10176 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Secretary for Regulation Policy and 

Management (ASRPM) and served as 

VA’s Regulatory Policy Officer until the 

Deputy Secretary became VA’s 

Regulatory Policy Officer in accordance 

with Executive Order 13422, which 

amended Executive Order 12866 

(Regulatory Planning and Review) to 

require that position to be filled by a 

Presidential appointee. Subsequently, 

on June 10, 2008, the Secretary 

designated the General Counsel as the 

Department’s Regulatory Policy Officer 

and transferred ORPM from the Office of 

the Secretary to the Office of the General 

Counsel (OGC). ORPM’s name and 

mission remain the same, but that office 

is now in direct support of the General 

Counsel. The ASRPM has become 

OGC’s Director for Regulation Policy 

and Management to assist the General 

Counsel in supervising VA’s rulemaking 

process and VA’s compliance with 

Executive Order 12866. 

This document removes the 

Secretary’s delegations of rulemaking 

authority to the ASRPM in 38 CFR 2.6(l) 

and adds provisions concerning 

rulemaking authority in the delegations 

of authority to the General Counsel in 

38 CFR 2.6(e). 

Administrative Procedure Act 

This document pertains to agency 

organization and management. 

Accordingly, its publication as a final 

rule with no delay in its effective date 

is pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, which 

exempts such a document from the 

notice-and-comment and delayedeffective-date requirements of section 

553. 

Executive Order 12866 

Because this document is limited to 

agency organization and management, it 

is not within the definition of 

‘‘regulation’’ in section 3(d) of Executive 

Order 12866 and therefore not subject to 

that Executive Order’s requirements for 

regulatory actions. 

Unfunded Mandates 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that 

agencies prepare an assessment of 

anticipated costs and benefits before 

issuing any rule that may result in 

expenditure by State, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

(adjusted annually for inflation) in any 

year. This rule will have no such effect 

on State, local, and tribal governments, 

or on the private sector. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

This document contains no provisions 

constituting a collection of information 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3521). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The initial and final regulatory 

flexibility analysis requirements of 

sections 603 and 604 of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, are 

not applicable to this rule, because a 

notice of proposed rulemaking is not 

required for this rule. Even so, the 

Secretary hereby certifies that this 

regulatory amendment will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities as 

they are defined in the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. This amendment will 

not directly affect any small entities. 

Therefore, this amendment is also 

exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b) from 

the initial and final regulatory flexibility 

analysis requirements of sections 603– 

604. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

There are no Catalog of Federal 

Domestic Assistance program numbers 

for this rule. 

List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 2 

Authority delegations (Government 

agencies). 

Approved: February 24, 2009. 

John R. Gingrich, 

Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs. 

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, VA amends 38 CFR part 2 as 

follows: 

PART 2—DELEGATIONS OF 

AUTHORITY 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 2 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 302, 552a; 38 U.S.C. 

501, 512, 515, 1729, 1729A, 5711; 44 U.S.C. 

3702, and as noted in specific sections. 

■ 2. Amend § 2.6 by: 

■ a. Adding paragraph (e)(1). 

■ b. Removing paragraph (l). 

The addition reads as follows: 

§ 2.6 Secretary’s delegations of authority 

to certain officials (38 U.S.C. 512). 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) The General Counsel is delegated 

authority to serve as the Regulatory 

Policy Officer for the Department in 

accordance with Executive Order 12866. 

The General Counsel, Deputy General 

Counsel, and Director for Regulation 

Policy and Management are delegated 

authority to manage, direct, and 

coordinate the Department’s rulemaking 

activities, including the revision and 

reorganization of regulations, and to 

perform all functions necessary or 

appropriate under Executive Order 

12866 and other rulemaking 

requirements. 

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 512) 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E9–5063 Filed 3–9–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2008–0677; FRL–8770–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of 

California; 2003 State Strategy and 

2003 South Coast Plan for One-Hour 

Ozone and Nitrogen Dioxide 

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to 

approve one state implementation plan 

(SIP) revision, and to approve in part 

and to disapprove in part a second SIP 

revision, submitted by the California Air 

Resources Board to provide for 

attainment of the one-hour ozone 

standard and maintenance of the 

nitrogen dioxide standard in the Los 

Angeles-South Coast Air Basin. The two 

SIP revisions include the 2003 State 

Strategy and the 2003 South Coast SIP, 

both of which were submitted on 

January 9, 2004. 

With respect to the 2003 State 

Strategy, EPA is taking final action to 

approve the commitment by the State to 

develop and propose near-term defined 

measures sufficient to achieve specific 

emissions reductions in the South Coast 

and to continue implementation of an 

existing measure. With respect to the 

2003 South Coast SIP, EPA is taking 

final action to approve certain elements, 

and to disapprove other elements. The 

plan elements that are being 

disapproved are not required under the 

Clean Air Act because they represent 

revisions to previously-approved SIP 

elements, and thus, the disapprovals 

will not affect the requirements for the 

State to have an approved SIP for these 

SIP elements. Therefore, the 

disapprovals do not trigger sanctions 

clocks nor EPA’s obligation to 

promulgate a Federal implementation 

plan. 

EPA is taking these actions under 

provisions of the Clean Air Act 

regarding EPA action on SIP submittals 

and plan requirements for 

nonattainment areas. 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 10177 

1The area referred to as ‘‘Los Angles-South Coast 

Air Basin’’ (South Coast Air Basin or ‘‘South 

Coast’’) includes Orange County, the southwestern 

two-thirds of Los Angeles County, southwestern 

San Bernardino County, and western Riverside 

County. For a precise description of the boundaries 

of the Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin, see 40 

CFR 81.305. 

2The ‘‘2003 South Coast SIP’’ refers to the 

January 9, 2004 submittal of the Final 2003 South 

Coast Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) 

adopted by the SCAQMD on August 1, 2003, as 

modified by ARB through its resolution of adoption 

(Resolution 03–23) on October 23, 2003. 

3 ‘‘Black box’’ commitment refers to the 

provisions under CAA section 182(e)(5) that 

anticipate development of new control techniques 

or improvement of existing control technologies. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective on April 9, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2008–0677 for 

this action. The index to the docket 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: 

Wienke Tax, Air Planning Office (AIR– 

2), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region IX, (520) 622–1622, 

tax.wienke@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Proposed Action 

II. Public Comments 

III. EPA Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Proposed Action 

On October 24, 2008 (73 FR 63408), 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’), 

EPA proposed to approve one state 

implementation plan (SIP) revision, and 

to approve in part and to disapprove in 

part, a second SIP revision, submitted 

by the California Air Resources Board 

(ARB) to provide for attainment of the 

one-hour ozone national ambient air 

quality standard (NAAQS) and for 

maintenance of the nitrogen dioxide 

NAAQS in the Los Angeles-South Coast 

Air Basin Area (South Coast).1 The two 

SIP revisions include the Final 2003 

State and Federal Strategy (‘‘2003 State 

Strategy’’) and the 2003 revisions to the 

SIP for ozone and nitrogen dioxide in 

the South Coast Air Basin (‘‘2003 South 

Coast SIP’’),2 both of which were 

submitted by ARB on January 9, 2004. 

These SIP revisions were developed in 

recognition of a need for additional 

emissions reductions to attain the onehour ozone NAAQS than had been 

planned for in the late 1990s, and to 

establish new motor vehicle emissions 

budgets (MVEBs) for transportation 

conformity. 

With respect to the 2003 State 

Strategy, we proposed to approve the 

commitments by ARB to develop and 

propose for adoption 15 near-term 

defined control measures, and the 

commitment by the California Bureau of 

Automotive Repair (BAR) to develop 

and propose one near-term defined 

control measure, sufficient to achieve 

specified emissions reductions in the 

South Coast. We also proposed to 

approve the continuation of the existing 

SIP pesticide strategy adopted by the 

California Department of Pesticide 

Regulation (DPR). 

With respect to the 2003 South Coast 

SIP, we proposed to approve the base 

year and projected baseline emissions 

inventories, the South Coast Air Quality 

Management District’s (District’s or 

SCAQMD’s) commitment to adopt and 

implement near-term stationary and 

mobile source control measures (with 

the exception of ‘‘FSS–05—Mitigation 

Fee Program for Federal Sources’’) and 

commitment to achieve aggregate 

emission reductions through a schedule 

of rule adoption and implementation, 

the District’s contingency measure 

(‘‘CTY–01—Accelerated Implementation 

of Control Measures’’), the District’s 

‘‘black box’’ emission reduction 

commitment,3 the vehicle emissions 

offset demonstration, and the nitrogen 

dioxide maintenance demonstration and 

related MVEBs. 

Also, in connection with the 2003 

South Coast SIP, we proposed to 

disapprove the District commitment to 

adopt one particular control measure 

(‘‘FSS–05—Mitigation Fee Program for 

Federal Sources’’); the ‘‘black box’’ 

emissions reduction assignment to EPA; 

the revised rate-of-progress (ROP) and 

attainment demonstrations; and the 

ozone MVEBs. 

The primary rationale for proposing 

approval of certain control measures 

and the specific SIP elements described 

above is that they would strengthen the 

SIP by adding to, or updating, SIP 

elements previously approved by EPA. 

The reasons for proposing disapproval 

of the other specified elements of the 

2003 South Coast SIP include incorrect 

ROP calculation methods and the 

withdrawal by ARB of the state 

emissions reductions commitments in 

the 2003 State Strategy that were relied 

upon in the 2003 South Coast SIP. In 

our proposed rule, we explained that no 

sanctions clocks or Federal 

implementation plan (FIP) requirement 

would be triggered by our disapprovals 

because the plan revisions that are the 

subject of the proposed disapprovals 

represent revisions to previouslyapproved SIP elements that EPA 

determined met the CAA requirements, 

and thus, the revisions are not required 

under the Act. For additional 

information, please see our October 24, 

2008 proposed rule. 

II. Public Comments 

EPA’s October 24, 2008 proposed rule 

provided a 30-day public comment 

period. We received comments dated 

November 17, 2008 from the Center on 

Race, Poverty & the Environment 

(CRP&E) on behalf of a number of 

environmental and community groups. 

CRP&E submitted additional comments 

by letter dated November 24, 2008. We 

also received comments from the 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

(NRDC) by letter dated November 24, 

2008 that was followed shortly 

thereafter by a revised letter reflecting 

minor edits to the original letter. We 

summarize the comments and provide 

responses in the paragraphs below. 

Comment: ARB’s Executive Officer 

does not have the authority to withdraw 

certain portions of the 2003 State 

Strategy as it applies to the South Coast 

Air Basin and does not have the 

authority to withdraw the TCM portion 

of the 2003 South Coast AQMP. The 

withdrawal letter submitted by the 

Executive Officer cannot be approved by 

EPA because it was not subject to the 

notice and hearing requirements for 

SIPs under the CAA. Also, due to 

procedural deficiencies, EPA should not 

take into consideration the 

supplemental material submitted by the 

SCAQMD. EPA must act on the 2003 

State Strategy and 2003 South Coast 

AQMP as submitted on January 9, 2004 

and defer action on the subsequent 

withdrawals and supplemental material 

until such time as ARB completes the 

necessary public process. 

Response: In our proposed rule, we 

describe in detail the letter from James 

Goldstene, ARB Executive Officer, dated 

February 13, 2008 (‘‘February Goldstene 

Letter’’) withdrawing several portions of 

the 2003 State Strategy that relate to the 

South Coast Air Basin. See 73 FR 63408, 

at 63410–63411. We also cite a second 

letter from the ARB Executive Officer, 

dated October 14, 2008 (‘‘October 

Goldstene Letter’’), that corrects an error 

in the February Goldstene Letter and 

10178 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

4 In support of the statement that the South Coast 

Air Basin will not attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS 

by 2010, the commenter attached tables containing 

ARB summaries of preliminary 2008 ozone 

monitoring data from five sites in the South Coast: 

Asuza, Glendora-Laurel, Crestline, Santa Clarita, 

and Perris. The summary tables submitted by the 

commenter highlight exceedance-days relative to 

the more stringent state 1-hour ozone standard (0.09 

ppm) rather than the federal 1-hour ozone standard 

(0.12 ppm). The data shows that the number of days 

during which hourly ozone concentrations equaled 

or exceeded 0.125 ppm (i.e., exceedance-days for 

the revoked federal 1-hour ozone standard) at the 

withdraws the TCM portion of the 2003 

South Coast SIP. Id. 

We acknowledge that our proposed 

action gives full effect to the two 

Goldstene letters cited above and thus 

we have proposed action only on those 

portions of the 2003 State Strategy and 

2003 South Coast SIP that remain postwithdrawal. From the standpoint of 

CAA procedural requirements, we find 

nothing in the CAA that prevents states 

from withdrawing SIPs or SIP revisions 

prior to EPA approval. To be sure, such 

withdrawals may lead to sanctions 

under the CAA depending on the 

circumstances of the submittal, but the 

Act does not prevent states from 

subjecting themselves to potential 

liability for failure to submit SIPs and 

SIP revisions if they so choose. 

Moreover, no public process is required 

for withdrawal, once again, prior to the 

time EPA acts to approve the submittal 

as part of the applicable SIP. 

Once SIPs or SIP revisions have been 

approved by EPA, however, then a state 

must submit a request for a withdrawal 

of, or rescission of, for example, a 

portion of a SIP, and EPA must approve 

the request to effectively amend the SIP. 

In other words, a state’s post-approval 

rescission is considered a SIP revision, 

and subject to CAA public process 

procedural requirements, whereas a 

state’s pre-approval rescission is not 

considered a SIP revision and takes 

effect upon receipt by EPA regardless of 

the procedure that was followed so long 

as the procedure for withdrawal is 

consistent with state law. In this 

instance, we had not approved the 

portions of the 2003 State Strategy and 

the 2003 South Coast SIP that the 

Goldstene letters purport to withdraw 

and thus we gave the letters full effect 

under the belief that the ARB Executive 

Officer had the authority under State 

law to make the subject withdrawals. 

As to the challenge by the 

commenters to the authority of the ARB 

Executive Officer under State law to 

withdraw portions of the 2003 State 

Strategy and 2003 South Coast SIP, we 

take note of a letter dated March 26, 

2008 from Mary D. Nichols, chairperson 

of the ARB (‘‘Nichols Letter’’), to various 

environmental organizations defending 

the Executive Officer’s authority to 

make the withdrawals set forth in the 

February Goldstene Letter. In the 

Nichols Letter, the chairperson of the 

ARB explains: ‘‘California Health & 

Safety Code §§ 39515 and 39516 

empower the Executive Officer to act on 

behalf of the Board, and provide that 

any power that the Board may lawfully 

delegate shall be conclusively presumed 

to have been delegated to the Executive 

Officer, unless the Board specifically 

has reserved that power for the Board’s 

own action. Withdrawal of still-pending 

SIP submittals is not among the powers 

the Board has reserved for itself.’’ As to 

the specific Board language in the 

resolution of adoption for the 2003 

South Coast SIP, the Nichols Letter 

explains: ‘‘Moreover, the language of 

Resolution 03–23 * * * does not 

constitute such a reservation of powers. 

Resolution 03–23 directs the Executive 

Officer to take certain actions in 2003, 

which the Executive Officer did at that 

time. Resolution 03–23 does not 

prohibit the Executive Officer from 

taking different actions in 2008 when 

warranted by changed circumstances, 

which in this case is a logical 

administrative action to follow the 

Board’s adoption of the new 2007 

strategy.’’ For the proposed rule, we 

reviewed the citations in the California 

Heath & Safety Code and the relevant 

provisions in ARB resolutions 03–22 

and 03–23, adopting the 2003 State 

Strategy and 2003 South Coast SIP, 

respectively, and found the Nichols 

Letter to be a reasonable interpretation 

of California law. We continue to 

believe that the ARB Executive Officer 

acted in a manner consistent with State 

law in withdrawing the SIP submittal 

elements set forth in the February 

Goldstene Letter and that we took into 

account the subject withdrawals 

appropriately. The same holds true also 

for the withdrawal of the TCM element 

in the 2003 South Coast SIP in the 

October Goldstene Letter. 

Lastly, a commenter challenges EPA’s 

reliance on a September 10, 2008 letter 

from Elaine Chang, DrPH, Deputy 

Executive Officer, SCAQMD (‘‘Chang 

Letter’’), because it had not been subject 

to the public notice, hearing and 

adoption process required for SIP 

submittals. We describe the contents of 

the Chang Letter on page 63417 of the 

proposed rule as ‘‘supplemental motor 

vehicle emissions data drawn largely 

from emissions inventory estimates 

presented in appendix III of the 2003 

South Coast AQMP.’’ We agree generally 

that amendments by a state to submitted 

SIPs (as opposed to withdrawals 

thereof) must undergo the necessary 

public process prior to submittal to meet 

CAA procedural requirements, but, in 

this instance, the supplemental 

information provided in the Chang 

Letter simply collects in a single table 

certain emissions data that had already 

been subject to the required public 

process and estimates certain other 

values through simple interpolation. 

Because we find that the underlying 

emissions data included in the Chang 

Letter were subject to the necessary 

public process, we continue to believe 

that reliance on the Chang Letter as 

support for the conclusion that the 2003 

South Coast SIP meets the TCM offset 

requirement under CAA section 

182(d)(1)(A) is appropriate. 

Comment: EPA must ensure that the 

2003 South Coast AQMP provides for 

attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS 

and cannot simply rely on previous 

approvals because existing 

commitments to achieve certain 

emissions reductions have not come to 

fruition and because the new inventory 

shows that the plan does not provide 

sufficient emissions reductions to attain 

the standard by 2010. Furthermore, 

ambient data for year 2008 already 

shows that the South Coast will not 

attain the 1-hour ozone standard by 

2010. EPA must ensure that there is a 

viable path to reaching the 1-hour ozone 

standard. 

Response: We had a responsibility to 

ensure that the South Coast had a viable 

path to attainment for the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS. In 1997 (62 FR 1150, January 

9, 1997), and then again in 2000 (65 FR 

18903, April 10, 2000), we fulfilled that 

responsibility through our final 

rulemaking actions approving South 

Coast attainment demonstrations for the 

1-hour ozone NAAQS. Our final 

approvals of the attainment 

demonstrations for the South Coast were 

based on the best information available 

at the time. 

As to unfulfilled commitments, we 

believe that a state is required to fulfill 

its commitments that have been 

approved into the SIP, but failure by a 

state to do so is a separate issue from 

our action on the 2003 State Strategy 

and 2003 South Coast SIP and does not 

trigger a requirement to prepare a new 

plan. Further, we note that, absent a 

commitment by a state such as a midcourse correction or an action by EPA 

such as a ‘‘SIP call’’ under CAA section 

110(k)(5), a state is not required to 

submit a new attainment demonstration 

to account for changed circumstances, 

such as new technical information 

reflected in the emissions estimates in 

the 2003 South Coast SIP or the ambient 

ozone concentration data from 2008.4

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 10179 

five sites cited by the commenter are as follows: 

Asuza (3), Glendora-Laurel (10), Crestline (16), 

Santa Clarita (8), and Perris (2). These numbers 

reflect substantial improvement in air quality in the 

South Coast Air Basin since the area’s classification 

as an ‘‘extreme’’ nonattainment area for ozone 

under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments when 

the corresponding number of exceedance-days (year 

1990) at these sites were as follows: Asuza (84), 

Glendora-Laurel (103), Crestline (103), Santa Clarita 

(62), and Perris (62). 

The total number of exceedance-days per monitor 

over the 2008–2010 time period will determine if 

the area attains by 2010. However, CAA section 

181(a)(5) allows EPA to approve up to two one-year 

extensions of the attainment date if all requirements 

and commitments have been complied with and if 

no more than one exceedance of the standard 

occurs in the year preceding the extension year. We 

will not know whether the South Coast Air Basin 

qualifies for the first one-year extension until the 

end of 2010. 

5We believe that the three elements of section 

182(d)(1)(A) are separable because of the timing 

problem created by Congress in requiring a TCM 

SIP to be submitted years before the broader SIP 

submittals, such as the ROP and attainment 

demonstration SIPs. The SIP submittals showing 

attainment of the 1996 15 percent ROP and the 

post-1996 RFP and NAAQS attainment 

demonstration are broader in scope than growth in 

VMT or in numbers of vehicle trips in that they 

necessarily address emissions trends and control 

measures for non motor vehicle emissions sources 

and, in the case of attainment demonstrations, 

involve complex photochemical modeling studies. 

It was neither practicable nor reasonable to expect 

that the subsequently required submissions could 

be developed and implemented so far ahead of 

schedule as to effectively influence the TCM SIP 

submission. 

Lastly, we agree that EPA must ensure 

a viable path to attainment, and 

previously did so for the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS in the South Coast, but EPA’s 

responsibility at the present time is to 

ensure that states adopt viable paths 

toward attainment of the 8-hour 

NAAQS, rather than the revoked 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS, and EPA will fulfill its 

obligations in this respect through 

review and action on submitted 8-hour 

ozone SIPs. For the South Coast, EPA is 

currently reviewing the 2007 South 

Coast AQMP to ensure that it meets all 

applicable requirements for 

demonstrating attainment of the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. By this, we do not mean 

to suggest that attainment of, or failure 

to attain, the revoked 1-hour ozone 

standard by the applicable attainment 

date is irrelevant. Indeed, failure to 

attain the 1-hour ozone standard, in this 

case, by 2010 (or 2011 or 2012 if the 

South Coast qualifies for an extension), 

can lead to regulatory consequences 

(such as the imposition of fees under 

CAA section 185 and the 

implementation of contingency 

measures) that are triggered to prevent 

backsliding during the transition from a 

1-hour ozone standard to the 8-hour 

ozone standard. 

Comment: EPA improperly fails to 

require a transportation control measure 

(TCM) plan pursuant to CAA section 

182(d)(1)(A). Specifically, EPA has 

improperly construed section 

182(d)(1)(A) not to require offsets for the 

emissions increases attributable to the 

increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) 

since 1990 despite clear guidance 

contained in a related House Committee 

report included in the legislative history 

of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 

1990. Also, EPA has also failed to assess 

the adequacy of the 2003 South Coast 

AQMP’s compliance with section 

182(d)(1)(A) against the additional 

statutory requirement that the SIP 

provide adequate enforceable TCMs 

sufficient to allow total area emissions 

to comply with reasonable further 

progress (RFP) and attainment 

requirements. 

Response: CAA section 182(d)(1)(A), 

referred to herein as the TCM provision, 

requires a state to submit a SIP revision, 

for certain nonattainment areas such as 

the South Coast, that identifies and 

adopts specific enforceable 

transportation control strategies and 

TCMs to offset any growth in emissions 

from growth in VMT or numbers of 

vehicle trips in such areas and to attain 

reductions in motor vehicle emissions 

as necessary, in combination with other 

emission reduction requirements, to 

comply with ROP and attainment 

requirements. In our proposed rule, we 

indicate that ARB withdrew the TCM 

element of the 2003 South Coast SIP, 

and we conclude that compliance with 

the VMT offset requirement under CAA 

section 182(d)(1)(A) is shown in the 

2003 South Coast SIP through 

supplemental material provided by 

SCAQMD showing a decline in motor 

vehicle emissions each year in the 

South Coast through the applicable 

attainment date (2010). See 73 FR 

63408, at 63417 (October 24, 2008). EPA 

believes that it is appropriate to treat the 

three required elements of section 

182(d)(1)(A) (i.e., offsetting growth, 

attainment of the ROP reduction, and 

attainment of the ozone NAAQS) as 

separable,5 and while not stated as such 

in the proposed rule, our proposed 

approval in this instance relates only to 

the first element of CAA section 

182(d)(1)(A) (i.e., offsetting growth). The 

second and third elements of CAA 

section 182(d)(1)(A) were satisfied in 

1997 when we approved the 1994 South 

Coast AQMP’s transportation control 

strategies and TCMs, such as TCM–1 

(‘‘Transportation Improvements’’), 

which includes the capital and noncapital facilities, projects, and programs 

contained in the Regional Mobility 

Element and programmed through the 

Regional Transportation Improvement 

Program (RTIP) process to reduce 

emissions, in the same action in which 

we approved the South Coast ROP and 

attainment demonstrations. See 62 FR 

1150, at 1180–1181 (January 8, 1997). 

As to EPA’s interpretation of the first 

element of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A), we 

point to the following excerpt on this 

subject from our General Preamble for 

the Implementation of Title I of the 

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 

(‘‘General Preamble’’): 

‘‘The EPA has received comment 

indicating that section 182(d)(1)(A) should be 

interpreted to require areas to offset any 

growth in VMT above 1990 levels, rather 

than offsetting VMT growth only when such 

growth leads to actual emissions increases. 

Under this approach, areas would have to 

offset VMT growth even while vehicle 

emissions are declining. Proponents of this 

interpretation cite language in the House 

Committee Report which appears to support 

the interpretation. The report states that ‘(t)he 

baseline for determining whether there has 

been growth in emissions due to increased 

VMT is the level of vehicle emissions that 

would occur if VMT held constant in the 

area.’ (H.R. No. 101–490, part 1, 101st Cong. 

2nd Sess., at 242). 

Although the statutory language could be 

read to require offsetting of any VMT growth, 

EPA believes that the language can also be 

read so that only actual emissions increases 

resulting from VMT growth need to be offset. 

The statute by its own terms requires 

offsetting of ‘any growth in emissions from 

growth in VMT.’ It is reasonable to interpret 

this language as requiring that VMT growth 

must be offset only where such growth 

results in emissions increases from the motor 

vehicle fleet in the area. 

While it is true that the language of the 

H.R. 101–490 appears to support the 

alternative interpretation of the statutory 

language, such an alternative interpretation 

would have drastic implications for many of 

the areas subject to this provision. Since 

VMT is growing at rates as high as 4 percent 

per year in some cities such as Los Angeles, 

these cities would have to impose draconian 

TCM’s such as mandatory no-drive 

restrictions, to fully offset the effects of 

increasing VMT if the areas where [sic] 

forced to ignore the beneficial impacts of all 

vehicle tailpipe and alternative fuel controls. 

Although the original authors of the 

provision and H.R. 101–490 may in fact have 

intended this result, EPA does not believe the 

Congress as a whole, or even the full House 

of Representatives, believed at the time it 

voted to pass the CAAA that the words of 

this provision would impose such severe 

restrictions. There is no further legislative 

history on this aspect of the provision; it was 

not discussed at all by any member of the 

Congress during subsequent legislative 

debate and adoption. 

Given the susceptibility of the statutory 

language to these two alternative 

interpretations, EPA believes that it is the 

Agency’s role in administering the statute to 

take the interpretation most reasonable in 

light of the practical implications of such 

10180 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

6EPA has previously discussed its interpretation 

of the section 182(d)(1)(A) requirement in our 

approval of the VMT offset plan for the Houston/ 

Galveston ozone nonattainment area. See 66 FR 

57247 (November 14, 2001). 

interpretation, taking into consideration the 

purposes and intent of the statutory scheme 

as a whole. In the context of the intricate 

planning requirements Congress established 

in title I to bring areas towards attainment of 

the ozone standard, and in light of the 

absence of any discussion of this aspect of 

the VMT offset provision by the Congress as 

a whole (either in floor debate or in the 

Conference Report), EPA concludes that the 

appropriate interpretation of section 

182(d)(1)(A) requires offsetting VMT growth 

only when such growth would result in 

actual emissions increases.’’ 57 FR 13498, at 

13522–13523 (April 16, 1992). 

For the reasons given in the General 

Preamble excerpt provided above, EPA 

believes that the first element of CAA 

section 182(d)(1)(A) requires states to 

adopt sufficient TCMs so that projected 

motor vehicle emissions, taking into 

account motor-vehicle-related emissions 

controls and growth in VMT, will never 

be higher during the ozone season in 

one year than during the ozone season 

in the year before, but that a state may 

comply with this provision through a 

demonstration of declining motor 

vehicle emissions each year through the 

attainment year rather than through 

submittal of TCMs.6 Thus, we continue 

to accept the supplemental material 

submitted by letter dated September 10, 

2008 from Elaine Chang, Deputy 

Executive Officer, SCAQMD, showing a 

decline in motor vehicle emissions each 

year in the South Coast through 2010, as 

a demonstration showing that the 2003 

South Coast SIP meets the TCM offset 

requirement under CAA section 

182(d)(1)(A). 

Comment: Because conformity is still 

applicable under the 1-hour ozone 

standard and because the 8-hour ozone 

motor vehicle emissions budgets are less 

stringent than the 1-hour ozone budgets, 

EPA cannot allow the use of the former 

to serve as the conformity budgets for 

attainment of the 1-hour ozone 

standard. 

Response: In our proposed rule, we 

proposed to disapprove the VOC and 

NOX motor vehicle emissions budgets 

(MVEBs) for 1-hour ozone (‘‘1-hour 

ozone MVEBs’’) based on our proposed 

disapprovals of the one-hour ozone ROP 

and attainment demonstrations in the 

2003 South Coast SIP. See 73 FR 63408, 

at 63418. We noted in our proposed rule 

that the 1-hour ozone MVEBs would not 

be used for conformity purposes even if 

we were to approve them because EPA 

has revoked the 1-hour ozone standard 

and transportation conformity 

determinations are no longer required 

for that air quality standard, and 

because we have already found 8-hour 

ozone MVEBs from the 2007 South 

Coast AQMP to be adequate for 

transportation conformity purposes. See 

73 FR 63408, at 63418. 

The commenter takes issue with our 

statement in the proposed rule that 

transportation conformity 

determinations are no longer required 

for the 1-hour ozone standard, citing the 

D.C. Circuit’s decision in South Coast 

Air Quality Management District v. EPA, 

472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006), and with 

our conclusion that the 1-hour ozone 

MVEBs would not be used for 

conformity even if we approved them. 

We agree that the D.C. Circuit’s 

decision in the South Coast overruled 

EPA’s decision that 1-hour ozone 

MVEBs do not constitute one of the 

‘‘applicable requirements’’ that must be 

retained for anti-backsliding purposes 

during the transition from the 1-hour to 

the 8-hour ozone standard, but the 

regulatory impact of the South Coast 

ruling is not what the commenter 

believes. On June 8, 2007, the D.C. 

Circuit amended its opinion to limit the 

scope of its decision regarding 

continued application of the 1-hour 

ozone conformity obligation to clarify 

that the court’s reference to conformity 

determinations speaks only to the use of 

1-hour ozone MVEBs as part of 8-hour 

ozone conformity determinations until 

8-hour ozone MVEBs are found 

adequate or are approved. See EPA 

memorandum from Robert J. Meyers, 

Acting Assistant Administrator, to 

Regional Administrators, dated June 15, 

2007. The court thus clarified that 1- 

hour ozone conformity determinations 

are not required for anti-backsliding 

purposes. Therefore, the court’s 

decision does not change the 

transportation conformity regulations in 

place before the court’s ruling on 

December 22, 2006. 

In this instance, the relevant 

transportation conformity regulations 

are the amendments to the conformity 

regulations that EPA promulgated to 

address conformity in nonattainment 

and maintenance areas for the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. See 69 FR 40004 (July 1, 

2004) and also 73 FR 4420, at 4434 

(January 24, 2008). Under the 2004 

amendments to the transportation 

conformity rule, 8-hour MVEBs replace 

the existing 1-hour ozone MVEBs once 

the 8-hour MVEBs are found adequate 

or are approved. See 40 CFR 

93.109(e)(1) and (2). In this instance, we 

found certain 8-hour ozone MVEBs in 

the 2007 South Coast AQMP 

(specifically, ROP milestone years 2008, 

2011, 2014, 2017, and 2020) to be 

adequate for transportation conformity 

purposes. See 73 FR 28110 (May 15, 

2008), as corrected at 73 FR 34837 (June 

18, 2008). As a result of our finding, the 

U.S. Department of Transportation and 

the area’s Metropolitan Planning 

Organization, the Southern California 

Association of Governments, must use 

the 8-hour ozone MVEBs, and may not 

use the 1-hour ozone MVEBs, for 

transportation conformity 

determinations. 

Lastly, the commenter juxtaposes the 

8-hour ozone MVEBs, that have been 

found adequate, with the 1-hour ozone 

MVEBs that the 8-hour MVEBs replaced, 

to show that the 8-hour ozone MVEBs 

in 2011 are higher than the 1-hour 

ozone MVEBs, and concludes therefore 

the EPA cannot allow use of the former 

to serve as the MVEBs for attainment of 

the 1-hour ozone standard. However, as 

discussed above, conformity need no 

longer be shown for the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS, and 1-hour ozone MVEBs no 

longer apply once a finding of adequacy 

is made for 8-hour ozone MVEBs, a 

circumstance that applies to the South 

Coast. 

Comment: EPA should disapprove the 

Pesticide Strategy portion of the 2003 

State Strategy because of a recent Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals decision that 

held that a particular document that had 

supported EPA’s approval of the 

original Pesticide Strategy in the 1994 

California Ozone SIP was not a part of 

the California SIP and thus was 

unenforceable under provisions of the 

Clean Air Act. 

Response: One of the State’s original 

purposes in adopting the 2003 State 

Strategy was to entirely replace the 

existing State control strategy for the 

South Coast (primarily comprised by 

commitments from the approved 1994 

Ozone SIP) with a new strategy that 

included three components: an annual 

adoption schedule for aggregate 

emissions reductions, defined measures, 

and a set of long-term commitments 

including aggregate long-term emissions 

reductions. See section I, chapter D, of 

the 2003 State Strategy. In this context, 

the State included PEST–1 (‘‘Implement 

Existing Pesticide Strategy’’), which 

simply retains the existing SIP 

commitment, into the list of defined 

measures for the sake of completeness to 

allow for the wholesale replacement of 

the existing strategy for the South Coast 

with the new strategy from the 2003 

State Strategy. 

As described in the proposed rule (73 

FR 63408, at 63410–63411), however, 

the State withdrew several components 

of the new State Strategy as it relates to 

the South Coast, including the aggregate 

annual emissions reductions 

commitments and long-term 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 10181 

commitments, leaving just the bare 

commitment to bring certain measures 

(listed in table 1 of our October 24, 2008 

proposed rule) to the ARB’s Board for 

any action within the Board’s discretion 

and to implement the existing Pesticide 

Strategy. The withdrawal of key 

components of the new State Strategy 

eliminated any possibility for the 

wholesale replacement of the existing 

State strategy for the South Coast with 

the new strategy. 

Given the changed circumstances, 

PEST–1 did not need any longer to be 

brought forward as part of the 2003 

State Strategy, but because ARB did not 

specifically withdraw it, EPA had to 

propose action on it. We did so through 

a proposed approval. A footnote to table 

1 (of the proposed rule) sets forth our 

interpretation of what approval of 

PEST–1 would mean: ‘‘We interpret our 

approval of this measure as maintaining 

the status quo with respect to the 

existing pesticide strategy (i.e., the SIP 

will continue to reflect the strategy as 

approved by EPA in 1997).’’ 

Furthermore, since disapproval of 

PEST–1 in the 2003 State Strategy 

would not act to rescind the existing 

Pesticide Strategy, approval or 

disapproval of PEST–1 amounts to the 

same thing: namely, the continuation of 

the existing EPA-approved Pesticide 

Strategy. Therefore, deficiencies in the 

enforceability of the Pesticide Element, 

whatever they might be, are the same 

whether EPA approves PEST–1 or 

disapproves PEST–1. 

Comment: EPA should disapprove the 

State’s commitments to adopt new 

measures because they are 

unenforceable. 

Response: With the withdrawal of key 

components of the 2003 State Strategy, 

including the aggregate annual and 

long-term emissions reductions 

commitments for the South Coast, the 

State has left only the bare commitment 

to bring certain near-term measures 

(listed in table 1 of our October 24, 2008 

proposed rule) to the ARB’s Board (for 

any action within the Board’s 

discretion) and to implement the 

existing Pesticide Strategy. We 

acknowledge the limited scope of the 

State’s commitment, but do not find it 

to be entirely unenforceable. For 

instance, ARB staff must bring to the 

Board the measures listed in table 1 of 

the proposed rule (drawn from the 2003 

State Strategy) consistent with the 

schedule set forth in table 1. Further, 

the ARB staff proposal for each measure 

must, at a minimum, achieve the lower 

end of a range of reductions. Failure by 

ARB to act accordingly is subject to 

enforcement under applicable 

provisions of the Act once EPA 

approves the commitment into the 

California SIP. We concluded in our 

proposed approval that the California 

SIP would be more effective with the 

commitment than without the 

commitment. We explained our 

rationale for proposing approval of the 

State defined measures as follows: 

‘‘Assuming that the remaining 

component of the 2003 State Strategy 

adds to, but does not replace, the 

existing SIP ozone strategy, we propose 

to approve the State commitments with 

respect to the near-term defined 

measures listed in table 1 as described 

above as strengthening the SIP.’’ See 73 

FR 63408, at 63414. On this limited 

basis, we take final action today to 

approve the State’s near-term defined 

measures from the 2003 State Strategy 

as part of the California SIP. 

III. EPA Action 

Under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, 

and for the reasons discussed above and 

in the proposed rule, EPA is taking the 

following actions on the 2003 State 

Strategy, as submitted on January 9, 

2004: 

(1) Approval of commitments by State 

agencies to develop and propose 16 

near-term defined control measures (15 

for ARB and 1 for BAR) to achieve 

specified emissions reductions in the 

South Coast as listed in table 1 of the 

proposed rule and the continuation of 

the existing pesticide strategy. 

Also under section 110(k)(3) of the 

CAA, and for the reasons discussed 

above and in the proposed rule, EPA is 

taking the following actions on the 2003 

South Coast SIP, as submitted on 

January 9, 2004: 

(1) Approval of base year and 

projected baseline emission inventories 

under CAA sections 172(c)(3) and 

182(a)(1); 

(2) Approval of the District’s 

commitment to adopt and implement 

near-term control measures as shown in 

table 2 of the proposed rule (except 

FSS–05), the District’s commitment to 

achieve emissions reduction through a 

schedule of adoption and 

implementation as shown in table 3 of 

the proposed rule, and the District’s 

contingency measure CTY–01 

(‘‘Accelerated Implementation of 

Control Measures’’), as strengthening 

the SIP; 

(3) Disapproval of District control 

measure FSS–05 (‘‘Mitigation Fee 

Program for Federal Sources’’) that 

assigns control measure responsibility 

to the Federal Government; 

(4) Approval of District’s ‘‘black box’’ 

VOC emission reduction commitment of 

31 tpd; 

(5) Disapproval of the ‘‘black box’’ 

emission reduction commitment of 68 

tpd of NOX and 18 tpd of VOC assigned 

to the Federal Government; 

(6) Disapproval of the attainment 

demonstration because control measures 

upon which the demonstration relies 

have been withdrawn; 

(7) Disapproval of the ROP 

demonstrations because the calculations 

do not properly account for the 

emissions reductions from the pre-1990 

Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program 

(FMVCP) and certain federal gasoline 

volatility requirements; 

(8) Approval of the demonstration 

that no TCM offsets are required under 

CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) based on 

baseline motor vehicle emissions 

projections as supplemented by the 

District; 

(9) Approval of the revised nitrogen 

dioxide maintenance demonstration 

based on the downward trend in 

baseline NOX emissions; 

(10) Disapproval of the 1-hour ozone 

(VOC and NOX) motor vehicle emissions 

budgets in the wake of proposed 

disapprovals of the ROP and attainment 

demonstrations; and 

(11) Approval of the nitrogen dioxide 

motor vehicle emissions budget of 686 

tpd (year 2003), winter planning 

inventory. 

No sanctions clocks or FIP 

requirement are triggered by our 

disapprovals because the approved SIP 

already contains the plan elements that 

we are disapproving. A disapproval of 

the revisions to the already-approved 

elements does not alter the fact that the 

SIP already meets these statutory 

requirements. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

approves state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

10182 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as added by 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 

generally provides that before a rule 

may take effect, the agency 

promulgating the rule must submit a 

rule report, which includes a copy of 

the rule, to each House of the Congress 

and to the Comptroller General of the 

United States. EPA will submit a report 

containing this rule and other required 

information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. 

House of Representatives, and the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. section 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by May 11, 2009. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this rule for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: January 15, 2009. 

Wayne Nastri, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

■ Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart F—California 

■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c)(339) introductory 

text and by adding paragraph (c)(339)(ii) 

to read as follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(339) New and amended plans were 

submitted on January 9, 2004, by the 

Governor’s designee. 

* * * * * 

(ii) Additional material. 

(A) The following portions of the 

Final 2003 State and Federal Strategy 

(2003 State Strategy) for the California 

State Implementation Plan, adopted by 

the California Air Resources Board 

(ARB) on October 23, 2003: 

(1) State agency commitments with 

respect to the following near-term 

defined measures for the South Coast 

Air Basin: LT/MED–DUTY–1 [Air 

Resources Board (ARB)], LT/MED– 

DUTY–2 (Bureau of Automotive Repair), 

ON–RD HVY–DUTY–1 (ARB), ON–RD 

HVY–DUTY–3 (ARB), OFF–RD CI–1 

(ARB), OFF–RD LSI–1 (ARB), OFF–RD 

LSI–2 (ARB), SMALL OFF–RD–1 (ARB), 

SMALL OFF–RD–2 (ARB), MARINE–1 

(ARB), MARINE–2 (ARB), FUEL–2 

(ARB), CONS–1 (ARB), CONS–2 (ARB), 

FVR–1 (ARB), FVR–2 (ARB), and PEST– 

1 (Department of Pesticide Regulation) 

in Resolution 03–22 Attachments A–2, 

A–3, A–4 and A–6 Table I–7 and in 

2003 State Strategy Section I Appendix 

I–1 and Sections II and III. 

(B) The following portions of the 

South Coast 2003 Air Quality 

Management Plan (AQMP), adopted by 

the South Coast Air Quality 

Management District (SCAQMD) on 

August 1, 2003 and adopted by the 

California Air Resources Board on 

October 23, 2003: 

(1) Base year and future year baseline 

planning inventories (summer and 

winter) in AQMP Chapter III and 

Appendix III; SCAQMD commitment to 

adopt and implement control measures 

CTS–07, CTS–10, FUG–05, MSC–01, 

MSC–03, PRC–07, WST–01, WST–02, 

FSS–04, FLX–01, CMB–10, MSC–05, 

MSC–07, MSC–08, FSS–06, and FSS–07 

in AQMP Chapter 4, Table 4–1, as 

qualified and explained in AQMP, 

Chapter 4, pages 4–59 through 4–61 and 

in Appendix IV–A Section 1, and 

SCAQMD commitments to achieve nearterm and long-term emissions 

reductions through rule adoption and 

implementation in AQMP Chapter 4, 

Tables 4–8A and 4–8B; contingency 

measure CTY–01 in AQMP Chapter 9, 

Table 2 and in Appendix IV–A Section 

2 (excluding FSS–05); nitrogen dioxide 

maintenance demonstration in AQMP 

Chapter 6 page 6–11; and motor vehicle 

emissions budget for nitrogen dioxide in 

year 2003 of 686 tons per day (winter 

planning inventory) in AQMP Chapter 6 

Table 6–7. 

(2) Letter from Elaine Chang, Deputy 

Executive Officer, South Coast Air 

Quality Management District, dated 

September 10, 2008, containing 

supplemental material related to onroad motor vehicles emissions. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E9–4593 Filed 3–9–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 82 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0131; FRL–8779–6] 

RIN 2060–AM46 

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: 

Recordkeeping and Reporting 

Requirements for the Import of Halon1301 Aircraft Fire Extinguishing 

Vessels 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule.