Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes: California, 6986-6998 [E7-2538]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
6986
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Proposed Rules
PART 2—RULES OF PRACTICE IN
TRADEMARK CASES
1. The authority citation for 37 CFR
part 2 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1123, 35 U.S.C. 2,
unless otherwise noted.
2. Amend § 2.64 by revising
paragraphs (b) and (c)(1) to read as
follows:
§ 2.64
Final action.
*
*
*
*
*
(b)(1) During the three-month period
after issuance of a final action, the
applicant may request that the
examining attorney reconsider the final
action. The request must be filed
through TEAS. The filing of a request
for reconsideration will not extend the
time for filing an appeal or petitioning
the Director.
(2) During the six-month period after
issuance of a final action, the applicant
may submit amendments. Any such
amendments will be examined, and will
be entered if they comply with the rules
of practice in trademark cases and the
Act of 1946. The filing of such an
amendment will not extend the time for
filing an appeal or petitioning the
Director.
(c)(1) If an applicant in an application
under section 1(b) of the Act files an
amendment to allege use under § 2.76
during the six-month period after
issuance of a final action, the examiner
shall examine the amendment. The
filing of such an amendment will not
extend the time for filing an appeal or
petitioning the Director.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: February 8, 2007.
Jon W. Dudas,
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual
Property and Director of the United States
Patent and Trademark Office.
[FR Doc. E7–2519 Filed 2–13–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–16–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
[EPA–R09–OAR–2007–0101; FRL–8277–9]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning
Purposes: California
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to grant a
request submitted by the State to
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:31 Feb 13, 2007
Jkt 211001
redesignate the South Coast from
nonattainment to attainment for the CO
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). EPA is also proposing to
approve a state implementation plan
(SIP) revision for the South Coast
nonattainment area in California as
meeting the Clean Air Act (CAA)
requirements for maintenance plans for
carbon monoxide (CO). EPA is
proposing to find adequate and approve
motor vehicle emission budgets, which
are included in the maintenance plan.
Finally, EPA is proposing to approve the
California motor vehicle inspection and
maintenance (I/M) program as meeting
the low enhanced I/M requirements for
CO in the South Coast.
DATES: Comments must be received by
March 16, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments,
identified by docket number EPA–R09–
OAR–2007–0101, by one of the
following methods:
1. Agency Web site: https://
www.regulations.gov. EPA prefers
receiving comments through this
electronic public docket and comment
system. Follow the on-line instructions
to submit comments.
2. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions.
3. E-mail: jesson.david@epa.gov
4. Mail or deliver: Marty Robin, Office
of Air Planning (AIR–2), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105–3901.
Instructions: All comments will be
included in the public docket without
change and may be made available
online at https://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 the
agency Web site, eRulemaking portal, or
e-mail. The agency Web site and
eRulemaking portal are anonymous
access systems, 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 comment 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 at
https://www.regulations.gov and in hard
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
copy at EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, California. 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 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:
David Jesson, U.S. EPA Region 9, 415–
972–3961, david.jesson@epa.gov or
https://www.epa.gov/region09/air/
actions.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, the terms
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ mean U.S. EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Summary of Today’s Proposed Action
II. CO SIPs for the South Coast
A. Requirements for Serious CO
Nonattainment Areas
B. Serious CO SIP for the South Coast
C. CO Maintenance Plan for the South
Coast
III. South Coast Redesignation to Attainment
A. Attainment of the NAAQS
1. Basis for Determining Attainment
2. Record of Attainment in the South Coast
B. Fully Approved Applicable
Implementation Plan Under CAA
Section 110(k) Meeting Requirements
Applicable for Purposes of Redesignation
Under Section 110 and Part D
1. Basic SIP Requirements Under CAA
Section 110
2. Clean Data Policy and Outstanding Part
D Requirements
a. Introduction
b. RFP and Attainment Demonstration
c. Contingency Provisions
(1) Introduction
(2) CAA Section 172(c)(9)
(3) CAA Section 187(a)(3)
d. Conclusion
3. TCMs to Offset Growth in Emissions
From VMT Increases
4. Requirement for Enhanced I/M Program
5. Wintertime Oxygenated Gasoline
Program
6. Conclusion
C. Improvement in Air Quality is Due to
Permanent and Enforceable Measures
D. Fully Approved Maintenance Plan
1. Applicable Requirements
2. Maintenance Plan Provisions
a. Emissions Inventories for Attainment
Year and Future Years
b. Maintenance Demonstration
c. Monitoring Network and Verification of
Continued Attainment
d. Contingency Provisions
e. Commitment to Submit Subsequent
Maintenance Plan Revision
f. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
g. Conclusion
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM
14FEP1
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Proposed Rules
I. Summary of Today’s Proposed Action
We are proposing to approve the 2005
Carbon Monoxide Redesignation
Request and Carbon Monoxide
Maintenance Plan for the South Coast
Air Basin (Maintenance Plan) as
meeting the requirements of CAA
sections 107(d)(3)(E) and 175A, which
provide, in part, that plans must
demonstrate continued attainment for at
least 10 years and must include
contingency measures. The submittal
included evidence that the South Coast
attained the CO NAAQS in 2002 and
continues to attain the NAAQS. We are
also proposing to approve and find
adequate the motor vehicle emissions
budgets (MVEBs) submitted with the
Maintenance Plan.
We are proposing to approve the
request by the State of California to
redesignate the area to attainment for
CO under the provisions of CAA section
107(d)(3)(E). Section 107(d)(3)(E)
authorizes the EPA Administrator to
redesignate areas to attainment if the
area has attained the NAAQS due to
permanent and enforceable emission
reductions, and the approved SIP for the
area meets all of the applicable
requirements of CAA section 110 (basic
requirements applicable to SIPs
generally), Part D (special SIP
requirements applicable to
nonattainment areas), and 175A (SIP
requirements for maintenance areas).
As part of our proposed determination
that California has met applicable Part
D provisions, we propose to adapt to CO
nonattainment areas the provisions of
our Clean Data Policy, which was
initially established for ozone (see
discussion below in section III.B.2.).
Under the Clean Data Policy, certain
CAA Part D requirements—including
the requirements for developing
attainment demonstrations, reasonable
further progress (RFP) plans, reasonably
available control measures (RACM) and
contingency measures—no longer apply
because the area has already attained
the NAAQS.
Finally, because our interim approval
of California’s I/M program for CO in
the South Coast expired on August 7,
1998, California has now submitted a
demonstration that the I/M program
meets the low-enhanced requirements
applicable to the South Coast CO
nonattainment area (see discussion in
section III.B.4.) We are proposing to
approve that demonstration.
II. CO SIPs for the South Coast
A. Requirements for Serious CO
Nonattainment Areas
The CAA was substantially amended
in 1990 to establish new planning
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:31 Feb 13, 2007
Jkt 211001
requirements and attainment deadlines
for the NAAQS, including CO.1 Under
section 107(d)(1)(C) of the Act, areas
designated nonattainment prior to
enactment of the 1990 amendments,
including the South Coast, were
designated nonattainment by operation
of law.2 Under section 186(a) of the Act,
each CO area designated nonattainment
under section 107(d) was also classified
by operation of law as either moderate
or serious, depending on the severity of
the area’s air quality problem. CO areas
with design values at and above 16.5
ppm, such as the South Coast, were
classified as serious.
Section 172 of the Act contains
general requirements applicable to SIPs
for nonattainment areas. Sections 186
and 187 of the Act set out additional air
quality planning requirements for CO
nonattainment areas. The most
fundamental of these provisions is the
requirement that CO nonattainment
areas submit by November 15, 1992, a
SIP demonstrating attainment of the
NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable,
but no later than the deadline applicable
to the area’s classification: December 31,
1995, for moderate areas, and December
31, 2000, for serious areas like the South
Coast. CAA sections 186(a)(1), 187(a)(7),
and 187(b)(1). Such a demonstration
must include enforceable measures to
achieve emission reductions each year
leading to emissions at or below the
level predicted to result in attainment of
the NAAQS throughout the
nonattainment area.
EPA has issued a General Preamble
describing the Agency’s preliminary
views on how EPA intends to act on
SIPs submitted under Title I of the Act.
See generally 57 FR 13498 (April 16,
1992) and 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
The reader should refer to the General
Preamble for a more detailed discussion
of EPA’s preliminary interpretations of
the CAA’s Title I requirements.
B. Serious CO SIP for the South Coast
On February 5, 1997, California
submitted a CO plan for the South
1 Under section 109 of the CAA, EPA has
established primary, health-related NAAQS for CO:
9 parts per million (ppm) averaged over an 8-hour
period, and 35 ppm averaged over 1 hour.
Attainment of the 8-hour CO NAAQS is achieved
if not more than one non-overlapping 8-hour
average in any consecutive 2-year period per
monitoring site exceeds 9 ppm (values below 9.5
are rounded down to 9.0 and are not considered
exceedances). See 40 CFR 50.8; William G. Laxton,
Director Technical Support Division, entitled
‘‘Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value
Calculations,’’ dated June 18, 1990; and EPA’s
General Preamble (see 57 FR 13535).
2 For a description of the boundaries of the Los
Angeles-South Coast Air Basin, see 40 CFR 81.305.
The nonattainment area includes all of Orange
County and the more populated portions of Los
Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
6987
Coast, which had been adopted by the
South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD) on November 15,
1996. Because the South Coast had
continuously achieved the 1-hour CO
NAAQS for more than 20 years, this
plan primarily addressed the 8-hour CO
NAAQS. On April 21, 1998 (63 FR
19661), we fully approved the SIP as
meeting the applicable CO requirements
for the South Coast, with the following
exceptions: (1) We took no action on the
plan with respect to the CAA section
187(b)(2) requirement for transportation
control measures (TCMs) to offset any
growth in emissions from vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) or numbers of vehicles
trips; (2) we took no action on the plan
with respect to the contingency measure
requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9)
and 187(a)(3); 3 (3) we granted interim
approval to the RFP provisions under
CAA sections 171(1), 172(c)(2), and
187(a)(7); (4) we granted interim
approval to the attainment
demonstration under CAA section
187(a)(7); and (5) we granted interim
approval to the enhanced I/M program
required by CAA 187(a)(6), as discussed
below.
Interim approval is authorized under
section 348(c) of the National Highway
System Designation Act (‘‘Highway
Act,’’ Public Law 104–59, enacted on
November 28, 1995) for certain types of
I/M programs and, by extension, to SIP
provisions dependent upon reductions
from these I/M programs. We had
previously granted interim approval to
California’s enhanced I/M program (62
FR 1160, January 8, 1997). Our 1997
interim approval established August 7,
1998, as the expiration of the approval
if by such date EPA had not approved
a SIP submittal demonstrating that the
credits claimed for the I/M program are
appropriate and the program is
otherwise in full compliance with the
applicable enhanced I/M requirements.
Because the State did not submit the
needed demonstration, the approval of
the I/M program and the South Coast
CO SIP with respect to RFP and
attainment demonstration expired on
August 7, 1998.
3 CAA section 172(c)(9) requires contingency
measures that would be implemented if an area fails
to make RFP or to attain the NAAQS by the
applicable deadline. For CO areas, CAA section
187(a)(3) requires contingency measures to be
implemented if any estimate of vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) in the area for any year prior to the
attainment year that is submitted in an annual
report under section 187(a)(2)(A) (‘‘VMT tracking
report’’) exceeds the number predicted in the most
recent prior forecast or if the area fails to attain the
NAAQS by the attainment year.
E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM
14FEP1
6988
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Proposed Rules
C. CO Maintenance Plan for the South
Coast
In 2002, the South Coast attained the
8-hour CO NAAQS, and on March 4,
2005, the SCAQMD adopted the
Maintenance Plan, following 30-day
public notice (SCAQMD Board
Resolution No. 05–8). On February 24,
2006, the California Air Resources
Board (CARB) adopted the Maintenance
Plan (CARB Executive Order G–125–
332) and submitted it to EPA as a SIP
revision, along with a request that we
approve a redesignation request to
attainment (Letter from Lynn Terry,
CARB, to Wayne Nastri, EPA Region 9).
On August 11, 2006, CARB submitted
additional technical information
relating to the I/M program in the South
Coast (Letter from Kurt Karperos, CARB,
to Lisa Hanf, EPA Region 9). The
attachment to the letter addressed the
requirement associated with EPA’s 1997
interim approval of the enhanced I/M
program under the Highway Act, by
demonstrating that the California smog
check program meets minimum
requirements applicable to an enhanced
I/M program for CO. In accordance with
CAA section 110(k)(1)(B), the submittal
became complete by operation of law on
August 25, 2006.
III. South Coast Redesignation to
Attainment
The criteria for approval of a
redesignation request are set out in CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E). We review the
State’s request against each of these
criteria in our discussion below.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
A. Attainment of the NAAQS
1. Basis for Determining Attainment
CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) requires that
we determine that the area has attained
the NAAQS. EPA makes the
determination as to whether an area’s
air quality is meeting the CO NAAQS
based upon air quality data gathered at
CO monitoring sites in the
nonattainment area which have been
entered into the Air Quality System
(AQS) database, formerly known as the
Aerometric Information Retrieval
System (AIRS). This data is reviewed to
determine the area’s air quality status in
accordance with 40 CFR 50.8; EPA
policy guidance as stated in a
memorandum from William G. Laxton,
Director Technical Support Division,
entitled ‘‘Ozone and Carbon Monoxide
Design Value Calculations,’’ dated June
18, 1990; and EPA’s General Preamble at
57 FR 13535.
The 8-hour and 1-hour CO design
values are used to determine attainment
of CO areas, and the design values are
determined by reviewing 8 quarters of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:31 Feb 13, 2007
Jkt 211001
data, or a total of two complete calendar
years of data for an area. The 8-hour
design value is computed by first
finding the maximum and second
maximum (non-overlapping) 8-hour
values at each monitoring site for each
year of the two calendar years prior to
and including the attainment date. Then
the higher of the ‘‘second high’’ values
is used as the design value for the
monitoring site, and the highest design
value among the various CO monitoring
sites represents the CO design value for
the area.
The CO NAAQS requires that not
more than one 8-hour average per year
equals or exceeds 9.5 ppm (values
below 9.5 are rounded down to 9 and
are not considered exceedances). If an
area has a design value that is equal to
or greater than 9.5 ppm, this means that
there was a monitoring site where the
second highest (non-overlapping) 8hour average was measured to be equal
to or greater than 9.5 ppm in at least one
of the two years being reviewed to
determine attainment for the area. This
indicates that there were at least two
values above the NAAQS during one
year at that site and thus the NAAQS for
CO was not met. Conversely, an 8-hour
design value of less than 9.5 ppm
indicates that the area has attained the
CO NAAQS.
The 1-hour CO design value is
computed in the same manner. An area
attains the one-hour CO NAAQS if the
1-hour design value is less than 35.5
ppm.
2. Record of Attainment in the South
Coast
The Maintenance Plan presents the
attainment air quality data for the South
Coast’s 22 monitoring stations in Table
2–2 on p. 8. During the period 2002–
2003, there was only one maximum 8hour average concentration above the
standard, a 10.1 ppm concentration
recorded at the Lynwood (South Central
Los Angeles) site on January 8, 2002,
under very stagnant conditions and a
strong inversion. The maximum 8-hour
concentration at Lynwood was 7.7 ppm
in 2001 and 7.3 ppm in 2003. There
were no exceedances of the 8-hour
NAAQS recorded in 2001 and 2003 at
any station, and the design value at all
stations for the periods 2001–2002 and
2002–2003 was well below the NAAQS.
A review of data input to AQS
indicates that the South Coast has
continued to attain the CO NAAQS
since 2003. The highest second
maximum 1-hour and 8-hour CO
concentrations measured at the various
monitoring stations during the 2004
through the first quarter of 2006 were
8.7 ppm and 6.1 ppm, respectively, both
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
recorded in 2004 at the Lynwood station
in south central Los Angeles County.
These values are well below the
corresponding CO NAAQS of 35 and 9
ppm. A ‘‘quick look’’ report generated
using AQS for the South Coast CO
monitoring stations for 2004 through the
third quarter of 2006 is included in the
docket for this proposed rule. The
Maintenance Plan indicates that the 1hour CO NAAQS has not been violated
for 25 years in the South Coast.
Based on the monitoring data
presented in the Maintenance Plan and
AQS data for the past two years, we
propose to determine that the South
Coast attained the CO NAAQS in 2002
and has continued to attain the NAAQS.
B. Fully Approved Applicable
Implementation Plan Under CAA
Section 110(k) Meeting Requirements
Applicable for Purposes of
Redesignation Under Section 110 and
Part D
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v) require
EPA to determine that the area has a
fully approved applicable SIP under
section 110(k) that meets all applicable
requirements under section 110 and Part
D for purposes of redesignation.
1. Basic SIP Requirements Under CAA
Section 110
The general SIP elements and
requirements set forth in section
110(a)(2) include, but are not limited to,
the following: Kubmittal of a SIP that
has been adopted by the state after
reasonable public notice and hearing;
provisions for establishment and
operation of appropriate procedures
needed to monitor ambient air quality;
implementation of a source permit
program; provisions for the
implementation of Part C requirement
for Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD); provisions for the
implementation of Part D requirements
for New Source Review (NSR) permit
programs; provisions for air pollution
modeling; and provisions for public and
local agency participation in planning
and emission control rule development.
On numerous occasions over the past
35 years, CARB and SCAQMD have
submitted and we have approved
provisions addressing the basic CAA
section 110 provisions. There are no
outstanding or disapproved applicable
SIP submittals with respect to the State
and SCAQMD.4 We propose to conclude
4 The applicable SIP for CARB and South Coast
may be found at https://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/
r9sips.nsf/Casips?readform&state=California.
We note that SIPs must be fully approved only
with respect to applicable requirements for
purposes of redesignation in accordance with
section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). Thus, for example, CAA
E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM
14FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Proposed Rules
that CARB and SCAQMD have met all
SIP requirements for the South Coast
area applicable for purposes of
redesignation under section 110 of the
CAA (General SIP Requirements). With
the exceptions discussed below in
Sections III.B.2–4, the SIP for the South
Coast also has been approved as meeting
applicable requirements under Part D of
Title I of the CAA. See our approval of
the South Coast CO attainment SIP at 63
FR 19661–2.
2. Clean Data Policy and Outstanding
Part D Requirements
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
a. Introduction
In some designated nonattainment
areas, monitored data demonstrates that
the NAAQS have already been achieved.
Based on its interpretation of the Act,
EPA has determined that certain SIP
submission requirements of part D,
subparts 1, 2, and 4 of the Act do not
apply and therefore do not require
certain submissions for an area that has
attained the NAAQS. These include RFP
requirements, attainment
demonstrations and contingency
measures, because these provisions have
the purpose of helping achieve
attainment of the NAAQS.
The Clean Data Policy is the subject
of two EPA memoranda setting forth our
interpretation of the provisions of the
section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain
certain measures to prevent sources in a state from
significantly contributing to air quality problems in
another state. However, the section 110(a)(2)(D)
requirements for a state are not linked with a
particular nonattainment area’s designation and
classification in that state. EPA believes that the
requirements linked with a particular
nonattainment area’s designation and classifications
are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing
a redesignation request. The transport SIP submittal
requirements, where applicable, continue to apply
to a state regardless of the designation of any one
particular area in the state.
Thus, we do not believe that these requirements
should be construed to be applicable requirements
for purposes of redesignation. In addition, EPA
believes that the other section 110 elements not
connected with nonattainment plan submissions
and not linked with an area’s attainment status are
not applicable requirements for purposes of
redesignation. The State will still be subject to these
requirements after the South Coast area is
redesignated. The section 110 and Part D
requirements, which are linked with a particular
area’s designation and classification, are the
relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a
redesignation request. This policy is consistent with
EPA’s existing policy on applicability of conformity
(i.e., for redesignations) and oxygenated fuels
requirement. See Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed
and final rulemakings 61 FR 53174–53176 (October
10, 1996), 62 FR 24816 (May 7, 1997); ClevelandAkron-Lorain, Ohio, final rulemaking 61 FR 20458
(May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida, final
rulemaking 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995). See
also the discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati
redesignation 65 FR 37890 (June 19, 2000), and in
the Pittsburgh redesignation 66 FR 50399 (October
19, 2001). EPA believes that section 110 elements
not linked to the area’s nonattainment status are not
applicable for purposes of redesignation.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:31 Feb 13, 2007
Jkt 211001
Act as they apply to areas that have
attained the relevant NAAQS. EPA also
finalized the statutory interpretation set
forth in the policy in a final rule, 40
CFR 51.918, as part of its Final Rule to
Implement the 8-hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard—Phase 2
(Phase 2 Final Rule). See discussion in
the preamble to the rule at 70 FR 71645–
71646 (November 29, 2005). We have
also applied the same approach to the
interpretations of the provisions of
subparts 1 and 4 applicable to PM–10.
For detailed discussions of this
interpretation with respect to the CAA’s
PM–10 requirements for RFP,
attainment demonstrations, and
contingency measures, see 71 FR 6352,
6354 (February 8, 2006); 71 FR 13021,
13024 (March 14, 2006); 71 FR 27440,
27443–27444 (May 11, 2006); and 71 FR
40952, 40954 (July 19, 2006); and 71 FR
63642 (October 30, 2006).
EPA believes that the legal bases set
forth in detail in our Phase 2 Final rule,
our May 10, 1995 memorandum from
John S. Seitz, entitled ‘‘Reasonable
Further Progress, Attainment
Demonstration, and Related
Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment
Areas Meeting the Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard’’ (Seitz
memo), and our December 14, 2004
memorandum from Stephen D. Page
entitled ‘‘Clean Data Policy for the Fine
Particle National Ambient Air Quality
Standards’’ (Page memo), are equally
pertinent to the interpretation of
provisions of subparts 1 and 3
applicable to CO. EPA’s interpretation
of how the provisions of the Act apply
to areas with ‘‘clean data’’ is not
logically limited to ozone, PM–2.5, and
PM–10, because the rationale is not
dependent upon the type of pollutant.
Our interpretation that an area that is
attaining the standard is relieved of
obligations to demonstrate RFP and to
provide an attainment demonstration
and contingency measures pursuant to
part D of the CAA, pertains whether the
standard is CO, 1-hour ozone, 8-hour
ozone, PM–2.5, or PM–10.
b. RFP and Attainment Demonstration
The reasons for relieving an area that
has attained the relevant standard of
certain part D, subpart 1 and 2 (sections
171 and 172) obligations, applies
equally as well to part D, subpart 3,
which contains specific attainment
demonstration and RFP provisions for
CO nonattainment areas. As we have
explained in the 8-hour ozone Phase 2
Final Rule, our ozone and PM–2.5 clean
data memoranda, and our approval of
PM–10 SIPs, EPA believes it is
reasonable to interpret provisions
regarding RFP and attainment
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
6989
demonstrations, along with related
requirements, so as not to require SIP
submissions if an area subject to those
requirements is already attaining the
NAAQS (i.e., attainment of the NAAQS
is demonstrated with three consecutive
years of complete, quality-assured air
quality monitoring data for ozone and
PM, and two consecutive years for CO).
Three U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals
have upheld EPA rulemakings applying
its interpretation of subparts 1 and 2
with respect to ozone. Sierra Club v.
EPA, 99 F.3d 1551 (10th Cir. 1996);
Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F. 3d 537 (7th
Cir. 2004); Our Children’s Earth
Foundation v. EPA, N. 04–73032 (9th
Cir. June 28, 2005) (memorandum
opinion). It has been EPA’s longstanding
interpretation that the general
provisions of part D, subpart 1 of the
Act (sections 171 and 172) do not
require the submission of SIP revisions
concerning RFP for areas already
attaining the ozone NAAQS. In the
General Preamble, we stated:
[R]equirements for RFP will 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. A showing that the
State will make RFP toward attainment will,
therefore, have no meaning at that point. 57
FR at 13564.
See also page 6 of the guidance
memorandum entitled ‘‘Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate
Areas to Attainment’’ from John
Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, to
Regional Air Division Directors, dated
September 4, 1992 (Calcagni Memo,
available at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/
naaqs/ozone/ozonetech/940904.pdf).
EPA believes the same reasoning
applies to the CO RFP provisions of part
D, subpart 3.
With respect to RFP, CAA section
171(1) states that, for purposes of part D
of title I, RFP
means 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.
The stated purpose of RFP is to ensure
attainment by the applicable attainment
date, whether dealing with the general
RFP requirement of section 172(c)(2),
the ozone-specific RFP requirements of
sections 182(b) and (c), the PM–10
specific RFP requirements of section
189(c)(1), or the CO-specific RFP
requirements of section 187(a)(7).
Section 187(a)(7) states that the SIP
for moderate CO areas with a design
value greater than 12.7 must:
E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM
14FEP1
6990
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Proposed Rules
provide a demonstration that the plan as
revised will provide for attainment of the
carbon monoxide NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date and provisions for such
specific annual emission reductions as are
necessary to attain the standard by that date.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
This same requirement also applies to
serious CO areas in accordance with
CAA section 187(b)(1).
It is clear that once the area has
attained the standard, no further
specific annual emission reductions are
necessary or meaningful. With respect
to CO areas, this interpretation is
supported by language in section
187(d)(3), which mandates that a state
that fails to achieve the milestone must
submit a plan that assures that the state
achieves the ‘‘pecific annual reductions
in carbon monoxide emissions set forth
in the plan by the attainment date.’’ 5
Section 187(d)(3) assumes that the
requirement to submit and achieve the
milestone does not continue after
attainment of the NAAQS.
If an area has in fact attained the
standard, the stated purpose of the RFP
and specific annual emissions
reductions requirements will have
already been fulfilled.6 The specific
5 AA section 187(d), CO Milestone, applies to
serious CO areas and requires:
(1) The state to submit a demonstration that the
area has achieved certain specific annual emission
reductions (187(d)(1));
(2) EPA to determine whether the demonstration
is adequate within 90 days (187(d)(2)); and
(3) the state to submit a plan revision within 9
months of EPA’s notification that the state has not
met the milestone, such plan to implement CAA
section 182(g)(4) economic incentive and
transportation control programs sufficient to
achieve the specific annual emission reductions by
the attainment date (187(d)(3)).
EPA interprets these provisions consistent with
its interpretation of Section 182(g) in Subpart 2. See
May 10, 1995 Seitz Memorandum at p. 5. There,
EPA included in its identification of SIP submission
requirements linked with attainment and RFP
requirements the ‘‘Section 182(g) requirements
concerning milestones that are based on the section
182(b)(1) and 182(c)(2)(B) and (C) submissions.’’ In
Subpart 3, similarly, milestone requirements are
based on the section 187(a)(7) specific annual
emission reduction requirements.
6 For PM–10 areas, we have concluded that it is
a distinction without a difference that section
189(c)(1) speaks of the PM–10 nonattainment area
RFP requirement as one to be achieved until an area
is ‘‘redesignated as attainment’’, as opposed to
section 172(c)(2), which is silent on the period to
which the requirement pertains, or the ozone and
CO nonattainment area RFP requirements in
sections 182(b)(1) or 182(c)(2) for ozone and
187(a)(7) for CO, which refer to the RFP
requirements as applying until the ‘‘attainment
date’’, since, section 189(c)(1) defines RFP by
reference to section 171(l) of the Act. Reference to
171(l) clarifies that, as with the general RFP
requirements in section 172(c)(2) and the ozonespecific requirements of section 182(b)(1) and
182(c)(2) and the CO-specific requirements of
section 187(a)(7), the PM-specific requirements may
only be required for the purpose of ensuring
attainment of the applicable national ambient air
quality standard by the applicable date.’’ 42 U.S.C.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:31 Feb 13, 2007
Jkt 211001
annual emission reductions required are
only those necessary to attain the
standard by the attainment date. EPA
took this position with respect to the
general RFP requirement of section
172(c)(2) in the April 16, 1992 General
Preamble and also in the May 10, 1995
memorandum with respect to the
requirements of sections 182(b) and (c).
We are proposing to extend that
interpretation to the specific provisions
of part D, subpart 3.
With respect to the attainment
demonstration requirements of section
187(a)(7), an analogous rationale leads
to the same result. Section 187(a)(7)
requires that the State submit
a revision to provide, and a demonstration
that the plan as revised will provide for
attainment of the carbon monoxide NAAQS
by the applicable attainment date and
provisions for such specific annual emission
reductions as are necessary to attain the
standard by that date.
As with the RFP requirements, if an area
is already monitoring attainment of the
standard, EPA believes there is no need
for an area to make a further submission
containing additional measures to
achieve attainment. This is also
consistent with the interpretation of the
section 172(c) requirements provided by
EPA in the General Preamble, the Page
memo and of the section 182(b) and (c)
requirements set forth in the Seitz
memo. As EPA stated in the General
Preamble, no other measures to provide
for attainment would be needed by areas
seeking redesignation to attainment
since ‘‘attainment will have been
reached.’’ (57 FR at 13564).
c. Contingency Provisions
(1) CAA Section 172(c)(9)
Other SIP submission requirements
are linked with these attainment
demonstration and RFP requirements,
and similar reasoning applies to them.
These requirements include the
contingency measure requirements of
CAA section 172(c)(9), and the special
contingency provisions applicable to
ozone and CO plans. Section 172(c)(9)
requires a State to submit contingency
measures that will be implemented if an
area fails to make ‘‘reasonable further
progress’’ or fails to attain by the
applicable attainment date.7 Thus, the
section 7501(1). As discussed in the text of this
rulemaking, EPA interprets the RFP requirements,
in light of the definition of RFP in section 171(l),
to be a requirement that no longer applies once the
standard has been attained.
7 RFP means ‘‘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.’’ CAA Section 171(1).
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
stated purpose of the contingency
measure requirement is to ensure RFP
(the purpose of which is to ensure
attainment by the applicable attainment
date) and attainment by the applicable
attainment date. If an area has in fact
attained the standard by the applicable
attainment date, the stated purpose of
the contingency measure requirement
will have already been fulfilled.
Consequently, we believe that the
requirement for a State to submit
revisions providing for measures to
meet the contingency provisions of
section 172(c)(9) no longer applies for
an area that we find as having attained
the relevant NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date.
We note that we took this view with
respect to the general contingency
measure requirement of section
172(c)(9) in our General Preamble. In
the General Preamble, we stated, in the
context of a discussion of the
requirements applicable to the
evaluation of requests to redesignate
nonattainment areas to attainment, that
the ‘‘section 172(c)(9) requirements for
contingency measures * * * no longer
apply when an area has attained the
standard and is eligible for
redesignation.’’ See 57 FR 13498, at
13564 (April 16, 1992). See also
Calcagni memo, p. 6.
We propose to extend the same
reasoning to CO plans with respect to
the section 172(c)(9) contingency
provision requirements, since our
reasoning is equally applicable
regardless of the pollutant. Moreover,
just as we concluded that the pollutantspecific contingency measure
requirements of section 182(c)(9) for
ozone areas also no longer apply to
areas attaining the ozone NAAQS, we
propose below that the CO-specific
contingency provisions of section
187(a)(3) no longer apply at the time we
find that an area has attained the CO
NAAQS.
(2) CAA Section 187(a)(3)
Section 187(a)(3) requires contingency
measures to be implemented
if any estimate of vehicle miles traveled in
the area which is submitted in an annual
report under paragraph (2) exceeds the
number predicted in the most recent prior
forecast or if the area fails to attain the
national primary ambient air quality standard
for carbon monoxide by the primary standard
attainment date.
Thus, the Act establishes two triggers
for implementation of contingency
measures required under this provision.
The first trigger is associated with CAA
section 187(a)(2), which requires plans
for areas with a design value above 12.7
ppm at the time of classification to
E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM
14FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Proposed Rules
include ‘‘a forecast of vehicle miles
traveled in the nonattainment area
concerned for each year before the year
in which the plan projects the national
ambient air quality standard for carbon
monoxide to be attained in the area,’’
along with
annual updates of the forecasts to be
submitted to the Administrator together with
annual reports regarding the extent to which
such forecasts proved to be accurate. Such
annual reports shall contain estimates of
actual vehicle miles traveled in each year for
which a forecast was required.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
The plan’s contingency measures must
be implemented ‘‘if the prior forecast
has been exceeded by an updated
forecast * * *.’’ Both the forecasts and
reports are required only until the SIP’s
projected attainment year. Following the
plan’s projected attainment year, which
is the last year of the VMT forecasts, this
trigger disappears.
The second trigger of the contingency
provision is a failure of the area to attain
the primary CO standard by the
applicable deadline, for the evident
purpose of ensuring that such an area
further reduces emissions as needed to
attain the NAAQS. Once an area has
actually attained the CO NAAQS, this
second trigger is clearly eliminated.
Thus, the CAA section 187(a)(3)
contingency provision has no further
practical effect when the two
contingency triggers cease to exist.
Moreover, the implicit goal of the
contingency provision, to reduce motor
vehicle-related CO emissions to the
extent needed to achieve annual
progress and eventual attainment,
would have been accomplished when
an area comes into attainment.
Therefore, we propose to conclude that
an area that is attaining the CO
standards is relieved of an obligation to
provide contingency measures pursuant
to CAA section 187(a)(3).
CAA section 187(b)(2) requires that
CO serious area plans include TCMs as
prescribed in CAA section 182(d)(1) for
ozone areas, except that the TCMs relate
to CO emissions rather than volatile
organic compound emissions. Section
182(d)(1) requires that plans for severe
ozone areas must include TCMs to be
implemented
to offset any growth in emissions from
growth in vehicle miles traveled or numbers
of vehicle trips in such area and to attain
reduction in motor vehicle emissions as
necessary, in combination with other
emission reduction requirements of this
subpart, to comply with the requirements of
subsection (b)(2)(B) and (c)(2)(B) (pertaining
to periodic emissions reduction
requirements).
The section 187(b)(2) TCMs are
required to be submitted if CO
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:31 Feb 13, 2007
Jkt 211001
emissions are expected to increase from
growth in VMT or vehicle trips, and to
meet RFP or attainment. For the same
reason that the requirement for RFP no
longer applies to an area that has
attained the NAAQS, the requirement
for measures to contribute to RFP no
longer applies following a finding of
attainment. Thus EPA interprets the
provisions of section 187(b)(2)(A) that
cross-reference section 182(d)(1) so as to
suspend those provisions pertaining to
periodic emissions reductions
requirements for so long as the area is
attaining the standard. In a May 10,
1995 Seitz memorandum, we identified
as among those requirements that could
be suspended upon finding of
attainment ‘‘the elements of the * * *
requirements of section 182(d)(1)(A)
concerning vehicle miles traveled that
are related to RFP requirements.’’ (p. 2).
With respect to the requirement for
TCMs to offset any growth in emissions
from VMT, see Section 3 below.
d. Conclusion
As noted above, the South Coast area
does not currently have an approved SIP
with respect to the requirements for
RFP, attainment, contingency
provisions, and TCMs related to RFP
requirements. However, we believe that,
for the reasons set forth here and
established in our prior ‘‘clean data’’
memoranda and rulemakings, a CO
nonattainment area that has ‘‘clean
data,’’ should be relieved of the part D,
subpart 3 obligations to provide an
attainment demonstration with specific
annual emission reductions pursuant to
CAA section 187(a)(7); the CAA section
187(d) milestone demonstration
requirement; contingency provisions
pursuant to CAA section 187(a)(3)); and
TCMs related to RFP requirements
pursuant to 187(b)(2); as well as the
attainment demonstration, RFP, and
contingency measure provisions of part
D, subpart 1 contained in section 172 of
the Act.
Here, as in both our 8-hour ozone
Phase 2 final rule and 1-hour ozone and
PM–2.5 clean data memoranda, we
emphasize that the suspension of a
requirement to submit these SIP
revisions exists only for as long as a
nonattainment area continues to
monitor attainment of the standard. If
such an area experiences a violation of
the NAAQS, the basis for the
requirements being suspended would
no longer exist. Therefore, the area
would again be subject to a requirement
to submit the pertinent SIP revision or
revisions and would need to address
those requirements. Thus, a
determination that an area need not
submit one of the SIP submittals
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
6991
amounts to no more than a suspension
of the requirement for so long as the
area continues to attain the standard.
However, once EPA ultimately
redesignates the area to attainment, the
area will be entirely relieved of these
requirements to the extent the
maintenance plan for the area does not
rely on them.
Should we at some future time
determine that an area that had clean
data, but which has not yet been
redesignated as attainment for a
NAAQS, has violated the relevant
standard, the area would again be
required to submit the pertinent
requirements under the SIP for the area.
Attainment determinations under the
policy do not shield an area from other
required actions, such as provisions to
address pollution transport.
As set forth, above, we propose to find
that because the South Coast area has
continued to attain the NAAQS the
requirement of an attainment
demonstration, reasonable further
progress, milestone demonstration,
TCMs related to RFP, and contingency
measures no longer apply.
3. TCMs To Offset Growth in Emissions
From VMT Increases
As noted above, the section 187(b)(2)
TCMs are required to be submitted if CO
emissions are expected to increase from
growth in VMT or vehicle trips.
EPA has concluded that states are not
required to submit such measures if the
SIP includes a demonstration that,
despite any growth in projected VMT,
CO emissions will decline each year
through the attainment year.8 In the
General Preamble, we state that: ‘‘If
projected total motor vehicle emissions
during the ozone season in one year are
not higher than during the ozone season
the year before, given the control
measures in the SIP, the VMT offset
requirement is satisfied.’’ General
Preamble at 57 FR 13522.
The 1997 CO Plan contains a
demonstration that CO emissions from
motor vehicles decline each year
through the attainment year (Appendix
V, page V–5–4, Table 5–2 ‘‘Carbon
Monoxide Emissions (tons/day)
Projected from 1993 through 2000 for
the South Coast Air Basin’’). This table
shows that no additional TCMs are
required to prevent an increase in
emissions associated with a growth in
VMT or trips, since emissions are
shown to decline each year through the
attainment year despite increases in
8 See, for example, EPA’s final approval of
Illinois’ VMT SIP at 60 FR 48896, 48897 (September
21, 1995).
E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM
14FEP1
6992
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Proposed Rules
VMT and trip numbers.9 The
Maintenance Plan includes revised and
updated VMT forecasts for each year
from 1997 through 2006 (Table 4–1).
The Maintenance Plan also includes
revised and updated projected CO
emissions from motor vehicles from
1997 through 2006 (Table 4–2), showing
a continuing sharp decline in CO
emissions despite the growth in VMT
and trips. Consequently, we conclude
that no TCMs are required to satisfy the
progress requirements of the Act or to
offset growth in CO emissions from
growth in VMT or vehicle trips. We
therefore propose to approve the 1997
CO Plan, and the update through the
year of attainment (2002) in the
Maintenance Plan, as meeting the
provisions of CAA section 187(b)(2).
4. Requirement for Enhanced I/M
Program
The requirement for an enhanced
motor vehicle I/M program under CAA
section 187(a)(6) applies to the South
Coast by virtue of the area’s designation
as a serious nonattainment area for CO,
in accordance with CAA section
187(b)(1). On January 22, 1996, CARB
submitted a SIP revision to satisfy the
requirements for basic and enhanced I/
M programs in the various ozone and
CO nonattainment areas in the State.
On January 8, 1997 (62 FR 1150), we
approved the State’s basic I/M program
as meeting the CAA section 182(b)(4)
requirement for moderate ozone areas
within California, and the CAA section
187(a)(4) requirement for I/M program
corrections applicable to California’s
moderate CO areas with a design value
of less than 12.7 ppm at the time of
classification. In the same rule, we
granted interim approval to the State’s
enhanced I/M program under section
348(c) of the Highway Act, as meeting
the CAA section 182(c)(3) requirement
for serious and above ozone areas, and
CAA 187(a)(6) for serious CO areas.
In accordance with the State’s request,
we approved the I/M program as
meeting the high enhanced
requirements (see discussion below). As
provided in the Highway Act, the
interim approval was for a period of 18
months (i.e., until August 7, 1998), by
which time the approval would expire
unless we had approved a SIP
demonstrating that the credits claimed
for the program are appropriate and the
I/M program is otherwise in compliance
with the Clean Air Act. See 40 CFR
52.241.
When we subsequently ruled on the
South Coast CO SIP, we also granted
interim approval to the progress and
attainment provisions of the plan, since
fulfillment of those requirements
depended upon emission reductions
from the enhanced I/M program. (63 FR
19661, April 21, 1998).
California failed to make the SIP
submittal required under the Highway
Act to substantiate the emission
reductions claimed for the enhanced I/
M program and, as a result, the interim
approval of the enhanced I/M program
and the progress and attainment
demonstration provisions of the South
Coast CO SIP expired by operation of
law on August 7, 1998. In Section
III.B.2.b, we discuss this lapsed
approval and our interpretation that the
Clean Data Policy allows us to suspend
the requirements for progress and
attainment demonstration as they apply
to the South Coast CO SIP.
With the submittal of the South Coast
CO Maintenance Plan and redesignation
request, the State included a SIP
revision documenting that: (1) The I/M
program delivered CO emission
reductions sufficient, along with other
control measures, to lead to attainment
of the CO NAAQS in the South Coast,
and (2) the I/M program meets the lowenhanced I/M performance
requirements for CO in the South Coast.
The State’s transmittal letter included
a table of the wintertime CO emissions
reduction benefits in the South Coast
from the current I/M program, along
with a copy of the September 2005
Report to the Legislature regarding
ARB’s &‘‘April 2004 Evaluation of the
California Enhanced Vehicle Inspection
and Maintenance (Smog Check)
Program.’’ The table shows the
following reductions:
TABLE 1.—WINTER SEASON CO EMISSIONS REDUCTION BENEFITS IN THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN ASSOCIATED WITH
THE ENHANCED I/M PROGRAM
[In tons per day]
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Year ..................................................................................................................................
Reductions .......................................................................................................................
1990
494
1993
459
2000
291
2006
671
2010
618
2020
377
Because these substantial emission
reductions did, in fact, result in
attainment of the CO NAAQS in the
South Coast, we agree with the State
that the enhanced I/M program proved
adequate to meet attainment needs for
the area.
The State requests that we also now
determine that the program meets other
low enhanced I/M program
requirements. This would allow us to
conclude, for purposes of the
redesignation provisions of CAA section
107(d)(3)(E)(v), that the area has met the
applicable requirement for an enhanced
I/M program under CAA sections
187(a)(6) and 187(b)(1).
On September 18, 1995, we amended
our regulatory requirements for
enhanced I/M programs (60 FR 48029).
Among other changes, we established a
low enhanced performance standard as
an option for areas subject to the
enhanced I/M requirement and meeting
the following requirements set out in 40
CFR 51.351(g) regarding RFP and
attainment: (1) The area is either not
subject to or has an approved SIP for
RFP in 1996, and (2) the area does not
have a disapproved post-1996 RFP plan
or a disapproved attainment plan for
ozone or CO. South Coast meets these
requirements because it has an
approved plan for RFP in 1996 for
ozone, (62 FR 1150, January 8, 1997)
and has no disapproved post-1996 RFP
plan or a disapproved attainment plan
for ozone or CO.
The low enhanced I/M requirements
set out in 40 CFR 51.351(g), and further
described in the preamble, establish
specific program test elements generally
equivalent to those for a basic I/M
program, as set out in 40 CFR 51.352.
The key difference in test requirements
between the basic and the low enhanced
I/M program are two additional
requirements for low enhanced
programs: visual inspection of emission
control device inspections in
accordance with 40 CFR 51.351(g)(8),
and testing of light duty trucks rated up
to 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight
rating (GVWR) as prescribed in 40 CFR
51.351(g)(5). Additionally, 40 CFR
51.351(b) requires on-road testing of
0.5% of the subject fleet or 20,000
9 Motor vehicle VMT forecasts for each year are
shown in Table 5–1. Despite this annual growth,
emissions from motor vehicles are shown in Table
5–2 to decline as follows: 1993–5909, 1994–5522,
1995–5135, 1996–4596, 1997–4057, 1998–3784,
1999–3511, 2000–3298.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:31 Feb 13, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM
14FEP1
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Proposed Rules
vehicles, whichever is less, and 40 CFR
51.351(c) requires inspection of all 1996
and later vehicles equipped with onboard diagnostics (OBD) systems.
As mentioned above, we fully
approved California’s I/M program as
meeting the basic I/M performance
standard on January 8, 1997. 62 FR 1150
and 40 CFR 52.220(c)(234). California
has now shown that its I/M program
also meets the low enhanced I/M
performance standard and meets the
four requirements mentioned above.10
(1) Since March 1984, the State has
required visual inspection of the
positive crankcase ventilation valve and
of the exhaust gas recirculation valve on
all vehicles subject to the I/M program,
in accordance with 40 CFR 51.351(g)(8).
See Health & Safety Code, Division 26,
Part 5, Section 44012(f); Title 16,
California Code of Regulations, Division
33, Bureau of Automotive Repair,
Article 5.5, Motor Vehicle Inspection
Program, section 3340.42; and BAR 97
Specifications sections 3.3.9 and 3.6.18.
(2) Since March 1984, the State I/M
program has applied to light duty trucks
rated up to 8,500 pounds GVWR, in
accordance with 40 CFR 51.351(g)(5).
See Health & Safety Code, Division 26,
Part 5, Section 44011, and Title 16,
California Code of Regulations, Division
33, Bureau of Automotive Repair,
Article 5.5, Motor Vehicle Inspection
Program, Section 3340.5.
(3) Since 1998, California has
conducted random roadside pullover
inspections in accordance with 40 CFR
51.351(b), under the authority of Health
& Safety Code, Division 26, Part 5,
Section 44081.
(4) Since 2002, California has
inspected 1996 and later OBD-equipped
vehicles in accordance with 40 CFR
51.351(c). See Health & Safety Code,
Division 26, Part 5, Section
44036(b)(10); Title 16, California Code
of Regulations, Division 33, Bureau of
Automotive Repair, Article 5.5, Motor
Vehicle Inspection Program, Section
3340.42; and BAR 97 Specifications,
Sections 2 and 3.
In summary, we conclude that: (1)
The State was entitled to elect to
implement a low enhanced I/M program
for CO in the South Coast; (2) the
program, as implemented by the State,
delivered actual CO emission reductions
sufficient (along with reductions from
other measures) to attain the CO
NAAQS in the South Coast; (3) the
State’s program has been federally
approved as meeting the basic I/M
performance standard; and (4) the
10 See August 11, 2006, letter from Kurt Karperos,
CARB, to Lisa Hanf, EPA Region 9, for technical
information about this demonstration.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:31 Feb 13, 2007
Jkt 211001
State’s program meets the low enhanced
I/M performance standard.
Consequently, we find that the State met
the CAA section 187(a)(6) and 187(b)(1)
enhanced I/M requirements that applied
to the South Coast CO nonattainment
area prior to and at the time of the
submission of the redesignation request.
Finally, we note that the State has
indicated that it intends to continue to
implement the enhanced I/M program
in the South Coast, and continued CO
emission reduction benefits from the
program are incorporated in the
projected emissions inventory that is
part of the maintenance demonstration
in the submitted maintenance plan.
5. Wintertime Oxygenated Gasoline
Program
Pursuant to CAA section 211(m), CO
nonattainment areas with design values
of 9.5 ppm or higher must implement a
wintertime oxygenated gasoline
program requiring that gasoline contain
not less than 2.7 percent oxygen by
weight. In addition, CAA section
187(b)(3) requires that all serious CO
areas implement such a program.
California submitted its motor vehicle
fuels regulations, including
requirements for wintertime oxygen
content, on November 15, 1994. We
approved the regulations on August 21,
1995, as meeting the applicable CAA
requirements. 60 FR 43379. The
requirements remain in effect in the
South Coast area, although the State has
amended the program in other areas.
6. Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, we
propose to determine that all of the
provisions of CAA section 110 and part
D applicable to the South Coast CO area
for purposes of redesignation have been
approved into the California SIP.
C. Improvement in Air Quality Is Due to
Permanent and Enforceable Measures
CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii)
establishes that, as a prerequisite to
redesignation to attainment,
the Administrator determines that the
improvement in air quality is due to
permanent and enforceable reductions in
emissions resulting from implementation of
the applicable implementation plan and
applicable Federal air pollutant control
regulations and other permanent and
enforceable reductions * * *.
The Maintenance Plan provides
evidence that the meteorological
conditions for the years when the South
Coast attained the CO NAAQS were
more conducive to higher ambient CO
concentrations than the long term mean.
During the same period, daily VMT
increased at the normal rate of growth,
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
6993
from 322.8 million miles in 2001 to
330.4 million miles in 2003, so activity
levels associated with motor vehicles,
the primary CO source in the South
Coast, were not abnormal. Maintenance
Plan, p. 6. Increasing CO emission
reductions associated with State and
Federal motor vehicle standards,
coupled with SCAQMD’s CO emission
limits on stationary and area sources,
provide additional evidence that
attainment results from the SIP’s
permanent and reliable controls on CO
emissions rather than favorable
meteorology or depressed activity
levels. The largest source of emissions
reductions during this period came from
progressively more stringent State
emission standards for cars, trucks,
buses, and nonroad equipment,
including forklifts, lawn and garden
equipment, and marine pleasurecraft.11
We propose to find that this
prerequisite to redesignation has been
met.
D. Fully Approved Maintenance Plan
CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) requires
that, before we redesignate an area to
attainment, we must have ‘‘fully
approved a maintenance plan for the
area as meeting the requirements of
section 175A * * *.’’
1. Applicable Requirements
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth
the elements of a maintenance plan for
areas seeking redesignation from
nonattainment to attainment. The
maintenance plan must demonstrate
continued attainment of the applicable
NAAQS for at least ten years after the
Administrator approves a redesignation
to attainment. Eight years after the
promulgation of the redesignation, the
State must submit a revised
maintenance plan that demonstrates
continued attainment for the subsequent
ten-year period following the initial tenyear maintenance period. To address the
possibility of future NAAQS violations,
the maintenance plan must contain
contingency measures, with a schedule
11 Documentation on these and other California
mobile souce standards may be found at: https://
www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/msprog.htm. EPA has
acted over the years to waive Federal preemption
of State standards for California’s motor vehicle
standards as authorized by CAA section 209(b) and
nonroad engine standards as authorized by CAA
section 209(e)(2). Under these CAA sections, EPA
must grant the waiver unless the Adminsitrator
finds that: (1) Califronia’s determination that its
standards, in the aggregate, are at least as protective
of public health and welfare as applicable Federal
standards is arbitrary and capricious; (2) California
does not need such State standards to meet
compelling and extraordinary conditions; or (3)
California’s standards and accompanying
enforcement procedures are not consistent with
section 202(a) [or 209 for nonroad] of the CAA.
E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM
14FEP1
6994
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Proposed Rules
for adoption and implementation, that
are adequate to assure prompt
correction of a violation.
We have issued guidance on
maintenance plans, including most
notably: (1) The General Preamble (57
FR 13498, April 16, 1992), and (2) the
Calcagni memo. In this action, we
propose to approve the Maintenance
Plan because we believe that it meets
the requirements of CAA section 175A
and is consistent with the documents
referenced above and other documents
identified in the discussion below.
2. Maintenance Plan Provisions
a. Emissions Inventories for Attainment
Year and Future Years
The Maintenance Plan includes
emissions inventories for the attainment
year (2002) and for future years 2005,
2010, and 2015, along with motor
vehicle emissions for 2020. The
methodologies for the inventories are
discussed on pages 14–16, including an
extensive discussion of adjustments to
projected mobile source emissions to
reflect the impact of possible
suspension of wintertime oxygenate
requirement for gasoline in the South
Coast.12 Table 2 below reproduces
emissions data primarily from Table 3–
2 of the Maintenance Plan. For 2020, the
onroad emissions data are presented in
Attachment 3 to the plan. Attachment 3
provides winter emissions for motor
vehicles under two scenarios, SCAG
2001 RTP baseline case (1078 tpd) and
SCAG 2001 RTP plan case (941 tpd).
The Maintenance Plan does not include
inventories for stationary, areawide, and
nonroad sources for 2020. In Table 2,
the 2020 projected emissions are
derived from CARB’s latest annual
updated emissions analysis for these
inventory categories. The data are taken
from The California Almanac of
Emissions and Air Quality, 2006
Edition, Table 4–10,
available at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/
aqd/almanac/almanac06/chap406.htm.
TABLE 2.—SOUTH COAST PROJECTED WINTER CO EMISSIONS INVENTORY
[In tons per day]
Category
2002
2005
2010
2015
2020
Stationary .........................................................................................................................................
Areawide ..........................................................................................................................................
Onroad .............................................................................................................................................
Onroad with oxygenated fuel adjustment ........................................................................................
Nonroad ...........................................................................................................................................
Nonroad with oxygenated fuel adjustment ......................................................................................
53
315
3402
3402
1065
1065
55
318
2668
2668
987
987
59
325
2018
3041
912
921
64
332
1428
1444
890
899
69
79
1078
Total ..........................................................................................................................................
4835
4028
3346
2739
2179
CARB expects to update the model in
the near future as part of the preparation
of SIPs due to be submitted by the State
in 2007.13 Other aspects of the
emissions inventory were current,
accurate, and complete at the time of
plan preparation, and comply with
applicable EPA guidance on the
preparation of emission inventories. We
therefore propose to approve the
Maintenance Plan with respect to its
emissions inventories.
953
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
The table shows that maintenance of
the NAAQS would be expected
primarily from large reductions in the
onroad category, which result from the
turnover of cars and trucks, as older and
more polluting vehicles are retired and
replaced with newer and much cleaner
vehicles.
The projected 2015 and 2020 onroad
emissions were generated using CARB’s
motor vehicle emissions factor model,
EMFAC2002v2.2, interpolating vehicle
populations from calendar year 2010
and 2020 populations, as set out in
Maintenance Plan, Attachment 2 (CO
Modeling Attainment Demonstration
Extracted from the 2003 Air Quality
Management Plan, Appendix V, Section
4), Attachment 3 (CARB Assessment
549: South Coast Air Basin CO
Maintenance Plan Winter Emissions).
EMFAC2002v2.2 was the most recent
EPA-approved motor vehicle emissions
factor model at the time the
Maintenance Plan was prepared, but
CAA section 175A(a) requires that the
maintenance plan ‘‘provide for the
maintenance of the national primary
ambient air quality standard for such air
pollutant in the area concerned for at
least 10 years after the redesignation.’’
Generally, a state may demonstrate
maintenance of the CO NAAQS by
either showing that future emissions
will not exceed the level of the
attainment inventory or by modeling to
show that the future mix of sources and
emissions rates will not cause a
violation of the NAAQS. For areas that
are required under the Act to submit
modeled attainment demonstrations, the
maintenance demonstration should use
the same type of modeling. Calcagni
memo, p. 9. Because the design value
for the South Coast exceeded 12.7 ppm
and the area is classified as serious,
modeling would have been required as
part of the attainment demonstration
under CAA section 187(b)(7)(i). The
Maintenance Plan includes a modeled
maintenance demonstration.14
The modeling demonstration is
discussed on pages 12–13 of the
Maintenance Plan, and at more length in
Attachment 2. Regional modeling used
the Comprehensive Air Quality Model
(CAMx) and an October 31–November 1,
1997 meteorological episode, which
ranked in the 98th percentile in
stagnation severity. Additional hot-spot
roadway intersection modeling using
12 Section 3.1.2 of the Maintenance Plan discusses
the possibility that the State might determine in
future to rescind the wintertime oxygenated fuel
requirement as a primary measure. As discussed
below, data from the California Almanac of
Emissions and Air Quality, 2006 Edition, were used
to complete the emissions profile for 2020. The
Almanac does not provide projected emissions for
a future scenario in which the wintertime
oxygenated fuel requirement is shifted from a
primary measure to a contingency measure.
Therefore, the 2020 column in Table 2 does not
show these projections. If the State wishes in future
to change the wintertime oxygenated fuel program
from an active measure to a contingency measure,
the State will need at that time to update the
quantification of the impact on CO emissions, and
demonstrate that the proposed revision will not
interfere with continued maintenance or any other
applicable requirement.
13 We approved the use of EMFAC2002 to
estimate motor vehicle emissions on April 2, 2003
(68 FR 15720).
14 However, where there is a determination of
attainment, the requirement for an attainment
demonstration is suspended and demonstrations of
maintenance can be either by emissions inventory
or modeling. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426, 435–
436 (6th Cir. 2001).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:31 Feb 13, 2007
Jkt 211001
b. Maintenance Demonstration
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM
14FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Proposed Rules
length on pp. 15–16 and in Attachment
A to the Maintenance Plan. If the State
decides in future to suspend the
wintertime oxygenated fuel
requirement, the State would need to
submit a SIP revision complying with
applicable CAA requirements.
For the above reasons, we propose to
approve the contingency provisions in
the Maintenance Plan as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 175A(d).
d. Contingency Provision
CAA section 175A(d) requires that
maintenance plans include provisions
that EPA deems are necessary to assure
that the State will promptly correct any
NAAQS violation, and further requires
that such provisions include a
requirement that the State will
implement all measures contained in
the SIP before redesignation. We have
concluded that contingency measures
need not be new measures that would
be triggered by a violation, but may
consist of early implementation of
measures that provide surplus
reductions beyond those needed for
attainment or maintenance. See ‘‘Early
Implementation of Contingency
Measures for Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,’’
memo from G.T. Helms to EPA Air
Branch Chiefs, August 13, 1993.
The Maintenance Plan takes this
approach, providing a large margin of
emissions from fully adopted State
regulations, such as tighter emission
standards for all categories of motor
vehicles and for nonroad engines, such
as forklifts, lawn and garden equipment,
and marine pleasure craft. See
discussion above in Section III.C.,
providing a more extensive list of
measures, referencing the extensive
CARB documentation available for each
measure, and discussing the EPA waiver
process applicable to these California
mobile source standards. There is no
reason to expect that these standards,
which are all currently in effect, will be
relaxed in the future. Nor is there reason
to believe that compliance will be
inadequate, since CARB has for many
decades maintained a successful
enforcement program. For details on
CARB’s mobile source enforcement
program for new and existing vehicles
and engines, see: https://www.arb.ca.gov/
enf/enf.htm.
As a result, the predicted emissions
for 2015 are approximately 43 percent
below the 2002 attainment year
emissions levels, and this margin of
excess reductions is projected to
increase further in future years due to
the State’s progressively tighter
emissions standards for new mobile
source engines coupled with fleet
turnover of the onroad and nonroad
fleet.
The SCAQMD and CARB have
committed to continue to implement all
existing measures to achieve permanent,
enforceable CO emission reductions that
will further reduce CO levels
(Maintenance Plan, Chapters 2 and 3;
CARB’s letter to EPA dated February 24,
2006). The Maintenance Plan does
evaluate, however, the relatively small
emissions impact of a possible future
decision to suspend implementation of
the wintertime oxygenate program in
the South Coast (see Table 2 above). The
methodology and assumptions for
calculating the impact are discussed at
15 The MVEB for 2020 was clarified in letters from
Sylia Oey, CARB, to Dave Jesson, EPA Region 9,
dated February 2, 2007, and from Laki Tisopulos,
SCAQMD, to Dave Jesson, dated February 2, 2007,
and an e-mail from Jonathan Nadler, SCAG, to Dave
Jesson, dated February 2, 2007.
the CAL3QHC model was used to
demonstrate attainment at high-volume
intersections. The modeling estimated
the South Coast CO carrying capacity to
be 4,527 tpd. For the 2005 emissions
inventory level of 4028, modeling
predicted the 8-hour maximum
concentration to be 7.8 ppm, and the 1hour maximum to be 8.5 ppm.
Concentrations still further below the
NAAQS are associated with the 2015
and 2020 inventory levels, primarily
due to significant reductions in the
dominant motor vehicle emissions
category (2668 tpd in 2005, 1428 in
2015, and 1078 in 2020). The
demonstration covers a 13-year period
(from 2007 through 2020), although
primarily referencing the 2015 year.
The CAMx modeling approach used
in the Maintenance Plan is an EPAapproved model and the modeling
performance is fully acceptable.
Moreover, the declining projected
emissions inventories for the span of the
maintenance demonstration also
support continued maintenance of the
NAAQS. We therefore propose to
approve the demonstration of
maintenance.
c. Monitoring Network and Verification
of Continued Attainment
The Calcagni Memo provides that
areas must continue to operate an air
quality monitoring network to verify
attainment. CO is currently monitored
in accordance with 40 CFR Part 50,
Appendix C and 40 CFR Part 58 at 22
stations. SCAQMD continues to assure
the quality of the measured data by
conducting routine calibrations, pre-run
and post-run test procedures, and
routine service checks. The District also
completes an annual review of the
monitoring network to document
continued compliance with siting
criteria. The SCAQMD commits in the
Maintenance Plan to verify continued
maintenance by daily analysis of air
quality data collected (pp. 22–23).
Furthermore, the District commits to a
formal review of the Maintenance Plan
in 2007 and 2010 (p. 24). We propose
to approve the Maintenance Plan with
respect to the obligation to continue to
monitor and verify attainment.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
6995
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:31 Feb 13, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
e. Commitment To Submit Subsequent
Maintenance Plan Revisons
CAA section 179A(b) provides that
States shall submit a commitment to
submit a SIP revision 8 years after
redesignation providing for maintaining
the NAAQS for an additional 10 years.
SCAQMD has made this commitment as
part of the Maintenance Plan (see p. 22),
and we propose to approve it.
f. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
Transportation conformity is required
by section 176(c) of the CAA. Our
transportation conformity rule (codified
in 40 CFR part 93, subpart A) requires
that transportation plans, programs, and
projects conform to SIPs and establishes
the criteria and procedures for
determining whether or not they do so.
Conformity to the SIP means that
transportation activities will not
produce new air quality violations,
worsen existing violations, or delay
timely attainment of the national
ambient air quality standards.
Maintenance plan submittals must
specify the maximum emissions of
transportation-related CO emissions
allowed in the last year of the
maintenance period, i.e., the motor
vehicle emissions budget (MVEB). The
submittal must also demonstrate that
these emissions levels, when considered
with emissions from all other sources,
are consistent with maintenance of the
NAAQS. In order for us to find these
emissions levels or ‘‘budgets’’ adequate
and approvable, the submittal must
meet the conformity adequacy
provisions of 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and
(5), and be approvable under all
pertinent SIP requirements. For more
information on the transportation
conformity requirement and applicable
policies on MVEBs, please visit our
transportation conformity Web site at:
https://www.epa.gov/otaq/
stateresources/transconf/index.htm.
The Maintenance Plan includes the
CO MVEBs shown in Table 3 below.
The budgets are based on Table 3–5 of
the plan and other documentation in
Section 3.1.3 of the plan.15 See also the
E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM
14FEP1
6996
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Proposed Rules
discussion of projected emissions in
Section III.D.2.a., above.
TABLE 3.—SOUTH COAST CO MAINTENANCE PLAN MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS BUDGETS
[Winter season emissions in tons per day]
Category
2005
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Total Air Basin Emissions ................................................................................................................................
Motor Vehicle Emissions .................................................................................................................................
Safety Margins .................................................................................................................................................
Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets ...................................................................................................................
Total Air Basin Emissions with Safety Margin .................................................................................................
Modeled Air Basin Emissions ..........................................................................................................................
In setting MVEBs, States generally use
motor vehicle emission inventories.
California took this approach, for
example, in the 1997 CO attainment
plan. California need not, however, cap
MVEBs at projected motor vehicle
emissions levels. Because overall
projected levels of emissions from all
sources are expected to be less than the
levels necessary to maintain the CO
NAAQS, California has a ‘‘safety
margin’’ that the State may use to set
MVEBs at a higher level. As long as
emissions from all sources are lower
than needed to provide for continued
maintenance, the State may allocate
additional emissions to future mobile
source growth by assigning a portion of
the safety margin to the MVEBs (see 40
CFR 93.124). California stated in the
Maintenance Plan that the safety
margins described in Table 3 above are
allocated to the MVEBs.
Attainment was achieved in 2002
when the CO emissions level in the
basin was 4835 tpd. The modeled
attainment level is 4527 tpd. As can be
seen from Table 3, total basin emissions,
with the safety margin, are substantially
below actual and modeled attainment
levels. Thus, the safety margins comply
with the requirement that the budgets
with safety margins are lower than the
maintenance level.
The criteria by which we determine
whether a SIP’s MVEBs are adequate
and approvable for conformity purposes
are outlined in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and
(5). The following paragraphs provide
our review of the budgets in the
Maintenance Plan against our adequacy
criteria and provide the basis for our
proposed approval of the MVEBs.
Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(i), we
review a submitted plan to determine
whether the plan was endorsed by the
Governor (or designee) and was subject
to a public hearing. The February 24,
2006 transmittal letter for the
Maintenance Plan was signed by the
CARB Executive Officer, the Governor’s
designee for SIP purposes. CARB
Executive Order G–125–332 provides
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:31 Feb 13, 2007
Jkt 211001
evidence of State adoption and legal
authority. SCAQMD’s April 19, 2005
transmittal letter documents that the
District held a public hearing on the
Maintenance Plan on March 4, 2005,
after proper public notice. Therefore, we
propose to conclude that the submitted
plan meets the criterion under 40 CFR
93.118(e)(4)(i).
Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(ii), we
review a submitted plan to determine
whether the plan was developed
through consultation with Federal, State
and local agencies and whether full
implementation plan documentation
was provided to EPA and EPA’s stated
concerns, if any, were addressed.
Consultation for development of this
plan largely consisted of public
meetings (page 75 of the plan);
discussions with Federal, State, and
local transportation planning agencies;
and a public hearing, preceded by
notices that were published in
newspapers of general circulation.
Documentation was provided to EPA
and EPA’s stated concerns were
addressed. We propose to conclude that
this consultation is sufficient for the
purposes of 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(ii).
Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iii), we
review a submitted plan to determine
whether the MVEBs are clearly
identified and precisely quantified. The
Maintenance Plan clearly identifies and
precisely quantifies the CO MVEBs as
shown in Table 3 above. The budgets
are derived from EMFAC2002 with
travel activity data provided by the
Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG). The methodology
and rationale for determining the
MVEBs is discussed on pages 17
through 22 of the plan. This portion of
the plan also indicates that modeling
sensitivity analyses confirm that the
budgets would provide for maintenance
even assuming possible changes in
future to the estimation of motor vehicle
emissions. We propose that the plan
thereby meets the adequacy criterion
under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iii).
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
4028
2668
220
2888
4248
4528
2010
3346
2041
96
2137
3442
4528
2015
2739
1444
693
2137
3432
4528
2020
2179
1078
1059
2137
3196
4528
Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iv), we
review a submitted plan to determine
whether the MVEBs, when considered
together with all other emissions
sources, are consistent with applicable
requirements for reasonable further
progress, attainment, or maintenance
(whichever is relevant to a given SIP
submission). The Maintenance Plan
shows how the MVEBs and related
safety margins are consistent with
maintenance of the CO NAAQS through
2015 (see pages 12 through 16 of the
Maintenance Plan) and 2020 (see
Attachment 3). In particular, Table 3–1,
3–2, 3–4, and 3–6 of the Maintenance
Plan show the extent to which
maximum future year emissions
(including the budget safety margins)
fall below emissions for the 2002
attainment year and below the modeled
2003 emissions, which are associated
with ambient concentration levels that
are below both the 1-hour and 8-hour
NAAQS. ‘‘Assessment 549’’ on page 74
of the plan shows that this trend of
lower CO emissions continues through
2020, despite projected VMT increases.
Consequently, we propose to find that
the plan meets this criterion for
adequacy.
Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(v), we
review a plan to determine whether the
MVEBs are consistent with and clearly
related to the emissions inventory and
the control measures in the submitted
control strategy plan or maintenance
plan. The Maintenance Plan contains no
new measures but the budgets
appropriately reflect the State’s adopted
emissions standards, fuel regulations,
and the vehicle inspection and
maintenance program, as applicable to
the area. Thus, we propose to conclude
that the submitted plan meets this
criterion for adequacy.
Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(vi), we
review a submitted plan to determine
whether revisions to previously
submitted plans explain and document
any changes to previously submitted
budgets and control measures; impacts
on point and area source emissions; any
E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM
14FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Proposed Rules
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
changes to established safety margins;
and reasons for the changes (including
the basis for any changes related to
emissions factors or estimates of vehicle
miles traveled). The Maintenance Plan
explains and documents the various
changes that have been made to the CO
emissions inventories, etc.16 Thus, we
propose to find that the submitted plan
meets this criterion for adequacy.
Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(5), we review
the State’s compilation of public
comments and response to comments
that are required to be submitted with
any SIP revision. Attachments 6 and 7
of the Maintenance Plan submittal
provide transcripts and minutes of the
public hearing, during which there was
a single comment, supporting adoption
of the plan. We reviewed this
compilation and concluded that the
comment does not affect our proposed
approval of the MVEBs. Thus, we
propose that the Maintenance Plan
meets this criterion for adequacy.
Therefore, we propose to approve the
CO MVEBs contained in the submitted
Maintenance Plan because the plan and
budgets meet the requirements under 40
CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5) and because we
find that ARB has met all statutory
requirements for submittals of
maintenance plans under sections 110
and part D of the Act. Should we
finalize our approval, the Southern
California Association of Governments
(SCAG) and the U.S. Department of
Transportation must use these new CO
MVEBs from the Maintenance Plan for
future transportation conformity
determinations. We are also announcing
our proposed approval on our
conformity adequacy Web site: https://
www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/
transconf/currsips.htm.
In the submittal letter dated February
24, 2006, CARB requested that we limit
the duration of any final approval of the
MVEBs in the Maintenance Plan to last
only until the effective date of future
EPA adequacy findings for replacement
budgets. This would mean that if CARB
decides to amend the CO MVEBs
sometime in the future, then the new
MVEBs would become effective as soon
as EPA determined adequacy, rather
than after comprehensive rulemaking
(which is a longer process).
CARB had made a similar request,
and EPA granted it, in connection with
the MVEBs in other plans submitted by
the State (see 67 FR 69139, November
16 The most significant technical difference
between the attainment SIP and the maintenance
plan is the change from EMFAC7G to
EMFAC2002v2.2, which results in a significant
improvement in the quantification of motor vehicle
emissions, and updates to SCAG’s growth
projections.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:31 Feb 13, 2007
Jkt 211001
15, 2002). That prior CARB request was
accompanied by significant
documentation that demonstrated why
limiting the duration of our MVEB
approval provided an advantage to air
quality and public health protection.
With the current request, however,
CARB has not provided supporting
documentation to address our criteria
for granting limited approval. The
criteria are set out on page 69141 of the
rulemaking, and include: (1) State
acknowledgment that its current
budgets are outdated or deficient; (2)
State commitment to update the budgets
as part of a comprehensive update of its
SIP; and (3) State request that we limit
the duration of the approval of the
State’s current approved SIP. We note
that CARB’s request to limit the
duration of the approvals of the MVEBs
was contained only in the submittal
letter and the request is not, therefore,
considered a part of the maintenance
plan itself. Therefore, our denial of
ARB’s request does not affect our
approval of the plan or the budgets
contained therein.
g. Conclusion
Because the Maintenance Plan
satisfies applicable CAA requirements,
we propose to approve it under section
175A.
IV. Proposed Action
We are proposing to approve the 2005
Carbon Monoxide Redesignation
Request and Carbon Monoxide
Maintenance Plan for the South Coast
Air Basin as meeting the requirements
of CAA section 175A. We are proposing
to find adequate the MVEBs and to
approve the budgets under CAA section
176(c).
We are also proposing to approve the
State’s request to redesignate the area to
attainment for CO under the provisions
of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E). As
prerequisite to this action, we are
proposing to find that the area has
attained the NAAQS due to permanent
and enforceable emission reductions
under the SIP, and that the SIP for the
area meets all of the requirements of
CAA section 110, Part D, and section
175A applicable for purposes of
redesignation.
As part of our proposed determination
that the South Coast area has met
applicable Part D provisions, we are
proposing to adapt to CO areas the
provisions of our Clean Data Policy,
which we have established for 1-hour
ozone, PM–10, 8-hour ozone, and PM–
2.5 areas. Under our proposed extension
of the Clean Data Policy to CO, we are
proposing to interpret certain CAA Part
D provisions as suspending the
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
6997
requirements for submission of RFP,
attainment demonstrations, contingency
measures, and TCMs related to RFP due
to the fact that the South Coast has
already attained the CO NAAQS. We are
proposing to approve the 1997 CO plan
and the Maintenance Plan as meeting
the requirements of CAA section
187(b)(2) relating to TCMs to offset
emissions associated with growth in
VMT and vehicle trips.
Finally, because our interim approval
of California’s I/M program for CO in
the South Coast expired on August 7,
1998, California has now submitted a
demonstration that the I/M program
meets the low-enhanced requirements
applicable to the South Coast CO
nonattainment area. We are proposing to
approve that demonstration and to
conclude that the State has satisfied the
CAA section 187(a)(6) and 187(b)(1)
enhanced I/M requirements that applied
to the South Coast CO nonattainment
area.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed
action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ and therefore is not subject to
review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is
also not subject to Executive Order
13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001). This proposed action merely
proposes to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and to
redesignate the area to attainment for air
quality planning purposes, and imposes
no additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies
that this proposed rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this action
proposes to approve pre-existing
requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable
duty beyond that required by state law,
it 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).
This proposed rule also does not have
tribal implications because it will not
have a substantial direct effect on one or
more Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes,
as specified by Executive Order 13175
E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM
14FEP1
6998
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Proposed Rules
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
(65 FR 97249, November 9, 2000). This
proposed action also does not have
Federalism implications because it does
not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the
national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). This action merely
proposes to approve a State rule
implementing a Federal standard and to
redesignate the area to attainment for air
quality planning purposes, and does not
alter the relationship or the distribution
of power and responsibilities
established in the CAA. This proposed
rule also is not subject to Executive
Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997), because it proposes to approve a
state plan implementing a Federal
Standard and to redesignate the area to
attainment for air quality planning
purposes. EPA interprets EO 13045 as
applying only to those regulatory
actions that concern health or safety
risks, such that the analysis required
under section 5–501 of the EO has the
potential to influence the regulation.
This proposed rule is not subject to EO
13045 because it proposes to approve a
State plan and to redesignate the area to
attainment for air quality planning
purposes.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s
role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the
absence of a prior existing requirement
for the state to use voluntary consensus
standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for
failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for
EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission
or redesignation request, to use VCS in
place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air
Act. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This
proposed rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Carbon monoxide, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:31 Feb 13, 2007
Jkt 211001
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.
Dated: February 6, 2007.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 9.
[FR Doc. E7–2538 Filed 2–13–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; 90-Day Finding on A
Petition to List Astragalus debequaeus
(DeBeque milkvetch) as Threatened or
Endangered
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition
finding.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding on a petition to list
Astragalus debequaeus (DeBeque
milkvetch) as threatened or endangered
under the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (Act). We find that
the petition does not present substantial
scientific or commercial information
indicating that listing A. debequaeus
may be warranted. Therefore, we will
not be initiating a further status review
in response to this petition. We ask the
public to submit to us any new
information that becomes available
concerning the status of A. debequaeus
or threats to its habitat at any time. This
information will help us monitor and
encourage the conservation of the
species.
The finding announced in this
document was made on February 14,
2007. You may submit new information
concerning this species for our
consideration at any time.
ADDRESSES: The complete supporting
file for this finding is available for
public inspection, by appointment,
during normal business hours at the
Western Colorado Field Office, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 764 Horizon
Drive, Building B, Grand Junction, CO
81506. Submit new information,
materials, comments, or questions
concerning this species to us at the
address above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Allan R. Pfister, Field Supervisor,
Western Colorado Field Office (see
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
ADDRESSES section) (telephone 970–
243–2778, extension 29; facsimile 970–
245–6933). Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD) may call the Federal Information
Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires
that we make a finding on whether a
petition to list, delist, or reclassify a
species presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
the petitioned action may be warranted.
We are to base this finding on
information provided in the petition,
supporting information submitted with
the petition, and information otherwise
available in our files at the time we
make the determination. To the
maximum extent practicable, we are to
make this finding within 90 days of our
receipt of the petition and publish our
notice of this finding promptly in the
Federal Register.
Our standard for substantial
information within the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90day petition finding is ‘‘that amount of
information that would lead a
reasonable person to believe that the
measure proposed in the petition may
be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we
find that substantial information was
presented, we are required to promptly
commence a review of the status of the
species.
In making this finding, we rely on
information provided by the petitioner
and evaluate that information in
accordance with 50 CFR 424.14(b). Our
90-day finding process under section
4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and section
424.14(b) of our regulations is limited to
a determination of whether the
information in the petition meets the
‘‘substantial information’’ threshold. A
substantial finding should be made
when the Service deems that adequate
and reliable information has been
presented that would lead a reasonable
person to believe that the petitioned
action may be warranted.
On October 26, 2004, we received a
formal petition, dated October 25, 2004,
submitted by the Center for Native
Ecosystems and the Colorado Native
Plant Society (2004), requesting that we
list Astragalus debequaeus as
threatened or endangered, and designate
critical habitat concurrently. The
petition identified itself as such and
included the requisite identification
information for the petitioners, as
required in 50 CFR 424.14(a). We
acknowledged receipt of the petition in
a January 20, 2005, letter to Mr. Joshua
Pollock. In that letter, we advised the
E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM
14FEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 30 (Wednesday, February 14, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6986-6998]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-2538]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA-R09-OAR-2007-0101; FRL-8277-9]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes: California
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to grant a request submitted by the State to
redesignate the South Coast from nonattainment to attainment for the CO
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). EPA is also proposing
to approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision for the South
Coast nonattainment area in California as meeting the Clean Air Act
(CAA) requirements for maintenance plans for carbon monoxide (CO). EPA
is proposing to find adequate and approve motor vehicle emission
budgets, which are included in the maintenance plan. Finally, EPA is
proposing to approve the California motor vehicle inspection and
maintenance (I/M) program as meeting the low enhanced I/M requirements
for CO in the South Coast.
DATES: Comments must be received by March 16, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2007-0101, by one of the following methods:
1. Agency Web site: https://www.regulations.gov. EPA prefers
receiving comments through this electronic public docket and comment
system. Follow the on-line instructions to submit comments.
2. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions.
3. E-mail: jesson.david@epa.gov
4. Mail or deliver: Marty Robin, Office of Air Planning (AIR-2),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at https://
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 the
agency Web site, eRulemaking portal, or e-mail. The agency Web site and
eRulemaking portal are anonymous access systems, 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 comment 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 at https://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. 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 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: David Jesson, U.S. EPA Region 9, 415-
972-3961, david.jesson@epa.gov or https://www.epa.gov/region09/air/
actions.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms ``we,''
``us,'' and ``our'' mean U.S. EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Summary of Today's Proposed Action
II. CO SIPs for the South Coast
A. Requirements for Serious CO Nonattainment Areas
B. Serious CO SIP for the South Coast
C. CO Maintenance Plan for the South Coast
III. South Coast Redesignation to Attainment
A. Attainment of the NAAQS
1. Basis for Determining Attainment
2. Record of Attainment in the South Coast
B. Fully Approved Applicable Implementation Plan Under CAA
Section 110(k) Meeting Requirements Applicable for Purposes of
Redesignation Under Section 110 and Part D
1. Basic SIP Requirements Under CAA Section 110
2. Clean Data Policy and Outstanding Part D Requirements
a. Introduction
b. RFP and Attainment Demonstration
c. Contingency Provisions
(1) Introduction
(2) CAA Section 172(c)(9)
(3) CAA Section 187(a)(3)
d. Conclusion
3. TCMs to Offset Growth in Emissions From VMT Increases
4. Requirement for Enhanced I/M Program
5. Wintertime Oxygenated Gasoline Program
6. Conclusion
C. Improvement in Air Quality is Due to Permanent and
Enforceable Measures
D. Fully Approved Maintenance Plan
1. Applicable Requirements
2. Maintenance Plan Provisions
a. Emissions Inventories for Attainment Year and Future Years
b. Maintenance Demonstration
c. Monitoring Network and Verification of Continued Attainment
d. Contingency Provisions
e. Commitment to Submit Subsequent Maintenance Plan Revision
f. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
g. Conclusion
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
[[Page 6987]]
I. Summary of Today's Proposed Action
We are proposing to approve the 2005 Carbon Monoxide Redesignation
Request and Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan for the South Coast Air
Basin (Maintenance Plan) as meeting the requirements of CAA sections
107(d)(3)(E) and 175A, which provide, in part, that plans must
demonstrate continued attainment for at least 10 years and must include
contingency measures. The submittal included evidence that the South
Coast attained the CO NAAQS in 2002 and continues to attain the NAAQS.
We are also proposing to approve and find adequate the motor vehicle
emissions budgets (MVEBs) submitted with the Maintenance Plan.
We are proposing to approve the request by the State of California
to redesignate the area to attainment for CO under the provisions of
CAA section 107(d)(3)(E). Section 107(d)(3)(E) authorizes the EPA
Administrator to redesignate areas to attainment if the area has
attained the NAAQS due to permanent and enforceable emission
reductions, and the approved SIP for the area meets all of the
applicable requirements of CAA section 110 (basic requirements
applicable to SIPs generally), Part D (special SIP requirements
applicable to nonattainment areas), and 175A (SIP requirements for
maintenance areas).
As part of our proposed determination that California has met
applicable Part D provisions, we propose to adapt to CO nonattainment
areas the provisions of our Clean Data Policy, which was initially
established for ozone (see discussion below in section III.B.2.). Under
the Clean Data Policy, certain CAA Part D requirements--including the
requirements for developing attainment demonstrations, reasonable
further progress (RFP) plans, reasonably available control measures
(RACM) and contingency measures--no longer apply because the area has
already attained the NAAQS.
Finally, because our interim approval of California's I/M program
for CO in the South Coast expired on August 7, 1998, California has now
submitted a demonstration that the I/M program meets the low-enhanced
requirements applicable to the South Coast CO nonattainment area (see
discussion in section III.B.4.) We are proposing to approve that
demonstration.
II. CO SIPs for the South Coast
A. Requirements for Serious CO Nonattainment Areas
The CAA was substantially amended in 1990 to establish new planning
requirements and attainment deadlines for the NAAQS, including CO.\1\
Under section 107(d)(1)(C) of the Act, areas designated nonattainment
prior to enactment of the 1990 amendments, including the South Coast,
were designated nonattainment by operation of law.\2\ Under section
186(a) of the Act, each CO area designated nonattainment under section
107(d) was also classified by operation of law as either moderate or
serious, depending on the severity of the area's air quality problem.
CO areas with design values at and above 16.5 ppm, such as the South
Coast, were classified as serious.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Under section 109 of the CAA, EPA has established primary,
health-related NAAQS for CO: 9 parts per million (ppm) averaged over
an 8-hour period, and 35 ppm averaged over 1 hour. Attainment of the
8-hour CO NAAQS is achieved if not more than one non-overlapping 8-
hour average in any consecutive 2-year period per monitoring site
exceeds 9 ppm (values below 9.5 are rounded down to 9.0 and are not
considered exceedances). See 40 CFR 50.8; William G. Laxton,
Director Technical Support Division, entitled ``Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide Design Value Calculations,'' dated June 18, 1990; and EPA's
General Preamble (see 57 FR 13535).
\2\ For a description of the boundaries of the Los Angeles-South
Coast Air Basin, see 40 CFR 81.305. The nonattainment area includes
all of Orange County and the more populated portions of Los Angeles,
San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 172 of the Act contains general requirements applicable to
SIPs for nonattainment areas. Sections 186 and 187 of the Act set out
additional air quality planning requirements for CO nonattainment
areas. The most fundamental of these provisions is the requirement that
CO nonattainment areas submit by November 15, 1992, a SIP demonstrating
attainment of the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but no later
than the deadline applicable to the area's classification: December 31,
1995, for moderate areas, and December 31, 2000, for serious areas like
the South Coast. CAA sections 186(a)(1), 187(a)(7), and 187(b)(1). Such
a demonstration must include enforceable measures to achieve emission
reductions each year leading to emissions at or below the level
predicted to result in attainment of the NAAQS throughout the
nonattainment area.
EPA has issued a General Preamble describing the Agency's
preliminary views on how EPA intends to act on SIPs submitted under
Title I of the Act. See generally 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) and 57
FR 18070 (April 28, 1992). The reader should refer to the General
Preamble for a more detailed discussion of EPA's preliminary
interpretations of the CAA's Title I requirements.
B. Serious CO SIP for the South Coast
On February 5, 1997, California submitted a CO plan for the South
Coast, which had been adopted by the South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD) on November 15, 1996. Because the South Coast had
continuously achieved the 1-hour CO NAAQS for more than 20 years, this
plan primarily addressed the 8-hour CO NAAQS. On April 21, 1998 (63 FR
19661), we fully approved the SIP as meeting the applicable CO
requirements for the South Coast, with the following exceptions: (1) We
took no action on the plan with respect to the CAA section 187(b)(2)
requirement for transportation control measures (TCMs) to offset any
growth in emissions from vehicle miles traveled (VMT) or numbers of
vehicles trips; (2) we took no action on the plan with respect to the
contingency measure requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9) and
187(a)(3); \3\ (3) we granted interim approval to the RFP provisions
under CAA sections 171(1), 172(c)(2), and 187(a)(7); (4) we granted
interim approval to the attainment demonstration under CAA section
187(a)(7); and (5) we granted interim approval to the enhanced I/M
program required by CAA 187(a)(6), as discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ CAA section 172(c)(9) requires contingency measures that
would be implemented if an area fails to make RFP or to attain the
NAAQS by the applicable deadline. For CO areas, CAA section
187(a)(3) requires contingency measures to be implemented if any
estimate of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the area for any year
prior to the attainment year that is submitted in an annual report
under section 187(a)(2)(A) (``VMT tracking report'') exceeds the
number predicted in the most recent prior forecast or if the area
fails to attain the NAAQS by the attainment year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim approval is authorized under section 348(c) of the National
Highway System Designation Act (``Highway Act,'' Public Law 104-59,
enacted on November 28, 1995) for certain types of I/M programs and, by
extension, to SIP provisions dependent upon reductions from these I/M
programs. We had previously granted interim approval to California's
enhanced I/M program (62 FR 1160, January 8, 1997). Our 1997 interim
approval established August 7, 1998, as the expiration of the approval
if by such date EPA had not approved a SIP submittal demonstrating that
the credits claimed for the I/M program are appropriate and the program
is otherwise in full compliance with the applicable enhanced I/M
requirements. Because the State did not submit the needed
demonstration, the approval of the I/M program and the South Coast CO
SIP with respect to RFP and attainment demonstration expired on August
7, 1998.
[[Page 6988]]
C. CO Maintenance Plan for the South Coast
In 2002, the South Coast attained the 8-hour CO NAAQS, and on March
4, 2005, the SCAQMD adopted the Maintenance Plan, following 30-day
public notice (SCAQMD Board Resolution No. 05-8). On February 24, 2006,
the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted the Maintenance Plan
(CARB Executive Order G-125-332) and submitted it to EPA as a SIP
revision, along with a request that we approve a redesignation request
to attainment (Letter from Lynn Terry, CARB, to Wayne Nastri, EPA
Region 9). On August 11, 2006, CARB submitted additional technical
information relating to the I/M program in the South Coast (Letter from
Kurt Karperos, CARB, to Lisa Hanf, EPA Region 9). The attachment to the
letter addressed the requirement associated with EPA's 1997 interim
approval of the enhanced I/M program under the Highway Act, by
demonstrating that the California smog check program meets minimum
requirements applicable to an enhanced I/M program for CO. In
accordance with CAA section 110(k)(1)(B), the submittal became complete
by operation of law on August 25, 2006.
III. South Coast Redesignation to Attainment
The criteria for approval of a redesignation request are set out in
CAA section 107(d)(3)(E). We review the State's request against each of
these criteria in our discussion below.
A. Attainment of the NAAQS
1. Basis for Determining Attainment
CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) requires that we determine that the area
has attained the NAAQS. EPA makes the determination as to whether an
area's air quality is meeting the CO NAAQS based upon air quality data
gathered at CO monitoring sites in the nonattainment area which have
been entered into the Air Quality System (AQS) database, formerly known
as the Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS). This data is
reviewed to determine the area's air quality status in accordance with
40 CFR 50.8; EPA policy guidance as stated in a memorandum from William
G. Laxton, Director Technical Support Division, entitled ``Ozone and
Carbon Monoxide Design Value Calculations,'' dated June 18, 1990; and
EPA's General Preamble at 57 FR 13535.
The 8-hour and 1-hour CO design values are used to determine
attainment of CO areas, and the design values are determined by
reviewing 8 quarters of data, or a total of two complete calendar years
of data for an area. The 8-hour design value is computed by first
finding the maximum and second maximum (non-overlapping) 8-hour values
at each monitoring site for each year of the two calendar years prior
to and including the attainment date. Then the higher of the ``second
high'' values is used as the design value for the monitoring site, and
the highest design value among the various CO monitoring sites
represents the CO design value for the area.
The CO NAAQS requires that not more than one 8-hour average per
year equals or exceeds 9.5 ppm (values below 9.5 are rounded down to 9
and are not considered exceedances). If an area has a design value that
is equal to or greater than 9.5 ppm, this means that there was a
monitoring site where the second highest (non-overlapping) 8-hour
average was measured to be equal to or greater than 9.5 ppm in at least
one of the two years being reviewed to determine attainment for the
area. This indicates that there were at least two values above the
NAAQS during one year at that site and thus the NAAQS for CO was not
met. Conversely, an 8-hour design value of less than 9.5 ppm indicates
that the area has attained the CO NAAQS.
The 1-hour CO design value is computed in the same manner. An area
attains the one-hour CO NAAQS if the 1-hour design value is less than
35.5 ppm.
2. Record of Attainment in the South Coast
The Maintenance Plan presents the attainment air quality data for
the South Coast's 22 monitoring stations in Table 2-2 on p. 8. During
the period 2002-2003, there was only one maximum 8-hour average
concentration above the standard, a 10.1 ppm concentration recorded at
the Lynwood (South Central Los Angeles) site on January 8, 2002, under
very stagnant conditions and a strong inversion. The maximum 8-hour
concentration at Lynwood was 7.7 ppm in 2001 and 7.3 ppm in 2003. There
were no exceedances of the 8-hour NAAQS recorded in 2001 and 2003 at
any station, and the design value at all stations for the periods 2001-
2002 and 2002-2003 was well below the NAAQS.
A review of data input to AQS indicates that the South Coast has
continued to attain the CO NAAQS since 2003. The highest second maximum
1-hour and 8-hour CO concentrations measured at the various monitoring
stations during the 2004 through the first quarter of 2006 were 8.7 ppm
and 6.1 ppm, respectively, both recorded in 2004 at the Lynwood station
in south central Los Angeles County. These values are well below the
corresponding CO NAAQS of 35 and 9 ppm. A ``quick look'' report
generated using AQS for the South Coast CO monitoring stations for 2004
through the third quarter of 2006 is included in the docket for this
proposed rule. The Maintenance Plan indicates that the 1-hour CO NAAQS
has not been violated for 25 years in the South Coast.
Based on the monitoring data presented in the Maintenance Plan and
AQS data for the past two years, we propose to determine that the South
Coast attained the CO NAAQS in 2002 and has continued to attain the
NAAQS.
B. Fully Approved Applicable Implementation Plan Under CAA Section
110(k) Meeting Requirements Applicable for Purposes of Redesignation
Under Section 110 and Part D
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v) require EPA to determine that the
area has a fully approved applicable SIP under section 110(k) that
meets all applicable requirements under section 110 and Part D for
purposes of redesignation.
1. Basic SIP Requirements Under CAA Section 110
The general SIP elements and requirements set forth in section
110(a)(2) include, but are not limited to, the following: Kubmittal of
a SIP that has been adopted by the state after reasonable public notice
and hearing; provisions for establishment and operation of appropriate
procedures needed to monitor ambient air quality; implementation of a
source permit program; provisions for the implementation of Part C
requirement for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD);
provisions for the implementation of Part D requirements for New Source
Review (NSR) permit programs; provisions for air pollution modeling;
and provisions for public and local agency participation in planning
and emission control rule development.
On numerous occasions over the past 35 years, CARB and SCAQMD have
submitted and we have approved provisions addressing the basic CAA
section 110 provisions. There are no outstanding or disapproved
applicable SIP submittals with respect to the State and SCAQMD.\4\ We
propose to conclude
[[Page 6989]]
that CARB and SCAQMD have met all SIP requirements for the South Coast
area applicable for purposes of redesignation under section 110 of the
CAA (General SIP Requirements). With the exceptions discussed below in
Sections III.B.2-4, the SIP for the South Coast also has been approved
as meeting applicable requirements under Part D of Title I of the CAA.
See our approval of the South Coast CO attainment SIP at 63 FR 19661-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The applicable SIP for CARB and South Coast may be found at
https://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/r9sips.nsf/
Casips?readform&state=California.
We note that SIPs must be fully approved only with respect to
applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation in accordance
with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). Thus, for example, CAA section
110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain certain measures to prevent
sources in a state from significantly contributing to air quality
problems in another state. However, the section 110(a)(2)(D)
requirements for a state are not linked with a particular
nonattainment area's designation and classification in that state.
EPA believes that the requirements linked with a particular
nonattainment area's designation and classifications are the
relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request.
The transport SIP submittal requirements, where applicable, continue
to apply to a state regardless of the designation of any one
particular area in the state.
Thus, we do not believe that these requirements should be
construed to be applicable requirements for purposes of
redesignation. In addition, EPA believes that the other section 110
elements not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not
linked with an area's attainment status are not applicable
requirements for purposes of redesignation. The State will still be
subject to these requirements after the South Coast area is
redesignated. The section 110 and Part D requirements, which are
linked with a particular area's designation and classification, are
the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation
request. This policy is consistent with EPA's existing policy on
applicability of conformity (i.e., for redesignations) and
oxygenated fuels requirement. See Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed
and final rulemakings 61 FR 53174-53176 (October 10, 1996), 62 FR
24816 (May 7, 1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio, final rulemaking
61 FR 20458 (May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking 60
FR 62748 (December 7, 1995). See also the discussion on this issue
in the Cincinnati redesignation 65 FR 37890 (June 19, 2000), and in
the Pittsburgh redesignation 66 FR 50399 (October 19, 2001). EPA
believes that section 110 elements not linked to the area's
nonattainment status are not applicable for purposes of
redesignation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Clean Data Policy and Outstanding Part D Requirements
a. Introduction
In some designated nonattainment areas, monitored data demonstrates
that the NAAQS have already been achieved. Based on its interpretation
of the Act, EPA has determined that certain SIP submission requirements
of part D, subparts 1, 2, and 4 of the Act do not apply and therefore
do not require certain submissions for an area that has attained the
NAAQS. These include RFP requirements, attainment demonstrations and
contingency measures, because these provisions have the purpose of
helping achieve attainment of the NAAQS.
The Clean Data Policy is the subject of two EPA memoranda setting
forth our interpretation of the provisions of the Act as they apply to
areas that have attained the relevant NAAQS. EPA also finalized the
statutory interpretation set forth in the policy in a final rule, 40
CFR 51.918, as part of its Final Rule to Implement the 8-hour Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard--Phase 2 (Phase 2 Final Rule).
See discussion in the preamble to the rule at 70 FR 71645-71646
(November 29, 2005). We have also applied the same approach to the
interpretations of the provisions of subparts 1 and 4 applicable to PM-
10. For detailed discussions of this interpretation with respect to the
CAA's PM-10 requirements for RFP, attainment demonstrations, and
contingency measures, see 71 FR 6352, 6354 (February 8, 2006); 71 FR
13021, 13024 (March 14, 2006); 71 FR 27440, 27443-27444 (May 11, 2006);
and 71 FR 40952, 40954 (July 19, 2006); and 71 FR 63642 (October 30,
2006).
EPA believes that the legal bases set forth in detail in our Phase
2 Final rule, our May 10, 1995 memorandum from John S. Seitz, entitled
``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and Related
Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard'' (Seitz memo), and our December 14, 2004
memorandum from Stephen D. Page entitled ``Clean Data Policy for the
Fine Particle National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' (Page memo), are
equally pertinent to the interpretation of provisions of subparts 1 and
3 applicable to CO. EPA's interpretation of how the provisions of the
Act apply to areas with ``clean data'' is not logically limited to
ozone, PM-2.5, and PM-10, because the rationale is not dependent upon
the type of pollutant. Our interpretation that an area that is
attaining the standard is relieved of obligations to demonstrate RFP
and to provide an attainment demonstration and contingency measures
pursuant to part D of the CAA, pertains whether the standard is CO, 1-
hour ozone, 8-hour ozone, PM-2.5, or PM-10.
b. RFP and Attainment Demonstration
The reasons for relieving an area that has attained the relevant
standard of certain part D, subpart 1 and 2 (sections 171 and 172)
obligations, applies equally as well to part D, subpart 3, which
contains specific attainment demonstration and RFP provisions for CO
nonattainment areas. As we have explained in the 8-hour ozone Phase 2
Final Rule, our ozone and PM-2.5 clean data memoranda, and our approval
of PM-10 SIPs, EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret provisions
regarding RFP and attainment demonstrations, along with related
requirements, so as not to require SIP submissions if an area subject
to those requirements is already attaining the NAAQS (i.e., attainment
of the NAAQS is demonstrated with three consecutive years of complete,
quality-assured air quality monitoring data for ozone and PM, and two
consecutive years for CO). Three U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals have
upheld EPA rulemakings applying its interpretation of subparts 1 and 2
with respect to ozone. Sierra Club v. EPA, 99 F.3d 1551 (10th Cir.
1996); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F. 3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004); Our
Children's Earth Foundation v. EPA, N. 04-73032 (9th Cir. June 28,
2005) (memorandum opinion). It has been EPA's longstanding
interpretation that the general provisions of part D, subpart 1 of the
Act (sections 171 and 172) do not require the submission of SIP
revisions concerning RFP for areas already attaining the ozone NAAQS.
In the General Preamble, we stated:
[R]equirements for RFP will 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. A showing that the State will make RFP toward attainment
will, therefore, have no meaning at that point. 57 FR at 13564.
See also page 6 of the guidance memorandum entitled ``Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment'' from John
Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, to Regional Air Division Directors,
dated September 4, 1992 (Calcagni Memo, available at https://
www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/ozonetech/940904.pdf).
EPA believes the same reasoning applies to the CO RFP provisions of
part D, subpart 3.
With respect to RFP, CAA section 171(1) states that, for purposes
of part D of title I, RFP
means 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.
The stated purpose of RFP is to ensure attainment by the applicable
attainment date, whether dealing with the general RFP requirement of
section 172(c)(2), the ozone-specific RFP requirements of sections
182(b) and (c), the PM-10 specific RFP requirements of section
189(c)(1), or the CO-specific RFP requirements of section 187(a)(7).
Section 187(a)(7) states that the SIP for moderate CO areas with a
design value greater than 12.7 must:
[[Page 6990]]
provide a demonstration that the plan as revised will provide for
attainment of the carbon monoxide NAAQS by the applicable attainment
date and provisions for such specific annual emission reductions as
are necessary to attain the standard by that date.
This same requirement also applies to serious CO areas in accordance
with CAA section 187(b)(1).
It is clear that once the area has attained the standard, no
further specific annual emission reductions are necessary or
meaningful. With respect to CO areas, this interpretation is supported
by language in section 187(d)(3), which mandates that a state that
fails to achieve the milestone must submit a plan that assures that the
state achieves the ``pecific annual reductions in carbon monoxide
emissions set forth in the plan by the attainment date.'' \5\ Section
187(d)(3) assumes that the requirement to submit and achieve the
milestone does not continue after attainment of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ AA section 187(d), CO Milestone, applies to serious CO areas
and requires:
(1) The state to submit a demonstration that the area has
achieved certain specific annual emission reductions (187(d)(1));
(2) EPA to determine whether the demonstration is adequate
within 90 days (187(d)(2)); and
(3) the state to submit a plan revision within 9 months of EPA's
notification that the state has not met the milestone, such plan to
implement CAA section 182(g)(4) economic incentive and
transportation control programs sufficient to achieve the specific
annual emission reductions by the attainment date (187(d)(3)).
EPA interprets these provisions consistent with its
interpretation of Section 182(g) in Subpart 2. See May 10, 1995
Seitz Memorandum at p. 5. There, EPA included in its identification
of SIP submission requirements linked with attainment and RFP
requirements the ``Section 182(g) requirements concerning milestones
that are based on the section 182(b)(1) and 182(c)(2)(B) and (C)
submissions.'' In Subpart 3, similarly, milestone requirements are
based on the section 187(a)(7) specific annual emission reduction
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If an area has in fact attained the standard, the stated purpose of
the RFP and specific annual emissions reductions requirements will have
already been fulfilled.\6\ The specific annual emission reductions
required are only those necessary to attain the standard by the
attainment date. EPA took this position with respect to the general RFP
requirement of section 172(c)(2) in the April 16, 1992 General Preamble
and also in the May 10, 1995 memorandum with respect to the
requirements of sections 182(b) and (c). We are proposing to extend
that interpretation to the specific provisions of part D, subpart 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ For PM-10 areas, we have concluded that it is a distinction
without a difference that section 189(c)(1) speaks of the PM-10
nonattainment area RFP requirement as one to be achieved until an
area is ``redesignated as attainment'', as opposed to section
172(c)(2), which is silent on the period to which the requirement
pertains, or the ozone and CO nonattainment area RFP requirements in
sections 182(b)(1) or 182(c)(2) for ozone and 187(a)(7) for CO,
which refer to the RFP requirements as applying until the
``attainment date'', since, section 189(c)(1) defines RFP by
reference to section 171(l) of the Act. Reference to 171(l)
clarifies that, as with the general RFP requirements in section
172(c)(2) and the ozone-specific requirements of section 182(b)(1)
and 182(c)(2) and the CO-specific requirements of section 187(a)(7),
the PM-specific requirements may only be required for the purpose of
ensuring attainment of the applicable national ambient air quality
standard by the applicable date.'' 42 U.S.C. section 7501(1). As
discussed in the text of this rulemaking, EPA interprets the RFP
requirements, in light of the definition of RFP in section 171(l),
to be a requirement that no longer applies once the standard has
been attained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the attainment demonstration requirements of
section 187(a)(7), an analogous rationale leads to the same result.
Section 187(a)(7) requires that the State submit
a revision to provide, and a demonstration that the plan as revised
will provide for attainment of the carbon monoxide NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date and provisions for such specific annual
emission reductions as are necessary to attain the standard by that
date.
As with the RFP requirements, if an area is already monitoring
attainment of the standard, EPA believes there is no need for an area
to make a further submission containing additional measures to achieve
attainment. This is also consistent with the interpretation of the
section 172(c) requirements provided by EPA in the General Preamble,
the Page memo and of the section 182(b) and (c) requirements set forth
in the Seitz memo. As EPA stated in the General Preamble, no other
measures to provide for attainment would be needed by areas seeking
redesignation to attainment since ``attainment will have been
reached.'' (57 FR at 13564).
c. Contingency Provisions
(1) CAA Section 172(c)(9)
Other SIP submission requirements are linked with these attainment
demonstration and RFP requirements, and similar reasoning applies to
them. These requirements include the contingency measure requirements
of CAA section 172(c)(9), and the special contingency provisions
applicable to ozone and CO plans. Section 172(c)(9) requires a State to
submit contingency measures that will be implemented if an area fails
to make ``reasonable further progress'' or fails to attain by the
applicable attainment date.\7\ Thus, the stated purpose of the
contingency measure requirement is to ensure RFP (the purpose of which
is to ensure attainment by the applicable attainment date) and
attainment by the applicable attainment date. If an area has in fact
attained the standard by the applicable attainment date, the stated
purpose of the contingency measure requirement will have already been
fulfilled. Consequently, we believe that the requirement for a State to
submit revisions providing for measures to meet the contingency
provisions of section 172(c)(9) no longer applies for an area that we
find as having attained the relevant NAAQS by the applicable attainment
date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ RFP means ``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.'' CAA Section 171(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note that we took this view with respect to the general
contingency measure requirement of section 172(c)(9) in our General
Preamble. In the General Preamble, we stated, in the context of a
discussion of the requirements applicable to the evaluation of requests
to redesignate nonattainment areas to attainment, that the ``section
172(c)(9) requirements for contingency measures * * * no longer apply
when an area has attained the standard and is eligible for
redesignation.'' See 57 FR 13498, at 13564 (April 16, 1992). See also
Calcagni memo, p. 6.
We propose to extend the same reasoning to CO plans with respect to
the section 172(c)(9) contingency provision requirements, since our
reasoning is equally applicable regardless of the pollutant. Moreover,
just as we concluded that the pollutant-specific contingency measure
requirements of section 182(c)(9) for ozone areas also no longer apply
to areas attaining the ozone NAAQS, we propose below that the CO-
specific contingency provisions of section 187(a)(3) no longer apply at
the time we find that an area has attained the CO NAAQS.
(2) CAA Section 187(a)(3)
Section 187(a)(3) requires contingency measures to be implemented
if any estimate of vehicle miles traveled in the area which is
submitted in an annual report under paragraph (2) exceeds the number
predicted in the most recent prior forecast or if the area fails to
attain the national primary ambient air quality standard for carbon
monoxide by the primary standard attainment date.
Thus, the Act establishes two triggers for implementation of
contingency measures required under this provision. The first trigger
is associated with CAA section 187(a)(2), which requires plans for
areas with a design value above 12.7 ppm at the time of classification
to
[[Page 6991]]
include ``a forecast of vehicle miles traveled in the nonattainment
area concerned for each year before the year in which the plan projects
the national ambient air quality standard for carbon monoxide to be
attained in the area,'' along with
annual updates of the forecasts to be submitted to the Administrator
together with annual reports regarding the extent to which such
forecasts proved to be accurate. Such annual reports shall contain
estimates of actual vehicle miles traveled in each year for which a
forecast was required.
The plan's contingency measures must be implemented ``if the prior
forecast has been exceeded by an updated forecast * * *.'' Both the
forecasts and reports are required only until the SIP's projected
attainment year. Following the plan's projected attainment year, which
is the last year of the VMT forecasts, this trigger disappears.
The second trigger of the contingency provision is a failure of the
area to attain the primary CO standard by the applicable deadline, for
the evident purpose of ensuring that such an area further reduces
emissions as needed to attain the NAAQS. Once an area has actually
attained the CO NAAQS, this second trigger is clearly eliminated.
Thus, the CAA section 187(a)(3) contingency provision has no
further practical effect when the two contingency triggers cease to
exist. Moreover, the implicit goal of the contingency provision, to
reduce motor vehicle-related CO emissions to the extent needed to
achieve annual progress and eventual attainment, would have been
accomplished when an area comes into attainment. Therefore, we propose
to conclude that an area that is attaining the CO standards is relieved
of an obligation to provide contingency measures pursuant to CAA
section 187(a)(3).
CAA section 187(b)(2) requires that CO serious area plans include
TCMs as prescribed in CAA section 182(d)(1) for ozone areas, except
that the TCMs relate to CO emissions rather than volatile organic
compound emissions. Section 182(d)(1) requires that plans for severe
ozone areas must include TCMs to be implemented
to offset any growth in emissions from growth in vehicle miles
traveled or numbers of vehicle trips in such area and to attain
reduction in motor vehicle emissions as necessary, in combination
with other emission reduction requirements of this subpart, to
comply with the requirements of subsection (b)(2)(B) and (c)(2)(B)
(pertaining to periodic emissions reduction requirements).
The section 187(b)(2) TCMs are required to be submitted if CO
emissions are expected to increase from growth in VMT or vehicle trips,
and to meet RFP or attainment. For the same reason that the requirement
for RFP no longer applies to an area that has attained the NAAQS, the
requirement for measures to contribute to RFP no longer applies
following a finding of attainment. Thus EPA interprets the provisions
of section 187(b)(2)(A) that cross-reference section 182(d)(1) so as to
suspend those provisions pertaining to periodic emissions reductions
requirements for so long as the area is attaining the standard. In a
May 10, 1995 Seitz memorandum, we identified as among those
requirements that could be suspended upon finding of attainment ``the
elements of the * * * requirements of section 182(d)(1)(A) concerning
vehicle miles traveled that are related to RFP requirements.'' (p. 2).
With respect to the requirement for TCMs to offset any growth in
emissions from VMT, see Section 3 below.
d. Conclusion
As noted above, the South Coast area does not currently have an
approved SIP with respect to the requirements for RFP, attainment,
contingency provisions, and TCMs related to RFP requirements. However,
we believe that, for the reasons set forth here and established in our
prior ``clean data'' memoranda and rulemakings, a CO nonattainment area
that has ``clean data,'' should be relieved of the part D, subpart 3
obligations to provide an attainment demonstration with specific annual
emission reductions pursuant to CAA section 187(a)(7); the CAA section
187(d) milestone demonstration requirement; contingency provisions
pursuant to CAA section 187(a)(3)); and TCMs related to RFP
requirements pursuant to 187(b)(2); as well as the attainment
demonstration, RFP, and contingency measure provisions of part D,
subpart 1 contained in section 172 of the Act.
Here, as in both our 8-hour ozone Phase 2 final rule and 1-hour
ozone and PM-2.5 clean data memoranda, we emphasize that the suspension
of a requirement to submit these SIP revisions exists only for as long
as a nonattainment area continues to monitor attainment of the
standard. If such an area experiences a violation of the NAAQS, the
basis for the requirements being suspended would no longer exist.
Therefore, the area would again be subject to a requirement to submit
the pertinent SIP revision or revisions and would need to address those
requirements. Thus, a determination that an area need not submit one of
the SIP submittals amounts to no more than a suspension of the
requirement for so long as the area continues to attain the standard.
However, once EPA ultimately redesignates the area to attainment, the
area will be entirely relieved of these requirements to the extent the
maintenance plan for the area does not rely on them.
Should we at some future time determine that an area that had clean
data, but which has not yet been redesignated as attainment for a
NAAQS, has violated the relevant standard, the area would again be
required to submit the pertinent requirements under the SIP for the
area. Attainment determinations under the policy do not shield an area
from other required actions, such as provisions to address pollution
transport.
As set forth, above, we propose to find that because the South
Coast area has continued to attain the NAAQS the requirement of an
attainment demonstration, reasonable further progress, milestone
demonstration, TCMs related to RFP, and contingency measures no longer
apply.
3. TCMs To Offset Growth in Emissions From VMT Increases
As noted above, the section 187(b)(2) TCMs are required to be
submitted if CO emissions are expected to increase from growth in VMT
or vehicle trips.
EPA has concluded that states are not required to submit such
measures if the SIP includes a demonstration that, despite any growth
in projected VMT, CO emissions will decline each year through the
attainment year.\8\ In the General Preamble, we state that: ``If
projected total motor vehicle emissions during the ozone season in one
year are not higher than during the ozone season the year before, given
the control measures in the SIP, the VMT offset requirement is
satisfied.'' General Preamble at 57 FR 13522.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See, for example, EPA's final approval of Illinois' VMT SIP
at 60 FR 48896, 48897 (September 21, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 1997 CO Plan contains a demonstration that CO emissions from
motor vehicles decline each year through the attainment year (Appendix
V, page V-5-4, Table 5-2 ``Carbon Monoxide Emissions (tons/day)
Projected from 1993 through 2000 for the South Coast Air Basin''). This
table shows that no additional TCMs are required to prevent an increase
in emissions associated with a growth in VMT or trips, since emissions
are shown to decline each year through the attainment year despite
increases in
[[Page 6992]]
VMT and trip numbers.\9\ The Maintenance Plan includes revised and
updated VMT forecasts for each year from 1997 through 2006 (Table 4-1).
The Maintenance Plan also includes revised and updated projected CO
emissions from motor vehicles from 1997 through 2006 (Table 4-2),
showing a continuing sharp decline in CO emissions despite the growth
in VMT and trips. Consequently, we conclude that no TCMs are required
to satisfy the progress requirements of the Act or to offset growth in
CO emissions from growth in VMT or vehicle trips. We therefore propose
to approve the 1997 CO Plan, and the update through the year of
attainment (2002) in the Maintenance Plan, as meeting the provisions of
CAA section 187(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Motor vehicle VMT forecasts for each year are shown in Table
5-1. Despite this annual growth, emissions from motor vehicles are
shown in Table 5-2 to decline as follows: 1993-5909, 1994-5522,
1995-5135, 1996-4596, 1997-4057, 1998-3784, 1999-3511, 2000-3298.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Requirement for Enhanced I/M Program
The requirement for an enhanced motor vehicle I/M program under CAA
section 187(a)(6) applies to the South Coast by virtue of the area's
designation as a serious nonattainment area for CO, in accordance with
CAA section 187(b)(1). On January 22, 1996, CARB submitted a SIP
revision to satisfy the requirements for basic and enhanced I/M
programs in the various ozone and CO nonattainment areas in the State.
On January 8, 1997 (62 FR 1150), we approved the State's basic I/M
program as meeting the CAA section 182(b)(4) requirement for moderate
ozone areas within California, and the CAA section 187(a)(4)
requirement for I/M program corrections applicable to California's
moderate CO areas with a design value of less than 12.7 ppm at the time
of classification. In the same rule, we granted interim approval to the
State's enhanced I/M program under section 348(c) of the Highway Act,
as meeting the CAA section 182(c)(3) requirement for serious and above
ozone areas, and CAA 187(a)(6) for serious CO areas.
In accordance with the State's request, we approved the I/M program
as meeting the high enhanced requirements (see discussion below). As
provided in the Highway Act, the interim approval was for a period of
18 months (i.e., until August 7, 1998), by which time the approval
would expire unless we had approved a SIP demonstrating that the
credits claimed for the program are appropriate and the I/M program is
otherwise in compliance with the Clean Air Act. See 40 CFR 52.241.
When we subsequently ruled on the South Coast CO SIP, we also
granted interim approval to the progress and attainment provisions of
the plan, since fulfillment of those requirements depended upon
emission reductions from the enhanced I/M program. (63 FR 19661, April
21, 1998).
California failed to make the SIP submittal required under the
Highway Act to substantiate the emission reductions claimed for the
enhanced I/M program and, as a result, the interim approval of the
enhanced I/M program and the progress and attainment demonstration
provisions of the South Coast CO SIP expired by operation of law on
August 7, 1998. In Section III.B.2.b, we discuss this lapsed approval
and our interpretation that the Clean Data Policy allows us to suspend
the requirements for progress and attainment demonstration as they
apply to the South Coast CO SIP.
With the submittal of the South Coast CO Maintenance Plan and
redesignation request, the State included a SIP revision documenting
that: (1) The I/M program delivered CO emission reductions sufficient,
along with other control measures, to lead to attainment of the CO
NAAQS in the South Coast, and (2) the I/M program meets the low-
enhanced I/M performance requirements for CO in the South Coast.
The State's transmittal letter included a table of the wintertime
CO emissions reduction benefits in the South Coast from the current I/M
program, along with a copy of the September 2005 Report to the
Legislature regarding ARB's &``April 2004 Evaluation of the California
Enhanced Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (Smog Check) Program.'' The
table shows the following reductions:
Table 1.--Winter Season CO Emissions Reduction Benefits in the South Coast Air Basin Associated With the
Enhanced I/M Program
[In tons per day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year...................................................... 1990 1993 2000 2006 2010 2020
Reductions................................................ 494 459 291 671 618 377
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because these substantial emission reductions did, in fact, result in
attainment of the CO NAAQS in the South Coast, we agree with the State
that the enhanced I/M program proved adequate to meet attainment needs
for the area.
The State requests that we also now determine that the program
meets other low enhanced I/M program requirements. This would allow us
to conclude, for purposes of the redesignation provisions of CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E)(v), that the area has met the applicable
requirement for an enhanced I/M program under CAA sections 187(a)(6)
and 187(b)(1).
On September 18, 1995, we amended our regulatory requirements for
enhanced I/M programs (60 FR 48029). Among other changes, we
established a low enhanced performance standard as an option for areas
subject to the enhanced I/M requirement and meeting the following
requirements set out in 40 CFR 51.351(g) regarding RFP and attainment:
(1) The area is either not subject to or has an approved SIP for RFP in
1996, and (2) the area does not have a disapproved post-1996 RFP plan
or a disapproved attainment plan for ozone or CO. South Coast meets
these requirements because it has an approved plan for RFP in 1996 for
ozone, (62 FR 1150, January 8, 1997) and has no disapproved post-1996
RFP plan or a disapproved attainment plan for ozone or CO.
The low enhanced I/M requirements set out in 40 CFR 51.351(g), and
further described in the preamble, establish specific program test
elements generally equivalent to those for a basic I/M program, as set
out in 40 CFR 51.352. The key difference in test requirements between
the basic and the low enhanced I/M program are two additional
requirements for low enhanced programs: visual inspection of emission
control device inspections in accordance with 40 CFR 51.351(g)(8), and
testing of light duty trucks rated up to 8,500 pounds gross vehicle
weight rating (GVWR) as prescribed in 40 CFR 51.351(g)(5).
Additionally, 40 CFR 51.351(b) requires on-road testing of 0.5% of the
subject fleet or 20,000
[[Page 6993]]
vehicles, whichever is less, and 40 CFR 51.351(c) requires inspection
of all 1996 and later vehicles equipped with on-board diagnostics (OBD)
systems.
As mentioned above, we fully approved California's I/M program as
meeting the basic I/M performance standard on January 8, 1997. 62 FR
1150 and 40 CFR 52.220(c)(234). California has now shown that its I/M
program also meets the low enhanced I/M performance standard and meets
the four requirements mentioned above.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See August 11, 2006, letter from Kurt Karperos, CARB, to
Lisa Hanf, EPA Region 9, for technical information about this
demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Since March 1984, the State has required visual inspection of
the positive crankcase ventilation valve and of the exhaust gas
recirculation valve on all vehicles subject to the I/M program, in
accordance with 40 CFR 51.351(g)(8). See Health & Safety Code, Division
26, Part 5, Section 44012(f); Title 16, California Code of Regulations,
Division 33, Bureau of Automotive Repair, Article 5.5, Motor Vehicle
Inspection Program, section 3340.42; and BAR 97 Specifications sections
3.3.9 and 3.6.18.
(2) Since March 1984, the State I/M program has applied to light
duty trucks rated up to 8,500 pounds GVWR, in accordance with 40 CFR
51.351(g)(5). See Health & Safety Code, Division 26, Part 5, Section
44011, and Title 16, California Code of Regulations, Division 33,
Bureau of Automotive Repair, Article 5.5, Motor Vehicle Inspection
Program, Section 3340.5.
(3) Since 1998, California has conducted random roadside pullover
inspections in accordance with 40 CFR 51.351(b), under the authority of
Health & Safety Code, Division 26, Part 5, Section 44081.
(4) Since 2002, California has inspected 1996 and later OBD-
equipped vehicles in accordance with 40 CFR 51.351(c). See Health &
Safety Code, Division 26, Part 5, Section 44036(b)(10); Title 16,
California Code of Regulations, Division 33, Bureau of Automotive
Repair, Article 5.5, Motor Vehicle Inspection Program, Section 3340.42;
and BAR 97 Specifications, Sections 2 and 3.
In summary, we conclude that: (1) The State was entitled to elect
to implement a low enhanced I/M program for CO in the South Coast; (2)
the program, as implemented by the State, delivered actual CO emission
reductions sufficient (along with reductions from other measures) to
attain the CO NAAQS in the South Coast; (3) the State's program has
been federally approved as meeting the basic I/M performance standard;
and (4) the State's program meets the low enhanced I/M performance
standard. Consequently, we find that the State met the CAA section
187(a)(6) and 187(b)(1) enhanced I/M requirements that applied to the
South Coast CO nonattainment area prior to and at the time of the
submission of the redesignation request.
Finally, we note that the State has indicated that it intends to
continue to implement the enhanced I/M program in the South Coast, and
continued CO emission reduction benefits from the program are
incorporated in the projected emissions inventory that is part of the
maintenance demonstration in the submitted maintenance plan.
5. Wintertime Oxygenated Gasoline Program
Pursuant to CAA section 211(m), CO nonattainment areas with design
values of 9.5 ppm or higher must implement a wintertime oxygenated
gasoline program requiring that gasoline contain not less than 2.7
percent oxygen by weight. In addition, CAA section 187(b)(3) requires
that all serious CO areas implement such a program. California
submitted its motor vehicle fuels regulations, including requirements
for wintertime oxygen content, on November 15, 1994. We approved the
regulations on August 21, 1995, as meeting the applicable CAA
requirements. 60 FR 43379. The requirements remain in effect in the
South Coast area, although the State has amended the program in other
areas.
6. Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, we propose to determine that all
of the provisions of CAA section 110 and part D applicable to the South
Coast CO area for purposes of redesignation have been approved into the
California SIP.
C. Improvement in Air Quality Is Due to Permanent and Enforceable
Measures
CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) establishes that, as a prerequisite
to redesignation to attainment,
the Administrator determines that the improvement in air quality is
due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting
from implementation of the applicable implementation plan and
applicable Federal air pollutant control regulations and other
permanent and enforceable reductions * * *.
The Maintenance Plan provides evidence that the meteorological
conditions for the years when the South Coast attained the CO NAAQS
were more conducive to higher ambient CO concentrations than the long
term mean. During the same period, daily VMT increased at the normal
rate of growth, from 322.8 million miles in 2001 to 330.4 million miles
in 2003, so activity levels associated with motor vehicles, the primary
CO source in the South Coast, were not abnormal. Maintenance Plan, p.
6. Increasing CO emission reductions associated with State and Federal
motor vehicle standards, coupled with SCAQMD's CO emission limits on
stationary and area sources, provide additional evidence that
attainment results from the SIP's permanent and reliable controls on CO
emissions rather than favorable meteorology or depressed activity
levels. The largest source of emissions reductions during this period
came from progressively more stringent State emission standards for
cars, trucks, buses, and nonroad equipment, including forklifts, lawn
and garden equipment, and marine pleasurecraft.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Documentation on these and other California mobile souce
standards may be found at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/msprog.htm.
EPA has acted over the years to waive Federal preemption of State
standards for California's motor vehicle standards as authorized by
CAA section 209(b) and nonroad engine standards as authorized by CAA
section 209(e)(2). Under these CAA sections, EPA must grant the
waiver unless the Adminsitrator finds that: (1) Califronia's
determination that its standards, in the aggregate, are at least as
protective of public health and welfare as applicable Federal
standards is arbitrary and capricious; (2) California does not need
such State standards to meet compelling and extraordinary
conditions; or (3) California's standards and accompanying
enforcement procedures are not consistent with section 202(a) [or
209 for nonroad] of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We propose to find that this prerequisite to redesignation has been
met.
D. Fully Approved Maintenance Plan
CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) requires that, before we redesignate
an area to attainment, we must have ``fully approved a maintenance plan
for the area as meeting the requirements of section 175A * * *.''
1. Applicable Requirements
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance
plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment.
The maintenance plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the
applicable NAAQS for at least ten years after the Administrator
approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after the
promulgation of the redesignation, the State must submit a revised
maintenance plan that demonstrates continued attainment for the
subsequent ten-year period following the initial ten-year maintenance
period. To address the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the
maintenance plan must contain contingency measures, with a schedule
[[Page 6994]]
for adoption and implementation, that are adequate to assure prompt
correction of a violation.
We have issued guidance on maintenance plans, including most
notably: (1) The General Preamble (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992), and
(2) the Calcagni memo. In this action, we propose to approve the
Maintenance Plan because we believe that it meets the requirements of
CAA section 175A and is consistent with the documents referenced above
and other documents identified in the discussion below.
2. Maintenance Plan Provisions
a. Emissions Inventories for Attainment Year and Future Years
The Maintenance Plan includes emissions inventories for the
attainment year (2002) and for future years 2005, 2010, and 2015, along
with motor vehicle emissions for 2020. The methodologies for the
inventories are discussed on pages 14-16, including an extensive
discussion of adjustments to projected mobile source emissions to
reflect the impact of possible suspension of wintertime oxygenate
requirement for gasoline in the South Coast.\12\ Table 2 below
reproduces emissions data primarily from Table 3-2 of the Maintenance
Plan. For 2020, the onroad emissions data are presented in Attachment 3
to the plan. Attachment 3 provides winter emissions for motor vehicles
under two scenarios, SCAG 2001 RTP baseline case (1078 tpd) and SCAG
2001 RTP plan case (941 tpd). The Maintenance Plan does not include
inventories for stationary, areawide, and nonroad sources for 2020. In
Table 2, the 2020 projected emissions are derived from CARB's latest
annual updated emissions analysis for these inventory categories. The
data are taken from The California Almanac of Emissions and Air
Quality, 2006 Edition, Table 4-10, available at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/
aqd/almanac/almanac06/chap406.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Section 3.1.2 of the Maintenance Plan discusses the
possibility that the State might determine in future to rescind the
wintertime oxygenated fuel requirement as a primary measure. As
discussed below, data from the California Almanac of Emissions and
Air Quality, 2006 Edition, were used to complete the emissions
profile for 2020. The Almanac does not provide projected emissions
for a future scenario in which the wintertime oxygenated fuel
requirement is shifted from a primary measure to a contingency
measure. Therefore, the 2020 column in Table 2 does not show these
projections. If the State wishes in future to change the wintertime
oxygenated fuel program from an active measure to a contingency
measure, the State will need at that time to update the
quantification of the impact on CO emissions, and demonstrate that
the proposed revision will not interfere with continued maintenance
or any other applicable requirement.
Table 2.--South Coast Projected Winter CO Emissions Inventory
[In tons per day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category 2002 2005 2010 2015 2020
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary.................................................. 53 55 59 64 69
Areawide.........................
