25

The emission inventories in the 2013 Plan Update were derived from the California Emission 

Projection Analysis Model (CEPAM).26 The CEPAM model run used in the Sacramento Ozone 

Plan is based on a 2005 baseline inventory developed using the methods or databases described 

above (e.g., EMFAC2011, CIEDERS, CARB’s 2011 In-Use Off-Road Equipment model). The 

inventory was calibrated to 2005 emissions and activity levels, and inventories for other years 

are back-cast (e.g., 2002) or forecast (e.g., 2018) using CEPAM from that base inventory.

Table 5. SMA NOx and VOC Emissions Inventory Summaries for the 2002 Base 

Year and 2018 Attainment Year (average summer weekday emissions in tons per 

day, tpd)a

Category NOx VOC

2002 2018 2002 2018

Stationary Sources 12.2 10.9 17.5 22.6

Area Sources 3.1 3.1 32.5 30.5

On-Road Mobile Sources 99.1 36.6 51.9 17.1

Off-Road Mobile Sources 50.4 25.9 40.7 24.4

Inventory Adjustments by CARB 0 0.3 4.1 4.0

Totals 164.8 76.9 146.7 98.7

 

25 Detailed information on the area-wide source category emissions is found on the CARB website: 

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

26 Appendix A2 of the 2013 Plan Update Appendices contains the estimated VOC and NOX stationary, area-wide 

and off-road forecast summaries by Emission Inventory Code categories for the Sacramento nonattainment area in

CEPAM. (Appendix A2 is available separately in electronic file format.) A CEPAM inventory tool was created to 

support the development of the 2012 PM2.5 SIPs due at that time. The tool was designed to support all of the 

modeling, planning, and reporting requirements due at that time and includes updates for all the pollutants (e.g., NOx

and VOC). 
20

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

in categories.

3. Proposed Action on the Emissions Inventories

We have reviewed the emissions inventories in the Sacramento Ozone Plan and the inventory 

methodologies used by the Districts and CARB for consistency with CAA section 182(a)(1), the 

ozone implementation rule, and EPA’s guidance. We find that the base year and projected 

attainment year inventories are comprehensive, accurate, and current inventories of actual or 

projected emissions of NOx and VOC in the SMA nonattainment area as of the date of their 

submittal. We propose, therefore, to approve these inventories as meeting the requirements of 

CAA section 172(c)(3), the ozone implementation rule and applicable EPA guidance.

C. Reasonably Available Control Measures and Adopted Control Strategy

1. RACM Requirements 

CAA section 172(c)(1) requires that each attainment plan “provide for the implementation of 

all reasonably available control measures as expeditiously as practicable (including such 

reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the 

adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available control technology), and shall provide for 

attainment of the national primary ambient air quality standards.” 

EPA has previously provided guidance interpreting the RACM requirement in the General 

Preamble at 1356027 and in a memorandum entitled “Guidance on Reasonably Available Control 

Measures (RACM) Requirements and Attainment Demonstration Submissions for the Ozone 

NAAQS,” John Seitz, November 30, 1999.28 (Seitz memo). In summary, EPA guidance provides 

 

27 The “General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” published at 

57 FR 13498 on April 16, 1992, describes EPA's preliminary view on how we would interpret various SIP planning 

provisions in title I of the CAA as amended in 1990, including those planning provisions applicable to the 1-hour 

ozone standard. EPA continues to rely on certain guidance in the General Preamble to implement the 8-hour ozone 

standard under title I.

28 Available at www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html.
21

that to address the requirement to adopt all RACM, states should consider all potentially 

reasonable control measures for source categories in the nonattainment area to determine 

whether they are reasonably available for implementation in that area and whether they would, if 

implemented individually or collectively, advance the area's attainment date by one year or more. 

See Seitz memo and General Preamble at 13560; See also “State Implementation Plans; General 

Preamble for Proposed Rulemaking on Approval of Plan Revisions for Nonattainment Areas,” 

44 FR 20372 (April 4, 1979) and Memorandum dated December 14, 2000, from John S. Seitz, 

Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, “Additional Submission on RACM from 

States with Severe One-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area SIPs.”

Any measures that are necessary to meet these requirements that are not already either 

federally promulgated, part of the state's SIP, or otherwise creditable in SIPs must be submitted 

in enforceable form as part of a state's attainment plan for the area. 72 FR 20586, at 20614.29

CAA section 172(c)(6) requires nonattainment plans to “include enforceable emission 

limitations, and such other control measures, means or techniques (including economic 

incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emission rights), as well as 

schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to provide for 

attainment of such standard in such area by the applicable attainment date.” See also CAA 

 

29 For ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate or above, CAA section 182(b)(2) also requires 

implementation of RACT for all major sources of VOC and for each VOC source category for which EPA has 

issued a Control Techniques Guideline (CTG). CAA section 182(f) requires that RACT under section 182(b)(2) also 

apply to major stationary sources of NOX. In severe areas, a major source is a stationary source that emits or has the 

potential to emit at least 25 tons of VOC or NOX per year. CAA section 182(d). Under the 8-hour ozone 

implementation rule, states were required to submit SIP revisions meeting the RACT requirements of CAA sections 

182(b)(2) and 182(f) no later than 27 months after designation for the 8-hour ozone standard (September 15, 2006 

for areas designated in April 2004) and to implement the required RACT measures no later than 30 months after that 

submittal deadline. See 40 CFR 51.912(a). California has submitted CAA section 182 RACT SIPs for the Districts 

comprising the Sacramento Metro ozone nonattainment area, and the status of the submittals is described in the TSD 

for this action. While any evaluation of a RACM demonstration needs to consider the potential effect of CAA 

section 182(b)(2) RACT on expeditious attainment, it does not require that there first be an approved RACT

demonstration.
22

section 110(a)(2)(A). The ozone implementation rule requires that all control measures needed 

for attainment be implemented no later than the beginning of the attainment year ozone season. 

40 CFR 51.908(d). The attainment year ozone season is defined as the ozone season immediately

preceding a nonattainment area's attainment date. 40 CFR 51.900(g).

The purpose of the RACM analysis is to determine whether or not control measures exist 

that are technically reasonable and that provide emissions reductions that would advance the 

attainment date for nonattainment areas. Control measures that would advance the attainment 

date are considered RACM and must be included in the SIP to ensure that the attainment is 

achieved “as expeditiously as practicable.” RACM is defined by EPA as any potential control 

measure for application to point, area, on-road and non-road emission source categories that 

meets the following criteria: (1) technologically feasible; (2) economically feasible; (3) does not 

cause “substantial widespread and long-term adverse impacts”; (4) is not “absurd, unenforceable, 

or impracticable”; and (5) can advance the attainment date by at least one year. General 

Preamble at 13560.

2. RACM Demonstration in the SIP

CARB and the Districts have rulemaking processes for development, adoption and 

implementation of RACM. The State and Districts have adopted numerous measures since 2002, 

the base year for the Sacramento Ozone Plan, and included enforceable commitments for 

measures that are scheduled to be adopted in the future. The RACM analysis for the Sacramento 

Ozone Plan includes an evaluation of the State’s, Districts’, and the Sacramento Area Council of 

Governments’ (SACOG) new stationary, area and mobile sources measures that have been 

adopted since the base year and commitments for future adoption, as discussed in more detail 

below. See 2009 Plan and the 2013 Plan Update, Appendix H – Reasonably Available Control 
23

Measures (for stationary and area sources) and Appendix D – Transportation Control Measures 

(for transportation control measures), and 2007 State Strategy, Appendix G. 

For the Sacramento Ozone Plan, the Districts, CARB, and SACOG each undertook a process 

to identify and evaluate potential RACM that could contribute to expeditious attainment of the 8-

hour ozone standards in the SMA. We describe each agency’s efforts below. 

a. Districts’ RACM Analysis and Adopted Control Strategy

The Districts’ RACM analysis, which focuses on stationary and area source controls, is 

briefly described in Chapter 7 and detailed in Appendix H of both the 2009 Plan and the 2013 

Plan Update. 

Since the 1970s, the Districts have adopted stationary source control rules that have resulted 

in significant improvement of air quality in the SMA. These regulations and strategies have 

yielded significant emissions reductions from sources under the Districts’ jurisdiction. The 

Districts are also using economic incentive approaches, such as the Carl Moyer program,

30 to 

achieve additional reductions.

To identify all available RACM, the Districts conducted a thorough process that involved 

public meetings to solicit input, evaluation of EPA-suggested RACM and RACT, and evaluation 

of other air agencies’ regulations. See 2009 Plan and 2013 Plan Update, Appendix H –

Reasonably Available Control Measures. The Districts’ staffs conducted internal reviews, 

consulted with CARB staff, solicited ideas from technical consultants, and attended a technology 

 

30 The Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program (“Carl Moyer Program”) provides incentive 

grants for engines, equipment and other sources of pollution that are cleaner than required, providing early or extra 

emission reductions. Eligible projects include cleaner on-road, off-road, marine, locomotive and stationary 

agricultural pump engines. The program achieves near-term reductions in emissions of NOx, PM, and VOC or 

reactive organic gas (ROG) which are necessary for California to meet its clean air commitments under the SIP.
24

forum summit at the South Coast Air Quality Management District. In addition, the Districts’

staff reviewed the following documents:

 “Final 2007 Air Quality Management Plan,” South Coast Air Quality Management 

District, June 2007;

 “2007 Ozone Plan,” San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution control District, April 30, 2007; 

and

 “Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy - Appendix C, Stationary and Mobile Source Control 

Measure Descriptions,” Bay Area Air Quality Management District, January 4, 2006.

District staff compared requirements in place in the SMA with adopted rules in the following 

air districts: 

 South Coast Air Quality Management District;

 Bay Area Air Quality Management District;

 Ventura County Air Pollution Control District; and 

 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. 

Each of the Districts was responsible for preparing the RACM analysis for the stationary 

measures in its jurisdiction. The regional mobile source and land use measures were evaluated by 

technical consultants for the Districts on behalf of the region.

From these analyses, staff compiled the proposed control measures, "Sacramento Regional 8-

hour Ozone Attainment Plan - Control Measures: Draft, October 2006.” The Districts’ staffs

conducted public workshops at four locations throughout the Sacramento region to solicit 

comments on the proposed control measures and ideas for additional control measures to be 

considered. Following the public workshops, staff evaluated public comments and suggestions, 
25

reviewed the final plan documents noted above, and compiled the proposed control measures 

included in this plan.

The following is a summary of the Districts’ staff's findings:

1. The Districts’ staff evaluated and analyzed all reasonable control measures that were currently 

available for inclusion in the Sacramento Ozone Plan.

2. The Districts’ staff identified new or amended stationary control measures, and mobile source 

and land use control measures that are included in the Sacramento Ozone Plan.

3. The Sacramento Ozone Plan includes all RACM provided by the public and experts.

4. The available control measures that are not included collectively would not advance the 

attainment date or contribute to RFP for the SMA because of the insignificant or nonquantifiable amount of emissions reductions that they may potentially generate. Tables H-1 

through H-6 of Appendix H of the 2009 Plan and 2013 Plan Update contain a list of the measures 

and a brief discussion of the conclusions.

5. The RACM demonstration for transportation control measures was prepared by SACOG and 

is discussed separately in Appendix D – Transportation Control Measures of the 2009 Plan and 

2013 Plan Update.

In general, EPA finds that with respect to emissions of ozone precursors the Districts’ current 

rules and regulations are equivalent to or more stringent than those developed by other air 

districts, with a few exceptions where more stringent controls are technically feasible but not 

cost effective and/or would not advance attainment. 

Based on their RACM evaluations, the Districts committed to approximately twenty-two new 

or revised stationary source control measures for development and adoption, including measures 

at least as stringent as those identified in other California districts, as well as some new 
26

innovative measures. The Districts determined that the few available measures that were not 

included in the attainment strategy would not advance the attainment date or contribute to RFP 

due to the insignificant or unquantifiable emissions reductions they would potentially generate. 

See Appendix H in both the 2009 Plan and 2013 Plan Update for additional discussion of cost 

and advancement of attainment considerations used in the RACM analysis.

Since 2002, the Districts have adopted or amended approximately fifty-seven NOx and VOC

rules. In the context of the SIP, these can be broken into three groups: thirty-six have been 

approved into the SIP; thirteen have been submitted and are awaiting processing (e.g., approval 

into the SIP); and thirteen have not yet been submitted by the State. Reductions from rules not 

approved into the SIP will not receive credit towards attainment. A detailed summary of the 

Districts’ NOx and VOC rules adopted between 2002 and 2013 is provided in the TSD. These 

rules include controls on various NOx and VOC emissions from sources such as: boilers, process 

heaters, and steam generators; internal combustion engines; various coating operations; and 

solvent cleaning operations. 

The 2009 Plan includes commitments by the Districts “to adopt and implement new control 

measures that satisfy federal Reasonably Achievable Control Measure requirements and achieve, 

collectively with measures adopted by [the Districts], total emission reductions of 3 tons per day

VOC and 3 tons per day NOx in the [SMA].”

31 The 2009 Plan also includes a commitment by 

SMAQMD “to adopt and implement the Regional On-road Mobile Incentive Program that 

achieves total emission reductions of 0.1 ton per day of VOC and 0.7 ton per day of NOx in 

2011; 0.1 ton per day of VOC and 0.8 ton per day of NOx in 2014; 0.9 ton per day of NOx in 

 

31 See Resolution 2009-001, Board of Directors of the SMAQMD, January 22; 2009; Resolution 021-2009, Board of 

Directors of the EDCAQMD, February 10, 2009; Resolution 2009-002, Board of Directors of the FRAQMD, April 

7, 2009; Resolution 09-01, Board of Directors of the PCAQMD, February 19, 2009; Resolution 09-02, Board of 

Directors of the YSAQMD, February 11, 2009.
27

2017 and 2018 in the [SMA].”32 In 2013, the Districts updated the list of control measures that 

they committed to adopt and implement. The update reflected progress since adoption of the 

2009 Plan and changes resulting from the revised attainment demonstration in the 2013 Plan 

Update. Tables 6 and 7 list rule commitments by the Districts in the 2013 Plan Update. The 

Districts’ rule commitments in the 2013 Plan Update are expected to achieve emissions 

reductions of approximately 1 tpd of NOx and 3 tpd of VOC. See 2013 Plan Update, Section 7, 

Table 7-5. The commitments include new or amended rules for categories such as: architectural 

coatings, degreasing/solvent cleaning, automotive refinishing, and large water heaters and small 

boilers, and a mobile source incentive program. The 2009 Plan and 2013 Plan Updates also 

explain that if a particular measure or a portion thereof is found infeasible or does not get its 

expected emission reductions, the Districts still commit to achieving the total emission 

reductions necessary to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. The specific control measures as

adopted may provide more or less reductions than estimated in the 2013 Plan Update, and if 

“future air quality modeling or air quality improvements indicate that all of the emission 

reductions from the new measures are not necessary for attainment and an infeasibility finding is 

made for a control measure or a portion thereof, the region's SIP commitment can be adjusted 

downward.”33 Tables 6 and 7 show that the Districts have already adopted and implemented 

several new rules that help fulfill their commitments, and of these, EPA has approved or 

 

32 See Resolution 2009-001, Board of Directors of the SMAQMD, January 22; 2009. The FRAQMD and PCAPCD 

also adopted this commitment. See Resolution 2009-002, Board of Directors of the FRAQMD, April 7, 2009, and 

Resolution 09-01, Board of Directors of the PCAQMD, February 19, 2009. SMAQMD administers the Sacramento 

Emergency Clean Air & Transportation Grant Program (SECAT), which is expected to be the primary source of 

emission reductions for the Regional On-road Mobile Incentive Program. The emission reductions commitment for 

Regional On-road Mobile Incentive Program is also part of the commitment for new control measures to achieve 

emissions reductions of 3 tons per day VOC and 3 tons per day NOx in the SMA.

33 See page 7-13 of the 2013 Plan Update. Table 7-5 in the 2013 Plan Update provides additional details regarding 

the Districts commitments. 
28

proposed to approve submitted measures achieving approximately 1.0 tpd of NOx and 0.3 tpd of 

VOC. See table 10 in today’s notice.
Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 signed the following proposed rule on September 24, 2014, and EPA is submitting it for publication in 

the Federal Register (FR). While we have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this Internet version of the proposed rule, it is not the official version for 

purposes of public comment. Please refer to the official version in a forthcoming FR publication, which will appear on the Government Printing Office's FDsys 

website (http://fdsys.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/home.action) and on Regulations.gov

(http://www.regulations.gov) in Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0178.

Table 6. Districts’ Rule Adoption Commitments and Expected Reductions for NOx in Sacramento Ozone Plan 

Title District Rule No. Adoption 

Year

Expected 

Reduction 

(tpd)

Status

Boilers, Steam Generator, 

and Process Heaters YSAQMD 2.27 2016 0.2 Not yet adopted

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

2012)

Large Water Heaters and 

Small Boilers

EDCAQMD 239 2015 <0.1 Not yet adopted

FRAQMD 3.23 2016 0.0 Not yet adopted

PCAPCD CM2 

(247) 2015 <0.1

Proposed rulemaking and 

direct Final notices signed 

on September 5, 2014 and 

pending publication. 

YSAQMD 2.37 2009 0.2 75 FR 25778 (May 10, 

2010)

Regional Non-regulatory 

and Incentive Measuresa SMAQMD various various 0.5 Not yet adopted

Total 1.1

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

Program, and Urban Forest Development Program.
30

Table 7. Districts’ Rule Adoption Commitments and Expected VOC Reductions in the Sacramento Ozone 

Plan

Title District Rule No. Adoption 

Year

Expected 

Reduction 

(tpd)

Status

Architectural Coatings

EDCAQMD 215 2013 0.1 Not yet adopted

FRAQMD 3.15 2014 <0.1 Not yet adopted

PCAPCD 218 2012 0.2 76 FR 75795 (December 5, 

2011)

SMAQMD 442 2014 0.9 Not yet adopted

YSAQMD 2.14 2014 0.2 Not yet adopted

Automotive Refinishing

FRAQMD 3.19 2016 <0.1 Not yet adopted

PCAPCD 234 2015 <0.1 Not yet adopted

SMAQMD 459 2011 0.1 77 FR 47536 (August 9, 

2012)

YSAQMD 2.26 2008 <0.1 Adopted but not yet 

submitted to EPA

Degreasing/Solvent 

Cleaning

FRAQMD 3.14 2011 <0.1 Submitted to EPA on 

February 10, 2014

YSAQMD 2.24/ 2.31 2008 0.7 Submitted to EPA on 

February 10, 2014

Graphic Arts YSAQMD 2.29 2016 not available Not yet adopted

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

2011)

Natural Gas Production 

and Processing SMAQMD 461 2014 0.1 Not yet adopted

Regional Non-regulatory 

and Incentive Measuresa SMAQMD various various 0.1 Not yet adopted

Totals 2.7

a

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

Program, and Urban Forest Development Program.
31

b. CARB’s RACM Analysis and Adopted Control Strategy

Source categories for which CARB has primary responsibility for reducing emissions in 

California include most new and existing on- and off-road engines and vehicles, motor vehicle 

fuels, and consumer products. In addition, California has unique authority under CAA section 

209 (subject to a waiver by EPA) to adopt and implement new emission standards for many 

categories of on-road vehicles and engines, and new and in-use off-road vehicles and engines.

Given the need for significant emissions reductions from mobile and area sources to meet the 

NAAQS in California nonattainment areas, the State of California has been a leader in the 

development of some of the most stringent control measures nationwide for on-road and off-road 

mobile sources and the fuels that power them. These standards have reduced new car emissions 

by 99 percent and new truck emissions by 90 percent from uncontrolled levels. 2007 State 

Strategy, p. 37. The State is also working with EPA on goods movement activities and is 

implementing programs to reduce emissions from ship auxiliary engines, locomotives, harbor 

craft and new cargo handling equipment. In addition, the State has standards for lawn and garden 

equipment, recreational vehicles and boats, and other off-road sources that require newly 

manufactured equipment to be 80-98 percent cleaner than their uncontrolled counterparts. Id. 

Finally, the State has adopted many measures that focus on achieving reductions from in-use 

mobile sources that include more stringent inspection and maintenance (I/M) or “Smog Check” 

requirements, truck and bus idling restrictions, and various incentive programs. Since 1994 

alone, the State has taken more than 45 rulemaking actions and achieved most of the emissions 

reductions needed for attainment in the State’s nonattainment areas. See 2007 State Strategy, pp. 
32

36-40. As is noted in the 2007 State Strategy, EPA has approved California’s mobile source 

program as representing best available control measures.34

CARB developed its 2007 State Strategy after an extensive public consultation process to 

identify potential SIP measures.35 From this process, CARB identified and committed to propose 

15 new defined measures. These measures focus on cleaning up the in-use fleet as well as 

increasing the stringency of emissions standards for a number of engine categories, fuels, and 

consumer products. Many, if not most, of these measures have been adopted or are being 

proposed for adoption for the first time anywhere in the nation. They build on CARB’s already 

comprehensive program described above that addresses emissions from all types of mobile 

sources and consumer products, through both regulations and incentive programs. 

During its March 2009 adoption of the 2009 Plan, CARB committed to “achieve reductions 

of nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions of 13 tons per day (tpd) and reductions or reactive organic 

gas (ROG) emissions of 11 tpd through the implementation of measures identified in the 2007 

State Strategy.” See Resolution 09-19, CARB, March 26, 2009. 

In April 2009, CARB adopted the Revised 2007 State Strategy. This submittal updated the 

2007 State Strategy to reflect its implementation during 2007 and 2008 and calculated emission 

reductions in the SMA from implementation of the State Strategy. See Revised 2007 State 

Strategy, pages 12 and 19. Reductions in the SMA from the statewide measures in the 2007 State 

Strategy had not been quantified at that time and were not reflected in the Revised 2007 State 

Strategy. Table 8 below lists the defined measures and expected reductions in the Revised 2007 

 

34 See 2007 State Strategy, Appendix G, and 69 FR 5412 (February 4, 2004), 69 FR 30006 (May 26, 2004) 

(proposed and final approval of San Joaquin Valley PM10 plan). Also see 76 FR 57872 at 57879 (September 16, 

2011), 77 FR 12674 at 12693 (March 1, 2012) (proposed and final approval of South Coast 2007 Air Quality 

Management Plan for attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard). 

35 More information on this public process, including presentations from the workshops and symposium that 

preceded the adoption of the 2007 State Strategy, can be found at 

www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2007sip/2007sip.htm.
33

State Strategy, including a measure from the California Bureau of Automotive Repair.

36 The 

Revised 2007 State Strategy indicates that the State expects to achieve these emission reductions 

by the projected attainment year of 2018. In the Revised 2007 State Strategy, CARB provided

estimated emissions reductions for each measure to show that, when considered together, these 

measures can meet the total commitment. CARB states, however, that its enforceable 

commitment is to achieve specific emissions reductions for each pollutant by the given dates and 

not for a specific level of reductions from any specific measure. See Revised 2007 State 

Strategy, p. 13. A summary of the estimated and expected reductions from the proposed 

measures is provided in table 8 below.37 As shown, the State has already adopted almost all of 

the measures.

Table 8. Expected Emissions Reductions from Defined Measures in the Revised 2007 

State Strategy as Applicable to SMA, CARB Adoption Date, Expected Emissions 

Reductions (2018 planning inventory, tpd) and Current Status

Defined State Measure Adoption Date 2018 

NOx

2018 

VOC Current Status

Smog Check 

Improvements August 31, 2009 1.4 1.3

Elements approved, 75 

FR 38023 (July 1, 

2010)

Expanded Vehicle 

Retirement June 26, 2009 0.3 0.2 Not submitted to EPA 

Modifications to 

Reformulated Gasoline 

Program

June 14, 2007

-- 1.1

Approved, 75 FR 

26653 (May 12, 2010)

Cleaner In-use Heavy 

Duty Trucks

December 16, 

2010 9.5 0.8 Approved, 77 FR 20308, April 4, 2012.

Clean Up Existing Harbor 

Crafts

November 15, 

2007 0.2 0.0

Authorization granted,

76 FR 77521, 

December 13, 2011.

Cleaner In-Use Off-Road 

Equipment (over 25 hp)

December 17, 

2010 1.9 0.4

Authorization granted,

78 FR 58090, 

September 20, 2013.

 

36 See Staff Report, Analysis of Sacramento Metro Area’s 2009 State Implementation Plan for Ozone, CARB, 

March 12, 2009 (“CARB 2009 Staff Report”).

37 The 2013 Plan Update and CARB’s 2013 Staff Report include “Accelerated Introduction of Cleaner Line-Haul 

Locomotives” as a State measure in the Sacramento ozone nonattainment area, but this measure was not included in 

the Revised 2007 State Strategy and CARB 2009 Staff Report as part of the State’s original commitment. 
34

New Emissions Standards 

for Recreational Boats February 2015 0.3 3.0 Not yet adopted

Expanded Off-Road 

Recreational Vehicle 

Emissions Standards

July 25, 2013 0.0 2.7

Not yet approved by 

California’s Office of 

Administrative Law

Additional Evaporative 

Emission Standards (for 

Off-Road Sources) (e.g., 

Portable Outboard Marine 

Tanks and Components)

September 25, 

2008 -- 0.4

Similar to federal 

requirement at 40 CFR 

1060.105

Consumer Products 

Program 

November 17, 

2007

-- 1.9

Approved, 74 FR 

57074, November 4, 

2009

June 26, 2008 Approved, 76 FR 

27613, May 12, 2011

September 24, 

2009

Approved, 77 FR 7535, 

February 13, 2012

November 18, 

2010

Proposed rulemaking 

and direct final notices 

signed on August 5, 

2014 and pending 

publication. 

Total Emissions Reduction Commitment from 

CARB Measures 13 11

The TSD includes a list of all measures adopted by CARB between 1990 and 2013. These 

measures, reductions from which are reflected in the Sacramento Ozone Plan’s baseline 

inventories, fall into two categories: measures that are subject to a waiver of federal preemption 

or authorization to adopt under CAA section 209 (“waiver or authorization measures”) and those 

for which the State is not required to obtain a waiver or authorization (“non-waiver or nonauthorization measures”). Emissions reductions from waiver or authorization measures are fully 

creditable in attainment and RFP demonstrations and may be used to meet other CAA 

requirements, such as contingency measures. See EPA’s proposed approval of the San Joaquin 

Valley 1-hour ozone plan at 74 FR 33933, 33938 (July 14, 2009) and final approval at 75 FR 

10420 (March 8, 2010). The State’s baseline non-waiver or non-authorization measures have 

generally all been approved by EPA into the SIP and as such are fully creditable for meeting 
35

CAA requirements. Based on CARB’s adoption and implementation of measures in table 8 and 

emissions inventory estimates provided in CARB’s 2013 Staff Report, EPA has determined that 

CARB has essentially met its commitments in Resolution 09-19.

38

c. The Local Jurisdiction’s RACM Analysis

The local jurisdiction’s RACM analysis was conducted by the metropolitan planning 

organization (MPO) for the Sacramento Metro region, the Sacramento Area Council of 

Governments (SACOG). This analysis, which focused on transportation control measures 

(TCMs), and its results are described in Appendix D of the 2009 Plan and 2013 Plan Update. 

SACOG and SMAQMD jointly compiled a list of potential control measures from the 

following sources: Clean Air Act Section 108(f) measures; Measures considered in the San 

Francisco Bay Area, San Joaquin Valley and South Coast Air Quality Management District 

RACM analyses; a SMAQMD Workshop; and the Metropolitan Transportation Plan 2035 Draft 

Project List. The TCM development process and draft lists of potential TCMs were presented at

public meetings on ten different dates from September 10, 2007 – March 6, 2008. These included 

discussions at SACOG’s Regional Planning Partnership; Land Use, Housing and Air Quality 

Committee;

39 Transportation Committee; Flood Management Committee; Government Relations 

and Public Affairs Committee; and by the Board of Directors. This process resulted in a thorough 

list of control measures for consideration as potential TCMs, which could be considered as 

RACM.

 

38 The only remaining commitment measure in CARB’s Revised 2007 State Strategy as applicable in the SMA is a 

measure for new emissions standards for recreational boats. This measure is currently scheduled for a CARB Board 

hearing in February 2015

39 The Land Use, Housing and Air Quality Committee subsequently became the Climate and Air Quality Committee 

and later became part of Land Use and Natural Resource Committee.
36

Attachment A-2 in Appendix D of the 2013 Plan Update lists the potential control measures, 

organized by category, and notes whether they are considered RACM, and if not, the reasoned 

justification they were not found to be RACM. The measures that have been determined to be 

RACM were included in the Sacramento Ozone Plan as TCMs. 

3. Proposed Actions on RACM and Adopted Control Strategy

The State, Districts, and SACOG have identified and otherwise provided for the 

implementation of a comprehensive set of measures that are among the most stringent in the 

nation, and we are proposing to approve the RACM demonstration in the Sacramento Ozone 

Plan.

Because they will strengthen the California SIP and were included in the Districts’ list of 

RACM measures, we are proposing to approve the Districts’ commitments to adopt and 

implement specific control measures, to the extent that these commitments have not already been 

fulfilled, by the specific years described in tables 6 and 7 above and in Section 7 of the 2013 Plan 

Update. 

Based on our review of the State’s RACM analysis and adopted rules, we propose to find that 

the Sacramento Ozone Plan provides for implementation of all RACM necessary to demonstrate 

expeditious attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard and to meet any related RFP 

requirements in the SMA, consistent with the applicable requirements of CAA section 172(c)(1) 

and 40 CFR 51.912.

D. Attainment Demonstration

1. Requirements for Attainment Demonstrations

CAA section 172(c) and 182 requires a state to submit a plan for each of its subpart 2 

nonattainment areas that demonstrates attainment of the applicable ambient air quality standard 
37

as expeditiously as practicable but no later than the specified attainment date. Under the ozone 

implementation rule, an attainment demonstration must meet the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.112. The adequacy of an attainment demonstration shall be demonstrated by means of a 

photochemical grid model or any other analytical method determined by the Administrator, in 

the Administrator's discretion, to be at least as effective. CAA section 182(c)(2)(A). For each 

nonattainment area, the state must provide for implementation of all control measures needed for 

attainment no later than the beginning of the attainment year ozone season.

2. Air Quality Modeling

CAA section 182(c)(2)(A) requires SIPs for ozone nonattainment areas to include a 

“demonstration that the plan, as revised, will provide for attainment of the ozone [NAAQS] by 

the applicable attainment date. This attainment demonstration must be based on photochemical 

grid modeling or any other analytical method determined by the Administrator, in the 

Administrator's discretion, to be at least as effective.” Air quality modeling is used to establish 

emissions attainment targets, that is, the combination of emissions of ozone precursors that the 

area can accommodate without exceeding the relevant standard, and to assess whether the 

proposed control strategy will result in attainment of that standard. Air quality modeling is 

performed for a base year and compared to air quality monitoring data from that year in order to 

evaluate model performance. Once the performance is determined to be acceptable, future year 

changes to the emissions inventory are simulated to determine the relationship between 

emissions reductions and changes in ambient air quality throughout the air basin. The procedures 

for modeling ozone as part of an attainment demonstration are contained in EPA's “Guidance on 

the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for 
38

the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS and Regional Haze”40 (“Guidance”).

The air quality modeling that underpins the 2013 Plan Update is described in Chapter 6 and 

documented in Appendix B. We provide a brief description of the modeling and a summary of 

our evaluation of it below. More detailed information about the modeling and our evaluation are 

available in section V of the TSD. 

The 2013 Plan Update uses the same model results, including the modeling protocol,

41 air 

quality modeling selection, episode selection, model domain and spatial resolution, boundary and 

initial conditions, meteorological model selection and set-up, and emission inventory set-up as 

was used in the 2007 San Joaquin Valley (SJV) Ozone Plan approved by EPA on March 1, 2012 

(77 FR 12652). The 2007 SJV Ozone Plan also includes an extensive meteorological and air 

quality model performance evaluation over the modeling domain.

The 2013 Plan Update, Appendix B, includes an additional air quality model performance 

evaluation over the Sacramento nonattainment area, including a statistical analysis demonstrating 

adequate overall model performance. The attainment demonstration for a given monitoring 

location used only those days that satisfied a number of performance criteria. 

The 2013 Plan Update’s Appendix B also includes documentation on the Relative Reduction 

Factors, which are the key results from the model for use in the attainment test. Additionally, 

results of modeling runs with various combinations of VOC and NOx reductions are included to 

illustrate alternative control strategies and establish a “carrying capacity,” a combination of VOC 

and NOx emissions consistent with attainment of the ozone standard. Emission reductions using 

 

40 “Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for the 

8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS and Regional Haze”, EPA-454/B-07-002, April 2007. Additional EPA modeling 

guidance can be found in “Guideline on Air Quality Models” in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W.

41

 “Photochemical Modeling Protocol for Developing Strategies to Attain the Federal 8-hour Ozone Air Quality 

Standard in Central California,” California Air Resources Board, May 22, 2007.
39

an updated baseline and future emission inventory were also compared to existing model results 

and found sufficient to achieve attainment. EPA proposes to conclude that the attainment tests 

are adequate and consistent with EPA guidance.

In addition to a modeled attainment demonstration, which focuses on locations with an air 

quality monitor, EPA generally requires an unmonitored area analysis. The unmonitored area 

analysis uses a combination of model output and ambient data to identify areas that might exceed 

the NAAQS if monitors were located there. It ensures that a control strategy leads to reductions 

in ozone in unmonitored locations that might have baseline (and future) ambient ozone levels 

exceeding the NAAQS. In order to examine unmonitored areas in all portions of the modeling 

domain, EPA recommends use of interpolated spatial fields of ambient data combined with 

gridded modeled outputs. Guidance, p. 29. The CARB Staff Report, Appendix F includes an 

unmonitored area analysis using EPA’s MATS software. Based on this analysis CARB 

concluded that there are no unmonitored ozone peaks in the modeling domain that would violate 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standards. 

Finally, the 2013 Ozone Plan’s Chapter 10 includes a “weight-of-evidence demonstration,” 

containing supplemental analyses in support of the attainment demonstration. These analyses 

include ozone air quality trends, meteorologically adjusted ozone trends, and precursor emission 

trends, all of which show continued progress and support the conclusion that the attainment 

demonstration is sound.

Based on our review, EPA proposes to find that the air quality modeling provides an 

adequate basis for the RACM/RACT, RFP, and attainment demonstrations in the Sacramento 

2013 8-Hour Ozone SIP.

3. Attainment Demonstration
40

EPA’s review and analysis of the State’s attainment demonstration involves evaluating 

measures adopted and approved by EPA (through rulemaking, waiver, or authorizations) and 

measures not yet submitted to EPA. Tables 9 and 10 show State and Districts measures approved 

by EPA and credited towards attainment.42

Although the majority of the measures in the State’s Revised 2007 State Strategy have been 

approved by EPA, a small number of measures have not, including Expanded Vehicle 

Retirement, Expanded Off-Road Recreational Vehicle Emissions Standards, and New Emissions 

Standards for Recreational Boats.43 Of these, only the latter measure has not yet been adopted by 

CARB. In Resolution 13-39 to adopt the 2013 Plan Update, the CARB Board indicated that the 

State and the Districts had completed adoption of regulations that achieve emissions reductions 

necessary to demonstrate attainment. The State did not rely on reductions from the three 

aforementioned measures in its attainment demonstration.

Table 9. Creditable State Measures Applicable to SMA, Adoption Dates, and Current 

Status

Defined State Measures Adoption Date EPA Approval

Smog Check Improvements August 31, 2009 Elements approved, 75 FR 38023 

(July 1, 2010)

Modifications to Reformulated 

Gasoline Program June 14, 2007 Approved, 75 FR 26653 (May 12, 2010)

 

42 The 2013 Plan Update and CARB’s 2013 Staff Report describe nonregulatory programs providing emissions 

reductions through agreements resulting in replacement of older locomotives with cleaner engines. The Union 

Pacific (UP) rail yard located in Roseville has benefitted from programs targeting NOx and Particulate Matter (PM) 

emissions. ARB utilized Proposition 1B Goods Movement Emission Reduction Program (“Prop 1B”) funding for 15 

Tier 2 “regional” line haul locomotives. UP also operates six ultra-low emitting genset switch locomotives within 

the Roseville rail yards. The UP 9900, an experimental Tier 3+ locomotive (Tier 4 PM, and Tier 3+ NOx), has been 

assigned to UP Roseville and operates primarily in Northern California. CARB’s 2013 Staff Report indicates 0.07 

tpd of NOx reduction from the State’s Prop 1B. EPA is not crediting the 0.07 tpd NOx reduction associated with 

Prop 1B in the Sacramento attainment demonstration because an enforceable measure supporting the reductions has 

not been submitted to and approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP. EPA has adopted federal engines standards for 

locomotives and the resulting reductions from the federal standards are credited in the 2018 inventory. See 73 FR 

37096 (June 30, 2008) and 40 CFR part 1033, 1065, and 1068 for more details regarding the federal locomotive 

standards.

43 On July 25, 2013, the CARB Board adopted a measure to reduce emissions from off-highway recreational 

vehicles. The final rulemaking package has not been approved by State’s OAL. For additional information about this 

measure and its status, see http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2013/ohrv2013/ohrv2013.htm.
41

Cleaner In-use Heavy Duty 

Trucks December 16, 2010a Approved 77 FR 20308, April 4, 2012.

Clean Up Existing Harbor Crafts November 15, 2007 Authorization granted; 76 FR 

77521, December 13, 2011.

Cleaner In-Use Off-Road 

Equipment (over 25 hp) December 17, 2010 Authorization granted; (78 FR 58090, 9/20/13).

Additional Evaporative Emission 

Standards (for Off-Road Sources) 

(e.g., Portable Outboard Marine 

Tanks and Components) 

September 25, 2008

Similar to federal requirement at 

40 CFR 1060.105.

Consumer Products Program 

November 17, 2007 Approved, 74 FR 57074, 

November 4, 2009.

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

2011.

September 24, 2009 Approved, 77 FR 7535, February 

13, 2012.

November 18, 2010

Proposed rulemaking and direct 

final notices signed on August 5, 

2014 and pending publication. 

a On April 25, 2014, the CARB Board approved Resolution 14-3 to revise CARB’s Truck and Bus Rule. The final 

rulemaking package with the revisions to the Truck and Bus Rule has not yet been submitted to the State’s Office of 

Administrative Law (OAL) for their approval.

The Districts have made progress in adopting measures committed to in the 2009 Plan and 

2013 Plan Update. Table 10 lists the Districts’ prior commitment measures in the 2013 Plan 

Update that have been adopted and subsequently approved by EPA. These prior commitment 

measures provide reductions that EPA is now crediting in the State’s attainment demonstration 

below in table 11. 

Table 10. Creditable Reductions from New Districts Measures Approved by EPA, 

Estimated Emissions Reductions (2018 planning inventory, tpd), and Current Status

Rule No. Rule Title

Reductions

EPA Approval

NOx VOC

YSAQMD 2.37 Large Water Heaters and 

Small Boilers 0.5 -

75 FR 25778 (May 10, 

2010)

PCAPCD 218 Architectural Coatings - 0.2 75 FR 18068

(December 5, 2011)
42

PCAPCD 245 Surface Coating of Metal 

Parts and Products - <0.1 76 FR 30025(May 24, 2011)

SMAQMD 459 Automotive Refinishing - 0.1 77 FR 47536

(August 9, 2012)

FRAQMD 3.22 Internal Combustion 

Engines <0.1 -

77 FR 12493 (March 1, 

2012)

PCAPCD 247

Natural Gas-Fired Water 

Heaters, Small Boilers, 

and Process Heaters

0.5 -

Proposed rulemaking and 

direct final notices signed 

on September 5, 2014 and 

pending publication.

Totals 1.0 0.3

Table 11 below summarizes the attainment demonstration and associated reductions that are 

relied upon in the SMA to demonstrate attainment by June 15, 2019. Lines A and B are the 2002 

and 2018 baseline inventories in CARB’s 2013 Staff Report. Line C1 in table 11 represents

adjustments made by EPA to remove credit for reductions for measures that are not yet in the 

SIP but for which the State had taken credit for in the baseline inventory in line B. Line C2

represents adjustments made by EPA for reductions from recent measures approved into the SIP 

that were not credited by the State in Line B. The attainment target in line E was derived from 

the Sacramento Ozone Plan’s air quality modeling analysis. After accounting for all creditable 

measures and then comparing the remaining inventory against the attainment target, the NOx and 

VOC targets have been met. Therefore, the Sacramento Ozone Plan adequately demonstrates 

attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS by June 15, 2019.

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

b See TSD

Table 11. Summary of SMA Attainment Demonstration for 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS 

(tons per average summer weekday)

NOx VOC

A. CARB adjusted 2002 emissions inventory with existing controls a164.8 146.7

B. CARB adjusted 2018 emissions inventory with existing controls a76.9 98.7

C1. EPA adjustments for measures credited by State in Line B for 

which EPA has determined are not creditable at this time b +0.5 +1.5

C2. EPA adjustments for measures approved by EPA (see table 10) 

but not credited by State in adjusted 2018 inventory in Line B. -1.0 -0.3
43

c CARB 2013 Staff Report, table B2. 

4. Proposed Action on the Attainment Demonstration

In order to approve a SIP’s attainment demonstration, EPA must make several findings and 

approve the plan’s proposed attainment date.

First, we must find that the demonstration’s technical bases, including the emissions 

inventories and air quality modeling, are adequate. As discussed above in sections IV.B and 

IV.D.2, we are proposing to approve the emissions inventories and air quality modeling on 

which the Sacramento Ozone Plan’s attainment demonstration and other provisions are based.

Second, we must find that the SIP submittal provides for expeditious attainment through the 

implementation of all RACM. As discussed above in section IV.C.2, we are proposing to 

approve the RACM demonstration in the Sacramento Ozone Plan as meeting the requirements of 

CAA section 172(c)(1).

Third, EPA must find that the emissions reductions that are relied on for attainment are 

creditable. As discussed above in section IV.D.3, and detailed in the TSD, control measures 

providing creditable emission reductions sufficient to demonstrate attainment in the SMA have 

been approved by EPA. 

For the foregoing reasons, we are proposing to approve the attainment demonstration in the 

Sacramento Ozone Plan.

E. Rate of Progress and Reasonable Further Progress Demonstrations

1. Requirements for Rate of Progress 

Section 182(b)(1) requires, for areas classified as moderate or above, a SIP revision 

providing for rate of progress (ROP), defined as a reduction from the adjusted 1990 baseline 

D. EPA adjusted 2018 inventory with controls (Line B + Line C1 + 

Line C2)

76.4 99.9

E. 2018 attainment target c76.5 107.1

Attainment target met? (Is Line D less than Line E?) Yes Yes
44

emissions of at least 15% actual emissions of VOC, taking into account growth, during the first 6 

years following 1990 (i.e., 3 percent per year reduction from 1990 to 1996). In addition, 40 CFR 

51.905(a)(iii) provides that “If the area has an outstanding obligation for an approved 1-hour 

ROP SIP, it must develop and submit to EPA all outstanding 1-hour ROP plans.” Because EPA 

has not yet approved the entire 1-hour ROP plan for the SMA, we are addressing the remaining 

requirement as part of today’s action.44

The CAA outlines and EPA guidance details the method for calculating the requirements for 

the 1990-1996 period. Section 182(b)(1) requires that reductions: (1) be in addition to those 

needed to offset any growth in emissions between the base year and the milestone year; (2) 

exclude emission reductions from four prescribed federal programs (i.e., the federal motor 

vehicle control program (FMVCP), the federal Reid vapor pressure (RVP) requirements, any 

RACT corrections previously specified by EPA, and any Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) 

program corrections necessary to meet the basic I/M level); and (3) be calculated from an 

“adjusted” baseline relative to the year for which the reduction is applicable. 

The adjusted base year inventory excludes the emission reductions from fleet turnover 

between 1990 and 1996 and from Federal RVP regulations promulgated by November 15, 1990 

or required under section 211(h) of the Act. The net effect of these adjustments is that states are 

not able to take credit for emissions reductions that would result from fleet turnover of current 

federal standard cars and trucks, or from already existing federal fuel regulations. However, the 

SIP can take full credit for the benefits of any new (i.e., post-1990) vehicle emissions standards, 

as well as any other new federal or state motor vehicle or fuel program that will be implemented 

in the nonattainment area, including Tier I exhaust standards, new evaporative emissions 

 

44 In its March 18, 1996 proposed rulemaking, EPA proposed to approve the Sacramento post-1996 ROP plan, and 

on January 8, 1997 EPA finalized the Sacramento post-1996 ROP. See 62 FR 1174.
45

standards, reformulated gasoline, enhanced inspection and maintenance, California low 

emissions vehicle program, transportation control measures, etc.

2. ROP Demonstration.

On November 15, 1993, in response to the 15 percent ROP requirements in section 

182(b)(1)(A) of the Act, the State submitted ROP plans for Sacramento and other moderate and 

above nonattainment areas in California. The 1993 submittal was superseded by revised ROP 

plans submitted one year later. On November 15, 1994, CARB submitted a revision to the “State 

of California Implementation Plan for Achieving and Maintaining the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards.”45 The SIP revision included: (a) the State’s comprehensive ozone plan; (b) 

the State’s previously adopted regulations; and (c) local plans addressing the ozone attainment 

demonstration and ROP requirements, including the “Sacramento Area Proposed Attainment and 

Rate-of-Progress Plans.” On December 29, 1994, the State replaced the Sacramento proposed 

Attainment and ROP Plan with the “Sacramento Area Attainment and Rate-of-Progress Plans.”

In its March 18, 1996 notice of proposed rulemaking on the State’s submittals (See 61 FR 

10920), EPA indicated they would defer action on the portion of the Sacramento ROP plan 

applying to the initial 15 percent demonstration. On January 8, 1997, EPA finalized its actions on 

the State’s ROP submittals, and again deferred action the portion of the Sacramento ROP plan

addressing the 15 percent reduction for the 1990-1996 time frame (See 62 FR 1174).

On February 24, 2006, the State submitted the 2002-2008 RFP Plan, which included 

Appendix F, “1990-1996 15 Percent Reduction Demonstration” for the Sacramento ozone 

nonattainment area (“15 percent ROP demonstration”).46 The revised 15 percent ROP 

 

45 See CARB Executive Order G-125-335 (February 24, 2006) and letter from Catherine Witherspoon, Executive 

Officer, CARB, to Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, letter with enclosures (February 13, 

2013).

46 The February 24, 2006 submittal letter from Catherine Witherspoon, Executive Officer, CARB, to Wayne Nastri, 
46

demonstration uses a 1990 average summer weekday emissions inventory as the base year 

inventory and addresses 1990-1996. A summary of the 15 percent ROP demonstration is 

provided below in table 12. As the table shows, the Sacramento nonattainment area exceeds the 

required 15 percent reduction for 1990-1996 timeframe. Significant measures put in place prior 

to or during the 1990-1996 period and relied upon in 15 percent ROP Plan included:

Reformulated Gasoline - Phases I and II, Low Emission Vehicles and Clean Fuels, Consumer 

Products - Phases I and II, and Antiperspirants/Deodorants. In addition, the Districts adopted and 

implemented numerous solvent and coatings rules to reduce VOC emissions. The TSD for 

today’s action includes compilations of CARB’s and the Districts’ measures adopted since 1990.

Table 12. 15% Rate-of-Progress Analysis (1-hour ozone)

VOC Emission Calculations tons/daya

1. 1990 baseline VOC inventory 236

2. Non-creditable FMVCP/RVP adjustments 7

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

4. 1996 VOC inventory forecast with existing controls + ERCs 189

5.a. 1996 Reductions from adjusted 1990 baseline (Line 3 - Line 4) 40

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

6. 1996 Forecasted VOC creditable reductions since 1990 (Line 5.a - Line 

5.b) 37

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

Line 3) 16%

8. RFP % Reduction required from 1990 adjusted baseline VOC inventory 15%

9. Forecasted % VOC surplus (Line 8 – Line 7) 1%

a

Sacramento Regional Nonattainment Area 8-Hour Ozone Reasonable Further Progress Plan 2002-2008, February 

2006, Appendix F: 1990-1996 15 Percent Reduction Demonstration.

3. Requirements for Reasonable Further Progress 

CAA sections 172(c)(2) and 182(b)(1) require plans for nonattainment areas to provide for 

reasonable further progress (RFP). RFP is defined in section 171(1) as “such annual incremental 

 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, highlights the 15 percent ROP demonstration as a significant part of the 

2002-2008 RFP Plan submittal. See Executive Order G-125.335. In addition, the resolutions adopted by the Districts 

boards include language approving the 15% ROP demonstration. E.g., See SMAQMD Resolution No. 2006-010. 
47

reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required by this part or may 

reasonably be required by the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the 

applicable [NAAQS] by the applicable date.”

The ozone implementation rule requires submittal of an RFP plan at the same time as the 

attainment demonstration. CAA section 182(c)(2)(B) requires that ozone nonattainment areas 

classified as serious or higher to submit no later than 3 years after designation for the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS an RFP SIP providing for an average of 3 percent per year of VOC and/or NOX 

emissions reductions for (1) the 6-year period immediately following the baseline year; and (2) 

all remaining 3-year periods after the first 6-year period out to the area's attainment date.

The RFP plan must describe the control measures that provide for meeting the reasonable 

further progress milestones for the area, the timing of implementation of those measures, and the 

expected reductions in emissions of attainment plan precursors. See 40 CFR 51.910(a).

a. NOx substitution

The implementation rule interprets the RFP requirements for the 1997 ozone standard, and

requires that 8-hour nonattainment areas classified under subpart 2 as moderate and above 

achieve a 15 percent VOC emission reduction, accounting for growth, in the first 6 years after 

the baseline. 40 CFR 51.910(a)(1). CAA Section 182(c)(2)(C) allows for the substitution of NOx

emission reductions in place of VOC reductions to meet the RFP requirements. Because 

Sacramento is classified as Severe-15, if the State intends to use NOx substitution to meet its 

RFP milestones, it must demonstrate, and EPA must approve, a demonstration showing a 15

percent VOC reduction in the first six years after the baseline for the Sacramento Area. See 40 

CFR 51.910(a)(1)(ii). Upon EPA approval of the 15 percent VOC reduction, any VOC reduction 

shortfalls in the RFP demonstration can be met by using NOx emission reductions. According to 
48

EPA’s NOx Substitution Guidance,47 the substitution of NOx reductions for VOC reductions 

must be done on a percentage basis, rather than a straight ton-for-ton exchange. There are two 

steps for substituting NOx for VOC. First, an equivalency demonstration must show that the 

cumulative RFP emission reductions are consistent with the NOx and VOC emission reductions 

determined in the ozone attainment modeling demonstration. Second, specified reductions in 

NOx and VOC emissions should be accomplished in the interim period between the 2002 base 

year and the attainment date, consistent with the continuous RFP emission reduction 

requirement.

4. RFP Demonstrations

The RFP demonstrations for the 1997 ozone standard are found in three documents: the 

2002-2008 RFP Plan, 2009 Plan, and the 2013 Plan Update. The demonstrations address VOC 

and NOx for 2011, 2014, 2017 milestone years and the 2018 attainment year, and use the 2002 

average summer weekday emissions inventory as the base year inventory. The most significant 

State measures providing reductions during the 2002-2018 time frame and relied upon for the 

RFP demonstration include Low Emission Vehicles II and III standards, Zero Emissions Vehicle 

standards, California Reformulated Gasoline Phase 3, and Cleaner In-Use Heavy-Duty Trucks. 

The TSD for today’s action includes a compilation of CARB measures adopted between 1990–

2013. State measures adopted since 2007 and the estimated reductions, are described in the IV.C 

and IV.D of this notice. Additional information regarding implementation and expected 

reductions from CARB’s adopted measures is also available on CARB’s rulemaking activity web

site.48

 

47 Environmental Protection Agency (OAQPS), “NOx Substitution Guidance”, December 1993.

48 See http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/regact.htm.
49

The RFP demonstration is expressed in terms of cumulative emissions reductions and percent 

of emissions reductions per year. For example, see table 13-1 in the 2013 Ozone Plan. The 

demonstration in the 2013 Plan Update supersedes the previously submitted demonstration for 

2014, 2017, and 2018 in the 2009 Plan. For 2008 and 2011, EPA adjusted and revised the 

demonstrations in the 2002-2008 RFP Plan and 2009 Plan. This was necessary because the 

State’s 2013 Plan Update did not include RFP demonstrations for the milestones years that had 

already passed (i.e., 2008 and 2011). The corrections are detailed in the TSD supporting today’s 

action.

The RFP demonstrations indicate the combination of VOC and NOx reductions for each of 

the milestone years are in excess of the RFP targets. The excess serves as a contingency measure 

reserve and provides the 3 percent of emission reductions necessary to meet the contingency 

measure requirement for each milestone year. See table 13-1 of 2013 Plan Update. We discuss 

this contingency reserve below in the section on contingency measures. For the purposes of our 

evaluation of the RFP demonstration as presented in table 13 below, we have included the 

contingency reserve on Line 24. This allows us to evaluate if the 2013 Ozone Plan would 

demonstrate the required RFP with the contingency reserve. We note that the RFP demonstration 

presented in table 13 is based on the State’s estimate of the emissions levels needed for 

attainment in the 2013 Plan Update.

Table 13. Calculation of RFP Demonstrations for SMA

VOC Emission Calculations (tons/day) 2002 2008a

2011b2014c2017c2018c

1. 2002 Baseline VOC inventoryc

147 147 147 147 147 147

2. Non-creditable FMVCP/RVP 

adjustmentsd 0 13e

11e11 12 12

3. Adjusted 2002 baseline VOC inventory 

(Line 1 – Line 2) 134 136 136 135 135

4. VOC emissions forecast with existing 

controls + ERCs 120e

120e106 100 99
50

5. Adjustments to remove reductions from 

measures not yet approved by EPAf

- 2 2 2 2

6. RFP commitment for VOC reductions 

from new measures

- 0 0 0 0

7. Forecasted VOC creditable reductions 

since 2002 (ine 3 - Line 4 - Line 5 + Line 

6)

15 15 28 33 34

8. Forecasted % VOC reductions since 

2002 (Line 7 ÷ Line 3)

11% 11% 21% 25% 26%

9. RFP % reduction required from 2002 

adjusted baseline VOC inventoryg 18% 27% 36% 45% 48%

10. Forecasted % VOC shortfall (Line 9 –

Line 8) 7% 16% 15% 20% 22%

11. VOC shortfall previously addressed 

provided by NOx substitution % - 7% 16% 16% 20%

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

NOx Emission Calculations (tons/day) 2002 2008a

2011b2014c2017c2018c

13. 2002 Baseline NOx inventorya

165 165 165 165 165 165

14. Non-creditable FMVCP adjustmentsd

0 7

e

11

e

10 11 11

15. Adjusted 2002 baseline NOx inventory 

(Line 13 – Line 14)

158 154 155 154 154

16. NOx emissions forecast with existing 

controls + ERCs 126e

126

e

93 80 77

17. Adjustments to remove reductions 

from measures not yet approved by EPAf 0 3 1 1

18. RFP commitment for NOx reductions 

from new measures

0 0 0 0

19. Forecasted NOx creditable reductions 

since 2002 (Line 15 - Line 16 - Line 17 +

Line 18)

32 29 59 74 76

20. Forecasted % NOx reductions since 

2002 (Line 19 ÷ Line 16)

21% 19% 38% 48% 50%

21. NOx previously used for VOC 

shortfall by NOx substitution %

0% 7% 16% 16% 20%

22. NOx available for VOC shortfall by 

NOx substitution and contingency %

21% 12% 22% 32% 30%

23. NOx substitution needed for VOC 

shortfall % (Same as Line 12)

7% 9% 0% 4% 2%

24. Forecasted % NOx reduction surplus 

(Line 22 – Line 23)

14% 3% 22% 28% 27%

25. Contingency measure reserve 

achieved? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

26. RFP achieved? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
51

a Sacramento Regional Nonattainment Area 8-Hour Ozone Reasonable Further Progress Plan 2002-2008, February 

2006, Chapter 6, table 6-1.

b Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan, December 19, 2008, 

Chapter 5, tables 5-2 and 5-3, adjusted by EPA.

c Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan, September 26, 2013, 

Chapter 13, table 13-1.

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

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

f See TSD. Does not include EPA adjustments for measures approved by EPA (see table 10) but not yet credited by 

State in RFP demonstration.

gRFP reduction requirements contained in EPA’s Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS (Phase 2) 

published in the November 29, 2005 Federal Register. See 70 FR 70612.

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

5. Proposed Action on the ROP and RFP Demonstrations

EPA has reviewed the ROP and RFP demonstrations in the 2002-2008 RFP Plan, 2009 Plan, 

and the 2013 Plan Update and has determined that they were prepared consistent with applicable 

EPA regulations and policies. As seen in table 12, the Sacramento nonattainment area achieves 

the 15 percent VOC ROP for the 1990-1996 timeframe. Because the Sacramento area has 

achieved a 15 percent VOC emission reduction, accounting for growth, in the first 6 years after 

the 1990 baseline, the area is eligible to use NOx substitution in its RFP demonstration for the 

1997 ozone standard. As seen in table 13, emissions reductions for VOC and NOX, after setting 

aside a 3 percent contingency measures reserve, are below the RFP percent reduction targets for 

2008, 2011, 2014, 2017, and 2018 and demonstrate that the SMA has met its RFP targets. 

Based on our evaluation above, we propose to find that: Appendix F of the 2002-2008 RFP 

Plan provides for VOC reductions of at least 15 percent from 1990 baseline emissions as 

required by CAA section 182(b)(1); the 2002-2008 RFP Plan provides for at least an 18 percent

reduction (VOC with NOx substitution) from 2002 baseline emissions as required by CAA 

section 182(b)(1) and 40 CFR 51.910; and (3) the 2009 Plan and 2013 Plan Update provide for at 

least a 3 percent annual reduction (VOC with NOx substitution) averaged over a consecutive 3-

year period for the SMA to meet its RFP milestones for 2011, 2014, 2017, and 2018 as required 

by CAA section 182(c)(2)(B) and 40 CFR 51.910.
52

F. Contingency Measures

1. Requirements for Contingency Measures

Under the CAA, ozone nonattainment areas classified under subpart 2 as moderate or above 

must include in their SIPs contingency measures consistent with sections 172(c)(9) and 

182(c)(9). Contingency measures are additional measures to be implemented in the event the 

area fails to meet an RFP milestone or fails to attain by the applicable attainment date. These 

contingency measures must be fully adopted rules or control measures that are ready to be 

implemented upon failure to meet the milestones or attainment. The SIP should contain trigger 

mechanisms for the contingency measures, specify a schedule for implementation, and indicate 

that the measure will be implemented without significant further action by the state or by EPA. 

See 68 FR 32802 at 32837 and 70 FR 71612 at 71650.

Additional guidance on the CAA contingency measure provisions is found in the General 

Preamble, 57 FR 13498, 13510–13512 and 13520. The guidance indicates that states should 

adopt and submit contingency measures sufficient to provide a 3 percent emissions reduction 

from the adjusted RFP baseline. EPA concludes this level of reductions is generally acceptable to

offset emission increases while states are correcting their SIPs. These reductions should be 

beyond what is needed to meet the attainment and/or RFP requirement. States may use

reductions of either VOC or NOX or a combination of both to meet the contingency measure 

requirements. 57 FR at 13520, footnote 6.

EPA guidance provides that contingency measures may be implemented early, i.e., prior to 

the milestone or attainment date.49 Consistent with this policy, states are allowed to use excess 

reductions from already adopted measures to meet the CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9)

 

49 Memorandum, G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch to Air Directors, “Contingency 

Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Redesignations,” June 1, 1992.
53

contingency measures requirement. This is because the purpose of contingency measures is to 

provide extra reductions that are not relied on for RFP or attainment, and that will provide a

cushion while the plan is being revised to fully address the failure to meet the required milestone. 

Nothing in the CAA precludes a state from implementing such measures before they are 

triggered. This approach has been approved by EPA in numerous SIPs. See 62 FR 15844 (April 

3, 1997) (approval of the Indiana portion of the Chicago area 15 percent ROP plan); 62 FR 

66279 (December 18, 1997) (approval of the Illinois portion of the Chicago area 15 percent ROP 

plan); 66 FR 30811 (June 8, 2001) (proposed approval of the Rhode Island post-1996 ROP plan); 

66 FR 586 and 66 FR 634 (January 3, 2001) (approval of the Massachusetts and Connecticut 1-

hour ozone attainment demonstrations). In the only adjudicated challenge to this approach, the 

court upheld it. See LEAN v. EPA, 382 F.3d 575 (5th Cir. 2004). 70 FR 71612 at 71651.

2. Contingency Measures in the Sacramento Ozone Plan

The Sacramento Ozone Plan relies on emission reductions in excess of RFP as contingency 

measures if the SMA fails to meet RFP requirements. If the SMA fails to attain by June 15, 

2019, the Sacramento Ozone Plan relies on additional incremental emissions reductions in 2019

from fleet turnover resulting from continued implementation of measures in the Revised 2007 

State Strategy.

Contingency measures for failure to make RFP. To provide for contingency measures for 

failure to make RFP, the SIP relies on surplus NOX reductions in the RFP demonstration. Table 

13 demonstrates that milestone years (i.e., 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017) and the attainment year (i.e., 

2018) have NOx reductions exceeding what is required for RFP and the 3 percent contingency.

Contingency measures for failure to attain. To provide contingency measures for failure to 

attain, the SIP relies on the additional incremental emissions reductions resulting from fleet 
54

turnover in calendar year 2019 (the year after the attainment year). Additional emissions 

reductions resulting from turnover in the on- and off-road mobile source fleet in 2019 may be 

used to meet the attainment contingency measure requirement. Table 14 below demonstrates that 

the Sacramento Ozone Plan has sufficient VOC reductions in 2019 to provide at least a three 

percent reserve for use as a possible attainment contingency measure. In addition, the 

Sacramento Ozone Plan also provides NOx reductions in 2019 that are available for use in 

support of the attainment contingency measure, although the NOx reductions alone do not 

provide a three percent reserve unless combined with a portion of the VOC reductions.

Table 14. Calculation of Post-2018 Attainment Contingency Measure 

Emission Calculations

VOC

tpd

NOx

tpd

A. 2018 Attainment Year Inventory Target 107.1 76.5

B. CARB 2019 Emissions Forecast 99.8 74.4

C. EPA Adjustments to 2019 Inventory +1.5 +0.5

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

E. Forecasted 2019 Creditable Reductions (Since 2018) 

Exceeding the Attainment Target Since 2018 (Line A – Line 

D) 5.8 1.6

F. Forecasted Percent Reductions Since 2018 (Line E ÷ Line 

D) 5.7% 2.1%

G. Percent Reduction Required From 2018 Adjusted Baseline 

Inventory 3% naa

H. Attainment Contingency Measure Met? (Is Line F > or = 

Line G?) Yes naa

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

These reductions are from fully creditable measures. They are not relied on to demonstrate 

either attainment or RFP. For these reasons, these post-2018 emissions reductions may be used to 

fulfill the attainment contingency measure requirement.

As discussed above, EPA is proposing to approve both the RFP and attainment 

demonstrations in the Sacramento Ozone Plan because we have determined the Sacramento 

Ozone Plan provides sufficient VOC emissions reductions to meet these requirements. 
55

3. Proposed Action on the Contingency Measures

Contingency measures for failure to make RFP. As discussed above in section IV.D, we are 

proposing to approve the SMA’s RFP demonstration. As shown in the RFP demonstration in 

table 13, there are excess NOx reductions of 3 percent or greater in each milestone year. These 

excess reductions are beyond those needed to meet the next RFP percent reduction requirement 

and address the RFP contingency measure requirement for 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017, and 2018.

Contingency measures for failure to attain. The incremental additional emissions reductions 

that will occur in 2019 (the year after the attainment year) from the continuing implementation of 

both on- and off-road motor vehicle controls may be used to meet the contingency measure 

requirement for failure to attain. As shown in table 14, there is excess VOC reductions of 3 

percent or greater in 2019. These excess reductions fulfill the attainment contingency measure 

requirement for 2019.

The Sacramento Ozone Plan includes measures and reductions that collectively meet the 

CAA’s minimum requirements (e.g., no additional rulemaking, surplus to attainment and RFP 

needs) and allow us to determine the reductions are at least equivalent to the current estimate of 

one year’s worth of RFP. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the RFP and attainment 

contingency measure provisions in the Sacramento Ozone Plan.

G. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Transportation Conformity

1. Requirements for Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

CAA section 176(c) requires federal actions in nonattainment and maintenance areas to 

conform to the goals of SIPs. This means that such actions will not: (1) cause or contribute to 

violations of a NAAQS, (2) worsen the severity of an existing violation, or (3) delay timely 

attainment of any NAAQS or any interim milestone.
56

Actions that involve Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA) funding or approval are subject to EPA’s transportation conformity rule, 

which is codified in 40 CFR part 93, subpart A. Under this rule, metropolitan planning 

organizations (MPOs) in nonattainment and maintenance areas coordinate with state and local air 

quality and transportation agencies, EPA, FHWA, and FTA to demonstrate that an area’s 

regional transportation plans (RTP) and transportation improvement programs (TIP) conform to 

the applicable SIP. This demonstration is typically done by showing that estimated emissions 

from existing and planned highway and transit systems are less than or equal to the motor vehicle 

emissions budgets (MVEBs or “budgets”) contained in the SIP. An attainment, maintenance, or 

RFP SIP establishes MVEBs for the attainment year, each required RFP year or last year of the 

maintenance plan, as appropriate. MVEBs are generally established for specific years and 

specific pollutants or precursors.

Ozone attainment and RFP plans establish MVEBs for NOx and VOC. See 40 CFR 

93.102(b)(2)(i).

Before an MPO may use MVEBs in a submitted SIP, EPA must first either determine that the 

MVEBs are adequate or approve the MVEBs. In order for us to find the MVEBs adequate and 

approvable, the submittal must meet the conformity adequacy requirements of 40 CFR 

93.118(e)(4) and (5) and be approvable under all pertinent SIP requirements. To meet these 

requirements, the MVEBs must be consistent with the approvable attainment and RFP 

demonstrations and reflect all of the motor vehicle control measures contained in the attainment 

and RFP demonstrations. See 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iii), (iv) and (v). For more information on the 

transportation conformity requirements and applicable policies on MVEBs, please visit our 
57

transportation conformity Web site at: 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/index.htm. 

EPA's process for determining adequacy of a MVEB consists of three basic steps: (1) 

providing public notification of a SIP submission; (2) providing the public the opportunity to 

comment on the MVEB during a public comment period; and, (3) making a finding of adequacy 

or inadequacy. See 40 CFR 93.118.

2. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the 2009 Plan

On July 16, 2009, we found the budgets in the 2009 Plan to be adequate for the 2011, 2014, 

and 2017 milestone years and inadequate for the 2018 attainment year for transportation 

conformity purposes.50 We determined that the attainment year budgets were inadequate because 

they lacked specificity and were not fully enforceable and, therefore, did not meet the criteria for 

adequacy in 40 CFR § 93.118(e)(4).51 We published a notice of our findings at 74 FR 37210 

(July 28, 2009).

3. Revised Vehicle Emissions Budgets in 2013 Plan Update

The 2013 Plan Update includes revised VOC and NOx MVEBs for 2014, 2017, and 2018. 

See table 11-1 in the 2013 Plan Update. The MVEBs in the 2013 Plan Update replaced the 

original MVEBs in the 2009 Plan and account for changes in emission reductions associated with 

the revised 2007 State Strategy, an updated version of EMFAC (i.e., EMFAC2011), and the 

latest planning assumptions from the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG). 

 

50 See letter from Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, EPA Region 9, to James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, 

CARB, July 16, 2009, with enclosure.

51 See letter, Deborah Jordan, Air Division Director, EPA Region 9, to James M. Goldstene, Executive Officer, 

CARB, “RE: Adequacy Status of Sacramento 8-Hour Reasonable Further Progress and Attainment Plan Motor 

Vehicle Emissions Budgets,” dated July 16, 2009.
58

The MVEBs contained in the 2013 Plan Update are shown in table 15. The MVEBs are the 

projected on-road mobile source VOC and NOx emissions for the SMA for 2014, 2017, and 

2018. They include the projected on-road mobile source emissions and safety margins and are

rounded up to the next whole number tpd. The conformity rule allows for a safety margin to be 

included in the budgets. The overall emissions in the SMA with the addition of a small safety 

margin added to the on-road emissions are consistent with RFP and attainment of the 1997 8-

hour ozone standard. See 40 CFR 93.124(a). The derivation of the MVEBs is discussed in 

section 11 of the 2013 Plan Update. The MVEBs incorporate on-road motor vehicle emission 

inventory factors of EMFAC2011, updated vehicle activity data from SACOG, and recent 

amendments to the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Plan (2013/16 MTIP).52

Table 15: Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the Sacramento Ozone Plan (tpd, average 

summer weekday)

NOx VOC

2014 2017 2018 2014 2017 2018

On-Road Inventorya46 37 34 21 17 16

Safety Margin 3 2 3 2 1 1

MVEBsb49 39 37 23 18 17

a Includes adjustments for measures not reflected in EMFAC2011. 

b Rounded up to nearest ton.

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

The availability of the SIP submission with MVEBs was announced for public comment on 

EPA's Adequacy Web site on May 20, 2014, at: 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm, which provided a 30-day public 

comment period that ended on June 19, 2014. EPA received no comments from the public. On 

July 25, 2014, EPA determined the 2014, 2017, and 2018 MVEBs were adequate.53 On August

 

52 Final 2013/16 MTIP, Amendment #1 to the Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy 

2035, and Air Quality Conformity Analysis, August 16, 2012. FHWA approval December 14, 2012. 

http://www.sandag.org/uploads/2050RTP/F2050rtp_all.pdf

53 See July 25, 2014 letter from Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, USEPA Region 9, to Richard W. Corey, 

Executive Officer, CARB. On August 8, a notice of adequacy was published in the Federal Register notifying the 

public that the Agency had found that the MVEBs for ozone for the years 2014, 2017, and 2018 adequate for 
59

8, 2014, the notice of adequacy was published in the Federal Register. See 79 FR 46436. The 

new MVEBs became effective on August 25, 2014. After the effective date of the adequacy 

finding, the new MVEBs must be used in future transportation conformity determinations in the 

SMA area. EPA is not required under its transportation conformity rule to find budgets adequate 

prior to proposing approval of them, but in this instance, we have completed the adequacy 

review of these budgets prior to our final action on the 2013 Plan Update.

In today’s notice, EPA is proposing to approve the 2017 and 2018 MVEBs in the 2013 Plan 

Update for transportation conformity purposes. EPA has determined through its thorough review 

of the submitted 2013 Plan Update that the 2017 and 2018 MVEBs are consistent with emission 

control measures in the SIP, RFP, and attainment in the SMA for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. EPA previously found the 2017 and 2018 MVEBs adequate and is now proposing to 

approve those budgets. The 2017 and 2018 MVEBs are used in SACOG’s conformity 

determination for the 2015/2018 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program54 and will 

be used in future conformity determinations. The 2014 MVEBs are not used in SACOG’s

conformity determination and will not be used in future conformity determinations because 

SACOG is not required to address any year prior to 2017. Therefore, EPA has determined that 

not approving the 2014 MVEBs would have no practical impact on the transportation planning 

agencies in the SMA. 

 

transportation conformity purposes. See 79 FR 46436.

54 On September 18, 2014, the SACOG Board of Directors approved the 2015/18 Metropolitan Transportation 

Improvement Program, Amendment #4 to the Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy 

2035, and Air Quality Conformity Analysis.
60

The details of EPA's evaluation of the MVEBs for compliance with the budget adequacy 

criteria of 40 CFR 93.118(e) were provided in a separate adequacy letter55 included in the docket 

of this rulemaking. 

4. Proposed Action on the Budgets

As part of its review of the budgets’ approvability, EPA has evaluated the revised budgets 

using our adequacy criteria in 40 CFR 93.318(e)(4) and (5). We found that the 2017 and 2018 

budgets meet each adequacy criterion. We have completed our detailed review of the 2013 Plan

Update, and are proposing to approve the SIP’s attainment and RFP demonstrations. We have 

also reviewed the proposed budgets submitted with the 2013 Plan Update and have found that 

the 2017 and 2018 budgets are consistent with the attainment and RFP demonstrations, were 

based on control measures that have already been adopted and implemented, and meet all other 

applicable statutory and regulatory requirements including the adequacy criteria in 40 CFR 

93.118(e)(4) and (5). Therefore, we are proposing to approve the 2017 and 2018 budgets as 

shown in table 15.

As described above, the 2017 and 2018 budgets were determined to be adequate on July 25, 

2014 and became effective on August 25, 2014. The new budgets replace the budgets previously 

found adequate in 2009, and SACOG and the U.S. Department of Transportation are required to 

use the new budgets in transportation conformity determinations as of August 25, 2014. If EPA 

later finalizes the approval of the 2017 and 2018 budgets, it will not affect SACOG and the U.S. 

Department of Transportation because they already are required to use the new budgets as of 

August 25, 2014. For conformity determinations, the plan emissions should be used at the same 

level of accuracy as in the revised updated budgets from the 2013 Plan Update.

 

55 See footnote #53.
61

CARB requested that EPA limit the duration of its approval of the budgets submitted on 

December 31, 2013 as part of the 2013 Plan Update to last only until the effective date of EPA’s 

adequacy finding for any subsequently submitted budgets. See letter, Richard W. Corey, 

Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board, December 31, 2013. 

The transportation conformity rule allows EPA to limit the approval of budgets. See 40 CFR 

93.118(e)(1). However, we can only consider a state’s request to limit an approval of its MVEB 

if the request includes the following elements: 

• An acknowledgement and explanation as to why the budgets under consideration have 

become outdated or deficient; 

• A commitment to update the budgets as part of a comprehensive SIP update; and 

• A request that EPA limit the duration of its approval to the time when new budgets have 

been found to be adequate for transportation conformity purposes. 

See 67 FR 69141 (November 15, 2002) (limiting our prior approval of MVEB in certain 

California SIPs). 

Because CARB’s request does not include all of these elements, we cannot address it at this 

time. Once CARB has adequately addressed them, we intend to propose to limit the duration of 

our approval of the MVEBs in the 2013 Plan Update and provide the public an opportunity to 

comment. The duration of the approval of the budgets, however, is not limited until we complete 

such a rulemaking. 

H. Vehicle Miles Travelled Emissions Offset Demonstration 

CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) requires a state with areas classified as “Severe” or “Extreme” to

“submit a revision that identifies and adopts specific enforceable transportation control strategies 

and transportation control measures to offset any growth in emissions from growth in vehicle 
62

miles traveled or numbers of vehicle trips in such area.” Herein, we use “VMT” to refer to 

vehicle miles traveled and refer to the related SIP requirement as the “VMT emissions offset 

requirement.” In addition, we refer to the SIP revision intended to demonstrate compliance with 

the VMT emissions offset requirement as the “VMT emissions offset demonstration.” Moreover, 

the SMA is subject to the VMT emissions offset requirement for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard 

by virtue of its classification as “Severe” for the 1997 ozone standard. See 75 FR 24409 (May 5, 

2010); and 40 CFR 51.902(a).

CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) also includes two additional elements requiring that the SIP

include: (1) transportation control strategies and transportation control measures as necessary to 

provide (along with other measures) the reductions needed to meet the applicable RFP 

requirement, and (2) include strategies and measures to the extent needed to demonstrate 

attainment.

1. Evaluation of Revised Sacramento VMT Emissions Offset Demonstrations

a. Section 182(d)(1)(A) and EPA’s August 2012 VMT Emissions Offset Demonstration 

Guidance

As noted previously, the first element of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) requires that areas 

classified as “Severe” or “Extreme” submit a SIP revision that identifies and adopts 

transportation control strategies and transportation control measures sufficient to offset any 

growth in emissions from growth in VMT or the number of vehicle trips. In response to the 

Court’s decision in Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA, EPA issued a memorandum titled 

Guidance on Implementing Clean Air Act Section 182(d)(1)(A): Transportation Control 
63

Measures and Transportation Control Strategies to Offset Growth in Emissions Due to Growth 

in Vehicle Miles Travelled (herein referred to as the “August 2012 guidance”).56

The August 2012 Guidance discusses the meaning of the terms, “transportation control 

strategies” (TCSs) and “transportation control measures” (TCMs), and recommends that both 

TCSs and TCMs be included in the calculations made for the purpose of determining the degree 

to which any hypothetical growth in emissions due to growth in VMT should be offset. 

Generally, TCSs is a broad term that encompasses many types of controls including, for 

example, motor vehicle emission limitations, inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs, 

alternative fuel programs, other technology-based measures, and TCMs, that would fit within the 

regulatory definition of “control strategy.” See, e.g., 40 CFR 51.100(n). TCMs are defined at 40 

CFR 51.100(r) as meaning “any measure that is directed toward reducing emissions of air 

pollutants from transportation sources. Such measures include, but are not limited to those listed 

in section 108(f) of the Clean Air Act[,]” and generally refer to programs intended to reduce the 

VMT, the number of vehicle trips, or traffic congestion, such as programs for improved public 

transit, designation of certain lanes for passenger buses and high-occupancy vehicles (HOVs), 

trip reduction ordinances, and the like.

The August 2012 guidance explains how states may demonstrate that the VMT emissions 

offset requirement is satisfied in conformance with the Court’s ruling. States are recommended 

to estimate emissions for the nonattainment area’s base year and the attainment year. One 

emission inventory is developed for the base year, and three different emissions inventory 

scenarios are developed for the attainment year. For the attainment year, the state would present 

 

56 Memorandum from Karl Simon, Director, Transportation and Climate Division, Office of Transportation and Air 

Quality, to Carl Edland, Director, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, EPA Region 6, and Deborah 

Jordan, Director, Air Division, EPA Region 9, August 30, 2012.
64

three emissions estimates, two of which would represent hypothetical emissions scenarios that 

would provide the basis to identify the “growth in emissions” due solely to the growth in VMT, 

and one that would represent projected actual motor vehicle emissions after fully accounting for 

projected VMT growth and offsetting emissions reductions obtained by all creditable TCSs and 

TCMs. See the August 2012 guidance for specific details on how states might conduct the 

calculations.

The base year on-road VOC emissions should be based on VMT in that year and it should

reflect all enforceable TCSs and TCMs in place in the base year. This would include vehicle 

emissions standards, state and local control programs such as I/M programs or fuel rules, and any 

additional implemented TCSs and TCMs that were already required by or credited in the SIP as 

of that base year.

The first of the emissions calculations for the attainment year would be based on the 

projected VMT and trips for that year, and assume that no new TCSs or TCMs beyond those 

already credited in the base year inventory have been put in place since the base year. This 

calculation demonstrates how emissions would hypothetically change if no new TCSs or TCMs 

were implemented, and VMT and trips were allowed to grow at the projected rate from the base 

year. This estimate would show the potential for an increase in emissions due solely to growth in 

VMT and trips. This represents a “no action” taken scenario. Emissions in the attainment year in 

this scenario may be lower than those in the base year due to the fleet that was on the road in the 

base year gradually being replaced through fleet turnover; however, provided VMT and/or 

numbers of vehicle trips will in fact increase by the attainment year, they would still likely be 

higher than they would have been assuming VMT had held constant.
65

The second of the attainment year’s emissions calculations would also assume that no new 

TCSs or TCMs beyond those already credited have been put in place since the base year, but 

would also assume that there was no growth in VMT and trips between the base year and 

attainment year. This estimate reflects the hypothetical emissions level that would have occurred 

if no further TCMs or TCSs had been put in place and if VMT and trip levels had held constant 

since the base year. Like the “no action” attainment year estimate described above, emissions in 

the attainment year may be lower than those in the base year due to the fleet that was on the road 

in the base year gradually being replaced by cleaner vehicles through fleet turnover, but in this 

case they would not be influenced by any growth in VMT or trips. This emissions estimate 

would reflect a ceiling on the attainment emissions that should be allowed to occur under the 

statute as interpreted by the Court because it shows what would happen under a scenario in 

which no offsetting TCSs or TCMs have yet been put in place and VMT and trips are held 

constant during the period from the area’s base year to its attainment year. This represents a 

“VMT offset ceiling” scenario. These two hypothetical status quo estimates are necessary steps 

in identifying the target level of emissions from which states would determine whether further 

TCMs or TCSs, beyond those that have been adopted and implemented in reality, would need to 

be adopted and implemented in order to fully offset any increase in emissions due solely to VMT 

and trips identified in the “no action” scenario. 

Finally, the state would present the emissions that are actually expected to occur in the area’s 

attainment year after taking into account reductions from all enforceable TCSs and TCMs that in 

reality were put in place after the baseline year. This estimate would be based on the VMT and 

trip levels expected to occur in the attainment year (i.e., the VMT and trip levels from the first 

estimate) and all of the TCSs and TCMs expected to be in place and for which the SIP will take 
66

credit in the area’s attainment year, including any TCMs and TCSs put in place since the base 

year. This represents the “projected actual” attainment year scenario. If this emissions estimate is 

less than or equal to the emissions ceiling that was established in the second of the attainment 

year calculations, the TCSs or TCMs for the attainment year would be sufficient to fully offset 

the identified hypothetical growth in emissions. 

If, instead, the estimated projected actual attainment year emissions are still greater than the 

ceiling which was established in the second of the attainment year emissions calculations, even 

after accounting for post-baseline year TCSs and TCMs, the state would need to adopt and 

implement additional TCSs or TCMs to further offset the growth in emissions and bring the 

actual emissions down to at least the “had VMT and trips held constant” ceiling estimated in the 

second of the attainment year calculations, in order to meet the VMT offset requirement of 

section 182(d)(1)(A) as interpreted by the Court. 

b. Sacramento VMT Emissions Offset Demonstrations 

For the Sacramento VMT emissions offset demonstrations, the State used EMFAC2011, the 

latest EPA-approved motor vehicle emissions model for California. The EMFAC2011 model 

estimates the on-road emissions from two combustion processes (i.e., running exhaust and start 

exhaust) and four evaporative processes (i.e., hot soak, running losses, diurnal losses, and resting 

losses). The EMFAC2011 model combines trip-based VMT data from the regional transportation 

planning agencies (i.e., SACOG), starts data based on household travel surveys, and vehicle 

population data from the California Department of Motor Vehicles. These sets of data are 

combined with corresponding emission rates to calculate emissions.

Emissions from running exhaust, start exhaust, hot soak, and running losses are a function of 

how much a vehicle is driven. As such, emissions from these processes are directly related to 
67

VMT and vehicle trips, and the State included emissions from them in the calculations that 

provide the basis for the revised Sacramento VMT emissions offset demonstration. The State did 

not include emissions from resting loss and diurnal loss processes in the analysis because such 

emissions are related to vehicle population, not to VMT or vehicle trips, and thus are not part of 

“any growth in emissions from growth in vehicle miles traveled or numbers of vehicle trips in 

such area” (emphasis added) under CAA section 182(d)(1)(A).

The Sacramento VMT emissions offset demonstration addresses the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard and includes a 2002 “base year” scenario for the purpose of the VMT emissions offset 

demonstration for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. The “base year” for VMT emissions offset 

demonstration purposes should generally be the same “base year” used for nonattainment 

planning purposes. In today’s action, EPA is proposing to approve the 2002 base year inventory 

for the SMA for the purposes of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, and thus, the State’s selection 

of 2002 as the base year for the revised Sacramento VMT emissions offset demonstration for the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard is appropriate. 

The demonstration also includes the previously described three different attainment year 

scenarios (i.e., no action, VMT offset ceiling, and projected actual) for 2018. The State’s 

selection of 2018 is appropriate given that the Sacramento Ozone Plan demonstrates attainment 

by the applicable attainment date of June 15, 2019 based on the 2018 controlled emissions 

inventory. 57 See 76 FR 57872, at 57885 (September 16, 2011) and 77 FR 12674, at 12693 

(March 1, 2012). 

 

57 In this context, “attainment year” refers to the ozone season immediately preceding a nonattainment area’s 

attainment date. In the case of the SMA, the applicable attainment date is June 15, 2019, and the ozone season 

immediately preceding that date will occur in year 2018.
68

Table 16 summarizes the relevant distinguishing parameters for each of the emissions 

scenarios and show the State’s corresponding VOC emissions estimates. Table 16 provides the 

parameters and emissions estimates for the revised VMT emissions offset demonstration for the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard. 

Table 16. VMT Emissions Offset Inventory Scenarios and Results for 1997 8-Hour Ozone 

Standard.

Scenario

VMT Starts Controls VOC 

Emissions

Year 1000/day Year 1000/day Year tpd

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

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

VMT Offset 

Ceiling 2002 52,595 2002 7,935 2002 19

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

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

For the “base year” scenario, the State ran the EMFAC2011 model for the 2002 base year 

using VMT and starts data corresponding to those years. As shown in table 16, the State 

estimates SMA VOC emissions at 45 tpd in 2002. 

For the “no action” scenario, the State first identified the on-road motor vehicle control 

programs (i.e., TCSs or TCMs) put in place since the base year and incorporated into 

EMFAC2011 and then ran EMFAC2011 with the VMT and starts data corresponding to the 

applicable attainment year (i.e., 2018 for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard) without the emissions 

reductions from the on-road motor vehicle control programs put in place after the base year. 

Thus, the “no action” scenario reflects the hypothetical VOC emissions that would occur in the 

attainment year in the SMA if the State had not put in place any additional TCSs or TCMs after 
69

2002. As shown in table 16, the State estimates “no action” SMA VOC emissions at 28 tpd in 

2018. 

For the “VMT offset ceiling” scenario, the State ran the EMFAC2011 model for the 

attainment year but with VMT and starts data corresponding to base year values. Like the “no 

action” scenario, the EMFAC2011 model was adjusted to reflect the VOC emissions levels in the 

attainment year without the benefits of the post-base-year on-road motor vehicle control 

programs. Thus, the “VMT offset ceiling” scenario reflect hypothetical VOC emissions in the 

SMA if the State had not put in place any TCSs or TCMs after the base year and if there had 

been no growth in VMT or vehicle trips between the base year and the attainment year. 

The hypothetical growth in emissions due to growth in VMT and trips can be determined 

from the difference between the VOC emissions estimates under the “no action” scenario and the 

corresponding estimate under the “VMT offset ceiling” scenario. Based on the values in table 16, 

the hypothetical growth in emissions due to growth in VMT and trips in the SMA would have 

been 9 tpd (i.e., 28 tpd minus 19 tpd) for the purposes of the revised VMT emissions offset 

demonstration for the 8-hour ozone standard. This hypothetical difference establishes the level of 

VMT growth-caused emissions that need to be offset by the combination of post-baseline year 

TCMs and TCSs and any necessary additional TCMs and TCSs.

For the “projected actual” scenario calculation, the State ran the EMFAC2011 model for the 

attainment year with VMT and starts data at attainment year value and with the full benefits of 

the relevant post-baseline year motor vehicle control programs. For this scenario, the State 

included the emissions benefits from TCSs and TCMs put in place since the base year. 

The most significant State on-road and fuels measures providing reductions during the 2002 

to 2018 time frame and relied upon for the VMT emissions offset demonstration include Low 
70

Emission Vehicles II and Zero Emissions Vehicle standards, California Reformulated Gasoline 

Phase 3, and Cleaner In-Use Heavy-Duty Trucks. Some of these measures were adopted prior to 

2002, but all or part of their implementation occurred after 2002. The TSD for today’s action 

includes a list of TCSs and TCMs adopted by the State since 2002.58 State measures adopted 

since 2007, as part of the revised 2007 State Strategy, and their reductions are also described in 

the IV.C and IV.D of this notice. Additional information regarding implementation and expected 

reductions from CARB’s adopted measures is also available on CARB’s rulemaking activity web 

site.59

As shown in table 16, the results from these calculations establish projected actual 

attainment-year VOC emissions of 14 tpd for the 1997 8-hour standard demonstration. The State

then compared these values against the corresponding VMT offset ceiling value to determine 

whether additional TCMs or TCSs would need to be adopted and implemented in order to offset 

any increase in emissions due solely to VMT and trips. Because the “projected actual” emissions 

are less than the corresponding “VMT Offset Ceiling” emissions, the State concluded that the 

demonstration shows compliance with the VMT emissions offset requirement and that there are 

sufficient adopted TCSs and TCMs to offset the growth in emissions from the growth in VMT 

and vehicle trips in the SMA for 1997 8-hour standard. In fact, taking into account of the 

creditable post-baseline year TCMs and TCSs, the State showed that they offset the hypothetical 

differences by 14 tpd for the 1997 8-hour standard, rather than merely the required 9 tpd.60 

 

58 The docket for today’s action includes a list of the post-1990 transportation control strategies. Per section 209 of 

the CAA, the EPA has previously waived (for control of emissions from new motor vehicles of new motor vehicle 

engines prior to March 30, 1966) or authorized (for control emissions of nonroad engines or vehicles) all such TCSs 

and TCMs relied upon for the VMT emissions offset demonstration. 

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

60 The offsetting VOC emissions reductions from the TCSs and TCMs put in place after the respective base year can 

be determined by subtracting the “projected actual” emissions estimates from the “no action” emissions estimates in 

table 16. For the purposes of the 8-hour ozone demonstration, the offsetting emissions reductions, 14 tpd (28 tpd 

minus 14 tpd), exceed the growth in emissions from growth in VMT and vehicle trips (9 tpd).
71

Based on our review of the State’s submittal, including the technical supplement, we find the 

State’s analysis to be acceptable and agree that the State has adopted sufficient TCSs and TCMs 

to offset the growth in emissions from growth in VMT and vehicle trips in the SMA for the 

purposes of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. As such, we find that the revised SMA VMT 

emissions offset demonstration, complies with the VMT emissions offset requirement in CAA 

section 182(d)(1)(A), and therefore, we propose approval of the revised SMA VMT emissions 

offset demonstration for the 1997 8-hour ozone standards as a revision to the California SIP.

Regarding the two additional elements in 182(d)(1)(A), as discussed above in section IV.D, 

we are proposing to find that the Sacramento Ozone Plan provides for RFP consistent with all 

applicable CAA and EPA regulatory requirements. Therefore, we also propose to find that the 

SIP meets requirement in CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) to include TCSs and TCMs as necessary to 

provide (along with other measures) the reductions needed to meet the applicable RFP 

requirement.

Finally, based on the discussion in sections IV.B and IV.C above, we are proposing to find 

that the Sacramento Ozone Plan provides for expeditious attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard. Therefore, we propose to find that the SIP meets the requirement in CAA section 

182(d)(1)(A) to include strategies and measures to the extent needed to demonstrate attainment.

Under CAA section 110(k)(3), and for the reasons set forth above, EPA is proposing to 

approve CARB’s 2013 Plan Update submittal, dated December 31, 2013, of the Sacramento 

VMT emissions offset demonstration for the 1997 8-hour ozone standards, as supplemented by 

CARB on June 19, 2014, as a revision to the California SIP. We are proposing to approve this 

SIP revision because we believe that it demonstrates that California has put in place specific 

enforceable transportation control strategies and transportation control measures to offset the 
72

growth in emissions from the growth in VMT and vehicle trips in the SMA for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard, and thereby meets the applicable requirements in section 182(d)(1)(A) of the 

Clean Air Act. 

V. EPA’s Proposed Actions

A. EPA’s Proposed Approvals 

For the reasons discussed above, EPA is proposing to approve California’s attainment SIP for 

the Sacramento Metro Area for the 1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS. This SIP is comprised of the 

Sacramento Regional Nonattainment Area 8-Hour Ozone Reasonable Further Progress Plan 

2002-2008 (February 2006), Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan and 

Reasonable Further Progress Plan (March 26, 2009), CARB’s 2007 State Strategy and Revised 

2007 State Strategy (specifically the portions applicable to the SMA), and the Sacramento 

Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan and Reasonable Further Progress Plan (September 26, 

2013). 

EPA is proposing to approve under CAA section 110(k)(3) the following elements of the 

Sacramento Ozone Plan:

1. The revised 2002 base year emissions inventory as meeting the requirements of CAA section 

182(a)(1) and 40 CFR 51.915;

2. The reasonably available control measure demonstration as meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.912(d);

3. The rate of progress and reasonable further progress demonstrations as meeting the

requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(2) and 182(c)(2)(B) and 40 CFR 51.910 and 51.905;

4. The attainment demonstration as meeting the requirements of CAA section 182(c)(2)(A) and 

40 CFR 51.908;
73

5. The contingency measure provisions for failure to make RFP and to attain as meeting the 

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

6. The demonstration that the SIP provides for transportation control strategies and measures 

sufficient to offset any growth in emissions from growth in VMT or the number of vehicle trips, 

and to provide for RFP and attainment, as meeting the requirements of CAA section 

182(d)(1)(A);

7. The revised motor vehicle emissions budgets for 2017 and for the attainment year of 2018, 

because they are derived from approvable RFP and attainment demonstrations and meet the 

requirements of CAA sections 176(c) and 40 CFR part 93, subpart A; and

8. The Districts’ commitments to adopt and implement certain defined measures, as listed in 

table 7-2 on pages 7-5 and 7-6 of the 2013 Plan Update.

B. Request for Public Comments

EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document or on other 

relevant matters. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal for the next 30 days. 

We will consider these comments before taking final action.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

The Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions 

of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 

reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the 

criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve a state plan 

revision as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For these reasons, this proposed action:
74

 Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management 

and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993); 

 Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

 Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

 Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-

4);

 Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 

43255, August 10, 1999);

 Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks 

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

 Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, 

May 22, 2001); 

 Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and 

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

requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

 Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in 
75

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 regulations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

______________________________ ____________________________

Dated: Jared Blumenfeld,

Regional Administrator,

EPA Region IX