Rule2025-15990
Determination of Attainment by the Attainment Date; 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standards; California; Sacramento Metro Area
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
August 21, 2025
Effective
September 22, 2025
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing our determination that the Sacramento Metro, California area attained the 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) by its December 31, 2024 attainment date. This determination is based on quality-assured and certified ambient air quality monitoring data from 2022 through 2024. We are also finalizing a determination that the requirement for the State to have contingency measures for reasonable further progress (RFP) and attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS no longer applies for this area.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 160 (Thursday, August 21, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 160 (Thursday, August 21, 2025)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40741-40746]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-15990]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2025-0070; FRL-12637-03-R9]
Determination of Attainment by the Attainment Date; 2008 8-Hour
Ozone Standards; California; Sacramento Metro Area
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final determination.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing our
determination that the Sacramento Metro, California area attained the
2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) by its
December 31, 2024 attainment date. This determination is based on
quality-assured and certified ambient air quality monitoring data from
2022 through 2024. We are also finalizing a determination that the
requirement for the State to have contingency measures for reasonable
further progress (RFP) and attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS no
longer applies for this area.
DATES: This determination is effective on September 22, 2025.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2025-0070. All documents in the docket are
listed on the <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available through <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, or please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section for additional availability information. If you need assistance
in a language other than English or if you are a person with a
disability who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you,
please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Lawrence, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105; phone: (415) 972-3407; email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fc909d8b8e99929f99d2909d898e9dbc998c9dd29b938a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a9c5c8dedbccc7cacc87c5c8dcdbc8e9ccd9c887cec6df">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Summary of Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. Final Determination
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Summary of Proposed Action
On March 21, 2025, the EPA proposed to determine that the
Sacramento Metro area attained the 2008 ozone national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS) by its December 31, 2024 attainment date.\1\
On the same date, we issued an interim final determination to stay and
defer sanctions associated with a previous disapproval of the State's
submittal addressing contingency measures requirements for the
Sacramento Metro area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 90 FR 13316 (March 21, 2025).
\2\ 90 FR 13288 (March 21, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in section II.A of our proposed determination, an area
is considered to have attained the 2008 ozone standards if there are no
violations of the standards, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR
50.15, based on three consecutive years of complete, quality-assured,
and certified monitoring data. A violation of the NAAQS occurs when the
ambient ozone air quality monitoring data show that the design value
(i.e., the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-
hour average ozone concentrations) at an ozone monitor is greater than
0.075 ppm.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 40 CFR 50.15 and 40 CFR part 50, appendix P.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposed this determination to fulfill our statutory
obligation under Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'') section 181(b)(2) to
determine whether the area attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS by its
attainment date. Our proposed determination was based on complete,
quality-assured and certified ozone air quality monitoring data for the
2022-2024 calendar years. A summary of the air quality monitoring data
for these years is provided in Table 1.
Table 1--Sacramento Metro Area Fourth High 8-Hour Ozone Average Concentrations and Design Values (ppm) for 2022-
2024
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4th Highest daily maximum
AQS site ID Site name --------------------------------------- Design value
2022 2023 2024 (2022-2024)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL DORADO COUNTY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
06-017-0012..................... Echo Summit............ 0.064 0.065 NA \a\ Invalid \b\
06-017-0020..................... Cool................... 0.074 0.072 0.072 0.072
06-017-2004..................... Placerville--Canal 0.066 0.067 0.067 0.066
Street.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PLACER COUNTY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
06-061-0003..................... Auburn--Atwood......... 0.075 0.064 0.079 0.072
06-061-0004..................... Colfax--City Hall...... 0.070 0.067 0.067 0.068
06-061-0006..................... Roseville--N Sunrise 0.070 0.077 0.077 0.074
Ave.
06-061-2003..................... Lincoln--2885 Moore 0.066 0.060 0.063 0.063
Road.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 40742]]
SACRAMENTO COUNTY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
06-067-0002..................... North Highlands-- NA \a\ NA \a\ NA \a\ Invalid \c\
Blackfoot Way.
06-067-0006..................... Sacramento Del Paso 0.070 0.077 0.080 0.075
Manor.
06-067-0010..................... Sacramento--T Street... 0.065 0.066 0.069 0.066
06-067-0011..................... Elk Grove--Bruceville.. 0.058 0.050 0.048 0.052
06-067-0012..................... Folsom................. 0.070 0.071 0.065 0.068
06-067-5003..................... Sloughhouse............ 0.074 NA \a\ NA \a\ Invalid \d\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOLANO COUNTY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
06-095-3003..................... Vacaville.............. 0.063 0.061 0.058 0.060
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOLO COUNTY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
06-113-0004..................... Davis--UCD Campus...... 0.059 0.065 0.063 0.062
06-113-1003..................... Woodland--Gibson Road.. 0.066 0.062 0.064 0.064
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The required annual 75 percent completeness criterion was not met, therefore the annual 4th highest daily
maximum values were not provided.
\b\ The invalid Echo Summit design value was a result of incomplete data capture primarily due to site access
challenges for the entire month of April and part of May in the years 2022 through 2024. To resolve the access
issues, CARB submitted a site closure request for the Echo Summit ozone monitor to EPA on February 10, 2025,
and requested a new ozone monitor at the South Lake Tahoe--Sandy Way monitoring site, with a proposed start
date of February 10, 2025. The EPA approved CARB's site closure request on April 15, 2025. See letter dated
April 15, 2025, from Dena Vallano, Manager, Monitoring and Analysis Section, EPA Region IX, to Michael Miguel,
Assistant Division Chief, Monitoring and Laboratory Division, CARB, dated April 15, 2025.
\c\ The design value for the North Highlands--Blackfoot Way site is invalid due to missing data from August 2022
through December 2024. SMAQMD lost the lease to the North Highlands--Blackfoot Way monitoring site and were
forced to shut down the monitor on August 1, 2022. SMAQMD is looking to secure a new location for the site.
\d\ The Sloughhouse design value is invalid due to null coded data in AQS with poor quality assurance results
from July 2023 through April 2024.
Invalid design values and annual 4th highest daily maximum values can be found in the file titled ``SFNA O3
Design Value Report 2008-2024.pdf'' that is included in the docket for this action.
Source: EPA, AQS Design Value (AMP480), Report Request ID: 2260106, February 6, 2025.
Our proposed determination includes additional information about
ozone air pollution, the NAAQS, and the statutory and regulatory bases
for making a determination of attainment. The proposed determination
also includes information about the Sacramento Metro nonattainment
area, the Tribes whose lands are located within the nonattainment area,
and the ozone air quality data considered for the determination
(information about the monitoring network, the data certification
process, data completeness considerations and other relevant
information).
In our proposed rulemaking, we also proposed to determine that, if
we finalized our determination of attainment by the attainment date,
then the requirement for the area to have contingency measures for
failure to meet RFP and failure to attain for the 2008 ozone NAAQS
would no longer apply, because contingency measures would never be
needed.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See 90 FR 13288, 13320-13321 (March 21, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concurrent with our publication of the proposed determination of
attainment by the attainment date, the EPA issued an interim final
determination, effective upon publication, to stay the offset sanction
and to defer the highway funding sanction associated with the EPA's
2023 disapproval of the Sacramento Metro area's contingency measures
submittal.\5\ The interim final determination to stay and defer
sanctions was based upon the proposed determination of attainment by
the attainment date. Upon the effective date, this final determination
of attainment by the attainment date will permanently stop the
sanctions and FIP clocks triggered by the EPA's previous disapproval of
the contingency measures requirements for the Sacramento Metro area,
and will permanently lift the offset sanction that was previously in
effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 90 FR 13288 (March 21, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period.
During this period, we received three comment letters, which are
included in the docket for this action. Two comment letters are from
anonymous commenters, with identical content that is not germane to
this action. The third comment letter was submitted by Air Law for All
on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD). Issues raised
in this comment letter are summarized with response below.
Comment 1: CBD argues that the EPA lacks authority to declare past
milestones and associated RFP contingency measures moot. The commenters
state that although CAA section 182(g) would have required the State to
submit, and the EPA to act on, demonstrations that the area achieved
necessary emissions reductions for emissions milestones in 2018 and
2021, there is no information in the record to show whether the EPA
determined the area achieved the necessary emissions reductions for
these milestones. According to the commenters, if the EPA previously
determined that these milestones were met, then the associated RFP
contingency measures would not be triggered, and mootness is
irrelevant; on the other hand, they say, if the area failed to make
RFP, then the contingency measures requirement should have been timely
triggered.
The commenters argue that the EPA's approach is contrary to
Congressional
[[Page 40743]]
intent. First, the commenters argue that interpretating the CAA to moot
contingency measures for prior RFP milestones upon an attainment
determination assumes that the EPA will illegally fail to make the
required milestone determinations in a timely fashion, which they say
cannot be what Congress intended. Elsewhere, the commenters argue that
the fact that CAA section 182(g)'s ``explicitly excludes the milestone
year on a determination of attainment,'' creates a strong inference
that Congress intended prior milestones and associated contingency
measure requirements to apply, and that there is therefore no ``gap''
for EPA to interpret under the now-obsolete Chevron doctrine, and the
memorandum opinion in Matusow v. Wheeler, No. 20-72279 (9th Cir. Apr.
21, 2022) carries no weight. The commenters also assert that mootness
is a judge-made doctrine, and that under long-standing legal
principles, the EPA cannot be a judge in its own cause.
The commenters speculate that the EPA may have failed to make
milestone determinations for Sacramento Metro and other areas because
of a prior ``invalid'' agency interpretation under which milestone
requirements could be satisfied by a showing that control measures were
timely implemented, citing Sierra Club v. EPA, 21 F.4th 815, 823-26
(D.C. Cir. 2021).
Response: For reasons generally addressed in the proposal, we
disagree with the commenter's claim that the EPA lacks authority to
determine that the Sacramento Metro area will no longer need RFP
contingency measures for the 2008 ozone NAAQS following our
determination that the area has attained the NAAQS by the attainment
date. However, we wish to clarify some features of our determination in
response to these comments.
First, as a preliminary matter, we note that while the commenter
refers to our conclusions regarding RFP contingency measures as a
declaration that RFP contingency measures are ``moot,'' our proposed
determination does not use this word. The commenter is
mischaracterizing the EPA's action. We do not say, nor did we intend to
imply, that the RFP contingency measures are ``moot'' in a legal sense.
The EPA is not purporting to apply a judge-made doctrine as commenters
suggest. Instead, the proposal explains the EPA's longstanding
position, held for over 30 years,\6\ that RFP contingency measures are
no longer necessary following a determination of attainment by the
attainment date because contingency measure requirements no longer
apply:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See, e.g., Memorandum dated May 10, 1995, from John D.
Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to
EPA Regional Air Directors, Regions I through X, Subject:
``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and Related
Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard'' (``1995 Seitz Memo'').
Therefore, if we finalize our proposed determination that the
Sacramento Metro area has attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the
attainment date, then attainment contingency measures for the 2008
ozone NAAQS would never be required to be implemented, regardless of
whether the area continued to attain the NAAQS, and RFP contingency
measures could not be triggered and would therefore no longer be
necessary.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 90 FR 13316, 13321 (March 21, 2025) (citing 1995 Seitz Memo
at p. 4).
The EPA's interpretation of the statute, as laid out in the 1995
Seitz Memo cited in the proposal, is based on the CAA's definition of
``reasonable further progress'' for the nonattainment requirements of
part D.\8\ CAA section 171(1) defines RFP as ``such annual incremental
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.'' (emphasis added). And as the EPA noted in the 1995
Seitz Memo, the subpart 2 requirements for RFP are varieties of the
more general nonattainment RFP requirements.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 1995 Seitz Memo at p. 2.
\9\ Seitz Memo at p. 2, n.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Tenth Circuit has recently recognized that ``[t]he `purpose'
clause [in the CAA definition of RFP] simply explains that the
emissions reductions (set either by part D or the EPA) are designed to
ensure the area will eventually reach attainment.'' \10\ Since the
purpose of RFP is to ensure attainment by the attainment date, it
stands to reason that a SIP submission seeking to codify contingency
measures for failure to meet RFP serves no purpose after the area has
timely attained the NAAQS. This practical concept that a certain SIP
submission is no longer required is not the same as the judicial
doctrine of mootness, as the commenters suggest.\11\ In any case, as
noted above, our proposed determination does not use this word, and we
do not intend our statements regarding the need for contingency
measures to convey anything specifically related to mootness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. EPA, 129 F.4th 1266, 1271
(10th Cir. 2025) (quoting CAA section 171(1)).
\11\ Cf. Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs.
(TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189 (2000) (discussing mootness
doctrine).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relatedly, commenters are incorrect when they claim, or imply, that
the EPA's position is based only on a reading of CAA section 182(g); a
purported ``preferred reading'' that commenters do not explain further.
The EPA mentioned CAA section 182(g) one time in the proposal in
conjunction with other authorities explained above, including the 1995
Seitz Memo which discusses the EPA's position in reference to the
definition of RFP in CAA section 171(1). Upon reexamination in light of
the comment, this short statement about CAA 182(g) in the proposal
appears to be a straightforward explanation of the basic mechanics of
that provision. Commenters do not specify which portion of CAA section
182(g), or which language within 182(g), they believe the EPA is
misreading or misapplying. Since the comment on this point is vague,
the EPA cannot provide a specific response.
As a Severe-15 nonattainment area with a December 31, 2024
attainment date, the Sacramento Metro area's RFP milestones for the
2008 ozone NAAQS occurred in the years 2017, 2020, and 2023.\12\ CARB
has submitted demonstrations showing that the Sacramento Metro area met
both the 2020 and 2023 milestones by substantial margins, through a
surplus of NO<INF>X</INF> emissions reductions in excess of the
required target levels.\13\ The EPA found CARB's MCD for the 2020
milestone adequate on February 28, 2022.\14\ In
[[Page 40744]]
response to this comment, the EPA has reviewed the State's 2023 MCD and
preliminarily agrees with the State's demonstration that the area met
the 2023 milestone, and we plan to issue an adequacy determination for
the 2023 milestone in the near future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The commenters reference milestones in 2018 and 2021. In
the context of the comment, it appears that the commenters may have
calculated the milestones from an RFP baseline year of 2012, which
is the year the area was designated as nonattainment for the 2008
ozone NAAQS. For the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the RFP baseline year is the
calendar year for the most recently available triennial emission
inventory at the time RFP plans are developed, which for areas
designated as nonattainment in 2012 translates to 2011. 80 FR 12264,
12272 (March 6, 2015). See South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v.
EPA, 882 F.3d 1138 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (disallowing use of alternative
RFP baseline years).
\13\ CARB, ``California 2020 Milestone Compliance Demonstration
for the 75 Parts per Billion National Ambient Air Quality Standard
for Ozone,'' March 30, 2021, p. 15 (showing 45.6 percent reduction
in NO<INF>X</INF> emissions between 2011 and 2020, compared to the
27 percent reductions of VOC or NO<INF>X</INF> required for that
period); CARB, ``California 2023 Milestone Compliance Demonstration
for the 75 Parts Per Billion and 70 Parts Per Billion 8-hour Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' March 30, 2024, pp. 20-21
(showing 56 percent reduction in NO<INF>X</INF> emissions between
2011 and 2023, compared to the 36 percent reductions of VOC or
NO<INF>X</INF> required for that period).
\14\ Letter dated February 28, 2022, from Martha Guzman,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, to Richard W. Corey,
Executive Officer, CARB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, in response to this comment, the EPA has reviewed
emissions inventories for the 2017 milestone, which show the area
achieving substantial early reductions to meet the milestone,
consistent with the continuing progress demonstrated in the submitted
MCDs. Under the 2008 ozone SIP Requirements Rule and 40 CFR 51.1110,
the area was required to show an 18 percent reduction in VOC or
NO<INF>X</INF> from the 2011 baseline emissions inventory by 2017.\15\
2017 emissions data show that the area achieved a VOC reduction of 15.4
percent and a NO<INF>X</INF> reduction of 35.8 percent, thus meeting
the milestone though a surplus of NO<INF>X</INF> emissions reductions
(Table 2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See 80 FR 12264, 12271 (March 6, 2015) and 40 CFR
51.1110(a)(2)(i)(A) (describing 2008 ozone NAAQS requirements for
Moderate and above nonattainment areas with a previously approved 15
percent VOC-only rate-of-progress (ROP) demonstration for a previous
ozone NAAQS). The EPA approved the Sacramento Metro area's ROP
demonstration for the 1997 ozone standard. 80 FR 4795, 4798 (January
29, 2015).
Table 2--Sacramento Metro Area 2017 Milestone Emissions Reductions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011 baseline emissions (tpd) \a\...................... 111.6 107.7
2017 emissions (tpd) \b\............................... 94.5 69.2
Reduction.............................................. 15.4% 35.8%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ CARB, ``California 2020 Milestone Compliance Demonstration for the
75 Parts per Billion National Ambient Air Quality Standard for
Ozone,'' March 30, 2021.
\b\ CARB, Staff Report, ``70 ppb Ozone SIP Submittal,'' May 22, 2020.
Our review of emissions inventory data therefore shows the area has
achieved the required reductions in each RFP milestone for the 2008
ozone NAAQS, including in 2023 (the area's last applicable milestone
prior to the attainment date), and RFP contingency measures for this
NAAQS would not be required to be implemented, regardless of whether
the area continues to attain the NAAQS.
Next, we find the commenter's legal arguments relating to
Congressional intent to be unavailing. Nothing in our proposed action
or interpretation of the CAA rests on an assumption that the EPA will
fail to make milestone determinations or otherwise act illegally. To
reiterate, when the EPA determines that an area has timely attained a
NAAQS, the area no longer needs to demonstrate RFP.\16\ Similarly, the
area is no longer subject to the requirements to include SIP
contingency measures for RFP or attainment.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See 57 FR 13498, 13564 (April 16, 1992) (noting that RFP
requirements do not apply in evaluating a request for redesignation
to attainment ``since, at a minimum, the air quality data for the
area must show that the area has already attained. Showing that the
State will make RFP towards attainment will, therefore, have no
meaning at that point.'').
\17\ See id. (``The section 172(c)(9) requirements for
contingency measures are directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by
the applicable date. These requirements no longer apply when an area
has attained the standard and is eligible for redesignation.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, while we agree with the commenter that CAA section 182(g)
does not require states to submit MCDs for milestones aligning with an
area's attainment date when the area has timely attained, we disagree
that this creates any inference that would contradict our
determination. Indeed, we find this language in the Act to be
supportive of the general point that the purpose of the RFP
requirements is to ensure progress toward attainment by the applicable
attainment date.\18\ The parenthetical exclusion in CAA section
182(g)(2) stands for the idea that there is no reason to require that a
state submit an MCD to show it met RFP for a milestone year if that
year is also an attainment year and the area is attaining the NAAQS,
because the purpose of RFP is to ensure the area attains by the
applicable attainment date. If the area has met the goal of attaining,
then there is no utility in checking if the milestone has been met
because the purpose of the milestone is to assist with achieving
attainment. By extension, since the purpose of RFP is to assist with
ensuring attainment, the utility of RFP ceases upon a finding of
attainment; at that point, RFP is no longer necessary because its
purpose has been fulfilled. Contrary to the commenter's allegations,
the EPA is not claiming that there is a statutory gap in CAA 182(g),
and the EPA is in no way relying on the Chevron doctrine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See 87 FR 42126, 42131 (July 14, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the reasons above, we disagree that our proposed action exceeds
the EPA's authority under the CAA.
Comment 2: CBD asserts that the EPA's position that the RFP
contingency measures requirements are mooted by attainment is
internally inconsistent, citing previous EPA statements suggesting that
RFP requirements are independent of attainment. The commenters assert
that the EPA must not finalize its purported mooting of RFP and
associated contingency measures requirements, and that the EPA must
lift the interim determination to stay and defer sanctions.
Response: We disagree that our action is inconsistent either
internally or with past practice. The EPA has consistently held that
``progress'' in the context of RFP means progress towards
attainment.\19\ This position is grounded in the language of the CAA,
which connects the purpose of RFP reductions to the attainment
requirements. In particular, CAA section 171(1) defines ``reasonable
further progress'' as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See, e.g., 80 FR 12264, 12776 (March 6, 2015) (noting that
``the purpose of the RFP provisions in CAA sections 172 and 182 is
to foster the achievement of reasonable further progress toward
attainment''). As we have previously explained in response to other
comments from the same commenter, the RFP reductions for the 2008
ozone NAAQS represent the minimum progress that is required under
the CAA and our regulations, not necessarily all of the reductions
necessary to achieve attainment of the ozone NAAQS, which could vary
largely from one nonattainment area to another. See 86 FR 33528,
33531 (June 25, 2021). See also Ctr. for Biological Diversity v.
EPA, 129 F.4th 1266 at 1270-1272 (10th Cir. 2025), which recently
upheld the EPA's position that while the purpose of RFP for ozone
nonattainment areas is to ``ensure the area will eventually reach
attainment'' RFP reductions ``need not alone achieve attainment.''
RFP for ozone is a fixed percentage defined in the CAA.
such annual incremental 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 national ambient air quality standard by the applicable
date.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ CAA section 171(1).
Similarly, CAA section 182(b)(1)(A) specifies that attainment plans
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
for Moderate and above areas:
shall provide for such specific annual reductions in emissions of
volatile organic compounds and oxides of nitrogen as necessary to
attain the national primary ambient air quality standard for ozone
by the attainment date applicable under this chapter.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ CAA section 182(b)(1)(A)(i). See also CAA section
182(c)(2)(B) (specifying that RFP reductions are required ``until
the attainment date'').
Further, as the commenter notes and as we explained above, CAA
section 182(g) includes a specific statutory exemption from the
requirement to submit an MCD. That section does not require an ozone
nonattainment area classified ``Serious'' or higher to demonstrate
compliance with an RFP milestone that coincides with the attainment
date once the area has attained.\22\ This evidences that Congress saw
no point in simultaneously making an area demonstrate that it had met
its
[[Page 40745]]
RFP milestone if it could instead show that it had attained the NAAQS.
Once an area has satisfied its RFP requirements, RFP contingency
measures cannot be triggered and are therefore no longer necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ CAA 182(g)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our action follows several similar actions for Phoenix, Ventura
County, and Western Nevada County nonattainment areas.\23\ In each, we
found that our determination of attainment by the attainment date
eliminated the area's need for the RFP contingency measures for the
2008 ozone NAAQS. We therefore disagree that our action is inconsistent
with past practice. The commenter appears to be mixing concepts in a
confusing manner, as evidenced by reference to a June 2021 EPA
action.\24\ Within that action, the EPA explained its current position
that the amount of reductions necessary for an approvable ozone RFP SIP
revision (an RFP plan showing how the area plans to meet RFP) is set by
the CAA in a way that is not related to the amount of reductions
necessarily needed for the area to attain the NAAQS by the attainment
date. In that action, the EPA explained ``[i]n the 2008 Ozone [SIP
Requirements Rule], which is the set of regulations that governs the
EPA's action here, RFP is defined in terms of percent reduction
requirements, not in terms of the reductions necessary for
attainment.'' \25\ This position, which was recently upheld in Ctr. for
Biological Diversity v. EPA, 129 F.4th 1266 (10th Cir. 2025), speaks to
what states must show in their RFP SIP submission on the front end of
the planning process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ The rationale is articulated for the Phoenix area at 85 FR
33571, 33574 (June 2, 2020); for the Ventura and Western Nevada
County areas at 87 FR 42126, 42131 (July 14, 2022); and for the
Sacramento Metro area at 90 FR 13316, 13321 (March 21, 2025).
\24\ 86 FR 33528 (June 25, 2021).
\25\ Id. at 33531.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters are wrong to suggest this position related to the amount
of reductions needed in an RFP plan is somehow inconsistent with the
EPA's present determination in this action. The EPA's position is
consistent. ``[R]easonable further progress and attainment are two
interconnected--but distinct--requirements.'' \26\ The purpose of RFP
is to help with getting the area into attainment, and for ozone
reduction planning purposes, the CAA defines RFP as fixed emissions
reductions percentages. Once the area has attained, RFP no longer
applies because the purpose of RFP has been fulfilled. The commenter is
confusing the purpose of RFP with the amount of reductions necessary to
show in an RFP plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. EPA, 129 F.4th 1266, 1272
(10th Cir. 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the reasons discussed above, we disagree that it is
inappropriate to finalize our proposed determination that contingency
measures for RFP are no longer required upon a determination of
attainment by the attainment date. We also disagree that it is
inappropriate to relieve the sanctions associated with our previous
disapproval of contingency measures for RFP and attainment for the
Sacramento Metro area.\27\ As noted in our interim final determination
to stay and defer sanctions, a final determination of attainment that
the Sacramento Metro area has attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS means that
the associated attainment and RFP contingency measures are no longer
required. Further, it makes no sense and does not serve the public to
apply sanctions associated with a requirement that no longer applies.
Accordingly, the EPA is determining that the area is no longer subject
to the contingency measures requirements that were the basis for our
previous disapproval action, and we are permanently removing the
sanctions triggered by that previous action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Sanction clocks were started pursuant to 40 CFR 52.31(c)(2)
by the EPA's June 15, 2023 final disapproval action at 88 FR 39179,
and codified at 40 CFR 52.237(a)(14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Final Determination
Pursuant to section 181(b)(2)(A) of the CAA and 40 CFR 51.1303, the
EPA is making a final determination that the Sacramento Metro area
attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of
December 31, 2025. Once effective, this final action satisfies the
EPA's obligation pursuant to CAA section 181(b)(2)(A) to determine,
based on an area's air quality as of the attainment date, whether the
area attained the standard by its applicable attainment date.
We are also making a final determination that the requirement for
the Sacramento Metro area to have contingency measures for failure to
meet RFP and failure to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the attainment
date no longer applies, because contingency measures cannot be
triggered given the attainment of the NAAQS by the attainment date.
This finding will not prevent the EPA, in the event that the Sacramento
Metro area subsequently violates the NAAQS, from exercising its
authority under the CAA to address violations of the NAAQS.\28\ Our
proposed rulemaking has more information about our rationale for this
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See Bahr v. Regan, 6 F.4th 1059, 1085 (9th Cir. 2021); see
also 42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This attainment determination permanently stops the sanctions and
FIP clocks triggered by the EPA's previous disapproval of the
contingency measures requirement for the Sacramento Metro area, and
permanently lifts the offset sanction that had previously been imposed.
The offset sanction had previously been stayed and the highway funding
sanction had previously been deferred by our interim final
determination to stay and defer sanctions.
This determination of attainment does not constitute a
redesignation to attainment under CAA section 107(d)(3). The EPA may
redesignate an area if the state meets additional statutory criteria,
including the EPA approval of a state plan demonstrating maintenance of
the air quality standard for 10 years after redesignation, as required
under CAA section 175A. As for all NAAQS, the EPA is committed to
working with states that choose to submit redesignation requests for
areas that are attaining the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
This action:
<bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
<bullet> Is not subject to Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065,
February 6, 2025) because SIP actions are exempt from review under
Executive Order 12866;
<bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
<bullet> Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
<bullet> Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
<bullet> Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
<bullet> Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
<bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
[[Page 40746]]
<bullet> Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act.
Additionally, this rule does not have Tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000)
because it will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal
governments or preempt Tribal law. The EPA has identified Tribal areas
within the Sacramento Metro nonattainment area. We note that this
determination applies throughout the nonattainment area, including on
Tribal lands within the nonattainment areas. However, as noted in our
proposal and in section III of this document, the Sacramento Metro
nonattainment area, including the Tribal lands within the nonattainment
area, will remain designated nonattainment and will retain its existing
classification.
The EPA notified the Tribes located within the boundaries of the
Sacramento Metro nonattainment areas of our proposed determination and
will notify these Tribes of this final determination. Because a final
determination of attainment does not change the Tribe's existing
nonattainment designation or classification, the EPA does not plan
offer government-to-government consultation on this determination,
however, it is our practice to initiate government-to-government
consultation at the request of any Tribe.
This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and the EPA
will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 20, 2025. 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 relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: August 11, 2025.
Joshua F.W. Cook,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, 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 52.282 is amended by adding paragraph (o) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.282 Control strategy and regulations: Ozone.
* * * * *
(o) Determination of attainment by the attainment date. Effective
September 22, 2025. The EPA has determined that the Sacramento Metro
Severe-15 nonattainment area in California attained the 2008 ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) by the applicable
attainment date of December 31, 2024, based upon complete, quality-
assured and certified data for the calendar years 2022-2024.
[FR Doc. 2025-15990 Filed 8-20-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on August 21, 2025.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.