[Federal Register: May 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 91)]
[Notices]
[Page 27481]
[DOCID:fr11my06-49]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP02-361-059]

Gulfstream Natural Gas System, L.L.C.; Notice of Negotiated Rate

May 4, 2006.
    Take notice that on May 1, 2006, Gulfstream Natural Gas System,
L.L.C. (Gulfstream) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff,
Original Volume No. 1, Original Sheet No. 8.02, reflecting an effective
date of May 1, 2006.
    Gulfstream states that copies of its filing have been mailed to all
affected customers and interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible online at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-7170 Filed 5-10-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 105 (Thursday, June 3, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29759-29760]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11664]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP20-493-000]

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.; Notice of Intent To
Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed East 300
Upgrade Project and Schedule for Environmental Review

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for
the East 300 Upgrade Project (Project), proposed by Tennessee Gas
Pipeline Company, L.L.C. (Tennessee) in Passaic and Sussex Counties,
New Jersey and Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania. The EIS will tier off
Commission staff's Environmental Assessment (EA) and its findings and
conclusions for the Project issued on February 19, 2021, and respond to
comments filed on the EA.\1\ The EIS will assist the Commission in its
consideration of the Project's contribution to climate change and its
decision-making process to determine whether Tennessee's proposed
Project is in the public convenience and necessity. The schedule for
preparation of the EIS is discussed in the ``Schedule for Environmental
Review'' section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The EA for the Project is filed in Docket No. CP20-493-000
under Accession No. 20210219-3034.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The National Environmental Policy Act Process

    The production of the EIS is part of the Commission's overall
National Environmental Policy Act review process. Commission staff will
independently analyze the proposed Project and prepare a draft EIS,
which will be issued for public comment. Commission staff will consider
all timely comments received during the comment period on the draft EIS
and revise the document, as necessary, before issuing a final EIS. Any
draft and

final EIS will be available in electronic format in the public record
through eLibrary \2\ and the Commission's natural gas environmental
documents web page (https://www.ferc.gov/industries-data/natural-gas/environment/environmental-documents).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the
``Additional Information'' section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Schedule for Environmental Review

    This notice identifies the Commission staff's planned schedule for
completion of a final EIS for the Project, which is based on an
issuance of the draft EIS in July 2021.

Issuance of Notice of Availability of the final EIS September 24, 2021
90-day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline December 23, 2021

    If a schedule change becomes necessary for the final EIS, an
additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are
kept informed of the Project's progress.

Environmental Mailing List

    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for the Project, which includes: Federal, State, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property
may be used temporarily for Project purposes, or who own homes within
certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits
comments on the Project and includes a mailing address with their
comments. Commission staff will update the environmental mailing list
as the analysis proceeds to ensure that Commission notices related to
this environmental review are sent to all individuals, organizations,
and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by
the proposed Project.
    If you need to make changes to your name/address, or if you would
like to remove your name from the mailing list, please complete one of
the following steps:
    (1) Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>stating your
request. You must include the docket number CP20-493-000 in your
request. If you are requesting a change to your address, please be sure
to include your name and the correct address. If you are requesting to
delete your address from the mailing list, please include your name and
address as it appeared on this notice. This email address is unable to
accept comments.

OR

    (2) Return the attached ``Mailing List Update Form'' (appendix 1).

Additional Information

    In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EIS and to
keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets,
the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This can
reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by
automatically providing you with notification of these filings,
document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/overview to register for eSubscription.
    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC website at www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket number
in the ``Docket Number'' field. Be sure you have selected an
appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of all formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.

    Dated: May 27, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-11664 Filed 6-2-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 19 (Thursday, January 29, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4795-4799]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01609]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0178; FRL-9921-99-Region 9]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
California; Sacramento Metro Area; Attainment Plan for 1997 8-Hour
Ozone Standard

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve state implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted
by the State of California that provide for attainment of the 1997 8-
hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (``standard'' or
NAAQS) in the Sacramento Metro nonattainment area. The EPA is approving
the emissions inventories, air quality modeling, reasonably available
control measures, provisions for transportation control strategies and
measures, rate of progress and reasonable further progress (RFP)
demonstrations, attainment demonstration, transportation conformity
motor vehicle emissions budgets, and contingency measures for failure
to make RFP or attain. The EPA is also approving commitments for
measures by the Sacramento Metro nonattainment area air districts.

DATES: This final rule is effective on March 2, 2015.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action: Docket ID
No. EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0178. Generally, documents in the docket for this
action are available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard
copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California.
While all documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov,
some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be
publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard
copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Ungvarsky, Air Planning Office
(AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 972-
3963<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Summary of Proposed Action
    A. Regulatory Background
    B. CARB's Submittals
    C. The EPA's Proposed Approval
II. What comments did the EPA receive on the proposed rule?
III. What action is the EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Summary of Proposed Action

    On October 15, 2014 (79 FR 61799), under section 110(k) of the
Clean Air Act (Act or CAA), the EPA proposed approval of a series of
submittals from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) as revisions
to the California state implementation plan (SIP) for the Sacramento
Metro ozone nonattainment area (SMA).\1\ The principal submittals are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

(``2009 Ozone Attainment and RFP Plan'' or ``2009 Plan'');
    [ssquf] Elements of CARB's 2007 State Strategy (``2007 State
Strategy''), adopted by CARB on September 27, 2007, as applicable in
the SMA;
    [ssquf] Elements of the Status Report on the State Strategy for
California's 2007 State Implementation Plan (SIP) and Proposed Revision
to the SIP Reflecting Implementation of the 2007 State Strategy
(``Revised 2007 State Strategy''),\2\ March 24, 2009, as applicable in
the SMA; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ On July 21, 2011, CARB further revised the State Strategy
(i.e., Progress Report on Implementation of PM2.5 State
Implementation Plans (SIP) for the South Coast and San Joaquin
Valley Air Basins and Proposed SIP Revisions). Although the 2011
revision was specific to the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley
ozone nonattainment areas, it contained Appendix E, an assessment of
the impacts of the economic recession on emissions from the goods
movement sector. The growth projections developed for emissions
inventories in the Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan
and Reasonable Further Progress Plan (2013 Revisions) also rely on
the recessionary impacts in Appendix E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [ssquf] Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan and
Reasonable Further Progress Plan, 2013 SIP Revisions (``2013 Ozone
Attainment and RFP Plan'' or ``2013 Plan Update''), September 26, 2013.
    We refer to these submittals collectively as the ``Sacramento 8-
Hour Ozone Attainment Plan'' or ``Sacramento Ozone Plan.'' The SMA is
classified as ``severe-15'' with an attainment date no later than June
15, 2019.\3\ See 75 FR 24409. The following paragraphs summarize the
regulatory background, CARB's submittals, and the EPA's rationale for
proposing approval. For additional details concerning these topics,
please see our October 15, 2014 proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For the 2008 ozone standard, we also designated the SMA as
nonattainment and classified the area as ``severe-15.'' See 77 FR
30088 (May 21, 2012). The SMA attainment date for the 2008 8-hour
ozone standard is as expeditious as practicable but no later than
December 31, 2027. Today's action does not address requirements
concerning the 2008 8-hour ozone standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Regulatory Background

    The specific CAA requirement that is relevant for the purposes of
this action is Title I, Part D of the CAA, under which states must
implement the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. Title I, Part D of the CAA
includes section 172, ``Nonattainment plan provisions,'' and subpart 2,
``Additional Provisions for Ozone Nonattainment Areas'' (sections 181-
185).
    In order to assist states in developing effective plans to address
their ozone nonattainment problem, the EPA issued the 8-hour ozone
implementation rule. This rule was finalized in two phases. The first
phase of the rule addresses classifications for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard, applicable attainment dates for the various classifications,
and the timing of emissions reductions needed for attainment. See 69 FR
23951 (April 30, 2004). The second phase addresses SIP submittal dates
and the requirements for reasonably available control technology and
measures (RACT and RACM), RFP, modeling and attainment demonstrations,
contingency measures, and new source review. See 70 FR 71612 (November
29, 2005). The rule is codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart X.\4\ We
discussed each of these CAA and regulatory requirements for 8-hour
ozone nonattainment plans in more detail in our October 15, 2014
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The EPA has revised or proposed to revise several elements
of the 8-hour ozone implementation rule since its initial
promulgation in 2004. See, e.g., 74 FR 2936 (January 16, 2009); 75
FR 51960 (August 24, 2010); and 75 FR 80420 (December 22, 2010).
None of these revisions affect any provision of the rule that is
applicable to the EPA's proposed action on the Sacramento 8-Hour
Ozone Attainment Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. CARB's Submittals

    The 2002-2008 RFP Plan was adopted by the Districts' governing
boards during the January-February 2006 time frame and then by CARB
Executive Order G-125-335 on February 24, 2006. The 2002-2008 RFP Plan
includes an RFP demonstration for the 2002-2008 period, an amended Rate
of Progress Plan for the 1990-1996 period, and motor-vehicle emissions
budgets (MVEB or ``budgets'') used for transportation conformity
purposes.
    The 2009 Ozone Attainment and RFP Plan was adopted by the
Districts' governing boards during the January-February 2009 time frame
and then by CARB on March 26, 2009. The 2009 Ozone Attainment and RFP
Plan includes an attainment demonstration, commitments by the Districts
to adopt control measures to achieve emissions reductions from sources
under its jurisdiction (primarily stationary sources), and budgets used
for transportation conformity purposes. The attainment demonstration
includes air quality modeling, an RFP plan, an analysis of RACM/RACT,
base year and projected year emissions inventories, and contingency
measures. The 2009 Ozone Attainment and RFP Plan also includes a
demonstration that the most expeditious date for attaining the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS in the SMA is June 15, 2018.
    In late 2013, SMAQMD and CARB adopted the 2013 Plan Update, which
revised portions of the 2009 Plan. The 2013 Plan Update included a
revised emissions inventory that accounted for control measures adopted
through 2011, revised attainment and RFP demonstrations, the effects of
the economic recession, and updated transportation activity projections
provided by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG). On June
19, 2014, CARB submitted a technical supplement to the Sacramento
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) emissions offset demonstration in the 2013
Plan Update.\5\ CARB's technical supplement includes a revised set of
motor vehicle emissions estimates reflecting technical changes to the
inputs used to develop the original set of calculations.\6\ While the
vehicle emissions estimates in CARB's technical supplement differ from
those contained in the demonstration in the 2013 Plan Update, the
conclusions in the revised analysis remain the same as those in the
2013 Plan Update.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See letter from Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Officer, CARB,
to Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, EPA Region 9, June 19,
2014, with enclosures. On July 25, 2014, CARB sent the EPA a revised
technical supplement that corrected minor typographical errors. See
record of July 25, 2014 email and attachment from Jon Taylor, CARB,
to Matt Lakin, EPA, included in the docket.
    \6\ The principal difference between the two sets of
calculations is that CARB's technical supplement includes running
exhaust, start exhaust, hot soak, and running loss emissions of VOCs
in all of the emissions scenarios. These processes are directly
related to VMT and vehicle trips. The revised calculation excludes
diurnal and resting loss emissions of VOCs from all of the emissions
scenarios because such evaporative emissions are related to vehicle
population rather than to VMT or vehicle trips.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To demonstrate attainment, the Sacramento Ozone Plan relies to a
large extent on measures in CARB's 2007 State Strategy. The 2007 State
Strategy was adopted by CARB on September 27, 2007 and submitted to the
EPA on November 16, 2007.\7\ The 2007 State Strategy describes CARB's
overall approach to addressing, in conjunction with local plans,
attainment of both the 1997 Fine Particulate Matter (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.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See CARB Resolution No. 07-28, September 27, 2007 with
attachments and letter, James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB,
to Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, November 16,
2007 with enclosures.
    \8\ The 2007 State Strategy also includes measures (i.e., Smog
Check improvements) to be implemented by the California Bureau of
Automotive Repair. See 2007 State Strategy, pp. 64-65 and CARB
Resolution 7-28, Attachment B, p. 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 12, 2009, CARB submitted the Revised 2007 State Strategy,
dated March 24, 2009 and adopted April 24, 2009.9 10 This
submittal updated the 2007 State Strategy to reflect its implementation
during 2007 and 2008 and calculated emission reductions in the SMA from
implementation of the State Strategy. The 2013 Plan Update incorporates
the Revised 2007 State Strategy and updates NOX and VOC
emissions reductions estimates from adopted State measures and
commitments. In our proposal and in the context of the Sacramento Ozone
Plan, we only evaluated the State measures that are included in the
Revised 2007 State Strategy and applicable in the SMA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See CARB Resolution No. 09-34, April 24, 2009 and letter,
James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB to Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, August 12, 2009 with
enclosures. Only pages 11-27 of the Revised 2007 State Strategy were
submitted as a SIP revision. The balance of the report was for
informational purposes only. See Attachment A to CARB Resolution No.
09-34.
    \10\ The EPA has previously approved portions of CARB's 2007
State Strategy and the Revised 2007 State Strategy that are relevant
for attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in the San Joaquin
Valley. See 77 FR 12674 (March 1, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For additional background on the submittals and CAA procedural and
administrative requirements for SIP submittals, see the October 15,
2014 proposal.

C. The EPA's Proposed Approval

    As noted above, on October 15, 2014, the EPA proposed to approve
California's attainment SIP for the SMA for the 1997 8-hour Ozone
NAAQS. This SIP is comprised of a series of submittals described above.
    In its proposal, the EPA proposed to approve under CAA section
110(k)(3) the following elements of the Sacramento Ozone Plan:
    1. The revised 2002 base year emissions inventory as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 182(a)(1) and 40 CFR 51.915;
    2. The reasonably available control measure demonstration as
meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.912(d);
    3. The rate of progress and reasonable further progress
demonstrations as meeting the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(2)
and 182(c)(2)(B) and 40 CFR 51.910 and 51.905;
    4. The attainment demonstration as meeting the requirements of CAA
section 182(c)(2)(A) and 40 CFR 51.908;
    5. The contingency measure provisions for failure to make RFP and
to attain as meeting the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9) and
182(c)(9);
    6. The demonstration that the SIP provides for transportation
control strategies and measures sufficient to offset any growth in
emissions from growth in VMT or the number of vehicle trips, and to
provide for RFP and attainment, as meeting the requirements of CAA
section 182(d)(1)(A);
    7. The revised motor vehicle emissions budgets for 2017 and for the
attainment year of 2018 because they are derived from approvable RFP
and attainment demonstrations and meet the requirements of CAA section
176(c) and 40 CFR part 93, subpart A; \11\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for 2011, 2014, and
2017 were previously found adequate by the EPA on July 28, 2009 (74
FR 37210). New MVEBs for 2014, 2017, and 2018 in the 2013 Plan
Update were determined to be adequate on July 25, 2014. The adequacy
finding was published on August 8, 2014 (79 FR 46436) with an
effective date of August 25, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. The Districts' commitments to adopt and implement certain
defined measures, as summarized in table 7-5 on page 7-32 of the 2013
Plan Update, as strengthening the SIP.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The October 15, 2014 proposal incorrectly refers to table
7-2 on pages 7-5 and 7-6 of the 2013 Plan Update as the location of
the Districts' commitments to adopt and implement certain defined
measures. The correct cite is Table 7-5 on page 7-32. The Districts'
measures are further described in Section 7.5 of the 2013 Plan
Update.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA's analysis and findings are summarized in our October 15,
2014 proposal and are described in more detail in the Technical Support
Document (TSD) for the proposal, which is available online at
www.regulations.gov in the docket, EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0178, or from the
EPA contact listed at the beginning of this notice.

II. What comments did the EPA receive on the proposed rule?

    Our October 15, 2014 proposed rule provided for a 30-day comment
period. During this period, we received a comment letter jointly signed
by Larry Greene, Executive Director/Air Pollution Control Officer at
the SMAQMD, and Mike McKeever, Chief Executive Officer at SACOG. We
provide our response to the comment letter below.
    Comment: The SMAQMD notes that the 2013 Plan Update contains
NOX reductions that exceed by 1.0 tons per day (tpd) the
amount of reductions of NOX needed to meet the attainment
target for 2018. They refer to this excess as a ``buffer'' intended for
possible use, if necessary, to demonstrate general conformity for
future federal projects. In its proposal, the EPA did not credit all
reductions in the 2013 Plan Update, and the attainment demonstration
adjusted by the EPA results in excess NOX reductions in 2018
of only 0.1 tpd. The 2018 motor vehicle emissions budget (MVEB) in the
2013 Plan Update includes a 2018 safety margin of 3.0 tpd of
NOX. In their comment letter, SMAQMD requests that the EPA
reallocate 0.9 tpd of NOX from the 2018 MVEB safety margin
to the ``general conformity NOX buffer.'' This would leave
2.1 tpd in the 2018 NOX safety margin and 1.0 tpd of
NOX (i.e., 0.9 tpd from the safety margin plus 0.1 tpd
excess in the adjusted attainment demonstration) available, if needed,
for general conformity.
    Response: The SMAQMD is correct that, in proposing approval of the
attainment demonstration, the EPA did not credit all of the emissions
reductions claimed in the plan but found that the plan nonetheless
provides sufficient, creditable, emissions reductions to meet the
emissions targets necessary to attain the ozone standard by 2018. The
EPA, however, did credit some of the local measures included as
``remaining regional/local control measures'' in line J of table 8-1 in
the 2013 Plan Update for attainment demonstration purposes because, by
the time of our proposed rule, certain individual rules had been
adopted, submitted, and approved by the EPA (e.g., YSAQMD Rule 2.37).
See table 10 of the October 15, 2014 proposed rule.
    The emissions reductions that EPA discounted in its evaluation of
the attainment demonstration include those associated with (1) local
rules that, while adopted, have not yet been submitted or approved by
the EPA but for which credit is taken as part of the emission inventory
baseline for 2018 (see page 14 of the EPA's TSD for the October 15,
2014 proposed rule); (2) certain mobile source incentive programs for
which credit is taken as part of the emission inventory baseline for
2018 (see page 14 of the TSD); (3) local rules included as ``remaining
regional/local control measures'' (see pages 7-27 through 7-31 of the
2013 Plan Update) included in line J in table 8-1 of the 2013 Plan
Update that have not been adopted or submitted to the EPA for approval
as part of the SIP; (4) regional non-regulatory measures (included in
line J in table 8-1 of the 2013 Plan Update); and (5) the ``Remaining
State/Federal Control Measures'' (shown in line K in table 8-1 of the
2013 Plan Update).
    By the EPA's accounting, as SMAQMD contends, the ``buffer'' is

only 0.1 tpd for NOX, not 1.0 tpd as claimed in the plan.
The calculated ``buffer'' itself reflects a 2018 MVEB ``safety margin''
of 3 tpd of NOX, and therefore, there are surplus
NOX reductions that could be reallocated from the MVEB
``safety margin'' to other purposes, such as a set-aside for general
conformity. However, to effectuate such a reallocation, the CARB and
the Districts should adopt and submit a revised plan to EPA as a
revision to the SIP. The EPA contacted the SMAQMD concerning this
matter, and the SMAQMD expressed support for completion of the current
rulemaking even if the EPA cannot grant the request to reallocate a
portion of the NOX MVEB at this time.\13\ Therefore, we are
taking final action today consistent with our October 15, 2014 proposed
rule and will consider the reallocation of the MVEB safety margin once
a revised SIP is submitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

III. What action is the EPA taking?

    For the reasons discussed in our October 15, 2014 proposal and
summarized above, the EPA is approving California's attainment SIP for
the Sacramento Metro Area for the 1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS. This SIP is
comprised of the Sacramento Regional Nonattainment Area 8-Hour Ozone
Reasonable Further Progress Plan 2002-2008 (February 2006), Sacramento
Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan and Reasonable Further Progress
Plan (March 26, 2009), CARB's 2007 State Strategy (adopted by CARB on
September 27, 2007) and Revised 2007 State Strategy (March 24, 2009)
(specifically, the portions applicable to the SMA), and the Sacramento
Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan and Reasonable Further Progress
Plan (September 26, 2013).
    Under section 110(k)(3), the EPA is approving the following
elements of the Sacramento Ozone Plan:
    1. The revised 2002 base year emissions inventory as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 182(a)(1) and 40 CFR 51.915;
    2. The reasonably available control measure demonstration as
meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.912(d);
    3. The rate of progress and reasonable further progress
demonstrations as meeting the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(2)
and 182(c)(2)(B) and 40 CFR 51.910 and 51.905;
    4. The attainment demonstration as meeting the requirements of CAA
section 182(c)(2)(A) and 40 CFR 51.908;
    5. The contingency measure provisions for failure to make RFP and
to attain as meeting the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9) and
182(c)(9);
    6. The demonstration that the SIP provides for transportation
control strategies and measures sufficient to offset any growth in
emissions from growth in VMT or the number of vehicle trips, and to
provide for RFP and attainment, as meeting the requirements of CAA
section 182(d)(1)(A);
    7. The revised motor vehicle emissions budgets for 2017 and for the
attainment year of 2018, because they are derived from approvable RFP
and attainment demonstrations and meet the requirements of CAA section
176(c) and 40 CFR part 93, subpart A;\14\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The MVEBs approved in today's action are the following (in
tons per day, average summer weekday): 18 tpd and 39 tpd of VOC and
NOX for 2017, respectively, and 17 tpd and 37 tpd of VOC
and NOX, respectively, for 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. The Districts' commitments to adopt and implement certain
defined measures, as summarized in table 7-5 on page 7-32 of the 2013
Plan Update.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    The Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that
complies with the provisions of the Clean Air Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly,
this action merely approves state plan revisions as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For these reasons, this final action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor
will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by March 30, 2015. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental regulations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: January 9, 2015.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9.

    Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart F--California

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

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (450) The following plan was submitted on February 24, 2006 by the
Governor's designee.
    (i) [Reserved]
    (ii) Additional materials.
    (A) Sacramento Metro 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Planning Area.
    (1) Sacramento Regional Nonattainment Area 8-Hour Ozone Rate-of-
Progress Plan, Final Draft, December 2005.
    (451) The following plan was submitted on April 17, 2009 by the
Governor's designee.
    (i) [Reserved]
    (ii) Additional materials.
    (A) Sacramento Metro 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Planning Area.
    (1) Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable
Further Progress Plan (With Errata Sheets Incorporated), March 26, 2009
(Reasonable further progress demonstration and related contingency
demonstration for milestone year 2011 as presented in chapter 13
(``Reasonable Further Progress Demonstrations'') only).
    (452) The following plan was submitted on December 31, 2013 by the
Governor's designee.
    (i) [Reserved]
    (ii) Additional materials.
    (A) Sacramento Metro 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Planning Area.
    (1) Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable
Further Progress Plan (2013 SIP Revisions), September 26, 2013,
including appendices.
    (2) Supplemental information, titled ``Sacramento Federal Ozone
Nonattainment Area, July 24, 2014,'' for Appendix F-1 (``Vehicle Miles
Traveled Offset Demonstration'') of the Sacramento Regional 8-Hour
Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan (2013 SIP
Revisions).

[FR Doc. 2015-01609 Filed 1-28-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P