Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 81 / Friday, April 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules 22307 

without the permission of the Coast 

Guard Patrol Commander. 

(c) Effective Date. The third week in 

October. The exact dates and times for 

this event will be determined annually. 

11. Add § 100.918 to read as follows: 

§ 100.918 Detroit APBA Gold Cup, Detroit, 

MI. 

(a) Regulated Area. A regulated area is 

established to include all waters of the 

Detroit River, Belle Isle, Michigan, 

bound on the west by the Belle Isle 

Bridge (position 42°20′20′′ N, 083°00′00′′ 

W to 42°20′24′′ N, 083°59′45′′ W), and 

on the east by a north-south line drawn 

through Waterworks Intake Crib Light 

(Light List Number 8350; position 

42°21′06′′ N, 082°58′00′′ W) (NAD 83). 

(b) Special Local Regulations. The 

regulations of § 100.901 apply. No 

vessel may enter, transit through, or 

anchor within the regulated area 

without the permission of the Coast 

Guard Patrol Commander. 

(c) Effective Date. The first or second 

week in June. The exact dates and times 

for this event will be determined 

annually. 

12. Add § 100.919 to read as follows: 

§ 100.919 International Bay City River 

Roar, Bay City, MI. 

(a) Regulated Area. A regulated area is 

established to include all waters of the 

Saginaw River bounded on the north by 

the Liberty Bridge, located at 43°36.3′ N, 

083°53.4′ W, and bounded on the south 

by the Veterans Memorial Bridge, 

located at 43°35.8′ N, 083°53.6′ W. 

(NAD 83). 

(b) Special Local Regulations. The 

regulations of § 100.901 apply. No 

vessel may enter, transit through, or 

anchor within the regulated area 

without the permission of the Coast 

Guard Patrol Commander. 

(c) Effective Date. The third or fourth 

week in June. The exact dates and times 

for this event will be determined 

annually. 

13. Add § 100.920 to read as follows: 

§ 100.920 Tug Across the River, Detroit, 

MI. 

(a) Regulated Area. A regulated area is 

established to include all waters of the 

Detroit River, Detroit, Michigan, 

bounded on the south by the 

International boundary, on the west by 

083°03′ W, on the east by 083°02′ W, 

and on the north by the U.S. shoreline 

(DATUM: NAD 83). This position is 

located on the Detroit River in front of 

Hart Plaza, Detroit, MI. 

(b) Special Local Regulations. The 

regulations of § 100.901 apply. No 

vessel may enter, transit through, or 

anchor within the regulated area 

without the permission of the Coast 

Guard Patrol Commander. 

(c) Effective Date. The third or fourth 

week in June. The exact dates and times 

for this event will be determined 

annually. 

Dated: April 4, 2008. 

John E. Crowley, Jr., 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Ninth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. E8–8864 Filed 4–24–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2008–0306; FRL–8558–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Designation of 

Areas for Air Quality Planning 

Purposes; State of California; PM–10; 

Revision of Designation; 

Redesignation of the San Joaquin 

Valley Air Basin PM–10 Nonattainment 

Area to Attainment; Approval of PM–10 

Maintenance Plan for the San Joaquin 

Valley Air Basin; Approval of 

Commitments for the East Kern PM–10 

Nonattainment Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

the State of California’s request to revise 

the designation for the San Joaquin 

Valley (SJV) serious nonattainment area 

for particulate matter of ten microns or 

less (PM–10) (SJV nonattainment area) 

by splitting the area into two separate 

nonattainment areas: The San Joaquin 

Valley Air Basin serious PM–10 

nonattainment area and the East Kern 

serious PM–10 nonattainment area. EPA 

is also proposing to redesignate the 

SJVAB nonattainment area to attainment 

for the PM–10 national ambient air 

quality standard (NAAQS) and 

proposing to approve the PM–10 

maintenance plan, motor vehicle 

emissions budgets and conformity 

trading mechanism for the area. EPA is 

also proposing to exclude from use in 

determining that the area has attained 

the standard two exceedances that EPA 

has concluded were caused by 

exceptional events that occurred on July 

4, 2007 and January 4, 2008. Finally, 

EPA is proposing to approve enforceable 

commitments by the Kern County Air 

Pollution Control District and the 

California Air Resources Board to install 

a PM–10 monitor in the East Kern 

nonattainment area and to address 

Clean Air Act requirements under 

section 189(d) as necessary for the area. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

May 27, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09–

OAR–2008–0306, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions. 

2. E-mail: lo.doris@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Doris Lo (Air-2), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region IX, 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 http://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 

http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 

http://www.regulations.gov is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, and EPA 

will not know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send email 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 

http://www.regulations.gov and in hard 

copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, California. While 

all documents in the docket are listed 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: 

Doris Lo, EPA Region IX, (415) 972–

3959, lo.doris@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we’’ ‘‘us’’

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Summary of EPA’s Proposed Actions 

III. Proposed Revised Boundary 

Redesignation 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS
22308 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 81 / Friday, April 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

1The level of the national primary 24-hour 

ambient air quality standard for particulate matter 

is 150 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3). The 

standard is attained when the expected number of 

days per calendar year with a 24-hour average 

concentration above 150 μg/m3, as determined in 

accordance with appendix K to 40 CFR part 50, is 

equal to or less than one. See 40 CFR 50.6. 

2The SJVAPCD District adopted the 2007 Plan on 

September 20, 2007 and submitted it to the State 

on September 21, 2007. The State ‘‘* * * updated 

the attainment inventory * * * to reflect emission 

reductions achieved by ARB adopted measures that 

had not been accounted for’’ before submitting the 

2007 Plan to EPA on November 16, 2007. (Staff 

Report, Analysis of the San Joaquin Valley 2007 

PM10 Maintenance Plan, Air Resources Board, 

Release Date: October 12, 2007 (ARB Staff Report), 

pp. 7–8 and Appendix B). Thus the applicable 

emissions inventories in the 2007 Plan are found in 

the ARB Staff Report. 

A. State’s Submittal 

B. EPA’s Evaluation of Request to Revise 

Boundary Designation 

IV. Proposed Redesignation of the SJV Air 

Basin to Attainment for the PM–10 

Standard and Approval of PM–10 

Maintenance Plan 

A. EPA has determined that the area has 

attained the NAAQS 

B. The applicable implementation plan has 

been fully approved by EPA under 

section 110(k) of the CAA 

C. EPA has determined that the 

improvement in air quality is due to 

permanent and enforceable reductions in 

emissions 

D. The State has met all applicable 

requirements for the area under section 

110 and Part D of the CAA 

1. Basic SIP Requirements under CAA 

Section 110 

2. SIP Requirements under Part D 

E. EPA has fully approved a maintenance 

plan, including a contingency plan, for 

the area under section 175A of the CAA 

1. An attainment emissions inventory to 

identify the level of emissions in the area 

sufficient to attain the NAAQS 

2. A demonstration of maintenance of the 

NAAQS for 10 years after redesignation 

3. Verification of continued attainment 

through operation of an appropriate air 

quality monitoring network 

4. Contingency provisions to promptly 

correct any violation of the NAAQS that 

occurs after redesignation of the area 

F. Transportation conformity and motor 

vehicle emissions budgets 

1. CARB Methodology for Estimating PM–

10 in the Emissions Budgets 

2. Adequacy of the 2007 Plan’s Budgets 

3. Trading Mechanism 

V. Proposed Commitments for East Kern 

VI. Proposed Actions 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On May 26, 2004, EPA approved the 

serious area PM–10 plan for the SJV 

nonattainment area, ‘‘2003 PM10 Plan, 

San Joaquin Valley Plan to Attain 

Federal Standards for Particulate Matter 

10 Microns and Smaller’’ submitted by 

the State on August 19, 2003 and 

amendments to that plan submitted on 

December 30, 2003 (collectively, 2003 

Plan). See 69 FR 30006; 40 CFR 81.305. 

This plan provided for, among other 

things, the implementation of best 

available control measures (BACM). In 

addition, since the SJV nonattainment 

area had failed to meet its original 

serious area attainment deadline of 

December 31, 2001, the State was 

required under section 189(d) of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) to 

submit a plan that provided for an 

annual reduction in PM–10 or PM–10 

precursors of not less than five percent 

until attainment. A detailed discussion 

of the history of PM–10 planning in the 

SJV nonattainment area and of EPA’s 

approval of the 2003 Plan can be found 

in its proposed and final actions and the 

associated dockets. 69 FR 5412 

(February 4, 2004); 69 FR 30006. 

On October 30, 2006, EPA determined 

that the SJV nonattainment area had 

attained the 24-hour PM–10 standard 1

based on air quality data from 2003 

through 2005. In this action we noted 

that there were several exceedances of 

the PM–10 standard that were likely due 

to exceptional events which EPA would 

address in subsequent actions. 71 FR 

63642. Subsequently EPA issued a final 

action affirming that the PM–10 

standard has been attained in the SJV 

nonattainment area based on air quality 

data from 2004 through 2006. 73 FR 

14687 (March 19, 2008). 

On November 16, 2007, the State 

submitted to EPA the ‘‘2007 PM10 

Maintenance Plan and Request for 

Redesignation,’’ September 20, 2007, for 

the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution 

Control District (SJVAPCD or the 

District) (2007 Plan).2 On January 31, 

2008, the State submitted a request to 

split the existing SJV serious PM–10 

nonattainment area into two separate 

nonattainment areas: (1) The San 

Joaquin Valley Air Basin and (2) the 

western portion of the Kern County Air 

Pollution Control District (KCAPCD). 

Letter from James N. Goldstene, 

California Air Resources Board (CARB), 

to Deborah Jordan, EPA, with 

attachments, January 31, 2008 

(Goldstene letter). 

On February 29, 2008, the State 

submitted enforceable commitments by 

CARB and the KCAPCD to monitor for 

PM–10 in the western portion of the 

KCAPCD and to address CAA State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) requirements 

for this area as necessary. Letter from 

James N. Goldstene, CARB, to Wayne 

Nastri, EPA, with enclosures, February 

29, 2008. 

Finally, on January 23, 2008, the State 

submitted to EPA the ‘‘Exceptional 

Event Documentation, PM10, Fireworks, 

Bakersfield, CA, July 4, 2007’’ and on 

April 15, 2008, the State submitted to 

EPA the ‘‘Natural Event Documentation, 

Bakersfield, California, January 4, 

2008.’’

II. Summary of EPA’s Proposed Actions 

First, EPA is proposing to grant the 

State’s request to split the existing SJV 

nonattainment area into two separate 

nonattainment areas. EPA is then 

proposing to grant the State’s request to 

redesignate the portion of the SJV 

nonattainment area located in the San 

Joaquin Valley Air Basin to attainment 

for the PM–10 standard and to approve 

the PM–10 maintenance plan, motor 

vehicle emissions budgets and 

conformity trading mechanism for the 

area. EPA is also proposing to exclude 

from use in determining that the area 

has attained the PM–10 standard data 

showing exceedances caused by 

exceptional events that occurred on July 

4, 2007 and January 4, 2008. Finally, 

EPA is proposing to approve 

commitments by CARB and the 

KCAPCD to monitor for PM–10 in the 

western portion of the KCAPCD and to 

address CAA SIP requirements for the 

area as necessary. 

III. Proposed Revised Boundary 

Designation 

A. State’s Submittal 

As stated above, on January 31, 2008, 

the State submitted a request to EPA to 

split the existing SJV PM–10 

nonattainment area into two separate 

nonattainment areas: (1) The San 

Joaquin Valley Air Basin and (2) the 

western portion of the KCAPCD. The 

State’s submittal states that ‘‘[t]his 

change will address the inconsistency 

between California’s adopted air basin 

boundary for the San Joaquin Valley and 

the boundary U.S. EPA is using for 

PM10 planning.’’ The State’s submittal 

includes information about jurisdiction, 

geography, population and degree of 

urbanization, employment and traffic/ 

commuting patterns, and emissions and 

air quality which supports the revised 

boundary designation. See Goldstene 

letter. 

B. EPA’s Evaluation of Request To 

Revise Boundary Designation 

The existing SJV nonattainment area 

includes the entire counties of San 

Joaquin, Fresno, Kings, Madera, Merced, 

Stanislaus and Tulare and part of Kern 

County. The part of Kern County in the 

existing SJV nonattainment area is a 

region that straddles the Sierra Nevada 

and Tehachapi mountains and is located 

in two separate air basins: the SJV Air 

Basin and the Mojave Desert Air Basin 

(MDAB). The dividing line between 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 81 / Friday, April 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules 22309 

3We are proposing to call the new area ‘‘East 

Kern’’ because it is the eastern part of Kern County 

that is currently within the existing SJV 

nonattainment area. 

4The KCAPCD’s jurisdiction also includes the 

remaining part of Kern County which extends 

eastward beyond the proposed East Kern area. 

5Boundary changes are an inherent part of a 

designation or redesignation of an area under the 

CAA. See CAA section 107(d)(1)(B)(ii). 

these two air basins coincides with the 

jurisdictional boundary between the 

KCAPCD and the SJVAPCD. This 

dividing line also coincides with the 

boundary that we are today proposing to 

draw between the two nonattainment 

areas which we are proposing to 

designate as the SJV Air Basin (SJVAB) 

PM–10 nonattainment area and the East 

Kern PM–10 nonattainment area.3 Thus, 

if we finalize the revision to the 

boundary designation, the SJVAB 

nonattainment area will include only 

those areas that are in the SJV Air Basin 

(i.e., all of the seven counties mentioned 

above and the part of Kern County that 

is under the jurisdiction of the 

SJVAPCD) and the East Kern PM–10 

nonattainment area will include the part 

of Kern County that is currently in the 

existing SJV nonattainment area, is in 

the MDAB and is under the jurisdiction 

of the KCAPCD.4 Together, these two 

new PM–10 nonattainment areas will 

cover the same geographic area as the 

original SJV PM–10 nonattainment area. 

Under section 107(d)(3)(D) of the 

CAA, the Governor of any state may, on 

the Governor’s own motion, submit to 

EPA a revised designation of any area or 

portion thereof within the state.5 EPA is 

required to approve or deny a submittal 

of a revised designation within 18 

months of receipt. The type of revised 

designation that the State of California 

submitted on January 31, 2008 involves 

a boundary change only and does not 

involve a change in status (e.g., from 

‘‘nonattainment,’’ to ‘‘attainment’’ or 

‘‘unclassifiable’’) of any area. 

In determining whether to approve or 

deny a state’s submittal of a request for 

a revised boundary designation under 

section 107(d)(3)(D), EPA uses the same 

factors Congress directed EPA to 

consider when the Agency initiates a 

revision to a designation of an area on 

its own motion under section 

107(d)(3)(A). These factors include ‘‘air 

quality data, planning and control 

considerations, or any other air qualityrelated considerations the Administrator 

deems appropriate.’’ In addition, 

because the State’s revised designation 

involves nonattainment areas, we also 

take into account CAA section 

107(d)(1)(A), which provides that 

nonattainment areas are to include the 

geographic area that does not meet, or 

that contributes to ambient air quality in 

a nearby area that does not meet, the 

NAAQS for a given pollutant. 

California has provided a compelling 

technical justification as to why the 

proposed SJVAB and East Kern 

nonattainment areas should be 

designated as separate PM–10 planning 

areas. A summary of the State’s 

reasoning follows: 

Jurisdiction. The proposed SJVAB 

area is under the jurisdiction of the 

SJVAPCD and the proposed East Kern 

area is under the jurisdiction of the 

KCAPCD. The proposed revised 

designation will align the boundary 

along these jurisdictional lines. This 

realignment will make the air quality 

planning and implementation process 

more efficient and straightforward since 

the local air pollution control agencies, 

SJVAPCD and KCAPCD, can only adopt 

and implement plans and rules in the 

area for which they have jurisdiction. 

Geography. The East Kern area is in 

the MDAB, a different air basin than the 

SJVAB area; it is separated from the 

SJVAB area by the Sierra Nevada and 

Tehachapi Mountain Ranges at 

elevations up to 7,500 feet. The Kern 

River Valley and the Cummings Valley 

in the East Kern area are located at 

approximately 2600 feet and 3800 feet, 

respectively. These elevations are 

comparable to other areas in the MDAB 

and much higher than the average 

elevation in the western portion of Kern 

County in the SJVAB which is between 

450 and 500 feet. Eastern Kern County, 

which includes the proposed East Kern 

nonattainment area, is a vast arid desert 

while the SJVAB portion of Kern County 

is part of the urbanized, agricultural, 

and industrial SJV. The mountains 

surrounding the SJVAB form a bowl 

trapping air pollutants in the SJVAB, 

but the East Kern area is located above 

the inversion layer which traps air 

pollutants in the SJVAB and thus, 

experiences different weather from the 

SJVAB. 

Population and Degree of 

Urbanization. There are no major or fast 

growing population centers in eastern 

Kern County. Eastern Kern County 

covers approximately 3800 square 

miles, with a total population of 

approximately 131,000 (in 2005) and a 

low population density of 

approximately 35 persons per square 

mile. In the last decade (1995–2005), 

population increased by 15,000 persons. 

The Kern River Valley and Cummings 

Valley, which are in the East Kern area, 

are sparsely populated; the greater Lake 

Isabella region in the Kern River Valley 

has approximately 15,000 inhabitants; 

and the west Tehachapi area in the 

Cummings Valley has approximately 

13,000 inhabitants. In contrast, the 

western portion of Kern County in the 

SJVAB extends over 4400 square miles, 

includes the urban Bakersfield area, 

housed 640,000 persons (in 2005), and 

has a population density of 

approximately 145 persons per square 

mile, which is four times the population 

density of eastern Kern County. In the 

last decade, the total population in 

western Kern County grew by 136,000 

persons, nine times the population 

growth in eastern Kern County. 

Employment and Traffic/Commuting 

Patterns. Eastern Kern County, which 

includes the proposed East Kern 

nonattainment area, is not strongly 

integrated economically with western 

Kern County. People tend to live and 

work in eastern Kern County, and 

because of its geographic isolation there 

is no convenient commute to cities 

outside the region. The economy of 

western Kern is largely based on the oil 

and agricultural industries. The primary 

employer in eastern Kern County is the 

Tehachapi State Prison. Due to the 

geographic isolation, there is no 

convenient commute to cities outside 

the area. In 2005, vehicles traveled 

approximately 5.1 million miles per day 

throughout eastern Kern County. In 

contrast, in western Kern County 

vehicles traveled approximately 19.8 

million miles per day, close to 4 times 

the average travel in eastern Kern 

County. Also, eastern Kern residents are 

not dependent on western Kern for 

economic activities such as 

employment, shopping, or other 

services. There are no significant 

commute patterns from eastern Kern 

County into the SJVAB, the MDAB, or 

the South Coast Air Basin or vice versa. 

Emissions. There are only a handful of 

major emission sources in eastern Kern 

County, which includes the proposed 

East Kern area, and projected source and 

industrial growth is minimal. Total 

primary PM–10 emissions as well as 

nitrogen oxide emissions (NOX), the 

main precursor of secondary PM–10 in 

the area, are declining. Major sources of 

primary PM–10 include the Tehachapi 

State Prison (11.5 tons per year (tpy) in 

2005), followed by two aggregate 

operations (9.7 tpy and 8.5 tpy); the two 

largest NOX sources are the Tehachapi 

State Prison (12.8 tpy) and two natural 

gas pumps that lift water to Tehachapi 

(14.8 tpy and 12.2 tpy). In contrast, 

western Kern County houses 35 major 

sources of primary PM–10 with 

emissions over 10 tpy and 47 major 

sources of NOX with emissions over 10 

tpy. Compared to the entire SJV PM–10 

nonattainment area, sources in all of 

eastern Kern County contributed only 

eight percent of the direct PM–10 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS
22310 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 81 / Friday, April 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

emissions and eight percent of the NOX

emissions in 2005. 

Air Quality. The chemical 

composition of PM–10 in eastern Kern 

County, which includes the proposed 

East Kern area, differs significantly from 

the PM–10 chemical composition in the 

SJVAB area. While dust is the main 

component of PM–10 in eastern Kern 

County, NOX has been determined to be 

the only significant precursor for the 

SJVAB area. 69 FR 30006. Currently 

there is no Federal Reference Method 

(FRM) or Federal Equivalent Method 

(FEM) monitoring of PM–10 in the East 

Kern area. However, there is an 

Interagency Monitoring of Protected 

Visual Environments (IMPROVE) 

monitor located in the Kern River 

Valley. This IMPROVE monitor has, 

since February 2000, consistently 

measured PM–10 concentrations far 

below the PM–10 standard. A summary 

of the maximum PM–10 daily values at 

the IMPROVE monitor is provided in 

Table 1 below. 

TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM PM–10 DAILY VALUES FOR THE DOMELANDS IMPROVE MONITOR (μg/m3) 

Year 1st max 2nd max 3rd max 4th max 

2001 ................................................................................................................. 33 33 32 32 

2002 ................................................................................................................. 109 53 49 49 

2003 ................................................................................................................. 66 42 37 37 

2004 ................................................................................................................. 52 50 47 45 

2005 ................................................................................................................. 21 14 6 5 

2006 ................................................................................................................. 39 36 35 34 

Source: IMPROVE Web site, http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Default.htm 

Based on the factors set forth above, 

EPA has considered the State’s request 

in accordance with the criteria listed in 

CAA section 107(d)(3)(A). We find that 

the State has sufficiently demonstrated 

that the SJVAB and East Kern should be 

separate nonattainment areas because 

they lie in separate air basins, are under 

different local jurisdictions, have 

different population densities and 

growth levels, do not share commute 

patterns, have different emissions 

sources and have different types of air 

pollutants. Pursuant to CAA section 

107(d)(3)(D), EPA is therefore proposing 

to approve the State’s request to revise 

the boundary designation of the existing 

SJV PM–10 nonattainment area by 

splitting the area into two separate 

PM–10 nonattainment areas, the SJVAB 

and East Kern. 

As explained below, we are further 

proposing to redesignate the SJVAB to 

attainment for PM–10. Pending further 

air quality monitoring and until such 

time as the East Kern nonattainment 

area meets the CAA requirements for 

redesignation, the East Kern area would 

be classified as a serious PM–10 

nonattainment area. Thus the East Kern 

nonattainment area would retain the 

classification and nonattainment 

designation that applied to it when it 

was part of the SJV nonattainment area 

and would likewise retain the 

attainment determination applicable to 

that area. In order to address the serious 

area PM–10 statutory requirements, 

KCAPCD and CARB have made the 

enforceable commitments discussed in 

section V. below. 

IV. Proposed Redesignation of the 

SJVAB to Attainment for the PM–10 

Standard 

On November 16, 2007, the State 

submitted to EPA the 2007 Plan which 

addresses PM–10 maintenance plan 

requirements and includes a discussion 

of how the SJVAB (i.e., the portion of 

the current nonattainment area under 

the jurisdiction of the SJVAPCD) meets 

the CAA redesignation requirements. 

Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA states 

that an area can be redesignated to 

attainment if the following conditions 

are met: 

(1) EPA has determined that the area 

has attained the NAAQS. 

(2) The applicable implementation 

plan has been fully approved by EPA 

under section 110(k) of the CAA. 

(3) EPA has determined that the 

improvement in air quality is due to 

permanent and enforceable reductions 

in emissions. 

(4) The State has met all applicable 

requirements for the area under section 

110 and Part D of the CAA. 

(5) EPA has fully approved a 

maintenance plan, including a 

contingency plan, for the area under 

section 175A of the CAA. 

These requirements are discussed in 

more detail in a September 4, 1992 EPA 

Memorandum, ‘‘Procedures for 

Processing Request to Redesignate Areas 

to Attainment, John Calcagni, Director, 

Air Quality Management Division’’

(Calcagni memo). We discuss how these 

requirements are met for the SJVAB in 

detail below. 

A. EPA Has Determined That the Area 

Has Attained the NAAQS 

The Calcagni memo states that there 

are two components involved in 

meeting this requirement. The first 

component relies on an analysis of 

quality-assured ambient air quality data 

and an ambient air monitoring network 

that is representative of the area of 

highest concentrations. For PM–10 in 

the SJVAB, EPA has reviewed the 

ambient air quality data and determined 

and affirmed that the PM–10 NAAQS 

has been attained for the years 2003 

through 2006. See 71 FR 40952, 71 FR 

63642, 72 FR 49046 and 73 FR 14687. 

These determinations also discuss the 

adequacy of the monitoring network for 

the SJVAB. 

EPA has also evaluated the air quality 

data in EPA’s Air Quality System (AQS) 

database for 2007 and through February 

2008. This data has been included in the 

docket for this proposed rule. A 

summary of the 2005–2007 data is 

provided in Table 2 below. 

TABLE 2.—SUMMARY OF 2005—2007 PM–10 ATTAINMENT STATISTICS

[Based on Federal Reference Method PM–10 monitors] 

Monitoring site 

Observed 

three year 24- 

hour maximum 

(μg/m3) 

Estimated 24- 

hour exceedance days 

Attainment 

status 

Fresno-Drummond ............................................................................................................................. 132 0 Attainment. 

Fresno-1st Street ............................................................................................................................... 117 0 Attainment. 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 81 / Friday, April 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules 22311 

6The Bakersfield-Golden monitoring site includes 

a special purpose FEM known as a Tapered Element 

Oscillating Microbalance (TEOM) continuous 

automated analyzer. The exceedances on July 4, 

2007 and January 4, 2008 were recorded on the 

TEOM. Data are collected at the site using both a 

TEOM, which provides continuous PM–10 data for 

public reporting purposes, and a high-volume FRM. 

The FRM operates at a less than everyday schedule, 

as allowed by EPA regulations, and was not 

operating on July 4, 2007 or January 4, 2008. 

7See footnote 6 above. 

TABLE 2.—SUMMARY OF 2005—2007 PM–10 ATTAINMENT STATISTICS—Continued 

[Based on Federal Reference Method PM–10 monitors] 

Monitoring site 

Observed 

three year 24- 

hour maximum 

(μg/m3) 

Estimated 24- 

hour exceedance days 

Attainment 

status 

Clovis ................................................................................................................................................. 116 0 Attainment. 

Bakersfield-Golden State Highway .................................................................................................... 154 0 Attainment. 

Bakersfield-California Ave ................................................................................................................. 153 0 Attainment. 

Oildale ................................................................................................................................................ 145 0 Attainment. 

Corcoran ............................................................................................................................................ 140 0 Attainment. 

Hanford .............................................................................................................................................. 142 0 Attainment. 

Merced ............................................................................................................................................... 94 0 Attainment. 

Stockton-Hazelton .............................................................................................................................. 82 0 Attainment. 

Stockton-Wagner ............................................................................................................................... 69 0 Attainment. 

Modesto ............................................................................................................................................. 96 0 Attainment. 

Turlock ............................................................................................................................................... 97 0 Attainment. 

Visalia ................................................................................................................................................ 141 0 Attainment. 

Source: EPA Air Quality System (AQS) Database. 

One exceedance of the PM–10 

standard was recorded at the 

Bakersfield-Golden FEM 6 on July 4, 

2007. The State has flagged this 

exceedance as being caused by an 

exceptional event, fourth of July 

fireworks celebrations. EPA has 

reviewed the documentation for this 

event and has concurred with the State’s 

request. Letter from Wayne Nastri, EPA, 

to Mary D. Nichols, California 

Environmental Protection Agency, April 

21, 2008. For 2008, one exceedance of 

the PM–10 standard was recorded also 

at the Bakersfield-Golden federal 

equivalent monitor 7 on January 4. The 

State has flagged this exceedance as 

being caused by an exceptional event, 

high winds. EPA has reviewed the 

documentation for this event and has 

concurred with the State’s request. 

Letter from Wayne Nastri, EPA, to Mary 

D. Nichols, California Environmental 

Protection Agency, April 21, 2008. 

Under EPA’s Exceptional Events Rule, 

the Agency may exclude data from 

regulatory determinations related to 

exceedances or violations of the NAAQS 

if the state adequately demonstrates that 

an exceptional event caused the 

exceedance or violation. 40 CFR 

Sections 50.1, 50.14. Therefore, for the 

reasons set forth in the concurrence 

letters, EPA is proposing to exclude data 

showing exceedances on July 4, 2007 

and January 4, 2008 in determining 

whether the SJVAB has continued to 

attain the PM–10 standard in 2007 and 

through February 2008. The 

concurrence letters explain how the 

State has met its burden to demonstrate 

that these exceedances qualify as 

exceptional events. Thus, EPA believes 

that according to the ambient air 

monitoring data for the SJVAB, the PM–

10 NAAQS has been attained. 

The second component that may be 

included in the showing that a PM–10 

area has met the requirement that the 

NAAQS has been attained involves an 

analysis using air quality modeling. 

This component is addressed under the 

maintenance plan requirements 

discussion below. 

B. The Applicable Implementation Plan 

Has Been Fully Approved by EPA Under 

Section 110(k) of the CAA 

The Calcagni memo states that the SIP 

for the area must be fully approved 

under section 110(k) of the CAA and 

must satisfy all requirements that apply 

to the area. Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). As 

stated above, on August 19, 2003 and 

December 30, 2003, the State submitted 

the 2003 Plan. This plan addressed all 

applicable requirements for the SJV 

serious PM–10 nonattainment area. On 

May 24, 2004, EPA approved all 

components of the 2003 Plan except for 

the plan’s contingency measures. EPA 

may rely on prior SIP approvals in 

approving a redesignation request. See 

Calcagni memo, p. 3; Southwestern 

Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. 

Browner, 144 F.3d 984, 989–990 (6th 

Cir. 1998), Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 526 

(6th Cir. 2001). The contingency 

measure requirement under CAA 

section 172(c)(9) was subsequently 

suspended on October 30, 2006 

pursuant to EPA’s determination of 

attainment under its Clean Data Policy. 

See 71 FR 63642, 63663. Thus, since 

contingency measures are no longer a 

required element for the SJVAB, all 

applicable requirements have been 

approved under 110(k) of the CAA. See 

also section IV.D. below. 

C. EPA Has Determined That the 

Improvement in Air Quality Is Due to 

Permanent and Enforceable Reductions 

in Emissions 

The Calcagni memo states that the 

state must be able to reasonably 

attribute the improvement in air quality 

to emission reductions which are 

permanent and enforceable, (CAA 

section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii)) and the 

improvement should not be a result of 

temporary reductions (e.g., economic 

downturns or shutdowns) or unusually 

favorable meteorology. In making this 

showing, the state should estimate the 

emission reductions from adopted and 

implemented Federal, State and local 

control measures, and consider the 

emission rates, production capacities, 

and other related information to show 

that the air quality improvements are 

the result of implemented controls. 

The 2007 Plan provides a discussion 

and comparison of the air quality, 

meteorology and emissions trends since 

1990. See 2007 Plan, pp. 23–28. First, 

the 2007 Plan discusses the significant 

improvements in PM–10 air quality 

since 1990, noting that from 1990 to 

1992 there were 33 estimated 

exceedance days, from 1998 to 2000 

there were 5.9 exceedance days and 

from 2002 to 2004 there were 2.9 

exceedance days. Id. Next the 2007 Plan 

states that this improvement has 

occurred while air quality plans and 

regulations have been adopted and 

notes that in the late 1980’s, before the 

adoption of plans and regulations, 

‘‘* * * it was not uncommon to have 50 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS
22312 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 81 / Friday, April 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

8The applicable California SIP for the SJV 

nonattainment area can be found at: http://

yosemite.epa.gov/r9/r9sips.nsf/Casips?readform&

count=100&state=California. 

or more estimated annual exceedances 

of the 24-hour PM10 standard [with] 

peak measurements well above 250 

micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3), 

and annual averages of 80 μg/m3.’’ Id. 

The 2007 Plan also states that since 

1990 the Valley has experienced rapid 

economic growth, citing to increases in 

population and vehicle miles traveled 

(2007 Plan, p. 26, Figure 3), while at the 

same time the PM–10 and PM–10 

precursor emissions were decreasing 

(2007 Plan, p. 26, Figure 4). The 2007 

Plan also did not find any major sectorwide shutdowns, identifying at most 

‘‘* * * about 2 tons per day of PM–10 

reductions from shutdowns during the 

attainment period of interest.’’ 2007 

Plan, p. 25. Thus, it does not appear that 

the air quality improvements were due 

to any economic downturns or 

shutdowns. 

The 2007 Plan also provides an 

analysis of the meteorological 

conditions, including wind speeds, 

precipitation, temperature and 

atmospheric stability, to determine if 

there were any favorable meteorological 

conditions that may have led to the 

improvement in air quality during 

2003–2006. 2007 Plan, p. 27 and 

Appendix C. The 2007 Plan found that 

compared to long-term averages, the 

period from 2003 to 2006 had: No 

variation in average annual wind 

speeds; a higher than average level of 

precipitation with two dry years (2003 

and 2004) and two wet years (2005 and 

2006); warmer than average 

temperatures; and a lower than average 

stability level. The higher than average 

precipitation would favor lower PM–10 

levels, but it is important to note that 

2003 and 2004 were in fact dry years, 

ranking 98th and 122nd in wetness over 

a period of 128 years (1878 to 2006). 

The higher than average temperature 

could have increased the potential for 

high PM–10 levels, but the higher 

stability level could have decreased the 

potential by providing more dispersion. 

The 2007 Plan concludes that these 

analyses indicate that there is no 

consistent pattern to show that there 

was favorable meteorology leading to 

the improvement in PM–10 levels 

during 2003 to 2006. Id. 

The 2007 Plan further states that the 

SJVAPCD has adopted over 500 new 

rules and amendments since 1992, 

many of which are for the purpose of 

reducing PM–10 or PM–10 precursor 

emissions. The 2007 Plan shows that all 

of the rules and commitments in the 

2003 Plan have been adopted by the 

SJVAPCD and many of them have been 

approved by EPA and are thus federally 

enforceable. The SJVAPCD has adopted 

rules which control NOX and PM–10 

emissions from cotton gins, boilers, 

steam generators, and process heaters, 

agricultural sources, dryers, dehydrators 

and ovens, glass melting furnaces, 

fugitive dust sources, open burning and 

other source categories. 2007 Plan, p. 27 

and Appendix B. In addition, the State 

has adopted measures to meet its 

commitments in the 2003 Plan to 

achieve 10 tons per day (tpd) of NOX

reductions and 0.5 tpd of PM–10 

reductions. 2007 Plan, p. 17. The air 

quality improvements described above 

can be attributed to the reductions in 

NOX and PM–10 emissions achieved by 

these measures. 

The 2007 Plan shows decreases in the 

emissions inventories for the SJVAB 

from approximately 1000 tpd in 2000 to 

approximately 900 tpd in 2005 and to 

approximately 800 tpd in 2010. ARB 

Staff Report, Appendix B. As discussed 

further in Section E.1. below, the 

emissions inventories are a summary of 

all source categories in the SJVAB and 

are developed based on information 

about emission rates, production 

capacities, and other source-related 

information. The emissions inventories 

in the 2007 Plan also include reductions 

from adopted and implemented Federal, 

State and local control measures. ARB 

Staff Report, Appendix B. 

EPA believes that the 2007 Plan has 

demonstrated that the improvement in 

PM–10 air quality for the SJVAB is a 

result of permanent and enforceable 

reductions in emissions and the 

improvement is not a result of 

temporary reductions or unusually 

favorable meteorology. The fact that, as 

discussed above, there were no 

economic downturns, shutdowns or 

meteorology impacting air quality and 

that the number of exceedance days and 

the estimated emissions have decreased 

over time while the population and 

vehicle miles traveled in the SJVAB 

have increased shows that the 

improvement in air quality can 

reasonably be attributed to the adoption 

of air quality plans and regulations 

during this time. 

D. The State Has Met All Applicable 

Requirements for the Area Under 

Section 110 and Part D of the CAA 

The Calcagni memo states that a state 

must meet those requirements of section 

110 and part D of the CAA that were 

applicable prior to the submittal of the 

redesignation request. CAA section 

107(d)(3)(E)(v). 

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: Submittal 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 the SJVAPCD have 

submitted and we have approved 

provisions addressing the basic CAA 

section 110 provisions. There are no 

outstanding or disapproved applicable 

section 110 SIP submittals with respect 

to the State and the SJVAPCD.8 We 

propose to conclude that CARB and 

SJVAPCD have met all SIP requirements 

for the SJVAB area applicable for 

purposes of redesignation under section 

110 of the CAA (General SIP 

Requirements). 

Moreover, we note that SIPs must be 

fully approved only with respect to 

applicable requirements for purposes of 

redesignation in accordance with CAA 

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 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 81 / Friday, April 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules 22313 

redesignation. The State will still be 

subject to these requirements after the 

SJVAB area is redesignated. The section 

110 and part D requirements, which are 

linked to 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 the conformity SIP 

requirement for redesignations. See 

Reading, Pennsylvania proposed and 

final rulemakings at 61 FR 53174–53176 

(October 10, 1996), 62 FR 24816 (May 7, 

1997); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio 

final rulemaking at 61 FR 20458 (May 7, 

1996); and Tampa, Florida final 

rulemaking at 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 

1995). See also the discussion of this 

issue in the Cincinnati redesignation at 

65 FR 37890 (June 19, 2000), and in the 

Pittsburgh redesignation at 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. SIP Requirements Under Part D 

Subparts 1 and 4 of part D, title 1 of 

the CAA contain air quality planning 

requirements for PM–10 nonattainment 

areas. Subpart 1 of part D contains 

general requirements for areas 

designated as nonattainment. Subpart 4 

of part D contains specific planning and 

scheduling requirements for particulate 

matter nonattainment areas. Subpart 4 

of part D, section 189(a), (b) and (c) 

requirements apply to moderate and 

serious PM–10 nonattainment areas and 

189(d) applies to areas which failed to 

attain by their serious area deadline. 

These requirements include: (1) An 

approved permit program for 

construction of new and modified major 

stationary sources; (2) provisions to 

ensure that reasonably available control 

technology (RACT) and reasonably 

available control measures (RACM) are 

implemented; (3) provisions to ensure 

that best available control measures 

(BACM) are implemented; (4) 

quantitative milestones to be achieved 

every 3 years and which demonstrate 

reasonable further progress (RFP) 

toward attainment by the applicable 

attainment date; (5) provisions to ensure 

that the control requirements applicable 

to major stationary sources of PM–10 

also apply to major stationary sources of 

PM–10 precursors except where the 

Administrator determined that such 

sources do not contribute significantly 

to PM–10 levels which exceed the 

NAAQS in the area; and(6) a 

demonstration of attainment and an 

annual PM–10 or PM–10 precursor 

reduction of not less than five percent 

from the most recent emission inventory 

until attainment. 

In addition to these specific 

requirements for serious PM–10 

nonattainment areas, nonattainment 

areas must also meet the general 

planning requirements in subpart 1, 

section 172(c). These requirements 

include, among other things, provisions 

for the implementation of RACT, RFP, 

emissions inventories, and contingency 

measures. 

For the SJVAB, EPA determined that 

these requirements were met in its 

approval of the 2003 Plan with the 

exception of the contingency measure 

requirement that was subsequently 

suspended by the determination of 

attainment in accordance with EPA’s 

Clean Data Policy and the NSR permit 

program for construction of new and 

modified major stationary sources. 69 

FR 30006 and 71 FR 63642. 

EPA fully approved SJVAPCD NSR 

rules 2020 and 2201 on May 17, 2004 

(69 FR 27837). Recently we proposed to: 

(1) Correct aspects of that approval, and 

(2) approve revisions to the NSR rules 

that explicitly exempt certain small or 

minor agricultural sources from 

permitting requirements. 73 FR 9260 

(February 20, 2008). In this proposed 

rulemaking, we stated that ‘‘we believe 

that the adoption of the proposed 

revisions in place of the SIP as proposed 

to be corrected would not result in any 

change in emissions, any change in air 

quality, or any change in the area’s 

ability to attain or maintain the NAAQS. 

Accordingly, we conclude that this SIP 

revision, if approved, will not interfere 

with any applicable requirements for 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress or any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA and is 

approvable under section 110(l).’’ 73 FR 

9265. 

Although the SJVAPCD NSR program 

has been approved, and we have 

proposed approval of revisions to the 

rule, we also note that final approval of 

the NSR revisions is not a necessary 

prerequisite to finalizing our proposed 

approval of the State’s redesignation 

request. EPA has determined in past 

redesignations that a NSR program does 

not have to be approved prior to 

redesignation, provided that the area 

demonstrates maintenance of the 

standard without part D NSR in effect. 

The rationale for this position is 

described in a memorandum from Mary 

Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air 

and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, 

entitled ‘‘Part D NSR Requirements or 

Areas Requesting Redesignation to 

Attainment.’’ See the more detailed 

explanations in the following 

redesignation rulemakings: Detroit, MI 

(60 FR 12467–12468, March 7, 1996); 

Cleveland-Akron-Lorrain, OH (61 FR 

20458, 20469–20470, May 7, 1996); 

Louisville, KY (66 FR 53665, 53669, 

October 23, 2001); Grand Rapids, MI (61 

FR 31831, 31836–31837, June 21, 1996). 

The requirements of the PSD program 

will apply once the area has been 

redesignated. Thus, new major sources 

with significant PM–10 emissions and 

major modifications of PM–10 at major 

sources as defined under 40 CFR 52.21 

will be required to obtain a PSD permit. 

Currently, EPA is the PSD permitting 

authority in the SJVAB under a Federal 

implementation plan. See 40 CFR 

52.270. However, the SJVAPCD can 

implement the Federal PSD program 

through a delegation agreement with 

EPA or, assuming that the SJVAPCD 

makes necessary modifications to its 

PSD rules, under an EPA-approved rule. 

With respect to the conformity 

requirement, section 176(c) of the CAA 

requires states to establish criteria and 

procedures to ensure that Federally 

supported or funded projects ‘‘conform’’

to the air quality planning goals in the 

applicable SIP. The requirement to 

determine conformity applies to 

transportation plans, programs and 

projects developed, funded or approved 

under Title 23 U.S.C. and the Federal 

Transit Act (‘‘transportation 

conformity’’) as well as to other 

Federally supported or funded projects 

(‘‘general conformity’’). State conformity 

revisions must be consistent with 

Federal conformity regulations relating 

to consultation, enforcement and 

enforceability that the CAA required the 

EPA to promulgate. 

EPA believes it is reasonable to 

interpret the conformity SIP 

requirements as not applying for 

purposes of a redesignation request 

under section 107(d) because state 

conformity rules are still required after 

redesignation and Federal conformity 

rules apply where state rules have not 

been approved. See Wall v. EPA, 265f 

3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding this 

interpretation. See, also, 60 FR 62748 

(December 7, 1995). 

Thus, EPA concludes that the State 

has met all requirements applicable 

under section 110 and part D for the 

SJVAB for purposes of redesignation. 

CAA Section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). 

E. EPA Has Fully Approved a 

Maintenance Plan, Including a 

Contingency Plan, for the Area Under 

Section 175A of the CAA 

Section 175A of the CAA provides the 

requirements for maintenance plans. 

These requirements are further clarified 

in the Calcagni memo. The provisions to 

be included in maintenance plans are: 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS
22314 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 81 / Friday, April 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

9The 2007 Plan’s emissions inventories are found 

in Appendix B of the ARB Staff Report. As 

mentioned above and in the ARB Staff Report, the 

State ‘‘* * * updated the attainment inventory 

* * * to reflect emission reductions achieved by 

ARB adopted measures that had not been accounted 

for’’ before submitting the 2007 Plan to EPA on 

November 16, 2007. 

10The 2007 Plan also includes a maintenance 

demonstration for the annual PM–10 standard; 

however, the annual PM–10 standard was revoked 

effective December 18, 2006. 71 FR 61144 (October 

17, 2006). Therefore we do not address this 

demonstration here. 

(1) An attainment emissions inventory 

to identify the level of emissions in the 

area sufficient to attain the NAAQS; 

(2) A demonstration of maintenance 

of the NAAQS for 10 years after 

redesignation; 

(3) Verification of continued 

attainment through operation of an 

appropriate air quality monitoring 

network; and 

(4) Contingency provisions that EPA 

deems necessary to assure that the State 

will promptly correct any violation of 

the NAAQS that occurs after 

redesignation of the area. We discuss 

how these requirements are met for the 

SJVAB below. 

1. An Attainment Emissions Inventory 

To Identify the Level of Emissions in the 

Area Sufficient To Attain the NAAQS 

Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires 

all plan submittals to include a 

comprehensive, accurate, and current 

inventory of actual emissions from all 

sources in the nonattainment area. In 

demonstrating maintenance in 

accordance with CAA section 175A and 

the Calcagni memo, the state should 

provide an attainment emissions 

inventory to identify the level of 

emissions in the area sufficient to attain 

the NAAQS. Where the state has made 

an adequate demonstration that air 

quality has improved as a result of the 

SIP, the attainment inventory will 

generally be an inventory of actual 

emissions at the time the area attained 

the standard. EPA’s primary guidance in 

evaluating these inventories is the 

document entitled, ‘‘PM–10 Emissions 

Inventory Requirements,’’ EPA, OAQPS, 

EPA–454/R–94–033 (September 1994) 

which can be found at: http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eidocs/ 

pm10eir.pdf. 

The 2007 Plan includes detailed 

emissions inventories for NOX, directly 

emitted PM–10, volatile organic 

compounds (VOC) and oxides of sulfur 

(SOX).9 The emissions inventories are 

projected from a 2002 baseyear 

inventory because it was the most 

comprehensive inventory available. The 

baseyear inventory meets the CAA 

requirement for a comprehensive, 

accurate and current inventory and is 

used as the basis for forecasting future 

year inventories. 

The 2007 Plan includes projected 

inventories for 2005, 2010 and 2020 for 

NOX, PM–10, VOC and SOX. The 

baseyear and projected year inventories 

all include a detailed breakdown of the 

stationary and mobile source emissions 

categories. The emissions for each of the 

categories are estimated based on the 

best available information on number of 

sources, size of sources, growth, control 

measures, emissions factors, and other 

criteria. 

The 2007 Plan selects the 2005 PM–

10 and NOX inventories as the 

attainment emission inventories because 

the SJV nonattainment area first attained 

the PM–10 standard during 2003–2005 

(and continues to attain the standard 

through February 2008). 2007 Plan, pp. 

5–6. The 2007 Plan also includes 

inventories for VOC and SOx; however, 

EPA has determined that NOX is the 

only significant PM–10 precursor for the 

SJV nonattainment area and thus the 

proposed SJVAB. 69 FR 30006. Table 3 

summarizes the 2007 Plan’s NOX and 

PM–10 emissions. 

TABLE 3.—ANNUAL PM–10 AND NOX EMISSIONS (TONS PER DAY) 2007 PLAN (ARB STAFF REPORT, APPENDIX B) 

2005 2010 2020 

PM–10 .......................................................................................................................................... 284 282 290 

NOX .............................................................................................................................................. 606 521 328 

The NOX emission inventory 

continues to be reduced substantially in 

the future. While the PM–10 emission 

inventory is projected to increase 

slightly in 2020, we believe the increase 

is insignificant when compared to the 

substantial NOX decreases. See 2007 

Plan, pp. 5–6 and Appendix B of the 

ARB Staff Report. 

EPA believes that the selection of 

2005 for the attainment year inventory 

and 2020 for the maintenance year 

inventory is appropriate since the 

SJVAB was determined to have attained 

the PM–10 NAAQS in 2005. We have 

reviewed the 2007 Plan’s attainment 

year and maintenance year emissions 

inventories and determined that they 

are accurate and comprehensive and 

meet the requirements of EPA guidance 

and the CAA. 

2. A Demonstration of Maintenance of 

the NAAQS for 10 Years After 

Redesignation 

Section 175A of the CAA requires a 

demonstration of maintenance of the 

NAAQS for 10 years after designation. A 

state may generally demonstrate 

maintenance of the NAAQS by either 

showing that future emissions of a 

pollutant or its precursors will not 

exceed the level of the attainment 

inventory, or by modeling to show that 

the future anticipated mix of sources 

and emission rates will not cause a 

violation of the NAAQS. Under the Act, 

the showing should be based on the 

same level of modeling used for the 

attainment demonstration required as 

part of the approved attainment plan. 

Consistent with EPA’s modeling 

guidance (The Guideline on Air Quality 

Models (GAQM), 40 CFR part 51, 

Appendix W and the PM–10 SIP 

Development Guideline (PMSDG), EPA 

450/2–86–001, June 1987), the 2003 

Plan’s attainment demonstration was 

based on the use of two receptor 

models: Chemical Mass Balance (CMB) 

and rollback. 69 FR 5412, 5424–5425 

and 69 FR 30006. The 2007 Plan also 

uses CMB and rollback to demonstrate 

maintenance of the 24-hour PM–10 

standard until 2020.10 See 2007 Plan, 

pp. 6–11. The results of the modeling 

show that all monitoring sites in the 

SJVAB nonattainment area will be 

below the NAAQS in 2020, with the 

highest projected value of 134 μg/m3 at 

Bakersfield-Golden and Corcoran. See 

2007 Plan, Table 2. 

In addition to the modeling for the 

maintenance plan, the 2007 Plan shows 

that total annual emissions of NOX will 

decrease from 606 tpd in 2005 to 521 

tpd in 2010 and 328 tpd in 2020 and 

total annual emissions of PM–10 will 

decrease from 284 tpd in 2005 to 282 

tpd in 2010 and slightly increase to 290 

tpd in 2020. As discussed above, the 

emissions inventories meet EPA 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 81 / Friday, April 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules 22315 

11An exceedance is defined as a daily value that 

is above the level of the 24-hour standard (150 μg/ 

m3) after rounding to the nearest 10 μg/m3 (i.e. 

values ending in 5 or greater are to be rounded up). 

Thus, a recorded value of 154 μg/m3 would not be 

an exceedance since it would be rounded to 150 μg/ 

m3 whereas a recorded value of 155 μg/m3 would 

be an exceedance since it would be rounded to 160 

μg/m3. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix K, section 1.0. 

requirements and the general decline in 

inventories provides assurance that the 

SJVAB will maintain its attainment 

levels through 2020. 

Based on our review of the 

information presented in the 2007 Plan, 

we believe that the State has met EPA 

requirements for demonstrating 

maintenance of the PM–10 standard for 

the SJVAB. 

3. Verification of Continued Attainment 

Through Operation of an Appropriate 

Air Quality Monitoring Network 

In demonstrating maintenance, 

continued attainment of the NAAQS can 

be verified through operation of an 

appropriate air quality monitoring 

network. The Calcagni memo states that 

the maintenance plan should contain 

provisions for continued operation of air 

quality monitors that will provide such 

verification. The memo also states that 

states should ensure that they have the 

legal authority to implement and 

enforce all measures necessary to attain 

and to maintain the NAAQS. Finally, 

the memo states that the state submittal 

should indicate how it will track the 

progress of the maintenance plan (e.g., 

with periodic emissions inventory 

updates or modeling input updates) and 

monitor the triggers for contingency 

measures. 

In the 2007 Plan the SJVAPCD 

commits to continued operation of its 

air quality monitoring network for 

verification of attainment. See 2007 

Plan, pp. 12–13. The SJVAPCD’s 

authority to continue operating after 

redesignation to attainment is provided 

for in the California Health and Safety 

Code sections 40150 and 40161. Id. at 

15. The SJVAPCD also plans to verify 

continued attainment of the PM–10 

standard through an annual report to its 

Board which will include, among other 

things, tracking of adoption and 

implementation of control measures, 

tracking of air quality data and 

comparison of predicted versus current 

emissions reductions estimates. Id. As 

discussed further below, since the 

SJVAPCD has selected a contingency 

measure trigger that is based on ambient 

air quality levels, the continued 

operation of the monitoring network 

and tracking of its data will provide 

adequate notice of when contingency 

measures are needed. 

4. Contingency Provisions to Promptly 

Correct Any Violation of the NAAQS 

That Occurs After Redesignation of the 

Area 

Contingency provisions are required 

under section 175A of the CAA. These 

contingency measures are distinguished 

from those generally required for 

nonattainment areas under section 

172(c)(9) in that they are not required to 

be fully adopted measures that will take 

effect without further action by the State 

in order for the maintenance plan to be 

approved. The Calcagni memo states 

that the contingency provisions of the 

maintenance plan should clearly 

identify the measures to be adopted, a 

schedule and procedure for adoption 

and implementation, and a specific time 

limit for action by the state. The memo 

also states that the contingency 

provisions should identify indicators or 

triggers which will be used to determine 

when the contingency measures need to 

be implemented. While the memo 

suggests inventory or monitoring 

indicators, it states that contingency 

provisions will be evaluated on a caseby-case basis. Finally, the Calcagni 

memo states that the contingency 

provisions must require the state to 

implement all measures contained in 

the part D nonattainment plan for the 

area prior to redesignation. 

The 2007 Plan selects an action level 

or trigger based on an exceedance of the 

PM–10 NAAQS of 155 μg/m3.11 See 

2007 Plan, p. 16. In addition, the 

District may also consider other factors 

such as a succession of values just 

below but near the level of the PM–10 

standard. Id. EPA believes that an 

exceedance of 155 μg/m3 is an 

appropriate trigger level. The SJVAB has 

several continuous PM–10 monitors, 

and a single measurement of 155 μg/m3

at one of these monitors would not 

constitute a violation of the PM–10 

NAAQS. Even if a measurement of 155 

μg/m3 is recorded at a one-in-six day 

FEM, a violation is not necessarily being 

recorded as the State might need to 

evaluate the possibility that the 

measurement is due to an exceptional 

event. 

The 2007 Plan states that if the SJVAB 

monitors an exceedance of 155 μg/m3, 

the District commits to take appropriate 

action within 18 months of the 

exceedance date. This action will first 

involve a determination of whether the 

exceedance was due to an exceptional 

event in accordance with EPA’s 

Exceptional Events Rule and an analysis 

of what caused the exceedance and the 

necessary controls to address it. Id. If 

the exceedance is not due to an 

exceptional event, the District commits 

to determine the possible causes of the 

exceedance and to determine if 

emissions reductions from adopted 

measures that are not needed to 

maintain the PM–10 NAAQS are 

available to serve as contingency 

measures. These measures can be found 

in the SJVAPCD’s 2007 Ozone Plan 

(April 30, 2007) and the SJVAPCD’s 

Proposed 2008 PM2.5 Plan (March 13, 

2008) and include more stringent 

controls on open burning, gas turbines, 

boilers, glass melting, residential water 

heaters, wood burning fireplaces and 

heaters and commercial charbroiling. 

See Table 6–1 of SJVAPCD’s 2007 

Ozone Plan and Table 6–3 of SJVAPCD’s 

Proposed 2008 PM2.5 Plan. 

If there are no reductions available 

from adopted measures, the District 

commits in the 2007 Plan to proceed 

with identifying control measures from 

feasibility studies such as those found 

in its 2007 Ozone Plan and Proposed 

2008 PM2.5 Plan (see Table 6–2 of 2007 

Ozone Plan and Table 6–5 of Proposed 

PM2.5 Plan) and prioritize measures 

most relevant for reducing PM–10 

emissions. 2007 Plan, pp. 16–17. The 

SJVAPCD has also provided clarification 

that if additional control measures are 

necessary, the SJVAPCD will adopt and 

implement the control measures within 

the 18-month timeframe for appropriate 

action. Letter from Seyed Sadredin, 

SJVAPCD, to Deborah Jordan, EPA, 

April 17, 2008. 

Finally, the 2007 Plan states that the 

State, District and local governments 

have adopted and implemented all 

measures in the 2003 Plan. 2007 Plan, 

p. 17 and Appendix B. 

Based on the discussion above and 

EPA’s review of the 2007 Plan, we 

believe the plan adequately addresses 

the contingency measure requirement 

under section 175A of the CAA. 

Conclusion 

Based on our review of the 2007 Plan, 

and for the reasons discussed above, we 

conclude that the CAA section 

107(d)(3)(E) requirements for 

redesignation to attainment and an 

approvable maintenance plan for the 

SJVAB have been met. We are therefore 

proposing to approve the 2007 Plan as 

meeting the requirements of section 

175A of the CAA and proposing to 

redesignate the SJVAB nonattainment 

area to attainment for the PM–10 

NAAQS. 

F. Transportation Conformity and Motor 

Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

Under section 176(c) of the CAA, 

transportation plans, programs and 

projects in the nonattainment or 

maintenance areas that are funded or 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS
22316 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 81 / Friday, April 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

12See footnotes 2 and 9 above. 13CAA section 176(c) states that conformity 

applies to SIPs in nonattainment and maintenance 

areas, rather than individual metropolitan planning 

areas within a single state. When subarea budgets 

area created for each MPO, the sum of the subarea 

budgets equals the total amount of emissions the 

area can have from the transportation sector and 

still attain and maintain the NAAQS. When one 

subarea lapses, then the other MPOs cannot show 

that their planned transportation activities would 

conform to the SIP for the whole area until the lapse 

is resolved. See ‘‘Companion Guidance for the July 

1, 2004, Final Transportation Conformity Rule: 

Conformity Implementation in Multi-Jurisdictional 

Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas for Existing 

and New Air Quality Standards’’ (EPA 420–B–04–

012). 

approved under title 23 U.S.C. and the 

Federal Transit Laws (49 U.S.C. Chapter 

53) must conform to the applicable SIP. 

In short, a transportation plan and 

program are deemed to conform to the 

applicable SIP if the emissions resulting 

from the implementation of that 

transportation plan and program are less 

than or equal to the motor vehicle 

emissions budget (MVEB) established in 

the SIP for the attainment year, 

maintenance year and other analysis 

years. See, generally, 40 CFR part 93. 

The 2007 Plan provides for attainment 

year MVEBs for 2005 and maintenance 

year MVEBs for 2020.12 The 2005 

attainment year MVEBs will replace the 

current MVEBs for 2008 and 2010 from 

the 2003 Plan. See 40 CFR 93.118(a). 

Before an emissions budget in a 

submitted SIP revision may be used in 

a conformity determination, we must 

first determine that it is adequate. The 

criteria by which we determine whether 

a SIP’s motor vehicle emissions budgets 

are adequate for transportation 

conformity purposes are outlined in 40 

CFR 93.118(e)(4). We have described 

our process for determining the 

adequacy of submitted SIP budgets in 

the preamble to revisions to EPA’s 

conformity regulations. 69 FR 40004 

(July 1, 2004). Applicability of emission 

trading between conformity budgets for 

conformity purposes is described in 40 

CFR 93.124(b). 

1. CARB Methodology for Estimating 

PM–10 in the Emissions Budgets 

CARB’s mobile source emission 

model, EMFAC2007, was used to 

estimate direct PM–10 and NOX

emissions from motor vehicles in the 

2007 Plan. EMFAC2007 was approved 

by EPA on January 18, 2007 (72 FR 

733464), for use in SIPs and 

transportation conformity analyses. 

EMFAC2007 produces emissions for a 

wide range of motor vehicles (passenger 

cars, trucks, motorcycles, buses and 

motor homes) for calendar years out to 

2040. Particulate emissions include tire 

and brake wear as well as vehicle 

exhaust and evaporative emissions. 

The methodology used in the 2007 

Plan to estimate fugitive dust (e.g., 

paved and unpaved road emissions) is 

consistent with the methods previously 

approved in EPA’s action on the 2003 

Plan. 69 FR 30006 and 69 FR 5412, 

5414. No further action is required to 

approve these methodologies for use in 

future transportation conformity 

determinations in the SJVAB. 

2. Adequacy of the 2007 Plan’s Budgets 

The 2007 Plan includes county by 

county subarea motor vehicle emissions 

budgets for 2005 and 2020 for direct 

PM–10 and NOX. The 2007 Plan budgets 

are first summarized in Table 6, 

‘‘Revised Motor Vehicle Emission 

Budgets for the Attainment Year, (tons 

per average annual day),’’ and in Table 

7, ‘‘Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for 

Maintenance of PM10 NAAQS, (tons per 

average annual day),’’ of the 2007 Plan; 

however, these estimates were updated 

by CARB, based on updated vehicle 

activity data, and the updated budgets 

were included in the ARB Staff Report 

(p. 12) as part of the 2007 Plan submittal 

to EPA. Thus, the budgets found on 

page 12 of ARB Staff Report supercede 

the budgets in Tables 6 and 7 of the 

locally adopted 2007 Plan. See 

November 16, 2007 submittal letter from 

James N. Goldstene, CARB, to Wayne 

Nastri, EPA, enclosure ‘‘V. Updated 

transportation conformity budgets and 

supporting documentation.’’ Table 4 

below reflects the updated and 

submitted transportation conformity 

budgets for the 2007 Plan. The direct 

PM–10 budgets include emissions of reentrained dust from motor vehicle travel 

on paved and unpaved roads, vehicular 

exhaust, vehicle brake and tire wear, 

and emissions from highway and transit 

project construction. The emissions 

budgets for NOX include only exhaust 

from on-road vehicles. Since the 2007 

Plan does not consider VOC to be a 

significant contributor to the PM–10 

nonattainment problem, in accordance 

with 40 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(iii), no VOC 

budgets are included. Additional details 

regarding the budgets are presented in 

the 2007 Plan, Appendix D, ‘‘Detailed 

Conformity Calculations.’’

Based on our evaluation of the criteria 

outlined in section 93.118(e)(4) of the 

conformity rule, EPA proposes to find 

the PM–10 and NOX motor vehicle 

emissions budgets contained in the 2007 

Plan (and in Table 4 below) adequate 

and proposes to approve them. EPA 

proposes to approve the budgets 

because they come from a SIP which 

EPA concludes demonstrates timely 

attainment and maintenance and the 

budgets are consistent with all of the 

control measures assumed in the 

attainment demonstration and 

maintenance plan. We also find 

adequate and propose to approve the 

individual county level subarea budgets 

for NOX and PM–10, as shown in Table 

4 below, consistent with section 

93.124(d), which allows for a 

nonattainment area with more than one 

Metropolitan Planning Organization 

(MPO) to establish subarea emission 

budgets for each MPO or make a 

collective conformity determination for 

the entire nonattainment area. Note that, 

if an individual MPO cannot show 

conformity to its individual county 

budget, then the remaining MPOs in the 

SJVAB cannot make any new 

conformity determinations.13 If 

approved, the 2005 and 2020 motor 

vehicle emissions budgets must be used 

for transportation conformity purposes. 

As mentioned earlier, the county 

subarea motor vehicle emissions 

budgets that EPA is proposing to 

approve are listed in Table 4 below. 

TABLE 4.—MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS SUBAREA BUDGETS (TONS PER DAY) 2007 PM–10 PLAN * 

County 

2005 2020 

PM–10 NOx PM–10 NOx

Fresno .............................................................................................................. 13.5 59.2 16.1 23.2 

Kern ** .............................................................................................................. 12.1 88.3 14.7 39.5 

Kings ................................................................................................................ 3.1 16.7 3.6 6.8 

Madera ............................................................................................................. 3.6 13.9 4.7 6.5 

Merced ............................................................................................................. 6.2 39.2 6.5 13.9 

San Joaquin ..................................................................................................... 9.1 42.6 10.6 16.7 

Stanislaus ........................................................................................................ 5.6 29.7 6.7 10.7 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 81 / Friday, April 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules 22317 

TABLE 4.—MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS SUBAREA BUDGETS (TONS PER DAY) 2007 PM–10 PLAN *—Continued 

County 

2005 2020 

PM–10 NOx PM–10 NOx

Tulare ............................................................................................................... 7.3 25.1 9.3 10.1 

Total .......................................................................................................... 60.5 314.7 72.2 127.4 

* The budgets are based on attainment and maintenance of the 24-hour PM–10 NAAQS. 

** MVEBs in Table 2 are only for the SJVAB portion of Kern County. 

3. Trading Mechanism 

Transportation conformity is 

demonstrated for each county in the 

SJVAB when emissions for both PM–10 

and NOX are estimated to be below the 

motor vehicle emission budgets for each 

pollutant for all analysis years. 

However, for analysis years beyond 

2010, in our prior approval of the 2003 

Plan, we approved a trading mechanism 

that allows emissions to be traded from 

NOX to PM–10 budgets. 69 FR 30006 

and 69 FR 5412, 5414. 

The trading mechanism specified that 

if, after including reductions from 

additional measures, the direct PM–10 

budget still cannot be met, an MPO 

could adjust (i.e., increase) its PM–10 

subarea budget by trading from its NOX

budget. This trade from the NOX subarea 

budget to the PM–10 subarea budget can 

only occur if the estimated emissions of 

NOX from the planned transportation 

network are less than the NOX subarea 

budget for a given analysis year. The 1.5 

tpd NOX to 1 tpd PM–10 ratio would be 

used, as follows, to determine the NOX

reductions needed to offset the excess 

direct PM–10 emissions: 

(PM–10 estimate—PM–10 budget) * 1.5 

= tpd of NOX reductions needed to 

offset excess PM–10 

A subarea has demonstrated 

conformity if, after trading, the 

estimates of NOX and PM–10 emissions 

from the planned transportation 

network are at or below the adjusted 

NOX and direct PM–10 budgets. For 

every analysis year, and in each 

subsequent conformity determination, 

the transportation agency must repeat 

these steps to determine whether the 

budgets can be met, or whether they 

need to be adjusted using this trading 

mechanism. 

The 2007 Plan requests that this 

trading mechanism remain unchanged, 

but available for use after 2005, the 

revised attainment year. Since the first 

analysis year, for conformity purposes, 

will be 2010, EPA is proposing to 

continue to approve use of the trading 

mechanism for conformity analysis 

years after 2005. As stated in the 2003 

Plan approval (69 FR 5412, 5414–5417; 

69 FR 30006), EPA continues to believe 

that trading mechanisms cannot be 

reviewed through the adequacy process, 

and instead need full EPA approval 

before they can be used. 

V. Proposed Commitments for East 

Kern 

In order to address CAA requirements 

for the East Kern nonattainment area, 

the State submitted on February 29, 

2008 enforceable commitments to install 

a FRM/FEM in East Kern and if a 

violation is recorded to submit the 

appropriate SIP. Specifically, the State 

submitted a resolution approved by the 

Governing Board of the KCAPCD on 

February 27, 2008 committing to, with 

assistance from the State, install a FRM/ 

FEM. Kern County Air Pollution Control 

Board Resolution 2008–001–02. Further, 

the resolution states that the KCAPCD 

will develop for submittal through the 

State to EPA, a serious nonattainment 

area SIP that meets the requirements of 

CAA section 189 in the event of a 

violation of the PM–10 standard. Id. On 

March 3, 2008, CARB’s Executive 

Officer issued Executive Order S–08–

004 approving as a SIP revision the 

KCAPCD commitments and committing 

to submit a SIP addressing section 189 

in the event that the area violates the 

PM–10 standard. Given the low 

concentrations recorded at the 

IMPROVE monitor and the relatively 

minimal expected growth, we believe 

this is a reasonable approach for the 

area. 

VI. Proposed Actions 

Based on our review of the State’s 

request, EPA believes the State has 

addressed all the necessary 

requirements for a revised designation 

and is proposing to approve the State’s 

request under section 107(d)(3)(D) to 

revise the designation for the SJV PM–

10 nonattainment area by splitting the 

area into two separate serious PM–10 

nonattainment areas, the SJVAB PM–10 

nonattainment area and the East Kern 

PM–10 nonattainment area. Also, based 

on EPA’s review of the 2007 Plan 

submitted by the State, EPA believes 

that the CAA requirements under 

section 107(d)(3)(E) for redesignations 

and section 175A for maintenance plans 

have been met for the SJVAB and EPA 

is therefore proposing to redesignate the 

newly created serious SJVAB 

nonattainment area to attainment for the 

PM–10 NAAQS and to approve the 

SJVAPCD’s PM–10 maintenance plan, 

budgets and conformity trading 

mechanism for the area. EPA is also 

proposing to exclude from use in 

determining that the SJVAB has attained 

the PM–10 NAAQS two exceedances 

that it has concluded were caused by 

exceptional events on July 4, 2007 and 

January 4, 2008. Finally, EPA is 

proposing to approve commitments 

from KCAPCD and CARB to install a 

FRM/FED in the newly created East 

Kern serious PM–10 nonattainment area 

and to address section 189(d) CAA 

requirements for it in the event the 

FRM/FED records a violation of the PM–

10 standard. 

VII. 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 action merely proposes 

to approve a revised boundary 

designation, a redesignation to 

attainment for the SJVAB, a 

maintenance plan for the SJVAB, motor 

vehicle emissions budgets and 

conformity trading mechanism for the 

area and commitments for East Kern, all 

of which are either requested or 

submitted by the State, and does not 

impose any additional requirements. 

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 

proposed rule does not impose any 

additional enforceable duty, it does not 

contain any unfunded mandate or 

significantly or uniquely affect small 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS
22318 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 81 / Friday, April 25, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

governments, as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4). 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000) requires EPA to 

develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ Seven Indian tribes have 

reservations located within the 

boundaries of the proposed SJVAB. EPA 

plans to consult with representatives of 

the seven Tribes and will continue to 

work with the Tribes, as provided for in 

Executive Order 13175. Accordingly, 

EPA has addressed Executive Order 

13175 to the extent that it applies to this 

action. 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 proposed action 

merely proposes to approve requests or 

submittals from the State and does not 

alter the relationship or the distribution 

of power and responsibilities 

established in the CAA. Executive Order 

12898 establishes a Federal policy for 

incorporating environmental justice into 

Federal agency actions by directing 

agencies to identify and address, as 

appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority and 

low-income populations. Today’s action 

involves proposed approvals of a 

revised boundary designation, a 

redesignation to attainment for the 

SJVAB, a maintenance plan for the 

SJVAB, motor vehicle emissions budgets 

and conformity trading mechanism for 

the area and commitments for East Kern. 

It will not have disproportionately high 

and adverse effects on any communities 

in the area, including minority and lowincome communities. 

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 is not 

economically significant. 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 Parts 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas. 

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

Dated: April 21, 2008. 

Laura Yoshii, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. E8–9139 Filed 4–24–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 79 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0071; FRL–8557–7] 

RIN 2060–AN94 

Regulation of Fuels and Fuel 

Additives: Revised Definition of 

Substantially Similar Rule for Alaska 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed interpretive rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to revise an 

interpretive rule defining the term 

‘‘substantially similar’’ for unleaded 

gasoline as that phrase is used in section 

211(f) of the Clean Air Act (the Act). To 

meet the current definition, fuel or fuel 

additives must possess, at the time of 

manufacture, all of the physical and 

chemical characteristics of an unleaded 

gasoline as specified in ASTM Standard 

D 4814–88 for at least one of the 

Seasonal and Geographical Volatility 

Classes specified in the standard. EPA 

proposes to amend the definition to 

allow some additional flexibility for the 

vapor/liquid ratio specification for fuel 

introduced into commerce in the state of 

Alaska. In the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’

section of this Federal Register, we are 

amending the ‘‘substantially similar’’

definition as a direct final rule without 

a prior proposed rule. If we receive no 

adverse comment, we will not take 

further action on this proposed rule. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

May 27, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–

OAR–2007–0071, by mail to Air and 

Radiation Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. Comments may 

also be submitted electronically or 

through hand delivery/courier by 

following the detailed instructions in 

the ADDRESSES section of the direct final 

rule located in the rules section of this 

Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jaimee Dong, Compliance and 

Innovative Strategies Division, Office of 

Transportation and Air Quality, Office 

of Air and Radiation, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mail Code 6406J, 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, 

Washington, DC 20460; telephone 

number: (202) 343–9672; fax number: 

(202) 343–2800; e-mail address: 

Dong.Jaimee@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Why Is EPA Issuing This Proposed 

Rule? 

This document proposes to revise the 

‘‘substantially similar’’ interpretive rule. 

EPA is not statutorily obligated to 

conduct notice and comment 

rulemaking when amending this 

interpretive rule. See APA section 

553(b)(A); CAA section 307(d). 

However, as it has done when 

previously amending this rule, EPA 

desires to provide an opportunity for the 

public to comment on this amendment. 

We have published a direct final rule 

amending the ‘‘substantially similar’’

interpretive rule in the ‘‘Rules and 

Regulations’’ section of this Federal 

Register because we view this as a 

noncontroversial action and anticipate 

no adverse comment. We have 

explained our reasons for this action in 

the preamble to the direct final rule. 

If we receive no adverse comment, we 

will not take further action on this 

proposed rule. If we receive adverse 

comment, we will withdraw the direct 

final rule and it will not take effect. We 

would address all public comments in 

any subsequent final rule based on this 

proposed rule. 

We do not intend to institute a second 

comment period on this action. Any 

parties interested in commenting must 

do so at this time. For further 

information, please see the information 

provided in the ADDRESSES section of 

this document. 

II. General Information 

A. Does This Action Apply to Me? 

Entities potentially affected by this 

action include those involved with the 

production or importation of unleaded 

gasoline for use in Alaska. Categories 

and entities affected by this action 

include: 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS