6986 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

PART 2—RULES OF PRACTICE IN 

TRADEMARK CASES 

1. The authority citation for 37 CFR 

part 2 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1123, 35 U.S.C. 2, 

unless otherwise noted. 

2. Amend § 2.64 by revising 

paragraphs (b) and (c)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 2.64 Final action. 

* * * * * 

(b)(1) During the three-month period 

after issuance of a final action, the 

applicant may request that the 

examining attorney reconsider the final 

action. The request must be filed 

through TEAS. The filing of a request 

for reconsideration will not extend the 

time for filing an appeal or petitioning 

the Director. 

(2) During the six-month period after 

issuance of a final action, the applicant 

may submit amendments. Any such 

amendments will be examined, and will 

be entered if they comply with the rules 

of practice in trademark cases and the 

Act of 1946. The filing of such an 

amendment will not extend the time for 

filing an appeal or petitioning the 

Director. 

(c)(1) If an applicant in an application 

under section 1(b) of the Act files an 

amendment to allege use under § 2.76 

during the six-month period after 

issuance of a final action, the examiner 

shall examine the amendment. The 

filing of such an amendment will not 

extend the time for filing an appeal or 

petitioning the Director. 

* * * * * 

Dated: February 8, 2007. 

Jon W. Dudas, 

Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual 

Property and Director of the United States 

Patent and Trademark Office. 

[FR Doc. E7–2519 Filed 2–13–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–16–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2007–0101; FRL–8277–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans and Designation 

of Areas for Air Quality Planning 

Purposes: California 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to grant a 

request submitted by the State to 

redesignate the South Coast from 

nonattainment to attainment for the CO 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). EPA is also proposing to 

approve a state implementation plan 

(SIP) revision for the South Coast 

nonattainment area in California as 

meeting the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

requirements for maintenance plans for 

carbon monoxide (CO). EPA is 

proposing to find adequate and approve 

motor vehicle emission budgets, which 

are included in the maintenance plan. 

Finally, EPA is proposing to approve the 

California motor vehicle inspection and 

maintenance (I/M) program as meeting 

the low enhanced I/M requirements for 

CO in the South Coast. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

March 16, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09–

OAR–2007–0101, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Agency Web site: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. EPA prefers 

receiving comments through this 

electronic public docket and comment 

system. Follow the on-line instructions 

to submit comments. 

2. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

3. E-mail: jesson.david@epa.gov 

4. Mail or deliver: Marty Robin, Office 

of Air Planning (AIR–2), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at 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 the 

agency Web site, eRulemaking portal, or 

e-mail. The agency Web site and 

eRulemaking portal are anonymous 

access systems, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send e-mail 

directly to EPA, your e-mail address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the public comment. 

If EPA cannot read your comment due 

to technical difficulties and cannot 

contact you for clarification, EPA may 

not be able to consider your comment. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

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

copy at EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, California. While 

all documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available in 

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Jesson, U.S. EPA Region 9, 415–

972–3961, david.jesson@epa.gov or 

http://www.epa.gov/region09/air/ 

actions. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, the terms 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ mean U.S. EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of Today’s Proposed Action 

II. CO SIPs for the South Coast 

A. Requirements for Serious CO 

Nonattainment Areas 

B. Serious CO SIP for the South Coast 

C. CO Maintenance Plan for the South 

Coast 

III. South Coast Redesignation to Attainment 

A. Attainment of the NAAQS 

1. Basis for Determining Attainment 

2. Record of Attainment in the South Coast 

B. Fully Approved Applicable 

Implementation Plan Under CAA 

Section 110(k) Meeting Requirements 

Applicable for Purposes of Redesignation 

Under Section 110 and Part D 

1. Basic SIP Requirements Under CAA 

Section 110 

2. Clean Data Policy and Outstanding Part 

D Requirements 

a. Introduction 

b. RFP and Attainment Demonstration 

c. Contingency Provisions 

(1) Introduction 

(2) CAA Section 172(c)(9) 

(3) CAA Section 187(a)(3) 

d. Conclusion 

3. TCMs to Offset Growth in Emissions 

From VMT Increases 

4. Requirement for Enhanced I/M Program 

5. Wintertime Oxygenated Gasoline 

Program 

6. Conclusion 

C. Improvement in Air Quality is Due to 

Permanent and Enforceable Measures 

D. Fully Approved Maintenance Plan 

1. Applicable Requirements 

2. Maintenance Plan Provisions 

a. Emissions Inventories for Attainment 

Year and Future Years 

b. Maintenance Demonstration 

c. Monitoring Network and Verification of 

Continued Attainment 

d. Contingency Provisions 

e. Commitment to Submit Subsequent 

Maintenance Plan Revision 

f. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

g. Conclusion 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Proposed Rules 6987 

1Under section 109 of the CAA, EPA has 

established primary, health-related NAAQS for CO: 

9 parts per million (ppm) averaged over an 8-hour 

period, and 35 ppm averaged over 1 hour. 

Attainment of the 8-hour CO NAAQS is achieved 

if not more than one non-overlapping 8-hour 

average in any consecutive 2-year period per 

monitoring site exceeds 9 ppm (values below 9.5 

are rounded down to 9.0 and are not considered 

exceedances). See 40 CFR 50.8; William G. Laxton, 

Director Technical Support Division, entitled 

‘‘Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value 

Calculations,’’ dated June 18, 1990; and EPA’s 

General Preamble (see 57 FR 13535). 2For a description of the boundaries of the Los 

Angeles-South Coast Air Basin, see 40 CFR 81.305. 

The nonattainment area includes all of Orange 

County and the more populated portions of Los 

Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

3CAA section 172(c)(9) requires contingency 

measures that would be implemented if an area fails 

to make RFP or to attain the NAAQS by the 

applicable deadline. For CO areas, CAA section 

187(a)(3) requires contingency measures to be 

implemented if any estimate of vehicle miles 

traveled (VMT) in the area for any year prior to the 

attainment year that is submitted in an annual 

report under section 187(a)(2)(A) (‘‘VMT tracking 

report’’) exceeds the number predicted in the most 

recent prior forecast or if the area fails to attain the 

NAAQS by the attainment year. 

I. Summary of Today’s Proposed Action 

We are proposing to approve the 2005 

Carbon Monoxide Redesignation 

Request and Carbon Monoxide 

Maintenance Plan for the South Coast 

Air Basin (Maintenance Plan) as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

sections 107(d)(3)(E) and 175A, which 

provide, in part, that plans must 

demonstrate continued attainment for at 

least 10 years and must include 

contingency measures. The submittal 

included evidence that the South Coast 

attained the CO NAAQS in 2002 and 

continues to attain the NAAQS. We are 

also proposing to approve and find 

adequate the motor vehicle emissions 

budgets (MVEBs) submitted with the 

Maintenance Plan. 

We are proposing to approve the 

request by the State of California to 

redesignate the area to attainment for 

CO under the provisions of CAA section 

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

authorizes the EPA Administrator to 

redesignate areas to attainment if the 

area has attained the NAAQS due to 

permanent and enforceable emission 

reductions, and the approved SIP for the 

area meets all of the applicable 

requirements of CAA section 110 (basic 

requirements applicable to SIPs 

generally), Part D (special SIP 

requirements applicable to 

nonattainment areas), and 175A (SIP 

requirements for maintenance areas). 

As part of our proposed determination 

that California has met applicable Part 

D provisions, we propose to adapt to CO 

nonattainment areas the provisions of 

our Clean Data Policy, which was 

initially established for ozone (see 

discussion below in section III.B.2.). 

Under the Clean Data Policy, certain 

CAA Part D requirements—including 

the requirements for developing 

attainment demonstrations, reasonable 

further progress (RFP) plans, reasonably 

available control measures (RACM) and 

contingency measures—no longer apply 

because the area has already attained 

the NAAQS. 

Finally, because our interim approval 

of California’s I/M program for CO in 

the South Coast expired on August 7, 

1998, California has now submitted a 

demonstration that the I/M program 

meets the low-enhanced requirements 

applicable to the South Coast CO 

nonattainment area (see discussion in 

section III.B.4.) We are proposing to 

approve that demonstration. 

II. CO SIPs for the South Coast 

A. Requirements for Serious CO 

Nonattainment Areas 

The CAA was substantially amended 

in 1990 to establish new planning 

requirements and attainment deadlines 

for the NAAQS, including CO.1 Under 

section 107(d)(1)(C) of the Act, areas 

designated nonattainment prior to 

enactment of the 1990 amendments, 

including the South Coast, were 

designated nonattainment by operation 

of law.2 Under section 186(a) of the Act, 

each CO area designated nonattainment 

under section 107(d) was also classified 

by operation of law as either moderate 

or serious, depending on the severity of 

the area’s air quality problem. CO areas 

with design values at and above 16.5 

ppm, such as the South Coast, were 

classified as serious. 

Section 172 of the Act contains 

general requirements applicable to SIPs 

for nonattainment areas. Sections 186 

and 187 of the Act set out additional air 

quality planning requirements for CO 

nonattainment areas. The most 

fundamental of these provisions is the 

requirement that CO nonattainment 

areas submit by November 15, 1992, a 

SIP demonstrating attainment of the 

NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, 

but no later than the deadline applicable 

to the area’s classification: December 31, 

1995, for moderate areas, and December 

31, 2000, for serious areas like the South 

Coast. CAA sections 186(a)(1), 187(a)(7), 

and 187(b)(1). Such a demonstration 

must include enforceable measures to 

achieve emission reductions each year 

leading to emissions at or below the 

level predicted to result in attainment of 

the NAAQS throughout the 

nonattainment area. 

EPA has issued a General Preamble 

describing the Agency’s preliminary 

views on how EPA intends to act on 

SIPs submitted under Title I of the Act. 

See generally 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 

1992) and 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992). 

The reader should refer to the General 

Preamble for a more detailed discussion 

of EPA’s preliminary interpretations of 

the CAA’s Title I requirements. 

B. Serious CO SIP for the South Coast 

On February 5, 1997, California 

submitted a CO plan for the South 

Coast, which had been adopted by the 

South Coast Air Quality Management 

District (SCAQMD) on November 15, 

1996. Because the South Coast had 

continuously achieved the 1-hour CO 

NAAQS for more than 20 years, this 

plan primarily addressed the 8-hour CO 

NAAQS. On April 21, 1998 (63 FR 

19661), we fully approved the SIP as 

meeting the applicable CO requirements 

for the South Coast, with the following 

exceptions: (1) We took no action on the 

plan with respect to the CAA section 

187(b)(2) requirement for transportation 

control measures (TCMs) to offset any 

growth in emissions from vehicle miles 

traveled (VMT) or numbers of vehicles 

trips; (2) we took no action on the plan 

with respect to the contingency measure 

requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9) 

and 187(a)(3); 3 (3) we granted interim 

approval to the RFP provisions under 

CAA sections 171(1), 172(c)(2), and 

187(a)(7); (4) we granted interim 

approval to the attainment 

demonstration under CAA section 

187(a)(7); and (5) we granted interim 

approval to the enhanced I/M program 

required by CAA 187(a)(6), as discussed 

below. 

Interim approval is authorized under 

section 348(c) of the National Highway 

System Designation Act (‘‘Highway 

Act,’’ Public Law 104–59, enacted on 

November 28, 1995) for certain types of 

I/M programs and, by extension, to SIP 

provisions dependent upon reductions 

from these I/M programs. We had 

previously granted interim approval to 

California’s enhanced I/M program (62 

FR 1160, January 8, 1997). Our 1997 

interim approval established August 7, 

1998, as the expiration of the approval 

if by such date EPA had not approved 

a SIP submittal demonstrating that the 

credits claimed for the I/M program are 

appropriate and the program is 

otherwise in full compliance with the 

applicable enhanced I/M requirements. 

Because the State did not submit the 

needed demonstration, the approval of 

the I/M program and the South Coast 

CO SIP with respect to RFP and 

attainment demonstration expired on 

August 7, 1998. 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
6988 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

4The applicable SIP for CARB and South Coast 

may be found at http://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/ 

r9sips.nsf/Casips?readform&state=California. 

We note that SIPs must be fully approved only 

with respect to applicable requirements for 

purposes of redesignation in accordance with 

section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). Thus, for example, CAA 

C. CO Maintenance Plan for the South 

Coast 

In 2002, the South Coast attained the 

8-hour CO NAAQS, and on March 4, 

2005, the SCAQMD adopted the 

Maintenance Plan, following 30-day 

public notice (SCAQMD Board 

Resolution No. 05–8). On February 24, 

2006, the California Air Resources 

Board (CARB) adopted the Maintenance 

Plan (CARB Executive Order G–125–

332) and submitted it to EPA as a SIP 

revision, along with a request that we 

approve a redesignation request to 

attainment (Letter from Lynn Terry, 

CARB, to Wayne Nastri, EPA Region 9). 

On August 11, 2006, CARB submitted 

additional technical information 

relating to the I/M program in the South 

Coast (Letter from Kurt Karperos, CARB, 

to Lisa Hanf, EPA Region 9). The 

attachment to the letter addressed the 

requirement associated with EPA’s 1997 

interim approval of the enhanced I/M 

program under the Highway Act, by 

demonstrating that the California smog 

check program meets minimum 

requirements applicable to an enhanced 

I/M program for CO. In accordance with 

CAA section 110(k)(1)(B), the submittal 

became complete by operation of law on 

August 25, 2006. 

III. South Coast Redesignation to 

Attainment 

The criteria for approval of a 

redesignation request are set out in CAA 

section 107(d)(3)(E). We review the 

State’s request against each of these 

criteria in our discussion below. 

A. Attainment of the NAAQS 

1. Basis for Determining Attainment 

CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) requires that 

we determine that the area has attained 

the NAAQS. EPA makes the 

determination as to whether an area’s 

air quality is meeting the CO NAAQS 

based upon air quality data gathered at 

CO monitoring sites in the 

nonattainment area which have been 

entered into the Air Quality System 

(AQS) database, formerly known as the 

Aerometric Information Retrieval 

System (AIRS). This data is reviewed to 

determine the area’s air quality status in 

accordance with 40 CFR 50.8; EPA 

policy guidance as stated in a 

memorandum from William G. Laxton, 

Director Technical Support Division, 

entitled ‘‘Ozone and Carbon Monoxide 

Design Value Calculations,’’ dated June 

18, 1990; and EPA’s General Preamble at 

57 FR 13535. 

The 8-hour and 1-hour CO design 

values are used to determine attainment 

of CO areas, and the design values are 

determined by reviewing 8 quarters of 

data, or a total of two complete calendar 

years of data for an area. The 8-hour 

design value is computed by first 

finding the maximum and second 

maximum (non-overlapping) 8-hour 

values at each monitoring site for each 

year of the two calendar years prior to 

and including the attainment date. Then 

the higher of the ‘‘second high’’ values 

is used as the design value for the 

monitoring site, and the highest design 

value among the various CO monitoring 

sites represents the CO design value for 

the area. 

The CO NAAQS requires that not 

more than one 8-hour average per year 

equals or exceeds 9.5 ppm (values 

below 9.5 are rounded down to 9 and 

are not considered exceedances). If an 

area has a design value that is equal to 

or greater than 9.5 ppm, this means that 

there was a monitoring site where the 

second highest (non-overlapping) 8- 

hour average was measured to be equal 

to or greater than 9.5 ppm in at least one 

of the two years being reviewed to 

determine attainment for the area. This 

indicates that there were at least two 

values above the NAAQS during one 

year at that site and thus the NAAQS for 

CO was not met. Conversely, an 8-hour 

design value of less than 9.5 ppm 

indicates that the area has attained the 

CO NAAQS. 

The 1-hour CO design value is 

computed in the same manner. An area 

attains the one-hour CO NAAQS if the 

1-hour design value is less than 35.5 

ppm. 

2. Record of Attainment in the South 

Coast 

The Maintenance Plan presents the 

attainment air quality data for the South 

Coast’s 22 monitoring stations in Table 

2–2 on p. 8. During the period 2002–

2003, there was only one maximum 8- 

hour average concentration above the 

standard, a 10.1 ppm concentration 

recorded at the Lynwood (South Central 

Los Angeles) site on January 8, 2002, 

under very stagnant conditions and a 

strong inversion. The maximum 8-hour 

concentration at Lynwood was 7.7 ppm 

in 2001 and 7.3 ppm in 2003. There 

were no exceedances of the 8-hour 

NAAQS recorded in 2001 and 2003 at 

any station, and the design value at all 

stations for the periods 2001–2002 and 

2002–2003 was well below the NAAQS. 

A review of data input to AQS 

indicates that the South Coast has 

continued to attain the CO NAAQS 

since 2003. The highest second 

maximum 1-hour and 8-hour CO 

concentrations measured at the various 

monitoring stations during the 2004 

through the first quarter of 2006 were 

8.7 ppm and 6.1 ppm, respectively, both 

recorded in 2004 at the Lynwood station 

in south central Los Angeles County. 

These values are well below the 

corresponding CO NAAQS of 35 and 9 

ppm. A ‘‘quick look’’ report generated 

using AQS for the South Coast CO 

monitoring stations for 2004 through the 

third quarter of 2006 is included in the 

docket for this proposed rule. The 

Maintenance Plan indicates that the 1- 

hour CO NAAQS has not been violated 

for 25 years in the South Coast. 

Based on the monitoring data 

presented in the Maintenance Plan and 

AQS data for the past two years, we 

propose to determine that the South 

Coast attained the CO NAAQS in 2002 

and has continued to attain the NAAQS. 

B. Fully Approved Applicable 

Implementation Plan Under CAA 

Section 110(k) Meeting Requirements 

Applicable for Purposes of 

Redesignation Under Section 110 and 

Part D 

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v) require 

EPA to determine that the area has a 

fully approved applicable SIP under 

section 110(k) that meets all applicable 

requirements under section 110 and Part 

D for purposes of redesignation. 

1. Basic SIP Requirements Under CAA 

Section 110 

The general SIP elements and 

requirements set forth in section 

110(a)(2) include, but are not limited to, 

the following: Kubmittal of a SIP that 

has been adopted by the state after 

reasonable public notice and hearing; 

provisions for establishment and 

operation of appropriate procedures 

needed to monitor ambient air quality; 

implementation of a source permit 

program; provisions for the 

implementation of Part C requirement 

for Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD); provisions for the 

implementation of Part D requirements 

for New Source Review (NSR) permit 

programs; provisions for air pollution 

modeling; and provisions for public and 

local agency participation in planning 

and emission control rule development. 

On numerous occasions over the past 

35 years, CARB and SCAQMD have 

submitted and we have approved 

provisions addressing the basic CAA 

section 110 provisions. There are no 

outstanding or disapproved applicable 

SIP submittals with respect to the State 

and SCAQMD.4 We propose to conclude 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Proposed Rules 6989 

section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain 

certain measures to prevent sources in a state from 

significantly contributing to air quality problems in 

another state. However, the section 110(a)(2)(D) 

requirements for a state are not linked with a 

particular nonattainment area’s designation and 

classification in that state. EPA believes that the 

requirements linked with a particular 

nonattainment area’s designation and classifications 

are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing 

a redesignation request. The transport SIP submittal 

requirements, where applicable, continue to apply 

to a state regardless of the designation of any one 

particular area in the state. 

Thus, we do not believe that these requirements 

should be construed to be applicable requirements 

for purposes of redesignation. In addition, EPA 

believes that the other section 110 elements not 

connected with nonattainment plan submissions 

and not linked with an area’s attainment status are 

not applicable requirements for purposes of 

redesignation. The State will still be subject to these 

requirements after the South Coast area is 

redesignated. The section 110 and Part D 

requirements, which are linked with a particular 

area’s designation and classification, are the 

relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a 

redesignation request. This policy is consistent with 

EPA’s existing policy on applicability of conformity 

(i.e., for redesignations) and oxygenated fuels 

requirement. See Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed 

and final rulemakings 61 FR 53174–53176 (October 

10, 1996), 62 FR 24816 (May 7, 1997); ClevelandAkron-Lorain, Ohio, final rulemaking 61 FR 20458 

(May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida, final 

rulemaking 60 FR 62748 (December 7, 1995). See 

also the discussion on this issue in the Cincinnati 

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

the Pittsburgh redesignation 66 FR 50399 (October 

19, 2001). EPA believes that section 110 elements 

not linked to the area’s nonattainment status are not 

applicable for purposes of redesignation. 

that CARB and SCAQMD have met all 

SIP requirements for the South Coast 

area applicable for purposes of 

redesignation under section 110 of the 

CAA (General SIP Requirements). With 

the exceptions discussed below in 

Sections III.B.2–4, the SIP for the South 

Coast also has been approved as meeting 

applicable requirements under Part D of 

Title I of the CAA. See our approval of 

the South Coast CO attainment SIP at 63 

FR 19661–2. 

2. Clean Data Policy and Outstanding 

Part D Requirements 

a. Introduction 

In some designated nonattainment 

areas, monitored data demonstrates that 

the NAAQS have already been achieved. 

Based on its interpretation of the Act, 

EPA has determined that certain SIP 

submission requirements of part D, 

subparts 1, 2, and 4 of the Act do not 

apply and therefore do not require 

certain submissions for an area that has 

attained the NAAQS. These include RFP 

requirements, attainment 

demonstrations and contingency 

measures, because these provisions have 

the purpose of helping achieve 

attainment of the NAAQS. 

The Clean Data Policy is the subject 

of two EPA memoranda setting forth our 

interpretation of the provisions of the 

Act as they apply to areas that have 

attained the relevant NAAQS. EPA also 

finalized the statutory interpretation set 

forth in the policy in a final rule, 40 

CFR 51.918, as part of its Final Rule to 

Implement the 8-hour Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard—Phase 2 

(Phase 2 Final Rule). See discussion in 

the preamble to the rule at 70 FR 71645–

71646 (November 29, 2005). We have 

also applied the same approach to the 

interpretations of the provisions of 

subparts 1 and 4 applicable to PM–10. 

For detailed discussions of this 

interpretation with respect to the CAA’s 

PM–10 requirements for RFP, 

attainment demonstrations, and 

contingency measures, see 71 FR 6352, 

6354 (February 8, 2006); 71 FR 13021, 

13024 (March 14, 2006); 71 FR 27440, 

27443–27444 (May 11, 2006); and 71 FR 

40952, 40954 (July 19, 2006); and 71 FR 

63642 (October 30, 2006). 

EPA believes that the legal bases set 

forth in detail in our Phase 2 Final rule, 

our May 10, 1995 memorandum from 

John S. Seitz, entitled ‘‘Reasonable 

Further Progress, Attainment 

Demonstration, and Related 

Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment 

Areas Meeting the Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard’’ (Seitz 

memo), and our December 14, 2004 

memorandum from Stephen D. Page 

entitled ‘‘Clean Data Policy for the Fine 

Particle National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards’’ (Page memo), are equally 

pertinent to the interpretation of 

provisions of subparts 1 and 3 

applicable to CO. EPA’s interpretation 

of how the provisions of the Act apply 

to areas with ‘‘clean data’’ is not 

logically limited to ozone, PM–2.5, and 

PM–10, because the rationale is not 

dependent upon the type of pollutant. 

Our interpretation that an area that is 

attaining the standard is relieved of 

obligations to demonstrate RFP and to 

provide an attainment demonstration 

and contingency measures pursuant to 

part D of the CAA, pertains whether the 

standard is CO, 1-hour ozone, 8-hour 

ozone, PM–2.5, or PM–10. 

b. RFP and Attainment Demonstration 

The reasons for relieving an area that 

has attained the relevant standard of 

certain part D, subpart 1 and 2 (sections 

171 and 172) obligations, applies 

equally as well to part D, subpart 3, 

which contains specific attainment 

demonstration and RFP provisions for 

CO nonattainment areas. As we have 

explained in the 8-hour ozone Phase 2 

Final Rule, our ozone and PM–2.5 clean 

data memoranda, and our approval of 

PM–10 SIPs, EPA believes it is 

reasonable to interpret provisions 

regarding RFP and attainment 

demonstrations, along with related 

requirements, so as not to require SIP 

submissions if an area subject to those 

requirements is already attaining the 

NAAQS (i.e., attainment of the NAAQS 

is demonstrated with three consecutive 

years of complete, quality-assured air 

quality monitoring data for ozone and 

PM, and two consecutive years for CO). 

Three U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals 

have upheld EPA rulemakings applying 

its interpretation of subparts 1 and 2 

with respect to ozone. Sierra Club v. 

EPA, 99 F.3d 1551 (10th Cir. 1996); 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F. 3d 537 (7th 

Cir. 2004); Our Children’s Earth 

Foundation v. EPA, N. 04–73032 (9th 

Cir. June 28, 2005) (memorandum 

opinion). It has been EPA’s longstanding 

interpretation that the general 

provisions of part D, subpart 1 of the 

Act (sections 171 and 172) do not 

require the submission of SIP revisions 

concerning RFP for areas already 

attaining the ozone NAAQS. In the 

General Preamble, we stated: 

[R]equirements for RFP will not apply in 

evaluating a request for redesignation to 

attainment, since, at a minimum, the air 

quality data for the area must show that the 

area has already attained. A showing that the 

State will make RFP toward attainment will, 

therefore, have no meaning at that point. 57 

FR at 13564. 

See also page 6 of the guidance 

memorandum entitled ‘‘Procedures for 

Processing Requests to Redesignate 

Areas to Attainment’’ from John 

Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 

Management Division, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, to 

Regional Air Division Directors, dated 

September 4, 1992 (Calcagni Memo, 

available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

naaqs/ozone/ozonetech/940904.pdf). 

EPA believes the same reasoning 

applies to the CO RFP provisions of part 

D, subpart 3. 

With respect to RFP, CAA section 

171(1) states that, for purposes of part D 

of title I, RFP 

means such annual incremental reductions in 

emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are 

required by this part or may reasonably be 

required by the Administrator for the 

purpose of ensuring attainment of the 

applicable NAAQS by the applicable date. 

The stated purpose of RFP is to ensure 

attainment by the applicable attainment 

date, whether dealing with the general 

RFP requirement of section 172(c)(2), 

the ozone-specific RFP requirements of 

sections 182(b) and (c), the PM–10 

specific RFP requirements of section 

189(c)(1), or the CO-specific RFP 

requirements of section 187(a)(7). 

Section 187(a)(7) states that the SIP 

for moderate CO areas with a design 

value greater than 12.7 must: 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
6990 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

5AA section 187(d), CO Milestone, applies to 

serious CO areas and requires: 

(1) The state to submit a demonstration that the 

area has achieved certain specific annual emission 

reductions (187(d)(1)); 

(2) EPA to determine whether the demonstration 

is adequate within 90 days (187(d)(2)); and 

(3) the state to submit a plan revision within 9 

months of EPA’s notification that the state has not 

met the milestone, such plan to implement CAA 

section 182(g)(4) economic incentive and 

transportation control programs sufficient to 

achieve the specific annual emission reductions by 

the attainment date (187(d)(3)). 

EPA interprets these provisions consistent with 

its interpretation of Section 182(g) in Subpart 2. See 

May 10, 1995 Seitz Memorandum at p. 5. There, 

EPA included in its identification of SIP submission 

requirements linked with attainment and RFP 

requirements the ‘‘Section 182(g) requirements 

concerning milestones that are based on the section 

182(b)(1) and 182(c)(2)(B) and (C) submissions.’’ In 

Subpart 3, similarly, milestone requirements are 

based on the section 187(a)(7) specific annual 

emission reduction requirements. 

6For PM–10 areas, we have concluded that it is 

a distinction without a difference that section 

189(c)(1) speaks of the PM–10 nonattainment area 

RFP requirement as one to be achieved until an area 

is ‘‘redesignated as attainment’’, as opposed to 

section 172(c)(2), which is silent on the period to 

which the requirement pertains, or the ozone and 

CO nonattainment area RFP requirements in 

sections 182(b)(1) or 182(c)(2) for ozone and 

187(a)(7) for CO, which refer to the RFP 

requirements as applying until the ‘‘attainment 

date’’, since, section 189(c)(1) defines RFP by 

reference to section 171(l) of the Act. Reference to 

171(l) clarifies that, as with the general RFP 

requirements in section 172(c)(2) and the ozonespecific requirements of section 182(b)(1) and 

182(c)(2) and the CO-specific requirements of 

section 187(a)(7), the PM-specific requirements may 

only be required for the purpose of ensuring 

attainment of the applicable national ambient air 

quality standard by the applicable date.’’ 42 U.S.C. 

section 7501(1). As discussed in the text of this 

rulemaking, EPA interprets the RFP requirements, 

in light of the definition of RFP in section 171(l), 

to be a requirement that no longer applies once the 

standard has been attained. 7RFP means ‘‘such annual incremental 

reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant 

as are required by this part or may reasonably be 

required by the Administrator for the purpose of 

ensuring attainment of the applicable national 

ambient air quality standard by the applicable 

date.’’ CAA Section 171(1). 

provide a demonstration that the plan as 

revised will provide for attainment of the 

carbon monoxide NAAQS by the applicable 

attainment date and provisions for such 

specific annual emission reductions as are 

necessary to attain the standard by that date. 

This same requirement also applies to 

serious CO areas in accordance with 

CAA section 187(b)(1). 

It is clear that once the area has 

attained the standard, no further 

specific annual emission reductions are 

necessary or meaningful. With respect 

to CO areas, this interpretation is 

supported by language in section 

187(d)(3), which mandates that a state 

that fails to achieve the milestone must 

submit a plan that assures that the state 

achieves the ‘‘pecific annual reductions 

in carbon monoxide emissions set forth 

in the plan by the attainment date.’’ 5

Section 187(d)(3) assumes that the 

requirement to submit and achieve the 

milestone does not continue after 

attainment of the NAAQS. 

If an area has in fact attained the 

standard, the stated purpose of the RFP 

and specific annual emissions 

reductions requirements will have 

already been fulfilled.6 The specific 

annual emission reductions required are 

only those necessary to attain the 

standard by the attainment date. EPA 

took this position with respect to the 

general RFP requirement of section 

172(c)(2) in the April 16, 1992 General 

Preamble and also in the May 10, 1995 

memorandum with respect to the 

requirements of sections 182(b) and (c). 

We are proposing to extend that 

interpretation to the specific provisions 

of part D, subpart 3. 

With respect to the attainment 

demonstration requirements of section 

187(a)(7), an analogous rationale leads 

to the same result. Section 187(a)(7) 

requires that the State submit 

a revision to provide, and a demonstration 

that the plan as revised will provide for 

attainment of the carbon monoxide NAAQS 

by the applicable attainment date and 

provisions for such specific annual emission 

reductions as are necessary to attain the 

standard by that date. 

As with the RFP requirements, if an area 

is already monitoring attainment of the 

standard, EPA believes there is no need 

for an area to make a further submission 

containing additional measures to 

achieve attainment. This is also 

consistent with the interpretation of the 

section 172(c) requirements provided by 

EPA in the General Preamble, the Page 

memo and of the section 182(b) and (c) 

requirements set forth in the Seitz 

memo. As EPA stated in the General 

Preamble, no other measures to provide 

for attainment would be needed by areas 

seeking redesignation to attainment 

since ‘‘attainment will have been 

reached.’’ (57 FR at 13564). 

c. Contingency Provisions 

(1) CAA Section 172(c)(9) 

Other SIP submission requirements 

are linked with these attainment 

demonstration and RFP requirements, 

and similar reasoning applies to them. 

These requirements include the 

contingency measure requirements of 

CAA section 172(c)(9), and the special 

contingency provisions applicable to 

ozone and CO plans. Section 172(c)(9) 

requires a State to submit contingency 

measures that will be implemented if an 

area fails to make ‘‘reasonable further 

progress’’ or fails to attain by the 

applicable attainment date.7 Thus, the 

stated purpose of the contingency 

measure requirement is to ensure RFP 

(the purpose of which is to ensure 

attainment by the applicable attainment 

date) and attainment by the applicable 

attainment date. If an area has in fact 

attained the standard by the applicable 

attainment date, the stated purpose of 

the contingency measure requirement 

will have already been fulfilled. 

Consequently, we believe that the 

requirement for a State to submit 

revisions providing for measures to 

meet the contingency provisions of 

section 172(c)(9) no longer applies for 

an area that we find as having attained 

the relevant NAAQS by the applicable 

attainment date. 

We note that we took this view with 

respect to the general contingency 

measure requirement of section 

172(c)(9) in our General Preamble. In 

the General Preamble, we stated, in the 

context of a discussion of the 

requirements applicable to the 

evaluation of requests to redesignate 

nonattainment areas to attainment, that 

the ‘‘section 172(c)(9) requirements for 

contingency measures * * * no longer 

apply when an area has attained the 

standard and is eligible for 

redesignation.’’ See 57 FR 13498, at 

13564 (April 16, 1992). See also 

Calcagni memo, p. 6. 

We propose to extend the same 

reasoning to CO plans with respect to 

the section 172(c)(9) contingency 

provision requirements, since our 

reasoning is equally applicable 

regardless of the pollutant. Moreover, 

just as we concluded that the pollutantspecific contingency measure 

requirements of section 182(c)(9) for 

ozone areas also no longer apply to 

areas attaining the ozone NAAQS, we 

propose below that the CO-specific 

contingency provisions of section 

187(a)(3) no longer apply at the time we 

find that an area has attained the CO 

NAAQS. 

(2) CAA Section 187(a)(3) 

Section 187(a)(3) requires contingency 

measures to be implemented 

if any estimate of vehicle miles traveled in 

the area which is submitted in an annual 

report under paragraph (2) exceeds the 

number predicted in the most recent prior 

forecast or if the area fails to attain the 

national primary ambient air quality standard 

for carbon monoxide by the primary standard 

attainment date. 

Thus, the Act establishes two triggers 

for implementation of contingency 

measures required under this provision. 

The first trigger is associated with CAA 

section 187(a)(2), which requires plans 

for areas with a design value above 12.7 

ppm at the time of classification to 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Proposed Rules 6991 

8See, for example, EPA’s final approval of 

Illinois’ VMT SIP at 60 FR 48896, 48897 (September 

21, 1995). 

include ‘‘a forecast of vehicle miles 

traveled in the nonattainment area 

concerned for each year before the year 

in which the plan projects the national 

ambient air quality standard for carbon 

monoxide to be attained in the area,’’

along with 

annual updates of the forecasts to be 

submitted to the Administrator together with 

annual reports regarding the extent to which 

such forecasts proved to be accurate. Such 

annual reports shall contain estimates of 

actual vehicle miles traveled in each year for 

which a forecast was required. 

The plan’s contingency measures must 

be implemented ‘‘if the prior forecast 

has been exceeded by an updated 

forecast * * *.’’ Both the forecasts and 

reports are required only until the SIP’s 

projected attainment year. Following the 

plan’s projected attainment year, which 

is the last year of the VMT forecasts, this 

trigger disappears. 

The second trigger of the contingency 

provision is a failure of the area to attain 

the primary CO standard by the 

applicable deadline, for the evident 

purpose of ensuring that such an area 

further reduces emissions as needed to 

attain the NAAQS. Once an area has 

actually attained the CO NAAQS, this 

second trigger is clearly eliminated. 

Thus, the CAA section 187(a)(3) 

contingency provision has no further 

practical effect when the two 

contingency triggers cease to exist. 

Moreover, the implicit goal of the 

contingency provision, to reduce motor 

vehicle-related CO emissions to the 

extent needed to achieve annual 

progress and eventual attainment, 

would have been accomplished when 

an area comes into attainment. 

Therefore, we propose to conclude that 

an area that is attaining the CO 

standards is relieved of an obligation to 

provide contingency measures pursuant 

to CAA section 187(a)(3). 

CAA section 187(b)(2) requires that 

CO serious area plans include TCMs as 

prescribed in CAA section 182(d)(1) for 

ozone areas, except that the TCMs relate 

to CO emissions rather than volatile 

organic compound emissions. Section 

182(d)(1) requires that plans for severe 

ozone areas must include TCMs to be 

implemented 

to offset any growth in emissions from 

growth in vehicle miles traveled or numbers 

of vehicle trips in such area and to attain 

reduction in motor vehicle emissions as 

necessary, in combination with other 

emission reduction requirements of this 

subpart, to comply with the requirements of 

subsection (b)(2)(B) and (c)(2)(B) (pertaining 

to periodic emissions reduction 

requirements). 

The section 187(b)(2) TCMs are 

required to be submitted if CO 

emissions are expected to increase from 

growth in VMT or vehicle trips, and to 

meet RFP or attainment. For the same 

reason that the requirement for RFP no 

longer applies to an area that has 

attained the NAAQS, the requirement 

for measures to contribute to RFP no 

longer applies following a finding of 

attainment. Thus EPA interprets the 

provisions of section 187(b)(2)(A) that 

cross-reference section 182(d)(1) so as to 

suspend those provisions pertaining to 

periodic emissions reductions 

requirements for so long as the area is 

attaining the standard. In a May 10, 

1995 Seitz memorandum, we identified 

as among those requirements that could 

be suspended upon finding of 

attainment ‘‘the elements of the * * * 

requirements of section 182(d)(1)(A) 

concerning vehicle miles traveled that 

are related to RFP requirements.’’ (p. 2). 

With respect to the requirement for 

TCMs to offset any growth in emissions 

from VMT, see Section 3 below. 

d. Conclusion 

As noted above, the South Coast area 

does not currently have an approved SIP 

with respect to the requirements for 

RFP, attainment, contingency 

provisions, and TCMs related to RFP 

requirements. However, we believe that, 

for the reasons set forth here and 

established in our prior ‘‘clean data’’

memoranda and rulemakings, a CO 

nonattainment area that has ‘‘clean 

data,’’ should be relieved of the part D, 

subpart 3 obligations to provide an 

attainment demonstration with specific 

annual emission reductions pursuant to 

CAA section 187(a)(7); the CAA section 

187(d) milestone demonstration 

requirement; contingency provisions 

pursuant to CAA section 187(a)(3)); and 

TCMs related to RFP requirements 

pursuant to 187(b)(2); as well as the 

attainment demonstration, RFP, and 

contingency measure provisions of part 

D, subpart 1 contained in section 172 of 

the Act. 

Here, as in both our 8-hour ozone 

Phase 2 final rule and 1-hour ozone and 

PM–2.5 clean data memoranda, we 

emphasize that the suspension of a 

requirement to submit these SIP 

revisions exists only for as long as a 

nonattainment area continues to 

monitor attainment of the standard. If 

such an area experiences a violation of 

the NAAQS, the basis for the 

requirements being suspended would 

no longer exist. Therefore, the area 

would again be subject to a requirement 

to submit the pertinent SIP revision or 

revisions and would need to address 

those requirements. Thus, a 

determination that an area need not 

submit one of the SIP submittals 

amounts to no more than a suspension 

of the requirement for so long as the 

area continues to attain the standard. 

However, once EPA ultimately 

redesignates the area to attainment, the 

area will be entirely relieved of these 

requirements to the extent the 

maintenance plan for the area does not 

rely on them. 

Should we at some future time 

determine that an area that had clean 

data, but which has not yet been 

redesignated as attainment for a 

NAAQS, has violated the relevant 

standard, the area would again be 

required to submit the pertinent 

requirements under the SIP for the area. 

Attainment determinations under the 

policy do not shield an area from other 

required actions, such as provisions to 

address pollution transport. 

As set forth, above, we propose to find 

that because the South Coast area has 

continued to attain the NAAQS the 

requirement of an attainment 

demonstration, reasonable further 

progress, milestone demonstration, 

TCMs related to RFP, and contingency 

measures no longer apply. 

3. TCMs To Offset Growth in Emissions 

From VMT Increases 

As noted above, the section 187(b)(2) 

TCMs are required to be submitted if CO 

emissions are expected to increase from 

growth in VMT or vehicle trips. 

EPA has concluded that states are not 

required to submit such measures if the 

SIP includes a demonstration that, 

despite any growth in projected VMT, 

CO emissions will decline each year 

through the attainment year.8 In the 

General Preamble, we state that: ‘‘If 

projected total motor vehicle emissions 

during the ozone season in one year are 

not higher than during the ozone season 

the year before, given the control 

measures in the SIP, the VMT offset 

requirement is satisfied.’’ General 

Preamble at 57 FR 13522. 

The 1997 CO Plan contains a 

demonstration that CO emissions from 

motor vehicles decline each year 

through the attainment year (Appendix 

V, page V–5–4, Table 5–2 ‘‘Carbon 

Monoxide Emissions (tons/day) 

Projected from 1993 through 2000 for 

the South Coast Air Basin’’). This table 

shows that no additional TCMs are 

required to prevent an increase in 

emissions associated with a growth in 

VMT or trips, since emissions are 

shown to decline each year through the 

attainment year despite increases in 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
6992 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

9Motor vehicle VMT forecasts for each year are 

shown in Table 5–1. Despite this annual growth, 

emissions from motor vehicles are shown in Table 

5–2 to decline as follows: 1993–5909, 1994–5522, 

1995–5135, 1996–4596, 1997–4057, 1998–3784, 

1999–3511, 2000–3298. 

VMT and trip numbers.9 The 

Maintenance Plan includes revised and 

updated VMT forecasts for each year 

from 1997 through 2006 (Table 4–1). 

The Maintenance Plan also includes 

revised and updated projected CO 

emissions from motor vehicles from 

1997 through 2006 (Table 4–2), showing 

a continuing sharp decline in CO 

emissions despite the growth in VMT 

and trips. Consequently, we conclude 

that no TCMs are required to satisfy the 

progress requirements of the Act or to 

offset growth in CO emissions from 

growth in VMT or vehicle trips. We 

therefore propose to approve the 1997 

CO Plan, and the update through the 

year of attainment (2002) in the 

Maintenance Plan, as meeting the 

provisions of CAA section 187(b)(2). 

4. Requirement for Enhanced I/M 

Program 

The requirement for an enhanced 

motor vehicle I/M program under CAA 

section 187(a)(6) applies to the South 

Coast by virtue of the area’s designation 

as a serious nonattainment area for CO, 

in accordance with CAA section 

187(b)(1). On January 22, 1996, CARB 

submitted a SIP revision to satisfy the 

requirements for basic and enhanced I/ 

M programs in the various ozone and 

CO nonattainment areas in the State. 

On January 8, 1997 (62 FR 1150), we 

approved the State’s basic I/M program 

as meeting the CAA section 182(b)(4) 

requirement for moderate ozone areas 

within California, and the CAA section 

187(a)(4) requirement for I/M program 

corrections applicable to California’s 

moderate CO areas with a design value 

of less than 12.7 ppm at the time of 

classification. In the same rule, we 

granted interim approval to the State’s 

enhanced I/M program under section 

348(c) of the Highway Act, as meeting 

the CAA section 182(c)(3) requirement 

for serious and above ozone areas, and 

CAA 187(a)(6) for serious CO areas. 

In accordance with the State’s request, 

we approved the I/M program as 

meeting the high enhanced 

requirements (see discussion below). As 

provided in the Highway Act, the 

interim approval was for a period of 18 

months (i.e., until August 7, 1998), by 

which time the approval would expire 

unless we had approved a SIP 

demonstrating that the credits claimed 

for the program are appropriate and the 

I/M program is otherwise in compliance 

with the Clean Air Act. See 40 CFR 

52.241. 

When we subsequently ruled on the 

South Coast CO SIP, we also granted 

interim approval to the progress and 

attainment provisions of the plan, since 

fulfillment of those requirements 

depended upon emission reductions 

from the enhanced I/M program. (63 FR 

19661, April 21, 1998). 

California failed to make the SIP 

submittal required under the Highway 

Act to substantiate the emission 

reductions claimed for the enhanced I/ 

M program and, as a result, the interim 

approval of the enhanced I/M program 

and the progress and attainment 

demonstration provisions of the South 

Coast CO SIP expired by operation of 

law on August 7, 1998. In Section 

III.B.2.b, we discuss this lapsed 

approval and our interpretation that the 

Clean Data Policy allows us to suspend 

the requirements for progress and 

attainment demonstration as they apply 

to the South Coast CO SIP. 

With the submittal of the South Coast 

CO Maintenance Plan and redesignation 

request, the State included a SIP 

revision documenting that: (1) The I/M 

program delivered CO emission 

reductions sufficient, along with other 

control measures, to lead to attainment 

of the CO NAAQS in the South Coast, 

and (2) the I/M program meets the lowenhanced I/M performance 

requirements for CO in the South Coast. 

The State’s transmittal letter included 

a table of the wintertime CO emissions 

reduction benefits in the South Coast 

from the current I/M program, along 

with a copy of the September 2005 

Report to the Legislature regarding 

ARB’s &‘‘April 2004 Evaluation of the 

California Enhanced Vehicle Inspection 

and Maintenance (Smog Check) 

Program.’’ The table shows the 

following reductions: 

TABLE 1.—WINTER SEASON CO EMISSIONS REDUCTION BENEFITS IN THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN ASSOCIATED WITH

THE ENHANCED I/M PROGRAM

[In tons per day] 

Year .................................................................................................................................. 1990 1993 2000 2006 2010 2020 

Reductions ....................................................................................................................... 494 459 291 671 618 377 

Because these substantial emission 

reductions did, in fact, result in 

attainment of the CO NAAQS in the 

South Coast, we agree with the State 

that the enhanced I/M program proved 

adequate to meet attainment needs for 

the area. 

The State requests that we also now 

determine that the program meets other 

low enhanced I/M program 

requirements. This would allow us to 

conclude, for purposes of the 

redesignation provisions of CAA section 

107(d)(3)(E)(v), that the area has met the 

applicable requirement for an enhanced 

I/M program under CAA sections 

187(a)(6) and 187(b)(1). 

On September 18, 1995, we amended 

our regulatory requirements for 

enhanced I/M programs (60 FR 48029). 

Among other changes, we established a 

low enhanced performance standard as 

an option for areas subject to the 

enhanced I/M requirement and meeting 

the following requirements set out in 40 

CFR 51.351(g) regarding RFP and 

attainment: (1) The area is either not 

subject to or has an approved SIP for 

RFP in 1996, and (2) the area does not 

have a disapproved post-1996 RFP plan 

or a disapproved attainment plan for 

ozone or CO. South Coast meets these 

requirements because it has an 

approved plan for RFP in 1996 for 

ozone, (62 FR 1150, January 8, 1997) 

and has no disapproved post-1996 RFP 

plan or a disapproved attainment plan 

for ozone or CO. 

The low enhanced I/M requirements 

set out in 40 CFR 51.351(g), and further 

described in the preamble, establish 

specific program test elements generally 

equivalent to those for a basic I/M 

program, as set out in 40 CFR 51.352. 

The key difference in test requirements 

between the basic and the low enhanced 

I/M program are two additional 

requirements for low enhanced 

programs: visual inspection of emission 

control device inspections in 

accordance with 40 CFR 51.351(g)(8), 

and testing of light duty trucks rated up 

to 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight 

rating (GVWR) as prescribed in 40 CFR 

51.351(g)(5). Additionally, 40 CFR 

51.351(b) requires on-road testing of 

0.5% of the subject fleet or 20,000 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Proposed Rules 6993 

10See August 11, 2006, letter from Kurt Karperos, 

CARB, to Lisa Hanf, EPA Region 9, for technical 

information about this demonstration. 

11 Documentation on these and other California 

mobile souce standards may be found at: http:// 

www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/msprog.htm. EPA has 

acted over the years to waive Federal preemption 

of State standards for California’s motor vehicle 

standards as authorized by CAA section 209(b) and 

nonroad engine standards as authorized by CAA 

section 209(e)(2). Under these CAA sections, EPA 

must grant the waiver unless the Adminsitrator 

finds that: (1) Califronia’s determination that its 

standards, in the aggregate, are at least as protective 

of public health and welfare as applicable Federal 

standards is arbitrary and capricious; (2) California 

does not need such State standards to meet 

compelling and extraordinary conditions; or (3) 

California’s standards and accompanying 

enforcement procedures are not consistent with 

section 202(a) [or 209 for nonroad] of the CAA. 

vehicles, whichever is less, and 40 CFR 

51.351(c) requires inspection of all 1996 

and later vehicles equipped with onboard diagnostics (OBD) systems. 

As mentioned above, we fully 

approved California’s I/M program as 

meeting the basic I/M performance 

standard on January 8, 1997. 62 FR 1150 

and 40 CFR 52.220(c)(234). California 

has now shown that its I/M program 

also meets the low enhanced I/M 

performance standard and meets the 

four requirements mentioned above.10

(1) Since March 1984, the State has 

required visual inspection of the 

positive crankcase ventilation valve and 

of the exhaust gas recirculation valve on 

all vehicles subject to the I/M program, 

in accordance with 40 CFR 51.351(g)(8). 

See Health & Safety Code, Division 26, 

Part 5, Section 44012(f); Title 16, 

California Code of Regulations, Division 

33, Bureau of Automotive Repair, 

Article 5.5, Motor Vehicle Inspection 

Program, section 3340.42; and BAR 97 

Specifications sections 3.3.9 and 3.6.18. 

(2) Since March 1984, the State I/M 

program has applied to light duty trucks 

rated up to 8,500 pounds GVWR, in 

accordance with 40 CFR 51.351(g)(5). 

See Health & Safety Code, Division 26, 

Part 5, Section 44011, and Title 16, 

California Code of Regulations, Division 

33, Bureau of Automotive Repair, 

Article 5.5, Motor Vehicle Inspection 

Program, Section 3340.5. 

(3) Since 1998, California has 

conducted random roadside pullover 

inspections in accordance with 40 CFR 

51.351(b), under the authority of Health 

& Safety Code, Division 26, Part 5, 

Section 44081. 

(4) Since 2002, California has 

inspected 1996 and later OBD-equipped 

vehicles in accordance with 40 CFR 

51.351(c). See Health & Safety Code, 

Division 26, Part 5, Section 

44036(b)(10); Title 16, California Code 

of Regulations, Division 33, Bureau of 

Automotive Repair, Article 5.5, Motor 

Vehicle Inspection Program, Section 

3340.42; and BAR 97 Specifications, 

Sections 2 and 3. 

In summary, we conclude that: (1) 

The State was entitled to elect to 

implement a low enhanced I/M program 

for CO in the South Coast; (2) the 

program, as implemented by the State, 

delivered actual CO emission reductions 

sufficient (along with reductions from 

other measures) to attain the CO 

NAAQS in the South Coast; (3) the 

State’s program has been federally 

approved as meeting the basic I/M 

performance standard; and (4) the 

State’s program meets the low enhanced 

I/M performance standard. 

Consequently, we find that the State met 

the CAA section 187(a)(6) and 187(b)(1) 

enhanced I/M requirements that applied 

to the South Coast CO nonattainment 

area prior to and at the time of the 

submission of the redesignation request. 

Finally, we note that the State has 

indicated that it intends to continue to 

implement the enhanced I/M program 

in the South Coast, and continued CO 

emission reduction benefits from the 

program are incorporated in the 

projected emissions inventory that is 

part of the maintenance demonstration 

in the submitted maintenance plan. 

5. Wintertime Oxygenated Gasoline 

Program 

Pursuant to CAA section 211(m), CO 

nonattainment areas with design values 

of 9.5 ppm or higher must implement a 

wintertime oxygenated gasoline 

program requiring that gasoline contain 

not less than 2.7 percent oxygen by 

weight. In addition, CAA section 

187(b)(3) requires that all serious CO 

areas implement such a program. 

California submitted its motor vehicle 

fuels regulations, including 

requirements for wintertime oxygen 

content, on November 15, 1994. We 

approved the regulations on August 21, 

1995, as meeting the applicable CAA 

requirements. 60 FR 43379. The 

requirements remain in effect in the 

South Coast area, although the State has 

amended the program in other areas. 

6. Conclusion 

For the reasons discussed above, we 

propose to determine that all of the 

provisions of CAA section 110 and part 

D applicable to the South Coast CO area 

for purposes of redesignation have been 

approved into the California SIP. 

C. Improvement in Air Quality Is Due to 

Permanent and Enforceable Measures 

CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) 

establishes that, as a prerequisite to 

redesignation to attainment, 

the Administrator determines that the 

improvement in air quality is due to 

permanent and enforceable reductions in 

emissions resulting from implementation of 

the applicable implementation plan and 

applicable Federal air pollutant control 

regulations and other permanent and 

enforceable reductions * * *. 

The Maintenance Plan provides 

evidence that the meteorological 

conditions for the years when the South 

Coast attained the CO NAAQS were 

more conducive to higher ambient CO 

concentrations than the long term mean. 

During the same period, daily VMT 

increased at the normal rate of growth, 

from 322.8 million miles in 2001 to 

330.4 million miles in 2003, so activity 

levels associated with motor vehicles, 

the primary CO source in the South 

Coast, were not abnormal. Maintenance 

Plan, p. 6. Increasing CO emission 

reductions associated with State and 

Federal motor vehicle standards, 

coupled with SCAQMD’s CO emission 

limits on stationary and area sources, 

provide additional evidence that 

attainment results from the SIP’s 

permanent and reliable controls on CO 

emissions rather than favorable 

meteorology or depressed activity 

levels. The largest source of emissions 

reductions during this period came from 

progressively more stringent State 

emission standards for cars, trucks, 

buses, and nonroad equipment, 

including forklifts, lawn and garden 

equipment, and marine pleasurecraft.11

We propose to find that this 

prerequisite to redesignation has been 

met. 

D. Fully Approved Maintenance Plan 

CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) requires 

that, before we redesignate an area to 

attainment, we must have ‘‘fully 

approved a maintenance plan for the 

area as meeting the requirements of 

section 175A * * *.’’

1. Applicable Requirements 

Section 175A of the CAA sets forth 

the elements of a maintenance plan for 

areas seeking redesignation from 

nonattainment to attainment. The 

maintenance plan must demonstrate 

continued attainment of the applicable 

NAAQS for at least ten years after the 

Administrator approves a redesignation 

to attainment. Eight years after the 

promulgation of the redesignation, the 

State must submit a revised 

maintenance plan that demonstrates 

continued attainment for the subsequent 

ten-year period following the initial tenyear maintenance period. To address the 

possibility of future NAAQS violations, 

the maintenance plan must contain 

contingency measures, with a schedule 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
6994 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

12Section 3.1.2 of the Maintenance Plan discusses 

the possibility that the State might determine in 

future to rescind the wintertime oxygenated fuel 

requirement as a primary measure. As discussed 

below, data from the California Almanac of 

Emissions and Air Quality, 2006 Edition, were used 

to complete the emissions profile for 2020. The 

Almanac does not provide projected emissions for 

a future scenario in which the wintertime 

oxygenated fuel requirement is shifted from a 

primary measure to a contingency measure. 

Therefore, the 2020 column in Table 2 does not 

show these projections. If the State wishes in future 

to change the wintertime oxygenated fuel program 

from an active measure to a contingency measure, 

the State will need at that time to update the 

quantification of the impact on CO emissions, and 

demonstrate that the proposed revision will not 

interfere with continued maintenance or any other 

applicable requirement. 

13We approved the use of EMFAC2002 to 

estimate motor vehicle emissions on April 2, 2003 

(68 FR 15720). 

14However, where there is a determination of 

attainment, the requirement for an attainment 

demonstration is suspended and demonstrations of 

maintenance can be either by emissions inventory 

or modeling. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426, 435–

436 (6th Cir. 2001). 

for adoption and implementation, that 

are adequate to assure prompt 

correction of a violation. 

We have issued guidance on 

maintenance plans, including most 

notably: (1) The General Preamble (57 

FR 13498, April 16, 1992), and (2) the 

Calcagni memo. In this action, we 

propose to approve the Maintenance 

Plan because we believe that it meets 

the requirements of CAA section 175A 

and is consistent with the documents 

referenced above and other documents 

identified in the discussion below. 

2. Maintenance Plan Provisions 

a. Emissions Inventories for Attainment 

Year and Future Years 

The Maintenance Plan includes 

emissions inventories for the attainment 

year (2002) and for future years 2005, 

2010, and 2015, along with motor 

vehicle emissions for 2020. The 

methodologies for the inventories are 

discussed on pages 14–16, including an 

extensive discussion of adjustments to 

projected mobile source emissions to 

reflect the impact of possible 

suspension of wintertime oxygenate 

requirement for gasoline in the South 

Coast.12 Table 2 below reproduces 

emissions data primarily from Table 3–

2 of the Maintenance Plan. For 2020, the 

onroad emissions data are presented in 

Attachment 3 to the plan. Attachment 3 

provides winter emissions for motor 

vehicles under two scenarios, SCAG 

2001 RTP baseline case (1078 tpd) and 

SCAG 2001 RTP plan case (941 tpd). 

The Maintenance Plan does not include 

inventories for stationary, areawide, and 

nonroad sources for 2020. In Table 2, 

the 2020 projected emissions are 

derived from CARB’s latest annual 

updated emissions analysis for these 

inventory categories. The data are taken 

from The California Almanac of 

Emissions and Air Quality, 2006 

Edition, Table 4–10, 

available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/ 

aqd/almanac/almanac06/chap406.htm. 

TABLE 2.—SOUTH COAST PROJECTED WINTER CO EMISSIONS INVENTORY

[In tons per day] 

Category 2002 2005 2010 2015 2020 

Stationary ......................................................................................................................................... 53 55 59 64 69 

Areawide .......................................................................................................................................... 315 318 325 332 79 

Onroad ............................................................................................................................................. 3402 2668 2018 1428 1078 

Onroad with oxygenated fuel adjustment ........................................................................................ 3402 2668 3041 1444 

Nonroad ........................................................................................................................................... 1065 987 912 890 953 

Nonroad with oxygenated fuel adjustment ...................................................................................... 1065 987 921 899 

Total .......................................................................................................................................... 4835 4028 3346 2739 2179 

The table shows that maintenance of 

the NAAQS would be expected 

primarily from large reductions in the 

onroad category, which result from the 

turnover of cars and trucks, as older and 

more polluting vehicles are retired and 

replaced with newer and much cleaner 

vehicles. 

The projected 2015 and 2020 onroad 

emissions were generated using CARB’s 

motor vehicle emissions factor model, 

EMFAC2002v2.2, interpolating vehicle 

populations from calendar year 2010 

and 2020 populations, as set out in 

Maintenance Plan, Attachment 2 (CO 

Modeling Attainment Demonstration 

Extracted from the 2003 Air Quality 

Management Plan, Appendix V, Section 

4), Attachment 3 (CARB Assessment 

549: South Coast Air Basin CO 

Maintenance Plan Winter Emissions). 

EMFAC2002v2.2 was the most recent 

EPA-approved motor vehicle emissions 

factor model at the time the 

Maintenance Plan was prepared, but 

CARB expects to update the model in 

the near future as part of the preparation 

of SIPs due to be submitted by the State 

in 2007.13 Other aspects of the 

emissions inventory were current, 

accurate, and complete at the time of 

plan preparation, and comply with 

applicable EPA guidance on the 

preparation of emission inventories. We 

therefore propose to approve the 

Maintenance Plan with respect to its 

emissions inventories. 

b. Maintenance Demonstration 

CAA section 175A(a) requires that the 

maintenance plan ‘‘provide for the 

maintenance of the national primary 

ambient air quality standard for such air 

pollutant in the area concerned for at 

least 10 years after the redesignation.’’

Generally, a state may demonstrate 

maintenance of the CO NAAQS by 

either showing that future emissions 

will not exceed the level of the 

attainment inventory or by modeling to 

show that the future mix of sources and 

emissions rates will not cause a 

violation of the NAAQS. For areas that 

are required under the Act to submit 

modeled attainment demonstrations, the 

maintenance demonstration should use 

the same type of modeling. Calcagni 

memo, p. 9. Because the design value 

for the South Coast exceeded 12.7 ppm 

and the area is classified as serious, 

modeling would have been required as 

part of the attainment demonstration 

under CAA section 187(b)(7)(i). The 

Maintenance Plan includes a modeled 

maintenance demonstration.14

The modeling demonstration is 

discussed on pages 12–13 of the 

Maintenance Plan, and at more length in 

Attachment 2. Regional modeling used 

the Comprehensive Air Quality Model 

(CAMx) and an October 31–November 1, 

1997 meteorological episode, which 

ranked in the 98th percentile in 

stagnation severity. Additional hot-spot 

roadway intersection modeling using 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Proposed Rules 6995 

15The MVEB for 2020 was clarified in letters from 

Sylia Oey, CARB, to Dave Jesson, EPA Region 9, 

dated February 2, 2007, and from Laki Tisopulos, 

SCAQMD, to Dave Jesson, dated February 2, 2007, 

and an e-mail from Jonathan Nadler, SCAG, to Dave 

Jesson, dated February 2, 2007. 

the CAL3QHC model was used to 

demonstrate attainment at high-volume 

intersections. The modeling estimated 

the South Coast CO carrying capacity to 

be 4,527 tpd. For the 2005 emissions 

inventory level of 4028, modeling 

predicted the 8-hour maximum 

concentration to be 7.8 ppm, and the 1- 

hour maximum to be 8.5 ppm. 

Concentrations still further below the 

NAAQS are associated with the 2015 

and 2020 inventory levels, primarily 

due to significant reductions in the 

dominant motor vehicle emissions 

category (2668 tpd in 2005, 1428 in 

2015, and 1078 in 2020). The 

demonstration covers a 13-year period 

(from 2007 through 2020), although 

primarily referencing the 2015 year. 

The CAMx modeling approach used 

in the Maintenance Plan is an EPAapproved model and the modeling 

performance is fully acceptable. 

Moreover, the declining projected 

emissions inventories for the span of the 

maintenance demonstration also 

support continued maintenance of the 

NAAQS. We therefore propose to 

approve the demonstration of 

maintenance. 

c. Monitoring Network and Verification 

of Continued Attainment 

The Calcagni Memo provides that 

areas must continue to operate an air 

quality monitoring network to verify 

attainment. CO is currently monitored 

in accordance with 40 CFR Part 50, 

Appendix C and 40 CFR Part 58 at 22 

stations. SCAQMD continues to assure 

the quality of the measured data by 

conducting routine calibrations, pre-run 

and post-run test procedures, and 

routine service checks. The District also 

completes an annual review of the 

monitoring network to document 

continued compliance with siting 

criteria. The SCAQMD commits in the 

Maintenance Plan to verify continued 

maintenance by daily analysis of air 

quality data collected (pp. 22–23). 

Furthermore, the District commits to a 

formal review of the Maintenance Plan 

in 2007 and 2010 (p. 24). We propose 

to approve the Maintenance Plan with 

respect to the obligation to continue to 

monitor and verify attainment. 

d. Contingency Provision 

CAA section 175A(d) requires that 

maintenance plans include provisions 

that EPA deems are necessary to assure 

that the State will promptly correct any 

NAAQS violation, and further requires 

that such provisions include a 

requirement that the State will 

implement all measures contained in 

the SIP before redesignation. We have 

concluded that contingency measures 

need not be new measures that would 

be triggered by a violation, but may 

consist of early implementation of 

measures that provide surplus 

reductions beyond those needed for 

attainment or maintenance. See ‘‘Early 

Implementation of Contingency 

Measures for Ozone and Carbon 

Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,’’

memo from G.T. Helms to EPA Air 

Branch Chiefs, August 13, 1993. 

The Maintenance Plan takes this 

approach, providing a large margin of 

emissions from fully adopted State 

regulations, such as tighter emission 

standards for all categories of motor 

vehicles and for nonroad engines, such 

as forklifts, lawn and garden equipment, 

and marine pleasure craft. See 

discussion above in Section III.C., 

providing a more extensive list of 

measures, referencing the extensive 

CARB documentation available for each 

measure, and discussing the EPA waiver 

process applicable to these California 

mobile source standards. There is no 

reason to expect that these standards, 

which are all currently in effect, will be 

relaxed in the future. Nor is there reason 

to believe that compliance will be 

inadequate, since CARB has for many 

decades maintained a successful 

enforcement program. For details on 

CARB’s mobile source enforcement 

program for new and existing vehicles 

and engines, see: http://www.arb.ca.gov/ 

enf/enf.htm. 

As a result, the predicted emissions 

for 2015 are approximately 43 percent 

below the 2002 attainment year 

emissions levels, and this margin of 

excess reductions is projected to 

increase further in future years due to 

the State’s progressively tighter 

emissions standards for new mobile 

source engines coupled with fleet 

turnover of the onroad and nonroad 

fleet. 

The SCAQMD and CARB have 

committed to continue to implement all 

existing measures to achieve permanent, 

enforceable CO emission reductions that 

will further reduce CO levels 

(Maintenance Plan, Chapters 2 and 3; 

CARB’s letter to EPA dated February 24, 

2006). The Maintenance Plan does 

evaluate, however, the relatively small 

emissions impact of a possible future 

decision to suspend implementation of 

the wintertime oxygenate program in 

the South Coast (see Table 2 above). The 

methodology and assumptions for 

calculating the impact are discussed at 

length on pp. 15–16 and in Attachment 

A to the Maintenance Plan. If the State 

decides in future to suspend the 

wintertime oxygenated fuel 

requirement, the State would need to 

submit a SIP revision complying with 

applicable CAA requirements. 

For the above reasons, we propose to 

approve the contingency provisions in 

the Maintenance Plan as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 175A(d). 

e. Commitment To Submit Subsequent 

Maintenance Plan Revisons 

CAA section 179A(b) provides that 

States shall submit a commitment to 

submit a SIP revision 8 years after 

redesignation providing for maintaining 

the NAAQS for an additional 10 years. 

SCAQMD has made this commitment as 

part of the Maintenance Plan (see p. 22), 

and we propose to approve it. 

f. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

Transportation conformity is required 

by section 176(c) of the CAA. Our 

transportation conformity rule (codified 

in 40 CFR part 93, subpart A) requires 

that transportation plans, programs, and 

projects conform to SIPs and establishes 

the criteria and procedures for 

determining whether or not they do so. 

Conformity to the SIP means that 

transportation activities will not 

produce new air quality violations, 

worsen existing violations, or delay 

timely attainment of the national 

ambient air quality standards. 

Maintenance plan submittals must 

specify the maximum emissions of 

transportation-related CO emissions 

allowed in the last year of the 

maintenance period, i.e., the motor 

vehicle emissions budget (MVEB). The 

submittal must also demonstrate that 

these emissions levels, when considered 

with emissions from all other sources, 

are consistent with maintenance of the 

NAAQS. In order for us to find these 

emissions levels or ‘‘budgets’’ adequate 

and approvable, the submittal must 

meet the conformity adequacy 

provisions of 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and 

(5), and be approvable under all 

pertinent SIP requirements. For more 

information on the transportation 

conformity requirement and applicable 

policies on MVEBs, please visit our 

transportation conformity Web site at: 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ 

stateresources/transconf/index.htm. 

The Maintenance Plan includes the 

CO MVEBs shown in Table 3 below. 

The budgets are based on Table 3–5 of 

the plan and other documentation in 

Section 3.1.3 of the plan.15 See also the 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
6996 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

discussion of projected emissions in 

Section III.D.2.a., above. 

TABLE 3.—SOUTH COAST CO MAINTENANCE PLAN MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS BUDGETS

[Winter season emissions in tons per day] 

Category 2005 2010 2015 2020 

Total Air Basin Emissions ................................................................................................................................ 4028 3346 2739 2179 

Motor Vehicle Emissions ................................................................................................................................. 2668 2041 1444 1078 

Safety Margins ................................................................................................................................................. 220 96 693 1059 

Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets ................................................................................................................... 2888 2137 2137 2137 

Total Air Basin Emissions with Safety Margin ................................................................................................. 4248 3442 3432 3196 

Modeled Air Basin Emissions .......................................................................................................................... 4528 4528 4528 4528 

In setting MVEBs, States generally use 

motor vehicle emission inventories. 

California took this approach, for 

example, in the 1997 CO attainment 

plan. California need not, however, cap 

MVEBs at projected motor vehicle 

emissions levels. Because overall 

projected levels of emissions from all 

sources are expected to be less than the 

levels necessary to maintain the CO 

NAAQS, California has a ‘‘safety 

margin’’ that the State may use to set 

MVEBs at a higher level. As long as 

emissions from all sources are lower 

than needed to provide for continued 

maintenance, the State may allocate 

additional emissions to future mobile 

source growth by assigning a portion of 

the safety margin to the MVEBs (see 40 

CFR 93.124). California stated in the 

Maintenance Plan that the safety 

margins described in Table 3 above are 

allocated to the MVEBs. 

Attainment was achieved in 2002 

when the CO emissions level in the 

basin was 4835 tpd. The modeled 

attainment level is 4527 tpd. As can be 

seen from Table 3, total basin emissions, 

with the safety margin, are substantially 

below actual and modeled attainment 

levels. Thus, the safety margins comply 

with the requirement that the budgets 

with safety margins are lower than the 

maintenance level. 

The criteria by which we determine 

whether a SIP’s MVEBs are adequate 

and approvable for conformity purposes 

are outlined in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and 

(5). The following paragraphs provide 

our review of the budgets in the 

Maintenance Plan against our adequacy 

criteria and provide the basis for our 

proposed approval of the MVEBs. 

Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(i), we 

review a submitted plan to determine 

whether the plan was endorsed by the 

Governor (or designee) and was subject 

to a public hearing. The February 24, 

2006 transmittal letter for the 

Maintenance Plan was signed by the 

CARB Executive Officer, the Governor’s 

designee for SIP purposes. CARB 

Executive Order G–125–332 provides 

evidence of State adoption and legal 

authority. SCAQMD’s April 19, 2005 

transmittal letter documents that the 

District held a public hearing on the 

Maintenance Plan on March 4, 2005, 

after proper public notice. Therefore, we 

propose to conclude that the submitted 

plan meets the criterion under 40 CFR 

93.118(e)(4)(i). 

Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(ii), we 

review a submitted plan to determine 

whether the plan was developed 

through consultation with Federal, State 

and local agencies and whether full 

implementation plan documentation 

was provided to EPA and EPA’s stated 

concerns, if any, were addressed. 

Consultation for development of this 

plan largely consisted of public 

meetings (page 75 of the plan); 

discussions with Federal, State, and 

local transportation planning agencies; 

and a public hearing, preceded by 

notices that were published in 

newspapers of general circulation. 

Documentation was provided to EPA 

and EPA’s stated concerns were 

addressed. We propose to conclude that 

this consultation is sufficient for the 

purposes of 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(ii). 

Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iii), we 

review a submitted plan to determine 

whether the MVEBs are clearly 

identified and precisely quantified. The 

Maintenance Plan clearly identifies and 

precisely quantifies the CO MVEBs as 

shown in Table 3 above. The budgets 

are derived from EMFAC2002 with 

travel activity data provided by the 

Southern California Association of 

Governments (SCAG). The methodology 

and rationale for determining the 

MVEBs is discussed on pages 17 

through 22 of the plan. This portion of 

the plan also indicates that modeling 

sensitivity analyses confirm that the 

budgets would provide for maintenance 

even assuming possible changes in 

future to the estimation of motor vehicle 

emissions. We propose that the plan 

thereby meets the adequacy criterion 

under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iii). 

Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iv), we 

review a submitted plan to determine 

whether the MVEBs, when considered 

together with all other emissions 

sources, are consistent with applicable 

requirements for reasonable further 

progress, attainment, or maintenance 

(whichever is relevant to a given SIP 

submission). The Maintenance Plan 

shows how the MVEBs and related 

safety margins are consistent with 

maintenance of the CO NAAQS through 

2015 (see pages 12 through 16 of the 

Maintenance Plan) and 2020 (see 

Attachment 3). In particular, Table 3–1, 

3–2, 3–4, and 3–6 of the Maintenance 

Plan show the extent to which 

maximum future year emissions 

(including the budget safety margins) 

fall below emissions for the 2002 

attainment year and below the modeled 

2003 emissions, which are associated 

with ambient concentration levels that 

are below both the 1-hour and 8-hour 

NAAQS. ‘‘Assessment 549’’ on page 74 

of the plan shows that this trend of 

lower CO emissions continues through 

2020, despite projected VMT increases. 

Consequently, we propose to find that 

the plan meets this criterion for 

adequacy. 

Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(v), we 

review a plan to determine whether the 

MVEBs are consistent with and clearly 

related to the emissions inventory and 

the control measures in the submitted 

control strategy plan or maintenance 

plan. The Maintenance Plan contains no 

new measures but the budgets 

appropriately reflect the State’s adopted 

emissions standards, fuel regulations, 

and the vehicle inspection and 

maintenance program, as applicable to 

the area. Thus, we propose to conclude 

that the submitted plan meets this 

criterion for adequacy. 

Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(vi), we 

review a submitted plan to determine 

whether revisions to previously 

submitted plans explain and document 

any changes to previously submitted 

budgets and control measures; impacts 

on point and area source emissions; any 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Proposed Rules 6997 

16The most significant technical difference 

between the attainment SIP and the maintenance 

plan is the change from EMFAC7G to 

EMFAC2002v2.2, which results in a significant 

improvement in the quantification of motor vehicle 

emissions, and updates to SCAG’s growth 

projections. 

changes to established safety margins; 

and reasons for the changes (including 

the basis for any changes related to 

emissions factors or estimates of vehicle 

miles traveled). The Maintenance Plan 

explains and documents the various 

changes that have been made to the CO 

emissions inventories, etc.16 Thus, we 

propose to find that the submitted plan 

meets this criterion for adequacy. 

Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(5), we review 

the State’s compilation of public 

comments and response to comments 

that are required to be submitted with 

any SIP revision. Attachments 6 and 7 

of the Maintenance Plan submittal 

provide transcripts and minutes of the 

public hearing, during which there was 

a single comment, supporting adoption 

of the plan. We reviewed this 

compilation and concluded that the 

comment does not affect our proposed 

approval of the MVEBs. Thus, we 

propose that the Maintenance Plan 

meets this criterion for adequacy. 

Therefore, we propose to approve the 

CO MVEBs contained in the submitted 

Maintenance Plan because the plan and 

budgets meet the requirements under 40 

CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5) and because we 

find that ARB has met all statutory 

requirements for submittals of 

maintenance plans under sections 110 

and part D of the Act. Should we 

finalize our approval, the Southern 

California Association of Governments 

(SCAG) and the U.S. Department of 

Transportation must use these new CO 

MVEBs from the Maintenance Plan for 

future transportation conformity 

determinations. We are also announcing 

our proposed approval on our 

conformity adequacy Web site: http:// 

www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/ 

transconf/currsips.htm. 

In the submittal letter dated February 

24, 2006, CARB requested that we limit 

the duration of any final approval of the 

MVEBs in the Maintenance Plan to last 

only until the effective date of future 

EPA adequacy findings for replacement 

budgets. This would mean that if CARB 

decides to amend the CO MVEBs 

sometime in the future, then the new 

MVEBs would become effective as soon 

as EPA determined adequacy, rather 

than after comprehensive rulemaking 

(which is a longer process). 

CARB had made a similar request, 

and EPA granted it, in connection with 

the MVEBs in other plans submitted by 

the State (see 67 FR 69139, November 

15, 2002). That prior CARB request was 

accompanied by significant 

documentation that demonstrated why 

limiting the duration of our MVEB 

approval provided an advantage to air 

quality and public health protection. 

With the current request, however, 

CARB has not provided supporting 

documentation to address our criteria 

for granting limited approval. The 

criteria are set out on page 69141 of the 

rulemaking, and include: (1) State 

acknowledgment that its current 

budgets are outdated or deficient; (2) 

State commitment to update the budgets 

as part of a comprehensive update of its 

SIP; and (3) State request that we limit 

the duration of the approval of the 

State’s current approved SIP. We note 

that CARB’s request to limit the 

duration of the approvals of the MVEBs 

was contained only in the submittal 

letter and the request is not, therefore, 

considered a part of the maintenance 

plan itself. Therefore, our denial of 

ARB’s request does not affect our 

approval of the plan or the budgets 

contained therein. 

g. Conclusion 

Because the Maintenance Plan 

satisfies applicable CAA requirements, 

we propose to approve it under section 

175A. 

IV. Proposed Action 

We are proposing to approve the 2005 

Carbon Monoxide Redesignation 

Request and Carbon Monoxide 

Maintenance Plan for the South Coast 

Air Basin as meeting the requirements 

of CAA section 175A. We are proposing 

to find adequate the MVEBs and to 

approve the budgets under CAA section 

176(c). 

We are also proposing to approve the 

State’s request to redesignate the area to 

attainment for CO under the provisions 

of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E). As 

prerequisite to this action, we are 

proposing to find that the area has 

attained the NAAQS due to permanent 

and enforceable emission reductions 

under the SIP, and that the SIP for the 

area meets all of the requirements of 

CAA section 110, Part D, and section 

175A applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. 

As part of our proposed determination 

that the South Coast area has met 

applicable Part D provisions, we are 

proposing to adapt to CO areas the 

provisions of our Clean Data Policy, 

which we have established for 1-hour 

ozone, PM–10, 8-hour ozone, and PM–

2.5 areas. Under our proposed extension 

of the Clean Data Policy to CO, we are 

proposing to interpret certain CAA Part 

D provisions as suspending the 

requirements for submission of RFP, 

attainment demonstrations, contingency 

measures, and TCMs related to RFP due 

to the fact that the South Coast has 

already attained the CO NAAQS. We are 

proposing to approve the 1997 CO plan 

and the Maintenance Plan as meeting 

the requirements of CAA section 

187(b)(2) relating to TCMs to offset 

emissions associated with growth in 

VMT and vehicle trips. 

Finally, because our interim approval 

of California’s I/M program for CO in 

the South Coast expired on August 7, 

1998, California has now submitted a 

demonstration that the I/M program 

meets the low-enhanced requirements 

applicable to the South Coast CO 

nonattainment area. We are proposing to 

approve that demonstration and to 

conclude that the State has satisfied the 

CAA section 187(a)(6) and 187(b)(1) 

enhanced I/M requirements that applied 

to the South Coast CO nonattainment 

area. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed 

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ and therefore is not subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget. For this reason, this action is 

also not subject to Executive Order 

13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This proposed action merely 

proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and to 

redesignate the area to attainment for air 

quality planning purposes, and imposes 

no additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. 

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies 

that this proposed rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this action 

proposes to approve pre-existing 

requirements under state law and does 

not impose any additional enforceable 

duty beyond that required by state law, 

it does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4). 

This proposed rule also does not have 

tribal implications because it will not 

have a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
6998 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 30 / Wednesday, February 14, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

(65 FR 97249, November 9, 2000). This 

proposed action also does not have 

Federalism implications because it does 

not have substantial direct effects on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

proposes to approve a State rule 

implementing a Federal standard and to 

redesignate the area to attainment for air 

quality planning purposes, and does not 

alter the relationship or the distribution 

of power and responsibilities 

established in the CAA. This proposed 

rule also is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of Children 

from Environmental Health Risks and 

Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 

1997), because it proposes to approve a 

state plan implementing a Federal 

Standard and to redesignate the area to 

attainment for air quality planning 

purposes. EPA interprets EO 13045 as 

applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the EO has the 

potential to influence the regulation. 

This proposed rule is not subject to EO 

13045 because it proposes to approve a 

State plan and to redesignate the area to 

attainment for air quality planning 

purposes. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the 

absence of a prior existing requirement 

for the state to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission 

or redesignation request, to use VCS in 

place of a SIP submission that otherwise 

satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air 

Act. Thus, the requirements of section 

12(d) of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This 

proposed rule does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Carbon monoxide, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas. 

Dated: February 6, 2007. 

Laura Yoshii, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 9. 

[FR Doc. E7–2538 Filed 2–13–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 90-Day Finding on A 

Petition to List Astragalus debequaeus 

(DeBeque milkvetch) as Threatened or 

Endangered 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition 

finding. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

90-day finding on a petition to list 

Astragalus debequaeus (DeBeque 

milkvetch) as threatened or endangered 

under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (Act). We find that 

the petition does not present substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

indicating that listing A. debequaeus 

may be warranted. Therefore, we will 

not be initiating a further status review 

in response to this petition. We ask the 

public to submit to us any new 

information that becomes available 

concerning the status of A. debequaeus 

or threats to its habitat at any time. This 

information will help us monitor and 

encourage the conservation of the 

species. 

DATES: The finding announced in this 

document was made on February 14, 

2007. You may submit new information 

concerning this species for our 

consideration at any time. 

ADDRESSES: The complete supporting 

file for this finding is available for 

public inspection, by appointment, 

during normal business hours at the 

Western Colorado Field Office, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, 764 Horizon 

Drive, Building B, Grand Junction, CO 

81506. Submit new information, 

materials, comments, or questions 

concerning this species to us at the 

address above. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Allan R. Pfister, Field Supervisor, 

Western Colorado Field Office (see 

ADDRESSES section) (telephone 970–

243–2778, extension 29; facsimile 970–

245–6933). Persons who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires 

that we make a finding on whether a 

petition to list, delist, or reclassify a 

species presents substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted. 

We are to base this finding on 

information provided in the petition, 

supporting information submitted with 

the petition, and information otherwise 

available in our files at the time we 

make the determination. To the 

maximum extent practicable, we are to 

make this finding within 90 days of our 

receipt of the petition and publish our 

notice of this finding promptly in the 

Federal Register. 

Our standard for substantial 

information within the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90- 

day petition finding is ‘‘that amount of 

information that would lead a 

reasonable person to believe that the 

measure proposed in the petition may 

be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we 

find that substantial information was 

presented, we are required to promptly 

commence a review of the status of the 

species. 

In making this finding, we rely on 

information provided by the petitioner 

and evaluate that information in 

accordance with 50 CFR 424.14(b). Our 

90-day finding process under section 

4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and section 

424.14(b) of our regulations is limited to 

a determination of whether the 

information in the petition meets the 

‘‘substantial information’’ threshold. A 

substantial finding should be made 

when the Service deems that adequate 

and reliable information has been 

presented that would lead a reasonable 

person to believe that the petitioned 

action may be warranted. 

On October 26, 2004, we received a 

formal petition, dated October 25, 2004, 

submitted by the Center for Native 

Ecosystems and the Colorado Native 

Plant Society (2004), requesting that we 

list Astragalus debequaeus as 

threatened or endangered, and designate 

critical habitat concurrently. The 

petition identified itself as such and 

included the requisite identification 

information for the petitioners, as 

required in 50 CFR 424.14(a). We 

acknowledged receipt of the petition in 

a January 20, 2005, letter to Mr. Joshua 

Pollock. In that letter, we advised the 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS